- General(active tab)
- Site information
- Monitoring maintenance
- Performance
- Design & implementations
- Lessons, risks, implications...
- Policy, general governance and design targets
- Socio-economic
- Biophysical impacts
General
National Id
Bulgaria_01
Site name
Persina Nature Park, protected site "Kalimok-Brashlen"
Summary
The project was carried out in the period 2002 – 2008 by the Ministry of the Environment and Water in Bulgaria and the main donor was the Global Environment Facility (GEF). The performance was the restoration of two wetlands along Danube River by construction of engineering facilities, including sluices, channels, dykes to protect the adjacent land, as well as access roads. The project aimed to enable water flow into former wetlands, provide options for controlled flooding, optimized trapping of nutrient elements, and restoration of biodiversity and fish populations.
Light or indepth?
In-depth
The in-depth description of the case study
NUTS Code
Северен централен (Severen tsentralen)
RBD code
BG1000
Transboundary
0
Data provider
Jovanka Ignjatovic REC
Source(s)
NWRM(s) implemented in the case study
Longitude
26.0
Latitude
43.88
Site information
Climate zone
cool temperate dry
Mean rainfall
540
Mean rainfall unit
mm/year
Average temperature
11,6999998092651
Mean evaportranspiration
0,270000010728836
Mean evaportranspiration unit
mm/hour
Mean runoff
6000
Mean runoff unit
600 - 750 mm
Average runoff coefficient
0,150000005960464
Type
Case Study Info
Depth groundwater
0,25
Average slope range
0.015
Monitoring maintenance
Monitoring impacts effects
1
Monitoring location
Edge of Field/Plot
Administrative annual costs
3600000
Administrative annual cost information
Protected sites management planning, Capacity building, Monitoring
Monitoring parameters
Biodiversity, surface and ground water quality
Performance
Performance impact estimation method
Catchment outlet
Performance impact estimation information
N and P monitoring on annual basis. Biodiversity database carried out in the period 2001-2008
Design & implementations
Application scale
River
Installation date
2007-09
Lifespan
50
Age
1
Performance timescale
11 - 20 years
Area (ha)
4035
Design capacity description
50-60 days flood anually; The technical design of the project for Persina site includes inflow and outlet facilities with the following dimensions:
- 3 Inflow sluices 2.0/1.5 m and maximum runoff capacity 17.3 m3/s.
- 1 Outlet facility †“double sluice with dimensions 2 x 2.0/1.5 m and max. capacity 34.6 m3/s.
The technical design for Kalimok-Brushlen includes inflow and outlet facilities with the following dimensions:
- Inflow sluice with dimensions 2x1.5/1.00 m and max. capacity 18.6 m3/s
- Inflow sluice 2.0/1.5 m and capacity 20.5 m3/s.
- Outlet 2 x2.0/1.5 m and capacity 37.3 m3/s.
- 3 Inflow sluices 2.0/1.5 m and maximum runoff capacity 17.3 m3/s.
- 1 Outlet facility †“double sluice with dimensions 2 x 2.0/1.5 m and max. capacity 34.6 m3/s.
The technical design for Kalimok-Brushlen includes inflow and outlet facilities with the following dimensions:
- Inflow sluice with dimensions 2x1.5/1.00 m and max. capacity 18.6 m3/s
- Inflow sluice 2.0/1.5 m and capacity 20.5 m3/s.
- Outlet 2 x2.0/1.5 m and capacity 37.3 m3/s.
Constraints
Possible appearance of disease because of mosquitoes
Favourable preconditions
Due to the hydrogeological conditions of the sites, parts of the wetlands continued to exist and have a high potential for restoration.
Peak flow rate
5
Public consultation
1
Contractural arrangements
1
Design contractual arrangement
| Arrangement type | Responsibility | Role | Comments | Name |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Contractual agreement
|
Global Environmental Facility Trust Fund Grant Agreement
|
Design consultation activity
| Activity stage | Key issues | Name | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Public and media outreach
|
The aproach ensure public awarenes
|
||
|
Training and consulting of local
|
Local consulting in Belene, 30th of June, 2002, 25 participants and in Slivo Pole, 31th of June, 20.
|
||
|
Project promotion
|
Public support as well as support of public institutions and donor community in the country.
|
||
|
Environmental education
|
Design land use change
| Land use change type |
|---|
Design authority
| Authority type | Role | Responsibility | Name | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
National water authority
|
Implementation
|
Government of Bulgaria, Ministry of Environment and Water
|
and Financing
|
|
|
Local water authority
|
Monitoring
|
Persina NP Directorate
|
Long-term maintenance and monitoring of impacts
|
|
|
Regional / sub-national water authority
|
Monitoring
|
Dabube River Basin Directorate
|
Monitoring of WFD compliant quality elements, integration into RBMP
|
Lessons, risks, implications...
Key lessons
When plenty of stakeholders are involved, it would be appropriate to provide longer groundwork. Participatory approaches to wetland restoration design were critical for Project success, which hinged on changing people's perceptions of wetlands, and gaining the full support for restoration among authorities and stakeholders. PA Local Consultative Councils and public awareness campaigns effectively supported stakeholder involvement.
Controlled restoration is a step in the right direction and is allowing large- scale experimentation and studying of nutrient trapping processes.
