JOINT ACTION
PROGRAMME
for the Danube River Basin
January 2001 ­ December 2005
Information
ICPDR ­ International Commission for the Protection
of the Danube River / Permanent Secretariat
Vienna International Centre, D0412
P. O. Box 500, 1400 Vienna / Austria
Tel: 0043-1-260 60-5738, Fax: 0043-1-260 60-5895
e-mail: icpdr@unvienna.org, www.icpdr.org

---

Imprint
Owner: ICPDR­ International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River / Permanent
Secretariat, Design and Production: p:matter Vienna, e-mail: p_matter@hotmail.com;
Editing/Proofreading: Parole Language Services, Croatia; Print: Print Tech Ltd., Hungary
- 2 -

---

Contents
1
Introduction
6
2
The situation of the water environment in the Danube River Basin
6
2.1
Demographic and economic issues
7
2.2
Hydrography and hydrology
2.3
Quality status of surface waters in the Danube Basin (chemical, biological
9
and morphological status)
9
2.4
Sustainable use of water resources in the Danube River Basin
2.5
Impacts of the Kosovo conflict and accidental pollution such as the Baia Mare
10
and Baia Borsa accidents
2.6
Impacts of flooding events
12
3
Objectives and actions of the Joint Action Programme for the Danube River Basin
3.1
General objectives
15
3.2
Reduction of pollution from point sources
3.2.1
Municipal discharges
16
3.2.2
Industrial discharges
3.2.3
Point discharges from agriculture
18
3.3
Wetland and floodplain restoration
3.4
Reduction of pollution from non-point sources
18
3.5
Continuing basin-wide cooperation in the field of monitoring
19
3.6
Improving the scope of the TNMN to bring it in line with the EU Water
20
Framework Directive and enable its timely operation
3.7
List of Priority Substances
22
3.8
Water quality standards
3.9
Prevention of accidental pollution events and maintenance of the
23
Accident and Emergency Warning System
3.10
Reduction of pollution from inland navigation
25
3.11
Product controls
25
3.12 Minimising the impact of floods
26
3.13 Water balance
26
3.14 River basin management
27
3.15 Implementation of the Joint Action Programme for the Danube River Basin
28
Annexes
1. Planned measures for the reduction of municipal wastewater discharges
29
2. Planned measures for the reduction of industrial wastewater discharges
38
3. Planned projects for wetland and floodplain restoration
43
4. Recommendation for the Treatment of Municipal Waste Water
47
5. Glossary
50

---

Foreword
The "Convention on the Protection and Sustainable Use of the Danube River" (Danube River Pro-
tection Convention, DRPC) is a corner stone in the efforts of the States in the region to achieve sus-
tainable and balanced management of waters, including the protection and effective use of surface
waters and groundwater bodies. The DRPC, and thus the ICPDR as the body charged to implement the
DRPC, have created a new atmosphere and spirit of cooperation among the States that are bound eco-
nomically, culturally and historically by this remarkable river.
The DRPC entered into force on the 22 October 1998 and has since then already exercised a positive
effect both on the protection and reduction of pollution of the Danube Basin waters as well as on the
trans-boundary impact of the River on the environment of the Danube Basin and the Black Sea. The
Convention also initiated the elaboration of the basic documents needed by the ICPDR; these docu-
ments also cover future short-term and long-term activities.
The present Joint Action Programme (JAP), developed through joint efforts of the participating States
and the Permanent Secretariat, is the basic document for these short-term and long-term activities.
The JAP defines large-scale, integrated measures for attaining a highly effective status of the envi-
ronment related to the waters in the Danube River Basin.
In order to attain this status, wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) to be constructed by the year 2005
have been systematically described, prioritized and coordinated with each State. The construction of
wastewater treatment plants will lead to a significant reduction in pollution load from municipalities
and industry; and reduction of agricultural point-source pollution is also addressed. These reductions
will improve the situation in the drainage network of the Danube River, and finally also in the Black
Sea. The total investment foreseen by the States is almost 4 billion EURO for WWTPs serving settle-
ments, and about 300 million EURO for process-related measures and WWTPs in industry and agri-
cultural point sources. Investment in the rehabilitation of the Danube Basin wetlands ­ for which a
total of more than 220 million EURO is foreseen ­ also plays an important role in the Joint Action
Programme.
The listed priorities are also aimed at reducing the risk of accidental pollution and improving the exist-
ing accidental and emergency warning system. The sad experience of the calamity in the Tisza River
- 4 -

---

Foreword
and the lower Danube in the year 2000 highlights the need for an urgent implementation of the mea-
sures indicated in the Joint Action Programme.
The Joint Action Programme places special importance on the coordinating role of the ICPDR in the
development of a unified River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) for the Danube River Basin based on
the plans of the riparian States. Such an approach is one of the basic requirements of the Water
Framework Directive of the European Union that entered into force on 22 December 2000. To this end,
the ICPDR shall coordinate the exchange of information and the analysis of the characteristics of the
Danube River Basin, review the effect of human activities on the status of the waters as well as an
economic analysis of water use in the basin at the basin-wide (international) level. An important item
in the Joint Action Programme is also an agreement on a harmonized methodology for arriving at the
water balance of the riparian States, and the consolidation of these balances into a water balance for
the whole Danube Basin.
The participation of the FRY (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) in the aforementioned activities is also
noted with contentment.
The creation of this Joint Action Programme is the result of the significant efforts of the Permanent
Secretariat and the Emissions Expert Group (EMIS/EG). Essential input also came from other Expert
Groups of the ICPDR, as well as from the Delegations of the Danube Basin States. However, the efforts
leading to the preparation of the Joint Action Programme are only the beginning of the work facing
the ICPDR, whose main challenge lies in the implementation of the JAP in the coming years. To
achieve this, joint efforts of the participating countries' governments, industries, municipalities,
research institutes, and NGOs are needed.
The Joint Action Programme is a good example of joint and coordinated basin-wide activities in
achieving a common goal ­ protection and effective use of the waters in the Danube River Basin. The
JAP takes one of the first steps of the Danube Basin States (via the coordinating role of the ICPDR at
the international level) towards the implementation of the basic principles and ideas of the Water
Framework Directive of the European Union.
- 5 -

---

Introduction
The Basin of the Danube River is ­ after the Volga River ­ the second biggest in area in Europe with
a size of about 800,000 km2 and about 82 mil. inhabitants. With about 200 km3 it contributes per
year to the receiving Black Sea, its flow is as big as the one of the Volga River. The catchment area
of the Danube River presently covers the territories of Albania, Austria, Bosnia-Herzegovina,
Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, Hungary, Italy, Macedonia,
Moldova, Poland, Romania, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Switzerland, Ukraine and the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia. 13 of these 18 riparian States States hold in the Danube Basin territories
bigger than 2,000 km2. These 13 States (provided they are internationally recognised) plus the Euro-
pean Community have access to the Danube River Protection Convention (DRPC) as Contracting
Parties. The DRPC was signed on 29 June 1994 and entered into force on 22 October 1998. With
the entry into force of the DRPC, the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube
River (ICPDR) was set up and made responsible for the implementation of the DRPC. The ICPDR is
supported by the Permanent Secretariat and by Expert Groups.
Out of the 10 Contracting Parties as States in the Danube Basin (status: end of September 2000),
two are members of the European Union (Austria; Germany) and six (Bulgaria, the Czech Republic,
Hungary, Romania, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia) are undergoing an accession process in order to
become future Member States of the European Union. Member States of the European Union are
bound by EU legislation; the States acceding to the European Union are obliged to comply with the
'acquis communautaire' of the EU, which also relates to environmental issues.
The 1999 Kosovo conflict brought the Danube Basin region in the spotlight and triggered public
interest in it worldwide. Although direct damage to aquatic life could not be proven to be due to
- 6 -

---

Introduction
the bombing of industrial sites in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, future impacts cannot be
excluded. If not properly handled, the reconstruction of the bombed industrial sites could result in
immediate releases of harmful substances that could in the next step impact human health and
damage aquatic life.
'Baia Mare' and 'Baia Borsa' are terms referring to the accidental spill of cyanide in particular
and/or heavy metals from sedimentation ponds in the mining industry. These events clearly show
that an accident in one State can have huge transboundary effects even at the distance of many
hundreds of kilometres. The Baia Mare and Baia Borsa accidental pollution spills have shown that
risk analysis and the prevention of such events have to be improved.
Extremely high floods have in recent years hit certain areas of the Danube Basin. Floods in the Tisza
Basin, and especially the large and unexpected flood in the Morava Basin (CZ / SK), have had severe
impacts on human property and life.
There is an overall agreement among all the Contracting Parties to the DRPC concerning nutrient
loads transported from the Danube Basin to the Black Sea. They acknowledge that all Danube River
Basin countries contribute nutrient loads to the Black Sea and agree to strengthen their efforts to
implement the necessary steps for the reduction of water pollution in order to keep the Black Sea
ecosystems healthy.
Concerted and coordinated actions are needed in order to arrive at an efficient and effective status
of the water environment in the Danube River Basin and the Black Sea. The first Joint Action
Programme of the ICPDR is the beginning of a joint move in that direction.
- 7 -

---

2. Situation of the water environment
in the Danube River Basin
2.1 Demographic and economic issues
by the States that co-operate under the umbrel-
la of the DRPC.
The Danube River Basin is populated by slight-
ly more than 80 mil. inhabitants (see Table 1).
Table 1: Areas of the Danube Basin States and
The data are all based on information provided
their estimated population size
State
Total area
Area in the
Total number of Estimate of number
of the State
Danube Basin (DB)
inhabitants
of inhabitants
in DB (1997)
km2
km2
mil.
mil.
Federal Republic
of Germany (D)
356,974
56,240
81.7
9.1
Austria (A)
83,855
80,565
8.1
7.7
Czech Republic (CZ)
78,866
21,119
10.3
2.7
Slovak Republic (SK)
49,036
47,064
5.4
5.2
Hungary (H)
93,030
93,030
10.3
10.3
Slovenia (SI)
20,253
16,842
1.9
1.7
Croatia (HR)
56,542
34,404
4.8
3.2
Bosnia-Herzegovina
51,129
38,719
3.2
2.5
Federal Republic
of Yugoslavia (YU)
102,173
88,919
10.4
9.1
Bulgaria (BG)
110,994
46,896
8.4
4.4
Romania (RO)
238,391
232,200
22.6
21.8
Moldova (MD)
33,700
12,025
4.3
1.1
Ukraine (UA)
603,700
32,350
50.9
3.1
Other States
exists
exists
exists
exists

-----
> 800.373
-----
> 81.9
- 8 -

---

The number of inhabitants has been slightly
power parity (PPP) (see Table 2). Data are valid
increasing in the Western States of the Basin; in
for the year 1998, but are not available for
other parts it has been decreasing. The overall
Bosnia-Herzegovina, Moldova or the Federal
population in the Basin can presently be
Republic of Yugoslavia.
described as stagnant to declining.
Table 2: Per-capita gross domestic product in
The socio-economic situation is described by a
riparian Statesto, expressed nominally and in
strong west-easterly gradient in per-capita
purchase power parity (PPP), with US$ as the
domestic products expressed in convertible hard
basis (1998 values)
currency nominally as well as on a purchase
State
D
A
CZ
SK
H
SI
HR
BG
RO
UA
GDP, nominal,
in US$ per head
28,280 26,300 5,470
3,840
4,710
8,790
4,440
1,500
1,690
830
GDP, in PPP,
in US$ per
capita
21,170 21,670 13,100 10,190 10,780 14,990 7,050
5,360
6,060
3,270
The Danube Region is considered to have a high economic development potential. A Danube Basin
Map is found overleaf.
- 9 -

