Water Basin Management in the Framework of the Directive 2000/60

Water basin management in the framework of the Directive 2000/60

The Greek case

Μ. Α. MIMIKOU

Department of Water Resources Hydraulic and Maritime Engineering

School of Civil Engineering

NationalTechnicalUniversity of Athens

5 Heroon Polytechniou, 15780Athens

GREECE

Abstract: - The Directive of the European Parliament and ofthe Council 2000/60 established a newlegislation for the sustainable management of water resources and the protection of their relevantecosystems. The European Union has set out the basis with the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and it is expected now that eachmember state will evaluate the current status and identify the specific characteristics of its waterresources and establish its own national policy towards the implementation. The current paper focuseson the fundamental unit for applying and coordinating the WFD’s provisions, the river basindistricts and the key issues that emerge while implementing the Directive in Greece, due to theexisting legislative framework and the organizational arrangements that govern the water resourcessector. In order to achieve an effective implementation of the WFD in Greece, 7 water districts areproposed, based on hydrological and hydrogeological criteria considering the current administrativestructure of the country and the management deficiencies related to inland and coastal waters.

Key-Words: Water basin management, Water Framework Directive 2000/60, water district, Greece

1. Introduction

The main objective of the water basin management is to provide sufficient quantity and good quality of water to the end users and to the natural environment. The consumers’ and the natural environment’s water demands form the management’s “goal”, which includes water supply, waste water and water quality management, rain waters and flood prevention, production of hydroelectric power, transports, recreation and water for the environment. Each one of these objectives defines substantially the different activities that compose the field of water basin management, which is multifunctional and could be defined as a group of measures (constructional and non-constructional) and activities that should be developed for the satisfaction of water demands.

The water basin management is effective when it encourages the planning and the concretization of measures through a dynamic processthat would be adapted in continually varying conditions (environmental, climatic) and when it involves balance between competitive water uses via an efficient plan of distribution, which includes economicsizes, environmental profits and costs, as well as social values. The basic background for the achievement of this effective management constitutes the human dynamic and technological infrastructure [1].

Consequently, material and technical infrastructure is needed, together with the adoption of modern technologies and approaches. Competent and updated data bases, adapted software for the processing of the raw data, calibrated models for the simulation of natural processes and evaluation of different scenarios, GIS technology for the simulation of the spatial evolution of the components, are only few of the necessary elements that compose the basic background, on which, all actions aiming at the optimum management will be based.

The optimum management of water resources and water basins aims at the preservation of the already existing natural water systems, the protection and improvement of water resources quality, and finally the water demand management. The imperative need for the water resources management in regional level is strengthened by the European Water Framework Directive (WFD), with the specific provision of water management, in a water basin level [2].

1. WaterBasin Level Management

The main characteristic of the WFD is the consideration of the river basin as the basic unit for all the measures implemented and administrative actions referred to water issues. Consequently, the fact that water is confined by natural and hydrologic limits, but not political and administrative, is acknowledged. The success of the WFD’s implementation is subject to the harmonization of all natural processes and human activities that affect the water cycle in the spatial framework of a river basin, as well as to the prompt decision-making in the field of administrative measures, that will ensure the desirable “good status” of the aquifers [2].

The WFD can be condensed into four basic points:

The determination of a river basin (or a group of river basins) as a hydrologic unit (including groundwater and coastal waters), and the administrative regulations for the formation of regional competent water basin authorities, together with the coordination of actions.

The characterization and the overall description of the status of the hydrologic area, the analysis of pressures and their effects, concerning the status of both surface and ground waters, including the economical analysis of the water uses.

The installation and operation of representative networks for the monitoring of the quantitative and the qualitative status of waters.

The completion of Management Plans (River Basin Management Plans) that will include all the appropriate measures for the achievement of the WFD’s objectives [3].

Nevertheless, the involvement of authorities with different roles, competences, responsibilities and interests, as well as the lack of an integrated administrative practice, create a number of problems that should be confronted in parallel or before the WFD implementation. In specific, for the transboundary rivers, the problem is more complicated, as the neighboring countries should reach to agreements, while the existing ones should be updated and supplemented. This issue is more difficult for Greece, because it borders with countries non-members of the E.U. (with different levels of know-how, and growth rates, and therefore with different scale of needs and priorities), where the implementation of the WFD does not constitute an engagement.

Another difficulty is related to the scale factor, with actions that need to be taken in three levels:

River basin level (e.g. co-operation between the flood protection authorities).

National level (Harmonization of the Directive to the National Legislation).

European level (Harmonization of the Directive to the CAP).

