kiev eea version · 167-20-15-10-5 0 0 25 50 75 100 125 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 level (m) riga...

165

Only a few European citizens suffer from thedevastating shortages of water and poor waterquality experienced by people in many other parts ofthe world. However, water resources in many areasof Europe are under threat from a range of humanactivities. About 31 % of Europe’s population livesin countries that use more than 20 % of theirannual water resource, this being indicative of highwater stress. Drinking water quality is still ofconcern throughout Europe, with significantmicrobiological contamination of drinking watersupplies in eastern Europe, the Caucasus andcentral Asia (EECCA), contamination by salts incentral Europe and more than 10 % of EuropeanUnion citizens potentially exposed to microbiologicaland other contaminants that exceed the maximumallowable concentrations.

Problems are generally highest near pollution ‘hotspots’ resulting from a range of industrial and otheractivities. The situation is generally of greatestconcern in some EECCA countries, especially asregards the quality of drinking water in terms ofmicrobiology and toxic substances. This reflects therelatively poor economic conditions in this region,and in several countries the deterioration or lack ofinfrastructure for providing clean drinking water.

The health of humans and ecosystems is alsothreatened in other parts of Europe. One exampleis water contaminated by organic and inorganicpollutants such as pesticides and heavy metals atconcentrations greater than those laid down instandards by the EU and other internationalorganisations.

Total fresh water abstractions fell during the lastdecade in most regions. However, 31 % ofEurope’s population lives in countries thatexperience high water stress, particularly duringdroughts or periods of low river flow. Watershortages also continue to occur in parts ofsouthern Europe where there is a combination oflow water availability and high demand,particularly from agriculture.

Although there has been significant progress inmanagement of water resources and quality acrossEurope, problems still persist. This is especially sowhere there is a lack of capacity and financialresources for monitoring and for implementingessential measures and technical improvements.

In western Europe and the accession countries,river, lake and coastal water quality, in terms of

8. Water

phosphorus and organic matter, is generallyimproving, reflecting decreases in discharges,resulting mainly from improved wastewatertreatment. Nitrate levels have remained relativelyconstant — but significantly lower in accessioncountries reflecting less intensive agriculturalproduction than in the EU. Concentrations ofnutrients are much higher than natural orbackground levels. Eutrophication, as indicated byhigh phytoplankton levels in coastal areas, ishighest near river mouths or big cities.

Heavy metal concentrations in western Europeanrivers, and their direct discharges and atmosphericdeposition into the North East Atlantic Ocean andthe Baltic Sea, have all fallen as a result ofemission reduction policies. Existing informationon the state of waters in EECCA shows that manyrivers, lakes, groundwater and coastal waters arepolluted, often with hazardous substancesincluding heavy metals and oil. The pollutiontends be concentrated in localised hot spotsdownstream of cities, industrialised andagricultural areas and mining regions. Away fromthese hot spots, river and lake water qualityappears to be relatively good.

Oil pollution caused by discharges from coastalrefineries and offshore installations is decreasingin western Europe. However, illegal discharges,mainly from ships, are still a problem, especially inthe North Sea and Baltic Sea. Oil pollution ingeneral, from several sources, is of major concernin the Black Sea, the Caspian Sea and theMediterranean. The recent disaster involving theoil tanker Prestige, off the coast of northern Spain,highlighted the need to reduce risks from similaraccidents in the future.

8.1. Introduction

Few European citizens suffer from thedevastating water shortages and poor waterquality experienced by people in so manyareas of the world. However, water resourcesin Europe are, in many locations, underthreat from a range of human activitiesleading in some areas to significant problemsof overexploitation and of quality of inlandand marine waters.

Pressures result from economic growth andeconomic recovery in some countries ofcentral and eastern Europe, the Caucasus

Water

kiev_eea_version.pmd 03-04-2003, 12:20 PM165

Europe’s environment: the third assessment166

60

80

100

120Index 1990 =100

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

Western centralEurope

EECCA

1996

1997

1998

Southern WE

AC-10

and central Asia (EECCA). In thesecountries, demands for agriculture,particularly for irrigation, growingurbanisation, continuing inadequacies inwastewater treatment and increasing leisureactivities create high stresses on water. Thisarises both from natural changes and fromdisasters such as floods and droughts.

The environmental consequences of over-stressed water resources, improper irrigationpractices, pollution discharges and poorwater quality include salinisation,eutrophication, erosion and, in extremecases desertification (see Chapter 9, Box9.1). Problems are often greatest near ‘hotspots’ that result from a range of industrialand other activities. The situation isgenerally of greatest concern in some of theEECCA countries, with the disastrouschanges in the Aral Sea being an extremeexample, but the environment and thehealth of humans and ecosystems are alsothreatened in other parts of Europe. Ofparticular significance is watercontamination by organic and inorganicpollutants such as pesticides and heavymetals at concentrations greater than thoselaid down in directives, recommendationsand target levels from the European Union(EU) and other international organisations.

Although problems remain, there has beensignificant progress in the management ofwater resources and quality as a result of a

number of policies and measuresimplemented in recent years followinginternational and regional agreements andconventions. But some indicators of waterquality show a slowing or even levelling outof the rate of improvement and, particularlyin some eastern European countries, there isa lack of capacity and financial resources formonitoring and for implementing essentialmeasures and technical improvements.

8.2. Water abstraction and use

8.2.1. Rates of water abstraction and their impactsOverall, Europe abstracts a relatively smallportion of its total renewable water resourceseach year. Total water abstraction in theregion is about 595 km3/year, only 7 % ofthe total freshwater resource. Resources areunevenly distributed across the region, andeven if a country has sufficient resources atthe national level there may be problems atregional or local levels. Kazakhstan,Turkmenistan, Cyprus, Tajikistan, Malta andKyrgyzstan have the least available water, withan annual runoff of less than 160 mm, andas little as 37 mm for Kazakhstan. Thecountries with the highest runoff, more than1 700 mm, are the ones most dependent onexternal resources, such as Bulgaria, Serbiaand Montenegro, Croatia and theNetherlands.

For this assessment the following thresholdvalues/ranges for the ratio of abstractionagainst renewable resources have been usedto indicate levels of water stress:

• non-stressed countries — less than10 %;• low stress — 10 % to less than 20 %;• stressed — 20 % to less than 40 %;• severe water stress — 40 % or more.

The thresholds above are averages and itwould be expected that areas for which theratio is above 20 % would also experiencesevere water stress during drought or lowriver flow periods. In 33 countries this ratiois less than 10 % while in 14 countries it ismore than 20 %.

Figure 8.1. Changes in water abstraction in European regions(index 1990 = 100)

Notes: Western central:Austria, Belgium, Denmark,

Germany, France,Luxembourg, Netherlands,

England and Wales; westernsouthern: Spain, France,

Greece, Italy, Portugal; AC-10 (central accession

countries): Bulgaria, CzechRepublic, Estonia, Hungary,

Lithuania, Latvia, Poland,Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia;

EECCA: Armenia, Azerbaijan,Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan,

Kyrgyzstan, Republic ofMoldova, Russian Federation,

Turkmenistan, Tajikistan,Ukraine, Uzbekistan.

Sources: Eurostat NewCronos; EEA questionnaire

(2002)

The region abstracts only 7 % of itsfreshwater resources. A total of 33

countries can be considered as non-stressed or low-stressed. However, thereare 14 countries that abstract more than20 % of their freshwater resources.


167

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

0

25

50

75

100

125

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

Level (m) Riga Abstraction (million m3 )

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

1988

1991

1994

1997

2000

Level (m) Liepaja Abstraction (million m3 )

Groundwater level Water abstraction

As a consequence, the most highly stressedcountries have problems withoverexploitation of groundwater resourcesand consequent water table depletion andsalt-water intrusion into coastal aquifers.Basins with higher exploitation indices sufferthe impacts of over-abstraction in many oftheir rivers or aquifers. The Mediterraneanarea is particularly affected by salineintrusion due to groundwateroverexploitation. The drying-up of the AralSea and Lake Sevan (see Box 8.1) areexamples of the consequences of veryintensive abstraction.

High rates of direct river abstraction andthe rapid expansion of groundwaterabstraction over the past 30–40 years havesupported new agricultural and socio-economic development in regions wherealternative surface water resources areinsufficient, uncertain or too costly (EU,2000). Many originally perennial streams(particularly in arid regions) have becomeintermittent due to various abstractions(Smakhtin, 2001).

However there are examples of how waterresources can recover once overexploitationhas ceased. In Hungary (OECD, 2000a) theintensity of groundwater use has fallen byone third since the mid-1980s. InTransdanubia, after overexploitation ofkarstic groundwater by mining operationswas stopped in the early 1990s, the watertable, which had fallen by 30 m, recovered.In Latvia, intensive and non-balanced use ofgroundwater had caused large undergrounddepression fields in Liepaja (1 000 km2) andRiga (7 000 km2) catchments but a decreasein water consumption during the 1990s, dueto the implementation of water consumptionaccounting and economic instruments, hasled to a gradual rise in the water level(Latvian Environment Agency, 2002) (Figure8.2). In the Amsterdam dunes, a large-scaleartificial recharge scheme made possible asubstantial restoration of the freshwater store(EUCC, 2000). In the late 1980s the SpanishLa Mancha Occidental in the upperGuadiana basin was declared overexploitedwith abstractions of 600 million m3/year.Since then abstractions have been reducedto 300 million m3/year and there has been amarked recovery of the water stored in theaquifer, which also means a recovery of thevaluable associated ecosystems (Figure 8.3).This decrease in agricultural water use in thearea was to a large degree the result ofimplementing an EU-funded agri-environment scheme.

Figure 8.2.Changes in the underground water level and waterabstraction in Riga and Liepaja, 1980–2000

Source: Latvian Environment Agency, 2002.

Annual abstractions from the aquifer and water-level recovery at representative borehole in La

Mancha Occidental

Source: MMA, 2000

Total fresh water abstractions havedecreased over the past decade in

most regions.

However, in southwestern Europeancountries, some of which have high

water stress, water abstraction hasremained constant.

Figure 8.3.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

-40

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

1974

1979

1984

1989

1994

1999

Million m3 Elevation (m)

Total abstractions

Groundwater level

Water



Aral Sea coastline

19571987

2000

Water level (m)

30

35

40

45

50

55

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

Box 8.1. Impact of water exploitation on major water bodies: examples of the Aral Sea and Lake Sevan

Figure 8.4. Water consumption in Aral Sea basin

Sources: UNEP/GRID-Arendal; Saving Aral Sea Fund (Aral Sea web page); Armenia, 1998

The Aral Sea was the fourth largest inland waterbody in the world before 1960 but the sea has beendrying up since then. Central Asia uses almost 67 %of its freshwater resources and almost 100 % in theAral Sea basin, largely for irrigation of cotton andrice. This has caused the sea level to fall by 17 mand the surface area to diminish by 75 %. As aconsequence water salinity increased from 10 g/l in1965 to 40–50 g/l in 2000 and the sea lost itsfishery importance. In the late 1970s, severalspecies of fish failed to reproduce. Marshes andwetlands which covered around 550 000 ha in 1960have almost disappeared (only 20 000 ha were leftin 1990). More than 50 lakes have dried up.

Most of the catchment is salinised because ofirrigation, the salt content of soils and pasturesbeing 0.5–1.5 %. It has been estimated that at least73 km3/year of water would have to be dischargedto the Aral Sea for a period of at least 20 years torecover the 1960 level (53 m above the sea level).

Lake Sevan in Armenia (1 256 km2) is another lakeaffected by the overexploitation of water resources.It is one of the oldest lakes in the world and has animportant endemic flora and fauna. The surface ofthe lake has shrunk by 11 % over the past 60 yearsbecause of water overexploitation. Since 1981,there has been a tunnel transferring water from theArpa River, which is in another catchment, tocompensate for the loss of water.

The lake’s water has traditionally been used forirrigating crops on the Ararat plain. The reductionin water levels and surface area has had detrimentalconsequences on the ecology of the lake: fishpopulations have decreased and the aquatichabitat has deteriorated. Fishing, tourism,irrigation, hydropower production and drinking-water supply have all been badly hit. In response,the Armenian Government initiated the Lake SevanEnvironmental Action Programme in 1995 to solveor mitigate the problems.


169

8.2.2. Water use by sectorsOn average, 42 % of total water abstractionin Europe is used for agriculture, 23 % forindustry, 18 % for urban use and 18 % forenergy production (Figures 8.5 and 8.6).

Agriculture accounts for 50–70 % oftotal water abstraction in

southwestern European countries andEECCA. Cooling for electricityproduction is the dominant use in thecentral European countries.

