Science advances on Environment, Toxicology & Ecotoxicology issues www.chem-tox-ecotox.org
River Basins and Ecosystem Management: Dominant Themes and Goals The EU Water Framework Directive: an approach to Integrated River Basin Management
Athanasios Valavanidis, Thomais Vlachogianni Department of Chemistry, University of Athens, University Campus Zografou, 15784 Athens, Greece E‐mail :
[email protected],
[email protected] Abstract Triggered by the requirements of new environmental laws, ecosystem management, protection of ecosystem services and risk‐based management are approaches appropriate for environmental protection and conservation of natural resources. Water management strategies and river basins are considered by scientists to be very important for the future of freshwater, the ecological balance in our planet and the well‐being of civilization. The European Union established in 2000 a framework for the Community actions in the field of water policy (Water Framework Directive, WFD, 2000/60/EC). Risk‐based management initially focuses on distinct hazardous chemical substances in surface waters (based primarily on 33 priority substances and 8 priority hazardous pollutants). Also, WFD recommends investment in best available technologies for treatment of industrial, domestic and agricultural effluents that pollute rivers and can effectively reduce excessive pollution of several European river basins. Environmental risk assessment contains by its nature different types of uncertainty due to different perceptions of the risks and limited knowledge about physical, chemical and biological processes underlying the risk in river ecosystems. Scientists studying risk‐based management of ecosystems know well the necessary steps that must be undertaken to identify dominant pollutants, predict multi‐stressor effects, develop stressor and type specific metrics in order to achieve their goals. Integrated risk‐based management must formulate a better understanding of the ecosystem responses to pollution changes as well as early warning systems and concepts. European river basins and their freshwater resources management related issues are briefly reviewed. The Balkan Peninsula and Greek rivers and their environmental problems are presented as well as selected scientific studies on their water quality, ecological status and pollution stressors.
INTRODUCTION Ecosystem management has been proposed as a modern and preferred system for managing and protecting natural resources and the great variety of ecosystems. It embraces both ecological and social dynamics in a flexible and adaptive process. The implementation of ecosystem management is hoped to protect the environment from anthropogenic pollution, maintain healthy ecosystems, permit sustainable development and preserve biodiversity of sensitive species.1,2 Visionary ecologists from the 1930s and 1940s had the foresight to develop the concept of ecosystem management in response to the biodiversity crisis and the loss of many plant and animal species. From 1932 the Ecological Society of America’s Committee for the Study of Plant and Animal Communities recognized that a comprehensive United States nature sanctuary system must protect ecosystems as well as certain species of concern representing a wide range of ecosystem types. Also, the Committee recognized that interagency cooperation would be required as well as education of the public on the value of nature sanctuaries for successful management of ecosystems.3 Very soon American ecologists recognized that national parks in the USA were not fully functional ecosystems because of size limitations and boundaries, and lobbied for the increase of their size by redrawing their boundaries to reflect biotic requirements. A typical example was the study for grizzly bears’ needs in the famous Yellowstone National Park in the USA. After 12 years of study it was recognized that the size of the park must increase substantially to protect effectively the habitat necessary to sustain the largest carnivore in the region. This pioneering work led to the redraw of the biotic boundaries of various parks and reserves as whole ecosystems.5 The first book on ecosystem management appeared in 1988 in the USA. It represented a theoretical framework that included both general goals and processes for achieving goals. The authors suggested ecologically defined boundaries, interagency cooperation, monitoring of management results and leadership at the national policy.6 Forests and river basins are the most important ecosystems in Europe and were the first to be managed scientifically as protected areas and/or national parks with special protection status and conservation laws after the 1940s.7,8 The European Union in the past decades adopted many environmental directives, strategies and agreements for the protection of sensitive ecosystems and landscapes. These directives required a movement from sectoral‐based to more ecosystem‐based holistic environmental management. Environmental management in the future will focus more on ecological and biological conditions, rather than physical and chemical conditions (chemical pollutants), with ecosystem health as a criterion of regulation and management decision making.9‐11 DOMINANT THEMES OF ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT The dominant themes of ecosystem management are not uniformly defined or consistently applied in different countries. They are defined by consensus and can be found in detail in papers of the scientific literature. These themes are:5
Ecological boundaries, management must define for the system concerned, such as national forests or national parks, the appropriate ecological boundaries for the proper conservation of plants and animals of the ecosystem Historically this was accomplished by focusing on one or more species of concern aver a defined geographical area.
Hierarchical context. Managers must seek to resolve problems by making the connections between levels of biological systems, focusing on the biodiversity hierarchy (genes, species, populations, ecosystems, landscapes). This is often described as a “systems” perspective. System analysis always begins by considering spatial and temporal scale and hierarchy.
