irrigation sector reform activity: rbm sub-activity institutional...

Irrigation Sector Reform Activity: RBM Sub-activity Institutional and Monitoring Framework Report

Deliverable 7 Millennium Challenge Account Moldova Ref. project 278168

Euroconsult Mott MacDonald in association with: ACDI/VOCA ACSA Agland Milieu NGO BIOS July 2011

Mott MacDonald, Amsterdamseweg 15, 6814 CM Arnhem, PO Box 441, 6800 AK, Arnhem, Netherlands T +31 (0)26 3577 111 F +31 (0)26 3577 577 W www.mottmac.com

River Basin Management Sub-Activity

Institutional and Monitoring Framework Report

July 2011

MCA Moldova

21, Iorga Nicolae St, office 5 Chisinau, MD-2012 Republic of Moldova

Green corner – Save a tree today!

Mott MacDonald is committed to integrating sustainability into our operational practices and culture. As a world leading consultancy business we are always seeking to improve our own performance and reduce the environmental impact of our business. Meanwhile, many of our staff are committed to living sustainably in their personal lives – as an employee-owned company Mott MacDonald shares their concerns. We feel an ethical obligation to reduce our emissions and resource use and have committed to reducing our per capita carbon footprint by a minimum of 5% year on year. We print our reports and client submissions using recycled, double-sided paper. Compared to printing single sided on A4 virgin paper, double sided printing on recycled paper saves the equivalent of two trees, over a ton of CO2 and a cubic metre of landfill space for every 100 reams. By choosing the greener path we have been able to achieve efficiencies benefiting both Mott MacDonald and our customers. We would like to share some of the principles of our own ‘Going Green’ initiative:

• When possible we scan rather than print and consider what really needs to be on paper • We use electronic faxing when practicable • We work on e-forms • We use recycled paper when possible and print on both sides • Reducing paper in the office creates a better working environment for our staff and our clients

We believe that you, as one of our esteemed clients, will share our concern to conserve precious resources for the benefit of our planet and its inhabitants.


T +31 (0)26 3577 111 F +31 (0)26 3577 577 W www.mottmac.com

Issue and revision record

Revision Date Originator Checker Approver Description

0.0.3 April 2011 Ron Manley

2.3 1 May 2011 Ludmila Gofman Ron Manley Caroline la Chapelle

Submission of first draft to MCA

3.00 18 May 2011 Ludmila Gofman Ron Manley Paul Buijs Maxim Gorgan Paul Holmes Alexander Mueller Marcella Nanni Luc Verelst

Gary Merkley Enhancements and modifications according to MCA comments and internal criteria

3.1 31 May 2011 Ludmila Gofman Gary Merkley Caroline la Chapelle

Final editing and report organization

4 1 June 2011 Caroline la Chapelle

Submission to client

5 22 July 2011 Ludmila Gofman Gary Merkley Caroline la Chapelle

Modifications according to MCA comments of 07 July 2011

This document is issued for the party which commissioned it and for specific purposes connected with the above-captioned project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or used for any other purpose.

We accept no responsibility for the consequences of this document being relied upon by any other party, or being used for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission which is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us by other parties

This document contains confidential information and proprietary intellectual property. It should not be shown to other parties without consent from us and from the party which commissioned it.


Euroconsult Mott MacDonald i

Content

Section Page

List of Abbreviations 7

Executive Summary 9

1. Introduction 21

1.1 Scope of Work for the RBM Sub-activity ______________________________________________ 21 1.2 Institutional and Monitoring Framework Review Process _________________________________ 21 1.3 Status of the Report ______________________________________________________________ 22 1.4 Irrigation in Moldova ______________________________________________________________ 22 1.5 River Basin Management in Moldova ________________________________________________ 22 1.6 Legal and Institutional Framework ___________________________________________________ 23 1.6.1 National ______________________________________________________________________ 23 1.6.2 International ___________________________________________________________________ 25 2. River Basin Management 28 2.1 Introduction _____________________________________________________________________ 28 2.2 River Basin Management – Best Practice _____________________________________________ 29 2.2.1 Integrated Water Resource Management ____________________________________________ 29 2.2.2 Elements of Good Practice in Integrated River Basin Management ________________________ 31 2.2.3 Water Framework Directive _______________________________________________________ 32 2.3 International Practice _____________________________________________________________ 37 2.3.1 Basin Management _____________________________________________________________ 37 2.3.2 Personnel and Budgets __________________________________________________________ 37 2.3.3 Approach of Specific Countries ____________________________________________________ 38 2.4 Water Charges __________________________________________________________________ 40 2.4.1 United Kingdom ________________________________________________________________ 41 2.4.2 Abstraction ___________________________________________________________________ 41 2.4.3 Discharges ___________________________________________________________________ 42 2.4.4 Solid Waste ___________________________________________________________________ 43 2.4.5 France _______________________________________________________________________ 43 2.4.6 Example of Agence d’Eau Seine-Normandie _________________________________________ 44 2.4.7 Diffuse Pollution _______________________________________________________________ 45 2.5 Comparison of Charging Schemes __________________________________________________ 45 2.5.1 Similarities ____________________________________________________________________ 45 2.5.2 Differences ___________________________________________________________________ 46 2.6 River Basin Management Process ___________________________________________________ 46 2.6.1 Sequence of Activities ___________________________________________________________ 46 2.6.2 Objectives ____________________________________________________________________ 46 2.6.3 Baseline ______________________________________________________________________ 47


Euroconsult Mott MacDonald ii

2.6.4 Initial Appraisal ________________________________________________________________ 47 2.6.5 Options ______________________________________________________________________ 47 2.6.6 Draft River Basin Management Plan ________________________________________________ 47 2.6.7 River Basin Management Plan ____________________________________________________ 47 2.6.8 Implementation ________________________________________________________________ 47 2.6.9 Monitoring and Evaluation ________________________________________________________ 47 2.6.10 Reappraisal __________________________________________________________________ 48

3. Institutional Framework for Water Resources Management 49

3.1 Introduction _____________________________________________________________________ 49 3.2 Key Water Management Institutions _________________________________________________ 49 3.2.1 Data Exchange ________________________________________________________________ 53 3.3 Findings _______________________________________________________________________ 53 3.3.1 Institutional Analysis ____________________________________________________________ 53 3.4 Water Law _____________________________________________________________________ 55 3.4.1 Existing Water Legislation ________________________________________________________ 55 3.5 Study Tour _____________________________________________________________________ 68 3.5.1 Requirements _________________________________________________________________ 68 3.5.2 Climate ______________________________________________________________________ 68 3.5.3 Agriculture ____________________________________________________________________ 70 3.5.4 Water Management _____________________________________________________________ 71 3.6 Recommendations _______________________________________________________________ 72 3.6.1 Possible Institutional Scenarios and Recommended Choice _____________________________ 72 3.6.2 Economic Mechanisms __________________________________________________________ 76 3.6.3 Study Tour ____________________________________________________________________ 78 4. Monitoring and Data Management 80 4.1 Introduction _____________________________________________________________________ 80 4.2 Water Abstraction and Discharge ___________________________________________________ 80 4.2.1 Water Abstractions and Discharge Permits __________________________________________ 82 4.2.2 Monitoring of Abstractions and Discharges __________________________________________ 83 4.3 Meteorology ____________________________________________________________________ 84 4.4 Hydrology ______________________________________________________________________ 86 4.4.1 Current Network - Surface Water Flows _____________________________________________ 86 4.5 Groundwater Monitoring ___________________________________________________________ 93 4.5.1 Borehole Inventory _____________________________________________________________ 93 4.5.2 Groundwater Levels ____________________________________________________________ 94 4.5.3 Groundwater Quality ____________________________________________________________ 95 4.5.4 Groundwater Monitoring Network __________________________________________________ 96 4.5.5 Current Reporting ______________________________________________________________ 99 4.6 Data Management and Processing __________________________________________________ 99 4.6.1 Software Solutions _____________________________________________________________ 99 4.6.2 Data Presentation and Analysis __________________________________________________ 100 4.7 Groundwater Resources _________________________________________________________ 100 4.7.1 Moldovan Geology ____________________________________________________________ 100


Euroconsult Mott MacDonald iii

4.7.2 WFD Groundwater Bodies ______________________________________________________ 108 4.8 Hydromorphology _______________________________________________________________ 110 4.9 Surface Water Quality ___________________________________________________________ 114 4.9.1 Physico-chemical Quality Elements _______________________________________________ 115 4.9.2 Hydrobiological Quality Elements _________________________________________________ 120 4.9.3 Microbiological Parameters ______________________________________________________ 121 4.9.4 Location of Stations ____________________________________________________________ 121 4.9.5 Network Appraisal _____________________________________________________________ 121 4.10 Recommendations for Monitoring _________________________________________________ 129 4.10.1 Abstraction and Discharges ____________________________________________________ 129 4.10.2 Meteorology_________________________________________________________________ 130 4.10.3 Hydrology __________________________________________________________________ 130 4.10.4 Hydrogeology _______________________________________________________________ 134 4.11 Groundwater Bodies ___________________________________________________________ 136 4.11.1 Hydromorphology ____________________________________________________________ 137 4.11.2 Surface Water Quality _________________________________________________________ 137 4.12 Data Processing and Management ________________________________________________ 139 4.12.1 Current Management Practices _________________________________________________ 139 4.12.2 Application for the Common Platform _____________________________________________ 139 4.12.3 Core Data in the Common Platform ______________________________________________ 141 4.12.4 Time Series Databases ________________________________________________________ 141 4.12.5 Spatial Databases ____________________________________________________________ 142 4.12.6 Implementation of the Common Platform __________________________________________ 142 4.12.7 Proposed Planning of Common Platform Implementation _____________________________ 145 Appendices Appendix 1. Professional Contacts........................................................................................................... 148 Appendix 2. Current Water Resources Management Institutions ............................................................ 151 Appendix 3. Economic Mechanisms......................................................................................................... 168 Appendix 4. Five-Year Report on Groundwater Monitoring ..................................................................... 195 Appendix 5. Hydrogeology Maps.............................................................................................................. 197 Appendix 6. Draft Regulation on Protection of Surface Water: Included Parameters .............................. 206 Appendix 7. Overview of Monitoring Locations: SHS ............................................................................... 208 Appendix 8. Surface Water Quality Monitoring Parameters ..................................................................... 211 Appendix 9. Overview of Monitoring Locations: NCPH/RCPHs ............................................................... 213 Appendix 10. Preliminary Identification of Water Bodies............................................................................ 218 Appendix 11. Overview of Candidate Surface Water Monitoring Locations .............................................. 224 Appendix 12. Risk Assessment of Alternative RBM Institutional Scenarios .............................................. 229


Euroconsult Mott MacDonald iv

Tables Page Table 1. Pollution Charge in Seine-Normandie, France ........................................................................... 44 Table 2. Water Resources Cost for Drinking Water, France .................................................................... 44 Table 3. Water Resources Cost for Industry, France ............................................................................... 45 Table 4. The water resources-related functions of main central public authorities .................................. 49 Table 5. Summary of main provisions of the 1993 Water Code ............................................................... 56 Table 6. Water resources management functions according to the draft Water Law .............................. 65 Table 7. Agricultural production, GNP and labor force in Moldova, France, Romania,

Bulgaria, Israel ............................................................................................................................ 71 Table 8. Water management and transboundary rivers in Moldova, France, Romania,

Bulgaria, Israel ............................................................................................................................ 71 Table 9. Water consumption in Moldova during 2001-2008 (million m3) ................................................. 80 Table 10. Summary of wastewater discharges in Moldova during 2001-2008 (million m3) ....................... 81 Table 11. Overview of municipal wastewater discharges per river district in Moldova in 2010 ................. 81 Table 12. Hydrological monitoring: location and type of measurements, monitoring

parameters and frequency, and data storage ............................................................................ 88 Table 13. Borehole Numbering System ...................................................................................................... 93 Table 14. Moldovan Stratigraphy and Lithology ....................................................................................... 101 Table 15. Aquifer yields in Moldova .......................................................................................................... 107 Table 16. WFD hydromorphological quality elements for rivers and lakes .............................................. 110 Table 17. Summary of analysis and monitoring of physico-chemical quality elements: SHS .................. 115 Table 18. Summary of analysis and monitoring of physico-chemical quality elements:

NCHP/RCPHs ........................................................................................................................... 115 Table 19. Overview of analytical equipment: SHS, NCPH and RCPHs ................................................... 116 Table 20. Overview of methods of analysis: SHS, NCPH and RCPHs .................................................... 117 Table 21. Examples of insufficient detection limits: SHS, NCPH and RCPHs ......................................... 118 Table 22. Summary of hydrobiological monitoring by SHS ...................................................................... 120 Table 23. Purposes/objects of surface water quality monitoring: SHS and NCPH/RCPHs ..................... 121 Table 24. Anticipated Trends for Purposes of Monitoring ........................................................................ 128 Table 25. Cost of upgrading hydrological station ..................................................................................... 133 Table 26. Current metering equipment costs ........................................................................................... 134 Table 27. Total cost of current metering equipment ................................................................................. 134 Table 28. Required functionality for RBM common platform .................................................................... 140 Table 29. Functionality of the Water Use permitting system .................................................................... 140 Table 30. Functionality of the Public Web Portal ...................................................................................... 141 Table 31. List of water quality and quantity databases ............................................................................ 141 Table 32. Spatial databases ..................................................................................................................... 142 Table 33. Common platform software solutions for databases ................................................................ 144 Table A1. Water resources fees ................................................................................................................ 173 Table A2. Estimate of water resources fees 2011-2013 based on old irrigation fees ............................... 174 Table A3. Estimated water resources fees with present irrigation and higher industrial fees

(2011-2013) ....................................................................................................................... 174 Table A4. Urban wastewater charges (MDL/ton BOD equivalent) ........................................................... 177 Table A5. Pollution charges for discharging livestock manure into sewers (MDL/m3) ............................. 177 Table A6. Proceeds and destination of environmental charges (2010) ................................................... 178 Table A7. The destinations of the Local Environmental Funds (2010) .................................................... 178 Table A8. Unit rates for piped water supply and bottled water (households) ........................................... 181 Table A9. WSS costs in Chisinau and highest and lowest Apa Canals (average tariffs) ......................... 182 Table A10. Investment scenarios for the water & sanitation sector (millions of Euros) ........................... 184


Euroconsult Mott MacDonald v

Figures Page Figure 1. Irrigated are and water use for irrigation in Moldova (1980-2009) ............................................ 22 Figure 2. Map of water bodies identified on the main course of the Seversky Donets River in

Russia and Ukraine ................................................................................................................... 40 Figure 3. River Basin Management Plan Development Process ............................................................. 46 Figure 4. Scheme of the National Geographic Information System ......................................................... 62 Figure 5. Precipitation comparison: Moldova, France, Romania, Bulgaria and Israel ............................. 69 Figure 6. Air temperature comparison for Moldova, France, Romania, Bulgaria, and Israel ................... 70 Figure 7. Recommended structure of the Water Resources Management Division of the

Apele Moldovei Agency ............................................................................................................ 74 Figure 8. Recommended structure of the ME (simplified) ........................................................................ 75 Figure 9. Locations of Meteorological Stations in Moldova, 2011............................................................ 85 Figure 10. Meteorological station at Leova, 2011 ...................................................................................... 86 Figure 11. Measuring instruments at Leova, 2011 ..................................................................................... 86 Figure 12. Location and type of hydrologic stations in Moldova ................................................................ 87 Figure 13. Level measurement pegs – River Prut at Leova, 2011 ............................................................. 90 Figure 14. Sample of observer’s record book ............................................................................................ 91 Figure 15. Data logger – Telenesti, 2011 ................................................................................................... 91 Figure 16. Bridge used for gauging on Ciulucul Mic River, Telenesti, 2011 .............................................. 92 Figure 17. Example of a rating curve (discharge depth) for a stream ........................................................ 92 Figure 18. Borehole Inventory System in Moldova, 2010 .......................................................................... 94 Figure 19. Groundwater Monitoring Boreholes in Moldova, 2010 .............................................................. 95 Figure 20. Administrative Districts and Groundwater Monitoring Network ................................................ 98 Figure 21. Geology of the northern Black Sea Area ................................................................................ 102 Figure 22. Rainfall and Recharge across Eastern Europe ....................................................................... 105 Figure 23. Preliminary Outline of Groundwater Bodies in Moldova ......................................................... 109 Figure 24. Groundwater Bodies and Monitoring ...................................................................................... 111 Figure 25. Dam embankment at Sarata Galbena village, 2011 ............................................................... 112 Figure 26. Dam flood spillway at Ivancea village, 2011 ........................................................................... 113 Figure 27. Straightened river: River Raut upstream Orhei, 2011 ............................................................. 113 Figure 28. Bank erosion and sediment deposition: River Raut upstream Orhei, 2011 ............................ 113 Figure 29. Sediment and vegetation in an artificially enlarged river – urban area: River Bic at

Chisinau, 2011 ........................................................................................................................ 114 Figure 30. Sediment and vegetation in an artificially enlarged river – rural area; River Raut at

Telenesti, 2011 ........................................................................................................................ 114 Figure 31. Preliminary identification of surface water bodies ................................................................... 127 Figure 32. Generic representation of a Distributed Database Environment ............................................ 143 Figure A1. Structure of the Ministry of Environment ................................................................................. 152 Figure A2. Structure of the Apele Moldovei Agency ................................................................................. 156 Figure A3. Structure of the SE “Basin Division for Water Management” ................................................ 158 Figure A4. Statistical form No.1 on water use, used by the SE Basin Division for Water

Management ...................................................................................................................... 159 Figure A5. Structure of the Agency for Geology and Mineral Resources ................................................ 161 Figure A6. Structure of the State Ecologica lnspectorate ........................................................................ 162 Figure A7. Structure of Fishery Service ................................................................................................... 163 Figure A8. Structure of the State Hydrometeorological Service ............................................................... 164 Figure A9. Economic analysis of water uses ............................................................................................ 171 Figure A10. Cost categories of water supply & sanitation .......................................................................... 172 Figure A11. Economic aspects of the Water Framework Directive ............................................................ 185 Figure A12. Conceptual model to assess the effectiveness of measures.................................................. 186 Figure A13. Determining MEP/GEP for HMWBs ........................................................................................ 187 Figure A14a.Apa Canal water tariffs........................................................................................................... 191


Euroconsult Mott MacDonald vi

Figure A14b.Apa Canal water tariffs........................................................................................................... 192 Figure A14c.Apa Canal water tariffs ........................................................................................................... 193 Figure A15. Geology of the Black Sea Area .............................................................................................. 197 Figure A16. North-South Geological Cross-Section through Moldova ...................................................... 197 Figure A17. Mean Annual Rainfall ............................................................................................................. 198 Figure A18. Groundwater mineralisation ................................................................................................... 199 Figure A19. Hydrogeological Map ............................................................................................................. 200 Figure A20. Monitoring by Groundwater Body : Mesozoic and Palaeozoic .............................................. 201 Figure A21. Monitoring by Groundwater Body: Baden-Sarmatian ............................................................ 202 Figure A22. Monitoring by Groundwater Body: The Pontian Aquifer ........................................................ 203 Figure A23. Monitoring by Groundwater Body : Alluvial Deposits ............................................................. 204


Euroconsult Mott MacDonald 7

List of Abbreviations

AAFA Access to Agricultural Finance Activity AAS Atomic Absorption Spectrometer AGRM Agency for Geology and Mineral Resources ADCP Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler AM Apele Moldovei Agency ASTER GDEM ASTER Global Digital Elevation Model BQE Biological quality element CEN Comité Européen de Normalization (European Committee for

Standardization) CIS Centralized Irrigation System CISRA Centralized Irrigation System Rehabilitation Activity DBM Digital Base Map DDT Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane DEM Digital Elevation Model DPRC Danube River Protection Convention DPSIR Causal framework for describing the interactions between

society and the environment (Driving forces, Pressures, States, Impacts, Responses)

EC European Commission EECCA Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia EN European Standard ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment ESMP Environmental and Social Management Plan EHgeoM S.E. Hydrogeological Expedition” EHgeoM” EN European standard EU European Union FAPAS Food Analysis performance Assessment Scheme FRC Field Review Committee GC/MS Gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer GEP Good ecological potential GHVSA Growing Higher Value Agriculture Support Activity GIS Geographic Information System GoM Government of Moldova GOST Russian standards GWMU Groundwater management units GWP Global Water Partnership HCH Hexachlorocyclohexane HMWB Heavily Modified Water Bodies HPLC High-performance liquid chromatograph ICPDR International Commission for the Protection of the Danube IMFR Institutional and Monitoring Framework Review IFB Invitation for Bidding IM Methodical instructions/recommendations developed in Russia IMEP International Measurement Evaluation Programme IMT Irrigation Management Transfer INSPIRE Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community



ISO International Standards Organisation ISRA Irrigation Sector Reform Activity ISRC Irrigation Sector Reform Consultant IWRM Integrated Water Resources Management LEAP Laboratory Environmental Analysis Proficiency Scheme LPA Local Public Authority MAFI Ministry of Agriculture and Food Industries MCA Millennium Challenge Account MCC Millennium Challenge Corporation ME Ministry of Environment MENR Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources MH Ministry of Health MJ Ministry of Justice MSU Monitoring and Supervision Unit MTA Management Transfer Agreement NCPH National Centre of Public Health NGIS National Geographic Information System NGO Non-Governmental Organisation NRBD Natural Resources and Biodiversity Division of ME OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development OGC Open Geospatial Consortium O&M Operation and Maintenance OSCE Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe PoM Program of measures RBDC River Basin District Committee RBM River Basin Management RCPH Regional Centre of Public Health STAS Romanian standards SE “BDWM” State Enterprise “Basin Division for Water Management” SEI State Ecological Inspectorate SHS State Hydrometeorological Service SPZ Source protection zone around groundwater source SRTM Shuttle Radar Topography Mission STC Scientific and Technical Council of AGRM TSI Technological Stations for Irrigation THVA Transition to High-value Agriculture UFW Unaccounted for Water UK United Kingdom UN-ECE United Nations Economic Commission for Europe UNEP United Nations Environment Programme UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization USSR Union of Soviet Socialist Republics WCS Web Coverage Service WFD European Union Water Framework Directive WFS Web Feature Service WG Working Group

WISE Water Information System for Europe WMO World Meteorological Organization WMS Web Map Service

WUA Water User Association WWF World Wide Fund For Nature ZAR Zone d’Action Renforcée ZRE Zones de Répartition des Eaux



Executive Summary

In the past, Moldova was a substantial exporter of fresh fruit, vegetables and wine, mainly to Russia and other countries of the Soviet Union. The aim of the ISRA (Irrigation Sector Reform Activity) through THVA (Transition to High-value Agriculture) is to reinstate and enhance the former level of activity. At the time that Moldova was exporting agriculture produce it was using more water for irrigation than at present, and there is, therefore, a requirement for the river basins to be managed in such a way that water can be provided, whilst at the same time allowing the country to meet its international obligations. One particular feature of Moldova is that its western border and part of its eastern border are defined by international river basins. Within the country, river basins are an order of magnitude smaller than those of the international basins. Moldova has taken a decision to align its legislation more closely with that of the European Union. Within this context it also has taken on increased obligations in terms of river basin management. These are reflected in the draft Water Law, which is currently being processed in the Moldovan Parliament. The current Water Code does not provide for RBM, while the draft Water law, once adopted, will create the legal framework for RBM implementation. Negotiations are ongoing between Moldova and the EU regarding an association agreement, which will involve recognition of some of the Aquis communitaire. Institutional Analysis The key water management institutions in Moldova include a range of public authorities such as: Ministry of Environment and its subordinated institutions (i.e. Apele Moldovei Agency, Agency for Geology and Mineral Resources, State Ecological Inspectorate, State Hydrometeorological Service, Fishery Service, Hydrogeological Expedition “EHGeoM”, Institute of Ecology and Geography), Ministry of Health and Agency of Land Relations and Cadaster. Other public institutions with water-related functions include the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Industry, the Ministry of Regional Development and Constructions, and the Ministry of Internal Affairs, among others. And, the local public administration is vested with several water resources management-related responsibilities such as: management of surface water and water supply and sanitation at local level. New divisions have been set up within the Ministry of Environment (ME) and Apele Moldovei Agency with the specific aim of enhancing the country’s management of river basins. However, these new divisions, as they are presently constituted, are not likely to be able to fulfill all the tasks required in the development of a comprehensive river basin management plan. It is likely that additional specialists will need to be recruited with qualifications in specific disciplines. Although direct comparison is difficult, it appears that European countries currently implementing the Water Framework Directive (WFD) have much higher staffing levels than Moldova at present. While current staff members of the ME and the Apele Moldovei Agency generally fulfill their remit in a competent way, recruiting additional personnel with the required education and experience will be a major challenge over the coming years. Thus, it is suggested that during the transitional phase the skill set of existing Moldovan institutions should be enhanced through ISRA and other sources (e.g. European Union, World Bank, and others, as appropriate), rather than creating new organizations whose functionality needs to be defined.



The institutional review indicates that there are a number of gaps in the present institutional framework, which refer, in particular, to the following:

• Identification and delimitation of water bodies • Establishing objectives for water resources (river basin) management • River basin planning • Flood risk management • Interaction with stakeholders

There are a few proposals for the delimitation of the two river basin districts – the Danube/Prut and the Nistru – but pending the adoption of the draft Water Law, an official decision on the subject may not be taken, since none of the existing institutions carries this function under the present legal framework. The same applies to the identification and delimitation of water bodies and to the setting of objectives. As far as river basin planning is concerned, the relevant functions are vested in the Apele Moldovei Agency by the agency’s regulations, and in particular in its Water Management Division and in its State Enterprise ‘Basin Division for Water Management’ (SE ‘BDWM’). However, the agency currently has limited capacity to prepare plans. Moreover, a state enterprise is not the most appropriate institution for these functions to be housed. The Water Code of 1993 does not address the subject, but according to the draft Water Law, the ME will be in charge of the development of river basin district management plans, in consultation with the river basin district committees. Nevertheless, there are no mechanisms for interaction with the stakeholders at present. Finally, the present legal framework deals with flood risk management only with respect to the provision of warnings and response measures. Prevention measures, including the assessment of flood risks, the identification of flood-risk areas, and flood management planning, are not envisioned in the near future.

Overlapping and Unnecessarily Complex Institutional Functions Policy functions are vested in several divisions of the ME, namely, the Policy Analysis, Monitoring and Evaluation Division, the Water Management Division, and the Natural Resources and Biodiversity Division, but the capacity to develop water resources policies within the ME is limited. The Apele Moldovei Agency also carries policy-related functions. Each of the above entities is aware that the others are also vested with policy-related functions. Therefore, in general, each refrains from taking action in this regard, expecting one or more of the others to do it. The end result is that, in many cases, no policy decisions are taken. Another finding of the institutional review relates to the fact that the process of issuing water use authorizations is in the hands of several institutions, including institutions of the ME and others, such as the Ministry of Health. While the State Ecological Inspectorate of the ME is responsible for actually issuing an authorization, the Apele Moldovei Agency, the Ministry of Health, and the AGMR are called upon to approve the relevant application from the viewpoint of water use limits, health requirements and groundwater-related aspects, respectively. Depending on the type and purpose of the intended use, other institutions may also be involved in the approval process. The responsibility for obtaining the approvals lies on the applicant, who first has to put together the documents needed in support of the application, and then to visit each institution before filing the application with the Inspectorate, together with the approvals and/or recommendations of the institutions. The water use authorization process is cumbersome in that it entails visits to several institutions in order to obtain their endorsement of an application. Moreover, in spite of the fact that the Inspectorate has local (district) branches, the issuance of authorizations is centralized at present, due to lack of qualified staff in the districts and high personnel turnover. Thus, an applicant for an authorization might be required to travel to Chisinau on more than one occasion – to file the application and to collect the authorization. This



system is not user-friendly and may constrain investments in the water sector. In fact, a person is not likely to be encouraged to use water in the presence of lengthy and complex procedures, and projects important for the economy of Moldova may go underdeveloped. Also, a person may simply decide to continue to use water without an authorization. Water Resources Development and Management Following perhaps a Soviet tradition, the importance of separating water resources development from resource management is not fully felt in Moldova, so that no clear-cut distinction tends to be drawn between institutions playing a policy-making and policy implementation role on the one hand, and institutions dealing with the construction and O&M of hydraulic infrastructure and the provision of water services on the other. The Apele Moldovei Agency is vested with both these roles, while certain functions of the ME require technical skills for the provision of water services. If both resource management and development functions are in the hands of the same institution, there is no way to assess performance because the institution is at the same time a “poacher and a gamekeeper,” (i.e. the controlled and the controller, responsible for supervising its own activities). Thus, there is little or no institutional transparency and, in principle, it is difficult to ascertain whether water resources are developed and used in a sustainable manner, and whether the water services rendered to the end users are satisfactory. Consequently, it is indispensable that a distinction be drawn - and maintained - between management and development functions. Institutional Data Exchange The review revealed that there are no formal agreements for water-related data exchange among the Moldovan institutions for water management and development. Also, the Irrigation Sector Reform Consultant (ISRC) experienced difficulties in conducting the institutional and monitoring framework review due to limited access to information from several public institutions. Fragmented information was received from the Center of Public Health under the Ministry of Health and Agency for Geology and Mineral Resources under the Ministry of Environment due to unexpected administrative and bureaucratic procedures. For example, a major lack of transparency was been manifested at the SE Hydrogeological Expedition “EHgeoM”, which refused several times to cooperate with the ISRC due to its “state enterprise” legal status. After several interventions made by the Ministry of Environment, the institution provided only very fragmented and incomplete information. However, data exchange for the purpose of State Water Cadaster development is a good example of data exchange among institutions. Three institutions are jointly responsible for elaboration and editing of the State Water Cadaster on an annual basis: the Apele Moldovei Agency (Water Basin Management Department), State Hydro-meteorological Service, and State Agency for Geology and Mineral Resources. Recommendations The ISRC considered the following three institutional scenarios for River Basin Management through the auspices of ISRA:

1. Business as usual; that is, the situation remains as it is; 2. Creation of a new agency to be the ‘competent authority’ for water resources management and

river basin management and planning; or, 3. The Apele Moldovei Agency could be vested with water resources management and be assigned

the role of the ‘competent authority’ for RBM. The implication of leaving things as they now stand is that no clear-cut responsibilities for IWRM and river basin planning will be assigned. Duplications of functions and gaps will continue to exist and it will be



difficult to meet the objectives to be attained through the implementation of plans and programs of measures. Furthermore, leaving things as they are would not be conducive to moving toward compliance with the EU WFD. Thus, the ‘business as usual’ option is very unattractive. In addition to the high costs involved, there would be many disadvantages if a new water resources agency were to be established. Since such an agency would be new, there would have to be a clear-cut commitment by the Government to finance its staff and equipment. Moreover, its staff would have to be capable to deal with water resources databases, develop and update river basin management plans, interact with the stakeholders, and train officials at decentralized levels of administration to assist in the process. All this would require considerable time and effort, and funding, so that there would be no guarantee that the agency would be able to start river basin management activities in the short term. As a consequence, the second option is also relatively unattractive. In terms of the third option, the institutional review led to the conclusion that, of all the existing institutions, the Apele Moldovei Agency is the one which would best fulfill IWRM requirements and some of the requirements set by the EU WFD. The Water Management Division of the Apele Moldovei Agency consists of a Water Resources Management Section and a Land Improvement (Hydroamelioration) Section. While the Water Resources Management Section deals with water resources management aspects, the Land Improvement Section handles the operation and maintenance of irrigation infrastructure. And, the agency already has 12 technological stations for irrigation (TSI), which operate and maintain the state-owned irrigation systems, mostly along the Prut and Nistru rivers. Hence, the Apele Moldovei Agency is at the same time a resource manager and a resource developer/infrastructure operator. The O&M of infrastructure will be handed over to water users’ associations (WUAs) in some cases in the near future (and possible more in the long term), but the agency would retain the control of major reservoirs and canals, if things are left as they stand at present. Ideally, the infrastructure-related functions of the Apele Moldovei Agency which are turned over to WUAs should be transferred to other institutions on the one hand, such as the Ministry of Regional Development and Constructions or the Ministry of Agriculture, and to the private sector on the other. However, since this kind of change is not likely to take place overnight, the transfer should be planned by ME and the Apele Moldovei Agency over a certain period of time, according to schedules agreed upon among those concerned with the irrigation systems. A subordinated institution of the Apele Moldovei Agency, the recently established SE ‘BDWM’ deals with water uses in that it endorses the water use limits and the volumes of wastewater discharge to be included in the authorizations for special water use to be issued by the State Ecological Inspectorate, and provides water use-related services. In addition, it is expected to develop river basin management plans. SE ‘BDWM’ is considering the possibility to establish a section dealing with the exploitation of reservoirs within this state enterprise. This would turn the enterprise into a controller and a controlled at the same time. Thought is also being given by the SE ‘BDWM’ to the establishment of an additional section for river basin planning and information management. Water resources management functions should not be vested in a state enterprise, since under the laws of Moldova enterprises are meant for entrepreneurial activities. Therefore, if the Apele Moldovei Agency is to become the ‘competent authority’ for water resources management, these functions should be vested in a division designated for this specific purpose – the Water Resources Management Division. In addition, it would be desirable that this Division were vested with the bulk of water management functions, including the issuance and administration of authorizations for water use and wastewater discharge, and the management of data and information. The inclusion of a water rights administration section in the structure of the Apele Moldovei Agency would be the result of a gradual process of handover from the State Ecological Inspectorate, accompanied by



training in the implementation of authorization procedures and in the use and administration of the register of authorizations. But it might be problematic to transfer the bulk of water management functions to the Apele Moldovei Agency in the short term, so an alternative solution could be the following:

• The Water Resources Management Division of the Apele Moldovei Agency is named as the designated ‘competent authority’

• The key role for information management (i.e. GIS and modeling) is vested with the State Hydrometeorological Service

• The key role for water rights administration continues is to be vested in the State Ecological Inspectorate

This is the solution recommended to the Ministry of Environment by the ISRC. While the advantage presented by this solution would be that little change-related stress would be felt, there would be a few disadvantages:

• The State Ecological Inspectorate and the State Hydrometeorological Service are different institutions, which do not necessarily communicate with the Apele Moldovei Agency in a timely and adequate manner

• The State Ecological Inspectorate handles all authorizations (i.e. those relating to water, the soil, the atmosphere, and others), and does not necessarily devote sufficient attention to water resources

• As a consequence of the above, difficulties might arise in the implementation of IWRM, and in particular, in the development of river basin management plans and programs of measures

Should the alternative solution be opted for, the Water Resources Management Division should be enabled to access the data and information contained in the database administered by the State Hydrometeorological Service and those contained in the register of authorizations administered by the State Ecological Inspectorate. Such data and information are an indispensable starting point for river basin management planning. The ISRC prepared a risk assessment of the alternative institutional scenarios, and it supports the recommendations given herein. The Ministry of Environment Given that the water policy-related functions of the Ministry of Environment are scattered among various divisions, it is recommended that they be streamlined, and that consideration be given to vest these functions in one of the existing divisions; that is, it is suggested that the Water Management Division be renamed the “Water Resources Division.” This division should handle water resources policy-related matters only, and not issues relating to water supply and sewage infrastructure development. The latter issues (infrastructure development) should be dealt with by the Ministry of Regional Development and Constructions, with ME being in charge of establishing the policy and legal requirements of only wastewater management. Considering that such institutional changes do not occur overnight, the ISRC recommends that the transfer of the water supply and sewage policy functions to the Ministry of Regional Development and Construction be implemented by the Government of Moldova in the medium- to long-term. Furthermore, the ME is presently responsible for supervising the implementation of investment and technical assistance projects in the water supply and sewage sector, which are financially supported by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the World Bank, and the European Commission. In accordance with the public administration reform in Moldova, the functions of all Ministries should be focused on policy and legislation development. Thus, the ME should cover the following policy areas: water quality requirements, status monitoring, river basin management, flood protection, wastewater management requirements, economic mechanisms of water resources management, information management, and others. But again, the ISRC considers that it is not appropriate for the ME to deal with water supply and sewage infrastructure development policy functions.



Water Use Authorization Process The process to obtain a water use authorization is currently too complex and onerous for an applicant. A simplified system should be established following the ‘single window’ approach, which enables the applicant for a water use authorization to file the application with a single institution, at an appropriate location. This institution obtains the needed endorsements from the other concerned institutions, and it issues the authorization – or the document stating the reasons why an authorization may not be issued – within a specified maximum period of time. Herein it is recommended that clear guidelines on how to file the application (i.e. on the information to be provided and the documents to by submitted together with the application), should be made available to the applicant by the State Ecological Inspectorate (SEI). Furthermore, the following action should be taken by the ME and other involved institutions in the near future:

• First of all, the above recommendations should be discussed among the stakeholders – in particular the ME and the Apele Moldovei Agency, with the involvement of the SEI, State Hydrometeorological Service, and the Agency for Geology and Mineral Resources – in order to arrive at a decision as to the most suitable choice of future RBM institutional framework, and in particular, the structure of the ME and Water Resources Management Division of the Apele Moldovei Agency. A representative of the Ministry of Finance should also be involved in the discussions.

• Based on the agreed solution for the RBM institutional framework, it shall be decided which institutions shall be in charge of common platform, GIS system and modeling.

Starting in 2012 at the latest, the staff with the qualifications required to fill positions within the Water Resources Management Division should be identified by ME and Apele Moldovei, and modalities for the transfer of this staff to the Division should be devised. A transfer plan should be drawn up by ME and Apele Moldovei, if needed. In parallel with this, regulations should be prepared to reflect the changes agreed upon, both for the Apele Moldovei Agency and the ME. These regulations would replace the existing regulations. Finally, modalities should be explored by ME, Apele Moldovei, and the GoM for the transfer of water supply and sewerage functions on the one hand, and irrigation and infrastructure-related function on the other, from the Apele Moldovei Agency to other institutions (i.e. the Ministry of Regional Development and Constructions in the case of water supply and sewage, and the Ministry of Regional Development and Constructions, and/or the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Industry in the case of irrigation and drainage). A plan should be prepared by the ME in order to show steps to be taken in the short, medium, and long terms. In the case of irrigation and drainage-related functions, the ISRC recommends that the steps to be taken should cover a period of ten years. In the immediate, the relevant functions should be transferred to the present Land Improvement (Hydroamelioration) Section of the Water Management Division of the Apele Moldovei Agency; the Section should be separated from the Division, so as to have two separated structural units, namely:

• A Water (Resources) Management Division; and, • A Land Improvement (Hydroamelioration) Section.

