MEDIUM-SIZED PROJECT BRIEF
LAKE PEIPSI/CHUDSKOE CASE
1. Project name:
2. Proposed GEF Implementing Agency:
Development and Implementation of the Lake
UNDP
Peipsi/Chudskoe Basin Management Program1
3. Country or countries in which the project
4. Country eligibility:
is being implemented:
Estonia and Russia ratified the UN FCCBD and are
Estonia and Russia. Estonia will be a lead country
eligible to borrow funds from the World Bank as
for the project and responsible for the project
well as to receive technical assistance from UNDP
coordination
through their countries' programs.
5. GEF focal area(s):
6. Operational program/Short-term measure:
International Waters
P9. Integrated Land and Water Multiple Focal Area
Operational Program
7. Project linkage to national priorities, action plans, and programs:
The Estonian and Russian governments have signed a bilateral intergovernmental agreement on the use and
protection of their transboundary waters in 1997. According to the agreement, the Estonian-Russian
Transboundary Water Commission (further the Joint Commission) was established. The proposed project is
a part of priority actions under the Joint Commission plan.
Protection of surface and groundwaters are in the top of priorities according to the National Environmental
Action Plans (NEAP) both in Russia and Estonia. The Convention on the Protection of the Marine
Environment of the Baltic Sea Area and the Convention on Protection and Use of Transboundary
Waterbodies and International Lakes are signed and ratified. Estonia signed and ratified the Convention on
Access to Information and Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in the
Environmental Matters ("Aarhus Convention").
The Estonian government has set a deadline on January 1, 2003, when the country is to be fully prepared to
enter the Union. Estonian laws and the administrative system have to be adapted to the requirements of the
EU. As a part of this work the Estonian Water Act was revised to harmonize with the EU Water Framework
Directive that defines river basins as the basic unit for all water planning and management actions. River
Basin Management Plans for all water basins in Estonia are to be elaborated by 2004 according to the
Estonian water legislation.
A half of Lake Peipsi located in the Russian Federation is managed according to the Russian Federation
Water Code, a federal law of the Russian Federation adopted in 1995. The Russian Water Code is based on
a river basin approach. Water basin management boards were created under the Ministry of Natural
Resources to prepare and organize implementation of river basin management plans. According to the Water
Code, regions of the Russian Federation sharing a river basin have to sign a basin agreement that defines a
procedure for cooperation on implementation of a river basin management plan; river basin councils are to
be established that should represent interests of local stakeholders to advise water basin management boards
on implementation of the basin plans.
Lake Peipsi Basin is accepted as a demonstration area an area where principles of sustainable development
and integrated water management are implemented in practice - under the Baltic Sea Agenda 21 Program,
Global Water Partnership, and the UN ECE to the World Water Report. This project will build on the results
achieved by earlier activities implemented in the Lake Peipsi Basin international projects during 1995 2000
(see a detailed description of previous projects in the text and Annex 3).
8. GEF national operational focal point review (dates):
Submitted: 29.10.98
Endorsed 05.05.2000 Estonia, 10.10.2000 Russia
1 GEF Peipsi Basin Management Program is a GEF project that contributes to prep aration of the Lake Peipsi Basin
Management Plan required under the EU Water Framework Directive, Estonian Water Act and Russian Water Code.
1
Project Objectives and Activities
9. Project rationale and objectives
Indicators
1. Development of the Lake Peipsi/Chudskoe Basin Management
Implementation of a
Program (further Management Program) in accord to the Estonian Water
joint Lake
Act, European Water Framework Directive, and Russian Water Code2. THIS Peipsi/Chudskoe Basin
WILL INCLUDE (see Annex 4 for an explanation of the steps proposed):
Management Program
a) Developing appropriate institutional arrangements for coordination of
with demonstrated high-
level commitment by
activities of the Estonian and Russian national river basin authorities
with the GEF project team and other project groups (TACIS, other) in the
both governments and
region involved in preparation of the Lake Peipsi/Chudskoe Basin
other involved
stakeholders to
Management Plan;
implement the plan.
b) Assessment of environmental state in the Lake Peipsi Basin and
identification of key water management issues in the basin;
Joint program of
c) Preparation of a coordinated program for surface water monitoring
measures to reduce
between the two countries on Lake Peipsi using UN ECE guidelines for
nutrient load pollution
monitoring and assessment of transboundary lakes;
is prepared and
accepted by Estonian
d) Designing a program of measures3 to reduce nutrient load pollution,
and Russian river basin
INCLUDING (1) a detailed program of environmental protection measures to authorities as an official
reduce the nutrient load (Nutrient Load Reduction Plan); and (2) a regional
program of measures to
development program aimed at diversification of economic activities in the
reduce eutrophication
region and promoting ecological tourism and ecological farming (the
within the Lake Peipsi
activities will include, for example, a marketing program for ecological
Basin Management
farming for vegetables grown in Lake Peipsi area);
Plan.
e) Support to the Lake Peipsi River Basin authorities in preparation of the
Lake Peipsi Basin Management Plan as a strategy document as required
Agreement between
by the EU, Estonian and Russian water legislations;
countries and key
stakeholder groups on
f) Development of a sound legal framework for long-term effective
key water management
implementation of the Lake Peipsi/Chudskoe Basin Management Plan. The
issues in the basin.
framework should merge needs for protection of the international waters and
global environment, as well as requirements of the European Union Water
Improved understanding
Framework Directive, the Russian Water Code, and the Russian Act on
of the principal
Environmental Protection for the lake basin management. To add to the
environmental threats to
existing legal basis for management of transboundary waters, a special
and impacts on the lake,
protocol on preparation and implementation of the Lake Peipsi/Chudskoe
and their socio-
Basin Management Plan to the agreement on transboundary waters maybe
economic linkages by
signed between the two governments however a specific proposal for the legal officials and
instrument (protocol or something else) is to be developed during the project
stakeholders.
in consultation with the respective authorities. Elaboration of the enforceable
legal framework will establish "rules of game" and will provide financial and
Agreed and
non-financial incentives for all "actors" in the region that are involved in
implementable legal
regional development and environment al protection. This will also ensure
and regulatory
that the project would build on a strong commitment for cooperative work of
framework for
the two governments to prepare and implement a joint Management Program. protection and
2 The project will use as a practical guidance document "Practical Resource Document for Implementation of the Water
Framework Directive" presented in Annex 4 to the Brief to prepare the Management Plan. Estonian Water Act is
available at the Estonian Ministry of the Environment address www.envir.ee, Russian water legislation description is
available in the report on Russian water management prepared under the SEPA project - see at www.envir.ee/jc. The
EU Water Framework is available at the European Commission DG Environment website
http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/index_en.htm.
3 The Program of measures will include addressing different polluting substances in surface and ground waters. The
Peipsi GEF will concentrate on actions in surface waters and on themajor environmental issue in the Lake Peipsi Basin
and the Baltic Sea Basin the nutrients. EU LIFE project will concentrate in turn on ground water assessments and
heavy metals and dangerous substances.
2
protection and
g) Developing a public involvement plan as a part of the Lake Peipsi Basin
sustainable
Management Plan - a mechanism of involvement of public into
development of the
implementation of the Management Plan (citizens panels, etc.) as required by
lake.
Practical Resource document for implementation of the EU WFD (Annex 4).
2.
Establishing an institutional "ecosystem" of organizations, the "Lake A strong basin-wide
Peipsi/Chudskoe region multi-stakeholder community", that should network of multi-
incorporate agencies and stakeholder groups in the region on different levels of stakeholder institutions
governance across the border to promote discussion of water management issues mutually committed to
in both "top-down" and "down-up" directions and to ensure involvement of public cooperation and
in preparation and implementation of the Management Plan. This will be coordination of lake
achieved through
management activities.
a)
Strengthening institutional capacity of the Commission and the
national authorities to implementation of the Management Plan through Mechanisms developed
technical assistance, travel to other transboundary water lakes, etc.
to ensure stakeholder
involvement in lake
b)
Strengthening capacity of local authorities to their involvement in decision-making
preparation and implementation of the Management Plan;
processes.
c)
Activities aimed at raising capacity of stakeholder groups (farmers,
fishermen, small and medium businesses, especially those in service and tourism Strengthened capacity
industry) to implementation of the Management Plan and nutrient load reduction of key institutions
plan through assistance in marketing of organic farming and promoting involved in lake
diversification of economic activities in the region;
utilization and
management
d)
Support to NGOs in the region training, small projects grant program, (government, NGO,
annual Peipsi NGO forums, and developing a dialogues between authorities and private sector).
NGOs on a role of NGOs in implementation of Management Plan.
e)
Involving communities in preparation and implementation of the Lake Basin-wide increases in
Peipsi Management Plan through developing a public information and public awareness of
environmental education program on eutrophication related issues through mass lake environmental
media, campaigns, and schools.
issues, threats and
protection strategies.
3. Supporting activities to implementation of the Management Program
through
Development and
a) Developing an information exchange and communication system (on the basis implementation of
of the Water Commission website www.envir.ee/jc and using Internet GIS selected pilot projects to
and email lists) to facilitate communication and information exchange demonstrate and
system among different levels of governance and economy sectors and across disseminate best
the border;
environmental practices
in lake management.
b) Encouraging use of best environmental practices in local level through
implementation of 2 water-related demonstration projects that should bring
application of specific know -how and best available practices: (1) a
development plan for construction of a sewage system for a rural community
under 10 000 people based on the development plan, further government
and EU structural funds will be used to construct the innovative cost-effective
municipal sewage system; (2) an ecotourism route for a rural community with
developing local capacity on municipal level to maintain the route, attract
tourist and protect the environment.
3
10. Expected outcomes
Indicators
1. Lake Peipsi Basin Management Plan as a strategy
The Management Program as an
document will be developed by the Estonian and
official legal document in Estonia and
Russian authorities with the assistance of the project as
Russia for implementation of
required by the EU, Estonian and Russian water
development and environmental
legislations;
protection measures in the Lake Peipsi
2. Coordinated program for surface water monitoring
Basin.
between the two countries on Lake Peipsi prepared and
The coordinated monitoring program
partially implemented under the UN ECE guidelines for
gives reliable and calibrated data for the
monitoring and assessment of transboundary lakes;
Management Plan and a program of
nuitrient reduction plan.
3. Program of measures to reduce nutrient load pollution - The Joint Commission as a basis for the
a Nutrient Load Reduction and Prevention Action Plan;
strategic planning and coordination of
4. Lake Peipsi regional development (ecotourism and different economic, environmental, and
ecological farming) program will be developed in social activities that take place in the
cooperation with regional and local authorities and region use the Management Program
stakeholders; will include an ecological farming marketing developed.
strategy and ecofarming training and teaching materials, a The Joint Commission acts as a
set of ecotourism routes, publications, training programs facilitator for implementation of the
available on local level.
Transboundary Water Agreement and in
developing strategies for the long-term
5. Robust institutional arrangements and legal framework sustainable development in the region.
for coordination in the region of implementation of the
Agreed nutrient load reduction
Lake Peipsi Basin Management Plan by Estonian and
strategy and targets aimed towards
Russian national river basin authorities for
ecosystem restoration and incorporating
implementation of the Basin Management Plan;
adaptive management approach for
6. Sufficient institutional capacity of the Commission to
changing conditions identified through
coordinate implementation of the Management Plan on
monitoring program.
intergovernmental level and resolve potential differences in
River basin authorities and the Joint
opinions.
Commission receive a reliable and
adequate environmental data those serve
7. Public involvement plan prepared as a part of the Basin as a basis for the development of the
Management Plan;
Management Program. This includes data
8. Sufficient capacity of local authorities to implement local on nutrient load and eutrophication in the
environmental protection measures (cleaning coastal areas, lake basin, status of the lake ecosystem,
maintaining public beaches, implementing actions aimed at estimates of the riverine loads to the lake,
reduction of pollution load in the basin, etc.);
estimate of the pollution sources, retention
and buffering capacity in the drainage
9. Involvement of stakeholder groups (farmers, fishermen, basin and the lake, and empirical data on
small and medium businesses, tourism business) in the lake water quality.
implementation of the Management Plan and nutrient load Harmonized monitoring program and
reduction plan:
information management system for the
10. Increased at least twice a number of grassroot NGOs in lake basin developed.
the region dealing with water protection and nutrient Governments, NGOs, and other
load reduction in the region . At least five NGO stakeholders fully engaged in preparation
cooperative projects implemented that join grassroot NGOs and implementation of the Management
from Estonia and Russia.
Program.
Web site operational and widely
11. Interactive project website in Estonian, Russian and utilized in lake basin; regular publications
English at the Peipsi CTC website linked with the Water on lake issues broadly disseminated
Commission website www.envir.ee/jc using Internet GIS frequent meetings of community and
and a semi-moderated listserv in three languages to other stakeholder groups on lake
facilitate communication and information exchange management issues.
system among stakeholders. The interactive Internet based Increased networking, cooperation,
web based GIS that will encourage sharing the and communication of the Joint
environmental data about Lake Peipsi region. The web GIS Commission with other relevant
4
will contain lot of useful data from both Estonia and Russia; Commission with other relevant
and enable end users to visualize environmental data on the commissions and international
map.
organizations.
"Lake Peipsi/Chudskoe Forum"
12. Public information on project and eutrophical problems functioning as a mechanism for
in mass media (regular press-releases, articles, TV and
radio interviews, printed materials).
stakeholder involvement in lake
management and decision-making
13. Publications:
processes.
· Brochures about the project and the Lake Peips i Basin Ecotourism program is an
Management Plan;
environmental protection and local
· Guidance documents to local authorities, stakeholders on development program that motivates
Management Plan implementation;
stakeholders to get involved in
· Environmental education curricular for schools on implementation of the Management Plan.
eutrophication related issues for teachers and Two demonstration projects
schoolchildren.
successfully implemented and monitored
· Presentations, articles at international meetings.
which produce measurable reductions in
lake nutrient loads; lessons from these
14. 2 water-related infrastructure demonstration projects:
pilots broadly disseminated.
A development plan for an innovative and cost effective
sewage treatment for a small rural community;
An ecotourism route in Räpina area in Estonia (these two
demonstration projects in Estonia will compliment two
demonstration projects to implemented parallel on Russian side
within the TACIS BALTIC 2000 Program.
5
11. Planned activities to achieve outcomes
Indicators
An Advisory Committee and a
Activity 1.
Steering Committee are established
Inception period. Identification of key stakeholder groups, their and functioning as a "quality
interests and needs. The project kick-off meetings.
control" of the project.
In the frame of this activity the project kick off conference is The project management system
organized; the project Advisory Committee and Steering Committee and implementation units are
are approved through a series of consultations; the project completed and work with the
management, monitoring, assessment and reporting system are Management Program and the
established and approved; information dissemination system and Action Plan is started.
project website are set up; and first meetings with local authorities Sociological studies are
and stakeholders are carried out. Training for project management completed to establish a baseline on
team in project management, reporting requirements, and work with public perceptions of environment
public and mass media are conducted to ensure high quality and stakeholder involvement.
management of the project activities.
Key stakeholder groups and
their interests and needs are
identified and they are engaged in
the preparation of Management
Program and Action Plan
Public information system
through mass media and project
newsletter is worked out and tested.
Activity 2
Assessments of environmental state in the Lake Peipsi Basin with
respect to draft the Management Program and the Action Plan.
Identification of key water management issues:
· Situation in water use in Lake Peipsi basin. Inventory of the water
supply conditions in towns, small villages and private farms in basin.
Assessment reports with reliable
Inventory of the pipelines technical status and existing documentation
data on the state of water use,
in local municipalities in Lake Peipsi lakeshore areas because they have
drinking water quality, land use and
a direct impact to eutrophication processes in the lake.
biodiversity in the lake basin are
·
prepared.
Drinking water quality in the wells of private farms. Inventory of the
existing data about water quality in private wells and groundwater
aquifers under the pressure of agricultural activities.
Modeling of nutrients in streams
and the lake conducted gives
· Water quality and agriculture. Inventory of the existing land -use
information on the nutrient load in
database in Lake Peipsi basin. Inventory of the main sources of
streams and the lake and possible
pollution, e.g. use of manure and mineral fertilisers, manure field
scenarios.
storages, use of pesticides etc. Evaluation of the pressures to the water
quality in the lake.
Report with assessment of
potentials for tourism development
· Land improvement and water quality. Inventory of land improvement
with possible scenarios
and
activities in Lake Peipsi basin. Drained arable land, forests, peat
production areas. Evaluation of the impacts to the surface and ground
recommendations prepared.
waters regarding drained areas.
· Ground water resources and quality in Lake Peipsi basin . Focuse the
attention to the Nitrates Vulnerable Area in sub-basin of the rivers
Pedja-Põltsamaa (tributaries of the Emajõgi River)
· Impacts on aquatic ecosystems. Inventory of the existing data-bases
about mires, bogs and floodplains as important habitats for birds and
animals. Identification of the human threats to the wetlands and their
role to water quality in rivers and lakes.
· Water quality and tourism. Identification of the main tourist routes and
sight seeing objects in Lake Peipsi basin. Evaluation of the
possibilities for development of ecotourism. Analysis of the impacts
6
to water quality and ecological conditions from tourism activities.
Inventory of the public beaches, their water quality in summer period.
Evaluation of the annual average number of tourists and their water-
related activities.
Activity 3. Development and partial implementation of a c oordinated
Effective coordinated water
program for surface water monitoring between the two countries
monitoring system approved by the
on Lake Peipsi in accord to the Estonian-Russian transboundary
Joint Commission.
water commission plan and using the UN ECE guidelines for
monitoring and assessment of transboundary lakes;
Activity 4. Development of the Management Program and the program
of measures to reduce the nutrient load
Development of the Management Program and Action Plan
Development of the Water Management Program and Plan is the mandatory
The Management Program
task of the Ministry of Environment in Estonia and of the Ministry of
adopted by the Commission as a
Natural Resources of Russia. These activities in Lake Peipsi basin will be
co-ordinated by Tartu Environment Protection Board (Estonia) and Neva-
long-term strategy for sustainable
Ladoga Water Basin Management Board. Other governmental and non-
development in the lake basin.
governmental organisations can support those activities , if they have more
The Management Program as
information or more experiences. Peipsi Center for Transbounary
the official document is produced
Cooperation is able to support the development of Management Program in
and published in Estonian, Russian
following objectives:
with summary in English and
distributed to relevant organizations
· Development of the Nutrient Load Reduction Plan a plan of water and stakeholder groups.
protection measures against agricultural pollution. In this program
The Action Plan as detail
the biological wastewater treatment methods (biolagoons, filters in
document to reduce nutrient load
drainage systems, use of floodplains as traps for nutrients) are widely
used and recommended for farmers. The Nutrient Load Reduction
and eutrophication in the lake basin
Plan will include developmen t of a special program of measures for
for short term (2, 5 years) and long-
nitrates vulnerable areas, e.g. restrictions in fertilizer use and
term (10 20 years) perspectives.
limitations in the number of domestic animals (dairy cows, pigs, poultry
etc.) per hectare of arable land; `good practice' in agriculture and BAT
in f ertilizers distribution respectively. The use of above mentioned
special measures for water protection.
· Restoration of water supply and sewage systems in 3 communities
in L.Peipsi lakeshore area that means design of the new water supply
and sewage systems and waste water purification plants for medium
sized and small villages during three years period (one community per
year), using the experiences from pilot project.
· Development of a regional program for ecotourism and ecological
farming in Lake Peipsi basin. Using the inventory materials develop
the main routes for ecotourism and prepare those routes meet the first
visitors (signs in the nature, broshures and booklets with information,
training of the guides etc. Ecofarming concept development, traini ng
materials, regional marketing program.
Activity 5.
Sufficient capacity of decision-
Strengthening institutional capacity of the Joint Commission and makers, key institutions, and
lake Peipsi river basin authorities (national and regional stakeholder groups involved in the
environmental agencies).
lake use and management.
The project will develop an institutional capacity of the Commission
The Council a network of
secretariat and regional authorities that are responsible to coordinate
sufficiently informed local
implementation of the Management Plan on intergovernmental level
authorities and stakeholders with
and resolve potential differences in opinions. The project will assist
aim to participate actively in lake
in developing of the Joint Commission website and information
management and decision-making
7
exchange system between Estonian and Russian sides of the
processes.
Commission.
Strong network of NGOs
The project will promote strengthening of the operational and
around the lake working to decrease
technical capacity of the regional environmental agencies, national
and prevent nutrient lo ad.
authorities, and the Water Commission through study tours to other
international lake regions, thematic meetings, consultations, and
publications.
Activity 6.
Strengthening capacity of local authorities to implement local
environmental protection measures (cleaning coastal areas, A network of local authorities
maintaining public beaches, implementing actions aimed at reduction around the lake exists; Las are
of pollution load in the basin, etc.) and promoting involvement of involved in preparation and
implementation of Management
stakeholder groups (farmers, fishermen, small and medium Plan; develop subbasin management
businesses, tourism business) in implementation of the Management plans and plans for water sewage
Plan, including the program of environmental measures for nutrient infrastructure as a part of Lake
pollution reduction and a program for ecotourism and ecological
farming.
Peipsi Basin Management Plan.
Activity 7.
Public and NGO involvement plan as a part of the Lake Peipsi At least five NGO cooperative
Basin Management Plan; capacity building of NGOs in the projects implemented that join
region dealing with water protection and nutrient load reduction grassroot NGOs from Estonia and
in the region .
Russia.
During the development of Management Program and Action Plan
consultations with public will be organized. Capacity building
activities to promote NGO involvement in water eutrophication
problems solution through trainings and consultations will be
organized for NGOs working in the region in the lake basin.
Activity 8.
Public information and education program
Public information on project and eutrophical problems in mass Project website with aim to
media (regular press-releases, articles, TV and radio interviews, distribute adequate information
printed materials).
about water quality and training
School curricular for high schools on eutrophication issues. materials is established.
Training and teaching materials for schoolteachers.
Increased public awareness on
eutrophication related issues in the
Interactive project website in Estonian, Russian and English at the region.
Peipsi CTC website linked with the Water Commission website Published training materials,
www.envir.ee/jc using Internet GIS and a semi-moderated listserv in brochures, and educational materials
three languages to facilitate communication and information on CDs and video focused on the
exchange system among stakeholders. The interactive Internet causes, impacts and solutions to
based web based GIS that will encourage sharing the environmental Lake Peipsi eutrophication.
data about Lake Peipsi region. The web GIS will contain lot of
useful data from both Estonia and Russia; and enable end users to
visualize environmental data on the map.
Publications:
Brochures about the project, Lake Peipsi fact sheets, video, and CD-
ROM will be developed to distribute results of the project and to
promote awareness in the region.
Activity 9.
Implementation of demonstration projects
A development plan produced of
1. A development plan for an environmental infrastructure water supply and sewerage based on
8
demonstration project aimed to improve water quality for a using of best available technology
community of under 10 000 people. The aim of pilot projects is to with reasonable price.
demonstrate innovative nutrient management technology on rural
municipality level since most of municipalities in the region. As a Tourist routes with different
follow up to the project, construction of the sewage infrastructure will complexity supported with
be further supported by the government and EU structural funds.
explanatory signs, maps and tourist
bulletins as well as with possibility
2. Pilot project on developing a regional ecotourism route to be
to get guided tours. Local
managed by a local municipality and local stakeholders on the Lake
agricultural school teachers and
Peipsi lakeshore area in Räpina Community, Estonia which includes
students trained to maintain the site,
Meelva bog, abandoned Räpina polder area, and cultural and natural
protect the environment and to give
heritage objects.
tours and lectures.
12. Estimated budget
Total Lake Basin Management Program 4 775 000 USD,
including
Requested from GEF 1 000 000 USD
Other funds to support preparation of the Lake Peipsi/Chudskoe
Basin Management Program 3 775 000 USD,
including
1. Estonian government estimated 821 000 USD,
including
1.1. Environmental infrastructure funds
State budget&EU structural funds 800 000
1.2. State water program Peipsi subbasin 11 000
1.3. Water Convention budget 10 000
2. Russian government estimated 114 000 USD,
including
2.1. Environmental infrastructure funds state budget
and Danish EPA infrastructure funds 104 000
2.2. Federal water convention budget 10 000
3. EU TACIS Baltic Line 2000 in Russia 1 820 000 USD,
4. EU 5th RTD program MANTRA East 440 000 USD,
5. EU LIFE in Estonia 300 000 USD,
6. MATRA Dutch government 50 000 USD,
7. US Baltic NGO fund 30 000 USD,
8. Danish EPA infrastructure projects in Pskov 200 000 USD
Project period 2002 2004 (36 months)
9
Information on Institution Submitting Project Brief
Gulnara Roll, Director, NGO "Peipsi Center for Transboundary Cooperation"
Veski 69, Tartu 50409 Estonia, tel. 3727 421001, fax 3727 421 162,
e-mail: Gulnara.Roll@ctc.ee
13. Information on project applicant
Harry Liiv, Deputy Chancellor General, Estonian Ministry of Environment,
Toompuiestee 24 Tallinn EE0100
Tel. (372) 6262 850, fax: (372) 6262801, e-mail. Harry.Liiv@ekm.envir.ee
14. Information on proposed executing agency
Gulnara Roll, Director, NGO "Peipsi Center for Transboundary Cooperation"
Veski 69, Tartu 50409 Estonia, tel. 3727 421001, fax 3727 421 162,
e-mail: Gulnara.Roll@ctc.ee
15. Date of initial submission of project concept
29 October 1998
16. Information by Implementing Agency
Nick Remple, GEF -RBEC Regional Coordinator, nick.remple@undp.org
17. Project Identification number
2296 RER/01/Gxx
18. Implementing Agency Contact Person
Nick Remple, GEF-RBEC Regional Coordinator, nick.remple@undp.org
19. Project Linkage to Implementing Agency programs
This project complements UNDP's large portfolio of transboundary waters projects in the CEE region
(Black Sea, Danube River, Caspian, Dneper River, and 2 Danube MSPs) and presents substantial
opportunities for knowledge sharing among projects addressing often similar transboundary waters issues. In
this regard, the project will be encouraged to participate in the UNDP-GEF IW:LEARN project, which
fosters virtual exchange of best practices in IW management across the GEF IW portfolio. The project also
supports UNDP's Country and Regional Cooperation Frameworks for reform and strengthening of
environmental institutions in the CEE region.
10
20. Project Description
20.1. Background
Eutrophication due to significant nutrient loads in Lake (L.) Peipsi (figure 1) represents a major threat for the
water quality of the lake directly connected to the Baltic Sea by the Narva River. L. Peipsi (Russ. Chudskoe
or Chudsko-Pskovskoe ozero) is the fourth largest lake in Europe after Ladoga, Onega and Vänern, and is the
largest transboundary lake in Europe. This water body is divided into three parts with distinctive
limnological features: L. Peipsi s.s. (2613 km2, average depth 8,3 m), L. Pihkva/Pskovskoe (709 km2, 3,8 m)
and L. Lämmi/Teploe (236 km2, 2,5 m). The northern part of the lake can be classified as eutrophic, whilst
the southern part, L. Pihkva/Pskovskoe is hypertrophic. The narrow strait-like Lämmijärv, connecting L.
Peipsi s.s. and L. Pihkva is at present in an intermediate stage between the two other parts of the whole lake.
During the last half of this century, ecological conditions of L. Peipsi have been constantly worsening. In the
1960's the lake was classified as mesotrophic. The eutrophication in 1970-80's has caused the higher
vegetation (mainly reeds) to spread and grow thicker. For example, up to end of the 1960s, macrophytes
occupied only 2.5% of the total area of L. Peipsi, while in the late 1980s, macrovegetation occupied 7.5 and
7.9% of the surface area of L. Lämmijärv and L. Pihkva, respectively. During the 1990s, the phytoplankton
in L. Pihkva/Pskovskoe has increased (Kangur, pers.comm.). The reason for this phenomenon is not known,
but it is undoubtedly that eutrophication remains to be the major environmental problem of the L. Peipsi.
