Project Brief / Danube Regional Project Phase 1
Annexes
ANNEX 11 Causes and Effects of
Eutrophication in the Black Sea
DANUBE POLLUTION REDUCTION PROGRAMME
CAUSES AND EFFECTS OF EUTROPHICATION
IN THE BLACK SEA
SUMMARY REPORT
JUNE 1999
Programme Coordination Unit
UNDP/GEF Assistance
prepared by
Joint Ad-hoc Technical Working Group ICPDR - ICPBS
Preface
The Black Sea is regarded as a regional sea that has been most severely damaged as the result of
human activity. Based upon comprehensive studies by scientists, in 1996, Ministers of the
Environment from Black Sea countries recognised, amongst other things, that "The Black Sea
ecosystems continues to be threatened by inputs of certain pollutants, notably nutrients. Nutrients
enter the Black Sea from land based sources, and in particular through rivers The Danube River
accounts for well over half of the nutrient input of the Black Sea. Eutrophication is a phenomenon
which occurs over wide areas of the Black Sea and should be a concern to the countries of the
Black Sea Basin." Further more, the Ministers agreed that "A Black Sea Basin Wide Strategy,
negotiated wit all states located in the Black Sea Basin should be developed to address the
eutrophication problem in the Black Sea. The objective of the Strategy should be to negotiate a
progressive series of stepwise reductions of nutrient loads, until agreed Black Sea water quality
objectives are met."
In order to facilitate the development of such a strategy, it is necessary to have a clear common
understanding of the nature of the problem, its causes and the options available for solving it. The
purpose of this report is to present, in a concise but accessible manner, evidence linking the
development of eutrophication in the Black Sea to the human influenced changes in discharges of
dissolved compounds of nitrogen, phosphorus and silicon entering the sea from land based sources.
The present report was prepared taking into account the results of the Joint ad-hoc Technical
Working Group established between the International Commission for the Protection of the Black
Sea and the international Commission for the Protection of the Danube River. It is a product of the
excellent cooperation, which exists between specialists from Black Seas coastal countries and those
who represented the Danube Basin in this Group.
A first draft Summary Report has been prepared by Laurence D. Mee, on behalf of UNDP/GEF.
This Report was discussed in the 3rd meeting of the Joint as-hoc Technical Working Group on
December 10/11, 1998. It has been finalised on the basis of these initial discussions and on
additional amendments agreed upon.
The present report is based on the five national reports on additional scientific literature, on reports
of the Black Sea Environmental Programme (BSEP) and the Environmental Programme for the
Danube River Basin (EPDRB), and on the professional experience of the representatives to the
'Joint as-hoc Group' and additional participant in its Meetings. The above mentioned five natinal
reports were commissioned by the UNDP/GEF Danube River Pollution Reduction Programme,
each with a title"Report on the Ecological Indicators of Pollution in the Black Sea". The
responsibilities for the coordination of the national reports is as follows:
(a)
Bulgaria: Prof. B. Bojanovsky, Gaculty fo Biology, Sofia University;
(b)
Romania: Dr. A Cociasu, Romanian Marine Research Institute, Constanta;
(c)
Russian Federation: Ms. Liubov Stapanova, State Committee for Environmental
Protection;
(d)
Turkey: Dr. Ösden turk, Institute for Marine Sciences at the Middle East Technical
University (METU);
(e)
Ukraine: Dr. Oxana Tarasova, Ministry for Environmental protection and Nuclear Safety.