Ecological integrity. Ecological integrity refers to our sense of the wholeness and well being of an ecological system and is defined as protecting total native diversity (species, populations and ecosystems) as well as the ecological patterns and processes that maintain the diversity of the ecosystem.12
Data collection. Management of ecosystems requires inevitably collection of data and research for the variety of species and their connections. Data can be habitat inventory and classification of species, disturbance regime and dynamics, baseline species and population assessment.
Environmental and ecological monitoring. It is an important aspect of good management practice to keep a record of actions, successes and failures. Monitoring provides a collection of useful information and data for quantitative and qualitative evaluation.13,14
Adaptive management. Is a process where ecosystem managers learn through continues experimentation, incorporate results, remain flexible and adapt to uncertainty.15
Cooperation between different agencies. Most national parks and forests have boundaries close to private, state, local or federal properties and inevitably have to cooperate with these agencies. Managers have to learn how to work together and integrate conflicting legal requirements and activities inside their conservation areas.
Human activities in natural protected areas. There is a need for accommodating people and their activities in protected areas than separating people from nature. Managing ecosystems means that some involvement of people of local people or visitors through educational actions are needed without jeopardizing ecological values.
Changes in the structure of land management. Ecosystem management needs changes in the structure of land management agencies and the way they operate. These changes can be for example forming an interagency committee or changing power relationships.14
Human values for ecosystem management. Human values play a dominant role in ecosystem management goals, besides the role of scientific knowledge on ecosystem functioning.
Ecosystem management in order to be successful in protecting the environment of protected areas must integrate scientific knowledge of ecological relationships within a complex socio‐political and values (human, ecological) framework. Ecosystem management must work towards the general goal of protecting native ecosystem integrity over a long period of time.5 ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT GOALS AND PRIORITIES There are different worldviews of what society wants from ecosystems and the goals and priorities of ecosystem management. The first world view is biocentric focusing of the maintenance of the ecological health and integrity of an ecosystem and viable populations of all species inside the boundaries. The anthropocentric view wants to maintain the integrity of the ecosystem but with benefits, short or long‐ term, for the human society 16 The basic idea behind ecosystem management paradigm is anthropocentric. It aims to maximize benefits for humans by applying a mix of decisions with defined constrains and achieve at the same time desired ecological conditions for the conservation of protected areas. Potential benefits from ecosystem management may be commodity yields (timber products, fish, wildlife for regulated hunting), ecological services (abatement of pollution, increased biodiversity), preserving wilderness, endangered species and enchanting landscapes for tourism,17,18 Ecosystem management reflects a stage in the continuing evolution of social values and priorities.16 Another priority of ecosystem management is to maintain viable populations of all native species inside the boundaries of the protected area and represent all native ecosystem types across their natural range of variations. In this respect the term ecological health and ecological integrity are widely used in the scientific language. In this respect there is a debate over the definition of the “desired” state of health of an ecosystem and how to achieve it. The concept of “health” has a compelling appeal, but it has no operational meaning unless it is defined in terms of the desired state of the ecosystem.19,20 An integrated assessment of ecosystem health has been developed in order to evaluate the particular problems of various types of ecosystems.21
There is no ‘natural’ state of nature. It is a relative concept. The only thing natural is change, sometimes predictable, most of the times random, or unpredictable. Ecosystems are governed by dynamic equilibrium.22 The stability, resilience, fragility and adaptability are challenging concepts in ecology. For ecosystems these characteristics put limits to the options for society and the ecosystem manager. Disturbances, such as fires, floods, droughts and pests, can affect the stability of an ecosystem.23 Ecosystem management has a duty to maintain evolutionary and ecological processes, such as hydrological processes (water cycle), nutrient cycles, energy flow (basic for growth, reproduction and survival) and community dynamics. Ecosystem management must understand that ecosystems have the ability to respond to a variety of stressors, natural or man‐made, but there are limits.24 Ecosystem management must have as a priority the maintenance of the level of biological diversity in the ecosystem under its protection. Biological diversity is considered very important for ecosystem stability.25,26 Also, another priority or goal must be the sustainability of their developmental plans in the protected area. Sustainable development means …”to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs”. This is a very difficult goal for ecosystem managers and the term sustainability must be clearly defined, especially for the benefits and costs, the time frame and relative priorities.27 The United National Environmental Programme in Nairobi Kenya has a very active site for ecosystems and sustainability.28 BENEFITS OF NATURAL ECOSYSTEMS and ECOSYSTEM SERVICES Ecosystems provide humans with a great variety of beneficial natural services and functions in the local and the global environment. These benefits are collectively called ecosystem services. The ecosystem services have been recognized by scientific societies and have been categorized into various sections. The UNEP’s Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Programme put them in a priority list 27: 1.
climate regulation
7. water purification
2.
water regulation
8. waste treatment
3.
natural hazard regulation
9. disease regulation
4.
energy
10. fisheries
5.
freshwater
11. primary production (organic substances by plants)
6.
