• No results found

An improved system for monitoring and assessment of pollution loads from the Russian part of the Baltic Sea catchment for HELCOM purposes

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "An improved system for monitoring and assessment of pollution loads from the Russian part of the Baltic Sea catchment for HELCOM purposes"

Copied!
140
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

Russian part of the Baltic Sea

catchment for HELCOM purposes

RusNIP II. Implementation of the Baltic Sea

Action Plan (BSAP) in the Russian Federation

(2)

SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

from the Russian part of the

Baltic Sea catchment for

HELCOM purposes

RusNIP II. Implementation of the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) in the Russian Federation

(3)

Internet: www.naturvardsverket.se/publikationer

The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency

Phone: + 46 (0)10-698 10 00, Fax: + 46 (0)10-698 10 99 E-mail: registrator@naturvardsverket.se

Address: Naturvårdsverket, SE-106 48 Stockholm, Sweden Internet: www.naturvardsverket.se

ISBN 978-91-620-6645-1 ISSN 0282-7298 © Naturvårdsverket 2015 Print: Arkitektkopia AB, Bromma 2015

Cover photos: Dmitry Domnin

(4)

Preface

In November 2007 the Ministers of the environment for the Baltic Sea Countries and high representatives of the European Community decided on a joint action plan within HELCOM – the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP). The aim of the plan is to achieve good environmental status of the Baltic Sea by 2021. Under the agreement, the Baltic Sea countries are obliged to draw up national plans for a combined assessment by 2010, which was evaluated at Ministerial meetings in Moscow in May 2010 and in Copenhagen in October 2013. In the Copenhagen Ministerial Meeting the Ministers decided on fur-ther actions and recommendations adding to the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan, including updated country-allocated nutrient reduction targets (CART).

The RusNIP project “Capacity for Compliance with Baltic Sea Action Plan” started in 2009 and contributed structurally and substantially to the drafting of the Russian National Implementation Plan (NIP) to the BSAP. During the second phase of the project, RusNIP II, the focus has been on activities related to monitoring and assessment, including modelling test cases in Leningrad and Kaliningrad regions in cooperation with the EU projects BaltHazAR and BASE.

This final report describes HELCOM reporting schemes as well recom-mended methodologies for calculating pollution loads to the Baltic Sea and its division on sources. Further, it contains a review of the present Russian moni-toring and assessment system as well as recommendations on how the system could be improved in order to comply with requirements of future Pollution Load Compilations (PLCs).

The report contains two annexes; Annex 1 describes obstacles associated with acquisition of reliable data on pollution loads in Russia and Annex 2 gives an overview of methods for calculating pollution loads from different pollution source categories.

The report and its sub-reports have been elaborated by Swedish experts in co-operation with responsible authorities and organisations in Russia. The fol-lowing persons have been directly involved in the project:

Swedish EPA; Ulla-Britta Fallenius, Håkan Staaf

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences; Faruk Djodjic, Caroline Orback,

Elin Widén-Nilsson.

SPb PO Ecology & Business; Leonid Korovin, Ekaterina Vorobeyeva, Larisa

Makarova, Natalia Oblomkova, Alexandra Kapustina.

NW Department of Roshydromet; Valentina Varlashina.

Kaliningrad Centre for Hydrometeorology and Environmental Monitoring;

(5)

P.P.Shirshov’s Institute of Oceanology, Atlantic Branch Russian Academy of Sciences; Chubarenko Boris, Dmitry Domnin.

Kaliningrad State Technical University; Sergey Kondratenko, Anton Umanski,

Andrey Aldushin.

Stockholm and Moscow, March 2014

Martin Eriksson Nuritdin Inamov

Head, Policy Development Head, Department of

Department International

Swedish Environmental Cooperation, Ministry

Protection Agency of Natural

Resources and Environment

(6)

Contents

PREFACE 3 1 SUMMARY 7 2 INTRODUCTION 10 2.1 Background 10 2.2 Objectives 11 2.2.1 Overall objectives 11 2.2.2 Project Objective for phase II: 11 2.2.3 Operative objectives for phase II: 11

3 STATE AUTHORITIES AND INSTITUTIONS INVOLVED IN THE

PROCESS OF COLLECTING AND SUBMITTING INFORMATION

TO HELCOM 12

3.1 Organisational structure 12

3.2 Conclusions 14

4 BSAP NUTRIENT REDUCTION TARGETS 15

4.1 HELCOM Ministerial Meeting 2007 15 4.2 HELCOM Ministerial Meeting 2010 15 4.3 HELCOM Ministerial Meeting 2013 15

4.4 Conclusions 17

5 NUTRIENT INPUT AND DISTANCE TO TARGETS FOR RUSSIA 18

5.1 Waterborne input 18 5.2 Airborne input 19

5.3 Conclusions 19

6 MONITORING AND ANNUAL REPORTING TO HELCOM 20

6.1 Reporting requirements 20 6.2 Coastal point sources 20 6.3 Monitored Rivers 21 6.4 Unmonitored areas 22 6.5 Transboundary loads 23 6.6 Reporting to HELCOM PLC database by Russia 24

6.7 Conclusions 25

7 SOURCE APPORTIONMENT ASSESSMENT FOR PLC PERIODICAL 27

7.1 Purpose of source apportionment 27 7.2 Methods for source apportionment 28 7.2.1 Source apportionment of riverine input to the sea 28 7.2.2 Source apportionment of loads to inland surface waters 28 7.2.3 Nutrient retention in rivers and lakes 29 7.2.4 Background loads 29

(7)

7.3 The situation in Russia 30 7.3.1 Point sources 30 7.3.2 Diffuse sources. 30 7.3.3 Background load. 31 7.3.4 Nutrient retention in rivers and lakes 31

7.4 Conclusions 32

8 MODELLING TOOLS AND ACTIVITIES 34

8.1 General about modelling tools 34 8.2 FyrisNP model 35 8.2.1 The ILLM model 35 8.3 FyrisNP course 35 8.4 Test cases for modelling 36 8.4.1 Luga River – Leningrad region 36 8.4.2 Mamonovka river – Kaliningrad region 38 8.4.3 Instruch river – Kaliningrad area 39

8.5 Conclusions 39

9 A MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT SYSTEM FOR PRODUCING

DATA COMPLIANT WITH HELCOM REQUIREMENTS 41

9.1 Main components of the system 41 9.2 Organisational structure 42 9.3 The monitored rivers program, including transboundary rivers 43 9.4 Program for unmonitored areas 45 9.5 Program for source apportionment 45 9.6 Reporting program 46

10 DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE RUSNIP II PROJECT 47

Annex 1 Identification and analysis of obstacles associated with producing reliable pollution load data for HELCOM Pollution

Load Compilations 49

Annex 2 Methodology for assessment of nutrient loads and source

(8)

1 Summary

The Ministers of the Environment from the Baltic Sea Countries and the High Representative of the European Commission in November 2007, within the framework of HELCOM, adopted the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) concerning the Baltic Proper, the Gulf of Riga and the Gulf of Finland. The goal of the action plan is to achieve good environmental status by 2021. The action plan consists of around 150 different activities in four main seg-ments; eutrophication, hazardous substances, biodiversity and nature conser-vation including fisheries, and maritime activities.

At the Ministerial Meeting in Moscow 2010 it was recognised that there is a need to support activities agreed in the BSAP and to follow up the imple-mentation of the Russian NIP with regard to e.g. the eutrophication and haz-ardous substances segments (mainly heavy metals) and to do that it is most important to have reliable monitoring and assessment.