Overall coordination of the activity of the Joint ad-hoc Technical Working Group was assessed by
Joachim Bendow, Project Manager of the Danube Pollution Reduction Programme and Laurence
D. Mee from the Black Sea PIU. Chairman of the working sessions were Walter Rust from UNEP,
Nairobi and Andrew Hudson from UNDP/GEF, New York. The report was edited by Michael
Sokolnikov.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction to the Problem of Eutrophication .......................................... 1
2. Scientific Information on the Black Sea: Sources, Quality
and Techniques of Comparative Study........................................................ 3
3. Evidence of Long-term Changes in the Black Sea ...................................... 5
4. The Black Sea Eutrophication Problem in Perspective ............................. 7
5. Evidence for the Decline of Black Sea Ecosystems ................................... 11
6. Implications of the Study ............................................................................ 13
7. Sources of Nutrients to the Black Sea and Nutrient Control
Programmes.................................................................................................. 15
8. Policy Perspectives for Controlling Eutrophication ................................. 17
9. The Danger of Doing Nothing..................................................................... 21
10. Practical Short-term Measures................................................................... 23
11. Follow-up ...................................................................................................... 25
Annexes
Annex I
Summary of Data Sets Showing Evidence for Eutrophication and Its
Effects
Annex II
The Supporting Tables 1 to 10
Annex III
The Supporting Figures 1 to 16
Annex IV
The Terms of Reference
Annex V
The Composition of the 'Group' in Its Three Meetings
Annex VI
The Final Minutes of the 1st Meeting of the `Group', March 26, 1998,
Baden/NÖ, Austria
Annex VII
The Draft Minutes of the 3rd Meeting of the `Group',
December 10/11, 1998, Baden/NÖ, Austria
Annex VIII
Draft Memorandum of Understanding
v
Executive Summary
The Black Sea Strategic Action Plan, adopted at the Ministerial level in 1998, recognises the
phenomenon of eutrophication as one of the principle causes of transboundary degradation of the
Black Sea environment. Furthermore, it affirms the need for a coordination of actions across the
entire Black Sea drainage basin in order to reduce eutrophication and restore key Black Sea
ecosystems. The `Danube River Protection Convention (DRPC)' is having a `river basin approach';
it also stresses its responsibility for actions stemming from the River Danube Basin impacting on
the Black Sea. Within the Environmental Programme for the Danube River Basin (EPDRB), the
relevant Strategic Action Plan was adopted at Ministerial level in December 1994. This SAP makes
also reference to the impacts from the River Danube Basin to the Black Sea. With the entry into
force of the DRPC on October 22nd, 1998, the tasks and responsibilities of the EPDRB, including
the Danube SAP, have been transferred from the former Task Force of the EPDRB to the decision
making body charged to implement the DRPC, the ICPDR.
In response to the need to link all states impacting on the Black Sea and the states holding the
Black Sea as `a shoreline resource', a Joint ad-hoc Technical Working Group was established
between the `International Commission for the Protection of the Black Sea ICPBS i.e. the
Istanbul Commission of the Bucharest Convention)' and the `International Commission for the
Protection of the Danube River ICPDR i.e. the Vienna Commission of the Sofia Convention)'.
The 'Group' received its specific TOR, which did not only include eutrophication phenomena, but
asked also for the clarifying of issues of hazardous wastes. This 'Group' examined the best
available evidence for the problems and their causes and proposes remedial actions. Its findings are
summarised in the present report.
Eutrophication is a phenomenon caused by the over-fertilisation of the sea by plant nutrients,
usually compounds of nitrogen and phosphorus. The quality of water bodies affected by
eutrophication gradually deteriorates and may result in the development of species with low
nutritious value to larger animals including fish. It may also lead to severe oxygen depletion and
the so-called "dead zones", where no animals can survive, and biological diversity is lost. It has a
severe impact on the economy of human populations, amongst other things through fisheries and
tourism loss. The Black Sea (i.e. the Black Sea proper plus the Sea of Azov) environment has been
severely damaged by eutrophication since the 1970s. Evidence summarised in the present report
shows how the structure of the ecosystem was damaged at every level, from plants to fish and
mammals. Ukrainian colleagues estimate the losses of bottom animals between 1973 and 1990 as
60 million tons, among them 5 million tons of fish (i.e. 'on average 180.000 t per year'). To which
extent this is due to the increased input of nutrients, and to which due to overfishing, is impossible
to allocate now. The increased input of nutrients, with the subsequent changes along phototrophic
growth, has had negative consequences throughout the Black Sea. It may also have contributed to
the success of the comb-jelly Mnemiopsis, brought by accident to the Black Sea in the mid 1980s; it
attained a biomass of some one billion tons in 1989, causing catastrophic damage to the ecosystem.
