WATER RESOURCES IN EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA · 2016-07-17 · 2003 The International Bank for...

WATER RESOURCES IN

EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA

VVOOLLUUMMEE IIII

CCOOUUNNTTRRYY WWAATTEERR NNOOTTEESS

AANNDD

SSEELLEECCTTEEDD TTRRAANNSSBBOOUUNNDDAARRYY BBAASSIINNSS

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

2003 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank 1818 H Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20433, USA Manufactured in the United States of America Second Printing August 2003 This publication is in two volumes: (a) Volume I—Water Resources in Europe and Central Asia: Issues and Strategic Directions; and (b) the present Volume II—Water Resources in Europe and Central Asia: Country Water Notes and Selected Transboundary Basins. The Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development (ECSSD) Department is distributing this report to disseminate findings of work-in-progress and to encourage debate, feedback and exchange of ideas on important issues in the Europe and Central Asia region. The report carries the names of the authors and should be used and cited accordingly. The findings, interpretations and conclusions are the authors’ own and should not be attributed to the World Bank, its Board of Directors, its management, or any member countries. For submission of comments and suggestions, and additional information, including copies of this report, please contact Ms. Rita Cestti at: 1818 H Street N.W. Washington, DC 20433, USA Email: [email protected] Tel: (1-202) 473-3473 Fax: (1-202) 614-0698

Printed on Recycled Paper

TABLE OF CONTENTS Weights and Measures...................................................................................................................ii Acronyms and Abbreviations ......................................................................................................iii Geographic Glossary .....................................................................................................................v Overview........................................................................................................................................vi PART 1: COUNTRY WATER NOTES Albania ..........................................................................................................................................1 Armenia.......................................................................................................................................11 Azerbaijan...................................................................................................................................17 Belarus ........................................................................................................................................25 Bosnia and Herzegovina .............................................................................................................32 ` Bulgaria .......................................................................................................................................42 Croatia .........................................................................................................................................52 Czech Republic ...........................................................................................................................64 Estonia.........................................................................................................................................67 Georgia........................................................................................................................................70 Hungary.......................................................................................................................................77 Kazakhstan..................................................................................................................................81 Kyrgyz Republic .........................................................................................................................87 Latvia ..........................................................................................................................................95 Lithuania .....................................................................................................................................99 Former Yugoslavia Republic of Macedonia .............................................................................103 Moldova ....................................................................................................................................113 Poland........................................................................................................................................121 Romania ....................................................................................................................................124 Russian Federation....................................................................................................................133 Serbia and Montenegro .............................................................................................................143 Slovak Republic ........................................................................................................................164 Slovenia.....................................................................................................................................167 Tajikistan...................................................................................................................................171 Turkey.......................................................................................................................................178 Turkmenistan ............................................................................................................................186 Ukraine......................................................................................................................................191 Uzbekistan.................................................................................................................................200 PART 2: SELECTED TRANSBOUNDARY BASINS AND REGIONAL SEAS Aral Sea.....................................................................................................................................207 Baltic Sea ..................................................................................................................................209 Black Sea/Danube Basins .........................................................................................................211 Caspian Sea ...............................................................................................................................214

ii

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

BCM billion cubic meters cm centimeter GW gigawatt GWh gigawatt-hour GWh/year gigawatt-hour per year ha hectare km kilometer km2 square kilometer kW kilowatts l/sec Liters per second lcd Liters per capita per day m meter m3 cubic meter m3/sec cubic meter per second masl meters above sea level MCM million cubic meters mg/l milligrams per liter mm millimeter MW megawatt

iii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

BVO River Basin Organization BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand CAS Country Assistance Strategy COD Chemical Oxygen Demand DSI State Hydraulic Works EBRD European Bank for Reconstruction and Development ECA Europe and Central Asia ECE Economic Commission for Europe EIB European Investment Bank ESR Environmental Sector Report EU European Union FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FBiH Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina FY Fiscal Year FYR Former Yugoslav Republic GDP Gross Domestic Product GEF Global Environment Facility GTZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (German

Technical Assistance Agency) HEI Hygiene Epidemiological Institute HELCOM Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission HMI Hydro Meteorological Institute HPP Hydro Power Plant HPS Hydro Power Station HRMEPP Hazards Risk Mitigation and Emergency Preparedness Project IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development IBSFC International Balt ic Sea Fishery Commission I&D Irrigation and Drainage ICPDR International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River ICWC Interstate Commission for Water Coordination IDA International Development Association IDP Internally Displaced Person ICSD Interstate Commission on Sustainable Development ICWC Interstate Commission for Water Coordination IFAS International Fund for the Aral Sea IFI International Financial Institution INWEB International Network of Water-Environment Centers for the

Balkans JSC Joint Stock Company KfW Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (German Project Funding

Agency) LOCP Lake Ohrid Conservation Project MDG Millennium Development Goal MESP Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning

iv

MAWRPI Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources and Processing Industry

MESP Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning METAP Mediterranean Environmental Technical Assistance Program MNREP Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection MoAWF Ministry of Agriculture, Water Management and Forestry MoEP Ministry of Environmental Protection MoWEP Ministry of Water and Environmental Protection NEAP National Environmental Action Plan NGO Non Governmental Organization NWC National Water Council O&M Operation and Maintenance PHARE Poland, Hungary Aid for Reconstruction of the Economy

(European Commission) RBA River Basin Agency REC Regional Environment Centre REReP Regional Environment Reconstruction Programme RS Republika Srpska (Bosnian Serb Republic) SAPARD Special Accession Program for Agriculture and Rural

Development SEE South Eastern Europe SCWE State Committee of Water Economy SWD State Water Directorate UN United Nations UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNECE United Nations Economic Commission for Europe UNEP United Nations Environment Programme UNESCO United Nations Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization UNICEF United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund US United States USD United States Dollar USAID United States Agency for International Development WFD Water Framework Directive WHO World Health Organization WRM Water Resources Management WRMB Water Resources Management Board WSS Water Supply and Sanitation WWF World Wide Fund for Nature WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant

v

GEOGRAPHIC GLOSSARY*

Amu Darya Amu Darya River Asi River Orantes River, Orontes River Balkan Peninsula Balkans Peninsula Balkan Mountains Balkans Mountains, Stara Planina Bujana River Buna River Butrint Lagoon Butrinto Lagoon Coruh River Çoruh River, Coroch River, Chorokhi River Cres Island Cres Island, Otak Island Dnieper River Dniepr River Dniester River Nistru River Doiran Lake Dojran Lake Drava River Dráva River, Drau River Drin River Crni Drim River, Drini River, Drim River Krast Kras, Carso Irtysh River Ertix River, Irtysch River, Ertis River, Irtys River Iskur River Iskar River Kura River Mtkvari River, Kuraçay River, Cyrus River Lake Ohrid Ohridsko Lake Maritsa River Maritza River, Meriç River, Marica River, Évros River,

Hebros, Hebrus River Medvednica Mountains Medvenica Mountains Mura River Mur River Nestos River Mesta River, Néstos River Prespa Lake Prispansko Lake, Prespansko Lake Pripyat River Pripiat River Rezvaya River Rezovska River, Rezva River, Mutlu River Skadar Lake Shkodra Lake, Schkodër Lake, Scutari lake, Skadarsko

Lake, Skodra Lake Struma River Strimón River Syr Darya Syr Darya River Tien Shan Tien Shen Timok River Timoc River Tisza River Tisa River, Theiss River Tobol River Tobyl River Vardar River Axius River, Axiós River, Axious River Vijosë River Viosa River, Voyutsa River, Vijose River, Vjosë River,

Vijosa River Yenisey River Yenesei River, Yenisei River Zeravshan River Zeravsan River, Zerafshan River

* This list provides the default names of the key transboundary geographic features that will be used

throughout the report. Other given names of the transboundary geographic feature are also presented in the list.

vi

OVERVIEW

Volume II of the Water Resources in Europe and Central Asia Report is divided into two parts. Part 1 provides a compendium of Country Water Notes prepared for selected Europe and Central Asia (ECA) countries. These Country Water Notes provide a brief description of the socio-economic and geographical context and development objectives pursued in each country and their implications for water resources management. In addition, they describe the water resources base, trends in water use and management, floods and droughts, institutional issues, transboundary water issues, and key challenges and priorities. A two-page Water Fact Sheet that presents some socio-economic and water-related indicators, such as freshwater availability (total and per capita), water use by sector (agriculture including irrigation, industry, domestic use), hydropower dependency, irrigation trends, storage capacity, water pricing and cost recovery, among other indicators, is included at the end of each Water Country Note. Part 2 includes brief descriptions of selected international river basins and regional seas in the ECA region. Several sources were consulted to assemble the material presented in Volume II of this report. The most widely used references include Environmental Performance Reviews produced by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), National Environmental Action Plans (NEAPs), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) water and population databases (such as AQUASTAT), the 2000 World Development Indicators (online version), the 2001 and 2002 World Hydropower and Dams Atlas and Industry Guide, and WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation (online version of country data reports), the among others. Other country-specific references are listed at the end of each Country Water Note.

PPAARRTT 11

CCOOUUNNTTRRYY WWAATTEERR NNOOTTEESS

1

ALBANIA Socio-Economic and Geographic Context Albania is situated in the western edge of the Balkan Peninsula. With a total area of 2.9 million hectares (ha), it is the smallest country in Europe. Albania is mainly a hilly and mountainous country, and consists of two distinct geographical regions: highlands above 300 meters (m) which represent about three fourths of the territory, and the coastal flat plains and low hills, which include 476 kilometers (km) of Adriatic and Ionian Seas’ coastline. Albania's climate varies with the topography: hot and dry summers and frequent thunderstorms and wet and mild winters in the coastal plains, while in the mountains there is more summer precipitation and colder, quite severe winters with heavy snow. The average precipitation is 1,485 millimeters (mm). On the coast annual rainfall averages 1,000 mm, but in the mountains it may be as high as 3,000 mm. Most of the precipitation drains into the rivers and flows into the Adriatic Sea. In addition, a large amount of water from neighboring countries drains through Albania. Albania’s population was 3.13 million in 2000. More than half of the population (58%) lives in rural areas. Water resources play a key role in the economy of Albania: about 97% of total electricity production is generated from hydro-power plants, mostly on the Drin, Mati and Bistrice Rivers, and the 50% of the cropland that is irrigated produces about 80% of agricultural output. Water Resource Base For the purpose of water management, Albania is divided into six main hydrographical basins. One-third of their total area is located outside Albania; about 50% of Albania's territory is in international basins shared with Greece, Former Yugoslav Republic (FYR) of Macedonia or Serbia and Montenegro. Surface and groundwater resources. Albania can be considered a water-abundant country. Its overall renewable resources amount to 41.7 billion cubic meters (BCM) or 13,300 cubic meter (m3) per capita, of which about 65% is generated within Albania and the remaining from upstream countries (namely, Serbia and Montenegro and FYR Macedonia). Resources are unevenly distributed throughout the country. The major water resource is surface water, and is found in rivers, lakes, and lagoons. The most important rivers are the Drin, the Mati, the Ishmi, the Erzeni, the Shkumbini, the Semani, the Vijosë, and the Bistrice. The Drin River is the longest river with a stable and constant stream. About one-third of its drainage area is within Albania, and the rest is within the Adriatic portion of the Kosovo watershed, and the catchments areas of the Skadar, Prespa and Ohrid Lakes. Because of the mountainous topography, rivers are torrential with steep slopes. Their year-to-year variability is very high: the annual runoff in dry years is one-tenth of the annual runoff in wet years. Most of the rivers have highly irregular seasonal flow patterns. River flows are the highest in winter or early spring. Nearly all carry less than 10% (and sometime zero) of their winter averages during the summer season. Rivers are difficult to control and non-navigable, with the exception of the Brune. Albania is prone to soil erosion. Although this is a natural

2

phenomenon in mountainous countries with heavy rainfall, in the case of Albania it has been exacerbated by human activities (e.g. deforestation) and has resulted in large amounts of sediment ending up in reservoirs, rivers and seas. Lakes cover about 4% of the country’s territory. The largest lakes are Ohrid, Prespa and Skadar. These are transboundary lakes. In addition, there are also 247 smaller lakes. At present, lakes are in oligotrophic stage, except in certain areas where discharges into tributary rivers have increased the concentration of nitrogen and phosphorus. Several reservoirs totaling 5.60 BCM of storage capacity have been built mostly along the Drin, Mati and Devolli Rivers for flood protection, irrigation and production of hydropower. Groundwater resources are also abundant and represent about 23% of the total renewable resources1. They are well distributed throughout the country and are exploited from wells (in valleys and plains) and springs (in mountainous regions). Springs however are vulnerable to becoming dry during the summer seasons (Mati basin aquifer). Groundwater resources are the main source of drinking water. About 70% of the main cities in Albania are supplied by groundwater wells. They are also the major source for irrigation and agriculture in the Skadar and Vlorë areas. Wetlands. Most of the rivers of Albania have formed at their mouth a series of lagoons, swamps and wetlands. During the previous regime, large wetlands along the coast were drained and reclaimed to provide land for agriculture. As a result, valuable wetlands disappeared. Large lagoons along the coastline include Karavasta, Narta and Butrint, which are wetlands of global biodiversity significance. Some of them are Ramsar sites. These natural aquatic ecosystems critical for their high biodiversity value are being threatened by land-based pollution loads and in many cases they are being used for discharging untreated wastewater. Water Quality. Since 1990 the monitoring of water has been much less frequent. As a result the quality of the water resources is not well known. According to available information, the surface waters are highly contaminated as a result of direct discharge of urban and industrial wastewater into surface water bodies. The quality of some rivers is above the maximum European Union standards for river water quality. Many important rivers show signs of high pollution by organic matters, they experience a deficit in dissolved oxygen, with high chemical oxygen demand (COD) and biological oxygen demand (BOD) values. In general, groundwater is of good quality at the source. Its quality, however, is not continuously monitored throughout the country. There are some localities where little is known about it. This strategic water reserve, however, is currently facing some serious water quality problems: intrusion of saline water into the aquifers (in the coastal regions of Skadar, Lezha, Durrës, Lushnjë and Fier), the degradation of water quality as a result of neglecting sanitary protection zones around water wells (Ishmi aquifer which feeds Tirana), and the vulnerability to upstream pollution, particularly in the karstic zones, where untreated discharges filtrate quickly into the ground and reaches the underlying aquifer (Skadar aquifer). 1 At present, not much is known about the availability of groundwater or the potential extraction capacity.

Groundwater monitoring and assessment has been neglected during the past decade.

3

Water Use and Management by Sector The lack of an adequate monitoring system, the rapid changes in economic activities, and the continuous movements in population make it difficult to assess the use of water resources. Available data suggest that irrigation and mining rely mostly on surface water, while households and industry rely on groundwater from aquifers. According to the draft Water Strategy, in 1996 total water use was 0.93 BCM, with water for industry and domestic purposes accounting for 28%, and water for irrigation 72%. Although water seems to be plentiful to meet current and future demands, there are certain regions in Albania, particular in areas along the coast -- where water conflicts are very likely to occur in the near future, e.g., in Durrës-Vlorë, conflicts over the use of water will emerge between municipal supply, irrigation and tourism. Drinking Water and Sanitation. Although the piped water supply system covers the whole country and the level of coverage 2 reaches 85%, water supply is intermittent because of the dire condition of Albania’s water infrastructure. In the case of urban areas, water supply is provided on average for 2-4 hours a day, with many households getting no water at all. In addition, the quality of drinking water is often compromised. Often, water is distributed without any preliminary treatment as a result of the lack of adequate treatment and disinfection facilities and unreliable supply of chemicals. Domestic water demand is increasing not only because of population growth but also because of the increase in the level of water losses, estimated to be greater than 50% in all cities. The water situation is rural areas is even worse. In localities with piped water supply networks, drinking water is supposed to be supplied by public taps to groups of houses, but this is not happening because systems are poorly maintained. At the end of 1989, about 75% of the rural population had access to piped water. Today, access has been reduced to 50%. In order to cope with the lack of piped water supply, rural househo lds dig their own wells without any monitoring of the water quality. In some cases, wells are dug on the banks of heavily polluted rivers, whose waters are unsuitable for human consumption. Lack of sanitary protection zones is causing contamination of groundwater sources. A recent investigation has reported that 73% of drinking wells were bacteriologically contaminated. During the past decades, insufficient investments have been made in sewerage or wastewater treatment to keep pace with population growth. As a result, most households in urban areas discharge their wastewater directly into the central sewage systems, which cover about 40% of the population. Poorer neighborhoods without access to sewerage systems at all discharge their wastewater to septic tanks. There is no wastewater treatment in Albania. The untreated wastewater is discharged in an uncontrolled manner. In rural areas, households use septic tanks in their yards. Leaks in septic tanks are also becoming problematic. Irrigation and Drainage. Because less than 21% of the annual precipitation occurs between April and September, irrigation is necessary for agriculture in the drier plain areas. At present,

2 Statistics presented in this report on access to drinking water supply and s ewerage services come mostly

from the WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation. It should be noted however that this information is not reported consistently by countries/agencies due to the use of different defitions of “coverage.”

4

agriculture is the main economic activity in Albania -- it represents 55% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and is the largest water user. About 50% of the arable land is under irrigation and more than half is located in the coastal plains. Irrigation relies mostly on surface waters, river diversions supplemented by over 600 irrigation dams. Although the water is of satisfactory quality for irrigation, mining and industrial effluents are polluting surface waters making them inappropriate for irrigation. Off-season drainage is necessary in order to prevent floods and waterlogging. Massive investments between 1950-1975, expanded the irrigated land from 29,000 ha to 417,000 ha. The development of irrigation was accompanied by flood protection works, drainage and reclamation of marshland below sea level and saline areas (about 280,000 ha). Albania’s drainage schemes are concentrated primarily in the coastal area. Most of the wetlands in the coastal plain (about 100,000 ha) were drained to develop agriculture areas. Today, only 27,000 ha of wetlands remain. Irrigation systems deteriorated during the 1990s. Inadequate budget allocation for irrigation has led to deferred or poor maintenance, system deterioration and unreliable water delivery. By 1994, 269,000 ha were either inoperative or severely damaged, and only 80,000 ha were operating normally. Plans are under way to rehabilitate irrigation schemes. According to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, about 315,000 ha can be potentially rehabilitated. The source also reports that the remaining 100,000 ha should not be rehabilitated because of their low agricultural potential. The rehabilitation of irrigation schemes must be accompanied by watershed management measures to prevent or reduce soil erosion and flash run-off in the upland areas. At present, these are serious problems for irrigation schemes. Neither farmers nor the government can afford the cost to remove eroded materials from canals, reservoirs and drain channels. A more sustainable watershed management approach should be followed when investing in the irrigation sector. Farmers have started private groundwater development, in the form of medium-sized shallow tubewells. About 1,000 ha are irrigated by groundwater, but there seems to be a tendency among farmers to increase the area. The motivations for this tendency are several: the high price of vegetables, easy exploitation of groundwater, and the lack of rehabilitation of gravity channels. This is a well-suited option for small-private farmers located in existing irrigation schemes, non-irrigated lands or land needing drainage, provided the tubewells do not threaten the quality of the aquifer with salinization. Unless environmental concerns are taken into account when restoring the agriculture sector in Albania, wetlands along the coastline may be threatened by investments in the sector as a result of an increase in pollution loads of drainage water. Apart from threatening coastal lagoons of eutrophication, drainage water could also negatively impact drinking water sources. Hydropower: The gross theoretical hydropower potential has been estimated at 40,000 gigawatt-hour per year (GWh/year) and the technically feasible potential at 15,000 GWh/year. The

5

economic feasible potential in turn has been estimated at 6,380 GWh/year out of which about 35% has been developed so far on the Drin River. In 2000, hydropower generation represented about 83% of total annual electric generation in the country. Plans are under consideration to develop the hydropower potential of Vijosë and Devolli Rivers. The Energy Strategy calls for the development of new hydro capacity. Floods. Flooding is a frequent problem in Albania, especially from November to March when intense or prolonged rainfall is most probable. The area most likely to be flooded is the western plain where the rivers from Albania’s mountain regions flow into the Adriatic Sea. The western plain is also Albania’s population center: more than 50% of Albanians live there, and the tendency is for the proportion to increase. The plains of the Drin in the north and the Vijosë in the south are especially flood prone. The increased peak discharge and flooding is the result of heavy deforestation. The annual cost of flooding is not established; regular flood monitoring was not carried out before 1949, and the record keeping that began then did not publish the full data. It is known that catastrophic nationwide flooding occurred in 1962-63. That flood was calculated to be a 50-year event. Smaller floods also recur. A flood in November 1992 caused flash floods in six districts. It killed eleven people, damaged roads, bridges and irrigation networks, inundated 17,000 ha of agricultural land, damaged 1330 houses and destroyed 216, damaged the Fierza hydroelectric facility, and carried off food stored for the coming winter. Altogether, it affected 35,000 people. Flooding in September 1995 killed four and affected 1500. The plain of Zadrima is inundated several times per year due to damage done to the drainage system during the transition period. The main drainage channe l of the area is not maintained, and as a result, inundation occurs, creating problems in the agriculture sector in particular. Lezha was flooded in December 1995, September 1996, and again in December 1997. In the latter case, the damage was estimated at USD120,000. Flood control activities are neglected due to shortage of funds. As of June 2000, the institute that formerly designed flood protection systems was closed. The Water Use Directorate that is responsible for maintenance of the flood protection system lacked funds. Water Users’ Associations designated to take over the Directorate’s functions were charged with maintenance of the irrigation system, but not with flood control which appeared to have been orphaned by the new system. A newly created Department of Civil Protection in the Ministry of Local Administration did not yet have any technical experts. Apart from flood protection works, enforcement of regulations on extracting activities can contribute greatly to reduce the damage caused by floods. At present, houses are being built with gravel and sand extracted illegally from nearby riverbeds and beaches. This illegal practice has caused modifications of the river course. As a result, water flows accelerate, causing floodplains to lose their retention function.

6

Water Legislation and Policies The main legislation on water resources management is the 1996 Law on Water Resources, which established the National Water Council and its Technical Secretariat. This Law is based on modern principles of water management. In brief, the Law provides for the protection, development and sustainable use of water resources; organizes water resources management by river basin; introduces permits, concessions and authorizations for using water and for discharging wastewater; and calls for the development of a water strategy. Recently, a draft Law on Water Protection has been prepared and is under review. It deals exclusively with reinforcing existing legislation to protect the quality of water bodies in order to protect human health. On the institutional side, the draft Law clarifies the role of the National Water Council and assigns more responsibility to the Ministry of Environment for the protection of water resources. A “National Water Strategy fo r Albania” was prepared in 1997 with the assistance of the European Union. The draft strategy promotes “water resources conservation and the sustainable use of water resources in harmony with the environment and other natural resources.” It clearly identifies the national objectives for water use and management, and suggests changes in the institutional framework for implementing the strategy. It sets radical institutional priorities with the objective of establishing clear lines of policy-decision within the institutional setup including the National Water Council (NWC) and the relevant line ministries, in particular those in charge of environmental protection, irrigation and drinking water supply. At its final state, the strategy met with opposition and as a result it was never adopted. A new Law was adopted in 2002 on the Organization and Functioning of Local Government. This Law assigns full responsibility for the administration, service, investment and regulation of water supply, sewerage and drainage systems as well as flood protection channels to local governments. In order to implement this Law, there is a need to improve the capacity of municipalities on water management and urban planning. Given the large number of dams throughout the country and the concerns for their safety, at present, the Government has taken the first steps towards establishing an institutional and legal framework for dam safety. The following instruments are available for the management of water resources management in Albania: administrative fees for issuing of water abstraction license, abstraction charges for surface and groundwater, user charges for water supply and irrigation, sewerage charges, and non-compliance fines. Application of abstraction charges is not practiced yet since the actual rates have not been set. Water Management Institutions In accordance with the 1996 Law on Water Resources, a new institutional setup for water resources management was established. At the central level, the NWaterC, a policy decision body comprising all Ministers involved in the water sector, headed by the Prime Minister and co-

7

chaired by the Minister of Territorial Adjustment and Tourism and the Minister of Transport and Telecommunications; and its Technical Secretariat, the country water administration body attached to the Prime Minister’s office. At the local level, the Law calls for the establishment of water basin authorities. Two important decisions have been made by the NWC. The first decision was for the establishment of a water basin council and an implementing agency for each one of the six basins but it was never implemented. The second decision defined the responsibilities of the water basin councils and water agencies regarding the issuing of abstraction permits. This decision again was not implemented since the water agencies were not in place. Despite its efforts, the NWC has made limited progress in the implementation of the 1996 Law. Evidence for this is the limited progress in the introduction of a water strategy, the lack of an inventory of water resources, and the failure to issue any authorization or permit for the use and discharge of water. Implementation mechanisms are not in place and more importantly, decisions in the water sector are not backed up by the necessary financial resources. Transboundary and International Water Issues Since about 35% of Albania’s renewable resources come from neighboring countries, and about 50% of its territory is within international river basins, transboundary water issues are of particular concern to Albania. In 1994, Albania ratified the UNECE Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes, and in 2002, the Protocol on Water and Health. Albania is currently implementing several environmental projects in international lakes: Ohrid Lake jointly with the FYR Macedonia, Prespa Lake jointly with Greece and the FYR Macedonia and Skadar Lake jointly with Serbia and Montenegro. So far, no bilateral legal agreement has been conc luded with these neighboring jurisdictions to address transboundary waters issues. With the support of the Regional Environmental Center, a new project is being prepared for the Drin River entitled “Drin River Watershed and Erosion Master Plan,” to be implemented by Albania, Serbia and Montenegro and FYR Macedonia. Key Issues and Challenges Albania is endowed with relatively abundant fresh water resources. Following extensive development of its water resources during the previous regime, Albania is well equipped for hydropower and irrigation development. A drastic reduction of water withdrawal from irrigation and industrial purpose occurred during the past 10 years as a result of the collapse of the industrial sector. The decline in economic activity has also caused a reduction in pollution and improvement in the quality of its water resources. While a serious water crisis is not imminent at present, the fast development of the private sector, the urbanization process, the rehabilitation of irrigation schemes and the plans to expand hydropower capacity may increase the number of localized water crises. In order to avert a water crisis, it is necessary that Albania strengthens its current institutional framework for management of water resources. The following should be considered:

8

• Carry out a comprehensive water resource assessment, including inter alia an evaluation of the current institutional setup, water resource and demand inventory, regional water balances and assessment of water quality issues.

• Review and update of the legal instruments (amendments of Law on Water Resource and

Environmental Protection, passing of additional regulations, etc.).

• Institutional/capacity building support for the most urgently needed water administration units, in particular for licensing and enforcement, and preparation of river basin hydrological plans.

• Improve management and enhance protection of groundwater sources.

• Short-term and medium term investments should focus on: dam safety, flood protection,

wetlands conservation and restoration and watershed management. References Government of Albania. 2003. The Albanian Response to the Millennium Development Goals. Tirana, Albania. Report available at: http://www.undp.org/mdg/countryreports.html. United Nations. 2003. The OFDA/CRED International Disaster Database. Department of Humanitarian Affairs and EM-DAT. Database available at: http://www. cred.be/emdat/intro.html. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. 2002. Environmental Performance Review of Albania. UNECE. Geneva, Switzerland. WHO/UNICEF. 2001. Access to Improved Sanitation - Albania. WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation. Geneva, Switzerland. Report available at: http://childinfo.org/eddb/sani/ceecis/albania_sanitation1.pdf. World Bank. 1999. Albania Irrigation Development Project. Project Appraisal Document. Annex 2. Washington, DC, USA. World Bank. 2003. Flood Profile for Albania. Prepared by Lucy Hancock on the basis of a report by Molnar Kolaneci for the World Bank, 2000. Washington, DC, USA.

9

ALBANIA: WATER FACT SHEET

SOCIO-ECONOMIC INDICATORS1990 2000 2015 2020

Total Population (in million) 3.29 3.13 3.44 3.57 CHART: TRENDS IN POPULATION, SHOWING Urban population 36% 42% 52% 55% Rural population 64% 58% 48% 45%Source: Aquastat database, FAO (2002).

1998 2000 Goal for 2015Access to piped water supply 65% 67% 84% Urban 85% 90% 93% Rural 50% 50% 75%Note: Goal refers to MDGs.

1998 2000 Goal for 2020Access to sewerage 61% 59% 80% Urban 95% 90% 97% Rural 37% 37% 68%Note: Goal refers to MDGs.

1996Share of poor in rural areas 89%

1990 1995 1999 2000GDP per capita (constant 1995 US$) 841 769 863 914GDP total (billions of 1995 US$) 2.8 2.5 2.9 3.1 Share from agriculture 36% 55% 53% 55% Share from industry 45% 22% 25% 26%

1990 1991 1995 1999 1999Labor force (millions of people) 0.42 0.40 0.34 0.34 #REF! Share in agriculture 55% 24% 78% Share in industry 23% 45%

Average annual growth 1990-97 1998-00

Of GDP -1.4% 7.4% Of population -0.4% -0.1%

1999

Infant mortality rate (per 1,000 live births) 24.3

LAND AND WATER RESOURCES

Land area (millions of ha) 2.88

Land area in international basins (millions of ha) 1.43 Percentage of country in international basins 49.6%Average precipitation (mm) 1,485Average total volume of rainfall (BCM) 1,485

Total internal water resources (BCM) 26.9 Of which surface water (BCM) 23.1 Of which groundwater 6.2

Overlap between surface and groundwater 2.4

Total external water resources (BCM) 14.8 Of which surface water (BCM) 14.8 Of which groundwater (BCM)

Total water resources (BCM) 41.7 Of which total surface water (BCM) 37.9 Of which total groundwater (BCM) 6.2 Overlap between surface and groundwater 2.4Dependency ratio 35%

1990 2000 2015 2020

Per capita water resources (cubic meters/year) 12,679 13,306 12,126 11,697

1987 1990 1995Total annual withdrawals (in BCM) 1.40 1.21 0.93 Agricultural 0.99 1.00 0.67

Domestic and industry 0.41 0.21 0.26

Access to Piped Water Supply

-

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2000 MDG2015P

op

ula

tion

(in

mill

ion

) Urban Rural

Access to Sewerage

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.41.6

1.8

2.0

2000 MDG2020

Po

pu

latio

n (

in m

illio

n)

Urban Rural

-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Po

pu

lati

on

(in

mill

ion

)

Urban Pop

Rural Pop

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1987 1990 1995

Trends of Water Withdrawals (BCM)

Agricultural Domestic and industry

10

WATER QUALITY AND POLLUTIONWastewater produced *Wastewater treated *

1990 1993 1996 1997Annual emissions of BOD per day (Tons) 34.8 12.5 5.8 6.5Annual emissions of BOD per capita (kg) 3.86 1.40 0.67 0.76

AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMSWetlands designated as Ramsar sites (2002) In ha 20,000 As % of land area 0.70%

DAMS AND HYDROPOWERReservoir capacity (BCM) 4.56 (630 dams, and 306 >15 m) Irrigation dams 0.56 Hydropower dams 5.04Reservoir capacity in cubic meters per capita 1,455

Gross theoretical hydropower potential (GWh/y) 40,000 Technically feasible (GWh/y) 15,000 Economically feasible (GWh/y) 6,380Current production from hydropower (GWh/y) 5,283 (in 2000)

1990 1995 1998 1999Total electricity production (M KWh) 3,198 4,414 5,068 5,396 Share from hydroelectric 89% 95% 97% 97%

IRRIGATION 1990 1995 1998 1999Irrigated land ('000 ha) 423 340 340 340 Irrigated land per capita (ha) 0.129 0.107 0.108 0.109 Irrigated land as share of cropland 60% 48% 49% 49%

FRESHWATER FISHERY 1990 1995 1998 1999Fishery production (metric tons) 6,836 734 1,102 1,302 Fishery production per capita (kg) 2.08 0.23 0.35 0.42

FINANCING THE WATER SECTORAverage cost recovery: 2002 Irrigation water services 40% O&M costs Municipal water services 30%-40% O&M costs * These are ball park estimates.Average actual water price (US cent/m

3) 2001

Households 11-20 Industry 52-63 Irrigation Wastewater charges (US cent/m3) Households 2.2-3.3 Industry 4.4-7.4

Trends in BOD Emission

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Kg/

capi

ta/y

r

Trends in Irrigated Area (ha)

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

Trend in Fisheries Production (Metric Tons)

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

Trends in Electricity Production(Billion KWh/year)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

OtherHydropower

11

ARMENIA Socio-Economic and Geographic Context Armenia is a small, mountainous, semi-arid country. About 75% of the land area of 2.98 million ha is above 1500 m; 60% of the territory receives less than 600 mm of rain and 20% less than 400 mm. These basic parameters shape water resource use. Irrigation is the main water user. Armenia has an official population of 3.8 million and agriculture accounts for 33% of GDP. About 33% of the population lives in rural areas but even town dwellers have small farms to supplement their incomes. Water resources play a key role in Armenia’s economic development. About 80% of the country’s value crops are irrigated, and hydropower accounts for 20-35% of total electricity production. The country’s largest body of freshwater, Lake Sevan, has been declared an environmental disaster because of the huge water withdrawals that took place between 1947 and 1967 and then again between 1992 and 1995.

Water Resources Base

Available renewable resources in Armenia amount to 10.5 BCM or are about 2,780 cubic meters per capita per year. Although Armenia is not "water-stressed" overall, there are regional imbalances. Water resources are scarce in particular in the densely populated Hrazdan basin in the center of Armenia, where Yerevan is situated, and in the south and northwest of the country. There is significant seasonal and annual variability in river run-off, including frequent droughts with low overall river flow, and risk of flooding in the spring, when about 55% of total annual run-off occurs. Around 80 dams have been built to address this variability with a storage capacity of 1.16 BCM.

Groundwater, generally of good quality, accounts for a substantial share of water use and is the source of 96% of drinking water. Lake Sevan, “The Heart of Armenia,” with a surface area of approximately 0.13 million ha, a volume of approximately 32 BCM, and an average annual volume of water for utilization of over 525 MCM, has a central hydrological role in the country. Apart from providing regulated outflow and additional strategic storage, Lake Sevan offers a number of direct and indirect benefits. Its waters provide a significant amount of hydropower and irrigation to croplands in the Ararat Valley. The lake is very sensitive to changes in climate. Over the past 40 years, Lake Sevan’s level has dropped 19 m and its volume by almost 44%, due partly to average temperature rises and partly to excessive withdrawals for irrigation and electricity generation. While river water quality is generally good, Lake Sevan has suffered from increasing pollution over the last 30 years.

Water Uses and Management

Total water use in Armenia was estimated at 3.9 BCM in 1988, with irrigation accounting for 70%. Following land privatization and the breakup of collective farms, there was widespread deterioration in irrigation infrastructure and potentially irrigated area declined from 330,00-340,000 ha to about 275,000 ha between 1988 and 1998. Area actually irrigated only accounted for 187,000 ha in 1998. Irrigation still accounts for 70% of total water use, with domestic and industrial use accounting for the remainder. In the past, irrigation was heavily dependent on electricity for pumping to lift water to higher systems that could not be reached by gravity

12

conveyance systems. About 42% of the total equipped irrigation area depends on pumping. To lower the cost of operating the irrigation system, a program for pump-to-gravity irrigation conversion has been developed, where such conversion is technically, economically and environmentally feasible. Its implementation is in an early stage.

The increased yields which irrigation provides bring both subsistence and cash incomes. For a land-scarce, relatively labor-abundant country like Armenia (arable land is only 0.13 ha per capita) irrigation provides an opportunity for higher returns. However, drainage problems have developed particularly in the Ararat plain where water tables are high. Irrigation water costs vary by region but farmers pay on average USD0.008 per m3, or 30% of operation and maintenance costs. Because of the lack of clarity in the allocation of responsibilities for the management of the irrigation system, the irrigation sector is characterized by wasteful practices and a high rate of water losses at the level of conveyance infrastructure. Plans are underway to substantially improve the mechanisms for funding of operation and maintenance activities and to create a full set of enabling conditions for effective participatory irrigation management.

Municipal water use has also decreased since independence, as industria l and commercial activity has declined and infrastructure has deteriorated. Recent surveys indicate that poor households are the most affected by poor drinking water supply services. Utility water prices for domestic consumers increased by about 100% in real terms between 1994 and 1999, and households paid in 2001 on average USD0.08 per m3, which represented a fraction of the operation and maintenance costs. Present revenues from water supply services are insufficient to maintain the systems adequately. About 73% of households have indoor taps, 45% in rural areas and 87% in urban areas, but supply is intermittent; this has contributed to contamination and an increase in intestinal infections. Most towns have sewerage systems but they do not operate adequately, and water is generally discharged untreated into rivers. Industrial water accounts for a small proportion of water use but effluent discharges also contribute to pollution. Hydropower accounts for about 20-35% of electricity generation in Armenia, with most hydropower plants installed along two cascades, the Vorotan and Hrazdan. Electricity generation from Hrazdan is tied to irrigation releases from Lake Sevan, so is generated mostly in the summer (when electricity requirements are less). The current policy of the Government is to develop small and micro hydro plants through the private sector, as well as to privatize existing hydro power plants.

There has been overgrazing and deforestation over the last ten years, which has exacerbated soil erosion and has led to more mudflow episodes, as people have turned to fuelwood for heat and to farming for subsistence. A further key environmental issue is wetlands restoration and management, both around Lake Sevan and in the Ararat Valley. Again, there are issues of balance between water and land use for recreation or irrigated agriculture and wetland conservation. Armenia has adopted Soviet guidelines for maintenance of environmental flows in rivers and for streambed protection, which need to be revised and more importantly enforced.

Floods, Mudflows and Droughts

Armenia is more vulnerable to mudslides rather than floods. Floods affect the northern part of the country. Some of 500 mudflow events registered in the country were originated from active

13

snow melting accompanied with rainfall (e.g., mudflow in Mastara water basin on February 14, 1935; in Avazan basin on May 15, 1950; in Zamanlou on April 19, 1960, in Ayriget, Sissian and Vorotan basins on May 13-14, 1967 and April 18, 1968, among others). Sometimes floods and mudflows are formed as a result of reservoir collapses and destruction of barrages against landslides. Mudflows seem to be a more serious problem than floods and there are many areas where mudflow risk is very high. Mudflows regularly cause damages to towns and agricultural areas, residential areas, industrial and construction objects, and communication ways. Their disastrous influence caused tremendous material damage and human victims. According to data from the Emergency Management Administration, average annual damages caused by mudflows in the country ranged between 1.6-1.7 billion drams. However, in 1997 the damage composed 9 billion drams, and in 1998 about 14 billion drams. Mudflow and flood streams have also caused great damage to the rest of the 25 towns and about 100 villages and agricultural lands, which are located in the gullies’ cones and near-bed areas.

Armenia is also very prone to droughts. In 2000 a severe drought affected the northern region of the country, with devastating impacts on the agricultural sector. As a result of the drought, subsistence farmers in the mountainous areas of northern Armenia, who depend on rainfed irrigation, faced tremendous hardships. In addition, water flows in rivers decreased by 40-50%. Available water for irrigation was 31% less than the previous year, causing severe damage to crops. The impacts of the drought were exacerbated by the disrepair of the infrastructure and the high level of water losses; the poor condition of reservoirs, which prevents collection of spring flood flows to be used in periods of shortage; the poorly regulated contractual agreements between water companies and water-consumers groups; and the lack of mechanisms for monitoring drought conditions and impacts, and communicating them early on to decision-makers and water users. Droughts also affect mountainous areas where subsistence farming is done under rainfed agriculture.

Water Policy and Institutional Responsibilities

In May 2001, the Government of Armenia adopted a comprehensive reform program to improve water resources management including the improvement of the financial sustainability of the companies responsible for the provision of drinking water supply/wastewater and irrigation/drainage services (Government Decree No. 440, May 17, 2001). Two new entities were established: a State Committee of Water Economy (SCWE) and a Water Resources Management Board (WRMB) under the Ministry of Environment Protection. The SCWE is responsible for the financial and operational regulatory tasks related to provision of commercially oriented water services. The WRMB in turn is responsibility for the permitting system, which regulate water withdrawal and the water cadastre (which needs updating); the pollution discharge permit system (which is not widely used at present); monitoring, planning and management of the resources base; as well as the protection of water basins.

The 1992 Water Code, which provides guidelines for water management, has been recently updated. The updated Code is coherent, comprehensive and conforms to international practices. It states that water resources and water bodies are the property of the state and their management can be entrusted to private operators and clearly defines the functions and responsibilities of the above-mentioned water entities. The new Code proposes the creation of a Regulatory Commission, to be responsible for controlling operators providing drinking and irrigation water

14

and for setting water tariff policy. The Code also proposes the creation of a National Water Council – a consultative body, to be responsible for development of a National Water Program and a National Water Policy.

Recommendations

Armenia has undertaken key policy and institutional reforms in water management over the last five years, and has begun development of analytical tools to evaluate future options. Recommendations for improving water resources management include:

• Issue necessary regulations for implementation of the new Water Code and implement the consolidate changes of functions among ministries and agencies.

• Build capacity and new skills among water institutions to implement the new Water Code effectively and develop technical capacity to promote integrated water resources management.

• Continue with the rehabilitation of existing infrastructure and reduction of water losses.

• Minimize competition between sectors and design programs to balance water demands for drinking, irrigation, hydropower and environmental use with full participation of stakeholders.

• Conduct careful evaluation of impacts of the pump-to-gravity conversion program, to assure the program will not lead to deterioration of water resources or ecosystems.

• Improve knowledge and management of groundwater sources.

• Use economic instruments to manage demand.

• Increase private sector participation and local stakeholder responsibility for system operation.

• Promote adequate watershed management.

References

Caucasus Environmental NGO Network (CENN). 2002. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Legislation and Practices in the Caucasus Countries. Proceedings of the CENN Regional Seminar. Kobuleti, Georgia, September 18-22, 2002.

World Bank. 2003. Flood Profile for Armenia. Prepared by Lucy Hancock on the basis of a report by Zourab Torosyan for the World Bank in 2000. Washington, DC, USA.

World Bank. 2002. Armenia: Towards Integrated Water Resources Management. ECSSD Working Paper No. 35. Washington, DC, USA.

15

ARMENIA: WATER FACT SHEET


Total Population (millions of people) 3.55 3.79 3.81 3.79 CHART: TRENDS IN POPULATION, SHOWING Urban population 67% 67% 70% 71%Rural population 33% 33% 30% 29%Source: Aquastat database, FAO (2002).

1990 2000 Goal for 2015Access to piped water supply n.a. 73% 87% Urban n.a. 87% 94% Rural n.a. 45% 73%Note: Goal refers to MDGs.

1990 2000 Goal for 2020Access to sewage n.a. 67% 84% Urban n.a. n.a. n.a. Rural n.a. n.a. n.a.Note: Goal refers to MDGs.

1998-9 2001Share of poor in rural areas 42% 47.9%


1990 1995 1999 2000Labor force (millions of people) 1.56 1.60 1.68 1.70 Share in agriculture 18% Share in industry 43%

Average annual growth 1991-1997 1998-2000 Of GDP -5.8% 5.5% Of population 0.9% 0.4%

1999



Land area (millions of ha) 2.98

Land area in international basins (millions of ha) 2.98 Percentage of country in international basins 100.0%Average precipitation (mm) 526Average total volume of rainfall (BCM) 16

Total internal water resources (BCM) 9.07 Of which surface water (BCM) 6.27 Of which groundwater 4.20 Overlap between surface and groundwater 1.40

Total external water resources (BCM) 1.46 Of which surface water (BCM) 1.46 Of which groundwater (BCM) 0.00

Total water resources (BCM) 10.53 Of which total surface water (BCM) 7.73 Of which total groundwater (BCM) 4.20

Overlap between surface and groundwater 1.40Dependency ratio 13.8%

1990 2000 2015 2020


1988 1995 1998Total annual withdrawals (in BCM) 3.9 2.6 2.0 Irrigation 2.7 1.6 1.5 Domestic and municipal 0.8 0.6 0.5 Industrial (self-supplied) 0.4 0.4 0.1

-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Po

pu

lati

on

(in

mill

ion

)

Urban Pop

Rural Pop


-

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

2.4

2.8

2000 MDG2015

Po

pu

lati

on

(in

mill

ion

) Urban Rural

Access to Sewage

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

2000 MGD2020

Pop

ulat

ion

(mill

ion)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

1988 1995 1998

Trends of Water Withdrawal (BCM)

Irrigation Domestic and municipal Industrial (self-supplied)

16

WATER QUALITY AND POLLUTIONWastewater produced in 1994 (BCM) 0.82Wastewater treated in 1994 (BCM) 0.42

1990 1996 1997 1998Annual emissions of BOD per day (M Tons) 37.9 12.9 10.0 10.0Annual emissions of BOD per capita (kg) 3.90 1.24 0.96 0.96

AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMSWetlands designated as Ramsar sites (2002) In ha 492239 As % of land area 16.5%

DAMS AND HYDROPOWERReservoir capacity as of 1995 (BCM) 1.16 Irrigation dams Hydropower damsReservoir capacity in cubic meters per capita 305 (in 2000)

Gross theoretical hydropower potential (GWh/y) 21800 Technically feasible (GWh/y) 7500 Economically feasible (GWh/y) 6000Currrent production from hydropower (GWh/y) 1500 (in 2000)

1990 1995 1998 1999Total electricity production (GWh/year) 10362 5561 6191 5717 Share from hydroelectric 15% 35% 25% 21%

IRRIGATION 1990 1995 1998 1999Irrigated land ('000 ha) 320 286 274 274 Irrigated land per capita (ha) 0.090 0.076 0.072 0.072 Irrigated land as share of cropland n.a. 51% 51% 51%

FRESHWATER FISHERY 1992 1995 1998 1999Fishery production (metric ton) 4450 1941 1135 877 Fishery production per capita (kg) 1.2 0.5 0.3 0.2

FINANCING THE WATER SECTOR 2000 2002Average cost recovery: Irrigation water services 25% 30% O&M costs Municipal water services 40%-50% O&M costs plus dep.* These are ball park estimates.

Average actual water price (US cent/m3) 1999

Irrigation 0.80 Municipal 8.00 Wastewater 2.00


0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

Kg/

capi

ta/y

r


0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

EquippedActual Irrigated

Trend in Fisheries Production (MT)

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

1992 1994 1996 1998 2000

Trends in Electricity Production (Billion KWh/year)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Other

Hydropower

17

AZERBAIJAN Socio-Economic and Geographic Context Azerbaijan except for its Caspian Sea coastline is ringed by mountains. About 43% of its area is situated above 1,000 above sea level and its climate varies from subtropical and dry in central and eastern parts of the country to subtropical and humid in the southeast. Although the average precipitation is 540 mm per year, it is mostly concentrated in the highest elevation of the Caucasus, where the average rainfall is 1,800 mm, and the Lenkoran lowlands in southeast, where the average precipitation exceeds 1,000 mm. The rest of the country receives scant rainfall ranging between 152 mm to 252 mm annually. Because of this, agriculture areas require irrigation. Azerbaijan has an official population of 8 million and agriculture accounts for 19% of GDP. About half of the population lives in rural areas.

Azerbaijan’s real GDP contracted by almost 60% from 1990-1995, but the country began a period of steady growth in the latter half of the 1990s, fueled by foreign investments in the country’s oil and gas sectors. Current GDP per capita is around USD660. Water resources play a key role in its economic development: about 73% of the cropland is irrigated, around 60-70% of agriculture output is derived from irrigated crop production, hydropower accounts for around 10% of total electricity production, and fishery – particularly caviar, ranks second behind fossil fuel as Azerbaijan’s most valuable natural resource.


Average renewable resources in Azerbaijan amounts to 32.1 BCM per year, but they fall to 23-28 BCM during dry years. On a per capita basis, available water resources in Azerbaijan are estimated at 3,800 m3. The largest rivers, the Kura (which rises in the Kars upland in northeast Turkey, flows into Georgia and then crosses the border to Azerbaijan in the northwest) and Araks (which rises in the northeast of Turkey, forms the borders with the riparian countries and flows into Azerbaijan in the east of the country) account for 80% of total resources. The Samur River provides 7.5% of reliable yield. Fresh groundwater resources are estimated at 4.2 BCM, of which about 24-30% are derived from filtration of surface waters. Groundwater aquifers account for 12.5% of the overall water resources. Although Azerbaijan is not "water-stressed" overall, there are regional imbalances. Per capita water resources availability is the lowest in the regions fed by the Araks River, the Apsheron Peninsula and the Lenkoran-Astara zone. Azerbaijan also has a high dependency ratio: about 73% of its resources come from bordering flows and 70% of its territory is located in international basins.

There is significant seasonal and annual variability in river run-off, including frequent droughts with low overall river flow, and risk of flooding. There has been extensive development of reservoirs to address this variability. Total storage capacity of dams is about 21.6 BCM or 2,670 m3/capita, making it one of the countries with the highest storage capacity per capita in the region. Annual run-off changes dramatically from year to year. The volume of the Mingechaur reservoir, which is fed by the Kura-Araks River dropped in 2000-01 to the lowest level since its construction in the 1950s, in contrast floods occurred during the spring of 2002, when all reservoirs in the Kura River were filled.

18

Pollution of main rivers was a serious concern in Azerbaijan during the 1960s. The largest sources of point-pollution were the industries and municipalities in Georgia and Armenia as well as those within Azerbaijan. With the reduction of industrial production, the volume of wastewater declined. However, since most of the wastewater treatment facilities are not working, less wastewater is treated. At present, untreated municipal wastewater is the largest point source of pollution. Industrial pollution still remains significant. Concentrations of phenols and oil products in the Kura River have declined during the past decade to level below those prevailing in mid-1970s. In general, pollution concentrations are highly seasonal. They are particularly recorded during summer when there is less water in the rivers and their dilution capacity is low. Rivers also receive considerable pollution from non-point agriculture runoff. Although the use of pesticides and agrochemicals have declined during the 1990s, their application still remain inefficient, which results in about 50% losses into the soil and water.

Groundwater sources are generally of adequate quality, with the exception of the highly polluted Sumgayit area of the Apsheron Peninsula. In some coastal areas, the rise of the Caspian Sea has increased the salinity of aquifers. Groundwater sources are utilized mainly for industrial and domestic purposes, although some land is irrigated with them.

Water Use and Management About two-thirds of available resources are withdrawn annually for various uses mostly from surface sources (90%). In 2002, total water use in Azerbaijan was estimated at 17.1 BCM, with agriculture including irrigation accounting for 81%. Most of the irrigation infrastructure built during the Soviet period is in poor condition, and there has been inadequate public investment and maintenance since independence. As a result, irrigation use is experiencing a steady decline. Domestic and industrial uses account for 7% and 12% of total water use, respectively. Industrial water use has also experienced a steady decline as a result of the contraction of the industrial activity.

Azerbaijan relies heavily upon irrigated agriculture: during the 1990s, between 72%-75% of the total cropped area was irrigated. Between the 1950s and 1990, irrigated area doubled: from 0.71 million ha to 1.4 million ha. Since then, the command areas of irrigation system have remained constant at around 1.45 million ha. The percentage of command area actually irrigated dropped from 85% to under 75% between 1990 and 1999, and reached 100% in 2001. Surface water is the primary source for irrigation, and about 0.6 million ha are dependent on reservoirs.

A total area of about 610,000 ha has drainage systems. Drainage for agriculture has eliminated many wetlands. From the 1950s to date, the wetlands along the Caspian Sea shore and those in the lowland areas of the Kura River basin have declined from about 80,000 ha to 22,000 ha. Overall more than 100,000 ha of wetlands have been drained. Pollution and increased agricultural runoff are threatening the remaining wetlands. Apart from providing migratory and wintering grounds to important population of waterfowls such as flamingo, geese, pelican and cormorant, wetlands also provide highly productive fishing grounds for the Azeri population. They offer spawning ground for large quantity of fish such as sturgeon, which yield caviar.

19

The increasing water use for agriculture, industry, and household purposes during the last three decades has resulted in less water being allocated to fisheries, environmental flows, and navigation, particularly in the Kura River. About 9 BCM of water are required to maintain the biological regime of the river and remain suitable for fish spawning and water transport. At present, the Kura River does not receive this amount of water. As a result, aquatic and other ecosystems are under considerable stress. According to estimates available, around 76% of all households have access to an improved drinking water sources – 93% in urban areas and 58% in rural areas. The remaining of the population is supplied from unsafe sources such as irrigation and even drainage channel. Coverage with centralized water supply system is about 58% -- 84% in urban areas and 28% in rural areas. Despite the high coverage in urban areas, the reliability and safety of water services is unsatisfactory. Losses are high – about 60% of overall withdrawals. A recent survey in Baku reveals that about 28% of the samples failed to meet bacteriological standards and 68% failed the test of turbidity.

Wastewater network is limited to urban areas: 78% in Baku, and 67% in other large urban areas. Towns and villages outside Greater Baku within the Apsheron Peninsula have no proper sewerage and virtually no wastewater treatment facilities. Sewage is usually discharged into the nearest water body. Sewage systems are in poor condition, leading to groundwater contamination and pollution of water supply systems.

Hydropower accounts fo r about 10% of electricity generation in Azerbaijan, with a large share of hydropower capacity installed in the Mingechaur Reservoir, which also provides water for irrigation of the Kura-Araks plain. About 89% of the hydropower resources are concentrated in the Kura River basin, and the remaining 11% being in the basins of the rivers flowing to the Caspian Sea. About 13% of the technically feasible hydropower potential has been developed so far.

The increasing water use for agriculture, industry and households during the last three decades has resulted in less water being allocated to fisheries, environmental flows and navigation. Water discharge in the Kura and Araks Rivers has declined from 414 m3/sec to 195 m3/sec, which has led to considerable stress of important aquatic ecosystems.

