International Water Assessment Centre
under the UNECE Convention on Protection and Use of
Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes
(Helsinki, 1992)
Assessment Practices
and Environmental Status
10 Transboundary
Rivers in Europe
ISBN No. 9036954398
December 2001
Colofon:
Edition
International Water Assessment Centre
RIZA
P.O. Box 17
8200 AA Lelystad
The Netherlands
Lay-out
Thieme Deventer
Deventer, Netherlands
Printed by:
COMgraph Sp. z.o.o.
Szczecin, Poland
December 2001
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
2
Contents
Preface
5
List of Abbreviations
7
1.
General Introduction
9
2.
Methods
11
3.
Assessment of the Status of 10 rivers
13
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.10
3.11
Introduction
River Danube
River Rhine
River Elbe
River Tisza
River Daugava
River Tagus
River Oder
River Meuse
River Bug
River Morava
4.
Synthesis
128
5.
Conclusions
136
References
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
13
15
35
45
55
64
72
86
100
108
119
138
3
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
4
Preface
This study was contracted out by the Institute for Inland Water
Management and Waste Water Treatment (RIZA) to the International
Centre of Water Studies (ICWS).
Mr. Martin Adriaanse was the RIZA projectleader. Mr René Breukel,
Mr Gerard Broseliske and Mr Cees van de Guchte supported the project as
projectteam members.
Mr Jan Dogterom was the ICWS projectleader and main author of the
report. Experts of Halcrow and Rodeco made additional contributions.
The first draft report has been discussed in a workshop held in Prague on 9
and 10 April 2001. Kind acknowledgement must be given to Mr Yaroslav
Kinkor of the Czech Ministry of Environment for hosting this workshop and
Mr Mark Rieder of the Czech Hydrometeorological Institute for his active
support in the organisation of the workshop.
The drafting of the report would not have been possible without the active
and valuable contributions and comments of the following contact persons
in the countries and river commissions.
Mrs Anne Schulte-Wülwer-Leidig – ICPR, Koblenz
Mr Paul Racot and Mr Roel Zijlmans – ICPM, Liege
Mr Peter Lischke and Mr Slavomir Vosika – ICPE, Magdeburg
Mrs Rafelina Korol – IMGW, Wroclaw
Mrs Malgorzata Landsberg-Uczciwek – WIOS, Szczecin
Mr Igor Liska – ICPDR, Vienna
Mr Peter Roncák and Mrs Juliana Adamkova – SHMI, Bratislava
Mr Mark Rieder – CHMI, Prague
Mrs Ilja Bernardová – WRI, Brno
Mr Ferenc László – Vituki, Budapest
Mr Roland Bebris and Mrs Dzidra Hadonina – Ministry of Environment, Riga
Mr Rui Rodrigues and Mrs Fernanda Gomes – INAG, Portugal
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
5
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
6
List of abbreviations
CHMI
Czech Hydro-Meteorological Institute
DRPC
Danube River Protection Convention
EEC
European Economic Commission
EPDRB
Environmental Program Danube River Basin
EU
European Union
EWS
Early-warning System
ICPDR
International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River
ICPE
International Commission for the Protection of the Elbe
ICPM
International Commission for the Protection of the Meuse
ICPO
International Commission for the Protection of the Oder
ICPR
International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine
ICPBS
Istanbul Commission for the Protection of the Black Sea
ICWS
International Centre of Water Studies
IMGW
Institute for Meteorology and Water Management
INAG
National Institute for Water
IUCN
International Union for the Conservation of Nature
IWAC
International Water Assessment Centre
RIZA
The Netherlands Institute for Inland Water Management and
Waste Water Treatment
SHMI
Slovak Hydro-Meteorological Institute
TNMN
Trans National Monitoring Network
ToR
Terms of Reference
UNECE
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
WGMA
Working Group on Monitoring and Assessment
WRI
Water Research Institute
WWF
World Wide Fund for Nature
WIOS
Inspection of Environmental Protection of Poland
Voivodeship Inspectorate of Env. Protection in Szczecin
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
7
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
8
1. General Introduction
This report describes and compares the monitoring practices and the
assessment of the environmental status of 10 transboundary rivers in
different regions in Europe. In most of these rivers the monitoring and
assessment has been or is being agreed in the scope of transboundary cooperation.
The UNECE Convention on Protection and Use of Transboundary
Watercourses and International Lakes (Helsinki, 1992) is clearly focused on
developing concensus between countries via joint approaches of riparian
states on the management of international water bodies.
In 1994, the Task Force on Monitoring and Assessment (since 2000 the
Working Group on Monitoring and Assessment-WGMA) has been
mandated to give implementation guidance on aspects of monitoring and
assessment. In 2000 the International Water Assessment Centre (IWAC)
has been established under the Convention to facilitate and support the
work programme of the WGMA. The Netherlands Institute for Inland
Water Management and Waste Water Treatment (RIZA) has a specific role
in this work programme as leading institute of the WGMA from 1994 until
2001 and as host to IWAC.
Important activities of the Working Group include the drafting of
Guidelines on Monitoring and Assessment of Transboundary Watercourses,
the support given to the implementation of these Guidelines in a series of
pilot projects in river basins in Europe, the completion of in-depth studies
and technical reports to support the Guidelines, and the completion of
inventories of transboundary watercourses and their monitoring and
assessment practices.
An inventory on monitoring and assessment practices in UNECE countries
was made in 1995. This inventory was based on standard questionnaires
and the results were reported without further interpretation of the ongoing
programmes. Such interpretation was beyond the scope of the inventory at
that time. Most likely, practices have also changed in the past 5 years.
Moreover, monitoring results have to be interpreted applying common
assessment criteria but at present, these still differ between countries.
This IWAC report aims at developing a clear and thorough understanding
of present monitoring and assessment methods for transboundary rivers in
different regions in Europe. The assessment methods for environmental
quality, monitoring programmes and interpretation of the results are of
particular interest. Application of different methods may lead to different
interpretations and, as a consequence, to divergent policy options to
address riverine problems. The WGMA has a specific mission to make the
approaches of countries bordering transboundary watercourses more
transparent. Transparency and a thorough understanding of differences are
the basis for improvement of the quality of transboundary co-operation.
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
9
In this report, emphasis is placed on international transboundary
monitoring programmes and assessment methods in these basins where
such programmes and methods are officially adopted and operational. In
basins where such transboundary activities have yet to be agreed, bilateral
or national programmes and methods are described.
The purpose of this report is to improve understanding of similarities and
differences in monitoring practices and assessment methodologies in
different basins and how these differences can influence the "perception"
of environmental quality in the basins by bordering countries and the
Parties to the Convention. The results hopefully will contribute to a better
understanding between the parties at the policy and technical level in the
process of harmonisation of the approaches of different countries, in
particular for countries that share a drainage basin.
An interactive version of this report is available on the website of the
International Water Assessment Centre:
www.IWAC-RIZA.org and/or www. IWAC-UNECE.org.
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
10
2. Methods
2.1 General Approach
Three main questions were chosen to be addressed in this comparative
study for 10 important transboundary rivers in Europe on aspects of
monitoring and assessment.
• What are the main problems/issues and what is monitored?
• Which criteria for environmental quality assessment are applied at
country level; what are the differences between countries and will this
lead to different interpretation of environmental quality of the river. A
comparison with EU assessment methods has to be made as well.
• Describe the environmental quality of the river (water, sediment;
chemical, ecological and ecotoxicological)
The following 10 rivers were chosen to be included in the study: Rhine,
Meuse, Tagus, Elbe, Oder, Danube, Morava, Tisza, Dvina and Bug.
The 10 rivers were selected on the basis of criteria such as: rivers having an
international river commission secretariat, major rivers from the viewpoint
of the size of the river, regionally spread over Europe, etc.
Experts of selected river basins involved in monitoring and assessment have
agreed to be interviewed as contact persons for the respective basins (see
preface). It was part of the approach of the study that these interviews
with nominated experts would play an important role.
Visits have been made to these key experts to collect the relevant
information and to discuss the existing monitoring and assessment
practices as well as their own interpretation on the basis of the applied
criteria. Emphasis was laid on a thorough and critical analysis of the
perception of the main problems and the environmental quality in the river
at country level. A joint selection of illustrative data was made by the
consultant and each contactperson.
Main interest of the study was a thorough interpretation of the present
environmental status of the river basin in each country, taking into account
the applied assessment criteria, and an analysis of the differences in
interpretation of the environmental quality as a result of the application of
different monitoring and assessment methods.
2.2 Interviews
A uniform approach to the interviews was achieved by making a checklist of
specific questions and issues to discuss between the study team and the
contact persons. The checklist clearly distinguished chapters that are related
to the 3 main questions mentioned above. The interviews had a broad scope:
they focused not only on the main problems and practices for monitoring
and assessment, but also on how data are interpreted (and based upon what
assessment criteria) and transformed into information for decision makers.
The information from the interviews and the collected data has been used
as the basis for reporting for each river in Chapter 3. Graphs and maps for
selected key variables have been produced to illustrate the main problems
and the assessment of the environmental quality of the river basin at
present. The assessment of each river is discussed on the basis of the
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
11
applied criteria and on Directive 75/440/EEC, concerning the quality
required of surface water for the abstraction of drinking water.
2.3 Synthesis and reporting
The reports for each river have been evaluated and a synthesis of results is
reported in Chapter 4. Differences in assessment methods and the
perception of main problems and the environmental quality in the rivers are
discussed. A summary is presented of the different assessment methods
and the implication for interpretation of environmental quality. Chapter 5
presents the conclusions.
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
12
3. Assessment of the Status of 10 Rivers
3.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the results of the study for each river. Rivers are
presented in order of magnitude in terms of flow (high to low). The
presentations are harmonised to a great extent, but not rigidly. Some
variation can be seen, which is justified by the fact that the basins are
different and that the information available for each river was diverse.
Paragraphs 3.2 to 3.11 have the same structure. 6 sub-paragraphs are
presented for each river:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
General Description
Institutional Structures and Policies
Environmental Issues
Monitoring Programmes
Assessment Methodologies
Environmental Status
In par. 6, Environmental Status, information is presented on morphology,
water quality and ecological status, as far as available. Information for
some basins is incomplete e.g. because monitoring programmes were not
implemented anymore due to lack of finances.
The comparison of assessment methodologies has been proven to be
complicated. In the Rhine and Elbe basins there are agreed international
water-quality standards for a number of parameters. Assessment is based
on the 90 percentile values for most parameters, with the exception of
oxygen concentration (10 percentile values) and phosphate (annual
average values), of annual data series for each parameter. In the following
chapters, the quality for a selection of key parameters at the most
downstream fresh-water monitoring station, which is the last station before
intrusion of salt water is noticeable, is assessed and compared with
Directive 75/440/EEC, which prescribes to use the 90 percentile value and
the 10 percentile for the oxygen concentration. A comparison with the
national systems, which are usually different from international systems, is
made as well. When the monitoring station is a border station, a
comparison is made with the systems of the bordering countries (eg Rhine).
For all other rivers, an international assessment methodology is lacking. For
the Danube and the Meuse basins, such common systems are being
developed now. As a consequence, for the other rivers, a comparison was
made between EC Directive 75/440 and national systems. Also in these
rivers, a selection of key parameters at the most downstream monitoring
station is compared.
When comparing the assessment results of national systems with the
Directive 75/440/EEC, it should be kept in mind that the EC Directive is for
the quality required of surface water for the abstraction of drinking water,
whereas the national systems can be for another use of the surface water,
e.g. to support fish life. An EC Directive that is fully comparable to the
national systems of the 16 countries included in this study, does not exist.
The choice for Directive 74/440/EEC is therefore arbitrary.
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
13
It should be noted, that the comparison is performed only for one station
and for a limited number of parameters. The purpose of this comparison
therefore is to illustrate differences in assessment methodologies and
therefore perceptions of water quality. The study cannot be used to
compare the overall environmental quality between complete basins. The
assessment methods are very different for different countries. Moreover,
geological conditions vary between basins and therefore there are different
background values for natural compounds. This aspect has not been
addressed in the present study.
Restrictions have been made in terms of space available for the text. The
reports are therefore restricted to major issues and present a selection of
quality-status parameters that should be representative for the basin.
Detailed information on assessment methods, such as descriptions of
indexes, have not been presented for the same reason. This information is
summarised in this chapter and available upon request.
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
14
3.2 River Danube
3.2.1 General Description
The Danube River Basin is in the heartland of Central Europe. The main
river is 2,857 km long and drains 817,000 sq.km including all of Hungary;
most part of Romania, Austria, Slovenia, Croatia and Slovakia; and
significant parts of Bulgaria, Germany, the Czech Republic, Moldova and
Ukraine. Territories of the federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Bosnia and
Herzegovina and small parts of Italy, Switzerland, Albania and Poland are
also included in the basin. At present, about 82 million people live in the
catchment. The Danube River discharges into the Black Sea through a
delta, the second largest natural wetland in Europe. At the entrance of the
Danube Delta the mean flow of the river is about 6,550 m 3/sec, the
extreme values ranging from 15,540 m3/sec for peak discharges to 1,610
m3/sec for low flow. Different hydraulic structures and intensive water use
in the basin influence the natural flow regime. About 1/3 of the Danube
River is mountainous, while the remaining 2/3 consists of hills and plains.
The mean altitude of the river basin is only 475 metres but the maximum
difference in height between the lowland and alpine peaks is over 3,000
metres.
3.2.2 Institutional Structures and Policies
3.2.2.1 Institutional Structures
The Danube River Protection Convention (DRPC), with its full name
‘Convention on Protection and Sustainable Use of the Danube River’, has
been created based on the principles of the UNECE Helsinki Convention
1992 (the framework Convention on the Protection and Use of
Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes). It has been signed in
June 1994 in Sofia. With its entry into force on 22 October 1998 the DRPC
became the overall legal instrument for co-operation and transboundary
water management in the Danube River Basin among the Contracting
Parties to the DRPC.
The main objective of the Convention is the protection and sustainable use
of ground and surface waters and riverine ecology, directed at basin-wide
and sub-basin-wide co-operation with transboundary relevance. Joint
activities and actions are focused on co-ordination and enhancement of
policies and strategies, while the implementation of measures lies mainly
with the executive tools at the national level.
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
15
In order to achieve substantial progress in implementing the Convention
the following overall strategic goals and targets have been agreed:
• maintain and improve the status of water resources as to quality and
quantity;
• prevent, reduce and control water pollution, including accidental
pollution;
• improve the environmental conditions of the aquatic ecosystems and
biodiversity;
• contribute to the protection of the Black Sea from land-based sources
of pollution.
Presently Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, the European
Commission, the Federal Republic of Germany, Hungary, Moldova,
Romania, the Slovak Republic and Slovenia are Contracting Parties to the
DRPC. Ukraine is a Signatory of the DRPC. The Contracting Parties and the
Signatories have agreed to co-operate within the ICPDR towards
implementing the DRPC. Bosnia and Herzegovina is an ‘Observing State’ in
ICPDR Meetings. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has deposited its wish
to accede to the DRPC.
With the entry into force of the DRPC the International Commission for the
Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR) has been legally established. The
States have thus to co-operate in the frame of the ICPDR, and to strive to
implement the DRPC. The ICPDR is thus the institutional frame for
pollution control and the protection of water bodies shared between the
States. It facilitates a ‘common platform’ for the sustainable use of the
basin’s resources in relation to its aquatic ecology and coherent and
integrated river basin management. In order not to interfere with the
sovereign tasks of the Contracting Parties to the DRPC the delimiter for the
ICPDR’s work are ‘transboundary impact’.
The ICPDR is the main decision-making body under the Convention. The
ICPDR Expert Groups support, via their activities, the decision-making
process of the ICPDR in its Meetings. The Permanent Secretariat gives the
needed administrative support.
Expert Groups
The Commission has created several Expert Groups to strengthen the
proactive participation of all Contracting Parties and associated countries in
the design and implementation of joint measures for pollution reduction,
including nutrients, and water management.
The Emissions Expert Group (EMIS/EG) is responsible for developing action
to control pollution from point and diffuse sources. It establishes action
programmes to reduce pollution, e.g., from municipalities, industry and
agriculture. It facilitates the preparation and exchange of information on
these topics among the Contracting Parties.
The Monitoring, Laboratory and Information Management Expert Group
(MLIM/EG) is responsible for steering and evaluating the Trans-National
Monitoring Network for the water quality in the Danube River Basin. It is
thus in charge for setting up programmes aimed at improving the
laboratory analytical quality assurance. It facilitates the preparation and
exchange of (in-stream) water quality and quantity information among the
Contracting Parties [1].
The Accidental Emergency Prevention and Warning System Expert Group
(AEPWS/EG) is responsible for steering and evaluating the effectiveness of
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
16
the Accident Emergency Warning System for the Danube River Basin. The
system communicates messages among Contracting Parties about the
emergency situations that may have a transboundary effect. Accident
emergency prevention and control (in particular, for developing tools and
measures) is the second main set of tasks assigned to this Group.
The work of the River Basin Management Expert Group (RBM/EG) focuses
on facilitating the implementation of the EC Water Framework Directive
[2], in particular on the conceptualisation and preparation of the River
Danube Basin Management Plan. Upon agreement by the European
Commission the measures foreseen in this Plan will become legally binding
for all EU Members States. From the States in the Danube Basin six states
(Bulgaria; Czech Republic; Hungary; Romania; Slovak Republic; Slovenia)
are in an accession process to become EU Members.
The work of the Strategic Expert Group (S/EG) aims at assisting ICPDR
with specific advice on legal and strategic issues.
In November 2000 an ad-hoc Eco-logical Expert Group (ECO/EG) has been
established with the aim to support ICPDR-activities related to the
conservation, restoration and sustainable management of the aquatic
ecosystems and those terrestrial ecosystems and wetlands directly
depending on them. This ad-hoc expert group should also contribute to the
implementation of the ecological issues of the EU Water Framework
Directive.
Secretariat
The main role of the ICPDR Permanent Secretariat (located at VIC, Vienna)
is to support the ICPDR, its bodies and also other bodies established in the
framework of the Convention. The Secretariat is also the focal point for
information and enquiry about the implementation of the Convention via
the work of ICPDR.
3.2.2.2 Policies
The ICPDR policy is derived from the Danube River Protection Convention.
For the implementation of the Convention the "Joint Action Programme
for the Danube River Basin, January 2001 to December 2005" has been
prepared. The general objectives of this Joint Action Programme are in line
with the three main objectives laid down in Article 2 of the DRPC: "The
Contracting Parties shall strive at achieving the goals of a sustainable and
equitable water management, ...shall make all efforts to control the
hazards originating from accidents ...and shall endeavour to contribute to
reducing the pollution loads of the Black Sea from sources in the
catchment area".
The Joint Action Programme 2001 – 2005 is directed to
• the improvement of the water ecological and chemical status,
• the prevention of accidental pollution events and
• the minimisation of the impact of floods.
The implementation of the Joint Action Programme will - in addition to the
main objectives –
•
•
•
•
improve the standard of life,
enhance economic development,
contribute to the accession process to the European Union,
restore the biodiversity, and strengthen the cooperation amongst the
Contracting Parties.
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
17
The current water management policy of the ICPDR is substantially
influenced by the Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community
action in the field of water policy (EC Water Framework Directive). The
ICPDR Contracting Parties have agreed that the implementation of the EC
Water Framework Directive is considered as the highest priority for the
ICPDR and that the ICPDR will provide the basin-wide platform for the
co-ordination necessary to develop and establish the River Basin
Management Plan for the Danube River Basin. The Contracting Parties will
also ensure to make all efforts to arrive at a co-ordinated international
River Basin Management Plan for the Danube River Basin. It has been also
agreed that the draft work plan presented by the ad-hoc River Basin
Management Expert Group will form the basis to organise the
implementation of the Water Framework Directive within the ICPDR until
2004. The Contracting Parties have declared their willingness to carry out
all the necessary steps identified in the work plan to ensure the necessary
co-ordination within the Danube Basin.
Co-operation between the Istanbul Commission for the Protection of the
Black Sea (ICPBS) and the ICPDR in the Danube has led to the
recommendation that, in the long term, all States in the Black Sea Basin
should "take measures to reduce the loads of nutrients and hazardous
substances to such levels necessary to permit Black Sea ecosystems to
recover to conditions similar to those observed in the 1960s". It was
agreed however that "as an intermediate goal, urgent control measures
should be taken by all states in the Black Sea Basin in order to avoid that
the discharges of nutrients (and hazardous substances) into the Sea exceed
those which existed in 1997".
In the short term, the actions required to attain this were identified by the
ad-hoc Working Group between the ICPBS and the ICPDR as falling into
the following area: (i) reforms of agricultural policies, (ii) improvement of
wastewater treatment (including the use of alternative low cost
technologies), (iii) rehabilitation of essential aquatic ecosystems, (iv)
changes in consumer practice (targeted specifically at the use of
phosphate-free detergents).
A ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ between the ICPBS and the ICPDR on
common strategic goals is now in the finalisation stage. The draft
document provides the following strategic goals: (i) a long term goal of
nutrient reduction (and hazardous substances) to a level, which will allow
the ecosystem to recover (1960s level), (ii) an intermediate goal not to
exceed levels of nutrients (and hazardous substances) above levels
encountered in 1997, (iii) to agree a common methodology for a
monitoring approach, including sampling and QA/QC procedures; (iv) to
further assess the nutrient (and hazardous substances) input loads and the
ecological status of the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov, (v) to adopt
strategies of economic development, which are in line with optimal
ecosystem functioning, and (vi) to adopt strategies for limitation of
discharge of nutrients and hazardous substances, with review in 2007.
3.2.3 Environmental Issues
3.2.3.1 Hydromorphology
Massive construction in the Danube basin and the river itself started in the
19th century. Although large flood protection systems were constructed,
floods are happening ever more and their consequences are more severe,
e.g. the Morava river basin in 1997. On the other hand some large regions
have suffered few long and intensive periods of drought with catastrophic
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
18
consequences. Precipitation in Bulgaria during 1982-1993 was between
11-40% less than in 1935-1974. During the same period, stream flow
volume in Bulgaria decreased by 19% to 42%. As a consequence 1994
was the worst drought on record in Bulgaria. In the last 20 years, similar
droughts, although in smaller areas, have been frequent in the Danube
basin.
The sediment regime in all watercourses in the Danube basin has drastically
changed especially in this century. Human activity in the basin as well as
watercourses is a substantial cause of these changes. Between 1950 and
1980 sixty-nine reservoirs were constructed in the Danube basin and their
volume exceeds 7,300x106m3. Reservoirs on the Danube itself account for
approximately 50% of this volume. These reservoirs caused a drastic
decrease of the bed and of the suspended sediment. The transport of bedload sediment from the upstream part of the Danube has practically
stopped.
The flow regime has also changed significantly during the last 20 years.
Monthly and annual discharges differ from the upper to the lower part of
the Danube river course. On the Hofkirchen station (Germany), annual
runoff in the period 1981 to 1995 was 5% greater than in the preceding
period (1951-1980). On the Vienna (Austria), Bogojevo (Yugoslavia) and
Silistra (Bulgaria) stations, mean annual discharges in the 1981-1995 period
were 2%, 10% and 12% less, respectively, than in the preceding period
(1951-1980).
3.2.3.2 Water quality
The temperature of the Danube and its tributaries has changed significantly
in the last 20 years. Statistical analysis reveals a significant increase of the
monthly mean water temperature by 0.8 ºC in response to the increasing
impact of human activity, e.g. discharge of heated effluents and
construction of major schemes to canalise and regulate the Danube and its
tributaries.
The Danube basin is an area of high biodiversity within Europe, providing
the habitat for around 100 species of fish from the total of 227 found in
Europe. The biodiversity is a crucial feature of the Danube basin’s
resources.
The increased discharge of nutrients has a negative impact on the water
quality, both directly by raising the level of nitrates in the groundwater and
indirectly by causing eutrophication of surface waters, including the Black
Sea. High levels of nitrate have been recorded in groundwater aquifers in
the intensively cultivated areas of Hungary, Romania and Slovakia. The
Danube River has a moderate nitrate level at present and is still considered
a ‘safe’ raw water drinking source. However, the nitrate level in the
Danube has increased four to fivefold during the last 30 years. The causes
of the nutrient problem lie with a) the agricultural sector for over
application or improper application of inorganic fertilisers, b) the lack of
wastewater treatment on the main Danube and the sub-standard technical
condition of existing treatment plants, and c) from atmospheric deposition.
The lack of reliable data on hazardous substances makes it difficult to
assess the problems of contamination of water bodies and their sediments
and health risks. Of particular concern are pesticides, ammonia, other
organic micropollutants such as PCBs and PAHs and metals. There are
serious concerns about the pollutants in sediments trapped in reservoirs
and in reaches downstream of industrial concentrations. A survey of 55
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
19
sites revealed that in 23 of these, sediment was found that would have
been treated as hazardous waste according to Dutch regulations. The
density of particularly contaminated sites and the number of chemicals
found in high concentration at each site are higher in the lower region of
the Danube than in the upper reaches. Chronic contamination of water
sources by hazardous substances will make the water unfit for drinking
unless advanced and expensive treatment technology is applied. The main
causes of hazardous chemicals entering the Danube water system arises
from industrial activities, such as mining, smelting, electroplating (metals)
and pulp and paper, pharmaceuticals and chemical processing (organic
micropollutants). Diffuse discharge of pesticides has also arisen from
agricultural practices, with 300-500 active pesticide agents recorded in the
region.
Oil pollution is also prevalent, caused by refining, transport, continuous
leakage and routine discharges into the river in the middle and lower
reaches. A recent notable source of oil pollution has been caused by the
destruction of the oil refinery at Novi Sad in Yugoslavia during the 1999
NATO Air raids. It is estimated that 7,200 tonnes of oil were spilled into the
ground and into the refinery’s sewerage system, with an estimated 6-8%
entering the Danube.
Microbial contamination by pathogenic bacteria, viruses and protozoa is an
important water quality problem in the region. The prime cause of
microbial pollution is from untreated or inadequately treated municipal
sewage. Untreated or partly treated waste water from the larger
downstream cities poses a considerable risk to human health. Furthermore,
many of the smaller cities and villages on the tributaries have minimal
waste-water treatment facilities. Microbial contamination is also partly due
to livestock enterprises, which have insufficient waste treatment facilities,
and also to non-point sources such as storm run-off and poor or nonexistent sanitation in rural areas.
The population, agriculture and industry contribute as a whole to the
problem of organic materials entering the water body causing
heterotrophic growth, which consumes available dissolved oxygen.
Heterotrophic growth can alter natural biodiversity, including fish
populations. Such situations exist within the tributaries of the Danube, as
an example, in the Vit river (Bulgaria) organic discharge from a sugar
factory have resulted in the reduced capacity of the river downstream of
the city of Pleven to support fish life.
3.2.4 Monitoring programmes
3.2.4.1 Routine Monitoring
For the Danube River a Trans National Monitoring Network (TNMN) has
been set up. The objectives of the TNMN are to support reliable and
consistent trend analysis of concentration loads for priority pollutants,
support the assessment of water quality and use, and assist in the
identification of major pollution sources. The specific requirements of the
TNMN are to include sediment biomonitoring and quality control, be
compatible with other major international river basins in Europe, and to
comply with standards used in the western part of Europe.
The TNMN started with a limited number of stations with parameters
already included in national monitoring networks. The criteria for selection
were that the stations be located (i) upstream/downstream of an
international border, (ii) upstream of confluences between the Danube and
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
20
................................
Figure 3.2.1
The layout of the Trans National
Monitoring Network in the Danube
Basin with annual means of BOD5 in
1996 (Source: ICPDR)
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
21
main tributaries, (iii) downstream of the biggest point sources and (iv)
according to control of water use for drinking water supply.
61 stations were included in the first phase of the TNMN, partly in the
main stream and partly in selected tributaries (Figure 3.2.1). All stations are
sampled 12 times per year for determinands in water and 2 times per year
for biomonitoring and determinands in sediment. Each station may have up
to three sampling points (left, middle and right). Results of the monitoring
are put into tables, which are separated into static and dynamic data. Static
data are stations, determinands, analytical methods, participating countries
and sampling methods. Dynamic data are analytical results for the samples.
The TNMN will be extended in Phase 2, which is now in preparation.
A full list of the TNMN parameters that are monitored is shown in Annex
3.2.1. Sampling and analysis are undertaken on a national level. Analytical
procedures may differ between countries but should meet certain target
limits for detection and tolerance. Based on the performance testing of the
Danubian laboratories it is concluded that the results of most analyses, such
as macro-parameters (pH, conductivity, sodium and chloride), ammonium,
nitrate, nitrite, petroleum hydrocarbons and heavy metals are considered
reliable for comparative purposes. Others, such as Kjeldahl-N, BOD 5, trace
organics, orthophosphate-P and total-P still need significant improvement.
The data are expressed as mean values over the year. The data for BOD, P
and N are evaluated and expressed in chemical water-quality classes and
indicated on maps with corresponding colours.
Loads are calculated on a monthly basis. The annual load is calculated as
the sum of the monthly loads. To calculate such annual average loads, at
least 10 calculated monthly loads are needed using the best available
information on the cross-sectional average concentration. It is expected
that the load assessment currently has a significant error margin, because
of the fairly small sampling frequency. On the other hand, the accuracy of
the load assessment will improve over time by using data for more years.
3.2.4.2 Surveys and Special Studies
A single snapshot of pollution of sediments with heavy metals and organic
micropollutants along the mainstream Danube was provided by the ‘Report
on the Joint Assessment of Pollution in the Danube River’, from 1993.
Sampling was taken at undisturbed sites where there is a net deposition of
fine sediments. All sites were either related to the Bucharest Declaration
sites, potential ‘hot-spots’ or confluences of Danube tributaries with the
main river. The study confirmed that the Danube is not chronically polluted
in its entirety, although a number of ‘hot-spot’ pollution sites could be
identified. Most pollution sites were found along the lower reaches of the
Danube main river. However, there were some ‘hot-spots’ identified in the
upper reaches also. Nickel was found at the greatest number of ‘hot-spots’.
The most extreme ‘hot-spots’ involved mercury, where two out of a total
of three ‘hot-spots’ were assigned a severe effect level.
3.2.4.3 Early-warning System
The initial design and implementation of the Danube Early-warning System
(EWS) focuses on the organisation and operation of international and
national alerting procedures which are activated once notice of an accident
has been received. Its general objective is to increase public safety by
protecting drinking water sources and other sensitive water uses. The
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
22
establishment of a Principal International Alert Centre (PIAC) in each of the
Danube riparian states was a fundamental element of the EWS as it is the
sole responsible operational unit, in charge of co-ordinating all
communications. A crucial function of the PIAC is to co-ordinate
emergency warning at the international level.
To enable this co-ordination, an integrated approach has been developed
for the Danube EWS which includes the Danube River and its tributaries. A
satellite communication system, the Danube basin Alarm Model and a data
bank on dangerous chemicals are the most important tools for the Units of
each of the PIACs. Information flows based on existing regulations or alarm
plans, including the transboundary information flow, will remain effective.
Additional reports are made to the country’s own PIAC where major
incidents or incidents with an unknown impact are managed.
Since the operation of the EWS (April 1997), 12 accidental river pollution
incidents with transboundary effects have been recorded.
3.2.5 Assessment Methodologies
3.2.5.1 Surface waters
The main goal of the evaluation of available surface-water quality
standards, classification systems in the Danube River basin and the
comparison with those applied in the EC countries was:
• to collect and study this information;
• to create a practical basis for the proposal of a basin-wide set of water
quality criteria (i.e. concentrations of substances which, when reached,
have adverse effects); and
• to assist the formulation of water-quality objectives and targets for the
Danube River basin.
The details of the current classification systems for surface waters in
Danubian countries are provided in Annex 3.2.2. The essential features of
the individual standards applied in the Danube countries are as follows:
• The German standard and classification concentrates on the long-term
trends in water quality and the creation of water quality maps. It
includes four main biological and chemical parameters and the water
quality is divided into seven quality categories.
• Austrian guidelines focus on the ecological function of the surface
water. Quality evaluation is based mainly on benthos analysis. Other
chemical and physical parameters are completed according to local
conditions.
• The standards for the Czech Republic and Slovakia consider ecological
quality of surface water. The standards include 40 parameters and
water quality is divided into five classes.
• Hungarian standards (62 parameters, 5 water quality classes) consider
the principle of classification whereby water quality should correspond
to EC standards.
• Romanian standards with 48 parameters and 3 quality classes are
focussed on the use of water.
• Bulgarian standards consider the ecological requirements of water
quality as well as the use of water resources.
• Slovenia bases its water classification into four classes using 15
parameters and is related to the water uses.
The limit values for oxygen regime parameters are more or less similar in all
the individual standards, but there are significant differences among the
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
23
values for heavy metals, nutrients and micropollutants. While most
countries have 5 classes, Bulgaria and Romania have consequently 3. A
comparison is very complicated. Even in class I target values can vary a
factor 100 (zinc). Target values in class III for Bulgaria and Romania are in
most cases less stringent than in class V for the other countries. Austria has
only very few chemical target values. Assessment methods focus on
benthos analysis.
Proposed harmonised standards for surface water-quality evaluation for the
Danube riparian countries are focused on the parameters, that are regarded
as the most important for the water-quality management and
environmental protection strategies of the river basin. Basic parameters
(group A) for all parties will include oxygen regime and eutrophication,
while optional parameters (group B) contain additional chemical and
physical parameters, organic and inorganic micropollutants, bacteriological
and radiological parameters.
3.2.5.2 Sediment
River sediment quality classification is even less standardised than waterquality classification in most European countries including the Danubian
countries. Most countries carry out a more or less routine monitoring of
river sediment. Common determinands analysed for the river sediment are
heavy metals, pesticides and oil residues. Sediment sampling is often
carried out once or twice a year. This related to the fact that river sediment
quality does not change much or at a slower rate than water quality. River
sediment sampling takes more time and effort and is therefore more
expensive than water sampling.
In Austria the river sediment is sampled once a year. There is no specific
assessment scheme for sediment quality. To get an orientation heavy
metals are usually compared to:
• the values of the Geoakkumulationsindex where background levels are
taken into account;
• the Austrian standards of the ÖNORM L 1075 where limit values are
laid down for agricultural soil.
In Bulgaria river sediment sampling and analyses is not required by the
current environmental legislation. It is only done for the control points,
which are included in the TNMN. Coming years this programme will be
extended to other tributaries as well. The Czech Republic uses
governmental guidelines (not standards) with criteria that were originally
for soil to classify river sediment quality. Exceeding these limits can cause
serious human health risks. Three classes of pollution are distinguished:
• corresponds approximately with the natural content of target
compounds;
• exceeding of the limits considered to correspond to pollution;
• exceeding limits based upon physical, chemical, toxicological
characteristic of compounds, which may cause important risks to human
health and environmental danger.
At this moment Germany uses the present standards for sediment (incl.
suspended solids) in waste-water treatment plants. These standards are
mainly for dangerous chemicals with high toxicity. Furthermore a
sediment-quality-index is used. This index is based on eight metal
concentrations. Each metal has a certain weight in the index and a total of
five classes is used to illustrate the extent of pollution.
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
24
Routine monitoring of sediment quality does not exist in Hungary. Only for
specific surveys sediment quality is assessed and compared with the
Canadian classification. In case of disposal (i.e. agriculture) after sanitation
of polluted sediments some requirements have to be met.
Romania does not presently apply standards for sediment quality. However
routine sampling of sediments is performed, analysing about 15
determinands including some group parameters. For classification purposes
Dutch, Belgian or Canadian standards are used.
In Slovakia the river sediments and suspended solids in the Danube and
main tributaries are sampled and analysed twice a year. Sampling of
riverbed sediments is performed in accordance with ISO Guideline 5667.
The selection of analysed determinands was based on the cut-off values
related to the physico-chemical properties and toxicity of the chemicals in
questions (both inorganic and organic). The results are evaluated according
to Dutch standard. Furthermore, Guidance on the risk assessment of
polluted sediments was prepared by the Ministry of the Environment in
Slovakia based on EC TGD (1996). This guidance document was used to
assess several sedimentation sites in Slovakia.
3.2.5.3 Biological assessment
Biological monitoring and assessment of water quality in the Danube river
basin has a fairly long tradition, especially with respect to the system of
saprobity. This system was developed in the Middle-European region in the
sixties, at the time supported by the COMECON. However, the monitoring
and assessment by the system of saprobity can be done in several ways
and allows some variation between countries, as well as for the biological
group that considered, different saprobic index values and valences for one
species, the method of sampling, counting of individuals and calculation
the Saprobic index. When compared to chemical monitoring it seems that
harmonisation of methods in this field is behind.
Besides the saprobity system some other developments on biomonitoring
are going on in the Danube river basin. Biological assessment can consist of
many aspects because of the complexity of the aquatic ecosystem and
presence of several biotic components or groups that indicate different
aspects. So from the point of view or living parts of the river ecosystem the
following aspect can be distinguished:
• bacteriological assessment (Faecal coliforms or Escherichia coli,
Salmonella, saprophytes);
• assessment of trophic status (i.e. chlorophyll-a concentration,
phytoplankton species composition);
• ecotoxicological assessment by means of bioassays in the laboratory
(acute and chronic test with crustaceans (Daphnia magna), algae
(Scenedesmus quadricauda,) and fish, Microtox, Toxkits such as
Rototox, Thamnotox). Also laboratory experiments are being conducted
in bioaccumulation and field measurements (e.g. measurement of PCB
in fish in river Morava);
• saprobiological assessment (using phytobenthos, periphyton,
macroinvertebrates (macrozoobenthon), and phytoplankton studies.
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
25
In Table 3.2.1 the use of the above mentioned methods are summarised.
................................
Table 3.2.1
General view on assessment of
biological aspects considered in
Danubian countries [3]
Country
Bacteriological status / Trophic status
hygiene
Austria
Bulgaria
Croatia
Czech Republic
Germany
Hungary
Moldova
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+#
+
Saprobity
Ecotoxicological effects
+
(+)
+
+
+
+
+*
-
+
+
+
+
*
+ (toxkits)
*
+
+ = present on routine basis
* = present in special projects
# = in some Bundesländer
(+)= only for Transnational Monitoring Network (TNMN), not in national network
Austria
Austria has a long experience with biological assessment of water quality
which is compiled in the Fauna Aquatica Austriaca, a comprehensive
species inventory of Austrian aquatic organisms with ecological notes. On a
routine basis macroinvertebrates, phyto-benthos and ciliates are sampled in
rivers and the Saprobic Index is calculated. Results are classified and
presented in yearbooks in geographical form with a colour coding or river
reaches. Furthermore, a far more detailed and complex evaluation is
applied for specific purposes in which the aquatic ecosystem is thoroughly
described for abiotic and biotic components.
Bulgaria
Saprobity is determined by Pantle & Buck index for the Transnational
Monitoring Network (TNMN) sites only. The German DIN norm is used to
calculate the Saprobic Index. Also quality classes are defined for
macrozoobenthos species diversity (Shannon), matching degree and
dominating degree. In the national network a biotic index is in use which is
adapted from the Irish Q-value. Every 5 kilometres of a river is assessed.
The biological quality is divided into 10 classes. This method has been
chosen for its cost-effectiveness and relative ease in required determination
skills.
Czech Republic and Slovakia
Slovakia and the Czech Republic both use a numerical classification system
for the biological assessment of water quality using macrobenthos and
based on a numerical index known as the Saprobic Index. This reflects the
numbers of individual species present in a sample together with a
numerical value for each species, which reflects the tolerance of the
organisms to organic load. The classes, calculated using a formula which
takes into account the numbers, types and tolerance of the organisms
present, are five in number, and represent ranges of quality from good
quality, non-polluted water to poor quality, very strongly polluted water
(see Table 3.2.2).
