Arpa RR Report
Towards River Restoration in Armenia Expert Mission to the Arpa River Basin
B. Fokkens, M. Janes, H. Leummens (Ed.), I. Rodriguez & B. Terrier
September 2013
Reducing Transboundary Degradation in the Kura Ara(k) river basin
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ...... 3 I INTRODUCTION ...... 5 II OBSERVATIONS ON THE ARPA RIVER BASIN ...... 7 II.1 Ecological state ...... 7 II.2 Hydrologic flow ...... 7 II.3 River morphology ...... 9 II.4 Hydropower ...... 10 II.5 Flooding ...... 12 II.6 Irrigated agriculture ...... 13 II.7 Municipal water ...... 13 II.8 Other issues ...... 14 II.9 Integrated water resources management ...... 15 III TOOLS & APPROACHES IN SUPPORT OF IMPROVED RIVER ECOLOGICAL STATE ...... 16 III.1 Information - Ecology, water quality, water quantity, water use ...... 16 III.2 Better hydrologic analytical tools & rules on environmental flows ...... 16 III.3 More ecologically friendly HPP ...... 17 III.4 Improved water use efficiency in irrigation ...... 18 III.5 Reduced pollution (urban) ...... 19 III.6 River Basin Management planning ...... 19 CITED LITERATURE ...... 23
DISCLAIMER
The views presented in this document do not necessarily coincide with or represent the views of the United Nations (UN), the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS), the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the GEF IW:LEARN International Waters Learning Exchange and Resource Network project, the UNDP-GEF “Reducing transboundary degradation in the Kura Ara(k)s river basin” project or the Government of Armenia and any of its subsidiary institutions, but reflect exclusively the authors’ opinion.
2 MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
The Armenian Ministry of Nature Protection has expressed its willingness to designate the Arpa river basin as a pilot basin in the twinning initiative “Community of Practice for Green Infrastructure Solutions to European River Basin Management”, coordinated by the European Centre for River Restoration, as launched at the 5th European River Restoration Conference (Vienna, September 2013). The initiative aims at strengthening the introduction of river restoration principles in River Basin Management (RBM) plans, for decision makers and planners to become better informed on experiences and best practices in river restoration and management in Europe. To assist the Government of Armenia, the UNDP-GEF Kura Ara(k)s project organized a European Expert Mission1 to Armenia, to provide support in assessing the needs & options for river restoration based on suitable approaches and practical experiences from Europe.
Following a 4-day mission to the Arpa river basin in Armenia in June 2013, the participating International Experts share the opinion that actions on river basin management need to emphasize conserving and maintaining existing good natural ecological functions and status, by reducing existing pressures on river ecosystems prior to significant damage being done, and river restoration becoming a necessity.
The key message is that today the natural functions of the Arpa river and its tributaries in general appear to be rather good, but not in all cases, as will be further discussed below. The still rather good features provide for a very different starting point than that of “river restoration” in an EU context whereby rivers or parts thereof often are already heavily impacted and changed. In many respects the Arpa system therefore precedes this more onerous undertaking of restoration, instead only asking to conserve the near-natural state (a solution that one would like to see in Europe more often). Far more costly and complex restoration is currently mostly confined to more manageable mitigation and alteration of structural pressures (dams, HPPs, irrigation and bank engineering). For many ‘significant’ pressures in the Arpa basin, the authors do not suggest to remove these where they are still operational – because agricultural land use, the use of natural resources and energy production are economically and socially necessary.
The International Expert Team recognizes the need for socio-economic development, specifically in the energy sector, and also in providing livelihoods to the rural communities. The requirement is to strive to maintain the natural functioning of the river system, to allow humans and ecosystems to exist with minimum detriment to each, and maximum benefit for both, avoiding the scenario of destruction and restoration. This suggests an ‘act now’ approach, drawn from Europe’s experience that river restoration requires long-time input and is significantly more costly than initial conservation and good management. Restoration of the Skjern river in Denmark costs € 30 mln, the equivalent sum of the costs to drain the wetlands and straighten the river 50 years earlier (http://www.globalrestorationnetwork.org/database/case-study/?id=115). In Scotland, high energy rivers similar to the Arpa initially showed no detrimental impact from small scale engineering and hydropower, as the supply of bed material and flow was plentiful. But as engineering works became larger, the legacy became erosion, instability and impact on important structures (see e.g. Scottish Government, 2012). In the Netherlands Flood Management Program, about € 500 mln is used for the restoration of natural river hydromorphology and related habitats (Program Directorate “Room for the River”). Meanwhile, even costly restoration does not always lead to the full return of natural ecosystems, as some thresholds may be reached that cannot be reversed.
Accordingly the focus in Armenia should be on preventive measures, although also compensation and mitigation is needed and wanted. Part of the solution to strengthen prevention is considering whether within the network of formally Protected Areas the establishing of River Reserves should be considered - to strategically protect natural landscapes and habitats and the processes they depend upon: hydrological, morphological and ecological regimes. While rivers depend on the 3-dimensional river basin to provide
1 The mission was organized with the financial support of the GEF International Waters – Learning Exchange & Resources Network (IW:LEARN), and the UNDP-GEF project “Reducing transboundary degradation in the Kura Ara(k)s river basin”, while all international and national experts generously participated free of charge.
3 water inflow, the river network itself is an inter-connected longitudinal structure. Riverine ecosystems and the services they provide depend on upstream to downstream and lateral linkages, supporting specific environmental relationships and processes. Maintaining longitudinal connectivity in rivers is therefore a critical requirement for the successful conservation of river ecosystems, their processes and flora and fauna, all of which provide products and services to humans (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). The approach of River Reserves links to the European Union’s conservation initiative of Natura 2000.
Natura 2000 is the centerpiece of the EU nature & biodiversity policy. It consists of an EU-wide network of nature protection areas established under the 1992 Habitats Directive (EC, 2007), to assure the long-term survival of Europe's most valuable and threatened species and habitats. It is comprised of Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) designated by Member States under the Habitats Directive, and also incorporates Special Protection Areas (SPAs) which they designate under the Birds Directive (EC, 2009). Natura 2000 is not a system of strict nature reserves where all human activities are excluded. Whereas the network will certainly include strictly protected nature reserves, most of the land is likely to continue to be privately owned and the emphasis will be on ensuring that future management is sustainable, both ecologically and economically. The establishment of this network of protected areas also fulfills a Community obligation under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity.
The EU’s Green Infrastructure is an approach aiming to resolve river management challenges, using strategic interventions at a suitable scale to conserve and improve good ecological state. The European Centre for River Restoration defines ‘river restoration’, in its widest sense, as “…a variety of measures aiming at restoring the natural state and functioning of the river and the riverine environment. By restoring natural conditions and processes, river restoration aims at providing the framework for the sustainable multifunctional use of rivers”. This broad approach applies just as much to the best-practice conservation, restoration and river management being suggested in Armenia. Flood risk, fisheries, hydropower and related human well-being, water quality, habitat and biodiversity, all benefit from river restoration and good integrated river management, based on combining different policy objectives into a river management plan, undertaken at a suitable catchment scale and extent.
Key tools and approaches suitable in addressing the conservation of still-existing natural functions and providing solutions - mitigation as well as river restoration - for local environmental problems in the Arpa basin to restore natural ecosystem functioning, as identified by the International Expert Team, include: (1) Improved knowledge on actual state of ecosystems and water use. (2) Better hydrologic analytical tools & rules on environmental flows. (3) Improved hydropower plant design – upstream/downstream passage of biota. (4) Improved efficiency in water use – irrigation, hydropower. (5) Addressing pollution – point sources and diffuse sources. (6) Strengthened integrated spatial management: RBM planning.
Decision making on best approaches for the conservation, mitigation and restoration of natural environmental processes strongly depends on a good and complete knowledge base, well-founded on unambiguous, accurate information obtained from inventory and long-term monitoring of environmental and ecological aspects of the rivers in the Arpa basin. The Expert Mission showed that there is an urgent need to improve data collection on the overall ecological values of the Arpa and its tributary basins. Available information from international experiences can be helpful, especially also in defining the criteria used to select, justify and promote sustainable economic development options. Support to capacity building among Armenian experts is equally important, them having theoretical knowledge but no practical experiences.
