International River Basin Management in Large River Basins

Transcription

1 International River Basin Management in Large River Basins Istvan IJJAS Prof. and Head of Department Budapest University of Technology and Economics Department of Hydraulic and Water Resources Engineering Muegyetem rakpart 3., 1111 Budapest, Hungary Abstract: The new European water policy and the Water Framework Directive (WFD) aim to achieve good water status till The WFD consider the river basin as the fundamental and natural unit for the protection of the aquatic environment. The WFD foresees the objective of producing a single River Basin Management Plan for the river basins. A large international river basin should also be considered as international River Basin District. There are different possible strategies and approaches that can be adopted to meet the requirements of the WFD regarding River Basin Management and RBM Planning. The selection of the unit areas for river basin management in case of large river basins needs a specific understanding. The subdivision of the large basins into practical management sub-units and identification of the issues that require basin level coordination are also key issues. Some principal aspects and approaches for large international river basin management will be discussed in the paper. The implementation of the WFD in the Danube Basin will be presented as a case study. The programmes of measures to reduce P-discharge from the population into surface waters in the Danube Basin will be discussed as an example of the problems that need Danube Basin level coordination. The Danube Basin is identified according to the WFD as a River Basin District. The Danube Basin is the second largest river basin of Europe, covering km2 and shared by 18 countries. 13 of these have territories greater than km2 within the Danube Basin. The term River Basin District requires a specific understanding in case of very large river basins. Three or four main levels of coordination can be identified in case of Danube: Danube basin level, bilateral-multilateral level, national level and local level. According to the Danube River Pollution Reduction Programme there are 15 sub-basin areas identified within the Danube Basin. The sub-basin areas allow to better express local, regional, national and international river basin management needs in relation to the entire Danube Basin. The challenges and key issues of the international, multi-level RBM are discussed by the paper. Keywords: river basin management, large rivet basins, international river basins, Water Framework Directive, pollution control, detergents, Danube Basin 1. Implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive in the Danube Basin On 14 September 2000 the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union adopted the Water Framework Directive (WFD) that was published in the OJ on 22 December The WFD provides the framework for the protection of surface and ground waters. It aims to achieve good water status taking into account quality and quantity. The rapid implementation of WFD is necessary. The Directive foresees the objective of producing a single River Basin Management Plan for the Danube Basin as an international River Basin District. The International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR) entrusted an Expert Group in 1999 dealing with the implementation of the WFD. The ICPDR will provide the platform for the co-ordination necessary to develop and establish the River Basin Management Plan for the Danube Basin. The Plan will be based on the WFD and it will also meet the requirements set out by the Convention on Cooperation for the Protection and Sustainable Use of the Danube and also the other international agreements and conventions. The Danube Protection Convention lays down detailed rules for an up-to-date water protection system. These rules are to be applied by the contracting parties themselves and - in line with international cooperation on other European river systems (e.g. Rhine and Elbe) - by an 'International River Commission'. The River Basin Management Expert Group (RBM EG) of ICPDR convened experts from Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, European Community, Germany, Hungary, Moldova, Romania, Slovenia, Slovak

2 Republic and Ukraine, as well as representatives from UNDP/GEF, PHARE PCU, NGOs (Danube Environmental Forum; WWF International, GWP and the Szentendre Regional Environmental Centre). The Group discussed the issues of WFD with the understanding that the ICPDR will provide the platform for the coordination necessary to develop and establish the River Basin Management Plan for the Danube Basin. Once such a plan has been prepared it will be the responsibility and competence of governments of riparian countries to provide the necessary agreement. There are different possible strategies and approaches that can be adopted to meet the requirements of the WFD regarding River Basin Management and RBM Planning. The diverse conditions and needs in the Danube Basin require different specific solutions. This diversity should be taken into account in the planning and execution of measures to ensure protection and sustainable use of water in the framework of the river basin management. Decisions should be taken as close as possible to the locations where water is affected or used. The WFD recognises the river basin as the fundamental and natural unit for the protection of the aquatic environment. It requires the identification of River Basin Districts (RBDs), which can cover one or more river basins, and the preparation of legally binding River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) for each RBD. The Danube Basin is identified as the River Basin District. 2. International River Basin Management programmes in the Danube Basin The Danube River Pollution Reduction Programme (DRPRP) and the Strategic Action Plan (SAP) for the Danube River Basin presents a group of hot spots and projects and measures that respond to identified pollution and transboundary effects in the Danube River Basin and the Black Sea. Projects for pollution reduction are presented for 15 identified sub-basin areas (Table 1). Table 1. Danube sub-basin areas 1 Upper Danube D, A 2 Inn A, D 3 Austrian Danube A 4 Morava CZ, A, SK 5 Váh-Horn SK, CZ, H 6 Pannonian Central Danube A, SK, H, HR, YU 7 8 Drava-Mura Sava A, SLO, HR, H SLO, HR, BIH, YU 9 Tisa SK, UA, RO, H, YU 10 Banat-Eastern Serbia YU, RO 11 Velka Morava YU, BG 12 Mizia-Dobrudzha BG 13 Muntenia RO 14 Prut-Siret UA, MD, RO 15 Delta-Liman MD, UA, RO The Danube River Pollution Reduction Programme does represent a major step forward in developing a comprehensive response to the need for pollution reduction in the Danube Basin. The data base of the projects can be used for planning of additional projects which are local, national or international importance. The Project Data Base of the Programme will allow the investors to select which of the projects would have the highest importance from their own point of view. Information concerning the expected pollution reduction from proposed projects as well as the associated investment cost, need still to be further completed. The proposed projects largely focus on point sources of pollution although diffuse pollution is responsible for a significant portion of the nutrients reaching the Black Sea, the recipient of the Danube River. Common principles are needed in order to coordinate the Danube basin countries' efforts to improve the protection of the waters in the Danube basin in terms of quantity and quality, to promote sustainable water use, to contribute to the control of transboundary water problems, to protect aquatic ecosystems and wetlands directly depending on them, and to safeguard and develop the potential uses of waters in the Danube basin. 2

