UNITEDNATIONSEEconomic and SocialCouncilDistr.GENERALECE/AC.25/2004/5/Add.113 November 2003ORIGINAL: ENGLISHECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPERegional Implementation Forum on Sustainable DevelopmentGeneva, 15 to 16 January 2004Items 6 and 7 of the provisional agendaWATER AND SANITATION IN THE UNECE REGION:ACHIEVEMENTS IN WATER PROTECTION AND WATER SUPPLYSINCE RIO, TRENDS AND CHALLENGES*Prepared by a consultant and finalized by the secretariatI. PROGRESS AND CHALLENGES IN WATER PROTECTIONAND WATER SUPPLYA. Protection of water resources, water quality and aquatic ecosystems1. The 1990s saw a move towards a more integrated approach to water management. Thistrend included: (a) water-quantity and quality management at watershed or river basin level; (b)greater consideration of interactions between urban and rural activities and water quality; and (c)greater recognition of the fact that water bodies should be able to support aquatic life and meethuman health and recreation criteria. .* For technical reasons, figures and literature references are contained in ECE/AC.25/2004/5/Add.2.ECE/AC.25/2004/5/Add.1Page 22. Modern water management needs to take account of ecological, economic and socialfunctions throughout the entire basin. Thus, there is renewed interest in river basin managementand other “place-based” approaches. Some countries (e.g. France and Spain) have long had riverbasin agencies, and many others are now creating them. Some countries, while not making theriver basin approach a fundamental institutional feature, are improving integration by creating adhoc entities for the protection of specific water bodies, in which all stakeholders are represented.The development of integrated water management implies that most countries will be obliged tomake considerable investments. Having drawn up national action plans, they must developinvestment programmes with clear targets and a budget to protect aquatic ecosystems, actagainst floods, improve water quality and complete or upgrade their water infrastructure.3. Although there has been significant progress in the management of water resources andquality across Europe, problems still persist. Total fresh water abstractions fell during the pastdecade in most UNECE subregions (see fig. I).4. However, 31% of Europe’s population lives in countries that experience high waterstress, particularly during droughts and periods of low river flow. Overexploitation of water,especially increasing use of groundwater for public water supply, and, to a lesser extent (exceptthe countries in Central Asia), overuse of surface water for irrigation, have had seriousconsequences, such as the drying-up of spring- fed rivers, the destruction of natural wetlands inWestern, Southern and Eastern Europe and North America, salt-water intrusion in aquifers, forinstance, along the Mediterranean coast and the Aral Sea, and the extinction of the Aral Sea isaquatic environment.5. There are, however, examples of water resources that have recovered onceoverexploitation ceased. In Latvia, for example, intensive and unbalanced use of groundwaterhad caused large underground depression fields in the Liepaja and Riga aquifers, but a decreasein water consumption during the 1990s, resulting from the implementation of water consumptionaccounting and economic instruments, has led to a gradual rise in the water level (see fig. II).6. In Western Europe and the EU accession countries, river, lake and coastal water qualityis generally improving in terms of phosphorus and organic matter. This reflects a decrease ofthese substances in discharges, which mainly results from improved waste-water treatment.Nitrate levels have remained relatively constant; but they are significantly lower in accessioncountries reflecting less intensive agricultural production than in the European Union.Concentrations of nutrients are much higher than natural or background levels. Eutrophication,as indicated by high phytoplankton levels in coastal areas, is highest near river mouths or bigcities. Heavy metal concentrations in rivers in Western Europe, and their direct discharges andatmospheric deposition into the North East Atlantic Ocean and the Baltic Sea, have all fallen as aresult of emission reduc tion policies.7. Information on the state of waters in EECCA shows that many rivers, lakes,groundwaters and coastal waters are polluted, often with hazardous substances including heavymetals and oil. The pollution tends to be concentrated in localized hot spots downstream ofcities, industrialized and agricultural areas and mining regions. Away from these hot spots, riverECE/AC.25/2004/5/Add.1Page 3and lake water quality appears to be relatively good. However, industrial accidents, even of alimited scope, remain a threat to these waters.8. Oil pollution caused by discharges from coastal refineries and offshore installations isdecreasing in Western Europe. However, illegal discharges, mainly from ships, are still aproblem, especially in the North Sea and Baltic Sea. Oil pollution in general, from severalsources, is a major problem in the Black Sea, the Caspian Sea and the Mediterranean.9. In the past few decades, West European countries have made huge efforts to clean upeffluent discharges, and protect and restore water resources. Good progress has been made,although the diversity among countries with respect to economic and social development,institutional structures and culture has led to considerable differences in the environmentalresults achieved to date.10. On the basis of the Environmental Performance Reviews conducted by the Organisationfor Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and UNECE, it is clear that all countriesin Western Europe have achieved notable success in at least some of the following areas,whereas these areas remain a challenge, particularly for Eastern Europe, the Caucasus andCentral Asia (EECCA):· Large reductions in point discharges from industry and urban areas;· Clean- up of the worst polluted waters;· Establishment of a comprehensive framework of water management laws, policies,programmes and institutions;· A good degree of integration of quantity and quality management;· Progress towards the whole-basin approach;· Wider implementation of integrated permitting;· Improvement in the enforcement of regulations and permit conditions.11. The past decade has also seen increasing recognition that the management of fresh waterand the coastal zone should be linked, acknowledging that the cause-effect relationships in termsof pollution, flooding, salt intrusion and other management issues do cross coast lines. A numberof initiatives have been launched to address these interlinkages (see box 1).Box 1. Integration of river basin and coastal zone managementThe Oder catchment forms an interesting international case for a freshwatercoastproject because of a number of features:• There is close interaction