nutrient cycling
12. recreation and ecotourism
The environmental awareness of the 1970s focused on urban air pollution, noise, solid waste deterioration of the quality of life in cities. From the 1990s the attention shifted to ecological problems, biodiversity, greenhouse effect, forests, freshwater and ecosystem degradation. Societies are increasingly becoming aware that ecosystem services are not only limited, but also that they are threatened by human activities.29 The Ecological Society of America defines ecosystem services the processes by which the environment produces resources that we often take for granted such as clean water, timber, and habitat for fisheries, Whether we find ourselves in the city or a rural area, the ecosystems in which humans live provide goods and services that are very familiar to us: a) moderate weather extremes and their impacts, b) mitigate drought and floods, c) cycle and move nutrients, d) protect stream and river channels and coastal shores from erosion, e) detoxify and decompose wastes and control agricultural pests, f) maintain biodiversity, g) generate and preserve soils and renew their fertility, h) regulate disease carrying organisms, i) pollinate crops and natural vegetation 30
A more scientific approach divides the ecosystem services in four categories: provisioning, regulating, supporting and cultural services. Provisioning services: green food products (crops, wild food, spices, vegetables, fruits), seafood, game,
Freshwater (rivers, lakes, springs in ecosystems provide clean water),
Pharmaceuticals (from native plant extracts), biochemicals (plant extracts), industrial products, ( timber, latex, glues, chemicals)
Energy in the form of hydropower and biomass fuels
Regulating services : carbon sequestration and climate regulation at local and global scale
Waste decomposition and detoxification (by absorbing and decomposing toxic chemicals)
Purification of water and air (plants and soil can absorb toxic gases, suspended particulates)
Crop pollination (by bees, insects, birds)
Pest and disease control (by plants)
Soil improvement (microorganisms, organic detritus)
Supporting services : nutrient dispersal and cycling
Seed dispersal
Primary production
Cultural services : cultural, intellectual and spiritual inspiration (from the beauty of nature , the working life of animals and the beauty of plants and flowers)
Recreational experiences, including ecotourism
Scientific discoveries (discovery of drugs, biochemicals, new species)
The ecosystem services provided by the major national parks, tropical and mountain forests, river basins, wetlands, coral reefs, and other important ecosystems on Earth, have been evaluated qualitatively and quantitatively as to their relative importance, efficiency and economic significance.31,32 Modern societies facing the economic crisis and the multiple environmental problems are turning their attention to the ecosystems in their region.33‐35 Many authors have recently argued that there are strong links between ecosystem services and sustainable development, particularly development efforts that aim to reduce rural poverty. This is not always obvious and some conservation projects did not reduce poverty. There is sharp debate about the social impacts of conservation programs and the success of community‐based approaches to conservation. Some scientists suggest that the science of ecosystem services can contribute to both nature conservation and sustainable development. But there is a need for a scientific accounting of ecosystem services and a better understanding of how and at what rates ecosystems produce these services.36,37 By focusing on the conservation of ecosystem services could improve the success of projects that attempt to both conserve nature and improve the welfare of the rural poor by fostering markets for the goods and services that local people produce or extract from ecosystems. These projects could be characterized as more “community‐based” because the goal is to foster the more organic development of cottage industries, such as ecotourism, or the production of forest products, that are enhanced by better protection of local ecosystems.38, 39 AN ECOSYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENTAL DIRECTIVES The European Union (EU) implemented various environmental legislations (directives, recommendations, agreements) over the past forty years but with the 5th Environmental Action Programme (1993) shifted the whole emphasis towards sustainable development. At the same time its environmental regulations shifted
from local‐ and regional‐based legislation to more ecosystem based, holistic environmental management.9,40, 41 The main EU tools for applying the ecosystem approach to water bodies are: Habitats Directive (1992, 92/43/EEC) This directive was promulgated in order to implement the Global Biodiversity Convention and compliments the 1979 EC Wild Birds Directive (79/409/EEC). The Directive focuses on the conservation of habitats and wild fauna and flora. The ecosystem management approach is the fundamental aim of this directive. The directive led to the setting up of a network of Special Areas of Conservation, which together with the existing Special Protection Areas form a network of protected sites across the European Union called Natura 2000. The directive requires EU Member States to report on the state of their protected areas every six years. The first complete set of country data was reported in 2007.42 Water Framework Directive (WFD, 2000/60/EC) This Directive was the result of increasing demand for cleaner rivers, lakes, groundwater and coastal beaches. The WFD approach places emphasis on ecological status (defined as quality of the structure and functioning of the aquatic ecosystems associated with surface waters). The Directive will take into account the physico‐chemical nature of the water and sediment, the flow characteristics and the physical structure of the water body, but at the same time concentrates on the biological elements of the ecosystem. The EU aims to achieve in the near future good ecological status for its waters.43 The early European legislation started with standards for rivers and lakes used for drinking water abstraction (1975) and quality targets for drinking water (1980). Also, legislation for fish and shellfish waters, bathing and groundwater. The second phase was the water waste treatment Directive, the nitrate Directive, the new improved Drinking Water Directive (1998) and the Directive for Integrated Pollution and prevention Control (pollution from large industrial installations, 1996).
