LBS AG Doc. 15.8
15th Meeting of the Advisory Group on Land Based Sources of Pollution
October 5-6, 2010, Istanbul, Turkey
Draft Minutes
The meeting was attended by representatives of all Black Sea states. Invited guests were:
Mrs. Mihaela Popovici
Technical Expert on Pollution Control
ICPDR
michaela.popovici@unvienna.org
T +43 1 26060 4502
F + 43 1 26060 5895
Ms. Gulsen Avaz
TUBITAK-Marmara Research Centre
Istanbul, Turkey
Mr. İbrahim TAN
Environmental Eng.- Researcher
TÜBİTAK Marmara Research Center
Environment Institute
P.O. Box 21, 41470 Gebze Kocaeli TURKEY
T +90 262 677 34 32
F +90 262 641 23 09
ibrahim.tan@mam.gov.tr
Mr. Yuriy P. Ilyin,
Director of MB UHMI
Marine Branch of Ukrainian Hydro-Meteorological Institute (MB UHMI)
Ukraine
Mrs. Kateryna Utkina
Ukrainian Scientific and Research Institute of Ecological Problems
Ukraine
Mr. Jaap Butter
DABLAS Secretariat
Project Leader, Water DHV B.V.
Laan 1914 no 35, 3818 EX Amersfoort
P.O. Box 1132, 3800 BC Amersfoort
The Netherlands
Tel : +31 33 4682569, Mob: +31 6 1509 3029
Fax : +31 33 4683940, Email : jaap.butter@dhv.com
www.dhv.com
Mr. Ruslan Zhechkov
DABLAS Secretariat
Senior Expert
Environmental Financing
Regional Environmental Center (REC)
2000 Szentendre, Ady Endre út 9-11
Hungary
1
Tel: (36-26) 504-000
Fax: (36-26) 311-294
R-mail: RZhechkov@rec.org
http://www.rec.org
Abbreviations: VV – Violeta Velikova.
A1: Opening and welcome, introduction of participants, approval of the Draft Agenda and of the minutes
of the previous meeting. Report on the Decisions of the previous meeting.
VV opened the meeting, welcomed all participants, who presented themselves. The Draft Agenda of the
meeting was approved with a small change (moved presentation of V. Myroshnichenko). The Decisions of
the previous meeting were discussed in terms of performance and the text of the 14th meeting Minutes was
approved with minor corrections (GE city Kutaisi to be removed from the List of Hot Spots). VV informed
the group about the Diagnostic report drafted to guide improvements in the Black Sea Monitoring Program
and data reporting to the Black Sea Commission. The report will be distributed to the members of the group
for information.
A2: LBS Reporting
National Focal Points were invited to report based on their nationally submitted LBS of pollution data,
including assessments of TPH/PAHs loads stemming from land-based sources, the LBS Protocol
ratification process – steps followed, and on the BS SAP2009 implementation – actions undertaken in
2009/2010.
The presentations of all states will be attached to the Meeting documents and uploaded into the web page of
the Commission as usual.
BG – Mrs. Kalinka Staikova reported for Bulgaria. Municipal, industrial discharges and river loads were
presented for 2009 compared with 2008. In general, decrease in loads was recorded. No questions appeared
on the figures presented. In relation to TPH – there is no monitoring in Bulgaria. Previous investigations
showed concentrations below the detection limit and this parameter was excluded from the monitoring until
new/advanced methods of detection would be introduced.
GE – Mr. Vano Tsiklauri reported for Georgia. Major points in the presentation were as follow: action plan
for the period 2011-2015 with a Chapter ‘Black Sea’ was elaborated and it will be soon adopted. However,
the monitoring completely almost depends on sponsors/projects from outside of Georgia (EBRD, SIDA,
WB, etc.). There is no data for Supsa and Khobi (hot spots) collected in 2009. For the river Rioni – there is
a noticeable change in sediments flow, which causes strong erosion along the coast of the Black Sea
beneath the mouth of the river. The WWTP are still with mechanical treatment only, in Batumi a biological
treatment will be soon introduced. There were 3 oil spills from LBS in 2009 – the Caspian Sea petrol is
transported by railway and pipes. Serious accidents happen at the railways.
There is no regular monitoring of TPH loads, there is a self-monitoring at oil terminals, such as Supsa,
carried out by the Labs. of the enterprises or by chosen consultant Labs. In the year 2011-2015 regular
monitoring on TPH is planned to start at the national level (in accordance with the National Environment
Action Plan for 2011-1015). For the moment, TPH data can be collected and summarized through
contacting private companies.
How the hot spots in Georgia are prioritized? (Question from Dablas). The hot spots were prioritized in 90s, probably, according to expert assessement.
RO – Ms. Luminita Lazar reported for Romania. LBS data (municipalities, industry and rivers), relevant
figures, projects for update of WWTP and major sources of financial assistance were presented. There is a
project of the Ministry of Transport to control ship-born wastes. It is recommendable to have a project also
for sources of marine litter and assessment of the problem on coast and in the sea (water + sea bottom). For
2
TPH – since 2008 the parameter is measured twice a month at the Danube River for calculation of loads.
The monitoring is performed by Apele Romane. e.
R: Availability of TPH data (loads) will be checked (for the Danube River, in particular). ML monitoring
project is recommended.
RU – Mrs. Katya Antonidze reported for the Russian Federation. Oil pollution associated with large ports,
discharges from different WWTP (which are not real hot spots) were presented in figures. In relation to the
Olympic GamesG, all WWTP were or are under reconstruction. New normatives, specifically designed for
Black Sea Rivers, were presented. Still only Novorossiysk and Tuapse can be referred as industrial sources
of pollution because of the refineries situated there. Food industry is not developed in Krasnodar Kray. For
TPH – RosHydromet is responsible for the pollution of the Black Sea (state of the environment), and
RosPrirodNadzor - for the sources of pollution (pressures). In the Cuban Directorate (belonging to the
Federal Service on Hydrometeorology and Monitoring of the Environment) there is a special
laboratory/body responsible for the monitoring of rivers. Every two weeks all streams are
monitored/controlled by two different organizations.