between the river basin and the coastal area;• The interests of stakeholders in the project area are substantial;ECE/AC.25/2004/5/Add.1Page 4• The Oder river forms an international basin of medium size with existinginternational cooperation on the river basin and coastal zone;• The region is experienced in integrated coastal zone management (ICZM)as in the past substantial ICZM activities/projects have taken place andlessons have been learned for the Szczecinski Lagoon (Baltic pilot area,strategic plan, guidelines);• The project is politically relevant, as the implementation of the EU WaterFramework Directive is on the agenda;• Germany and Poland have the political will and good contacts withmanagement organizations and appropriate research institutions for theimplementation of a pilot project.Source: /27/12. During the 1990s, EECCA countries have made significant efforts in environmentalmanagement and are continuing to doing so. They have adopted basic environmental legislationand introduced new environmental policies, generally based on a combination of legal andregulatory instruments (e.g. standards, norms, environmental impact assessment, permits forwater abstraction and discharge) and economic instruments (e.g. charges for water use andpollution discharge, fines).13. Nevertheless, economic and social difficulties in the transition to a market economymean that the efforts have not always born fruit. They also explain why environmental issues arenot among the top priorities in these countries today.14. It was an advantage that the Russian Federation kept the system of water management,based on the river-basin approach, that had been developed in the Soviet era. Many othercountries have also recognised the advantages of the river-basin approach for water managementand, after testing it on particular national and transboundary basins (for instance, the Dnieperbasin), are now considering using it more widely. The approach has proven to be useful not onlyfor pollution control, but also to optimize the collection and use of funds.15. Several measures for water conservation have been adopted. Economic instruments,mainly based on the polluter-pays and user-pays principles have been introduced (abstractioncharges, permits, increased water charges and taxes). More could be done to change consumerattitudes, especially by introducing metering, which has proven to be a very efficient tool toreduce water use.According to the national assessment reports on the implementation of Agenda 21, prepared bycountries for the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), between one third and twothirds of the UNECE countries have implemented the measures on groundwater pollutionprevention, water purification treatment and water conservation as laid down in Agenda 21.15-20% of UNECE countries have made progress on these measures. According to these reports,the performance does not differ significantly between subregions.ECE/AC.25/2004/5/Add.1Page 516. Despite the progress made, the considerable water management efforts of recent decadeshave not been enough to safeguard and restore water quality and aquatic ecosystems. Muchremains to be done on a number of issues, such as:· Achievement of ambient water-quality objectives;· Better protection of aquatic ecosystems;· Reduction of subsidies which increase water problems (e.g. over-abstraction, pollution);· More consistent application of the polluter-pays principle and the user-pays principle;· Implementation of the laws, regulations and policies that have been adopted;· Control of diffuse sources and deposition of nutrients, heavy metals and persistent organicpollutants;· Reduction of groundwater pollution by nitrates, pesticides and other persistent chemicals;· Completion, restoration and upgrading of the waste-water treatment infrastructure;· Better integration of water management into sectoral and land- use policies.B. Structural and non-structural measures related to drinking-water supplyand sanitation17. Agenda 21 called for access to safe water in sufficient quantities and proper sanitation forall. The Johannesbourg Plan of Implementation called for the proportion of people withoutaccess to safe drinking water and sanitation facilities to be halved by 2015.18. Drinking- water quality is still of concern throughout the UNECE region, with significantmicrobiological contamination of drinking-water supplies in EECCA, contamination by salts inCentral Europe and the potential exposure of more than 10% of European Union citizens tomicrobiological and other contaminants that exceed the maximum allowable concentrations.Problems are generally highest near pollution “hot spots” as a result of a range of industrial andother activities.19. The situation is generally of greatest concern in some EECCA countries, especially thequality of drinking water in terms of microbiology and toxic substances. This reflects the stillrelatively poor economic conditions in this region and, in several countries, the deterioration orlack of infrastructure for providing clean drinking water. The health of humans and ecosystemsis also threatened in other parts of Europe. One example is water contaminated by organic andinorganic pollutants, such as pesticides and heavy metals, at concentrations greater than thoselaid down in EU or other international standards.20. Several countries, particularly those with large cities situated in coastal areas, find itincreasingly difficult to have access to drinking-water sources of sufficient quality to allowpurification at reasonable cost. At times, their health standards are not met because ofcontamination of drinking-water source areas.ECE/AC.25/2004/5/Add.1Page 621. The 2000 Global Water Supply and Sanitation Assessment Report, prepared by theWorld Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), assessedthe population with access to “improved” water supply and sanitation (see fig. III). The“improved” or “not improved” classifications were based on the technology applied for watersupply and sanitation. North America and Europe (according to the country grouping of thisreport), except Romania, had improved water supply (house connections) and sanitation (sewers)nearly everywhere. The coverage was higher in urban than in rural areas. Kazakhstan,Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan all had improved water supply and sanitation in most urban areas,while water supply in rural areas was much less improved throughout Central Asia (see box 2).Box 2: Water supply in rural TajikistanIn 1995, it was estimated that less than 10% of the rural population of Khaltonprovince had access to safe drinking water and less than 5% to sewerage systems.For example, in Gozimalik district, just 5% of the population had access to safewater and only 2% to safe sanitation. In Jillikul district, the situation was evenworse, with 4% of the population having access to safe