Figure 1. Rivers and lakes are important ecosystems
Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD, 2008/56/EC) The Directive aims at protecting more effectively the marine environment across Europe. The MSFD constitutes the vital environmental component of the Union’s future maritime policy, designed to achieve the full environmental potential of oceans and seas in harmony with the marine environment. The adoption of the MSFD, and the accompanying Marine Framework Directive, will be based on integrated ecosystem management ideas and will cover terrestrial and freshwater areas through the estuarine and coasts to the open seas.44 Integrated Coastal Zone Management Recommendation (ICZM, 2002) Since 1996 the European Commission has been working to promote measures for coastal zones. The basic aim was to remedy the deterioration and to improve the overall situation of Europe’s coastal zones. In 2000 The Commission published a Communication “Integrated Coastal Zone Management: A Strategy for Europe” (COM/00/547, Sept. 2000). This recommendation was adopted by the Council and Parliament on 30/5/2002.45 This recommendation (ICZM) is a dynamic, multidisciplinary and interactive process to promote sustainable management of coastal zones through ecosystem management approach. It covers the full cycle of information collection, planning, decision making, management and monitoring of implementation. The plan is to use the informed participation and cooperation of all stakeholders to assess the societal goals in a given coastal area, and to take actions towards meeting these objectives. In the long‐term, it aims to balance environmental, economic, social, cultural and recreational objectives, all within the limits set by natural dynamics. It means integration of all relevant policy areas, sectors, and levels of administration. The European Commission has now launched a review of the EU ICZM Recommendation, with a view to a follow‐up proposal by the end of 2011. EUROPEAN RIVER BASINS: RISK‐BASED MANAGEMENT AND ECOLOGICAL STATUS Global annual usage of water is expected to increase from 4.9 trillion cubic meters (m3) now to 6.9 trillion m3 by 2030. This amount of water is approximately, 40% more than what can be provided by available water supplies. Agriculture is the biggest user of fresh water, making up 70‐90% of the annual water demand for many countries. This demand is worrying because food production is going to have to double over the next 40 years to meet the needs of growing population.46 Studies found that 80% of the world’s population (4.8 billion in 2000) live in regions experiencing high levels of threats to human water security and threats to biodiversity (increasing needs for human development affect needs of water for other ecosystem services). Scientists from the City University of New York carried out a computer‐based assessment to quantify threats to human water security and freshwater biodiversity in global river systems. Regions of the world with intensive agriculture and dense human settlements (such as in the in USA and in Europe) experience some of the highest levels of threats to both human water security and biodiversity.47,48 The ecological status of European river systems is a cause of concern due to increasing pollution stressors and threats to human water security in recent decades. Scientists in Europe think that risk‐based management of river basins and their ecosystems is the appropriate approach to achieve the river basins and their ecosystems is the appropriate approach to achieve the goals of the Water Framework Directive. They recommend to focus on distinct hazardous substances in surface waters and investment in the best available technologies for treatment of industrial and domestic effluents. The proper implementation of these measures is expected to reduce excessive chemical pollution in great number of European river basins.49
Table 1. First list of 33 priority substances under the Water Framework Directive
The following 33 (20 + 13) substances and chemical compounds are included in the list of priority substances established by the European Union. Some of these priority substances are also priority hazardous substances.50 Alachlor; Atrazine; Benzene; Chlorfenvinphos; Chlorpyrifos; 1,2‐Dichloroethane; Dichloromethane; Di(2‐ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP); Diuron; Fluoranthene; Isoproturon; Lead and its compound; Naphthalene; Nickel and its compounds; Octylphenols; Pentachlorophenol; Simazine; Trichlorobenzenes; Trichloromethane; Trifluralin. B. The following 13 substances are priority substances and priority hazardous substances: Anthracene; Pentabromodiphenylether; Cadmium and its compounds; C10‐13‐chloroalkanes; Endosulphan; Hexachlorobenzene; Hexachlorobutadiene; Hexachlorocyclohexane; Mercury and its compounds; Nonylphenols; Pentachlorobenzene; Polyaromatic hydrocarbons; Tributyltin compounds. C. Substances subject to review for possible identification as priority substances or priority hazardous substances AMPA (α‐amino‐3‐hydroxyl‐5‐methyl‐4‐isoxazole‐propionate), Bentazon , Bisphenol‐A , Dicofol , EDTA , free cyanide , Glyphosate Mecoprop , Musk xylene , Perfluorooctane sulphonic acid (PFOS) Quinoxyfen, Dioxins, PCB (polychlorinated biphenyls) (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water‐dangersub/pri_substances.htm#list) The demand for a good chemical and ecological status of the European surface waters by 2015, exerts pressure on scientists to develop the appropriate risk‐based management of river basins and a better understanding of ecosystem responses to changes. Ecosystems are highly dynamic and require early warning systems and discrimination of the various effects of pollutants from disturbances from natural variation. Because ecosystems are closely interconnected, they need integrated monitoring and stressor‐ based management of the whole water, sediment, groundwater, soil and air system,50 European scientists developed in 2005 an integrated project with 26 partners from 14 European countries to formulate models for forecasting and assessing the impact of key pollutants on freshwater and marine ecosystems and biodiversity. This multidisciplinary approach is called MODELKEY, (http://www.modelkey.org) and is aiming to develop interlinked tools for an enhanced understanding of cause‐effect‐relationships between insufficient ecological status and environmental pollution as causative factor and for the assessment and forecasting of the risks of key pollutants on fresh water and marine ecosystems at a river basin and adjacent marine environment scale.51 The MODELKEY project database used three case studies of river basins in Europe, that of : Elbe, Schldt and Llobregat. The data analysis within and across river basins revealed major obstacles, including scarcity of ,matching ecological and chemical monitoring sites for cause‐effect relationships.52 EUROPEAN RIVER BASINS‐PROBLEMS and PERSPECTIVES Like all other aquatic ecosystems in Europe river systems have been changed by a multitude of impacts. Small streams in mountain areas remained nevertheless relatively undisturbed; many small streams have never been severely polluted as almost all large rivers. Physical alterations in their catchments affect most European rivers, disrupt their continuum and the interactions between the stream and its terrestrial surroundings. Obviously, Climate Change will worsen this situation by increasing water temperatures and associated parameters. It will contribute to a general upstream movement of river zones, particularly affecting species
bound to small streams and springs, which can not move further upstream. Most fish of small rivers, especially the salmonids, are cold‐adapted and will be particularly affected by rising temperatures.53‐55 Rivers do not recognize political boundaries and in particular in Europe over 150 transboundary rivers flow through various counties. Danube for example drains parts of 19 countries, Europe has long history of fragmented, channelized and polluted rivers. The EU Water Framework Directive is very ambitious and requires management plans for all major European rivers for achieving good ecological status by 2015.56 Europe has many long rivers The most important rivers and their basins in Europe are:57 Danube (2850 km). The most significant commercial waterway in Europe Danube flows across central Europe and the countries of Austria, Hungary, Croatia and Yugoslavia. It then forms the border between Romania and Bulgaria, turning north across Romania to eventually end in the Black Sea. Dnieper (1420 km). Starting from Russia and flows through Belarus ending in the Black Sea; Don (1950 km). Starting from Russia ends up in the sea of Azov; Rhine (1319 km). Starts in Switzerland, flows through Germany, France, Netherlands and ends in North Sea; Elbe (1165 km). Starts at Czech Republic, flows through Germany, ends in North Sea; Loire (1020 km). Longest river in France, flows through the heartland of France; Tagus (1007 km). Portugal; Oder (912 km). Flows through Poland in the Baltic Sea; Po (652 km). Longest river in Italy; Rhone (485 km). Swiss Alps, flows through France, lake Geneva, emptying in The Mediterranean Sea; Shannon (370 km). Northwest Ireland. Extensive monitoring programmes of hazardous chemicals in freshwater have been established in the last decades in many European countries. These programmes are increasingly accompanied by ecological status monitoring of the river basins. The focus of the present European environmental research is on the pollutants identification in river basins and the reduction of toxic pressure on aquatic ecosystems.58 Studies on key pollutants and their adverse effects focused on mutagenicity, aryl hydrocarbon receptor‐ mediated effect (dioxins), endocrine disruption, green algae and invertebrates. Environmental pollutants are polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated dibenzo‐p‐dioxins furans, biphenyls (polychlorinated biphenyls, PCBs), nonyphenol, some pesticides and tributyltin. Also, they concentrate on substituted phenols, natural or synthetic estrogens, dinaphthofurans, N‐phenyl‐2‐naphthylamine. Because these studies are labor intensive and very expensive for monitoring, they concentrate in hot spots and especially in downstream areas (with heavy industries) which may pose risks and accumulation in lower zones.59‐62
