ACTeon
Innovation, policy, environment
BRIDGE
“Background cRiteria for the IDentification of Groundwater thrEsholds”
Specific targeted Research Project Scientific Support to Policies (SSP)
Contract n° SSPI-2004-006538 Start date of the project: 1 January 2005
Duration: 24 month
D29: Assessing socio-economic impacts of different groundwater protection regimes
Latvian case study report November 2006
The deliverable authors are responsible for the content
AUTHOR: Kristine Pakalniete, Hélène Bouscasse and Pierre Strosser AFFILIATION: ACTeon
ADDRESS: Le Chalimont B.P. Ferme du Pré du Bois 68370 Orbey – France TEL.: +33 3 89 47 39 41
EMAIL: kristinepa@apollo.lv and Pierre.strosser@wanadoo.fr
Project co-funded by the European Commission within the Sixth Framework Program (2002-2006) Dissemination Level
PU Public
PP Restricted to other program participants (including the Commission Services) X RE Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services)
CO Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services)
Table of Content
Table of Content ...2
Acknowledgments...4
Acronyms...5
Executive summary...6
1. Introduction ...7
2. Methodological framework...9
2.1 The role of socio-economics in the WFD...9
2.2 General steps for socio-economic assessment procedure...10
2.3 Policy relevance and objectives of the Latvian case study...12
3. Selection of groundwater body for the case study...14
3.1 Background information about groundwater in Latvia ...14
3.2 First results of analysis of pressures on groundwater in Latvia ...14
3.3 Selection of the groundwater body for the case study...17
3.4 Identification of pollutant for the socio-economic assessments...17
3.5 Main characteristics of the selected groundwater body...17
4. Analysis of main pressures and impacts ...19
4.1 Characterisation of main pressures ...19
4.2 Expected future changes in pressures ...21
4.3 Characterisation of main impacts ...23
5. Definition of water quality objectives...25
5.1 Monitoring information for water quality and status assessment ...25
5.2 Current approaches for setting quality objectives for groundwater in Latvia ...26
5.3 Defining water quality objective for the selected groundwater body...27
6. Risk and uncertainty analysis of non-compliance...29
6.1 Risk assessment for the selected groundwater body ...29
6.2 Uncertainties related to the risk assessment ...29
7. Designing the programme of measures for reducing pollution from petroleum products in shallow groundwater...30
7.1 Socio-economic assessment of different water quality objectives...30
7.2 Inventory and grouping pollution sources ...30
7.3 Detailed characterization of measures, their effects and costs ...31
7.4 Developing alternative programs of measures (scenarios) ...33
7.5 Assessing costs of alternative scenarios ...34
8. Public perception of shallow groundwater pollution: methodology and results of the
survey...36
8.1 Organising the survey...36
8.1.1 Building the questionnaire ...36
8.1.2 Defining the scenarios ...37
8.1.3 Elicitation format ...37
8.1.4 Pre-testing ...38
8.1.5 Sampling procedure...38
8.1.6 Practical organization of the survey...38
8.2 Analysis of the survey data: descriptive statistics...39
8.3 Discussion on methodological issues ...44
8.4 Identifying factors influencing willingness to pay: results from regression analysis...47
3.3.1 Explanatory variables...48
3.3.2 Defining the regression models linking independent and dependent variables ...49
3.3.4 Variables used in the regression analysis...51
3.3.4 Results of the multinomial logistic regression ...53
3.3.5 Results of the binomial logistic regression ...55
3.3.6 Results of the tobit regression...56
8.5 Lessons from the contingent valuation survey...60
9. Undertaking the cost-benefit analysis for restoration programmes for shallow groundwater...63
9.1 Assessing benefits of alternative scenarios...63
9.2 Identifying the most economically efficient water quality objective ...68
9.3 Socio-economic assessment of different compliance regimes ...70
9.3.1 Assessing the costs of different compliance regimes...70
9.3.2 Introducing socio-economics for assessing the costs of different compliance regimes71 10. Conclusions ...73
Bibliography ...75
Annex 1. Using multi-criteria analysis for assessing pollution sources and measures ...77
Annex 2. Information on measures, their effects and costs ...78
Annex 3. Questionnaire developed for the contingent valuation survey ...82
Acknowledgments
The Latvian case study has been implemented as part of the project entitled “Background cRiteria for the IDentification of Groundwater thrEsholds” (BRIDGE), funded by the EC under the 6th framework program. It has been carried out by ACTeon, partner of the BRIDGE project and in charge of the case study, with support from the Latvian Ministry of Environment.
The authors of the report would like to thank the Latvian Ministry of Environment and particularly Rolands Bebris, Iveta Teibe, Tatjana Jansone and Rudite Vesere from the Department of Environment Protection for their continuous support.
The authors would also like to thank all experts who provided valuable input into the analysis by sharing their knowledge and providing expert opinion on environmental problems and issues relevant to the case study. Particular thanks to experts from the company “Vides Projekti”, the municipality and the Regional Environmental Board of the city of Riga and the Latvian Environment, Geology and Meteorology Agency.
Acronyms
CBA Cost Benefit Analysis
CEA Cost Effectiveness Analysis
CF Cohesion Fund
CSB Central Statistic Bureau CV Contingent Valuation
GW Groundwater
GWB Groundwater body GWD Groundwater Directive
ERDF European Reconstruction and Development Fund MCA Multi-criteria analysis
PoM Programme of Measures TEV Total Economic Value
WATECO European Water and Economics Working Group
WB Water Body
WFD Water Framework Directive WTP Willingness-To-Pay
Executive summary
As part of the activities developed under WP5 of the EU-funded BRIDGE research project, a case study has been developed in Latvia to assess the socio-economic implications of different water quality objectives for groundwater. The case study focused on petroleum products, pollutants considered as problematic for the shallow aquifer under the city of Riga.
The economic impact of two alternative water quality objectives for the shallow groundwater body under the city of Riga was investigated. The first objective focused on the connection between groundwater and surface water. It proposed a fixed threshold values for petroleum products in groundwater (0.2 mg/l) to be achieved in all currently highly polluted sites connected to surface water bodies and located in current or future residential areas. Reaching the threshold value in these sites would ensure that damage to connected surface water is prevented. The second objective proposed the same fixed threshold value (0.2 mg/l) but for all polluted sites of the selected shallow groundwater body. In practical term, achieving each objective meant cleaning different number and types of polluted sites based on their characteristics (connected or not to surface water, highly contaminated, located in a residential area…).
