16Th Meeting of the Advisory Group on Land Based Sources of Pollution

16th meeting of the Advisory Group on Land Based Sources of Pollution

September 5th, 2011, Istanbul, Turkey

Draft Minutes

The meeting was attended by at least one representative from the Black Sea countries, except for Russian Federation, which was not represented in this meeting. Invited guest was Ms. Gulsen Avaz from TUBITAK – Marmara Research Center, Istanbul, Turkey.

A1: Opening and welcome, introduction of participants, approval of the Agenda and of the Minutes of the previous meeting.

New PMA Officer, Valeria Abaza opened the meeting, welcomed the participants, who presented themselves. The draft agenda of the meeting was approved without any change. The minutes of the previous meeting was discussed and approved; Ukraine proposed to not wait for the next meeting to approve the minutes of the previous one.

A2: LBS Reporting

National Focal Points were invited to report based on their nationally submitted LBS data on the parameters agreed within the LBS AG. The presentations of all the countries will be attached to the meeting documents and uploaded into the BSC website.

BG – Mrs. Kalinka Staikova reported. General information was presented. Also, municipal, industrial discharges and river loads were reported for 2010 and trends compared with the previous year presented. In general, both for municipal and industrial discharges, increased amount of treated water was reported, as well as increased loads, generally for N, COD-Cr, TSS, BOD5 and for heavy metals in almost all the point sources reported. For Kamchia river an increased total annual flow was reported, and due to this fact, some parameters, as nitrates, nitrites, Ntot, Ptot, and heavy metals increased as well.

There were questions related to:

1. Measurement of total Nitrogen (Ms. O. Tarasova, UA). The answer was that this parameter is measured in sewage.

2. V.Myroshnychenko recommended for the future to better organize the presentation of treated and untreated water, in order to be easier understood. He observed that for Balchik there were some discrepancies between total Nitrogen and total loads reported. Mrs. Staikova answered that this WWTP is under rehabilitation process. She also informed the participants that LBSA Protocol 2009 was not ratified by BG.

GE – Mrs. Maria Makarova reported. She presented general information, also, projects, programmes and plans, informing on the changes occurred in the Government of Georgia: Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, split to Ministry of Environment Protection and Ministry of Energy and National Resources. Also, she informed the participants that GE ratified the LBSA Protocol since September 24th, 2009. The National Environment Action Plan for 2011-2015 has been elaborated but yet not approved. Two new international projects will start in 2012. Batumi WWTP is under construction, other WWTP planned for 2013. Regarding the river monitoring, only TSS are monitored in all four rivers reported; BOD-5 in three of them. Only in Rioni and Chorokhi parameters as nitrates, nitrites, ammonia, TSS, hydrocarbons and BOD-5 were reported. For the hot spots there is no regular monitoring of TPH loads, there is a self-monitoring at oil terminals, such as Supsa, carried out by the Laboratories of the enterprises or by chosen consultant Labs. In the year 2011-2015 regular monitoring on TPH is planned to start at the national level (in accordance with the National Environment Action Plan for 2012-1015). For the moment, TPH data can be collected and summarized through contacting private companies.

RO – Mrs. Luminita Lazar reported. General information, including legislation and policy development were presented. LBS data on municipal, industrial and riverine sources of pollution, with relevant figures, trends, explanation and financial assistance were presented. Information on waste management from domestic and industrial sources was presented as well. Analysis of air emissions with relevant data from 2005 up to 2010 revealed that NH3 increasing is due especially to agriculture, whilst lower emissions of SO2 and NOx is due to the modern industrial technologies used at present. She informed that LBSA Protocol was not ratified by Romania yet.

TR – Mr. Erol Cavus presented the national report. Responsible authorities, relevant projects, action plans and relevant legislation for air quality and waste management have been presented. Also he mentioned that TR tested the new methodology for Hot Spots, and as results, some of the previous considered hot spots have been removed from the existent list, other have been added. The list of TR hot spots is still waiting to be approved by the Ministry.

