DANUBE POLLUTION REDUCTION PROGRAMME
TRANSBOUNDARY ANALYSIS REPORT
JUNE 1999
Programme Coordination Unit
UNDP/GEF Assistance

Preface
The Transboundary Analysis Report was prepared in the frame of the UNDP / GEF Danube River
Pollution Reduction Programme. The report is an integral part of a set of reports that together
constitute the final product of the current stage of the Programme. The respective reports minimize
recapitulation of details by cross referencing one another. As a result, the interested reader who
wishes to obtain a complete picture of activities, findings and recommendations of the Pollution
Reduction Programme should obtain copies of two other main reports of the Programme and three
of the supporting reports of the Transboundary Analysis:
UNDP / GEF Danube River Pollution Reduction Programme, Strategic Action Plan for
the Danube River Basin - Revision 1999.
UNDP / GEF Danube River Pollution Reduction Programme, Danube River Pollution
Reduction Programme Report, June 1999.
UNDP / GEF Danube River Pollution Reduction Programme, Development and
Application of the Danube Water Quality Model in Support of the Transboundary
Analysis and the Pollution Reduction Programme, June 1999.
UNDP / GEF Danube River Pollution Reduction Programme, Evaluation of Wetlands and
Floodplain Areas in the Danube River Basin, June 1999.
UNDP / GEF Danube River Pollution Reduction Programme, Thematic Maps of the
Danube River Basin - Social and Economic Characteristics with particular attention to
Hot Spots, Significant Impact Areas and Hydraulic Structures, June 1999.
The analysis was carried out in accordance with recommendations presented in the Operational
Strategy of the Global Environmental Facility, draft GEF documents on the contents of
transboundary analyses reports, personal communications with Andrew Hudson of the UNDP /
GEF Office in New York, and results of other transboundary analyses, especially the Black Sea
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis. The main sources of information for the Transboundary
Analysis were National Review Reports prepared by 11 countries, related contributions made by 2
countries (Austria and Germany), and a Transboundary Analysis Workshop convened in January
1999. An early draft of Chapters 1, 2 and 3 of the Transboundary Analysis Report was presented to
this Workshop as background information.
The report was drafted by Donald L. Graybill, international water quality data expert, with major
inputs from the UNDP/GEF team of international experts. Conceptual preparation and
organization of activities were carried out by Joachim Bendow, UNDP / GEF Project Manager with
the assistance of Andy Garner, UNDP/GEF Environmental Specialist. Socioeconomic information
was compiled by Reinhard Wanninger, international socio-economic expert. Project information
was compiled by Rolf Niemeyer, international water engineering consultant. Application of the
Danube Water Quality Model was carried out by Jos van Gils, international water quality
modelling expert, supported by a Working Group of international experts who are identified in the
report of the DWQM. Sub-river Basin Areas and Sub-river Basins were identified and described
and thematic Maps 1 through 12 were produced by Alexander Zinke, environmental management
consultant and Ulrich Schwarz, cartographer. Information on significant impact areas (SIAs) and
causal chain analyses was compiled by Mihaela Popovici and Alexander Zinke. Ecological and
wetlands information was compiled and wetlands maps were produced by WWF - Auen Institute,
Germany. The present document was edited by Michael Sokolnikov.

Table of Contents
1. Features of the Danube Basin ....................................................................... 1
1.1. Physical and Geographic ...........................................................................1
1.2. Hydrological..............................................................................................13
1.3. Ecological ..................................................................................................21
1.4. Population Development..........................................................................37
1.5. Social and Economic ................................................................................41
1.6. Legal and Institutional Framework of the Basin ..................................45
2. Objective, Approach and Context of the Transboundary
Analysis ......................................................................................................... 53
2.1. Main Objective .........................................................................................53
2.2. General Approach ....................................................................................53
2.3. Definition of Regions and Development of the Sub-river
Basin Approach ........................................................................................55
2.4. Use of Transboundary Analysis in the Danube River
Pollution Reduction Programme ............................................................67
2.5. The Approach and Use of the DWQM in the Transboundary
Analysis .....................................................................................................70
2.6. Analysis of Effect on Black Sea Ecosystems ..........................................73
2.7. Analysis of Effects on Significant Impact Areas within
the Danube Basin......................................................................................75
2.8. Analysis of Potential for Reduction of Water Pollution .......................75
2.9. Analysis of Potential for Wetland Rehabilitation and
Management .............................................................................................76
3. Situation Analysis and Description of Key Elements ............................... 79
3.1. Water Quality ...........................................................................................79
3.2. Hot Spots .................................................................................................103
3.3. Diffuse Sources of Pollution ..................................................................113
3.4. Application and Results of the DWQM in the Transboundary
Aalysis......................................................................................................119
3.5. Effects of Pollution on Receiving Waters.............................................125
3.6. Effect on Black Sea Ecosystems ............................................................125
v

3.7. Effects on Significant Impact Areas within the Basin ........................125
3.8. Opportunities for Wetland Rehabilitation and Management............137
4. Causal Chain Analysis and Transboundary Effects by
Regions, Sub-River Basins and Sectors ................................................... 141
4.1. Core Problems ........................................................................................142
4.2. Immediate Causes and their Stakeholders...........................................142
4.3. Root Causes and their Stakeholders.....................................................145
5. Identification and Analysis of Alternative Interventions ....................... 147
5.1. Interventions and Scenarios ..................................................................147
5.1.1. Identified Pollution Reduction Projects .....................................148
5.1.2. Comparison and Tentative Ranking of Potential
Projects .......................................................................................174
5.1.3. Other Measures ..........................................................................179
5.2. Benefits of Interventions ........................................................................181
5.2.1. Immediate Effects in Pollution Reduction .................................181
5.2.2. Effect on Black Sea Ecosystems ................................................183
5.2.3. Effect on Significant Impact Areas ............................................184
5.3. Costs of Interventions ............................................................................185
5.4. Identification and Analysis of Constraints on Actions .......................187
5.5. Potential Benefits of Non-Implemented Measures in
Relation to Diffuse Sources of Pollution...............................................188
6. Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations ...................................... 193
7. References ................................................................................................... 201
vi

List of Annexes
Annex 1.1A
Direct Transboundary Relationships by Country and River
Annex 1.1B
Direct Transboundary Relationships by River and Monitoring Station
Annex 1.1C
Territories and River Catchment Areas of the DRB Countries
Annex 1.3A
Summary of Wetlands Information included in GEF-Danube River
Basin National Review Reports
Annex 1.4A
Present and Projected Population in the Countries of the DRB
Annex 1.5A
Main Economic Indicators for the DRB Countries
Annex 15.B
Domestic Water Demand in the Danube River Basin
Annex 1.5C
Domestic Waste Water Generation in the Danube River System
Annex 1.5D
Abstraction of Raw Water from the Danube River System
Annex 2.3A
Danube Sub-river Basin Areas
Annex 3.1A
Data from Selected Cross-boarder Water Quality Monitoringas Presented in
the National Review Reports
Annex 3.1B
Results of Consistency Check for Selected Concentration Data Reported
in TNMN Yearbook of 1996 and in the National Review Reports
Annex 3.1C
Massfahrt der MS BURGUND auf Main, Main-Donau-Kanal und Donau
vom 11 Mai bis 20 Juni 1998 - Nitrat-N-Wasser
Annex 3.1D
Massfahrt der MS BURGUND auf Main, Main-Donau-Kanal und Donau
vom 11 Mai bis 20 Juni 1998 - Nitrat-N-Transport-Wasser
Annex 3.1E
Massfahrt der MS BURGUND auf Main, Main-Donau-Kanal und Donau
vom 11 Mai bis 20 Juni 1998 - o-Phosphat-P-Transport-Wasser
Annex 3.1F
Massfahrt der MS BURGUND auf Main, Main-Donau-Kanal und Donau
vom 11 Mai bis 20 Juni 1998 - P-gesamt-Transport-Schwebstoff
Annex 3.2A
Descriptions of High Priority Hot Spots
Annex 3.2B
Revision of Hot Spots and Identification of Transboundary Effects
Annex 3.2C
Hot Spots in the Sub-river Basins
Annex 3.2D
Tabulation of Workshop Suggestions on Verification of Water Quality Data,
Additional monitoring Stations and Proposals for Additional Data
Annex 4A
Causal Chain Analysis for the Middle and Lower Danube Countries
Annex 5.1.2A
National Ranking of Projects (Upper and Middle Danube)
Annex 5.1.2B
National Ranking of Projects (Lower Danube)
Annex 5.1.2C
Preliminary High Ranking Municipal Projects listed in Order of Expected
Load Reduction of N and P
Annex 5.1.2D
Preliminary High Ranking Industrial Projects listed in Order of Expected
Load Reduction of N and P
Annex 5.1.2E
Preliminary High Ranking Agricultural Projects listed in Order of Expected
Load Reduction of N and P
vii

List of Tables
Table 1.1-1:
Matrix of Direct Transboundary Relationships within the Danube Basin
Table 1.1-2:
Matrix of Direct and Indirect Transboundary Relationships within the
Danube Basin
Table 1.1-3:
Distribution of Danube Basin Land Uses and Rainfall by Country
Table 1.2-1:
Probability of Annual Runoff at Selected Stations along the Danube River
Table 1.2-2:
Mean Monthly and Annual flows for Danube River Stations and Selected
Tributary Stations
Table 1.2-3:
Approximate Distribution of DRB Runoff by Country
Table 1.2-4:
Data about Floodplains, Wetlands and Reservoirs
Table 1.3-1:
Main Characteristics of Fishery in the DRB
Table 1.3-2:
List of Protected Areas Recorded in the Wetlands Study
Table 1.5-1:
Production Indices for Agriculture 1989-1991 = 100
Table 1.6-1:
Danube States Which Have Signed or Ratified Relevant International
Conventions as of Mid 1999
Table 3.2-1:
Overview of Updating of Pollution Source Data
Table 3.2-2:
Overview of Methods for Estimating Pollution Source Data for Yugoslavia,
Bosnia and Croatia
Table 3.2-3:
Estimated Emissions from Croatia, Yugoslavia and Bosnia-Herzegovina
Table 3.2-4:
Estimates of Emissions from Point Sources
Table 3.2-5:
Update of Estimations of Nitrogen and Phosphorus Emissions from Point
Sources to Surface Waters in the Danube Basin for the Year 1996 / 67
Table 3.2-6:
Updated Estimation of Point Source Emissions of N and P by Country for
1996 / 97
Table 3.3-1:
Overview of Data Supporting Diffuse Pollution Loads Estimates, Derived
from National Reviews
Table 3.3-2:
Diffuse Emissions from Countries Analysed in the Nutrient Balances Project
Table 3.3-3:
Update of Estimations of Nitrogen and Phosphorus Emissions from Diffuse
Sources to Surface Waters in the Danube Basin for the Year 1996 / 67
Table 3.3-4:
Updated Estimation of Emissions of N and P from Diffuse Sources by
Country for 1996/97
Table 3.7-1:
Features of Significant Impact Areas
Table 3.8-1.
Results of Literature Search on Nutrient Reduction by Wetlands
Table 5.1.1-1:
Overview of Identified Hot Spots and Projects Included in the Danube Data
Base
Table 5.1.1-2:
List of Projects per Significant Impact Area
Table 5.1.2-1:
Top 5 Projects in the DRB Based on Emissions Reduction
ix

Table 5.1.2-2:
Projects with the Largest Reduction of BOD Discharge
Table 5.1.2-3:
Projects with the Largest Reduction of COD Discharge
Table 5.1.2-4:
Projects with the Largest Reduction of N Discharge
Table 5.1.2-5:
Projects with the Largest Reduction of P Discharge
Table 5.1.3-1:
Example of Statistical Table from the TNMN Yearbook (1996)
Table 5.5-1:
Fertilizer Consumption in Various European Countries
x

List of Figures and Maps
Danube Basin Map
Figure 1.1-1:
Longitudinal Profile of the Danube River Basin
Figure 1.1-2:
Diagram of Area, Sequence and Length of Danube Tributary Basins
Figure 1.1-3:
Profiles and Sequence of Danube Primary Tributaries
Figure 1.1-4:
Schematic Map of the TNMN Stations
Figure 1.1-5:
Territories and River Catchment Area of the DRB Countries
Map 1:
Geomorphological indicators: Geomorphological Regions and Annual
Precipitation
Figure 1.2-1:
Seasonal Pattern of Mean Monthly Discharge for Selected Stations along the
Danube
Map 12:
Structural Analysis of Major Danube Basin Rivers (major hydraulic
structures)
Map W1:
Floodplain Areas in the Danube River Basin with Protected Areas along the
Studied Rivers
Map W2:
Geographical Subdivision of the Danube River Basin
Map W3:
Symbolized View of Floodplains
Map W4:
Ecological Potential of Floodplains
Map W5:
Selected Bioindicator Species (Fish)
Map W6:
Selected Bioindicator Species (White-tailed eagle)
Figure 1.4-1:
Present and Projected Population in the Countries of the DRB
Figure 1.4-2:
Population Density in the Countries of the Danube River Basin
Figure 1.5-1:
Gross Domestic Product per Capita in the DRB Countries
Figure 1.5-2:
Annual Inflation Rates in the DRB Countries
Figure 1.5-3:
Annual Water Demand for the Population in the DRB Connected to Central
Water Supply Systems
Figure 1.5-4:
Annual Per Capita Water Demand of the Population in the DRB Connected
to Central Water Supply System
Figure 1.5-5:
Annual Waste Water Generation of the Population in the DRB Connected to
Central Water Supply System
Figure 1.5-6:
Percentage of Population in the DRB Connected to Central Sewerage
Systems
Figure 1.5-7:
Annual Abstraction of Raw Water from the Danube River System
Map 2:
Sub-river Basins
Map 4:
Population Density in the Danube Sub-river Basin Areas
Map 5:
Land Use in the Danube Sub-river Basin Areas
Map 6:
Agricultural Indicators (Livestock/Fertilizers) in the Danube Basin Countries
xi

Map 7:
Agricultural Indicators II (Total Livestock, Total Fertilizer per Country)
Figure 2.5-1:
Map of the Danube Area with the River Network Schematization
Figure 3.1-1:
Station Map for Phase One of the TNMN for the Danube and its Tributaries
Figure 3.1-2:
(Part 1) The Annual mean of BOD5 in 1996
Figure 3.1-2:
(Part 2) The Minimum, Mean and Maximum of BOD5 in 1996
Figure 3.1-3:
(Part 1) The Annual Mean of Ortho-Phosphate - P in 1996
Figure 3.1-3:
(Part 2) The Minimum, Mean and Maximum of Ortho-Phosphate -P in 1996
Figure 3.1-4:
(Part 1) The Annual Mean of (N-NH4 ++ N-NO3
Figure 3.1-4:
(Part 2) The Minimum, Mean and Maximum of (N-NH4+ + N-NO3
1996
Figure 3.1-5:
Annual Loads of BOD at TNMN Stations
Figure 3.1-6:
Annual Loads of Total Phosphorus at TNMN Stations
Figure 3.1-7:
Annual Loads of Ammonium-N at TNMN Stations
Figure 3.1-8:
Annual Loads of Nitrate-N at TNMN Stations
Figure 3.1-9:
Annual Loads of Suspended Solids at TNMN Stations
Figure 3.1-10:
Annual Loads of Sum of Ammonium-N and Nitrate-N at TNMN Stations
Map 8:
Hot Spots in the Danube Basin Countries
Map 9:
Distribution of Hot Spots in the Danube Sub-river Basins
Figure 3.4-1
Longitudinal Profile of the Annual Water Volume in the Danube (in km3/a),
Subdivided over the Countries of Origin
Figure 3.4-2
Longitudinal Profile of the Annual Phosphorus Load in the Danube (in kt/a),
Subdivided over the Countries of Origin
Figure 3.4-3
Longitudinal Profile of the Annual Nitrogen Load in the Danube (in kt/a),
Subdivided over the Countries of Origin, with Low Estimates for the In-
stream Denitrification (= Removal) Rate
Figure 3.4-4
Longitudinal Profile of the Annual Nitrogen Load in the Danube (in kt/a),
Subdivided over the Countries of Origin, with a High Estimate for the In-
stream Denitrification (= Removal) Rate
Map 10:
Significant Impact Areas and Priority Wetlands for Restoration
Map 11:
Overlay of Hot Spots, SIAs and Wetlands in the Danube Sub-river Basins
Map W7:
Restoration Potential of Former Floodplains in the Danube River Basin
Figure 5.1.1-1:
Pollution Reduction of BOD, COD, N, P from Proposed and Ongoing
National Projects by Country
xii

1.
Features of the Danube Basin
Transboundary analysis is a method for characterizing and evaluating problems involving water
pollution that originates in one country and is transported across an international border to another
country. The method is promoted by the Global Environmenal Facility (GEF) and is intended to
provide the technical basis for development of a Pollution Reduction Programme. Transboundary
analysis is useful for the Danube River Basin (DRB) which comprises 17 countries. Details of the
method, as it is applied to the DRB and the DRB Pollution Reduction Programme, are presented in
Chapter 2.
Information in this Chapter 1 is intended to provide an overview of the status of conditions in the
DRB, that relate to water quality and pollution, and that are relevant for transboundary analysis.
The information is based primarily on findings reported in National Review Reports prepared by 13
countries having large territories - or their entire country - within the basin. Supplemental
information is provided from other reference documents to elaborate or summarize basinwide
phenomena, which are not addressed or summarized in the reports of the respective countries. The
13 countries are Germany, Austria, Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia,
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Yugoslavia, Romania, Bulgaria, Moldova and Ukraine. Four countries
with small territories in the basin are not included in the programme and did not submit reports.
They are Switzerland, Italy, Poland and Albania.
1.1.
Physical and Geographic
The National Review Reports describe the features of the Danube basin within their respective
countries. Concise summaries of overall basin features are available from a number of reference
documents including Encyclopaedia Britannica (1993). In this section, excerpts have been used
liberally as indicated.
The Danube River rises in the Black Forest mountains of Germany, flows about 2,850 km to the
Black sea, drains about 817,000 km2 and includes about 300 tributaries, of which 30 are navigable.
"Three sections are discernible in the river's basin. The upper course stretches from its source to
the gorge, called the Hungarian Gates, in the Austrian Alps and the Western Carpathian Mountains.
The middle course runs from the Hungarian Gates to the Iron Gate Gorge in the Southern
Romanian Carpathians. The lower course flows from the Iron Gate to the deltalike estuary at the
Black Sea" . Some descriptions recognize the delta as a separate fourth section of the basin.
A sketch of the Danube River Basin is presented in the Danube Basin Map, which shows the main
river flowing generally in an easterly direction, with several sharp bends that result in southerly
flow between Budapest and Belgrade and northerly flow near the entrance to the delta.
The longitudinal profile of the Danube River is presented in Figure 1.1-1 which shows the
aforementioned three sections in relation to national boundaries, river kilometers, left and right
bank tributaries and elevation changes.
A diagram of the Danube River Basin is presented in Figure 1.1-2 which shows, on the horizontal
axis, the area of tributary basins as well as the total area of DRB; on the horizontal axis, the
sequence and distance of tributaries from the river mouth, and the sequence, locations and names of
gauging stations; and within the diagram, next to the names of the tributaries, the discharges for
selected larger tributaries. The largest tributary by area is the Tisa River with 157,000 km2. The
largest tributary by mean annual discharge is the Sava with 613m3/s.
The sequence and profiles of Danube primary tributaries are presented in Figure 1.1-3 which shows
for each tributary, its name, its elevation at its source and its elevation and river kilometer at the
point of its confluence with the Danube River (the horizontal axis denotes river kilometers for the
Danube River and the vertical axis denotes elevation above sea level).