Floods and Droughts Set in a region of high relief, active geology, and naturally extremely irregular river discharge, Azerbaijan is at risk of inundations that range along a continuum from landslides to mudflows, flooding and the overall sinking of some near-Caspian areas relative to the water table. Soil erosion, aggravated by deforestation on mountain slopes, is an additional point within that continuum, both cause and result in flooding and mudflow, as is erosion of the banks of reservoirs. Much of Azerbaijan’s economically important area is at some degree of risk. Annual damage from floods over 1980-1990 was estimated at USD20 million. Annual damage from mudflows is currently estimated at USD80 million. The total area that has been damaged by floods is estimated at 1.2 million ha; damaged by mudflows, 600,000 ha. At present, the value of business assets at risk from flooding and/or mudflow is about USD3.7 billion.

20

The 20th century saw a systematic effort to reduce the risk of inundation through construction of flood control structures in the most dangerous areas. While the Kura and Araks Rivers have catastrophically inundated settlements on their banks in the past, today they are regulated, and a large reservoir controls the discharge of each. Numerous other measures have been taken as well. However, difficulties remain. Areas especially at risk are the basins of the small rivers in the slopes of the mountain ranges. At lower elevations there are flood risks and at higher elevations there exist mudflow risks. Risk is particularly high in the river basins of the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic and in the basins of the small rivers on the southern slope of the Main Caucasus Range and Small Caucasus Range. The rising of the Caspian Sea (sinking of the Apsheron peninsula) affects important areas. The snowmelt season, spring to summer, is especially risky.

Damage done by flooding and mudflows over the last century caused the death of hundreds of people as well as the destruction of villages and towns, railways, highways, agricultural land, and dams and other facilities. Sheki has undergone several catastrophic mudflows and is continually threatened. The railway line from Alati-Nakhchivan is often damaged, and railway bridges are frequently washed out. A general scheme of anti-mudflow, anti- flood, anti- landslide, anti-erosion actions initiated in 1989 was suspended in 1992; funds budgeted for construction of protective facilities are now at about 10% of their pre-transition level. Consequently, flood risk is increasing as equipment deteriorates. This is especially alarming in the case of the large reservoirs. A particular risk is the possible eventual failure of the Mingechaur reservoir, built in 1953 for flood protection on the Kura River. The reservoir contains about 16.1 billion m3 of water. Its potential flood area is 800,000 ha, inhabited by 3.5 million people. The reservoir has been eroding its banks systematically, and the bank has retreated 100 meters so far. Parts of the reservoir require concrete reinforcement.

Droughts are also common in Azerbaijan, particularly in the Kura-Araks lowland, which receives very low precipitation. The extremely dry summers of 1998 and 2000 caused significant economic losses to agriculture and fishery. The extremely low flows of the Kura and Araks Rivers during the 2000 drought cost the fishery sector several years.

Trends in Main Water Uses and Management and Key Water Issues Water problems in Azerbaijan are not caused by water quality or quantity issues. Azerbaijan has abundant resources overall, but has distribution problems. Key identified issues are:

• Regular flooding and droughts. • Competition between sectors, namely between hydropower and irrigation. • Poor operation of reservoirs, namely high releases of sediment water in the Kura leading

to silting of river delta, which is affecting sturgeon breeding. • Although river quality not a major problem, there are some pollution problems,

particularly in coastal areas. • Huge irrigation and drainage infrastructure stock is now crumbling. Most schemes are

considered probably economically viable. • Agriculture strategic priority sector for the economy. It is the second largest economic

sector, and is beginning to recover. It provides good safety net for the poor. However, it

21

uses water inefficiently. Presently, there is an institutional vacuum for tertiary irrigation and drainage systems.

• Sharing and joint management of the Kura and Araks Rivers and of the Caspian Sea to prevent further pollution are also issues of critical importance.

Water Policy and Institutional Issues There are several pieces of legislation that regulate water resources management. The most significant are the Water Code and the Regulation on Payment for Water Use. The Water Code stipulates that the state is the owner of most of the major infrastructure, although rights of tenancy may be assigned to either a municipality or a person for upto 25 years. Furthermore, the Code states that water use is to be based upon plans that consider the needs of all sectors of the economy and water rights may be suspended, prohibited or restricted for reasons such as failure to pay charges as violation of agreed norms. The Regulation on Payment for Water Use stipulates that all users are to pay for water. Payments are to be calculated separately for each district on the basis of either metering or control measurements. Users are supposed to pay 40% for the cost of monthly water use in advance.

Plans for integrated basin management were created in the 1970s for the Kura and Araks Rivers and other areas, but they were not implemented. Water resources development was focused upon separate sectors, and no formal procedures for integrated planning was enforced.

Azerbaijan faces major institutional problems. There is a highly centralized decision-making and little inter-agency coordination. At present, while the State Committee for Ecology and Natural Resources is in charge of natural resources utilization, and is responsible for the country’s water resources at national and regional levels; the Committee of Land Improvement and Water Economy is in charge of land improvement activities and the operation and maintenance of hydraulic infrastructure.

There are powerful vested interests in the water sector, and limited public participation and citizen involvement in the decision-making process. Although water institutions are technically strong, they are managerially weak. At present, there is a brain drain from civil service, which is impacting considerably on water sector. Current monitoring programs of water quantity and quality are inadequate, and reliable data for post-soviet period is lacking.

Recommendations The focus in the future should be in clearly defined areas for institutional change, namely:

• Improve inter-agency coordination in limited areas. • Improve coordination of agriculture and hydropower regarding releases from Mingechaur

reservoir. • Improve management of minimum flows. • Integrated river basin management agencies not feasible in short term but activities could

be initiated at the planning level. • Make farmers responsible for managing tertiary irrigation and drainage. • Amend law and pass implementing legislation.

22

• Make the State Committee on Irrigation an autonomous company that provides services. • Develop some model WUAs to demonstrate benefits of owner operation.

In the area of investments, efforts should be focused on the following:

• Rehabilitation of key irrigation systems. As a priority, concentrate on water deficit areas with high agricultural productivity, the plains and the Apsheron peninsula, where Baku is located (faced with a large number of people and a severe water deficit).

• Improve productivity of existing major hydraulic infrastructure and efficiency of irrigation and water supply systems.

• In the case of the irrigation sector, focus on tertiary structures where the need is greatest, and where it is possible to demonstrate tangible benefits.

• Continue with the rehabilitation of exisiting drinking water supply infrastructure and expand coverage in rural areas.

References AQUASTAT. 1997. Azerbaijan Country Profile. FAO, Land and Water Development Division. Azerbaijan State Committee on Ecology and Control of Natural Resources Utilization. 1998. National Environmental Action Plan. Baku, Azerbaijan. GRID-Tbilisi, United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP). 2002. Caucasus Environmental Outlook (CEO) 2002. Tbilisi, Georgia. WHO/UNICEF. 2001. Access to Improved Sanitation - Azerbaijan. WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation. Geneva, Switzerland. Report available at: http://childinfo.org/eddb/sani/ceecis/azerbaijan_sanitation1.pdf. World Bank. 2003. Flood Profile for Azerbaijan. Prepared by Lucy Hancock on the basis of a report by Gaibali Gadjiametov for the World Bank in 2000. Washington, DC, USA. World Bank. 2003. Towards a Water Resources Management Strategy for Azerbaijan (forthcoming). ECSSD Working Paper. Washington, DC, USA.

23

AZERBAIJAN: WATER FACT SHEET


Total Population (millions of people) 7.175 8.04 8.73 8.94 CHART: TRENDS IN POPULATION, SHOWING Urban population 54% 52% 54% 56%Rural population 46% 48% 46% 44%Source: Aquastat database, FAO (2002).

1990 2000 Goal for 2015Access to piped water supply n.a 57% 79% Urban n.a 84% 92% Rural n.a 28% 64%Note: Goal refers to MDGs.

1990 2000 Goal for 2020Access to sewage n.a 31% 66% Urban n.a 60% 80% Rural n.a 0% 50%Note: Goal refers to MDGs.



1990 1995 1998 1999Labor force (millions of people) 3.0 3.3 3.5 3.5 Share in agriculture 31% 31% 29% na Share in industry 23% 18% 14% na

Average annual growth 1991-19971998-2000

Of GDP -9.3% 9.5% Of population 1.3% 0.9%

1990 1995 1999 2000Infant mortality rate (per 1,000 live births) 23.0 23.3 14.9 12.8


Land area (millions of ha) 8.66Land area in international basins (millions of ha) 6.04 Percentage of country in international basins 69.7%Average precipitation (mm) 541Average total volume of rainfall (BCM) 47



Total water resources (BCM) 30.3 Of which total surface water (BCM) 28.1 Of which total groundwater (BCM) 2.2 Overlap between surface and groundwater 4.4Dependency ratio 73.2%

1990 2000 2015 2020Per capita water resources (cubic meters/year) 4,220 3,765 3,470 3,388

1985 1996 1999 2000Total annual withdrawals (in BCM) 16.9 17.3 17.4 17.1 Agricultural 13.8 13.9 13.9 13.9 Industrial 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.0 Domestic 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.2


-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.02.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.55.0

2000 MDG2015P

op

ula

tio

n (

in m

illio

n)

Urban Rural

-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

1990 2000 2010 2020

Po

pu

lati

on

(in

mill

ion

)

Urban Pop

Rural Pop

Access to Sewage

-0.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0

1990 MGD2020

Po

pu

lati

on

(in

mill

ion

) Urban Rural

Trends in Water Withdrawals

-

2.04.06.0

8.010.0

12.014.0

16.018.0

20.0

1985 1996 1999 2000

Wit

hd

raw

als

(in

BC

M)

Agricultural Industrial Domestic

24

WATER QUALITY AND POLLUTION 1995Wastewater produced (BCM) 0.6Wastewater treated (BCM) 0.1 or 18%



DAMS AND HYDROPOWER 2002Reservoir capacity (BCM) 21.60 Irrigation dams n.a Hydropower dams n.aReservoir capacity per capita (cubic meters) 2,686 (in 2002)

Gross theoretical hydropower potential (GWh/y) 43,500 Technically feasible (GWh/y) 16,000 Economically feasible (GWh/y) 7,000Currrent production from hydropower (GWh/y) 2,050 (in 2000)

1990 1995 1998 1999Total electricity production (GWh/year) 23,200 17,044 17,998 18,177 Share from hydroelectric 3% 9% 11% 8%

IRRIGATION 1992 1995 1998 1999Irrigated land ('000 ha) 1,370 1,453 1,455 1,455 Irrigated land per capita (ha) 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.18Irrigated land as share of cropland 72% 75% 74% 73%

FRESHWATER FISHERY 1992 1995 1998 1999Fishery production (MT) 31,963 10,821 4,828 4,855 Fishery production per capita (kg) 4.33 1.41 0.61 0.61

FINANCING THE WATER SECTORAverage cost recovery: Irrigation water services 10-15% O&M costs Municipal water services < 100% O&M costs (low collection) * These are ball park estimates.Average water tariff (US cent/m3) 2000-01 Irrigation 0.06 Domestic 4 Budget organizations 17 Commercial 112 Industry 47 Industry using water as key raw material 896 Untreated water 14

Trends in BOD Emissions

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

Kg

/cap

ita/

year


0

300,000

600,000

900,000

1,200,000

1,500,000

1992 1994 1996 1998 2000


0

5,00010,00015,00020,00025,00030,000

35,000

1992 1994 1996 1998 2000


0

5

10

15

20

25

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

Other

Hydropower

25

BELARUS Socio-Economic and Geographic Context Belarus, situated in Eastern Europe, is a landlocked country with a total surface area of 20.8 million ha. It is bordered by the Russian Federation, Ukraine, Poland, Lithuania and Latvia. The country is covered with young glacial formations. The marshy land of the Polessye – marsh lakes, water meadows and peat bogs in the south of the country – is the largest swamped area in Europe. This area was subject to intense drainage during the 1950s. The climate is continental in the central and eastern parts of the country and maritime in the rest of the country. The average precipitation is about 700 mm, and varies between 550 mm in the southeast to 800 mm in the elevated areas of the central part of the country. More than two-thirds of the precipitation falls during the summer months. In 2000, its population reached about 20.2 million, of whom about 71% where living in urban areas.

Water Resource Base Belarus' overall renewable resources amount to 58 BCM or 5,600 cubic meters per capita, out of which about 64% are generated within the territory and the remaining from transboundary rivers. Available resources can reach up to 98 BCM during wet years and to 36 BCM during dry years. Most of the country is located within international basins: the Dnieper basin, which covers about 82% of the territory; the Western Daugava basin, which covers 10% of the country; the Neman basin, which covers 6% of the territory; and the Western Bug basin, which covers 2.5% of the territory. Overall, more than half of the water resources belong to the Black Sea basin and the rest belongs to the Baltic Sea basin. The major river is the Dnieper River, which originates in the Russian Federation and is fed by the Pripyat. Its average annual flow is about 32 BCM. Several of the rivers are used for navigation.

Groundwater resources are available throughout the country. They amount to 18 BCM per year and drain entirely into surface water bodies. The overall quality of surface waters and groundwater has improved during the last decade.

There are about 11,000 freshwater lakes, which cover a total area of 16 million ha or 0.8% of the total territory. The largest lake is Lake Naroch. There are about 140 dams and storage reservoirs with a total capacity of about 3.1 BCM.

A large portion of the territory, totally 2.5 million ha, is occupied by wetlands and peat bogs. The most important wetland ecosystems are those of the Belarussina Polessye, which are unique and cover a total area of 1.7 million ha. These wetlands are currently in their natural state, and it is estimated that they remove 8 million tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere per year. Belarus places high priority on protection of wetlands. Most of the endangered species in Europe that have significant numbers in Belarus belong to wetlands and floodplain forest environments. These valuable aquatic ecosystems are threatened by reclamation of wetlands and mires, and the spread of the Chernobyl contamination.

26

Water Use and Management Water withdrawals have experienced a decline during the 1990s: from 2.9 BCM in 1990 to 1.8 BCM in 2000. Most of the decline has been observed in the industrial and agriculture sectors. Drinking water use has slightly increased.

In general, there is no need for irrigation throughout Belarus, except in these areas where the groundwater table has dropped too much as a result of extensive drainage. All irrigated systems are built in areas that were drained before. Drainage started in the second half of the 18th century, when large marshes were drained and converted into meadows. Large-scale drainage works were carried out in the Polessye region in the first quarter of the 19th century and then during the 1960s. By 1993, the total drained area reached about 3.0 million. Most of this area was contaminated after the Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident.

Although a large number of municipal wastewater treatment plans exist and have been recently rehabilitated, many are overloaded and don’t have the technical means to treat toxic pollutants. Often industrial wastewater is treated together with municipal wastewater without adequate pre-treatment by industrial enterprise. As a result, the quality of water treatment is not always adequate. Untreated or inadequately treated sewage is dumped into the Dnieper and the Pripyat Rivers.

Diffuse pollution, in particular nitrates from agriculture activities, has negatively impacted shallow wells in rural areas – the chief source of drinking water supply.

With regard to hydropower, the gross theoretical potential of Belarus is estimated at 7,500 GWh per year, a third of which is considered to be economically feasible. Hydropower installed capacity is only 6 MW, generating 0.06% of electricity of the country. One long-term objective in this sector is the construction of a cascade of hydropower power stations in the Daugava basin.

The runoff of Belarus' rivers is extremely variable, both seasonally and from year to year. In the catchment of the Pripyat, for instance, flood plains with a width from 1km to 15 km wide are flooded almost every year for up to two months. The flood plains of other catchments are also regularly flooded, though for shorter times and over narrower areas.

The usual flood season is from the spring thaw and rains (end of February to end of May). Risk is elevated in years when the ground has been soaked by the rain of the previous autumn, frozen before substantial discharge, accumulates substantial snow cover during the winter, and/or is thawed rapidly in a rainy spring. A combination of all these conditions led to the largest countrywide flood ever recorded, that of 1845, during which water levels from 6.5 m to 10 m above the low-water mark were observed at various stations on the Dnieper. That flood is said to have inundated a great many settlements, though only descriptive data is available. Summer-autumn rain floods also occur in Belarus, but in most catchments (all but the Southern Bug) cause less economic damage than the spring floods.

All told, about ten floods causing considerable damage have occurred in the last fifty years. Estimates of the annual cost of flooding vary considerably because the methods of estimation vary. However, it appears that the frequently recurring floods affect only arable land, and that

27

damage is concentrated in the Pripyat basin. Floods at 25% probability would also affect some households in the Southern Bug. At the 1% level, households and enterprises would be affected in all catchments, but likely damage would still be highest by far in the Pripyat.

Since 1968, work has been underway to provide flood plain protection from spring floods through the “Scheme on drainage and utilization of the Pripyat lowland of the Belarussian and Ukrainian Republics.” By 1998, the scheme was 50% complete. Among other works, it provided dikes on both sides of the Pripyat River from the border with Ukraine to Turov. Although a full prognosis of the works' impact on flooding has not been prepared, it appears that the works have shifted the flood risk downstream, probably influencing the development of the 1999 flood, which affected 194 towns and villages, flooding about 5000 households and inundating almost 200,000 ha of arable land.

Non-engineering means of reducing flood losses are under consideration, such as limiting economic activity in areas that flood more than once per ten years. Flood insurance, still under discussion, may make it possible to limit the use of the flood pla in and could also finance compensation for flood damages.

Water Legislation and Policies Belarus has adopted a number of environmental laws and regulations during the 1990s. The most important are the 1998 Water Code, the 1992 Law on Conservation of the Environment, the 1991 Law on the Tax on Exploitation and Use of Natural Resources and special regulations for the protection of surface waters. The Water Code issued in 1998 stipulates the conditions and procedures for the efficient utilization of surface and groundwater. It introduces a permit system on water pollution and withdrawal, which is associated with payments for water use in the form of taxes and fines. Earlier laws of the former Belarussian SSR and the USSR are valid, as long they don’t contradict the Constitution or the newly adopted laws.

Revenues from taxes and fines are accumulated in the state budget fund of environmental protection. Partially, these resources are used to finance environmental protection projects. For 2000, it is expected that the fund will dispose of about USD450,000.

Water Management Institutions Water resources management functions are performed by a number of institutions, namely:

• The Ministry for Natural Resources and Environmental Protection has overall responsibility for implementing the policy on water protection and use. It controls water use and quality and sets water use quotas and waste-water discharge limits for the users.

• The State Inspectorate for the Control and Protection of Water and the Department for Monitoring and Analytical Control are responsible for the main activities in water management.

• The Regional (or Oblast) Committees and the Minsk City Committee of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection are responsibility for on-site compliance control. They issue water abstraction and wastewater discharge permits in accordance

28

with water use conditions and standards for the maximum allowable concentration of pollutants.

• Hydrochemical laboratories jointly with the above-mentioned Committees carry out the control of effluent water quality and water quality upstream and downstream from the effluent discharge points.

• State Hydrometeorology Committee (Hydromet) is responsible for the monitoring of quantity and quality of river water and is performed in the network of hydrological, hydrochemical and hydrobiological stations.

• The Ministry of Agriculture is responsible for drainage and irrigation. It supervises the Belarus Scientific and Research Institute for Water Management and Meadows Cultivation.

• The Central Scientific and Research Institute for Complex Utilization of Water Resources carries out scientific research work and monitors water use and water quality.

• The Department of Geography at Minsk State University carries out scientific research on water resources.

• The Ministry for Emergency Situations and Protection of the Population provides permission for all investments in water and agricultural development in southeast Belarus.

In general, responsibilities and tasks are adequately defined but sometimes overlapping. Often, tasks are excessively divided between different entities.

Although there are not formal institutions to deal with transboundary rivers, since 1992, some agreements with Poland have been reached on water quality issues and navigation on the Western Bug River. Poland, Belarus and the Ukraine now co-operate in the Bug basin on the basis of a Memorandum of Understanding. At present, special programs for the Bug and the Daugava basins are under way, supported by UNECE and financed through the EU and the countries themselves. Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine have been working for several years on a UNDP/GEF Dnieper Basin Environmental Program Project, and have been discussing their desire to create a legal basis for a river basin management regime on the Dnieper River. The countries have agreed to develop a convention on the rational use of natural resources and support for the development of international cooperation for the protection and ecological regeneration of the Dnieper basin.

Recommendations

• Make additional efforts to protect shallow aquifers from being contaminated by diffuse pollution from agriculture activities.

• Increase efforts to improve treatment of municipal and industrial discharges. • Request industres to carry out pre-treatment before discharging into municipal sewerage

systems. • Introduce the river basin planning approach to improve the cost-effectiveness of ongoing

water pollution abatement and control.

29

References Institute for Inland Water Management and Waste Water Treatment (RIZA), International Center for Water Studies (ICWS). 2002. Assessment Practices and Environmental Status of Ten Transboundary Rivers in Europe. Available at: http://www.iwac-riza.org/frontpage.htm. United Nations. 2002. Johannesburg Summit 2002 – Belarus Country Profile. New York, NY, USA. Report available at the following address: http://www.un.org/esa/agenda21/natlinfo/wssd/belarus.pdf. Web Page of the Embasy of Republic of Belarus in the Czech Republic. July 2003. Natural Resources. Available at: http://www.belarusembassy.cz/en/belarus/natural_resources/index.shtm. Web Page of the Ministry of Natural Resource and Environmental Protection of the Republic of Belarus. July 2003. Natural Resources and Environmental Protection of the Republic of Belarus. Available at: http://www.president.gov.by/Minpriroda/index_e.htm . Web Page of the President of Belarus. July 2003. Brief Description of Republic of Belarus. Available at: http://www.president.gov.by/eng/map/nat.shtml . WHO/UNICEF. 2001. Access to Improved Sanitation - Belarus. WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation. Geneva, Switzerland. Report available at: http://childinfo.org/eddb/sani/ceecis/belarus_sanitation1.pdf. World Bank. 2003. Flood Profile for Belarus. Prepared by Lucy Hancock on the basis of a report by Pyotr Rutkovsky for the World Bank in 2000. Washington, DC, USA.

30

BELARUS: WATER FACT SHEET


Total Population (millions of people) 10.26 10.19 9.67 9.51Urban population 66% 71% 73% 74%Rural population 34% 29% 27% 26%Source: Aquastat database, FAO (2002).

1993 2000 Goal for 2015Access to piped water supply n.a 74% 87% Urban 79% 90% 95% Rural n.a. 33% 67%Note: Goal refers to MDGs.

1993 1999 Goal for 2020Access to sewage systems 55% 73% 87% Urban 79% n.a. n.a. Rural 4% n.a. n.a.Note: Goal refers to MDGs.


1990 1994 1999 2000GDP per capita (constant 1995 US$) 3,045 2,172 2,543 2,703GDP total (billions of 1995 US$) 31.1 22.4 25.5 27.0 Share from agriculture 24% 15% 13% n.a. Share from industry 47% 37% 39% 37%

1990 1994 1999 2000Labor force (millions of people) 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 Share in agriculture 22% 21% n.a n.a Share in industry 39% 35% n.a n.a

Average annual growth 1991-97 1998-00 Of GDP -4.0% 5.9% Of population -0.1% -0.1%

1999






Total water resources (BCM) 58.0 Of which total surface water (BCM) 58.0 Of which total groundwater (BCM) 18.0

Overlap between surface and groundwater 18.0Dependency ratio 35.9%

1990 2000 2015 2020


1990 1993 1995 2000

Total water consumption (in BCM) 2.8 2.5 1.9 1.7 Agriculture 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 Industrial 1.7 1.5 0.9 0.8 Domestic 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8

Access to an Improved Water Source

-

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

2000 MDG2015P

op

ula

tio

n (

in m

illio

n)

Urban

Rural

-

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

1990 2000 2010 2020

Po

pu

lati

on

(in

mill

ion

)

Urban Pop

Rural Pop

0.0

0.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

1.5

1.8

1990 1993 1995 2000

Trends of Water Consumption (BCM)

Agriculture Industrial Domestic

Access to Sewage

-

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

2000 MGD2020

Po

pu

lati

on

(in

mill

ion

)

31

WATER QUALITY AND POLLUTION 1990 1995Wastewater produced (BCM) 1.98 1.33Wastewater biologically treated (BCM) 0.92 0.84



DAMS AND HYDROPOWERReservoir capacity (BCM) 3.08 small dams less than 15 mt Irrigation dams Hydropower damsReservoir capacity in cubic meters per capita 302 (in 2000)

Gross theoretical hydropower potential (GWh/y) 7,500 Technically feasible (GWh/y) 3,000 Economically feasible (GWh/y) 2,500Currrent production from hydropower (GWh/y) 20 (in 2000)

1990 1995 1998 1999Total electricity production (GWh/year) 39,526 24,918 23,492 26,516 From hydroelectric 0.05% 0.08% 0.08% 0.08%

IRRIGATION 1992 1995 1998 1999Irrigated land ('000 ha) 130 115 115 115 Irrigated land per capita (ha) 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01Irrigated land as share of cropland 2% 2% 2% 2%


FINANCING THE WATER SECTOR 1995 1997Average cost recovery: Irrigation water services Municipal water services 28.1% 100.0% O&M cost only * These are ball park estimates.

$YHUDJH�ZDWHU�SULFH�8 6�FHQW�P 1997 Municipal 3.4-5.4 Industry 100.5-214.4


0

30,000

60,000

90,000

120,000

150,000

1992 1994 1996 1998 2000


05

1015202530354045

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Other

Hydropower


0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

1992 1994 1996 1998 2000


0

1

2

3

4

5

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

kg/c

apita

/yea

r

32

BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA Socio Economic and Geographic Context Bosnia and Herzegovina is situated in southeastern Europe, in the central part of the Balkan Peninsula. Its total land area is 5.11 million ha, of which 762.5 km are land borders, 751.0 km river borders and 23.5 km sea borders. The current state structure of Bosnia and Herzegovina, regulated by the Dayton Agreement, is composed of separate administrative units: the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, or FBiH (divided into 10 cantons), the Republika Srpska (RS) and the District of Brcko. The current population of 4.24 million is divided between the FbiH and RS, which have separate constitutions, laws, and institutional structures. In the past, Bosnia and Herzegovina was one of the most polluted republics in pre-existing Federal Republic of Yugoslavia due to intensive development of heavy industry and lack of environmental controls. More recently, it emerged from the devastating war of 1992-95 with drastically lower living standards, major disruptions across its society, almost totally destroyed infrastructure, and ruined industry.

Of the total land area, 5% is lowlands, 24% hills, 42% mountains and 29% karst. Out of the total area 76% belongs to the Sava River catchment and 23% belongs to the Adriatic Sea catchment. The rivers are characterized by high gradients and relatively high run-off ( 22 l/sec per km2). All the rivers flow through rough mountainous areas in upper parts, while in downstream sections, close to the river mouth or confluence, they flow though plains where they are liable to flooding. The Sava River, which runs along the northern border of Bosnia and Herzegovina, is the border with Croatia. In the east, the Drin River marks the natural border with Serbia and Montenegro. Starting from the source of the Drin River, along the mountainous chain towards the Crna Gora (Serbia and Montenegro), the boundary with Serbia and Montenegro slopes down toward the Adriatic Sea. In the west, the border with Croatia goes along the high Dinaric chain of mountains. In the far south, the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina goes out to the Adriatic coast via the Neretva River. The coastal part of Bosnia and Herzegovina is 24 km long and includes one town – Neum. Internal river traffic is significant in Bosnia and Herzegovina. On the Sava, traffic is possible from the mouth of the Drin to the mouth of the Una, along length of 322 km. This is particularly important because it allows for traffic with Middle Europe and the North Sea. Traffic is possible for about 4 km on the Una, and 4.5 km on the Neretva.

Water Resource Base Bosnia and Herzegovina has considerable water resources that represent an important economic potential. The territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina receives annually some 1250 mm of precipitation. Bosnia and Herzegovina is also rich in mineral and thermal waters, which represent a great potential in the fields of eco-tourism and health tourism.

Surface and groundwater resources. Freshwater river basins are the key water resources in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina lies within two major basins - the Black Sea and the Adriatic Sea basins. The major stream of the Black Sea basin is the Sava River, whereas the Neretva, Trebisnjica and Cetina Rivers are the major rivers of the Adriatic Sea basin. The part of the territory that belongs to the Adriatic Sea basin is richer in water resources than the one belonging to the Black Sea basin. There are seven river basins in Bosnia

33

and Herzegovina, which are transboundary with cantons, entities, and other countries: Una-Sana, Vrbas, Bosna, Drin, Sava, Neretva, and Cetina.

The Una River, a right bank tributary of the Sava, forms a border between Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina and has a watershed of 9640 km2 and a mean discharge of 290 m3/sec. The Vrbas River has a watershed of 6386 km2 and has a mean discharge of 100 m3/sec. The Bosna River has a watershed of 10, 460 km2 and mean discharge of 170 m3/sec. The Drin River forms a border between Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia and Montenegro. It has a watershed of 19,570 km2 and mean discharge of 370 m3 /sec. A small part of the Drin watershed is in Albania. The Neretva River is the most significant transboundary river basin in the Adriatic Sea watershed. The Neretva originates in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Of its total length of 222 km only about 25 km lies within Croatia but this area includes two thirds of the Neretva delta, which is known for its globally significant biodiversity. The middle and lower stretches of the Neretva, which flow through Bosnia and Herzegovina contribute heavy loads of pollution, which threaten the delta biodiversity. Operation of the five hydro power plants in the upper and middle courses of the Neretva result in significant drops in water levels in the Neretva in the summer, altering the natural habitat.

There are several natural lakes in Bosnia and Herzegovina. River lakes formed in the extensions of riverbeds or due to natural dams in river beds are found primarily on the Pliva, Una and Trebizat Rivers. Mountain lakes of glacier origin are found in the Dinarids and range in volume from 0.01-3.5 MCM . They are important for their biodiversity, tourism appeal, and cattle breading.

There are about 30 water reservoirs in Bosnia and Herzegovina primarily on the Neretva and Trebisnjica basin, and the Drin. Most are designed for hydropower and all are important for flood control, drinking water supply and irrigation. The total volume of the reservoirs is about 3.9 BCM with about 90% belonging to the Adriatic Sea basin and the rest to the Black Sea.

Ninety percent of drinking water comes from groundwater resources. It is estimated that 16 m3/s ec of groundwater from all zones could be exploited. Water needs in 2020 are estimated to be 35 m3/sec. Groundwater in Bosnia and Herzegovina is found in three geographically separate areas with special characteristics. In the northern part of the country, the ground water reserves are within alluvial connected sediments along the Sava River and its tributaries at a depth of about 50 m. Artesian water is found at 100-200 m. In the central part of the country, groundwater accumulates in caves and cavities of limestone massifs and emerges on the surface as lime wells in the river basins of Una, Sava, Bosna, Drin and Neretva Rivers. In the Adriatic Sea catchments area in the southern part of the country, where the geology is primarily karst, groundwater is mostly found in wells of the basins of the Cetina, Neretva, and Trebisnjica Rivers.

Wetlands in Bosnia and Herzegovina support a rich biodiversity but are constantly threatened by loss of habitat; changes in the hydraulic regime; fishing; water pollution; and erosion and siltation. The wetlands that have received the most attention are those of the Neretva Delta is a transboundary delta shared by Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia.

Water Quality. Before the war, Bosnia and Herzegovina was the industrial heartland of the pre-existing Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and most of the rivers were severely polluted by

34

industrial wastewater discharges. Industrial production has plummeted and therefore surface water pollution has decreased. Water quality is, however, suspect and in some cases clearly unsatisfactory. Water quality testing at best is unfocused and unregulated. The water quality monitoring system collapsed during the war and has yet to be re-established. There is almost no wastewater treatment and untreated flow is consequently discharged directly to the surface waters. Post-war data on water quality is almost non-existent. The surface water quality monitoring systems in place before the war have not been operational for over 10 years. There has never been any monitoring of groundwater quality. The system of monitoring stations is slowly being rehabilitated, largely with donor assistance.

Wastewater generated by 90% of the population is discharged directly and without treatment into the closest water flows or bodies or into karstic holes, which are connected to groundwater. Primarily because of this pollution surface water quality, particularly immediately downstream of municipalities is generally very low (Class III and IV). The most polluted rivers are Vrbas, Bosna and the lower part of the Sava. Only the most upstream sections of the Una, Drin, and Neretva maintain high water quality. The karstic nature of the geology contributes to ground water pollution, as well as the pollution of surface waters. Polluted surface water infiltrates into the ground and the uncontrolled dumping of solid waste, which mixes with rainwater, also contributes to ground water pollution. Uncontrolled deforestation and erosion of soil and mountains streams have resulted in eutrophication of surface waters as well creation of alluvia and sludge that increase the risk of flooding and water pollution. There is no information on non-point source pollution.

In 1991 when the population was 4.5 million, the majority of rivers were in class IV and the pollution load was equal to that of a population of 9.4 million. Water resources are also polluted by direct disposal of solid waste into rivers

The key problems in water resources identified in the recently (2002) endorsed National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP) are:

• Inadequate water supply to the population and industry; • Inadequate protection of springs; • Inadequate disposal of municipal and industrial wastewaters; • Inadequate flood protection.

These problems are attributed to:

• Lack of integrated water management systems and strategy; • Insufficient financial resources; • Non-harmonized legislation.

Water Use and Management by Sector Drinking Water and Sanitation Coverage. The public drinking water supply system serves approximately 50% of households and other consumers in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The rest use some type of alternative water supply facility beyond the purview of the water and public health sectors. The water supply sources are mainly based on exploitation of groundwater (89% of total

35

water supply sources), rivers (10.2%) and water from natural lakes and artificial accumulations (0.8%). The urban population primarily relies on piped water systems to the home (96%) while in the rural areas 29% of the population has water in yards; 21% in houses; and 18% use pumps. Water related epidemics occur, usually on a seasonal basis, in smaller water supply facilities that are not monitored by the public health institutions. Water supply systems cannot meet the needs of the consumers during the dry season when the quantity and quality requirements are not met due to a combination of inadequate potential of the water resource, inadequate capacity of the infrastructure. Service interruptions are frequent.

Sewage collection systems cover about 56% of the urban population, while smaller towns and rural areas are faced with a much lower coverage – about 10%. The existing infrastructure is significantly damaged. Before the war, only seven cities in Bosnia and Herzegovina had wastewater treatment plants, out of which only five are currently in function. Out of the 122 industrial wastewater treatment plants that exist, only a few are operational due to war-time devastation and lack of equipment. There are a number of operational and physical obstacles to improved water supply services including lack of autonomy of the water utilities, poor utility organization, neglected maintenance, and huge losses in the system (about 50%).

Improvements on water supply and wastewater services were identified as a major donor priority for reconstruction of Bosnia and Herzegovina after the war. During the post war period, the international community contributed about USD210 million directly into restoring water services. In order to achieve the water service level of European Union member countries, the total investments for water and sanitation are estimated to be USD1 billion through the year 2030.

Irrigation. There are no developed irrigation systems in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Only about 0.65% of agricultural land is irrigated.

Hydropower. The total hydropower potential of Bosnia and Herzegovina is 6 GW. At present, over 60% of electricity is from hydropower. The most important rivers for future hydro power development are the Drin, Neretva and Trebisnjica.

Floods. There is a permanent flood risk in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Floods threaten 4% of the total area of Bosnia and 60% of lowland area. Floods are quite frequent in the plains through which the major rivers flow and where intensive agricultural production takes place. Despite numerous flood protective and flood mitigation structures, many areas suffer from frequent flooding. Flood damages surpass to a large extent the capital values of the structures that would be built for the purpose of flood mitigation. In that respect prompt reservation of space for reservoirs and retentions is extremely important. However, reconstruction of damaged structures and provision of necessary funds takes priority over construction of new flood protection and flood mitigation structures. Flood management is a transboundary issue particularly on the Sava River.

Water Legislation and Policies A challenge in Bosnia and Herzegovina to the water sector, and many other sectors, since the Dayton Agreement has been the two different water laws and two different organizational

36

structures. Since FBiH and RS have their own constitutions and governments, they both have separate bodies of law including one for the water sector. Both FBiH and RS have had existing water laws dating from 1998 which had serious gaps and deficiencies including a poorly developed policy on the use and protection of water resources; insufficient provisions on permits, interaction standards and water use. To lay the groundwork for dealing with environmental issues across geopolitical boundaries, the EU PHARE program has financed the preparation of a new set of six frameworks laws on environment, one of which is a Water Law. The new Water Law (still in the approval process) governs the protection of waters, watersides and water lands. The new Water Law, based on the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD), calls for a river basin approach in water administration and establishes new bodies responsible for water protection based on river basins. While the new Water Law will address many of the deficiencies of the previous water laws it still has some deficiencies, which will be addressed in by- laws.

The EU sought to harmonize the water laws between both entities with one common law however both entities have revised the draft Water Law to fit their needs. However, there are no significant differences in the laws. Passage of the water law in each entity varies as well. Currently, the Water Law is pending approval in RS. In FBiH, the draft Water Law is still in the approval process.

Note: clauses for the regulation of groundwater are not included in the Water Law of either entity but are planned for inclusion in subsequent by- laws.

Water Management Institutions In both FBiH and RS the agency with primary responsibility for the water sector is within their respective Ministry of Agriculture, Water Management and Forestry (MoAWF). Within the MoAWF, each entity has a Department of Water Management, which is responsible for the federal water strategy and policy, the issue of agreements and permits, setting of standards and regulations; ensuring compliance with laws and regulations through licensing and inspections; and overall control of Public Companies for Watershed Areas. Under the Law on Water of 1998, in FBiH MoAWF delegates the main responsibility of preparation of strategic decisions and planning to two Public Companies of Watershed areas, one for the River Sava and the other to the Adriatic Sea. A Commission for coordination of water management issues between the two entities was established in 1998. Amongst other duties, the Water Commission deals with international water management projects; cooperation with Croatia and Serbia and Montenegro on water related issues as well as with the harmonization of the two entities water quality monitoring and flood protection.

As described above, the new Water Law reorganizes management of the water sector including establishment of inter-entity river basin agencies. The EU technical assistance program will finance the piloting of the new approach with two river basin bodies for the basins of the Bosna and Vrbas Rivers. Lessons learned from this 18-month project beginning in 2003 will be used to further develop the concept.

As stated above, the inter-entity cooperation in water management is the responsibility of the Inter-entity Water Committee. The Commission's responsibilities on water resources are:

37

• International contracts regarding water management; • International waterways; • International water management projects; • Cooperation with Republic of Croatia and Serbia and Montenegro on the water related

issues; • Harmonization of present and future regulations in water management; • Harmonization and monitoring of water quality standards; • Harmonization of solid waste disposal program – protection of water resources; • Harmonization and control of laboratories’ work for monitoring of water quality and

water stream categorization; • Construction and reconstruction of water management facilities on the, and in the near

proximity of the entity line; • Facilities divided by the entity line; • Harmonization of plan documents from the field of water management for the facilities

divided by the entity line; • Gathering and exchange of data (inter-entity and international); and • Harmonization of plans fo r flood protection and other extreme situations.

Another significant obstacle to the water sector has been the absence of a state (federal) level body responsible for environment and water. There is no state level organization responsible for overall management and coordination of environment and water. This has led to numerous bottlenecks and obstacles to effective international cooperation on water resources. For instance, although Bosnia and Herzegovina is party to some international conventions rela ted to water (including the International Convention for the Protection of Birds, the Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas, the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean, the Convention of Biological Diversity and the Convention on Cooperation for the Protection and Sustainable Use of the Danube River), there are at least 21 major multilateral environmental and water protection treaties to which Bosnia and Herzegovina is not yet a signatory, largely due to the absence of a state- level body with this responsibility. Also, participation in important regional initiative such as the Danube Basin Agreement and the Mediterranean Action Plan is limited for Bosnia and Herzegovina to observer status due to the absence of a state level body dealing with international issues. Thus Bosnia and Herzegovina misses out on the substantial financial support and technical assistance offered under these treaties to help them implement and monitor international procedures and standards. (Bosnia and Herzegovina is an observer to the Helsinki Convention on transboundary water and the Danube River Protection Convention. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has been requested to ratify these conventions but no decision has been made as yet).

Like the legal framework for water, the organizational structure has been examined particularly through the EU program for institutional strengthening in the water sector and also the METAP financed study “Urgent Strengthening of Institutions.” Consensus is that there should be vertical integration between the entities and the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina in environmental

38

matters of an international nature. It is proposed in the new Law on Council of Ministers that a Committee for Sustainable Development be formed and that it be the body responsible for international water resource issues through a sub-committee for waters. The new organization structure is in place and is awaiting approval by the government.

Transboundary and International Water Issues Flood management, water pollution control and water quality monitoring are all important water resource management challenges in Bosnia and Herzegovina and all require transboundary approaches. FBiH and RS have been largely ineffective in addressing these problems, particularly due to the lack of effective ties with Croatia, and Serbia and Montenegro, with whom they share key international waterways. The institutions and organizational structure of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s water resource sector are different from its neighbors. Effective ties internationally may have been hindered by internal policy disputes regarding water management caused by two different water laws and water protection approaches. The new water laws in each entity, harmonized, and the application of a river basin approach to water resource management is expected to improve the internal problems with water resource management. The proposed state- level body (Committee on Sustainable Development) dealing with water hopefully will provide one means for Bosnia and Herzegovina to participate in transnational water initiatives, like the Danube Basin Commission.

There are important transboundary water resource challenges as they relate to balancing competing demands and conflicting interests with environmental protection and conservation. For instance, the Neretva River and its delta are transboundary in nature. The Neretva River has significant hydropower potential and production; is an important source of water for supply and irrigation; and requires flood control. Yet some of these activities can have a deleterious effect on the globally significant biodiversity and the coastal ecosystems of the Neretva delta. The majority of the watershed is in Bosnia and Herzegovina, mostly in FBiH but some in RS, while the lowland area and delta are in Croatia. Coastal areas affected by the river are in both Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia. Geopolitical and administrative boundaries in the river basin on both the national (FBiH and RS) and international level make the solution of common problems and the optimal management of the river basin and coastal areas complex and difficult. Furthermore, achievement of an integrated concept of water resources management and the sustainable development of river basin and coastal areas depend on integrated plans for water resource management that, in turn, are based on sound water resource databases. Both are missing in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Key Issues and Challenges The transboundary dimension takes on added significance in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where there are two separate governments and bodies of law. Historically, politically-charged policy disputes have hindered progress towards sustained development of Bosnia and Herzegovina's water resources. Differences in entity water management structures have also hindered effective management of water resources. Hopefully, the new Water Law and the inter-entity river basin organizations it establishes, by introducing an inter-entity approach to water resource management, will overcome these obstacles and can be replicated on an international basis.

39

Within Bosnia and Herzegovina itself, due the fact that six of the seven rivers in Bosnia and Herzegovina extend across both entities and are shared at least by two cantons, there is an obvious need to coordinate and cooperate on a inter-canton and inter-entity basis. In the recent past, the entities have differed in the ir environmental goals and the methods employed to achieve them, including water resource management. Attempts to harmonize the laws and institutions are in progress but the sector is still in a state of flux. It will be a significant challenge to Bosnia and Herzegovina to implement the new body of environmental legislation. Therefore, Implementation of the Water Law may be delayed. In the near future, water sector authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina will be relatively consumed with their internal restructuring which could delay their attention to transboundary initiatives.

On a country level, a key challenge is that water supply systems cannot meet the needs of the consumers during the dry season due to a combination of inadequate availability of water resource and inadequate capacity of the infrastructure. The most important improvement measures in this field to address the key problems are modernizing the water sector including creation of river basin agencies, harmonizing water legislation between the two entities; and encouraging the participation of the private sector in the water supply and sanitation sector.

References Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina. 2002. National Environmental Action Plan. Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina. Kuposovic, Tarik, 2000. “Bosnia & Herzegovina”. Transboundary Water Resources in the Balkans. J. Ganoulis, Irene Lyons Murphy and Mitjia Brilly, eds. Kluwer Academic Publications, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 87-97. PHARE. 1993. Water Sector Institutional Strengthening (FBiH). Final Report. Plancenter. 2000. Water Institutional Strengthening (RS). Final Report. Thompson, Stuart. 2000. Current Thinking: Economic Viability of the Water Sector in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Office of the High Representative. Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina. Sopic, D., Krajinovic S., Djordjevic D. and Djordjevic S. 2002. Flood Risks in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina.

40



1990 2000 Goal for 2015Access to piped Water Supply n.a 72% 86% Urban n.a 87% 94% Rural n.a 60% 80%Note: Goal refers to MDGs.

1993 2000 Goal for 2020Access to Sewerage 35% 37% 69% Urban 71% 71% 86% Rural 12% 12% 56%Note: Goal refers to MDGs.

1999Share of poor in rural areas n.a.

1994 1995 1999 2000GDP per capita (constant 1995 US$) 439 546 1,479 1,526GDP total (billions of 1995 US$) 1.5 1.9 5.7 6.1 Share from agriculture 36% 25% 14% n.a. Share from industry 27% 26% 25% 26%

1990 1994 1999 2000Labor force (millions of people) 2.0 1.6 1.8 1.9 Share in agriculture 11% n.a n.a n.a Share in industry 48% n.a n.a n.a

Average annual growth 1995-97 1998-00 Of GDP 48.8% 12.4% Of population 0.1% 4.1%

1999Infant mortality rate (per 1,000 live births) 13.0


Land area (millions of ha) 5.11Land area in international basins (millions of ha) 4.78 Percentage of country in international basins 93.5%Average precipitation (mm) 1,375Average total volume of rainfall (BCM) 13

Total internal water resources (BCM) 36.0 Of which surface water (BCM) n.a. Of which groundwater n.a. Overlap between surface and groundwater n.a.

Total external water resources (BCM) 2.0 Of which surface water (BCM) n.a. Of which groundwater (BCM) n.a.

Total water resources (BCM) 38.0 Of which total surface water (BCM) n.a. Of which total groundwater (BCM) n.a. Overlap between surface and groundwater n.a.Dependency ratio 5.3%

1990 2000 2015 2020


1990 1993 1994 1995Total annual water use (in BCM) 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 Irrigation 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Industrial 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Domestic 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA: WATER FACT SHEET


-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

2000 MDG2015

Po

pu

latio

n (

in m

illio

n)

Urban

Rural

-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

1990 2000 2010 2020

Po

pu

latio

n (

in m

illio

n)

Urban Pop

Rural Pop

0

0.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

1.5

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

Trends of Water Use (BCM)

Irrigation Industrial Domestic

Access to Sewerage

-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

2000 MDG2020

Po

pu

lati

on

(in

mill

ion

)

Urban

Rural

41

WATER QUALITY AND POLLUTIONWastewater produced (BCM) n.a.Wastewater treated (BCM) n.a.

1990 1995 1996Annual emissions of BOD per day (Tons) 50.7 4.1 8.9Annual emissions of BOD per capita (kg) 4.3 0.4 0.9


DAMS AND HYDROPOWERReservoir capacity (BCM) 3.85 Irrigation dams Hydropower damsReservoir capacity in cubic meters per capita 968 (in 2000)



IRRIGATION 1992 1995 1998 1999Irrigated land ('000 ha) 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 Irrigated land per capita (ha) 0.0005 0.0006 0.0005 0.0008Irrigated land as share of cropland 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.5%

FRESHWATER FISHERY 1992 1995 1998 1999Fishery production (metric tons) 2,000 2,500 2,500 2,500 Fishery production per capita (kg) 0.51 0.73 0.68 0.65

FINANCING THE WATER SECTOR 1994 1995 1997Average cost recovery: Irrigation water services Municipal water services * These are ball park estimates.

$YHUDJH�ZDWHU�SULFH�86 � FHQW�P 1997 Municipal

Industry


0500

1,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,500

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999


02468

101214

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Other

Hydropower


0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999


0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Tons

/cap

ita/y

r

42

BULGARIA Socio-Economic and Geographic Context Bulgaria is situated at the south-eastern edge of the Balkan Peninsula. It covers an area of approximately 11.1 million hectares, with a 378 km of coastline. About one-third of the country is hilly and mountainous, and its flatlands are located in the north (Danubian Plateau) and the center (Thracian Plain). Its climate ranges from continental (predominantly in winter, especially in the north and west) to Mediterranean (predominantly in summer, especially in the east and south). The average precipitation is 650 mm, but varies from 480 mm on the Black Sea coast to 1,800 mm in the mountains. Rainfall occurs mainly in summer in the north, in autumn and winter in the south and is evenly distributed during the year in the Black Sea coastline.

During the 1990s the population of Bulgaria declined considerably. In 2000, the estimated population was 7.95 million, 770,000 less than the 1990 population. Bulgaria is heavily urbanized, with about two-thirds of the population living in urban areas. Historically, water resources have played a key role in the economy of Bulgaria: between 20%-30% of the cropland have been irrigated.

Water Resource Base Bulgaria has three main hydrological drainage areas: the south extending to the Aegean Sea (42% of the total area), the north extending to the Danube (42%) and the east extending to the Black Sea (16%). For the purpose of water management, Bulgaria is divided into four basins: the Danube, the Black Sea, the Eastern Aegean Sea and the Aegean Sea. About 86% of its territory is in international basins shared with all neighboring countries: Turkey, Greece, FYR Macedonia, Serbia and Montenegro, and Romania.

Surface and groundwater resources. In general, rivers are short with the exception of the Danube. Average annual runoff from surface water streams totals 20.4 BCM, ranging from 9 BCM during a dry year to 35 BCM during a wet year. Annual groundwater availability is estimated at 6.4 BCM. Its overall water resources amount to 21.3 BCM or 2,680 cubic m per capita per year. Resources are unevenly distributed over time and space. This unbalance distribution causes shortage of water in many localities.

According to the National Environmental Strategy 2001, a change in the hydrological balance has been observed during the past decades: the average runoff for the period 1961-99 has decreased by 7% compared to that of the period 1935-84. Moreover, a 40% decrease was observed during the period 1985-95 compared to that of the period 1935-84.

Wetlands. In the past, large valuable wetlands along the Danube River were destroyed as a result of dykes and drainage works in riparian zones. The Government has developed an action plan for the restoration and protection of wetlands, and has committed to restore some of the areas that were previously destroyed for future generations. In 2000, Bulgaria, Romania, Moldova and Ukraine signed a Declaration on Cooperation to protect key wetlands and flood plain forest along the Danube as part of the Lower Danube Green Corridor initiative supported by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF).

43

Water quality. Although the quality of surface rivers improved considerably during the first half of the 1990s as a result of a reduction of industrial production in a number of industrial plants and investments in pollution control, the quality of sur face water is still a serious concern. Out of the 253 monitoring stations throughout the country, 24% of them failed to meet the required criteria.

Groundwater sources are mainly used by households and to a lesser extent for industrial and irrigation purposes. Due to several years of droughts, certain zones of Bulgaria are currently relying on groundwater for irrigation. In some cases, this has led to depletion of the groundwater levels reaching up to 4 m drop in some localities. In general, groundwater quality is reasonablygood. Pollution problems exist at certain localities. Cases of pollution of groundwater with nitrates, petrol products, phenols and pesticides have been registered.

Water Use and Management by Sector Drinking water supply and sanitation. About 99% of Bulgaria’s population has access to piped water supply. About 88% of all settlements are supplied with piped water: 100% in cities, 84% in villages. A number of small villages (with populations less than 200 inhabitants) have no piped water supply systems -- mainly in the mountain areas where few people are left as a result of migration. About 76% of the piped water is supplied from surface water, and 24% is from groundwater sources.

During the past decade, about 1.2 million of people located in about 500 settlements, who mostly depend on unregulated river sources, have experienced water rationing in one way or another. The regions of Vratsa, Gabrovo, Pernik Blagoevgrad, and Montana are the most seriously affected. Settlements close to the Rila mountain are also experiencing shortage, despite the fact that the region is characterized as water abundant. Large cities such as Vratsa, Lovech, Gabrovo, and other have experienced severe rationing; people have water only for two hours per day.

Bulgaria has approximately 30 water treatment works, and the principal form of treatment is disinfection using chlorine. In general, raw quality seems to be of good quality, but has recently experienced some deterioration. In the past, a high proportion of water quality samples were in compliance with Bulgarian standards reported by the regional Hygiene and Epidemiological Institutes (HEIs). HEI reports for 1995-97, however, show that some samples from principal water sources failed to meet Bulgarian standards3.

Some of the most pressing problems with drinking water quality are as follows. First, some water supplies in rural areas contain high levels of nitrates, which are thought to affect children's health. Average connection rate for cities (more than 2,000 inhabitants) is only 62%. This applies to 3% of the population connected to drinking water supply systems, although the problem has declined recently because of new groundwater protection zones. Second, arsenic contamination has occurred in the Topolnitza River as a result of copper enrichment operations at a plant near Pirdop, which has affected the quality of drinking water in Pazardzik (around 3 Burgas, Pazardzik, Shumen, Ruse, Jambol and Haskovo failed to pass chemical standards. Haskovo and

Smoljian failed to pass microbiological standards.

44

78,000 inhabitants). Third, oil contamination is affecting the Pleven area (about 120,000 inhabitants). Fourth, water supply to settlements along the lower Maritsa below Plovdiv (about 160,000 inhabitants) and along the Danube (about 340,000 inhabitants) suffers from serious microbiological contamination.

In 1998, about 67% of the population was connected to the public sewerage system, and only part of the sewerage system was connected to wastewater treatment plants. As a result, about 36% of the wastewater discharged into the public system was not treated at all. Currently, only 13 out of the 28 towns with populations greater than 50,000 inhabitants have wastewater treatment facilities, and only 26 towns out of the 97 towns with populations greater than 10,000 have wastewater treatment plants. A National Program has been formulated for the construction of priority urban wastewater treatment plants for cities with above 10,000 inhabitants. So far, little progress has been made in its implementation.

Irrigation. Until 1989, irrigation facilities were built in about 0.8-1.25 million ha. Within the irrigated area, drainage systems were constructed in 0.13 million ha. The area fit for irrigation drastically decreased during the 1990s, reaching 0.64 million ha in 1996. Irrigation was heavily dependent on pumping. The degree of usability of the irrigation systems has been continuously decreasing. In 2001, actual area irrigated reached only 58,000 ha.