The issues presented above are discussed in more detail in the chapters to follow. More in-depth information on the proposed approaches can be found in the publications listed as cited literature, all of which are provided as digital annexes to this report.
4 I INTRODUCTION
Since the late 1990s water management in Armenia has undergone significant changes. The principles of Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) and River Basin Management (RBM) were adopted in the 2002 Water Code. The legislative and institutional framework were strengthened, among others 6 RBM Authorities were established under the Water Resources Management Agency of the Ministry of Nature Protection. The national Water Policy and the National Water Program – the national IWRM plan – have been adopted, as well as a formal outline for RBM plans. Class-based chemical water quality norms have been endorsed, taking natural background variability in river basin characteristics into account.
In line with Armenia’s approximation to the EU, the approach of the EU Water Framework Directive (EU WFD) has been introduced. Capacity building, training, equipment and support for gaining hands-on experience on the EU WFD were provided, and pilot RBM plans were prepared. Supported by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and UNDP, the project “Reducing transboundary degradation in the Kura Ara(k)s river basin” supports Armenia in developing a River Basin Management Plan for the Arpa river basin.
Accordingly, there is a strong understanding in Armenia on the needs for actions towards reaching good ecological status in the region’s water bodies. This includes safeguarding the potential for the river basin to provide valuable ecosystem services in the overall framework of ongoing economic development as well as the envisaged impacts of climate change. The approach of assessing the river’s ecological state based on its ecological components – specifically macro-invertebrates – is being testing in different river basins.
Meanwhile it is recognized that the country has limited information and technical capacity - staff, knowledge, monitoring networks, information assessment - to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the current ecological state of its river ecosystems. Also knowledge is limited on understanding of how best to improve the ecological situation in water bodies with a status less than “good” and what measures are most appropriate considering local conditions and economic development perspectives. While often technical and legal-institutional interventions are understood, an understanding of appropriate “natural process” solutions to improve the aquatic & riparian river environment is lacking. Information on international experiences in the field of river management and restoration is only infrequently available.
The Armenian Ministry of Nature Protection has expressed its willingness to participate with the Arpa river pilot basin in the twinning “Community of Practice for Green Infrastructure Solutions to European River Basin Management” initiative of the European Centre for River Restoration, launched at the 5th European River Restoration Conference (Vienna, September 2013). The initiative aims at introducing river restoration principles in RBM plans, to inform decision makers and planners on experiences and best practice in river restoration and management in Europe.
To assist the Government of Armenia, the UNDP/GEF Kura Ara(k)s project organized a European Expert Mission to Armenia, to provide initial support in assessing needs & options for river restoration based on suitable approaches and practical experiences from Europe. The mission brought hands-on experience in river restoration planning and implementation from selected European river basins in which the process of compliance to the WFD is well underway. The European experts were acquainted with the actual conditions in the Arpa river basin and based on this have provided advice on possible useful tools for river and water ecosystem management and restoration. These suggestions and tools will help deliver both social and environmental benefits, towards preparing a draft program of measures in the RBM plan for the Arpa basin. International participants to the European Expert Mission were: Mr. Bart Fokkens, Chairman of the European Centre for River Restoration, Lelystad, the Netherlands (http://www.ecrr.org/) Mr. Benoit Terrier, project manager on river hydro-morphology, Agence de l'Eau Rhône Mediterranean and Corsica, Lyon, France (http://www.eaurmc.fr) Mr. Ignacio Rodriguez, Technical support to River Management Plan Office, Duero River Basin Authority, Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment of Spain, Valladolid, Spain (http://www.chduero.es/)
5 Mr. Martin Janes, Managing Director, River Restoration Centre, Cranfield, UK (http://www.therrc.co.uk/)
The mission was facilitated by Mr. Harald Leummens, Science Officer / Demonstration Project Coordinator, UNDP/GEF project “Reducing transboundary degradation in the Kura Ara(k)s river basin” (www.kura- aras.org).
National participants having supported the European Expert Mission were: Mr. Volodya Narimanyan, Head, Water Resources Management Agency, Ministry of Nature Protection of the Republic of Armenia Mr. Artyom Mkhitaryan, Deputy Head, Water Resources Management Agency, Ministry of Nature Protection of the Republic of Armenia Mr. Stepan Grigoryan, Head, Basin Planning Division, Water Resources Management Agency, Armenia Ministry of Nature Protection Mr. Petros Shahnazaryan, Head, Araratian Basin Management Authority, Water Resources Management Agency, Ministry of Nature Protection of the Republic of Armenia Mr. Artak Martirosyan, Deputy Head, Araratian Basin Management Authority, Water Resources Management Agency, Ministry of Nature Protection of the Republic of Armenia Mr. Sevak Matilvan, Leading Specialist, Araratian Basin Management Authority, Water Resources Management Agency, Ministry of Nature Protection of the Republic of Armenia Mr. Mesropyan, Head, Land Development & Land Use Division, Vayotz Dzor Regional Administration Mr. Babken Mkrtchyan, Head, Department of Agriculture, Vayotz Dzor Regional Administration Mr. Benik Zakaryan, Senior Hydrologist, Consultant on Integrated Field Survey for the Arpa basin, UNDP/GEF project “Reducing transboundary degradation in the Kura-Ara(k)s river basin” Mr. Vahagn Tonoyan, Independent Consultant on preparation of Arpa RBM plan, UNDP/GEF project “Reducing transboundary degradation in the Kura-Ara(k)s river basin”
6 II OBSERVATIONS ON THE ARPA RIVER BASIN
In support of the European Expert Mission on River Restoration, the UNDP/GEF Kura Ara(k)s project coordinated the preparation of information materials by Armenian experts on natural conditions and human activities in the Arpa river basin. These materials, the understanding obtained during the field visits, and discussions with experts in Yerevan and the Arpa basin founded the reflections of the international experts. Specifically the team focused on options to strengthen the ecological situation in the Arpa basin.
Overall, from a European perspective, the current ecological conditions in the Arpa river basin look rather good, compared to European rivers. Where pressures do occur, leading to deterioration of aquatic ecosystems, they seem local. For example, hydropower stations blocking the river with dams and abstracting more water that ecologically appropriate. As such, this means that preservation, conservation and good management are as important as restoration which implies significant current deterioration. These issues will be further elaborated upon in the text below.
II.1 Ecological state
The expert judgment of the relatively good ecological state of the Arpa river is based on direct observations of pressures on aquatic ecosystems, as quantitative data on aquatic flora and fauna groups seem to be largely absent. Considering the developments towards application of the EU WDF principles, there is a need to expand collecting ecological information, for impacted locations as well as pristine “reference” sites.
Pressures on aquatic ecosystems seem unevenly distributed in the basin. Especially in the Yeghegis tributary where HPP stations seemed to have expanded along the whole length of the river. While the impact of HPP on aquatic ecosystems can often only be inferred from studies in Europe, observations from the visit were that HPP development in the Arpa has a very large impact where large volumes are being removed. At low flow periods the volume of water in the river and tributaries could be exceptionally low, altering river hydro-morphology, flow, depth, and longitudinal connectivity, with a high impact on the river ecology.
In the Arpa two fish species, Kura Barbell (Barbus lacerta) and Blackbrow or Transcaucasian Bleak (Acanthalburnus microlepis / Alburnus hohenackeri), were identified during the study, courtesy of a local fisherman. Both are migratory species. No more information on the actual fish composition in the Arpa basin was obtained. Studies of the UNDP/GEF Kura Ara(k)s project showed the occurrence of Schneider (Alburnoides bipunctatus) and Brown Trout (Salmo trutta fario).
Macro-invertebrate assessment for the Arpa river basin, undertaken in the framework of the UNDP/GEF Kura Ara(k)s project show differences in species composition and numbers between disturbed and not/minor disturbed sites. Further processing is needed, especially on data interpretation.
In summary: More information is needed on actual aquatic ecological conditions – common, rare, valuable species of aquatic & riparian flora and fauna, their population numbers, habitat preferences, life cycle features; as well as the impact of human activities on species occurrence & abundance. Accordingly, conclusions on ecosystem alterations will be better founded in actual quantitative information for decision making on suitable actions towards maintaining or reaching “good ecological state”.
