transboundary water management on the future border of the …aja.jikos.cz/thesis.pdf ·...
TRANSCRIPT
A thesis submitted to the Department of Environmental Sciences and Policy ofCentral European University in part fulfilment of the
Degree of Master of Science
Transboundary Water Management on the Future Border
of the European Union - Lake Peipsi
Barbora ŠUMBEROVÁ
July, 2003
Budapest
ii
Notes on copyright and the ownership of intellectual property rights:
(1) Copyright in text of this thesis rests with the Author. Copies (by any process) either infull, or of extracts, may be made only in accordance with instructions given by the Author andlodged in the Central European University Library. Details may be obtained from theLibrarian. This page must form part of any such copies made. Further copies (by any process)of copies made in accordance with such instructions may not be made without the permission(in writing) of the Author.
(2) The ownership of any intellectual property rights which may be described in thisthesis is vested in the Central European University, subject to any prior agreement to thecontrary, and may not be made available for use by third parties without the writtenpermission of the University, which will prescribe the terms and conditions of any suchagreement.
(3) For bibliographic and reference purposes this thesis should be referred to as:
Šumberová, B. 2003. Transboundary water management on the future border of theEuropean Union – Lake Peipsi. Master of Science thesis, Department of EnvironmentalSciences and Policy, Central European University, Budapest.
Further information on the conditions under which disclosures and exploitation may takeplace is available from the Head of the Department of Environmental Sciences and Policy,Central European University.
iii
Author’s declaration
No portion of the work referred to in this thesis has been submitted in support of anapplication for another degree or qualification of this or any other university or other instituteof learning.
Barbora ŠUMBEROVÁ
iv
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ...........................................................................................................................12. Background to transboundary lake management ................................................................6
2.1 Theoretical framework and background to lake management............................................... 6
2.2 Theoretical framework of transboundary environmental cooperation ................................. 9
2.3 Implementation of the WFD at Lake Peipsi ........................................................................... 11
2.4 Summary.................................................................................................................................... 15
3. Methodology.........................................................................................................................163.1 Overview of research steps....................................................................................................... 16
3.2 Methods of data collection and data analysis ......................................................................... 173.2.1 Review of literature and legislation .................................................................................................... 173.2.2 Interviews ........................................................................................................................................... 183.2.3 On-site observations ........................................................................................................................... 19
3.3 Evaluation of data and interpretation of the results.............................................................. 20
3.4 Limitations of the research ...................................................................................................... 21
4. Characterisation of Lake Peipsi and its catchment area ...................................................234.1 Political situation....................................................................................................................... 23
4.2 Socio-economic conditions........................................................................................................ 264.2.1 Socio-economic characteristics of the region ..................................................................................... 264.2.2 Fish stock and management ................................................................................................................ 29
4.3 Environmental conditions ........................................................................................................ 304.3.1 Particulars of Lake Peipsi ................................................................................................................... 304.3.2 Climate................................................................................................................................................ 324.3.3 Hydrology ........................................................................................................................................... 324.3.4 Water quality changes and eutrophication.......................................................................................... 33
5.1 Governmental laws and acts .................................................................................................... 375.1.1 Estonia ................................................................................................................................................ 385.1.2 Russia.................................................................................................................................................. 40
5.2 International conventions......................................................................................................... 41
5.3 Bilateral agreements ................................................................................................................. 43
5.4 The new European water policy – the WFD........................................................................... 465.4.1 General background............................................................................................................................ 465.4.2 River Basin Management Plans .......................................................................................................... 465.4.3 Implementation of the WFD in the Lake Peipsi basin ........................................................................ 48
5.5 Summary.................................................................................................................................... 49
6. Challenges to Estonian-Russian transboundary cooperation and the implementation ofthe WFD at Lake Peipsi...........................................................................................................50
6.1 Challenges to transboundary cooperation.............................................................................. 506.1.1 Challenges of major importance ......................................................................................................... 516.1.2 Challenges of moderate importance.................................................................................................... 546.1.3 Challenges of minor importance......................................................................................................... 58
6.2 Challenges to implementation of the WFD............................................................................. 60
6.3 Monitoring................................................................................................................................. 636.3.1 Background......................................................................................................................................... 63
v
6.3.2 Monitoring issues................................................................................................................................ 65
6.4 Summary.................................................................................................................................... 70
7. Conclusions and recommendations ....................................................................................71List of References ....................................................................................................................78Personal Communications ......................................................................................................83Appendices ...............................................................................................................................85
vi
List of Figures
Figure 1. The location of Lake Peipsi ......................................................................................24Figure 2. Land use in the Lake Peipsi basin.............................................................................28Figure 3. The catchment area of Lake Peipsi and Narva River................................................31Figure 4. Changes in total nitrogen (TN) and phosphorus (TP) concentration in Lake Peipsi in
1984-2002...................................................................................................................36
vii
List of Abbreviations
CEE - Central and Eastern European countriesCEU – Central European UniversityCTC – Peipsi Center for Transboundary CooperationEU – European UnionEU LIFE Viru-Peipsi CAMP – European Union Financial Instrument for the Environment
Viru and Peipsi Catchment Area Management PlanEU PHARE – European Union Poland Hungary Assistance for Reconstruction of Economy,
expanded to all EU accession countriesEU TACIS - Technical Assistance for the Newly Independent States and MongoliaGWP – Global Water PartnershipHELCOM – Helsinki CommissionLPP – Lake Peipsi ProjectMANTRA East - Integrated Strategies for the Management of Transboundary Waters on the
European fringeMNR – Ministry of Natural ResourcesNGO – Non-governmental OrganisationNLWBA – Neva-Ladoga Water Basin AdministrationN:P – nitrogen : phosphorus ratioRF – Russian FederationRBMP – River Basin Management PlanRoshydromet - Federal Service for Hydrometeorology and Environmental Monitorings.s. – sensu strictoSEPA - Swedish Environmental Protection AgencyUNDP/GEF – United Nations Development Programme / Global Environmental FacilityUN ECE – United Nations Economic Commission for EuropeWFD – Water Framework Directive
viii
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor Dr. Edward Bellinger for the overallsupervision of the thesis, Dr. Gulnara Roll for providing all necessary materials and contactsin Estonia and for the possibility to participate in the conference “Management ofTransboundary Waters In the Lake Peipsi/Chudskoe Basin”, Ms. Natallia Aliakseyeva forhelp and support of the research, Ms. Olga Vassilenko for arranging interviews in Pskov andthe staff of the Peipsi Center for Transboundary Cooperation offices in Tartu and Pskov fortheir understanding and hospitality.
My thanks are further addressed to all people who helped me in various ways during mytravel through the Baltics and Russia.
I am also very thankful to Alan Watt, Larisa Grujic and Eszter Timar for their help withwriting the thesis, and the staff of the Department of Environmental Sciences and Policy fortheir encouragement.
I would like to devote words of gratefulness to George Soros, who enabled me to spend aninteresting and memorable year at CEU in Budapest and to travel across Eastern Europe formy research.
ix
CENTRAL EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY
ABSTRACT OF THESIS submitted by:Barbora ŠUMBEROVÁfor the degree of Master of Science and entitled: Transboundary Water Management on theFuture Border of the European Union – Lake Peipsi.
Month and Year of submission: July, 2003.
The present thesis discusses the main challenges concerning Estonian-Russian transboundarycooperation and the implementation of the European Union Water Framework Directive (EUWFD) at Lake Peipsi and proposes recommendations for solving these problems. The issuesraised are of great importance not only from an environmental but also from a political andeconomic point of view, as Estonia is an EU accession country and Lake Peipsi will thereforebecome the border between the EU and Russia. Like other accession countries, Estonia has toimplement the WFD for all its waters. In order to govern the lake according to one commonapproach, Russia has indicated its willingness to implement the Directive also for its part ofthe basin.
In order to achieve the objectives, the research was based on a review of existing literatureand legislation, semi-structured interviews with Estonian and Russian experts and on-siteobservations.
Differences in monitoring practices, legislation and standards, the funding of projects,interests and lake management practices of the two countries, as well as the limitation offinancial and human resources are some of the main challenges that were found important forthe future development of a joint management plan for the Peipsi basin in accordance with theWFD. Moreover, the research has revealed that many challenges are closely inter-related toone another.
Although overcoming some of the challenges will depend upon governmental-level decisionsand the long-term economic development of the countries, some immediate steps can betaken. These include the development of a coordinated monitoring programme and exchangeof information and experience, assurance of good knowledge of relevant legislation,involvement of public and the EU and Helsinki Commission assistance in the elaboration ofthe Lake Peipsi Basin Management Plan. Unless the challenges are overcome, it seems to beimpossible to implement the WFD for the whole Peipsi basin.
Keywords: transboundary water management, lake management, transboundary cooperation,accession of the European Union, Water Framework Directive, Estonia, Russia, Lake Peipsi.
1
1. Introduction
Management of transboundary waters is a complex issue, which has to overcome many
challenges in order to achieve its environmental objectives. The purpose of transboundary
cooperation, however, is not only to preserve the international water objects and the unique
natural conditions of their environment, but also to secure the interests of all parties as well as
the interests of local residents in the border region. To find a common approach to the
governance of transboundary waters is further complicated by the differing legislation, water
management practices, institutional structures, languages and cultures of the bordering
countries. Nevertheless, cooperation in managing the quality and quantity of transboundary
water bodies also presents an opportunity from which all of the parties involved can benefit.
The new European water policy, the Water Framework Directive (WFD) which came into
force in 2000 and is based on a river basin approach, addresses the issue of transboundary
cooperation not only across the European Union (EU) member state borders, but also beyond
them. Transboundary cooperation on the management of international river basins on the
external fringes of the EU faces many special obstacles, as the European legislation is binding
only on a part of the basin. In order to explore the challenges to transboundary cooperation
and the implementation of the WFD on the future external borders of the EU, the case of Lake
Peipsi has been chosen.
Lake Peipsi is a transboundary lake shared by Estonia and Russia. By virtue of Estonia
being an EU accession country, Peipsi will become the future border between the EU and
Russia. Being the largest international lake in Europe, the lake is very important. Peipsi is a
relatively new transboundary lake, as it has been under two jurisdictions only since 1991,
when Estonia and Russia adopted their respective declarations of state independence, and
therefore both became responsible for its governance. Due to political tension between the
2
countries in the following years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, a bilateral agreement
on cooperation in environmental protection and the use of natural resources in the Lake Peipsi
watershed was signed as late as 1997. The agreement resulted in the establishment of a Joint
Transboundary Water Commission responsible for the implementation of the agreement.
As an EU accession country, Estonia has to adopt EU legislation, including the WFD for
all its waters. Russia, on the other hand, is not an EU accession country, and therefore the EU
legislation is not relevant for its water management. However, in 2001, Estonia and Russia
agreed to develop a joint Lake Peipsi Basin Management Plan in accordance with the WFD;
therefore the Directive should be applied for the whole basin.
It should be noted that the implementation of the Directive is new to all EU members, and
thus few recommendations based on previous experience can be given to resolve the
challenges at Lake Peipsi. However, Lake Peipsi is not the only case where implementation of
the Directive takes place on the external borders of the EU1. For example, an international
river basin district is currently being set up in Lapland on River Tenojki and River Paatsjoki,
which will require collaboration between Finland, Norway and Russia. Out of these three
countries, Finland is the only EU member, but as a country of the European Environmental
Agency, Norway must also implement the WFD. In order to implement the Directive for the
whole basin, Finland has endeavoured to establish coordination with Russia by adding a
Russian member to the present Finnish-Norwegian Commission. The Finnish-Norwegian
Commission in Lapland and the Estonian-Russian Commission at Lake Peipsi have agreed to
exchange experiences in the implementation of the WFD in their basins.
1 Examples of other transboundary lakes on the external borders of the EU are: Lake Megali Prespa(Macedonia-Albania-Greece), Lake Mikri Prespa (Albania-Greece), Lake Doiran (Macedonia-Greece), LakeDurkshiu (Lithuania-Belorussia), Lake Ricu (Latvia-Belorussia) and Lake Pihäjärvi (Finland-Russia). Like atLake Peipsi, the management of these lakes has to deal with the issue of implementation of the WFD for aninternational river basin. It should be mentioned that all of these lakes are several times smaller in size than LakePeipsi.
3
In addition, due to exchange of experts, cooperation on joint projects on public
participation and extended information exchange between the water management authorities,
the case of Lake Peipsi is often compared to the case of Lake Ohrid. Lake Ohrid is another
example of a relatively new transboundary lake in Eastern Europe with similar environmental
problems, shared by two transitional countries, Macedonia and Albania; on the contrary, as
none of these countries is an EU member or an EU accession country, the implementation of
the WFD is currently not an issue there.
To sum up, Lake Peipsi is a case of great future importance when resolving the various
issues of implementation of the WFD at a transboundary lake on the external fringes of the
EU. It is an issues frequently discussed at current international conferences1. Nevertheless,
the transboundary cooperation at Lake Peipsi faces numerous challenges which must be
overcome in order to find a common approach to the management of the basin and to
implement the new European water policy there. Moreover, as Russia has made no official
decision, but has merely indicated a political will to implement the WFD also for its part of
the basin, probably only the future will reveal whether the cooperation that develops is
capable of overcoming the challenges and successfully implementing the Directive.
The present thesis aims to describe and examine the main challenges concerning
transboundary cooperation and the implementation of the WFD at Lake Peipsi and to propose
several recommendations on how to solve these issues. It builds on the findings about
transboundary cooperation at Lake Peipsi made by Natallia Aliakseyeva in her Master’s thesis
(1999), with an aim to update these findings and provide information on the current
challenges concerning transboundary water management at Lake Peipsi.
1 In March 2003, the case of Lake Peipsi was presented at the 3rd World Water Forum in Kyoto. Furthermore,Peipsi was also chosen as a pilot study case in the United Nations World Water Development Report this year(UNESCO WWAP 2003).
4
The thesis focuses first on the challenges to transboundary cooperation and second on the
challenges to implementation of the WFD. Afterwards, it analyses the issues raised in depth,
seeking for the underlying reasons for their existence and striving to reveal the relations
between them. Finally, it develops several recommendations to overcome some of the
challenges and to ensure the implementation of the Directive on both sides of the lake.
In order to achieve the objectives of the thesis, the research was based on several
investigation methods, namely on a review of existing literature and legislation concerning
the topic; semi-structured interviews conducted with relevant experts in Estonia and Russia;
participation at a conference presenting activities carried out as part of international projects
implemented in the Lake Peipsi basin; and an on-site observation at the lake itself.
Chapter Two presents a background to transboundary lake management based on an
overview of the existing literature relevant to the topic, focusing on the theoretical framework
and background to lake management; the theoretical framework of transboundary
environmental regimes; and the implementation of the WFD at Lake Peipsi.
Chapter Three provides an insight to the research steps and the methodology used in order
to achieve the objectives of the thesis.
Chapter Four describes the general background to the political, socio-economic and
environmental characteristics of Lake Peipsi and its basin. It discusses the historical basis for
transboundary cooperation in the lake’s management, the socio-economic specifics and
problems of the region and the most significant environmental problems currently faced, such
as the issue of water quality in the lake.
Chapter Five reviews the legal aspects of transboundary management at Lake Peipsi,
focusing on Estonian and Russian legislation, international conventions, bilateral agreements
and the new European water policy - the WFD, which is to become of major importance for
water management at Lake Peipsi in the near future.
5
Chapter Six presents the findings of the thesis and their discussion. It examines and
analyses in great depth the main objectives of the thesis: the challenges to Estonian-Russian
transboundary cooperation and the implementation of the WFD at Lake Peipsi. A special
section is devoted to the monitoring of the lake, as respondents generally mentioned this issue
to be the biggest challenge.
Finally, chapter Seven draws conclusions from the findings obtained and elaborates
several recommendations to overcome some of the challenges that are currently being faced
by the transboundary cooperation at Lake Peipsi.
6
2. Background to transboundary lake management
Among other methods, the thesis research was based on a thorough review of literature
relevant to the topic. The present overview provides background information to
transboundary lake management; it is divided into three sections, which focus respectively on
the theoretical framework and background to lake management; the theoretical framework of
transboundary environmental regimes; and the implementation of the WFD at Lake Peipsi.
The decision was chosen according to the issues discussed most commonly in the present
literature. The literature studied consisted of published documents, magazine articles, internal
reports, project presentations and web data. (The legal framework of the topic will be
discussed further in chapter 5.)
2.1 Theoretical framework and background to lake management
Environmentally sound water management should be a key part of a sustainable
development strategy of every country. During the last decade the concept of water
management has changed essentially towards integration, which was reflected by the
complexity of management issues. In Central and Eastern European countries (CEE), water
management has been affected significantly by dramatic political, economic and institutional
changes since the early 1990s. Although the countries of the CEE region embarked on
transition from different starting points, the rapidly changing situation of the past ten years
has provided opportunities which were not available for water management before.
Integration with the EU is probably the biggest challenge for the countries of this region
(GWP 2000b).
Management of lakes is a sub-field of water management. Successful lake management
requires a holistic and multi-scale approach towards lakes and their catchments (Harper
1999). Lake ecosystems are particularly vulnerable to environmental degradation, as they
7
commonly trap nutrients and other contaminants originating in their watershed. Despite the
ability to resist a certain amount of the pollutants, which they receive mostly through
inflowing rivers, precipitation and the atmosphere, their buffering capacity is limited and if
the input of pollutants lasts for a considerable period, the water quality in the lakes may be
threatened (Jørgensen and Volleinweider 1988).
National policies and lake management strategies often have to deal with the serious
problem of lake eutrophication, which can be described as an increase in the rate of income of
nutrients to a water body and the subsequent biological response (Edmondson 1972).
Although eutrophication is a natural process in the ageing of lakes, anthropogenic activities
can greatly accelerate the process by increasing the rate at which nutrients and organic
substances enter the lake from its surrounding catchments, causing cultural (or artificial)
eutrophication. Such loads come from point and non-point sources - most commonly, from
agricultural and urban runoff, eroded stream banks, wastewater and industrial effluents but
they can even originate in the atmosphere (Mason 1981). As a result, the substances usually
overstimulate the growth of algae, which may affect the health and diversity of indigenous
fish, plant, and animal populations, as well as create conditions that interfere with the
recreational use of the lake (EPA 2003).
Eutrophication is also the major environmental problem at Lake Peipsi, whose condition
has been worsening over the last 50 years. Other current environmental issues at Peipsi are
management of the lake’s fish and problems connected with wastewater.
Hydrological studies have a long tradition at Lake Peipsi. Karl-Ernst von Baer carried out
fishery investigations in 1851 and since that time many other investigations have taken place
at the lake1 (Nõges et al. 1996). In 2001, the water quality of the Lake Peipsi watershed was
1 The history of all investigations at the lake was reviewed by a team of scientists of the Institute of Zoology andBotany of the Estonian Agricultural University in 2001 (Kangur, Haberman et al. 2001).
8
studied extensively by Nõges, who fully described the hydrochemistry of the lake and its
tributaries, stating the specific values of the concentrations of heavy metals and carcinogenic
compounds found. The information about water quality was further applied to the sanitary
conditions of the lake, considering its recreational importance (Nõges 2001).