water and no one withaccess to safe sanitation.The absence of clean water has had a devastating impact on hygiene, especially inrural schools and hospitals. Health education, although obligatory under the Sovietregime, has increasingly been neglected. The results are evident in deterioratingchild health. The infant mortality rate, which increased in 1993–1994, remains oneof the highest among the former Soviet Union countries.Source: /2/22. Taking into account the people that are currently unserved and the predicted populationdevelopment, the Assessment Report estimates that in Europe alone (exc luding the Caucasus andCentral Asia) another 22 million people in rural areas will need improved water supply and 25million people in urban areas will need improved sanit ation to meet the 2015 targets. In addition,a significant number of people will need service coverage in the Caucasus and Central Asia,particularly water supply in rural areas.23. In EECCA, new problems have emerged during the past decade. The under- five mortalityrate of diarrhoea diseases (see fig. IV) and incidences of water-related diseases, for example,hepatitis A (see fig. V), are significantly higher in most EECCA countries than in Central andEast European countries and in the EU. This also causes a heavy cost to the public health systemand the economy. In the Republic of Moldova, for instance, the National Environmental ActionPlan calculated the social and economic impact of water pollution and reached the conclusionthat polluted drinking water leads to 950-1850 premature deaths a year as well as 2-4 milliondays of illness a year. The monetary cost to the economy was assessed to be as high as 5-10% ofGDP.ECE/AC.25/2004/5/Add.1Page 7North America, the EU member States and the accession countries have national legislation thatrequires not only better sanitation, but also better waste-water treatment. Regulations ondrinking-water quality require additional investments in water supply. Moreover, the Parties tothe Protocol on Water and Health have to comply with its provisions on water and sanitation.Even though the UNECE region as such can comply with the 2015 target with only modestinvestments, national and subnational legislation will require much higher investments.Such investment is particularly needed in EECCA countries. Water utilities in many of thesecountries find it increasingly difficult to provide service continuity.Waste-water treatment plants are increasingly becoming the main polluters of surface water inEECCA countries, and in numerous cases decaying sewerage pipes cause cross-contaminationof drinking water. Consequently, demand for clean potable water from alternative sources isgrowing rapidly and water vending and bottled water business is growing in all EECCAcountries.24. EECCA countries have since the late 1990s started to react to this development withmunicipal sector reforms comprising decentralization, transformation of water utilities intomunicipal enterprises and phase-out of government subsidies. This “shock-therapy” reform,which took place without appropriate tariff and institutional reform, appears to fa ll short ofexpectations. In 2000, EECCA and other UNECE Ministers agreed to make this a key area forinternational cooperation.25. However, for Western Europe new challenges are emerging too. Concern over the greatervulnerability of children and the elderly with weakened immune systems to infections of virusesand parasites that are often highly resistant to chlorine disinfection, and the need for treatmentfor nitrates and pesticides in water supplies, is growing. Ageing pipe networks (see conclusionsbelow) also add to these problems.In the region, ageing pipe networks, requiring expensive maintenance or upgrading to cutleakage and enable a more continuous supply, and the tightening of drinking-water standards tocomply with the provisions of the Protocol on Water and Health and/or the relevant WHOguidelines continue to put high demands on institutional capacity and on funds.C. Water for sustainable food production and rural development26. Water withdrawal for irrigated agriculture differs greatly across the region. In Westernand Northern Europe and North America, agriculture accounts for less than 50% of the waterwithdrawal, whereas EECCA and the South European countries use more than 50% of theirwater withdrawals for irrigated agriculture. In Central Asia, the proportion is 80-95%(see fig. VI). The majority (85%) of the irrigated land in Western Europe is in the Mediterraneanarea (France, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Greece). In the EU accession countries, the bulk (93%) is inRomania and Turkey. In the EECCA region, the Aral Sea basin accounts for 51% of the totalECE/AC.25/2004/5/Add.1Page 8irrigated land. Several new water-supply projects are planned in Europe and the rehabilitation ofthe badly maintained irrigation structures in Eastern Europe and EECCA may boost the demandfor irrigation water.To reduce the pressure of agriculture on the quality of receiving waters, most countries in esternEurope have embarked on agro-environmental programmes that combine various approachesinvolving, inter alia, technology, awareness raising, community participation, cost-sharing andregulation to reduce inputs of fertilizers and farm chemicals and to minimize leaching ofresidues to natural waters.27. Agro-environmental programmes have been quite successful (e.g. in reducing fertilizerand pesticide use), but they are often cumbersome to administer and difficult to enforce. In othercases, nutrient loading has been reduced, but without any direct effect on groundwater qualityowing to the accumulated load already present in the soil. The high cost of some measures toreduce nutrient loads is another obstacle to progress. Good results could be obtained at littleeconomic cost by cutting agricultural production subsidies, but social costs might have to beconsidered. Innovative approaches can nevertheless be reported, such as a water utility payingfarmers to reduce fertilizer and/or pesticide use in some areas rather than having to invest inpurification equipment or to seek other water resources at some distance.28. The role of the pricing regime for agricultural water is being considered as a mechanismto make water use more efficient without necessarily introducing a financial burden. Of all theuser groups, agricultural water users currently pay the smallest share of the real cost of theirwater provision. This practice should be phased out, bearing in mind the social cons equences ofmore expensive water for irrigation. Several countries in Western Europe have already madesignificant progress in this difficult process, and others are considering such changes. Newpricing structures, with social support measures possibly associated, are key features of thesereforms. In other countries, few measures are taken against nitrate or