SIX BAD EXAMPLES OF WATER MANAGEMENT IN EUROPE
POLAND – A BAD EXAMPLE OF WATER MANAGEMENT
The Nieszawa Dam – problems arising from infrastructure.
The government of Poland is considering proposals to manage the numerous problems that have arisen with the operation of the ageing Wloclawek Dam on the Lower Vistula, the longest river in Poland.
©WWF/Marta Kaczynska
The most significant threats arising from the existing Wloclawek Dam include the following:
· The movement of ice along the river during the winter is blocked once it reaches the frozen storage reservoir. This increases the threat of flooding caused by ice-jams upstream of the dam.
· The flow capacity of the dam is 20% less than that required by regulations for new projects. This lack of capacity could lead to disastrous flooding downstream of the dam, should it be breached during a high discharge event.
· The dam has interrupted the transport of sediment by the river. As a result of the sedimentation process, the capacity of the reservoir has been decreasing. Downstream effects include intensification of the fluvial erosion of the channel bed. As a consequence, the dam itself is actually being undermined and is becoming unstable.
Despite two other options being identified as more justified (on both economic and ecological grounds), the Polish authorities continue to promote Nieszawa dam as the only solution to the problem of the ageing dam.
The proposed Nieszawa dam would convert natural river valley habitats into an artificial, eutrophic reservoir, immediately adjacent to the already existing 50-km long reservoir at Wloclawek. The idea to build the Nieszawa dam is yet another step to implement half-a-century old plans, a relic of past thinking, and to construct eight dams across the lower Vistula between Warszawa and Gdansk (the so called Lower Vistula Cascade). In the last couple of years, members of Parliament from the region in question, supported by local authorities and the industry and constructors lobby have been repeatedly trying to include funding necessary to initiate new dam construction in a state budget.
The budgeting move was supported by the former government, including its Minister of Environment. Pre-feasibility studies have been funded in this way by the budget for the year 2002. The current government, which has been in power since 2001, seems divided in this respect, with the Minister of the Environment sending conflicting messages (including voting against and then in support of the dam within a month). Further funding of the work at Nieszawa dam was withdrawn from the budget proposal for 2003 only after a long battle in the parliament, including hard lobbying by NGOs.
The problem with the proposed Nieszawa dam however, lies not only in the investment being unjustified, both economically and in terms of solving the purported problems. The main issue is the environmental impact of the new dam, that would pose a serious threat to the unique ecosystem of the Vistula river. More importantly, the investment conflicts with the proposed protection status of extensive valley sections designated as four possible Natura2000 sites. The entire surface of the planned Nieszawa reservoir overlaps with one such area. The other three sites designated for inclusion in the European network of protected areas, located downstream of the proposed dam, would be seriously affected by drastically altered hydrological conditions.
The main area of conflict, the Vistula valley between Wloclawek and Nieszawa, covers 5600 ha of the valuable riverine habitats, including a riverbed with adjacent floodplain areas and steep slopes of the glacial valley. The site supports sizeable populations of 47 bird species protected by the EU Birds Directive as well as 12 habitat types, plus 11 animal and 3 plant species protected by the EU Habitat Directive. This 30 km long section of the river is particularly important as a major wintering place for North European populations of duck species, including Goosander, Smew and Goldeneye. For these largely fish-eating ducks, the site supports up to 25% of their populations wintering in Poland. Moreover, up to 50 White-tailed Eagles winter and one pair breeds within the area. A single family of wolves dwelling in the riverside forests finishes the picture of possibly destruction.
GREECE – A BAD EXAMPLE OF WATER MANAGEMENT
The Acheloos River diversion
The Acheloos River springs in west Greece, on the Pindos mountain range. It traverses westGreece and forms a variety of habitats of EU Community Importance on its way to the Ionian Sea. The forest and riparian ecosystems of the Southern Pindos, the Acheloos Valley and the Acheloos Delta have been included in the national NATURA 2000 list. The Acheloos Delta forms the Messolongi Lagoons Complex. The wetlands of Messolongi are one of the 10 Greek Ramsar Wetland of International Importance sites. Furthermore, both the Acheloos Valley and the Delta are Special Protected Areas.