In the Copenhagen Ministerial Meeting 2013 the ministers decided on fur-ther actions and recommendations adding to the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan including updated country-allocated nutrient reduction targets (CART). It further agreed to monitor and evaluate regularly the progress in implement-ing the measures to reduce the nutrient inputs and to develop and deliver operational assessments of pressures of e.g. nutrient and hazardous substances inputs (PLCs).

In the review of the fifth Pollution Load Compilation (PLC 5.5) for the 2013 HELCOM Ministerial Meeting the PLC data sets were updated and for several countries also corrected and gap-filled. The Russian data were partly estimated due to serious gaps and uncertainties in data reported from the Russian Federation.

The present document is a report from a joint co-operation project between Sweden and the Russian Federation “Capacity for Compliance with Baltic Sea Action Plan”, named RusNIP II. The aim of the activities in RusNIP II is to contribute to the harmonisation of assessment methods in the Russian catchment area of the Baltic Sea in order to produce comparable and reliable data on pollution loads, mainly nutrients and selected hazardous substances. Such data are needed for use within HELCOM PLC assessments and the fol-low-up of measures taken to fulfil the BSAP requirements concerning nutrient reduction targets (CART).

The project started in 2012, but the RusNIP II project has awaited the outcome of the EU BaltHazAR project before starting some of the RusNIP activities in order not to do any double work. The BaltHazAR II project was finalized 30 June 2012

At the 2013 HELCOM Ministerial Meeting it was decided on new nutri-ent reduction targets for all HELCOM countries including both waterborne and airborne inputs to the Baltic Sea. Based on these figures new input targets (Maximum Allowable Inputs, or MAI) for waterborne nitrogen and phospho-rus to sub-basins from Russia were calculated in order to estimate the distance

(9)

to targets and the reductions required. Reduction targets for Russia are espe-cially strict for phosphorus, and inputs has to be reduced by 50–60 % both for Gulf of Finland and Baltic Proper, as compared with the mean load during 1997–2003. For nitrogen a reduction of 11 % is required for Gulf of Finland and 19 % for Baltic Proper.

Nitrogen waterborne load from Russia to Gulf of Finland is at present about 70,000 tons per year and it has not changed much during the period 1994 – 2010. The distance to target during 2008–2010 is about 5,000 ton/yr. For phosphorus a considerable reduction has occurred since 2005–2006, cor-responding to about 1,500 tons of P/yr. or about half-way to the input target. The load development to the Baltic Sea from Kaliningrad area is uncertain due to lack of data.

A main task of the project has been to assess if the Russian monitoring and assessment system can deliver data and information to HELCOM, in compliance with HELCOM PLC requirements. The overall conclusion is that this is not the case. Russia has not yet fulfilled the HELCOM requirements for annual reporting of PLC data. The main gaps are: a) loads from point sources are given in aggregated form, b) not all obligatory parameters are measured in monitored river, c) unmonitored areas are not reported. In perennial report-ings (every 6 years) Russia has reported discharges from coastal point sources and the total riverine inputs, but no source apportionment of inland nutrient sources has been performed.

The project has identified three main reasons for the above mentioned deficiencies:

The first is that the organisational structure for collecting and compiling data for HELCOM PLC is very complicated and includes a large number of communication steps, from the regional up to the federal level. To simplify and improve the efficiency of data collection and reporting it is proposed that the Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation develops and approves legal documents that establish obligations for executors at all levels with regard to participation and submission of data and information to the Helsinki Commission on a regular basis.

A second reason is insufficient funding. It is necessary to allocate addi-tional funding from the federal budget, as well as to make necessary changes in the legislation of the Russian Federation. The latter refers specifically to regulatory documents and /or regulations that defines how the flow of infor-mation and timing regarding submission of the data to HELCOM, and specify the responsibilities of all levels of performers.

A third reason is a lack of methodological basis and responsible authori-ties for the calculation and assessment of loads from unmonitored areas, dif-fuse sources, background load and retention. Such a basis is needed in order to be able to make complete source apportionments of loads from the Russian part of the Baltic Sea catchment rivers to the relevant Baltic Sea sub-basins. The project proposes several new methods in this respect.

(10)

In order to be able to regularly perform calculations of source apportionment of nitrogen and phosphorus loads to the Baltic Sea, it is recommendable to use numerical models. A system for regular data collection, as part of the state monitoring, is needed to supply the models with indata and to update this information regularly. Specifically, we propose that the FyrisNP, or a similar model, should be set up for long-term use in all monitored rivers; Neva (downstream Ladoga), Luga, Narva and Pregolya. For Narva River this issue must be negotiated with Estonia.

However, many of the challenges concerning river monitoring have been dealt with successfully. From now on Russia is able to fulfill HELCOM requirements for monitored rivers. Russia has also taken part in an inter-cal-ibration exercise on chemical analyses of wastewater and river water within the HELCOM PLC 6 project.

Within the project we have worked with test cases for modelling using the Swedish FyrisNP model and the Russian ILLM model. Advantages and dis-advantages with these two numerical models were identified as well as infor-mation needed in order to use the models. A three day training course on the FyrisNP model was arranged at SLU, Uppsala in May 2012. In the course 12 Russian experts from authorities and institutions were present. Before the training course started a number of manuals were made available in Russian language.

Further, the project has formulated a number of more detailed conclusions and recommendations in order to improve monitoring and assessments of pol-lution load from the Russian catchment area of the Baltic Sea.

The different reports elaborated within the project have been discussed in working group meetings with responsible authorities and institutions which have given valuable comments and amendments to the final report and its annexes.

(11)

2 Introduction

2.1 Background

The Ministers of the environment from the countries around the Baltic Sea decided on 15 November 2007 on a joint action programme, the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP). The plan consists of four main segments and another four documents. The main segments are: eutrophication, hazard-ous substances, biodiversity including fisheries and maritime issues (shipping, accidents, emergency services etc.). The other four documents deal with the development of assessment tools and methodologies, awareness raising and capacity building, financing and implementation/review of the plan.

Under the eutrophication segment, it was agreed that there is a need to reduce nutrient inputs to the Baltic Sea and that the principle of maximum allowable inputs of nutrients should be applied for reaching good environ-mental status. With regard to eutrophication, a provisional “burden sharing” was agreed indicating the required country-wise nutrient reductions to the various sub-basins. The measures in the eutrophication segment were to be implemented in 2016 with some exceptions for sewage treatment plants. According to the BSAP all member countries should have their respective National Implementation Plans (BSAP-NIP) ready for discussions and deci-sions by the Ministerial Meeting in May 2010 in Moscow.

During the project period, two HELCOM Ministerial Meetings have been held; 2010 in Moscow and 2013 in Copenhagen. In the Copenhagen meeting, new country-wise nutrient reduction targets (CART) were adopted and an updated Pollution Load Compilation (PLC5.5) was presented. These new achievements have been taken into account in the RusNIP II project.

In the extended summary of the main results of the HELCOM Fifth Pollution Load Compilation (PLC5) discharges from point sources and losses from non-point pollution sources as well as the natural background losses into inland surface waters were quantified. This report revealed gaps in reporting from several Contracting Parties and it was also stated that there were serious gaps and uncertaincies in the data reported from the Russian Federation.

In order to promote the elaboration of the Russian BSAP-NIP, Sweden and Russia have established a joint co-operation project for strengthening this work in the bilateral Work Programmes for 2009–2010, 2011–2012 and 2013–2015.