In this manner, an initial step would be made towards creating a clear-cut separation between water resources management and water resources development/service provision. There are two institutional aspects not specifically linked to water which have a bearing on the ability of the country to perform effective river basin management. The first is the fact that Transnistria does not



cooperate with Moldova in the field of river basin management; thus, for water management purposes it is generally assumed (perhaps erroneously) that their water use is the same as it was in the year 2000. For this reason, the ISRC recommends that the Prut river basin district be chosen by MCA and the ME for inclusion in the RBM sub-activity. The second aspect relates to the National Institute of Standardization and Metrology. New equipment (not used before in Moldova) purchased for water related measurements must be (according to Moldovan law) certified by this body before it can be used. In some cases of equipment purchased by international donors it has not been possible for the equipment to be certified, and in other cases it has involved extra costs and delays. The ISRC proposes that as part of Moldova’s efforts to align itself with European Legislation that the GoM also recognize European water quality standards. Economic Mechanisms RBM measures can be very expensive. Therefore, it is important to find the financial resources to support RBM implementation and the most cost-effective measures for the Program of Measures (PoM). This can only be done if both the costs (investment and O&M) and the effects (on all water quality elements and for the concerned water body and all downstream water bodies) are known. In particular, the determination of the effects of measures is rather complex. As the EU countries have (to varying degrees) gone through this process already, experience has been gained and special tools have been developed to estimate the effectiveness of potential measures. At present there is no capacity in Moldova to establish the cost effectiveness of measures and to combine them into cost-effective PoMs. Thus, formal training and on-the-job training is recommended for the personnel of the ME and its subordinated institutions, some of which could occur outside of Moldova. RBM Study Tour A River Basin Management study tour is planned for the autumn of 2011. The participants in the study tour should cover the institutions in Moldova concerned with river basin management such as: the Ministry of Environment (1 representative), the Apele Moldovei Agency (2 representatives), the Agency for Geology and Mineral Resources (1 representative), the State Hydrometeorological Service (2 representatives), and the State Ecological Inspectorate (1 person). The participation of representatives of the Ministry of Health and Fishery Service could be considered as well. The study tour participation should include at least 20% women. Before departure all participants would be asked to prepare a list of questions to be asked during the study tour. During the study tour the participants would be expected to maintain a daily ‘diary’ with notes of which organization they has seen and relevant points discussed. At the end of the study tour a report will be produced describing the main topics covered and their potential applicability to Moldova. The ISRC has considered France, Bulgaria, Israel, and Romania as potential host countries for the RBM study tour to be organized under ISRA. Israel was included as a ‘wild-card’ entry because although there is no doubt that in difficult climatic conditions it has achieved a transfer to high-value agriculture, in other ways there are few parallels with Moldova’s situation. Romania has a similar institutional background to Moldova and has made great strides toward effective river basin management. However, the fact that it was considered to be in default due a delay in plan submission is a negative factor. Bulgaria also has similar background to Moldova and has made important steps toward effective river basin management within the context of the WFD. But France is the most advanced of the countries considered in terms of river basin management. Its management structure with the Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development, Transport and Housing having responsibility for



monitoring of water use has similarities with the institutional structure proposed for Moldova. If arrangements can be made for appropriate visits, this would be a suitable choice. Water Monitoring and Data Management Abstractions and Discharges The authorization for the special use of water specifies how much water can be abstracted and at what maximum rate. It also includes information on metering methods for the delivery or abstraction of water to/by the water user. The water user is required to record water use at an annual, daily or per-second time step, depending on the size and variability of the abstraction. The water users provide reports on the actual water used to the Basin Division of Water Management under the Apele Moldovei Agency. Similar considerations apply to discharges. In many cases the discharge will be the same as the abstraction but where it is not, for example a reservoir may be filled in winter and water used all the year round, the discharge should also be measured. In the case of discharge not only the quantity but the quality should be specified and monitored. The charge rate should take account of not only the quantity but also the quality. A polluting discharge should attract a higher charge than a well-treated discharge. To ensure that the stipulated conditions are respected it should be possible to visit the premises of the discharger without warning to take samples of the discharge for analysis. As with abstractions, a progressive series of payments should apply, leading to criminal charges in case of serious breaches of the conditions. Monitoring of abstractions and discharges is important for three main reasons:

1. Assessment of water resources availability 2. Management of resources 3. Collecting fees for water use

The flow of rivers and the level of aquifers vary within a year, and also from year to year. When past records are analyzed to assess resource availability it is necessary to know not only the flows and water levels that have been observed in rivers and aquifers, but also how much was abstracted from them and how much water was discharged into them. The total available water resources are equal to the observed flow plus abstractions minus discharges. In developing a river basin plan the resources would be analyzed to determine how much could be abstracted and what restrictions might need to be placed on abstractions. It is, for example, common for some abstractions such as irrigation to be prohibited if the river flow falls below a critical value; the critical value being determined taking account of dilution of sewage and ecological factors. The second reason for monitoring abstractions and discharges is to ensure that the assumptions behind the issue of permits to abstract are respected. If, for example, a permit only allows abstraction when flow is above a minimum level then it is important that abstraction is monitored. Similar considerations apply to the quality of discharges. If abstractions are set to allow dilution of a certain level of pollution then changes in quality of discharges could mean that the assumed dilution rate was no longer valid. The third reason for monitoring is to collect fees for water use. One of the basic premises of the WFD is cost recovery. For efficient water resources use charges have to be applied for industry, households and agriculture. Meteorology The overall impression of the ISRC team is that the meteorological service is adequately provided with equipment and it measures climate at a sufficient number of sites. There would appear to be no need for additional support from ISRA.



Hydrology The conclusion of the ISRC is that the hydrological monitoring network satisfies the major criteria of the WMO Guide of Hydrological Practices and there is no pressing need to increase the number of stations. In the future, however, to satisfy the requirements of the Water Framework Directive it will be necessary to identify reference water bodies. These are water bodies, normally in the headwaters of river, in which ‘natural’ and, therefore, good ecological conditions prevail. When such reference water bodies have been identified, then additional flow measurement stations will be required. The present method of measuring water level, by an observer every morning and evening is valid on large rivers, where flows change slowly, but it means that rapid changes in flow can be missed on small rivers. This can to some extend be remedied by the observer making additional measurements during a flood. The data recorded by the observer is copied down and entered into a computer-based system which introduces the possibility of errors. And, in case of an emergency it is difficult to transmit data accurately and swiftly to those who have to respond to the emergency. Thus, it is recommended that all stations be fitted with a pressure transducer type of water level measurement by the SHS. This type of equipment (when coupled with a data logger) enables water levels to be recorded at a short time step (e.g. every 15 minutes) and, therefore, to record small rapid variations in flow rate. Data can also be transmitted directly to real-time monitoring. As the data are stored digitally there is no problem in transcribing them for computerized data processing. That said, the use of this type of equipment also has some negative aspects relative to the present situation. First, such devices are more expensive and whilst the sensors themselves are of little use other than for their intended purpose, the cable, worth only a fraction of the cost of the whole installation, is liable to be stolen. Additionally, there is a requirement for electrical power. Usually this is provided by solar panels and/or a wind-turbine. By their nature these have to be exposed and, therefore, present a tempting target to vandals. It should also be noted that one of the conditions is that Moldova should provide a secure location for the hydrometric monitoring equipment. In addition to a basic set of equipment, a full set of spare parts should be provided as part of the equipment to be procured by MCA, and the staff of the State Hydrometeorological Service should be trained by representatives of the vendors in the operation and maintenance of the equipment. The ISRC made an estimation of costs for upgrading all hydrological stations in Moldova. In making this estimate the ISRC took account of the fact that five hydrological stations have already been upgraded. The ISRC is also aware of the fact that other donors and sources of funding are potentially available to purchase equipment of a similar standard to that are being recommended. Until this issue is definitively resolved, the ISRC will consider the cost of a full upgrade. At present, current meters are used to estimate flow in the rivers. It is recommended that this should be continued by the SHS. However, the types of meters used should be upgraded. Currently, each observer has a set of metering equipment, and while this is a good solution it may become too expensive over time. It is more normal for equipment to be used by a team who travel from site to site on a regular basis. For larger rivers gauging a river normally requires a cableway to be suspended across the river from which the current meter can suspended and lowered into the river. Not all the flow measuring sites on the Nistru and Prut rivers have such a cableway. However, an alternative way of measuring flow in larger rivers is to use an Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP). This device floats on the river, and as it is towed across it measures the velocity and bed profile, and at the end of the traverse it calculates the flow in the river. It is recommended that at least one such device be purchased by MCA for each of the two major rivers. Using an ADCP would obviate the need for cableways.



Hydrogeology Following the institutional review, it is clear that the Moldovan institutions do not have up-to-date information on how many wells and boreholes exist in the territory, whether they are operational or disused, and consequently what the actual level of groundwater consumption is. The last complete inventory was carried out over 30 years ago. Despite attempts to update the well inventory, lack of funds has meant that this activity has fallen by the wayside, and records are significantly out-of-date. The task of updating the well inventory is a large task, which will not be completed quickly. The best approach is probably to align this with the introduction of pilot areas, and attempt to bring all records up-to-date within selected areas, and then expand later to the whole country. A review of the existing groundwater monitoring network has identified a number of gaps which need to be addressed. There are a number of blank areas on the map with no evident monitoring sites, and in other areas, there are dense clusters of boreholes. It is likely that a degree of rationalization could be achieved by the AGMR in the dense clusters, reducing the numbers of boreholes in some areas, while extending the network into areas where there is currently no monitoring. This will require the search for possible boreholes in the blank areas on the map. At the moment, groundwater monitoring is not required as a condition of granting abstraction licenses or drilling consents, apart from the need to carry out carefully planned aquifer tests at the time of construction. It would be helpful to include regulatory powers at the time of granting an abstraction license to oblige the owner to keep the appropriate records, and make them available to the state agency,(in principle, that would be AGRM). This could be a condition attached to the abstraction license. There should be a legal precedent granting unimpeded access to observation boreholes on land in private ownership. As with the office setup in AGMR and EHgeoM, offices, field stations and the borehole monitoring network all need to be equipped with computers, software (including numerical modeling packages such as MODFLOW, SURFER), and modern instrumentation (including transducers for boreholes and loggers, such as DIVERS), together with the appropriate level of training for staff. The most recent EHgeoM report shows that on average about 25 samples have been collected per year, which is extremely low for managing public water supply sources. For example, in Western Europe, one public water supply source would normally have at least monthly sampling of raw water, and the sampling frequency would be increased if known pollution problems occurred in the aquifer. The current system in Moldova is, therefore, grossly inadequate in this respect, and such sampling does not provide support effective management. Likewise, the laboratory should be equipped by the GoM and or donors with appropriate modern equipment, and the EHgeoM should seek ISO recognition, to ensure that analytical results conform to European Union standards. The ISRC concluded that there is considerable potential for the use of groundwater to satisfy part of the future requirements of irrigation, and that the support of this sector of the economy does not only have to come from surface water resources. This should provide a significant cost-saving in farming areas which are relatively far from the two main rivers. A different approach is required to the assessment of groundwater resources, than that currently used. Although addition of borehole yields across the country and extrapolation for increased rates of drawdown can provide a reasonable estimate of deployable output, this should be integrated with a water balance approach across the aquifer. Given the increased power of numerical models with increased power of computing technology, it is now routine in Western Europe to develop numerical models of strategically important aquifers. It is



recommended to the ME and AGMR that such a modeling approach should be attempted in Moldova, particularly for the Baden-Sarmatian aquifer group, which accounts for 81.5% of the total reserve. Most of the remaining (13.8%) groundwater reserve comes from the alluvial deposits and Cretaceous-Silurian aquifer. Hydromorphology At present there is no regular monitoring of hydromorphology. It is recommended that this should start on some representative river reaches, and it should be done by Institute of Ecology and Geography. There would be two aspects to this: river morphology and ecology. Initially a baseline survey would be required. This would identify representative heavily modified water bodies, for example reaches where the river had been straightened or where an upstream dam was preventing any flow at certain times of year. The baseline survey would include a topographical survey of the rivers for a distance of several hundred meters and cross-sections at intervals of 50 m. For large rivers a longer distance of survey and greater separation of the cross-sections would be needed; for smaller rivers the survey distance could be less. At the same time an ecological analysis covering phytoplankton, macrophytes, phytobenthos and benthic invertebrate fauna would be carried out. As the rivers recovered to a state closer to their natural state regular updates would be required every few months of both river shape and ecology. In part this would be to identify long-term changes but would also identify seasonal or climatic factors affecting ecology. One factor in the choice of sites would be availability of reference water bodies, river reaches with relatively undisturbed natural conditions, near to the site which could be used to identify how the recovery of rivers had brought them closer to their natural condition. This could be done by the Institute of Ecology and Geography. Surface Water Quality Monitoring A more detailed inventory and assessment of the ramifications of the draft Water Law with respect to surface water monitoring is recommended, including a preliminary interpretation of specific sections. It is important that the competent authorities and stakeholders are actively involved in establishing this inventory and assessment. The laboratories of SHS, NCPH and RCPHs are recommended to conduct analyses following EN/ISO standards. Besides requiring budgets for purchasing the standards, there might be implications in terms of equipment, consumables and training of staff. The laboratories are encouraged to map these and other implications and to develop a strategy plus implementation plan for all-round introduction of EN/ISO standards. The competent monitoring authorities under the Ministries of Environment and Health are recommended to develop a strategy with respect to monitoring and analysis of pollutants like the WFD Priority substances and certain other pollutants. This should take into account the current constraints in terms of laboratory equipment, expertise of staff, and budgets. The laboratories of SHS, NCPH and RCPHs are recommended to review where possibly to strengthen the internal and external quality management procedures. It is furthermore strongly advised that SHS, NCPH, and RCPH devise schemes for inter-laboratory comparison and proficiency tests in which both the lab of SHS, as well as the labs of NCPH/RCPHs participate. SHS is recommended to further develop and update the schedule for introduction and implementation of monitoring and assessment of hydrobiological quality elements. This should include the definition of



reference conditions and ecological quality ratios. It is recommended that the competent authorities identify and agree the organization that will become responsible for fish monitoring. The list with preliminary identified water bodies will have to be reviewed by the competent stakeholders, primarily from the perspective of further designing the surface water quality monitoring network. Following agreement on the preliminary identified water bodies, the representative monitoring locations for assessing the status of these water bodies will have to be determined in close consultation of the competent authorities and stakeholders. The competent authorities are recommended to develop an overall strategy for monitoring of small(er) streams, lakes, ponds and reservoirs. Finally, it is recommended that the ISRC dedicate further attention to the issue of selection of monitoring parameters during Phase II of ISRA. There is yet insufficient a basis already to be able to determine which sets physico-chemical and hydrobiological parameters are to be included in the future monitoring of water bodies. More (external) inputs are required, like: interpretation of the monitoring implications of the new Law on water (e.g. classification criteria), strategies to cope with the current constraints in laboratory analyses, pressure/impact analyses, and others. Data Processing and Management Based on the conducted review, the ISRC concluded that none of the participating institutions is using a networked relational database for storing data. Relational databases will need to be designed and developed for each institution providing data for a common platform. The data (or extracts) will be made available to partner agencies with the right user authentication. Such a system can only be achieved using a distributed database management system. For the common platform, it is proposed that each institute store the data of its various sections in a server-based relational database system. Partners in the common platform have access to the data through a distributed database system while consolidator applications will then directly use the data stored in the several databases through web-services. It is recommended that the applications can directly extract data through these services. Any relational server database can be part of the distributed database, but since there is currently no relational database in the participating organizations, it will be recommended to use a single database server software. The potential of cloud computing where the data is stored on database servers on Internet will be investigated as well by the ISRC team. From an IT architecture perspective, the common platform will have two main components: database and software linked through web services. There are basically two solutions for the software used in the common platform: commercial and open source. While excellent alternatives exist for database software and web services, solutions for GIS have not reached the same quality. The proposed distributed database system solves a number of common problems usually related with data sharing between various Moldovan organizations. The institutional review will be followed by a functional system design and an analytical design before the development and implementation of the actual system. It is expected that the user needs assessment and technical design for the “common platform” will take up to six months. The complexity of the system will be significant: the common platform will link six institutions which will be directly involved while in total around ten sections within these institutions will provide data or use data from the system for their applications. Due to this complexity, the functional design should make use of modern tools for IT system design.



1. Introduction

1.1 Scope of Work for the RBM Sub-activity The Scope of Work for this project component is described as follows: “In order to better understand the current situation regarding the institutional and monitoring framework the RBM team will prepare a report on the international and local best practices for river basin management with recommendations. This report should contain information on:

• Moldovan institutions to be involved and an assessment of their readiness and potential to apply IWRM in Moldova

• Develop a gap analysis between what is best practice IWRM and compare with the current institutional and water management approaches in Moldova. This analysis should identify approaches to bridge those gaps both institutionally and in terms of the overall management of water resources over time

• Status of current water quantity and quality monitoring network in Moldova with a recommendation plan for the location and the number of monitoring sites needed

• Existing monitoring sampling protocols with recommendations on improvement on sampling and methods to ensure compatibility of information across the various water monitoring needs and to ensure comparability of water data when consolidated on a geo-spatial platform (i.e. for use on a GIS)”

In addition, ISRC shall also assess the major risks and constraints to maintain the monitoring network and keep it operational after Compact Program ends. The report on the institutional and monitoring framework is listed in the Scope of Work as Key Deliverable No. 7.

1.2 Institutional and Monitoring Framework Review Process The RBM Institutional and Monitoring Framework Review (IMFR) has been conducted by a team of ISRC international and local experts in hydrology, surface water quality, hydrogeology, data management, and economic mechanisms for water resources management. The IMFR methodology developed by the ISRC consisted of desk studies of existing policy and legal documents, face-to-face interviews with the key staff of public institutions (Appendix 1), and questionnaires on specific topics such as: abstraction and discharge permits, data management, laboratory analysis capacity, groundwater monitoring, hydrobiology monitoring, hydromorphology monitoring, monitoring locations, sampling, and quality management. The questionnaires were designed by taking into consideration the best international practices available. The background information was collected by local experts. The international experts provided the best RBM practices, analyzed the current situation, performed a gap analysis between the current situation in Moldova and existing best practices, and developed recommendations to fill in the gaps.



1.3 Status of the Report This report is based on the best information available to the ISRC team at the time of this writing (May 2011). The ISRA team is aware that some of the information may out-of-date or incomplete. In the second and third phases of ISRA the ISRC team will be working toward the development of RBM common platform and management plans in two small sub-basins and one river basin district within Moldova. In these phases, further efforts will be made to ensure that the data used in the development of the plans are accurate, up-to-date, and comprehensive.

1.4 Irrigation in Moldova Whilst in the past the irrigation sector of Moldova was well developed and it supplied a significant proportion of the fresh fruit and vegetables for the Soviet Union, in recent years it has been in decline. This is demonstrated by the graph in Figure 1 which shows that the use of water for irrigation reached a peak around 1990 and has since fallen markedly. The area of land irrigated has also fallen, but proportionately not as much as the decline in water use. To recover irrigation to similar levels to those in the past, even allowing for more efficient irrigation methods, would still require access to large volumes of water1.

Figure 1. Irrigated area and water use for irrigation in Moldova (1980-2009).

1.5 River Basin Management in Moldova

1 Anuarul Statistic al Republicii Moldova, 2002 to 2009.



River Basin Management can be defined as a "process of coordinating conservation, management and development of water, land and related resources across sectors within a given river basin, in order to maximize the economic and social benefits derived from water resources in an equitable manner, while preserving and, where necessary, restoring freshwater ecosystems" (Global Water Partnership, 2000). Its main objective is to establish a balance between the existing natural functions of a river system and the developed aspects of the system. The management actions should fulfill the expectations of society for industrial use, recreation, nature management, and agricultural purposes. Within the context of this project an important aspect of river basin management is to augment water availability for irrigation, at the same time preserving its current level of industrial activity and enhancing its natural aquatic environment in line with at least some of the principles of the EU Water Framework Directive. It also must account for the specific situation of Moldova. The country is toward the downstream end of two river basins: the Nistru and the Prut. The catchment area of the Nistru is 72,100 km2 and the Prut has an area of 27,540 km2.2 For comparison purposes, the total area of Moldova is 33,843 km2. The average flow of the Prut at Şirăuţi is 3.67 km3/year, and of the Nistru at Hruşca is 9.87 km3/year3. Within the country there are several smaller river basins draining into these two major rivers.

1.6 Legal and Institutional Framework

1.6.1 National

1.6.1.1 Existing Water Law The Moldovan Water Code of 1993 does not provide for water resources management based on a river basin approach.

1.6.1.2 Draft Water Law The new draft Water Law (to be adopted in 2011) will create the legal framework for the river basin management implementation in Moldova harmonized with EU water Acquis. It will have a series of implications on the future institutional framework and on water resources management practices.

1.6.1.3 Negotiations on Association Agreement with the EU The negotiations of an EU-Moldova Association Agreement started in January 2010. Under the Chapter on Environment specific key articles of more than 20 EU legal acts have been identified, including Directive 2000/60/EC establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, Directive 91/271/EEC on urban waste water treatment, Directive 98/83/EC on quality of water intended for human consumption, Directive 2007/60/EC on the assessment and management of flood risks, Directive 91/676/EC concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources. The EU-Moldova Association Agreement is expected to be signed by the end of 2011.

1.6.1.4 Institutional Framework The current institutional framework for water resources management in Moldova includes a range of public authorities such as: Ministry of Environment, Apele Moldovei Agency, Agency for Geology and Mineral Resources, State Hydrometeorological Service, State Ecological Inspectorate, Fishery Service, Ministry of Health, National Center of Public Health, and others. The adoption of the new Water Law will change the 2 Resursele Acvatice ale Republicii Moldova, Ştiinţa, 2007. 3 Cadastrul de Stat al Apelor al Republicii Moldova, 2010



current water resources management approach towards river basin management implementation, implying changes in institutional functions. Therefore, the Government of Moldova shall ensure that the institutional framework and functions will be adjusted to the new tasks triggered by the requirements of the new Water Law.

1.6.1.5 Relevant Projects There are many other projects implemented or under implementation in Moldova which have activities tangent to the areas of ISRA involvement. Eight other projects are listed below.

1. Dniester GIS - Information management system and infrastructures for the transboundary Dniester river basin implemented during 2008-2009 with the support UNEP/GRID-Arendal, established a spatial/GIS database for the Dniester river basin available at the following link: http://enrin.grida.no/dniester/.

2. The Monitoring of Surface Water and Protection against Flood in the Raut River Basin Project was implemented during 2006-2008 with the financial support of the Czech Government. It provided support to the State Hydrometeorological Service to install five hydrometric stations with remote data transmission on the Raut River at Telenesti, Balti, Cubolta, Sevirovo and Jeloboc locatuions.

3. Monitoring of Surface Water and Protection against Flood in the Prut River Basin Project is under implementation during 2010-2011 with the financial support of the Czech Government. The project provides support to the State Hydrometeorological Service to install 11 automatic hydrology gauging stations on the Prut River.

4. World Bank Disaster and Climate Risk Management Project, 2010-2014, will provide support to the State Hydrometeorological Service by installing real-time hydrological stations on the Dniester River in 2012.

5. Reducing Vulnerability to Extreme Floods and Climate Change in the Dniester River Basin Project implemented by Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), UN Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) and UNEP (Regional Office for Europe and GRID-Arendal will implement in Moldova and Ukraine the following activities:

a. Scenario- and modeling-based study of climate change impacts with a special focus on extreme

floods in the Dniester basin. b. Vulnerability assessment and production of flood hazard and risk/ vulnerability maps c. Improved / new automated flow monitoring stations (4 to 6) and data exchange infrastructure. d. Enhanced capacities and plans for flood risk communication on the sub-basin / local level. e. Agreement and planning of further measures for flood risk reduction, and, if possible,

implementation of selected small measures.

6. UNECE-FFEM Project Capacity building in data administration for assessing trans-boundary water resources in the EECCA, 2010-2012, to reinforce capacities in data administration and data exchange within the main national and regional authorities, concerned to develop the production of information, necessary to better guide water resource management and decision making in the Dniester River basin.

7. Transboundary cooperation and sustainable management in the Dniester River basin: Phase III - Implementation of the Action Programme” (Dniester-III) is implemented by OSCE, UNECE and UNEP in close collaboration with authorities and NGOs from Moldova and Ukraine during 2009-2011 with the support of the Swedish and Finnish governments. Its aim is to improve the cooperation between Moldova and Ukraine on joint management of the Dniester River basin.

8. UNDP Moldova projects “Support for Environmental Protection" and "Transitional Capacity Support for the Public Administration of Moldova" provides support to the Ministry of Environment for the development during 2011 of the National Environmental Strategy for the period 2012-2022, which will incorporate a section on water resources.



1.6.2 International

1.6.2.1 UNECE Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes

This Convention was signed at Helsinki on 17 March,1992, and was acceded to by the Republic of Moldova on 4 January, 1994. It requires the Parties to take all appropriate measures to prevent, control and reduce any transboundary impact and, in particular, to:

• prevent, control and reduce pollution of waters causing or likely to cause transboundary impact • ensure that transboundary waters are used with the aim of ecologically sound and rational water

management • ensure that transboundary waters are used in a reasonable and equitable way • Ensure conservation and, where necessary, restoration of ecosystems

Romania and Ukraine, with whom Moldova shares river basins, ratified the convention on 31 May, 1995, and 8 October, 1999, respectively. The three countries have also become Parties to the convention’s Protocol on Water and Health (London, 1999), but not to the 2003 Protocol on Civil Liability, which lacks the number of ratifications required in order to enter into force.

1.6.2.2 The Convention on Co-operation for the Protection and Sustainable Use of the River Danube (Danube River Protection Convention)

Another multilateral legal instrument4, the Danube River Protection Convention (DRPC) provides the overall legal framework for cooperation in transboundary water management in the Danube River Basin, of which the River Prut is a tributary. The Convention was signed at Sofia, Bulgaria, on 29 June, 1994 and came into force in 1998. It has been in force in the Republic of Moldova since 29 August, 1999. In general, the convention aims at ensuring that surface waters and groundwater within the Danube River Basin are managed and used in a sustainable and equitable manner. Through it, the Parties undertake to cooperate on fundamental water management issues by taking "all appropriate legal, administrative and technical measures to at least maintain and where possible improve the current water quality and environmental conditions of the Danube river and of the waters in its catchment area, and to prevent and reduce as far as possible adverse impacts and changes occurring or likely to be caused." Among other things, the Parties undertake to engage in the following:

• Consultations and joint activities within the framework of the international commission established on the basis of the convention – the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR)

• Exchange of information • Cooperation in the field of monitoring and assessment • Provision for coordinated or joint communication, warning and alarm systems • Consultations on ways and means of harmonizing such systems, as well as emergency plans,

within their respective contexts • Provision of mutual assistance • Development, adoption and implementation of legal, administrative and technical measures in

order to prevent, control and reduce transboundary impact

4Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Germany, Hungary, Moldova, Romania, Slovak Republic, Ukraine and European Community are Parties

to the Convention.



The duty to exchange information refers to bi- and multi-lateral agreements, legislation and measures relating to water management, legal documents, directives and other publications, as well as to (reasonably available) data on the general conditions of the riverine environment, and to measures taken and planned to be taken to prevent, control and reduce transboundary impact. The Parties must consult each other, through the commission, on planned activities which are likely to cause transboundary impacts. Each Party must designate an authority or focal point for dealing with emergency events. In case of risks arising from floods, they must immediately inform the downstream Danubian States which are likely to be affected, as well as informing the commission. In addition to the above, Moldova is a Party to the following bilateral agreements:

• Agreement between Moldova and Romania, on cooperation in the protection and sustainable use of the waters of the Prut and Danube rivers, done on 28 August, 2010, according to which the Parties agree to cooperate in order to implement prevailing international law principles – reasonable and equitable water utilization, duty not to cause significant harm and duty to provide advance notice of planned measures with possible adverse transboundary effects – as well as the principles enshrined in the EU Water Framework Directive and the Flood Directive. Amongst other things, the agreement calls for joint efforts in surface and underground water quality protection, water resources monitoring, the management of flood risks, the creation of warning and alarm systems, the maintenance of minimum ecologic flows and the exchange of the relevant data and information. The objective to be achieved is that called for by the Water Framework Directive, i.e., good water status. Further, the agreement provides for the setting up of a joint commission to facilitate implementation.

• Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Moldova and the Government of Ukraine

relating to the joint use and protection of boundary waters, done on 23 November, 1994. Under this agreement, a Party may not take, without the prior consent of the other Party, any action which may cause changes in water conditions within the territory of such Party, both quantity- and quality-wise, in such a way as to result in any loss or damage to water bodies, fisheries, land, structures or any other assets, render water use or water transport difficult, or the like. The Parties undertake to maintain hydraulic structures and installations in good conditions, agree on operation regimes and water sharing, monitor water resources, exchange data and information, develop joint plans for the integrated management and protection of water resources and water balances and cooperate in matters relating to emergency situations. Matters relating to the implementation of the agreement are discussed through plenipotentiaries. A new agreement reflecting recent international law developments and, to a certain extent, the requirements of the EU Water Framework Directive is currently being drafted and discussed within the framework of a project supported by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).

1.6.2.3 Agreements on Data Sharing with Romania and Ukraine The agreement on data sharing with Romania dates from 2010 and is part of a wider agreement on cooperation in the field of water resources. Among the general elements covered are:

• Achieve good status as specified in the WFD, • Ensure sustainable use of water resources, • Conservation of aquatic ecosystems.

Items specifically related to data include:

• Conduct hydrological, hydrometeorological, and hydrogeological surveys and observations, and share research findings and exchange data.



• Regular exchange of data validation and hydrometric measurements in sub-basins on the tributaries of the Prut.

The agreement with Ukraine, which dates from Soviet times, is much more focused on data exchange. It includes protocols for regular exchange of hydrometeorological data, for exchange on data in emergency situations and for cooperation in choice of equipment. The text of both these two agreements was provided by the State Hydrometeorological Service as part of their response to a questionnaire.



2. River Basin Management

2.1 Introduction In the past, River Basin Management was very much concerned with balancing demands for water with available water resources. In some cases this led to all available water being used for domestic supplies, industry, and agriculture, with little regard for the environment; large dams were constructed and wetlands were drained. Flood management frequently led to rivers being converted into concrete canals with little regard for natural flow patterns. In the last half century many countries in the European Union and elsewhere developed an understanding of river management that went beyond this basic approach and standards were introduced for strict minimum flows in rivers and treatment of discharges going to streams. At this stage in some countries the management of water, in the broadest sense of the term, was transferred from organizations based on municipal or district boundaries to organizations based on natural hydrographic basins. The process was further developed in the Water Framework Directive published by the European Union in 2000. In a guidance note produced by the European Commission (DG Environment) in 2008 this is summarized as: The directive establishes an innovative approach for water management based on river basins, the natural geographical and hydrological units and sets specific deadlines for Member States to protect aquatic ecosystems. The directive addresses inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater. It establishes several innovative principles for water management, including public participation in planning and the integration of economic approaches, including the recovery of the cost of water services. The Global Water Partnership defines Integrated River Basin Management as a "process of coordinating conservation, management and development of water, land and related resources across sectors within a given river basin, in order to maximize the economic and social benefits derived from water resources in an equitable manner while preserving and, where necessary, restoring freshwater ecosystems." The main objective of Integrated River Basin Management is to establish a balance between the existing natural functions of the river system and the developed aspects of the system. The management actions should fulfill the expectations of the society for industrial use, recreation, nature management, and agricultural purposes. Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) is conceptually similar to, but not completely synonymous with, Integrated River Basin Management (IRBM). In the case of River Basin Management, the focus is on the hydrological basin: in the case of Water Resources Management the focus is on the water resources. However, since IWRM recognizes the importance of management at the level of river basins, the outcomes would be the same. This section of the report draws on many sources to identify what might be classed as ’best practice’ in River Basin Management. In doing this it takes account of Moldova’s special situation as lying within two large transboundary river basins.



2.2 River Basin Management – Best Practice There are many sources for a description of what may be considered to ‘best practice’ for River Basin Management. Here we concentrate on three of these sources:

• “The Integrated Water Resources Management Toolbox” produced by the Global Water Partnership5. This document draws on world-wide experience in implementing river basin management.

• “Elements of Good Practice in Integrated River Basin Management - A Practical Resource for implementing the EU Water Framework Directive.” This document gives practical guidelines on how to implement best practice in the context of the WFD.

• The European Water Framework Directive is a key document for water management in countries of the European Union, and it is relevant given that Moldova is in the process of aligning its legal structures with those of the EU.

The ISRC will also take into account the situation in other countries such as: France, Spain, United Kingdom, and so on.

2.2.1 Integrated Water Resource Management IWRM is defined in the forward to the IWRM Toolbox by the Global Water Partnership as “A process which promotes the coordinated development and management of water, land and related resources, in order to maximize the resultant economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems.” It argues that IWRM is not an end, but a means of achieving three key strategic objectives:

1. Efficiency, since, given scarcity of resources (natural, financial and human), it is important to attempt to maximize the economic and social welfare derived not only from the water resources base but also from investments in water services provision.

2. Equity in the allocation of scarce water resources and services across different economic and social groups is vital to reduce conflict and promote socially sustainable development.

3. Environmental sustainability, as ultimately all attempts at water management reform will fail if the water resources base and associated ecosystems continue to be regarded as infinitely robust and we continue to put at risk ‘the water system that we depend on for our survival’ (World Water Commission 2000).

The Toolbox, which was mentioned in the ISRC proposal as a guiding document, provides clear guidance and examples in key areas:

A. The Enabling Environment

a. Policies – setting goals for water use and conservation which define clear objectives and situates them within the context of national policy goals. In the case of Moldova this means assessing the current situation in terms of basin management and identifying feasible steps toward improvement.

b. Legislative Framework – the rules to follow to achieve policy goals covering permits to use water, transferability of permits and customary entitlements. The new Water Law and the move toward European legislative structures are steps toward this aim.

5IWRM Toolbox Version 2



c. Financing and Incentive Structures – allocating financial resources to meet water needs which often require major capital intensive investment. One of the accepted maxims for water management is “water pays for water” which means adjusting tariffs for water service to meet this objective.

B. Institutional Roles

a. Creating an Organizational Framework – the forms and functions of which should

interrelate with other national institutions and transboundary organizations, regulatory bodies and civil society. This is very much an activity within the context of this project and is described below.

b. Institutional Capacity Building – developing human resources in the field of water management and regulation and also awareness in civil society. As part of the institutional and monitoring review we identify shortcomings and what might be necessary for capacity building.

C. Management Instruments

a. Water resources assessment – understanding resources and needs requires monitoring,

collecting and disseminating hydrological, hydrogeological, demographic and socio-economic data. This is a complex process involving as a starting point natural availability of surface and groundwater but including aspects such as variability within seasons and from year to year. Assessing demands involves analysis of water use for domestic water supply, industry and agriculture but investigating components such as population growth and trends in per capita water consumption or agricultural development and alternative irrigation methods.

b. Plans for IWRM – combing development options, resource use and human interaction in a comprehensively modeled management structure. This is equivalent to a step in the WFD requiring basin management plans.

c. Demand management – using water more efficiently can delay or obviate the need to develop new resources. To some extent, this is related to the following sets of instruments which different mechanisms to encourage or impose reduction in wastewater.

d. Social change instruments – encouraging a water-oriented civil society through education and transparency. This is an area where public and stakeholder participation in basin management has a role to play.

e. Regulatory instruments – allocation and water use limits are the key to ensuring service provision, water quality and resource protection. This applies to a range of regulations related to permitting the use of water, the discharge of water and measurement of quantity and quality.

f. Economic Instruments – using value and prices for efficiency and equity and other market based measures that can complement regulatory instruments. This can be more than charging higher rates and can include block tariffs to enable everyone to get a supply of water to meet basin hygiene requirements but with higher water rates for additional water use.

g. Information Management and Exchange – improving knowledge for better water management with efficient data sharing and openness. At one level this involves developing efficient and secure data management systems to enable water managers to function effectively but also in the sharing of data with civil society, NGOs, academia and the public.

h. Conflict resolution – managing disputes on sharing of water has obvious application to transboundary resources but can also be important in a national context.



2.2.2 Elements of Good Practice in Integrated River Basin Management The document “Elements of Good Practice in Integrated River Basin Management” is sub-titled “A Practical Resource for implementing the EU Water Framework Directive”. The text came about as results of joint European Commission (EC)/ World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) seminars. The document identifies a series of cross-cutting principles.

2.2.2.1 Integration In the operation of water resources management there should be integration:

• Among bodies involved directly with water management (e.g. those responsible for water storage and supply, and treatment of waste water)

• Between water managers and other sectors, such as land-use planning, agriculture, industry and tourism/recreation

• Linkage of surface- and ground-water management (at present they are often dealt with separately)

The management of the basin must ensure that all policies and practices are integrated toward a common goal. This means that once a decision is made which is in the best interest of the basin, then all parties have to accept it and there has to be legal power to enforce it in the case of non-compliance.

2.2.2.2 Scale Scale is especially important in two situations:

• Where there is great variation in the size of river basins. This applies in the case of the Nistru Basin (basin area twice that of the area of Moldova) and the Prut Basin (whose area is only slightly less than the area of Moldova) relative to river basins within Moldova.

• The need to coordinate ‘top–down’ and ‘bottom–up’ approaches. This applies within in Moldova in terms of the relationship between the two major river basin districts and sub-basins within them.

2.2.2.3 Timing The WFD contains a detailed time-line of activities leading to development and implementation of a river basin management plan. Whilst there is no requirement for Moldova to adhere to the same time table, there are clear advantages in defining timing for steps to be taken within the country. The document recommends that it is better to begin ‘early and imperfectly’ rather than wait for all elements to be in place. Some critical steps are:

• Objectives related to good practice should be agreed. • Necessary primary or secondary legislative changes should be introduced • Resources of trained staff and equipment should be addressed • Use existing institutional structures if possible with modification of remit if necessary • Assemble all relevant data from monitoring organizations • Put in place strategies for public participation and stakeholder involvement • Co-ordinate activities with external factors such as land-use planning policy and capital investment • Include steps to remedy identified deficiencies in the program of measures



2.2.2.4 Participation For a basin management plan to be successful it must meet with acceptance from a variety of stakeholders. These range from large industrial users, with a formal link to basin management via their licenses to abstract, through to individuals who expect to receive regular supplies of safe drinking water. In this project, a particular aspect is the links with Water Users Associations that use water for irrigation, and whose development is being supported by the IMT sub-activity of the Irrigation Sector Reform Activity. It is very important that this must be a two-way activity. As basin plans are developed there will be a need to inform stakeholders and the general public of what is being proposed, why it is being proposed, and what options were considered. The next stage will be to respond to questions, suggestion and criticism of the plans. The institution producing the plans will then have the important role of demonstrating that the final takes account of the suggestions, even in cases where they are not accepted.

2.2.2.5 Capacity The WFD introduced a number of innovative concepts into the sphere of water management which traditionally had been concerned with meeting demands for water and maintaining good chemical and biological status without directly addressing ecological status. Consequently, the need to develop capacity was fairly widespread in the EU. That said, most of the bodies responsible for water management were fulfilling their previously assigned roles to a high standard. Water users, whether domestic or other, were assured safe water supplies at a high degree of reliability. It also has to be recognized that most countries of Western Europe started with well-staffed organizations. To manage a river basin in an integrated way requires a wide variety of specialized skills. Many of these skills have been practiced in Moldova for years: monitoring of river flows, aquifer yields, taking samples of water for laboratory analysis, and others. With the introduction of new equipment or more stringent water quality requirements some of these skills will need to upgraded; this is perfectly normal and many professional associations in Europe place emphasis on continuing professional development. Other skills, related to ecology or hydro-morphology, for example, will have to be developed. Developing these skills is likely to involve a cooperative approach between the Governmental authorities, universities and other academic institutions possibly involving training outside of Moldova.

2.2.3 Water Framework Directive

2.2.3.1 Objectives The Water Framework Directive (WFD) was adopted by the EU in the year 2000. The first article of the WFD defines its purpose to establish a framework which:

• prevents further deterioration and protects and enhances the status of aquatic ecosystems • promotes sustainable water use • aims at enhanced protection and improvement of the aquatic environment • ensures the progressive reduction of pollution of groundwater • contributes to mitigating the effects of floods and droughts and thereby contributes to:

o the provision of the sufficient supply of good quality surface water and groundwater as

needed for sustainable, balanced and equitable water use o a significant reduction in pollution of groundwater o the protection of territorial and marine waters o achieving the objectives of relevant international agreements



The main environmental objectives are to achieve and maintain good status for all surface waters and ground waters by the target date of 2015, and to prevent deterioration and ensure the conservation of high water quality where it still exists. For water bodies which are (expected to be) of less than good status, plans of measures have to be prepared and implemented in order to improve the status to become at least “good”.

2.2.3.2 Integrated Approach6 The EU Water Framework Directive aims at a “good” status for surface waters. Good status implies good chemical as well as biological quality. For groundwater good status implies good chemical quality and sufficient quantity. To achieve the environmental objectives, the Directive makes it clear that an integrated approach to sustainable water management is necessary. Integration includes:

• Environmental objectives – the WFD combines ecological, quality and quantity objectives in order to ensure a general good status for all waters and a stronger protection of valuable aquatic ecosystems and specified waters.

• All water resources – the WFD abandons the model of separate protection of surface and ground waters, requiring a holistic ecosystem treatment of surface and ground waters, wetlands and coastal waters, regarding them on a river basin scale.

• All water uses, functions and values into a common policy framework – the significance of water is considered in respect of the environment, for human consumption and for the needs of the different economic sectors.

• All relevant disciplines, analyses and expertise – knowledge from different technical scientific sectors (hydrology, chemistry, soil sciences, engineering and GIS) as well as economics is critical to the assessment of pressures and impacts on waters and the identification of measures for achieving the set environmental objectives in the most cost-efficient way.