In western central Europe, during the pastdecade, water abstraction for public watersupply has fallen by about 9 %, for agricultureby 10 %, for energy production by 14 %, andfor industry by a dramatic 28 %.

In southwestern countries, where waterabstraction for agriculture is the dominant(70 %) water use, abstraction for irrigationincreased by 5 % in the past decade.Abstraction for urban use and industry wasrelatively constant, and abstraction forcooling for energy production fell by 15 %.

In the EECCA and central accessioncountries, the decrease in industrial andagricultural activities (see Chapters 2.2 and2.3) during economic transition led to amarked decrease in water abstraction forthese uses. In the central accession countrieswater use by industry and agriculture bothfell by 70 %, in EECCA; industrial use fell by50 % and agricultural use by 74 %.

There was a 30 % decrease in abstraction forpublic water supply in the past decade incentral accession countries. In EECCA therewas also a 10 % reduction in urban wateruse. In most countries, the new economicconditions made companies increase theprice of water and install water meters inhouses. This contributed to a reduction inthe amount of water used. Industriesconnected to the public supply system alsohad decreasing production. Nevertheless inmost countries the supply network is stillobsolete and losses in distribution still leadto high abstractions to meet demand.

Among the southern accession countries,there has been a recent 35 % increase inirrigation water demand in Turkey becauseof new irrigation projects (Table 8.1). InMalta, water abstraction for urban use hasfallen and in Croatia there has been a 10 %reduction in water demand mainly becauseof the decline in industrial production(MZOPU, 2002).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Sout

hern

AC

EECCA

Wes

tern

sout

hern

Eur

ope

Nordic

Centra

l AC

Wes

tern

cent

ral E

urope

Agriculture IndustryUrban Energy

%

Figure 8.5.Sectoral abstraction of water per region

Notes: Western central:Denmark, Germany, Belgium,United Kingdom, Ireland,Austria, Luxembourg,Switzerland, the Netherlands,Liechtenstein; centralaccession countries: Poland,Czech Republic, Estonia,Lithuania, Latvia, Romania,Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia,Bulgaria; Nordic: Finland,Sweden, Norway, Iceland;western southern: Spain,France, Greece, Italy,Andorra, Portugal, SanMarino, Monaco; EECCA:Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan,Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan,Ukraine, Russian Federation,Belarus, Uzbekistan, Republicof Moldova, Armenia,Azerbaijan, Georgia;southern accession countries:Cyprus, Malta, Turkey.Industry in EECCA mayinclude water use for cooling.

Sources: Eurostat NewCronos; EEA questionnaire(2002); Aquastat (FAO), 2002for EECCA countries

Agricultural water useThe major part (85 %) of irrigated land inwestern Europe (WE) is in theMediterranean area (France, Spain, Italy,Portugal, Greece). In the accession countriesthe major part (93 %) is in Romania andTurkey. In EECCA, the Aral Sea basinaccounts for 51 % of the total.

Traditionally, much of the irrigation inEurope has consisted of gravity-fed systems,where water is transported from surfacesources through small channels and used toflood or furrow-feed agricultural land.However, in an increasing number of regionsin the north and south, irrigation bysprinklers using pressure, often drawingwater from subterranean aquifers, is the mostcommon practice. It is often in these areasthat the quantities of water used, and thusthe impact on the environment, are thelargest.

Irrigation is the main cause of groundwateroverexploitation in agricultural areas.Examples include the Greek Argolid plain ofeastern Peloponnesus, where it is commonto find boreholes 400 m deep contaminatedby sea-water intrusion. Irrigation in the areabetween the Danube and Tisza in Hungary,

Water



Greece The Acheloos river diversion project aims to irrigate 380 000 ha in theplain of Thessalia, on the eastern side of the Mount Pindos watershed.

Portugal The Alqueva water development project in the Guadiana basin (to becompleted in 2024) is expected to have a strong irrigationcomponent, expanding Portugal’s current total 632 000 ha of irrigatedland by some 110 000-200 000 ha, largely by converting traditionalextensive agroforestry systems (mentador) to intensive irrigatedcropping.

Spain The old infrastructure of most irrigation projects and their poormaintenance was the basis for the Spanish national plan for irrigation,approved in 1996, which affects 1.1 million ha. The measures areintended to improve the efficiency of water use, adapt crops toproduction and avoid aquifer overexploitation and pollution.The Spanish national hydrological plan (SNHP) from 2001 proposes tomeet the country’s water demands by transferring water from areaswhere it is in excess to other areas with a water deficit. Water transferwas envisaged as the most feasible solution for satisfying waterdemands across the country, after a cost-benefit analysiswhich took account of the environmental, socio-economic andtechnical variables. The National SNHP Act does not allow the use ofthe transferred resources either for new irrigation projects or forbroadening existing ones. The main water transfer is planned from theEbro basin to the southeast, where water resources shortage has beenidentified as ‘structural’.

Turkey The southeastern Anatolia project (GAP) aims to develop an area ofmore than 7 million ha within the basins of the Dicle (Tigris) and Firat(Euphrates). It includes 13 sub-projects, to be completed over aperiod of 10 years and an extra 1.7 million ha will be irrigated.

Source: OECD, 1999–2001; national state of the environment reports

Table 8.1. Planned water supply projects in Europe

Box 8.2. Examples of the impacts of tourism on water resources

GreeceThe most serious shortages occur in the Aegean islands. Tourism’s heavywater demand sometimes leads to over-pumping of groundwater and saltintrusion into aquifers. Water use for tourism activities, which averages450 l/day per tourist in deluxe hotels, is several times higher than averagewater use by Greek residents, placing a strain on water resources. Thepopularity of golf courses and swimming pools is a major factor in the highwater intensity of the tourism sector. During the peak tourist season, tankersare used to transport drinking water to 14 islands in the Aegean, at an annualcost of EUR 1.5 million (OECD, 2000b).

TurkeyIn many tourist areas (and nearby residential areas) adequate drinking water,sewerage and water treatment services are still sorely lacking. Tourism’s heavyseasonal and geographical concentration results in over-pumping ofgroundwater and the discharge of large volumes of untreated wastewater tolakes, rivers and coastal waters. The development of golfing (land acquisition,high water use for sprinkling, fertiliser and pesticide use) also increasesenvironmental pressures (OECD, 1999).

CroatiaDue to the concentration of tourists in space and time, there is often ashortage of freshwater, particularly on the islands and in the driest coastalregions. Existing sources of water are sufficient for most of the year butproblems arise in the summer months, when water consumption is four to fivetimes higher than in winter. The resulting shortage is resolved by bringing inwater from the mainland (UNECE, 1999a).

Balearic Islands, SpainWater demand per inhabitant is estimated to be around 279 l/day. Most ofthe water (89.5 %) is taken from groundwater, 2.5 % from surface water(reservoirs), 6.8 % is reused water and 1.2 % comes from desalination plants.Most of the available water is used for agriculture and urban purposes, butirrigation of golf courses is becoming more important. Different measureshave been implemented to reduce the increasing demand for water createdby tourism. These include the diversification of supply (e.g. desalination plantsand wastewater reuse), water-saving campaigns and economic instrumentssuch as an eco-tourist tax. (BIRHP, 1999).

and the aquifers of the upper GuadianaRiver basin in Spain, have both led to alowering of the shallow groundwater table,threatening some natural wetlands.

In the 1990s there was a slight increase (1 %)in irrigated area in southwestern countries,mainly due to increased cropping andirrigation of maize. In the central accessioncountries and EECCA, the area underirrigation only decreased slightly during the1990s, however, water use for irrigationdropped markedly (Figure 8.6). In manyaccession countries only a minor part of thearea equipped with irrigation structures isactually irrigated, for example only 10-15 %in Romania. In many eastern countries andin EECCA, the water distribution networks,pumps, and sprinklers are badly maintained,leaks have increased and the pumpingsystems are highly energy intensive. InArmenia, for example, the cost of electricityfor irrigation represents 65 % of the totaloperating cost of the irrigation system and isbarely affordable.

Several new water supply projects areplanned in Europe (see Table 8.1) andrehabilitation of the badly maintainedirrigation structures in eastern Europe andEECCA may increase the demand forirrigation water.

Urban water useIncreased urbanisation, population growthand higher living standards have beenmajor drivers of the increase of urban wateruse in the past century. In WE and theaccession countries, urban use (householdsand industries connected to public watersupply) of water per capita is around100 m3/year. In some western countries,water use fell during the 1990s as a result ofa focus on water saving, increased meteringand the use of economic instruments (watercharges and tariffs). In others, urban wateruse has continued to increase as a result ofmore people being connected to watersupply systems, more households andchanges to more water-consuming lifestyles(more washing machines, baths, swimmingpools, etc.)

In the accession countries and EECCA, urbanwater use around 1990 was in general veryhigh. However, in some countries there was alarge rural population not connected to thepublic water supply. In the central accessioncountries and EECCA there was a 30 % and10 % decrease, respectively, in urban wateruse during the 1990s (Figure 8.6).


171

Notes: Western EU: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, France, Luxembourg, Netherlands,England and Wales; southern EU: Spain, France, Greece, Italy, Portugal; central accessioncountries: Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Romania,Slovakia, Slovenia; EECCA: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,Moldova, Romania, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan.

Sources: Eurostat New Cronos; EEA questionnaire (2002)

Figure 8.6.Changes in sectoral water use in western EU

countries (a), southern EU countries (b), centralaccession countries (c), EECCA (d)

Tourism water useTourism places severe, often seasonal,pressures on water resources at the regionaland/or local level across parts of Europe, andis one of the fastest increasing socio-economicactivities in Europe. The increase in waterdemand is often associated with recreationaluses such as swimming pools, golf courses andaquatic parks as well as consumption by amuch-increased population during holidayseasons (see Box 8.2.).

8.2.3. Measures to reduce water useWhile there has been a general trendtowards higher water prices throughoutEurope, water prices still vary considerably.Milan and major cities in Turkey have thelowest prices, about 75 % below the averageof approximately EUR 1/m3 in the late1990s. Many of the capitals and major citiesin Mediterranean countries also have below-average prices, as do those in countries withabundant water supplies. In contrast, waterprices are highest in northern and westernEuropean cities (about 75–100 % more thanthe average). Charging consumers for wateris an economic instrument used by somecountries to help to reduce water use. Otherfactors that influence water-use patternsinclude climate variations, informationcampaigns, use of water-saving technologiesand improved performance of distributionnetworks (reduction of leakages and mainspressures).

In many eastern European countries, waterprices were heavily subsidised before 1990 butthere was a marked increase in prices duringtransition, resulting in lower water use. InHungary, for example, water prices increased15-fold after subsidies were removed whichled to a reduction in water use during the1990s of about 50 % (Figure 8.7).

In many of the eastern European countriesand EECCA the water supply networks are ina poor condition due to faulty design andconstruction, as well as lack of maintenanceand ineffective operation as a consequenceof the decline of the economic situation inthe past decade. Leakages are generally highand in many cases 30–50 % of the water islost. Some cities only have water for part ofthe day (UNECE, 1998–2000).

8.3. Drinking water quality

8.3.1. Overall trendsDrinking water quality in still of concernthroughout Europe (Figure 8.8). All of the

Water

Figure 8.7.Changes in household water useand price of water in Hungary

Source: Hungarian CentralStatistical Office, 2001

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Water and sewage cost

l/capita/day

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

l/cap/day Hungarian forint/m3

60

80

100

120

60

80

100

120

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

Index 1990 = 100 Index 1990 = 100c) Central AC d ) EECCA

Index 1990 = 100 Index 1990 = 100

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

a) Western EU b) Southern EU

Agriculture

Urban

Industry

Energy

Agriculture

Urban

Industry



Box 8.3. General groundwater quality in eastern Europe, the Caucasus and central Asia

For several countries, there is a substantial lack of comparable groundwaterquality data. However, an assessment of national state of environment reportsand other sources has provided some information.

In Armenia and Azerbaijan the groundwater resources are reported to be ofhigh quality. However, Armenia has some local problems with high naturalmineral content and also the threat of heavy-metal pollution from minetailings. Belarus reports that its groundwater is generally of good quality withan improvement in overall quality over recent years. However, shallow wells inrural areas of Belarus are seriously affected by nitrates. In Georgia there arearound 500 sites where groundwater pollution is found and in Kazakhstanthere is extensive contamination with a number of toxic substances, and mostareas do not comply with drinking water standards. In Kyrgyzstan increasednitrate concentrations have been observed at depths of 150 m in aquifers andserious groundwater contamination was reported in a region which provides60 % of the drinking water for the capital. Approximately 75 % of deepaquifers in the Republic of Moldova have high natural mineralisation and sothe water requires pre-treatment, and about 61 % of shallow rural wells havesevere nitrate pollution. In the Russian Federation one of the main pollutantsof groundwater is nitrate and in Ukraine there is major pollution from industry,mining and agriculture. Uzbekistan has a number of contaminated aquifers,particularly where the use of agricultural chemicals is high and close to largeindustrial enterprises.

concentrations laid down in the drinkingwater directive, in the years reported.