pesticide pollution or overabstractionfrom agriculture, and industry or households fund the only measures being taken.29. Water users have been given a greater role in resource management. For example, insome countries, such as the West European Mediterranean countries, Turkey and to some extentTajikistan, responsibility (including financial responsibility) for management or sometimes evenownership of community irrigation systems is being or has been transferred from public bodiesto user associations. Amended legislation in some EECCA countries introduces programmes toencourage the setting-up and capacity-building of irrigation user groups, acknowledging thepivotal role of water management at the lowest appropriate level in order to maximize waterefficiency.Box 3: Rehabilitation of irrigation and drainage in Central AsiaThe Central Asian countries in the Aral Sea basin have some of the largestirrigation schemes in the world, and at the same time have to face theenvironmental consequences of unsustainable large-scale irrigation.Some 22 million people and between 20% and 40% of GDP depend directly orindirectly on irrigated agriculture.ECE/AC.25/2004/5/Add.1Page 9At present, besides the enormous environmental damage, the irrigation anddrainage infrastructure is falling apart. Farmers cannot afford to maintain theschemes and neither governments nor international donors have sufficientresources to rehabilitate anything but a small proportion of the schemes. Yet, theeconomies of most countries in the region are not creating alternative jobs toabsorb people who will be displaced as farming becomes impossible.A recent study /25/ has found that the case for the rehabilitation of manyirrigation and drainage schemes in Central Asia is strong for several reasons,namely: (a) many schemes appear to be economically viable; and (b) halting thedeterioration of irrigation infrastructure would benefit especially the poor.The same study concluded that governments should consider increasinginvestments in rehabilitating those systems that meet sound economic criteriaand have reasonably strong institutions, while always continuing vital policyand institutional reforms. Irrigation rehabilitation – if carefully designed –should be considered as one important component in a strategy for social andeconomic recovery in Central Asia.Other sources of information call for a holistic approach to water managementin Central Asia, pointing to the fact that unsustainable agricultural developmentwas one of the reasons for the damage to the water environment, particularly theAral Sea environment.30. Severe droughts in many parts of the region in the 1990s, as well as growing awarenessof the effects of water-related subsidies on water use and aquatic systems, have reawakenedinterest in some countries, such as Spain and United States, in the role that tradable water rightsand water markets could play in allowing water use to move national up towards higher-valueapplications. Some limited systems are already in operation in these countries, but in many casesestablishing markets will depend on creating suitable water-right regimes and water conveyancesystems that can meter and control the flow of water among users.The challenge for agricultural water use in the developed part of the UNECE region is toimprove water productivity in order to protect water ecosystems from overexploitation ratherthan to increase food production through the expansion of irrigated agriculture.In some countries in South-East Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia, however, there may bea need to increase food production: the proportion of undernourished people in some of thesecountries has reached more than one third, and has been increasing over the past decade.However, this is largely attributable to the deterioration of the infrastructure, includingirrigation systems, and the general reduction in industrial and agricultural output during theeconomic transition.ECE/AC.25/2004/5/Add.1Page 1031. Per capita food consumption decreased in the countries in transition between 1985 and1998, but it is still above the threshold of 2,700 kcal/person/day. This shows thatundernourishment is a distribution problem (caused by poverty) rather than a total outputproblem.32. In a few dry regions of several UNECE countries, water scarcity has become a limitingfactor on development, and the need to allocate water to the highest-value uses is greatest in aridand semi-arid regions. Even where competition for off-stream uses is less strong, growingdemand for various in-stream uses and growing demand to maintain groundwater table levels(e.g. for recreational purposes and to preserve wetlands and other ecosystems) will promotegreater efficiency of agricultural water use.33. The EU and Central Asian countries have paid increasing attention to the need formanagement technologies to conserve water in agriculture and to maximize “the crop per drop”by developing appropriate water and soil management strategies. Major research programmesfocusing on water scarcity management have been launched during the past decade, and waterscarcity has been an important aspect in EU support to water management in Central Asia. In thisrespect, experiments with the involvement of end-users through water users’ associations(WUAs) have shown promising results, for example in Turkey (see box 4) and Central Asia.34. Addressing the needs of water-scarce and salinity- logged areas, there is still scope forachieving “more crop per drop”, for example, through the development of more salt-tolerantcrops and drought-resistant crops through genetic engineering.Box 4: Participatory privatization of irrigation management in TurkeyThe World Bank has implemented projects to: (a) strengthen irrigationinstitutions - governmental and WUAs; (b) transfer operation and maintenanceresponsibility to WUAs; (c) reduce public sector subsidies for investment; and(d) promote the efficient and sustainable use of irrigation systems, so as toimprove agricultural productivity.Project financing is mainly for operation and maintenance equipment for theWUAs, institutional strengthening and pilot drip-and-sprinkler irrigationschemes. This is the largest and most mature of the irrigation and drainageprojects supporting WUAs, covering 1.5 million ha, through financing ofoperation and maintenance equipment, to which WUAs will contribute 70%.As the “leader” in participatory management, Turkey’s experience needs to becarefully evaluated for the benefit of other countries.Source: /25/D. Water and sustainable urban development35. Good urban water management is complex and requires not only water and waste-waterinfrastructure but also pollution control especially in industries, rational use of water, waste-watermanagement and flood prevention. In addition, it requires coordination across many sectors andECE/AC.25/2004/5/Add.1Page 11usually between different