2
Danube Pollution Reduction Programme
A schematic map of the DRB is presented in Figure 1.1-4 which shows the sequence of selected
tributaries and water quality monitoring stations that are part of the Trans National Monitoring
Network which is measuring water quality and computing pollutant loads for the DRB.
Transboundary relationships within in the basin are summarized in a series of tables. Table 1.1-1 is
a matrix of direct transboundary relationships within the basin. The axis labeled "Source
Countries" denotes countries which are directly upstream of other countries, and which discharge
water and pollution to these other countries. The axis labeled "Direct Recipient Countries" denotes
countries which are directly downstream of other countries and which receive water and pollution
from them. The "X"s in the matrix denote the various combinations of "Source Countries" and
"Direct Recipient Countries" that exist within the Danube Basin. Table 1.1-2 is a matrix of direct
and indirect transboundary relationships. This matrix is similar in general arrangement to Table
1.1-1, but the "X"s denote all countries that are downstream of the source country. Annex 1.1A
summarizes direct transboundary relationships by country and river. Annex 1.1B summarizes
Direct Transboundary Relationships by River and gauging station or monitoring station.
Figure 1.1-5 and Annex 1.1C summarize the distribution of national territories within the Danube
Basin and reveals how the area of the basin is widely distributed among 17 countries. On the basis
of land area within the basin the dominant country is Romania with more than 232,200 km2
covering more than 28 percent of the basin. The country with the largest percentage of its area
within the basin is Hungary (100 percent).
Table 1.1-3 summarizes the distribution of Danube Basin land uses and rainfall by country.
Romania has the largest area in the basin and by far the largest land use in the basin in all
categories. Austria appears to have the highest precipitation. Map 1 summarizes the relationship
between geomorphological regions and annual precipitation within the DRB and shows that
average annual rainfall varies from more than 3,000 mm to less than 500 mm in different parts of
the basin.

Kiev
Prague
N�rnberg
Morava
CZECH REPUBLIC
Main-Danube Canal
0
0 4 Regensburg
2
Geisling
Brno
Strausing
Thaya
h
Bad Abbach
2300
Va
0
SLOVAK REPUBLIC
0
5 2
Kachlet
2200
GERMANY
Jochenstein
00
Passau
2000
Aschach
Altenworth
Ottensheim-Wilhering
6
Greifenstein
2
Hron
Uzgorod
Melk
0
2100
Ipel
UKRAINE
0
Abwinden-Asten
9
Tisza
Wallsee Mitterkirchen
Ybbs
Tulln
1
0
0 72
Munich
Persenbeug
Vienna
Bratislava
Tiszal�k
Gabcikovo
Costesti
1700
Som
1800
es
AUSTRIA
Tisza
MOLDOVA
Kisk�re
Inn
Salzach
Budapest
Mura
Raab
1600
Cris
HUNGARY
Prut
Kishinev
Drava
Odesa
Siret
1500
Mures
ROMANIA
Ljubljana SLOVENIA
CROATIA
1400
Zagreb
Izmail
Jalomitsa
0
0
3
100
1
Sava
200
Belgrade
BOSNIA - HERZEGOVINA
1
2
0
0
Olt
Arges
Iron Gates I
1100
900
Iron Gates II
300
Sarajevo
Morava
Bucharest
4
00
Danube - Black Sea Canal
800
0 0 5
700
6
00
Greater
Timok
Lom Ogosta
BULGARIA
YUGOSLAVIA
Iskar
Adriatic Sea
Yantra
Black Sea
Sofia
0
100
200
km
Catchment boundary
Danube Basin Map
State boundary
Date: January 1996
City
River
Water level measuring station
Hydropower dams
Prepared by:
delft hydraulics

i
v
e
r
R
ube
n
a
e
D
h
f
t
y
o
g
olo
y
dr
8, H
be River Basin
198
l
.
t
a
a
ic
the Danu
nov
v
a
b J
ile of
olju
r
of
l
av
nd S
inal P
e
j
a
dr
c
i
k
An
n
Longitud
t
a
S
om
fr
n
-1
aw
dr
c
e
:
Re
i
gure 1.1
F
Sour

6
Danube Pollution Reduction Programme
Figure 1.1-2
Diagram of Area, Sequence and Length of Danube Tributary Basins
Source: Redrawn from Stancik Andrej and Slavoljub Jvanovic at al. 1988, Hydrology of the Danube River

Transboundary Analysis � Final Report, June 1999
7
Figure 1.1-3
Profiles and Sequence of Danube Primary Tributaries
Source: Included into the German contribution to the National Reviews

L0450
L0480
L0490
Chilia
Sulina
L0690
Sf.Gheorghe
0 3 6 0
L
0 3 4 0
L
Prut
L2230
L2250
L2270
Siret
L0420
ons
t
ati
0 8 2 0
L
0 5 8 0
L
L0380
s
N
M
s e g r A
e
TN
h
0 4 2 0
L
L0250
m
o
L . s s u
R
of t
L1010
p
a
m
0 2 8 0
L
tic
a
Jantra
m
L0990
he
Sc
0 1 8 0
L
.
1
Iskar
6.
g.
- Fi
0 8 7 0
L
L0930
.
00)
9
0 9 0 0
L
0 3 7 0
L
97-502
.
0 2 0 0
L
o
S N
a v a S
L1060
L1150
L1220
OS
Tisza
L1700
hare
0 2 3 1
L
P
L1330
a v a r
D
rt, (
L1250
L1240
L1290
o
p
L1770
l Re
5 1 3 1
L
Sajo
0 4 5 1
L
na
Sio
L1610
L1390
s
n
ds, Fi
n
t
i
o
0 2 5 1
L
tre
d
L1604
n
0 9 4 1
L
ads a
MN sta
h a
V
0 7 8 1
L
5 7 4 1
L
lo
L1960
N
on
e T
0 6 8 1
L
0 7 4 1
L
luti
pol
th
0 4 8 1
L
of
nt of
a v a r o
M
L2120
ssme
0 7 1 2
L
c Map

asse
ti
a
L2100
0 8 1 2
L
ndary
e
m
ou
c
h
Dyje
sb
S
0 0 2 2
L
n
: Tra
0 3 1 2
L
0 2 2 2
L
1
-4
L2150
Inn
j
e
c
t
M
0 4 1 2
L
re 1.1
e
:
Pro
L2160
Salzach
i
gu
F
Sourc

Transboundary Analysis � Final Report, June 1999
9
Table 1.1-1
Matrix of Direct Transboundary Relationships within the Danube
Basin
Source
Direct Recipient Countries
Countries
D
A
CZ
SK
H
SI
HR
BIH
FRY
BG
RO
MD
UA
D
X
A
X
X
X
X
CZ
X
X
SK
X
X
H
X
X
X
SI
X
X
HR
X
X
X
BIH
X
X
FRY
X
X
X
BG
X
X
RO
X
X
X
X
X
MD
X
X
UA
X
X
X
X
*
X
X
X
Note: The asterisk (*) refers to countries with small areas and discharges in the basin, which are not included in the
analysis. These countries are Italy, Switzerland, Albania and Poland.
Table 1.1-2
Matrix of Direct and Indirect Transboundary Relationships within
the Danube Basin
Source
Direct or Indirect Recipient Countries
Countries
D
A
CZ
SK
H
SI
HR
BIH
FRY
BG
RO
MD
UA
D
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
A
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
CZ
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
SK
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
H
X
X
X
X
X
X
SI
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
HR
X
X
X
X
X
X
BIH
X
X
X
X
X
FRY
X
X
X
X
BG
X
X
X
RO
X
X
X
X
X
MD
X
X
UA
X
X
X
X
X
*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Note: The asterisk (*) refers to countries with small areas and discharges in the basin, which are not included in the
analysis. These countries are Italy, Switzerland, Albania and Poland.

10
Danube Pollution Reduction Programme
Table 1.1-3
Distribution of Danube Basin Land Uses and Rainfall by Country
Land in Danube
Arable Land
Meadows/Past
Forest (1000
Precipitation
Country
Basin (1000
(1000 km2)
ure (1000 km2)
km2)
(mm/year)
km2)
Austria
81
17.8
19.4
34.0
1165
Bulgaria
46
17.0
7.4
11.5
Bosnia - Herzegovina
38.7
Croatia
16.2
**2.9
Czech Rep.
21
13.0
0.84
7.7
450-1150
mean 635
Germany
55.8
12.7
14.3
Hungary
93
47.4
12.1
16.7
660
Moldova
13
6.6
1.6
1.6
450
Romania
238
92.8
47.6
61.9
515
Slovak Rep.
47
15.04
8.93
17.86
753
Slovenia
16
2.4
2.7
8.2
-
Ukraine
26
6.2
4.9
14.0
975
Yugoslavia
88.9
*63.2
830
Others
Source: Adapted from "Nutrient Balances for Danube Countries", supplemented by data from national review reports.
*
For the entire country, not just the Danube Basin area.
**
Grazing area.
TERRITORIES AND RIVER CATCHMENT AREAS OF THE DRB
COUNTRIES
00)
700
(10
s
600
ter
e
500
m
o
) 400
e Kil
km2 300
100%
200
96%
100%
87%
Squar
100
16%
27%
90%
86%
61%
73%
42%
36%
5%
0
housand
GER
A
CZ
SK
HUN SLO
CRO
BiH
YUG
BUL
RO
MOL
UA
T
Total Area of the Country
Country Specific Danube River Catchment
A
Figure 1.1-5
Territories and River Catchment Area of the DRB Countries

Transboundary Analysis � Final Report, June 1999
13
1.2.
Hydrological
The upper Danube has a considerable average inclination of the river bed that is about 0.4 percent
in Austria and higher in upstream areas; and "a rapid current of two to five miles per hour [three to
eight km per hour]. Depths vary from three to 26 feet (one to eight meters)..."
"In the middle course the Danube looks more like a flatbed river, with low banks and a bed that
reaches a width of more than one mile [1.6 km]. Only in two sectors - at Visegrad (Hungary) and
the Iron Gate - does the river flow through narrow, canyonlike gorges...The Danube enters the
Little Alfold plain immediately after emerging from the Hungarian Gates Gorge near Bratislava....
There the river stream slows down abruptly and loses its transporting capacity, so that enormous
quantities of gravel and sand settle on the bottom. A principal result of this deposition has been the
formation of two islands, one on the...[Slovakian] side of the river and the other on the Hungarian
side, which combined have an area of about 730 square miles [1,869 km2] that support some
190,000 inhabitants in more than 100 settlements. The silting hampers navigation and occasionally
divides the river into two or more channels....The Danube then flows past Budapest and across the
vast Great Alfold plain until it reaches the Iron Gate gorge. The riverbed is shallow and marshy,
and low terraces stretch along both banks. River accumulation has built a large number of islands,
including Csepel Island near Budapest. In this long stretch the river takes on the waters of its
major tributaries - the Drava, the Tisza and the Sava - which [increase the flow by 2.5 times and]
create substantial changes in the river's regime....
"Beyond the Iron Gate the lower Danube flows across a wide plain; the river becomes shallower
and broader, and its current slows down...The tributaries in this section are comparatively small and
account for only a modest increase in the total runoff [about 1,500 m3/s]. They include the Olt, the
Siret and the Prut. The river is again obstructed by a number of islands...Near Tulcea, some 50
miles [80 km] from the sea, the river begins to spread out into its delta.
"The river splits into three channels - the Chilia, which carries 63 percent of the total runoff; the
Sulina, which accounts for 16 percent; and the Sfintu Gheorghe (St. Geroge), which carries the
remainder. Navigation is possible only by way of the Sulina Channel, which has been straightened
and dredged along its 39-mile [62-km] length. Between the channels, a maze of smaller creeks and
lakes are separated by oblong strips of land... [which] are arable and cultivated, and some are
overgrown with tall oak forests. A large quantity of reeds that grow in the shallow-water tracts are
used in the manufacture of paper and textile fibres. The Danube Delta covers an area of some
1,600 square miles [4,100 km2] and is a comparatively young formation. About 6,500 years ago
the delta was a shallow low cove of the Black Sea coast, but it was gradually filled by river-borne
silt; the delta continues to grow seaward at a rate of 80 to 100 feet [24 to 30 m] annually.
"The different physical features of the river basin affect the amount of water runoff in its three
sections. In the upper Danube the runoff corresponds to that of the Alpine tributaries, where the
maximum occurs in June when melting of snow and ice in the Alps is the most intensive. Runoff
drops to its lowest point during the winter months.
"In the middle basin the phases last up to four months with two runoff peaks in June and April.
The June peak stems from that of the upper course, reaching its maximum 10 to 15 days later. The
April peak is local. It is caused by the addition of waters from the melting snow in the plains and
from the early spring rains of the lowland and the low mountains of the area. Rainfall is important;
the period of low water begins in October and reflects the dry spells of summer and autumn that are
characteristic of the low plains. In the lower basin all Alpine traits disappear completely from the
river regime. The runoff maximum occurs in April, and the low point extends to September and
October" (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1993).

14
Danube Pollution Reduction Programme
Table 1.2-1 summarizes the Danube River probability of annual runoff at selected stations whose
locations were shown in Figure 1.1-2. Mean annual discharge near the mouth of the Danube River
(station 25) is 6,550 m3/s. The range of variability in annual discharge is suggested by the percent
probability, which shows that for a 1 in 20 dry year (95 % probability), annual discharge is 4,600
m3/s; but for a 1 in 20 wet year (5 % probability), annual discharge is 8,820 m3/s.
Figure 1.2-1 summarizes the Danube River seasonal pattern of mean monthly discharges for
selected stations from the upper basin to the lower basin. Table 1.2-2 summarizes Danube River
mean monthly and annual flows for Danube stations and selected tributary stations. These exhibits
reveal notable seasonal differences between discharge at upstream stations (e.g., station 1, where
discharge is nearly constant throughout the year) and downstream stations (e.g. station 25 where
high discharges occur in April and May and low discharges occur n September and October).
The distribution of runoff by country is summarized in Table 1.2-3. The former Yugoslav countries
together were the dominant source of runoff, accounting for more than 2,000 m3/s of discharge
(more than 27 percent of the basin total). With 17 countries in the DRB, Austria is the major
source, with more than 1,500 m3/s (more than 22 percent of the basin total).
"The river carries considerable quantities of solid particles, nearly all of which consist of quartz
grains. The constant shift of deposits in different parts of the riverbed forms shoals. In the
stretches between Bratislava and Komarno and in the Sulina Channel, draglines are constantly at
work to maintain the depth needed for navigation. The damming of the river has also changed the
way in which sediments are transported and deposited..." (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1993).
The distribution of reservoirs and storage in the DRB is summarized in Table 1.2-4 which was
compiled for the Danube Water Quality Model (DWQM). The locations of major hydraulic
structures are shown in Map 12.