In the accession countries and southeasternEuropean countries, the physico-chemicalcriteria for drinking water quality are theones most commonly failed, often because ofcontamination by salts. The percentage ofsamples failed on the basis of other criteriaimplies that populations are also significantlyexposed to other contaminants but the dataare not available to calculate the proportionof the population affected.

8.3.2. The main source of drinking water: groundwaterGroundwater is a major source of drinkingwater all over Europe, and thus the state ofgroundwater in terms of quality and quantityis of vital importance (see Box 8.3).Groundwater is affected by human activitiessuch as the use of nitrogen fertilisers andpesticides, water abstraction, andinterventions in the hydrological cycle suchas land sealing.

Nitrate in groundwaterAgriculture is the main source of nitrogeninput to water bodies. The current usage ofnitrogenous fertiliser per unit of arable landis highest in WE and lowest in EECCA(except for Uzbekistan). The agricultural useof commercial nitrogen fertilisers fell innearly all of Europe in the 1990s (seeChapter 2.3). This decrease has been mostmarked in central and southeastern Europe(accession countries and others). However,average consumption per hectare remainslowest in EECCA.

Assessment of comparable time series fornitrate in groundwater shows relatively highmean values without any significant changes(Figure 8.10). Exceedances of the nitratelimit value (50 mg/l, defined in the EUdrinking water directive) were found inaround a third of the groundwater bodies forwhich information is currently available.

In general, there has been nosubstantial improvement in the

nitrate situation in Europeangroundwater and hence nitrate pollutionof groundwater remains a significantproblem.

Pesticides in groundwaterPesticides in groundwater (and surfacewaters) arise from diffuse and point sources.They are used in agriculture, horticulture,

countries also have problems withcontamination from toxic chemicals andmetals and there are also some reports ofnitrate pollution.

EU countries also have problems with theirdrinking water. The most common problemidentified from national reports is nitratecontamination (Figure 8.8). In addition, atleast 12 % of citizens in nine EU countrieswere potentially exposed to microbiologicaland some other undesirable contaminantsthat exceeded the maximum allowable

EECCA countries for which information wasavailable (eight out of twelve countries) havemajor problems with microbiologicalcontamination of drinking water supplies(Figure 8.9). The percentage of samplesexceeding microbiological standards inEECCA is between about 5 % and 30 %.Exceedances are higher in non-centraliseddrinking water sources, primarily in ruralareas. At least half the population of theRussian Federation is thought to be at riskfrom unclean water (OECD, 2000c) as aresult of ageing infrastructures and theprohibitive cost of disinfectants. These


173

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Centralised sources

Non-centralised sources

% samples exceeding microbiological standards

Armen

ia

(199

8)

Kazak

stan

(199

9)

Mold

ova

(199

6)

Ukrain

e

(199

6)

Kyrgyz

stan

(199

8)

Armen

ia

(199

8)

Rep. M

oldova

(199

6)

Ukrain

e

(199

6)

Figure 8.8.Main drinking water problems identified by national reports

Notes: Data year is not thesame for each country.Range of years 1997 to2001.

Source: UNECE, 1998–2000;national state ofenvironment reports

Note: Data for Kyrgyzstanshow the range ofpercentage exceedancessince the only regional datathat were available could benot aggregated.

Source: UNECE, 1998-2000

Figure 8.9.Samples exceeding microbiological parameters in

the countries of eastern Europe, the Caucasus andcentral Asia

fruit growing, viticulture and forestry, forpublic and private pest-control purposes,manufacturing and industrial activities. Asgroundwater is a major source of drinkingwater and also forms the base flow of manyrivers, the presence of pesticides ingroundwater is of concern from the point ofview of human health and the protection ofaquatic ecosystems. The monitoring ofpesticides is a challenging task due to thehigh number of registered pesticidesubstances, but the data suggest thatpesticide pollution of groundwater is aproblem in parts of Europe.

Pesticides are causing groundwaterquality problems in many European

countries. Six EU countries, six accessioncountries and eight of the twelve EECCAcountries have indicated that there is adanger of pesticide pollution in theirgroundwater.

Water



Notes: For each time seriesthe annual mean values of

sampling sites wereaggregated on the level of

groundwater bodies and,furthermore, the

groundwater body meanswere aggregated at the

European level (arithmeticmean). Elevated NO

3 mean

concentrations in 1996, 1997are mostly caused by single,

very high nitrateconcentrations. Data fromAustria, Belgium, Bulgaria,

Denmark, Estonia, Spain,Hungary, Lithuania, Latvia,

Netherlands, Slovenia,Slovakia.

Source: Eurowaternet-Groundwater (2002)

8.4. Nutrient and organic pollution of inland and coastal waters

High organic matter concentration(measured as biological oxygen demand orBOD) has several effects on the aquaticenvironment including reducing thechemical and biological quality of riverwater, the biodiversity of aquaticcommunities and the microbiological qualityof waters. High biological oxygen demand isusually a result of organic pollution, causedby discharges of untreated or poorly treatedsewage, industrial effluents and agriculturalrunoff. A decrease in biological oxygendemand in rivers illustrates generalimprovements in river water quality in termsof the chemical and microbiologicalproperties of the river.

Large inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus towater bodies (including rivers) can lead toeutrophication causing ecological changes.These result in a loss of plant and animalspecies, and have negative impacts on theuse of water for human consumption andother purposes. Eutrophication contributesto a number of water quality problems suchas phytoplankton blooms, reducedrecreational aesthetics, oxygen depletion,and reduced transparency and fish kills.Some algal blooms produce toxins and alsotastes and odours that make the waterunsuitable for water supply.

In many catchments the main source ofnitrogen pollution is runoff fromagricultural land, though discharges from

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35mg nitrate/l

10 countries, 62 groundwater bodies



1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

1989

Figure 8.10. Temporal development of nitrate mean values ingroundwater bodies

wastewater treatment works can also besignificant. For phosphorus, industry andhouseholds are often the most importantsources though in some countries andagricultural catchments, and particularlywhere point sources have been reduced,agriculture can be the most importantsource.

8.4.1. In riversOrganic matter concentrations (measured asbiological oxygen demand at five days orBOD5) have fallen in rivers in accessioncountries and WE countries during the1990s, with concentrations in accessioncountry rivers being generally higher thanthose in WE rivers (Figure 8.11). Theaverage orthophosphate concentrations aresimilar in rivers in WE countries andaccession countries and have fallen duringthe 1990s. Concentrations are much lower innorthern rivers and are around backgroundlevels.

Nitrate concentrations are considerablyhigher in WE rivers than in those in theaccession countries, reflecting the moreintensive agricultural practices in the WEcountries. Concentrations in northerncountries are much lower and are aroundbackground levels. Nitrate concentrationshave remained fairly constant during the1990s in northern accession countries andWE rivers.

In the central accession countries andBalkan countries, industrial production andpollution discharges decreased in the 1990sand there was a drastic reduction in pesticideand fertiliser use in agriculture.Consequently, pollution pressures on watershave eased considerably and in many places

Levels of phosphorus and organicmatter have generally been

decreasing in rivers in WE countries andaccession countries over the past decade.This reflects the general improvement ofsewage treatment and, in the EU, thesuccess of policies such as the urbanwastewater treatment directive inreducing pollution of rivers.

In contrast, levels of nitrate haveremained relatively unchanged and

above background levels in WE countriesand accession countries. Levels oforthophosphate are also abovebackground levels.


175

0

1

2

3

4

5

6BOD5 (mg O2/l)

AC (134)

EU (204)

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160Phosphate (µg P/l)

AC (247)

Western Europe (260)

Northern Europe (105)

Background concentration

river quality has improved. However, thereare still many polluted river stretches, inparticular downstream of cities andindustrial regions and in mining areas.

There are limited comparable data availablefrom the EECCA countries. They indicatethat phosphorus and nitrate levels in riversare low compared to WE countries, andorthophosphate levels lower than those inthe accession countries. Biological oxygendemand at five days is also generally low.Eight of the twelve EECCA countriesidentified nitrate levels as being of majorconcern in their rivers. Five countriesreported ammonium and four countriesreported microbiological quality as being amajor concern. The latter is consistent withthe reported high levels of microbiologicalcontamination in drinking water in thesecountries.

8.4.2. Water quality in lakes and reservoirsIt has been recognised since the 1970s thatanthropogenic discharges of nutrients werecausing eutrophication in many Europeanlakes. Since then, the proportion of lakesand reservoirs with low phosphorusconcentrations (less than 25 (µ/l) hasincreased and the proportion with highconcentrations (more than 50 (µ/l) hasdecreased. This indicates that eutrophicationin European lakes is decreasing.

In the past, urban wastewater has been amajor source of nutrient pollution butrecently treatment has improved and outletshave been diverted away from many lakes.Diffuse pollution, particularly fromagriculture, continues to be a problem.

Phosphorus enrichment of lakes is a biggerproblem in the accession countries and WEthan in the Nordic countries (Figure 8.12).This is because the Nordic countries(Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Finland) havelower population densities and loweragricultural intensities.

Figure 8.11.Biological oxygen demand at five days (a),

orthophosphate (b), and nitrate (c) concentrationsin rivers of western and northern part of western

Europe and accession countries, 1990–2000

Notes: Number of stationsin brackets and dotted lineupper limit of the range ofbackground concentrations.

Source: EEA European TopicCentre on Water (ETC/WTR),based on Waterbase

Eutrophication of European lakes,reflected as phosphorus

concentration, is generally decreasing.

However, there are still many lakesand reservoirs with high

concentrations of phosphorus due tohuman influence. Phosphorusconcentrations are highest in the easternEuropean countries and lowest in theNordic countries.

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

0

1

2

3

4Nitrate (mg N/l)

AC (292) Western Europe (305) Northern Europe (116)Background concentration

Water



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100% of lakes

< 10 10–25 25–50 50–125125–250 250–500 > 500 µg P/ l

1981

–

1985 19

86–

1990 19

91–

1995 19

96–

2001

Figure 8.12.Average summer total phosphorus concentrationsin lakes: changes 1981–2001 (a) and in parts ofEurope (b)

Source: EEA European TopicCentre on Water based on

Waterbase

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100% of lakes

AC

EECCA

Norther

n

WE

Wes

tern

WE

Box 8.4. Wastewater treatment — definitions

Primary treatment: removal of floating and suspended solids, both fine andcoarse, from raw sewage.

Secondary treatment: following primary treatment by sedimentation, thesecond step in most wastewater systems in which biological organismsdecompose most of the organic matter into an innocuous, stable form.

Tertiary treatment: the process which removes pollutants not adequatelyremoved by secondary treatment, particularly nitrogen and phosphorus.

In many lakes, which were previously highlypolluted by phosphorus, the phosphorusconcentration has steadily decreased in recentdecades in response to control of pointsources such as urban wastewater treatmentwith phosphorus removal (e.g. LakeConstance and Ijsselmeer)(Figure 8.13).

In other lakes e.g. Loughs Neagh and Erne,concentrations have steadily increased. Thisis the result of a steady build-up of a surplusof phosphorus (arising from fertilisers) inthe soils in the catchments draining intothese lakes.

On many large European rivers, cascades ofreservoirs have been constructed during thepast century. The rivers Volga and Dnepr, forexample, have six major reservoirs, eachlocated on their main course, mostlydownstream of large cities such as Moscowand Kiev. The reservoirs are heavily affectedby nutrients and other pollutants dischargedin the catchment.

8.4.3. Wastewater treatmentWastewater from households and industryrepresents a significant pressure on the waterenvironment. As well as containing organicmatter and nutrients, it can also containhazardous substances. The level of treatmentof the wastewater before discharge and thesensitivity of the receiving waters will affectthe impact it has on the aquatic ecosystem.EU countries have to implement directivessuch as the urban wastewater treatmentdirective, which prescribes the level oftreatment required before discharge.

There has been marked improvement inthe level of treatment (see Box 8.4 fordefinitions) and proportion of thepopulation connected to treatment plantsin WE countries since the 1970s. In thenorthern and central WE countries most ofthe population is now connected towastewater treatment plants, many totertiary plants which efficiently removenutrients and organic matter.

In Belgium, Ireland and southwesternEurope only about half of the population isconnected to wastewater treatment plants,with 30–40 % of the population connectedto secondary or tertiary treatment plants.