In the same year, the biological response of the lake to the nutrient load and other forms
of pollution was assessed by a team of Estonian scientists (Kangur, Möls et al. 2001). Despite
the decline in the nutrient content of the lake’s water, strong algal blooms during several
recent summers have been recorded, as not only the nutrient load, but also the hydro-physical
and weather conditions have been found to play a significant role in producing algal blooms.
An extremely heavy bloom in late summer 2002 was even accompanied by fish-kill (Kangur
and Kangur 2002) (see in chapter 4.3.4).
Fisheries management has been an object of study of many authors (Kangur, Kangur et
al. 2001; Vetemaa et al. 2001; Vetemaa, et al. 2002). Vetemaa et al. (2001) pointed out the
importance of cooperative fish management at Lake Peipsi because of the marked increased
pressure on the commercial fish resources during the 1990s. This pressure was caused by the
change in the political and economic systems, which has created opportunities for export to
western markets (see in chapter 4.2.2).
As pointed out, the management of Lake Peipsi primarily needs to address the issue of
eutrophication. Two approaches on how to solve the problem exist; it is either possible to
treat the symptoms or to remove the causes (Moss 1998). As Lake Peipsi is a large lake, to
treat the symptoms would be highly costly, if not completely impossible. Therefore, the lake
management should aim at the removal of the causes of eutrophication (see more in chapter
4.3.4).
Such a strategy is usually a dynamic and long-lasting process, because the concept of
sustainable development of the lake and its catchment area requires a delicate balance
9
between human activity and the environment (Kira and Sazanami 1988). Therefore, the
management should based on a thorough understanding of the natural system, considering all
local specifications of the lake and its catchment. Key concerns should include protection of
biodiversity, management of land use, protection of water supplies, maintenance of water
quality and use of fisheries (DSE 1998). Post project monitoring will be an essential part of
the whole strategy and will reveal whether the management has been successful and whether
the lake is further able to resist human induced environmental impacts and to evolve naturally
(Horne and Goldman 1994).
2.2 Theoretical framework of transboundary environmental cooperation
Formal institutions play a significant role in environmental transboundary cooperation.
As the weaknesses of governments may lead to failures in solving the problems of
environmental governance and further to exploitation of resources, an emphasis on the
potential of the establishment of international institutions should be given (Young 1994).
In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the institutions of transboundary cooperation on
the external borders of the EU at Lake Peipsi, Young’s (1989) theoretical framework of new
institutionalism was used. In International Cooperation: Building Regimes for Natural
Resources and the Environment (1989), Young proposes a new definition of international
regimes as social institutions. By analysing several case studies, Young concludes the role of
regimes as determinants of cooperation in international society and considers the historical-
political dynamics affecting the ability of nations to achieve and implement international
agreements. Young argues that “the cooperation required to solve collective-action problems
or to escape from social traps is elusive in the world of international relations” (Young 1989,
3). This conclusion is highly applicable to the case of Lake Peipsi, where political tensions
between Estonia and Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union resulted in the non-
existence of bilateral environmental agreements for many years.
10
Transboundary water management often faces many challenges, which must be overcome
in order for the environmental objectives to be achieved. “Effective management of
transboundary freshwater is not merely a legal or a technological problem, but rather
primarily a political one – that is, a problem of designing and operating effective social
institutions to govern the use of freshwater resources” (Bernauer 1997, 155). Thus, the
development and integration seem to be the best long-term recipes for success in
transboundary management (Bernauer 1997).
In the case of lake management, tense international relations and information asymmetry
may have far-reaching consequences, because lakes are particularly vulnerable to
environmental degradation and to reverse it is likely to be difficult and costly, if not
altogether impossible (DSE 1998). Since all of the countries involved can benefit from
cooperation in managing the quality and quantity of the transboundary lake, the establishment
of joint management with a focus on prevention is necessary. In order to achieve this, all
barriers need to be overcome through the involvement of relevant jurisdiction, interagency
cooperation and fact findings based on data sharing (World Bank 1993). Moreover,
international cooperation can only be effective if it has broad public support (Van der Zwiep
1996).
Global Water Partnership (GWP) serves as a mechanism for alliance building and
information exchange on integrated water resources management through the development of
a world-wide network that pulls together financial, technical, policy and human resources to
address the critical issues of sustainable water management. The partnership proposed a joint
committee as a mechanism for management, which should aim to sort out and agree on
common objectives on the present status and the use of the shared resource (GWP 2000a).
11
In brief, a successful transboundary environmental regime should consist of the following
elements:
1. “Binationalism in mechanisms for fact-finding on continuous issues;
2. Substantive objectives of the regime that provide progressive direction and flexibility;
3. Development of an influential binational “community” that is external to the former
regime and that enhances the legitimacy and accountability of the former regime”
(Valiante et al. 1997, 198).
“Effective robust institutions for managing transboundary environmental problems are
critical to achieve in the situation of transition and uncertainty, common for most of the
current and especially future EU borders” (Roll 2001a, 128). Therefore, the three elements of
a successful international regime mentioned previously, together with the institutional
effectiveness, could help to formulate EU policies for transboundary cooperation on the future
external fringe of the EU at Lake Peipsi (Roll 2001a). Moreover, exchange of information
between transboundary lake commissions within the region could provide opportunities to
benefit from the experience of others (DSE 1998).
2.3 Implementation of the WFD at Lake Peipsi
In 2000, the new EU water policy resulted in the adoption of the WFD, which is today the
central tool for the management of transboundary river basins in Europe (see more in chapter
5.4).
12
The five purposes of the WFD are “to establish a Community framework for the
protection of inland surface water, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater in
order to:
• prevent further deterioration and protection and enhance the status of aquatic
ecosystems,
• promote sustainable water use,
• enhance protection and improve the aquatic environment,
• ensure the progressive reduction of pollution of groundwater,
• contribute to mitigating the effects of floods and droughts” (WFD 2000, Article 1).
Through its innovations, the Directive introduces the new European water policy, which
does not focus on numerically fixed water quality standards but rather develops a system of
quality management and health protection (Roll 2001b). Further, it provides a framework for
integrated water management by introducing river basin management plans, which will define
their own environmental objectives. This implies that rivers and lakes will need to be
managed by the boundaries of the river basin, not administrative borders (WFD 2000, Article
3) (see more in chapter 5.4.3).
In 2001, Estonia and Russia agreed to formulate a joint strategy for the management of
the international Lake Peipsi basin. In order to develop a joint Lake Peipsi Basin Management
Plan based on one common approach, the Russian government has agreed to implement the
WFD for the whole Peipsi basin, although this EU Directive is relevant only for the water
management in Estonia. However, as the Russian commitment is not binding but only a
matter of political will, the implementation of the WFD in the Lake Peipsi basin will depend
upon various conditions. The implementation will be especially problematic, as the
transboundary cooperation has to face numerous challenges (Roll and Lopman 2001).
13
A necessary precondition of successful lake management is a process of a continuous
monitoring of the water quality in the lake, which is also another important point of the WFD.
In 2002, Stålnacke et al. assessed the riverine loads of nutrients to the Lake Peipsi for the
years 1995-1998. Furthermore, it was pointed out that the current monitoring programmes in
Estonia were sufficient for reliable eutrophication assessment studies and estimation of
riverine loads, while the current monitoring programmes in Russia made the assessment
studies and estimation uncertain (see more in 6.3.2). Therefore, an improved joint monitoring
programme was proposed to meet the requirements of the EU.
Moreover, other challenges and impediments to the implementation of the WFD on the
external borders of the EU have been discussed widely by a number of experts. One of the
requirements of the WFD is that in the case of international river basins, all parties should
agree on a definition of “good ecological status” of the waters in the basin and jointly develop
a strategy for meeting the environmental objectives (see more in chapter 5.4.2). However, in
the case of Lake Peipsi, there have been several precedents of disagreements on the use of
resources (fish stock, water use), as there have been big differences in the socio-economic
status of the two countries (Roll 2001a). In addition, the legislation, administrative structures,
management procedure and environmental data collection of the two countries differ
significantly (Roll 2001a). Also budget variance could play a major role in the decision-
making, because the water management projects on the Estonian side are partly financed by
the EU PHARE Programme1, whereas the EU TACIS Programme2 supports the Russian side
(Roll 2001b).
Finally, external relations between Estonia and Russia could play a significant role not
only in the future environmental transboundary cooperation at Lake Peipsi, but also in the
1 Poland Hungary Assistance for Reconstruction of Economy, expanded to all EU accession countries.2 Technical Assistance for the Newly Independent States and Mongolia.
14
development of the whole region. The external relations of the Russian Pskov region with
Estonia and the EU were examined thoroughly by Roll et al. (2001). As a result, several
hypothetical future scenarios of their development were given, considering the positive
changes of the last few years, as well as a large number of obstacles specific to the region.
The situation of status quo with no major changes in external relations from the Russian side
was foreseen until the year 2004, when Estonia should access the EU. However, after that, the
enlargement of EU could provide a major opportunity for a potential major breakthrough, and
the Pskov region would most likely become open to international activities (Roll et al. 2001).
In order for the transboundary cooperation at Lake Peipsi to be successful and for the
requirements of the WFD to be met, outside technical, material and intellectual support will
be needed, as well as the reorganisation of the administrative and legal systems and the
promotion of public participation (Säre et al. 2001). Restructuring of the Russian water
resource management system, including transboundary water management, has not yet been
completed. The major aim of the reform will be to clarify the distribution of competence and
authority between the stakeholders (Budarin et al. 2001). Moreover, to provide a better
understanding of the WFD, regional discussion groups with an aim to develop appropriate
water policies that will comply with the requirements of the Directive should be established.
It is also important to share the knowledge and the experience among the EU accession
countries (GWP 2000b).
A thorough description of the development of transboundary management at Lake Peipsi
until the year 1999 was given in the Master’s thesis of Natallia Aliakseyeva (1999). This
source is very valuable due to its objective point of view. Aliakseyeva summarised in 1999
the current environmental problems of the lake, made an overview of the legislative base for
environmental protection and proposed several recommendations for the management plan of
the lake. In 1999, there was still little cooperation and exchange of information between the
15
Estonian and Russian part of the lake. Aliakseyeva further pointed out the lack of an
interdisciplinary approach to addressing issues of resource use and protection in the then
existing publications. This resulted from a lack of communication and cooperation between
experts working in the different disciplines, as well as between experts and policy-makers
(Aliakseyeva 1999).
2.4 Summary
As was demonstrated in this chapter, there has been an extensive amount of literature
written on the topic of transboundary lake management. Most of the sources on transboundary
cooperation at Lake Peipsi have been produced within the last three years, as the EU
accession of Estonia has drawn closer and the issue of adoption of the EU legislation has
become inevitable. This has naturally resulted in a stronger initiative from the Estonian side
to cooperate and establish joint lake management with Russia at the transboundary lake.
The present thesis intends to build on the findings about transboundary cooperation at the
Lake Peipsi made by Aliakseyeva in 1999. It aims to address the current challenges
concerning Estonian-Russian transboundary cooperation and the implementation of the WFD
in the Lake Peipsi basin.
16
3. Methodology
3.1 Overview of research steps
In order to achieve the objectives of the thesis, a research design was set up using
appropriate methods for collecting, analysing and evaluating information. The thesis
methodology has been based on qualitative research methods. The methods of data collection,
data analysis and interpretation of the results and, finally, the limitations of the research are
discussed below.
The research consisted of the following steps:
1. Reviewing the existing sources of literature and legislation relevant to the topic (the
theoretical framework and background to lake management; the theoretical framework
of transboundary environmental regimes; the implementation of the WFD at Lake
Peipsi; Estonian and Russian legislation; international conventions; bilateral
agreements; and the new European water policy – the WFD);
2. Based on the information obtained so far, setting up a general interview protocol for
semi-structured interviews, in order to collect the data needed to achieve the
objectives of the research;
3. Conducting a number of initial interviews to gain more knowledge about the topic,
especially in the areas not fully covered by the existing sources of literature;
4. Adjusting the general interview protocol based on the information gathered at this
stage, by formulating better defined questions;
5. Conducting further interviews according to the more specific situations, in order to
collect more precise information;
17
6. Undertaking on-site observations to get a better understanding of the current
environmental state of Lake Peipsi and of the difficulties associated with the current
lake management;
7. Analysing the information gathered and interpreting the results;
8. Identifying the limitations of the research and formulating conclusions and
recommendations.
3.2 Methods of data collection and data analysis
Data collection and data analysis was a continuous process carried out using three
investigation methods, namely a review of literature and legislation, interviews and on-site
observations, as outlined below. The process of data collection was changed and adjusted
according to the specific situation in order to refine the process. Time limits and financial
restrictions also affected the choice of the methods used.
3.2.1 Review of literature and legislation
Among other methods, the thesis research was based on a review of relevant literature and
legislation. Due to lack of resources on the thesis topic in the library of the Central European
University (CEU) in Budapest, it was necessary to visit and search in the library of the Peipsi
Center for Transboundary Cooperation (CTC) in Tartu, which offers a large collection of
relevant literature. The literature studied consisted of published documents, magazine articles,
internal reports and project presentations (see in chapter 2). A major part of the thesis
involved research of current legislation, such as governmental laws and acts, international
conventions, bilateral agreements and the WFD (see in chapter 5). In addition, a highly
valuable source of information was the Internet, but only reliable sources of information were
taken into account.
18
The review of literature and legislation provided a background and conceptual framework
for the research and further facilitated the setting up of a general interview protocol later used
for the interviews.
3.2.2 Interviews
In the following step of the data collection process, semi-structured interviews were
conducted personally. The greatest advantage of the semi-structured interview method is that,
in comparison with other methods of opinion surveys, it makes maximum flexibility of
reaction possible, considering the scope of the issue and the depth of the analysis. It can also
reveal attitudes and findings not considered so far.
It was necessary to set up a general interview protocol in advance, which was later altered
and adjusted, but free discussions were also carried out to provide the interviewees with the
possibility to widen the conversation to related topics not necessarily foreseen and hence not
involved into the interview protocol (see Appendix I).
Altogether 23 people were interviewed during the research period, out of which 13 work
in Estonia and 10 in Russia. They included the main Estonian and Russian experts in the field
of the study - Estonian and Russian members of all international projects currently
implemented in the Lake Peipsi basin (MANTRA East1, EU LIFE Viru-Peipsi CAMP2,
UNDP/GEF3 and EU TACIS4 projects); the members of the Estonian-Russian Transboundary
Water Commission; Estonian and Russian governmental officials (Russian Federal Service
for Hydrometeorology and Environmental Monitoring, Russian Ministry of Natural
1 MANTRA East Project: Integrated Strategies for the Management of Transboundary Waters on the Europeanfringe - the pilot study of Lake Peipsi and its drainage basin.2 EU LIFE Viru-Peipsi CAMP Project: European Union Financial Instrument for the Environment - Viru andPeipsi Catchment Area Management Plan.3 UNDP/GEF Project: United Nations Development Programme / Global Environmental Facility Project on theDevelopment and Implementation of the Lake Peipsi/Chudskoe Basin Management Program.4 EU TACIS Project: Water Management in the Lake Chudskoye Catchment.
19
Resources, Estonian Ministry of the Environment) and Estonian and Russian environmental
and sociological experts and specialists.
In addition, in order to obtain an objective opinion, a consultation about the issues at Lake
Peipsi was conducted personally with one expert outside the region with relevant experience
in lake management and transboundary cooperation. Furthermore, detailed information on the
Estonian legislation and current monitoring practices in Estonia was obtained from two
relevant Estonian experts contacted by email. (A complete list of the interviewees is included
in Personal Communications.)
The interviews served as a source of information on the environmental situation at Lake
Peipsi, current transboundary cooperation, relevant legislation and present activities that are
taking place within international projects in the lake watershed. They provided the basis for
evaluating the current stage of water management and the challenges concerning
transboundary cooperation and the implementation of the WFD at Lake Peipsi. Moreover,
deeper knowledge was gained especially in the areas that are dealt with less in the existing
literature, such as the monitoring practices of the lake in Russia and Estonia – an issue of high
importance and relevance to the WFD.
3.2.3 On-site observations
During the research period, the author also made several excursions to Lake Peipsi. The
author visited some local municipalities bordering the lake (Kallaste, Kolkja, Mustvee, Nina
and Värska), joined the limnological research group of the Estonian Agricultural University
in taking samples at Lake Peipsi sensu stricto (s.s.) and Lake Lämmijärv and made a boat trip
across the Estonian part of Lake Peipsi.
In addition, the author participated in the conference “Management of Transboundary
Waters In the Lake Peipsi/Chudskoe Basin: Presentation of On-going Activities”, which was
held on May 27, 2003 in Tartu (Estonia). The conference presented activities carried out as
20
part of international projects implemented in the Lake Peipsi basin, including MANTRA East,
EU LIFE Viru-Peipsi CAMP, UNDP/GEF and EU TACIS projects and also provided
information about Peipsi activities’ presentations made at the World Water Forum in Kyoto,
Japan (March 2003).
The participation at the conference and the on-site investigation at the lake enabled the
author to get a better understanding of the difficulties and problems associated with current
international projects, lake management, transboundary cooperation and the implementation
of the WFD at Lake Peipsi.
3.3 Evaluation of data and interpretation of the results
The final stage of the research process involved the evaluation of data and interpretation
of the results. In order to identify the most significant challenges to transboundary
cooperation and the implementation of the WFD at Lake Peipsi, all information gathered in
the interviews and during on-site observations was compared and a full list of issues raised
was created. Further, a hierarchy of challenges was drawn up based on the answers from the
interviews, as well as on the author’s impressions from the interviews and the on-site
observations. In addition, comparison of the answers obtained during the interviews often
revealed the reasons for disagreements, and thus other challenges concerning transboundary
cooperation. In the last step, these results were confronted with the information provided by
the existing literature.
Besides drawing conclusions and thus achieving the objectives of the thesis, the study
further served to provide recommendations for the improvement of the current lake
management and transboundary cooperation at Lake Peipsi.
21
3.4 Limitations of the research
Although numerous publications have been written on the topic of transboundary water
management at Lake Peipsi, most of the existing literature, which was also used for the
purposes of the literature review, has a wider scope of study. Therefore, differences in the
nature of various countries, and place and time specifics should be kept in mind when making
comparisons and applying strategies.
As English has become of great importance in Estonia over the last decade, the language
barrier has not been a problem in conducting the interviews. These were held in English in
Estonia and both in English and Russian in Russia. Due to time and financial constraints,
interviews were conducted only in Tartu and Tallinn (Estonia) and in Pskov and Saint
Petersburg (Russia), but not in other politically significant cities, such as Moscow.
Nevertheless, this is not a serious omission, since the main Estonian and Russian experts in
the field, who were contacted for the purposes of this research, reside in the cities mentioned
above.
This slight difference in number between Estonian (13) and Russian (10) experts
interviewed during the research period is unlikely to constitute a significant bias. Moreover,
as the comparison of the Estonian and Russian points of view was not the aim of this
research, the ratio of people interviewed in both countries does not play such an important
role in the research that it could affect its results. However, it is necessary to mention that the
general interview protocol was adjusted during the data collection process, based on the
information obtained during the initial interviews conducted in Estonia. The adjustment
consisted of minor changes made in order to omit general-type questions and make the order
of questions more logical.