(12)

2.2 Objectives

2.2.1 Overall objectives

a) To contribute, mainly concerning eutrophication, to the implementation of BSAP and its goal to achieve good environmental status in the Baltic Sea by 2021,

b) To strengthen the capacity of Russian authorities to meet the require-ments of the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) in the most effective way. RusNIP phase I project “Implementation of the Baltic Sea Plan BSAP in the Russian Federation, eutrophication segment, and point sources” was finalized in 20101 report 6368. The project contributed structurally and substantially

to the drafting of the Russian National Implementation Plan NIP to the Baltic Sea Action Plan, BSAP.

RusNIP phase II project has mainly concentrated its efforts on activities concerning monitoring and assessment including test cases in Leningrad and Kaliningrad regions.

2.2.2 Project Objective for phase II:

Strengthen the capacity of responsible Russian authorities in implementing management system for assessing the pollution loads to the Gulf of Finland and the Baltic Proper from point and diffuse sources, including data produc-tion, source apportionment and reporting concerning the eutrophication seg-ment and to some extent the hazardous substances segseg-ment of the BSAP. This is done in co-operation with the BaltHazAR project.

2.2.3 Operative objectives for phase II:

1. Relevant Russian authorities, institutions and stakeholders for producing effective monitoring and assessment are 1a) identified and 1b) recommen-dations elaborated for producing reliable pollution and monitoring data. 2. Recommendations are elaborated on effective monitoring and assessment

tools and corresponding administrative routines for repeatedly re-assessing the current environmental problems in co-operation with BaltHazAR project. The target group is decision makers and experts at the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Rosgidromet, Rosprirodnadzor, Rosvodresursy as well as their representations and subject level authorities within the domains of the Neva-Ladoga Water Basin Authority of the Russian Federation, The stakeholders are industrial and agricultural companies, waste water and water management utilities as well as municipal and rural municipalities and the general public in the area which will primarily be involved in the work with the pilot catchments.

1 Swedish EPA 2010. Implementation of the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) in the Russian Federation; eutrophication segment, Point sources. Results from the RusNIP project. Swedish Environmental Protec-tion Agency, Report 6368

(13)

3 State authorities and institutions

involved in the process of

collecting and submitting

information to HELCOM

3.1 Organisational structure

To elaborate the environmental protection policy, assess the efficiency of meas-ures aimed at reducing the inputs of nutrients and pollutants from the Russian part of the Baltic Sea catchment, reliable data are needed on their inputs from land-based sources, based on the results of water quality monitoring of water bodies (surface water and marine waters).

Within the framework of the Helsinki Convention these issues could be addressed by compiling data on water pollution loads (HELCOM Recommendation 26/2. Pollution load compilation. Adopted 02.03.2005). These data are stored in a database (PLC database) that contains information about the loads of pollutants released into the Baltic Sea from HELCOM Contracting Parties.

The database is updated in connection with the annual and periodic reporting rounds by the Contracting Parties. The completeness and accuracy of load data submitted by the Contracting Parties is a key factor to decision- making aimed to reduce anthropogenic loads on the Baltic Sea and to provide good environmental status of the sea.

The Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of the Russian Federation (MNR) coordinates and controls the activities its subordinated authorities, namely The Federal Service for Hydrometeorology and

Environmental Monitoring (Roshydromet), of The Federal Service for Supervisory Control in the sphere of Environmental Management (Rosprirodnadzor), of Federal Agency for Water Resources (Rosvodresursy) and of Federal Agency for Subsurface Resources Management (Rosnedra).

With regard to the State monitoring of the water bodies the MNR of the Russian Federation establishes requirements for environmental and pollution control and observations, for the acquisition, processing, storage and distribu-tion of informadistribu-tion about the environment and polludistribu-tion status, as well as for obtaining information products.

The Ministry of Natural Resources and Ecology of the Russian Federation organizes and ensures the fulfillment of commitments subsequent to the inter-national agreements involving the Russian Federation on issues within the scope of activities of the Ministry. The MNR is the only official body respon-sible for providing the Baltic Sea pollution load data to HELCOM.

(14)

In Russia there are six authorities involved in the work to produce reliable information concerning monitoring and assessment of eutrophication and some hazardous substances (mainly heavy metals) to fulfil HELCOM Load Compilation, HELCOM PLC and follow up of the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP). For more detailed information see Annex 1.

Figure 1. The scheme shows interactions between the Government of the Russian Federation and the institutions (organizations) under various agencies involved in the process of collecting and submitting data to HELCOM, including data used for compiling loads of water pollution on the Russian Baltic Sea catchment area.

Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of the Russian Federation (MNR)

The Federal Service for Hydrometeorology and Environmental monitoring (Roshydromet)

Observation data transfer

The Federal Agency for Water Resources (Rosvodresursy)

Department of Roshydromet within the North-West Federal District, Hydromet SRI (SHI, HCI, SOI, IGCE ...)

Control of data availability and quality of

monitoring data on water bodies, data integration

Neva Ladoga Water Basin Administration (NLWBA); Rosvodresursy FSBI “North-West Administration for Hydrometeorology and Environmental Monitoring” (NW AHEM), organizations which have the licenses from Roshydromet (Sevmorgeo LLC)

Collection and transmission of quality of surface inland waters and marine waters observation data within the system of the state

monitoring, data collection from point sources of pollutants that discharge into water bodies

FSI “Baltvodohoz”, FSI “Pskovvodohoz”, etc

(15)

On behalf of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of the Russian Federation (MNR), the SPb PO “Ecology and Business” (Saint-Petersburg Public Organization) participates in the procedure of the observa-tions data transmission to HELCOM for the purpose of adding the data to the PLC database. The employees of the “Ecology and Business” are contact persons in the HELCOM working and expert groups (HELCOM LAND and LOAD groups, etc.). In accordance with the decisions taken at the meetings of these groups, the SPb PO “Ecology and Business” develops reports indi-cating the data to be submitted to HELCOM; the reports subsequently are forwarded to the MNR Department in charge of International Cooperation. On the basis of these reports submitted by the “Ecology and Business” the Department of International Cooperation generates queries for particular data to be submitted and forwards the requests to the appropriate agencies. After receiving the requested data, the Department of International Cooperation, after coordination, forward the data to SPb PO “Ecology and Business” for inclusion in the HELCOM format, and finally the data is forwarded to HELCOM.

3.2 Conclusions

• The MNR of Russia is responsible for the implementation of the commit-ments under the Helsinki Convention, including data communication. • In accordance with the above scheme, the procedure of data collection

and data transmission to HELCOM is a long and nonlinear one and includes a large number of the communication stages from the regional authorities up to the Federal level, and only after that the data is trans-mitted to HELCOM.

• Regulatory documents and/or regulations that would specify the flow of information and timing regarding submission of data to HELCOM, and that would specify the responsibilities of all levels of performers are lacking.

(16)

4 BSAP nutrient reduction targets

4.1 HELCOM Ministerial Meeting 2007

Eutrophication was an important issue in Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) that was agreed at the HELCOM Ministerial Meeting in November 2007. The eutrophication segment of BSAP contained several initiatives to reduce emis-sions; primarily, new recommendations about wastewater treatment and pre-liminary nutrient reduction targets for all HELCOM countries2 (HELCOM

2007). These targets were expressed as annual amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus to be reduced by each HELCOM country, as compared with the waterborne load to the Baltic Sea from a country during the period 1997–2003.

The reduction of waterborne inputs from Russia, as defined in BSAP 2007, was as follows:

– 4,145 ton N/yr. and 1,661 ton P/yr to Gulf of Finland, – 114 ton P/yr. for Gulf of Riga and

– 2,821 ton N/yr. and 724 ton P/yr to Baltic Proper.