Water use for irrigation experienced a drastic reduction during the 1990s: from 1.2 BCM in 1991 to less than 100 MCM in 1997. The irrigation infrastructure has deteriorated because of the break up of large farms and the lack of finance for restructuring irrigation systems to meet the needs of small farmers. Average water losses in irrigation systems are 57%, reaching as much as 75% in some regions. Rising prices of irrigation have also contributed to the decline in irrigation activities. Farmer are reluctant to pay at rates ranging from USD0.01-0.085 per m, in particular hen the irrigation systems are not functional.

Institutional factors have contributed to the abandonment of the irrigation systems. First, the irrigation systems were built to serve large production units, but now the systems are supposed to provide water to many farmers. The system cannot respond to the various demands. Second, clear mechanisms to enforce property rights relations are lacking at the local level. While the legislation is in place to transfer irrigation facilities to water users who are willing to undertake their management, the irrigation infrastructure is still controlled by the state or local municipalities. Third, the irregularity of water supply together with the instability of agricultural prices has contributed to the abandonment of irrigation systems. Fourth, although water shortage has not contributed to the decline in irrigation water use, it is expected that this would play an important role in the near future.

There are plans to rehabilitate economically viable schemes that are managed by water users associations, responsible for the networks and crop selection. The long-term target is to restore about 400,000 ha of irrigated land.

Hydropower. The gross theoretical hydropower potential is 26,400 GWh/year, while the technically feasible potential is 15,000 GWh/year. About 30% of this potential has been developed so far. According to recent assessments, most of the hydropower potential about 90% -- is concentrated in the southeast region. Some of the exisiting major hydraulic infrastructure,

45

however, has impacted the aquatic ecosystems in reservoirs and downstream. There are plans to build a new dam on the Arda River in cooperation with Turkey.

Floods and droughts. Bulgaria has had a number of serious floods in the past. Intense summer storms, which are most probable from May to August, are an important cause of flooding, as is snowmelt (January to March) especially when accompanied by rainfall or snowfall, and ice blocking, a significant cause of flooding of the Danube. Flood damage generally comprises destruction of residential and farm buildings, roads, crops, domestic animals, and loss of reservoir capacity because of accumulated alluvium, and sometimes destruction of railway routes.

The riverside lowlands by the Danube are especially flood-prone, as are the fields and valleys near the mouth of the Danube River and the Black Sea tributaries, and the Upper Thracian and Burgas lowlands. The flood of the Danube in 1942 (caused by ice blocking) caused damages estimated at USD100 million, affecting about 19,000 people and damaging more than 4000 buildings. Among the floods of the smaller rivers, the Rositza flood of 1939 (caused by torrential rainfall) caused about USD25 million in damage and caused 47 casualties. The floods of 1957 (caused by heavy precipitation over several river basins) affected most of Bulgaria's river systems but were catastrophic along some rivers, the Maritsa in particular. This event flooded 52 towns and villages, destroying more than 3700 buildings, 31 railroad bridges, affecting 840 families and drowning six people. Damage was estimated at about USD100-150 million, 0.5% of national income.

From 1977 to 1988, compensation paid for floods was on the order of USD40 million. From 1993 to 1998, 120 floods were recorded, especially within the areas of the following towns: Montana, Vratsa, Gabrovo, Veliko Turnovo, Varna, Bourgas, Smolyan, Kurdjali and Plovdiv, among others. The total flood damages between 1990 and 2001 has been estimated at USD56 million. In the last 15-20 years, there has been a declining trend in flooding, apparently a consequence of a downturn in rainfall and overall water resources in some basins. However, weaker and locally calamitous flooding still occur.

A program of river regulation and flood protection works was undertaken over the last half-century. More than 2000 reservoirs now regulate the water regime, with a joint capacity of more than 37% of mean annual river runoff. In the last decade however, observations have been suspended at a number of the system's hydro-meteorological observing stations, even in significantly risky areas. Moreover, micro-dams built in 1950-1965, originally constructed on unreliable safety standards, are now poorly managed, or totally abandoned. These now pose a growing risk of inundation.

Bulgaria is prone to droughts. One of the main features of the climate in the Danube plain is insufficient precipitation, leading to dryness and frequent droughts. Droughts were very frequent during the last century and created many conflicts among water users and large losses to the agriculture sector. The country experienced several summer droughts; the most severe were registered in the 1980s (the driest decade of the century) and the 1940s (second driest decade). A decreasing trend in precipitation, particularly during the crop-growing season, has been observed since the end of the 1970s. The climate in Bulgaria has become drier in recent years. Between 1984-93, the country experienced more than 5 drought years. The summer drought of 1993

46

affected the agriculture sector. Crop losses caused by the drought were estimated at USD260 million (2% of GDP). The summer of 1996 was characterized by precipitation deficit during the crop-growing season, which led to considerable decrease in yields of major agriculture crops, which in turn affected food supplies. In 1996, maize and wheat grain annual production amounted to 44% and 50% respectively, of the average production during the period 1961-90. Similar losses were experienced during the drought of 2000.

Continuous droughts have also impacted water supplies for drinking purpose. In 1994, the drought caused the drying up of all reservoirs feeding Sofia at the time, water was supplied 24 hours every three days and the Government was contemplating cloud seeding to bring rain into the region. As a result of the 2000 drought, about 450,000 ha of land experienced rationing water. Plans are under way to build six new dams (estimated cost USD22 million) to overcome water shortage.

Water Legislation and Policies In 1997, a Strategy for Integrated Water Management was drafted for the period 1997-2002. Although the Strategy provided a good basis for the institutional reform of the water sector, the lack of financial resources and technical capabilities prevented its implementation. Nonetheless, the most important step forward has been the adoption of a new Water Act in July 1999, which entered into force in January 2000. The New Water Act replaces the old Law for the Waters of 1969, meets both the national requirements, and is in line with European Union legislation.

The Water Act has changed fundamentally the way water is managed in Bulgaria. According to the new Water Act, waters in Bulgaria should be managed as a common, national and indivisible natural resource; and individual river basins are to be managed in an integrated way. The Water Act includes the elements on the planning; identifies four natural river basins; introduces the principles of water management based on river basins; calls for the establishment of water management directorates, river basin councils; and for the preparation of river basin management plans and a National Water Economy Plan. On the basis of the New Act, a licensing system was established for the use of water and water facilities. This system includes: licenses for the use of surface and ground waters; licenses for the use of water facilities such as the drinking water infrastructure, protection against floods, fish ponds, etc.; licenses for activities that may have an impact on the natural state of the resource base; and licenses for the discharge of wastewater.

The Water Act introduces a natural resources fee for the use of water and water facilities for business purpose4. This fee is payable by the holder of the license for the volume of water removed from the source where consumption is measured.

The effective implementation of the Water Act requires the preparation and adoption of a series of regulations and corresponding implementing acts, some of which are currently under preparation (e.g., for improvement of permitting system, development of regulation system for tariff setting in water services, monitoring and upgrading of laboratory facilities, among other); and institutional changes within the various institutions managing water. 4 When the use is for personal purpose, the fee is zero. Personal purpose has a narrow definition: amount of

water taken can not exceed 0.2 liters per second and 10 cubic meter per 24 hours, when the water is used within the plot; or 0.20 ha with no more than 3,000 cubic meter per ha.

47

Water Management Institutions The new Water Act provides the institutional framework for water resources management at the national basin and sectoral levels. At the national level, the water management bodies are the Council of Ministers and the Ministry of Environment and Water. Representatives from the following institutions take part in the Council sittings: The Ministry of Environment and Water, the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Works, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forests, the Ministry of Industry, the Ministry of Transport and Communications, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Energetic and Energy Resources, the Bulgarian Academy of Science, municipalities and non-government organizations.

At the basin level, the water management bodies are the directors of the four basin directorates. At each of the basin, four basin councils will be established, and will include representatives of the state administration, the municipal administration, the water users, NGOs, and scientific organizations. Four basin directorates were established in January 2002.

At the sectoral level, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry is responsible for the management of irrigation water and maintaining irrigation, drainage, and flood control facilities. The Ministry of Regional Development and Public Works is in charge of implementing national policy for public works, in particular the development of water supply and sewerage systems. The Ministry of Transport is in charge of the control of passenger and cargo traffic on the Danube River and the Black Sea. The Ministry of Health controls the quality of drinking water and bathing water jointly with the Regional Hygiene Epidemiological Inspectors.

Now that a modern institutional framework for the management of water resources is in place, the challenge ahead is in continuing strengthening water management efforts, in particular improving capacity and technical competence and public-participation in the decision-making process.

Transboundary and International Water Issues Although only 1% of Bulgaria’s renewable resources come from neighboring countries, about 86% of its territory is within international river basins. As a result, transboundary water issues are of particular concern to Bulgaria. Discharges from Bulgarian national territory reach the Danube River, Black Sea and the Aegean Sea. Due to limited affordability and lack of public resources, Bulgaria has lagged in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities. According to available statistics, about 785 MCM of wastewater were discharged in 2001, out of which 56% was in compliance with national standards, 6% was partially treated and 30% was discharged without treatment. In 1992, Bulgaria signed the UNECE Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes, and in 1999, the Protocol on Water and Health.

At present, particular attention is being given to the water quality protection of the Maritsa River. This is a transboundary river and pollution from upstream has created international problems. This region of southern Bulgaria comprises about 20% of the area of the basin, and is home for about 25% of the total population. In addition, it is an important industrial region generating pollution that flows downstream into Greece.

48

After decades of negotiations, in 1996 an agreement was signed between Bulgaria and Greece on the use of the Nestos River. The agreement provides for Greece to use 29% of the average annual flow of the Nestos River for 35 years.

A joint monitoring program of the Struma River by Bulgarian and Greek experts was established in 1999 after the signing of a bilateral agreement between the two countries.

The solution of acute environmental problems on the Timok River, which is heavily polluted by mining activities in Serbia and Montenegro, whose waters are used for irrigation purposes, requires bilateral agreements with FYR Macedonia and Serbia and Montenegro.

Key Issues and Challenges The water resource management sector has undergone fundamental change in its legislation, policy and institutional framework in recent years. It will be essential to build the capacity of young water institutions so they can effectively implement the new Water Act. It is recommended that Bulgaria adopt a participatory planning approach when developing the river basin management plans and create good water balance in each river basin. The country should invest in awareness-raising campaigns to engage stakeholders in the planning process and gain their support for the implementation of the action plans. It should investigate the causes for the low utilization ratio of irrigation systems and its impacts on the rural poor, and assess the viability of rehabilitating the existing system.

References Government of Bulgaria. 2002. Program Concerning the Necessary Measures in the Circumstances of Trend to Drought. Ministry of Environment and Water. Sofia, Bulgaria. Report available at: http://www.moew.government.bg/index_e.html. National Audit Office. 2002. Summary Information About Changes in the Water Management in Bulgaria. Sofia, Bulgaria. Report available at: http://www.nik.gov.pl/grupa_eurosai/d_4e4t_an.htm.l. Penov, Ivan. 2002. The Use of Irrigation Water During Transition in Bulgaria. CEESA Discussion Papers. Discussion Paper No. 7. Humboldt University Berlin. Berlin, Germany. Report available at: http://www.ceesa.de/DiscussionPapers/DP7_Penov.pdf. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. 2000. Environmental Performance Review of Bulgaria. UNECE. Geneva, Switzerland. United Nations. 2002. Johannesburg Summit 2002 – Bulgaria Country Profile. New York, NY, USA. Report available at: http://www.un.org/esa/agenda21/natlinfo/wssd/bulgaria.pdf. WHO/UNICEF. 2001. Access to Improved Sanitation - Bulgaria. WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation. Geneva, Switzerland. Report available at: http://childinfo.org/eddb/sani/ceecis/bulgaria_sanitation1.pdf.

49

World Bank. 2003. Flood Profile for Bulgaria. Prepared by Lucy Hancock on the basis of a report by L. Ziapkov for the World Bank in 2000 and 2002. Washington, DC, USA.

50

BULGARIA: WATER FACT SHEET




1995 2000 Goal for 2020Access to sewerage 58% 67% 84% Urban n.a 90% 95% Rural n.a 20% 60%Note: Goal refers to MDGs.


1990 1994 1999 2000GDP per capita (constant 1995 US$) 1716 1503 1443 1544GDP total (billions of 1995 US$) 15.0 12.7 11.6 12.3 Share from agriculture 18% 11% 17% n.a. Share from industry 51% 33% 27% 28%

1990 1994 1999 2000Labor force (millions of people) 4.4 4.3 4.2 4.2 Share in agriculture 19% 23% n.a n.a Share in industry 44% 35% n.a n.a








Total water resources (BCM) 21.3 Of which total surface water (BCM) 20.4 Of which total groundwater (BCM) 6.4 Overlap between surface and groundwater 5.5Dependency ratio 1.4%

1990 2000 2015 2020


1988 1997

Total annual water use (in BCM) 13.0 3.1 Agriculture 7.2 0.3 Industrial 4.9 1.4 Domestic 0.9 1.4


-

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

2000 MDG2015P

op

ula

tio

n (i

n m

illio

n)

Urban

Rural

-

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

1990 2000 2010 2020

Po

pu

lati

on

(in

mill

ion

)

Urban Pop

Rural Pop

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

1988 1997

Trends of Water Use (BCM)

Agriculture

Industrial

Domestic

Access to Sewerage

-

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

2000 MDG2020

Po

pu

lati

on

(in

mill

ion

)

Urban

Rural

51

WATER QUALITY AND POLLUTION 1990-91 1998Wastewater produced (BCM) 1.73 1.14 Wastewater treated (%) 42% 57%



DAMS AND HYDROPOWERReservoir capacity (BCM) 5.0 (15-30% natural runoff) Irrigation dams 3.0 Hydropower damsReservoir capacity in cubic meters per capita 629 (in 2000)



IRRIGATION 1992 1995 1997 1998Equipped Irrigated land ('000 ha) 579 673 636 582 Irrigated land per capita (ha) 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.07Irrigated land as share of cropland 29% 18% 18% 18%


FINANCING THE WATER SECTORAverage cost recovery: Irrigation water services 8%-47% Overall costs Municipal water services * These are ball park estimates.

$YHUDJH�ZDWHU�SULFH�8 6 � FHQW�P 1999-00Water domestic users 31.2 0.17 0.68

Sewerage 8.5Combined water, sewerage and treatment 50.0

Irrigation 1-8.5


0100,000200,000300,000400,000500,000600,000700,000800,000

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

EquippedActual


0

10

20

30

40

50

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Other

Hydropower


05,000

10,00015,00020,00025,00030,00035,00040,000

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999


0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.0

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

Kg/

capi

ta

52

CROATIA Socio-Economic and Geographic Context Croatia (with a total area of 5.65 million hectares) consists of two distinct geographical regions: the Danube basin within the Black Sea catchment area (3.51 million ha or about 62% of the total area) and the Mediterranean region (2.14 million ha), which includes the Adriatic Sea coastline. Mountains separate the two regions. Croatia’s climate varies from mild, rainy winters and dry summers in the Mediterranean region, with precipitation ranging between 600 mm to 1,500 mm; to colder winters and more precipitation in the northern and eastern parts of Croatia reaching up to 3,000 mm. The average precipitation is 1,160 mm.

According to official statistics, Croatia’s population was 4.44 million in 2001. Less than half of the population (40%) lives in rural areas (in settlements with less than 2000 inhabitants). The tourism industry, whose success depends on the Adriatic Sea coastline and the offshore islands, contributes significantly to the economy and generates about 85% of Croatia’s foreign exchange.

Water Resource Base For the purpose of water management, Croatian territory is divided into four water districts plus the Zagreb Metropolitan Area water district. These water districts are: (i) the Sava River basin; (ii) the Drava and Danube basin; (iii) the Dalmatian basin; and (iv) the Istrian and Littoral basin.

Surface and groundwater resources. Croatia can be considered a water-abundant country. Its overall renewable resources amount to 71.4 BCM or 14,900 m per capita, out of which about 60% are generated within Croatia and the remaining from upstream countries (namely, Slovenia, Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Hungary). Resources are unevenly distributed throughout the country5.

The major water resource is surface water, which is found in 20 rivers, 26 natural and artificial lakes, and the Adriatic Sea. The major watercourses total 6,829 km. Most rivers flow into the Danube or one of its tributaries. The Danube River (coming from Hungary) flows through Croatia over a length of 188 km. The Drava and the Sava Rivers (both coming from Slovenia), which are the major tributaries of the Danube, flow through Croatia over 562 km and 505 km, respectively. Many rivers serve as borders with neighboring countries, e.g. the Dragonja, the Mura and the Drava, the Danube, the Korana, the Kupa, the Sutla, the Sava and the Una. The only transboundary rivers are the Bosut and the Neretva. The largest rivers belong to the Black Sea catchment area and the shortest to the Adriatic catchment area. The karst rivers such as the Mirna, the Raša, the Lika, the Gacka, the Zrmanja, the Krka and the Cetina provide mean annual volumes of water of some 10 BCM.

There is a significant seasonal and annual variability in river runoff. The year-to-year variability of annual runoff is very high. In dry years, the annual runoff is less than one quarter (21%) of the average year flow. The situation is more severe in the Adriatic basin. In addition, because of

5 These figures don’t account for flows from border rivers. When these flows are included, overall

renewable resources amount to 156.3 BCM or 35,200 m3 per capita.

53

its geomorphology and its climate, Croatia is very prone to water damages, namely floods. In order to address distributional and seasonal fluctuations and meet the demands of households, industry and tourism, storage reservoirs (1.53 BCM) and long transmission mains were constructed.

The total surface area of natural and artificial lakes over 0.2 km2 is approximately 81 km2. The most famous natural lakes are the Plitvice Lakes representing a watercourse of the Korana River, which developed as a series of 16 cascading lakes with numerous travertine downstream beds in a vivid biodynamic process. This area is a natural park and included in the UNESCO World Cultural and Natural Heritage List. Lake Vransko near Biograd, with the surface area of 30.7 km2 is the largest natural lake in Croatia. The Vransko Lake on the Cres Island, 74 m deep, is the largest natural freshwater accumulation in the north Adriatic region.

Croatia’s coast on the Adriatic Sea is 5,835 km long, of which more than 1,000 of islands account for 4,058 km. Its territorial waters cover 31 km2. The coastal regions are characterized by a large variety of flora and fauna, including numerous endemic species. Due to the mountain chains the catchment area of the eastern coast is very limited so that only a small volume of freshwater from Croatia (20% of Croatia’s rivers by the volume of water) drain into the Adriatic Sea.

Fishponds are an important water surface in Croatia. In the continental part of Croatia there are numerous carp fishponds with the surface area of some 131 km2 and a volume of 400 MCM of water. The Sava catchment area there are 15 warm-water fishponds (surface areas ranging from 50 ha to 1,500 ha by individual sites) totaling 9,205 ha, for which it is necessary to provide 283 MCM of water annually.

In the Drava and Danube catchment areas, there are 6 warm-water fishponds with a surface area between 20 and 800 ha. The total surface area of the fish ponds is 2,845 hectares and their need for quality water amounts to 104.7 MCM.

Mineral and thermal waters used in Croatia for medicinal and recreational purposes and for drinking are insufficiently exploited resources. There are 11 thermal health resorts. A total of 7.0 MCM mineral water is used yearly, of which 0.3 MCM is sold on the market.

Groundwater resources are also abundant and represent about 20% of the total renewable resources. In the Sava and Drava basins, groundwater can be found in water-bearing strata in areas with alluvial formation. Karst formations predominate in the Dalmatian and the Istrian and Littoral basins. Water from underground fissures appears on the surface as karst springs. Despite the water abundance, there are quantity problems at key localities such as the Adriatic islands, which have poor water resources. They continuously experience water shortages during summer. In addition, a slightly decrease in the water table has been observed in the aquifer below Zagreb and an important one in the Drava River aquifer (4 m. over 20 years).

Wetlands. Croatia has a wealth of wetland habitats particularly those of riverine origin. The most important areas are floodplains of the Sava, Drava, Danube and Neretva river basins, with numerous, mostly well-preserved wetland habitats significant for endangered species of migratory birds. Four locations in Croatia are listed as Ramsar sites -- Lonjsko Polje, Crna

54

Mlaka fishpond, Kopacki rit and the Neretva River delta, which are thus designated as areas of global importance.

The Nature Park of Lonjsko Polje is situated in the central part of the country, bordering in the north with the slopes of the Moslovacka Gora mountain and the Zagreb-Slavonski Brod highway, and the Sava River in the south. Lonjsko Polje is located in the Middle Sava region. It comprises an area of 506 km2, and includes floodplains of the Sava River and its tributaries, namely, Lonja, Struga, Pakra, Ilova, Trebež, Cesma and other minor tributaries.

The Kopacki Rit Nature Park is situated to the northeastern part of the Croatia, in the area called Baranja, at the confluence of the Drava into the Danube. It covers an area of 177 km2, criss-crossed by numerous canals, fish ponds and lakes, surrounded by willow and poplar woods and oak forests and other plant habitats. It lies on the border between two climatic zones -- the continental climate of Central-European and the continental climate of the Pannonian plain.

The Crna Mlaka fishpond (7.2 km2) is located south of Zagreb and north of Korlovac, and originates from floodplains of the Kupa and Sava Rivers.

Lonjsko Polje and Kopacki Rit are the best-preserved and the most important floodplains in the Danube river basin and a significant factor in the conservation of globally and regionally threatened species.

The Neretva delta is situated at the Neretva River mouth into the Adriatic Sea. The major part of the Neretva River (195 km out of a total length of 220 km) is in Bosnia and Herzegovina . The delta itself is shared by Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. The delta wetlands cover 320 km2 of which 120 km2 is located within Croatia and the rest in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Along the entire Croatian part of the Adriatic coast, there are numerous smaller marshes.

Water Quality. Croatia has a systematic program for monitoring the quality of surface waters (rivers, lakes and storage reservoirs) and groundwater (water springs). In the year 2000, quality of surface waters (rivers, lakes and reservoirs) and springs was systematically monitored at 272 measuring stations. Apart from the Central Authorized Water Management Laboratory of Croatian Water, 12 authorized laboratories conduct systematic water quality monitoring, mainly the laboratory of the Public Health Institute in individual counties and some other institutions.

The results of systematic monitoring of water quality have shown that the highest deviations from water category for individual sections of rivers or lakes are caused by increased values of microbiological parameters, whereas biological parameters caused the slightest deviations. Increased values of microbiological parameters indicate a more permanent load by municipal wastewater. According to the monitored basic parameters, surface water in Croatia is mostly of the categories II and III, with the exception of microbiological parameters, according to which it belongs to categories III and IV. A comparison with earlier reports on water quality status, which were occasionally prepared, shows that in the previous period in Croatia there was no major deterioration of surface water quality. The results of the monitoring program also indicates that the areas exposed to the highest impact of diffuse pollution from agriculture are the water districts of the Drava and Danube river basins and the Dalmatian river basins.

55

The quality of groundwater is generally considered good throughout the country. Groundwater source in the western part of the Sava and Drava alluvial aquifer are exposed to anthropogenic pollution, although a certain improvement in water quality is noticeable. Groundwater quality of the Adriatic river basins continues to be high. Occasional occurrence of bacteriological contamination is the only significant problem in otherwise excellent water quality of mountainous region aquifers of the Pannonian plain.

In the Adriatic river basins, due to karst characteristics, it is virtually impossible to separate surface waters from groundwater. In general, it could be claimed that groundwater is of high quality - the main problem being sudden and relatively brief changes of quality in the wet season, when turbidity and contents of suspended solids multiplied several folds.

Reports on the state of the sea and its water quality (the northern Adriatic, the areas of Zadar, Šibenik, Split and Dubrovnik) indicate that a considerable part of the Croatian portion of the Adriatic Sea is still oligotrophic and clean. This is partly due to the fact that in the past decade there was a considerable decline in the industrial production in the Adriatic coastal region as a consequence of the transition process. At the same time the number of tourists went down considerably, thus reducing the amount of urban pollution. However, the ports of big cities and the industrial zones along the coast are often polluted by organic and inorganic substances of which petroleum hydrocarbons are the most noticeable pollutants. The sources of marine pollution are inhabitants (urban areas without full public sewerage systems), tourism, maritime transport, industry, agriculture, cattle breeding and discharges of polluted waters from rivers and ground waters.

Water quality monitoring system of surface waters and some springs has improved significantly during the past years, whereas the systematic monitoring system of groundwater quality in certain areas needs to be extended throughout the country. Special attention needs to be paid to improvement and standardization of the national bio-monitoring system.

Water Use and Management by Sector Total water use was estimated at 1.42 BCM in 1996, with water for industry and cooling accounting for 33%. Industrial water (0.26 BCM) is abstracted from surface sources, and the rest comes from the public supply system. Cooling water (0.2 BCM) goes mostly for electric production as well as the chemical and refining industries. Public water supply accounts for 37% or 0.53 BCM and is predominantly drawn from groundwater and springs. Irrigation is almost negligible, accounting for less 20 MCM. Fish and fish breeding in fishponds are well developed in Croatia and the related water use accounts for 29% of total water use.

Drinking Water and Sanitation Coverage. Between 1991 and 2000, the population with access to public water supply increased from 62% to 76%. There are significant differences in service delivery regionally. In addition, during the summer season, both areas in the high karst region and in the islands of the Adriatic Sea experience shortage of drinking water. Significant numbers of people still take water from local sources such as shallow wells, collect rainwater and during the summer are served by tanker trucks. About 50% of the shallow wells are at risk of microbial contamination.

56

Sewerage coverage is estimated at 52% countrywide, and shows considerable regional variation. Combined sanitary and rainwater systems predominate in the city centers with systems that are more than 50 years old. At present about 15% of the population is connected to primary and secondary treatment plants, compared to 10% in 1997. In rural areas wastewater flows to septic tanks. In 1997, only 20% of total municipal wastewater was treated of which about 81% was subject to mechanical treatment, about 6% was biologically treated and 13% was pre-treated industrial discharge 6. At present, there are 81 municipal wastewater treatment plants: 22 plants with preliminary treatment, 26 with primary treatment and 34 with secondary treatment. Alomg the coast, treated wastewater is discharged into the sea via long submarine outfalls. Despite significant investments in the construction of municipal sewerage systems and wastewater treatment plants, large quantities of untreated wastewater are still discharged directly into the sea and rivers, causing the contamination of recreational wasters. The level of health risk in the tourist areas along the coast is high.

Industry is supplied by water partly from the public water supply system and partly by its own water abstraction facilities. The volumes of water abstracted by the industry itself are estimated at about 260 MCM yearly. Due to the decline in industrial production, there has been a reduction of the water volumes abstracted for industrial purposes.

Irrigation and drainage. Until 1990, irrigation systems were built on 5,420 ha of agricultural land. This represents 0.8% of the total agriculture land that requires irrigation. Irrigation has received considerable importance in the economic development plan as part of the development of multipurpose water management systems. The recent drought events, which put in question the viability of conventional crop farming in Croatia 7, have prompted the government to study the irrigation sector in more detail. The constant increase in population, the relatively low availability of land, and constant loss of agricultural areas due to urban development are also calling for the expansion of irrigation to increase the crop yields. It is under consideration to expand irrigation systems to 160,000 ha by year 2025. Until 1990, basic drainage by open drains was carried out on 0.6 million ha. A large portion of the country is subject to excessive humidity of about 1.8 million ha. About 62% of the area is covered with drainage systems, but the infrastructure has deteriorated since the 1990s as a result of the war, the uncertainty of land tenure changes and shortage of financial resources.

Hydropower. In 1986, the gross theoretical hydropower potential in Croatia was estimated at 20,000 GWh/year, the technically feasible potential at 12,000 GWh/year and the economic potential at 10,500 GWh/year. So far, about 51% of the technically feasible potential has been developed and there are plans to expand the current hydropower capacity. On average hydropower supplies about 54% of power production in the country. Artificial lakes have been created as storage lakes for hydropower plants, for water supply, protection against floods and several other purposes. Artificial lakes have a total surface area of 80 km2 and the useful volume of water totaling 1.5 BCM.

6 Most recent statistics indicate that only 12% of wastewater is treated, of which only 4.4% receives

secondary treatment. 7 Both Slavonia and Baranja have been experiencing severe droughts – 60% of the years were dry.

57

Floods. As a consequence of spacious mountainous areas with high precipitation and the presence of wide valley of lowland watercourses, some areas of Croatia are subject to frequent flooding, whether through flash floods, groundwater/overspill of water channels in river valleys, or flooding of poljes. Flash floods are most likely to occur during the season of high intensity precipitation, from May to September, groundwater floods from November to March, flooding of poljes in karst from October to April. It is estimated that floods endanger over 15% of the national inland territory.

Zagreb is regularly flooded. The low-lying part of the city is flooded by the Sava River, the upper town by flash floods originating in storm torrents from the Medvednica Mountains, and the central part by flash floods when the city sewage system fails to drain overspill from the six creeks in city center. (Seventeen flash floods were recorded in Zagreb in the 20th century.) The Sava River flood of 1964 killed 17, required evacuation of 40,000, and cost about USD100 million. The flood of 1989 (a flash flood) killed five, required evacuation of 5000, and did damage estimated at USD25 million.

Damage caused to Zagreb by Sava River flooding is expected to be lower in future as a result of a program of flood control, now about half complete, which diverts the flood to uninhabited areas naturally exposed to flooding, where inundation is ecologically valuable for conservation of the relief basins' natural landscapes. Part of this area is that which has been designated to the Lonjsko Polje Nature Park. It appears the new system prevented the Sava River flood that damaged Slovenia in November 1990, from causing major flooding in Zagreb, potentially worse that that of 1964. When complete, the flood control system is expected to protect not only Zagreb but also the Central Posavina region, which was flooded three times during the 1990s.

A system of reservoirs in the Medvednica mountains is designed to limit flood damage from storm torrents. The system is not complete. Flash floods continue to recur in Zagreb (the most recent was in 1998) due to inadequate drainage in the city center.

Other areas which flood are: the town of Karlovac is regularly flooded by the Kupa River; Vukovar and Osijek were flooded in 1965 and agricultural production was devastated; the Istria peninsula is subject to floods and experienced catastrophic high water in 1993 that did damage estimated at USD30 million. Split, Rijeka, Šibenik and Dubrovnik are subject to frequent flash floods. The Vrgorsko Polje has flooded three times in the last twenty years. The small karstic North Adriatic islands also flood: besides destruction to urban areas, one tourist lost his life during the flood of 1990.

The view of combining the multipurpose use of river streams with flood protection objectives tends to prevail in Croatia. Most of the protection works have been built following this view.

The analysis of the situation of Croatia with recent West European catastrophic floods in mind leads to the conclusion that floods risk in today’s Croatia are exceptionally high. Moreover, the general public is not sufficiently aware of the danger posed by the floods. Something needs to be done to address the following shortcomings with the current flood management system:

58

• Existing protection systems along nearly all major Croatian rivers do not provide standard protection levels of the lowland from floods of a 100 year return period in many places,

• Approximately 15 % torrential basins are regulated, • Potentially endangered land and the land necessary for the normal functioning of

protection systems is inadequately used in many places, • Current water management has only about 65 % necessary funds available for regular

technical and economic management of watercourses, water estate and water structures, • Funds for improvement, reconstruction and further development of protection systems

are non-existent, • Despite great efforts, war-related damages are still not fully repaired, • Financial insurance of property from uncovered flood risks is virtually non-existent, and • Hydrological forecasting systems are insufficiently developed.

Water Legislation and Policies Overall legislation on water management consists of two laws, the Water Act issued in 1995 and the Water Management Financing Act, and 38 regulations and secondary legislation (as of June 4, 2003). The Water Act. It lays the institutional framework for water management activities, regulates the legal status of water and its ownership; the various means in which water is managed; assigns responsibilities to various levels of government, local authorities and legal subjects; and establishes a water agency, the Croatian Waters (Hrvatske Vode). The Water Act introduces the concept of managing water at the district level, by dividing Croatia into four water districts or territorial units for water management purposes (which contain one or more catchment areas of minor watercourses and include both surface and groundwater) plus the city of Zagreb as an independent unit. It also provides for the regulation of watercourses and the protection against adverse effects of flood and declares that the provision of drinking water to the population has absolute priority over any other water use. With regard to pollution protection, the Water Act regulates the protection of wells, aquifers and well- inflow areas by setting up sanitary protection zones around sources of water used for public supply. It declares that these sanitary zones are under the responsibility of the municipalities. The Water Act requires the preparation of Water Management Plan of Croatia. The plan should specify the needed investments for integrated water management. The Water Management Financing Act. This Act regulates and assigns responsibilities for financing water management activities. It covers the funds for the cost of the administration of water management, maintenance of existing facilities and planning and investment in new facilities. In addition, the Act identifies funding sources. The principle that the beneficiaries of water management activities should pay in relation to the benefits received is the foundation of the Act.

59

Water Management Institutions The two government institutions that have direct responsibility for integrated water management in Croatia are: the State Water Directorate and the Croatian Waters (Hrvatske Vode). In addition, there is the National Water Council (the body of the Parliament), which was established by the 1995 Water Act to discuss policies, strategies, and implementation of laws regarding water management. The State Water Directorate (SWD). This body is responsible for administrative and other issues related to integrated management of water resources and water management systems and for incorporating water resources management and development issues within the overall economic development framework. Within the sphere of water pollution, the State Water Directorate is responsible for the protection of water sources from pollution and the protection of the sea from land-based pollution sources. In addition, SWD is responsible for planning and coordinating the development and construction of large water supply, sewage, and wastewater systems; and for the monitoring of water resources. The SWD proposes to the Government the level of water use fee and water protection fee. The Croatian Waters. It has overall responsibility for carrying out activities related to the management of national and local water sources. It acts in close collaboration with municipal companies in water districts and coordinates and finances the implementation of water quality monitoring of surface waters by authorized laboratories. It performs public services and other tasks as defined in the Water Act and the Water Management Plan and and the Water Management Act. The SWD supervises the work of Croatian Waters. Other Institutions. The sectoral ministries that also have an important role in water management and that should be included in any discussions related to integrated water management are:

• The Ministry of Environmental Protection and Physical Planning is responsible for issues related to general environmental policy, for correlation of water issues with other environmental issues and for harmonization of regional physical development and planning.

• The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry is responsible for agriculture, food and tobacco industry, dealing with producing, market and use of the products for agricultural production (fertilizers, pesticides, etc).

• The Ministry of Health is responsible for drinking water quality. • The Ministry for Public Works, Reconstruction and Construction is responsible for

development of strategic infrastructure projects and investment programs of national interest, including major water structures.

• The Ministry of Economy, Ministry of Tourism, and Ministry of Finance also participate in discussions related to water demand and emission standards.

• On the local level, municipal and county governments are responsible for the design and implementation of infrastructure projects including water supply and sewerage/waste water treatment systems.

60

Transboundary Issues Both points and non-point pollution sources in Slovenia, Hungary and Austria have transboundary effects on the Drava and Sava Rivers. Their water regimes are affected by the existing hydropower plans in Slovenia and Austria and other ongoing constructions. Hazardous waste disposal at Gyor in Hungary has transboundary impacts on the Lower Drava river and the Danube basin in general. The Sava basin is polluted by wastewater and point and non-point sources of pollution in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Slovenia. The nuclear power plant on the border with Slovenia is another source of pollution. Croatia, in turn, contributes to the pollution of the Sava basin with loads of nutrients from industrial and municipal wastewater and agriculture runoff. Croatia is especially active with neighboring countries in issues related to cooperation in water management. Croatia is an active member of the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River. In addition, Croatia has entered into bilateral arrangements with its neighbors to jointly manage shared waters. For example, a Permanent Croatian-Hungarian Commission on Water Management was established in 1994 to address water management issues in the Drava, Mura and Danube Rivers. Another example is the Permanent Croatian-Slovenian Commission on Water Management for the joint management of transboundary groundwater on the karst area between Croatia and Slovenia. Such agreement is also being established between the governments of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina Key Issues and Challenges The eastern region of the Adriatic is still one of the best-preserved coastal areas of the European part of the Mediterranean. However, at present mainland wastewaters are the major source of coastal pollution. The coastal waters near the mainland are more polluted with wastewaters than the island coastal waters. Preservation of the coastal water resources will be key to the growth of tourism in Croatia and will require substantial investment in wastewater treatment. There is however a shortage of funds for investments of this magnitude. Preservation of the Adriatic coast and its waters will also require transboundary cooperation in areas such as maritime transport, marine spills, and conservation of transboundary wetlands. Croatia has joined with its neighbors in the Sava River Commission, which should help address the transboundary issues of navigation, floods, and water pollution. References Government of Croatia. 2001. An Overview of the State Biological and Landscape Diversity of Croatia. Ministry of Environmental Planning and Protection. Zagreb, Croatia. Government of Croatia. 2002. National Environnemental Action Plan. Ministry of Environmental Planning and Protection. Zagreb, Croatia.

61

International Commission of Irrigation and Drainage. 2002. Croatian Country Report. National Committee of the International Commission of Irrigation and Drainage. Zagreb, Croatia. Report available at: http://www.icid.org/index_e.html Strosse, Pierre. 2001. “Water Pricing in Selected Accession Countries to the European Union – Current Policies and Trends.” In Economic Instruments and Water Policies in Central and Eastern Europe. Regional Environmental Center. Zagreb, Croatia. United Nations Commission for Europe. 1999. Environmental Performance Review of Croatia. UNECE. Geneva, Switzerland. 2000. United Nations. 2002. Johannesburg Summit 2002 – Croatia Country Profile. New York, NY, USA. Report available at: http://www.un.org/esa/agenda21/natlinfo/wssd/croatia.pdf World Bank. 1999. Croatia Municipal Water Supply and Wastewater Collection, Pollution Control and Flood Protection. Overview, Issues and Bank Strategy. Washington, DC, USA. World Bank. 2003. Croatia Flood Profile. Prepared by Lucy Hancock on the basis of a report prepared by Ognjen Bonacci for the World Bank in 2000. Washington, DC, USA.

62

CROATIA: WATER FACT SHEET



1991 2000 Goal for 2015Access to clean water 62% 76% 88% Urban n.a. 95% 98% Rural n.a. 52% 76%Note: Goal refers to MDGs.

1997 2000 Goal for 2020Access to sewerage 35% 52% 76% Urban n.a. 71% 86% Rural n.a. 26% 63%Note: Goal refers to MDGs.


1990 1995 1999 2000GDP per capita (constant 1995 US$) 5438 4059 4969 5146GDP total (billions of 1995 US$) 26.0 18.8 21.7 22.5 Share from agriculture 10% 11% 10% n.a. Share from industry 34% 33% 33% 33%

1991 1996 1997 1998Labor force (millions of people) 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.1 Share in agriculture 5% 20% 18% 17% Share in industry 45% 29% 30% 30%


Of GDP -2.2% 2.0% Of population -0.4% 0.0%

1999



Land area (millions of ha) 5.65Land area in international basins (millions of ha) 3.56 Percentage of country in international basins 63.0%

Average precipitation (mm) 1,160Average total volume of rainfall (BCM) 6.56

Total internal renewable water resources (BCM) 37.7 Of which surface water (BCM) 27.2 Of which groundwater 11.0 (wide range 30.3-5.6 BCM) Overlap between surface and groundwater 0.5

Total external renewable water resources (BCM) 33.7 Of which surface water (BCM) 33.7 (does not include border flows) Of which groundwater (BCM) 0.0

Total renewable resources (BCM) 71.4 Of which total surface water (BCM) 60.9 Of which total groundwater (BCM) 11.0 Overlap between surface and groundwater 0.5Dependency ratio 47.2%

1990 2000 2015 2020


1990 1996Total annual water Used (in BCM) 2.65 1.42 Irrigation/fishponds 0.42 0.43 Industrial/cooling 1.76 0.46 Domestic 0.47 0.53


-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

2000 MDG2015P

op

ula

tio

n (

in m

illio

n)

Urban

Rural

-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

1990 2000 2010 2020

Po

pu

lati

on

(in

mill

ion

)

Urban Pop

Rural Pop

0.00

0.40

0.80

1.20

1.60

2.00

1990 1996

Trends of Water Used (BCM)

Irrigation/fishponds Industrial/cooling Domestic

Access to Sewerage

-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

2000 MDG2020

Po

pu

lati

on

(in

mill

ion

)

Urban

Rural

63

WATER QUALITY AND POLLUTION 1997 2000Wastewater produced (BCM) 0.29 n.a. Wastewater treated (%) 20% 12%






IRRIGATION 1990 1995 1998 1999Irrigated land ('000 ha) 5.4 3.0 3.0 3.0 Irrigated land per capita (ha) 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 Irrigated land as share of cropland n.a. 0.2% 0.2% 0.2%


FINANCING THE WATER SECTORAverage cost recovery: 2000 Irrigation water services 0% Municipal water services 50% * These are ball park estimates.

$YHUDJH�ZDWHU�SULFH�8 6�FHQW�P 1997 2000

Households 66.4 57.0 28-82

Industry 96.7 91.0 58-140 Irrigation 0.0 0.0

Water user abstraction charges (US cents/m3)

Households 10-15 Industrial user 13-20

Effluent charges (US cents/m3)

Households connected to public water supply About 25% of water consumption bill

Industrial user 13.3 Power plants 0.013

(100% O&M and urgent investments)


01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,000

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000


02468

101214

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Other

Hydropower


0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999


0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.0

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

Kg

/cap

ita

64

THE CZECH REPUBLIC8

Flood Management Flooding in the Czech Republic depends only on in-country precipitation and atmospheric conditions; there are no glaciers, and no transboundary rivers flow into Czech territory. Floods are of several types: winter floods caused by ice jams, winter and spring floods fed by snowmelt (both types are most frequent in the mountains and in narrow river valleys), and summer floods caused by long- lasting and widespread precipitation (most frequent on larger watercourses or streams with larger catchments) or by short, high- intensity storms (can occur anywhere). The last flood originating in a large dam failure was in 1916. Precipitation tends to cause flooding quickly or not at all, and once underway, floods tend to drain out of the Czech Republic within a few days. Historically, the average annual cost of flooding has been about USD25 million. Until the floods of 2002, the most important recent flood by far was that of July 1997, caused by extraordinarily heavy, long- lasting and intense rains. It affected all the country's river basins. Discharge was 35% to 75% above the estimated 100-year level, and was accompanied by destructive erosion. About 40 people were killed, 1300 homes completely destroyed and 8500 seriously damaged; 70,000 people evacuated; in the Morava basin, drinking wells throughout the flood plains were contaminated, damage to transportation was estimated at about USD70 million, and destruction of farm crops was estimated at USD35 million; in the basin of the Oder, property damage was estimated at USD600 million. Other, lesser damages were incurred as well. Total damage was estimated at about USD2 billion. The floods of August 2002 exceeded those of 1997; damage in 2002 is estimated at about USD3 billion. The floods of 2002 are still being analyzed. It appears that flood insurance, which has been available from private companies on a voluntary basis, will be a significant factor in the recovery, financing up to USD1 billion. At present, flood protection is not to a standard level; it varies from protection at the level of the five-year flood to that of the hundred-year flood. However, following the flood of 1997, the government is reviewing flood protection, and may undertake flood protection for urbanized areas designed to the level of the highest historical flood.

Reference World Bank. 2003. Flood Profile of the Czech Republic. Prepared by Lucy Hancock on the basis of a report by Evzen Zeman for the World Bank in 2002. Washington, DC, USA.

8 This note only covers flood management issues.

65



1990 1998 Goal for 2015Access to piped water supply 83% 92% 96% Urban n.a. n.a. n.a. Rural n.a. n.a. n.a.Note: Goal refers to MDGs.

1990 2000 Goal for 2020Access to sewage 72% 74% 87% Urban n.a. n.a. n.a. Rural n.a. n.a. n.a.Note: Goal refers to MDGs.



1990 1995 1998 1999Labor force (millions of people) 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.7 Share in agriculture 12% 7% n.a n.a Share in industry 42% n.a n.a n.a


Of GDP 0.0% 0.1% Of population -0.1% -0.1%

1999




Total internal renewable water resources (BCM) 13.2 Of which surface water (BCM) 13.2 Of which groundwater 1.4 Overlap between surface and groundwater 1.4

Total external renewable water resources (BCM) 0.0 Of which surface water (BCM) 0.0 Of which groundwater (BCM) 0.0


1990 2000 2015 2020


1991 1995 1997Total annual water Used (in BCM) 2.74 2.47 2.50 Irrigation 0.25 0.17 0.17 Industrial/thermal power 1.86 1.70 1.37 Domestic 0.63 0.60 0.95

CZECH REPUBLIC: WATER FACT SHEET


-

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

1998 MDG2015P

op

ula

tio

n (i

n m

illio

n)

-

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

1990 2000 2010 2020

Po

pu

latio

n (

in m

illio

n) Urban Pop

Rural Pop

0.00

0.30

0.60

0.90

1.20

1.50

1.80

2.10

2.40

1991 1995 1997


Irrigation Industrial/thermal power Domestic

Access to Sewage

-

1.02.03.0

4.05.0

6.07.0

8.09.0

10.0

1998 MGD2020

Po

pu

lati

on

(in

mill

ion

)

66

WATER QUALITY AND POLLUTION 2001Volume of wastewater (BCM) 0.57 Volume treated 94.8%




Gross theoretical hydropower potential (GWh/y) 13,100 Technically feasible (GWh/y) 2,711 Economically feasible (GWh/y) n.a.Currrent production from hydropower (GWh/y) 1,616 (in 2000)




FINANCING THE WATER SECTORAverage cost recovery: Irrigation water services Municipal water services 100.0% O&M &Deprec Costs * These are ball park estimates.

$YHUDJH�ZDWHU�SULFH�86 � FHQW�P 1997 Households 0.36 Industry 0.49 Irrigation n.a.Water treatment (US cent/m3)

Households 0.29 Industry 0.41


05,000

10,000

15,00020,000

25,00030,000

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

Other

Hydropower


0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999


0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

Kg

/cap

ita

67

ESTONIA9 Flood Management According to available sources, there is no evidence of any catastrophic flooding causing loss of human life in Estonia during historical times. Although the country is low and large areas are regularly flooded, damages are relatively limited because the flood zones are fairly well known and the law limits the economic use of areas most likely to flood. Several flood-prone areas are covered with natural landscapes; one contains a bird sanctuary of international importance; another lies within a national park named (in Estonian) “Mireland.” Estonian floods are caused by sea level fluctuations as well as by spring and autumn flooding on inland rivers. The most serious flood ever recorded was of the first kind: in 1967, wind-driven sea-level rise on the west coast of Estonia inundated a large area of the town of Parnu. The sea level rise was 253 centimers (cm), far beyond the maximum ever previously observed (183 cm). Parnu and Haapsalu are regularly subject to sea level fluctuations of 1-2 meters. Possible damage and economic losses may result if there is a permanent rise in sea level resulting from climate change. As for flooding by inland rivers, areas known to be potentially threatened include districts in several towns, including Tartu, Mustvee, Lohusuu and Voru, and a number of villages. When flooding occurs, it destroys buildings and roads, and damages wastewater systems and wastewater treatment plants. Reference World Bank. 2003. Flood Profile of Estonia. Prepared by Lucy Hancock on the basis of a report by Juri Roosaare for the World Bank in 2000. Washington, DC, USA.


68




1990 1997 Goal for 2020Access to sewage n.a. 70% 85% Urban n.a. 80% 90% Rural n.a. 46% 73%Note: Goal refers to MDGs.



1990 1995 1998 1999Labor force (millions of people) 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 Share in agriculture 21% 11% n.a n.a Share in industry 37% n.a n.a n.a



1999




Average precipitation (mm) 632Average total volume of rainfall (BCM) 29




1990 2000 2015 2020


1991 1992 1995 1998Total annual water withdrawn (in BCM) 2.74 2.40 1.53 1.40 Irrigation 0.25 0.18 0.18 0.10 Industrial 2.39 2.11 1.26 1.24 Domestic 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.06 (Industry includes termal power)

ESTONIA: WATER FACT SHEET


-

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1997 MDG2015

Po

pu

lati

on

(in

mill

ion

)

Urban

Rural

-

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1990 2000 2010 2020

Po

pu

lati

on

(in

mill

ion

)

Urban Pop

Rural Pop

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1991 1992 1995 1998

Trends of Water Withdrawn (BCM)


Access to Sewage

-

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1997 MDG2015

Po

pu

lati

on

(in

mill

ion

)

Urban

Rural

69

WATER QUALITY AND POLLUTION 1995Wastewater produced (BCM) 0.40Wastewater treated (BCM) 0.38

1988 1992 1994Annual emissions of BOD per day (M Tons) 685 148 99Annual emissions of BOD per capita (kg) 159 35 24


DAMS AND HYDROPOWERReservoir capacity (BCM) 0.0 Irrigation dams Hydropower damsReservoir capacity in cubic meters per capita - (in 2000)

Gross theoretical hydropower potential (GWh/y) 1,500 Technically feasible (GWh/y) 150-400 Economically feasible (GWh/y) n.a.Currrent production from hydropower (GWh/y) 7 (in 2000)




FINANCING THE WATER SECTORAverage cost recovery:

Irrigation water services

Municipal water services 85% O&M plus amortization * These are ball park estimates.Average water price, sewerage and wastewater (US cent/m3) 2000 Households 0.58-1.41

Industry 0.94-2.00


0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Other

Hydropower


0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999


0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

Kg/

capi

ta

70

GEORGIA Socio-Economic and Geographic Context Georgia has a total area of 7.0 million ha. Two climatic regions can be distinguished: west Georgia, where the climate is subtropical humid and east Georgia, where the climate is subtropical dry. Although average precipitation is 1,065 mm, rainfall distribution across Georgia ranges between annual averages of less than 400 mm (some places less than 200 mm) in eastern and southern parts of the country to over 3,000 mm in the west. Rainfall in eastern and southern Georgia is variable and generally inadequate to produce good crops. Agricultural production therefore depends to a great extent on irrigation (full or supplemental, depending on location) in the east, and drainage in the west. In 2000, Georgia’s population was estimated at 5.3 million and agriculture accounted for 36% of GDP. About 44% of the population lives in rural areas. Water resources play a key role in Georgia’s economic development: About 45% of the country’s value crops are irrigated, and hydropower accounts for 80% of total electricity production. Water Resources Base Water resources are derived from local runoff, runoff from rivers that flow into the country and groundwater resources. Internal renewable water resources amount to 56.5 BCM, while trans-boundary water influx equals to 9.3 BCM, thereby giving a total actual annual renewable water resources of 65.8 BCM (or about 12,000 cubic meters per capita), of which 33% come from groundwater sources. The latter sources are of high quality for drinking purpose. Despite the fact that the country is rich in water resources, there are some inherent problems and constraints for effective use of these resources. The primary reason is that the water is unevenly distributed between the eastern and the western parts of the country. Although 78% of water resources are concentrated in the west, about 60% of industrial facilities, 85% of irrigated land and 62% of population is concentrated in the eastern part of the country. Georgia has a rich drainage of water resources with over 25,000 rivers of significant drainage length, many of which have small hydropower stations and most of which drain into the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea. The largest river is the Kura, which flows from northeast Turkey across the plains of eastern Georgia, through the capital, Tbilisi, and Rustavi and enters Azerbaijan. It drains about 23% of the country into the Caspian Sea. The second largest river is the Rioni River, which rises in the Greater Caucasus and empties into the Black Sea at the port of Poti (draining about 20% of Georgia). There are many natural and artificial lakes in Georgia including 860 lakes and reservoirs, with total area equivalent to 170 km2. There are 43 reservoirs in operation, of which 35 are in east Georgia. The total storage volume of reservoirs is about 2.67 BCM, -- about 70% is for hydropower purpose. The country is also on groundwater resources. Total sustainable safe yield of the fresh ground water resources is believed to be 560 m3/sec of which about 100 m3/sec is currently used. Geological surveys have not been conducted during the past 20 years. Moreover, regular observations of the quality of groundwater have never been conducted, with the exception of sporadic observations of groundwater wells used for drinking purpose.

