case study: Danube

1. Name Partner

Corvinus University of Budapest (CUB) - Hungary, Research Institute for Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry, Hungarian Academy of Sciences (RISSAC) - Hungary, University of Bucharest (UNIBUC) - Romania, Institute for Advanced Studies Carinthia (IHSK) - Austria

2. General case study characteristics

2a. Geographical characteristics

The Danube River Basin is Europe's second largest river basin, with a total area of 801,463 km². The Danube River Basin District covers 1) the Danube River Basin, 2) the Black Sea coastal catchments on Romanian territory, and 3) the Black Sea coastal waters along the Romanian and partly the Ukrainian coast.

The Danube River Basin can be divided into three sub-regions: the upper basin, the middle basin, and the lower basin (including the Danube Delta): the Upper Basin extends from the source of the Danube in Germany to Bratislava in Slovakia;, the Middle Basin is the largest of the three sub-regions, extending from Bratislava to the dams of the Iron Gate Gorge on the border between Serbia and Romania. The lowlands, plateaus and mountains of Romania and Bulgaria form the Lower Basin of the River Danube. Finally, the river divides into three main branches, forming the Danube Delta, which covers an area of about 6,750 km².

2b. Land use characteristics

2c. Population distribution

3. Pressure and impact analysis

3a. Main pressure(s) and/or pollutant(s)

Hydromorphological alterations and as well as impacts of point source and non point source pollution are important, but in significance show high deviation in different countries. The main pollution problem is the excessive volumes of nutrients entering the river, mainly from agricultural fertilisers, and not adequately threatened municipal sewage, including facies and household products. The chemical, food, and pulp and paper industries are amongst the main industrial polluters in the Danube River Basin. Discharges from such plants significantly raise the levels of heavy metals and organic micro-pollutants in the river network. Municipalities generate around 60% of the wastewater discharged in the Danube River Basin, much of not sufficiently treated. today agriculture is also a major source of pollutants including fertilisers and pesticides, as well as effluent from huge pig farms and agro-industrial units.( most agricultural pollution originates from diffuse sources spread across farmland,). The harnessing of these rivers to facilitate navigation has, however, radically changed their physical and ecological characteristics, while pollution from ships and boats is also a significant problem.

3b. Impact(s)

The size of the pollution loads reaching the overall Black Sea (dispersion both in time and in space for the Black Sea proper and the Sea of Azov) are either not known, or information is missing on the comparability of the data available. WFD good status objectives (for chemical, ecological and quantity) have not been established yet. Current water quality standards/expected future definition good ecological status and corresponding physical parameters and “gap” between expected water quality and desired water quality and quantity in 2015. Major problems affecting aquatic ecosystems in the Danube River Basin:

Excessive nutrient loads (particularly nitrogen and phosphorous)
Overexploitation of surface water and groundwater resources
Changes in river flow patterns (hydromorphological alterations) and its effect on sediment transportation
Contamination with hazardous substances (including heavy metals, oil, oxygen depleting substances and microbiological toxins)
Accidental pollution
Degradation and loss of wetlands

4. Definition goods and services provided by aquatic ecosystem

goods and services provided throughout the basin by the aquatic ecosystem used by different user groups (e.g. drinking water, fishery, recreation, irrigation, commercial use in industry etc.)

5. Beneficiaries / stakeholders involved

households (drinking water, recreation), industry (cooling, process water), agriculture (irrigation), shipping (transport)

6. Definition environmental and resource costs and benefits

expected environmental damage as a result of not reaching good ecological status or expected benefits as a result of reaching good ecological status
Possible spatial interaction or competition between good/service provision (upstream-downstream)

7. Main objective monetary valuation environmental and resource costs and benefits

Inclusion of environmental and resource costs/benefits in i) water pricing systems and/or ‘full’ cost recovery (WFD art. 9) ii) based on cost-benefit analysis (of the WFD programme of measures to underpin possible derogation (WFD art.4)

Calculate the benefit of the lake – in some main type of usage or scenarios for the main sectors
Define the carrying capacity of the area (lake and its surrounding) from ecological and economic perspective
Set the regulatory framework of the use of the catchments based on monetary evaluation

8. Economic valuation method

Non-market costs/benefits:Primary survey with contingent valuation and Travel cost study
Market costs/benefits: Water use cost of the main economic stakeholders (golfcourt, farm, energy pewer industry) , Loss of income due to the bad water quality/ insufficient amount of water in the area during the tourism season

9. Key methodological issues

linking economic values to pressures (and to water uses)-choice experiment
upscaling /aggregation economic values from case study water body to basin level
benefit transfer across sub-basin

Problems, issues:

no clear ownership ; loss of income due to bad water quality; water distribution in case of dry year
industry – agriculture – tourism interest conflict; no coordination of interests; contradictionary interest among tourism sectror stakeholders)

10. Available data, information sources and stakeholder involvement

Available data and information:

water related (quality, quantity, pollution (heat)
WFD pilot site report
stakeholder databasis
main problems and issues
water management measures (flood control, water level control in the lake)

Involvement/participation stakeholders in case study:

municipalities: Tata Környe
NGOs: MME (Birdwatchers association)
Industry: power station
farms and cooperatives:huge husbandry (pig) farm at Környe, Tata , fishery
forestry
environmental firm: Tata Environmental Ltd.
monument protection, heritage management:Tata
tourism based on the lake and the historic environement around Tata