4.2 HELCOM Ministerial Meeting 2010

In the HELCOM Ministerial Declaration 2010 it is stated in the document concerning the main results of the Fifth Pollution Load Compilation that “there were particularly serious problems with the data from Russia”. It is further stated that one of the challenges of the future load compilations will be to ensure that each of the HELCOM Contracting Party monitors and reports reliable and complete data sets on pollution loads, so that the total pollution loads entering the Baltic Sea may be estimated with reasonable accuracy.”

4.3 HELCOM Ministerial Meeting 2013

At the Ministerial meeting 2013, revised country-allocated nutrient reduc-tions targets (CART) were adopted. The new CART values replace the pre-liminary reduction targets from 2007. The new CART targets for Russia are 10,380 tons of nitrogen and 3,790 tons of phosphorus as compared with the flow-normalized load during the reference period 1997–2003. The CART, as divided on sub-basins, are given in table 1.

(17)

Table 1. Revised nutrient reduction requirements (CART) per sub-basin for Russia. For nitrogen, CART includes both airborne and waterborne loads. CART figures are calculated after correcting for transboundary waterborne loads and figures within parenthesis are targets before correcting for transboundary shares.

Sub-basin Nitrogen (Ton N/yr.) Phosphorus (Ton P/yr.) Transboundary inputs accounted for

Baltic Proper 2,498 (3,153) 481 (609) From Poland via Pregolya Gulf of Finland 7,879 (8,478) 3,277 (3,303) From Finland via Vuoksa Gulf of Riga – 30 (30) From Russia via Daugava

Kattegat 4 (4) (Airborne)

Total 10,381 (11,635) 3,788 (3,942) Airborne /waterborne 1,025 (10%)

/9,356 (90%)

Only waterborne

The Russian CART targets are corrected for transboundary waterborne loads between Russia and Finland, Latvia and Poland as indicated in the table, and the uncorrected targets are shown for comparison. This means that Russia now has a target for transboundary loads to Gulf of Riga via Latvia and that the target to Gulf of Finland and Kaliningrad has been lowered by transferring a part of these targets to Finland and Poland. However, transboundary loads from Lithuania and Belarus via the Matrosovka Canal are not accounted for in the CART calculations. The Russian target for Kattegat can only be met by reducing nitrogen deposition originating from emissions in Russia.

The revised reduction requirements differ from the old ones for several reasons:

– Eutrophication targets defining good environmental status have been changed in several sub-basins

– The sum of waterborne and airborne inputs from a country to the Baltic Sea has been used as a basis for allocating reduction targets. Originally only waterborne inputs were used.

– The inputs during the reference period have been changed due to normal-ization of nutrient inputs via both air and water.

Reduction targets for nitrogen are expressed as the total reduction target of airborne and waterborne input from a country, while the target for phospho-rus only refers to waterborne loads. Atmospheric deposition of phosphophospho-rus is considered constant over time, since the sources for phosphorus deposited on the Baltic Sea are unknown and no regular monitoring exists.

For some countries such as Russia the new CART includes reduction targets also in distant sub-basins to which they do not border. These targets can thus only be met by reducing atmospheric emissions. Reduction targets for sub-catchments bordering directly to a country have been divided in an atmos-pheric part and a waterborne part.

The transboundary inputs to the Baltic Sea, both from HELCOM coun-tries and non-HELCOM councoun-tries, which were used in CART, are rather uncertain and there is clearly a need to further improve them. This should be

(18)

done in bilateral (or in some cases trilateral) agreements between countries about monitoring programs for transboundary rivers and how to divide the reduction targets between downstream and upstream countries. Thus, both the upstream and the downstream country have responsibilities for the reduc-tion of loads entering the Baltic Sea via transboundary rivers.

The follow-up of the nutrient reduction targets will be made centrally within HELCOM (HELCOM PRESSURE/STATE) in order to use a harmo-nized methodology for these assessments. This activity will start in 2014 and it will annually result in a HELCOM Environmental Fact Sheet describing the nutrient load development and how far countries are from their targets. The follow-up reporting by HELCOM will be based on the following information:

1) Annual PLC reports from countries containing N and P loads from moni-tored river, unmonimoni-tored areas and coastal point sources

2) Annual reports from EMEP on normalized nitrogen deposition to the Baltic Sea, divided per country and sub-basin, from the year 1995..

4.4 Conclusions

• New nutrient reduction requirements (CART) for HELCOM countries were decided at the HELCOM Ministerial Meeting in October 2013. • For Russia the new total reduction targets are 10,380 ton N/yr and 3,790

ton P/yr, as compared to the normalized average inputs during the reference period 1997–2003. The targets for nitrogen include both airborne and waterborne inputs, while the phosphorus targets only include waterborne loads.

• The progress towards the nutrient reduction targets will be assessed cen-trally within the HELCOM system and published annually as a Helcom Environmental Fact Sheet.

(19)

5 Nutrient input and distance

to targets for Russia

5.1 Waterborne input

The follow-up on how inputs to the sea are developed in relation to CART is facilitated by defining a maximum allowable input (MAI) to each sub-basin and country. For a country MAI is then calculated by subtracting the nutri-ent reduction target from the average normalized input during the reference period 1997–2003. This gives us an input target, expressed as tons per year, that has to be reached in order to fulfill the nutrient reduction targets. Since the new CART takes into account transboundary loads, which was not the case for the 2007 targets, the process of defining an input target is a compli-cated procedure. Besides, transboundary loads are considered uncertain, so at the moment input targets can only be calculated using national input data as they have been reported to HELCOM so far, i.e. without considering trans-boundary loads. The waterborne input targets for Russia calculated in this way are shown in table 2.

Table 2. Waterborne nutrient input targets (maximum allowable input) for Russia to Baltic Proper and Gulf of Finland. Calculations are made without considering transboundary loads.

Input to sub-basins (tons of N or P/yr)

Baltic Proper Gulf of Finland Gulf of Riga

Nitrogen

–Reference load 97-03 10,950 74,006 0

–Reduction requirement 2,112 8,267 0

–Waterborne input target 8,838 65,739 0

Phosphorus

–Reference load 97-03 960 6,218 0

–Reduction requirement 609 3,303 0

–Waterborne input target 351 2,915 0

The proportion between the airborne and waterborne share of the nitrogen reduction requirements differs between sub-catchments. For Russia the water-borne share is 70 % for Baltic Proper and 98 % for Gulf of Finland.

The calculated waterborne input targets in table 2 are not corrected for transboundary loads, which means that no input target can be calculated for the Gulf of Riga. Thus the burden to reduce inputs from transboundary loads falls on the down-stream country. In the future, however, all major trans-boundary inputs to and from Russia should be monitored and quantified in order to create a follow-up system related to the new targets in table 1.

The waterborne inputs of total-N and total-P from Russia during the period 1994–2010 for Baltic Proper and Gulf of Finland are shown in Annex 2, chapter 3.1

(20)

5.2 Airborne input

Data on emissions and depositions of nitrogen oxides and ammonia in the HELCOM area are provided every year by EMEP3. From 2013 onwards also

normalized data on deposition of nitrogen to different Baltic Sea sub-basins per country are available. In the PLC 5.5 project, EMEP delivered normalized data for the period 1995–2010 and these data have been used in this project.