The pollution load dynamics has changed since the break up of the former Soviet Union. The economical
recession followed the collapse of Soviet Union as well as increased wastewater treatment capacities of big
settlements will most likely contribute to improved ecological conditions in the lake. Whether these
improvements are reflected in better water quality is less clear. Nevertheless, the nutrient concentration in
the lake does not change significantly during the period 1995-1998, and the L. Peipsi is still regarded as a
eutrophic lake.
Riverine transport is the most important pathway for input of nutrients to the L. Peipsi. According to model
calculations the lake received 16,000 20,500 tones of nitrogen (N) and 800-910 tones of phosphorus (P)
annually during the time period 1995-1998 (L.Olsson, 1998; P.Stålnacke, 2000); average pH is 8.14 and
Secchi disk transparency 1,63 m. Diatoms and blue-green algae prevail in phytoplankton biomass. The blue-
greens Gloeotrichia echinulata and Aphanizomenon flos-aquae dominate in summer causing the water
blooms. The concentration of chlorine is the lowest in the northern part of L. Peipsi s.s. (mean 14.7 mg /m3)
and the highest in the southern part of L. Pihkva (mean 47.9 mg/m3, median 16.3 mg/m3). The long-term
average primary production is 0.8 g C m-2 d-1. Zooplankton is remarkably rich in species, the average
biomass in the vegetative period being 2-3 g/m3 and production 22 gC/m 2. The role of rotifers in production
is 53% followed by that of cladocerans (30%), copepods (16%) and Dreissena polymorpha larvae (1%). The
value of the biomas s of phytoplankton ratio to the biomass of zooplankton which is the indicator of
eutrophication (in oligotrophic lakes >4:1, in mesotrophic lakes 1:1, and in eutrophic lakes < 1:2) is in L.
Peipsi s.s 1:1 as average. In L. Pihkva/Pskovskoe this ratio is as 1 : 9, which indicates higher level of
eutrophication. Another indicator of the eutrophication is the concentration of dissolved oxygen in water.
During last 5 years a very low concentration, as 1-2 mgO/l of the dissolved oxygen has been measured at the
end of winter (March, April) near the bottom of the lake. The concentrations of dissolved oxygen are low in
the water during intensive water blooms as well.
The main commercial fishes of L. Peipsi are lake smelt, perch, ruff, roach, bream, pike, vendace and
pikeperch. The stock of vendace has sharply decreased in the last years, while the amount of pikeperch has
increased. Considering annual fish catches (9,000- 12,000 tons or 25-40 kg/ha), L. Peipsi exceeds all large
lakes in North Europe (Nõges,T. et.al., 1996.)
This water eutrophication, which is expected to increase in correlation with the economic recovery of the
region, is heavily dependent on agriculture. Only 7% of the nitrogen load from Estonian rivers originates
from wastewater (point pollution sources), half of the load comes from agriculture and 22% originates from
forests and other diffuse sources. Of the phosphorus load, 36% comes from point pollution sources and 38%
from agriculture via the rivers from catchment area. According to Vollenwieder diagram the phosphorus
load to the L. Peipsi (256 kg/km 2, or 36.4 mg/m 3) is close to the critical and therefore the reduction of the
phosphorus load is the most important task. In Russia, the source apportionment for the Velikaya River basin
11
showed that more than 70% of the nitrogen (N) load and 65% of the phosphorus (P) load originates from
agriculture. Point sources accounts only for 6% and 15% for N and P load, respectively. Thus, potential
increase of the agricultural production in future without improvement in agricultural practices can
considerably affect potential of the lake for supporting important Baltic Sea area habitats for wildlife,
especially birds.
The solution of the problems is hampered by the lack of cross-border coordination and cooperation, further
exacerbated following the collapse of the former Soviet Union and the reintroduction of the border regime
between Estonia and the Russian Federation. Besides, financial constraints, problems of communication and
language as well as differences in monitoring methodologies represent major obstacles to an efficient
transboundary environmental management of the lake. There are currently multiples environmental and
economic development project ideas are developing by the local and regional authorities, however, these
efforts are not coordinated between each other. Finally, differences in environmental planning and
management capacities are being felt between Russia and Estonia, the latter being more advanced in terms of
harmonization with European legislation and policy due to the prospect of its future accession to the EU.
Such discrepancies also contribute to impeding the definition and implementation of joint policy actions in
the Estonian-Russian cross-border region.
The Lake Peipsi Basin Management Program and complimentary to it activities will be implemented in
accord to the GEF project plan and requirements of the EU Water Framework Directive see a summary of
the Directive in Table 3 and in more detailes in Annex 4.
Table 1. Water Framework Directive summary.
Includes :
Protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and
groundwater.
By:
a) preventing (further) deterioration of such waters;
b) protecting and enhancing aquatic ecosystems and wetlands and terrestrial
systems dependent on them;
c) promotion of sustainable water use;
d) implementation of specific measures aimed at progressive reduction of
discharges, emissions and losses of priority substances, particularly hazardous;
e) mitigation of the effects of accidents and of floods and droughts.
Contributing to:
a) supply of waters of good status regarding quality in sufficient quantities for
both surface and groundwater;
b) the progressive reduction of pollution of groundwater and prevent its furt her
pollution;
c) progressive reduction of hazardous substances;
d) protection of territorial and coastal/marine waters;
e) achieve objectives of international agreements.
Action Program:
a) Integrated protection and management within all sectors;
b) Decisions taken as close as possible to location of water(s) affected;
c) Utilization of economic instruments including economic analysis of water
services, long-term forecasts of supply and demand aiming for recovery of cost
of water services;
d) Actions based on the precautionary principal and the principal of preventative
action.
12
20.2. Complementary efforts undertaken by the cooperating countries
With the support of a diversity of international parties
The project will complement and sustain the results achieved with the main projects completed in the
region (see Annex 3 for a detailed list of COMPLETED international projects in the Lake Peipsi Basin).
To summarize completed international projects that were implemented in the region, allow ed to
· Conduct preliminary assessments (that need more detalization and verification!) of environmental
quality and formulation of priority environmental issues in the basin;
· Formulated recommendations for the steps to address priority environmental issues within the
Management Plan;
· Tested ideas and recommendations through pilot projects on small geographical areas;
· Implemented local (in future should be regional!) institutional capacity building activities for NGOs and
partially for local authorities;
· Implemented a number of environmental infrastructure projects in MAJOR municipalities in the water
basin IN FUTURE ALSO SMALLER MUNICIPALITIES should construct local sewage treatment
and drinking water facilities;
The completed projects prepared a solid ground for launching a region wide basin management program. At
the Third meeting of the Transboundary Water Commission in September 2000, the Commission adopted a
decision "To set as priorities to prepare the "Lake Peipsi and Narva River Basin Management Plan." The
Peipsi GEF project and the following other projects that support preparation and implementation of the Lake
Peipsi/Chudskoe Basin Management Plan have been included into the Peipsi Water Commission working
plan.
In 2001 2005, major pro jects that support preparation and implementation of the Lake
Peipsi/Chudskoe Basin Management Plan are the following
· A international research project "Integrated Strategies for the Management of Transboundary
Waters on the European fringe the pilot study of Lake Peipsi and its drainage basin (MANTRA-
East)" (website www.mantraeast.org) was supported by the 5th Framework Programme for Research and
Technical Development of the EU in February 2001. 10 research institutes from Estonia, Russia,
Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands participate in the project. The three-year project will develop
methodological approaches for development of the lake basin management plan. The aim of the project
is to analyse and develop strategic planning methodologies and scientific tools for the integrated water
management in transboundary watersheds located on the existing and future borders of the European
Union. The three key objectives are: (i) to evaluate the applicability of the draft EU WFD on the new
future border regions, with regard to assessing the state of eutrophication (e.g. ecological status) in lakes
and river basins, and development of strategic lake and river basin tools for source apportionment,
retention, and time-trends in nutrient loads, (ii) to evaluate criteria for assessing the state of
eutrophication in the European Water Framework Directive, and develop strategic nutrient tools for the
assessment of sources and retention, all applicable at lake and river basins at the future EU-border
regions, (ii) to develop institutional mechanisms and policy instruments for decision making under
condition of transition and uncertainty, and (iii) to develop methods to improve communication and
utilisation of scientific information in a transboundary policy.
MANTRA East will support implementation of the following GEF project activities
- Environmental assessment as within MANTRA EAST water quality data and other
environmental data are being collected and a GIS system is to be developed for the Lake Peipsi
Basin.
- Preparation of the Lake Peipsi Basin Management Plan and Nutrient Load Reduction plan as
well as Monitoring component of the GEF project MANTRA East participants address issues
of uncertainties in environmental data collection and analysis, etc.;
- Public participation and public information activities as MANTRA East is to produce
recommendations for public participations in transboundary context and an Internet based
information and communication prototype.
· EU LIFE program supported Viru Peipsi CAMP project that will assist implementation of the
EU WFD in the Viru River Basin and Lake Peipsi basin. The project will make an assessment of
13
status of surface and ground waters; will promote reinforcement of an administrative capacity of
Estonian agencies involved in preparation and development of basin management plans. The project
will be implemented only in Estonia by Estonian Ministry of the Environment and French consulting
companies BRGM and IGN-FI. While the GEF will concentrate on surface water quality issues,
water eutrophication; and amon g activities on capacity building and public involvement; the
LIFE project will focus on ground waters quality, pollution by metals and toxic substances and the
economic incentives.
· EU TACIS CBC Baltic Line 2000 program will support a project "Environmental Management of
Lake Chudskoe" that will be implemented only in Russia. The 2.5-year project is expected to start in
2002 (the tender was planned to be open in fall 2001). The main beneficiary will be the Neva-Ladoga
Basin Water Management, an inter-regional agency in St Petersburg under the Russian Ministry of
Natural Resources. The project will be implemented in close collaboration with the Pskov Regional
Administration and Pskov Committee of Natural Resources. The overall objective of the Project is to
improve the environmental management capacities of the Russian regional and local environmental
authorities to promote an increased transboundary co-operation towards the sustainable conservation of
habitats and eco-systems in the Russian-Estonian cross-border region of the Lake Chudskoe/Peipsi. The
project includes a sampling program supporting the implementation of an environmental assessment of
the pollution loads dynam ics, pollution sources, water quality, in-lake processes and biodiversity-related
disturbances; a comparative analysis of the EU Water Framework Directive and the Russian Water Basin
Management approach, outlined in the Russian Water Code and the Law on Environmental Protection;
Environmental Management Plan and a Nutrient Load Reduction and Prevention Strategy for the Lake
Chudskoe; training, study tours, communication and information management activities to strengthen the
institutional capacity of the Joint Commission and to increase the operational and technical capacity of
the regional and local environmental agencies, municipalities, NGOs and other stakeholders;
environmental education programs on the eutrophication-related problems of the Lake to raise public
awareness; design and implementation of two demonstration pilot-projects in Pskov Oblast, Russia,
aimed at reducing the nutrient load in the Lake. Coordination of TACIS CBC and Peipsi GEF
projects have been ensured through establishing shared steering committees and coordinating
activities on the level of preparation of terms of references for the two projects.
· Environmental infrastructure projects. In Estonia, funds are available for environmental
infrastructure projects from the state budget as well as from the EU structural ISPA funds.
Environmental infrastructure projects in Russia will be implemented with the support of local
authorities and large contributions from the Danish Environmental Protection Agency and EU TACIS
Program. There is a need in international support to construction of sewage treatment facilities for small
municipalities as well as an assistance in preparation of project proposals and technical documentation
for these municipalities possibly special project preparation funds that can be used by municipalities to
hire consultants to prepare project documentation. For 2002-2005, planned feasibility studies and
construction of sewage treatment plant in Gdov, and drinking water station in Pechory
· Promoting involvement of local authorities and stakeholders. A project application was submitted
by the Peipsi CTC to Dutch government (MATRA program) in August 2001 with the aim to obtain
additional funds to support bringing know-how of Dutch experts from RIZA (water management and
research institute) and Free University of Amsterdam to develop arrangements to involve local
authorities in implementation of the Management Plan and promote cooperation and networking among
the local authorities around the lake as well as capacity bu ilding of the local authorities.
· NGO support. Tartu and Jõgeva County NGO Support Center receives annually 30 000 USD to
conduct consultations, training and provide other assistance to NGOs on Estonian side of the region.
Russian Pskov NGO "Chudskoi Project" implements a local public information and education project
with the support of Russian state, private funds (Berezovsky foundation) and Soros foundation 10 000
USD a year.
Thus, different international projects in the Lake Peipsi Basin compliment each other and will be coordinated
through planning activities using joint a Estonian-Russian Steering Committee. The Peipsi GEF project will
play an integrative role for different projects and activities that are and will be implemented in the region and
14
will ensure cross - border and cross - sectoral coordination of the environmental protection and development
activities and implementation in future of the basin management plan.
20.3. Expected Project Outcome
1.
Lake Peipsi Basin Management Plan as a strategy document as required by the EU, Estonian and
Russian water legislations;
2.
Program of measures to reduce nutrient load pollution - a Nutrient Load Reduction and Prevention
Action Plan;
3.
Coordinated program for surface water monitoring between the two countries on Lake Peipsi
prepared and partially implemented under the UN ECE guidelines for monitoring and assessment of
transboundary lakes;
4.
Robust institutional arrangements and legal framework for coordination in the region of
implementation of the Lake Peipsi Basin Management Plan by Estonian and Russian national river
basin authorities for implementation of the Basin Management Plan;
5.
Public involvement plan prepared as a part of the Basin Management Plan;
6.
Sufficient institutional capacity of the Commission to coordinate implementation of the
Management Plan on intergovernmental level and resolve potential differences in opinions.
7.
Sufficient capacity of local authorities to implement local environmental protection measures
(cleaning coastal areas, maintaining public beaches, implementing actions aimed at reduction of pollution
load in the basin, etc.);
8.
Increased capacity and actual involvement of stakeholder groups (farmers, fishermen, small and
medium businesses, tourism business) in activities on implementation of the Management Plan and nutrient
load reduction plan. at least two projects with lead of local businesses within implementation of the
Management Plan.
9.
Increased at least twice a number of grassroot NGOs in the region dealing with water protection
and nutrient load reduction in the region . At least five NGO cooperative projects implemented that join
grassroot NGOs from Estonia and Russia.
10. Interactive project website in Estonian, Russian and English at the Peipsi CTC website linked with the
Water Commission website www.envir.ee/jc using Internet GIS and a semi-moderated listserv in three
languages to facilitate communication and information exchange system among stakeholders. The
interactive Internet based web based GIS that will encourage sharing the environmental data about Lake
Peipsi region. The web GIS will contain lot of useful data from both Estonia and Russia; and enable end
users to visualize environmental data on the map.
11. Public information on project and eutrophical problems in mass media (regular press-releases, articles,
TV and radio interviews, printed materials).
12. Publications:
· Brochures about the project and the Lake Peipsi Basin Management Plan;
· Guidance documents to local authorities, stakeholders on Management Plan implementation;
· Environmental education curricular for schools on eutrophication related issues for teachers and
schoolchildren.
· Presentations, articles at international meetings.
13. Lake Peipsi Ecotourism P lan a regional scheme, a network of organizations, publications, trainings.
15. 2 water-related infrastructure demonstration projects:
· A development plan for an innovative and cost effective sewage treatment for a small rural
community;
An ecotourism route in Räpina area in Estonia (these two demonstration projects in Estonia will compliment
two demonstration projects to implemented parallel on Russian side within the TACIS BALTIC 2000
Program.
15
21. Table 2. Activities and Financial Inputs Needed to Enable Changes
Components
Months Total
Estonian Russian
Danish GEF
MANT TACIS EU
MATRA NGO
governm government EPA
RA
CBC
LIFE
ent
infrast.
East
Activity 1.
3 mo.
79 000
2000
1000
0
60 000
6 000
0
5000
4000 1000
Inception period.
(1 3)
Activity 2.
9 mo
683 000
7000
6000
0
120 000 50 000
350 000 150000
0
0
Assessments of
(4 12)
env. state
Activity 3.
18 mo 237 000
5 000
2 000
0
160 000 20 000
50 000
0
0
0
Coordinated
(4 21)
program for water
monitoring
Activity 4.
20 mo 1 183 000
5 000
2 000
0
180 000 70 000
800 000 120 000
6000
0
Manage ment
(7 36)
Program and the
program of
measures to reduce
nutrients
Activity 5.
24 mo
127 000
5 000
2 000
0
80 000 10 000
0
25000
10000
0
Capacity of the
(4 28)
Joint Commission
Activity 6.
24 mo
344 000
0
0
0
140 000 80 000
100 000
0
20000 4000
Capacity of local
(4 28)
authorities and
stakeholders
Activity 7. 24 mo
241 000
1000
0
0
120 000 70 000
20 000
0
10000 20000
NGO capacity
(4 28)
building, public
involvement plan in
Management Plan
Activity 8.
32 mo
271 000
1000
1000
0
100 000 84 000
80 000
0
0 5000
Public information (4 36)
and education
Activity 9.
18 mo 1 610 000 800 000
300000 200000
40 000 50 000
420 000
0
0
0
Demonstration
(4 21)
projects
4 775 000 821 000
314 000 200000 1 000 000 440 000 1 820 000 300 000
50 000 30 000
TOTAL
16
17
Table 3. Project Implementation Plan in months to tal period 36 months
Project Components
MO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
1. Inception period
3mo
X
X
X
2. Assessments
9mo
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
of state
3. Monitoring
18mo
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
program
4. Management
20mo
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Program
5. Capacity Joint
24mo
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Commission
6. Capacity local
24mo
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
authorities
7. Capacity
24mo
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
NGOs
8. Public Info and
32mo
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
education
9. Demonst. projects
18mo
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
18
Table 4. Project budget
Components
Total
GEF
Other funds
Activity 1. Inception period.
79 000
60 000
19 000
Personnel
27 000
18 000
9 000
Subcontracts
4 000
4 000
0
Training
8 000
8 000
0
Equipment
15 000
15 000
0
Travel
10 000
10 000
0
Miscellaneous
5 000
5 000
0
Activity 2. Assessments of environmental state
683 000
120 000
563 000
Personnel
360 000
20 000
340 000
Subcontracts
113 000
60 000
53 000
Training
110 000
10 000
100 000
Equipment
5 000
5 000
0
Travel
70 000
20 000
50 000
Miscellaneous
25 000
5 000
20 000
Activity 3. Coordinated program for water monitoring
237 000
160 000
77 000
Personnel
107 000
50 000
57 000
Subcontracts
25 000
25 000
0
Training
30 000
30 000
0
Equipment
11 000
11 000
0
Travel
60 000
40 000
20 000
Miscellaneous
4 000
4 000
0
Activity 4. Management Program and the program of
1 183 000
180 000
1 003 000
measures to reduce nutrients
Personnel
320 000
20 000
300 000
Subcontracts
570 000
70 000
500 000
Training
230 000
30 000
200 000
Equipment
16 000
16 000
0
Travel
40 000
40 000
0
Miscellaneous
4 000
4 000
0
Activity 5. Capacity of the Joint Commission
127 000
80 000
47 000
Personnel
18 000
11 000
7 000
Subcontracts
0
0
0
Training
33 000
20 000
13 000
Equipment
10 000
5 000
5 000
Travel
60 000
40 000
20 000
Miscellaneous
6 000
4 000
2 000
Activity 6. Capacity of local authorities and stakeholders
344 000
140 000
204 000
Personnel
59 000
52 000
7 000
Subcontracts
20 000
20 000
0
Training
33 000
20 000
13 000
Equipment
8 000
3 000
5 000
19
Travel
60 000
40 000
20 000
Miscellaneous
7 000
5 000
2 000
Activity 7. NGO capacity building, public involvement plan
241 000
120 000
121 000
in Management Plan
Personnel
80 000
30 000
50 000
Subcontracts
29 000
20 000
9 000
Training
35 000
22 000
13 000
Equipment
8 000
3 000
5 000
Travel
80 000
40 000
40 000
Miscellaneous
9 000
5 000
4 000
Activity 8. Public information and education
271 000
100 000
171 000
Personnel
90 000
20 000
70 000
Subcontracts
19 000
10 000
9 000
Training
65 000
22 000
43 000
Equipment
8 000
3 000
5 000
Travel
80 000
40 000
40 000
Miscellaneous
9 000
5 000
4 000
Activity 9. Demonstration projects
1 610 000
40 000
1 570 000
Personnel
205 000
5 000
200 000
Subcontracts
530 000
30 000
500 000
Training
770 000
0
770 000
Equipment
100 000
0
100 000
Travel
0
0
0
Miscellaneous
5 000
5 000
0
TOTAL
4 775 000
1 000 000
3 775 000
20
22. Current Situation
With a total surface area of 3,550 km 2 shared by Estonia (44%) and the Russian Federation (56%),
L. Peipsi is the largest international lake in Europe. Its watershed lies in the Leningrad and Pskov Oblasts of
the Russian Federation (59%) as well as in Estonia (34%) and Latvia (7%). The Lake is connected to the
Gulf of Finland and the Baltic Sea by the Narva River (77 km) that is, after the Neva River, the second
largest river flowing into the Gulf (figure 2).
The Lake Peipsi and Narva River Basin (56,225 km 2) is renowned for its rich ecosystem and its
wetlands of international significance. The Russian coast of the Lake, including the Remdovsky Nature
Reserve, was declared a RAMSAR site in September 1994. In addition to some thirty-three endemic fish
species observed in the lake and the lower reaches of its tributaries, the area forms an important habitat for
birds migrating across Europe and supports a remarkable diversity of flora and fauna.
Although the econom ic recession that has followed the break up of the former Soviet Union has
resulted in a decrease in agricultural and industrial pollution loads the concentration of nutrients, mainly
nitrogen and phosphates, in the lake remains worrying. Besides of the reduction of the nutrient loads and
internal biological processes in L. Peipsi there are some more anthropogenic impacts to the ecological and
environment conditions in the catchment area of L. Peipsi.
Industry (including the energy production)
The main branches of industry in this region are energy production, building and civil engineering,
chemical industry, textile manufacture, foodstuff production and timber processing. The environmental
impact of the energy production, which has in NorthEast of Estonia and in Leningrad Oblast the tight
connection with mining of oil-shale, is without doubt the greatest of the industrial impacts in this region. The
residual water from the ash removal systems of oil-shale-fired power plants (Narva Power Plants, former
known as Estonian and Baltic Power Plants) has very high alkalinity (pH 12 and over), with a large
concentration of heavy metals. Despite of the closed water circulation in the ash removal systems there have
been leakage from the sedimentation basins in the heavy rain periods and in the snow melting periods.
The energy industry's second largest impact on environment quality and on biological diversity is
caused by sulfur and ash emission, originated from power plants. Estonia makes a significant contribution to
acid rains in the Baltic Sea Region. The alkaline ash has strongly damaged the natural succession of the bog
communities in this region.
The cooling water of the power stations has temperature, as 17-18° C in the outlet river even in
winter-period, and it causes thermal pollution in Narva Water Reservoir.
Chemical industry produces many liquid hazardous substances, which in outlets can cause harmful
damages in water bodies and its ecosystems. There are not enough investigations, but the first results of them
indicate the higher concentrations of PCB's, phenols and phenol compounds, hydrocarbons and heavy
metals.
Recent improvements in municipal sewage treatment have not been sufficient to reverse the situation
and eutrophication is still recognized as a major threat for the water quality of the lake.
Mining of oil-shale
Oli-shale mining has considerable impact on the landscape and to the groundwater flow. In the Eesti
Deposit, oil-shale lays in the depth up to 100 meters. The open cast mining method is used if the depth of the
oil-shale bed is up to 40 meters and the underground mining is used for deeper oil-shale beds. Any kind of
mining significantly changes the relief of the land surface and groundwater regimes, the water chemistry and
hence the whole living environment. These complicated environment protection problem need the careful
analyze and complicated technologies. Very big amounts of water (about 190-210 million cubic meters) are
annually pumped out of the mines and quarries caused problems for both ground and surface waters.
Cross-border cooperation towards the protection of the Lake Peipsi and Narva River Basin has
befallen a strong political support from both Estonian and Russian authorities. In August 1997, an
Intergovernmental Agreement on the Protection and Sustainable Use of Transboundary Waters was signed.
A Joint Commission on Transboundary Waters (further Commission) was established to define joint policy
21
actions and coordinate their implementation. The objects of this agreement are transboundary waters of the
Narva River water basin, including L. Peipsi. The Joint Commission coordinates activities on
implementation of the agreement. The Joint Commission organizes:
· Exchange of monitoring data between the parties in accordance with the agreed monitoring program;
· Defines priority directions and programs of scientific studies on protection and sustainable use of
transboundary waters;
· Agrees on common indicators of quality for transboundary waters and methods of water testing and
conducting analyses;
· Facilitates cooperation between agencies of executive power, local governments, scientific and
public interest organizations, as well as other institutions in the field of and protection of
transboundary waters;
· Ensures publicity of discussions of questions related to the use and protection of the transboundary
waters.
In the case of extraordinary situation on transboundary waters, the parties will inform one another
immediately through the competent agencies and the Joint Commission.
At its second meeting in November 1999, the Joint Commission recognized as a top of priorities the
preparation of the Lake Peipsi Basin Management Program in accordance with the proposed draft EU Water
Framework Directive. This priority was confirmed at the UN ECE Workshop on Management and
Sustainable Development in International Lake Basins, organized by the Estonian Ministry of Environment
and the Center for Transboundary Cooperation with the support of Finnish Ministry of Environment and
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, December 1999, Tartu, Estonia.
22
Figure 2. Lake Peipsi Basin
23
23. Project Management
The project will be executed through two project implementation units to be established at Estonian and
Russian offices of the Peipsi Center for Transboundary Cooperation (Peipsi CTC). The Peipsi CTC has
its administrative offices in Tartu (Estonia) and Pskov (Russia) with local coordinators working in 5 small
local communities in the region. The offices are well equipped with computer equipment, Internet, and
library, with multilingual and multicultural staff, including foreign students working summers as interns.
There are 22 people on the Peipsi CTC administrative staff and about 20 people at universities working on
short-term contracts. A Tartu Volunteer and NGO Resource Center works at the Peipsi CTC office. The
Peipsi CTC has very close connections with the local communities in the region. The Peipsi CTC runs
training programs for local communities in business, environment, computer, e-mail use; organizes
environmental actions and children art contests (see more at www.ctc.ee), etc.
The Peipsi CTC has been working in both countries since 1994. Its location and the existence of country
offices in both of the countries involved in the pro ject will add to the Peipsi CTC's ability to communicate
regularly with beneficiaries and contractors. Knowledge of the region and skills to work in region help to
find successful contacts with all stakeholders.
24. Consultations with Beneficiaries and the Implementing Agency
The Peipsi CTC has already established a cooperative work relationship with the major project beneficiaries
and stakeholders within earlier projects implemented in the lake basin. The main beneficiary institutions are
the Estonian Russian Transboundary Water Commission (the Commission), the governments of Estonia
and Russia as well as civil society groups.
This GEF project is in the working plan of the Transboundary Water Commission and correspondingly of
the two governments and progress of implementation of the project will be reviewed on annual basis at
meetings of the Estonian-Russian intergovernmental transboundary water commission chaired by the First
Deputy Minister of the Russian Ministry of Natural Resources Mr. Mihheev as well as at biannual meetings
of the Commission four working groups that include representatives of the Ministry of the federal and
regional levels as well as representatives of the Russian Hydrometeorological Service. Therefore, this
REGULAR review proc edure by the Commission and its working groups ensures a full coordination with
ongoing changes in assignment of responsibilities for environmental management to the various levels of
government within Russia.