3 At the time being an important task of coordination at Danube basin level is to find a common understanding of certain prescriptions of the WFD. Two of the principal key issues are: a common platform of specialists for the ecological assessment of river quality and the ecological approach for the evaluation of water bodies' quality. The WFD allows a high degree of freedom for the countries to assign their individual river basins lying within their territory to RBDs. The WFD leaves it to Member States to select the appropriate administrative arrangements and the identification of the competent authority in line with the Amsterdam Treaty and the subsidiarity principle. Member States have to identify competent authorities for RBDs lying entirely within their territories as well as for those portions of international RBDs lying within their territories. For the administration of international RBDs the emphasis is on co-ordination of measures using existing administrative structures and international agreements. The following are considered as the main tasks under the WFD for the Danube basin: The whole of the Danube catchment including its tributaries has to be considered as one river basin management unit, requiring the establishment of one coordinated river basin management plan. Assignment of groundwaters to the river basin; coordination as regards transboundary groundwaters. Designation of protected areas. Coordination of transboundary objectives. Specification of measures necessary to achieve the overall objectives. Identification and description of the ecological status of the surface waters and the groundwaters. Coordination of those parts of the programme of measures which have transboundary effects (e.g. accidental pollution). Preparation of international monitoring programmes for surface waters. Coordination of designation of reference measurement sites. Coordination of analyses and reviews. Coordination of monitoring programmes. Coordination when identifying further priority substances to be proposed by the European Commission and when establishing quality standards. Preparation of a draft international River Management Plan, in particular for its structure and the degree of detail, including a possible breakdown according to sub-basins and sectors. Elaboration of a coordinated international River Management Plan. Taking into account the findings of public information and participation. Preparation for a structure on reporting as regards structure and degree of detailed information and elaboration of a joint report. The adequate water management and RBMP consists of an integrated, holistic approach, where all contributing components, whether it be on the quality or quantity issues, are interrelated. Various aspects of quantity management are not subjects of the WFD, however those aspects should also be integrated in into the RBMP. The regulations and guidelines of the EU and the Danube Basin States should be combined. The States have to assure the fulfilment of the tasks contained in their national water laws and directives and policies. Further integration and protection and sustainable management of water into other national policy areas such as energy, transport, agriculture, fisheries, regional policy and tourism is necessary. The RBMP should provide a basis for a continued dialogue and for the development of strategies towards a further integration of policy areas. The joint Danube Black Sea Working Group identified in 1998 the overall environmental objectives for the Danube and Black Sea Region. The long-term goal is to reduce the levels of nutrient and other hazardous substances in order to allow the ecosystems of the region to recover. The intermediate goal is that all countries of the Danube Black Sea basin establish and implement urgent control measures to avoid discharges of nitrogen and phosphorous to the Black Sea. According to the EC (2001), the main problems affecting the Danube River Ecosystems are: High nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorous) loads Competition for available water Overexploitation of surface and groundwater Changes in river flow patterns Contamination with hazardous substances Accidental pollution Degradation and loss of wetlands The Danube river basin and the Black Sea Region level coordination in case of the above problems mostly should be considered as necessary. 3

