Water and Wetland Index Results for Five Accession Countries: Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Slovakia and Turkey
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Water and Wetland Index Results for five Accession Countries: Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Slovakia and Turkey Appendix: Scores and comments WWF European Freshwater Programme 5 December 2000 Water and Wetland Index – Results for Five Accession Countries – Appendix: Scores and Comments Table of Contents INTRODUCTION 1 Table 1. Overview of assigned country scores for Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Slovakia and Turkey 2- 3 NATIONAL SCORES AND COMMENTS ON DATA QUALITY AND ECOLOGICAL STATUS: Rivers, lakes and wetlands: Table 2. Selected rivers – scores and comments 4- 7 Table 3. Selected lakes – scores and comments 8-11 Table 4. Selected wetlands – scores and comments 12-17 Fragmentation of rivers and degree of undisturbed rivers and lakes Table 5. Undisturbed river stretches – estimates and comments 18-19 Table 6. Undisturbed lakes – estimates and comments 20-21 Table 7. Fragmentation of selected rivers – scores and comments 22-24 Aspects of sustainable water use Table 8. Stressed wetlands – scores and comments 25-28 NATIONAL COLLABORATORS 29 Citation: WWF European Freshwater Programme, December 2000. Water and Wetland Index – Results for Five Accession Countries – Appendix: Scores and Comments. Denmark, Copenhagen. Water and Wetland Index – Results for Five Accession Countries – Appendix: Scores and Comments Introduction This document contains the Water and Wetland Index results that were reported from Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Slovakia and Turkey. It document the scores and comments from each country, that are the basis for the conclusions presented in the report “Water and Wetland Index – Results for Five Accession Countries”. This report can be downloaded from www.panda.org/europe/freshwater. Results for these five countries were launched on 5 December 2000. On 1 February 2001, the first phase results for all 16 countries will be published in a comprehensive European wide report including: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom and the five accession countries mentioned above. The scores Where possible, the scoring for the Index is based on the logic of the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD). The WFD aims to achieve “good status” in all waters and to prevent further deterioration. It uses "status" categories (high, good, moderate etc.) that measures how much the status of a body of water deviates from "undisturbed" conditions. The Water and Wetland Index examines the “ecological status” of rivers, lakes and wetlands, which is one major aspect of the “good status” requirement of the WFD and employs a similar scoring scale (high, good, moderate, etc.). When assessing areas not covered by the Water Framework Directive, e.g. threatened species or fragmentation of rivers by dams, other but similar scoring scales are used (with 0 or 1 representing the worst condition and 4 the best). The Index also looks at the quality of the data so when, for example assessing a river, the Index scores on the availability, accuracy and comparability of the data themselves and on the ecological status of this river. The scoring is based on national monitoring data and other data sources. A Working Document provides detailed guidelines on how to score. Data are collected nationally by WWF and partner organisations who accompany their reporting with detailed comments. Contact WWF’s European Freshwater Programme for more information on the data sources and the detailed criteria. What the Index does and does not show Measuring the pressures, status and impacts on freshwater ecosystems and water resources is an ambitious task. Given the complexity of the issue, one should not expect perfect answers. Describing stresses, alterations and potential threats to the “health” of the freshwater ecosystem with relatively few indicators can only lead to a piecemeal overview. There is also the problem of lack of good data: sometimes inventories or basic monitoring programmes do not exist for all the selected indicators or the environmental data are patchy in coverage with much variation in origin, date, resolution and quality. Therefore, the indicators are sometimes based on “best available data” and should not be viewed as a substitute for a proper scientific study, but rather serve as an awareness raising tool that demonstrates key stresses, alterations and threats to water, rivers, lakes and wetlands in Europe . 