THE ESSENCE OF LESVOSalvinchandra.yolasite.com/resources/Documents/IWRM Report...The Essence of...

THE ESSENCE OF LESVOS

MANAGING WATER RESOURCES IN LESVOS, GREECE

K. ALLEN, D. BILIC, N. CAPELAN, A. CHANDRA, M. PETRASOVA, K. SULTANALIEV, N. WISESA

MESPOM

ΠΑΝΕΠΙΣΤΗΜΙΟ ΑΙΓΑΙΟΥ (University of the Aegean)

THE ESSENCE OF LESVOS

MANAGING WATER RESOURCES IN LESVOS, GREECE

15 June 2009 Mytilene, Lesvos

Greece

K. Allen, D. Bilic, N. Capelan, A. Chandra, M. Petrasova, K. Sultanaliev, N. Wisesa

The Essence of Lesvos — Managing Water Resources in Lesvos, Greece

3

Table of Contents Abstract 4

1. Introduction 4

2. Methodological Framework 5

2.1 Problem identification and data collection 5

2.2 Evaluation of the meteorological parameters and development of water budget 5

2.3 Water balance model architecture 5

3. Situation analysis 7

3.1 Context and regional significance 7

3.2 Island level water budget 10

3.3 Threats, root causes and barriers analysis 10

3.3.1 Threats analysis 12

3.3.2 Root causes 12

3.3.3 Barrier analysis 13

3.4Stakeholder analysis 13

3.4.1 Current stakeholder perceptions 14

3.5 Policy analysis 14

3.6 National and regional water management programs 15

3.7 Baseline management practices 15

3.7.1 Water supply and use structure 15

3.7.2 Discharge of wastewater 17

3.7.3 Quality of water 17

3.7.4 Water prices 17

4. Future scenario 18

4.1 Climate change challenges for water resource management 18

4.2 Water demand increase and in-efficiency 18

4.3 EU Water Directive and impacts of its implementation 19

4.3.1 EU Water Policy 19

4.3.2 Impacts of the implementation of the WFD 20

5. Management and strategy 21

5.1 Role of IWRM, WUE, and ecosystem- based management 21

5.2 Component 1: Demonstrations and mainstreaming of IWRM approaches into existing cross sectoral approaches to water management 23

5.2.1 Watershed management 23

5.2.2 Wastewater and sanitation management 24

5.2.3 Water resources assessment and protection 25

5.2.4 Water use efficiency and water safety 25

5.3 Component 2: Legislative and institutional reform for IWRM for implementation of EU water policy and other national water management strategies 26

5.4 Component 3: Local capacity building and sustainability programs for IWRM, including opportunities for community knowledge exchange and public participation 27

5.4.1 Public participation in water resource management 28

5.4.2 Applying lessons learnt from Pinios River Basin 29

5.5 Component 4: Monitoring, evaluation and adaptive management 30

6. Expected results, indicators and risks/ assumptions—Logical Framework Analysis (LFA) 31

7. Conclusion 33

Reference list 34

Annexes 37


4

1. Introduction

Greece is famous for its natural beauty, ancient my-thology, elegant islands and delightful people. This vibrant atmosphere lures thousands of tourists to Greece and it’s many islands throughout year. The summer months (June-August) are not only charac-terised by peak tourist activities, but are also a period when Greece suffers from severe water imbalance, “increased demands for irrigation and potable water use due to tourism” (Tsagarakis et al. 2003). Lesvos Island, situated in the North Aegean Sea, is one of Greece’s vibrant islands that is with water management concerns. Water resources in Lesvos can be characterised by the “quantity of water that is available or can be used in a sufficient way, the ap-propriate quality and the duration for the satisfaction” of present and future demands (Sofios et al., 2008). Today with increasing demand for water, Lesvos suffers from water and environmental management problems. The common water resource management and water use efficiency issues in Lesvos includes an increasing demand for water (potable, irrigation and industrial), inadequate and inefficient capture, storage and distribution of water resources, pollution and associated reduction in water quality, climatic threats to water supplies, an overall lack of integrated ap-proach, administrative deficiencies and inefficient citizen participation in decision making processes. Hence water management in Lesvos presents prob-lems, both in the short and long-term, although it has enough water resources. The objective of the present

paper is to analyse the problems, future scenarios and management and use of the water resources in Lesvos. It presents applied concepts of Integrated Water Re-sources Management (IWRM), Water Use Efficiency (WUE) and ecosystem-based management approach to propose measures and actions for the management of water resources in Lesvos. The report is divided into four sections. Section 1 provides a brief account of methodology and tools used to analysis water re-sources and management of Lesvos. The general baseline situation is then presented in section 2 of the report providing an account of the major threats, root causes and barriers, stakeholder perceptions and cur-rent management practices. Section 3 of the report builds up on this, and details future scenarios of water resource availability and management. The last section of the report proposes a management strategy that combines demonstration and main-streaming, legislative and institutional reform, local capacity building and sustainability and monitoring, evaluation and adaptive management for IWRM and WUE. The report concludes by recommending that large investments in political will, integrated policy implementation and citizen participation are required for rational management of water resources in Les-vos.

ABSTRACT Water is a precious resource and therefore needs to be respected. Integrated Water Resource Management, water use efficiency and ecosystem management are all approaches used to preserve and sustain water supply for future generations. These approaches are im-portant because improper management of water can lead to severe social and environmental concerns. An Integrated Water Management Plan highlighting water use efficiency and ecosystem management has been developed for Lesvos Island, located in the North Aegean Region of Greece. Lesvos Island currently implements very few environmental policies and lacks proper water resource management. The main objective of the study is to analyse current water resource issues on the island, create future scenarios of water demand and develop proper management strategies for the use of water resources on the island. The objective has been completed through first defining the methodological framework used, along with a detailed analysis of the baseline water resource conditions in Lesvos. The baseline analysis includes such components as an estimated water budget and model, a description of stakeholders, and current management practices on the island. Using baseline information future scenarios and alternative models have been developed, guiding the establishment of a three-component management plan.


5

The runoff estimation was performed based on the evapotranspiration method. The equation used for the supply (input) of the water balance is delineated in the following modified equation (Karavitis and Kerkides 2002):

P = R + I + AEVT (1)

Where “P is the total precipitation; R is the surface runoff; I is the infiltration (including deep percola-tion); AEVT is the actual evapotranspira-tion” (Karavitis and Kerkides 2002). Evapotranspor-tation (Annex 2) is taken as a standard value of 62% of the total precipitation, while the remainder (38%) is calculated as run-off and infiltration based on pre-defined values sourced from Ministry of Develop-ment.

The estimate of run-off from infiltration (rI) is given by:

P x f (2)

Where P is the total average precipitation (m3/yr) and f is the average annual run-off coefficient for Lesvos (Karavitis and Kerkides 2002)

The estimate of infiltration from precipitation (Ip) () is given by:

RI - rp (3)

Where RI is the run-off & infiltration (m3/yr) and rp is the estimated run-off from precipitation. The avail-able infiltration (I) is given by:

Ip x 40% (4)

Where Ip is the estimate of infiltration from precipi-tation (m3/yr) and 40% is a constant value for water infiltration into water aquifers (Gaganis per com. 2009). The remaining 60% of water is estimated to be unusable due to pollution and mixing with saltwater (Gaganis per com. 2009).

Water Use: Water use for different sectors such as domestic/household, agriculture, animal framing and husbandry, tourism, milk, slaughterhouse were cal-culated, and details of which are provided for in table 1. Values for water use by ouzo, food industry and construction sectors were sourced from Spiros (2009).

2.3. Water balance model architecture

2. Methodological Framework

2.1. Problem identification and data collection In assessing the existing water resources management, the water policy framework and proposing recom-mendations, this paper takes an analytic approach. This approach involved explaining the context of water resources management and uses within the social, environmental and economic considerations of Lesvos in the analysis. Numerous policies that govern water resource sectors in Lesvos and Greece were reviewed to provide entry points for policy main-streaming and collaboration.

Stakeholder views formed a vital part of the report to understand different sectoral perceptions of water management in Lesvos. A semi-structured question-naire (Annex 1) was designed and executed over four field trips. In total, four stakeholders from three dif-ferent sectors (industry, wastewater management and energy) were interviewed between 28th May and 1st June, 2009 alongside in-class fieldtrips. Additionally, information from printed and online sources was consulted to provide background on the status of wa-ter use, demand and degradation, as well the legisla-tive framework for water management in Lesvos. A large proportion of material consulted was from pub-lished sources, with online technical reports providing more current news from the field. A large portion of the work builds on concepts of IWRM, WUE and Ecosystem-based management building on to the work of international agencies such as Global Water Partnership, United Nations Development Pro-gramme (UNDP) and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

2.2. Evaluation of the meteorological parame-ters and development of water budget Water Supply: The necessary meteorological data included precipitation data was from 1956-2007 and the average values were used. The values used were average yearly ones. The precipitation data for the various areas were taken from station across Mytilini. The average annual precipitation was calculated for the entire island by multiplying with the island sur-face area.


6

Sect

or

M

etho

dolo

gy

Cal

cula

tions

D

ata

sour

ce

Dom

estic

/ hou

seho

ld u

se

Dom

estic

con

sum

ptio

n x

To

tal p

opul

atio

n 25

0L/d

ay/p

erca

pita

x 9

0,00

0 =

8212

500/

m3

Ann

ex 3

Agr

icul

ture

- Ir

rigat

in

∑ [a

rea

occu

pied

by

agric

ultu

re a

nd la

nd u

se (h

a)*

x ap

prox

imat

ed w

ater

use

of

crop

equ

ival

ent

per

unit

area

(m3 /h

a*yr

)]

4270

ha

x 57

46.7

5 =

24, 5

3834

m3 yr

A

nnex

4

Agr

icul

ture

- A

nim

al fa

rmin

g an

d hu

sban

dry

∑ (#

of a

nim

al p

opul

atio

n**

x a

ppro

xim

ated

w

ater

use

val

ue o

f far

m a

nim

al e

quiv

alen

t per

ca

pita

(m3 / y

r))

358,

450

x 3

.45

= 12

3563

3 m

3 /y

r A

nnex

5

Tour

ism

D

omes

tic c

onsu

mpt

ion

of w

ater

x e

quiv

alen

t 200

6 se

ason

al p

opul

atio

n of

tour

ists

25

0 L/

day

per c

apita

x 4

400

Ann

ex 3

Indu

stry

- oliv

e A

vera

ge a

nnua

l oliv

e pr

oduc

tion

x to

tal w

ater

use

in

oliv

e

53,0

00 tn

/yr

x 1

m3 /tn

= 53

,000

m3 /y

r A

nnex

6

Indu

stry

- milk

to

tal m

ilk p

rodu

ced

x w

ater

use

in m

ilk p

roce

ssin

g un

its

2959

9 tn

x 2

.5 m

3 /tn

= 7

3997

.5 m

3 A

nnex

6

Indu

stry

- sla

ught

erho

use

Estim

ate

of m

eat p

rodu

ctio

n x

wat

er u

se in

sl

augh

terh

ouse

39

8358

1tn

x 5.

4 m

3 /tn =

215

11.3

4 m

3 A

nnex

6

*Inc

lude

s lan

d us

e fo

r ara

ble

land

, veg

etab

les,

vine

s, ar

boric

ultu

re, p

otat

oes,

mai

ze, c

love

r, gr

aze

land

s, ol

ive

trees

and

new

oliv

e tre

es

**In

clud

es c

attle

, goa

ts, s

heep

and

pig

Tabl

e 1:

Det

aile

d ca

lcul

atio

ns fo

r diff

eren

t sec

tora

l wat

er u

se D

ata

Sour

ce: M

inis

try

of D

evel

opm

ent-D

epar

tmen

t Nat

ural

Res

ourc

es (1

991)

; Nat

iona

l Sta

tistic

al S

ervi

ce o

f Gre

ece

(200

1)


7

The water balance model was constructed based on the water budget using STELLA 7.0 modeling pro-gram. The goal of the model is to perform a precipi-tation/runoff and water supply and use budget for the Lesvos watershed system on a yearly basis. It is able to generate different future scenarios taking into ac-count several different input parameters, including:

• Changes in future precipitation trend

• Capacity of the island’s aquifer

• Rate of evapotranspiration

• Area covered by agricultural land and its estimated water use

• Changes in population trends and tourism and their estimated water use

• Potential effects from changes in domestic water pricing

• Production rate and water use in olive and milk industries

• Potential reuse of industrial waste water

• And the population and water use of farm animals

The user interface of this model is illustrated in Fig-ure 1. The actual model design is illustrated in Figure 2 which is a systematic representation of the Lesvos water supply, use and discharge. The calculations within the model design are derived from table 1.

3. Situation Analysis

3.1. Context and Regional Significance The Aegean Sea, an extension of the Mediterranean Sea, is located between Turkey and Greece. It is home to an extensive network of islands belonging to Greece, which form the Aegean Archipelago. Ac-cording to Karavitis and Kerkides (2002) approxi-mately 3,000 islands comprise the “closed” Aegean Archipelago system. Each of the 3,000 islands is diverse and unique in geological conditions, flora and fauna and cultural traditions, however these islands share several common traits, which include a semi-arid Mediterranean climate along with uneven water

resource distribution, moderate to heavy tourism and socio-economic decline (Karavitis and Kerkides 2002). Mascle and Martin (1990) have suggested that geologically the Aegean Archipelago can be divided into three main regions. The Southern Aegean region, which extends south to the island of Crete, the Central Aegean region approximately located under the Cy-clades and the Northern Aegean region located below the northeastern coastline of Greece (Mascle and Martin 1990). Each of these regions is divided into Prefectures, which govern groups of islands. The Northern Aegean region is comprised of three Pre-fectures—Chios, Samos, and Lesvos (Paraskevas et al. 2001). The Lesvos Prefecture consists of three islands—Lesvos, Lemnos, and Agios Eustratios.

