The VJETRENICA case:
The Société Internationale de Biospéologie - International Society for Subterranean Biology enthusiastically endorses the candidacy of Vjetrenica in Bosnia & Hercegovina for the World Heritage list
- candidacy of Vjetrenica for the World Heritage List
- the project of the multifunctional Karst Centre in Zavala near
Vjetrenica
Biologically, Vjetrenica is a remarkable cave and a remarkable subterranean hydrogeological system, worthy of all of the superlatives one can muster. With close to 6 km of cave corridors surveyed, the number of cave-limited species (more than 80) is rivaled only by Postojna-Planina Cave System in Slovenia. It greatly surpasses other diverse caves such as Mammoth Cave in Kentucky, a cave on the World Heritage list. But it is not the numbers alone that make Vjetrenica so important. The cave itself is a center of endemism within Popovo Polje, itself a center of endemism. Among the endemic species are the snails Lanzaia vjetrenicae Ku__er and Zavalia vjetrenicae Radoman, the spider Dinaria vjetrenicae Had_i and the mysid shrimp Troglomysis vjetrenicensis Stammer. It also has many of the most interesting species found in the Dinaric Karst and the entire world for that matter-the only cave hydra, Velkovrhia enigmatica Matja_i_ & Sket, one of a handful of cave leeches, Dina absoloni Johansson, the only cave serpulid worm, Marifugia cavatica Absolon & Hrabe, and the only cave clam, Congeria kusceri Bole. It also harbors some of the most morphologically modified cave species known, such as the amphipod Niphargus balcanicus (Absolon). A rich ecological diversity within the cave includes some very unusual habitats, most especially the cave hygropetric (a thin film of water flowing over rock) which harbors specialized species such as the beetle Hadesia vasiceki (J. M_ller). Therefore, protection of Vjetrenica would help protect not only local endemics, but also a representative sample of Dinaric cave species, including some of the most modified and adapted species found anywhere.
Vjetrenica is also important because it is comparatively well studied, with a long history of biological investigation, including the Czech biologist Karel Absolon, the Yugoslavian biologist Stanko Karaman, and the Slovenian entomologist Egon Pretner, among many others. Vjetrenica is one of the best documented caves in terms of its cave fauna, and this is a strong basis for continuing studies.
We would even suggest including a wider area of the Popovo polje into the registered site. Inclusion of the entire area that drains directly into the cave is a must! Some smaller caves in this area would supplement and complete the ecological and faunistic diversity of Vjetrenica. They are also rich in endemic troglobiotic animals.
SIBIOS-ISSB also supports the plans for a multifunctional centre for Karst "Vjetrenica-Popovo Polje" in Zavala which are both visionary and ambitious. Our primary concern is the protection of the fauna, and we hope that in each stage of the development of this centre, that faunal protection is first and foremost. The development of the center would certainly facilitate scientific work at the cave, and Vjetrenica has enormous potential for further scientific research; not only to study this cave, but also as an exemplary case of caves in general, able to contribute to karstology, speleology and speleobiology in general. Finally, we sound a cautionary note about developing tourism. A coexistence of a limited and well guarded tourist activity with the nature in Vjetrenica definitely is possible. But, previous tourism in the cave had a detrimental effect on some important cave animals in the main passage of the cave. We definitely hope that any new actions with unpredictable results will be continuously avoided.