The Peipsi CTC cooperates with regional NGO Support Centers in Tartu and Pskov (that are regional hubs
for national NGO support center networks in Estonia and Russia) who conduct regular consultations with
NGOs and local stakeholders. Through these two regional NGO support centers, consultations with local
stakeholders and NGOs will be organized.
The Peipsi CTC will conduct regular consultations over email and telephone, meetings (at least twice a year)
with representatives of the implementing agency the UNDP offices in Moscow and Bratislava.
The current project management structure is described on the figure 3.
24
Figure 3. GEF Project Management Structure
LPMP ADVISORY COMMITTEE
International Organizations, Lake Commissions, National Water Management Experts
LPMP STEERING COMMITTEE
Communication to relevant international
organizations and coordination with
UNDP GEF Project Officer
other projects
GEF Project Manager
Financial Management,
Russian National Project Coordinator
Estonian National Project Coordinator
Financial Management,
Public Relations at CTC Pskov
Public Relations at CTC Tartu office
LPMP PROGRAM
Lake Peipsi/Chudskoe Basin Management Program
Nutrient Load Reduction Action Plan
GIS and water quality database with reliable and adequate data
Coordinated system of water monitoring
Establishment of Lake Peipsi Council
Institutional capacity of the Commission
Institutional capacity of local authorities, NGOs and stakeholders
Two demonstration projects
The Project Manager is responsible for the project management and coordination of the project
activities with the TACIS and other international projects in the region. Dr. Roll has considerable experience
in coordinating multilateral transboundary environmental projects in the Estonian Russian border region
(Lake Peipsi Basin), which were implemented with the support of the EU PHARE Program and EU member
states such as Denmark, Sweden, and Finland. Two national project coordinators work in a close
connection with the state and local authorities, consultation and design companies, as well as other key
actors in the respective countries . For each of the project components, there are Estonian and Russian project
implementation units.
The Steering Committee (see Annex 1A) of project consists of the representatives of the Ministry
of Environment and Ministry of Natural Resources, regional representatives of environmental specialists.
Both the MANTRA East project manager Dr. Per Stalnacke and the project manager of the EU TACIS
project (name is not known as results of tender of the project are not known yet.) are included to the Steering
Committee. The Steering Committee supports project managers in planning, preparation, and
implementation of the project. They will monitor and evaluate the project's course, particularly as regards
its management and methodological aspects. They meet once per year or as often as necessary.
The Advisory Committee (Annex 1B) of the project is as quality assurance for the project in its
methodological level, management and implementation levels. The Advisory Committee consists of
representatives of Russian and Estonian Ministries of Foreign Affairs, members of international
25
organizations involved in transboundary water management (UN/ECE, the World Bank, and HELCOM),
representatives of international river basin authorities and national experts - all together 16 members. Both
co-chairmen of the Estonian-Russian Commission on Transboundary Waters are included in the Advisory
Board. The Advisory Committee represents the interests of end-users of the project. Members of the
Advisory Committee will provide their feedback to the project team on the overall direction of the project
implementation and advises the project participants on translating the scientific results of the project into
practical actions on management.
The Advisory Committee members receive regular updates on the implementation of project and
will be invited to participate in the project meetings during the project period. A mid-term conference of the
Advisory Committee will be held, in which the members analyze the results obtained and advise on the
future direction of the project. Active involvement of the members of different transboundary water
commissions in the Advisory Committee ensures the project with information about skills of successful
management stories in other transboundary lake and river basins in Europe. The final meeting will held, in
which the project participants discuss with the Advisory Committee members the project results and their
implementation in the transboundary water management practices as well as in the project follow-up
activities.
25. Communication within the Program Network and Reporting
Communication within the program network and reporting is maintained through:
· Regular information exchange over e-mail through establishment of the project e-mail list;
· The project website at address http://www.ctc.ee;
· A bi-annual project newsletter in Estonian, Russian and English, published in electronic and hard
copy. The newsletter will be circulated among the project participants and sent to relevant
international org anizations and experts in the region;
· Regular project workshops and working meetings;
· Presentations of the project progress and results at international conferences and seminars.
The Management Program and the Action Plan will be published in Estonian and Russian with summary in
English. Also summary of the both documents will be published for wider audience and public.
Above listed measures help to promote exchange of information and networking with similar international
projects, experts and organizations in Europe as well as to organize dissemination of the project findings and
results internationally (Figure 4).
26
Figure 4. Communication with other international projects, international organizations and
government agencies
UN ECE Secretariat on
GEF Project Manager
TACIS CBC Baltic Line 2000
Transboundary Waters
Lake Peipsi Management Project
MANTRA East - research on strategy
for transboundary water management
European Commission on
on external EU border
Water Framework Directive
Danish EPA Point Source
Pollution Reduction Strategy
Estonian-Russian
Development Project
transboundary water
commission, Estonian and
Russian environmental
ministries and regional EPAs
Swedish EPA Commission
Support Project
Estonian and Russian
Danish EPA wetlands and
Ministries of Economics
water management project in
Russia
Structural funds SAPARD and
Estonian and Russian
Estonian Ministry of the
Ministries of Economics and
Environment infrastructure
Foreign Affairs
projects in Lake basin
26. Cooperation with authorities and public and stakeholder
involvement plan
26.1. National level
Peipsi CTC is an NGO in Estonia and its Pskov office is registered as a Russian NGO "Chudskoe Project".
Therefore, Peipsi CTC in Estonia and "Lake Chudskoe Project" in Russia will work with their national
authorities to implement national water legislation.
The Transboundary Water Commission coordinates activities between Estonia and Russia through its four
expert working groups and project implementation units responsible for administration of specific
international projects (that may be different for different projects).
International projects that support preparation and implementation of the Lake Peipsi/Chudskoe Basin
Management Plan are included into the Commission working plan on proposals from the Commission
working groups. Projects' activities and funding are coordinated with the corresponding national river basin
authorities.
27
26.2. Commitments for participation from regional governments.
The Estonian government has set a deadline on January 1, 2003, when the country is to be fully prepared to
enter the Union. Estonian laws and the administrative system have to be adapted to the requirements of the
EU. As a part of this work the Estonian Water Act is being revised to harmonize with the EU Water
Framework Directive that has a river basin management approach as a main principle of water management
in the EU. River Basin Management Plans for all water basins in Estonia are to be elaborated by 2004.
Tartu County Environmental Department of the Estonian Ministry of the Environment (regional agency of
the ministry) was appointed by the Ministry of the Environment to be a river basin management
authority for the Lake Peipsi Basin . Tartu County Environmental Department is responsible to coordinate
activities on preparation and implementation of the Management Plan among regional environmental
agencies and regional authorities on the Estonian side. The GEF project will use this existing structure for
the cooperation with the regional authorities that is outlined in the decision of the Ministry of the
Environment on that appointed the Tartu Environmental Department to coordinate preparation of the
Management Plan.
A half of Lake Peipsi located in the Russian Federation and is managed according to the Russian Federation
Water Code, a federal law of the Russian Federation adopted in 1995. The Russian Water Code is based on
a river basin approach. Regional water basin management boards were created under the Ministry of
Natural Resources to prepare and organize implementation of river basin management plans. According to
the Water Code, regions of the Russian Federation sharing a river basin have to sign a basin agreement that
defines a procedure for cooperation on implementation of a river basin management plan; river basin
councils are to be established that should represent interests of local stakeholders (water companies, local
authorities) to advise water basin management boards on implementation of the basin plans . Neva
Ladoga Water Basin Management Board is a river basin authority in Russia for the Lake Peipsi basin
and it will coordinate work of regional environmental agencies and regional (oblast) administrations of
Pskov and Leningrad Oblasts on implementation of the Russian Water Code and Estonian-Russian
agreement on transboundray waters.
Thus, GEF project will closely cooperate first of all with two regional agencies that are responsible in
Estonia and Russia for preparation of the Lake Peipsi Basin Management Plan. The GEF project activities
are included into the plans for preparation of the Management plan of the Tartu Environmental Department
and Neva Ladoga Water Basin Board. Through these two regional environmental authorities,
coordination with other regional authorities will be organized. Besides, representatives of all other regional
authorities will be represented in the project Steering Committee.
26.3. Involvement of local authorities
Local governments have a crucial role to play in the process of development and implementation of the
Management Program in the Lake Peipsi basin. They are responsible on both sides for implementation of
environmental measures, including planning and infrastructure projects. Therefore, there will be an active
involvement of local authorities in the project. As a result of earlier implemented projects in the region on
cross-border cooperation (see Annex 3), there is a network of local authorities in the region and the local
authorities are committed to implement the measures. However, often they do not have sufficient capacity
for planning and implementation of measures they are responsible for.
The project will support regional and local authorities in carrying out their task on preparation and starting
implementation of the Lake Peipsi Basin Management Plan through
· Organization of consultations and discussions in communities around the lake (a survey with at least
80 representatives of local authorities and 30 consultations in local communities will be conducted)
over policies for the use and protection of natural resources in the lake basin among the authorities,
interest groups and NGOs in the region.
· Assisting local authorities in preparation of local environmental projects and submitting project
application for funding to the EU;
· Institutionalizing participation of local authorities in decision-making on Lake Peipsi Managememtn
Plan. We intend to develop Lake Peipsi Council that would include local authorities and major
28
stakeholders and would have an advisory capacity to the Transboundary Water Commission and
national governments. In the situation of social transition in Estonia and Russia, there is no yet
enough experience of involving different interest groups and wider public in policy making on
regional level. One pilot project is being successfully developed on Estonian side of the Lake Peipsi
basin River Amme basin where River Amme basin water and land council is being developed a
forum of local authorities, farmers, fishermen, teachers, who help the local and state authorities to
make decisions and develop policies on the use and protection of local resources in the area. This
experience showed to be successful and we intend to develop Lake Peipsi Council using the
experience of creating River Amme water and land council. To create the Peipsi Council, the
project team will also use a methodological support from the Global Water Partnership Toolbox,
www.gwp.org, and experience of involving local authorities in transboundary water management in
other lake regions, such as Lake Ohrid and Constance as Peipsi CTC works with organizations on
theses two lakes within other than GEF projects.
According to the Estonian Water Act and Russian Water Code, River Basin Management Plans for
all water basins in Estonia and Russia are to be elaborated; in Estonia - by a deadline of year 2004.
Estonian Water Act and Russian Water Code require developing cooperation between national and
local authorities as well as gives authority and power to local and regional governments in making
decisions over use and protection of the resources in water basins. This is quite a new development
in the legislation that has to be implemented. New practices of water governance have to be
developed. Lake Peipsi Council should become a forum for discussions and negotiations among
local authorities and other interest groups in the region and would provide an advice to the respective
state and regional authorities as well as the Estonian Russian transboundary water commission.
The project will result in developing institutional arrangements for involving local interest groups in
the policy making on the use and protection of natural resources in the Lake Peipsi Basin, a body
that would include different interests of water users in the region; the body that would have an
advisory capacity to the Peipsi Transboundary Water Commission, as well as to state and regional
environmental authorities. The project will promote transparency in dec ision-making,
decentralization, and cooperation among the local municipalities and representatives of local
stakeholder groups.
The process of developing capacity of and networking among local authorities in the Lake Peipsi area, will
include assistance in preparation of project applications and project implementation plans to small
municipalities that would allow to receive funds from the EU structural funds and PHARE/TACIS programs
26.3. Public Involvement Plan
It is important to recognise that different components of `the public' will have their own views, needs,
priorities and expectations. In order to be successful, information, consultation, and participation
processes need to be tailored for particular target groups. These will include: the `general public',
NGOs, sectoral stakeholder groups within a river basin or sub-basin (e.g. farmers' associations), and local
residents/water customers. Special interest groups will be expected to participate at a more strategic level,
e.g. through representation in the Peipsi Council the river basin advisory committee, whereas local
communities will more lparticipatie at the field/action programme level (link with cross-cutting principle of
`scale').
Stakeholder involvement will include developing cooperation with key stakeholders of the project, which
along with the governments of Estonia and Russia are
· Local governments in the Lake Peipsi area (especially development/economic and environmental
departments of local governments, educational commissions at local councils, etc.);
· Regional and local NGOs and community groups, land owners, farmers, fishermen, small
businesses, the Peipsi Fishermen's Union, the Peipsi Ecotourism Association, Regional Peipsi area
development foundations (the foundations exist in every county located in the Lake Peipsi basin on
Estonian side);
29
· Staff and students in schools and universities.
The project has been designed to meet the needs of the Estonian and Russian Governments, local
governments in the Lake Peipsi area, regional and local NGO participants and stakeholders. Ongoing
consultation with stakeholders is incorporated directly into the project activities: capacity building of the
Joint Commission, national and sub-national governments, NGOs and other stakeholder groups ;
establishment of the Lake Peipsi Council network of local authorities and stakeholder groups in the region;
the "Lake Peipsi region multi-stakeholder community" through developing a regional communication and
information exchange system; and the development of Management Program and Action Plan in deep
cooperation with local and international scientists. To promote exchange of information through
stakeholders, organize dissemination of the project findings the project e-mail list, website, bi-annual pro ject
newsletters published in electronic and hard copy, regular project workshops and working meetings are
maintained.
27. Monitoring and Evaluation Plan
The project will be monitored and evaluated in accordance with relevant UNDP and GEF procedures:
(i) The executing agency has developed periodic benchmarks and monitoring procedures to ensure that the
project advances according to the timeline laid out in the project document.
(ii) The UNDP-GEF IW Advisor has monitored the project through its development phase and will be
regularly informed and updated by the executing agency so that he can continue to do so in the
implementation phase;
(iii) An Annual Project Report will be prepared for the project;
(iv) A Tripartite Review will be conducted with UNDP, the executing agency and the participating
governments;
(v) The project will participate in the GEF Project Implementation Review - an independent external
evaluation will follow completion of the project.
vi) The close proximity of the CTC to the target locations and the availability of country offices in Estonia
and Russia provide the CTC with ability to monitor project development in both countries on the permanent
basis.
28. Sustainability Analysis
Project sustainability is going to be achieved by
· Political support from high-level and local authorities both from Estonia and Russia,
· Institutionalization of the Management Program through adoption by the Commission the Management
Plan as an official legal document for water management in the lake basin,
· Increased capacity of the project management team and experts to implementation of the Lake
Management Program.
The project executing agency, NGO Peipsi CTC, is closely involved in the work of the Transboundary Water
Commission and its activities related to the water management in the Lake Peipsi Basin are part of the
Estonian and Russian governmental plans for water management in the basin as well as included into the
plan of implementation of the Estonian-Russian transboundary water agreement. The working plans are
reviewed and endorsed by the intergovernmental commission annually. This arrangement guarantees that
the results of the work (Management Program, Action Plan etc.) of the executing agency, an NGO, will be
translated into legal/policy/institutional reforms at government level in the two countries.
The project is sustainable in a long run as there is a political commitment: the Joint Commission by itself and
its working groups are very interested in the proposed activities and they supported the idea of such a project
very much during the annual meetings (see protocols of meetings at www.envir.ee/jc). Hence, the strong
willingness from their side will be a guarantee of the sustainable project.
30
29. Risk Assessment: External Factors/Risks
Potential risks to implementation of the projects and measures to
prevent/overcome the impediments to the project implementation are
presented in the Table 5.
Risks and impediments to the Level of risk of a negative
How project will address the risk and ensure
project implementation
impact to the project
sustainability of measures implemented within
implementation:
the project?
Low, not very high, high
A potential risk of
Not very high studies and
The cooperation is institutionalised:
aggravation of
statements of the Estonian and - The project is in working plan of the
intergovernmental relations
Russian officials4 predict
intergovernmental transboundary commission;
between Estonia and Russia
improvement of relations as
- Steering and advisory committees include
that may result in a lack of
Estonia will be getting closer
state/federal government officials
trust and a willingness to
to enter the EU
cooperation between the
project partners
A potential risk that the
Very low - The project is in
The Peipsi GEF project management structure
NGO executed project will
the governmental water
ensures close cooperation with the governm ents
remain an NGO project
management programs and
in preparation of the Management Plan. When the
will not be taken over by
the Water Commission
project ends, the process of implementation of the
the governments
working plan.
Lake Peipsi Basin Management Plan will be
taken over by the respective river basin
authorities WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE for
preparation and implementation of the Lake
Peipsi Basin Management Plan in Estonia and
Russia.
Low commitment of
Low existence and active
Regular consultations with national governments
policymakers, especially
work by the Water
during the project course, developing public
the national governments,
Commission shows a high
awareness and support to the project and making
including Transboundary
commitment to the project
the project goals more visible publicly so that
Estonian Russian Water
by the two governments
they would be accepted as a political priority by
Commission
the two governments.
Low interest among local
Low Sociological studies
The project includes consultations with local
authorities and
conducted by the Peipsi
authorities and stakeholders that will result in
stakeholders to
CTC showed that
formulating their priorities in the Management
environmental protection
employment and economic
Program the project will develop on the
issues that may result in a
development as well
priorities formulated by the local authorities and
low support to the project
environmental protection
stakeholders; also both demonstration projects
are priority issues for
support local development priorities
stakeholders
A potential impediment to
Low - This problem does
MANTRA East and then mostly TACIS CBC
further implementation of a
not affect planned work on
project will support an analysis of harmonization
joint water management
preparation of the
of the EU and Russian water legislations,
plan under the EU Water
coordinated program of
including economic incentives use strategies and
Directive is that although
environmental measures
will develop recommendations to address the
also the Russian Water
(the nutrient load reduction
issue of differences of economic incentives.
Code addresses issues of
plan). Estonian and
economic instruments of
Russian governments are
On the Russian side, the GEF in cooperation with
water protection such as
responsible for
the regional authorities and the ministry will
4 See for example at http://www.ctc.ee/lib/pdf/eu_role_eng.PDF
31
payments for water use and
implementation of
assist respective local authorities in preparation
licensing water use; "full
environmental protection
of project proposals for environmental
cost recovery" pricing
measures and
infrastructure projects and their submission to
system, the driving force of
implementation of the Lake
and negotiations with international donor
the EU Directive, is not a
Peipsi Basin Management
organizations.
part of the Russian water
Plan and it is up to the
legislation.
governments what
economic incentives'
mechanisms they use to
implement the measures. It
is conceivable that
consumers in Estonia pay
fully water protection
measures while in Russia
the same measures are
implemented partly using
the public funds and
international assistance.
Differences between two
Low to ensure a long-
1. MANTRA East and TACIS projects support
countries administrative
term sustainability of the
studies to assess differences in administrative
structures and procedures
project results, project
procedures between the EU/Estonia and Russia
activities have to be
implemented in accord to
2. Implementation of project activities will be
the national laws,
conducted by project implementation units in
regulations and procedures.
Estonia and Russia in accord to the national laws
Cooperation should be
and procedures of the countries; regular
organized to ensure tha t a
communication between project teams in Estonia
joint Basin Management
and Russia will be ensures through clear and
Program will be developed
detailed common project management and
reporting procedures; project meetings, website and
Intranet
3. The project management teams in Estonia and
Russia will be informed about the other side
administrative and legal structures and will be
trained in intercultural communication.
Differences in water
Rather high there is a
This is one of central problems that the Peipsi
monitoring programs,
need in reliable and
GEF project addresses: the project will support
water sampling and
comparable data in order to
joint water sampling and intercalibration
analysis methods
develop the Management
exercises that will be conducted by Estonian and
Program
Russian labs and experts of the Transboundary
Water Commission. UNECE Guidelines for
monitoring of international lakes will be used as
well as UN ECE experts will be involved in this
project component. This will ensure prevention
of the potential risk.
The language barrier
Quite low
The project management staff in Estonia is
trilingual and in Russia at least bi-lingual.
Peipsi CTC has highly qualified translators and
interpreters to ensure all documents are translated
quickly and with high quality and that the
language barrier would be a problem between
Estonian, Russian and international experts
32
involved in the project.
The workshop and training
Quite low - if the expected
Careful planning of the project, and regular
seminars are badly
project results are not
evaluation of results during the rpoject course,
designed and planned
achieved then the project
training and capacity building of the project team
may damage the
and experts
commitment and in some
cases even the credibility of
participating organizations,
the funders, developed
information network and
other activities
Low environmental
Low
The project will support preparation of a
awareness of the
curricular for primary and high schools on
population and
eutrophication issues and will support
stakeholders in the region
organization of training for teachers in the region.
that can negatively affect
Media and Internet will be used to promote
implementation of
environmental awareness, training for
environmental protection
environmental officials.
measures in the basin
33
30. Table 6. Incremental Cost Assessment (USD)
Baseline
Alternative
Increment
Activity 1. Inception period. Identification of key stakeholder groups, their needs.
Global
Multiple uncoordinated Conference of the Joint Coordination of the project
Environmental
environmental and Commission will formally with other international global and
Benefits
economic development approve the course of actions regional projects and initiatives is
projects in lake basin and planned.
achieved as an additional know
Baltic Sea Region.
The program will be how resource for project.
No sufficient political coordinated with activities The project plan receives an
support to the projects from under UNDP, UN ECE, official political approval of the
the two governments and Baltic 21 and other Joint Commission.
relevant international international networks.
organizations
Domestic
Multiple small-
Awareness of the project Support from the local
benefits
uncoordinated
among local authorities, their authorities to the Management
environmental and political support to the Program, coordination of local
economic development project. Coordination of activities around the lake having a
projects in lake basin local initiatives.
synergy effect.
among local authorities.
Costs
Total 3000, including
79 000
GEF 60 000
Estonia 2 000
MANTRA East 6 000
Russia 1 000
EU LIFE 5 000
MATRA 4 000
Baltic NGO Fund 1 000
Baseline
Alternative
Increment
Activity 2 and 3. Assessments of environmental state in the Lake Peipsi basin with respect to
draft the Management Program and the Action Plan. Coordinated prog ram of monitoring
Global
No systematic overview Project international Report produced that contains
Environmental
of environmental, social and working groups will conduct reliable and adequate data and
Benefits
economic development assessments of the situation information on the nutrient load
problems for Lake Peipsi and external conditions and into the lake basin, the
Basin.
frameworks for environmental situation in the
No comprehensive implementation of the project. basin, the human impact,
assessment of natural, social Comparability of results of recommendations for nutrient
and political impediments to water monitoring will be load reduction and prevention as
implementation of achieved through joint well as recommendations for a set
sustainable development monitoring expeditions and of measures to strengthen the
principles in the Basin.
intercalibration exercises.
formal framework for the
Methods of water quality The working groups will cooperation.
monitoring are not develop a joint methodology A joint assessment of the
coordinated which makes it and a concept for the Lake environmental state in the region
impossible to compare Management Program, is achieved that helps to develop
results of monitoring on two specific practical a joint plan of actions
sides and assess correctly recommendations for act ions
A GIS database of pollution
water quality.
sources and water monitoring
No recommendations
information is produced.
formulated for legal
framework of cooperation
and public participation.
Domestic
No reliable information Joint monitoring and A concept for implementation
benefits
on the local level on water intercalibration allow to put of the Management Program on
quality in lake
together a joint database with the local level allow to develop a
No systematic reliable information on water specific plan of actions for water
information exists in the quality
protection and management for
region on the dynamics of The working groups will the local environmental agencies
the water quality, state of develop a concept for and ensure their involvement in
natural resources in the implementation of the the Management Program
region.
Management Program on the implementation
No clear picture on how local level as well as specific Through joint monitoring
should the local institutions practical recommendations received reliable data on water
be developed to promote for actions and development
35
quality and made accessible to
be developed to promote for actions and development quality and made accessible to
their effective involvement of the local environmental public
in environmental institutions
management in the lake
basin.
Costs
Estonia 12 000
920 000
GEF 280 000
Russia 8 000
MANTRA East 70 000
TACIS 400 000
LIFE 150000
Baseline
Alternative
Increment
Activity 4. Development of the Management Program and the Action Plan
Global
Increasing eutrophication Decrease of nutrient load and Decrease of nutrient load and
Environmental
in the lake basin due to a other pollution in the lake higher environmental quality in
Benefits
lack of coordination of basin through coordination of the lake basin and Baltic Sea
economic and activities, effective basin through developing
environmental activities.
institutional and legal effective institutional and legal
arrangements, education and arrangements, education and
community actions
community actions
Domestic
Uncoordinated local The draft Management The Management Program
benefits
and international projects Program is discussed with adopted as a basis for actions by
and activities in the lake NGOs and presented to wider the Joint Commission for the
basin that do not allow to public through mass media. Estonian and Russian
consolidate actions and The Joint Commission governments.
outcomes of different adopts the Management The Action Plan establishes
projects and to formulate a Program as a document.
goal for nutrient load and
set of proposals for actions The Management Program eutrophication reduction in the
aimed at promoting document is accepted in a lake basin for short term (2, 5
pollution reduction in the general form allowing details years) and long-term (10 20
lake basin. No adaptable of the plans to be updated and years) perspectives. Goals are to
management approach used revised
by the Joint be revisited and revised regularly
in the region.
Commission and its working by the Joint Commission.
groups every 2 - 3 years.
Costs
RUSSIAN 5 000
1 183 000
GEF 180 000
ESTONIAN 2 000
MANTRA East 70 000
TACIS 800 000
LIFE 120 000
MATRA 6 000
Baseline
Alternative
Increment
Activities 5 and 6. Capacity building of the Joint Commission as well as local authorities.
Global
No forum for cooperation Developed institutions on Decrease of water
Environmental
and exchange of experiences the region is a part of an eutrophication in the lake and
Benefits
between lake and river basin institutional framework for Baltic Sea through strengthening
organizations in the Baltic protection of the Baltic Sea institutions and public
Sea Area, UN ECE region or Basin and UN ECE region
participation on regional level;
globally.
exchange of experiences between
Weak institutions and
different lake basins on water
public participation decreases
protection in Baltic Sea region
effectiveness of
and globally.
environmental measures in all
of the Baltic Sea area.
Domestic
No communication and Institutional capacity Strengthened capacity of the
Benefits
cooperation between different building on different levels.
Joint Commission to
levels of governance that can Strengthening of the implementation of the Action
be the major impediment to operational and technical Plan and strategic planning;
effective implementation of capacity of the regional and institutionalization of cooperation
any environmental protection local environmental between different levels of
measures in the basin.
agencies, municipalities, government, business and NGOs.
No information on NGOs and other The "Lake Peipsi Council" is
ongoing and planned stakeholders, such as established as a result of the
environmental action on Lake fishermen, farmers, etc.
stakeholder meetings.
36
Peipsi in communities and Among planned The Council represents local
internationally.
activities: training and stakeholders; environmentally
information activities; study competent farmers and
tours to other international authorities; environmental
lake regions, developing training and information centers
website.
established on Estonian and
Russian sides.
Training and information
materials for authorities, farmers
and other stakeholder groups are
published.
Costs
ESTONIAN 5 000
471 000
GEF 220 000
RUSSIAN 2 000
MANTRA EAST 90 000
TACIS 100 000
LIFE 25 000
MATRA 30 000
NGO fund 4 000
Baseline
Alternative
Increment
Activities 7 - 8. NGO capacity building plan, public information and education.
Global
Absence of the Capacity building Increased public awareness on
environmental
participatory watershed activities: training and eutrophication related issues in
benefits
management and low consultations program for communities, local authorities,
environmental awareness NGOs in the region.
and stronger network of NGOs
undermine effectiveness of Public awareness around the lake.
water management programs programs implemented.
NGOs are involved in the
in the lake region.
Management Program
preparation and implementation.
Domestic
Participatory watershed Environmental education Public information on
benefits
management does not exist. activities on the eutrophication related issues
Local authorities and eutrophication-related
whereas sources are available in
NGOs are not involved in problem: trainings, hard copy and Internet in local
preparation and workshops, publications, languages.
implementation of the Internet and regular active
Management Program.
work with media.
Costs
ESTONIA 2 000
512 000
GEF 220 000
RUSSIA 1 000
MANTRA EAST 154 000
TACIS 100 000
MATRA 10 000
NGO FUND 25 000
Baseline
Alternative
Increment
Activity 9. Implementation of demonstration projects.