It should be noted that many questions included in the general interview protocol had a
subjective nature, and thus respondents were forced to express their personal opinion.
Moreover, many of the people interviewed are participants in the international projects
22
currently implemented in the Lake Peipsi basin, and therefore they are personally interested in
the area. However, as the primary aim of the research was to compare subjective opinions of
various experts rather than to strive for objective knowledge, the personal interest of the
respondents in the area could even be considered advantageous.
The research focused on transboundary lake management at Lake Peipsi, a border lake
shared between Estonia and Russia. Although there are many other similar examples of the
management of transboundary water bodies in other parts of the world especially in Europe
(mainly for rivers rather than lakes), the situation may be slightly different at Lake Peipsi.
Therefore, only with great caution may the conclusions and recommendations drawn in this
thesis be used for transboundary management in other countries.
23
4. Characterisation of Lake Peipsi and its catchment area
The following chapter describes the general political, socio-economic and environmental
characteristics of Lake Peipsi and its basin in order to provide background knowledge for
further understanding of the challenges concerning the Estonian-Russian environmental
transboundary cooperation at the lake.
4.1 Political situation
Lake Peipsi is situated in north-eastern Europe (see Figure 1). It is a lake of great
importance due to the fact that it is the largest international lake in Europe; it is shared by
both Estonia and Russia, forming a natural border between these two countries.
Approximately two thirds of the 277 km-long border goes through Lake Peipsi and the Narva
River, which connects the lake to the Gulf of Finland (UNECO WWAP 2001). Moreover, by
virtue of Estonia being an EU accession country, Peipsi will become the future border
between the EU and Russia. The major uses and functions of the lake are fishery, recreation
and shipping.
Lake Peipsi and the Narva River are relatively new transboundary watercourses, with
both Estonia and Russia responsible for their management and monitoring. Issues regarding
their protection and utilisation are solved on the basis of international and bilateral treaties
and good will.
Lake Peipsi basin has become an international basin after Estonia and Russia adopted
their respective declarations of state independence in 1991. The establishment of the border
led simultaneously to the rupture of family, cultural, social and economic relations and great
tensions in the external relations of the two countries developed (Berg 2001). These political
tensions resulted in an absence of communication between the two countries at the
governmental level, which continued in the following years. The visa regime established on
24
the new border affected mainly the local populations by prohibiting all local people of the
border areas to move freely and interrupting the previously close cooperation of the local
communities by imposing high taxes on goods exported from Estonia to Russia (Säre 1999).
Figure 1. The location of Lake Peipsi (Liiv and Roll 2001).
The process of eutrophication of Lake Peipsi began in the 1950s, but only became evident
in the 1990s. Because there was no contact between the countries at the governmental level,
in 1993 Estonian non-governmental organisations (NGOs), with the help of the Estonian
Green Movement, independently initiated the Lake Peipsi Project (LPP) and further
established unofficial contacts across the border (Roll 1996). The main Russian partner
contacted was the NGO Socio-ecological Union. The LPP collected all available data about
the lake, which until 1991 was collected by the Hydrological and Meteorological Services of
Estonia. The Project decided to approach the problem from both Estonian and Russian
perspectives. In this way a comprehensive analysis of the different viewpoints of both sides
was undertaken and mutual interests concerning the future development were agreed upon.
25
The NGO activities were financed by grants from the CEU, UNDP and the Tallinn Office of
Stockholm Environmental Institute (Roll 1996).
The LPP lobbied strongly for a bilateral environmental agreement to be signed between
the countries and even prepared a draft framework agreement for a conference in Saint
Petersburg in December 1994. However, due to political tensions, the governments did not
discuss the draft agreement until November 1995. In January 1996, the framework agreement
on environmental protection between Estonia and Russia was signed, communication
channels were established, and therefore the international environmental cooperation could
start (Roll 1996). In 1997 another environmental bilateral Agreement on the Use and
Protection of Transboundary Waters was signed, resulting in the establishment of a Joint
Transboundary Water Commission for the coordination of activities on the implementation of
this agreement. Since then, the Commission meets on regular basis (see more in chapter 5.3).
The contested nature of the Estonian-Russian borderline has affected the
intergovernmental relations, as the two countries have had diametrically opposite standpoints
in the negotiations (Berg 2001). As a result, the border treaty between Estonia and Russia has
not yet been signed (July 2003), so officially no border exists but only a control line.
Strategies for international cooperation and common water management have still not been
elaborated. Estonia and Russia collect and analyse their environmental information on the
lake catchment area using their own different methodologies (Lääne pers. comm.) (see more
in chapter 6.3.2). Nevertheless, information exchange and data sharing take place during the
meetings of the Joint Commission and its Working Groups. It has been agreed that in the
future a common approach will be found and the monitoring activities will be coordinated, in
order to make the data comparable and usable for the decision-making (UNESCO WWAP
2003).
The monitoring issues are becoming particularly acute, as Estonia is in the process of EU
accession. Already in 2004 it will have to adopt all EU standards and norms, which are
26
different to those used in Russia. The WFD is mandatory only for EU members, however, as
it could provide a framework for decisions relating to water management in Russia, and thus
could be applied for the whole Lake Peipsi basin, Estonia and Russia agreed in 2001 to
develop a joint Lake Peipsi Basin Management Plan in accordance with the WFD (Roll
2001b) (see more in chapter 5.4.3).
4.2 Socio-economic conditions
4.2.1 Socio-economic characteristics of the region
The population of the Lake Peipsi coast is diverse in its culture and origin. Lake Peipsi
itself as a geographical object has been referred to by two names: the more ancient Estonian
Peipsi (in the older literature sometimes referred as Lake Peipus) and the Slavic (Russian)
Chudskoye (or Chudsko-Pskovskoye). It appeared on maps for the first time in the 12th
century. However, the first tribes had already inhabited the shores of the lake before the
Finno-Ugrians reached the region in the third millennium BC (Nõges 2001).
Today, the Russian part of the Peipsi region is more homogenous than the Estonian,
which has a multicultural nature. The municipalities are inhabited by Estonians and Russians,
as well as by a number of minorities, of which the Russian Old Believers and the Setus are the
most famous. These communities still keep their old traditions, speak their ethnic language
and remain true to their own distinct religion (Berg 1999) (see more in Appendix II).
The Peipsi region in Estonia embraces four counties - Ida-Virumaa, Jõgevamaa, Tartumaa
and Põlvamaa, with a total area of ¼ of Estonian territory (11,224 km2) and a total population
of ¼ of the population of Estonia (444,500 inhabitants). The Leningrad region (84,500 km2,
1.7 million inhabitants (Saint Petersburg excluded)) and the Pskov region (55,300 km2,
830,000 inhabitants) embrace partly Peipsi in Russia. The total population of the basin is
about 866,000 inhabitants, but the density differs in various parts; in the Estonian and Pskov
27
regions the density is 24 inhabitants/km2, while the sparsely populated eastern shore has a
density of only 11 inhabitants/km2. The majority of the population lives in small settlements
and there are two large towns in the basin: Tartu (98,000 inhabitants) in Estonia and Pskov
(204,000 inhabitants) in Russia (Roll 2001a).
The lakeside areas suffer from the problems typical to any peripheral areas -
underdeveloped infrastructure, depression of economic development (especially in Russia),
depopulation of the region and ageing of the population (UNECO WWAP 2001). Moreover,
the Lake Peipsi region is not very rich in mineral resources and belongs to a marginal
agricultural zone, which makes the value of arable land very low. Since agriculture is no
longer profitable, commercial and small-scale fishing today presents an important source of
income (Roll 2001a) (see more in chapter 4.2.2). However, the region has recorded an
increase in tourism over the last few years, which together with the wood-processing industry,
organic agriculture, cross-border trade and handicrafts present good prospects for
development and are worthy of investment in the future (Moeldrup and Falling 2001).
From the point of view of economic and social development, the cultural composition of
the population and the type of human impact on the lake, Lake Peipsi basin can be divided
into three distinct regions – northern, central and southern. The northern part of the lake is
the most industrially developed one, intrinsically linked to the main natural resource of the
region, which is high quality oil shale of a unique composition. Most of the oil shale mined is
used for energy production (80%), the rest is used as a raw material for chemical enterprises
(20%). Other natural resources of the region are sand, gravel, dolomite, limestone, clay and
gypsum, which are important for the construction materials industry. The main sources of air
28
and water pollution of this part of the basin are power plants1 and the chemical industry
(UNESCO WWAP 2003).
The economic situation of the central part of the basin is defined by the existence of the
cities of Tartu (Estonia) and Pskov (Russia) – two intellectual and high technology centres of
the region with universities and other educational and scientific institutions. Although the
Russian part is sparsely populated, rural settlements prevail over the whole region, with
fisheries as the main source of income (UNESCO WWAP 2003).
The southern part of the basin is a rural and sparsely populated area. Forestry and
agriculture used to be the traditional livelihoods of the region, however as income from
agriculture has been steadily decreasing, a lot of clear cutting has been taking place. This
phenomenon and the non-point source pollution from agriculture are the two main
environmental problems of this part of the basin (UNESCO WWAP 2003).
Figure 2 presents the distribution of land use in the Lake Peipsi basin. While urbanised
areas cover only 10% of the basin, natural areas cover almost 50%, but agricultural land use
at over 40% is also important (UNESCO WWAP 2001).
Figure 2. Land use in the Lake Peipsi basin (UNESCO WWAP 2001).
1 The Narva River has two waterfalls, which are unfortunately dry at present, having been drained by the NarvaHydropower Station. Water that once flowed into the river is stored in the Narva reservoir, which is not onlyused by the hydropower station but also for cooling purposes by two thermal Estonian power plants (Baltic andEstonian) to refine oil shale (UNECO WWAP 2001).
4 2 %
4 0 %
6 %2 % 1 0 %
A gricu ltu ra llandF orest
W etland
O pen w aters
O ther (u rbanareas, roads)
29
4.2.2 Fish stock and management
The fish resources of the transboundary Lake Peipsi are economically important for both
Estonia and Russia, and thus the whole area of the lake is fished. In fact, Lake Peipsi exceeds
all large lakes in Northern Europe from the point of view of the annual fish catch (9,000 –
12,000 tons or 25 - 34 kg/ha) (Nõges et al. 1996). For example, in Estonia the value of the
catch from Peipsi accounts for approximately 85% of the total inland fisheries and 15% of all
fisheries (Atlantic fishery excluded) (Vetemaa et al. 2001).
36 fish species and one lamprey inhabit Lake Peipsi and the lower reaches of its
tributaries. The total average catch has declined during the twentieth century due to
overfishing; the pressure has especially increased during the 1990s. The most valuable
species in the lake are pikeperch, perch, ruff, bream, smelt, pike, roach and vendace (Nõges et
al. 1996).
The overcapacity of professional fishermen at Lake Pepsi is nowadays the largest
management problem. When it became possible to export fish to the western markets in the
1990s, the fishing efforts, as well as the number of fishermen, in Estonia increased
considerably, as the price of raw fish was very high compared with average salaries. The three
most exported species have been pikeperch, perch, and pike. Overfishing was further
aggravated by the difficulties in exporting agricultural products to Russia and the paucity of
other alternative forms of employment to fishing. On the other side in Russia, as a result of
the poor economic situation, the importance of fishery has also highly increased and today it
is the most important source of income for the inhabitants of the shoreline villages (Vetemaa
et al. 2001).
Although the fishing costs have recently increased much faster than the fish prices,
resulting in a reduced economic performance of the fisheries, the economic position of the
fishermen at Peipsi is still good, especially in comparison with the Baltic coastal fishery.
Fortunately, since 1994 the commercial fish stocks have been sustainable due to the
30
cooperative management strategies agreed upon by the Intergovernmental Estonia-Russian
Fishery Commission (see more in chapter 5.3). Fisheries management presents one of the
issues that was successfully solved in the transboundary cooperation (Vetemaa et al. 2001).
4.3 Environmental conditions
4.3.1 Particulars of Lake Peipsi
Lake Peipsi is the fourth largest lake in Europe after Ladoga, Onega and Vänern with
respect to the surface area. It is located in the Baltic Sea water basin, between the Lake Peipsi
Lowland (eastern border of Estonia) and the East-European Plain (Russia), at a latitude
57º51’ - 59º01’ North and a longitude 27º30’ - 27º56’ East. The lake lies about 30 meters
above sea level. It consists of three unequal parts - two big lakes: Peipsi s.s. (Chudskoye) in
the north and Pihkva (Pskov) in the south, and the narrow strait, Lake Lämmijärv (Teploye) in
between. The total surface of the lakes is 3,555 km2, 44% is Estonian and 56% Russian. There
are thirty islands situated at the lake; the largest, Piirisaar, belongs to Estonia. (For the
morphometric characteristics of Lake Peipsi presented in a table see Appendix III.)
Lake Peipsi belongs to the watershed of the Narva River, which also connects it to the
Gulf of Finland. The catchment area of the lake is approximately 160 km in width, 370 km in
length and has a total area of 47,800 km2, which is shared by Estonia (16,623 km2), Russia
(27,917 km2) and Latvia (3,650 km2) (Figure 3). The lake basin was formed by the
Pleistocene glaciers, which slightly modified the topographic features in the north that
originated more than 380 million years ago from the pre-middle Devonian era. Sandy beaches
can be found along this part of the lake. The swampy flat shores, which are populated with
reeds and bulrushes, are located mainly in the western part of the lake (UNECSO WWAP
2003).
31
Figure 3. The catchment area of Lake Peipsi and Narva River (Langaas 2002).
The catchment area of Lake Peipsi belongs to the forest zone of the East Baltic
Geobotanical Subprovince, which is rich in wetland areas. Wetlands Emajõe-Suursoo in
Estonia and Remedovsky in Russia are listed as Ramsar sites. The Emajõe-Suursoo wetland
also includes Piirisaar Island, which is a habitat for several globally endangered birds, such as
32
the corncrake, the lesser spotted eagle and white-tailed eagle. In addition to Lake Peipsi, more
than 4,000 lakes are located in the region (UNESCO WWAP 2001).
4.3.2 Climate
Lake Peipsi is located in a continental climate zone, with the weather conditions
moderated by the proximity of the Baltic Sea. It belongs to the temperate cold region with a
uniformly humid climate and lies in a climate transition zone from maritime to continental,
which affects the weather conditions significantly and results in frequent weather instabilities.
The summer is comparatively warm and wet, while the winter is comparatively mild
(UNECSO WWAP 2003).
The basin belongs to an area of low air pressure; on average, 130 cyclones are monitored
each year. The annual mean temperature at the lake is 4.6 ºC and the annual mean
precipitation sum is 575 mm (measured at the Tiirikoja Meteorological Station, near Mustvee
on the west coast of the Lake Peipsi). However, there are some meteorological differences
between the northern and southern parts of the lake (Nõges 2001).
4.3.3 Hydrology
Despite its large surface, the whole system of Lake Peipsi is shallow with the average
depth being only 7.1 m. There are about 240 rivers (including tributaries) flowing into Lake
Peipsi. The largest are the Velikaya (catchment area 25,600 km2), the Emajõgi (9,745 km2),
the Võhandu (1,423 km2) and the Zhelcha (1,220 km2) (see map in Appendix IV). Altogether
they contribute 80% of the total inflow into the lake. The average water residence time in the
lake is approximately 2 years. The only outflow of the lake is the Narva River, whose mean
annual water discharge into the Gulf of Finland (12.6 km3) accounts for about 50% of the
33
average volume of Lake Peipsi (UNECSO WWAP 2003). (For detailed hydrological
characteristics of Lake Peipsi presented in a table see Appendix V.)
The water regime consists of four stages: winter drop in the water level, spring high
water, summer lowering of the water level and autumn rise, which is a regime typical of all
temperate-zone lakes. Furthermore, the climatic conditions of a particular year play a
significant role in the determination of the water regime of the lake and its inflows and
outflow, causing differences in water abundance as well as in water distribution during the
year1 (Nõges 2001).
Waves formed by wind also affect the lake bottom and thus the whole lake is mixed and
is mostly in a homothermal state. Due to its shallowness, the lake has a peculiar thermal
regime with the annual thermal cycle divided into two stages; first, warming from the
formation of ice cover until summer peak temperature usually in July, and second, cooling
from the summer peak temperature until ice formation. Lake Peipsi freezes over relatively
late2, due to the considerable amount of solar radiation accumulated during summer.
Temperature stratification and a thermocline during short period of ample sunshine and low
wind can be observed in summer, often resulting in an oxygen deficiency in the near-bottom
layers of Lake Peipsi s.s. (Nõges 2001).
4.3.4 Water quality changes and eutrophication
Lake Peipsi s.s. belongs to predominantly unstratified eutrophic lakes with mesotrophic
features. By comparison, Lake Lämmijärv has some dyseutrophic features, while Lake Pihkva
1 Fluctuations in the water level of Lake Peipsi occur periodically. They range about 1.5 m (absolute 3 m) with acycle of 18-33 years. Based on mathematical and statistical predictions, a water-abundant period is expected forthe second decade of this century, with the water level rising at least as high as in the previous most water-abundant period in the 1920s (Nõges 2001).2 The ice cover is usually formed in December with thickness ranging from 20 to 80 cm and the lake thaws atthe end of April or the beginning of May (Nõges 2001).
34
is strongly eutrophic. As one travels from the southern Lake Pihkva through Lake Lämmijärv
to the northern Lake Peipsi s.s., the water transparency increases, while the content of total
nitrogen in water decreases, as one gets further from the pollution loads from big cities of
Pskov and Tartu (UNESCO WWAP 2001).
Lake Peipsi receives pollution through the water of its inflowing rivers1 and through
precipitation directly to the lake. Biological and chemical investigations of the water quality
in Lake Peipsi have identified unnaturally high eutrophication caused by an increased load of
nutrients of anthropogenic origin, coming primarily from agricultural runoff and insufficiently
treated wastewater (Nõges et. al. 1996).
The nutrient content in the rivers was high at the end of the 1980s, causing the
eutrophication of water bodies, but has continuously decreased since the beginning of the
1990s due to the dissolution of all collective agricultural farms on the Estonian side and an
economic depression on the Russian side where collective farms no longer receive subsidies
to use herbicides and fertilisers or to keep large cattle stocks. In addition, smaller amounts of
untreated wastewater have been discharged in Russia into the rivers as a result of technical
and financial support from the Nordic countries in the construction of wastewater treatment
plants2. Therefore, the environmental situation of the lake has improved considerably
(UNESCO WWAP 2001). (For long-term changes of nutrient concentrations in inflowing
rivers and the results of available loadings to Lake Peipsi see Appendix VII and VIII. For
their calculations see Appendix VI.)
1 According to the hydrochemical classification, the water of the rivers flowing into Lake Peipsi belongs to theclass of hydrocarbonated calcium-rich waters. Due to the fact that there are no big industrial polluters in thePeipsi basin, the oxygen content in most rivers is quite high. Moreover, the lower oxygen saturation level is notonly caused by the human impact but also by bog waters carried in the rivers, because the oxygen levels alsodepend on humic substances of natural origin. The quite high pH value and alkalinity indicate an excellentbuffering capacity of the catchment area. At present, the level of biological oxygen demand (BOD7) is quite lowcompared with the values obtained in the past when large amounts of wastewater were discharged into therivers. As there are no specific sources of heavy metals in the Peipsi basin, this kind of pollution is not anurgent problem (Nõges 2001).2 There is a biological wastewater treatment in the town of Pskov (Sults pers. comm.).