4 3. Selected issues of large river basin management 3.1 Transboundary issues requiring Danube level planning and coordination The RBM EG of ICPDR created a Drafting Group for Transboundary Issues of river basin management in the Danube Basin (ICPDR 2002a). The objective of the Drafting Group was to provide help for the realistic and reasonable preparation of the Danube level RBMP and coordination of the planning process (to help the RBM EG to focus on the critical tasks requiring Danube level planning/coordination activities considered absolutely necessary). It was concluded by the DG that the CIS WG 2.9 BESTPRAC was not dealing with international RBMP and it was not expected that guidance documents would be developed for international RBMP and especially not for the case of large international river basins. The final conclusion was that the approaches for Danube basin management planning should be identified by the RBM EG of ICPDR. The River Basin Management Planning and coordination needs a specific understanding in the very large river basins (ICPDR 2001). Three main levels of planning and coordination was identified in case of the Danube Basin (Table 2.). Table 2 Main levels of coordination Level Amount of coordination Danube river basin level limit to the absolutely necessary (issues affecting the whole DRBD) Bilateral/multilateral level a lot (in case of transboundary effects) National level for all issues regarding implementation The key tasks of the DG activities were identified: a) Selection of the issues affecting the whole DRBD and requiring Danube level RBMP/coordination. b) Selection of the best applicable practices for Danube level RBMP and coordination. c) Drafting a proposal for the Guidance on Danube level RBMP and coordination or Guidance on RBMP and coordination in large river basins It was agreed that the amount of Danube level planning and coordination should be limited to the absolutely necessary, the subdivision of the Danube River Basin into practical management sub-units is also a key issue, however guidance for RBMP and coordination in sub-unit level could be the scope of an other Work Team for drafting the Guidance on international RBMP and coordination, the key issues to be covered by the Danube level activities: 4

5 Selection of pressures and impacts requiring Danube level RBMP and coordination, Selection of water bodies for analysis of the selected pressures and impacts in Danube level, Assessment of status of waters in Danube level with regard to the selected water bodies, Selection of programmes of measures in Danube level with regard to the selected water bodies, PP in Danube level. It was agreed that transboundary issues covered by the WFD and transboundary issues not covered by the WFD should also be considered in the Danube basin management: Transboundary issues covered by the WFD are the problems affecting the achievement of environmental objectives and the planning of programs of measures to achieve the environmental objectives. Transboundary issues NOT covered by the WFD are the problems affecting the achievement of economic and social objectives, planning of programs of measures to achieve the economic and social objectives. According to the previous studies on the Danube Basin, it was considered that the significant pressures and impacts requiring Danube level coordination are: High nutrient loads Contamination with hazardous substances Accidental pollution Human impacts causing hydro-morphological changes of water regime the Significant Impact Areas requiring Danube level coordination: (identified by the workshop for a Transboundary Analysis, January 1999, Hernstein, Austria): Source: Danube River Basin Pollution Reduction Programme Report, UNDP/GEF, 1999 Note: the list of SIAs could be/should be developed Wetlands of Danube River Basin scale importance and the significant indicators requiring Danube level coordination: Migratory species Some principal critical issues of Danube RBMP were selected by the DG: How to consider the expected economic development in Danube Basin scale (e.g. baseline scenario and other scenarios)? What are the realistic and reasonable tools for the coordination of RBM in Danube Basin scale? 3.2 Economic analysis requirements of the WFD in 2004 in the Danube Basin The River Basin Management Expert Group of the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube (RBM EG ICPDR) created a Drafting Group on Economic Analysis (DGE). Representatives of Austria, Hungary, Slovenia, Bulgaria, and at a later stage, Czech Republic and Romania, as well as the ICPDR Secretariat participated in this group (ICPDR 2002b). The main objective of this group was: to identify special economic issues of the Danube river basin and to develop a proposal for testing the EU Guidance Document on economic analysis in the Danube river basin. The DGE developed a table of potential socio-economic information/indicators dealing with specific elements of the economic analysis relevant for Danube river basin drafted an issue paper on the implementation of the economic analysis of the WFD in the Danube river basin based on the EU Guidance document defined criteria for the selection of a testing site within the Danube river basin developed a proposal for practical application of the guidance document in the Danube basin 5

