Tages Anzeiger/ Christian Sauter/ Suisse, 16.1.98
Die zwölfjährige Auseinandersetzung ist zu Ende. Im Val Madris wird kein neuer Stausee gebaut.
Fröschaboda heisst der hintere Teil des Val Madris. Benannt nach den vielen Fröschen die in den Tümpeln, Mooren und dem määndernden Madriser Rhein ihr kurzes Tierleben verbringen. « Es ist ein klarer Fall. Das Gebiet ist schützenswert und gehört in das Bundesinventar der Flachmoore von nationaler Bedeutung », sagte Rolf Waldis vom Bundesamt für Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft am Donnerstag gegenüber dem TA.
Mindestens zwölf Jahre lang allerdings war das Val Madris überhaupt kein klarer Fall. Erst im dritten Anlauf nahm der Bundesrat das Gebiet nun doch noch in das Bundesinventar auf - und beerdigte damit das Stauseeprojekt der Kraftwerke Hinterrhein.
Bis zuletzt wollte die Bündner Regierung am umstrittenen Stausee festhalten. Aus « energiepolitischen und volkswirtschaftlichen Interessen » dürfe das Val Madris nicht geschützt werden, schrieb die Kantonsregierung noch im November dem Bundesrat. Allerdings war schon damals bekannt, dass selbst innerhalb der Bündner Regierung die Meinungen in dieser Frage auseinandergingen. Umweltdirektor Joachim Caluori war am Donnerstag anzumerken dass er über den Entscheid des Bundesrates nicht sonderlich enttäuscht ist.
16/1/98 : BUND Niedersachsen : Elbe Nationalpark durch Bundesumweltministerium gefährdet ? <
Nationalpark Elbtalaue
Stellungnahme des Bundesumweltministeriums ist sachlich unhaltbar
"Merkel versucht Nationalpark zu verhindern"
Hannover, 14. Januar 1998 -
"Die Stellungnahme des Bonner Umweltministeriums zum geplanten Nationalpark Elbtalaue ist sachlich unhaltbar. Bundesumweltministerin Merkel ver- sucht mit Scheinargumenten der Atomlobby und des Wissmann-Ministeriums das Schutzgebiet an der Elbe zu verhindern." Diese Kritik übte heute Dr. Marita Wudtke, Naturschutzreferentin des Bundes für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland (BUND) in Niedersachsen.
Der Umweltverband, der sich wiederholt für einen Nationalpark in der europaweit einzigartigen Naturlandschaft an der Elbe ausgesprochen hat, fand zahlreiche Ungereimtheiten in der Stel- lungnahme aus Bonn: Beispielsweise sehe das Bundesumweltministerium im Nationalpark eine Gefahr, um seine atompolitischen Interessen in Gorleben durchzusetzen: "Hier werden die Tat- sachen völlig verdreht: Nicht die Atomenergie ist durch den Naturschutz gefährdet, sondern die Natur dadurch, daß möglicherweise radioaktive Abwässer aus den Entsorgungsanlagen in die Elbe geleitet werden sollen", so die BUND-Expertin. Der Straßenbau-Lobby versuche Merkel ebenfalls den Rücken frei zu halten.
"Obwohl es seit 1996 eine Vereinbarung aller großen Umweltverbände mit dem Bundesver- kehrsministerium gibt, um die ökologische Situation an der Elbe wieder zu verbessern, versucht jetzt das Bundesumweltministerium den Nationalpark zu verhindern, damit ein weiterer Elbausbau möglich bleibt", empörte sich Prof. Gerhard Thielcke, Ehrenvorsitzender des BUND Bundesverbandes, der die vielbeachtete Vereinbarung mit dem Ministerium mitunterzeichnet hatte.
"Merkel mißbraucht den Nationalpark für parteipolitische Auseinandersetzungen und den Wahlkampf", so die BUND-Expertin.
Verantwortlich Robert Exner, BUND-Pressereferat Tel. 0511/96569-16
Dr. Marita Wudtke, BUND-Niedersachsen
Tel. 0511/96569-18
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 15:37:55 -0800 From: patrick@irn.org (Patrick McCully) Sender: owner-irn-narmada@igc.org Subject: IPS: People Power Stops Hydel Project To: irn-narmada@igc.org X-Sender: patrick@pop.igc.org
16/1/98 : DEVELOPMENT-INDIA: People Power Stops Hydel Project<
>By R. Dev Raj
>NEW DELHI, Jan 13 (IPS) - Thousands of people who laid siege to the
>Maheshwar hydel project site in the Narmada valley, in central India, over
>the weekend are refusing to move out without categorical assurance that
>construction would cease forthwith.
>
>''The siege will continue until our demands are met,'' Medha Patkar,
>celebrated leader of the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) or Save the Narmada
>Movement, against the three billion dollar scheme, told IPS before she
>returned to the site Tuesday.
>
>A crowd of 10,000 men and women, which poured into the dam site over
>Saturday and Sunday bypassing road-blocks set up by the police began to thin
>only after announcements over radio that blasting operations have been
>temporarily suspended.