---

2. Situation of the water environment
in the Danube River Basin
Source of the data for the map: City of Vienna
-10 -

---

Preambel
eambel
2.2 Hydrography and hydrology
(Lech; Isar; Inn; Enns; Mura-Mur/ Drava-Drau),
the northern Morava, the rivers coming from
The Danube River has its source (by agreement)
the Carpathian mountains (Vah; Nitra; Hron;
in a spring in the castle of Donaueschingen.
the Tisza with all its tributaries), those from the
However, there are claims that the source of the
Dinarian ridge (the Sava and the southern
Breg is also the source of the Danube River. Still
Morava with all their tributaries), and from the
another definition puts the beginning of the
rivers coming from the outer Carpathian moun-
Danube River at the confluence of the Brigach
tains (Jul; Olt; Arges) and the Balkan mountains
and the Breg rivers. Its length from the conflu-
(Iskar; Yantra), as well as from the Siret and the
ence of the Breg and Brigach rivers close to
Prut rivers.
Donaueschingen to the zero station at Sulina is
2,778 km. Downstream from Tuttlingen, in a
karstic region, much of its flow reaches Lake
Table 3: Hydrographic and hydrologic charac-
Constance. The Danube receives its increasing
teristics of the Danube River at
flow from the rivers coming from the Alps
selected stations.
Station
Distance from
Catchment area, in km2, Average yearly flow,
Sulina, in km
from old Planimetry
in m3/s
Ulm, downstream Iller
2,586
7,578
~ 114
Passau, downstream Inn
2,225
76,597
~ 1,410
Bratislava, downstream
northern Morava
1,869
131,290
~ 2,050
Novi Sad, downstream
Drava
1,255
254,100
~ 3,000
Zemun, downstream Tisza,
opposite Beograd
1,173
412,800
~ 3,900
Beograd, downstream Sava
1,171
512,800
~ 5,620
Giurgiu, downstream Olt
and Yantra, opposite Russe
493
668,700
~ 5,900
Braila, upstream Siret
and Prut
170
717,000
~ 5,980
"At Mouth", with all the
arms discharging into the
Black Sea
0
817,00
~ 6,430
Floods (with a recurrence interval of around 100 years) at mouth are characterised by ~ 17,000
m3/s, and droughts by ~ 1,700 m3/s.
- 11 -

---

2. Situation of the water environment
in the Danube River Basin
The average area yield of the tributaries varies
Iron Gate 0.32 (this is where the Balkan and
between 25 to 35 l/sec.km3 for alpine tribu-
the Carpathian mountain chains are very close);
taries, 19 l/sec.km3 for the whole Sava catch-
and below the Iron Gate from 0.05 to well
ment, 6.3 l/sec.km3 for the whole Tisza catch-
below at mouth. Because it is fed by alpine trib-
ment, and values as low as 2 ­ 8 l/sec.km3 for
utaries, the Danube River carries a big bed-load
the tributaries from the outer Carpathian moun-
as well as sediment load, and beyond Komarno
tains and the Balkan mountains, but also with-
/ Komarom ­ where the bed-load settles out -
in the inner Carpathian plain. These values
the sediment load starts to increase strongly.
indicate that where a high population density or
Quite a number of tributaries are dammed (for
a big industrial discharge coincide with a low
hydropower generation, but also for various
runoff, the anthropogenic riverine impact could
kinds of water supply), and along the main river
be considerable.
there are man-made lakes upstream from the
hydropower stations Gabcikovo / Boes and from
The variation in flow over the average year is
Iron Gate I. Due to the sedimentation that takes
not very pronounced. Up to Novi Sad there are
place in parts of the whole basin drainage net-
average maximum values in flow usually in
work, the Danube River itself deepens along
early summer and minimal in winter, whereas
many stretches and erodes its banks downstream
downstream of Beograd the maximum values
the Iron Gate II hydropower station. This is also
are usually reported in late spring and the min-
a cause of erosion along the Romanian Coast of
imum values in autumn.
the Black Sea.
The slope of the Danube is another interesting
The floods in the main river are critical in the
feature of the River. In Lower Bavaria, its value
Austrian section and somewhat downstream,
is 0.21 ; from the Inn to some distance down-
because the biggest propagation speed of the
stream of Bratislava 0.43 ; across the inner
flood-wave takes place there (up to several kilo-
Carpathian Basin to the former cataract at the
metres per hour).
Iron Gate 0.06 ; in the cataract section of the
- 12 -

---

2.3 Quality status of surface waters
several floods in the late spring and early sum-
in the Danube Basin
mer of 1999. In the Alpine region of southern
Bavaria, extremely intense rain fell on May 20-
General Overview
22. The highest 24-hour precipitation was reg-
Beginning in 1987, the quality status of surface
istered as 234 mm, far exceeding the previous
waters in the Danube River was assessed
maximum value of 137 mm reported in 1940.
through co-operation established under the
The resulting high flood was one of the biggest
Bucharest Declaration. The data ­ obtained as a
such events of the last 100 years. In Austria,
result of an accepted monitoring programme,
Styria and Tyrol regions suffered from floods
but without analytical intercalibration - were
with flows exceeding 100-years probability val-
annually reported by the participating States to
ues. This extreme hydrological situation also
Romania (`central point for data'); they were
influenced the Danube flow in its middle part
processed, discussed and agreed by the partici-
where the highest discharges occurred in May
pating States before being documented in the
with values by 50% ­ 60% higher than long-
Annual Reports. The information contained in
term mean monthly values (Qmax (1931-80)). In
the respective reports refers to the physical,
the lower Danube area, flash floods occurred
chemical and biological status of the Danube
nearly throughout the year in many tributaries,
River water body as well as to loads of a num-
especially in those with small reception basins.
ber of pollutants transported by the river to the
During the winter and spring seasons, the sig-
Black Sea. Twelve samples per year were taken
nificantly increased discharges in Romania and
at monthly intervals.
Bulgaria resulted mainly from the superposition
of rain precipitations and rapid snowmelts.
Since 1996, the quality status of surface waters
Such an extreme regime caused a large flood in
in the Danube River Basin has been documen-
the Yantra River Basin on 11-13 February.
ted in the results of the Trans-National
During summer, an intense precipitation also
Monitoring Network (TNMN), i.e. the Danube
led to intensive floods in several sub-basins in
Basin Monitoring Network of the ICPDR.
Romania. The long-term daily mean flow of the
Several physical, chemical and biological para-
Danube River is about 6500 m3s-1; this repre-
meters have been observed at selected monitor-
sents an average annual discharge of 207 km3.
ing stations along the main River and some of
The mean flow in 1999 exceeded this average
its tributaries.
long-term value by more than 21%, leading to
a total volume of 250,1 km3 of water dis-
charged into the Black Sea.
Water quality status and hydrological situ-
ation in the Danube River Basin in the
Water quality trends. Reduction in discharges
year 1999.
belongs to the primary actions designed to
improve the Danube water quality. In Germany,
Hydrological situation. In the upper Danube
technical improvements aimed at N-reduction
area, an enormous precipitation rate resulted in
were performed at several plants. A remarkable
- 13 -

---

2. Situation of the water environment
in the Danube River Basin
reduction in loads has been attained at the two
decreased from 22% in 1989 to 9% in 1999 and
City of Munich wastewater treatment plants. In
the ratio of streams having first class water
Austria, reduction in nutrients in the Drau
quality (according to Romanian classification)
(Drava), the Inn/Salzach and the Danube rivers
increased from 35% in 1989 to 59% in 1999.
was achieved through some technical measures
This improvement was also influenced by a
(enlargements; nutrient-removal) at the urban
stricter inspection and permit granting policy
wastewater treatment plants of the cities of
pursued by the Romanian water authorities.
Klagenfurt and Salzburg (Siggerwiesen). Several
Similarly, the consequences of the transition
improvements of wastewater treatment plants
period in Bulgaria caused an improvement in
in the Czech part of the Morava River Basin
the water quality of the local tributaries of the
resulted in decreased discharges of organic and
Danube River. In general, it can be stated that
nutrient pollution into receiving waters. In
the Danube water quality in the year 1999 did
Slovakia, the total annual BOD5 discharge was
not change significantly in comparison with
reduced by 5% and the total annual CODCr was
1998. A simplified example of the water qual-
reduced by 4% when compared to 1998. The
ity status in 1999 can be demonstrated by the
reduction or termination of industrial activities
concentration ranges of nutrients measured in
from several major polluters in Romania has led
the middle Danube reach (km 1718,8 ­ 1873,5,
to a general improvement in water quality over
Slovak part of the Danube, downstream of the
the last decade. In this way, the percentage of
cities of Vienna and Bratislava).
streams having `degraded' water quality
(according to Romanian classification)
Parameter
Lowest concentration in 1999
Highest concentration in 1999
N-NO3 (mg/l)
1.04
3.12
Total-P (mg/l)
0.043
0.21
These results were obtained in the frame of the `Transnational Monitoring Network (TNMN)' of
ICPDR and will be available in the Yearbook 1999.
- 14 -

---

Investigations on heavy metals in the1984
Link between the Danube River and
- 1996 period
the Black Sea
Scientific work concerning heavy metals in the
The loads of nitrogen and phosphorus transport-
Danube River (Wachs, Large Rivers, Vol. 11, No.
ed via the Danube River can during certain peri-
4, p. 533-556, April 2000) has yielded data
ods combine with inputs from other rivers to
showing contamination of the water body (incl.
lead to an increased algal growth in the shelf
suspended solids) and the sediments (1994 ­
area of the Black Sea. Estimates for the values
1996 period) and their accumulation in fish
of the loads of nitrogen and phosphorus trans-
(1984 ­ 1989 period). In general, all the inves-
ported in the Danube River exist but are not reli-
tigated heavy metals (Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Ni, Pb, Zn),
able enough due to insufficient sampling and/or
have shown an increasing trend in the concen-
a lack in analytical possibilities. Obligations
tration levels along the path of flow of the
established by the EU Water Framework Dir-
Danube River. Deviations from this trend were
ective will harmonize the assessment of water
in general caused by local conditions.
quality on the European scale.
- 15 -

---

2. Situation of the water environment
in the Danube River Basin
2.4 Sustainable use of water resources
The Danube River is also important as an inter-
in the Danube River Basin
national waterway. It should also be mentioned
that gravel and sand are extracted from it.
The Danube River Basin is characterised by an
ecosystem with a high environmental, eco-
Sustainable use of water resources comprises
nomic and social value.
not only these `direct uses' mentioned above,
but also `indirect ones' within the overall
Water bodies from the Danube Basin supply
drainage area, impacting the aquatic ecosystem.
drinking water for households, industry and
Examples of these, amongst others, are:
agriculture. Further, water is used for irrigation
and for cooling purposes. The Danube River and
drainage of agricultural areas;
many of its tributaries are spawning grounds
overapplication of fertilisers
for fish thus contributing to the nutrition of
and pesticides, and
humans. They also serve for recreation. Also
deposition of air pollutants via rainfall.
important for the population of the Danube
Basin is the generation of electricity by
Social values such as the aesthetic ones (look-
hydropower and the possibility to discharge
ing at natural wetlands or natural rivers) should
treated wastewater.
also be mentioned.
- 16 -