Solid knowledge on the baseline and the desired ecosystem status should be embedded early in project design phase.
Controlled restoration is a step in the right direction and is allowing large- scale experimentation and studying of nutrient trapping processes.
Solid knowledge on the baseline and the desired ecosystem status should be embedded early in project design phase.
Financing difficulties
0
Success factor(s)
| Success factor type | Success factor role | Comments |
|---|---|---|
|
Attitude of relevant stakeholders
|
The intensive stakeholder involvement during design and implementation created strong ownership and sustainable Project outcomes |
|
|
Financing possibilities
|
The overall co-financing proveded by government substantially exceeded amounts agreed at appraisal. |
|
|
Existing staff and consultant knowledge
|
Bank and Gobernment cooperation was in timely attention to critical implementation issues. |
|
|
Attitude of relevant stakeholders
|
Established local Park administration, responsible for the maintenance and future operation of the NWRM |
Financing
| Financing type | Comments |
|---|---|
|
Other
|
GEF
|
|
National funds
|
Government of Bulgaria
|
|
Other
|
EU PHARE
|
|
National funds
|
Austrian Government
|
Barrier
| Barrier type | Barrier role | Comments |
|---|---|---|
|
Attitude of the public
|
secondary barrier
|
Administrative difficulties, related to land ownership / statute resulted in project delay
|
|
Limited staff and consultant knowledge
|
secondary barrier
|
Difficulties with technical design due to insufficient national expertise in wetlands restoration
|
|
Other
|
secondary barrier
|
Not defined target ecosystem status (favorable conservation status) at the project start
|
Driver
| Driver type | Driver role | Comments |
|---|---|---|
|
Legal obligations
|
main driver
|
The Environmental Program for the Danube River Basin as a `preemptive measure to prevent river Danube and Black Sea water pollution from reaching catastrophic proportions`
|
|
Legal obligations
|
main driver
|
Danube Pollution Reduction program (DRP)
|
Policy, general governance and design targets
Policy description
Over the years, the wetlands and floodplain have been drained or dyked to create arable land and to reduce malarial mosquito habitats. Now the wetlands area is about 10 percent of its original size at the turn of the century, reducing the capacity of its ecological function of water purification.
Part of wider plan
1
Policy target
| Target purpose |
|---|
|
Pollutants Removal
|
|
Improved Biodiversity
|
|
Increase Water Storage
|
Policy pressure
| Pressure directive | Relevant pressure |
|---|
Policy area
| Policy area type | Policy area focus | Name | Comments |
|---|
Policy impact
| Impact directive | Relevant impact |
|---|
Policy wider plan
| Wider plan type | Wider plan focus | Name | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
|
National
|
Environment & Biodiversity
|
GEF Black Sea/Danube Strategic Partenrship-Nutrient Reduction Investment fund
|
Bulgaria's strategy for nutrient reduction, biodiversity and agriculture and rural development.
|
Policy requirement directive
| Requirement directive | Specification |
|---|
Socio-economic
Direct benefits information
Protection of the Danube river basin from nutrient pollution inccreasing and improving the water quality.
Ancillary benefits information
Increased economic beneffits due to fishery and biomass production and farming practices.
Costs investment
5480000
Costs investment information
Cost of restoration of Belene Island and K/B Marshes
Costs capital
3660000
Costs land acquisition
31000
Costs land acquisition unit
€ (total value)
Costs operation maintenance
10000
Costs operation maintenance
Operation of the facilities for regular flooding
Costs total
9700000
Costs total information
Cost of restoration of Belene Island and K/B Marshes and other additional sites
Economic costs additional
661000
Information on Economic costs additional
Restoration of additional sites
Ecosystem improved biodiversity
1
Information on Ecosystem improved biodiversity
As water quality improves, local species have already benefited. Fish have returned to spawn and with the retorned fish spawn, also have a return of an increase of rare bird species such as the white-tailed eagle and the Dalmatian pelican.
Ecosystem provisioning services
1
Information on Ecosystem provisioning services
Tourism development in the region, new employment opportunities, economic benefits due to fishery and biomass production.
Ecosystem impact climate regulation
No information available
Information on Ecosystem impact climate regulation
No info available
Biophysical impacts
Retained water
9
Retained water unit
mio m3/month
Information on retained water
In total both sites
Runoff reduction
5
Information on increased water storage
The space for flooding is wider, with the selected situation of the dykes, with an area of 4035ha
Runoff reduction unit
% Percent
Information on runoff reduction
Runoff control by controlled flooding regime of the restored wetlands.
Peak flow rate reduction
1
Peak flow rate reduction unit
%
Information on Increased Evapotranspiration
Evaporation in the wetland will be as max about 1 m3/sec.
Information on Restoring hydraulic connections
80% of the former wetland restored
Water quality overall improvements
Positive impact-WQ improvement
Information on Water quality overall improvements
NWRM has impacted the overall water quality by nutrient reduction and capture (N, P) and capture of organic pollutants. Preliminary analysis indicates that the total nutrients reduction could reach 2.200 tons/year nitrogen and 284 tons/year phosphorus.
Soil quality overall soil improvements
N/A info
Information on Soil quality overall soil improvements
No info available