DANUBE STUDY ON POLLUTION TRADING AND
CORRESPONDING ECONOMIC INSTRUMENTS
FOR NUTRIENT REDUCTION
FINAL WORKSHOP REPORT
April 2005
Approved by UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project 26th May 2005
In association with
Institute for Water Quality and Waste Management, Vienna University of Technology
and Jürgen H. Lottmann, Frankfurt
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project Danube Study on Pollution Trading and
Corresponding Economic Instruments for Nutrient Reduction
DANUBE STUDY ON POLLUTION TRADING AND
CORRESPONDING ECONOMIC INSTRUMENTS
FOR NUTRIENT REDUCTION
FINAL WORKSHOP REPORT
April 2005
Approved by UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project 26th May 2005
In association with
Institute for Water Quality and Waste Management, Vienna University of Technology
and Jürgen H. Lottmann, Frankfurt
UNOPS-file: RER/01/G32
NIRAS-file: 04.131.00
Prepared
by
Date:
15 April 2005
Jens Lřnholdt NIRAS A/S: jlt@niras.dk
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
NIRAS A/S
Vienna International Centre D0418 Austria
Sortemosevej 2 DK-3450 Allerřd Denmark
Tel. + 43 1 26060/5767
Tel. + 45 4810 4200
Fax + 43 1 26060/5837
Fax + 45 4810 4300
www. icpdr.org/undp-drp/
www.niras.dk
Final Workshop Report April 2005
2
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project Danube Study on Pollution Trading and
Corresponding Economic Instruments for Nutrient Reduction
FOREWORD
This Report is the result of a Study entitled Danube Study on Pollution Trading and Corresponding
Economic Instruments for Nutrient Reduction, which has been commissioned by the Danube Regional
Project to a consortia of consultants lead by the Danish engineering and consultant company NIRAS.
The main aim of the Study is to review international experience in relation to pollution trading and
based on this to assess the feasibility of applying such concepts to the nutrient discharges to the Danube
River System. The Danube River System is largely responsible for the eutrophication problems of the
North-western Black Sea.
This Report includes the outcome of a basin wide Completion Workshop Friday the 25th of
February in Baden bei Wien. It is an amendment and supplement of a draft version of this Report,
which was prepared and submitted before the Completion Workshop, and discussed at the workshop.
The amendments and supplements are consequently based on the discussions and the group work at the
said workshop. The Report targets national decision makers and senior policy advisors responsible for
the water quality of the Danube and the Black Sea.
The full result of the Study is reported in two background reports, which include the
comprehensive review and feasibility assessment of applying pollution trading and corresponding
economic instruments to the nutrients problem of the Danube and the North-western Black Sea:
ˇ Review Report dated October 2004; and
ˇ Feasibility Report Conceptual Assessment dated February 2005.
These reports, which was available for the Completion Workshop, as well as the Draft Workshop
Report, are available on request from the Danube Regional Project Office (UNDP/GEF Danube
Regional Project. Vienna International Centre. D0418 Austria.Tel. + 43 1 26060/5767. Fax + 43 1
26060/5837. www. icpdr.org/undp-drp/ ).
Chapter 1 gives an introduction and background to the Study including the scope of the Study and the
questions that has been addressed by the Study. Chapter 2 gives a cursory overview of study results
with emphasis on highlighting strategic and policy options. Chapter 3 includes the main policy
elements and strategy questions, which were presented for discussion at the Completion Workshop. In
Chapter 4 is given the results and outcome of the Completion Workshop including the group work
conducted. It is completed with a study wrap-up that draws up the main findings, conclusions and
recommendations as agreed upon at the workshop.
Final Workshop Report April 2005
3
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project Danube Study on Pollution Trading and
Corresponding Economic Instruments for Nutrient Reduction
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
6
2. CURSORY
OVERVIEW
OF STUDY RESULTS
8
3.
POLICY ELEMENTS AND STRATEGY QUESTIONS
12
4.
OUTCOME OF THE COMPLETION WORKSHOP 25TH FEBRUARY 2005
14
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1:
Programme and List of Participants for the Completion Workshop
APPENDIX 2: Slides Presented at the Completion Workshop
APPENDIX 3: Results of Group Work at the Completion Workshop
Final Workshop Report April 2005
4
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project Danube Study on Pollution Trading and
Corresponding Economic Instruments for Nutrient Reduction
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
DaNUbs
Nutrient Management in the Danube and its Impact on the Black Sea (5th
EU Framework Programme Scientific Project)
DRB
Danube River Basin. The full catchment area of the Danube
DRP
Danube Regional Project. The implementing unit for i.a. this assignment
GDP
Gross Domestic Product
GEF Global
Environmental Facility
GHG
Green-House Gases
ICPDR
International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River
N
Nitrogen in all its forms and compounds (Total Nitrogen)
NIRAS
The Danish company NIRAS Consulting Engineers and Planners A/S. The
lead consultant for this assignment
NWBS
The North-western Black Sea, which is the target area for this Study
P
Phosphorous in all its forms and compounds (Total Phosphorous)
Study This
Study:
Danube Study on Pollution Trading and Corresponding
Economic Instruments for Nutrient Reduction
UNOPS
United Nations Office of Project Services. The contracting agency for this
assignment
Final Workshop Report April 2005
5
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project Danube Study on Pollution Trading and
Corresponding Economic Instruments for Nutrient Reduction
1.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
This Study is part of the overall and comprehensive UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project (DRP),
which started in December 2001, and which is scheduled for completion in December 2006.