Results of extensive studies coordinated by the Black Sea Environmental Programme (BSEP)
suggest that over 70% of nutrients entering the Black Sea are transported by major rivers,
principally the Danube; however, the atmospheric input was not a part of the balance. A large share
of the nutrients entering these rivers comes from Black Sea countries, which are having a shoreline.
Because of the BSEP pollution source inventory, it has been possible to gather data on the inputs of
dissolved nitrogen and phosphorus compounds to the Black Sea in 1995. However, the following
data by Topping, Sarikaya and Mee do not reflect the inputs via the atmosphere. Some 14% of total
nitrogen are from Bulgaria, 27% from Romania, 12% from Ukraine, 10% from the Russia
Federation, less than 1% from Georgia, 6% from Turkey and about 30% from the non-coastal
countries (Austria, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Czech Republic, Former Yugoslavia,
Germany, Hungary, Moldova, Slovakia, Slovenia). In the case of phosphorus, the figures are
vii
Bulgaria, 5%; Romania, 23%; Ukraine, 20%; Russia, 13%; Georgia 1%; Turkey 12% and 26%, for
the remaining countries, a similar story to that of nitrogen. The importance of showing these
numbers is to illustrate that nobody is "innocent", not even the Georgians whose low percentage
input reflects the current collapse in the coastal economy, probably a temporary feature.
Studies undertaken in the framework of the Environmental Programme for the Danube River Basin
suggest the following: (a) About half of the nutrients discharged `internally in the Basin to the fine
web of the river network' are from agriculture; (b) somewhat more than one quarter from domestic
sources; (c) an additional larger share is from industry; (c) the remainder is from `background
sources'. The loads of nutrients entering the Black Sea from the Danube have fallen in recent years
due to the collapse of the economies of many of the Danubian and former Soviet countries, the
measures taken to reduce nutrient discharge in the upper Danube countries, and the implementation
of a ban in polyphosphate detergents in some countries.
There is evidence of some recovery in Black Sea ecosystems, but the ecological status of the 1960s
is for sure not yet reached. It is widely considered that nutrient discharges are in line with the
expected economic growth - likely to rise again, with consequent damage to the Black Sea, unless
action is taken to implement nutrient discharge control measures as part of the economic
development strategies.
Based on the reported positive signs (reduced input loads and improved ecological status in the
Black Sea shelf), and also aware of the missing knowledge of the comparability of input loads
(resolution both in time since the 1960s, and in space all over the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov),
and aware that the load reductions are very likely linked with the decline of economic activity in
the countries in transition, but that towards the future economic development is expected to take
place in the overall Black Sea Basin, the `Working Group' defined in its 2nd Meeting the possible
strategies as follows:
The long-term goal for all States in the Black Sea Basin is to take measures to reduce the
loads of nutrients and hazardous substances to such levels necessary to permit Black Sea
ecosystems to recover to conditions similar to those observed in the 1960s.
As an intermediate goal, urgent control measures should be taken by all States in the
Black Sea Basin in order to avoid that the discharges of nutrients and hazardous
substances into the Seas exceed those, which existed in 1997 1. The `Group' recognised
that these 1997 discharges are only incompletely known and that further work has to be
undertaken to substantiate the size of the loads received by the Seas (Black Sea proper;
Sea of Azov).
The `Group' concluded that the inputs of nutrients and hazardous substances into both
receiving Seas have to be assessed in a comparable way, and that to this very end a
common AQC system and a thorough discussion about the necessary monitoring,
including the sampling procedures, has to be set up.
The `Group' also concluded that the ecological status of the Black Sea and the Sea of
Azov has to be further assessed, and that the comparability of the data basis has to be
further increased.