1 Water and Wetland Index – Results for Five Accession Countries – Appendix: Scores and Comments Table 1. Overview of assigned national scores of 1st Wave indicators of the Water and Wetland Index for Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary and Turkey. Name of Area, Category and Indicator Max-score Bulgaria Estonia Hungary Slovakia Turkey WETLAND (ECOSYSTEM) HEALTH State of wetland habitat types Data quality of parameters related to ecological state of selected rivers 4 Data in Table 2 Ecological state of selected rivers 4 Data quality of parameters related to ecological state of selected lakes 4 Data in Table 3 Ecological state of selected lakes 4 Data quality of parameters related to selected wetland habitats 4 Data in Table 4 Ecological state of selected wetland habitats 4 Sufficiency and quality of ecological corridor existence for maintaining the biological diversity of a particular biogeographic region – with focus on migratory 4 2 2-3 3 2-3 1 fish State of associated species (flora and fauna) of Wetland habitats Data quality of National Red List species 4 23-4231 Ecological state of National Red List species 4 02-3000 Data quality of alien invasive species (biodiversity loss of native species) 4 112-321 Ecological state of alien invasive species (biodiversity loss of native species) 4 03020 Sufficiency of inventory and monitoring data of Wetlands Completeness and quality of national monitoring/inventory programmes for running 4 2-3332-32 water Completeness and quality of national monitoring/inventory programmes for lakes and 4 1-2 3 2-3 2-3 2-3 reservoirs Completeness and quality of national monitoring/inventory programmes for wetlands 4 1 3-4 2 2-3 2 Degree of “naturalness” and human-induced fragmentation of rivers and other wetland habitats Ecological representation of natural undisturbed running water habitats (minimal % Data in Table 5 anthropogenic alterations). Ecological representation of natural undisturbed lakes (minimal anthropogenic % Data in Table 6 alterations). Physical disturbances/changes of selected rivers. 4 Data in Table 7 2 Water and Wetland Index – Results for Five Accession Countries – Appendix: Scores and Comments Name of Area, Category and Indicator Max-score Bulgaria Estonia Hungary Slovakia Turkey WATER RESOURCE “STATUS OF WATER USE AND ITS EFFECT ON WETLAND ECOLOGY” State of regionally stressed surface water and groundwater areas and its effect on the ecological function of associated wetland ecosystems Data quality of parameters that assess potential effects on the ecological function of 4 wetland ecosystems in selected areas with over-exploitations of groundwater reserves Ecological state of water stressed wetlands in selected areas with over-exploitations 4 of groundwater reserves Data quality of parameters that assess potential effects on the ecological function of 4 Data in Table 8 wetland ecosystems in selected areas with over-exploitations of surface water Ecological state of water stressed wetlands in selected areas with over-exploitations 4 of surface water Sustainable management of water resources - sufficiency of inventory and monitoring data Completeness and quality of national monitoring/inventory programmes for 4 1-2 2-3 3-4 2-3 2 assessment of sustainable use of groundwater resources. Completeness and quality of national monitoring/inventory programmes for assessment of sustainable use of surface water resources (rivers, lakes, water 4 2-3 2-3 3-4 2-3 1-2 reservoirs) Pressure on water resources from agriculture, aquaculture, industry, household and tourism Data quality related to pressure on surface and groundwater catchments from 413322 agriculture/horticulture: Data quality related to pressure on surface and groundwater catchments from 41- 3- 1-2 aquaculture: Data quality related to pressure on surface and groundwater catchments from 423322 industry: Data quality related to pressure on surface and groundwater catchments from public 422322 water supply: Data quality related to pressure on surface and groundwater catchments from diffuse 4222-31-21 pressures: Data quality related to pressure on surface and groundwater catchments from 411311 tourism: - : not relevant 3 Table 2. Selected morphological data of rivers from Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Slovakia and Turkey assessed for the Water and Wetland Index (WWI). Assigned scores on data quality and ecological state of the rivers are based on a “best available data” approach. Note River Altitude Length Catchment Geology Size typology based area on catchment area # WWI data score (m) (km) (km2) Data Quality Ecological State Bulgaria 1 Strouma 900 290 10 797 S + C very large 2-3 1-2 Maritza 2925-54 322 21 314 S + C very large 2-3 1-2 Danube 220-120 471 47 000 C very large 2-3 2 Mesta 1318 126 2 767 S + C large 2-3 3 Estonia 2 Water and Wetland Index – Results for Five Accession Countries – Appendix: Scores and Comments Narva 30–00 77 17 145 S very large 3 3-4 Emajõgi 34–30 101 9 700 S + C large 3 2-3 Pärnu 70–00 144 6 900 karstic + C large 3 2-3 Hungary 3 Rába 300-100 189 5 564 S + C large 3 3-4 Duna (Danube) 200-100 417 46 081 C very large 3-4 2-3 Tisza 117-79 586 46 950 S very large 3 2-3 Slovakia 4 Váh 670-107 367 11 600 S + C very large 3 2 Hornád 1000-160 171 4 403 S +C large 3 3 Hron 1100-106 284 5 464 S + C large 2-3 3 Turkey 5 Kizilirmak 1330 1182 75 000 karstic very large 1 3 Göksu 785 250 20 000 karstic very large 1 3 Buyuk Menderes 762 529 25 000 C very large 1 2 Seyhan 1525 560 20 000 C very large 1 2 Geology: S siliceous; C calcareous # Size typology: small 10 – 100 km2; medium > 100 to 1 000 km2; large > 1 000 to 10 000 km2; very large > 10 000 km2 4 Water and Wetland Index – Results for Five Accession Countries – Appendix: Scores and Comments Notes for Table 2: 1.