---

2.5 Impacts of the Kosovo Conflict and
boundary effects even at the distance of many
accidental pollution such as the Baia
hundreds of kilometres. The Baia Mare and Baia
Mare and Baia Borsa accidents
Borsa accidental pollution spills showed that
the risk analysis and the prevention of such
Kosovo Conflict
events have to be improved. In addition, there
The Kosovo Conflict of the year 1999 brought
was a need to identify the best available tech-
the region of the Danube Basin into a worldwide
niques for the mining industry.
public interest. A large part of the Kosovo drains
into the Danube River Basin, and large parts of
the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which also
2.6 Impacts of flood events
drain into the Danube River Basin, were also
impacted by the conflict. Following the conflict,
Extremely high floods have hit certain areas of
investigations took place to assess its environ-
the Danube River Basin in recent years. Floods
mental impacts in adjacent countries (which are
in the Tisza Basin, and especially the large and
Contracting Parties to the DRPC) like Bulgaria
unexpected flood in the Morava Basin (CZ-SK),
and Romania. Although major direct damages to
have had severe impacts on human property and
aquatic life could not be proven to be due to the
life. Changes in morphological characteristics
bombing of industrial sites in the Federal
and in river dynamics can also take place dur-
Republic of Yugoslavia and other conflict activ-
ing large floods. After severe floods, dikes need
ities, future environmental impacts cannot be
to be reconstructed, which is often quite costly.
excluded. Clear-up operations and the recon-
The damage inflicted by large floods may influ-
struction of the bombed industrial sites - if not
ence the way flood-endangered areas are used.
properly handled - could result in immediate or
medium-term releases of harmful substances
that could in further course impact human
health and damage aquatic life. The environ-
mental outcome of the Kosovo conflict high-
lightedh the need to register and assess the risks
stemming from old and existing industrial
dumpsites or destroyed industrial areas.
Accidental spills at Baia Mare
and Baia Borsa
`Baia Mare' and `Baia Borsa' are terms de-
signating the accidental spill of cyanide and/or
heavy metals from sedimentation ponds in the
mining industry. These events clearly show that
an accident in one State can have huge trans-
-17 -

---

3. Objectives and actions of the Joint Action
Programme for the Danube River Basin
3.1 General objectives
3.2 Reduction of pollution from
point sources
The general objectives of this Joint Action
Programme are in line with the three main
3.2.1 Municipal discharges
objectives laid down in Article 2 of the DRPC:
Inadequate management of municipal waste-
"The Contracting Parties shall strive at achiev-
water has been identified as one of the core
ing the goals of a sustainable and equitable
problems in the Danube River Basin. This is due
water management, ... shall make all efforts to
to the improper collection of wastewater (only
control the hazards originating from accidents
46% of households in the middle and lower
... and shall endeavour to contribute to reduc-
Danube regions are connected to central sewer-
ing the pollution loads of the Black Sea from
age systems), discharge of 31% of municipal
sources in the catchment area".
waste water without previous treatment, insuf-
ficient capacities of treatment facilities, improp-
The 2001­2005 Joint Action Programme is dir-
er operator performance at treatment facilities
ected towards:
and inadequate control of individual waste-
water treatment (septic tanks).
improvement of the ecological and chemical
status of the water,
Municipal discharges are a common cause of
prevention of accidental pollution events,
these deficiencies in those areas where hetero-
minimisation of the impacts of floods.
trophic self-purification processes, low oxygen
tension, eutrophication processes and a deter-
In addition to these main objectives, the im-
ioration of hygienic conditions are observed.
plementation of the Joint Action Programme
will:
Improvement of the situation concerning
municipal discharges is a well-accepted neces-
improve the living standard of the DRB
sity and one of the major tasks set by this Joint
population,
Action Programme.
enhance economic development of the
region,
Annex 1 lists the planned measures for the re-
contribute to the process of accession to the
duction of pollution load from municipal waste
European Union,
water discharges.
restore the region's biodiversity,
strengthen co-operation between the
Planned load reductions for COD (more than
Contracting Parties.
214 kt per year), total-nitrogen (more than 36 kt
per year) and total-phosphorus (more than 5.2
kt per year), plus an unknown reduction of
pathogens, will ease the burden of pollution in
the Danube River Basin and the Black Sea.
- 18 -

---

Actions to be taken:
3.2.2.1 Recommendations on the applica-
Get commitment by the Contracting Parties
tion of Best Available Techniques in priori-
to implement the proposed measures provided
ty sectors
the availability of financial resources during
the implementation period of the JAP, i.e. till
The ICPDR has identified the chemical, food,
2005
and pulp and paper industries as being amongst
the main industrial polluters in the Danube
3.2.2 Industrial discharges
River Basin.
Ecologically unsustainable industrial and min-
ing activities have been identified as another
Those discharges shall comply with the Best
core problem in the Danube River Basin. This is
Available Techniques (BAT) as defined in the
due to the use of outdated technologies and
DRPC. The ICPDR has established Recommen-
dangerous substances that could be substituted,
dations on Best Available Techniques in those
a discharge of waste water into the sewerage
priority industrial sectors, including time-tables
systems without pre-treatment, and inadequate
for their implementation. The Best Available
functioning of the existing treatment facilities.
Techniques Reference Notes (BREF-Notes), pub-
lished by the European Commission in the
Industrial discharges significantly raise the
framework of Directive 96/61/EEC (IPPC-
level of nutrients, heavy metals and organic
Directive), were taken into consideration in
micropollutants discharged into the river net-
making these Recommendations.
work of the Danube River Basin.
The Recommendations on Best Available
Annex 2 lists the planned measures for the
Techniques for these important industrial sec-
reduction of pollution loads from industrial dis-
tors should be made available on a large scale
charges and also includes some agricultural
to the administrative authorities, the industry,
point discharges (see also 3.2.3.).
and the interested public. There is, therefore, an
urgent need for those Recommendations to be
It is expected that additional measures - as yet
translated into the different administrative lan-
unspecified - will be taken during the implem-
guages used in the Danube River Basin.
entation of the Joint Action Programme.
Actions to be taken:
Actions to be taken:
Ensure that Recommendations on Best
Get commitment by the Contracting Parties
Available Techniques in the chemical, food,
to implement the proposed measures, provid-
pulp and paper industries are translated into
ed the necessary financial resources are avail-
the relevant administrative languages used in
able during the implementation period of the
the Danube States and made available by the
JAP, i.e. till 2005
ICPDR (through Danubis) by June 2002 at the
latest.
- 19 -

---

3. Objectives and actions of the Joint Action
Programme for the Danube River Basin
3.2.3 Point discharges from agriculture
It is obvious that wetlands also fulfil the func-
tion of flood routing. The flood peaks are
Information about the existence and status of
evened out under certain conditions, and the
point discharges from agricultural activities
impacts of floods are thus reduced.
such as pig farms is still insufficient. Many of
these discharges are assumed to exert a major
Annex 3 contains projects proposed by the
influence on the water bodies.
Contracting Parties for implementation in the
frame of this Joint Action Programme.
The ICPDR will by the end of 2002 at the lat-
est establish an inventory of all relevant point
Actions to be taken:
discharges from agriculture. The ICPDR will
Get commitment by the Contracting Parties
also establish a recommendation on the reduc-
to implement these proposed projects in the
tion of these discharges, by the end of 2004 at
2001 ­ 2005 period.
the latest.
Actions to be taken:
3.4 Reduction of pollution from
Establish an inventory of point discharges
non-point sources
from agriculture, by the end of 2002
Establish a recommendation on the reduc-
Many pollutants ­ e.g. nutrients, heavy metals
tion of point discharges from agriculture, by
and pesticides ­ reach surface waters not only
the end of 2004
from point source inputs, but also from non-
point (diffuse) sources. The diffuse sources,
respectively the pathways of those pollutants,
3.3 Wetland and floodplain restoration
range from tile drainage and groundwater infil-
tration to rivers, to erosion, combined sewer
River corridors were far less confined in the
overflows and storm water runoff, as well as
past than they are in most cases today. Even
atmospheric deposition.
today, some important wetlands exist in the
Based on data by Lampert and Brunner
Danube Basin, e.g. the Delta, and along the
(1999), it is estimated that diffuse source inputs
Danube, the Drava, the Morava and the Sava
into the river drainage network of the Danube
rivers. Wetlands serve as habitats for endan-
Basin (excluding Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia,
gered species (flora, fauna). Under certain con-
and FR Yugoslavia) have been in the range of
ditions wetlands could serve as potential elimi-
450 kt/a (450) of totN and 49 (39) kt/a of totP
nation areas for nitrogen and phosphorus. The
for the years 1988/89 and 1992 respectively.
main problem regarding investment in wetlands
These estimates are based on the Phare-funded
and floodplains as elimination systems is a lack
Project EU/AR/102A (Nutrient Balances for
of knowledge about their long-term efficiency
Danube Countries). Transport, transformation
in nutrient removal.
and deposition of such loads take place along
the river network.
- 20 -

---

To some extent, the Contracting Parties are al-
3.5 Continuing basin-wide cooperation
ready implementing measures for the reduction
in the field of monitoring
of non-point source nutrient losses into the
waterbodies of the Danube River Basin or for
The objectives set by the ICPDR can only be
keeping the application of nutrients in agri-
reached if data and information collected and
culture as low as possible (e.g. the KULAP
assessed at the national level are harmonized,
Programme in Germany, the OePUL Programme
validated and made available for later use at the
in Austria, starting with the year 2001 the Code
basin-wide level. Such an approach has already
of Good Agricultural Practice in the Czech
been applied in two fields: (a) the `Trans-
Republic).
National Monitoring Network (TNMN)' and the
related Yearbook, run by MLIM Expert Group
Once the ICPDR has completed the project
and its Expert Sub-Groups, and (b) the drafting
"Harmonised Inventory of Point and Diffuse
of the first emission inventories (for municipal
Emissions of Nitrogen and Phosphorus in the
and wastewater discharges respectively) and
Danube River Basin" in May 2002 ­ with the
their subsequent gradual improvement, which
support of statistical, environmental and scient-
belongs to the tasks of EMIS/EG. The text of the
ific institutions of the States that participate in
Danube River Protection Convention (DRPC)
the work of the ICPDR ­ the size of diffuse
clearly states that `each Contracting Party bears
sources for nitrogen and phosphorus will be
the cost of the current monitoring and assess-
estimated in a uniform way within the whole
ment activities carried out in its territory'. The
Danube River Basin.
main task of the ICPDR is to ensure that the
methods applied in the monitoring and assess-
Based on the results of this research and devel-
ment work are truly harmonized in a way that
opment project, the ICPDR will propose distinct
allows the data to actually be used in a com-
recommendations and measures.
parative way and serve as a reliable basis for
making decisions throughout the Basin.
Actions to be taken:
Finalize by the end of 2003 the Inventory
In order for the aims of the DRPC to be reached
of Diffuse Sources of Nitrogen and Phosphorus
through a harmonization and validation of data
and propose further measures for their reduc-
and related information, the Danube Basin
tion.
States should commit themselves to bearing the
Set up by the end of 2003 an Inventory of
full financial cost of the national work needed
the Programmes of Measures Taken in the
for the TNMN and its future improvements, as
States of the Danube River Basin.
well as for the improvement of the Emission
Inventory (through the application of the ICPDR
Recommendation on the Monitoring of Waste-
water Discharges and the compiling of the
revised inventory).
- 21 -