Hungary
In Hungary a biotic index has been developed in the past, adjusted from
the western European biotic indices. However, this assessment is not
supported by the government and hence not implemented into a routine
monitoring practice for rivers. For TNMN the Saprobic Index is based on
phytoplankton.
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
26
Slovenia
Slovenian water authorities use the Saprobic Index method (Pantle & Buck,
modified by Zelinka & Marvan) for biomonitoring. The index and
classification is based on the examination of periphyton and
macroinvertebrates at the sampling site. (Sampling according to ISO
7828(E), 1985, ISO 8265(E), 1988). A basis for Slovenian biological
evaluation of the water quality of running waters are the species
identification (as complete as possible) of organisms composing the
communities, their semi-quantitative determination (abundance scale 1-35) as well as the knowledge of their autecology.
Most Danubian countries apply the Saprobic index for evaluation and
presentation of water quality based on macroinvertebrates. Various indices
and class limit values are in use (Table 3.2.2). The species indicator list may
vary also, due to country-specific additions or modifications. The saprobity
is often classified into 5 classes (o,s,a,b,p), but the water-quality
classification by means of the Saprobic index is divided into 4 main classes,
in some cases completed with 3 in-between classes giving a total of 7
classes.
................................
Table 3.2.2
Current practices in saprobic system
classification (macroinvertebrates unless
stated otherwise) [3]
Upper class limit values of classification systems with 3 to 5 classes:
Country
Method
Bulgaria
Czech Rep.
Croatia
Hungary
Slovakia
Romania
Bulgaria
SI (P&B)
SI (P&B, mod. Z&M)
SI (P&B)
SI (P&B) $
SI (P&B, mod. Z&M)
SI (P&B)*
Zel.-M.-Rotschein index
I
II
III
IV
V
< 1.5
< 1.5
< 1.8
< 1.8
< 1.2
< 1.8
>60
2.5
2.2
2.3
2.3
2.2
2.3
>40
3.0
3.0
2.7
2.8
2.8
2.7
>20
3.0
3.5
3.2
3.3
3.3
3.2
> 3.5
> 3.2
³ 3.3
³ 3.3
³ 3.2
Upper class limit values of classification systems with 7 classes:
Country
Method
I
Austria
Germany
Slovenia
SI (P&B, mod. Z&M)
< 1.25
SI (P&B)
< 1.5
SI (P&B, mod. Z&M)** < 1.5
I-II
II
II-III
III
III-IV
IV
1.75
1.8
1.8
2.25
2.3
2.3
2.75
2.7
2.7
3.25
3.2
3.2
3.25
3.5
3.5
>3.76
>3.5
>3.5
P & B =formula of Pantle & Buck
P & B mod. Z&M = formula of Pantle & Buck, modified by Zelinka & Marvan.
* = for phytoplankton; since 1999 in TNMN also macroinvertebrates. (experimental system)
** = for periphyton and macrozoobenthos
$= for zooplankton only
3.2.6 Environmental Status
3.2.6.1 Hydromorphology
The Basin makes up an aquatic ecosystem with numerous important
natural areas including wetlands and floodplains. It supports the drinkingwater supply, agriculture, industry, fishing, tourism and recreation, power
generation, navigation and the end disposal of waste waters. A large
number of dams, dikes, navigation locks and canalisations have been built
in the basin to facilitate important water uses, including over 40 major
reservoirs on the main stream of the Danube River. These hydraulic
structures have resulted in significant economic benefits but they have also
caused, in some cases, a significant downstream negative impact. This
impact includes, for example, increased erosion, and a reduced assimilative
capacity where river diversions have resulted in reductions in flow below
the minimum required for desired water uses, such as fisheries and aquatic
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
27
ecosystems. On the other hand, canalisation has increased the risk of
flooding in a large number of Danube tributaries and the main river itself.
The biggest hydropower dams and reservoirs systems along the entire
Danube are located at the Iron Gate gorge. These reservoirs (volume 3.2
billion m3; length: 270 m) trap 20 million tons per year of sediments, thus
serving both as an important nutrient sink and as a deposit of hazardous
and toxic matters for pollution coming from the upstream Danube
catchment. At the same time the sediment deposited in the reservoir has a
downstream impact, causing negative sediment balances and creating
erosion problems since the start of dam operations in 1970.
Wetlands and floodplain forests in the DRB have been drastically altered
over many centuries, but the process has accelerated over the last decades.
In that period the main cause of wetland destruction seems to have been
the extension and intensification of agricultural activities. This has involved
drainage and irrigation, which are partly responsible for the drop in water
levels and the removal of wetlands and floodplain forests. The few
remaining now are of outstanding importance and careful management
and restoration is vital. The Danube Delta is the second largest wetland in
Europe and covers an area of about 600,000 ha. Most of it has been
declared a Biosphere Reserve registered under the Ramsar Convention and
World Heritage Convention.
3.2.6.2 Water Quality
As stated above, surface water, sediment and biological qualityclassification schemes of Danubian countries differ a lot from each other.
The lack of a unified system hampers a meaningful evaluation of the
quality of the Danube and its tributaries. However, previous evaluations
have shown that the dissolved oxygen profile is favourable and, though the
overall water quality of the Danube River is not good, it is not
‘catastrophic’ either. According to the results obtained by the Working
Programme carried out within the framework of the Bucharest declaration,
it is possible to assert that at present, the Danube water quality is still
satisfactory. Figures 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 show the nitrate and total P
concentrations along the river in 1996. These concentrations are close to
target values. Considering Czech water quality criteria, 100% of the
Danube river belongs to the ‘medium class’. However, the water-quality
studies over the past 25 years also highlight an evolution towards a less
favourable state brought about by oxygen depletion due to excessive
mineralisation. DO problems frequently occur in tributaries of low dilution
ratio, which serve as a recipient of untreated or not adequately treated
waste waters.
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
28
Table 3.2.3 shows the assessment of a selection of water quality
parameters at Sulina in the Danube delta in Romania.
................................
Table 3.2.3
Assessment of a selection of water
quality parameters in the Danube river
at Sulina (Romania)
Oxygen mg/l
NH4 mgN/l
Nitrate mgN/l
P-total mgP/l
Zn- µg/l
Cd- µg/l
Y—HCH µg/l
C*)
Romania1)
75/440/EEC2)
5.6
0.79
2.00
0.11
33.7
7.98
0.079
>6
0.78 (as NH4-N)
2.26 (as NO3-N)
0.1
n.a.
n.a
n.a.
n.a.
0.04
5.6 3)
0.17
500
1
n.a.
*) = total concentration, 90 percentile value at Sulina, middle river, 1997 with the exception
of oxygen (= minimum value)
n.a. = not applicable
1) = class 1
2) = directive concerning the quality required of surface water for the abstraction of drinking
water
3) = nitrate + nitrite
................................
Figure 3.2.2
Danube nitrate, 1998 averages
(Source: ICPDR)
Danube
[mgN/l]
Danube
[mgP/l]
Total phosphorus , 1998 Averages
Nitrates, 1998
0,20
2.5
0,16
2.0
0,12
0,08
1.5
................................
Figure 3.2.3
0,04
1.0
0,00
2204
2120
1935
1874
Danube total phosphorous, 1998
averages (Source: ICPDR)
1869
1806
1768
1708
1560
1435
1071
834
432
375
132
0
2204
2120
1935
1874
1869
1806
1768
1708
1560
1435
1071
834
432
375
132
0
Distance from mouth [km]
Distance from mouth
In relation to nutrient discharge along the length of the Danube, and
ultimately into the Black Sea, data on diffuse and point sources per country
and also estimated in-stream concentrations are used for input for the
parameter estimation of the Danube Water Quality Model [4]. In such a
study, the Danube and its catchment area is hydraulically schematised by
dividing it into 189 segments. The catchment is divided over the riparian
countries but the reaches within countries are covered unevenly. The
various adaptations between emissions, retention, removal and in-stream
values give in the end a fairly good similarity between calculated and
observed concentrations. In Table 3.2.4 the estimated yearly emission loads
(for 1999) per source type and the quantities being discharged into the
drainage basin clearly show the impact of N and P on water quality made
by both municipal point sources and agricultural run-off. For other
parameters, e.g. metals, a systematic interpretation cannot be presented
yet, since the analytical data have not yet been processed and presented
properly.
................................
Table 3.2.4
Total nitrogen and phosphorus loads
derived in 1999 from point and nonpoint sources [4]
Point sources
Total Nitrogen (1000 t/y)
Total Phosphorus (1000 t/y)
Municipal
Industrial
Agricultural
136-187
36-51
13-12
23-34
1.4-9
1.3-3.8
Total
180-259
26-47
Direct discharge households
Storm water overflow
Manure direct discharge
Base flow
Erosion run-off agriculture
Erosion run-off forest
18
19
58
343
173
36
3.3
3.4
12.5
8.2
38.7
3.4
Total
649
69.5
Diffuse sources
3.2.6.3 Ecology
As the Danube River Basin has a broad variety of landscapes, it is
outstandingly rich in biodiversity and a valuable pool of genetic resources.
There are about 100 species of fish, out of about 227 in Europe as a whole.
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
29
The number of bird species is also impressive and reaches a total of 180.
More than 2000 species of higher plants can be found in the catchment
area. The variety increases from the source of the rivers to the Delta.
Although many habitats are protected and several approved by the Ramsar
Convention, many species are endangered or are already threatened with
extinction. In the nineties, the overall biological status improved due mainly
to the decrease of the economical activities and the reduction of pollution
in the Middle and Lower Danube.
A study of the biological assessment in the Danube catchment area has
noted that the fundamental flow-induced changes in the navigable
German reach of the Danube have caused a shift from an original epitomal
fauna dominated by passive filter-feeders and grazers towards a littoral
fauna dominated by sediment feeders and active filter-feeders [5].
A complete zoo- or phytoecological registration and evaluation of the area,
with its complex framework of ecological effects would be very difficult.
Even the indicator method will merely lead to an exemplary representation
of complex ecosystems. The statements that may be obtained are thus
limited.
The ICPDR and Danubian states are currently discussing the establishment
of a regular biomonitoring system for the whole river basin that is
harmonised with the needs and objectives of the new EC Framework
Water Directive.
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
30
................................
Annex 3.2.1
Sampling and analysis undertaken by
the TNMN [4]
Sampling
Analyses
TNMN 1996 (first year of Phase 1)
61
95
50
75
12
2
2
2
0-25 (differs per point)
0
0
0
TNMN Phase 1
Determinands in water
Flow Q
Temperature
Suspended solids
Dissolved oxygen
PH
Conductivity (20°C)
Alkalinity
Ammonium
Kjeldahl-nitrogen
Nitrate
Nitrite
Organic nitrogen
Ortho-phosphate
Total phosphorus
Sodium
Potassium
Calcium
Magnesium
Chloride
Sulphate
Iron
Manganese
Zinc
Copper
Chromium-total
Lead
Cadmium
Mercury
Nickel
Arsenic
Aluminium
BOD5
COD(Cr)
COD(Mn)
DOC
TOC
Phenol Index
Anionic active surfactants
Petroleum hydrocarbons
Total extractable matter
PAH-6 (each)
AOX
Lindane
pp’DDT
Atrazine
Chloroform
PCB-7 (each)
Carbon tetrachloride
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
Total coliforms (37°C)
Faecal colifoms (44°C
Faecal streptococci
Salmonella sp.
Macrozoobenthos (no. of taxa)
Maxrozoobenthos (saprobic index)
Chlorophyll-a
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
TNMN Phase 1 (planned)
Locations
Points
Frequency (per year):
-physical-chemical in water
-physical-chemical in sediment
-microbiological
-hydromorphological
TNMN 1996
Determinands in sediment
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Determinands in water
(differs per sample)
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
31
................................
Annex 3.2.2
Current Classification Systems of
determinands in water in Danubian
Countries [3]
General parameters
pH (pH-unit)
Austria (mountain / lowland)
Bulgaria
Croatia
Hungary
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Conductivity (20°C) uS/cm
Bulgaria
Croatia
Czech Republic
Hungary
Slovakia
Dissolved Oxygen mg/l
Austria (mountain / lowland)
Bulgaria
Croatia
Czech Republic
Germany
Hungary
Romania (minimum)
Slovakia
Slovenia
Suspended Solids mg/l
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Slovakia
Slovenia
General parameters
Eutrophication parameters
Ammonium (NH4-N) mg/l
Austria (mountain/lowland)
Bulgaria
Croatia
Czech Republic
Germany
Hungary
Romania
(as NH4-N, calculated from NH4)
Slovakia
Slovenia (as NH4)
Nitrites (N02-N) mg/l
Austria (mountain/lowland)
Bulgaria
Croatia
Germany
Hungary
Romania (calculated from NO2)
Slovakia
Slovenia
Nitrates (N03-N) mg/l
Austria (mountain/lowland)
Bulgaria
Croatia
Czech Republic
Germany
Hungary
Romania (calculated from NH3)
Slovakia
Slovenia
I
II
III
6.5-8.5
8.5-6.5
6.5-8
6.5-8.5
6-8.5
6.8-8.5
6.5-8.5 & 6.5-9.0
6.0-8.5
6.5-6.3 & 8.6-9
8-8.5
6.5-8.5
6-8.5
6.8-8.5
6.0-9.0
6.3-6 & 9-9.3
8.5-9
6.5-8.5
6-8.5
6-9
V
6-5.3 & 9.3-9.5
9-9.5
>5.3 & >9.5
>9.5
5.5-9.0
6-9
<5.5>9.0
I
II
III
IV
V
700
500
400
500
400
1300
700
700
700
700
1600
1000
1100
1000
1100
2000
1600
2000
1600
>2000
³1600
>2000
>1600
I
II
III
IV
V
>7.5>6.5
6
>7
>7.5
>8
>7
6
>7
8
4
7
6.5
>6
7
5
7
6
2
6
5
>4
6
4
6
4
4
3
<=2.0
4
<3
³3
<3
5
3
<3
I
II
III
IV
V
30
300
300
10
50
500
500
30
100
800
800
80
1200
1200
100
³1200
>1200
I
II
III
IV
V
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.04
0.2
2
0.25
0.7
0.3
0.5
5
0.6
2
1.2
1
1.5
4
2.4
2
0.78
0.3
1
2.34
0.5
1
7.8
1.5
10
5
10
>5.0
I
II
III
IV
V
0.002
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.3
0.002
0.05
0.03/0.06
0.04
0.03
0.1
0.03
0.9
0.005
0.05
0.06
0.1
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.8
0.3
>0.2
0.02
0.5
0.05
0.5
>0.05
I
II
III
IV
V
5
0.5
3
1
1
2.26
1
10
5.5/5.5
10
1.5
6
2.5
5
6.78
3.4
10
20
4
10
10
10
10
13
20
25
>10
³13
7
15
11
15
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
IV
32
>1.5
>4
>4
>2.0
>0.3
>25
>11
Orthophosphate (P04-P) mg/l
Bulgaria
Germany
Hungary
Total phosphate (T-P) mg/l
Austria (total dissolved)
Bulgaria
Croatia
Czech Republic
Germany
Hungary
Romania
Slovakia
I
II
III
IV
V
0.2
0.02
0.02
1.0
0.1
0.05
2.0
0.4
0.1
0.8
0.25
>25
I
II
III
IV
V
0.4
0.1
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.1
0.03
0.07/0.15
2.0
0.25
0.15
0.15
0.1
0.1
0.15
3.0
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.2
0.1
0.4
1.5
1
1.2
0.5
>1.5
³1
>0.5
1
>1
IV
V
Austria has four classes and additional intermediate classes (I-II, II-III, III-IV)
General parameters
Metals in the water column
Copper (µg/l)
Austria (mountain/lowland)
Bulgaria
Croatia
Czech Republic
Germany
Hungary
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Zinc (µg/l)
Austria (mountain/lowland)
Bulgaria
Croatia
Czech Republic
Germany
Hungary
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Cadmium (µg/l)
Austria (mountain/lowland)
Bulgaria
Croatia
Czech Republic
Germany
Hungary
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Chromium-total (µg/l)
Austria (mountain/lowland)
Bulgaria
Croatia
Czech Republic
Germany
Hungary
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Nickel (µg/l)
Austria (mountain/lowland)
Bulgaria
Croatia
Czech Republic
Germany
Hungary
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
I
50
2
5
4
5
50
20
100
I
1000
50
15
14
50
10
20
200
I
5
0.1
0.1
0.072
0.5
1
3
5
I
100
1
5
10
10
50
20
100
I
50
15
5
4.4
15
100
20
50
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
II
III
6/30
100
10
20
10
50
50
100
500
15
50
20
50
50
100
100
20
100
-100
>20
³100
50
>100
200
100
>200
II
III
IV
V
60/180
5000
80
50
75
10
50
200
10000
100
100
500
100
10
100
1000
200
200
-300
>200
³200
1000
>300
500
1000
>500
II
III
IV
V
5.0
2
1
5.0
>5
³2
5
>5.0
20
10
>20
IV
V
0.5/2
10
0.5
0.5
1.0
1
5
5
20
2.0
1
1
2.0
1
10
10
II
III
8/40
500
6
20
20
50
100
100
1000
15
50
50
50
50
200
500
20
100
-100
>20
>100
50
>100
500
500
>500
II
III
IV
V
200
100
-200
>200
³100
50
>200
200
100
>200
10/35
200
30
20
500
50
50
50
50
100
100
100
30
100
50
50
33
Lead (µg/l)
Austria (mountain/lowland)
Bulgaria
Croatia
Czech Republic
Germany
Hungary
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Mercury (µg/l)
Austria (mountain/lowland)
Bulgaria
Croatia
Czech Republic
Germany
Hungary
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Iron (mg/l)
Austria (mountain/lowland)
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Hungary
Moldova
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Manganese (mg/l)
Austria (mountain/lowland)
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Hungary
Moldova
Romania
Slovakia
Arsenic (µg/l)
I
20
0.1
3
3.4
5
50
10
50
I
0.2
0.005
0.05
0.04
0.1
1
0.1
1
II
III
8/40
50
2.0
8
IV
V
20
50
20
50
200
5.0
15
50
50
50
50
100
80
30
5
100
>80
³30
50
>100
100
100
>100
II
III
IV
V
0.25/1
1
0.02
0.1
0.2
1
0.2
1
5
0.1
0.5
0.5
0.5
1
0.5
1
1.0
1
0.1
1
>1
³1
1
>1
1.0
1
>1
I
II
III
IV
V
0.5
0.5
0.1
1
0.3
0.5
300
1.25/2
1.5
1
0.2
3
1
1
300
5
2
0.5
5
1
2
1000
3
1
>3
>1
3
1000
>3
I
II
III
IV
V
0.1
0.1
0.05
0.1
0.1
0.05
0.1/0.1
0.3
0.3
0.1
1.0
0.3
0.1
0.8
0.5
0.1
2.0
0.8
0.3
0.8
0.5
³0.8
>0.5
0.5
>0.8
IV
V
I
II
III
Austria (mountain/lowland)
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Hungary
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
20
1
10
10
10
50
5/5
50
10
20
10
20
50
200
20
50
10
50
50
50
100
³50
>100
100
50
>100
Class identification in this table
German identification
I
A
II
S
III
T
IV
F
V
B
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
34
3.3 River Rhine
3.3.1 General Description
The river Rhine flows from its source in Switzerland through Germany,
France and the Netherlands to the North Sea. It is the 3rd biggest river of
Europe. The total length is 1,320 km and the catchment area is 185,000
km2. The average discharge is 2,300 m3/sec and total volume per year is in
average 73 km3. At present, more than 50 million people live in the
catchment in 9 countries (Switzerland, Austria, Liechtenstein, Italy, France,
Germany, Luxembourg, Belgium and the Netherlands). It provides the
source for drinking-water production for more than 20 million people. It is
a very important shipping route between Rotterdam harbour and
Rheinfelden in Switzerland. It connects the biggest sea harbour of the
world (Rotterdam) with an economically very important "Hinterland". The
biggest inland harbour of the world is also in its catchment: Duisburg. It
has the highest density of chemical and pharmaceutical industry in the
world. The river is further used for energy production, disposal of waste
water and for recreational activities. The catchment has very intensive
agricultural activities. Commercial fisheries are negligible. The Rhine is the
natural habitat of diverse vegetation and many birds, fish and other
species; the ecological function is recovering and has now high priority.
3.3.2 Institutional Structures and Policies
3.3.2.1 Institutional Structures
The 1st institutional structures to manage the river Rhine dates back to
1449: the Strasbourg regulations with the objectives to protect the river
against pollution and overfishing [14]. Serious pollution started around
1850. In the 19th century the Mannheim Convention, regulating free
shipping in the river, and the Salmon treaty were established. In 1950 the
riparian states established the International Commission for the Protection
of the Rhine (ICPR). It took many years to develop a regulatory framework
for the protection of the river: in 1963 the Convention on the Protection
of the River Rhine was signed (Bern Convention). The most important
convention for the present day management of the river was concluded in
1976: the International Convention on the Prevention of Chemical
Pollution of the Rhine. In this year, the European Commission joined the
ICPR. At present, the ICPR has a budget of about Euro 750,000, mainly
used for secretarial support of the contracting parties.
The implementation of the Convention is the responsibility of the countries
themselves and is supervised by the plenary meeting of the ICPR. The
plenary meeting delegates co-ordination to the Co-ordination Group,
which has established 3 permanent and 2 temporary working groups. The
permanent working groups are on the following subjects: (1) water
quality, (2) ecology and (3) emissions. The temporary working groups are
(er ontbreekt een werkwoord)?? on flood protection and sustainable
development. The permanent secretariat, based in Koblenz, has a
supportive role.
3.3.2.2 Policies
In the period 1976-1986, the ICPR has given priority (1) to the drafting of
lists of hazardous substances and binding emission limits (black and grey
lists) to reduce the discharges of these substances from point sources and
(2) to reduce the organic load in the river. The approach, although slow,
had substantive effects. After 1976, chemical pollution decreased
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
35
substantially and oxygen concentrations increased. A classical example is
the concentration of cadmium (see Figure 3.3.1). The biodiversity also
started to recover from this time. A strong correlation can be seen in the
increase of oxygen concentrations and the return of macrozoobenthos (see
Figure 3.3.2). It is estimated that more than 50 billion Euro has been
invested since this period in treatment facilities.
................................
Figure 3.3.1
Concentration of Cadmium at 3
monitoring stations in the Rhine Basin
in the period 1970 – 1998 (Source:
ICPR)
................................
Figure 3.3.2
Oxygen concentrations and
macrozoobenthos in the Rhine River in
the period 1900-1995 (Source: ICPR)
The catastrophic fire in a chemical plant in Switzerland in 1986 gave a very
strong impetus to the process of protection and restoration of the river.
This tragic event, generated the public concern that made it possible for
politicians to take a new and comprehensive approach, including the
reduction of nutrients and hazardous substances and introduction of a
well-targeted programme to restore the ecological function of the river. In
1987, the Rhine Action Programme (RAP) was agreed. This programme
has set clear aims and a time frame for a phased implementation.
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
36
In 1988 and 1995 the programme was amended. In 1998, after 2 major
floodings, an Action Plan on Flood Defence was agreed [7]. The 5 aims for
the RAP and the Flood Action Plan have recently been formalised by
inclusion in a new Convention on the Protection of the Rhine, signed in
April 1999 [6]. These aims are:
• Sustainable development of the Rhine ecosystem
• The production of drinking water from the waters of the Rhine
• Improvement of sediment quality in order that dredged material may be
deposited or spread without adversely affecting the environment
• General flood prevention and protection, taking into account ecological
requirements
• To help restore the North Sea in conjunction with the other actions
taken to protect it.
The new Convention will come into force at the end of 2001/2002.
3.3.3 Environmental issues
3.3.3.1 Hydromorphology
In the 19th century, major "corrections" in the morphology of the river
were implemented. This process continued in the 20th century. Navigability
was improved, flood and health risks in the upper part of the river were
reduced and alluvial areas were reclaimed for agriculture. The total length
of the upper part of the river was reduced by 80 km (10-15 %). Similar
works were conducted on all major tributaries. The process of straightening
the river and construction of dams and weirs had major ecological
drawbacks, which are still felt today. The salmon, once a major protein
source, completely disappeared (also from overfishing). More than 85 % of
all natural catchment flood plains, originally covering 8,000 km 2 have
disappeared. Some of this loss, particularly in the delta, is irreversible. The
risk of flooding in the middle and lower part of the river has increased, with
major floodings occurring in 1993 and 1995, jeopardising a total economic
value of more than 1500 billion Euro. A new special programme to reduce
flood risks has now been agreed between 4 countries for a total cost of
4.53 billion Euro between 1998 - 2005. Where possible, this programme
will serve 2 major aims: reduction of flood risks together with the
restoration of natural habitats (alluvial plains and forests).
3.3.3.2 Water quality
The improvement of the water quality for most parameters is of paramount
importance. Chemical pollution has decreased since 1970 with more than
80 %. The organic load has also decreased. More than 90 % of the
population in the basin is connected to canalisation and sewage treatment
plants with at least secondary treatment and sometimes even with nutrient
removal. The indicative quality objectives, which are used by the ICPR for
47 different individual or groups of compounds, are usually met each year
for most compounds [8], [9].
A further reduction of sediment concentrations for a number of metals is
still necessary: mercury, cadmium, copper, and zinc. Up to date inventories
of point sources are available and municipal treatment plants and industry
are required to reduce these sources further. Most of the contamination
from these metals however, originates from diffuse sources. Other
problems are PCBs, HCB and lindane. These compounds are still found in
older sediments ("Altlasten"), which are washed down during periods of
high runoff.
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
37
The main water-quality problem in the catchment is nitrogen and the
subsequent risk of eutrophication of the North Sea. The quality standard
for ammonium is not met at down stream monitoring stations. The ICPR
does not yet apply a nitrate quality standard. Figure 3.3.3 shows the nitrate
concentrations at 3 different stations since 1971. Improvement for nutrient
pollution is clearly lagging behind chemical pollution. Reduction of the total
Nitrogen load of the river was 20 % between 1985 and 1996. The nitrate
concentration at the German-Dutch border does not comply with the
Dutch standard for total Nitrogen: 2.2 mg N/l.
................................
Figure 3.3.3
Nitrate concentrations at 3 monitoring
stations in the Rhine Basin from 1970 1998 (Source: ICPR)
The main remaining issues with regard to water quality are the reduction of
nutrient loads from diffuse sources and municipal treatment plants,
reduction of loads of some metals from diffuse sources and the problem of
"Altlasten" for PCBs and HCB.
3.3.4 Monitoring programmes
3.3.4.1 Routine monitoring
The ICPR is supervising an international monitoring programme. Figure
3.3.4. shows the design of the programme’s network.
The network consists of 9 stations. National institutes are responsible for
sampling and analysis. Measurement frequencies depend upon the
parameters:
• continuously for basic parameters such as flow, temperature, oxygen
concentration and oxygen saturation, pH and conductivity.
• bi-monthly or monthly for most other parameters.
A distinction is made for the water phase and suspended solids.
Determinands for the water phase include a number of anions, among
which are nutrients, sumparameters (BOD, COD and AOX), metals of the
black list, polar pesticides and a number of chlorinated hydrocarbons. Total
concentrations are measured and reported. In suspended solids, heavy
metals, total phosphorous, TOC, classical haloginated pesticides (DDT etc.),
7 PCBs and 6 PAHs are measured, either bimonthly of monthly.
Microbiological parameters are not included in the international
programme. These are monitored in national programmes. Ecotoxicological
tests are not performed routinely. Biological monitoring is carried out by
special surveys every 5 years. In 1995 and 2000 such surveys were
conducted for fish, plankton and macrozoobenthos. Further biological
monitoring will be performed according to the timetable of the new
European Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC).
The results reported to date are as tables in annual reports. Quality
assurance and quality control are the responsibility of the national
institutes. Interlaboratory quality control is performed on a regular basis.
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
38
................................
Figure 3.3.4
Network for the International Water
Quality Monitoring Programme of the
ICPR (Source: ICPR)
MAASSLUIS
KAMPEN
BIMMEN/LOBITH
KOBLENZ/MOSEL
KOBLENZ/RHEIN
LAUTERBOURG
WEIL AM RHEIN
RECKINGEN
Effluent monitoring is regulated through permits and is obligatory to the
discharger. National authorities are entitled to make unannounced controls.
3.3.4.2 Early-warning System
The ICPR also supervises an Early-warning System (EWS). It consists of an
infrastructure of authorities in the basin and warning protocols. These
protocols have been widely announced in the basin among local
authorities, industries, shipping agencies and the river police. A special
model has been developed to allow prediction of the estimated reach of an
accidental spill. With the help of this model the concentration of a wave of
a pollutant as well as the time when the highest concentration can be
expected at a certain position along the entire river can be calculated.
Some automated stations have special continuous toxicity tests with fish,
algae and daphnia for emergency control.
3.3.4.3 Warnings in last 5 years
The annual reports of the ICPR present the frequency of warnings of
accidents with transboundary impact. These vary from 19 in 1995, 29 in
1996, 21 in 1997 and 13 in 1998. About 50% of all warnings concern oil
problems. The system distinguishes between "information warnings" and
"accident warnings" since 1997. In 1997, 2 accident warnings were given,
in 1998 only 1.
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
39
3.3.5 Assessment methodologies
The ICPR has developed its own assessment methodology. The ICPR does
not work with classification systems or indexes. For a number of individual
compounds and groups of compounds in water and in suspended solids
(priority parameters, in total 47 (see annex 3.3.1)), quality objectives have
been agreed by the parties to the Convention. These are numerical values
as concentrations in water or suspended solids. These values are so-called
"Zielvorgaben", or indicative quality objectives. Target values for the
assessment of hazardous substances are oriented towards protection of the
following aspects: aquatic organisms (NOEC-values), drinking water
production, the quality of suspended matter and sediments and fisheries.
The methodology is used to identify and agree on substances that require
priority action, and to assess effectiveness of the measures taken. A further
refinement of the method is made by defining 3 subclasses:
(1) parameters that, with their 90 percentile monitored value, lie clearly
under the target objective, i.e. less than 0.5 the indicative quality
objective (no action necessary);
(2) parameters that, with their 90 percentile monitored value, are close to
the indicative quality objective, i.e. less than twice as much or more
than 0.5 the indicative quality objective (actions planned but not
urgent); and
(3) parameters that, with their 90 percentile monitoring value, are higher
than twice the indicative quality objective (urgent action required).
This system has no legal connection with e.g. EC directives. For many
parameters no target values have been defined in the EC, in particular for
suspended solids. The most comparable list in the EC, Directive
75/440/EEC, (quality required of surface water intended for the abstraction
of drinking water) will be repealed 7 years after the EC Water Framework
Directive has come into force. The system is also different from national
systems, such as in the most downstream country, the Netherlands, where
a longer and stricter list is used.
At present, there is no biological assessment method applied.
3.3.6 Environmental Status
3.3.6.1 Hydromorphology
The course of the river Rhine has drastically changed in the 19th and 20th
centuries. Nowadays only 15 % of the Rhine’s original flood plains remain
and only 8 % of its typical floodplain forests. Over 450 dams and weirs
have been constructed in the main river and the tributaries. Routes for
migratory fish have been blocked and spawning places destroyed.
Canalisation has increased flows. Increase of urbanisation and
infrastructure has caused increase of run off. These factors together have
increased the risk of flooding in the middle and lower Rhine and at the
same time affected the ecological function of the river.
It is now accepted and agreed, that flood plains and forest have to be
restored to serve two purposes: decrease of risks for flooding and
restoration of their ecological function. In 1998, an Action Plan on Flood
Defence was agreed and its aims area included in the new Convention on
the Protection of the Rhine in 1999. In the period 1998-2020, a total
investment of 12.3 billion Euro is envisaged to implement these objectives.
3.3.6.2 Water quality
The chemical water quality has considerably improved since 1970.
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
40
Ecological restoration of the river is no longer limited by chemical quality. A
limited number of parameters still exceed the maximum values of different
systems for water-quality standards. Table 3.3.1 shows these parameters
for 3 systems: the ICPR indicative quality objectives, the guidance values
according to Directive 75/440/EEC and the no effect levels in the Dutch
system. Nutrients are still a problem: phosphate is too high in the river and
nitrogen is a problem in relation to risks for eutrophication of the North
Sea. Metals in suspended solids are generally a problem. Chlorinated
hydrocarbons, e.g. PCB, HCB and gamma HCH remain a problem in
suspended solids. Polar pesticides, e.g. atrazine, occasionally are a problem,
but generally levels are under the indicative quality objectives.
................................
Table 3.3.1
Assessment of a selection of water
quality parameters in the Rhine river a
Lobith/Bimmen (Dutch-German border)
Oxygen mg/l
Chloride mg/l
N-NH4 mgN/l
Ntot mgN/l
P-total mgP/l
Zn-t mg/kg
Cd-t mg/kg
Hg-t mg/kg
g-HCH µg/l
Atrazine µg/l
HCB µg/kg
PCB-28 µg/kg
C*
ICPR
75/440/EEC1)
the Netherlands 2)
Germany3)
8.3 (min)
151
0.23
5.1
0.19
701
2.7
1.3
0.005
0.12
16
13
n.a.
n.a.
0.2
n.a.
0.15
200
1.0
0.5
0.002
0.1
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
200
0.04
n.a.
0.17
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
>5
200
0.02
2.2
0.15
210
1.2
0.45
0.009
0.029
0.05
1
n.a.
n.a.
0.3
3.0
0.15
400
1.2
0.8
0.3
0.1
n.a.
n.a.
* = total concentration, 90 percentile values in 1998 at the Dutch/German border with the
exception of Oxygen (= minimum value) and P total (mean value)
n.a. = not applicable
1) directive concerning the quality required of surface water for the abstraction of drinking
water
2) no effect levels or long term policy objectives
3) class II, supporting aquatic life
Table 3.3.1 shows that quality objectives differ between the various
regulatory approaches. The general conclusion however is, that
assessments based on different systems do not give substantially different
results. The 3 systems differ mainly in number and type of parameters
included. The Dutch system is, in general, more stringent than the ICPR
system [13]. The Directive 75/440/EEC will be repealed and replaced by
the classification method, described in annex V to the EC Water
Framework Directive. Application of this Directive will lead to river basin
specific ecological status classification systems. This approach
acknowledges the fact that rivers are not directly comparable and cannot
be assessed by one uniform list of target objectives of individual chemical
parameters as was the case in the past. Adaptation of the EC Water
Framework Directive has started through a special Task Force.
Morphological, chemical and biological criteria will be integrated into one
system for classification.
3.3.6.3 Ecology
In 1995, a special inventory was made to investigate the reappearance of
fish species. In the 60s, an all time low was registered of 28 species, of
which only 4 were in abundance. In 1995, 36 different species were
identified. The most frequent occurring species were: bream, roach, bleak,
river perch, eel, ruffle, chub and white bream. Species that were very rare
20 years ago, were now found in abundance (chub, dace, barbel, die and
gudgeon). Only sturgeon have not reappeared [10].
A special programme for reintroduction of the salmon is very successful
[11]. Larvae have been released in several tributaries and the main stream
since 1988. In 1990, the first adult returning salmon were caught in the
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
41
Sieg, a tributary in the middle Rhine. Some hundreds have been caught
since in the whole basin, but it is not yet a steady population. Spawning
has also been observed. Much remains to be done to construct thousands
of good fish ladders in the entire basin, some of them very long,. A major
step was made with the construction of a fish ladder at Iffezheim for 7.5
million Euro. Fish migration has now been observed here.
Figure 3.3.2 in par. 3.3.2.2 already illustrated the massive return of
macrozoobenthos. It is now reaching levels similar to those recorded at the
beginning of the 20th century. In the 1995 survey for macrozoobenthos,
160 different species were identified, but they are differing considerably in
comparison to the species found in 1990. Due to the monotonous structure
of the river bed and river banks, many ubiquitous species live today in the
Rhine. In 1995, a survey of plankton was also conducted. Most frequent
occurring are diatoms, blue algae, green algae and cryptophycees. A new
and increasing problem is the introduction of exotic species, e.g. through
the Rhine-Danube canal.
Along the Rhine and many of its tributaries and lateral water bodies,
numerous restorative measures are being implemented: extension of flood
plains, reconnection of oxbow lakes. These are giving back more room to
the rivers and restoring their ecological continuity. All of them are part of
the ecological improvement of the Rhine system and enhance water
retention in the catchment, which is urgently needed for flood prevention.
In 2000/2001 the hydro-morphological structure of the Rhine will be
surveyed and assessed from Lake Constance to the North Sea. An
evaluation will follow the survey [12].
In order to increase public awareness of flood danger and ecological
functioning of flood plains, a Rhine Atlas was published in 1998 covering
the catchment from Lake Constance to the outlet into the North Sea.
Further to the atlas, maps of biotope types and a map of the habitat
connectivity are under construction in order to indicate the areas of
ecological importance in concrete terms in the overall Rhine Atlas. The map
of habitat connectivity from Lake Constance to the North Sea will show
which measures and developments are required with a view to creating the
habitat connectivity. Measures under the Action Plan of Floods are to be
closely linked to ecological enhancement. Ecological benefits are observed
from all measures aimed at improving water retention along the Rhine and
in its catchment. This is particularly the case of the reactivation of
floodplains, the promotion of extensive farming and the sub-natural
development of streams. For further awareness of flood danger, survey
maps on a scale 1:100.000 representing the danger of flooding and the
damage risks are under production.
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
42
................................
Annex 3.3.1
ICPR Target Values
Substance
Target value *
Unit
Medium **
Critical factor
0.5
1.0
100.0
50.0
50.0
200.0
100.0
40.0
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
Suspended matter
suspended matter
suspended matter
suspended matter
suspended matter
suspended matter
suspended matter
suspended matter
level
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
2 x background
0.1
0.1
0.001
0.1
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.1
0.0007
0.006
µg/l
µg/l
µg/l
µg/l
µg/l
µg/l
µg/l
µg/l
µg/l
µg/l
water
water
water
water
water (1)
water (1)
water (1)
water
water
water
D
D
AQC
D
F
F
F
D
AQC
AQC
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Endrin
Isodrin
Endosulfan
Fenthion
Fenithrothion
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.007
0.001
µg/l
µg/l
µg/l
µg/l
µg/l
µg/l
µg/l
water (1)
water (1)
water (1)
water (1)
water
water
water
F
AQC + F
AQC + F
AQC + F
AQC
AQC
AQC
a-HCH
b-HCH
d-HCH
g-HCH
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.002
µg/l
µg/l
µg/l
µg/l
water
water
water
water
F
F
F
AQC
Isoproturon
0.1
µg/l
water
D
Malathion
mecoprop-P
0.02
0.1
µg/l
µg/l
water
water
AQC
D
parathion-ethyl
parathion-methyl
Pentachlorophenol
Simazine
Trifluralin
0.0002
0.01
0.1
0.06
0.002
µg/l
µg/l
µg/l
µg/l
µg/l
water
water
water
water
water
AQC
AQC
D
AQC
AQC
dibutyl-tin compounds
tributyl-tin compounds
triphenyl-tin compounds
tetrabutyl-tin compounds
0.8
0.001
0.005
0.001
µg/l
µg/l
µg/l
µg/l
water
water
water
water
AQC
AQC
AQC
(3)
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.6
1.0
2.0
µg/l
µg/l
µg/l
µg/l
µg/l
µg/l
µg/l
water
water
water
water
water
water
water
D
D
D
D
AQC
D + AQC
AQC
2-chloroaniline
3-chloroaniline
4-chloroaniline
3,4-chloroaniline
0.1
0.1
0.05
0.1
µg/l
µg/l
µg/l
µg/l
water
water
water
water
D
D
AQC
D
1-chloro-2-nitrobenzene
1-chloro-3-nitrobenzene
1-chloro-4-nitrobenzene
1.0
1.0
1.0
µg/l
µg/l
µg/l
water
water
water
D
D
D
1,4-dichlorobenzene
0.02
µg/l
water
F
Trichlorobenzenes
0.1 each
µg/l
water
D
Heavy metals and arsenic
mercury
cadmium
chromium
copper
nickel
zinc
lead
arsenic
Pesticides
atrazin
azinphos-ethyl
azinphos-methyl
bentazone
DDT
DDE
DDD
2,4-dichlorophenoxyacid
dichlorvos
diuron
drins
Volatile hydrocarbons
1,2-dichloroethane
1,1,1-trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
tetrachloroethene
trichloromethane
tetrachloromethane
benzene
Non-volatile hydrocarbons
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
43
2-chlorotoluen
4-chlorotoluen
1.0
1.0
µg/l
µg/l
water
water
D
D
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
0.001
0.5
µg/l
µg/l
water (1)
water
F
AQC
PAH (S of benzo(b)
fluoranthene,
benzo(k)fluoranthene,
benzo(ghi)perylen,
indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene)
Benzo(a)pyrene
0.1
0.01
µg/l
µg/l
water (1)
water(1)
D
D
28, 52, 101, 118, 138,
153, 180
0.0001 each
µg/l
water (1)
AQC
Dioxins
(4)
50
µg/l
water
D (2)
0.15 ***
0.2
mg/l
mg/l
water
water
AQC
AQC
PCBs
Other parameters
AOX
phosphate
(total phosphorus as P)
ammonium (as N)
Legend:
* =
** =
*** =
D =
AQC =
F =
S =
(1) =
(2) =
(3) =
(4) =
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
90 percentile values, except for phosphate.