A cost-benefit analysis was performed for each alternative water quality objective or scenario – with benefits derived from the results of a contingent valuation survey implemented in the context of this case study. Overall, the analysis stressed that both scenarios had high positive net benefits. The first scenario, however, focused on the connection to, and protection of, surface water, had a higher net benefit than the second scenario that consisted in cleaning nearly all sites and the entire shallow groundwater. This result could be explained by similar benefits attached to both scenarios, the total economic value of the shallow groundwater being essentially composed of “indirect benefits” related to supporting the functioning of the connected surface water ecosystems and of non-use values. The analysis also showed that extending the time period for implementing measures for restoring shallow groundwater quality cannot be justified on economic grounds. Indeed, lower net benefits are obtained when longer time periods for implementation are proposed.
Further work would be required for reducing uncertainty in the analysis, in particular with regards to the effectiveness of potential measures or the definition of the aggregation rules (which population concerned) for obtaining total benefits for a given groundwater body.
1. Introduction
Aquatic ecosystems are adaptive, but ecologically sensitive systems, which provide many important services to human society. This explains why in recent years much attention has been directed towards the formulation and operation of sustainable management strategies, the recent adoption of the European Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) being a good case in point.
Both natural and social sciences can contribute to an increased understanding of relevant processes and problems associated with such strategies. The key to a better understanding of aquatic ecosystem problems and their mitigation through more sustainable management, lies in the recognition of the importance of the diversity of functions and values supplied to society at different spatial and time scales. This includes a better scientific understanding of aquatic ecosystem structure and processes and the significance of the associated socio-economic and cultural values.
The Water Framework Directive (WFD) is the first European Directive that explicitly recognizes the importance of this interdependency between aquatic ecosystems and their socio-economic values and provides a much more integrated catchment approach to water policy. Investments and water resource allocations in river basin management plans will be guided by cost recovery, cost-effectiveness criteria and the polluter pays principle. The plan formulation and assessment process must furthermore include a meaningful consultative dialogue with relevant stakeholders.
Such a dialogue will inevitably raise socio-political equity issues across the range of interest groups and therefore affect the management strategies.
Although groundwater resources are an integral part of catchment wide aquatic ecosystems, their position and role are not well defined in the WFD. No new quality standards were listed that apply uniformly to all groundwater bodies throughout Europe to define good groundwater chemical status, because of the natural variability of groundwater chemical composition and the present lack of monitoring data and knowledge. Article 17 stipulates that the European Parliament and the Council shall adopt specific measures to prevent and control groundwater pollution on the basis of a proposal for a new Groundwater Directive. The new Groundwater Directive (GWD) complements the provisions already in place in the WFD and in the existing Groundwater Directive 80/68/EEC, which will be repealed in 2013 under the WFD.
In its communication COM(2003)550, the European Commission states that groundwater bodies shall be considered as having good groundwater chemical status when the measured or predicted concentration of nitrates, pesticides and biocides do not exceed standards laid down in existing legislation (Directives 91/676/EEC, 91/414/EEC and 98/8/EC respectively). For other pollutants good groundwater chemical status is reached when it can be demonstrated that the concentrations of substances do not undermine the achievement of the environmental objectives (good ecological and chemical status) for associated surface waters or result in any significant deterioration of the ecological or chemical status of these surface water bodies, nor should concentrations result in any significant damage to terrestrial ecosystems which depend directly on the groundwater body. For these other pollutants, groundwater quality threshold values have to be established by Member States in all bodies of groundwater that were characterized in the recent first WFD reporting obligations as being “at risk”.
In order to support this process of determining future groundwater quality threshold values for European groundwater bodies, the Environment Directorate-General of the European Commission commissioned a 2-year project to develop a general methodology for establishing groundwater threshold values called BRIDGE (Background cRiteria for the IDentification of Groundwater thresholds, contract n° SSPI-2004-006538). The methodology has to apply to substances from both natural and anthropogenic sources and threshold values defined at the level of national river basin districts or groundwater body levels should be representative for the groundwater bodies “at risk” in accordance with the analysis of pressures and impacts carried
out under the WFD. In the proposal for the new Groundwater Directive these threshold values will be used for defining good groundwater chemical status.
As part of BRIDGE, a socio-economic assessment is carried out in support of setting threshold values for specific groundwater pollutants and for the evaluation of the social and economic consequences of specific threshold values. The assessment procedure follows the economic analysis outlined in the WFD and more specifically in the WATECO guidance for the economic analysis. Based on a common methodology (Brouwer, 2005), the socio-economic assessment procedure is tested and illustrated in a number of practical case studies in France, Finland, Latvia, the Netherlands and Portugal.
The main objective of this report is to present the results of the socio-economic assessment procedure applied in the Latvian case study: the shallow groundwater body under the city of Riga – the capital city of Latvia. The content of the report is organized as follows.
• Chapter 2 briefly presents the general methodological framework applied to all case studies, the specific objectives of the Latvian case study and the practical approach and steps applied in this case study.
• Chapter 3 briefly characterizes the groundwater body selected for the case study, i.e. the shallow groundwater under the city of Riga, describing the main environmental problems encountered for groundwater in Latvia in general and in the selected case study in particular that focuses on pollution from petroleum products.
• Chapter 4 summarises the main pressures and impacts for shallow groundwater under the city of Riga with regards to petroleum products;
• Chapter 5 discusses possible environmental objectives and compliance regimes that are relevant to petroleum products. It proposes two environmental objectives for groundwater restoration programmes that will be further investigated from a socio-economic point of view in the following chapters;
• Chapter 6 compares these objectives with the situation in the selected shallow groundwater body, stressing that proposed environmental objectives are not reached;
• Chapter 7 investigates potential measures for reaching these objectives. It develops two programmes of measures (scenarios) for reaching each objective, calculating the total costs of each programme of measures;
• Chapter 8 analyses people’s perception vis-à-vis groundwater quality and restoration programmes – investigating people’s willingness to pay for programmes that would eliminate pollution from petroleum products in the case study area;
• Chapter 9 undertakes the economic assessment of proposed environmental objectives and programmes of measures, comparing total costs and benefits and evaluating overall economic impact;
• Chapter 10 presents some conclusions linked to results of the economic analysis and the different steps of the methodology applied to obtain these results (in particular the valuation of environmental benefits from groundwater quality improvement).