>
>However, according to Patkar, a core group of 3,000 people will camp at the
>dam site until a complete review of the whole Narmada River project,
>involving 30 big and 135 medium sized dams are ordered.
>
>''We are not interested in ad hoc announcements and temporary stoppages --
>the people are angry and have had enough,'' Patkar said. The Maheshwar dam
>threatens the livelihood of 100,000 people in 61 villages who grow cotton
>and wheat in the area.
>
>People participating in the siege came from areas affected by other projects
>in the valley cutting through the three states of Gujarat, Maharashtra and
>Madhya Pradesh. They include the Sardar Sarovar, Narmada Sagar, Man, Jorbat,
>Bargi, Lower Goi, Upper Veda projects. Maheshwar is some 700 kms south of
>New Delhi.
>Construction at the biggest of the projects, the Sardar Sarovar in Gujarat
>state, has been delayed by several years of litigation by the NBA and now
>awaits a pronouncement by the Supreme Court. Agitations have also halted
>work at Lower Goi and Upper Veda.
>
>Earlier, the court rapped the Central government for poor rehabilitation
>policies for people who are going to be affected by a huge canal to pipe
>water for drinking and irrigation out of the Sardar Sarovar reservoir.
>
>The government of Madhya Pradesh, the state where the most people are likely
>to be displaced by the Sardar Sarovar has succeeded in limiting the height
>of the dam to 132 metres against the original 140 metres saying it cannot
>cope adequately with rehabilitation.
>
>According to Patkar, in Gujarat state itself, hundreds of displaced families
>from submergence zones have simply come back home because they could not
>find any of the facilities they were promised in their new homes.
>
>Officials say much of the problem has to do with the fact that different
>state governments have different rehabilitation policies and some none at
>all. The central government has so far failed to legislate on a national
>rehabilitation policy.
>
>Since Independence in 1947, various development projects have, on average,
>displaced every year, an estimated half a million people from their
>ancestral lands, homes and sources of livelihood -- mostly agriculture. The
>Narmada scheme will result in the displacement of tens of thousands of
>families.
>
>The Maheshwar project drew the special ire of the NBA because it is the
>first privatised hydro-power project in the country. The well-known Indian
>textile company of S. Kumar, plans to collaborate with transnational
>companies such as Pac-Gen, Asea Brown Boveri (ABB)and Siemens, Patkar said.
>
>Patkar said it was grim irony that a textile company which depends on
>synthetic raw material should be allowed to threaten cotton growers. ''It is
>a fight between the forces of mass- production and the masses,'' she said.
>
>Both the government and S. Kumar have refused to share information regarding
>displacement, memoranda of understanding and power purchase agreements with
>NBA. However, NBA workers seized several documents during a sit-in strike at
>the project office in October, Patkar said.
>
>The agitation intensified after blasting operation triggered off soil
>erosion threatening the Makheda village which falls in the Maheshwar project
>area. In all, more than 15,000 families stand to be affected by the Narmada
>valley projects.
>
>People already displaced by the larger dams, in different stages of
>completion, are yet to be rehabilitated. For example, the entire wall of the
>Bargi dam has been complete for years but the 7,000 families it displaced
>remain unsettled.
>
>The Bargi dam now produces barely 90 MW of power and is a white elephant of>the Madhya Pradesh government which sets aside five million dollars annually
>from its annual budget, mostly for
>administration costs.
>
>Patkar and the NBC want to see the large centralised projects in the Narmada
>valley replaced by smaller projects which do not threaten the environment or
>displace people. Although the 3,000 small dams have been envisaged in the
>Narmada master plan they are on low priority.
>
>The Central government's stand is that there is place for both big as well
>as small dams. ''The power situation in the country is so acute that there
>is little room for compromise,'' Union minister for power, Y.K. Alagh said
>recently.
>
>''Smaller dams would benefit people in the catchment area unlike the present
>plans which are geared to help big industries and the cities -- this is
>nothing but profit-making in the name of development,'' Patkar said.
>(End/IPS/rdr/an/98)
Bruxelles, décembre 1997
La Proposition de la Commission européenne pour "Un cadre d'action communautaire dans le domaine de la politique de l'Eau" (COM(97) 49 finale, 26.02.1997 et modification de juillet et novembre 1997) a pour objectif de réorganiser la politique européenne de l'eau. La Commission européenne a fait preuve d'une ouverture et d'une transparence inhabituelle en informant les organisations européennes d'environnement au sujet du processus de la proposition. Le BEE se félicite de cette ouverture, et espère que la Commission européenne adoptera cette attitude dans d'autres domaines.
Le BEE se félicite des objectifs de la Directive, notamment d'empêcher "toute dégradation supplémentaire de l'écosystème aquatique, de le protéger et d'en améliorer l'état " ainsi que de "promouvoir une consommation durable de l'eau " au sein de l'Union européenne.
En dépit de son titre ambitieux, la proposition de la Commission n'est pas, à notre avis, à la hauteur de ses propres revendications. En raison des failles sévères dans le concept même de la législation, nous doutons sérieusement que cette Proposition permette d'améliorer la situation actuelle de l'UE en matière de politique de l'eau.