Both the reported input loads as well as the assessed ecological status will have to be
reported annually to both the ICPBS and the ICPDR.
1 Loads reported for 1997 to have been transported in River Danube were: orthophosphate, 16,000 tons (as
P); total inorganic nitrogen, i.e. the sum of ammonia-N, nitrite-N and nitrate-N, 300,400 tons (as N)
[A.Cociasu, 1998]. River scientists indicate that in order to `level the impact of river hydrology on the
transport of pollutants out', an averaging over e.g. a span of five years should be undertaken. This would
yield for River Danube an `averaged load for 1995' of 12,700 tons per year of orthophosphate-P and
456,000 tons of inorganic nitrogen per year. The corresponding value for 1997 can only be known as soon
as the value for 1999 is known.
viii
The States within the overall Black Sea Basin shall have to adopt strategies that will
permit economic development, whilst ensuring appropriate practices and measures to
limit the discharge of nutrients and hazardous substances, and to rehabilitate ecosystems
which assimilate nutrients.
Based on the annual reports and on the adopted strategies for the limitation of the
discharge of nutrients and hazardous substances, a review shall be undertaken in 2007. It
will focus on the further measures that may be required for meeting the long-term
objective (reaching an ecological status similar to the conditions observed in the 1960s).
The actions required to attain these goals need not be costly at this stage and may be achieved
through a mechanism of basin-wide joint implementation including country commitments and
external grants and loans. They should build on existing initiative where possible. Such actions fall
within the following areas:
Reform of agricultural policies.
Improved wastewater treatment, where applicable also by alternative technologies.
Rehabilitation of essential aquatic ecosystems.
Changes in consumer practices (including use of phosphate-free detergents).
Establishing of a legal frame.
Suggestions for implementing these actions are made in the report. It is recommended that follow-
up activities should be at the policy development and practical project levels:
1. At the policy level. The TOR of the 'Joint ad-hoc Group' requires that the Group's Report
will be made available to both the International Commission for the Protection of the
Black Sea and the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River, as
well as GEF as donor. This Report will be an input to a Meeting between the Black Sea
and the River Danube side, at the level of Heads of Delegations. The Heads of
Delegations of both Commissions should in such a joint meeting, based on cooperation,
consider endorsing the proposal to maintain nutrient levels at or below the loads recorded
in 1997, subject to review in 2007. They should also approve a series of practical
measures to achieve this goal including a total ban on polyphosphate detergents, clear
targets for wetland restoration, an agreement on monitoring, and a mechanism for "joint
implementation".
2. At the project level. Donors should establish mechanism(s) to support the agreed policy
objectives by funding a series of demonstration projects to share the costs of measures to
reduce nutrient discharge following the approach outlined in 10 (above). The approach
could use GEF funding to cover the incremental costs of specific projects. The support of
donors other than the GEF will be necessary in order to meet the agreed policy objectives.
For their part, the Contracting Parties to the Bucharest and Sofia Conventions should
ensure that a 'Memorandum of Understanding' is in place for implementing and
monitoring the agreed policies. Furthermore, funds should be made available for the
important task of raising the awareness of the general public and supporting local
initiatives for reducing nutrient discharge or protecting key (aquatic) ecosystems.
ix
1.
Introduction to the Problem of Eutrophication
Simply defined1, the term eutrophication describes an enrichment in the sea of plant nutrients
because of human activity. This enrichment most commonly results in the excessive stimulation of
phytoplankton2 growth but may also trigger the growth of larger plants (macrophytes) on the sea
floor in shallow areas. "Plant nutrients" mainly refers to inorganic compounds of nitrogen and
phosphorus, essential for the growth of photosynthetic organisms. They also include dissolved
silica, essential for the growth of diatoms, a class mostly consisting of free floating phytoplankton
with silica skeletons (almost like tiny glass boxes), as well as micronutrients such as iron and
manganese. Though the definition is simple, the phenomenon however, is a complex one because
natural variations in the nutrient supply to the aquatic environment are very large.