2. Methodological framework
One of the general objectives of the socio-economic assessments carried out as part of the BRIDGE project is to support discussion on what role economics should play in the process of setting threshold values. This section of the report first of all characterizes the role of economics considered by the WFD. The steps of economic analysis envisaged by the WFD formed basis for the general methodology of socio-economic assessments as part of the BRIDGE, which is presented afterwards in this section. The section ends with describing how this general methodology has been applied in the Latvian case study.
2.1 The role of socio-economics in the WFD
The WFD is one of the first European Directives in the domain of water, which explicitly recognizes the role of economics in reaching environmental and ecological objectives. The Directive calls for the application of economic principles (e.g. polluter pays principle), approaches and tools (e.g. cost-effectiveness analysis) and for the consideration of economic instruments (e.g. water pricing policies) for achieving good water status for water bodies in the most effective manner. The Guidance Document on the Economic Analysis prepared in 2002 by the European Water and Economics Working Group (WATECO) advises various elements of the economic analysis to be integrated in the policy and management cycle in order to aid decision-making when preparing the River Basin Management Plans. The integration of economics throughout the WFD policy and decision-making cycle is presented in the figure 1.
Source: WATECO Guidance Document
Figure 1. The role of economics throughout the WFD implementation process
The main elements of the economic analysis are found in Articles 5 and 9 and Annex III in the WFD. Economic arguments also play an important role in the political decision-making process surrounding the preparation of River Basin Management Plans (in Article 4) where derogation can be supported by the strength of economic arguments when setting environmental objectives.
The economic analysis can be summarised as follows:
1) Economic characterisation of a river basin (Article 5)
• Assessment of the economic significance of water use in a river basin.
• Forecast of supply and demand of water in the river basin up to 2015.
• Assessment of the current cost recovery by estimating the volume, prices, investments and costs associated with water services, including environmental and resource costs.
2) Cost-effectiveness analysis (Article 11 and Annex III)
• Evaluation of the costs and effectiveness of the proposed programme of measures to reach environmental objectives.
3) Disproportional costs (Article 4)
• Evaluation whether the costs are disproportionate.
4) Cost recovery and incentive pricing (Article 9)
• Assessment of the distribution of costs and benefits and the potential impact on cost recovery and incentive pricing.
The first step, the economic characterisation of river basins, has been completed in 2005. The last two years (2005-2006) the preliminary risk analysis, which had been carried out for the different European river basins, was further elaborated (including the more detailed definition of environmental objectives) and start will be made with the identification of additional measures needed to reach good water status in the second step.
By the end of 2007 each EU Member State has to produce an overview of its basic and additional measures according to Article 11, from which the most cost-effective programme of measures will be developed by the end of 2008. Based on the cost-effectiveness analysis of programmes of measures, the question whether the total costs of additional measures to reach good water status are disproportionate will be addressed by the end of 2009. Finally, the financial implications of the basic and additional measures for different groups in society has to be evaluated by 2010, including the level of cost recovery, changes in the use and efficiency of economic instruments (e.g. levies, taxes, water prices) and their role in achieving a more efficient and sustainable water use.
2.2 General steps for socio-economic assessment procedure
In the common methodological framework for the socio-economic assessment procedure in BRIDGE, the steps of the economic analysis in the WFD presented in the previous sub-section have been translated in the following practical steps:
1) Socio-economic analysis of the current and future groundwater use and corresponding pressures and impacts
2) Risk and uncertainty analysis of non-compliance (“gap analysis”) 3) Identification of possible measures
4) Estimation of costs and effectiveness of possible measures to bridge the gap in cost- effectiveness analysis (least cost way to achieve quality objective)
5) Assessment of benefits of meeting quality objective and comparing them with the costs.
These steps are visualized in the figure 2 below. They are taken iteratively but can include various feedbacks to the previous levels of analysis and evaluation.
The main objective of the first step is to describe and analyse current groundwater use patterns and the pressures exerted by key socio-economic sectors, possibly resulting in non-compliance with water quality objectives. Related to this is the prediction of expected future pressures and impacts on groundwater chemical status from socio-economic driving forces. The future socio- economic trends are estimated and translated in terms of expected future pressures and impacts on groundwater quality.
Current groundwater body status
Socio-economic developments
Consequent pressures on groundwater
body
Required groundwater body status in 2015
Setting groundwater quality objectives:
• Establishing threshold values
• Choosing compliance regime or decision criteria for compliance assessment
Expected groundwater body status in 2015
Articl e 4 and 5
Problem identification: gap between expected and desired groundwater body status
Identification possible measures
Comparison of costs and benefits Selection cost-effective measures
Articl e 1 1a n d 1 7
Figure 2. Contribution of socio-economic analysis into the process of setting groundwater threshold values and achieving good chemical groundwater status (in relation to the relevant articles in the WFD)
In the second step, the current and future pressures from socio-economic driving forces and their expected impact on groundwater chemical status are compared with possible groundwater quality objectives. The main aims of the second step are to identify (i) the gap between expected groundwater quality (in the 2015) and the quality objective and (ii) the key factors determining this gap and the uncertainty surrounding these factors.
To conduct this step, a quality objective has to be defined that requires threshold values to be established. It is expected that threshold values used for the gap analysis are set based on purely environmental considerations. However, as indicated by the analysis presented in this
report, the economics could already play a role for defining quality objectives at this stage of the analysis.
Once the gap has been assessed (in a qualitative or quantitative way depending on available data and information), measures to meet the established groundwater quality threshold values can be proposed in Step 3. Possible measures to prevent and abate groundwater contamination need to be listed and assessed in terms of costs and effects. For each potential measure, direct financial costs and, where possible, indirect economic costs have to be estimated. Besides costs, direct and indirect effects of measures on groundwater chemical status have to be assessed. Based on this information, the least costly way to reach proposed threshold values can be estimated. In this way, the socio-economic analysis can also provide input in the process of setting groundwater threshold values – based on the assessment of the least costly way to reach groundwater threshold values.