The largest of these three islands and the third largest island in Greece is Lesvos (Paraskevas et al. 2001). Lesvos is approximately 1632 km2 with a permanent population of approximately 90,600 inhabitants (Kizos and Koulouri 2005; National Statistical Ser-vice of Greece 2006). Lesvos is comprised of thirteen municipalities (Figure 3). Mytilene on the eastern coast is the capital and most populated municipality with approximately 36,000 permanent residents (National Statistical Service of Greece 2006) (Figure 3). The main economic sectors include agriculture, small to medium enterprise industries and tourism. Of these sectors, agriculture constitutes as much as 70% of the total water demand. Historically, the island has been home to an extensive network of olive groves. The many olive trees that dot the hills and define the landscape of the island are signs of the ancient cul-tural traditions revolving around olive growth and olive oil production. Even today, olive farming is a major source of income for the inhabitants of Lesvos, as well as other types of agricultural activities such as farming, animal husbandry, aquaculture and fishing (Halvadakis 2009). The major industrial practices on the island include olive oil production, slaughter-houses, distilleries, and dairy product manufacturing (Halvadakis 2009). Tourism does not play a major role on the island of Lesvos as it does on other islands in the Central and Southern Aegean regions. Accord-ing to National Statistical Service of Greece (2006) data, the average number of tourists per year is ap-proximately 4,400 people, however initiatives are in place to increase the tourism industry on Lesvos.

Lesvos Island is a diverse island, with different land


8

Figu

re 1

. Use

r int

erfa

ce o

f the

wat

er b

alan

ce m

odel


9

Figu

re 2

. STE

LLA

Syst

emat

ic d

iagr

am o

f the

wat

er b

alan

ce m

odel


10

use practices, different bedrock and thus, has differ-ent watershed systems. The north western and central parts of the island have predominantly volcanic bed-rock. The western part of the island is practically without forest, with highly degraded vegetation char-acterised by low scrubland and grass communities. This landscape is a result of a long tradition of over-grazing and fires. Most of the fires are prescribed, as a common practice to enhance vegetation regenera-tion and return of nutrients to the soil. The result is land with very little biomass and low biodiversity. The central part of the island has wetlands, some of them saltwater ponds, with a great variety of wildlife, predominantly birds. Most of the hills on the island have steep slopes, with various vegetation covers. The central part of the island also has a large com-plex of pine forest. As mentioned previously, vol-canic and sedimentary deposits dominate the geology of Lesvos Island, which allows for a large quantity of water storage within the strata (Margari 2004). This system of aquifers is the major source of water for the island of Lesvos and has an approximate capacity of 100,000,000 m3. The aquifer is recharged by rain-water. The amount of rain varies year to year and is not evenly distributed across the island (Paraskevas et al. 2001). According to Paraskevas et al. the aver-age annual rainfall for Lesvos is approximately 682 mm, with the most rainfall in the southern and east-ern parts of the island, and the amount of rainfall each year has an effect on the amount of usable wa-ter. Water used for agricultural, domestic and indus-trial purposes is withdrawn from springs, wells and drilling boreholes across the island. The majority of

wells are clustered around more populated areas. However farmers do use private wells to irrigate crops in the more rural areas of the island. According to Paraskevas et al. (2001) there are two main springs located on the eastern side of the island that feed the public water supply—Larsos in Thermi and Ydata in Ippios. In Mytilene, five springs and one drill are used to fulfil the water supply mostly com-ing from the Ydata spring (Paraskevas et al. 2001).

3.2. Island level water budget As the water budget illustrates (Table 2), out of the average annual rainfall of approximately 1,100,000,000m3 of water that falls on the island of Lesvos, only a fraction of it is available for use to the inhabitants of the island. 62% of the water that falls quickly evapotranspirates back into the atmosphere, while 25% of the rainfall goes into streams as runoff and finally into the sea, while the remaining 13% infiltrates into the ground and recharges the island’s aquifer (Figure4). However, only 5.2% of the ground water is usable for human use and 6.8% of water is estimated to be unusable due to pollution and mixing with saltwater (Gaganis pers comm. 2009).

On the island, there are three reservoirs located in the central and western parts of the island, with capacities ranging from 540,000 m3 to 2,700,000 m3 which are used mainly for irrigation (Gaganis pers comm. 2009; Paraskevas et al. 2001). Therefore, the combined usable water for human purposes both from ground water wells and surface reservoirs is approximately 60,000,000m3 annually.

Current data shows that there are four main water using sectors on the island, namely the agricultural, household/domestic, tourism, and industrial sectors. Out of these four, agriculture and household/domestic sectors are the main water consumers which make up the bulk of the island’s water de-mand, adding up to approximately 34,000,000m3 annually. When combined with the other remaining sectors, the water demand reaches close to the level of 34,700,00m3 per year. From the difference be-tween these two values, it can be seen that the cur-rent water demand/use on the island of Lesvos is still well under the amount of water input available for usage.

Figure 3. Map of Lesvos Island municipalities and urban areas highlighting Mytilene (University of Aegean: Waste Management Laboratory).


11

Supp

ly/I

nput

(m

3 /yr)

Use

/Out

put (

m3 /y

r)

Tota

l Pre

cipi

tatio

n 1,

064,

064,

000.

00

Dom

estic

/Hou

seho

ld

8226

835.

00

Evap

otra

nspi

ratio

n 65

9,71

9,68

0.00

D

omes

tic/H

ouse

hold

82

1250

0.00

R

unof

f & In

filtra

tion

404,

344,

320.

00

Was

hing

14

335.

00

Estim

ate

of R

unof

f fro

m p

reci

pita

tion

266,

016,

000.

00

Agr

icul

ture

25

7739

73.0

0

Estim

ate

of In

filtra

tion

from

pre

cipi

tatio

n 13

8,32

8,32

0.00

A

nim

al F

arm

ing

1235

633.

00

Ava

ilabl

e in

filtra

tion

(40%

) 55

,331

,328

.00

Irrig

atio

n 24

5383

40.0

0

T

ouri

sm- H

otel

s 40

1500

.00

Indu

stry

26

5596

.80

Oliv

e 53

000.

00

Milk

Pro

cess

ing

7399

7.50

Slau

ghte

rhou

se

2151

1.30

O

uzo

1257

8.00

Fo

od In

dust

ry

6317

5.00

C

onst

ruct

ion

4133

5.00

T

OT

AL

Use

34

6679

04.8

0

Tabl

e 2:

Wat

er b

udge

t for

Les

vos I

slan

d

Wat

er su

pply

brea

kdow

n fo

r Les

vos I

sland

5.27.8

25

62

010203040506070

Evapo

trans

pirati

on

Runoff

Unu

sable

Infilt

ration

Usa

ble In

filtrat

ion

Input

% of total precipitation

Evap

otra

nspi

ratio

n

Runo

ff

Unus

able

Infilt

ratio

n Us

able

Infilt

ratio

n

Figu

re 4

: Wat

er su

pply

/inpu

t bre

akdo

wn

for L

esvo

s Isl

and


12

3.3. Threats, root causes and barriers analysis Similar to other island systems, Lesvos has limited water resources and therefore very sensitive to fluc-tuations in precipitation, infiltration and water use patterns, as any significant changes in these compo-nents might alter dramatically the island's fragile water resource balance. According to Greek Law 1739/87, surface and groundwater, water of natural springs, thermometalic waters and treated waste water flows that are possible to be reused/recycled are all considered as water resources. This section highlights the most salient threats, root causes and barriers related to water resources management in Lesvos Island. 3.3.1. Threats analysis

According to the Ministry of Environment, Lesvos is considered as an island with minor and sporadic water shortages (Gaganis 2009). In this relation, the water supply and demand fluctuations in the long and short run plays a crucial role, as the ratio between these two parameters determines the water suffi-ciency/availability on Lesvos.

In island systems precipitation is the only source of water supply. Lately, the amount of precipitation in Greece demonstrates a downward trend (Sofios et al. 2008). Latest IPCC Report on Climate Change and Water (IPCC 2008) the precipitation scenario for Mediterranean region is quite unfavourable (see sec-tion 4.1). It is expected that by the middle of 21st century the precipitation in the region will signifi-cantly decrease up to 35-40%. Thus, climate change should be considered as a major threat as it could lead to very inauspicious consequences for the island including draughts, severe water shortages, eco-nomic losses, social pressure, decline in hydropower production, etc.

Another potential threat to sustainability of water resources in Lesvos is the mismanagement in the water sector. Tsagarakis et al (2003) notes that the issue of management and regulation in water sector is the major problem in the country. Furthermore, he claims that inefficient water management is one of the most important factors of water deficiency. Sofios et al. (2008) also pointed out that insufficient or incorrect information regarding the supply and demand for water as a serious problem. The inaccu-rate information on water balance might lead to the

wrong estimations and subsequent water deficiency. Mistakes in estimating the water supply and demand of Lesvos, which possesses limited water resource to begin with, might result in acute and severe water shortages.

One of the threats from human activities is construc-tion in sensitive areas, which increases runoff, evapotranspiration and decreases infiltration. In ad-dition, it might be claimed that changes in land-use pattern may have potentially detrimental effects on water balance. Thus, Karavitis and Kerkides (2002) note that continuing deforestation on the island in-creases the water runoff and thereby decreases the infiltration rate. On the demand side of water balance, inefficiency of the current water distribution system in agriculture and domestic sectors constitutes a ma-jor challenge. According to Tsagarakis et al. (2003) the losses in agricultural irrigation systems are esti-mated in the range of up to 45% and leakages in water supply system are accountable for 15-35% of water loss from the system.

The quality of naturally occuring groundwater in Lesvos in relation to various parameters is generally good (Paraskevas et al. 2001). However, in many villages of the island, the microbiological quality of the water is not satisfactory and needs proper testing prior to consumption (UNESCO 2006). Nutrients and other dissolved elements are generally within the standards of EU legislation. Also, it is important to notice that arsenic naturally occurs in small concen-trations in groundwater, also within the standards. However, if for any reasons the level of groundwater drops down, it might lead to longer retention of water in substrate that naturally contains arsenic, which will increase the solubility of arsenic and increase the contamination. A threat common for all islands is seawater intru-sion, which also poses a threat on Lesvos. The en-croachment of salty sea water into freshwater aqui-fers was registered in three villages of the island – Molyvos, Kalloni and Eresos (Paraskevas et al. 2001). In the future, by taking into account the in-crease in water demand and in need of water abstrac-tion, this problem might pose a real danger for other coastal villages and towns of Lesvos. 3.3.2 Root causes

Weak capacity and poor enforcement: Root causes


13

of weak capacity and regulation in the water sector lies in weak human and institutional capacities of local authorities in Lesvos responsible for water management, complexity of the water management hierarchy (too many organization and institutions are involved) and lack of efficient enforcement mecha-nisms in water sector (Gaganis pers comm. 2009). The Prefecture of Lesvos Island is understaffed (only one officer is working in the water sector) (Gaganis pers. comm. 2009) and therefore physically not fea-sible to undertake the activities and measures for proper water management efficiently. Current legis-lation complies with the existing EU standards, but there is no appropriate enforcement mechanism to ensure the proper implementation of the policies. The human capacity of the relevant local authorities is vey weak; even the prefecture of Lesvos is heavily understaffed while in many other municipalities there are no water specialists at all. 3.3.3. Barrier analysis

One of the major barriers of sustainable water re-sources management is a knowledge and information barrier. Currently it is very difficult to objectively evaluate the current rate of groundwater use on a sectoral or aquifer level, though there are some strong efforts in this direction. But such research is very costly to conduct and therefore not always feasible (UNESCO 2009). For Lesvos such information is especially important due to its island nature – as it lacks significant surface waters and it solely depends on groundwater.

Insufficient education, training and capacity in the broad field of integrated water resources management and water use efficiency (at various levels including government, private sector and community) is lacking. Only 12% of the Lesvos population have education at the university level. As a consequence, there are many cases when for important positions in the local vil-lage/town administrations are elected people with only elementary education level. This fact negatively affects the quality of the decision-making process in all levels and sectors (Gaganis pers comm. 2009).

Financial barrier: The modernization and improve-ment of the existing water distribution and wastewater systems requires significant amounts of money. Cur-rently the financial incentive to engage farmers, households and industries in WUE and other man-

agement measures is lacking in Lesvos.

Public attitude and behaviour: Water management remains one of the latest bastions of non-privatised public service sectors. The general perception of public in Lesvos is that the government or the mu-nicipal council should take responsibility for its man-agement (see next section). Such a perception shifts user responsibility to another, and prevents private action towards water resources management.

3.4 Stakeholder analysis The EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) is quite strong on public participation and citizen involvement which is seen as essential condition for its successful implementation. The main stakeholders, their roles, responsibilities and interests in water management of Lesvos are diverse at different levels (Annex 7). At national level the main administrative bodies respon-sible for water resource management and protection are Central Water Agency, National Water Commit-tee and National Water Council recently established in accordance with WFD (Figure 5).

At the level of Aegean Islands region the main water management and policy functions are deposited with the Regional Water Directorate, which in addition to its main duties should also encourage public partici-pation in partnership with the Regional Water Council and the general secretary of the region (Tsakiris et al. 2003).

All functional responsibilities of water management in Lesvos are under the Prefecture of Lesvos, whereas duties for pricing of water supply, distribu-tion and discharge lie with the Municipalities and Municipal companies (Tsagarakis et al. 2003). A very important group of stakeholders are the con-sumers who are dependent on supply of clean and easily available water resources. Economic catego-ries of water users include farmers, industries such as food and beverage production, hotels, citizens. At the

1Before the implementation of WFD the Ministry of Inte-rior, Public administration and Decentralization was re-sponsible for water supply for domestic use. However, currently according to the Municipal Code it is responsi-bility of municipalities which are supervised by this Min-istry (Tsakiris et al. 2003).


14

local level, different NGOs, media, various educa-tional and scientific institutions, consultants and other specialists are identified as stakeholders who have a potential role in management, protection and decision making process of water resources but cur-rently have very limited power. 3.4.1 Current stakeholder perceptions

While industry and public interest continues to grow in Lesvos on water and other environment related issues, the ability of the government and municipal council to coordinate their work and implement sound water policies reduces. Baseline stakeholder ques-tionnaire analysis (Annex 8) shows that there is some consciousness on the need to manage freshwater re-sources especially in light of EU water directive and other environmental standards (e.g. ISO).