La Commission n'analyse pas les déficiences des législations existantes qui doivent être partiellement remplacées par la proposition cadre. De manière générale, la Commission confirme sa tendance à passer à une approche législative plus faible, qui laisse encore plus la latitude aux Etats membres de définir eux-mêmes leurs propres obligations. Au cours des 20 dernières années, la Directive sur la protection de l'eau n'a pas été correctement mise en œuvre par les Etats membres. Il est donc peu probable qu'une nouvelle législation, encore plus évasive, permettra réellement une meilleure protection de l'environnement. Pour assurer un haut niveau de protection des eaux de l'UE, il faut modifier plusieurs articles de la Proposition.
A l'occasion de la Conférence Mer du Nord de 1995, les Etats membres de l'Union se sont mis d'accord pour réduire considérablement les décharges, les émissions et les fuites de substances dangereuses d'ici 2020. Ils ont décidé que les substances présentes naturellement dans l'environnement ne devraient exister qu'à des concentrations naturelles, alors que la concentration des produits synthétiques devrait approcher de zéro (§ 17 de la Déclaration de Esbjerg). Cet accord international n'a pas été pris en considération dans la législation existante de l'UE.
Amélioration de la Qualité de l'Eau (Article 1)
Le BEE est en faveur du maintien, de la protection, et de l'amélioration de la qualité de l'eau et accueille favorablement la promotion d'une consommation durable de l'eau basée sur une approche à long terme. L'application de l'approche combinée est à la base considérée comme un instrument efficace pour une gestion durable de l'eau. Toutefois, la proposition de combinaison de Normes de Qualité Environnementale (NQE) et de Valeurs Limites d'Emissions (VLE) n'est pas satisfaisante. Le BEE réclame que soient fixées des Valeurs Limites d'Emissions et des Normes de Qualité Environnementales quantitatives.
Le BEE exige :
Pénalités (Article 28)
Le BEE est en faveur des pénalités pour assurer une meilleure protection des écosystèmes aquatiques. Le BEE encourage la Commission a poursuivre en justice tout Etat membre qui ne se serait pas conformé aux Directives existantes. Nous faisons ici particulièrement référence à laDirective 76/464 sur les substances dangereuses. Avant de discuter de la révision de cette Directive, nous souhaitons qu'elle soit correctement mise en œuvre dans tous les Etats membres. La mise en œuvre doit être contrôlée par la Commission. C'est au Parlement européen de décider de l'abrogation des Directives. Les cas de procédures d'infraction en suspens en vertu de l'Article 169 du Traité devraient être accélérés. En outre, si les jugements de la Court européenne de Justice ne sont pas respectés par les Etats membres, des astreintes financières devraient être réclamées par la Commission sans aucun délai, conformément à l'Article 171.
Objectifs environnementaux (Article 4)
La proposition donne une définition de la qualité de l'eau en termes qualitatifs uniquement : 'bonne' et 'très bonne'. Ces définitions permettent une interprétation très étendue. La définition de différentes classes ne garantit pas la sécurité légale et doit être rejetée sous sa forme actuelle.
Il est nécessaire d'élaborer des définitions uniformes et quantitatives afin d'assurer la satisfaction aux exigences de la Directive. Les définitions fournies par les Etats membres permettent une interprétation très large lors de la mise en œuvre de la Directive et ne garantissent pas la protection à l'échelle de l'UE. Le BEE demande que l'objectif d'une qualité de l'eau à l'échelle européenne soit déterminé à long terme en terme de "très bonne qualité de l'eau". Cet objectif doit être déterminé clairement via des valeurs limites d'émissions (VLE) et des normes de qualité environnementale (NQE) qui doivent être contraignantes et semblables pour tous les Etats membres.
Pour déterminer ces VLE, il faut sélectionner des critères 'taillés sur mesure' pour les types d'eau concernés. Un système de bio-indicateurs sont largement utilisés à cet effet. La Commission dispose d'informations scientifiques suffisantes pour proposer un système qui pourrait être appliqué et assurer une qualité égale de l'eau dans tous les Etats membres de l'UE.
Zones protégées (Article 4)
La proposition envisage que des objectifs environnementaux moins stricts soient établis lorsqu'il est impossible d'améliorer l'état des choses ou lorsqu'une amélioration serait exagérément coûteuse. Selon e BEE, les Etats membres ne devraient pas avoir le droit de décider si la conformité aux objectifs environnementaux est trop coûteuse ou non. Cette décision doit être prise au niveau de la Communauté en fonction des fonds structurels disponibles. Le BEE s'oppose à une différenciation entre zones protégées et zones polluées.
Application du principe du pollueur-payeur (Article 12)
La proposition envisage que les Etats membres "assureront le recouvrement total des coûts pour tous les coûts des services fournis pour l"utilisation de l"eau en général, et par secteur économique " (Art.12(1)). Nous sommes en faveur de taxes qui permettent une réduction de la surexploitation de l'eau, si tous les usagers des ressources en eaux en supportent le coût. La proposition réduit l'utilisation de l'eau à l'utilisation d'un service. Les propriétaires de puits (par exemple les grandes industries et les fermiers) et les pollueurs d'eau ne sont pas concernés. Il est nécessaire de diminuer les extractions d'eau via l'imposition de prélèvements, et tout particulièrement dans l'industrie, où l'eau ne provient pas de fournisseurs.