---

3. Objectives and actions of the Joint Action
Programme for the Danube River Basin
Actions to be taken:
fishes and macrophytes (where applicable) as
The ICPDR shall commit itself to continu-
indicators. A revised set of sampling locations
ing with the work needed for the TNMN (incl.
will have to be agreed upon not only for the
the Yearbook) and its future improvements;
ecologically based investigations, but also for
The ICPDR shall commit itself to continu-
an enlarged set of chemical quality parameters
ing with the work needed for improving the
including a set of applicable priority sub-
Emission Inventories (through the application
stances. Further quality control procedures for
of the ICPDR Recommendation on the
chemical and biological determinands as well as
Monitoring of Wastewater Discharges and the
sampling will have to be in place and run in an
compiling of revised inventories);
assured way.
The Contracting Parties shall bear the
financial cost of all national work needed for
Actions to be taken:
the accomplishment of these actions.
The States co-operating under the DRPC
(Contracting Parties; Signatory; Observing
States) agree to orient the ICPDR's `Trans-
3.6 Improving the scope of TNMN to
national Monitoring Network (TNMN)' ­ in
bring it in line with the EU Water
accordance with the provisions of the EU
Framework Directive and enable its
Water Framework Directive ­ by the year
timely operation
2003 towards a broadened monitoring and
investigation programme needed for the
The Transnational Monitoring Network (TNMN)
assessment of the ecological and chemical
has so far served to deepen the insight of the
quality status of the Danube River and of
Danubian States (cooperating via the ICPDR)
important water bodies in the overall Danube
into the quality status of the Danube and some
Basin;
of its main tributaries. After some years of
The ICPDR shall further promote the con-
experience, the need to improve the TNMN con-
tinuation and introduction of quality control
cerning the parameters and selected stations
procedures that will allow a validated repre-
was recognized and a broad discussion was
sentation of in-stream water status (quality
launched.
control schemes for chemical analyses and
ecological determinands; representative site-
The requirements emanating from the EU Water
specific sampling in space and time), includ-
Framework Directive, which entered into force
ing a progress report in the year 2006 about
on December 2000, clearly imply a broadening
the results achieved.
of the scope of the monitoring and the accom-
panying quality assuring activities. This will
primarily concern the necessary investigations
to assess the ecological status of the Danube
River and the main Danubian surface water
bodies, using macrozoobenthos, phytobenthos,
- 22 -

---

3.7 List of Priority Substances
be subject to a combined approach (emission con-
trols and water quality standards).
Water pollution is often generated by the occur-
rence of hazardous substances in water. The term
The application of a combined approach includes
'hazardous substances' means substances that
the monitoring of such substances in discharges
have toxic, carcinogenic, mutagenic, and terato-
and in stream. If there is a likelihood that such
genic or bio-accumulative effects, in particular
Priority Substances - to be regulated either via a
those that are persistent and have a significant
phasing-out or via a combined approach - are
adverse impact on living organisms.
present in discharges or are used, it is strongly
suggested that the States co-operating under the
Article 7 (3) of the DRPC refers to its Annex II
DRPC (Contracting Parties; Signatory; Observing
whose Part 2 contains a 'Guiding List of
States) introduce them into permits or regulate
Hazardous Substances and Groups of Substances'.
their use via other relevant legislation. The
The discharge of those hazardous substances and
`Recommendations on Best Available Techniques
groups of substances shall be prevented or con-
(BAT)' for industrial sectors, and also any
siderably reduced. According to Article 7 (3), the
`Recommendation on Best Environmental Practice
responsibility for updating this 'Guiding List' lies
(BEP)' (e.g. for agriculture), should specifically
with the ICPDR. The ICPDR will in the year 2001
address the prevention or reduction of those sub-
present a List of Priority Substances, which may
stances.
include the following parameters: chemical oxy-
gen demand (COD), total nitrogen (totN), ammo-
Actions to be taken:
niacal nitrogen (NH4-N) and total phosphorus
Establish a List of Priority Substances for the
(totP), and - in addition - certain heavy metals
Danube River Basin in the year 2001, taking
and selected organic micropollutants, not yet
into account the latest developments at EU
specified. The main assessment basis for this list
level;
will be work carried out in the frame of
Introduce subsequently the substances on
Component VI of the Phare Project ZZ 97 25, in
such a list into the monitoring programmes for
which EMIS/EG participated. This project consid-
discharges and in-stream chemical status;
ered especially the occurrence of substances and
The ICPDR shall ask the States co-operating
group of substances in the Danube River Basin
under the DRPC (Contracting Parties; Signatory;
that are part of the EU List of Priority Chemicals.
Observing States) to introduce such substances
The final 'List of Priority Substances' should be
into national permits or to regulate their use via
thorough and comprehensive. Besides, it should
other relevant national legislation;
reflect the most recent developments at the level of
Introduce such priority substances into
the European Union, whose `EU List of Priority
`Recommendations on Best Available Tech-
Substances' contains priority hazardous substances
niques' in industrial sectors and any `Recom-
whose emissions, discharges and losses will have to
mendation on Best Environmental Practice',
cease within 20 years. The remaining priority sub-
thus addressing the prevention or reduction of
stances on the `EU List of Priority Substances' will
those substances
- 23 -

---

3. Objectives and actions of the Joint Action
Programme for the Danube River Basin
3.8 Water quality standards
Actions to be taken:
The ICPDR shall by the end of the year
According to the ECWFD, a good status has to
2004 establish in-stream Water Quality
be achieved within a certain timeframe in all
Standards for the Danube priority list(s) of
surface water bodies and in groundwater. The
substances, in order to protect aquatic life in
status of surface waters is determined by its
the Danube River Basin;
ecological status and its chemical status. The
The ICPDR shall in 2004 publish progress
assessment of the ecological status is based on
reports on work towards a consistent definit-
an analyses of the aquatic community (benthic
ion of a good status of waters.
macroinvertebrates, algae, macrophytes, fish).
The chemical status is based on quality stan-
3.9 Prevention of accidental pollution
dards laid down for specific pollutants to pro-
events and maintenance of the
tect aquatic life (e.g. EU Priority List, Danube
Accident and Emergency Warning
Priority List of Hazardous and Other Sub-
System
stances). As the Water Framework Directive
looks at the river basin as the "boundary frame"
Following the Baia Mare and Baia Borsa acci-
for actions and management, it will be neces-
dental pollution events, investigations were
sary to set uniform water quality standards for
launched with the aim to prevent such acci-
those priority substances in the Danube River
dents from occurring in the future.
Basin.
The ICPDR shall establish a list of industrial
Prerequisites for the implementation of an EU-
activities in the Danube River Basin which
conform ecological assessment include an iden-
relate to the production, storage and use of
tification of ecoregions, a definition of water
chemicals and which involve a major risk of
body types, a definition of type-specific refer-
accidental pollution. Recommendations for
ence conditions, and the establishment of a har-
reducing and preventing such risk will be elab-
monised evaluation system.
orated, e.g. recommendations on emergency
response and training. The existing EU legisla-
The ICPDR shall be responsible for coordinating
tion, recommendations by UN/ECE, and the
the efforts leading to consistent definitions of a
experience from other river protection commis-
good status of water bodies.
sions (e.g. for the Rhine and the Elbe rivers) will
be considered.
Transboundary warning in the Danube Basin is
organised through the Accident and Emergency
Warning System (AEW system). The system needs
to be maintained and may have to be expanded
for additional purposes (e.g. for flood warnings).
- 24 -

---

Actions to be taken:
gents used in households. The comprehensive
Establish by the end of 2001 a list (inven-
report entitled 'Removal of Phosphates from
tory) of industrial activities in the whole Dan-
Detergents in the Danube Basin' (Phare-funded
ube Basin which involve a major risk of acci-
Project EU/AR/205/91) gives clear recommen-
dental pollution;
dations as to how the discharge of phosphorus
Develop by 2002 recommendations for
into the water-bodies can be minimised. One of
reducing the risk of accidental pollution at the
the conclusions of the report is that phosphate-
identified sites;
free detergents can to a significant extent
Maintain and improve the existing AEW
reduce the phosphate-load in surface waters.
System and consider its use for additional re-
lated purposes (e.g. flood warnings).
According to the experience of western
European States, where phosphate-free deter-
gents are already widely used, the cost of the
3.10 Reduction of pollution from
introduction of phosphate-free detergents is
inland navigation
much less than the additional cost of the
improvement of sewage treatment with phos-
Article 3(3) of the DRPC regulates water protec-
phate elimination. The introduction of phos-
tion against pollution from inland navigation,
phate-free detergents does not involve any addi-
thus making it another responsibility of the
tional direct cost to either the consumer or the
ICPDR. Pollution from inland navigation relates
national budgets.
to the discharge of bilge water from all types of
boats and sewage from passenger boats, as well
The ICPDR shall take the initiative to approach
as to the polluting discharges resulting from the
the detergent industry and get its commitment
cleaning of vessels associated with a change of
to foster the use of phosphate-free detergents in
cargo.
the Danube River Basin. The detergent industry
may achieve this by economic instruments or
Action to be taken:
voluntary agreements.
The ICPDR shall by the end of 2004 evalu-
ate the situation concerning such polluting
Actions to be taken:
discharges, including the needed cooperation
Get by the end of 2002 a self-binding agree-
with the Danube Commission.
ment under which the detergent industry
pledges to the ICPDR or to the Danube Basin
States to put only phosphate-free detergents for
3.11 Product controls
household and industrial use on the market in
the Danube Basin.
Certain products that are used in big amounts in
households and industry often cause water pol-
lution; e.g. a large amount of P-discharge can
originate from polyphosphate-containing deter-
- 25 -

---

3. Objectives and actions of the Joint Action
Programme for the Danube River Basin
3.12 Minimising the impacts of floods
Actions to be taken:
Report by the end of 2003 on the experi-
That floods are inevitable has been proven by
ence gained from studying the cause and
the events in the northern Morava and Tisza
impacts of floods in the Danube River Basin;
Basins. Their occurrence can strongly affect
Consider applying the UN-ECE-Guidelines
human health and life, the aquatic ecosystem
on `Sustainable Flood Prevention' in concrete
and urban development of the affected areas.
terms, e.g. via an `Action Programme for
Sustainable Flood Prevention' adapted to the
Within the scope of the DRPC, the responsibili-
specific situation of the overall Danube Basin.
ty for flood control lies with the ICPDR (see
In case the overall Danube Basin proves to be
Articles 3, 9 and 16, DRPC).
too wide a span for such a Programme, the
setting-up of `Action Programmes for
Transboundary cooperation is the first prerequi-
Sustainable Flood Prevention for Selected
site towards minimising the impact of large
Parts of the Basin' should be considered. The
floods. The cooperation relates to emergency
results of these activities should be presented
procedures as cited in Article 16(2), and to an
at the end of 2005 at the latest.
integral monitoring of the causes of the impacts
of large floods and an analysis of the measures
available at the basin or sub-basin level in
3.13 Water Balance
order to improve the situation.
According to Article 9 (3) of the DRPC the
Article 16(2) of the DRPC substantiates the need
"Contracting Parties shall establish on the basis
for cooperation at the transboundary level in
of a harmonized methodology, domestic water
the context of flood events. The Article reads:
balances, as well as the general water balance
'The Contracting Parties shall in the framework
of the Danube River Basin. As an input for this
of the International Commission inform each
purpose the Contracting parties to the extent
other about competent authorities or points of
necessary shall provide connecting data, which
contact designated for this purpose in case of
are sufficiently comparable through the appli-
emergency events such as (amongst other
cation of the harmonised methodology. On the
events) floods. The competent authorities shall
same data base water balances can also be com-
cooperate to establish joint emergency plans,
piled for the main tributaries of the Danube
where necessary, supplementary to the existing
River."
plans on bilateral level'.
The "water balance (budget)" in the conven-
The ICPDR shall summarise past experience with
tional sense, with resources allocated to various
floods in the Danube River Basin, check the need
uses, means to define a `bookkeeping process'
for joint emergency plans and propose measures
by which the dynamics of water movement
for the minimisation of the impacts of floods.
through the soil and into the groundwater
The UN/ECE-Guidelines will be considered.
reservoir with gradual discharge as base flow,
- 26 -