71

Water pollution is a serious concern in Georgia. Lowland water courses are heavily polluted by agricultural chemicals, industrial wastes, and sewage. Surface water quality has improved since 1989, but still serious problems are evident at most locations for many parameters. Pollution of surface waters by phenols hydrocarbons, copper, manganese, zinc and nitrates exceed permitted levels. Less than 10% of industrial wastewater is treated prior to discharge, and when existing, the adequacy of treatment varies substantially. Similarly, less than 13% of household sewage is treated prior to discharge. Existing sewage treatment facilities are in serious need of repair. Mechanical treatment is unsatisfactory. In general, most wastewater treatment plants are not operating or work at a very low level of efficiency. More than 60% of the sewage treatment plants are obsolete and in urgent need of replacement. Coliform levels in reservoirs and water supply systems are at dangerous human health levels in many areas; gastrointestinal diseases are common in many areas. Water Uses and Management The total water withdrawal was estimated at 3.5 BCM in 1990, less than in 1985 (4.6 BCM). Industrial water use experienced the most drastic decline after the break-up of the Soviet Union – a 50% reduction in industrial water withdrawal between 1985 and 1990. Water withdrawals continued to decline through the 1990s. Total water use was estimated at 2.5 BCM in 1996, with irrigation accounting for 60%, industry 10% and households 30%. During the Soviet period, infrastructure was built to irrigate 469,000 ha and drain 163,000 ha, in order to increase and stabilize crop production, particularly grapes, fruits, and vegetables, required to supply substantial portions of the Soviet Union market, with little consideration of the economic cost. Pumping was used for 143,000 ha under irrigation and about 35,000 ha under drainage. The rest of the area was irrigated or drained by gravity. Most of the drained area is located in the high rainfall region of western Georgia – where 133,000 ha of wetlands were drained in Kolkheti Lowland. During the 1990s, civil strife, war, vandalism and theft, as well as problems associated with land reform, the transition to a market economy, and the loss of markets with traditional trading partners, all contributed to a decline of the sub-sectors. Lack of maintenance and institutional weakness and disruption led to severe deterioration of irrigation and drainage infrastructure, including inoperable headworks, broken canals, blocked pipes, and broken gates. Reduced canal and drain capacities and inefficient water management were the result. In 2000, only about 160,000 ha (1999 about 175,000 ha) were supplied with water at very low water use efficiency and normally less than required by the crops. Municipal water use has also decreased since independence, as industrial and commercial activity has declined and infrastructure has deteriorated. In 1996, municipal water supply use reached 620 BCM, of which 90% was consumed by urban population and 10% by rural. The main source of drinking water is groundwater, accounting for about 90% of the total amount of water in the centralized water supply networks. About 65% of the total production of drinking water is provided in a centralized way, supplying 95% of the urban and 35% of the rural population. The remaining of the population is supplied from local water supply systems. Often water disinfection installation and groundwater protection zones don’t function. As a result of the economic crises, about 95% of the rural water supply systems have been closed down,

72

forcing the rural population to get water from unsafe and contaminated sources. A survey conducted in 1996 revealed that drinking water does not meet the current national standards: 17% of the water samples did not meet biological norms. After a protracted decline, in the years since independence the water supply and sanitation sector has experienced an accelerated deterioration in its ability to provide continuous, reliable and safe water and wastewater services. Although a large percentage of the population is connected to the water supply system, only a fraction has permanent, reliable service. Water and wastewater networks and treatment plants are in a state of severe disrepair due to poor planning, inadequate design, low quality of materials and equipment used, and lack of appropriate periodic maintenance and repair. Water treatment plants and distribution equipment (pumping stations) operate inefficiently and perform badly in terms of cost/output ratios, especially in regard to energy consumption. Losses due to leakage in the network and internal plumbing are above 45%. Water wastage throughout the distribution system exacerbates inefficiencies of the sector, adversely effects costs of production and yields over-consumption of water resources and energy. Water is also used for hydropower generation. The total installed generating capacity is 2,800 MW, and about 85% of it is concentrated in the western part of the country. Hydropower accounts for about 80% of electricity generation in Georgia. The ongoing privatization program of the energy sector has led to most major hydropower plants being leased to private operators – about 7% of installed capacity. Plans are under way to privatize another 12% of installed capacity, e.g., Gumati, Lajamuri, Rioni, Shaori and Tkibuli hydropower plants. The Government plans to increase the generation capacity by 1,400 MW – 700 MW on the Enguri River after the completion of the Khudoni dam and 700 MW on the Rioni River. Nevertheless, there are frequent power cuts and the power sector is in crises. The under-funding of the water sector and the subsequent lack of routine maintenance have compromised the safety of large hydraulic infrastructure. Dam safety issues of some selected dams are being addressed by the IDA-funded Irrigation Development Project. These efforts, however, should be extended to all the other viable dams in Georgia. A worrisome aspect of dam safety relates to the location of the reservoirs in Georgia. Most of them are located within the 9-10 category earthquake zone, making them potentially dangerous in the extreme event of the epicenter of an earthquake occurring within the region of a reservoir, which will lead to a dam break. Floods, Mudflows and Droughts Georgia is at risk of flooding year-round, as some regions are prone to flooding caused by spring snowmelt, others to heavy rainfall in summer and autumn, and others to ice jams. Moreover, all of Georgia is earthquake-prone, and resulting landslides and avalanches may create temporary lakes by river blocking. These lakes break through the natural dams at unpredictable times. Glacier motion across river valleys also creates dangerous temporary lakes, which can be very large; glacier retreat also tends to create lakes blocked by the terminal moraine. Snowfall creates temporary dams too, and although the lakes thus created are not so large as those blocked by

73

glaciers, a larger area of the country is prone to developing them. For all these reasons, all of Georgia's plain areas and mountain valleys are at some degree of risk. Flood damages tend to include destruction of roads and bridges and severing of communications. In the plains, there is enhanced danger of inundation of settlements and agricultural land, as well. An estimate of annual flood damage is not readily available; however, the floods of 1987 on the Rioni and its tributaries did damage estimated at about USD180-300 million, about 2.2-3.7% of that year GDP. Although those floods were far above average, a few other floods of the 20th century have been nearly as severe. The plain of the Rioni and the final stretch of the Coruh where it meets the Black Sea continue to be areas of especially high risk. Severe flooding and mudslides struck Georgia in June and July 2002, which affected districts in western Georgia's plains area and river basins in mountainous parts of the Rioni watershed. An issue of special importance is that, since 1991, Georgia's monitoring network has been malfunctioning or not functioning. Under these conditions, it is impossible for the authorities to take preventive measures to limit flood damage. A further issue is that the proposed path for the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline lies through approximately 140 regions susceptible to flooding. Damage to the pipeline could cause an environmental catastrophe. During the past years, a marked decline in precipitation has been observed in Georgia. The 1998 and 200 summers were extremely dry, causing significant economic losses. The 2000 drought reduced agricultural production considerably in both rainfed and irrigated areas, giving rise to food security problems and shortages of seeds for the 2001 season. There was extremely low rainfall for extended periods since the beginning of the year 2000, varying from 10% to 60% of normal during March and April. Out of 246,000 ha planted with cereals, 183,000 ha (74%) were affected by drought conditions. There was almost no production on about 140,000 ha of this area. Rainfall was below normal levels, causing almost complete destruction of sunflower and maize crops and drying up vineyards. The major rivers did flow during the drought, although the flows were much below normal and were not sufficient to satisfy full water requirements for all irrigated areas. The effect of the 2000 drought were worst in the irrigation schemes located in the river valley bottoms, which are generally drier than the foothills. The 2000 drought also seriously depleted hydropower reservoirs. As a result, the population suffered from power shortage. In Tbilisi, most of the population had electricity only two hours per day on average. Water Policy and Institutional Responsibilities The main legal document governing the management of water resources in Georgia is the 1997 Water Resources Law (amended in 2000). The main features of the Law are that water resources within the Georgian territory are in state ownership, all major water abstraction should obtain an abstraction license from the Ministry of Environmental Protection (MoEP), wastewater and waste products discharges into surface water bodies is regulated by issuance of discharge permits. The Law also spells out the requirements for effluent monitoring and introduces fees for water use. The Law calls for the preparation of 33 pieces of regulations, out of which only 11 have been issued to date. The Water Resources Law provides for the protection and rational use of water resources in Georgia including the Black Sea, on the principles of sustainable development. The Law needs to be updated and made more specific with respect to the

74

institutional framework, e.g., definition of water resources management functions, assignment of roles and responsibilities among various users and government entities, formulation of water policies. So far, there is no national strategy on integrated water resources management. The National Environmental Action Plan provides a broad framework for the protection and management of water resources. The MoEP through its Department of Water Resources Management and Protection is the responsible government agency in Georgia for the coordination and execution of policy making for water resources management and protection. The Hydro-meteorological Department under the auspices of the Ministry for Environmental Protection is responsible for the hydro-meteorological monitoring system, which covers all surface waters in Georgia, and standardized analysis of water samples. Monitoring, however, has declined considerably during the past few years. Other government agencies that share same responsibilities for water resources include, the State Sanitary and Epidemiology Supervision Services of the Ministry of Health responsible for bacteriological monitoring of drinking water, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, the State Geological Department responsible for groundwater monitoring, the Department of Land Melioration, and the Ministry of Fuel and Energy responsible for water use for hydropower. Coordination among the various agencies is weak. In general, proper implementation of the Water Law is impeded by institutiona l and financial constraints. Recommendations Recommendations for improving water resources management include:

• Review and strengthen current legal framework to incorporate the role of the private sector in water resources management.

• Review current institutional framework in order to clearly define the responsibilities of central line ministries and regional departments.

• Set new water quality standards that meet Georgian conditions – existing standards are outdated and unrealistically rigid.

• Strengthen water resources monitoring system. • Promote the use of economic instruments. • Promote and support the establishment of Water Users Association, with the necessary

instruments put in place to regulate their effective participation. • Rehabilitate water infrastructure and reduce water losses. • Improve the productivity of hydraulic infrastructure and the safety of dams. • Continue dialogue with riparian countries on the management of transboundary resources

References GRID-Tbilisi, United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP). 2002. Caucasus Environmental Outlook (CEO) 2002. Tbilisi, Georgia.

75

Ministry of Environmental Protection and Natural Resources of Georgia. 2001. National Environnemental Action Plan. Water Resources Background Paper. Tbilisi, Georgia. WHO/UNICEF. 2001. Access to Improved Sanitation - Georgia. WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation. Geneva, Switzerland. Report available at: http://childinfo.org/eddb/sani/ceecis/georgia_sanitation1.pdf. World Bank. 2003. Flood Profile for Georgia. Prepared by Lucy Hancock on the basis of a report by Guram Grigolia, Vaso Tsomaia, and Tamar Bakuradze in 2001. Washington, DC, USA

76




1995 2000 Goal for 2020Access to sewage systems n.a. 54% 77% Urban n.a. 81% 91% Rural n.a. 20% 60%Note: Goal refers to MDGs.

1996-97Share of poor in rural areas 49%

1990 1995 1999 2000GDP per capita (constant 1995 US$) 1,232 351 493 502GDP total (billions of 1995 US$) 6.7 1.9 2.5 2.5 Share from agriculture 32% 52% 36% 21% Share from industry 33% 24% 23% 23%

1990 1995 1998 1999Labor force (millions of people) 2.7 2.6 2.7 2.5 Share in agriculture 26% n.a n.a 54% Share in industry 31% n.a n.a n.a


Of GDP 10.6% 2.6% Of population -0.4% -0.3%



Land area (millions of ha) 6.97Land area in international basins (millions of ha) 3.94 Percentage of country in international basins 56.5%Average precipitation (mm) 1,065Average total volume of rainfall (BCM) 74




1990 2000 2015 2020


1987 1990 1996 2000Total annual water withdrawn (in BCM) 3.47 2.49 Irrigation 2.04 1.47 0.98 Industrial 1.5 0.70 0.26 Domestic 0.73 0.76 0.67

GEORGIA: WATER FACT SHEET


-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

2000 MDG2015P

op

ula

tio

n (i

n m

illio

n)

Urban

Rural

-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

1990 2000 2010 2020

Po

pu

lati

on

(in

mill

ion

)

Urban Pop

Rural Pop

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

2.4

2.8

1987 1990 1996 2000



Access to Sewage

-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

2000 MGD2020

Po

pu

lati

on

(in

mill

ion

) Urban

Rural

77

WATER QUALITY AND POLLUTION 1998 0.10Wastewater produced by households (BCM) 0.6 Percentage treated 13%

1989 1993Annual emissions of BOD per day (M Tons) 117 70Annual emissions of BOD per capita (kg) 7.9 4.7


DAMS AND HYDROPOWERReservoir capacity (BCM) 2.7 Irrigation dams (BCM) 0.9 Hydropower dams (BCM) 1.8Reservoir capacity in cubic meters per capita 513 (in 2000)



IRRIGATION 1992 1995 1998 1999Irrigated land ('000 ha) 450 469 470 470 Irrigated land per capita (ha) 0.083 0.088 0.089 0.089Irrigated land as share of cropland 42.9% 42.4% 44.3% 44.2%

FRESHWATER FISHERY 1993 1995 1998 1999Fishery production (MT) 1,139 947 200 200 Fishery production per capita (kg) 0.21 0.18 0.04 0.04

FINANCING THE WATER SECTORAverage cost recovery: Late 90's Irrigation water services 30% O&M cost (only 40% collected) Municipal water services < 50% O&M cost (only 70% collected) * These are ball park estimates.

Average water related services (US cent/m3) Late 90's Households 1.3 Others municipal users 50.0 Irrigation 0.2 Drainage 0.1

Raw water charges (US cent/m3) 0.15


0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

1992 1994 1996 1998 2000

EquippedActual Irrigated


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Other

Hydropower


0

300

600

900

1200

1500

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999


0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993

Kg

/cap

ita

78

HUNGARY10

Flood Issues Located in the middle of the Carpathian Basin, Hungary is a naturally flood-prone country that has devoted considerable resources and attention over several centuries to flood control. Hungary's flooding can be divided into three types: floods of external waters (the Danube and Tisza) prone to inundate the Hungarian Plain; floods in the plains caused by in-country precipitation; and floods in the smaller watercourses of hilly or mountainous areas. Of the three, flooding of the Danube and Tisza is by far the most damaging type and the highest priority for control. To mention just a few of these floods, the flood of the Danube in spring 1838 destroyed more than 10,000 houses and killed 153 people. The Tisza flood of March 1879 left only 417 houses intact in Szeged of the 6350 that were there before. The May 1970 Tisza flood killed 300 people, destroyed more than 5,000 houses, and caused the evacuation of 25,000. Losses were estimated at 8 billion HUF. The Tisza flooded catastrophically in March/July 1999, April 2000 and March 2001. Due to Government efforts, this sequence killed fewer than twenty people, but it did very substantial economic damage. Considering only the flood of March 2001, which was the most severe by some measures, its scale was such that about 80 km2 were flooded, about 35,000 people from 200 villages evacuated, about 90% of livestock in the affected villages killed; about 20,000 houses inundated and about 2100 damaged or destroyed. Reconstruction was projected to cost the state budget about 20-25 billion HUF. To reduce the damage done by such events, flood control works along the Danube and Tisza have been constructed over the last 200 years. An upgrade underway in recent decades, now about 60% complete, is designed to provide protection against floods up to the 1% probability level in most areas, while some areas (Budapest, Gyor, Szeged, the oil field near Algyo) are to be protected to the 0.1% probability level, and other areas according to the historical level of ice jam flooding. The remaining 40% of the system currently protects against floods up to the 2% probability level. The updating makes a great difference: floods in the 1980s flooded far less area than did comparable floods in the 1940s (a third as much or less). While long-term climate change may be a factor for the recent floods, Hungarian records show that large floods have occurred on average more than once every two years during the last century; moreover, flood years tend to come in groups. The discharge of the floods was not as exceptional as the economic damage done (as the attached map shows, many areas of the Tisza basin in northeast Hungary have annual flood probability in the range 2.5%-3%). Some suggest that runoff parameters in the Tisza basin are changing for the worse because of tree cutting in upstream Ukraine and Romania. Others suggest that river control projects along the Tisza during the 20th century have altered patterns of discharge. Still others have proposed that newly private farmers, who failed to clear ditches and drain fields, leaving water standing, made the region more liable to inundation. The Government has committed itself to increasing flood protection. The floods of recent years have highlighted the tremendous need for international cooperation with Hungary's upstream neighbors concerning flood control and flood forecasting. 10 This note only covers flood management issues.

79

References WHO/UNICEF. 2001. Access to Improved Sanitation - Hungary. WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation. Geneva, Switzerland. Report available at: http://childinfo.org/eddb/sani/ceecis/hungary_sanitation1.pdf World Bank. 2003. Flood Profile for Hungary. Prepared by Lucy Hancock on the basis of a report by Dr. Zoltán G. Hankó for the World Bank in 2000. Washington, DC, USA

80




1990 1997 Goal for 2020Access to sewerage n.a. 43% 71% Urban n.a. 63% 82% Rural n.a. 8% 54%Note: Goal refers to MDGs.


1990 1995 1998 2000GDP per capita (constant 1995 US$) 4,857 4,343 4,849 5,326GDP total (billions of 1995 US$) 50.3 44.7 49.6 54.4 Share from agriculture 15% 7% 6% n.a. Share from industry 39% 32% 34% n.a.

1990 1995 1998 1999Labor force (millions of people) 4.7 4.8 4.8 4.8 Share in agriculture 18% 8% 8% n.a. Share in industry 37% 33% 34% n.a.









1990 2000 2015 2020


1990 1995Total annual water withdrawn (in BCM) 6.02 6.70 Irrigation 1.00 1.01 Industrial 4.33 4.82 Domestic 0.69 0.87

HUNGARY: WATER FACT SHEET


-

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

1997 MDG2015

Po

pu

lati

on

(in

mill

ion

)

Urban

Rural

-

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

1990 2000 2010 2020

Po

pu

lati

on

(in

mill

ion

)

Urban Pop

Rural Pop

0.000.501.001.502.002.503.003.504.004.505.00

1990 1995



Access to Sewerage

-

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

1997 MDG2020

Po

pu

lati

on

(in

mill

ion

)

Urban

Rural

81

WATER QUALITY AND POLLUTION 1999Population with sewerage connection 60%Population with wastewater treatment 22%

1990 1995 1998 1999Annual emissions of BOD per day (Tons) 178 138 140 141Annual emissions of BOD per capita (kg) 6.3 4.9 5.1 5.1


DAMS AND HYDROPOWERReservoir capacity (BCM) 0.065 large dams under operation Irrigation dams (BCM)

Hydropower dams (BCM)Reservoir capacity in cubic meters per capita 7 (in 2000)

Gross theoretical hydropower potential (GWh/y) 7,446 Technically feasible (GWh/y) 4,590 Economically feasible (GWh/y) n.a.Current production from hydropower (GWh/y) 175 (in 2000)


IRRIGATION 1992 1995 1997 1998Equipped irrigated land (million ha) 0.38 0.32 0.30 0.26 Irrigated land per capita (ha) 0.037 0.032 0.030 0.026Irrigated land as share of cropland 4.5% 4.2% 4.2% 4.2% Actual Irrigated


FINANCING THE WATER SECTOR

Average cost recovery:


Municipal water services 100% O&M plus 15% investments

* These are ball park estimates.

Households tariff (US cent/m3) 1998 Average water supply 64 Average sewerage and wastewater 77 Max - Min combined tariff 100-210


0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

EquippedActual


05

10152025303540

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Other

Hydropower


05000

10000150002000025000300003500040000

1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999


0.01.0

2.03.0

4.05.0

6.07.0

1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999

Kg

/cap

ita

82

KAZAKHSTAN

Socio-Economic and Geographic Context Kazakhstan has an area of 2.7 million km2. Its population of about 15 million has a per capita GDP of about USD1,500. Kazakhstan declared its independence from the former Soviet Union in 1991, and since then has been one of Central Asia's more ambitious reformers. Kazakhstan's center is a plateau, surrounded by plain and lowland, within which lies half the Aral Sea. Kazakhstan's far west borders the Caspian Sea. In Kazakhstan's east and southeast are mountain chains – the Altai, Alatau and Tien Shan. The climate of Kazakhstan is continental. Precipitation varies from less than 100 mm per year near the Aral Sea and near Balkhash to 1,600 mm per year in the southeastern mountains, averaging 344 mm per year for the country as a whole. Water Resource Base Kazakhstan has four major hydrological regions. The north and northeast lie in the Siberian plain, where inflow from China and flow generated in Kazakhstan drain to Russia and ultimately the Arctic Ocean. In the west, inflow from Russia and flow generated in Kazakhstan drain toward the Caspian Sea. In the south and southeast (the Aral Sea basin), inflow from the Kyrgyz Republic and Uzbekistan, together with flow generated in Kazakhstan, flow in the tributaries of the Aral Sea. Last, about 25% of Kazakhstan's area drains to internal depressions. Altogether, Kazakhstan generates about 70 BCM per year internally, more than half in the basin of the Arctic, and receives about 40 BCM per year in transboundary flows. About 45 BCM flow to Russia, the Aral and the Caspian. About 34 BCM is withdrawn for sectoral use. Water Use and Management by Sector Irrigation. Kazakhstan's climate makes irrigation a necessity if many potentially fertile areas are to be cultivated. Accordingly, irrigated agriculture was greatly expanded in Kazakhstan during the 20th century. This tendency contributed to the desiccation of the Aral Sea. In particular, little of the flow that is directed to the Aral Sea by hydrology and topography actually makes its way there; most is drawn off for irrigation, and while some flows back to the tributary rivers, much ultimately goes to raising the water table under cultivated areas. A further consequence of the expansion of irrigation has been the decline in water quality in the Syr Darya. The volume of drainage water has increased, while into it has flowed an increasing volume of chemical fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides, pollution from industrial enterprises and domestic wastewater, resulting in a high concentration of heavy metals, chemicals, oil residues, salts and other toxic substances.

83

Municipal drinking water and wastewater. Over 80% of the households in Kazakhstan have piped water connections in their houses. However, water supply service is weak, both in quantity and quality. Water and wastewater services in the urban centers of Kazakhstan are provided by water and wastewater enterprises (vodokanals). In 1993, the central government decentralized the responsibility for the water and wastewater sector to municipalities and phased out operating and capital subsidies to the sector. As a result, all vodokanals are required to be self- financing. Vodokanals have struggled to meet operations and maintenance costs from revenues. Their financial situation is extremely difficult and many of them cannot raise tariffs sufficiently and are able to survive only by delaying payments to their suppliers, particularly the energy suppliers. High level of water losses and wastage is of particular concern. One urban area estimated use at a rate of 420 lcd, with losses in the system conservatively estimated at 55% or more. This very high consumption estimate is not a reflection of actual consumption, but the lack of water conservation measures in the system, and the poor condition of the system. The low level of water charges for raw and bulk water and the low tariffs for treated water provide very weak signals to water users about the value of the resource. At the municipal level, households, industries and public agencies, not accustomed to water conservation and not faced with appropriate water tariffs waste significant amounts of water, driving up operating costs unnecessarily. Much of the existing water supply and wastewater infrastructure is in dire need of replacement and repair – water intakes, water distribution and wastewater collection networks, pumping stations, and water and wastewater treatment plants, suffer from advanced deterioration. Flooding. Central Asia's great rivers are controlled today by irrigation infrastructure. River flooding is still possible, but the region's principal flood risk now is from mudslides and mountain lake outbreaks. Mudslides are frequent in Zailii Alatau; thus, Almaty is threatened by mudslide flows in the basins of the Bolshaya and Malaya Almatinka. Hydropower. Kazakhstan's hydropower potential is estimated at 110,000 GWh/year, and its economically feasible potential at about 35,000 GWh/year. Hydropower generates about 12% of Kazakhstan's electric power, meeting about 85% of the total electricity demand. Water Legislation and Policies The legal basis of water sector policy implementation is the Water Code of 1993, together with government regulations and certificates addressing issues of water sector and water resources management. The government's policy is that the first priority is to satisfy people's demand for drinking water, and to reserve groundwater stocks for this purpose. Water resources management is carried out by the Government, local executive agencies (akims of oblasts, cities, areas, auls), the state agency of water resources management, and other specially authorized state agencies within the limits of their competence. Ground water management is carried out with the agencies of Geology and Resources Protection. Other

84

agencies carry out activities concerned with natural resources protection, fish stocks, flora and fauna, and state sanitary and veterinary supervision. The Committee for Water Resources carries out management on the principle of water basin management and regulates the various interests in view of ecological requirements. Eight basin water management associations have been created: Balkhash-Alakol, Ural-Caspian, Shu-Talas, Aral-Syr Darya, Nura-Sarysu, Tobol-Turbai, Irtysh and Ishim. These associations regulate management of water resources use in the respective basin, including water distribution among users, development of water supply plans, and sanctioning of special water use. They define water use limits and reservoirs' operation modes and develop operational water management plans. Technical operation of water supply infrastructure is the task of the state water management organizations. Transboundary Issues Kazakhstan collaborates with the Russian Federation on water quality issues affecting the Irtysh, Ishim, Tobol and Ural Rivers. In the Caspian basin, Kazakhstan works with the Caspian riparians on water quality issues, oil extraction, boundary definitions and fisheries management. Sharing of the resources of the Syr Darya presents a special problem, as the resources include not just water but also the hydropower than can be generated as water flows from the mountains to the plain. Prior to 1992, issues of the Naryn-Syr Darya cascade management and operation were solved by the USSR's planning agencies. Under the arrangement then devised, the Kyrgyz Republic was supplied with energy from Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan to compensate for its delivery of water according to an irrigation regime of delivery. This broad principle has formed the basis of annual agreements since independence of the Basin states. However, this arrangement does not really suit Kazakhstan very well. Kazakhstan receives energy generated by the Kyrgyz Republic in its summer releases, and is required to pay for them. However, Kazakhstan must shut down its own thermal power stations, at considerable economic loss, in order to take the obligatory delivery of power from the Kyrgyz Republic. In some areas, the tariff for Kyrgyz power is non-competitive, the more so because energy consumption is relatively low in the summer. Kazakhstan is a member of the Interstate Commission on Water Coordination, designed to help address such issues. Kazakhstan has a separate agreement with the Kyrgyz Republic to address transboundary flows from the Chu and Talas Rivers. Key Issues and Challenges The issues of the pollution, water deficits and ecosystem degradation of the Aral and Caspian basins noted above are among Kazakhstan's key issues, as is the issue of developing environmentally and financially sustainable municipal water supply. There is a need as well to develop effective integrated water resource management: Long term solutions to meeting demands for water require an integrated approach on the part of the water resources, environmental and water supply sectors. As an initial step in addressing these problems, the Government is establishing systems and institutions for integrated resource management on a

85

river basin basis. Basin Management Authorities have been established throughout the country (including the Nura-Sarysu basin), however, the capacity of these authorities to properly monitor and manage the use of water resources is limited. Institutional strengthening is needed, both in terms of training in basin management theories and practices, and support for basic data gathering and analysis. References Agaltseva, Natalya; and Sergey Myagkov. 2000. Flood Assessment - Final Report. Report for the World Bank. Central Asian Research Hydrometeorological Institute (SANIGMI) . AQUASTAT. 1998. Kazakhstan Country Profile. FAO, Land and Water Development Division. National Working Group of Kazakhstan. 2001. National Water Demands and Options for Demand Management. Volume II (draft). Almaty, Kazakhstan. WHO/UNICEF. 2001. Access to Improved Sanitation - Kazakhstan. WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation. Geneva, Switzerland. Report available at: http://childinfo.org/eddb/sani/ceecis/kazakhstan_sanitation1.pdf. World Bank. 2001. Syr Darya Control and Northern Aral Sea Project. Project Information Document. Washington, DC, USA World Bank. 2003. Northeastern Kazakhstan Water Supply and Sanitation Project. Project Appraisal Document. Washington, DC, USA. World Bank. 2003. Nura River Cleanup Project. Project Appraisal Document. Washington, DC, USA. World Bank. September 2002. Kazakhstan Country Brief . Washington, DC, USA.

86




1990 2000 Goal for 2020Access to sewage systems n.a. 43% 71% Urban n.a. 72% 86% Rural n.a. 5% 52%Note: Goal refers to MDGs.


1992 1995 1998 2000GDP per capita (constant 1995 US$) 1,690 1,263 1,325 1,515GDP total (billions of 1995 US$) 27.4 19.9 20.0 22.5 Share from agriculture 27% 13% 9% 10% Share from industry 45% 27% 31% 35%

1990 1995 1998 1999Labor force (millions of people) 7.7 7.5 7.3 7.3 Share in agriculture n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Share in industry n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.



1999








1990 2000 2015 2020


1993 1998Total annual water withdrawn (in BCM) 33.70 34.67 Irrigation 27.30 28.41 Industrial 5.73 5.68 Domestic 0.67 0.58

KAZAKHSTAN: WATER FACT SHEET


-1.02.03.04.0

5.06.07.08.09.0

10.0

2000 MDG2015

Po

pu

lati

on

(in

mill

ion

)

Urban

Rural

-

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

12.0

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Po

pu

lati

on

(in

mill

ion

)

Urban Pop

Rural Pop

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

1993 1998



Access to Sewage

-

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

2000 MGD2020

Po

pu

lati

on

(in

mill

ion

)

Urban

Rural

87

WATER QUALITY AND POLLUTION 1999Volume of wastewater from all sources (BCM) 9.00 Discharged to rivers, remaining to special lakes 2.00

1990 1995 1996 1999Annual emissions of BOD per day (M Tons) n.a. 35 17 n.a.Annual emissions of BOD per capita (kg) n.a. 0.8 0.4 n.a.

AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMSWetlands designated as Ramsar sites (2002) In ha - As % of land area 0.00%

DAMS AND HYDROPOWER 1995Reservoir capacity (BCM) 88.75 Irrigation dams (BCM) 50.00 Hydropower dams (BCM)Reservoir capacity in cubic meters per capita 5,488 (in 2000)



IRRIGATION 1992 1995 1998 1999Irrigated land (million ha) 2.25 2.38 2.33 2.34 Irrigated land per capita (ha) 0.134 0.143 0.143 0.144Irrigated land as share of cropland 6.4% 7.4% 7.7% 7.8%





Municipal water services * These are ball park estimates.

Households tariff (Tenge/m3) Average water supply 10-14 Almati and Atyrau

Combined water, sewerage and wastewater 33 Kokshetau


0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999


0102030405060708090

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Other

Hydropower


0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998


0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Kg/

capi

ta/y

ear

88

KYRGYZ REPUBLIC

Socio-Economic Context The Kyrgyz Republic is a country of five million situated in the mountain ranges of Central Asia. Agriculture, most of which is irrigated. Agriculture accounts for about half of GDP, about half of employment and 30% of exports. Since independence, the country has pursued a determined policy of privatization and market development, but in the agriculture sector, potential gains have not yet been realized in any significant manner. Household consumption data suggest that aggregate crop production is still far below 1990 levels, and rural poverty is pervasive. Water Resources Base The Kyrgyz Republic is generally well endowed with water resources, much originating in snow and glacier melt. Precipitation varies greatly, ranging from 130 to 680 mm per year. The average annual runoff in the country is 47 BCM, most in the basin of the Syr Darya and a small share in the basin of the Amu Darya. By international agreement, 25% can be retained, of which about 90% is used for agricultural purposes. Because half or more of the country's precipitation falls outside the growing season, growing-season precipitation is inadequate for crop production, and so irrigation is undertaken widely. Water Use and Management by Sector Irrigation. Agriculture is the lead sector of the Kyrgyz economy. As noted, irrigation is critical for crop production. About 1.1 million ha have been developed for irrigation, i.e., more than 80% of the arable land in the country. Since the dissolution of the former Soviet Union, lack of funding for maintenance has resulted in the deterioration of the irrigation dams (bringing with it related safety problems) and reduced capacity of the primary and secondary irrigation systems. Irrigation infrastructure within the boundaries of the former farms has been affected by lack of maintenance as well. Many pumping stations have slowed or stopped operations. In-field water application is inadequate due to lack of equipment and farmer skills. The clogging of drainage systems is leading to increased water logging and soil salinization. Hydropower. The Kyrgyz Republic has potential to generate 12 billion kWh of hydropower annually, though at present it uses only 10% of that. In principle, mutual deliveries of water and energy resources among the Kyrgyz Republic, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan exchange the water and electric energy of the Naryn cascade of the Kyrgyz Republic in return for the equivalent, by cost, of organic fuel from Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, in volumes determined by annually concluded Interstate Agreements. To meet its obligations, the Kyrgyz Republic annually reduces power generation by the Naryn Cascade during winter, saving the water to provide for irrigation of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan in the summer. Not only is this water itself provided for free, but the energy that is traded back to the Kyrgyz Republic is shipped at the Republic's expense.

89

Drinking water supply and sanitation. Water and wastewater service levels in the Kyrgyz Republic are low by international standards. Only about one-third of the 4.6 million population has piped water house connections. Another third receives water from stand posts or water tankers and the remaining third of the population has no organized water service. Coverage is highest in the capital city of Bishkek (about 0.6 million people) with about 80% of the people connected. It drops off considerably in the secondary cities (total of about 1 million people) and is extremely low for the rural sector segment (total of about 3 million people). About half of the estimated 1,750 villages have no functioning water system. In the southern Oblasts of Osh and Jalalabad, only about 25% of the villages have operable water systems. Because of the poor state of repair of facilities, lack of maintenance and insufficient resources available for operations, the reliability and safety of the service is becoming an ever more important concern and source of discontent for the population. Service interruptions have become the norm rather than the exception, particularly in the summer months. Even in Bishkek water is rationed and service in some areas of the city is intermittent. Insufficient pressure has cut off people living in upper level apartments. Service interruptions tend to be more severe and prolonged in secondary cities and small towns. Much of the village water systems are no longer in operation or near collapse, as national government funding has ceased and village initiative to maintain the system in working condition has been limited. Safety and reliability of services and public health concerns: The safety of the supply is of even greater concern throughout the country, but most pronounced in the secondary and smaller cities and villages. A variety of factors - breakdown of old water treatment facilities, lack of resources to operate these facilities adequately and disinfect water properly, increasing contamination of water resources, inflow of polluted ground water into pipe systems during periods of service interruptions - are contributing to ever more extensive violation of drinking water quality standards. The Sanitary and Epidemiological Service reports that in 1997, approximately 14% of water samples taken throughout the country did not meet bacteriological standards, and 3.1% did not meet physical/chemical standards. While as a national average, these results are not particularly alarming, the extent and frequency of unsafe water quality has become critical in some areas. For instance, in the Chui region, 86% and in the Talas region 70% of water systems do not meet sanitary requirements. Over the recent past, the incidence of hepatitis A, typhoid, diarrhea and intestinal infections has significantly increased, particularly in the southern regions of Osh and Jalalabad. In 1998 a large outbreak of typhoid fever and dysentery occurred in the Osh and Jalalabad regions, where 1,200 people were diagnosed with these diseases. The deteriorating health situation has multiple causes: declining health services, contaminated food, but there is no doubt that drinking water contamination exacerbated by poor sanitation, hygiene and water use practices plays an important role. People in rural areas appear to suffer most from the absence of good water supplies. With the existing systems becoming increasingly inoperable, some people walk long distances, only to obtain contaminated water from springs, rivers and ponds. Water from irrigation canals is the only source for many. People are aware of the danger of unsafe water and try to protect themselves, but with limited success. Contributing to deteriorating public health is the frequent absence of proper sanitation facilities. Poorly designed pit latrines increase the risk of the spread of disease by vectors such as flies and

90

mosquitoes. Poor hygiene and water handling habits contribute to the spread of disease even where safe water is available. Industry. The most important areas of expected industrial growth in the Kyrgyz Republic (the mining industry, machine building and petrochemistry) are not expected to produce large growth in water use. The Government has estimated that the water requirements of industry may grow as high as 0.2 BCM by 2025. Environment. The Kyrgyz Republic is rich in ecosystem variety. Special environmental reserves have been created to conserve the watery ecosystems: the river ecosystem at Gulcha River; the ecosystem of the Baidostol River, the ecosystem of Chatkal valley, and the water-grass ecosystem of the Yassy River. Along the banks of thirteen rivers in the Kyrgyz Republic, reed is conserved and various birds and animals shelter. It is necessary that the impact of intensive farming be reduced and that a portion of the river flow be released year-round. Flooding The Kyrgyz Republic's principal flood risk is from mudslides and mountain lake outbreaks, especially mudslides near unsecured dumps of tailings from mercury, antimony, uranium and other mines. Although mudslides usually originate in rain showers, very large floods/mudslides can originate in the outbreak of mountain lakes, which store large volumes of water behind unstable natural barriers. The mudslide/flood on the Shakhimardan River in July 1998 provides an example of the nature of the problem. This flood began when sudden warm weather melted snow and glaciers in the Kyrgyz Republic. Moraine lakes filled, and one broke out, spilling to a lower one so that it too broke out and then one another. The flood wave entrained mud from the river channel and banks, became a mudslide, and swelled further with snowmelt flooding in from the Shakhimardan's tributaries. Eventually, the mudslide flowed from the Kyrgyz Republic to Uzbekistan, where it killed 100 Uzbeks and did significant economic damage. An aerial survey undertaken by Uzbekistan showed about 238 mountain lakes in the Kyrgyz Republic that threaten Uzbekistan. Among these, Ikhnach lake in the basin of the Pskem, which retains 5.8 MCM, is seen as a risk not only because it could flood the Pskem valley but because its strike wave would endanger Charvak dam. Events that may cause breakout are highly varied: these lakes may break out when a mudslide strikes the natural dam, or when its ice components finally melt, or its silt components erode, or when an earthquake jars it loose, or (the most frequent reason) when precipitation or snowmelt raises the water level in the lake and increases pressure on the barrier. Moreover, an outbreak of even a relatively small lake high up in the watershed can cause a cascade of failures of natural dams along the water channel, as happened on the Shakhimardan. Distinct from the purely mechanical damage mudslides can do is the issue of the toxic wastes they will sweep up if they develop in certain areas. In May 2002, a landslide slid across the path of the Maili-Suu River. Had the river been entirely barricaded, the overspilling water would have inundated tailings dumps located alongside the river, in one case only a few meters from the river channel. The resulting radioactive mudslide would have been an international disaster, traveling to the Ferghana Valley and on to the Aral Sea. A World Bank poverty alleviation grant is expected to be used in part to address the specific situation at Maili-Suu; however, there are

91

other tailings dumps in the mountains. A letter from the Kyrgyz Parliament to the United Nations dated 23 August 2001 notes that the Kyrgyz mountains hold other uranium mine dumps as well as dumps of radioactive thorium and ponds/slag heaps from mercury, antimony, and other mines. Unless reinforced, the dams retaining these dumps are at risk from the combination of Kyrgyz earthquakes and Kyrgyz rain. Mudslide events in these areas would be expected to carry the toxic waste to Uzbekistan's Ferghana Valley, to Lake Issyk-Kul, or to enter the great rivers and travel through Central Asia to the Aral Sea. Water Legislation and Policies The "Law About Water" of the Kyrgyz Republic was adopted and entered into force in 1994. Also, the Law about interstate use of water schemes, water resources and water facilities of the Kyrgyz Republic" (July 23, 2001) and the governmental and departmental regulations define the system that regulates the use of water, together with the competence of Parliament, the Government, local state administrations, and various financial and economic interactions. Interstate water relations are covered by regional agreements on the status of organizations of the International Fund for Saving the Aral Sea, and by a Kyrgyz-Kazakh interstate agreement on the joint use of water resources and water facilities of the Chu River and Talas River basins. Institutions that deal with the issues of water resources management and regulation of water relations among different economic sectors include Parliament, the Government of the Kyrgyz Republic, regional authorities, the Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources and Processing Industry (MAWRPI) (through the Department of Water Resources), the State Agency on Geology and Natural Resources (through the Kyrgyz Complex Hydro-geological Institute) and the Ministry of Environment and Emergency and its divisions (especially Gidrometsluzhba – the Hydrometeorological Division). Until July 2001, the Joint Stock Company (JSC) "Kyrgyzenergo" operated the water facilities for energy production, in particular the HPS cascade on the Naryn, including Toktogul and Uch-Kurgan and the headworks of interstate canals. The regime of water release is implemented based on interstate agreements. "Kyrgyzjylcommunsoyuz" operates water-supply systems in urban areas and district centers. Administration of rural water is in a period of change. The Department of Rural Water Supply under the MAWRPI is newly established. It operates independently from water supply organizations, not interfering in production or financial activity. Rights for operation of rural supply pipelines are with local administrations, and the Department of Rural Water is to hand over the head intake structures to them. The Department of Water Resources within the MAWRPI is the main state agency of water resources management. Each oblast has a division on basin water resources management, and each raion has a regional management division.

92

Transboundary Issues Interstate coordination of water use by the Kyrgyz Republic, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan is of great importance. A mutually agreed strategy does not yet exist. Such regulations as do exist at the international level are unsatisfactory both in principle and implementation. In principle, the agreements reflect the economic criteria of the old Soviet arrangement, when maximum replenishment of the all-Union budget was the criteria of optimality for use of the region's water resources. The uniform distribution of the all-Union budget in turn provided the maximum replenishment of Republic budgets. The resulting exchanges of natural resources were reasonably satisfying to all involved. Today, the parts of the old system that have held over from the past, taken from context, are not satisfactory. The Kyrgyz Republic is not being compensated for the loss it undertakes when it reserves water during the winter for downstream irrigation, when water releases during winter could be used to generate needed wintertime energy. Additionally, the Kyrgyz Republic is bearing the burden of maintaining the infrastructure, although the risk of their failure is principally a risk to the downstream countries. Further, the agreements are unsatisfactory in implementation. As noted briefly above, the exchanges of water for energy with downstream riparians are found inadequate not only in principle but in execution, as the Kyrgyz Republic has received fuel shipments less than half the agreed volume. The Governments involved attempt to settle disputes by negotiations, elaborating and approving special interstate agreements, but even these agreements are not always equally satisfactory to all parties. The 1997 Decree of the President of the Kyrgyz Republic, "On basis of foreign policy of the Kyrgyz Republic in the sphere of river water resources use, generated in Kyrgyzstan and flowing into the territories," addresses the problems of interstate water use and the need for elaboration of a new regional strategy for water distribution, including economic instruments to manage it. A law adopted in July 2001, "On interstate use of water objects, water resources and water facilities of the Kyrgyz Republic," addresses the principles of cooperation. Key Issues and Challenges Development of hydropower within the context of water agreements with downstream neighbors would free Kyrgyz resources now spent on purchase of fuel. Development of safe and financially sustainable municipal water supplies would address public health issues and promote development. Restoration of agriculture would require that two major issues be addressed: (i) the lack of capital resources to finance the rehabilitation of the main irrigation facilities; and (ii) the insufficient funding of O&M activities from budget appropriations and proceeds of water charges. In the medium term, the irrigation sub-sector will face the challenges of successfully operating in a market-driven economy and without Government subsidies.

93

Securing international support for work to secure the Republic's large dams as well as the mine tailings dams that store toxic wastes could avert a catastrophe that would affect downstream countries as much or more than the Kyrgyz Republic itself References Agaltseva, Natalya; and Sergey Myagkov. 2000. Flood Assessment - Final Report. Report for the World Bank. Central Asian Research Hydrometeorological Institute (SANIGMI). National Working Group of Kyrgyzstan. 2001. National Water Demands and Options for Demand Management. Volume II (draft). Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan WHO/UNICEF. 2001. Access to Improved Sanitation - Kyrgyzstan. WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation. Geneva, Switzerland. Report available at:http://childinfo.org/eddb/sani/ceecis/kyrgyztan_sanitation1.pdf World Bank. 1998. Kyrgyz Republic – Irrigation Rehabilitation. Project Information Document. Washington, DC, USA World Bank.1999. Kyrgyz Republic – Rural Water Supply and Sanitation. Project Information Document. Washington, DC, USA World Bank. 2000. Kyrgyz Republic – On-Farm Irrigation Project. Project Information Document. Washington, DC, USA World Bank. 2002. Kyrgyz Republic – Agriculture Services and Business Promotion. Project Concept Document (Draft). Washington, DC, USA.

94









Of GDP -6.5% 3.6% Of population 0.9% 1.6%

1999






Total external renewable water resources (BCM) -25.9 (Accounts for outflows to Of which surface water (BCM) -25.9 other countries) Of which groundwater (BCM) 0.0


1990 2000 2015 2020


1992 1993 1997 1998Total annual water used (in BCM) 11.58 11.40 6.17 6.41 Irrigation 10.13 10.12 5.71 5.96 Industrial 1.10 0.86 0.14 0.13 Domestic 0.35 0.41 0.32 0.31

KYRGYZ REPUBLIC: WATER FACT SHEET


-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

2000 MDG2015

Po

pu

lati

on

(in

mill

ion

)

Urban

Rural

-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Po

pu

lati

on

(in

mill

ion

)

Urban Pop

Rural Pop

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

1992 1993 1997 1998



Access to Sewage

-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

2000 MGD2020

Po

pu

lati

on

(in

mill

ion

)

Urban

Rural

95

WATER QUALITY AND POLLUTION 1999Volume of wastewater from all sources (BCM) 0.9-1.15

Volume subject to some kind of treatment 30%-60%

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994Annual emissions of BOD per day (M Tons) 31 30 28 26 21Annual emissions of BOD per capita (kg) 2.6 2.5 2.3 2.1 1.7


DAMS AND HYDROPOWER 1995Reservoir capacity (BCM) 23.50 Irrigation dams (BCM)

Hydropower dams (BCM)Reservoir capacity in cubic meters per capita 4,775 (in 2000)



IRRIGATION 1992 1995 1998 1999Irrigated land (million ha) 1.01 1.08 1.07 1.08 Irrigated land per capita (ha) 0.225 0.236 0.225 0.222Irrigated land as share of cropland 76.3% 81.2% 75.1% 74.7%

FRESHWATER FISHERY 1992 1995 1998 1999Fishery production (MT) 843 364 230 198 Fishery production per capita (kg) 0.19 0.08 0.05 0.04




Municipal water services * These are ball park estimates.

Municipal tariff in Bishkek(US cent/m3) 1999

Water supply -- all consumers 1.44

Sewerage and treatment -- all consumers 0.65Irrigation tariff (US cent/m3)

In the irrigation season 0.07

Out of irrigation season 0.04


0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999


02468

10121416

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

Other

Hydropower


0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1992 1994 1996 1998 2000


0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994

Kg/

capi

ta/y

ear

96

LATVIA11

Flood Management The most common floods in Latvia's last hundred years have been river and lakeside floods during spring snowmelt season. Cities near Latvia's coast have elevated risk, because river floods are sometimes dammed by effects of the Gulf and Sea: storm surges, ice cover in the Gulf, or ice dumps on the coastline. Cities at risk near the coastline include Riga, Carnikava, Ventspils and Liepaja. Even in Latvia's interior, coastal effects cause extreme flooding on the Lielupe River as far inland as Jelgava, when storm water injections from the Gulf of Riga interfere with ordinary floods. Several Latvian cities have significant areas at risk. Jelgava and Carnikava in particular have built-up areas that have a known tendency to flood. Ventspils also floods; part of the city becomes, in effect, a wetland when the water level in the Venta River rises. Liepaja also has areas at risk when the water table rises, as it does when high sea levels raise the pressure. In the future, global sea level rise may increase the risk of flood damage in the coastal cities and towns. Some inland lakeside and riverside areas flood periodically. The largest of these, Lubans Lake in southeast Latvia, has flooded its surrounding area annually for centuries because the outgoing river, does not have the capacity to handle the annual high water. The risk is known, however, and little economic damage is done. During the Soviet era, numerous works were undertaken to regulate the flood regime. Channels were dredged, dams and reservoirs built, polder systems with artificial pumping year round constructed, arrangements made to blast loose ice cover damming river mouths at the Gulf. During that period, the risk of unforeseen flooding was low by historical standards. However, the system (including the irrigation network) was very expensive, costing about 5-7% of annual GDP. Today, the system is breaking down, and as a result, the areas at risk and the severity of risk are rising. Infrastructure investments are smaller; coastal ice is no longer blasted; urban planning no longer incorporates flood planning at high priority. However, the present era is the first to deal openly with what is widely believed to be Latvia's most severe flood risk, the possibility of failure in the cascade of HPPs on the Daugava River. When the first HPP on the Daugava River (Kegums HPP) was built in 1939, design technicians estimated that should the HPP fail, the city of Riga would be inundated by .4 m to 1.2 m of water. When the Plavinas and Rigas HPPs were built in 1974, Hydroproject Moscow estimated that should Plavinas HPP fail suddenly, Riga would be inundated by up to four meters of water. In 1995, a new study of the cascade's safety was undertaken by Norplan, considering the case where one HPP failed but the others held. It concluded that in this scenario, if the dams at Plavinas and Riga and their spillways receive safety upgrades, the extreme flood risk due to the cascade could be mitigated so that flood overflow would affect relatively unpopulated areas rather than Riga City. But all these studies together have not supplied the Latvian authorities with a general picture of the risk due to the cascade. At the time our briefing was prepared, a


97

further study was underway by Finnish consultants to meet that need. Emergency plans and procedures in case of damage to the cascade are also needed. Loss of human life in Latvian floods appears to be rare, but exact numbers are not known because flood deaths are listed together with loss of life in certain fishing accidents and other related causes. For the same reason, estimates of annual flood damage are unavailable. However, it can be said that flood damage has often included destruction of roads, paths and hay stock, loss of household animals, damage to household belongings, and contamination of drinking water. Reference

World Bank. 2003. Flood Profile for Latvia. Prepared by Lucy Hancock on the basis of a report by V. Seglins for the World Bank in 2000. Washington, DC, USA.

98



1990 2000 Goal for 2015Access to piped water supply 79% 93% 97% Urban 89% n.a. n.a. Rural 55% n..a n..aNote: Goal refers to MDGs.

1990 2000 Goal for 2020Access to sewage n.a. 92% 96% Urban n.a. n.a. n.a. Rural n.a. n.a. n..aNote: Goal refers to MDGs.

1997-98Share of poor in rural areas 45%










1990 2000 2015 2020


1991 1995 1997 2000Total annual water used (in BCM) 0.66 0.43 0.40 0.30 Irrigation 0.17 0.08 0.08 0.06 Industrial 0.26 0.12 0.14 0.09 Public supply 0.24 0.24 0.19 0.15

LATVIA: WATER FACT SHEET


-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

2000 MDG2015

Po

pu

lati

on

(in

mill

ion

)

Total

Rural

-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

1990 2000 2010 2020

Pop

ulat

ion

(in m

illio

n)

Urban Pop

Rural Pop

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

1991 1995 1997 2000


Irrigation Industrial Public supply

Access to Sewage

-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

2000 MDG2015

Po

pu

lati

on

(in

mill

ion

)

Total

Rural

99

WATER QUALITY AND POLLUTION 1997Volume of wastewater from all sources (BCM) 0.33

Subject to some kind of treatment 60% (o/w 61% only partial treated)



DAMS AND HYDROPOWER 1995Reservoir capacity (BCM) 1.05 Irrigation dams (BCM) Hydropower dams (BCM) 1.05Reservoir capacity in cubic meters per capita 434 (in 2000)



IRRIGATION 1992 1995 1998 1999

Irrigated land ('000 ha) 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 Irrigated land per capita (ha) 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008Irrigated land as share of cropland 1.2% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1%


FINANCING THE WATER SECTORAverage cost recovery: 2002 Irrigation water services

Municipal water services 85% * These are ball park estimates.

Municipal tariff (US cent/m3) 1999 Water supply -- all consumers 31-52

Sewerage and treatment -- all consumers 38-72

Water abstraction tax (US cents/m3) 2001-02 Surface water 0.3 Technical - groundwater 0.9 Drinking - groundwater 1.7 Thermal water 8.6 Medicinal mineral water 17.2 Table mineral water 34.4


0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

Other

Hydropower


0

3,000

6,000

9,000

12,000

15,000

1992 1994 1996 1998


0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.0

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

Kg

/cap

ita/y

ear

100

LITHUANIA12

Flood Management Major floods in Lithuania are usually the result of snowmelt enhanced by ice jams on the major rivers, the Neris and the Nemunas. Historically, these rivers have repeatedly flooded Vilnius and Kaunas, among other riverside cities and settlements. But today, Vilnius is protected by the Vileika-Minsk water system (Belarus), built in the upper water course of the Neris in 1976. No serious flooding has occurred in Vilnius in the last few decades, and the Neris does not flood other settlements along its banks. As for the Nemunas, the hazard in Kaunas was minimized by construction of the Kaunas Hydroelectric Power Plant (Kaunas HPP) in 1950: having been flooded 16 times from 1877 to the building of Kaunas HPP, Kaunas has not been flooded again since. Unlike the Neris, however, the Nemunas continues to pose a risk to other towns and settlements along its banks and to inhabitants of its delta. Some areas continue to flood regularly, although economic use of regularly inundated area is generally limited to farmland, by far the greatest part of which is meadow, forest and wetland. Dam construction in the last four decades may have brought with it a new threat, deficiencies in the dams themselves. Deficient dam operation has not yet caused significant damage, and there have been no floods yet originating in dam breaks but underfunding of operations and maintenance since the transition began in the early 1990s lays a basis for concern that these risks are growing. As for other flood risks, there is occasional damage over limited areas from rainstorm flooding, which is felt more on the small and medium rivers than on Lithuania's two great rivers. While the floods on the Neris and Nemunas used to be catastrophic (the flood of 1946 did damages estimated at millions of rubles), average annual flood damage is estimated today at 80,000 Lt (USD20,000). There was one death in 1994, but mostly, there are no flood deaths. As noted above, the Nemunas River in snowmelt season is still the cause of significant flood risk. Several towns on the banks of the Nemunas flood occasionally. The Silute district in the Nemunas delta is inundated every year over a varying area, as is the floodplain of the Nemunas in its lower course. Reference

World Bank. 2003. Flood Profile for Lithuania. Prepared by Lucy Hancock on the basis of a report by J. Taminskas for the World Bank in 2000. Washington, DC, USA


101



1990 2000 Goal for 2015Access to piped water supply 86% 75% 88% Urban 90% n.a. n.a. Rural 78% n.a. n.a.Note: Goal refers to MDGs.

1990 2000 Goal for 2020Access to sewage n.a. 65% 83% Urban n.a. n.a. n.a. Rural n.a. n.a. n.a.Note: Goal refers to MDGs.






1999



Land area (millions of ha) 6.52Land area in international basins (millions of ha) 6.26

Percentage of country in international basins 96.0%Average precipitation (mm) 748Average total volume of rainfall (BCM) 49




1990 2000 2015 2020


1995 1996 1999 2000Total annual water consumed (in BCM) 4.46 5.59 4.60 3.53 Agriculture and fisheries 0.06 0.10 0.09 0.07 Industrial and cooling 4.15 5.32 4.38 3.34 Municipal and household 0.25 0.18 0.13 0.12

LITHUANIA: WATER FACT SHEET


-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

2000 MDG2015P

op

ula

tio

n (i

n m

illio

n)

-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

1990 2000 2010 2020

Po

pu

lati

on

(in

mill

ion

)

Urban Pop

Rural Pop

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

1995 1996 1999 2000

Trends of Water Consumed (BCM)

Agriculture and fisheries Industrial and cooling Municipal and household

Access to Sewage

-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

2000 MGD2020

Po

pu

lati

on

(in

mill

ion

)

102

WATER QUALITY AND POLLUTION 1999 2000 2001Volume of wastewater (BCM) 0.180 0.170 0.175

Subject to treatment to meet quality standards 13% 14% 18%









FINANCING THE WATER SECTORAverage cost recovery: 2002 Irrigation water services

Municipal water services 85% * These are ball park estimates.