• Integration of water legislation into a common, comprehensive and coherent framework – the WFD reformulates certain existing requirements in line with the new management concept. It provides that specified water legislation will be repealed and replaced after a transition period by new requirements, while others will be coordinated in the River Basin Management Plan (RBMP), where they will form the basis of programs of measures.

• Stakeholders and public participation in the decision-making process, promoting transparency and information to the public, involvement of interested stakeholders in the planning process, i.e. in the elaboration of the River Basin Management Plans.

2.2.3.3 Economic Principles7 The Water Framework Directive introduces economic methods for improving water quality while maintaining its focus on the broader and often intangible value of water. Its preamble the directive states that “water is not a commercial product like any other but, rather, a heritage which must be protected, defended and treated as such”. Hence, this approach is broader than the Dublin Declaration of 1992, which stated that “water has an economic value in all its competing uses and should be recognized as an economic good”. The sustainability of water resources is at stake from both a quantitative and qualitative point of view. Appropriate water pricing has a key role to play in the development of sustainable water policies. To play an effective role in enhancing the sustainability of water resources, water pricing policies need to be based on the assessment of costs and benefits of water use and to consider both the financial costs of providing services as well as environmental and resource costs. A price directly linked to the water quantities used

6Water Science & Technology Vol 51 No 11 pp 53–61 Q IWA Publishing 2005 7Based on EU Water Note No 5 and EU (2000) Pricing policies for enhancing the sustainability of water resources



or pollution produced can ensure that pricing has a clear incentive function for consumers to improve water use efficiency and reduce pollution. Efficient water pricing policies have a demonstrable impact on the water demand of different uses. As a result of changes in water demand, efficient water pricing reduces the pressure on water resources. This is particularly true for the agricultural sector. The available evidence suggest that farming communities can be expected to adapt to certain price increases that would result from a stricter recovery of the costs of water services. Different levels of cost recovery among economic sectors such as agriculture and industry are likely to influence the competitiveness of these sectors both in the internal market and international trade. Pricing policies that better account for the environment will build on:

• A firm application of the principle of recovery of costs • Pricing structures that provide incentives and the promotion of metering devices • The assessment of major environmental costs and, where feasible, the internalization of these

costs into prices • Phased implementation of pricing policies that integrate sound economic and environmental

principles

2.2.3.4 River Basin Management Plans River Basin Management Plans to achieve the purpose of the directive are to be prepared. According to the WFD, River Basin Management Plans should include the following elements: 1) A general description of the characteristics of the river basin district. This shall include:

1. For surface water: mapping of the location and boundaries of water bodies, eco-regions and identification of reference conditions for the surface water body types

2. For groundwater: mapping of the location and boundaries of groundwater bodies

2) A summary of significant pressures and impact of human activity on the status of surface water and groundwater, including estimates of: point and diffuse pollution and pressure on quantitative status.

3) Identification and mapping of protected areas. 4) A map of the monitoring networks established for: surface water, groundwater and protected areas. 5) A list of the environmental objectives 6) A summary of the economic analysis of water use. 7) A summary of the program of cost effective measures. 8) A register of any more detailed programs and management plans. 9) A summary of the public information and consultation measures. 10) A list of competent authorities. 11) The contact points and procedures for obtaining the background documentation and information. This contents list covers all the necessary elements in the preparation of a river basin management plan and will form the basis for the river basin management plan to be developed in Phase III of ISRA. Experience of plans in European member countries shows that whilst this order is not followed exactly, all the essential elements are covered.

2.2.3.5 Public Information and Consultation The text of the WFD makes specific reference to public participation. Among aspects to be included are: a statement of consultation measures is to be produced three years in advance of the draft plan, an overview of significant water management issues is to be produced two years before the plan, and draft copies of the plan are to be produced one year before it comes into effect. Additionally, the public may request



background documents and should be allowed six months to comment on draft plans. These general guidelines will inform ISRC development of a consultation and outreach strategy.

2.2.3.6 Water Bodies One step in developing the plan is to identify ‘water bodies’ which can be within rivers, aquifers, lakes or reservoirs. Each water body should have specific characteristics which differentiate it significantly from adjacent water bodies. Characteristics might include status, hydrography and flow. A single water body must be of a single type (i.e. a river and a reservoir cannot be part of the same water body).

2.2.3.7 Monitoring The status of water bodies must be determined via monitoring and assessment. For groundwater this entails both groundwater resources (groundwater quantitative status) and groundwater quality (groundwater chemical status). For surface waters, good status comprises both good ecological status and good chemical status. The following groups of quality elements are to be monitored in surface waters:

• Physio-chemical quality elements, including e.g. oxygen, nutrients, metals, organic micropollutants, and others

• Hydro-biological quality elements, including aquatic flora (macrophytes, phytobenthos, phytoplankton), and benthic invertebrate fauna and fish

• Hydro-morphological quality elements, including water flow and level, bed substrate, river continuity, and various others.

Three types of surface water monitoring programs are distinguished:

• Surveillance monitoring: the assessment long-term changes in status due to natural or anthropogenic activity

• Operational Monitoring: the assessment of the impact of the program of measures on the status of the water bodies at risk

• Investigative monitoring: in case the reason for any exceedance is unknown or to ascertain the magnitude and impacts of accidental pollution

2.2.3.8 EU Guidelines Twenty six specific guidance documents related to WFD implementation have been issued by the EU covering the following topics: Guidance No 01 - Economics - WATECO Guidance No 02 - Identification of water bodies Guidance No 03 - Pressures and impacts - IMPRESS Guidance No 04 - Heavily modified water bodies - HMWB Guidance No 05 - Characterization of coastal waters - COAST Guidance No 06 - Intercalibration Guidance No 07 - Monitoring Guidance No 08 - Public participation Guidance No 09 - GIS Guidance No 10 - References conditions for inland waters Guidance No 11 - Planning Process Guidance No 12 - Wetlands (WG B) Guidance No 13 - Classification of Ecological Status (WG A) Guidance No 14 - Intercalibration Process 2004-2006 (WG A) Guidance No 14 - Intercalibration Process 2008-2011 (WG A)



Guidance No 15 - Groundwater Monitoring (WG C) Guidance No 16 - Groundwater in Drinking Water Protected Areas (WG C) Guidance No 17 - Direct and indirect inputs in the light of the 2006/118/EC Directive Guidance No 18 - Groundwater Status and Trend Assessment (WG C) Guidance No 19 - Surface water chemical monitoring Guidance No 20 - Exemptions to the environmental objectives Guidance No 21 - Guidance for reporting under the WFD Guidance No 22 - Updated WISE GIS guidance (Nov’2008) Guidance No 23 - Eutrophication Assessment in the Context of European Water Policies Guidance No 24 - River Basin Management in a Changing Climate Guidance No 25 - Chemical Monitoring of Sediment and Biota Guidance No 26 - Risk Assessment and the Use of Conceptual Models for Groundwater While some of these have little relevance to Moldova’s situation, for example No. 5 on Coastal Water, or No. 6 on Intercalibration (between EU countries), many of the others provide useful guidance. In addition, there are 12 EU Water Notes (in all EU languages) on integrated water management, EU water legislation, and the EU WFD8

2.2.3.9 Other EU Directives Other EU directives related to water include:

• The Drinking Water Directive, 98/83/EC. Sets quality standards for drinking water quality at the tap (microbiological, chemical and organoleptic parameters). Obliges Member States to regular monitoring of drinking water quality and to provide to consumers adequate and up-to-date information on their drinking water quality.

• The Environmental Liability Directive, 2004/35/EC/. The Directive establishes a framework for environmental liability based on the "polluter pays" principle, with a view to preventing and remedying environmental damage.

• The Waste Framework Directive, 2006/12/EC. A framework for coordinating waste management in the Member States in order to limit the generation of waste and to optimize the organization of waste treatment and disposal.

• The Groundwater Directive, 2006/118/EC. This directive establishes a regime which sets underground water quality standards and introduces measures to prevent or limit inputs of pollutants into groundwater.

• The Floods Directive 2007/60/EC. This Directive requires Member States to assess if all water courses and coast lines are at risk from flooding, to map the flood extent and assets and humans at risk in these areas and to take adequate and coordinated measures to reduce this flood risk.

• The Urban Wastewater Directive, 91/271/EEC. Its objective is to protect the environment from the adverse effects of urban waste water discharges and discharges from certain industrial sectors and concerns the collection, treatment and discharge of: domestic waste water, mixture of waste water and waste water from certain industrial sectors.

• The Marine Strategy Directive, 008/56/EC. The aim of this Directive is to protect more effectively the marine environment across Europe.

• The Soil Framework Directive, COM (2006) 23. The main threats to soils outlined in the Soil Framework Directive (SFD) are: contamination, loss of organic matter, erosion, compaction, sealing, salinization and desertification.

• The Bathing Water Directive, 2006/7/EC. The bathing water directive lays down provisions for: the monitoring and classification of bathing water quality, the management of bathing water quality and the provision of information to the public on bathing water quality.

• The Pesticides Directive, 2010/77/EU. Updates regulations on specific pesticides.

8http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/participation/notes_en.htm



• The Directive on European Quality Standards in the Field of Water Policy and Amending Directive 2000/60/EC. This is the full title of the Water Framework Directive.

• The Sewage Sludge Directive, 86/278/EEC. The purpose of this Directive is to regulate the use of sewage sludge in agriculture in such a way as to prevent harmful effects on soil, vegetation, animals and man.

• The IPPC Directive (Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control), 2008/1/EC. The Directive recasts seven existing Directives related to industrial emissions into a single clear and coherent legislative instrument.

• The INSPIRE Directive establishes an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community.

Whilst there is no requirement on Moldova to follow the above directives, they do demonstrate the range of issues for which legislation is required.

2.3 International Practice

2.3.1 Basin Management Internationally, it is widely accepted that river basins should be managed by organizations based on their hydrological boundaries rather than administrative boundaries, even where rivers cross international borders. This principle was adopted by the United Kingdom and France in the 1960s and has since formed a key principle of the WFD . There are also now many international bodies based on this principle, such as the Mekong River Commission in Asia, the Orange-Senqu River Commission in Southern Africa, and the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River. The international river basin organizations, and the above list, is only a small representative sample, are usually formed to complement international water law for the development of specific river basins. Typically, they would have a relatively small number of ‘head-office’ staff and would provide a forum for international technical and data exchanges. Most technical work and interchange with stakeholders would be carried out at a national level. In part because of changes towards river basin management, but also investment in the treatment of liquid wastewater, quality standards in many major rivers have improved dramatically with an increase in fish catch being a sign of this.

2.3.2 Personnel and Budgets In the United Kingdom the Environment Agency has a budget of around € 24 million per million inhabitants. Half of the budget goes to flood defenses, and most of the remainder on pollution control and water resources. The Agency employs 260 people per million inhabitants. Of these, 50% work on flood alleviation, 32% on environmental protection, 12% on water resources, and the remainder on navigation and wildlife. In the UK water supply and sewage treatment are handled by Water Companies who have an annual budget of € 80 million and employ 500 staff per million inhabitants. In France, the Basin Authorities employ 40 people per million inhabitants and Veolia, a private company which handles a large part of France’s water supply and sewage treatment employs 500 people per million inhabitants. In the Netherlands the Water Boards which handle flood protection and wastewater treatment employ 625 people per million inhabitants. The functions of the different organizations are not directly comparable with those in Moldova. In the case of the Netherlands and the UK some of the flood protection money goes on coastal defenses. On the other hand, in many European countries the private sector, not counted in these figures, does a lot of work for the water industry. As a guideline, it can be concluded that to manage water resources, control water



pollution, provide flood protection, supply water and treat sewage, all to good international standards, requires in excess of 500 employees per million of population.

2.3.3 Approach of Specific Countries

2.3.3.1 Bulgaria In 2000 Bulgaria passed a Water Act enshrining the requirement of the Water Framework Directive into Bulgarian law. Bulgaria has identified four River Basin Districts: Danube, West Aegean, East Aegean, and Black Sea. Three of these are international river basin districts. Basin Directorates were established in 2002 and they became the competent water management authorities (as defined by the WFD) and started their activities and got actively involved in the performance of tasks regarding the implementation of the Water Framework Directive. The Basin Directorates are represented by a Director and are set up in compliance with the Water Act and by an order of the Minister of Environment and Water. In 2005, Bulgaria published a “National Report on Water Management at River Basin Level in the Republic Of Bulgaria.” As of this date they had identified water bodies for both surface water and groundwater and had categorized these water bodies in accordance with the WFD. Draft river basin plans are available on the Ministry of Environment and Water web site.

2.3.3.2 France Since 1964 water resources management in France has been based on river basins under the control of six Agences de Bassin (Basin Agencies): Adour-Garonne, Artois-Picardie, Loire-Bretagne, Rhin-Meuse, Rhône-Méditerranée-Corse and Seine-Normandie. Each was controlled by a basin committee of around 100 members with a wide representation. Typically, 40% represented the users, 20% represented the state, 20% represented the Départements (equivalent to Oblast), 5% represented the regions, and 5% represent professionals. There have been a number of changes over the years with various decrees. The most recent is the law on Water and Aquatic Environments of 2006. This updated French law recognizes the impact of the WFD in particular in relation to recovery of costs.

2.3.3.3 Germany In Germany, responsibility for the WFD is shared between the States (Länder) and the Basin Authorities. The river basin districts are: Donau, Oder, Eider, Rhein, Elbe, Schlei-Trave, Ems, Warnow-Peene, Maas and Weser. The reason for this division of responsibilities is the clear separation of the role of Federal and State (Länder) authorities in the German constitution. This leads to some complications in that a basin plan has to be prepared not just for a river basin for each part of each state within the basin.

2.3.3.4 Italy Italy has 16 river basin districts: Garigliano e Volturno : Adige: Serchio: Po: Magro: Arno: Tevere: Liguria, Veneto: Trento: Fiore: Isonzo: Tagliamento, Livenza, Piave and Brenta-Bacchiglione: Reno. There appears to be a relatively central role in the management of water.

2.3.3.5 Romania Romania incorporated the WFD by Law 310 of 2004 and Law 112 of 2006. Romania has established a single Basin District which covers the whole country and is part of the international Danube Basin. This approach, given the country’s position within the Danube basin is geographically acceptable. It also



means that all river management functions can be handled nationally by the Ministry of Environment and Water Management.

2.3.3.6 Spain Even before the WFD had been promulgated, water management in Spain had been handled at the level of Confederaciones Hidrográficas (Hydrographic confederations) based on hydrological boundaries. There are 11 of these: Cantábrico: Miño-Sil, Duero, Tajo, Guadiana, Guadalquivir: Andaluza de Agua: Júcar, Ebro, Catalana del Agua. Whilst most are clearly related to river basins, some (for example, Catalan de Agua) are related to the area of semi-autonomous regions. Superimposed on this river basin structure there were other municipal structures with water responsibilities.

2.3.3.7 United Kingdom Since the creation of River Authorities in 1962, much of the UK’s water management has been carried out at the level of River Basins. These had responsibility for water resources management, flood alleviation and water quality monitoring. Until the creation of Water Authorities in 1974, water supply was at the level of water companies and sewage treatment at the level of municipalities. From 1974 all water related activities came under a single organization. The links with other government structures came from the representation on the management committees of representatives of industry and different levels of government (local and national). After a number of reorganizations, a major restructuring took place in 1997 with the creation of the national Environment Agency. This brought together all water management and pollution control and prevention activities under a single organization; the need for management at a river basin level was provided by subsidiary offices. Water supply and sewage treatment are handled mainly by the eight private water authorities whose boundaries correspond, in the main, to river basins with a few exceptions where supply networks cross river basin boundaries. A few private water companies still operate.

2.3.3.8 Ukraine Under the TACIS project “Transboundary River Basin Management Phase 2: Seversky Donets Basin,” a draft River Basin Management Plan was prepared for the basin which is shared between Ukraine and Russia. This management plan closely followed Annex VII of the WFD, and it is described in the following points: 1. A general description of the characteristics of the river basin district. This included the map of water bodies provided in Figure 2. This was prepared for the main river only, but included water bodies in both Ukraine and Russia. Reference conditions for surface water types were identified. 2. A summary of significant pressures and impact of human activity. This identified pressures from inter-basin transfer, sources and types of pollutants, urban discharges, coalmines and priority substances.



Figure 2. Map of water bodies identified on the main course of the Seversky Donets River in Russia and Ukraine. 3. Identification and mapping of protected areas for Ukraine and Russia. 4. Monitoring networks for flow, quality and meteorology were described and mapped. 5. This chapter was an economic analysis of water with details of tariffs. 6. An outline of the objectives for water quality and the management of surface and groundwater 7. The program of measures took account of stakeholder meetings. Missing information is identified throughout the plan. Nonetheless, this is considered by the EU to be one of the most comprehensive plans produced in projects in the former Soviet bloc. The State Water Committee accepted the plan and has instructed all of its river basin authorities to produce similar plans.

2.4 Water Charges The WFD requires that ‘water user pays for water’. Below, some examples of how two countries of the EU have interpreted this requirement are presented.



2.4.1 United Kingdom Under British “Common Law” the person who owns the land next to a river has the right to use the water from that river. Over the years this simple principle has been modified by Acts of Parliament setting up River Purification Boards, River Authorities, Water Authorities, the National Rivers Authority and (currently) the Environment Agency. The current system does not charge for water, but for the administration of the licensing system and the cost of works done to improve the availability of water. The licenses all assume that the abstractor/discharger has the ability to monitor the quantity (in the case of both abstractions and discharges) and the quality (in the case of discharges).

2.4.2 Abstraction Abstraction charges have two elements: a one-off application charge and an annual charge.

2.4.2.1 Application Anyone who wants to abstract water must apply for a license. This charge is paid regardless of whether or not the license is issued. As part of the process, the application is published in local newspapers so that other water users have a chance to object if they consider it might infringe their own use of water. The Application fee covers the costs of the Agency and of the advertisement. The total cost is £235 (€280).

2.4.2.2 Annual charge The Annual charge has two components: the Standard Charge and the Compensation Charge. The Standard Charge takes account of: V - Volume of water abstracted, A - The Source Factor. This is normally 1.0. If flows in the river are supported, for example by a reservoir which releases water to maintain river flows, then the factor is 3.0. B - The Season Factor. If water can be abstracted all year round the factor is 1.0. If water is abstracted in summer the factor is 1.6, if in winter the factor is 0.16. It is common for abstraction licenses to specifically list the amount of winter and summer abstraction even if abstraction takes place all year round. C – The Loss Factor. This takes account of the proportion of water which is returned in 4 bands:

High loss. None of the water is returned, for example in spray irrigation, the factor is 1. Medium loss. Many industrial uses, the factor is 0.6. Low loss. This includes mineral and vegetable washing, the factor is 0.03. Very low loss. This include things like fish ponds, the factor is 0.003. SUC – Standard unit charge. This is the same within each region of the Environment Agency but is not the same for the whole country. The charge varies from £11 (€13) to £26 (€30) per 1000 m3. The breakdown of the charge is not explicitly stated but has an administrative element and an element reflecting the cost of publically owned reservoirs which increase water availability in the summer. Whilst the driest region of the country has the highest charge, the second highest charge is in a wet region which has a large and expensive reservoir. To calculate the amount to be paid, the standard unit charge is multiplied by the volume and the relevant factors. As an example, a farmer using water for irrigation in summer in the eastern region where flows were supported by an upstream reservoir would pay £125 €150) per 1000 m3 as the Standard Charge. By contrast, a farmer washing vegetables in winter time in the Yorkshire region would only pay £0.05 per 1000



m3; it should be noted that in fact there is a minimum charge of £25 (€30) which has to be paid if calculated charges are less than this figure. When the water abstraction licensing system was first introduced some water users were given “licenses of right” which reflected that fact that they had been using water for a long time. If these licenses were later taken away to improve the management of water resources the license holders were compensated. As these changes in a license benefitted other water users then a “Compensation Charge” was added to the standard charge. The Compensation Charge takes account of the Volume and the Season and Loss factors as above. The Source Factor is replaced by an Adjusted Source Factor which is normally 1, but is 0.2 if water is taken from a tidal river. The Standard Abstraction charge is also replaced by an Environmental Improvement Unit Charge which varies from 0 to £ 2.57 (€3) per 1000 m3. Using the same example as above, the farmer who abstracted irrigation water in summer would pay an additional £ 3.32 (€4) per 1000 m3 whereas for vegetable washing in winter the charge would be £ 0.003. There are two points which are perhaps worth highlighting. The first is that the use of a small number of factors (for example, only four for different rates of loss) is a gross simplification of the real situation but facilitates calculation and avoids the cost and time of abstractors trying to argue over small differences in loss rate. The second is that despite these simplifications the licenses are often very complex. For example an industrial company might have licenses to abstract from both boreholes and rivers, with maximum daily, monthly and annual rates of abstraction applied separately to each source, to groups of sources and globally to all the sources combined.

2.4.3 Discharges Whereas the abstraction system has regional charges, the discharge system has a national scale of charges. It also has an application charge and an annual charge.

2.4.3.1 Application Charge The Standard Application Charge is £876 (€1050). For small discharges (usually less than 5 m3 per day), there is a reduced charge of £124 (€149).

2.4.3.2 Annual Charge As with abstraction there is a basic cost and a series of factors: Financial Factor. This is currently £677 (812). Volume Factor. This is normally based on the maximum allowable daily discharge with 8 bands. The

factors are non-linear and go from 0.3 for discharges lf less than 5 m3 per day up to 14 for discharges of more than 150,000 m3 per day.

Contents Factor. This also has 8 bands, 7 of them have factors from 14 to 0.3 with a special default band with a factor of 1.5. The band with the highest factor of 14 include pesticides, fungicides and herbicides and Polynuclear Aromatic, Aromatic, Aliphatic, Halogenated and Heterocyclic Hydrocarbons. The next band, with a factor of 5, includes many heavy metals and alcohols. The Factor in the subsequent bands depends to the extent at which the effluents have quality limits imposed.

Receiving Waters. This has four bands. Surface water has a factor of 1. As an example let us consider the farmer washing vegetables as mentioned above. If the discharge of 1000 m3 is over a period of 50 days, the daily rate would be 20 m3 which has a Volume Factor of 0.5. The discharges would be



classed as “trade effluent of an organic nature” which has a factor of 3. The total annual cost would be £ 1015.5 (€ 1219). This is considerably more than the abstraction license.

As with the abstraction license, the simplified band structure can be superimposed on a complex system of licenses for different substances at different rates.

2.4.4 Solid Waste Solid waste charges are based on three “tiers”. Tier 1 is the lowest level. At this level the site is registered but no other conditions are imposed. As of

June 2009 there are no charges. Tier 2 is for medium risk waste. Sites in this category fall into 1 of about 40 different standard categories.

It includes commercial, domestic and clinical waste, vehicle dismantling, metal recycling and pet cemeteries. Applying for such a license typically costs around £2,500 (€3,000) and the annual charge varies from £500 (€600) to £4,000 (€4800) .

Tier 3 is for complex and high risk facilities that require more detailed and individually tailored permits. Approval and classification of such sites is based on Operational Risk Assessment (OPRA). The charges at this level depend on the effort required to assess a facility before granting it a permit. Annual charges vary depending on the type of waste and on its destination. Permits for hazardous waste recycling cost from £3,000 (€3,000) to £6,000 (€7,200) but for lower categories from £1,500 (€1,800) to £3,000 (€3600) depending on the weight of waste being processed. Where waste is processed but not recycled permits can cost up to £16,000 (€19,000). Permits to dispose of waste land can cost up to £30,000 (€36,000).

Charges apply to those who store, transport or dispose of waste. One feature of the charging scheme is that charges each year are weighted according to the level of compliance with conditions in the previous year. At present the maximum weighting is 150% but this will rise to 300% by 2012. Special rules apply to scrap metal.

2.4.5 France Following the introduction of the Water Framework Directive, France undertook a major revision of its water charging structure. The resulting report (Les redevances des agences de l’eau : Enjeux, objectifs et propositions d’évolution dans la perspective de la réforme de la politique de l’eau./ Water Agency Charges: Approach, objectives and proposal for development in the context of the reform of water policy) prepared at the instigation of the Prime Minister addressed a wide range of important issues. The report highlighted three problems to be resolved. The current charging system:

• Could be considered unconstitutional • Was excessively complex • Had been developed as a way of paying for services, not as a means of managing water quality,

and there was need to modify the balance between charging for pollution and for abstraction It also identified five objectives:

• The charging system should contribute to the application of the Water Framework Directive • It should have a solid legal basis • The system should be workable rather than theoretic • The relative charges for different components should have a logical basis • A correct balance had to be maintained between local and national charging



The report also recognized that, since the creation in 1964 of a system of water resources management at a basin level and a related charging system, France was already closer than many other European countries to the system envisaged in the Water Framework Directive. One important aspect of the new charging scheme is that it allows for a five-year transitional period. If the new charges are higher than the old then in the first year only 20% of the extra is paid, in the second 40% and so on. Although both the new and old charging schemes including a charge for “use of water resources,” it is quite clear the money collected was based solely on the costs of managing the resource and was not a charge for the resource itself.

2.4.6 Example of Agence d’Eau Seine-Normandie

2.4.6.1 Domestic Pollution This charge has two basic components: pollution and network renovation. Both have a ceiling, a maximum rate, which for the former is €0.50/m3 and for the latter is €0.30 / m3. The charges depend on two factors. The first is location. The second depends on whether pollution charges were payable in the past (Table 1).

Table 1. Pollution Charge in Seine-Normandie, France

Paid charge in past Yes No Zone 1 €0.2880 €0.1152 Zone 2 €0.3341 €0.1336 Zone 3 €0.3830 €0.1532

For the charge for network renovation there are two rates: €0.2880/m3 and €0.1152/m3.

2.4.6.2 Water Resources for Drinking Water The resource cost for drinking water depends on type, location and source: surface or groundwater. The type can be normal or Zone d’Action Renforcée (ZAR, equivalent to the UK Supported). Special charges also apply where there is an imbalance between resources and demand (Zones de Répartition des Eaux, ZRE). The charges are given in €/m3 (Table 2).

Table 2. Water Resources Cost for Drinking Water, France Category 1 2 (ZRE) Zone 1 Surface 0.2748 0.8000 Aquifer 0.5034 0.8000 Zone 2 (ZAR) Surface 0.4992 0.8000 Aquifer 0.5034 0.8000

2.4.6.3 Pollution by Industry The rate is based on a number of factors: the standard charge, the volume discharged, the sensitivity of the receiving watercourse and the degree of pollution. Pollutants are grouped as: suspended solids, chemical oxygen demand, biological demand, reduced nitrates, oxidized nitrates, phosphates, metals, toxic substances, halogens, and heat. Different rules and rates apply to different industries.



2.4.6.4 Water Resources for Industry The resource cost for industry is provided in Table 3 below.

Table 3. Water Resources Cost for Industry, France

Category 1 (€ per 1000 m3) Category 2 (€ per 1000 m3)

Other economic use

Cooling: 99% returned

Other economic use

Cooling: 99% returned

Zone 1 Surface 6.32 1.67 40 5.00

(base rate) Aquifer 30 3.00 40 5.00

Zone 2 Surface 9.34 2.40 40 5.00

(supported) Aquifer 30 3.50 40 5.00

2.4.6.5 Financial Support The Agency gives a range of financial support for activities which will reduce pollution. This includes supporting research, feasibility studies, design, and cost of construction.

2.4.7 Diffuse Pollution The French system recognizes that diffuse pollution, principally from the use of artificial fertilizers, pesticides and weed killers, also needs to be controlled. The Dutch system, which applies that tax at the level of the farm and is charged for use above a certain threshold, was rejected as too complicated. The need to calculate what is a reasonable amount of the product based on crop type, soil and weather and to check that this was what was actually applied is an onerous task and administering it would itself require a level of funding in excess of what could be considered an acceptable level of taxation. The method adopted was to collect the tax at the level of the distributor. The rate varies from €0.5 to €3 per kilogram depending on level of harm to the environment.

2.5 Comparison of Charging Schemes

2.5.1 Similarities The most obvious similarity is that, as set out in the Water Framework Directive (WFD), management of the rivers is carried out at the basin level. Though in the case of the UK it is done via sub-offices of a national organization, in the case of France much more autonomy is granted at a basin level. In both cases, another important aspect of the WFD is that water should be self-financing, and this is respected, though again there are differences in the way the charges are applied not just between the countries but within countries. Another important similarity is that it is the responsibility of the consumer, at least for industrial and commercial users, to maintain an accurate means of measuring their abstractions. The rules are fairly flexible (for short periods, up to a month, without records) but penalize users who do not keep accurate records.



2.5.2 Differences The major difference between the UK and the French system is that the UK system only collects money, but the French system also disburses it. The money can go not only to public services, but to private companies as well.

2.6 River Basin Management Process

2.6.1 Sequence of Activities Figure 3 is a flowchart which summaries the steps required to development a river basin management plan to best international practice. It is based in part of the outline above and also takes account of actual procedures in water management organizations. Descriptions of the flowchart are provided below.

Figure 3. River Basin Management Plan Development Process

2.6.2 Objectives As a first step, it is necessary to define objectives such as: ecological status, increased water for irrigation, improved access to drinking water, and others. Once a decision is taken to adopt the Water Framework Directive, then certain aspects of chemical, biological and ecological status define many of the objectives. In the case of Moldova, where some aspects of water management are not currently carried out to same standard as in European countries before their implementation of the WFD, additional objectives might be appropriate.

Initial Objectives

Projected Demands

Baseline

Economy Impacts and Constraints

Projected Resources

UpdateBaselineManagement Options

Draft a River Basin Management Plan

River Basin Management PlanConsultation

Implementation

Monitoring and Evaluation

Review and Update the Objectives



2.6.3 Baseline It is necessary to determine the baseline situation. Based on hydrological, water supply, water quality, economic and sociological data, assess the current situation and aspects which are not able to support achievement of the objectives. This will in effect be a gap analysis between the current situation and the objectives to be achieved.

2.6.4 Initial Appraisal The following four activities can be done in parallel:

1. Economy. What are the revenue and capital implications of different alternatives? How can the necessary funds be made available? What benefits will each alternative bring?

2. Projected demand. How much water is needed to meet objectives? This should take account of agricultural, industrial and population projections. Within these, there will be projections of rate of water use for irrigation (which will change depending on crops and irrigation method), what industries are operating and expected to start production or close and what is their water requirement, how will per capita use change (e.g. with increased reliability of household supply, reduced unaccounted for water).

3. Projected resources. This is based in part of statistical analysis of variability of past flows and groundwater levels and in part on climate change projections. It will need to take account of transboundary issues.

4. Impacts. This will cover a wide range of issues including maintaining and enhancing the environment, sustainability and sociological issues such as health and employment. It could also cover legal aspects such as international commitments.

2.6.5 Options The options of water resources management are considered by the competent authority in consultation with stakeholders during the development of a program of measures. The program aims to meet objectives and look at alternatives relating to economics, water demands, water resources and impacts.

2.6.6 Draft River Basin Management Plan The chosen option will be presented in a draft River Basin Management Plan. The draft plan should be widely disseminated to Ministries not directly involved in drafting the plan, regional government and stakeholders. This should be two-way both informing stakeholders and listening to their concerns.

2.6.7 River Basin Management Plan This is the plan agreed on after consultation.

2.6.8 Implementation This is the stage of mobilizing the resources, financial and other, to implement the Program of Measures set out in the plan.

2.6.9 Monitoring and Evaluation



It is important that during the implementation of the plan there should be continuing process of monitoring and evaluation to ensure that the objectives are being met or, if they are not, the reasons for failure and identification of measures correct the failures.

2.6.10 Reappraisal After ‘implementation’ there is loop back to ‘baseline’. This is because the implementation plan will change conditions and the original baseline will no longer be valid. This activity is, in fact, part of the monitoring and evaluation process. After ‘monitoring and evaluation’ there is also a loop back to ‘objectives’. This is necessary, as the ‘monitoring and evaluation’ would show which objectives have been satisfied and these would then have to be revised. Some revision might be classed as ‘more realistic’ if the original objectives had not been fully satisfied, perhaps as a result of external factors beyond the control of the government, or ‘more ambitious’ after the original objectives had been satisfied. Consultation is an integral part of the planning process and is particularly important in defining the objectives and in reviewing the draft management plan. Consultation should be wide ranging and might include Parliament, regional development agencies, water user associations, industry, civil society, transboundary partners, and others. Note that the arrows for consultation point in both directions to show that consultation is a two-way process.



3. Institutional Framework for Water Resources Management

3.1 Introduction This section of the report examines the official roles of organizations involved in water resources management as stipulated at present, staffing, findings of an institutional analysis, future institutional option, and steps to be undertaken to improve the institutional framework towards RBM implementation.

3.2 Key Water Management Institutions The main public authorities involved in water resources management in Moldova include a range of public authorities such as: Ministry of Environment and its subordinated institutions (i.e. Apele Moldovei Agency, Agency for Geology and Mineral Resources, State Ecological Inspectorate, State Hydrometeorological Service, Fishery Service, Hydrogeological Expedition “EHGeoM”, Institute of Ecology and Geography), Ministry of Health and Agency of Land Relations and Cadaster. Other public institutions with water-related functions are: Ministry of Agriculture and Food Industry, Ministry of Regional Development and Constructions, and Ministry of Internal Affairs. The local public administration is vested with several water resources management-related responsibilities such as: management of surface water bodies and protection belts along banks, and protected areas at the local level. An overview of water resources-related functions of main central public authorities are described in Table 4, while a detailed description of institutional functions and competences, organigrams, and staffing are provided in Appendix 2.

Table 4. The water resources-related functions of the main central public authorities Description Responsible institution(s) Observations

A. WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT Policy-related functions

Coordination of policy development ME Policy Analysis, Monitoring and Evaluation Division

Because of its role of overall coordinator, this division should be placed at a level higher than the Water Management Division and the Natural Resources and Biodiversity Division

Policy and legislation development ME Water Management Division ME Natural Resources and Biodiversity Division ME Pollution Prevention and Waste Management Division

Not clear policy and legislation development functions; Groundwater management-related policy is not covered by ME’s divisions;



Description Responsible institution(s) Observations Overlapping functions are: Water resources development (i.e. water supply and sanitation) and water resources management policy areas within the ME Water Management Division

Coordination of the implementation of policies on subsoil use

Agency for Geology and Mineral Resources

Promotion of water management and hydroamelioration policy

Apele Moldovei Agency

Monitoring of policy and strategy implementation

ME Water Management Division; ME Natural Resources and Biodiversity Division

Cartography and geo-informatics Agency of Land Relations and Cadaster

Regulation of water uses Issuance of authorizations for special water use (& wastewater discharge)

State Ecological Inspectorate At the central level since January 2011, formerly decentralized.

Provision of water resources use limits & conditions

ME Natural Resources and Biodiversity Division Apele Moldovei Agency, SE Basin Division for Water Management (surface and ground water and volume of wastewater discharged); Agency for Geology and Mineral Resources (for groundwater)

The substance of the conditions proposed by the ME Natural Resources and Biodiversity Division is not clear; moreover, with regard to groundwater, the same function seems to be vested in Apele Moldovei and the Agency for Geology and Mineral Resources.

Revision & improvement of documents relating to the issuance of authorizations

ME Natural Resources and Biodiversity Division

Not clear; overlaps with functions of other institutions (State Ecological Inspectorate).

Endorsement of special and integrated water use as confirmed by integrated use title and special water use authorization

Apele Moldovei Agency, SE Basin Division for Water Management

The substance of this provision is not clear.

Monitoring of water uses and wastewater discharges

Apele Moldovei Agency, Water Management Division, Water Resources Management Section

Monitoring of implementation of water scarcity management measures

Apele Moldovei Agency, Water Management Division, Water Resources Management Section

Water quality protection Setting of water quality requirements for drinking and recreation

Ministry of Health

Setting of construction rules and regulations including wastewater quality requirements

Ministry of Regional Development and Constructions

Moldova still uses “СНиП”9, most of which were developed during the Soviet time and need to be revised.

Regional development including infrastructure

Ministry of Regional Development and Constructions

Determination of max. volume of wastewater to be discharged under

Apele Moldovei SE Basin Division for Water Management

9 СНиП –construction rules and norms



Description Responsible institution(s) Observations authorizations Intervene to reduce groundwater pollution & prevent further pollution

Apele Moldovei, WR Management Section

The manner in which this will happen is not clear.

Water resources monitoring Coordination of water quality monitoring

ME Pollution Prevention and Waste Management Division

Monitoring surface water quality, levels and flows

State Hydrometeorological Service

Monitoring the quality of surface water used for drinking, recreation and irrigation

Ministry of Health

Monitoring groundwater levels and quality

Hydrogeological Expedition; Agency for Geology and Mineral Resources

Geological Division of AGMR to ‘monitor the underground status’.

Data management Coordination of the maintenance of state cadasters, incl. that on protected areas & water

- water management database for Prut & Dniester

ME Natural Resources and Biodiversity Division through Aquatic Resources Section

Development and publication of State Water Cadaster

State Hydrometeorological Service, Hydrology Department

Participation in the development of the State Water Cadaster


Establishment of water management database


Contribute to the creation and updating of the National Fund of water management data

Apele Moldovei Water Management Division, WR Management Section

The manner in which this relates to the state water cadaster is not clear.

Keep statistical records of water use

Apele Moldovei SE Basin Division for Water Management, Water Cadaster Section

Maintenance of records of groundwater use

Agency for Geology and Mineral Resources, State Fund of Subsoil Information Section

Literally, ‘organization of the creation and maintenance of an integrated system of records on the use of the subsoil’.

Maintenance of data and information on water pollution

ME Pollution Prevention and Waste Management Division

Cartography and geo-informatics Agency of Land Relations and Cadaster, institute of Geodesy, technical research and Cadaster “INGEOCAD”

Water resources (river basin) planning Endorsement of maps for the delimitation of water fund land, water management systems, etc.


It is not clear whether this also relates to the identification and delimitation of water bodies. If not, this activity is not covered

Water balance development


Preparation of balance of groundwater reserves

Agency for Geology and Mineral Resources



Description Responsible institution(s) Observations Development of river basin management plans

Apele Moldovei Water Management Division, WR Management Section; SE Basin Division for Water Management

Under the draft Water Law, river basin management plans are to be developed by the ME

Management of emergency situations Participate in activities relating to flood protection and hydrotechnical works accidents


Provide warnings against floods & other calamities

Apele Moldovei Water Management Division, WR Management Section; State Hydrometeorological Service

Develop plans for defense against floods & other calamities


Provide warnings against pollution accidents


State Ecological Expertise Conduct of State Ecological Expertise

ME Pollution Prevention and Waste Management Division; State Ecological Inspectorate

Control of compliance Control of compliance State Ecological Inspectorate,

Inspection General Division

Scientific research Geo- and ecosystems, environmental GIS, integrated environmental monitoring

Institute of Ecology and Geography

Hydrogeology Institute of Geology and Seismology Hydrobiology Institute of Zoology

B. WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT Water supply and sanitation Policy development ME Water Management Division

Apele Moldovei Agency This should not be a function of ME Water Management Division and Apele Moldovei Agency, which is an ‘operational’ rather than a resource management body within the meaning of the EU WFD. It should be transferred to the Ministry of Regional Development and Constructions.

Development & implementation of annual water supply & sanitation programs

ME Water Management Division This should not be a function of the ME; it should be transferred to the Ministry of Regional Development and Constructions.

Irrigation & land reclamation Policy promotion Apele Moldovei Agency (Water

Management Division) The meaning of ‘promotion’ in this context is not clear. The development functions vested in Apele Moldovei show that this agency is typically a policy implementer.