Nutrient limitation occurs when the presence of one of these substances is insufficient for the
continued growth of a particular community or species. Marine systems are generally considered to
be nitrogen limited whereas freshwater plankton systems are generally phosphorus limited. This is
because several species of freshwater phytoplankton are capable of "fixing" atmospheric nitrogen
but, with minor exceptions, this is impeded in marine water. The nutrient requirements of
individual species varies however, and a disturbance in the ratio of nitrogen, phosphorus, silica and
perhaps iron, will result in changes in the composition of a particular plankton community. In many
respects, all four nutrients may be considered as limiting. Lack of silica limits diatoms, for
example, a phenomenon first observed in natural blooms off Cape Mendocino in the USA and
since observed in the NW Black Sea as a consequence of the construction of inland dams including
the Iron Gates dam. Where there are very large supplies of nutrients, light for photosynthesis may
be the only mechanism limiting the scale of phytoplankton blooms.
For a better understanding of eutrophication, it is worthwhile to consider the typical succession of
events during the eutrophication process. Firstly, it is important to understand that phytoplankton is
not evenly distributed in the sea, neither in space nor time. In the similar manner to plants in
temperate woods or meadows, species bloom and fade with changing seasons and are sometimes
grazed by animals - only that in the sea, if they are not attached to the sea floor, plants are also at
the mercy of tides and currents. The distribution of phytoplankton is patchy and individual species
have developed their own particular physiology in order to have a comparative advantage over their
competitors. This favours their development under certain optimal conditions. Some have
particularly extraordinary adaptations including flagella, which permit them to seek better
conditions of light or nutrients, or poisons against those animals that feed on them. It is important
to recognise that this "patchiness" makes it difficult to establish baseline (typical) conditions. A
large set of observations is necessary in space and time. Furthermore, the examination of spatial
and temporal variability of phytoplankton requires laborious work of microscopic identification
and counting by dedicated highly trained specialists.
When nutrients are added to the marine environment because of human activities, there is a general
increase in the density of phytoplankton communities. At the same time, more subtle changes occur
as the species composition adjusts to the new ratio of nitrogen, phosphorus and silica. High
nutrients and low light (the plants tend to shade one another) favour smaller species with large
amounts of surface chlorophyll. Phytoplankton is relatively short-lived and dies or is grazed by
zooplankton and quickly falls to below the depth at which sufficient light can penetrate to promote
photosynthesis (the euphotic zone). These cells, together with faecal material from zooplankton are
1 GESAMP (1990) Review of potentially harmful substances. Nutrients.
IMO/FAO/UNESCO/WMO/WHO/IAEA/UN/UNEP Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine
Pollution. Rep. Stud. GESAMP, 34, 40 pp. (participant authors: J. Portmann, R. Elmgren, I. Koike, L.D. Mee, M.A.
Saad, J. Stirn and A. McIntyre). An alternative wider definition has been proposed by Nixon (Ophelia 41:199-219, 1995):
An increase in the rate of supply of organic matter to an ecosystem.
2 Phytoplankton are microscopic free-floating aquatic plants.
2
Danube Pollution Reduction Programme
subjected to bacterial decay, a process that consumes oxygen. In extreme cases, processes of
diffusion and mixing are insufficient to replace the oxygen and this becomes depleted to the degree
that no animals can survive in the water. This becomes a so-called "dead zone".
Eutrophication is widely considered a regional problem of global significance. Hypoxic or "dead
zones" have been recognised in many estuaries and coastal waters. A case attracting much recent
press attention has been the sea area adjacent to the Mississippi delta in the Gulf of Mexico. By
1997, 16,000 km2 of the Gulf of Mexico's benthic northern shelf had become hypoxic because of
nutrient discharges from the Mississippi River, a phenomenon that severely damages the $3 billion
gulf fishing industry3. Much of the nutrient load is derived from the $98 billion Mississippi basin
farm economy - the relative monetary value of these industries giving a clue as to the difficulty for
implementing costly nutrient reduction policies. It is equivocal however, to consider that the profits
of one sector cannot be achieved without losses in another. High agricultural yields may be
obtained without discharging huge amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus to rivers if suitable
practices are adopted in response to appropriate incentives.