Russia has new reduction requirements for nitrogen deposition to Baltic Proper, Gulf of Finland and Kattegat. The indicative reduction targets have not been reached for any of the sub-basins. Instead deposition rates have been increased over time, see Annex 2, chapter 3.2. This is probably mainly caused by the fact that EMEP has extended its calculation domain from the year 2007, to cover a larger part of Russia making the reported emissions from Russia higher. This technical change gives an unfair extra burden on Russia. This issue has to be brought up in HELCOM groups in order to find a solu-tion for future target revisions.

5.3 Conclusions

• Maximum allowable inputs (MAI) of waterborne nitrogen and phospho-rus to sub-basins from Russia have been calculated in order to estimate the distance to targets and the reduction requirements. MAI could only be calculated without considering transboundary loads, and thus no MAI for Gulf of Riga was established.

• The nutrient reduction targets for Russia are especially strict for phos-phorus and they require a reduction of inputs by 50–60 % as compared to the reference level 1997–2003. For nitrogen a reduction of 11 % is required for Gulf of Finland and 19 % for Baltic Proper as compared with the reference level during 1997–2003.

• Nitrogen load from Russia to Gulf of Finland is at present about 70,000 tons per year and it has not changed much during the period 1994 – 2010. The distance to target during 2008–2010 is about 5,000 ton/yr. For phosphorus a considerable reduction has occurred since 2005–2006, corresponding to about 1,500 tons of P/yr. or about half-way to the input target. The temporal development of loads to the Baltic Sea from Kaliningrad area is uncertain due to lack of data.

• I the PLC 5.5 data set on waterborne inputs, compiled for the 2013 Ministerial Meeting, the Russian data have been reconstructed for the period 1994–2010. This data set was considered the best available, but it may not reflect the true development during the period. Thus, efforts should be made to update and improve it.

• Nitrogen deposition on Baltic Sea sub-basins has been calculated by EMEP for the period 1995–2010. Contributions from Russia have increased after 2007, mainly depending on the fact that a larger share of Russia was included in EMEP’s calculation domain from that year.

(21)

6 Monitoring and annual reporting

to HELCOM

6.1 Reporting requirements

HELCOM reporting requirements on member states are laid down in the PLC Guidelines. These are presently under revision and will be finalized during 2014 to be used for PLC6. Annual reporting includes the following parts:

1) Point sources discharging directly to the Baltic Sea, divided on: – Urban wastewater treatment plants

– Industries – Fish farms 2) Monitored rivers 3) Unmonitored areas 4) Transboundary loads

The monitored parameters include the following groups of parameters: water flow, organic matter, nutrients and heavy metals. Individual parameters are either mandatory or voluntary. Inclusion of some organic pollutants as volun-tary parameters is under discussion in the revised guidelines.

6.2 Coastal point sources

Discharges from point sources have not been a primary task of the RusNIP II project, but have been partly covered by Activity 1a in an analysis of obstacles associated with acquisition of reliable data on pollution loads for reporting to HELCOM.

Russia is obliged to annually submit information on point sources dis-charging directly into the Baltic Sea to be entered into the PLC database. The information shall be based on the parameters used for the monitored rivers according to the PLC Guidelines.

According to the report concerning identification and analysis of obstacles elaborated within RusNIP II project almost all major point sources discharging directly into the Baltic Sea have monitoring programs for tot-N and tot-P and also several heavy metals in their discharges, see Annex 1.

The PLC database includes 32 point sources in Russia discharging directly into the Baltic Sea (Gulf of Finland and the Central Baltic Sea). The sources include:

– 12 industrial enterprises;

– 20 municipal wastewater treatment plants;

As of 2010, Russia provided to the PLC database information on all point sources, but the data were aggregated, meaning that a total figure on the input

(22)

of substances from all point sources into the Gulf of Finland and the Baltic Proper (Kaliningrad region) was provided.

The main remaining problem is that discharges are reported in aggregated

form. According to the Russian legislation any information on the composi-tion and quantities of wastewater discharged by users of natural resources is confidential and can be disclosed at the discretion of the user of the natural resources. But it should be noted here that almost all natural resource users discharging directly into the Sea are monitoring discharges of N-tot and P-tot. Analysis of 2006 PLC data showed that, 5 of 12 industrial enterprises failed to submit data on these indicators. The situation with obligatory heavy metal parameters is almost the same as for nutrients. All heavy metals parameters are measured, except for discharges from five industrial enterprises.

6.3 Monitored Rivers

Data for the following five Russian rivers draining to the Baltic Sea have been reported to HELCOM on a regular basis:

Neva – Leningrad region including St Petersburg Luga – Leningrad region

Seleznevka – Leningrad region Pregolya – Kaliningrad region

Narva – Border River between Russia and Estonia

The catchments of the rivers Neva, including Ladoga catchment, together with Luga and Narva cover more than 95% of the Russian part of the area drain-ing into Gulf of Finland. Seleznevka is a very small transboundary river flow-ing from Finland into the Bay of Vyborg. Data for Seleznevka River were not used in the PLC5.5 project.

Other Russian rivers flowing into the Gulf of Finland that are listed in the PLC database are: Peschanaya, Polevaya, Sestra, Shingarka, Sista, Strelka, Tchernaya, Tchulkovka and Voronka. In the PLC 5.5 project these rivers were included in unmonitored areas.

According to an analysis performed within the PLC 5.5 project the follow-ing data gaps or other problems concernfollow-ing nutrient data reported by Russia were identified:

– Total nitrogen and total phosphorus missing for Pregolya River 1994–2010.

– Total nitrogen and total phosphorus missing for Seleznevka river 1994–2010.

– Total nitrogen and total phosphorus missing for Luga River 1994–2000. – Total nitrogen missing for Neva River 1994–1999.

– The monitored phosphorus load in Neva River seems only to include dissolved fractions some years, although reported as total phosphorus and in other years phosphorus inputs are very high.

(23)

For obligatory heavy metals, data are missing for Pregolya. For Neva and Luga all heavy metals parameters have been reported, except mercury.

The RusNIP II project has not dealt with issues related to practical water sampling and chemical analyses in rivers. Within the BaltHazAR II project, studies on water monitoring were carried out by SYKE and ILRAS (Institute of Limnology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, St Petersburg) and other assigned Russian experts. In the final report of the HELCOM assignment4,

several recommendations are given based on studies in the test cases Luga, Roshinka, Pregolya, Neva and Narva rivers.

Some conclusions in this report were:

– Reliable estimates of transported nutrients call for intensive and well-timed water sampling, appropriate sampling techniques, accurate chemi-cal analyses and a suitable load chemi-calculation method.

– Flow rate should be measured daily.

– Both total-N, total- P and inorganic fractions should be monitored – At least 12 samplings per year should be performed.

– Proper monitoring programs should be established for large animal farms.

According to information in Annex 1 many of the challenges concerning river monitoring have been dealt with successfully and that Russia from now on is able to fulfill HELCOM requirements for monitored rivers. Russia has also taken part in an inter-calibration exercise on chemical analyses of wastewater and river water within the HELCOM PLC6 project.

6.4 Unmonitored areas

Russia has not reported loads from unmonitored areas to the HELCOM PLC database. In the Russian part of the catchment of Gulf of Finland the unmoni-tored areas include coastal areas on both the northern and southern part of the Gulf, covering about 8,300 km2.. According to the PRIMER project,

the annual inputs of tot-N and tot-P amounted to 2,200 tons and 130 tons, respectively, during the period 2008–2010. These loads would correspond to only about 3% of the total waterborne nutrient load from Russia to the Gulf of Finland. Unmonitored areas cover about 3 % of the whole Russian catch-ment and about 5% of the population resides here. These areas contain sev-eral large animal production units and industrial plants.

