Since last fall, Estonia has been the UN’s Water Convention Chair. Harry Liiv is the special envoy for transboundary water at the Ministry of the Environment and leads the Bureau of the Water Convention’s work. Liiv explained on Vikerraadio’s Reporteritund that the convention requires that countries that share transboundary waters cooperate as nature has no boundaries.
Liiv stated that, “For example, there is a separate agreement we have with our largest neighboring country, in which we have developed cooperation, and discussed how to measure and do things.” “Finland, Sweden, and others are also involved. We’ve equipped laboratories together, etc.”
The cooperation is stalled
This cooperation has resulted in experts on both sides having a shared understanding and complementing one another. The two sides have also conducted measurements together and exchanged information.
As in other areas, however, transboundary cooperation with Russia has been largely suspended.
Liiv stated that “No doubt all of you have to take into account the current situation.” “We are only monitoring what is reasonable at the moment and have adopted guidelines to cooperate at the minimum level. Monitoring continues, but in different parts, in accordance to the program, i.e. The special envoy explained that the border is on our side. “The results are still shared. Records need to be kept concerning dangerous substances.”
Other development activities are now halted.
It is important to remember that Lake Peipus is a reflection on the environmental conditions of a larger area.
Jaan Prn, a physical geographer, pointed out that the lake’s 48,000-square-kilometer watershed is larger than Estonia and that only one third of the water used to reach the lake comes from Estonia. Nearly half of the water comes from the Velikaya river, which flows into Lake Pskov.
Prn said that we don’t know much about the source of pollution in the great Velikaya River basin. Prn stated that although we theoretically know that there was an agricultural collapse in the area at the beginning of 1990s, so pollution should have been reduced. But, what we are seeing is that it is actually increasing.
Measurements and algal blooms spotted with remote monitoring have confirmed that most of the pollution is reaching Lakes Pskov, Peipus via Velikaya.
Although Russia and Estonia initially focused their cross-border cooperation on wastewater treatment in the early years, it has now shifted to assessing diffuse pollution and its cumulative effects.
Prn says it is possible that one polluter can cause substantial pollution in an entire river basin. This is the case with Neva River, which has a large chicken farm on the shores Lake Ladoga.
Clear-cutting facilitates soil runoff which, in turn, introduces significant amounts into the water.
Prn states that there is a northward movement of water in the lakes of Lakes Peipus and Lmmijrv. It is strongest in Lake Lmmijrv. Here, even boats gently but continuously drift in the direction that the Narva River. The environmental status of Lake Peipus could be described as mediocre and unstable.
The physical geographer stated that “it is clear that the absence of cooperation, monitoring, and pollution reduction isn’t going to make it any better; rather, the contrary.” “The Peipus and its watershed are still a complete system. Each watershed should be managed as an entire system. Coordinated activity is the best way we could find the source of the pollution, develop measures, and use our best expertise. We don’t yet know what’s happening on the other end of the border. This is similar to Africa where uncertainty reigns over transboundary lake issues.
Narva River dry
Pollution is one of the major problems facing border lakes. However, most of the riverbed that connects Lake Peipus and the Gulf of Finland is now in a very poor state.
Meelis Tambets, an ichthyologist, said that “things there are still very much in a mess.” When you think about it, the river is its most valuable habitat. Its rapids and waterfalls have gone dry. Although the Peipus could still be in better shape, the problem with transboundary water bodies is that they cannot be cleaned up by one side.
Given the fact that it is best for water bodies to be left in their natural state, the Narva River reservoir and hydroelectric power station have largely made the river unnatural. This has also had a negative impact on its biota.
Tambets stated, “Things are in pretty bad shape already for decades.” “The Narva River’s natural salmon stock is virtually non-existent at the moment. We also have another issue with the sturgeon, which was introduced specifically to that area in hopes it would become established there permanently. The hydroelectric plant construction has had a worse impact on the eel. It can no longer migrate upriver, and has been cut off completely from an important habitat.
This is especially concerning when you consider that the City’s coats of arms, which feature two silver fish, was created to reflect the city’s fish wealth. The oldest known seal of the City of Narva, dating back from 1385, also featured an image showing a sturgeon.
One area of concern when it comes to assessing Narva River’s state is the fact that very few fish surveys have been done there. A survey was recently done in the framework of LIFE IP CleanEST to get a better picture of the river’s diversity.
The Narva River can be divided into three distinct bodies of water. Its upper reaches, dam and lower courses form distinct ecosystems. This allows for the assessment of their condition to be made. The survey resulted in 35 species of fish being registered. The most common were pike, Prussian and perch.
Notable finds included weatherfishes, saberfish, and asp. All of these species are protected species. The river also has the Amur sleeper, an alien Amur species. The species composition of the three sections of river differed as well. There were 35 species in the lower reaches, 21 in the upper, and 18 around the dam at the Narva River.
Mart Thalfeld, Einar Krgenberg, the authors of the study, also noted in the press release that the river’s greatest problem is the lack stable water at its waterfalls. They expressed hope that this problem could be solved in “transnational collaboration” in the near future.
The restoration of the falls is one of the most important cross-border environmental projects that one could undertake, but the Russian side has been against it. One concern is that the hydroelectric power plant could be left without water. Tambets says that this problem can be overcome.
Tambets stated, “A simple solution to resolving hydroenergy and nature conservation is to redirect 15 percent the river’s waters to the falls.” This would solve a lot of problems. There is nothing special that can be done to Narva Reservoir. I think that it will remain as it is. However, part of the solution should be for eels to be able to pass upstream of this dam. We should also include the condition that Russia cleans up the Narva River when they surrender.
—