Current practices amongst the industries (olive and ouzo), energy and wastewater management has seen some application of technology to control water use and treat wastewater. Except for the Ouzo industry (connected to the sewage treatment plant), there is some form of discharge of water and wastewater into the environment. There is a general concern about disposal of wastewater (from olive mills and sewage treatment) and organic wastes (sludge and fibre) by the different sectors.

Generally there is a lack of available technology and know-how to treat wastewater that is perceived to contaminate streams, creeks and coastal waters. The majority of the stakeholders feel the need for govern-ment and municipal council leadership in the man-

Figure 5. Administrative structure for water management in Greece at national and regional levels (Source: Lazarou 2007)

agement of water resources. In particular larger well established companies such as the power station and EPOM/Distilleries Union of Mytilene feel the need for corporate responsibility towards water manage-ment.

The different sectors strongly perceive that there is weak assistance and leadership from municipal coun-cils, and government departments lack the resources to dedicate members to facilitate implementation of ‘practical water policies’. Currently there is little to no interaction between different sectors of Lesvos on water and environmental issues. Overall, the lack of leadership is perhaps the most influential factor in the limited impact of water management activities. The main support required by industries (olive and ouzo) and sewage treatment plant is in the scientific application and demonstration of appropriate tech-nologies to treat wastewater and wastes (sludge). Other forms of assistance required by the sectors from the municipal council/government include the need for stakeholder platforms (like seminars) to en-courage sectoral participation, reduce bureaucratic demands and policies, provide more information on legislations and EU legislation requirements and re-quired changes. Overall the stakeholders expressed the need for dedicated support from certified, spe-cialized bodies or organizations which can play advi-sory role on water issues. The later capacity within government is however currently lacking (Gaganis pers comm. 2009).

3.5 Policy analysis The context of policy making and implementation in Lesvos can be analysed both at the national and local level in Greece. During the last several decades, Greece has made important efforts in order to be in-cluded among the set of the developed countries, making also considerable improvements in matter of water policy (Sofios et al. 2008). The current Greek legislation regarding water resources includes: the Law 1650/86, “For the protection of environment”, the Law 1739/87, “Management of water resources and other provisions”, the Law 3199/03, “Protection and Water Management. Reconciliation according to Directive 2000/60/EU of European Parliament and of the Council on October 23rd 2000”, the Presidential Decree 256/87, “Permission of water use”, the Presi-dential Decree 60/1998, “Determination of Spatial


15

Appositeness of the Districts of Water Resources Management of Greece” and a Common Ministerial Decision F16/6631/1-6-89 for the “Determination of minimum and maximum limits of necessary quantities for the efficient use of water in irrigation”.

The Law 1739/87 for the “Management of water re-sources and other provisions” establishes that differ-ent practices of water management have to be applied in the Greek territory, considering the diverse geo-morphologic characteristics of each area. For that reason, Greece is divided into 14 water regions, which are under the Ministry of Development and defined according to the Law 1739/87. The 14 water regions delimit areas with similar hydrologic conditions, in-cluding complete hydrographical networks, and are demarcated by watershed or island regions (Sofios et al. 2008). In particular, our region of study, Lesvos Island, is included in the 14th water district ‘Aegean Islands’, which includes the Greek Prefectures of Lesvos, Chios, Samos, Cyclades and Dodecanese (Gikas and Tchobanoglous 2009).

Several authors (Tsagarakis et al. 2003, Sofios et al. 2008) point out that the main obstacle to the imple-mentation of the Law 1739/87 in Lesvos lies on the complexity of the national institutional framework; water regions do not always correspond to the geo-graphic division of the country. The Law 1739/87 does not consider the already established administra-tive structures but rather promotes the creation of an “Authority of Management” (Regional Service of Water Resources) (Sofios et al. 2008). The Ministry of Environment, Planning and Public Works handles the management of water resources throughout ‘environmental quality control units’ under the local prefecture offices in Lesvos. Moreover, the Ministry of the Interior is the main body responsible for drink-ing water quality and amongst its responsibilities includes the issue of local permits for drinking waters supply works and uses (Tsagarakis et al. 2003).

The 2000 European Water Framework Directive has been transposed into national legislation in 2003 through the Law 3199/03 for the “Protection and Water Management Reconciliation according to Di-rective 2000/60/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on October 23rd 2000”. This law es-tablishes the creation of Regional Water Directories (RWD) and Councils for each of the 14 River Basin District (RBD)/Water Region. The RWDs and Coun-

cils co-ordinate the water policy activities and imple-ment the ‘Programmes of Measures and Action Plans’ developed for each RBD for achieving the environ-mental objectives of the Water Framework Directive.

Concerning the current policy situation, despite the clarity and well-establishes legal framework, its im-plementation and regulation are still being developed in Lesvos and wider Greece. Systems for abstraction, licensing and discharge control, as well as general procurement rules and water quality criteria adopted by the EU, are available and ready to be used. (Tsagarakis et al. 2003). However, there is a lack of a single and overarching system for price and service regulation (Tsagarakis et al. 2003).

3.6 National and regional water management programs The main national program in the area of sustainable water management and protection of water ecosys-tems is the National Strategy for Water Resources (NSWR) issued in 2002. The NSWR contains actions which are in accordance with the requirements of the WFD. One of them is a development of Management Plans on river basin level. The Strategy also includes measures on upgrading and expansion of infrastruc-ture, continuation of construction of wastewater treatment plants, development of a new monitoring network, and enforcement of public participation in water management efforts as well as changing of pricing policies (UN 2004).

Currently, the implementation of the Strategy as well as EU WFD is very slow in Lesvos. The water man-agement plan with programme of measures for Ae-gean islands has not been developed yet (in accor-dance with WFD the draft should be presented in 2008, and finalized up to 2009) (EU Water Directive 2000).

3.7 Baseline management practices 3.7.1 Water supply and use structure

According to the calculated water budget (see Table 2), the total water consumption in Lesvos Island is estimated to be around 34.7 x106 m3/year. Generally, in Greece water consumption is increasing by more


16

than 3 % per year (Tsagarakis et al. 2003). In Lesvos the current trend is similar, but it happens mainly because of waste of significant amount of water due to irrational water behaviour (although the population is decreasing) (Gaganis 2009).

The major user of water is agriculture (74.3%) mainly for irrigational purposes that are around 95 % of all water used by the sector and 71 % of the total water use (Figure 6). Surface of irrigated areas generally in Greece has been enlarging in recent years (UN 2004). The domestic and household sector accounts for around 24 % of the total water use which is more than the overall figure of 11% for Greece (Tsagarakis et al. 2003). Tourism consumes only 1.2 % of the total water and it has a seasonal demand mostly during the summer period, which is the high tourist season (between July and August).

The industrial sector of Lesvos Island consists of construction, washing, olive mills, milk processing, slaughterhouse, ouzo and other food producers which consume less than 1%. The biggest share of water use belongs to milk and olive oil production Water for industrial and commercial purposes is derived mainly from the public network. Furthermore, water for irrigation comes mainly from pri-vate wells and boreholes which is scattered across the is-land (Figure 7). It is estimated that there are around 2.5 thousand official (with special permit) drilling boreholes and around the same amount of illegal units. Currently, local authority (office of water resources of the Prefecture) initiated a registration program for illegal wells. However as previously stated, there are serious organisational prob-lems in enforcement and enactment of law largely attrib-uted to the shortage of qualified staff (Gaganis 2009). An-other problem is that many private wells in appropriately constructed. They are usually maintained without appro-priate protection, creating significant risks for groundwater pollution (Gaganis 2009).

Water for domestic use is provided by natural springs such as Larsos in Theremi and Ydata in Ippios, public wells and drilling boreholes (Paraskevas et al. 2001). All towns and villages have their own separate water supply and water discharge systems, and are managed by respective munici-pal companies. Many settlements get water by drilling boreholes (Gaganis 2009; Paraskevas et al. 2001). The water supply system in Lesvos is characterized by a very high level of inefficiency, with leakages reaching over 30 %. Currently some replacement works are being carried out, but they are taking place very slowly (Gaganis 2009).

Figure 6. Estimated water consumption by sectors and industries in Lesvos


17

3.7.2 Discharge of wastewater

Wastewater (from municipalities, hotels and indus-tries) is discharged into different places. The majority goes into municipal sewage systems, treated via pre-liminary and/or secondary treatment plants and is then discharged into streams or sea. Some wastewater is not appropriately treated and is discharged directly into the environment. Currently in Lesvos, only 3 (Kalloni, Plomari and Mytilene) from 5 existing wastewater treatment plants are functioning and they only have capacity to serve some parts of the island. The existing sewerage networks are poor while others are under construction or expansion in many villages (Paraskevas et al. 2001).

3.7.3 Quality of water

According to the Prefecture of Lesvos (1999), the quality of groundwater by physicochemical parame-ters is satisfactory. Currently all municipal companies treat the water as well as disinfect it by chlorination (Tsagarakis et al. 2003). The quality of potable water is regularly controlled by municipal laboratories, and is only for verification with national water quality standards. A national groundwater monitoring pro-gram focused on nitrates of agricultural origin indi-cates that there are public and private wells with con-tent of nitrates above standard level in Lesvos. They are mainly recorded in eastern and southern coastal parts of the island and can be attributed to the lack of wastewater treatment (Figures 8 and 9).

The chemical content of groundwater from other

public and private wells is monitored from time to time by Institute of Geological and Mineralogical Researches. However its periodicity depends on funds which are always deemed to be insufficient or un-available (Gaganis 2009). Thus, in Lesvos there is no established systematical monitoring system for chemical components in water. 3.7.4 Water prices

Water supply prices in Greece can vary greatly and are set by municipalities. Currently it includes operational and economic costs to some extent and excludes costs for natural resources and environmental degradation (Safarikas et al. 2006). Investment costs have not been included either, and the pricing system is generally aimed to sustain a social acceptable price level that now presents a situation of underpriced water, consequent unsustainable behaviour and significant waste of water. It lacks any in-centive to introduce water saving methods (Zikos and Bithas 2006).

Pricing is based on volumetric rates which increase with the level of consumption. Volumetric rates for industry are generally higher than that for domestic needs (Annex 9).

Figure 7. Map of distribution of drinking and irrigation springs and wells within the territory of Lesvos

Figure 8 & 9. Map of pollution by nitrates of groundwater in private wells (8) and public wells (9)


18

In the municipality of Mytilene the pricing policy for water is different. It has a flat pricing for water i.e. one price for different sectoral use of water (Annex 9). In comparison, prices for irrigated water are usually not paid for in Greece. Therefore farmers do not pay for the amount of irrigated water, but pay a small fee per hectare of cultivated area (UN 2004). The water from reservoir costs little to con-sumers as well – 4 eurocent per m3 (Gaganis 2009).

4. Future Scenario

4.1 Climate change challenges for water re-source management Drought and dry periods in the Lesvos and wider Mediterranean region is forecasted to appear more frequently, and may increase by the late 21st Century (Polemio and Casarano 2004).The IPCC technical Paper on Climate Change and Water states that the semi-arid and arid areas such as the Mediterranean Basin are “particularly exposed to the impacts of climate change and are projected to suffer a decrease of water resources due to climate change” (IPCC 2008). The report further notes that there will be up to 30-45% decrease of precipitation over the Mediterra-nean Basin for the period 2080–2099 relative to 1980–1999 due to summer anticyclonic circulations in the north-eastern Atlantic causing dry summers in the Mediterranean (IPCC 2008). However for Medi-terranean small islands, projected change in precipi-tation over small is -35.6 to +55.1% by 2010–2039 and -52.6 to +38.3 by 2040–2069 (IPCC 2008).

Global data on sea level rise indicate that sea level has been rising at a rate of 1.8 ±0.1 mm per year. During the last century the sea level along the Mediterranean coasts “have undergone similar changes with the sea level rising at a rate 1-2 mm per year” (Tsiourtis 2002). Whilst for Lesvos and rest of Greece no reli-able set of data is available and no study has been carried out for estimating the long-term changes in the sea level rising (Tsiourtis 2002), the Mediterranean projections are the closest estimates available for sea-level rise in Lesvos.

It is against this technical background that the chal-lenges of the future water management have to be addressed as Lesvos like other Mediterranean regions will experience a range of impacts on water resources.

Annual runoff is projected to decrease by up to 23% by 2020s causing a reduction in ground water re-charge of aquifers (IPCC 2008). Lesvos is likely to suffer from increased irrigation water demand in fu-ture. As a result and it is likely that both due to climate change and increasing water withdrawals, “the area affected by severe water stress will increase” (IPCC 2008) and leading to increasing competition for available water resources.

The best and worst case scenarios over the generated water balance computer model in available ground water infiltration due climate change scenarios for short and long-term precipitation variability is illus-trated in Figure 10. The scenarios indicate that cou-pled with changes in aridity, there will be some to substantial impact on “both surface water runoff and groundwater recharge as will changes in the timing and intensity of rainfall” (IPCC 2008). It should be noted that there is localized variability of existing climate within Lesvos due to its small, low-lying and coastal nature, and “climate change simply adds to the complexity and scale of the challenge” of managing such a variability” (Sadoff and Muller 2007). Hence if water is not managed wisely both in the rainy and dry years, drought will become “chronic” (turning into permanent water scarcity) and its impacts will in-crease in Lesvos (WWF 2007). This calls for devel-oping sustainable land and water use planning. It should also be noted that these scenarios do not take into account potential growth in the island population, changes in agricultural area cover, and changes in water use practices in the most demanding sectors. Therefore, potential changes in these parameters may exacerbate the impact of changes in precipitation on the availability of freshwater on the island.

4.2 Water demand increase and in-efficiency In addition to the threats and projections, the baseline situation also indicates that the future scenario of water-use in Lesvos will anticipate:

• Increased water demand from different water-sheds as a result of per capita increase in do-mestic needs, irrigation and urban and indus-trial use

• Deterioration in the availability and quality of freshwater resources

• Loss of water resources through loss of surface


19

and ground storage and recharge areas • A general decline in coastal and watershed

ecosystem functions along with the loss of as-sociated natural habitats and biodiversity

• Increased pollution into the watershed and coastal environment

• A general deterioration of human condition (increased urbanisation, economic in-stability)

4.3 EU Water Directive and impacts of its im-plementation

4.3.1 EU Water Policy

The Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parlia-ment and of the Council of 23 October 2000 estab-lishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, or commonly named as the Water Framework Directive (WFD) combines the diverse


20

existing EU legislation in water into a coherent whole, which addresses the ecological value of the quality of waters (Moss 2003).