R: Industrial discharges will be provided.
TU – Mrs. T. Kirimhan reported for Turkey. Responsible institutions, relevant action plans and projects,
inspections and publications have been presented. There was a workshop of the MoEF with TUBITAK
discussing the update of the list of hot spots in Turkey (carried out in the frames of a project implemented
by TUBITAK and financed by MoEF). At the end of the year the work of TUBITAK will be officially
approved and the updated list of hot spots in Turkey will be reported to the BSC. The responsibilities for
solid waste management/landfills lay with the municipalities, they give permits based on EIA. For TPH –
there is no monitoring that would allow to estimate loads stemming from rivers. Such monitoring can be
introduced after 2011, when the List of hot spots is updated.
R: To prepare recommendation for the Ministry on the monitoring of TPH for calculation of loads
stemming from rivers and other LBS.
UA - Mr. E. Patlatiuk reported for Ukraine. General information according to the agreed format, green
house gases, volume of treated/untreated waters, loads from municipal, industrial sources and rivers, and
cases of accidental pollution were presented. No questions appeared.
R: General comment for all presentations (the same as in 2009)– under the Figures where trends of
increase or decrease appear, to comment the underlying causes – due to measures undertaken, or change in
pollution density, or …what? Landfills to be also included in reporting. More attention to be paid at TPH –
loads stemming from different sources. ML stemming from rivers and coast – a major issue, especially
during floods.
Presentation on ‘Total petroleum hydrocarbons input to the adjacent Black Sea areas from large Ukrainian
rivers in 2000-2009’ was given by Mr. Y. Ilyin (MB UkrNIGMI, Sevastpol, Ukraine). The Danube loads
presented were measured at Vilkovo (before the Danube Delta branches situated in the UA part), at Reni
the values were much higher. The frequency of measurements was weekly or monthly. There were no data
for the Dniestr River in the presentation (though, since 2005 measurements of different parameters take
place at Belgorod-Dniestrovsk). There is no Ref. station at Kingburg, the observations there are very rare.
Based on previous investigations, it was assumed that the load of the Dniepr to the Dniepr liman was by
30% higher than the load stemming from the liman to the Black Sea.
There were no comments on the presentation from BG, GE and RO. The figures showing largest TPH loads
stemming from the Dniepr (not from the Danube) were questioned by Russia and Ukraine. The assessments
need additional verification.
Recommendations for improvement of oil pollution loads monitoring and reporting.
3
BG – to introduce new/advanced methods and screen again for the level of TPH.
GE – the Ministry to start regular monitoring of TPH in 2011-1015.
RO – to submit data on the Danube River TPH loads to the BSC to be compared with the reported UA data.
RU – no recommendation
TU – to initiate the monitoring of TPH for calculation of loads stemming from rivers and other LBS.
UA – to verify the existing data and present accurate assessments of loads for all three rivers – Danube,
Dniestr and Dniepr (can be supported by MONINFO).
D: The Annual Report for the Black Sea Commission will be prepared by the LBS AC in cooperation with
the BSC PS before the end of November. The report will be sent to the LBS AG for comments, and after
their approval it will be presented to the BSC during the annual meeting of the Commission by the
Chairman Mrs. Tulay Kirimkhan.
A3: Black Sea Hot Spots methodology
Mrs. G. Avaz gave a presentation on the TUBITAK project aimed at update of hot spots in Turkey. During
this project the proposed ‘Black Sea Hot Spots Methodology” had been tested and comments were given to
improve the document (Annex I).
Comments on the methodology have been also submitted by Mrs. N. Movchan, UA Focal Point (Annex II).
Mrs. Popovici (ICPDR) shared 12 years of experience in hot spots analyses in the Danube region, with a
vision that ‘hot spot’ is not only a pollution source. A "hot spot" can be also a significant impact area, such
as a wetland or a water supply source which requires measures. Erosion should also be taken into
consideration. However, the Black Sea methodology has been elaborated for point sources of pollution
only. Discussions around ‘definitions’ concluded for the Black Sea Methodology for identification of hot
spots: to stick to the definitions from the BS LBSA Protocol.
Can be a methodology adopted by the BSC or not (question raised by UA)? The latter will be clarified in a
consultation with legal experts.
All collected comments will be taken into consideration before the methodology is submitted to the
attention of the BSC.
A4: Hot Spots List update (Georgia, Turkey, Ukraine)
BG – the updated list has been submitted in 2009, there are no changes in 2010.
GE - one hot spot has been excluded in 2009, there are no new hot spots.
RO – no changes since the last update (reported to the BSC in 2009).
RU – Jugba needs to be excluded. In one month the list of hot spots (together with coordinates) will be
submitted to the BSC.
TU – as mentioned above, the list (by TUBITAK prepared) will be reported after official approval by
MoEF.
UA – no changes. Mrs. Utkina presented recent prioritization of hot spots using the methodology reported
to the LBS AG in 2009 (including hot spots situated not only in the costal zone but also those which affect
the sea from a distance – through rivers, e.g. where the factor distance and velocity of rivers are taken into
consideration). The work of Mrs. Utkina will be brought to the attention of the Ministry.
R: The table with coordinates of Hot Spots (both kinds: WWTP and point of discharge) will be sent to the
Focal Points for last check.
Mrs. Popovici gave a presentation on the updates of MONERIS. She also presented the methodology for
reporting on urban wastewater discharges, considering the ICPDR data model which takes into account the
relation between agglomeration, Urban wastewater treatment plant/ collecting system without treatment
and discharge point. In several cases, one agglomeration can be served by several UWWTPs / Collecting
systems without treatment or several agglomerations can be connected to one UWWTP / Collecting system
4
without treatment (see methodology at www.icpdr.org - Danube River Basin Management Plan, Annex 3
Baseline scenarios for measures addressing nutrient pollution in the Danube river basin were demonstrated
and thoroughly explained. Current and new challenges in the Danube basin were communicated. ICPDR
has a very well organized data base of hot spots (created during DABLAS), which can be used as a
prototype by the BSC (recommended).