In CEE countries on average 25 % of thepopulation is connected to wastewatertreatment plants, with most of the wastewaterreceiving secondary treatment. In somecountries like Estonia around 70 % are


177

0

50

100

150

200

250

300Lake Como (IT)

Mälaren (SE)

Bodensee (CH, DE, AT)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300Ijsselmeer (NL)Erne (GB)Neagh (GB)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300Cheboksarskij reservoir (RU)

Lekshm (RU)

Ladoga (RU)

1970

1980

1990

1999

1960

1950

1990

1995

2000

1985

1980

1990

1995

2000

1985

1980

0

20

40

60

80

100% of population Tertiary

Secondary

Primary

1970

–80

(3)

1981

–90

(3)

1991

–95

(3)

Late

st ye

ar (3

)

Nordic

1970

–80

(8)

1981

–90

(8)

1991

–95

(8)

Central WE

1981

–90

(3)

1991

–95

(3)

Southern Europe

1991

–95

(4)

Late

st ye

ar (4

)

Accessioncountries

Source: Information from national state of the environment reports

Figure 8.13.Trends in total phosphorus concentrations in somelarge European lakes

connected, while in countries like Hungaryand Turkey only 32 % and 23 % areconnected. There are still many large citiesthat discharge their wastewater nearlyuntreated (e.g. Bucharest).

There is no comparable or recentinformation for EECCA but the availableinformation indicates that generally the levelof wastewater treatment is low. At presentonly a small part of the population isconnected to operating wastewater treatmentplants and the existing plants are generallyin a bad condition. There are high leakagelevels in the networks, which leads to directreleases of raw wastewater to theenvironment (see Chapter 12). Many plantsoften operate only primary treatment, fortechnical reasons or because of economicconditions and the high price of electricity.However, in Belarus more than 70 % of thepopulation is connected to operationalurban wastewater treatment plants, themajority of which are in good operationalcondition. In addition, all cities have plantswith biological treatment.

Though the percentage of the westernEuropean population that is connected towastewater treatment plants increasedbetween 1970 and 1990 and then remainedfairly constant to 1999 (Figure 8.14), levels ofbiological oxygen demand have declineddue to improvements in wastewatertreatment. Organic matter discharged fromurban wastewater treatment plants hasdecreased in Denmark, Finland, theNetherlands and the United Kingdom(Figure 8.15).

Figure 8.14.Changes in wastewater treatment in regions ofEurope between 1980 and late 1990s

Notes: Only countries with data from all periods included, the number of countries inparentheses; Nordic: Norway, Sweden, Finland; western central: Austria, Denmark, Germany,Ireland, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Switzerland, United Kingdom; southern: Greece, Spainand Portugal; accession: Estonia , Hungary, Poland ,Turkey.

Source: Eurostat /OECD joint questionnaire (2000)

The levels of wastewater treatmentin western Europe and in central

and eastern Europe have improvedsignificantly since the 1970s.

However the percentage of thepopulation connected to wastewater

treatment is still relatively low in centraland eastern Europe, althoughincreasing.

In eastern Europe, the Caucasusand central Asia there is a very low

level of treatment of wastewater in termsof population connected to treatmentworks, treatment levels applied and theoperational efficiency of those treatmentplants that do exist.

Water



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Finland

The Netherlands

Denmark

England and Wales

'000 tonnes/year

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

1999

Organic matter discharged from pointsources in the accession countries decreaseddramatically during the 1990s (Figure 8.16).This may be due partly to the deepeconomic recession in the first half of thedecade and the consequent decline in highlypolluting heavy industry. Althougheconomies have since improved andindustrial output has increased, there hasbeen a shift towards less-polluting industries.

Several industrial sectors, which in the 1970sand 1980s had large emissions of organicmatter, have now markedly reduced theirdischarges by the introduction of cleanertechnology and improved wastewatertreatment (Figure 8.17).

Figure 8.15.Discharge of organic matter (BOD) from urbanwastewater treatment plants in Denmark, Finland,the Netherlands, and England and Wales

Source: Information fromnational state of the

environment reports andEurostat /OECD jointquestionnaire (2000)

Figure 8.16. Discharge of organic matter (BOD) from pointsources in five EU accession countries

Note: Czech Republic,Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and

Slovakia.

Source: Information fromnational state of theenvironment reports

The move towards cleaner technologies isdriven partly by EU directives such as theintegrated pollution prevention and controldirective, which requires large facilities touse the best available technology to makeradical environmental improvements.

In several countries in the northwestern partof Europe there was a marked increase in thepercentage of the population connected totertiary wastewater treatment (removal ofnutrients) during the 1990s. In the countriesincluded in Figure 8.18 the percentage ofthe population connected to tertiarytreatment increased from 40 % to 80 %. Inthe same period the discharge ofphosphorus and nitrogen from wastewatertreatment decreased by 30 % and 60 %respectively, reflecting that nearly all thetertiary treatment plants have phosphorusremoval while only some of the plants, inparticular the large plants, have nitrogenremoval.

8.4.4. Discharge of nutrients to the seasThere is a direct relationship betweenriverine and direct discharges of nitrogenand phosphorus and the concentration ofnutrients in coastal waters, estuaries, fjordsand lagoons, which in turn affects theirbiological state. Measures to reduce theinput of anthropogenic nutrients andprotect the marine environment are beingtaken as a result of various initiatives at alllevels (global, regional conventions andministerial conferences, European andnational). The EU nitrate directive andurban waste water treatment directive aim atreduction of nitrate discharges mainly fromwashout from agricultural soils and nutrientdischarges from point sources, respectively.Also, the recent EU water frameworkdirective aims, among other things, atachieving good ecological quality of coastalwaters.

There were significant reductions inphosphorus discharges to the North Seafrom urban wastewater treatment works,industry and other sources between 1985and 2000 (Figure 8.19.). The reduction fromagriculture has been less and this source wasthe largest in 2000. Nitrogen discharges tothe North Sea decreased significantly fromall four sources between 1985 and 2000 withagriculture being the major source in 2000.However some countries such as Norway,Sweden and the United Kingdom reportedhigher riverine discharges (and directdischarges for the United Kingdom) ofnitrogen to the North Sea in 2002 than in

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

Million tonnes


179

0

20

40

60

80

100

Tertiary treatment

Nitrogen discharge

Phosphorus discharge

Index 1990 = 100

0

20

40

60

80

100% of population

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

Figure 8.17.Discharge of organic matter (BOD) from selectedindustries

Sources: CEPI EnvironmentReport, 2000; CEFIC, 2001

Figure 8.18.Changes in discharge of phosphorus and nitrogen

from urban wastewater treatment plants andpercentage of population connected to tertiary

treatment

Source: Information fromnational state of theenvironment reports andEurostat/OECD jointquestionnaire (2000)

Discharges of both phosphorus andnitrogen from all quantified sources

to the North Sea and Baltic Sea havedecreased since the 1980s.

Agriculture is now the major sourceof nitrogen and phosphorus

discharges into the North Sea. For theBaltic Sea agriculture is the main sourceof nitrogen pollution and urbanwastewater treatment the main source ofphosphorus pollution.

Data for the Black Sea and CaspianSea is less comprehensive than for

the Baltic and North Seas, but indicatesthat riverine discharges are the largestsources of nitrogen and phosphorus forboth seas.

Comprehensive data are also notavailable for the Mediterranean, but

all coastal cities discharge their (treatedor untreated) sewage to the sea and only4 % have tertiary treatment, indicatingthat the nutrient input from this sourcemay be high.

1985, whereas the other states reportedreductions (North Sea progress report,2002). The high values in 2000 for Norwayand Sweden could to a large extent beexplained by unusually high precipitationlevels during the autumn of that year causinghigh levels of non-anthropogenic runoff torivers.

Even though the data for the Baltic Sea areless recent (late 1980s to 1995) they give asimilar picture to the North Sea, withsignificant reductions in discharges ofnitrogen and phosphorus from agriculture(partly due to the reduction in agriculture insome southern Baltic states), urbanwastewater treatment works, industry andaquaculture (Figure 8.19). In 1995 the majorsources of phosphorus and nitrogen to theBaltic Sea were urban wastewater treatmentworks and agriculture, respectively.Regarding point sources, the50 % HELCOM (the governing body of theConvention on the Protection of the MarineEnvironment of the Baltic Sea Area)reduction target was achieved forphosphorus by almost all the Baltic Seacountries, while most countries did notreach the target for nitrogen (HELCOM,2000).

The information from the Black and CaspianSeas is less comprehensive in terms of sourceapportionment and how discharges havechanged with time (Figure 8.19.). In 1996the most significant sources of phosphorusand nitrogen to the Black Sea were riverineinputs. The major rivers in the Black Seacatchment are the Danube, Dnepr, Don,southern Bug and Kuban, draining an areaof around 2 million km2 and receivingwastewater from more than 100 millionpeople, heavy industries and agriculturalareas. The Danube contributes about 65 %of the total nitrogen and phosphorus

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Chemical

Paper and pulp

Start year index = 100

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Water



0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2000

1985

Agricultu

re

UWWT

Industry

Other

source

s

´000 tonnes/year Nitrogen discharge in North sea

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1995

Late 1980s

Agricultu

re

UWWT

Industry

Nitrogen discharge in Baltic Sea´000 tonnes/year

Aquacultu

re

2000

1985

Phosphorus discharge in North sea

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Agricultu

re

UWWT

Industry

Other

source

s

´000 tonnes/year

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1995Late 1980s

Aquacultu

re

Agricultu

re

UWWT

Industry

´000 tonnes/year Phosphorus discharge in Baltic Sea

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Domestic

Industry

Riverin

e

Nitrogen discharge in Black Sea´000 tonnes/year

0

5

10

15

20

25

30Phosphorus discharge in Black Sea ´000 tonnes/year

Domestic

Industry

Riverin

e

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900´000 tonnes/year Nitrogen discharge

in Caspian Sea

Industry

Municipaliti

es

Riverin

e 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100´000 tonnes/year Phosphorus discharge

in Caspian Sea

Industry

Municipaliti

es

Riverin

e

Figure 8.19. Source apportionment of nitrogen and phosphorus discharges to Europe’s Seas and percentage reductions

Sources: North Sea progressreport, 2002; Finnish

Environment Institute, 2002;Black Sea Commission,

2002; Caspian EnvironmentProgramme, no date.


181

discharges from all sources. The informationfor the Caspian also shows riverine inputscontributing to the greatest proportion ofnutrient loads. The Volga, Ural, Kura andAraks are the main rivers discharging intothe Caspian Sea. The Volga’s contribution topollution discharges is more than 80 %.

Comprehensive data are also not availablefor the Mediterranean Sea, but all coastalcities discharge their (treated or untreated)sewage to the sea and only 4 % have tertiarytreatment, indicating that the nutrient inputfrom this source may be high. Agriculture isalso intensive in the region and 80 rivershave been identified as contributingsignificantly to the pollution of theMediterranean (EEA, 1999).

Quality of coastal watersMaps 8.1 and 8.2 illustrate the mean wintersurface concentrations (January toFebruary/March, 0–10 m) of nitrate andphosphate, based on data from the Baltic Seaarea, greater North Sea, Celtic,Mediterranean and Black Seas. In winterbiological uptake and turnover of nutrientsis lowest and the concentration of nutrientshighest. There is a relationship betweenriverine discharges of nitrogen andphosphorus and the winter concentration ofnutrients in lagoons, fjords, estuaries andcoastal waters. Generally the nutrientconcentrations decrease from fjords andestuaries through coastal waters to the opensea. Background nitrate concentrations inriver water are between 0.1 and 1 mg N/l(7–70 µmol/l) and background phosphateconcentrations are around 10 µg P/l(0.3 µmol/l).

Winter surface nitrateconcentrations in the greater North

Sea are not changing. Concentrationsare generally not changing in the BalticSea area, except for a fall at a fewDanish, Finnish and Swedish stations. Inthe Black Sea, there is a slight decreaseof nitrogen concentrations in Romaniancoastal waters and a steady decline inTurkish waters at the entrance of theBosphorus.

Decreases are observed in wintersurface phosphate concentrations

at a number of stations in the Belgian,Dutch, Norwegian and Swedish coastalwaters of the North Sea and Skagerrak,and in the Danish, German, Lithuanianand Swedish waters of the Baltic Sea.

No general changes of totalnutrient concentrations are

observed at the majority of the coastaland marine stations in the Black Sea. Aslow decrease in Turkish waters at theentrance of the Bosphorus is reported.