local authorities as most cities’ water supplies and waste-water servicesare not limited to catchments within their boundaries. The importance of (a) ensuring good waterquality for water systems used for recreation and (b) limiting ecological damage to the watersystem, which receives water, storm and surface water run-off, has added significantly to thechallenges for the authorities. All these tasks require governance structures that provide a soundlegal, institutional and financial basis. In the cities with rapidly growing populations or those withweak economies and limited possibilities for raising funds for water management, these structuresmust also be adapted to the particular difficulties facing local authorities.36. In the UNECE region, the number of people living in cities has increased steadily duringthe past century and is expected to continue to do so for the next decades. The overall growth inpopulation, however, has been modest, so the growth in the urban population is caused bymigration from rural to urban areas. In most UNECE countries, 60-80% live in urban areas. TheUNECE region has about 100 cities with a population of more than 1 million:. 26 of these have apopulation between 3 million and 10 million and two (New York and Los Angeles, UnitedStates) with more than 10 million people.37. Although urbanization has increased, consumption of water has fallen in most of WesternEurope (see fig. II) during the past decade as a result of urban water services having focused onwater savings, increasing metering and the use of economic instruments (water charges andtariffs). In other cities of the UNECE region, for instance in South-East Europe, urban water usehas continued to increase as more homes are connected to water-supply systems, morehouseholds are formed and people adopt more water-consuming lifestyles. In the accessioncountries and EECCA countries, urban water use has decreased since 1990 primarily because bigindustrial water users have closed down and subsidies for water have gradually been removed.38. Urban water utilities have installed meters with end- users in most countries in WesternEurope. This has proved effective in reducing water use. Only recently have meters beenintroduced in Eastern Europe and EECCA (see fig. VII).39. Unaccounted- for water, which in many cases reflects the efficiency of a water utility, islow in western countries of the region and high in most EECCA countries (e.g. Republic ofMoldova, Russian Federation and Ukraine) and in a few Central and East European countries(Romania and Bulgaria). The main reason for their high figures is loss in the distribution system.Agenda 21 recommends that States should ensure that: (a) all urban residents have access to atleast 40 litres of safe water per day and at least 75% are provided with on-site communityfacilities for sanitation; (b) discharge limits for municipal and industrial effluents are applied;and (c) at least 75% of solid waste generated in urban areas is managed in an environmentallysafe way.In most EU member States and accession countries, the targets of Agenda 21 have been met.There is a more or less universal provision of advanced water and sanitation facilities and otherurban water services. Most are provided by public sector utilities, although increasing use isbeing made of private sector provision. In urban areas of EECCA countries and some Centraland East European countries, the water and sanitation infrastructure exists but is often in poorcondition.ECE/AC.25/2004/5/Add.1Page 1240. Many UNECE countries are threatened by major floods, with severe economic and socialimpacts. Flooding is becoming the most common and costly “water-quantity problem” in theMediterranean region as well as in parts of Western and Central Europe and North America. Thisis one area where the economically advanced Western countries of the region seem to beexperiencing increasing problems.41. In Europe, economic losses due to floods and landslides between 1990 and 1996 werefour times those of the entire 1980-1989 decade. The 1993 Mississippi flood cost more than allprevious United States floods combined in terms of economic losses. In recent years, disasterplans have been implemented in the Rhine basin, in Central Europe, in France and in othercountries where the population has suddenly experienced major flooding and economic lossesequivalent to a few per cent of GDP.42. Flood damage has increased and often hit urban areas particularly hard. Additionalmeasures will be required along rivers to protect dykes. Development in flood plains results inincreased damage when protection measures fail because of poor maintenance or insufficientinfrastructure strength. Common factors exacerbating this problem are fragmentation ofresponsibilities and lack of integration of flood protection, land-use planning and flood damagecompensation policies.43. Some progress has been achieved in EECCA in moving towards a more sustainabledevelopment of the urban water-supply and sanitation sector. EECCA Ministers adopted a set ofguiding principles in Almaty (Kazakhstan) in 2000 and a reform programme has been initiated.Both need genuine commitment by the countries.44. Many urban centres throughout the region have outgrown their capacity to provideadequate water supplies, as all nearby surface water sources have been tapped and/or asgroundwater resources are being drawn on much faster than the natural rate of recharge. Thereare examples of cities that have established water management systems for the whole watershedthat they are drawing water from. The city administrations have made agreements with upstreamfarmers on the application of best agricultural practices, acquired land in the watershed vital toprotect future water quality, imposed stricter water management regulations, etc. Suchapproaches will be needed more in the future to cope with the increased urban water demands.45. With regard to floods, a more proactive land- use policy across an entire watershed(including “green corridors” along rivers and streams, reinstatement of flood control plains,better control of deforestation, and preservation of wetlands), combined with enforcement ofzoning provisions may contribute to reversing the trend in the long term. It may even benecessary for potential flood victims to assume a greater share of the risk through higher floodinsurance premiums or reduced compensation for flood damage. All UNECE countries aretaking measures to better prepare for and cope with extreme events, be they floods or droughts.ECE/AC.25/2004/5/Add.1Page 13E. Means of implementationCompared with other regions, many countries of the UNECE region seem to be well advanced inthe introduction of economic instruments, such as water fees and fines, water-related taxes,water-related subsidies given through environmental funds and voluntary instruments.Environmental management systems for enterprises have