6 It was concluded that the environmental, economic and financial situation of the countries in the Danube river basin requires special attention due to its heterogeneity and particularities. The major transboundary impacts affecting the Danube River ecosystems and the water users in the basin are: (i) water pollution, (ii) changes in river and sediment flow patterns, and (iii) competition for the availability for water. It was also concluded that an economic analysis of water uses in the Danube context needs special consideration when assessing significant water uses relevant basin wide, like flood protection and control or navigation. There are several key questions when assessing the recovery of the costs of water services: How much does current water services cost? Who pays for these costs, and what is the current cost-recovery level, i.e. for flood prevention and control or for navigation when the benefits are basin wide? There is a need to clarify concepts and to propose a range of methodologies (qualitative, quantitative, monetary methods) likely to be adapted to various situations in terms of data availability and local circumstances. Specific guidance is required on the assessment of environmental and resource costs. Undertaking the cost-effectiveness analysis for ensuring that the programmes of measure reach the environmental objectives of the Directive requires specific common methodologies. Additional, practical and operational approaches to define the baseline or for impact assessment are also required. It was concluded that the economic analyses requirements (issues to be examined) of the WFD in 2004 and the responsibilities are as follows: Economic significance of water uses (national, ICPDR) Baseline and trends (national, ICPDR) Cost-recovery and incentive pricing (national) Establishing a cost database (national, ICPDR) Identifying the information and knowledge gap (national, ICPDR) Table 3. shows the importance of each step of the economic analysis proposed to be implemented within the Danube river basin, considering the scale of the analysis: national level or basin wide. Table 3. Identification of level of effort Steps of analysis Step 1 - Characterisation of river basin Economic importance of water uses Baseline and trend analysis Cost recovery and incentive pricing Step 2 - Identifying the gap Water status in 2015 Gap/no-gap Step 3 - Developing the programme of measures Identifying potential measures Costs of individual measures Effectiveness of individual measures Cost effectiveness assessment Disproportionate cost analysis Implications of proposed programme (financial, economic, cost-recovery and incentive pricing) Assessing the information and knowledge gaps and proposing measures for filling the gaps Scale of analysis National Danube XX X XX X XX XX XX Legend: from low importance (no cross) to high importance () 4. International River Basin Management in Hungary 6

7 The whole area of Hungary belongs to the Danube Basin District and there are a lot of transboundary relationships with the seven neighbouring countries. Over 95 per cent of the surface water resources of Hungary originate abroad, large parts of the catchment areas of the main streams and their tributaries being situated beyond the borders. For planning purposes under the WFD, 18 sub-catchment units (RBMP sub-units) were identified in Hungary. Two third of these sub-units are transboundary of character. Water management cooperation between Hungary and her neighbours has long traditions, however the bilateral boundary water agreements mostly do not cover the whole catchment area of the rivers (RBMP sub-units). The main cooperation agreements are the Belgrade Convention on Danube Navigation, the Danube Protection Convention, and the bilateral agreements with Austria, Slovakia, Ukraine, Romania, Serbia-Montenegro, Croatia and Slovenia. The most relevant merit of the existing system is the traditionally good and active international water management relations and the involvement in international agreements. The major shortcomings of the existing system are that the instruments of international RBM are not well established yet and the agreements do not cover the whole catchment area of the rivers and also do not cover the particular transboundary groundwater issues. Hungary is participating in existing and well operating trans-boundary committees on water management issues, regulated by agreements with all its neighboring countries. The first agreement has been signed in 1959 with Austria. These Agreements were proposed to be overviewed and amended to the WFD provisions. The requirements of the implementation of the WFD were studied, the overview of the existing agreements were completed, the preparation of the amendments and negotiations with the neighbouring countries are going on. Planning of programmes of measures to achieve the economic and social objectives is not covered by the WFD. The integration of RBM planning under the WFD with the planning for economic and social objectives should be also coordinated. 5. Programmes of measures in Danube level to reduce P-discharge from the population The programmes of measures to reduce P-discharge from the population into surface waters in the Danube Basin is an example of the problems which needs Danube Basin level coordination (Ijjas 1999). The case study is based on a study which was completed in the frame of the EU PHARE Project on Removal of Phosphate from Detergents in the Danube Basin Countries. A consortium consisting of SENATOR Consult Ltd. and VITUKI Consult Rt. (Hungary), RIIDHE (Research Institute for Irrigation, Drainage and Hydraulic Engineering, Bulgaria) and WRI (Water Research Institute, Slovakia) was formed specifically for the purposes of this project. In addition to the consortium, experts from the EU member countries and local organisations and experts from the Danube Basin countries worked on the project. The Detergent Project was funded by the PHARE Programme of the Commission of the European Union on the advice of the Danube Programme Co-ordination Unit, Vienna. However, the findings, interpretation and conclusions expressed in this paper should not be attributed in any manner to the Commission of the European Union, to the Danube Programme Co-ordination Unit or to the countries they represent. The overall objective of the Project was to support the countries in the Danube Basin to eliminate phosphorous from detergents as soon as technically possible and economically and environmentally justified. The study aimed at providing support for the preparation of integrated, coherent detergent-policy and strategy in the Danube Basin. The countries studied were: Germany, Austria, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, Hungary, Romania, Ukraine, Moldavia and Bulgaria. Phosphorus is the nutrient that most often limits growth in freshwater systems. Excess growth of plankton has several unwanted effects. It reduces visibility and makes the water less desirable for swimming and as a source for drinking water. At high plankton densities the occurrence of toxic algae is more frequent. However, higher plankton productivity may increase the total fish yield and at the same time change species composition usually to less desirable species when P concentrations are high. To reduce the load of phosphorus several abatement measures are available. Some of the measures are local, such as building sewage treatment plants. Others, like imposing a ban or a limitation on the use of phosphorus in detergents, will also affect people living far from eutrophic waters. These two types of measures were analysed in the present study. The study area covered by the Project was the Danube basin, without the former Yugoslavia and Bosnia - Herzegovina. The actual area covered is 664,532 km 2 which is approximately 82% of the total area of the Danube basin (817,532 km 2 ). At least 162 million people live in the Black Sea Basin. About 85 million of these live in the Danube Basin alone. A major part of the Black Sea (notably the north western shelf) is critically eutrophic. The Danube (as monitored within the framework of the Bucharest Declaration) currently introduces about 60,000 tons of total phosphorus per year, about the same as the total river input of P to the North Sea and four times that to the Baltic. There has been 7