The nutrient concentrations illustratedshould be assessed against what is consideredto be background levels of nutrients, whichare quite different for the European seas(Table 8.2). The Mediterranean Sea isnaturally oligotrophic and backgroundnutrient levels would be expected to belower than in the North or Baltic Seas. Dueto the differences in nutrient regimes, noEurope-wide classification of nutrientconcentrations is possible.

Nutrient concentrations at most stationshave not significantly increased or decreasedand levels at most stations in the Baltic,Mediterranean and Black seas are generallylow. Some high nitrate and phosphateconcentrations occur in the greater Northand Celtic seas, particularly in estuaries, andthere are some high phosphateconcentrations on Italy’s west coast.

At most of the stations for which there areenough data, no changes in nutrientconcentrations are apparent. However,nitrate and phosphate concentrations aredecreasing at a number of Danish andSwedish stations and decreases have alsobeen reported in Turkish waters at theentrance of the Bosphorus (Black SeaCommission, 2002). Decreases in phosphateconcentrations were also seen at someBelgian, Dutch, German and Lithuanianstations. However some Belgian and GermanNorth Sea stations showed increases. In twoFinnish stations, increasing concentrationswere also observed due to hypoxia andupwelling of phosphate-rich bottom water inthe late 1990s.

Water



Map 8.1.

Notes: Classification notrelated to backgroundvalues. In addition, theresults of trend analyses oftime series 1985–2000 (withat least three years data inthe period 1995–2000) areshown for each country by apie diagram. Pie diagramsare based on statistical trendassessments of nutrientconcentrations at individualstations and show thepercentage of stations withincreasing, decreasing or notrend respectively.

Source: OSPAR, HELCOM,ICES, BSC and EEA membercountries compiled by EEAEuropean Topic Centre onWater

Map 8.2.


183

Generally no changes have beenobserved in summer surface

chlorophyll-a concentrations in theBaltic Sea, greater North Sea or Greekcoastal waters during the past decade.Reductions have been observed at a fewstations in Danish estuaries, andincreases at a few stations in Belgian,Finnish, Lithuanian and Swedish coastalwaters. The chlorophyll-a concentrationis generally highest in estuaries and closeto river mouths or big cities, and lowestin open marine waters.

Rivers North Sea Baltic Sea Mediterranean Sea Black Sea

Nitrate 7–70 9.2 4.6 0.5 0.1+ nitrite

Phosphate 0.3 1.3 0.68 0.03 0.29

Sources: EEA, 2001 (North and Baltic Sea); GESAMP (1990) (Mediterranean Sea)

Table 8.2.Background concentrations of nutrients in µmol/lEutrophication effectsIn summer, phytoplankton primaryproduction and chlorophyll-a concentrationis nutrient-limited in most areas, anddependent on the general availability ofnutrients (eutrophic level) in the specificarea. The phytoplankton biomass expressedas chlorophyll-a determines the lightconditions in the water column and the depthdistribution of bottom vegetation, aschlorophyll-a might shadow the lightnecessary for growth of bottom vegetation.Secondary production of bottom fauna ismost often food limited and related to theinput of phytoplankton settling at the bottom,which in turn is related to the chlorophyll-aconcentration (Borum, 1996). Adverse effectsof eutrophication include low oxygen andhypoxic/anoxic conditions caused by thebacterial degradation of dead phytoplankton.Oxygen consumption is therefore high whenthe biomass of dead phytoplankton is highdue to excessive growth of phytoplanktoncaused by enhanced nutrient availability.Bottom-dwelling animals and fish die ifoxygen concentrations fall below 2 mg O2/l.Eutrophication often leads to thedisappearance of bottom vegetation in deepercoastal waters and the occurrence of harmfulalgal blooms.

Comparing seas on the basis ofmeasurements from ships, mean summersurface chlorophyll-a concentrations arelowest (less than 0.4 µg/l) in Mediterraneanopen waters, low in the open North Sea (lessthan 3 µg/l) and high in the open waters ofthe Baltic Sea (more than 3 µg/l), probablydue to summer blooms of cyano-bacteria.Some European coastal areas show higherchlorophyll concentrations, which reflect theland-based nutrient discharges to seas. Thesemeasurements are supported by satelliteimages.

Map 8.3 shows clear differences in thegeographical distribution of concentrationlevels of chlorophyll-like pigments, especiallyin the eastern and southern North Sea andin the Baltic Sea. There are also relativelyhigh concentrations seen in the Black Sea,particularly in the northwestern parts wherehypoxia and hydrogen sulphide formationhave gradually developed over the past 30years leading to severe adverse effects on theecological system. Thus, the area withhypoxic water in 2000 reachedapproximately 14 000 km2, or 38 % of thatpart of the Black Sea. Table 8.3 summarisesthe areas where enhanced chlorophyll levelswere observed from the satellite imagery.

Eutrophication is also a problem in theCaspian Sea, which is currently facingincreasing anthropogenic pressures.However, chlorophyll-a is not routinelymeasured and so the extent of the problemis difficult to assess. It appears to be greatestin the shallow waters off the Volga delta(Caspian Environment Programme, nodate).

In the Arctic Ocean, eutrophication is not agreat problem since human populationdensities in the area are low and theduration of seasonal phytoplanktonproduction is short due to the physicalconditions (low temperatures and limitedlight during the winter).

Water



20002000

0.2 0.6 1.2 2 5 10 25 >Chlorophyll concentrations

Map 8.3. Mean spring-summer concentrations of chlorophyll-like pigments in European seas determined fromsatellite observations

Source: Joint ResearchCentre, compiled by EEA

Baltic Sea Northeastern part and eastern coast of Bothnian Bay; the Quark area; coastal areas ofBothnian Sea; Gulf of Finland; Gulf of Riga; coastal areas off Kaliningrad and Lithuania;Gulf of Gdansk; Pomeranian Bight; Swedish Baltic coast proper

Belt Sea and Especially coastal and shallow areas of the Belt Sea and KattegatKattegat

Skagerrak Northeastern and southwestern parts and coastal areas of Skagerrak

North Sea Eastern North Sea; German Bight; Wadden Sea; Southern Bight; UK coast and estuaries

English Channel Coastal areas, especially Baie de Somme, Baie de Seine and Baie du Mont St Michel

Celtic Seas Bristol Channel; Liverpool Bay with associated estuaries; Solway Firth; Firth of Clyde;Ireland’s coast to the Irish Sea

Bay of Biscay French coastal areas and estuaries in Bay of Biscay, especially in the vicinityand Iberian Coast of the Loire and Gironde estuaries; Spanish and Portuguese Atlantic coasts

Mediterranean Sea Costa del Sol; vicinity of the Ebro delta; Gulf of Lyon; Italian west coast, especially Gulf ofGaeta, Napoli Bay and in the vicinity of the rivers Tiber and Arno; northern Adriatic Sea,especially Gulf of Venice and the areas influenced by the River Po; northern Aegean Sea,especially Bights of Thessaloniki and Thermaikos and in the Limnos area withinflow from the Black Sea through the Marmara Sea. Outside EU countries enhancedchlorophyll concentrations are found along the southeast coast of Tunisia and theEgyptian coast from Alexandria to Gaza

Black Sea, Marmara Sea, especially close to Istanbul and southern coastal areas;Marmara Sea the northwestern Black Sea, especially along the Ukrainian and Romanian coastsand Sea of Azov influenced by the large rivers Danube, Dnieper, Dniester and Southern Bug, and less

along the Bulgarian and Turkish coasts; the Sea of Azov

Table 8.3. Coastal areas with apparently enhanced chlorophyll levels compared to neighbouring seas from thesatellite spring-summer mean chlorophyll images

Source: EEA, 2001


185

Figure 8.20.Compliance of EU coastal (a) and inland (b) bathing waters with the bathing water directive

Notes: The directive setsboth minimum standards(mandatory) and optimumstandards (guide). Forcompliance with thedirective, 95 % of thesamples must comply withthe mandatory standards. Tobe classified as achievingguide values, 80 % of thesamples must comply withthe total and faecal coliformstandards and 90 % with thestandards for the otherparameters. The data setdoes not include France for1999, 2000 and 2001.

Source: EuropeanCommission from annualreports by EU MemberStates

The quality of water at designatedbathing beaches in the EU (coastal

and inland) improved throughout the1990s. In 2001, 97 % of coastal bathingwaters and 93 % of inland bathing waterscomplied with the mandatory standards.

Despite this improvement, 10 % ofthe EU’s coastal bathing waters and

28 % of inland bathing beaches still donot meet (non-mandatory) guide valueseven though the bathing water directivewas adopted almost 25 years ago.

There are frequent problems withthe quality of bathing waters

reported for eastern Europe, theCaucasus and central Asia.

8.4.5. Bathing water qualityEU Directive 76/160 on bathing waterquality was designed to protect the publicfrom accidental and chronic pollutiondischarged in or near European bathingareas. The directive requires Member Statesto designate coastal and inland bathingwaters and monitor the quality of thesewaters throughout the bathing season (May-September in most European countries).The directive sets both minimum standards(mandatory) and optimum standards(guideline). The designated beaches, forwhich data are reported by countries, are notthe same each year, and compliance with thedirective standards might be better thanshown in Figure 8.20 if data from the samebeaches were reported each year. However,

studies have shown that meeting guide valuesdoes not necessarily protect public health.The European Commission proposed a newbathing water directive in October 2002.

Other European countries do not yet have tocomply with the EU directive, although theaccession countries have started itstransposition into national law. In Romaniathere was an improvement of bathing waterquality between 1996 and 2000. In Turkey in1993, three of the 28 beaches along theBlack Sea coast were unsuitable for bathingbecause the World Health Organization(WHO) standard for faecal streptococci wasexceeded (OECD, 1999).

Within EECCA there are frequent closures ofbeaches on the Black Sea coast of theUkraine, mainly because of the poorbacterial state of the water (UNECE, 1999b).One of the major causes of increasedmicrobiological pollution in Ukrainianbathing waters is the lack of adequatesystems for treatment of storm waters. Riverbeaches in the Ukraine suffer fromconsiderably higher bacterial pollution thansea beaches. In Georgia some beaches wereclosed in 1997 because of bacteriologicalpollution but since then there have been noclosures despite the inadequate sanitary andepidemiological conditions of the beaches insummer seasons. In Azerbaijan, 95 % of the140 km of Caspian Sea beaches and of the 10km of lake and reservoir beaches meetnational standards (Azerbaijan NCP, 2002).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Mandatory

Guidelines

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

% compliance Coastal waters Inland waters

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

% compliance

1992

Water



8.5. Pollution of water bodies by hazardous substances

The new EU water framework directivedefines hazardous substances as ‘substancesor groups of substances that are toxic,persistent and liable to bio-accumulate; andother substances or groups of substanceswhich give rise to an equivalent level ofconcern’. Hazardous substances includeheavy metals, pesticides and other organicmicro-pollutants (see Chapter 6) (see alsoEU, 2001a).

There is generally little comparableinformation at the European level on thepresence and concentrations of hazardoussubstances in surface waters andgroundwaters.

The quality of rivers in EECCA is hard toquantify because of the lack of comparableinformation. However, it is clear that manywater bodies are heavily contaminated byhazardous substances. These hot spots areoften downstream of major cities and/ormajor installations (e.g. industry or military)and/or mines.

Table 8.4 summarises information on thegeneral status, main pressures and hot spotsin rivers in EECCA, obtained fromexamination of national state of theenvironment reports and other sources.Some of the EECCA countries, such asKyrgyzstan, Republic of Moldova andTajikistan, reported that their surface watersare generally of good quality away fromidentified hot spots whilst others, such asAzerbaijan, Belarus, the Russian Federationand Ukraine, indicated higher levels ofpollution. Two countries (Ukraine andRepublic of Moldova) indicated that smallerrivers were more polluted than larger ones.Limited monitoring is also reported to be aproblem in Armenia and Kyrgyzstan thoughit is likely that this is a problem in allEECCA. A common theme is the decline ineconomies leading to some industriesclosing but also to poor levels of treatment ofeffluents for those that remain. Also somecountries have low levels of sewage treatmentand connection to sewerage systems. Themain sectors that affect water quality arereported to be industry, urban populations,mining, agriculture (particularly livestock),oil refining and military bases (includingnuclear weapons testing sites).

8.5.1. Hazardous substances in riversEnvironmental quality standards are set forsome hazardous substances for application atthe EU level (List I substances — Figure8.21) under the dangerous substancesdirective, and others are set nationally (e.g.List II substances). There are also standardsfor the levels of these substances in drinkingwater. These are to be complied with at thepoint of supply to the consumer (e.g. lessthan 0.1 µg/l for individual pesticides) butthey are also useful for assessingconcentrations in untreated water. Forexample Figure 8.22a shows the trends inoccurrence of some commonly foundpesticides in surface waters in England andWales — the data show no definite trendsbut indicate that some pesticides occur atconcentrations that would be of concern ifthe water were drunk untreated. Figure8.22b shows the number of monitoring sitesfailing standards for the dangeroussubstances directive in England and Walesbetween 1994 and 2000. In terms of List Isubstances, compliance has improved overthis period whilst there is no clear trend interms of List II substances.