The WFD sets up a common approach for managing surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater, through common objectives, principles and basic measures (Briassoulis and Kallis 2004). The preamble 19 of the WFD states that the main aim of the EU water policy is to “maintain and improve the aquatic environment in the Community” (CEC 2000). More specific objectives are recorded in the article 1: a) the prevention of further deterioration and en-hancement of aquatic ecosystems, b) the sustainable use of water, c) enhanced protection and improve-ment of the aquatic environment throughout the pro-gressive reduction/cessation of discharges, emissions and losses of priority hazardous substances, c) the prevention and reduction of groundwater pollution, d) the provision of sufficient good quality water as needed for use and d) the mitigation of droughts and floods.

Briassoulis and Kallis (2004) argue that the main water policy instrument is regulation: a mix of “command and control” and procedural instruments. With regards to “command and control” instruments, the EU water policy sets quality/emissions standards for certain substances and parameters, as well as technological requirements. By contrast, procedural regulation sets processes instead of standards or measures, and the competent authorities have to im-plement them (e.g. the territorial division in River Basin Districts (RBDs), the appointment of River Basin Authorities (RBAs) and the design of river basin plans and programs for achieving Directive's goals). Monitoring programmes, licensing schemes for abstraction and discharges, processes for public information, consultation and participation, and re-porting are other important procedural requirements included in the WFD (Briassoulis and Kallis 2004).

Finally, the issue of the 'deliberate ambiguity' should be addressed in the framework of the Directive. In 2004, Briassoulis and Kallis pointed out that “the WFD blurs the border between compliance and non-compliance”. Member States are responsible for the implementation of the required measures and proce-dures to achieve the ecological objectives but they are not culpable in case of failure. Therefore, it is not clear if a Member State should achieve the good

status of the environmental objectives or simply “aim to” achieve them. Besides, there are 'generous dero-gations' like “when costs are excesive”, “when waters are significantly modified” or “when the reason for damage is a sustainable human activity” which makes the evaluation of the compliance or non-compliance difficult (Kallis and Butler 2001).

4.3.2 Impacts of the implementation of the WFD

Due to the fact that groundwater resources are the major source of water for Lesvos Island (Margari 2004), the positive environmental impacts with the implementation of the WFD will mainly affect this system of aquifers. The potential benefits of the Di-rective regarding groundwater sources, may be a) the prevention of further deterioration of such ecosystems, b) the protection and improvement of water quality through the reduction of emissions and elimination of hazardous discharges and c) the sustainable use of water in the aquifers through pricing and informative campaigns (EU 2000).

Among other positive impacts, the implementation of the WFD in Lesvos may bring an improvement in matter of biological data and information, being ab-solutely necessary for the proper design of the River Basin Management Plans and Programmes (UNEP 2004). Also, the holistic and participatory approach of the WFD will help to promote a long-term view in water management and to add value to the local ef-forts for running an Integrated Water Resources Management for Lesvos, developing the required capacities and understanding in both government (local and central) and stakeholders sectors (MFAT 2009).

Besides, important steps will occur towards the Jo-hannesburg targets and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), through the improvement of the rela-tionships between national and local water institu-tions at a basin level, the recognition of the role of the small water supplies and the promotion of transpar-ency and avoiding corruption. (UNEP 2004, MFAT 2009).

4.3.2 Impacts of the implementation of the WFD Due to the fact that groundwater resources are the major source of water for Lesvos Island (Margari 2004), the positive environmental impacts with the implementation of the WFD will mainly affect this


21

system of aquifers. The potential benefits of the Di-rective regarding groundwater sources, may be a) the prevention of further deterioration of such ecosystems, b) the protection and improvement of water quality through the reduction of emissions and elimination of hazardous discharges and c) the sustainable use of water in the aquifers through pricing and informative campaigns (EU 2000). Among other positive impacts, the implementation of the WFD in Lesvos may bring an improvement in matter of biological data and information, being ab-solutely necessary for the proper design of the River Basin Management Plans and Programmes (UNEP 2004). Also, the holistic and participatory approach of the WFD will help to promote a long-term view in water management and to add value to the local ef-forts for running an Integrated Water Resources Management for Lesvos, developing the required capacities and understanding in both government (local and central) and stakeholders sectors (MFAT 2009). Besides, important steps will occur towards the Jo-hannesburg targets and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), through the improvement of the rela-tionships between national and local water institu-tions at a basin level, the recognition of the role of the small water supplies and the promotion of transpar-ency and avoiding corruption. (UNEP 2004, MFAT 2009). Moreover, the implementation of the EU water direc-tive will have important implications for agricultural and rural development in Greece, and in particular in Lesvos Island. Because of the 'polluter pays' and the 'user pays' principle of the WFD, farmers will have to obtain permits for using water and agrochemicals that pollute water sources, which will increase the cost of water (Briassoulis and Kallis 2004). This fact, to-gether with the reduction of the agricultural subsidies and the introduction of cost recovery in the water bill, it will likely increase the production costs of crops (Briassoulis and Kallis 2004). This is an entry point for conflict situation, which can negatively affect the WFD implementation. Therefore future management strategies should incorporate this into water manage-ment plans.

5. Management and Strategy

5.1 Role of IWRM, WUE and ecosystem-based management approaches – the alternative sce-nario Within the context of the Lesvos island ecosystem, IWRM can be defined as a management approach that combines different/multiple sectoral use of freshwater and wastewater, taking into account social, economic and environmental consideration of water use via a participatory approach to water manage-ment. This approach extends participation to different user groups (farmers, communities, NGOs, politi-cians) from a cultural standpoint to change behviour towards water resources management and extends policy making to all related sectors (UNDP 2008b) (Figure 11). For the Lesvos case, the IWRM approach is a rational case in order to build stakeholder aware-ness and develop political will for water management through multi-sector dialogue processes. Additionally such a multi-sectoral approach is promising to im-prove water efficiency, productivity, “ground water conjunctively and managing water supplies for mul-tiple uses” as per the EU Water Directive (GWP 2006).

Given that much of the groundwater reserves form inputs to agriculture (24 538340 m3 /yr) and domestic/household (8,212500 m3 /yr) sectors as well as to biological landscapes of Lesvos, there is a need to embrace the ‘water-use efficiency’ concept. Achiev-ing this in the island ecosystem means that measures such as water re-use and recycling, changing con-sumer/user behaviors and upgrading water infra-structure functions efficiently are applied (GWP 2006). As 70% of the surface and ground water sup-plies are used by the agriculture sector, WUE meas-ures will be largely successful in this sector, whilst improving crop productivity and decreasing annual crop water demand.

The IWRM can benefit ecosystems and their associ-ated benefits by “applying an integrated approach to water management by giving environmental needs a voice in the water allocation debate” so as to maintain vitality of ecosystem services (UNDP 2005). At pre-sent these needs are weakly represented across dif-ferent levels. Thus the ecosystem based management


22

approach within the context of Lesvos can be defined as meeting local requirements of clean water by im-proving the biological landscapes (the Natura wetland sites), the vital organisms (birds, invertebrates, aquatic plants and fishes) and the water determinants (water quality, silt load, precipitation and evapotran-spiration) (UNDP 2005).

In order to address the concerns that have been iden-tified in the background situation of Lesvos, it will be ultimately necessary to focus in the future on inte-grated water resource management and water use efficiency as follows:

• An assessment of existing water resources, in-cluding an understanding of hydrology, hydrogeology and recharge characteristics

• Improvement of island information capture and database capacities, and ability to deliver this infor-mation to the policy-makers

• An enhanced system of information sharing and networking between Lesvos and other North Aegean Islands at the community, national and regional levels.

• Increased efforts at sensitisation and awareness

across all sectors (including public, private, academia and community).

• Capacity building and training in IWRM and WUE (cross-sectorally and through a multi-stakeholder approach)

• Development of IWRM and WUE plans on a municipal basis that are applicable to specific local (and national) needs, and linked to EU Water Frame-work Directive and National Strategy on Water Re-sources

• Identification and testing of appropriate tech-nologies and methodologies for IWRM and WUE (including wastewater management) using model demonstrations at both the local/municipal (catchment and community) level

The design and implementation of reform mecha-nisms for national policies, legislation and institu-tional arrangements relating to IWRM/WUE In order to achieve the above objectives and actions, the following water management components are proposed in the management strategy, which has multiple interactions amongst them:

Figure 11. IWRM and its linkage to the subsectors in Lesvos


23

• Component 1: Demonstration and mainstreaming of IWRM and WUE approaches into existing cross sectoral local approaches to water management.

• Component 2: Legislative and institutional re-form for IWRM and WUE for implementation of EU water policy and other national water management strategies.

• Component 3: Local capacity building and sus-tainability programme for IWRM and WUE, includ-ing opportunities for community knowledge ex-change, public participation, learning and replication of best practices.

• Component 4: Monitoring, evaluation and adap-tive management of IWRM initiatives.

Therefore, the objective of the IWRM, WUE and ecosystem based management can be achieved through a partnership assistance with the national Central Water Agency of the Ministry of Environ-ment, Regional Water Directorate, Prefecture of Les-vos, municipalities, national water committee, NGOs, Cooperatives, communities (water users, media and industries) and University of Aegean through appro-priate demonstration, transfer and replication of best practices.

5.2 Component 1: Demonstration and main-streaming of IWRM approaches into existing cross sectoral approaches to water management. The first component of the proposed approach to water management is focused in four aspects—watershed management, wastewater and sanitation management, water resources assessment and protec-tion, and water use efficiency and water safety (UNDP 2004). Interventions completed as part of this component aim to reduce the environmental stress caused by anthropogenic water use, improve fresh water availability, encourage innovation in water management practices and better approaches in water resource use, protection of water supply from pollut-ants and disease vectors, and control wastewater dis-charge into streams and marine environments (UNDP 2004).

5.2.1 Watershed management Baseline condition:

A watershed is defined as a geo-hydrological unit draining to a common point by a system of drains (Winter et al. 1998). Watershed management practice in Lesvos Island tightly correlates with land use practices. Currently, there is a surplus of approxi-mately 20 million cubic meters of water, but there are a number of activities that are far from sustainable. The aim of Watershed Management is to improve water supply, preserve the water budget and reduce pollution (from both point and diffuse sources).

In order to protect waters on Lesvos Island, from WSM perspective, seven steps must be achieved:

1. identification of stakeholders,

2. establishing a watershed management organization (with all municipalities of Lesvos Island included),

3. development of short and long term goals,

4. identifying and prioritizing problem areas,

5. enhancing and enforcing public participation,

6. and implementation of a watershed manage-ment plan (WMP), and

7. re-assessing the WMP (F. X. Browne, Inc. n.d.).

The WMP would encompass physical characteriza-tion of the Lesvos Island watershed system, design of protective measures for specific habitats, continuous monitoring and reporting to the central authority of the prefecture, consultations with various stake-holders and continuous education.

Target/results:

Reforestation of the western section of Lesvos needs to occur in order to decrease soil erosion and rain-water runoff. Burning practices need to be abandoned to allow vegetation to succeed to higher forms, from garig, maqui, pine forest to climax. Building forest roads to inaccessible areas as well as increase the number of observation posts with 24-hour surveil-lance in the dry season should increase protection from natural forest fires. Livestock grazing should also be reduced, and abandoned on slopes of more than 30º, as well as a decrease in grazing intensity and rotation of grazing fields. Without grazing, develop-ment of vegetation and soil layers will occur and per-ennial springs will dry out less often in the dry season. In settlements, rainwater harvesting through roof water catchments will increase WUE. Continuous


24

monitoring is also important as it provides a lot of data, which results in a better understanding of the system, more quality assessment and more effective linkage between water quality planning and imple-mentation of the WMP.

Indicators:

Land use change indicators increase in forest/vegetation cover of at least 30% in two demo sites. This can be observed through terrestrial observations, or through satellite/aerial photographs, and compar-ing with baseline information. The erosion index can be measured as a function of thickness of soil layer in critical and prioritized areas. Also, qualitative analy-sis and observations need to be taken into account, especially observations from the local people. Olive mills need to reduce discharge of wastewater by 30% in a given timeframe.

Timeframe:

10-15 years to observe changes in land use.

5-7 years to observe change in water quality.

5.2.2 Wastewater and sanitation management Baseline condition:

Wastewater treatment is starting to be implemented on the island of Lesvos. A newly built wastewater treatment plant in Mytilene is not operating to full capacity. Other wastewater treatment plants exist in municipalities of Kalloni, Eressos and Plomari (Paraskevas et al. 2001). According to Paraskevas et al., wastewater treatment facilities on the island are predicted to serve 41,000 people or 41% of the is-land’s population. In the villages, most of the sewage is discharged to septic tanks, without treatment, or directly to the sea, with serious environmental degra-dation. There are a number of illegal landfill sites on Lesvos that present a threat as polluters of ground-water supply.

Industrial wastewater is a big problem on Lesvos. A large sector in agricultural activity is the production of olive oil. Oil is produced in olive mills that are scattered throughout the island. There are 70 mills currently operating, all of them being modern three-phase olive mills. It is estimated that for one tonne of olives one tonne of water is used. Olive mill waste-water has huge COD, up to 220 g/l. There is no real solution to this problem, since such wastewater con-

tains phenols that kill bacteria. Other polluting in-dustries are dairy producers and slaughterhouses. Large dairy producers use modernised biological wastewater mechanisms (correction of pH, grease removal, etc.)

Target/results:

Further development of infrastructure is needed to connect more citizens to the main water supply grid as well as to the sewage system. For drinking water, a target should be that in the following seven years, an additional 30% of the island is connected to the cen-tral water supply system. For remote areas that are hardly accessible, and that are too costly to connect to the local grid, new technologies can be implemented, such as wireless water resources systems. These sys-tems are presented in Euromed 2008 Desalination Cooperation among Mediterranean countries, and some of them are successfully implemented in the island of Santorini, in the Municipality of Thira.