In the Kaliningrad region the unmonitored areas amount to 29 %, or about 4,400 km2. Here, the relative contribution from areas without regular

monitoring should be more significant, relatively seen.

4 HELCOM 2012. BaltHaZAR Project. Building capacity within environmental monitoring to produce pol-lution load data from different sources for e.g. HELCOM polpol-lution load compilations http://www.helcom. fi/helcom-at-work/projects/completed-projects/balthazar/

(24)

6.5 Transboundary loads

Russia does not report to HELCOM on the loads entering the Baltic Sea from Neman and Daugava (Western Dvina) rivers. This information is available from Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, respectively.

The Narva River is a “boundary” river flowing along the territorial border between Russia and Estonia. According to the decision of HELCOM on load sharing regarding the Narva River, Russia also is obliged to pro-vide data on loads, entering the Sea from the Russian part of the catchment basin, to the PLC database. The solution to this problem can be developed by the Joint Russian-Estonian Commission on Protection and Rational Use of Transboundary Waters. On the Russian side, the Government of the Russian Federation is responsible for enforcement of the decisions of the above-men-tioned Commission. The head of the Rosvodresursy, is co-chairperson of the Inter-Governmental Commission on the Russian side.

The situation with the Neman River is a more complicated one. The river flows through the territory of Belarus, and as a transboundary river it enters the territory of Lithuania, further on, downstream the river turns into a boundary river between Russia and Lithuania. In the delta, the Matrosovka branch flows out of the Neman River and runs into the Russian territory. The water flow in Matrosovka river accounts for 25% of the total Neman River flow.

It is necessary to reach an agreement with Lithuania about how the Neman River loads will be split between Lithuania and Russia to be reported to HELCOM.

The Western Dvina River (the Daugava) is a transboundary river, which heads from the territory of Russia, flows through the territory of Belarus and falls into the Gulf of Riga in Latvia. Under the new scheme for nutrient reduc-tion from the HELCOM Contracting Parties Russia also needs to provide the load data for this river.

The Pregolya River is a transboundary river that flows through the terri-tory of Poland and Russia. The mouth of the Pregolya River is located in the territory of Russia. The Russian part of the Pregolya River catchment is about 50%. In the PLC database the load entering the Baltic Sea via the Pregolya River is allocated to Russia without specifying the share of the load coming from the territory of Poland. However, under the new scheme on nutrient load from the HELCOM Contracting Parties, Poland is obliged to provide load data for the Polish part of the Pregolya River catchment area.

There are two transboundary rivers which not are listed in the HELCOM database (Mamonovka and Vuoksa).

The Mamonovka River is a transboundary river flowing through the ter-ritories of Poland and Russia, finally entering into the Vistula Lagoon. As of today, the Mamonovka River is not included as a monitored river in the HELCOM PLC database. However, in the future, it will be necessary to ensure that the Mamonovka River is included in the database. To determine the contribution from the Russian and Polish territories, delineation and

(25)

coor-dination of load assessments could be carried out within the framework of a Polish-Russian agreement on transboundary collaboration.

The Vuoksa River is a transboundary river between Finland and Russia. Vuoksa River flows into the Lake of Ladoga located in the territory of Russia. Russia has no obligation to provide HELCOM with data on the nutrient loads coming with the Vuoksa River. However, the Observation Network under FSBI “North-West Administration for Hydrometeorology and Environmental Monitoring” (NW AHEM) includes a number of stations on the Vuoksa River located near the State border and in the river mouth. The share of the load coming from the territory of Finland can be estimated by comparing the load at the border with the load at the estuarine station.

6.6 Reporting to HELCOM PLC database

by Russia

Currently, Russia does not fully fulfill the commitment of the data provision to the PLC database, neither in the annual nor in and periodical reporting. Details on Russia’s obligations to report to HELCOM (the PLC database ) is given in table 3

Table 3. The present situation of annual and periodical reporting from Russia to the HELCOM PLC. Annual reporting round

– monitored rivers The values for all parameters are given almost in full.

– unmonitored territories There is a lack of all data.

– point sources (direct discharges to the sea) The values for all parameters are given almost in full (aggregated form)

Periodical reporting round

– point sources (located in the catchment areas

of the rivers) The values for all parameters are given almost in full. – diffuse sources There is a lack of all data.

– background load There is a lack of all data. – retention There is a lack of all data.

Gaps in the provision of information for the periodic reporting round show that Russia, having a general idea of the pollution amount, currently owns a weak tool base (regulatory and methodological) to estimate the distribution of the load by source, and hence the adoption of the correct management deci-sions aimed at reducing nutrients input to the Baltic Sea.

The PLC database is primarily designed to assess the pressure on the Baltic Sea, and only secondarily to promote the adoption of correct management decisions.

(26)

6.7 Conclusions

There is a lack of methodological basis and responsible authorities for the calculation and assessment of loads from unmonitored areas, diffuse sources, background load and retention. Such a basis is needed in order to be able to make complete source apportionments of loads from Russian part of the Baltic Sea catchment rivers to the relevant Baltic Sea sub-basins.

• Russia does not yet fulfill the HELCOM requirements for annual report-ing of PLC data. The main gaps are:

– Loads from point sources are given in aggregated form

– Not all obligatory parameters are measured in monitored river – Unmonitored areas are not reported

• In order to improve the provision of data from Russia to the PLC data-base it is necessary to establish a regulatory and organizational system that would make it possible to meet the following challenges:

– Lack of regulatory documents approved by the Ministry of Natural Recourses that would allow to organize acquisition of official data to be submitted to the PLC database;

– Lack of methodological basis as well as a responsible authority in charge of computation and estimation of loads from unmonitored territories, diffuse sources, background load and retention.

– Absence of decisions by bilateral Commissions on transboundary watercourses as a basis for transboundary collaboration in order to determine the contribution of each party to pollution loads on trans-boundary watercourses.

• Data on point sources discharging directly to the sea are accumulated in NLWBA, subordinated to Rosvodresursy – a responsible authority for water management. The reason for the aggregated data representation is that under Russian law, information about the composition and the num-ber of discharges from natural resources users is confidential and can be disclosed only with permission.

• The Federal Supervisory Natural Resources Management Service (Rosprirodnadzor) exercise control and supervision, including control and supervision over users of natural recourses. As part of their control activities they have the right to request the quantitative and qualitative composition of the discharges directly from the natural recourses user. • Many of the challenges concerning river monitoring have been dealt with

successfully and Russia from now on is able to fulfill HELCOM require-ments for monitored rivers. Russia has also taken part in an inter-calibra-tion exercise on chemical analyses of wastewater and river water within the HELCOM PLC6 project.

• Unmonitored areas in the Russian part of the Baltic Sea catchment prob-ably contributes with relatively small loads of nutrients to the Gulf of Finland in comparison with other sources. The situation in Kaliningrad area is more uncertain but data from the EU BASE project can be used so make preliminary estimates.

(27)

• Particular groundwork concerning unmonitored territories has been done. In particular, work has been done by the Institute of Limnology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, which in 2013, on request of NLWBA, performed computations of the load coming from unmonitored territories of the Russian part of the Gulf of Finland catchment area, and a proprie-tary mathematical model developed in the Institute was used for that task.

(28)

7 Source apportionment

assessment for PLC Periodical

7.1 Purpose of source apportionment

Periodic Pollution Load Compilations (PLCs) of waterborne loads within HELCOM are made every sixth year. The main purpose of periodical PLCs is to quantify dis charges from point sources and losses from non-point pollution sources as well as from natu ral background losses into inland surface waters within the catchment area of the Baltic Sea located within the borders of the Contracting Parties. The latest PLC periodical was PLC55 that used 2006 as a

reference year. PLC6 was planned to use 2012 as a reporting year, but because of work with PLC 5.5 and other projects for the HELCOM Ministerial Meeting 2013 the reporting period has been shifted to 2014.