If it is felt that proposed measures for reaching the established threshold value might be disproportionately expensive, a cost-benefit analysis has to be carried out. Water quality improvements (originating from reaching desired threshold values) may result in significant socio-economic benefits. And the aim of the last (5th) step of the analysis is to estimate whether these benefits exceed costs or not. In the latter case, possible time or objective exemptions might be justified. Thus, the socio-economic analysis underpins the justification of exemptions for setting socio-economically efficient and acceptable groundwater quality threshold values.
2.3 Policy relevance and objectives of the Latvian case study
The steps of the process of setting groundwater threshold values and achieving good chemical status for groundwater where the socio-economic analysis can play a role have been highlighted in the previous sub-sections. The steps forming the main focus of the analysis in the Latvian case study are further discussed below.
The Latvian case study focuses on the step of setting groundwater quality objectives. In practice, this means establishing threshold values but also deciding on a compliance regime to assess compliance with proposed threshold values for a given water body - the compliance regime providing the computation rules for water quality data obtained from monitoring to assess whether a water body complies with set threshold values.
As it was concluded in the process of analysis, setting quality objectives for a given groundwater body is difficult not so much because of the need to establish threshold values but also because of the absence of rules for assessing compliance. When monitoring provides limited information on current water quality, both spatially and temporally, while the spatial variability of pollution is known to be high (e.g. many point sources of pollution concentrated in a limited territory with pollution being accumulated in groundwater in many local but heavily contaminated sites), conventional approaches to assess compliance might not be relevant. In such cases, setting clear rules for assessing quality status of a water body is likely to represent a challenging task.
In Latvia, practice is to set threshold values for groundwater based on purely environmental considerations. However the issue of compliance regime or decision rules for assessing compliance has not been discussed widely in particular when socio-economic impacts that might be expected from setting up new threshold values are significant.
Thus, in addition to the objectives of BRIDGE WP5, the economic analysis in the Latvian case study aimed at supporting policy discussions on compliance regime and to illustrate the issues relevant to the definition of rules for assessing compliance for groundwater bodies. Results of the analysis illustrate the socio-economic consequences of different
compliance regimes with regards to “good” quality thresholds, results that are clearly relevant to situations where conventional approaches to compliance cannot be applied.
In light of the above, the main objectives of the case study were:
1. To analyse different compliance regimes for “good” quality in terms of their socio- economic impacts (costs and benefits);
2. To illustrate the possible implications of introducing socio-economic elements in defining compliance regimes.
Two alternative scenarios representing different compliance regimes were thus investigated and compared in terms of their socio-economic consequences and efficiency (costs and benefits, highest net benefits).
The results of the case study are also relevant to the development of the program of measures as required by the WFD. Based on a multi-criteria analysis, all pollution sources have been ranked (prioritised). Measures for achieving different quality objectives have been identified and analysed in terms of their effects and costs similarly to what is required when building the program of measures required to reach set quality objective for given water body is finalized.
The main source of pollution for the pollutant considered in the selected water body is pollution accumulated historically in shallow groundwater and soils. As restoring historically polluted areas can be very expensive, it was assumed that a program of measures for reaching “good” quality might be disproportionately costly (when the costs of reaching “good” quality significantly exceed expected benefits). The results of the socio-economic analysis were then used to illustrate assessments that might support the justification of exemptions (setting less stringent quality objectives or extending time for reaching set objectives). As part of the analysis, the costs of measures required to achieve “good” quality objective have been estimated and compared to benefits originating from water quality improvements. In this context, the specific objectives of the case study were:
1. To illustrate options for the application of methods that might help justifying longer time period for implementing measures or lower environmental objectives;
2. To indicate the most socio-economically acceptable groundwater quality objective that would keep costs proportionate.
3. Selection of groundwater body for the case study
3.1 Background information about groundwater in Latvia
The territory of Latvia belongs to the Baltic artesian basin. Sedimentary rocks comprise water aquifers, which are situated in layers with different depths. The geological cross-section (from top to bottom) shows groundwater zones with different levels (active or slow) of exchange activities and chemical composition (freshwaters, mineral waters, saltwater). The overall zone of the active water exchange is more susceptible to potential anthropogenic pollution. Freshwater, which is the main source of drinking water supply in Latvia, originates mainly from this zone. This zone comprises quaternary (till 20 m depth usually), upper Devonian and middle Devonian aquifers or aquifer complexes. The total depth of the zone in Latvia varies between 10 to 400 meters.
There are two types of groundwater in Latvia – shallow groundwater and artesian groundwater.
• Shallow groundwater is the aquifer below the soil surface with no pressure or pressure lower than pressure at the soil surface. Shallow groundwater is spread in all upper quaternary sandy sediments at an average depth of 1 to 10 meters (in local areas even deeper). Shallow groundwater is not protected and at risk of surface pollution infiltration within the entire territory of Latvia. There is no recorded regional-wide pollution but a large number of localised polluted sites resulting from particular point source pressures or diffuse pollution (e.g. from urban areas).
• Artesian groundwater presents a natural pressure in contrast to shallow groundwater.
Artesian groundwater is spread in several groundwater aquifers and complexes. Existing monitoring data do not show substantial artesian groundwater pollution in Latvia. All recorded groundwater pollution is localised with limited impact on the quality of the overall artesian groundwater resources.
Overall, 16 groundwater bodies have been identified in Latvia (Ministry of Environment, 2004).
All groundwater bodies comprise both groundwater types – shallow groundwater and artesian groundwater. The identification of groundwater bodies has been carried out by the responsible authorities of Latvia as part of the implementation of the first WFD obligations.
3.2 First results of analysis of pressures on groundwater in Latvia
The main criterion for selecting a water body for the case study was whether it is at risk of failing meeting groundwater quality objectives, as the setting of threshold values will concern only pollutants at the origin of water bodies being “at risk”. It has to be noted that taking the local character of groundwater pollution in Latvia, there is not a single groundwater body that is characterized as being “at risk” in its entire territory, as usually only parts of water bodies are affected by anthropogenic pressures. That environmental problems identified in the selected water body are typical of groundwater problems in Latvia as a whole was also considered during the case study selection process. The Article 5 characterization report prepared at the end of 2004 and sent to the European Commission (EC) lists the following anthropogenic pressures affecting groundwater in Latvia (Ministry of Environment, 2004):
• Groundwater abstraction (mainly for drinking water needs and for industries)
• Pollution: infiltration of surface pollution from different point sources, urban territories and intensive agriculture areas
• Artificial recharge of groundwater (taking place only in one groundwater body).