Development of the wastewater management grid infrastructure should be parallel to the development of the water supply grid. An additional 20% of the island needs to be connected to the central grid. Wastewater treatment plants need to work with full capacity in the next seven years. In remote areas, where connection to the central grid is too costly, decentralised systems need to be applied, through construction of small-scale treatment plants, with secondary treatment, such as Rotating Biological Contactors or Oxidation ditches.

Olive mills should partially switch to the 2-phase system, which consumes less water. Also, construc-tion of anaerobic digester, similar to the one built near Heraklion, on the island of Crete needs to be done, in order to treat wastewater from olive mills. Olive mills need to connect to the grid so that wastewater is not discharged all over the coastal areas of the island.

Indicators:

Wastewater from olive mills discharged to local wa-tershed systems should be reduced by 30%. COD values need to be corrected and reach the standard of 500 mg/l. Microbial values as well as the nutrients, in private wells, should be within standards of EU leg-islation.

Timeframe: 5-7 years.


25

5.2.3 Water resources assessment & protection: Baseline condition:

The main limiting factor for the water resource supply is the amount of fresh water available on the island and its susceptibility to overexploitation, pollution, changes in water demand, land use practices and changes in weather patterns/precipitation (Karavitis and Kerkides 2002; Marathianou et al. 2000; Sofios et al. 2008). Tools are available to predict the water budget of the island, however their accuracy are lim-ited with a high degree of uncertainty (Karavitis and Kerkides 2002).

Targets/results:

Implementation of projects to assess, protect and ensure the quality and quantity of water resources on the island which entails continuous assessment of approximate ground water availability, assessment of quality and capacity of water reservoirs, assessment of runoff and stream water, establishment of pollution response units to deal with potential pollution events, protection of water reservoirs and ground water wells, protection and continuous maintenance of freshwater distribution infrastructure, establishment of redun-dancy systems to ensure continuous water supply, and construction of additional water reservoirs.

Indicators:

Increased availability and accessibility of water re-source data, successful protection of demo sites from potential pollution sources, established response units and pollution detection schemes, continuous inspec-tion and maintenance of distribution throughout the established timeframe, establishment of pilot redun-dancy systems and the construction of an additional reservoir.

Risks and Assumptions:

The need of continuous funding to operate assessment projects may result in limited data accessibility, im-possible to completely eliminate uncertainties in pre-diction tools. Continuous inspection and maintenance of current infrastructure may prove costly and estab-lishment of a backup distribution system and addi-tional reservoir may be even more costly.

Timeframe:

5-7 years, 7-10 years for establishing backup infra-structure and additional reservoir.

5.2.4 Water Use Efficiency & Water Safety: Baseline condition:

Water use efficiency is crucial to maintain a balanced water budget and there is a lack of water saving tech-nologies/techniques implemented in water demand-ing sectors (Gaganis pers comm. 2009; Sofios et al. 2008). Seasonal fluctuations of tourists and potential population increase may also bring about periods of water shortage (Sofios et al. 2008). In addition, pos-sible contamination of freshwater resources by pol-lutants and disease vectors may pose as potential health hazard to inhabitants (UNDP 2004).

Targets/results:

Increased water distribution system efficiency by reducing the leakage of the distribution system through constant maintenance and monitoring. Initia-tives to reduce water wastage and increased WUE in agricultural and domestic sectors achievable through implementation of water-efficient techniques and technologies. Balancing the water budget would help ensure continuous access to freshwater. Ensured availability of safe drinking water could be achieved by monitoring contaminants found in freshwater sup-plies and eradication of potential disease vectors.

Indicators:

A decrease in the distribution system leakage with constant monitoring implemented. Continuous annual water budget balancing programs with multi-stakeholder participation would take place throughout the allotted timeframe. Water quality monitoring and assessment programs should not detect significant levels of pollutants or presence of potential disease vectors in water distribution systems.

Risks and assumptions:

Continuous maintenance of the distribution system may prove costly and the need of additional detection technologies being integrated into the system. Differ-ent stakeholders may have different opinions in re-gards to the budget prediction tool being used and may lead to inter-stakeholder conflict.

Timeframe:

5-7 years.


26

5.3 Component 2: Legislative and institutional reform for IWRM for implementation of EU water policy and other national water manage-ment strategies. Legislative and institutional (L&I) reforms are a very crucial component for enforcement of IWRM in Les-vos. Currently, there are a lot of problems related to poor water resources governance due to recent ad-ministrative restructure and reorganisation at all lev-els due to implementation of the EU WFD. Therefore, L&I reforms can significantly contribute to improve-ment of current practices, facilitate achievements of WFD targets and lead to sustainable development. To improve the current situation and solve problems related with water protection, management and prac-tices in Lesvos, the following L&I actions should be aimed at the institutional and policy level.

Institutional reform and development

1. Development of a water management plan for the Aegean islands with specific measures, designa-tion of responsibilities and staff and framework and funds allocated for them. This should be done in accordance with requirements of EU WFD (Appendixes VI, VII) as soon as possible by a group of experts who are familiar with the local situation, and consulted with stakeholders from different levels. Such a plan should be revised and corrected annually. The results of its implemen-tation should be regularly reported to the national authorities. Such a plan will help to identify the main problems, and develop and realise appro-priate corrective actions. It will facilitate imple-mentation of different national and regional pro-grams and the EU WFD.

2. Establishment of water councils at the municipal level and one at the island level. These councils should be aimed to organise regular meetings (at least three times per year) of the representatives of all stakeholders at the municipal level. At the island level, it is proposed that representatives should meet from municipal water councils at least once a year: 13 people (one from each mu-nicipality) plus the Prefecture representative. This measure will encourage sectoral participation, cooperation, exchange of information and better understanding of local conditions and problems. Moreover, it will enforce functioning of the re-

gional (sharing experience regionally with other islands) and national water councils, improve public communication and facilitate involvement of different stakeholders in the decision-making process which is currently lacking in Lesvos.

3. Designation of at least three people (including one consultant) at prefecture level for multi-sectoral IWRM approaches financed by ministe-rial budget and controlled by a supervisor from the Ministry of Environment, Planning and Pub-lic Works. Their responsibility should include registration and monitoring of illegal private wells and boreholes, control of construction of new ones and supervise the functioning of exist-ing wells. Such will reduce uncontrolled water use for irrigation and change behaviour for more rational water use. The responsibilities of the consultant should include advising municipal authorities, companies, industries and framers on water supply and sewage (through municipal and island water councils). This is necessary to pro-vide assistance required by the sectors, supply information on policies and EU legislation.

Policy reforms, economic, regulatory and informa-tion

1. The need to increase prices for water use by 50% to cover environmental costs and externalities. This measure is already being proposed by the EU WFD and this report reaffirms the decision. A new pricing system under the EU WFD should be introduced in 2010 and therefore urgent actions are required both in Lesvos by the municipalities. Such an increase should cover different tariffs taking into consideration compensation for low-income families. The new pricing policy is aimed at changing behaviour of irrational water con-sumers and reduces water consumption, waste of water by complementing the proposals for more efficient and water saving methods, technologies and practices under component 1 of the manage-ment strategy.

2. Subsidies/ cross-subsidies to more sustainable irrigation methods (i.e. drip irrigation). Irrigation consumes more than 70% of total water demand, whilst the agriculture sector is subsidised in Les-vos. Policy measures should be aimed at provid-ing subsidies only to more sustainable irrigation


27

methods (e.g. drip irrigation) and eliminating traditional ones (spray irrigation). The expected results would be increase efficiency of irrigation techniques that, in turn, will decrease water con-sumption. In encouraging good behaviour, cross subsidies can be applied to the agriculture, where finance is derived from the high paying industries and larger firms. This is a good measure to ‘distort prices’ but should be “carefully targeted, transparent, and regularly re-evaluated” (GWP 2005).

3. The need to provide incentives via discounting water bills for community water saving. This measure will further facilitate change of behav-iour by rewarding those consumers (mainly at the household sector) who sustainably manage water at the household level. Therefore these consumers get a discount on water bills for the next payment period.

4. Introducing regulatory policy instruments such as standards, permits and fines at municipal lev-els (GWP 2005). These should be directed to-wards farmers, individuals and industries not complying with enforcement regulations such as drilling boreholes without permits, improper maintenance of wells, discharge of wastewater and reduce uncontrolled use of groundwater for irrigation. Seasonal restrictions should accom-pany these permits and standards to control quantity of water use in different sectors during the dry summer months (June-August). Examples can include restricting washing cars, filling swimming pools in private homes and watering of lawns and houses during July and August.

5. Creating water market incentives to encourage industrial firms to implement corporate environ-mental behaviour e.g. EMS (i.e. ISO 14 000) / and other water efficiency standards. This can be linked to the general environmental performance of firms and linked via capacity development initiatives (see component 3).

6. Policy efforts should be aimed to encourage re-cycling and re-use of water (GWP 2005). Water from wastewater treatment plants (from house-holds etc.) can be used for irrigation. It will re-duce the amount of freshwater that is pumped from underground sources for competing uses such as irrigation and watering of fields (GEP 2005).

7. Introducing competition amongst local munici-palities and using “name and shame” approach. Such a campaign could involve identifying and labelling atleast five municipalities as better most efficient water users annually. The results can than be published in the local media (newspaper). Such will not only influence community percep-tion and behaviour towards efficient municipali-ties but also evoke citizen pressure towards mu-nicipalities complying least with IWRM and WUE approaches (thus encouraging better water management practices).

5.4 Component 3: Local capacity building and sustainability programs for IWRM, including opportunities for community knowledge ex-change and public participation. When discussing capacity building it would be logical to use the vast and successful experience of UNDP. UNDP defines capacity development as “the process through which individuals, organizations and socie-ties obtain, strengthen and maintain the capabilities to set and achieve their own development objectives over time” (UNDP 2008a). Capacity development extends beyond the scope of training and utilises local expertise present at public and institutional level to direct services where it is needed most (UNDP 2008a). (Figure 12) Hence the scope of developing a multi-sectoral capacity strategy in the water management in Lesvos should encompass the following initiatives with the leadership provided by Ministry of Environ-ment, Public Works and Planning as well as the re-spective municipal agencies:

1. Capacity building activities should be propor-tionally implemented in all three levels: enabling the environment, institutional level and individu-als. Failure to develop one of these levels will cause poor results of the whole strategy.

2. The capacity of water management institutions must be increased via clear mandate, an efficient organizational structure and system, and en-hanced decision-making through lessons learned and consideration of the local knowledge.

3. Self-assessments of the current knowledge and capacity gaps are needed to set proper priorities, identify bottlenecks and improve the efficiency


28

with which water resource managers could re-spond to changing circumstances.

4. It is very important that the knowledge basis of capacity building be improved by the means of benchmarking, case studies, exchange of experi-ences and twinning organizations and that the capabilities of statistical agencies to deal with water-related data be improved. Therefore the local authorities, NGOs, public associations and other stakeholders should actively collaborate with each other and other similar organizations in Greece and abroad.

5. Enhanced access to education at various levels through information and communication tech-nologies is a basic requirement for capacity de-velopment, and all possible efforts to improve the individual capacities and skills through profile education must be actively pursued. In general there are a lot of initiatives conducted on Lesvos and at the national scale devoted to sustainable use of water resources, however with very little success (Gaganis pers.comm. 2009). Therefore we suggest that such initiative emphasises on education of younger generations of Lesvos in-habitants based on a parental approach. For ex-ample, parents can be given the means and knowledge through workshops on how to teach their children to use water sustainably.

6. Taking into account the uncertainties of climate change and susceptibility of the water supply system of Lesvos Island, increased investments into the hydrological network and GIS tools are made to provide water resources managers with the information necessary for proper modelling of future scenarios. It is critically important for Lesvos to know the exact volumes of water in the aquifers and the respective recharge/discharge figures in order to calculate the amount of water, which can be abstracted without compromising the needs in water of future generations of Lesvos inhabitants.

Figure 12. A conceptual framework of capacity development. Source: UNDP 2008a. 5.4.1 Public participation in water resource manage-ment

Water is a common pool resource; therefore many stakeholders share the complexity and environmental concerns that revolve around the resource. It is im-portant that the voice of each of these stakeholders is taken into account when dealing with the manage-ment of water. Public participation is one way of allowing stakeholders to share their opinions and learn about local issues. It is defined by the Public Participation Working Group (2003) as “allowing people to influence the outcome of plans and working processes,” through three levels—information supply, consultation and active involvement.

Public participation is critical in Lesvos decision making process because it can act as an excellent capacity building tool for maximizing agreement and formulating desirable outcomes to broader social and environmental problems (UNESCO 2006). The European Union considers the aspect of public par-ticipation whilst developing the Water Framework Directive (WFD) (see section 4.3). According to Ar-ticle 14 of the WFD, it is mandatory for Member States to involve the public in executing the Direc-tive. Several components of public participation should be completed such as publishing specific in-formation relevant to water management plans and allowing the public to comment throughout the plan-

Step 1:

Engage stakeholders on capacity

development

Step 2:

Assess capacityassets and needs

Step 3:

Formulate a capacity

development response

Step 4:

Implement a capacity

developmentresponse

Step 5:

Evaluate capacity

development Capacity

Development Process


29

ning process, however it is up to each nation to de-cide which methods to employ (Feas et al. 2004; Mouratiadoua and Moran 2007).

The island of Lesvos like most of Greece has an in-different attitude towards the environment and asso-ciated issues (Gaganis et al. 2009). According to Jones (2009), Greek citizens lack both trust in local authorities as well as an awareness and knowledge about environmental concerns. Therefore without proper knowledge, environmental awareness cannot grow or feed participatory functions in Lesvos - this is why capacity building at the local level is an im-portant function that can aid in enhancing public par-ticipation. Feas et al. (2004) suggest that participa-tory practices can be difficult to implement in such settings that exhibit both a lack of knowledge and information sharing as well as cultural clashes with participatory methods. This issue plays a significant role within the government of Lesvos Island, as many of the local leaders are elected year after year on the island due to their island status and not for their understanding of social and environmental is-sues. This creates a low level of institutional mistrust amongst Lesvos citizens.’ Jones (2009) suggests that institutional mistrust in Mytilene creates an overall regard that environmental policies developed by lo-cal authorities will be inefficient, which promotes a refusal of accepting information regarding environ-mental issues. Greek people are willing to get involved in local de-cision making if the proper outlets were brought forth (Gaganis et al. 2009). Public participation should be happening on Lesvos Island especially in the case of water resource management. Proper or-ganization of public participation needs to take place as well as an increase in representation of all stake-holders involved. These elements are key to not only adhering with the WFD, but also creating a resource management plan that can be efficient, sustainable and successful.