The problem of eutrophication is not simply limited to extreme events characterised by the
formation of "dead zones". The change in the composition of phytoplankton communities in the
sea often affects the entire marine food chain. It may alter the composition of zooplankton, minute
animals, which rely upon phytoplankton as food. Zooplankton include some fish larvae and these
may be unable to feed on the tiny phytoplankton cells which are characteristic of eutrophication. A
typical symptom of eutrophication is an increase in the abundance of jellyfish, which adapt more
easily to the altered environmental conditions than other predators such as fish. It has also been
associated with an increase in the frequency of blooms of toxic species, sometimes affecting human
health. Eutrophication also has direct economic impacts: the aesthetic qualities of seawater are
diminished and bathers see the green or brown eutrophic waters as "dirty" and unattractive. In
some areas, phytoplankton species may bloom which produce foams in a similar manner to
detergents. Beaches close to areas affected by "dead zones" may be strewn with dead animals.
3 Malakoff, D. (1998) Death by suffocation in the Gulf of Mexico. Science 281: 190-192.
2.
Scientific Information on the Black Sea: Sources, Quality
and Techniques of Comparative Study
Scientists have been gathering useful information on the state of the Black Sea ecosystem since the
beginning of the present century. This information has, unfortunately, often been very fragmentary
and somewhat anecdotal. This is not surprising as marine science was in its "exploratory" phase
where a small number of academic specialists dedicated their lives to discovering and classifying
the plants and animals in the marine biosphere. There were few co-operative or systematic
quantitative studies of how the discovered communities functioned and varied in their composition
with time and space. Some specialists however, did conduct "time series" of measurements, in
which they studied particular communities or individual species over a relatively long time-span,
sometimes representing their entire working lives. These data sets are invaluable jig-saw puzzle
pieces, which help to contribute to the overall picture. The sampling methods used do not generally
correspond with those employed by modern quantitative biologists but are consistent within each
data set and, as trends, are fully comparable. Care must be taken not to over-interpret some of the
observations by comparing individual data sets taken using very different methodologies, a
particularly important matter when, for example comparing the diversity of zooplankton using
different types of net or bottom fauna using different dredging techniques.
Some of the chemical data must be treated with great caution. Prior to the 1960's, methods for
measuring phosphate and nitrate suffered from many systematic errors and the methods were rather
unreliable, particularly in seawater where chemical interferences from other sea-salts had not been
fully recognised. The introduction of simple methods by the groups of Riley (UK) and Grasshoff
(Germany) led to a rapid improvement in data quality and comparability. Even so, recent
intercomparison exercises conducted in the framework of the CoMSBlack, Danube, and similar
programme revealed unacceptable errors of as much as 30% (after the removal of "outliers" - data
which is obviously wrong) between analysts. Since the beginning of these exercises however, the
quality of the data sets has considerably improved.
So how do we employ older data sets for chemical analyses? The work of validation relies on two
principles. The first is internal consistency of the measurements - we have acquired considerable
knowledge of the way nutrients vary with space and time and, unless explained by an obvious
external source or physical phenomenon, a very "noisy" data set may be treated with suspicion.
Secondly, we look for consistency in measurements at deep "reference stations" since the
concentration of most nutrients varies very little in the deep sea and the values are rather
predictable.