Le recouvrement des frais ne fait pas diminuer la pollution. Nous réclamons le prélèvement de taxes sur toutes les substances qui contribuent à la pollution de l'eau, afin de réduire la pollution de l'eau par ces substances. L'objectif doit être de diminuer à court terme la présence de certaines substances jusqu'à un niveau soutenable, et de les éviter à long terme. Les études relatives aux des valeurs limites d'émissions doivent être financées par l'industrie (en vertu du principe du pollueur-payeur). Application du principe de précaution (Art.21)
Il est possible, grâce aux VLE, de réduire et de contrôler efficacement les effluents de polluants dans le circuit de l'eau. En raison d'une mise œuvre incomplète de la Directive 76/464 par Etats membres au cours de 20 dernières années, aucune VLE n'a été fixée pour les substances dangereuses. Les outils existants n'ont pas été utilisés de façon adéquate et comme il aurait été nécessaire de le faire.
Le BEE se félicite de la décision de la Commission de fixer des VLE pour une première liste prioritaire de 30 substances. Ceci constitue un pas important dans la bonne direction pour pratiquer l'approche combinée. Il est en outre nécessaire de spécifier ces règlements dans la Directive même.
Il est indispensable pour fixer les VLE de sélectionner les meilleures techniques disponibles qui doit être constamment améliorée. Les valeurs limites des paramètres pour les groupes de substances doivent être déterminées en premier lieu (exemple : COD réfractaire = fragment non biodégradable de COD). Des VLE supplémentaires doivent ensuite être fixées pour des substances spécifiques.
Pour les secteurs industriels qui produisent de grandes quantités de composés de déchets organiques (particulièrement dans l'industrie chimique) le COD réfractaire dans les parties concernées du flot des eaux usées doivent afficher une réduction d'au moins 80%. Pour l'ensemble des effluents, une réduction d'un minimum de 95% est requise en ce qui concerne le BSB5. Pour les secteurs qui produisent principalement des composés de déchets non organiques, des valeurs limite spécifiques sont fixées (par exemple pour les sels, les métaux lourds, les agents complexants).
Le BEE demande
Pour une protection préventive de l'eau, il fautconsidérer la charge des composants des eaux usées comme un tout. La synergie de tous les polluants habituellement contenus dans les eaux usées industrielles augmente le dommage latent à l'écologie de l'eau, et le potentiel de prélèvement d'eau potable des eaux de surface.
Le BEE exige que soient fixés des paramètres pour des groupes de substance (par exemple DOC ou TOC) de manière à réduire considérablement les effluents de substances synthétiques persistantes.
Une étude de la DG XI (Calculs de rendement économique en rapport avec la Directive sur l'eau Potable, IIIème partie : le Paramètre pour les Pesticides et produits liés, octobre 1995) a donné la preuve que la prévention de la pollution de l'eau par les activités agricoles est plus rentable que l'épuration de l'eau brute. Les NQE doivent être fixés indépendamment des installations de traitement disponibles.
Protection des zones humides
La proposition ne fait pas référence aux conventions internationales, comme par exemple la Convention de Ramsar. Il est essentiel de fixer des cibles pour freiner le déclin de la bio-diversité des zones humides qui s'est produit au cours du dernier siècle.
(NB : Nous nous référons à la prise de position de BirdLife International (Commentaires au Département Environnement de la Société Royale pour la Protection des Oiseaux (RSPB) mai 1997, disponible au BEE)
Amendement des annexes
Les annexes à la Directive cadre constituent une
partie importante de la Directive et sont essentielles au caractère
prononcé des aménagements suggérés. Le BEE
exige que le Parlement européen se prononce également sur
la totalité du contenu des Annexes. C'est pourquoi la Commission
devrait donner davantage de détails au sujet du contenu des annexes
avant que ne s'engage la discussion au Parlement.
However, this deplorable state of affairs is neither inevitable nor irreversible. Degraded waters are not a prerequisite for a thriving modern society, nor is pollution an intrinsic quality of industrial production. Rivers and lakes in Europe continue to be despoiled and polluted because most current water management strategies stem from concepts and assumptions that date from the 19th century and have never seriously been challenged.
We know better now: the integrity of our waters can be restored, and rivers and lakes returned to a healthy and ecologically balanced state if a number of key concepts are adjusted to up-to-date scientific and ethical standards.
Lately, water companies have been warning that water resources are already dwindling in the face of decreasing precipitation and a changing climate. They claim that for future supplies we can not solely rely on the construction of reservoirs and interregional networks, but need to curb demand and rigorously protect all water resources from further deterioration.
In order to restore and protect the quality and quantity ofEuropean waters in the future, and in order to secure future drinking water supplies, a clear and internationally binding set of rules needs to be included in the pending revision of EU water policies and legislation, particularly the planned Water Resources Framework Directive.