5.4.2 Applying lessons learnt from Pinios River Basin

A study conducted in communities within the Pinios River Basin is an example of how the Lesvos au-thorities could potentially integrate public participa-tion into their planning processes. Pinios River Basin is located in the central eastern region of Greece and is the largest hydrological basin in the country (Bellos et al. 2004). The area within the Pinios River Basin is

considered the principal agricultural region of Greece—cultivated land coverage equals 36% of the total area of the region (European Commission 2002). The main use of water in the region is for irrigation purposes, which accounts for 96% of the total water consumption (H.M.E.P.P.P.W. 2005). Over-exploitation of groundwater reserves creates a major water deficit in the area, which could potentially lead to an irreversible depletion of the region’s under-ground aquifers (Euaggelopoulos, 2005). This is an extreme case in Greece where a proper water man-agement plan is crucial to maintaining stability. Les-vos is understandably not in the same extreme situa-tion as the Pinios River Basin, however there are many similarities between the two areas. Both Pinios River Basin and Lesvos have relatively large agricul-tural networks, which a) use a considerable portion of the areas water supply and b) rely heavily on ground-water for irrigation purposes. As mentioned previ-ously, Lesvos water deficiency is not as extreme as the Pinios River Basin, however the island does on occasion experience yearly water deficits (see water budget for more details). Both areas also lack proper water management schemes as well as an outlet for stakeholders to participate in creating sustainable water management policies.

Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping (FCM) is an important Infor-mation and Communication tool that supports public par-ticipation. Mouratiadoua and Moran (2007) use FCM to link and extract stakeholder perceptions on the current state and pressures of water resources in the Pinios River Basin in order to explore different water management policy options for the area. Mouratiadoua and Moran imple-mented FCM through a series of one to one interviews, in which participants from a variety of backgrounds (farmers, local residents, water experts, researchers, ecologists and government officials) connected and weighted a number of variables linked to water resources. Using this data, the authors were able to establish the stakeholders’ perceptions of how to feasibly improve the current water resources situation and compile a selection of policy options to be further considered. The authors concluded that the imple-mentation of public participation or the active involvement of stakeholders results in more informed and higher quality decision-making amongst local authorities, which gener-ates public acceptance, increased awareness and support for water management decisions. Such a study could be conducted using one of Lesvos Island’s best resources, the University of Aegean. Uncovering such a pathway to pub-lic participation is exactly what the island of Lesvos needs


30

in order to break through the social mistrust barrier sur-rounding the current political atmosphere

5.5 Component 4: Monitoring, evaluation and adaptive management Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) is an essential part of the IWRM and WUE process and critical to its effective sustainability on Lesvos (UNDP 2004). Improvements (and indeed failures) in water resource management and efficient use need to be observable and measurable (UNDP 2004). Information on such aspects as “water quality, distribution efficiency, use by sector, sources of pollution, predicted supply, al-ternative sources, etc are vital to the process of fine-tuning and improving IWRM and WUE efforts and planning” (UNDP 2004).

To extend the use of participatory approaches, it is suggested that municipal and government authorities use informal and formal networks to take responsi-bilities in monitoring and oversight of water re-sources as proposed by the different components. Responsibilities should also include sharing of risks involved in management tasks and enforcement of regulation (Carlsson and Berkes 2005). Additionally policy must guide the monitoring and oversight through development of appropriate IWRM and WUE indicators giving relative importance to exoge-nous driving forces in ecosystem processes (Rudd 2004). When the first three components are imple-mented via use of the indicators, M&E should com-bine them with capacity building and training at the local level as well as feed-back mechanisms (like stakeholder discussion forums) to process this data into concise information that can “guide policy mak-ers and particularly the local water commit-tees” (UNDP 2004).

Four aspects of the environment should be prioritized for monitoring water resources and associated eco-system health over a five-year period, and the feasi-bility of which should be reviewed on an annual basis. This includes relevant bioindicators (e.g. amphibians), water quality and quantity, land use and vegetation (Chandra et al. 2009). It is deemed that such an inte-grated long-term approach combining “information on species trends/cycles with the abiotic data and land-use change information….” provides a more realistic profile of an ecosystem demonstrating changes to

conditions (Roberts�Pichette 1995). The monitoring program is aimed at linking with and building on to the current initiatives of the University of Aegean and Ministry of Environment, Planning and Public Works under the Protection and Water Management Law 2003 for policy-making via involving local commu-nities and municipal councils.

Recommendations for implementing, integrating and institutionalising a long term M&E include:

• The Ministry of Environment, Planning and Pub-lic Works leading institutional training in consistent data collection and development of water resources monitoring plan.

• Training of local farmers, industries and NGOs in IWRM monitoring approaches.

• Using proxies of IWRM as per the logical frame-work analysis, which subdivides IWRM into man-ageable compartments with long-term impact and process based indicators.

• Development of standardised data collection and reporting formats with NGO and other community members.

• Development and implementation of information feed-back mechanism into IWRM technical and pol-icy level reviews

Implementation of information sharing measures via dedicated water resource managers and specialists in Ministry of Environment in partnership with local municipal councils.

The above can be implemented by employing a range of participatory awareness, knowledge management (KM) and advocacy tools for promoting the value of water resources to community members, decision makers (government, prefecture and municipal), me-dia and researchers. “The different tools that should be used include training workshops, briefings, launch of networks (peer and electronic), organizing lunch meetings/workshops, press�releases, provision of promotional literature, email alerts, websites, open access monitoring database and community-NGO attachments” (Chandra et al. 2009).


31

Objective To improve water resources management and water use efficiency in Lesvos Island in order to balance use of scarce freshwater resources and change institutional and societal behaviour through policy reform and implementation of applicable and effective Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) and Water Use Efficiency (WUE) measures.

Management Strategy Baseline

Target/Results

Indicator

Risks and Assumptions

Timeframe

Component 1: Demonstra-tion and mainstreaming of IWRM and WUE ap-proaches into existing cross sectoral local approaches to water management

Limited water resources susceptible to over-exploitation and pollution Poor wastewater manage-ment resulting in increased land based source pollution into the watershed and aquifers Increased grazing pressure on watersheds Differences in water re-source capacity in different parts of the island, requir-ing different protection measures Only 41% of the island population is served by wastewater treatment. No exact/accurate data on the true number of private wells an d the quality of their water High agricultural/ house-hold water demand & poor water conservation , changes in land use prac-tices, and seasonal water demand fluctuations

Reforestation of west-ern slopes, decreased deforestation and sustainable land and agriculture management practices established Decrease in soil erosion and forest fires. Reduced intensity of grazing. Water Use Efficiency approaches designed and adopted across all municipal councils Further water infra-structure development Implementation of new technology such as wireless water re-sources systems, Implementation of projects to assess, protect and ensure the quality and quantity of water resources .

30% reduction in olive mill waste water entering stream and creeks across 2 demo sites 30% increase in forest/vegetation area at 2 demo sites Sustainable forest & land mgmt practices established and trailed with framers across 4 demo sites A decrease of 15% or lower in the distribution system leak-age, with constant monitoring WUE improved by 15% over baseline in 2 municipal water supply systems 30% reduction in groundwater pollution discharge for 2 water supply systems Increased availability and accessibility of high quality data in regards to the water resource quality and quantity from the assessment project sites

Limited influence of national and local stake-holders to pro-mote and sustain IWRM Limited levels of public participa-tion Restricted capac-ity of local stake-holders to imple-ment IWRM best practice Weak political support and strong govern-ment commit-ment is not sustained Continuous inspection and maintenance of current infra-structure and development of additional reser-voir may prove costly and unnec-essary

5-7 years for water quality 7-10 years for water distribution infra-structure mainte-nance 10-15 years for land use, forestry and watershed

Component 2: Policy and institutional reform for IWRM and WUE for imple-mentation of EU water policy and other national water management strate-gies.

No locally endorsed IWRM plans, water use efficiency and ecosystem-based approaches in place Fragmented national and prefectural level water sector use plans and insti-tutions

Strengthened and sustainable water committees to catalyze implementation of local IWRM and WUE plans Multi-sectoral partici-pation in national water committees with gender balance EU directive adapted to local, municipal water plans & strategies Awareness raised across civil society, governments, education systems and the private sector Incentive-based policy instruments adopted and implemented IWRM approaches agreed across national, community and re-gional stakeholders

IWRM communicated and mainstreamed into industries and farms, including local school curricula Designation of 3 personals at prefecture level, finance for multi-sectoral IWRM ap-proaches included within treasury/ministerial budget 50% increase in water con-sumption price 13 municipal and 1 island IWRM committee established. Regular meeting of water committees (municipal & island level) responsible for the coordination of IWRM activities including sharing experience regionally with other islands Municipal WUE in place and adopted by prefecture with appropriate resources to implement and monitor

Appropriately qualified national staff available Stakeholders willing to partici-pate Partnerships have capacity to use support tools or work with exter-nal advisors

5-7 years

6. Expected results, indicators and risks/assumption – Logical Framework Analysis (LFA)


32

Objective To improve water resources management and water use efficiency in Lesvos Island in order to balance use of scarce freshwater resources and change institutional and societal behaviour through policy reform and implementation of applicable and effective Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) and Water Use Efficiency (WUE) measures.

Management Strategy Baseline

Target/Results

Indicator

Risks and Assumptions

Timeframe

Component 3: Local capacity building and sustainability pro-gramme for IWRM and WUE, including oppor-tunities for community knowledge exchange, learning and replication of best practices

Few opportunities for training on IWRM, sustainability issues, planning, and monitor-ing within the context of IWRM for multi-stakeholders Insufficient political and public awareness of important roles water

Local skills up-graded in monitor-ing, animal hus-bandry, agriculture and managing water (reuse & recycling) – school & Effective knowledge management net-working and infor-mation sharing across municipal councils, govt., industries and local communities Environment/ social workshops & cam-paigns organised and increased attendance by communities IWRM awareness programs integrated into institutional & school practices with appropriate budget approved

10 training workshops and networking through exist-ing agencies per year 5 parent-teacher networks on water resources Increase in staff recruited at national and municipal level focusing on water management and enforce-ment 5 municipal champions on water management identi-fied per year and media reports on ‘name & shame’ water behaviour Atleast 5 social-environmental awareness campaigns on water/waste/ environment

Industries and municipalities willing to share information with each other (regionally and locally) Local partici-pation in the training work-shops and lessons learned and feed-back processes Parent partici-pation in stu-dent education is pre-existing

7-10 years

Component 4: Monitor-ing, evaluation and adaptive management

Poor, out-dated and inconsistent data col-lection for monitoring Inadequate action and investment on long term water monitoring information

Participatory M&E adopted by commu-nities Institutional capacity for monitoring and data collection strengthened Regular and consis-tent water resources data accessible by local stakeholders

5 NGO-school water monitoring networks Water quality and quantity data centralised within govt. bodies IWRM based monitoring framework across 4 mu-nicipalities 5 IWRM monitoring community networks in place

Strong willing-ness to partici-pate by com-munities in-volved in M&E M&E data is available and/or the means to find/collect the data are avail-able Willingness by government and local stake-holders to learn from and adopt M&E ap-proaches

5-7 years


33

7. Conclusions and Recom-mendations It is apparent that there is growing concern about social and economic well-being of citizens of Les-vos, where natural resources such as water are a criti-cal input into these systems. This report demon-strates that the present situation of water manage-ment within the Lesvos Island is unsustainable al-though the water supply exceeds the demand. The quality of freshwater naturally occurring in Lesvos is generally good, but in future is threatened by in-creasing water demand, decreasing water use effi-ciency, enlarging economy, climate change and poor water governance.

While the many institutions at the local and national level have a fair ability to manage water resources, its capacity and leadership is far stretched. The chal-lenge is one of managing water resources within the growing sectors of the local economy, yet leaving clean and safe water for both locals and the environ-ment. This can be managed should contemporary approaches of IWRM, EBM and WUE is extended to citizens and institutionalised amongst the multi-sectors of the island as well as its decision making bodies. The report strongly recommends that initia-tives centre on demonstrating applications of water-shed management, WUE and water safety, wastewa-ter and sanitation management and water resources assessment and protection. It is vital that these initia-tives are coupled with policy and institutional re-form, and capacity building. Overall these initiatives require long-term monitoring linked to feedback of information to different stakeholders. In essence the Ministry of Environment, Planning and Public Works should assist in coordinating networks of IWRM with local leadership provided by municipal authorities.

Above all, local stakeholders are the first to face lo-cal problems and are in a better position to create more local solutions. Decision makers should learn from the stakeholders and apply these lessons to de-velop long-term capacity of local institutions and civil society for water resources management.


34

Global Water Partnership (GWP). 2005. Monitoring and evaluation indicators for IWRM strategies and plans. Pretoria: Global Water Partnership (GWP). URL http://www.gwpforum.org/gwp/library/Tec_brief_3_Monitoring.pdf [consulted 11 June 2009].

__________________. 2006. Taking an integrated ap-proach to water use efficiency. Pretoria: Global Water Partnership (GWP). URL: http://www.gwpforum.org/gwp/library/Tec_brief_4_Water_efficiency.pdf [consulted 9 June 2009].

Halvadakis, C. P. 2009. Lesvos Island: a simplified model. MESPOM Ecosystem Management Course 2009. Dept. of Environmental Sciences, University of Aegean, Mytilene.

Intergovernmental Pancel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2008. Climate Change and Water. Geneva: IPCC.

Kallis, G. and Nijkamp, P. 2000. Evolution of EU Water Policy: a critical assessment and a hopeful per-spective. Journal of Environmental Law and Pol-icy 11(3): 245-261.

Kallis, G. and Butlerd, D. 2001. The EU water framework directive: measures and implications. Water Pol-icy 3: 125-142.