Mrs. Utkina (Ukraine) presented an idea for a project aiming to develop a management system and
necessary tools for integrated water resource management in Europe. The idea was appreciated, further
details were requested. ICPDR and BSC might be ready to support such a project provided it well evaluates
all the existing systems and comes with serious innovations and relevant decision-support tools.
Mr. Myroshnichenko gave a presentation on the progress in the frames of the Envirogrids
(http://www.envirogrids.net/) project and data availability in the Black Sea catchment area (based on Gap
analyses of existing observation systems) to apply models such as SWAT, respectively MONERIS, and
assess the shares of point and diffuse sources in the nutrient loads stemming to the Black Sea.
Comprehensive report on gap analysis of existing regional observation systems is available. Geoportal of
the Envirogrids project: http://www.envirogrids.cz
Note: All mentioned presentations will be uploaded onto the WEB page of the BSC together with the
meeting documents.
DABLAS current activities
The DABLAS Secretariat (Mr. Jaap and Mr. Zhechkov) attended the meeting. Mr. Jaap presented current
activities in the frames of this task-force, which emerge from national sector plans, less so from hot spots
lists.
The following questions were raised, followed by discussions:
TU – what is the DABLAS structure and functions?
DABLAS has two people secretariat and is chaired by the EC DG Env. The DABLAS 2009 meeting
recognised the changes in the environment. A working group has been established to build
recommendations for the future work under DABLAS. The major recommendation (submitted to member
states): DABLAS should stop working on prioritization of hot spots/bankability of projects and serve more
as a platform of cooperation between ICPDR and BSC.
Mrs. Popovici reminded that the MoU between ICPDR and BSC had been signed in 2001. DABLAS
people have worked for years with both commissions, assistance was given to projects in both regions –
Danube and Black Sea, which was much appreciated (in the Danube region in 2003 and 2004/5). In the
Black Sea region a pipeline of projects has been elaborated. Recently, a donor Conference was organised in
Belgrade by ICPDR and DABLAS was expected to facilitate the dialogue. However, due to the change in
their mandate, such a facilitation could not happen. The donor conference had a very high level of
importance for the Danube region, and it is expected a financial assistance to become better secured for the
implementation of the Danube River Basin Management Plan. About the EC Danube strategy - the
contracting parties (of ICPDR) will coordinate it under the framework of ICPDR. A ‘No paper’ has been
issued where the priority areas for the different states in the Danube region have been identified. It means
that in each state the areas, where financial assistance can be provided for the Danube strategy, have been
clearly established already.
Mr. Jaap stated that in his opinion there was a need still to bridge between financiers and institutions
dealing with hot spots management in the Black Sea region. Mr. Zhechkov clarified that in this aspect
DABLAS would focus its efforts on capacity building, development of guidelines, organising workshops to
facilitate the dialogue.
5
Mrs. Popovici reminded that ICPDR would welcome the transfer of experience in ranking and prioritization
of hot spots, making also a link between the problems emerging from a particular spot and identification of
measures needed to be taken in response. The efficiency of measures to manage a hot spot should be
carefully evaluated in advance, based on scenarios simulations (MONERIS, e.g.), and the former should be
taken into consideration in decision-making.
A5: Rivers monitoring. River-basin management plans
The Focal points reported on the status of national river monitoring programs and availability of
management plans.
BG – A new monitoring program has been approved in September 2010, where priority substances were
listed (changed compared to previous list). There is a Black Sea Basin integrated management plan which
takes into consideration the management of rivers. The plan is in Bulgarian and is downloadable from the
web page of the Black Sea Basin Directorate (http://www.bsbd.org/). R: The new list of priority substances
to be monitored in rivers will be submitted to the BSC.
GE: Currently National Environment Agency of the Ministry monitors surface water quality at 41 stations
on 24 water bodies. The permanent observation points are located only on large water bodies. Seasonal
observations (from May to September) are made at three additional points on two lakes and one reservoir
located near Tbilisi (used for bathing). Agency considers it necessary to increase the number of observation
points up to 60 urgently by restoring all abandoned points and establishing new ones to cover new
stationary pollution sources.
The current network provides data on a total of 33 chemical parameters. The sampling is handled by the
analytical personnel. Analyses are based mainly on European ISO and EN methods, but anyhow some
differences occur. The presence of heavy metals is monitored only in the Kura and Rioni rivers. Since 2009
measurements extended to 3-4 microbiological parameters at eight points.
The Black Sea Monitoring Centre in Batumi monitors sporadically some chemical and hydrobiological
parameters in the sea waters. In 2006-2007, thanks to a GEF project conducted in all Black Sea States, the
Centre was taking water samples periodically at five permanent points and five water levels (depths) to
analyse water quality by ten parameters. In 2008-2009, another project, by Finland, allowed the Centre to
take three times a year samples at some of these points (but at one level only) on the same parameters.
During the recreational season the Centre takes bathing water samples at some ten observation points. It
analyses physical-chemical parameters and zoobenthos, zooplankton and phytoplankton.
.
RO - The national Integrated Monitoring System of rivers is a responsibility of Apelle Roumania. EU
legislation is in force. The priority substances monitored are in line with the provisions of the WFD.
Ground waters monitoring is also developed (WFD and DIRECTIVE 2006/118/EC: http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:372:0019:0031:EN:PDF).
A presentation was given on the TNMN/ICPDR and last inter-calibration exercises in Romania by Mrs. I.