8 an enormous increase in the nutrient load to the Black Sea in the past 30 years, probably as a consequence of the widespread use of phosphate detergents and intensification of agriculture. Under the project, each country team collected data and investigated the phosphorus situation in their country and produced a Country Report. Each Report covered the following tasks: Analyses of pressures and impacts Task 1: Detergents used in the Danube Basin countries Task 2: Detergents produced in the Danube Basin countries Task 3: P-load into surface water in the Danube Basin Task 4: Autonomous development scenarios in the Danube Basin countries Development of programmes of measures Task 5: Legal situation related to P in detergents and P-removal from waste water Task 6: Problems in relation to a fast change to P-free detergents in the Danube Basin Task 7: Alternatives for solutions to overcome the problems Task 8: Feasible development scenarios for the Danube Basin Multicriteria analyses of programmes of measures Task 9: Costs and benefits of the scenarios Task 10: Environmental effects of substitutes of P and other surfactants 5.1 Analyses of pressures and impacts The structure of the detergent production was changed during the last years in most of the Danube Basin countries. However there is still a great potential for reduction of the use of phosphorus in detergents. The market analysis showed that significant quantities of phosphate-containing detergents are still in use in some of the Danube Basin countries. It is estimated that the total potential for reduction of the use of phosphorus in detergents used by the total population (54 millions) in the Danube Basin countries could amount to about 15,000 tons P/year. It was not possible to ban or restrict the import of the P-containing detergents to some of the Danube Basin countries because of health problems. Those countries does not restrict the import of the cheap detergents, independent by of its composition. The experts from the different countries have provided information in the Country Reports (1995) about the expected results of the measures taken or planned between 1995 and 2005 to reduce inputs of P from municipal treatment plants by new and upgraded existing sewerage and wastewater treatment capacity. Those measures were considered as autonomous development scenarios. It was reported by the experts that the extension of sewerage would cause a major increase of P into surface water. The main reason is that in case of septic tanks and pits the total load of P into surface water is less than in case of linking to sewerage, even when secondary treatment are foreseen. Without tertiary sewage treatment the load of P into surface water originating from population will drastically increase. 5.2 Programmes of measures for reducing phosphorus loadings The consultants described the most likely abatement measures for reducing phosphorus loadings from the population in the Danube Basin. Table 4. presents an overview of the main measures selected by the consultants for the phosphate policy of the different countries. The two types of measures were analysed in the PHARE project and the present issue paper: P-removal from detergents and P-removal from waste waters. The reduction potential of P in detergents and the expected time horizon to complete the P control programs are different in the Danube Basin countries. The size of the P-control measures and the timing of the programs should be described for the individual countries or for the groups of the countries. The scenarios are different combinations of sewage treatment and detergent P control (notice that the combined reduction in phosphorus is not equal to the simple sum, because some of the phosphorus in the detergents will also be removed at the sewage treatment plant). The Danube Basin countries differ in terms of geography, hydrology, history, economy and legal and institutional frameworks. The way in which the detergent policy objectives would be used varies from country to country. Key characteristics of the Participating countries should be considered during the detailed detergent policy planning. According to the environmental and social conclusions of the project, banning the use of P in detergents was not recommended. The Consultants estimated the phosphorous loads into surface waters from detergents in the Danube Basin countries in 2000 and Reduction in phosphorus loads caused by detergents is quoted to be 20-63% (Scenario A) and 30-90% (Scenario B) in The estimated percentage reduction in phosphorous loads caused by 8