The main aim of the DRP is to assist the Danube Countries (except Austria and Germany, which are
co-operating countries within the DRP) in increasing their capacities for developing effective
mechanisms and means for co-operation for the protection of the Danube and its final recipient the
Black Sea. The DRP complements the activities of the ICPDR (International Commission for the
Protection of the River Danube) to strengthen regional co-operation for solving transboundary water
pollution problems.
The 13 (11 plus 2) Danube Countries are schematically outlined in Chart No. 1 below.
"Dark blue" countries are Danube riparian countries
"Light blue" countries are countries which discharge in-directly to the Danube
Czech
Ukraine
Republic
Slovakia
Romania
Moldova
North-
Serbia and
Germany
Austria
Hungary
Western
Montenegro
Black Sea
Croatia
Bulgaria
Bosnia and
Slovenia
Herzegovina
Chart No. 1: Schematical Presentation of the Danube with the 13 Danube Countries
Due to the regional and transboundary character of the water pollution problems in the Danube and
the Black Sea, there is a need to consider the application of regional means and measures to solve
the pollution problems of the Danube and its final recipient.
Final Workshop Report April 2005
6
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project Danube Study on Pollution Trading and
Corresponding Economic Instruments for Nutrient Reduction
A major regional water pollution problem is the eutrophication ("over-enrichment" with nutrients,
which leads to degradation of water quality and aquatic life) of the North-western Black Sea due to
the discharge of nutrients by the Danube. In this connection it could be considered to introduce the
concept of "nutrient trading", well known from air pollution abatement, as a means of solving the
eutrophication problem economically and co-operatively.
Based on this it has been decided within the DRP to investigate this further by a Study entitled
Danube Study on Pollution Trading and Corresponding Economic Instruments for Nutrient
Reduction. The scope and content of the Study, which has been contracted to NIRAS with
associates based on a tendering process, is described in the Inception Report dated 8 March 2004,
which was approved by DRP 2 April 2004.
The Study set out to answer the following questions as grouped in the following three main groups:
ˇ Nutrient Framework (Component A of the Study):
a. What is the present N (total nitrogen) and P (total phosphorous) load to the Danube,
and how is it distributed on countries and the main dischargers: domestic, industrial and
agriculture?
b. What is the present N and P transformation capacity distributed on the main tributaries
and reservoirs, and the delta?
c. How much N and P reductions are needed in order to achieve the necessary water
quality of the North-western Black Sea?
d. How will the impact be on the discharges of N and P of improved wastewater
management (which will decrease discharges) and increased and changed level of
agricultural activities (which, if not counter acted, will increase discharges)?
ˇ Legal and Regulatory Framework (Component B of the Study)
a. To which extent will the present legal and regulatory framework of the 13 Danube
Countries facilitate or constrain the introduction of nutrient trading?
b. Based on this, which specific legal and regulatory gaps for the 13 Danube Countries
can be identified, and how is the feasibility of timely filling these gaps for each
country?
c. Is it based on the legal and regulatory analysis advisable or not to introduce nutrient
trading, and if yes what will be the necessary main legal and regulatory steps?
ˇ Economic Instruments (Component C of the Study)
a. What is the US, Australian and European experience and lessons-learned with pollution
trading of air pollutants, green-house gases, and water pollutants?
b. How can the above concepts and lessons-learned in principle be applied to the specifics
of the Danube?
c. Based on this is there an advantage in applying pollution trading as a means for
nutrients reduction for the Danube River System, and if yes how could it be applied on
the conceptual level?
d. Is it based on the economic instruments review and analysis advisable or not to
introduce nutrient trading, and if yes what will be the necessary main implementation
steps?
Final Workshop Report April 2005
7
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project Danube Study on Pollution Trading and
Corresponding Economic Instruments for Nutrient Reduction
2.
CURSORY OVERVIEW OF STUDY RESULTS
The detailed and comprehensive answers to the study questions in Chapter 1 can be found in the two
background reports referred to in the Foreword of which the Feasibility Report gives a comprehensive
conceptual assessment.