Global
Implementation of best
Environmental
available technology with
Benefits
reasonable costs.
Domestic
In the region there is no Development of tourist Increased public awareness on
Benefits
public tourist route.
route based on the principles the Lake Peipsi region.
No tourist visits to the of ecological tourism in the Increased social life and
region.
region.
decreased unemployment.
Small parishes are not able Drafting the development Local community has water
to improve their water supply plan of water supply and supply and sewerage
and sewerage system.
sewerage for local development plan that enable
community.
them (1) complete their budget
and finde investments to improve
the system; (2) improve the
system.
Costs
ESTONIA 800 000
1 610 000
GEF 40 000
RUSSIA 104 000
MANTRA EAST 50 000
TACIS 420 000
Danish EPA 200 000
37
ANNEX 1A
Steering Committee of the project
Development and Implementation of the Lake Peipsi Management Program
The Steering Committee of the project consists of representatives of the Estonian and Russian
ministries of Environment, the Estonian -Russian Transboundary Water Commission, regional
authorities, and NGOs from Lake Peipsi basin. The Steering Committee will also include the
Project Manager and the UNDP Project Officer. The Committee meets at the beginning of the
project and at the end of each year (total four times). The Steering Committee will adopt decisions
on results of open tender procedures of selecting companies to implement tasks, as well as will
support project managers in planning, preparation, and implementation of the project. The
Committee will monitor and evaluate the project's course, particularly as regards its management
aspects.
Steering committee in Estonia
1. Mr. Harry Liiv
Deputy Secretary General,
Estonian Ministry of the Environment
2. Mr. Marko
Head of Water Section,
Tuurmann
Estonian Min istry of the Environment
3. Mr. Jalmar Mandel
Head of the Environmental Department of Tartumaa,
Estonian Ministry of the Environment
4. Mr. Jaanus Kala
Head of the Environmental Department of Põlvamaa;
Estonian Ministry of the Environment
5. Ms. Tiiu Sizova
Head of the Environmental Department of Ida-Virumaa;
Estonian Ministry of the Environment
7. Ms. Angelika
Head of Tartumaa and Jõgevamaa NGO Advisory Service
Rehema
Steering committee in Russia
(There is a preliminary agreement of 16 May 2001 with representatives of the Russian Ministry of Natural
Resources that the Ministry would appoint members of the Russian part of the Steering Committee during
summer 2001)
8
To be confirmed
Representative of the Water Department,
Russian Ministry of Natural Resources
9. To be confirmed
Representative,
Russian Federation Hydrometeorological Service
11. Mr. Vladimir
Chairman,
Budarin
Neva-Ladoga Watershed Management Department
12. Ms. Julia Nefedova Chairwoman, Pskov regional committee for natural resources
13. To be confirmed
Representative,
Pskov oblast regional administration
14. Mr. Alexei
Representative,
Ksenofontov
Leningrad oblast regional administration
15. Lev Shlosberg
Pskov regional NGO Advisory Service
16. Ms. Tatyana
UNDP Moscow project officer
Glushko
38
Annex 1B
Advisory Committee of the project
Development and Implementation of the Lake Peipsi Management Program
1. INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
UN Economic Commission for Europe Convention on Transboundary Waters
Mr Carel H. V. de Villeneuve,
Secretariat of the Convention on Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes
UNDP GEF
Mr Andrew Hudson, Program Coordinator, Global Environmental Facility
The World Bank
Dr Stephen F. Lintner, Adviser of Freshwater, Coastal and Marine Resources
Helsinki Commission HELCOM
Baltic Sea Basin GEF project manager
European Commission
Dr Helmut Blöch, Head of the Water Section
International Financial Cooperation
Mr Jerome Esmay, Principal Engineer of Water and Waste Management Section
2. ESTONIAN AND RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTRY
Estonian Foreign Ministry representative to be confirmed in Fall 2001 (as agreed with the GEF
political focal point Mr. Tõnu Miller)
Russian Foreign Ministry representative the name will be confirmed in Fall 2001 as agreed
between the Moscow UNDP office and the Russian Foreign Ministry
3. TRANSBOUNDARY WATER COMMISSIONS
Lake Constance Commission
Mr Gerd Schroeder, Commissioner, GERMANY;
Dr Juerg Bloesch, President, Swiss Federal Institute for
Environmental Scienc e And Technology, Commission expert, SWITZERLAND
Lake Peipsi Commission
Mr Sulev Vare, Chancellor of Ministry of Environment, ESTONIA
Mr Nikolai Mihheev, First Deputy Ministry of Ministry of Natural Resources, RUSSIA
3. MANTRA East, EU LIFE and TACIS Project Managers
Dr Per Stålnacke, Coordinator of MANTRA-East Project
Project Manager of EU TACIS Baltic Line 2000 Lake Peipsi Management
Project Manager of the EU LIFE project
Project Manager MATRA project
Project Manager RIZA ecosystem conservation project
39
Annex 2. Demonstration projects
(Note: GEF funds 2 demonstration projects in Estonia and EU TACIS Baltic Line 2000 funds 2
demonstration projects in Russia)
1. Small grant for promotion of education and public awareness
To support public information and education as well as to promote public awareness this small grant project
is developed. The main goal of the project is to develop tourist route based on principles of ecological
tourism in the Lake Peipsi Basin. Ecological tourism is defined as responsible traveling and travel
management, which supports the conservation of the destination areas local culture and natural heritage,
and economic welfare of the local inhabitants.
Räpina parish as logistically suitable district with a number of natural and cultural sites of interest is
selected to implement the project. Räpina, with its 3500 inhabitants, lies close by Lake Peipsi in South-
Estonia. Tartu-Värska-Petseri-Pihkva highway is passing the town and is used by tourists and for transite.
Räpina is known for running water, untouched nature, rich green spaces, and beautiful home gardens.
Räpina offers experiences for people who are interested of nature, hunting, fishing, ethnography; undertakers
can find partners from our forest industry or from anywhere else. Children, education, sports, nature, and
business are valued here. It is a town as for young as for older people. There is high school for landscape
architectures and landscape holders in Räpina. Therefore it is possible to use them both for development of
project and as guides for tourist groups in summer period.
According to the first evaluation of tourist routes the planned distance is approximately 20 30 kilometers.
These distances are suitable for walking or bicycle trips. Different routes have to be designed, as tourists
have to have possibility to choose their routes according to complexity.
The main points of interest on routes are:
Meelva bog (1827 hectares) is the greatest of the mires of the south-eastern part of the Peipsi depression.
The bog is rich in small lakes and mineral "islands";
The typical south -Estonian farmhouse from the beginning of 20th century, called Tammsaare farm, on the
mineral "island" in Meelva bog. The farmhouse has rich collection of household equipment and handicrafts
from that period. The farmhouse with its collections gives a good overview of Estonian cultural heritage;
The Räpina polder area (1620 hectares) is interesting site for nature tourists. The northern part of this area
has not been in agricultural use during last 10 15 years. Ecological succession process has changed this
part of the polder area to the natural again. In spring and fall that area is rich in waterfowl and other
migratory birds, frogs and other amphibic or aqatic animals. There is possible to build the birds watching
towers on the polder dam in the lakeshore area of Lake Lämmi.
Expected outputs: Well developed routes for ecological tourism with explanatory signs and different
complexity; published tourist bulletins with photos, maps and explanations; educated local guides for tourist
routes.
40
2. Small grant for infrastructure development
To recommend innovative nutrient management technologies with reasonable price for municipalities one
environmental infrastructure demonstration project will be implemented. The main goal of the project is to
draft the development plan of water supply and sewerage for local community. This local community is
not selected jet will be selected on competitive process by the steering committee.
The main aim of the development plan is to elaborate a strategy of development of water infrastructure in local
community and its surrounding areas. Involvement of surrounding communities is determined by existing
infrastructure and based on economic valuation. Water supply and sewerage development plan is a part of
local development plan and Master Plan.
The main activities to draft the development plan are as following:
1. Creation of initial database of water supply and sewerage system
· Collection of initial data (local legal acts, existing development plans, planning, investigations,
permits of water use);
· Analysis of initial situation (water intakes, treatment plants, pumping stations, water conduits, wells,
supplies of water use service, water demanders, water price and willingness to pay of demanders)
· Creation of digital database on map (treatment plants, wells, utility lines)
2. Draft of alternative technologies of water supply and sewerage system
· Draft of alternative technologies of water supply, sewerage and treatment
· Selection of the best alternative, taking into account local economical, social and environmental
situation
· Public involvement, discussions and selection of alternative for development
· Development of selected alternative, draft of building management plan and recommendations for
investments
Expected outputs: digital database of existing legal acts, development plans and planning, investigations
and water use permits; digital development plan of water supply and sewerage based on using of best
available technology with reasonable price. The government and the EU structural funds will further fund
the infrastructure project.
41
Annex 3.
COMPLETED INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS
IN THE LAKE PEIPSI/CHUDSKOE BASIN
Until now, international projects were implemented that included the following activities
1. Assessments of environmental quality and formulation of priority environmental issues in the basin;
2. Developing recommendations for the steps to address priority environmental issues within the
Management Plan;
3. Testing recommendations through pilot projects on small geographical areas;
4. Institutional capacity building, and public awareness projects;
5. Environmental infrastructure projects in major municipalities in the water basin.
The following projects have been implemented that supported the process of planning and
preparation of the Lake Peipsi Basin Management Plan preparation.
Environmental Monitoring Project on Lake Peipsi
Was implemented in 1996 2000 with the support of the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency
(SEPA). The project included sampling of water quality in Lake Peipsi, intercalibration of water quality
sampling and analysis procedures between Estonian and Russian laboratories, capacity building - developing
a computer communication system that connected all experts on both sides involved in the project,
assessment of nutrient loads in the water basin for the period of 1995 1998.
The project prepared a report with an assessment of the nutrient load situation in the Lake Peipsi basin and
recommendations for improvement of the water monitoring system on the lake.
The project also prepared a report on PCB, metals, and bentic fauna in rivers draining oil-shale mining areas
in Lake Peipsi Basin with recommendations for water monitoring in rivers of metals and PCBs .
Support to the Estonian-Russian transboundary water commission
The project was implemented in 2000 01 with support of SEPA.
The project prepared a report with recommendations for a coordinated Estonian-Russian water quality
monitoring program on Lake Peipsi. Based on the report, Transboundary Water Commission monitoring
working group adopted a decision to prepare a joint action plan on development and implementation of the
comprehensive program for water quality monitoring in the Lake Peipsi basin. Within the same SEPA
project reports "Water Management in Russia: Lake Peipsi Basin Case" and "Ground water management in
the Northern Peipsi Narva River Basin" were prepared that outlined specific recommendations on
harmonization of water management legislation between Russia and Estonia and proposals for developing
coordinated monitoring activities of ground waters in the water basin.
The project included development of the Esto nian Russian transboundary water commission website at the
address www.envir.ee/jc and the Commission brochure in 3 languages. The Commission brochure and the
above mentioned reports prepared within international projects are available in PDF format at the
Commission website.
Development of Strategy for Wastewater Treatment in the Lake Peipsi Basin
Was supported in 2000 - 2001 by DANCEE. Preparation of the strategy will be used in future to formulate a
coordinated program of measures for pollution reduction from point sources within the Lake Peipsi Basin
Management Plan.
Environmental infrastructure projects in Pskov Oblast
Danish Environmental Protection Agency (DANCEE) supported feasibility studies and construction work of
a number of environmental infrastructure projects in Pskov Oblast, including a dewatering facility for
42
utilization of sludge; a biological sewage treatment facility at Pskov municipal wastewater treatment plant, a
treatment facility for a pig factory "Pskovskaya".
Biodiversity Conservation Projects in the coastal areas
DANCEE also supported a biodiversity conservation project in Pskov Oblast "Management of Sebezh
National Park." On the Estonian side, Danish WWF supported an "Emajõgi River Project" that included
biodiveristy conservation and public awareness measures.
Environmental Education and Public Awareness and Participation Projects
Estonian, Russian and Latvian regional environmental agencies, local authorities and NGOs organize an
annual children contest of creative literature and art works "World of Water Through the Eyes of Children"
where more than 5000 children participate, however the project experienced during all 7 years of its
existence lack of financing; environmental education projects should receive a more serious attention and
financial support.
Danish-Estonian-Russian cross-border cooperation project was funded by the Danish Ministry of Foreign
Affairs in 1998 2000, included conferences and consultations for local authorities from both sides of the
lake interested to develop joint cooperative projects on local development and environmental protection.
The project resulted in implementation of a coastal zone-planning project on Estonian side of the Lake Peipsi
Basin that was supported by the EU CREDO program and preparation of project proposals to DANCEE for
two Russian municipal infrastructure projects - Pechory drinking water station and Gdov municipal
wastewater treatment plant.
The described international projects in 1996 2001, implemented under the working plan of the
Transboundary Water Commission prepared a solid ground for the development of the Lake Peipsi
Management Plan.
43
Annex 4 to PEIPSI GEF Brief
Elements for Good Practice in
Integrated River Basin Management
a Practical Resource for implementing the
EU Water Framework Directive
Key issues, lessons learned and `good practice' examples from the
WWF/EC `Water Seminar Series' 2000/2001
1
A Practical Resource for implementing the EU Water Framework Directive
FINAL TEXT FOR TRANSLATORS 14/09/01
About this document
This Practical Resource document is the result of three open, transparent and participatory
seminars comprising the `Water Seminar Series' which brought together hundreds of
`wate r stakeholders' to discuss approaches and tools for implementation of the European
Union Water Framework Directive (WFD). This challenging new legislation entered into force
at the end of 2000 and sets out the basis for sustainable use of water resources across
Europe. It will affect everyone involved directly or indirectly with water resource
management and use in both Member States and EU-Candidate countries alike.
The seminars focused on three key issues for WFD implementation:
· Water and agriculture
· The role of wetlands in river basin management
· Good practice in river basin planning
This document presents the principal outputs of the Water Seminar Series, with a focus on
integrated river basin management, the central requirement of the WFD. It is not intended to
be a comprehensive guide to all aspects of WFD implementation, but rather to provide clear,
concise and practical information on the issues listed above. This information has been
developed with a range of potential users in mind, but especia lly:
· Those involved with water planning and management at regional and local levels ,
including land -use planners, water supply and treatment companies, and regional/local
authorities
· `Stakeholder' groups and individuals with an interest in how a given river basin is managed,
for example: Community associations, farmers' groups, and environmental
organisations
This Practical Resource document is divided into five chapters. The three introductory chapters
provide background information about the Water Seminar Series, the requirements of the
WFD, and the recently-agreed WFD Common Implementation Strategy. Chapters 4 & 5
present the main seminar outputs, respectively:
· Horizontal issues or `cross-cutting principles' that need to be considered at every stage
of WFD implementation, in order to ensure effective integrated river basin management.
· Lessons learned and examples of `good practice' for specific WFD requirements
It is hoped these will help stimulate and guide practical action towards early and effective WFD
implementation. Additional sources of information are provided throughout the text.
The outputs from the Water Seminar Series reflect the contributions of more than 300 `water
stakeholders' from all parts of Europe, who participated in the three meetings. A Synthesis Note and
full Proceedings for each Seminar, are available from the following website:
http://www.panda.org/europe/freshwater/themes/seminars/seminar.html
A draft of this Practical Resource document was discussed at a `validation workshop' held near
Brussels in August 2001. The final document incorporates extensive comments on a revised draft that
was circulated to participants after the workshop. For a full list of contributors, see Appendix IV.
2
A Practical Resource for implementing the EU Water Framework Directive
FINAL TEXT FOR TRANSLATORS 14/09/01
Table of Contents
Foreword ............................................................................................................4
Chapter 1. Background to the `Water Seminar Series'............................5
Chapter 2. The EU Water Framework Directive..........................................7
Chapter 3. Ensuring effective and coherent implementation:
T he Common Implementation Strategy for
the Water Framework Directive ...............................................13
Chapter 4. Cross-cutting principles for
effective integrated river basin management .....................16
Integration.............................................................................................
Scale.....................................................................................................
Timing ...................................................................................................
Participation..........................................................................................
Capacity ................................................................................................
Chapter 5. Four `Key Tasks' for implementing the WFD:
Lessons learned and practical examples
from the `Water Seminar Series'..............................................23
1. Set up River Basin Districts and appropriate
organisational arrangements...........................................................
2. Identify and agree key water management issues.........................
3. Design Programmes of Measures and
develop River Basin Management Plans........................................
4. Establish and maintain appropriate monitoring networks...............
Chapter 6. Conclusion....................................................................................43
Appendices
I Provisions of the WFD Annexes..................................................44
II Further practical examples ...........................................................48
III Acronyms and abbreviations ........................................................51
IV Contributors ....................................................................................52
V Acknowledgements .......................................................................54
VI Sources of further information .....................................................56
3
A Practical Resource for implementing the EU Water Framework Directive
FINAL TEXT FOR TRANSLATORS 14/09/01
Foreword
The Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council 2000/60/EC Establishing a
Framework for Community Action in the Field of Water Policy, generally referred to as the EU
Water Framework Directive (WFD), entered into force on 22 December 2000, and represents a
hugely important step towards more sustainable use of water resources in Europe.
Primarily through the development and implementation of River Basin Management Plans, the
WFD requires Member States to take whatever measures may be necessary to achieve the
environmental objective of `good status' for all EU waters by 2015.
The Directive's provisions are complex and far-reaching, and it has been widely recognised that
implementation will be greatly assisted by the preparation of guidelines on a range of technical
issues. This challenge has been taken up in the framework of the Common Implementation
Strategy for the WFD developed jointly by the Member States and the European Commission
and agreed in May 2001.
As a contribution to the WFD implementation process in general, and to the Common
Implementation Strategy in particular, this document draws together the outcomes of
Implementing the EU Water Framework Directive: A seminar series on water, organised by
WWF with support from the European Commission (DG Environment and TAIEX1). This `Water
Seminar Series' consisted of three major technical meetings (held in Brussels in 2000 and
2001), attended by about 120 invited participants chosen to be representative of a broad range
of water-related sectors from all parts of Europe. The seminars dealt with key issues for WFD
implementation, namely:
· Water and agriculture
· The role of wetlands in river basin management
· Good practice in river basin planning
The distillation contained in this Practical Resource document, of key issues, `lessons learned'
and `good practice' examples, as derived from the `Water Seminar Series', should prove to be
of value for all those involved with implementing the WFD. Indeed, there can be no doubt or
complacency about the efforts required at all levels to ensure that its challenging objectives
are met. Environmental protection Directives, especially those dealing with water, have been
among the most poorly implemented bodies of EU legislation to date. However, nothing short
of complete and timely implementation of the WFD will be sufficient to safeguard water
resources and the ecosystems that sustain them for future generations of Europeans.
Tony Long
Helmut Blöch
Director
Head of Sector Water Protection
WWF European Policy Office
DG Environment
European Commission
1 Technical Assistance Information Exchange Office
4
A Practical Resource for implementing the EU Water Framework Directive
FINAL TEXT FOR TRANSLATORS 14/09/01
Chapter 1. Background to the `Water Seminar Series'
In October 1999, the WWF European Freshwater Programme (see Box 1.1) submitted a
project proposal entitled Implementing the EU Water Framework Directive: A seminar
series on water to the European Commission2. This initiative was successful and enabled
the go-ahead for a series of three technical meetings held between February 2000 and
May 2001, each dealing with a specific key issue for implementation of the WFD:
· Water and agriculture Building on existing practices and knowledge of how to
assess and reconcile water and agriculture interests at the river basin level
· The role of wetlands in integrated river basin management Tools and approaches
for integrating the benefits offered by naturally functioning wetlands into overall
management of water at a river basin level
· Good practice in river basin planning Focusing on sharing experience of existing
approaches and tools for river basin management planning, as relevant to WFD
implementation
The three objectives of the `Water Seminar Series' were:
· To provide information and opportunities for debate on the WFD, addressing the need
for greater transparency and public awareness during the final stages of its
development and during its implementation
· To facilitate the sharing of experiences and expertise and the identification of `good
practice' for implementing key elements of the WFD, by involving a broad range of
`water stakeholders' from different economic sectors and regions of Europe
· To contribute to the development of the present document, providing practical
information to assist river basin managers and others in meeting the objectives of the
Directive
With an emphasis on openness, transparency and a participatory approach, the seminars
proved to be effective fora for exchanges of views, experience and expertise. A particularly
significant event was the adoption of the final WFD text, following completion of the
conciliation process between the European Parliament and Council, in September 2000.
This meant that the third seminar, on Good practice in river basin planning (May 2001),
took place in the context of actual entry into force of the WFD (on 22 December 2000), and
so was able to focus even more concretely on implementation.
More than 300 individual `water stakeholders' participated in the `Water Seminar Series'
overall, with representation from the governmental, non-governmental and business
sectors of both EU Member States and EU-Candidate countries. Among the bodies
represented were environment, water, agriculture and forestry ministries/government
agencies, the water supply industry, water management and research institutes, farmers'
associations, environmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and EU institutions,
including the European Commission.
The European Commission (DG Environment) not only co-financed the `Water Seminar
Series' project, but was also closely involved with the technical preparation and follow-up of
each seminar, as part of its own efforts to facilitate WFD implementation.
2 the Funding opportunities for `ad hoc' proposals mechanism operated by DG Environment
5
A Practical Resource for implementing the EU Water Framework Directive
FINAL TEXT FOR TRANSLATORS 14/09/01
A Synthesis Note (in English, French, German and Spanish) and full Proceedings have
been produced for each seminar.3 The three Synthesis Notes provided the basis for this
Practical Resource document, a draft of which was also discussed at a small `validation
workshop' held in August 2001.
The main purpose of the present document is to draw together the key issues, `lessons
learned' and `good practice' examples of integrated river basin management that emerged
from the `Water Seminar Series'. Of course, these correspond to the main themes
addressed by the three seminars (i.e. agriculture and wetlands; the role of wetlands in river
basin management; and good practice in river basin planning) and do not cover every
aspect of the WFD in detail. In fact, certain elements of the Directive (e.g. scientific
characterisation of water bodies, water pricing issues) were not specifically included in the
seminar series agenda.
This publication is intended for all those involved with implementing the WFD, especially
river basin planners and managers. However, it is hoped that the summary of the WFD's
provisions, the introduction to the Common Implementation Strategy for the WFD, and the
highlighting of practical steps for its application, will prove useful to other stakeholders at a
range of levels.
Box 1.1
WWF's European Freshwater Programme and WFD Implementation
WWF established a European Freshwater Programme (EFP) in 1998. The EFP has developed a series
of activities "to conserve and restore the functions and integrity of freshwater ecosystems for the benefit
of all life", and includes the promotion of Integrated River Basin Management (IRBM) as one of its
priorities. The WWF EFP consists of a coordination unit and a team of 33 freshwater officers in 18
countries.
The EFP team worked with other non-governmental organis ations (NGOs) and stakeholders to influence
development of the WFD text during the long period of negotiations leading to its adoption by the
European Parliament and Council of Environment Ministers in September 2000. In parallel, and
especially during 2001, WWF has also been working to facilitate the WFD implementation process.
As far back as October 1998, WWF and the European Environment Bureau (EEB) co-organised a
workshop on Water Framework Directive Implications and Challenges for the Environment.
Approximately 50 people, representing national and European NGOs, met to discuss progress on the
WFD text, identifying several major areas of concern.
Further to the outcomes of this workshop, WWF's continuing work emphasised the need for:
· Increasing public/stakeholder awareness about the existence, purpose and scope of the draft WFD
· Developing further collaborative action by the European Commission, Member States and NGOs,
including the preparation of non-statutory guidance on WFD implementation
· Building capacity for integrated water management and river basin planning in most European
countries
While recognising important regional differences, WWF sees the WFD as the best available tool to
ensure more sustainable use of water and wetlands across Europe, thus forming a vital contribution to
the achievement of conservation targets and goals in the region. This is why many of the EFP's activities
are directed towards supporting full and effective implementation of the WFD 4.
3 These are available in pdf format through the following WWF EFP website:
http://www.panda.org/europe/freshwater/seminars/seminars.html
4 A paper entitled WWF's activities across Europe to assist the implementation of the WFD and IRBM is available
through the EFP web site http://www.panda.org/europe/freshwater
6
A Practical Resource for implementing the EU Water Framework Directive
FINAL TEXT FOR TRANSLATORS 14/09/01
Chapter 2. The EU Water Framework Directive (WFD)
A sustainable future for water in Europe?
The EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) is a bold and forward -looking instrument that
will have far-reaching consequences for the future management of water and aquatic
ecosystems throughout Europe. If implemented in a complete and timely manner, the
WFD has the potential to be the EU's first `sustainable development' Directive. Thus, it
obliges European countries to establish integrated river basin management, which
depends crucially on reconciling all natural processes and human activities that influence
the water cycle in a given river basin.
The central feature of the WFD, around which all its other elements are arranged, is the
use of river basins as the basic unit for all water planning and management actions.
This recognises that water respects physical and hydrological boundaries, but not political
and administrative limits.
Mainly through the development and implementation of River Basin Management Plans,
the WFDs overall environmental objective is the achievement of `good status' for all of
Europe's surface - and ground -waters within a 15-year period. As a consequence, WFD
implementation will involve a vast range of stakeholders , ranging from individual
consumers, major water-using sectors such as agriculture and industry, and secondary
uses like water-based recreation, to water supply/treatment companies, scientists, nature
conservationists and the authorities involved in planning land and water use at local,
regional, national and international levels.
The specific benefits derived from implementing the WFD are expected to include:
· Improved ecological quality of European freshwater and coastal water ecosystems
· Biodiversity gains (through better management of aquatic and wetland habita ts/species)
· Improved sustainability of water use (through more efficient water resource use and
management)
· Reduction of water pollution
· Mitigation of the effects of floods and drought
· Improved efficiency and effectiveness of water policy, with better targeting and reduced
costs
What does the WFD say?
The WFD therefore represents a fundamental reform of EU water legislation in both
environmental and administrative terms, making integrated river basin planning and
management compulsory for Member States, as well as for EU-Candidate countries from
the date of their accession to the EU. Set against the overarching theme of sustainable
water resource use, the WFD's principal environmental objectives (set out in Article 4)
are:
· To prevent deterioration in status of all Community waters (i.e. both surface - and
ground-waters, including coastal waters, throughout the EU)
7
A Practical Resource for implementing the EU Water Framework Directive
FINAL TEXT FOR TRANSLATORS 14/09/01
· To ensure achievement and maintenance of `good status'5 for all Community waters
by 2015
As its name implies, the WFD establishes a `Framework', providing for a common
approach, and common objectives, principles, definitions and basic measures. However,
the specific actions required to achieve `good status' are the responsibility of the competent
authorities in the Member States (whether at national, regional, local, or at the river basin
level).
Box 2.1
Results Count!
The WFD requires active management measures to deliver clear environmental objectives. Although
establishing effective measures necessitates a degree of administration and planning, priority must be
given to implementing action on the ground at river basin (or sub-basin) level. Thus, while meeting
the WFD's process obligations is important, the overriding obligation is to achieve results. Over time,
this distinction should be reviewed regularly by Member States, River Basin District (RBD) authorities
and stakeholders, to ensure that WFD implementation remains results-focused and does not stagnate
due to over-emphasis on administrative processes. The final deadlines for transposition into national law
and achievement of `good status' mean that the timetable is tight and the need for action is urgent.