The values related to water as a medium apply to total content, including the fraction
bound to suspended mater.
Annual mean value.
Critical factor: drinking water, according to Directives 75/778/EEC and 80/778/EEC.
Critical factor: aquatic communities.
Critical factor: fish consumption by humans.
Critical factor: sediments.
The substance accumulates in suspended matter, which means that its concentration in
water is very low. Therefore, its concentration in suspended matter should be
measured.
According to IAWR Memorandum 1986.
Insufficient data are available for the derivation of a target value. Because in nature
tetrabutyl-tin is converted into tributyl-tin, the target value established for the latter is
also used for the former.
So far, no target value has been established.
44
3.4 River Elbe
3.4.1 General Description
The Elbe has a total length of 1,091 km and basin area of 148,268 km 2.
Though Austria, Poland, Czech Republic and Germany share the basin,
more than 99 % of the area belongs to the Czech Republic and Germany
with 50,176 and 96,932 km2 respectively. The Elbe catchment area is
included within ten federal states of Germany. The source of the Elbe lies
at an altitude of 1384 m in the Krkonose/Riesengebirge in the Czech
Republic. The Elbe drains the Bohemian chalk basin, passes the German
mountain region and drains the North-German lowland, reaching the
North Sea in Cuxhaven. Most of the area belongs to the midland areas of
Middle Europe and lowlands. A population of 24.6 million lives in the
drainage area of the Elbe, 18.6 in Germany and approximately 6.0 million
in the Czech Republic. The main centres are Berlin (3.43 million), Hamburg
(1.70 million), Prague (1.21 million), Leipzig (450,000), Dresden
(460,000), Halle (274,000), Chemnitz (264,000) and Magdeburg
(249,000).
The mean annual discharge of the Elbe at its mouth is about 877 m 3/s. The
runoff can be characterised as a rain-snow-regime with monthly runoff
values of more than 150 % of the mean during March and April and
around 60 % in September. More than 80 % of the floods occur during
the winter and spring season.
3.4.2 Institutional Structures and Policies
3.4.2.1 Institutional Structures
The establishment of the International Commission for the Protection of the
Elbe (ICPE) was agreed between the European Community, Germany and
the former Czech and Slovak Federal Republic (the legal successor is the
Czech Republic) on 8 October 1990 in Magdeburg. The ICPE has 5 working
groups. These are for: (1) Development of the "Action Programme", (2) the
"Monitoring Programme", (3) the "Ecology Programme", (4) the
"Accidental Water Pollution system", (5) the "Hydrology Programma". The
secretariat is based in Magdeburg [15], [16].
3.4.2.2 Policies
The International Commission of the Protection of the Elbe was established
to strengthen water resources management at river basin level. The
Commission develops the main policy principles.
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
45
The main goals of the ICPE are:
• to facilitate water usage, primarily to provide drinking water from
riverbank infiltration and water and sediments for agricultural usage,
• to restore the ecosystem to a healthy abundance of species and
• to incrementally decrease pollution of the North Sea from the Elbe basin
area.
To achieve these goals it is particularly necessary to:
• improve the status of the Elbe and its tributaries from the physical,
chemical and biological point of view with respect to water, suspended
matter, sediments and organisms and
• to enhance the ecological value of the Elbe river valley.
3.4.3 Environmental Issues
The water of the Elbe and its tributaries is used for drinking-water supply
(via riverbank infiltration); industrial water supply and cooling water and
irrigation. More than 55 % of the total area is used for agricultural
purposes. The main industries in the catchment area are chemical and
pharmaceutical industry; paper and pulp industry; metal industry; mining;
glass and ceramics and leather and textile industry.
The Elbe as well as the Havel, Moldau and Saale are important waterways.
Apart from the dam in Geesthacht (Germany) which marks the border of
the area influenced by tides, the Elbe river is only trained in Germany. Due
to the changes of water levels in the Czech Republic the Elbe River as well
as the tributaries have been altered by dams (including locks), dikes,
transverse dikes, shortcuts etc. to allow navigation. Significant areas of the
catchment are classified as protected areas or nature reserves. Some 86 %
of the Elbe valley in Germany and 22 % in the Czech Republic are
protected. Recently the Elbe Biosphere Reserve with an area of more than
370,000 ha has been adopted by UNESCO.
Some 273 reservoirs with a capacity of more than four thousand million m 3
are situated in the catchment area of the Elbe river . They are used for
water supply, flood protection and to guarantee minimum flow.
Due to the dense population, the industrial activities and the intensive
agricultural land use, the Elbe and its main tributaries are polluted with:
• Heavy metals,
• Nutrients
• Specific organic substances (e.g. hexachlorbenzene, tributyltin, AOX)
3.4.4 Monitoring Programmes
3.4.4.1 Routine Monitoring
Based on the inventory and the first action plan, a water-quality monitoring
network has been established by ICPE, which comprises:
• 17 water-quality monitoring stations (5 in the Czech Republic which
have been partly sponsored through the PHARE programme
"Monitoring Systems for Water Quality in the Elbe Catchment Area",
12 in Germany) The monitoring stations are equipped with sensors for
on-line measurement of physical and chemical parameters, biological
test systems, sampling facilities for laboratory analysis, PC systems for
data storage and processing as well as telecommunication lines to
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
46
................................
Figure 3.4.1
The monitoring network in the Elbe
basin in 2000 (Source: ICPE)
9°
10°
l
a
O
e
s
st
-K
e
a
Kiel
n
15°
der Elbe
Ostsee
#Y
54°
r
ö
700
an al
Einzugsgebiet Elbe
K
ck be
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern
Staatsgrenze
#
Bundesländergrenze
Schwerin
E l b e-L
ü
Fließgewässer > 1700 km²
E l de
ud e
Kanal
u
A
#
#
Y
ve
Ha
El
Städte > 1 000 000 Einwohner
Y
#
500
n
la
l
d
53°
See
e
etzel
Je
Bremen
Od
E
lb
be- S e i t e
Il me n a
anal
nk
S
600
ra
O st e
Hamburg
Y
#
hi n
R
e
K a nal
l-
H
nd
#
be
El
Magdeburg
Y
#
Bo
300
d
e
Westfalen
Brandenburg
he
an
al
El be
#
D e u t s c h l a n d
52°
Y
#
le
Sc
S aa
a
w
h
e
Od r a
Leipzig
#
#Gera
e
k
iß
e
a
u
#Dresden
Fr
e
e
Chemnitz
#
i
# Zwickau
P o l e n
51°
El b e
#
Y
Y
#
0
l d
e
0
Ústí nad Labem
#
L
era
l
a
Sa
Jena
Mu
ger
#
100
er
ib
a
#
Thüringen
ra
c
d
Hessen
W
Erfurt
We r
w
l
51°
Z
F
u
e
E
t
u
r Mu
ld e
t
tr ut
Z sc ho p au
s
ns
Y
#
Sachsen
ls
t er
n
U
r
E ls
ter
e
#
rz
ld
Mu
Halle
U
# Cottbus
Spr e e
200
Dessau
Sachsen-Anhalt
Od r a
Nu
t
Nordrhein -
e
a
v
ll a
k
Kilometrierung
ta
#Potsdam
avel
H
r
Mi tt
nal
dk a
l an
e
el
ar
D ahme
er
es
O
h
i tt
M
W
ta
Niedersachsen
Berlin
53°
Städte > 90 000 Einwohner
Wa r
Y
#
400
ll e
r
El b e
W
l
H av e
A
52°
17°
16°
Einzugsgebiet
S
54°
14°
Legende
t
see
13°
Schleswig-Holstein
No
rd
-
Nord-
12°
11°
#
a
Jiz
Y
#
100
Ohøe
b
300
Y
#
e
Hradec Králové
#
Labe
Praha
Eger
a
nk
Orl
ice
Pardubice
#
Y
#
200
50°
u
ero
B
50°
Mže
Sáz
Plzeò
av
#
Bayern
a
T s c h e c h i s c h e
Radbu
R e p u b l i k
a
Vltav
za
O
ta
v
a
Lužnic
J
ih
la
v
a
e
Baden-Württemberg
49°
Èeské Budìjovice
#
D
y
49°
0
30
60
90
Ö s t e r r e i c h
va
u
a
n
lta
V
o
D
Maßstab
30
je
km
Dona u
9°
Grundkarte der
Datenquellen:
10°
11°
12°
13°
14°
15°
16°
Internationalen Kommission zum Schutz der Elbe (IKSE)
Bundesanstalt für Gewässerkunde (BfG), Koblenz
Tschechisches Hydrometeorologisches Institut (ÈHMÚ), Prag
Internationale Kommission zum Schutz der Elbe (IKSE), Magdeburg
regional centres. Fig. 3.4.1 shows the river basin and the location of the
monitoring stations.
• 9 laboratories (2 in the Czech Republic which partly have been
equipped during the PHARE programme "Monitoring Systems for
Water Quality in the Elbe Catchment Area", 7 in Germany)
• an information network (INES) to gather, transmit and process water
quality data.
The determinands are measured, using comparable equipment and
procedures in both countries, continuously and on-line at the measuring
stations for some physical and chemical determinands. According to
international standards (ISO, CEN), monthly samples and weekly samples
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
47
of mixed probes are taken for laboratory analysis. The monitoring
programme of the ICPE (as at 2000) contains:
• for water: 94 physical, chemical, biological and hygienic determinands
• for suspended solids: 48 physical and chemical determinands
In addition there exist extensive Czech and German national monitoring
programmes. They include more parameters than the ICPE monitoring
programme and monitoring of sediments, suspended solids and biota.
The results of the entire monitoring programme are published and
distributed on a regular basis in reports on the water quality every two
years (1st report for the year 1989 – published in 1991; the last report for
1999 – published in 2000) and in the annual yearbook of water quality
data.
3.4.4.2 Surveys and special studies
Special surveys in the entire catchment area have been carried out
especially for:
•
•
•
•
•
•
The protection of ecological systems in the river valleys,
flood protection and flood control,
emissions from municipal and industrial waste-water discharges,
analysis of the river sediments,
distribution and sources of heavy metals,
inventory of the potential risk of installations.
3.4.4.3 Early-warning System
Based on a detailed inventory of the potential risk of installations in the
catchment area an early-warning system has been established to:
•
•
•
•
•
Protect against the risk,
Assess the reasons for the risk,
identify the polluter,
take measures to settle the causes and damages, and
avoid follow-up damages.
The international transboundary early-warning system takes care for
pollution of the water bodies caused by oils and oil products, chemicals,
and nuclear materials and other events or accidents which affect the water
bodies and which may affect the aquatic system. The system consists of a
total of 5 international warning centres (1 in Czech Republic and 4 in
Germany) [17]. The appropriate rules for information and communication
lines have been established.
Within the Elbe basin, two kinds of warnings are used:
I information, no action necessary
II warning, preventive actions necessary
From 1996 – 1999, warnings were released for 83 accidents: 41 for
information only, 42 with warning. None of these accidents had severe
consequences.
3.4.5 Assessment Methodologies
The assessment of the water quality is based on the measurement and
interpretation of:
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
48
•
•
•
•
•
Physical determinands,
chemical determinands,
biological determinands,
microbiological determinands and the
classification of the watercourses which is done by using chemical and
biological determinands in the Czech Republic and biological data
(saprobic system) in Germany.
Common emission limits for waste-water discharges of 9 industrial sectors
and municipal waste-water discharges have been elaborated by ICPE.
There is no common water quality classification for rivers in the Czech
Republic and Germany.
In the Czech Republic the rivers are classified according to 5 classes based
on saprobic index, heavy metals, BOD, COD, N, P and AOX (see for
details pars. 3.2.5, 3.8.5.and Annex 3.2.2).
In Germany, the organic, biodegradable pollutant load in flowing waters is
classified according to seven quality classes. This evaluation of the quality
of waters is based on assessment of particular characteristic organisms or
combinations of organisms (saprobity index) (see for details pars. 3.2.5,
3.8.5 and Annex 3.2.2).
As a basis for a common control the ICPE has introduced target values for
27 priority determinands (see table 3.4.1 for water quality which should be
achieved
• with regard to the use of the waters as raw water for drinking water,
fishery and irrigation,
• with regard to aquatic biocenosis protection and
• for use of sediments in agriculture.
3.4.6 Environmental Status
3.4.6.1 Recent developments
From 1990 - 2000 a significant improvement in the water quality of the
river has been achieved [19]. The main reasons are:
• Construction and rehabilitation of 239 municipal waste-water
treatment plants (MWWTP) (61 in the Czech Republic, 177 in
Germany, 1 in Austria) with a capacity of more than 20,000 IEV (EWG).
• Improvement of the treatment of industrial waste water.
• Decrease in industrial activities.
• Monitoring and regular control of the water quality.
• Significant decrease of cattle, pork and sheep rearing.
• Decrease of the population from 25.4 Millions(1989) to 24.6 Millions
(1997).
................................
Table 3.4.2
Percentage of population connected to
waste water treatment plants
Table 3.4.2 shows the increase in the population connected to waste-water
treatment plants.
Czech Republic
Germany
Total catchment area of the Elbe River
1990
1999
51.6 %
67.8 %
63.9 %
63.8 %
80.5 %
76.4 %
Moreover, better treatment procedures, attained by introducing biological
treatment and nitrate and phosphate elimination, have led to a significant
improvement in the water quality. Table 3.4.3 shows the reduction of
pollution between 1989 and 1999 for some parameters.
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
49
................................
Table 3.4.1
Target values of the ICPE for 27 priority
determinands
Parameter
Target values of the ICPE
for the use of the waters as
raw waters for drinking water,
fishery and irrigation
unit
COD
TOC
Total N
Total P
Hg
Cd
Cu
Zn
Pb
As
Cr
Ni
Trichlormethane
Tetrachlormethane
1.2-Dichlorethane
1.1.2-Trichlorethene
1.1.2.2-Tetrachlorethene
Hexachlorbutadiene
g-HCH
1.2.3-Trichlorbenzene
1.2.4-Trichlorbenzene
1.3.5-Trichlorbenzene
HCB
AOX
Parathionmethyl
Dimethoate
Tributyltin
EDTA
NTA
mg
/l
/l
mg
/l
mg
/l
µg
/l
µg
/l
µg
/l
µg
/l
µg
/l
µg
/l
µg
/l
µg
/l
µg
/l
µg
/l
µg
/l
µg
/l
µg
/l
µg
/l
µg
/l
µg
/l
µg
/l
µg
/l
µg
/l
µg
/l
µg
/l
µg
/l
µg
/l
µg
/l
µg
/l
mg
................................
Table 3.4.3
Total emission of selected determinands
into the Elbe River system
for water body
24
9
5
0.2
0.1
1.0
30
500
50
50
50
50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.1
1.0
1.0
0.1
0.001
25
0.1
0.1
10
10
Target values of the ICPE for the protection of
aquatic biocenosis
Unit
for water body
mg
/l
/l
mg
/l
mg
/l
µg
/l
µg
/l
µg
/l
µg
/l
µg
/l
µg
/l
µg
/l
µg
/l
µg
/l
µg
/l
µg
/l
µg
/l
µg
/l
µg
/l
µg
/l
µg
/l
µg
/l
µg
/l
µg
/l
µg
/l
µg
/l
µg
/l
µg
/l
µg
/l
µg
/l
24
9
5
0.2
0.04
0.07
4
14
3.5
1.0
10
4.5
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.003
8
4
20
0.001
25
0.01
0.01
10
10
mg
COD
AOX
Hg
unit
mg
/kg
/kg
mg
/kg
mg
/kg
mg
/kg
mg
/kg
mg
/kg
mg
/kg
mg
For suspended
matters
0.8
1.2
80
400
100
40
320
120
Target values of the
ICPE for the use of
sediments in
agriculture
unit
for suspended
matters
mg
/kg
/kg
mg
/kg
mg
/kg
mg
/kg
mg
/kg
mg
/kg
mg
/kg
0.8
1.5
80
200
100
30
150
60
mg
µg
/kg
10
µg
mg
mg
/kg
25
/kg
/kg
µg
40
50
/kg
25
1990
1999
845,800 t/y
2,540 t/y
19.36 t/y
37,000 t/y
230 t/y
0.19 t/y
3.4.6.2 Hydromorphology
The Elbe has been irreversibly damaged locally, particularly in its upper and
lower courses, by river engineering works (weirs, bottom sills and bank
revetments). However, especially in its middle course, the Elbe can be
considered to be relatively close to its natural condition as far as its bed,
bank structuring and floodplains are concerned. Ecologically, these
compartments with their still water zones have the greatest importance as
breeding grounds and refuges for aquatic, amphibious and terrestrial
animals.
................................
Table 3.4.4
Assessment of a selection of water
quality determinand in the Elbe river
Oxygen mg/l
COD mg/l
Ntot mgN/l
P-tot mgP/l
Zn µg/l
Cd µg/l
Hgµg/l
g-HCH µg/l
HCB µg/l
C*
ICPE
75/440/EEC1)
Germany2)
8.6
22
6.1
0.25
51
0.18
0.12
< 0.0025
0.0049
n.a.
24
5
0.2
500
1.0
0.1
0.1
0.001
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
0.17
500
1.0
0.5
n.a.
n.a.
>6
n.a.
n.a.
0.15
14
0.072
0.04
n.a.
n.a.
*=
total concentration, 90 percentile value in 1999 at Seemanshöft with the exception of
Oxygen and PCB-28 (= average value)
n.a. = not applicable
1) = directive concerning the quality required of surface water for the abstraction of drinking
water
2) = Class I for metals, Class II for other parameters
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
50
3.4.6.3 Water Quality
Compared with the Rhine, the Elbe is more seriously polluted with heavy
metals, especially mercury, and certain organic microcontaminants,
phosphate and dissolved nitrogen compounds through diffuse sources.
Since 1989 pollution with some of these substances has shown a marked
reduction of between 50 and 90 %, mainly thanks to factory closures and
the dramatic drop in industrial production [20]. This is reflected in the
increase in oxygen levels -since 1991 the minima have no longer fallen
below the critical value for fish of 4 mg/l. There is a corresponding increase
in the number of species. Nevertheless, the Elbe is still critically polluted.
Figures 3.4.2 to 3.4.5 show the development for oxygen concentrations,
chemical oxygen demand and mercury for the period 1990-1999 in the
main river and mercury contamination of suspended matter in 1999. A
general improvement can be observed.
Due to the special situation in the Elbe basin, 27 determinands have been
marked as priority parameters for the monitoring programme. The annex
3.4.5 contains the comparison of target values of the ICPE with the waterquality data measured at the monitoring stations Schmilka/Hrensko (at the
Czech-German border), Schnakenburg (at the former German-German
border) and Seemannshöft (downstream from Hamburg) in the period
1997 – 1999. The results show that COD, TOC N and P pass the limits
(goal of ICPE), heavy metals are not above critical concentrations and that
microcontaminants are more critical in the upper than in the lower reach of
Elbe. Table 3.4.4 shows a comparison of the C90 concentrations at the
most downstream fresh water station in 1999 with a number of alternative
classification systems.
3.4.6.4 Ecology
By the end of the 1980s about 50 % of the macrofauna species had
disappeared from the Elbe in comparison with previous inventories. Besides
insects, this particularly affected large mussels. After 1989, a process of
recovery has begun [21]. The species spectrum however, has shifted more
and more towards a highly uniform community of euryoecious species. In
the Elbe, 17 species of Neozoa are found. Fish stocks have undergone
similar developments. In comparison with the situation at the turn of the
century, declines are mainly observed for migratory fish species (e.g.
salmon, sturgeon, mayfish, sea trout) and hagfishes (lamprey). On the
whole, the number of species has hardly changed despite the antropogenic
interventions, mainly as a result of the favourable situation in the middle
reaches of the river. The species spectrum has shifted from rheophilous
migratory fish to euryoecious nonmigratory species [18].
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
51
................................
Figure 3.4.2
Development of oxygen concentrations
in the period 1990-1999 at 3 stations
(source: ICPE)
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
52
................................
Figure 3.4.3
CSB [mg/l]
Development of COD in the period
1990-1999 at 3 stations (source ICPE)
1990
50
1991
45
1992
40
1993
35
1994
30
1995
25
1996
20
1997
15
1998
10
1999
5
0
Schmilka / Hrensko
................................
Figure 3.4.4
Mercury concentration at
Schnackenburg for the period 19901999 (source ICPE)
................................
Figure 3.4.5
Mercury concentrations in suspended
solids in 1999 at the stations of the
ICPE monitoring network (source ICPE)
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
53
Schnackenburg
Seemannshöft
................................
Annex 3.4.1.
Priority parameters of water quality
(90 percentile value) measured at 3
monitoring stations (1997 – 1999)
compared with the target values of the
ICPE for the use of raw water for
drinking water supply, fishery and
irrigation.
Parameter
Unit
value of
the ICPE
Target
Schmilka/Hrensko1)
Schnackenburg1)
Seemannshöft1)
1997
1998
1999
1997
1998
1999
1997
1998
1999
315
275
284
592
592
605
655
699
674
MQ
m3/s
COD
TOC
Total N
Total P
mg
/l
/l
mg
/l
mg
/l
24
9
5
0.2
24
8.5
7.2
0.33
29
9.0
6.7
0.43
26
9.8
7.3
0.31
41
11
7
0.34
38
9.8
6.2
0.36
50
13
6.1
0.30
26
11
6.4
0.32
23
8.8
5.9
0.23
22
9.6
6.1
0.25
Hg
Cd
Cu
Zn
Pb
As
Cr
Ni
µg
/l
/l
µg
/l
µg
/l
µg
/l
µg
/l
µg
/l
µg
/l
0.1
1.0
30
500
50
50
50
50
0.16
<0.1
8.6
40
4.5
5
4.6
5.5
0.07
<0.20
6.5
33
4.5
5.0
3.2
3.7
0.07
<0.20
14
45
2.4
3.7
2.2
4
0.09
0.45
8.1
59
7
4.1
3.3
5.2
0.08
0.3
9.5
51
5.8
3.9
2.2
3.9
0.13
0.45
7.6
49
5
3.2
1.8
4.2
0.21
0.75
6.9
48
6.7
5.2
4.5
7.9
0.14
0.23
7.5
56
5.2
4.0
2.8
6.1
0.12
0.18
6.8
51
6.4
5.1
4.7
26
Trichlormethane
Tetrachlormethane
1.2-Dichlorethane
1.1.2-Trichlorethene
1.1.2.2-Tetrachlorethene
Hexachlorbutadiene
Gamma-Hexachlor
cyklohexane
1.2.3-Trichlorbenzene
1.2.4-Trichlorbenzene
1.3.5-Trichlorbenzene
Hexachlorbenzene
µg
/l
/l
µg
/l
µg
/l
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.1
0.05
2.3
0.2
1.4
0.08
<2.0
0.14
1.4
<0.04
<2.0
0.11
0.1
0.01
<0.08
0.04
0.06
0.02
<0.08
0.02
0.07
0.009
<0.08
0.02
0.19
0.018
0.2
0.049
0.06
0.008
0.053
0.014
0.13
0.0067
0.041
0.021
µg
1.0
1.0
2.1
<0.02
0.6
<0.04
0.39
<0.04
0.04
0.0003
0.02
0.00006
0.03
0.0001
0.058
<0.01
0.021
0.002
0.065
<0.005
/l
/l
µg
/l
µg
/l
µg
/l
0.1
1.0
1.0
0.1
0.001
0.005
<0.04
<0.07
<0.03
0.038
0.005
<0.04
<0.07
<0.06
0.023
0.005
**
**
**
0.036
0.004
<0.0003
<0.0006
<0.0005
0.005
0.002
<0.0003
<0.0006
<0.0005
0.003
0.002
**
**
**
0.002
<0.005
0.005
0.006
0.004
0.006
0.0042
<0.001
0.004
<0.001
0.006
AOX
Parathionmethyl
Dimethoate
Tributyltin
EDTA
NTA
µg
25
0.1
0.1
10
10
72
<0.025
<0.025
115
<0.05
<0.05
66
<0.05
<0.05
36
0.0008
0.03
35
<0.0005
0.002
29
26
28
25
<0.0005 <0.025 <0.025 <0.025
<0.001 0.034 <0.020 <0.02
23
1.9
21
3.4
20
2.7
11
1.8
3.6
1.3
11
2.9
mg
µg
µg
µg
/l
/l
µg
µg
/l
/l
µg
/l
µg
/l
µg
/l
µg
/l
µg
** measured only in suspended matters
1) Locations: see fig. 3.4.1
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
54
12
2.9
7.6
2.1
<0.0025
**
**
**
0.0049
7.1
1.9
3.5 River Tisza
3.5.1 General Description
The sub-catchment of the Tisza is the largest of all the Danube tributaries.
The river drains an area of 157,220 km2 with a total population of 14.4
million. The length of the river is 1,365 km. The mean discharge at the
confluence with the Danube is 750 m3/sec. Minimum and maximum
annual discharges during the period 1931-1970 were 371 and 1644
m3/sec., respectively. The Tisza rises in the Zakarpathian Mountains in
northwestern Ukraine and is formed from the confluence of the Belaya
Tisza and the Chiornaya Tisza. Approximately 46% lies within Romania,
30% within Hungary, 10% in the Slovak Republic, 8% in Ukraine, and the
remaining 6% within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The distribution
of population between the countries corresponds closely to their share of
the catchment.
The Ukrainian part of the Upper catchment includes Uzgorod (population
equivalent 125,000), Mukachevo (p.e. 89,000), Beregova (p.e. 31,000 and
Vinogradov (p.e. 26,000). This part of the catchment contains 152 subtributaries longer than 10 km. The Slovak part includes several major towns
such as Kosice, Presov, Michalovce, Trebisov, Spisska Nova Ves and a
number of medium sized towns, all of which contribute loads to the Tisza
through its tributaries. Major towns in the Romanian sector of the Tisza
include Satu Mare, Baia Mare, Oradea, Cluj-Napoca, Targu-Mures, Arad
and Timisoara, all of which contribute loads to the Tisza. The Hungarian
part of the catchment is, by contrast, relatively flat and low lying and
includes the towns of Miskolc, Nyiregyhaza, Debrecen, Szolnok and
Szeged.
The main uses of the river are hydropower, water supply, irrigation,
fisheries and recreation. A particularly important aspect of the Hungarian
sector is its relatively undisturbed native aquatic organisms and terrestrial
species that proliferate within unique habitats, which lie within nature
protection zones. Furthermore, one town within the Hungarian sector,
Szolnok is supplied with drinking water from the Tisza (20,000 m 3/day
surface water abstraction)[22].
3.5.2 Institutional Structures and Policies
Being part of the Danube Basin, international co-operation in the Tisza
Basin is primarily organised through the Danube River Protection
Convention and the International Danube Commission (see for further
description: par. 3.2.2.1). Bilateral transboundary Commissions for water
management for the protection of the Tisza have been created between
Hungary and Romania and Hungary and the Ukraine. These bodies are
responsible for quantitative and qualitative issues of transboundary rivers.
They contain ad hoc expert Working Groups for flood protection,
hydrology, water-quality management/protection, which are usually led by
a Commissioner from each country. The Working Group for water quality
has the responsibility to operate and co-ordinate transboundary waterquality activities, which includes evaluation of data. The Working group
deals with problems of pollution from accidents as well as that from point
sources. All Tisza riparian states have bilateral agreements. In 1986 there
was a multilateral agreement on the Tisza but it was never implemented
and lapsed after the collapse of most centrally planned economies in the
region. The Transnational Monitoring Network (TNMN) of the Danube
River, operating under the Danube Convention, has two stations located in
the Tisza catchment: (i) Tiszasziget (nr. Szeged) and (ii) at the entrance
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
55
section of the Sajo River (Sajopuspoki)[1]. Exchange of information occurs
once per year within designated bilateral meetings (sometimes twice per
year). Information exchange happens especially in the case of accidental
pollution events (regional exchange not just under the EWS). Bilateral
agreements for the protection of the Tisza extend back as far as the 1970s.
Proposals from Hungary, Slovakia and Romania relating to the
management of the Tisza River were submitted for the implementation of
the Strategic Action Plan for the Danube. It was decided that these
proposals should be integrated into a single project for international cooperation in the management of the Tisza River Basin in which Ukraine,
Slovakia, Romania and Hungary would all participate. A preliminary
contract was let in early 1998 for the International Co-operation for the
Management of the Tisza River Basin. The objective of this project is to
obtain agreements between participating countries on technical and
scientific issues and thus provide a foundation for a political accord
between the participating countries to act in harmony for the management
of the Basin.
3.5.3 Environmental Issues
................................
Flood in the Tisza River.
Historical morphological changes have been severe in the Tisza Basin. The
river was extensively embanked and canalised in the last century to
diminish its flooding, an action that subsequently caused dramatic changes
in the Hungarian lowlands. Flooding risks are high in the basin with
flooding still occurring frequently. Presently there is no programme for renaturalisation.
Source: Photo taken by Zs. Vizy, by
court of the Hungarian Museum and
Archives for Water Management.
Point and non-point source pollution has the greatest impact on the water
quality of the Tisza and its tributaries. Throughout its length, the Tisza is
the ultimate recipient of discharges from point and non-point sources.
Insufficient treatment of municipal waste waters (plus a combination of
municipal/industrial waste water) results in a significant load of organic
matter, suspended solids and heavy metals. Discharges in Ukraine arise
from activities that include timber, engineering and metal industries.
Erosion by deforestation in Ukraine also creates an environmental pressure.
In Romania, the Crisul Negru and Crisul Alb rivers receive mining waste,
the Crisul Repede receives waste from the chemical industry and the
Barcau waste from the oil extraction and refining industry. Some tributaries
of the Mures river carry a significant pollution load of heavy metals causing
local contamination. In the Slovak Republic, metallurgy and chemical
industry are still active though mining activities are somewhat decreased
from previous decades. In Hungary, industrial activities related to mining,
metal processing (steel production in the Sajo tributary of the Tisza) and oil
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
56
................................
Floodplain forest of the Tisza River.
refining, affect the quality of the Tisza directly. Also in Hungary, the Tisza
suffers from eutrophication in reservoirs and in oxbow lakes where the
waters are stationary. Irrigation waters within tributaries have frequently
exceeded national standards in Hungary in past years. An estimate of
diffuse sources has not been made for the Hungarian sector of the Tisza
basin, although it is apparent that intensive agriculture has reduced, i.e.
cultivated areas decreasing, forestry increasing.
3.5.4 Monitoring programmes
3.5.4.1 Routine Monitoring
In Romania, the Water department of the Ministry of Water and
Environmental Protection is responsible for strategic planning, drafting
laws, issuing regulations and inter-ministerial co-ordination. The Water
department also supervises Regia Autonoma Apele Romane, a national
company with a subsidiary in the Tisza river basin. The river basin plans in
Romania, are developed for the Ministry of Water and Environmental
Protection by AQUA-PROIECT SA.
In the Slovak Republic, the Ministry of the Environment is responsible for
the monitoring programme of surface waters both at national and
transboundary levels. Monitoring activities at the national level are
performed by the Slovak Hydrometeorological Institute by subcontracting
River Water Authority laboratories for sampling and chemical analysis. The
Water Research Institute and the River Water Authority laboratories are the
subcontracting partners of the Ministry of the Environment for performing
sampling and chemical analysis for the surface-water monitoring
programme on transboundary level.
In Hungary, water resources are the responsibility of the Ministry of
Transport and Water Management, exercised through OVF, the National
Water Authority. There are presently 12 regional water authorities and 12
Environmental Inspectorates covering the whole of Hungary. The Tisza
region accounts for a total of 5 separate Water Authorities and
Inspectorates. Water Authorities assume the role of monitoring the
chemical/physical quality of water for different uses. The Environmental
Inspectorate on the other hand, maintains ecological quality and is also
responsible for checking and controlling the wastewater discharges.
In Ukraine, the monitoring of surface waters is performed by the State
Hydrometeorological Committee of Ukraine. Effluent monitoring is the
responsibility of the Zarcathia Ecological Inspection – a regional division of
the State Ecological Inspection.
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
57
................................
Figure 3.5.1
Map (Source: National Water
Authority, Hungary)
Trans-National Monitoring
Network sampling site
Bilateral monitoring
sampling site
The Trans National Monitoring Network under the DRPC consists of 2
stations at the Slovakian-Hungarian and Hungarian-Yugoslavian border
(see figure 3.5.1 and par. 3.2.4.1 for details). The Tisza basin’s bilateral
transboundary water-quality monitoring network consist of 12 sampling
sites with samples taken 12, 26 or 52 times per year depending on the
determinand, i.e. samples for physico/chemical parameters and nutrients
are usually taken on a more frequent basis than metals or anions/cations.
Three sampling sites are on the Slovakian/Hungarian border, 2 on the
Ukrainian/Hungarian border, 7 on the Romanian/Hungarian border and 1
on the Yugoslavian/Hungarian border. Technical details of the bilateral
transboundary monitoring practice are shown in Annex 3.5.1 and in Figure
3.5.1. Within Hungary, the national water-quality monitoring network is in
operation at present according to the requirements of the relevant
Hungarian standards MSZ 12749 and consists of 56 sampling stations in
the Tisza basin.
3.5.4.2 Surveys and Special Studies
Two severe pollution incidents, which occurred within the Romania sector,
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
58
recently impacted directly on the Tisza. In January 2000, a pollutant
discharge occurred into the Lapus brook and then through the river Szamos
into the river Tisza. This originated from gold mining technology and
consisted mostly of cyanide complexes bound to readily water-soluble
metals. Some 1200 tons of fish died in the rivers as the consequence of the
cyanide pollution. The maximum cyanide concentration was 20 mg/l in the
Hungarian part of the river Szamos and 15 mg/l in the river Tisza,
downstream of the confluence with the river Szamos. The maximum
cyanide concentration of the Tisza water, when leaving the country, was
1.49 mg/l.
In March 2000, the dam of the Novat sedimentation pond of the state
owned Romanian mining company Remin of Baia Borsa was breached
along about 25 m length to a depth of about 10 m. This was partly a
consequence of intensive snowmelt (snow cover of 38 cm) as a result of
sudden heavy rainfall (40 litre per m2). About 10,000 tonnes of heavy
metal contaminated sludge/sediment was discharged into Creek Vaser,
then to the River Viseu, which is a tributary of the River Tisza.
Data from the Environmental Inspectorate of the Upper Tisza region (FETIKVF) for the period 17h 10 – 06h 12 of March showed that the pollutant
wave, carrying lead, copper, and zinc reached Hungary in the afternoon of
the 11th of March. The analytical investigation covered practically all heavy
metals in representative samples and found that only lead, copper and zinc
was present in the pollutant wave in concentrations higher than the
characteristic background values of the River Tisza.
3.5.4.3 Early-warning System
As described above in Section 3.5.4.2, two accidental water pollution incidents
have been registered by the Danube EWS since the start of its operation in
April 1997. However, it has been reported that prior to the Danube EWS (i.e.
since 1984), national level accidental water pollution incidents were registered
by the responsible national Authorities. Data presented in a national review of
Hungarian water quality (1998) reveals that between 1984 and 1994, there
were 11 minor incidents reported from Ukrainian sources, 72 from Slovakia
and 142 from Romania. The report does not provide clear information on the
domestic incidents affecting the Tisza within the Hungarian territory.
3.5.5 Assessment Methodologies
For approximately 90% of the surface water in the Tisza Basin, the quality
is classified either in accordance with Romanian, Hungarian or Slovakian
standards as illustrated in Annex 3.5.2.
The Hungarian water-quality classification system is in accordance with the
standard ‘Quality of Surface Waters, Quality Characteristics and
Classification (MSZ 12749). This standard regulates the requirements and
conditions of the Hungarian routine water-quality monitoring. The
Hungarian system defines five classes of water based on the results from
monitoring five groups of determinands (oxygen regime, nutrients,
microbiological, micropollutants and toxicity). The annual data series of
each water-quality parameter is evaluated separately and the 90%
cumulative duration frequency is considered. These data are compared to
the limit values of MSZ 12749. The water is then classified based on the
worst class within each group of water-quality parameters. The overall
water-quality classification is based on the worst group class.
The Slovak STN 75 7221 was amended in 1999. Classification of water
quality in accordance with this standard should serve for assessment of
water from ecological point of view. Five classes scale is used for water-
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
59
quality classification, first class corresponding to very clean water, the fifth
class to very polluted water. The classification is based on selected waterquality determinands, which are divided into 8 groups (oxygen regime,
basic physico-chemical determinands, nutrients, biological determinands,
microbiological determinands, micropollutants, toxicity and radioactivity).
The Romanian surface water-quality classification is in accordance with the
national Standard ‘Surface Waters – Quality Categories and Conditions’
(STAS 4706/88). The standard establishes categories and technical quality
conditions for surface waters depending on their scope for use. The
Romanian system defines three classes of water based on the results from
monitoring seven groups of determinands (organoleptic, physical, general
and specific chemical, radioactivity, microbiological and eutrophication
indicators).
Current classification systems of determinands in surface waters for
Hungary, Slovakia and Romania are shown in Annex 3.2.2 and also
described in paragraph 3.2.5.1.
Routine monitoring of sediment quality does not exist in Hungary.
Sediment quality is assessed only for specific surveys and compared with
the Canadian classification. In case of disposal (i.e. agriculture) after
sanitation of polluted sediments some requirements have to be met.
Romania does not presently have standards for sediment quality. However
routine sampling of sediments is performed, analysing about 15
determinands including some group parameters. For classification purposes
Dutch, Belgian or Canadian standards are used.
In Slovakia the river sediments and suspended solids in the Danube and
main tributaries are sampled and analysed twice a year. Sampling of
riverbed sediments is performed in accordance with ISO Guideline 5667.
Selection of analysed determinands was based on the cut-off values related
to the physico-chemical properties and toxicity of the chemicals in
questions (both inorganic and organic). The results are evaluated according
to Dutch standards. Furthermore, guidance on the risk assessment of
polluted sediments was prepared by the Ministry of the Environment in
Slovakia based on EC TGD (1996). This guidance document was used to
assess several sedimentation sites in Slovakia (see also paragraph 3.2.5.2).