Coordination of reservoir operation Apele Moldovei Agency (Water Management Division, WR Management Section)



Description Responsible institution(s) Observations O & M of centralized irrigation systems, & fee collection

Apele Moldovei Agency, TSI with support of Land Improvement (Hydroamelioration) Section

Flood protection Structural measures (relating to works)

Apele Moldovei Agency (Water Management Division, WR Management Section)

3.2.1 Data Exchange The review revealed that there are no formal agreements for water-related data exchange among the Moldovan institutions. However, data exchange for the purpose of State Water Cadaster development is a good example of data exchange among institutions. Three institutions are jointly responsible for elaboration and editing of the State Water Cadaster on an annual basis: (1) the Apele Moldovei Agency (Water Basin Management Department); (2) the State Hydro-meteorological Service; and, (3) the State Agency for Geology and Mineral Resources.10

3.3 Findings

3.3.1 Institutional Analysis Gaps The institutional review shows that there are a number of gaps in the present institutional framework, which refer, in particular, to the following:

• Identification and delimitation of water bodies • Setting of objectives for water resources (river basin) management • River basin planning • Flood risk management • Interaction with stakeholders

There are a few proposals for the delimitation of the two river basin districts – the Danube/Prut and the Nistru – but pending the adoption of the new law on water an official decision on the subject may not be taken, since none of the existing institutions carries this function under the present legal framework. The same applies to the identification and delimitation of water bodies and to the setting of objectives. As far as river basin planning is concerned, the relevant functions are vested in the Apele Moldovei Agency by the agency’s regulations,11 and in particular in its Water Management Division and in its State Enterprise ‘Basin Division for Water Management’ (SE ‘BDWM’). However, the Agency currently has limited capacity to prepare plans. Moreover, a state enterprise is not the right institution for these functions to be housed.12 The Water Code of 1993 is silent on the subject, but according to the new draft Water Law the ME is in charge of the development of river basin district management plans, in consultation with the river basin district committees (Table 6). There are no mechanisms for interaction with the stakeholders at present.

10 Governmental Decision No. 626 of 18.08.1994 on State Water Cadastre, Monitorul Oficial No. 003 of 08.09.1994. 11 Government Decision No. 1056 of 15 September, 2008, on the approval of the regulations, structure and staff of the

Apele Moldovei Agency, in Monitorul Oficial No. 175-176 of 19 September, 2008. 12 According to Law No. 146-XIII of 16 June, 1994, on state enterprises, a state enterprise is an enterprise whose

capital is fully owned by the state. It is an independent economic entity with juridical personality, which carries out an entrepreneurial activity on the basis of the state property that it is called to administer.



Finally, the present legal framework deals with flood risk management only with respect to the provision of warnings and response measures. Prevention measures, including the assessment of flood risks, the identification of flood-risk areas and flood management planning,13 are not envisaged.

Overlapping Functions The institutional review also highlighted cases in which functions overlap. As shown in Table 4 above, policy-related functions are a case in point. These are vested in several divisions of the ME, namely, the Policy Analysis, Monitoring and Evaluation Division, the Water Management Division, and the Natural Resources and Biodiversity Division, but the capacity to develop water resources policies within the ME is limited. The Apele Moldovei Agency also carries policy-related functions. Each of the above entities knows that the others are vested with policy-related functions. Therefore, each refrains from taking action in this regard and expects the others to do it. The end result is that no policy decisions are taken. Another area of overlapping functions is data management. Although the State Hydrometeorological Service and the Apele Moldovei Agency are the logical repositories of water-related data and information, the Aquatic Resources Section of the Natural Resources and Biodiversity (NR & B) Division of the ME is responsible for coordinating the creation and administration of a water management database for the Dniester and Prut river basins. This function should not be vested in the NR & B Division because the division is not a technical body, and as such does not have the capacity needed to coordinate databases. The AGMR and the Pollution Prevention and Waste Management Division of the ME are also in possession of data and information on groundwater use and water quality, respectively. Cumbersome Processes Another finding of the institutional review relates to the fact that the process of issuing water use authorizations is in the hands of several institutions, including institutions of the ME and other institutions, such as the Ministry of Health. While the State Ecological Inspectorate of the ME is responsible for actually issuing an authorization, the Apele Moldovei Agency, the Ministry of Health and the AGMR are called upon to approve the relevant application from the viewpoint of water use limits, health requirements and groundwater-related aspects, respectively. Depending on the type and purpose of the intended use, other institutions may also be involved in the approval process. The responsibility for obtaining the approvals lies on the applicant, who first has to put together the documents needed in support of the application, and then to visit each institution before filing the application with the Inspectorate, together with the approvals and/or recommendations of the institutions. The process is cumbersome, in that it entails visits to several institutions in order to obtain their endorsement of an application. Moreover, in spite of the fact that the Inspectorate has local (district) branches, the issuance of authorizations is centralized at present, due to lack of qualified staff in the districts and high personnel turnover. Thus, the applicant for an authorization might be required to travel to Chisinau on more than one occasion – to file the application and to collect the authorization. This system is not user-friendly and may constrain investments in the water sector. In fact, a person is not likely to be encouraged to use water in the presence of lengthy and complex procedures, and projects important for the economy of Moldova may go underdeveloped. Also, a person may simply decide to continue to use water without an authorization. In view of the above, a simplified system should be established following the ‘single window’ approach, which enables the applicant for a water use authorization to file the application with a single institution, at

13 Which should be linked to river basin management planning.



the appropriate location. This institution obtains from the other institutions concerned the endorsements needed and issues the authorization – or the document stating the reasons why an authorization may not be issued – within a specified period of time. Clear guidelines on how to file the application (i.e., on the information to be provided and the documents to by submitted together with the application), should be made available to the applicant. Water Resources Development versus Water Resources Management Following perhaps a Soviet tradition, the importance of separating water resources development from resource management is not fully felt in Moldova, so that no clear-cut distinction tends to be drawn between institutions playing a policy-making and policy implementation role on the one hand, and institutions dealing with the construction and O&M of hydraulic infrastructure and the provision of water services on the other. The Apele Moldovei Agency is vested with both these roles, as was mentioned earlier, while certain functions of the ME require technical skills. If both resource management and development functions are in the hands of one and the same institution, there is no way to assess performance, because the institution is at the same time a poacher and a gamekeeper (i.e., the controlled and the controller, responsible for supervising its own activities). Thus, there is no transparency and, in principle, it is difficult to ascertain whether water resources are developed and used in a sustainable manner, and whether the water services rendered to the end users are satisfactory. It is, therefore, indispensable that a distinction be drawn - and maintained - between management and development functions.

3.4 Water Law

3.4.1 Existing Water Legislation

3.4.1.1 Water Code The Water Code of 199314, which superseded the Water Code of the Soviet Socialist Republic of Moldova and is still in force, provides a comprehensive framework for the management of surface and underground water resources in Moldova. In particular, it aims at ensuring the rational use of water and its protection against pollution, contamination and depletion, the prevention and elimination of its harmful effects, the enhancement and preservation of the water status, the protection of the rights of legal and natural persons, and a strengthening of the legality of relations in the water sector. The code fits into the overall framework provided by the 1993 Law on Environment Protection, and is complemented by a number of laws dealing with water management-related aspects, among which the 1995 Law on protected zones and belts of rivers and water basins, which requires the creation of protection zones and belts along rivers and water bodies and establishes a regulatory framework for activities within these zones, the 1998 Law on the fund for state protected natural areas, the 1997 Law on natural resources and the 2009 Subsoil (Mining) Code. In addition, many Government decisions detail the provisions of the main laws. Given the large number of laws and subsidiary legal texts, this short review is limited to the 1993 Water Code and will make reference to legal provisions to be found elsewhere whenever relevant. The Water Code defines two types of water use, namely general use and special use, the latter use being subject to administrative authorization. The discharge of wastewater is listed among water uses or, more precisely, as a purpose of water use15.

14Water Code No. 1532 of 22 June 1993, Monitorul Official No.10 of 1 October 1993 15Use of water for wastewater discharge purposes, consistent with the Soviet tradition.



As far as water quality is concerned, provisions in the code are of a quite general nature. The discharge of wastewater is allowed only if it does not increase the concentration of pollutants in ambient water to levels higher than the maximum allowable concentrations (MACs) defined in implementing regulations. Finally, the code defines the responsibilities of legal and natural persons and the emergency measures to be taken to prevent and eliminate the harmful effects of water, including floods. Those just described are the main provisions of the 1993 Water Code, at a glance. A summary of them as subsequently amended is reproduced in Table 5.

Table 516 - Summary of main provisions of the 1993 Water Code. Water ownership Public domain of State or local territorial units, or private (Art. 1; see also Art.

127 of the Constitution). National water policy The formulation of a national water policy is not required under the code.

Nevertheless, a Concept of National Policy in the Field of Water Resources was adopted by Parliament Resolution No. 325 of 18/7/2003. It promotes the implementation of integrated water resources management by river basin. The concept states that the water resources management is to be adjusted to the requirements of international conventions and EU directives. A number of strategy documents and programs have been or are being developed in order to implement the concept.17

Licensing of water use (authorizations)

Authorization for special water use to be issued by the State Ecological Inspectorate, the conditions of use being set in consultation with the state water management, hydrogeology, sanitary inspection, fisheries and other interested bodies (Art. 27). Regulations on procedures for the issuance, modification, suspension and cancellation of authorizations were approved by the Prime Vice Director-General of the Ministry of Environment of 26 May, 1997. Water sources (or parts thereof) are granted for ‘individual use’ by the state or local authorities (Art. 35). Investment activities directed to the prospection, exploration, development and restoration of the natural resources of Moldova are subject to a concession under Law No. 534-XIII of 13/7/1995, on concessions.

Duration of authorization

Permanent or temporary (Art. 31). Temporary use may be short term (< 3 y) or long term (3-25 y); may be extended. However, according to Art. 27 as amended in 2007, authorizations have a three-year duration. Thus, there is a conflict between the two provisions.

16Taken from Water Governance in the Western EECCA, Overview of Legal and Institutional Frameworks & Possible Assistance,

Preliminary Findings, Report by Marcella Nanni, July, 2008, and updated. 17A draft National Strategy on water resources development is currently under preparation. In addition, the Water Supply and

Sanitation Strategy adopted by Government Decision No. 662 of 13 June 2007, (Monitorul Oficial No. 86-89of 22 June 2007)establishes specific objectives for the medium term (2008-2012) and long-term strategic objectives (2013-2025). The 2005 Water supply and sanitation programme for the settlements of the Republic of Moldova until2015, adopted by Government Decision No. 1406 of 30 December 2005 (Monitorul Oficial No. 1-4 of 06 January, 2006), is also to be mentioned. Finally, the Scheme for the protection of settlements against floods in Moldova, adopted by Government Decision No. 1030 of 13 October 2000 (Monitorul Oficial No. 133-136 of 26 October 2000), indicates priority actions for protection against floods and the relevant costs during 2000- 2005. Since then, no other policy documents have been developed on this subject although a Strategy for flood risk managementis planned for preparation in 2011.



Wastewater discharge authorization

Wastewater discharge authorizations (Art. 27; 1997 regulations) are issued by the state ecological inspection in consultation with the health authorities and other interested bodies (Art. 72). Discharges are subject to maximum allowable concentration norms and effluent treatment (Art. 73).

Public information on proposed activities (applications for authorization)

No public notice requirements for applications for authorizations.

EIA Construction projects, installations and other schemes affecting the state of water are subject to ecological expertise in accordance with water and land legislation (Art. 9). Consistent with the Law on Environmental Protection (No. 1515-XII of 16 June, 1993), Law N. 851 of 29/5/1996 sets forth the basic principles underlying environmental reviews and impact assessments. Cabinet Decision No. 1230 of 24/10/2006 sets the ‘regulatory impact analysis’ procedures to which legislation (including water legislation) is subject.

Suspension, modification, cancellation of authorization

In the cases specified in Arts. 38-41. The water user is entitled to compensation when the authorization is terminated or modified not through his/her fault (Art. 42).

Transferability of authorization

The Water Code is silent on this aspect. Under the draft water law the holder of an authorization may transfer it to another person subject to the written agreement of the water management authority.

Water use fees Water use fees (Art. 30), to be paid into the budget. Pollution fees Water pollution (environmental pollution) fees (Art. 30), to be paid into the

account of the territorial branch of the Ministry of Environment; these fees contribute to the formation of the ecological fund (see Law No. 1540-XIII of 25/2/1998, on payments for environmental pollution).

Authorizations fees None (Art. 27). Financial incentives They may be provided to those saving water or using clean technologies

through tax incentives, credit and other privileges (Art. 90). Water quality (ambient) standards

Rules on the protection of surface waters were adopted by the state committee for nature protection of the USSR on 1 March, 1991. Quality standards (PDK) were approved later, in 1993, as an attachment to the 1991 rules. The rules (and the standards) were then abrogated on 16 March, 2006, as a result of the ‘guillotine’ process of regulatory reform aiming at simplifying bureaucracy. New standards were developed under a recent OECD initiative, but no agreement has been reached so far at the level of the Minister of Environment Protection (the Ministry of Health is satisfied with the proposed standards). Thus, there is a void at present.

Effluent standards (norms)

To be adopted by the environment protection body with the approval of the state water management body and the sanitary inspection units (Art. 73). The methodology for the calculation of maximum permissible wastewater discharge limits (PDS) that was approved in 1990 by the State Committee for Nature Protection of the USSR is still used.

Groundwater The use of groundwater for purposes other than drinking and domestic water supply is not allowed, unless surface water sources are absent and sufficient good-quality groundwater exists (Art. 46). Groundwater use for industrial purposes is subject to authorization for special water use (Art. 58). Groundwater prospection is a responsibility of state organizations, under the supervision of the state bodies in charge of groundwater (Art. 96).



Those carrying out mining operations must inform the environment protection and water management bodies and take conservation and quality protection measures when groundwater becomes vulnerable in the course of those operations (Art. 98). Rules on the (use and) protection of groundwater were approved by the Ministry of Geology of the USSR in 1985 and are still in force.

Harmful effects Bank protection strips are to be established in order to prevent soil erosion, siltation, flow alteration, etc. (Art. 97). Duty of the authorities in cooperation with water users to implement measures for the prevention and abatement of harmful effects (Art. 99); special commissions may be established to coordinate work aimed at the prevention and abatement of the harmful effects of water (Art. 100).

Wastewater reuse/recycling

Wastewater reuse for irrigation purposes is subject to authorization for special water use (Art. 54), to be issued by the environment protection bodies in agreement with the sanitary and veterinary control bodies.

Water resources inventory (accounting)

Data on water quantity and quality are to be fed into the state water cadaster (Art. 102).

Water use inventory (accounting)

Water uses and development activities are registered in the state water cadaster (Art. 102).

Inventory of pollution sources

Data are fed into the state water cadaster (Art. 102).

Monitoring Monitoring the quantity and quality of water resources is a responsibility of water users (Art. 37). State monitoring of water use aims at determining the volume & quality of available waters (Art. 101).

River basin management planning (RBMP)

No RBMP in the Code as such. Water-economy balances to estimate water availability and the extent of water use are to be prepared by basin and economic region (Art. 103). General and basin (territorial) schemes for complex water use and protection (Art. 104). Several sectoral water-related programs have been devised, including one on irrigation improvement, one on the restoration of canal systems and one on land reclamation. However, it would appear that they are not implemented due to lack of funds.

Protection zones Arts. 13 and 14 contain provisions on protected zones for surface waters and reservoirs. These zones include main and secondary protection belts for drinking water supply sources. Water sources of particular scientific or cultural value are declared as protected areas and form part of the state reserve fund of Moldova (Art. 69). Water protection zones are covered more in detail by Law No. 440-XIII of 27/4/1995.

Public participation in decision-making

A right of access to information of public interest is sanctioned in Article 34 of the Constitution; Article 37 guarantees citizens a right to obtain free information on the state of the environment. Here, also, there is no state duty to disclose information.

Offences and Offences are listed in Art. 107, but nothing is said as to how they are punished.



penalties Relationship with international treaty provisions

Provisions of international agreements prevail over national legislation (Art. 110)

The 1993 Water Code does not require that water resources be managed by river basin. The only reference to river basins is to be found in Article 103, according to which ‘water resources management balances estimating the availability and extent of water use are compiled on the basis of river basins and economic regions’, and in Article 104, which calls for the preparation of ‘general and basin-oriented (territorial) schemes for complex water use and protection’ to ‘…determine the basic water resources management and other arrangements to satisfy the needs for water of the population and the national economy as well as the protection of water and the prevention from its harmful effects.’ This is not in line with EU law and the international agreements to which Moldova is a party, which require that water resource be managed by river basin and planned with the participation of stakeholders, with a view to attaining given objectives. The development of a new draft water law was initiated in 2005 by the Apele Moldovei Agency in consultation with the other government institutions involved in water resources management. The current version of this draft law is briefly described in section 3.4.1.2. Groundwater Groundwater management in Moldova is currently regulated by the 1993 Water Code, the 1997 Law on natural resources, and the 2009 Subsoil Code. The 1997 Law on Natural Resources declares that all surface waters and deep groundwater are “national water resources”, while superficial groundwater in unconfined aquifers are classified as “Local resources”. The Law provides that the Rivers Nistru, Prut and Lakes Cahul and Ialpug are transboundary water bodies. There is no mention of transboundary aquifers. The 2007 Government Decision on the establishment of the automated information system “State register of natural mineral waters, drinking water and bottled soft drinks” establishes the public health requirements for groundwater used for drinking purposes and for natural mineral water. National legislation does not provide for the identification of surface waters and groundwater contaminated or potentially affected by nitrate pollution in the way the EU Nitrate Directive first brought attention to this problem in Western Europe. The importance and regulation of nitrate has been expanded in the more recent Groundwater Directive. Also, the current legislation lacks implementation details on groundwater protection, monitoring, borehole design, drilling, conservation and sealing, requirements for the zones of sanitary protection, etc. Economic Mechanisms Appropriate water pricing has a key role to play in the development of sustainable water policies. To play an effective role in enhancing the sustainability of water resources, water pricing policies need to be based on the assessment of costs and benefits of water use and to consider both the financial costs of providing services as well as environmental and resource costs. A price directly linked to the water quantities used or pollution produced can ensure that pricing has a clear incentive function for consumers to improve water use efficiency and reduce pollution. Efficient water pricing policies have a demonstrable impact on the water demand of different uses. As a result of changes in water demand, efficient water pricing reduces the pressure on water resources. This is particularly true for the agricultural sector. The available evidence suggest that farming communities can be expected to adapt to certain price increases that would result from a stricter recovery of the costs of



water services. In Moldova, domestic water use has dropped dramatically since the introduction of water meters and higher tariffs. Different levels of cost recovery among economic sectors, such as agriculture and industry, are likely to influence the competitiveness of these sectors both in the internal market and international trade. Pricing policies that better account for the environment will build on:

• A firm application of the principle of recovery of costs • Pricing structures that provide incentives and the promotion of metering devices • The assessment of major environmental costs and, where feasible, the internalization of these

costs into prices • Phased implementation of pricing policies that integrate sound economic and environmental

principles The current Fiscal Code Title VIII18 deals with Natural Resources Fees and includes taxes for water use in its Annex 1 and taxes for sand and gravel extraction from riverbeds is presented in Annex 2. The application of the natural resources fees on water use is regulated in Chapter 2, Water Tax. Taxation is limited to … the legal and natural persons registered as entrepreneurs, who extract water from the water fund and those who use the water at hydroelectric power stations (Article 302). However, according to Article 305 the water tax is not applied to:

a) Water extracted from subsurface simultaneously with the useful minerals or extracted for the prevention (elimination) of the harmful effect of these waters

b) Water extracted and delivered to the population, public authorities and institutions financed from budgets of all levels

c) Water extracted for firefighting or delivered for this purpose d) Water extracted by companies of Blind, Deaf and Disabled Persons Associations, and state health

establishments or delivered to them e) Water extracted by companies of the penitentiary system or delivered to them

Points b) - e) effectively cover all (public) water supply. In addition to the private water supply under general water use, all drinking water supply seems to be exempted. In Annex 1 to Title VIII of the Fiscal Code the water fees are specified as 0.3 MDL/m3 for water abstraction from the water fund (surface or groundwater), 16 MDL/m3 for mineral water and water that is extracted for bottling, and 0.006 MDL/m3 of water used by hydropower stations. The payments for environmental pollution are covered by the Law on Environmental Protection19 and Law on Payment for Environmental Pollution20. The Law on Environmental Protection is supported by calculation methodologies for the assessment of damages caused to fishery resources21. The Law on Payment for Environmental Pollution is supported by calculation methodologies for the assessment of damage due to non-compliance with water legislations22. The damage caused to aquatic biological resources is covered by the Law on the fish stock, fishery and aquaculture23. According to Article 33g, the Fishery Service estimates the damage caused to aquatic 18 Fiscal Code No. 67 of 05.05.2005, Monitorul Oficial No. 80-82 of 10.06.2005. 19 Law on Environmental Protection No. No. 1515 of 16.06.1993, Monitorul Oficial No. 10 of 01.10.1993. 20 Law on payments for environmental pollution No. 1540 of 25 February1998, Monitorul Oficial No.54-55 of 18 June 1998. 21 Instruction for the evaluation of damage caused to fish resources No. 206 of 07.10. 2003 of the Ministry of Ecology, Constructions

and Territorial Development, Monitorul Oficial No.150 of 20.08. 2004. 22 Instruction on assessment of environmental damage as result of non-compliance with water legislation No. 163 of 07.07. 2003 of the Ministry of Ecology, Constructions and Territorial Development, Monitorul Oficial No. 208 of 03.10. 2003. 23 Law on fish stock, fishery and aquaculture No. 149-XVI of 8.06. 2006, Monitorul Oficial No. 126-130 of 11.08. 2006.



biological resources through various activities (pollution, destruction of spawning and wintering sites, water abstraction, sand extraction, installation of pipelines and cables, making explosions, illegal fishing, and so on). According to Article 43.3, the funds for damage caused to aquatic biological resources from natural water bodies are transferred to a special account of the Fisheries Service to be used for the construction and exploitation of fisheries compensation facilities, the current works to improve fish (buying juveniles for stocking with fish of natural water bodies, restoration of spawning sites, scientific research to increase fish stocks and conservation of aquatic biological resources). National Geographic Information System The geodetic and cartographic activity on the territory of the Republic of Moldova is regulated by the Law on Geodesy, Cartography and Geo-informatics24. The National Geographic Information System25 (NGIS) is a set of integrated into a single system informational resources elaborated and managed by departments and institutions based on their competences and distribution of responsibilities within sectors. The main purpose of the NGIS Concept is to define the general principles of the system and its basic components, as well as the development of individual elements of the system. The NGIS Concept outlines the basic principles of collection, processing and storage of spatial data; modeling and analysis, visualization and presentation to the users; defines functional requirements to the content of system, technical requirements, organizational infrastructure, and aspects of integration of different, departmental informational resources. At the informational level, NGIS consists of two components:

a) Basic spatial model represents a geometric foundation of the NGIS and includes:

• Digital Base Map (DBM) • State Register "Territorial-Administrative Structure and Addresses Plan of the localities (rural

and urban)" • Register of Cadaster Plans

b) Topic-based electronic maps - represent thematic maps elaborated and maintained by state

institutions/departments, integrated part of the departmental/institutional informational resources.

Departmental/institutional information resources have to contain specific three-dimensional information, provided in the form of topic-based electronic maps, relying on a DBM. Such electronic maps (layers) will rely on the basis of the same information provided for elaboration of State Cadasters such as water cadaster, forestry cadaster, mineral resources cadaster, and others (please see Figure 4).

The number of layers and volumes of information to be stored in the institutional GIS shall be established by each institution according to the real needs and capacities. A part of data from each department (thematic layers) is subject to integration into NGIS.

To ensure proper design and elaboration of the departmental informational system it is necessary to organize access to information resources from the following automated information systems: a digital base map (DBM) contains special graphical information, as well as attributive and serves as a basis for all geometric information systems that use spatial information. The digital map includes the following topographic plans:

24 Law on Geodesy, Cartography and Geo-informatics No.778–XV of 27.12.2001, Monitorul Oficial No. 29-31 of 28.02.2002. 25 Government decision No.1298 of 28.10.2003 introduces a concept of National Geographic Information System (NGIS)

http://lex.justice.md/viewdoc.php?action=view&view=doc&id=313237&lang=1

http://lex.justice.md/viewdoc.php?action=view&view=doc&id=313237&lang=1



1) Mathematical basis 2) Land topography 3) Hydrography and hydraulic structures 4) Settlements

Figure 4. Scheme of the National Geographic Information System

5) Industries, utilities and agriculture 6) Terrestrial communications network routes and related infrastructure 7) Vegetation 8) Soils 9) Borders and fences

Basic information resources are closely inter-related and form an “informational core" of state information system, allowing subsequently creation of spatial-relations between the State Registry of Population and State Registry of Legal Entities.

According to NGIS concept, the Agency for Land Relations and Cadaster (ALRC) and the Ministry of Information Technology and Communications of the Republic of Moldova are coordinating authorities in the field of geo-informatics, which:

• Regulate technological aspects of creation, integration and maintenance of GIS systems and networks, within limits of competence and distribution of departmental duties established by laws

• Insures creation, filling, use, management, and maintenance of NGIS, together with institutions participating in the integration processes



Ministries, departments, agencies, services and other institutions create, use and integrate institutional information resources and present information to the coordinating institutions upon integration in the National GIS. With respect to Geospatial Positioning Accuracy and degree of detail of the geometric parameters for the geo-database, objects must be proportional to topographic plans of scale 1:5 000 (taken as a basis) for undeveloped territories, and 1:2000 for the developed territories of the country. According to the regulation on national geographic information system, the institution responsible for creation of the concept for a water GIS is the Apele Moldovei Agency, and the Design Institute “Acvaproiect”.

3.4.1.2 Draft Water Law The new draft Water law, which is the result of years of study and discussions aimed at aligning the legal framework for water resources management in Moldova with the EU water Acquis, is expected to be adopted in 2011. Its current version provides for the division of the national territory into two river basin districts, namely: (a) the Danube-Prut and Black Sea, and (b) the Dniester, the boundaries of which are to be approved by the Government (Art. 10). Both districts are transboundary, and the use and protection of their waters are covered by international agreements. The river basin district will be the unit for water resources management. Therefore, Art. 19 of the draft law calls for the preparation of a river basin district management plan for each river basin district, to implement the ‘concept of national policy in the field of water resources’ as provided for in Art. 17. The content of the concept is spelt out in the draft law so that, once the law will be approved, the present concept, which dates back to 2003, will have to be replaced. Art. 19 of the draft Water law provides an outline of the main content of the river basin district management plans, which reflects the relevant provisions of the EU Water Framework Directive and set forth priorities among water uses (Art. 24). These plans are to be prepared by the specialized central body of public administration in the field of the environment – the Ministry of Environment (ME) - in consultation with the river basin district committees and the stakeholders, following the steps indicated in Art. 20, which are to be detailed by way of regulations. They are approved by the Government and are subject to review and updating every six years. Measures are to be developed by the ME jointly with the river basin district committees in order to ensure correspondence of the status of waters and water bodies within each river basin district with the environmental objectives indicated in paragraph (1) of Art. 38. These objectives are to be established by the Government by reference to the chemical and/or ecological status and/or quantitative status for surface water, as well as for groundwater and for protected areas. The measures must be included in the relevant river basin district management plan. If exceptional circumstances linked to natural causes or force majeure, or if in comparison to the anticipated benefit this would be possible only at a disproportionate cost compared to technical feasibility, the river basin district committees may apply to the Government for derogation from compliance with the environmental objectives (Art. 38). Management objectives for groundwater or groundwater bodies may specify objectives in terms of quantitative and chemical status, the concentration of pollutants as a result of human activities and ensuring a balance between abstraction and recharge. Specific regulations on this issue will have to be developed after the adoption of the law (Art. 46). The draft law further states that water bodies are to be divided into classes by the ME, by reference to environmental quality requirements for water which are to be set based on each water body’s ‘ecological



condition’ and functions (uses)26. The target status, or environmental objective, is to be attained gradually, in accordance with specified schedules, and is to be defined for each water body in the review of the relevant river basin district management plan (Art. 37). As far as the control of water quality is concerned, the draft law calls for the adoption by the Government of regulations on emission limit values for hazardous substances other than priority hazardous substances (Art. 36). These regulations shall specify emission controls and technical requirements for effluent treatment prior to discharge, including requirements for the use of best available techniques, as well as monitoring requirements. Water quality requirements are to be determined for individual water classes in water protection regulations. Following a Soviet tradition, the draft law draws a distinction between general uses of water (i.e. those uses that, given their limited or non-existing impact on water resources and other water uses, do not require an administrative authorization27), and special water uses, that is, those uses which are subject to administrative authorization. The draft Water Law is quite detailed as far as the procedures for obtaining an authorization for special water use (Chapter IV). Authorizations are to be issued by the State Ecological Inspectorate of the ME in the respect of the relevant river basin district management plan for a maximum of 12 years or, when the investment is long-term and substantial28, 25 years (Art. 26). They are to be recorded in the water register. Together with the water cadaster, which contains information on water bodies, this register will provide information essential for water resources planning. Draft regulations setting forth conditions for wastewater discharges into natural water bodies were developed by the ME and passed the test of concordance with the EU Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive. They are now being discussed at the Government level. In addition to the above, the draft Water Law includes provisions on the establishment of administrative arrangements for international waters, the analysis of river basin district characteristics, the maintenance of water bodies and protection zones, the establishment of water quality monitoring programs and the management of flood risks, including preliminary flood assessments, the preparation of flood hazards maps and flood risks maps and the establishment of flood risk management plans. For its implementation, the draft Water Law will require the development of some twenty sets of regulations. Several draft regulations have already been developed, including the following:

• Draft regulations on the identification, delimitation and classification of water bodies • Draft regulations on surface water protection • Draft regulations on development and approval of management program and action plan • Draft regulations on procedures for the development and updating of water resources monitoring

programs • Draft regulations on river basin committees

Institutional Framework The water resources management-related functions to be performed by various institutions according to the draft Water Law are shown in Table 6.

26Among other, these requirements must specify values for temperature, acidity/alkalinity, dissolved oxygen, chemical and

microbiological parameters. 27But may be temporarily prohibited or restricted in the cases specified at Art. 22. 28Involving, for instance, the construction of a dam or other hydro-technical facility.



Table 6. Water resources management functions according to the draft Water Law

Function Responsible institution(s)

Develop policies, normative acts and plans to be approved by Government, including the changes necessary to achieve convergence with European requirements (Art. 8)

Specialized central body of public administration in the field of environment (ME)

Develop river basin district management plans (Art. 19) ME & River Basin District Committee (RBDC) Develop procedures for the development & revision of plans (to be approved by Government) (Art. 19)

ME

Implement policies (Art. 8) ME Issue and administer environmental authorization for special water use (Art. 25 ff.)

ME (State Ecological Inspectorate)

Identify water bodies in respect of which water quality requirements shall apply (Art. 37)

ME

Ensure correspondence of the status of water bodies with environmental objectives (Art. 38)

ME & RBDC

Propose drought declaration (Art.48) ME Assessment & mapping of flood-risk areas (Art. 49) ME Preparation of flood risk management plans (Art. 49) ME (in consult.w/ RBDC) Identify waters affected by pollution from agricultural sources & designation of vulnerable areas (Art. 43)

ME (in consult.w/ RBDC)

Monitor water resources and water use (Art. 8)

ME

Monitor the conditions of surface water, groundwater & protected areas (Art. 13)

ME

Monitor drinking & irrigation water sources and recreation areas (Art. 13)

ME & MH

Keep State Water Cadaster (Arts. 8 & 14) ME through Water Management Administrative Authority (Apele Moldovei Agency)

Keep register of environmental authorizations for special water use (Arts. 8 & 15)

ME

ensure compliance with legislation on water quality & quantity (Art. 8)

ME & MH

promote public participation in the discussion of certain drafts in the field of water policy of national interest (Art. 8)

ME

international cooperation & coordinate implementation of international conventions (Art. 8)

ME

coordinate external donors & investment (Art. 8) ME Other tasks under law (Art. 8) ME participate in development & implementation of policies, programs, plans and measures (Art. 9)

Apele Moldovei Agency

manage hydro-technical infrastructure (Art. 9) Apele Moldovei Agency maintain water bodies & protection belts & zones (Arts. 9, 11 & 50)

Apele Moldovei Agency & local administrative authorities

other powers stipulated by law (Art. 9) Apele Moldovei Agency Exercise powers delegated by ME (Art. 9) Apele Moldovei Agency Economic Mechanisms The principles of water management are stated in Article 6 and includes the “Polluter Pays” principle, according to which the costs of preventing or remediation of pollution to water resources are born by the polluter. The article also mentions the economic value of water, meaning that the economic value of water resources and water resources management should be recognized through the introduction of cost recovery mechanisms for water resources management. In Article 21 the water use and the obligations of water users are mentioned. These obligations do not include any economic aspects such as payment of resource and management costs and the payment for water pollution as would be expected according to Article 6. However, in Article 54 Cost recovery is introduced and specified in Article 55 (see below). As mentioned above, the draft Water Law distinguishes between General water use (Article 22) and Special water use (Article 23).



General water use is defined as:

a) Human consumption and other domestic needs (through individual abstraction from wells and springs and from public water supply, but deep boreholes require permits)

b) Livestock watering without the use of permanent structures c) Irrigation of household plots (through individual abstraction) d) Bathing and the use of water for recreational purposes e) Abstraction and use of water for the purpose of firefighting or any other emergency

The general water use does not include fisheries/aquaculture. The disposal of wastewater (into the groundwater through septic tanks or otherwise) by (individual) rural households is regulated in Article 40. General water use is exempted from the need to obtain environmental authorization, but is also free of charge, as stated in Article 55. Special water use is defined as all water uses that are not defined as general water use, including:

a) The abstraction of water from sources of surface water and groundwater for the supply of water intended for human consumption

b) The abstraction and use of water from sources of surface water and groundwater for technical and industrial purposes including food processing and agro-industry

c) The abstraction and use of water from different sources for irrigation d) The discharge of waste water (other than through individual septic tanks) e) The impoundment of water for the purpose of generating hydroelectric power f) The construction of wharves, jetties and other hydraulic structures on the land of the water

fund g) The development and commercial operation of bathing beaches and recreational areas h) The use of water for aquaculture or fish farming

Not mentioned under General or Special use are:

i) Mineral/medical waters (which are mentioned in Article 9 and taxed under the Fiscal Code Annex 1)

j) Storm water run-off from lands evacuated by economic agents (mentioned in Law 1540, Chapter III)

k) Heat exchange (cooling, which is mentioned in Annex 5 of the Law 1540 on Payment for Environmental Pollution)

l) Sand and gravel extraction (which is allowed under Law 1515 Art 48 with local permission and taxed under the Fiscal Code 299/Annex 3, but banned under Article 13f of Law 440 on the Protection Belts and Zones of Rivers & Reservoirs)

m) Flood protection (which is the subject of Article 49) n) Navigation29 a) Discharges from livestock manure into sewers (which is mentioned in Law 1540)

Special water use requires an environmental authorization. In case special water use implies wastewater discharge, this discharge has to be mentioned in the application of the authorization. According to Article 54 and Article 55 special water use could be subject to water use charges as defined in the Fiscal Code (Title VIII Natural Resources Fees) and pollution fees (Law for the Payment of Environmental Pollution 1540 XIII and its calculation instructions).

29 In 2009 there operated 8 tug boats, 9 barges and 1 passenger ship (excluding Transniestria). Source: National Bureau of Statistics

on-line database.



The content of environmental authorizations for special water use is specified in Article 28. Not mentioned is any fee for the processing of such authorizations and Article 30 does not create the options to introduce such fees at a later stage. However, Article 31 states that In case of the withdrawal the an environmental authorization for special water use the holder of the authorization is entitled to obtain a new authorization free of charge for the use of an equivalent volume of water from an alternative source or payment of compensation calculated on the same legal basis as an expropriation in the public interest. Also, the extension of an environmental authorization for special water use (Article 32) does not mention fees to be paid for their processing. Chapter V of the draft Water Law regulates the protection of water. None of the articles in this chapter mention any fees, fines or penalties. The water pollution by aquaculture/fish ponds (by excreta, wasted feed and agro-chemicals) is not mentioned in this law, but is included in Article 9.3 and Annex 5 of the Law 1540 on Payment for Environmental Pollution. Also, the pollution with heat is not mentioned in this law, but has also been included in Law 1540. Flood risk management is treated in the draft Water Law in Article 49. According to this article The Specialized Central Body of Public Administration in the field of Environment shall … in consultation with each river basin district Committee develop … measures to reduce flood risks and protect human health and lives, economic activities, ecosystems and cultural heritage. The people and owners of the economic activities which are to be protected by these measures, however, seem not to be required to contribute towards their cost in the form of flood protection charges. In Article 50 the Maintenance of water bodies and of protection zones and belts is regulated. The Water Management Administrative Authority and local public authorities shall ensure the maintenance of bodies of surface water and protection zones and belts as a mandatory public service. For navigable waters, this includes their maintenance in a navigable state. However, there are no charges mentioned in the draft Water Law, nor could they be found in the Inland Water Way Transport Code for the use of the navigable waters (as there is a road tax for vehicles). Chapter IX of the draft Water Law covers the Financial Issues. Article 54 spells out the cost recovery principles:

1. …the principle of full cost recovery for water use, including full assessment of the cost of water as an environmental component and natural resource, on the basis of the economic analysis of water use and the "polluter pays" principle shall be applied.

2. The economic analysis referred to in paragraph (1) shall comprise the relevant calculations needed for the implementation of the principle of cost recovery of services related to water use, having regard to long term forecasts of supply and demand for water in river basin districts, and where necessary, shall take into account estimates of volume, prices and costs associated to services related to water use and estimates of relevant investments.

The fees and payments for water use and pollution are mentioned in Article 55:

1. The general use of water shall be free of charge 2. The charge for special water use shall be established by the Fiscal Code 3. The payment for water pollution shall be established by law

The application of the principle of full cost recovery for water use as introduced in Article 54 of the Law on Water seems to be extremely limited in practice: the general use of water is completely exempted, but also the fees for special water use as given in the Fiscal Code are very restricted.



3.5 Study Tour

3.5.1 Requirements Under the Terms of Reference “The consultant should then organize a study tour to a country that is identified as having a good, applicable water management model for the Moldovan context and water management needs. Other factors to be considered include:

• Similarity of hydrographic conditions • RBM applied successfully • Countries that have faced similar constraints as those faced by Moldova

A preliminary list of countries was prepared:

- France: Similar climate and good RBM implementation - Romania: geographically close and a recent EU member - Bulgaria: geographically close and a recent EU member - Israel: Successful transfer to high value agriculture and transboundary issues

Other countries considered (but rejected) included:

- United Kingdom: Good water management but different climate and no international basins - Germany: Fragmented water management and different climate - Spain: Similar climate but poor record in RBM

3.5.2 Climate Figure 5 compares the precipitation in Moldova with that of four other countries. In the case of Moldova, the data were based on our own calculations for the Chisinau weather station. For the other countries the data were taken from www.climatetemp.info. The countries and location of the climate measurements were:

• France, Toulouse • Romania, Bucharest • Bulgaria, Sofia • Israel, Jerusalem

The average annual rainfall for the five locations is:

• Moldova: 550 mm • France: 660 mm • Romania: 584 mm • Bulgaria: 611 mm • Israel: 492 mm

All countries had annual precipitation within 20% of the value for Moldova. In terms of monthly distribution of precipitation, as shown on the following graph, all of the countries had a similar distribution except for Israel where difference between summer and winter rainfall values was very marked.

http://www.climatetemp.info/



Figure 5. Precipitation comparison for Moldova, France, Romania, Bulgaria, and Israel The average annual temperature for the five locations is:

• Moldova: 10.0 C • France: 12.8 C • Romania: 11.6 C • Bulgaria: 10.6 C • Israel: 17.0 C

The average temperature in Israel is much higher than in Moldova, and in France it is also higher than in Moldova. The following graph of mean monthly temperatures (Figure 6) shows that summer temperatures are generally close, but for the two countries with higher average temperature the difference was mainly in the winter.



Figure 6. Air temperature comparison for Moldova, France, Romania, Bulgaria, and Israel In terms of climate, Israel seems to be very different from Moldova, and despite its success in achieving high-value agriculture, it would not be a good choice for an ISRA study tour.

3.5.3 Agriculture The following table shows the main agriculture production of Moldova and four other countries. In terms of produce, the main crops in all countries are similar, with wine/grapes being important in France and Moldova30. In terms of workforce involved in agriculture and the contribution of agriculture to the GNP, Moldova is very different than the other countries, but closer to those of the former socialist bloc (Table 7). Table 7 is based on volume of exports. In the case of Israel, the main exports by value, making up 90% of the total, are high-value products: Potatoes, Peppers, Tomatoes (cherry), Avocado, Ruscus, Gypsophila, Carrots, Sweet potatoes, Persimmons, Wax flowers, Gerbera, Dates, Solidago , Tomatoes, Radishes, Table grapes, Plums.