---

can be managed in an integrated approach. In
in the case of an International River Basin
this manner, the resource can be sustained with
District extending beyond the boundary of the
a balance between the dynamics of the natural
Community ­ which is the case for the Danube
drainage system and the consumptive demands
River ­ EU Member States shall endeavour to
of human use.
produce a single River Basin Management Plan.
Where this is not possible, the Plan shall cover
"Domestic water balances" are the starting
the portion of the International River Basin
point of the task for which a harmonized
District lying within the territory of the Member
methodology has to be developed. A harmo-
States concerned.
nized methodological approach is needed
because the respective national situations are
The ICPDR strongly supports the idea of design-
rather diverse; in some States with high precip-
ing a single plan for the management of the
itation, the consumptive use of water practical-
whole Danube Basin, irrespective by which
ly does not influence the connecting data to be
mode of coordination such a single plan is
provided, whereas in other States there can be a
arrived at (e.g. by sub-basin or by national
marked impact. In developing the water balance
arrangements). This also takes into consider-
one will have to bear in mind both the protec-
ation that some of the Contracting Parties to the
tion and the sustainable use of the Danube
DRPC are in the process of accession to the
River Basin.
European Union.
Action to be taken:
The ICPDR has already established an ad-hoc
The ICPDR will develop a harmonised met-
Expert Group WFD/RBM; it is responsible for
hodology for establishing domestic water bal-
starting to `coach' the process of the implemen-
ances and will by the end of 2005 present a
tation of the WFD (incl. the development of a
first general water balance for the whole
single Management Plan for the Danube Basin)
Danube River Basin including water balances
and for bringing in relevant proposals to the
for the main tributaries.
ICPDR Meetings. By the end of 2004 at the lat-
est, the analysis of the characteristics of the
Danube River Basin District, the review of the
3.14 River Basin Management
impact of human activity on the status of
waters and the economic analysis of water use
The future water policy in an united Europe will
have to be completed and handed in to the
have to be based on the EC Water Framework
European Commission. The ad-hoc EG WFD/
Directive. The frame for the implementation of
RBM presently sees this analysis as the most
the WFD is not formed by the political bound-
important task to be pursued in the frame of the
aries, but by the hydrographic boundaries of a
implementation of the WFD.
river basin. For every River Basin District, a
Basin Management Plan will have to be estab-
lished. According to Article 16 of the WFD and
- 27 -

---

3. Objectives and actions of the Joint Action
Programme for the Danube River Basin
Action to be taken:
Estimated costs
The ICPDR shall by the end of 2004 present
Some of the work indicated herein is contained
a report on its achievements in preparing for
in the work the ICPDR has to undertake anyhow
the development of a coordinated Danube Ri-
in order to implement the DRPC; the estimated
ver Basin Management Plan and, in particu-
costs for the implementation of the projects
lar, in co-ordinating the implementation of
shown in Annexes 1 to 3 will amount to more
Article 5 EC WFD concerning the analysis of
than 4.3 billion EURO.
the characteristics of the Danube River Basin
District, the review of the impact of human
Expected results of the
activity on the status of waters, and the eco-
Joint Action Programme
nomic analysis of water use.
This first Joint Action Programme will con-
tribute to a far better understanding of the ben-
efits of joint activities in the Danube River
3.15 Implementation of the Joint
Basin; there will be reductions of pollution
Action Programme for the Danube
loads for organic matter, nutrients, and heavy
River Basin
metals (see the Annexes 1 to 3); there will also
be a reduction of pathogens and micropollu-
Schedule
tants that can presently not be quantified. In
The time foreseen for the implementation of the
addition to the reduction of pollution and
Joint Action Plan is from 1 January 2001 till 31
improvements in other areas, the Joint Action
December 2005
Programme improves the cooperation and coor-
dination among the Contracting Parties to the
Organisation
DRPC; it will form a good basis for arriving at
The responsibility for organising the im-
a single Danube River Management Plan.
plementation of the Joint Action Programme
Besides, it is expected that the joint activities
lies with the ICPDR and its supporting bodies as
will improve information exchange, give access
far as transboundary cooperation is concerned.
to BAT, aid in preventing and minimising the
As far as national tasks are concerned, the
impact of unexpected environmental events,
responsibility lies with the Contracting Parties
strengthen the interaction between public
to the DRPC.
administration and NGOs, and extend the
lessons learned to other regions of the Con-
Reporting
tracting Parties
The ICPDR shall report on the implementation
of the Joint Action Programme for the 2001-
2003 period in the summer of 2004 at the lat-
est; a report for the 2001-2005 period is due in
the summer of 2006 at the latest.
- 28 -

---

Annex 1
Planned measures for the
reduction of municipal
waste water discharges
Austria (In accordance with the Programme to comply with Article 4,
EU Directive 91/271/EEC, and to implement the `Ordinances for the Limitation of Wastewater
Emissions from Urban WWT Plants', Source: HoD)
Name of Location
Reductions in loads (New: After investment;
estimated investment cost
Old: around 1996/97), in t/year
­ includes also sewerage
BOD-load
COD-load
totN-load
totP-load
Zellerbecken
5
10
30
6
8
Salzach ­ Pongau
15
29
44
13
12
Linz ­ Asten
1.280
770
64
48
Ager ­ West
13
60
50
1
7
RHV ­ Attersee
62
290
70
2,2
9
Wien - Simmering
5.500
10.000
2.000
40
215
Spittal
70
10
Villach
14
0,1
St. Veit
60
20
7
Leoben
230
40
17
Graz
30
740
150
37
Sum
5.625
11.669
4.0645
350
370
Remark: No reduction was achieved for BOD and COD, partially because of an increase in the collec-
tion rate. For these waste water treatment plants no values are indicated.
- 29 -

---

Annex 1
Planned measures for the reduction of
municipal waste water discharges
Bosnia-Herzegovina (Source: The Danube River Nutrient Reduction Programme)
Name of Location
Reductions in loads (New: After investment;
Estimated investment cost
Old: around 1996/97), in t/year
­ includes also sewerage
BOD-load
COD-load
totN-load
totP-load
Tuzla-Lukovac
1,540
4,140
1,080
160
58.0 mil. EURO
Sarajevo
6,150
10,660
1,015
150
15.0 mil. EURO
Banja Luka
n.a.
n.a.
910
140
50.0 mil. EURO
Bjeljina
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
12.0 mil. EURO
Brcko
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
12.0 mil. EURO
Sums
> 7,690
> 14,800
> 3,005
> 450
147.0 mil. EURO
Bulgaria (Source: HoD in response to a request by the ICPDR President, plus the cost as revised
from the The Danube River Nutrient Reduction Programme)
Name of Location
Reductions in loads (New: After investment;
Estimated Investment Cost
Old: around 1996/97), in t/year
­ includes also sewerage
BOD-load
COD-load
totN-load
totP-load
Sofia
4,819
5,670
1,036
135
26.5 mil. EURO
Veliko Tarnovo
1,696
2,413
131
40
9.2 mil. EURO
Gorna Orahowitza
1,584
2,614
63
24
n.a. mil. EURO
(load reductions
only municipal)
Montana
2,308
4,950
160
49
17.7 mil. EURO
Pleven
1,346
2,984
93
59
2.0 mil. EURO
Dobrich
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
1.0 mil. EURO
Gabrovo
91
209
n.a.
15
2.0 mil. EURO
Razgrad
34
n.a.
n.a.
0
1.0 mil. EURO
Troyan
1,794
3,796
150
30
9.2 mil. EURO
Vratza
412
1,335
214
37
2.0 mil. EURO
Samokov
1,300
3,079
130
57
2.0 mil. EURO
Lovech
1,382
2,927
119
44
9.3 mil. EURO
Sevlievo
1,194
1,962
136
42
12.5 mil. EURO
Popovo
913
1,891
52
24
13.8 mil. EURO
Stragitza
77
91
3
1
0.9 mil. EURO
Dulovo
241
390
11
2
2.0 mil. EURO
Isperih
257
407
10
3
1.0 mil. EURO
Sums
> 19,448
> 34,718
> 2,308
> 562
> 111.9 mil. EURO
- 30 -

---

Croatia (Source: The Danube River Nutrient Reduction Programme)
Name of Location
Reductions in loads (New: After investment;
Estimated investment cost
Old: around 1996/97), in t/year
­ includes also sewerage
BOD-load
COD-load
totN-load
totP-load
Vinkovci ­ financing assured (part
190
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
12.0 mil. EURO
of the ongoing reconstruction pro-
ject ­ phase I biological treatment)
For the following four cities the
preparation work is assured, but the
financing not yet completely
Cakovec ­ construction of two col-
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
7.3 mil. EURO
lectors and extension of WWT plant
for tertiary treatment (116 400 pop.
equivalents)
Varazdin ­ reconstruction
1,1
1,7
132
1
12.0 mil. EURO
of the blower station and sludge
treatment
Koprivnica ­ extension of the
604
806
n.a.
n.a.
10.8 mil. EURO
WWTP (secondary and tertiary
treatment for 90,000 PE)
Zagreb ­ biological treatment for
10,4
29,7
1,3
220
256.0 mil. EURO
1.5Mio PE
10,438
For the following two cities the
preparation work is assured, but
the financing not yet
Sisak (cost includes some sewerage)
700
919
48
2
60.0 mil. EURO
Karlovac / Duga Resa (cost includes
2,0
1,1
9
16
50.0 mil. EURO
some sewerage)
Sum for other cities (financing still
190
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
25.4 mil. EURO
open)
- 31 -

---

Annex 1
Planned measures for the reduction of
municipal waste water discharges
Czech Republik (Source: HoD in response to a request by the ICPDR President)
Name of WWT Plant
Reductions in loads (New: After investment;
Estimated Investment Cost
Old: 1998), in t/year
­ includes also some Cost
of Sewerage
BOD-load
COD-load
totN-load
totP-load
Brno *
40
60
417
15
46.1 mil. EURO
Uh. Hradiste *
34
51
65
1
5.8 mil. EURO
Hodonin *
0
0
10
2
2.7 mil. EURO
Prostejov *
0
0
42
0
15.2 mil. EURO
Prerov *
59
74
63
3
10.1 mil. EURO
Breclav *
25
93
36
3
11.7 mil. EURO
Trebic
47
151
81
10
12.9 mil. EURO
Vyskov
1
18
46
10
10.6 mil. EURO
Jihlava
39
27
68
0
16.2 mil. EURO
Val. Mezirici
0
0
0
6
11.9 mil. EURO
Vsetin
0
0
18
2
11.2 mil. EURO
Kromeriz
80
123
71
0
11.3 mil. EURO
Other plants
1,070
n.a.
377
34
42.1 mil. EURO
Sums
1,394
> 597
1,306
86
207.8 mil. EURO
Remark: The ratios of COD removed versus BOD removed are at some plants small, they should be in the order
of 1.7 to 1.0
*Reconstruction will be finished before 2005
Federal Republic of Germany (Source: HoD in response to a request by the ICPDR President,
plus The Danube River Nutrient Reduction Programme)
Name of WWT Plant
Reductions in loads (New: After investment;
Estimated Investment
Old: Around 1999/2000), in t/year
Cost ­ not only for load
reduction!
BOD-load
COD-load
totN-load
totP-load
Leutkirch
1
9
57
2.9
4.6 mil. EURO
München I *
0
0
1,200
0
85.0 mil. EURO
München II ­ Gut Marienhof *
0
0
300
0
15.0 mil. EURO
ZV Starnberger See
0
0
80
0
n.a. mil. EURO
ZV Chiemsee
0
?
60
0
5.1 mil. EURO
Sums
1
9
1,700
~ 3
> 110 mil. EURO
* The WWT plants were adopted for partial N-removal before or in 2000; further N-removal by additional measures and by
optimisation of plant operation step by step until 2005
- 32 -

