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 riverinewetland 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.
20
Thames Barrier closures to avoid flood risk
between Jan '83 and Jan '03. Total 85
18
Data up to
23/1/03
Closures per year
16
19
15
14
12
10
10
9
8
6
4
2
0
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
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
Because of historical reasons, Flanders has a high population density and, as a consequence, a
large amount of houses, roads and general infrastructure. Starting from the 1950s, urbanisation
expanded throughout Flanders. This has some serious consequences on the population and the
environment.
 Consequence on water quality: unlike the Netherlands, who managed to keep
urbanisation within certain limits and to restrict new housing blocks to existing centres,
the Flemish Region built almost everywhere. Thousands of houses aren’t situated in town
or city centers, but along the main roads between centres. The consequence is that an
enormous sewage infrastructure is being developed. Thousands of kilometres of


collectors have made an efficient purification of wastewater impossible. The whole
wastewater treatment strategy should be reviewed completely, which is at this moment
impossible due to the enormous investment needs.
Consequence on the water quantity: the Flemish surface has a very high percentage
of urbanised and impermeable area (estimation of above the 20% of total area). The
surface runoff increases and the replenishment of groundwater decreases.
Consequence on the rivers: new street blocks were built, without taking water
conditions into consideration, in riverbeds or valleys. One of the reasons is the fact that
municipalities receive an ‘inhabitant subsidy’ based on the amount of inhabitants in their
municipality. The more houses built in the municipality, the more financial means it
receives. Because of this, the natural inundation areas were cut off from the rivers, higher
dikes were built and rivers lost their ‘breathing’ space.
The result is that with every period of intense or long-lasting precipitation, several densely
populated areas in Flanders have problems with floods, and on the other side, several ground
water layers have dissication problems.
These problems are of course mainly due to previous planning (or lack thereof in relation to water
systems). Recently, spatial planning in Flanders has changed a great deal with the publication of
the Flemish Spatial Plan (Ruimtelijk Structuurplan Vlaanderen, 1995). But currently spatial
planners hardly take water into account in their plans. The FPA should approved measures
towards spatial planning which in turn will need to be implemented. But it remains to be seen if
the FPA will be able to guarantee real obligations towards spatial planning.
AUSTRIA - A BAD EXAMPLE OF WATER MANAGEMENT
Legal transposition of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) in Austria
The first important step of the WFD implementation process is the legal transposition into national
law, which has to be finished by the end of 2003.
The Austrian government (Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management)
has decided that in the first step only the Austrian law on water should be modified according to
the WFD. But this decision is not acceptable to many experts and stakeholders, because there
has been no (officially published) review of all Austrian legislation. As there are a variety of laws
in Austria dealing with water management and freshwater protection (federal laws on land use,
federal laws on nature protection, national law on subsidies for water engineering...), it is
questionable that only an amendment of the law on water can be regarded as sufficient legal
implementation of the WFD.
The Austrian government has finished the bill of the new law on water in April 2003 and started
the compulsory consultation process. At this stage the bill shows considerable deficits for an
effective WFD implementation:



No effective river basin management authorities will be created. The provincial governments
will still be responsible for the administration of the river basins. This means that in future the
different river management plans will be implemented by one, two or in some cases even
three provincial governments, which have to co-operate with each other. But the different
provinces show partly different legislation (e.g. law on nature protection, law on land use) and
different administration structures, which will prohibit an effective implementation of the
management plans.
The deterioration ban is not sufficiently implemented. The new bill provides many possibilities
and exceptions to degrade the ecological status of water bodies. A clear statement that the
existing quality has to be preserved is missing. Therefore the deterioration from a "very good"
to a "good" status would be possible according to the new bill
No clear goals and principles: The overall goals and principles of the WFD (good status for all
water bodies, integrated river basin management, deterioration ban, public participation) are

only partly mentioned in the new bill. There is no section in the beginning where the goals
and principles are stated out, clearly showing that these principles apply for the whole law.
Missing public participation: Only the public consultation procedure for the development of
the river basin management plans is integrated in the bill. As there are no other participation
activities designated (e.g. for the implementation of sub-programmes and sets of measures) it
is very questionable if this approach meets the requirements of the WFD or of other
European legislation like the SEA-directive and the Aarhus Convention.
The above listing only shows the crucial deficits of the new bill. Additionally there are several
details (e.g. flood management) that have to be revised in order to guarantee a sufficient
implementation of the WFD. But most of all a comprehensive review of all Austrian legislation,
with the involvement of all relevant stakeholders, has to be done in order to make sure that the
transposition of the WFD into the Austrian law provides a good basis for a successful
implementation.
For further information on any of these stories, please contact Sergey Moroz on +33 1 446 440 47 or
smoroz@wwf.fr