In Romania, biological monitoring is undertaken by C.N. "Apele Romane".
The monitoring is based on qualitative and quantitative analysis of the
main biotic aquatic communities, benthic invertebrates and
phytoplankton/zooplankton. The main variables include community
composition, density and biomass. Biological water-quality assessment is
undertaken using the Knopp method, which use the saprobic index system.
In Hungary and Slovakia, biological quality monitoring based on
macroinvertebrates is undertaken as part of the national monitoring
systems by the Lower Tisza Valley Environmental Inspectorate (ATIKOFE)
and the Slovak Hydrometeriological Institute (SHMI), respectively. Table
3.2.2, in the Danube chapter, shows the Saprobic system classification used
by Hungary, Slovakia and Romania for classification of the Tisza river basin.
3.5.6 Environmental Status
Figure 3.5.2 shows the 1998 water-quality map of the Tisza river system
within the Hungarian catchment area. Overall the water quality of the
upper and lower Tisza is similar with respect to oxygen status and classified
as tolerable (Class III). Nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous compounds)
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
60
................................
Figure 3.5.2
Water Quality map Tisza in Hungary,
1998 (Source: National Water
Authority, Hungary)
are generally too high and pose a risk for eutrofication. Blooming of algae
occurs in particular in stagnant waters and high chlorofyll concentrations
are regularly found in the summer in reservoirs. The water quality with
respect to micropollutants, (including heavy metals) and microbiological
quality differs considerably between the upper and lower reaches of the
Tisza. In the upper reaches, the shortcomings of the industrial waste-water
treatment in the Romanian drainage basin are evidenced by poor quality
(Class IV) surface water with respect to micropollutants, microbial and
other parameters. It is evident from Figure 3.5.2 that the water quality
within all of the upper Tisza tributaries is compromised to high degree for
all parameters, with the exception of the oxygen balance, which remains
fairly tolerable.
Since data for the confluence of the Tisza and the Danube was not
available, the water quality for the transboundary station between Hungary
and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is shown in Annex 3.5.3. The data
originate from the Trans National Monitoring Network (TNMN). Table
3.5.1 shows a comparison of the C90 concentration for a selection of
parameters with the Hungarian classification system and Directive
75/440/EEC.
................................
Table 3.5.1
Assessment of a selection of waterquality parameters in the Tisza river
Oxygen mg/l
NH4 mgNH4/l
Nitrate mgNO3/l
Phosphates mgP2O5/l
Zn µg/l
Cd µg/l
Hg µg/l
*=
n.a. =
1) =
2) =
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
C*
Hungary2)
75/440/EEC1)
6.7
0.17
9.1
0.18
0.044
0.08
0.05
>7
0.2
1
0.04
50
0.5
0.1
n.a.
0.05
25
0.4
500
1
0.5
90 percentile value in 1998 at the Hungarian-Yugoslavian border, Tiszasziget, km 163
not applicable
directive concerning the quality of surface water for the abstraction of drinking water
no effect levels
61
................................
Annex 3.5.1
Details on transboundary water-quality
monitoring of the Tisza
Countries
Slovakia-Hungary
Ukraine- Hungary
Romania-Hungary
Yugoslavia-Hungary
No. of sampling sites
Sampling procedure
3
Joint sampling
7
Romanian:12
Hungarian:12
Sampling frequencies per year
Frequency of analysis/year
12
Usually: 12
Special
components: 6
Slovakia:12
Hungary:12
2
2
Joint: 4
Ukrainian:4
Hungarian:4
12
12
1
Joint: 4
Yugoslavian:4
Hungarian:4
12
12
Laboratory site of analysis
24
24
Romania:12
Yugoslavia:8
Hungary:12
Hungary:8
No. of yearly data agreement meetings
Results accepted without
1
data agreement meeting
Data exchange
Direct exchange of Direct exchange of Data exchange by fax
Direct exchange of
hard copies
hard copies
hard copies
Evaluation method of the measured data Statistical parameters Statistical parameters Statistical parameters Statistical parameters
bi-yearly
in every year
in every year
in every year
Trend analysis
Once in 5 years
Once in 5 years
Spreadsheet software
Excel
Excel
Water quality criteria
CMEA system
CMEA system
CMEA system
(6 classes, 1984)
(3 classes, 1963)
(3 classes, 1963)
Frequency of interlaboratory
Once per 12
Once per 12
calibration
sampling trips
sampling trips
Countries
Ukraine:8
Hungary:8
1
Slovakia-Hungary
Ukraine- Hungary
Romania-Hungary
Yugoslavia-Hungary
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Components Monitored
Dissolved oxygen
Do saturation
BOD2
BOD5
CODp
DOCd
Ammonia
Nitrite
Nitrate
Organic nitrogen
Total N
Ortho-phosphate
Total P
Chlorophyll a
Arsenic
Zinc
Mercury
Cadmium
Chromium
Nickel
Lead
Copper
Phenols
MBAS-s
Oil
Gross B activity
pH
Conductivity
Iron
Manganese
Water temperature
SS
TDS
Total hardness
Calcium
Magnesium
Potassium
Sodium
Chloride
Sulphate
Coliform
Water discharge
Saprobicity index
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
62
+
................................
Annex 3.5.2
Water quality classes used within the Tisza Basin
Quality
Classes
Hungary
Slovakia
Romania
I
Excellent - no pollutants, clean
transparent of natural state, oxygen
saturation complete, low concentration
of nutrients and bacterial counts
II
Good – Slightly polluted, oxygen regime
suitable for aquatic life, high diversity of
aquatic organisms, natural colour, odour
and transparency
Water is usually suitable for all sorts
of use, mainly water supply, food
and other industries requiring high
quality drinking water, swimming
pools and salmon fish farming.
Water is usually suitable for most
types of use, mainly water supply,
water sports, fish farming and
industrial water supply
III
Tolerable - Pollution caused by
eutrophication, seasonal changes in
oxygen regime, adverse effects on
aquatic ecosystem
Central potable water supply,
livestock, food industry, cultivation
of vegetables requiring class I water,
salmonid fisheries, bathing water,
contact sports
Hatching and rearing natural fish
stocks, fishery purposes (except
most salmonoids), industrial
processes, urban and recreational
use
Irrigation systems for agriculture,
hydro-electric power stations,
cooling systems, washing stations
IV
Polluted – organic and inorganic load,
high nutrient level, oxygen regime
fluctuation, high turbidity, odour, colour.
Algae, water has adverse effect on
aquatic life
Heavily polluted – organic and inorganic Heavily polluted
pollutants, biologically harmful materials,
lack of oxygen, small transparency,
colour, odour
V
Water is usually suitable only for
supplying industries. It can be used
for water supply only when a better
quality source is not available and
providing multi-stage water
treatment is implemented.
Water is usually suitable only for
limited purposes
................................
Annex 3.5.3
Water Quality Concentrations of the Tiszasziget Station on the Hungarian-Yugoslavian Border (Km 163)
Parameter
Temperature
Suspended Solids
Dissolved Oxygen
pH
Electric conductivity
Alkalinity
Ammonium (NH4+ -N)
Nitrite (NO2- -N)
Nitrate (NO3- -N)
Organic Nitrogen
Ortho- Phosphate (PO43- -P)
Total Phosphorus
Sodium (Na+)
Potassium (K+)
Calcium (Ca2+)
Magnesium (Mg2+)
Chloride (Cl-)
Sulphate (SO42-)
Iron (Fe)
Manganese (Mn)
Zinc (Zn)
Copper (Cu)
Chromium (Cr) – total
Lead (Pb)
Cadmium (Cd)
Mercury (Hg)
Nickel (Ni)
Arsenic (As)
BOD5
CODCr
CODMn
Phenol index
Anionic active surfactants
Petroleum hydrocarbons
AOX
Lindane
pp’DDT
Carbon tetrachloride
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
Faecal Streptococci
Unit
°C
mg/l
mg/l
µS/cm
mmol/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
µg/l
µg/l
µg/l
µg/l
µg/l
µg/l
µg/l
µg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
µg/l
µg/l
µg/l
µg/l
µg/l
µg/l
3
10 CFU/100 ml
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
Mean concentration and percentile 90 (C90) concentration in the year
1996
1997
1998
Mean
C90
Mean
C90
Mean
12.7
59
9.2
7.9
435
2.6
0.18
0.028
1.42
0.39
0.077
0.22
32.3
4.1
54.4
10.3
43
54
1.96
0.15
12.9
4.8
3.3
0.5
0.46
0.47
1.6
1.3
2.0
21.0
4.5
0.002
0.050
0.02
24.0
139
7.2
8.2
508
2.9
0.54
0.044
1.93
0.48
0.101
0.31
45.0
4.8
61.0
13.4
64
66
4.18
0.21
17.0
6.5
5.5
0.5
0.50
0.50
2.5
2.9
25.6
6.3
0.003
0.050
63
11.9
93
9.3
8.0
410
2.5
0.12
0.018
1.54
0.29
0.068
0.24
24.7
3.4
51.7
9.5
34
50
0.09
0.019
105
22.3
24.5
9.3
0.75
0.50
5.3
6.7
1.9
20.4
4.8
0.003
0.052
0.04
25
0.012
0.010
0..64
0.08
0.04
2.976
22.2
153
6.7
8.1
499
3.1
0.33
0.027
2.07
0.38
0.098
0.47
35.0
3.8
65.6
12.9
48
65
0.16
0.034
220
45.0
45.2
17.3
1.26
9.5
12.2
2.8
25.5
7.3
0.003
0.050
0.04
0.025
1.70
0.19
0.07
5.350
12.0
175
9.0
7.9
393
2.7
0.07
0.019
1.52
0.27
0.056
0.19
22.1
3.3
50.7
9.9
29
51
0.059
0.016
19.7
4.8
3.7
0.4
0.03
0.06
1.9
2.3
1.8
21.3
5.6
1.500
0.010
0.052
12.5
5.745
1.27
0.15
0.05
0.05
7.671
C90
23.4
373
6.7
8.1
510
3.7
0.17
0.030
2.05
0.36
0.082
0.32
31.4
4.0
68.5
12.3
39
76
0.108
0.034
44.0
6.1
8.2
1.0
0.08
0.05
2.5
3.4
2.7
25.5
7.9
4.500
0.080
36.8
8.800
0.001
0.40
14.600
3.6 River Daugava
3.6.1 General Description
The Daugava or Zapadnaya (Western) Dvina River belongs to the Baltic
Sea basin. The length of the river is 1,005 km with a drainage area of
87,900 km2. It crosses three countries: Russia (323 km and 18,500 km 2),
Belarus (328 km and 33,100 km2) and Latvia (352 km and 24,700 km2). A
small part of the basin is located in Lithuania and Estonia (11,500 km 2).
The hydrological regime of the Daugava and its tributaries is characterised
by flatland rivers with mixed alimentation and with snow being the
prevailing contributor. Generally, the annual flow is distributed in a way
that 50 % occurs in spring, surface wash-off amounts to 30 % and rainfall
to 20 %. There are 5,000 tributaries within the drainage area; 95 % of
them are 5 km and longer. The average inclination of the river in Belarus is
0.12 %. The river flows into the Baltic Sea through the Gulf of Riga. There
the mean long-term discharge is 727 m3/s.
The population, slightly more than two million people, is unevenly
distributed over the basin. There are tendencies towards a decrease in
population in the upper (Russian) part, where 250,000 people live and
towards an increase in the lower (Latvian) part. Furthermore, the population
is shifting from rural to urban areas. The mayor cities are Riga/Latvia
(800,000 people) and Vitebsk/Belarus (400,000 people); the population of
all other towns does not exceed 150,000 people per town [23].
3.6.2 Institutional Structures and Policies
Since the disintegration of the former Soviet Union all three countries
under consideration are re-structuring. Basically, Russia and Belarus have
maintained their former structures, which are characterised by doublesubordination of the regional organs such as the Oblast Environmental
Committees. Latvia has undergone deeper changes and its structures are
more similar to those applied in Western Europe.
In Belarus, there is no special organ for the management of the Daugava
basin. Water use quotas and waste-water discharge limits for the users are
set by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection.
On-site compliance control is the responsibility of the respective Vitebsk
Oblast Committee that carries out the regional inspections.
The Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) is the governmental organ
responsible for environmental protection in Russia. In Latvia the protection
of the environment is the duty of the Ministry of Environmental Protection
and Regional Development and its 8 Regional Environmental Protection
Boards and the Marine Protection Board.
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
64
In general, responsibilities and tasks are adequately defined but sometimes
overlapping. Often, tasks are excessively divided between different organs.
In Belarus, payments for water use and fines are accumulated in the state
budget fund of environmental protection. Partially, these resources are used
to finance environmental protection projects. For 2000, it is expected that
the fund will dispose of about US$ 450,000. In Latvia, the law on the tax on
natural resources is in force since 1995 and accumulates the revenues in a
special budget of which 60 % can be spent by municipalities and 40 % goes
to the Environmental Protection fund which is used for environmental
investments. Russia has a similar system for taxes on the use of water.
The transboundary co-operation is based on the following 3 bilateral
agreements:
• Agreement on Co-operation in the Sphere of Ecology and Environment
- Moscow, 08.02.1992;
• Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Belarus and the
Government of the Republic of Latvia on Co-operation in the Sphere of
Environmental Protection - Minsk, 21.02.1994;
• Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Belarus and the
Government of the Russian Federation on Co-operation in the Sphere of
Environmental Protection - Smolensk, 05.07.1994.
A future step of tripartite activities shall be the signing of a Joint InterGovernment Agreement on the management of the Daugava river basin.
The draft text was produced in Latvia in 1999 and discussed during
working meetings of representatives of the three countries in
Dundee/Scotland in 1999.
3.6.3 Environmental Issues
3.6.3.1 Functions of the Daugava
In Belarus and Latvia, the river is mainly used for:
• industrial water supply,
• drinking-water production (replenishment of subsurface sources or
direct supply),
• communal needs (e.g. street washing),
• cooling water for thermoelectric plants,
• hydroelectric power generation,
• discharge of (treated and untreated) waste water,
• recreation and sports fishing.
Except for the seaport of Riga in Latvia, commercial navigation is
insignificant. In Latvia, 3 hydroelectric powerplants produce 75 % of the
national electricity production.
The above-mentioned uses are competing and drinking-water production
from (direct) surface water supply is under pressure. In the Russian part of
the basin, the pressure on the river is less, since the population is much
smaller and industry is practically non-existent.
In Belarus, the immediate goals related to these functions are:
• improvement of (potable) water production facilities (especially iron
precipitation),
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
65
• improvement of industrial and domestic waste-water treatment plants
and
• a rational use of waste from animal production.
As a long-term objective, the construction of a cascade of hydroelectric
power stations is envisaged.
3.6.3.2 Environmental Pressures
Anthropogenic impacts on the river are strong, mainly due to:
• pollution from domestic, industrial and agricultural point and non-point
sources,
and, to a lesser extent:
• dams and opencast mining.
Some specific causes are:
• discharge of heavy metal ions from (galvanic) enterprises,
• discharge from livestock farms and dairy factories,
• contamination through inadequate storage and deposition of industrial
and communal solid wastes and sludges,
• accidents at oil pipelines,
• wash-off of pesticides and fertilisers from cultivated land.
To some extent the environmental pressure nowadays is lower than 10
years ago as a result of reduced industrial production and a decreased
application of agrochemicals in agriculture [25].
About 5 % of the basin is protected by law (reserves, national parks etc.)
but these areas are likewise under pressure.
3.6.4 Monitoring Programmes
3.6.4.1 Routine Monitoring
In all three countries monitoring comprises the main water body of the
Daugava, relevant tributaries as well as lakes and reservoirs within the
basin (Figure 3.6.1). In Belarus, the network consists of 21 stations (posts
and checkpoints) for hydrologic parameters and 14 posts for water-quality
control. In Latvia, a network of 14 stations for water-quality observations
provides ‘representative’, ‘background’ or ‘anthropogenic impact’ data for
the Daugava basin. The network implemented there complies with
Eurowaternet requirements [26].
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
66
................................
Figure 3.6.1
Hydrographic network of the Daugava
river basin with monitoring stations
(Source: Hydroecological Status of the
Zapadnaya Dvina/Daugava river basin)
The following groups of parameters are analysed, summing up to more
than 50 determinands:
• hydrological and hydrophysical (e.g. flow, water temperature),
• hydrochemical (e.g. oxygen, pH, BOD, COD, nutrients, heavy metals,
micro-pollutants),
• hydrobiological (e.g. chlorophyll-a, zooplankton).
Emphasis is always placed on physico-chemical analyses. Absence of
information on ecotoxicological analyses and bioassays indicates that these
methods are not used in routine monitoring and water-quality
determination.
The sampling frequency depends on the water body and its importance. In
Belarussian lakes, samples are taken four times a year, in the Daugava River
monthly. Latvia stated that the number of parameters covered by the
observation programme is large enough to ensure reliable water-quality
observations and data exchange under national and international
programmes and compliance with the EC Water Framework Directive.
3.6.4.2 Surveys and Special Studies
In Belarus, some research in the field of aqueous media in the Daugava river
basin is done within the framework of a scientific research program "Nature
use and environmental protection". Certain activities aim at the prevention
of depletion and contamination of water resources in the basin. They are
financed within the framework of "The National program of rational nature
use and environmental protection for the years 1996 – 2000".
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
67
3.6.4.3 Early-warning Systems
An early-warning system (EWS) has not been established in Belarus and the
monitoring network does not permit the detection of short-term changes in
water quality. Nonetheless, once accidents or the like are detected, several
organs are involved to deal with them. Enterprises are obliged by law to
communicate accidents to the authorities. Transfer of information between
countries has not been formalised and happens on and ‘ad hoc’ basis. In
Latvia, one early-warning/monitoring station at Piedruja, near the
Belarussian border, is functioning since 1997.
................................
Table 3.6.1
Maximum (and minimum, respectively)
allowable concentrations MAC in
Belarus and Russia for surface water
pollution indicators
Indicator
MAC [mg / l]
Absolute oxygen content
Aluminium
Ammonia salts,
By nitrogen content
Arsenic
BOD5
4.0 (winter)
6.0 (summer)
0.04
0.4
0.05
2.0
Cadmium
0.001
Calcium
Chlorides
Chlorine-organic
Pesticides
180.0
300.0
0.000001
Chromium
Cobalt
COD
Copper
Cyanides
0.005
0.01
15.0
0.001
0.05
Iron
Lead
................................
Table 3.6.2
Surface fresh water quality standards
for cyprinid waters in Latvia
................................
Table 3.6.3
Surface fresh water quality standards
for Salmonid waters in Latvia
Parameter
MAC [mg / l]
40.0
Manganese
0.01
Mercury
Nickel
Nitrates,
by nitrogen content
Nitrites,
by nitrogen content
Oil products
Phenols
0.00001
0.01
9.1
0.02
0.05
0.001
Phosphate, by
phosphorus content
0.2
Potassium
50.0
Sodium
120.0
Sulphates
100.0
Surface-active substances
0.1
Suspended matter
< 0.75 mg/l above
natural content
Tin
0.01
Zinc
0.01
Unit
Ecologically friendly
Good ecological state
Current speed
Temperature
Dissolved oxygen
[m / s]
[°C]
[mg / l O2]
< 0.2
17 – 22
50 % ³ 7
Oxygen saturation
PH
Suspended matter
BOD
Total phosphorus
Nitrite
Ammonium
Zinc
Copper
Saprobity index by benthos
[%]
[-]
[mg / l]
[mg / l O2]
[mg / l P]
[mg N / l]
[mg N / l]
[mg / l Zn]
[mg / l Cu]
[-]
< 0.2
28
50 % ³ 10
100 % ³ 7
> 80
6–8
² 25
² 4.5
² 0.1
² 0.024
² 0.23
Parameter
² 0.04
² 2.3
> 70
6–8
² 5.0
² 0.2
² 0.030
² 0.31
² 1.0
² 2.7
Unit
Ecologically friendly
Good ecological state
Current speed
Temperature
Dissolved oxygen
[m / s]
[°C]
[mg / l O2]
> 0.2
15 – 22
50 % ³ 9
Oxygen saturation
PH
Suspended matter
BOD
Total phosphorus
Nitrite
Ammonium
Zinc
Copper
Saprobity index by benthos
[%]
[-]
[mg / l]
[mg / l O2]
[mg / l P]
[mg N / l]
[mg N / l]
[mg / l Zn]
[mg / l Cu]
[-]
> 0.2
22.5
50 % ³ 10
100 % ³ 8
> 90
6–8
² 25
²2
² 0.005
² 0.012
² 0.04
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
0.1
0.08
Indicator
Magnesium
68
² 0.04
² 1.5
> 80
6–8
² 3.0
² 0.01
² 0.015
² 0.19
² 0.3
² 1.7
................................
Table 3.6.4
Water quality classification in Belarus
by selected hydrochemical and
hydrobiological Indicators
Grade of
water quality
Characterisation of
water
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
................................
Table 3.6.5
Classification of waters in Latvia
according to the Water Pollution Index
WPI
Saprobial
conditions
Very clean
XenoClean
OligoModerately polluted Beta-mesosaprobic
Polluted
Alpha-mesoPolluted
PolyHighly polluted
Extremely polluted
Water
pollution
index WPI
Pantle and Buck
saprogenic index
(phytoplankton,
zoobenthos)
< 0.3
0.3 – 1.0
1.0 – 2.5
2.5 – 4.0
4.0 – 6.0
6.0 – 10.0
> 10.0
0.50
0.51 – 1.5
1.51 – 2.5
2.51 – 3.6
3.51 – 4.0
4.0
–
Water quality level
Characterisation of water
WPI
I
II
III
IV
Clean
Nominally clean
Moderately polluted
Polluted
< 0.5
0.51 – 1.00
1.01 – 1.50
> 1.50
3.6.5 Assessment Methodologies
The fundamental principle for the assessment of surface-water quality in
Russia and Belarus is the "maximum allowable concentration" (MAC; Table
3.6.1). In Latvia, quality standards are set for salmonid and cyprinid waters
respectively. The classification criteria for hydrochemical and hydrobiological
indicators are given in Tables 3.6.2 and 3.6.3. These norms are tentative.
With regard to water-quality classification, Belarus applies the Water
Pollution Index (WPI), which is calculated on the basis of six indicator
parameters, or uses several hydrobiological indicators (Table 3.6.4). Latvia
also applies the WPI. However, for its determination, additional
determinands are considered such as some heavy metals and biological
indicators. Table 3.6.5 shows the classification limits. Furthermore,
additional surface water-quality standards are in use to provide a more
complete characterisation of water bodies.
3.6.6 Environmental Status
In Belarus, the evaluation of the Daugava water quality has been
performed on the basis of average concentrations of major pollutants,
measured at different sections of the river:
• in the vicinity of Surazh township, close to the Russian border,
• in Novopolotsk, downstream of municipal and industrial discharge
points, and
• downstream of Verkhnedvinsk, at the outflow from Belarus.
The data -included in Annex 3.6.1- shows the increasing content of
pollutants. At the Surazh gauging station pollution transfer has somewhat
increased between 1994 and 1996 compared to 1987/1993.
The Novopolotsk stretch of the river experiences maximum wastewater
discharge loads. Maximum pollution levels were observed in 1992. Water
quality was reconsidered and degraded to pollution Class IV (WPI = 2.7),
due to a high concentration of nitrogen compounds. In other years the
water quality was satisfactory.
Verkhnedvinsk is the last downstream gauging station on the territory of
Belarus. Major pollutants in this stretch of the river are nitrogen compounds
and oil products. During the last five years the highest pollution with
ammonia and nitrite nitrogen was registered in 1992 and 1994,
respectively.
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
69
Recent data show that the actual situation in the river does not differ
significantly from that of 1996.
Considerable variations in taxonomic diversity and quantitative changes in
species and biomass of phytoplankton have been observed in the Daugava
between 1987 and 1996. Saprobic index values varied from 1.39 to 2.42,
corresponding to Classes II – III. An increase of saprobic index values in
measuring sections downstream of Polotsk was observed until 1992. Later
observations did not reveal visible variations in the saprobic index values,
indicating relative stability of the phytoplankton community.
Applying the integrated criteria (water pollution index and saprobic index),
the waters of the Daugava and its tributaries are classified as:
• polluted: downstream of Polotsk (the Daugava), downstream of
Chashniky (the Ulla), downstream of Sharkovshchina (the Disna), the
Obol river and the Senno lake;
• moderately polluted: the remaining stretches of the Daugava and the
majority of its tributaries as well as at the outflow from Belarus.
The hydrochemical and biological measurement results obtained in 1999
for the Daugava in Latvia are described in Table 3.6.6. Basically, the
assessment was carried out employing the cyprinid water-quality standards
(GQc). Variations to the previous years are insignificant, except for oxygen
and BOD7, where the situation worsened [24].
................................
Table 3.6.6
Description and assessment of the
water quality in the Daugava in Latvia
in 1999
Parameter or group
of parameters
Concentration
Oxygen
7.5 – 11.2 mg / l
Oxygen saturation
Organic matter pool (BOD5)
COD
Ntotal1)
63 – 89 %
1.6 – 5.2 mg / l
30 – 40 mg / l
1.6 mg / l
Ptotal1)
Oil products
Heavy metals
Pesticides
Phytoplankton saprobility index
Zoobenthos saprobility index
0.06 mg / l
1.9 – 2.3
2.0 – 2.4
Assessment
Good oxygen regime but 36 % of
the samples exceed the requirements
for cyprinid water quality GQc
Maximum concentrations exceed GQc
Standard for drinking water is not met
Mean concentrations do not satisfy
the requirements of GQc
Does not exceed GQc
Within the limits
Within the limits
Within the limits
b-mesosaprobility; moderately
polluted
Good ecological quality of the water
1) = figures are average concentrations from 1999 at the Helcom PLC point
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
70
................................
Annex 3.6.1
Average annual concentration of selected
pollutants in Daugava in Belarus
Water 0.5 km upstream of Surazh/Belarus (at Russian-Belarussian border)
Substance
[mg / l]
BOD5
N-NH4
N-NO2
Phosphates,
[mg P/l]
Total iron
Copper
Nickel
Phenols
Oil products
WPI
Year
1987
1.76
0.00
0.041
1988
1.71
0.04
0.006
1989
1.90
0.01
0.008
1990
1.94
0.10
0.009
1991
2.02
0.96
0.009
1992
2.07
1.15
0.011
1993
2.17
0.72
0.004
1994
2.16
0.82
0.034
1995
1.81
0.55
0.009
1996
4.43
0.72
0.024
0.033
0.44
0.000
0.000
0.42
2.0
0.032
1.21
0.003
0.002
0.30
1.6
0.031
0.67
0.000
0.003
0.27
1.7
0.013
0.56
0.001
0.005
0.004
0.12
1.4
0.029
0.78
0.007
0.009
0.000
0.14
1.2
0.016
0.56
0.001
0.004
0.000
0.14
1.3
0.016
0.56
0.003
0.004
0.000
0.07
0.8
0.033
0.67
0.004
0.004
0.003
0.17
1.9
0.097
0.47
0.005
0.004
0.001
0.09
1.0
0.018
0.13
0.004
0.005
0.005
0.08
2.1
Water 15.5 km downstream of Novopolotsk/Belarus
Substance
[mg / l]
BOD5
N-NH4
N-NO2
Phosphates,
[mg P/l]
Total iron
Copper
Zinc
Nickel
Phenols
Oil products
WPI
Year
1987
1.97
0.02
0.043
1988
1.09
0.01
0.025
1989
1.70
0.03
0.040
1990
1.58
0.48
0.019
1991
1.76
0.78
0.045
1992
2.56
1.60
0.135
1993
2.12
0.77
0.019
1994
2.18
1.15
0.036
1995
2.32
0.40
0.041
1996
2.26
0.63
0.014
0.027
0.44
0.002
0.002
0.026
0.001
0.13
1.2
0.030
0.97
0.000
0.000
0.025
0.004
0.05
1.2
0.031
0.48
0.001
0.001
0.019
0.003
0.12
1.5
0.020
0.41
0.002
0.003
0.015
0.004
0.06
1.4
0.029
0.59
0.002
0.001
0.019
0.001
0.16
1.6
0.021
0.52
0.002
0.003
0.012
0.001
0.13
2.7
0.032
0.60
0.004
0.001
0.006
0.001
0.09
1.2
0.038
0.48
0.006
0.008
0.005
0.003
0.16
2.0
0.039
0.41
0.008
0.011
0.008
0.002
0.08
1.3
0.019
0.12
0.007
0.016
0.008
0.002
0.18
1.5
Water 5.5 km downstream of Verkhnedvinsk/Belarus (at Latvian-Belarussian border)
Substance
[mg / l]
BOD5
N-NH4
N-NO2
Phosphates,
[mg P/l]
Total iron
Copper
Nickel
Phenols
Oil products
WPI
Year
1987
3.33
0.01
0.033
1988
3.34
0.08
0.037
1989
3.31
0.01
0.052
1990
3.17
0.30
0.048
1991
3.30
0.84
0.012
1992
3.31
1.64
0.053
1993
3.35
0.73
0.014
1994
3.31
1.12
0.092
1995
3.32
0.53
0.044
1996
3.43
0.76
0.018
0.047
0.56
0.001
0.022
0.001
0.12
1.2
0.033
1.09
0.001
0.017
0.005
0.15
2.1
0.024
0.63
0.002
0.010
0.004
0.18
2.1
0.019
0.47
0.003
0.022
0.004
0.07
1.8
0.036
0.94
0.003
0.020
0.001
0.42
2.4
0.024
0.67
0.001
0.010
0.001
0.25
2.5
0.030
0.35
0.004
0.005
0.001
0.09
1.3
0.030
0.56
0.004
0.006
0.002
0.11
2.3
0.031
0.50
0.005
0.008
0.005
0.07
2.0
0.030
0.07
0.004
0.007
0.003
0.12
1.8
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
71
3.7 River Tagus
3.7.1 General Description
The river Tagus flows from its source at the "Serra de Albarracin" crossing
Spanish and Portuguese territory discharging into the Atlantic Ocean. It is
one of the largest of the Iberian Peninsula. The total length is 1060 km and
the catchment area is 80,500 km2. Roughly two thirds of the catchment is
Spanish territory (69%), the remaining one third is Portuguese (31%). In
natural regime the average discharge is 600 m3/s and the total volume per
year is on average 19 km3 with 66% generated in the Spanish basin and
34% in the Portuguese basin. At present approximately 9 million people
live in the basin, which contains the capital cities of both countries. The
average population density in the basin is equal to the European average
with 113 inh/km2.
................................
Figure 3.7.1 The Tagus river basin (Source: INAG)
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
72
The river is highly regulated with a large number of dams, creating a total
storage capacity of nearly 14 km3, of which 80% in Spain. Installed
hydropower potential amounts to 3,300 MW and the mean annual power
production is approx. 5,000 GWH. In terms of water demand, 80% of the
water use is related to agricultural needs and the 20% remaining for
drinking-water production since both Madrid and Lisbon use the Tagus
river as the source of their water supply. Further uses include the disposal
of waste water, recreational use, as well as the ecological function. Part of
the flow in Spain is diverted to the Segura basin, supplying 1.5 million
people in southern Spain with drinking-water and is also used for irrigation
and ecosystem support in the nature reserve La Mancha.
The main tributaries of the Tagus river are: Jarama, Alberche, Tietar,
Alagon, Guadelia, Almonte and Salor in Spain and Erges, Ponsul, Zêzere,
and Sorraia in Portugal.
3.7.2 Institutional Structures and Policies
3.7.2.1 Institutional Structures
The Tagus basin is managed by a basin organisation in Spain, the
"Confederacion Hidrografica de Tajo" (CHT), and by the National Institute
for Water, INAG in Portugal, harmonising the management by three
Regional Water Departments.
In 1998 the Luso-Spanish Convention on the use of shared rivers came into
effect. This replaced the earlier agreements of 1964 for the Douro river and
of 1968 for the remaining shared rivers, in which the Tagus was included.
The new agreement is a more modern one aiming at the sustainable use of
water and the protection of the water quality in the shared rivers. Detailed
regulations for minimum flows in the Tagus are part of the Additional
Protocol to the Convention. This stipulates a minimum annual flow at the
downstream border of 2700 hm3 with derogation in case of a dry year
(precipitation from October to March <60% than the average of the wet
semester, or <70% if annual rainfall in the previous year is <80% than the
average) [28].
The Convention is not basin-specific but deals with all basins, and regulates
the sharing of water and the protection of its quality. No operational
secretariat exists in the sense of the example of the ICPR, but co-operation
is stimulated by regulating information exchange and consultation
mechanisms. There is a bilateral Committee for the Application and
Development of the Convention that acts as a working group of the
superior body, the Ministerial Conference. One distinct characteristic of the
Convention is that the operational structure for water-quantity
management (water sharing, flood warning) is much more developed than
that for water-quality management.
3.7.2.2 Policies
Given the objective of improvement of water quality in general, in the case
of Spain defined in the form of quality objectives for each stretch of the
river for drinking-water production, the countries have adopted policies to
decrease the discharge of effluents to the surface-water system. In Spain
and Portugal, all the EC Directives have been incorporated into the
legislation. Quality objectives for each stretch of the river depend on the
designated water use in a defined stretch and quality objectives are
according to the requirements of the corresponding EC Directive. The
policy to decrease the discharge of effluents to the surface water system
was laid down in decree DL152/97, stipulating that no later than by the
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
73
end of 2005 all settlements with more than 2000 inhabitants must have
realised the prescribed treatment capacity. For settlements with more than
15,000 inhabitants, this date is set at the end of 2000.
With respect to pollution licenses for the discharge of industrial waste
water in Portugal, the situation is poor in the sense that only a small
fraction of industrial sites actually have pollution licenses, and an even
smaller fraction actually monitors its discharges as prescribed. Considering
that the legislation regulating the discharges of different sources of
pollutants mostly originates from the late 1990s, it can be expected that
this policy will bear results in the short to medium term.
3.7.3 Environmental issues
3.7.3.1 Hydromorphology and Flow Regulation
One characteristic of the Tagus basin is the proliferation of small, medium
and large dams and their corresponding reservoirs. The total storage
capacity is 14 km3, or 74% of average annual runoff in the basin. In the
largest part of the basin natural flow conditions have now been replaced by
regulated flow conditions. The impact of this ongoing process of flow
regulation on the morphology of the river as well as on the aquatic and
other ecosystems in the river basin has not been well studied.
................................
Figure 3.7.2
Number of municipal and industrial
point pollution sources in Portuguese
part of Tagus river (Source: INAG)
................................
Figure 3.7.3
Percent of area of each type of land use
in Portugese part of Tagus river
(Source: INAG)
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
74
................................
Table 3.7.1
Estimated total loads from municipal
and industrial sources in the
Portuguese basin of the Tagus river
(Source INAG)
3.7.3.2 Water quality
The main environmental pressures on the river are caused by pollution
from industrial and municipal point sources and diffuse sources. Figures
3.7.2 and 3.7.3 show the numbers of municipal and industrial point sources
and the percent of area of each type of land use considered as diffuse
sources in the Portuguese basin of the Tagus river. Table 3.7.1 shows
estimated total loads for some parameters (BOD, COD, TSS, P and N).
The general classification of water quality that is used in Portugal (see par.
3.7.5) indicates the very bad state of the river Tagus. In the National Water
Plan a classification was established on the basis of the annual classification
with 9 parameters. Of the 43 classified stations, 84% had categories D or
E, being very polluted or extremely polluted. The border station generally
classifies as extremely polluted.
With respect to eutrophication in Portuguese reservoirs, the Basin Plan [27]
presents a classification of 28 reservoirs, out of which 32% were classified
hyper-eutrophic, 46% were classified eutrophic, and 22% were classified
as mesotrophic. In Spain, 42% of the 133 classified reservoirs were found
to be eutrophic. These figures are difficult to compare since both countries
use different eutrophication classification systems.
The Basin Plan for Portugal signals a significant number of cases in which
the legal requirements for water quality related to potable water
production, irrigation and swimming purposes, are not met (information of
1994-1997). On the Spanish side, some 79% of water intakes in reservoirs
present a water quality inferior to the legal requirements for the production
of potable water. Metals are not considered to be a problem in the basin.
For organic micropollutants the situation is difficult to assess since data is
scarce.
As an illustration of the development of water quality, the dissolved
oxygen concentrations in two key stations on the river are shown below
(Figure 3.7.4 and 3.7.5). The station Valada is close to the Tagus estuary,
while Perais is close to the border with Spain.
................................
Figure 3.7.4
Dissolved Oxygen Tagus at Valada
(Source: INAG)
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
75
................................
Figure 3.7.5
Dissolved Oxygen Tagus at Perais
(Source: INAG)
3.7.4 Monitoring programmes
3.7.4.1 Routine monitoring
The quantity and quality routine monitoring networks for surface waters
implemented in the Tagus river are shown in table 3.7.2:
In Portugal the monitoring programmes developed by INAG, are
implemented by three Regional Environment and Land Use Planning
Departments (DRAOT) sharing the basin’s management. The routine
monitoring of water-quality parameters in the basin came into operation in
the beginning of the 1990s. In Spain the routine monitoring of waterquality parameters is implemented by CHT.
................................
Table 3.7.2
Number of stations in each monitoring
network
Water-quality monitoring is not standardised, neither between the
countries nor within the countries. For example in Portugal, the waterquality stations in the main river have different sets of parameters that are
being monitored, depending on the DRAOT under whose responsibility
they fall. The sampling frequency is monthly and the measured parameters
are dependent on the specific objectives attributed to each station, such as
water supply, border inflow control, environmental impact, flow, reference
status and fish life. These objectives were selected based on the human
pressures and on the water uses according to the Decree Law 236/98 (see
par.3.7.2). A minimum package of 20 parameters monitored in all stations.
These include general parameters (pH, temp., EC, TDS), oxygen-related
determinands (saturation, BOD, COD), nutrients (NH4, PO4, NO3),
bacteriological determinands (total and faecal coliforms, faecal
streptococcus) and some metals (Zn, Cu, Cr, Cd, Pb, Hg). The stations
under jurisdiction of DRAOT Lisboa e Vale do Tejo (green in the map) are
presently the only ones where some pesticides, herbicides and industrial
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
76
chemicals like PCBs are also monitored since 1999. This situation however
is changing due to the restructuring of the monitoring activities currently
under way by INAG, that will harmonise the water-quality monitoring
programmes in all DRAOTs in accordance with EU requirements.
Figure 3.7.6 shows the water-quality network for the Tagus river basin in
Portugal. The names of stations mentioned are the names of the stations at
the main river (Perais, Barca da Amieira, Alb de Belver, Tramagal, Almourol,
Ómnias and Valada-Tejo), one in the Erges river, a tributary of the Tagus,
one at the border (Segura) and one at the reservoir which is the main water
supply source to Lisbon (Alb. Castelo de Bode).
More information concerning both water quality and quantity for the Tagus
basin’s surface waters as well as its groundwater can be accessed directly
from a database available through the Portuguese site www.inag.pt
Water quality has been systematically controlled in Spain since 1962, when
the COCA Network was created, made up of a series of 50 control stations
................................
Figure 3.7.6
Locations of the main monitoring
stations in the Portuguese part of the
basin (Source: INAG)
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
77
for the whole basin, where periodic sampling was carried out to control 19
parameters. This Network has grown over time and is currently made up of
403 stations which are classified according to their control objectives, as
follows:
-
Pre-treatment Network made up of 57 periodic sampling stations in
water collection points for towns with more than 10,000 inhabitants
and another 346 water collection points for towns with less than
10,000 inhabitants. Here approximately 40 parameters are monitored.