Municipal tariff (US cent/m3)

Water supply -- all consumers

Sewerage and treatment -- all consumers


0

3,000

6,000

9,000

12,000

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

Other

Hydropower


0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

1992 1994 1996 1998


0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Kg

/cap

ita/

year

103

FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA Socio-Economic and Geographic Context The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYR Macedonia), with a total area of 2.6 million ha, is a landlocked country situated in the southern Balkan Peninsula. This is a region of high seismic activity. About two-thirds of the country is hilly and mountainous. The average elevation is 850 meters above sea level (masl), and more than 30% of the territory is above 1,000 m. Its average precipitation is about 730 mm, but it is unevenly distributed in space and time. Rainfall varies from 400 mm in the center and east of the country to 1,400 mm in the west; and occurs mainly from October to December and from March to May. About 75% of the country is classified as a semi-arid region. Agriculture activities are limited by water availability. During the 1990s, the country experienced severe droughts every year with the exception of 1995. In 2000, the estimated population was about 2.03 million, with 41% living in rural areas. The existing of rural areas is closely linked to agriculture, which employs about 15% of the labor force. Water resources have played a key role in the economy of FYR Macedonia: about 10-16% of the cropland has been irrigated, and about 20% of the total electricity-generating capacity is produced by hydropower. Water Resource Base FYR Macedonia has four main hydrographic catchment areas: Vardar (covers about 80% of the country), Drin (in the west covering 13% of the territory), Strumica (in the south east covering 6% of the country), and Juzma Morava (less than 1%). About 98% of its territory is in international basins shared with all neighboring countries: Serbia and Montenegro, Greece, Albania and Bulgaria. Surface and groundwater resources. Its overall water resources amount to 6.4 BCM during a normal year or 4.8 BCM during a dry year. Annual per capita water availability is about 3,150 m3. Most of the water comes from rivers and is carried in the Vardar basin. The rivers of the country drain to three basins: the Aegean basin, the Black Sea basin and the Adriatic basin. Within the main river valleys there are about 60 registered springs with a flow greater than 100 l/sec. Although groundwater does not have a major impact in the overall water balance, it is the predominant source for drinking water. Data on the quantity and quality of groundwater sources is extremely limited. Water resources are unevenly distributed over time and space. This unbalance distribution causes shortage of water in many localities, particularly in the Strumica catchment area, where lack of water affects all economic activities and threatens human health: about 40% of the demand is not met during an average dry year and water quality has been reported below biological minimum standards in periods when the rivers dry up. FYR Macedonia has three large tectonic lakes. The largest of the tectonic lakes is Lake Ohrid located in the Drin catchment area, with a surface of 357 km2, which about one-third of its surface lies in Albania. This lake is more than 2 million years old and has unique species. The

104

second largest lake is Lake Prespa, also located in the Drin, with a surface of 320 km2. It is situated to the east of Lake Ohrid. FYR Macedonia shares this lake with Albania and Greece. During the past 15 years, a significant decline of the level of the lake has been observed, causing environmental and water resources management concerns. The smallest tectonic lake is Lake Doiran, located in the Vardar catchment, with a surface of 47 km2. It is situated in the southeast of the country, and is also shared with Greece. As with Lake Prespa, the water level of this lake is receding quickly as a result of continued dry years and overuse of water for irrigation. After the drought of 2001, the level of the lake was at its lowest point ever: 3.5 m. below its optimal level. This is affecting the biodiversity of the lake. Located in a temperate region, it is expected that FYR Macedonia will be affected by global warming. Considerable increase in hydrological and climate extremes will be observed in the future. Water quality. The quality of water sources varies between satisfactory and poor. Water quality of both surface and ground waters is relatively clean in the upper reaches of rivers, but deteriorates rapidly in the middle and lower reaches. Pollution of rivers is high in areas downstream of densely populated areas, as a result of untreated municipal and industrial wastewater discharges. Wastewater treatment is almost non-existing in FYR Macedonia. There are some areas where the water quality is higher than the maximum admissible limits. Monitoring data from 1978 to 1997 indicates a considerable increase in the content of nitrate of surface water -- though the nitrates are within the regulation limits. Similarly, surface water bodies show low level of dissolved oxygen especially in Bregalnica and Crma Reka regions. There is no regular monitoring of water quality or industrial discharges. Karstic springs and aquifers used by 60% of the populations are somehow protected because their watersheds or protection zones are usually in high mountain areas. Wells located in areas where the land is intensively used for agriculture, in particular cattle breeding, are threatened by pollution. For example, high levels of nitrate (up to 15 mg/l) were found in wells in Prilep and Radovish. Recent data on groundwater quality is scare. The last monitoring data collected in 1981 revealed that most sources were of satisfactory quality at that time. At present little is know about the current condition of groundwater sources countrywide. Agriculture has been reported as a significant polluter of water resources. Large cattle-breeding farms in particular pig farms in the northern part of the country discharge their untreated effluents into water bodies. Water Use and Management by Sector In 1996, overall water abstraction reached 1.85 BCM, of which about 74% was for irrigation, 12% for domestic and municipal water supply and 15% for industry. Industrial water use has decreased considerably during the 1990s as a result of the economy crises. Drinking water supply and sanitation. About 70% of the population has access to piped water supply with close to 100% connection for the urban population and 28% for the rural population. The remainder of the rural population relies on local facilities (individual wells, pumps, village

105

fountains, springs). The main piped water sources are the karstic springs (60%). Other sources are surface water (20%) and aquifers or wells (20%). The quality of drinking water in rural settlements is a serious concern. Monitoring of groundwater sources used for drinking water supply conducted by the Ministry of Health reveals that although no serious sanitary-hygiene problems exist, about 5% of the monitored wells have experienced microbiological contamination. Since they have failed to meet the quality limits, they cannot be used for drinking purpose. The contamination resulted mostly because of absence of sanitary protection zones around water wells, or when available, because the sanitary protection zones were not strictly enforced. Seasonal water shortage is another problem affecting the sector. There are a large number of cities and villages that face drinking water shortage during the dry season. A recent example is the situation faced by the town of Prilep during the summer of 2001, when water for all users had to be supplied by tankers. Only a few towns (e.g., Ohrid, Struga, Resen and Doiran) have sewage systems with a wastewater treatment plan. The rest discharge their untreated wastewater directly into rivers causing serious water quality problems downstream. There are projects to build wastewater plans in Skopje, Bitola and Strumica, but so far, little progress has been made in their implementation. Irrigation. Water deficiencies occur during the summer season throughout the country, with the only exception being the western part of the country. During the growing period, evapo-transpiration is much higher than rainfall 640 mm compared to 190 mm. Irrigation is necessary for agriculture. A large irrigation system has existed since 1958, but at present it is not used to its full potential. The irrigation systems built so far theoretically cover an area of 164,000 ha. Since schemes were not completed or properly maintained, only 127,00 ha could be effectively irrigated. During the 1990s, only 30-60% of this area was actually used. Low level of budget level does not allow to pay for maintenance of the systems that are more than 30 years old. The systems built during the 1970s have badly deteriorated because of the poor quality of the original design and poor maintenance. The irrigation systems have high water losses, sometimes more than 50%. There are plans to rehabilitate/complete economically viable systems to allow production in 170,000 ha. According to the Agriculture Development Strategy, the area to be irrigated will be doubled by the year 2020. This will cause a considerable increase in irrigation water. Multipurpose reservoirs are being planned to provide water for irrigation purpose as well as to facilitate maintenance of minimum water flows in rivers, particularly during drought years. Erosion. Most of the territory of FYR Macedonia is vulnerable to strong erosion processes. Total amount of erosive sediments is estimated at 17 MCM, out of which about half is estimated to end up in rivers, reservoirs and lakes. According to recent research, about 3 MCM of reservoir storage is lost every year as a result of soil erosion. While measures to protect rivers and reservoirs from erosion were implemented since the 1900s, measures to control erosions were initiated in 1945. Any future project for the rehabilitation and/or restructuring of the

106

irrigation sector should include control erosion measures, reforestation of catchment areas or other measures to manage sediments in reservoirs. Hydropower. The gross theoretical hydropower potential is 8,860 GWh/year, while the technically feasible potential is 5,500 GWh/year. About 30% of this potential has been developed so far. Hydropower accounts for about 20% of the total electricity production in the country. Since the hydropower production is not fully developed and there is heavy dependency on imported electricity (about 45%), there are plans to rehabilitate old dams and build a new dam. Floods. FYR Macedonia's geography tends to concentrate and discharge surface water rapidly. As a result, flash flooding from intense summer rainfall is more frequent than flooding that follows the extensive rainfall that is characteristic of the other seasons. But prolonged rainfall occasionally causes catastrophic floods, usually in November-December or May-June. The areas most at risk from flooding are stretches of the rivers through the plain valleys, where river beds are usually shallow and have low capacity. Given FYR Macedonia's rugged terrain, the river valleys are also where economic activity and high-value investments are found. Skopje and the region around it, for example, have experienced nine major floods in the last 150 years. The trend toward building on low ground, underway for many decades, continually increases flood risk. Regulation of riverbeds near large urban and industrial areas was designed in the 1970s to evacuate high water with a return period of 100 years, and in rural areas, to evacuate water with a return period of 20-50 years. Moreover, additional protection is sometimes required by local regulations or by regulations covering industry or transportation infrastructure. But those dimensions do not characterize the level of actual flood protection. Built 30-40 years ago, many systems are now in bad shape and do not provide the planned level of flood protection. The 1979 flood, for example, affected a large area and did enormous damage, estimated at USD153 million (1979 dollars), about 7.3% of GDP. Most damage was done in Tetovo and Skopje. In those areas, the return period of the high water was estimated at 50-100 years. Today, there are a number of cities and large towns in areas of high flood risk, including the Skopje area, Pelagonija, Strumica and the coastal area of Ohrid Lake near Struga (regions with high groundwater). Many more towns are at risk from floods of moderate likelihood. A dam is being built on the Treska River, the Kozjak dam, to improve flood control of the Skopje region. The retention volume of the dam is estimated at 500 MCM, out of which 100 MCM will be used for flood control. Comprehensive data on the areas flooded in the past and on the annual cost of flood damage in FYR Macedonia are not available. According to available data, no lives have been lost in FYR Macedonia's floods. Water Legislation and Policies In the 1970s a Water Management Plan was prepared for the long-term management and development of water resources in the country. Implementation of the plan started in 1975, and

107

is supposed to be replaced in 2004. A new water master plan is under preparation by the Water Fund for the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Resources Management. This plan will describe the short-term and medium-term vision of the water sector, and will address important concerns such as water allocation, development of agriculture and hydropower and rural development. The main piece of legislation on water resources management is the 1998 Law on Water and its several by- laws. The Law on Water defines the management and control of water use, protection and prevention of water contamination, protection against floods, as well as financing of water management activities. The law introduces the following important instruments and institutions: creation of a water fund to finance water resources development and works of public interest; establishment of public water management enterprises and water users’ associations; introduction of wastewater standards and pollution charges according to the polluter-pay principle; and appointment of water management inspectors. Until now, only the Water Fund has been set up. The law also introduces the concept of permits for water extraction and discharge and obliges the polluter to build wastewater treatment facilities. Unfortunately until now, none of these provisions have been enforced because of the absence of implementing ordinances. Although the Law on Water is relatively new and introduces modern concept, it is currently subject to revision in order to harmonize and align it with the relevant European Union environmental directives, including the EU WFD, e.g., the concept of hydrographic basin management is not contemplated in the existing legislation. The use of economic incentives is of major importance to improve the efficiency of water use. However, the level of acceptance that water has an economic value and that everyone should pay for it is very low. Public awareness about the importance of water will help increase the level of acceptability. Water Management Institutions The 1998 Law on Water formally charges the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Resources Management through its Water Administration with the overall management responsibility for water resources of both surface and groundwater and quality and quantity aspects. Management and issuing of water abstraction licenses and discharge permits for all uses, monitoring of hydrological regime, development and operation of flood control and drainage infrastructure and other actions of public interest are the responsibility of the Water Administration. In addition, there are at least 4 additional ministries that share the management of the resource.

• The Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning responsible for protecting water bodies against pollution.

• The Ministry of Health responsible for controlling drinking and bathing water quality.

108

• The Ministry of Transport responsible for public water supply and wastewater treatment infrastructure for municipalities, including authorization of building permit issues to industrial facilities and monitoring of wastewater facilities

• The Ministry of the Economy responsible for the construction of dams and hydropower plants.

Dispersion of water management aspects among various ministries prevents the adoption of an integrated approach to water resources management. In theory, technical aspects of water management are supposed to be handled by two public water enterprises and water users associations.

• Municipal Public Enterprises are responsible for managing drinking water supply, sewage and wastewater treatment systems in cities and villages. For the services provided consumers pay a water charge. Collection rates have dropped considerably during the past 5 years, and at present these enterprises canno t afford proper maintenance of the systems they operate. A new law that will allow the participation of the private sector through concessions is before Parliament for consideration.

• Public Water Management Enterprise was created in 1998. This entity was supposed to

have 24 local offices (former water management organizations) and was supposed to be responsible for supplying irrigation water to farmers, providing bulk water supply to municipalities and industries, managing flood protection infrastructure, and implementation of measures against water erosion and drainage. The former water management organizations never become local offices of the new enterprise – they are still independent organizations. Funding is provided by the State Budget and water user charges. The Public Water Management Enterprise is being restructured. The proposed changes are to make the 24 water management organizations (in theory the local branches) autonomous water authorities. Those that cover the same rives catchment area will be merged and transform the central office into the regulatory body. The autonomous water authorities will be headed by a council made up of representatives from different stakeholders.

• Water Users Associations have been established to manage secondary water

infrastructure. For the services received, farmers pay a fee to the WUAs, which is supposed to cover 100% of the total cost of operating and managing the system.

Unfortunately so far, the segment of the Water Law that regulates the institutions in the sector has not been implemented and/or enforced. This has created a legal and institutional vacuum that the World Bank is addressing through the FYR Macedonia Irrigation Rehabilitation and Restructuring Project. This project aims at assisting the FYR Macedonian Government to enact special laws on Water Management Enterprises and Water User Associations. Transboundary and International Water Issues

109

FYR Macedonia assigns a high priority to enhance cooperation in the management and use of transboundary rivers and lakes shared with its neighboring countries. Cooperation with Albania is well advanced in relation to the management and protection of Lake Ohrid. In 1996 a bilateral institutional framework was signed between Albania and FYR Macedonia for the management of Lake Ohrid. Since 2002, both countries established watershed management committees for Lake Ohrid, and are cooperating since then. Since Lake Ohrid’s watershed also includes Greece and the quality and hydrological conditions of Lake Ohrid are linked to those of Lake Prespa, it is desirable to upgrade the Albania/FYR Macedonia agreement to add Greece. In February 2000, FYR Macedonia, Albania and Greece agreed to the protection of Lake Prespa and their surroundings. Bilateral cooperation between FYR Macedonia and Greece concerning Lake Doiran is ongoing. A specific memorandum of understanding has been drafted. Key Issues and Challenges FYR Macedonia should consider the following actions to improve the management of its water resources:

• Strengthen the legal and institutional framework for water resources management and move towards an integrated water resources management approach.

• Adopt a balanced approach to water management, which considers measures in the supply side and demand side. This is particularly relevant for the irrigation sector, where plans are underway to expand the land under irrigation instead of making more efficient use of current systems.

• Identify river basins and sub-basins and develop water management plans through a participatory planning approach. The ongoing experience with the management of Lake Ohrid through a participatory watershed management approach is very relevant in this respect.

• Continue rehabilitation of irrigation infrastructure, including introduction of measures to reduce water losses. In addition, any future project for the rehabilitation and/or restructuring of the irrigation sector should include control erosion measures, reforestation of catchment areas or other measures to manage sediments in reservoirs.

• Improve knowledge of groundwater sources in terms of quantity and quality. • Strictly enforce sanitary protection zones to avoid contamination of groundwater sources

-- main source for drinking water. • Adopt measures to conserve transboundary lakes and wetlands to allow for their

sustainable use. • Undertake joint action for the protection and conservation of Lake Doiran.

References Chemonics International. 2001. Biodiversity Assessment for FYR Macedonia. Prepared with the support from the USAID. Washington, DC, USA. Government of FYR Macedonia. 1995. National Environmental Action Plan for FYR Macedonia. Skopje, FYR Macedonia.

110

International Commission of Irrigation and Drainage. 2002. FYR Macedonia Country Report. Prepared by the National Committee of the International Commission of Irrigation and Drainage. Skopje, FYR Macedonia. Report available at: http://www.icid.org/index e.html. United Nations Commission for Europe. 2002. Environmental Performance Review of the Former Yugoslav Republic pf Macedonia. UNECE. Geneva, Switzerland. World Bank. 2003. Flood Profile for FYR Macedonia. Prepared by Lucy Hancock on the basis of a report by Zivko Skoklevski for the World Bank in 2002 and revisions of 2002. Washington, DC, USA.

111







1990 1994 1998 1999Labor force (millions of people) 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 Share in agriculture 22% 9% n.a.. n.a. Share in industry 40% 49% n.a. n.a.





Total internal renewable water resources (BCM) 5.4 Of which surface water (BCM) 5.4 Of which groundwater n.a. Overlap between surface and groundwater n.a.


Total renewable resources (BCM) 6.4 Of which total surface water (BCM) 6.4 Of which total groundwater (BCM) n.a. Overlap between surface and groundwater n.a.Dependency ratio 15.6%

1990 2000 2015 2020


1990 1996Total annual water used (in BCM) 2.44 1.75 Irrigation 2.02 1.41 Industrial 0.23 0.14 Domestic 0.19 0.20

FYR MACEDONIA: WATER FACT SHEET


-

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

2000 MDG2015

Po

pu

latio

n (

in m

illio

n)

Urban

Rural

-

0.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

1.5

1990 2000 2010 2020

Po

pu

lati

on

(in

mill

ion

)

Urban Pop

Rural Pop

0.00

0.40

0.80

1.20

1.60

2.00

1990 1996


Irrigation

Industrial

Domestic

Access to Sewerage

-

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

2000 MDG2020

Po

pu

lati

on

(in

mill

ion

)

Urban

Rural

112

WATER QUALITY AND POLLUTION 1996Volume of wastewater from all sources (BCM) 0.53

Treated discharge ~10%

1990 1994 1995 1996 1994Annual emissions of BOD per day (Tons) 32 25 25 23 25Annual emissions of BOD per capita (kg) 6.2 4.7 4.6 4.3 4.7


DAMS AND HYDROPOWER 2001Reservoir capacity (BCM) 1.70 Irrigation dams (BCM) 0.50 Hydropower dams (BCM) 1.20Reservoir capacity in cubic meters per capita 836 (in 2000)

Gross theoretical hydropower potential (GWh/y) 8,863 Technically feasible (GWh/y) 5,500 Economically feasible (GWh/y) n.a.Current production from hydropower (GWh/y) 1,300 (in 2000)




FINANCING THE WATER SECTORAverage cost recovery: 1995 2000 Irrigation water services

Municipal water services <100% O&M costs * These are ball park estimates.

Average domestic tariff (US cent/m3) 20 14-53Average industrial tariff (US cent/m3) 28-100

Raw water charge


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1992 1994 1996 1998

Other

Hydropower


0

300

600

900

1,200

1,500

1,800

2,100

1992 1994 1996 1998


0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Kg

/cap

ita/

year

Trends in Actual Irrigated Area (ha)

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000

113

MOLDOVA Socio-Economic and Geographic Context Moldova, with a total area of 3.39 million ha, is a small, landlocked country situated between the western border of Ukraine and the eastern border of Romania. It lies in the Black Sea basin. The northern part of the country belongs to the Pofole highland and the southern part to the Black Sea lowland. Its average altitude is about 147 m, with 75% of the territory beingbelow 200m. The climate is moderate continental and rich in sunshine. Average precipitation is 370 mm in the south and 560 mm in the north. However, precipitation is very different from one year to another. This is the chief reason why irrigation is usual and necessary for agriculture production. In 2000, its population was estimated at 4.3 million people, of whom 700,000 live in Transdniestria, east of the Dniester River. Moldova is a predominantly rural society: about 60% of the population live in rural towns and villages of which fewer than 10,000 people and approximately 20% live in Chisinau, the capital.

Out of all of the countries of the former Soviet Union, Moldova has been the most negatively affected and is the poorest country in Europe today. The collapse of the former Soviet Union accompanied by the disruption of trade and payments; price shock which accompanied the liberalization of the price of energy; conflict with Transdniestria in 1992; series of natural disasters; and Russian crisis of 1998 have led to widespread poverty. This has resulted in massive migration, especially of skilled personnel; limited job opportunities and low incomes leading to an economic crisis particularly in rural areas and the agriculture sector.


A surface area of about 34% of the country drains into the Prut River, a tributary of the Danube, approximately 60% into the Dniester River and the rest into a series of small rivers that empty directly into the Black Sea. Available renewable resources in Moldova amount to 7.3 BCM or about 1,700 cubic meters per capita per year. Internal renewable resources are only 1.0 BCM, and the remaining resources come from transboundary rivers, namely the Dniester and Prut Rivers. Although Moldova is not "water-stressed" overall, there are regional imbalances. There is significant seasonal and annual variability in river run-off, including frequent droughts and risk of flooding in summer during torrential rain season. There are about 3,500 small ponds and reservoirs, constructed for irrigation, flood regulation and fishing purpose, with a total volume of 1.8 BCM. The quality of the country’s water resources is considered to be the poorest in Europe, primarily due to residues from agricultural chemicals and lack of efficient manure practices. Small rivers are the most seriously polluted. The water from the Dniester River is of satisfactory quality, while the Prut River is categorized as “moderately polluted.” The quality of the Prut delta is considered “polluted” to “strongly polluted.”

114

Overall groundwater resources were assessed about 25 years ago, and their potential was estimated at 1.1 BCM. Of this, about 40-50% were estimated to be potable. At present, about 0.3 BCM are being pumped by public and private wells. In some areas, groundwater is being extracted at a much higher rate than the safe yield. This has caused piezometric levels to drop as much as 100 m. Continued dropping is a sign that local mining of this valuable resource is taking place. Most of the drinking water resources for rural settlements are contaminated to some extent, with nitrites, nitrates, fluoride and residues of pesticides. Restructuring of livestock farms, unprotected wells, and lack of evacuation of domestic effluents are contributing to this situation. Out of the 120,000 shallow wells in use, about 60-70% show high nitrite concentrations in excess of the maximum acceptable levels. The 1998 State of the Environment Report indicates that most wetlands in the country have been drained with the exception of small areas in the lower Dniester River and areas bordering the Prut River. By 1994, wetlands represented only 5,500 ha or 0.2% of the territory. In its Biodiversity Strategy, Moldova lists meadows and wetlands among its most affected landscapes. Water Uses and Management Overall water use has declined considerably in Moldova during the past decade as a result of the economic restructuring. Between 1990 and 1996, total water use declined from 3.8 BCM to1.8 BCM, respectively. Although most of the decline was observed in the industrial sector, still this sector accounts for a large share of water use. In 1996, about 1.2 BCM were used for industrial purposes (including the demands of the Moldovan Thermal Power Plant), 0.35 BCM for agriculture (with irrigation accounting for 80%), and 0.24 BCM for drinking water. Development of irrigation started in 1945. By 1996, about 310,000 ha were equipped with irrigation. Most of the irrigation land is concentrated in the central and southern parts of the country. In the past, irrigation was heavily dependent on electricity for pumping to lift water to higher systems (150-300 m) that could not be reached by gravity conveyance systems. The reduction of markets for Moldovan agriculture products, and the increase in energy prices, reduced significantly the profitability of irrigated agriculture, which caused a 50% reduction in irrigated areas.

Water and sewerage services are provided through Apa Canals in urban areas. In rural areas, a department under the mayor's office provides these services. Of the 51 Apa Canals in Moldova, 7 are located in Transdniestria. Approximately 65% of urban residents are connected to centralized water supply networks while coverage of urban residents with sanitation connections is 55%. In small and medium-sized towns, the service coverage of water supply is 45% and sanitation connection is 40%. Main water sources of the remaining of the population are wells and natural springs. However, due to poor maintenance, their quality has deteriorated. Domestic sewerage and industrial wastewater are major sources of pollution (of both surface and groundwater). Although 70% of the population is connected to wastewater treatment plants, available information reveals than only 18% of the volume is treated to required standards. The lack of electricity combined with power cuts limits the treatment to only mechanical, although

115

the wastewater plants are designed for secondary/biological treatment. Industrial and agro-industrial plants sometimes do not operate their existing wastewater treatment plants, due to high operation costs and due to lack of resources for repairs and maintenance. As in many other countries, wetlands in Moldova have been treated as low-value lands. In the 1970s, drainage works were undertaken in the valleys of Prut, Dniester, Raut and other small rivers to convert wetlands for agricultural lands, which led to the destruction of important aquatic habitats. Today the drained area is estimated at 60,000 ha, of which about 21,000 are located in the Danube basin. In 2000, Moldova, Ukraine, Bulgaria, and Romania signed a Declaration on Cooperation to protect key wetlands and flood plain forests along the Danube as part of the Lower Danube Green Corridor initiative supported by WWF. Floods and Droughts

Despite Moldova's overall dryness, it is a country with significant flood risks, and despite the importance of its great transboundary rivers, the flood risk is mostly associated with Moldova's smaller internal rivers. Flood damage is not exactly known, because local flood processes are not always registered, and individual victims and private damages are not always recorded. However, the deaths of 67 people have been recorded since 1985, associated with flooding on the internal rivers, while no deaths have been recorded as the result of flooding on the Dniester or the Prut, and annual damage from floods on internal rivers averaged about USD4.4 million/year from 1947 to 2000, while annual damage from flooding on the Dniester and the Prut averaged only about USD1.5 million/year from 1966 to 2000. Especially dramatic cases were the flooding in the Reut River basin in 1991 and flooding on the Calmatsui in 1994, which together caused damage to capital facilities estimated at USD180 million. Heavy rainfall in 1994, which affected Cogalnic, Calmatsui and Lapusna River basins caused damage estimated at USD117 million and resulted in the deaths of 29 people. Flooding on the Dniester and Prut was a significant threat in the past, averaging damage of about USD30 million annually. But the risk has been significantly mitigated in recent decades by construction of dams and reservoirs that are operated in light of flood monitoring data. Because these floods usually form in the Carpathians, Moldova usually has two to five days of warning before the flood wave reaches the border. During that time, flood protection measures can be effectively implemented. However, the level of flood protection depends very much on the technical state of the dams and dikes, which are now in need of substantial repair. On Moldova's smaller, internal watercourses, floods are caused by rain that falls locally, so warning times are short. Summer rainfall is especially unpredictable and dangerous, and Moldova's Central zone (Codru) is at greater risk than the north (Nord). Monitoring points are relatively few, and flood protection infrastructure has been constructed on the more important watercourses only. In general, the infrastructure is deteriorating, and so the risk is rising, especially because construction has been expanding in at-risk areas; for example, Hincesti, Basarabeasca, Soldanesti, Orhei, and others. Cities and towns in areas of significant risk include Moldova's largest: Chisinau, Balti and Soroca, as well as just-noted Orhei, and many others.

116

A final issue is that many ponds dammed in recent decades today do not have owners, while the dams are deteriorating. The outburst of these dams is a high-risk hazard that should be addressed. Drought is a frequent phenomenon in Moldova. Over the past 50 years, medium to moderate droughts (i.e., 70% and 90% of average rainfall) have been reported 40% of the time and severe droughts (i.e., less than 45% average rainfall) reported 4% of the time. According to available data, Moldova seems to suffer from droughts every third year. The 1994 drought caused severe damage to the economy, equivalent to the annual budget of the Republic. The 2000 drought also caused considerable losses to the agriculture sector.

Water Policy and Institutional Responsibilities

The main pieces of legislation for the water sector are the 1993 Water Code, the 1993 Underground Resource Code, the 1995 Law on Protection of Riparian Zones, the 1997 Law on Natural Resources, the 1999 Potable Water Law and the 1993 Law on Environmental Protection. Water is a State property and the Parliament has the right to issue concessions for its use. All water users must obtain an environmental license for water use. A license for wastewater discharge has to be also obtained. Discharge of untreated effluents into water bodies is allowed as long as it does not increase the pollution level above established standards. Otherwise, treatment of effluents must be carried out prior to their disposal. Penalties are imposed when the agent does not perform within the limits set in the permits. The licenses are issued by the environment authorities. A tax is imposed for the issuing of the water license: 50 times the minimum wage (about USD150) for legal entities and 20 times the minimum wage (USD60) for individuals. Payments for the use of water resources was introduced in May 1994 by Government Decision No. 262. The level of charge depends on whether the water is withdrawn from surface or groundwater and the purpose of the use. In general, the rates are valid for volumes extracted within consumption limits established by Apele Moldovei and the Danube-Dniester basin Inspectorate. Extraction beyond the consumption limits is charged at a rate increased by a factor of ten. Payments for the pollution of water resources were also introduced by the same Government Decision. The level of charge depends on the type and amount of toxic pollutants present in the wastewater that is being discharge into the sewers or into a water body. The payment rises progressively when discharges exceed the limits. Enforcement is weak – so far only some organizations pay a small fraction of the penalty. There are several entities responsible for the water sector. These are:

• The Department of Environmental Protection through the State Ecological Inspectorate which monitors the status of water bodies; the Hydrometeorological Services and the National Institute of Ecology.

• The Ministry of Health through the Center for Hygiene and Epidemiology is responsible for analyses of water quality.

• Apelei Moldovie, an independent body, in charge of water management.

117

• The Association Geological of Moldova and its Central Analytical Laboratory responsible for monitoring and assessing surface and groundwater sources.

• The Ministry of Agriculture and Food, responsible for irrigation and drainage. Moldova has ratified the ECE Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes. There are agreements between Moldova and Ukraine on the Dniester River and between Moldova, Ukraine and Romania on the Prut River. In February 1994, an agreement on the common use and protection of transboundary waters was signed between the Governments of Moldova and Ukraine. The areas of common interest are quantitative protection of surface and groundwater sources, and prevention of their pollution. Both Moldova and Ukraine have agreed on common water quality objectives and water quality criteria. In March 1997, a cooperation agreement on environmental protection and the sustainable use of natural resources was signed between Moldova and Romania, which among other topics promotes cooperation on issues concerning the Prut River.

Priorities

Priorities for improving water resources management include:

• Harmonization of water resources management legislation with that of the EU.

• Strengthening institutional capacity in water resources planning and management at the central and local levels.

• Improving coordination between the various agencies involved in the management of the sector – at present a very sectoral approach is followed on the management of the resource -- and to the extent possible promote river basin management.

• Improving management of groundwater resources.

• Promoting environmentally friendly agriculture practices to address pollution of groundwater sources.

• Continuing rehabilitation of water infrastructure and expansion of coverage of drinking water supply.

• Revising water pricing structures, and link them to cost recovery and to affordability.

• Undertaking a comprehensive review of the instruments available for water demand management and pollution control, and make them more efficient.

References

AQUASTAT. 1997. Moldova Country Profile. FAO, Land and Water Development Division. Catrinescu, Valeriu and Calasnic, Anatol. 1998. Basic Aspects of the Water Problems Experienced by the Republic of Moldova. Paper presented at the Congress International de

118

Kaslik – Liban, June 1-20, 1998. Istrate, L. and Hens, L. 1996. Sustainable development in Moldova: Its status and future prospects. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 3(1): 47-59. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. 1998. Environmental Performance Review of Moldova. UNECE. Geneva, Switzerland.

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. 2000. Environmental Performance Review of Moldova: Report on Follow-up. UNECE. Geneva, Switzerland. Web Page of the Wetlands International. July, 2003. European Wetlands Inventory Review. Available at: http://www.wetlands.org/inventory&/pewi/countries/Moldova.htm. WHO/UNICEF. 2001. Access to Improved Sanitation – The Republic of Moldova. WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation. Geneva, Switzerland. Report available at: http://childinfo.org/eddb/sani/ceecis/moldova_sanitation1.pdf. World Bank. 2003. Flood Profile for Moldova. Prepared by Lucy Hancock on the basis of a report by Gheorghe Palamarciuc for the World Bank in 2002. Washington, DC, USA. World Bank. 2003. Water Supply and Sanitation Pilot Project. Project Appraisal Document (Draft). Washington, DC, USA.

119







1990 1994 1998 1999Labor force (millions of people) 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 Share in agriculture 34% 46% n.a. n.a. Share in industry 29% 19% n.a. n.a.


Of GDP -11.8% -2.7% Of population -0.1% -0.2%

1999



Land area (millions of ha) 3.39Land area in international basins (millions of ha) 3.39 Percentage of country in international basins 100%





1990 2000 2015 2020


1990 1991 1995 1996Total annual water used (in BCM) 3.83 2.98 1.87 1.77 Agriculture 1.03 0.51 0.49 0.35 Industry (thermal power) 2.52 2.20 1.14 1.17 Domestic 0.27 0.27 0.25 0.24

MOLDOVA: WATER FACT SHEET


-0.20.40.6

0.81.01.21.41.6

1.82.0

2000 MDG2015

Po

pu

lati

on

(in

mill

ion

)

Urban

Rural

-

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

2.4

2.8

3.2

1990 2000 2010 2020

Po

pu

lati

on

(in

mill

ion

)

Urban Pop

Rural Pop

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

1990 1991 1995 1996


Agriculture Industry (thermal power) Domestic

Access to Sewerage

-

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

2000 MDG2020

Po

pu

lati

on

(in

mill

ion

)

Urban

Rural

120

WATER QUALITY AND POLLUTION 1993-94Domestic and industrial wastewater discharge 350 MCM Wastewater treated to required standards 51% (only 18% municipal waste)





Gross theoretical hydropower potential (GWh/y) 2,100 Technically feasible (GWh/y) 1,200 Economically feasible (GWh/y) 700Current production from hydropower (GWh/y) ~300 (in 2000)




FINANCING THE WATER SECTORAverage cost recovery:


Municipal water services


Average water/wastewater tariff (US cent/m3) 2002

Domestic water and wastewater services 10-50

Other municipal water services 26-303 Other municipal wastewater services 10-141

Average raw water charges (US cent/m3) 1998

Municipal purposes 3.0 within the limits Irrigation and fishery purposes 1.50 within the limits

X10 if exceed the limits Hydropower purposes 0.08


0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000

Equipped

Actual irrigated


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1992 1994 1996 1998

Other

Hydropower


0500

1,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,500

1992 1994 1996 1998


0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

Kg

/cap

ita/

year

121

POLAND13 Flood Management Like the other countries of Central Europe, Poland has experienced several floods of historic severity in the last decade. The flood of summer 1997, worst in the Oder basin though it affected the Vistula as well, killed 55 people and did damage estimated at USD3.4 billion. The flood of July 2001 on the Vistula River killed twelve people and did damage estimated at USD0.7 billion. Prior to these floods, annual flood damage from 1992 to 1995 averaged about USD21 million. Although year-to-year comparisons are difficult, it appears that over half of damage is loss to agriculture, in most years. Poland's great rivers, the Vistula and the Oder, are subject to seasonal flooding when spring and summer rains coincide with snowmelt; January to July is the period of greatest risk. Ice jam flooding is occasionally very important, as in 1840 when, due to a large ice jam, the Vistula broke through a natural dike and formed a new estuary to the Baltic Sea. Transboundary flows are not as important in Poland as in some other ECA countries, because Poland's rivers form largely on Polish territory and flow into the Baltic. Destruction of the forests of the Sudeten Mountains has increased flood vulnerability in Poland. Flood protection measures have been developed on both great rivers. However, the Bank's consultant notes that Cracow (on the Vistula) is still under-protected, and that protection of Warsaw and Gdansk needs strengthening. On the Oder, the consultant flags the fact that infrastructure originally built to protect Warsaw has been diverted for other purposes: reservoirs built for temporary storage in flood conditions are now used for permanent water storage; polders also designed for temporary storage have been occupied for agriculture or even housing development. Reference World Bank. 2003. Poland Flood Profile. Prepared by Lucy Hancock on the basis of a consultant report prepared by Mieczyslaw Rutkowski for the World Bank in 2000. Washington, DC, USA.

13 This note only includes flood management issues.

122


Total Population (millions of people) 38.11 38.61 39.01 39.00Urban population 61% 62% 63% 63%Rural population 39% 38% 37% 37%Source: Polish Official Statistics (2002)


1992 2000 Goal for 2020Access to sewage system 80% 80% 90% Urban 82% 83% 92% Rural 11% 76% 88%Note: Goal refers to MDGs.





Of GDP 3.5% 4.3% Of population 0.2% 0.0%

1999







1990 2000 2015 2020


1990 1995 2000Total annual water withdrawn (in BCM) 14.24 12.07 11.05 Irrigation 1.69 1.18 1.06 Industrial 9.55 8.43 7.64 Domestic 3.00 2.46 2.35

POLAND: WATER FACT SHEET


-

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

2000 MDG2015

Po

pu

lati

on

(in

mill

ion

)

Urban

Rural

-

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

1990 2000 2010 2020

Po

pu

lati

on

(in

mill

ion

)

Urban Pop

Rural Pop

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

1990 1995 2000

Trends of Water Abstraction (BCM)


Access to Sewage

-

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

2000 MGD2020

Po

pu

lati

on

(in

mill

ion

)

Urban

Rural

123

WATER QUALITY AND POLLUTION 1990 1995 2000Urban pollulation with wastewater treatment 56.7% 65.1% 79.3%

Subject to biological or tertiaty treatment 41.1% 51.0% 73.8%














Domestic water price (US cent/m3) 15-35 (in 1995)


0

30,000

60,000

90,000

120,000

150,000

1992 1994 1996 1998 2000


0

30

60

90

120

150

1992 1994 1996 1998

Other

Hydropower


0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998


0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

Kg

/cap

ita/

year

124

ROMANIA Socio-Economic and Geographic Context Romania has a total area of 23.8 million ha and is located in southeastern Europe. It borders the Black Sea, between Bulgaria and Ukraine, and is crossed by the Carpathian Mountains. Its territory is divided among hills (37%), mountains (30%) covering the center and northwest, and plains (33%) covering the south and east part of the country. The climate is transitional from temperate in the southwest to continental in the northwest. Average precipitation is about 700 mm, ranging from high rainfall in mountains areas (1,000 mm -1,400 mm) to low rainfall in the coastal areas (below 400 mm). In 2000, its population was estimated at 22.4 million people, with 55% living in urban areas. Since 1989 the total population has been declining constantly and it is expected that by 2020 it will reach 21 million. Water Resources Base Water resources play a key role in the economy of Romania: between 35-40% of the total electricity production is generated from hydro-power plants mostly on the Danube River; and about 30% of the cropland is irrigated. Romania’s water system is broadly developed. Quantitatively, its water resources are sufficient to cover its water demand. Surface and groundwater resources. Romania has 4,864 watercourses with a total length of about 79,000 km. Many of the important rivers are transboundary. The main river is the Danube which has a length of 1,075 km in Romania (37% of its total length) with 220 km forming the border between Romania and Serbia and Montenegro; 480 km forming the border between Romania an Bulgaria, 134 km forming he border with Ukraine, and 0.3 km on the border with Moldova. The river is regulated over most of its course. A surface area of about 98% of the country lies within the Danube River basin, and most of the water drains into the Black Sea. Theoretical renewable resources in Romania amount to 128-134 BCM or about 5,700-6,000 m. per capita per year. Internal renewable resources are 42.3 BCM, and the remaining come from transboundary rivers, namely the Danube and Prut Rivers. Since not all the water from the Danube can be taken because of its navigational character, potential available resources are limited to 40.3 BCM or 1,800 m. per capita per year. There is significant seasonal and annual variability in the rivers' runoff. In order to address the variability, about 1,300 reservoirs, mostly of multipurpose character for flood protection, drinking and industrial water supply, irrigation and hydropower generation, with a total volume of 14.0 BCM, have been built. Romania also faces spatial imbalance of its water resources without modification of natural flows, therefore,only 12% of potential available resources could have been used. In general, the water regime of the rivers is characterized by high flows during February through May and low flows during the rest of the year. Repeated and intense floods constitute one of the characteristics of the hydrologic system. The highest frequency of floods is found during the March-June period, while the least frequency is during January and August till September.

125

Romania has 194 natural lakes totaling an area of 132,730 ha and a water volume of 2,265 MCM. A number of lakes are used for therapeutic purposes and have an international reputation, e.g. Techirgohiol and Amara. The potential of groundwater resources has been estimated at 8-9 BCM . Of this, about one-third can be used under current technical and economical conditions. The most important groundwater resources can be found in the following basins: Danube (32.4%), Siret (10.8%), Arges (9.4%), Olt (7.2%) Ialomita (7%), Mures (6.4%) and the littoral area (5.2%). According to a survey of groundwater quality, both shallow and phreatic aquifers are at a high risk of pollution in the short- and long-term. At present, a large number of rural communities cannot use groundwater as a source of water supply because nitrates concentrations are exceeding the maximum admissible limits. Wetlands. The Danube delta is the second largest delta in Europe. Of its 799,000 ha, most (679,000 ha) is in Romania with the rest in the Ukraine. It serves as a buffering interface between the Danube River catchment (805, 300 km2) and the Western Black Sea (5,165 km2) and is a unique place not only in Europe, but also among other deltaic ecosystems due to its high biodiversity, to its renewable natural resources and to its beautiful scenery doubled by its cultural sites. Because of its high biodiversity value, it has been declared a protected area and a World Natural Heritage Site. In 2000, Romania, Bulgaria, Moldova and Ukraine signed a Declaration on Cooperation to protect key wetlands and flood plain forests along the Danube as part of the Lower Danube Green Corridor initiative supported by WWF. Water quality. Overall, quality of surface water sources is relatively good. The quality of the rivers has improved considerably over the last decade due mainly to the reduction of pollution activities. However, in 2000 about 11% of the total length of watercourses that are monitored were still rated as heavily polluted. The degradation of river water quality has been caused primarily by untreated wastewater discharges from municipalities. In addition, both surface and groundwater are threatened by diffuse pollution from agricultural activities, pollution from large pig farms, as well as accidental pollution caused by different hazardous substances, which has been a particular transboundary issue. Water Uses and Management by Sector Overall water use has declined considerably in Romania during the past decade as a result of economic restructuring. Between 1989 and 1999, total water use declined from about 20 BCM to 10 BCM, respectively. Most of the decline was observed in the agriculture sector. Agriculture water use (including irrigation, fish pond supply and other small uses) experienced a nine-fold reduction: from 9 BCM in 1989 to less than 1 BCM in 1999. Industrial water use also experienced a considerable decline during the same period: from about 8.6 BCM to about 5.7 BCM. Water withdrawn for domestic purposes has remained unchanged. Drinking water and sanitation coverage. About 92% of the urban population and 34% of the rural population receive drinking water from public supply systems. Surface water is the major source of drinking water supply (71%). Water consumption by households still remains high at 500-800 lcd. Level of losses in the distribution network are high (50-60%.) Wastewater from

126

municipalities and industrial plants receive little treatment at present. Of the total volume of 3 BCM of wastewater that needs to be treated, only 18% receives adequate treatment, 50% receives insufficient treatment and 32% receives no treatment at all. The capital Bucharest does not have a wastewater treatment facility in operation (one is under construction since 1989). Irrigation and drainage. Development of irrigation started in the 1960s. By 1989, irrigation systems were built on about 3.2 million ha of agricultural land. The Danube River provides 75% of the water for irrigation needs. By year 2002, only 30% of the equipped area was operational but only 17% was utilized. Most of the decline in irrigation water use is due to the substantial reduction of subsidies available for irrigation, difficult water management on small plots, which resulted from the land restitution, vandalization of some schemes (mainly pumping stations and electrical cables), the lack of enough funds for proper maintenance, and the rising water prices and irrigation costs. Average efficiency level of irrigation systems is 40-50%. Since establishment of water users’ associations started in 2000, the demand for irrigation services increased significantly (from 6% to 17%). About 3.2 million ha are also equipped with drainage systems, of which two-thirds are gravity and one-third is pumped. Most of the pumped drainage but only a small part of the gravity drainage facilities are operational at present. Hydropower. The gross theoretical hydropower potential is about 70,000 GWh/year, and the technically feasible hydro potential is 40,000 GWh/year, out of which about 26% is from the Danube. So far, about 40% of the technically feasible potential has been developed. At present, hydropower represents about 36% of the electric power production in the country. A marked increased in hydropower production has been observed during the past decade. If this trend continues, shortages may be experienced by other water-using sectors during the summer season. Floods and droughts. Floods often affect Romania and there is a tendency for increased flood level and frequency in the last decade. Floods have occurred in about 50% of the years during the last 100 years. During the past decade, floods were recorded almost every year. In the period 1991-2002, floods resulted in material losses estimated in total at over USD1 billion and killed more than 200 people. Severe floods occurred as well in 1969, 1970, 1975 and 1981. Typical damage has included destruction of hundreds or thousands of houses, damage to many more, damage to hospitals, schools, and other social infrastructure, destruction of roads, bridges and railways, damage to cultivated land, contamination of wells, weakening or rupture of dams, severing of electricity and communications. Subsistence farmers and poor rural areas have been affected severely and repeatedly in these events. Romania's northwestern counties are the most often affected. Romania has two principal flood seasons: in the spring, flooding is caused by rain and snowmelt, and in the summer, by rainstorms. Without flood protection works, about 13% of Romania would be in danger of flooding -- of which, about 80% endangered by river overflow, and about 20% by hillside torrents. Of the threatened area, about 40% is nominally defended against flooding according to national standards, and at the other end of the spectrum, about a quarter has no protection at all. The warning system is not robust, study of risks is under-funded, construction is permitted in known flood plains, defense works are not undertaken or proceed slowly, and flood protection works damaged in a flood are not always repaired to meet the next

127

challenge. A World Bank project is in preparation to address flood readiness in Romania. It is currently scheduled to reach the Board in FY2004. In the Danube flood plain, about 450,000 ha are protected against floods and excessive humidity with flood control structures and drainage systems. This has caused a change in the hydrological regime of the wetlands and marshes, specially in the wetlands of the Danube delta. In the 1950s, about 400,000 ha of wetlands were converted to agricultural land, out of which about 80,000 were along the Danube River. With regard to drained land, the current Government policy is to return part of the embanked and drained areas along the Danube back to their original wetland state. Droughts are also a source of concern in Romania. On average they have a periodicity of 12-15 years with 1-3 extremely dry years. A marked tendency in increase of duration, intensity and frequency has been observed during the last couple of decades. From the perspective of water resources, 8 years with hydrological droughts were observed during the period 1982-2000, affecting the river basins in the southern part of the country. The runoff of these basins was about 50% of the monthly annual average, while in the plain areas, the runoff was only 30%. These droughts caused severe damage to the agriculture (agriculture drought) and energy sector as well as shortage of drinking water supply. The agricultural areas in the southern part of the country have experienced production reduction of between 40-60%. According to recent studies on climate change, there will be progressive warming tendency of the atmosphere associated with the extension of the drought and dryness phenomenon in the southeastern part of Europe. This phenomenon will be exacerbated by increase in water resources use and pollution. The evaluation of these trends as well as future evolution of the drought and dryness phenomenon is particularly important for Romania and other potentially affected countries. Erosion of the coastline. The Romanian seashore is being affected by the reduction of sediments carried by the Danube as a result of the construction of reservoirs on the Danube and tributaries. This is affecting the ecosystems along the Black Sea and is causing steady erosion of the coastline. Consequently, the country has to undertake permanent protection works for securing the beach. Some of the hydraulic infrastructure (small and large dams) are considered to be not completely safe, posing a risk to communities and the social and economic infrastructure in case of an accident. Improving the safety of dams is also the focus of the ongoing World Bank operation mentioned above. Water Legislation and Policies Romania’s water management system was established by the 1995 Water Strategy, the 1996 Water Law and the 1995 Law on Environmental Protection. The current water policy is based on international recognized principles of good water management i.e. : manage water at the river basin level, address both water quality and quantity management issues jointly, encourage participation of stakeholders in the decision-making process, apply the polluter-pay principle, and treat water as a precious heritage that must be defended, protected and treated.

128

The 1996 Water Law established the ownership of water by keeping water assets in the public domain. It also established the river basin concept for the management of the resources of both surface and groundwater, introduced the water use rights through water management licenses and wastewater discharges for no more than 5 years, and assigned the highest priority to drinking water over the use of the resource. At present, Romania is transposition EU environmental directives into the legislative framework, including the EU WFD. Several economic incentives are also used for managing the use of the resource. The water extraction charges vary according to the source of water and its use. Pollution charges are also levied on a set of pollutants. When limits set in the licenses are exceeded, penalties and fines for non-compliance are imposed, which are used as income for the Water Fund. Other economic instruments include service charges drinking for water supply, sewerage, wastewater treatment, financial incentives for modernization and rehabilitation of water quantity and quality improvements, and tax allowances (state subsidies and exemption from import duties on environmental technology). Water Management Institutions 14 Three main institutions form the water management system: the Ministry of Water and Environmental Protection (MoWEP); the National Water Authority Apele Romane, which has river basin branches and provincial offices; and the local Environmental Protection Inspectorates. Other ministries have also some responsibilities for water resources management: the Ministry of Health and Family monitors drinking water quality, the Ministry of Public Works, Transport and Housing regulates navigation and navigation-related activities, and the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Forestry is responsible for irrigation and drainage through SNIF. The MoWEP prepares and formulates the national strategy and policies in water resources management and protection with the input of relevant ministries. Its main functions include: strategic planning, formulation of the national water management and development programs, preparation of legislation and policy; allocation and managing national budget resources for water management and infrastructure development; setting-up standards and monitoring compliance; setting up of the license and permit system; and international cooperation and cooperation on transboundary water bodies. The State Water Inspectorate within MoWEP in turn is responsible for the inspection and control of implementation of the legal provisions. The local Environmental Protection Inspectorates are responsible for issuing licenses and permits as well as for inspection and control of water quality and emissions into water bodies. The National Administration “Romanian Water” (Apele Romane), a public institution that is 100% owned by the State through the Ministry of Waters and Environmental Protection, is in charge of the implementation of the national water management strategy. It is responsible for the management of 11 river basins (through regional branches and local offices). Apele Romane aims at being self-sufficient. The costs of its operation are covered by the water charges paid by water users, while investments are partially covered by the state budget. Its branches act within 14 This reflects the institutional arrangement prevailing until early May 2003.

129

the river basins and their provincial offices have special responsibilities for the preparation of plans for river basin management, flood and drought control among other functions. Responsibility for drinking water supply, wastewater disposal and treatment lies with the local authorities. The water users (municipalities and industries) are obliged to prepare, and apply if necessary, their own plans for the prevention and control of accidental pollution that might occur as a result of their activity. Transboundary and International Water Issues Romania shares several transboundary river basins up or downstream with Hungary, Moldova, Ukraine and Serbia and Montenegro and has some key transboundary issues. Transboundary water pollution by accidents has been a significant issue particularly since the Baia Mare Cyanide spill in 2000, which caused considerable transboundary pollution. The accident in Baia Mare emphasized that water is a common asset shared by various countries and that problems in one of them concern all. An international task force was established by the Governments of Romania and Hungary, the EU Commission and the United Nations to assess the accident and make recommendations. Based on these recommendations, Romania intends to develop a harmonized trilateral plan for emergency response with Hungary and Ukraine for the rivers within the upper Tisza River basin. Protection of the Black Sea and Danube delta against pollution by nutrient and hazardous substances is of much concern and requires transboundary solutions. The Romanian seashore is being affected by the reduction of sediments carried by the Danube as a result of the construction of reservoirs on the Danube and tributaries. This is affecting the ecosystems along the Black Sea and is causing steady erosion of the coastline. Consequently, the country has to undertake permanent protection works for securing the beach. Some of the hydraulic infrastructure (small and large dams) are considered to be not completly safe, posing a risk to communities and the social and economic infrastructure in case of an accident. Improving the safety of dams is also the focus of the ongoing World Bank operation mentioned above. Romania has signed bilateral agreements with its neighbors Hungary, Ukraine, Serbia and Montenegro on cross-border waster management, mainly in regards to hydro-technical issues. Romania is party to the UNECE Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Waters and International Lakes, which is complemented by regional and bilateral agreements, as well as to the Convention on Cooperation for the Protection and Sustainable Use of the Danube River. Within the framework of cooperation of the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River, Romania supports the implementation of the integrated river basins management approach for the Danube.

130

Key Issues and Challenges Recommendations for improving water resources management at the country level include:

• Advance further river basin management. • Improve the safety of hydraulic infrastructure, namely large dams and flood protection

infrastructure through the installation of modern monitoring equipment. • Increase access to wastewater treatment facilities by increasing available funding for

construction of new facilities. • Carry out preventive measures to reduce the risk of floods and accidents.

Transboundary cooperation is required to address challenges in transboundary water resource management such as flood control, environmental protection and pollution control, biodiversity conservation, and accident prevention and mitigation. References Government of Romania. 1998. Danube Pollution Reduction Program. National Reviews: 1998. Romania Technical Reports. Ministry of Waters, Forest and Environmental Protection. Bucharest, Romania. Government of Romania. 2001. Disaster Preparedness and Prevention Initiative for South-Eastern Europe. Romania National Report. Bucharest, Romania. United Nations Commission for Europe. 2001. Environmental Performance Review of Romania. UNECE. Geneva, Switzerland. WHO/UNICEF. 2001. Access to Improved Sanitation - Romania. WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation. Geneva, Switzerland. Report available at: http://childinfo.org/eddb/sani/ceecis/Romania_sanitation1.pdf. World Bank. 2003. Flood Profile for Romania. Prepared by Lucy Hancock on the basis of a consultant report prepared for the World Bank in 2000. Washington, DC, USA. World Bank. 2003. Preparatory Documents of the Hazard Risk Mitigation and Emergency Preparedness Project. Washington, DC, USA.

131




1994 2000 Goal for 2020Access to sewerage 49% 52% 76% Urban n.a. 86% 93% Rural n.a. 10% 55%Note: Goal refers to MDGs.



1990 1995 1998 1999Labor force (millions of people) 10.6 10.6 10.7 10.7 Share in agriculture 29% 40% 40% 43% Share in industry 44% 31% 29% n.a.