6
3
7
7
4
8
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
8
9
1
975
119
126
126
154
194
353
370
386
380
370
390
408
410
430
444
474
.
5
7
5
5
0
9
2
4
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
7
9
1
104
128
135
135
165
203
380
394
400
394
380
410
420
425
439
426
440
2
6
8
5
2
9
2
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
6
1
111
136
143
144
176
220
401
415
415
410
400
430
440
440
442
448
460
0
3
7
8
0
6
3
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
09
5
1
119
146
153
154
189
236
427
444
437
438
420
465
469
470
469
474
490
9
8
3
9
7
1
1
7
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
09
4
1
128
158
166
168
205
257
462
481
478
480
460
510
510
510
505
518
544
4
2
9
0
6
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
08
3
1
136
168
175
178
218
273
489
511
506
510
490
540
544
550
540
553
580
0
5
3
0
2
3
3
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
07
2
1
143
176
184
188
230
287
514
537
535
540
530
570
575
580
578
585
620
r
4
5
4
0
6
3
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Rive
ility %
06
1
ab
1
149
184
192
197
241
301
538
564
564
566
550
600
606
610
601
615
650
be
b
o
Pr
0
7
7
0
4
9
8
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
05
0
Danu
1
156
192
200
208
253
315
564
591
589
600
590
640
636
650
640
648
684
2
8
9
0
7
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
04
163
201
209
220
266
332
591
623
621
639
630
670
670
690
680
684
720
9
8
0
7
0
2
1
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
e
r
03
171
212
221
233
283
352
680
661
656
680
680
720
711
730
720
726
762
Riv
Stations along the
ube
n
6
7
1
1
9
6
8
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
02
D
c
t
e
d
1
184
228
237
251
306
381
683
719
710
756
750
790
770
810
800
789
823
le
the
y
of
5
5
9
2
9
3
3
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
g
5
6789
olo
ff at Se
195
242
250
268
327
407
731
770
755
800
800
840
820
860
858
843
882
y
dr
uno
, H
3
8
3
0
9
8
9
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
.
5
8
2
5
9
205
254
263
284
346
430
774
816
800
830
840
890
870
890
900
892
935
1
t
al.
1
6
2
8
1
4
5
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
4
v
i
c
e
217
269
278
302
370
459
828
874
850
840
860
920
925
920
942
945
998
o
n
v
a
e
o
rg
)
b J
ha
-
1
9
4
5
0
9
0
0
6
9
2
6
5
2
4
0
6
0
olju
,
s
3
bability of Annual R
disc
3
150
186
194
202
247
306
549
574
569
584
576
617
615
626
630
621
655
Slav
r
o
(
m
e
a
n
P
nd
M
e
j
a
dr
a
te
o
is
lo
2
v
v
o
e
a
i
i
s
a
a
n
la
a
n
je
e
v
r
a
d
v
Se
tov
a
O
c
i
k
An
tion
m
n
o
o
nic
g
v
n
m
tr
a
il
is
s
e
de
1.2-1
ta
inz
r
e
ie
r
a
tis
e
z
d
o
a
nc
r
s
o
o
o
u
m
t
a
S
L
K
V
B
B
B
P
V. G
O
N
L
Sv
Zim
R
Siis
Va
Cearai
I
z
c
e
:
S
1
5
6
7
8
5
No.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2
Table
Sour

16
Danube Pollution Reduction Programme
Figure 1.2-1
Seasonal Pattern of Mean Monthly Discharge for Selected Stations
along the Danube
Source: Redrawn from Stancik Andrej and Slavoljub Jvanovic at al. 1988, Hydrology of the Danube River

Transboundary Analysis � Final Report, June 1999
17
Table 1.2-2
Mean Monthly and Annual flows for Danube River Stations and
Selected Tributary Stations
Month
Annual
No
Station
River
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
XI
XII
m3/s
I/s km2
1
Ingolstadt
Danube
259
306
437
369
380
400
359
305
263
233
241
235
308
15.39
2
Regnsburg
Danube
408
495
548
537
494
506
468
394
348
329
351
368
435
12.29
3
Hofkirchen
Danube
590
698
771
767
723
764
723
618
536
506
520
537
645
13.58
5
Linz
Danube
1054
1237
1458
1667
1885
2232
2113
1787
1385
1160
1084
1042
1509
19
6
Krems
Danube
1301
1519
1805
2195
2436
2679
2546
2172
1654
1435
1345
1300
1864
19.4
7
Vienna
Danube
1352
1580
1897
2273
2543
2805
2649
2251
1714
1488
1399
1349
1943
19.1
9
Bratislava
Danube
1397
1677
2079
2455
2640
2894
2717
2284
1746
1506
1435
1410
2020
15.38
10
Dunaaimas
Danube
1760
2123
2453
2887
3021
3131
3128
2654
1876
1569
1544
1618
2314
13.48
11
Nagymaros
Danube
1849
2294
2712
3001
2939
3153
2962
2534
1956
1690
1734
1721
2379
12.96
13
Mohacs
Danube
1962
2225
2628
3037
2956
3157
2988
2597
2031
1745
1757
1782
2389
11.43
13
Bezdan
Danube
1773
2106
2731
3117
3087
3306
3092
2686
2122
1834
1922
1906
2479
11.79
14
Bogojevo
Danube
2169
2507
3273
3845
3825
4133
3803
3317
2670
2304
2456
2402
3060
12.16
15
Pancevo
Danube
4682
5155
6952
7871
7306
6573
5468
4421
3916
3701
4797
5124
5490
10.46
16
V. Gradiste
Danube
4884
5555
7327
8293
7703
6920
5759
4609
4002
3844
4935
5311
5746
10.07
17
Orsova
Danube
4867
5439
7315
8266
7641
6824
5637
4540
3914
3766
4882
5290
5699
9.89
18
Sovo Selo
Danube
4952
5684
7325
8476
7914
7174
6040
4695
4065
3734
4697
5426
5842
9.99
19
Lom
Danube
5104
5669
7371
8343
7865
6990
5941
4715
3940
3500
4471
5278
5766
9.79
20
Svistov
Danube
5312
5753
7710
8796
8596
7792
6419
4943
4261
3979
4956
5578
6175
9.5
21
Zimnicea
Danube
5273
5697
7655
8844
8575
7741
6416
4935
4245
3975
4948
5522
6150
9.34
22
Ruse
Danube
5422
5812
7799
8866
8710
7945
6548
5027
4333
4035
4997
5659
6264
9.35
23
Silistra
Danube
5740
5999
7977
8882
8782
7961
6689
5207
4318
3814
4596
5639
6300
9.13
24
Vada Oii
Danube
5454
5661
7692
8737
8719
7987
6639
5058
4312
3965
4809
5573
6216
8.77
25
Ceatal Izmail Danube
5947
6139
7750
8783
9040
8477
7311
5579
4657
4218
4895
5764
6550
8.12
26
Wernstein
Inn
378
415
508
726
1034
1324
1257
1056
753
564
471
408
743
28.48
27
Salzburg
Salzach
77
80
112
190
291
347
308
264
174
129
107
93
181
40.88
28
Enns
Enns
88
110
166
290
372
318
283
235
147
140
126
118
200
33.81
29
Mor. Jan
Morova
96
137
210
201
125
101
80
69
65
58
86
92
110
4.56
30
Sala
Vah
105
135
219
268
191
159
158
129
102
100
131
121
152
14.31
31
Brehy
Hron
34
45
85
100
66
51
38
29
26
27
48
46
50
13.08
32
Sokolec
Ipel
20
32
60
38
19
16
8
7
6
6
21
24
21
4.34
33
Neubr�cke
Drau
130
124
153
241
372
472
385
342
296
236
259
181
266
25.57
34
Landscha
Mur
65
66
98
174
242
240
192
184
135
113
115
88
143
17.15
36
Donji
Drava
374
386
501
572
726
824
681
590
511
465
550
458
554
14.92
Mihoijac
37
Vilek
Tisa
158
234
288
431
314
231
193
165
112
109
153
203
216
23.63
38
Tiszabecs
Tisza
171
192
227
388
319
181
155
124
100
114
142
167
188
19.36
39
Szeged
Tisza
727
892
1346
1552
1252
941
692
479
377
337
507
702
813
5.87
40
Senta
Tisa
617
723
1221
1450
1194
881
666
460
406
371
564
644
766
5.4
41
Csenger
Szamos
122
179
229
225
174
134
96
65
54
59
83
103
127
8.31
42
Fels�zsolea
Sajo
26
33
60
53
38
32
25
20
14
14
31
31
31
4.81
43
Mako
Maros
143
181
245
328
310
238
162
110
89
78
104
114
175
5.8
44
Semska
Sava
1785
1895
2370
2493
2156
1564
996
647
684
997
1818
1991
1613
18.33
Mitrovica
45
Ljubicevski
V. Morava
238
370
455
432
359
245
152
90
81
95
143
185
238
6.38
Most
46
Orahovica
Iskar
67
78
90
89
90
76
42
20
34
33
40
51
60
7.17
47
Stoenesti
Olt
96
140
191
273
312
252
178
129
89
82
93
104
162
7.14
48
Storozinec
Siret
2
3
7
11
10
10
7
6
4
2
2
2
6
8.93
49
Lungoci
Siret
83
115
186
328
316
282
195
161
114
93
94
94
172
7.77
50
Tchernovtsy
Prut
25
33
60
120
110
102
85
63
40
29
32
29
61
8.85
Source: Stancik Andrej and Slavoljub Jovanovic et al. 1988, Hydrology of the Danube River

18
Danube Pollution Reduction Programme
Table 1.2-3
Approximate Distribution of DRB Runoff by Country
Country
Annual Volume of
Mean Annual
Share of Danube
Ratio of Outflow
Runoff (km3/yr)
Runoff (m3/s)
Water Resources
minus Inflow �
(%)
Outflow (%)
Austria
48.44
1,536
22.34
63.77
Bulgaria
7.32
232
3.99
7.35
Czech Republic
3.43
110
1.93
Germany
25.26
801
11.65
90.71
Hungary
5.58
176
2.57
4.97
Romania
37.16
1,177
17.00
17.35
Slovak Republic
12.91
407
7.21
23.0
Bosnia, Croatia and
40.16*
1,274*
16.84*
Slovenia
Moldova and Ukraine
10.41
330
4.78
9.52
Yugoslavia
23.5
746
10.70
13.19
Switzerland
1.40
44
0.64
86.67
Italy
0.54
17
0.25
100.00
Poland
0.10
3
0.04
100.00
Albania
0.13
4
0.06
100.00
Total
216.34
6,857
100.00
Source: Adapted and updated from Stancik, Andrej and Slavoljub Jovanovic et al. 1988, Hydrology of the Danube River
*
Derived by subtraction of current figures for the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia from combined figures for the
former Yugoslav countries.
Table 1.2-4
Data about Floodplains, Wetlands and Reservoirs
Floodplains
Wetlands
Reservoirs
Germany
No data
Only a map available, no data. No data
Austria
Total about 370 km2
Reported insignificant.
No quantitative data (reservoirs are included in
(flooded 1/30 year).
the DBAM schematisation).
Czech
Total of 410 km2, Total of 19,000 ha, indicated Total of 569 Mm3, tabulated.
Republic
indicated on map. Extreme on map.
3 reservoirs > 100 Mm3 (table page 10, NR part
flood 1997: 1,946 km2.
A).
Slovakia
Total of 1469 km2, Total of 149,000 ha, indicated Total of 1750 Mm3, tabulated.
(flooded 1/10 year)
on map.
5 reservoirs > 100 Mm3 (table 4-10, NR part B).
total of 2973 km2, 2 areas > 20,000 ha.
(flooded 1/1000 year)
Hungary
Total of 1500 km2.
Total of 150,000 ha, indicated Total of 385 Mm3, tabulated.
on map.
1 reservoir > 100 Mm3 (table 4-8, NR part B).
2 areas > 20,000 ha.
Slovenia
Total of 664 km2
Estimate 26,000 ha (NR part Total 345 Mm3, listed in table 5 of NR Part A.
A).
Croatia
1805 Mm3 (?) in Sava Total of 68,000 ha,
Total of 50,6 Mm3 for storage, 159 Mm3 for
basin
1 area > 20,000 ha.
hydropower
Yugoslavia 16,000 km2 for extreme No quantitative data
Reported total of 6,500 Mm3, including Iron
floods, indicated on map
Gates (ca. 3,500 Mm3)
Bosnia-
Total of 1,704 km2
No data
Total of 763 Mm3, 2 bigger than 100 Mm3.
Herzegovin
a
Bulgaria
Reported insignificant.
Total of 8,500 ha
Total of 2,311 Mm3. Some tabulated data.
Romania
Total of 7,452 km2.
Total of 293,000 ha, Total of about 10,000 Mm3, including Iron
Tabulated data available.
tabulated.
Gates (ca. 3,900 Mm3).
4 areas > 20,000 ha.
17 reservoirs > 100 Mm3 (table 4.5.1, NR part
B).
Moldova
Total of 2,000 km2
No data
Total of about 1,000 Mm3.
1 reservoir > 100 Mm3 (tables 3.4.7.3/3.4.7.4,
NR part B).
Ukraine
No data
No data
Total of lakes 700 Mm3 (part A), total of
reservoirs 22 Mm3 (part B).

Map 12: Major Hydraulic Structures and Description of Rivers in the Danube Basin
Based on Information from National Level and Additional Research 1999
PL
CZ
UA
$
#
S $
$
$
Rhine
$
$
$
#
Y
$
$
$
Brno
$
$
#
S
$
$
$
$
D
$ #
S
#
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
SK
MD
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
#
S
$
$
$
$ #
S
$
$
$
#
S
$
$
$
$
$ #S $
$
#
Y
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Bratis $lava
#
S
Chisinau
$
$
$
$
$
#
S
#
S
$
$
$
$
$
#
Y
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
#
Y
$
#
S
$#
S
$ $
$
M�nchen $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ $
$
#
Y
#
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ $
$
$
$ #S $
$
$
Wien
$
$
$
$
$ $
$
#
S
$
$
$
$
$ $ $ $
$
$
$
$
$ $ $
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
#
S
$
Budapest
$
$
$
$
$
#
S
$ $
$
$
$
$
$
$
#
S
$ $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
#
S
$
$
$
$ $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
#
Y
$
$
$
#
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
#
S
$ $
A
H
$
$
$
$
$
$
#
S
$
$$
#
Y
#
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
RO
$
$
$
$
#
Y
#
S
$
$
$
$
$
CH
$
$
$
$
$
$
#
Y
#
S
$
$
$
$
#
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
#
S
#
S
#
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
#
S
#
S
I
$
$
$
#
S
$
$
$
Ljubljana
#
Y
$
$
$
$
$
#
Y
#
Y
$
$
Zagreb
$
#
S
$
$
$
$
ea
LEGEND
#
Y
$
$
#
S $
$
$
$
$
$
#
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
Bucuresti
SLO
#
S
$
$
$
$
Border
$
$
$
$
l
ack S
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
#
S
B
#
S
Danube River Basin
#
Y
$
$
#
S
$
Metropolis ( > 1 Million Inhabitants)
#
S
$
#
S
#
S
$
#
S
Beograd
#
S
Cities (250 000 - 1 Mil ion Inhabitants)
#
S
$
HR
Towns (100 000 - 250 000 Inhabitants)
#
Y
$
$
Sarajevo
#
S
$
$
$
Dams
#
S
$
$
#
S
Reservoirs
$
BIH
$
Navigation Routes
Sofija
BG
$
Polder Areas
#
S
YU
River Stretches:
Impounded Stretches
Strongly Regulated Stretches
Danube Pollution Reduction Programme
Free flowing Stretches
United Nations Development Programme
Global Environmental Facility
Canals
Not classified
ICPDR - Programme Coordination Unit
1400 Vienna, P.O. Box 500, Austria
N
50
0
50
100 Kilometers
Produced by ZINKE ENVIRONMENT CONSULTING
for Central and Eastern Europe, Vienna, 1999
Scale: 1: 4 500 000
(Cartography by U.SCHWARZ)

Transboundary Analysis � Final Report, June 1999
21
1.3.
Ecological
Data on wetlands and floodplains were briefly summarized from the National Review Reports for
the Danube Water Quality Model in previously cited Table 1.2-4. Other wetlands information that
is presented in the National Review Reports is briefly described and partially summarized in Annex
1.3A which was produced by the wetlands study (Evaluation of Wetlands and Floodplain Areas in
the Danube River Basin - Report and Annex). Selected statistics on fisheries in the Danube River
Basin are presented in Table 1.3-1.
Other ecological information related to wetlands and rivers in the Danube Basin has been compiled
and presented in the report and annex of the wetlands study (which covers only selected major
rivers of the Danube Basin, not the entire basin). Parts of this information which are useful in
describing the ecological context of the Danube Basin include:
a description and map of the Geographical Subdivision of the Danube Basin (Map W2)
which shows lowlands, plains / terraces, hills and narrow gorges within the major
tributaries of the Danube catchment area; and boundaries between 6 regional subdivisions
(I. Montane-Prealpine, II. Submontane-Centraleuropean, III. Pannonic, IV. Illyric, V.
Balkanic-Moesic, VI. Pontic-Danubic).
a table of protected areas by country (Table 1.3-2) that are based on sites of the Ramsar
Convention and IUCN categories that were relevant for the wetlands study (I. Scientific
reserves / strictly protected areas, II. National parks, IV. Nature reserves > 500 ha and IX.
Biosphere reserves).
a map of Floodplain Areas in the Danube River Basin with Protected Areas along the
Studied Rivers (Map W1) which shows the locations of the aforementioned protected
areas.
a map of a Symbolized View of Floodplains in the Danube River Basin (Map W3) which
shows the locations of former floodplains, recent floodplains and backwater areas of
dams within the study area of the wetlands investigation.
a map of Ecological Potential of Floodplains in the Danube River Basin (Map W4),
which shows specific problem areas and which classifies ecological potential in four
categories for very high to low.
maps of the distribution of Selected Bioindicator Species (for fish and for the white-tailed
eagle) (Maps W5 and W6).
descriptions of the occurrence of bioindicator species and ecological evaluations of the
major catchment areas are presented in th wetland study report
Wetlands suitable for restoration are mapped and briefly characterized in terms of their nutrient
reduction potential in Section 3.7.