Figure 2. Map of Europe with the most important rivers. The rivers in the 27 member states of the EU have been under investigation for environmental pollutants for many years. In 2009 a EU‐wide survey in 100 European river waters for 35 selected chemical pollutants (polar organics) was published. Samples were analyzed by 40 laboratories. The most frequently and at the highest concentration levels detected compounds were benzotriazole (complexing agent, corrosion inhibitor), caffeine, carbamazepine (pharmaceutical), tolytriazole (corrosion inhibitor of copper, added in water), and nonylphenoxy acetic acid (surfactant, detergents). Only about 10% of the river water samples analyzed could be classified as “very clean” in terms of chemical pollution.63 The Water Framework Directive for river basins is hoped to provide an incentive to reduce pollutants in surface water and thus achieve the targets of various international conventions, such as the Stockholm Convention to reduce POPs.64 The cooperation among countries for shared rivers and seas, and integrated water management by state agencies have been applied with success (e.g. Rhine, Meuse, North Sea, etc). The cooperation reduced pollution and improved ecosystems. 65,66 ENVIRONMENTAL STATE OF RIVER BASINS IN THE BALKANS Environmental conditions in rivers of the Balkan peninsula have been summarized in a very interesting review paper. Fifteen major Balkan rivers were examined for their physico‐geographic and hydrological conditions as well as their environmental state. The framework under which the rivers were studied was the DPSIR (Drivers‐Pressures‐State‐Impacts‐Response), a framework linking drivers (socio‐ and economic
conditions) and pressures by anthropogenic activities, with the state of the rivers in terms of environmental pollutants and their consequences (eutrophication, fish deaths, etc) and the measures taken by responsible authorities to improve their environmental conditions. 67 The most important rivers were: Neretva, Aoos, Arachthos, Acheloos, Alfeios, Evrotas, Drin, Aliakmon, Pinios, Sperchios, Axios, Kamchia, Evros, Nestos and Strymon. Hydrological data and water quality were drawn from various scientific publications and technical reports. The database of the European Environment Information and Observation Network (EIONET) and other technical reports were used .Greek rivers were covered by various publications but other Balkan rivers lacked available data or these were inaccessible. Environmental pressures on Balkan river basins were restricted up to the 19th century because the region was scarcely populated. But in the 20th century the population increased substantially, extensive wetland areas were drained to produce agricultural land and reduce malaria. Huge drainage networks and inter‐ basin water transfer projects were constructed (e.g. from Trebisnjica and Neretva rives in Bulgaria to Strymon and Nestos headwaters to the Iskar and Evros basins).68 After the 1950s many of the longer rivers in the Balkan countries were fragmented by large dams. In Greece Evros, Axios, Pinios, Alfeios and Aoos are moderately fragmented while Sperchios and Evrotas are free flowing.67 Also, in many rivers large reservoirs have been constructed for the production of electricity by hydropower. Mining and industrial activities are very extensive in the Balkan countries. Half of the water resources in Croatia and Bulgaria are used by industry. The intensification of agriculture affected substantially the use of freshwater resources. In Greece it is estimated that agriculture uses 85‐87% of surface freshwater (10% industry and 3% domestic).69 RIVER BASINS IN GREECE Water bodies in Greece were classified into various categories according to the Water Framework Directive. A total of 674 bodies have been divided into 379 rivers, 88 lakes, 121 transitional water bodies (river estuaries, deltas and lagoons) and 105 artificial (mostly) reservoirs. Over the last years there were various data summarizing the physico‐chemical parameters, geo‐morphological characteristics, species of fauna and flora and environmental pressures and their ecological status. The ecological conditions were found high to good at 80% of the rivers (with very good ecological status of mountain streams), 60% for lakes, 66% of transitional water bodies and 80% of water reservoir.70,71 Another very detailed report on the qualitative characteristics and environmental pressures of water bodies in Greece was published in 2006 by the researchers of the Ministry of Environment, Physical Planning and Public Works.72 It is well known that some of the most important rivers in the North of Greece are interregional flowing through Albania, FYROM (Macedonia), Serbia, Bulgaria and Turkey These rivers (belong only by 14% to Greece) contribute to the country’s freshwater runoff by 40%. These rivers are influenced by industrial discharges in the northern countries, especially in Bulgaria (e.g. Strymon with relative intense industrial activity). Axios river is heavily affected by untreated municipal and metal effluents of chemical industry in FYROM. Their typological and qualitative characteristics have been described in a paper in 2002.73 Some rivers in Greece are in very good ecological condition. Aoos, Arachthos and Acheloos catchments remain in a semi‐natural state and only their downstream