9 detergents for the Danube Basin is 29% (Scenario A) and 72% (Scenario B). The potential for change of P emission from population by elimination of P in detergents in 2005 will be 2,129 tonnes P/year in case of Scenario A and 5,339 tonnes P/year in case of Scenario B. Table 4. Programmes of measures for reducing phosphorus loadings Country Alternatives for reducing phosphorus loadings Czech Republic P-removal from detergents implementation of the voluntary agreement ecological education P-removal from waste-waters enforcement of the legal measures development of the fee-system of WWTPs construction and upgrading of WWTPs Slovakia legal measures for limitation of the P- content of detergents price policy for the P-free detergents education construction and upgrading of WWTPs Slovenia international agreements internationally recognised green label (imposing more requirements, not only P content) construction and upgrading of WWTPs including tertiary treatment Croatia introduction of P-free detergents construction and upgrading of WWTPs Hungary Romania voluntary agreement between government and manufacturers improvement of public water-awareness introduction of the European Ecolabelling System for Detergents introduction of P-free detergents public involvement economic incentives administrative restrictions alternative technical solutions upgrading of the existing and construction of the new WWTPs with tertiary treatment EU harmonisation construction and upgrading of WWTPs Ukraine partial substitution of P by Zeolit construction and upgrading of WWTPs Moldavia Bulgaria new legal act limiting P in detergents international financial support subsidies for P-free detergent prices taxes legal enforcement intensification of NGO activities control of import-export EU harmonisation voluntary agreement taxes improvement of public awareness advertisement new standards international financial support construction and upgrading of WWTPs EU harmonisation construction and upgrading of WWTPs WWTP - Waste Water Treatment Plant 9

10 5.3 Economic analyses - multicriteria analyses of the programmes of measures No cost estimates exist for introduction of P-free detergents in most of the Danube Basin countries. It was reported by the Consultants from Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Slovenia and Bulgaria that the cost of introduction of P-free detergents should not significantly increase the cost of P-containing detergents. The elimination of phosphorus from detergents should be combined with intensified research and development of alternative components and technology of washing, so that the total cost of washing should not be necessarily increased. At the same time the washing efficiency should not be affected. Higher prices of P-substitutes should be compensated with lower amount of the washing agent needed. Information on costs of P-removal from detergents are extremely scarcely available in the literature. According to Laws (1993) the incremental cost of P-free detergents to the consumer would be about USD 2 per person per year. According to Huppes et al. (1992), emission reduction can be made profitable by financial instruments by putting a price on emissions. The critical emission "tax" level is ECU 11.50/kg P for removal of P from detergents. Several aspects of the costs of P-free detergents are subject to discussion: the clothes washing time, the clothes washing costs and the social costs as a loss in employment. In the literature cost estimates are given for construction and operation of wastewater treatment plants of various size. The cost ranges are large which may be acceptable due to different ways of realising technologies. The costs also vary from one estimate to the other. For detailed studies, technological calculations can not be avoided to make any decisions. There is also a wide variation among countries. The combined reduction in phosphorus by sewage treatment and detergent P control is not equal to the simple sum, because some of the phosphorus in the detergents will also be removed at the sewage treatment plant. Several of the assumptions used in studies on costs of P-removal of waste water treatment plants are subject to discussion. The cost of building sewage treatment plants may be too high. The plant also removes bacteria and other toxic substances; thus as an option only part of the cost of building and maintaining sewage treatment plants and piping could be assigned to phosphorus reduction. However, it is presently difficult to see how a cost sharing should be done. The following benefit categories concerning the scenarios were studied by the experts: saved money which will not be invested to waste water treatment plants (P-removal from detergents, instead of P-removal at waste water treatment plants) costs of damages (expected remediation of damages after implementation of scenarios) The lack of relevant data was generally regarded as the biggest obstacle to performing and using benefit assessment. The case studies in the references (Kuik et al. 1992, Laws 1993, HASKONING 1994) were used by most of the Consultants in the benefit studies, because the lack of their own data. Several methods for valuing water quality improvements have been developed by economists. However, there is no consensus on the question which methods are to be used in practice. For a first-order-of-magnitude estimation of benefits it is possible to use existing benefit research. It was therefore recommended by Kuik et al. (1992) the development of a European data base with benefit studies as a tool to use the EC Guidelines for Benefit Assessment of Environmental Measures. The data base could contain systematic summaries of studies that are easily accessible via key words such as "type of environmental problem", "benefit categories included", etc. If this data base is regularly updated with the most recent research efforts in this field, it will contain a wealth of information for European researchers and decision makers. It will avoid much double work and will therefore prove to be extremely worthwhile. There is a great variation among countries concerning each of the cost and benefit categories. The values laid down in the different countries are not identical. When interpreting the figures, it should be borne in mind that definitions and estimation methods may vary from country to country, and that comparisons among countries should be subject to caution. It was concluded that no data available or there are insufficient data for assessment of costs and benefits of P- removal from detergents in the Danube Basin scale. No uniform data on costs and benefits exists for the whole of the Danube Basin, therefore data are given for the individual countries only. Investment and operation costs for extended sewage purification are relatively high. While the comparison makes detergent P-removal seem much more cost effective than P-removal at sewage treatment plant, one should keep in mind that detergents never accounted for more than 50% of the P in municipal wastewater. A number of environmental observations have been made. Conclusions on P-free detergents 10