30 The data are taken from www.nationsencyclopedia.com.

http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/



Table 7. Agricultural production, GNP and labor force in Moldova, France, Romania, Bulgaria, and Israel

Country Agriculture Labor % GDP %

Moldova sugar beets, wheat, grapes, corn, sunflowers, barley, potatoes, soybeans.

40 26

France cereals (wheat, barley, oats, corn, and sorghum), industrial crops (sugar beets, flax), root crops (potatoes), and wine.

3 4

Romania wheat, barley, corn, oats, soybeans, sunflower seeds, sugar beets, vegetables, potatoes and grapes.

16 15

Bulgaria wheat, corn, barley, sunflower seeds and soybeans.

8 15

Israel wheat, cotton, peanuts, sunflowers, and pulses.

3 3

3.5.4 Water Management Table 8 summarizes water management practices in the countries being considered for the study tour. In terms of water management, France and Bulgaria come closest to representing good practice.

Table 8. Water management and Transboundary Rivers in France, Romania, Bulgaria and Israel

Country Water management Transboundary

France • Generally good river basin management. • Environmental regulation is the responsibility of the

Ministry of Ecology. Wastewater discharge standards, drinking water quality standards and the framework for water resources management are defined by the European Union through various directives

• The country's six water agencies levy water abstraction fees and wastewater discharge fees

• International Commission for the Protection of Lake Geneva (France, Switzerland)

• International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine (Germany, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Switzerland)

• International Meuse Commission (Belgium, France)

• Moselle Commission (France, Germany, Luxembourg)

Romania • Romania has defined the whole country as a single water district which as it all lies within the Danube basin is logical.

• Romania was in default with the European Commission in term of delay in submission of its river basin management plan

• International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River.

• Prut shared with Moldova • Aquifer shared with Moldova

Bulgaria • Bulgaria has 4 river basin districts of which 3 (West Aegean, East Aegean and Danube are international.

• Draft river basin plans are available on the Ministry of

• International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River.



Environment and Water web site. Israel Water in Israel is managed at a national level and comes under the

Water Commissioner River Jordan shared with Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Palestine.

3.6 Recommendations

3.6.1 Possible Institutional Scenarios and Recommended Choice The following institutional scenarios have been considered:

• Business as usual (i.e. the situation remains as it is) • Creation of a new agency to be the ‘competent authority’ for water resources management and

river basin planning • The Apele Moldovei Agency to be vested with water resources management and be assigned the

role of ‘competent authority’ The implication of leaving things as they now stand is that no clear-cut responsibilities for IWRM and river basin planning will be assigned. Duplications of functions and gaps will continue to exist and it will be difficult to meet the objectives to be attained through the implementation of plans and programs of measures. Thus, there are no advantages in the ‘business as usual’ option. In addition to the high costs involved, there would be many disadvantages if a new water resources agency were to be established. Since this agency would be new, there would have to be a clear-cut commitment by the Government to finance its staff and equipment. Moreover, its staff should be capable to deal with water resources databases, develop and update river basin management plans, interact with the stakeholders, and train officials at decentralized levels of administration to assist in the process. All this would require considerable time and effort, so that there would be no guarantee that the agency would be able to start river basin management activities in the short term. The institutional review led to the conclusion that, of all the existing institutions, the Apele Moldovei Agency is the one which would best fulfill IWRM requirements and some of the requirements set by the EU WFD. Possible adjustments to the structure of the Agency are discussed below.

3.6.1.1 Apele Moldovei Agency The Apele Moldovei Agency has dealt with water resources for many years and it knows that these resources are to be dealt with by river basin, the river basin being the appropriate management unit. In addition, it is more prepared to deal with IWRM than other institutions. According to its regulations,31 however, the Agency is expected to deal with both water management and water supply and sewerage. As was shown in the Draft Report, its central body is made up of two divisions, namely the Water Supply and Sewage Division and the Water Management Division. This report will focus on the latter division, since water supply and sewerage is not a subject for the present review. Nevertheless, the Agency is not the right place for water supply and sewerage-related functions. Therefore, these functions should be shifted to other institutions, such as the Ministry of Regional Development and Constructions (policy and planning functions) and the municipal enterprises ‘Apa-Canal’ (implementation functions).

31 Government Decision No. 1056 of 15 September, 2008, cit.



The Water Management Division consists of a Water Resources Management Section and a Land Improvement (Hydroamelioration) Section. While the Water Resources Management Section deals with water resources management aspects, the Land Improvement Section handles the operation and maintenance of irrigation infrastructure. The Agency has 12 technological stations for irrigation (TSI), which operate and maintain state-owned irrigation systems. Hence, the Apele Moldovei Agency is at the same time a resource manager and a resource developer/infrastructure operator. The O&M of infrastructure will be handed over, to a large extent, to water users’ associations (WUAs), but the Agency will retain the control of major reservoirs and canals, if things are left as they stand at present. Ideally, the infrastructure-related functions of Apele Moldovei Agency which are not handed over to WUAs should be transferred to other institutions on the one hand, such as the Ministry of Regional Development and Constructions or the Ministry of Agriculture, and to the private sector on the other. However, since this kind of change is not likely to take place overnight, the transfer should be planned over a certain period of time, according to schedules agreed upon among those concerned. A subordinated institution of the Apele Moldovei Agency, the recently established SE ‘BDWM’ deals with water uses, in that it issues water use limits and the volumes of wastewater discharge to be included in the authorizations for special water use to be issued by the State Ecological Inspectorate, and provides water use-related services. In addition, it is expected to develop river basin management plans, as was mentioned earlier. Consideration is presently being given to the possibility to establish a section, within this state enterprise, dealing with the exploitation of reservoirs.32 This would turn the enterprise into a controller and a controlled at the same time. Thought is also being given to the establishment of an additional section for river basin planning and information management. Water resources management functions should not be vested in a state enterprise, since under the laws of Moldova enterprises are meant for entrepreneurial activities. Therefore, if the Apele Moldovei Agency is to become the ‘competent authority’ for water resources management, these functions should be vested in a division designated for this specific purpose – the Water Resources Management Division. In addition, it would be desirable that this Division were vested with the bulk of water management functions, including the issuance and administration of authorizations for water use and wastewater discharge, and the management of data and information. A possible structure of the Water Resources Management Division of the Agency could be as follows:

• A director • One legal adviser • A water rights administration section with four employees, including a computer administrator. Two

would be taken from the present Water Use Section of the SE ‘BDWM,’ one (hydrogeologist) from the AGMR, and one from the State Ecological Inspectorate

• An information management section with four employees, two of which would be taken from the SE ‘BDWM’. The other two employees would be in charge of information technology (IT) and the GIS. Since no such experts are presently available in the Apele Moldovei Agency, they would have to be new recruits.

• A river basin planning section with six employees, including one coordinator, two persons for the Dniester river basin, two for the Prut river basin and one in charge of the relations with the stakeholders and the public. Two would be taken from the present Water Management Division of the Apele Moldovei Agency, three from the SE ‘BDWM’ and one from the ME (water quality).

32 There were plans to establish this section in 2011.



The inclusion of a water rights administration section in the structure of the Apele Moldovei Agency would be the result of a gradual process of handover from the State Ecological Inspectorate, accompanied by training in the implementation of authorization procedures and in the use and administration of the register of authorizations. The proposed structure of the Water Resources Management Division is given in Figure 7. The numbers shown in the boxes indicate the required staff. Since it might be difficult to transfer the bulk of water management functions to the Apele Moldovei Agency in the short term, an alternative solution could be the following:

• The Water Resources Management Division of the Apele Moldovei Agency is the designated ‘competent authority’

• The key role for information management is vested in the State Hydrometeorological Service • The key role for water rights administration continues is to be vested in the State Ecological

Inspectorate

Figure 7. Recommended structure of the Water Resources Management Division of the Apele Moldovei Agency While the advantage presented by this solution would be that no change-related stress would be felt, there would be a few disadvantages:

• The State Ecological Inspectorate and the State Hydrometeorological Service are different institutions, which do not necessarily communicate with the Apele Moldovei Agency in a timely and adequate manner

• The State Ecological Inspectorate handles all authorizations, i.e., those relating to water, the soil, the atmosphere, etc., and does not necessarily devote to water resources the attention needed

• As a consequence of the above, difficulties might arise in the implementation of IWRM and, in particular, in the development of river basin management plans and programs of measures

Should the alternative solution be opted for, the Water Resources Management Division should be enabled to access the data and information contained in the database administered by the State Hydrometeorological Service and those contained in the register of authorizations administered by the State Ecological Inspectorate. Such data and information are an indispensable starting point for river basin management planning. Please refer to Appendix 12 which presents a risk assessment of the alternative institutional scenarios, and which supports the recommendations given herein.

Head of Division

Legal Advisor

Water Rights Administration Section

(4)

Information Management Section

(4)

River Basin Planning Section

(4)



In case of selection of this solution, personnel requirements for the Water Rights Administration Section and the Information Management Section would be only two persons each.

3.6.1.2 Ministry of Environment Given that the water policy-related functions of the Ministry of Environment are scattered among various divisions, it is recommended that they be streamlined, and that consideration be given to vest these functions in one of the existing divisions; that is, it is suggested that the Water Management Division be renamed the “Water Resources Division.” This division should handle water resources policy-related matters only, and not issues relating to water supply and sewage infrastructure development. The latter issues (infrastructure development) should be dealt with by the Ministry of Regional Development and Constructions, with ME being in charge of establishing the policy and legal requirements of only wastewater management. Considering that such institutional changes do not occur overnight, the ISRC recommends that the transfer of the water supply and sewage policy functions to the Ministry of Regional Development and Construction be implemented by the Government of Moldova in the medium- to long-term. Furthermore, the ME is presently responsible for supervising the implementation of investment and technical assistance projects in the water supply and sewage sector, which are financially supported by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the World Bank, and the European Commission. In accordance with the public administration reform in Moldova, the functions of all Ministries should be focused on policy and legislation development. Thus, the ME should cover the following policy areas: water quality requirements, status monitoring, river basin management, flood protection, wastewater management requirements, economic mechanisms of water resources management, information management, and others. But again, the ISRC considers that it is not appropriate for the ME to deal with water supply and sewage infrastructure development policy functions.

Figure 8. Recommended structure of the ME (simplified)33 Since the Policy Analysis, Monitoring and Evaluation Division of the ME is responsible for overall coordination, it should be placed at a level higher than the other division of the Ministry. A proposal for a modified structure of the ME is sketched in Figure 8.

33 With respect to the official structure reproduced in the Appendix 2.

Minister of Environment

Environmental Fund Administration Council

Pollution Prevention and Waste Management

Division

Water Resources Division

Natural Resources Division

Policy Analysis, Monitoring, and Evaluation Division



3.6.1.3 The Way Ahead The following action should be taken in the immediate future:

• First of all, the above recommendations, the ME should initiate discussions among the stakeholders – in particular, the Apele Moldovei Agency, with the involvement of the State Ecological Inspectorate, State Hydrometeorological Service and the Agency for Geology and Mineral Resources – in order to arrive at a decision as to the most suitable choice of future RBM institutional framework and in particular the structure of the ME and Water Resources Management Division of the Apele Moldovei Agency. A representative of the Ministry of Finance should be involved in the discussions.

• Based on the agreed solution for the RBM institutional framework, the ME shall decide which institutions shall be in charge of common platform, GIS system and modeling.

Starting in 2012, at the latest, the ME should identify the staff with the qualifications required to fill positions within the Water Resources Management Division , and modalities for the transfer of this staff to the Division should be devised. A transfer plan should be drawn up by the ME, if needed. In parallel with this, ME should prepare regulations to reflect the changes agreed upon, both for the Apele Moldovei Agency and the ME. These regulations would replace the existing regulations. Finally, modalities for the transfer of water supply and sewerage functions on the one hand, and irrigation and infrastructure-related function on the other, from the Apele Moldovei Agency to other institutions (i.e. the Ministry of Regional Development and Constructions in the case of water supply and sewerage, and the Ministry of Regional Development and Constructions and/or Ministry of Agriculture and Food Industry in the case of irrigation and drainage) should be explored. In the case of irrigation and drainage-related functions, the steps to be taken should cover a period of 10 years. In the immediate future, the relevant functions should be transferred to the present Land Improvement (Hydroamelioration) Section of the Water Management Division of the Apele Moldovei Agency; the Section should be separated from the Division, so as to have two separated structural units, namely:

• A Water (Resources) Management Division; and, • A Land Improvement (Hydroamelioration) Section.

In this manner, an initial step would be made towards creating a clear-cut separation between water resources management and water resources development/service provision.

3.6.2 Economic Mechanisms

3.6.2.1 Natural Resources Costs The draft Water Law embraces the concept of full cost recovery for water use and of the “polluter pays” principle, and is in this respect fully in line with the WFD. The charges for water resources use are delegated to the Fiscal Code; the pollution charges are dealt with in environmental laws 1515 and 1540. The resources charges exempt all water use for drinking water supply, which is one of the major uses, but the substantial Unaccounted for Water (UFW) (leakages, inaccuracies in metering, administrative losses, and others) in the water supply networks are regarded as chargeable water use. There are no charges for aquaculture, which the largest water user. There are no flood protection charges, whereas the Government is responsible for flood protection.



The charges per cubic meter for irrigation are the same as for irrigation water (0.3 MDL/m3), whereas the return on water in industry can be expected to be much higher. The charges for irrigation with 10% of the total irrigation costs seem to be justified, whereas the charges for industry seem to leave room for an increase as returns to water in industry are higher than in agriculture. The charges for hydropower are on a cubic meter (volumetric) basis (not taking the hydraulic head into account), not on an energy content basis. The energy charge seems with 1.5% of consumer value to be rather modest. The abstraction charges are overseen by Apele Moldovei, which has only two staff members to handle 2,500 water users. This organization seems to be seriously under staffed. The total proceeds in 2009 amounted to some 1.5 M EUR. These proceeds go to the respective municipalities, districts and village budgets, but are not earmarked for the water sector. It would be an advantage for the water sector if these proceeds would be exclusively available for water sector development.

3.6.2.2 Pollution Charges The pollution charges and environmental penalties are determined by some 300 Environmental and Ecological Inspectors, who also have non-water duties. According to the ME a doubling of inspectors would be required to carry out all duties effectively. The total proceeds from environmental charges in 2010 were a modest 0.5 M EUR. This amount is divided 30:70 between the National and Local Environmental Funds. The funds are used for environmental improvements, including for wastewater treatment. The purpose of the “polluter pays” principle is to persuade water users not to pollute rather than to generate additional income for the Government. Polluters who invest in pollution reducing facilities such as wastewater treatment plants are allowed to offset the pollution charges with the investment. This may partly explain the low proceeds of the charges (as compared to the resource charges). Another reason why the proceeds of the pollution charges are low is inflation. The charges are fixed in Law 1540 and have not been increased since 1998. In the period 2000-2010 the consumer price index increased by a factor 2.5. It would be preferable if the actual charges were in a regulation which can easier be changed, or if there would be a system of automatic inflation adjustment.

3.6.2.3 Cost-recovery for Water & Sanitation Services The proposed Law on Water Supply fully embraces the concept of full cost recovery for water and wastewater services, including O&M, investments and environmental costs. Nonetheless, there is a rather large gap between this desirable situation and the reality on the ground. The 42 Apa Canals barely generate sufficient funds through their water and wastewater tariffs to meet O&M costs, whereas these tariffs are not extremely low by international standards, considering the general income and price level in Moldova. Tariffs for water supply and wastewater vary considerably between Apa Canals, and also between households and industry. Large efficiency gains are to be achieved by replacing outdated, oversized and energy inefficient equipment with appropriate modern installations. Cost reductions can also be achieved with the introduction of automated equipment, substantially reducing the need for operators. Many tasks that are presently carried out by “in house” could be outsourced. In management large efficiency gains are to be achieved by merging the 42 independent enterprises into a small number of professionally managed regional water companies, thereby reducing local political interference in the management of the utilities. The introduction of a block tariff (such as for natural gas) would ensure affordability of water services by all income levels. Increased drinking water quality that would meet domestic health standards and would reduce the need for households to purchase bottled water, which now accounts for half of the expenses for water services for many households.



Very large investments (1.32 – 3.24 billion EUR) will be needed in the coming 20 years to replace most of the water and sanitation infrastructure. Except for grants provided by donors, these investments have eventually to be recuperated from water users through the water and wastewater tariffs and from taxpayers through general taxation.

3.6.2.4 Cost-effectiveness of River Basin Management Measures River basin management in terms of the EU WFD is new to Moldova. There is a network of gauging stations in place and chemical and biological water quality are being monitored. To implement the WFD the surface and ground waters must be delineated into water bodies. These water bodies are to be classified into natural, artificial, and heavily-modified water bodies. For all water bodies the actual and desired water quality (chemical and biological) must be determined. In case of discrepancies, potential measures have to be identified that would remedy these discrepancies. The final River Basin Management Plan will consist of a Program of Measures (PoM) which would ensure Good or Maximum Ecological Potential (depending on the type of water body). RBM measures can be very expensive. Thus, it is important to find the most cost-effective measures for the PoM. This can only be done if both the costs (investment and O&M) and the effects (on all water quality elements and for the concerned water body and all downstream water bodies) are known. In particular, the determination of the effects of measures is rather complex. As the EU countries have (to varying degrees) gone through this process already, experience has been gained and special tools have been developed to estimate the effectiveness of potential measures. At present there is no capacity in Moldova to establish the cost effectiveness of measures and to combine them into cost-effective PoMs. Formal training and on-the-job training is recommended, and some of this will be provided through ISRA.

3.6.3 Study Tour

3.6.3.1 Participation The study-tour participants should cover the institutions in Moldova concerned with river basin management such as: the Ministry of Environment (1 representative), the Apele Moldovei Agency (2 representatives), the Agency for Geology and Mineral Resources (1 representative), the State Hydro-meteorological Service (2 representatives), State Ecological Inspectorate (1). The participation of representatives of the Ministry of Health and Fishery Service could be considered by the ISRC as well. The study tour participation should include at least 20% women participants. Before departure, all participants would be asked to prepare a list of questions to be asked during the study tour. During the study tour the participants would be expected to maintain a daily ‘diary’ with notes of which organization they has seen and relevant points discussed. At the end of the study tour a report will be produced describing the main topics covered and their potential applicability to Moldova.

3.6.3.2 Recommended Country Israel was included as a ‘wild-card’ entry. There is no doubt that in difficult climatic conditions it has achieved a transfer to high-value agriculture, but in other ways there is little correspondence with Moldova’s situation. Romania has a similar institutional background to Moldova and has made great strides toward effective river basin management. However, the fact that it was considered to be in default due a delay in plan submission is a negative factor. Bulgaria also has similar background to Moldova and has made important steps toward effective river basin management within the context of the WFD.



France is the most advanced of the countries considered in terms of river basin management. Its management structure with the Ministry of Ecology (its full title being the “Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development, Transport and Housing”) having responsibility for monitoring of water use has similarities with the structure proposed for Moldova. If arrangements can be made for appropriate visits, this would be a suitable choice.



4. Monitoring and Data Management

4.1 Introduction The management of a river basin requires that all movement of water, both natural and artificial, be monitored. The natural components include precipitation, river flow and groundwater levels, and the artificial components include abstractions and discharges.

4.2 Water Abstraction and Discharge The summary of water abstraction from both surface water and groundwater is provided in Table 9.

Table 9. Water consumption in Moldova during 2001-2008 (million m3)

Year 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Number of water consumers, units 2535 2533 2549 2554 2547 2555 2507 2519

Water abstracted – total 874 866 864 852 852 854 885 861

• of which, water abstracted from groundwater 138 132 135 136 136 136 129 127

Water consumption (use) – total 797 792 795 786 785 787 809 794

• for production needs 587 587 586 585 583 583 581 581

o of which, drinking water 19 20 20 20 18 17 17 17

• water supply for agriculture 36 36 35 36 35 36 36 37

• water supply for households needs and for drinking

130 120 116 115 120 120 125 124

Losses during transportation 71 68 64 62 61 61 69 64

Quantity of water in circulation and re-used 367 368 338 360 350 358 365 359 Source: Statistical Yearbook of the Republic of Moldova (2009). Table 10 summaries the discharge to rivers. While it does indeed suggest that there has been a decline in the percentage of waste treated, it is possible that the real situation might be more severe than the table suggests. Most wastewater discharges into surface waters in Moldova are municipal; enterprises usually discharge their wastewater into mixed municipal sewer systems. Other discharges of wastewater directly into surface waters mainly concern wineries and food industry. An overview of municipal wastewater discharges per river district is presented in Table 11.



Table 10. Summary of wastewater discharges in Moldova during 2001-2008 (million m3)

Year 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total, of which: 708 696 685 688 690 695 687 686

• conventionally pure waters (without purification)

557 560 558 561 556 562 551 550

• polluted waters 13 19 48 42 9 7 10 14

o without purification 0.3 0.5 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.8

o insufficiently purified 12.6 18.9 47.5 41.4 8.3 6.7 9.2 13.3

• conventionally purified waters 138 116 79 85 124 119 119 115

Conventionally purified sewage waters, in % of the total volume of water liable for purification

91% 86% 62% 67% 93% 89% 88% 85%

Source: Statistical Yearbook of the Republic of Moldova, 2009. Table 11. Overview of municipal wastewater discharges per river district in Moldova in 2010

Source: Association “Moldova Apa-Canal” for columns No. 4-8, 2011

Total Conventionally

treated

Including insuficiently

treated

Watercourse 2

Water course 1

Watercourse 0

River bazin

district1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 Basarabeasca 12.5 254.5 0 254.5 - - Cogîlnic 2 Briceni 9.8 74.4 0 74.4 - Lopatnic Prut 3 Cantemir 6.0 55.5 0 55.5 - Tigheci Prut 4 Ciadîr Lunga 22.7 116.6 0 116.6 - - Ialpug 5 Cimişlia 16.1 0 0 0 - - Cogîlnic 6 Comrat 23.3 479.3 0 479.3 - - Ialpug 7 Edineţ 20.2 341.9 205.5 136.4 - Ciuhur Prut 8 Făleşti 17.6 130.1 0 130.1 - Şoveţ Prut 9 Hînceşti 16.8 188.2 188.2 0 - - Cogîlnic10 Leova 10.9 88.3 0 88.3 - - Prut11 Nisporeni 14.7 88.6 88.6 0 - Nîrnova Prut12 Ştefan- Vodă 8.7 83.9 0 83.9 - - Sarata13 Taraclia 15.0 78.2 0 78.2 - Lunga Ialpug14 Ungheni 38.0 863.9 0 863.9 - - Prut15 Vulcăneşti 16.9 39.2 39.2 0 - - Cahul 16 Cahul 40.7 715.8 715.8 0 - - Prut

- Ciuhur PrutCubolta Răut Nistru

18 Anenii Noi 11.7 110 0 110 - Bîc Nistru19 Bălţi 143.3 7683 7683 0 - Răut Nistru20 Călăraşi 16.1 136.5 0 136.5 - Bîc Nistru21 Căuşeni 19.9 140.2 0 140.2 - Botna Nistru22 Chişinău 663.4 55910.9 55814.5 96.4 - Bîc Nistru23 Ciorescu 5.5 81.7 0 81.7 - Ichel Nistru24 Cojuşna 0 0 0 - Bîc Nistru25 Cricova 8.4 161.3 0 161.3 - Ichel Nistru26 Criuleni 9.5 0 0 0 - Nistru27 Donduşeni 10.7 81 0 81 - Răut Nistru28 Drochia 20.3 173 173 0 - Răut Nistru29 Floreşti 15.3 231.2 231.2 0 - Răut Nistru30 Orhei 33.3 719.1 0 719.1 - Răut Nistru31 Rezina 15.9 0 0 0 - - Nistru28 Rîşcani 14.4 86.7 0 86.7 Copăceanca Raut Nistru

29 Sîngerei 15.3 93.4 0 93.4 Ciulucul Mare Răut Nistru

30 Şoldăneşti 7.6 0 0 0 - Ciorna Nistru31 Soroca 37.2 0 0 0 - - Nistru32 Străseni 21.1 0 0 0 - Bic Nistru33 Teleneşti 9.8 83.1 0 83.1 Ciulucul Mic Răut Nistru

Discharged into:Biologically treated

(thousand m3)Population

in 2010 (ths)

0

No.

Wastewater source (town)

17

Danube-Prut and

Black Sea

Nistru

009.3Ocniţa



In 2010, 69,290 thousand m3 of municipal wastewater was treated, out of which 6% (4151 thousand m3) was treated insufficiently. However, the overall statistics are dominated by the wastewater treatment of the city of Chisinau, which accounts for 81% of the total municipal wastewater volume. When excluding “Apa-Canal Chisinau”, then 30% of the remaining volume of 13379 thousand m3 is treated insufficiently. Actually, in 20 of the 33 settlements mentioned in Table 11, all (100%) of the wastewater is insufficiently treated; in 7 settlements there is no wastewater treatment at all. In 2008, the regulation on conditions for urban wastewater discharge into natural receiving waters was adopted.34 This regulation has been largely based on the EU Directive 91/271/EEC concerning urban wastewater treatment. The regulation prescribes emission limit values for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), chemical oxygen demand (COD), and total suspended solids. In line with the EU Directive 91/271/EEC, also emission limit values for total phosphorus and total nitrogen are included for discharges from urban wastewater treatment plants into sensitive areas; however, the regulation does not provide with criteria for sensitive areas. These criteria have been included in Annex 4 of the draft regulation on protection of surface waters, but the latter has not been adopted yet. So, although the regulation on conditions for urban wastewater discharge into natural receiving waters has been adopted more than two years ago, sensitive areas have been not yet designated.

According to the State Ecological Inspectorate, the regulation on conditions for urban wastewater discharge into natural receiving waters requirements for the wastewater quality apply only to municipal wastewater discharges into receiving surface waters that are not used for drinking and recreation purposes. All other operators shall calculate emission limit values for a long range of parameters, based on the maximum allowable concentrations (MAC) for fishery that were established in the Soviet Union.

The Regulation on conditions for urban wastewater discharge into natural receiving waters has prescribed the requirements for the monitoring of discharges from treatment plants to be conducted by the operator, including self-monitoring. However, only the wastewater treatment plants from major towns (e.g. Chisinau and Balti) have their own laboratory to conduct the monitoring of wastewater quality. Other wastewater treatment plants conduct investigations on a contractual basis at the laboratories of the district centers of public health and investigation centers of the State Ecological inspectorate.

The State Ecological Inspectorate is in charge of checking the compliance with the requirements for wastewater discharges set up in the authorization for the special use of water. The laboratory analysis of both discharges from treatment plants and the receiving waters are conducted by the environmental investigation centers of the State Ecological inspectorate placed in Balti35, Chisinau36 and Cahul37. For that purpose, the investigation centers establish annual sampling programs for wastewater quality for the monitoring of biochemical oxygen demand, suspended solids and ammonium (NH4) at 29 wastewater treatment plants.

4.2.1 Water Abstractions and Discharge Permits The conditions of water abstraction from both surface and groundwater sources, as well as of wastewater discharge, are included in the authorization for special use of water (hereinafter, water use authorization) issued by the State Ecological Inspectorate.

34 Government Decision on approval of the Regulation on conditions for urban wastewater discharge into natural receiving waters No.

1141 of 10 October 2008, Monitorul Oficial No.189 of 21 October 2008. 35 The Ecological Investigation Centre from Balti provides laboratory support to 13 district inspections (i.e. Drochia, Soroca,

Soldanesti, Falesti, Floresti, Donduseni, Ocnita, Edinet, Briceni, Riscani, Glodeni, Singerei Telenesti). 36 The Ecological Investigation Centre from Chisinau provides analytical support to 15 district inspections (Aneni Noi, Calarasi,

Causeni, Criuleni, Dubasari, Hincesti, Ialoveni, Nisporeni, Orhei, Straseni, Ungheni, Stefan Voda, Cimislia, Rezina, Comrat). 37 The Ecological Investigation Centre from Cahul is in charge to provide support to local incpections (i.e. Basarabeasca, Cantemir,

Leova, Taraclia).



The water use authorization is issued after approval upon need by:

• S.E. Basin Division of Water Management in all cases • National Centre of Public Health in all cases • Agency for Geology and Mineral Resources in case of groundwater use • Fishery Service, in case of using the fishery water bodies • Veterinary authority in case of using the water for livestock, meat processing facilities as well as in

case of using the of wastewater for agricultural irrigation • Service provider of the centralized water supply and sewerage system in case of water supply and

wastewater discharge from/into a centralized system The water use limits are defined by the SE Basin Division of Water Management under the Apele Moldovei Agency based on the technological needs. It is the Water User who is responsible to obtain this approval from each of these agencies. In cases when the above-mentioned institutions refuse to endorse the water use, the State Ecological Inspectorate has the right to issue a water use authorization for a limited period of time up to one year, with specific conditions for the water user to be fulfilled. Otherwise, all water use authorizations are issued for period of three years. Until January 2011 the water use authorizations were issued by central body of the State Ecological Inspectorate, municipal agencies and district ecological inspections. The central body of the State Ecological inspectorate and namely the Ecological Expertise and Environmental Authorization Division, was in charge of issuing authorizations to water uses for which the design capacity for water abstraction facilities was more than 1 million m³ water/day, or/and, for wastewater discharge, more than 400 m³/day. All other water users applied for special water use authorization to the ecological agencies and district ecological inspection. Since January 201138, the water abstraction permitting process has been centralized, the Ecological Expertise and Environmental Authorization Division being in charge of issuing all water use authorizations. SEI has no database on issued water use authorizations – the issued authorizations are recorded by hand in a registry book.

4.2.2 Monitoring of Abstractions and Discharges There are around 2500 water users reporting details on their actual water use and discharges to the SE Basin Division of Water Management under the Apele Moldovei Agency. An estimated 30% of water users are not reporting39. Data on water use (by year) is managed by S.E. Basin Division of Water Management. The water users submit paper-based reports on water abstractions and discharges on an annual basis, based on the Statistical form Nr. 1 (Appendix 2, Figure A4)40. The collected data include:

• Water abstraction: source name, source code, distance from delta, total abstraction per year, including abstractions per month, water used for household, production, irrigation, agriculture, other needs, distributed to other consumers, transportation losses (thousand m³).

• Water discharge: reservoir name, reservoir code, distance from delta, total discharged wastewater (thousand m³), including polluted wastewater (untreated and insufficiently treated), conventionally treated by wastewater treatment facilities (including biological, physic-chemical and mechanical

38 Order No. 4 of 18.01.2011 of the State Ecological Inspectorate regarding competencies of issuing authorizations of special use of

water, including wastewater discharge 39 The estimation made by the S.E. Basin Division of Water Management. 40 Statistical form nr.1. Annual report on water use, approved by the joint Order of the Ministry of Environment and national Bureau of

Statistics No. 88/108 of 12 October 2010.



treatment), content of pollutants (BOD, petrol products, suspended solids, dry residue, nitrates, nitrite, NH4, total nitrogen, oil, and others) in discharged wastewater.

Abstraction and Discharge Information Management Primary data collected by the S.E. Basin Division of Water Management from water users is paper based, subsequently introduced and stored in Dbase format. Paper records on water use and discharges are available since 1983. The structure of data consists of three basic tables (extracted water resources, discharged water and table on other indicators of quality). Also, there are around nine tables with constant variables such as address, type of organization, main types of activities, and so on (according to the national statistical clarifiers and nomenclature). A consultant has been contracted by the S.E. Basin Division of Water Management to convert this application to a Windows interface using C#, but the underlying database is still Dbase. It appears that the database structure has not been updated and that only the interface shell has been upgraded. The tool supports data entry, some analysis and reporting and is mainly used for the yearly publication on water users. Only the data for the year 2010 are available in Windows. The tool stores data for one year only and it appears that all data are overwritten every year when data for the current year was entered. In the past, data for the current year was stored on a diskette and Dbase files could possibly be recovered from these. There is no information on the quality of the data. The information is not spatially referenced but it should not be a major problem to add this information. The SE Basin Division of Water Management does not have GIS capability. All other data used by the institution are entered in Excel.

4.3 Meteorology The WMO guide “Design and Evaluation of Hydrological Networks” recommends that a minimum network of stations for climate for Moldovan conditions should be one station for every 50,000 km2. The text actually refers to ‘evaporation’ stations including daily observations of precipitation, maximum and minimum water and air temperatures, wind movement, and relative humidity or dew point temperature. Strictly speaking, this requirement would mean that Moldova needs only one climate station. The locations of meteorological stations in Moldova are shown in Figure 9.



Figure 9. Locations of Meteorological Stations in Moldova, 2011 (source: SHS)



One of the climate stations at Leova was visited by the ISRC team, deliberately selecting a station other than the one close to the offices of the State Hydrometeorological Service in Moldova. The station appears to be well maintained. The grass had been kept short and the instruments in the Stephenson screen appeared to be reading correctly. In particular, the wet bulb thermometer had a clean wick and the bottle of water was full, as shown in Figures 10 and 11.

Figure 10. Meteorological station at Leova (2011) Figure 11. Measuring instruments at Leova In addition to the standard instruments, the site also has an automatic climate station. The Meteorological station at Chisinau is the only station in the country which is part of the World Meteorological Organization operational network. At the time this report was prepared daily data for April 2011 had already been published on an international web site. The monitored daily parameters included average air temperature, maximum temperature, minimum temperature, barometric pressure, relative humidity, precipitation, visibility, average wind speed, and maximum wind speed.

4.4 Hydrology

4.4.1 Current Network - Surface Water Flows

4.4.1.1 Number of Stations The following map (Figure 12) and Table 12 show the location and type of surface water level and flow measuring stations. The present network consists of 39 stations. Of these, 7 are on the River Prut, 8 are on the Nistru, one is on the Danube, and the others are on basins lying wholly within Moldova (including two within the area of Transnistria). Of the 39 stations, all record water level and water temperature. All the stations on rivers within Moldova also record flow rate, as do six of the eight stations on the Nistru, and three of the seven stations on the Prut. Most stations also record the thickness of the ice. The Moldovan stations on the River Prut are maintained by the Moldovan Hydrometeorological Service, but the flow is gauged jointly with Romania. There is regular exchange of data. In the case of the Nistru, although some of the measuring sites are on the Transnistrian side of the river, the exchange of data is on a regular basis based on unofficial agreements with the Transnistrian Hydrometeorological Service. The earliest level data from Moldovan stations starts in 1920, and the earliest flow data are from 1949.



Figure 12. Location and types of hydrologic station in Moldova (State Hydrometeorological Service)



Table 12. Hydrological monitoring: location and type of measurements, monitoring parameters and frequency, and data storage (Source: State Hydrometeorological Service) ID Station Name

Type M/T

Lon Lat Parameter From Freq Obs/Calc Format

1 r.Dunărea – s.Giurgiuleşti

M 28° 11'

45° 28'

H, t Water 25.05.1994 H, t Water-Weekly

Observed paper, Dbase-until 2008, Excel

2 r.Prut – s.Şirăuţi

M 26° 50'

48° 14'

H, Q, t Water,

h Ice

01.01.1989 (Q-1990)

H, t Water-Weekly, Q- Monthly

H, t Water-Observed, Q-Calculated

paper, Dbase-until 2008, Excel

3 r.Prut – SE Costeşti

M 27° 13'

47° 51'

H, Q, t Water,

h Ice

01.04.1978 (Q-1992)




4 r.Prut – s.Brăneşti

M 27° 15'

47° 15'

H, t Water 19.06.1946(17.12.1980)

H, t Water-Weekly


5 r.Prut – or.Ungheni

M 27° 47'

47° 12'

H, Q, t Water, h Ice

1920(01.1981) (Q-1981)




6 r.Prut – s.Leuşeni

M 28° 09'

46° 48'

H, t Water 05.12.1974(01.1981)

H, t Water-Weekly


7 r.Prut – or.Leova

M 28° 14'

46° 30'

H, t Water 1923(01.1981)

H, t Water-Weekly


8 r.Prut – s.Brînza

M 28° 10'

45° 40'

H, t Water 1926(01.1981)

H, t Water-Weekly


9 r.Vilia – s.Bălăsineşti

M 26° 58'

48° 14'


01.01.1945 (Q-1952)




10 r.Dradişte – s.Trinca

M 27° 07'

48° 13'


H- 01.01.1963, Q-1957




11 r.Ciugur – s.Bîrlădeni

M 27° 25'

48° 15'


04.12.1946 Q,H-04.04.1974




12 r.Galdaruşa – s.Cajba

M 27° 25'

47° 44'


14.05.1945 (Q-1951)



paper, Dbase-until la 2008, Excel

13 r.Delia – s.Pîrliţa

M 27° 53'

47° 19'


09.03.1957 (H-01.06.1986, Q-1961)




14 r.Lunga – or.Ceadîr-Lunga

M 28° 50'

46° 03'


01.10.1973 (H-1994, Q-1976)




15 vîlcea Taraclia - orăş.Taraclia

M 28° 38'

45° 53'


24.09.1958 (H-1959, Q-1960)




16 r.Cogîlnic – or.Hînceşti

M 28° 36'

46° 50'


01.09.1957 (Q-1959)




17 r.Nistru – or.Soroca

M 28° 19'

48° 09'



18 r.Nistru – s.Hruşca

M 28° 35'

48° 06'


01.11.1967 (Q-1968)






19 r.Nistru – SE Dubăsari

M 29° 08'

47° 17'


01.01.1956 H, t Water-Weekly, Q- Monthly



20 r.Nistru – or.Dubăsari (b.a v.)

M 29° 08'

47° 17'



21 r.Nistru – orăş.Grigoriopol

M 29° 18'

47° 08'



22 r.Nistru – or.Bender

M 29° 30'

46° 50'





23 r.Nistru – s.Olăneşti

M 29° 56'

46° 30'





24 r.Nistru,br.Turunciuc - s.Nezavertailovca

M 29° 55'

46° 36'





25 r.Camenca - orăş.Camenca

M 28° 43'

48° 03'





26 r.Beloci – s.Beloci

M 28° 59'

47° 54'





27 r.Molochiş – s.Molochişul Mare

M 29° 03'

47° 51'





28 r.Ciornîi – st.Mateuţi

M 28° 57'

47° 48'





29 r.Rîbniţa – s.Andreevca

M 29° 11'

47° 46'


05.07.1945 (Q-1951)




30 r.Iagorlîc – s.Doibani

M 29° 14'

47° 24'


04.09.1936 (Q-1949)




31 r.Răut – or.Bălţi

M, T 27° 57'

47° 46'





32 r.Răut – s.Jeloboc

M, T 28° 56'

47° 22'





33 r.Cubolta – s.Cubolta

M, T 28° 02'

47° 52'





34 r.Căinari – s.Sevirovo

M, T 28° 08'

47° 54'





35 r.Ciulucul Mic - orăş.Teleneşti

M, T 28° 22'

47° 31'





36 r.Ichel – s.Goian

M 28° 54'

47° 08'


26.12.1984 (Q-1986)




37 pîrîu Bălţata – s.Balţata

M 29° 02'

47° 03'





38 r.Bîc – or.Chişinău

M 28° 47'

47° 03'







39 r.Botna – or.Căuşeni

M 29° 25'

46° 39'


01.01.1945 (Q-1949)




Five of the stations (shown on the map with a red upper quadrant) have been provided with pressure transducers and real-time data transmission equipment. This is considered a pilot scheme but is likely to be extended. Data are currently transmitted by satellite to a receiving station in the Czech Republic (the country of the company who installed the equipment).

4.4.1.2 Observing Methodology At all stations water levels are record by an observer based at the measuring station. Levels are recorded relative to a series of metal posts driven into the river, but which protrude only a small distance, a few centimeters above the river bed. This method is well adapted to conditions in countries with a continental climate where winters are cold and ice floes are possible; anything which stands out of the river is liable to be carried away and destroyed. Another advantage is that the posts are of little value and, being driven into the riverbed are difficult to remove; they are therefore not subject to acts of vandalism. To obtain the level the observer measures the level relative to top of the last post visible. Figure 13 shows the measuring site on the Prut River at Leova town. Figure 14 shows an extract of the observer’s notebook showing daily level values in centimeters for the 12 calendar months at Teleneşti in 1989. The values are reported as being observed twice daily at 8 am and 8 pm. If the level changes more than by a fixed amount the observer is required to make extra readings to be able to follow the shape of the hydrograph.