The WFD, which must be transposed into national law (by the end of 2003 at the latest),
sets out a series of tasks, each with a strict final deadline (see Box 2.2), for achieving the
ultimate objective of `good status'. However, these tasks are NOT arranged in a
sequence of consecutive steps, where each task must be completed before the next can
begin. On the contrary, the challenging timeframe means that several tasks will have to
be worked on simultaneously. Furthermore, while the deadlines set out in the WFD text
can be considered as the `minimum requirements ' for legal and administrative
compliance , meeting them will not guarantee better water management at the river basin
level or the ultimate achievement of `good status'. Really effective implementation will
require a timetable based on `good practice' (see Chapters 4 & 5) rather than
`administrative compliance'. This means working on each WFD task at the earliest
practicable time , taking into account the circumstances applying to each river basin.
Box 2.2
W FD tasks with `minimum compliance' deadlines
WFD transposed into national legislation end 2003
River Basin Districts identified end 2003
Analyses of pressures/impacts and economic use completed end 2004
Monitoring programmes operational end 2006
Public consultation on River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) components under way end 2006
RBMPs published end 2009
Pricing policies in place end 2010
Programme of measures operational end 2012
5 The different `status' categories used in the Directive (high, good, moderate etc.) are simply measures of the
degree of deviation of a given water body from its original, natural condition, i.e. without human impacts. A Working
Group on `reference conditions for inland surface waters' has been set up under the WFD Common Implementation
8
A Practical Resource for implementing the EU Water Framework Directive
FINAL TEXT FOR TRANSLATORS 14/09/01
Environmental objectives achieved end 2015
As stressed in the text, this is not a `good practice' timetable for WFD implementation but an indication
of the final deadlines for legal compliance . In order to achieve effective river basin management,
following the `good practice' advice identified by the `Water Seminar Series', work on different tasks
should be initiated as early as possible and be carried out in parallel.
For example, by applying the principle of using existing information wherever possible , it should be
feasible, in many cases, to identify key pressures and impacts rapidly, thereby enabling a `head start' on
developing appropriate measures for the RBMP. This may be imperfect at first, but actual application will
provide information that can be used to improve the plans. Furthermore, as well as helping to meet
statutory deadlines, such an approach may also help to manage the financial costs of implementation.
The official text of the Water Framework Directive
The text of the WFD6 (reference number 2000/60/EC) was published in the Official Journal
of the European Communities (OJ N° L 327) on 22 December 2000, following completion
in September 2000 of the conciliation process to resolve differences of view between the
European Parliament and the Council of Ministers.
WFD `Key Tasks' for integrated river basin planning and management
From the point of view of those responsible for river basin planning and management, the
`Key Tasks' for implementing the WFD (each of which is developed in detail in Chapter 5)
are as follows:
· Setting up of River Basin Districts as the fundamental unit for applying and
coordinating the Directive's provisions. WFD Article 3 requires that, by 2003 at the
latest:
All river basins and coastal waters must be assigned to a River Basin District (RBD)
and the competent authority for each RDB identified
In the case of river basins shared by two or more Member States, International RBDs
must be established
If a river basin extends beyond Community territory, the relevant Member State(s)
must seek to establish appropriate coordination with the non-Member State(s)
concerned
Strategy (see Chapter 3) to develop technical guidance on classification of inland water status and identification of
reference conditions.
6 The WFD text in English, French, German and Spanish may be downloaded in html format, in any of the 11
Community languages, through the European Union's `Eur Lex' legislation database: http://europa.eu.int/eur-
lex/en/lif/dat/2000/en_300L0060.html or in pdf format from the following WWF website:
http://www.panda.org/europe/freshwater/initiatives/wfd.html
9
A Practical Resource for implementing the EU Water Framework Directive
FINAL TEXT FOR TRANSLATORS 14/09/01
· Identifying and agreeing key water management issues: This is derived mainly from
the provisions of Articles 4, 5, 6 and 14:
Article 4 sets out the WFD's environmental objectives for surface - and ground-water
bodies, including `heavily modified waters'. This provides the context for identifying key
water management issues.
Article 5 requires that surface- and ground-waters within each RBD must be
characterised in accordance with the procedure set out in Annex II of the WFD and by
2004 at the latest. The steps required for each RBD include a review of the
environmental impacts arising from human activities. Article 5 also obliges Member
States to carry out an economic analysis of water use in each RBD.
Article 6 requires that a register of protected areas within each RBD, be established
(including `Natura 2000' sites under the Birds and Habitats Directives, as well as
protection zones for drinking water supplies). This is a complementary step to the
characterisation of RBDs, helping to identify those parts of the RBD that are especially
sensitive to human activities and in need of special management approaches.
Article 14 deals with public participation issues and is summarised below and
discussed in detail in Chapter 4.
· Designing Programmes of Measures and developing River Basin Management
Plans for their implementation: Article 11 requires Members States to establish by
2009 a Programme of Measures for each RBD, composed of both basic and
supplementary measures for achieving and/or maintaining `good status'.
`Basic' measures are compulsory and represent the minimum steps required to
achieve `good status'. They include the measures required by 11 existing EU water-
related Directives (inter alia the Bathing Waters Directive, Drinking Water Directive,
Urban Waste Water Directive, Nitrates Directive, Birds Directive and Habitats
Directive)7.
`Supplementary' measures are those needed in addition to basic measures if
`good status' is to be achieved; for example, wetland restoration and rehabilitation.
The economic analysis carried out as part of the Key Task Identifying and
agreeing key water management issues (see above) should be used to establish
the most cost-effective combination of management measures to achieve `good
status' in the RBD, and to apply the principle of cost recovery for water services in
the development of water pricing policies (as required by Article 9).
Every Member State must ensure that a River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) is
produced for each RBD wholly within its territory (Article 13). This effectively
provides the delivery mechanism for the Programme of Measures to achieve `good
status'. In the case of transboundary river basins, the Member States concerned
must work jointly, with the aim of producing a single International RBMP. If a single
7 Unfortunately, EU water quality legislation to date has been poorly implemented, as demonstrated, for example, by
the decision of the European Commissioners in July 2001 to take infringement actions against ten Member States
for shortcomings under one or more of the following Directives: Urban Waste Water; Drinking Water; Bathing
Waters; Dangerous Substances in Wat er; and Sewage Sludge.
10
A Practical Resource for implementing the EU Water Framework Directive
FINAL TEXT FOR TRANSLATORS 14/09/01
plan is not produced, each Member State is responsible for preparing a RBMP for at
least the portion of the RBD that lies in its territory. Annex VII sets out the elements
that must be covered by each RBMP (see in of this document for a summary).
The first RBMPs must be published at the latest by 2009 and be submitted to the
European Commission within three months of their publication. The Programmes of
Measures included in these RBMPs must be fully operational by 2012, at which time
a progress report on implementation must be submitted to the European
Commission. The RBMPs have to be reviewed in 2015 and every six years
thereafter.
· Establishing and maintaining appropriate monitoring networks: Article 8 requires
Member States to put in place monitoring programmes "in order to establish a coherent
and comprehensive overview of water status within each River Basin District". Such
monitoring must cover both surface- and ground-water, and has to be operational by
2006. Three types of monitoring are re quired: `surveillance', `operational' and
`investigative', as detailed in WFD Annex V. Additional monitoring is needed for the
protected areas (for habitats/species or drinking water abstraction) identified under
Annex VI (see Appendix I of this publication for a summary).
Amongst the Directive's other key elements, which, though not covered in detail by the
`Water Seminar Series', must form an integral part of implementation are:
· Identification and protection of water bodies used for drinking water abstraction ,
with the aim of reducing the level of purification treatment required prior to supply for
human consumption, and ensuring that the requirements of the Drinking Water
Directive (80/778/EEC as amended by Directive 98/83/EC) are met see WFD Article 7
· Introduction of water pricing policies that provide adequate incentives for
efficient use of water taking into account the principle of `cost recovery' for water
services8, including environmental and resource costs (to be completed by 2010 see
Article 9)
· Control of all pollutant emissions and discharges into surface waters using a
`combined approach', based not only on the overall quantity of a given pollutant, but
also on its concentration in the receiving aquatic environment (this to be secured by
2012 see Article 10)
· Specific controls for certain higher risk pollutants on a priority basis, with
progressive reduction, phasing out, and/or cessation of emissions, for the substances
identified as priorities (first phase-outs or cessations expecte d within 20 years of
adoption of relevant proposals by EU decision-making bodies see Article 16)
The provisions of many of the WFD's 26 Articles are developed in much more detail in its
11 Annexes. While some of the Annexes are highly complex, a general understanding is
8 The actual cost of supplying and treating water may or may not be a significant component of the price of water to
the consumer. This currently varies widely within and between Member States, taking into account factors such as
the extent of privatisation, formal price regulation, projected investment requirements for reaching statutory
requirements, and type of water use (e.g. agricultural, industrial, or domestic).
11
A Practical Resource for implementing the EU Water Framework Directive
FINAL TEXT FOR TRANSLATORS 14/09/01
essential for those involved in practical application of the Directive. To assist with this, and
to make the present publication as complete as possible, a summary of the WFD Annexes
can be found in Appendix I.9
Article 14 provisions on `participation'
Article 14 confers a general obligation on Member States "to encourage the active
involvement of all interested parties in the implementation of this Directive...". In
addition, there are specific obligations to publish and make available for comment during a
period of at least six months:
· A timetable, work programme and statement of planned consultation measures, at
least three years ahead of the RBMP (i.e. by December 2006 at the latest)
· An interim overview of the significant water management issues identified for the
river basin, at least two years ahead of the RBMP (i.e. by December 2007 at the
latest)
· Draft copies of the RBMP, at least one year before implementation begins (i.e. by
December 2008 at the latest)
Article 4 provisions for `heavily modified waters' and derogations/extensions
In addition to setting out the environmental objectives for surface - and ground-water bodies
in general, Article 4 specifically enables designation of `artificial' and `heavily modified
water bodies', for which different objectives are defined, namely the achievement of `good
ecological potential' and `good surface water chemical status'.
Furthermore, provided that certain strict conditions are met, Article 4 permits certain
derogations and time extensions for the Key Tasks outlined above (see Box 2.3).
Although these additional Article 4 provisions were not considered directly by the `Water
Seminar Series', and are consequently not covered in any detail by this publication, they
may have significant implications for river basin managers and so are referred to here for
possible follow-up.
Box 2.3
Achieving the objectives of the WFD: Extensions and Derogations
Article 4 provides for a limited range of exceptions for meeting the WFD's overall environmental
objectives, with regard to both the need for achieving `good status' and the time frame to be applied.
Through the WFD CIS, the Commission and Member States are working to develop guidance for a
common understanding and application of all Article 4 provisions.
Less stringent environmental objectives may be set for specific bodies of water that are "so affected
by human activity....or their natural condition is such" that achievement of good status would not be
feasible or would be disproportionately expensive. Several strict conditions must be respected for such
9 Further information on WFD provisions, including several WWF position papers on key issues, can be obtained by
visiting the relevant section of the WWF European Freshwater Programme's website:
http://www.panda.org/europe/freshwater/initiatives/wfd.html
12
A Practical Resource for implementing the EU Water Framework Directive
FINAL TEXT FOR TRANSLATORS 14/09/01
an exemption to be permissible. This is also the case for temporary deterioration in status, which is
not considered a breach of the Directive providing that certain conditions are met in full.
Deadline extensions. "Provided that no deterioration occurs" (Article 4.4), the deadlines for reaching
good status may be extended either where the scale of improvements needed is so great that the time
limit of 15 years would be exceeded; or where completing the necessary improvements within 15 years
"would be disproportionately expensive"; or where natural conditions preclude "timely improvement". All
extensions must be set out and justified in RBMPs and are limited to a maximum of two updates (i.e. a
period of 12 years) after the first RBMP is published.
13
A Practical Resource for implementing the EU Water Framework Directive
FINAL TEXT FOR TRANSLATORS 14/09/01
Chapter 3. Ensuring effective and coherent implementation:
The Common Implementation Strategy for the Water
Framework Directive
In order to assist WFD implementation, the EU Member States and the European
Commission have developed the Water Framework Directive `Common Implementation
Strategy' (WFD CIS), which was agreed in May 200110.
The CIS is based on the following elements (see section 2.3 of the official text 11):
· The necessity to share information between Member States and the European
Commission
· The need to inform and involve the public and to raise public awareness about the
key elements of the WFD and issues linked to its implementation
· The need to ensure coherence between the implementation of the WFD and other
sectoral and structural policies
· The need to ensure coherence between the implementation of the WFD, other water
Directives, and process and product oriented Directives
· The need to integrate activities on different `cross-cutting' issues for the effective
development of river basin management plans
· The necessity for capacity building in Member States for effective implementation of
the WFD
· The need to involve stakeholders and civil society in implementation of the WFD
· The need to promote a common attitude towards EU-candidate countries of Central
and Eastern Europe with regard to their involvement (especially for shared international
river basin districts)
· The need to establish working groups and develop informal guidance on key
aspects of the WFD
10 During the third water seminar, Good practice in river basin planning, the European Commission drew participants'
attention to this "new approach to implementation of environmental legislation at European level". An informal
meeting of EU Water Directors (plus the Norwegian Water Director), held in Paris in October 2000, decided to
develop the WFD CIS. Following a period of intensive joint work by the Member States and the European
Commission, the CIS was agreed at a further Water Directors' meeting, held in Sweden in May 2001. At that time,
the Strategy was also discussed with EU-Candidate countries, who have been invited to join its further development
and application.
11 The full text of the WFD CIS is available from the homepage of DG Environment:
http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/index_en.htm
or as a pdf file through the home page of the WWF European Freshwater Programme:
http://www.panda.org/europe/freshwater
14
A Practical Resource for implementing the EU Water Framework Directive
FINAL TEXT FOR TRANSLATORS 14/09/01
The WFD CIS is built around four `Key Activities' (see WFD CIS section 2.4):
· Sharing of information
· Management of information and data
· Development of guidance on technical issues
· Application, testing and validation of guidance
Within the `Key Activity' on development of technical guidance for specific WFD
implementation issues, 10 Working Groups, under the leadership of one or more Member
States, have been established (see Box 3.1). Of particular relevance to the topics
highlighted by the `Water Seminar Series' are the Working Groups on `Analysis of
pressures and impacts', and `Best practice in river basin planning'. Technical guidance is
expected to emerge from the CIS process from 2002 onwards.
Box 3.1
List of WFD Common Implementation Strategy Working Groups
Analysis of pressures and impacts
Intercalibration
Lead: UK, Germany
Lead: JRC
Reference conditions inland surface waters
Monitoring
Lead: Sweden
Lead: Italy, EEA
Typology, classification of transitional,
Economic analysis
coastal waters
Lead: France, European Commission
Lead: UK, Spain, European Environment
Agency (EEA)
Tools on assessment, classification of
Groundwater
Heavily modified water bodies
Lead: Austria
Lead: Germany, UK
Best practice in river basin planning
Geographical Information Systems
Lead: Spain
Lead: EC-Joint Research Centre (JRC)
In particular, the Working Group on `Best practice in river basin planning' will focus on
preparation of technical guidelines for river basin planning, covering four aspects:
· Designation of RBDs (guidance provisionally planned for end 2002)
· Overall planning process (for end 2002)
· Public participation (for end 2002)
· Comprehensive `handbook' for preparing RBMPs, drawing on outputs from all the other
WFD CIS Working Groups (for 2006)
It is hoped that many of the key issues identified during the `Water Seminar Series' and
presented in this Practical Resource will be taken forward by the Working Group on `Best
practice in river basin management' as it begins preparation of guidance.
The WFD CIS has been welcomed by environmental NGOs and other stakeholders, who
have been invited to join its further development and application, as a courageous and
15
A Practical Resource for implementing the EU Water Framework Directive
FINAL TEXT FOR TRANSLATORS 14/09/01
holistic approach, which will help to ensure timely and effective WFD implementation.
Being a joint initiative of the EC and the Member States12, it is seen as contrasting with the
approach to implementation of other EU environmental protection legislation, where the
focus has tended to be on disciplinary measures for failure to meet deadlines and
objectives.
12 The WFD CIS is not the only activity that Member States are developing to assist with WFD implementation. For
example, some countries are preparing national documentation, as is the case in Germany, where a draft `Guide to
the implementation of the EC Water Framework Directive' has been produced under the auspices of the Working
Group of the Federal States on Water Problems (see http://www.lawa.de). In the UK, two government consultation
papers on implementation of the WFD have been issued; one covering England and Wales, and the other dealing
with Scotland. These can be found at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/consult/waterframe/index.htm and
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/consultations/environment/ffsw -00.asp
16
A Practical Resource for implementing the EU Water Framework Directive
FINAL TEXT FOR TRANSLTAORS 14/09/01
Chapter 4. Cross-cutting principles for effective integrated
river basin management
The `Water Seminar Series' highlighted five general principles that can be described as
`cross cutting' because they apply globally to all aspects of the process for
implementing the WFD:
· Integration
· Scale
· Timing
· Participation
· Capacity
Each of these is introduced below. As a matter of `good practice', river basin planners
and managers need to build these cross-cutting principles into all components of their
work, to ensure that the coordination and coherence required for effective results is
actually achieved. Examples of how the five principles can be applied in practice are
provided in Chapter 5.
Integration
At present, Europe's water resources are being used unsustainably, due in large part to
fragmentation of roles, responsibilities and interests. Better overall coordination at the
river basin level is a pre -requisite for implementing the WFD effectively. This, in turn,
needs more integration at the operational level, especially:
· Among bodies involved directly with water management (e.g. those
responsible for water storage and supply, and treatment of waste water)
· Between water managers and other sectors, such as land-use planning,
agriculture, industry and tourism/recreation
· Linkage of surface- and ground-water management (at present often dealt with
separately)
· Linkage of `inland' and coastal waters, for example by applying the approach and
principles of Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) 13
In the case of international river basins, integration calls for:
· Establishing cooperation (where not already in place) between countries and
seeking complementarity between WFD implementation and any existing bilateral
or multilateral agreements that affect water management;
At EU level, the `Water Seminar Series' stressed the need for:
· Administrative and political action to increase coherence between EU
legislative, policy and financial instruments (i.e. to remove or minimise obstacles
to more sustainable water management and to maximise opportunities for positive
synergy). This point is further developed in Box 4.1.
13 See the following European Commission website: http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/iczm
17
A Practical Resource for implementing the EU Water Framework Directive
FINAL TEXT FOR TRANSLATORS 14/09/01
Scale
The importance of scale has already been partially highlighted under the heading of
integration (some integration needs to happen at river basin scale , e.g. between flood
management, water supply and environmental protection measures; some at national
scale , e.g. between water resource legislation and environmental protection legislation;
and some at European scale , e.g. between WFD, Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and
Structural Funds). However, adapting planning and management activities to the
appropriate scale is a principle that applies to all aspects of WFD implementation. The
`Water Seminar Series' particularly recognised:
· The great variation in the size of river basins within and between countries,
meaning that approaches suitable for one location are not automatically
transferable elsewhere
· The need to coordinate `top down' and `bottomup' approaches (i.e. to
ensure that many physically separate actions at local scale are sufficiently
coordinated to reach, in combination, the objective of `good status' at river basin
scale)
Timing
The deadlines for achieving the objectives of the WFD are extremely challenging. It
is therefore better to begin implementation `early and imperfectly' than to wait for
`perfect conditions' (e.g. when all possible data have been collected and analysed).
Consequently, the deadlines in the WFD text must not be seen as a step-by-step timetable
for implementation. Results-oriented `good practice' will require many elements to be
running simultaneously. Furthermore:
· Timing of preparatory work by Member States should recognise that achievement of
WFD deadlines and `good practice' approaches will require immediate action. Primary
or secondary legislative changes may be necessary, the appropriate organisational
arrangements may not be in place, and the required skills and resources may not be
available or adequately developed.
· Time can be saved by using existing structures, processes and tools wherever
possible. However, this should be subject to the outcomes of a review, checking the
suitability and capacity of these structures for delivering WFD requirements. In many
cases, a certain degree of adaptation will be needed
· Monitoring and planning are tools to facilitate management actions in the WFD context.
However, management action should not be delayed until all possible planning and
monitoring has been completed. For example, if monitoring is not operational until the
final deadline of 2006, there will be a severe `bottleneck' in preparing an effective
Programme of Measures by the corresponding final deadline of 2009.
· It is especially important that strategies for public participation and stakeholder
involvement are developed and implemented from the beginning, though recognising
that different groups will need to be engaged at different stages of the process (see
below).
18
A Practical Resource for implementing the EU Water Framework Directive
FINAL TEXT FOR TRANSLTAORS 14/09/01
· Timing of related initiatives (e.g. land-use planning policy, capital investment in
infrastructure) may impact significantly on the timetable for achieving WFD objectives if
the links are not considered at an early stage.
Participation
This cross-cutting principle which is the only one specifically covered by the provisions of
a WFD Article (Article 14, see Chapter 2) had a particularly high profile during the third
Water Seminar Series, emerging frequently as a key issue during debate. This is despite
the fact that only a limited part of the seminar agenda was intentionally devoted to
participation, and reflects stakeholders' concerns over implementation of Article 14).
Given social, political and legislative 14 trends at EU, Member State and regional levels, it is
highly unlikely that any RBMP can be implemented successfully if it does not meet
with broad public acceptance and, in particular, if it is not supported by key stakeholder
groups15 within a river basin, including local residents and sectoral land/water users.
WFD Article 14, though entitled Public information and consultation refers to `information',
`consultation' AND `participation'. It is essential to recognise that these three terms
are fundamentally different and should never be used interchangeably.
While provision of information if carried out in an open and timely fashion is an
important preparatory step, actual participation implies a dynamic, interactive process.
This relies on building trust and confidence that public/stakeholder views will be
accommodated and have a real influence on development of RBMPs.
Similarly, `consultation' may be conducted in a manner that provides little or no
opportunity for those consulted to have real involvement/influence in planning or
decision-making processes. Some of the key benefits to WFD implementation that can
be derived from genuine participatory approaches are summarised in Box 4.2.
The WFD final deadlines require public consultation on the RBMP process to have been
initiated by 2006. However, this is not a `good practice' deadline and early provision of
transparent and accessible information, together with genuine opportunities for
participation in planning and decision-making mechanisms, increase the chances of
ultimate success in achieving `good water status'.
Therefore, participation of stakeholders and the wider public should be prioritised
from the start, with carefully planned actions to demonstrate early results for building
and maintaining interest and commitment (see also `lessons learned' under `Key Task
3' in Chapter 5).
In conclusion, public and stakeholder participation should be:
14 Notably the 1998 `Århus' Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and
Access to Justice in Environmental Matters
15For the purposes of this publication, a distinction is made between `public' and `stakeholder' participation, to stress
the differing mechanisms and approaches that are likely to be needed for (a) the general population living within an
RBD, and (b) those individuals and organisations with a specific interest in water resource management.
19
A Practical Resource for implementing the EU Water Framework Directive
FINAL TEXT FOR TRANSLATORS 14/09/01
· Included in river basin planning and management from the beginning
· Adapted to the appropriate scale (i.e. the approach at RBD level will need to be
different from that used to engage communities at the local level) and target
group(s)
· Managed carefully, so that the capacity to meet commitments made is not
exceeded
· Supported by adequate human and financial resources
· In the case of international RBDs, it will be important to ensure public and
stakeholder participation from all countries
Further participation `conclusions' from the `Water Seminar Series' are presented in Box
4.3.
Capacity
Given the complex and challenging nature of the WFD, it is vitally important that capacity
for actual implementation is maximised among all relevant actors. General elements of a
capacity building programme might include raising public awareness (e.g. to help secure
broad support for the river basin management objectives), informal transfer of `know how'
(e.g. through exchange of experience between river basin managers), and formal training
(e.g. in specialised monitoring techniques). However, the precise needs will vary from
country to country and from river basin to rive basin, inte r alia according to differing socio-
economic conditions, or the precise water management issues identified. The `Water
Seminar Series highlighted:
· The need to build capacity (starting with awareness raising) among economic
sectors and NGOs, as well as among officials, planners and administrators
· The special needs among the EU-Candidate countries of Central and Eastern
Europe
· The need to enhance sharing of information and experience between countries,
regions and river basins, with the internet providing valuable new opportunities
· The need to allocate adequate human and financial resources for capacity
building activities in each RBD as part of overall WFD implementation
Box 4.1
Integration of policy and financial instruments at EU level
At the EU level, integration implies the need for coherence between the major policy and financial
instruments that are the driving forces behind current land- and water-use practices within the
territory of the Member States and, increasingly, in EU Candidate countries. This was a common thread
throughout the `Water Seminar Series'. For example, presentations showed the clear need to review
and reform elements of the Common Agricultural Policy if the environmental objectives of the WFD are
to be met.
In the meantime, much better use could be made of existing elements, some of which e.g.
measures under the Rural Development Regulation are optional and not adequately taken up by
Member States. Gaps in coherence between EU policies and financial instruments were also highlighted
by a paper on policy aspects of the `Wise Use of Floodplains EC LIFE project'16, presented at the second
Seminar. This showed that the obstacles to sustainable water management posed by the CAP,
16 For further information see www.floodplains.org
20
A Practical Resource for implementing the EU Water Framework Directive
FINAL TEXT FOR TRANSLTAORS 14/09/01
Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund (and their counterpart mechanisms for EU-Candidate countries,
i.e. SAPARD and ISPA) significantly outweigh the opportunities provided.
Box 4.2
Benefits of public and stakeholder participation for achieving WFD objectives
There is a better chance that the key water management issues at the river basin level are correctly
identified and agreed upon
The knowledge, experience, aspirations and concerns of local communities are built into the
RBMP and Programme of Measures from the beginning
The Programme of Measures is more likely to be `politically' and culturally realistic and acceptable
Any potential conflicts can be minimised or avoided altogether
Implementation costs are likely to be lower when existing stakeholder knowledge and know-how is
appli ed to avoid potentially costly errors and/or duplication of information17
There is a better chance that both regulatory and voluntary approaches will be enforceable if they
have been developed in partnership with stakeholders (this point is closely linked with lower costs and
improved conflict resolution/avoidance)
Box 4.3
More participation `conclusions' from the `Water Seminar Series'18
A number of fundamental questions are not answered explicitly by the WFD text, for example:
`what is the purpose of public participation?', and `how should public participation be achieved in
practice?' If implementation of Article 14 is not to be seen as superficial (i.e. consultation without any
real engagement with stakeholders), it is essential that these questions are asked at the earliest stages
of RBMP preparation and that technical guidance on participation be prepared in the framework of the
WFD CIS. At the time of writing, a Drafting Group on Public Participation had been set up by the
Working Group on Good Practice in River Basin Planning .
It is important to recognise that different components of `the public' will have their own views, needs,
priorities and expectations. In order to be successful, information, consultation and participation
processes need to be tailored for particular target groups. These may include: the `general public',
NGOs, sectoral stakeholder groups within a river basin or sub-basin (e.g. farmers' associations), and
local residents/water customers. Special interest groups might be expected to participate at a more
strategic level, e.g. through representation in river basin advisory committees, whereas local
communities are more likely to seek and value participation at the field/action programme level (link
with cross-cutting p rinciple of `scale').
Intelligent targeting of interest groups can also help to reduce the danger of `consultation fatigue'
where stakeholders feel overwhelmed by information and perceived bureaucracy. On the contrary, there
17 In a 1994 World Bank study, 42 participatory projects were compared with projects that did not have a specific
participation component. While the initial costs of the participatory approach were found to be greater (e.g. more
project design and supervision time needed), these were offset by benefits such as: increased uptake of services,
decreased operartional costs, increased rate of return, and increased incomes for stakeholders. For details, see:
http://www2.essex.ac.uk/ces/CommParticipation/ComPartPrinciplesnmethods.htm
18 For further details and specific examples, see especially the papers by M. Cals, J. Cuff, R. Hauser, and C.
Woolhouse in the Proceedings of Seminar 3.
21
A Practical Resource for implementing the EU Water Framework Directive
FINAL TEXT FOR TRANSLATORS 14/09/01
should be tangible and demonstrable benefits for participants, beginning as early as possible, and
running throughout the process to ensure continued engagement.