11 Phosphate substitutes and their significance for the environment is a very important consideration when phosphate-free detergents are being introduced, however only a very few relevant studies have been carried out in the downstream countries of the Danube Basin. The criteria for selection of the environmentally friendly detergent products should focus on: Reduction of the load and impact of detergents to the necessary extent (e.g. criteria on dosage, soluble/insoluble inorganics, aerobic/anaerobic biodegradable ingredients) Consumer should be better informed on the environmental impacts of the products. The introduction of phosphate-free detergents alone is not sufficient to reduce the phosphate load and eutrophication of rivers and other receiving waters to a tolerable extent. In addition it is necessary to improve sewage purification including tertiary treatment (phosphate elimination) and to take measures to reduce inputs from diffuse sources especially from farming. Elimination of phosphorous from waste waters regardless to its origin is an important option. Construction of new treatment plants or facilities for tertiary treatment is strongly needed for overall nutrients control, not only for phosphorous. This option is, however the most costly and time consuming. The difference between the costs of sewage treatment and costs of removal of P in detergents in short term could be considered as benefits. Different scenarios or sub-scenarios are possible to achieve the same targeted reduction in P in surface waters. This is the so-called "emission mix" within the above mentioned scenarios. The results of scenarios and sub-scenarios show what strategy is the most cost-effective. In other words: which "emission mix" guarantees the highest P reduction at lowest cost in long term. Differences among the various Danube Basin countries or various groups of countries leading to different choices of P-control measures and mix of the measures. Such differences regard basic principles of environmental policy, policy structures and policy environments. Conclusions on waste water treatment Improving sewage treatment and controlling diffuse inputs are long-term measures compared with the introduction of phosphate-free detergents, which can be done more or less instantaneously. Tertiary treatment in all sewage treatment plants is not likely to be a realistic approach. The new generation of wastewater treatment plants should at first be aimed at removal of organic matter and phosphorus. Conclusions on market oriented measures There is a lack of experience and expertise in the downstream countries in the Danube Basin with designing and implementing market-based environmental policies and mechanisms. While some types of pollution charges and fines have officially been in use in some of the countries for many years, such mechanisms often existed only on paper or were mainly symbolic. The fine system is one of the main environmental enforcement tools. However, in practice, the system of fines is not effective as an enforcement tool. The levels of the fines are far too low to give an incentive to change polluting behaviour and to prevent future pollution. It is expected that in the short term the fine levels would be updated, while in the long term the fines should be replaced by pollution charges. Additional knowledge and expertise is needed to maximise the effectiveness and efficiency of economic instruments for the control of the P content of the detergents. The capacity of environmental authorities and industrial managers to develop and operate economic instruments should be enhanced through training, information exchange and dialogue building. P-reduction can be made profitable by financial instruments by putting a price on P-emissions. The "critical P-emission tax" principle could be introduced for removal of P in detergents. Use and interpretation of this principle, differs, however. A product charge could be applied to cover environmental expenditures relating to the damages caused by the P-containing detergents. Its environmental effectiveness depends on the extent to which the necessary expenditures are covered. It is efficient to charge consumers for P-containing detergents if the charge affects consumption of such detergents. According to the relevant literature, tax differentiation seems to be one of the more successful economic instruments and its application, therefore, is recommendable for introduction of P-free detergents. Many countries have a substantial practice of applying subsidies as instruments in realising their environmental policy objectives. In general, the acceptability of financial assistance is greater, when the related environmental problem is felt to be more severe as in case of eutrophication of surface waters. This might suggest that financial assistance is an important instrument in establishing a P-free - P-reduced Detergent Action Program in the Danube Basin. However high subsidy shares in investment costs of wastewater treatment plant construction programs, induce plant operators to design capital-intensive 11