Figure 13. Level measurement pegs – River Prut at Leova (2011)



The disadvantage is that the observer has to visit the site twice a day and measure the depth of water above the first of the submerged posts. In the future, as wages and living standards increase, it is likely to be more difficult to retain competent and conscientious observers. Five stations have been fitted with automatic level measurement and transmitting equipment. These use pressure transducers to measure water level and transmit level values by cable to a data logger. The data logger is able to store data for several months and, if so equipped, can transmit data in real-time. Figure 15 shows the data logger and battery and Teleneşti. The sensor also measures water temperature. The logger is fitted with a SIM card and the data are transmitted via the mobile phone network. In addition to hydrological data the battery voltage is also transmitted. The battery can run for 3 months on one charge. The observer is equipped with a second battery and a charger so that the battery can be replaced easily.

4.4.1.3 Flow Calculations As it not possible to measure flow directly the standard procedure is to use current meters, which measure velocity on a fixed pattern within the river to calculate flow rate.

Figure 14. Sample of an observer’s record book

Figure 15. Data logger – Telenesti, 2011



In Moldova all stations have an observer who is able to use current meters to measure flow. Most stations are also equipped with current meters, although whereas in the past each station had two meters, to allow measurements to be continued while one of the meters was being repaired or re-calibrated, each station only has one at present. Figure 16 shows a specially constructed bridge with marks every meter to allow the accurate gauging of flows. This measurement is repeated for a range of river levels to establish a relationship between level and flow. Figure 17 shows a copy of the plot for 2009 for one site. The sheet has two curves one covering low flows in detail and one for the full flow range. It is necessary to redraw these curves at regular intervals due to the instability of the riverbeds in Moldova and the consequent instability in the flow and level relationship. The curve is referred to as the ‘rating curve’ for a level and flow measurement station.

Figure 17. Example of a rating curve (discharge depth) for a stream

Figure 16. Bridge used for gauging on Ciulucul Mic River, Teleneşti, 2011



4.4.1.4 Data Processing Data before 1993 are available on paper only. From 1993 to 2009, data were entered in digital format in a DOS program. Since 2009 data are in Excel format (Table 12).

4.5 Groundwater Monitoring EHgeoM is contracted by AGRM to collect hydrometric data, and also carries out aquifer pumping tests as part of its role in drilling and testing new boreholes. Likewise, it is involved in sampling groundwater, but due to a lack of equipment and funds the correct procedure of pump-sampling cannot currently be done. In previous times, AGRM used EHgeoM to sample observation boreholes using piston pumps to pump out the well and obtain representative water from the aquifer. This practice has been discontinued.

4.5.1 Borehole Inventory The existing set-up for groundwater resource assessment and monitoring throughout the territory of the Republic of Moldova was established in 1968, towards the end of the International Hydrological Decade, which also marked a large step forward in these activities in other countries. The current system for recording and registering water supply boreholes is based on a “Passport” system41, whereby a portfolio of documents, permissions and data is held by the owner for each well. As part of this system, every borehole is assigned a unique number, using a map-grid based roughly [but not exactly] on the Pulkovo (1942) mapping grid. Each grid square is roughly equivalent to a Soviet 1:100,000 map-sheet, but some squares are slightly larger and some are smaller. The country has thus been divided up into a grid of 33 squares or rectangles, and numbers are assigned within this scheme, and then used to reference both water level and water quality data collected by EHgeoM. The grid is shown in Figure 18. Both production and monitoring boreholes have a “passport”, introduced at the time of planning and construction. The numbering system is shown in Table 13 using a small collection of monitoring boreholes:

Table 13: Borehole Numbering System

Town District Borehole identification

Briceni 2 2-714

Edinet 4 4-492, 4-391, 4-393

Vulcanesti 33 33-107, 33-11, 33-117 There are groups of observers in each district, responsible for dipping and reporting boreholes in their area. AGRM keeps a copy of all passports, so reference can be made to the data. However, all information remains in manuscript form in the State Fund, so it cannot be easily accessed by the interested parties.

41 EHgeoM has not allowed access to borehole “passports”.



Figure 18. Borehole Inventory System in Moldova (source: Five-Year Report: Investigation of Groundwater Regime and Balance Elements during 2005-2009, EHgeoM, 2010)

4.5.2 Groundwater Levels The main aquifers used for water supply are monitored using a network of observation boreholes. The level of water in the boreholes is measured by observers and local residents. The measurements are then sent monthly by post to Chisinau. The correctness of measurements is checked during inspection visits, carried out by the EHgeoM, usually about twice a year, or to investigate and verify anomalous data in the records when identified. At the last inventory (a 2010 report), observations were carried out in 179 observation wells at 33 locations, and the level measurements were made once every three days. The instrumentation includes a Roulette WG-LM-30 and 50, level USAC-GL-150 - 200, thermometer TM - 10, and level measuring tools of made in Moldova by the EHgeoM. This monitoring network is shown in Figure 19.

21

25 26

22

27

23

28

29 30

31 32

33

18 19 2017

13 14 15 16

8 9 10 11 12

4 5 62 31

24

Cahul

Comrat

Vulcanesti

Ceadir-Lunga

Leova Cimislia

Causeni

Olanesti

Siobozia

Tiraspol

AneniiNoi

Hincesti

StraseniNisporeni

Criuleni

Dubasari

Grigoriopol

OrheiCalarasi

Telenesti

FalestiRezina

BaltiGlodeni Ribnita

Singerei

DonduseniEdinet

Briceni

CamencaSoroca

Developed by:



Figure 19. Groundwater Monitoring Boreholes in Moldova (source: Five-Year Report: Investigation of Groundwater Regime and Balance Elements during 2005-2009, EHgeoM, 2010).

4.5.3 Groundwater Quality In the last decade, the frequency of sampling groundwater quality has decreased. Previously, in Soviet times, samples were taken from monitoring boreholes at least once a year, and more frequently in areas with complex hydrogeological conditions. Prior to sampling, water from boreholes was pumped out, following the guidelines established by VSEGINGEO (former Soviet Institute of Hydrogeology and Engineering Geology, Moscow). At present there are no funds for this kind of work.



The analysis of groundwater quality can be sub-divided into two main formats:

1. Type 1, routine sampling of major ions and physical characteristics: sodium, potassium, calcium, magnesium, ammonia, sulphite, sulphate, bicarbonate, chloride, nitrate, fluoride, methane, taste, odor, turbidity, color, dry residue, total hardness, carbonate and non-carbonate alkalinity.

2. Type 2, targeted sampling of micro-components when there is known to be a problem: phosphate, manganese, iron, copper, molybdenum, arsenic, lead, selenium, zinc, aluminum and beryllium.

During the five-year EHgeoM reporting period of 2005-2009, there were 123 chemical analyses of major ions and physical parameters: just over half (i.e.63) of these samples were collected from operational boreholes, 48 samples from observation boreholes, and 12 samples were collected from dug-wells. On average, this represents a monitoring rate of about 25 samples per year, which is extremely low for public water supply sources. For example, in Western Europe, one public water supply source would have at least monthly sampling of raw water, and the sampling frequency would be increased if known pollution problems occurred in the aquifer. The current system in Moldova is therefore grossly inadequate in this respect, and such sampling does not provide effective management. Information has not been found identifying the total number of production boreholes in Moldova. In addition to the type 1 routine analysis for major ions, a further 33 analyses were carried out of the type 2 micro-components. The difference in time between the date of sampling and date of the chemical analysis varied from one day to two months (for example, sampling date in August, but lab analysis date in October). The five-year EHgeoM report (Appendix 4) mentions that the laboratory for chemical analysis uses the following equipment: photocolorimeter MB - 2 MB - 56m, Pressure Gauge EV - 74 scales, laboratory balance VLA - 200, weight F - 2 - 210. The National Center of Public Health is responsible for routine water sampling of borehole supplies to the Moldovan population, and these are taken from the water company at the relevant location. Although there are a number of water quality problems, they tend to be localized in nature. The main issues involve the following contaminants:

• Fluoride, ammonia, methane, nitrogen [related to oil and natural gas reserves] • Hardness • Iron, Aluminium • Sulphates [potassium and sodium] • Hydrogen sulphide • Nitrates [show rising trend] • Selenium, strontium [rare]

In conclusion, there appear to be three separate organizations carrying our groundwater quality work: for this work to be effective there should be routine exchange of data and consistency of methodology, both in sampling and laboratory analysis.

4.5.4 Groundwater Monitoring Network Availability of Data At the moment, the best electronic archive of groundwater data is contained in Excel spreadsheets, compiled by the AGRM, which show, site-by-site, the name of source, water quality parameters,



abstraction rates, and year of construction test results, all organized by district. Unfortunately, the ISRC has not been given access to this dataset, so the ease of applicability and use of the data is not known. EHgeoM produce annual and five-year reports. Apart from the Excel spreadsheet(s), no data are available electronically, and all drawing work is still done manually (no CAD or GIS in the 2010 report). Although there was a sophisticated range of hydrometeorological, soils, and hydrogeological maps published in 1978 as a Moldovan Atlas, there appears to have been no further work done of this type or use of GIS or electronically-available mapping. Some important figures from the Atlas are found in Appendix 5.

It has been reported that the country was divided into a theoretical grid of 10x10 km squares, and in each square, one representative borehole was identified for each aquifer. In reality, there appear to be grouping of observation boreholes where there are production sources, and currently there are 186 observation boreholes in total, across 96 source zones shown on the map. The borehole monitoring network has been compared with the administrative boundaries and a 10x10 km grid in Figure 20, where it can be seen that there are a number of blank areas, and in others dense clusters of boreholes. It is likely that a degree of rationalization could be possible; reducing the numbers of boreholes in some areas, while extending the network into areas where there is currently no monitoring. To make an assessment of how well each aquifer is represented in the monitoring network, the boreholes have been plotted separately for each of the main aquifers in Appendix 5. If the decision is taken by ME and AGMR to improve the monitoring network to bring it into line with IWRM best practice, a detailed review will be required looking at rationalization and extension of the network to ensure that all groundwater bodies are covered. It would also be appropriate for monitoring to be linked to the groundwater abstraction authorizations, perhaps by imposing conditions of approval.

Unfortunately, in recent years, the number of observation wells appears to have decreased, from 490 boreholes in 1991 to about 170 boreholes in 1997 and 186 in the 2010 report. Water level observers are retained in each district, carrying out groundwater level “dips” (measurements) every 3 days. Handwritten results are forwarded monthly to EHgeoM which compiles hydrometric report every 5 years. The most recent report issued in 2010 for the period 2005-09 was consulted at the AGMR State Fund of Subsoil Information Section. The report presented the “List of revised and retained observation boreholes/wells in the territory of Moldova”, which shows the following information for all 186 wells:

• Name of the village • Geomorphological position • River basin • Absolute unit • Lithological composition of water-bearing rocks • Characteristics of the aquifer • Start of observations • Importance of the observation point

The geographical coordinates of the monitoring boreholes are not available in the summary, but are included in the borehole “passport”. In a separate file, the five-year EHgeoM report provides the results of measurements of levels in all boreholes. There are three tables for each borehole as follows:



Figure 20. Administrative Districts and Groundwater Monitoring Network (source: Five-Year Report: Investigation of Groundwater Regime and Balance Elements during 2005-2009, EHgeoM, 2010)

• Annual characteristics of groundwater levels • Seasonal patterns of groundwater level - the highest annual, minimum annual, minimum winter,

spring maximum and autumn minimum, the summer maximum • Long-term characteristics of the groundwater level from the start of observation up until 2009

In addition to groundwater resource assessment, the inventory of boreholes was also routinely carried out during the Soviet era. The last complete inventory was carried out over a two-year period, 1978-80. Due to lack of funds, this work was suspended in 1992, and although some effort was made in 2000 to address this basic need for updating the inventory, at present, records are significantly out-of-date. It was noted in the EHgeoM 5-year report that there has been no progress with this activity. As a result, it is estimated that about 30 to 40% of the 7.000 boreholes in existence 20 years ago, are likely to be abandoned, and no effort will be made to decommission or backfill such sites. Consequently, such boreholes provide a potential pathway for surface pollutants to contaminate the aquifer.

26.5

0 2

6.50

26.7

1 2

6.71

26.9

2 2

6.92

27.1

4 2

7.14

27.3

5 2

7.35

27.5

6 2

7.56

27.7

7 2

7.77

27.9

8 2

7.98

28.2

0 2

8.20

28.4

1 2

8.41

28.6

2 2

8.62

28.8

3 2

8.83

29.0

4 2

9.04

29.2

6 2

9.26

29.4

7 2

9.47

29.6

8 2

9.68

29.8

9 2

9.89

30.1

0 3

0.10

45.50

45.65

45.80

45.96

46.11

46.26

46.41

46.56

46.71

46.87

47.02

47.17

47.32

47.47

47.63

47.78

47.93

48.08

48.23

48.38

48.50

K E Y

N1s3m Upper Sarmatian

N1s1 Lower SarmatianN1s2 Middle Sarmatian

K2 Cretaceous

Monitoring Boreholes

SilurianVR Vendian

International boundary

N2s1 MeotianN2p PontianA3 Alluvium

Rayon Boundaries

Ocnita

BriceniEdinet

Commune Boundaries

10 x 10 km square grid

Scale in kms Degrees Longitude

Developed by:

0 10 20 30 40



Lack of vehicles and a budget for fuel and staff costs are cited as the main obstacles in carrying out this work. In parallel with groundwater level monitoring and borehole inventories, the AGRM through EHgeoM also carried out groundwater pollution investigations. These focused on nine districts, and the results were passed on to local offices of the SEI and local authorities for action. This activity was curtailed in 1998 due to lack of funds, so it is not known to what extent measures were introduced to improve and reduce those pollution incidents.

4.5.5 Current Reporting As previously mentioned, the EHgeoM is currently responsible for collating and analysing hydrogeological and related data, which are reported every five years, and the last report available is for the period from 2005-2009. The report is sent to the Scientific Committee of AGRM for approval. Once approved, it is deposited in the State Fund of Subsoil Information Section (Library) at AGRM: it is not known how many copies of the report are made, or how many people actually see the report. The present system allows interested parties to visit the fund, like a library system, to view documents held in the archives, but there are no copying facilities, although it is understood that permission can be obtained for making copies. Records in the fund date back to 1890. The fund’s consultation procedure seems to prevent wide dissemination of information, as people have to physically travel to the AGRM office in Chisinau to view such data. Whilst the EHgeoM employs up to six hydrogeologists, all with a minimum age of 49 years, there is only one hydrogeologist in the employ of AGRM. The EHgeoM hydrogeologists are involved in producing the reports. An interim report on groundwater status is developed annually, and a report presenting an analysis of groundwater resources is produced every five years. The reports are usually submitted in June and July, for the approval of the Scientific and Technical Council (NTS) of AGRM. After consideration by NTS, the reports are deposited in the State Fund of Information on subsoil within the AGRM. The fund [archive] stores information on all geological exploration activities, including hydrogeology, undertaken in the territory of the Republic of Moldova since 1890. The report for the period 2005-2009 was submitted in summer 2010, and entitled: "Investigation of groundwater regime and balance elements. The state records and maintenance of the State Water Cadaster in Moldova".

4.6 Data Management and Processing 4.6.1 Software Solutions There are a number of software packages which have been developed over the past 25 years specifically for handling a country’s national archive of hydrological and meteorological data. They are all relatively similar, and all fit for purpose, and could easily be implemented in Moldova and linked to the proposed GIS platform. Prominent software packages that could be adopted include: WISKI Kisters, Charlottenburger Allee 5, 52068 Aachen, Germany HYDROLOG Hydro-Logic Ltd, Old Grammar School, Church Street, Bromyard, Herefordshire, HR7 4DP

United Kingdom HYDSYS, Department of Natural Resources and Water, RSK, Natural Sciences Precinct, Block C, 80

Meiers Road, Indooroopilly, QLD, Australia 4068



Both Hydrolog and Wiski have been used by the Environment Agency in the United Kingdom. HydSys is currently used in Australia and Malaysia, although a software package called CAP-NET may replace HYD-SYS in the near future. There are many other applications, but many are either no longer supported, do not have the GIS capability or just used nationally in one country. Examples are HYDATA, which is no longer supported, and North American applications which are only used in either the USA or Canada. There are some free software applications such as ANNIE. The key point for whichever system is used is that it should be capable of professional time series hydrological data management using a Relational Database Client-Server platform such as Oracle. It should be capable of operating within the GIS platform and support automatic remote data acquisition from field data loggers, with versatile data import and export tools. The software should be capable of handling meteorological, surface and groundwater components of the hydrological cycle, with a sophisticated graphical data editor and generation of tabular summaries such as yearbook-style reports. Both the database and GIS systems will need to be used for risk analysis and environmental sustainability assessments later, and the systems will also need to be linked to the other main data-banks, specifically the groundwater licensing system (abstraction and discharge consents).

4.6.2 Data Presentation and Analysis Except for spreadsheets used by various agencies, it would appear that the process of transferring to a national electronic archive system will be starting from a blank sheet. This will to some extent make it easier to establish, and to agree on how data will be transferred between departments and different organizations. The process will need to start with a thorough inventory of historical records and range of manuscript and Excel formats available, with a view to implementation of the processing and digitizing of paper and chart records held in the collecting agencies' archives. An important part of the data collation and review phase will be to determine how much historical data should be processed, and this will depend on its potential value in further characterization, classification, and subsequent monitoring procedures. The national scale of the project and immense data-handling exercises which ensue require that a system be put in place to routinely and rapidly carry out analyses for graphical, cartographic and tabular presentation. The database system, therefore, needs to drive analytical and graphical outputs to required presentation formats, already in use and to the additional formats required by the WFD. The sort of groundwater mapping which will be required includes the following:

• Distribution of observation and production boreholes, and village wells

• Distribution of the groundwater bodies, hydrogeological regions and principle aquifers

• Groundwater body classification and chemical status

4.7 Groundwater Resources

4.7.1 Moldovan Geology The stratigraphy and lithology of rock formations present in the first 500 m of the Moldovan land surface have been summarized in Table 14, identifying the principal aquifer groups.



Table 14. Moldovan Stratigraphy and Lithology

System Series Id Stage Dominant lithology Aquifer / Aquitard Quaternary Pleistocene

to Holocene A3 Sands and gravel deposits,

intercalated with clays Nistru & Prut [floodplain and terrace deposits [11 terraces on the Prut, and 13 on the Nistru]

Neogene Pliocene N2 p Pontian Sands, clay, shelly limestone Fe, NO3, pollution risk

N1 m Mzotichesky [Meotian] Unconsolidated sands Minor Aquifer for small rural supplies Miocene N1 s3 Upper Sarmatian Lenticular sands, laterally

discontinuous N1 s2 Middle Sarmatian Unconsolidated sands overlying

limestone with reefs [hard water] Principle aquifer: Baden-Sarmatian [Lower Sarmatian is saline in the south]

N1 s1 Lower Sarmatian N1 t Baden [Tortonian] N1 pd Podolsky Green clay Aquitard

Cretaceous Upper K2 cm Cenomanian Limestone, sandstone [marl, chalk] Main outcrop in the Upper Nistru valley

Important aquifer in northern Moldova, used for city supply

Lower K1 Sandstone, siltstone. Clay, congl Saline, not used Jurassic Upper J3 Saline, Not used

Lower J2 Saline, Not used Devonian D Formation is too deep for exploitation, only present in center of country [not used]

Silurian Upper S2 Lower S1 Crystalline limestone [soft water] Aquifer, contiguous with

K2 in northern Moldova

Cambrian- Ordovician

VR Vendian Crystalline sedimentary rocks overlying granite [soft water], with argillite

Important local aquifer in upper Nistru [Soroca, Kamenca]

Based on page 22 of the Moldova Atlas (1978), updated using modern stratigraphic nomenclature, and discussion with local experts. The blue rows shown under “Aquifer” describe the main aquifers. Except in the valley of the Upper Nistru, Moldovan geology consists entirely of sedimentary formations which generally dip in a south-westerly direction. As these formations become progressively deeper towards the south of the country, water in the deeper aquifers becomes brackish and unusable, with the presence of nitrogen and methane gases. Fluoride appears in groundwater along the western boundary of the country. Old rocks of the Lower Palaeozoic outcrop in the north along the upper Nistru valley, and the exploitation of Quaternary deposits is fairly widespread throughout the country, but particularly along the three main river valleys of the Prut, Nistru, and Raut.

4.7.1.1 Principal Aquifers

Regional Setting Moldova has substantial groundwater resources which are related to the vast areas of steppe around the northern margin of the Black Sea. The country lies between the groundwater deficient areas of central Ukraine and the Carpathian Mountains to the west, but connected to the important groundwater basin of Volynsk Oblast (NW Ukraine) to the north, and the Romanian groundwater basins to the south.



Moldova has multiple aquifer layers, composed predominantly of limestones and sandstones in the north and sands to the south, each with discretely different characteristics and different sources of recharge. As these formations dip steadily towards the south, it is possible to identify rough north-south divisions, and areas within the territory where the aquifers form clear spatial units. The aquifers which outcrop inside Moldova, will show different degrees of connectivity with the Moldovan land surface and river system. The deeper Silurian-Cretaceous formations rely on recharge primarily in the widespread plateau areas to the northwest of Moldova in NW Ukraine. These areas are shown in green [K] in the vicinity of the cities of L’Viv and Lutsk, in Figure 21, where it can be seen that the outcrop extends into the tributaries of the upper Nistru. It is likely that this aquifer provides some base flow contribution to the River Nistru along the northern boundary of Moldova, and is therefore transboundary in nature.

Source: Extract from Surficial Geology of Europe, Lambert Azimuthal Equal-Area projection (ETRS89 datum), Scale 1:5,000,000, August 2010 Author: Eric Gaba, subject to Wikipedia copy rules. //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Europe_geological_map-en.jpg Key to geological formations follows nomenclature used in this report; Arrows show regional groundwater movement. Geological Provinces: 1103 Dobrogea Foreland, 1013 Ukrainian Shield, 4061 Carpathian-Balkanian Basin, 4063 Dobrogean Orogen

Figure 21. Geology of the northern Black Sea area There are six main aquifer systems currently exploited in the Republic of Moldova. Water-bearing formations have been grouped together where groundwater circulation has a degree of vertical hydraulic connectivity, and can therefore be regarded as an “aquifer group”. Further sub-division can later be made on the basis of water quality. The six aquifer groups are:

1. Alluvial floodplain and terrace deposits in the Nistru and Prut valleys [A3] 2. Pontian sands [N2 p] 3. Upper Sarmatian Meotian aquifer group [N1S3m] 4. The Baden-Sarmatian Aquifer Group [N1t – N1S1-2] 5. The Cretaceous-Silurian Aquifer [KS]



6. Crystalline Basement Aquifer [VR] It should be emphasized that this is a preliminary attempt to define aquifer groupings, which has been discussed with local experts and follows the approach already adopted in the country. Each aquifer group is described in more detail below.

Quaternary and Recent Alluvial Deposits [A3] The most significant deposits are found along the main valleys of the Nistru, Prut and Raut Rivers, and comprise a mixture of sands and gravels, associated with the active floodplain of rivers or older terrace deposits. There are as many as 11 mapped terrace deposits on the Prut River, and up to 13 different levels on the Nistru River.

The Pontian Aquifer [N2p] The Pontian formation outcrops in the south of the country, and usually consists of unconsolidated sands or weakly cemented sand-rock. Sometimes, high iron concentrations associated with the cementation material, can pose a problem for water supply, but also nitrate concentrations have been rising. The proximity to the surface makes this aquifer at high risk to agricultural use, and effective management is required which encourages catchment sensitive farming techniques.

The Upper Sarmatian Meotian Aquifer [N1S3m] The Upper Sarmatian is not distinguished from the Meotian [Motzichesky], and generally comprises lenses of unconsolidated or weakly-cemented sand which are laterally discontinuous, and alternating with bands of clay and silt. Although water is usually of good quality, except for localized problems with high iron concentrations, the sands are not very productive and can only be used for small water supplies. As this formation grades imperceptibly into the Meotian-Pontian formations, this aquifer group which is closer to the surface, is also referenced as the Upper Sarmatian-Pontian. Also, there is some commercial mineral water bottling from this aquifer.

The Baden-Sarmatian Aquifer Group [N1t – N1S1-2] The principal Moldovan aquifer system consists of the Baden [Tortonian], Lower and Middle Sarmatian: these three formations are collectively known as the Baden-Sarmatian aquifer group, which has been extensively mapped by EHgeoM. Piezometric contour maps are included in the five-year reports, a summary of which is provided in Appendix 4. The main aquifer lithologies are unconsolidated sand deposits at higher levels overlying extensive limestones, which vary from calcareous siltstones to massive reef limestones. Vertical permeability through the reef deposits allows hydraulic continuity across the different formations, and this guarantees recharge of the lower part of the aquifer group. This aquifer group provides the main source of groundwater in the central part of the country, north and south of Chisinau. The lower Sarmatian does, however, become saline as it becomes progressively deeper towards the southern limit of exploitation, south of 46.5 degrees north latitude. The aquifer has high fluoride concentrations in the west. The N1s2 formation is generally sandier in the west and faces changes eastwards into limestones. There are significant groundwater springs along the deeper valleys, originating from the Baden-Sarmatian group, and a good example can be found at Jelebok, near Orhei, where a spring has been exploited for public water supply. The Jelebok spring has excellent water quality and discharges on average 5,000 m3/day, and 3,800 m3/d is captured for supply, leaving the rest as ecological flow in the River Raut. There was an increase in turbidity a few years ago, which is believed to be related to an earthquake, because the water quality has since returned to normal. There is another spring at Malayeshty in the Nistru valley.



The Cretaceous-Silurian Aquifer [KS] The Lower Cretaceous [K1] is not used, as the formation is too deep and generally brackish. The Upper Cretaceous [K2] is present from the center to the north of Moldova and becomes shallower and contiguous with the deeper Silurian aquifer in the northern part of the country, where it is exploited for public water supply. There is generally considered to be vertical connectivity between the Silurian and Cretaceous in the north, with no clear division from the hydrogeological viewpoint. The K2 outcrops in the riverside cliffs of the Upper Nistru valley, where there are numerous groundwater springs, although discharging fairly small quantities. This group is an important water supply aquifer in the north of Moldova, and supplies Balti, Donduseni and Drochia. This aquifer group provides first option for groundwater development in the north of the country. Boreholes in the Chisinau area exploit both the Baden-Sarmatian complex and the KS aquifer group. However, glauconitic layers in the K2 aquifer can make drilling difficult, and this limits the success of exploitation towards the southern limit of the aquifer area. Water in this unit can usually be distinguished in terms of water quality, as it is very hard, with a fairly low level of mineralization. This is because the aquifer comprises crystalline limestones and sandstone.

Groundwater in the Lower Palaeozoic [VR] Crystalline rocks believed to be of Vendian age outcrop along the upper part of the Nistru valley, upstream of a point about 6 km down valley from Camenca. These rocks provide important supplies to the towns of Camenca and Soroca. Like the KS group, these water-bearing formations comprise crystalline limestones and sandstones overlying a larger granite body at a variable depth of between 0 and 100 m. The granite outcrops at a few localities, and provides a source of road and building stone, quarried at Casauti. In some places, the VR groundwater contains radon, and is used for medical therapy.

4.7.1.2 Groundwater Resource Assessment The documentation consulted by the ISRC does not show evidence that local experts have checked the level of groundwater consumption against the hydrological balance, using known levels of rainfall, evaporation and recharge. ISRC considered prudent to carry out a brief verification in this report. Two sources of information have been used: the Moldovan Atlas (1978) and the results of work commissioned by UNESCO for the general characterization of aquifers across Europe. Two map extracts are shown here for mean annual rainfall and mean annual recharge in Figure 22.



Figure 22. Rainfall and Recharge across Eastern Europe The mean annual rainfall maps taken from the Atlas are shown in Appendix 5. These sources suggest that annual rainfall across Moldova averages 450 mm, and reaches a maximum of 550 mm over the highest ground. Much of Moldova has the potential to generate free surface evaporation losses of 750 mm/year or more, except in the far north of the country. Most of central and northern Moldova has been classified in Figure 22 as capable of aquifer recharge rates in the range 20-100 mm/year, whereas the southern part of the country is shown to have lower rates of between 2 and 20 mm/year. The Moldovan total area is quoted as 33,851 km2 in some fact sheets, divided between a land area of 32,891 km2 and water surface area of 960 km2. Integrating these values, the hydrological balance in Moldova may be summarized roughly to give an estimate of groundwater resources in the range 1,973.5 Mm3 to 3,289.1 Mm3/yr. Thus, the sustainable development of groundwater resources is not likely to exceed a level of consumption of the order of 5,000 Mld. The factors which are not considered in this evaluation are the influx of groundwater into the Silurian-Cretaceous and Vendian aquifers in the north, and the outflow of groundwater as a mass export into the Carpathian-Balcanian Basin (4061) to the south, and into the Dobrogea Foreland (1103) towards the Black Sea. Likewise, a more robust investigation should be made of the lower rates of recharge applied to the surface area of the Pontian aquifer there. The impact of groundwater in maintaining environmental flows in rivers is also not considered in this approach. However, despite these drawbacks, it provides a simple check on the quoted rates of consumption and assessment made of “reserves”, which is discussed below. The areas where the aquifer outcrops are important in considering recharge and protection. Measurement of the area of recharge, rainfall and soil types will generally give a good idea of how much water enters the aquifer on average each year.



4.7.1.3 Demand Assessment and Consumption Drilling and Abstraction Permits The current procedure for developing a new groundwater source involves the submission of two main documents with accompanying collection of permits. Firstly, when drilling a new borehole, a drilling consent application is prepared in the form of a report by the drilling company. The report is submitted to nine agencies for approval and this takes about 30 days, which includes the appraisal by the planning authority. The landowner/developer then compiles a “Borehole Passport”, which comprises all the technical details of the borehole and results of pumping tests, and is submitted to the four water agencies and SEI to obtain the abstraction license. The license is issued for a period of three years. Local experts say that in Moldova, “you always find water”. This indicates that the country is, indeed, well endowed with groundwater resources. Groundwater “Reserves” All towns and villages except the two main Moldovan cities of Balti and Chisinau rely on groundwater. The estimated potential groundwater yield using available well sources is 3,478 Ml/d that is just less than 3.5 million m3/day. Of this amount, only 1,266 Mld is actually pumped into supply, while the remaining 2,212 Ml/d has been approved for further development and identified as future resource available by the State Commission of Reserves. This groundwater resource assessment is based on the addition of individual 27-year simulations of drawdown for each production borehole in the country, which is done during the preparation of the Borehole Passport. The passport data are reviewed every 27 years and updated as required taking into consideration the performance of the borehole at the time of the review. As the boreholes are not all pumped at maximum drawdown, the EHgeoM estimate the reserves by calculating the potential yield, if all boreholes were to be drawn down to the top of the well-screen or pump cut-out, whichever is higher. Clearly, this is a theoretical case, usually with no data to support the performance of the well at lower pumping water levels, and is certainly a “well-drillers” approach to determining well yield, rather than the conventional approach to determining the sustainability of groundwater resources through the application of hydrogeological principles. Such methods would involve the determination of effective rainfall in the aquifer recharge area, the volume of the groundwater reservoir, and the inflow-outflow relationship, as described in Section 4.3. In that section, it was estimated that 5.4 Mm3 may represent the sustainable limit of exploitation, so at the moment, only 23 % of groundwater resources are currently exploited in Moldova, leaving a significant amount of water available for use. The planned state groundwater reserve of 3.5 Mm3 is only 64% of the potential resources, and it should be emphasized that the reserve is not based on sound water resource planning guidelines or robust forecasting of population and industrial growth in consumption. As such, it must be concluded that there is considerable potential for the use of groundwater to satisfy part of the future requirements of irrigation, and that the support of this sector of the economy does not only have to come from surface water resources. This should provide a significant cost-saving in farming areas which are relatively far from the two main rivers, and therefore avoid long transmission pipelines and pumping costs. Conversely, water supplies to the two main cities are provided by pipeline from the River Nistru, and another option may be to replace these supplies with groundwater thereby releasing water in the Nistru for irrigation, and save on the costs of treating river water. It is important that the water resource planning process attempt to forecast trends in demand so that management decisions do not limit options for the future. This clearly brings the planning procedure back



to the need for "targeted" monitoring. Since 1990, groundwater consumption has decreased, as factories closed in the post-Soviet era. The overall consumption of groundwater and allocation of reserves can be further divided according to aquifer type as follows in Table 15.

Table 15. Aquifer yields in Moldova

Aquifer Ml/d % A3 268.4 7.8 N2p 32.8 1.0 N1S3m 51.5 1.5 N1S2 182.7 5.3 N1S1-b 2627.5 76.2 K2-S 205.9 6.0 VR 80.0 2.3

It can be seen here that the majority of groundwater use is reserved in the Baden-Sarmatian aquifer, accounting for 81.5% of the total reserve. Most of the remaining (13.8%) groundwater reserve comes from the alluvial deposits and Cretaceous-Silurian aquifer. The assessment of reserves during the last decade has not changed very much, and the following values were taken from the five-year EHgeoM reports:

• Jan 2002: 3,448.80 Ml/d • Jan 2006: 3,462.79 Ml/d • Jan 2010: 3,478.30 Ml/d

4.7.1.4 Urban Water Supplies Major abstraction points are found on the River Nistru to supply Chisinau and Balti. These supplies can be supported or replaced by extensive well fields in the Nistru valley, capable of pumping up to 117,000 m3/d for Chisinau. These boreholes are in hydraulic continuity with the alluvial deposits, and are therefore linked to both river levels and water quality in the river. There are also boreholes at Chisinau which are currently not used. Presumably, they could be used for irrigation or used to replace the transmission of water from the Nistru. This was mentioned in the previous section, where it was suggested that options could be reviewed to develop the most cost-efficient way forward, taking into account a mixed resource base. In other words, it would be economically worth challenging the current strategy of reserving groundwater only for public water supply and excluding its use for irrigation. Although groundwater was used in the Soviet era for irrigation, groundwater today is primarily used for domestic supply. All towns and villages except the two main Moldovan cities of Balti and Chisinau rely on groundwater. Most houses in the villages have individual wells, used for domestic supply, including both drinking water and other domestic uses. A large groundwater spring in the valley of the Raut River at Jelabok resurges at an average rate of 5.0 Mld, and 3.8 Mld is pumped to Orhei for the town’s water supply, leaving 1.2 Mld to support the river flow. There is apparently little seasonal variation in discharge.



4.7.2 WFD Groundwater Bodies

4.7.2.1 General Background Good groundwater management and WFD application requires the identification and characterization of water bodies that make up the components of a river basin. Groundwater bodies are aquifers or parts of an aquifer which form logical (usually catchment-based) management units and for which environmental objectives are set with respect to sustainable yield and water quality. The condition of the groundwater body will usually be reported using color-coded maps and tables and improvements would be targeted to the bodies that do not meet the required standards. Water bodies will be central to how the quality of the water environment is understood, and how success in managing it is judged. In this context, a groundwater body can be identified as distinct volumes of underground water and the management objectives would be defined in terms of the roles, which that groundwater plays in:

• Maintaining the ecological quality of surface waters and terrestrial ecosystems, very often by supporting dry season river flows and wetlands.

• Providing water for agricultural, industrial and domestic use. A body of groundwater is, therefore, the unit of groundwater that enables the most effective management of risks to dependent surface water bodies and terrestrial ecosystems, and water users relying on groundwater abstraction. Accordingly, the first step in identifying bodies of groundwater, is to determine which geological formations constitute aquifers that can support a significant level of abstraction or provide a significant base-flow to support surface water systems. The WFD states that any groundwater body that is capable of supplying more than 10 m3/d of potable water (or water for 50 people) to be identified as protected areas for drinking water. A significant step in the process will be to determine how the known aquifer or hydrogeological units may be sub-divided into smaller "groundwater bodies" as defined by the WFD on GIS. The division of aquifers into groundwater management units (GWMU) will be based on hydrometry, water chemistry, and the following artificial influences, which will likely be significant to each river basin and sub-basin:

• Point source and diffuse pollution • Groundwater abstraction • Artificial recharge of groundwater • Land use patterns and practices • Alterations to the recharge characteristics of groundwater bodies

Identification of pressures on the use of groundwater, and risk assessment is at the heart of effective groundwater management and monitoring. The hydrogeology of Moldova and existing approach to groundwater characterization and classification has been reviewed by the ISRC team, with a view to identifying the boundaries of groundwater bodies for applying some of the WFD management objectives. In the process, the principle aquifers and existing levels of exploitation and water quality status have been described in previous sections. The appraisal has been made in consultation with a Moldovan expert drawing on the wealth of information available and recorded since 1968. The needs have also been discussed, asking the question whether enhancement or improvement is required, to bring the overall system into line with WFD objectives. A



robust and targeted monitoring system is one of the building blocks of integrated water sources management. The other building block for creating a cost-effective monitoring system is the identification of the core environmental problems.

4.7.2.2 Outline of Groundwater Bodies for Moldova A preliminary outline of possible groundwater bodies for Moldova is shown in Figure 23, and this takes into consideration the regional geological setting, available mapping of the principal aquifers, their piezometry, and mapped variations in groundwater quality.

Figure 23. Preliminary Outline of Groundwater Bodies in Moldova, Source: AGRM Special Working Party, 2005 The overall concept is based on the results of a working party formed by AGRM in 2005 at the request of UNESCO, to investigate the possible delineation of groundwater bodies. The working party included the

K E Y

N1s3m Upper Sarmatian

Scale in kms

N1s1 Lower SarmatianN1s2 Middle Sarmatian

K2 Cretaceous


SilurianVR Vendian


N2s1 MeotianN2p PontianA3 Alluvium

A3

N1s2 - N2p

N1s2

K2

Groundwater Bodies

S - K2

VR

(3) Middle Sarmatian

(4) Cretaceous(4) Silurian - Cretaceous

(5) Vendian

(2) Middle Sarmatian - Pontian

(1) Alluvial Deposits

N1s1 (3) Lower Sarmatian

Level 1-5

N2p (2) Pontian

0 10 20 30 40

Developed by:



following experienced Moldovan geo-scientists: G. Jalalite, V. Tcaci, M. Titovet and I. Ilinski. This activity coincided with the integration of Romania in the European Union. For the purposes of this report, the territory has been divided into 16 groundwater bodies, all of which extend beyond the international boundaries of Moldova. This includes the Baden-Sarmatian aquifer which was identified as one of the transboundary Romanian aquifers in the Danube River Basin. It also includes the Cretaceous and Cretaceous-Silurian aquifer group, which is fed from the area of Ukraine to the north. Effective management of these aquifers will involve agreements with the neighboring countries of Romania and Ukraine. Such agreements will be mutually beneficial, as there is groundwater movement both into Moldova and out of Moldova: broadly speaking, groundwater moves into the country along the northern border, and out along the Prut and Black Sea basins toward South. This presents a preliminary sub-division, which would in turn be sub-divided into groundwater management units, in the next phase of study, when more information has been collated. The surface water basins have not yet been overlaid on these groundwater body outlines: when that is achieved, it is likely that the bodies identified here will be further sub-divided into effective management units. The numbering and existing level of monitoring is shown in Figure 24. Larger maps of the groundwater bodies, which are easier to read, are included in Appendix 5. The alluvial deposits have been sub-divided into effective management units on the basis of exploitation and spatial extent of the deposits, ensuring that for each unit, there is at least one monitoring borehole. The alluvial deposits along the smaller rivers, in particular along the Raut valley, have not yet been mapped, but these will need to be included, and give rise to further groundwater bodies. The borehole monitoring map shows that there are already monitoring boreholes at those sites.

4.8 Hydromorphology Aquatic communities are not only affected by water quality conditions, but also by physical attributes of the water bodies. Therefore, the WFD introduced hydromorphological quality elements as part of the monitoring and assessment of the ecological status (Table 16).