e
n
e
ry
erm
e
r
y
i
s
h
i
sh
s
h
f
fi
c
e
s
)
in
e
n
ing
e
r
c
i
a
l
f
e
d
m
i
s
t
e
r
e
d
0 lic
i
s
h
m
e
g
o
ploy
00
t f
c
m
00
por
34 r
e
2
(
s
s
in
;
4
n
ople
ing
of
r
s
o
nds
i
s
h
i
ew
0 pe
v
pe
e
s
t f
k
in po
or
p
the
ing
s
; 291
s
m
; 3400
nd la
r
o
g
oir
of
f
s
a
a
t
c
h
i
n
a
r
m
f
r
v
s
oir
a
t
c
h
e
r
c
i
sh
e
se
c
i
v
a
rk
f

f
i
s
h
nt only
m
ds
ing
e
s
e
r
v
al
e
r
s
, r
va
r
om
Re
i
v
e
r
r
erci
f
r
c
l
ud
a
nt
e
le
e
r
c
i
a
l
r
ns
n
v
, r
mm
in pon
m
pow
to
r
om
e
le
nds
m
i
ew
o
o-
f
ing
r co
00
,
not i
t r
v
po
c
dr
o
0
ns
o
5
ing
of
nd
ons

hy
to

f
a
r
m
ces f
e
s
a
in
i
s
h
a
r
m
a
s
i
n n
k
ls
bout 1
f
f
i
cen
,
7606
l point
la
;
680 t
l
,
a
i
s
h
e
r
B
n
ntia
8
ing
r
om
f
i
v
ing
te
3
e
r
y
t
e
r
c
ia
n i
o
2
n f
R
m
tio
,
2
a
n
tio
r
om
m

f
a
r
m
l
y

f
a
r
m
uc
uc
o
a
nt, p
n
e
r

f
i
s
h
on f
a
nube
c
od
i
s
h
v
i
s
h
o
i
v
f
od
ti
f
r
t
relev
pr
e
le
ch
o
n
pr
duc
in D
r
om
y
r
om
o
t f
i
s
h
r
om
cat
r
om
f
i
s
h
f
f
er
e
r
y
l f
not r
f

pr
a
n
ns
ons
ic
ons
l
l
y
ered
i
sh
ing
ing
i
s
h
if
una
st
to
8 t
d
d
n
m
5 t
a
t
a
a
t
a
e
r f
e
r
f
m
d
d
c
tua
96
51
c
l
u
c
l
u
s
i
g
69
n
n
i
v
n
o
o
o
A
Regi
29
Riv
13
I
I
R
I
C
12
N
N
1
0
6
-
-
-
-
0
-
-
$
-
-
--
1
--
0
-
-
-
-
e
t
e
S
40
00
d
rk
4.5
0.8
n
a
l
u
22.
30.
Ma
V
f
Catch

Po
a
s
i
n
o
Mln U
e
r
B
-
-
9
--
-
-
0
-
--
-
--
in the
4
96
18
81
75
82
i
v
4
806
267
tity
/a
149
Related
r
y
n
179
135
247
133
726
d
R
ons
er Year
T
Fishe
Qua
p
e
r an
a
nube
D
-
-
7
6
--
6
6
6
6
7
Riv
a
r
9
9
1
199
199
199
199
199
199
Ye
i
shery in the DRB
-
-
F
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$
-
-
--
11
--
e
S
40
d
e
t
.5
n
rk
4
a
l
u
22.
Ma
V
f
Catch
o
e
, Po
untry
Mln U
ristics of
a
k
6
0
L
Co
-
-
--
--
24
-
-
81
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
--
39
298
e
r,
tity
/a
299
284
n
211
247
520
in the
ons
r
y
e
r Year
Qua
p
T
e
rall Riv
7
6
v
Fishe
-
-
--
6
--
6
-
-
6
-
-
-
-
O
a
r
199
199
199
199
199
ain Characte
Ye
M
ina
ov
lic
e
r
c
e
g
b
u
H
p
ia
&
a
a
ia
ia
y
try
Re
a
r
y
ov
s
l
a
v
a
n
n
ia
ari
a
nia
a
k
e
n
o
l
u
s
n
l
g
a
tia
m
r
a
ine
g
s
t
r
i
a
o
r
o
ung
o
k
u
e
r
m
u
ta
o
Table 1.3-1
Co
B
Bu
C
Czech
H
Mold
R
Slov
Slov
U
Y
G
A
T

Transboundary Analysis � Final Report, June 1999
23
Table 1.3-2
List of Protected Areas Recorded in the Wetlands Study
No.
Country
River
Site
IUCN category
Area
Date of
and
(ha)
designation
Ramsar-site
1
Germany
Danube
Donau-Auen & Donau Moos
R
8000
1976
2
Germany
Danube
Lech-Donau Winkel
R
239
1976
3
Germany
Danube
NR Flu�landschaft Donauwiesen I
IV
530
4
Germany
Danube
NR Flu�landschaft Donauwiesen II
IV
560
5
Germany
Danube
NR Pfatter
IV
680
6
Germany
Danube
NR Isar M�ndung
IV
980
7
Austria
Danube
NP Donau-Auen
II
9300
1996
8
Austria
Danube
Untere Lobau
BR
1039
1977
9
Austria
Danube
Untere Lobau
R
1039
1982
10
Austria
Danube-Morava Donau-March-Auen
R
38500
1982
11
Austria
Morava
NR Untere March-Auen (WWF
IV
1166
1978
Reservat)
12
Czech
Dyje
Palava
BR
Republic
13
Czech
Dyje
Mokrady doln�ho Podyj�
R
11500
1993
Republic
(floodplains of lower Dyje river)
14
Czech
Morava
Litovelsk� Pomorav�
R
5122
1993
Republic
15
Slovakia
Danube
NR C�covsk� mrtve rameno
R
135
1990
16
Slovakia
Danube
NR S�r
IV
568
1952
17
Slovakia
NR S�r
R
1137
1990
18
Slovakia
Danube
Dunajsk� luhy (Danube
R
14335
1993
floodplains)
19
Slovakia
Morava
Moravsk� luhy (Morava
R
4971
1993
floodplains)
20
Slovakia
Morava
NR Horny les
IV
543
1981
21
Hungary
Danube
Gemenc-B�da-Karapancsa
R
18023
1997
22
Hungary
Danube
NP Duna-Ipoly
II
60314
1997
23
Hungary
Szentendrei-sziget
II
1300
1997
24
Hungary
Danube
Ocsa
R
1078
1989
25
Hungary
Danube
NR Cs�sz�rt�lt�si V�r�s-mocs�r
IV
26
Hungary
Danube
NR Szelidi-t�
IV
27
Hungary
Danube
NR Kisk�r�si turj�nos
IV
28
Hungary
Danube-Drava
NP Danube-Drava
V
49479
1996
29
Hungary
Drava
Szaporca
R
257
1979
30
Hungary
Tisza
Pusztaszeri
R
5000
1979
31
Hungary
Tisza
M�rt�lyi
R
2232
1979
32
Hungary
Tisza
NP Kiskuns�gi
II
35860
1975
33
Hungary
Tisza
NP Kiskuns�gi
BR
22095
1979
34
Hungary
Tisza
NP Kiskuns�gi
R
3903
1979
35
Hungary
Tisza
Lakitelek T�serd�
II
600
1975
36
Hungary
Tisza
NP Hortob�gyi
II
52213
1973/1996
37
Hungary
Tisza
NP Hortob�gyi
BR
53099
1979
38
Hungary
Tisza
NP Hortob�gyi
R
23121
1979
39
Hungary
Tisza
Tiszacsegeihull�mt�r
II
1263
1996
40
Hungary
Tisza
Tiszalake
II
5000
1996
41
Hungary
Tisza
Tiszalake
R
2500
1979
42
Hungary
Tisza
NR Tiszatobi �rt�r
IV
1000
1977
43
Hungary
Tisza
Tokaj-Bodrog-zug
R
3782
1989
44
Hungary
Tisza
NR Tiszatelek-Tiszaberceli-�rt�r
IV
1263
1978
45
Croatia
Danube-Drava
Special Zoolog. Reserve Kopacki
Ia
7000
1993
Rit
46
Croatia
Drava-Mur
Ornith. Reserve Veliki Pazut
IV
17770
1983

24
Danube Pollution Reduction Programme
No.
Country
River
Site
IUCN category
Area
Date of
and
(ha)
designation
Ramsar-site
47
Croatia
Kupa
Special Ornith. Reserve Crna Mlaka
IV
625
48
Croatia
Kupa
Special Ornith. Reserve Crna Mlaka
R
625
1993
49
Croatia
Sava
Lonjsko & Mokro Polje
R
50650
1990
50
Yugoslavia
Danube
Special NR Karadjordjevo
IV
2955
1997
51
Yugoslavia
Danube
Special NR Koviljsko-
IV
4841
1998
Petrovaradinski Rit
52
Yugoslavia
Danube
NP Djerdap
IV
63608
1974/1993
53
Yugoslavia
Tisza
Special NR Stari Begej-Carska Bara
IV
1767
1986
54
Yugoslavia
Tisza
Special NR Stari Begej-Carska Bara
R
1767
1996
55
Yugoslavia
Sava
Special NR Zasavica
IV
671
1997
56
Yugoslavia
Sava
NR Obedska Bara
IV
9820
1968/1994
57
Yugoslavia
Sava
NR Obedska Bara
R
17501
1977
58
Bosnia
Sava
Ornith. Reserve Bardaca
IV
700
59
Romania
Danube
Donau-Delta
BR
580000
1990
60
Romania
Danube
NR Small Braila Island
IV
14983
1997
61
Bulgaria
Danube
NR Persin island
IV
1714
1981
62
Bulgaria
Danube
NR Sr�barna
IV
1143
1948
63
Bulgaria
Danube
NR Sr�barna
R
902
1975
64
Bulgaria
Danube
NR Sr�barna
BR
600
1977
65
Moldova
Prut
Prutul de jos
Ia
1691
1991
66
Moldova
Prut
Padurca Domneasca
Ia
6032
1993
67
Ukraine
Danube
Dunaiskie Plavny Donau-Delta
BR
46400
1998
68
Ukraine
Danube
Ismail Islands
R
1366
1996
69
Ukraine
Danube
Kugurluy Lake
R
6500
1995
70
Ukraine
Danube
Kartal Lake
R
500
1995

Transboundary Analysis � Final Report, June 1999
37
1.4.
Population Development
Present and projected populations for countries and areas within the Danube Basin are summarized
in Figure 1.4-1 and Annex 1.4A which reveal large differences in total populations, the ratio of
rural to urban populations, population density and the fraction of each country's population within
the Danube Basin. A notable similarity among all countries is the low rate of projected population
growth to year 2020. The present and projected percentages of the DRB population connected to
sewerage systems is presented by country in Figure 1.4-2.
On the basis of limited data, mostly from six countries (Slovenia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Slovak
Republic, Hungary and Romania) a particular economic and environmental problem appears to
involve unknown dump sites for municipal and non-municipal waste (for which only fragmentary
data on waste volume and composition are available). Water quality and health risks are increased
by the proximity of many of these sites to river banks.
Water mediated health and social problems are summarized by country (excluding Germany and
Austria) as follows:
Czech Republic
In 1996 there were no reported cases of water-borne infection from drinking water abstracted by public
water supply systems although there were occasional cases of water-borne infections in certain periods
from bathing in water courses and reservoirs. Potential hazards may result from accidental pollution of
water courses. In 1995, for example, 243 such cases were registered. An extreme case was the summer
flood in 1997, in which numerous drinking water resources were depreciated, waste water treatment
plants flooded and various industrial chemicals and wastes got under water.
Slovak Republic
About 75% of the population are supplied by ground water sources. About 90% of irrigation water
is surface water. The primary problems regarding both the surface and ground water are high
nitrite contaminations from agrochemicals and untreated waste water discharge. The main problem
regarding the surface waters of the Danube River systems are high pollution by nutrients and
contamination by different industrial substances, including oil substances. At the time being there
are no significant health hazards through pollution of water used for drinking purposes. Diseases
caused by hygienic quality of drinking water are not frequent and only in exceptional cases it has
come to epidemics.
Hungary
Public water supply is principally ensured by groundwater (95%). Approximately 65% of the
groundwater resources is vulnerable to human activity. Problems with the water resources are iron,
manganese, nitrate in some cases and arsenic with natural origin. The water consumption
decreased to about 60% from its maximum in the last 8 years. Problems can be experienced due to
the changes of ownership, the level of operation security and quality assurance. The
microbiological quality of bathing waters is often below the requirements.
Slovenia
Surface water is a minor source of public water supply. There are no serious health hazards. Some
cases of pollution in water used for drinking purposes include organic solvents, pesticides, heavy
metals from industrial spillage and agricultural runoff.

38
Danube Pollution Reduction Programme
Croatia
Public water supply is mainly ensured by ground water (90%). There are no reports of serious
problems with water-related diseases except for occasional epidemics of enterocolitis and hepatitis A.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
As a consequence of the war, public water supply and sewerage systems are damaged or partly
under construction. Only one third of the population is currently supplied with hygienically correct
potable water. In 1996, 14 infection and parasite epidemics (including 4 epidemics of enterocolitis
and 2 epidemics of hepatitis A) were recorded. Presently the situation has improved but still has to
be considered as unstable.
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
Problems include inadequate water quality in municipal water supply systems from inferior raw
water quality, inadequate water treatment and disinfection. About 50 municipal water supply
systems (for which microbiological inadequacy is higher than 5% and physical and chemical
inadequacy higher than 20%) do not use water from watercourses or impounding reservoirs, but
ground water from different water bearing strata. In a large number of small settlements the quality
of drinking water is not satisfactory due to the absence of water treatment and casual disinfection
on one side, and worn-out piping and periodic supply interruptions, on the other. Most frequent
causes of inadequate water quality are elevated contents of iron, manganese and organic matters,
the absence of residual chlorine, an increase in the total number of bacteria, and period increases in
coliform bacteria, including E.coli. The number of epidemics of contagious diseases peaked in
1995 when there were reports of 396 epidemics involving 6850 affected persons, and appears to be
decreasing since that time.
Romania
Surface water can principally not be used for drinking purposes without proper treatment.
Water quality of shallow wells and boreholes is considered a serious health problem in rural areas
due to the high nitrite concentration usually exceeding 50 mg/l. Significantly increased occurrence
of diseases mediated by water from the Danube River system or groundwater sources is reported
for:
Infant methemoglobinemia (caused by nitrite intoxication);
Communicable diseases such as dysentery, acute diarrhoea , cholera, viral hepatitis (due
to microbial contamination of surface water and water from shallow aquifers and rural
wells);
Communicable diseases ( due to water shortage, respectively periodic intermittence of
tap water supply combined with faecal contamination);
Diseases due to intoxication from industrial and agrochemical substances in water used
for drinking purposes; either from permanent pollution or from occasional accidents and
spillage); and
Diseases from elevated content of toxic cyanobacteria in surface waters.

Transboundary Analysis � Final Report, June 1999
39
Bulgaria
Public water supply in the Danube Basin is mainly ensured by ground water (65%) and surface
water (35%). Water for public water supply systems is treated or disinfected. Elevated levels of
iron and manganese in the region of Svistov are found in water from the public water supply
systems (due to worn-out piping systems) as well as contamination of water sources with
ammonia, petroleum products and chromium-6+, elevated levels of coliform bacteria in most towns
of the DRB and elevated nitrite levels in different areas of the DRB. In Svistov region there is a
treatment plant to remove the manganese.
Moldova
Public water supply is mainly ensured by ground water (80-85%). There are elevated levels of
hydrocarbons, sodium and fluorides in water from public water supply systems. Water from
shallow wells is often polluted with nitrogen compounds. On average 38% of centralized water
supply sources do not meet sanitary-chemical standards and 11% do not correspond to
microbiological standards. Of the decentralized water supply sources, 70% do not meet sanitary-
chemical standards and 12% do not meet microbiological standards. There are significant
incidences of hepatitis A, dysentery and enteritis. Exact data on water-borne diseases are, however,
not available.
Ukraine
Regarding centralized water supply systems about 18% of water quality tests did not meet sanitary-
chemical standards and about 15% of the tests did not meet bacteriological standards (figures for
Odessa Region, 1996). At the time being there are no exact data on health hazards mediated by
surface or ground water utilization in DRB part of Ukraine. A recognized problem is the use of
hypo chlorinated water with high concentration of heavy metals and other toxic substances, which
are supposed to lead to endocrine system diseases, metabolism disturbances, nervous system
diseases, etc.

40
Danube Pollution Reduction Programme
POPULATION DENSITY IN THE COUNTRIES OF THE DANUBE RIVER
BASIN
240
220
200
2
180
m
160
140
n / k
120
t
io
100
80
60
Popula
40
20
0 GER A
CZ
SK
HUN SLO
CRO
BiH
YUG
BUL
RO
MOL
UA
Population Density of the Country (1996/97)
Population Density in the DRB (1996/97)
Figure 1.4-1
Population Density in the Countries of the Danube River Basin
PRESENT AND PROJECTED POPULATION IN THE COUNTRIES OF THE
DANUBE
RIVER BASIN
90
80
70
60
50
illion
40
M
30
20
10
0 GER A
CZ
SK
HUN SLO
CRO
BiH
YUG
BUL
RO
MOL
UA
Present Population of the Country (1996/97)
Projected Population of the Country (2020)
Present Population in the DRB
Projected Population in the DRB
Figure 1.4-2
Present and Projected Population in the Countries of the DRB

Transboundary Analysis � Final Report, June 1999
41
1.5.
Social and Economic
Main economic indicators (GDP, per capita GDP, inflation and exchange rates) for the DRB
countries are summarized in Figures 1.5-1 and 1.5-2 and Annex 1.5A which reveal large
differences in GDP between Germany and the other countries, in per capita GDP between Germany
and Austria and the other countries and high inflation in Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine and
Yugoslavia. In 1997 the GDP of Germany (US$ 2,034 billion) was more than 1000 times the GDP
of Moldova (US$ 1.9 billion). In 1996 and 1997 in Germany and Austria, per capita GDP
exceeded US$ 25,000 while for Moldova it was less than US$ 500. For Ukraine and Bosnia and
Herzegovina is was less that $ 1,000.
Not yet revealed in these tables is the extent to which activities and production in the agricultural
and industrial sectors have declined in the eastern block countries during the economic transition.
This information is partially available in form of agricultural production indices for 1987 to 1998
(Table 1.5-1) which show the largest declines to be in Croatia (about 55 % of earlier levels) and
Moldova (about 61 % of earlier levels)
Table 1.5-1
Production Indices for Agriculture 1989-1991 = 100
Country
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
/year
Austria
97.4
103.2
99.2
100.0
100.7
99.4
100.3
104.1
104.7
99.6
100.7
99.9
Bulgaria
106.2
105.4
110.2
101.7
88.1
87.4
69.9
69.0
78.0
63.8
60.5
60.6
Croatia
64.7
61.2
56.6
58.2
60.0
54.3
55.2
Czech
98.7
81.4
85.9
84.7
80.1
80.2
Republic
Germany
101.1
101.2
101.1
101.6
97.3
94.0
90.1
88.2
89.9
91.8
103.4
93.9
Hungary
100.1
105.1
102.7
96.7
100.6
78.5
71.0
71.7
70.8
79.7
61.4
79.8
Moldova
74.6
79.9
62.7
65.9
59.4
62.8
61.4
Republic
Romania
105.8
110.9
108.0
94.7
97.3
79.3
96.8
93.8
101.7
91.9
99.5
93.6
Slovakia
81.4
77.2
73.1
75.9
77.2
66.9
Slovenia
75.7
85.9
93.6
98.1
102.7
98.3
101.3
Yugoslavia
94.6
89.3
92.5
96.4
101.9
100.5
101.2
Data reported for cargo shipping and passenger transport on the Danube River and navigable
tributaries are very incomplete in the National Review Reports but are described in detail in
Annuaire Statistique De La Commission Du Danube Pour 1996.
Domestic water demand in the DRB is summarized by country for the present and future time
periods in Figures 1.5-3 and 1.5-4 and Annex 1.5B. Domestic waste water generation is
summarized by country and type of sewer system for the present and future time periods in Figures
1.5-5 and 1.5-6 and Annex 1.5C. Abstraction of raw water is summarized by country and type of
use for the present and future years in Figure 1.5-7 and Annex 1.5D.