SECTION 1
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF A
SOCIALLY, ECONOMICALLY AND ECOLOGICALLY VIABLE
WATER POLICY
1.1 RECOGNISING NATURE'S LIMITS
No resource can be managed, let alone justly apportioned without a clear understanding of the quantities available. However, public and private water planning to date have assumed unlimited natural water supply. At the same time, more and more water resources are being rendered unusable by pollution. Yet it is still largely ignored that the water quantity safely and reliably extractable from a given region or catchment is definitely limited, and that in fact pollution is constantly diminishing that quantity.
The result is severe over-exploitation of water resources in many regions throughout southern and northern Member States of the EU, leading inter alia to salinisation of underground aquifers and often irreversible damage to ecosystems along drained rivers and in wetlands. The losses are not merely ecological; prolonged over-exploitation also compromises the water cycle's ability to refresh and purify sufficient quantities of water and thus jeopardises future human uses.
Hence, the very basis for sound water management must be to assess how much water is available in a given region, and how much of it can be sustainably extracted.
1.2 SWITCH FROM SUPPLY MANAGEMENT TO DEMAND MANAGEMENT
Water consumption in the EU is excessive - statistically, for each inhabitant, several hundred litres are used every day by households, industries, and agriculture together. Still, throughout the EU, new sources are constantly breached to satisfy rising demands or to substitute resources rendered unusable by pollution.
Very few attempts have been made to reduce consumption. Water use in all sectors is still utterly inefficient. Yet most water shortages could comfortably be resolved by applying existing water-efficient technologies. Over-exploitation of rivers and aquifers could be stopped, expensive investments in dam construction or long distance pipelines could be saved.
The solution for future water management lies not in supplying more, but in making better use of water.
1.3 WATER FOR PEOPLE: NATURAL, UNTREATED DRINKING WATER
Throughout history, one principle of water law has remained unchallenged: that drinking water for people is given priority over all other uses. Ironically, this basic rule - almost a human right - has tacitly been dropped in many rich industrialised countries. It is common practice in the European Union that industries process pristine groundwater while populations must put up with treated drinking water from polluted rivers.
That ancient right to clean drinking water should be restored by establishing a paramount principle that water be delivered in as natural a state as possible, using the least polluted water sustainably available in the region. Such a principle must reach far beyond improved purification: it must oblige authorities on all levels to protect aqueous systems from deterioration, to prevent pollution of water resources at the source, and to reallocate water of superior quality from industrial and agricultural uses to municipal supply. Furthermore the extraction of drinking water must be proven not to damage the integrity of the surrounding ecosystems.
Fresh and healthy drinking water is the very basis of a modern society and must not be compromised. Making it once again the number one priority of water politics is a socially and economically necessary exercise.
1.4 CONTROLLED USE - MARKETS FOR WATER PERMITS
All water abstractions from nature including public supplies should be registered and authorised. Water authorities would in this way gain control over the total quantities used and be able to prevent over-exploitation.
The recognition that water is a finite resource will bring about major changes, both psychological and economic. Once users can no longer assume an endless supply of water, they will naturally tend to increase the water efficiency of their activities and to minimise pollution.
At the same time, some users may want to sell water rights that they no longer need, thus creating regional markets for tradeable water permits. Of course, public water supply should not be subject to such a market. In order to keep tap water affordable for all, at least 80 or 100 litres per capita per day should be exempt from charges other than distribution costs.
Water is a finite resource. To make its allocation just and most efficient economically, regional markets for official water permits should be encouraged amongst commercial users.
1.5 PREVENT AND REVERSE DEGRADATION OF NATURAL WATERS
In view of the current deplorable state of European waters, it is absolutely necessary to avoid any further deterioration and to minimise the impact of human activities wherever possible. Factors such as urban and industrial development, fish farms, or hydraulic schemes for energy and shipping purposes are all contributing to the rapid decline of our rivers and lakes.
Notably, pollution has to be curbed by strict rules to limit emissions into water. But even with best available technologies for the treatment of waste water in place, the remaining effluents often still contain persistent chemicals with a high potential to impair the receiving river. Likewise, non-point sources of pollution such as agricultural run-off are impossible to control by BAT for waste water treatment. Therefore, additional immission standards should be introduced to ensure precautionary protection against all pollution sources and thus a high ecological quality for all waters.
Finally, substances for which a hazardous potential can not be ruled out or which are proven to persist in the environment should be removed not only from waste water, but from all (uncontained) applications.
The protection of lakes, rivers and aquifers from physical and chemical degradation affords a two-tiered approach of emission controls combined with minimum ecological standards, with both standards applicable in all cases.
1.6 MAKING BEST INDUSTRIAL USE OF WATER
In most European countries, industrial water consumption relative to product output has dropped markedly in the last decades due to increased re-use and recycling of water. Some companies have even succeeded in closing their water system entirely, so that they merely have to replace the small quantities lost due to evaporation etc. After use, waste water is treated and fully recycled and rivers saved from discharges of chemicals.
This development was triggered almost exclusively by rising costs for water and for waste water discharge. It could have been much more pronounced had waste water recycling been encouraged by legislation.