Mrs. Tarasova mentioned Istanbul as the biggest city in the area and discharge huge quantities of pollutants into Bosphorus, but not considered among the hot spots for the Black Sea. It has never been tackled, but in her opinion definitely affects the Black Sea environment. She asked if it is possible to calculate the flow of Istanbul area discharges into the Black Sea. The answer was that Istanbul is considered as a hot spot for pollution and monitored, and not considered as part of the Black Sea, but of Marmara Sea. Furthermore, according to the Marmara Basin Environmental Master Plan (2006) this issue is tackled already.

V. Myroshnychenko commented that the surface current flows from the Black Sea to Marmara Sea, whilst the current flowing from the Marmara Sea into the Black Sea is deep and after entering into the Black Sea continues to submerge, so polluted water exchange between the two seas should be further investigated.

Mrs. Tarasova argued that in this respect there is a publication available that presents as 15% of the untreated waste water from Istanbul it’s discharged directly into the Black Sea.

UA – report was presented by Mrs. Oksana Tarasova. General information according to agreed format, green house gases emissions, volume of treated/untreated waters, loads from municipal, industrial sources and rivers, and accidental pollutions were presented. She informed the participants that LBSA Protocol was not ratified, but the process will be initiated soon. As well, UA considers European approach in their national strategy related to the mitigation of pollution from land based diffuse and point sources, which has very specific and precise targets (e.g. reduce loads with 20% by 2020, etc). Questions on the presentation were asked by TR and RO. There were lots of discussions related to the calculations of TPH (Ms. Lazar – RO- proposed to consider same detection limits for TPH) and the other parameters (phosphorus – total, phosphates, inorganic P, etc.). UA proposed the total P to be expressed by all the Black Sea countries using the same unit: ktons/km3/year.

V.M. agreed the UA proposal, but said that this unit can be useful for the WWTP, not for the river discharges and that the reported values must be complemented with respective flow data.

TR asked if in the presentation of the rivers input, the Danube was considered (yes, it was). Expresses the opinion that the rivers should be reported separately and the Danube should be treated differently.

A3 – Hot Spots List finalization

This item on the Agenda was postponed at the Ukraine’s proposal, until the Hot Spots methodology will be finalized. The participants agreed the proposal. Ukraine proposed as so called “hot spots” to be called “priority point sources of pollution”, which should be ranked according to the criteria identified in the methodology that should be agreed and adopted by the Black Sea Commission.

A4 – Hot Spots Methodology finalization

Ukraine emphasized that there is no regional procedure on adding/removal regional HS and they can be nationally defined but in the same time with no regional importance. Therefore proposed the HS Methodology prepared and presented in the previous meetings of the LBS AG to be sent back to countries, to be revisited, commented and amended and after the document will be agreed by LBS AG to be brought to the BSC attention for approval.

There were discussions with respect to the document.

TR (Mr. Erol Cavus) stated that the definition of Hot Spot shouldn’t be changed and should be maintained according to LBSA Protocol 2009.

With this occasion, the LBSA Protocol was revisited; the definition of Hot Spot was checked, and also the content of its annexes. Regarding the Annex I, the list of activities and substances of concern, UA (Mrs. Oksana Tarasova) proposed to remove the thermal emissions and pathogenic microorganisms from the categories of substances and include them in some other place as they are not appropriate for this Annex.

TR observed that the process of the LBSA Protocol Annexes revision will be complicated and time consuming and at least for the moment to be maintained as they are and a corrigendum to be prepared to correct the existent mistakes. Also, in the CBD Protocol there are some mistakes, and the question raised was what the CBD AG done about this fact? In order to not delay the process of the ratification of LBSA Protocol by the BS countries, the Annexes can be corrected later on if they are not integral parts of the Protocol and considered separately.

Mrs. Gulsen Avaz, gave a presentation on the TUBITAK project aimed to update the hot spots in Turkey. As within this project the Black Sea Hot Spot Methodology was prepared and tested in Turkey, the new and updated list of hot spots in Turkey was prepared according to the criteria included in that methodology. It was presented to the Ministry and at presents waits for the approval. The methodology was elaborated using UNEP-MAP methodology as model. Also, the identified hot spots were ranked and evaluated according to the guidelines proposed for the Black Sea but not finalized yet.

Commenting the given presentation, Mrs. Tarasova underlined that there are not hot spots into the Black Sea, and identified hot spots are in fact inland; the aim should be the identification of coastal pollution sources.

