Nutrient over-enrichment/eutrophication

Though few stakeholders ranked nutrient over-enrichment as a priority concern, there is a considerable amount of awareness of this as an issue as it impacts the Black Sea, but probably less awareness of the implications. The perceptions of cause and effects of nutrient over-enrichment and eutrophication appear to be based in economic interests generally, with groups who benefit from current status quo advocating a continuation of practices, and those who are impacted by the problems it creates supporting a change. All stakeholder groups expressed an explicit concern about sewage and animal waste in the Black Sea.

Table 7.2 Stakeholder group priorities

* Natural Resources, Ecology, Water or Environmental Ministry

** Parliamentary committees for environmental protection

The perceptions of organic wastes from livestock sources impacting the Black Sea and contributing to eutrophication varied. NGOs and public health care providers strongly agreed that there is an impact. Economic ministry officials, parliamentary committee for environmental protection representatives, district water management, nature reserve staff, and tourism and recreation industry officials also agreed. There was, however, a division between agricultural ministries, with Romanian and Russian officials agreeing and Bulgarian and Georgian officials disagreeing about the impact of livestock waste on the Black Sea. In the livestock industry Romanian respondents tended to agree while Russians and Bulgarians disagreed. There was disagreement from regional government officials and international funding organizations with regards to pollution from animal farming having a significant impact on the Black Sea. This variation among groups may be a matter of outreach and national priorities, as well as economic interests. In comparison to livestock wastes having impacts, there was overall agreement from all stakeholder groups that municipal waste is a significant problem for the health of the Black Sea.

The perception of other nutrient sources, specifically from agriculture activities appears to be more based in economic issues. In response to the statement: ‘it is difficult to enforce current regulations on agro-chemicals use,’ all groups agreed with medium to low level agreement that enforcement is difficult.

In contrast, in response to the statement: ‘fertilizer use on land causes problems the Black Sea,’ there was division within agricultural ministries with Georgian and Bulgarian officials disagreeing, while others agreed strongly. There was also internal division within the agro industry, livestock industry and disagreement from farm worker stakeholder groups in response to this statement. This suggests that the perception of cause and effect relationships between fertilizers and eutrophication should be more clearly delineated for these groups.

When asked if current agricultural practices are sustainable for the environment (Fig. 7.12), most stakeholders did not feel that they were, with strongest dissention from economic ministry officials, environmental protection agents, public health care providers and international funding organizations. Agricultural ministry officials are extremely divided across all countries. However, labour ministry officials and farming industry representatives felt that current practices are not environmentally sustainable, and 30% neither agreed nor disagreed. Only 23% of all stakeholders surveyed agreed that current agricultural practices are sustainable. This suggests that while the groups listed above were more cohesive in their views, there is an overall awareness that agricultural practices are not beneficial to the environment.

This mirrors responses to the perceived need to use agro-chemicals to product needed food. The agricultural ministries, fisheries agencies, fishing industry, manufacturing industry, agro-industry, livestock industry, regional government officials, farm workers, and tourism industry agreed that agrochemicals were necessary, while there was division within the internal affairs ministries, social welfare/public health ministries and nature preserve staff. There was disagreement that agrochemicals are required from public administrators, and parliamentary committees for environmental protection, public health care providers and the press. This may be because these groups have access to different information about alternative farming practices.

Figure 7.12 Stakeholders’ responses to the statement: “current agricultural practices are sustainable for the environment”

Again, farm workers felt that environmentally safe farming practices would limit economic opportunities, while international funding organizations, nature preserve staff, NGOs, parliamentary committees, and labor ministry officials disagreed. There was wide variation among agricultural ministry officials in response to this, with no discernable trend from country to country. There was a trend towards disagreement among all other groups.

This suggests that stakeholders who are most responsible for activities leading to nutrient over-enrichment are either unaware of the impacts or do not feel that it is appropriate to admit being at fault for these problems. It may be advisable to develop strategies to reduce impacts while also increasing awareness and economic viability of alternative practices.