Huge savings in water consumption could be achieved by European industries without excessive cost. State-of-the-art water recycling technology could contribute tremendously to saving rivers and aquifers from continued over-exploitation.
1.7 DISCONNECTING RIVERS FROM INDUSTRIAL WASTE STREAMS
Most of the water used by European industry today is used to dilute and discharge waste. Not only are the huge quantities pumped into the rivers thereby polluted, an approximately 10 times larger body of river water is rendered useless for purposes such as drinking water supply and fisheries as well. Despite this huge contribution to water degradation, it is still part of standard water and waste management to regard rivers as integral parts of the waste water treatment process.
Yet the 5th North Sea Conference in Esbjerg in 1995 concluded that in order to protect the marine environment, the discharge of persistent chemicals into rivers and the North Sea must be phased out by the year 2020. Consequently, only non-persistent substances which are degradable in biological waste water treatment plants should be in use by then. After treatment, all water should be re-usable in production, and no waste need be released into rivers any longer.
In order to meet the goals of the 1995 North Sea Conference, a phase - out of persistent chemicals and hence the recycling of all industrial waste water, must become objectives of EU water policy.
1.8 AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION WITH RESPECT FOR WATER
Agriculture in Europe is fundamentally out of tune with water. Farming activities are the most important non-point source of both surface water and ground water pollution, notably with fertilizers and pesticides. Every third litre of raw water taken in by European water companies is now contaminated due to pesticides above the legal limit. Furthermore, throughout the Community, agricultural irrigation is ignoring even basic rules of rational water use, and in most Member States agriculture has become the number one user of water (in Spain even exceeding 80 per cent of total water use).
Degrading and squandering water is not a natural characteristic of agriculture, but rather a consequence of EU politics aimed solely at increasing production. Today, the majority of farms produce far too intensively, vastly overexploiting and pollu-ting their natural bases - soil and water. Intensification has also led to a huge increase in irrigated area, which leads to salinised soil and deprives valuable ecosystems of their water.
The key to resolving these problems lies in incentives for farmers to produce less intensively and to protect and maintain healthy soils and unpolluted water. As a first immediate step, particularly damaging practices such as intensive meat production and the applicationof soluble fertilisers and pesticides should be phased out.
Agriculture has the largest potential of all sectors to use water more efficiently and to curb pollution. To achieve this objective, farming practices must change fundamentally. This will be impossible, however, unless the economic pressures on farmers created by the EU Common Agricultural Policy are alleviated.
1.9 HOUSEHOLD USE: SAVING WATER EQUALS SAVING NATURE
While water consumption in most EU Member States accounts for no more than a quarter of total water consumption, it nevertheless creates huge demands, particularly in densely populated urban agglomerations. Most large cities increasingly draw on water from distant rivers or exploit deep lying aquifers, often over-pumping these resources and damaging them beyond repair.
Meanwhile, hardly anywhere is the use of standard technology to reduce consumption such as water-saving taps and appliances encouraged. Nor is the rain falling on roofs collected in cisterns for inferior uses such as flushing toilets and watering gardens. Surveys show that moneyinvested in tap flow reducers or roof water harvesting is much more effectively spent than in building additional reservoirs and long distance pipe systems.
Water can be saved in households without the slightest reduction in comfort by using water-efficient taps and appliances and by utilising rain water from roofs. Apart from less damage to the environment, the result would be more reliable, less expensive, higher quality water supplies in the future.
1.10 RE-THINK MUNICIPAL WASTE WATER MANAGEMENT
Municipal waste water consists of kitchen and bathroom effluents including toilet waste, together with hazardous discharges from small businesses such as dentists and photo shops. In cities without dual sewerage, roof water and run-off from streets also end up in the same pipe system.
This waste water concept is proving extremely expensive to build, operate and maintain. It is also increasingly recognised that it is not the most efficient option. While municipal waste water treatment plants are well equipped to deal with lightly polluted grey water from households, the removal of nutrients and pathogens contained in human excreta renders the treatment process vastly more complex. Numerous pilot projects aiming to keep toilet waste separate from household grey water are therefore underway. Where sewers are installed for the first time or where they have to be renovated, costs for a second system to collect toilet waste (e.g. a vaccum sewer) are no more expensive than a conventional sewer. Further savings are possible because simpler and smaller waste water treatment plants are necessary where only household grey water has to be dealt with.
Conventional sewage systems must be radically reconsidered for efficiency and financial reasons. Wherever possible, lightly polluted grey water from households should be collected and treated separately from toilet waste and commercial waste water containing non-degradable chemicals.
SECTION 2
CRITIQUE OF COMMISSION'S COMMUNICATION
ON EUROPEAN COMMUNITY WATER POLICY
2.1 CRITIQUE OF "OUTLINE OF A WATER RESOURCES FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE"
The outline of a EU Water Resources Framework Directive contained in the Commission's Communication on European Community Water Policy (COM (96) 59 final) contains no legally binding obligation for Member States to improve the current state of their water resources. By applying the subsidiarity principle, the Commission intends to leave the setting of water policy objectives entirely in the hands of the Member States. This lack of binding targets and timetables is likely to lead to a competition between Member States for lowest standards in water protection. Potential developers with an interest in polluting or otherwise impairing waters would be attracted to Member States with the weakest environmental requirements.