-
Fishing Resources Network, which has 15 control stations. Here 17
parameters are monitored.
In 1993 the ICA Network was created incorporating 157 periodic sampling
stations, with stations that form three networks: Basic General Quality
network (20 parameters), Complete General Quality network (40
parameters) and European Economic Community network (18 parameters).
Figure 3.7.7 shows where these stations are located. Its objective is to
control water quality for water supply, bathing and fish resources.
................................
Figure 3.7.7
Finally, and within the framework of the SAICA project, 31 automatic alert
stations have been set up which provide continuous information on several
quality parameters and transmit data in real time to the Control and
decision-taking Centre.
These stations are located at key points (see Figure 3.7.8), such as the
connection points for supplying towns and cities, where it is important to
The ICA network of quality stations
(Source: CHT)
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
78
................................
Figure 3.7.8
The SAICA network in the Spanish part
of the basin (Source: CHT)
DUERO BA SIN
EBRO B ASIN
Alcorlo
Riosequillo
Pinilla
Palmaces
Puentes
Viejas El Vado
Siguenza
Beleña
El Villar
El Atazar
El Vellón
La Tajera
La
Jarosa Santillana
Guadalajara
La
Aceña
El
Pardo
Entrepeñas
Burguillo
Navamuño
Gabriel
y Galán
Borbollón
San
Juan
La Tosca
Alcalá de
Henares
MADRID
Valdeobispo
Rosarito
Portaje
Torrejón Tietar
Talavera
de la Reina
Cazalegas
Toledo
Valdecaña
Castrejón
Torrejón Tajo
Cedillo
Buendía
JUCAR BASIN
Navalcán
Jerte
Plasencia
Zorita
Almoguera
Picadas
Arrago
Coria
Molino de
Chincha
Bolarque
Valmayor
El Castro
Azután
Alcántara
SAIC A STA TIO NS NETWORK
IN TAJO BASIN
Cáceres
Guadiloba
1ª FASE
Salor
GUADIANA BASIN
2ª FASE
02ppm
02% saturation
TEMPERATURE
CONDUCTIVITY
PH
TURBIDITY
STAGE
TOC
4
NH +
=
PO4
detect a change in any of the quality parameters immediately, so as to be
able to take corrective action immediately.
The introduction of an Automatic Hydrological Information System (SAIH)
in the Tagus Basin began in 1995 and went into operation in 1998. The
SAIH PROGRAM had been launched throughout the Spanish peninsula ten
years earlier. The program started in the Mediterranean basins, which are
the ones, which suffer from the greatest irregularity in rainfall levels, with
long periods of shortage alternating with torrential rains with catastrophic
effects.
The SAIH is made up of a hydrological-hydraulic data collection and realtime transmission network and a system for storing and processing the
information received, which makes it possible to implement the most
suitable measures to reduce catastrophic effects of flooding.
The SAIH in the Tagus Basin has an information network made up of 202
control points (see Figure 3.7.9) distributed along its path, a satellite
transmission system, three Operational Centres, four Data Presentation
Centres and the Control Centre for the basin, situated in Madrid. Its
purpose is flood prevention and to improve the way the hydraulic systems
are used in order to save water and ensure an efficient supply system.
The control network is made up of 43 rainfall measurement points, 18 rain
and snow checkpoints, 47 reservoirs, 52 river gauges, 7 flood control points,
22 network control points and 12 thrust control points. A series of sensors is
installed in each control point to collect and transmit data relating to rain –
whether liquid or solid -, water levels, moving flows, the position of valves
and floodgates and other variables which allow those concerned to know, in
real time, the hydrological and hydraulic condition of the basin.
No specific monitoring programme for sediments is operated on a basinwide level. Eco-toxicological tests are not performed routinely.
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
79
................................
Fig. 3.7.9
SAIH network in the Tagus Basin
(Source: CHT)
DUERO BASIN
EBRO BASIN
★
Alcorlo
R iosequillo
Pinilla
Puentes
Viejas El Vado
★
★ ★
Palmaces
Siguenza
Beleña
★
El Villar
El At azar
El Vellón
La Tajera
★
La
Jarosa Santillana
★
La
Aceña
Burguillo
★★
Navamuño
Gabriel
★
Cedillo
Portaje
★
Molino de
★Chincha
La Tosca
Almoguera
JUCAR
BASIN
Talavera★ ★Cazalegas
de la Reina
Torrejón -
Tietar
★
★
Torrejón ★
Tajo
★
★
★
Zorita
★★ Buendía
★
Bolarqu
Navalcán
Rosarito
Plasencia
★
★
Alcalá de
Henares
MADRID
★Picadas
y Galán★
Valde★★ Borbollón★ obispo
Arrago
★Jerte
Coria
Rivera
de Gata
★
San
Juan
Ent repeñas
★
★
Valmayor
★
★
Guadalajara
El
Pardo
Toledo
Valdecaña
★
Castrejón
★
Azután
Alcántara
★ El Castro
★
★
S A IH S T AT I O N S N ET W O R K
IN TAJO B ASIN
★Guadiloba
★Salor
Cáceres
★
PLUVIO-SNOW GAGE
PLUVIOMETER
★
METHEOROLOGICAL STATIONS
GUA DIANA B ASIN
STAGE STATION CONTROL
★
RESERVOIRS
CONDUITS
GAGING STATION
Monitoring information is published on the Internet in both countries, and
presented to the public in electronic form, either in digest format and
reports or directly from the database. The Portuguese site
(www.inag.pt/snirh) is fully operational, as is the Spanish site
(hispagua.cedex.es).
3.7.4.2 Early-warning Systems
On the basis of the Luso-Spanish Convention INAG, and CHT operate
early-warning system for water quantity (flood warning) and water quality
(pollution accidents). This early-warning system is largely geared towards
flood warning, with the monitoring system and warning protocols well
developed. The system is less developed for water quality and pollution
events. No information was available with respect to the communication
infrastructure of authorities between the countries and within the countries
in case of pollution events, or of protocols for emergency actions. An
emergency plan for dams is now in preparation in Spain. Specific
monitoring stations for this purpose have been recently installed.
3.7.5 Assessment methodologies
Water-quality directives from the EU have been incorporated into the
national systems in both countries. For example, the Directive 75/440/EEC
has been incorporated into both Portuguese and Spanish legislation
concerning the classification of surface water for the production of potable
water. Three classes are distinguished, for which different treatment
methods are prescribed by law. In Spain, water-quality objectives have
been defined in terms of these potable water production suitability classes,
and a map of the Tagus and its tributaries indicating the desired suitability
class of the various stretches is the basis for water-quality management.
In Portugal the classification system adopted by INAG is not an index but a
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
80
classification system with 5 different classes, according to different water
uses, following Decree no 236/98.
In Portugal, the INAG developed a system for water-quality classification
for routine management and information for the public in general. The
classification of surface water for multiple uses makes use of monthly data
and is based on 27 parameters. It distinguishes five pollution classes,
ranging from unpolluted (A) to extremely polluted (E). It is presented in
Annex 3.7.I. In terms of legal compliance, the classification follows the
Decree Law 236/98 according the water uses. For eutrophication of
reservoirs, the classification used is based on the OECD methodology with
some adjustments. The system is based on seven parameters (PO 4, average
chlorophyll, maximum chlorophyll, average annual transparency, minimum
transparency, abundance, DO).
In Spain, quality objectives for each section of the rivers have been set
based on the designated use: water supply (S1, S2 and S3), Fishing
Resources (Salmonicolas (S), Ciprinicolas (C) and waters suitable for
Bathing (B), establishing the concentrations of BOD5, suspended solids,
N-NH4, P-PTOTAL. Annex 3.7.2 shows these objectives per river.
3.7.6 Environmental Status
3.7.6.1 Hydromorphology
The morphology of the river system has changed profoundly with the
construction of a large number of dams, creating reservoirs ranging from
small to very large. As a result, flow conditions have changed from natural
to regulated. Only exceptional precipitation events now lead to flood
situations. The influence of the reservoirs and the changed flow conditions
on the ecological system of the Tagus river have been profound, but
systematic data are not available.
3.7.6.2 Water Quality
In tables 3.7.3 and 3.7.4, the annual classification of the surface-water
quality for multiple purposes (as used by INAG for the border station at
Perais and at Valada, upstream the estuary) is presented for the period
1995-2000. This classification is based on monthly values for each
parameter sampled. The methodology used is to consider the C95 of each
parameter. The final classification is made on basis of the worst parameter.
The water quality at Perais, at the border, is relatively poor, especially
because of the nutrient load that increased significantly in the last years.
The Valada sampling station controls the water-upply source to Lisbon. In
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
81
................................
Table 3.7.3
Final classification of Perais station, first
measuring point downstream of the
border
................................
Table 3.7.4
Final classification of Valada station,
last measuring point upstream the
estuary
general this station presents better water quality than Perais. The problems
here are due to microbiological pollution rather than nutrient load.
3.7.6.3 Ecology
With respect to the biological status, very little systematic information
could be found. The Basin Plan of the Portuguese stretch of the river
presents only lists of "best conserved" and "recovering" basin habitats and
ecosystems, mentioning lists of species for some, as well as a general
description of three different stretches of the river on the Portuguese side.
In Spain the conservation and recovery of aquatic ecosystems is an explicit
objective mentioned in the basin plan for the Tagus. Particular mention is
made of the establishment of minimum ecological discharge limits, the
battle against pollution, and the preservation of river bank areas.
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
82
................................
Annex 3.7.1
List of parameters used for classification
in Portugal
Class
Parameter
PH
Temperature (°C)
Conductivity (uS/cm,20°C)
TSS (mg/l)
DO saturation (%)
BOD (mg O2/l)
COD (mg O2/l)
Oxidability (mg O2/l)
Ammonium (mg NH4/l)
Nitrates (mg NO3/l)
Phosphates (mg P205/l)
Total Coliform (/100 ml)
Fecal Coliform (/100 ml)
Fecal Estreptoc. (/100 ml)
Iron (mg/l)
Manganese (mg/l)
Zinc (mg/l)
Copper (mg/l)
Chromium (mg/l)
Selenium (mg/l)
Cadmium (mg/l)
Lead (mg/l)
Mercury (mg/l)
Arsenic (mg/l)
Cyanide (mg/l)
Phenal (mg/l)
Tensio-active Agents
(Las-mg/l)
A
(unpolluted)
B
(slightly polluted)
C
(polluted)
D
(highly polluted)
E
(extremely polluted)
6.5 – 8.5
<=20
<=750
<=25.0
>=90
<=3.0
<=10.0
<=3.0
<=0.10
<=5.0
<0.54
<=50
<=20
<=20
<=0.50
<=0.10
<=0.30
<=0.020
<=0.05
<=0.01
<=0.0010
<=0.050
<=0.00050
<=0.010
<=0.010
<=0.0010
21 – 25
751 – 1 000
25.1 – 30.0
89 – 70
3.1 – 5.0
10.1 – 20.0
3.1 – 5.0
0.11 – 1.00
5.0 – 25.0
51 – 5 000
21 – 2 000
21 – 2 000
0.51 – 1.00
0.11 – 0.25
0.31 – 1.00
0.021 – 0.05
0.011 – 0.050
0.0011 – 0.0050
6.0 – 9.0
16 – 28
1 001 – 1 500
30.1 – 40.0
69 – 50
5.1 – 8.0
20.1 – 40.0
5.1 – 10.0
1.10 – 2.00
25.1 – 50.0
<0.94
5 001 – 50 000
2 001 – 20 000
2 001 – 20 000
1.10 – 1.50
0.26 – 0.50
1.10 – 5.00
0.051 – 1.00
0.0011 – 0.0050
0.051 – 0.100
0.00051 – 0.001
0.011 – 0.050
0.0051 – 0.010
5.5 – 9.5
29 – 30
1 501 – 3 000
40.1 – 80.0
49 – 30
8.1 – 20.0
40.1 – 80.0
10.1 – 25.0
2.01 – 5.00
50.1 – 80.0
>0.94
>50 000
>20 000
>20 000
1.50 – 2.00
0.51 – 1.00
0.051 – 0.100
0.011 – 0.100
>30
>3 000
>80.0
<30
>20.0
>80.0
>25.0
>5.00
>80.0
>2.00
>1.00
>5.00
>1.00
>0.05
>0.01
>0.0050
>0.100
>0.001
>0.100
>0.050
>0.100
<=0.2
-
0.21 – 0.50
-
>0.50
Class
Quality Level
Waters considered without pollution, suited for potentially satisfying
the most stringent requirements in terms of water quality
B (slightly polluted)
Waters with a quality slightly inferior to that of class A, but with the
potential to also satisfy all uses
C (polluted)
Waters with "acceptable" quality, sufficient for irrigation, industrial
uses and potable water production after rigorous treatment. Allows
the existence of aquatic life (less exigent species), but with affected
reproduction. Suited for recreation without direct contact
D (highly polluted)
Waters with a mediocre quality, only potentially suited for irrigation
E (extremely polluted) Waters exceeding the maximum value of class D for one or more
parameters. Are considered unsuited for most uses and could be a
threat to public and environmental health
A (unpolluted)
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
83
................................
Annex 3.7.2
Quality objectives per river
MAIN RIVER BED
River Tagus
River Gallo
River Tagus
River Cuervo
River Guadiela
River Tagus
Arroyo
Navacerrada
River Manzanares
River Henares
River Tajuña
AREA
QUALITY OBJECTIVES
BY USE
CONCENTRATIONS
River Tagus and tributaries from its source to the
confluence with the River Gallo
River Gallo and its tributaries from the headwaters
to Molina de Aragón
River Gallo and its tributaries between Molina de
Aragón and the mouth of the river
River Tagus and tributaries between the river Gallo
and the Entrepeñas reservoir
River Cuervo and its tributaries from its source to
La Tosca reservoir
River Cuervo and its tributaries from La Tosca
reservoir to the mouth of the river
River Guadiela and tributaries, except for the
River Cuervo, from its source to the Molino de
Chincha reservoir
River Guadiela and tributaries except for the River
Cuervo from the Molino de Chicha reservoir to the
confluence with the River Escabas
River Guadiela and its tributaries between the River
Escabas and the Buendía reservoir
River Tagus and its tributaries between the
Almoguera reservoir and the Estremera reservoir
River Tagus and its tributaries between the
Estremera reservoir and the town of Aranjuez
Arroyo Navacerrada and its tributaries
River Manzanares and tributaries, except for the
River Navacerrada, from its headwaters to the
Santillana reservoir
River Manzanares and tributaries between
Santillana reservoir and Madrid city
River Manzanares and its tributaries down-river
from Madrid city
River Dulce up-river from Mandayona
River Bornova and its tributaries up-river from the
Alcorlo reservoir
River Sorbe and its tributaries up-river from the
Beleña reservoir
River Sorbe and its tributaries from the Beleña
reservoir to the mouth of the river
River Henares and tributaries from its headwaters
to the mouth of the river Sorbe, including the
River Dulce from Mandoyona and the River Bornova
from Alcorlo
River Henares and its tributaries between the river
Sorbe and the city of Guadalajara
River Tajuña and its tributaries from its source to the
La Tajera reservoir
River Tajuña and tributaries between La Tajera
reservoir and Madrid city limits
River Tajuña and its tributaries between Madrid city
limits and Perales de Tajuña
River Tajuña and its tributaries between Perales de
Tajuña and the mouth of the river
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
84
SUPP.
FISH
BATHING
DBO5
S.S.
NH4 P.TOTAL
S1
S
B
S3
S*
B
S2
S*
B
S3
S
B
S2
S
B
S2
S*
B
S3
S*
B
S2
S*
B
S3
S*
B
S2
S*
B
S2
C
B
-
-
-
10
25
10
8
S2
C
B
-
-
-
10
25
10
8
S3
S*
B
15
25
15
3
S3
S*
B
S2
S*
B
S3
-
-
S2
C
B
S3
-
-
25
25
5
1
S2
S
B
S2
S
B
S3
C
-
S2
-
-
MAIN RIVER BED
AREA
QUALITY OBJECTIVES
BY USE
CONCENTRATIONS
SUPP.
River Jarama
River Algodor
River Guadarrama
River Tagus
River Alberche
River Tiétar
River Almonte
River Cuerpo
de Hombre
River Árrago
River Alagón
River Salor
River Jarama and tributaries from its headwaters to
confluence with Lozoya
Rest of Jarama and tributaries from the River Lozoya
to its confluence with the River Guadalix
River Jarama and tributaries between the confluences
with the River Guadalix and the Vega council
River Jarama and tributaries except for the Manzanares,
Henares and Tajuña, down-river from Vega council
River Algodor and its tributaries up-river from
Los Yébenes
River Algodor and its tributaries between Los Yébenes
and the Finisterre reservoir
River Algodor and its tributaries between the Finisterre
and El Castro reservoirs
River Algodor and its tributaries between El Castro
reservoir and the mouth of the river
River Guadarrama and its tributaries between its source
and the EDAR El Chaparral
River Guadarrama and its tributaries down-river from
the EDAR El Chaparral
River Tagus and tributaries except for the Rivers Jarama,
Algodor, Guadarrama, Guajaraz, Torcón, Cedena, Pusa,
Sangrera, Gévalo and Uso
Headwaters of the river Alberche and its tributaries to its
mouth
River Tiétar and its tributaries from its source to the
Rosario reservoir
River Tiétar and its tributaries between the Rosarito
reservoir and the Alcañizo council
River Tiétar and its tributaries down-river from the
Alcañizo council
River Almonte and its tributaries
River Cuerpo de Hombre and its tributaries to Béjar
River Cuerpo of Hombre and its tributaries down-river
from Béjar
River Árrago and Rivera de Gata, and their respective
tributaries from their source to their convergence
River Árrago and its tributaries from the Rivera de
Gata to the mouth of the river
River Alagón and tributaries except for the River
Cuerpo de Hombre to the Valdeobispo reservoir
River Alagón and its tributaries between the Valdeobispo
reservoir and the confluence with the river Jerte
River Alagón and its tributaries, except for the River
Árrago, between the mouth of the River Jerte and the
Alcántara reservoir
River Salor and its tributaries
FISH
BATHING
DBO5
S2
S*
B
S2
C
B
S2
-
B
-
-
-
S2
C
B
-
-
B
S2
-
B
S2
C
B
S3
C
-
-
-
-
S3
C
B
S2
C
B
-
-
-
S2
C
B
S3
-
-
B
B
S1
S
-
-
-
-
S2
-
B
S.S.
NH4
P.TOTAL
15
25
10
3
25
25
15
3,5
10
25
10
1
15
25
10
2
15
25
10
4
25
55
10
1
-
B
9
25
4
0,5
-
-
35
35
15
2,5
25
40
15
2,5
S1
S
B
S2
-
-
B
-
The following notation has been used:
-
Quality required for surface waters which are destined for the production of drinking water, according to the degree of treatment it
requires in order to be drinkable: S1, S2 and S3.
Quality required for continental waters when they need protection or improvement for fish to live in them: S (waters with salmon
stocks) and C (waters with cyprine stocks).
Quality required for the fresh surface waters in order to be suitable for bathing: B.
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
85
3.8 River Oder
3.8.1 General Description
The Oder River Basin has a catchment area of 118,861 km 2. The basin is
situated in the industrialised and highly populated centre of Europe, shared
by Poland (89 %), the Czech Republic (6 %) and Germany (5 %). The
Oder River has its sources in the Oder Mountains (the Czech Republic,
632-m above sea level) and after 854.3 km the river flows into the
Szczecinski Lagoon and through the Pomeranian Bay into the Baltic Sea.
Over a distance of 176 km the Oder forms the state border between
Poland and Germany, which is also the eastern border of the European
Union. Its geopolitical function as well as the hydro-geographical conditions
characterise the Oder River as one of the principal transboundary rivers in
Europe. The long-term average flow is 521 m3/sec at Hohensaaten-Finow.
At present, 15.4 million people live in the catchment: 13 million in Poland,
1.4 million in the Czech Republic and 1 million in Germany.
The river basin is divided into the upper course (source – Wroclaw, 21.4 %
of the total area), the mid-altitude course (Wroclaw – Warta, 54.6 % of the
total area), and the lower course (Warta – Szczecinski Lagoon, 24 % of the
total area). The landscapes of the upper and mid-altitude course are
morphologically subdivided into mountainous or hilly regions and valleys.
The lower course consists of moraine landscapes with lakes, lowlands and
moorlands of the German-Polish Plain.
The main current functions of the Oder are: the ecological function, water
supply, waste-water discharge and navigation. Furthermore, the Oder and
its tributaries are currently used for the generation of electricity and mining
of alluvial sands.
3.8.2 Institutional Structures and Policies
3.8.2.1 Institutional Structures
International co-operation in the Oder basin is organised on the basis of
bilateral and international agreements:
• Agreement between the governments of the Republic of Poland, the
Czech Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany and the European
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
86
Union on the International Commission for the Protection of the Oder
(ICPO) against Pollution from 11.04.1996. That year the temporary
Commission and the temporary secretariat were established. In 2000,
the Commission and the secretariat became permanent.
• Agreement between the Republic of Poland and the Federal Republic of
Germany on Co-operation in Water Management of Transboundary
Waters from 19 May 1992.
• Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Poland and the
Government of the Czech Republic on Co-operation on Transboundary
Waters from 19 May 1996.
The ICPO initiates and supports all efforts aimed at the protection of the
Oder. The secretariat is based in Wroclaw.
The activities of the ICPO are supported by 6 working groups: (1) action
programmes, (2) accidental pollution, (3) legislation and organisation, (4)
flood protection, (5) ecology and nature protection and (6) implementation
of the new EC Water Framework Directive.
The basic goals of the ICPO are:
• to prevent and reduce the pollution of the Oder
• to restore water and riparian ecosystems to a near-natural condition
with a characteristic diversity of species
• to facilitate the primary use of the Oder as a source of drinking water
by bank filtration, for fishing and tourism.
• to implement the EC Water Framework Directive (River Basin
Management Plan)
• to co-ordinate integrated flood protection
• to collect and provide Oder related information (studies, projects, maps,
reports, literature) as a central means of information exchange.
No joint water-quality monitoring system is established within the ICPO.
Transboundary monitoring of the Oder river is organised by bilateral
commissions of the riparian countries (see par.3.8.4).
Transboundary monitoring and assessment of the river quality is the
responsibility of the German-Polish and the Czech-Polish Commissions for
Transboundary Waters. The national authorities of each country carry out the
activities. Working groups ensure a permanent co-operation in the fields of
monitoring, analysis, harmonisation of methods, legal aspects and early
warning.
The bilateral commissions for transboundary waters consider all tasks and
questions connected with their joint responsibility for use and protection of
the transboundary watercourses. The German-Polish Commission consists
of five working groups: (1) Hydrology and hydrogeology of the catchment,
(2) water protection (Monitoring programme, analytical methods,
assessment), (3) extraordinary pollution (emissions, accidents, early
warning, information exchange), (4 hydrological structures (dikes, dams,
weirs) and (5) planning (technical measures, loads, forecasts).
Co-operation between the Czech Republic and Poland is fulfilled by four
working groups: (1) water management planning, (2) hydrology and flood
service, (3) setting up border water courses, water supply and
improvements in areas near the border, and (4) protection of the border
waters against pollution.
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
87
3.8.2.2 Policies
With regard to river protection, the national and international aims of the
water policy are harmonised by the signed agreements (see 3.8.2.1) and
defined in the documents of the ICPO. The policy is successfully
implemented by the joint commissions and accelerated by the planned
integration of Poland and the Czech Republic into the European Union.
Examples are the institutional changes in Poland already in place regarding
the river-basin approach, the application of ISO-standards and EC Water
Directives for the assessment of the transboundary waters.
The most important results of the Commission until now are the following:
- short term programme for protection of the Oder River against pollution
(1997-2002) [29]
- a comprehensive analysis of the flood event in 1997
- a joint strategy and action programme for flood protection
- an international warning and alarm plan for the Oder River.
The short-term programme for protection of the Oder River against
pollution was initiated by the member countries in 1997. The programme is
the first practical task of Working Group 1 of the ICPO. It aims to improve
the water quality of the Oder River and the tributaries by reducing water
pollution from industrial and municipal point sources. Concrete technical
measures are planned for industrial point sources with discharge of more
than 1000 m3/day and municipal point sources with more than 20,000
inhabitant equivalents. Reductions of BOD, nitrogen and phosphorus have
been determined as criteria to assess the results of the programme. Within
the period from 1 January 1997 to 31 December 2002, investments are
planned for 138 projects (Czech Republic: 13 projects, Poland: 118
projects, Germany: 7). The total investments estimated as 1020 Million
Euro (1997) will be used for the completion of waste-water treatments
plants (WWTP) already under construction before 1997, for construction of
planned WWTPs and the reconstruction of WWTPs, damaged by the flood
in 1997. The programme for reduction of water pollution aims for a water
quality that meets the A3 quality requirements of Directive 75/440/EEC.
3.8.3 Environmental Issues
3.8.3.1 Hydromorphology
Most of the morphological interventions in the Oder occurred before 1945.
In the 18th and 19th century the total length of the river was shortened by
160 km and in the beginning of the 20th century again by 30 km, a total
reduction of almost 25 %. The primary purpose of these actions was to
improve conditions for shipping. Between 1883 and 1958, 23 dams were
constructed in the stretch between Kozle and Brzeg. These dams impair the
migration of fish. Until today, no fish ladders have been constructed. In
principle, the Oder basin has good morphological conditions for fish,
because of the variety of water biotopes, especially in the Lower Oder.
After 1945 the economic importance of the Oder decreased and a
relatively undisturbed natural development allowed some recovery of the
ecosystem. Along the river large areas are now covered by valuable
biotopes and landscapes (alluvial forests, wet meadows, meanders) with a
high diversity of rare flora and fauna. In each of the countries national
parks, nature reserves and landscape parks have been created, among
which the international Lower Oder Valley Park of 6009 ha.
In the summer of 1997, a major flooding in the basin occurred, initiating
the establishment of a special working group under the ICPO. At present
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
88
there are plans for the construction of 2 new dams, one at Malczyce, just
north of Wroclaw [30].
................................
Figure 3.8.1
Oxygen levels at Bohumin for the
period 1990-2000 (Source: ICPO)
................................
Figure 3.8.2
COD values at Bohumin for the period
1990-2000 (Source: ICPO)
3.8.3.2 Water quality
In the past 10 years the water quality in the Oder basin has improved
considerably for almost every parameter. Annex 3.8.1 shows the
development of water quality for the period 1992-2000 for 28
determinands at 3 locations along the river. The C90 (C10 for the oxygen
concentration) values are presented. The oxygen concentrations in 2000
are satisfactory along the whole stretch and improved considerably in the
upstream part of the river. Organic pollution is still too high, but has
decreased. (see fig.3.8.1 and fig. 3.8.2). Total nitrogen and total
phosphorous have decreased also, but are still too high, causing
eutrophication risks. Heavy metal concentrations are in general no problem
with the exception of mercury in the upper part of the river. Bacteriological
pollution is a problem along the whole stretch of the river, but clearly less
severe than 8 years ago. Since pesticides are measured only once a year
and only the dissolved fraction, it is not possible to make objective
comments about the observations.
In all riparian states, waste water is treated to a considerable extent: In the
Czech Republic 88 % in 1998, in Poland 86 % and in Germany 90 %.
Investment programmes for further extension of treatment plants have
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
89
been initiated by the ICPO (see par. 3.8.2.2). Although reliable calculations
are missing, it is to be expected that most of the problems arise from
diffuse sources.
3.8.4 Monitoring Programmes
3.8.4.1 Monitoring Network
The riparian countries have been co-operating in monitoring programmes
for more than 30 years. Monitoring of the Polish Oder Basin is conducted
on the basis of national, regional and local networks. The Polish national
network has the aim of meeting the obligations resulting from international
agreements. It consists of 161 basic stations (cross sections), including 33
border stations and 5 benchmark stations. The legal basis of the wellstructured, country-wide environmental monitoring system is the Law on
the Establishment of the State Inspection of Enviromental Protection (1991).
Monitoring is the responsibility of the institution created under this law.
The monitoring frequency depends on the type of network and variables.
Basic stations are sampled monthly and border stations and benchmark
stations 2 times per month. Heavy metals are measured quarterly and
pesticides annually. The physical and chemical programme consists of 35
determinands. The regular biological monitoring is restricted to 3
parameters: faecal bacteria, chlorophyll content and index of saprobidity.
Biological assessments of the Oder River Ecosystem are carried out by
Universities. Sediment analyses are performed by the State Geological
Institute. At 29 locations, sampling takes place once a year and at 47
locations every 3 years. Twelve metals are analysed.
The necessary co-ordination of the activities and the assessment of the
results is one of the main tasks of the International Oder Commission. A
number of extensive biological assessments have recently been conducted
by IUCN and WWF.
In Germany the Federal States (Länder) are responsible for monitoring and
assessment of water quality. Here the basin approach is accomplished
through the co-operation of the state ministries within the Polish-German
Commission for Transboundary Waters. These tasks are assigned to the
regional Environmental Departments of Ministries of Environmental
Protection of Sachsony, Brandenburg and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern.
In the Czech Republic water-quality monitoring and assessment is
conducted by the Czech Hydro-Meteorological Institute (CHMI) under the
Ministry of Environment. A total of 39 stations are located in the Czech
sector of the Oder basin. These are generally sampled monthly depending
on the type of network and determinands. About 50 determinands are
analysed in water. Suspended solids and sediments and biota are sampled
at 4 locations and 41 determinands are analysed twice a year. The regular
biological monitoring consists of measurements of faecal bacteria, coliform
bacteria, faecal streptococci, chlorophyll, saprobity (index of bioseston and
index of benthos). The abundance of benthic organisms and fish are
measured twice per year. Regular biomonitoring also involves
measurements of the accumulation of contaminants in benthic organisms,
Dreissena plymorpha, fish (bream) and periphyton.
The Ministry of Agriculture acts as the central water-management
authority, responsible for management of water resources, public water
supply, public sewerage and sewage treatment, agricultural and forestry
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
90
................................
Figure 3.8.3
Monitoring Stations in the Oder
catchment
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
91
use of water. The Ministry of Environment represents state control on
protection of surface and groundwater. The Ministry of Environment
supervises CHMI and CIE. The CHMI orders the observation of water
quality in the laboratories of the River Authorities.
The 3 countries have agreed on joint transboundary monitoring at a
selection of stations, that are part of each of the national networks. The
German-Polish Commission has selected 13 stations along the Lusatian
Neisse, 9 stations along the Oder mainstream, 12 in the Szczecinski lagoon
and 4 in the Pomeranian Bay. The Polish-Czech Commission has agreed on
the selection of 10 stations, 9 at different tributaries and 1 at the main
stream in Chalupki. One station at the Lusatian Neisse is sampled by the 3
countries. The lay out of this network is shown in fig.3.8.3
3.8.4.2 Special Studies
Important additional surveys and special studies have been or are carried
out through complementary programmes:
• The International Oder Project (IOP)
(Federal Ministry of Education and Research of the FRG, Foundation of
Polish-German Collaboration)
• Transboundary Information System for Sustainable Flood Management
(FLODIS) (Allianz Foundation, Munich, Germany)
• Odra Basin – Baltic Sea Interactions (OBBSI)
(Volkswagen Foundation, Wolfsburg, Germany)
• Oder Auen Atlas of WWF
• Several IUCN Research projects
• The Oder Project (Water Research Institute, Czech republic)
The International Oder Project (IOP) is undoubtedly the most
comprehensive research project on the Oder River. It started in 1997 and
will probably be continued as IOP II until 2004. The project is set up by 11
Czech, German and Polish scientific groups from universities and national
authorities.
The primary scientific objective is the description of the status, the
dynamics and the metabolism of the pollutants present in the Oder system.
The following activities are carried out in the framework of the IOP:
• Quantitative determination of inorganic and organic pollutants in all
compartments, including non target screening
• Characterisation of toxic and synergistic effects
• Description of transport and degradation characteristics of pollutants
• Description of the sources of pollutants in the region.
Up to now the complete Oder River System was sampled 5 times from the
Czech border to the Baltic Sea. The IOP sampling net has about 100
stations. The determinands have been measured using state-of-the-art
equipment (ICP-MS, ICP-AES, TXRF, GC-MS, GC-ECD) following ISO/DIN
standards. The activities complement the routine monitoring. The obtained
results will be made available to the International Oder Commission, to the
Bilateral Commissions of Transboundary Waters and to the governments
involved.
3.8.4.3 Early-warning System
The ICPO agreed upon an "International Warning and Alarm Plan". It
comes into effect in the case of pollution by substances considered
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
92
dangerous for the water quality of the Oder, the aquatic life or the human
population. Depending on the type of pollution, the plan distinguishes and
defines three groups of impact: heavy, endangering or accidental
(incidental). According to the administrative structure adopted, the
catchment area has been divided into 10 regions. For each region one
International Main Warning Centre and a network of contacts have been
defined. The plan contains all details of the network and procedures:
necessary addresses, fax numbers, pre-prepared forms, etc. [31].
The system was established in 1999 with two joint international alarm
exercises. There has been no heavy pollution alarm since 1999. About 12
smaller pollution accidents per year have been registered by the
functioning system.
3.8.5 Assessment Methodologies
On the national level, the riparian countries apply different methods of
classification. The German system uses the index of saprobidity combined
with the chemical parameters BOD5, NH4-N and dissolved oxygen
(Table 3.8.1).
................................
Table 3.8.1
German surface water quality
classification
Quality
class
Degree of organic
pollution
Saprobic stage
Saprobic
index
BOD5
(mg/l)
NH4-N
(mg/l)
O2
minima
(mg/l)
I
I – II
II
II – III
Non existent to very low
Low pollution
Moderate pollution
Critical pollution
1.0 - < 1.5
1.5 - < 1.8
1.8 - < 2.3
1
1-2
2-6
Traces
Around 0.1
< 0.3
>8
>8
>6
III
Severe pollution
Very severe pollution
2.3 – < 2.7
2.7 - < 3.2
5 - 10
7 - 13
<1
0.5 to several mg/l
>4
>2
IV
Excessive pollution
Oligosaprobic
oligo – mesosaprobic
Betamesosaprobic
Alpha –
betamesosaprobic
Alphamesosaprobic
Alphamesosaprobic –
polysaprobic
Polysaprobic
3.2 - < 3.5
3.5 - < 4.0
10 - 20
> 15
Several mg/l
Several mg/l
<2
<2
More details of the national German and Czech systems are presented in
paragraph 3.2.5 and in table 3.8.2. The national Polish system is presented
in Annex 3.8.2. In Poland, 3 classes are defined as follows:
Class I: Water fit for drinking purposes, clean industry, Salmonidae habitat
Class II: Water fit for recreation, stock breeding, non-Salmonidae habitat
Class III: Water fit for agricultural purposes and industry.
As they are characterised by limits, water quality can be worse than Class
III (out of norm) (see annex 3.8.2). The limits for each class are given by a
decree of the Cabinet including a comprehensive set of 57 determinands.
The single variables as well as groups (organic substances, salinity,
suspended solids, nutrients, faecal coli bacteria) are classified and finally the
highest class is used to characterise the river quality. Even if only one
measured parameter is out of class, then the river water quality is assessed
as out of class.
................................
Table 3.8.2
Czech Classification of surface water
quality (CSN 757221)
Parameter
Diss. Oxygen
BOD5
COD Cr
N-NH4
N-NO3
Total P
Unit
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
I
>7.5
<2
<15
<0.3
<3.0
<0.05
II
>6.5
<4
<25
<0.7
<6.0
<0.15
III
>5
<8
<45
<2.0
<10
<0.4
IV
>3
<15
<60
<4
<13
<1
V
<3
>15
>60
>4
>13
>1
Since 1997, the German and Polish Water Authorities have agreed, as part
of the Polish EU accession process, to apply 3 EC Directives for the
assessment of the water quality in transboundary waters. The assessment is
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
93
performed for the standards included in each of these Directives. The
agreed quality goal is A3 from 75/44o/EEC.
The Polish practice to assess water quality on the basis of these three
Directives is as follows (see Annex 3.8.3):
• in general the quality standards as recommended in water category A3
of Directive 75/440/EEC are applied,
• in case the requirements for the concentrations were more strict in the
Directives 78/659/EEC and 76/160/EEC then the quality standards for
such parameters have been chosen instead of those of category A3,
• in case for parameters no quality standards were recommended in the
three Directives then concentration levels according to the 1st quality
class of the Polish classification have been chosen.
The Polish and Czech authorities use basic, physico-chemical and biological
variables for common assessment. Their collaboration is still based on the
Unified Criteria of Water Quality, Moscow 1981- of the former Council of
Economic Co-operation. This system defines 6 different water-quality
classes and water-quality targets to be implemented in 2010. It is to be
expected that this system will be replaced by a system based on EC
Directives as part of the accession process.
3.8.6 Environmental Status
3.8.6.1 Hydromorphology
The changes in the morphology of the river in the past have been described
in par. 3.8.3.1. They occurred mainly in the part of the river upstream from
Brzeg. The river morphology downstream of Brzeg is still favourable, also
for migratory fish. Trout and salmon migrate upstream at least until the
confluence with the Warta. In the upper part of the river, the riverbed is
still influenced by fairly natural processes. The Oder Auen Atlas of WWF
defines 15 different biotopes, which are still found in the river valley and
support a very diverse ecosystem.
3.8.6.2 Water Quality
Annex 3.8.3 shows the results of the water-quality assessment for 3 years
and 3 stations, now applied by the German-Polish Transboundary Waters
Commission. The values in the columns present the factor, by which the 90
percentile values at each of the stations for each of the parameters (10
percentile values for oxygen concentration) differs from the quality goal.
The main problems are with total phosphorus for the whole stretch and
BOD, phosphorus and coliform bacteria for the middle part. In the highest
part upstream of Chalupki, oil products, mercury and nitrate cause
additional serious problems. Sediment pollution is considerable in a number
of river stretches close to areas with heavy industry, mining and nonferrous industry. Elevated levels for a number of metals, in particular Cd
and Hg, are found in Silezia and in the Warta tributary. In the Glogow
region elevated levels of Cu, As, Pb, Ni and Hg are found. PAHs are mainly
found in sediment in the upper part of the river [33], [35].
Using the Polish classification, 702.3 km of the Oder were below the norms
of Class III (out of norm) in 1999 and only 39.6 km of the Oder course
belonged to Class III.
Applying the German biological classification, the Oder River possesses
water-quality classes III (severely polluted) to II-III (critically polluted).
Using the Czech classification applied to the Oder River at the border
between the Czech Republic and Poland in 1999, the water quality was
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
94
characterised by classes II (BOD), III (Total P), III (N-NH4) and III (N-NO3).
The main sources of pollution in the Czech republic are the Ostrava area
and the heavy industry in Bohumin.
It is clear, that using any of the national assessment methodologies, the
assessment results are giving less favourable conclusions than using the
most stringent value of any of the 3 applied EC Directives.
Table 3.8.3 presents a comparison of monitoring results at the most
downstream station (Krajnik) with the class I objectives in Poland, class I for
metals and class II for the other parameters in Germany and with directive
75/440/EEC.
................................