35
Although the environmental situation in the inflowing rivers has improved since the
beginning of the 1990s, from the point of view of its ecological quality, the situation in Lake
Peipsi has changed for the worse. Summer water blooms of blue-green algae1 have become
the most serious problem in the lake, being probably caused by the destabilisation of the
system due to the changed structure of nutrient loading (see Appendix IX). As a matter of
fact, over the past decade nitrogen load into the lake has decreased2, while phosphorus load
has stayed the same3, resulting in a drop of the nitrogen:phosphorus ratio (N:P) (Loigu pers.
comm.) (see Figure 4). Nevertheless, a calculation for the period 1995-1998 made by the
author, based on the use of the Vollenweider’s (1968) table of permissible loading levels for
total nitrogen and phosphorus, revealed that both nitrogen and phosphorus loads into Lake
Peipsi were still assessed as dangerous4.
Both phosphorus concentration and the N:P ratio are important for the phytoplankton
abundance and species composition. At high phosphorus level and low N:P ratio, a bloom of
blue-green algae may occur, as these species are able to fix atmospheric nitrogen in the
conditions on nitrogen limitation. In the case of Lake Peipsi, the ratio of less than 30 is most
probably favoured by the blue-green algae (Nõges et al. 2003). Therefore, it seems that strong
summer blooms of blue-green algae have been recorded due to the drop in the N:P ratio since
the end of the 1980s approximately from 100:1 to 10:1 (Loigu pers. comm.).
1 Gleotrichia echinulata, Anabaena flos-aquae, Microcystis aeruginosa, Anabaena spiroides andAphanizomenon flos-aquae (Nõges et al. 2002).2 According to Nõges et al. (2003), reduction in nitrogen loading could be noticed from both Estonian andRussian parts of the Peipsi catchment area since the end of the 1980s. In-lake nitrogen concentration haddiminished until the end of the 1990s, however an increase has been recorded in the last two years.3 Phosphorus loading from Estonian side of the lake decreased until 1996 and after that started to increase again;from the Russian part of the basin, high phosphorus loading occurred in 1995-1998 and, after that, seems to bediminished. In-lake phosphorus concentration has been quite stable in Lake Peipsi s.s. but increasing in LakesPihkva and Lämmijärv in the last few years (Nõges et al. 2003).4 The average annual nitrogen and phosphorus loads into Lake Peipsi for the period 1995-1998 were assessed tobe 19,000 and 580 tons respectively (Stålnacke et al. 2002). As Lake Peipsi has a surface area of 3,555 km2,these figures present 5.34 g/m2 annual load of total nitrogen and 0.16 g/m2 annual load of total phosphorus. Bothloads therefore exceed the permissible loading levels and present dangerous loadings, which, according toVollenweider’s (1968) table of permissible loading levels for total nitrogen and phosphorus (biochemicallyactive) based on the mean depth of the water body, for the mean depth of 10m (Lake Peipsi has a mean depth of7.1 m) account for 3.0 g/m2 annual load of total nitrogen and 0.2 g/m2 annual load of total phosphorus.
36
Figure 4. Changes in total nitrogen (TN) and phosphorus (TP) concentration in Lake Peipsi in1984-2002 (Nõges et al. 2003).
An extremely heavy bloom in late summer 2002 was accompanied by fish-kill. Dead fish,
dominated by ruffe, and blue areas of decomposing blue-green algae were seen on the
lakeshores, but many dead fish could be also found in the water, such as pikeperch, perch,
burbot, pike, bream and roach. Fish-kill was probably caused by a synergistic effect of several
unfavourable conditions, such as a low water level, high water temperature, strong bloom of
blue-green algae and resulting great diurnal changes of oxygen and ammonium ion content
(Kangur and Kangur 2002). However, evidence that summer blooms of blue-green algae at
Lake Peipsi directly cause fish kills is inconclusive so far.
Therefore, as economically more valuable fish is less resistant to the blue-green algae
blooms, and especially as the expected future economic development of the Peipsi region is
likely to increase the nutrient load into the lake, an adequate management strategy to reduce
dangerous nutrient loading, and thus to solve the water quality issue, should be developed.
According to several Estonian water management experts, the most important measure to
achieve the further improvement of water quality is the reduction of phosphorus loading from
both Estonian and Russian catchment areas (see more in chapter 6.1.2).
37
5. Legal aspects of transboundary management at Lake Peipsi
Since 1991, Lake Peipsi has become a transboundary water body regulated not only by
Estonian and Russian legislation, but also by several international and bilateral agreements.
By virtue of Estonia being an EU accession country, Peipsi will become the future border
between the EU and Russia. In order to meet the EU requirements, Estonian legislation must
be harmonised with the legislation of the EU. Thus, in relation to water management, the
Estonian Water Act must be adapted to comply with the WFD.
This chapter describes the legal aspects of transboundary management at Lake Peipsi,
focusing respectively on Estonian and Russian laws and acts, international conventions,
bilateral agreements and the new European water policy - the WFD, which is to become of
major importance for water management at Lake Peipsi in the near future.
5.1 Governmental laws and acts
Until 1991, the protection and use of natural resources in the Lake Peipsi basin was
regulated by the legislation of the Soviet Union, therefore there were no differences for the
environmental regulation for the different parts of the basin. After the collapse of the Soviet
Union and the establishment of borders, the basin has become regulated by two separate
systems of legislation of Estonia and Russia. In order to find a common approach to the water
management of the Lake Peipsi basin, harmonisation of environmental regulations on both
sides of the lake is necessary.
38
5.1.1 Estonia
The Estonian part of the Peipsi catchment area (see Figure 3) is managed according to
Estonian legislation, which is currently in the process of harmonisation with the legislation of
the EU. The laws of Estonia regulating the use and protection of transboundary waters are:
• Law on Protection of Nature (1990),
• State Borders Act (1994),
• Water Act (1994),
• Law on Protection of Natural Objects (1994),
• Law on the Protection of Marine and Freshwater Coasts, Shores and Banks (1995),
• Pollution Charge Act (1999).
The State Borders Act defines the legal status of the state border and specifies the border
regime. It further states that the running of state border on a lake or another natural water
body is a straight line through the centres of border markers determined by international
agreements or along the centre-line of the water mirror (State Borders Act 1994, § 4).
The Law on Protection of Nature and the Law on Protection of Natural Objects regulate
biodiversity conservation issues; the first declares the aims of environmental protection,
including the maintenance of the richness of animal and plant species and the diversity. The
Law on the Protection of Marine and Freshwater Coasts, Shores and Banks defines the coastal
territory and provides some restrictions and liabilities on the activities within the water
protection zones. This law determines the coastal width of Lake Peipsi outside of settlements
to be 200 m (Aliakseyeva 1999).
The Pollution Charge Act provides the rates of the charge to be paid for the release of
pollutants or waste into the environment and the procedure for calculation and payment of the
39
charge. The law applies to pollution charge for the release of pollutants into water bodies,
groundwater or soil (Vaarmari pers. comm.).
The Water Act sets general provisions and obligations to water purity and describes the
methods of protection for internal and transboundary waters. By further declaring the
regulation of the use and protection of transboundary boundary water bodies by international
treaties of the Republic of Estonia (Water Act 1994, § 3), it ensures that internal legislation
does not violate the reasonable interests of neighbouring countries. The Act also sets the
protection of catchment areas against agricultural pollution in nitrate sensitive areas1 and
against pollution with hazardous substances (Water Act 1994, § 26).
Although inconsistencies with the EU legislation do not exist anymore, as the Water Act
has been harmonised in accordance with the WFD in all respects2, a few modifications of the
Act are still being made in order to make the WFD more applicable and the implementation
easier (Reisner pers. comm.). However, at the same time, the new Head of the Water
Department at the Ministry of Environment, Indrek Tamberg, plans for the water department
to write a totally new Water Act together with its legal instruments this year, which is
expected to be approved by the Estonian Parliament either this or more probably next year
(Tamberg pers. comm.).
As a part of the EU accession, Estonia is currently in the process of adopting the EU
legislation. Therefore, in terms of the future water resource management in Estonia, the WFD
(discussed in greater depth in section 5.4) is a legal act of great importance for Estonia, just
like the Water Act.
1 The regulation on the use of mineral fertilisers and manure also falls under this Act (Water Act 1994, § 26).2 For example, water from aquifers and water bodies is also divided into five classes depending on the purity ofthe water, like in the WFD. The classes of water are: 1) high – natural water; 2) good – close to natural water; 3)moderate – water on which human activity has had a moderate impact; 4) poor – polluted water; 5) bad –strongly polluted water (Water Act 1994, § 38).
40
5.1.2 Russia
The Russian part of the Peipsi catchment area (see Figure 3) is managed according to
Russian legislation. The federal laws of the Russian Federation (RF) regulating the use and
protection of transboundary waters are:
• RF Law on Environmental Protection (1991),
• RF Law on the State Borders of the Russian Federation (1993),
• RF Law on Specially Protected Areas (1995),
• RF Water Code (1995),
• RF Law on Environmental Expertise (1995),
• RF Law on Payment for Water Use of Water Objects (1998).
The Law on the State Borders of the Russian Federation defines the legal status of the
border and the border territory and specifies the regime of the border-crossing points. It also
sets limits on the economic activities within the border territories (Budarin et al. 2001).
The Law on Environmental Protection and the Law on Specially Protected Areas are the
major legislative norms for biodiversity conservation and the organisation of specially
protected areas (Aliakseyeva 1999). The Law on Environmental Expertise defines the concept
of environmental expertise as an inspection of intended economic and other activities in
regard to their environmental safety for society. It further determines the allowable extent of
these activities that would not be harmful to the environment or would not entail negative
social, economic and other consequences. The Law on Payment for Water Use of Water
Objects stipulates the concepts and process of payment for the use of water resources
(Budarin et al. 2001).
In terms of lake management and application of water quality standards at Lake Peipsi,
the Water Code is the most important legal Act in Russia, just like the WFD is in Estonia. The
Water Code, like the Directive, is based on an ecosystem (river basin) approach; thus, it is in
41
line with the new EU water legislation, although the water quality standards are not the same
(Aliakseyeva pers. comm.).
The Water Code defines the legal basis for water protection in Russia; it is the same law
which existed under the Soviet Union and was later adopted by the Russian Federation. A
new revised version of the Code is currently waiting for approval by the Russian Parliament.
Though the new Water Code is expected to be adopted by the end of this year, there are
several doubts about the time of its approval (Aliakseyeva pers. comm.). According to Petr
Gorelov, Head of the Institute of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection, Pskov
Regional Administration, the new revised version cannot be accepted unless necessary
changes are made in the RF Constitution. However, such changes require also the agreement
of the president and due to political considerations, such changes may not take place before
the next presidential elections. Therefore, the new Water Code could be adopted much later,
for example in 2005 (Gorelov pers. comm.).
5.2 International conventions
Since 1991, Lake Peipsi has belonged to transboundary water objects regulated by several
international conventions. The main international conventions relevant to the use and
protection of transboundary water bodies, signed by both Estonia and Russia are:
• Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat
(Ramsar, 1971),
• Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
(Washington, 1973),
• Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (Espoo,
1991),
42
• Convention on Protection and Use of Transboundary Water Courses and International
Lakes (Helsinki, 1992) and the Protocol on Issues of Water and Health of this
convention (London, 1999),
• Convention on Protection of the Baltic Sea Marine Environment (Helsinki, 1992),
• Convention on Biological Diversity (Rio de Janeiro, 1992),
• Convention on Non-Navigable Use of Transboundary Water Courses (New York, 1997).
As Lake Peipsi and its catchment area belong to the Baltic Sea Basin, the two conventions
signed by all Baltic Sea states in Helsinki in 1992 are especially important, and therefore will
be discussed further in greater depth. The Convention on Protection of the Baltic Sea Marine
Environment established a Helsinki Commission (HELCOM) that coordinates the national
implementation of the convention. One of the ideas of HELCOM as an institution is to
provide information exchange and coordination on water protection activities on the
transboundary waters in the Baltic Sea Basin; however, as it has focused more strongly on the
marine environment, attempts in the 1990s for its reformation did not result in a more
proactive approach towards the management of transboundary waters. Still, HELCOM today
plays an important role in the social learning and capacity building of the transboundary water
institutions (Roll and Lopman 2001).
The Convention on Protection and Use of Transboundary Water Courses and
International Lakes initiated by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN
ECE), signed in Helsinki in the same year, aimed at the prevention, elimination and reduction
of the impact on transboundary waters entailing harmful consequences on all parts of the
43
environment1. In the EU and on its fringes, the UN ECE water regime is currently being
adjusted to the requirements of the new European water policy as the EU members and
accession countries proceed in implementing the WFD (Roll and Lopman 2001).
5.3 Bilateral agreements
In order to ensure sustainable use of natural resources and to resolve environmental
problems in the Peipsi basin, Estonian and Russian environmental protection and regional
development agencies and organisations coordinate their activities on the basis of existing
legal agreements signed by the governments of both countries2.
The intergovernmental bilateral agreements signed so far are:
• The Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Estonia and the
Government of the Russian Federation on Border-Crossing Points on the Estonian-
Russian Custom Border (Moscow, 1993),
• The Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Estonia and the
Government of the Russian Federation on Cooperation in Protection and Use of Fish
Resources of Lakes Peipsi, Pskov and Lämmi (Moscow, 1994),
• The Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Estonia and the
Government of the Russian Federation on Environmental Protection (Pskov, 1996),
• The Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Estonia and the
Government of the Russian Federation on Cooperation in Protection and Sustainable
Use of Transboundary Waters (Moscow, 1997).
1 Three more treaties are included in the UN ECE environmental framework applying to transboundary waters inthe Baltic Sea Basin: Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (the EIAconvention); Convention on Transboundary Effects on Industrial Accidents (the Accident Convention); andConvention on Access to information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice inEnvironmental Matters (the Aarhus convention). The implementation of the three conventions is wellcoordinated with the implementation of the Transboundary Water Convention, which has the leading role (Rolland Lopman 2001).2 Latvia has a separate protocol for cooperation with Russia in the Velikaya River basin, a part of the LakePeipsi basin, and an agreement on transboundary water management with Estonia (Roll and Lopman 2001).
44
Due to the economic importance of fish resources in Lake Peipsi for both Estonia and
Russia, the signing of the Agreement on Cooperation in Protection and Use of Fish Resources
was a significant step towards achieving sustainability of the fish stocks of the lake in the
future. As a result of the agreement, an intergovernmental Commission was established,
whose functions include activities such as development of recommendations in the fish
management, regulations of tools and methods used for fishing, setting up a common fishing
limit according to fish species, and distribution of the limit between parties. The results
achieved by the Commission have been good, and therefore the fisheries management can be
regarded as one of the primary issues successfully solved in the transboundary cooperation to
date (Vetemaa et al. 2001). (Fisheries are further discussed in greater depth in chapter 4.2.2.)
By signing the Agreement on Environmental Protection, Estonia and Russia agreed to
develop cooperation in environmental protection on the basis of mutual interests and equality.
The cooperation can have various forms, such as joint research, joint project development,
exchange of environmental information and experience exchange in environmental
management (Budarin et al. 2001).
In terms of water resource management, the Agreement on Cooperation in Protection and
Sustainable Use of Transboundary Waters is the most important legal document. The
agreement was signed in accordance with the international Convention on Protection and Use
of Transboundary Water Courses and International Lakes (Helsinki, 1992) and established a
Joint Commission on Transboundary Waters for coordination of activities on implementation
of this agreement (Korsjukov pers. comm.).
45
The Estonian-Russian Joint Commission:
• organises exchange of monitoring data between parties in accordance with the agreed
monitoring programme;
• defines priority directions and programmes of scientific studies on protection and
sustainable use of transboundary waters;
• agrees on common indicators of quality for transboundary waters, methods of water
testing and conducting analysis;
• facilitates cooperation between executive agencies, local governments, scientific and
public interest organisations, as well as other institutions in the field of sustainable
development and protection of transboundary waters;
• ensures publicity of discussions of questions related to the use and protection of the
transboundary waters (The Estonian-Russian Joint Commission 1997, Article 5).
(For the structure of the Commission see Appendix X.)
At its second annual meeting in 2001, the Commission agreed to develop a joint Lake
Peipsi Basin Management Plan built on existing water management projects in the basin, in
accordance with EU water quality standards and with the WFD as a basis for the development
of the water management system in the Lake Peipsi basin1. Since then, the Working Groups
of the Commission have started elaborating the plan (Roll 2001a). However, the development
of the management plan is complicated by the fact that Russia is not an EU member or an
accession state, therefore the implementation of EU requirements is not obligatory for it, but
only a matter of political will.
1 As Latvia is an EU accession country, in order to meet the requirements of the WFD, Estonia and Latvia willdevelop a joint River Basin Management Plan for the shared Koiva River (Roll 2001a).
46
5.4 The new European water policy – the WFD
5.4.1 General background
A major revision of the EU water policy during the 1990s resulted in the preparation of
the Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC (WFD), which came into force in December
2000. According to the Directive, it will repeal in 2007 and 2013 six previous water directives
and one regulation, affect other legal water documents, and provide the basis for subsequent
legislative initiatives. Its purpose is to establish a framework for a coherent protection of
European inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater (WFD
2000, Article 1).
5.4.2 River Basin Management Plans
River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) are the main instruments developed to ensure
the objective of the WFD - the achievement and maintenance of “good ecological status” for
all Community waters by 2015 (Article 2, § 22). The development of RBMPs is based on the
idea of treating river basins as dynamic land-water systems, including all interconnected
water courses, water bodies, groundwater and land into one catchment area with the
requirement to address ecological issues in an integrated manner (Article 2, § 13). Therefore,
water management should aim to link water quality, water quantity, physical and other
parameters together (Everard et al. 2002). RBMPs must be elaborated by the member states
for every river basin district; the initial RBMPs will have to be completed by December 2009
and reviewed and updated every six years thereafter (2015, 2021 etc.) (Article 13, § 6,7).
47
In order to allow comparison over time and space, the WFD further requires that the
RBMPs cover the following elements:
• a general description of the basin,
• a summary of significant pressures upon the basins and identification of impacts of
human activity,
• identification of protected areas shown in a map form,
• monitoring programmes for the ecological status of waters and presentation of the
results in map form,
• list of environmental objectives,
• a summary of the economic analysis of water use,
• a summary of the programme of measures,
• a register of detailed programmes and management plans for the river basin district,
• a summary on the public information and consultation measures taken,
• contact points and procedures for obtaining background documentation and information
(Annex VII).
Water quality must be assessed with a reference to biological elements, as well as to
hydrological, physical and chemical measures. The WFD distinguishes five classes of water
quality: high, good, moderate, poor and bad (Annex V), which must be determined as a range
of deviation from “pristine status” associated to type-specific “reference conditions” (Annex
II, section 1.3). Programmes of Measures must be elaborated for such waters for which the
analysis shows that they do not yet achieve the environmental objectives (Article 11, § 1).