by
(1) Prof. Dr. D. L. Danielopol (Austrian Academy of Sciencces, Institute of Limnology, A-5310 Mondsee) [E-mail: dan.danielopol@oeaw.ac.at <mailto:dan.danielopol@oeaw.ac.at> ] - (Professor of Groundwater Ecology & Zoology)
(2) Prof.. Dr. J. Gibert ( University of Lyon 1, UMR/CNRS 5023, Groundwater Hydrobiology and Ecology Laboratory, F-69622, Villeurbanne) [E-mail: janine.gibert@univ-lyon1.fr <mailto:janine.gibert@univ-lyon1.fr> ] (Professor of Environmental Biology and Ecology)
(3) Dr. C. Griebler (National Research Centre for Environment and Health (GSF), Institute for
Groundwater Ecology, D-85764 Neuherberg) [E-mail: christian.griebler@gsf.de <mailto:christian.griebler@gsf.de> ] - (Microbiologist)
(4) Dr. A. Gunatilaka (Verbundplan GmbH and University of Vienna, Institute of Medical Biology, Laboratory of Ecophysiology and Ecotoxicology, A-1090 Vienna) [E-mail: GunatilakaA@Verbundplan.at <mailto:GunatilakaA@Verbundplan.at> ] - (Hydrochemist)
(5) Dr. H.J. Hahn (University of Koblenz-Landau, Campus Landau, Division of Biology, D-76829 Landau) [E-mail: hjhahn@uni-landau.de <mailto:hjhahn@uni-landau.de> ] - (Groundwater Ecologist)
(6) Dr. G. Messana (Institute for the Study of Ecosystems, CNR ISE, Section Florence, I-50019 Sesto Fiorentino [E-mail: messana@ ise.cnr.it] (Groundwater Biologist)
(7) Prof. Dr. B. Sket (University of Ljubljana, Department of Biology, Si-1001 Ljubljana) [b.sket@uni-lj.si] (Professor of Zoology & Speleobiology)
Introduction
Directive for a comprehensive policy dealing with groundwater (GW) protection at the level of the European Community (EC) is very timely. We acknowledge the difficult task of the expert commission which developed the present proposal. It is based on previous scientific experience especially those dealing with GW chemistry.
The aim of the following comments is to inform colleagues working on groundwater policy topics on the need of improvement of the present Directive before it will be submitted to approval by the EC Parliamment.
General Statements
1. GW in the proposed Directive is mainly seen as a resource but aquifers which contain GW have to be considered as living space too. It is important to treat the GW-environment exactly as surface water systems. As these systems, GW systems are subject to hydrological and hydrogeological, chemical and biological processes which collectively define their ecological status.
2. GW protection in the proposed Directive is mainly based on the quantitative equilibrium (balance between abstraction and recharge in GW bodies), and on chemical GW-quality (based on limits and threshold concentration of some chemical constituents in GW). The Directive therefore is incomplete without information on the ecological status of the GW systems.
3. During the last 20-30 years different research teams throughout the world, especially in Europe and USA, have focused their research on the dynamics and the functioning of the GW ecosystems at various spatial and time scales.. The result was the emergence of two new closely related scientific disciplines viz. Groundwater Ecology and Ecohydrology. This domain of research is useful for the sustainable management of GW-ecosystems and has to be taken into account in the Groundwater Protection Directive.
Special Comments on the proposed EC-Groundwater Directive
GW is an important natural resource. It acts as a reservoir
from which high quality water can be abstracted for drinking,
use in industry and agriculture but which functionally is used
also by organisms for their requirements, from the microroganisms
in GW to the plants and animals at the surface of the earth. It
is the GW which provides energy for GW-organisms and one should
refer to the rich spectrum of Bacteria (which helps to the process
of in situ water purification) and the diverse subterranean
animals (from worms and crustaceans to amphibians). Hence, GW
display a high degree of functionality, it is a life support and
not only a resource to be used for human consumption as "drinking
water, and for industry and agriculture" (see section Groundwater:
a resource at risk, proposed EC-Groundwater Directive p. 2, 3).
Generally we should protect aquifers as diverse GW ecosystems
and not restrain the concept of protection to an abiotic "body
of groundwater" (the proposed EC-GW Directive p. 6 &
8). Note that following the Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC
(WFD) a body of groundwater means a distinct volume of GW within
an aquifer (Art 2/12).
We have to point out that there is a rich bibliography on this topic (see a brief list of recent publications at the end of this report).
There are large differences between karstic aquifers as ecological systems (where water flows through large solution openings) and porous aquifers in alluvial sediments. Hence one should propose different strategies for their protection as well as management. Note for instance that in karstic systems, a sink may be connected to a number of sources; since directions are as a rule multiplying with the rising GW level, the delineation of polluted areas subsurface are difficult to circumscribe. Hence karst basins have to be defined and the surface soil areas have to be soundly monitored for preventing environmental disasters. This problem is completely missing in the proposed EC-GW Directive.