Table 3.8.3
Assessment of a selection of water
quality parameters in the Oder river
C 1)
8.8
9.2
3.9
0.35
5.2
0.37
7.0
n.d
n.d
BOD5 mg/l
O2 mg/l
NO3 mgN/l
NH4 mgN/l
Ntot mgN/l
Ptot mgP/l
Zn mg/l
Cd mg/l
Hg mg/l
75/440/EEC 2)
n.a
n.a
5.6 5)
0.04
n.a
0.17
500
1.0
0.5
Poland 3)
4
6
5.0
1.0
5.0
0.1
200
5
1
Germany 4)
n.a
>6
2.5
0.3
3.0
0.15
14
0.072
0.04
n.a. = not applicable; n.d. = not detectable
1) = 90 percentile values (for metals dissolved fraction) at Krajnik, km 690, in 2000
2) = Quality of surface water for the production of drinking water
3) = Class I, see par. 3.8.5
4) = Class I and II, see par. 3.8.5
5) = Nitrate + nitrite
3.8.6.3 Ecology
As stated in the previous paragraphs, the present conditions in the Oder
basin are comparatively favourable for supporting a rich ecosystem. The
river valley includes 500 km2 valuable fluvial forest of which 50 % is of
such high importance, that special protection measures should be taken,
two thirds of these forests are in the river meadows ("Auen"), that are still
regularly flooded [34]. Also 50 % of river meadows (383 km 2) have
biotopes with extraordinary value. In total, 94 plant communities, 42 water
and wetland communities and 15 forest communities have been reported.
In the lower part of the river natural living conditions still support a rich fish
life, which is typical for large, lowland rivers. The Oder valley does not
provide a very favourable biotope for breeding birds, with the exception of
its forests where 49 breeding species were found on research plots of 10
hectares. About 20 species are regularly wintering on the Oder. However,
in the three countries together, 11 plant, 13 fish and 21 bird species are
threatened with extinction.
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
95
................................
Annex 3.8.1
Water quality in the Oder at 3
locations for 3 years
No Parameter
1
Hydrogen ion concentrat.
2
3
Total suspended solids
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(BOD)
Oxydizability (COD-Mn)
Chem. Oxygen Demand
(COD-Cr)
Dissolved oxygen
Ammonia as nitrogen
Nitrate as nitrogen
Nitrite as nitrogen
Nitrogen Total
Phosphate (dissolved)
Phosphorus Total
Conductivity
Chlorides
Sulphates
Iron Total
Zinc
Total chromium
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Phenols
Surfactans
Hydrocarbons
(after extract. by petr. Ether)
Chlorophyll (a)
Saprobity
Faecal Coliform Bacteria
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Unit
Goal
m. Chalupki,
km 20,0
m. Polecko
km 530,6
m. Krajnik Dolny
km 690,0
1992
1996
2000
1992
1996
2000
1992
1996
2000
pH
6.0 - 9.0
6.9 - 7.8
7.3-7.8
7.5-7.8
7.2-7.8
7.3-8.5
7.7-9.1
7.9-9.0
7.4-8.3
8.0-8.9
mg/l
25
84.6
142.1
76.8
48.78
37.3
43.48
49
36
39.3
mg O2/l
mg O2/l
3
10
14.64
20.11
9.746
12.4
9.63
11
12.78
15
5.63
11.06
9.632
12.16
10.94
14.4
6.316
11.34
8.78
11.3
mg O2/l
mg O2/l
mg N NH4/l
mg NNO3/l
mg NNO2/l
mg N/l
mg PO4/l
mg P/l
µS/cm
mg Cl/l
mg SO4/l
mg Fe/l
mg Zn/l
mg Cr/l
mg Cd/l
mg Cu/l
mg Pb/l
mg Hg/l
mg/l
mg/l
30
6
1
5
0.02
5
0.2
0.1
1000
200
150
1
0.3
0.05
0.005
0.04
0.05
0.001
0.005
0.5
44.99
4.894
5.309
4.741
0.4724
10.49
1.584
1.054
260
233.2
2.12
0.4851
0.023
0.044
0.020
0.020
0.0008
0.018
0.33
33.61
6.486
3.908
6.561
0.3031
10.42
1.409
0.6738
1001
197.2
145.3
2.711
0.9708
0.015
0.006
0.02638
0.03384
0.000956
0.019
0.32
31.68
6.822
1.366
4.879
0.2152
7.267
0.9252
0.4004
705.3
83.12
105.2
0.1678
0.0726
0.005
0.00178
0.00578
0.01026
0.002
0.005
0.1226
48.00
8
1.939
5.943
0.05052
8.781
0.713
0.59
1810
383.7
164.8
0.1536
0.016
0
0.019
0.01526
47.12
7.8
2.649
4.197
0.04624
7.151
0.7066
0.4584
1710
226.5
137.8
1.04
0.149
0.003
0.003
0.014
0.038
45.16
8.972
0.784
4.701
0.02464
7.242
0.5648
0.378
1285
247.2
126.6
0.5904
0.07828
0.002
0.0008
0.01896
0.01976
0.007
0.22
0.005
0.1802
0.005
0.09
mg/l
µg/l
index
NPL
0.5
20
2.5
2000
77.25
10
8.544
250000
1450000
5
47.95
2.128
50000
141
2.12
25000
117.9
2.34
100000
148.2
2.03
10000
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
96
52.36
41.00
52.00
8.792
7.448
9.188
0.9836
1.936
0.3506
4.1
3.336
3.918
0.036
0.032 0.01718
6.621
5.544
5.222
0.78
0.47
0.4006
0.6072
0.44
0.3712
1010
790.7
716.7
186.7
112.2
103.7
104
107.4
91.42
0.8
0.7436
0.01
0.11
0.03036 0.00706
0.002
0.001
0
0.002352 0.0002
0
0.012
0.004
0.003
0.01
0.003
0
0.005324
0
0
0.005
0.002
0.002
0.1
0
0
3.392
334.2
2.274
50000
139.1
2.424
25000
128
2.12
2500
................................
Annex 3.8.2
Classification system of Poland
No
Parameter
Unit
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
Temperature
Odour
Color
Hydrogen ion concentration
Conductivity
Dissolved oxygen
Biochemical oxygen demand
Oxydizability
Chemical oxygen demand
Chloride
Sulfate
Total dissolved solids
Total suspended solids
Total hardness
Sodium
Potassium
Ammonia as nitrogen
Nitrite as nitrogen
Nitrate as nitrogen
Nitrogen total
Phosphate
Phosphorus total
Iron
Arsenic
Boron
Manganese
Chromium +5
Chromium +6
Zinc
Cadmium
Copper
Nickel
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
Vanadium
Chlorine (free)
Cyanides. Not bound. complex
Bounded cyanides/complex
Fluorides
Rhodanates
Sulfides
Formaldehyde
Acrylnitrile
Caprolactam
Volatile phenols
Detergents (anionic act.)
Detergents non ionic
Subst. After exract. By petr. ether
Faecal coliforms index
Chlorophyll a
Saprobidity
Insect. Organophos. And carbam.
Insecticides organochlor.
Benzo(a)pyrene
Salmonella
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
°C
mg pt/l
PH
µS/cm
mg O2/l
mg O2/l
mg O2/l
mg O2/l
mg Cl/l
mg SO4/l
mg/l
mg/l
Mg CaCO3/l
mg Na/l
Mg K/l
Mg N/l
Mg N/l
Mg N/l
Mg N/l
mg PO4/l
mg P/l
mg Fe/l
mg As/l
mg B/l
mg Mn/l
mg Cr/l
mg Cr/l
mg Zn/l
mg Cd/l
mg Cu/l
mg Ni/l
mg Pb/l
mg Hg/l
mg Se/l
mg Ag/l
mg V/l
mg Cl2/l
mg CN/l
mg CN/l
mg F/l
mg CNS/l
mg S/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
ml/bact.
µg/l
µg/l
µg/l
µg/l
<= 22
<= 3 R
6.5-8.5
<= 800
>= 6
<= 4
<= 10
<= 25
<= 250
<= 150
<= 500
<= 20
<= 350
<= 100
<= 10
<=1.0
<=0.02
<=5.0
<= 5.0
<= 0.2
<= 0.1
<= 1.0
<= 0.05
<= 1.0
<= 0.1
<= 0.05
<= 0.05
<= 0.2
<= 0.005
<= 0.05
<= 1.0
<= 0.05
<= 0.001
<= 0.01
<= 0.01
<= 1.0
Undetectable
<= 0.01
<=1.0
<= 1.5
<= 0.02
None
<= 0.05
<= 2.0
<= 1.0
<= 0.005
<= 0.2
<= 0.5
<= 5.0
>= 1.0
<= 10
Oligobetame
<= 1.0
<= 0.05
<= 0.2
None
97
Class of water Quality
II
III
<= 26
Natural
Natural
6.5-9.0
<= 900
>= 5
<= 8
<= 20
<= 70
<= 300
<= 200
<= 1000
<= 30
<= 550
<= 120
<= 12
<= 3.0
<= 0.03
<= 7.0
<= 10.0
<= 0.6
<= 0.25
<= 1.5
<= 0.05
<= 1.0
<= 0.3
<= 0.1
<= 0.05
<= 0.2
<= 0.03
<= 0.05
<= 1.0
<= 0.05
<= 0.005
<= 0.01
<= 0.01
<= 1.0
<= 26
Natural
<= 0.01
<= 2.0
<= 1.5
<= 0.5
None
<= 0.05
<= 2.0
<= 1.0
<= 0.02
<= 0.5
<= 1.0
<= 10.0
>= 0.1
<= 20
Betamezoalf
<= 1.0
<= 0.05
<= 0.2
None
<= 0.01
<= 3.0
<= 2.0
<= 1.0
<= 0.1
<= 0.2
<= 2.0
<= 1.0
<= 0.05
<= 1.0
<= 2.0
<= 15.0
>= 0.01
<= 30
Alfamezo
<= 1.0
<= 0.05
<= 0.2
None
6.0-9.0
<= 1200
>= 4
<= 12
<= 30
<= 100
<= 400
<= 250
<= 1200
<= 50
<= 700
<= 150
<= 15
<= 6.0
<= 0.06
<= 15
<= 15
<= 1.0
<= 0.4
<= 2.0
<= 0.2
<= 1.0
<= 0.8
<= 0.1
<= 0.05
<= 0.2
<= 0.1
<= 0.05
<= 1.0
<= 0.05
<= 0.01
<= 0.01
<= 0.01
<= 1.0
................................
Annex 3.8.3.
Parameters and concentrations for the
Polish practice of water quality
assessment in the rivers Oder and Bug.
No Parameter
Unit
Required concentrations according to
Polish
standards
1st class
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
Temperature
Odour
Colour
Reaction
Total susp. solids
BOD5
COD-Mn
COD-Cr
Dissolved oxygen
- saturation rate
Ammonia nitrogen
Nitrate nitrogen
Nitrite nitrogen
Total nitrogen
Dissol.phosphates
Total phosphor
Water hardness
Conductivity
Chlorides
Sulphates
Sodium
Potassium
Dissolved solids
Total iron
Arsenic
Boron
Zinc
Total Chromium
Chromium +6
Cadmium
Manganese
Copper
Nickel
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
Vanadium
Available chlorine
Available cyanides
Cyanides
Fluorides
Thiocyanate
Sulphides
Formaldehyde
Acrylonitrile
Phenols
Organochloric
insecticides
Organophosphateand carbamylinsecticides
Caprolactam
Anionic detergents
Non-ionic
detergents
Hydrocarbons after
extract. by
petroleum ether
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chlorophyll "a"
Saprobity
Faecal coliforms
Total coliforms
Barium
PAH
Transparency
Total resid.chlorine
Non-ion. Ammonia
°C
mg Pt/l
pH
mg/l
mg O2/l
mg O2/l
mg O2/l
mg O2/l
%
mg N NH4/l
mg NNO3/l
mg NNO2/l
mg N/l
mg PO4/l
mg P/l
mg CaCO3/l
µS/cm
mg Cl/l
mg SO4/l
mg Na/l
mg K/l
mg/l
mg Fe/l
mg As/l
mg B/l
mg Zn/l
mg Cr/l
mg Cr/l
mg Cd/l
mg Mn/l
mg Cu/l
mg Ni/l
mg Pb/l
mg Hg/l
mg Se/l
mg Ag/l
mg V/l
mg Cl2/l
mg CN/l
mg CN/l
mg F/l
mg CNS/l
mg S/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
² 22
z 3 R²
Natural
6.5 – 8.5
² 20
²4
² 10
² 25
³6
²1
²5
² 0.02
²5
² 0.2
² 0.1
² 350
² 800
² 250
² 150
² 100
² 10
² 500
²1
² 0.05
²1
² 0.2
² 0.05
² 0.005
² 0.1
² 0.05
²1
² 0.05
² 0.001
² 0.01
² 0.01
²1
Undetectable
² 0.01
² 1.5
² 0.02
Undetectable
² 0.05
²2
² 0.005
Directives
75/440/
EEC (1 )
25
20 (2)
200
5.5-9.0 (2)
25 (2)
7 (2)
76/160/
EEC
78/659/EEC
salmon
21.5
>30
3.1
11
³6
³4
² 0.8
² 0.8
0.2
0.4
1
5
0.02
5
0.2
0.1
1000
200
150
1 (2)
0.1
1
² 0.3
5
0.05
² 1.0
0.005
1.0
0.3
0.05
0.005
(2)
0.04
(2)
0.04
(2)
0.04
0.05
0.001
0.01
0.05
0.001
0.05
0.7-1.7 (2)
0.05
1.7
0.1
5
µg/l
mg/l
mg/l
²1
²1
² 0.2
0.5 (2)
mg/l
² 0.5
mg/l
µg/l
µg/l
index
/100 ml
/100 ml
mg Ba/l
mg/l
m
mg HOCl/l
Mg NH3/l
²5
² 0.2
² 10
2.5
100
0.5
0.05
(3 )
(3 )
0.005
0.05
(2)
No lasting foam
No visible film
on the water
surface, no odour
20000 (2)
50000 (2)
1
0.001
0.5
(4)
(4)
² 0.005
² 0.025
² 0.005
² 0.025
2000
10000
0.5
0.2
20
2.5
2000
10000
0.001
1
(1) category A3 of Directive 75/440/EEC
(2) Recommended concentration
(3) Phenolic compounds must not be present in such concentrations that they adversely affect fish flavour
(4) Petroleum products must not be present in water in such quantities that they:
- form a visible film on the surface of the water or form coatings on the beds of water-courses
- impart a detectable "hydrocarbon test to fish,
- produce harmful effects in fish.
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
6.0 – 9.0
25
3
10
30
6
1000 (2)
200 (2)
250
² 0.05
Assessment practices and environmental status
carp
28.0
No abnormal change in colour
6.0 – 9.0
6.0 – 9.0
6.0 – 9.0
25 (2)
25 (2)
²3
²6
30 (2 )
µg/l
-
Recommended
parameters
and
concentrations
98
................................
Annex 3.8.3
Classification of the Oder at 3 different
stations in 3 years
No Parameter
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Hydrogen ion concentrat.
Total suspended solids
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(BOD)
Oxydizability (COD-Mn)
Chem. Oxygen Demand
(COD-Cr)
Dissolved oxygen
Ammonia as nitrogen
Nitrate as nitrogen
Nitrite as nitrogen
Nitrogen Total
Phosphate (dissolved)
Phosphorus Total
Conductivity
Chlorides
Sulphates
Iron Total
Zinc
Total chromium
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Phenols
Surfactans
Hydrocarbons
(after extract. by petr. Ether)
Chlorophyll (a)
Saprobity
Faecal Coliform Bacteria
Unit
Goal
m. Chalupki,
km 20,0
m. Polecko
km 530,6
m. Krajnik Dolny
km 690,0
1992
1996
2000
1992
1996
2000
1992
1996
2000
pH
mg/l
6.0 - 9.0
25
0.87
3.38
0.87
5.68
0.87
3.07
0.87
1.95
0.94
1.49
1.01
1.74
1.00
1.96
0.92
1.44
0.99
1.57
mg O2/l
mg O2/l
3
10
4.88
2.01
3.25
1.24
3.21
1.10
4.26
1.50
1.88
1.11
3.21
1.22
3.65
1.44
2.11
1.13
2.93
1.13
mg O2/l
mg O2/l
mg N NH4/l
mg NNO3/l
mg NNO2/l
mg N/l
mg PO4/l
mg P/l
mS/cm
mg Cl/l
mg SO4/l
mg Fe/l
mg Zn/l
mg Cr/l
mg Cd/l
mg Cu/l
mg Pb/l
mg Hg/l
mg/l
mg/l
30
6
1
5
0.02
5
0.2
0.1
1000
200
150
1
0.3
0.05
0.005
0.04
0.05
0.001
0.005
0.5
1.50
1.23
5.31
0.95
23.62
2.10
7.92
10.54
1.30
1.55
2.12
1.62
0.46
8.80
0.50
0.40
0.80
3.60
0.66
1.12
0.93
3.91
1.31
15.16
2.08
7.05
6.74
1.00
0.99
0.97
2.71
3.24
0.30
1.20
0.66
0.68
0.96
3.80
0.64
1.06
0.88
1.37
0.98
10.76
1.45
4.63
4.00
0.71
0.42
0.70
0.17
0.24
0.10
0.36
0.14
0.21
2.00
1.00
0.25
1.60
0.75
1.94
1.19
2.53
1.76
3.57
5.90
1.81
1.92
1.10
1.51
0.67
0.78
0.94
1.23
1.45
2.82
3.78
1.29
1.24
0.84
0.59
0.26
0.04
0.16
0.47
0.40
1.37
0.81
1.94
0.67
1.60
1.11
2.35
4.40
0.79
0.56
0.72
0.74
0.10
0.02
0.04
0.10
0.06
1.40
0.44
1.00
0.36
1.00
0.18
1.75
0.68
0.98
0.82
1.80
1.32
3.90
6.07
1.01
0.93
0.69
0.80
0.37
0.04
0.47
0.30
0.20
5.32
1.00
0.20
1.73
0.65
0.35
0.78
0.86
1.04
2.00
3.71
0.72
0.52
0.61
0.01
0.02
0.48
0.31
1.57
0.77
2.65
0.84
2.31
1.43
3.53
4.58
1.71
1.13
0.92
1.04
0.50
0.06
0.60
0.35
0.76
0.40
0.40
mg/l
mg/l
indeks
NPL
0.5
20
2.5
2000
3.86
20.00
0.43
125.00
725.00
10.00
2.40
0.85
25.00
7.05
0.85
12.50
5.90
0.94
50.00
7.41
0.81
5.00
6.78
16.71
0.91
25.00
6.96
0.97
12.50
6.40
0.85
1.25
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
99
0.51
0.32
0.08
3.9 River Meuse
3.9.1 General Description
The river Meuse flows from its source in France through France, Belgium
and the Netherlands to the North Sea. Parts of the catchment are in
Germany and Luxembourg as well. The total length is 905 km and the
catchment area is about 33,000 km2 in 5 countries (Germany and
Luxembourg included). The long-term average discharge is 250 m 3/sec and
total volume per year is in average 7.6 km3. However, since the Meuse is a
rain fed river, the maximum flow can be as high 3,000 m3/sec and the
minimum flow as low as 10 m3/sec. At present, almost 10 million people
live in the catchment. It provides the source for drinking-water production
for about 6 million people, including the major cities of Brussels and
Rotterdam. It is a shipping route between Rotterdam harbour and industrial
centres in Wallonia and the south of the Netherlands. The river is further
used for small-scale energy production, disposal of waste water, for cooling
and industrial water use and for recreational activities. The catchment has
very intensive agricultural activities. Commercial fisheries are negligible. The
ecological function is getting increasing attention. Each of the countries has
defined the functions of the Meuse in their national part of the river. In
principle all countries, with a few local exceptions, require a water quality
adequate for drinking-water production and which supports fish life
(i.e. defining the ecological function).
3.9.2 Institutional Structures and Policies
3.9.2.1 Institutional Structures
The establishment of official institutional structures for transboundary
management of the river Meuse has taken a long time. Before 1995, cooperation between the riparian countries existed on an informal basis. The
International Commission for the Protection of the Meuse (ICPM) itself has
started informally to work in 1995. The Convention for the Protection of
the Meuse was signed in 1994 and came into force on 1 January 1998.
Parties to the Convention are France, The Netherlands and the 3
constituents of Belgium: Wallonia, Flanders and Brussels. Observers are:
Germany, Luxembourg and the State Belgium. Negotiations are going on
with Germany and Luxembourg to become full members. The EU is not
represented.
The implementation of the Convention is supervised by the plenary
meetings of members, with observers attending. The implementation is
facilitated and co-ordinated by a permanent secretariat based in Liège.
There are 4 thematic working groups cover the following subjects: (1)
water quality, (2) emissions, (3) transboundary co-operation and (4) alarm
model. A separate group has been made responsible for the exchange of
information on water-quality issues and water-quantity issues.
3.9.2.2 Policies
In 1998, the ICPM adopted the Meuse Action Programme (MAP) [36]. This
programme builds on national action programmes of the parties to the
Convention. This programme has set aims and a time frame for a phased
implementation. The 1st phase runs from 1998 - 2003. The aims of phase 1
are based on the general aims adopted in the Convention.
These are:
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
100
• Preservation and improvement of the physical-chemical quality of the
Meuse water
• Preservation and improvement of the ecological quality, including
hydrological measures to support fish migration
• Preservation of water quality for production of drinking water from the
Meuse
• Preservation and improvement of water quality for other uses: industrial
water, shipping and recreation
Although not explicitly formulated as separate aims, these aims will also
contribute to the improvement of sediment quality and reduce the
discharge of pollutants to the North Sea.
At the beginning of phase 1 in 1998, the ICPM has agreed on a list of
priority pollutants, which was used to design the international monitoring
system and to make an inventory of point sources. A harmonised
monitoring programme is now operational and the 1st report with the
results for 1998 was published in 2000. An other urgent action was the
establishment of an accident- and emergency-warning system. This system
is now operational. In this phase, the existing regional and national action
programmes will be harmonised and integrated. In phase 1, priority will be
given to the reduction of discharges from industrial and municipal point
sources. A methodology for the assessment of diffuse sources will be
developed. The programme for phase 2 (2003 - 2010) and the long-term
action programme will be formulated in the next 2 years. The yearly
budget of the ICPM secretariat is about Euro 300,000.
3.9.3 Environmental issues
3.9.3.1 Hydromorphology
In the upper part of the Meuse, in France, major interventions were made
in the morphology of the river. Alluvial forests were cut and stretches of
the river were canalised. As a consequence, the ecological function of the
river is poor for certain stretches. In Wallonia and the Netherlands, a high
number of weirs and sluices have been constructed to support shipping and
to reduce flood risk. As a consequence, biodiversity is strongly reduced and
migration routes for fish have been blocked. In all countries, restoration
programmes have started. These include the restoration of river banks and
reforestation (France), construction of fish ladders (in all countries) and
restoration of river beds, in particular in the Netherlands, to serve both
ecological restoration and reduction of flood risks. Some 5000 hectares of
agricultural land will be given an ecological function in connection with the
river. The regime of the "Haringvlietsluices", part of the famous Dutch
"Deltaworks", is now under reconsideration to make this part of the river a
corridor for anadromous fish.
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
101
3.9.3.2 Water quality
The development of the water quality in the Meuse shows a pattern that is
typical for most West-European rivers. The levels of toxicological compounds
have reduced considerably. This is also the case in the Meuse for heavy
metals and chlorinated hydrocarbons. Figure 3.9.1 shows the long-term
development of concentrations for total Nitrogen and total Phosphorous
[37].
However, concentrations of a number of metals, PAHs and PCBs in
sediment are still too high. Levels of Ntot remain the same in the past 25
years, while Ptot has decreased by more than 50 %. A priority for the
ICPM is the reduction of organic loads. In Wallonia, not more than 30 - 35 %
of the population is connected to sewage treatment plants. The water quality
downstream from Liege frequently does not meet the requirements to
sustain fish life. Figures for France are not known, but are probably slightly
better. In the Netherlands and Germany more than 90 % of the population
is connected to WWTPs. In Germany, treatment facilities are increasingly
equipped with nutrient removal techniques. During periods of low flow,
local oxygen deficiency occurs, in particular in the Netherlands. Particular
problems in the Meuse are the periods of high concentrations of polar
pesticides: atrazin and diuron. Diuron levels sometimes reach such
concentrations that intake of Meuse water for drinking-water production
................................
Figure 3.9.1
Annual mean nutrient concentrations
Meuse, Eijsden (Border Belgium-the
Netherlands) (Source: ICPM)
N Total
P Total
................................
Figure 3.9.2
Diuron concentrations in 1998 at
Keizersveer, the Netherlands (Source:
ICPM)
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
102
has to be interrupted. Figure 3.9.2 shows a typical pattern of diuron
concentrations through a year near the intake of water to produce drinking
water for the city of Rotterdam.
................................
Figure 3.9.3
An inventory of point sources from 1994 is available. This will be updated
in 2001. All national action plans give priority to investments to reduce
pollution from point sources. Wallonia now has agreed on an investment
programme, which should result in connection of 70 % of the population
to sewage treatment systems in 2005.
Structure of the International Water
Quality Monitoring Programme of the
ICPM (source ICPM)
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
103
3.9.4 Monitoring programmes
3.9.4.1 Routine monitoring
The ICPM is supervising an international monitoring programme.
The network consists of 14 stations:
• 4 in France (Brixey, Saint Mihiel, Inor, Ham-sur-Meuse);
• 5 in Wallonia (Hastiere, Tailfer, Andenne, Luik/Pont de Fragnée, Vise);
• 1 in Flanders (Kinrooi);
• 4 in the Netherlands (Eijsden, Belfeld, Keizersveer, de Haringvlietsluizen).
The structure of the programme is presented in Figure 3.9.3.
National institutes are responsible for sampling and analysis. Frequencies of
measurement depend on the parameters: (1) continuously for basic
parameters such as flow, temperature, oxygen concentration and oxygen
saturation, pH and conductivity; (2) 4-weekly for most other parameters.
Only the water phase is sampled. Determinands for the water phase
include a number of anions, nutrients, sumparameters (BOD, COD), metals
from the ‘black list’, polar pesticides, hydrocarbons, PAHs and
microbiological indicators (coliforms and streptococcis). Total
concentrations are measured and reported. Suspended solids monitoring
will start in 2002. Ecotoxicological tests are not performed routinely.
Biological monitoring is conducted through special surveys. In 1998 a
special survey was conducted for macroinvertebrates and in 1999, a similar
study was made for migratory fish.
The results are reported as annual reports in table form and available on
the Internet (www.cipm.icbm.be). Quality assurance and quality control is
the responsibility of the national institutes. Interlaboratory quality control
tests are performed on a regular basis.
Effluent monitoring is regulated through permits and is an obligation for the
discharger. National authorities are entitled to make unannounced controls.
3.9.4.2 Early-warning System
The ICPM also supervises an Early-warning System (EWS), which became
operational in 1997. It consists of an infrastructure of authorities in the
basin and warning protocols. These protocols have been widely announced
in the basin among local authorities, industries, shipping agencies and the
river police. The system was tested once.
3.9.5 Assessment methods
The ICPM has not yet developed its own assessment methodology. The
ICPM has been requested by the parties to design and agree on a new
system. Each country currently still applies its own methodology:
• France
Water-quality objectives were first formulated for most French rivers by
1964. A new system was introduced in 1971 and that system was
modernised in the 1990’s. The present system enables the classification of
water into five categories: very good (blue), good (green), passable
(yellow), bad (orange) and very bad (red). The classification system is
based on 15 types of measured changes and includes parameters on
oxygen, nitrogen compounds, nitrates, phosphorous, colour, temperature,
mineralisation, acidification, micro-organisms, phyto-plankton, heavy
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
104
metals, pesticides and organic micro-pollutants. It results in classification of
water quality, biological quality and for purposes of five uses (drinking
water, recreation, irrigation, animal drinking and aqua-culture). The system
is in conformity with the EC Water Framework Directive. In table 3.9.1 the
requirements for biological quality are presented for a selection of
parameters (except for PAHs).
• Wallonia
In Wallonia, quality requirements for surface water have been adopted in
1987. There is a strong relationship to EC Directives, in particular for
drinking water (75/440/EEC), bathing water (76/160/EEC) and to support
fish life (78/659/EEC). In 1994, areas were designated that are given
special protection. A list of numerical values for 27 determinands is defined.
This list includes oxygen-related determinands, nutrients, PAHs, PCBs, a
number of heavy metals, cholinesterase inhibitors, a sumdeterminand for
pesticides, chloorfenols and surface active compounds. The values are
given only for water. For assessment, the median values are used.
• the Netherlands
The Netherlands have a system for quality requirements for surface water
and sediment. The list was approved by parliament in 1990 and updated in
1994. The system fully complies with EC directives. The list has requirements
at 2 levels: obligatory levels and target levels. Obligatory levels should be
complied with at short term, in principle 2000. The target levels are longterm requirements. The Meuse also has to comply with this system of
requirements. Parts of the Meuse also have ecological requirements, such as
being suitable for salmonidae. The list contains numerical values for a great
number of parameters for the 2 quality requirements in water and in
sediment. The list contains the following types of compounds: metals (8),
PAHs (10 and sum), volatile organic compounds (4), chlorinated
hydrocarbons (6), PCBs (7 and sum), chlorinated pesticides (17 and sum),
chlorofenols (5 and sum), triazines (2) and a long list of other organic
micropollutants (organotin, fenolherbicides, carbamates etc). For inorganic
compounds, only obligatory requirements are defined. These include the
oxygen-related parameters, amenity parameters, nutrients, some anions and
1 indicator for microbiology (thermo-tolerant coli).
3.9.6 Environmental Status
3.9.6.1 Hydromorphology
In par. 3.9.3, a summary of the most important morphological
interventions is given. In all countries, restoration measures are necessary in
certain stretches. Also the Meuse has had major floods in 1993 and 1995,
in particular in the downstream part in The Netherlands. Migration routes
have been blocked and spawning places destroyed. The original dynamics
will be partly restored. In the Dutch part of the Meuse, the original riverbed
will be restored. Fish ladders will be constructed in the entire basin.
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
105
................................
Table 3.9.1
Assessment of a selection of water
quality parameters in the Meuse river
Oxygen mg/l
NH4 mg/l
NO3 mgN/l
Ntot mgN/l
Ptot mgP/l
Zn µg/l
Cd µg/l
Hg µg/l
PAHs µg/l
Atrazine µg/l
Diuron µg/l
C*
France
Wallonia
the Netherlands
75/440/EEC1)
6.9
0.3
4.89
5.75
0.27
55
0.81
0.02
0.1
0.30
0.2
>8
0.1
2
n.a.
0.05
2.3 3)
0.01 3)
0.07
0.1 4)
0.2
0.2
>6
2
n.a.
n.a.
1
300
1
0.5
0.1
0.01
0.1
>5
0.02
n.a.
2.2
0.15
9
0.05
0.02
0.1
0.029
0.004
n.a.
0.05
5.6 2)
n.a.
0.17
500
1
0.5
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
*=
total concentration, 90 percentile values in 1998 in Keizersveer (most downstream river
station) with exception of oxygen (= minimum value)
n.a. = not applicable
1) = directive concerning the quality required of surface water for the abstraction of drinking
water
2) = nitrate + nitrite
3) = hardness: CaCO3 < 50 mg/l
4) = for drinking water production
3.9.6.2 Water Quality
The chemical water quality has improved since 1970. Ecological restoration
of the river is not limited by chemical quality. A limited number of
parameters exceed the maximum values of different systems for waterquality standards. Nutrients are still a problem in the river itself and in
particular in relation with risks for eutrophication of the North Sea. Metal
concentrations although lowered, are generally a problem. Polar pesticides,
like diuron and atrazine, are also a problem.
Table 3.9.1 shows that target objectives vary between different systems.
The 3 national systems differ considerably in number, type or numerical
values of parameters included. The Dutch system (Milbowa) is more
stringent than the other systems. The 3 countries now work on a more
harmonised approach.
Figure 3.9.4 clearly shows the improvement for BOD in the period 19701990; after this year BOD was no longer monitored systematically.
Figure 3.9.5 shows the reduction of cadmium concentration, while Figure
3.9.6 shows that for nitrate no improvement has occurred.
3.9.6.3 Ecology
In the period 1992 - 1995 a number of biological surveys were performed
in different stretches of the Meuse Basin. The river was divided into 8
stretches and each was surveyed. Two different indices were applied. A
Belgian index: IBB (Indice Biotique Belge) and a French index: IBGN (Indice
Biologique Global Normalise). The method is based on an inventory of the
most sensitive species and the diversity of macrofauna. The results
obtained are considered as "indicative". This approach was developed for
small fast flowing rivers.
The results showed, that the biological status varies within the basin. The
upper part of the Meuse in France is relatively rich. The Meuse in Wallonia
is relatively poor, in particular between Namur and Eijsden. The middle part
in the Netherlands is better again, while the delta is relatively poor.
Migratory fish were practically absent. The most sensitive species were only
found in the upper part. Rheofilic fishes were found mainly in the upper
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
106
part as well. Limnofilic fishes were found in abundance along the whole
stretch [39].
In 1999, a special assessment of conditions to support fish life was made. It
is concluded, that in principle, conditions can be created to restore a
population of migratory fish. Research is currently being conducted on the
most appropriate measures [38].
................................
Figure 3.9.4
Development of BOD in the period
1970-1990 at Keizersveer (most
downstream station) (Source: ICPM)
................................
Figure 3.9.5
Development of cadmium
concentration for the period 1972-1992
at Keizersveer (Source: ICPM)
................................
Figure 3.9.6
Nitrate concentrations for the period
1994-1999 at Keizersveer
(Source: ICPM)
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
107
3.10 River Bug
3.10.1 General Description
The river Bug rises in the Carpathian Mountains in the Lviv region
(Ukraine). The total area of the basin is 39,420 km2. More than 20% of the
catchment area is situated in Ukraine, nearly 30% in Belarus and about
50% in Poland. The total length is 772 km, 185 km of which forms the
border between Ukraine and Poland, and 178 km forms the border
between Belarus and Poland. The river is the main tributary of the river
Narew (Poland). In the lower reaches, the river Bug is flowing into the
Zegrzyńskie Lake, a large reservoir that was built as the main source of
drinking water for Warsaw.
The main tributaries of the river Bug are:
• In Belarus – Kopalovka, Pulva, Lesnaya Pravaya, Lesnaya, Muhavets,
Ryta, Maloryta
• In Ukraine – Dumni, Gapa, Luga, Poltva, Rata, Solokiia, Studianka
• In Poland – Sońokiia, Huczwa, Uherka, Krzna, Nurzec, Brok, Liwiec
Within the territory of Poland the river Bug is flowing through the
following 3 Voivodeships (administrative regions): Lubelskie, Mazowieckie,
Podlaskie. In Ukraine the basin of the river Bug belongs to 2 regions: Lviv
and Volyn, in Belarus to the region Brest.
The river Bug itself is not regulated, the depth and width are diversified
along the riverbed and the river creates many flood areas and shallow
waters. The long-term average discharge at the Ukranian-Belarussian
border is 55 m3/s and at the border between Belarus and Poland it is about
104 m3/s; when entering the Zegrzynskie Lake, in the lower part of the
river the average discharge increases to 157 m3/s. Significant variations in
the flow of the river, caused by melting snow in spring and low discharges
in autumn, affect the quality of water to a high degree.
................................
Bug river in autumn. Poleski Area of
Protected Landscape. Polish-Ukrainian
border.
Source: Photo’s Archive of the
Landscape Parks of Che∏m
Management in Che∏m.
Author: Olgierd Bielak.
The river water resources are of significant importance for the population
living in the catchment: in Ukraine about 2 million people, in Belarus about
0.5 million and 1.1 million in Poland.
In Belarus, the river is used to discharge waste water, for fish farming and
irrigation; it is not used for drinking purposes. In Poland, it is mainly used
for waste-water discharge, agriculture and recreation. The intake for the
production of drinking water for Warsaw is in the Zegrzynskie Lake, in
which the Bug is discharging. In Ukraine, it is used mainly for waste-water
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
108
discharge, intake by industry, irrigation, fisheries, recreation and in extreme
dry years also for drinking-water production. The main river is in general
undisturbed and supports a high quality ecological system.
................................
Figure 3.10.1
Overview of the Bug Basin (Source:
Regional Water Management
Authority, Lublin)
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
109
3.10.2 Institutional Structures and Policies
3.10.2.1 Institutional Structures
The history of international co-operation in water management between
Poland and the Former Soviet Union for the Bug river goes back to 1964
under supervision of the Council of Economic Mutual Assistance.
Ukraine and Belarus worked within the frame of a centralised water
management and monitoring systems, with central offices in Moscow.
The co-operation on transboundary waters between Poland and the Soviet
Union has a long history which unfortunately not always lead to the joined
targets. Based on the agreement between Poland and the USSR on cooperation in water management from 1964, the countries established
monitoring networks on the bordering part of the river Bug. The
investigations of the water quality were carried out separately by each
country using their own methodology. There was no exchange of
information on pollution sources . The most active co-operation with
Poland existed between research institutes.
After the Soviet Union disintegrated, the countries confirmed their will to
maintain the established connections and concluded agreements on
environmental protection, including co-operation in the water sector, with
neighbouring countries. In 1992, Poland and Belarus signed an agreement
on Co-operation for Environmental Protection. An agreement to co-operate
on transboundary waters is under negotiation since 1996. Poland and the
Ukraine signed in 1996 an agreement on co-operation for transboundary
waters. This agreement provides the principles of co-operation in the field
of water monitoring. Belarus and Ukraine have signed an agreement for cooperation in the field of environmental protection in 1994. In 1997, the 3
countries signed a memorandum of understanding to collaborate for the
development and the implementation of a pilot programme on monitoring
and assessment of the Bug basin. Ukraine and Poland have ratified the
Convention on Protection and Use of International Watercourses and
International Lakes. Belarus is actively participating in the pilot projects, one
of them is the Bug river, under the Convention, although it has not signed
it. The Bug basin also falls under the Convention on the Protection of the
Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea area, which is ratified by Poland and
signed by the Ukraine. Belarus is an observer to this Convention.
In 1999 the Polish – Ukrainian Commission for co-operation on
transboundary water was established with 5 working groups: planning,
flood protection, water-quality protection, accidental pollution, hydrology
and hydrogeology. The first meeting was held on 29 May 2000 and this
Commission is currently the most active driving force in the basin. In 1998
a Memorandum of Understanding was signed for a pilot project for the
river Bug on implementation of the ”Guidelines on Monitoring and
Assessment of Transboundary Rivers ” under the UNECE Water
Convention. This project was financed by the Dutch Government and
national funds. EU/Tacis has supported this project, within its cross border
co-operation programme, in the Bug basin for Ukraine. This Tacis project
was completed in 2001. In the frame of the pilot project, inventories of
environmental pressures, pollution sources and impact have been made
[40]. The main objective of this project was to establish a comprehensive
transboundary monitoring strategy and network to support the process of
improving water quality of the river Bug. At present a similar programme
supported by EU/Tacis is in the process of implementation for co-operation
between Poland and Belarus.
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
110
3.10.2.2 Policies
The strategic target for the Ukraine is integration in the European Union
and therefore harmonisation of the Ukrainian legislative system with the
European Framework Directive and other environmental directives. The
Water Code for the Ukraine was adopted in 1996. Currently the Water
Code is being reviewed by the Parliament of the Ukraine. In most of its
features the Water Code corresponds to the Water Framework Directive of
the European Union. The conceptual basis for the Water Code of Ukraine is
an ecological approach to water-quality management.
Poland is in the process of accession to the EU and, in the future, has to
fully comply with European environmental legislation. At present, the basis
for water resources management is the Water Law of 1974. In the 80s and
90s, a number of additional laws and regulations were introduced. The
new Water Law was implemented in Poland in the beginning of 2001.
There is an urgent need to develop the executive regulation to make the
law applicable. Priorities for use and management of water resources are
listed in the National Environment Policy for the years 1994-2000.