In 1984 the Greek Government expressed its intention to proceed with the diversion of Acheloos river, in order to irrigate the vast Thessaly Plain and in 1990, Greece applied for European Union CSF and RDP funding of the project.
The diversion will cause irreversible damage to ecosystems of exceptional ecological value and will drive to extinction populations of endangered and internationally protected species. Southern Pindos faces the prospect of destruction of its riverine habitats due to reduced flow. Also, extensive excavations are expected to cause soil erosion and landslides. The wetlands of Messolongi will suffer from a critical reduction in freshwater input.
In 1992, WWF Greece, along with other Greek NGOs, launched a joint campaign against the diversion scheme. The WWF European Policy Office, WWF Germany and WWF UK, along with the European Environmental Bureau, Birdlife International and other European NGOs, contributed substantially to the effort, making it a pan-European campaign. The joint efforts of the NGOs brought considerable results:
1. The EU suspended funding of the project
2. The Council of State (CoS) ruled that all construction works had to be suspended, until the authorities prepared an integrated and scientifically sound Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and issued a restraining order against the project contractors.
In disregard of the CoS rulings, construction works continued. It was also decided that the project be financed through national budget lines. A new joint ministerial decision once more approving environmental terms for the project was issued in 1995. The NGOs submitted complaints to the CoS again and on March 1999 the CoS issued another restraining order. The works were paused and new environmental terms for the project were prepared. A new EIA is now completed and the works are about to restart. According to the Ministry of Finance, the amount of approx. 207 million euro has been earmarked from the national budget for the continuation of the construction project.
The return of the Acheloos project coincides with the reaction of Greek farmers against the ongoing reform of the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP), especially with relation to cotton production. Although trends in the CAP favour a shift of production from cotton to other crops, the farmers from the plain of Thessaly continue to demand more water for the irrigation of the vast cotton fields of the area. The diversion of Acheloos, a long but broken promise of the State to the farmers, may prove a good way to ease the tension.
WWF/Greece
CROATIA – A BAD EXAMPLE OF WATER MANAGEMENT
River Regulation and Gravel Extraction from the Drava River
The Hungary-Croatia stretch of the Drava is the most natural section of this river, rich in wildlife, with many unspoiled habitats and high biodiversity. During the decades of communism the river corridor was heavily defended and inaccessible, and nature thrived in the absence of human interference. This region is a vital component of Europe's natural heritage. It has the potential to become an invaluable contribution to the Natura 2000 network when Croatia joins the EU if only it is recognised as important and destructive works do not ruin the region forever.
Over the millenia, the river has built a wide floodplain of debris swept down from the Alps. This is primarily composed of rounded siliceous gravels whose fine quality as a construction material has long been recognised. There has always been small-scale extraction of gravel, but the rapid development of infrastructure in Croatia in recent years has led to a massive expansion of this activity.
On the Stara (Old) Drava between the Slovenian border and Varazdin, a stretch of 20km, massive gravel excavation, combined with river regulation works, threatens a large wetland area containing some 20 oxbow lakes and home to some 50 Red List species. Downstream of Novo Virje, smaller excavation projects, being carried out even in protected landscape areas, are also destroying habitats and seriously impairing the sediment regime of the river. Meanwhile unnecessary regulation works in this lower section are shutting off backwaters and river branches, valuable fish-spawning grounds, and joining river-islands to the mainland, thus destroying their special habitat-qualities.
Local stakeholders and environmental organisations together report on a number of negative impacts observed from the excavation works:
· Destruction of riverbank vegetation and soil, destroying the nesting habitats of rare birds
· Changes in groundwater level, affecting existing wetlands and oxbow lakes
· Negative impacts on trees and plants species dependant on the current water regime
· Obstacles to the movements of migratory fish species
· Disconnection of river-branches used for fish spawning, leading to population decline
· Cumulative impacts on all wildlife depending on the integrated functioning of the riverine-wetland ecosystem.