---

Hungary (Source: The Danube River Nutrient Reduction Programme)
Estimated investment cost
Name of WWT Plant
Reductions in loads (New: After investment;
­ includes also some cost
Old: 1996/97), in t/year
of sewerage
BOD-load
COD-load
totN-load
totP-load
Budapest North
n.a.
n.a.
308
183
32.3 mil. EURO
Budapest South
n.a.
n.a.
203
122
27.9 mil. EURO
Budapest Central
n.a.
n.a.
900
140
407.0 mil. EURO
Szeged
(c. includes sewerage)
n.a.
n.a.
600
250
68.0 mil. EURO
Gy_r
n.a.
n.a.
273
43
12.7 mil. EURO
Tatabánya
n.a.
n.a.
30
40
8.0 mil. EURO
Székesfehérvár
n.a.
n.a.
160
25
15.0 mil. EURO
Dunaújváros
n.a.
n.a.
53
23
10.6 mil. EURO
Sopron
n.a.
n.a.
40
30
9.0 mil. EURO
Szekszárd
n.a.
n.a.
80
20
3.3 mil. EURO
Salgótarján
(c. incl. sewerage)
n.a.
n.a.
80
20
23.4 mil. EURO
Gödöll_ (c. incl. sewerage)
n.a.
n.a.
128
37
11.3 mil. EURO
Kerka-Mura, incl. sewerage
n.a.
n.a.
100
20
11.1 mil. EURO
Veszprém/Northern Bakony,
incl. sewerage
n.a.
n.a.
100
20
11.9 mil. EURO
Baja
n.a.
n.a.
227
40
3.5 mil. EURO
Sums
n.a.
n.a.
3,282
1,013
655.0 mil. EURO
- 33 -

---

Annex 1
Planned measures for the reduction of
municipal waste water discharges
Moldova (Source: The Danube River Nutrient Reduction Programme)
Name of WWT Plant
Reductions in loads (New: After investment;
Estimated investment cost
(it seems that the Cost of all these
Old: around 1996/97), in t/year
­ includes also cost of
locations not only refers to WWT
but also to sewerage)
sewerage
BOD-load
COD-load
totN-load
totP-load
Cahul
20
33
52
11
53.8 mil. EURO
Ungheni
22
29
55
12
57.7 mil. EURO
Comrat
18
24
50
9
11.7 mil. EURO
Ciadir-Lunga
13
17
57
11
8.9 mil. EURO
Edineti
12
9
65
7
4.5 mil. EURO
Falesti
8
18
46
5
15.4 mil. EURO
Vulcanesti
15
20
35
4
8.2 mil. EURO
Nisporeni
12
21
30
4
15.2 mil. EURO
Taraclia
11
18
35
4
7.6 mil. EURO
Glodeni
9
14
45
5
8.8 mil. EURO
Leova
15
30
20
4
5.8 mil. EURO
Briceni
14
26
45
6
8.9 mil. EURO
Cupcini
12
29
15
3
12.2 mil. EURO
Rascani/Costesti
12
27
15
2
7.2 mil. EURO
Cantemir
11
24
20
3
20.8 mil. EURO
Other communities
45
120
200
30
50.0 mil. EURO
Sums
249
459
785
120
296.7 mil. EURO
Remarks: The load reductions shown ­ big on the side of nutrients, comparatively smaller for BOD and COD ­
can only be valid if WWT plants exist in all those places, and in case the investment into these WWT plants
goes into plant expansion for nutrient removal.
- 34 -

---

Romania (Source: The Danube River Nutrient Reduction Programme)
Name of WWT Plant
Reductions in loads (New: After investment;
Estimated investment cost
Old: around 1996/97), in t/year
­ not only for load reduc-
tion!
BOD-load
COD-load
totN-load
totP-load
Bucharest
10,600
14,120
3,363
444
492.5 mil. EURO
Craiova
660
864
597
63
32.0 mil. EURO
Braila
3,220
3,750
126
26
21.9 mil. EURO
Galati
4,355
4,540
224
37
29.5 mil. EURO
Zalau
108
146
39
11
7.0 mil. EURO
Resita
126
127
85
22
3.5 mil. EURO
Campulung
228
238
38
7
1.5 mil. EURO
Deva
150
156
86
21
5.6 mil. EURO
Timisoara
3,284
2,561
444
101
1.5 mil. EURO
Iasi
1,390
772
165
35
1.9 mil. EURO
Sums
24,121
27,274
5,167
767
596.9 mil. EURO
Remark: The ratios of COD removed versus BOD removed are small, they should be in the order of 1.7 to 1.0
Slovak Republic (Source: The Danube River Nutrient Reduction Programme)
Name of WWT Plant
Reductions in loads (New: After investment;
Estimated investment cost
Old: around 1996/97), in t/year
­ not only for load reduc-
tion!
BOD-load
COD-load
totN-load
totP-load
Kosice
1,596
3,110
405
18
20.2 mil. EURO
Banska Bystrica
3,720
7,700
424
47
13.1 mil. EURO
Nitra
2,041
3,613
287
32
13.1 mil. EURO
Liptovsky Mikulas,
incl. sewerage
253
612
258
3
6.8 mil. EURO
Ruzomberok
975
1,986
22
1
0.1 mil. EURO
Topolcany
299
408
144
3
0.9 mil. EURO
Michalovce
1,142
2,251
135
3
2.6 mil. EURO
Hummene
867
1,586
106
2
11.1 mil. EURO
Trencin (righthand side),
incl. sewerage
819
1,692
57
3
10.6 mil. EURO
Roznava
359
776
40
1
0.5 mil. EURO
Svidnik, incl. sewerage
446
849
27
1
10.9 mil. EURO
Banska Stiavnica,
incl. collector
256
526
53
5
9.1 mil. EURO
Cadca, incl. sewerage
197
350
41
6
4.4 mil. EURO
Sums
12,968
25,459
2,001
125
103.4 mil. EURO
- 35 -

---

Annex 1
Planned measures for the reduction of
municipal waste water discharges
Slovenia (Source: The Danube River Nutrient Reduction Programme)
Name of WWT Plant
Reductions in loads (New: After investment;
Estimated investment cost
Old: around 1996/97), in t/year
­ not only for load reduc-
tion!
BOD-load
COD-load
totN-load
totP-load
Maribor
4,900
8,000
900
140
52.0 mil. EURO
Ljubljana
9,433
15,400
1,733
270
109.5 mil. EURO
Murska Sobota
1,103
1,800
203
32
9.2 mil. EURO
Celje
1,715
2,800
315
49
20.8 mil. EURO
Rogaska Slatina
294
480
54
8
16.0 mil. EURO
Lendava
1,103
1,800
203
32
13.0 mil. EURO
Krsko
490
800
90
14
11.0 mil. EURO
Brezice
245
400
45
7
5.5 mil. EURO
Velenje
1,225
2,000
225
35
16.5 mil. EURO
Sevnica
245
400
45
7
5.5 mil. EURO
Vrhnika
490
800
90
14
20.4 mil. EURO
Trbovlje
441
720
81
13
7.1 mil. EURO
Bohinjska Bistrica
270
440
50
8
5.0 mil. EURO
Radovljica
735
1,200
135
21
10.0 mil. EURO
Kranjska Gora
159
260
30
5
9.6 mil. EURO
Trzi
490
800
30
4
11.8 mil. EURO
Litija
466
760
86
13
7.5 mil. EURO
Zagorje
417
680
77
12
6.7 mil. EURO
Hrastnik
270
440
50
8
4.3 mil. EURO
Dravograd
221
360
41
6
4.8 mil. EURO
Mislinja
61
100
12
2
1.3 mil. EURO
Slovenj Gradec
490
800
90
14
10.7 mil. EURO
Ptuj
2,573
4,200
473
74
24.3 mil. EURO
Sums
27,836
45,440
5,053
786
382.5 mil. EURO
Ukraine (Source: The Danube River Nutrient Reduction Programme)
Name of WWT Plant
Reductions in loads (New: After investment;
Estimated investment cost
Old: around 1996/97), in t/year
­ not aonly for load
reduction!
BOD-load
COD-load
totN-load
totP-load
Uzhgorod
218
392
293
29
25.0 mil. EURO
Chernivtsi
318
n.a.
65
22
4.7 mil. EURO
Izmail
31
58
n.a.
9
12.4 mil. EURO
Mukachevo
111
171
128
6
3.0 mil. EURO
Vilkovo
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
6.5 mil. EURO
Reni Sea Port
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
2.8 mil. EURO
Kolomia
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
? mil. EURO
Sums
> 678
> 621
> 486
> 66
> 54.4 mil. EURO
Remark: The load reductions shown ­ big on the side of nutrients, comparatively smaller for BOD and COD ­
can only be valid if WWT plants exist in all those places, and in case the investment into these WWT plants
goes into plant expansion for nutrient removal.
- 36 -

---

Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
Name of WWT Plant
Reductions in loads (New: After investment;
Estimated Investment
Old: around 1996/97), in t/year
Cost ­ not only for load
reduction!
BOD-load
COD-load
totN-load
totP-load
Remark: The data of FRYU will be integrated as soon as the necessary links are established with FRYU.
Summary of the discharges of municipal wastewater, by State
Name of Location
Reductions in loads (New: After investment;
Estimated Investment Cost
Old: around 1996/97 and 2000), in t/year
­ not only for load reduc-
tion, but also to some
extend for end collectors
of sewer systems
BOD-load
COD-load
totN-load
totP-load
Austria
~ 14,000
~ 30,000
~ 9,500
~ 1,000
~ 730.0 mil. EURO
Bosnia-Herzegovina
> 7,690
>14,800
> 3,005
> 450
147.0 mil. EURO
Bulgaria
> 19,448
> 34,718
> 2,308
> 562
> 111.9 mil. EURO
Croatia
> 15,310
> 34,426
>1,509
> 239
433.5 mil. EURO
Czech Republic
1,394
> 597
1,306
86
207.8 mil. EURO
Fed. Republic of Germany
1
9
1,700
~ 3
> 110 mil. EURO
Hungary
n.a.
n.a.
3,282
1,013
655.0 mil. EURO
Moldova
249
459
785
120
296.7 mil. EURO
Romania
24,121
27,274
5,167
767
596.9 mil. EURO
Slovak Republic
12,968
25,459
2,001
125
103.4 mil. EURO
Slovenia
27,836
45,440
5,053
786
382.5 mil. EURO
Ukraine
> 678
> 621
> 486
> 66
> 54.4 mil. EURO
Fed.Republic of Yugoslavia
(to be added in the future)
mil. EURO
Sum over these States
("Danube Basin")
> 123,695
> 213,803
> 36,102
> 5,217
> 3,829.1 mil. EURO
- 37 -

---

Annex 2
Planned measures for a reduction in
industrial waste water discharges,
including agricultural (point) sources
Austria (Source: HoD in response to a request by the ICPDR President)
Name of Location
Remarks as to load reductions
Estimated investment cost
of load reduction
MoDo Hallein,
Biological WWT plant, removes biodegardable organic
Pulp and Paper
carbon, around 6,000 t BOD per year
33 mil. EURO
Bosnia-Herzegovina (Source: The Danube River Nutrient Reduction Programme)
Name of Location
Remarks as to load reductions
Estimated investment cost
of load reduction
Chlorine-Alkali-Complex
Reconstruction of pre-treatment facilities. Removes
2.2 mil. EURO
Tuzla
COD, BOD, N and P.
Pulp and Paper Industry
Rehabilitation / reconstruction; no further data
3.0 mil. EURO
Maglaj
Coke and Chemical
Reconstruction of pre-treatment; removes COD and BOD 2.8 mil. EURO
Industry Lukavac
Cellulose / Viscose Factory Reconstruction and improvement of WWTP; no further
3.5 mil. EURO
Banja Luka
data
Iron Works Zenica
Reconstruction of WWTP
1.6 mil. EURO
Pulp and Paper Industry
Construction of WWT Plant; no further data
14.0 mil. EURO
Prijedor
Pig Breeding Farm Brcko
Construction of WWTP; will remove 1,570 t N per year
2.3 mil. EURO
and 350 t P per year
sum
29.4 mil. EURO
Bulgaria (Source: HoD in response to a request by the ICPDR President)
Name of Location
Remarks as to load reductions
Estimated Investment Cost
Reductions of organic carbon (BOD and COD)
Gorna Oriahovitza
n.a. mil. EURO
- 38 -