In the following the overall findings and conclusions of the Study are summarised in the context of
application of policies and strategies:
1. The Danube River System is the main controller of the eutrophication of the North-western
Black Sea (NWBS) as the main load of N and P comes via the Danube.
2. The NWBS has significantly improved over the last decade due to the reduction in the
nutrient discharge caused by the lower agricultural and industrial activities in a number of the
Danube Countries with developing economies. The decrease in economic activities in these
countries is caused by the economic crisis following the break down of the former Soviet
Union in 1989.
3. The present ecological status of the NWBS is close to being assessed "good". Some
problems remain with the fish stock, which is however assessed to be due to over fishing, and
not nutrient discharge.
4. Consequently the present nutrient loading is proposed "frozen" as the sustainable
nutrient loading for the NWBS. The management strategies should thus aim at counter acting
possible increase in the load due to increase in agricultural or industrial activities or increase in
population.
5. Phosphorous seems to be the limiting nutrient for the NWBS, and consequently counter
acting strategies should first target the discharge of this nutrient.
6. However, as the Central Part of the Black Sea seems to be nitrogen limited, and as the ratio
between phosphorous and nitrogen in the NWBS could be decisive if only phosphorous is
targeted, counter acting strategies should also target nitrogen for the Danube System.
7. Consequently a two-pronged strategy is proposed. First target phosphorous, but keep a close
watch on the development in the nitrogen discharge, and especially the relationship between
phosphorous and nitrogen in the NWBS. Secondly, if the ratio changes in the wrong direction,
counter acting strategies should be applied for nitrogen as well.
8. The Danube is the main contributor to the NWBS with phosphorous as 75 % of the load
generates from the Danube. In average only 35 % of the phosphorous emissions is directly
manageable as it stems from point sources. In average 10 % of the phosphorous emissions are
non-manageable as it is so called "background emissions" from nature. In average only 35 %
of the phosphorous discharged to the Danube system reaches the NWBS as it is transformed
and/or stored in the Danube System on its way to the NWBS due to physical, chemical,
biological, and microbiological processes.
Final Workshop Report April 2005
8
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project Danube Study on Pollution Trading and
Corresponding Economic Instruments for Nutrient Reduction
9. The complexity of the Danube River System in terms of i.a. demography, economy, culture,
geology, hydrology, hydraulics, climate, land use, etc. have to be carefully evaluated when
applying regional, national and local counter acting strategies for nutrients.
10. Pollution trading of green-house gasses (GHG) is well developed, and with a fair amount of
implementation experience, based on the Kyoto Protocol and its implementation mechanisms.
As for water the concepts are not that developed, and the experience and case stories are
limited. In relation to applying the experience from pollution trading of GHG to nutrients
reduction in the Danube River System, there is a significant contextual difference, which
should be taken into account. It is about the joint benefit. In pollution trading of GHG the
basic concept is that everybody will benefit from a better global climate no matter where the
reduction is introduced. This joint-benefit-concept is not directly applicable to possible nutrient
trading within the Danube in relation to improving the water quality of the NWBS as the
countries bordering and with direct access to the Black Sea will benefit substantially more than
the upstream countries. However, when taken this into account it should also be taken into
account that the 13 Danube Countries through being signatory to the two Conventions are
committed to a shared and joint responsibility also for the quality of the Black Sea. Further,
they are also committed to the polluter-pays-principle, which is not based on a benefit
assessment. In relation to the lesser experience with pollution trading within water another
significant contextual difference applies, as the major part of the case studies are within states
and nations with the same economic standing. In this context the Danube is very complex as
it is trans-national as well as trans-regional. Further, it covers a huge range from countries
with very high institutional, legal, regulatory and administrative capacity and economic means,
to countries with very limited capacity and limited economic resources.
11. At the international level water quality management in the Danube River System is regulated
by two conventions: The Convention on the Protection and Use of Trans-boundary Water
Courses and International Lakes, and the Danube River Protection Convention. For at
majority of the Danube Countries the EU Water Framework Directive is a supranational and
demanding basic law of water management. These Conventions, and the Directive, neither
prohibit nor promote pollution trading. However, the EU Water Framework Directive includes
a number of the necessary technical instruments and mechanisms for nutrient trading including
the important monitoring programming. EU based legal and regulatory framework has to be
addressed carefully as compliance has to be ensured with EU principles concerning e.g. state
aid, unfair competition and discrimination. Especially the requirements of the use of BAT (Best
Available Technology) and BAP (Best Agricultural Practice) in pollution abatement requires
carefully consideration about what should be understood as "real emission reductions".
12. The EU Water Framework Directive is an important and basic instrument for water
management in the Danube River System as a majority of the Danube Countries are either EU
Member States or EU Accession Countries (Bulgaria and Romania). For the remaining 5
Danube countries it is to be expected that they will follow EU legislation. Consequently it
should be investigated more in-depth to which extent pollution trading could be facilitated by
the Directive and its sister directives.