In the preparation of RBMPs, the member states are required to ensure the involvement of
all stakeholders and public consultations (Article 14, § 1, 3), which can be influenced by the
activities of local, regional and international NGOs. In this context, Lanz and Scheuer (2001),
suggest that NGOs should also participate in supplementing the RBMPs by detailed plans
48
with the focus on, for example, sub-basins, water use sectors, water types and various aspects
of water management.
5.4.3 Implementation of the WFD in the Lake Peipsi basin
Estonia, like other EU accession countries, must have all environmental legislation
implemented by the date of its accession. Nevertheless, in the case of water legislation,
accession countries have asked for transposition periods for all the directives to be repealed
by 2013. The determination of sub-basins has been the major step in the implementation of
the WFD. River basin management strategies for all river basins in Estonia, however, must be
elaborated, as for all member states, by 2009 (Lanz and Scheuer 2001).
As waters and seas are not a subject to borders and neither is pollution, the Directive
especially addresses the issue of transboundary water cooperation. In the case of international
river basins, whether they fall within the EU or extend beyond its boundaries, member states
are asked to ensure cooperation and coordination with the aim of producing one single
international RBMP. In case this is not achievable, member states are still required to produce
RBMPs for the parts that fall within their territory (Article 13, § 3). However, in the case of
Lake Peipsi cooperation has been possible, as in 2001, the Estonian-Russian Joint
Commission agreed to develop a joint Lake Peipsi Basin Management Plan in accordance
with the WFD, which will be built on existing water management projects in the basin.
The Directive establishes a deadline for achievement of ecological objectives but it leaves
open to its members to define them on the basis of the major water uses in the basin. As there
are different water quality standards and management strategies in Estonia and Russia, there
exist several challenges to the development of a joint definition of “good ecological status”.
These and other associated problems should be resolved by the Joint Commission (Roll
2001b). (For challenges see chapter 6.)
49
5.5 Summary
As presented throughout this chapter, Lake Peipsi is regulated by a number of Estonian
and Russian governmental laws and acts, international conventions and bilateral agreements.
For the future management of the Lake Peipsi basin, the WFD and the RF Water Code are the
most important legal documents. Since both documents are based on a river basin approach, it
seems that there cannot be drastic differences regarding the water-related legislation and the
management of the international catchment area of Lake Peipsi should be organised easily.
However, as differences between the Estonian and Russian standards exist, the proposal to
develop a joint Lake Peipsi Basin Management Plan in accordance with the WFD faces great
challenges. Furthermore, although Russia has demonstrated its political will to implement the
Directive for its part of the basin, it appears that it will be able to implement it only to a
certain extent, as the management of all water bodies in Russia must be in compliance with
the RF Water Code.
50
6. Challenges to Estonian-Russian transboundary cooperation and
the implementation of the WFD at Lake Peipsi
The following chapter focuses on the challenges concerning Estonian-Russian
transboundary cooperation and the implementation of the WFD at Lake Peipsi – the two main
objectives of the thesis. Two hierarchies of challenges have been drawn up based on the
answers from the interviews, as well as on the author’s impressions from the interviews and
the on-site observations. The issues will be further discussed in greater depth throughout the
whole chapter. As the respondents generally mentioned monitoring issues as the biggest
challenge to transboundary cooperation as well as to the implementation of the WFD at Lake
Peipsi, a special section is devoted to Monitoring at the end of this chapter.
It should be noted that the challenges to transboundary cooperation are closely connected
with the challenges to the implementation of the WFD and vice versa. That is also why some
of the issues, for example, the financial challenges, reoccur in different sections of this
chapter, however, with different implications. Furthermore, the challenges within the sub-
sections are also closely related to one another, therefore they cannot be viewed as different
issues which should be dealt with separately, but looked at rather from a holistic point of
view, considering all the inter-relations between them.
6.1 Challenges to transboundary cooperation
Although the Estonian-Russian Joint Commission aims to implement the bilateral
Agreement on Cooperation in Protection and Sustainable Use of Transboundary Waters and
find a common approach to the governance of Lake Peipsi, numerous obstacles to the
transboundary cooperation at the lake within the existing political, economic and institutional
framework have been found.
51
The following hierarchy shows the challenges to transboundary cooperation that were
identified during the research and classified in descending order of importance.
Challenges of major importance:
• Differences in monitoring practices (see chapter 6.3.2);
• Differences in legislation and standards;
• Differences in level of socio-economic development;
• Differences in funding of projects.
Challenges of medium importance:
• Differences in objectives and interests;
• Differences in lake management practices and developing strategies.
Challenges of minor importance:
• Differences in public participation and information sharing;
• Lack of trust (anti-Russian and anti-Baltic moods);
• Language problems.
6.1.1 Challenges of major importance
For the management of Lake Peipsi, the WFD and the Water Act, which has been
harmonised with the Directive, are the most important legal documents in Estonia, whereas in
Russia the document of major relevance is the RF Water Code. As all these documents are
based on a river basin approach, it does not seem to be difficult to organise the management
of the international catchment area of Lake Peipsi in accordance with the legislation of both
countries (see more in chapter 5.1). Nevertheless, a detailed comparative assessment of the
Estonian and Russian legislation uncovers the existence of differences, which is also one of
the major impediments to the transboundary cooperation at Lake Peipsi.
52
Although Russia has made a commitment to implement the WFD also for its part of the
basin, this commitment, however, was not an official decision. Russia seems to have rather
expressed its political will to find a common approach to the lake’s management and to test
the WFD on a transboundary water body. Besides transboundary waters shared with the EU,
EU legislation is of no relevance to Russia, as the management of all Russian water bodies
must be in compliance with the RF Water Code (Aliakseyeva pers. comm.).
Due to the fact that there are different standards for water quality assessment in Estonia
and Russia, there is no common ground for the experts from the two countries to agree on a
joint definition of “good ecological status” of waters in the Peipsi basin, a requirement of the
WFD, which should be achieved by the year 2015 (see more in chapter 5.4.2). On the other
hand, today, there appears to be already good knowledge about the differences in legislation,
and thus one step in the process to reach a joint assessment for water quality evaluation has
been taken (Sults pers. comm.).
Nevertheless, although mechanisms for solving problems have been established on a good
legal and institutional basis and the environmental standards both in Russia and Estonia are
regarded as being sufficiently strict, guaranteeing the fulfilment of the legislation still appears
to be a big issue in Russia today (Kosk pers. comm., Roll pers. comm.). To sum up, most of
the respondents regarded the existence of differences in legislation as a significant challenge,
which could, however, be overcome through various EU assistance projects in the future.
Differences in the level of socio-economic development between the two countries and in
the funding of projects constitute another two major obstacles to transboundary cooperation at
Lake Peipsi. The current higher socio-economic level in Estonia allows greater investment in
the environment, especially as Estonia receives more EU assistance and support than Russia.
Russia has to finance the projects to a greater extent using its own state budget, however as
economic targets currently seem to play a more decisive role than environmental ones,
53
environmental projects in Russia are underfinanced (Sults pers. comm.). Moreover, the
Russian three-level water management system (federal, regional and local) is still much more
centralised than the Estonian1. The Russian Ministry of Natural Resources is responsible for
coordinating the activities of other agencies involved in the water management. Regional
Committees are obliged to coordinate water management activities in their region; the local
level of communes and towns must act according to decisions made by the Regional
Committees and cannot use its budget independently (Aliakseyeva pers. comm.).
Furthermore, the water management projects on the Estonian side are partly financed by
the EU PHARE Programme, whereas the EU TACIS Programme supports the Russian side;
however, these instruments of EU support do not seem to be compatible with each other and
coordinated in their activities. One of the reasons for this is that the Programmes can only act
on their side of the border, thus no participation from the other side can take place and the
coordination is very difficult (Loigu pers. comm.). Cooperation is further worsened by the
poor external relations between the Pskov region and Estonia, which unfortunately have not
recently improved (Jokinen pers. comm.).
According to Gulnara Roll, Chairwoman of the Peipsi Center for Transboundary
Cooperation, both PHARE and TACIS Programmes are extremely bureaucratic and
politicised, and what is more, due to intransparent relations including potential corruption in
Russia, the TACIS Programme is hardly functioning today. Hopefully in the near future, the
PHARE External Borders Programme could encourage the cooperation through training
courses and other assistance projects in Russia (Roll pers. comm.).
1 In Estonia, the water management system is coordinated by the Ministry of Environment and its 15 countryEnvironmental Departments, which are further divided into local governmental units – communes and towns.County governments represent the state power, but are also relatively independent. All local issues are resolvedby local governments (Aliakseyeva 1999).
54
6.1.2 Challenges of moderate importance
Most respondents claimed that the main Estonian and Russian objectives and interests for
the cooperation at Lake Peipsi do not differ too much, as obviously the reasons for
cooperation are not purely environmental on either side: many economic and political reasons
are also at stake. However, even slight differences in the objectives and interests between the
two countries may result in different management strategies to achieve them, and thus present
a big challenge to transboundary cooperation.
Currently the biggest environmental issue in the lake definitely appears to be the water
quality and the achievement and assurance of its “good ecological status” in the future, not
only from the point of view of the WFD. Even though this objective is common for both
countries, some disagreements on the current environmental state of the lake and appropriate
future management strategies have been noted. Estonian water management experts agree that
the current eutrophication problems in the lake are of an anthropogenic origin, and thus are
unnatural. The high phosphorus load into the lake appears to be a result of inadequate
wastewater treatment caused by old, poorly functioning or completely absent wastewater
treatment plants (Nõges, T. pers. comm.).
According to Enn Loigu, Head of the Chair of Environmental Protection at the Tallinn
Technical University, the ecological situation in the rivers has improved over the last ten
years, while the situation in the lake is worse than in the past. The reason is that the nitrogen
load into the lake has decreased, while the phosphorus load has stayed the same, resulting in a
drop of the N:P ratio approximately from 100:1 to 10:1 (see more in chapter 4.3.4). Because
such a low N:P ratio may support the blooming of blue-green algae, and therefore decrease
the water quality in the lake, adequate measures have to be taken. The improvement of old
and the building of new wastewater treatment plants, as well as the use of wetlands in the
reduction of the phosphorus load into the lake, present potential management strategies to
55
avoid the blooms of blue-green algae and to improve the water quality in Lake Peipsi (Loigu
pers. comm.).
The Russian experts, in contrast, mostly claim that the eutrophication of the lake is not a
new phenomenon, but, as the situation has been quite stable for decades, it is mainly of a
natural origin (Basova pers. comm., Sedova pers. comm.). According to Alla Sedova, Head of
the Water Department for Neva-Ladoga Water Basin Administration (NLWBA), the nutrient
(nitrogen and phosphorus) load comes primarily from forest and natural land runoff, which
cannot be influenced, and therefore the proposal to reduce it by improving wastewater
treatment will help most likely only to a certain extent, but actually may not change
dramatically the ecological situation in the lake (Sedova pers. comm.). Nevertheless, the
Russian side has agreed to change and improve the current wastewater treatment practices,
which seem to be problematic not only in Estonia but also in Russia (Garangsa pers. comm.,
Kazmina pers. comm.).
A possible objection to the point made by Sedova could be proposed. As there has been a
lot of pressure on the use of natural resources recently, clear felling has been practised to a
great extent in the Russian part of the Peipsi basin. Such land-use practices may lead to an
increase in nutrient load from these areas resulting in a greater nutrient load into rivers, which
are the inflows of Lake Peipsi. A possible solution to these problems is a creation of buffer
zones around the areas to absorb nutrients, having also other positive effects on the landscape,
such as an increase in biodiversity (Bellinger pers. comm.). Therefore, it is not absolutely true
that the nutrient load from forest and natural areas may not be influenced.
A common objective closely related to the previous one, appears to be sustainable fishery,
a prime economic interest of both countries. However, as there is a large fish-processing
industry on the Russian side, Russian fishermen are more interested in small, cheap fish
species, while Estonian fishermen prefer big valuable ones because of the possibility to export
56
them to western markets (Vetemaa et al. 2001). Thus the Intergovernmental Estonian-Russian
Fishery Commission needs to take this into consideration when setting up a number of
different gear licences, a common fishing limit according to fish species and the distribution
of the limit between the parties1 (Vetemaa pers. comm.) (see more in chapter 4.2.2).
The importance of the integrative role of the EU in the future development of economic
and trade relations between Estonia and Russia in the Lake Peipsi basin should not be
underestimated. To promote cooperation in the watershed is particularly highly important for
the Pskov region, because once it becomes the bordering region of the EU, its products,
especially agricultural, will have most likely greater opportunities to enter the EU market
(Aliakseyeva pers. comm.).
On May 18, 2003, a new floating border station was opened in Praaga, Estonia, an
inaccessible mouth of the Emajõgi River. This new border crossing point could provide
numerous opportunities for the shipping of goods, as well as the cargo and public transport
over the lake on the once traditional route Tartu-Pskov (Unt pers. comm.). Such a possibility
may even have a positive effect on tourism, other forms of recreation and economic
development in the whole region, for example Estonian companies can be expected to
establish enterprises in Russia (Vassilenko pers. comm.). Nevertheless, it should be kept in
mind that the possible future development of the region also presents new sources of point
and non-point pollution, and therefore a threat to the environment of Lake Peipsi.
However, it is clear that the actual ship traffic can only start after both parties have
completed their border crossing stations and the Estonian and Russian Ministries of Foreign
Affairs have exchanged relevant documents. As Russia has not fulfilled its promise to
complete the building of the border crossing point in Starozinets port on Lake Pihkva by June
1 Estonian and Russian total allowable catches on Lake Peipsi s.s. and Lake Lämmijärv were set equal for allfish species in year 2000 (Vetemaa et al. 2001).
57
16, 2003, the six-year-long hope for the restoration of cargo and passenger ship traffic on the
route Tartu-Pskov has been threatened. One of the reasons why the Russian side might not
have had enough finance to complete the construction of the border checkpoint during this
year’s navigation season is that a lot of money has been spent on the refurbishing of the town
Pskov for the celebrations of its 1100th anniversary, which are taking place this year
(Rozental 2003).
At the political level, as at the economic one, transboundary cooperation at Lake Peipsi is
highly important. With Estonian accession, the EU will directly border with Russia, and thus
the transboundary cooperation in the Peipsi basin will also be important for maintaining good
external relations. Moreover, there are high hopes that as an EU bordering region, the Pskov
region could receive support and assistance through various EU programmes (Petrov pers.
comm.).
Although the main objectives and interests of Estonia and Russia seem to be the same at
first glance, according to Roll, the countries’ general approaches to cooperation at Lake
Peipsi appear to be different. Estonia’s main aim today is to fulfil the requirements of the EU,
therefore environmental issues have become a priority, while economic development has been
limited. In contrast, Russia’s priority, especially at the local level, seems to be to resolve
economic problems, thus creating pressure to use natural resources (especially fishery and
forestry), which is fortunately lessened by the poor state of the infrastructure (Roll pers.
comm.). Estonia, moreover, seems to have a better understanding of the possibility to treat
non-point sources of pollution, which has also become a focus of strategic water management.
Russia, on the other hand, still appears to address environmental issues mainly by treating the
pollution coming from the point sources that can be more easily handled and resolved in the
short-term. Although the perception that non-point sources of pollution cannot be treated
58
appears to have changed a little over the last few years in Russia, this issue may still present a
big challenge when finding a common strategy to the management for the Lake Peipsi basin
(Roll pers. comm.).
Being the fourth largest lake in Europe, Lake Peipsi is a lake of great importance not only
for Estonia and Russia, but also for the whole European continent. However, it must be noted
that the biggest and second biggest European lakes, Ladoga and Onega, are also located in
Russia, as well as several other biggest lakes of the world, such as partly the Caspian Sea; the
deepest and oldest lake of the world Lake Baikal; and two large Asian lakes, Tajmyr and
Chanka. As the current situation at Lake Peipsi is not alarming, it does not seem to be a
priority for the Russian environmental policy.
6.1.3 Challenges of minor importance
The issue of public participation and information sharing is new both for Estonia and
Russia. The main problem with public participation is considered to be the lack of interest and
low awareness caused by the fact that people lack the ability to recognise and represent their
interests (Ehin et al. 2003). However, as the WFD especially stresses the involvement of all
stakeholders and the public in the preparation of RBMPs, Estonia has made a lot of progress
in this direction over the last few years, while Russia has only made the first attempts
(Jokinen pers. comm.). As a matter of fact, according to Dimitrij Lebediev, a sociologist from
the North-West Regional Monitoring Center in Pskov, only 5 out of 1600 people interviewed
in a sociological survey, conducted in the municipalities on the Russian side of Lake Peipsi in
2001, expressed their concerns about the environment (Lebediev pers. comm.). Regarding this
problem, Jalmar Mandel, Director of the Tartu County Environmental Department, admitted
that the differences in public participation in Estonia and Russia could play an important role
in the transboundary cooperation as well as in the implementation of the WFD; he
59
nevertheless expressed his hopes that it is only a question of time for Russia to resolve this
issue (Mandel pers. comm.).
Lack of trust between Estonia and Russia appears to be a traditional issue, which has
developed strongly in the years since the collapse of the Soviet Union. This challenge is not
only faced by the transboundary cooperation at Lake Peipsi, but especially when dealing with
other issues of a political nature, such as the rights of the Russian minority in Estonia and the
border treaty between the two countries - issues which have not yet been resolved
(Aliakseyeva pers. comm.). Moreover, as mentioned previously, in the case of Lake Peipsi the
transboundary cooperation appears to be worsened by the traditionally poor external relations
between the Pskov region and Estonia (Jokinen pers. comm.).
Beyond the existence of anti-Russian and anti-Baltic moods in the region, a lack of trust
towards the EU seems to have developed in Russia over the past few years. Former Soviet
Union and other socialist countries had always respected international or foreign authorities
and standards. But as Russia has always had top world scientists, in some respects isolated
from foreign influences, Russian experts are even nowadays rather reluctant to adopt the EU
methods (Vassilenko pers. comm.).
As observed, the meetings of international projects, where both Estonian and Russian
actors are present together, as well as the meetings of the Joint Commission and its Working
Groups (Loigu pers. comm.) are held, like during the Soviet times, in Russian. Therefore,
there is no language barrier to complicate the communication, as the Estonian experts still
speak Russian fluently. However, language could become an issue in the near future, because
the younger generation of Estonian experts speaks English, an officially used language within
the EU, but does not speak Russian, while there are not yet many English-speaking specialists
in Russia (Roll 2001b). Nevertheless, a complete language barrier will probably not develop,
60
as both Russian and English will most likely be used in the future, and overcoming the
language difficulties will only be a question of time.
6.2 Challenges to implementation of the WFD
Implementation of the WFD raises many challenges that are shared by all EU member
states. The following hierarchy shows the challenges concerning the implementation of the
Directive at Lake Peipsi that were identified during the research and classified in descending
order of importance.
Challenges of major importance:
• Limitation of financial resources;
• Limitation of human resources;
• Lack of available and accessible data for decision-making (see chapter 6.3.2).
Challenges of medium importance:
• Lack of guidance;
• Diversity of possible solutions, complexity of issues.
Challenge of minor importance:
• Demanding timetable.
The main obstacle to the implementation of the WFD is considered to be the scarcity of
resources – regarding both financial and human resources. Supplementary liabilities
connected with the preparation and implementation of the RBMPs demand additional
financing and people, and thus the implementation of the Directive cannot be considered
separately from the general socio-economic context (Ehin et al. 2003).