The summary of the first risk assessment results for groundwater in Latvia is provided in Table 1.
It indicates the significance of each pollution problem causing the risk of failing good water quality for groundwater.
Table 1. Summary on the first risk assessment results for groundwater in Latvia
Risk category and pollution problem causing risk
N° of parts of groundwater
bodies concerned by different risks
Comments
“AT RISK”
From those, risk resulting from:
• Intrusion (of natural or anthropogenic origin)
• Artificial recharge
• Point source pollution
• Diffuse pollution
8 2 1 2 3
The groundwater body Q on the whole All – due to pollution from urban territories (due to pollution coming from industrial territories, transport infrastructure, communal services), affecting mainly shallow groundwater
“PROBABLY AT RISK”
From those, risk resulting from:
• Impact of agriculture activities
• Impact of urban areas
26 13 13
Agriculture territories of all GWB*
Urban areas for all GWB
Pollution affects only shallow groundwater
“NOT AT RISK” 2
13
Two very deep groundwater bodies (A and P – see Figure 3)
Natural territories of all groundwater bodies
* GWB – groundwater body
Source: Based on information presented in the 2004 Characterization report to the EC (ziņojums "Upju baseinu apgabalu raksturojums. Antropogēno slodžu uz pazemes un virszemes ūdeņiem vērtējums.
Ekonomiskā analīze.")
The results of the first groundwater risk assessment leads to several conclusions relevant to our analysis:
• The most significant pressure explaining groundwater bodies being “at risk” or “probably at risk” (including with uncertainty) is diffuse pollution originating from urban areas in priority and to a lesser extent from agriculture areas (see also Figure 3 presenting groundwater areas identified as “at risk” due to diffuse pollution in Latvia).
• At the same time, the problem of diffuse pollution (including pollution from urban areas) concerns mainly shallow groundwater and does not affect deep aquifers.
• Shallow groundwater is rarely used for (public) drinking water in Latvia. Shallow groundwater is used mostly by individual drinking water supplies in local districts of cities and in rural areas. But the number of inhabitants using shallow groundwater for drinking needs is expected to reduce in the future as a result of the extension of public water supply networks. Similarly, industry uses mainly artesian groundwater for water supply.
Thus, from an economic point of view, the “value” of shallow groundwater in Latvia overall is expected to be lower than for artesian groundwater because of the very limited importance of use values for shallow groundwater.
Urban territories Agriculture lands Nature territories Areas “at risk”: urban territories of cities Riga, Ventspils and Olaine
Borders of River Basins Borders of GWB
Figure 3. Groundwater areas identified as being “at risk” due to diffuse pollution in Latvia (Ministry of Environment, 2004)
Diffuse pollution from urban areas mainly concerns organic compounds, ammonium, chlorides, petroleum products and heavy metals, although the total spectrum of polluting substances observed in shallow groundwater is quite wide as many different pollution sources are concentrated in specific sites. The origin of these substances might include communal sewage (e.g. leakages from public sewage system), infiltration of pollution from individual sewage facilities and small gardens, transport infrastructure (e.g. petroleum products as run-off from fuel filling stations, roads, parking places) or industrial sites (mainly historical pollution).
3.3 Selection of the groundwater body for the case study
As a result of the information presented above, the territory of the city of Riga or the district D-2 of the groundwater body D4 was selected as case study. It is part of the groundwater body D4 shared between the four river basin districts (Daugava, Lielupe, Venta and Gauja) of Latvia. The district D-2 of this groundwater body belongs to the Daugava river basin district. It has been identified as a relatively discrete part of the water body D4 based on the area affected by pressures (although not as a separate hydro-geological unit).
The part D-2 of groundwater body D4 (the groundwater body D-2/D4 hereafter in the report) has been identified as being “at risk” in the Article 5 report (Ministry of Environment, 2004) due to diffuse pollution, mainly as run-off from urban areas. The selected groundwater body is the most significant area with pollution of this type in Latvia. Besides, the analysis will focus on shallow groundwater only (the Quaternary aquifer) as the problem of pollution concerns only shallow groundwater.
3.4 Identification of pollutant for the socio-economic assessments
The following criteria have been considered for the identification of pollutants for the Latvian case study:
• Whether the pollutant is causing or likely to cause a risk of failing water quality objectives for the particular water body;
• Availability of monitoring information for characterizing concentrations of the substance;
• Whether the substance is a typical pollutant representing high risk for groundwater in Latvia as a whole;
• Whether knowledge/investigations/work exist for this pollutant on background concentrations, quality standards, characterization of cause-effect relationships, potential measures and their effects etc;
• Whether the choice of pollutant enlarges the diversity of substances analysed in the BRIDGE (WP 5) case studies.
As a result of these different criterias, petroleum products have been selected for the socio- economic analysis in the Latvian case study.
3.5 Main characteristics of the selected groundwater body
The water body D-2/D4 selected as case study has a total area equivalent to the area of the city of Riga, i.e. 304.05 km2. Overall, the groundwater body D-2/D4 comprises both shallow and artesian groundwater, namely the aquifer complex Arukila-Amata (D2-3ar-am), which include several middle and upper Devonian aquifers at a depth of a few 10s to 330 meters
and Plavinas-Amula (D3pl-aml), which includes several upper Devonian aquifers at a depth of 20 to 80 meters. The following artesian aquifers are located in the area of the case study: the aquifers Gaujas, Amatas and Arukila (from the complex Arukial-Amata) and the aquifer Plavinu (from the complex Plavinas-Amula).
Because of the small depth of shallow groundwater, these water resources are very prone to surface pollution. The natural protection level of artesian aquifers is better overall. The existing thickness of tight sedimentary layers supports the assumption that artesian aquifers of the case study area are relatively well protected.
As mentioned above, the analysis focused on shallow groundwater of the water body D- 2/D4. The depth of shallow groundwater varies. It is spread in all upper Quaternary sandy sediments at an average depth (thickness of the layer) of 1 to 10 meters, with higher thickness in scattered areas from 20 to 50 meters. The water level from the soil surface ranges between 0.5 to 3 meters on average, with deeper water levels reaching up to 5 meters or more locally. The upper Quaternary sandy sediments are formed of sand, sandy- gravel and clayey soils (loam).