Vasilescu (RO) in the frames of a project "Reevaluation of methodologies used for loads calculation
transported by the Danube River and discharged in the Black Sea with the aim to improve the estimation
methodologies of impact/pressures relations caused by the Danube water on the Black Sea North West
water bodies ecological status and for the substantiation of the Management Plans at the level of
Hydrographical Basin in conformity with WFD requests" ‘. The outcome of the project: the suitability of
the Reni station for calculation of nutrient loads stemming from the Danube river to the Black Sea was
evaluated and it was decided the Reni station to be kept as it was easier for access compared with the
Sulina station (at the mouth of the Sulina branch/Danube Delta).
Mrs. Popovici gave as a good example of regional cooperation the joint surveys along the Danube River –
every two years (budget over 1 mln Euro compiled mainly from sponsors). Inter-calibration exercises,
Quaco (similar to Quasimeme) were recommended to be carried out annually.
6
RU – The rivers monitoring in Russia is well developed and regularly performed. The Mzimta river pilot
project was presented. Special standards have been developed for RU Black Sea rivers recently, based on
background data. Information on the rivers monitoring will be provided in written (frequency of
observations, priority substances, stations, loads calculations, indices for quality assessments). The
integrated river basin management plans have different name (see the web page of the Federal Service:
link:……).
TU – Two institutions are responsible for the rivers monitoring, MoEF and ???. Monitoring stations
network is under development. In 2009 Protection Action Plan for Sakaria rivers has been adopted. In
2009-2010 management plans for the rivers Kizilirmak and Yesilirmak have been developed. Since last
reported, there is no change in frequency of observations and parameters observed. All data collected
during rivers monitoring are stored by the State Hydrolics Service.
UA – no changes in place since the last reporting. The monitoring program of rivers has been approved a
few years ago. The National Strategy for integrated management of rivers will be endorsed at the end of
October by the Parliament. It consists of: measures for protection, monitoring, water-use, etc.
Communicated problems in the rivers monitoring:
BG - in the monitoring of rivers, the poorly attended sediments and biota need
support/trainings/recommended guidelines.
GE – later will communicate problems other than financial.
RO – assessment of priority substances is needed.
RU – no problems communicated.
UA – no problems communicated.
TU – no problems communicated.
A6: DABLAS: Regional Meeting on Project Identification and Financing. Concept presentation
Mr. Zhechkov presented the Concept on a regional meeting on project identification and financing (Ref.
Hot Spots). The meeting, if approved by the LBS AG and BSC, would take place in April 2011 with the
support of DABLAS and BSC. The focal points were invited to express opinion on the concept itself and
on the need for such a meeting.
BG – the concept is clear, BG would be interested in such a meeting.
GE – Ministry of Economy should express their interest. Feedback will be provided later (when??).
RO- in Roumania all WWTP are well attended, provision with tertiary treatment is the ultimate aim, the
Ministry of Environment is interested in cooperation with DABLAS for the meeting in question.
RU – Krasnodar Krai has a national and regional funding for solving problems with hot spots, which are
not many along the Russian coast. There are no industrial sources of pollution, except the port of
Novorossiysk and an oil terminal. All WWTP are upgraded.
TU – the idea will not be well supported by Turkey because there are other mechanisms working in the
country and the help of DABLAS is not needed. There is a sufficient number of instruments to identify
projects and develop management plans. The IPAV Departament of MoEF deals with project identification
and finding financial assistance.
UA – official position will be provided by the UA Commissioner, the Focal Point could not express a clear
opnion.
In summary, obviously not all Black Sea states need the DABLAS support in identification of projects and
finding financial assistance for them. But still a Donors Conference could be organized for those states
which are interested.
7
Mr. Zhechkov reminded that the proposed meeting was not about financing/availability of money only, and
better to not expect it as Donors Conference, but as a platform to exchange experience (BAP).
A7: Addressing diffuse sources of pollution in the Black Sea catchment area. Update on the shares of
point and diffuse courses of pollution based on MONERIS calculations for the Danube river during
the last 5 years
BG – no assessments of diffuse sources.
GE - no assessments of diffuse sources.
RO – MONERIS is run by Apele Romaee, there is a Nitrate Pollution Program implementing the EU
Nitrates Directive.
RU – there is a methodology developed in the frames of the river basin management plans. Research is
ongoing.
TU – in the rivers management plans assessment of diffuse sources is foreseen and SWAT model will be
applied to build scenarios of measures.
UA – nothing new to be reported.
R: A special session/meeting is recommended to invite the states to report on ongoing/planned river basin
management plans, results of implementation, recommendations to be communicated with the other states.
Mrs. Popovici reminded the usefulness of MONERIS and recommended a special training course to be
organized for the non-European states in the Black Sea region (Note: BG and RO already participated in
courses/trainings on the use of MONERIS). Results based on MONERIS simulations have been presented,
as well as the helpfulness of these results in decision-making. Mrs. Popovici recommended a special
project to be developed to transfer ICPDR experience in hot spots works, which should include:
development of a joint data base for hot spots (based on the one which has been developed for ICPDR and
which is in need for update and further development), MONERIS modeling to assess point and diffuse
sources’ inputs of nutrients to the Black Sea and to build scenarios of measures; harmonization of Black
Sea rivers monitor ring based on ICPDR practices and tools for quality classification. Such a project will
enhance the cooperation of the two Commissions and will facilitate the dialogue on common understanding
of how to assess Danube loads stemming to the Black Sea and how to manage them taking into
consideration the impacts on the Black Sea. The use of the MONERIS model in both regions (Danube and
Black Sea) will assure harmonization in emissions calculations. Mrs. Popovici recommended Mr. Marcus
Venor to be invited by the BSC PS to initiate the discussions on MONERIS trainings and the applicability
of the model in the BS region. Mr. Marco Venor would be ready to provide also a two-days training on
MONERIS for interested experts.
R: Mrs. Popovici invited the Black Sea Focal Points to nominate experts to participate in a MONERIS
training course.