portions are affected by partly treated urban effluents and small‐scale industries. Aliakmon banks are densely populated and receives wastewater of small agro‐industrial factories and agricultural effluents of irrigation canals. Aliakmon also receives the combustion effluents of the Ptolemais electricity producing facilities (burning mainly lignite). Pinios in Thessaly is affected by untreated municipal and agro‐industrial wastes (sugar factories, etc). Sperchios (near Lamia) is influenced by urban sewage, olive oil refineries’ untreated sewage and light industries effluents. Alfeios river in Peloponnese is affected by the sulfur dioxide emitted by the lignite burning facility of Megalopolis (electricity power plant). Evrotas in Peloponnese is affected by a large number (more than 100) of wastewater olive oil presses.67 A list of the most important rivers in Greece is presented below
Acheron (near Parga), Aliacmon (in Methoni, 297 km), Arachthos (in Kommeno, 110 km) , Acheloos (near Astakos, 220 km), Axios/Vardar (near Thessaloniki, 76 km) , Megdovas (near Fragkista), Evinos (near Messolonghi), Mornos (near Nafpaktos), Pineios (near Gastouni, Thessalia, 205 km) , Alfeios (near Pyrgos, 110 km) , Erymanthos (near Kallithea) , Ladon (near Kallithea), Lousios (near Gortyna), ,Eurotas (in Elos) , Aoos (NW, Ipiros, 76 km). Spercheios (near Lamia, 80 km) , Assopos (80 km), Gorgopotamos (near Lamia), Enipefs (in Farkadona, 84 km), Gallikos (near Thessaloniki, 70 km), Strymonas/Struma (in Amphipolis, 118 km) , Nestos/Mesta (near Keramoti, 130 km), Evros/Maritsa (near Alexandroupoli, 204 km) , Erythropotamos/Luda reka (near Didymoteicho), Lourios (80 km), Ardas/Arda (near Edirne, Turkey), Pinios (Peloponnisos, 70 km). The World Wide Fund has produced a report “Water and Wetland Index‐Critical Issues in Water Policy Across Europe” (2003). A typical river basin management in Greece is presented for Pinios river basin in Thessaly. The report emphasizes the fact that agriculture uses 96% of the water supply in the area causing significant water environmental problems. The WFD requires active involvement of all stakeholders in the river basin level. Regional authorities must be given more jurisdictions and the appropriate capacity to deal with the river. 74‐77 The environmental problems of Greek rivers, their ecological status, water quality and management have been studied in the last decades and some selected reports are listed below:
Pollution control of Evrotas.78 Water quality of river in Northwestern Greece.79 Surface water quality of Aliakmon, Gallikos, Axios, Strymon and Loudias in the North of Greece.79 Quality characteristics of Pinios.80 Transboundary river basin management of Nestos‐Mesta (Greece‐Bulgaria) catchment area 81 Integrated approach for management of Axios catchment area.82 Impact and pressure analysis of the Pinios river basin.83 Alfeios (Peloponnisos) river basin and integrated management framework based on sustainability.84
REFERENCES 1.
Boyce MS, Haney A (Eds). Ecosystem Management: Applications for Sustainable Forest and Wildlife Resources. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, 1999.
2.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystem and Human Well‐Being. Synthesis Report. Island Press, Washington DC, 2005.
3.
Shelford VE. Ecological Society of America: A nature sanctuary plan unanimously adopted by the Society. Ecology 1932, 14:240‐245..
4.
Caldwell L. The ecosystem as a criterion for public land policy. Natur Res J 1970, 10:203‐221.
5.
Grumbine RE. What is ecosystem management? Conserv Biol 1993, 8:27‐38.
6.
Agee JK, Johnson DR. Ecosystem Management for Parks and Wilderness. University of Washington Press, Seattle, 1988.
7.
Bengtsson J, Nilsson SG, Franc A, Menozzi P. Biodiversity, disturbances, ecosystem function and management of European forests. Forest Ecol Manag 2000, 132:39‐50.
8.
Tenhunen JD, Lenz R, Hantschel R (Eds). Ecosystem Approaches to Landscape Management in Central Europe. Ecological Studies No. 147, Springer‐Verlag, Berling, 2001.
9.
Apitz SE, Elliott M, Fountain M, Galloway TS. European environmental management: Moving to an ecosystem approach. Integr Environ Assess Manage 2006, 2:80‐85.
10.
Farrell EP, Fuhrer E, Ryan D, Andersson F, Hutti R, Piussi P. European forest ecosystem: building the future on the legacy of the past. Forest Ecol Manage 2000, 132:5‐20.
11.
Puettmann KJ, Ammer C, Trends in North American and European regeneration research under the ecosystem management paradigm. Eur J Forest Res 2007, 126:1‐9.
12.
Woodley S, Kay J, Francis G (Eds). Ecological Integrity and the Management of Ecosystems. St Lucie Press, Delray, Florida, 1993.
13.
Busch DE, Trexler JC. Monitoring Ecosystems. Interdisciplinary Approaches for Evaluating Ecoregional Initiatives. Island Press, Washington DC, 2003.
14.
Lindenmayer DB, Likens GE. Effective Ecological Monitoring. Earthscan, London, 2010.
15.
Walters CJ. Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources. McGraw‐Hill, New York, 1986.
16.
Lackey RT. Seven pillars of ecosystem management. Landscape Urban Plan 1998, 40:21‐30.
17.
Kessler WB, Salwasser H, Cartwright C, Caplan J. New perspective for sustainable natural resources management. Ecolog Applic 1992, 2:221‐225.
18.