42
Danube Pollution Reduction Programme
Gross Domestic Product per Capita in the DRB Countries
30
0
25
100
20
in
a
15
apit
USD
10
P per C
D
5
G
0 GER A
CZ
SK
HUN SLO
CRO
BiH
YUG
BUL
RO
MOL
UA
GDP per Capita in 1996 (USD/C)
GDP per Capita in 1997 (USD/C)
Figure 1.5-1
Gross Domestic Product per Capita in the DRB Countries
Annual Inflation Rates in the DRB Countries
200
180
ce
160
)
140
er Pri
%
120
um
s
ion (
100
n
o
80
C
Inflat
60
40
Annual
20
0 GER
A
CZ
SK
HUN
SLO
CRO
BiH
YUG
BUL
RO
MOL
UA
Consumer Price Inflation Rates 1996
Consumer Price Inflation Rates 1997
(%)
(%)
Figure 1.5-2
Annual Inflation Rate in the DRB Countries

Transboundary Analysis � Final Report, June 1999
43
Annual Water Demand of the Population in the DRB Connected to Central Water Supply
Systems
3000
2500
3
2000
1500
l
i
on m
1000
Mil
500
0 GER A
CZ
SK
HUN SLO CRO
BiH
YUG BUL
RO
MOL
UA
Annual Water Demand in 1996/97
Annual Water Demand in 2020
Figure 1.5-3
Annual Water Demand for the Population in the DRB Connected to
Central Water Supply Systems
Annual Per Capita Water Demand of the Population in the DRB Connected to Central
Water Supply Systems
450
Litr
400
e/
350
Ca(l/c
300
pit /d)
250
450
a/
200
400
ay
150
Da
350
/D
100
300
ypita
50
250
a
(l/c/d)
0
200
150 GER
A
CZ
SK
HUN SLO CRO BiH YUG BUL
RO MOL
UA
100
Litre/C
50
Annual Per Capita Water Demand in
Annual Per Capita Water Demand in
0
1996/97
GER
A
CZ
SK
HUN SLO 2020
CRO BiH YUG BUL
RO MOL
UA
Annual Per Capita Water Demand in 1996/97
Annual Per Capita Water Demand in 2020
Figure 1.5-4
Annual per Capita Water Demand of the Population in the DRB
Connected to Central Water Supply System

44
Danube Pollution Reduction Programme
Annual Waste Water Generation of the Population in the DRB Connected to Central
Sewerage Systems
1000
r
800
t
e
a
600
W
t
e
400
illion m3
s
M
200
Wa
0 GER A CZ SK HUN SLO CRO BiH YUG BUL RO MOL UA
Annual Waste Water Generation in 1996/97
Annual Waste Water Generation in 2020
Figure 1.5-5
Annual Waste Water Generation of the Population in the DRB
Connected to Central Water Supply System
Percentage of Population in the DRB Connected to Central Sewerage Systems
100
80
on
ted
60
lati
40
onnec
C
(%) Popu
20
0 GER A
CZ
SK
HUN SLO CRO
BiH
YUG BUL
RO
MOL
UA
Percentage of Population Connected to Central Sewerage Systems
1996/97
Percentage of Population Connected to Central Sewerage Systems
2020
Figure 1.5-6
Percentage of Population in the DRB Connected to Central Sewerage
Systems

Transboundary Analysis � Final Report, June 1999
45
Annual Abstraction of Raw Water from the Danube River System
7000
6500
6000
5500
ear
5000
4500
/ Y
4000
3500
3000
2500
illion m3
2000
M
1500
1000
500
0 GER A
CZ
SK
HUN SLO CRO
BiH
YUG BUL
RO
MOL
UA
Abstraction by Public Water Supply Systems
Abstraction by Industry/Agriculture
Total Abstraction of Raw Water
Figure 1.5-7
Annual Abstraction of Raw Water form the Danube River System
1.6.
Legal and Institutional Framework of the Basin
As revealed above by the Danube Basin Map and Tables 1.1-3 and 1.1-4, national boundaries
within the Danube Basin do not follow closely the boundaries of basin tributaries. The resulting
numerous transboundary situations (summarized above) set the stage for a complicated legal and
institutional setting at the international level. The legal and institutional framework for water
quality therefore involves not only the national framework in each country, but also bilateral and
multilateral framework conventions among basin countries.
General impressions that have emerged to date are briefly outlined in the following paragraphs.
In the DRB countries the primary competence for the environmental and water related legislation is
with the national government, respective the relevant federal ministries. These are usually the
ministry of environment and, if separated, the ministry responsible for water management. A
particular feature for all DRB countries is the harmonization of the national environmental
legislation with EU regulations and standards. Germany and Austria are already EU members.
Hungary, Czech Republic and Slovenia are approaching harmonization. In the other countries the
time frame for the envisaged harmonization is determined by the actual status of environmental and
water management legislation and the economic capability and affordability of the particular
country. The allocation of legal competence between state / district level and municipal /
community level is very different in the various DRB countries. It usually depends on historical
features and especially on the federal structure of the particular country according to which the
competencies of the ministries and authorities on state / district level are basically defined.
In most of the DRB countries there is a rather clear hierarchy and allocation of responsibilities and
tasks regarding environmental management of water resources and ecosystems. In the majority of
DRB countries, the leading responsibility for water management is not with the Ministry of
Environment, but with another ministry, sometimes together with construction, transport,

46
Danube Pollution Reduction Programme
communication, industry, etc. This is mainly caused by the fact that the ministries responsible for
water management are usually "old" ministries and the ministries of environment have in most of
the countries been established rather recently. In DRB countries special subjects which are from
their nature closely related to the management of water resources and ecosystems are invested in
other ministries or sub-bodies of ministries. These subjects include:
waterway infrastructure and water transport;
hydro-electric power utilization;
water related recreation and tourism; river fishery;
agriculture and forestry.
Thus there is sometimes a kind of competition between a number of ministries, especially
regarding the allocation of budgets and the responsibility for subordinated institutions and
organizations.
In most of the DRB countries, independent of the distribution of responsibility with one or more
ministries, there are Environment and Water Inspectorates which usually act as sub-bodies of the
ministries on the regional level or the level of river catchment areas.
In the DRB countries there are in addition various authority departments, institutes and
organizations dealing with special administrative, fiscal, scientific, statistical, nuclear, medical,
health and similar features. Some of them had essential importance in the former systems and are
now in the position that their tasks have been streamlined or allocated to other administrative units
or that there is not enough money to maintain their scientific standards or even existence.
Especially in countries which are currently in the critical phase of transition, responsibilities and
tasks are not always reasonably defined and sometimes overlapping, allocated to different
ministerial or sub-ministerial authorities as well as to state, semi-state or in privatized institutes and
organizations. A particular problem in this context is that mechanisms of coordination and
cooperation are not always appropriately defined or standardized, occasionally resulting in
overlapping activities on the one side and critical gaps on the other side.
Countries in which the legal framework for environmental management of water resources and
ecosystems is in general terms considered as fully adequate and consistent with international
requirements include Germany and Austria. The country specific particularities in other DRB
countries can be summarized as follows:
Austria
Responsibilities for management of water, environment and pollution at the federal level are
divided among the Ministries of Agriculture (water management affairs), Environment (general
environmental issues except water), Health (bathing water), Economy (maintenance of navigable
rivers), Traffic (navigation on rivers and lakes) and Consumers (drinking water quality); and
among the federal and Lander levels. The legal framework and authorities for management do not
coincide with river basin boundaries. Hydrological measurements and water quality measurements
are made by different services/units with the same competent ministry (Agriculture and Forestry).
The proposal and approval process for large investment projects in water pollution abatement or
control involves the federal development of a "catalogue" of prioritized projects, decisions about
the allocation of investment funds by the "Fund-Commission" at regularly-held meetings and
implementation of the federal part of the promotion by the Austrian Kommunal Kredit Bank AG.
Public participation is realized by the composition of Fund-Commission members, including
political representatives of the federal, provincial and local level. Public access to environmental
information is guaranteed by the Federal Act on Information on Environmental Data, by
publications, by Parliamentary reports and by Internet home page.

Transboundary Analysis � Final Report, June 1999
47
Germany
Most responsibilities for management of water, environment and pollution lie with the Ministry for
the Environment, which cooperates with other relevant ministries, especially the ministries for
agriculture, transport and health. The primary responsibility for water management lies with the
federal states. Basin-wide management is addressed in specific work groups of the federal states,
and exist for each river basin. Hydrological and water quality measurements are made by the same
organization. Public participation is a part of decision making for environmental projects. There is
public access to environmental information and Germany has signed the Arhus convention.
Czech Republic
Based on the Competency Act No. 122/1997 Stat. in full version , the Ministry of Agriculture became
the central state authority for water management including maintenance for watercourses, control of
land water regime and use of water. In this context, the Ministry of the Environment transferred to
Ministry of Agriculture as of 4 June 1997 all rights and responsibilities of the shareholder of the Elbe,
Vltava, Ohre, Odra and Morava River Board corporations. Ministry of the Environment remains the
central state authority for protection of natural accumulation of water, of water resources and protection
of surface and groundwater quality. It ensures central management protection against floods.
Management of water, environment and pollution for the main river basins has coincided with river
basin boundaries for 31 years. Under this arrangement, river basin administrations make
recommendations to district offices. Hydrological measurements and water quality measurements are
made together, mostly by the national network of the Hydrometeorological Institute in the Ministry of
Environment. However, the Water Resources Institute and the River Basin Administration make some
measurements for special purposes (excluding groundwater). Responsibility for the control of discharge
of wastewater is with both municipalities and industries and both can make proposals for funding for
pollution control projects from the national environmental budget. For old projects (e.g., abandoned
waste sites) environmental impact assessments can be carried out to define the scope of the pollution
problem, and money for cleanup can be requested from a fund created with proceeds from the
privatization (sale) of national property. The Czech Republic is a signatory to the Danube River
Protection Convention (Sofia), the Ramsar Convention (wetlands of international importance), the
Convention on Climate Change (Rio de Janeiro), the Convention on Biological Diversity (Rio de
Janeiro) and the Convention on Wildlife and Habitats Protection (Bern). Bilateral agreements include
the Bilateral convention of the Czech Republic and Austria for the basis of water management question
on shared waters (7-12-67 and carried forward); and preparations between the Czech Republic and the
Slovak Republic to update former agreements with the federation.
Slovak Republic
At the national level, the Ministry of Environment has a section responsible for the protection of
water quality and quantity and its rational use, including state administration in water management;
and the Ministry of Soil Management has a section responsible for water management. At the local
level, these responsibilities are distributed among four water authorities. In 1996 a new territorial -
administrative division of state administration was established in connection with a new territorial-
administrative division of the Slovak Republic. For this reason, regional and district authorities are
responsible for state administration of water management.
Environmental legislation related to water management is mainly formed by the following acts:
The Water Act - 1973
The Act on State Administration in Water Management - 1974, as amended in 1993
The Act on the National Environment - 1991
Environmental Impact Assessment Act - 1994

48
Danube Pollution Reduction Programme
Within each catchment area, hydrological measurements and water quality measurements are made
by the same organization. Boundaries of management of water, environment and pollution
coincide with river basin boundaries. Public participation in decision making for environmental
projects is assured by the environmental impact assessment procedure (for large-scale projects) and
by the permitting procedure (for smaller projects). Public access to environmental information has
been assures in a act on public access to environmental information was entered into force in 1998.
Hungary
The responsibility for environmental protection has been allocated to the Ministry of Environment, but
all the ministries should consider the environmental consequences of their activities. The water sector
has been divided so the water quality belongs to the environmental ministry and the water quantity and
the so-called water management belongs to the Ministry of Transport. Management of irrigation is the
responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture since July 1998. On the regional level, the responsibilities
are allocated to the Environmental Protection Inspectorates and the District Water Authorities.
Significant strengthening of the environmental institutional system is recognized as a fundamental
precondition for the implementation of the National Environmental Plan and the practical enforcement
of the principle of sustainable development. In a majority of cases, boundaries of management of water,
environment and pollution coincide with river basin boundaries. Hydrological measurements and water
quality measurements are made by different entities, i.e., the regional water authorities and the regional
environmental inspectorates respectively. The proposal and approval process for large investment
projects in water pollution abatement and control involves the development of a preliminary design,
which is the basis of a preliminary permit for water rights; detailed design which is the basis for a
license on water rights and land use; application for funding to various central funds. Public
participation in decision making for environmental projects occurs through appeals against the
preliminary design and through public hearings which are part of the environmental impact assessment
process. Public access to environmental information is assured through an act which was entered into
force in 1998, as well a through the Arhus convention which Hungary has signed.
Slovenia
The responsibility for water management is with the Ministry of the Environment and Physical
Planning. The professional water management is organized in 8 river catchments (Water Act, 1981),
i.e., management of water, environment and pollution coincides with river basin boundaries. The
inspectorates of the Ministry of the Environment are responsible for the control of the conditions of
water users. At the national level, responsibilities cover permitting for water abstraction and pollution
discharges. At the local level, responsibilities cover water supply systems and waste water treatment
plants. Hydrological measurements and water quality measurements are made by the same
organization. The proposal and approval process for large investment projects in water pollution
abatement and control involves declaration of candidate projects in a "National Environmental Plan".
Public participation in decision making for environmental projects is assured through the Environment
Protection Act of 1993 which required the environmental impact assessment process to include public
presentation and public discussion. The public has access to environmental information. Slovenia is
signatory to the Danube River Protection Convention (Sofia), the Transboundary Watercourses
Convention (Helsinki), the Ramsar Convention (wetlands of international importance), the Convention
on Climate Change (Rio de Janeiro), the Convention on Biological Diversity (Rio de Janeiro) and the
Convention on Wildlife and Habitats Protection (Bern). Bilateral agreements included the Joint
Commission for the Drava River (between Slovenia and Austria); the Joint Commission of the Mura
(between Slovenia and Austria); the Joint Commission for Water Management (between Slovenia and
Hungary); and the Joint Commission of the Adriatic (between Slovenia, Italy and Croatia).
The urgent task is the preparation of a new Water Act that will replace the outdated one from 1981.
A general task is future harmonization of national legislation with EU regulations and standards.