12 facilities with too much reserve capacity and use of P-containing detergents as a consequence. This leads to inefficient solutions. Subsidy systems for detergent production and consumption could speed up development of detergent industry and trade and contribute to introduction of P-reduced and P-free detergents. Conclusions on public awareness and public information Public awareness of environmental matters in the downstream countries of the Danube Basin has been growing during the last years, however other issues are considered more important: unemployment, inflation, increasing prices and low salaries, which reduces willingness to pay for solving water pollution problems. Public information on environmental problems related to detergents is poor. There are P-free detergents in the market in some of the countries with similar prices as the P-containing detergents, however those are not used by the public. Improvement of public information and awareness must be an integral part of the P-removal policy. 5.4 The selected programmes of measures The major measures recommended for policy for phosphate removal from detergents and municipal waste waters are as follows (Table 5): Improvement and introduction of non-structural measures for detergent policy Improvement of direct regulation system, updating the standards for detergents Introduction of voluntary agreements between producers of the detergents and the responsible government authorities to introduce environmentally sound detergents Improvement of public water-awareness on environmental problems of detergents Introduction of the European Eco-labelling System for Detergents Improvement of financial measures for sustainable use of detergents Improvement and introduction of structural (technical) measures for detergent policy Introduction of P-free detergents P-removal from waste waters While each country is specific and so differs from others, the general concept is that environmental policy is a priority requirement and that the approach and the process of detergent policy making can be developed. References EC (2001): Environmental co-operation in the Danube Black Sea Region, Communication from the Commission, COM(2001) 615 final Country Reports (1995): Removal of Phosphate from Detergents in the Danube Basin, Final Report, Volume 2: Germany, Volume 3: Austria, Volume 4: Czech Republic, Volume 5: Slovakia, Volume 6: Slovenia, Volume 7: Croatia, Volume 8: Hungary, Volume 9: Romania, Volume 10: Ukraine, Volume 11: Moldavia, Volume 12: Bulgaria EU Water Directors (2000): Common Strategy on the Implementation of the Water Framework Directive, November 2000 Hamm, A. (1995): Introduction of Phosphate-free Detergents in the Danube Basin, Report from Germany, European Union Study HASKONING (1994): Environmental Programme for the Danube River Basin, Danube Integrated Environmental Study, Final Report Huppes, G. - E. van der Voet, W.G.H. van der Naald - G.H. Vonkeman - P. Maxson (1992): New Market-Oriented Instruments for Environmental Policies, Graham & Trotman ICPDR (2000): Work Plan for the Implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive developed by the ICPDR ad-hoc Expert Group charged to deal with the Implementation of the WFD and RBM work in the Danube Basin (ad-hoc EG WFD/RBM), September 2000 ICPDR (2001): Strategy for the Implementation of the WFD in the Danube Basin ICPDR (2002a): Transboundary Issues Document, Drafting Group for Transboundary Issues of RBM EG ICPDR, 12

13 DOC 140, 16 September 2002 ICPDR (2002b): Issue Paper on the Implementation of the Economic Analysis of the WFD in the Danube River Basin, Short version, ICPDR River Basin Management Expert Group Drafting Group on Economics, May 2002 Ijjas, I. (1999): Ecosystem based detergent-policies for the Danube Basin countries, Published in: S.K.Sikdar - U.Diwekar (eds.) (1999): Tools and Methods for Pollution Prevention, NATO Science Series, Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp Klarer,J.ed. (1994): Use of Economic Instruments in Environmental Policy in Central and Eastern Europe, Regional Environmental Centre for Central and Eastern Europe Kuik, O.J. - Oosterhuis, F.H. - Jansen, H.M.A. - Holm, K.- Ewers, J. (1992): Assessment of Benefits of Environmental Measures, European Communities Environmental Policy Series, Graham & Trotman Laws, E.A. (1993): Aquatic Pollution, An Introductory Text, John Wiley & Sons Mee, L.D. (1992): The Black Sea in crisis: a need for concerted international action, AMBIO Vol.21.No.4. June 1992 Navrud, S. (1993): Pricing the European Environment, Scandinavian University Press PHARE (1999): Strengthening Sustainability of Water Quality Management in the Danube Basin Component I: Implementation of the proposed Water Framework Directive, Phare Programme No ZZ SENATOR (1996): Removal of Phosphate from Detergents in the Danube Basin, Final Report, Volume I. (ed. by Ijjas, I.), Environmental Programme for the Danube River Basin, PHARE Programme, Project No: EU/AR/205/91 Umweltbundesamt (1991): Final Report Detergents in Western Europe: Environmental Labelling" October 1991 UNDP/GEF (1999): Danube River Basin Pollution Reduction Programme Report, June 1999, PCU - UNDP/GEF Assistance 13

14 Table 5. Short term and long term action plan for P-removal ACTIONS Short term actions Long term actions Responsible organisations Improvement and introduction of non-structural measures for detergent policy Updating the standards for detergents and for WWTPs - EU harmonisation Improvement of market-oriented measures (fines, taxes) Improvement of public water-awareness, public information and public involvement Voluntary agreement between the government and manufacturers Capacity building - training - education GO, EU, DM, DC GO, EU GO, NGO, P, DM GO, DM, EU NGO GO, EU Introduction of the European Eco-labelling System for Detergents GO, EU, NGO, DC, DM, P Improvement and introduction of structural (technical) measures for detergent policy Introduction of P-free detergents Introduction of environmentally friendly P- substitutes Construction and development of WWTPs in a multi - stage fashion Introduction of tertiary treatment Introduction of cost-effective WWT technologies Upgrading existing WWTPs GO, DM, EU NGO GO, DM, NGO GO GO, EU, NGO GO, EU GO GO NGO EU DC P DM - Governmental Organisations - Non-Governmental Organisations - European Union - Danube Commission - Public - Detergent Manufacturers