Table 16. WFD hydromorphological quality elements for rivers and lakes

RIVERS LAKES Hydrological regime • Quantity and dynamics of water flow • Connection to ground water bodies • River continuity Morphological conditions • River depth and width variation • Structure and substrate of the river bed • Structure of the riparian zone

Hydrological regime • Quantity and dynamics of water flow • Residence time • Connection to the groundwater body Morphological conditions • Lake depth variation • Quantity, structure and substrate of the lake bed • Structure of the lake shore



GB1-3: Lower Palaeozoic Aquifers GB4-7: N1s1 + N1s2 Baden-Sarmatian Group

GB8: N2 Pontian Aquifer GB9-16: A3 Quaternary [Alluvial deposits]

Figure 24. Groundwater Bodies and Monitoring

Only quantity and dynamics of water flow (rivers) and quantity and dynamics of water flow (lakes) are included in the current monitoring programs. In the case of lakes this concerns mainly the man-made reservoirs. The WFD defines a ‘heavily modified water body’ as:

a body of surface water which as a result of physical alterations by human activity is substantially changed in character

A surface water body can be classed as heavily modified if:

Cahul

Comrat

Vulcanesti

Ceadir-Lunga

LeovaCimislia

Causeni

Olanesti

SioboziaTiraspol

AneniiNoi

Hincesti

Straseni

Nisporeni

Criuleni

Dubasari

Grigoriopol

OrheiCalarasi

Telenesti

FalestiRezinaBaltiGlodeni

Ribnita

Singerei

DonduseniEdinet

Briceni

CamencaSoroca

26.5

2

6.5

27.0

2

7.0

27.5

2

7.5

28.0

2

8.0

28.5

2

8.5

29.0

2

9.0

29.5

2

9.5

30.0

3

0.0

30.5

3

0.5

45.5 45.5

46.0 46.0

46.5 46.5

47.0 47.0

47.5 47.5

48.0 48.0

48.5 48.5

K E Y

Scale in kms



Groundwater Bodies Level 1-5

K2 CretaceousSilurianVR Vendian

K2S - K2

VR

(4) Cretaceous(4) Silurian - Cretaceous

(5) Vendian

Developed by:

0 10 20 30 40

GB1GB2

GB3

Cahul

Comrat

Vulcanesti

Ceadir-Lunga

LeovaCimislia

Causeni

Olanesti

SioboziaTiraspol

AneniiNoi

Hincesti

Straseni

Nisporeni

Criuleni

Dubasari

Grigoriopol

OrheiCalarasi

Telenesti


Ribnita

Singerei

DonduseniEdinet

Briceni

CamencaSoroca

26.5

2

6.5

27.0

2

7.0

27.5

2

7.5

28.0

2

8.0

28.5

2

8.5

29.0

2

9.0

29.5

2

9.5

30.0

3

0.0

30.5

3

0.5

45.5 45.5

46.0 46.0

46.5 46.5

47.0 47.0

47.5 47.5

48.0 48.0

48.5 48.5

K E Y

Scale in kms




N1s1 Lower Sarmatian

N1s1+s2 Lower-Middle Sarmatian

N1s2 - N2p

N1s2 (3) Middle Sarmatian

(2) Middle Sarmatian - Pontian

N1s1 (3) Lower Sarmatian

N1s2 Middle Sarmatian

Developed by:

0 10 20 30 40

GB4

GB5

GB7GB6

Cahul

Comrat

Vulcanesti

Ceadir-Lunga

LeovaCimislia

Causeni

Olanesti

SioboziaTiraspol

AneniiNoi

Hincesti

Straseni

Nisporeni

Criuleni

Dubasari

Grigoriopol

OrheiCalarasi

Telenesti


Ribnita

Singerei

DonduseniEdinet

Briceni

CamencaSoroca

26.5

2

6.5

27.0

2

7.0

27.5

2

7.5

28.0

2

8.0

28.5

2

8.5

29.0

2

9.0

29.5

2

9.5

30.0

3

0.0

30.5

3

0.5

45.5 45.5

46.0 46.0

46.5 46.5

47.0 47.0

47.5 47.5

48.0 48.0

48.5 48.5

K E Y

Scale in kms




N1s3m Upper SarmatianN2s1 MeotianN2p Pontian

N1s2 - N2p (2) Middle Sarmatian - Pontian

N2p (2) Pontian

Developed by:

0 10 20 30 40

GB8

Cahul

Comrat

Vulcanesti

Ceadir-Lunga

LeovaCimislia

Causeni

Olanesti

SioboziaTiraspol

AnansiNoi

Hincesti

Straseni

Nisporeni

Criuleni

Dubasari

Grigoriopol

Orhei

Calarasi

Telenesti


Ribnita

Singerei

DonduseniEdinet

Briceni

CamencaSoroca

26.5

2

6.5

27.0

2

7.0

27.5

2

7.5

28.0

2

8.0

28.5

2

8.5

29.0

2

9.0

29.5

2

9.5

30.0

3

0.0

30.5

3

0.5

45.5 45.5

46.0 46.0

46.5 46.5

47.0 47.0

47.5 47.5

48.0 48.0

48.5 48.5

K E Y

Scale in kms




A3 (1) Alluvial Deposits

A3 Alluvium

Developed by:

0 10 20 30 40

GB9

GB10

GB11

GB12

GB13

GB14

GB15

GB16



(a) the changes to the hydro-morphological characteristics of that body which would be necessary for

achieving good ecological status would have significant adverse effects on:

i. the wider environment; ii. navigation, including port facilities, or recreation; iii. activities for the purposes of which water is stored, such as drinking-water supply, power

generation or irrigation; iv. water regulation, flood protection, land drainage, or v. other equally important sustainable human development activities;

(b) the beneficial objectives served by the artificial or modified characteristics of the water body

cannot, for reasons of technical feasibility or disproportionate costs, reasonably be achieved by other means, which are a significantly better environmental option.

This applies to many of the rivers in Moldova due to the construction of small dams. These small dams impact heavily on the water courses on which they lie particularly since in some cases no water is allowed to flow past the dam in some years. The following photograph (Figure 25) shows the embankment of one of these dams. As can be seen there is no mechanism on the dam wall which allows a minimum ‘ecological’ flow to pass the dams. This means that once water is drawn down for irrigation or other purpose no water passes downstream and the river dries out. The impact on the aquatic flora and fauna is severe. A secondary aspect of these dams, not specifically related to the WFD is the safety of the dams. The photos in Figure 26 show the upstream and downstream end of a flood spillway. In the case of the upstream end, the small size of the pipes means that branches, leaves and other debris, often washed down in a severe storm, could block the pipes and the dams would overflow with potentially catastrophic consequences. At the downstream end debris has been allowed to accumulate, effectively raising the flood level for the dam, and also limiting the flow capacity.

Figure 25. Dam embankment at Sarata Galbena village, 2011



Figure 26. Dam flood spillway at Ivancea village, 2011

Other dams have been seen where the flood spillway was associated with a road bridge. In that case the spillway had concrete protection. Within Moldova there are reported to be over 4,000 small dams. It is recognized that the small dams, and the ponds which are formed behind them, play a useful function for local irrigation none-the-less their presence is not fully compatible with attaining good ecological status.

Figure 27. Straightened river: River Raut, upstream of Orhei, 2011

Figure 28. Bank erosion and sediment deposition: River Raut, upstream of Orhei, 2011

The WFD allows countries to class water bodies as heavily modified if the costs of correcting them would be financially prohibitive and they fulfill an important purpose – irrigation being recognized as such a purpose. This would appear to be the case in Moldova. The cost of removing the dams to recreate natural ecological conditions in the rivers would be prohibitive and the work itself would create a large amount of disturbance to the rivers. Another alternative, to fit a pipe through the embankment with a valve to allow a continuous flow for ecological purposes is also not possible. In the long term a solution might be to impose stricter control on abstraction so that reservoir level never falls below the level of the overflow weir. An alternative might be to create a siphon to draw water from the dam and release it into the river downstream of the dam. Another way in which many rivers within Moldova could be classed as ‘heavily modified’ relates to the fact many of them have been ‘straightened’. Whilst this may initially appear to improve flow conditions in the



river, possibly to improve drainage or facilitate the construction of flood embankments, unless regular maintenance is carried out the river will erode its banks and over time revert to its natural shape and gradient. Figures 27 and 28 show a river (the River Raut upstream of Orhei) which has been artificially straightened. As can be seen in Figure 28, the river is eroding on one side and silt is building up on the other side. Over time, unless regular ‘maintenance’ work is carried out the river will revert to its original meandering form. Again, the fact that the river shape is not natural and the natural bank and bed vegetation cannot grow has an impact on the ecology of the river.

Figure 29. Sediment and vegetation in an artificially enlarged river – urban area: River Bic at Chisinau, 2011

Figure 30. Sediment and vegetation in an artificially enlarged river – rural area; River Raut at Telenesti, 2011

A further impact of the changes that have been made to the rivers is that the river beds are now unstable. This means that as bank erosion and sediment deposition occur more sediment is carried in the river. A secondary factor is that the relationship between flow and water level is not constant and this in turn increases need for frequent current monitoring by the State Hydrometeorological Service to be able to calculate flows based on levels. Where rivers have been enlarged, possibly in an attempt to increase the flood-carrying capacity, the velocities are often too low for the channel’s natural self-cleaning mechanism to operate. The first example is the river Bic, near Chisinau, where considerable sediment has been deposited and dense vegetation has become established (Figure 29). A similar example, this time from a rural location, shows reeds and other vegetation in the river bed (Figure 30).

4.9 Surface Water Quality Routine monitoring of the quality of surface waters is conducted by the Ministry of Environment via the State Hydrometeorological Service (SHS) and the Ministry of Health via the National Centre of Public Health (NCPH) and the 26 Regional Centers of Public Health (RCPH). 42

42 Due to unexpected administrative and bureaucratic procedures, only fragmented information was received from the Ministry of

Health by the last week of April 2011. The project team has tried to complement this with information obtained in previous projects. Unfortunately, still several gaps exist in the overviews for the Ministry of Health.



4.9.1 Physico-chemical Quality Elements Physico-chemical quality elements comprise a wide range of parameters, including water temperature, dissolved oxygen, metals, pesticides, and others. The list of parameters included in the draft Regulation on protection of surface water is considered an important benchmark (Appendix 6).

4.9.1.1 Laboratory Analysis Capacity In principle, the potential laboratory capacity of SHS would suffice for the analysis of most of the physico-chemical parameters included in the draft Regulation on protection of surface waters (Table 17). The range of actually monitored parameters is considerably smaller, due to a combination of factors:

• Lack of reference material and certification standards • Lack of methods of analysis • Lack of specific equipment parts (certain organic micropollutants) • Lack of finances

Table 17. Summary of analysis and monitoring of physio-chemical quality elements: SHS

Potential Capacity Actually Monitored

General conditions √(no Kjeldahl nitrogen) most

Trace metals √ • Cu, Zn • Cd and Pb from 2009 and Cr from 2010 (limited

locations and samples)

Organic micropollutants √ all but 6 parameters*

• DDD, DDE, DDT • α-β-γ-HCH

* no diuron, isoproturon, nonylphenol, octylphenol, pentabromodiphenylether and tributyltin compounds From the (incomplete) information returned with the questionnaires, it can be inferred that the laboratory capacity of the RCPHs is less than the NCPH (Table 18). The labs of NCPH/RCPHs are able to analyze fewer organic micropollutants than SHS. Furthermore worth noticing is the lack of analysis of phosphorus compounds (total phosphorus and orthophosphates), relevant parameters in the context of eutrophication.

Table 18. Summary of analysis and monitoring of physico-chemical quality elements: NCHP/RCPHs

Potential Capacity Actually Monitored

NCPH RCPHs NCPH* RCPHs

General conditions √

(no Ptotal,,PO4, Kjeldahl nitrogen)

√

(no Mn, Ptotal ,PO4, Kjeldahl nitrogen)

most no information

Trace metals √

(except Hg)

Cu • Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn

• Cd from 2008

no information

Organic micropollutants

12 parameters 10 parameters • DDT, dieldrin, atrazin, simazin, HCH;

• aldrin from 2008

no information

* based on 2006-2008 monitoring data of three monitoring locations along the Nistru River



4.9.1.2 Equipment Table 19 contains an overview of the laboratory equipment available in the labs of SHS, NCPH and RCPHs.

Table 19. Overview of analytical equipment in SHS, NCPH and RCPHs

SHS NCPH RCPHs

General conditions

• WTW system (2009) • UV-Spectrometer,

(Carry -100, 1998) • photocolorimeter (КФК-

2, 1985) • BOD Incubators

(Model TS 606/2) • hotplate, balances,

burettes, etc.

• photocolorimeter • thermostat • ionometers • hotplate, balances

burettes, etc.

• photocolorimeter • thermostat • ionometers • hotplate,

balances burettes, etc.

Trace metals • atomic absorption spectrometer (Solaar Z, 1998)

• Analytic Jena mercury analyzer

• atomic absorption spectrometer

• photocolorimeter


• gas chromatograph / mass spectrometer (AT 7890, 2009)

• high performance liquid chromatograph, (AT 1200, 2009)

• gas chromatograph, (HP 6890, 1998)

• gas chromatograph (HP 6890), (Цвет 164)

• thin layer chromatography

• thin layer chromatography

* between brackets: brand, year The larger capacity for analysis of organic micropollutants is mainly due to the equipment SHS received in 2009 under the TACIS project “Water Governance in Western EECCA countries”, including a gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer (GC/MS) and a high-performance liquid chromatograph (HPLC).

New Equipment Registration Imported equipment has to be registered in the “State register of measuring instruments allowed for use in the Republic of Moldova” of the National Institute of Standardization and Metrology, in accordance with the according to the Law on metrology No. 647 of 17 November 1995. This can be a time-consuming (the whole package of the equipment-related documents has to be translated into the Romanian language) and costly procedure. For example, due to this complicated procedure, the State Hydrometeorological Service has not managed to register by now (spring 2011) the portable laboratory kit (WTW system) provided in 2009 under the TACIS project “Water Governance in Western EECCA countries” as well as the Mercury Analyzer with atomic absorption provided under the TACIS Project “Environmental Collaboration for the Black Sea” in 2008.

The RCPHs use a photocolorimeter for analysis of copper, a device that is more limited and less accurate than for example an atomic absorption spectrometer (AAS). Furthermore, they use thin layer



chromatography for analysis of organic micropollutants, a method that is cheaper, but less sensitive and accurate than, for example, gas chromatography.

4.9.1.3 Standards for Analysis The laboratories of SHS, NCPH and RCPHs use a variety of standards in the methods for analysis of the various parameters, applying rather old standards developed during the Soviet era through recent ISO methods (Table 20). Notably, the NCPH and RCPHs appear to make still little use of methods developed by CEN/ISO, but also SHS does not yet systematically applies those standards, especially with the group of General conditions.

Table 20. Overview of methods of analysis: SHS, NCPH and RCPHs

SHS NCPH RCPHs

General conditions

• "Guide for chemical analysis of surface water." Hidrometizdat Leningrad, 1977

• GOST (chloride) • ISO (conductivity, COD,

manganese)

• "Methods of water quality analysis of reservoirs" M. Medicine 1990

• STAS

• ISO (pH, conductivity) • "Unified methods of water

quality analysis" Atomic absorption spectrophotometric methods, 1983 (manganese)

• "Methods of water quality analysis of reservoirs" M. Medicine, 1990

• STAS

• ISO (pH)

Trace metals • ISO • "Unified methods of water quality analysis" Atomic absorption spectrophotometric methods, 1983

• "Methods of water quality analysis of reservoirs" M. Medicine 1990


• EN/ISO • IM • GOST

• IM

EN: European Standard (ratified by the CEN: Comité Européen de Normalisation = European Committee for Standardization); ISO: International Standards Organisation; STAS: Romanian standards, approved for use in Moldova; GOST: Russian standards, approved for use in Moldova; IM: methodical instructions/recommendations developed in Russia. SHS mentioned in the questionnaire that it still has to purchase some ten to fifteen more EN/ISO standards for the analysis of a series of parameters43. Furthermore, it is important to notice that no adequate EN/ISO standards yet exist for analysis of some of the WFD priority substances (e.g. C10-13 chloroalkanes, pentabromodiphenylether and tributyltin compounds).

WFD and EN/ISO standards WFD Annex V.1.3.6. Standards for monitoring of quality elements mentions that “Methods used for the monitoring of type parameters shall conform to the international standards listed below or such other national or international standards which will ensure the provision of data of an equivalent scientific quality and comparability.” In the case of physico-chemical parameters this entails “Any relevant CEN/ISO standards”.

4.9.1.4 Detection Limits As a rule of thumb, the analysis’ detection limit should at least be better than 1/3 of the concentration of interest (refer to the textbox further below for more details). Table 21 contains examples of parameters 43EN/ISO standards cost about CHF 100 - 125 (EUR 75 - 100) each



where the detection limit of the analysis (highlighted in bold typeface) would not suffice for analysis against the lowest concentrations of the parameters regulated in the draft Regulation on protection of surface waters.

Table 21. Examples of insufficient detection limits: SHS, NCPH and RCPHs

Parameter Required Realized

SHS

Realized

NCPH

Realized

RCPH

phenols 0.33 mg/l 1 mg/l no info no info

cadmium 0.066 µg/l 0.5 µg/l 3 µg/l -

copper 6.7 µg/l 3 µg/l 20 µg/l 20 µg/l

lead 0.83 µg/l 3 µg/l 10 µg/l -

nickel 2.7 µg/l 3 µg/l 10 µg/l -

nitrite 0.003 mg N/l 0.005 mg N/l 0.002 mg N/l 0.002 mg N/l

aldrin 0.003 µg/l unknown 0.1 µg/l 5 µg/l

atrazin 0.2 µg/l unknown 0.1 µg/l 5 µg/l

HCH 0.007 µg/l 0.002 µg/l 0.1 µg/l 5 µg/l

para-para-DDT 0.003 µg/l 0.05 µg/l 0.1 µg/l 5 µg/l

simazin 0.3 µg/l unknown 0.1 µg/l 1 µg/l The detection limit is determined by a combination of the equipment, method and reagents used for the analysis. For example, the detection limits for aldrin, atrazin, HCH, para-para-DDT that can be realized by the RCPHs clearly illustrate thin layer chromatography being less sensitive than gas chromatography.

4.9.1.5 Sampling Methods SHS uses the following standards for sampling:

• GOST 17.1.5.05-85 Environmental protection. Hydrosphere. General requirements to the methods for the sampling of surface and water, ice and precipitation,

• ISO 5667/2 Water quality -- Sampling -- Part 1, 2-6 No such details were provided for the NCPH and RCPHs (yet).

Detection Limits The EU DIRECTIVE 2009/90/EC of 31 July 2009 laying down, pursuant to Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, technical specifications for chemical analysis and monitoring of water status contains among others the following articles. Article 2 Definitions 1. ‘limit of detection’ means the output signal or concentration value above which it can be affirmed, with a stated level of confidence that a sample is different from a blank sample containing no determinand of interest; 2. ‘limit of quantification’ means a stated multiple of the limit of detection at a concentration of the determinand that can reasonably be determined with an acceptable level of accuracy and precision. The limit of quantification can be calculated using an appropriate standard or sample, and may be obtained from the lowest calibration point on the calibration curve, excluding the



blank; 3. ‘uncertainty of measurement’ means a non-negative parameter characterizing the dispersion of the quantity values being attributed to a measurand, based on the information used. Article 3 Methods of analysis Member States shall ensure that all methods of analysis, including laboratory, field and on-line methods, used for the purposes of chemical monitoring programs carried out under Directive 2000/60/EC are validated and documented in accordance with EN ISO/IEC-17025 standard or other equivalent standards accepted at international level. Article 4 Minimum performance criteria for methods of analysis 1. Member States shall ensure that the minimum performance criteria for all methods of analysis applied are based on an uncertainty of measurement of 50 % or below (k = 2) estimated at the level of relevant environmental quality standards and a limit of quantification equal or below a value of 30 % of the relevant environmental quality standards. 2. In the absence of relevant environmental quality standard for a given parameter, or in the absence of method of analysis meeting the minimum performance criteria set out in paragraph 1, Member States shall ensure that monitoring is carried out using best available techniques not entailing excessive costs.

4.9.1.6 Sampling Frequencies SHS has differentiated schemes for taking water samples. For the majority of locations, twelve samples per year (monthly sampling) are envisaged, but at some locations quarterly sampling is scheduled. Per location, the number of samples for analysis on general conditions, trace metals or organic micropollutants can furthermore differ. The NCPH/RCPHs also have differentiated sampling schemes, mainly depending on the objects of sampling:

• Drinking water intakes: 12 times per year (monthly). • Recreational areas (beaches): 2 times up to the bathing season, monthly during the bathing

season. • Wastewater discharges (upstream and 500m downstream the discharge): 4 times per year

(quarterly). • General locations (e.g. transboundary cross-sections, end of tributary): 4 times per year (quarterly)

either twice a year, in the cold and the warm season.

4.9.1.7 Quality Management The SHS laboratory is accredited to ISO 17025 (to the 2000 standard; preparations for the next accreditation to the 2005 standard are being made). The lab makes use of Shewhart Control Charts and internal plus external reference material and -samples. The lab takes part in the QUALCO Danube AQC Scheme, a basin-wide analytical quality control program in which some 35-50 laboratories participate. SHS conducts joint sampling exercises with Ukraine (laboratories of the State Committee for Water Management in Novodnestrovsk and Odessa) and with Romania. The NCPH lab also makes use of Shewhart Control Charts and certified reference materials. The procedure SOP 5.4-09 “validation of analytical methods” is applied. The laboratory participates in a number of international interlaboratory comparison programs (FAPAS, LEAP, IMEP, UNEP) and conducts



joint sampling exercises with several ‘Sanepid’ laboratories in Ukraine. The labs of RCPHs use of Shewhart Control Charts and internal/external (certified) reference materials. It is worth noticing that the lab of SHS and the labs of the NCHP/RCPHs do not participate together in inter-laboratory comparison programs.

4.9.2 Hydrobiological Quality Elements Only the SHS is routinely monitoring hydrobiological quality elements. Some key features are summarized in Table 22.

Table 22. Summary of hydrobiological monitoring by SHS

Parameter Sampling method Sampling frequency

benthic invertebrate fauna ISO 7828:1985, EN 27828 3 - 4 times per year

phytoplankton Russian method 3 - 4 times per year

phytobenthos under development (WFD compatible) 2 - 4 times per year

macrophytes under development (WFD compatible) not yet monitored

fish not monitored not monitored

zooplankton not specified 2 - 4 times per year

periphyton not specified 2 - 4 times per year SHS has already a long-lasting tradition in monitoring of benthic invertebrate fauna and phytoplankton, but is now in the process of harmonizing sampling and assessments methods with the WFD requirements. Zooplankton has also been monitored for a long period, but this is not included among the WFD hydrobiological quality elements. Monitoring of phytobenthos is scheduled to substitute the traditional monitoring of periphyton; introduction of methods for sampling and assessment of phytobenthos, in line with the WFD requirements, is under development. Monitoring of macrophytes is envisaged but also not yet operational. The inclusion of fish is the most important omission in the SHS hydrobiological monitoring capacity. Special points of attention with monitoring and assessment of hydrobiological quality elements are “reference conditions” and the “ecological quality ratio”. Both terms originate from the WFD, but expected to become relevant for Moldova as well.

• Reference conditions are closely linked with WFD’s ‘high status’, defined as the biological, chemical and morphological conditions associated with no or very low human pressure. This is also called the ‘reference condition’ as it is the best status achievable. Reference conditions are type-specific and region-specific, so they are different for different types of rivers, lakes or coastal waters so as to take into account the broad diversity of ecological regions in Europe.

• The ecological quality ratio is an expression of the relationship between the values of the biological parameters observed for a given body of surface water and the values for those parameters in the reference conditions. The ratio is expressed as a numerical value between zero and one, with high ecological status represented by values close to one and bad ecological status by values close to zero

SHS is merely in the preliminary stages of starting to define reference conditions and ecological quality ratios for Moldovan surface waters.



4.9.3 Microbiological Parameters According to the information returned with the questionnaires, SHS is able to analyze Total coli and E. coli. However, these bacteria are not included in the routine surface water quality monitoring program of SHS. The laboratories under the Ministry of Health are able to monitor and analyze microbiological parameters. Unfortunately, no details about microbiological parameters were provided in the returned questionnaires.

4.9.4 Location of Stations The present surface water quality monitoring network of SHS comprises 56 locations (Appendix 7 and 8). Not all locations are actually monitored, since some of them are situated in the Transnistrian Region to which the sampling team has no longer access. Physico-chemical parameters are analyzed at all monitored locations, hydrobiological parameters at 46 locations. The surface water quality monitoring network of NCPH and the RCPHs comprises 34 locations (Appendix 9); samples are taken at in total 62 sites.44 Some of the sampling sites of SHS and the NCHP/RCPHs appear to be situated in a similar area, but generally there is not that much overlap. The major purposes/objects of the surface water quality monitoring are summarized in Table 23. Strictly speaking, the samples taken upstream and 500 m downstream of wastewater discharges could be considered to be more focusing on the local impact of the wastewater discharges (compliance checking), rather than monitoring the ambient surface water quality. Notably the samples taken 500 m downstream of the wastewater discharge will most likely not be representative for the overall river water quality near that cross-section.

4.9.5 Network Appraisal Generally, there are functional surface water quality monitoring programs in place in Moldova. The laboratories of SHS and the NCPH/RCPHs have the capacity for monitoring physio-chemical parameters, with the labs of the RCPHs being less advanced than the labs of NCPH and SHS. Monitoring of microbiological parameters is more of the domain of the NCPH/RCPHs, whereas SHS has the better potential for monitoring of hydrobiological parameters, except fish.

Table 23. Purposes/objects of surface water quality monitoring: SHS and NCPH/RCPHs

Purpose/object SHS NCPH/RCPHs

Drinking water intake - √

Bathing/recreation - √

Influence of urban wastewater discharge - √

Influence of urban area √ -

Influence of tributary discharge √ √

Water quality at transboundary location √ √

General water quality √ √

44 For example, at the location Or. Vadul lui Vodă there are three objects of interest with in total four different sampling sites:

• drinking water intake; • near the beach; • urban wastewater discharge:river samples are taken upstream and 500m downstream the discharge.



It will be important to find out to which extent the present surface water quality monitoring programs will be able to meet with the requirements following the draft Water Law. The box below contains quotes of sections relevant in the context of surface water quality monitoring.

Draft Water Law; surface water quality monitoring related quotes Article 13. Water Resource Monitoring (1) The systematic monitoring and recording of the condition of surface water, underground water and protected areas is undertaken by the Specialized Central Body of Public Administration in the field of Environment in the way established by a Regulation approved by the Government and monitoring of drinking and irrigation water sources and of recreation areas shall be performed in conjunction with the Ministry of Health. (2) The Regulation referred to in paragraph (1) shall specify the parameters to be monitored, procedures and technical measures necessary for, but without limiting to, sampling and complying with analysis requirements for each parameter, quality control, laboratory practice and data recording. Article 37. Environmental quality requirements for water (1) The environmental quality requirements for water must specify, but are not limited to, values for temperature, acidity/alkalinity, and dissolved oxygen, chemical and microbiological parameters. The requirements shall be established by a Regulation adopted by the Government which, in addition, must contain provisions with regard to: a) water quality monitoring requirements including methods of measurement and

sampling, frequency of analyses and procedures, and data management requirements; b) the publicity of information on compliance with environmental quality requirements for

water; c) the classification of water by reference to the requirements of environmental quality for

water established under paragraph (3); Article 38. Environmental objectives for water (1) The environmental objectives for water by reference to their chemical and/or ecological status and/or quantitative status for surface water as well as for ground water and for protection areas are established by the Government. (2) For the purpose of this law: a) “surface water status” means the status of a body of surface water, determined by the

poorest if its ecological and chemical status; b) “groundwater status” means the status of a body of groundwater, determined by the

poorest of its quantitative or chemical status; c) “surface water chemical status” means the concentration of pollutants in water; d) “groundwater chemical status” means the chemical status of a groundwater body; e) “ecological status” means the quality of the structure and functioning of aquatic

ecosystems associated with surface waters; f) “quantitative status” means the degree to which a body of groundwater is affected by

direct and indirect abstractions. (3) The general criteria regarding the status of waters for water bodies including, rivers, lakes, heavily modified or artificial water bodies and groundwater together with necessary definitions are established by the Government.

The draft Water Law contains only rather generic text about surface water quality monitoring. Article 38 is important, since environmental objectives have implications for the design of surface water quality monitoring programs. Unfortunately, the criteria regarding the status of water bodies are yet to be established (Article 38, sub 3). However, the terminology used in Article 38 sub 2 shows strong



resemblances with the WFD. Hence, it seems prudent to consider principles and approaches of the WFD as reference, while noticing that the actual criteria to be developed pursuant to Article 38, sub 3 may be defined differently. The overall objective of the WFD is “good” status of all waters (surface water and groundwater) by the year 2015. The status of surface water bodies comprises two components: ecological status and chemical status.

• The ecological status, which can range from “high” to “bad”, is determined by a combination of biological quality elements (aquatic flora, benthic invertebrate fauna and fish fauna), physico-chemical quality elements (such as oxygenation conditions, nutrient conditions, salinity, as well as specific pollutants) and hydromorphological quality elements.

• Good chemical status means compliance with the environmental quality standards defined in the Directive 2008/105/EC45. This Directive comprises a list of 33 Priority Substances and certain other pollutants (including pesticides, heavy metals, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, and others). All Priority substances and certain other pollutants are incorporated in the draft Regulation on protection of surface waters (please see Appendix 6).

Furthermore, the draft Water Law is expected to lead to a focus on the management of water bodies.

4.9.5.1 Ecological Status SHS has the potential for monitoring and assessment of the ecological status, but there are still many topics and details to be settled, notably with respect to the hydrobiological quality elements. This includes:

a) Introduction of EN/ISO standards for sampling. Besides purchasing available EN/ISO standards, this will involve training and adjusting the sampling protocols.

b) Incorporation of monitoring of phytobenthos and macrophytes by SHS. This will involve at least training and adjusting the sampling protocols, as well as, more staff.

c) Arrangements for monitoring fish. SHS has no in-house expertise with fish. It would make sense to develop the capacity for monitoring and assessment of fish in an organization already having experience with fish, for example the Fishery Service of the Ministry of Environment either a department within the Academy of Sciences.

d) Definition of assessment criteria: reference conditions and ecological quality ratios. This will require among others: dedicated research, knowledge and field data.

SHS is well aware about the above topics and already in the process of further preparation and development. For the near future, it will be important to:

• Have an assessment for the stage where SHS is right now with respect to monitoring and assessment of hydrobiological quality elements;

• For SHS to further develop the schedule for introduction and implementation of monitoring and assessment of hydrobiological quality elements;

• Have an organization identified and agreed that will adopt monitoring and assessment of fish; • To extend and implement the hydrobiological monitoring and assessment with new parameters

and methods. Concerning the physico-chemical parameters within the ecological status, the major point of attention will be to introduce EN/ISO standards for the laboratory analysis. Besides purchasing EN/ISO standards,

45 Directive 2008/105/EC “on environmental quality standards in the field of water policy, amending and subsequently repealing

Council Directives 82/176/EEC, 83/513/EEC, 84/156/EEC, 84/491/EEC, 86/280/EEC and amending Directive 2000/60/EC”.



there might be ramifications in terms of equipment, consumables and training. These and other issues should be mapped by the SHS.

4.9.5.2 Chemical Status A kind of ‘Catch-22’ situation exists with respect to the WFD priority substances and certain other pollutants. It is not known which of these pollutants would be relevant for Moldovan surface waters, since most of them have not yet been subjected to (adequate) laboratory analysis. Then again, the laboratories are not yet able to analyze all of them. One of the questions is whether the laboratories now should aim at enhancing their analytical capacity to cover all WFD Priority substances and certain other pollutants, which might become quite a costly and time-consuming exercise. Tributyltin compounds, one of the WFD priority substances, are a good example. In the Netherlands, pollution with tributyltin compounds is mainly associated with shipping (antifouling paints for ship hulls contain(-ed) tributyltin compounds). Since shipping in Moldova is negligible, one would not expect pollution with tributyltin compounds, at least not caused by use of antifouling paints for ship hulls. Taking furthermore into account that analysis of tributyltin compounds will require dedicated equipment and that presently no adequate EN/ISO standard for analyses exists yet, one could argue whether Moldova should invest in capacity for analyzing tributyltin compounds.46Comparable argumentations could be imagined for several more pollutants. The lab of SHS is facing a number of difficulties, as indicated in sections above:

• Lack of EN/ISO methods for analysis. This is largely a question of purchasing available EN/ISO method. However, it furthermore could result in other requirements for equipment’s, consumables and/or staff expertise.

• Lack of reference material and certification standards. These are used among others for calibration of equipment and for quality management purposes. It concerns first of all a financial issue, while noticing that such consumables can be rather expensive. Then again, investing in reference material and certification standards also should be done with a realistic perspective for actual analyses.

• Lack of specific equipment parts, notably applying to the analysis of certain organic micropollutants. Also, this is mainly a financial issue, together with the perspectives for actual analyses.

An additional complication surfaced during the review: detection limits. It turns out that present detection limits may not suffice for analysis of some parameters at relevant environmental quality levels (subsection 4.9.1.4).47It will have to be further investigated whether the current detection limits for cadmium and lead are limited by the equipment either by the method of analysis (or a combination of both). The same applies to a number of organic micropollutants. The sampling media should be incorporated in such a review.48 Yet another angle would be to discuss (the feasibility of) certain environmental quality standards themselves. Generally, it can be concluded that it will be necessary to further develop a strategy with respect to pollutants like the WFD Priority substances and certain other pollutants, including (enhancement of) the laboratory capacity and the further design of monitoring programs. It is too premature to schedule analysis of WFD Priority substances and certain other pollutants in the routine monitoring programs.

46Another option could to outsource analysis to competent laboratories abroad. 47The concentrations for the organis micropollutants included in the draft Regulation on protection of surface waters have been

derived from the environmental quality standards of the Directive 2008/105/EC. 48For the purpose of identification of the presence/absence of certain pollutants, sediment or suspended solids might be a promising

alternative to water samples.



4.9.5.3 Drinking Water Abstraction, Irrigation Water Abstraction, Recreation Areas Article 13, sub (1) of the draft Water Law “The systematic monitoring and recording of the condition of surface water, underground water and protected areas is undertaken by the Specialized Central Body of Public Administration in the field of Environment in the way established by a Regulation approved by the Government and monitoring of drinking and irrigation water sources and of recreation areas shall be performed in conjunction with the Ministry of Health” indicates a specific role for the Ministry of Health in relation to monitoring of surface waters used for the abstracting drinking water and irrigation and for recreational purposes like bathing. First of all, microbiological parameters are important for these kinds of surface water uses because of their potential public health risks. Analysis of microbiological parameters is one of the key areas of expertise of laboratories operating under the Ministry of Health, implying a tradition to be continued under the draft Water Law. Monitoring of physio-chemical parameters, including pollutants of the list with WFD Priority substances and certain other pollutants, will also be relevant in conjunction with abstractions of drinking and irrigation water and with recreational areas. From the information obtained via the questionnaires, it could be inferred that the present laboratory capacity of the NCPH and notably the RCPHs may not suffice. Besides not having all equipment as available to SHS (e.g. a HPLC), comparable problems as noticed above for SHS might also be surmised. Therefore, it will be necessary to extend the development of a strategy with respect to pollutants like the WFD Priority substances and certain other pollutants to a wider scale by including the laboratories of the Ministry of Health. In this respect, joint use of monitoring resources of the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Health might be considered among the options.



4.9.5.4 Quality Management Methods All laboratories apply quality management procedures, being more sophisticated in the labs of SHS and NCPH than in the labs of the RCPHs. There is definitely room for strengthening the (checks on) performances of the laboratories, including:

• analysis of parameters in accordance with EN/ISO standards • purchase and use of reference material and certification standards • (organization of) interlaboratory comparison and proficiency tests in which both the lab of SHS as

well as the labs of NCPH/RCPHs participate

Since no information about sampling procedures of the Ministry of Health was provided (yet), no conclusions can be made yet concerning harmonization and optimization of sampling methods.

4.9.5.5 Water Bodies The EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) introduced a different perception of water bodies. A body of surface water is defined in WFD Article 2.10 as “... a discrete and significant element of surface water such as a lake, a reservoir, a stream, river or canal, part of a stream, river or canal, a transitional water or a stretch of coastal water”, still a rather conventional definition. Guidance Document № 2 “Identification of water bodies” provides with a more specific characterization: “the ‘water body’ should be a coherent sub-unit in the river basin (district) to which the environmental objectives of the directive must apply. Hence, the main purpose of identifying “water bodies” is to enable the status to be accurately described and compared to environmental objectives.”49 Water bodies could be ultimately considered as the smallest units for management of river basins. Water bodies are also addressed in the draft Water Law of the Republic of Moldova. It contains a definition for surface water bodies similar to the one in the WFD. Article 10: River Basin District Committees mentions among the main tasks of the River Basin District Committee “participating in the process of identification, demarcation and classification of water bodies for which environmental quality requirements for water are applicable, or needing protection, or that could be affected by pollution from different sources, including agricultural sources and consulting in the designation of ‘sensitive areas’.” From this description and terminology one could infer a role of water bodies under the new Water Law that will be comparable with the WFD. Presuming this analogy, then surface water monitoring programs will be required for determining the status of water bodies. Monitoring locations will have to be selected such that they will be representative for the conditions of the water bodies. Of course, this first of all requires a definition of water bodies, which is not yet available for Moldova but expected to be prepared following the adoption of the draft Water Law. When and how the identification, demarcation and classification of water bodies under the draft Water Law will be done is yet unknown. The ISRC decided to conduct a preliminary identification of water bodies that at least can support the discussion about projecting and selecting surface water quality monitoring locations (Figure 31). This preliminary list has been compiled following several criteria:

49 EC(2003), Identification of Water Bodies, Guidance Document № 2,Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework

Directive (2000/60/EC), European Commission, Brussels. http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/wfd/library?l=/framework_directive/guidance_documents/guidancesnos2sidentifica/_EN_1.0_&a=d

http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/wfd/library?l=/framework_directive/guidance_documents/guidancesnos2sidentifica/_EN_1.0_&a=d

http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/wfd/library?l=/framework_directive/guidance_documents/guidancesnos2sidentifica/_EN_1.0_&a=d



Figure 31. Preliminary identification of surface water bodies



• Identification of the surface water category. This has been done in line with WFD Annex II.1.1.(i): “The surface water bodies within the river basin district shall be identified as falling within either one of the following surface water categories - rivers, lakes, transitional waters or coastal waters - or as artificial surface water bodies or heavily modified surface water bodies.” For Moldova, only rivers and lakes are relevant, as well as the artificial or heavily modified surface water bodies (e.g. reservoirs).

• Physical characteristics delineating discrete and significant elements. Guidance Document № 2: Identification of Water Bodies contains the section 3.2.4 ‘Physical characteristics delineating discrete and significant elements’, mentioning: “Physical features (geographical or hydro-morphological) that are likely to be significant in relation to the objectives of the Directive should be used to identify discrete elements of surface water. For example, the confluence of one part of a river with another could clearly demarcate a geographically and hydro-morphologically distinct boundary to a water body...”.

• Pressures. Anthropogenic pressures include for example discharges of wastewater and surface water abstractions (when large compared to the volume of the water body).

• Border sections. For example, the Dniester River shapes the border with Ukraine from Naslavchea (entering Moldova) through Grushka (leaving Ukraine).

The list with preliminarily identified water bodies is included in Appendix 10. The list should not be considered to be conclusive nor final. Adjustments and refinements - from the perspective of designing the surface water quality monitoring network - can be expected during Phase II of ISRA.

4.9.5.6 Monitoring Locations It is expected that the focus of monitoring will change with the new Law on water, in analogy with the WFD. The tentatively anticipated trends are indicated in Table 24.