All groundwater bodies in Latvia (excluding two very deep groundwater bodies – see the water bodies A and P in Figure 3) are connected to surface waters (mainly to the large rivers Daugava, Venta, Gauja and Salaca). Also connection to bogs (terrestrial ecosystems depending on the regime of groundwater) can be observed in many places. However this connection is poorly investigated and the most significant connection places or the most sensitive depending terrestrial ecosystems are not identified. At the same time, some pollution from petroleum products in the downstream part of the Daugava River (close to its outfall into the Riga gulf) is caused by local pollution from shallow groundwater discharging into the river. It indicates that direct connections between shallow groundwater and surface water are taking place in the case study area.
The main water uses related to groundwater in Latvia are water abstractions for drinking and industrial needs. This was the case for Riga in the past, with abstractions from the municipality and local industries being however higher than the recharge and threatening the sustainability of groundwater use in this aquifer and leading to the creation of a depression cone in the 1960-1980s. As a result, abstraction for municipal drinking water was changed and practically stopped. Today, around 200 individual bore-holes abstracting (artesian) groundwater are officially registered in the territory of the city of Riga. Water for municipal water supply is abstracted from the Daugava River (with adequate pre-treatment to bring surface water up to drinking water quality standards) and from artesian aquifers. Shallow groundwater is also abstracted but more marginally from bore-holes located outside of the territory of the city of Riga (at Zaķumuiža, Remberģi and Baltezers).
Groundwater is often used for individual water supply (mostly shallow groundwater), a situation that takes place also in the city of Riga. Indeed, households in several districts of the city do not have access to the public water supply system. However, the number of inhabitants using self-supply systems is relatively small (around 5% of the total population).
And it is decreasing due to the expansion of the public water supply network.
4. Analysis of main pressures and impacts
4.1 Characterisation of main pressures
The groundwater body D-2/D4 has been identified as being “at risk” due to diffuse pollution, the main reason being the infiltration of surface pollution from the urban area of the city of Riga. The pollution is observed mainly in shallow groundwater. Because of relatively high pollution levels in some sites, the pollution of petroleum products has been assessed as significant justifying the identification of the water body as “at risk”.
The pollution of petroleum products can originate from run-off from different sources linked to transport infrastructure (e.g. from streets and roads, fuel filling stations and parking places) or from industrial territories (with their own fuel filling facilities or petroleum tankers).
Some shallow groundwater sites also have historical petroleum pollution stocks in soils and groundwater, resulting from less strict environmental legislation during the Soviet Union period. Pollution has accumulated during several decades leading to very high contamination levels exceeding quality standards by 100 or even 1000 times in some sites. Most of these sites have been included in the official register of “contaminated sites”, which lists around 80
“contaminated sites” for the case study area. In addition, around 50 sites in the area have the status of “potentially contaminated sites”. And 70 of the “contaminated sites” and 30 of the
“potentially contaminated sites” face significant pollution from petroleum products.
As part of the pressure analysis, all main pollution sources causing pressure on the groundwater body were listed and grouped as follows:
1. Historical point sources that have formed pollution stocks in shallow groundwater. All shallow groundwater sites with petroleum pollution stocks accumulated due to past activities were considered for further analysis.
2. Current point sources forming pollution flows to shallow groundwater. The following pollution sources were considered under this group: fuel filling stations, petroleum stations and tankers, parking places (with more than 50 car places) and car
“cemeteries” (disposal sites).
Additional sources of potential pollution were also considered in the analysis:
• Run-off of petroleum products from streets and roads – if streets and roads do not have rainwater collection system, pollution infiltrates into soils and theoretically can reach also shallow groundwater.
• Non-used drill-holes as they offers the possibility for surface pollution infiltration into groundwater (such risk concerns organic pollution mostly but also petroleum products).
Pressures and impacts from these two sources are quite uncertain, in particular as no information is available about possible pollution loads from these sources.
The pressure analysis should help assessing the total pollution load for a given water body along with the contribution from each source/pressure. Such information is however not available for petroleum pollution loads in the groundwater body D-2/D4. There is also no model available for calculating petroleum pollution load into shallow groundwater. Thus, all pollution sources were characterized in terms of (likely) area of shallow groundwater polluted. The contribution of each source into the total pollution load was then assessed based on experts’ judgements collected during specific expert inquiries (see also Annex 1).
The summary on the main results of the analysis of pressures is provided in Table 2.
Table 2. Summary results of pressure analysis for the groundwater body D-2/D4
Groups of pollution sources causing pressures
No of sites
No of sites where pollution level in shallow groundwater exceeds current
quality standards
Area of shallow groundwater
polluted
Contribution of individual sources into
the total pollution
load*
1. Pollution sources that has formed pollution stocks in shallow GW in the past Fuel filling
stations 34 34
Around 3 ha (0.1 ha on average per
site**)
6%
Petroleum stations and tankers
12 12 Around 10 ha
Former military territories, industrial and transport infrastructure
36 36 Around 50 ha
82%
Officially registered
“potentially contaminated sites”
30 15**
Around 10 ha (0.7 ha on average per
site**)
5%
2. Current pollution sources forming (potential) pollution flows Fuel filling
stations 140 34 (all belong to the group 1 because the
pollution has formed in the past) - Petroleum
stations and tankers
16 12 (all belong to the group 1 because the
pollution has formed in the past) - Parking places
(with more than
50 car places) 105
Not known, but assumed that pollution mostly has not reached shallow
groundwater** -
Car “cemeteries” 30 Not known, but assumed that pollution mostly has not reached shallow
groundwater** -
5%
3. Other sources Run-off from
streets and roads 180 km *** Unknown Unknown 2%
Unused drill-holes 300 unused drill-holes
- - ?