Of GDP -1.6% -1.8% Of population -0.4% -0.2%

1999







1990 2000 2015 2020


1989 1999Total annual water used (in BCM) 19.40 8.57 Agriculture 8.17 1.03 Industrial 9.03 5.70 Domestic 2.20 1.84

ROMANIA: WATER FACT SHEET


-

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

2000 MDG2015

Po

pu

lati

on

(in

mill

ion

)

Urban

Rural

-

3.0

6.0

9.0

12.0

15.0

1990 2000 2010 2020

Po

pu

lati

on

(in

mill

ion

)

Urban PopRural Pop

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

1989 1999



Access to Sewerage

-

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

2000 MDG2020

Po

pu

lati

on

(in

mill

ion

)

Urban

Rural

132

WATER QUALITY AND POLLUTION 1999Wastewater discharge requiring treatment 3.0

Subject to treatment 40% 18% adequate treatment



DAMS AND HYDROPOWER 2000Reservoir capacity (BCM) 14.00 (mostly multipurpose)

Irrigation dams (BCM) Hydropower dams (BCM) 4.75Reservoir capacity in cubic meters per capita 624 (in 2000)

Gross theoretical hydropower potential (GWh/y) 70,000 Technically feasible (GWh/y) 40,000 Economically feasible (GWh/y) ~30,000Current production from hydropower (GWh/y) 16,000 (in 2000)


IRRIGATION 1992 1995 1998 1999

Irrigated land ('000 ha) 3,100 3,110 2,880 2,673

Irrigated land per capita (ha) 0.134 0.137 0.128 0.119Irrigated land as share of cropland 31.1% 31.4% 29.3% 27.2%



Average cost recovery: Irrigation water services

Municipal water services 100% O&M costs * These are ball park estimates.

2000Domestic water-related services (US cent/m3)

Combined water and sewerage 18-48

Waterwater 20-30 vary by locationExtraction charges - inland rivers (US cent/m3)

Households, industry and livestock 0.61 Irrigation 0.05 Power plants 0.004

Extraction charges - Danube river (US cent/m3) All except irrigation 0.07 Irrigation 0.05

Extraction charges - groundwater (US cent/m3) Households 0.30 Industry 0.67 Irrigation 0.05 Livestock 0.40


0500,000

1,000,0001,500,0002,000,0002,500,0003,000,0003,500,000

1992 1994 1996 1998 2000

Equipped

Actual


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1992 1994 1996 1998

Other

Hydropower


0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998


0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.0

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

Kg

/cap

ita/

year

133

THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION Socio-Economic and Geographic Context The Russian Federation is the largest country in the world with a total area of 1.7 billion ha. It is surrounded by the seas of the Atlantic Ocean (the Baltic Sea, the Black Sea, the Sea of Azov), by the Caspian Sea, and the Arctic and Pacific Oceans. In the west, the Russian Federation borders with Belarus and Ukraine; in the south, it borders with Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Mongolia and China. The Ural Mountains represent the boundary between the European and Asian parts. The Russian Federation has a varied climate and considerable diversity of landscapes and natural zones. Annual average precipitation is 500 mm, ranging from below 200 mm in the Caspian Sea desert to over 800 mm in central parts of European Russia and the northern Caucasus. Russian’s population was 145 million in 2000. About two-thirds of Russians live in one-third of Russia's area. About 75% of the population lives in urban areas. Since the transition, the composition of GDP has changed considerably. Industry’s share has decreased to about 39% (in 2000) and that of agriculture has also decreased to 6%. Russia is the largest generator of hydropower in the world, which accounts for about 20% of total electricity production. With regard to agriculture, only a small share of land is suited for agriculture and many areas have an arid climate.

Water Resource Base

The Russian Federation does not lack natural water resources. With a per capita availability of 31,000 m3/year, it holds the third place in the world after Canada and Brazil. Most of the water is generated within Russia and only 4% comes from neighboring countries. Its five large hydrological areas drain into the Arctic and Pacific Oceans, the Baltic and Caspian Seas and the Sea of Azov. The natural distribution of water is very uneven, both in geographic space and in time. In general, water is in excess in the northern regions, with drainage being the main issue, while in the southern regions, water deficits during the cropping season are common and irrigation a necessity. Russia has extensive wetlands that occupy nearly 10% of its total territory, located in the boreal and subarctic watersheds and in the floodplains of the larger rivers, including the Volga and Pripyat. Valuable lakes are also found in the Russian Federation: Lake Baikal with its unique and unspoilt ecosystems, whose watershed includes Mongolia, China and Kazakhstan, has 23,000 BCM or one-sixth of the world’s freshwater. The stream flow of most of the rivers in the Russian Federation is characterized by very uneven seasonal distribution. During the summer and winter seasons, the rivers carry very little water, while they become flash floods during the spring. Although the average spring stream flows amount to 50% -80% of the total annual flow, in forest areas and flood plains, they amount to 75%-95% of the annual stream flow. The situation is more critical in the case of small rivers

134

located in arid and semi-arid regions where. The spring flash floods amount 90-100% of the annual flow. Fluctuations of stream also occur from one year to another, particularly in the southern part of the country, which has limited water resources. Water distribution does not correspond to the distribution of the population and industry. Russia’s rivers include three of the ten rivers with the greatest flow in the world, the Yenisey, Lena and Amur Rivers (the latter being shared with China). Together with the Ob River, these account for 50% of the country’s water resources. But this large share flows in the economically less-developed and less-populated regions. At the same time, the basins of the Caspian Sea and the Sea of Azov host over 80% of population and main industrial and agricultural potential of the country, but their share of total freshwater resources is less than 8%. The unbalanced distribution has contributed to shortages in several regions of Central Russia, Northern Caucasus, Urals, southern Siberia and Far East. Climate conditions also are responsible for frequent and serious flooding. More than 2,000 reservoirs and about 40 inter-basin diversion systems have been built in order to provide a more stable water supply to industry, households and agricultural users and for flood control. Total full storage capacity is about 790 BCM or about 18% of total renewable resources and the active capacity is 339 BCM. While most reservoir s are multipurpose15, the reservoirs in the northern regions were built primarily for hydropower generation, those in the southern regions for irrigation, and those in the Far East for flood control. Water storage projects and large-scale irrigation programs to alter the natural distribution of water resources have often led to environmental disruptions. For example, the regulation of the Yenisey River for hydroelectric power (the Yenisey is one of the great Siberian rivers that flows into the Arctic), has led to temperature increases and water quality changes. Difficulties are also observed in the Volga River basin, where about 60 million people live. The extraordinary contribution that the exploitation of the natural resources of the Volga River basin has made to Russia's wealth is unchallenged, but the price tag has been high in terms of the degradation of environmental and natural resources. Eutrophication, widespread especially in the main-stem cascade of reservoirs, and low water quality in certain segments of the river have significantly reduced the high value aquatic recreation resources in the basin. According to Russian standards, most Russian rivers and lakes can be characterized as moderately polluted and 70% of them have already lost their significance as drinking water sources. Lakes and almost all reservoirs are also significantly polluted and their water quality is far from meeting basic Russian standards. Monitoring data reveal that water pollution is increasing. The number of water sources with a high contamination level (over ten times the maximum allowable concentration of contaminants) is growing, as is the number of sources with extremely high contamination (over 100 times the maximum allowable concentration of contaminants). In 1997, 25% of the samples from river bodies classified as drinking water supply did not meet chemical standards and over 22% did not meet microbiological standards. One reason for the poor water quality is the overloaded and low-efficiency (indeed efficiency is still decreasing) 15 A multipurpose dam is one that satisfies the requirements of several water uses simultaneously.

135

wastewater treatment plants. Only 10% of the volume of wastewater that requires treatment is treated to required standards. In addition, about two-thirds of the drainage water coming from irrigation systems is contaminated with chemical, nitrogen and phosphorous compounds. The potential groundwater resources are estimated between 300-750 BCM, of which about 28-30 BCM are being used for drinking purpose. In general, groundwater quality is better and meets the required standards -- groundwater reservoirs are generally protected from pollution. However, major polluted groundwater conditions occur near localities with industrial and agricultural activities. The most common sources of ground water contamination are oil-producing and storage sites, filtration fields, sludge settlers, chemical waste reservoirs, fertilizers, dust-heaps, animal-breeding farms, settlements without sewage systems, etc.

Box 1: Climate Change and Water Resources There is a marked regional variation of vulnerability of water resources to climate change and variability. The Russian Federation experienced higher temperature increases than did other European countries during the last century. This increase in temperature accompanied an increase in precipitation in mid- and high latitudes. More than 500 heavy precipitation events were registered during the period 1993-99, representing an increase in frequency compared to the decades before. As a result, several regions within the Russian Federation must deal with an increasing frequency of floods. During the 1990s, 26 of 89 regions suffered from floods. Economic losses due to flood situations have increased by 20-30% throught the decades. The number of people who have suffered have also increased by 40- 50%. (Dialogue on Water and Climate in the Russian Federation – Fact Sheet.) Water Use and Management According to available data, total water withdrawal dropped by 25% over the period 1991-99, partly as a result of water pricing and partly as a result of economic decline. Industrial water use experienced a drop of 50% over the same period. Similarly, water use for agricultural purposes declined by 33%. Some regions have also experienced a considerable decrease in water use by households. Although water withdrawal in 1997 represented only about 2% of annual renewable resources, in several watersheds the level of withdrawal reaches 50% of available resources. This trend has started to affect ecosystems. The drinking water supply sector is in a critical situation – drinking water quality is low and has significant health impacts. The poor quality of water resources, the lack of necessary purification equipment, the absence of protection zones around withdrawal facilities (one in four) and the continuous violation of existing regulations around protection zones contribute to this situation. Often, the drinking water delivered to the consumer is of poor quality. It constitutes a serious threat to human health in many regions of Russia. About half the population must use drinking water that does not meet a number of hygiene standards. Almost a third of the country's population uses local sources of supply without appropriate treatment. Despite the water abundance in Russia, a number of cities and towns suffer from a shortage of drinking water. Overall, about 10% of the drinking water demand remains unmet, and water is

136

rationed in over 100 cities and towns. In the southern part of the country, the water deficit reaches 30% as a result of chronic shortage of available water resources. During the 1960s through the 1990s, large irrigation and drainage systems were developed. Between 1960 and 1990, irrigated land area increased from 1.5 million ha to 5.1 million ha (60% under sprinkler irrigation) while drained land area increased from 3.1 million ha to 5.1 million ha (about 60% under subsurface drainage). Although irrigated lands represented less than 5% of the total cropped area, the following agriculture products were obtained from these lands in 1990: 100% of rice, 30% of maize, 80% of vegetable and 25% of forage. During the 1990s, irrigated land decreased by 1.4 million ha, while drained land by 0.4 million. The reasons for this decline were: operation and maintenance works were neglected, and inability of water users to pay for electricity, fuel, and repair of sprinkling systems. By 1996, about 40% of the sprinkler system was out of operation.

Floods

The frequency of heavy precipitation events has increased considerably during the last years. Lack of funds to operate hydro-meteorological units and provide quality forecasting of flood events has contributed to the increase in damage--wrong information has led to erroneous decisions and negative consequences. Flood damage in Russia averages about USD1 billion annually, the result of floods of many kinds – tsunamis and monsoons in the Far East, storm surges in the estuaries of the seas, ice damming of the north-flowing rivers, and flood waves during spring snowmelt, summer and autumn rainfall, and river blocking by glaciers and landslides. However, the Far East and North Caucasus are the most affected regions with agriculture being the most affected sector. In these two regions, the average annual flood damage represents about 2.1% and 2.4% of regional GDP, respectively. The large flood damages in the Far East Region are somewhat concentrated in the Amur/Khabarovsk subregion, in consequence of the highly irregular discharge of the Amur River and its tributaries. Every few years, runoff overwhelms river discharge capacity, and extremely large floods result. Industry bears the largest share of this damage. As for the North Caucasus, its annual spring and summer flooding result from melting of snow and glaciers, with rainfall in some years superimposed on the thaw. An additional factor is the instability of the ice regime – ice dams form, and when they melt cause floods downstream; moreover, the floods may carry the ice with them, overtopping levees. As noted above, agriculture bears the brunt of this damage. The state of flood protection is not clear. The national government is now in the process of investigating responsibility for the damage done by the floods of June and August 2002 in the North Caucasus (which includes the Black Sea region), which drowned several hundred people, destroyed thousands of houses, displaced hundreds of thousands of people, and did about USD0.5 billion damage.

137

Policy and Legal Framework The current water management policy consists of the rehabilitation and maintenance of natural water sources to a stable state in order to guarantee a sustainable supply and ensure the sustainable development of water supply for the population and the industrial and agricultural sectors. The 1993 Water Law entitled “Fundamentals of Water Legislation of the Russian Federation” and further the 1995 Water Code set the basic principles and general policy directions for water resources management. The role water plays in the life of the people and the economy of Russia is formulated in the Water Code: “Water is the most important component of the natural environment, renewable, limited and vulnerable natural resource, used and conserved in the Russian Federation as the basis of life and activity of peoples, living on its territory, securing economic, social, ecological welfare of population, existence of animal and vegetable kingdom.” This legislation was built on the principle of state ownership for all natural waters, water bodies and their associated water management structures as well as on the principles of "User pays" and “Polluter pays.” The Water Code provides a broad framework for water-use related economic activities. It emphasizes the importance of reducing and preventing unsustainable pressures on water resources and stresses the need for river basin management (inter-oblast and international waters). In addition, the Water Code states that water users should pay for the right of water withdrawal and in case of exceeding the volume allocated, water price is progressively increased. The Water Code also defines the system of water use and wastewater disposal licensing. The 1998 Federal Law on “Payment for Use of Water Bodies” establishes water extraction charges for all type of uses as well as wastewater discharges, fines and compensation for damage of water bodies. It set a transition period for enforcing water extraction fees for irrigation and other agriculture uses until 2003. This important piece of legislation supports the use of economic instruments, aiming to complement regulatory instruments such as quality standards and permits for water abstraction and discharges. During the past decade, several important federal water management programs were formulated for improving the water management situation, e.g., drinking water and flood prevention. In addition, integrated programs were prepared and adopted, e.g., for the Volga and the Ob. Decentralization and devolution of power at the regional and local level were the driving forces for several local initiatives concerning water supply and wastewater treatment. Despite all the progress made so far, the state of water quality in Russia is still unsatisfactory. At present, two important guiding documents are under preparation: the State Policy on Use, Rehabilitation and Protection of Water Bodies, and a Federal Program, “Water for Russia.” Institutional Arrangements Practical implementation of the law is very much dependent on regulations and guidance issued by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection (MNREP), which at present is a key coordinating governmental body for the use of water resources at the federal level. All

138

water management field operations are carried out by 17 River Basin Agencies (RBAs), subordinated to the MNREP. The RBA’s jurisdiction reflects its hydrographic boundaries. The major water-related functions of the MNREP are inter-basin and inter-regional coordination and settlement of disputes, development of laws, regulations and standards for RBAs, support of related research and development programs, international cooperation, regulation of water quality, regulation of municipal and industrial discharges to surface water, water quality monitoring, and coordination with the State Committee on Hydrometeorology and Environmental Monitoring. The MNREP is also responsible for preparation of federal plans for management and protection of water resources, and river basin plans (jointly with RBAs). On the basis of these plans, local water agencies develop water management guidelines for smaller rivers and their basins. All these planning efforts concern both water quantity and quality. At present, all plans are made for the horizon of 2015, and in accordance with the current practices, they are supposed to be updated every five years. The RBAs in turn are responsible for preparation of the basin-wide water management agreements on the utilization and protection of water resources. These documents set up water intake limits, forms of payment for water consumption and use, wastewater discharge standards, water quality control measures, small river rehabilitation and water use control programs. Russia has a long tradition of integrated river basin management, and a long history of hydro-meteorological monitoring that was undertaken in the former Soviet Republics but is not kept up well at present. Transboundary Arrangements The Russian Federation borders on 14 states, and it uses transboundary water bodies jointly with all those states. Water relations with neighboring states are regulated on the basis of agreements between states on cooperation in the field of management and conservation of transboundary waters, as well as on the basis of international conventions, such as the Estonia-Russian Intergovernmental Agreement.

Box 2: The Estonia-Russian Joint Commission on Transboundary Waters In 1997, the Republic of Estonia and the Russian Federation signed an Intergovernmental Agreement on the protection and sustainable use of transboundary water bodies, which established the Estonia-Russian Joint Commission on Transboundary Waters. The Commission promotes sustainable development in the Lake Peipsi basin, a part of the Baltic Sea water basin. The Section on “Legal Basis for Activity” of the Intergovernmental Agreement includes several Russian-Estonian agreements relating to transboundary water, fisheries, and the environment, as well as other international conventions pertaining to transboundary water issues. Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine have been working for several years on a UNDP/GEF Dnieper Basin Environmental Program Project, and have been discussing their

139

desire to create a legal basis for a river basin management regime on the Dnieper River. The countries have agreed to develop a convention for the rational use of natural resources and support for the development of international cooperation for the protection and ecological regeneration of the Dnieper basin.

Challenges For the Future

Although the basic institutional and legal frameworks for sustainable management and development of water resources are in place, the overall status of utilization and protection of water resources in the country is rated as “unsatisfactory” on the basis of the assessments of the major river basins. Thus, the immediate challenges are the following:

• Implementation of the 1995 Water Code and formulation and enforcement of the state policy for water resources management.

• Updating of the legal framework to allow for reasonable decentralization and phased transition to full self-sustainability.

• Implementation of integrated water basin management and strengthening of water quantity and quality monitoring systems.

• Establishing new water pricing structures, taking into account affordability constraints. • Introduction of mechanisms to improve collection of water charges and fines. • Updating of current standards for quality water bodies, drinking water and wastewater

discharges. • Improving effectiveness of protection of water abstraction areas. • Promotion of demand management measures. • Improving the water national database and monitoring program. • Improving the productivity and safety of existing major hydraulic infrastructure, in

particular dams. • Reducing pollution discharges from industry and better enforcement of standards. • Reassessing the operating rules of weirs, particularly in the allocation of spring water for

fish spawning. At present, most of the infrastructure is operated with the objective of maximizing energy requirement, often ignoring environmental consideration, e.g., minimum flows for keeping the aquatic ecosystem.

References Malik, Lilia, et al. 2000. Development of Dams in the Russian Federation and other NIS Countries. Briefing Paper. Case Study prepared as an input to the World Commission on Dams. Cape Town, South Africa. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. 1999. Environmental Performance Review of the Russian Federation. Center for Cooperation with Non-Members. OECD. Paris, France. Russian National Committee of Irrigation and Drainage (RUCID). Irrigation and Drainage Profile. Moscow, Russia. Available at: http://www.icid.org/index_e.html.

140

Shevchenko, M., Rodionov, V. and Kindler, J. 2000. Institutional Arrangements for the Management of the Volga River Basin. Paper prepared for the Fourth Workshop on River Basin Institution Development. The World Bank, Washington, DC, USA. Web Page of the Dialogue on Water and Climate initiative. July 2003. Dialogue on Water and Climate in the Russian Federation – Fact Sheet. Available at: http://www.wac.ihe.nl/dialogue/documents/Factsheet%20Russia%20website.pdf WHO/UNICEF. 2001. Access to Improved Sanitation – Russian Federation. WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation. Geneva, Switzerland. Report available at: http://childinfo.org/eddb/sani/ceecis/RussianFed_sanitation1.pdf. World Bank 2003. Flood Profile for the Russian Federation. Prepared by Lucy Hancock on the basis of a report by M. Cherepansky, data from U.N. Reliefweb and the Statistical Yearbook of Russia. Washington, DC, USA.

141


Total Population (millions of people) 148 145 133 130Urban population 73% 73% 74% 75%Rural population 27% 27% 26% 25%Source: Aquastat database, FAO (2002).


1995 2000 Goal for 2020Access to sewage n.a. 66% 83% Urban 85% n.a. n.a. Rural n.a. n.a. n.a.Note: Goal refers to MDGs.







Land area (millions of ha) 1,707.5

Land area in international basins (millions of ha) 792.4 Percentage of country in international basins 46.4%Average precipitation (mm) 589Average total volume of rainfall (BCM) 10,057

Total internal renewable water resources (BCM) 4,313 Of which surface water (BCM) 4,037 Of which groundwater 788 Overlap between surface and groundwater 512

Total external renewable water resources (BCM) 186 Of which surface water (BCM) 186 Of which groundwater (BCM) 0

Total renewable resources (BCM) 4,498 Of which total surface water (BCM) 4,222 Of which total groundwater (BCM) 788 Overlap between surface and groundwater 512Dependency ratio 4.1%

1990 2000 2015 2020


1991 1993 1995 1997Total annual water used (in BCM) 88.4 77.6 68.8 64.0 Agriculture 20.9 17.0 14.9 12.0 Industrial 52.8 46.0 39.7 38.4 Domestic 14.7 14.6 14.2 13.6

THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION: WATER FACT SHEET


-

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

2000 MDG2015P

op

ula

tio

n (i

n m

illio

n)

Urban

Rural

-

25.0

50.0

75.0

100.0

125.0

1990 2000 2010 2020

Po

pu

lati

on

(in

mill

ion

)

Urban PopRural Pop

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

1991 1993 1995 1997



Access to Sewage

-

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

2000 MGD2020

Po

pu

lati

on

(in

mill

ion

) Total

142

WATER QUALITY AND POLLUTION 1999

Wastewater discharge requiring treatment (BCM) 22.0

Treated to required standards 10.8% (Although 75% is treated)

1993 1994 1997 1998Annual emissions of BOD per day (M Tons) 1,911 1,799 1,547 1,486Annual emissions of BOD per capita (kg) 4.7 4.4 3.8 3.7

AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMSWetlands designated as Ramsar sites (2002) In '000 ha 10,324 As % of land area 0.60%

DAMS AND HYDROPOWER 2000Reservoir capacity (BCM) 793 (active capacity 339 BCM)

Irrigation dams (BCM) Hydropower dams (BCM)Reservoir capacity in cubic meters per capita 5,451 (in 2000)

Gross theoretical hydropower pot (Bil KWh/y) 2,295 Technically feasible (Billion KWh/y) 1,670 Economically feasible (Billion KWh/y) 852

Currrent production from hydropower (B KWh/y) 167 (in 2000)

1990 1992 1995 1999Total electricity production (Billion KWh/year) 1,082 1,008 859 845 From hydroelectric 15.4% 17.0% 20.4% 19.0%

IRRIGATION 1992 1995 1998 1999

Irrigated land ('000 ha) 5,553 5,362 4,663 4,600 Irrigated land per capita (ha) 0.037 0.036 0.032 0.031Irrigated land as share of cropland 4.2% 4.1% 3.6% 3.6%



Average cost recovery: Irrigation water services

Municipal water services 71% O&M costs * These are ball park estimates.

1999-99Domestic water and wastewater tariff (US cent/m3)

Raw groundwater charges (US cent/m3) 0.5-2.9 When within the permit limit

> 5X Above limit


0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000


0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

Other

Hydropower


0100,000200,000300,000400,000500,000600,000700,000800,000900,000

1,000,000

1992 1994 1996 1998


0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.0

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

143

SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO (A NOTE FOR THE PROVINCE OF KOSOVO IS ATTACHED TO THIS NOTE)

Socio-Economic and Geographic Context Serbia and Montenegro are located in southeastern Europe in the heart of the Balkan Peninsula. Serbia is considerably larger (88,361 km2) than Montenegro (area 13,812 km2) covering 85% of the total land area. Within Serbia there are two semiautonomous provinces, Vojvodina (21,506 km2) in the north and Kosovo (10,887 km2) in the south. (Water resources issues in Kosovo are presented in the attached note). Serbia and Montenegro is bounded by the Adriatic Sea with 199 km of coastline and by seven countries: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and FYR Macedonia. Forest and woodland cover 17% of the country’s area and 40% is arable land. Of Serbia and Montenegro’s current total population of 10.65 million, approximately 10 million reside in Serbia and 650,000 in Montenegro. Population trends with significant impacts on water resources that particularly demand for urban drinking water services are: (i) the urbanization of the population with increasing populations in the six large cities that are already experiencing significant problems in wastewater management; and (ii) the influx of refugees (700,000) and internally displaced people from Kosovo (300,000) that puts pressure on an already-stressed system of water supply and sanitation. Water Resources Surface and groundwater resources. The country has an annual water flow of about 18,400 m3 per capita. The country is poor in terms of internally renewable water resources, since about 85% of available water originates outside its territory. Yearly groundwater reserves total about 284 m3 per capita. Groundwater sources are extremely important especially for Serbia where they are estimated to supply 90% of domestic and industrial needs and 70% of drinking water needs. In many areas of Serbia and Montenegro, groundwater cannot be used for drinking purposes without prior treatment. This is particularly true in certain areas close to the Morava and Danube Rivers in the Vojvodina Region. Annual rainfall in the Danube River basin in Serbia and Montenegro is about 74.0 BCM on average; of this quantity about 23.5 BCM runs off and the remainder of 50.5 BCM accounts for evapotranspiration. There is also an annual inflow of about 154.5 BCM so that the total annual run-off from the Danube, at the exit from Serbia and Montenegro, is about 178 BCM. Hydrological balances are highly inequitable in terms of time and space. During the growing season rainfall in some regions is only about 28% of the annual average. Transboundary rivers, the Sava (206 km in Serbia and Montenegro); Drin (220 km in Serbia and Montenegro) and Morava (308 km all in Serbia and Montenegro), together with the Danube, are the main water resources of the country. The Danube River basin covers 87% of the country’s territory. The Danube, the second longest river in Europe (length 2850 km) and one of the principal transportation arteries on the continent, flows 588 km within Serbia and Montenegro. Of this, a segment of about 138 km constitutes the border with Croatia and a segment of about

144

213 km constitutes the border with Romania. The Sava crosses the Vojvodina region through the Pannonian pla in, runs through the capital city of Belgrade and exits the country through the Balkan Mountains at the Iron Gate gorge, finally flowing into the Black Sea. In Montenegro the most important river systems are the Moraca, Zeta, Lim, Tara and Piva. Serbia and Montenegro’s water resources include lakes and the Adriatic coastal waters. Lake Skadar is the largest lake on the Balkan peninsula with a surface area of 391 km2. About two-thirds of the lake are located in Serbia and Montenegro, the rest is in Albania. The lake is an open freshwater lake of tectonic-karst origin, and is drained by the Bujana River into the Adriatic Sea. The water volume oscillates from 2.6 and 4.4 BCM and the water surface, in intervals, from 368 to 542 km2. Overall, 21 rivers flow into Serbia and Montenegro and 6 rivers flow out Water flow varies seasonally and has required the formation of reservoirs on the Drin, Danube and Lim Rivers. There are 60 reservoirs (about 20 of them larger than 10 MCM) and about 100 smaller reservoirs within the Danube River basin in Serbia and Montenegro. The total retention volume of all reservoirs is about 6.5 BCM. The annual average precipitation in the country is 734 mm, but there are wide variations. In Serbia annual precipitation varies from 550–650 mm in Vojvodina, to 800–1200 mm in the mountainous regions. All lower parts in Serbia, including the lower Drin basin, have yearly precipitation below 800 mm. In contrast, Montenegro has abundant precipitation of about 2000 mm on the average, and locally up to 5500 mm with a maximum of 8500 mm. Approximately 70% of the drinking water is abstracted from groundwater resources. Wetlands. In Serbia there are several large wetlands sited behind the embankments along the Danube. There are also several significant wetlands along the Sava River that are Ramsar sites. Construction of river dams have destroyed some valuable valley ecosystems and their biodiversity, not only because the new artificial ponds have developed quite different ecosystems, but also because the dams interrupted species migration, causing changes of natural species composition, both downstream and upstream (no fish corridors were constructed). Dike systems that were constructed in order to prevent floods changed the water regimes and caused loss of wetland communities. In Montenegro, Lake Skadar is geographically and ecologically connected with other aquatic habitats (Bujana River, Velipoja Reserve and Domni marshes, delta of Bujana River, Veluni Lagoon), thus creating a large complex of wetlands. Lake Skadar is identified as one of the 24 transboundary wetland sites of international importance, known as “Ecological Bricks Sites” (Europe’s Environment, Dobris Assessment, 1995). There is no defined nature conservation policy in Serbia and Montenegro. Water Quality. The quality of water resources is generally unsatisfactory and is deteriorating. Since the 1990s water quality in most Serbian rivers has deteriorated from second class (suitable for bathing and drinking purpose only after treatment) to third class quality (suitable for irrigation and industry). Examples of very clean water - Class I and I/II - are very rare, and are situated in mountainous regions. Much of the decline in water quality is attributed to high leve ls of pollution in those water sources entering Serbia and Montenegro. In general, no river entering the country has water quality that can safely be used for drinking without advance treatment. Some of the rivers are so heavily polluted that their water cannot be used for irrigation. It is estimated that each year over 550-600,000 tons of BOD5, 300-350,000 tons of nitrogen, 20-

145

30,000 tons of phosphorus and 14 million tons of sediment enter Serbia and Montenegro through transboundary rivers. Serbia and Montenegro then contribute more to the Danube basin’s nutrient load in the annual amounts of 43,303 tons nitrogen and 14,128 tons of phosphorus. Thus, although Danube waters coming into the country are polluted by other upstream countries, Serbia and Montenegro are considered amongst the most significant of Danube polluters, contributing about 13% of the Danube nutrient pollution. The main point sources of water pollution in the Danube River systems are especially in Vojvodina (the catchment areas of the Tisza, Timis and Sava Rivers). The discharge of untreated municipal and industrial wastewater within Serbia and Montenegro has resulted in significant pollution of water resources. River stretches downstream of major settlements show marked decline in water quality as the result of untreated municipal and industrial discharges. Point sources of pollution in the Danube River basin in Serbia and Montenegro include the over 7,000 settlements and communities. There are very few large cities (greater than 100,000 inhabitants) in the Serbian Danube River basin. Almost 90% of settlements are less than 2,000 population. The principal municipal point source polluters are the settlements with over 10,000 inhabitants, making up only 2.2% of the total number of settlements but causing more than 90% of total pollution load. Most of the small and medium industries are located in these settlements. Non-point source pollution contributes to more than 50% of total water pollution. These sources deliver 70% of total nitrogen, 50% of total phosphorus, and 90% of fecal and coliform bacteria. The water quality of most of Montenegro’s rivers, namely the Moraca, Zeta, Lim, Tara and Piva, and that of Lake Skadar, are generally within the required level during most of the year. However there are hot spots of water pollution. The most polluted water bodies in Montenegro are two rivers, the Vezisnica and the Cehotina, in the vicinity of the industrial town of Pljevla in northern Montenegro. The deterioration of water quality of coastal waters is of significant concern given the negative impact this could have on the potential tourism trade. While the quality of coastal marine waters off Montenegro is generally satisfactory, especially in open stretches, the more confined bays with human settlements are affected by wastewater discharges and often do not meet bacteriological standards for bathing water in the summer. No information on groundwater resources in Montenegro is available. Deterioration of the water supply infrastructure, including the disinfection systems (chlorination), has contributed to a decline in the quality of piped drinking water supplies. The problems with contaminated water supplies are prominent in Serbia where 29% of samples from piped systems in 2001 did not meet the physical/chemical or bacteriological standards. The country’s municipalities reporting the best water quality are the large cities (Belgrade, Novi Sad, Nis and Podgorica) where there are more financial resources to adequately operate and maintain the water supply systems. The municipalities recording the poorest water quality often correspond to those housing refugees and Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs), though it is not known whether this is due to prior problems with water infrastructure or to increased demands on the system. Medium size towns and rural areas have the most difficulty providing safe and adequate supplies of safe drinking water. In contrast to the big city water utilities, water companies in medium size cities and rural areas have limited access to financial resources and are not expected to attract private sector interest immediately.

146

Water Use and Management by Sector Drinking water and sanitation coverage. Water and wastewater infrastructure was well developed in the pre-existing Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Service levels today, on an average, reflect this legacy with 87 % of the population receiving drinking water supplies directly to their homes or yards, and 88% having access to a sewage or septic tank system. However, there are significant differences in service delivery regionally and also between urban and rural populations particularly in terms of drinking water supplies where urban/rural coverage figures are 97 % and 68 %, respectively. Most of the population has access to sanitation: 57% linked to a sewage system, 31% to a septic tank. The rate of urban/rural sewage system coverage is 88% to 22%. Rural areas rely primarily on septic tanks for sanitation. However wastewater treatment is almost non-existent. Ten years of little maintenance and no investments in the wastewater supply sector has resulted in a situation whereby most municipal and industrial wastewaters are discharged, largely untreated.. It is estimated that only 13% of the total number of treatment plants work with satisfactory results. Overall, only about 12% of municipal wastewater is treated. Lack of access, per se, to water and sanitation is a public health issue for some populations, particularly those living in urban slums, which are often located adjacent to poorly managed landfills, and largely inhabited by IDPs, Roma population and refugees. Irrigation. Irrigation as a water user does not play a key role in water resources. Only about 2% of arable land (160,000 ha) is served by irrigation systems. There are, however, numerous small private farmer-built and -managed irrigation schemes whose total water use is unknown. Hydropower. The Iron Gate dam shared by Serbia and Montenegro and Romania constitute the single largest hydropower dam and reservoir system along the entire Danube. These provide electric power generation and the improvement of navigation with a volume of 2.55 BCM and 0.87 BCM for Iron Gate I and II, respectively. Hydropower is about 37% of installed electricity production in Serbia and 75% in Montenegro. Floods. Floods have always endangered large parts of Serbia, particularly the valleys of larger water courses in which the biggest settlements, the best farm land, infrastructure, and industry are located. The largest potentially flooded areas lie around the rivers - Danube, Sava, Tisza, and Velika Morava. The total potentially flooded area is about 16,000 km2 of which about 12,900 km2 is lowland in Vojvodina. About 80% of potential flooded area is arable land and within it there are more than 500 settlements and many important industrial plants. In Montenegro, plains comprise only 5% of the 13,812 km2 of the republic, of which only one third is periodically flooded. Although flooding is likeliest in the plains, it occurs irregularly in other areas. For example, the karstic structure of much of Montenegro can transport flood waters rapidly away from inundated areas, and likewise cause them to re-emerge later in other locations. Groundwater redistributes excess flow among catchments, making analysis of the water budget difficult. This is a small contribution in comparison to the overall flood potential of the country. However, locally it is of major importance for Montenegro, because of the general scarcity of

147

farmland, which is entirely confined to the flooded plains. In addition to the farmland, numerous villages, traffic and communication lines are endangered by flooding, while in the region of Lake Skadar, flooding has detrimental effects on hygiene for the local population, In some regions, the surface runoff reaches 60–80 l/sec per km2, or 44 l/sec per km2 on the average (which is 6.4 times greater than the world average). However, uneven distribution of rainfall over the year causes seasonal flooding which is most intensive in the period from November to December, and somewhat less intensive in the period February to May Extensive works have been done to build systems for flood mitigation systems and for regulation of water courses. Flood protection levees have been built along all the major rivers and their tributaries. More than 90% of the levees along the Tisza and Danube are built to handle 100-year floods. There are about 3,550 km of flood-defense embankments in Serbia and Montenegro. However, both direct and indirect damages due to floods and non-regulated rivers are still significant. The recent Serbia and Montenegro Agriculture Sector Review (2002) notes that the diversion of funds and equipment normally used for routine drainage maintenance to flood protection tasks such as repair of flood dikes, river training, bank protection and torrent control, has significantly limited the country’s ability to maintain irrigation and drainage structures critical for agricultural development. Water Legislation and Policies In Serbia and Montenegro there is a body of water law at the federal level, and at each of the two republic levels. Serbia and Montenegro each have their own bodies of law, policies and institutional structure for water resource management. The Serbian Law on Waters covers protection of waters, utilization and management of waters, goods of general interest, conditions and methods for performing water-related activities, organization and financing of such activities, and supervision and monitoring for enforcement. The enforcement of the Law refers to surface and groundwater, including drinking water, thermal and mineral waters, border and trans-boundary water flows, and inter-Republic water bodies within the boundaries of Serbia. Regulations on Hazardous Substances in Waters, the Official Bulletin of SRS (No. 31/82), and Regulations on Methods and Sampling for the Assessment of Wastewater Quality, and the Official Bulletin of SRS (No. 47/83) govern surface and groundwater quality monitoring. Water resources are managed in Montenegro according to several laws and a number of regulations. The key laws are:

• Law on sea and internal shipping (Off. Jour. of SRM, No. 13/78, 8/79, 19/87, 36/89, 13/91)

• Law on water supplying, removing of wastewater and depositing of solid waste in the territory of municipalities: Herceg Novi, Kotor, Tivat, Budva, Ulcinj and Cetinje (Off. Jour. of RM, No. 46/91)

• Law on the sea good (Off. Jour. of RM, No. 14/92) • Law on waters (Off. Jour. of RM, No. 16/95, 22/95)

The Water Master Plan for Serbia (2002) presents an ambitious and expensive program of water supply infrastructure investments to 2012. Activities related to protection, reclamation and

148

revitalization found water resources are also proposed. The investments are estimated at 947 million DM over the next 5 years. Water Management Institutions Like the body of law, water management institutions exist at the federal and republic levels. In the 1990s the water management sys tem in the pre-existing Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was revamped from one that was very decentralized and developed on the hydrographic units, to one that is more strictly centralized and built according to the model of a state-centralized system. The State Water Management Company “Srbijavode” is the key institutional body of water management in Serbia. In Montenegro, the situation is very different. Although the water management system of Montenegro is centralized as well, and fully incorporated in the Government structure, there is no institutional body like the “Srbijavode.” A small number of experts inside the Ministry for Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management handle all water management issues. Responsibility for water management in Montenegro is shared among the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management, the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Spatial Planning and the municipalities. All water sector infrastructure belongs to the Republic. The Republic delegates its use and responsibility for service provision to municipalities, with each having its own water company. The Ministry of Environmental Protection and Spatial Planning has taken the lead for sector planning and organization, including the involvement of the private sector. The de jure and de facto shift of competencies from the federal level to the Republics have accentuated the diminution of the responsibilities of the Department of Environment within the Federal Secretariat for Labor, Health and Social Care. The Department continues to play an important role in international matters, such as the negotiation and ratification of international environmental conventions and agreements, as well as obligations emanating from them, such as monitoring of transboundary water pollution. Water quality monitoring is conducted by each republic’s Hydrometeorological Institute, which is responsible for measuring and recording quantities of wastewater discharged, and submitting the data to the relevant public agency. Monitoring also includes tracking the performance of wastewater treatment facilities. Each of the republic’s Institutes of Public Health have responsibility for monitoring drinking water supplies and the authority to close systems that do not produce water according to standards. There is no federal or national agency that regulates water utilities, plans service needs or channels funds or support in a coordinated manner. Several ministries (agriculture, forestry and water management, civil engineering, health, and finance) control utility operations in the areas under their authority, all of them involved (including ministries that have no logical involvement with the sector, such as Justice), but none with real sector responsibility of leadership function. This, combined with the “de facto” complete decentralization of service provision to municipalities, results in fragmentation, lack of planning and advocacy for the sector. The multitude of uncoordinated laws and regulations applicable to the sector further contribute to its fragmentation Water management problems in Montenegro are essentially the same as those noted for Serbia; however Montenegro is piloting a new approach to management. It has recently introduced a

149

private/public partnership in utility management in the coastal region and in the municipality of Cetinje. The Public Enterprise for Water Supply, Wastewater Treatment and Solid Waste Disposal (Crnogorsko Primorje PEW) has entered into a consortium (Monte-Aqua) with private partners selected through international competitive bidding to rehabilitate, upgrade, extend and manage the water supply and sanitation services of the area under its responsibility. Phase I of this program started on January 16, 2001, with financing from the German Government (about USD7.3 million) for technical assistance and urgent investments in rehabilitation and improved operation. Six of the seven coastal municipalities have signed letters of intent to participate in the program according to the concept of public/private ownership. Transboundary and International Water Issues Flooding is a significant transboundary issue. Flooding in the plains of the transboundary rivers has caused damage exceeding affected counties' contribution to GDP. In 1965, for example, flooding on the Danube lasted four months and damaged the homes of 7000 people. The Tisza and its tributary, the Tamis, are known for large-scale flooding events that originate in snowmelt and heavy rains in the Carpathian region. These floods spread over Hungary and Romania and can reach Serbia and Montenegro as well. The Tamis/Tisza basin saw enormous floods in February 1999, April 2000 and March 2001. The Government cooperates with Hungary on flood control of the Tisza and with Romania concerning the Tamis. Flood mitigation on the Sava depends on improved coordination among Bosnia, Croatia and Serbia and Montenegro. Coordination with Slovenia concerning pollution of the Sava is also a concern Serbia and Montenegro have been isolated from international and SEE regional water resource management activities for the past ten years. Previously Serbia and Montenegro was part of bilateral agreements with Danube countries. For instance, unofficial cooperation between Serbia and Montenegro and Romania in water management started in 1932 and was made official in 1955 where they cooperated mostly in relation to the hydroelectric plants of the Iron Gate I and II dams. The agreement on Water Management Cooperation between the pre-existing Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Hungary was signed in 1955 and is conducted by the Yugoslav-Hungarian Water Management Commission. Although many tasks and duties are elaborated in these agreements, many issues are not, e.g., joint consideration and reconciliation of water control projects, state of the ecosystems in both countries. An important cooperative step is the implementation of the Agreement on the Tisza Water Control (described in the larger paper). There is an interest in extending the relationship around the Timok River. Serbia and Montenegro is a signatory of many multilateral agreements dealing with the protection of the Danube waters, including: The convention on the Regime of Navigation on the Danube (1948); The Agreement on the Protection of Waters with the Tisza River Watership (1988); the Convention on the Protection of Wetlands and Wetland Ecosystems (1986). The country has not yet ratified the Convention on the Cooperation for the Protection and Sustainable Use of the Danube River although the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment has announced the start of regular cooperation with the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River. The country is not a Party to the UNECE Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes.

150

Nutrient pollution is a transboundary issue to which Serbia and Montenegro is a significant contributor. Policies and incentives to reduce nutrient run off in the agricultural sector and improved municipal and industrial wastewater treatment in the Danube basin are needed to alleviate this problem. It has been proposed by UNECE that the Federal Secretariat for Labor, Health and Social Care design and implement a Danube Nutrient Reduction investment project consistent with the nutrient reduction targets called for by the Convention on Cooperation for the Protection and Sustainable Use of the Danube River. Key Issues and Challenges Because Serbia and Montenegro has been at a distance from transboundary processes and activities, not only due to the sanctions imposed by the international community, but also due to the political climate, the country does not have regulated relations concerning shared water resources with its neighbors, e.g. Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia, although there have been initiatives on each side to do so. In the past, the country has not supported the initiatives of Hungary and Romania in regard to the revision of existing or signing new water treaties. Serbia and Montenegro should be included as soon as possible in the multilateral conventions relevant to water resources. UNECE has recommended Serbia and Montenegro to sign:

• The Sofia Convention on the Protection and Sustainable Use of the River Danube; • The Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and

International Lakes; and • The Convention on the Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents.

One recent development that is a positive signal for improved transboundary cooperation is the Sava Basin Initiative, a Stability Pact undertaking that is designed to establish and develop an internationally recognized partnership between four countries: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Slovenia and Serbia and Montenegro, and to support the countries’ concerted effort to define, promote and organize the Sava basin water and related resources. The first priority involves the re-establishment and development of navigation on the Sava River and its main tributaries, the Drin and the Una. By signing a Letter of Intent in Sarajevo on November 28, 2001, the four riparian countries of the Sava basin committed themselves to establishing a suitable institutional framework. In October 2002 a draft institutional framework was discussed and is currently under review. An Action Plan is in preparation directed toward achievement of the objectives of the draft Framework Agreement. The goals of the Plan are:

• Establishment of an international regime of navigation on the Sava River and its navigable tributaries;

• Establishment of sustainable water management; and • Undertaking of measures to prevent or limit hazards, and reduce and eliminate adverse

consequences, including those from floods, ice hazards, droughts and incidents involving substances hazardous to water.

A key national level issue is the deteriorating trend in water, sanitation and wastewater management and water use. Rural areas rely heavily upon private water supply systems that are beyond the purview of any water quality monitoring program. Given the poor water quality in

151

general, this situation could render rural communities and households susceptible to water related health problems. Lack of access to water and sanitation is a major public health issue, particularly for urban slums largely inhabited by internally displaced persons, Roma population and refugees. Another country-specific issue, with transboundary ramifications, is the deterioration of the coastal zone and its water resources in Montenegro. Eutrophication and bacterial contamination in tourist areas are documented and visible. The coastal areas also experience shortages of drinking water during the peak summer season. There is no coastal zone management plan to guide decision making on coastal development and pollution control. Montenegro’s aspirations to develop its tourism sector (it is targeting 22 million tourist nights or four times the current figure by 2020) necessitate that these negative trends be reversed. Developments need to be supported by stricter application of water, sewerage and wastewater treatment standards, investment in wastewater treatment and land management planning. Water pollution control through improved wastewater treatment is a priority intervention. Montenegro should prepare a coastal zone management plan integrating all sectoral plans including documents for infrastructure, environmental and landscape protection, as well as municipal services development. Much of the decline in water quality is attributed to high levels of pollution in those water sources entering Serbia and Montenegro. In general, no river entering the country has water quality that can safely be used for drinking without advanced treatment. Apart from the Velika Morava River basin and several small streams, the major part of the country belongs to transboundary catchments. Thus, management of the water resources for water quality, navigation and hydropower requires close cooperation with those who share the river. Yet, as previously described, existing bilateral or regional agreements with neighboring countries on issues of water protection and management are either out of date or non-existent References Bogdanovic, S. 2001. Federal Republic of Yugoslavia: Prospective Change in the Water Management System. Paper presented at the AWRA/WLRI-University of Dundee International Specialty Conference on Globalization and Water Resource Management. Novi Sad, Serbia and Montenegro. Government of Serbia and Montenegro. 2000. Serbia Report on the State of Environment for 2000 and Priorities in 2001 for Serbia. Ministry for Protection of Natural Resources and Environment. Belgrade, Serbia and Montenegro. Government of Serbia and Montenegro. 2001. Breaking with the Past: The Path to Stability and Growth. Belgrade, Serbia and Montenegro. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. 2002. Environmental Performance Review of Serbia and Montenegro. UNECE. Geneva, Switzerland.

152

WHO/UNICEF. 2001. Access to Improved Sanitation - Yugoslavia. WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation. Geneva, Switzerland. Report available at: http://childinfo.org/eddb/sani/ceecis/yugoslavia_sanitation1.pdf. World Bank. 2002. Environmental Sector Review of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Washington, DC, USA. World Bank. 2003. Serbia and Montengro Flood Profile. Prepared by Lucy Hancock on the basis of a report prepared by S. Djordjevic, M. Javanovic and J. Petrovic for the World Bank in 2000. Washington, DC, USA.

153





1999Share of poor in rural areas n.a..

1994 1995 1999 2000GDP per capita (constant 1995 US$) n.a. 1,167 1,181 1,240GDP total (billions of 1995 US$) n.a. 12.3 12.6 13.2 Share from agriculture 31% 31% 25% n.a. Share from industry 40% 39% 38% n.a.

1990 1995 1998 1999Labor force (millions of people) 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.1 Share in agriculture n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Share in industry n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

Average annual growth 1991-97 1998-00 Of GDP n.a. -2.9% Of population 0.1% -0.1%

1999Infant mortality rate (per 1,000 live births) ..






1990 2000 2015 2020


1997Total annual water used (in BCM) 8.40 Agriculture 0.76 Industry/cooling 6.23 Domestic 1.41

SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO: WATER FACT SHEET


-

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

2000 MDG2015

Po

pu

lati

on

(in

mill

ion

)

Urban

Rural

-

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

1990 2000 2010 2020

Po

pu

lati

on

(in

mill

ion

)

Urban Pop

Rural Pop

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

1997

Trends of Water Abstraction (BUM)

Agriculture Industry/cooling Domestic

Access to Sewerage

-

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

2000 MDG2020

Urban

Rural

154



Subject to adequate treatment (BCM) 0.16 (0.7% indus, 15% municipal)



DAMS AND HYDROPOWER 1995Reservoir capacity (BCM) 7.78 Irrigation dams (BCM) Hydropower dams (BCM) 4.75Reservoir capacity in cubic meters per capita 737 (in 2000)

Gross theoretical hydropower potential (GWh/y) 37,000 Technically feasible (GWh/y) 27,000 Economically feasible (GWh/y) n.a.Current production from hydropower (GWh/y) 12,000 (in 2000)


IRRIGATION 1988 1989 1990 1991

Irrigated land ('000 ha) 176 152 170 160

Irrigated land per capita (ha) 0.017 0.015 0.016 0.015Irrigated land as share of cropland 2.3% 2.0% 2.2% 2.1%







1997Drinking water tariff (US cent/m3)

Households 11 (3.9-26)

Industry 42 (6.7-86)Sewage tariff (US cent/m3)

Households 4.60 (0.8-10.6) Industry 19.60 (0.9-79.8)Water abstraction charges (US cent/m3) Unprocessed water 0.5 Drinking water for companies 0.8 Mineral water manufactures 0.7 Fishing ponds 4% wholesale price Hydropower 2.3% KWh price

Wastewater discharge charges (US cent/m3) Industry discharging polluted wastewater 18.9

Taxpayers discharging into sewerage systems 0.7 Other taxpayers 5.3 Thermal power plans -- cooling system 1.25% KWh price


0

40,000

80,000

120,000

160,000

200,000

1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001

Equipped

Actual


05

1015202530354045

1992 1994 1996 1998

Other

Hydropower


0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999


0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

155

PROVINCE OF KOSOVO Socio-Economic and Geographic Context The population of Kosovo is about 2,200,000. There have been dramatic shifts of the population from rural areas to urban areas since 1999. About two-thirds of the population now live in urban areas as compared to about one third prior to 1999. There is no official estimate of GDP but it is clear that Kosovo ranks amongst the poorest parts of Europe. Kosovo encompasses an area of almost 1.1 million hectare and is comprised of two large, distinct topographical units: Kosovi (656,000 ha) and Dukagjini (437,200 ha). Kosovo lies on highlands (500-600 masl) surrounded by mountains reaching an altitude of more than 2000 m. Lower mountains divide the highland plan into four watershed areas, from where waters flow to three different seas Adriatic, Black Sea and Aegean basins. There is virtually no inflow to Kosovo from neighboring countries. Before the recent conflict, Kosovo was primarily rural with only 32.5% of the population living in urban areas, primarily Pristina. In the 1980s, Kosovo’s economy was based primarily on the mining industry, production of lead, zinc and textiles, and agriculture. Environmental issues were largely ignored and the environmental problems that ensued were further exacerbated by conflict in the region. Water Resources Base There is little information available about the present state of water resources and water use in Kosovo. In general, water resources are characterized as follows:

• Water resources are relatively small in Kosovo compared to population and arable land.

• Seasonal variations in precipitation and river flows are high • During the growing season (June-July), water use for irrigation is high, but flows in

rivers are nearly at their minimum • There is a large potential and need for irrigation, which might lead to serious lack of

water. • Rivers are very polluted (except rivers in the upper flow) and flows are low during

the irrigation season in the vicinity of the Serbian and Albanian borders. • Good quality ground or spring water resources are unevenly distributed (mainly in the

western part) and are only partly available for water supply. Surface and groundwater resources. Kosovo contains four river basins that drain into one of three seas: the Adriatic, the Aegean and the Black Sea. The main rivers are relatively small and originate in the nearby mountains. The Drin in the western part of Kosovo flows to the south to Albania and on to the Adriatic Sea. Precipitation varies from 600-1,400 mm per year. The western part of Kosovo belongs to the basins of the Ibar and the Binack Morava Rivers, which are upstream areas of one tributary of the Danube. Annual precipitation is generally less than

156

700 mm. In southern Kosovo the Lepenac River basin belongs to Vardar River basin and discharges into the Aegean Sea. The annual rainfall is 670-1,000 mm. There are no natural lakes in Kosovo. Due to the high flow variations, six reservoirs have been constructed with a total volume of 2.7 MCM. These reservoirs serve water supply, fishery, irrigation, recreation and flood protection. Another 52 more reservoirs have been identified. The geology of western and eastern Kosovo is different. The western part consists of porous rocks (limestone and marble rocks) and sediments. Here there is spring and ground water available, which can be exploited. On the foothills of the mountains there are some areas with springs, which have good capacity and water quality. In the eastern part, rocks and sediments are more impermeable and groundwater cannot be easily exploited. Water Quality. River water quality in the lowland rivers is very poor due to lack of wastewater treatment and waste disposal, while the upstream rivers, which flowfrom the mountains, have relatively good water quality. The main rivers downstream of larger municipalities and industries are so heavily polluted that the water cannot be used for water supply or irrigation. Groundwater quality is also affected by pollution. The main sources of water pollution are human settlements, industry and agriculture. A significant degree of pollution enters the country through rivers. Although industries are not operating, the non-closed sites of heavy industry are still a source of environmental pollution. The sites are contained with metal processing waste and various chemicals, which are leaking into the surface and the groundwater. Monitoring of the river quality of Kosovo’s rivers carried out during 1980s showed that pollution of rivers by organic compounds was marked, especially in urban rivers and streams. During months when overall water volume decreases, some rivers have no or very low levels of dissolved oxygen. The rivers are also polluted with heavy metals such as lead and zinc, especially those in the region of Mitrovice/Mitrovia. Parts of the Prishtevka, Sitnica and Iber Rivers are assumed to be “dead” rivers. Wastewater from Kosovo’s thermal power plants, the electric industry, and the Trepca industrial complex and ferrous-nickel production were also discharged into the river systems. During the economic embargo against the pre-existing Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, surface water quality improved because many industries either reduced activity or simply closed down. Remaining sources of pollution are the mines, where acid mine drainage contaminates ground and surface water with heavy metals; tailings piles; and storage tanks of chemicals at industrial complexes. There is no reliable data about the degree of pollution. Groundwater is generally of high quality. The main water quality problem of spring water is the hardness. Water Use and Management by Sector

Drinking water and sanitation coverage. Overall, about 50% of the total population receive their drinking water supply from a public utility. The urban water supply coverage is 87%, a relatively low figure, which is explained by a few towns where the coverage is extremely low. Only 8.4% of the rural population has access to the water distribution system. People in rural

157

areas rely on village water supply systems, their own wells or on springs and surface water sources. Rural wells are generally in bad condition and the water quality is poor, due to organic contamination. Where available, water supply service is limited by several problems, such as pipe breaksage, interrupted power supply, and limited storage capacity. Water distribution networks are generally very old and in poor condition from lack of replacement investment and maintenance. Only a few utilities are able to provide adequate amounts of water to the population. At the same time, because tariffs for water use are low and there is no metering, water consumption per capita is too high. The annual water production of the public water utilities is reported to be about 85 MCM (before the conflict 110 MCM), accounting for 210 lcd, whereas the total water use is only 52 MCM (110-115 lcd). The production is at the same level with the EU average (250-300 lcd). However, only a few municipalities are able to provide adequate amount of water for the population. At the same time, due to lack of metering and low tariffs, some consumers use (and waste) huge quantities of water.. Domestic water use represents the major share of water supplied by public water utilities. In nine municipalities (23%) the domestic use remains below 80 lcd, which indicates restricted supply, low living standards or very economical water use. In 12 municipalities (38%), the domestic use is between 80-150 lcd. Only in Pristina water use is more than 150 lcd. Water losses are reported to be very high from 26-63% of the water production (average 51%). The raw water supply of the public water utilities is mainly (60%) abstracted from surface waters. Rural population and smaller municipalities mainly use ground or spring water. The only cities using spring water are Peja and Prizren. The quality of raw water from surface water in Kosovo is, in general moderate, because water is abstracted from artificial reservoirs. Some water sources are reported to be polluted or potentially endangered by organic contamination, due to lack of wastewater treatment, neglected maintenance of sewerage systems, intensive deforestation, or agriculture. In most cases, the water source is bacteriologically unsafe.