The concentrations of cadmiumand mercury in selected EU rivers

have decreased since the late 1970s,reflecting the success of measures toeliminate pollution by these twosubstances under the dangeroussubstances directive.

Though there is evidence that theconcentrations of some hazardous

substances have been decreasing in someEU rivers, pesticides and otherhazardous substances still occur at levelsthat are of potential concern in terms ofsupplies for drinking water and adverseeffects on aquatic organisms.

Though there is very limitedinformation on the presence and

levels of hazardous substances in theirrivers, most of the EECCA countriesidentify the presence of hazardoussubstances as a major concern.


187

Armenia The main pollution problems in rivers originate from agriculture and municipal waste generation.Monitoring of water pollution is not well developed and will have to be extended as watermanagement is improved.

Water quality has improved in recent years as a result of the economic crisis and the reduction inindustrial and agricultural activity. Regions with mines have high concentrations of heavy metals.

Azerbaijan The estimates show that the total transit and flow of Azerbaijan’s rivers on average (50% ofprovision) with only 30% of river flow resources formed within the country. Subsequently a largepart of the pollution is of transboundary character. More than half of the larger rivers areconsidered contaminated. Many lakes are in a critical state.

Belarus Most rivers in Belarus are moderately polluted. The most polluted tributary of the Dnieper is theSvisloch, which carries discharges from the Minsk sewerage system.

With the decline in industrial production, the pollution load of water bodies has droppedsignificantly in recent years. In southern Belarus groundwater is considered to be relativelypolluted.

Georgia There are several polluted rivers in Georgia, where concentrations of phenols, hydrocarbons,copper, manganese, zinc and nitrogen are considerably higher than the national andinternational standards. Most water treatment plants are not operating or work at a very lowlevel of efficiency; pollution by fertilisers and pesticides is also important.

Kazakhstan Most water bodies suffer from serious environmental problems. Some of the most seriouslypolluted rivers are the Ural (phenols, petroleum by-products, boron), the Irtysch (copper, zinc,and petroleum by-products), Syr-Darya (sulphates and copper), Ilek (boron and chromium) andthe Nura (mercury). The main polluters are industrial, mining, metal and refinery enterprises, andfarms.

Kyrgyzstan It is difficult to have a clear picture of the quality of surface waters, as monitoring is scarce andincreasingly unreliable. In general it is said that the water bodies suffer only low levels ofpollution. However, the quality of river water deteriorates near urban, agricultural and industrialcentres. Pollution from mine tailing dumps also occurs in several places, for examplecontamination with radioactive materials, cadmium and other heavy metals (copper, zinc and lead).

Republic of The water quality of the Dniester and Prut rivers, as well as of the lakes and reservoirs, isMoldova generally satisfactory. In comparison with the 1950s, the mineralisation of Dniester water has

increased by 50 %. During the past two decades, concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorushave increased to 10 mg/l and 0.2 mg/l, respectively. The water of most small rivers falls between‘polluted’ and ‘strongly polluted’.

Russian Some of the major rivers in the Russian Federation (e.g. the Volga, Obj, Yenisej, Northern Dvinaand Federation the Don) and their tributaries are highly polluted. The main reservoirs are alsohighly polluted, especially the Volga cascade.

The main sources of pollution are wastewaters discharged by industrial and agriculturalenterprises, communal services, and also surface runoff. The most common surface watercontaminants include oil, phenol, easily oxidised organic substances, metal compounds, nitratesand nitrites.

Tajikistan The quality of surface water and groundwater in Tajikistan is high and only in separate regionsdoes it tend to deteriorate. Huge pollution comes from housing and municipal sectors. Miningenterprises greatly influence the state of surface water and groundwater reservoirs. Sometimes,unexpected industrial water discharges result in fivefold to tenfold increases in theconcentrations of toxic substances such as mercury, zinc or phosphorus in watercourses.

Turkmenistan The Amu-Darya River is one of the most polluted water bodies of the central Asian region. Thesalt content of the river has increased markedly as a result of drainage from irrigated areas,which are for a significant part of transboundary character.

Ukraine The main water-quality problems are related to municipal waste, diffuse sources of pollution andeutrophication. Almost all river basins in the Ukraine are classified as polluted or very polluted.The large rivers (Dnieper, Dniester, Southern Bug) are all polluted with oxygen-consumingsubstances, nutrients, heavy metals, oil and phenols. The smaller tributaries are more heavilypolluted than the main rivers. However, there are also many unspoiled water bodies, particularlyin the mountainous areas.

Uzbekistan The majority of waterways are moderately polluted.

The principal sources of water pollution are industry, agriculture and human settlements.

Sources: UNECE, 1998-2000; OECD, 1999-2001; national state of the environment reports

Table 8.4.Summary of main hot spots and pressures in rivers in EECCA

Water



0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0µg/l

Luxe

nbour

g

Denm

ark

Swed

en

Irelan

d

Nethe

rland

s

Germ

any

United

King

domIta

lySp

ain

Greec

e

Fran

ce

Belgium

Cadmium

Ten of the twelve countries in EECCAidentified heavy metals as a major problemin their rivers in their most recent state ofthe environment reports, with zinc, copperand cadmium being the metals most oftenreported as being of concern. In terms oforganic micro-pollutants, oil and oilproducts were identified as a major concernby eight of the twelve countries, followed byphenol (seven) and pesticides (three) (seeBox 8.5). Radioactivity was also reported tobe a major concern in three countries.Ukraine and Kazakhstan reported the most‘major concerns’. More detailed informationcan be found in Table 8.4.

Box 8.5. Pressures caused by cotton production in Europe

Cotton is an economically important crop for a few southern European andseveral central Asian countries. Cotton growers use large and increasingamounts of fertilisers, dangerous pesticides and large quantities of irrigationwater, all of which give rise to a range of health and environmental problems.Cotton production has become increasingly associated with severe negativeenvironmental impacts which include reduced soil fertility, salinisation, loss ofbiodiversity, water pollution, adverse changes in water balance, and pesticide-related problems including pollution and resistance.

Cotton production has played a big role in the degradation and drying-up ofthe Aral Sea (see Box 8.1). Cotton receives more pesticide (insecticides,herbicides, fungicides, defoliants) applications per season than any othercrop, and accounts for at least one quarter of all agricultural insecticides usedin the world. Banned pesticides (DDT, forms of HCH, aldrin and dieldrin) areassociated with cotton-growing areas in several countries. For example, inUzbekistan (the largest producer in central Asia), there are reported to be 1500 tonnes of banned pesticides, including DDT and the HCH group, invarious places (see also Chapter 2.3, Box 2.3.1).

8.5.2. Input of hazardous substances to the seasInputs of hazardous substances to the seasresult from direct discharges into marinewaters, riverine inputs and atmosphericdeposition, which follow emission of thesesubstances into rivers and to air. There isspecific legislation tackling these issues (seeBox 8.6).

Direct and riverine inputs ofcadmium, mercury, lead and zinc

into the North East Atlantic fell between1990 and 1999, which shows the effectsof emission reduction target setting inOSPAR.

Atmospheric inputs of cadmium,lead and mercury into the North

Sea fell between 1987 and 1995, showingthe effect of air pollution abatementpolicies in the countries surrounding theNorth Sea.

Discharges of many hazardoussubstances to the Baltic Sea have

been reduced by at least 50 % since thelate 1980s.

There is very limited informationon discharges to the

Mediterranean, Black and Caspian Seas,and how these have changed over recentyears.

Note: The EUenvironmental quality

standards for cadmiumand mercury in inlandwaters are 5 µg/l and

1 µg/l as annualaverages, respectively.

Source: EU MemberState returns under the

exchange of informationdecision (European

Council, 1977)

Figure 8.21. Annual average concentration of cadmium and mercury in EU rivers between late 1970s and 1996

0,0

0,3

0,6

0,9

1,2

1,51977–80

1980s

1991–96

µg/l

Denm

ark

Portugal

Irelan

d

Nethe

rland

s

Germ

any

United

King

domIta

lySp

ain

Greec

e

Fran

ce

Belgium

Mercury


189

0

5

10

15

20

2,4-D

Atrazine

Simazine

PCSD

MCPA

Diuron

Mecoprop

Isoproturon

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

% of samples greater than 0.1 µg/l

0

5

10

15

20

25

% of non-compliant sites

List I — sites below dischargesList I — national network reference sites

List II — sites below discharges

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Figure 8.22aOccurrences of some commonly found pesticides in

surface freshwaters in England and Wales,1993–2000

Figure 8.22bNon-compliance with List I and List II dangerous

substances directive on environmental qualitystandards in England and Wales, 1994–2000

Source: Environment Agencyof England and Wales webpage

Source: Environment Agency of England and Wales webpage

Box 8.6. Marine conventions legislation on reduction of emissions of hazardous substances and their inputs to seas

• The North Sea Conferences had set a target of a 50–70 % reduction inreleases (discharges, emissions and losses) of several hazardoussubstances to water and air between 1985 and 1995. An action arisingout of the Fourth North Sea Conference in 1995 was to continue to aimto achieve by 2000 the reduction targets set by the previous conference. Itfurther agreed on the one-generation target for total cessation ofdischarges by 2020, which has also been adopted by the OSPARCommission for the Protection of the North-East Atlantic. The ministers atthe Fifth North Sea Conference in March 2002 recognised that increasedefforts were necessary in order to meet the one-generation target.

• The Helsinki Commission for the Protection of the Baltic Sea adoptedRecommendation 19/5 in May 2001 for cessation of hazardous substancedischarge/emissions by 2020, with the ultimate aim of achievingconcentrations in the environment near to background levels for naturallyoccurring substances and close to zero for man-made synthetic substances.

• The Mediterranean action plan (MAP) has three protocols which controlpollution to the sea, including the input of hazardous substances. Thedumping protocol lists a number of hazardous substances for whichdumping is prohibited and sets out what must be considered before adumping permit is issued for other substances. The emergency protocoldetails what national states must do when a harmful substance accidentallygets discharged, and the land-based sources protocol requires parties toeliminate pollution from certain hazardous substances and strictly limitpollution from others.

• Article VI of the Bucharest convention aims to prevent pollution of theBlack Sea by hazardous substances and organic matters. The conventioncontains three protocols: the control of land-based sources of pollution,dumping of waste and joint action in the case of accidents.

• The Caspian Environment Programme is developing a strategic action planto control pollution of the Caspian Sea, which should be adopted by thefive states bordering the Caspian Sea.

Some marine conventions have monitoring programmes to measure theannual riverine inputs and direct discharges of hazardous substances as wellas atmospheric deposition to seas.

North Sea states have met the 50 % reductiontarget for a large number of the 37 prioritysubstances of the North Sea Conference, andmost also achieved the 70 % reduction targetfor mercury, cadmium, lead and dioxins(Figure 8.23). However, targets were notconsistently met for some other substancessuch as copper, tributyltin and somepesticides. For mercury and cadmium thelargest sources in 1985 were industrialactivities. In 1999 the importance of thesesources had been reduced with waste disposalnow the most important source for bothmetals (Figure 8.24).

Discharges of many hazardous substances tothe Baltic Sea have been reduced by at least50 % since the late 1980s — mainly as aresult of the effective implementation ofenvironmental legislation, the substitution ofhazardous substances with harmless or lesshazardous substances, and technologicalimprovements. In Estonia, Lithuania, Polandand the Russian Federation, reductions havebeen due mainly to fundamental socio-economic changes (HELCOM web page).The reductions in Latvia have been due toconstruction of wastewater treatmentfacilities, and the implementation of newtechnologies and environmental legislation.

Water



In the Mediterranean there is no availableinformation on how discharges of hazardoussubstances have changed over time. MAP(UNEP/MAP, 1996) has estimated thatriverine discharges are the largest source ofmercury (92 %), lead (66 %), chromium(57 %) and zinc (72 %) although directindustrial discharges from the coastal zoneare also significant (around 30 % of thetotal) for chromium and lead.

The Caspian Regional Thematic Centre forPollution Control has estimated that 17tonnes of mercury and 149 tonnes ofcadmium are discharged into the CaspianSea each year (Caspian EnvironmentProgramme, no date). The largest source ofboth metals is rivers although there are also

contributions from industry andmunicipalities.