Transboundary Analysis � Final Report, June 1999
49
Croatia
Due to the fact that Croatia is an independent state only since 1990, the legal and institutional
structures are still in the process of transformation, including in the fields of water management and
environmental protection. In this context, the responsibility for environmental protection is with
the Ministry of Construction and Environmental Protection and the subordinated State Directorate
Nature for Environmental Protection. The responsibility for water management is with the
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and the subordinated State Directorate for Water
Management. A particular institutions is the "JVP", and umbrella organization for all water and
waste water utilities in the country. Boundaries of management of water, environment and
pollution do coincide with river basin boundaries but hydrological measurements and water quality
measurements are made by different organizations. The proposal and approval process for large
investment projects in water abatement or control usually begins with the submittal of proposals
from local authorities or state authorities. The proposals are then reviewed by the Water
Management Agency and the State Water Directorate. Public participation in decision making for
environmental projects is mostly a paper process.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Since the promulgation of a new constitution in 1994, environmental legislation has not progressed
far beyond the constitutional phase. Allocation of competence and responsibilities between
national level, canton level and municipal level are just provisionally determined. General matters
are usually regulated by laws, procedures, standards, etc., usually accompanied by "books of rules".
Responsibilities for management of water, environment and pollution are distributed between the
Ministry of Water Management and the Ministry of Environment; and between two levels - the
Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (FBiH) and the Republic of Srpska (RS). Boundaries of
management of water, environment and pollution do not coincide with river basin boundaries.
Hydrological measurements and water quality measurements are made by different organizations,
i.e., FBiH and RS respectively. The proposal and approval process for large investments in water
pollution abatement or control involves the respective ministries and final approval of the entity
Governments. Public participation is not yet a part of the decision making process for
environmental projects. Public access to environmental information is limited. BiH has not yet
signed the Arhus Convention.
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
The legal framework for environmental protection and the protection of water resources and
ecosystems is a composite of federal and republican laws and regulations and consequently
characterized by discrepancies. The particular administrative structure of the country calls for
basic coordination between the legislation of the republics, in each of which the system of
environmental protection has been rather well developed and the federation which is authorized to
lay down the fundamentals of the system of environmental protection. National and local
responsibilities are divided along the following lines:
Federal level - planning and transboundary issues
Republic level - planning and operational activities
Local level - operational activities

50
Danube Pollution Reduction Programme
In addition, numerous laws and regulation regarding environmental issues that were adopted long
ago, have been frequently amended and need revision. Water management is overlapping since
each of the following ministries is responsible for one segment:
Federal Ministry of Agriculture (water regime)
Federal Ministry of Development, Science and Environment (environment-system issues)
Federal ministry of Health and Social Affairs (drinking water quality)
Ministries of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management of Republic of Serbia and
Montenegro
Ministries of Environment of Republic of Serbia and Montenegro
Ministries of Health of Republic of Serbia and Montenegro
Quality control of surface waters of inter-state and inter-republican watercourses is performed by
the Federal Weather Bureau, while the control of other watercourses is performed by the republican
weather bureaus. Boundaries of management of water, environment and pollution coincide with
river basin boundaries. The proposal and approval process for large investment project in water
pollution abatement and control is regulated by the Investment Law, the Water Law and the
Environmental Law. There is some public participation in decision making for environmental
projects, but there is need for improvement. The country has not signed the Arhus Convention, but
water quality data can be obtained by request, in accordance with provisions of the Water Law.
Romania
In Romania the Ministry of Water, Forests and Environmental Protection is responsible for all
environmental and water related issues. "Apele Roane", a public utility with branches in each of
the country's 12 river basins is responsible for 70,000 km of watercourses, 150 multi-purpose lakes
and dikes and raw water supply to municipalities, industry and agriculture, whereas the water and
waste water services are under the responsibility of the respective municipalities under the Ministry
of Public Works. The national company "Romanian Waters" and its branches are responsible for
the management of water pollution. The Environmental Protection Agencies are responsible for
environmental pollution on the local level. The environmental and water-related legislation is in
the process of transformation. The reorganization of the legislation framework reflects the need to
manage all the natural resources as part of an integrated system and strategy, which involves
cooperation between all relevant authorities and institutions on the different administrative levels.
One of the main concerns is the harmonization of the national environmental and water-related
legislation with international requirements, especially regulations and standards. Hydrological and
water quality measurements are both made by the same organization, namely the National Water
Authorities, which reports to the Ministry of Water, Forests and Environmental Protection. The
boundaries of water management coincide with the river basin boundaries. The boundaries of other
environmental management coincide with the country's boundaries. Public participation in
decision making for environmental projects exists in accordance with Water Law 107/96 and the
Environmental Law 137/95, which require investments to be discussed in public debates. Public
access to environmental information is assured by the same laws.
Bulgaria
The Ministry of Environment and Waters has one of the leading roles in the implementation of
national environmental policy. This is the central state administration authority coordinating all
environmental issues. The Ministry of Regional Development and Public Works develops the
strategic and policy documents for water supply and waste water drainage in settlements. The
Ministry of Health issues regulations for the standards of drinking water and through its Regional

Transboundary Analysis � Final Report, June 1999
51
Hygienic Epidemiological Inspectorates controls quality in the water supply system. The Ministry
of Agriculture, Forest and Agrarian Reform has a leading role in agricultural and forestry
management and owns almost all of the large irrigation facilities through its government-owned
company "Irrigation Systems Inc." The 15 Regional Environmental and Water Inspectorates
implement the legislation concerning all elements of the environment - water, air, soil and
biodiversity. They perform the supervision of environmental protection, namely setting and
permitting effluent standards, control of permitted limits for wastewater discharges from municipal
facilities, observation and evaluation of the level of pollution and charging fines when permit
requirements are violated. Local municipal authorities (Water Supply and Sewerage Co.) are
responsible among other things for management of municipal solid waste collection, transport,
treatment and disposal. The river basin authorities are envisaged under the new Water Act as the
institution carrying out adequate management based on democratic principles and participation of
the public. In the Basin Councils all social groups concerned with water management (including
state institutions, regional and municipal administrations, non-governmental ecological
organizations, water users and polluters) are equally represented. Hydrological and water quality
measurements are made by different organizations. The National Institute of Meteorology and
Hydrology makes the hydrological measurements. Three other entities (Ministry of Environment
and Water, National Centre for Environment and sustainable Development and Ministry of Health)
make water quality measurements. The boundaries of management of water and environment and
pollution do not coincide with river basin boundaries. Instead, management is organized on a
regional / administrative basis. The proposal and approval process for large investment projects in
water pollution abatement or control involves municipalities and other making proposals by filing
application forms with the National Environmental Protection Fund, with the National Eco Trust
Fund, or to the state budget. Water supply and sewerage companies may apply to EU PHARE,
EBRD, EIB or World Bank for soft loans. Public participation in decision making for
environmental projects is achieved through the EIA procedure which includes public hearings for
EIA reports. Public access to environmental information is achieved through monthly newsletters
issues by the Ministry of Environment and Water, bulletins and publications of the this ministry as
well a the National Centre for Environment and Sustainable Development and the Annual Book for
the Status of the Environment.
Moldova
The Ministry of Environmental Protection is the leading authority regarding environmental
protection and issues of water-related ecosystems. "Apele Moldovei", a subdivision of the
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry is responsible for surface water resources and the issues of
water balance. Jointly with the two ministries and their sub-bodies various institutes are
responsible for particular environmental and water-related aspects. The Ministry of Health is
responsible for drinking water. According to the Constitution, the President has major
responsibilities for the state of the environment. Hydrological measurements and water quality
measurements are made by the same institution,i.e., the Hydrometeorological Service. Boundaries
of management of water, environment and pollution do not coincide with river basin boundaries.
In spite of the complex system of environmental legislation (with a high number of decrees, laws
and regulations elaborated and amended since 1990), enforcement remains problematic due to the
economic situation and shortage of technical competence. The proposal and approval process for
large investment projects in water pollution abatement and control involves proposal by local
authorities to sectoral authorities (ministries) and approval by the central government. Public
participation in decision making exists in the form of involvement of NGOs and public institutions
in project development, through the law on environmental impact assessment. The country's
constitution provides for free access to environmental information.

52
Danube Pollution Reduction Programme
Ukraine
The overall responsibility and guidance for all environmental and water-related issues is with the
Ministry of Environmental Protection and Nuclear Safety. The management of water resources on the
national level is carried out by the Cabinet of Ministers, supported by authorized bodies such as
departments of the Ministry of Environment (pollution prevention), the State Committee for Water
Management (irrigation, watercourses), the State Committee for Architecture (municipal wastewater,
drinking water supply), the State Committee for Hydrometeorology (surface water monitoring), the
State Committee for Geology (groundwater), sub-bodies of these committees, and the Ministry of
Health (sanitary-hygiene control of bathing water and drinking water). The basic principles for the
protection of the environment in the Ukraine are regulated by the "Law of Protection of the
Environment, 1996" and the "Law on Sanitary and Epidemiological Security of the Population, 1994.
The main water related issues are regulated by the "Water Code of Ukraine, 1995". In addition there are
a number of regulations, rules, norms, etc. regulating in detail particular issues. The proposal and
approval process for large investment projects in water pollution abatement and control includes
preparation of an environmental impact assessment and focuses on requirements set by sources of
financing. Hydrological measurements and water quality measurements are not made by the same
organization. Boundaries of management of water, environment and pollution do not yet coincide, but
river basin management is being introduced. Public participation in decision making for environmental
projects and access to environmental information are both very limited at the present time. Ukraine is
signatory to the Black Sea Convention and the Convention on Biological Diversity (Rio de Janeiro) and
is in the process of approving the Transboundary Watercourses Convention (Helsinki). There are
bilateral agreements between Ukraine and Moldova on the common use and protection of water
resources of the Dnister River; between Ukraine and Slovakia on cooperation in environmental
protection; between Ukraine and Hungary on cooperation in environmental protection; and between
Ukraine and Romania on cooperation in environmental protection.
A summary of the status of selected international conventions is presented in Table 1.6-1.
Table 1.6-1
Danube States which Have Signed or Ratified Relevant International
Conventions as of Mid 1999
Europe Association
Transboundary
Black Sea
Ramsar
Convention on
Danube River
or Accession
Watercourses
Convention
Convention
biological diversity
Protection
Agreement
Convention
Convention
in force since
Association Accession
signed
ratified
signed
ratified
signed
ratified
signed
ratified
signed
ratified
signed
ratified
Austria
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Bosnia-
Herzegovina
Bulgaria
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Croatia
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Czech Republic
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
European Union
+
+
+
+
Germany
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Hungary
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Moldova
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Romania
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Slovakia
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Slovenia
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Ukraine
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Yugoslavia

Convention on the protection and use of transboundary watercourses and international lakes
Convention on the protection of the Black Sea against pollution
Convention on wetlands of international importance, especially as wildfowl habitat
1997 through declaration of continuity after the USSR

2.
Objective, Approach and Context of the Transboundary
Analysis
2.1.
Main Objective
The main objective of the transboundary analysis is to provide the technical basis for development
of a Pollution Reduction Programme for the protection of the Danube River Basin. Technical basis
refers to all aspects of:
detection, characterization, comparison, and evaluation of pollution sources, water quality
and pollution loads throughout the basin (including evaluation of data quality);
discovery and characterization of areas and issues that are sensitive to pollutant
concentrations or loads;
discovery and evaluation of effects of pollutant concentrations and loads on sensitive
areas and issues, including national effects as well as transboundary effects;
discovery and evaluation of immediate causes of pollution;
discovery and evaluation of root causes of water quality problem situations;
identification of alternative (structural and non-structural) interventions to reduce
pollution and eliminate water quality problems, based on all of the aforementioned
considerations;
development of criteria for basinwide evaluation of possible interventions to reduce
pollution;
preliminary ranking of possible interventions, and
determination of stakeholders and evaluation of constraints to interventions.
This is to be distinguished from the objective of the Pollution Reduction Programme which is to carry
forward this technical evaluation to identify and prioritize possible interventions on the basis of comparative
costs and benefits.
2.2.
General Approach
The approach for accomplishing the objective of the Transboundary Analysis comprises the
following choices and arrangements of work.
Participating Countries
The participating countries had earlier been defined to include the 13 countries with large
territories in the Danube Basin. They included Austria, Germany, Czech Republic,
Slovak Republic, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Federal Republic
of Yugoslavia, Romania, Bulgaria, Moldova and Ukraine. Four countries with very small
areas in the DRB did not participate.
Target Oriented Planning
Target oriented planning was adopted as the methodology for conducting workshops.
This methodology incorporates the logical framework methodology to guide the work in
planning groups, the team approach as a framework for multi-sectoral analysis and the
visualization technique which is used to document the contributions by individual
participants and the results of the discussions.
National Experts
Groups of national experts, each with a national coordinator, were engaged within each
country to update National Review Reports.

54
Danube Pollution Reduction Programme
DWQM Working Group
A group of experts in water quality and river basin modelling were engaged to assist in
the development and application of the Danube Water Quality Model.
International Consultants
Four international consultants with specialties in river basin modelling, water quality
data, socio-economics and engineering were engaged to assist in the development of
National Review Reports, the development of the DWQM, the preparation of the
Transboundary Analysis, and the preparation of the Pollution Reduction Program.
Additional national and international consultants were engaged to contribute to the
revision of the Strategic Action Plan, to serve as facilitators for various workshops and to
prepare special reports and maps involving wetlands rehabilitation, causal chain analysis
and identification and description of Sub-river Basin areas, Sub-river Basins and
significant impact areas.
Pollution Parameters
Pollution parameters that were emphasized were concentrations and loads of N, P, COD
and BOD. Quality of data was evaluated. Incidental observations involving notable
concentrations of sediment and persistent toxics are to be recorded and addressed.
Focus on Hot Spots
Pollution sources that were emphasized were high priority hot spots and diffuse sources
that presumably were good targets for future interventions. Priority was determined by
each country on the basis of multidisciplinary evaluations and comparisons that examined
emissions; conditions of receiving waters; sensitive areas or issues downstream; national
and transboundary effects; and other considerations noted above in the discussion of
objective. The decision to focus on hot spots rather than total pollution loads was made
with intention of concentrating attention on specific promising pollution targets for the
Pollution Reduction Programme. Attention to total loads was provided within the context
of the DWQM activities. Power plants (including nuclear facilities) were not included
among the hot spots, either on the basis of their discharge of hot water, or on the basis of
their potential to become a major source of chemical or radionuclide pollutants.
Focus on Transboundary Situations and Issues and on Significant Impact Areas
Attention was focused on transboundary pollution problems, including problems
involving the Black Sea. Special attention was given to Sub-river Basin Areas and Sub-
river Basins (which are addressed below in Section 2.3) and to Significant Impact Areas
(which are addressed below in Section 2.7).
National Review Reports
National Review Reports were prepared by each country and reviewed by the
International Consultants. The reports focused on socio-economic conditions, water
quality, water environmental engineering and financing mechanisms for proposed
projects. Socio-economic conditions and water quality covered information that was
required for the preparation of the DWQM and the Transboundary Analysis. Water
environmental engineering and financing mechanisms covered additional information that
was required for development of the Pollution Reduction Programme.
DWQM
The DWQM was further developed and refined and applications were initiated. Main
purposes of the DWQM were (i) to serve a focal point for debate about physical and
biological processes that affect the dynamics of nutrients, for example in groundwater,
flood plains, wetlands and storage reservoirs; and (ii) to assist in evaluating pollution
reduction scenarios, if the resolution of the model could be improved beyond the range of
variabilities in the river system.

Transboundary Analysis � Final Report, June 1999
55
Evaluation of Wetlands and Floodplain Areas
Wetlands of selected major rivers were investigated to identify and evaluate potential
restoration areas of former floodplains.
Inception Workshop
Programme activities and milestones were planned at an Inception Workshop in late
November 1997.
Review Preparation Workshop
Detailed TOR for the National Experts and the National Review Reports were developed
during a planning workshop in late January 1998.
National Planning Workshops
A National Review Workshop was convened in each country to review the findings of
each National Review Report in a public forum within the country that prepared the
report and to conduct a causal chain anaysis for each country.
Transboundary Workshop
A Transboundary Workshop reviewed the findings of the National Review Reports in an
international forum and made recommendations for the Transboundary Report concerning
the analysis of problems and the design of alternative interventions to reduce pollution
and transboundary effects.
Transboundary Report
The Transboundary Report was drafted following the workshop, taking into consideration
the results and recommendations of the workshop. The present final report is the 4th
revision after the workshop.
2.3.
Definition of Regions and Development of the Sub-river Basin
Approach
In response to initial findings of the Transboundary Analysis, comparative information about the 13
participating countries, and expectations concerning forthcoming EU directives, the decision was
made to group the 13 countries into three socio-economic categories; and to extend the analysis of
pollution, transboundary effects and pollution reduction scenarios beyond the country to country
approach to a Sub-river Basin approach.
The 13 countries were grouped as follows:
Upper Danube River Basin
This area includes Germany and Austria whose market-oriented economies, membership
in the EU and high level of economic development set them apart from all of the other
countries.
Central Danube River Basin
This area includes the countries that are in economic transition but that are not directly
associated with the Black Sea; and some of these countries that are moving fastest toward
joining the EU. The countries are Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, Hungary, Slovenia,
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
Lower Danube River Basin
This area includes the countries that are in economic transition and that are directly
associated with the Black Sea. The countries are Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine and
Moldova.

56
Danube Pollution Reduction Programme
The Sub-river Basin approach was described in a 15 January 1999 Draft Report titled "Danube
River Sub-Basin Areas" and in the 3 March 1999 Draft Report titled "Transboundary Areas in the
Danube River Basin". The Sub-river Basin areas comprised, within a single country, "new
physical-geographical units of several similar hydrographic parts (basins of mostly the Danube's
first-order tributaries)". There are 32 Sub-river Basin areas. Following elucidation of these areas,
the areas were grouped into larger "Sub-river Basins" that often included more than one country.
These "Sub-river Basins" were initially revealed during the Transboundary Workshop in late
January 1999, where they were amended slightly. At present there are 15 Sub-river Basins which
serve to elevate local and national river basin management needs to the attention and of the entire
Danube Basin.
The Sub-river Basin Areas are mapped Annex 2.3A (Map 3) and described in detail in the report
titled "Thematic Maps of the Danube River Basin � Social and Economic Characteristics with
particular attention to Hot Spots, Significant Impact Areas and Hydraulic Structures".
The Sub-river Basins are presented in Map 2 and described in detail in the report titled
"Transboundary Areas in the Danube River Basin, Thematic Maps on Socio-Economic Issues, Hot
Spots and Significant Impact Areas".
Supporting maps present population density by Sub-river Basin areas (Map 4); land use for selected
Sub-river Basin areas (Map 5); agricultural indicators of livestock density and rates of fertilizer
application by country (Map 6); and agricultural indicators of total livestock and total fertilizer by
country (Map 7)

Map 2: Sub-river Basins
Based on Transboundary Analysis Workshop 1999
CZ
PL
UA
4
#
S
#
Y
#
S
Brno
#
S
D
#
S
#
S
MD
#
S
#
S
5
#
Y
#
S
SK
1
#
S
#
S
Chisinau
#
S
#
Y
#
Y Bratislava
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
Y
Wien
#
S
#
S
14
2
#
S
Budapest
#
S
#
S
M�nchen
9
#
S
3
A
#
Y
#
S
6
#
S
15
#
S
H #S
#
Y
#
S
#
Y
7
CH
#
Y
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
RO
#
S
I
#
Y
#
S
#
Y
Ljubljana
#
S
#
Y
Zagreb
#
S
#
Y
#
S
10
Bucuresti
LEGEND
SLO
#
S
Border
#
S
8
13
#
S
#
Y
Danube River Basin
#
S
#
S
#
S
Sub-river Basins
#
S
Beograd
#
S
#
S
#
S
Metropolis ( > 1 Million Inhabitants)
HR
#
YSarajevo
#
S
Cities (250 000 - 1 Mil ion Inhabitants)
12
#
S
Towns (100 000 - 250 000 Inhabitants)
#
S
11
Sub-river Basins
BIH
1: Upper Danube (D,A)
2: Inn (A,D)
BG
3: Austrian Danube (A)
Sofija
4: Morava (CZ,A,SK)
#
S
5: V�h - Hron (SK,CZ,H)
YU
6. Pannonian Central Danube (A,SK,H,HR,YU)
7: Drava - Mura (A,SLO,HR,H)
8: Sava (SLO,HR,BIH,YU)
9: Tisa (SK,UA,RO,H,YU)
10: Banat - Eastern Serbia (YU,RO)
Danube Pollution Reduction Programme
11: Velika Morava (YU,BG)
12: Mizia - Dobrudzha (BG)
13: Muntenia (R0)
United Nations Development Programme
14: Prut - Siret (UA,MD,RO)
Global Environmental Facility
15: Delta - Liman (MD,UA,RO)
ICPDR - Programme Coordination Unit
1400 Vienna, P.O. Box 500, Austria
50
0
50
100
150 Kilometers
N
Produced by ZINKE ENVIRONMENT CONSULTING
for Central and Eastern Europe, Vienna, 1999
Scale: 1: 4 500 000
(Cartography by U.SCHWARZ)