* Expert assessment based on specific expert inquiries
** Expert judgements or estimates
*** km of streets and roads in the city with no secured rainwater collection (assessed by experts from the authority responsible for rainwater collection system infrastructure - around 180 km of streets and roads require the building of rainwater collection network to meet an 100% coverage for the city)
Sources: Regional Environmental Board of Riga, the official register of “contaminated sites”, archives of experts, expert judgements
Table 2 stresses that around 70 hectares of shallow groundwater are polluted with petroleum products out of a total of 30 500 hectares for the city of Riga. This is less than 0.5% of the total groundwater body area. Experts estimated that historical petroleum pollution load accumulated in these 70 hectares accounted for more than 90% of the total pollution in the groundwater body, the rest originating from run-off from current pollution sources.
Overall, petroleum products are present in relatively small areas but with very high concentrations, leading in some cases to a permanent floating layer of petroleum products in shallow groundwater. Because of the insoluble nature of petroleum pollution, pollution will remain in shallow groundwater as long as specific measures are not taken for eliminating and removing these products. The pollution level in all problematic sites is too high for
shallow groundwater to be used for any human needs today or in the future. And in contaminated areas close to surface waters, there is a risk that shallow groundwater pollution reaches connected rivers, lakes or channels – with detrimental impacts on surface water ecosystems and on swimming/leisure activities. Furthermore, in highly contaminated sites located in the middle of city neighbourhoods, soil and shallow groundwater pollution are significant constraints to current and future urban planning and development. Figure 4 presents the spatial distribution of problematic sites.
Figure 4. Spatial distribution of contamination for shallow groundwater under the city of Riga
4.2 Expected future changes in pressures
As shown by the analysis of current pressures, the main source of petroleum pollution for the groundwater body is historical pollution accumulated in shallow groundwater. Clearly, because of the specific (historical) character of this pollution, this will not change in the future if no restoration measures are put in place. Future actions and restoration measures were identified by reviewing the current situation (e.g. restoration works carried out so far) and different policy planning documents. This was complemented by consultation with experts.
The following conclusions could be drawn:
• The main problem for restoring historical polluted areas is the absence of polluter responsible for this pollution and who should pay, and the lack of financial resources – as restoration measures are very expensive. Three potential sources of financing could be identified: EU structural funds with national co-financing (from the state budget), the budget of local municipalities and financial resources of private operators.
• The operational program for managing EU structural funds (CF and ERDF) for 2007- 2013 (Priority “Small scale infrastructure”, Activity “Environment”)1 considers the restoration of several historically polluted territories, including 4 sites located in the case study area (Rumbula area). This are includes several contaminated sites. And financing allocated for restoring this site amounts to 7 million Euros. For the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed that two contaminated sites of the case study area will be fully restored (including measures for restoration of soils and shallow groundwater).
• The review of planning documents for the city of Riga led to the assumptions that 2 polluted sites would be restored with municipal financing by 2015. The Development Plan of the city of Riga prescribes that polluted areas need to be restored before starting new activities (as a minimum pollution in soils has to be eliminated and measures for groundwater restoration implemented). The main priority of the municipality is to restore areas located in the current (or planned) residential areas of the city. The Development Plan of the city includes references to restoration of two polluted sites2 – the Rumbula area and the polluted area named “Latvenergo TEC-1”.
And financing has been secured from the municipal budget for implementing measures in these areas (around 300 thousand euros every year from 2005 till 2012).
Thus, we can assume that two polluted sites will be restored till 2015 (1 site in the territory of Rumbula and the “Latvenergo TEC-1” area). Both soils and shallow groundwater would be restored in these areas.
• Because of the historical character of pollution, it is very difficult to involve private operators in restoring polluted areas as they are not obliged to carry out restoration measures. However, there have been cases with private operators being asked to contribute financially to site restoration. Based on the current situation and activities, it is assumed that one additional site will be fully restored by 2015 with private financing (one of the sites located in Sarkandaugava). Both soils and shallow groundwater will be restored in this site.
• Overall, it is then assumed that 5 polluted shallow groundwater sites will be restored as part of the current policies till 2015 (3 at Rumbula, 1 at Sarkandaugava and 1 named “Latvenergo TEC-1”). Only sites with high probability of being restored were considered. As compared to the large number of polluted shallow groundwater sites in the water body (97 sites identified in total), these planed restoration measures will not lead to significant pollution reduction.
With regards to current sources of pollution, the existing legislation prescribes that all fuel filling stations, petroleum stations and tankers as well as parking places (with more than 50 car paces) needs to be upgraded with: (1) anti-filtration decks, (2) rain water collection system, (3) own rainwater pre-treatment facilities and/or connection to public rainwater collection network. Besides, groundwater monitoring (1-2 times per year) will be mandatory for operators of fuel filling stations, petroleum stations and tankers requires. Experts
1 Source: “Infrastruktūra un Pakalpojumi”. ERAF un KF Operacionālā Programma 2007.-2013.gada periodam. Darbības programma Prioritātes “Maza mēroga infrastruktūra” Pasākumam “Vide”.
2 Source: “Ietekmes uz vidi stratēģiskā novērtējuma Vides Pārskats. Rīgas Attīstības plānam 2006.- 2018.gadam”. Rīgas Vides Centrs, 2005
estimated that proposed preventive measures will be strict enough to prevent additional pollution to groundwater and that measures are likely to be implemented. It is worth stressing that the relative contribution from these sources to the overall petroleum product pollution is relatively small (around 5% - see Table 2).
Overall, we can assume that even if the number of potential pollution sources (e.g. fuel filling stations, parking places) slightly increases in the future, the total pollution load into the water body from these sources will not change in particular as preventive measures will be required for any new operator.
Measures concerning the closing of unused drill-holes and the expansion of the rainwater collection network were considered under the Baseline scenario. The Development Program of the city refers to the closing of 150 unused drill-holes by 2013 (around 110 thousand euros are allocated from the municipal budget for this purpose). The Territorial Planning of the city (for the period 2006-2018) specifies the expansion of the rainwater collection system in the city. By 2013, an additional 34 km of streets and roads will have rainwater collection networks (at total costs of around 23 million Euros).
The elements presented above lead to the assumption that the measures already considered in the Baseline scenario and for which financial resources have been secured will help reducing total pollution of petroleum products by around 15-20%.
4.3 Characterisation of main impacts
The draft proposal of a new Groundwater Directive specifies the importance of receptors in defining water quality objectives for groundwater.3 Thus, the assessment of impacts was carried out by identifying the main receptors affected by petroleum product pollution in the selected groundwater body and by investigating the negative impacts petroleum products might caused to receptors. The main receptors identified were: (i) (shallow) groundwater itself and (ii) connected surface waters.