---

Croatia (Source: The Danube River Nutrient Reduction Programme)
Name of Location
Remarks as to load reductions
Estimated investment cost
Croatia has not nominated reductions with industrial or
agricultural point source discharges
mil. EURO
Czech Republik (Source: HoD in response to a request by the ICPDR President)
Name of Location
Remarks as to load reductions
Estimated investment cost
of load reduction
Otrokovice
Joint treatment with municipality, incl. nitrification and 2.8 mil. EURO
tannery
nitro-gen removal
Tanex Vladislav
Glue production; expansion of WWT plant
0.4 mil. EURO
Snaha Brtnice
General reconstruction of WWT plant; COD/BOD, NH4-
0.8 mil. EURO
tannery
N, Cr
Prudká Brno,
Construction of WWT Plant (biology); will remove
0.2 mil. EURO
paper production
COD/BOD
MORPA Jindrichov
Construction of WWTP (biology);
0.2 mil. EURO
paper production
Removal of COD/BOD
Other Industries
Nutrient removal
0.9 mil. EURO
Gigant Dubnany
Remedial measures; slurry reduction
5.3 mil. EURO
pig farm
sum
10.6 mil. EURO
Federal Republik of Germany (Source: HoD in response to a request by the ICPDR President)
Name of Location
Remarks as to load reductions
Estimated Investment Cost
of load reduction
Esso Refinery Ingolstadt *
COD: +/- 0 t/year; totN: 20 t/ year; totP: +/- 0 t/year;
0.6 mil. EURO
Nitrochemie Aschau *
COD: +/- 0 t/year; totN: 55 t/year; totP: +/- 0 t/year;
2.4 mil. EURO
sum
3.0 mil. EURO
* Considerable load reduction measures were introduced already between 1997 and 2000; here indicated figures
refer to reductions between 2001 and 2005.
- 39 -

---

Annex 2
Planned measures for a reduction in
industrial wastewater discharges,
including agricultural (point) sources
Hungary (Source: HoD in response to a request by the ICPDR President)
Est. investm. cost of load reduc-
Name of Location
Remarks as to load reductions
tion and demonstration projects.
Nitrokemia Balatonfüzfö
totN: 420 t/year; totP: 6 t/year;
5.9 mil. EURO
Piggery Mosonmagyarovar totN: 200 t/year; totP: 50 t/year
0.7 mil. EURO
MOL Company (reduction
Oil 60 t/ year
48.7 mil. EURO
of oil pollution)
BORSODCHEM Company
Saltwater reduction programme
2.9 mil. EURO
Bábolna Poultry Ltd.
Grease, COD
0.6 mil. EURO
Demonstration projects, non-point source pollution:
Tisza Basin
Pollution minimization from agricultural activities,totN:
0.5 mil. EURO
100 t/year; totP: 20 t/year
Körös-Maros
Agro- and nature conservation training in Körös-Maros
3.0 mil. EURO
National Park, totN: 200 t/year; totP: 50 t/year
Hajdú-Bihar county
Minimising of pollution from agricultural origin
1.3 mil. EURO
Danube Basin in Hungary
Rational farming for decreasing nutrient inputs in the
1.4 mil. EURO
Hun-garian part of the Danube Basin, totN: 2,000
t/year; totP: 200 t/year
Babocsa /
Organic farming, totN: 100 t/year; totP: 20 t/year
1.7 mil. EURO
Drava floodplains
sum
66.7 mil. EURO
- 40 -

---

Moldova (Source: Nutrient Reduction Programme)
Name of Location
Remarks as to load reductions
Est. investm. cost ­ not
only for load reduction
BOD
COD
totN
totP
Town Falesti, WWTP
4
12
20
4
7.5 mil. EURO
Town Lipcani, WWTP
3
9
15
3
8.0 mil. EURO
Town Ocnita, WWTP
2
9
12
3
6.5 mil. EURO
Village Cucoara, WWTP
1
4
5
1
4.5 mil. EURO
Village Congaz, WWTP
0
1
4
1
5.5 mil. EURO
Village Cociuela, WWTP
0
1
4
1
7.0 mil. EURO
Village Cioc-Maidan, WWTP
0
1
3
1
7.5 mil. EURO
Village Mereseni, WWTP
0
1
3
1
6.0 mil. EURO
Town Glodeni, WWTP
2
5
14
3
3.5 mil. EURO
Town Briceni
3
8
20
5
4.2 mil. EURO
Town Cupcini
5
9
30
6
4.5 mil. EURO
Other WWTPs
7
15
50
10
20.0 mil. EURO
Other type of activities:
Manure treatment facilities
5
20
45
13
7.0 mil. EURO
Afforestation Programme
5
20
195
2
3.5 mil. EURO
Soil Conservation Programme
5
20
80
5
8.0 mil. EURO
Other activities
5
10
30
5
8.0 mil. EURO
Sums
47
145
530
64
111.2 mil. EURO
Remark: For the removal of the loads shown, the indicated investment is rather high.
Romania (Source: Nutrient Reduction Programme)
Name of Location
Remarks as to load reductions
Estimated investment cost
of load reduction
Iasi, Antibiotics Industry
Organic carbon (COD; BOD)
1.8 mil. EURO
Pitesti, Arpechim
Organic carbon (COD; BOD)
13.9 mil. EURO
Somes Dej
Organic carbon (COD; BOD; totN)
0.6 mil. EURO
Oltchim Rm. Valcea
Organic carbon (COD; BOD; totN)
0.7 mil. EURO
Fibrex Savinesti
Organic carbon (COD; BOD; totN)
1.2 mil. EURO
Romfosfochim
Reconstruction of mill area
2.8 mil. EURO
Integrata Arad
Organic carbon (COD; BOD; totN)
1.0 mil. EURO
Comsuin Ulmeni, agriculture
Nutrients
1.0 mil. EURO
Suinprod Independentea,
Nutrients, organic carbon
0.8 mil. EURO
agric.
Comsuin Beregsau
Nutrients, organic carbon
1.9 mil. EURO
sum
The total indicated removals are 6,300 t BOD per year,
25.7 mil. EURO
6,300 t COD per year, 2,060 t totN per year and 153 t
totP per year.
Remark: The ratio of COD removed versus BOD
removed is small, it should be in the order of 1.7 to 1.0
- 41 -

---

Annex 2
Planned measures for a reduction in
industrial wastewater discharges,
incl. agricultural (point) sources
Slovak Republic (Source: Nutrient Reduction Programme)
Name of Location
Remarks as to load reductions
Estimated investment cost
of load reduction
Istrochem Bratislava
WWTP, removal of BOD, COD and totN
8.2 mil. EURO
Povazske Chemical Plants
Reconstruction of WWTP
0.5 mil. EURO
Biotika Slovenska Lupca
Extension of WWTP by anaerobic stage
3.4 mil. EURO
Chemko Strazske
Reconstruction of sewerage system
2.1 mil. EURO
Sum
14.2 mil. EURO
Slovenia (Source: Nutrient Reduction Programme)
Name of Location
Remarks as to load reductions
Estimated investment cost
of load reduction
Podgrad / Gornja Radgona pig farm (BOD/COD, nutrients)
1.7 mil. EURO
Ukraine (Source: Nutrient Reduction Programme)
Name of Location
Remarks as to load reductions
Estimated investment cost
of load reduction
Ukraine has not nominated reductions with industrial or mil. EURO
agricultural point source discharges
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
Name of Location
Remarks as to load reductions
Estimated investment cost
of load reduction
Remark: Data from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia will be incorporated as soon as cooperation has been established.
Summary of investment into industrial discharges, by State (also includes large agricultural point
discharges and some other agricultural activities)
State
Cost (investment)
Austria
33.0 mil. EURO
Bosnia-Herzegovina
29.4 mil. EURO
Bulgaria
n.a. mil. EURO
Croatia
Czech Republic
10.6 mil. EURO
Federal Republic of Germany
3.0 mil. EURO
Hungary
66.7 mil. EURO
Moldova
111.2 mil. EURO
Romania
25.7 mil. EURO
Slovak Republic
14.2 mil. EURO
Slovenia
1.7 mil. EURO
Ukraine
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (to be filled in later)
Sum over the Danube Basin
>
295.5 mil. EURO
- 42 -

---

Annex 3
Planned projects for
wetland and floodplain
restoration
Austria (Source: HoD in response to a request by the ICPDR President)
Name of Location
Remarks as to load reductions
Cost estimate
Austria has nominated the following wetland projects:
In Nationalpark Donauauen 5,150 ha with a cost estimate of
10.94 mil. EURO
In the March-Thaya region 1,000 ha with accost estimate of
0.95 mil. EURO
At other rivers (e.g. Drau, Lech, Mur)
4.38 mil. EURO
Sum
16.27 mil. EURO
Bosnia-Herzegovina (Source: The Danube River Nutrient Reduction Programme)
Name of Location
Remarks as to load reductions
Cost estimate
Bosnia-Herzegovina has not nominated any wetland projects.
Bulgaria (Source: HoD in response to a request by the ICPDR President,
and also via the The Danube River Nutrient Reduction Programme)
Name of Location
Remarks as to load reductions
Cost estimate
Bulgaria has nominated wetland projects for the Kalimok and Brushlen Marshes
13.5 mil. EURO
and the Belen wetland complex.
Croatia (Source: The Danube River Nutrient Reduction Programme)
Name of Location
Remarks as to load reductions
Cost estimate
Croatia has not yet nominated wetland projects.
Czech Republic ( Source: HoD in response to a request by the ICPDR President)
Name of Location
Remarks as to load reductions
Cost estimate
Morava; activation of oxbows at Rohatec/Hodonin
0.019 mil. EURO
Dyje; activation of oxbows at Lanzhot/Breclav
0.083 mil. EURO
Rehabilitation of river Miroslavka
0.139 mil. EURO
Rehabilitazion measures in polder Pritluky
0.117 mil. EURO
Rehabilitation of wetland area along Morava river at Rohatec, Straznice and Vnorovy
0.222 mil. EURO
Rehabilitation of river Dlouha at Buchlovice
0.167 mil. EURO
Rehabilitation of river Prasnice at Hluk
0.069 mil. EURO
Rehabilitation of up-reach parts of river Haraska at Boleradice
0.139 mil. EURO
Rehabilitation of river Roketnice at Jirikovice, Velatice and Ponetovice
0.067 mil. EURO
Rehabilitation of the stream Moutnicky potok at Moutnice, Tesany and Menin
0.128 mil. EURO
Rehabilitation of river Zamecka Morava at Mladec and Litovel
0.417 mil. EURO
Construction of the fish pass at the Nove Mlyny weir
0.069 mil. EURO
Rehabilitation of littoral zones in the natural reservation Chomoutovske jezero
0.222 mil. EURO
Rehabilitation of the rivers Tridvorka and Cerlinka at Litovel and Cervenka
0.194 mil. EURO
- 43 -

