case study : danube case study váh sub-catchment monika supeková water research institute
DESCRIPTION
Case Study : Danube Case Study Váh Sub-catchment Monika Supeková Water Research Institute Bratislava, Slovak Republic. Introduction case study: Váh Sub-catchment. the biggest river catchment (RC) in the SR: 18 769 km 2 (38 %) 2.5 million inhabitants (46 %) - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Final Conference June 24 - 25 Maastricht, The Netherlands
1
Case Study : Danube Case Study Váh Sub-catchment
Monika SupekováWater Research Institute
Bratislava, Slovak Republic
Final Conference June 24 - 25 Maastricht, The Netherlands
2
Introduction case study: Váh Sub-catchment
• the biggest river catchment (RC) in the SR:– 18 769 km2 (38 %)– 2.5 million inhabitants (46 %)
• curiosity - 2 springs (White Váh and Black Váh)– longest river - 406 km
• diversified landscape (mountains, lowlands):– 52.2 % agricultural land– 40.7 % forests– 6.6 % artificial area– 0.5 % inland waters
• main use - hydropower production (the “Váh cascade” of water reservoirs (WR) and derivation canals - 11 WR)
• river system is recipient of highest input of pollution load (nutrients, other dangerous substances)
Final Conference June 24 - 25 Maastricht, The Netherlands
3
Introduction case study: Váh Sub-catchment
• 1 Competent Authority – Ministry of Environment of the SR– responsible for all WFD implementation issues (national, international
level)– DRBMP, ITRBMP, bilateral agreements– 1 Common RBMP, 10 RBMPs for Sub-catchments
• the Váh RC - national planning unit• water bodies:
– 633 SWBs (6 HMWB, 10 AWB, 204 OK, 255 still candidates on HMWB, 188 no data)
– 8 SWBs with changed category (8 HMWB)• main pressures of chemical pollution:
(according WFD - PSs – for CHS assessment, RSs – for ES assessment)• industry• agriculture• agglomerations
• PAHs, DEHP, NP, Hg, Cd
Final Conference June 24 - 25 Maastricht, The Netherlands
5
Specific challenges
• previous monitoring network:• old approaches / methodology• not monitored PSs / RSs
• new monitoring network:• monitoring according WFD requirements• limited sites of surveillance monitoring
• incomplete databases (e.g. WR sediments – missing data on resuspension coefficient, deposition rates,…)
• problems in many WR – minimum flow below WR, unknown sediment quantity and quality (PSs), water and sediment balance
• emission estimations • stakeholders (industry) willingness to cooperate /
participate• weak inspection and control
Final Conference June 24 - 25 Maastricht, The Netherlands
6
• Step 0: System definition• general characterization; possible stakeholders identified
• Step 1: Problem definition• monitoring data 2007 provided in accordance with WFD requirements• Risk Analyses 2005 (actualisation in 2008)
– info on industrial sources exists – data mostly from polluters and only for permitted parameters – need to strengthen instruments for mandatory monitoring / reporting on data and to strengthen inspection - control
• Step 2: Inventory of sources• national databases – NRP and IISR (E-PRTR), IPPC, CWE, and others (UWWTP,
WR)– to quantify emissions - challenge– to strengthen policy instruments– to revise permits
• Step 3: Definition of a baseline scenario• assumption of socio-economic development in line with Draft RBMP
– baseline scenario for socio-economic development uncertain – need for regular revise – economic crisis
Lessons learned from case study
Final Conference June 24 - 25 Maastricht, The Netherlands
7
Lessons learned from case study• environmental fate modelling
– PAHs, DEHP, NP– calculation of emissions into 8 WRs– required emission reduction – with aim to achieve „good CHS“ in WBs– system recovery time periods
• Step 4: Inventory of possible measures• WFD objectives should be reached – according basic measures in RBMP
– exemptions – Directive 96/61/ECconcerning IPPC – exemptions – Directive 76/464/EEC on pollution caused by certain
dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment– supplementary measures in 2nd Planning Cycle– monitoring (investigative monitoring)
• Step 5: Assessment of the effects of the measures• chemical status shall be improved - but uncertain, if the good status will be
reached up to 2015– assumption that additional measures will be needed
• Step 6: Selection of the best solutions• stakeholders have to meet standards – apply measures
– include findings into RBMP (stakeholder – water manager interlinkage)– dialog with stakeholders – consultation of the Draft RBMP is ongoing
Final Conference June 24 - 25 Maastricht, The Netherlands
8
Lessons learned from case study
Conclusions:• to strengthen Stakeholder willingness to follow rules:
• open communication; problem / WFD objectives understanding• effective policy including penalties• effective controlling instruments• better competence distribution
• although not all steps of DSS is possible to follow exactly, DSS provides a methodological approach which can be very useful for those who would like to deal with PSs
General in circumstances of the SR:• to change the way of thinking – focus on young generations