Table 24. Anticipated Trends for Purposes of Monitoring

Purpose/object Now Future

‘Status’ of water body - √

Drinking water intake √ √

Bathing/recreation √ √

Nature protected areas ± √

Water quality at transboundary location √ √

Influence of urban wastewater discharge √ -

Influence of urban area √ -

Influence of tributary discharge √ -

General water quality √ - Notably, monitoring for determining the status of water bodies will become more dominant. On the other hand, the information collected with this monitoring can substitute current purposes like measuring the impact of urban areas and tributary discharges or assessing the general water quality. It is important to notice that the expected shift in the focus of monitoring not necessarily must result in more locations than currently being monitored. Appendix 10 contains a preliminary overview of candidate



surface water monitoring locations. The number of monitoring locations required for monitoring the preliminary identified water bodies in this overview amounts to a total of 55 (not including drinking water intakes and recreation areas), virtually the same amount as the number of locations projected in the current monitoring network of SHS (56). The overview in Appendix 10 also introduces a number of other points of attention:

• Criteria will have to be developed to decide how to cope with monitoring of smaller streams, lakes and reservoirs. There are 3200 large and small rivers, permanent and temporary streams, of which only 9 are longer than 100 km and 57 lakes with a total surface of 62.2 km2. Small lakes of under 0.2 km2 prevail. Besides natural lakes, there are about 3500 ponds and reservoirs, with a total volume of 1.8 km3 and a surface of 333 km2.50 This already adds up to nearly 6800 rivers, rivulets, lakes, ponds and reservoirs, which most likely could be divided into even more water bodies. Actually, this issue is not just relevant for monitoring, but also for the future identification, demarcation and classification of water bodies.

• Due to the conflict about the Transnistrian Region, not all required locations might be accessible to all sampling teams.

For Phase II of ISRA, it will be important not only to discuss the list with preliminary identified water bodies with the competent stakeholders, but also to discuss how and where to project the locations for representative monitoring of the water bodies. This explains the many entries “still to be determined” in Appendix 11.

4.9.5.7 Surface Water Quality Data Management Data before 1984 are available at SHS on paper only. From 1984 until the present, the data are available in Excel format (Appendix 8). The data of the NCPH were stored in Excel from 1988 until 1998. From 2000 to 2006, the data were stored in Microsoft Access, but with a different data structure. During that period, the section was supported by a project and was using MapInfo for thematic mapping. Since 2006, however, the data are not entered in digital format anymore, because there was no need and because the lack of staff. For the publication of the statistical yearbook, it appears that statistical summaries are computed by hand.

4.10 Recommendations for Monitoring

4.10.1 Abstraction and Discharges The authorization for the special use of water specifies how much water can be abstracted and at what maximum rate. It also includes information on used water metering method. The water user is required to record water use at an annual, daily or second time step, depending on the size and variability of the abstraction. The water users provide reports on the actual water used to the Basin Division of Water Management under the Apele Moldovei Agency. However, not water users report regularly on the actual water use. The process should be given the rule of law. For example in the UK if a meter is out of action for one month the user pays the equivalent of the maximum monthly abstraction rate, if for two months then a surcharge, and if it is longer the license could be revoked. Similar considerations apply to discharges. In many cases the discharge will be the same as the abstraction but where it is not, for example a reservoir may be filled in winter and water used all the year round, the discharge should also be measured. In the case of discharge not only the quantity but the 50http://www.unece.org/env/epr/epr_studies/moldova.pdf

http://www.unece.org/env/epr/epr_studies/moldova.pdf



quality should be specified and monitored. The charge rate should take account of not only the quantity but also the quality. A polluting discharge should attract a higher charge than a well-treated discharge. To ensure that the stipulated conditions are respected it should be possible to visit the premises of the discharger without warning to take samples of the discharge for analysis. As with abstractions, a progressive series of payments should apply leading to criminal charges in case of serious breaches of the conditions. Monitoring of abstractions and discharges is important for three main reasons:

1. Assessment of water resources availability 2. Management of resources 3. Collecting fees for water use

The flow of rivers and the level of aquifers vary within a year, and also from year to year. When past records are analyzed to assess resource availability it is necessary to know not only the flows and water levels that have been observed in rivers and aquifers, but also how much was abstracted from them and how much water was discharged into them. The total available water resources are equal to the observed flow plus abstractions minus discharges. In developing a river basin plan the resources would be analyzed to determine how much could be abstracted and what restrictions might need to be placed on abstractions. It is, for example, common for some abstractions such as irrigation to be prohibited if the river flow falls below a critical value; the critical value being determined taking account of dilution of sewage and ecological factors. The second reason for monitoring abstractions and discharges is to ensure that the assumptions behind the issue of permits to abstract are respected. If, for example, a permit only allows abstraction when flow is above a minimum level then it is important that abstraction is monitored. Similar considerations apply to the quality of discharges. If abstractions are set to allow dilution of a certain level of pollution then changes in quality of discharges could mean that the assumed dilution rate was no longer valid. The third reason for monitoring is to collect fees for water use. One of the basic premises of the WFD is cost recovery. For efficient water resources use charges have to be applied for industry, households and agriculture.

4.10.2 Meteorology The overall impression of the ISRC team is that the meteorological service is adequately provided with equipment and it measures climate at a sufficient number of sites. There would appear to be no need for additional support from ISRA.

4.10.3 Hydrology

4.10.3.1 Number of Stations The WMO Guide of Hydrological Practices51 makes recommendations on the minimum station network density on the basis of topographical type. They identify 6 types of which ‘Hilly/undulating’ corresponds most closely to situation in Moldova. On this basis the recommendation is for a minimum density of 1 station per 1875 km2. This is equivalent to 17 stations for the whole of Moldova. The WHO also recommends that, in general, a sufficient number of stream flow stations should be located along the main stems of large rivers to permit interpolation of discharge between the stations. In this case it is necessary to take account of the magnitude of flow and the accuracy of measurement; there is no

51 World Meteorological Organisation Guide to Hydrological Practices, WMO Number 168, 5th edition 1994.



point in having so many stations that the increment in flow between them in less than the accuracy of the stations. In the case of the two major rivers the number of stations would appear to satisfy this criterion. The WMO guide stresses that fact that the discharge of a small tributary cannot be determined accurately by subtracting the flows at two mainstream gauging stations which bracket the mouth of the tributary. Where the tributary flow is of special interest in such a case, a station on the tributary will be required. Given the number of stations on tributaries of the two main rivers, this criterion would also appear to have been met. A further recommendation is that wherever possible, the measuring stations should be located by the SHS on streams with natural regimes. Given the large number of small dams in Moldova this criteria would be probably impossible to achieve. As the network satisfied the major criteria there is no pressing need to increase the number of stations. In the future however, to satisfy the requirements of the Water Framework Directive it will be necessary for the SHS to identify reference water bodies. These are water bodies, normally in the headwaters of river, in which ‘natural’ and therefore good ecological conditions prevail. When such reference water bodies have been identified then additional flow measurement stations will be required.

4.10.3.2 Water Level Measurements The present method of measuring water level, by an observer every morning and evening, is valid on large rivers, where flows change slowly, but it means that rapid change in flow can be missed on small rivers. This can to some extend be remedied by the observer making additional measurement during a flood. The data recorded by the observer has to be copied down and entered into a computer-based system which intrudes the possibility of errors. In case of an emergency it is difficult to transmit data accurately and swiftly to those who have to respond to the emergency. Thus, it is recommended to MCA to provide support to the SHS that all stations be fitted with pressure transducer type of water level measurement. This type of equipment (when coupled with logger) enables levels to be recorded at a short time step (e.g. 15 minutes) and, therefore, to record small rapid variations in flow. Data can also be transmitted directly to real-time monitoring. As the data are stored digitally there is no problem in transcribing them for computerized data processing. That said, the use of this type of equipment also has some negative aspects relative to the present situation. Firstly such devices are more expensive and whilst the sensors themselves are of little use other than for their intended purpose the cable, worth only a fraction of the cost of the whole installation, is liable to be stolen . Additionally, there is a requirement for electrical power. Usually, this is provided by solar panels and/or a wind-turbine. By their nature these have to be exposed and, therefore, present a tempting target to vandals. Insofar as possible new stations should be installed with MCA support at, or very close to, existing sites to ensure that there is continuity of data. The transducer must to be installed in such a way that it is able to measure the full range of flows, that it is secures, and, if necessary, it can be removed for servicing or replacement. Transducers are not all suitable for the range of temperature registered in Moldova, specifically some of them do not work at low temperatures. At installation, and at intervals throughout its lifetime, the transducer has to be calibrated and recalibrated. If this is not done then there is a danger that false values could be store and processed. It should also be noted that one of the conditional precedents is that the SHS should provide a secure location for the hydrometric monitoring equipment. According to the Compact between Moldova and MCC, the continuity of the project is dependent on this requirement being satisfied.



In addition to a basic set of equipment, it is recommended that MCA provide a full set of spare parts should be provided and the staff of the State Hydrometeorological Service should be trained in operation and maintenance of the equipment. The cost of upgrading all hydrological stations in Moldova is given in Section 4.9.3.6.1. In making this estimate ISRC took account of the fact that 5 hydrological stations have already been upgraded. The ISRC is also aware of the fact that other donors and sources of funding are potentially available to purchase equipment of a similar standard to that we are recommending. Until this issue is definitively resolved, the ISRC has considered the cost of a full upgrade.

4.10.3.3 Flow Measurement At present, current meters are used to estimate flow in the rivers. It is recommended that this should continue. However, the types of meters used should be upgraded. Currently, each observer has a set of metering equipment, and whilst this is a good solution it may become too expensive over time. It is more normal for equipment to be used by a team who travel from site to site on a regular basis. It is normal for different meters to be used for different velocity ranges; usually at least two different meters (or different impellers) would be used. Currently metering is done for the smaller velocities by wading in the river or by suspending the meter from a bridge. This should also continue. In addition to different current meters it is also necessary to have a range of weights so that the bale suspending the meter remains vertical even under high velocities. For greater weights it is sometimes necessary to have a mobile crane to support the meter and weights. Such technical equipment can be provided by MCA at MCA’s discretion. For larger rivers gauging a river normally requires a cableway to be suspended across the river from which the current meter can suspended and lowered into the river. Not all the flow measuring sites on the Nistru and Prut have such a cableway. However, an alternative way of measuring flow in larger rivers is to use an Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP). This device floats on the river, and as it is towed across it measures the velocity and bed profile, and at the end of the traverse it calculates the flow in the river. It is recommended to MCA that at least one such device be purchased for each of the two major rivers. Using an ADCP would obviate the need for cableways.

4.10.3.4 Rating Curves This refers to the process of establishing the relationship between level and flow. At present this is done by plotting by hand the values of level and flow each time a flow estimate is made. Due to lack of bed stability and due to vegetative growth, this has to be done at least once a year.

4.10.3.5 Data Processing There are many issues to be resolved with regard to processing the data and the common platform but two issues are important. The first of these issues is the need to retain metadata. This is often referred to as “data about data”. In the case of flow measurement these include the date when the station was established and changes to the station, for example new equipment, or changes which might affect the station, such as constructing a bridge downstream of the station or a reservoir upstream. The second issue is to be able to distinguish natural changes in flow from anthropogenic changes in flow. Such changes include abstractions, discharges and the operation of reservoirs.



4.10.3.6 Cost of Upgrading the Network

4.9.3.6.1 Telemetry and Water-level Measurements It is suggested to MCA to provide support that each of the stations be upgrading for continuous monitoring with a transducer, data logger and transmission through a mobile phone network. The cost for a single station would be approximately as indicated in Table 25.

Table 25. Cost of upgrading hydrological station

Item $ US Submersible pressure transducer 700 Transducer cable 200 Data logger 2800 Software for above 450 Cell-phone modem 2800 Installation 2000 Total per station 8950

In addition there would be a recurring cost for use of mobile phone network. The cost per station would be of the order of $100 per month depending on the frequency of data transmission.

4.9.3.6.2 Current Metering Equipment for Small Rivers This section covers rivers that are wholly within Moldova. At present there is limited availability in Moldova of equipment for measuring river velocities. It is suggested to MCA that sets of measuring equipment be purchased. This would consist of two current meters, one for low flows and for higher flows. The equipment would be suitable for using with wading rods or from a bridge. This equipment would be suitable for rivers within Moldova. The equipment to be used for medium flows shall include:

• Current meter with meter case, rating table, instrument oil, screwdriver, cleaning cloth • Wading rod • Spare Parts: extra pivot with lock nut, weight hanger screw, weight pin, insulating bushing • Headphone set with batteries • Reel with rubber covered cable • Two-conductor stainless steel cable • 7 kg sounding weight • Equipment Bag: 24" canvas bag with handles • Software

For low flow velocities, the equipment is similar but the current meter shall be smaller. To allow for higher velocities it is suggested to MCA to provide support for the purchase of additional weights (Table 26).



Table 26. Current metering equipment costs

Item $ US Complete gauging outfit for medium streams 4500 Complete gauging outfit for small streams 3400 Additional weight - 15 kg 300 Additional weight - 30 kg 350 Total per set 8550

4.9.3.6.3 Current Metering Equipment for Large Rivers As mentioned above, it is recommended to use ADCP, one for the Nistru and one for the Prut Rivers. These device floats on the river and are pulled across the river from a boat, bridge or cable-way. The device, together with its software, calculates the flow in the river and provides a cross-section of the riverbed. The cost of one ADCP unit is about $20,000.

4.9.3.6.4 Additional Equipment To access the data notebook computers are needed. It is recommended to MCA that five notebook computers with software be purchased at a cost of approximately $1500 each. Our understanding is that at level measurement sites there is a secure building or, in some cases, a metal encasement. Since it part of the compact between MCC and the Government of Moldova that the equipment should be installed in a secure way, the ISRC has not included the cost of any enhancement. Thus, the total cost of current metering equipment is provided in Table 27.

Table 27. Total cost of current metering equipment

Description Number Unit cost Cost $ US Telemetry and level measuring 32 8950 286400 Current metering equipment – small rivers 10 8550 85500 Current metering equipment – large rivers 2 20000 40000 Additional equipment 5 1500 7500 TOTAL 419400

4.10.4 Hydrogeology

4.10.4.1 Well Inventory Following the review, it is clear that the Moldovan establishment does not hold up-to-date information on how many wells and boreholes exist in the territory, whether they are operational or disused, and consequently what the actual level of groundwater consumption is. The last complete inventory was carried out over 30 years ago. Despite attempts to update the well inventory, lack of funds has meant that this activity has fallen by the wayside, and records are significantly out-of-date. As with the digitization of manuscript data, the task of updating the well inventory is a large task for AGMR, which will not be completed quickly. The best approach is probably to align this with the introduction of pilot areas, and attempt to bring all records up-to-date within selected areas, and then expand later to the whole country.



4.10.4.2 Groundwater Monitoring A review of the existing groundwater monitoring network has identified a number of gaps, which need to be addressed. There are a number of blank areas on the map with no evident monitoring sites, and in other areas, there are dense clusters of boreholes. It is likely that a degree of rationalization could be achieved in the dense clusters, reducing the numbers of boreholes in some areas, while extending the network into areas where there is currently no monitoring. This will require the search for possible boreholes in the blank areas on the map. At the moment, groundwater monitoring is not required as a condition of granting abstraction licenses or drilling consents, apart from the need to carry out carefully planned aquifer tests at the time of construction. It would be helpful to include regulatory powers at the time of granting an abstraction license to oblige the owner to keep the appropriate records, and make them available to the state agency,(in principle, that would be AGRM). This could be a condition attached to the abstraction license. There should be a legal precedent granting unimpeded access to observation boreholes on land in private ownership. As with the office setup in AGRM and EHgeoM, offices, field stations and the borehole monitoring network all need to be equipped with computers, software (including numerical modeling packages such as MODFLOW, SURFER) and modern instrumentation (including transducers for boreholes and loggers, such as DIVERS), together with the appropriate level of training for staff.

4.10.4.3 Water Quality Monitoring and Analysis The resource assessment has shown that there is significant potential for groundwater to be used for both future growth in urban public water supply and irrigation. If groundwater is indeed considered in the future for irrigation, measurements should be made of boron, which is not currently done. The most recent EHgeoM report shows that on average about 25 samples have been collected per year, which is extremely low for managing public water supply sources. For example, in Western Europe, one public water supply source would normally have at least monthly sampling of raw water, and the sampling frequency would be increased if known pollution problems occurred in the aquifer. The current system in Moldova is therefore grossly inadequate in this respect, and such sampling does not provide support effective management. Likewise, the laboratory should be equipped with appropriate modern equipment, and should seek ISO recognition, to ensure that analytical results conform to European Union standards.

4.10.4.4 Groundwater Resource Assessment Based on rainfall, effective recharge, and the surface area of Moldova, it would be expected that an annual groundwater resource of 5.4 Mm3/year might be available for sustainable exploitation. At the moment, only 23% of groundwater resources are currently exploited in Moldova, leaving a significant amount of water available for use. The state groundwater reserve of 3.5 Mm3 is only 64% of the potential resources, and it should be emphasized that this value is not based on sound water resource planning guidelines or robust forecasting of population and industrial growth in consumption. As such, it must be concluded that there is considerable potential for the use of groundwater to satisfy part of the future requirements of irrigation, and that the support of this sector of the economy does not only have to come from surface water resources. This should provide a significant cost-saving in farming areas which are relatively far from the two main rivers. A different approach is required to the assessment of groundwater resources, than that currently used. Although addition of borehole yields across the country and extrapolation for increased rates of drawdown can provide a reasonable estimate of deployable output, this should be integrated with a water balance approach across the aquifer.



Given the increased power of numerical models with increased power of computing technology, it is now routine in Western Europe to develop numerical models of strategically important aquifers. Such a modeling approach should be attempted in Moldova, particularly for the Baden-Sarmatian aquifer group, which accounts for 81.5% of the total reserve. Most of the remaining (13.8%) groundwater reserve comes from the alluvial deposits and Cretaceous-Silurian aquifer. There appears to be a misunderstanding in Moldova that groundwater cannot be used for both domestic supply and irrigation. Clearly, irrigation has the potential to use much larger quantities of water, but in areas far from surface water supply, there is no reason why groundwater cannot be developed for both purposes. Only a proper evaluation of groundwater resources will demonstrate to what extent this is feasible. It should be said that many people in Moldova appear to believe that groundwater in Moldova is either running out, or that there are severe water quality problems, including high levels of mineralization and fluoride. These issues are confined primarily to the deeper strata in the south of the country, and to a corridor along the Prut valley at depth. It is likely that the problem of deteriorating groundwater came to a peak when the Soviet system over-exploited water resources to support an unsustainable farming and agro-industrial economy. Clearly, constraints on time during this project has not allowed specialists to analyze historic data in detail, and unfortunately, the poor level of information-gathering over the past 30 years cannot provide the evidence to persuade people to think otherwise. The Water Cadaster includes a table (Table 4.4) which summarizes groundwater quality, but this is likely to be based on “old” data-sets, and is not very useful. The superficial aquifers (Quaternary and Pontian) are reported to have nitrate concentrations which make them difficult to use for domestic drinking water supply. However, there is no reason why these waters should not be used for agriculture thereby returning the nutrients to the crop. It needs to be emphasized that Moldova should be well-endowed with groundwater resources, better than many countries in Europe, and it would be a flaw of this report not to draw attention to such a potentially valuable and under-utilized resource. Some of the facts uncovered confirm this, particularly the large number of production boreholes (over 7,000), and villages where almost every house has a functioning shallow well. The potential is large enough to justify further investigation to establish the actual status (rather than myth), and in turn a robust groundwater re-assessment and indication of the appropriate degree of monitoring. Such future activity would be of value to both public water supply and agriculture, and is unavoidable if Moldova wishes to progress towards WFD implementation.

4.11 Groundwater Bodies Moldova has substantial groundwater resources which are related to the vast areas of steppe around the northern margin of the Black Sea: most of the country is underlain by water-bearing formations, although there is the problem of mineralization with depth. The Moldovan aquifers have been divided into a total of 16 groundwater bodies, GB1-16, taking into consideration the regional geological setting, available mapping of the principal aquifers, piezometry, and mapped variations in groundwater quality. There is a natural progression of groundwater bodies from north to south as the geological strata dip southwards and formations become progressively deeper. Both salinity and natural gas become prevalent at depth in the south where the youngest rocks outcrop, in contrast to the older rocks outcropping in the north. Most of the groundwater bodies extend beyond the international boundaries of Moldova. This includes the Baden-Sarmatian aquifer, which was identified as one of the trans-boundary Romanian aquifers in the Danube River Basin. It also includes the Cretaceous and Cretaceous-Silurian aquifer group, which is fed from the area of Ukraine to the north. Effective management of these aquifers will involve agreements with the neighboring countries of Romania and Ukraine.



4.11.1 Hydromorphology At present there is no regular monitoring of hydromorphology. It is recommended that this should start on some representative river reaches. There would be two aspects to this: river morphology and ecology. Initially a baseline survey would be required. This would identify representative heavily modified water bodies, for example reaches where the river had been straightened or where an upstream dam was preventing any flow at certain times of year. The baseline survey would include a topographical survey of the rivers for a distance of several hundred meters and cross-sections at intervals of 50 m. For large rivers a longer distance of survey and greater separation of the cross-sections would be needed; for smaller rivers the survey distance could be less. At the same time an ecological analysis covering phytoplankton, macrophytes, phytobenthos and benthic invertebrate fauna would be carried out. As the rivers recovered to a state closer to their natural state regular updates would be required every few months of both river shape and ecology. In part this would be to identify long-term changes but would also identify seasonal or climatic factors affecting ecology. One factor in the choice of sites would be availability of reference water bodies, river reaches with relatively undisturbed natural conditions, near to the site which could be used to identify how the recovery of rivers had brought them closer to their natural condition. This could be done by the Institute of Ecology and Geography.

4.11.2 Surface Water Quality

4.11.2.1 General

A more detailed inventory and assessment of the ramifications of the draft Water Law with respect to surface water monitoring is recommended, including a preliminary interpretation of specific sections. It is important that the competent authorities and stakeholders are actively involved in establishing this inventory and assessment.

4.11.2.2 Laboratory Analysis The laboratories of SHS, NCPH and RCPHs are recommended to conduct analyses following EN/ISO standards. Besides requiring budgets for purchasing the standards, there might be implications in terms of equipment, consumables and training of staff. The laboratories are encouraged to map these and other implications and to develop a strategy plus implementation plan for all-round introduction of EN/ISO standards. The competent monitoring authorities under the Ministries of Environment and Health are recommended to develop a strategy with respect to monitoring and analysis of pollutants like the WFD Priority substances and certain other pollutants. This should take into account the current constraints in terms of laboratory equipment, expertise of staff and budgets. The laboratories of SHS, NCPH and RCPHs are recommended to review where possibly to strengthen the internal and external quality management procedures. It is furthermore strongly advised to devise schemes for interlaboratory comparison and proficiency tests in which both the lab of SHS as well as the labs of NCPH/RCPHs participate. SHS is recommended to further develop and update the schedule for introduction and implementation of monitoring and assessment of hydrobiological quality elements. This should include the definition of reference conditions and ecological quality ratios. The competent authorities are recommended to identify and agree the organization that will become responsible for fish monitoring.



4.11.2.3 Network Design The list with preliminary identified water bodies will have to be reviewed by the competent stakeholders, primarily from the perspective of further designing the surface water quality monitoring network. Following agreement on the preliminary identified water bodies, the representative monitoring locations for assessing the status of these water bodies will have to be determined in close consultation of the competent authorities and stakeholders. The competent authorities are recommended to develop an overall strategy for monitoring of small(er) streams, lakes, ponds and reservoirs. Finally, it is recommended to dedicate further attention to the issue of selection of monitoring parameters during Phase II of ISRA. There is yet insufficient a basis already to be able to determine which sets physico-chemical and hydrobiological parameters are to be included in the future monitoring of water bodies. More (external) inputs are required, like: interpretation of the monitoring implications of the new Law on water (e.g. classification criteria), strategies to cope with the current constraints in laboratory analyses, pressure/impact analyses, and more.

4.11.2.4 ISRA Phase II Implementation Aspects Monitoring Stations The competent authorities will be requested to provide with written comments to the lists with the preliminarily identified water bodies and the preliminary overview of candidate surface water quality monitoring stations, included in Appendix 11. The routine physico-chemical surface water quality monitoring data of SHS will be assessed (see further below), with the findings also being applied to the preliminarily identified water bodies and candidate surface water quality monitoring stations monitoring stations; both lists will be updated accordingly. The -updated- lists with preliminarily identified water bodies and candidate surface water quality monitoring stations will be discussed during a meeting of the “Monitoring Subgroup”, tentatively scheduled for July 2011. Follow-up activities resulting from this meeting will be conducted in the ensuing months. The draft final list with proposed surface water quality monitoring stations will be disseminated among the competent authorities and discussed during another meeting of the “Monitoring Subgroup” to be scheduled mid October 2011. The final list with proposed surface water quality monitoring stations will be issued by the end of October 2011, assuming that consensus will be reached. Assessment of SHS Physio-chemical Surface Water Quality Monitoring Data The routine physico-chemical surface water quality monitoring data of SHS, collected over the period 2006-2010, will be assessed for a number of purposes:

• Classification of the surface water quality at the monitoring locations in accordance with the principles defined in the draft Regulation of protection of surface waters.

• Analysis and evaluation of the monitoring data supporting the further development of the lists with preliminarily identified water bodies and candidate surface water quality monitoring stations.

• General evaluation in terms selection of monitoring parameters, sampling frequencies and other elements relevant for the design of surface water quality monitoring programs.

Related activities will take place throughout the period May - October 2011. The findings will be reported in separate background documents. Laboratory Analysis Capacity for Hydrobiological Monitoring



During the review in Phase I of ISRA, a number of critical issues were identified in relation with laboratory analyses, including the use of EN/ISO methods, detection limits, the analysis of the WFD Priority substances and certain other pollutants, quality management, et cetera. Also, several points of attention were raised concerning the further development of the hydrobiological monitoring and assessment. The project team will contact the competent staff and authorities to discuss how to proceed with these issues. During these consultations, possible options for support by the ISRA project will be identified. Together with the MCC/MCA it then will be discussed which of these options possibly could be awarded under the ISRA project. Orientation activities will take place throughout the period May - September 2011.

4.12 Data Processing and Management

4.12.1 Current Management Practices According to the “Scope of Work” document, two interlinked information systems (common platform) need be developed. The first platform is for managing the water use permitting system while the second is for RBM and GIS. The common platform shall consist of various interlinked databases and applications. Ideally the databases shall be managed by their respective owners while applications will be able to access data shared in the common platform. In addition, a web portal for public access shall be developed to promote the use of water-related data and applications. Based on the conducted review, ISRC concluded that none of the participating institutions is using a networked relational database for storing data. Relational databases will need to be designed and developed for each institution providing data for the common platform. The data (or extracts) will be made available to partner agencies with the right user authentication. Such a system can only be achieved using a distributed database management system.

4.12.2 Application for the Common Platform

4.12.2.1 River Basin Management (and GIS / IWRM / DSS) The common platform for RBM to be set by the ISRC shall include several applications for river basin management: GIS, RBM application and a set of tools for decision-making. The tools will be defined by the ISRC during the design phase but it is expected that these applications will be commercial (or open source) local software, connecting to data in the common platform. Table 28 lists the required functionality to be developed (quoted from the Scope of Work).

4.12.2.2 Water Use Permitting System The Water Use permitting system will consist of an integrated information system (Table 29) connecting the SEI, Apele Moldovei, AGMR, Fishery Service, Ministry of Health, involved in the water use authorization and delivery process. The majority of tools will be web-based, directly linked with the databases feeding the system. While each of these organizations will have web access to the water permit system, it is probably not required to convert all time-series data of these organizations into relational database formats.



Table 28. Required functionality for RBM common platform Software Functionality GIS • Spatial data management and thematic mapping with local and

internet access (WMS/WFS/WCS) IWRM/DSS type application for integrated planning and management

• Prioritize water use and effective management • Scenario development for water availability under increasing

weather variability associated with climate change (drought and floods) and potential increases in the number of water users – incorporating flood, drought and climate change related parameters (Phase II-III)

• Hydrological and forecast modeling including climate change scenarios

• Link water balance to climate projections for policy direction (Phase III)

• DSS that supports exploration and learning about resource allocation choices and trade-offs. (Phase III)

• Provide a decision making guide on the allocation of water resources across the water basin based on forecast and water availability (Phase III)

Table 29. Functionality of the Water Use permitting system (according to the Scope of Work) Software Functionality Automate Water Use Authorization process

• “Develop a Water Use and Water Authorizations Registry” (Phase III)

• “Development of a web-based system for issuing authorizations” for water use (Phase III)

The “Common platform” for the water use registry and the authorization system will significantly simplify the procedure and will need to have the following specifications:

• Common database on water users • Common database on water use (type of use, limits, authorized use and historical values) • Common database of water use infrastructures (irrigation schemes, factory, municipal

infrastructure, and others) • Automated authorization processes (the user does not need to obtain the approval from each

agency but the approval is automatically provided to each agency. Each agency will thus be connected to the common platform and informed automatically when a new request for approval arrives. The water user will only intervene when additional clarifications are required).

• Linked (on- or offline) with the RBM for prioritizing water use during drought or flood

4.12.2.3 Public Web Portal A web portal, providing access to selected data in the common platform shall be made available by the ISRC to the general public and other interested parties to raise awareness on water related issues (Table 30).



Table 30. Functionality of the Public Web Portal (acording to the Sope of Work) Software/Tool Functionality 1 Public web-portal for

accessing the Common Platform

“Setup web access to the GIS and databases based on the needs of various government agencies and other potential public users (academic etc…) “ - Phase III

4.12.3 Core Data in the Common Platform The datasets required for the common platform include time series dynamic data and static datasets. Detailed descriptions of the data required are found below. 4.12.4 Time Series Databases Data on water quality and quantity is updated regularly and needs to be distributed in real-time to the other collaborators of the common platform. Station coordinates need to be available for integration in the GIS/RBM. These data will be stored in a relational database at SHS and connected to the Internet for access over the common platform. Using “Data Views” and user accounts, access to the data will be regulated.

Table 31. List of water quality and quantity databases Database Owner Remarks 1 Surface Water quality

(various parameters to be defined)

SHS “For a functional water quality monitoring network”. Data currently in Dbase and Excel format as well as paper format for the data before 1993

2 Surface Water quantity

(stages and discharges)

SHS For a functional water quantity monitoring network. Data in Dbase, Excel and paper format.

3 Precipitation

(amount and intensity) SHS Time series for climate change scenario

development. Data in computer format (Russian software).

4 Groundwater quality AGMR To be confirmed Data on water use and discharge (by year) is managed by Apele Moldovei but not all water users are reporting. Database Owner Remark 5 Water use (abstraction

data) and discharge AM Dbase format and paper – software currently being

updated, still in Dbase format The database on water users is technically not a time series database but it has not been separated from the water use information, and therefore mentioned here.



Database Owner Remark 6 Water Users Register AM

SEI Dbase format and paper Paper

4.12.5 Spatial Databases The spatial database will support the various applications of the IWRM. The spatial data does not require regular updating; probably a maintenance update once a year might be sufficient. The need for a (central) spatial data server will need to be confirmed during the design phase. In principal, the data can be stored on the server of the owner and accessed using the same (web-services) technology as the relational databases for alpha-numeric data.

Table 32. Spatial databases Database Owner 1 GIS database Various Layers on administrative units, locations,

infrastructure (topographic data – various scales) 2 Terrain (DTM) ALRC For delineation of selected sub basins and possible

river demarcation. Data available from ALRC for a fee

3 Hydrology – river systems,

lakes and reservoirs and catchment areas. (basins and sub basins)

Project Layer to be created by the ISRC (up to scale 1:5000) “Identification, demarcation and classification of the water bodies in selected sub-basins (and solutions for up-scaling for the entire country)”

4 Land use/land cover ALRC Source to be confirmed 5 Hydrotechnical (irrigation

system) AM Irrigation Facilities Registry, currently only on paper

for most systems (11 systems available in GIS) 4.12.6 Implementation of the Common Platform For the common platform, it is proposed that each institute stores the data of its various sections in a server based relational database system. Partners in the common platform have access to the data through a distributed database system while consolidator applications will then directly use the data stored in the several databases through web-services. It is recommended that the applications can directly pull data through these services.

4.12.6.1 Distributed Database Distributed (spatial) data infrastructure is becoming increasingly common in central government environments. A distributed database is a set of databases stored on multiple computers that typically



appears to applications as a single database. Consequently, the applications can simultaneously access and modify (where necessary) the data in several databases independent of their location. The general representation of a complex distributed database is given in Figure 32.

Figure 32. Generic representation of a Distributed Database Environment Any relational server database can be part of the distributed database, but since there is currently no relational database in the participating organizations, it will be recommended to use a single database server software (e.g. Oracle, MySQL or PostgreSQL). The potential of cloud computing where (part of) the data is stored on database servers on Internet can be investigated as well. For spatial data sharing, the Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) has defined standards which have become widely adopted. The OGC's open web standards Web Map Service (WMS) and Web Feature Service (WFS) are the key to interoperability in a web environment, and are currently already implemented in Moldova by various implementations52. In this context, the consolidator portal publishes WBS/WFS/WCS compliant data and consumers consume these datasets through their local software or through a web interface.

Web based spatial services WMS (Web Map Service) portrays spatial data to return static maps (rendered as pictures by the server) WFS (Web Feature Service) provides vector source data (points, lines, and polygons) in Geography Markup Language (GML) format which can be used for any spatial analysis.

52 http://www.geoportal.md & http://fondcartgeo.md & http://maps.utm.md



WCS (Web Coverage Service) supports electronic retrieval of geospatial data as "coverages", that is, digital geospatial information representing space-varying phenomena. This data may be interpreted, extrapolated, etc. and not just portrayed.

Spatial web services are widely supported for maps and GIS data accessed via the Internet and loaded into client side GIS software. Major commercial GIS and mapping software that support WMS include ESRI's ArcGIS products, MapInfo Professional, along with Google Earth. Open source software that supports WMS includes Quantum GIS as well as several other tools.

4.12.6.2 Web Services Unlike web applications, web services are not consumed by people, but by software applications. Thus, web services don't have any user interface; it's up to the application that uses the web service to provide the interface. Usually, the fact that an application uses a web service is completely hidden to any user of the application. Applications (and users) with the appropriate user access can also download the data locally for specific purposes such as modeling or advanced analysis. In any case, the owner of the data will be responsible for the data updates.

4.12.6.3 Possible Software Solutions From and IT architecture perspective, the common platform will have two main components: database and software linked through web services. There are basically two solutions for the software used in the common platform: commercial and open source. While excellent alternatives exist for database software and web services, solutions for GIS have not reached the same quality. For RBM and decision-making applications in the water sector, open source software is almost non-existent.

Table 33. Common platform software solutions for databases Common Platform -Software Solutions Commercial Open Source (Free) Database Oracle

MS SQL Server PostgreSQL MySQL

Spatial Database Oracle Spatial PostGIS on PostgreSQL Spatial data Service (e.g. WMS/WFS/WCS)

ESRI ArcGIS Server ESRI ArcIMS

MapServer GeoServer

Local GIS ESRI ArcGIS v10

MapInfo Quantum GIS

RBM Mike Basin on ArcGIS Modeling HEC family software



Decision on software selections will be taken during the functional design, and needs to take into account the sustainability of the proposed system in the operating environment.

4.12.6.4 Advantages of the Distributed Database System The proposed distributed database system solves a number of common problems usually related with data sharing between various organizations.

• The database reflects the organizational structure — database fragments are located in the institutes and departments they relate to. Data sharing is automatic and part of the system. The need for agreements on data exchange is limited, updates and corrections of the data are automatic and the system is independent of the data formats because data are served over the web using standard web-services.

• The owner of the data (data provider) is responsible for his data and for updates, including quality control. All client applications in the common platform have real-time access to these updates.

• Data can be stored in different (relational) data formats in the different institutes – Oracle, PostgreSQL etc depending on their own needs and capabilities

• The system allows (local or global) application development at any level of any organization once data access through standardized web-services is guaranteed.

• It is possible to use standard software for planning and modeling (e.g. ArcGIS with DHI Mike Basin for River Basin Management or Quantum GIS for thematic mapping) or development of customized websites using existing open-source software (MapServer53, GeoServer54). This technology is already implemented in Moldova by the National geospatial data fund55.

• A distributed database and application system allows easy migration of applications leaving all data with their respective owners.

4.12.7 Proposed Planning of Common Platform Implementation The institutional review will be followed by a functional system design and an analytical design by ISRC before the development and implementation of the actual system. It is expected that the user needs assessment and technical design for the “common platform” will take up to six months. The complexity of the system should not be underestimated: the common platform will link six institutions which will be directly involved while in total around ten sections within these institutions will provide data or use data from the system for their applications. Due to this complexity, the functional design should make use of modern tools for IT system design. A first outcome of the design will be the listing of equipment (hard-and software) to be purchased by MCA. At the same time, the technical design can start.

4.12.7.1 Functional Design (& User Needs Assessment) The functional design is a pre-development phase to translate all concepts, scope and user needs for the common platform into a product requirements document. In brief, the following tasks will be undertaken: • Lists the institutes and departments of the common platform and document their IT, database and GIS

capabilities.

53 http://mapserver.org/ 54 http://geoserver.org/display/GEOS/Welcome 55 http://www.geoportal.md



• Provide detailed documentation on the current data-flows and work-flows in each institute. Suggest and discuss improved processes to increase efficiency in the workflows (for instance the water permit authorization system). Document the outcomes.

• Define the needs of each institute (what they do with the data they collect; what data they need for their functioning).

• Define the needs of the common platform database and applications. • Investigate existing system architecture (back end and front ends) in other European countries for

hydrological data management and data analysis. Take into account the needs of the responsible institute for data storage and management as well as the needs of the project.

• Full inventory of existing software for hydro-meteorological data management with the following functionality (minimum requirements) of a/ connection to relational server database software; b/ flexible data entry and data import interfaces; c/ flexible reporting and d:/ data export in various formats and structures

• From the needs assessment, define the required equipment and prepare the list of hard- and software to be procured by MCA.

The ISRA team for the functional design should be composed of:

– Database Designer – Application Designer – Hydrologist with experience in GIS for the RBM platform – Agronomist/Irrigation Engineer for the Water use permitting system platform

It is expected that a minimum of 6 man-months (3 persons for 2 months) is required for the functional design. The project will develop detailed TOR for this work after the review process.

4.12.7.2 Technical Design The technical design follows the functional design and provides technical specifications of the:

– system architecture – interfaces (external, internal) – infrastructure – component description – data exchange protocols

• Considering the limited use of IT and database technology in the Moldovan institutes, there will be a

need to design a relational database system for each institute (depending on the outcomes of the functional design). These databases will then be part of the common platform. It is recommended to use the standard approach for time series data and spatial data.

• The design will take into account existing European directives INSPIRE56 (Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community) and WISE57 (Water Information System for Europe)

– INSPIRE is based on the infrastructures for spatial information established and operated by the

27 Member States of the European Union. The Directive addresses 34 spatial data themes needed for environmental applications, with key components specified through technical implementing rules. This makes INSPIRE a unique example of a legislative “regional” approach.

– WISE is the implementation of a Geographical Information System (GIS) for the reporting needs of the Water Framework Directive providing a more streamlined reporting process and a clearer distinction between the needs of different actors and different levels.

56 http://inspire.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ 57 Common Implementation Strategy For The Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC). Updated Guidance on Implementing the

Geographical Information System (GIS) Elements of the EU Water policy. Guidance Document No. 22. Technical Report - 2009 - 028.

http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/wfd/library?l=/framework_directive/guidance_documents/guidance-no22-_nov08pdf_1/_EN_1.0_&a=d



It must be recognized that both initiatives are rather complex and mature information systems which cannot be fully implemented under the current project.

• Some of the data currently managed by the collaborating institutes might not be required for the common platform or any other project activity. Ensure a minimum flexibility to insert other data managed by the institute in the relational database system.

• Define a common feature identification and codification system for all organizations connected in an operational distributed database. A unique identifier system for: administrative units: districts, municipalities, (cfr EU NUTS), river classifications, hydrological stations, Water users, etc. will be defined.

• Define specifications for the equipment required for the common platform:

– Computer hardware (servers, desktop, laptop, GPS, digital camera, external disks, intranet/internet infrastructure, etc.)

– intranet and internet connection in institutes – Software for GIS, RBM and Modeling including development environment for custom application

development. – Relational database server (Oracle, SQL Server, MySQL, PostgreSQL …) – Spatial data server software (Oracle Spatial, PostGIS …) – Web server software – Software for a web application interface development and data access; public domain GIS

software or commercial software solutions (updating costs) – Service contracts for commercial products

irrigation sector reform activity: rbm sub-activity institutional...

Documents