Without binding objectives for water policy, the planned Framework Directive is unlikely to contribute to the protection and improvement of aquatic ecosystems in Europe. It threatens to repeat the theme of earlier Commission activities on water policy: promoting a water management aimed at securing and satisfying all conceivable demand and at allowing ecosystem damage and pollution up to a just-tolerable level.
Water policies of this kind effectively write off once and for all the thorough restoration of lakes, rivers and groundwater. In the light of recent developments they simply cannot be justified. Already today, whole industries would be able to fully recycle their waste water and operate waste water free if they applied the latest technologies. Other activities which now damage or pollute rivers, lakes or groundwater are likely to be made environmentally safe or even redundant by more sophisticated developments.
Environmental organisations, scientists, the European Parliament and the European Environmental Agency are urging the protection of rivers and lakes, as well as their accompanying ecosystems, in their entirety. Groundwater, with its extremely slow recovery times, is particularly menaced. Science now regards aquatic systems as the most important supporting elements of an intact landscape and ecology - virtual backbones of biodiversity. They also serve as moderators of run-off, regulating river flows and alleviating floods. Finally, surface waters are pivotal in regulating the microclimate and protecting against desertification. In the long run, humanity will have to protect them, if not for their own and the environment's sake, then to safeguard societal uses.
The Water Resources Framework Directive will define long-term objectives for European water legislation, and hence is of paramount importance. The future state of European surface waters hinges on it directly. Only if legally binding and comprehensive targets are set will the aim of healthy and ecologically intact water resources be attainable.
Ecologically based targets must be laid down in the Directive and made legally binding for all Member States.
2.2 CONCRETE POINTS THAT NEED TO BE COVERED BY A FUTURE WATER RESOURCES FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE
2.2.1 PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE
Nature´s response to human activities is not always predictable even with the most sophisticated scientific knowledge. Environmental systems depend on a multitude of variables, and often damage is done long before the effects become discernible. To preclude such unintentional environmental effects, the precautionary principle has been incorporated into Article 130s, paragraph 2 of the Treaty of the European Communities.
Greenpeace demands that the precautionary principle be specifically applied to all water-relevant EU legislation in order to avoid pollution and other adverse impacts on waters. The latter shall be achieved by continuously reducing emissions and discharges of substances, forms of energy or other harmful impacts.
2.2.2 POLLUTION
Pollution of rivers, lakes and coastal waters from authorised discharges is still a major cause of concern in all Member States of the European Community despite decades of legislative efforts to reduce it. Legal standards vary widely, leading to a virtual competition between Member States for lowest levels of protection of surface and ground waters with the aim to attract industries. This lack of binding targets and timelines for the reduction of pollution in the European union has repeatedly been deplored by industrial and environmental organisations as well as the European Parliament as a potential cause of distortion of competition and further degradation of waters.
Greenpeace therefore demands that uniform and legally binding standards for industrial and non industrial emissions into aqueous systems be laid down in the planned Water Resources Framework Directive.
Requirements for effluent discharges should only be granted if the pollutants carried by the effluent are kept as low as possible by adhering to Best Available Techniques (BAT).
As an additional paragraph to be inserted Greenpeace suggests a definition of BAT as
the most efficient and most advanced stage of development of processes, facilities or methods of operation, which, as the best technology available, is practically suitable for limiting emissions. The following aspects must be considered in determining which processes, facilities or methods of operation may be considered as constituting BAT:
* comparable processes, facilities or methods of operation which have recently been successfully tried out;
* technological advances and changes in scientific knowledge;
* the economic feasibility of such techniques;
* the economic costs of environmental damage in the event that advanced state of the art is not introduced and
* the nature and volume of the effluent discharges.
2.2.3 PERSISTENT CHEMICALS
The most important step in curbing pollution of aquatic systems is the phase-out of the use of persistent chemicals. This objective needs to be laid down in a binding way at Community level for all commercial activities in the EU. It is necessitated by the final declaration of the Fourth North Sea Conference, which concludes that in order to keep persistent substances away from aquatic systems and the North Sea, their use must be phased out within one generation.
Substances whose hazardous effect on the ecosystem and health is proven, or even only suspected, should not be allowed in waters. Prevention and avoidance must be made to apply here, with the goal of zero emissions. Those substances or groups of substances to which a ban on discharges will apply should include those assessed as hazardous on the basis of toxicity, persistence or ability to accumulate, or due to carcinogenic, embryotoxic, or damaging to genetic or hormonal effects.
Many companies even today could operate waste-water-free if they applied the latest standards to prevent persistent waste materials to enter their water system. Waste-water-free production would also greatly reduce industrial water demands, because with closed water cycles only a small percentage of water lost by evaporation etc. has to be replaced. Water demands of industry and hence water abstractions from natural ecosystems could potentially drop drastically.