---

Annex 3
Planned projects for wetland
and floodplain restoration
Czech Republic ...
Name of Location
Remarks as to load reductions
eCost Estimate
Rehabilitation of river Morava next to Nove Zamky, at Mladec
0.167 mil. EURO
Rehabilitation of the Morava river / overcoming anthropogenic interventions, at Stepanov
0.222 mil. EURO
Reconstruction of the water junction at Hynkov, incl. a fish pass
0.194 mil. EURO
Rehabilitation of the rivers Pisecna, Kobylnik and Treti voda
0.083 mil. EURO
Flow optimisation at Dije river downstream of the Vranov dam
not stated
Rehabilitation of forest channel network at Tvrdonice, Kostice and Lanzhot
0.167 mil. EURO
Rehabilitation of forest channel network at forest Vranovsky les (Vranov, Pouzdrany)
0.139 mil. EURO
Rehabilitation of floodplain forests at the confluence of Dyje and Morava rivers
0.194 mil. EURO
Rehabilitation of forest Bori les / overcoming anthropogenic impacts (Valtice / Postorna)
0.056 mil. EURO
Rehabilitation of the floodplain forest Drnholecky luh
0.083 mil. EURO
Sum
3.357 mil. EURO
Federal Republic of Germany (Source: HoD in response to a request by the ICPDR President, and
also via the Nutrient Reduction Programme)
Name of Location
Remarks as to load reductions
Cost estimate
The Federal Republic of Germany has nominated wetland and floodplain projects as follows:
Rehabilitation of rivers; strengthening natural retention at e.g. Danube, Iller, Wertach, Isar,
Wörnitz, Regen, Mindel, Schwarzach, Lauterach, Kollbach, Strogen, Glonn, Schmutter.
For land purchases and for reducing the agricultural intensity, the amount of 13.0 mil. EURO has been allocated
Hungary (Source: Nutrient Reduction Programme)
Name of Location
Remarks as to load reductions
Cost estimate
Hungary has nominated wetland projects. They are located in the Danube-Drava area
(Gemenc), and at the mouth of the Bodrog into the Tisza River, and in the Hanság area
17.9 mil. EURO
Moldova (Source: Nutrient Reduction Programme)
Name of Location
Remarks as to load reductions
Cost estimate
Moldova has nominated wetland projects. The main ones are located in the Lower Prut
area, and in the Lower Yalpugh River area.
85.0 mil. EURO
Romania (Source: Nutrient Reduction Programme)
Name of Location
Remarks as to load reductions
Cost estimate
Romania has nominated wetland projects. They are located in the Lower Prut area and at
Balta Potelu, the area of the Bulgarian Danube, the Island Balta Greaca, and in the Calarasi area.
73.9 mil. EURO
- 44 -

---

Slovak Republic (Source: Nutrient Reduction Programme)
Name of Location
Remarks as to load reductions
Cost estimate
The Slovak Republic has nominated projects for floodplain / wetlands restoration.
They are located in the Olsavica River Basin, in the Lower Morava River Basin and
in the Laborec River Basin.
0.9 ­ 1.155 mil. EURO
Slovenia (Source: Nutrient Reduction Programme)
Name of Location
Remarks as to load reductions
Cost estimate
Slovenia has not nominated wetland projects.
Ukraine (Source: Nutrient Reduction Programme)
Name of Location
Remarks as to load reductions
Cost estimate
Ukraine has not nominated wetland projects.
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
Name of Location
Remarks as to load reductions
Cost estimate
Data from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia will be incorporated as soon as cooperation has been established.
- 45 -

---

Annex 3
Planned projects for wetland
and floodplain restoration
Summary of the investment into wetlands, by State
(also includes large agricultural point discharges and some other agricultural activities)
Name of location
Remarks as to load reductions
Cost estimate
State
Cost (investment)
Austria
16.3 mil. EURO
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Bulgaria
13.5 mil. EURO
Croatia
Czech Republic
3.4 mil. EURO
Federal Republic of Germany
13.0 mil. EURO
Hungary
17.9 mil. EURO
Moldova
85.0 mil. EURO
Romania
73.9 mil. EURO
Slovak Republic
0.9 ­ 1.155 mil. EURO
Slovenia
Ukraine
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (to be filled in later)
Sum over the Danube Basin
223.9 ­ 224.2 mil. EURO
- 46 -

---

Annex 4
Recommendation
Concerning the Treatment
of Municipal Wastewater
(ICPDR Document IC/24 ­ Final, February 2000)
The Commission,
municipal waste water, emission limits shall be
based in the application of at least biological or an
recalling Paragraph 1 of Article 2 of the Danube
equivalent level of treatment;
River Protection Convention in which the Con-
tracting parties shall strive at achieving the goals
recognizing that the treatment of municipal waste
of a sustainable and equitable water management,
waters including phosphorus and nitrogen re-
including the conservation, improvement and the
movals has been found to be necessary in all parts
rational use of surface waters and ground water in
of the Danube River catchment area in order to
the catchment area as far as possible,
improve the ecological status of its waters and that
of the Black Sea;
recalling also Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the
Danube River Protection Convention according to
recognizing that some Contracting Parties have to
which the Contracting Parties pursuant to the pro-
implement and other Contracting Parties will have
visions of this Convention shall cooperate on fun-
to implement the requirements established in
damental water management issues and take all
European Directives concerning urban waste water
appropriate legal, administrative and technical
treatment;
measures, to at least maintain and improve the
current environmental and water quality condi-
recognizing also that in an urban area the sewer-
tions of the Danube River and of the waters in its
age system and the sewage treatment plant must
catchment area and to prevent and reduce as far as
be regarded as a unit when the pollution load is
possible adverse impacts and changes occurring or
dealt with;
likely to be caused;
recognizing also that the major pollutants of
recalling further Paragraph 4 of Article 2 of the
municipal waste water are organic matters (mea-
Danube River Convention in which the Con-
sured e.g. as BOD5), nitrogen and phosphorous;
tracting Parties agree with that the 'Polluter pays
Principle' and the 'Precautionary Principle' consti-
desiring to limit this pollution by effective treat-
tute a basis for all measures aiming at the protec-
ment of municipal waste waters;
tion of the Danube River and of the waters within
its catchment area;
recommends to the Contracting Parties of the
Danube River Protection Convention that:
recalling further Paragraph 2 b of Article 5 in
which the Contracting Parties agree with to adopt
a) municipal waste water (waste water from
legal provisions providing for requirements
households of the mixture of waste water from
including time limits to be met by waste water
households with industrial waste water and/or
discharges;
run-off rain water), loaded with more than 2000
population equivalents (1 p. e. = 60 g BOD5/d),
recalling further Paragraph 1 of Article 7 in which
should be collected and treated before being dis-
is agreed with by the Contracting Parties that for
charged into water bodies. Where the establishing
- 47 -

---

Annex 4
Recommendation Concerning the Treatment
of Municipal Wastewater
of a collecting system is not justified either be-
b) municipal waste water which is collected in a
cause it would produce no environmental benefit
sewerage system and treated in waste water treat-
or because it would involve excessive cost, indi-
ment plants, loaded with more than 2,000 popula-
vidual systems or other appropriate systems which
tion equivalents, should be treated by biological
achieve the same level of environmental protection
methods or other methods giving equivalent
should be used.
results, in order to achieve the following results
(homogenized unfiltered, un decanted sample;
flow-proportional or time-based 24 hour-samples1):
BOD 2)
5
25 mg/l or 70 - 90 minimum percentage of reduction
CODcr
125 mg/l or 75 minimum percentage of reduction3)
For these two parameters the maximum number of
vided that it can be demonstrated that equivalent
samples which are allowed to fail the require-
results are obtained.
ments, expressed in concentrations and/or per-
centages reductions is specified in the Annex. For
c) municipal waste water, loaded with more than
the parameters, expressed in concentrations, the
10,000 p. e., which is foreseen for nitrogen and
failing samples must not devi-ate from the
phosphorus removal, should be treated in order to
required values by more than 100 %. Alternative
achieve the following results (homogenized unfil-
methods to those just mentioned may be used pro-
tered, undecanted sample, annual mean values):
Total Phosphorus
2 mg/l P
(10,000 - 100,000 p. e.)
} or 80 minimum percentage
1 mg/l P
} of reduction 3)
(more than 100,000 p.e.)
Total Nitrogen 4)
15 mg/l N 5)
10,000 - 100,000 p. e.)
} or 70 - 80 minimum
10 mg/l N 5)
} percentage of reduction 3)
(more than 100,000 p. e.)
One or both parameters may be applied depending on the local situation.
The requirements for Total Phosphorus and Total
In case of lack of investments for tertiary treat-
Nitrogen need not apply for every municipal waste
ment priorities should be aimed first at phosphorus
water treatment plant, if it can be shown, that the
removal, starting with plants bigger than 100,000
minimum percentage of reduction of the overall
p. e. Nitrogen removal should at least be consid-
load entering all municipal waste water treatment
ered in the planning process.
plants in that area is at least 75 % for total phos-
phorus and at least 75 % for nitrogen.
- 48 -

---

d) Sludge arising from waste water treatment
Contracting Parties every second year beginning
should be re-used whenever appropriate. The dis-
one year after the adoption of this Recommen-
posal of sludge to surface waters should be phased
dation and sent to the Com-mission including a
out. The disposal of sludge should be subject to
report of actions.
general rules or authorization.
Recommends further that in the light of possible
Recommends further that inventories of municipal
new developments this Recommendation should
discharges or waste water treatment plants loaded
be rediscussed at the latest in 2004.
with more than 10,000 p. e. are compiled by the
Annex to the Recommendation concerning the Treatment of Municipal Waste Water
Series of samples taken in any year
Maximum permitted number of
samples which fail to conform
4 - 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
8 - 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
17 - 28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
29 - 40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
41 - 53 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
54 - 67 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
68 - 81 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
82 - 95 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
96 - 110 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
111 - 125 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
126 - 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
141 - 155 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
156 - 171 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
172 - 187 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
188 - 203 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
204 - 219 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
220 - 235 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
236 - 251 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
252 - 268 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
269 - 284 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
285 - 300 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
301 - 317 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
318 - 334 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
335 - 350 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24
351 - 365 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
1 Alternative methods may be used provided that it can be demonstrated that equivalent results are obtained.
2 Determination of dissolved oxygen before and after five-day incubation at 20°C F 1°C, in complete darkness. Addition
of a nitrification inhibitor.
3 Reduction in relation to the load of the influent.
4 Total Nitrogen means the sum of NH4-N, NO2-N, NO3-N and organic N.
5 The implementation of these limit values indicated for nitrogen which are annual mean values could be checked by daily
mean values, if daily mean values do not exceed 20 mg/l. This requirement refers to a water temperature of 12 °C or
more during the operation of the waste water treatment plant. As a substitute for the condition concerning the temper-
ature, it is possible to apply a limited time of operation, which takes into account the regional climate conditions.
- 49 -

---

Annex 5
Glossary
BAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . best available techniques
BOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Biochemical Oxygen Demand
COD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chemical Oxygen Demand
Danube Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . Danube Navigation Commission
DRPC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Danube River Protection Convention
EU WFD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EU Water Framework Directive
("Directive establishing a framework for Community
action in the field of water policy")
EU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . European Union
HoD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Heads of Delegations of the Contracting Parties
ICPDR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River
Nutrient Reduction Programme . . . . Danube Regional Project on Strengthening the Implementation
Capacities for Nutrient Reduction and Transboundary Cooperation
in the Danube River Basin (UNDP/GEF Assistance)
River Basin Management Plan . . . . . A plan that ­ according to the EC WFD ­ has to cover the whole
River Basin District, that describes via which measures good water
status can be achieved, and that after approval by the European
Commission will become legally binding
tot N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . sum of inorganic and organic bound Nitrogen
tot P . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . sum of inorganic and organic bound Phosphorus
UN/ECE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . United Nations/Economic Commission for Europe
UNDP/GEF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . United Nations Development Programme / Global Environment
Facility
Water Quality Standard . . . . . . . . . . Quantified value of a certain pollutant or group of pollutants in
water, sediment or biota which should not be exceeded in order to
protect human health and the environment
WWTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Waste Water Treatment Plant
- 50 -

---