Belarus has adopted a number of environmental laws and regulations in
1991 and 1992. The most important are the Water Code, Law on
Conservation of the Environment, the Tax on the use of Natural Resources
and special regulations for the protection of surface waters.
The main common priorities for environmental policy in the Bug River
system are:
•
•
•
•
•
Improvement of water quality of the Bug river
Improvement of the flood protection system and safety for population
Rehabilitation of streams in the Bug river basin
Reduction of nutrients loads from point and diffuse sources.
Introduction of river-basin management approach and creation of the
legislative and institutional system for a harmonised system for
transboundary monitoring and assessment of water quality in the Bug
river basin
3.10.3 Environmental issues
3.10.3.1 Hyddromorphology
The morphology of the main river is rather undisturbed. However,
tributaries are heavily regulated in particular in the Ukraine (more than 218
dams) and Poland (more than 400 dams). The reservoirs are mainly used
for irrigation. The Bug is connected to the Prypiat in the Ukraine through
the Dnipro-Bug canal. The area suffering erosion in the Ukrainian part of
the basin has increased 4-10 % since 1960. Due to limited access in the
border region however, the banks and thus the river in its border sections
are rather undisturbed.
3.10.3.2 Water quality
The main quality problems for the Bug river are high levels of organic
pollution, nitrate, phosphate and bacteriological pollution and the
subsequent risks for eutrophication and drinking-water supply in Ukraine
and Poland [40]. Annex 3.10.1 shows the development of the water
quality over the last 8 years at 3 locations in the basin. Industrial pollution
is limited, due to recession in the industrial sector. Diffuse sources of
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
111
nutrients and municipal pollution are the main problems. Table 3.10.1
shows estimates of nutrient loads from diffuse sources in the Ukraine and
Poland. Sediment quality is in general good with few local exceptions.
................................
Table 3.10.1.
Estimated total nutrient loads (Ntot and
Ptot) from diffuse sources in the Bug
river basin (t/y)
Ukraine*
Year
1992
1996
1997
1998
Livestock
N
P
1064
363
1174
413
1051
364
1058
366
1998
387
Arable land
N
P
848
107
749
112
743
113
720
111
Human settlements
N
P
452
99
452
99
452
99
452
99
Total
N
2364
2375
2246
2230
P
569
624
576
576
31591
757
Poland**
86
29480
279
1724
392
* from Draft Inventory Report, 2000, Ukraine
** from Draft Inventory Report, 2000, Poland
The reliability of time series of water-quality parameters in former Soviet
Union countries is doubtful. A thorough assessment of the quality of these
data is necessary before any conclusions can be drawn. In May 2000, a
survey was conducted in the Ukraine involving Ukrainian, Polish and
German laboratories. Annex 3.10.2 shows the results. Samples were taken
at Yahodin/Dorohusk at the Ukrainian/Polish border at km 456.2. The
results show, that the analysis of relatively simple parameters like BOD 5,
sulphate, ammonium and nitrate show considerable variation. The levels of
O2 were satisfactory (all above 6 mg/l).
The levels of ammonium (around 0.2 mgN/l) and nitrate (0.9-1.4 mgN/l)
are close to or below standards used in the EU (see also par. 3.10.5 and
annex 3.10.3). Ptot, varying between 0.34 and 0.17 mgP/l is above EU
standards. Metals are all far below standards or below detection.
The water quality of the Polish section of the Bug river is mainly affected by
diffuse pollution and municipal waste-water discharges and the major
concerns are nutrients and bacteriological pollution, in particular coliform
bacteria.
3.10.4 Monitoring programmes
Each of the countries has a national monitoring network. In the Ukraine,
the Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources is organising the monitoring
of water resources. The Ministry of Health Care deals with aspects of
hygiene. The Hydrometeorology Committee and the Environmental
Inspections of the Ministry are in charge for ambient water quality with
respect to effluent monitoring. The monitoring network for ambient water
quality in the Ukraine consists of 15 sampling sites, which were sampled
with a frequency of 4-12 times a year. However, due to financial
constraints this programme has been significantly reduced in recent years.
Parameters include physical parameters, macroions, oxygen parameters,
nutrients, metals and organic compounds. Biological monitoring is
performed 3-4 times a year and includes phytoplankton, zooplankton and
zoobenthos. Bacteriological monitoring was conducted once a month. In
Belarus, the national monitoring network consists of 23 sampling points.
The State Hydrometeorological Committee and the Brest Regional
Committee of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection are in
charge. About 50 hydrochemical and hydrobiological parameters are
included. Also in Belarus, financial constraints have a severe impact on the
realisation of monitoring campaigns. In Belarus, irregular monitoring
campaigns are organised at present. In the Polish part of the Bug basin
there are 126 regional and 20 national monitoring points. The Chief
Inspector of Environmental Protection is in charge. Physical parameters and
nutrients are measured 12 times a year, metals 4 times a year and
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
112
pesticides once a year (see also chapter 3.8). Poland is the only country
with a regular sediment monitoring system at 21 locations, supervised by
the Inspection of Environmental Protection and performed by the National
Geological Institute.
Joint transboundary monitoring is organised bilaterally at a regional level.
Nine stations in the national monitoring network of Poland are included in
the bilateral programmes with the Ukraine and Belarus. Data exchange is
also organised at regional level. The UNECE pilot project has the specific
objective to develop an international monitoring programme and to
harmonise monitoring and assessment methods. International quality
assurance and control is not implemented. The first international sampling
exercise and interlaboratory comparison were conducted in May 2000. The
results are shown in annex 3.10.2. The results show the urgent need to
elaborate a system of regular joint sampling and interlaboratory
comparison of results. Fig. 3.10.1 shows the layout of the monitoring
network.
A transboundary emergency-warning system is not yet operational in the
Bug basin, but is in the process of being developed. Each country has a
national emergency-warning system.
3.10.5 Assessment methodologies
The Ukraine has 2 parallel approaches for the assessment of water quality:
a set of quality requirements and a set of maximum allowable
concentrations (MAC), each of them related to 3 different types of water
uses:
• source of drinking water for population and food industry.
• the use for bathing, sporting and recreation for the population.
• the use for fisheries - meaning that water bodies are suitable for
reproduction, migration and living habitats for fish and other aquatic
organisms.
All surface water bodies in the Ukraine should comply with the
requirements for the use for fisheries.
As a consequence, the MACs for fisheries are applicable (see annex
3.10.3). Since January 1999, an ecological assessment method is in use as
well, termed as: "The Methods of Ecological Assessment of Surface
Waters by Relevant Criteria". The method enables to compare the water
quality in certain parts of water bodies and water bodies in different
regions on the basis of integrated ecological indices (see annex 3.10.4).
Chapter 3.8.5 describes the system used in Poland and chapter 3.5.5 for
Belarus.
3.10.6 Environmental Status
3.10.6.1 Water quality
The Bug river itself is in general of good quality in the Ukrainian and
Belarussian stretches of the river. The downstream part in Poland shows
problems with organic pollution, phosphorous and bacteria. This was
confirmed recently by the results of international surveys in the Ukrainian
and Belarussian part of the river, close to the border with Belarus. In the
lower reaches in Poland, concentrations of nutrients rise and
microbiological pollution is a major concern (see also par. 3.10.3.2). Metals
and organic micropollutants are no problem. Annex 3.10.1 shows the
results of the classification on the basis of EC Directives (see for explanation
chapter 3.8.5). Annex 3.8.3 includes the quality assessment system for the
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
113
river Oder which will also be recommended by Poland for the river Bug.
There are "hot spots" along the river and in particular at tributaries,
directly related to insufficiently or untreated municipal waste waters. Table
3.10.2 shows a comparison of 90 percentile values in 2000 at Wyszkow in
1998, the Directive 75/440/EEC and the Polish classification for a selection
of parameters.
................................
Table 3.10.2
Assessment of a selection of water
quality parameters in the Bug river
Oxygen mg/l
NH4 mgN/l
Ntot mgN/l
P-total mgP/l
Zn µg/l
Cd µg/l
Hg µg/l
g-HCH µg/l
*=
n.a. =
1) =
2) =
C*
Poland1)
75/440/EEC2)
8.3
0.64
4.27
0.28
48
0.3
n.a.
n.a.
>6
1.0
5.0
0.1
200
5
1
50
n.a.
0.04
n.a.
0.17
500
1
0.5
n.a.
90 percentile values, in 2000 at Wyszkow
not applicable
no effect levels
Directive concerning the quality required of surface water for the abstraction of drinking
water
3.10.6.2 Ecology
The biological status of the Bug river in Belarus and the Ukraine is in
general good, but locally affected by waste-water discharges.
Phytoplankton is diverse and abundant: 316 species were recently
determined. Saprobic indices vary between 1.76 and 2.27. In the upper
part of the Bug, saprobic indices are effected by the rivers Poltva (S=2.12)
and Zolochivka (S=1.929). The most specific biotic communities were
reported downstream from the confluence with the river Poltva, near the
city of Kamyanka Buz’ka. Zooplankton in the Bug river includes 93 species
of invertebrates. The saprobic indices for zooplankton vary between 1.4
and 2.2.
Zoobenthos is reasonably diverse, e.g. 11 species Chironomidae and 9
species of Gastropoda. Toxicity tests in the Ukrainian part of the Bug show
high toxicity at specific hot spots downstream the landfill of the city of
Lviv. Close to discharges of waste water, high microbiological pollution is
observed.
The last data for the Belarussian stretch are from 1991. Saprobic indices
varied between 1.81-1.96 (Pantle, Buck).
The draft inventory for the Bug in Poland from March 2000, does not
report specifically on the biological status. According to hydrobiological
assessment, the upper part of the Bug River is moderate polluted (Class II)
and the lower part is polluted (Class III) (see Annex 3.8.1). Poland has an
extensive system for nature and landscape protection in the basin
including: one national park (9649 ha), 64 nature reserves (8111 ha), 7
landscape parks (129200 ha) and 11 protected landscapes (242700 ha).
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
114
................................
Annex 3.10.1
Development of the water quality of
the Bug at 3 locations for the period
1992-2000
No Parameter
1
Hydrogen ion concentrate.
2
Total suspended solids
3
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Unit
Goal
m. Krylów,
km 578,1
m. Brok
km 82,9
pH
6.0 - 9.0
1992
7.6 - 8.2
1996
7.4 - 8.3
2000
7.7 - 8.9
mg/l
25
88
96
31
1992
1996
7.7 - 8.6 7.6 - 8.5
93
55
m. Wyszlków
km 33,0
2000
7.9 - 8.7
1992
8.0 - 9.1
51
83
1996
2000
7.3 - 8.8 8.0 - 9.0
65
80
(BOD)
mg O2/l
3
12.9
7.2
7.3
8.9
8.3
7.4
15.6
12.3
13.3
4
Oxydizability (COD-Mn)
mg O2/l
10
19.2
14.9
16.3
17.1
17.6
16.1
17.4
19.3
18.0
5
Chem. Oxygen Demand
60.3
(COD-Cr)
mg O2/l
30
74.9
54.9
59.2
102.6
53.7
51.8
72.0
55.1
6
Dissolved oxygen
mg O2/l
6
5.8
5.4
6.1
7.3
6.7
8.7
8.6
4.5
8.3
7
Ammonia as nitrogen
mg N NH4/l
1
3.75
1.45
0.87
1.01
1.1
0.65
1.04
1.37
0.64
8
Nitrate as nitrogen
mg NNO3/l
5
2.76
2.39
3.54
2.50
1.74
2.24
1.92
2.05
2.67
9
Nitrite as nitrogen
mg NNO2/l
0.02
0.187
0.123
0.059
0.026
0.027
0.022
0.030
0.072
0.024
4.41
4.12
3.99
3.58
3.84
4.33
4.27
0.81
1.08
0.49
0.60
0.77
0.43
0.50
0.58
0.39
10 Nitrogen Total
11 Phosphate (dissolved)
mg N/l
5
mg PO4/l
0.2
12 Phosphorus Total
mg P/l
0.1
0.54
0.39
0.38
0.24
0.34
0.33
0.28
13 Conductivity
mS/cm
1000
928
853
867
647
493
600
550
14 Chlorides
mg Cl/l
200
109
73
53
40
32
29
38
39
31
15 Sulphates
mg SO4/l
150
223
110
105
85
58
64
70
53
49
0.06
0.42
0.72
0.022
0.010
0.017
16 Iron Total
mg Fe/l
1
17 Zinc
mg Zn/l
0.3
1.62
0.46
0.77
0.68
0.12
0.054
0.047
0.089
0.052
0.048
0.002
18 Total chromium
mg Cr/l
0.05
0.036
0.010
0.020
0.003
0.002
0.011
0.002
19 Cadmium
mg Cd/l
0.005
0.0010
0.0008
0.0030
0.0017
0.0008
0.0061
0.0004 0.0003
20 Copper
mg Cu/l
0.04
0.004
0.003
0.020
0.006
0.002
0.002
0.017
0.007
0.006
21 Lead
mg Pb/l
0.05
0.024
0.006
0.030
0.029
0.014
0.006
0.014
0.002
0.002
22 Mercury
mg Hg/l
0.001
0.0003
0.0006
0.0010
0.0012
23 Phenols
mg/l
0.005
0.007
0.001
0.004
0.005
0.005
0.006
0.004
24 Surfactans
mg/l
0.5
0.02
0.04
0.09
0.08
0.10
0.07
0.13
63.2
175.0
25 Hydrocarbons
mg/l
0.5
26 Chlorophyll (a)
(after extract. by petr. ether)
mg/l
20
27 Saprobity
index
2.5
2.40
2.09
2.08
28 Faecal Coliform Bacteria
NPL
2000
25000
10000
10000
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
10.8
115
19000
2.4
1.2
151.2
117.9
205.7
116.4
152.6
2500
950
8500
10000
2500
................................
Annex 3.10.2
Results of a survey in May 2000;
analysis by different laboratories from
Ukraine, Poland and Germany
Station
Station no.
Laboratory
Date of sampling
Date of analysis
End of analysis
Temperature
Colour
Transparency
PH
Conductivity
O2
Oxygen saturation
Water level
HCO3
CO2
BOD5
COD-Mn
COD-Cr
Ca
Mg
K
Hardness
Alkalinity
SO4
CI
TSS
TDS
NH4-N
NO2-N
NO3-N
Ntot
NK
Ptot
PO4
Fetot
Cu
Ni
Pb
Cd
Cr6+
Cr3+
Crtot
Zn
Hg
Mn
As
Oil products
Volatile phenols
Anionic detergents
Cs1a7
Total coliforms
E. colfi
Coli-Phages
K+Na
Si
AOX
TOC
PAH
Dissolved ignited
solids
Undissolved ignited
solids
Na
NES
Saprobic index of
bioseston
UA, PL border at Yahodin/Dorohusk
B031
B031
B031
10
3
14
6-jun
6-jun
6-jun
14-jun
6-jun
21-jun
8-jun
20.7
20.9
25
25
21
8.3
8.5
678
7.9
6.5
B030
17
6-jun
6-jul
B031
Avg
B031
value
6-jun
20.7
30
5
8.0
736
6.8
21.3
27
17
8.2
697
5.8
n.a.
n.a.
314
n.a.
3.7
18.8
22.3
138
15.4
4.5
7.7
5.5
62
31
26
439
0.16
0.06
1.22
n.a.
1.11
0.22
0.35
0.33
0.021
0.270
n.a.
n.a.
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.031
0.001
0.156
n.a.
0.054667
0.002
0.030
n.a.
1200
0.25
0.25
n.a.
n.a.
0.032
8.2
n.a.
21.3
27
24
8.2
697
6.8
79
n.a.
314
n.a.
4.0
8.4
11.0
120
14.7
5.5
6.9
5.5
69
34
23
488
0.19
0.06
1.22
1.47
1.11
0.18
0.36
0.33
0.008
0.006
0.005
0.005
0.001
n.a.
0.001
0.030
0.000
0.156
n.a.
0.022000
0.002
0.030
n.a.
2400
0.30
0.25
n.a.
n.a.
0.032
8.2
0.00
mg/l
n.a.
n.a.
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
mg/l
n.a.
°C
Cm
mS/cm
mg/l
%
Cm
mg/l
mg/l
mg O2/l
mg O2/l
mg O2/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg eqv/l
mg eqv/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg N/l
mg N/l
mg Nl
mg/l
mg N/l
mg P/l
mg PO4/l
mg Fe/l
mg Cu/l
mg Ni/l
mg Pb/l
mg Cd/l
mg Cr6+/l
mg Cr3+/l
mg Cr/l
mg Zn/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
Bq/l
B031
7
6-jun
22.0
26
8.0
5.1
B031
1
6-jun
16-jun
29-jun
22.5
B030
16
6-jun
6-jun
11-jun
20.7
B030
15
6-jun
7-jun
11-jun
8.5
679
6.5
8.1
688
6.5
8.0
705
6.9
360
6.7
7.8
6.7
1.8
60.0
10.9
193
24.0
6.8
5.5
73
35
11
339
0.18
0.05
0.88
0.20
11.0
124
17.0
2.4
7.6
6.0
24
18
68
488
0.26
0.07
1.29
6.8
5.6
71
33
11
339
0.19
0.06
1.04
0.38
0.15
0.008
<0.04
<0.005
262
0.32
0.14
0.34
0.39
0.008
0.270
<0.005
<0.005
<0.02
0.000
0.020
0.000
0.000
0.000
<0.001
<0.0002
0.130
0.200
0.018000
0.001
0.010
0.026000
0.002
2.4
8.3
29.0
113
12.4
5.5
11.3
5.3
61
32
24
494
0.14
0.06
1.45
1.11
0.17
0.39
0.59
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.0005
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.01
0.001
<0.05
2.3
8.6
35.6
6.7
5.5
68
32
22
505
<0.3
0.06
1.24
<1.2
0.21
0.37
<0.5
0.17
0.36
0.56
0.046
<0.03
<0.03
<0.003
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.042
<0.0002
0.137
0.120000
<0.005
<0.2
<0.005
<0.001
0.050
0.30
0.30
0.20
0.20
2400
0.40
<d.l.
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
2.2
9.1
25.1
122
8.3
5.5
8.8
5.1
72
36
22
466
0.05
0.05
1.42
0.030
8.2
<d.l.
0.034
116
n.a.
................................
Annex 3.10.3
MACs of water pollutants for water
courses and water bodies used for
economic, drinking, municipal and
household communal-domestic
purposes and fishery in the Ukraine
Determinands
BOD 20
COD
Dissolved oxygen
Mineralisation
Chlorides
Sulphates
Phosphates
Phosphorus elementary
Nitrogen as ammonium
Nitrogen as nitrite
Nitrogen as nitrate
Nitrogen total
Oil and oil products
Phenols
Synthetic detergents
Iron Fe 3+
Copper
Chromium 6+
Chromium 3+
Nickel
Arsenic
Lead
Mercury
Cadmium
Potassium
Magnesium
Sodium
Manganese
Fluorine
Lindane
MACs for Fishery, mg/l
MACs for economic
and drinking water uses, mg/l
MACs for recreational and
household water uses mg/l
3
at least 4-6
According to the water bodies
categories in fisheries
300
100
0.25
absence
0.5
0.02
9.1
0.39
0.05
0.001
6
15
at least 4.0
6
30
at least 4.0
1000
350
500
0.25
0.0001
2.0
1.0
10.2
2.0
0.1-0.3
0.001
1000
350
500
0.25
0.0001
2.0
1.0
10.2
2.0
0.1-0.3
0.001
0.005
0.001
0.0001
0.3
1.0
0.1
0.5
0.1
0.05
0.1
0.0005
0.01
200
1.5
0.3
1.0
0.1
0.5
0.1
0.05
0.1
0.0005
0.01
200
1.5
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
0.01
0.01
0.03
absence
0.005
10
50
20
0.94 g/l
0.75
absence
117
................................
Annex 3.10.4
Description of System of Ecological
Water Quality Assessment in the
Ukraine
The system of ecological assessment of surface water quality consists of three groups of special
classifications:
1)
2)
3)
classifications by salt composition (appendixes 1.1 – 1.4)
classifications by trophic and saprobic (eco-sanitary) indices (appendix 2)
group of classifications by specific toxic and radioactive pollutants indices as well as
toxicity level (appendix 3.2 – 3.3.)
1.
Group of classifications by salt composition consists of four specific classifications of high
ecological significance:
1.1
1.2
classification of surface and estuary water quality by mineralisation criteria
classification of surface and estuary water quality by ion composition criterion (hydrocar
bonate. sulphate and chloride)
classification of quality of fresh hypo- and oligohaline waters by contamination criteria,
classification of quality of brackish b-mesohaline waters by contamination criteria,
1.3
1.4
1.
Classification by trophic and –saprobic (eco-sanitary) criteria (appendix 2) consists of the
following indices:
1.1
1.2
hydrophysical; suspended matter and transparency
hydrochemical; pH, NH4, NO3, NO2, PO4, O2, % of saturation, permanganate oxida
tion mgO2/l and dichromate oxidation mgO2/l, BOD5 mgO2/l, COC
hydrobiological; biomass of phytoplankton mg/l, index of self-purification –
self-contamination (A/R)
bacteriological; number of bacterioplankton, million cells/ml, number of saprotrophic
bacteria, thousand bacteria/ml
bio-indication of saprobic indices Pantle-Bukk’s and Goodnight-Witler indices of
saprobic conditions
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.
Classification by criteria of content and biological effect of the specific substances
consists of three specific classifications:
1.1
ecological classification of surface water quality by specific toxic substance content
(appendix 3.1)
ecological classification of quality of fresh hypo, oligohaline and brackish b - mesohaline
by toxicity level (3.2)
ecological classification of surface and estuary water quality by specific criteria of
radioactivity (3.3)
1.2
1.3
Of the classifications presented, the first and the second (1.1 and 1.2) are different by their
structure comparing to the rest.
• classification of surface and estuary water quality by salt content criteria (1.1) consists of
three classes and 7 subordinated categories of water quality
• class of water quality (I) with 2 categories – hypohaline (1) and oligohaline (2) waters
• class of brackish waters (II) with three categories – b –mesohaline (3), a –mesohaline (4)
and polyhaline waters
• class of saline waters (II) with two categories – euhaline (6) and ultrahaline (7) waters
• classification by ion composition criteria (1.2) classifies the waters into three classes
(hydrocarbonate, sulphate and chloride) each of them is split into three groups (calcium,
magnesium and sodium) i.e. there are 9 categories of the ion composition. Moreover, some
categories of waters by ion composition are also split into 4 types with respect to
quantitative ion ratio
• the rest of the classifications of this system (1.3, 1.4, 2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3) is based on the same
principle: discrimination of waters into 5 classes and 7 subordinate categories
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
118
3.11 River Morava
3.11.1 General Description
The Morava River, the source of which is in the northern part of the Czech
Republic, is one of the most important tributaries of the upper Danube. Its
basin covers a total area of 26,580 km2, out of which approximately 78%
lies within the Czech Republic, 8% within the Slovak Republic and the
remaining 14% within Austria. The total length of the Morava is 353 km.
The average discharge upstream the confluence with the Danube is 119
m3/sec. The downstream reach of the Morava forms the border between
the Czech Republic and Slovakia and from thereon between Austria and
Slovakia. The most important tributary of the Morava River is the Dyje
River, which drains 62% of the entire basin area and forms part of the
Czech - Austrian border. There are 3.1 million inhabitants living within the
catchment area, 2.7 million of whom live in the Czech Republic, 0.2 million
in Slovakia and almost 0.2 million in Austria. The majority (ca. 60%) of the
river basin is constituted by agricultural land. Forests, which are
concentrated mainly in mountain and upland parts of the basin, cover
approximately 30%. More than thirty important water-storage reservoirs,
which were constructed in the river basin, dispose of a total controllable
volume of 565 million m3. The floodplains of the middle and lower reach of
the Morava and Dyje Rivers remain in a relatively well-preserved natural
status. Their fish communities belong amongst the richest in Europe.
Because of the position of the river basin, together with its climatological,
morphological and geological conditions, atmospheric precipitation is the
only source of water. As a result, annual discharge per capita is only one
third of the European average. These factors have led to the historical
development of a water management system that was of a high European
standard, especially in the period between the wars. The first State Water
Management Plan, completed in Czechoslovakia soon after the Second
World War still remains a valuable document.
3.11.2 Institutional Structures and Policies
3.11.2.1 Institutional Structures
The key basis for broad international co-operation for environmental
protection in the whole Danube River basin, of which the Morava River
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
119
basin forms an integral part, was the "Convention on Protection and
Sustainable Use of the Danube River".
Bilateral co-operation on transboundary waters in the Morava River basin
has a long history. The first technical Czechoslovak - Austrian Commission
was already established in 1928. Regular water-quality monitoring of
surface waters started in 1970. The present co-operation is a consequence
of the "Treaty between the Austria and the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic
on Arrangement of Water-Management Issues Concerning Transboundary
Waters" from 1967. Following the division of former Czechoslovakia, this
has been succeeded by the Czech Republic and Slovakia as separate states.
Bilateral co-operation between the Czech and Slovak Republics is based
upon the "Agreement between the Governments of the Czech and Slovak
Republics on Co-operation on Transboundary Waters" signed in December
1999. The objective of the Agreement is to ensure protection, conservation,
co-ordinated and rational use of transboundary waters and improvement of
their quality. Working groups for different topics have been established and
joint transboundary water-quality monitoring should start soon. In July 1998
the "Memorandum of Understanding" between the Ministry of
Environment of the Czech Republic and the Ministry of Environment of the
Slovak Republic on joint participation in the Pilot Project for the
demonstration of the UNECE ‘Guidelines on water quality monitoring and
assessment transboundary rivers’ was signed [41]. Participation in the Pilot
Project was intended as a preparation for a joint monitoring programme of
surface water quality in accordance with the modern approach given in the
Guidelines [42], [43]. Co-operation and regular exchange of hydrological
information in relation to hydrological forecasts exists between the Czech
and Slovak Republics (by means of Czech and Slovak Hydrometeorological
Institutes). Similar co-operation exists among these countries and Austria.
3.11.2.2 Policies
The policies of all three states follow modern principles of water-resources
protection, taking a river basin approach. These principles are reflected in
multilateral and bilateral conventions, agreements and treaties ratified by
the adjacent states. Close international co-operation on water quality and
the aquatic environment was developed during the nineties within the
framework of the Danube Environmental Programme and embodied in the
Danube Convention. This environmental policy has resulted in the recent
construction or upgrading of waste-water treatment plants. Surface-water
pollution has decreased especially in organic substances, pollution by heavy
metals and other toxic substances, while the entire basin still suffers from
high concentrations of nutrients.
The international as well as bilateral co-operation is primarily focused on:
(1) securing drinking-water supplies by satisfying demands at approved
intakes, (2) improving ecosystems conditions in order to achieve a high
diversity of species, (3) reducing loads of harmful substances, and (4)
reducing pollution loads to the Black Sea.
Improvements have already been registered; water management has not
only taken account of water quality and quantity issues, but also of the
rehabilitation of watercourses. In the past few years, these favorable
tendencies have resulted in increased biodiversity especially in
macrozoobenthic communities. At present, in the Czech Republic the new
Water Act came into force (from the 1st January 2002) and likewise in the
Slovak Republic, a new Water Act following EU principles of environmental
protection and sustainable development, is under preparation [45], [46].
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
120
3.11.3 Environmental Issues
3.11.3.1 Hydromorphology
The Morava River basin has a unique geographical position where all three
main biogeographical units of central Europe (western Hercynian, eastern
Carpathian and southern Pannonian province) meet. Characterised by a
diversified relief as well as diversified geological parent rock, this unique
geographical position results in a diverse mosaic of water-related
ecosystems and high biodiversity of species. Significant morphological
changes began in the 19th century owing to successive extensions of
agricultural land, growth of population number and decrease of wooded
areas. However, systematic water-management activities developed at the
end of the 19th century and this process continued in the 20th century.
The most important morphological interventions took place in the region of
former Czechoslovakia (comprising about 86% of the whole catchment
area). This was further accelerated as a result of collectivization and
ownership restriction in the period between 1950 and 1990. These
activities transformed land-use, changed the agricultural and forested
landscape and considerably influenced the water and soil regime as well as
soil erosion processes, resulting subsequently in a water-quality decrease.
3.11.3.2 Water Quality
Surface-water resources within the Morava River basin fulfil a number of
uses and functions which can be split into the following broad categories:
water supply for public, industry and agriculture; recreation and fishing;
nature conservation; flood management; and disposal of effluent.
The major proportion of public drinking-water supply comes from
groundwater resources and a smaller part is taken from drinking-water
reservoirs situated on the headwaters. The biggest users of surface-water
abstractions are power stations, which use large amounts of water for
cooling purposes.
Municipalities represent the largest source of surface water pollution,
contributing approximately 90% of organic pollution and nearly 50% of
the nutrient load. Almost all municipalities with more than 5,000 person
equivalents in the Czech part of the basin have waste-water treatment
plants, the majority of them are presently undergoing some upgrading or
extension aimed mostly at introducing of new technology for nutrient
reduction.
The most significant industries from the pollution point of view are food
processing, textile, rubber, tannery, paper and chemical manufacturing.
While the textile industry is located in the upper part of the basin, the food
industry and chemistry is concentrated mainly in its middle and lower part.
The effluent discharges situation regarding the major part of the basin (not
considering Austria) is presented in Table 3.11.1.
................................
Table 3.11.1
Effluent Discharges in the Morava River
Basin (1997) Czech Republic Slovak
Republic
Parameter
BOD5
CODCr
Dissolved solids
Suspended solids
NH4-N
NES-UV or Oil-UV
Total Discharged
Volume (m3/year)
CZECH REPUBLIC
Amount
Amount
Produced
Discharged
(tons/year)
(tons/year)
34,822
75,485
120,826
78,550
n.a.
295
255,152,000
n.a.: not available
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
5,816
22,100
53,500
9,680
3
51
121
SLOVAK REPUBLIC
Amount
Amount
Produced
Discharged
(tons/year)
(tons/year)
3,650
7,225
32,919
4,545
609
61
18,390,775
517
1,278
16,388
505
242
9.8
In the Czech part of the Morava River basin approximately 75% of the
inhabitants are connected to an appropriate sewerage system, while in the
Slovak part the proportion is about 50%.
Agricultural activities, covering more than 15,000 km2 of the Morava River
basin, contribute to the largest part of diffuse pollution. The most
important agricultural waste discharges include suspended solids, nutrients
and other agrochemicals (mostly applied to agricultural land during
previous large-scale farming practices). The mean annual application of
fertiliser in 1990 and 1996 is shown in Table 3.11.2.
................................
Table 3.11.2
Mean Annual Fertilizer Use in the
Morava River Basin Component Czech
Republic
Czech Republic
Application (kg/ha)
1990
73.3
25.8
22.7
Nitrogen (N)
Phosphorus (P)
Potassium (K)
1996
58.9
15.9
11.5
Slovak Republic
Application (kg/ha)
1990
88.8
72.3
60
1996
57.7
15.9
13.8
A noticeable improvement in water quality can be also expected owing to a
decrease of reared livestock. An Impact on soil and water quality have also
been attributed to an increase in the area and type of forests covering
mainly the upper part of the river basin [47], [48].
3.11.4 Monitoring programmes
3.11.4.1 Routine Monitoring
The organizations responsible for surface-water quality monitoring in the
Czech and Slovak Republics are the Czech and the Slovak
Hydrometeorological Institutes, respectively. Routine monitoring in Austria
is ensured by government departments and by the Umweltbundesamt.
The state water-quality monitoring networks in both the Czech and Slovak
parts of Morava River basin consist of 76 sampling sites (62 Czech sites and
14 Slovak sites), with samples taken 12 times per year. Two out of them
have been included in the ICPDR monitoring network (see Fig.3.11.1).
Within the framework of the Czech-Austrian Commission of
Transboundary Waters surface-water quality is monitored at 4 sampling
sites. Monthly samples for water-quality assessment have been from two
sampling sites since 1993, under the auspices of the Slovak-Austrian
Commission on Transboundary Waters.
The ecological state of the majority of rivers in the Morava River basin was
assessed within the Czech water protection study ‘Project Morava’. The
diversity of fish and their contamination by heavy metals and PCB were
also evaluated as part of the Project. In addition, once every five years, the
surface-water assessment is complemented with a saprobiological
assessment of the macrozoobenthos within a more detailed monitoring
network consisting of about 400 sites.
3.11.4.2 Surveys and Special Studies
Since 1992 a special annual water-protection study, the "Project Morava",
has been completed [44]. This has assessed the actual state of the water
bodies and the ecosystem in relationship to hot spots and the most
important environmental issues in the Czech part of the basin. The most
recent bilateral survey in the Morava River basin was realised in 1999 in the
framework of the Pilot Project under the Task Force on Monitoring and
Assessment by the Czech and Slovak Republics. The survey consisted of
chemical screening analyses, ecotoxicological tests and assessment of
macrozoobenthos at locations in the basin identified as suffering from a
lack of information.
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
122
3.11.4.3 Early-warning System
In each of the above mentioned countries, centres have been established to
address the requirements of the Danube Early-warning System and
additional local needs. Each "Principal International Alert Centre" consists
of three specialised groups: the communication service, the expert service
and the decision service. Communication services are located in the Centre
of Crisis Management (in Tulln for Austria), in the Slovak Inspection of
Environment (in Bratislava) and in the Morava River Basin Administration
(in Brno for the Czech Republic).
................................
Figure 3.11.1
Network for the national and
transnational monitoring programme in
the Morava River basin
(source WRI Brno - SHMI Bratislava)
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
123
3.11.5 Assessment Methodologies
The quality of surface-water bodies in the Czech Republic and in Slovakia
has been classified according to the technical standards for "Classification
of Surface Water Quality" (CTN 757221 or STN 757221, respectively). The
Czech Standard was amended in 1998 in view of EU requirements
embodying the ecosystem approach (reflected within individual classes of
surface-water quality). The Czech Standard classification system defines
five classes of water quality, as follows:
- Class I - water is not significantly impacted by human activities and
water quality is very near natural background
- Class II - water is slightly polluted and its quality enables existence of
rich, equitable and sustainable ecosystems
- Class III - water is polluted and its quality has been impacted by human
activities, to a degree that, under certain conditions, they may not
permit the existence of rich, equitable and sustainable ecosystems
- Class IV - water is heavily polluted and its quality has been impacted by
human activities to a degree that allows only unbalanced ecosystems to
develop
- Class V - water is very heavily polluted and its quality results in severely
unbalanced ecosystems.
The Slovak STN 75 7221 was amended in 1999. Classification of water
quality in accordance with this standard should serve for assessment of
water from ecological point of view. Five classes scale is used for waterquality classification, first class corresponding to very clean water, the fifth
class to very polluted water. The classification is based on selected waterquality determinands, which are divided into 8 groups (oxygen regime,
basic physico-chemical determinands, nutrients, biological determinands,
microbiological determinands, micropollutants, toxicity and radioactivity).
Generally it can be said that the classification system in all three countries is
based on selected water-quality parameters. The key parameters are dissolved
oxygen, BOD, COD, nutrients, biological and microbiological determinands,
selected toxic and dangerous substances and radioactivity. Both in the Czech
Republic and in Slovakia, the quality of municipal and industrial waste water
discharged into surface waters is controlled by Governmental Decrees (No.
82/1999 in Czech Republic, No. 242/1993 in Slovakia).
Within the Pilot Project a preliminary proposal for a joint harmonised
water-quality classification system has been elaborated as a proposal for
the Czech – Slovak Commission on Transboundary Waters. The proposal,
which will be completed in relation to EC Directives and TNMN final
classification, is given in annex 3.11.1.
3.11.6 Environmental Status
3.11.6.1 Morphology
Despite the extensive watercourse training during the last two centuries,
about 70% of the watercourses in the basin remains free-flowing. These
free-flowing reaches include the downstream Austrian-Slovak boundary
section of the Morava River. The main aims of the engineering works were
flood protection, mitigation of water erosion impact, ensuring water supplies
and regulation of adjacent groundwater levels. These measures were
accelerated in the second half of the twentieth century when other related
deleterious impact occurred. In that period major reductions in the area of
floodplains were realized. Likewise, the flow connection among the main
watercourse and adjacent branches or other water/wetland bodies was often
interrupted. After the political changes of the early 1990s, activities aimed at
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
124
................................
Table 3.11.3
Assessment of a selection of water
quality parameters in the Morava river
Oxygen mg/l
NH4 mgN/l
NO3 mgN/l
P-total mgP/l
Zn µg/l
Cd µg/l
Hg µg/l
C*
Czech Republik2)
Slovakia2)
75/440/EEC1
8.9
0.67
4.14
0.22
12.9
0.2
0.19
> 6.5
0.7
6.0
0.15
50
0.5
0.1
> 6.0
0.5
3.4
0.2
50
5
0.2
n.a.
0.04
5.6
0.17
500
1
0.5
*=
90 percentile values for 1998 at Lanzhot
n.a. = not applicable
1) = Directive concerning the quality required of surface water for the abstraction of drinking
water
2) = no effect level (Class II)
rehabilitation of the impacted watercourses began and accelerated the
floodplain protection, especially in the middle and lower part of the river.
3.11.6.2 Water quality
After several decades of deterioration, the water quality in the basin has
significantly improved in the last 10 years as the result of measures
imposed on municipalities and industries to install adequate treatment
plants. The evident decrease of production in old factories, in particular in
the sugar-beet industry, has led to water-quality improvement. Previous to
this change, organic pollution was the primary cause of pollution within the
basin. Currently however, nutrient pollution is the most serious threat to
surface waters especially in context of the overall Danube basin. Though
the substantial decrease of the discharges of BOD has occurred in the last
decade, some river stretches of insufficient quality still remain. The most
problematic contaminant is currently phosphorus. On the other hand heavy
metals as well as the organic micropollutants (except for PCBs) do not
show higher values than the first/second class. Table 3.11.3 shows for a
selection of parameters, a comparison of C90 values at Lanzhot in 1998
with 75/440/EEC and the Czech and Slovak classification systems.
Nutrients and mercury do not meet requirements of the II class, which are
mostly even stricter than limits of the used EC Directive.
The water-quality development in the Morava during the last decade can
be demonstrated on data from the final sampling site in Devinska Nova
Ves, situated immediately upstream the confluence with the Danube. This
situation has been reflected by a steady decrease in organic pollution, an
increase in dissolved oxygen and no change or slight decrease in nitrate
concentrations (see Fig.3.11.2 and in Fig.3.11.3).
................................
Figure 3.11.2
BOD5 average concentration at 3
monitoring stations in the Morava River
from 1980 – 1999 (Source: WRI BrnoSHMI Bratislava)
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
125
................................
Figure 3.11.3
NO3-N average concentration at 3
monitoring stations in the Morava River
from 1980 – 1999 (Source: WRI BrnoSHMI Bratislava)
3.11.6.3 Ecology
Due to the natural diversity of conditions, the Morava River valley supports
a biologically productive and diverse ecosystem. The conservation of the
river ecosystem is supported by numerous wildlife reserves and protected
areas. There are 38 National Nature Reserves and 154 Local Nature
Reserves within the whole river valley, with 8 wetlands of transboundary
and transregional importance. The largest wetland located at the
confluence of the Dyje and Morava Rivers is situated in the area of the
proposed Trilateral (Czech-Austria-Slovakia) National Park.
Ecological monitoring, carried out as part of Project Morava, showed that
urban areas and the middle lowland part of the river can be ranked among
the most impacted. Agriculture was identified as the main contributor to
the diversity loss in many places. Mercury was the main contaminant found
in fish muscle tissue. Assessment of macrozoobenthos indicated a
significant decrease in organic pollution.