Only 28% of the population is connected to a sewage system and this is almost all urban. In villages and other small settlements, wastewater is disposed of in open channels where the waste evaporates or seeps into the ground causing rainwater contamination and contamination of wells. There is a high incidence of communicable diseases in some rural areas. There is no wastewater treatment of any kind in Kosovo. Industrial wastewater is also not treated and discharged directly into the rivers. Before the conflict in 1999, the rivers were more polluted from industry than today but because there is no reliable information about the present state of rivers, this effect is not quantifiable.

The donor community has provided assistance in water supply and sanitation since 1999. As one example, the Healthy Villages Project, an initiative of the World Health Organization (WHO) to improve the health of the people in villages in Kosovo. The project focuses on three objectives: community health education and improvement of water sanitation facilities in the villages; hygiene training; and water quality control and inspection. The project is being developed in 68 villages across Kosovo, with 729 rehabilitated wells, 52 new wells, eight pumping stations, seven spring catchments and six sewage systems.

158

Irrigation. Agriculture is a very important source of livelihood in Kosovo and the biggest water user is agriculture with the exception of water for irrigation. The area of agricultural land potentially to be irrigated in Kosovo, totals about 205,000-278,000 ha, while the irrigated area, excluding farms that apply occasional and informal irrigation, totals 77,000 ha in six irrigation areas (26% of the potential). The six irrigation schemes have recently been rehabilitated through the European Agency for Reconstruction. In addition there are 40,000 ha south from Pristina, which is planned to be irrigated through Ibar-Lebenc system. About 60,000 ha are irrigated with sprinklers, others with flooding systems. Annual water demand is 3500-4000 per hectare, totaling 300 MCM. Most of water is used in July and August. Irrigation can use nearly all water from the main rivers during these months. Without construction of additional reservoirs, it will be impossible to irrigate the maximum potential area. Because there is little use of fertilizers and pesticides at the moment, their impact on water quality is relatively low. However, this situation is likely to change in the near future and it is important that polices be developed now to address the potential risks from run-off from the chemicals into the soil and the water system.

Water demand from rivers will increase as the irrigation systems become fully operational. Conflicts between illegal irrigation, water pollution and water supply will continue. However, there is no monitoring of the volumes abstracted, stored or transferred or on the downstream impacts on river flows and quantity. Impacts of irrigation include damage to habitats and aquifer exhaustion. There is a need to define limits for the volumes of water abstracted and to monitor the impacts on rivers and ecosystems.

Hydropower. Hydro power is not an important user of water in Kosovo. There is one small 33 MW hydropower station in Kosovo located in Kazivodo Lake in northern Kosovo. It is not known what the future plans are, if any, for hydropower expansion.

Flooding. Flooding has historically not been a serious problem in Kosovo since it is located in highlands. The constructed reservoirs with a total volume of 2,700,000 MCM decrease the risk of floods. The last major flooding was in 1979. Water Legislation and Policies The necessary legislation for sustainable water management is largely lacking and former legislation of water management is not applicable to present institutional arrangements. In cases that are not covered by the constitutional framework for self-government (UNMIK/REG/2001/19), the laws in force dealing with water after March 22, 1989 may be applicable if they are non-discriminatory. Consequently, legislation from the former Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia, the immediately pre-existing Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and Serbia and Montenegro may apply. Due to these different origins, the body of law is extremely complex. The most important law on water management in Kosovo is the Law on Waters of 1976 which covers the main aspects of water use and management. The Law is largely outdated and no longer applicable to the present institutional arrangements.

159

A new Water Law is now under preparation with the assistance of United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The law will establish clear responsibilities for the central government and River Basin Authorities. The organization of River Basin Districts to decentralize water resources management is already an official policy of the Kosovo Water Authorities. All ministries and agencies have agreed to follow this modern approach to water management. The main responsibilities of the River Basin Authorities as regional development and regulatory bodies, will be licensing for water abstraction, permits for wastewater discharges, enforcement of law and regulations, safeguarding of public interests, planning of river basin management, monitoring and dissemination of information (currently water operators are not paying for the water they abstract from water flows nor for the wastewater they discharge). A draft Regulation on the Public Water Supply System was finalized in June 2002. This will regulate all public utility service providers of water services, with specifics regarding the sale, quality, and reliability of drinking and irrigation water and wastewater. This regulation along with the new Water Law will set the new legal framework of water activities in Kosovo A water master plan was adopted in 1983 and approved for 20 years. This water master plan needs to be renewed and updated, which would be the main task of the newly created Water Management Division of the Department for Environmental Protection. A strategy for irrigation is needed as well. Water Management Institutions Until very recently, no central water authority was operational in Kosovo. The former Hydro-Economy Directorate, that concentrated all responsibilities for water resources management, ceased to exist before the conflict. In March 2002, the Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning (MESP) was established and was given the responsibility for all water resource management responsibilities. Sectoral responsibilities have been split with MESP in charge of the development of water policies, water monitoring and protection; the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Rural Development responsible for irrigation; the Ministry of Health in charge of monitoring and protection of drinking water quality; the Kosovo Trust Agency responsible for municipal administration; and the Public Utilities Regulatory Commission in charge of regulation. The 34 public water utilities are under the administration of this agency, which has plans to consolidate the water enterprises by reducing their number to four regional river-basin utilities to improve efficiency and cost-effectiveness. Agency responsibilities are not well defined. Key areas still need to be defined and developed including creation of a database of water users and discharges and subsequent licensing arrangements; re-establishing the hydrometric network. To begin addressing these problems, the MESP has created a Water Management Board in August 2002 to coordinate inter-Ministerial activities and develop concerted approaches to water resources management Before the conflict, the Hydro-Meteorological Institute (HMI) was responsible for meteorological and hydrological monitoring but since the network was destroyed in 1998 no monitoring has taken place. The European Agency for Reconstruction has recently started a project to rehabilitate the hydrometric network and meteorological stations. River gauging

160

stations will be rebuilt. The project will also build the capacity of the HMI. The gauging points to be rebuilt this year will serve as a basic network but new sites will be necessary in the future, especially on the borders with neighboring states. Other monitoring networks need restoring including the rainfall and the ground water monitoring networks. In view of these deficiencies, the MESP has identified the following priorities for the water resource sector:

• Drafting of a new Water Law; • Preparation of a new Water Master Plan; • Development of River Basin Authorities; • Re-building of the monitoring network; • Capability building in water institutions; and • Develop a strategy to “catch up” with European standards of water quality and

pollution control. Donor co-financing has been secured for most of these priorities. Transboundary Waters Issues The Kosovo conflict had environmental impacts related to transboundary water resources. Neighboring countries, especially Bulgaria and Romania who are downstream along the Danube feared the effects of pollution from targeted industrial facilities in Kosovo. Upstream of Kosovo, the UN Balkans Task Force found environmental hot spots in four areas, Pancevo, Kragujevva, Novi Sad and Bos, some of which created significant pollution of water resources shared with Kosovo. War and conflict related pollution only aggravated the existing situation whereby Kosovo was the receiver of significant pollution as well as the generator of it. Key Issues and Challenges The policy and institutional development of the water resource sector has moved forward in the past three years but implementation and enforcement of environmental and water policies is limited. Although there is a consensus of priorities within the ministry, a clearly structured integrated water resource management strategy could be useful. References Flores Lamas, Jorge. 2003. Personal Communication. Mr. Flores Lamas is a Senior International Advisor, Water Resources Management Department, Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning. Pristina, Kosovo. Kemwater Services Oy. 2002. Water Resources Management Policy in Kosovo: Development of Institutional Framework. Helsinki, Finland United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. 2002. Environmental Performance Review of Serbia and Montenegro. UNECE. Geneva, Switzerland

161

KOSOVO: WATER FACT SHEET


Total Population (in million) 1.90 2.00 2.50 2.60 CHART: TRENDS IN POPULATION, SHOWING Urban population 35% 45% 55% 60% Rural population 65% 55% 45% 40%Source: Aquastat database, FAO (2002).

1990 2000 Goal for 2015Access to piped water supply Urban 70% 90% 90% Rural 5% 20% 53%Note: Goal refers to MDGs.

1990 2000 Goal for 2020Access to sewerage n.a. 28% 36% Urban n.a. n.a. n.a. Rural n.a. n.a. n.a.Note: Goal refers to MDGs.

1999Share of poverty that is in rural areas 80%

1990 1995 2000GDP per capita (constant 1995 US$) 821 400 750GDP total (billions of 1995 US$) 1.56 0.8 1.5 Share from agriculture 20 29% Share from industry 47 34%

1990 1991 1995 1999 1999Labor force ('000 of people) 248 120 100 150 #REF! Share in agriculture 17% n.a. n.a. n.a. Share in industry 50% n.a. n.a. n.a.


Of GDP n.a. n.a. Of population n.a. n.a.

1999Infant mortality rate (per 1,000 live births) n.a.

LAND AND WATER RESOURCESLand area (millions of ha) 1.087Land area in international basins (millions of ha) n.a. Percentage of country in international basins n.a.Average precipitation (mm) ~600Average total volume of rainfall (MCM) 6,522

Total internal water resources (MCM)

Of which surface water (MCM) 412 Of which groundwater

Overlap between surface and groundwater

Total external water resources (BCM) Of which surface water (BCM) Of which groundwater (BCM)

Total water resources (BCM) Of which total surface water (BCM) Of which total groundwater (BCM)

Overlap between surface and groundwaterDependency ratio

1990 2000 2015 2020

Per capita water resources (cubic meters/year) 217 206 165 158

1990 1995 2000Total annual withdrawals (in BCM) Agricultural

Domestic and industry


-

0.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

1.5

2000 MDG2015

Po

pu

lati

on

(in

mill

ion

)

Urban Rural

Access to Sewerage

0.0

0.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

1.5

2000 MDG2020

Pop

ulat

ion

(in m

illio

n)

-

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

1990 2000 2015 2020

Po

pu

lati

on

(in

mill

ion

)

Urban Pop

Rural Pop

162

WATER QUALITY AND POLLUTIONWastewater produced (million cubic meters) Pristina: 8.7;Prizren 4.2; Peja5; Gjilan 1.5 Gjakova 1.2;Mitrovica 2.5Wastewater treated only partially in Obiliq

1990 1992 1993 1994Annual emissions of BOD per day (Tons)Annual emissions of BOD per capita (kg)

AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMSWetlands designated as Ramsar sites (2002) In ha As % of land area

DAMS AND HYDROPOWERReservoir capacity as of 1995 Irrigation dams 2 dams Hydropower dams 1damReservoir capacity in cubic meters per capita

Gross theoretical hydropower potential Technically feasible Economically feasible Current production from hydropower (MWh/h) 25

1990 1995 1998 1999Total electricity production (mw/h) 700 700 600 450 Share from hydroelectric

IRRIGATION 1992 1995 1998 1999Irrigated land ('000 ha) 68 68 68 Irrigated land per capita (ha)Irrigated land as share of cropland

FRESHWATER FISHERY 1992 1995 1998 1999Fishery production (metric tons) 222 200 100 405 Fishery production per capita (kg)

FINANCING THE WATER SECTORAverage cost recovery: 2002 Irrigation water services Municipal water services * These are ball park estimates.Average actual water price (US cent/m3) 2002 Irrigation (US$ per Ha) 5-10 Domestic (US cent/m3) 0.39 Budget organizations Commercial Industry Industry using water as key raw material Untreated water


0

20

40

60

80

100

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998


0

100

200

300

400

500

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000

163

SLOVAK REPUBLIC16

Flood Managememt Slovakia is subject to flooding in every season and along river courses throughout Slovakia's share of the Danube basin. Spring and summer snowmelt causes catastrophic river flooding in Slovakia, as do winter ice jams and autumn's rainy season in the Carpathians and Low Tatras mountain chains. In summer, intense summer showers and storms can launch extreme floods along even Slovakia's smaller watercourses under the "right" conditions (e.g., saturated soil, widespread precipitation). Important recent floods include the following: • The Danube had summer floods in 2002. Damage done by this flood has not yet been

analyzed, though it is clear the flood was well below the level of the century's major Danube floods.

• Heavy and continuous rain in June and July 1999 caused flooding that affected about 35,000 people and did damage estimated at USD113 million;

• Summer flash floods in July 1998 caused a microscale but tragic flood in eastern Slovakia killed 47 people and did about USD19 million damage;

• Heavy precipitation caused basins throughout Slovakia to flood in the summer of 1997. The Morava could have caused a catastrophe, except that a dam break in the Czech Republic resulted in the flood dissipating itself there instead. The Vah, the Bodrog and the Hornad also flooded.

• Heavy summer/autumn rains caused flooding of the Danube in 1991; • Autumn floods in east Slovakia in 1974 caused losses of about USD125 million (2002

dollars); • Heavy summer/autumn rains caused flooding of the Danube in June 1965. Dykes were

breached near Patince and Cicov, and flood damage was ultimately estimated at about USD450 million (1965 dollars).

Annual cost of flooding from 1990 to 1999 was about USD35 million. It was highly variable, ranging up to USD150 million in 1999. The largest share of damage was borne by the agriculture sector, followed by water management. Slovakia has a long-standing history of flood monitoring (underway for almost 180 years), and flood protection works. Works to protect Bratislava and areas downstream of Bratislava on the Danube have been elaborated since the 13th century. Other areas are less well protected. Recently, building has been taking place in areas well known to be at high risk of inundation. Water resources management by Slovakia's neighbors affects the level of hazard. Most importantly, data from the hydrological services of upstream countries supports Slovakia's ability to forecast flooding of the transboundary rivers. Other transboundary effects were unforeseen. For example, upstream regulation of the Danube appears to systematically dam the colder river strata while releasing warmer water downstream, resulting in a warmer temperature regime in the

16 This not covers only flood management issues.

164

Slovakian Danube that may have rendered ice jams in the Danube less likely (though ice jam floods still occur on other rivers). It may be for this reason that no winter floods are included among Slovakia's most important floods of the last few decades. At the other end of Slovakia, riverbed regulation in Ukraine appears to have altered the regime of runoff from the Carpathians, increasing water levels in Slovakia's share of the basin and changing runoff dynamics so that statistical extrapolation of past discharge is no longer valid for forecasts. The Government of Slovakia has undertaken a flood protection upgrade program. Launched in 2000 and underway until 2010, the program comprises preparation of new guidelines, introduction of short-term flood protection measures, development of an early warning system, research on flood genesis and risk factors and the role of dams and reservoirs, and other initiatives. A map of areas at risk is not available, but the Government's estimates of high risk can be inferred from the Ministry of Agriculture's map of envisaged flood protection activities, below. Reference World Bank. 2003. Slovak Republic Flood Profile. Prepared by Lucy Hancock on the basis of a report prepared by Pavel Petrovic for the World Bank in 2002. Washington, DC, USA.

165

SLOVAK REPUBLIC: WATER FACT SHEET



1990 1997 Goal for 2015Access to clean water n.a. 81% 91% Urban n.a. n.a. n.a. Rural n.a. n.a. n.a.Note: Goal refers to MDGs.

1990 1997 Goal for 2020Access to sanitation n.a. 54% 77% Urban n.a. 84% 92% Rural n.a. 16% 58%Note: Goal refers to MDGs.






LAND AND WATER RESOURCESLand area (millions of ha) 4.9Land area in international basins (millions of ha) 4.9 Percentage of country in international basins 100.0%Average precipitation (mm) 743Average total volume of rainfall (BCM) 36

Total internal renewable water resources (BCM) 13 Of which surface water (BCM) 13 Of which groundwater 2 Overlap between surface and groundwater 2


Total renewable resources (BCM) 50 Of which total surface water (BCM) 50 Of which total groundwater (BCM) 2 Overlap between surface and groundwater 2Dependency ratio 74.9%

1990 2000 2015 2020


1991 1997Total annual water used (in BCM) 1.9 1.3 Agriculture 0.3 0.1 Industrial (cooling) 1.0 0.8 Domestic 0.6 0.5


-

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

1997 MDG2015

Po

pu

lati

on

(in

mill

ion

)

-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

1990 2000 2010 2020

Po

pu

lati

on

(in

mill

ion

)

Urban PopRural Pop

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1991 1997


Agriculture Industrial (cooling) Domestic

Access to Sewage

-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

1997 MGD2020

Po

pu

lati

on

(in

mill

ion

) Urban

Rural

166



Treated biologically 36% (36% is untreated)

1991 1994 1997 1998Annual emissions of BOD per day (M Tons) 77 64 61 58Annual emissions of BOD per capita (kg) 5.3 4.4 4.1 3.9


DAMS AND HYDROPOWER 2000Reservoir capacity (BCM) 1.94 Multipurpose dams (BCM) 1.71 Drinking dams (BCM) 0.16Reservoir capacity in cubic meters per capita 359 (in 2000)

Gross theoretical hydropower potential (GWh/y) 10,000 Technically feasible (GWh/y) 6,607 Economically feasible (GWh/y) ~6,000Currrent production from hydropower (GWh/y) 4,710 (in 2000)

1992 1995 1998 1999Total electricity production (Billion KWh/year) 22 26 25 28 From hydroelectric 8.8% 19.1% 17.1% 16.5%



FINANCING THE WATER SECTORAverage cost recovery: Irrigation water services 33% O&M plus capital costs Municipal water services * These are ball park estimates.

1999-00Raw surface water charges (US cent/m3) 5.0 All users

Domestic water water supply (US cent/m3) 19.5Domestic sewage (US cent/m3) 9.8


0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999


05

10152025303540

1992 1994 1996 1998

Other

Hydropower


0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

1993 1995 1997 1999


0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.0

1991 1993 1995 1997

167

SLOVENIA17

Flood Management Although Slovenia has high precipitation, the runoff tends to collect quickly and discharge across the border within a day, for the country is located at the head of three of the five transboundary watersheds on its territory. Exceptions are the Mura and Drava Rivers, which have their headwaters in the Alps of Austria and are fed by snowmelt from spring to summer. All of Slovenia's basins flood periodically, and flooding can occur at any time of the year, though spring and autumn are likeliest times. Flooding is occasionally accompanied by landslides, torrential erosion and/or riverbank erosion. Depending on assumptions, from 3.5% to about 15% of Slovenia is at risk of inundation in catastrophic floods. Most land at risk is at the bottom of narrow valleys. Poljes in karst are the only extended areas at risk of inundation. The at-risk area includes some arable land and important traffic connections as well as about 2500 ha of urban area (the latter mostly the result of construction contrary to requirements). A far larger area is threatened by erosion and torrential floods; indeed, much of the mountainous area. Risk is mitigated by incorporation of flood hazard zoning in planning, and by Slovenia's long experience in torrent control. In the basins of the Sava and Drava, the ratio between the hundred-year return period discharge and the five-year is less than 1.5; thus, much of Slovenia continually rehearses flood events comparable to a hundred-year catastrophe. Some hundred-year-old control structures, maintained in excellent condition, still function today. The nuclear plant on the Sava River is protected against a level of flooding with a return period of 10,000 years. Flood events tend to group themselves into multi-year flood periods, between which 20 years can pass without a significant event. From 1965 onward, there were few major floods until 1983 and 1987. Catastrophic flooding occurred in 1989, followed by even greater flooding in 1990 and in 1998. The flood of 1990, the result of five days of rainfall on already-wet soil did damage estimated at USD860 million (1998 dollars). Although discharge was at historic levels (the 300-year flood in some areas), high levels of damage occurred in part because the flood hazard had been nearly forgotten; housing and industrial facilities had been built on lands known to have been threatened by earlier floods. Damage included inundation of some areas of a regional hospital, damage to 52,000 ha of farmland, destruction of 96 bridges and damage to 213 more, destruction of nine industrial facilities and damage to 379, destruction of 190 homes and damage to 5080. More than 1200 landslides were triggered. Overall economic damage was apportioned as 23% damage to businesses, 12% damage to housing, 19% each to agriculture and transportation, 14% to water management. Two people died (elderly people unable to climb to the safe second level of their homes). The year 1998 saw a sequence of floods affecting the basins of the Sava, Drava and Mura Rivers and the Adriatic Sea. The flooding inundated 95,000 ha, and total damage was estimated at more than USD200 million (1998 dollars). (Note that the method of estimating damage used in 1998 is not fully comparable with that used in 1990.) Forecasting and flood warning were very effective, though damage could not be avoided. Two people died. 17 This note includes only flood management issues.

168

Extremely heavy rain in the autumn of 2000 caused landslides and debris flow that ultimately killed seven people. This was both an event of great magnitude (at the 1% level in some areas) and also an event that struck an unprepared area, for among the landslides/debris flows that formed was the biggest ever recorded in Slovenia's several hundred years of record-keeping. This event, carrying about 1 million m3 of material, appeared in a region that historically does not have debris flow, inundated half a village, and killed seven people. Several hazards merit special note. In general, landslide and riverbank erosion causes the most serious damage. It increases the risk of inundation, for even buildings that are protected against inundation may be destroyed by foundation failure caused by floodwater. Second, erosion of a river in flood can completely reshape the river channel, inundating nearby areas deemed safe. Collapse of antique and unmaintained control structures under the stress of flooding may also lead to significant modification of riverbeds. A final note is that the most vulnerable victims are elderly people incapable of helping themselves, and tourists in some camp sites and tourist facilities that are located on historically inundated areas. Reference World Bank. 2003. Slovenia Flood Profile. Prepared by Lucy Hancock on the basis of a report prepared by Mitja Brilly for the World Bank in 2000. Washington, DC, USA.

169



1990 1997 Goal for 2015Access to piped water supply n.a. 76% 88% Urban n.a. n.a. n.a. Rural n.a. n.a. n.a.Note: Goal refers to MDGs.

1990 1997 Goal for 2020Access to sewerage n.a. 74% 87% Urban n.a. n.a. n.a. Rural n.a. n.a. n.a.Note: Goal refers to MDGs.




Average annual growth 1991-97 1998-00 Of GDP 0.9% 4.6% Of population 0.6% -0.1%


LAND AND WATER RESOURCESLand area (millions of ha) 2.0Land area in international basins (millions of ha) 1.8 Percentage of country in international basins 89.9%Average precipitation (mm) 1,590Average total volume of rainfall (BCM) 32




1990 2000 2015 2020


1994 1997Total annual water used (in MCM) 237.4 333.2 Agriculture 3.4 3.4 Industrial 76.0 71.4 Domestic 158.0 258.4

SLOVENIA: WATER FACT SHEET


-

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

1997 MDG2015

Po

pu

lati

on

(in

mill

ion

)

-

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1990 2000 2010 2020

Po

pu

lati

on

(in

mill

ion

)

Urban PopRural Pop

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

1994 1997

Trends of Water Abstraction (MCM)

Agriculture

Industrial

Domestic

Access to Sewerage

-0.2

0.40.60.81.0

1.21.41.6

1.8

1997 MDG2020

Po

pu

lati

on

(in

mill

ion

)

170


Wastewater discharge requiring treatment (BCM) *

Treated 75%



DAMS AND HYDROPOWER 2000Reservoir capacity (BCM) 0.2 Irrigation dams (BCM) Hydropower dams (BCM)Reservoir capacity in cubic meters per capita 101 (in 2000)





FINANCING THE WATER SECTORAverage cost recovery: Irrigation water services 90% Municipal water services * These are ball park estimates.

Raw surface water charges (US cent/m3)

Domestic water supply (US cent/m3)Domestic sewage (US cent/m3)


0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999


02468

101214161820

1992 1994 1996 1998

Other

Hydropower


0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

1993 1995 1997 1999


0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

kg/c

apit

a/d

ay

171

TAJIKISTAN

Socio-Economic Context

The difficult transition over the last decade following independence, including a long period of internal civil strife, has left Tajikistan among the poorest countries in the world. The GDP in 2000 was estimated to be no more than USD154 per capita, while the UNDP Human Development Index ranked Tajikistan 110 out of 174 countries. According to the Bank’s Poverty Assessment, some 83% of the present estimated population of 6.3 million are living in poverty, while about 50% are very poor or extremely poor. Less than half of all households have access to piped water, 75% have no source of hot water, 85% rely on an outside latrine, and two-thirds of households heat their home for less than four months out of the year. However, with the cessation of violence and a resumption of economic growth since 1997, there is now a real possibility to contribute to the alleviation of poverty in the country. Poverty is generally considered worse in rural areas than in urban areas and mountainous districts, which are some of the most severely affected by poverty as well as the most vulnerable to drought. In mountainous areas, agriculture plays a vital socio-economic role in the livelihoods of the population and since the collapse of the limited local industry, it has often become the only means for survival. The economic crisis combined with the need to generate supplementary income and to meet subsistence needs have lead to a wide range of problems, which have substantially increased the pressures on the natural resource base. Encroachment and cultivation of steep mountain slopes has resulted in increased erosion problems since much of the mountain areas are composed of a very unstable and brittle soil susceptible of collapse with rains and snow. The Ministry of Nature Protection estimates that the cultivated land area has recently increased by 40,000-45,000 ha because of removal of trees and ploughing of steep lands sometimes with devastating results. In addition, some good quality spring pasture has been converted to land, which is used for crop production. Following the transition, there has also been substantial uncontrolled cutting of trees primarily for fuelwood, including trees that can provide long-term economic benefits such as fruit trees and walnuts. It is estimated that the total forest cover has decreased by an average of 15% over the last 5 years. This decrease in forest coverage combined with increased cultivation in hilly areas threatens some of the best remaining arable land in the region. An estimated 60 to 70% of agricultural land is now considered to be affected by severe soil erosion resulting from poor agricultural practices and over-grazing. Although there are only limited data available, it is clear that due to the very fragile soil conditions, every year millions of tons of fertile soils are lost trough gullying and landslides. For example in the mountainous Surkhab River basin, annual sediment runoff is estimated to range from 6-8 tons per ha per year. With few resources to cover their relative ly high operating costs, the irrigation and drainage systems in the mountain areas have seriously deteriorated since the breakup of the Soviet Union, resulting in some 200,00 ha to 300,000 ha of irrigated arable land, or some 20% to 30% of available irrigated area, which are lost to production. This problem has been exacerbated by the serious drought experienced throughout much of the country over the last two years in 2000 and 2001.

172

Water Resources Base The mountain areas of Tajikistan are a principal source of the waters of the Aral Sea basin. These territories are characterized by an arctic climate, with a low average temperature, continuous cloudiness and a high level of fog recurrence. All these circumstances precondition low evaporation of moisture from the snow cover and surface of glaciers. Also, the area's steep and mountainous terrain promote rapid descent of water to intermountain gorges that turn it into numerous streams rushing down to the territories at lower elevation. Total average annual flow formed in Tajikistan is about 64 BCM. Almost all goes to the Amu Darya basin (about 63 BCM); the rest to the Syr Darya. In high water years, Amu Darya flow formed in Tajikistan can be as much as 90 BCM; in low water years, as little as 39 BCM. Altogether, the glaciers of Tajikistan are estimated to be made up of about 500 BCM. Melting of the glaciers forms a considerable share of the Amu Darya's summer flow. Additionally, a considerable share is retained in mountain lakes, about 44 BCM, of which 20 BCM is fresh, of drinking quality. Underground water resources are estimated to be 18.7 BCM annually, of which 2.4 BCM are extracted. Total annual diversion is about 13 BCM annually (92.5% from surface sources, 7.5 % from ground sources). Total annual use is about 11 BCM, of which about 4% for domestic and drinking purposes, about 6% for production, about 84% for irrigation, about 5% for other agriculture. Water Use and Management by Sector Irrigation. Irrigated farming dominates water consumption by volume (about 85%). Agriculture in Tajikistan at present and for the foreseeable future will remain one of the priority branches of the economy. The basis of agricultural production is irrigated farming: about 90% of all agricultural production is produced on irrigated land. The share of agriculture in GDP 1996-2000 was about 21.6%. About 65% of the economically active population is engaged in agriculture (in 1999, 1.1 million people). Municipal domestic water supply. Municipal domestic water supply is a priority of the Republic of Tajikistan. The Government has elaborated a Program of Measures on Rehabilitation and Reconstruction of Water Supply Objects. Government projections are that municipal domestic water needs will amount to 0.5 BCM by 2010, and 0.8 BCM by 2025. Industry. In 1990, water use by industry was about 0.5 BCM. The future size of industry is not certain; however, a doubling or tripling of the 1990 consumption by the years 2010 or 2025 may provide the correct order of magnitude. Environment. Tajikistan's ecosystems have suffered from the large changes in the last four decades resulting from the construction of artificial reservoirs. Following the construction of the Nurek storage reservoir, a change occurred in the hydrological regime of the Vakhsh River, to the detriment of the tugai forests. A system of organizational and engineering measures that will

173

submerge the tugai ecosystems during the period of spring flood is under consideration. Rehabilitation of the tugai along the Vakhsh River will make it possible to rehabilitate a number of species, and will also stabilize the temperature regime. Hydropower. Tajikistan has negligible stocks of oil and gas, but has the world's eighth- largest potential for hydropower development. Of that, it is now using only 3-5%. In the past, Tajikistan has made heavy use of imported fuel and electricity from its regional neighbors, but as the Soviet Union's regional arrangements have broken down, the arrangement by which Tajikistan has received energy in return for operating its reservoirs according to an irrigation schedule is under new consideration. Flooding. Tajikistan's principal flood risk now is from mudslides and mountain lake outbreaks, especially mudslides near unsecured dumps of tailings from mercury, antimony, uranium and other mines. In August 2002, a mudslide in Dasht killed 24 people. Mudslides usually originate in rain showers, but not always. Very large floods/mudslides can originate in the outbreak of mountain lakes, which store large volumes of water behind unstable natural barriers. Lake Sarez is a particularly dangerous mountain lake. In general, the events that may cause breakout are highly varied: these lakes may break out when a mudslide strikes the natural dam, or when its ice components finally melts, or its silt components erode, or when an earthquake jars it loose, or (the most frequent reason) when precipitation or snowmelt raises the water level in the lake and increases pressure on the barrier. Moreover, an outbreak of even a relatively small lake high up in the watershed can cause a cascade of failures of natural dams along the water channel. In brief, there is a large volume of water, silt and loose rock stored at great height in Central Asia, seeking a way down, and the landscape retaining it is unstable and earthquake-prone. Water Legislation and Policies At present, water resources management at the national level in Tajikistan is the hierarchy adopted under the earlier command-administrative era. But transformation to a market economy has begun. The new Water Code of the Republic of Tajikistan, adopted in November 2000, makes it possible to change the form of the water management complex. It is possible now to transfer the management of irrigation systems within set territories to national and foreign juridical persons. Development of this framework is ongoing. Water legislation in the Republic of Tajikistan is based on the Constitution, the Water Code, laws, and normative and legislative acts recognized by the Republic. In connection with adoption of the Water Code, the Republic is carrying out an inventory of all legislative acts, "from top to bottom," to reveal and remove internal inconsistencies, eliminate what is obsolete and set out new legislation. Due to the strategic importance and complexity of the water management system, some structures of particular importance are expected to remain under government ownership and funding. The Ministry of Amelioration and Water Resources will coordinate and guide water management policy.

174

Transboundary Issues The long-standing multi-purpose water resources scheme of Central Asia does not address present conditions. The energy received by Tajikistan from Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan does not meet Tajik needs, which Tajikistan could meet on its own if it were to operate its reservoirs for hydropower rather than on an irrigation schedule. Also, the interstate organizations concerned with water-sharing are located in Uzbekistan and staffed entirely by Uzbek nationals, envisaging neither rotation of management among the other republics nor participation of the specialists of other republics in the work. A further issue is the future of Afghanistan within the water sharing agreements. Although it does not appear that Afghanistan's water withdrawals will rise very substantially in the short run, nevertheless, Afghanistan's development needs must be considered, and it may be wise to engage Afghanistan in the Aral Sea basin's ongoing institutions. Key Issue and Challenges Salinization and waterlogging. More than 310,000 ha of irrigated land is potentially liable to salinity and waterlogging, of which about 200,000 is already liable to it. About 100,000 ha have been treated by leaching; another 100,000 remains liable to it, as the water table rises to a critical level and salinity to near a critical value. Critical irrigation and drainage infrastructure (I&D) is in danger of failure. Most of the principal irrigation and drainage infrastructure (pumping stations, delivery pipes, diversion structures, main canals, etc.), now 30 years old, is in danger of collapse. Almost everyone living in the project area depends on these delivery systems not only for irrigation but also for drinking water and domestic water needs. Since the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, the budget for operations and maintenance of I&D has been very limited and available funds have been used mainly for system operation and salaries. This has led to practices such as making temporary repairs and cannibalizing parts, which aggravate the situation even further. The system now manifests a rapid deterioration in operating efficiency of pumping stations, increased losses in the main canals and low water use efficiency at the field level. The water supply from the main canals to the field level has been reduced by 50%, and in some areas to even more. Fertile agricultural areas are being abandoned at an alarming rate and, if nothing is done, continued deterioration of rural livelihoods could lead to large scale migration from the rural areas to urban towns adding to the high unemployment and urban poor. Economic and financial viability of lift irrigation. The energy sector is highly subsidized in Tajikistan. As electricity, pumping, and O&M of irrigation and drainage systems have historically been provided free to the farms, energy use is excessive, particularly in lift irrigation schemes. These are highly energy intensive as they lift water in a series of steps ranging in cumulative heights of 50 to 250 m and deliver water across hills. Virtually all the power now produced in Tajikistan is hydropower, supplied only during the three seasons of the year which coincide with the agricultural and irrigation seasons. Thus it does not provide for winter heating nor does it keep Tajikistan's large aluminum smelter operating year-round. While hydro-power

175

for agricultural purposes is provided at US 0.15 cents per kWh, recent preliminary sector work carried out indicates that the long run marginal cost of hydro-power is about US2.2 cents per kWh (to cover routine maintenance of all working facilities, and taking into consideration about 2000 MW of generation and transmission that are not operational at present). This could be exported to Uzbekistan in the summer, and Tajikistan could receive thermal power in exchange during the winter months. Cost recovery. The current level of water charges, TR3/m3 (US 0.18 cents/m3), does not cover the cost of operations and maintenance for the systems which deliver water from the source to the farmers fields. Moreover, it does not differentiate between areas dependent on gravity versus those dependent on lift irrigation schemes where energy costs may be a significant share of the total cost. This pric ing arrangement has been a disincentive for the efficient allocation and use of water and hence of power. At the same time, the continuing changes occurring in the structure of farm organization (as state farms undergo privatization), together with the low levels of farm family incomes, makes cost recovery one of the most difficult issues of this sector. References Agaltseva, Natalya; and Sergey Myagkov. 2000. Flood Assessment - Final Report. Report for the World Bank. Central Asian Research Hydrometeorological Institute (SANIGMI). National Working Group of Tajikistan. 2001. National Water Demands and Options for Demand Management. Volume II (draft). Dushanbe, Tajikistan. WHO/UNICEF. 2001. Access to Improved Sanitation - Tajikistan. WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation. Geneva, Switzerland. Report available at: http://childinfo.org/eddb/sani/ceecis/tajikistan_sanitation1.pdf. World Bank. 2000. Rural Infrastructure Rehabilitation Project. Project Appraisal Document. Washington, DC, USA. World Bank. 2002. Water Resource Development in Northern Afghanistan and its Implications for Amu Darya Basin. Working Paper (draft). Washington, DC, USA. World Bank. 2003. Community Agriculture and Watershed Management Project. Project Appraisal Document (draft). Washington, DC, USA.

176




1990 2000 Goal for 2020Access to sewage n.a 10% 55% Urban n.a 33% 67% Rural n.a 1% 51%Note: Goal refers to MDGs.








Total external renewable water resources (BCM) -22 (Accounts for outflows to Of which surface water (BCM) -22 other countries) Of which groundwater (BCM) 0


1990 2000 2015 2020


1994 2000Total annual water used (in BCM) 11.9 11.3 Agriculture 10.9 10.1 Industrial 0.5 0.7 Domestic 0.5 0.5

TAJIKISTAN: WATER FACT SHEET


-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

2000 MDG2015P

op

ula

tio

n (i

n m

illio

n) Urban

Rural

-

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Po

pu

lati

on

(in

mill

ion

)

Urban Pop

Rural Pop

0.0

3.0

6.0

9.0

12.0

15.0

1994 2000



Access to Sewage

-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

2000 MGD2020

Po

pu

lati

on

(in

mill

ion

) Urban

Rural

177


Wastewater requiring treatment (MCM) 287

Treated (MCM) 61 21%

1991 1994 1997 1998Annual emissions of BOD per day (M Tons) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.Annual emissions of BOD per capita (kg) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.


DAMS AND HYDROPOWER 2000Reservoir capacity (BCM) 29.00 Irrigation dams (BCM) Hydropower dams (BCM)Reservoir capacity in cubic meters per capita 4,764 (in 2000)

Gross theoretical hydropower potential (GWh/y) 527,000 Technically feasible (GWh/y) n.a. Economically feasible (GWh/y) ~263,500Currrent production from hydropower (GWh/y) ~15,000 (in 2000)



FRESHWATER FISHERY 1993 1995 1998 1999Fishery production (MT) 2,715 384 81 80 Fishery production per capita (kg) 0.49 0.07 0.01 0.01

FINANCING THE WATER SECTORAverage cost recovery: Irrigation water services Municipal water services * These are ball park estimates.


Domestic water water supply (US cent/m3)Domestic sewage (US cent/m3)


0100,000200,000300,000400,000500,000600,000700,000800,000

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999


02468

101214161820

1992 1994 1996 1998

Other

Hydropower


0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

1993 1995 1997 1999


0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

kig

/cap

ita/

day

178

TURKEY Socio-Economic and Geographic Context Turkey, with a total area of almost 80 million ha, lies between southeastern Europe and southwestern Asia. The portion of Turkey west of the Bosphorus is considered part of Europe. It borders the Black Sea between Bulgaria and Greece and the Aegean Sea and the Mediterranean Sea between Greece, Syria and Bulgaria. Half of its territory is higher than 1,000 m and two-thirds higher than 800 m. Mountain ranges extend in an east-west direction parallel to the north and south coasts. There is a marked difference in climate conditions from one region to another. While the coastal areas enjoy milder climates, the inland experiences extremes of hot summers and cold winters. Average precipitation reaches 643 mm, but it ranges between 250 mm in the southeast to over 3,000 mm in the northeast Black Sea region. Precipitation in the east part of the country is between 400 mm – 800 mm, and in the mid portion between 300 mm – 550 mm. About 70% of the rainfall falls in the winter and spring seasons. Between 1990 and 2000, the population grew by almost 10.5 million: from 56.1 million to 66.7 million. Most of the population live in urban areas: about 66% of the population was classified as urban in 2000. The population is expected to grow to 82.9 million by 2020, three-quarters will live in urban areas. Water resources play a key role in the economy of Turkey: between 30-40% of the total electricity production of the country is based on hydropower, and between 15-18% of the crop land is irrigated, contributing to 34% of agriculture GDP. Water Resource Base Potential water resources available on a renewable basis have been estimated at 200 BCM or 3,000 cubic meters per year, out of which about 5 BCM are generated from transboundary basins (Asi, Tunca and Meric basins). About one-fourth of the surface renewable resources come from the Euphrates (Firat) and Tigris (Dicle) Rivers. There is a significant variability in river runoffs from season to season and from year to year. For example, the Euphrates and Tigris runoffs vary between 26.3 BC to 31.6 BCM and 18 BCM and 21.33 BCM, respectively. Safe yield of groundwater resources is estimated at 12-20 BCM per year and about 17 BCM drain into surface water bodies. It is estimated that the total technically and economically usable surface and groundwater potential is about 110 BCM. There is uneven distribution of water availability in space: the Western Region formed by Marmara, Aegean, and Central Anatolian regions of Turkey is relatively water poor, and the rest of Turkey as relatively water rich. The Western Region is densely populated and heavily involved in cash crop production. In order to address the variability of water resources and the uneven distribution in time and space, the Government has built more than 550 multipurpose reservoirs with a total storage volume of about 131 BCM. There are approximately 228 large dams, which are under construction. One issue that requires attention to protect hydraulic infrastructure is soil erosion from upper watershed. In some areas, the rate of accumulation of sediments in dead storage of

179

dams is much higher than expected, reaching in some cases 1500%. The Government has been promoting private sector participation in the financing of large hydraulic infrastructure projects. Surface water resources are threatened by point sources of pollution (municipal and industrial waste) and diffuse pollution from agriculture activities. Deterioration of the quality of surface water is observed in areas of intensive agriculture, as a result of the use of pesticides. Large volume of untreated wastewater is dumped into water bodies. The absence of effective protection zone is adversely affectiving the quality of groundwater reserves. There are 250 separate areas of wetland with a total area exceeding 1 million ha. About 75% of these wetlands exceed 10 ha. Drainage of wetlands started in 1950s, when malaria was widespread, although the main purpose was to create additional farmland. By the end of 1986, more than 190,000 ha of wetland were drained. Several wetlands are especially important to migrating waterfowl. According to available information, drainage of wetlands has resulted in decreases in both the bird populations and in the diversity of nesting birds. Five of Turkey’s wetlands are Ramsar sites: Manyas Lake, Goksu Delta, Sultan Reedbeds, Salt Lake and Burdur Lake. Increasing competition for water between irrigation, urban users, hydropower, and environmental needs is on the rise especially on the river basins that are fully developed and committed. Water Uses and Management Overall water use has increased considerably in Turkey during the past decade as a result of the rapid economic and population growth. Between 1990 and 2000, total water use increased from about 30.6 BCM to 42 BCM, respectively. Most of the increase was observed in irrigation. Irrigation water use experienced a 43% increase: from 22 BCM in 1990 to about 31.5 BCM in 2000. Industrial and municipal water uses also experienced a 20% increase during the same period. About 75% of water withdrawals are being used for irrigation purposes. Development of irrigation started in the 1960s. Between 1965 and 2000, irrigated land increased from 0.5 million ha to 4.5 million ha, out of which about 1 million ha was developed by private farmers. Most of the land is irrigated by surface methods and only 5% is irrigated with movable sprinklers and micro- irrigation systems. Although irrigated land represents 17% of total arable land, it contributes 34% to agricultural Gross Domestic Product (GDP) derived from crops. In 1993 the Turkish Government undertook an Accelerated Transfer Program, under which the management of irrigation systems was transferred to those farmers willing to participate in the program. The original action plan aimed to transfer about 150,000 ha per year until reaching one million hectares. The target date was estimated to be achieved by year 2000, however by July 1996, about 1.15 million hectares were transferred to farmers. The immediate impacts of the transfer were: better water supply services, a higher operation and maintenance cost recovery (from 42% before the transfer to 90% after three years the transfer took place); and a lower operation and maintenance cost since unionized labor stopped being a major issue.

180

The current irrigation system design does not allow for volumetric water charge, thus constraining the application of water user-charges. The design was based on the prevailing water pricing system, which is based in acreage and type of crop. Turkey’s water supply and sanitation situation is as follows. Between 1990 and 2000, the percentage of people served with improved water supply rose from 80% to 83%. The rest use polluted water sources. Inefficiency in water services at the municipal level remains high: the level of losses is above 50%. Access to improved sanitation services increased during the same period, from 87% to 91%. According to available statistics, only 67% of the population has access to sewage systems; in many urban areas, the system is insufficient and in most rural areas the system does not exist at all. With rapid industrialization and urbanization, domestic and industrial wastewater has become a major threat to water resources. A large share of the wastewater is dumped untreated in rivers, streams and the sea. Cities are the major culprits of water pollution. Major investments for sewage and wastewater treatment are called for. With regard to hydropower, the gross theoretical hydropower potential is estimated at 433,000 GWh/year and the technically feasible potential is 215,000 GWh/year. The economically feasible potential was re-evaluated in 1998 as 123,000 GWh/year. So far, about 18% of the technically feasible potential has been developed. There are plans that by 2010, about 60% of the economically feasible potential will be developed. It is interesting to note that Turkey has started to treat water as a commercial commodity. Turkey is now ready to export water to Israel and other Middle East and African countries after the implementation of the Manavgat Water Project in the south of the country. Water will be conveyed to loading terminals in the sea, and then shipped to any place in the Mediterranean region. The cost is estimated to be USD0.75 per cubic meter. Turkey experiences severe, expensive and life-threatening floods. Historically, river flooding has been important, and in cases of infrastructure failure, it still is (for example, the flood on the Asi in July 2002, triggered by a dam failure in Syria, is reported to have done large damage in Turkey). But since the damming of the Tigris and the Euphrates, most of the serious damage in recent years has been from coastal flooding, flash flooding, and floods that set off landslides or mudslides. In the last decade, there have been several floods originating in severe storms and leading to death and damage spread over Turkey, though often striking coastal areas especially hard. In July 2002, flooding caused by severe storms killed 40 people, flooded hundreds of homes, killed livestock and destroyed fields. Rize alone lost 29 people. Rize also lost seven in similar floods in 2000, according to a CNN report. The 1998 flooding, again especially damaging in Rize and Trabzon, did damage throughout Turkey estimated at USD2 billion, killing 80 people and reportedly submerging the town of Bartin when a local river burst its banks. Flooding in Izmir killed about 70 people in 1995; flooding in Rize in 1990 is reported to have killed 50 people. Recurring themes in the damage done by recent floods include construction that collapses when flooded and construction in the floodplain. A World Bank project current under implementation

181

supports non-structural flood protection measures that address those issues: limits on construction in the floodplain and enforcement/strengthening of construction standards. Water Policies, Legislation and Institutional Responsibility There are almost 50 laws related to the water resources and management, including the laws identifying the responsibilities of related organizations. The Constitution specifies that the control over all groundwater and surface water is vested in the State, with the exception of some privately owned springs and small water sources. The legal framework about water rights and ownership is complex. For example, so far there is no special law for surface water rights. The uses of surface water for hydropower production and thermal waters is subject to prior authorization. Other uses of surface water are not subject to any prior authorization. With regard to groundwater, their use is regulated by licenses issued by DSI for aquifer. The license covers the right of use and utilization, but can neither be transferred nor sold. The number of conflicts about the use of water is growing, and is especially evident during drought periods. No statutory priority on the use of the resource exists in the legal framework. Priorities are established on a case-by-case basis in light of public interest, beneficial use criteria and national interest and planning. The default priority list is as follows: drinking water supply, industrial water supply, irrigation, power generation, flood control, and navigation. The 1968 Groundwater Law regulates the usage, development and protection of groundwater resources. The 1983 Environmental Law was the first piece of legislation that addresses the qualitative assessment of water resources. This law introduces the “Polluter pays” principle for controlling pollution into the environment and water bodies. A subsequent piece of legislation was the Water Pollution Control Regulation, which became effective in 1988. This regulation classifies all inland waters in line with water quality standards and identifies industrial effluent discharge criteria. The main priorities of the regulation are the prevention of pollution in surface waters, protection of groundwater, prevention of coastal and sea pollution and restoration of polluted aquatic ecosystems. It refers to the establishment of an action plan for water quality improvement and long-term water basin quality management plans. The responsibility for the development, management, protection and conservation of water resources is shared by numerous entities. The main players in the water sector are:

• The Ministry of Environment is the main responsible body for environmental management and is charged with coordinating all national and international activities concerning water resources.

• The General Directorate of State Hydraulic Works (DSI ) of the Primary Executive State Water Agency is responsible for water resources development in Turkey. It ensures the long-term supply of drinking and industrial water and also plans, executes and in most cases operates works for flood protection, irrigation, drainage and hydropower

182

generation. In addition, DSI is responsible for performing basic investigations such as, flow gauging, soil classification, water quality monitoring, preparation of river basin development plans and formulation of proposals for construction financing and subsequent operation of these works.

• The General Directorate of Electrical Power Resources Survey is responsible for carrying out hydrological studies, geotechnical investigations and mapping activities to evaluate the national hydroelectric potential and subsequently preparing reconnaissance, prefeasibility, feasibility and final design studies of identified projects.

• The General Directorate of Rural Services is responsible for irrigation, aquaculture and water supply issues in the rural areas.

• The Water and Sewage Administrations connected to the metropolitan municipalities (15 out of 80 provincial capital municipalities) have taken part in the implementation of pollution control policies, including water supply and construction and operation of wastewater treatment facilities.

The current institutional framework is not efficient. There are problems of lack of coordination, overlapping duties in the same area by several organizations. Recommendations

• Revise water legislation to eliminate inconsistencies and fill gaps, and revise institutional framework and to harmonize it with EU water framework directives.

• Develop a water resources management strategy by river basin. • Improve returns to water resources by paying attention to water pricing policies and

catchment protection. • Formulate coordinated and comprehensive policies and strategies for water resources

management and development and pollution control. The country lacks a multi-sectoral approach to water resources management.

• Raise public awareness for water resources environmental issues. • Increase participation from users (urban, irrigation, hydropower) in O&M cost recovery,

financing, planning and design of water-related projects and investments, and in the formulation of policies and strategies for optimal use of water resources.

• Recognize the role of water pricing polices in guiding investment decision in the water sector.

• Encourage adequate pricing of water services. • Undertake priority investments in the following areas: rehabilitation of water supply

services, extension of sewerage systems, construction of primary wastewater treatment plants, improvement of irrigation efficiency (5% irrigated area with sprinkler and drip irrigation systems).

References AQUASTAT. Turkey Water Profile. FAO, Land and Water Development Division. Available at: http://www.fao.org/ag/agl/aglw/aquastat/main/index.stm.

183

FAO - Gateway to Water and Land Information. 2001. Turkey Report. Prepared by Sebahattin Keskin. Department of Soil & Water Resources National Information Center, General Directorate of Rural Services. Report available at: http://www.fao.org/ag/agl/swlwpnr/reports/y_nr/z_tr/tr.htm Harmancioglu, N.; Alpaslan, N. and Boelee, E. 2001. Irrigation, Health and Environment: A Review of Literature from Turkey. International Water Management Institute (IWMI). 21p. IWMI Working Paper No 6. Colombo, Sri Lanka Kuleli, Serap. Institutional and Legal Framework in the Water Sector in Turkey. Ministry of the Environment. Report available at: http://www.oieau.fr/euromed/anglais/ate_4/kuleli.htm Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. 1999. Environmental Performance Review - Turkey. OECD. Paris, France WHO/UNICEF. 2001. Access to Improved Sanitation - Turkey. WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation. Geneva, Switzerland. Report available at: http://childinfo.org/eddb/sani/ceecis/turkey_sanitation1.pdf.

184




1990 2000 Goal for 2020Access to sewerage 56% 67% 84% Urban n.a. n.a. n.a. Rural n.a. n.a. n.a.Note: Goal refers to MDGs.



1990 1995 1998 1999Labor force (millions of people) 24.3 27.8 29.9 30.6 Share in agriculture 47% 48% 43% n.a.. Share in industry 21% 21% 22% n.a..

Average annual growth 1991-97 1998-00 Of GDP 4.4% 1.7% Of population 1.8% 1.6%

1990 1995 1999 2000Infant mortality rate (per 1,000 live births) 58.0 44.4 .. 34.5





1990 2000 2015 2020


1990 1997 1995 2000Total annual water used (in BCM) 30.6 31.6 33.5 42.0 Irrigation 22.0 23.1 24.7 31.5 Industrial 3.4 3.5 3.5 4.1 Domestic 5.1 5.1 5.3 6.4

TURKEY: WATER FACT SHEET


-

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

2000 MDG2015P

op

ula

tio

n (i

n m

illio

n) Urban

Rural

-

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

1990 2000 2010 2020

Po

pu

lati

on

(in

mill

ion

)

Urban Pop

Rural Pop

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

1990 1997 1995 2000

Trends of Water Consumption (BCM)


Access to Sewerage

-

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

2000 MDG2020

Po

pu

lati

on

(in

mill

ion

)

185



Treated (BCM) 0.1



DAMS AND HYDROPOWER 2000Reservoir capacity (BCM) 131 Irrigation dams (BCM) Hydropower dams (BCM)Reservoir capacity in cubic meters per capita 1,965 (in 2000)



IRRIGATION 1987 1990 1995 1999Irrigated land ('000 ha) 3,300 3,800 4,186 4,500 Irrigated land per capita (ha) 0.063 0.068 0.068 0.069Irrigated land as share of cropland 11.8% 13.7% 15.4% 16.9%


FINANCING THE WATER SECTORAverage cost recovery: 1996 Irrigation water services 90% Municipal water services * These are ball park estimates.