Working with interest groups also raises issues of legitimate representation. In the interests of
openness and democracy it is important that `umbrella groups' clearly set out and justify the extent to
which they are representative of a particular constituency.
Participation does not just happen. On the contrary, it must be actively encouraged and river basin
authorities must be prepared to devote time to careful planning and to invest meaningful financial
and human resources. Such investment has the potential to be extremely cost-effective in terms of the
benefits derived for WFD implementation.
Expectations must be managed carefully. It is essential not to promise (or appear to promise) more
than can be delivered. Otherwise, public interest and support will at best evaporate, or, at worst, be
transformed into active hostility. In this respect, it is particularly important to distinguish between
consultation and involvement at the planning phase, and consultation and involvement at the decision -
making and implementation stages. It is also important to maintain a regular flow of `deliverables'.
Expectations on all sides must be as clear as possible at the beginning.
For additional discussion of public participation in the context of the WFD, see the paper WWF's
preliminary comments on Public Participation in the context of the Water Framework Directive and
Integrated River Basin Management downloadable in pdf format from the WWF European Freshwater
Programme website: http://www.panda.org/europe/freshwater
Special considerations for EU-Candidate countries
The five `cross-cutting principles' for WFD implementation apply both to Member States
and to EU-Candidate countries. However, they raise special considerations for the latter
group. To ensure these considerations are taken into account, EU-Candidate countries
need to be involved from the beginning in all preparatory activities and pilot testing for
implementation of the WFD, notably those underway as part of the WFD CIS. Such
involvement should not be limited to government experts but should also include
stakeholders from these countries.
· Integration: The intensive work currently underway to meet the necessary policy
and legislative requirements for becoming a Member State (the acquis
communautaire ) offers opportunities for integrated approaches between different
sectors, for example between environment and agriculture. Specific issues
related to transboundary integration/cooperation between Member States, EU
Candidate countries, and `third countries' (e.g. Belarus, Russia, Ukraine, certain
independent States of the former Yugoslavia) are highlighted in Chapter 5.
· Scale : There are several extremely large river basins in Central and Eastern
Europe, and some relatively intact river systems and wetlands when compared to
the situation in Western Europe. This places a particular responsibility and
resource burden on countries in the region, since special planning approaches
(perhaps based on sub-basins) are needed to deal with large, transboundary river
basins. Maintenance of existing large areas of semi-natural freshwater
ecosystems also requires significant efforts, which have to be set against the
context of rapid economic and institutional/legislative change and the need to
22
A Practical Resource for implementing the EU Water Framework Directive
FINAL TEXT FOR TRANSLTAORS 14/09/01
tackle environmental `hot spots' (e.g. severely polluted industrial sites) inherited
from the past.
· Timing: Since the provisions of the WFD (including deadlines for compliance) will
apply to EU-Candidate countries from the date of their accession, it is equally
essential that implementation should begin as early as possible.
· Participation: In many of the EU-Candidate countries, there is not a strong
tradition of public or stakeholder participation and even greater human and
financial efforts may be needed to implement this element of the WFD effectively.
· Capacity: The countries of Central and Eastern Europe have strong technical and
scientific traditions and a great deal of expertise to share. However, owing to the
harsh economic conditions of recent years, a lack of investment means that the
current capacity for mobilising this expertise is limited, as are access to `state-of
the-art' equipment and professional development opportunities. WFD
implementation will therefore require special capacity building efforts, including
financial support and training in governmental, NGO and commercial/economic
sectors.
23
A Practical Resource for implementing the EU Water Framework Directive
FINAL TEXT FOR TRANSLATORS 14/09/01
5. Four `Key Tasks' for implementing the WFD: lessons
learned and `good practice' examples for the `Water
Seminar Series'
This Chapter develops in more detail four of the `Key Tasks' required for meeting the
objectives of the WFD:
Key Task 1:
`Set up River Basin Districts and appropriate organisational
arrangements'
Key Task 2:
`Identify and agree key water management issues'
Key Task 3:
`Design Programmes of Measures and develop River Basin
Management Plans'
Key Task 4:
`Establish and maintain appropriate monitoring networks'
This Chapter summarises the principal conclusions and lessons learned from the seminar
presentations and discussions. It also takes into account any additional `follow-up' inputs
received from seminar participants. Under each `Key Task', the principal requirements of
the WFD are recalled using bullet points (for more detail, see Chapter 2). This is then
followed by the main seminar lessons learned, with general text accompanied by boxed
illustrations of specific approaches and tools, and practical examples from different
regions of Europe.
Each `Key Task' must be carried out with constant and close attention to the five cross-
cutting principles (Integration, Scale, Timing, Participation, Capacity) discussed in
Chapter 4.
It must be stressed that only those `Key Tasks' dealt with directly by the `Water Seminar
Series' are included here. Other prominent aspects of the WFD, such as the precise
definition of environmental objectives, detailed characterisation of water bodies, or water
pricing policies, did not form part of the seminar series agenda and are therefore excluded.
WFD Key Task 1 `Set up River Basin Districts and
appropriate organisational arrangements'
WFD principal requirements
· Identify river basins
· Assign to River Basin Districts (or International RBD where relevant)
· Ensure appropriate administrative arrangements and identify competent authority
· Ensure coordination of WFD requirements for the whole RBD
[WFD Article 3 `Coordination of administrative arrangements within River Basin Districts'.
See also provisions of WFD Annex I, Information required for the list of competent
authorities]
24
A Practical Resource for implementing the EU Water Framework Directive
FINAL TEXT FOR TRANSLTAORS 14/09/01
Towards implementation selected questions for river basin managers19
· What is the process for getting agreement on RBD boundaries?
· Have groundwater and coastal waters been taken into account when defining RBD
boundaries?
· Are there artificial connections between river basins that have to be taken into account
when setting up RBDs?
· Who are the main stakeholders to be involved in setting up the RBD boundaries and
authority? What process will be used to identify, inform and engage these
stakeholders?
· Are there stakeholders outside the RBD boundary who nevertheless need to be
involved (e.g. in the case of groundwater and coastal waters)?
· Are existing structures being used to best effect in setting up political, administrative
and technical arrangements for the RBD? Are responsibilities clearly defined? What
could be improved organisationally to meet WFD requirements?
· How can the necessary human and financial resources be mobilised to make RBD
arrangements on paper effective in practice?
· Is the administrative structure at sub-basin level clear and transparent enough for the
stakeholders who should be involved?
Seminar `lessons learned'
1. Identify river basins
· Groundwater and coastal waters must be assigned to the relevant river basin. This
should be done at an early stage because of the additional technical complexities
involved (in comparison with allocation of surface waters), such as delimitation of
groundwater bodies.
2. Assign river basins to River Basin Districts
· There is a need for coordination between countries to ensure that shared rivers are
allocated to the same international RBDs (e.g. France, Belgium and The Netherlands
should allocate the transboundary river Escaut/Scheldt/Schelde to the same
international RBD).
· If the RBD is to be divided into sub-basins for operational purposes, the boundaries of
the sub-basins and/or the connections between them, must be clearly defined and
taken into account in developing the RBMP.
3. Ensure appropriate administrative arrangements are established and identify competent
authority
· There is a wide range of administrative approaches to river basin planning within
Europe20. The WFD does not specify precisely the approach to be used, so
governments are free to select the most appropriate mechanism for a given RBD.
19 Not all of these questions were addressed in detail by the `Water Seminar Series', though they were flagged as
key issues at the validation workshop held near Brussels in August 2001.
20 See paper by E. Mostert in Seminar 3 Proceedings
25
A Practical Resource for implementing the EU Water Framework Directive
FINAL TEXT FOR TRANSLATORS 14/09/01
However, whichever arrangements are adopted, it must be certain that the institutional
structure is capable of (a) delivering an effective21 River Basin Management Plan at
RBD level, and (b) ensuring its implementation at RBD level. This will clearly require
continuous and effective coordination between sub-basins and the RBD authority.
· As a result, transboundary cooperation will often be required at one or more of the
following levels:
Between regional governments within Member States
Between Member States
Between Member States and EU-Candidate countries
Between EU-Candidate countries
Between Member States and/or EU-Candidate countries and `third' countries
(see below for further discussion).
· The RBD authority should have a clear mandate, strong leadership and some key
management principles for its operations. Without a clear, committed and result-
oriented direction from the very beginning, there is a risk of inertia developing around
internal systems and bureaucracy. The WFD represents a new paradigm in European
water management and the RBD authorities must be ready to meet this challenge.
· Existing structures, particularly those that have proved their effectiveness,
should be used wherever possible to avoid duplication of effort and unnecessary
expenditure. However, it is important to recognise that existing structures may also
need significant adaptation before they are capable of fulfilling WFD requirements.
· The RBD authority should have a clear and accessible entry/liaison point for public and
stakeholder participation.
· Across Europe, there are many bilateral and multilateral intergovernmental and
interregional cooperation mechanisms for water resource management. Box 5.1.1
provides examples of different approaches. Mechanisms should be developed to
coordinate implementation of relevant agreements with the WFD.
Box 5.1.1
Examples of approaches to transboundary cooperation
in River Basin Management Planning
In the case of two of Europe's largest river systems, the Danube and the Rhine, inter-governmental river
basin Commissions have been established to coordinate policy and action within a common framework.
The International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River, includes an Expert Group on River
Basin Management. This Expert Group will be responsible for taking forward elements of the technical
work required under the WFD, for example identification of the Danube RBD, coordinating analysis of the
RBD characteristics, identifying pressures and impacts, and developing mapping and reporting
procedures. However, given the scale of the challenges, it will be some time before the effectiveness of
the ICPDR (and the International Danube River Protection Convention which it coordinates) can be
assessed.
The International Commission for the Rivers Rhine and Meuse is longer established and has a series of
impressive success stories to its credit. Recently, political consensus was achieved on a programme for
the long-term management of the Rhine (the so-called `Rhine 2020' programme). A shorter-term `Action
21 i.e. A plan which, if implemented in full, will meet the WFD's environmental objectives
26
A Practical Resource for implementing the EU Water Framework Directive
FINAL TEXT FOR TRANSLTAORS 14/09/01
Plan' (running to 2005) has also been adopted under the programme. This process is being driven by
the need for cost-effective flood management (including significant flood risk reduction) but, through
taking an approach that works with nature for example, restoration of floodplain wetlands
incorporates major biodiversity gains. The forecast financial investment from 1998 to 2020 is 12.3 billion
Euros. For further information see the Seminar 2 Proceedings papers by T. Buijse and E. Wenger.
In other cases, specific agreements have been reached on a bilateral or trilateral basis. This is the case,
for example, in the Prespa Basin, where a transboundary protected area has been established jointly by
the governments of Albania, Greece and The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia following an
initiative of Greek NGOs (see paper by M. Malakou in Proceedings of Seminar 2). This will lead to
development of a common vision and strategy in conjunction with stakeholders, and preparation of a
Strategic Action Plan, trilateral management committee and trilateral monitoring scheme.
4. Identification of relevant stakeholders:
As with all Key Tasks of WFD implementation, public and stakeholder participation
should be considered from the beginning . Many solutions to water resource problems
will be strategic in nature, requiring a `whole river basin' (rather than local, or sub-basin)
approach. The most important players at this strategic level of dialogue will be those that
can really contribute to delivering solutions (e.g. water companies, wastewater treatment
companies, environmental regulators), those that have technical expertise and are
`representative' of a particular consitituency (e.g. NGOs, research community) and those
that pay for action (consumers). Thus, it is important to:
· Assess current and potential role, `representativeness' and responsibilities of
stakeholders in the water cycle, and in the RBMP decision-making process.
· Ensure that an appropriate structure and adequate resources are in place for
developing stakeholder participation.
See also Chapter 4 for a discussion of participation as a cross-cutting principle.
5. Special considerations for EU-Candidate countries
The EU enlargement process, including support from relevant EU financial instruments
such as Phare, will facilitate ever closer cooperation between Member States and EU-
Candidate countries. Transboundary cooperation with other, so-called `third' countries may
be difficult owing to differing policy and legislative frameworks, financial problems, and
strict controls of movements across the future external border of the EU (due to the
creation of a common EU immigration and visa regime for all EU external borders).
The Lake Peipsi, shared by Estonia and the Russian Federation, illustrates some of these
issues (see paper in Seminar 3 Proceedings by G. Roll). EU financial instruments are not
always well adapted for implementing environmental projects in EU-Candidate countries,
where small municipalities lack the capacity to draft sound project proposals, or to find
counterpart funding. The Lake Peipsi case study also concluded that, in `future EU external
border regions' the EU's `Tacis' funding mechanism for work with countries of the former
Soviet Union, should be better targeted to assist WFD implementation.
Challenges of coordinating funding for management of transboundary waters on the EU
external borders (Tacis funding in Russia and other countries of the former Soviet Union;
Phare, SAPARD and ISPA in the EU-Candidate countries), need to be overcome. A `soft
27
A Practical Resource for implementing the EU Water Framework Directive
FINAL TEXT FOR TRANSLATORS 14/09/01
law' instrument, the UN ECE Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary
Watercourses and International Lakes (Helsinki, 1992) is also relevant, but does not
substitute the formal agreements sought between countries under the WFD.
28
A Practical Resource for implementing the EU Water Framework Directive
FINAL TEXT FOR TRANSLTAORS 14/09/01
WFD Key Task 2: `Identify and agree key water management
issues'
WFD principal requirements
· Analyse characteristics of each RBD (see p. nn of this document for a summary of
WFD Annex II provisions on RBD characterisation)
· Review impacts of human activities on surface waters and groundwater in each
RBD
· Make economic analysis of water use within each RBD
· Make register of protected areas in RBD
· Identify waters used for drinking water abstraction within each RBD
· Establish environmental objectives
· Identify key water management issues
[WFD Article 4 `Environmental Objectives'; Article 5 `Characteristics of the River Basin
District, Review of the environmental impact of human activity and Economic Analysis of
water use'; Article 6 `Register of Protected Areas'; Article 7 `Waters used for the abstraction
of drinking water'. See also WFD Annex II (untitled, but deals inter alia with
characterisation of water bodies, reference conditions, identification of pressures,
assessment of impact), Annex III Economic Analysis, Annex IV Protected Areas, Annex V
(untitled, but deals with status and monitoring for both surface- and ground-waters). The
provisions of these Annexes are summarised in Appendix 1 of this Practical Resource
document.
By no means all these complex issues were covered in detail by the `Water Seminar
Series'. The lessons learned and examples below are therefore not comprehensive, but
focus on those points specifically raised by seminar presentations and discussions.
Towards implementation selected questions for river basin managers
· What are the existing sources of relevant information at different scales (e.g.
RBD, sub-basin, town, village, farm)?
· Can key water management issues already be identified on the basis of this
information?
· What steps are needed to improve coordination of the current data gathering,
storage and analysis capacity?
· What steps are needed to identify possible additional issues?
· What are the `root causes' underlying these water management issues? How will
these root causes evolve up to 2015? What will be the likely impact on the current
key water management issues?
· What information is available on the main economic uses of water in the river
basin? Is demand for these use being met and managed sustainably?
· Which stakeholders have a particular role or interest in key wate r management
issues for the RBD? Which have relevant expertise and information? Is there a
communications/outreach strategy in place for engaging these stakeholders?
· How will the key issues be agreed or `validated' with stakeholders?
29
A Practical Resource for implementing the EU Water Framework Directive
FINAL TEXT FOR TRANSLATORS 14/09/01
· Have wetlands22 (applying a broad definition of the term) been fully integrated into
the process of water body identification and characterisation?
· Is the role of wetlands in the RBD and in key water management issues
understood?
Seminar `lessons learned'
1. Identify key characteristics of river basin:
· Wetlands can contribute significantly to meeting the objectives of the WFD since
they have a strong influence on water quality and quantity and play important role
in river basin functioning (see Box 5.2.3). The identifica tion process for all surface
water and groundwater bodies within each RBD therefore needs to include
wetlands and consequently there is a need for systematic wetland inventories.
However, there are significant gaps in the current status of knowledge about
Europe's wetlands, and will be important to take measures to fill these gaps as
part of WFD implementation.
· The analysis of key water management issues must take account of variability in
supply and demand over time (e.g. droughts). This is particularly important for
southern and eastern Europe.
· Adequate links with past and ongoing research initiatives should be established
and/or strengthened to ensure that no important sources of information and
technical data are overlooked.
2. Review the impacts of human activities on all water bodies in the RBD:
· Wetlands should be included as part of the waters for which impacts are
assessed. Full account should be taken of the functions and values of wetlands
within the RBD (see Appendix II.6) and the impacts of human activities on
wetlands (see Box 5.2.5). Given the scarcity of information on wetlands in many
countries, this may require significant data compilation work.
· Given that agriculture is the dominant land use in terms of surface area in the EU
as a whole23, it has a significant influence on water quality and quantity (see Box
5.2.1). Indeed, the extent, type and intensity of agricultural land use may crucially
affect whether the environmental objectives of the WFD can be met within the
stipulated time frame. Gathering and assessing information on the impacts of
agriculture should therefore be a top priority.24
22 According to the definition of `wetland' established by the `Ramsar' Convention on Wetlands and accepted by
more than 130 governments throughout the world, including all EU Member States, `wetlands' include: freshwater
systems such as rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, marshes, and peatlands, as well as brackish or saline systems such
as coastal lagoons, estuaries, shallow coastal waters and salt marshes.
23 See the following section of the European Environment Agency web site for information on agriculture and the
environment: http://themes.eea.eu.int/activities/agriculture
24 Agriculture and water was singled-out as the theme of one of the three `Water Seminars' for the reasons given
above. However, as shown in Box 5.2.7, agriculture is by no means the only economic sector which has major
adverse impacts on water and wetlands.
30
A Practical Resource for implementing the EU Water Framework Directive
FINAL TEXT FOR TRANSLTAORS 14/09/01
· The root causes or `driving forces' behind the impacts/pressures identified (e.g.
water policy versus CAP, water policy versus Regional Policy) should be
analysed. Opportunities for influencing root causes in ways, which will assist
WFD implementation, and ensure that the Programme of Measures can deliver
WFD objectives within the required time frame, should be sought. This may
involve identification of thresholds or targets for socio-economic factors that need
to be pursued through appropriate sectoral policies and instruments but also in the
overall context of river basin planning. Undertake a dynamic analysis (perhaps
using models) taking into account trends/evolution in root causes and the likely
effects of these on the impacts identified (see Appendix II.3).
· It is important to ensure that both surface and groundwater bodies and their
interactions are taken into account when reviewing the impact of human activities
within an RBD.
· In the context of the EU Accession process and transition to market economies,
the challenge is to keep the last remaining, large, semi-natural river and wetland
complexes in Central and Eastern Europe. (e.g. the Danube Delta shared by
Romania and Ukraine, or Biebrza in Poland), agricultural policy under the former
socialist centrally planned economies also led to wholesale regulation and
drainage. At this time of very rapid change, it is also crucial to seek opportunities
for restoration and rehabilitation. Some of the special considerations for the
region are summarised in Appendix II.1.
3. Carry out economic analysis of water uses:
· Include wetlands (e.g. economic value of services provided by wetlands, socio-
economic benefits, see Box 5.2.5). Wetlands are an integral component of the
water cycle and the natural functioning of aquatic ecosystems provides
economically important goods and services relating to water quality (e.g. nutrient
retention) and quantity (e.g. groundwater recharge; attenuation of flood peaks).
The economic analysis of water use in each RBD should therefore incorporate
the economic value of services provided by wetlands and/or a way of estimating
their socio -economic benefits.
· Ensure that economic impact and pressure analyses are integrated as far as
possible, so that the economic and environmental consequences of specific
pressures can be dealt with together when identifying key water management
issues.
4. Establish the environmental objectives for all water bodies
· While some of the existing groundwater and surface water status
characterisation parameters can serve as a `proxy' for good wetland status, it
would be much more preferable to define `good status' for wetlands, with
corresponding guidelines, standards and indicators. This issue needs further
development in the framework of the WFD CIS.
5. Identify the key water management issues
31
A Practical Resource for implementing the EU Water Framework Directive
FINAL TEXT FOR TRANSLATORS 14/09/01
Based on the results of the steps outlined above, the key water management issues and
the scale (geographical/hydrological) at which they need to be tackled should be
identified.
Editorial note: small diagram to be inserted here showing key water management issues
between `current status' and `good status'.
6. Ensure involvement of stakeholders
· Stakeholders have a crucial role to play in this process by providing information,
expertise, validation etc. However, it must be recognised that stakeholders have
a much greater role than simply being sources of information.
Box 5.2.1
Impacts of Agricul ture Practices on Aquatic Ecosystsems
Agriculture25 is a major water user in the EU, accounting on average for about 30% of total water
abstraction across the 15 Member States. However, the figures for individual Member States vary widely
from north to south, rising to 80% in the case of Greece and Spain due to the extent of irrigation. There is
also considerable variation within countries, according to local differences in land use, climate and
rock/soil types. Agriculture also has significant impacts on the quality of both ground and surface waters
due, for example, to runoff of fertilisers and pesticides which may find their way into streams and rivers,
or into underground aquifers.
Editorial note: all indented points below to be bulleted
Principal adverse impacts of agriculture practices on water systems:
Impacts on water quantity
Surface water and groundwater depletion, due to over-abstraction for irrigated agriculture, may
lead to loss or degradation of wetland ecosystems and threaten drinking water supplies as well as
the longer -term sustainability of agriculture.
Reduced groundwater recharge and increased downstream flood risk are just two of the
impacts from extensive drainage and water course regulation to increase availability of agricultural
land.
Significantly altered evaporation patterns due, for example to drainage of surface water or
change in vegetation cover and possibly influencing rainfall.
Impacts on water quality
Eutrophication of surface waters and groundwater due to diffuse runoff from phosphate -rich
fertilisers. Increased nutrient levels encourage algal growth, resulting in oxygen depletion and
lower light penetration in the water column. This has adverse impacts on the functioning of
aquatic ecosystems and may endanger hum an health if a toxic algal `bloom' occurs.
Nitrate pollution of surface and groundwater, again resulting from diffuse fertiliser runoff,
promotes eutrophication, particularly in estuaries, and may exceed the thresholds for human
consumption set by the Drinking Water Directive (80/778/EEC, revised as 98/83/EEC) which forms
an integral part of the WFD.
Salinisation (excess accumulation of salts in the soil profile) and sodisation (a process that
causes swelling of clay particles and reduced infiltration capacity) due to transport of salts by
irrigation water in naturally arid or semi-arid regions. This results either in land becoming too
25 `Agriculture' is not a single stakeholder, but covers a diversity of very different stake holders, for
example, ranging from farmers, to supermarkets, to manufacturers of plant protection products.
32
A Practical Resource for implementing the EU Water Framework Directive
FINAL TEXT FOR TRANSLTAORS 14/09/01
saline to support crops, or in the need for consumption of even greater quantities of water to `flush'
salts from the soil.
Toxic pollution of surface and groundwater due to runoff of pesticide residues. The maximum
permitted concentration in other words, the minimum environmental standard to be met by
Member States is set by the Plant Protection Products Directive (91/414/EEC, as extended by
Directive 97/57/EEC) and by the Drinking Water Directive, implementation of which forms an
integral component of the WFD.
Point-source pollution of surface water and/or groundwater bodies, including accidental spillages
of agricultural chemicals and slurry.
Increased runoff There is increasing evidence that changes in land use (e.g. conversion to
winter-sown cereals) can increase runoff and exacerbate flooding. This is due inter alia to the
removal of permanent vegetation cover a nd the compaction of soil by machinery.
Increased sediment loads resulting from soil erosion (in turn due to poor cultivation practices
and/or over-grazing), and runoff into water courses and lakes. Greater turbidity may damage fish
stocks, while shallow aquatic ecosystems suffer from accelerated infilling and vegetation
development.
Increased microbe loads resulting from the bacteria and viruses present in organic material such
as manure.
Impacts on aquatic ecosystems
Direct loss of habitats and species due to simplification of landscape and hydrology (e.g. by
regulation of water courses and drainage of wetlands).
Indirect effects due to the impacts of fertilisers, pesticides and herbicides (e.g. loss of aquatic
vegetation or fish resulting from eutrophication).
These impacts have been greatest in areas where agricultural land use has been most intensive,
particularly within existing EU Member States, but also in parts of most EU Candidate countries. Some
areas of Central, Eastern, Mediterranean and northermost Europe remain relatively unaffected. It will be
important to ensure that future agricultural development in these regions remains compatible with
delivering WFD environmental objectives
It is also important to remember that future patterns of agriculture and water use are liable to both
influence and be strongly influenced by climate change . Plans to further irrigate semi-arid areas in
the south of the EU through the development of costly and high-impact water infrastructure may not only
increase salinisation and sodisation, leading to desertification (see Seminar 1 Proceedings paper by E.
Sequeira), but also be impracticable if the capacity of the donor river basin or water body has not been
adequately established.
The positive role of agriculture
As has been demonstrated, agriculture is a major influence on the management of water resources
across Europe. However, it would be wrong to suggest that these influences are all negative. The
seminar series showed several examples of farmers working together with water managers to achieve an
appropriate balance between agricultural land use and the need to use water resources sustainable.
See Boxes 5.2.4, 5.3.2, 5.3.3, and Appendix II.5 for further information.
Box 5.2.2
Identifying Significance of Agricultural Impacts
The Broads, UK
Modelling was used to relate past and current data on land use and nutrient levels in one of the principal
sub-basins of The Broads. Eutrophication due to phosphorous enrichment is a key concern in this
internationally important complex of river valley wetlands in eastern England. Analysis suggested that
the spreading onto fields of slurry from intensive poultry farming was the most important source of
33
A Practical Resource for implementing the EU Water Framework Directive
FINAL TEXT FOR TRANSLATORS 14/09/01
phosphorous enrichment in the upper catchment. Further downstream, sewage effluent from human
settlements was a more prevalent cause. Here, the model indicated, an increasing rural population,
without access to the more sophisticated sewage treatment plants serving nearby urban areas, was
responsible for a growing share of phosphorous loading.
This example shows how the results derived from data collection and modelling can help: (a) to identify
the relative significance of various human impacts in different parts of a river basin; and (b) to develop
appropriate management measures. In the case of The Broads, this might include, for example, the
targeting of expenditure on costly phosphorous stripping at sewage treatment plants, or more stringent
controls/guidelines on the disposal of agricultural waste, etc.
Source: Seminar 1 Proceedings, paper by G. Phillips and P. Johnes.