reduced industrial water use andemissions and public-private partnerships have made water services provision more effective.46. It has been shown in many East European countries that increasing water priceseffectively to decreases water use. In Hungary, for example, water prices increased 15-fold aftersubsidies were removed and during the 1990s this led to a reduction in water use of about 50%(see fig. VIII).47. Analyses of water affordability in EECCA countries have demonstrated that water billsare already a heavy burden on household budgets, especially for low- income families. If waterbecomes more expensive, the poorer families may need to reduce their water consumption evenfurther which, again, might lead to an increase in water-related disease. It is clear that crucialrises in water tariffs will be a challenge for the poorest sections of the population. To ensuresocial acceptance of water sector reforms, it is therefore essential to give sufficient attention tothis issue and to take adequate measures to protect the poor. As concerns the economic reformsof the water supply and sanitation sector, one of the key reasons for the continued decline inwater services in EECCA is the chronic underfunding of the sector. In particular, water utilityrevenues are typically insufficient even to cover essential operating and maintenance costs,largely due to extremely low water tariffs.48. The protection of the aquatic environment can only be achieved through furtherintegration of the different policy areas and management of water-using sectors. Integrated waterresources management procedures and the EU Water Framework Directive have promoted suchdevelopments in Western, Central and East European countries, encouraging, for example,farmers to change land- use practices to reduce nitrate leakage into groundwater and to applypesticides in a more environmentally friendly way. Industries have been encouraged to invest innew technologies to reduce emission, and consumers have been encouraged to buyenvironmentally friendly products, like biodegradable detergents.49. In EECCA and some countries in South-East Europe, utility companies are inefficient.Weak incentives for environmental improvements, low fees and fines for resource use andviolation of emission limits, subsidies and the recession have provided little stimulus forenvironmental action by industries. As a result, industries have not introduced the less resourceintensivetechnologies and pollution control measures that could have improved both theircompetitiveness and reduced their environmental pollution.50. Substantial domestic and international funds for water and sanitation infrastructure andservices development have been raised in Western, Central and Eastern Europe.51. It is estimated that, for example, the EU countries will have invested about €130 billionor an average of €307 per person equivalent in the 1993-2005 period to comply with the UrbanWastewater Treatment Directive. About half of this is for collection systems. It is estimated thatthe seven Central and East European countries that will become members of EU in May 2004ECE/AC.25/2004/5/Add.1Page 14will need to invest about €12 billion in urban waste-water treatment and about €8 to 10 billion indrinking-water supply over the next 10 years to comply with EU legislation.52. The accession countries have covered about 90-95% of the investment from theirdomestic budgets. Public sector expenditures in the whole region rely on three major sources offinance: local government revenues, transfers from central government budgets, and grants andsoft loans from environme ntal funds. Municipalities have problems securing financing forinvestment and many have been exploring new opportunities including involving the privatesector and issuing municipal bonds. Environmental funds have played an important role infinancing environmental investment in many countries, covering up to 40% in some and from 10to 20% in most of Central and Eastern Europe.53. Industrial water use has also fallen in Western countries (see fig. II). Western Europe hasinvested in less polluting production methods and in pollution control equipment. In EU andaccession countries, the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Directive hasintroduced best available technology (BAT) in the most resource- intensive and pollutingindustries. Some have started to implement environmental management systems, such as the EUEco-management and Auditing Scheme (EMAS) or the International StandardizationOrganization’s (ISO) 14000 series. Governments have to some extent supported thisdevelopment through subsidies or technology development programmes targeted in particular topolluting and resource- intensive industries. There has only been limited development in this fieldin EECCA.54. Central, East and South-East European countries have obtained substantial assistance inthe water sector through bilateral donors, EU programmes and international financinginstitutions. Through the 1996-2001 period, external assistance for the environment sectorincreased and reached 0.1-0.9% of GDP in recipient countries. On average, 50% of all donorfunds spent on the environment sector supported reform capacity-building and investment.55. In EECCA, domestic sources also generally account for the largest share ofenvironmental expenditures. In 1996-2001, domestic sources accounted for about 90% in mostEECCA countries; for a few countries, this share was about 30% (Armenia, Georgia,Kyrgyzstan). Most EECCA countries seem to devote almost the same share of their incomes toenvironment-related expenditures as Central and East European and EU countries do. In mostcountries, water supply and sanitation account for the largest share of environmentalexpenditures - typically 50 to 85%. Absolute values in EECCA countries, however, are verysmall because of the very low incomes.56. Environmental assistance from donors to EECCA countries have increased in absoluteterms and as a share of total development aid in the 1996-2001 period. Water supply andsanitation have been the major beneficiaries.57. Overall cooperation and coordination in the water sector in the Central and East Ejropeanand EECCA subregions have improved during the past decade. Under the “Environment forEurope” process, the Environmental Action Programme and the OECD task force put in place tosupport its implementation have assisted the Central and East European in their water sectorreform. The Regional Environmental Centres have facilitated environmental dialogue,networking and regional cooperation mainly to bring civil society into the transition process. TheProject Preparation Committee hosted by the European Bank for Reconstruction andDevelopment has assisted in coordinating international financing institutions’, donors’ andECE/AC.25/2004/5/Add.1Page 15countries’ support to investments in infrastructure. From the mid-1990s, EU