Limitation of financial resources often seems to play a decisive role in the extent to which
projects and policies can be successfully implemented. In the case of Lake Peipsi, the
operational costs of the river basin authorities in Estonia are not only financed from the state
61
budget, but also with assistance from the PHARE Programme and several pre-accession
structural funds for implementation of the WFD. However, the problems of financing the
river basin authorities in Russia may actually determine to what extent the WFD can be
implemented for the Russian part of the basin (Roll 2001b). Therefore, according to Mikko
Jokinen, Project Team Leader of the EU TACIS Project on Water Management in the Lake
Peipsi Catchment in Pskov, the implementation of the EU policy on the Russian side will be
partially determined by how successful the TACIS project he currently leads, will be during
the coming two and a half years of its implementation (Jokinen pers. comm.).
Moreover, the future financing of projects is also considered to present a big challenge to
the implementation of the WFD at the lake. With the accession, Estonia will lose EU
assistance coming through all pre-accession structural funds. Therefore, as the issue of the
limitation of financial resources in Russia will most probably remain, in order to implement
the Directive for the whole basin, in the future Estonia may have to consider financing some
of the projects at the Russian part from its own state budget. To what extent this will be
possible will probably depend on Estonia’s financial situation as well as on its political will.
Another issue which could be critical for the implementation of the new EU water policy
at Lake Peipsi appears to be the limitation of human resources. Most of the respondents
claimed that the main problem is little knowledge about and little experience with the
implementation of the WFD. According to Gulnara Roll, low capacity is especially a problem
in Pskov, as many educated people from this region move to Saint Petersburg or Moscow.
The cooperation has become especially complicated, as Estonia has started preparing for the
EU accession and for the implementation of the EU legislation undertaking the required steps.
Capacity problems in Russia cause difficulties in meeting the deadlines and achieving the
same quality level of results on both sides of Lake Peipsi (Roll pers. comm.).
62
The WFD establishes a deadline for the achievement of ecological objectives but it leaves
open to its members to define them. In 2001, the Estonian-Russian Joint Commission agreed
to develop a joint Lake Peipsi Basin Management Plan in accordance with the WFD. The
diversity of possible solutions and the complexity of the issues of the Directive imply that the
implementation on both sides of Lake Peipsi needs to be fully coordinated.
As the WFD is new for all member states, there is not yet much experience in how to
achieve the ecological objectives and implement the Directive successfully. Until now, there
has been much more EU guidance to understand the EU policy given through the PHARE
Programme and the pre-accession structural funds for implementation of the WFD to Estonia
than through the TACIS Programme to Russia (Jokinen pers. comm.). According to
Aliakseyeva, Project Manager UNDP/GEF Development and Implementation of the Lake
Peipsi/Chudskoe Basin Management Program, the capacity building and training of the
Russian experts to understand the EU water policy is crucial for the implementation of the
WFD in the Russian part of the Peipsi basin. Moreover, an official translation of the Directive
into Russian and establishment of contacts with other non-accession countries that are
preparing to implement the Directive for some of their water bodies, present necessary steps
to achieve the goals (Aliakseyeva pers. comm.).
All of the respondents in Estonia answered that the demanding timetable of the WFD is
not an issue in Estonia and claimed that the implementation of the Directive in time according
to the deadlines set for member states is achievable and highly realistic. However, there are a
lot of concerns in Estonia about the time of implementation of the WFD on the Russian side
of Lake Peipsi, as Russia has not officially agreed to implement the Directive, but has only
made a commitment to cooperate and find a common approach to the governance of the lake
(Roll pers. comm.). The demanding timetable to implement the Directive could therefore be
63
an issue for Russia. However, since Russia is not an EU accession country, deadlines for the
implementation are not relevant to it (Jokinen pers. comm.).
6.3 Monitoring
Lake Peipsi is a biologically highly productive lake that suffers from eutrophication. It is
affected by nutrient leakage mainly from the agricultural land in the lake basin and by the
discharge of wastewater from small local municipalities and the two big towns of Tartu
(Estonia) and Pskov (Russia) (see more in chapter 4.3.4). As the improvement of water
quality in the lake is important for water quality in the Gulf of Finland as well as the Baltic
Sea as a whole, monitoring and the availability of data on the environmental situation of Lake
Peipsi are of high international importance. The monitoring issues at Lake Peipsi have been
regarded by most of the respondents as the major challenge to successful Estonian-Russian
transboundary cooperation as well as to the implementation of the WFD.
6.3.1 Background
Regular water chemistry monitoring has been carried out on Lake Peipsi since 1950,
whereas hydrological investigations started as late as 1962 (Pietiläinen and Heinonen 2002).
Following the methods of the former Soviet Union, the Estonian Hydrometeorological Survey
conducted national monitoring on the lake from 1950-1991. As this monitoring was a part of
the surface-monitoring programme, it was integrated and the assessments of the water
analysis results were done together with those from the rivers of the Lake Peipsi catchment
area (Pietiläinen and Heinonen 2002).
The cooperation on environmental monitoring of Lake Peipsi between Estonian and
Russian organisations and researchers was interrupted in 1991, when Estonia and Russia re-
established their state borders. Political tensions in the following years resulted in no contact
64
between the countries at the governmental level. The idea of a trilateral Swedish-Estonian-
Russian environmental monitoring project, covering also the Peipsi basin, was initiated by the
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) and launched in 1995 (Roll and Sults
1998). The main goals of the project were to strengthen the capacity for environmental
monitoring by regional authorities working at Lake Peipsi and to develop contacts between
environmental experts on both sides of the border. Overall, the project was successful;
however, because of a delay with customs clearance for the equipment sent to Russia from
Sweden, fewer objectives were fulfilled on the Russian side (Roll and Sults 1998).
During 1996-2000 the Russian system of water management underwent major changes,
restructuring the state management of the use and protection of water resources, including
transboundary water bodies. The Committee of Water Management and the Committee of
Mineral Resources were replaced by the newly established RF Ministry of Natural Resources
(MNR) in 1996, transferring all their functions to the MNR by 2000. However, not only the
MNR, but also its territorial units, the Federal Service for Hydrometeorology and
Environmental Monitoring (Roshydromet) and other organisations are involved in water
management in Russia, and therefore the distribution of competencies and authority between
the various structures is complicated, further restructuring changes may be expected in
coming years (Budarin et al. 2001). It should be noted that the MNR has much broader
competence than the use and protection of the environment, as its priority tasks also include
the implementing of measures to provide the Russian economy with necessary natural
resources, and thus it is also responsible for their exploitation. This way, the absence of the
Ministry of Environment in Russia could possibly result in an insufficient protection of the
environment, as economic interests currently seem to prevail over environmental ones.
Today, the responsible organisation for monitoring programmes of Lake Peipsi in Estonia
is the Ministry of Environment. Monitoring in Russia is still very complex. Roshydromet and
the NLWBA of the MNR are responsible for the different parts of water monitoring and water
65
management and share the data1 (Parr 2003). In 1997, an Estonian-Russian intergovernmental
environmental Agreement on the Use and Protection of Transboundary Waters was finally
signed, establishing the Estonian-Russian Joint Commission and under it a Working Group on
Monitoring and Research. The aim of the Working Group has been to coordinate the
monitoring programmes in Estonia and Russia and to organise several comparison tests
between the laboratories. The activities of the SEPA moved towards the Commission
supporting its work through a new project launched in 2000, by promoting joint sustainable
management of the Narva-Peipsi basin based both on the principles of water management in
Russia and the WFD (Munthe 2001).
6.3.2 Monitoring issues
The fact that Estonian and Russian laboratories use different analytical methods and
standards is probably the biggest challenge to transboundary cooperation concerning
monitoring. One might expect that Estonia and Russia have been sharing philosophical
approach, standards and methods for
several decades in many fields including environmental issues as monitoring. However, it
should be noted that environmental issues had not absolutely presented priority concerns
during the Soviet times and thus the monitoring practices appear to had been quite limited for
most of the cases.
The water-chemistry laboratory of the Tartu Environmental Research Laboratory
(Estonia) has changed the methods of data collection and data analysis used during the
1 In general terms, Roshydromet undertakes data collection on surface water quality (physical, chemical andbiological indices) and quantity. It provides this information to NLWBA, which is responsible for water quantityand quality management (collection, analysis, processing and distribution of information on the quantity andquality of surface and ground waters). Pskov MNR NLWBA lab undertakes monitoring of Lake Peipsi andsome rivers (also monitoring of groundwater quality), while Roshydromet undertakes monitoring on NarvaReservoir and other rivers. The distribution of competencies among them on the territory of this region is basedupon an agreement (Parr 2003).
66
Soviet-period to the ones that are used in Scandinavia today, which are in line with the
HELCOM recommendations based on the Convention on Protection of the Baltic Sea Marine
Environment signed in 1992 in Helsinki. However, as most of the laboratories of
Roshydromet in Saint Petersburg and Regional Environmental Protection Committee in Pskov
still use the old Soviet-period methodology today, it is extremely difficult to compare the
results of monitoring obtained on both sides (Lääne pers. comm.).
This can be illustrated by an example mentioned by Tiina Nõges, Senior Researcher at the
Limnological Station of the Estonian Agricultural University. Until last year, Russian
laboratories had measured only the mineral concentration of nutrients in water (chemical
monitoring1), while Estonian laboratories have been also measuring their total concentration
(chemical + biological monitoring2), as the WFD says nothing about total or inorganic
nutrients, but is focused on biological water quality parameters and considers the chemical
parameters, including nutrients, only as supporting the biological ones (Nõges, T. pers.
comm.). Furthermore, according to Enn Loigu, the Russian laboratories in Pskov use very old
equipment that cannot detect precisely the required concentration levels (Loigu pers. comm.).
However, as the nutrient loads into the lake are high, the precise detection of low
concentration levels may actually not be necessary (Bellinger pers. comm.).
Better equipment is owned by a Roshydromet laboratory in Saint Petersburg, but as much
of the analysis needs to be done in a short period after the collection of samples from the lake,
according to Svetlana Basova, the Chief of Environmental Monitoring Department in Saint
Petersburg, the results obtained in Saint Petersburg may be biased due to the time delay
caused by more than a five-hour transportation (Basova pers. comm.). However, this may
only be exculpation, which is not necessarily valid. According to Edward Bellinger, the
1 Only PO4-P, NH4-N, NO2-N and NO3-N have been measured in the lake and in Velikaya River until the lastyear (Nõges, P. pers. comm.).2 PO4-P, NH4-N, NO2-N, NO3-N and TN, TP are routinely measured both in the lake and in inflowing riverssince 1985 (Nõges, P. pers. comm.).
67
Professor of the Environmental Sciences and Policy Department at the CEU in Budapest, if
samples are held in a cooling-box and transported to the laboratory within 12 hours after the
end of the sampling, the majority of analytical results should not be affected (Bellinger pers.
comm.). Therefore, unless the way of handling samples during their transportation to Saint
Petersburg is done properly, or the laboratory equipment in Pskov is updated, the comparison
of Estonian and Russian monitoring results will not be possible and the reliability of Russian
data will remain a big issue.
The monitoring laboratories are also responsible for data handling and reporting; in
Estonia the information is sent by the Ministry of Environment to the Information Center,
which publishes the monitoring results annually and makes them available on the Internet,
and also to the Russian Roshydromet. The availability of Russian monitoring data is unclear,
as the system of environmental control in Russia is frequently reorganised, and thus the
Estonian water management experts face the problem of understanding the ensuing
redistribution of competencies and authority between various transboundary waters
management structures in Russia (Pietiläinen and Heinonen 2002). The system in Russia still
appears to be very centralised and the Russian experts need to ask for an official permission
to provide the monitoring data to Estonian laboratories, which is a complicated and time-
consuming process (Nõges, T. pers. comm.). According to Alla Sedova (Russia), the
information exchange takes place once a year; however, Tiina Nõges (Estonia) contradicted
this, saying that Estonian scientific institutes have officially received no data from Russia for
several time periods, but only some through personal contacts or through the activities of
international projects1.
1 More specifically, data on hydrochemistry, hydrology and meteorology for river and lake stations for theperiod 1991 to 1995 and 1999 to 2000 were not obtained because either no monitoring of the lake on theRussian side took place or the principal dataholder Roshydromet retards to give access to these data (Skakalsky2002).
68
As the Estonian Hydrometeorological Survey had conducted the national monitoring of
the whole Lake Peipsi under the Soviet Union until 1991, there was no established Russian
system of monitoring on the Russian side of the lake at that time. The Russian Roshydromet
restarted the monitoring programme of Lake Peipsi only in 1995, measuring at the monitoring
points previously used by the Estonian Hydrometeorological Survey (Pietiläinen and
Heinonen 2002). However, because no such monitoring points had existed on the inflowing
rivers (except of the Velikaya River) and still have not been established until today, not
enough monitoring data is collected to estimate the Russian input of nutrients into Lake Peipsi
(Sults pers. comm.).
In order to define the ecological status of Lake Peipsi s.s., a requirement set by the WFD,
Estonian water specialists made an estimation for the whole lake on the basis of calculating
the missing Russian data from the monitoring data obtained in Estonia (Nõges, T. pers.
comm.). Such an estimate was possible due to the fact that water quality does not change too
much over the border in this lake. Nevertheless, this was not possible for the southern Lake
Pihkva, as there are no Estonian monitoring points located there, since the lake belongs
almost entirely to Russia. Because the ecological situation in this lake is supposed to be worse
than in the other lakes, but the slowly flowing water from it affects the other lakes, the
missing data provides also a challenge to the development of a joint Lake Peipsi Basin
Management Plan (Nõges, T. pers. comm.).
Although the Working Group on Monitoring and Research agreed to coordinate the
monitoring programmes in Estonia and Russia as early as 2000, several respondents regarded
this as having been unsuccessful. So far only two joint monitoring expeditions of the lake
have taken place, in October 2001 and November 2002; however, as the biggest algal blooms
occur in July and August, these expeditions were conducted too late to monitor these
environmental issues. As claimed by Russian respondents, the delays of the expeditions were
caused by a lack of financial resources, faced especially by the Russian side, as well as by
69
long visa procedures and problems with obtaining various permits. Two joint expeditions
were planned for the year 2003, but unfortunately, as revealed during the conference on May
27 in Tartu, the one planned for the beginning of June had to be cancelled due to the same
reasons mentioned before. The second expedition is planned for August; nevertheless, most of
the respondents, both Estonian and Russian, were sceptical as to whether it will take place on
time.
The majority of respondents claimed that a key reason for all the problems connected
with monitoring is the limitation of financial resources. Although the Joint Commission aims
to find a common approach for the management of Lake Peipsi, financial constraints seem to
result in time delays, and therefore in little progress of the goals. Moreover, financial
constraints have caused monitoring programmes both in Estonia and Russia to be reduced in
terms of the number of monitoring points and the frequency of sampling to the lowest
possible level. The issue of lack of available and accessible data especially appears to be
problematic in Russia and may result in difficulties in the process of decision-making and
developing management strategies (Jokinen pers. comm.).
The four international projects currently implemented at lake Peipsi (MANTRA East, EU
LIFE Viru-Peipsi CAMP, UNDP/GEF and EU TACIS projects) aim to solve most of the
problems mentioned, find common monitoring and management strategies of the lake and
develop tools to implement them through financial and capacity building support.
Nevertheless, according to Basova, all this support is not sufficient enough, for example, to
change the monitoring equipment and analysis in Russia, which does not receive the funds
and other forms of help from the EU that Estonia does (Basova pers. comm.).
On the whole, the monitoring issues not only seem to be facing financial difficulties, but
especially suffer from the lack of information and experience exchange between the two
countries. This may be an underlying reason for their existence, which should be taken in
account when resolving the numerous challenges.
70
6.4 Summary
At first glance, there seem to be no serious impediments to the transboundary
management at Lake Peipsi, as the WFD and the RF Water Code have a common river basin
management approach. However, as presented throughout this chapter, the research
undertaken in Estonia and Russia has revealed that the transboundary cooperation and the
implementation of the WFD at Lake Peipsi face numerous challenges. Moreover, most of the
challenges seem to be closely related to one another, which should be taken into account
when finding a way to resolve and overcome these issues in the future.
Monitoring issues present one of the biggest challenges and have been a priority concern
of most experts interviewed. Currently, the practices between the two countries seem to
differ, and the monitoring data is therefore not comparable. Financial constraints, and
especially the lack of exchange of relevant information between the parties, appear to be the
most important underlying reasons.
Despite these difficulties, the cooperation at Lake Peipsi is often regarded as an example
of successful and cost-effective cooperation. Furthermore, there is a desire for more
efficiency on both sides, which it is possible to build upon in the future (Roll 2001b).
71
7. Conclusions and recommendations
The objectives of the thesis were to describe and examine the main challenges concerning
transboundary cooperation and the implementation of the WFD at Lake Peipsi and to propose
several recommendations on how to address these issues. The recommendations based on the
thesis conclusions are the author’s own perceptions of the current issues faced by the
transboundary cooperation as it emerged during the five-week research period at Lake Peipsi.
The research undertaken in Estonia and Russia has revealed that the transboundary
cooperation and the implementation of the WFD at Lake Peipsi face numerous challenges.
Differences in monitoring practices, legislation and standards, the funding of projects,
objectives and interests and lake management practices of the two countries, as well as the
limitation of financial and human resources are only some of the obstacles found important
for the future development of a joint management plan for the Peipsi basin in accordance with
the WFD.
It is clear that the obstacles concerning transboundary cooperation are closely related to
the obstacles concerning the implementation of the Directive, which should be taken into
account when finding a way to resolve and overcome these issues in the future. Furthermore,
some of the challenges have appeared as a response to other issues that have not been
addressed, and thus could have been anticipated1. Therefore, a holistic and adaptive proactive
approach is needed to resolve the challenges and provide the ground for Estonia and Russia to
agree on common environmental objectives and management strategies at Lake Peipsi. The
issues should be addressed within the broad economic, political and institutional framework.
Challenges, such as the differences in monitoring practices, legislation, lake management
strategies and public participation, are the point where the Joint Commission and its Working
1 For example, as Russia has not applied the HELCOM recommendations on monitoring on time due to lack offinancial resources, the Estonian and Russian monitoring data has not been comparable.
72
Groups should be the connecting link in the transboundary cooperation between Estonia and
Russia. However, it should be noted that many challenges cannot be resolved in the near
future, as they are not rooted in the current transboundary cooperation, but go far beyond the
competence of the river basin authorities, and their resolution depends upon governmental
decisions and the long-term economic development of the countries1.
The main environmental objective and also the biggest current concern for both Estonia
and Russia appears to be the water quality in Lake Peipsi. In order to find a strategy for
managing this problem, effective monitoring must be in place. However, most respondents
claimed that today the monitoring issues present a major challenge to successful Estonian-
Russian transboundary cooperation as well as to the implementation of the WFD at the lake.
The Joint Commission should aim at the development of a coordinated monitoring
programme regarding issues of data collection and data analysis (monitoring sites, depths,
parameters, frequencies and methods of calculating instream loads, including confidence
limits), in order to make the Estonian and Russian monitoring data easily comparable.