13. It seems that a mix of pollution trading with traditional "command-and-control"
instruments and economic incentives, will be best suited for and applicable to the complex
situation in the Danube River System. This is mainly based on the complexity of the Danube
Final Workshop Report April 2005
9
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project Danube Study on Pollution Trading and
Corresponding Economic Instruments for Nutrient Reduction
River in a number of aspects as outlined above, and taken into account that introduction and
application of new and untraditional means and measures are resource demanding.
Consequently the economic and water quality benefits could be outweighed by the increased
administrative costs.
14. Based on the above, four contextual different scenarios could be discussed:
I. Business As Usual: The management and control of P-emissions to the Danube is based
on the international and regional Conventions and Directives, and the national legal and
regulatory framework in the 13 Danube Countries.
II. Regulatory with basic point-source P-trading: Same as Scenario I but supplemented
with P-trading for the point sources, which is carefully formulated and managed, and only
introduced where a clear economic benefit can be ensured.
III. Regulatory with full-fledged point-source P-trading: Same as Scenario II but
supplemented with as much as possible point source P-trading where the economic
benefit is not fully clarified or ensured.
IV. Regulatory with full-fledged P-trading: Same as Scenario III but supplemented with
non-point source P-trading.
15. In line with the two-pronged P-strategy introduced in Point 7 above, a two-phase overall
strategy is proposed. The first phase comprises P-increase counter acting strategies for the
Danube River System. This will be premised on a comprehensive P-discharge and
transformation monitoring programme with agreed compilation, processing and interpretation
of monitoring results. Further, a comprehensive water quality monitoring programme for the
North-western Black Sea with as well agreed compilation and so forth. The second phase is
presumed to be N-increase counter acting or reduction strategies from the sea shore countries
of the Black Sea in relation to the water quality of the Black Sea in the open areas. If the water
quality monitoring in the NWBS reveals that the quality is changing to an unacceptable level
due to the change in the N/P ratio caused by the second phase N strategies, then it has to be
considered to introduce additional measures to limit N-emissions to the Danube River System.
16. For the Danube River System a two-level strategy is also proposed. The first level is the P-
increase counter acting strategies on the overall regional level with the aim of keeping the
discharge of P to the NWBS at the "freeze" level. The second level is P-increase counter acting
and possible P-decrease strategies at the country and area specific level in order to solve semi-
regional or local eutrophication problems for specific reservoirs and bigger slow flowing areas
of the Danube River.
17. In the context of the Danube River System three basic types of P-trading seems to be
interesting and relevant:
ˇ Inter-state State Level P-trading, where Danube Countries on the state level buy or sell state
allocated P-increase rights and P-decrease obligations;
ˇ Entity-to-entity Inter-state P-trading, where an entity in one country buy or sell a national
allocated P-increase right or a P-decrease obligation to an entity in another Country (it
Final Workshop Report April 2005
10
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project Danube Study on Pollution Trading and
Corresponding Economic Instruments for Nutrient Reduction
could be wastewater treatment plants or factories producing P rich wastewater as detergent
producing facilities).
ˇ Entity-to-entity National P-trading, where entities within a country buy and sell P-
discharges within the National cap.
18. In continuation of the above it is important to take into account, when setting up a possible P-
trading facility, the P-reduction requirements, which comes directly and not imposed by
Conventions, from improved wastewater management due to national legislation and/or EU
Directives. Further, it is important in this context to take into account that some P-reduction
requirements on wastewater management are "non-tradable" as they address semi-regional
and/or local eutrophication problems, and consequently can not be transferred into a regional
context in relation to the NWBS.
Final Workshop Report April 2005
11
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project Danube Study on Pollution Trading and
Corresponding Economic Instruments for Nutrient Reduction
3.
POLICY ELEMENTS AND STRATEGY
QUESTIONS
The policy elements of a comprehensive nutrient management system for the Danube River System,
with the aim of protecting the North-western Black Sea, could, premised on Chapter 2, consist of the
following main elements to be jointly agreed between the 13 Danube Countries.:
I. The present quality of the NWBS is basically satisfactory and a "freeze" of the present quality
should be proclaimed as the desirable situation. It should be assessed more in-depth if the present
water quality is in full accordance with the quality objectives of the two Conventions and the EU
Water Framework Directive with sister Directives.
II. In continuation of the above the present P-load from the Danube to the NWBS is the acceptable
level, and consequently policies and strategies should focus on counteracting increase in the load.
In this connection the specific number as tonnes total P per year should be agreed on as the "cap"
for the P load from the Danube River System to the NWBS. Following this, a distribution and
allocation of the cap to each of the 13 Danube Countries should be agreed upon by possible taken
into consideration the transformation capacity of the Danube River System (due to this capacity 1
kg of P discharged by Germany will be significant "lesser" than 1 kg when it reaches the mouth
of the Danube River System).