accessionprogrammes have played a major role for the accession countries.58. From 1998, the “Environment for Europe” process has increasingly focused on EECCA.The further work on the Environmental Strategy agreed by the UNECE Environment Ministersin Kiev in May 2003, and a number of existing and new subregional (Central Asia, Aral Seabasin and Caspian Sea basin) and transboundary agreements will strengthen cooperation andcoordination in the water sector in this region (see box 5).Box 5: EECCA Environmental Strategy – Ministerial Declaration“...We adopt the “Environmental Partnerships in the UNECE Region:Environmental Strategy for Countries of Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and CentralAsia. Strategic framework” intended to contribute to improving environmentalconditions and to implementing the WSSD Plan of Implementation in EasternEurope, the Caucasus and Central Asia by strengthening the efforts of thesecountries in environmental protection and by facilitating partnership andcooperation between these countries and other countries of the UNECE region,including all stakeholders. We welcome the Strategy’s key objectives and areas ofaction to:…(a) Improve environmental legislation, policies and institutional framework;…(b) Reduce the risks to human health through pollution prevention and control;…(c) Manage natural resources in a sustainable manner;…(d) Integrate environmental considerations into the development of keyeconomic sectors;…(e) Establish and strengthen mechanisms for mobilizing and allocatingfinancial resources to achieve environmental objectives;…(f) Provide information for environmental decision-making and promote publicparticipation and environmental education;…(g) Identify and address transboundary environmental problems and strengthencooperation within the framework of international conventions, as applicable...”.Source: /29/59. Some governments in Central and Eastern Europe and EECCA have increasingly lookedfor private sector partners to provide two key resources: (a) improved management systems andtechnical options and (b) funds. The international financing institutions, like the World Bank,have initiated a number of projects with management contracts in EECCA, which have resultedin improved service provision. Foreign direct investment (FDI) in the urban water sector hasincreased worldwide during the past decade and reached US$ 25 billion in 1997. However, FDIflows have been concentrated on a small number of countries of Central and Eastern Europe andEECCA obtained only 6% of this amount. The main reason seems to be the high financial riskECE/AC.25/2004/5/Add.1Page 16perceived by private investors. In EECCA, only two projects with private sector involvementseem to be under development (St. Petersburg in the Russian Federation and Almaty inKazakhstan).60. At the WSSD, the EU together with the EECCA countries launched a partnership toimplement the water aspects of the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation, i.e. the 2015 targets onwater supply and sanitation and the 2005 target on integrated water resources management andwater efficiency plans. This partnership was adopted in Kiev, at the fifth “Environment forEurope” Ministerial Conference as an important tool to meet the WSSD targets as well as thoseof the EECCA Environmental Strategy.Public awareness of environmental problems, public pressure to solve them and publicparticipation in decision-making have been essential for the development and implementation ofeffective environmental policies in Western Europe. However, the conditions for publicparticipation in decision-making are still difficult in other countries, particularly in EECCA.Throughout Central and Eastern Europe, the number of NGOs grew rapidly during the 1990sand in 1997 the number of environmental NGOs, of which a number also focus on water, wasestimated at about 3000. NGOs have tried to act as catalysts for environmental improvement.They have provided environmental information to the public, undertaken environmentalprotection projects and participated in government decision-making. The adoption of theUNECE Aarhus Convention has been a major step forward in providing NGOs and civil societywith the right to get information and participate in decision-making. The NGO movement hasbeen weaker in a number of EECCA countries, and they have had less influence on the politicalprocess than in Central and Eastern Europe.61. The level of technical education in the water sector is generally high throughout theUNECE region. Higher education on water and water-related subjects are offered in allcountries, and all Western and most Central and East European countries have traininginstitutions for water service managers and personnel.Box 6: Environmental education and awareness-raisingThe Green Pack, developed by the Regional Environment Center for Central andEastern Europe, is a multi- media environmental education curriculum kit primarilyintended for Polish secondary school teachers and their students, although it canalso be used at other levels of education.It focuses on particular aspects of environmental protection and sustainabledevelopment, and includes a variety of educational materials, such as:· Teacher's handbook with lesson plans and fact sheets for students;· A video cassette with animated clips and educational films;· An interactive CD-ROM with extensive information on variousenvironmental topics;ECE/AC.25/2004/5/Add.1Page 17· A dilemma game; and· Other printed materials.Thus, the users of the pack will be able to follow lesson plans, complemented withvideo presentations and additional information from the CD-ROM and its links tosimilar web sites.Rather than focusing on the accumulation of knowledge in particular environmentalareas, the Green Pack emp hasizes the formation of new values in students and anew model of behaviour at school, at home and in society.Source: /30/62. A step towards even better environmental education in the region was taken at the fifthMinisterial Conference “Environment for Europe” in Kiev in May 2003. The Conference agreedon a statement on Education for Sustainable Development and invited Education Ministers andother Ministers, in close cooperation with the United Nations Educational, Scientific andCultural Organization (UNESCO), to take an active part in the development of a regionalstrategy for education for sustainable development. It confirmed that education was afundamental challenge and a tool for environmental protection and sustainable development andinvited all countries to promote education as a key agent for change.II. CONCLUSIONSA. Conventions and protocols63. Progress:(a) UNECE Water Convention ratified by 34 countries and the EuropeanCommunity;(b) Significant activity with regard to negotiating and signing water basinagreements, modelled on the UNECE Water Convention;(c) Government accountability, transparency and