The protection of GW should not be restricted
to the good chemical status of the subterranean resources but
also one should prevent the loss of functionality of this resource
and the maintenance of the diversity of ecosystems, both within
the subsurface aquifer and the overlying layer of earth. See for
this concept the published information in the references quoted
above, especially in the book Groundwater Ecology, a tool for
management of water resources, the chapter of J. Notenboom
(Managing ecological risks of groundwater pollution).
GW organisms are especially important for the self-purification
processes of groundwater systems, hence the maintenance of a high
diversity of microorganisms is extremely important.
Beside Bacteria invertebrate and vertebrate animals can be selectively used as indicator organisms for giving more complete information about the qualitative state of GW ecosystems. Therefore the diversity of these organisms should be firstly better mapped and further used for environmental monitoring. A European project PASCALIS (EVK2-CT-2001-00121) lead by one of us (J. Gibert) deals with these aims and the expert commission of the proposed EC-GW Directive should consider this information for the final version of this document.
Geographically, a special attention should
be given to the northern, central and southern European regions
when discussing the monitoring programmes for GW-protection. For
instance there are differences in the origin of the salinisation
of groundwater in various European areas. There is inter alia
saline water intrusion in the peri-Mediterranean areas, e.g. southern
Italy, Greece, Spain, even Portugal, due to over pumping while
in other European regions the salinisation is mainly the result
of intensive agriculture procedures.
Standard methods and measures for the characterization and evaluation
of the different GW habitats and communities have to be listed
and further developed analogous to those used for surface waters
(examples in the Water Framework Directive 2000/60 EC).
The Article 1 and 3 of the proposed EC-GW Directive (p.10 and
11 resp.) should be reformulated as following: " criteria
for the assessment of good groundwater chemical status and a good
groundwater ecological status.".. Note that the reference
to the ecological status of surface water bodies or aquatic systems
exists in the Water Framework Directive mentioned above. In contrast
as this has been not applied to GW systems in the proposed EC-GW
Directive, hence the stringent necessity to improve this situation!
The Article 6 of the proposed EC-GW Directive (p. 12) should be
revised mentioning that besides river basin districts one should
protect also GW basins against indirect (diffuse) penetration
of pollutants into groundwater. This alternative especially applies
to aquifers where water infiltrates not necessarily along the
river banks (bank infiltration areas).
The section "Links to sustainable development and the 6 EAP
of the proposed EC-GW Directive (p. 7-8) should be expanded and/or
revised with the following items:
7.1 should stress the necessity for better protection of
relevant GW ecosystems.
Beside 7.1 & 7.2 one should add as 7.3 the hydrological developments
with reference to sustainable yield of aquifers has to be identified
(i.e. the hydrological status of GW systems!). This should be
decided depending of the hydrological, ecohydrological and economical
aspects of the aquifer in question.
7.4 should be the assessment of the ecological status of an aquifer
system (not only the chemical status). Here emphasis should be
given to both GW/surface water ecological parameters, including
the biological ones which pertain to GW organisms.
7.5 should indicate the necessity to mention the horizontal links
of the present proposed EC-GW Directive to other EC environmental
strategic frameworks and/or directives, like the EC-Biodiversity
Strategy, The Natura 2000, The Thematic Soil Strategy, the CD
92/43/EEC - Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna
and Flora.
GW is not mentioned as a priority habitat in the Habitat Directive
mentioned above and the Juberthie Report (1995, Council of Europe
ISBN 92-871-2672-0) on the underground habitats and their protection
deal exclusively with caves and terrestrial fauna. Hence the necessity
to insert this aspect in the proposed EC-GW Directive.
Limits and threshold values: the proposed EC-GW Directive suggests
limit values for two major pollutants, viz. nitrates (inorganic)
and pesticides and their metabolites (organic). The limit value
for the latter is acceptable (limitation can be the detection
limit) but for nitrate is questionable. For e.g. in karst areas
due to lack of green plants, self- purification may not function
well and may lead to higher nitrate values in GW. Here the nitrate
pollution could be prevented only through the effective control
of large catchments. Therefore limits have to be fixed according
to geographical as well as well as hydrogeological characteristics
of the region.