II.2 Hydrologic flow
The expert mission visited the Arpa river basin between 11 and 14 June 2013, towards the end of the spring season. Accordingly the discharge of the river was relatively high, closer to natural flow conditions than in other seasons. It is known though that flow volumes are significantly less in seasons other than spring, but
7 available monitoring information provided seems to be largely averaged on a monthly level, and statistical interpretations on seasonal and annual variations in flow were not seen. Meanwhile, knowledge on the annual hydrograph (ideally based on daily observations) and variability under unimpaired conditions should be the basis for defining what could be an acceptable level of abstraction for each HPP in sequence in order to maintain the ecological integrity and heterogeneity of the river ecosystems.
Knowledge on flow variability should be the basis for calculating environmental flows, defined as the flow – quantity, quality and seasonal distribution - needed to sustain the river’s natural functions, processes & components of aquatic ecosystems in all periods of the year. The need to establish environmental flows is vested in the society’s need to use water resources to their benefit, accordingly, defining environmental flows requires a societal judgment about the state in which an ecosystem should be maintained. The currently applied methodology to calculate environmental flows in Armenia was not fully explained to the expert team.
The team learned that the UNDP/GEF Kura Ara(k)s project already has initiated an assessment of hydrological data in the three main rivers of the Ararat Basin Management Authority, including the Arpa river. The assessment will include an attempt to describe the natural hydrograph of river flow before human activities caused significant alterations in river flow, based on available monitoring data, to be used in calculating nature-based environmental flows. Considering that also in Armenia climate change is observed as ongoing, historical observations on river flow are bound to be skewed and of less practical use in river basin management (though global trends could be factored in to provide better estimates). Accordingly new data need to be collected, based on an assessment of the current hydrological monitoring activities.
The Arpa-Sevan tunnel diverts 100-150 mln m3 annually (although no actual data were obtained), and about 70 mln m3 is licensed for irrigation. Current total discharge at Areni is 400 mln m3 (average 2005- 2010), varying between 200 and 600 mln m3. Before the start of water transfer to Lake Sevan, the average annual discharge at Areni was 620 mln m3 (1930-1980), varying between 340 mln m3 and 1,000 mln m3. While the water level of Lake Sevan has increased by 3.5 m between 1980 and 2012, it is unclear whether the 19m decrease of the water level in the past can ever be compensated for by inter-basin transfer. Meanwhile, Lake Sevan remains a strategic water “use” body for irrigation in the Ararat valley as well as the Hrazdan river HPPs. Also at many sites the lake banks at the current shore line are used for buildings, which would be flooded when the water level would be further increased, including an important road connection. The diversion of this volume of flow from the upper Arpa system needs to be factored in to any discussion of the Arpa river basin, and potentially its impact be mitigated by lesser deterioration of the system downstream of Kechut.
The longitudinal hydrological continuity of the Arpa river is significantly altered. With regular frequency technical constructions obstruct the natural flow of the river and abstract water. The largest one are the dams of Kechut Reservoir and Her-Her reservoir, but many smaller impoundments exist, largely related to intake stations for diversion to hydropower stations (HPPs) or irrigation water intake (both operational or disused). See for more considerations in the sections “Hydropower” and “Agriculture”.
In summary: More and better information on river flow, its annual, seasonal and daily variability is needed, both for natural unimpaired flow and well as for the current altered flow regimes, for the main river and tributaries. For this an improvement and expansion of the hydrological monitoring network in the Arpa basin is needed, one that is detailed enough to assess the percentage of water taken and returned by each HPP. An appropriate method to define environmental flows needs to be adopted, paying due attention to seasonality and annual variation. The environmental flows should target maintaining ecosystem functioning (“good ecological state”) so as to provide guidance in determining water abstraction limits, and the river’s/tributary’s capacity for the planned additional HPPs or other water use developments.
8 II.3 River morphology
The Arpa river is characterized by a steep slope gradient and ample supply of coarse sediment, which supplies energy and bed material to dictate the river’s morphology. Many stretches show active morphological processes (characterized by seasonal flow dynamics, rapids, erosion & deposition zones), but evidence of modification to the system can be seen (walls, embankments, channelized sections, other bank protection, dams). So far the river - sediment supply and flow dynamics – appears to have been able to cope with this level of modification. For example there are signs that bed and bank material are still frequently mobilized within reaches between dams to maintain an active bed morphology in support of typical habitat. However, knowledge on pre-flow regulation hydromorphological processes seems not available. On the river Durance (France), studies shown that bed load transport that used to happen 100 days per year on average before the Serre-Ponçon dam was built now occurs less that 3 days per year on average. Such studies require hydrological flow and geomorphological data, currently missing for the Arpa.
A sound analysis of the pressures exerted on the Arpa river hydromorphology should ideally be carried out both on geomorphological homogeneous reaches and at catchment scale. Indeed, for an equivalent level of pressure (for an HPP for example), the impacts and adjustment of the Arpa may not be the same whether the pressure is applied on an upstream steep and narrow reach compared to a further downstream reach. Such an analysis was carried out over the 230,000 km of French rivers at catchment scale and on all the geomorphological homogeneous reaches identified over the entire hydrographic network. Geomorphological homogeneous reaches have not yet been identified for the Arpa but once they have been identified, they should be the entities on which future expertise is based together with catchment scale approaches, even though analysis can still be reported for the Arpa a whole and not a reach scale.
In places it is noticeable that bed lowering seems to have taken place, most likely as a result of sediment starvation. The construction of an upstream dam can initiate river bed incision that propagates further downstream of the dam due to erosion processes. On the other hand, upstream flow regulation and especially diversion of water causes a decrease in the river’s capacity to transport material, especially the coarse fractions (boulders, rocks, etc.). Over time, extreme armoring of the river bed can develop and lead to a paved river bed that will only be mobilized very rarely and result in a deteriorated ecological river habitat. A good example is the river Ain, with 5 large dams in the upstream section of the river. The depth to bedrock needs to be known to assess whether there is a risk that the Arpa riverbed could lose all its river bed substrate and flow over hard bed rock. This would cause a possible increase in water temperature, a very significant loss in river habitat, etc. The river Ouvèze serves as example for which restoration activities in 2011 targeted reversion of the situation. Accordingly, more detailed studies are needed to determine ongoing processes in the Arpa river basin. Meanwhile, it is known that even in energetic mobile-bed rivers the geomorphic changes often take a long time for problems to become noticeable. Equally, this slow long term change is then difficult and extremely costly to reverse.
The possible impacts of river incision on the foundations of bridge piers also need to be assessed. The bathymetry of the Kechut and Her-Her reservoirs should be monitored regularly. Not only would this indicate the rate of filling up with sediment of the reservoirs, it would also give valuable information on the potential supply of sediment to the Arpa upstream of the dam before construction.
The river system’s continuity, with longitudinal, lateral (with its floodplain) and vertical (into the bed material and groundwater reserves) dimensions, has several components: (1) sediment continuity – seems still to be active in the Arpa river with good supply sources, not considering Kechut Reservoir and Her-Her Reservoir (photo 2). Dams at HPPs are commonly small and do not have a reservoir; (2) Biological continuity - seems affected by impassable dams and obstacles, but difficult to assess as data are largely lacking. Fish passes do not look like they have been designed appropriately for fish species occurring in the Arpa river; (3) Lateral continuity – appears to still occur in most places apart from agricultural land flood walls and embankments (photo 1), but due to inter-basin transfer and abstraction for HPPs, the current extent cannot easily be compared to previous free flowing conditions; (4) Vertical continuity – the small scale within-bed connectivity for fish egg hatching and invertebrate survival still requires more species data.
9 In summary: while river morphology generally seems still to be appropriate and active, local impacts are observed. Walls were built to protect roads and agricultural lands, limiting lateral dynamics. Dams at HPPs limit longitudinal transport of sediments downstream. A complete inventory of the locations of structures is required. Studies of sediment dynamics may be useful to expand knowledge on dam impact on downstream changes in erosion & deposition processes. Also the longer term impact of the large number of newer HPP may not yet be visible, but their eventual detrimental impact is generically well documented.
PHOTO 1, 2: Physical structure (left - river bank protection; right – Her-Her dam and reservoir) impacting on lateral and longitudinal connectivity.