Map 4: Population Density in the Danube Sub-river Basin Areas
Bas ed on N ational P lanning W o rk shop Reports 1998
CZ
P L
U A
#
S
#
YBrno
#
S
#
S
#
S
D
S K
MD
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
Y
#
S
#
S
#
S
Chisinau
#
S
Bratislava
#
Y
#
S
#
Y
#
Y
#
S
#
S
#
S
Wien
#
S
#
S
Budapest
#
S
#
S
M�n chen
#
S
#
Y
#
SR O
#
S
A
#
S
#
Y
H
#
S
#
Y
#
S
CH
#
Y
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
Y
Ljubljana
#
Y
I
#
Y
#
S
Zagreb
#
Y
#
S
#
S
Bu curesti
#
S
S LO
#
S
#
S
#
Y
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
Beograd
#
S
LEG EN D
#
S
#
S
HR
Border
Metropolis ( > 1 Million Inhabitants)
#
YSarajevo
#
S
Metropols (> 1 Mio Inhabi tants)
Danube River Basin
Cities (250 000 - 1 Mil ion Inhabitants)
Citys (250 000- 1 Mio Inhabi tants)
#
S
Sub-river Basin Areas
Towns (100 000 - 250 000 Inhabitants)
Towns (100 000- 250 000 Inhabitants)
#
S
Po pulation Den sity (rural p opu latio n wtho ut
BIH
cities o ver 1 00 000 inhab itants!)
Sofija
B G
#
S
20 - 4 0 In h abi tan ts/k m �
YU
41 - 6 0 In h /km �
61 - 8 0 In h /km �
81 -1 0 0 In h/km �
101 -1 2 0 In h/km �
Danube P ollution Reduction P rogramme
121 -1 4 0 In h/km �
United Nations D evelopme nt Programme
Global Environme ntal Fa cilit y
IC PDR - Programme Coordina tion U nit
1400 Vienn a, P.O. Box 50 0, Austria
50
0
50
100
150 Kilome ters
N
Produced by ZINKE ENVIRONMENT CONSULTING
Scale: 1: 4 500 000
for Central and Eastern Europe, Vienna, 1999
(Cartography by U.SCHWARZ)

Map 5: Land Use in the Danube Sub-river Basin Areas
Based on CORINE Land Use Data, National Planning Workshop Reports 1998 and Updates May 1999
PL
UA
39%
CZ
19%
#
S
50%
45%
46%
52%
#
Y
#
S
D
19%
22%
#
S
49%
#
S
35%
#
S
MD
#
S
#
S
6%
12%
23%
#
Y
#
S
40%
47%
64%
SK 48%
Chisinau
47%
Wien
#
S
#
S
13%
40%
#
S
#
Y
#
S
#
Y
#
S
#
Y
#
S
14%
#
S
#
S
31%
40%
49%
#
S
Budapest
#
S
#
S
46%
#
S
23%
#
Y
#
S
#
S
65%
24%
10%
#
S
#
Y
40%
#
S
H
#
Y
#
S
CH
A
4%
#
Y
#
S
18%
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
51%
#
S
#
Y
#
Y
I
32%
#
Y
46%
RO
#
S
SLO
#
Y
#
S
#
S
48%
#
S
LEGEND
25%
#
S
Border
#
S
18%
#
Y
Danube River Basin and Sub-river Basin Areas
53%
#
S
19%
#
S
#
S
15%
6% #S
#
S
#
S
Metropolis ( > 1 Million Inhabitants)
#
S
30%
Cities (250 000 - 1 Mil ion Inhabitants)
HR
#
Y
63%
45%
26%
#
S
Towns (100 000 - 250 000 Inhabitants)
14
31%
42%
#
S
Land Use:
31%
#
S
21%
44%
Not classified
51%
Forest
Settlements
30%
BG
BIH
Waters/
(example
Sofija
figures)
#
S
Wetlands
#
YU
Vineyards/
Orchards
10%
Meadows/
28%
Pastures
Danube Pollution Reduction Programme
Arable Land
Only national data are shown from: A, SLO, YU, UA.
United Nations Development Programme
No data were received from MD, HR.
Global Environmental Facility
For some countries, 2 or 3 Sub-river Basin Areas
ICPDR - Programme Coordination Unit
were identified in the National Planning Workshops.
1400 Vienna, P.O. Box 500, Austria
N
50
0
50
100 Kilometers
Produced by ZINKE ENVIRONMENT CONSULTING
for Central and Eastern Europe, Vienna, 1999
Scale: 1: 4 500 000
(Cartography by U.SCHWARZ)

Map 6: Agricultural Indicators I (Lifestock/Fertiliser) in the Danube Basin Countries
Based on National Planning Workshop Reports 1998
CZ
N 61
PL
UA
#
S
D
Pigs
N33
13 5
Cattle
16
N
#
Y
#
S
25 37
P 12
#
S
#
S
P 9
Cattle Pigs
37 83
P3
#
S
#
S
N 78
#
S
Pigs
Cattle
#
Y
#
S
39 119
Pigs
Cattle
#
S
#
S
#
S
Bratislava
#
Y
N19 MD
P25
#
S
#
Y
#
S
#
Y
#
S
SK
#
S
Wien
#
S
P16
#
S
Budapest
#
S
M�nchen #S
#
S
91 140
N 32
#
Y
N14
#
S
#
S
15
P
15 85
RO
#
S
62 104
#
Y
#
S
Pigs
Cattle
A
N 18
24 63
#
Y
#
S
P3
Pigs
Cattle
#
Y
#
S
CH
H
#
S
#
S
Pigs
Cattle
#
S
#
S
I
#
S
#
S
10
P
Pigs
Cattle
N36
#
S
#
Y
#
Y
#
Y
#
S
P21
#
Y
N
#
S
41
LEGEND
#
S
#
S
Border
SLO
Bucuresti
61 78
22 108
#
S
Danube River Basin
P17
Beograd
#
S
#
Y
Metropolis ( > 1 Million Inhabitants)
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
Cities (250 000 - 1 Mil ion Inhabitants)
Cattle Pigs
Pigs
Cattle
#
S
#
S
HR
N5
Towns (100 000 - 250 000 Inhabitants)
#
Y
Sarajevo
#
S
Total Lifestock/km� agricult. land
P2
Border
13 3
#
S
N 25
30 70
N
Danube River Basin
52
11 33
#
S
Pigs
Cattle
BIH
Pigs
Cattle
P25
P2
Pigs
Cattle
25 37
Sofija
BG
#
S
YU
Pigs
Cattle
Fertiliser in: kg/ha agricult. land/y
N33
Danube Pollution Reduction Programme
N: Nitrogen
P: Phosphate
United Nations Development Programme
P10
Global Environmental Facility
ICPDR - Programme Coordination Unit
1400 Vienna, P.O. Box 500, Austria
50
0
50
100 Kilometers
N
Produced by ZINKE ENVIRONMENT CONSULTING
Scale: 1: 4 500 000
for Central and Eastern Europe, Vienna, 1999
(Cartography by U.SCHWARZ)

Map 7: Agricultural Indicators II (Total Lifestock, Total Fertiliser per Country)
Based on National Planning Workshop Reports 1998
CZ
PL
UA
41 119
125
N*56
#
S
D
Pigs
26 10
#
Y
Cattle
N* 74
#
S
#
S
P* 15
P* 20
#
S
N*219
89 199
Cattle Pigs
MD
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
Y
#
S
Pigs
Cattle
Chisinau
#
S
#
S
#
S
Bratislava
#
Y
P*70
#
S
#
Y
#
S
#
Y
#
S
Wien
SK
#
S
#
S
#
S
Budapest
#
S
M�nchen #S
#
S
395 280
N* 113
N* 203
#
Y
#
S
H
#
S
95 552
220 365
N** 30
RO
#
S
#
Y
P*25
N*208
#
S
Pigs
Cattle
A
N**45
#
Y
#
S
Pigs
Cattle
#
Y
#
S
CH
Pigs
Cattle
P* 15
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
I
P** 7
P*89
#
S
#
S
N* 29
P**2
N** 28
61
44 78
#
S
#
Y
56
#
Y
P*10
#
Y
#
S
P**9
#
Y
350 #S
796
LEGEND
#
S
Cattle Pigs
22
29 108
141
Bucuresti
#
S
Border
SLO
Pigs
Cattle
#
S
Danube River Basin
Beograd
#
S
#
Y
Cattle Pigs
Metropolis ( > 1 Million Inhabitants)
#
SN*2
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
Cities (250 000 - 1 Mil ion Inhabitants)
#
S
#
S
Towns (100 000 - 250 000 Inhabitants)
HR
#
Y
14
Sarajevo
#
S
14
Total Lifestock in 10,000 per Country
N* 115
#
S
N* 165
170
190 70
26 96
400
N**100
#
S
Pigs
Cattle
P*5
BIH
P*9
Cattle Pigs
Pigs
Cattle
P**26
89 199
Sofija
BG
#
S
YU
Pigs
Cattle
Fertiliser in 1,000 t N(P)/y/Country
N: Nitrogen
Danube Pollution Reduction Programme
56
N*
P: Phosphate
(N*,P*: inorganic
United Nations Development Programme
Global Environmental Facility
N**,P**: organic)
P*15
ICPDR - Programme Coordination Unit
1400 Vienna, P.O. Box 500, Austria
N
50
0
50
100 Kilometers
Produced by ZINKE ENVIRONMENT CONSULTING
Scale: 1: 4 500 000
for Central and Eastern Europe, Vienna, 1999
(Cartography by U.SCHWARZ)

Transboundary Analysis � Final Report, June 1999
67
2.4.
Use of Transboundary Analysis in the Danube River Pollution
Reduction Programme
Within the context of the overall Danube Pollution Reduction Programme, the Transboundary
Analysis is used:
i.
as the main project activity for basinwide identification and description of worthwhile
targets for further consideration in the pollution reduction programme,
ii.
as the main project activity for identification of immediate causes of pollution and root
causes of transboundary pollution problems,
iii.
along with the pollution reduction activity, as a project activity for identification of
possible interventions to reduce transboundary pollution, by responding to the
immediate and root causes of the problems, and
iv.
along with other project activities in general, as an activity for determining
requirements for monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of the interventions and the
future conditions of river water and sensitive items.
Worthwhile targets emerge from the identification and description of the most serious water
pollution problems in the basin, where seriousness can be defined from several perspectives. For
example, seriousness can be based on types of substances discharged, the quantities of substances
discharged, the capacity of the receiving waters to dilute the discharges, the capacity of the
receiving waters to transform or eliminate the pollutants (for denitrificaton or oxidation of BOD),
the proximity of other countries downstream, the proximity of users and sensitive uses downstream
and the proximity and sensitivity of sensitive biota downstream. Effects that are dependent on
concentration of pollutants can be reduced by dilution. Effects that are dependent on pollutant
loads cannot. In general, the seriousness of problems near the source is more closely linked with
concentration, while the seriousness of problems in remote areas, such as the Black Sea is more
closely linked with loads, especially for N and P which change more slowly, during longitudinal
succession, than BOD and COD.
In the present Transboundary Analysis the most serious pollution problems were identified at the
national level as hot spots that were evaluated and ranked on the basis of the perspectives just
mentioned, in three sectors (municipal, agricultural and industrial), and at three levels of priority
(high priority, medium priority and low priority). Diffuse sources were considered, but in practice
there was a bias of attention toward point sources because of the paucity of data on diffuse sources,
as well as uncertainties associated with the economic transition.
In the context of this bias, possible interventions were identified and initial estimates of their
pollution reduction potential were made by each country. Initial criteria for ranking of possible
interventions were established by the participants of the Transboundary Workshop. Initial tentative
ranking of possible interventions was carried out by the participants of the Workshop. Projects
included in this initial ranking were subsequently arranged by sector in order of numtient reduction
(N + P), with largest reductions listed first.
The relative size and importance of the transboundary components that are consistent with the
criteria for GEF intervention were also evaluated by listing the top 25 and the top 5 projects on the
basis of reduction N, P, BOD and COD; proposing measures for possible interventions involving
diffuse sources; and describing relationships between Significant Impact Areas, hot spots and
projects.

68
Danube Pollution Reduction Programme
Use of the Transboundary Analysis includes investigation and discovery of core problems,
immediate and root causes of pollutant discharges and immediate and ultimate effects of pollutant
discharges. For point sources, immediate causes of pollutant discharges may include, for example,
absence of central wastewater treatment facilities,
insufficient designed capacity of treatment facilities,
low design standards for treatment (for example, primary vs. secondary),
bypassing of treatment facilities to avoid operating costs,
improper operator performance at treatment facilities,
frequent flooding of treatment facilities,
discharge of industrial wastes to municipal treatment facilities without pre-treatment
overloading of treatment facilities due to infiltration and inflow or stormwater,
discharges by mobile sources such as ships, and
breakdown of treatment facilities.
For diffuse sources, immediate causes may include, for example,
overflow or leakage of on-site septic tanks
removal of vegetation through fire or deforestation,
improper cultivation of steep slopes, or
excess use of fertilizer and pesticides (either at the present time or as a result of
groundwater or soil that was contaminated during past decades).
For both types of sources, root causes of transboundary problems may include, for example,
absence or weakness of
public awareness and a constituency that demands pollution control,
attention at the local level to pollutant loads,
policies, legislation, regulations or clear mandates that require pollution control,
standards and institutions that facilitate the enforcement of pollution control,
incentives that encourage pollution control,
requirements to consider downstream uses and users in the planning, siting and
implementation of activities which have the potential to pollute,
economic collapse,
war,
bilateral or international agreements that cover mobile sources such as ships, or
bilateral or international agreements that facilitate discover (through quality controlled
monitoring) and resolution of cross-border problems.
Immediate effects are direct changes in water quality, i.e., unacceptable concentrations of various
pollutants in receiving waters used for various purposes including drinking water, recreation,
fisheries, wildlife, irrigation or industrial water supply.
Ultimate effects may include, for example:
degradation of biodiversity fisheries and wildlife, especially in wetlands
aesthetic degradation of recreation areas
clogging or blocking of structures by sediment deposits
public health risks from chemical pollutants
public health risks from pathogenic pollutants

Transboundary Analysis � Final Report, June 1999
69
increased costs of water treatment for various uses including public water supply or
industrial water supply
loss of use of water (due to high cost of treatment) for various purposes including public
water supply, irrigation or industrial water supply
In response to the discovery of the causes and effects, the use of the Transboundary Analysis also
includes identification of possible structural and non-structural solutions that target the causes.
Structural solutions include
construction of new central municipal treatment facilities,
construction of new central treatment facilities for clusters of industrial plants,
construction of new treatment facilities for old industrial plants (retrofitting)
conversion of industrial processes to reduce pollution
expansion of the capacity of treatment facilities,
repair of damaged facilities,
upgrading of central treatment facilities along the continuum from primary treatment to
secondary treatment to phosphorous removal to nitrogen removal,
upgrading of collection systems to minimize infiltration and inflow of stormwater,
upgrading of on-site systems to reduce overflow and leakage, or
construction or rehabilitation of wetlands.
Non-structural solutions may include for example,
development and enforcement of strict standards for pre-treatment of industrial wastes,
prior to discharge into municipal treatment systems,
development and enforcement of strict standards to be applied to all on-site sewage
systems constructed in the future,
development and enforcement of strict policies of waste minimization to be applied to all
new industrial facilities constructed in the future,
development of strong financial incentives for polluting industries to rapidly convert
existing processes that are consistent with waste minimization.
development of national and local policies, legislation, administrative apparatus or
financial incentives to control land use in ways that reduce rapid runoff, erosion and
sedimentation,
campaigns to raise public awareness and build a constituency for pollution control,
institution building and operator training to improve the efficiency of operation of
existing treatment facilities,
strengthening of institutions responsible for inspection, monitoring, laboratory testing,
and performance testing,
development or strengthening of institutions for managing water resources by catchment
area,
development of international agreements to achieve uniform treatment of polluting
industries and eliminate safe havens for serious polluters,
training and institutional strengthening to support all of the measures.
Most of the activity involving interventions (project development) occurred as part of the Pollution
Reduction Programme and mostly involved structural solutions for high priority point-source hot
spots. During the Transboundary Workshop further attention was given to non-structural solutions
and diffuse sources, but to date the details of many of proposed measures (including wetland
rehabilitation) are not as well developed as the details of possible structural solutions.