Mr. Erol Cavus answered that the presented area was identified on coast according to TRIX index and to UNEP-MAP, which defines the coastal area within 1nM from shore.

Mrs. Avaz stated that in the assessment all the pollution sources have been considered.

Mrs. Tarasova argued that the best for the Black Sea is to consider the Baltic Sea experience and methodology, Black Sea facing the same challenges and being affected in the same manner as the Baltic Sea by human activities.

A5 – Harmonization of rivers monitoring strategies in the region, calculation of loads

Under this agenda item, the Black Sea countries reported on the status of national river monitoring programmes and availability of management plans.

BG – under the EU WFD a river monitoring strategy was established for the period 2008 – 2012. The list of priority substances includes 33 substances; out of them 22 – 23 are regularly monitored.

GE – The current monitoring network provides data for 33 parameters measured once per month from 19 sampling sites on rivers. The occurrence of heavy metals is monitored only in Kura and Rioni rivers. Also some microbiological parameters are monitored in rivers.

RO – National integrated monitoring system of rivers is the responsibility of Romanian Waters National Administration (Administratia Nationala Apele Romane), which is responsible also for the implementation of EU WFD and prepared the Integrated River Basin Management Plan. The central administration consists of 11 district basin administration, each of them with its own management plan, covering the entire country. In 2008 environmental quality standards were elaborated. In the report concerning the Danube River monitoring, 27 parameters monthly monitored are presented; among them heavy metals, dissolved oxygen, TPH, nutrients and others. Danube River management plan was adopted.

TR – State waterworks monitors the river water quality, collecting the data and providing them to the Ministry of Environment; mobile laboratories perform the monitoring of rivers in situ. Management plans for Kizilirmak and Yesilirmak rivers have been developed.

UA – started the rivers’ monitoring according to the National Strategy for integrated monitoring of rivers. There are three categories of river monitoring stations, overall amount being 1300. Water companies made their own monitoring; mainly water chemistry, flow and color are monitored in the surface layers depending on the category of station. Total loads are calculated. In order to calculate the river loads common methodology should be elaborated for the region, which should be a task for PMA AG.

Mr. Myroshnychenko underlined the importance of calculation of pollution loads.

Mrs. Tarasova mentioned the methodology used in OSPAR region for assessment and monitoring of discharges and the importance of introducing the river basin monitoring in national legislation. Also, she mentioned the importance of calculation of the loads from Kerch, Bosphorus, limans and bays, and of necessity to assess the SAP implementation.

A4 – State of Environment Report 2006 – 2010

VA presented information on the necessity to elaborate the next 5-year report to LBS AG, as it was included in the work program for the next year, but should be initiated this year. Experts to deal with the data gathered for the last five years were requested to be involved in the elaboration of the report for the pollution coming from point sources.

Mrs. Tarasova stressed that this report should be scientific and should reveal the gaps in knowledge; proposed to gather the leaders of the research projects implemented in the Black Sea areas in order to form a core group of experts, which should inventor the existing data and to start working on the report preparation.

Mr. Cavus proposed as the third Black Sea Scientific Conference organized in Odessa, Ukraine on 1st – 4th of November 2011 will be a good opportunity to call the scientist to express their interest to contribute to the report. In the same time, the report’s content might be shifted towards the MSFD requirements; the funding may be available from EU. In this way, the comparability of assessments between regional seas will be possible. During the assessment process, DPSIR (Drivers, Pressure, State, Impact, Response) approach might be followed, if possible to both monitor the pressures & impacts and to trace the results of the implementation of environmental legislation in the region.

DECISIONS of the 16th LBS AG meeting:

D16.1. The LBS AG annual report to the Black Sea Commission will be prepared based on the reports submitted by countries by LBS AC in collaboration with BSC PS and will be sent to the group for comments.

D16.2. Finalization of HS list was postponed till the finalization of the Black Sea Hot Spot Methodology

D16.3. HS Methodology to be sent back to countries for comments and proposals for improvement, which should be received by the end of 2011. In the next three months the comments and suggestions will be incorporated and the document will be circulated again for the LBS AG approval; and then should be brought to the attention of BSC.

REMINDERS:

R16.1. when the in reports the trends of loads are presented, to be clearly explained what is the cause of change: undertaken measures for reduction of loads, investment made, river flow fluctuations…etc.