TU reminded that P-free detergents legislation is important for the Black Sea to be recommended in
addition to other nutrients-management practices and options. Mrs. Popovici shared the process in the
Danubeb river basin, which went trough bi-lateral discussions and was strongly supported by ICPDR. Pfree detergents Guidance…….
A8: Discussions on priorities (for the work of the AG) for 2010/11. Work Plan for 2010/2011 – LBS
component. Others.
TU - P-free detergents to be advertised.
UA requested the Depository to be asked to send to UA the last version of the LBSA Protocol (those
which was signed in Sofia 2009).
Mr. Ilyin recommended the TPH loads to be assessed for all LBS of pollution in the region. Recent
publications repeat old numbers, which are copied from one paper to another, and fresh data are almost
impossible to find in bibliography.
8
DABLAS reminded that the future of the task force was in the hands of the member states. There is a ToR
of the Secretariat which could be provided upon request. All Focal Points will be contacted after the
meeting with a request to provide a brief information on hot spots. DABLAS could be of assistance to BSC
in developing “hotspots” towards viable projects and in attracting financing. The joint BSC-DABLAS
workshop scheduled for spring 2011 was meant for that purpose. Although some Focal Points expressed
reservations regarding the usefulness of such workshop and the role of DABLAS in project financing, the
DABLAS Secretariat expressed their willingness to amend the concept based on the new understanding
grown during the discussions with the LBS AG members. Upon receipt, the amended concept will be
distributed to the LBS AG for information/comments, and then it will be forwarded to the BSC for
approval/rejection. In case of an approval the DABLAS/BSC workshop will be part of the BS work plan
for 2011.
R: It will be useful for the BSC if DABLAS compiles some basic information on the national projects in
the list of hotspots. This would include the status of development of a project, e.g. whether a feasibility
study or pre-design has been made, and some key parameters such as population numbers served, plant
capacities, indicative project value, etc.
The following priorities were decided to be included in the Work Plan of the LBS AG for 2010/2011:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Hot Spots methodology;
Assessments of loads, focus on TPH;
Facilitation of the process toward ratification of the LBSA protocol in the BS states;
Rivers monitoring harmonization;
River basin management plans;
Enhancing cooperation with ICPDR;
DABLAS/BSC meeting to assist in exchange of experience in the BS in relation to Hot Spots
identification and financing (for those states which express interest);
Decisions of the 15th LBS AG Meeting, 15-16th of October 2009
D 15.1: The Annual Report for the Black Sea Commission will be prepared by the LBS AC in
cooperation with the BSC PS before the end of November. The report will be sent to the LBS AG for
comments, and after their approval it will be presented to the BSC during the annual meeting of the
Commission by the Chairman Mrs. Tulay Kirimkhan.
D 15.2: The DABLAS/BSC workshop proposal will be submitted to the attention of the BSC and in case
of approval it will be included in the work plan of the BSC for 2011.
Reminders and Recommendations of the 15th LBS AG Meeting, 15-16th of October 2009
R 15.1: For the RO Focal Point: Availability of TPH data (loads) will be checked (for the Danube River, in
particular) and reported to the BSC.
R 15.2: ML monitoring project is recommended for all states. A relevant written recommendation will be
prepared for the BSC.
R 15.3: For the RU Focal Point: Industrial discharges will be submitted (data in line with the Reporting
Format) to the BSC before 23rd of November.
R 15.4: For the TU Focal Point: To prepare a recommendation for the Ministry on the monitoring of TPH
for calculation of loads stemming from rivers and other LBS. Assistance form the BSC PS will be
provided.
9
R15.5: General comment for all presentations (the same as in 2009)– under the Figures where trends of
increase or decrease appear, to comment the underlying causes – due to measures undertaken, or change in
pollution density, or …what? Recommended landfills to be also included in reporting. More attention to be
paid at TPH – loads stemming from different sources. ML stemming from rivers and coast – a major issue,
especially during floods needs to be attended in the region.
R 15.6: Recommendations for improvement of oil pollution loads monitoring and reporting to be
communicated in the Ministries of environment:
BG – to introduce new/advanced methods/equipment and screen again for the level of TPH.
GE –to start state monitoring of TPH in 2011-1015
RO – to assess the priority substances to be monitored in rivers.
RU – no recommendations.
TU – to initiate the monitoring of TPH and consequent calculation of loads stemming from rivers and other
LBS to the Black Sea.
UA – to verify the existing data and present accurate assessments of loads for all three rivers – Danube,
Dniestr and Dniepr (can be supported by MONINFO).
R 15.7: For the BG Focal Points: The new list of priority substances to be monitored in rivers will be
submitted to the BSC.
R 15.8: For the GE Focal Point: More detailed information on rivers monitoring to be provided in written.
R 15.9: Inter-calibration exercises, Quaco (similar to Quasimeme) were recommended to be carried out
annually.
R 15.10: For the RU Focal Point: Information on the rivers monitoring will be provided in written
(frequency of observations, priority substances, stations, loads calculations, indices for quality
assessments).
R 15.11: To be communicated with Ministries of environment and BSC: In the monitoring of rivers, the
poorly attended sediments and biota sampling/processing/analyses need support/trainings/recommended
guidelines.
R 15.12: For the GE Focal Point: The Ministry of Economy should express their interest in the workshop
proposed by DABLAS. Feedback will be provided later (when??).
R 15.13: A special session/meeting is recommended to invite the states to report on ongoing/planned river
basin management plans, results of implementation, recommendations to be communicated with the other
states.
R15.14: Mrs. Popovici invited the Black Sea Focal Points to nominate experts to participate in a
MONERIS training course.
R 15.15: Mrs. Popovici recommended Mr. Markus Venhor to be invited by the BSC PS to initiate the
discussions on MONERIS trainings and the applicability of the model in the BS region. Mr. Marco Venor
would be ready to provide also a two-days training on MONERIS for interested experts.
R 15.16: TU recommended P-free detergents to be advertised.