70
Danube Pollution Reduction Programme
Use of the Transboundary Analysis also involves development of suggestions for further
strengthening water quality monitoring to evaluate the future effectiveness of interventions and to
refine and expand the knowledge of transboundary transport of pollutants. For the TNMN stations,
this activity is already progressing well under the direction of MLIM Sub-Group, but further
suggestions are presented in Section 5.1.3.
2.5.
The Approach and Use of the DWQM in the Transboundary
Analysis
The approach and present status of the DWQM are presented in the 15 January 1999 report titled
"Danube Water Quality Model Simulation in Support to the Transboundary Analysis" (as amended
following the workshop in May 1999) which is available as a separate volume.
The approach involved:
Schematization of the river basin (dividing the river network into segments) as shown
in Figure 2.5-1.
Set up of the water balance model that, for each segment, computed inflows and
outflows, water volume, streamflow velocity and water depth. The set up was done in
three steps (i) mapping of the catchment of the Danube, (ii) computation of flows, and
(iii) computation of the remaining segment characteristics.
Set up of the water quality model by introducing pollution sources in four ways, i.e., as
(i) point source emissions, (ii) distributed emissions causing constant loads in the river,
(iii) distributed emissions causing constant concentrations in the river, and (iv) distributed
emissions causing concentrations proportional to the river flow; and by modeling the
behavior and nitrogen and phosphorus and computing in-stream nutrient loads by
methods explained in detail in the report.
Running the model for two scenarios of assumed conditions about 1994 to 1997 point-
source and diffuse-source emissions and immission/emission ratios - a "low scenario"
and a "high scenario".
Rerunning the model on the basis of partially updated information on estimates of
nitrogen and phosphorus emissions to surface water in the Danube Basin for the year
1996/97 (Kroiss and Zessner, 1999).
Rerunning the model to compute the effects of the pollution reduction programme
on nutrient loads in the Danube River and major tributaries to the Black Sea.
"Questions about diffuse sources of pollution are addressed under the discussions of distributed
emissions. The discussions use the November 1997 report of the Nutrient Balances project as the
main starting point and apply some adjustments and additions to the data (which used 1992 as the
target year for its data base and which covered all Danube countries except Croatia, Yugoslavia and
Bosnia-Herzegovina). The discussions conclude that:
"neither the Nutrient Balances project nor the present National Reviews provide a
complete picture of homogeneous quality for all Danube countries;
there are apparent inconsistencies between data from the Nutrient Balances project and
from the present National Reviews;
it is therefore dangerous to interpret the difference between the information in the
Nutrient Balances project and the present National Reviews as 'the apparent change of
conditions between 1992 and 1994-1997'."

Transboundary Analysis � Final Report, June 1999
71
For this reason data from the Nutrient Balances project were partially updated. The adjustments
are based on information in the National Review Reports, Kroiss and Zessner (1999) and other
sources.
Data for Croatia, Yugoslavia and Bosnia-Herzegovina have been estimated based on specific
emission factors obtained from the Nutrient Balances project."
Details concerning the estimation of diffuse sources and introduction of the estimates into the
DWQM are explained in detail in the aforementioned report and its appendices. The estimates are
included among the results which are presented below in Section 3.3.
In the long term it is expected that the model will continue to be used for running other scenarios
that may emerge. However, an equally important purpose will be to serve as the driving force and
focal point for defining and justifying further research on hydrological and chemical processes in
the river basin and progressive refinement of the capability for modelling pollutant loads and
transport.

t
i
on
t
i
z
a
a
hem
k Sc
or
e
t
w
r
N
i
ve
e
R
h
t
h
wit
r
e
a
A
nube
a
e
D
h
p of t
a
M
-
1
e
2.5
i
gur
F

Transboundary Analysis � Final Report, June 1999
73
2.6.
Analysis of Effect on Black Sea Ecosystems
The National Review Reports do not address the complex topic of effects on Black Sea
Ecosystems. A recent and detailed summary of information on this topic is presented in the
undated [1998?] Report on the Ecological Indicators of Pollution in the Black Sea, by the
Romanian Marine Research Institute, Constanta, from which numerous excerpts are quoted below.
For the complex Black Sea ecosystems and biotic communities described in these excerpts, short-term
analyses involving few parameters, such as this Transboundary Analysis, have little basis for offering
technically competent predictions of specific effects that may be caused by particular interventions in
the Danube Basin. Reductions of nitrogen and other nutrients (except silicates) seem clearly to be
desirable since Black Sea levels are still significantly elevated; and improvements in recent years may
be associated with the economic transition in Eastern Europe, which can be expected to reverse itself.
However, even if details of the pattern of reduction could be known, the manner in which the reduction
may manifest itself in Black Sea ecosystems could take many directions. These directions cannot be
anticipated in an analysis such as this Transboundary Analysis.
According to the Romanian report, "The last thirty years represent a period of strong intensification
of the antrhopic pression on the Black Sea environment, and high eutrophication, which
considerably changed the structure and functioning of the coastal ecosystems, mainly in its
northwestern [shelf], affecting both the qualitative and quantitative state of the benthic and
planktonic communities."
"The principal cause of the long-term ecological changes on the North Western shelf waters of the
Black Sea in the last three decades are the shifts in the nutrient and organic matter loads from the
Danube, which transports more than 2/3 of the river input of the..[Black Sea]. From a comparison
with historical data, it could be noticed that dissolved inorganic nitrogen increased by a factor [of]
4 or 5 as phosphorus increased nearly 2 times. At the same time the silica discharge was less than a
half the estimated silica input before 1970.
"On the Romanian shelf the substantial increase of inorganic nitrogen and phosphorus and decrease
in that of silicate were recorded. The highest stocks have been reached in 70' (45.7x103 tones PO4,
1464.0x103 tons SiO4), they were considerably decreasing during 80' (7.0x103 tones PO4,
336.9x103 SiO4, 183.2x103 tons dissolved inorganic nitrogen) and slightly during 90' (5.2x103
tones PO4, 208.0x103 tones SiO4, 83.4x103 tones dissolved inorganic nitrogen)."
These changes were accompanied by increased frequencies and amplitudes of algal blooms
between the 1960s and 1990 and a seasonal shift from late winter-early spring and autumn blooms
to late spring-summer blooms with extended durations and remarkable changes in taxonomic
composition of the bloom-producing species. "The decrease in Si/P and Si/N ratios and enrichment
of the nutritive base with a surplus of organic matter seems to be responsible for dramatic shifts in
phytoplankton species composition. from diatoms (silicaceous) to the dino flagellates and
cocolithophorids (non-silicaceous)."
"The chlorophyll a as an indicator of both the phytoplankton quantity and its physiological status
have recorded the high levels in 80', because [of] the high densities of algal cells. As a
consequence of huge quantities of phytoplanktonic cells, chlorophyll a and suspended matter
(especially in inshore area), Secchi disk values were reduced during the study period....
"Simultaneously with the beginning of eutrophication, the dissolved oxygen...presented a much
more different regime...[compared] to the previous period. The main characteristic is the reduction
of the dependence on thermal regime and the increase on the biological ones.
"In 1969-1975 the oxygenation degree registered an important increase in the coastal zone, subject to
the fertilizing impact of the Danube...This suggests a higher photosynthetic rate in the euphotic zone
caused by the higher nutrient concentrations as a result of increased nutrient inputs of the Danube.

74
Danube Pollution Reduction Programme
"Since 1976 the oxygen content continually decreased...In the last three years the lowest level of
coastal waters oxygenation has been recorded, annual mean decreasing below 6.00 cm3/l.
"In the actual ecological situation, as eutrophication phenomenon has become chronic, a permanent
accumulation of the nonmineralized organic carbon in the water column and in the superficial
sediment, due to the increased sedimentation of particulate organic matter both produced in photic
layer as planktonic production and introduced by land-based sources, has been recorded. The
greatest part of organic particulate matter is enzymatically decomposed by microorganisms, using
dissolved oxygen and often leads to suboxic or anoxic conditions. The resulting oxygen deficiency
during the warm period (very frequent below 3.0 cm3/l, corresponding to undersaturations below
50%) has caused the death of the benthic fauna which represent a new amount of organic matter
requiring oxydation. This fact amplifies the oxygen reduction down to the generation of the
hydrogen sulfide, even in the near shore waters. In the same time these processes represent a
potential source of nutrients for the water above, which maintains the eutrophication process.
"For the marine area between the shore and the 50 m isobath, the results of the research made east
of Constantza have shown similar modifications to those recorded in the coastal zone....
"Due to strong thermohaline stratification during summer, typical for outer estuaries, the oxygen
input into the bottom layers is mainly controlled by eddy diffusion, which often does not
compensate the oxygen demand of the benthos...Supersaturating up to 150% prevails in surface
layers due to high phytoplankton production, whereas suboxic conditions < 50% are found below
the thermocline.
"These biochemical shifts, together with the invasion by opportunistic organisms such as
Mnemiopsis leidyi have put additional stress on the ecosystems of the Black Sea which induced
drastic changes in the taxonomic composition of the zooplankton species....
"A significant decline has been observed in the zooplankton beginning 1989...This considerable
diminution of the fodder zooplankton biomass was a consequence of the immigrant predator
Mnomiopsis leidyi, added at the other antrhopic influences.
"In the last two years 1996-1997 the fodder zooplanktonic biomasses were a little higher than in
previous years, even in summer months....
"A qualitative and quantitative decline in the macrophyta algae was also observed...Today the
small number of component species has made the vegetation very uniform , in majority
opportunistic species with short life cycles.
"The most affected, especially by hypoxia conditions were the zoobenthic communities. The
zoobenthos recorded in the last three decades was greatly diminished, both qualitatively and
quantitatively...
"In total, from 79 macrobenthos species measured in 1961, only 26 species remained in 1987. The
standing stock of the zoobenthos measured in 1989 represented only 26% of the stock recorded in
1960.
"The diversity reduction was compensated in the 1976-1986 years by an increase of the
macrobenthos densities and total biomass as a result of the proliferation of opportunistic
species...After that, an intensification of frequency of blooms has determined a strong decline of
the benthic biomass....
"After 1990, when the phytoplankton did not bloom as much as in previous years, emphasized only
a slight improvement of the qualitative structure of the zoobenthos....
"In the last three years a slight increasing tendency of the silica content (even if it is still 2-3 times
less than 60') parallel with a continuous decrease of nitrogen and phosphorus were recorded. While
nitrogen still maintains it values 3-5 time higher than 60', phosphorus presented values similar to

Transboundary Analysis � Final Report, June 1999
75
those before 60', frequently the diminution reaching the exhaustion state. These were reflected in
the reduction of total microplankton quantity and of their bloom events, and in returning of diatoms
to the dominant role as a group. Large N/P ratio suggests phosphorus as a limiting nutrient of the
algal production in the Romanian shelf waters....
"Even if in the last three years the lowest level of the coastal waters oxygenation has been
recorded, suboxic areas from the Romanian shelf restricted after 1990, in good agreement with
microplankton species bloom frequency and intensity reduction...
"In the last three years only a slight improvement of the qualitative structure of the zoobenthos was
recorded. Benthic communities are now characterized by considerable instability, the perpetuation
and intensification of the unfavorable conditions has also affected the more tolerant species.
Though, the last three years reflects perceptible improvement in the state of some biotic
components, the whole ecosystem is still disturbed and continues to be damaged by consequences
of many years of intense eutrophication process."
2.7.
Analysis of Effects on Significant Impact Areas within the Danube
Basin
Significant Impact Areas (SIAs) are defined as places in the Danube River Basin where there are
particular notable combinations of cumulative effects involving pollutant source / pollutant
recipient interactions. Significance is derived from the simultaneous presence of (a) one or more
sources of potent or large loads of pollutants and (b) conditions of recipient water wherein the local
context of flow conditions and uses causes the presence of the pollutants to be important.
Fifty-one SIAs were identified by country representatives during the Transboundary Workshop,
based on their technical knowledge of the Danube River and tributaries, as well as drafts of
wetlands maps provided by the study team for the wetlands study. Information about the SIAs are
presented in Section 3.6.
Examples of categories of effects on significant impact areas include the following:
Effects on downstream users / stakeholders (national, regional and global)
Effects on Danube wetlands (national, regional and global)
Effects on Danube biota (national, regional and global)
Effects on the Danube delta (regional and global)
Effects on the Black Sea chemistry and biota (regional and global)
Analysis of effects of hot spots and possible interventions on SIAs was carried out by comparing
locations of hotspots, projects and SIAs and features of pollutant discharges, interventions and the
SIAs. Basinwide ranking of SIAs was attempted and included on the agenda of the Pollution
Reduction Programme workshop, but was rejected by a working group and a plenary due to the
great diveristy of SIAs and the resulting difficulty of making technically competent analyses of
relative importance. Results of the anaysis are presented in Sections 3.6 and 5.2.3 respectively.
2.8.
Analysis of Potential for Reduction of Water Pollution
The original approach for identifying possible interventions was proposed and discussed during the
Inception Workshop in November 1997 and the Review Preparation Workshop in January 1998. It
involved the systematic identification of interventions following the ranking of hot spots. It presumed
that most interventions would evolve from the lists of high priority hot spots for each country and that
interventions would eventually be ranked over the entire basin on the basis of criteria to be developed
during the Transboundary Analysis or the development of the Pollution Reduction Program.

76
Danube Pollution Reduction Programme
In practice, the identification of interventions was somewhat less systematic - possible
interventions for reducing water pollution were identified in several different ways. Most national
review reports followed the original approach rather closely, with the result that most of the
projects proposed in these documents did indeed involve high priority hot spots. However, during
the National Planning Workshops, some projects were suggested, which did not involve high
priority hot spots, and in a few cases, did not even involve hot spots. The wetlands study was
intended to identify wetlands rehabilitation projects, but the level of detail was generally lower than
for most structural projects associated with hot spots. During the Transboundary Workshop, it was
realized that few non-structural projects had been proposed, so additional proposals for non-
structural projects were solicited from the participants.
During the Transboundary Workshop, in response to this situation, lists of hot spots, the EMIS
emissions inventory, and lists of potential projects were circulated to participants who, in regional
working groups, were asked to reconcile the lists to insure that each intervention was justified and
that each high priority hot spot and EMIS source was given adequate consideration.
Participants in the Workshop developed criteria for unified ranking of proposed projects and, on
the basis of these criteria, carried out preliminary ranking, approximately as follows. The criteria
for this preliminary ranking, were (i) t/y of reduction of total-N, (ii) t/y of reduction of total-P, (iii)
t/y of reduction of BOD, (iv) t/y of reduction of BOD divided by discharge in m3/s, t/y of reduction
of COD and (vi) judgment concerning effects on SIAs. It was initially agreed in a plenary that
efforts would not be made during the Transboundary Workshop to rank all potential projects.
Rather, efforts would be made, in regional working groups, to identify approximately the ten most
important projects in each sector in each region and then to rank these on a regional basis.
However, the regional working groups were not all able to reach agreement on only 10 projects, so
the number of the most important projects was somewhat higher than suggested during the plenary.
Also, the groups were unable to agree on a regional ranking, so projects were listed by country,
without any explicit ranking (but the listings were in the perceived order of importance of each
country).
Following the workshop lists of these projects were arranged on the basis of N and P removal by
sector to identify those projects in each sector which have the largest nutrient reduction.
Further ranking of projects on the basis of cost effectiveness was carried out by sector for each
country and is presented in the report of the Pollution Reduction Programme.
2.9.
Analysis of Potential for Wetland Rehabilitation and Management
A detailed description of the approach and methodology of the wetlands investigation is presented
in the report. The approach used for this analysis comprised choices and applications of work that
are briefly summarized as follows:
Study Area - The area of the analysis was limited to the Danube River and it larger
tributaries (Morava, Drava, Tisza, Sava and Prut).
Background Information - Potential available information that was reviewed to
ascertain availability and gaps in information included general spatial data, historical
maps, current maps, topographical maps, thematic maps, landuse data, remote sensing
data, hydrological data, bioindicators, protected areas and evidence of nutrient reduction.
In addition, wetlands information in the National Reviews was reviewed and
summarized.
General Description of the Basin - The Danube Basin was briefly characterized through
(i) description of geographic subdivisions of the study area; (ii) a table comparing water
levels and average, maximum and minimum discharges for selected stations near the

Transboundary Analysis � Final Report, June 1999
77
mouths of the major tributaries; (iii) an evaluation of the distribution of bioindicator
species that are associated with high quality wetlands and (iv) a discussion of the problem
of deepening of the river channel.
Definition of Sections - Floodplains that were investigated were divided into lengths of
minimum 15 km and widths of 1 km intervals on each bank.
Data on landuse, floodplain type and size - The most widely applicable data for
describing and evaluating the ecological potential and rehabilitation potential of
floodplains were found to be the current CORINE-Land Cover data, elaborated in some
places through satellite image classification. Land use categories were forest, swampland
/ water, meadows, farmland and settlement. Floodplain types were recent floodplain,
outlet section / polder and former floodplain.
Evaluation of Ecological Potential - Ecological potential was evaluated on the basis of
scores from multiplication of floodplain type x width x landcover, derived form
weighting factors that were assigned to the aforementioned parameters as follows:
- Floodplain type - recent floodplains (4) > polder / diversion stretch (2) > former
floodplain (1)
- Floodplain width - over 5 km (4) > 2.5 - 5 km (3) > 1 - 2.5 km (2) > 0 - 1 km (1)
- Landcover - forests (4) = swamp/waters (4) > meadows (3) > heterogeneous
agriculture (2) > farmland (1) > settlements (0)
Evaluation of Rehabilitation Potential - Rehabilitation potential was evaluated using
ecological potential as a starting point, considering only former floodplains with more
than 1 km width, and evaluating the following additional parameters on a 4-level scale for
the following factors:
- Number of settlements (few > many)
- Extent to which areas are connected (connected > not connected)
- Size of former floodplain structures (larger > smaller)
Nutrient Reduction Potential - Nutrient reduction potential was estimated on the basis
of expert judgment for all the rehabilitation projects described in the wetlands report.
Figures on nutrient reduction of wetlands were quoted from several studies reported in
the technical literature (for N and P reduction in kg/ha/yr in wetlands). These figures are
highly variable from study to study (see Section 3.8) and the wetlands report duly
acknowleges many uncertainties concerning the possibilities for nutrient reduction
through rehabilitation of Danube wetlands. One of the main items of missing information
is river cross sections and elevations that would be useful in estimating (for each site) the
distribution of river water between the main river channel and the wetland area under
various conditions (flow and elevation) of discharge.