responsiveness in environmentalmatters promoted through the Aarhus Convention, which has been ratified by many Central andEast European and EECCA countries;(d) Most countries have initiated national planning processes like NationalEnvironmental Action Plans.64. Challenges(a) Ratification of UNECE environmental conventions and protocols by countriesthat have not already done so;(b) Ratification of existing bilateral and multilateral agreements in the region;ECE/AC.25/2004/5/Add.1Page 18(c) Drawing up bilateral and multilateral agreements and other arrangements wherethese do not exist, or adapt existing ones in order to define mutual relations and conductregarding the prevention, control and reduction of transboundary impact and other issuesrelevant to integrated water resources management.B. Legal and regulatory aspects65. Progress:(a) Polluter-pays principle and user-pays principle embedded in law in almost allcountries;(b) Clear goals and targets set for water bodies in EU through the Water FrameworkDirective: “Good status” required by 2015;(c) River basin management approaches introduced in most countries, and mandatoryin EU.66. Challenges:(a) Complete regulatory framework in EECCA;(b) Implementation and enforcement of newly adopted water legislation, especially inEECCA.C. Institutional arrangements67. Progress :(a) Almost all countries have a national body responsible for water policies,strategies and national planning;(b) Water management, especially water services, decentralized in most countries;(c) Joint bodies established for a great number of transboundary surface waters andsome groundwaters.68. Challenges:(a) Full implementation of the tasks of joint bodies for shared water resources, andestablishment of joint bodies for transboundary waters (rivers, lakes, groundwaters) where theydo not yet exist;(b) Capacity-building of river basin management institutions and financing of waterresource management services.ECE/AC.25/2004/5/Add.1Page 19D. Monitoring and water resources assessment69. Progress:(a) Water resources assessment services established in all Western countries;(b) Some Central and East European countries have revised and updated theirmonitoring programmes;(c) Two thirds of UNECE countries report that they have made progress or alreadyimplemented Agenda 21 measures on freshwater monitoring.70. Challenges:(a) Move from data collection to creation of policy-relevant information;(b) Counteract deterioration of monitoring systems in many EECCA countries due tothe lack of financing;(c) Rehabilitate of water monitoring networks in EECCA;(d) Harmonize of monitoring and assessment procedures through internationalcooperation and participation in international networks, especially for Central and easternEurope and EECCA.E. Protection of water resources, water quality and aquatic ecosystems71. Progress:(a) Total water withdrawals have fallen in most subregions during the past decade;(b) Good progress in reducing and cleaning effluent discharges (in EECCA partlybecause of declining economic and industrial output);(c) In Western Europe and EU accession countries, water quality has generallyimproved;(d) Significant progress across the region in management of water resources andquality as a result of policies and measures implemented;(e) More than half the countries report that they have made progress or implementedAgenda 21 measures on water pollution prevention and water treatment.ECE/AC.25/2004/5/Add.1Page 2072. Challenges:(a) Achieving ecosystem protection and ambient water quality objectives;(b) Control of diffuse pollution sources and deposits of nutrients, heavy metals andpersistent organic pollutants;(c) Prevention of overuse and contamination of groundwater aquifers;(d) Completion, restoration and upgrading of waste-water treatment infrastructure;(e) Better integration of water management aspects into other sector policies.F. Structural and non-structural measures related to drinking-water supplyand sanitation73. Progress: North America and Europe have improved water supply and sanitation nearlyeverywhere. In Europe and especially in Central Asia, rural coverage is considerably lower thanurban coverage.74. Challenges:(a) Reducing microbial pollution of drinking water, especially in Central Asia andother EECCA countries;(b) Municipal water sector reforms, decentralization, transformation of water utilities,phase-out of subsidies, in EECCA;(c) Ageing pipe networks requiring expensive maintenance or upgrading in most ofthe region;(d) Policy and institutional reforms in EECCA to maintain, operate and upgradewater infrastructure and management systems;(e) Assistance from Western countries to infrastructure rehabilitation in EECCA.G. Water for sustainable food production and rural development75. Progress:(a) Reduction in use of fertilizers and pesticides;(b) Innovative application of watershed protection by paying farmers to reducediffuse pollution in sensitive areas;(c) Progress in Western countries in removing subsidies from agricultural water use;ECE/AC.25/2004/5/Add.1Page 21(d) Water efficiency gains achieved through management by water users’associations (WUAs).76. Challenges:(a) Protection of water resources along with rehabilitation and expansion of irrigationsystems;(b) “More crop per drop” of water used for agriculture, tolerant crop development.H. Water and sustainable urban development77. Progress:(a) Agenda 21 targets on urban water issues have been met in most Western and EUaccession countries(b) Urban water use has fallen, partly due to the installation of meters.78. Challenges:(a) Vulnerability towards floods increasingly high, also in Western Europe;(b) Integrated flood management approaches to reduce flood vulnerability;(c) Water transfer schemes to cover urban growth and measures to manage urbanwater demand.I. Means of implementation79. Progress:(a) Many successful examples of economic instruments (fees, fines taxes,environmental funds, etc.) have led to a reduction in water use and pollution; EECCA laggingbehind;(b) Best available technology and environmental management systems widelyintroduced in Western countries;(c) Environmental assistance to EECCA has increased, with the water sectorreceiving the most of the support;(d) “Environment for Europe” process as a vehicle for cooperation and coordinationof environmental assistance to Central and Eastern Europe (previously) and EECCA;(e) Involvement of NGOs (facilitated e.g. through the Aarhus Convention) acted as acatalyst for environmental improvement in Central and Eastern Europe; less so in EECCA.ECE/AC.25/2004/5/Add.1Page 2280. Challenges:(a) Involvement of private sector in financing water infrastructure rehabilitation inEECCA;(b) Finding the appropriate mix of economic and regulatory instruments;(c) Securing additional resources for municipalities, in particular in EECCA, frominvestment in the water sector.
posted by JC @ 4:07 AM
0 Comments