III. The principle that some countries, especially the countries which due to a present low economic
activity have a low P-discharge, but have a need and potential for economic development, should
be allowed to increase their P-discharge. This should be premised on that the increase in one or
more countries should be counteracted by an equivalent decrease in a "package" of one or more
countries.
IV. The criteria for distribution, and the calculation, of "increase-rights" as well as "decrease-
obligations". The actual distribution and allocation of the increase-rights and the decrease-
obligations on the 13 Danube Countries in amount and in time. The setting up, responsibility, and
functioning of a comprehensive inventory and monitoring system of emissions and loads, able
to measure reduction and increases by States and entities.
V. The setting up, responsibility and functioning of an independent inter-state P-trading facility
and organisation. And the setting up, responsibility and functioning of an entity-to-entity P-
trading system covering trading between entities within the same countries and between entities
in different countries. It could be part of the first one.
Final Workshop Report April 2005
12
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project Danube Study on Pollution Trading and
Corresponding Economic Instruments for Nutrient Reduction
Based on the previous the following policy and strategy questions where discussed at the Completion
Workshop Friday 25th of February 2005 in Baden bei Wien:
1. Policy and Strategy Question No. 1: Should nutrient trading be promoted for the Danube
River System as a mix with traditional command-and-control measures? Should it first target P,
and should it be based on the "low-risk" scenario" or the "high-risk" scenario?
2. Policy and Strategy Question No. 2: Is the present water quality of the North-western Black
Sea acceptable, and should the nutrient management consequently be based on "freezing" the
present overall load from the Danube River System?
3. Policy and Strategy Question No. 3: Is the concept of P-increase counter acting strategies
acceptable? If yes should an overall principle be applied that some countries could increase
their P-emissions premised on that an equivalent P-reduction is provided by other countries?
4. Policy and Strategy Question No. 4: Should the transformation capacity of the Danube River
System be taken into account when allocating P-loads or should it be based on gross
emissions? If yes, how should this be done? As a linear function or based on regional, semi-
regional or local specifics of the transformation capacity? If a linear function is chosen should it
go from 1 in the mouth of the Danube to 0, x upstream in the Danube?
5. Policy and Strategy Question No. 5: By which criteria should respectively P-increase rights
and P-decrease obligations be given to specific countries (the so called burden-sharing)?
Should it be based on GDP (Gross Domestic Product) and the concept of "rich countries taken
a bigger share than poor countries"? Or which other political criteria (examples are given in the
Feasibility Report Chapter 4) should be applied?
6. Policy and Strategy Question No. 6: If P-trading is introduced should it encompass all three
principal trading possibilities (Inter-state State; Entity-to-entity Interstate; Entity-to-entity
National) or only one or two of the options?
7. Policy and Strategy Question No. 7: How should the direct P-reduction through improved
wastewater management be taken into account? Incorporated into the strategy and overall
managed and monitored, or as an extra benefit, which will further lower the P-discharge?
8. Policy and Strategy Question No. 8: How should a possible P-trading facility be set up, and
what should be its responsibility and functioning?
9. Policy and Strategy Question No. 9: How should the inventory and monitoring facility be set
up, and what should be its responsibility and functioning? Should it be part of the above, or a
separate independent entity?
10. Policy and Strategy Question No. 10: Which are the most important next steps?
The results of the discussions are given in the following Chapter.
Final Workshop Report April 2005
13
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project Danube Study on Pollution Trading and
Corresponding Economic Instruments for Nutrient Reduction
4.
OUTCOME OF THE COMPLETION
WORKSHOP 25TH FEBRUARY 2005
The Completion Workshop was conducted in Baden bei Wien 25th February 2005. The Workshop
Programme and the List of Participants is given in Appendix 1. Unfortunately the target group of the
workshop, as identified in the Inception Report (decision makers and senior policy advisors) was only
covered to a very limited extent by the workshop participants, which mainly consisted of senior
technical staff.
In accordance with the programme, the workshop was structured around group work by the
participants, where they should address the policy and strategy questions as outlined in the previous
chapter. As an introduction to the group work the main findings, conclusions and recommendations of
the Study were presented by the Study Team Leader. The slides presented in this connection are given
in Appendix 2. The results of the group work are given in Appendix 3.
Following the presentation by each group of the results of the group work, the comprehensive results
of the Study were discussed by the participants in plenum.
These discussions can be summarised as follows:
1.
The present state of the North-western Black Sea is considered satisfactory (except by
Bulgaria).
2.
P is the pressing problem.
3.
And overall freeze of emissions from the Danube River System would be desirable, but
presently would no country be prepared to accept a freeze for its emissions.