Karavitis, C.A and Kerkides, P. 2002. Estimation of the water resources potential in the island system of the Aegean Archipelago, Greece. Water Interna-tional 27 (2): 243-254.

Kizos, T. and Koulouri, M. 2005. Economy, demographic changes and morphological transformation of the agri-cultural landscape of Lesvos, Greece. Human Ecology Review. 12 (2): 183-192.

Kotoulas, D. 1996. Courses of hydrology and hydraulic. Thessaloniki (in Greek). Sofios, S., Arabatzis, G. and Baltas, E. 2008. Policy for management of water resources in Greece. Environmentalist 28: 185-194.

Lazarou, A. 2007. The implementation of Water Frame-work Directive (WFD) in Greece. URL: http://www.chi.civil.ntua.gr/el/announcements/hydrocare_athens_1819jan2007/presentation_lazarou.pdf [consulted June 4, 2009].

Margari, V. 2004. Late Pleistocene vegetational and envi-ronmental changes on Lesvos Island, Greece. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge.

Bidoglio, G., Zaldívar, J.M. and Bouraoui, F. 2003. Inte-grated management approaches and the pilot river basin initiative. Paper presented in the Interna-tional Conference on Southern European Coastal Lagoons: The Influence of River Basin-Coastal Zone interactions. URL: http://www.dittyproject.org/ARTICLE/Proceedings_Conference.pdf [consulted on 12 June 2009].

Briassoulis, H. and Kallis, G. 2004. Integration of EU water and development policies: vision or plausi-ble expectation? Paper presented in the 2004 Ber-lin Conference on the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change. Available at: http://web.fu-berlin.de/ffu/akumwelt/bc2004/download/kallis_briassoulis_f.pdf [consulted on 12 June 2009].

Carlsson, L. and Berkes, F. 2005. Co-management: con-cepts and methodological implications. Journal of Environmental Management 75: 65-76.

Central Water Agency (CWA) 2008. Greece URL: www.emwis-gr.org [Consulted June 3, 2009].

Chandra, A., Kmetova, E., Marchington, E., Milicevic, M., Stylianidou, S. and Wisesa, N. 2009. Frogs and beyond: anuran environmental monitoring exer-cise and long-term monitoring plan development for the Toreki Pond wetland. Budapest: Depart-ment of Environmental Sciences, Central Euro-pean University. (Unpublished)

European Union (EU). 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council estab-lishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. Official Journal L 327: 1-73.

F. X. Browne, Inc. n.d. Ten Towns Great Swamp Water-shed Management Committee. URL: http://www.tentowns.org/10t/docs_etc/wtshdmgt.pdf [Consulted 10 June 2009].

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2006. World agriculture: towards 2030/2050. Interim report. Rome: FAO.

Gaganis, P. 2009. Water infiltration and run-off. Ecosys-tems Management. Department of Environment. University of Aegean, Mytilene. Duplicated.

Gikas, P. and Tchobanoglous, G. 2001. Sustainable use of water in the Aegean Islands. Journal of Environ-mental Management 90: 2601–2611.

Reference List


35

Mascle, J. and Martin, L. 1990. Shallow structure and recent evolution of the Aegean Sea: a synthesis based on continuous reflection profiles. Marine Ecology. 94: 271-299.

Ministry of Development (MD). 2003. National manage-ment of water resources programme plan. Athens: Ministry of Development.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Turkey (MFAT). 2009. Istambul Water Guide. This paper was prepared through a series of Preparatory Committee Meet-ings (PrepComs) of the 5th World Water Forum. Available at: http://newsletter.worldwaterforum5.org/vol8/volume8_files/IstanbulWaterGuide_Final_05-03-09.pdf [consulted on 12 June 2009].

Moss, T. 2003. Regional governance and the EU Water Framework Directive: institutional fit, scale and interplay. In Regional Sustainable Development in Europe. The challenge of multi-level co-operative governance. Lafferty, ed. Naro-doslawsky, W. and M., 181-206. Oslo: ProSus.

Mylopoulos, Y. and Kolokytha, E. 2005. Hydrodiplomacy, a new perspective on shared water resources in Greece. Thessaloniki: Faculty of Civil Engineer-ing, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.

Paraskevas, P.A., Giokas, D.L., Kolokythas, G., Haralam-bopoulos, D. and Stathelli, A. 2001. Wastewater management in the island of Lesvos, Greece. 7th International Conference on Environmental Sci-ence and Technology Ermoupolis, Syros island, Greece – Sept. 2001.

Polemio, M. and D. Casarano, 2004: Rainfall and Drought in Southern Italy (1821–2001). UNESCO/IAHS/IWHA, Pub. 286.

Rudd, M.A. 2004. An institutional framework for design-ing and monitoring ecosystem-based fisheries management policy experiments. Ecological Eco-nomics 48: 109– 124.

Sadoff, C.W. and Muller, M. 2007. Better water resources management – greater resilience today, more effective adaptation tomorrow. Pretoria: Global Water Partnership

Safarikas, N., Paranychianakis, N.V., Kotselidou, O. and Angelakis, A.N. 2006. Drinking water policy in the frame of the Directive 2000/60/EC with em-phasis on drinking water prices. Water Science and Technology: Water Supply. Vol 5 No 6: 243 – 250.

Sofios, S., Arabatzis, G. and Baltas, E. Policy for manage-ment of water resources in Greece, 2008. Envi-ronmentalist 28:185–194.

Spiros, M. 2009. Water resources of Lesvos: evaluation and management proposals. Mytilene: Depart-ment of Environment.

Tsagarakis, K.P., Paranychianakis, N.V. and Angelakis, A.N. 2003. Aqualibrium. European water man-agement between regulation and competition. Country Report: Greece. European Commission: 149-164.

Tsakiris, G., Cavadias, G., Pangalou, D. and Nanou, A. 2003. Greece. URL: http://www.iamz.ciheam.org/options/om_b51/PDFs/CHAP%2003-Tsakiris.pdf [Consulted June 10, 2009].

Tsiourtis, N. 2002. Greece- water resources planning and climate change adaptation. Gland: IUCN Centre for Mediterranean Cooperation, International Union for Conservation of Nature. URL: http://hydrogis.geology.upatras.gr/HYD/WATER_RESOURCES_GREECE.PDF [consulted on 9 June 2009].

United Nations Development Programme. 2004. Imple-menting sustainable integrated water resource and wastewater management in the Pacific Island Countries. Suva: UNDP Fiji Multi-country office.

_________________. 2005. Integrated water resources management plan – training manual and opera-tional guide. Pretoria: Capacity Building for IWRM Network, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).

________________. 2008a Capacity Building Practice Note. New York: UNDP

________________. 2008b Implementing sustainable water resources and wastewater management in Pacific Island Countries. Suva: United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United Na-tions Environment Programme (UNEP), Pacific Island Applied Geosciences Commission (SOPAC).

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2004. Integrated Water Resources Management – Greece. Contribution to the Governing Council Meeting of UNEP at Ministerial level (Jeju, Korea, March 2004), in view of the 12th Session of the UN CSD (New York, April 2004). Available at: http://www.unep.org/GC/GCSS-VIII/GreeceIWRM.doc [consulted on 12 June 2009]


36

_______. 2009. Water in a changing world. The United Nations World Water Development Report 3. Paris: UNESCO.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Or-ganization (UNESCO). 2006. Water: a shared responsibility. The United Nations World Water Development Report 2. Paris: UNESCO.

_______. 2009. Water in a changing world. The United Nations World Water Development Report 3. Paris: UNESCO.

van Hofwegen, P. J. M. 2004. Capacity-building for water and irrigation sector management with application in Indonesia. Capacity Development in Irrigation and Drainage Issues, Challenges and the Way Ahead. (FAO Water Reports, 26), Rome, FAO.

Winter, T.C., Harvey, J.W., Franke, O.L. and Alley, W.M. 1998. Ground Water and Surface Water – A Sin-gle Resource. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1139. Denver, Colorado: USGS.

World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF). 2007. Drought in the Mediterranean region- WWF policy proposals. Rome: WWF Mediterranean Programme Office, World Wildlife Fund for Nature.

Zikos, D. and Bithas, K. 2006. The Case of “Weak Water” Governance Model: Athens – Greece. URL: http://www.zikos.eu/516-372.pdf [Consulted June 12, 2009].

Personal communications:

Gaganis, Petros. 2009. Assistant Professor, Department of Environment. University of Aegean, Greece.


37

Questionnaire Objectives: 1.) To Investigate existing approaches that are relevant water management in Lesvos; 2.) To listen to local stakeholders as they understand their water needs the best; 3.) To understand what is working in the community and what else is happening. Industry/Organisation Type/Sector:________________________ Person Interviewed & Position:_____________________________ What are your current practices in water management? Why are you doing this (or what do you want to achieve)? What are your organizational concerns/challenges regarding water issues? Who do you think should be responsible for water issues on the island? Why do you think they should be responsible? What do you think makes water resources management in Lesvos better than other islands in Aegean and Greece? How can the government help your organisation to enhance understanding of (industrial) processes in relation to the hy-drological/water resources system; in particular with reference your (organisation) participation? How can your organisation contribute towards water management in Mythilini/Lesvos?

Annex 1. Questionnaire

Lesvos Island

Effective Type of Aquifer Runoff (mm) Infiltration (mm)

Precipitation Evapotransportation

603 mm 375 mm (62%) Porous Sedimentary 91.2 (40%) 136.8 (60%)

Carstic - Limestone 11.4 (5%) 216.6 (95%)

Usable: 38% Other 193.0 (85%) 34.5 (15%)

Source:Ministry of Development-Department Natural Resources

Hydrologic mass balance according to the type of Aquifer (mm)

Annex 2. Hydrologic mass balance


38

Ann

ex 3

. Dom

estic

/hou

seho

ld a

nd to

uris

m w

ater

use

in L

esvo

s.

Equ

ival

ent P

opul

atio

n/M

unic

ipal

ity (2

006)

2006

E

quiv

alen

t Pop

ulat

ion

Perm

anen

t Pop

ulat

ion

Eq.

Sea

sona

l Pop

ulat

ion

Mun

icip

aliti

es

Agi

a Pa

rask

evi

2,66

0 2,

628

32

Agi

asos

2,

641

2,58

7 54

Ger

a 7,

192

6,98

5 20

7

Ere

sou-

Ant

issi

s 6,

104

5,53

0 57

4

Eve

rget

oula

3,

402

3,33

6 66

Kal

loni

8,

543

8,19

4 34

9

Lou

trop

oli T

herm

is

3,97

4 3,

809

165

Man

tam

ados

3,

295

3,21

0 85

Myt

him

na

3,10

8 2,

433

675

Myt

ilini

36

,910

36

,196

71

4

Petr

a 4,

455

3,74

9 70

6

Plom

ari

7,14

3 6,

698

445

Polic

hnito

s 5,

624

5,28

8 33

6

Lesv

os T

otal

95

,051

90

,643

4,

408

Res

iden

t Typ

e L

itre/

day

per

capi

ta

Popu

latio

n E

quiv

alen

t Est

imat

e W

ater

use

(m3/

yr)

Perm

anen

t 25

0 90

000

8212

500

Seas

onal

(Tou

rist

s)

250

4400

40

1500

Sour

ce: N

atio

nal S

tatis

tical

Ser

vice

of G

reec

e (p

roce

ssed

dat

a by

Was

te M

anag

emen

t Lab

orat

ory)


39

Est

imat

ed W

ater

Use

in A

gric

ultu

re

Agr

icul

ture

Typ

e E

stim

ated

Wat

er u

se p

er ty

pe (m

3/ha

*yr)

*

Are

a co

ver

(ha)

A

nnua

l wat

er u

se (m

3/yr

)

Ara

ble

land

50

00

1395

.6

6978

000

Veg

etab

les a

nd o

ther

gar

den

crop

s 40

00

154.

64

6185

60

Vin

es (g

rape

s and

rais

ins)

20

00

117.

5 23

5000

Arb

oric

ultu

re

5000

36

.37

1818

50

Pota

oes

6000

28

5.96

17

1576

0

Mai

ze

4500

27

1.36

12

2112

0

Clo

ver

8500

16

9.75

14

4287

5

Gra

zela

nds

0 61

296.

71

0

Oliv

e Tr

ees

0 47

900.