Box 5.2.3
The Role of wetlands in achieving `good water status'
Wetlands are central components of the hydrological cycle, performing economically and environmentally
valuable functi ons to regulate water quality and quantity and therefore contribute to reaching and
maintaining `good status'. However, available information indicates that 50% or more of Europe's
original wetland resource has been lost (see the paper presented in Seminar 2 by Mike Moser). The
sustainable management of wetlands (including restoration and rehabilitation where necessary) should
therefore be a key element of river basin management plans. Among the specific functions and values
of wetlands are:
Groundwater recharge/discharge (wetlands are important areas for water to flow into or out from
aquifers
Attenuation of flood peaks (wetlands delay runoff and store water which, following wetland drainage
then flows into streams and rivers much more quickly, increasing the risk of downstream flooding)
Retention of nutrients (wetlands have a capacity, within limits, to act as natural `filters' by storing
nutrients in trapped sediment see below or in growth of aquatic vegetation. This helps to reduce
eutrophi cation of water bodies)
Sediment trapping (may help reduce nutrient enrichment of lakes and rivers, as well as limit human-
induced increases in the suspended sediment load of naturally clear water bodies)
Shoreline stabilisation (`absorption and dissipation of wind or wave energy: can reduce erosion)
High bioproductivity (due to regular inputs of nutrient-rich sediments)
High biodiversity values (e.g. habitat for rare and/or highly specialised species)
Provision of drinking water
Provision of water for agriculture
Provision of food supplies (especially fish)
Provision of building materials (e.g. reeds)
Provision of multiple recreational opportunities (e.g. swimming, boating, fishing, nature watching)
Box 5.2.4
Key factors causing wetland loss and degradation
Agriculture
Drainage
Dyke construction
Fertiliser and pesticide use
Water abstraction for irrigation
Landscape simplification
Forestry
Conversion of meadows
Replacement of natural and sem i-natural
34
A Practical Resource for implementing the EU Water Framework Directive
FINAL TEXT FOR TRANSLTAORS 14/09/01
Riparian forests with intensive plantations
Transport
Navigation channels
Road and railway construction
Drainage and dyking
Landscape fragmentation
Energy
H ydro-electric power dams
Electricty lines
Power stations
Mining (see extractive industries below)
Tourism
& recreation
Floodplain development
Leisure navigation
Local problems of density of people damaging habitats
Urban
Construction of dams and dykes to protect infrastructure
& industrial
Drainage of land for new development
development
Waste disposal/pollution
Ground and surface-water abstraction
Extractive industries
Gravel extraction
Toxi c mining waste
Climate change
Erosion due to sea level rise
Changing rainfall patterns
Source: Seminar 2 Proceedings, paper by J. Madgwick and T. Jones)
Box 5.2.5
Economic analysis of nutrient retention by floodplain meadows
a wetland rehabilitation project in the Slovak Republic
The Morava River is one of the main tributaries of the Danube, extending for some 328 km. Its lower
reaches pass through Austrian (right bank) and Slovak (left bank) territory, with the former `iron curtain'
having provided some incidental protection from intensive land use. Nevertheless, of the original 160
km2 of floodplain on the Slovak side, only about 25% remains, with much of this being under arable
agriculture.
Indeed, GIS analysis of historical maps showed that the area of arable land in the functional floodplain
had doubled between 1920 and 1999, leading to a corresponding 50% reduction in semi-natural
meadows. It was already known that this had led to serious declines in flora and fauna, but it was also
suspected that the nutrient abatement value of the floodplain meadows (through cutting and removal of
hay `fertilised' by Morava floodwater) had been impaired.
Research presented by J. Seffer in Seminar 2 demonstrated that traditional meadow management26 in
the lower Morava floodplains had an indicative nitrogen retention value of 434 tonnes per year, due to
the removal of nitrogen incorporated into plant growth. This is equivalent to the yearly nitrogen
26 i.e. cutting and removal of a hay crop in summer, followed by late summer/autumn grazing, without the use of
chemical fertilisers
35
A Practical Resource for implementing the EU Water Framework Directive
FINAL TEXT FOR TRANSLATORS 14/09/01
production of 216,000 people. The monetary value of the natural nutrient removal by the floodplains is
therefore equal to the operating cost of a wastewater treatment plant for a city of 216,000 citizens
approximately 700,000 Euros per year. Moreover, the initial cost of building such a treatment plant
would be around 7 million Euros. These conclusions provided a powerful economic argument in favour
of meadow restoration, with proposals being developed for restoration of 140 ha of former arable land.
Cumulative cost-benefit analyses show an operating profit within three to six years, depending on
whether an optimistic or pessimistic scenario is modelled. The overall economic investment required is
far below that for conventional water treatment.
In addition, ongoing restoration of the Morava meadows is providing multiple benefits for biodiversity
conservation (enhancing the status of habitats and species which have declined across Europe because
of conversion of hay meadows to intensive pasture or arable land), flood storage (re-establishment of
more natural flood regime) and tourism/recreation (using the attractiveness of the wetland landscape to
attract visitors for hiking, cycling etc. Farmers producing hay from the Morava meadows find a ready
market across the border in Austria, where the demand for organic products is not currently satisfied by
domestic production.
Source: Seminar 2 Proceedings, paper by J.Seffer)
36
A Practical Resource for implementing the EU Water Framework Directive
FINAL TEXT FOR TRANSLTAORS 14/09/01
WFD Key Task 3 `Design Programmes of Measures and
develop River Basin Management Plans'
WFD principal requirements
· Establish the Programme of Measures needed for each RBD to meet the WFD's
environmental objectives. Include compulsory `basic' measures (as set out in
Article 11) and optional `supplementary' measures (such as those listed in part B
of Annex VI Lists of Measures to be included within the Programmes of
Measures).
· Review and update programme of measures by the end of 2015 at the latest and
every six years thereafter.
· Produce a River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) for each River Basin District
(RBD) including the info rmation detailed in Annex VII River Basin Management
Plans (with the option to supplement RBMPs using more detailed programmes or
plans for sub-basins or sectors).
· Publish RBMPs by end of 2009 at the latest, review by end of 2015 and update
every six years thereafter.
[WFD Article 13 `River Basin Management Plans'. WFD Article 11 `Programme of
measures'. See also WFD Annexes VI List of Measures to be included in the Programme
of Measures and VII River Basin Management Plans summarised on p. nn and nn,
respectively.]
Towards implementation selected questions for river basin managers
· Which actions can be implemented immediately, on the basis of existing
knowledge and know-how?
· Have all relevant e xisting processes, programmes, plans and structures been
identified? How can these best be used to deliver WFD requirements? For
example, what opportunities are there for adapting existing flood protection
measures to help meet the objective of `good status'?
· Have interactions with stakeholders and the wider public been appropriately
planned and human and financial resources allocated to ensure their effective
participation in the development of the Programme of Measures and RBMP?
· Has a range of alternative measures been systematically proposed and assessed
for each water management issue, taking into account technical feasibility, cost-
effectiveness and the possible impact of the proposed measures on sectors other
than water management?
· Are roles and responsibilities for implementing and enforcing (when nece ssary)
agreed measures clearly defined and communicated?
· Have issues that need to be addressed beyond the RBD boundaries (e.g.
agricultural policy, climate change) been identified and communicated to the most
appropriate bodies?
· Do the RBMP and programme of measures take into account uncertainties over
long-term factors such as climate change?
· What capacity building measures are required to ensure that planners and
managers within the RBD remain up-to-date with evolving `good practice'
approaches and tools?
37
A Practical Resource for implementing the EU Water Framework Directive
FINAL TEXT FOR TRANSLATORS 14/09/01
Seminar `lessons learned'
1. Establish Programmes of Measures:
· It is better to start early and imperfectly, building on what already exists, and
seeking to follow a `good practice' approach to ensure compliance with WFD final
deadlines, and this the achievement of `good status'.
· There is a need for some early demonstrations (`easy wins') of the positive effects of
good planning and particularly to maintain the faith of stakeholders in the process.
· While a range of possible measures should be investigated and analysed
systematically, it is important to identify what can realistically be addressed at RBD
level process and what should be tackled elsewhere, e.g. through changes to
sectoral policies.
· Groundwater, coastal waters and wetlands must be covered systematically by the
Programmes of Measure and the RBMP.
· If Programmes of Measures are developed for sub-basins for practical reasons of
scale, coherence and coordination of measures at RBD level must be ensured.
· Measures that need a medium to long-term approach should be identified and
clearly separated from those, which could be successful in the shorter term. This
will help prioritisation of resources and allocation of responsibilities.
· In view of the economically and ecologically valuable services provided by wetlands
and the contribution that these can make to meeting WFD objectives, wetland
conservation and rehabilitation/restoration (seeBox 5.3.2) should be systematically
considered when designing the Programme of Measures.
· As for other Key Tasks, the unique knowledge and perspectives of stakeholders
should be built into designing the Programme of Measures from the earliest possible
stages. This will also help to test the likely socio-economic impacts and
acceptability of proposed measures.
· Build both socio-economic and environmental parameters (e.g. the likely impact of
planned measures on the status of water bodies) into the assessment of options for
the identification of the most cost-effective set of measures (e.g. using multi-criteria
analysis).
· The Programme of Measures should be coordinated with other water and land-use
planning processes and funding mechanisms. This may have significant financial
benefits in addition to improving effectiveness of WFD implementation.
2. Prepare and p ublish RBMPs
· The River Basin Management Plans required by the WFD are strategic in nature but
action-oriented and focused on attaining environmental objective of `good status'. It
38
A Practical Resource for implementing the EU Water Framework Directive
FINAL TEXT FOR TRANSLTAORS 14/09/01
is essential that the difference between `planning' and actual `management' is
emphasised throughout the process; plans are of little value if they merely sit on a
shelf gathering dust once they have been published.
· In many parts of Europe, river basin planning is not a new approach. As with other
`Key Steps' the emphasis should be firmly on bringing together existing structures to
deliver the requirements of the WFD. Examples of some ongoing initiatives are
given in Appendix II.4
· RBMPs can and should provide the basis for increased coherence of sectoral policy
(e.g. cross compliance 27 in agriculture) and structural policies (e.g. prioritising
allocation of funds to infrastructure projects that will help meet WFD objectives).
· While RBMPs might demonstrate the need for changes in sectoral policies, it is
important to recognise that such policy changes might have to be undertaken at
national or EU levels and so be beyond the direct control or influence of actors
within the RBD.
· Existing financial instruments (from agri-environmental funding, to ISPA, Phare and
Leader+) should be used wherever possible for implementing RBMPs this is
particularly true for the EU-Candidate countries of Central and Eastern Europe,
where the WFD can be used as a rationale for cost-effective use of scarce
resources.
· It is crucial to ensure that RBMPs are used as a means for promoting opportunities
for sustainable water management offered as part of sectoral policies (e.g. cross
compliance in agriculture) and structural policies (e.g. allocation of funds to
initiatives that contribute to meeting WFD objectives).
Box 5.3.1
Editorial note: all indents will be converted to bullets. Layout will solve problems of this being too `heavy'.
Measures for Integrating Agriculture Practices and Sustainable Water Management
The Seminar on `Water and Agriculture' recognised that there are many possible measures that can be
taken at national, sub -national or river basin level to minimise the adverse impact of agriculture on
groundwater and surface water. However, it was also recognised that the most important step further
reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) to favour sustainable rural development rather than
provision of production-based payments and subsidies must be taken at EU level; whilst some
agricultural commodities are external to the CAP and/or greatly influenced by markets. The Structural
and Cohesion Funds and equivalent pre-Accession measures also support intensive farming methods
(e.g. via funding of major water infrastructure for irrigation).
Legislative, institutional and administrative instruments
Designations under EU legislation, e.g. Environmentally Sensitive Areas, Nitrate Vulnerable
Zones, Natura 2000 sites.
27 See Box 5.3.1 for further information on cross compliance.
39
A Practical Resource for implementing the EU Water Framework Directive
FINAL TEXT FOR TRANSLATORS 14/09/01
Implementation of the new EU Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive (2001/42/EC)
which sets a minimum assessment framework for preparation of plans in a range of sectors,
including water management.
National and local protected area designations for:
protection of drinking water supplies;
conservation of landscapes, habitats and/or species.
Mandatory codes of good agricultural practice such as required under the Nitrates Directive for
reducing the quantity of fertilisers leached from farmland.
Whole farm nutrient management plans (either on their own) or as part of farm `water auditing',
contribute not only to achieving environmental objectives but also to reducing farm costs by cutting
the quantities of chemical inputs, notably fertilisers, used.
The use of cross compliance introduced under the `Agenda 2000' reform of the CAP enables
Member States to attach environmental conditions to payments under the CAP. This can be used
to ensure that certain environmental standards are met, contributing to the achievement of good
status.
Agenda 2000 also introduced the Rural Development Regulation (RDR), which states, "a
prominent role should be given to agri-environmental instruments to support the sustainable
development of rural areas and to respond to society's increasing demand for environmental
services". For the period 20002006, the RDR will account for about 10% of annual CAP
spending. Member States have discretion in selecting which of the Rural Development
Measures set out by the RDR they wish to apply. Thus, while several are especially relevant for
WFD implementation, their actual use may depe nd largely on political will and level of awareness
among decision makers. The RDR also lays great stress on the socio-economic importance of
diversifying income opportunities among farmers, as a means of supporting greater stability for
rural communities . Member States should be encouraged to apply the full range of options
available to maximise synergy between environmental and socio -economic aspects of the RDR.
Use of Leader+ and Interreg initiatives under the Structural Funds. Leader+ aims to encourage
innovative actions for sustainable rural development, including those related to natural and cultural
heritage, through investment of 2.2 billion Euros over six years. lnterreg supports cross-border,
transnational and interregional cooperation for sus tainable development, with a budget
approaching 5 billion Euros for the period 20002006.
Voluntary agreements
Voluntary codes of good agricultural practice can help to reduce soil erosion and runoff of
fertilisers and biocides, and help avoid drainage or infilling of landscape features that play an
important role in regulating water quantity and quality (e.g. small marshes, streams and ponds).
BUT to be successful, these codes of practice must be designed with farmers' involvement to
ensure that they are readily understood and voluntarily supported by farm owners/managers and
farmers' associations (see Box 5.3.3 for example from Lower Saxony, Germany).
Voluntary agreements are more successful if they incorporate clear socio -economic benefits, for
all those involved, beyond compliance with environmental legislation (see Boxes 5.3.3 and 5.3.5).
Furthermore, regulators, consumers, retailers and NGOs are all important driving forces for the
initiation and successful application of codes of practice. This means that education/training and
awareness raising as they relate to such codes should be given high priority. For example, in
the UK, the Scottish Wild Rivers project28 and the Westcountry Rivers Trust29 have achieved a
tremendous amount by demonstrating to farmers that minimising fertiliser and pesticide use can
save them money as well as help maintain aquatic ecosystems.
28 See http://www.wwf-uk.org/rivers/page1.htm
29 See http://www.wrt.org.uk
40
A Practical Resource for implementing the EU Water Framework Directive
FINAL TEXT FOR TRANSLTAORS 14/09/01
Economic or fiscal instruments
Water pricing that reflects the true cost of providing water for agricultural use would enhance the
adoption of more efficient, less polluting practices, thereby reducing water wastage and pollution,
as well as overall pressure on water resources.
Payments to encourage low impact farming methods in sites designated at EU level, e.g. Natura
2000 sites (see below).
Financial measures to encourage low impact farming methods in the wider countryside for
example the German and UK Governments have recently stressed the importance of transferring
more CAP funding towards sustainabale rural development.
The paper presented by A. Garrido in Seminar 1 discussed options for applying economic
instruments for management of water resources in the irrigated agriculture sector of Mediterranean
EU Member States. Four different categories of economic instruments were analysed:
Pricing policies (very few examples in the region)
Water trading (i.e. allowing irrigators to buy or sell water rights)
Water rights adjustments (i.e. amending the volume of water that each farmer is permitted)
Financial ince ntives to adopt more efficient technology/infrastructure (proven to be the most
widely supported option by most analysts)
It was concluded that a balanced mix of different instruments is not only desirable, but necessary
to help each individual instrumen t achieve its potential.
Box 5.3.2
Wetland Restoration, Rehabilitation and Creation
Wetland restoration is the re -establishment of wetland areas that have been lost due to (for example)
infilling or drainage. In order for wetland restoration projects to be truly valuable for river basin
management, it is essential that the focus is on ecological restoration (i.e. restoring the natural
functioning of the wetland) rather than on restoration of surface area alone. Rehabilitation refers to the
process of improving the functioning of a wetland that has become impaired as a result of human
impacts (e.g. reducing nutrient levels to tackle problems of eutrophication).
In some cases, for example to provide `green' treatment of waste water, artificial wetlands are
constructed or created in areas which have always been dry (at least in historical times). For examples
of wetland restoration projects, see the websites of WWF's EFP:
http://www.panda.org/europe/freshwater/initiatives.html
and the European Centre for River Restoration
http://www.ecrr.org/
The Integrated Rhine Programme (IRP) of the German Federal Land of Baden-Württemberg contributes
to the 1998 `Flood Action Plan' agreed by the International Rhine Commission. River regulation projects
in the 19th and 20th centuries led to the loss of 90% of the functional Rhine floodplains between Basel
(Swiss/German/French border) and Karlsruhe. This caused higher and more rapid flood peaks in the
main Rhine channel, and a significantly increased flood risk for some 95 towns and municipalities in
Baden-Württemberg. It is calculated that the cost of a major flood event in the region could exceed 12
billion DEM. At the same time, the loss of floodplains resulted in severe loss of aquatic and wetland
biodiversity. The IRP aims to restore sustainable flood protection through the creation of flood storage
areas (designed to be as ecologically beneficial as possible) and restoration of floodplain wetlands (with
41
A Practical Resource for implementing the EU Water Framework Directive
FINAL TEXT FOR TRANSLATORS 14/09/01
an emphasis on reconnecting the links between the river and the wetlands, as well as between areas of
high ecological value). Thus, the restoration project will have multiple benefits, helping to reduce the risk
to life and property (including the likely financial cost of future flood events), and making significant
contributions to the conservation of floodplain habitats and species.
Source: Seminar 2 Proceedings, paper by E. Rosport.
Editorial note: indents will be converted to bullets in final layout.
Box 5.3.3
Voluntary Agreements for Water Protection
Weser-Ems, Lower Saxony, Germany
The case study presented in Seminar 1 by Klaus Lanz (International Water Affairs, Germany), Heinrich
Seul (CREAM Consultants, Germany) and Gerd Peek (organic farmer from Weser-Ems) focused on a
rural region of north-west Germany, which forms part of one of the most intensive meat-producing areas
in the world. The large -scale import of nutrients into the agricultural system led to severe nitrate pollution
of groundwater used to supply drinking water. Since buying land was not a feasible option for achieving
more sustainable land use, one drinking water company entered into voluntary agreements with farmers,
based around:
Improved farm nutrient management practices
A gradual conversion to organic production
Parallel work to identify and develop profitable markets for the new organic produce
Monitoring of groundwater beneath a trial area of organic arable fields showed that nitrate levels fell from
125 mg/l in 1993 to 18 mg/l in 1997. The trial area is now part of a 100 ha certified organic farm.
Initially, only the part of the farm closest to the water source was converted to organic production. Due to
the commercial success of the operation, the approach was extended to the whole farm. Gerd Peek,
the farmer concerned, emphasised how important the possibility of a phased transition from intensive to
organic methods had been in securing his commitment to the voluntary agreement. He also commended
the value of professional business support provided to him through the project, enabling him to base
decisions on firm economic forecasts.
42
A Practical Resource for implementing the EU Water Framework Directive
FINAL TEXT FOR TRANSLTAORS 14/09/01
WFD Key Task 4 `Establish and maintain appropriate
monitoring networks'
WFD principal requirements30
· Establish monitoring programmes/networks needed for a coherent and
comprehensive overview of water status within each RBD
· Cover both surface waters and groundwater bodies, as well as coastal waters
· Include `surveillance ', `operational' and `investigative' components
· Additional monitoring for protected areas
[WFD Article 8 `Monitoring of surface water status, groundwater status and protected
areas. See also WFD Annex V (dealing with water body status, monitoring etc.)
summarised on p. nn]
Under the WFD final deadlines for `minimum compliance', monitoring programmes must be
operational by 2006. However this does not equate to a `good practice' approach which,
as discussed under other `Key Tasks' should follow the principle of starting as early as
possible.
Towards implementation selected questions for river basin managers
· Is existing monitoring adequate for meeting the purpose of WFD Article 8
Monitoring of surface water status, groundwater status and protected areas? How
representative is the existing monitoring network of the RBD as a whole?
· Is there adequate monitoring at sub-basin level?
· Are wetlands and groundwater being adequately monitored and integrated into an
overall monitoring framework?
· Are the impacts of agriculture, especially diffuse pollution, being adequately
monitored and integrated into the overall monitoring framework?
· What mechanisms exist for co-ordinating different sources of relevant monitoring
data? How can they best be used? What changes are needed?
· Are monitoring parameters/standards/criteria compatible/comparable across
boundaries (whether between sub-basins within one country, or across
international boundaries)?
· Have you considered using monitoring data to identify the underlying pressures
(`root causes') as well as quality and quantity impacts they cause?
· Does the monitoring system serve as an early warning mechanism for detecting
negative changes in water quality or quantity? (i.e. is a problem identified in time
to implement a solution before environmental or socio-economic damage occurs?)
· Have adequate resources for monitoring been allocated?
· What are the capacity-building requirements to ensure that monitoring in the RBD
evolves in line with changing technology and `good practice'?
30 As for other `Key Tasks', the Water Seminar Series did not address all of the WFD provisions on monitoring. The
material below therefore focuses mainly on monitoring as it relates to water and agriculture and the role of wetlands
in river basin management.
43
A Practical Resource for implementing the EU Water Framework Directive
FINAL TEXT FOR TRANSLATORS 14/09/01
Seminar `lessons learned'
Establish monitoring needed for a coherent and comprehensive overview of water status
including wetlands within each RBD
Effective monitoring is an essential component of `good practice' in river basin planning
and management, and a central element of measuring progress in WFD implementation:
· Work on establishing monitoring networks (including evaluation of existing
monitoring) must be carried out at an early stage of WFD implementation.
· Monitoring data for wetlands are extremely variable across Europe, with little or no
coordinated data available in some countries. Steps should be taken to correct
this deficit if necessary.
· Steps should be taken to establish the level and type of monitoring needed for
maintaining an overview of changes in pressures and impacts, which may reflect
shifts of root causes.
· Existing data held by different governmental and non-governmental bodies (e.g.
water supply companies, environmental agencies, conservation NGOs, local
municipalities) should be sought out and used as much as possible. It is
important to ensure that data set `links', are in place to provide the integration
and/or aggregation of information needed for effective river basin planning and
management.
Editorial note: Diagram to be added showing monitoring as part of the `planning action
monitoring reviewing' circle/cycle
44
A Practical Resource for implementing the EU Water Framework Directive
FINAL TEXT FOR TRANSLTAORS 14/09/01
6. Conclusion
The `Water Seminar Series' confirmed the wide-ranging interest and commitment shown at
all levels by the European water `community' for effective implementation of the Water
Framework Directive. This is recognised as a significant challenge in view of the
complexities involved in establishing integrated river basin management and achieving the
environmental objectives of the Directive.
What has been learnt from the process of case study presentations, discussions and other
interactions can be summarised as follows:
· Integration, scale, timing, participation and capacity are fundamental cross-cutting
principles for effective integrated river basin planning. They need to be considered
systematically at every stage leading to the adoption and implementation of river basin
management plans.
· The existence and enormous importance of these cross-cutting principles are not
theoretical; th ey have been demonstrated through real life situations and `validated' by
consensus between the wide range of experts and stakeholders mobilised for the
`Water Seminars Series'.
· A particular challenge remains; namely, reconciling WFD (minimum) compliance
deadlines, with the `good practice' approaches that need to be followed for ensuring the
development of effective and integrated river basin management plans capable of
delivering the environmental objectives of the WFD. A first attempt has been made in
this document to highlight some key areas where special attention to this issue is
needed.
· The findings set out in this publication need to be taken further, building on the `Water
Seminar Series' process and `lessons learned'. This will be especially important in the
context of the Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) developed by the Member
States and the European Commission and the guidance documents to be developed by
the various CIS working groups. National implementation strategies and guidance
developed by stakeholders or NGOs will also make an important contribution.
Implementing the WFD will always remain a challenging and complex task. However, the
many initiatives launched so far, at a range of different levels, promise much for the future
of water management across Europe.
45
A Practical Resource for implementing the EU Water Framework Directive
FINAL TEXT FOR TRANSLATORS 14/09/01
Appendix I Provisions of the WFD Annexes
The WFD has 11 Annexes setting out in much greater detail the steps required under
each of the Directive's Articles. The Annexes are complex and highly technical in places,
with numerous cross-references between Annexes, to corresponding WFD Articles, and to
other relevant Community legislation. Thus, while implementation of the WFD depends
crucially on full understanding and interpretation of the Annexes, they may be difficult for non-
expert stakeholders to use. It is hoped that the following summary will prove valuable.
Annex I Information required for the list of competent authorities, sets out the information
required from Member States for the list of competent authorities for each RBD, stressing that,
where possible, data on RBD boundaries and principal rivers should be provided using
Geographical Information System (GIS) software.
Annex II (together with Annex V see below) forms the technical and scientific basis of the
WFD. It is untitled, but deals with water body characterisation and related issues.
For surface water bodies, Annex II requires:
· Characterisation of all surface water bodies through allocation of each individual
water body to one of the following categories: (a) rivers, (b) lakes, (c) transitional
waters, (d) coastal waters, (e) artificial surface water bodies, (f) heavily modified
surface water bodies.
· Differentiation of water body types within each of the categories above, using either
of two typologies. These are set out in Annex II.
· Establishment of "type-specific reference conditions for surface water body types",
using hydrological, physical, chemical and biological parameters to describe the
expected condition of the relevant water body type under `high ecological status' (as
defined in Annex V). This basically means describing in scientific terms what the
water body would be like under `natural' conditions, with no human impacts.
· Identification of significant human pressures on surface water bodies within each
RBD, including inter alia: (a) urban, industrial and agricultural point source and
diffuse pollution particularly substances listed in Annex VIII; (b) water abstraction
for urban, industrial, agricultural and other uses; (c) water flow regulation, including
transfers and diversions; (d) morphological alteration of water bodies. Land use
patterns must also be described.
· Assessment of the susceptibility of surface water bodies to the pressures identified;
i.e. the likelihood that, due to human impacts, the water body will fail to qualify as
having `good status' by 2015.
For groundwater bodies, Annex II requires:
· Initial characterisation of all groundwater bodies "to assess their uses and the degree
to which they are at risk of failing to meet the [environmental] objectives for each
groundwater body" (Annex II sets out elements to be included in this `initial'
characterisation).
· Further characterisation of those groundwater bodies identified as being `at risk' to
help identify appropriate actions to include in the programme of measures.
46
A Practical Resource for implementing the EU Water Framework Directive
FINAL TEXT FOR TRANSLTAORS 14/09/01
· Review of the impact of human activity, but only for groundwaters that either cross
boundaries between Member States, or have been identified as being at risk. This
should include, where relevant, the location of water abstraction and discharge
points (together with information on quantity and quality of water abstracted), and
information on land use in the groundwater recharge catchment (including pollution
inputs and flow alterations such as water d iversion, damming and drainage).
[Note: The establishment of common principles and practical guidance for
implementing elements of this Annex fall under the remits of WFD CIS Working
Groups on `Analysis of pressures and impacts'; `Reference conditions for inland
surface waters'; `Typology of transitional, coastal waters'; `Geographical
Information Systems'; `Intercallibration'; and `Tools on assessment, classification
of groundwater'].
Annex III Economic analysis, states that the economic analysis require d by Article 5 "shall
contain enough information in sufficient detail" for (a) applying the principle of recovery of costs
of water services (taking into account long -term forecasts of supply and demand in the relevant
RBD); and (b) judging the most cost-effective measures relating to water use (to be included in
the programme of measures for the RBD). [Note: The establishment of common principles
and practical guidance for implementing the provisions of this Annex fall under the remit
of the WFD CIS Working Group on `Economic analysis'].
Annex IV Protected Areas, lists five types of Protected Areas to be included in the register for
each RBD established by Article 6. It also requires Member States to map the location of each
Protected Area and to identify the relevant Community or national legislation under which it has
been designated.
Annex V (untitled) is lengthy and complex. Basically, it sets out the criteria to be used for
assessing surface water `ecological status' and groundwater `quantitative status',
together with the corresponding monitoring programmes and reporting procedures
required.
For surface water bodies Annex V covers:
· The scientific/technical parameters, definitions and standards to be used for the
classification of ecological status (`high', `good' or `moderate') for each of the surface water
body types identified in Annex II (including high, good or moderate ecological potential for
artificial or heavily modified water bodies).
· Design of `surveillance monitoring programmes' (to be used in combination with the impact
assessment procedure in Annex II) for developing the monitoring components of RBMPs.
· Design of `operational monitoring' for (a) establishing the status of water bodies at risk of
failing to meet the WFD environmental ob jective of `good status'; and (b) assessing the
effectiveness of the programme of measures in improving the ecological status of such
water bodies.