II.4 Hydropower
The number of HPPs is rapidly expanding in the Arpa river basin. Most are of the diversional type, using a penstock to transport water from an intake location to a downstream generator station. The River Arpa is under major stress (WFD ‘Pressure’) from the move towards expanding hydropower. This results in WFD ‘Impacts’ on: Water chemistry – lower dissolved oxygen levels, pollutant build up behind structures, increased water temperature, pollution from construction works, etc. Water quantity – bypassing river sections, leakage losses, altered hydrology and flow regime. Hydro-morphology – sediment storage and starvation around structures (accelerated deposition and erosion, altered frequency of channel-forming events, altered ‘natural processes’ (habitat creation/sustaining). Biology – reduced aquatic/wetland habitat, reduced resilience to change (climate and other pressures), physical barriers to movement (up and down), problems for different fish life stages (fry, juvenile, adults), invertebrates sensitive to the three above points (thus less food for fish). Vegetation changes affect bank stability, shade, temperature, habitat & cover. Invasive species out-compete native flora and cause health problems.
A summary overview of the impact of small scale hydro schemes on European rivers can be view at: http://www.youtube.com/embed/7cKFdsS7lVw?feature=player_embedded
A map prepared by Armenian experts showed that HPPs are planned throughout the basin, seemingly on all significant tributaries with year-round flow. Current HPPs have an installed capacity of about 15,000 KW, producing 45 mln KW-hr per year. Licenses have been issued for the construction of an additional 23,000 KW. Licensed used of water for HPPs is 105 mln m3 per year, but unclear is the actual volume of water temporarily abstracted from the river for energy production, as small HPPs seem not to be equipped with
10 measuring devices (or information is not publicly accessible). For this reason it is unclear whether there is currently any method by which the incremental impact of each new HPP can be factored in to the capacity of that watercourse to sustain its native flow and ecology.
Small HPPs typically have a low-elevation transversal dam blocking the river to divert water into the penstock. Meanwhile it is clear from observations by the UNDP/GEF Kura Ara(k)s team that (1) run-of-river small HPPs are designed for maximum intake, which in low-flow seasons often causes the drying up of the river stretch between intake and outflow points (Photo 3, 4), if no appropriate intake regulation regime is installed/enforced, based on environmental flow principles; and (2) that design features of the recently constructed small HPPs insufficiently maintain longitudinal connectivity for biology and morphology, as well as hydrology (seasonal).
PHOTO 3, 4: Small HPP in the Darp tributary in May (left) and October (October), showing that only during spring peak flows water can bypass the HPP, while in October all water is guided into the penstock.
New standards on fish passage for the EU will be published soon, adopting the principle that all species of all ages and swimming ability should be able to pass both upstream and downstream (see also Environment Agency, 2010). To properly design fish passes in the Arpa basin, there are some immediate needs: Inventory of native fish species of the Arpa river (approximately 60 species from 15 families known for the Kura basin), including an assessment of population numbers. Cross-reference of Arpa river fish species with studies of swimming speeds and habitat preference to determine the design specifications for fish passes
While HPPs do have fish passes to maintain longitudinal biological connectivity, field observations found that these fish passes could not work as expected – they are incorrectly designed, and totally ineffective. Key flaws are: no preferential (call) flow through the fish pass, too steep, no resting areas within the fish pass, too high a start elevation above the downstream water level (photo 5).
In summary: In developing HPP, no basin-level considerations seem to be given to the conservation of one or more key tributaries, saving them from HPP development, to maintain the natural longitudinal connectivity from downstream to upstream areas (e.g. Vindeln River, Sweden). Also metering of actual water abstraction and through-flow at HPPs seems absent, a prerequisite for maintaining environmental flows and planning for new HPPs and other flow regulation or water abstraction practices. The design of fish passages is visibly inappropriate for successful fish migration, and requires reconsideration, based on actual knowledge on fish species occurring in the Arpa river, and their habitat & migration preferences.
11
PHOTO 5: Small HPP in the Yeghegis river, visually showing two mistakes in the design and construction to allow fish connectivity: the fish ladder has too much slope and speed (red arrow) and no suitable levels for fish to rest. Also the call effect is to the opposite side of the weir (blue lines), attracting fish in the wrong direction.
II.5 Flooding
Considering the predominant mountainous features of the Arpa river basin, widespread flooding seems only a local feature in the few relatively widened valleys. Due to the incising of the river, several terraces have formed, of which only the lowest has currently the potential to be been affected by irregular flooding. Following the construction of the Kechut Reservoir and Her-Her Reservoir in the upstream region of the Arpa basin, significant flooding seems no longer to occur in downstream areas, as a significant volume of water is stored, used for irrigation, or transferred from the Kechut Reservoir to Lake Sevan through the Arpa-Sevan tunnel, operational since the early 1980s. Accordingly the “flood hazard” seems to have reduced. Meanwhile a “flood risk” is maintained, as the lower river terraces are in use for agriculture, and some houses occur in the historic flood zone. Consideration of restoring the river towards more natural flow regimes calls for the preparation of flood hazard and flood risk maps, in line with the EU Flood Directive. These plans should guide further land use planning in the risk zones, to minimize potential flood impacts. A supportive early-warning system can additionally strengthen the reduction of impacts.
In general, typical flood protection structures narrow the river width, constrain the flow and cause even higher water levels. This can increase the hazard and duration for the protected property/land in case the structures fail or are overtopped with extreme water volumes which cannot easily return to the river. Thought needs to be given to the costs/benefit of these structures. The economic value of what should be protected may be relatively low and the costs could be high. For example, a study on the river Ardèche showed that the cost of maintaining the river embankments near the main channel was 18 times higher than to set back the flood defenses and to compensate farmers and camping sites accordingly. Walls and close embankments cause even higher water levels, so the structures need to be over dimensioned with an exponential increase in cost. Having a long history of constraining the river within dikes to limit flooding, currently in the Netherlands there is now widespread implementation of maintaining a sufficiently wide
12 floodplain area, including water retention areas, to ensure improved safety during high water periods. In the Dutch flood protection project “Room for the River”, about 500 mln € of the 2.2 bln € was used for partly restoring the natural river hydromorphology, floodplain width and related habitats.
In summary: While flooding seems a lesser problem in the Arpa river basin, also because peak discharges have reduced due to inter-basin transfer, irrigation and reservoir regulation, the issue still warrants attention in the valleys in use for agriculture. Proper land use planning based on hazard & risk assessment is critical in decision making on where housing and other constructions are best developed. Non-structural flood reduction measures should be considered to combine improved safety with floodplain use and ecosystem restoration.
II.6 Irrigated agriculture
As with (small) HPPs, irrigation is a key water user in the Arpa basin. Water intake for irrigation seems to make use of transversal dams to divert water into the primary channel, but it is not known how their number compares to the number of in-stream pumping stations. In the Vayots Dzor Marz province, where the Arpa basin is located, according to official data 6,500 ha of land is irrigated, and the licensed water volume for irrigation is 69,000,000 m3, making it the second major water user sector after hydropower. Unknown though is whether more or less than the total licensed volume is abstracted, as no factual metering is being done. If the total licensed volume of water is indeed abstracted, then a water amount of 10,615 m3/ha is used for each ha, which significantly exceeds commonly observed norms of 3,500-5,000 m3/ha. Accordingly, either distribution and efficiency losses exceed 100%, or not all licensed water is actually being used. Proper planning and management would require installed metering to monitor actual use of water, as well as pilot water efficiency studies to review typical farm usage.
The area of land identified as potentially suitable for irrigation is about 50,000 ha, predominantly slightly sloping lands (up to 20o). Using this land for irrigated crop production would require a water volume of about 200 mln m3, assuming losses are minimized. This would halve the river flow at Areni, and depending on the location of the land suitable for irrigation, a tributary even may run dry, potentially affecting the water supply to the local community as well as for HPP. Proper integrated planning is required, taking all sectoral interests, as well as river ecology as a “silent” user, into account.
Meanwhile no information was provided as to the location of irrigation water abstractions, methods of irrigation intake (pumping stations or dams), irrigation techniques (gravity flow, sprinklers, drip, furrow irrigation, etc.). At one location a no longer operational transversal dam was noted. Not known is whether dams at irrigation intake locations are equipped with fish passes, and whether their design differs from the ones observed with HPPs. Also it seems that part of the abstracted water is transported outside the Arpa basin for irrigation use. For basin planning all this information is of importance, in defining water bodies in line with the EU WFD and accordingly to assess actual pressures on them.