R: 15.17: UA requested the Depository to be asked to send to UA the last version of the LBSA Protocol
(those which was signed in Sofia 2009).
10
R:15:18: The table with coordinates of Hot Spots (both kinds: WWTP and point of discharge) will be sent
to the Focal Points for last check.
11
Annex I
Comments on the Hot Spots Methodology submitted by TUBITAK (all accepted and appreciated).
* The note 1 you added to last version of methodology for "The part of "Initial Hot Spots
identification" is very useful for users.
* In 1.2. Characterization of Hot Spots, the items under "For the character of Hot Spot in detail
recommended to include" seems "apart from whole text" and it is not used specifically in the
methodology. If group will have same idea, this part can be omitted.
* 2. Further Characterization of the Selected Priority Hot-Spots and Priority Analysis: In this part,
takinng top of 20 HS's is suggested, but according to our experiences, it is better to choose HS's
as their total points. We can say up to .... points we choose HS's as candidative.
* Last time at your office we had talked about the causal chain analysis part. We have not still
understood why we need this part? When we looked at the arctic sea methodology, they use
this part to reach the main cause of the effect and the measurement needs. However these
outputs are general well known truths and only general paragraphs.
But causes of our problems are very strict and clear like WWTP and Landfill investment needs
etc. Of course the main causes are always linked to politics and financial problems. When we
determine the HS's basing on very clear environmental problems by using the methodology, ,
We can be aware of the causes of the problems by using methodology directly. Not to need to
make sophisticated analysis.
The Arctic methodology is based on very detailed monitoring results and very long texts which
can not easily applicable for us. I think because of the same reason you have taken restricted
parts only from Arctic methodology to our draft methodology.
As conclusion, In my point of view causal-chain analysis part is not connected any part of our
draft text neither previous part (item 1.3) nor next part (item 3).
This part can be given as an annex of the methodology for the countries wanted to determine
their investments according to results of chain-root analysis.
Investments for determined HS's should be determined but the way of determining should be
optional. At the same time, countries used MED-POL methodology like us should determine
necessary investments according to MEDPOL methodology as well.
Annex II
Comments on the Hot Spots Methodology submitted by Mrs. Natalia Movchan, UA Focal Point
(original text without edits).
12
Comments of Ukraine in written submitted by Mrs. N. Movchan (UA Focal Point, LBS
AG) – not edited.
VV – Violeta Velikova response and questions raised (waiting for answers from UA)
The proposed document is a good compilation of different existing practices of a number
of conventions but not fully adjusted to the needs and political realities of the Bucharest
Conventione.
VV: Please list the needs and political realities which have not been taken into
consideration.
Only Annex 2: Criteria for inclusion and deletion of Hot Spots from the List (HELCOM
model) for Point sources under the conditions that will be renamed as procedure and
proof read for using Bucharest Convention and Black Sea instead HELCOM and Baltic
Sea may be recommended for approval of BSC. It is well structured and acceptable part
of these guidelines.
VV: We have worked on the document with the LBS AG since late 2007 based on best
available practices, this version has been previously accepted by all members of the LBS
AG. The purpose of the exercise was to not only have criteria or a procedure copied from
HELCOM, but more - a clear methodology which would help the Black Sea states to
identify hot spots in practice, using the same tool (harmonized approach), hence making
sure that regionally the list of hot spots is updated based on a common understanding and
approach to the identification of hot spots.
The document shall be further elaborated to be applicable in the Black Sea and
geographical scope of the Bucharest Convention and its Protocols.
VV: This is a methodology, not a legal or a policy document, the states can use it
wherever they want, if they like it as a methodology for identification of hot spots. It is
not mandatory even for the geographical scope of the Bucharest Convention or its
Protocols (incl. Biodiversity Protocol).
1. This document is not and will not be prepared by the Black Sea Commission.
VV: The document has been prepared by the BSC PS and BSC LBS AG, we believe they
are part of the BSC. In addition, art XVIII of the Bucharest Convention calls for the BSC
to:
4. Elaborate criteria pertaining to the prevention, reduction and control of pollution
of the marine environment of the Black Sea and to the elimination of the effects
of pollution, as well as recommendations on measures to this effect.
13
5. Promote the adoption by the Contracting Parties of additional measures needed to
protect the marine environment of the Black Sea, and to that end receive, process
and disseminate to the Contracting Parties relevant scientific, technical and
statistical information and promote scientific and technical research.
As mentioned already, the Methodology was included in the Work Plan of the BSC,
approved by the BSC, so we just followed the work plan.
2. In definitions reference should be made to the initial determination of hot spots in
the Black Sea and why there is a need to change approach.
VV: I am not fully convinced that the methodology should mention in definitions why we
want to change the approach, but if you think so needed – we can add a para in the
Background part.
3. In light of changed concept in LBSA the definition of pollution source shall be
introduced.
VV: Accepted, will be checked, though I thought we followed exactly the new LBSA.
4. Does ‘hot spot’ concept deals only with pollution, the new concept of activities
introduced in LBSA protocol raises the issues of the destruction of habitat thus
strongly influencing the Black Sea biodiversity. As well as overfishing in certain
area?
The methodology deals with hot spots - point sources. The activities to be taken into
consideration are taken from the LBSA Protocol.
5. The definition of primary and secondary sources shall be given and why do we
need questions on production etc. for regional level. In the whole document the
purpose is to identify criteria for assessment and procedure for hot spots of
regional significance in line with Bucharest Convention.
VV: The methodology is regional, but it will be used at the national level. It is not a
reporting to the BSC, but a way to identify hot spots in your country. I suppose nationally
you need to know the level of production of an industry when you work with hot spots. If
you do not want to know, you are not obliged to. The other Focal Points insisted on
keeping this parameter.
6. The check list of the Box one shall is a list for reasons for initial screening, why
there is another question, for reason? Why do we need detail for production? As
well transboundary impacts/effects are included in the impact of a hot spot on
contiguous territories of the reporting country and other countries which is against
BSC decisions on the transboundary impact.