In a recent bilateral survey, saprobic and diversity indices calculated on the
basis of semi-quantitative sampling of macrozoobenthos showed that all
sampled localities were rather similar from the pollution point of view. The
water was moderately polluted, the stretch downstream Spytihnev was a
little worse.
................................
Table 3.11.4
Sampling Site
Laboratory
Saprobic
Index –
Czech
Morava-Spytihnev
Olsava-Kunovice
Velicka-Straznice
Kyjovka-Lanzhot
Dyje-Nove Mlyny pod
Teplica-Pod Senicou
Morava-Dev.Nova Ves
Morava-Lanzhot
Morava-Moravsky Jan
Morava-Lanzhot
Morava-Moravsky Jan
Brno
Brno
Brno
Brno
Brno
Bratislava
Bratislava
Brno
Brno
Bratislava
Bratislava
2.27
2.16
2.19
2.17
2.17
Biological assessment of the selected
sites in the Morava River basin - 1999
Saprobic
Index Slovak
3.43
2.15
2.13
2.10
3.34 *
2.28
Biodiversity
Index
(Shannon)
ASPT
BBI
EBI
2.28
1.92
1.38
1.76
2.27
1.35
0.99
2.21
1.96
1.38
1.93
3.8
3.5
4.1
4.9
4.7
6
5
5
9
7
8
6
7
8
6
5.5
5.6
8
8
8
8
* limited habitats (pools) sampled
Ecological quality of all sites examined in the survey in the middle part of
the basin (except Kyjovka River at confluence with the Dyje River) was not
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
126
good. However, the respective river stretches are mostly regulated, partially canalised and with weirs which
have formed the main obstacles for fish migration. On the other hand the upper and lower stretches of the
Morava River are rather natural. It also adds weight to the conclusion of the recent WWF study on the state
of 69 stretches of Europe’s rivers in 16 European countries. This document classes the lower Morava among
only 7 river stretches which already meet the future requirements of the EC Water Framework Directive as
rivers in "good ecological status".
................................
ANNEX 3.11.1
Proposal for a harmonized system for
water quality classification
Determinand
Oxygen regime
Dissolved oxygen
Biochemical oxygen demand
COD - KMnO4
COD - K2Cr2O7
Total organic carbon
Symbol
Unit
I.
II.
Class *
III.
IV.
V.
O2
BOD5
CODMn
CODCr
TOC
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
>7
<2
<6
< 15
<5
>6
<4
<9
< 25
<8
>5
<8
< 14
< 35
< 11
>3
< 15
< 20
< 55
< 17
<3
> 15
> 20
> 55
> 17
DS
c
Fe
ClSO42-
mg/l
mS/m
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
< 300
< 40
< 0,5
< 50
< 80
< 500
< 70
< 1,0
< 200
< 150
< 800
< 110
< 2,0
< 300
< 250
< 1 200
< 160
< 3,0
< 400
< 300
> 1 200
> 160
> 3,0
> 400
> 300
N-NH4
N-NO3
N total
P total
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
< 0,3
< 1,0
< 2,0
< 0,05
< 0,5
< 3,4
< 5,0
< 0,15
< 1,5
< 7,0
< 15
< 0,40
< 4,0
< 11,0
< 20
< 1,00
> 4,0
> 11,0
> 20
> 1,00
SI-ben
Chl-a
µg/l
< 1,2
<8
< 2,2
< 25
< 2,8
< 50
< 3,3
< 100
> 3,3
> 100
TEKOLI
CFU/ml
< 40
< 100
< 500
< 1000
> 1000
As
CN- total
Cr total
Cd
Pb
Hg
Zn
µg/l
mg/l
µg/l
µg/l
µg/l
µg/l
µg/l
<1
< 0,03
<5
< 0,1
<3
< 0,05
< 15
< 10
< 0,05
< 20
< 0,5
<8
< 0,1
< 50
< 20
< 0,1
< 50
<1
< 15
< 0,5
< 100
< 50
< 0,2
< 100
<2
< 30
< 1,0
< 200
> 50
> 0,2
> 100
>2
> 30
> 1,0
> 200
FN1
NES
HCH
ATZ
PCB
PCP
BZP
CB
DCB
mg/l
mg/l
µg/l
µg/l
ng/l
µg/l
ng/l
µg/l
µg/l
µg/l
µg/l
µg/l
µg/l
µg/l
< 0,01
< 0,02
< 0,05
< 0,05
<5
< 0,05
<5
< 0,2
< 0,2
< 0,2
< 0,2
< 0,2
< 0,2
< 0,2
< 0,02
< 0,05
< 0,1
< 0,1
< 10
< 0,1
< 10
<1
< 0,5
< 1,0
< 1,0
< 1,0
< 0,6
< 1,0
< 0,1
< 0,1
< 0,3
< 0,5
< 20
< 1,0
< 50
<3
<1
< 3,0
< 2,0
< 3,0
< 2,0
< 2,0
< 0,5
< 0,3
< 1,0
< 2,0
< 30
< 3,0
< 100
< 10
<2
<10
< 3,0
<10
< 3,0
< 3,0
> 0,5
> 0,3
> 1,0
> 2,0
> 30
> 3,0
> 100
> 10
>2
< 10
< 3,0
< 10
< 3,0
< 3,0
a V, c a
a V, c b
mBq/l
mBq/l
< 200
< 500
< 300
< 1 000
< 500
< 1 500
< 1000
< 2 000
> 1000
> 2 000
Basic physico-chemical determinands
Dissolved solids
Conductivity
Total iron
Chlorides
Sulphates
Nutrients
Ammonium nitrogen
Nitrate nitrogen
Total nitrogen
Total phosphorus
Biological determinands
Saprobic index of benthos
Chlorophyll-a
Microbiological determinands
Thermotolerant coliform bacteria
MICROPP POLLUTANTS INORGANIC
Arsenic
Cyanides total
Total chromium
Cadmium
Lead
Mercury
Zinc
Organic micropollutants
Phenols volatile with water steam
Non-polar extractable substances 2)
Lindane
Atrazine
Polychlorinated biphenyls 2)
Pentachlorophenol
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chlorobenzene
Dichlorobenzene 1)
1,2-dichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloromethane
Tetrachloromethane
Radioactivity
Gross alpha activity
Gross beta activity
*
90 percentile values (except of dissolved oxygen)
1) Dichlorobenzenes = 1,2-dichlorobenzene and 1,4-dichlorobenzene.
2) The concentration of polychlorinated biphenyls expressed as the sum of the concentrations of selected congeners of PCB 28, 52,
101, 138, 153 and 180 (numbered according to Ballschmidter).
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
127
4. Synthesis
..................................................................................
4.1 Introduction
This chapter starts with a brief summary of the international co-operation
in the 10 rivers (par. 4.2). However, the current synthesis will emphasise
the 4 main questions to be addressed by this study (see also par. 2.1):
1. What are the main issues? (par. 4.3)
2. What is monitored? (par. 4.4)
3. Which assessment methodologies are used and what are the main
differences? How can this lead to different interpretations? (par. 4.5)
4. Summarise the environmental status of each river and compare
(par. 4.6)
Each paragraph provides a synthesis in the form of a table and explanatory
text.
4.2 International River Commissions
The Rhine Commission (ICPR, 1950) has been the example for many
International River Protection Commissions, that have been established in
the past 10 years: Elbe (1990), Oder (1996), Danube (incl. Morava and
Tisza, 1998) and Meuse (1998). Conventions for each of these rivers have
been negotiated. Furthermore, Portugal and Spain have agreed on a
Convention in 1998, that addresses all transboundary rivers, including the
Tagus. Additionally, special programmes for the Bug and the Daugava are
under way, supported by UNECE and financed through the European
Commission and the countries themselves. Poland, Belarus and the Ukraine
now co-operate in the Bug basin on the basis of a Memorandum of
Understanding. It is to be expected, that Conventions and Commissions
will also be established for these 2 basins within 5 years. In effect, this
implies that transboundary co-operation will be formally established for all
rivers included in the present study. The policies of these ‘younger’
commissions take a rather comprehensive approach, taking ecological
functions into consideration from the beginning. This is clearly a lesson
learned from the experiences with the Rhine. Implementation of the EC
Framework Directive will further harmonise international efforts for riverbasin management.
The existing Commissions all have permanent Secretariats that facilitate
and co-ordinate the implementation of the Conventions. All Commissions
have established thematic working groups, addressing specific issues, e.g.
legal aspects, ecology, development of action plans and others. Among
their tasks is the development and operation of an international
transboundary monitoring system. These exist in the Rhine, Danube, Elbe,
Oder and Meuse basins. At present, the other rivers have national
monitoring systems (see further par 4.4). All rivers, except the Bug and the
Daugava/Dvina have a transboundary EWS.
4.3 Main issues
Table 4.1 presents the synthesis for environmental issues in the basins. The
prevailing environmental issues for all European rivers studied are the
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
128
adverse effects of hydrological interventions from the past on the
ecological systems and the nutrient load and the risks for eutrophication of
lakes, reservoirs and seas.
The earlier benefits of hydrological "corrections" for shipping and flood
control are frequently causing severe problems for contemporary
management, in particular for downstream countries. Increase of peak
flows have resulted in increase of flood risks. Expensive measures to
"correct" these adverse effects are now planned in most basins, in
particular in Western Europe. Sometimes the effects are irreversible.
Hundreds of fish ladders have been or will be constructed and vegetation,
flood plains, forests and retention basins restored. These measures will
serve both the ecological function and reduce flood risk.
The risk of eutrophication originates from high levels of nutrients, in
particular nitrogen compounds. These risks become particularly apparent in
small tributaries, stagnant waters (reservoirs) and estuaries or (semi)
enclosed seas. The nutrients originate from agricultural activities (diffuse
sources) and municipal sewage- treatment plants. Nutrient removal is being
introduced in Western Europe and levels are decreasing but not enough.
Nutrient discharges in Middle- and East-Europe are much lower than
before, because of the reduction of fertiliser use in agriculture.
................................
Table 4.1
Overview of issues in 10 transboundary
rivers1)
Nutrient load and eutrophication
Hazardous substances, incl. Oil
Microbiological pollution
Oxygen depletion
Competition for available water
Morphology
Ecology
Microbiological pollution is an issue in most river basins as a risk for human
health. Pollution with hazardous compounds is decreasing in all river basins
as the result of waste-water treatment (in Central and West Europe)
and/or significant reduction in industrial activities (in Central and East
Europe). Low oxygen levels are generally not a problem in the main rivers,
but can be severe in tributaries.
Danube
Rhine
Elbe
Tisza
Daugava
Tagus
Oder
Meuse
Bug
Morava
+
±
±
_
+
+
+
+
±
±
_
_
+
+
+
+
_
_
_
+
±
+
±
+
±
±
±
±
+
_
_
_
_
±
+
+
_
_
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
_
_
±
+
+
±
+
±
+
+
+
+
_
+
_
_
±
+
+
±
+
_
_
±
+
1) This table provides a highly schematised overview of issues in the basins, included in this
study. Fields with "+" indicate a confirmed and general problem in the main river. Fields with
"_" indicate that there is a small or a questionable problem in the main river. However locally
near hot spots or in tributaries the problem will exist. For instance, oxygen depletion is an
existing problem in tributaries of all most every river and locally also in some main rivers. Oil or
hazardous substances can be a problem as the result of calamities. This is not considered a
general problem in this scheme. The 3rd indicator with "±" is used where a clear distinction
between general problem and small/questionable problem cannot be made.
4.4 Monitoring programmes
In all river basins, transboundary monitoring programmes are in place.
However, there is a distinction with respect to bilaterally agreed
programmes, which are implemented at national level, and agreed
international programmes. In the Rhine, Danube (incl. Morava and Tisza),
Elbe, Oder and Meuse basins, there are international programmes for
routine transboundary monitoring. The Tagus and Daugava do not have a
routine international programme. For the Bug, there are bilateral
programmes. In all basins, except for the Daugava and the Bug,
international Accident and Emergency-Warning Systems are operational.
Table 4.2 gives an overview of the main characteristics of the international
programmes. Information on national programmes is not presented, but
these are described in Chapter 3. In the international programmes,
profound differences in number of stations, parameters and compartments
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
129
sampled are observed. The Rhine monitoring programme has the longest
history and has clearly adjusted the concept of monitoring in accordance
with contemporary understanding of information needs:
• information on water and suspended solids,
• a low density of the network and high frequency of observations.
Structural information on the contamination of sediments and/or
suspended solids is lacking for the Tagus, Daugava, Meuse and Bug.
Sediment analysis can be expected in these basins in the future or is already
underway (Meuse). A routine programme for ecotoxicological tests does
not exist in any basin. Biological monitoring is mostly done through special
surveys.
................................
Table 4.2
Overview of international
transboundary routine monitoring
networks
Danube
Rhine
Elbe
Tisza
Daugava
Tagus
Oder
Meuse
Bug
Morava
Length
in km
No. of international
stations
2,857
1,320
1,091
1,365
1,005
1,060
854
950
772
353
61
9
17
2
44
14
2
No. of parameters /frequency
per year
Water
Sediment/susp.solids
46/12
93/x1)
94/x1)
46/12
-
22/2
42/1 to 26
48/12
22/2
-
2)
2)-
52/13
46/12
22/2
AEWS
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
1) variable from continuous to once a year
2) based on national programmes and these vary per country
4.5 Assessment methodologies
Assessment methodologies for the classification of the environmental status
show huge differences in the various river basins. Internationally agreed
systems for water-quality requirements exist only in the Elbe and Rhine
basins and only for chemical water quality. Such international systems are
now in preparation for other rivers: Meuse, Danube (incl. Morava and Tisza)
and Oder. International systems for ecological assessment do not exist.
The river basins in this study are situated in minimally 2 (Tagus) and
maximally 14 (Danube) countries. This study summarises 16 different
systems, that exist at national level and the systems of the Rhine and Elbe
Commissions. In reality, there will be more national systems, because
information from a number of countries in the Danube basin is not included
(Croatia, Moldova, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republic of Yugoslavia). Table
4.3 illustrates the variability in the different countries. It presents, for a
selection of parameters, the most stringent values (or maximal allowable
concentration, MAC) for chemical water-quality requirements in the 16
countries that share one or more river basins included in this study. It also
presents the requirements formulated by the ICPR for the Rhine, the ICPE
for the Elbe and UNECE. In the table, only requirements related to water
quality that meet with the definition under class I (sustaining the ecological
function) of UNECE [49] have been included. The table shows that, for
example in the case of total phosphorous, 11 different values are used as
requirement in 16 countries. For ammonium even 13. Requirements for
contamination of suspended solids have only been defined for the Rhine
and the Elbe and in the Netherlands. The table shows many empty fields,
indicating that requirements for sustaining the ecological function of a river
have not been defined at all. It should be kept in mind though, that for a
number of empty fields there might exist requirements related to specific
water uses, which do not require class I quality according to the UNECE
definition. These values were not entered in the table (with a few
exceptions), because this would lead to wrong interpretations (see notes to
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
130
the table). Requirements for specific parameters are sometimes extremely
different between countries (zinc: 100 times; lindane even 200 times), but
also for ammonium (50 times) and total phosphorous (30 times).
It is clear, that applying such different values related to the type of water
use described as sustaining the ecological function, inevitably leads to
different interpretations. Even essential parameters such as oxygen content
requirements vary between 3 (Wallonia, Portugal) and 8 mgO2/l
(Germany, Slovenia). Table 4.3 also shows that none of the countries has
systematically more stringent requirements than any other country.
................................
Table 4.3
Overview of requirements for selected
parameters
BOD5
Water
mg O2/l
O2
water
mg/l
Germany
8.0
Austria
7.5
Czech Republic
Slovakia
4.0
(cat II)
5.0
(cat II)
Slovenia
Hungary
Romania
Bulgaria
Poland
Belarus
3.0
2.0
Latvia
4.5
Ukraine
France
Wallonia
The Netherlands
Portugal
Rhine – ICPR
Elbe – ICPE
UNECE
3.0
3.0
6.0
3.0
Implementation of the new EC Framework Directive for Water Policy will
eventually lead to the harmonisation of these approaches. The application
of Annex II and Annex V to the Directive will provide the rationale of the
establishment of water-quality requirements with a basin specific approach.
It is to be expected that general parameters such as oxygen content will be
in similar ranges. Requirements for toxic components should be fully
harmonised, while requirements for naturally occurring compounds
(nutrients, non-toxic metals) can differ considerably per basin.
O2
water
%
6.5
(cat II)
7.0
cat II)
8.0
7.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
4.0
(winter)
6.0
(summer)
50%>=10
100%>=7
4.0
8.0
>90%
>50%
5.0 (MTR)
>90%
Table 4.3: overview of classification
systems
NO3
water
mg N/l
Ntot
water
mg N/l
Cd
water
µ g/l
Cd
SS
mg/kg
Zn
water
µ g/l
Zn
SS
mg/kg
lindane
water
µ g/l
0.150
(cat II)
0.070
(cat II)
0.150
(cat II)
0.150
(cat II)
0.30
(cat II)
2.5
(cat II)
5.5
(cat II)
6.0
(cat II)
3.4
(cat II)
10.0
1.0
2.3
5.0
5.0
3.00
0.07
1.2
14
400
0.300
0.040
0.100
0.400
0.100
0.200
0.70
(cat II)
0.50
(cat II)
0.78
0.20
0.78
0.10
1.00
0.40
0.100
0.23
0.250
0.050
1.000
0.050
0.50
0.10
2.00
9.1
2.0
0.08
0.20
1.1
0.50
(cat II)
0.5
(cat II)
5.00
5.0
(cat II) (cat II)
5.00
0.50
1.00
5.00
5.00
1.00
60
(cat II)
50
(cat II)
50
(cat II)
200
50
10
1000
300
10
0.020
(cat II)
0.200
(cat II)
0.001
1000
('fair')
0.39
1.00
5.00
0.30
5.00
0.01
1.00
0.40
1.00
1.00
0.07
1.2
1.0
1,2
2.3
300
12
300
500
45
210
Absence
0.010
0.010
0.009
200
400
0.002
0.100
General principles
• In case a range of values/categories exists (was presented through the various sources), the
most stringent value was selected. This is also to stay in line with the notion of comparing
water-quality data with the quality class I of the UNECE "variables affecting aquatic life
and their concentrations by quality class".
• Sometimes no value is mentioned for the most stringent class/category, but other values
were presented. In such cases the (always 'higher') nearest value was included in the table.
A note then has been made in the table. Specifically this applies to: NL: oxygen, LV: Zn,
AU: NO3, Ptot, Cd, Zn.
• In some cases, even within one and the same class/category, a range is mentioned (like for
France-Meuse: BOD5 3-5 under category 1B, and 5-8 under category 2). In such cases, the
most stringent value in the range was selected.
• Concentrations for NO3, NO2, NH4, as well as for total Phosphorous were calculated to N
and P where necessary. Applies to standards of: Portugal (P), France (NO 3)
• Special case is N-total. It is common in the case of e.g. former Soviet countries, to refer to
total nitrogen, which in practise is just total inorganic nitrogen (NO 2, NO3 plus NH4)! There
is no doubt about the definition in cases such as NL.
• There is a bias in the information provided for: Ukraine: P-total; NH 4, NO3/2 (presumably
as N!); Portugal: NO3 (note: lowest value 5, highest 80 mg NO3/l)
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
NH4
water
mg N/l
0.150
0.200
0.015
7.0
................................
Notes.
Ptotal
Water
mg P/l
131
Poland
Three water-quality classes are defined (I, II, and III). Quality class I is the most stringent.
Ukraine
Three quality classes with MAC are defined: for fishery, for economic and drinking water uses,
and for recreation. The first one is most stringent.
The Netherlands
Source: "Staatscourant 16 juni 2000, gewijzigde versie bijlage A: Normen 4e nota
waterhuishouding."
For surface waters, two classes can be discriminated: 'streefwaarden' (comparable with
Guidance values in EU systems; also considered as No Effect Levels; long term policy
objectives), and 'MTR '-values (Maximaal Toelaatbaar Risico * MAC; short term policy
objectives). Unless mentioned otherwise, values are for total concentrations in water. Waterquality standards are also defined for suspended solids (compare heavy metals).
Rhine, ICPR
Source: Tätigkeitsbericht 1991, Anlage 1.3.3.
The ICPR basically uses just one water quality class, the 'Zielvorgaben' (indicative target
values). Note that the Zielvorgaben for heavy metals are defined for suspended solids only (see
for further details: par. 3.3.5).
Elbe, ICPE
The table contains target values of the ICPE for the use as raw water for drinking-water supply,
fishery and irrigation and for aquatic biocenosis protection (suspended solids). There are no
targets set for O2 and BOD5.
Belarus (Dvina, Bug)
The values (presumably) are the MAC values for fishery (compare Ukraine). Since Belarus still
uses (almost unchanged) the former Soviet system of standards, more water-quality categories
exist.
Latvia (Daugava)
The table Surface fresh water-quality standards for cyprinid waters in Latvia mentions two
classes: Ecologically friendly (the most stringent one), and Good ecological state. Values are not
equal to the 78/659/EEC directive. Note: Zn only is mentioned under Good ecological state.
France (Meuse)
Source: Report Water Quality Evaluation System for Water Courses (SEQ-Eau), version 1,
Agences d’Éau, 1999.
Wallonia (Meuse)
Source: report "De kwaliteit van de Maas in 1994 " published by ICBM
Water quality standards were published in "Koninklijk besluit 4 november 1987". The report
mentions just 1 set of values. It is not clear if they should be considered as MAC values, or as
'target values'.
Portugal (Tagus)
Source: report fragments provided by Rodrigues et. al. from Instituto da Agua (like copy of
"PBH Rio Tejo", Tabela C.3.1).
Five water-quality categories are defined (ranging from 'not' to 'extremely' polluted).
Germany, Austria, Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria
(Danube)
Source: chapter 3.2
The report mentions 5 classes (I-V). All values were selected from class I, except for German,
Austrian, Czech and Slovak values. Note: the report mentioning 5 classes does not mean, that
each of these Danube countries have a system with 5 categories.
Most countries define different chemical water-quality classes that are related to specific uses.
EU member countries in general have complied with the relevant EU water directives.
Candidate member countries are in the process of adapting their legislation. Also countries like
the Ukraine and Belarus plan to harmonise their systems with the EU. Some countries (e.g.
Germany, Czech Republic) have anticipated the new EU Water Framework Directive. In
addition to water-use related target values for individual parameters, many countries, at
national level, use chemical water quality and ecological indexes that integrate specified waterquality requirements into different quality classes. Such classification systems are not used at
international level and are therefore not further discussed here.
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
132
4.6 Environmental status
Water quality
Paragraph 4.3 has summarised the general chemical water quality of the 10
rivers. A more specific picture is presented in table 4.4. The table presents a
comparison for a selection of parameters of the chemical water quality in
the 10 rivers included in this study. Only one station (in general the most
downstream station) and the average of one year is shown. The primary
purpose of this table is to demonstrate that it is exceptional that the same
selection of parameters can be reported. The table shows that the oxygen
content of the rivers is in general good. The classification of UNECE is
presented as a reference to compare the quality of the rivers in the year
and at the station reported. Nutrients are a problem in all rivers. For the
other selected parameters, the quality varies.
A comparison of the chemical water quality of rivers based on the
application of the same target values has to be interpreted with great
caution. The geogenic conditions can differ considerably. In order to make
such a comparison meaningful, the natural background values of important
determinands such as metals and nutrients should be known. This
knowledge is often lacking.
Implementation of the new EC Framework Directive for water
management will change this situation. The Directive provides a
harmonised methodology for water-quality assessment that acknowledges
the differences that exist between river basins. The need for such
harmonisation is illustrated by table 4.5. The table shows the outcome of
the application of target values for total phosphorous, as used by 16
countries, UNECE, ICPR and ICPE, for the assessment of all rivers, included
in this study. The table shows, that countries in one basin may have
different opinions on the need for interventions based on different
outcomes of the assessment methodology.
Biological status
International routine biological or ecotoxicological monitoring programmes
do not exist. Biological monitoring on a bilateral basis exists in a number of
rivers (e.g. Morava). Continuous toxicity tests are applied in the Elbe and
Rhine basins in automated stations, but part of the EWS. In all basins
biological surveys are performed on a more or less regular basis. From the
results of these surveys, it can be concluded that the chemical water quality
at present is not the limiting factor in any of the main streams of the rivers
for its biological quality. There are hot spots, in particular at tributaries, but
they are limited in number. Most rivers, in particular in East Europe,
support rich fish communities. West European rivers, which were heavily
polluted in the past, e.g. Rhine, Meuse, Elbe and Oder, are now
recovering. The limiting factor for recovery is the morphology of the river.
Physical interventions have blocked migration routes and destroyed
spawning and feeding grounds. Recovery is progressing however, and in
these rivers a number of species is returning by itself or through special
programmes. A general phenomenon in these rivers is the change in the
species composition. Neozoa are invading. Migratory fish has been
replaced by non-migratory species.
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
133
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
134
Krajnik
Keizersveer
Wyszkow
Lanzhot
Oder
Meuse
Bug
Morava
n.a. = not available or not analysed
n.d. = not detectable
Perais
Tagus
Daugavpils
Daugava
Seemannshöft
Elbe
Tiszasziget
Lobith
Rhine
Tisza
Sulina (Sulina arm m)
Location
1998
1998
1998
1999
1998
1998
1997
1998
1998
1997
Year
Average values
Average values
Average values
Average values
Average values
Average values
Average values
Average values
Average values
Average values
Type
4.4
5.2
n.a.
4.0
3.3
1.9
1.9
n.a.
n.a.
3.0
BOD5
Water
mg O2/l
11.0
11.8
9.2
11.1
8.6
11.3
9.3
8.6
10.2
8.2
O2
water
mg/l
0.20
0.22
0.19
0.26
0.18
0.06
0.24
0.18
0.21
0.07
Ptotal
water
mg P/l
0.39
0.41
0.17
0.09
0.18
n.a.
0.12
0.24
0.075
0.4
NH4
water
mg N/l
3.28
1.83
4.15
2.40
4.40
n.a.
1.54
3.60
3.20
1.48
NO3
water
mg N/l
n.a.
n.a.
4.83
3.75
n.a.
1.60
2.06
4.90
4.33
n.a.
Ntot
water
mg N/l
0.13
1.0
0.3
n.d.
n.a.
n.a.
0.75
0.15
0.081
3.05
Cd
water
mg/l
n.a.
n.a.
8.24
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
4.5
1.73
n.a.
Cd
SS
mg/kg
7.3
11
34
6
n.a.
n.a.
105
33
23
21.4
Zn
water
mg/l
n.a.
n.a.
940
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
571
530
n.a.
Zn
SS
mg/kg
0.032
0.002
0.005
0.0047
n.a.
n.a.
0.012
<0.0025
0.0027
0.04
lindane
water
mg/l
Overview of water quality in the
various rivers for selected parameters
Danube
River
................................
Table 4.4
................................
Table 4.5
Overview of the results of the
assessment for total phosphorous,
applying the requirements of 15
countries and 3 international
authorities; all requirements are class I
requirements, except for Austria (class
II). Ptot concentrations are taken from
chapter 3; all values are C90 values
except for Daugava and Tagus, which
are average values.
River
Ptotal
Water
mgP/l
UNECE
0.015
Hungary
0.040
Germany
0.050
the Netherlands
0.050
France
0.050
Austria
0.070
Romania
0.100
Poland
0.100
Latvia
0.100
Danube
Rhine
Elbe
Tisza
Daugava
Tagus
Oder
Meuse
Bug
Morava
0.11
0.19
0.25
0.51
0.06
0.18
0.37
0.27
0.28
0.20
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
+
-
+
-
+
-
River
Ptotal
Water
mgP/l
Rhine- ICPR
0.150
Slovakia
0.150
Czech Rep.
0.150
Belarus
0.200
Ukraine
0.250
Bulgaria
0.400
Wallonia
1.000
Danube
Rhine
Elbe
Tisza
Daugava
Tagus
Oder
Meuse
Bug
Morava
0.11
0.19
0.25
0.51
0.06
0.18
0.37
0.27
0.28
0.20
+
+
-
-
-
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
- = does not meet the requirement
+ = meets the requirement
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
135
Elbe-ICPE Portugal
0.200
0.240
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
5. Conclusions
..................................................................................
1.
In the past 10 years, major progress has been made with the
introduction of international integrated river-basin management. Such
processes can be accelerated by major environment disasters.
The process has taken place, more or less simultaneously, in West,
Central and Eastern Europe. The International Rhine Commission was
the first to be organised and served as an example for several other
river commissions.
2.
This study shows that water management in different river basins can
be compared with each other and can result in useful conclusions and
recommendations. However, considering the wide diversity and
differences between countries, rivers, functions and uses as well of the
complexity of the matter studied, such studies must be performed
with great caution, sufficient expert knowledge and (most important)
detailed input by the experts from the participating countries and joint
bodies. Therefore, an extensive and operational network of experts in
the different countries, is a necessity.
3.
The broad framework approach of the European Water Framework
Directive, in combination with the more detailed recommendations of
the UNECE Guidelines on monitoring and assessment provide a solid
basis for international co-operation in water management, with an
emphasis on the aspects of water monitoring and assessment. The
Water Framework Directive will contain one universal list of standards
but allows basin-specific differentiation by choice of desired ecological
status. The UNECE Guidelines emphasise that the approach has to be
tailor-made to the specific needs of the different river basin
management. The International Water Assessment Center can play a
supporting role in this process.
4.
For all of the 10 international rivers included in this study,
international co-operation exists in the form of an international river
commission and, in, the case of Bug and Daugava, specific
international agreements. Throughout, the first activities of such
commissions are the establishment of monitoring programmes and
early-warning systems. Such systems are available in all studied river
basins or will be shortly.
5.
The international river commissions study the different issues per
water system (different types of pollution, available water,
morphology and ecology). In the rivers Tisza and Meuse, most of the
identified issues are applicable while in the Daugava relatively few
issues cause concern.
6.
Presently, the economic situation in many of the countries studied is
improving. This economic growth results in the introduction of new
industrial activities and complexes. This is the time to ensure that
production-methods and –processes are developed and implemented
with the least danger or impact for the aquatic ecosystems. A criteria
for the effectiveness of such a development is a strict policy on
legislation and enforcing of effluent permits. Such developments can
be stimulated and facilitated by international co-operation.
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
136
7.
The methods used for the assessment of chemical water quality differ
between the 10 river basins in the use of parameters, the standards
and the calculation methods. The differences between the standards
used in the river commissions studied, may accumulate to a factor 10
or more from very strict (Germany, Czech Republic, Slovak Republic)
to very loose (Walloon). The biological assessment methods, including
the methods on bio-assays, are poorly comparable either.
However, there are no theoretical or principal differences in the
assessment methods. This means there is a basis for an international
harmonisation of assessment methods if it leaves sufficient possibilities
for regional alterations, doing justice to the differences that exist
between rivers and countries due to geogenic conditions.
8.
In the study it was clearly demonstrated that an international
comparison of water quality data should be done with the utmost
prudence. Differences in geomorphologic conditions, natural
background, location of sampling points, monitoring techniques and
assessment methods may easily lead to mistaken conclusions.
However, to make a thorough assessment of the quality of the 10
river basins extra study of the monitoring data is necessary, using a
representative number of locations, complete and available series of
parameters and taking into account the hydrological conditions
influencing the assessment.
9.
An ubiquitos problem for all European rivers is the risk of
eutrophication of receiving waters (sinks), like estuaries, (semi)enclosed seas, lakes and reservoirs by high levels of nitrogen and
phosphorous. The problem is evident in all river basins studied. This
problem has a negative impact on the number of species in the
ecosystem.
10. Pollution by heavy (metal-) industry and mining is decreasing (heavy
metals, oil, PAH, PCB). This is effected by economic reasons rather
than environmental measures. However ‘new’ toxic substances, such
as the polar pesticides and dioxins have a higher environmental
impact. Due to a lack of information it is difficult to make an overall
assessment of the environmental hazards due to these new pollutants.
11. During this study it has often been stated by national experts that
hydromorphological barriers and boundaries have a much greater
impact on ecological potencies than water quality issues.
12. The possibilities of new monitoring methods such as the use of bioassays, are not yet fully explored.
13. When assessing the ecological status of river basins, the impact of
invading species is not fully incorporated yet. Considering the
increasing connection of international water-ways and the growing
importance of international shipping-traffic this topic will be of
growing importance.
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
137
References
..................................................................................
[1]
ICPDR, TNMN Yearbook 1997, Vienna, 2000.
[2]
Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of establishing a framework for Community action in the field of
water policy. Brussels, October, 2000.
[3]
Knoben, R. A., Bijlmakers, L. and P. van Meenen,
Classification/characterisation of water quality, Water Quality
Enhancement in the Danube River Basin, Phare Contract No. 980399.00, Brussels, 1999.
[4]
Blok, H, Optimisation of the Transnational Monitoring Network,
Water Quality Enhancement in the Danube River Basin, Phare
Contract No. 98-0399.00, Brussels, 1999.
[5]
Tittizer, T. and M. Banning, Biological assessment in the Danube
catchment area: indicators of shifts in species composition induced by
human activities. European Water Management 3, No. 2, 35-45,
2000.
[6]
ICPR, Treaty regarding the Protection of the Rhine, Bern, April, 1999.
[7]
ICPR, Action Plan High water, Koblenz, March, 1998.
[8]
ICPR, Comparison of the quality of the Rhine from 1990 to 1996
with its objectives, Arnhem, July, 1999.
[9]
ICPR, Tables of physical-chemical investigations of water and
suspended solids of the Rhine, Koblenz, November, 1999.
[10]
ICPR, Inventory of the Rhine fish-life in 1995 within the framework
of the programme "Salmon 2000", Koblenz, October, 1997.
[11]
ICPR, Salmon 2000, Koblenz, 1999.
[12]
ICPR, Inventory of the ecological valuable areas near the Rhine and
the first steps on the way to connection of biotopes, Koblenz,
January, 1998.
[13]
Modified version Annex A, Standards 4th Policy Document for Water
Management, Staatscourant 16 June, 2000, no 114/pag. 18.
[14]
Wieriks, K. and Schulte-Wülwer-Leidig, A., Integrated water
management for the Rhine river basin, from pollution prevention to
ecosystem improvement, Natural Resources Forum, Vol. 21, no. 2,
1997.
[15]
ICPE, Report on the state of the implementation of the "Ecological
emergency measures for the protection and the improvement of the
biotope structures of the Elbe", Magdeburg, December, 1997.
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
138
[16]
ICPE, Work Plan of the ICPE up to and including the year 2000,
Magdeburg, September, 1992.
[17]
ICPE, International Warning- and Alarm Plan Elbe, July 1992
(permanently updated), Magdeburg, October, 1995.
[18]
ICPE, The fish-life of the Elbe, Magdeburg, October, 1996.
[19]
ICPE, The Elbe from 1990 up to 2000 – 10 years of successful
co-operation within the ICPE.
[20]
ICPE, Water quality report Elbe 1997 with tables of the physical,
chemical and biological parameters of the international monitoring
programme of the ICPE, Magdeburg, 1998.
[21]
ICPE, Second report on the realization of the "Action Programm
Elbe" during the period 1998 and 1999.
[22]
EPDRB, National Review – Hungary, Phase II, Volumes 1 and 2,
Budapest, 1993.
[23]
Voitov I., Romanovsky CH., Maltsman T., (Ed.): Hydroecological
Status of the Zapadnaya Dvina/Daugava River Basin, Minsk, 2000.
[24]
State Hydrometeorological Agency, National Report on the
Hydroecological situation of the river Daugava, Riga, 1998.
[25]
State Hydrometeorological Agency, Reports on the quality of the
environment in Latvia, Riga, 1998, 1999.
[26]
State Hydrometeorological Agency, Characteristic of the Daugava
river basin water quality, Riga, 2001.
[27]
PBH of the river Tagus, Volume III – Part C (Rev. 1 – 1999/09/28)
C-21/C272.
[28]
COBA, Water Institute, Water resources of the river Tagus and its
uses, 1st revision, – January, 1996.
[29]
ICPO, Joint Strategy for the Action Program for Flood Protection in
the Drainage Area of the Oder River, Wroclaw, November, 1998.
[30]
ICPO, Immediate Program for Protection of the Oder River Against
Pollution 1997-2002, Wroclaw, 1999.
[31]
ICPO, International Warning and Alarm Plan for the Oder River,
Wroclaw, 1999.
[32]
German-Polish Transboundary Water Commission, Monitoring and
Assessment of water quality of transboundary waters in 1999, Part I
Assessment, Part II Data (in German and Polish), Sczeczin, 2000.
[33]
E. Helios Rybicka, M. Wardas, M. Schzebouska and L. Budek,
Accumulation and Mobilisation of heavy metals in the bottom and
flood sediments of the river Oder in Management of Transboundary
Waters in Europe, M. Landsberg, M. Adriaanse, R. Enderlein (editors)
Lelystad, June, 1998.
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
139
[34]
WWF Germany, Oder Auen Atlas, Rastatt, November, 2000.
[35]
IUCN, Oder as an ecological corridor, state, functioning, threats,
Warsaw, 1995.
[36]
ICPM, Action programme Meuse 1998-2003, Liege.
[37]
ICPM, Results of the homogeneous monitoring network, Liege,
1998.
[38]
ICPM, Migratory fish in the Meuse, actual situation in 1999, Liege,
March, 2000.
[39]
University of Metz, Processing of the results of the international
monitoring of the benthic macroevertebrate fauna of the river Meuse
(summary), M1/99-15 rev., 1999.
[40]
Bug River Basin. Identification and Review of Water Management
Issues. Report No. 2 Pilot Projects on Transboundary Rivers under the
UNECE Water Convention. Warsaw, April 2002.
[41]
Morava River Pilot Project: Inventory Report, Brno, March, 2000.
[42]
Morava River Pilot Project, Information Needs; Water Research
Institute Brno, 2001.
[43]
Morava River Basin. Identification and Review of Water
Management Issues. Report No. 2 Pilot Projects on Transboundary
Rivers under the UNECE Water Convention. Brno, Bratislava, April
2002.
[44]
Project Morava, Stages I, II, III (in Czech); Water Research Institute
Brno, 1992 – 2000
• Bernardova I: Project Morava. Part 3. Water Quality Assessment.
Final Synthetic Report (in Czech); Water Research Institute Brno,
1999.
• Zda il J.: Project Morava. Water Protection in the Morava River
Basin. Synthesis 1992 – 1995 (in Czech); Water Research Institute
Brno, 1996.
[45]
State Environmental Policy, Ministry of Environment of the Czech
Republic, January, 2001.
[46]
Strategy, Principles and Priorities of the State at Environmental Policy,
Ministry of Environment of the Slovak Republic, 1993
[47]
Water Quality Yearbooks (since 1980), Czechoslovakia / Czech
Republic / Slovakia, 1980 – 1999.
[48]
Summary Report on Water Quality Development in the Morava River
Basis during Two Years 1999 – 2000 (in Czech), Ministry of
Environment of the Czech Republic, 2001.
[49]
ECE Standard Statistical Classification of Surface Freshwater Quality
for the Maintenance of Aquatic Life. Economic and Social Council,
CES/733, 13 April 1992.
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
140
Website addresses:
http://www.cipm-icbm.be
http://www.iksr.org
http://www.inag.pt/snirh
http://www.environnement.gouv.fr
http://www.mma.es/docs/hidra_calagua/coca
http://www.wwf.de
http://www.arge-elbe.de
http://www.ikse-mkol.de
http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/eca/eca.nsf/Initiatives/Black+Sea/Home?O
penDocument
http://www.hispagua.cedex.es
Assessment practices and environmental status
of 10 transboundary rivers in Europe
141