In summary: more factual information on irrigation practices in the Arpa basin is needed, including location of agricultural fields, type of intake and distribution methods, actual water volumes abstracted from the river and provided to the field, distribution and field water use efficiency, etc. Modernization and expansion of irrigated agriculture requires proper planning, integrated with sectors such as hydropower, municipal water supply and ecosystem conservation, to maximize benefits and minimize peak usage impacts in other sectors of the economy as well as for aquatic ecosystems.
II.7 Municipal water
The Arpa basin does not contain big urban populations. The three biggest water intakes are the urban supplies of the towns of Jermuk and Yeghegnadzor, which use mostly groundwater from springs and wells, and Vayk, which uses surface water from the Her-Her. According to available data the annual consumption of these three cities is about 4,500,000 m3/year, out of which about 1,040,000 m3/year are returned as
13 untreated waste water. The gap between the volume abstracted and the volume returned is very high, in particular in the case of Yeghegnadzor (2,300,000 vs. 280,000). This can only be explained by two causes: losses in water conveyance and allocation of water to uses different from strictly urban consumption, such as irrigation of vegetable gardens.
As observed near Kechut village, a common approach to housing cattle and other animals appeared to be to locate them in a communal area on the outskirts of the urban area. These stables were freely draining into a small valley leading directly towards the Kechut Reservoir. A rainstorm would quickly wash this concentrated (high N and P loading) wastewater into the reservoir system. Simple measures such as creating ponded/wetland retention areas can help to offset concentrated runoff from heavy rain events.
Commonly arable farming is considered a diffuse source of pollution. Although only a relative small area in the Arpa basin is in use for arable farming, and the use of pesticides and herbicides etc. is limited due to high costs, still in areas of concentration of the agricultural activities nutrients from organic manure may cause diffuse pollution. Also human health issues – possible high coliform levels – need to be considered. More information is needed on actual agricultural land use practices (location, crops, use of manure, fertilizers etc., irrigation techniques, volumes of water use).
Only the bigger urban villages have sewerage collection systems and wastewater treatments plants (WWTP) – Jermuk, Yeghegnadzor, Vayk, and Areni, while all smaller urban areas do not have any provisions. Once functioning WWTPs nowadays, at best, provide primary treatment. More common is that collected sewage water enters untreated into the nearest stream at a multitude of places. An up-to-date inventory of the actual state of the problem – the level of impact on water quality and human health - seems to be missing.
The chemical water quality is regularly monitored at about 8 locations in the Arpa basin, along the Arpa main stream and its largest tributary the Yeghegis. An overall assessment based on the newly adopted 5- class approach using quantitative boundaries taking the geological peculiarities of the Arpa river basin into account, shows largely moderate to high water quality. The assessment of water quality based on biological parameters is currently under development.
In summary: While water supply is rather well developed, wastewater treatment is limited to the bigger cities, and even here largely defunct. Pollution loads largely include municipal sources and organic sources from agriculture. While point sources at sewerage outflows have probably a significant impact on water quality and the ecological state of the river, overall the pollution status seems low to moderate, probably also due to the self- purification capacity of the (semi) mountainous river and currently a low population density. An updated assessment however is needed, also taking the seasonal variation of water flow and its impact on pollution load into account.
II.8 Other issues
Tourism development is observed, which can and should be a driver for ecological conservation and restoration of rivers. In the economically stressed environment of the Arpa basin, ecotourism can be a source of income for the local communities. It is noted that for the city of Jermuk a comprehensive development plan has been prepared to become a key destination for spa and winter tourism (USAID 2008). While this initiative is pertinent, the promotion of the surrounding natural environment (Arpa gorges, historic sites, etc...) as additional interest seemed to be receiving insufficient attention and lacking in this initiative. The region appears to have good potential for nature-based tourism – hiking & trekking, mountaineering, etc. The Arpa valley boasts basalt columns over many reaches of its upstream catchment that are remarkable in size and may be considered among Europe’s best. Numerous caves also seem worthy of interest, while also the historical sites in the Arpa river basin (Areni church, Gndevank monastry and Noravank monastery) have a very high potential for tourism.
14 With proper support and marketing, the Arpa river valley, the Areni wine, fruits, nuts, honey and other agricultural products can boost the region as an area for ecologically clean products.
Mining can have very severe adverse impacts on water quality for both surface and groundwater. During the expert mission, mining was mentioned as an ongoing development in the Jermuk area. Accordingly, mining should therefore be a focus of attention, as it could jeopardize the ecological status of the Jermuk hydrological reserve and its valuable mineral waters (for potential impacts of mining, see for instance http://itech.fgcu.edu/faculty/ndemers/Miningconference/mcindex.htm)
In summary: The Arpa basin has a high potential for ecotourism, having many interesting features (geological outcrops, wine and fruits, historic sites, etc.). A survey of remarkable bird, fish and plant species is recommended to stress the attractions of the basin and attract tourists. A regional plan to develop ecotourism should be drafted to bring forward the basin’s remarkable natural and man-made features. Practical steps are needed to improve conditions to welcome visitors – hotel & dining facilities, connectivity, hiking tracks, etc.
II.9 Integrated water resources management
According to the WRMA, no truly integrated planning takes place – economic sector plans make decisions based on sectoral development interests. In Government sessions, sectors represent their own interests, resulting in government resolutions being strategic but maybe not the most beneficial to the country.
The current institutional and legislative framework in place promotes integrated water resources planning based on the river basin approach. However, this legislation seems to still be some way off of real integration of the sector policies, planning and their subsequent implementation. The Ministry of Nature Protection and its Water Resources Management Agency implements monitoring, management and protection of water resources, while the State Committee on Water Systems under the Ministry of Territorial Administration implements the state management of the water systems. This type of division of responsibility requires even greater cooperation to work effectively.
The “National Policy Dialogue on Water” process currently ongoing in Armenia targets a more integrated approach. The NPD brings high-level stakeholders from different sectors in water management together to work more closely. Also the National Water Program is adopted as a law, not just a resolution, to avoid other arbitrary resolutions to weaken the integrated approach.
Questions remain as to the actual level of management integration between sectors and users in the basin - communities (regional and local decision makers), the hydropower sector, agriculture (irrigation), fisheries, etc. Community participation in planning and decision making seems limited. Unclear is whether decisions are still guided by sectoral planning or that already a more integrated approach is applied. Also the knowledge and acceptance of the need to integrate development with the conservation of nature and natural resources needs to be strengthened.
There seems to be a significant lack of data, especially ecological data but also on hydrology, actual water abstraction, pollution etc. data seems to be too minimal to draw well-founded conclusions. There seems to be a lack of capacity - staff, knowledge, monitoring networks, etc. as well as financial means - to properly describe the ecosystems, as well as the impact on ecosystems from development activities. Accordingly, there seems to be an insufficient baseline to promote consistent integrated land use planning.
In summary: While the legislative framework towards integrated water resources management in line with European approaches seems largely in place, on-the-ground decision making typically is based on sectoral interest. Planning, regulation and enforcement need to be strengthened to promote truly integrated land use planning at the river basin level among all stakeholders. Staffing and financial capacities in integrated water management need improvement, including baseline information collection & interpretation.
15 III TOOLS & APPROACHES IN SUPPORT OF IMPROVED RIVER ECOLOGICAL STATE
Based on their joint experience in river restoration in Europe, the International Expert Team specifically focused on options to strengthen the ecological situation of the rivers in the Arpa basin. This chapter presents summary information on tools and approaches that the team considered relevant for Armenia. When appropriate, comparative links to European experiences and practices are included. In line with the goals of the European Expert mission, focus is on potentially useful tools for river and aquatic ecosystem restoration in Armenia that recognize the needs of both socio-economic and environmental benefits
III.1 Information - Ecology, water quality, water quantity, water use
For informed decision making on integrated river basin management, or the need to conserve or restore rivers an adequate and complete knowledge base is essential. Information is needed on the actual available water resources as well as expected trends, both of natural processes like climate change, as well as for sectoral development demands targeting their use.