Bengston DN. Changing forest values and ecosystem management. Soc Nat Res 1994, 7:515‐533.
19.
Norton BG, Constanza R, Haskell B (Eds). Ecosystem Health: New Goals for Environmental Management. Island Press, Washington DC, 1992.
20.
Rapport DJ, Gaudet CL, Constanza R, Epstein PR, Levins R (Eds). Ecosystem Health: Principles and Practice. Wiley‐Blackwell, Chichste, 1998.
21.
Fogg GF, Hinton DE, Johnson ML, Scow KM (Eds). Integrated Assessment of Ecosystem Health. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 1999.
22.
Kaufman W. How nature really works. Am For, 1993, 17‐19:59‐61
23.
Mitchell RJ, Auld MHD, Le Duc MG, Robert MH. Ecosystem stability and resilience: a review of their relevance for the conservation management of lowland heaths. Perspect Plant Ecol Evol System 2000, 3:142‐160.
24.
Stone L, Gabric A, Berman T. Ecosystem resilience, stability, and productivity: seeking a relationship. Am Natuiralist 1996, 148:892‐903.
25.
Naeem S, Bunker A, Lorean M, Perrings C (Eds). Biodiversity, Ecosystem Functioning, anf Human Erllbeing. An Ecological and Economic Perspective. Oxford Scholarship Online, Oxford, Sept 2009. (www.oxfordscholarship.com/oso/public/content/biology/9780199547951/toc.html)
26.
Slootweg R, Raivanshi A, Mathur VB, Kolhoff A (Eds). Biodiversity in Environmental Assessment. Enhancing Ecosystem Services for Human Well‐Being. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010.
27.
UNEP. Ecosystem Management Programme. A New Approach to Sustainability. UNEP , Nairobi, Kenya , 2009 (www.unep.org/ecosytemmanagement/LinkClic?....)
28.
United Nations Environmental Programme , Nairobi , Kenya (www.unep.org/edpi )
29.
Vitousek PM, Lubchenco J, Mooney HA, Mehillo J. Human domination of Earth’s ecosystems. Science 1997, 227: 494‐499.
30.
The Ecological Society of America. Issues in Ecology, "Ecosystem Services: Benefits Supplied to Human Societies by Natural Ecosystems, No. 2, Spring, 1997. Available on ESA's website at http://www.esa.org/science/Issues/.
31.
Chichilnisky G, Heal G. Economic returns from the biosphere. Nature 1998, 391:629‐630.
32.
Kreme n C. Managing ecosystem services: what do we need to know about their ecology? Ecol Lett 2005, 8: 468‐479.
33.
National Research Council (USA). Valuing Ecosystem Services: Toward a Better Environmental Decision‐Making. National Academies Press, Washington DC, 2004.
34.
Ruhl JB, Kraft SE, Lant CL. The Law and Policy of Ecosystem Services. Island Press, Washington DC, 2007.
35.
Kumar P, Muradran R. Payment for Ecosystem Services. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2009.
36.
Adam WM, Aveling R, Brockington D, Dickson B, Elliott J, Hutton J, Roe D, Vira B, Wolmer W. Biodiversity conservation and the eradication of poverty. Science 2004, 306: 1145‐1149.
37.
Tallis H, Kareiva P, Marvier M, Chang A. An ecosystem services framework to support both practical conservation and economic development. Review. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2008, 105: 9457‐9464.
38.
Dally GC, Matson PA. Ecosystem services: from theory to implementation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2009, 105: 9455‐9456.
39.
Jordan SJ, Hayes SE, Yoskowitz D, Smith LM, Summers JK, Russell M, Benson WH. Accounting for natural resources and environmental sustainability: linking ecosystem services to human well‐being. Environ Sci Technol 2010, 44:1530‐1536,
40.
Elliott M, Lawrence AJ. The protection of species versus habitats‐Dilemmas for marine scientists. Mar Pollut Bull 1998, 36: 174‐176,
41.
Elliott M, Fernades T, de Jonge V. The impact of recent European directives on estuarine an coastal science and management. Aquat Ecol 1999, 33:311‐321.
42.
European Commission. The Habitats Directive (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/habitatsdirective/index_en.htm)
43.
European Commission. Introduction to the new Water Framework (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water‐framework/info/intro_en.htm)
44.
European Commission. A Marine Strategy Directive to save Europe’s seas and oceans. (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/marine/index_en.htm).
45.
European Commission. Integrated Coastal (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/iczm/home.htm)
Zone
Management
Directive
(ICZM)
46.
Gilbert N. How to avert a global water crisis. Nature 4/10/2010 (on line : doi:10.1038/news.2010.490)
47.
Gilbert N. Balancing water supply and supply and wildlife. Study warns of threats to water security and biodiversity in the world’s rivers. Nature 29/9/2010 (on line doi:10.1038.2010.505)
48.
Vörösmarty CJ