14
VV: See the comment above. We just recommend to pay attention at all these….You are
not obliged to display any information on a hot spot regionally, but you might need it
nationally. The reporting on Hot Spots to the BSC is based on an agreed format, this is
something different from the information you need to identify a hot spot
NATIONALLY.
7. How weighting factors were selected?
VV: Based on best practices from other methodologies and in discussion with the
LBS AG.
8. For each column in matrix the description of reasons why these values were
selected should be given.
VV: There is no reason, except experience from other seas and comments of the LBS
AG. If you have better ideas, you are welcome to share them with the LBS AG and
me.
9. Why different numbers of classes for different columns?
VV: Why not? What is wrong here?
10. The fisheries example is not relevant as fisheries is not included in the hot spot
activities (e.g. overfishing nearby important nursery grounds of sturgeon will
cause a significant impact on fisheries but not hot spot in terms of pollution).
VV: Accepted.
11. The selection of hot spots deserving of priority for intervention is based on
environmental, management, social, economic and policy considerations as stated
in completely misleading
VV: I suppose this is correct. We talk not about identification, but about selection for
intervention.
The List of hot spots shall not depend from any considerations except of environmental
(human being included in ecosystem approach).
VV: Correct.
The ability to address these issues will depend from management, social, economic and
policy considerations? But this is different priority of hot spots differ from priority of
action to eliminate them. The latter priority depends on ability of the member states to
deal with these hot spots.
VV: This is what we say above also.
15
12. Avoid the use of poorly-defined criteria in hot-spot descriptions and
characterizations.
VV: Please specify which criteria are poorly defined.
13. If nationally defined criteria are in use for particular properties of the environment
such as so-called ‘ecological criteria’, they must be strictly defined beforehand
and their utility for the purposes of hot-spot definition fully explained.
VV: Why?
This is the main message for regional priorities – these criteria should be defined for the
regional level because these guidelines shall be clearly regional, and incorporated in the
guidelines under consideration and then submitted to the BSC for approval which has not
been done yeat.
VV: The Methodology will be used at the national level, there is no regional level of
identification of Hot spots. There is a regional List of hot spots, which is compiled on
what the states decide to report to the BSC as hot spots. After 4 years discussions with
experts we came to the methodology which you criticize, not knowing the process. The
methodology has been tested in practice in Turkey and qualified as well working. Why
we should go back to National criteria, if we worked for years to achieve harmonization
and make sure that all states use the same criteria?
There are many tables with suggested criteria however these were not developed for the
Black Sea which is quite different for other seas, have regional differences in particular
because individuality of it shelf, which is important for criteria in eutrophication.
VV: The tables were given as an example. With the PMA group we work on classes. In
this particular methodology each state should use its own national standards, this is clear.
Annex III
DABLAS Task Force
Regional Meeting on Project Identification and Financing (first draft of the concept)
Purpose of this Note
Provide background and argumentation for a joint DABLAS-BSC regional meeting on
project identification and project financing
Background and argumentation for the regional meeting
16
1. In a meeting in January 2010 with the Ministry of Environment of Turkey it was
concluded that capacity building in integrated river basin management through the
dissemination of the planning approach to municipalities on the Black Sea coast
would be beneficial for Turkey. A meeting along those lines was suggested.
2. In a meeting with BSC, also in January, it was suggested to also invite
participants from neighbouring countries along the Black Sea coast to exchange
experiences. The idea of a joint meeting was born.
3. One of the tasks of the BSC is to update a list of hot spots along the Black Sea.
The current update will have been completed by the end of 2011 and therefore the
spring of 2011 will be a good moment to discuss issues arising from the update –
project formulation, viability of projects, financing, etc.
4. One of the core activities of the DABLAS Secretariat is to maintain a pipeline of
projects in the Danube and Black Sea countries. The DABLAS pipeline will be
built from the list of the hot spots identified within the framework of the BSC.
The applied criteria will include: project is part of national and local priorities;
project is cost effective in terms of nutrient removal per investment cost; project
is affordable and financially & operationally sustainable.
5. Since 2007, when BSC had engaged a Project Broker, no significant effort has
been made to bring the hot spot projects closer to financiers. One of the ambitions
of the regional meeting is to serve this purpose as well. Financiers’ policies will
be compared and matched with the hot spots (which are presumably the national
priorities)
6. In certain cases the hot spots are not viable projects. In the past the Project Broker
managed to filter the potentially good projects from the stillborn ones. A
methodology to do that is missing and it is one of DABLAS ambitions to provide
guidance on how to do that. The methodology will have been developed by that
time.
7. In some cases the countries lack proper investment planning for wastewater
treatment. The regional meeting will provide the opportunity to the countries to
share good practice.
Purpose of the regional meeting
1. Bring hot spots closer to financiers - present the hot spot list and related
DABLAS list to potential financiers. In this way, the event will also serve to raise
the visibility of the hot spot lists and present the methodology for their
identification.
2. National approaches to hot spot identification and financing. The countries
will have the possibility to present the efforts they are making for financing the
hot spot projects.
17
3. Pre-appraising project ideas - present a DABLAS methodology for preappraising project ideas and assessing their potential to be turned into viable
projects. Share country and IFI experience on this issue.
4. Planning and prioritizing WWTP investments – the meeting will serve as a
forum to discuss issues related to planning and prioritizing investments into
wastewater treatment. In a situation of fund shortage, planning and prioritizing of
projects are often underestimated.
5. River basin management planning – countries will be asked to present good
practices in river basin management planning (i.e. Yasirilmak basin in Turkey).
This approach is of direct relevance for prioritization of investments in
wastewater treatment and can be a means to assess the cumulative effects of
hotspots.