A quantitative understanding is needed on ecological thresholds, which, if exceeded, will be very difficult to return to, if at all. Naturally occurring river biota depend on specific environmental conditions in order to complete the life cycle stages. In rivers these requirements typically largely relate to flow and sediment regimes. Interrelationships within ecosystems needs to be considered, e.g. older predator fish age groups can survive only if suitable “target” groups are present in a water body. Other species depend on macro- and micro-flora and fauna communities, which in turn have their own specific environmental requirements. Migrating fish species have their specific demands for longitudinal connectivity to maturing and spawning grounds.
With much information currently incomplete or absent for the Arpa river basin, there is an urgent need to expand the monitoring program to fill in missing data. Key fields of importance for improvement include the monitoring of hydrological flow, aquatic biological ecosystem components, and chemical water quality, as well as precipitation and other climate parameters.
Of equal importance are improvements in the field of monitoring water use – water intake and return for hydropower generation, irrigation, inter-basin transfer, community consumption, etc., as these form the key drivers and alterations impacting on both water resources and their dependent aquatic ecosystems.
To maintain “good ecological status”, when decision making for development activities affect the river water resources, biological/environmental relationships need to be defined and incorporated. Examples include standards for design of fish passes, criteria for the allowable volume of water abstraction or pollution load, etc. When designing new monitoring programs, planning should focus on the provision of data that is beneficial for interpretation for decision making (which activities to allow on what scale), not on baseline data collection per se.
III.2 Better hydrologic analytical tools & rules on environmental flows
In Europe, while making intensive use of river water resources for human activities, consensus has developed on the need to maintain “environmental flows”, considered to be the amount of water required by the river to sustain the rivers natural functions, processes & aquatic ecosystems in all periods of the year.
In order to minimize the impact of technical structures on flow, a good understanding must be available of the natural flow variability in a river, both seasonal and annual, preferably form a historic period when human impacts on water abstraction were minimal. As historic data are often either lacking or limited available, a complete registration of water volumes in the river, in pipes bypassing the river, and permanently abstracted provides a realistic alternative to obtain an understanding on how much water
16 should have been in the river and how much should be left to maintain ecosystems. Ongoing studies in this direction are encouraged, to provide the baseline on the natural flow regime (see also Poff et al., 1997).
Current best practice in Europe moves away from the formerly applied “minimum flow” principle to setting dynamic volumes of how much can be abstracted at what time of year without significantly harming the environment. This approach, following WFD aims, requires a more detailed understanding of the hydromorphology and ecology of the system, to set out what volume of water can be utilized and when, and how much water must be maintained for the ecology. This is not simply a minimum flow depth or volume, but also often includes simulated flood releases, and inter-annual fluctuations to reflect seasonality, etc.
Key in all modern approaches is that they focus on mimicking the natural seasonal and annual dynamics. In England a method of Environmental Flow Indicator (EFI) is used (Environment Agency 2013). The approach generates a reliable assessment of flow volumes, seasonal and annual variation. It defines how much water is needed when, and what level of variability is acceptable to sustain natural river functions and ecosystems. Accordingly, the volume of water available for abstraction in HPPs (or other users) can be defined, and companies interested in obtaining a license can assess the attractiveness of investing in HPP or other use, based on the variable volume of water that can be made available for abstraction. Strategic planning is needed, taking the whole picture of regional flows and abstractions into account.
A consorted effort to collect all available daily records on past hydrological monitoring could be a suitable start to obtain a better understanding on river hydrologic dynamics. For this a range of software can be used for statistical characterization, see Hydrologic Engineering Center, US Army Corps of Engineers, http://www.hec.usace.army.mil/.
As a next step, integrated modeling of hydrologic and ecologic (habitat) processes should be considered, as a dynamic instrument to obtain an understanding of cause effect relationships in planning for additional developments impacting on water resources. While many suitable examples exist in the world, typically all require more detailed data than currently available. See King et al. (2008).
Ultimately, maintaining environmental flows depends strongly on a proper integrated analysis of natural flows and ecosystem dependencies. A targeted data collection and monitoring program should be designed. Studies have been executed in France to assess abstraction compared to natural flow regime, to assess what impacts water abstractions have. Data are needed to assess natural flow dynamics, as well as data on abstractions (where, when, how much, permanent abstraction or temporary). The studies describe the impact of abstraction on ecological quality of aquatic ecosystems (see e.g. SDAGE, 2013).
III.3 More ecologically friendly HPP
In many EU countries, hydropower production is one of the main factors affecting the quality of river ecosystems. Hydropower was identified in the WFD first implementation report (European Environment Agency, 2012) as one of the main drivers of hydro-morphological alterations, loss of connectivity and significant adverse effects on the survival of fish populations. While hydropower is considered a key component to achieve the EU renewable energy targets (http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/targets_en.htm), the EU countries also strive to improve the ecological status of water bodies, in line with the EU WFD. It is therefore a high priority to reduce the impact of existing hydropower plants (HPPs), to carefully evaluate the sustainability of new ones, and to better design them. Mitigation and/or compensation measures need to be thoroughly designed for each specific case
The importance of HPP development in Armenia towards strengthening the country’s energy safety is acknowledged. Meanwhile, the building of structures to abstract/store water implies, in most cases, a hampering of the passage for water, sediments as well as biota. The loss of connectivity leads to fragmentation of the river´s habitat. Any development of (small) HPPs therefore should be subjected to
17 scrutiny on the benefits compared to the actual environmental costs. As an overall guiding principle, HPPs should be (re)designed and managed to (1) provide for the maintenance of dynamic environmental flows, mimicking the natural flow regime as best as possible, and (2) maintain longitudinal connectivity for biota and sediments linked to the dynamic flow regime.
For practical purposes, in the Arpa river basin, the Water Authority could audit the functioning of the existing HPPs. Key aspects include the continuity of biota along the river in both directions; the need for building or, in some cases, re-building fish passes; and also the control and monitoring of flow diverted and the consequences on the seasonal flow regime of the river. Imposing conditions on the operators to install automated recording devices is good for monitoring the river but also for the internal control of the facilities. It is a good industrial and ecological practice.
Information in external sources describes fish biodiversity in the Arpa basin as high, but limited information was made available, and the field visit showed only 4 species. Most (if not all) species are potamodromous (i.e. migrating in freshwater), although possibly in the past also anadromous sturgeon species may have migrated into the Arpa basin. The key for a good functioning of the river is that the selected device allows the passing of all species and all age groups. Therefore the hydraulic parameters and the design more advisable is that one which is indicated for the weakest swimmers (SNIFFER, 2011). Two types of structures can be considered for the rivers in the Arpa basin: (1) Close-to-nature structures – bottom ramps & slopes, bypass channels, and fish slopes (photo 6); and (2) technical structures – (vertical) slot passes, pool passes. A document named “Fish passes. Design, dimensions and monitoring” published by FAO and DVWK (2002) is attached to this report and it contains very useful information about these matters. Also Larinier (2008) presents an overview of the different types of fish facilities in use at small-scale HPPs in France. The article also discusses evaluation techniques for fish passes, as well as the several cumulative impacts when a series of small HPPs is constructed along one river. See also ICPDR (2013), SEPA (2011), and http://www.dcrt.org.uk/hadfield-weir-at-meadowhall-sheffield.
Photo 6: Left: Fish ramp in the center of a weir placed in the Pisuerga river (Duero Basin-Spain). Right: Bypass channel. River Tormes (Duero Basin-Spain).
III.4 Improved water use efficiency in irrigation
While it is not known how much actual water is annually abstracted for irrigation in the Arpa basin, currently licensed water volumes hint at significant losses, if this volume is indeed used. Techniques are available to reduce losses and improve efficiency in irrigation. Losses in irrigation distinguish into losses in the distribution system, and on-field losses.
The philosophy around the Water Framework Directive emphasizes savings and efficiency in water use. Savings refer to restricting water use, whereas efficiency focuses in preventing losses. Savings are based on avoiding unnecessary consumption, and efficiency in optimizing the product. Regarding productive activities, such as industry and agriculture, efficiency refers to reducing consumption per unit of product,
18 known as the water footprint of the product or service. The water footprint of a country, a city, a basin, an individual, or any other unit, is the total volume of freshwater that is used to produce the goods and services consumed by the unit of account. The total water footprint of a country or any other unit includes two components: internal and external. For our current purposes, we focus on the appropriation of internal water resources. An overall discussion can be found in Chapagain & Hoekstra (2008), where also general data about the water footprint in Armenia are included.