Other PLC objectives are to:

• follow up the long-term changes in the pollution load from various sources by normalizing data and making trend analysis with standardized methodologies;

• determine the priority order of different sources of pollutants for the pollution of the Bal tic Sea;

• assess overall the effectiveness of measures taken to reduce the pollution load in the Baltic Sea catchment area;

• Provide information for assessment of long-term changes and the state of the marine en vironment in the open sea and the coastal zones.

The national objectives for PLC are generally the same as those of HELCOM, but a country may e.g. have specific objectives or targets for individual sectors of society that could be analyzed at the same time.

The PLC guidelines are presently under revision and the section concern-ing periodical reportconcern-ing has not yet been finalized. Traditionally the source apportionment for nutrients has been performed using two main methodologies:

A. The load approach. Here the starting point is the monitored annual load

to the sea (net load) which is divided in four main categories: – Point sources (coastal and inland)

– Diffuse sources (inland) – Background losses (inland) – Transboundary loads

B. The source approach. In this approach the focus is on the load to inland

surface waters in the river catchments (gross load) which should be divided on the three main categories as in approach A. These categories could then be divided in sub-categories like:

(29)

Point sources: industries, municipal wastewater treatment plants and fish farms. Diffuse sources: agricultural land, forestry, scattered dwellings, peat land,

mountain areas, storm water, atmospheric deposition on inland waters,

Background losses; forest land, peat land, mountain areas and part of the

agricultural land and atmospheric deposition can be considered natural back-ground losses.

These two approaches will still be included in the new Guidelines, but the main focus are on the source apportionment of net loads to the Sea.

In the PLC 5 assessment6 (HELCOM 2011) most countries reported their

inputs to the Baltic Sea as divided on point sources, diffuse load, natural back-ground load and transboundary load. Most countries also reported source apportioned nutrient losses and discharges to inland surface waters, although only a few countries reported sub-categories. Russia however only reported direct point sources and unspecified riverine load.

7.2 Methods for source apportionment

7.2.1 Source apportionment of riverine input to the sea

The PLC Guidelines suggest a relatively simple method for dividing the riv-erine input (net load) on different sources in the river catchment, for more details see Annex 2, chapter 5.3. In practice, source apportionment according to this method can only be calculated for monitored rivers, see details in Annex 2, chapter 5.3.1. If loads from point sources and background loads are available, nutrient loads from diffuse sources can then be calculated as; Load from diffuse sources = Total load at river mouth – net load from point sources – net load from background sources.

An alternative to this method is to use a numerical computer models. During the last decade many models have been developed that can simulta-neously calculate retention and source apportionment both in the catchment (gross load) and at the river mouth (net load), see Annex 2, chapter 6.

7.2.2 Source apportionment of loads to inland surface waters

A large amount of data is generally needed in order to produce a complete nutrient source apportionment and the work can be simplified by using a numerical model. There are several tools available, both commercial and free of charge, that can perform source apportionment assessments. In this project we have used two models; the Swedish FyrisNP model and the Russian ILLM model.

(30)

For a large catchment with many sources a first step is to divide the catch-ment in sub-catchcatch-ments as a basis for organizing information on land-use, hydrological conditions, point sources and leaching coefficients. In this pro-ject, a report has been elaborated, describing the methodology and the indata needed for the FyrisNP model using Luga River as an example, see document “Luga River, update of input data and set up of FyrisNP model”. The model-ling results are described further in Chapter 8 and in more detail in Annex 2, Chapter 6.

7.2.3 Nutrient retention in rivers and lakes

Retention in river and lakes removes substances from the water body by bio-logical and physical processes. The simplest way of calculating total retention in a catchment is to make a mass balance for the whole river system and calculate retention as the difference between the sum of all inputs at source (gross load) from the load calculated at the river mouth station (net load). This approach gives the total retention figure for the whole river system. Retention may differ between sources due to their location in the catchment, and thus the source apportionment at the coast must take this in considera-tion. For small rivers this may be less important.

When applying the mass balance approach to a large river catchment the calculations become complicated and using a numerical model may be neces-sary. Both the FyrisNP model and the ILLM model can calculate retention, but the amount of indata needed is considerable.

In the EU RECOCA project7, nutrient retention in surface water (river and

lakes) was calculated for practically all major river catchments around the Baltic Sea, using the MESAW model. MESAW is a statistical model with flex-ible data needs but it is based on statistics on land use and point sources.

7.2.4 Background loads

Natural background loads to surface waters are defined as losses from land areas that are unaffected by human activities, such as losses from unmanaged land and the share of losses from managed land that would occur irrespective of anthropogenic activities (like agriculture and forestry). Generally, nutrient losses from unmanaged land can be used as an approximation for natural background losses. Unmanaged land areas include:

• unmanaged forest and woodlands; • unmanaged heathland;

• shrub land;

• unmanaged bogs, wet meadows and wetlands; • abandoned agricultural land.

7 RECOCA – Reduction of Baltic Sea Nutrient Inputs and Cost Allocation within the Baltic Sea Catch-ment. A project within the BONUS programme.

(31)

Natural background losses can be estimated using different approaches or a combination of approaches. The most common ones are:

A. Monitoring of small unmanaged catchment areas lacking point sources; B. Monitoring of concentrations of pollutants in soil water or groundwater

unaffected by human activity;

C. Use of calibrated nutrient pollution models.

Examples of natural background losses and flow-weighted concentrations of nutrients as reported by HELCOM countries see Annex 2. The variation is considerable and it is difficult to recommend a specific value for an area with-out detailed information abwith-out climate, soils and land cover or water monitor-ing in unmanaged areas. Forest areas can often be considered as unmanaged land even if some forestry activities take place. Normally, nutrient losses from managed forests do not differ significantly from pristine forests in the same area. Water monitoring data from small forested catchments can thus be used as a basis for estimating background loads.

It is important to realize that also nutrient losses from agricultural land contain a background component. Since arable land generally covers the most fertile soils in a region, the background losses from agricultural land should be higher than from forested areas.

7.3 The situation in Russia

7.3.1 Point sources

When providing information on point sources located in the catchment areas of rivers, we are faced with the same problem described in Annex 1, Section 3.6, namely that from 2008 NLWBA can provide data only in aggregate form, and the only way to get the information is to request it from natural resources users.

As noted in Chapter 6.2 a large number of point sources discharging directly to the sea already monitor discharges of N-tot and P-tot. The situa-tion with point sources located in river catchment areas is less favourable in this respect, but no exact information is available.

The PLC database includes 233 point sources in Russia, located in the catchment areas of rivers, of which 73 sources are industrial enterprises and 160 sources are municipal wastewater treatment plants.

7.3.2 Diffuse sources.

As in the case of unmonitored territories of Russian Federation, there is no regulatory and methodological framework for the regular assessment of the nutrient input from diffuse sources.

(32)

7.3.3 Background load.

Russia does not report on the background loads to the Baltic Sea originating from its territory. To analyze the reasons of the lack of data it is necessary to determine

the meaning of the “background load” definition. Leakage from uncul-tivated land is taken as a background load in the PLC manual. A number of countries provide data on background load value, so in this respect it is neces-sary to study the experience of foreign colleagues.