6. IFIs share funding priorities and best practices with countries - IFIs and
bilateral donors will have the possibility to present their priorities for the region as
well as to present good practices in financing WWTP around the Black Sea;
Invitees
1. Ministries of Environment
2. Ministries of Finance
3. World Bank
4. EBRD
5. EIB
6. KfW
7. other banks active in the region
8. EC – DG Environment
9. EC – Eastern Partnership
10. EC – Neighbourhood Investment Fund (NIF)
11. ICPDR
12. RENA
13. IPA - Turkey
Funding
DABLAS Secretariat budget – all eligible costs
Black Sea Commission – all costs that are not eligible within DABLAS
Next steps
1. Discuss meeting concept and agenda at the LBS Advisory Group Meeting in
October.
2. Receive approval from the EC on the concept.
18
3. Receive approval from the member countries at the BSC Annual Meeting in
December;
Second Draft of the Concept (after incorporation of comments provided by the BSC LBS
AG members).
DABLAS Task Force
Version 07/10/2010
Black Sea Regional Meeting on Project Identification and Financing in Waste
Water Treatment
Purpose of this Note
Provide background and argumentation for a joint DABLAS-Black Sea Commission
(BSC) regional meeting on project identification and project financing in the field of
water and waste water treatment. This version of the note has incorporated the comments
and feedback received during the BSC LBS Advisory Group Meeting on 5-6 October,
2010 in Istanbul.
Background and argumentation for the regional meeting
8. In a meeting in January 2010 with the Ministry of Environment of Turkey it was
concluded that capacity building in integrated river basin management through the
dissemination of the planning approach to municipalities on the Black Sea coast
would be beneficial for Turkey. A meeting along those lines was suggested.
9. In a meeting with BSC, also in January 2010, it was suggested to also invite
participants from neighbouring countries along the Black Sea coast to exchange
experiences. The idea of a joint meeting was born.
10. One of the tasks of the BSC is to update a list of hot spots along the Black Sea.
The current update will have been completed by the end of 2011 and therefore the
spring of 2011 will be a good moment to discuss issues arising from the update –
project formulation, viability of projects, financing, etc.
11. One of the core activities of the DABLAS Secretariat is to maintain a pipeline of
projects in the Danube and Black Sea countries. The DABLAS pipeline will be
built from the list of the hot spots identified within the framework of the BSC.
The applied criteria are available on the DABLAS website. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enlarg/dablas/index_en.htm.
12. There are several countries where significant efforts are being made to finance the
construction of WWTP at the hot spot locations. Turkey is having a
comprehensive investment programme along the Black Coast; Russia is gearing
19
up its investment capabilities in view of the Sochi Olympic Games in 2014;
Bulgaria and Romania are gaining momentum in using the EU Cohesion Funds.
13. However, additional efforts can be made to bring the hot spot projects closer to
financiers. One of the ambitions of the regional meeting is to serve this purpose as
well. Financiers’ policies will be compared and matched with the hot spots (which
are presumably the national priorities).
14. Countries which are more advanced in funding WWTP and which do not need
immediate funding for the hot spots identified within the BSC framework will be
asked to share experience and best practices with the other countries. They are
also encouraged to present other funding priorities in waste water treatment.
15. As far as the Black Sea region is concerned the possible establishment in the near
future of a Fund for the Black Sea Environment Partnership, set up in March 2010
within the Black Sea Synergy, should be regarded as one of the tools to facilitate
the required financing. The signature of a Memorandum of Understanding for the
Black Sea Environment Partnership would be a key step for the Fund to become
fully operational.
16. The issue of funding waste water treatment project will not be understood in the
narrow sense of providing financial resource only. Other aspects like utility
reform, strategic planning for investment, overall development of the sector and
others will also be a topic of the meeting. The regional meeting will also provide
the opportunity to the countries to share good practice.
17. In certain cases the hot spots are not viable projects. In the past the Project Broker
managed to filter the potentially good projects from the stillborn ones. A
methodology to do that is missing and it is one of DABLAS ambitions to provide
guidance on how to do that. The methodology will have been developed by that
time.
Purpose of the regional meeting
7. Bring hot spots closer to financiers - present the hot spot list and related
DABLAS list to potential financiers. In this way, the event will also serve to raise
the visibility of the hot spot lists and present the methodology for their
identification.
8. National approaches to hot spot identification and financing. The countries
will have the possibility to present the efforts they are making for financing the
hot spot projects.
9. Pre-appraising project ideas - present a DABLAS methodology for preappraising project ideas and assessing their potential to be turned into viable
projects. Share country and IFI experience on this issue.
20
10. Planning and prioritizing WWTP investments – the meeting will serve as a
forum to discuss issues related to planning and prioritizing investments into
wastewater treatment. In a situation of fund shortage, planning and prioritizing of
projects are often underestimated.
11. River basin management planning – countries will be asked to present good
practices in river basin management planning. This approach is of direct relevance
for prioritization of investments in wastewater treatment and can be a means to
assess the cumulative effects of hotspots. Training materials on investment
planning in the context of river basin management will have been ready by then
and will be presented at the meeting.
12. IFIs share funding priorities and best practices with countries - IFIs and
bilateral donors will have the possibility to present their priorities for the region as
well as to present good practices in financing WWTP around the Black Sea;
13. Analyze how the Black Sea Environment Partnership can help achieving the
above-mentioned objectives
Countries
Bulgaria
Georgia
Romania
Russia
Turkey
Ukraine
Invitees
14. Ministries of Environment
15. Ministries of Finance
16. World Bank
17. EBRD
18. EIB
19. KfW
20. other banks active in the region
21. EC – DG Environment
22. EC – DG RELEX (ENP, Eastern Partnership and Black Sea Synergy)
23. EC – Neighbourhood Investment Fund (NIF)
24. ICPDR
25. RENA
26. IPA - Turkey
Funding
DABLAS Secretariat budget – all eligible costs
Black Sea Commission – all costs that are not eligible within DABLAS
21
Next steps
4. Receive approval from the member countries at the BSC Annual Meeting on 2526 January, 2011;
22