4.
The specific costs for limiting nutrients differ hugely from sector to sector and from country
to country. Consequently there is interest in means, measures and mechanisms which could
channel funds into the most cost-effective solutions.
5.
Diffuse sources, especially agriculture, are the dominant sources for nutrients.
6.
All countries represented at the workshop (present as well as future members of the EU) feel
obliged to implement the WFD (the Water Framework Directive), the Urban Waste Water
Directive and other relevant regulations from the EU. Compliance with these very demanding
overarching regulatory instruments absorbs all the available resources with regard to nutrient
limitation. Consequently little room is presently left for considering additional measures as
nutrient trading.
7.
Austria and Germany on the one side, and the riparian countries of the Black Sea on the other
side, fear that trading, which reduces the pollution load of the Danube at the lower end and
relaxes limitations at the upper end, would lead to disadvantages for them.
8.
Trading should be complementary to the existing regulation.
9.
Present amount and quality of data is sufficient for many actions to limit nutrients especially
in relation to the traditional regulatory instruments.
10. However the present data background is not considered reliable enough to base nutrient
trading on.
Final Workshop Report April 2005
14
APPENDIX 1
Programme
and
List of Participants
for the
Completion Workshop
Pollution Trading Workshop
in Baden, AUSTRIA
- AGENDA -
Friday, 25 February, 2005
09.00 - 09.30
Registration
09.30 09.45
Welcome and Introduction by DRP Project Manager Ivan Zavadsky
09.45 10.30
Presentation of the main findings, conclusions and
recommendations of the Study by Team Manager Jens Lonholdt
10.30-10.45 Coffee
Break
10.45 12.00
Discussion in groups of the findings, conclusions and
recommendations of the Study Team
12.00 13.00
Lunch
13.00 15.00
Further group discussions and consultation of the individual
Team
Specialists
15.00-15.15 Coffee
Break
15.15 16.00
Group Reporting in Plenum
16.00 17.00
Discussion and agreement in Plenum about possible conceptual
framework and the further work chaired by Project Manager
Ivan Zavadsky and mediated by Team Manager Jens Lonholdt
17.00 17.15
Closing of the Workshop by Project Manager Ivan Zavadsky
"Tariffs and Charges " Workshop
24 February, Austria
"Pollution Trading" Workshop
25 February, Austria
NAME
COUNTRY
ORGANISATION/
CONTACT
S
A
I G N A T U R E
D D R E S S
Environmental and
Tel: + 1 919 932 9813
MORRIS
Resource Economics
Fax: +1 919 932 9813
1 Mr. Glenn
USA
118 Nottingham Drivea
Email: glennmorris@bellsouth.net
singed
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Web:
MAKK Magyar
Tel: +36 1 212 6775
Kornyezetgazdasagtani
Fax: + 36 1 212 6778
Email:
KIS
Kozpont
Kis.Andras@makk.zpok.hu
2 Mr. Andras
Hungary
Hungarian Environmental Web: www.makk.zpok.hu
singed
Economics Center
Meszaros u. 18,
Budapest 1016
Vodovod i Kanalizacija
Tel: +385 47 649 132
VEBLE
d.o.o
Fax: +385 47 649 101
3 Mr. Kresimir
Croatia
Gazanski trg 8
Email: kresimir.veble@ka.htnet.hr
singed
47 000 Karlovac
Mobil: +385 982 46 244
Transdanubian
Tel: + 368 45 010 40
CSUPORT
Fax: +368 45 010 42
4 Mr
Waterworks
Laszlo
Hungary
Tanácsház u.7
Email: csuport.laszlo@drv.hu
singed
8600 Siófok
Web:
Tel: + 49 697 43 13 142
Fax: + 49 697 43 13 796
LOTTMANN
K f W
5 Mr
Email: Juergen.Lottmann@kfw.de
Jürgen
Germany
Palmengartenstrasse 5-9
singed
60325 Frankfurt
Web:
Tel: + 454 810 45 52
STEEN
NIRAS
Fax: + 454 810 43 00
6 Ms. Ulla
Denmark
Sortemosevej 2