The Arctic Ocean also receives considerablequantities of hazardous substances fromrivers. For example, Eurasian rivers transport10 tonnes of mercury each year to the ArcticOcean although the main source of mercuryis atmospheric deposition (AMAP, 2002).Atmospheric deposition and riverine inputscontribute equally to cadmium pollution.Persistent organic pollutants (POPs) alsoreach the Arctic Ocean via the atmosphericand riverine pathways with the Russian rivers,the Ob, Yenisej and Pyasina, having thelargest inputs (AMAP, 2000a).

Effects of hazardous substances in seasHazardous substances may affect humanhealth through consumption of marineorganisms and have deleterious effects onmarine ecosystem function. Lethal and sub-lethal effects on aquatic biota are known tooccur. The long-term effects of thesepersistent substances in the Europeanmarine environment are not adequatelyknown.

Contaminant concentrations above the limitsfor human consumption set by the EU for fishand shellfish (EU, 2001b; EU, 2002) arefound mainly in mussels and fish fromestuaries of major rivers. Examples arecadmium and PCB (polychlorinatedbiphenyls and their degradation products) inthe Seine, northern France; lead in the Elbe;PCB in the Scheldt and the Rhine on theBelgium-Dutch border area and the Ems innorthern Germany; cadmium (possibly fromthe River Rhone) near some industrial pointdischarges (e.g. cadmium and DDT in theSørfjord, western Norway); and, lead in someharbours (e.g. lead and PCB in the inner OsloFjord) — see Map 8.4. Some areas remotefrom point sources may, however, haveelevated concentrations of some hazardoussubstances (e.g. cadmium in northernIceland, mercury in northern Norway).

The aggregated results on time trends inconcentrations per sea area during the past15 years (Figure 8.25) indicate fallingconcentrations of cadmium, mercury, lead,DDT, lindane and PCB in mussels and fishfrom both the North East Atlantic and theMediterranean Sea. For each sampling site,the time trend was statistically analysed aswell: of the 178 (DDT) to 286 (cadmium)time series analysed for mussels, 8–15 %showed significant trends, mostly ofconcentrations decreasing. Only 25 time

20

40

60

80

100

199

019

9219

9419

9619

98

CadminumLead

Mercury

Index 1990 =100

LindanePCB

a)

50

100

150

200

250

198

719

8919

9119

9319

95

Index 1990 =100 b)

Figure 8.23.Direct and riverine inputs into the North EastAtlantic (a) and atmospheric inputs of some heavymetals into the North East Atlantic (b)

Source: OSPAR data,compiled by ETC/WTR


191

0

20

40

60

80

100% of total load in 1985

Agricultural activities

Small and medium enterprises

Waste disposal

Transport and infrastructure

Households

Industrial activities (covered by IPPC directive)

Contaminated land and sediments

Building materials

Mer

cury

198

5

1999

Cadm

ium

198

5

1999

Lead

198

5

1999

Copp

er 1

985

1999

Figure 8.24.Main sources of some metal discharges towater in North Sea countries in 1999

Note: Waste disposalincludes municipalwastewater. Discharges towater based on: mercury(Denmark, Germany,Norway, Netherlands,Sweden); cadmium(Denmark, Germany,Norway, Netherlands,Sweden)

Source: North Sea progressreport, 2002

Notes: Mussels: Mytilus edulis - North East Atlantic; M. galloprovincialis — Mediterranean andBlack Sea. Classification uses background level for lower class and EU limit value for foodstufffor higher class. EU-legislation limit for cadmium in foodstuffs ‘bivalve molluscs’ is 1 mg/kg wetweight (EU, 2001b). Larger symbols may obscure other symbols. 2001 for Black Sea.

Sources: Compiled by ETC/ WTR based on data from OSPAR and EEA member countries(Mediterranean), and data reported by Romania

Map 8.4.Median cadmium (Cd) concentrations in mussels,1995–99

series for lindane were available. All of theseconcerned mussels from the Mediterraneanand seven showed significant decreases.

Analysis of time trends per sampling pointindicates few significant trends in the coastalregions of the North East Atlantic but mostof these show decreasing concentrations ofcadmium, mercury, lead, DDT and PCB. Inthe Baltic the levels of cadmium, mercuryand lead in herring muscle appear to be lowand generally no trends were detected. Theone area where mercury increased in thisspecies was at the estuary of the river Oder(near Stettin). Concentrations of DDT andPCB in fish generally decreased althoughPCB concentrations in North East Atlanticcod increased. In the Mediterranean (onlyFrench and Greek data) concentrations ofcadmium, mercury and lead are generallyabove background levels but below levels ofpotential concern. The results also suggestthat concentrations are generally decreasing.The results for lindane (only French data)indicate low and decreasing concentrations.

Analysis of the concentrations of hazardoussubstances in water, sediment and biota in theCaspian Sea is so far inadequate to provide acomprehensive overview. It is, however,known that the greatest concentrations arefound close to major coastal industries (e.g.the Absheron peninsular in Azerbaijan) andthe mouths of rivers with industrialisedcatchments (Caspian EnvironmentProgramme, no date).

Hazardous substances also affect wildlife inthe Arctic. Much of the pollution is from thelong-range transport of persistent chemicalsand is a legacy from previous emissions,although significant pollution is stilloccurring. Biomagnification of persistentorganic pollutants up the food chain isparticularly evident in the Arctic food web asthe top predators, e.g. seals and polar bears,have large fat reserves where lipid-solublecompounds accumulate. There is also someevidence that mercury concentrations inmarine mammals are increasing (AMAP,2000b). Local metal pollution is very severein some areas, for example in the RussianFederation on the Kola Peninsula and nearNorilsk due to copper-nickel smelting(AMAP, 2002).

Water



50

100

150

200

250

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

Index 1990 = 100

Mediterranean — Mytilus galloprovincialisCadminum

LeadMercury

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

Index 1990 = 100

Baltic — Clupea harengus

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

Index 1990 = 100

NE Atlantic — Gadus morhua

0

30

60

90

120

150

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

Index 1990 = 100

NE Atlantic — Mytilus edulis

Figure 8.25.

Concentrations of selected metals and syntheticorganic substances in marine organisms in theMediterranean and Baltic Seas, and in the NorthEast Atlantic Ocean

Sources: Complied by ETC/WTR from OSPAR, HELCOM

and EEA Mediterraneanmember countries data

The levels of some hazardoussubstances in marine organisms are

decreasing at some monitoring stationsin the Mediterranean and Baltic Seasand the North East Atlantic Ocean inresponse to measures to reduce theinputs of these substances to these seas.

However, contaminantconcentrations above limits for

human consumption are still found inmussels and fish, mainly from estuariesof major rivers, near some industrialpoint discharges and in some harbours.

Oil pollutionThe main sources of oil pollution in themarine environment include maritimetransport, coastal refineries and offshore oiland gas installations, land-based activities(either discharging directly or throughriverine inputs) and atmospheric deposition.No reliable data sources exist at present formarine oil pollution from land-basedactivities and atmospheric deposition. Withinthe EU, the dangerous substances directive(Directive 76/464/EEC) includes targets foroil pollution discharges with reference topersistent and non-persistent mineral oilsand hydrocarbons of petroleum origin. TheOSPAR and HELCOM conventions settargets for oil pollution from land-basedsources and offshore oil and gas installations.In accordance with the MARPOL 73/78convention established by the InternationalMaritime Organization (IMO) for theprevention of pollution from ships, aerialsurveillance continues, allowing a control ofobserved slicks, in ‘special areas’ (e.g. Baltic,North Sea, Mediterranean Sea and BlackSea) where discharges are prohibited.

There is a large number of oil and gasinstallations over marine oil fields (Map 8.5).For instance, OSPAR has published adatabase of offshore installations includingmore than 900 different installationsproducing from a few tonnes to 800 000tonnes per year (Figure 8.26). However, anassessment of discharges from refineries andoffshore installations in the Mediterraneanand Black Seas is lacking. There areextensive oil refining and petrochemicalindustries operating in the Mediterraneanregion (EEA, 1999) with 40 major refineriesin 1997. The amount of oil discharged intothe sea from 13 of these refineries wasestimated in 1995 to be 782 tonnes (UNEP/MAP, 1996).


193

Sources: UKHO, no date;SHOM, no date

Map 8.5.Location of offshore oil installations

0

5 000

10 000

15 000

20 000

25 000 Refineries

Offshore installations

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Tonnes

(a

0

50 000

100 000

150 000

200 000

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

109

171 25

02

628

Tonnes (b

Source: OSPAR (1999;2001); Eurostat (2001); DHIbased on data from Eurostat(1999), OSPAR (1997) andCONCAVE (1999); Bonnagreement and HELCOM,2001

Figure 8.26.Total discharges of oil from refineries and offshore

installations in EU (a) and annual number ofobserved oil slicks discharged mainly from ships in

the North and Baltic Seas from aerial surveillance (b)

There is also a large seaborne trade of oil inthe Mediterranean Sea. The risk of shippingaccidents in the Mediterranean is very highand some of these cause oil pollution.Between 1987 and 1996 an estimated 22 000tonnes of oil were spilled as the result ofshipping incidents. The figures forindividual years vary from some 12 tonnes in1995 to 13 000 tonnes in 1991 (EEA, 1999).

Oil spills from accidents at sea in the Black Seaare relatively small compared with the inputs ofoil from domestic and industrial land-basedsources and from the River Danube.

Commercial oil and gas exploration tookplace in Azerbaijan’s Caspian Sea shelf in1950, and intensive exploration andproduction has been taking place in theCaspian coastal waters of Kazakhstan, theRussian Federation and Turkmenistan sincethe mid-1990s. In 1978–92, as the result of acritical rise in the water level, many oil wellsand production enterprises on the Caspiancoast and its shallow waters were flooded.The result was pollution of the coastal waters

Despite increased oil production,oil discharges from offshore

installations and coastal refineries in theEU are decreasing as a result of theOSPAR ban on discharges of oil-contaminated cuttings and an increasedapplication of cleaning technologies andimproved wastewater treatment beforedischarge. Additional improvements areexpected in North Sea/Atlantic as aresult of new (OSPAR) regulations,which entered in force in 2000.

However, the level of dischargesassociated with the release of

‘production water’ on offshoreinstallations is steadily increasing in theNorth Sea.

Illegal oil discharges from ships andoffshore platforms are regularly

observed at sea. The number of illegaloil spills is slowly decreasing in the NorthSea, but remains constant in the BalticSea.

Despite pollution from oil spills ona worldwide scale being reduced by

60 % since the 1970s, major accidentaloil tanker spills (i.e. greater than 20 000tonnes) still occur at irregular intervalsin European seas.

Water



Map 8.6. Large accidental oil spills from tankers, 1970–2001

Source: EEA based on datafrom ITOPF

of all Caspian states by oil and oil products.The Caspian Regional Thematic Centre forPollution Control estimated in 2001 that160 000 tonnes were discharged each yearinto the Caspian Sea, with rivers being themost important source (47 %). Oil industryactivities contributed only 5 % of the totalwith natural seepage contributing 13 % anderosion and other industry 21 %.

Oil exploration and production is alsosignificant in the Arctic and is a major sourceof oil pollution. For example, produced waterfrom drilling operations accounted for 76 %of oil pollution of the sea on the Norwegianshelf between 1990 and 1995 (AMAP, 2002).Oil pollution is also evident in a number ofRussian rivers. For example, the lower part ofthe Ob is severely contaminated. Oil pollutionfrom accidents in the region has alsooccurred, for example in the Komi Republicin 1994 when a dike containing oil from aleaking pipeline collapsed. The spill reached

the Kolva River, a tributary of the PechoraRiver and tar balls from the spill were foundat the mouth of the Pechora.

Despite an increase in the marine transport ofoil, the worldwide average number ofaccidental oil spills of more than 7 tonnes hasbeen estimated at 24.1 per year for 1970–79,8.8 per year for 1980–89 and 7.3 per year for1990–99 (see Chapter 10, Section 10.2.3). In2000 there was one spill of 250 tonnes(Germany) and in 2001 three spills totalling2 628 tonnes including one spill (Denmark)of 2 400 tonnes. The Prestige accident in 2002(Spain) spilled more than 20 000 tonnes. Afew very large accidents are responsible for ahigh percentage of the oil spilt from maritimetransport. For example, during the period1990–99, from all the 346 accidental spills ofmore than 7 tonnes from tankers, combinedcarriers and barges, totalling 830 000 tonnes,just over 1 % of the accidents produced 75 %of the spilt oil volume.