Other problems are associated to the Directive’s deadlines. An outline is presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Important deadlines of the Directive

December 2006 / Operation of monitoring programs, as a basis for the water management
December 2008 / Presentation to the public of the River Basin Management Plans
December 2009 / Publication of the first Management Plans
December 2010 / Ensuringofthewaterresourcespricingpolicyapplication.
December 2012 / Operational plans of measures in each river basin

The absence of central organizational and administrative structures, the polyarchy of competences, the fact that the law 1739/87 was never fully applied, form a part of the additional difficulties that Greece is bound to overcome in the years to come [4]. The WFD points some basic guidelines for the confrontation of these problems, such as theimplementation of the WFD in good time, with the existing infrastructure, wherever possible, the application of actions at once and not partially or progressively and finally, the strict uphold of the deadlines. It must be pointed out that 2 years after the adoption of the WFD as a law of the state (3199/03), it is yet to be fully applied [5].

1. Organization of the WFD in a European level

All the necessary actions for the support of the WFD are in progress in the member states. These actions include among others the creation of national guidelines, the testing of the WFD in experimental basins, and discussions concerning the administrative framework of the hydrologic regions. Additionally, research programs, funded by the E.U. are under way, that are related to the process of implementing the WFD and theirs outcomes are expected to help the memberstates during the implementation.

The creation of working groups is also worth mentioned, whose members came from all the membersstates on the suggestion of the authorities in charge of the water resources management in each state. As depicted in Figure 1, there were 13 working groups, until recently, referring to 4 wider thematic groups. These groups composed the necessary components for the strategic implementation of the WFD. At the moment, only four of the groups are still active.

Fig. 1:Recently working groups within the framework of the WFD.

1. Management practices in the E.U. countries

An analysis of the River Basin Operational Management Plans that are already adapted among the members states reveal many of the WFD’s components. Most of the countries have developed river basin management plansas part of a water resources national strategic plan [6].

The Belgian authorities have issued the Regional Water Resources Plans, in which, 3 main hydrologic regions are formed, together with 2 others for the transboundary rivers. Portugal has developed and approved a 10-year master plan in a national level, and 15water basin plans with 8-year duration. In France, the strategy concerning water management was developed in three levels: A national master plan, 6 operational plans in a water basin level and the SDAGE, that supports a 15-year management plan for each water basin, as well as a more detailed but not always obliging plan for each sub-basin, named SAGE. 12 hydrologic regions are proposed (8 capitals, 3 islands and one transatlantic).In Spain, the water resources management is operated since 1985 on a river basin or on a hydrologic region basis, and consists of 15 plans (Water Resources Hydrologic Plans) and a National Hydrologic Plan. The main characteristic of the water resources management in Hollandis the large number of competent authorities and organizations involved in the management of the 4 hydrologic regions, but also the extent of the public participation that ensures communication, mutual influence and significant approval of measures.

1. The Greek case

Because of the small size, the limited inland, the geomorphologic diversity and the extended coastline, Greece is divided into many small water basins; each one of them with different problems and therefore a differenced but easily adjusted management policy is required.

After the 1739/87 law [4], and for administrative and organizational reasons, the country was divided into 14 units, called Water Districts (Figure 2), which contain a number of water basins with similar hydrologic characteristics [7].

This classification has not yielded the expected results in the water resources field, as problems are consistently encountered, arising mainly from the multiple split of competences of relative authorities, but also from their incapacity of coordination actions, due to the competitiveness of water uses [4], [8],[9].

More specifically, the most important problems that can be pointed out, in regard to the situation in Greece are the following:

The lack of systematic and reliable recording and evaluation of natural and artificial water bodies (quantitatively and qualitatively), as well as the lack of adequate measurements of hydrological, meteorological, hydrogeological and qualitative parameters.

Fig. 2:Greece’s existing Water Districts

The absence of a rationally organized National Network for Data Collection with a unified data base for the storing of the necessary data, resulting in the incomplete knowledge of the components of the hydrologic cycle, despite the extended number of institutions that deal with the measurements processes and the significant number of measuring stations. This problem was successfully resolved to a large extent by the “National Data Bank of Hydrologic and Meteorological Information” (NDBHMI), where a national data base was set up, together with a study for a National Network of Stations [10]. However, up to today, the delay of concretization, actualization and operational exploitation of the NDBHMI maintain the aforementioned problems. Consequently, it is an imperative need for the NDBHMI to be updated, preceded to the next phase and developed operationally, as it provides the basic infrastructure for the Directive’s implementation.

The difficulty of coordination between the competent authorities in both national and regional level, with regard to basic studies and researches related to water resources.

The occasional and uncontrolled over-exploitation of single aquifers, without a detailed knowledge of theirs potentials, which leads to their gradual qualitative and quantitative downgrading.

The difficulty of conducting long-term estimations concerning hydrologic parameters or trends.

The lack of systematic and reliable measuring and recording of the water quantities that are exploited (particularly in the field of agriculture).

The absence of a transport and unification mechanism, of targets and policies in each Water District, to wider units of space (upgrading), for the planning of combined growth.

The non-rational management of transboundary rivers.

The absence of an Institute of Water Resources for the technical and scientific support of the Directive’s implementation.