Domestic water supply (US cent/m3)Domestic sewage (US cent/m3)


0500,000

1,000,0001,500,0002,000,0002,500,0003,000,0003,500,0004,000,0004,500,0005,000,000

1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

Other

Hydropower

Trend in Fisheries Production (metric Tons)

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998


0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

kg/c

apit

a/d

ay

186

TURKMENISTAN

Socio-Economic and Geographic Context Turkmenistan is located in Central Asia, and has a total surface area of 48.8 million ha. It is bordered by the Caspian Sea in the west, Kazakhstan in the northwest, Uzbekistan in the north and northeast, Afghanistan in the southeast and Iran in the south and southwest. About 80% of the country is covered by the Karakum Desert. The country is highly arid and its climate is of subtropical desert. Average precipitation ranges from 110 mm in the northeast to over 280 mm in the south. In 2000, its population reached about 4.7 million, of whom about 45% were living in urban areas. Total population is expected to reach about 6.4 million by 2020, 53% of whom will be living in urban areas. Water resources play a key role in the economic development of Turkmenistan. All of the cropped land is irrigated. Agriculture contributes to about 27% of GDP and employs about 48% of the labor force. Water Resource Base The river runoff originating in the country is estimated at 1.0 BCM. Although several rivers cross the country, most of them originate in neighboring countries. The main river is the Amu Darya. Of the 63 BCM that flow into Turkmenistan, about 22 BCM are currently allocated to Turkmenistan. The Murgab, Tedzhen and Atrek, smaller rivers in the south and west, are shared with Afghanistan and Iran. Flow in the Murgab has been almost zero in the last few years, though it was about 1 BCM in 1998. The long-term annual average of the Tedzhen is about 1.1 BCM, that of the Atrek about 0.3 BCM, both highly variable. Overall renewable resources amount to 24.4 BCM or 5,200 m3 per capita per year. Several reservoirs (18) have been built for irrigation purposes, with a total capacity of about 2.9 BCM. The largest one is the Hauz-Khan reservoir on the Karakum Canal, with a total capacity of 0.9 BCM. Most of the reservoirs are affected by heavy siltation. Turkmenistan has groundwater reserves, with total renewable volume estimated at about 1 BCM per year. These have been developed near administrative centers and in some rural settlements. Water Use and Management Water withdrawal has experienced a decline during the 1990s: from 27.6 BCM in 1995 to 24.0 BCM in 1997, but has started to increase in 1998 to 25.9 BCM for the past four years. About 91% of the water is used for agricultural purposes, namely for irrigation of 1.75 million ha. Water for industrial and domestic purposes accounts for 7% and 2% of total withdrawals, respectively. The main source of water is surface water. Drainage water from irrigated land is also re-used and constitutes another source of water for irrigation. Considerable water losses occur in the irrigation sector. Overall irrigation efficiency is estimated at about 60%. Excessive water use has led to many problems, including increased salinity of water resources and high soil salinization. There are plans to increase the area under irrigation to about 2.6 million ha. If plans go ahead, even with improvements in irrigation efficiency, there will be serious water shortages in the future.

187

The total annual volume of wastewater is about 8.7 BCM, of which 6.6 BCM represents drainage water. Of the total amount of drainage water, about one-third is discharged to the Amu Darya and Murgab Rivers and the remainder is collected in depressions and lakes in the desert. Several artificial lakes have been created by the outflow of drainage water. The largest lake is Lake Sarykamysh, which receives about 8 BCM of drainage water per year. The discharge of drainage and industrial wastewater into rivers is causing pollution problems, namely salinity, which is threatening drinking water supplies. Lack of monitoring systems prevents comprehensive assessment of the water quality situation in the country. Turkmenistan's principal flood risk now is from mudslides, usually originating from rain showers. Several areas are mudslide-prone, including the mountain and piedmont areas of the Kopet Dag. In 1969, a mudslide did substantial damage to Ashgabat. Water Legislation and Policies Management of water resources in Turkmenistan is at present governed by the Water Code of 1972. An updated water code has been prepared and is under consideration by the Majlis of Turkmenistan. Neither clear policy nor comprehensive regulatory framework with regard to water resources management exist. Responsibility for water resources rests with the Cabinet of Ministers. The following state departments and organizations are engaged in various aspects of water resources management: The Ministry of Water Resources is responsib le for construction and operation of irrigation and drainage systems and delivery of water to water users and consumers at primary off-takes. Local administrations at the municipal level address water management issues within the limits of their territory. The Ministry of Nature Protection is responsible for protecting water resources from pollution. The State Corporation "Turkmengeologiya" is responsible for assessment, control of use and protection of groundwater from pollution. The Ministry of Construction and Building Materials is responsible for licensing, supervision and control of water supply and sewerage systems in settlements. Hakimliks of settlements provide water supply and maintenance of sewerage systems in settlements. Water resources management at the on-farm level is the responsibility of the hakimliks and other local authorities. No mechanisms are in place for cross-sectoral coordination. The Aral Sea basin's interstate organizations also play a role in water management, in particular the River Basin Organization (BVO) Amu Darya and the Interstate Commission for Water Coordination (ICWC). Transboundary Issues The Amu Darya's other riparians are Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and the Kyrgyz Republic. A mutual agreement among Turkmenistan and all other riparians except Afghanistan assigns shares of the Amu Darya to each (and a share to Afghanistan, based on use during certain years taken as standard), and a further share for stabilization of the environment around the

188

desiccating Aral Sea. The agreement is not well enforced partly due to lack of measuring devices at the head of the Karakum Canal and in the Amu Darya downstream that would gauge off-take, and also due to the lack of monitoring of water use. There are a number of transboundary issues related to the sharing of water and the maintenance of major infrastructure such as dams, and the use of water for hydropower generation. Key Priorities

• Better irrigation, water management and drainage to reduce salinity. • Improve cooperation among riparians. • Improve water supply and sanitation to mitigate health impacts of poor water quality. • Improve monitoring systems. • Update water legislation. • Improve coordination between water institutions and establish mechanisms for cross-

sectoral cooperation. References Agaltseva, Natalya; and Sergey Myagkov. 2000. Flood Assessment - Final Report. Report for the World Bank. Central Asian Research Hydrometeorological Institute (SANIGMI) National Working Group of Turkmenistan. 2001. National Water Demands and Options for Demand Management. Volume II (draft). Ashgabat, Turkmenistan World Bank. 2001.Turkmenistan: Water Resources Sector Study. Concept Note. Washington, DC, USA World Bank. 2002. Water Resource Development in Northern Afghanistan and its Implications for Amu Darya Basin. Working Paper (draft). Washington, DC, USA

189




1993 2000 Goal for 2020Access to sewage 34% n.a. 67% Urban 70% n.a. 85% Rural 5% n.a. 53%Note: Goal refers to MDGs.


1992 1995 1999 2000GDP per capita (constant 1995 US$) 2,088 1,296 1,194 1,377GDP total (billions of 1995 US$) 8.5 5.9 6.1 7.2 Share from agriculture n.a. 17% 28% 27% Share from industry n.a. 69% 46% 50%

1990 1995 1998 1999Labor force (millions of people) 1.5 1.9 2.1 2.2 Share in agriculture 37% n.a. 48% n.a. Share in industry 23% n.a. n.a. n.a.







1990 2000 2015 2020



TURKMENISTAN: WATER FACT SHEET


-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

2000 MDG2015

Po

pu

lati

on

(in

mill

ion

)

Urban

Rural

-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Po

pu

lati

on

(in

mill

ion

)

Urban PopRural Pop

0.0

4.0

8.0

12.0

16.0

20.0

24.0

1995 1996 1997 1998



Access to Sewage

-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

1993 MGD2020

Po

pu

lati

on

(in

mill

ion

) Total

Rural

190



Treated n.a.

1991 1994 1997 1998Annual emissions of BOD per day (M Tons) na na na naAnnual emissions of BOD per capita (kg) na na na na









Domestic water water supply (US cent/m3)Domestic sewage (US cent/m3)


0

400,000

800,000

1,200,000

1,600,000

2,000,000

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999


02468

101214161820

1992 1994 1996 1998

Other

Hydropower


0

4,000

8,000

12,000

16,000

20,000

1993 1995 1997 1999


0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

kig

/cap

ita/d

ay

191

UKRAINE Socio-Economic and Geographic Context Ukraine is situated in the southwest plain of Eastern Europe, bordering the Sea of Azov and the Black Sea. Its total area is about 60.4 million ha. About 20% of its territory is covered by forest, and most of the country consists of fertile plains and plateaus. Most of the territory has a moderately continental climate, and is Mediterranean only on the southern Crimean coast. The average precipitation is 500 mm, but it varies considerably from east to west. It reaches 300 mm in the Black Sea and Azov coastal areas and about 1,500 mm in the Carpathians. Its total population was about 50 million inhabitants in 2000 with more than two-thirds living in urban areas. Water Resource Base Ukraine’s overall renewable resources amount to 140.0 BCM or 2,800 cubic meters per capita, out of which about 38% are generated within the territory and the remaining from transboundary rivers. The Danube River contributes almost 80% of inflow to transboundary rivers. Resources are unevenly distributed throughout the country. Some areas experience deficiency of water availability. Ukraine’s main basins are the Dnieper, the Dniester, the Siversky Donets and the Southern Bug. All these basins drain south towards the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov. The major river, which is fed by several tributaries, is the Dnieper, which divides the country into two parts: the Right Bank and the Left Bank. Its average annual flow is about 53.5 BCM, and drains almost half of the country. There are six large reservoirs built on the river, which provide water for industrial centers of Donbas, irrigation in Crimea and the Black Sea coast, and hydropower generation. About 60% of the population depends on this river for drinking water supply. Another major river is the Dniester, which originates in the Carpathian Mountains and finally drains into the Black Sea. This river flows in spring as well as in summer after heavy rainfalls. In 1999, apart from the rivers in Crimea, all river basins in Ukraine were classified as polluted or very polluted. It should be noted, however, that the water quality standards applied are in some cases stricter than those applied in EU countries. Smaller tributaries are more polluted than main rivers since their dilution capacity is low during long periods. Most of the pollution seems to come from agricultural activities. Other pollution sources are mining activities, which cause discharge of heavy metals and other harmful substances. Industrial activities still release large volumes of wastewater, although the volume has declined as a result of the industrial recession. Groundwater resources are available throughout the country. The south part of the country has a few groundwater reserves. Total resources available amount to 20-22 BCM per year but about 17 BCM drain into surface water bodies. About 25% of drinking water needs are met from groundwater. The available information does not allow making a comprehensive assessment of the quality of groundwater. However, it has been noted, that in some cases, water from groundwater sources do not meet drinking water quality standards. Organic pollution from agricultural activities and direct discharge of municipal effluents are the main pollution culprits.

192

A large portion of the Ukraine territory used to be covered with wetlands, mires and bogs. Important wetland ecosystems could be found in the Polessye region and the Black Sea and Sea of Azov coast. These wetlands have shrunk significantly and today cover about 2% of the total territory. Their further existence is however under threat. Water Use and Management Water withdrawals have experienced a considerable decline during the 1990s: from 26.7 BCM in 1991 to 14.7 BCM in 1997. Most of the decline was observed in the agriculture and industrial sectors. Drinking water use has remained stable. Water losses are still higher than 30%. About 79% of the total population is connected to the centralized water supply systems (house and yard connection). While coverage in urban areas in about 92.7%, coverage in rural areas reaches only 49.4%. Drinking water supply fails to meet the standards of drinking water, which poses a major threat to the public health. In 1997, about 260 settlements consumed water that did not meet the standards. The situation in rural areas is worse. Poor quality of the local water sources as a result of the widespread chemical and bacterial pollution, poor conditions of the water supply and sewerage networks, frequent industrial accidents, leakages from unofficial pesticide dumps, among others are the major reasons for this situation. Bacterial pollution, caused by unpurified household waste and inappropriate manure storage and handling, is a serious problem in rural areas. Poor quality water in Ukraine has led to outbreaks of epidemics of infectious diseases. As reported in the 1998 State of the Environment Report, in 1998 “four attacks of acute intestinal diseases in connection with the use of the untreated potable water of poor quality were observed. An outbreak of enteric fever was registered in Zakarpattya Region (town of Svalyava), of Flexner dysentery in Donetsk (town of Shakhtarsk) and Lugansk (village of Talove) regions, and acute intestinal diseases were recorded in Khmelnytskyi Region. Infectious diseases caused by the consumption of poor quality water make up 59.3% of all cases of infectious diseases, including 17.6% in children.” Lack of sewerage and wastewater treatment facilities also contribute to the poor quality of water in Ukraine. About 61% of the total population is connected to sewerage systems – 80% in urban areas and 21% in rural areas. Only 60% of the total population is connected to municipal wastewater plants but the majority of the rural population discharge their waste without any treatment. Although there are wastewater treatment plants in several locations, particularly in heavily populated cities, they are not working properly as a result of the lack of maintenance. Irrigation is important in many areas in the southern part of the country, where rainfall is not sufficient for guaranteed and reliable crop production. Irrigation is also important for the cultivation of high value cash crops, which would increase the competitiveness of Ukraine's agricultural sector. About 2.5-2.6 million ha were developed for irrigation during the times of the Soviet Union. As in most former Soviet Union countries, the developments for large-scale irrigation were often mechanized. The sector is at a crossroads. Irrigation systems are deteriorating and areas are going out of production. Operational systems are becoming more and

193

more inefficient with regard to water use. Water use for irrigation purposes has declined considerably over the 1990s: from 6.3 BCM in 1991 to 2.4 BCM in 1997. Losses in irrigation systems still remain high – about 60%. About 3.3 million ha, or 10% of the arable land, is drained. Drainage is widespread especially throughout the northern part of the country – the Polessye Region. Until the 1960s, this was a swamp ecosystem. About 1.4 million ha was converted into agricultural land through extensive drainage As a result; the marshes and their biodiversity disappeared. The hydropower potential in Ukraine was reassessed in the early 1990s. The present theoretically hydropower potential is 45,000 GWh/year, the technical feasible potential is 22,000-25,000 GWh/year and the economically feasible is 15,000-18,000 GWh/year. So far, about 50% of the technically feasible potential has been developed. The Government is planning to construct new hydropower plants (with flood protection) on the Tisza and the Upper Dniester River. Each of Ukraine's rivers presents a distinct history of flooding and flood protection. The river best controlled against flooding is the Dnieper. Following a catastrophic flood that struck Kiev and other cities on the Dnieper's banks in the spring of 1931, a series of reservoirs were built on the Dnieper to regulate flow at the level of the 1931 flood, now estimated to have been at a 300-year recurrence level. The Desna is not so regulated as the Dnieper, and populated areas in its floodplain are vulnerable to flooding. Like the Dnieper, it tends to flood in spring. It flooded in 1931 (it is one of the tributaries of the Dnieper) and, more recently in the spring of 1970. The latter flood inundated 45 settlements, partly inundated 100 more, and islanded others. Almost 5000 families were evacuated; thousands of houses and apartments were completely or partially submerged, 95 bridges wer destroyed, and 25,000 ha of sown area was flooded. Other losses were sustained as well. Settlements along the Desna are still vulnerable. The Pripyat floodplain has historically been characterized by wetlands that are important to biodiversity. The Pripyat is one of the tributaries of the Dnieper, and also participated in the spring flood of 1931. The Pripyat is not regulated at all. From the 1970s onward, the Pripyat wetlands shrank as drainage systems were constructed on the right bank of the river and settlements planted there. In the last decade, however, the new drainage systems have been operated only erratically, because of economic problems, and the groundwater level has risen. It was partly as a consequence of this that populated agricultural areas on the right bank of the Pripyat were severely flooded in July 1998. The Government of Ukraine has recognized the Pripyat flood plains as a wetland of international importance as breeding habitat for waterfowl (Decision N935, 23 November 1995). The Ukraine Biodiversity Strategy remarks on the need for special conservation attention to water bodies and remnants of bogs and mires and proposes to increase the area of protected wetlands, mire and aquatic ecosystems. In 2000, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Romania, and Moldova signed a Declaration on Cooperation to protect key wetlands and flood plain forest along the Danube as part of the Lower Danube Green Corridor initiative supported by WWF.

194

Unlike the above-mentioned rivers, which usually flood only in the spring, the Dniester is prone to rain floods from April to November. It is one of the most flood-prone districts of Ukraine. Its floods form on its right bank, in the foothill and mountain districts of the Carpathians. Populated areas on the banks of the Dniester have been flooded in 1927, 1941, 1955 and 1969, and remain vulnerable, though the Dniester reservoir below Zaleshchiky provides some protection. But Ukraine's most severe flooding in recent years has been in Transcarpathia, in the basin of the Tisza River, a region where the overwhelming majority live below the poverty line. Although the Tisza has flooded several times in this century, doing great damage in December 1947, December 1957, June 1969 and May 1970, the Tisza region was unprepared for the catastrophic flooding of the 1990s, the worst in 50 years. In November 1998, the Tisza and its tributaries flooded, killing 17 people, evacuating more than 24,000, destroying almost 2000 houses and damaging many more, and submerging transport links. The flood of the Tisza affected Ukraine's neighboring countries, as well, as has been noted in those country reports. Damage done is on the order of USD100 million. The 1998 floods were exceeded when the Tisza flooded Transcarpathia again in March 2001. The level of flooding was higher in 2001, although losses were reduced as a result of measures taken in the interim (cleaning of river bed among others). Nevertheless, the 2001 floods killed nine people, hospitalized almost 900, submerged 100,000 acres of agricultural land, partially damaged more than 30,000 houses and other buildings, destroyed 1732 buildings altogether, required evacuation of about 14,000 people and resettlement of more than 5000, contaminated wells, cut transport links, and left 13 settlements without electricity (according to the IFRC and OCHA). As in 1998, this flood also affected Hungary and Romania very severely. In recent years floods have become more frequent due to the increased precipitation and sedimentation loads in rivers as a result of uncontrolled activities in the upper catchments. Breaching of protective embankments is a common phenomenon, which has resulted in large economic damages and loss of lives. The deterioration of water quality, together with the modification of hydrological regimes (as a result of drainage), has caused modifications of important aquatic habitants, including the destruction of many spawning areas, which resulted in reduced fish population. In the early 1990s, the policy adopted by the Government to afforest riverbanks was meant to restore the ecosystems. Unfortunately, progress on that front was very slow. Ecological modifications of water bodies as well as the degradation of water quality have contributed to the decrease in fish resources.

Water Legislation and Policies The basic pieces of legislation for water resources are the 1991 Law on Environmental Protection and the 1995 Water Code (adopted in 1996). The latter provides the basic framework for the water legislation. It specifies that groundwater and surface water belong to the people and they can be allocated for use, and its conceptual basis is an ecological approach to water quality management.

195

The Water Code regulates the management, conservation and use of the resource. According to the Code, abstraction and discharge of/into surface water and groundwater requires a permit (short term up to 3 years, and long term from 3 to 25 years). The permit determines the volume of raw water that can be taken and used as well as the amount of pollutants than can be discharged back to the system. It also defines the rate of the water abstraction tax (differentiated according to the source – groundwater, surface and basin – and use) and pollution charge (calculated on the basis of pollution limits) that the water user has to pay. When the water user operates above the limits set in the license, the user will have to pay five times more. Local authorities issue the permit for waters of local significance, while for waters of national or state significance, the Ministry of Environment Protection and Nuclear Safety issues the permit. Revenues are distributed as follows: those collected by local municipalities go to local budget, those collected by the Ministry 80% go to the State budget and 20% to local budgets. Current water resource tax rates are prescribed on the Basic Rates for Economic Use of Freshwater Resources. In 1997, the surface water tax ranged between US cents 0.53-4.8 per cubic meter for surface water and between US cents 1.6-4.8 per cubic meter for groundwater. Hydropower plants paid US cents 0.037 per cubic meter. Although economic instruments are in place for the good management of the resource, Ukraine does not have the real enforcement and implementation mechanisms. Since the strategic target for Ukraine is integration in the European Union, currently the country is in the process of harmonizing its environmental legislation with the EU environmental directives. Although in most of its features, the Water Code corresponds to the EU Water Framework Directive, at present, the Code is being reviewed by the Parliament to fully harmonize it with the EU Water Framework Directive and other environmental directives. The country is also considering adopting a basin management approach – the motive being that revenues from the water sector should be used to finance the investments at the concerned basin. The basin management approach is currently being tested in the Dnieper basin. Water Management Institutions Water resources management functions are performed by a number of institutions:

• The Ministry of Environmental Protection and Nuclear Safety is responsible for managing water resources protection, developing new regulations, issuing permits for special water use, coordinating and conducting monitoring activities, and enforcing the various water regulations.

• The Ministry of Health Protection responsible for monitoring of drinking water and

recreational sites.

• The Committee on Water Resources, subordinated to the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Nuclear Safety, is responsible for assessing the permissibility of water abstractions in the framework of the permitting system for special water use.

196

• The Committee of Geology, also subordinated to the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Nuclear Safety, is responsible for protecting and monitoring groundwater sources.

• The Committee for Hydrometeorology is responsible for operating a very extensive water

quality-monitoring network. The institutional framework for water resources management and control lacks clear delineation of responsibilities between various agencies and entities, often there are contradictions, gaps and overlapping of functions. Restructuring of responsibilities is being contemplated for some time now. In the area of monitoring, there is no standardized methodology for monitoring of water resources. Each entity uses its own software and databases. Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine have been working for several years on a UNDP/GEF Dnieper Basin Environmental Program Project, and have been discussing their desire to create a legal basis for a river basin management regime on the Dnieper River. The countries have agreed to develop a Convention for the rational use of natural resources and support for the development of international cooperation for the protection and ecological regeneration of the Dnieper basin. Recommendations

• Improve management of the hydrological regimes of rivers. • Improve management of river basins – e.g., Dniester and Dnieper, where conflicts among

users seem to be increasing. • Improve the current institutional framework, addressing legal, regulatory and

administrative aspects. • Improve coastal and wetland management, which requires attention within the broad

framework of water resources management. References Ministry for Environmental Protection and Nuclear Safety of Ukraine. 1998. State of the Environment in Ukraine. Available at: http://www.grida.no/enrin/htmls/ukraina/soe98/index.htm United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. 1999. Environmental Performance Review of Ukraine. UNECE. Geneva, Switzerland Ukraine National Committee of ICID (UKCID). Country Note on Ukraine. Ukrainian Academy of Agricultural Sciences. Kiev, Ukraine. Report available at: http://www.http://www.icid.org/index_e.html WHO/UNICEF. 2001. Access to Improved Sanitation - Ukraine. WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation. Geneva, Switzerland. Report available at: http://childinfo.org/eddb/sani/ceecis/ukraine_sanitation1.pdf.

197

World Bank. 2003. Flood Profile for Ukraine. Prepared by Lucy Hancock on the basis of a report by A. Shereshevsky for the World Bank in 2000. Washington, DC, USA

198




1993 2000 Goal for 2020Access to sewage 54% 61% 81% Urban 74% 80% 90% Rural 12% 21% 61%Note: Goal refers to MDGs.










1990 2000 2015 2020



UKRAINE: WATER FACT SHEET


-

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

2000 MDG2015P

op

ula

tio

n (i

n m

illio

n) Urban

Rural

-

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

1990 2000 2010 2020

Po

pu

lati

on

(in

mill

ion

)

Urban PopRural Pop

0.0

3.0

6.0

9.0

12.0

15.0

1991 1994 1997 1998


Agriculture

Industrial

Domestic

Access to Sewage

-

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

2000 MGD2020

Po

pu

lati

on

(in

mill

ion

) Urban

Rural

199

WATER QUALITY AND POLLUTION 1991 1997

Municipal wastewater discharge (BCM) 4.0 3.6

Treated according to standards 43% 38%

1991 1994 1997 1998Annual emissions of BOD per day (M Tons) 679 586 511 519Annual emissions of BOD per capita (kg) 4.8 4.1 3.7 3.8


DAMS AND HYDROPOWER 2000Reservoir capacity (BCM) 57.80 Irrigation dams (BCM) Hydropower dams (BCM)Reservoir capacity in cubic meters per capita 1,166 (in 2000)

Gross theoretical hydropower potential (GWh/y) 45,000 Technically feasible (GWh/y) 22,000-25000 Economically feasible (GWh/y) 15,000-18000Currrent production from hydropower (GWh/y) 11,385 (in 2000)





1997Water tax (US cent/m3)

Surface water 0.53-4.8 Within limits Groundwater 1.6-4.8 Within limits Surface water or groundwater X5 Above limitsPollution charges (US cent/m3) Domestic 10.7 Kyev within limits Industry 21.4 Kyev within limits Domestic or industry X5 Above limitsWater supply (US cent/m3) Domestic (average) 11.2 Budgetary organizations (average) 23.0


0400,000800,000

1,200,0001,600,0002,000,0002,400,0002,800,000

1992 1994 1996 1998 2000


0306090

120150180210240270300

1992 1994 1996 1998

Other

Hydropower


020,00040,00060,00080,000

100,000120,000140,000160,000180,000

1992 1994 1996 1998 2000


0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

200

UZBEKISTAN

Water Resources Base The main surface flows in Uzbekistan are the Amu Darya and Syr Darya, the Kashkadarya, Zeravshan, and the tributaries of the great rivers. The total natural mean annual flow of these rivers in the last sixty years has been about 123 BCM/year, of which 81.5 BCM in the Amu Darya basin and 41.6 BCM/year in the Syr Darya basin. At present, Uzbekistan uses about 42 BCM of the flow of the transboundary rivers. Surface flow generated within Uzbekistan amounts to 11.5 BCM. The flow of the rivers is characterized by considerable annual and long-term irregularity: in low water years (water levels at less than 90% probability), the flow is less by 23 BCM than in mean water years. Renewable groundwater resources (not overlapping with surface water) are about 10 BCM annually; however, groundwater is saline in some areas and becoming more so as a consequence of intense irrigation. Water Use and Management by Sector Irrigation. Irrigated agriculture is the backbone of the Uzbek economy, accounting for 35% of GDP, 60% of foreign exchange receipts, and 45% of employment. Annual water withdrawals to supply it are about 55 BCM annually. The most important crop is cotton which alone accounts for about 50% of export earnings. Uzbekistan's irrigated areas are located in the valleys and plateaus of the Amu Darya and Syr Darya and cover about 4 million ha. Water and sanitation. The water and sanitation services in Uzbekistan are rapidly deteriorating and the reliability and safety of drinking water are continuously decreasing in a downward spiral. The water supply and sanitation sector in Uzbekistan faces several constraints, namely, inefficient operations, poor service levels, poor state of repair of facilities, and unviable financial shortfalls. The water and wastewater utilities in Uzbekistan are facing reduced government transfers due to fiscal constraints and decentralization policies aimed at increasing self-reliance of local utilities, very low tariffs authorized by the local Governments (the household water tariff in Samarkand in 1999 was about USD0.014/m3 and in Bukhara USD0.005/m3), high cross-subsidies (in Bukhara and Samarkand, the level of tariffs for non-domestic consumers is about 8-10 times higher than for domestic consumers), and have poor collections. Many water supply enterprises in Uzbekistan are located in basins with limited water resources. Although urban water supply is not the largest user of water resources, the competition with other sectors, mainly agriculture becomes particularly important during drought periods. The problem of water resources is compounded by poor management of regional water systems, poor allocation of water, pollution caused by agriculture and industry in some areas, and wastage in the drinking water systems, both from leakage and lack of water conservation practices. Additionally, operational costs of some of the utilities are increased by their dependence on water resources located at long distances from the population they serve and transported through channels or large mains over hundreds of kilometers.

201

Flooding Central Asia's great rivers are controlled today by irrigation infrastructure. As a result, Uzbekistan's principal flood risk today is from mudslides and mountain lake outbreaks. Mudslides usually originate in rain showers, as in the case of the 1995 mudslide in Samarkand oblast that destroyed everything in a 100-m swath along the Sypki River as it passed through several villages, killing 12 people and damaging housing, agriculture and transportation links. Mudslides in Tashkent oblast in 1996 also damaged housing, agriculture and roadways in a swath 80 to 200m wide along the river channel of Aksagata River. In Tashkent oblast in 1997, a mudslide spilled over the edge of Novoangren hydropower station, although it did not damage the dam. In Surkhandarja in 1996, a mudslide did about 16 million sum of damage. Not all mudslides originate in rain showers, however. Very large floods/mudslides can originate in the outbreak of mountain lakes that store large volumes of water behind unstable natural barriers. The mudslide/flood on the Shakhimardan River in July 1998 exemplified the process. This flood began when sudden warm weather melted snow and glaciers in the Kyrgyz Republic. Moraine lakes filled, and one broke out, spilling to a lower one so that it too broke out, then another. The flood wave entrained mud from the river channel and banks, became a mudslide, and swelled further with snowmelt flooding in from the Shakhimardan's tributaries. Flowing from the Kyrgyz Republic to Uzbekistan, the mudslies killed 100 Uzbeks and did other damage estimated at 700 million sum, about 0.06% of 1998 GDP. Due to lack of communications and direct links between the Ministries of Emergency Situations in the Kyrgyz Republic and Uzbekistan (which have since then been established), Uzbekistan did not know of the oncoming flood, in part accounting for the magnitude of losses. Shakhimardan was not an isolated transboundary case. Following the Shakhimardan flood, an aerial survey of lakes threatening Uzbekistan found hundreds, of which 238 were found in the Kyrgyz Republic, 11 in Tajikistan, and 22 in Uzbekistan itself. Among these, Ikhnach Lake in the basin of the Pskem, which retains 5.8 MCM, is seen as a risk not only because it could flood the Pskem valley but because its strike wave would endanger Charvak dam. Mountain lakes may break out when a mudslide strikes the natural dam, or when its ice component melts, or its silt components erode, or when an earthquake jars it loose, or (the most frequent reason) when precipitation or snowmelt raises the water level in the lake and increases pressure on the barrier. Moreover, an outbreak of even a relatively small lake high up in the watershed can cause a cascade of failures of natural dams along the water channel, as happened on the Shakhimardan. In brief, there is a large volume of water, silt and loose rock stored at great height in the mountains around the Ferghana Valley, seeking a way down, and the landscape retaining it is unstable and earthquake-prone. Distinct from the purely mechanical damage mudslides can do is the issue of the toxic wastes they will sweep up if they develop in certain areas. In May 2002, a landslide slid across the path of the Maili-Suu River in the Kyrgyz Republic. Had the river been entirely barricaded, the overspilling water would have inundated tailings dumps located alongside the river, in one case only a few meters from the river channel. The resulting radioactive mudslide would have traveled to the Ferghana Valley and on to the Aral Sea. There are other tailings dumps in the

202

mountains. Unless reinforced, the dams retaining these dumps are at risk. Mudslide events in mining areas of the Kyrgyz Republic could sweep toxic waste to Uzbekistan's Ferghana Valley. Water Legislation and Policies The basic framework for addressing the deterioration of the water resources is provided by Presidential Decrees, such as the resolutions on the emergency type rehabilitation, and improvement of the major I&D infrastructure, water conservation, land reclamation, and on the institutional framework. Early in 1999, the President appointed a former Deputy Prime Minister as a full- time chairman of a new state water management inspection agency (GosVodHozNadzor), which has the authority to prepare proposals and Government resolutions for the rehabilitation and improvement of main I&D infrastructure. A first assessment by this agency resulted in a long- list of major and strategic I&D infrastructure which needs rehabilitation and improvement, such as major canals, storage reservoirs and dams, pumping stations, control and diversion structures. As a result, three Government resolutions were issued to provide the framework for infrastructure rehabilitation. Transboundary Issues The transboundary rivers' other riparians are Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and the Kyrgyz Republic. A mutual agreement among Uzbekistan and all other riparians except Afghanistan assigns shares of the two rivers to each (and a share of the Amu Darya to Afghanistan, based on use during certain years taken as standard), and a share as well for stabilization of the environment around the desiccating Aral Sea. These water-sharing agreements, first struck among the Aral Sea basin riparians when five of them belonged to the Soviet Union, remain vital to each of the basin economies. However, as the now-independent countries identify their distinct national interests, the limits of those agreements become apparent. In particular, the poorer upstream countries would like to re-arrange water releases to generate hydropower to warm their cities in the winter. To do this without denying Uzbekistan the water it needs for irrigation will require some changes to infrastructure. A second broad issue is the future of Afghanistan within the water sharing agreements. Although it does not appear that Afghanistan's water withdrawals will rise very substantially in the short run, nevertheless, Afghanistan's development needs must be considered, and it may be wise to engage Afghanistan in the Aral Sea basin's ongoing institutions. Key Issue and Challenges The main issues in the water resources sector are of an international nature and include: (i) environmental degradation, with the increase in basin-wide soil and river salinization being the gravest problem; (ii) the gradual drying up of the Aral Sea with huge local adverse socio-economic and environmental effects; (iii) water management in the basin with its in-built potential threat to peace in the region (water sharing agreements, hydropower- irrigation tradeoffs; roles, functions, tasks and funding of the various management organizations); and (iv) deterioration of regional water infrastructure caused by lack of funding for rehabilitation and operation and maintenance.

203

References Agaltseva, Natalya; and Sergey Myagkov. 2000. Flood Assessment - Final Report. Report for the World Bank. Central Asian Research Hydrometeorological Institute (SANIGMI). National Working Group of Uzbekistan. 2001. National Water Demands and Options for Demand Management. Volume II (draft). Tashkent, Uzbekistan. WHO/UNICEF. 2001. Access to Improved Sanitation - Uzbekistan. WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation. Geneva, Switzerland. Report available at: http://childinfo.org/eddb/sani/ceecis/uzbekistan_sanitation1.pdf. World Bank. 1995. Cotton Sub-Sector Improvement Project. Staff Appraisal Report. Washington, DC, USA. World Bank. 1997. Water Supply and Sanitation and Health Project. Project Appraisal Document. Washington, DC, USA. World Bank. 2002. Karshi Pumping Cascade Rehabilitation – Phase I. Draft Project Appraisal Document. Washington, DC, USA. World Bank. 2002. Samarkand and Bukhara Water Supply. Project Appraisal Document. Washington, DC, USA. World Bank. 2002. Water Resource Development in Northern Afghanistan and its Implications for Amu Darya Basin (draft). Washington, DC, USA. World Bank. 2003. Uzbekistan - Drainage, Irrigation and Wetlands Improvement. Project Concept Document. Washington, DC, USA.

204





1999Share of poverty that is in rural areas n.a.


1990 1995 1997 1999Labor force (millions of people) 8.1 9.2 9.8 10.3 Share in agriculture 35% n.a. n.a. n.a. Share in industry 25% n.a. n.a. n.a.


1990 1995 1998 2000Infant mortality rate (per 1,000 live births) 34.6 26.0 .. 21.5





1990 2000 2015 2020



UZBEKISTAN: WATER FACT SHEET


-

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

2000 MDG2015

Pop

ulat

ion

(in m

illio

n)

Urban

Rural

-

4.0

8.0

12.0

16.0

20.0

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Po

pu

lati

on

(in

mill

ion

)

Urban PopRural Pop

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

1990 1994 1996 1998



Access to Sewage

-

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

2000 MGD2020

Po

pu

lati

on

(in

mill

ion

) Urban

Rural

205

WATER QUALITY AND POLLUTION x

Wastewater discharge requiring treatment (BCM) x

Treated (BCM) x

1991 1994 1997 1998Annual emissions of BOD per day (M Tons) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.Annual emissions of BOD per capita (kg) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.








2001Surface water extraction tax (US cent/m

3)

Industrial users 96.0Power stations 27.5

Municipal services 0.5Agricultural users 4.6

Groundwater extraction tax (US cent/m3)

Industrial users 96.0Power stations 123.4

Municipal services 68.5Agricultural users 5.9

Wastewater discharge (US/ton)Nitrite nitrogen 5450.3Nitrate Nitrogen 10.9


0500,000

1,000,0001,500,0002,000,0002,500,0003,000,0003,500,0004,000,0004,500,000

1992 1994 1996 1998 2000


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1992 1994 1996 1998

Other

Hydropower


05,000

10,00015,00020,00025,00030,000

1992 1994 1996 1998 2000


0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000

PPAARRTT 22

SSEELLEECCTTEEDD RREEGGIIOONNAALL SSEEAASS

AANNDD IINNTTEERRNNAATTIIOONNAALL RRIIVVEERR BBAASSIINNSS

207

ARAL SEA BASIN18 The Aral Sea, located in the Turan plain of Central Asia and once the fourth-largest inland sea in the world, has undergone many changes. Two major transboundary rivers, the Amu Darya and the Syr Darya, feed the Aral Sea. Their combined basins, which largely define the Aral Sea basin, cover a total area of 1.9 million km2 and extend over six countries: Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Tajikistan and the Kyrgyz Republic. About 35 million people, two thirds of the combined population of these countries, live in the Aral Sea basin. Before 1960, about 60 BCM of water reached the sea annually. Today, the inflow of water has declined to 5-20 BCM annually and as a result, the level of water in the Aral Sea has dropped by almost 20 m and its area shrunk by two-thirds, from 67,000 km2 in 1960 to 20,000 km2 at present. The table below provides some key features of the Aral Sea basin.

Surface Renewable Surface Water Resources

Country km² % basin area

% country area

Amu Darya (BCM)

Syr Darya (BCM)

Aral Sea Basin (BCM)

%

Kazakhstan 540,000 28 20 - 4.50 3.9 Turkmenistan 466,600 24 96 0.98 - 0.98 0.8 Uzbekistan 447,400 23 100 4.70 4.84 9.54 8.3 Afghanistan 234,800 12 36 6.18 - 6.18 5.3 Tajikistan 141,670 7 99 62.90 0.40 63.30 54.8 Kyrgyz Republic

117500 6 59 1.93 27.25 29.18 25.2

Total 1,947,970 100 76.69 36.99 113.68 98.3 Source: FAO, Aquastat Database. Issues Irrigation has been practiced for more than 5,000 years, but irrigated land almost doubled between 1950 and 1980, from 4.7 million ha in 1950 to 7.9 million ha in 1980. This expansion was accompanied by an extensive diversion of water for irrigation from the Syr Darya and the Amu Darya, and a reduction of about 80% of the inflow into the Aral Sea. The lowering of the water level and the shrinking of the Sea's surface have caused the destruction of globally significant wetland ecosystems, the declining of fishery production, high saline shallow groundwater, and contamination of cultivated lands. Poor irrigation and drainage managementm including excessive irrigation, have led to salinization and water logging on existing irrigated areas. Nevertheless, analysis to-date indicates that irrigation remains economically viable under market-based regime in the great majority of schemes, provided management and productivity are improved. Increase in fossil fuel energy prices for upstream riparians has led to use of hydropower for energy production in winter especially in the Kyrgyz Republic, reducing downstream flows for irrigation in the summer specially in Kazakhstan.

18 References consulted: FAO Aquastat: http://www.fao.org/landandwater/; GEF Aral Sea Website:

http://www.aral.uz/.

208

Institutional Arrangement The International Fund for the Aral Sea (IFAS) was created to coordinate efforts on regional initiatives related to the Aral Sea. IFAS has political decision-making power through its Board and executive functions through its Executive Committee. There are two permanent commissions under IFAS: the Interstate Commission on Water Coordination (ICWC), a joint commission of the ministers of water resources in the region; and the Interstate Commission on Sustainable Development (ICSD). The ICWC’s goal is to develop and implement water policy management in the Aral Sea basin, and includes a secretariat, a scientific international center and two basin organizations (the BVO Amu Darya and BVO Syr-Darya), presently heavily dominated by representatives from the irrigation sector. These basin organizations are not charged with river basin management tasks, but with the operation of structures in their respective main river channels only. The ICSD is responsible for coordinating all regional environmental activities in the Central Asia region, and through its Scientific Information Center, the ICSD provides information to environmental ministries. At present, Afghanistan is not a member of the ICWC. In order to consider Afghanistan's water needs from the Amu Darya River, it has been suggested that Afghanistan be engaged in the Aral Sea basin's ongoing institutions. Bank Involvement The Bank has been working on regional issues in the Aral Sea basin since 1994. The Bank helped put together the Aral Sea Basin Program, which financed a series of investments initially focusing on addressing the environmental disaster of the Aral Sea itself (water and sanitation for people living around the Sea, and wetland restoration). The Bank is helping countries to balance the needs of the lower riparian countries for water in the summer for irrigation, with the needs of the upper riparians where the water originated, for hydropower generation in the winter while maintaining an adequate water flow in the Aral Sea to prevent further environmental degradation. Improved irrigation and drainage management practices within individual countries can reduce water consumption by 30%, and this now needs to be a major focus. The Bank is also supporting analytical work on energy- irrigation water trade-offs, on the social, environmental and economic returns to irrigation, and on water resource management.

209

BALTIC SEA BASIN19

The Baltic Sea is a semi-enclosed water body, connected to the North Sea by narrow and shallow straits around Denmark and Sweden. The exchange of water with the open sea is limited, and it takes about 25-30 years for all the water in the Baltic Sea to be replaced. About 200 large rivers discharge freshwater into the Baltic Sea, making it the biggest brackish sea in the world. A total of 14 countries lie within the catchment area of the Baltic Sea. The nine countries that border the Baltic Sea are Estonia, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, the Russian Federation and Sweden. As well, Belarus, the Czech Republic, Norway, the Slovak Republic and Ukraine are in its catchment area though not on its border. The national shares of the Baltic Sea catchment are shown in the table below.

National Shares of Baltic Sea Catchment

Country Area in Catchment

(in ’000 ha) Share of Catchment

(%) Sweden 40,840 23.9 The Russian Federation 34,270 20.0 Poland 33,260 19.4 Finland 29,550 17.3 Belarus 9,650 5.6 Lithuania 6,010 3.5 Latvia 5,900 3.4 Estonia 4,200 2.5 Denmark 3,111 1.8 Germany 2,339 1.4 Ukraine 1,100 0.6 Czech Republic 650 0.4 Slovak Republic 200 0.1

Issues Fishing and tourism around the Baltic Sea are threatened by overfishing, eutrophication, industrial pollutants, untreated sewage and invasive species. Eutrophication is stimulated by the heavy load of runoff from agriculture in the riparians of the Sea's tributary rivers, especially from the western countries. Destruction of wetlands in the western part of the catchment (done to meet the needs of expanding agriculture and food production) has had a long-term deleterious effect on nutrient balances. Industrial/municipal contaminants include a significant load of pollution from untreated human waste, toxic materials and metal, the latter legacies of unrestricted and environmentally unregulated industry, especially from the eastern countries. A number of transboundary rivers flow into the Baltic, inc luding among others the Oder, Vistula, Venta, Neman, Daugava and Narva Rivers. The transboundary rivers raise a few issues additional to the above – there is a question of whether river flooding in Poland is exacerbated by

19 For additional information, consult: the International Baltic Sea Fishery Commission

(http://www.ibsfc.org/); HELCOM (www.helcom.fi); ICES (http://www.ices.dk/); and http://www.iwlearn.net/event/presentations/iwc2002/28sept/track2/ikiskis_jthulin_balticsea.ppt

210

logging in the Sudeten Mountains, for example. But few of the Baltic tributaries' basins are transboundary. There are a few exceptions: the Daugava basin, largely shared by Belarus and Latvia; the Neman, largely shared by Belarus and Lithuania; and the Narva, shared by Russia and Estonia. Transboundary cooperation along these rivers is valuable for flood control: for example, in the Neman basin, Belarus' reservoir near Minsk makes a significant contribution to flood control in Lithuania. Institutional Arrangements The Internationa l Baltic Sea Fishery Commission (IBSFC) was established for implementation of the Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources in the Baltic Sea and the Belts (the Gdansk Convention), which was signed on September 13, 1973. It focuses on protecting the Sea's fisheries, in part by prohibiting damaging methods of fishing. Today, the contracting parties are Estonia, the European Community, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and the Russian Federation. The Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission (HELCOM) is the secretariat of the parties to the Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment, or Helsinki Convention, which was signed on March 22, 1974. The parties to this convention committed themselves to protection of the marine environment of the Baltic, including mitigation of land-based pollution and to combating marine pollution from oil. Taking into account political changes and changes in international environmental and maritime law, a new convention was signed in 1992 by all the states bordering the Baltic Sea and the European Community. A Strategic Action Plan for protection of the Baltic Sea, called the Joint Comprehensive Environmental Action Program for the Baltic Sea (JCP) has been prepared by HELCOM. The Program's measures include: (i) policy, legal and regulatory measures; (ii) institutional strengthening; (iii) investments in of point source and non-point source control; (iv) management of coastal lagoons and wetlands, recognized as natural pollution traps and as providing variable levels of treatment of biodegradable waste, as well as habitat for diverse flora and fauna; (v) applied research; (vi) public awareness and environmental education. Bank Involvement ECA's strategy is to support the Russian Federation, Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania to reduce pollution and improve coastal ecosystems. In the early and mid 1990s, the Bank financed a program of cooperation together with the Scandinavian countries and individual country investments in wastewater treatment, solid waste and wetland management. The ongoing Poland Rural Environmental Protection Project is supporting the reduction of agricultural run-off by providing support to farmers for adoption of best agriculture management practices. A recently approved GEF project, the Baltic Sea Regional Project, will facilitate the restoration of a sustainable ecosystem, improve coastal zone management and reduce agricultural non-point source pollution through the introduction of ecosystem-based approaches for land, coastal and open sea environmental management. The project may have some short-term environmental impacts from construction of farm-improvement features, stream restoration, and wetland restoration.

211

BLACK SEA AND DANUBE BASINS20 The Black Sea, located between Europe and Asia, is one of the most remarkable seas in the world. The Black Sea covers a total area of 423,000 km2, and its coast is shared by Bulgaria, Georgia, Romania, the Russian Federation, Turkey and Ukraine. The Sea's basin basin covers an area of about 2.0 million km2, equivalent to one-third of Europe's area. The Danube River is the most important of the Sea's tributaries in terms of runoff and catchment area; however, the Sea has other important tributaries as well. Features of the main river basins covering the Black Sea are provided below.

Basin Catchment Area ( km2 )

Length (km)

Total Runoff (BCM/year)

Countries Embraced in the Basin

Danube 817,000 2,860 208.0 17 countries – see table below Dnieper 505,810 2,285 51.2 Moldova and Ukraine Dniester 71,990 1,328 10.2 Belarus, Ukraine and the Russian Federation

Southern Bug 68,000 857 3.0 Ukraine Coruh/Chorokhi 22,000 500 8.7 Turkey and Georgia

Rioni 13,300 228 12.8 Georgia Inguri 4,060 221 4.6 Georgia Kodori 2,030 84 4.1 Georgia

Yesil Irmak 36,00 416 4.9 Turkey Kizil Irmak 78,600 1,151 5.0 Turkey

Sakarya 56,500 790 6.4 Turkey Don (a) 425,600 1,930 28.0 Ukraine and the Russian Federation

Note: (a) The Don drains into the Sea of Azov, which is linked to the Black Sea through the Kerch Strait Seventeen countries are situated within the Danube basin. For some countries, like Austria, Slovak Republic, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Montenegro, and Romania, more than half of their area is situated within the Danube basin. In other countries, like Germany, the Czech Republic and Ukraine, the Danube basin forms only a very small part (less than 30%) of their territory.

20 References consulted: The Black Sea Commission, http://www.blacksea-environment.org/, International

Commission for the Protection of the Danube River, http://www.icpdr.org/; Black Sea and Danube Basin Partnership; http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/ECA/; FAO Aquastat: http://www.fao.org/landandwater/.

212

Catchment Area ( km2) 1997 Population (million)

Danube Countries Total In Basin % in Basin Total In Basin % in Basin

Federal Rep of Germany 356.97 56.24 16% 81.70 9.10 11% Austria 83.90 80.70 96 8.10 7.65 94

Czech Republic 78.87 21.12 27 10.32 2.73 26 Slovak Republic 49.04 47.06 96 5.37 5.20 97

Hungary 93.00 93.00 100 10.30 10.30 100 Slovenia 20.25 16.84 83 1.90 1.74 92 Croatia 56.61 34.40 61 4.78 3.20 67

Bosnia and Herzegovina 51.13 38.72 76 3.20 2.50 78 Serbia and Montenegro 102.17 88.92 87 10.39 9.10 88

Bulgaria 110.99 46.90 42 8.40 4.40 52 Romania 238.39 232.10 97 22.60 21.80 96 Moldova 33.70 12.03 36 4.33 1.10 25 Ukraine 603.70 32.35 5 50.90 3.10 6

Several rivers drain into the Danube River. The most important ones are listed in the table below.

Tributary Danube Sector Danube (km)

Water Flow (m3/sec)

Isar upper 2,281.7 110 Inn upper 2,225.2 760 Enns upper 2,111.8 200 March upper 1,880.3 105 Drin middle 1,382.5 622 Tisza middle 1,214.5 995 Sava middle 1,170.0 1,722 Velika Morava middle 1,104.5 244 Olt lower 604.0 163 Siret lower 155.1 225 Prut lower 134.1 76

Source: Evaluation of the Danube Waterway as a Key European Transport Resource. Issues

During the past decades, nitrogen and phosphorus loads have reduced the water quality of the Black Sea and caused significant damage to this unique ecosystem, including decline in its fishery. Poor water quality and deficient coastal zone management have also reduced tourism revenues. Nutrient loads come from all over the Black Sea basin, in particular through the Danube River. Losses and deterioration of wetlands in the Black Sea and the Danube have also contributed to the poor water quality. The Danube River basin is the second- largest river basin in Europe, exceeded in size only by the basin of the Volga. Key priorities for the Black Sea/Danube basins include: reduction of nutrient effluent through greater use of environmentally friendly farming methods and municipal wastewater treatment

213

improvement, wetlands conservation and/or restoration, improved flood management, reduction of accidental pollution, and hazardous waste management. Institutional Arrangements Cooperation on issues that affect the Danube go beyond the issue of navigation that prompted the Vienna Convention (1948). In 1994 the Danube River Protection Convention was signed by most riparian countries, committing the countries to cooperate for the protection and sustainable use of the Danube River. This treaty charged the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR) with implementing the Danube Convention. The ICPDR' s secretariat is in Vienna. The GEF works with the ICPDR toward the goal of increasing transboundary cooperation in the Danube basin and reducing nutrient effluent to the Danube River. The Black Sea Commission is charged with implementing the Convention for the Protection of the Black Sea against Pollution, an agreement among the six countries bordering on the Black Sea. This Convention was signed in Bucharest in April 1992 and ratified by the legislative assemblies of its signatories, Bulgaria, Georgia, Romania, the Russian Federation, Turkey and Ukraine. Known as the Bucharest Convention, the document includes a basic framework of agreement and protocols addressing control of land-based sources of pollution, dumping of waste and joint action in case of accidents (such as oil spills). The Black Sea Commission has a permanent secretariat in Istanbul (the Istanbul Commission). The GEF also works with the Black Sea Commission, in this case toward rehabilitation of the Black Sea ecosystem through control of eutrophication and hazardous substances, among other measures. Bank Involvement The Bank through the GEF Strategic Partnership on the Black Sea/Danube Basin, a partnership among the 17 countries of the basin, the Bank, UNDP and UNEP, works with both of the above Commissions in support of their goals. The Bank administers the Nutrient Reduction Investment Fund on behalf of the GEF. This grant facility is intended to leverage World Bank investment lending and attract additional resources toward nutrient reduction objectives. Additioanlly, the Bank promotes inclusion of Black Sea/Danube issues in the CAS process, promotes policies that address nutrient reduction, and uses the Bank's convening powers to engage other donors and partners in helping meet financing needs of the action plan to protect the Black Sea and Danube.

214

THE CASPIAN SEA BASIN 21 The landlocked Caspian Sea located in the Europe-Asian border, is the largest inland body of water in the world. The sea itself covers an area of 378,400 km2 and contains a total volume of 78,200 BCM of water (approximately 40% of the world’s surface water), without outlet. Its coast is shared by the Russian Federation, Azerbaijan, Iran, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. Its overall catchment area covers about 3.1 million km2, and includes not only areas in the five riparian countries, but also areas in Georgia and Armenia. The total population of the Caspian Sea watershed is roughly estimated at 70-80 million, of which about 50 million live in the Russian part of the watershed. There are about 130 rivers that drain into the Caspian Sea, with a total annual inflow of about 300 BCM. The main rivers are the Volga (which, with its 1.5 million ha watershed, contributes about 80% of the total inflow), the Ural (5%), the Terek, Sulak and Samur (totaling about 5%), the Kura (6%), and Iranian rivers (4-5%). Most of the inflowing rivers are regulated, particularly the Volga River which is strongly regulated by valley dam reservoirs. Salinity in the Caspian varies considerably, from 0.1 parts per million (ppm) at the mouth of the Volga and Ural Rivers to 10-11 ppm near the Middle Caspian. The Caspian Sea is classified as brackish, with an average salinity of about one-third of the average sea water. A key feature of the Caspian Sea is its considerable level fluctuations, which occurs naturally. During the last 150 years, a level fluctuation of about 4 m has taken place. Since 1977, the level has risen by more than 2.5 m, and continuing to rise. The coastal region of the Caspian Sea includes many shallow and saline pools, which attract a rich and variety biodiversity, with aquatic and terrestrial endemic species. In addition to biodiversity, the Caspian Sea is also famous for its native sturgeon, which accounts for approximately 90% of the production of caviar in the world. Issues Extensive damming of the Volga River has reduced wetlands and spawning grounds for key fisheries, including sturgeon. Oil development, especially offshore in Azerbaijan has led to widespread pollution, loss of ecosystems and negative health impacts. Uneven enforcement of fisheries off- take regulations leads to unsustainability of fish resources.

21 References consulted: The Caspian Environmental Programme: http://www.caspianenvironment.org/; The

Caspian Environment available at: http://www.grida.no/caspian/; Environmental Baseline Analysis of the Caspian Sea Region, https://www.denix.osd.mil/denix/ ; UNECE.

215

Bank Involvement The Bank is administering part of a GEF Caspian Sea program jointly funded with the UNDP. We are focusing on development of an urgent investment portfolio, and financing locally developed initiatives which improve regional management in one of the above areas. Cooperation between the riparian countries regarding management and exploitation of the mineral and fisheries resources of the seas has a long way to go, and the private sector (the oil industry) needs to be engaged more effectively in environmental programs.

WATER RESOURCES IN EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA · 2016-07-17 · 2003 The International Bank for...

Documents

Transcript of WATER RESOURCES IN EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA · 2016-07-17 · 2003 The International Bank for...