Email: USN@niras.dk
singed
3450 Allerod, Denmark
Web: www.niras.dk
Tel: + 454 810 45 52
SORENSEN
NIRAS
Fax: + 454 810 43 00
7 Mr Christian
Denmark
Sortemosevej 2
Email: css@niras.dk
singed
3450 Allerod, Denmark
Web: www.niras.dk
Tel: + 454 810 42 55
LONHOLDT
NIRAS
Fax: + 454 810 43 00
8 Mr Jens
Denmark
Sortemosevej 2
Email: jlt@niras.dk
singed
3450 Allerod, Denmark
Web: www.niras.dk
Vienna University of
Tel: + 43 1 588 01 22 614
LAMPERT
Technology, IWA
Fax: +43 1 588 01 22 699
9 Mr Christoph
Austria
Karlsplatz 13
Email: Clampert@iwag.tuwien.ac.at
singed
1040 Vienna
Web:
10 Mr ZESSNER
Austria
TU Vienna
Tel: + 43 1 588 01 22 616
singed
NAME
COUNTRY
ORGANISATION/
CONTACT
S
A
I G N A T U R E
D D R E S S
Matthias Institute
for
Water
Fax: + 43 1 588 01 22 699
quality
Email: Mzessner@iwag.tuwien.ac.at
Karlsplatz 13/226
Web:
1040 Vienna
Eötvös József College,
Tel: + 36 79 524 624 - 164
PÉTER
Technical Faculty
Fax: + 36 79 524 624 - 164
11 Ms. Judit
Hungary
Bajcsy-Zsilinszky u. 14
Email: peter.judit@ejf.hu
singed
6500 Baja, Hungary
Web: www.ejf.hu
Ministry for Environment Tel: + 361 457 35 69
MENYHÁRT
and Water
Fax: + 361 201 22 80
12 Ms. Ildikó
Hungary
Fö utca 44 50
Email: menyhart@mail.kvvm.hu
singed
1011 Budapest, Hungary Web:
National Istitute of
Tel: + 373 22 738 889
DRUMEA
Ecology Ministry
Fax: + 373 22 738 889
13 Mr Dumitru
Moldova
Academiei Str. 6/1, R 25 Email: drumead25@yahoo.com
singed
2028 Kishinev,
Web:
MOLDOVA
Tel: + 359 2 940 6146
Ministry of Environment
Fax: + 359 2 980 9641
TSVETKOVA
and Water
Email:
14 Ms. Eli
Bulgaria
22, Maria Luisa Blvd.
Tcvetkovaeli@moew.government.bg
singed
BG 1000 Sofia,
Web: www.moew.government.bg
BULGARIA
Tel: + 359 2 940 6521
Ministry of Environment
Fax: + 359 2 980 9641
IVANOV
and Water
Email:
15 Mr Georgi
Bulgaria
22, Maria Luisa Blvd.
givanov@moew.government.bg
singed
BG 1000 Sofia,
Web: www.moew.government.bg
BULGARIA
Ministry of Environment
Tel: + 359 2 940 6561
Fax: + 359 2 980 9641
ROIATCHKA
and Water
16 Ms.
Email: vro@moew.government.bg
Violeta
Bulgaria
22, Maria Luisa Blvd.
singed
BG 1000 Sofia,
Web: www.moew.government.bg
BULGARIA
Ministry of Agriculture
Tel: + 385 1 6307 381
Forestry and Water
Fax: + 385 1 6151 821
TRLAJA
17 Ms
Management
Email: htrlaja@voda.hr
HAIDI
Croatia
Ulica Grada Vukovara
Web:
singed
220
10 000 Zagreb, CROATIA
Croatian Waters
Tel: + 385 1 6307 661
MOKOS
Fax: + 385 1 6118 570
18 Ms
Ulica Grada Vukovara
Doubravka
Croatia
220
Email: mokos@voda.hr
singed
10 000 Zagreb, CROATIA Web:
Tel: + 43 1 71 100 7111
FLECKSEDE
Lebensministerium
Fax: + 43 1 71 100 - 17156
19 Mr R
Austria
Marxergasse 2
Email:
singed
Hellmut
1030 Vienna, AUSTRIA
hellmut.fleckseder@lebensministeriu
m.at
20 Mr PAAL
Austria
Lebensministerium
Tel: + 43 1 71 100 - 6922
singed
Christian
Stubenring 1
Fax: + 43 1 71 100 - 6503
NAME
COUNTRY
ORGANISATION/
CONTACT
S
A
I G N A T U R E
D D R E S S
1010 Vienna, AUSTRIA
Email:
Christian.paal@lebensministerium.at
Institute for the
Tel: + 381 11 390 64 77
Development of Water
Fax: + 381 11 390 79 55
Email:
DIMKIC
Serbia and
Resources "Jaroslav
jdjcerni@eunet.yu
21 Mr Milan
Montenegro
Cerni"
singed
Jaroslava Cernog 80
11226 Pinosava,
Belgrade
Ministry of Agriculture,
Tel: + 381 11 311 53 70
MARJANOV
Forestry and Water
Fax: + 381 11 311 53 70
Serbia and
22 Mr IC
Management
Email:
Montenegro
singed
Nikola
Bulevar umetnosti 2A
nikola.marjanovic@minpolj.sr.gov.yu
11070 Belgrade
Web: www.minpolj.sr.gov.yu
Serbia and Montenegro
Ministry of Environment
Tel: + 421 2 59 343 414
BARTKOVA
Fax: + 421 2 54 640 422
23 Ms
Námestie L'. Stúra 1
Eleonora
Slovakia
812 35 Bratislava,
Email:
singed
Slovak Republic
bartkova.eleonora@enviro.gov.sk
Web: www.enviro.gov.sk
WELLER
VIC,
Tel: + 43 1 26060 5738
24 Mr.
ICPDR
DO 413. PO Box 500
Fax: + 43 1 26060 5895
singed
Philip
A-1400 Vienna, Austria
Email: Philip.weller@unvienna.org
ZAVADSKY
VIC,
Tel: + 43 1 26060 5767
25 Mr.
UNDP/GEF
DO 419, PO Box 500
Fax: + 43 1 26060 5837
singed
Ivan
DRP
A-1400 Vienna, Austria
Email: Ivan.zavadsky@unvienna.org
KOCH
VIC,
Tel: + 43 1 26060 5767
26 Ms.
UNDP/GEF
DO 419, PO Box 500
Fax: + 43 1 26060 5837
singed
Sylvia
DRP
A-1400 Vienna, Austria
Email: Sylvia.Koch@unvienna.org
APPENDIX 2
Slides Presented
at the
Completion Workshop
APPENDIX 3
Results of Group Work
at the
Completion Workshop
Group A
1. Policy and Strategy Question No. 1: Should nutrient trading be promoted for the Danube
River System as a mix with traditional command-and-control measures? Should it first target P,
and should it be based on the "low-risk" scenario" or the "high-risk" scenario? Should be
discussed at the end. Concluding answer: No
2. Policy and Strategy Question No. 2: Is the present water quality of the North-western Black
Sea acceptable: Yes, and should the nutrient management consequently be based on "freezing"
the present overall load from the Danube River System? No.
3. Policy and Strategy Question No. 3: Is the concept of P-increase counter acting strategies
acceptable? If yes should an overall principle be applied that some countries could increase
their P-emissions premised on that an equivalent P-reduction is provided by other countries?
Depends. Countries are not in the same position, with regard to cap. Assumption that there is
a cap is only a theory.
4. Policy and Strategy Question No. 4: Should the transformation capacity of the Danube River
System be taken into account when allocating P-loads or should it be based on gross
emissions? If yes, how should this be done? As a linear function or based on regional, semi-
regional or local specifics of the transformation capacity? If a linear function is chosen should it
go from 1 in the mouth of the Danube to 0, x upstream in the Danube? No.
5. Policy and Strategy Question No. 5: By which criteria should respectively P-increase rights
and P-decrease obligations be given to specific countries (the so called burden-sharing)?
Should it be based on GDP (Gross Domestic Product) and the concept of "rich countries taken
a bigger share than poor countries"? Or which other political criteria (examples are given in the
Feasibility Report Chapter 4) should be applied? Avoid term "Poor Countries". Related to No.
3.
6. Policy and Strategy Question No. 6: If P-trading is introduced should it encompass all three
principal trading possibilities (Inter-state State; Entity-to-entity Interstate; Entity-to-entity
National) or only one or two of the options? Only at the micro scale. What if polluters are
located along sensitive water body according to Urban WW Directive has to apply tertiary
treatment. No space for trade! See figure overleaf.
GER.
CRO.
SER.
Sensitive
Water Bodies
Q + deltaQ
Q - deltaQ
Black
Sea
KOP.
RIT
CONCERN!
IMPACT ON ALL COUNTRIES IN BETWEEN!
7. Policy and Strategy Question No. 7: How should the direct P-reduction through improved
wastewater management be taken into account? Incorporated into the strategy and overall
managed and monitored, or as an extra benefit, which will further lower the P-discharge?
Incorporated into the strategy.
8. Policy and Strategy Question No. 8: How should a possible P-trading facility be set up, and
what should be its responsibility and functioning? Does this practice exist? Where else? If yes,
we should use that experience. If not ... why we?!
9. Policy and Strategy Question No. 9: How should the inventory and monitoring facility be set
up, and what should be its responsibility and functioning? Should it be part of the above, or a
separate independent entity? Same as No. 8
10. Policy and Strategy Question No. 10: Which are the most important next steps? Change
WFD!
Group B
ˇ What is the "volume" of lowering of P at all point sources in AT & DE in
RDB?
0,5 mg/l of P to 0,15 mg P/l for 0,5 m3/Person E/d
with ~ 17 mio. persons ~ 1100 t P/a
1 Person without P remowal 0,7 g/pe.a
If "value of P" in AT & DE is the sam in e.g. Bucharest max. 1.5 mio pe
If "value of P" in AT & DE at Bucharest is reduced by 50% max 0,75
mio pe
ˇ Loads are traded
ˇ For these two states the "volume" is rather small
ˇ Practicality present rather limited
Document Outline