Although by law (3199/03) a Central Water Service is constituted for the determination of the national plans for the protection and management of water resources, it‘s operation is delayed. Therefore, the reports concerning the detailed descriptions of each water basin’s characteristics, the effects of human interventions with regard to the status of surface and ground waters, the economical analysis of water uses but also the National Record of Protected Areas, that had to be completed until December 2004, are still under way.

1. A proposed schematization of the Water Districts, according to the WFD’s provisions

A significant restraining factor in the planning and the application of actions for the achievement of the optimum water resources management in Greece is also the large number of Water Districts, comparatively to the small extent of the country, while countries with multipleextents like France or Germanyare not divided into more than 12 or 10 Water Districts, correspondingly.

Therefore, the country is proposed to be divided into a smaller number of WaterDistricts (groups of water basins), aiming at the integrated, most complete and vital estimation, confrontation and finally management of problems in the field of water resources,as well as the creation of infrastructure for the compliance with the WFD’s provisions.

This categorization, as depicted in Figure 3 was based on the following criteria [11]:

The hydrologic homogeneity of the Water Districts based mainly on precipitation.

The independent hydrogeological basins, which as far as possible constitute subsets of hydrologic districts.

The interaction and the possibility of annexation of coastal waters with near streams or rivers.

The extent of hydrologic basins.

The geomorphology of the country.

The land uses and certain important administrative characteristics of each region.

The current administrative division of the country.

According to the aforementioned criteria, the proposal includes the formation of 7 WaterDistricts that cover the entire country (Table 2).

Fig. 3: The 7 proposed WaterDistricts compared with the administrative regions

Table 2: Districts’ names

Number / District name / Islands
01 / Peloponnissos / Zakinthos and Kefalinia
02 / Dytiki Sterea - Ipeiros / Ionian (except for Zakinthos and Kefalinia)
03 / Thessaly
04 / Anatoliki Sterea - Attica / Aegean (except for Thasos and Samothraki)
05 / Dytiki - Kentriki Makedonia
06 / Anatoliki Makedonia - Thraki / Thasos and Samothraki
07 / Kriti

A brief description of theirs characteristics is presented afterwards.

(01) The District of “Peloponnissos”occupies an area of 22.651 km2, after the merging of the Water Districts 01, 02 and 03, as well as the islands of Zakinthos and Kefalinia. It has the same boundaries with the existing Districts and an equivalent rate of growth. Emphasis will be put in the optimum management of the groundwaters and the coastal waters.

(02) The Water Districts 04 and 05 together with the rest of the Ionian islands, are merged into the WaterDistrict named “Dytiki Sterea – Ipeiros” (17.855 km2). It consists of the same boundaries and same area with the existing Districts, similar geomorphologic, climatologic and hydrologic conditions. The District’s water surplus will be used for the contribution of areas with water shortage.

(03) The existing District 08 of “Thessaly” is not merged with another Water District not only because of its extent (13.719 km2), but also because of the geomorphologic, climatic, agricultural and economical particularities. However, a small part of the existing Water District 07 without any significant hydrologic contribution was included in the new District. The main reason of this annexation is the joining with other small water basins with seasonal flow, characterized by the high sediment transport during extreme flood events. The region’s extensive demands in water have led to water shortage, and additional demands are mainly satisfied by other Districts.

(04) The existing Water Districts 06 and 07 together with the Aegean islands (except for Thasos and Samothraki) form the Water District of “Anatoliki Sterea – Attica”. This District occupies the highest portion of area (26.844 km2) comparatively to any other. The unified regions have similar climatologic conditions and geomorphologic characteristics. The region of Anatoliki Sterea has an increased water potential compared to Attica, which is considered to be deficit. This is why a unified management policy is required in these two regions, as the incorporation of the hydrologic basins of the rivers Mornos and Evinos will allow the exploitation of the District’s surplus areas, in favor of the District’s deficit areas (including the water supply of Athens).

(05) The proposed District of “Dytiki and Kentriki Makedonia” results from the merging of Water Districts 09 and 10 (23.780 km2). It includes transboundary rivers and lakes but also the water supply of Thessaloniki.

(06) The current Water Districts 11 and 12 as well as the islands of Thasos and Samothraki constitute the sixth proposed District, named “Anatoliki Makedonia-Thraki”, occupying an area of 18.513 km2, with common boundaries and similar geomorphologic, climatic and hydrologic conditions. A very important characteristic of the region is the obligation to satisfy the water demand by exploiting transboundary rivers, but also the sufficiency of the District’s water resources. The water is mainly used for irrigation purposes and for production of hydroelectric power.

(07) It is the southernmost and the smallest of the proposed Districts (8.197 km2). However, it has a high water potential, and can satisfy sufficiently the increasing water demand. The spatial distribution of the water resources is considered to be a problem with the highest amounts of water (surface and groundwater) to be found in the west, while in the east, the water budget is deficit, causing difficulties in the water supplying mostly during the summer months.