The general goal is to supply the surface irrigation so that the plant has the amount of water it needs. Efficiency in irrigated agriculture is a product of three partial efficiencies: storage efficiency, transportation efficiency, and efficiency in the application. Storage efficiency results in less losses due to evaporation. Water transportation and distribution losses are reduced by using closed conveyance systems and systematic checking and repair of any leaks. The efficiency in the application depends on how the water obtained from the source is distributed within the field. This can be achieved with sprinklers, furrows as well as localized (drip) irrigation (Irmak et al., 2011). Interesting alternative measures could include plans to capture melt-water using side-ponds that do not intercept rivers or streams.
Another interesting water source for irrigation purposes may be the reuse of waste waters after they have been treated. The re-use of wastewater serves dual purposes, reducing water abstraction needs from surface or groundwater sources as well as reducing the pollution outflow into surface water (see http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/wastewater/gsuww/en/index.html).
III.5 Reduced pollution (urban)
While sewage collection systems have been installed in some larger cities in the Arpa basin, currently wastewater treatment is mostly non-existent. The high costs of setting up and operating the facilities can hold back their development. However, there are systems with low building and operating costs that could be economically feasible and provide an adequate degree of treatment. A combination of pre-treatment systems and primary treatment systems with aerated pools, and even artificial or natural wetlands, may be highly appropriate.
Financed by the GEF Small Grants facility, UNDP Armenia coordinated a community pilot experience in Parakar in which an aerated artificial pool provided simple treatment of domestic wastewater to the quality required for use as irrigation water. The possibility of reusing water for irrigation purposes and sludge as fertilizer make the system particularly appropriate in rural agricultural areas, while also provided environmental benefits by reducing the inflow of pollutants into natural ecosystems.
As alternative to artificial tanks, constructed wetlands are natural sewerage treatment systems which are very kind to the environment. They can deal with polluted wastewater from farmyards and domestic applications. Artificial wetlands commonly consist of a series of connected ponds, through which the polluted water flows. Nutrient removal is facilitated by aeration and the action of specific plants, for which native species can and should be used. But they are not simply concerned with wastewater treatment. In addition to this core function, they can support biodiversity and play a role in flood attenuation. These services are provided in a sustainable and cost effective way using local materials and local workers. Constructed wetlands are less about the concrete tanks and pumps associated with conventionally engineered waste water treatment plants and more about soft engineering, aquatic plants and landscape- fit (e.g. DEHLG, 2010).
III.6 River Basin Management planning
i. Integrated planning
The integrated approach co-ordinates water resources management across sectors and interest groups, and at different scales, from local to international. It gives due recognition to all social, economic and environmental interests. It recognizes the many different and competing interest groups, the sectors that
19 use and abuse water, as well as the needs of the environment. It emphasizes involvement in national policy and law making processes, establishing good governance and creating effective institutional and regulatory arrangements as routes to more equitable and sustainable decisions.
Coordinated management can avoid sectoral, uninformed decision making on developments that do not take nature’s capacity for providing services to people into account. To come to coordinated planning, reliable diagnostics and integration of knowledge and information are needed. Unbiased ecological audit is needed to assess the actual state of ecosystems, and expected development impacts on flow and biota. The licensing processes for socio-economic developments – EIA and SEA approaches - need to be founded on proper information and need to be adequately used (e.g. see Environment Agency, 2012).
Integrated RBM Plans and Plans of Measures are essential for integrated management especially when integration of policies is lacking. The Global Water Partnership recently issued a new handbook on IWRM (INBO-GWP, 2012), which provides a good overview of especially the “enabling” environment of integrated management. It describes the overarching level of integration, in establishing basin management systems, in strategic long-term planning, stakeholder involvement & communication, basin action plans, as well as financing. Specific attention is paid to the role of BMOs. See also www.gwpforum.org.
Across Europe, the WFD stipulates the development of River Basin Management plans and related Programs of Measures to maintain or reach good ecological status. However, many solutions being pursued are unsustainable, still being sectoral when they should be cross-cutting and integrative, and insufficiently cost-effective. There is increasing recognition that Green Infrastructure (GI) is a solution to many of these issues. It is defined as “a strategically planned network of high quality green spaces and other environmental features, designed and managed as a multifunctional resource capable of delivering a wide range of benefits and services. Green Infrastructure includes natural and semi-natural areas, features and green spaces in rural and urban, terrestrial, freshwater, coastal and marine areas” (European Commission 2013). GI is a successfully tested tool for providing ecological, economic and social benefits through natural solutions. It helps us to understand the value of the benefits that nature provides to human society, and to mobilize investments to sustain and enhance them. It also helps avoid relying on infrastructure that is expensive to build when nature can often provide cheaper, more durable solutions. GI is based on the principle that protecting and enhancing nature and natural processes, and the many benefits human society gets from nature, are consciously integrated into spatial planning and territorial development. Compared to single-purpose, grey infrastructure, it is not a constraint on territorial development but promotes natural solutions if they are the best option.
Supported by the UNDP-GEF project “Reducing transboundary degradation in the Kura Ara(k)s river basin”, Armenia is preparing a River Basin Management Plan for the Arpa river basin, in line with the outline formally adopted by the Government of Armenia. ii. Room for the river
Floods are a natural feature of rivers. They are necessary to transport sediment, to replenish aquifers, to build alluvial zones, to link terrestrial and fluvial ecosystems and to guarantee a good ecological status of water bodies.
Based on experiences with poorly functioning technical structures in providing protection against flooding in the 1990s, we have changed from a negative and destructive view of floods to a positive one. In Europe the Flood Directive was formulated. The Directive re-focuses the issue and recognizes the importance of alluvial zones in flood mitigation with the recommendation of protecting and recovering them. The Blueprint to safeguard water resources in Europe (EU, 2012) quoted that “pressure from agriculture and flood protection can be mitigated or prevented. Methods include developing buffer strips, which provide biological continuity between rivers and their banks and using, whenever possible, green infrastructure such as the restoration of riparian areas, wetlands and floodplains to retain water, support biodiversity and soil fertility, and prevent floods and droughts”. Setting back embankments away from the river to create
20 an “erodible corridor” also is a common activity. This allows both the river to inundate its floodplain and provide flood protection at the same time. Accordingly the peak flow is smoothed out and the flood wave propagated downstream has a reduced peak flow volume and a lower peak level. In addition to the channel-floodplain interaction being restored, it allows for lower levees to be constructed at a greater distance from the river, compared to those needed adjacent to the river main channel, thus significantly reducing the costs for their construction. In addition, also costs for maintenance and repair are much lower, because in those rare cases that flood water will reach the levees, the shear stresses are much less that far away from the main channel.
Meanwhile non-structural defense works have been successfully introduced, being more efficient than the expensive and unsustainable channelized technical works that, in the end, will be overflowed by a flood greater than predicted.
In the wider floodplains, spatial planning of the fluvial territory, based on flood hazard and risks maps, guides the determination of compatible and incompatible uses with floods. While housing is an activity very incompatible with floods, agriculture is perfectly compatible. Even more, in alluvial zones where floods are frequent, the rich soil and the water provides a more productive agriculture. When there are damages in harvesting and crops because of floods are stronger than normal or not during their natural periods, they can be compensated with public funds and insurance.
The Netherlands “Room for the river” program was specifically designed to accommodate the multiple targets of reducing the possible consequences of flooding in increasingly vulnerable (former) floodplain areas. The program allocated extra space for the river in setting back levees, creation of river diversions and temporary water storage areas, and adapting land use to such that in the occasion of flooding, damages were minimized. It included the focus restoring marshy riverine landscape to serve once again as natural “water storage” sponges, while providing for aesthetic value and biodiversity conservation (Program Directorate “Room for the River”). Comparable other initiatives include “Making space for water” in the United Kingdom (DEFRA, 2005) and the concept of erodible corridor in France, which focused more on restoration of geodynamic processes (SDAGE, 1998). iii. River reserves
River Reserves are formally envisioned in Armenia’s Water Code as part of preventive measures (e.g. Jermuk Hydrological Reserve), but are not actively used. Guided by improved inventory and monitoring of ecological aspects of rivers, there is an urgent need to describe the overall ecological values of the Arpa and its tributary basins, and make an appropriate selection for preservation, in which limitation would apply to economic development activities. Information on international experiences is needed, especially also the criteria used for selection, to justify & promote any future development. Armenian experts have theoretical knowledge but no practical experiences. The approach of River Reserves links to other conservation initiatives (Nature 2000, eco-networks, Habitat Directive, etc.)