95

0

New

Oliv

e Tr

ees

2000

23

95.0

475

4790

095

Tot

al

24

31.1

8 17

1832

60

* by

Dep

t. of

Env

ironm

ent

You

can

als

o co

nsul

t: "A

gric

ultu

re, E

nviro

nmen

t, R

ural

Dev

elop

men

t: Fa

cts a

nd F

igur

es -

A C

halle

nge

for A

gric

ultu

re"

avai

labl

e at

(http

://ec

.eur

opa.

eu/a

gric

ultu

re/e

nvir/

repo

rt/en

/)

Ann

ex 4

. Agr

icul

ture

irrig

atio

n w

ater

use

in L

esvo

s


40

Municipalities Number of bovine animals

2001 Number of sheep 2001 Number of goats 2001

Number of pigs 2001

Island of Lesvos 7,061 302,780 44,693 3,916 Agia Paraskevi 1,084 41,396 7,772 460 Agiasos 25 5,576 1,500 60 Gera 315 8,043 3,868 588 Eresou-Antissis 131 63,925 4,171 132 Evergetoula 74 5,006 1,011 143 Kalloni 764 65,071 9,401 209

Loutropoli Thermis 131 13,402 3,302 270 Mantamados 3,400 36,434 3,464 554 Mythimna 168 14,172 866 24 Mytilini 188 10,144 1,971 381 Petra 617 19,602 3,716 663 Plomari 48 8,990 2,101 165 Polichnitos 116 11,019 1,550 267 Source: National Statistical Service of Greece

Estimated Water Use in Animal Husbandry*

Type of Animal l/day per capita Animal popn Annual Water Use (m3/yr) Cattle 45 7,061 317745 Goat 10 44,693 446930 Sheep 8.5 302,780 2573630 Pig 12 3,916 46992 Source: Χοιροτροφία, εκτροφή μονογαστρικών τεύχος Α, Ν.Κ. κατσαούνης- Α.Β. Σπαής, Εκδόσεις σύγχρονη παιδεία, Θεσσαλονίκη 1998, σελ 188 Γιδοτροφία, Δ. Ζυγογιάννης, Ν. Κατσαούνης, Α΄ έκδοση, Θεσσαλονίκη 1992, εκδοτικός οίκος Aδελφοί Kυριακίση Ο.Ε., σελίδες 141-142 Προβατοτροφία, εκτροφή μηρυκαστικών τεύχος Α, Δημήτριος ζυγογιάννης, Εκδόσεις σύχρονη παιδεία, Θεσσαλονίκη 1999, σελ 229, 24-241, 337-338 Βοοτροφία, Ν. Κατσαούνης, εκδόσεις σύγχρονη παιδεία, Θεσσαλονίκη 2000, σελ. 329,

Annex 5. Agriculture animal farming and husbandry water use in Lesvos


41

Olive Oil Production Years Olive Fruit Olive Oil % Olive Po-mace %

84 - 85* 46,593 12,155 26.09 23,126 49.63

85 - 86 70,201 17,077 24.33 33,529 47.76

86 - 87 36,658 9,653 26.33 16,785 45.79

87 - 88 38,654 10,038 25.97 15,526 40.17

88 - 89 26,497 6,426 24.25 9,998 37.73

89 - 90 44,321 12,709 28.68 19,352 43.66

90 - 91 6,492 1,597 24.59 2,871 44.22

91 - 92 64,676 17,097 26.43 31,575 48.82

92 - 93 30,029 7,655 25.49 15,143 50.43

93 - 94 17,451 4,432 25.40 6,712 38.46

94 - 95 99,990 22,990 22.99 45,096 45.10

95 - 96 30,844 8,456 27.42 NA NA

96 - 97 113,631 32,384 28.50 NA NA

97 - 98 22,265 5,422 24.35 NA NA

98 - 99 146,665 38,127 26.00 NA NA

99 - 00 17,446 4,147 23.77 8,623 49.43

00 - 01 107,011 26,485 24.75 50,412 47.11

01 - 02 2,530 NA NA NA

02 - 03 29,402 NA NA NA

03 - 04 23,074 5,987 25.95 NA NA

04 - 05 12,053 NA NA NA

* Olive Oil production Period Begins in October and ends in March

Annex 6. Olive oil, milk processing and slaughterhouse industries water use in Lesvos


42

Name of Unit Sheep milk processed (kg)

Goat milk proc-essed (kg) Municipalities/communities

Agricultural co-operative of Mantamados 700,000 15,000 Mantamados/Mantamados Mystakellis I. 360,000 90,000 Mantamados/Mantamados Doukas E. 560,000 40,000 Mantamados/Mantamados Terra Aiolika 512,000 168,000 Polichnitos/Achladeri Zouros H. 60,000 - Polichnitos/Polichnitos Planis G. 50,000 - Polichnitos/Polichnitos Koukoulas C. 100,000 8,000 Polichnitos/Polichnitos Chademenos P. 120,000 50,000 Polichnitos/Lisvori Tyrokomiki Geras 80,000 20,000 Gera/Skopelos Patsikas S. 850,000 150,000 Tastanis M. & D. 450,000 100,000 Kalloni/Agra Sachtouris V. 700,000 50,000 Petra/Stipsi Vournazos N. 110,000 16,000 Eressos-Antissa/Mesotopos Livestock Co-operative of Eresos 800,000 30,000 Eressos-Antissa/Eressos Thymelis Ε. 3,000,000 260,000 Eressos-Antissa/Antissa Koutsoktonis C. 250,000 - Mythimna/Argenos Santziliotis D. 1,500,000 500,000 Loutropoli Thermis Skordos. D. 400,000 100,000 Loutropoli Thermis/ Neon Kidonion LESVIGAL 7,000,000 2,000,000 Eressou-Antissis/Vatoussa Galaktokomiki Lesvou 2,125,000 375,000 Eressos-Antissa/Hidira Kolios 4,300,000 1,600,000 Mantamados/Klio Lesvos Island 24,027,000 5,572,000

Production of selected livestock products 1991 (kg) Island Municipalities Meat

Lesvos 3983581 Agia Paraskevi 319277

Agiasos 60857 Gera 378210 Eresou-Antissis 555465 Evergetoula 57252 Kalloni 495869 Loutropoli Thermis 88115 Mantamados 471329 Mythimna 153505 Mytilini 974115 Petra 193680 Plomari 63507 Polichnitos 172400

Industry Type Estimated water use (m3/tn) Amount Processed (tn) Annual Water Use (m3/

yr)

Olive Mills 0.8-1 52361 41888-52361

Milk Processing Units 2.5 29599 73997

Slaughterhouses 5.4 3983 21511

Sources: National Statistical Service of Greece; Waste Management Laboratory

Annex 6 continued. Olive oil, milk processing and slaughterhouse indus-tries water use in Lesvos


43

Annex 7. List of stakeholders involved (or potentially interested) in water man-agement in Lesvos

The table is compiled by using different sources: Tsakiris et al. 2003, Tsagarakis et al. 2003, CWA 2008,

Level Stakeholders Interest

National

Central Water Agency of the Hellenic Ministry for Environment, Physical Planning and Public Works

The main body for management of water resources working through local prefecture offices; supervises Regional Water Directorates

National Water Committee The overall policy-making for water protection and management; monitoring and control of the implemen-tation and approval of national programs for the pro-tection and management of the water potential in Greece (i.e. National Strategy for Water Resources); integration of national institutional framework in ac-cordance with EU WFD

National Water Council Ensures an active public involvement and participa-tion. It includes representatives of different stake-holders (political parties represented in the Parliament, prefecture representatives, municipal unions and com-panies, unions of workers, scientific organizations and two non-governmental organizations)

Ministry of Agriculture Rural development, measures and actions aiming to fulfill water needs for agriculture

Ministry of Health and its Regional Laboratories for Public Health.

Monitoring of drinking water quality

Ministry of Interior, Public admini-stration and Decentralization

Municipalities are supervised by this Ministry

Local

Regional Water Directorate (Aegean Islands)

Co-ordinate water policy activities and implement spe-cific Programmes of Measures and Action Plans (such as River Basin Management Plan) for achieving the environmental objectives of the WFD within the boundaries of the water region

Regional Water Council Ensures an active public involvement and participation

Prefecture of Mytilene (Lesvos), of-fice of water resources

Functional management of water resources: determine terms for the protection of water resources; licenses for construction of water works and permissions of water use, permits for wells

13 Municipalities of Lesvos Drinking water supply and water sanitation, setting of water supply prices

Municipal companies for water sup-ply and sewerage

Water supply, treatment of water, water control

Regional Laboratories for Public Health

Monitoring of drinking water quality

Wastewater treatment plants Treatment of wastewater Farmers, industries, hotels, citizens Water use and discharge of waste water

NGOs, various educational and sci-entific institutions and universities

Protection of natural resources, education, awareness programs and campaigns

Consultants, scientists, advisers, spe-cialists

Consultation and information support, improvement of water management

Local media Provide information and public awareness.


44

Sect

or/K

ey q

uest

ions

In

dust

ry -

Oliv

e Pr

ess

Fac-

tory

,

Cop

.

Of

M

oliv

os

(28/

05/0

9)

Ene

rgy-

The

Pow

er S

tatio

n o

f L

esvo

s (29

/05/

09)

Was

te-W

aste

wat

er/

Sew

age

T

reat

men

t Pl

ant,

M

ythe

lini

(29/

05/0

9)

Indu

stry

-EPO

M/D

istil

leri

es

Un-

ion

of M

ythe

lini (

1/06

/09)

1 C

urre

nt p

ract

ices

in

wat

er

man

agem

ent

Was

tew

ater

fro

m o

live

mill

is

not

treat

ed a

nd d

isch

arge

d di

-re

ctly

int

o st

ream

s an

d cr

eeks

(h

igh

CO

D &

BO

D);

the

re i

s so

me

treat

men

t of

wat

er in

line

ta

nks;

Seaw

ater

is

used

to

cool

cyl

inde

r lin

es a

nd h

ead

(at

a r

ate

of

5500

m3/

hr)

and

the

was

tew

ater

is

disc

harg

ed b

ack

into

sea

whi

ch i

s 2-

3deg

ress

hig

her

then

nor

mal

se

awat

er (

part

of c

lose

d lo

op s

ys-

tem

); 1

Geo

ther

mal

pla

nt i

s in

op

erat

ion

in t

he m

iddl

e of

the

is-

land

; W

aste

wat

er i

s ch

ecke

d by

th

e G

ovt.,

70%

of

Myt

helin

i and

2

villa

ges

are

conn

ecte

d to

w

aste

wat

er

plan

t an

d 97

% o

f wat

er is

cle

aned

; w

aste

wat

er

slud

ge

is

dum

ped

on

lan

dsca

pe;

Am

mon

ia i

s di

lute

d an

d ph

osph

orou

s &

nitr

ogen

is

rem

oved

fro

m w

aste

-w

ater

Liqu

id w

aste

is t

reat

ed a

t a r

ate

of

2.5

ton

s/yr

; R

ecyc

ling

of

solid

w

aste

; All

ISO

sta

ndar

ds r

elat

ed to

en

v. m

anag

emen

t is

im

plem

ente

d;

The

indu

stry

is c

onne

cted

to w

aste

-w

ater

tre

atm

ent

and

sam

plin

g of

w

ater

is

done

mon

thly

; th

ere

is

inst

alla

tion

of m

achi

nes

that

use

s le

ss w

ater

; C

ompa

ny i

s try

ing

to

adap

t to

EU le

gisl

atio

ns

2 O

rgan

izat

iona

l co

ncer

ns/

chal

leng

es

1 to

n of

oliv

e fr

uit

proc

essi

ng

prod

uces

1 t

on o

f w

aste

wat

er;

Larg

e am

ount

of

wat

er i

s us

ed

for

was

hing

and

pro

cess

ing;

tre

atm

ent p

lant

for w

ater

is v

ery

cost

ly; s

mal

l mill

set

-ups

ver

sus

larg

er s

etup

s gu

aran

tee

qual

ity

of o

il bu

t m

akes

it

diff

icul

t fo

r po

licy

impl

emen

tatio

n

Mov

emen

t of

the

pow

er s

tatio

n fr

om M

ythi

lene

; No

spec

ific

envi

-ro

nmen

tal

prob

lem

; Th

ere

is a

lot

of

inve

stm

ent t

o im

prov

e th

e en

vi-

ronm

enta

l co

nditi

ons;

Pow

er s

ta-

tion

is c

lose

to

mun

icip

ality

of

Myt

helin

i; M

anpo

wer

pro

blem

is

an i

ssue

- o

nly

one

pers

on i

n-ch

arge

of

all

wat

er i

ssue

s of

the

pl

ant.

Dew

ater

ed sl

udge

has

no

use

and

the

com

pany

do

esn’

t kno

w w

hat t

o do

w

ith i

t; tre

ated

wat

er i

s du

mpe

d in

to th

e se

a

Dis

posa

l of o

rgan

ic w

aste

s;

Man

y le

gisl

atio

ns d

raw

n by

the

Gov

t. is

no

t pr

actic

al a

nd o

vera

ll th

ere

is

abse

nce

of c

ontro

l, le

gisl

atio

n th

at

is p

ract

ical

. Th

is c

reat

es m

ore

bu-

reau

crac

y an

d G

ovt

is s

een

as l

aw

enfo

rcer

s on

ly -

the

y se

nd o

nly

insp

ecto

rs o

nly

3 R

espo

nsib

ility

for

wat

er

issu

es

Pref

ectu

re a

nd m

unic

ipal

cou

n-ci

l sh

ould

tak

e re

spon

sibi

lity

in

treat

ing

wat

er

Mun

icip

al c

ounc

il an

d th

e po

wer

st

atio

n M

unic

ipal

W

ater

A

u-th

ority

C

ompa

ny R

espo

nsib

ility

- F

renc

h Pa

rent

Com

pany

5 R

equi

red

ass

ista

nce

for

w

ater

man

agem

ent

Scie

ntifi

c ap

plic

atio

n to

rem

ove

poly

phen

ols;

G

over

nmen

t to

in

vest

in r

esea

rch

for

oliv

e m

ill

was

tew

ater

trea

tmen

t, w

illin

g to

ap

ply

solu

tions

and

allo

w m

ills

to p

artic

ipat

e;

Non

e m

entio

ned

as n

o en

viro

n-m

enta

l pr

oble

ms

are

clai

med

by

the

Pow

er S

tatio

n M

anag

er

Alte

rnat

e

use

of

th

e sl

udge

an

d

reus

e

of

treat

ed w

ater

Cur

rent

ly t

here

is

no a

ssis

tanc

e fr

om G

ovt.

to th

e co

mpa

nies

; Nee

d to

org

anis

e se

min

ars

to e

ncou

rage

bu

sine

sses

and

dem

and

less

; M

ore

info

rmat

ion

on le

gisl

atio

ns a

nd E

U

legi

slat

ion

re

quire

men

ts

and

chan

ges;

Nee

d fo

r a

certi

fied,

spe

-ci

alis

ed b

ody

or o

rgan

isat

ion

for

advi

sory

role

on

wat

er is

sues

.

6 O

rgan

isat

iona

l par

tner

ship

op

port

uniti

es

The

mill

s ca

n pr

ovid

e te

chno

l-og

y an

d eq

uipm

ent a

s req

uire

d N

one

men

tione

d N

one

men

tione

d an

d th

e fa

cilit

y i

s ru

n b

y t

he

wat

er

auth

ority

of

M

ythe

lini

Can

ass

ist

in d

emon

stra

tion

and

trans

fer

of t

echn

olog

y, k

now

ledg

e an

d be

st p

ract

ices

Ann

ex 8

. Que

stio

nnai

re a

naly

sis

of L

esvo

s se

ctor

al p

erce

ptio

ns o

n w

ater

and

was

tew

ater

man

-ag

emen

t


45

Annex 9. Water pricing in different municipalities

THE ESSENCE OF LESVOSalvinchandra.yolasite.com/resources/Documents/IWRM Report...The Essence of...

Documents

Transcript of THE ESSENCE OF LESVOSalvinchandra.yolasite.com/resources/Documents/IWRM Report...The Essence of...