Gravel extraction is a very profitable enterprise – for some – whereas local communities are gaining very little financial benefit, being left only with sadly devastated areas, which were once beautiful landscapes with high biodiversity.
While the regulation and excavation works are seriously advancing and connecting straightened sections of the river, concerned local stakeholders, local and international environmental NGOs have not been able to obtain information from the government agencies on the status of their Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). Large-scale excavation licenses are given to companies by the Croatian Waters Directorate, without a transparent environmental assessment process.
Only the regulation works on the lower river section have been made subject to EIA, but the expert report rejected gravel mining and channelling plans, allowing only for the construction of dykes along the floodplain at a certain distance from the river. In the public consultation procedure, the EIA report was made available for local citizens to review within one month, but not to make copies of any part of it. Despite the negative EIA, works started and are proceeding on the Drava River as was planned.
The Drava League, a coalition of local Croatian NGOs, supported by the national NGO Zelena Akcija and international organisations such as WWF and Euronatur, are putting ever-increasing pressure on the authorities to halt these destructive works, and they are being supported by local communities.
The negative impacts being caused by the gravel extraction operations contravene numerous bodies of governmental legislation at the local, national and international levels, including:
· Spatial Plan of Varazdin County.
· Law on Nature Protection (NN 30/94 i 72/94).
· Strategy and Action Plan for the Protection of Biological and Landscape Diversity of the Republic of Croatia (June 1999).
· Convention on co-operation for the protection and sustainable use of the Danube River (Sofia 1994).
· Convention on Biodiversity (Rio 1992).
· International project of Biosphere reserve Mura-Drava-Danube (accepted by UNESCO in 1997).
Additionally, and in the light of Croatia's ambitions to join the European Union, these negative impacts are directly contradicting many EU environmental laws, which Croatia will in time be implementing, notably the Water Framework Directive (2000), the Habitats Directive and the Birds Directive, as well as the Directive on EIA and the Aarhus Convention.
UK – A BAD EXAMPLE OF WATER MANAGEMENT
Effects of Infrastructure on Water Quality - Thames Barrier Closures and Combined Sewer Overflows.
Although the water quality in the Thames has improved dramatically in the past 30 years, flood defence and Victorian sewage infrastructure has adversely affected water quality and is more likely to cause problems in the future, as evidenced by recent trends.
Since the Thames Barrier became operational in 1982, the number of barrier closures has dramatically increased (EA, 2003). The most notable increases have been during the past 3-5 years, during winter storm and heavy rainfall events, such as in Autumn 2000 and January 2003 (EA, 2003). During these high rainfall events, the barrier was repeatedly closed during successive tides, with the highest incidence of successive barrier closures occurring most recently, when the barrier was closed 14 successive times between January 1 – 8, 2003 (EA, 2003, see Figure 4 below).
Repeated barrier closures have the potential to stress aquatic life as organisms accustomed to regular tidal flushing may find constant emersion unbearable while the available oxygen may decrease, as the water remains stagnant for longer periods. When barrier closures are coupled with combined sewer overflows, common during high rainfall events, there is large potential for changes in biological oxygen demand as raw sewage entering the river behind the Thames barrier will take longer to flush through the estuary. If the concentrations of raw sewage are high enough and/or the closure of the barrier often enough, there is potential for fish and invertebrates to be killed as river conditions become increasingly anaerobic.
Meanwhile, the amenity value of the river will be reduced during such incidents as the river will begin to smell and floating effluent will be visible. As such, it is crucial that future flood defence and sustainable urban drainage is integrated, so ensure that water quality is maintained, while providing a reasonable level of flood defence.
Figure 4. Graph illustrating the number of Thames barrier closures due to flood risk from January 1983 – January 2003. Source: Environment Agency – Thames Barrier Closures Report. Internal document (2003).
BELGIUM – A BAD EXAMPLE OF WATER MANAGEMENT
Spatial planning in Flanders in the last decades