7.3.4 Nutrient retention in rivers and lakes

Retention data for some major Russian rivers as well as retention in selected lakes are given in Table 4. The indicated lake retention data were used in the RusNIP I project when estimating retention of nutrient of discharges from major point sources in the catchments8. It was assumed that most of the

reten-tion from the point source to the Gulf of Finland occur in lakes.

Table 4. Total retention of selected rivers and lakes in the Russian catchment of the Baltic Sea. The catchment size refers to the assessed area in the studies and may differ somewhat from the total catchment size.

Water object Nitrogen load

retention Phosphoroud load retention Catchment size (km2)

Data source

Luga 0.26 0.35 12,100 Orback &

Djodjic 2014

Narva 0.56 0.37 58,100 Stålnacke et al.

2011

Neman 0.30 0.40 95,900 ”

Neva 0.74 0.57 279,600 ”

Pregolya 0.25 – 84,600 ”

Lakes

Lake Onega – 0.76 Kondratyev

20071, 20082 Kondratyev & Trumball 20123 Lake Ladoga 0.3 0.76 *** Lake Ilmen – 0.53 *** Lake Peipsi (Chudskoye) – 0.56 ***

1 Kondratyev, S.A. 2007. Formation of external loading on water bodies; problems of modelling (in

Russian). Nauka. St Petersburg, 255 p.

2 Kondratyev, S.A. 2008. The influence of catchment land covers on phosphorus balance for large

freshwater system – in I. Petrosillo et al. (eds.), Use of landscape sciences for the assessment of environmental security. Springer Verlag, 225–235.

3 Kondratyev, S & Trumbull, N. 2012. Nutrient loading on the Eastern Gulf of Finland (Baltic Sea)

from the Russian catchment area. J. Hydrol. Hydromech., 60, 3, 145–151.

8 Swedish Environmental protection Agency 2010. Implementation of the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) in the Russian Federation; eutrophication segment, Point sources. Results from the RusNIP project. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Report 6368

(33)

Retention is also needed when calculating the input to the sea from trans-boundary load. When estimating retention in the CART assessment for the 2013 Ministerial meeting retention data from the RECOCA was used. Figures for Russia are shown in table 5.

Table 5. Transboundary riverine loads from and to Russia and retention used in the CART calcula-tions for the 2014 Ministerial meeting. Loads from Russia to Latvia are already compensated for retention in Belarus. The Finnish loads via Russia were supplied from Finland already with reten-tion taken into account.

From Via To sub-basin

Load at border Retention

(fraction) Load to Baltic Sea Tot-N Tot-P N P Tot-N Tot-P

Finland Russia Gulf of

Finland 5,353 49

Poland Russia Baltic

Proper 4,400 320 0.3 0.37 3,080 202 Russia Latvia Gulf of

Riga 2,681 316 0.27 0.32 1,957 215

Russia did not report on load retention coming from its territory to the Baltic Sea in PLC5. As in the case of unmonitored territories, Russia has no official regulatory and methodological framework for the calculation of retention in streams and reservoirs in the territory of the Russian part of the Baltic Sea catchment. In the framework of research projects conducted by the Institute of Limnology, load retention in waterways and water bodies was studied in the territory of the Russian part of the Baltic Sea catchment. However, this infor-mation is not public, and work to assess retention level is not held regularly. Appropriateness of the use of this information needs to be discussed.

7.4 Conclusions

• Russia has not delivered data on source apportionment to HELCOM PLC, neither for riverine nutrient load to the Baltic Sea or for loads to inland surface waters.

• PLC Guidelines offer a relatively simple method for dividing monitored riverine nutrient inputs to the sea into the categories; point sources, dif-fuse sources and background loads. The difdif-fuse losses can be determined as the difference between estimated discharges and net loads from point sources and net input of background losses.

• To obtain information on discharges from point sources it is necessary to approach each user of natural resources individually.

• Background loads can be determined by monitoring concentrations or loads at the outlet of small forested areas. Background loads from agri-cultural areas can be estimated by measuring nutrient losses from unferti-lized grasslands.

(34)

• There are indicative background leaching coefficients for different land use classes for Sweden see Annex 2. These might be applied in the Russian catchment to the Baltic Sea if local data are not available. • Information about retention is needed both for source apportionment of

riverine inputs to the sea and for transboundary loads. Several numerical catchment models can be used to calculate retention, e.g. the Swedish FyrisNP model and the Russian ILLM model.

• The lack of final decisions on monitoring and assessment from bilateral commissions on transboundary and border rivers on the allocation of nutrient loads prevents the reporting of riverine inputs in a correct way.

(35)

8 Modelling tools and activities

8.1 General about modelling tools

When modeling diffuse loads there is a fundamental need to first organize input data in a geographic referenced database with respect to the river catch-ments. Geographic Information System tools are fundamental to delineate water catchments and to build up flow networks. All input data for modeling of diffuse load using an available modeling tool need to be geographically connected to the catchments through the database and GIS tool. Once input data have been organized with a catchment a modeling tool can be applied.

Figure 2. Illustration of basic tool boxes in load assessments and pressure analysis.

Common for all modelling tools is that the load calculation process is per-formed in the same order, which starts with the hydrology by determining the runoff from the catchment. (figure 2). Having determined the runoff, the diffuse load is calculated from the catchment statistics on land cover in combination with data on soils and climate, leaching coefficients of the land cover combined with GIS area, runoff data and atmospheric deposition. Point

source load is normally a list of loads from individual facilities (annual

aver-age or temporally distributed) geographically connected to the catchment. Catchment models should be able to model both the hydrology of the area, i.e. water flow dynamics over time, and pollution transport. A model intended for calculation of load and retention of pollutants and simulate the effects of measures should be deterministic, distributed or semi-distributed and non-stationary. A deterministic model always produces the same result for a given indata set, as opposed to a stochastic model. A model with

distrib-uted parameters solves the model equations for spatially defined points in the

model domain and a non-stationary model allows the water flow to vary over time. See Annex 2, chapter 6.

Figure

Table 1. Revised nutrient reduction requirements (CART) per sub-basin for Russia. For nitrogen,  CART includes both airborne and waterborne loads
Table 2. Waterborne nutrient input targets (maximum allowable input) for Russia to Baltic Proper  and Gulf of Finland
Table 3. The present situation of annual and periodical reporting from Russia to the HELCOM PLC
Table 4. Total retention of selected rivers and lakes in the Russian catchment of the Baltic Sea
+7

References

Related documents

The measured values on DIN fluxes were plotted against the “modeled” or expected values for each river (“log observed vs. log modeled”, see Figure 4a) to illustrate

Deposition and volatilization fluxes (F DEP , F VOL , mass area -1 time -1 ) and gas exchange loadings for Bothnian Bay (Table S7; Fig. 3) were estimated from the two-film model

It is claimed that status class (Water Framework Directive) of the water bodies can be determined using MERIS satellite data. Since information on phytoplankton abundance and

By focusing on the Baltic Sea, a sensitive body of water, I am exploring the acoustic characters of the sea dynamics through sound recordings at three bays in the

Komparatism i den mer traditionella bemärkelsen bedriver René Wellek själv i en uppsats som German and English Romanticism: A Confrontation. Wellek:

The thesis also contains performance evaluations of traffic generators, how accurately applicationlevel measurements describe network behaviour, and of the quality of

Multiple-cue probability learning (MCPL) tasks require the subjects to leam to infer the state of a criterion variable from the information provided by a set of cues. To reach

To speed up rendering, or to support data sets not fitting in GPU memory, the volume can be sub- divided into bricks (Scharsach et al., 2006) through which rays are cast