Article 3 of the proposed EC-GW Directive has to be complimented
in the near future also with biological and ecotoxicological criteria
for assessing the quality status of GW systems and/or habitats.
Suitable parameters have to be defined either now or in the near
future, as it was done in the past for other aquatic environments
and/or terrestrial ecosystems. Examples exist in the Water Framework
Directive 2000/60 EC.
In order to achieve the goals mentioned above the EC through their
different departments should support in a sustainable and/or intensive
way the groundwater ecology research and further the dissemination
of the information obtained during basic and/or applied GW research
activities.
It is important to take periodically under scrutiny the different
sources of pollution, respectively not only the old ones but also
new sources like the MTBE or xenobiotics in GW and/or various
potential activities which produce stress or impair the quality
of the GW or the functionality of ecological systems.
Finally, to achieve the goals mentioned above, experts from diversified
disciplines like the environmental and social sciences, the administrative
and the political domains should meet more frequently in order
to communicate their experience. This sort of activity will certainly
further improve the quality of the present Directive on the Protection
of Groundwater against Pollution!
Conclusion
(1) The proposed EC Groundwater Directive is in our opinion incomplete and should be further amended with additional criteria and arguments as emphasised above.
(2) We noted that no clear guidelines are found in the present Groundwater Directive for sustainable GW-management.
(3) A broader approach using sound groundwater
ecology arguments would largely improve the quality of the present
Groundwater Directive if the expert commission would consider
also the important gaps we emphasised:
Lack of ecological background, e.g. no information on the GW ecosystems
services and ecosystem goods which provide important cues for
the protection value of this resource.
No information on the protection of the diverse GW organisms which
play an important roles within the ecosystem.
Lack of separate approaches for the protection of porous and karstic
GW-systems.
(4) Finally, the expert commission of the EC should integrate
for their decisions beside the opinions of hydrogeologists and
hydrochemists also those of GW ecologists.
Literature
(a) Danielopol, D.L., Griebler, C., Gunatilaka, A. & Notenboom, J. 2003.. Present state and prospects for groundwater ecosystems. Environmental Conservation 30: 104-130.
(b) Griebler, C. & Mösslacher, F. (Eds.) 2003. Grundwasser-Ökologie, Facultas, Vienna.
(c) Griebler, C., Danielopol, D.L., Gibert, J., Nachtnebel, H.P. & Notenboom, J. (Eds.) 2001. Groundwater Ecology, a tool for management of water resources. Office for publications of the EC, Luxembourg. (Note that this book presents the proceedings of a Groundwater Ecology Course organised by the EC through its Department for Science, Research and development -DG 12, Brussels).
(d) Culver, D.C., Deharveng, L., Gibert, J. & Sasowsky, D. (Eds.) 2001. Mapping subterranean biodiversity. Proceeding of an international workshop, 18-20 March 2001 at Moulis (France). Special Publication 6, Karst Water Institute, Charles Town, West Virginia.
(e) Wilkens, H., Culver, D.C. & Humphreys, W.F. (Eds.) 2000. Subterranean ecosystems, Ecosystems of the world, 30, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
(f) Gibert, J., Danielopol, D.L. & Stanford, J.A. (Eds.), 1994. Groundwater Ecology, Academic Press, San Diego.
Final Note
The opinions here exposed are not necessarily endorsed by the organisations which support the authors activities.
We acknowledge the discussion with various colleagues who helped to improve the ideas here exposed.
Correspondence can be sent to any of the above mentioned authors.
The version of this document was completed on 01.30.2004.
EPA [Western Australia]
Guidance Statement for the Assessment of Environmental Factors
No. 54 - Consideration of Subterranean Fauna in
Groundwater and Caves during Environmental Impact Assessment.
is available at www.epa.wa.gov.au under 'Environmental Impact Assessment', ' Guidance Statements' scroll down until you get to summary of statement 54 and then download.
download from sibios website : EPA_GS54.pdf
Information from : Bill Humphreys
SIBIOS - geoffroy@mnhn.fr
Written by Jean-Jacques Geoffroy
© SIBIOS,
2010