There are many local shallow groundwater sites in the selected groundwater body where concentrations of petroleum products exceed quality standards for groundwater. As mentioned above, the total polluted area accounts for less than 0.5% of the total groundwater body area. But the level of petroleum products pollution in polluted sites is very high sometimes exceeding standards by up to 100 times. Some reduction in pollution may be expected by 2015 (considering the Baseline scenario results). But this will remain limited.
In some parts of the city where there is no access to public water supply network, shallow groundwater is used by households for their water supply. However, household uses are not affected by petroleum products pollution. And there are no other users of shallow groundwater in the selected groundwater body.
With regards to surface water, and as mentioned earlier, the interaction between groundwater, surface waters and terrestrial ecosystems is poorly investigated in Latvia. It is clear however that the interaction between groundwater and surface waters takes place in the case study area. Overall, 34 sites have been identified within the groundwater body D- 2/D4 where pollution in surface water originates from groundwater (or where connected
3 For instance, the communication COM(2003)550 says that concerning other pollutants than nitrates, pesticides and biocides (for which standards are fixed by other Directives) good groundwater chemical status is reached when it can be demonstrated that the concentrations of substances do not undermine the achievement of the environmental objectives (good ecological and chemical status) for associated surface waters or result in any significant deterioration of the ecological or chemical status of these surface water bodies, nor should concentrations result in any significant damage to terrestrial ecosystems which depend directly on the groundwater body.
surface waters are “at risk” of being affected by groundwater pollution in the future).4 Although no surface water body has been officially identified as being “at risk” due to its connection to polluted groundwater, floating layers of oil products can be observed at different locations in surface water bodies. And pollutants continue to be discharged into surface water due to accumulated pollution in groundwater.
Information about pollution loads reaching connected surface waters is very limited.
Measurements in connected surface waters have been carried out and pollution loads estimated only for a few polluted shallow groundwater sites. However, the information is not sufficient for assessing the total pollution in surface waters coming from shallow groundwater for the case study area. Thus, it was assumed that the damage to surface waters is averted when pollution in shallow groundwater sites affecting surface water is eliminated.
The baseline scenario considers the restoration of 5 (out of 34) polluted shallow groundwater sites causing pollution problems for connected surface waters (today or in the future). Thus 29 sites would still continue discharging petroleum pollution into connected surface waters if no additional measures for groundwater are taken.
Experts stressed that the officially registered “contaminated sites” (where both soils and shallow groundwater are highly contaminated) occupy considerably large areas putting limitations to further socio-economic development of the city. Although the total area of officially registered “contaminated sites” is small as compared to the total territory of the city, there is a demand for using these areas for new developments. Due to changes in property rights, new landowners are not responsible for historical pollution. But they are facing constraints linked to existing pollution when willing to use these areas for new developments.
As soil and shallow groundwater pollution are highly inter-connected (shallow groundwater is sometimes very close to the soil surface), it is difficult to deal with both issues separately.
In light of the above the limitations for further urban development and development of economic activities was also considered in the analysis as indirect impact from the petroleum pollution in shallow groundwater.
4 Sources: (1) expert assessments, (2) “Priekšlikumi Operacionālās Programmas 2007.-2013.gada periodam projekta sagatavošanai saistībā ar piesārņoto vietu rekultivācijai”. SIA “Vides projekti”, 2005, (3) monitoring data from different studies and documents
5. Definition of water quality objectives
Water quality objectives can be set based on quality standards (threshold values) and compliance regime building entirely on technical expertise. Both require considering the spatial and temporal variability of pollution and the water quality measurement strategy (e.g.
the design of the monitoring network and the information made available for characterizing water quality).
The section of the report discusses the current situation with monitoring information for the selected groundwater body and approaches for establishing quality standards for groundwater in Latvia. It ends with discussing water quality objectives for the selected water body.
5.1 Monitoring information for water quality and status assessment
State monitoring is the main source of regular and representative monitoring data on groundwater chemical quality in Latvia. Other information sources might (1) include only single data (from irregular measurements - e.g. bore-holes database) and/or (2) characterize groundwater quality in separate local sites, usually highly polluted or potentially at risk - e.g.
monitoring of officially registered contaminated sites).
The State monitoring program provides information on the following quality parameters and polluting substances: pH, Eh, oxygen content and conductivity, Fe2+, Fe3+ ion content, Na+, K+, Ca2+, Mg2+, Cl-, SO42-, total nitrogen and its mineral forms (N/NH4+, N/NO2-, N/NO3), alkalinity, total organic carbon and total organic halogen. Depending on monitoring sites and parameters, information is available from 1960 onwards.
The parameters monitored as part of the programme reflect the aim of this program, i.e. to characterize natural chemical quality of groundwater and to indicate the presence of anthropogenic (mainly organic) pollution in groundwater. In the case of high concentrations for particular parameters (e.g. total organic carbon, Cl), investigative monitoring shall be carried out.
Due to financial constraints, the network has been reduced year by year. Currently, there is only one monitoring site in the case study area where groundwater quality is monitored (at the Imanta in the city of Riga) but petroleum products are not monitored there. Thus, other sources of information were used to characterize groundwater pollution with petroleum products:
• Self-monitoring of operators of fuel filling and petroleum stations. This is the only source providing regular monitoring information on concentration with petroleum products in the selected groundwater body (or for Latvia as a whole). This monitoring is mandatory for all operators (prescribed by the Regulation No 32 from 22.01.2002).
It shall be carried out once or twice a year by using accredited laboratories. At minimum, total petroleum products shall be monitored. Overall, there are around 145 operators of fuel filling and petroleum stations in the city of Riga (out of 156) who carry out such monitoring. In 46 sites, concentrations of petroleum products exceed current quality standards (mostly because of historical pollution).
• Monitoring for the officially registered “contaminated sites”. There are around 80 sites in the city of Riga that are registered in the official register of “contaminated sites” and where shallow groundwater is contaminated with petroleum products. Monitoring data are available for some of these sites (where investigative monitoring has been carried out).
It is important to stress that both information sources mentioned above aim at characterizing pressures and impacts of pollution sources. These data cannot be directly used for risk