In France, the political will to preserve and restore ecological continuity goes back to 1865. At this time, fish were an essential part of food for people and preserving ecological continuity was seen as a way to preserve fish stock in rivers. Various tools had been tried to prevent the alteration of ecological continuity. Over time, it was found that the most useful tool, currently adopted, lies in the adoption by law of two major lists of rivers. The first list (list I) is a list of rivers or river stretches that have to be preserved - no new HPP can be built on those rivers. A second list (list II) prescribes that all new flow structures must be efficient in preserving biological continuity and must be maintained, and that existing weirs and dams must be equipped or removed within 5 years (law L432-6). The main criteria for selecting stretches of rivers in List I is the significance of the ecological conditions (see also: http://www.rhone- mediterranee.eaufrance.fr/gestion/classt-coursdo/index.php, in French): (1) Rivers with very good ecological status.
21 (2) Stretches of rivers with sources of biological diversity that include species targeted by the Habitat Directive or the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List. (3) Stretches of rivers with sources of biological diversity but whose biological functioning needs to be strengthened. (4) Stretches of rivers with sources of biological diversity that are unique in terms of type of habitat within the catchment. (5) Stretches of rivers with sources of biological diversity that have a particular environmental value (e.g. protected endemic species). iv. Capacity building
While Armenia initiated a process of preparing River Basin Management plans and Programs of Measures to address good ecological status, in line with the EU WDF principles, the practical integrated management needs to be improved. Better integrated decision making on issues of water resources management requires appropriate capacity of all involved: knowledge on different sectoral issues including future plans and understanding of the benefits of integrated planning (land & water use, inter-sectoral coordination). Knowledge and capacity building needs to target all stakeholder groups involved. Business sectors typically do not understand ecological aspects, only about their product (food, electricity, fish, etc.) and maximizing profits/minimizing investments.
The framework of good basin management remains political will, high-level commitment and inter-sectoral dialogue. The BMOs are governed by national water policies and legislation, as well as international agreements signed by the country. They are part of the overall institutional framework with assigned roles and responsibilities, and function in line with agreed management mechanisms. While BMOs have been established, they are in urgent need of strengthening, to be given proper enforcement capacities to control the regulation of license conditions.
Continued cooperation – nationally and internationally – will also be beneficial in developing capacity and in increasing understanding. Participation of the WRMA in the 5th European Conference on River Restoration (Vienna, September 2013) offered a good opportunity for increasing knowledge on current approaches in river restoration in Europe. With the Arpa Basin, the Government of Armenia also intends to participate in a River Basin Community of Practice, within which long-term twinning relationships are envisioned to be established with European river basins with proven capacity in the field of integrated water resources management and river restoration.
22 CITED LITERATURE
(1) Chapagain A.K. & A.Y. Hoekstra, 2008. The global component of freshwater demand and supply: an assessment of virtual water flows between nations as a result of trade in agricultural and industrial products. Water International, Vol. 33, No.1, March 2008, p. 19-32. (2) DEFRA Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, 2005. Making space for water – taking forward a new Government strategy for flood and coastal erosion risk management in England. DEFRA, March 2005, 45 pp. (3) DEHLG, 2010. Integrated constructed wetlands – Guidance document for farmyard soiled water and domestic wastewater. Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Ireland, 124 pp. (4) EA Environment Agency, 2010. Environment Agency Fish Pass Manual. Environment Agency, Bristol, November 2010, 369 pp. (5) EA Environment Agency, 2012. Good practice guidelines to the Environment Agency hydropower handbook – The environmental assessment of proposed low head hydropower developments. Environment Agency, Bristol, Revised Version, December 2012, 30 pp. (6) EA Environment Agency, 2013. Environmental flow indicator – what is it and what it does. 4 pp. (7) EC European Commission, 2007. Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ L. 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7), amended by Council Directive 2006/105/EC of 20 November 2006. Official Journal of the European Union I1992L0043- EN-01.01.2007-005.001-1, 66 pp. (8) EC European Commission, 2009. Council Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (codified version). Official Journal of the European Union I. 20/7, 19 pp. (9) EC European Commission, 2013. Green Infrastructure (GI) — Enhancing Europe’s Natural Capital. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee, and the Committee of the Regions. COM(2013) 249 final, Brussels, May 2013, 11 pp. (10) EEA European Environment Agency, 2012. European waters – current status and future challenges: Synthesis. European Environment Agency report 9/2012, Copenhagen, 56 pp. (11) EU European Union, 2012. A blueprint to safeguards Europe’s water resources. Communication from the European Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, CON(2012) 673 final, Brussels, November 2012, 28 pp. (12) FAO-DVWK, 2002. Fish passes – design, dimensions and monitoring. Food & Agricultural Organization of the United Nations in arrangement with Deutscher Verband fur Wasserwirtschaft und Kulturbau e.V., Rome, 2002, 138 pp. (13) INBO-GWP, 2012. The handbook for integrated water resources management in transboundary basins of rivers, lakes and aquifers. International Network of Basin Organizations - Global Water Partnership, Paris/Stockholm, March 2012, 124 pp. (14) ICPDR, 2013. Guiding principles on sustainable hydropower development in the Danube basin. International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River, June 2013, 41 pp. (15) Irmak S., L.O. Odhiambo, W.L. Kranz & D.E. Eisenhauer, 2011. Irrigation efficiency and uniformity, and crop water use efficiency. Extension Circular, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 8 pp. (16) King J.M., R.E. Tharme & M.S. De Villiers (Eds.), 2008. Environmental flow assessments for rivers: manual for the Building Block Methodology (Updated Edition). Report to the Water Research
23 Commission by Freshwater Research Unit. University of Cape Town, WRC Report no TT 354/08, August 2008, 364 pp.. (17) Larinier, 2008. Fish passage experience at small-scale hydro-electric power plants in France. Hydrobiologia (2008) 609:97-108. (18) Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. World Resources Institute & Island press, Washington, DC, 155 pp. (19) Poff N.L., J.D. Allan, M.B. Bain, J.R. Karr, K.L. Prestegaard, B.D. Richter, R.E. Sparks & J.C. Stromberg, 1997. The natural flow regime – a paradigm for river conservation and restoration. BioScience, Vol. 47, No. 11 (December 1997), pp. 769-784. (20) Program Directorate “Room for the River”. Room for the river corporate brochure, 20 pp. (21) Scottish Government, 2012. A guide to hydropower construction good practice. Scottish Government – SEPA Scottish Environment Protection Agency – Scottish Renewables – Scottish Natural Heritage, version 1, March 2012, 13 pp. (22) SDAGE Organization for the Development and Management of Water Resources, 1998. Determination of the free space for rivers. SDAGE Technical Guidelines № 2, November 1998, 42 pp., in French. (23) SDAGE Organization for the Development and Management of Water Resources, 2013. Better management of water abstraction (Mieux gerer les prelevements d'eau). Note of the Technical Secretariat of SDAGEs, April 2013, 18 pp., in French. (24) SEPA, 2011. Guidance for developers of run-of-river hydropower schemes. Nature Scotland & SEPA Scottish Environment Protection Agency. 34 pp. (25) SNIFFER, 2011. Impact of run-of-river hydro-schemes upon fish populations. Phase 1 – Literature review. Scotland & Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research (SNIFFER), project WFD 114, Final Report, (http://www.solwayenergygateway.co.uk/list_pagereturn_file.asp?idref=%7BA430D795-5266- 4F0F-A640-AA94AF92D4FA%7D), August 2011, 71 pp. (26) USAID, 2008. Comprehensive development plan: Jermuk as a Destination Spa & Winter Tourism Center. Volume 1 – Core Strategy. Competitive Armenian Private Sector Project, 57 pp. http://www.caps.am/UserFiles/File/Jermuk%20LDF%20Vol1%20Core%20Strategy%20- %20Final.pdf
24