Moreover, calibration exercises between different laboratories and different methods should
be undertaken regularly as a part of a quality assurance programme in order to make the data
trustworthy and usable for the decision-making (Parr pers. comm.).
Furthermore, it seems important to bridge the gap between the chemical monitoring
(mineral concentrations of nutrients) measured until last year in Russia versus the biological
monitoring (total concentrations of nutrients) in Estonia for all organisations and laboratories
1 These are, for example, challenges concerning the differences in socio-economic development between Estoniaand Russia.
73
involved (Parr 2003). Due to the fact that both Estonia and Russia have signed the
Convention on Protection of the Baltic Sea Marine Environment in 1992, it is recommended
that Russia should aim to fully comply with the HELCOM recommendations on monitoring,
which are used in Estonia and other countries of the Baltic Sea basin. This will require
updating of old or buying new monitoring equipment for all Russian laboratories involved.
As one way of obtaining data from both sides of the lake using one methodology are the
joint Estonian-Russian monitoring expeditions, these should be given priority next to other
monitoring practices. They should be planned long enough in advance to obtain all the
necessary permissions, visas and finances in time. The expeditions should take place either
before the main growing season, in late spring, in order to predict the biological response to
the nutrient loading, which will occur during the summer, or in the summer, during the
months of July or August, when the ecological situation in the lake is the worst due to blue-
green algal blooms. The expeditions should not, however, be delayed until autumn as has
happened in the past two years.
Since one of the main targets of monitoring is to provide decision-makers with relevant
information, efforts to strengthen the exchange of data and all other relevant information, for
example on the methods used, should be made. The Russian system of getting an approval to
distribute data over the border needs to become more flexible; however, it is clear that this
change is dependent upon a governmental decision. In addition, according to Ehin et al.
(2003), as the preparation of water management plans in sub-basins has commenced at very
different times, a creation of an Internet-based system for the exchange of information and
experience between the different parts of the basin should be established.
It should be kept in mind that the consequences of unresolved monitoring issues at Lake
Peipsi could be serious. It appears that unless they are resolved, the current water quality and
ecological status of the lake cannot be properly assessed, thus the environmental objectives
cannot be precisely defined and further a common management strategy on how to achieve
74
these objectives cannot be drawn up and applied. Due to such consequences, it would be
impossible to meet the deadlines set by the EU WFD and to achieve “good ecological status”
of waters for the whole Peipsi basin by 2015.
Although both the WFD and the Russian Water Code are based on a river basin approach,
a detailed comparative assessment of the Estonian and Russian legislation uncovered the
existence of many differences, which may present a big challenge to finding a common
approach to the governance of the lake. Therefore, the aim of the Joint Commission should be
to develop the management plan for the Peipsi basin as much in harmony with both sets of
legislation as possible. A good knowledge of key laws and regulations is the main
precondition in achieving this goal. Therefore, one of the first steps to be taken is to provide
the Russian water management experts with an official Russian translation of the WFD
(Aliakseyeva pers. comm.). Moreover, the new UNDP/GEF Project started in 2003, will help
to achieve this goal by supporting the development of the Lake Peipsi/Chudskoe Management
Programme according to WFD and the Russian Water Code, and also further by aiming to
provide recommendations for the nutrient load reduction in the basin (Aliakseyeva pers.
comm.). In addition, the TACIS Programme and the PHARE External Borders Programme
could encourage the understanding of the WFD through training courses, capacity building
and other assistance projects in Russia (Roll pers. comm.).
Furthermore, the different approach to solving environmental problems and low public
environmental awareness may be a big challenge when trying to implement the WFD in the
Lake Peipsi watershed. According to the Directive, member states are required to ensure the
involvement of all stakeholders and hold public consultations in the preparation of the
RBMPs. Raising environmental awareness and the involvement of all stakeholders and the
public should be influenced by the activities of NGOs. In the case of Lake Peipsi, the NGO
75
CTC1, active both in Estonia and Russia, has made a lot of effort in this direction, especially
in Estonia. However, as the situation regarding public environmental awareness is worse in
Russia, in order to achieve the required level on both sides of the lake, the Pskov CTC office
should continue in its efforts to create public interest in environmental issues through various
projects on the Russian side of the lake. These projects could include children’s camps based
on environmental education and dissemination of environmental information through
different workshops and demonstration projects.
Finally, the main obstacle to the implementation of the WFD is considered to be the
scarcity of both financial and human resources. Naturally, overcoming such challenges will
not be possible without extra financial and other support form the EU, as well as the
assistance of local, regional and international NGOs. The instruments of EU support in the
Peipsi basin, as well as all the currently implemented international projects should be
coordinated in their activities to encourage the transboundary cooperation at Lake Peipsi.
Better cooperation between the programmes could be developed by inviting members of the
other programme to participate in their meetings and also in the decision-making on future
activities.
It is clear, however, that the EU might not be able to finance completely all of the projects
and activities that need to be undertaken in the Lake Peipsi basin. Environmental issues have
recently become a priority in Estonia, especially with the country’s accession to the EU;
moreover, the current higher socio-economic level in Estonia than in Russia allows greater
investment in this field. However, with the accession, Estonia will lose the EU assistance
coming through all pre-accession structural funds.
In contrast, as the system of water management in Russia still appears to be centralised to
an extent, unless the resolution of the issues at Lake Peipsi becomes a federal priority, the
1 CTC has also been involved in the work of the Joint Commission.
76
Russian side may always face the problem of the limitation of financial resources. Therefore,
if the financial aid and assistance through the TACIS Programme, PHARE External Borders
Programme and possible other EU projects is not sufficient to ensure the implementation of
the WFD on the Russian side, Estonia might consider financing some of the projects in Russia
from its own state budget in order to implement the Directive for the whole basin.
Unless the challenges are resolved and a common management strategy for the
governance of Lake Peipsi is found, it will probably be impossible to implement the WFD for
the whole Peipsi basin. If a joint Estonia-Russian approach is not found in the coming years,
Estonia might decrease its effort in transboundary cooperation and limit itself to trying to
meet the deadlines and implementing the Directive at least for its part of the lake basin.
Obviously under two different systems of legislation and management strategies, it could
be more difficult to prepare a single management plan for the basin and achieve equally high
environmental objectives than if the lake management was based only on the approach of the
WFD. Moreover, this might possibly result in numerous environmental problems in the lake,
such as decreasing water quality and overfishing. However, even if Russia is unable to
implement the WFD due to various reasons, finding a common approach to the governance of
Lake Peipsi should still be the main concern of the transboundary cooperation, as it presents
an opportunity to improve the current lake management by introducing modern water
management technologies and tools, from which both countries could benefit.
To conclude, environmental transboundary cooperation on the external borders of the EU
faces numerous challenges. Although the new EU water policy asks the member states to
ensure cooperation and coordination across the borders with the aim of producing one single
international RBMP, from the case of Lake Peipsi it can be concluded that it does not seem to
address the problems of transboundary cooperation well enough. Therefore, the HELCOM
77
should assist in the elaboration of the RBMP for the Peipsi basin and provide information on
other experiences with transboundary implementation of the European water policy within the
Baltic Sea basin (Roll 2001b). Such experience can be obtained, for example, through the
Joint Finnish-Norwegian Commission working in the international river basin in Lapland,
where collaboration between Finland, Norway and Russia takes place.
It is not clear how exactly the implementation of the WFD in the international Lake
Peipsi basin will take place. However, the political commitment of the Russian side as well as
the existence of several international projects in the basin are good indicators that Estonia and
Russia will endeavour to find a common strategy for the governance of the Lake Peipsi basin.
The joint management of the lake should ensure the sustainable development of the region
and preservation of the unique natural conditions of the Lake Peipsi watershed.
78
List of References
Aliakseyeva, N. 1999. Joint Estonian-Russian management of transboundary waters. LakePeipus. Master of science thesis, Department of Environmental Sciences and Policy,Central European University. Budapest. Hungary.
Berg, E. (ed.) 1999. Common border, shared problems. The Estonian-Russian border. Tartu:Peipsi Center for Transboundary Cooperation.
Berg, E. (ed.) 2001. Negotiating borders of multiple meanings. Tartu: Peipsi Center forTransboundary Cooperation.
Bernauer, T. 1997. Managing international rivers. In Global governance: Drawing insightsfrom the environmental experience, O. Young (ed.), 155-195. Cambridge, Massachusetts:The MIT Press.
Budarin, V., Sedova, A., Nefyodova, Y., Kuznetsov, O., Munthe, N., Roll, G. andAliakseyeva, N. 2001. Water resource management in Russia: Lake Peipsi basin case.Tartu: Peipsi Center for Transboundary Cooperation.
DSE. 1998. see: German Foundation for International Development. 1998.
Edmondson, W. 1972. The present condition of Lake Washington. Verh. Int. Ver. Limnol. 18:284-291.
The Estonian-Russian Joint Commission on Transboundary Waters. 1997. The Agreementbetween the Government of the Republic of Estonia and the Government of the RussianFederation on Cooperation in Protection and Sustainable Use of Transboundary Waters.Tartu: Peipsi Center for Transboundary Cooperation.
Ehin, P., Gross, K., Kőre, K., Poom, R. and Tentyukov, A. 2003. Implementation of theEuropean Union Water Framework Directive in Estonia: awareness, readiness andproblems. Mantra-east working paper on public participation, part 3. Tartu: Peipsi Centerfor Transboundary Cooperation.
EPA. 2003. see: United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2003.
Everard, M., James, B., Carty, P. and Powell, A. 2002. Implementing the Water FrameworkDirective: opportunities and risks. The Freshwater Biological Association Newsletter(FBA news) 17: 1-5.
German Foundation for International Development (DSE). 1998. Transboundary watermanagement. Experience of international river and lake commissions. Berlinrecommendations. Berlin: DSE.
79
Global Water Partnership (GWP). 2000a. Integrated water resources management [On-line].Technical Advisory Committee Background Paper. No. 4. Denmark.URL: http://www.gwpforum.org/gwp/library/Tacno4.pdf [Consulted April 8, 2003].
________. 2000b. Water for the 21st century: Vision to action. Central and eastern Europe.The Central and Eastern Europe Regional Technical Advisory Committee (CEETAC).n.p.: GWP.
Harper, D. M. 1999. The ecological bases for a lake and reservoir management.Hydrobiologia. September: 480. n.p.: Kluwer Academic publishers.
Horne, A. and Goldman C. 1994. Limnology. 2nd ed. New York: Mc Graw-Hill.
Jørgensen, S. and Volleinweider, R. 1988. Problems of lakes and reservoirs. In Guidelines oflake management. Vol. 1: Principles of lake reservoir management, International LakeEnvironmental Committee (ILEC) and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP),37-41. Shiga: International Lake Environmental Committee.
Kangur, A., Kangur, P. and Pihu, E. 2001. Trends in the long-term development of fishcommunities of Lake Peipsi and Lake Vörtsjärv (Estonia) [On-line]. In Abstract book of2nd Symposium for European Freshwater Sciences (SEFS-2), France, Toulouse, 8-12 July2001, p. 82. URL: http://www.mantraeast.org/pdf/trends_in_longterm.pdf [ConsultedApril 7, 2003].
Kangur, K., Haberman, J., Kangur, A., Kangur, P., Milius, A., Mäemets, H., Laugaste R.,Pihu, E. 2001. History of investigations on the ecosystem of Lake Peipsi. In Proc.Estonian Acad. Sci. Biol. Ecol. 50/3: 169-179.
Kangur, K., Möls, T., Haberman, J., Kangur, A., Kangur, P., Laugaste, R., Milius, A.,Mäemets, H. and Pihu, E. 2001. Response of the ecosystem of Lake Peipsi to large-scalechanges in the nutrient load in the 1990s [On-line]. In Abstract Book of secondSymposium for European Freshwater Sciences (SEFS-2), France, Toulouse, 8-12 July2001, 83. URL: http://www.mantraeast.org/pdf/response_of_ecosystem.pdf [ConsultedApril 7, 2003].
Kangur, K. and Kangur. K. 2002. Strong cyanobacterial bloom and fish kill in Lake Peipsi insummer 2002. Management of Transboundary Water on the European Fringe (MANTRAEast) Newsletter 5: 6.
Kira, T. and Sazanami, H. 1988. Utilisation of water resources and problems of lakemanagement. In Guidelines of lake management. Vol. 2: Socio-economic aspects of lakereservoir management, International Lake Environmental Committee (ILEC) and UnitedNations Environment Programme (UNEP), 1-5. Shiga: International Lake EnvironmentalCommittee.
Langaas, S. 2002. Narva River/Lake Peipsi multi-thematic GIS database [On-line]. MantraEast. URL: http://www.gis2b.com/mantraeast/ [Consulted April 7, 2003].
Lanz, K. and Scheuer, S. 2001. The European Environmental Bureau Handbook on EU WaterPolicy under the Water Framework Directive. Brussels: European Environmental Bureau.
80
Liiv, H. and Roll, G. 2001. Integrated water management of transboundary waters on theEastern European fringe – in the Lake Peipsi basin [On-line]. Presentation for the GlobalWater Partnership Conference, Japan, November 6-8.URL: http://www.mantraeast.org/intranet/docs/GWP.ppt [Consulted June 20, 2003].
Mason, C. 1981. Biology of the freshwater population. London: Longman.
Moeldrup, P. and Falling, S. 2001. Development perspectives for the Lake Peipsi area. Tartu:Peipsi Center for Transboundary Cooperation.
Moss, B. 1998. Ecology of fresh water. 3rd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Science.
Munthe, N. 2001. The transboundary water program of the Swedish Environmental ProtectionAgency – activities in the Lake Peipsi region. Management of Transboundary Water onthe European Fringe (MANTRA East) Newsletter 2: 5.
Nõges, T., Haberman, J., Jaani, A., Lauguste, R., Look, S., Mäemets, A., Nõges, P., Pihu, E.,Starast, H., Timm, T. and Virro, T. 1996. General description of Lake Peipsi-Pihkva.Hydrobiologia 338: 1-9.
Nõges, T. (ed.) 2001. Lake Peipsi: Hydrology, meteorology, hydrochemistry. Tallinn:Suemees Publishers. Available on the Internet atURL: http://www.mantraeast.org/pdf/Noges-Intro.pdf.
Nõges, P., Nõges, T., Haberman, J., Kangur, K., Kangur A., Kangur, P., Laugaste, R.,Mäemets, A., Ott, I. And Timm, H. 2002. Water-quality criteria according to the EUWater Framework Directive: how do they work in Lake Peipsi?. In Proceedings of thesecond international conference on Sustainable management of transboundary waters inEurope, Miedzyzdroje, Poland, April 21-24, 2002, 393-400. Miedzyzdroje: UnitedNations Economic Commission for Europe (UN ECE).
Nõges, T., Laugaste, R., Loigu, E., Nedogarko, I., Skakalsky B. and Nõges, P. 2003. Is thedestabilisation of Lake Peipsi ecosystem caused by increased phosphorus loading ordecreased nitrogen loading?. In Dublin report, Peipsi Center for TransboundaryCooperation. Tartu: Peipsi Center for Transboundary Cooperation, forthcoming.
Parr, W. 2003. Organisation of the water monitoring in the Peipsi/Chudskoe basin and needfor a quality assurance system. In Proceedings of the Conference Management ofTransboundary Waters in the Lake Peipsi/Chudskoe Basin: Presentation of On-goingActivities, Tartu, Estonia, May 27, 2003. Tartu: Center for Transboundary Cooperation,forthcoming.
Pietiläinen, O. and Heinonen, P. (eds.) 2002. Monitoring of international lakes: Backgroundpaper for the Guidelines on monitoring and assessment of transboundary andinternational lakes. Helsinki: Finnish Environmental Institute. Available on the Internet atURL: http://www.unece.org/env/water/publications/documents/inventorylakes.pdf.
Roll, G. 1996. Lake Peipsi. In Beyond boundaries, Regional Environmental Center (ed.), 101-103. Budapest: Regional Environmental Center.
Roll, G. and Sults, Ű. 1998. Environmental cooperation in the Lake Peipsi/Chudskoewatershed. Lake Peipsi Quarterly (Autumn): 1-3.
81
Roll, G. 2001a. Implementation of policies for management of transboundary waters on theeastern European border in a perspective of the "New" EU water policy. In Bordersmatter: Transfrontier regions in contemporary Europe. Border Studies Series, No. 2, 111-130. Aanberaa: International Forum on Globalisation (IFG). Available on the Internet atURL: http://www.mantraeast.org/pdf/implementation_of_policies.pdf.
______. 2001b. Lake Peipsi - a Transboundary Lake on the Future Border of the EU [On-line]. In Proceedings of Seminar 3: Good Practice in River Basin Planning. Brussels, 29-30 May 2001, 117 - 123. URL: http://www.mantraeast.org/pdf/lake_peipsi.pdf [ConsultedApril 9, 2003].
Roll, G. and Lopman, E. 2001. EU water policy and implementation of water managementregimes on transboundary water bodies in the Baltic Sea basin. In Proceedings of theConference on Environmental Conventions, Estonia, Haapsalu, October 2001. Tallinn:SEIT. Available on the Internet at URL:http://www.mantraeast.org/pdf/implementations_of_water.pdf.
Roll, G., Maximova, T. and Mikenberg, E. 2001. External Relations of the Pskov oblast ofthe Russian Federation. In SHIFFE-texte: Working Paper No. 63. Kiel: Shleswig HolsteinInstitute for Peace Research at the Christian-Albrechts University. Available on theInternet at URL: http://www.mantraeast.org/pdf/external_relations.pdf.
Rozental, V. 2003. Tartu-Pihkva laevaliiklus seisab Venemaa piiripunkti taga [The buildingof the border crossing point in Starozinets port on Lake Pskov] [On-line]. Trans. Rehema,A. Aripäev, July 17.URL: http://www.aripaev.ee/2430/uud_uudidx_243006.html [Consulted July 17, 2003].
Säre, M. 1999. Estonian-Russian Border Area: Community Development and Cross-BorderCooperation. Lake Peipsi Quarterly (Autumn): 7.
Säre, M., Roll, G., Uus, P. and Sekulovski, J. 2001. Strategies for public participation in themanagement of transboundary waters in countries in transition: Cases of LakePeipsi/Chudskoe (Estonia/Russia) and Lake Ohrid (Macedonia/Albania). Tartu: PeipsiCenter for Transboundary Cooperation. Available on the Internet atURL: http://www.mantraeast.org/pdf/macedonia_final_report.PDF.
Skakalsky, B. 2002. The load of nutrients in the Velikaya river has decreased. Management ofTransboundary Water on the European Fringe (MANTRA East) Newsletter 3: 5.
Stålnacke, P., Sults Ü., Vasiliev, A., Skakalsky, B., Botina, A., Roll, G., Pachel, K. 2002. Anassessment of riverine loads of nutrients to the Lake Peipsi, 1995-1998. Arch.Hydrobiologia, Supplement 141 (3-4): 437-457.
State Borders Act of 1994. Riigi Teataja [State Gazette] 1994, 54, 902. Parliament of Estonia.Available on the Internet at URL: http://www.legaltext.ee/en/andmebaas/ava.asp?m=022.
United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation, World Water AssessmentProgramme (UNESCO WWAP). 2001. Lake Peipsi / Chudskoe: A shared resource forEstonia and Russia [On-line]. World Water Assessment Programme.URL: http://www.unesco.org/water/wwap/case_studies/peipsi_lake/index.shtml[Consulted April 7, 2003].