Furthermore, regardless of the use of best available technologies and a phase-out of persistent chemicals, "good ecological quality" should be aimed at for all surface waters. Definition and criteria for "good ecological quality" do not now exist and should be elaborated by ecological scientists with full participation by environmental and consumer organisations. Legal rights to pollution or other deterioration of surface or ground water should be explicitly excluded.
2.2.4 COMPREHENSIVE REGIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLANS
Another rule that needs to be set at EU level is the scientific assessment of the water quantity available in a region or river basin without damage to the environment and to aquatic systems. Without such an assessment, it is impossible to judge if societal water demands can be met without over-exploitation of water resources. Competing demands by various water sectors and the absence of comprehensive water management plans are the primary cause of current water problems.
Scientific methodology to assess the sustainable water yield of a region (generally a river basin) is currently elaborated. It needs to be standardised at Community level to ensure that water planning is based on harmonised assumptions and to make possible a transparent picture of the water situation in Europe.
Furthermore, to curb continued over-exploitation, a rule needs to be laid down to not exceed the sustainably available water quantity in a region. All demands should be satisfied from local supplies with interregional transfer to be envisaged only if water efficiency measures prove to be insufficient.
Greenpeace therefore demands that Member States should draw up a concise water management plan for each river basin.
Water management plans should be based on:
(a) the maximum quantity sustainably extractable from the river basin as assessed by harmonised scientific criteria ensuring the integrity of the region's natural ecological systems;
(b) a specification of all commercial water uses including municipal water supplies, and of all officially recognised impairments of natural waters such as waste water discharges, dams, embankments, canalisation, percentage of sealed surface etc.
(c) an assessment of water-saving potential and alternative water sources (direct rain-water harvesting from roofs etc.);
Water management plans should aim at
(a) minimising water extraction by phasing in state-of-the-art water efficiency technology in all sectors;
(b) not exceeding sustainably available water quantity in the river basin;
(c) importing water from other river basins only if all standard water efficiency measures prove insufficient to meet demands, and if sustainably available water quantity of the donor river basin is not exceeded by the transfer.
2.2.5 ALL WATER USES AND ABSTRACTIONS NEED TO BE LICENSED
With over-exploitation of water resources virulent in all parts of the Community, an all-encompassing licensing system needs to be installed at EU level. No reasonable water management plan is possible without controlled use. Together with the obligation to not exceed regionally available water quantities, this would automatically lead to markets for water licenses amongst commercial users.
Greenpeace therefore demands that Member States should introduce a licensing system for all surface and ground water abstractions, waste and heat discharges into waters and all other direct and indirect uses of waters. Member States should make all water licensing data available to the public.
2.2.6 APPLICATION OF BEST ENVIRONMENTAL PRACTICES IN AGRICULTURE
To reconcile agriculture and water policies in the EU, all agricultural activities must apply Best Environmental Practices (BEP). Definition of BEP must be harmonised to inter alia protect all waters, surface, ground and coastal, from pollution with pesticides and from eutrophication by excess nutrients. Where irrigation is used, BEP must include the cultivation of less water-consuming crops, constant vegetation cover and water-efficiency measures such a drip irrigation.
2.2.7 STANDARDS FOR DOMESTIC WATER USE
Currently, water use in most European households is exceedingly inefficient. Yet, the EC could easily follow the example of Australia, where flow-reducing devices for taps, low-volume dual flush WCs and water-saving dishwashers and washing machines are technical standards throughout the country. None of these measures incurs excessive cost or reduces domestic comfort. Yet even where water is not scarce, these measures could minimise the extraction of water from nature and alleviate pressure on important aquatic ecosystems. Where water is scarce, rational water use can help stretch resources and save the expensive construction of reservoirs or interregional networks.
Greenpeace therefore demands that the planned Water Resources Framework Directive include requirements that independent of local water availability, Member States introduce legislation to make water-saving devices mandatory for all new buildings and renovations. Water-saving devices must ensure current health and hygiene standards and should not entail excessive costs to the consumers.
2.2.8 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR ALL WATER-RELEVANT ACTIVITIES
Greenpeace demands that the list of activities subject to Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) be extended:
All activities potentially damaging to groundwater, surface waters and their banks, riparian strips, sediments and accompanying ecosystems should be added to the list of activities subject to EU environmental impact assessment. Also included should be large-scale irrigation, long-distance drinking water pipelines, reservoirs, canals and other water infrastructure projects.
1. Les avancées fondamentales nécessaires
en matière théorique et pratique
2. Les méthodes et approches requises pour réaliser
ces avancées
3. Les proposition nécessaires à la mise
en place d'un processus ultérieur impliquant l'ensemble des parties
en présence.
A partir d'une évaluation réalisée par une étude interne de la Banque Mondiale sur les grands barrages, les participants au Groupe de Travail ont identifié des question fondamentales dans trois domaine- aspects sociaux, environnementaux, et économiques/techniques - qui doivent être envisagéer de façon à réaliser un consensus sur le futur des grands barrages. La discussion fut vive et a marqué une avancée majeure dans un des domaines aujourd'hui les plus controversés en matière d'environnement et de développement.