· Design of `investigative monitoring'.
· Frequency of monitoring.
· Additional monitoring for protected areas (bo th drinking water abstraction points and
protected areas for habitats and species).
· Presentation and reporting of ecological status and monitoring information.
For groundwater bodies Annex V covers:
· Definition of `good quantitative status' (based on groundwater level).
47
A Practical Resource for implementing the EU Water Framework Directive
FINAL TEXT FOR TRANSLATORS 14/09/01
· Design of groundwater level monitoring network.
· Definition of `good chemical status' (based on concentrations of pollutants and
conductivity).
· Design of chemical status monitoring network, including `surveillance' and `operational'
monito ring components. Surveillance monitoring should be carried out (a) to supplement
the impact assessment procedure required by Annex II; and (b) to provide the information
needed for assessing long -term trends due to natural or human-induced changes.
Operational monitoring should establish the chemical status of all groundwater bodies at
risk of failing to meet the WFD objective of `good status' and establish the presence of any
human -induced upward trend in pollutant concentrations.
· Frequency of quantitative and qualitative monitoring.
· Basis for identification of trends in pollutants.
· Interpretation, presentation and reporting of information on groundwater status.
[Note: The establishment of common principles and practical guidance for
implementing elements of this Annex fall under the remit of the WFD CIS Working
Groups on `Heavily modified waters'; `Intercallibration '; `Monitoring' and `Tools on
Assessment, classification of groundwater'
Annex VI Lists of measures to be included in the Programme of Measures, sets out the
elements to be included in the Programmes of Measures required by Article 11 and which form
the basis for implementation of RBMPs. These include:
· The compulsory measures required by 11 EU Directives already in force at the time of the
WFD's publication in the Official Journal (e.g. Bathing Waters, Birds, Drinking Water,
Habitats, Nitrates, and Urban Waste Water Directives).
· A non-exhaustive list of `supplementary' measures covering inter alia legislative,
administrative, and economic/fiscal instruments, emission and abstraction controls, codes
of good practice, recreation and restoration of wetlands, demand management measures,
and water efficiency/re-use measures.
[Note: The establishment of common principles and practical guidance for
implementing the provisions of this Annex fall under the remit of the WFD CIS
Working Group on `Best practice in river basin planning']
Annex VII River Basin Management Plans, establishes the mandatory elements for RBMPs.
These include:
· A general description of RBD characteristics (as required by Article 5 and Annex II).
· A summary of significant pressures and impacts from human activities in each RBD.
· Identification and mapping of protected areas as required by Article 6 and Annex 4.
· A map of the monitoring networks required by Article 8 and Annex 5, together with mapping
of selected monitoring data.
· A list of the environmental objectives established under Article 4 for surface waters,
groundwaters and protected areas (including identification and justification of instances
where derogations and deadline extensions have been permitted).
· A summary of the economic analysis of water use required by Article 5 and Annex III.
· A summary of the Programme of Measures adopted under Article 11. The summary must
cover inter alia: steps taken to apply the principle of cost recovery for water services;
controls on water abstraction and impoundment; controls on point source discharges;
identification of authorised direct discharges to groundwater; measures taken for priority
48
A Practical Resource for implementing the EU Water Framework Directive
FINAL TEXT FOR TRANSLTAORS 14/09/01
substances; measures taken to prevent or reduce accidental pollution; measures taken to
improve status for water bodies unlikely to achieve `good status' by 2015.
· A register of any more detailed programmes and management plans within the RBD, e.g.
those for an individual sub -basin or a specific sector.
· A summary of public information and consultation measures taken.
· A list of competent authorities and contact points for obtaining additional information.
[Note: The establishment of common principles and practical guidance for
implementing the provisions of this Annex fall under the remit of the WFD CIS
Working Group on `Best practice in river basin planning']
Updates of each RBMP must inter alia summarise any changes since publication of the
previous version; assess progress made towards achieving the WFD's environmental
objectives; summarise and explain any measures foreseen in the previous RBMP that have not
yet been implemented.
Annex VIII Indicative list of the main pollutants, lists 12 categories of "main pollutants", which
should be given particular attention when undertaking the impact assessment procedure set
out in Annex II.
Annex IX Emission limit values and environmental quality standards, lists those EU Directives
that set emission limit values and environmental quality standards for the purposes of the WFD,
notably the provisions of Article 16.10.
Annex X Priority substances, lists "priority substances" within the meaning of Article 16, which
requires the European Parliament and the Council to adopt EC proposals for both the selection
of the priority substances and the specific measures against pollution to progressively reduce,
phase out or cease (depending on the substance in question) emissions of such substances
into the environment.
Annex XI consists of two maps: one showing the ecoregions for rivers and lakes to be used in
conjunction with Annex II; the other showing the corresponding ecoregions for transitional
waters and coastal waters.
49
A Practical Resource for implementing the EU Water Framework Directive
FINAL TEXT FOR TRANSLATORS 14/09/01
Appendix II Additional practical examples
The following boxes provide additional practical examples illustrating the `cross cutting
principles', `lessons learned' and elements of `good practice' derived from the `Water Seminar
Series. They are cross-referenced in the text of Chapter 5.
Appendix II.1
Impacts of Agriculture in Central and Eastern Europe
The `Danube Integrated Environmental Study' quoted in the Seminar 1 paper by H. Kieft and D. Znaor
reported agriculture as being responsible for:
· 50% of the nitrogen loading and
· 53% of the phosphorous loading in the Danube River basin.
In addition, agriculture was found to account for significant inputs of pesticides, heavy metals (cadmium,
copper, zinc), bacteria and viruses.
Another study calculated that a 25% reduction in nutrient loading from 19891991 levels would be
required to meet environmental quality criteria for the Danube, and even greater reductions if
eutrophication of the Black Sea was to be halted. Kieft & Znaor pointed out that economic pressures
have led to a collapse in the use of agrochemicals in much of the Danube basin and that current levels of
usage approximate those identified as being more environmentally sustainable. However, the official
agricultural policies of most countries in the region currently foresee future intensification of agriculture
with increased fertiliser and biocide inputs.
Source: Seminar 1 Proceedings, paper by H. Kieft and D. Znaor.
Appendix II.2
Wetland inventories
Information on European wetlands is surprisingly fragmented. Given the vital role of wetlands in water
regulation, as well is provision of numerous other services, completion of a wetland inventory for each
RBD should be given high priority. There are currently no agreed guidelines at global or Pan-European
level for the preparation of wetland inventories, although a methodology for Mediterranean wetlands has
been established (largely through EC funding support) by the `MedWet' initiative under the `Ramsar'
Convention on Wetlands. A number of European countries have es tablished national or sub-national
wetland inventories using widely differing methodologies. In the case of shared RBDs, it will be
important that a common approach is used by the Member States (and any non-Member States)
concerned.
Source: Seminar 2 Proceedings, paper by M. Moser
Appendix II.3
The use of agricultural policy modelling to investigate the root cause of
wetland degradation in the Tablas de Daimiel, Spain
50
A Practical Resource for implementing the EU Water Framework Directive
FINAL TEXT FOR TRANSLTAORS 14/09/01
Under natural conditions, the internationally important wetland complex `Las Tablas de Daimiel' (in the
Spanish Autonomous Region of CastillaLa Mancha) was maintained through discharge of groundwater
from a major groundwater body, `Aquifer 23'. In 1987, the Hydrographic Confederation of the Guadiana
Basin, acting on the basis of Spain's then new Water Act, provisionally declared Aquifer 23 to be
overexploited due to the rapid expansion of irrigation supported by the EU Common Agricultural Policy
(CAP) for crops such as sugar beet and maize. From 1991 onwards, restrictions on use of the aquifer
were introduced, but these were not effective for a variety of reasons (e.g. unregistered and/or
unmetered boreholes, resistance of farmers). Subsequently, the agri-environment Regulation 2078/92
under the CAP was used to introduce a compensation scheme, offering farmers payments for switching
to less water-intensive crops31. The total cost of the scheme is estimated to be around 100 million Euros.
In view of this very high sum being paid out as compensation, modelling was used to identify the
environmental impacts (in terms of water consumption) and the financial costs of other possible options,
taking into account various theoretical directions of possible future agriculture policy.
All the agricultural policy options simulated (e.g. use of cross-compliance see Box 5.3.1 in Chapter 5)
were found to be cheaper than the option being implemented through the agri-environment
compensation scheme, while some of them produced better or similar results in terms of water saving.
This suggeste d a certain wastage of public resources in maintaining the status quo. On the other hand,
all of the alternative scenarios modelled led to a loss of farm incomes (though the magnitude varied from
farm to farm). This clearly demonstrated the value of modelling as an analytical tool in helping to define
the Programme of Measures for a given RBMP.
Source: Seminar 1 Proceedings, paper by J.M. Sumpsi
Appendix II.4
Ongoing International River Basin Management Initiatives
The `Water Seminar Series' stressed that river basin planning is not something new. On the contrary,
there are numerous national, regional and international river basin initiatives already under way in
Europe (and elsewhere around the world). Given the tight timetable for WFD implementation, it will be
essential that this wealth of existing experience is fully utilised. At international level, some of the most
relevant initiatives and processes include:
Editors note: all indents will be converted to bullets
The work of transboundary river Commissions such as those for the Danube and Rhine (see
http://www.icpdr.org and http://www.iksr.org/icpr/index.htm)
Follow-up to the recent report of the World Commission on Dams (see http://www.dams.org)
The World Water Vision launched by the World Water Council at the Second World Water
Forum in March 2000 (see http://www.worldwatercouncil.org/vision.htm)
The River Basin Initiative of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the `Ramsar'
Convention on Wetlands (see http://www.ramsar.org/w.n.rbi_progress1.htm )
The Ramsar Convention guidelines on `integrating wetland conservation and wise use into
river basin management' available in English, French and Spanish (see
http://www.ramsar.org/key_guidelines_index.htm )
31 It was noted during the seminar discussions that agri-environment programmes should really be used in a much
more positive way. They are intended to promote agricultural practices that add real environmental value, above the
level of minimum compliance with EU environmental legislation. This was not the case in the example of Daimiel.
51
A Practical Resource for implementing the EU Water Framework Directive
FINAL TEXT FOR TRANSLATORS 14/09/01
Appendix II.5
Groundwater Nitrate Reduction
Groundwater protection measures in Styria, Austria
As a result of changes in agricultural land use during the 1980s (switch from conventional `mixed' land
use with crop rotation to intensive pig rearing), parts of the Austrian Province of Styria experienced
significant water quality problems. This reflected a national-scale problem, with up to 73% of Austrian
groundwater being classified as `in need of restoration' and unfit to be used directly for human
consumption. The designation of `water protection areas' in one area of Styria, where strict controls on
agricultural land use were applied, led to a substantial reduction of groundwater nitrate levels. The
establishment and enforcement of regulations (tested and `fine tuned' over a period of several years)
within the water protection area, together with intensive awareness-raising work with all potential
`polluters', were identified as key ingredients of the approach used, as was a commitment respecting the
need of farmers to operate profitable businesses. However, it was also noted that the costs of the
programme were partly paid for by consumers. Given that the passing on of costs to the consumer
(either directly through higher water bills, or indirectly through increased taxation) is not in accordance
with the `polluter pays' principle, the limitations of this approach need to be recognised.
Source: Seminar 1 Proceedings, paper by G. Suette
Editorial note: indents will be converted to bullets in final layout.
Appendix II.6
Production of organic beef as a river basin management tool
Vindel River, Sweden
The decline of traditional grazing practices in northern Sweden has led to the abandonment of riverine
meadows , with widespread colonisation of bushes leading to the disappearance of wet grassland and
degradation of biodiversity. In 1997, WWF started a rural development project to reverse the negative
trends in one area of the Vindel meadows. By encouraging and supporting the production of high quality
beef raised with low artificial inputs and grazed largely on `natural' pastures, the project has succeeded
in maintaining or restoring 75ha of meadows. Support for continuation of the project until at least 2006
has been sought through the EU Structural Funds. Elements important to the project's success were
identified as follows:
Bottom-up approach during planning and rapid implementation giving fast, visible results.
Strong market for `green', regionally-produced quality products.
Regional interest in cultural and biological conservation has engaged people.
Cooperation at a range of levels: EC, Member State, Municipality, local farmers.
Source: Seminar 1 Proceedings, paper by O. Jennersten
52
A Practical Resource for implementing the EU Water Framework Directive
FINAL TEXT FOR TRANSLTAORS 14/09/01
Appendix III Acronyms and abbreviations
The use of acronyms and abbreviations has intentionally been kept to a minimum in this
document. Those that appear are listed below:
CAP
Common Agricultural Policy of the European Union
CIS
the Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive
being developed jointly by the Member States and the European
Commission
DG
Directorate General of the European Commission
EC
European Commission
EEA
European Environment Agency
EEB
European Environment Bureau
EFP
WWF European Freshwater Programme
EU
European Union
ISPA
Instrument for Structural Policies for Pre-Accession (the EU financial
instrument for infrastructure projects in Candidate countries)
JRC
Joint Research Centre of the European Commission, based in Ispra, Italy
LIFE
The EC financial instrument for the environment
NGO
Non-Governmental Organisation
RBD
River Basin District
RBMP
River Basin Management Plan
SAPARD Special Action for Pre-Accession Measures for Agriculture and Rural
Development (the EU financial instrument to support agriculture and rural
development in Candidate countries)
UN ECE United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
WFD
Water Framework Directive (reference number 2000/60/EC)
WWF
The world's largest independent conservation organisation
53
A Practical Resource for implementing the EU Water Framework Directive
FINAL TEXT FOR TRANSLATORS 14/09/01
Editorial note: This section to be laid out to make it clear and easy to read.
Appendix IV Contributors
While space limitations preclude a listing of all participants, the outputs from the `Water
Seminar Series' reflect the contributions of more than 300 `water stakeholders' from across
Europe (both EU Member States and EU-Candidate countries), who attended the three
meetings and whose names and affiliations32 can be found in the corresponding Proceedings
volumes33. However, the following is a complete list of presenters (and co -authors) of seminar
papers (reproduced in full in the Proceedings):
Jörg ARMBRUSTER, Mayor of Kehl, Germany
Anna BARNETT (co -author), DG Environment, European Commission
Friedrich BARTH, DG Environment, European Commission
Thomas BÄUMAN, Division of Nature Protection and Landscape Cultivation, Water and Soil Protection,
District Authority of Kleve, Germany
Guy BEAUFOY, Institute of Sustainable Rural Development (IDRISI), Spain
Joachim BENDOW, Secretariat of the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River
Helmut BLÖCH, DG Environment, European Commission
Tom BUIJSE, Institute for Inland Water Management and Wastewater Treatment (RIZA), The
Netherlands
Marita CALS, Institute for Inland Water Management and Wastewater Treatment (RIZA), The
Netherlands
Mira CIERNA (co -author), Daphne Centre for Applied Ecology, Slovakia
Mauro CONFALONIERI, Forestry Department, Autonomous Province of Trento, Italy
Jacqui CUFF, `Rural Horizons' Rural and Community Developm ent Advisor, UK
Adriana DEMBOWSKA, Environment Ministry, Poland
Henrik DISSING, WWF-Denmark
Emil DISTER (co-author), WWF-Germany/Auen Institute
Antonio SILGADO DORADO, Guadalquivir River Basin Authority, Spain
Jean DUCHEMIN (co-author), DG Environment, European Commission
Philippe DUPONT, Water Agency RhôneMediterraneanCorsica, France
Carlos FERNANDEZ DELGADO, Córdoba University, Spain
Alberto GARRIDO COLMENERO, Polytechnic University of Madrid, Spain
Consuelo GIANSANTE (Editorial note: second family name to be inserted), University of Seville, Spain
Rayka HAUSER, WWF DanubeCarpathian Programme
Ola JENNERSTEN, WWF-Sweden
Penny JOHNES (co-author), Department of Geography, University of Reading, UK
Tim JONES (co-author), DJEnvironmental, independent techni cal adviser to WWF
Bodil LIEDBERG JÖNSSON, Manager, Emå Project, Sweden
Didier JOUVE, Drôme Valley Management District (DAVD), France
Henk KIEFT, ETC Ecoculture consultants, The Netherlands
Klaus LANZ, International Water Affairs, Germany
Jane MADGWICK, WWF European Freshwater Programme
Myrsini MALAKOU, Society for the Protection of Prespa, Greece
Carlos MONTES DEL OLMO, Autonomous University of Madrid, Spain
Kalman MORVAY, TiszaSzamos Trust Fund, Hungary
Mike MOSER, independent international consultant on wetlands
Erik MOSTERT, Centre for Research on River Basin Administration, Analysis and Management, Delft
University of Technology, The Netherlands
Steve NIXON, Topic Centre on Inland Waters, European Environment Agency
Araceli OLMEDO SERRANO, General Users' Community of Aquifer 23, La Mancha, Spain
32 This listing is provided purely as a means of acknowledging contributors to the `Water Seminar Series' and to
demonstrate the broad range of participation. It does not imply endorsement of the published seminar outputs,
including this Practical Resource document by any particular individual, organisation, agency or company.
33 http://www.panda.org/europe/freshwater/seminars/seminars.html
54
A Practical Resource for implementing the EU Water Framework Directive
FINAL TEXT FOR TRANSLTAORS 14/09/01
Asger OLSEN, DG Environment, European Commission / Danish Environment Protection Agency
Clairie PAPAZOGLOU, European Community Office, BirdLife International
Gerd PEEK, Organic Farmer, Weser-Ems, Lower Saxony, Germany
Geoff PHILLIPS, National Centre for Risk Assessment & Options Appraisal, Environment Agency for
England and Wales, UK
José RAMON ARAGON, Guadiana Hydrographic Confederation (Confederación Hidrográfica de
Guadiana) Spain
Gulnara ROLL, Peipsi Centre for Transboundary Cooperation, Estonia
Elke ROSPORT, Upper Rhine Water Management Authority, Germany
Ratislav RYBANIC (co-author), Daphne Centre for Applied Ecology, Slovakia
Tobias SALATHÉ, Secretariat of the `Ramsar' Convention on Wetlands
José María SANTAFE MARTINEZ, Ministry of Environment, Madrid, Spain
Martin SCHEELE (co-author), DG Agriculture, European Commission
Joseph SCHITTLY, Electricity of France (EDF), France
Guido SCHMIDT, WWF-Spain/ADENA
Jan SEFFER, Daphne Centre for Applied Ecology, Slovakia
Eugenio SEQUEIRA, League for Nature Protection, Portugal
Jean SERRET, Drôme Valley Management District (DAVD), France
Heinrich SEUL, CREAM consultants, Germany
Pieter van SEVENTER, Central Building Sand Supply Co., The Netherlands
Pierre STROSSER (co-author), DG Environment, European Commission
Gunther SUETTE, State Government of Styria, Austria
José María SUMPSI VINAS, Polytechnic University of Madrid, Spain
Joost van de VELDE, DG Environment, European Commission
Edith WENGER, Auen Institute, WWF-Germ any
Craig WOOLHOUSE, Environment Agency, England and Wales, UK
Darko ZNAOR (co-author), ETC Ecoculture consultants, The Netherlands
A draft of this Practical Resource document, prepared by Tim JONES, an independent
technical adviser to WWF, was discussed at a `validation workshop' held in August 2001
and attended by the following participants (who also provided comments on a revised draft
after the workshop):
Charlie AVIS, WWF DanubeCarpathian Programme
Ana BARREIRA LOPEZ, International Institute for Law and the Environment
Friedrich BARTH, European Commission, DG Environment
Johan BOGAERT, Water Division, Flemish Environmental Administration, Belgium
Phillipe DUPONT, Water Agency RhôneMediterraneanCorsica, France
Maria GHINI, Directorate of Water and Natural Resources, Ministry of Development, Greece
Lennart GLADH, WWF-Sweden
Adam HARRISON, WWF-Scotland
Jeorg JANNING, Environment Ministry of Lower Saxony, Germany
Gail MACDONALD, National Farmers Union Scotland, UK
Dimitris PAPADIMOS, Greek Biotope/Wetlands Centre (EKBY)
Gulnara ROLL, Peipsi Centre for Transboundary Cooperation, Estonia
Eva ROYO GELABERT, WWF European Freshwater Programme
Pierre STROSSER, DG Environment, European Commission
Jacob TOMPKINS, Water UK
Philippe WEILER, WWF-Belgium
Craig WOOLHOUSE, Environment Agency, England and Wales, UK
Further acknowledgements can be found in Appendix V.
55
A Practical Resource for implementing the EU Water Framework Directive
FINAL TEXT FOR TRANSLATORS 14/09/01
Editorial note: This section to be laid out to make it clear and easy to read.
Appendix V Acknowledgements
The main technical contributors to the `Water Seminar Series' are listed in Appendix IV,
together with participants in the August 2001 `validation workshop' that helped develop this
Practical Resource document. WWF and the European Commission are most grateful to all of
these individuals (and corresponding organisations) for their time and expertise, which provided
the basis for the published outputs of the seminar series. In addition, the organisers would like
to acknowledge the important role played by the Session Chairs and Rapporteurs, Seminar
logistics coordinator, and Agenda Coordinator, all of whom are listed below.
Seminar Session Chairs
Friedrich Barth, DG Environment, European Commission
Gordana Beltram, Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning, Slovenia
Helmut Blöch, DG Environment, European Commission
Antonio Gonçalves Henriques, Ministry of Environment and Land-use Planning, Portugal
Erik Jagtman, Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management
Peter Kessler, Federal Ministry of Environment, Germany
Torsten, Larsson , Environmental Protection Agency, Sweden
Tony Long, WWF European Policy Office
Hilmar von Münchausen, WWF European Agriculture and Rural Development Programme
Patrick Murphy, DG Environment, European Commission,
Asger Olsen34, DG Environment, European Com mission
Blanca Ramos, Doñana National Park, Spain
Pierre-Alain Roche, Seine Normandy Water Agency, France
Chris Tydeman, WWF-UK
Seminar Session Rapporteurs
Charlie Avis, WWF Danube -Carpathian Programme Office
Annali Bamber Jones, WWF European Policy Office
Guy Beaufoy, Institute of Sustainable Rural Development (Spain)
Klaus Lanz, International Water Affairs, Germany
Josefina Maestu, Mediterranean Water Network
Erik Mostert, Centre for Research on River Basin Administration, Analysis and Management, The
Netherlands
Asger Olsen25, Environment Protection Agency, Denmark
Guido Schmidt, WWF-Spain/ADENA
Pierre Strosser, DG Environment, European Commission
Chris Tydeman, WWF-UK
Edith Wenger, Institute for Floodplain Ecology, WWF-Germany
Seminar logistics organis er
cbe Europe, Brussels
Agenda coordinator
Julian Scola, WWF European Policy Office
Financial support for the Seminar series was provided by the European Commission DG
Environment. Participation of stakeholders from EU-Candidate countries was made possible
by additional funding from the European Commission's Technical Assistance Information
Exchange Office (TAIEX). WWF set up a core technical and admnistrative team for the
34 Change of affiliation between seminars.
56
A Practical Resource for implementing the EU Water Framework Directive
FINAL TEXT FOR TRANSLTAORS 14/09/01
planning and implementation of the project, drawing mainly on staff from the European
Freshwater Programme Coordination Unit, as follows:
Technical coordinator for WWF
Jane Madgwick (to May 2001)
Overall project manager for WWF
Eva Royo Gelabert
Independent Technical Expert
Tim Jones
Communications Coordinator
Mark Vanderbeeken
Administrative assistant35
Trudi Folwell
Rachel Gonzalez
Sergey Moroz
Martin Winther
WWF would like to record its sincere appreciation to Tim Jones, independent technical expert,
and the following officials of DG Environment, who were closely involved throughout the
Seminar series, and who provided wide-ranging technical advice on many issues: Helmut
Blöch, Friedrich Barth and Pierre Strosser. Additional administrative assistance was provided
by Sylvianne Rampelberg (DG Environment), to whom WWF is also most grateful.
The project manager would like to express her gratitude to colleagues from WWF's European
Programme, in particular the European Freshwater Team,36 the European Policy Office, and
the European Agriculture and Rural Development Team for input throughout the Seminar
series. Special thanks are due to Francisco Tavares and Hélène Vandewalle for database
support and other assistance.
35 This was a single position, staffed consecutively by the four individuals listed
36 As a resource for possible follow -up, particularly at national or regional levels, a complete list of members of the
WFF WWF European Freshwater Team can be found at: http://www.panda.org/europe/freshwater
57
A Practical Resource for implementing the EU Water Framework Directive
FINAL TEXT FOR TRANSLATORS 14/09/01
Appendix VI Sources of further information
For further information concerning the outputs from the
`Water Seminar Series', please contact:
WWF
European Commission
European Freshwater Programme
DG Environment
Eva Royo -Gelabert
Helmut Blöch
European Water Policy Officer
Head of Sector Water Protection
c/o WWF European Policy Office
200 rue de la Loi, BEAU 9,3/158
36, avenue de Tervuren
B-1049 Brussels
B-1040 Brussels
Belgium
Belgium
Tel: +32-2-743.88.14
Tel: +32-2-229.06.72
Fax: +32-2-743.88.19
Fax: +32-2-296.88.25
ERoyogela@wwfepo.org
helmut.bloech@cec.eu.int
The following web sites are recommended as sources of additional information covering
many of the issues raised in this document:
· Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, 1971) guidelines on `integrating wetland conservation
and wise use into river basin management' available in English, French and Spanish:
http://www.ramsar.org/key_guidelines_index.htm
· European Commission, DG Agriculture, agriculture and environment pages:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/envir/index_en.htm
· European Commission, DG Environment, site index:
http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/index_en.htm
· European Environmental Bureau (EEB) Position Paper on `Making the EU Water
Framework Directive Work: Ten Actions for Implementing a Better European Water Policy'
(downloadable in pdf format):
http://www.eeb.org/publication/general.htm
· European Union of National Associations of Water Suppliers and Waste Water Services
http://users.skynet.be/eureau/
58
A Practical Resource for implementing the EU Water Framework Directive
FINAL TEXT FOR TRANSLTAORS 14/09/01
· International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River:
http://www.icpdr.org
· International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine:
http://www.iksr.org/icpr/index.htm
· River Basin Initiative of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the `Ramsar' Convention
on Wetlands:
http://www.ramsar.org/w.n.rbi_progress1.htm
· United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, water pages:
http://www.unece.org/env/water/
· World Commission on Dams:
http://www.dams.org
· World Water Vision launched by the World Water Council at the Second World Water
Forum in March 2000:
http://www.worldwatercouncil.org/vision.htm
· WWF, European Freshwater Programme:
http://www.panda.org/europe/freshwater
59
A Practical Resource for implementing the EU Water Framework Directive
FINAL TEXT FOR TRANSLATORS 14/09/01
[BACK COVER TEXT LOGOS INCLUDED]
This Practical Resource document results from a series of open, transparent and
participatory seminars - comprising the `Water Seminar Series' which brought together
hundreds of `water stakeholders' to discuss approaches and tools for implementation of the
European Union Water Framework Directive (WFD). This challenging new legislation
entered into force at the end of 2000 and sets out the basis for sustainable use of water
resources across Europe. It will affect everyone involved directly or indirectly with water
resource management and use in both Member States and EU-Candidate countries alike.
The seminars focused on three key issues, which the organisers, WWF and the European
Commission (EC), had identified as needing special attention when implementing the WFD:
· Water and Agriculture
· The Role of Wetlands in River Basin Management
· Good Practice in River Basin Planning
Who should read this document?
· Those involved with water planning and management at regional and lo cal levels, including
land -use planners, water supply and treatment companies, and local authorities.
· `Stakeholder' groups with an interest in how an individual river basin is managed, for
example: Community associations, farmers, environmentalists.
Logos: WWF top left, EC top right, with TAIEX underneath
60