82
_______. 2003. Water for people. Water for life. The United Nations World WaterDevelopment Report. Barcelona: UNESCO&Berghahn Books.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2003. Eutrophication [On-line].Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment. URL: http://www.epa.gov/maia/html/eutroph.html[Consulted July 5, 2003].
Valiante, M., Muldoon, P., and Botts, L. 1997. Ecosystem Governance: Lessons from theGreat Lakes. In Global governance: Drawing insights from the environmental experience,O. Young (ed.), 197-225. Cambridge Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Van der Zwiep, K. 1996. International dimensions. In Beyond boundaries. RegionalEnvironmental Center (ed.), 80. Budapest: Regional Environmental Center.
Vetemaa, M., Vaino, V., Saat, T., Kuldin, S. 2001. Cooperative fisheries management of thecross border Lake Peipsi-Pihkva. Fisheries Management and Ecology 8: 1-9.
Vetemaa, M., Eero, M. and Hannesson, R. 2002. The Estonian fisheries: from the sovietsystem to ITQs and quota auctions. Marine Policy 26: 95-102.
Vollenweider, R. 1968. Scientific fundamentals on the eutrophication of lakes and flowingwaters, with particular reference to nitrogen and phosphorus as factors of eutrophication.Paris: Organisation for Economic Coordination and Development (OECD).
Water Act of 1994 (consolidated text March 2003). Riigi Teataja [State Gazette] 1994, 40,655. Parliament of Estonia.
Water Framework Directive (WFD) of 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC of the EuropeanParliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the Community action in thefield of water policy. Brussels: European Commission (EC).
The World Bank. 1993. Water resources management. A World Bank policy paper.Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
Young, O. 1989. International Cooperation: Building regimes for natural resources and theenvironment. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
_______. 1994. International governance: Protecting the environment in a stateless society.Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
83
Personal Communications
Aliakseyeva, Natallia. Project Manager, UNDP/GEF Project Development andImplementation of the Lake Peipsi/Chudskoe Basin Management Program, Peipsi Centerfor Transboundary Cooperation. Formal interview. Saint Petersburg, May 16, 2003.
Basova, Svetlana. Chief of Environmental Monitoring Department, Russian Federal Servicefor Hydrometeorology and Environmental Monitoring, North-West RegionalAdministration. Russian Head of the Monitoring Working Group, Joint WaterCommission. Formal interview. Saint Petersburg, May 19, 2003.
Bellinger, Edward. Professor of the Environmental Sciences and Policy Department at theCentral European University. Formal interview. Budapest, June 30, 2003.
Garangsa, Elena. Senior researcher, Russian Federal Service for Water Management, PskovRegional Administration. Formal interview. Pskov, May 14, 2003.
Gorelov, Petr. Head of the Institute of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection,Pskov Regional Administration, Russian Ministry of Natural Resources. Formalinterview. Pskov, May 13, 2003.
Jokinen, Mikko. Project Team Leader, EU TACIS Project: Water Management in the LakeChudskoye Catchment. Formal interview. Pskov, May 13, 2003.
Kazmina, Marina. Director of the Russian Federal Service Water Management Department,Pskovvodhoz. Formal interview. Pskov, May 14, 2003.
Korsjukov, Margus. Senior Officer, Water Department, Estonian Ministry of theEnvironment. Formal interview. Tallinn, May 22, 2003.
Kosk, Aja. Estonian project coordinator, UNDP/GEF Project: Development andImplementation of the Lake Peipsi/Chudskoe Basin Management Program, Peipsi Centerfor Transboundary Cooperation. Formal interview. Tartu, May 5, 2003.
Lääne, Ain. Project Manager, EU LIFE: Viru-Peipsi CAMP, Environment Investment Center,Estonian Ministry of the Environment. Formal interview. Tallinn, May 10, 2003.
Lebediev, Dimitrij. Sociologist, North-West Regional Monitoring Center. Formal interview.Pskov, May 13, 2003.
Loigu, Enn. Head of the Chair of Environmental Protection, Institute of EnvironmentalEngineering, Tallinn Technical University. Formal interview. Tallinn, May 22, 2003.
Mandel, Jalmar. Director of the Tartu County Environmental Department, Estonian Ministryof the Environment. Formal interview. Tartu, May 5, 2003.
Nõges, Peeter. Senior Researcher, Limnological Station, Institute of Zoology and Botany,Estonian Agricultural University. Email communication. July 4, 2003.
84
Nõges, Tiina. Senior Researcher, Limnological Station, Institute of Zoology and Botany,Estonian Agricultural University. Formal interview. Tartu, May 6, 2003.
Parr, William. Water Quality Specialist, EU TACIS Project: Water Management in the LakeChudskoye Catchment. Formal interview. Tartu, May 26, 2003.
Petrov, Marko. Water Specialist, Tartu County Environmental Department, Estonian Ministryof the Environment. Formal interview. Tartu, May 5, 2003.
Reisner, Rene. Senior Officer, Water Department, Estonian Ministry of the Environment.Formal interview. Tallinn, May 22, 2003.
Roll, Gulnara. In-region Coordinator, Mantra East Project: Integrated Strategies for theManagement of Transboundary Waters on the European fringe - the pilot study of LakePeipsi and its drainage basin, Peipsi Center for Transboundary Cooperation. EstonianHead of the Cooperation with Local authorities, Population, International and Non-governmental Organisations Working Group, Joint Water Commission. Formal interview.Tartu, May 3, 2003.
Sedova, Alla. Head of the Department for Neva-Ladoga Water Basin Administration. RussianHead of the Water Protection Working Group, Joint Water Commission. Formalinterview. Saint Petersburg, May 20, 2003.
Sults, Űlo. Project Coordinator and Environmental Expert, Mantra East Project: IntegratedStrategies for the Management of Transboundary Waters on the European fringe - thepilot study of Lake Peipsi and its drainage basin, Peipsi Center for TransboundaryCooperation. Formal interview. Tartu, May 2, 2003.
Tamberg, Indrek. Director General of the Water Department, Estonian Ministry of theEnvironment. Formal interview. Tallinn, May 22, 2003.
Unt, Peeter. Project Manager, Addressing water eutrophication in the Baltic Sea Basinthrough sustainable watershed management and strengthening institutions for cross-bordercooperation and public involvement Project, Peipsi Center for TransboundaryCooperation. Formal interview. Tartu, May 5, 2003.
Vaarmari, Kärt. Legal Adviser of Environmental Legal Help Service. Estonian Fund forNature. Email communication. July 2, 2003.
Vassilenko, Olga. Project Implementation Unit Coordinator, UNDP/GEF ProjectDevelopment and Implementation of the Lake Peipsi/Chudskoe Basin ManagementProgram, Peipsi Center for Transboundary Cooperation. Formal interview. Pskov, May14, 2003.
Vetemaa, Markus. Senior Researcher, Estonian Marine Institute. Formal interview. Tartu,May 5, 2003.
85
Appendices
Appendix I: General interview protocol and further specific questions.
General interview protocol:
Personal:Name:Function:Period of involvement in the Peipsi projects:____________________________________________________________
Transboundary cooperation:
• Has the establishment of the border had an impact on the environment of the Peipsi Lake?Has the environmental situation been changing over the past years?
• What are the main interests for cooperation?Are the interests different for Estonia and Russia?Do economic and political interests prevail over environmental ones? (Is Lake Peipsi asubject of a federal interest for Russia or only a regional one?)Have these interests changed over the last years?
• What environmental problems is the cooperation trying to solve?Do the environmental interests differ for Estonia and Russia?
• How would you describe and evaluate the current environmental cooperation?What are the main benefits and losses (if any)?How are the activities coordinated?Is there enough progress?How far is the implementation of the Water Framework Directive?
• What do you see as the main challenges of the environmental cooperation?Will it be possible to overcome them in the future? Are there any possible threats to theenvironmental cooperation in the future?What are the chances that the best practice will be applied in both countries?Is the EU support and guidance good enough to fulfil the local needs?
86
• Which of the following are significant? Explain your answer.
A. Challenges to Estonian-Russian transboundary cooperationDifferences in aims and objectivesLack of trust (Anti-Russian and anti-Baltic moods)Language problemsDifferences in financing(PHARExTACIS)Differences in legislation, differences instandardsDifferences in lake management practicesand developing strategiesDifferences in monitoring practices,differences in data collection practicesDifferences in public participation andinformation sharing
B. Challenges for WFD implementationLow administrative capacityLimitation of human resourcesLimitation of financial resourcesDemanding timetableDiversity of possible solutions,complexity of the issuesLack of available and accessible data fordecision-making (or only unsuitable datais available, no metadata, etc.)Lack of guidance
Future prospects:• How do you see the future environmental development of the cooperation at Lake Peipsi?
What will most probably be the future scenario?Will both sides be able to agree on common environmental objectives and common strategiesto reach these objectives?Will the WFD be implemented successfully and in time?Will the Russian side hold on and fulfil the agreements?Will the prospect of the region change once Estonia will be a member of the EU?
___________________________________________________________________________
87
Further specific questions:
1. Ecology • What are the main environmental problems concerning the Peipsi Lake? • When have these problems emerged? • What reasons have been established? • What measures have been taken? • How are there measures efficient, how are the impacts being evaluated, if the measures
are not sufficient enough, then why? • The Joint Water Committee agreed to develop a joint monitoring program. Have these
already started? • What are the major problems associated with monitoring at Lake Peipsi? (data availability,
data comparability, etc.) • The ecological status of Lake Peipsi according to the EU WFD was already defined. Was it
assessed on the basis of all biological, hydro-morphological and physico-chemical qualityelements? Was the Russian data availability and comparability a problem in the ecologicalassessment?
• What are the main problems with defining the ecological status of Lake Peipsi? • What should be the management strategy to achieve the good ecological status? 2. EU water policy• Was the Estonian Water Act been already fully harmonised with the EU legislation? When
will the new Water Act be prepared and implemented?
• What changes will result from the harmonisation of the Estonian legislation with the EUlegislation? Which additional requests related to environmental protection will apply to thePeipsi Lake?
• What impact can result from changing the Estonian border into EU border? How will themembership in EU influence the financing scheme, measures taken etc.?
• What do you see as the main obstacles of the WFD?
• How far is the implementation of the WFD at Peipsi? Will all of the relevant activities beready before the deadlines?
88
Appendix II: Minorities in the Lake Peipsi basin.
Today, the Russian part of the Peipsi region is more homogenous that the Estonian, whichhas a multicultural nature. The municipalities are inhabited by Estonians and Russians, aswell as by a number of minorities, of which the Russian Old Believers and the Setus are themost famous. The ancestors of the Old Believers emigrated from Russia to the western coastof Lake Peipsi during XVII and XVIII centuries, escaping from the persecutions of thefollowers of Patriarch Nikon’s reforms. Today, there are 11 congregations of Old Believersand about 15,000 Estonian inhabitants who have remained true to their religion. Thecommunities still hold their traditions and speak Russian among themselves, although manyof the families today are mixed, and thus bilingual. There is a clear distinction between thelocal Russian and the Soviet Russians, who arrived and settled down in the region during theSoviet times. Therefore, the Old Believers are sometimes also referred to as local Russians.
One of the communities, which was probably affected by the new border regime the most,are the Setus, who live in the southern part of the Estonian-Russian borderland. In the past,the Setumaa region was a place where the Finno-Ugric people and the Slavs interacted, whichengendered the phenomenon of the Setu people - a marginal ethnic group formed on theintersection of Estonian and Russian cultures. Two important features of the Setu ethnicidentity are the religion, which is Orthodoxy, and the language, which is a version of asouthern Estonian dialect with a number of Russian loan words. Today, Setus live split onboth sides of the border and unfortunately due to the border their integrity was sacrificedwhen confronted with the national identity level.
Source: Berg 1999.
89
Appendix III: Morphometric characteristics of Lake Peipsi.
Lake Peipsis.s./
Chudskoye
LakeLämmijärv/
Teploye
LakePihkva/
Pskovskoye
Lake Peipsi/Chudskoye-Pskovskoye
Total basin area [km2] 2,611 236 708 3,555Distribution of thewater betweenEstonia and Russia[km2]
1,387/1,224 118/118 25/683 1,564/1,991
Distribution of thewater betweenEstonia and Russia[%]
55/44 50/50 1/99 44/56
Surface area [%] 73 7 20 100Volume [km3] 21.79 0.60 2.68 25.07Fraction of totalvolume [%]
87 2 11 7.1
Medium depth [m] 8.3 2.5 3.8 7.1Maximum depth [m] 12.9 15.3 5.3 15.3Length [km] 81 30 41 152Medium width [km] 32 7.9 17 23Maximum width [km] 47 8.1 20 47Length of shoreline[km]
260 83 177 520
Length of shoreline[%]
50 16 34 100
Source: Nõges et al.1996.
90
Appendix IV: Rivers of Lake Peipsi basin.
Source: The World Bank. 1999. Map design of Lake Peipsi/Chudskoe basin [On-line].Washington, D.C.: World Bank. URL: http://www.ctc.ee/gfx/maps/lakepeipus.gif [ConsultedJune 17, 2003].
91
Appendix V: Hydrological characteristics of Lake Peipsi.
Surface area of the basin 47,800 km2
Annual precipitation 575 mm/year
Annual discharge 329 m3/sAnnual inflow to lake 324 m3/sAnnual outflow from lake 329 m3/s
Source: UNESCO WWAP 2003.
92
Appendix VI: Calculation of nutrient loads into and internal loading of Lake Peipsi.
Daily water discharges and monthly measured nutrient concentrations were used to calculateannual river loads (L):
L W Ckii
ki= ⋅=∑
1
12
Wki - volume of monthly runoff; Cki - monthly mean concentration
Loads from the coastal zone of L. Peipsi and inputs from non-monitored small rivers werecalculated as:
m
nmn
AALL =
Ln - loading from non-monitored area; Lm - loading from monitored area; An - area ofnon-monitored basin; Am - area of monitored basin.
Source: Nõges et al. 2003.
Internal loading in the lake is calculated from the external loading, changes in in-lakenutrient pool (lake volume * concentration) and sedimentation rate. The latter is the onlyadditional measurement that should be done but has never been done in frames of routinemonitoring. Hence, no correct internal loading data for the lake are still available.
Source: Nõges P. pers. comm.
(For long-term changes in nutrient concentrations in inflowing rivers and results of availableloading calculations of Lake Peipsi see Appendix VII and VIII.)
93
TN load from Estonian rivers, t/y
02000400060008000
1000012000140001600018000
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Other Estonian catchment
Emajõgi
TP load from Estonian rivers, t/y
050
100150200250300350400
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Other Estonian catchmentEmajõgi
TN/TP mass ratio in Estonian rivers
010203040506070
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
R. Velikaya
Min
eral
N, m
g/l
0
1
2
19801982
19841986
19881990
19931995
19971999
2001
Min-Max25%-75%Median value
R. Velikaya
Phos
phat
es, m
g/l
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
19801982
19841986
19881990
19931995
19971999
2001
Min-Max25%-75%Median value
R. V elikaya
Min
eral
N/P
, g/g
0
40
80
120
160
200
19801982
19841986
19881990
19931995
19971999
2001
Min-Max25%-75%Median value
Figure 4 Long-term changes of total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) and their ratio in the Estonian rivers of the Lake Peipsi watershed, and concentration and ratio of mineral N and P in the River Velikaya
Appendix VII: Long-term changes of total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) and their ration in the Estonian rivers of the LakePeipsi watershed, and concentration and ration of mineral N and P in the Velikaya River. (For calculation see Appendix VI.)
Source: Nõges et al. 2003.
The data show that present loadings are almost equal to those at the beginning of the 1980s. One can follow that phosphorus loading fromRussian catchment was quite high in the middle 1990s even exceeding that of the 1980s. On the basis of the data presented it is, however,difficult to make any firm conclusions because of uncertainties of the quality of Russian data (Nõges et al. 2003).
94
Appendix VIII: Results of all available loading calculations of Lake Peipsi.
(For calculation see Appendix VI.)
Source: Nõges et al. 2003.
NtotR – total nitrogen load from RussiaNtotE – total nitrogen load from EstoniaNtotsum – total nitrogen load from Russia and Estonia togetherPtotR – total phosphorus load from RussiaPtotE – total phosphorus load from EstoniaPtotsum – total phosphorus load from Russia and Estonia together
R1, E1 and sum1 – calculated by I. Nedogarko; sum1 for 1997 - average for 1995-1997 fromStålnacke et al. (2002); E2 – calculated by I. Blinova, Ü. Leisk and I. Tõnno; R2 and sum2for 1998 from Nõges et al. (2003); R2 and sum2 for 2001 – calculated by T. Nõges on thebasis of measured TN and TP concentrations and discharges of the R. Velikaya obtainedfrom B. Skakalsky, and assuming the same proportion of the R. Velikaya in total Russianloading as estimated by Nõges et al. (2003).
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
tons
N/ y
ear
NtotR1 NtotE1 Ntotsum1 NtotR2 NtotE2 Ntotsum2
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
tons
P/ y
ear
PtotR1 PtotE1 Ptotsum1 PtotR2 PtotE2 Ptotsum2
95
Appendix IX: Long-term changes of phytoplankton biomass and blue-green dominancein Lake Peipsi s.s. and Lakes Pihkva and Lämmijärv.
Source: Nõges et al. 2003.
(The data were collected in May, July and October by the Võrtsjärv Limnological Station,Pskov Pedagogical Institute and the Hydrometeorological Survey.)
The data shows that there have been only small changes in the total abundance ofphytoplankton during the last 40 years. However, changes in cyanobacterial dominance since1962 are quite clear; an increase in cyanobacterial dominance in late 1960s, decline in the1980s and a new increase starting from the 1990s can be noticed (Nõges et al. 2003).
96
Appendix X: Structure of the Estonian-Russian Joint Commission on TransboundaryWaters.
1. Chairmen of the Joint Commission
Sulev Vare - Secretary General of the Ministry of the Environment
Nikolai Mikheyev - First Deputy Minister of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation
2. Secretaries
Ago Jaani - Estonian Institute of Meteorology and Hydrobiology, Manager of the Peipsiproject
Valentin Kukovyakin - Head of the Department of Transboundary Waters, Ministry ofNatural Resources of the Russian Federation
3. Working Groups3.1 Working Group on Water Protection
Tiiu Raja - Advisor of the Water Department of the Ministry of the Environment
Alla Sedova - Neva-Ladoga Basin Water Management Department
3.2 Working Group on Water Management
Harry Liiv - Vice Secretary General of the Ministry of the Environment
Vladimir Budarin - Neva-Ladoga Basin Water Management Department
3.3 Working Group on Monitoring and Research
Urmas Lips - Advisor on water management of the Ministry of the Environment
Svetlana Basova - Russian Federation Hydrometeorological Service Roshydromet
3.4 Working Group on Cooperation with Local authorities, Population, International andNon-governmental Organisations
Gulnara Roll - Chairperson of the Board of the Peipsi Center For TransboundaryCooperation
Julia Nefedova - Pskov Committee for Natural Resources
4. National Experts
Source: The Estonian-Russian Joint Commission 1997.