195

River, lake, basin Commission

Danube International Commission for the Protection of the DanubeRiver (ICPDR)http://www.icpdr.org/pls/danubis/DANUBIS.navigator

Rhine Internationale Kommission zum Schutz des Rheins (IKSR)http://www.iksr.org/

Elbe Internationale Kommission zum Schutz der Elbehttp://www.ikse-mkol.de/html/ikse/ikse/deutsch/index_d.htm

Oder International Commission for the Protection of the River Oder(signed by Germany, Czech Republic and Poland on 11 April1996)

Dnieper International DNIPRO Fund (IDF) — National Program ofEnvironmental Sanitation of River Dnipro Basin and DrinkingWater Quality Improvementhttp://greenfield.fortunecity.com/hunters/228/toppage1.htm

Bodensee/ Internationale Gewässerschutzkommission für den BodenseeLake Constance http://www.igkb.de

Lake Geneva/ Commission Internationale pour la Protection des Eaux duLac Leman Léman contre la pollution (CIPEL) http://www.cipel.org

Lake Peipsi A bilateral agreement between Estonia and the RussianFederation has been established regarding Lake Peipsi and itsoutlet, the Narva River. Regular exchanges of monitoring data,scientific information and information of public interest nowtake place through the subgroups that were established underthe joint commission

Ohrid On the basis of the UNECE convention on transboundarywatercourses, Albania and the former Yugoslav Republic ofMacedonia have an agreement on the common managementof Lake Ohrid. There are several projects which aim atestablishing sound environmental management of the lake andmonitoring its quality

Kura-Araks rivers There are no common management systems or environmentalagreements on these rivers. Negotiations have startedbetween Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia on a joint rivermanagement project

Aral Sea basin Inter-State Commission for Water Coordination (ICWC)Water ministers of the five states in the basin, Kazakhstan,Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, signed theAgreement on Water Resources Management in the Aral Seabasin on 18 February 1992 and the ICWC was established withjoint responsibility for water management with the two riverbasin agencies (Amu-Darya and Syr-Darya). The main functionsof the ICWC include allocation of annual abstraction for eachcountry, definition of regional water management policy andcoordination of large projects

Note: See IWAC (www.iwac-riza.org) for complete list of transboundary cooperations.Source: Compiled from various sources by ETC/WTR

Table 8.5.Selected examples of internationalcooperation on inland surface waters

Oil production and consumption areincreasing, as are net imports of oil to theEU, which increases the risk of oil spills.More rapid introduction of double hulls fortankers will help to reduce this risk.

8.6. International cooperation on water management

8.6.1. Transboundary inland water coursesThere are 150 major transboundary rivers inEurope that form or cross borders betweentwo or more countries, some 25 majortransboundary lakes, and some 100transboundary aquifers.

Cooperation in managing transboundarywaters requires an effective institutionalstructure such as a river commission basedon an international agreement or otherarrangement (Table 8.5). It is important thatjoint bodies interact closely with each otherand with joint bodies established to protectthe marine environment. The UNECEConvention on the Protection and Use ofTransboundary Watercourses andInternational Lakes (http://www.unece.org/env/water/), which was adopted in Helsinkiin 1992, supported by soft-lawrecommendations, guidelines and specificaction plans, has proved to be a useful toolfor institutional cooperation ontransboundary waters. The convention hasbeen signed and/or ratified by 32 countriesof Europe including the Russian Federationand Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, the Republic ofMoldova and Ukraine from EECCA. Theremaining EECCA countries have not signedthe convention.

8.6.2. Marine conventionsTable 8.6 summarises the marineconventions covering Europe’s seas. Thefuture role of the marine conventions iscurrently under review as part of the processof developing and implementing theEuropean Commission’s strategy to protectand conserve the marine environment(European Commission, 2002). All regionalmarine conventions have establishedmonitoring and assessment programmes.However, when seen in a European context,the programmes are not coherent in termsof scope, content, approach and detail. Inaddition there are problems, includinginadequate spatial coverage and/or samplingfrequency, which lead to lack ofharmonisation between datasets, makingtheir scientific analysis and comparabilitynearly impossible. The view of the European

Commission is that activities carried out forthe implementation of the water frameworkdirective could act as a stimulus for integra-tion of the activities of the regional marineconventions. The inter regional forum set upby the EEA could possibly be the frameworkunder which integration takes place.

Water



OSPAR — The Convention for theProtection of the Marine Environmentof the North-East Atlantic — Paris 1992,entered into force 1998http://www.ospar.org/

HELCOM is the governing body of theConvention on the Protection of theMarine Environment of the Baltic SeaArea, more usually known as the HelsinkiConvention http://www.helcom.fi/

Convention for the Protection of theMediterranean Sea against Pollution —Barcelona 1976 and protocols (1980,1982) entered into force 1978

Convention on the Protection of theBlack Sea against Pollution (BucharestConvention); adopted 1992, in force1994 and protocols (1992)http://www.blacksea-commission.net orhttp://www.blacksea-environment.org/

AMAP — Arctic Monitoring andAssessment Programme — is aninternational programme established in1991 to implement components of theArctic environmental protection strategy(AEPS) of the Arctic Council for theProtection of the Arctic MarineEnvironment http://amap.no/

Table 8.6. Summary of marine conventions in Europe

The convention has been signed andratified by all the contracting Partiesto the former Oslo or Parisconventions (Belgium, Denmark, theCommission of the EuropeanCommunities, Finland, France,Germany, Iceland, Ireland, theNetherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain,Sweden and the United Kingdom) andby Luxembourg and Switzerland

Signatory or contracting Parties are:Denmark, Estonia, the EuropeanCommunity, Finland, Germany, Latvia,Lithuania, Poland, Russian Federationand Sweden

Signatory or contracting Parties are:Albania, Algeria, Bosnia-Herzegovina,Croatia, Cyprus, Egypt, France,Greece, Israel, Italy, Lebanon, LibyanArab Jamahiriya, Malta, Monaco,Morocco, Slovenia, Spain, Syrian ArabRepublic, Tunisia, Turkey

Signatory Parties are the Black Seastates: Bulgaria, Georgia, Romania,Russian Federation, Turkey andUkraine.

Member countries (the eight Arctic rimcountries): Canada, Denmark/Greenland, Finland, Iceland, Norway,Russian Federation, Sweden, UnitedStates

Source: Compiled fromvarious sources by ETC/WTR

8.7. References

AMAP (Arctic Monitoring and EnvironmentProgramme), 2000a. Persistent organic pollutants(POPs). Fact sheet No 1. Produced for theArctic Council by AMAP. http://amap.no/

AMAP (Arctic Monitoring and EnvironmentProgramme), 2000b. Heavy metals. Fact sheetNo 3. Produced for the Arctic Council byAMAP. http://amap.no/

AMAP, 2002. Arctic pollution 2002. AMAP’snew state of the Arctic environment reportdescribing the pollution status of the Arctic,updating the 1997 AMAP assessment. http://amap.no/

Aquastat (FAO), 2002. http://www.fao.org/ag/agl/aglw/aquastat/main/index.stm

Aral Sea homepage. http://www.grida.no/aral/aralsea/english/arsea/arsea.htm

Armenia, 1998. State of the environment report1998: Armenia. http://www.grida.no/enrin/htmls/armenia/soe_armenia/soeeng.htm

Azerbaijan NCP (national contact point), 2002.Communication by the Azerbaijan nationalcontact point to European EnvironmentAgency (Review of draft Kiev report).

BIRHP (Balearic Islands regional hydrologicalplan), 1999. General Directorate of WaterResources, Conselleria de Medi Ambient.

Black Sea Commission, 2002. State of theenvironment of the Black Sea: Pressures and trends1996–2000. Preprint copy, August.

Borum, J., 1996. Shallow waters and land/seaboundaries. In: Eutrophication in coastalmarine ecosystems. Jørgensen, B. B. andRichardson, K. (eds). American GeophysicalUnion. pp. 179–205.

Caspian Environment Programme, no date.http://www.caspianenvironment.org/pollution/levels.htm

CEFIC, 2001. Responsible care status reportEurope 2001. Europe Chemical IndustryCouncil. http://www.cefic.be/Files/Publications/ceficrc.pdf

CEPI, Environment report 2000.Confederation of European Paper Industry.http://www.paperonline.org/images/pdfs/environment/env_rep_2000.pdf

EEA (European Environment Agency), 1999.State and pressure of the marine and coastalMediterranean environment. Environmentalassessment No 5. EEA and UNEP/Mediterranean Action Plan, Copenhagen

EEA (European Environment Agency), 2001.Eutrophication in Europe’s coastal waters. Topicreport No 7/2001. EEA, Copenhagen

Environment Agency of England and Walesweb page. www.environment-agency.gov.uk/

EU, 2000. Groundwater river resourcesprogramme on a European scale (GRAPES).Technical Report to the EU ENV4. CEH,Wallingford, UK.

EUCC, 2000. Coastal guide on dunemanagement. European Union for CoastalConservation International Secretariat.http://www.coastalguide.org/

EU, 2001a. Decision No 2455/2001/EC of theEuropean Parliament and the Council of 20November 2001 establishing the list of prioritysubstances in the field of water policy andamending Directive 2000(60EC. Brussels.


197

EU, 2001b. Commission Regulation (EC) No 466/2001 of 8 March 2001 setting maximum levels forcertain contaminants in foodstuffs. Brussels.

EU, 2002. Commission Regulation (EC) No 221/2002 of 6 February 2002 amending Regulation(EC) No 466/2001 setting maximum levels forcertain contaminants in foodstuffs. Brussels.

European Commission, 2002. Communicationfrom the Commission to the Council and theEuropean Parliament. Towards a strategy toprotect and conserve the marine environment. COM(2002) 539(01). Brussels

European Council, 1977. Council Decision of12 December 1977 establishing a commonprocedure for the exchange of information on thequality of surface fresh water in the Community.Decision 77/795/EEC.

Finnish Environment Institute, 2002.Evaluation of the implementation of the 1988ministerial declaration regarding nutrient loadreductions in the Baltic Sea catchment area.Lääne A., Pitkänen, H., Arheimer, B., et al.The Finnish Environment 524. http://www.vyh.fi/eng/orginfo/publica/electro/fe524/fe524.htm

HELCOM web page. http://www.helcom.fi/

HELCOM, 2000. http://www.vyh.fi/eng/orginfo/publica/electro/fe524/fe524.htm

HELCOM, 2001. Environment of the Baltic Seaarea 1994–1998. Baltic Sea EnvironmentProc. No. 82 A. 23 pages.

Hungarian Central Statistical Office, 2001.Towards the application of the internationalwater related environmental indicators inHungary (Hungary, CSO). Doc. 4 in: UNECEwork session on methodological issues ofenvironment statistics. http://www.unece.org/stats/documents/2001.10.env.htm

MMA, 2000. Libro Blanco del Agua en Espana.Spanish Ministry of Environment, Madrid.

MZOPU, 2002. National environmental strategy.Croatian Ministry for EnvironmentalProtection and Physical Planning. Zagreb.

North Sea progress report, 2002. http://www.dep.no/md/html/nsc/progressreport2002/hoved.html

Latvian Environment Agency, 2002.Environmental indicators in Latvia 2002.http://www.vdc.lv/soe/2001_eng/

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 1999.Environmental performance review Turkey.

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 2000a.Environmental performance review Hungary.

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 2000b.Environmental performance review Greece.

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 2000c.Environmental performance review Russia.

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 2001.Environmental performance review Portugal.

SHOM (Service hydrographique etocéanographique de la marine, France), nodate. Groupes d’avis aux navigateurs. http://www.shom.fr/

Smakhtin, V. U., 2001. Low flow hydrology: Areview. Journal of Hydrology 240: 147–186.

UKHO (United Kingdom HydrographyOffice), no date. Notices to mariners. http://www.hydro.gov.uk/

UNECE, 1998. Environmental performancereview Moldova. http://www.unece.org/env/epr/countriesreviewed.htm

UNECE, 1999a. Environmental performancereview Croatia. http://www.unece.org/env/epr/countriesreviewed.htm

UNECE, 1999b. Environmental performancereview Ukraine. http://www.unece.org/env/epr/countriesreviewed.htm

UNECE, 2000a. Environmental performancereviews Armenia. http://www.unece.org/env/epr/countriesreviewed.htm

UNECE, 2000b. Environmental performancereviews Kazakhstan. http://www.unece.org/env/epr/countriesreviewed.htm

UNECE, 2000c. Environmental performancereviews Kyrgyzstan. http://www.unece.org/env/epr/countriesreviewed.htm

UNEP/MAP, 1996. The state of the marine andcoastal environment in the Mediterranean region.MAP Technical Reports Series No 100. Athens.

Water


kiev eea version · 167-20-15-10-5 0 0 25 50 75 100 125 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 level (m) riga...

Documents