Having said this, great care must be taken not to compare data from cruises with very different
densities of measurement points or between years where the studies did not pay regard to seasonal
trends. Even the time of day in which observations were made is important in eutrophication
studies as vast masses of photosynthetic algae "breathe in and out" as they photosynthesise and
respire during the course of a day and oxygen may be "supersaturated1" during the day and
depleted at night. For this reason, comparative records of surface oxygen content are of dubious use
unless all the observations were taken at the same time of day (rather unlikely during most
oceanographic cruises). Measures of oxygen below the illuminated "euphotic zone" however, are
somewhat more reliable as the daily changes due to plant activity are less strongly expressed.
1 Supersaturation occurs when oxygen is introduced molecule by molecule by plants into water already
physically saturated with air through mechanical mixing. Supersaturation of 130% is quite typical in
productive coastal waters.
4
Danube Pollution Reduction Programme
In conducting the present review, data that has not been validated or does not form part of a longer
time series has been omitted. Under some circumstances, the information may be useful but for the
purposes of the current review, it was decided to adhere to the criteria outlined above.
Some compromises have been made in analysing data. The data on river inputs of nutrients, for
example, has often been gathered using an inadequate sampling intensity. The problem is that
nutrient loads in rivers vary considerably with time and a "spate" of high discharge may last for
just a few days. Such spates may transport large amounts of phosphorus, since this is often
associated with sediment particles that are re-suspended more easily when flow rates are high.
There is a higher statistical probability of underestimating loads than overestimating them when the
sampling frequency is low. It has been suggested that at frequencies of sampling below 52 per year,
the sampling error is generally more significant than that of random analytical measurements
themselves. This is why river monitoring should be a continuous process at a small number of
"key" points.
In the Black Sea, the current economic situation has resulted in the suspension of most programmes
for systematic monitoring. The coasts of Russia, Georgia and Bulgaria, for example, have not been
systematically monitored since the late 1980's. The monitoring programme in Romania has been
maintained however, since the early 1960's and provides a record of the direct causes and effects of
eutrophication at the discharge of the River Danube. In the case of Ukraine, there have been a
series of research cruises, which though irregular, have occurred annually for several decades.
Changes in the network of stations make some of this data difficult to interpret. In Turkish waters,
there has never been a regular monitoring network but, since the early 1990s, Turkey has
conducted excellent oceanographic research studies, often in co-operation with Ukrainian and US
research institutions (with occasional participation of institutions from Bulgaria, Romania and
Russia). These have paid considerable attention to data quality control and the application of
modern technology, including remote sensing by satellite. Many of the co-operative oceanographic
research studies were co-financed by NATO. From 1995-1997, a European Union Project, EROS-
2000 (European River-Oceans Systems), worked together with research institutions from Bulgaria,
Romania and Ukraine to examine the impact of the Danube River on the NW shelf of the Black Sea
and published valuable information. Unfortunately, the study was discontinued owing to lack of
EU funding.
Thanks to the earlier systematic studies in the former Soviet Union and Bulgaria, the continuous
studies in Romania and the recent work co-ordinated from Turkey, it is possible to piece together
evidence for cause and effects of eutrophication in the Black Sea. Regarding studies of the inputs to
the Black Sea, the Danube Basin Environmental Programme has sponsored a number of research
projects to bring together existing information and to improve the quality of monitoring
programmes in the Danube. In the case of the Dnieper, Ukraine has regularly monitored the quality
of its waters though the data has not been corroborated by independent quality checks. Direct (point
source) inputs to the Black Sea have been studied using the WHO Rapid Assessment Method
applied in each Black Sea country by the Black Sea Environmental Programme. There have been
estimates of atmospheric inputs of nitrogen compounds by the World Meteorological Organisation
(atmospheric phosphate inputs are usually negligible). If countries are to count on information
necessary to make adequate management decisions, it will be necessary to maintain and hopefully
improve the available monitoring systems.
3.
Evidence of Long-term Changes in the Black Sea
We are fortunate that there is one set of measurements of indisputable quality, which allows us to
examine the overall pattern of change in the Black Sea over the past seventy years. This is the
measurement of water transparency using a device known as the Secchi disk. The Secchi disk is a
weighted white disk of standard dimensions that is gradually lowered from the side of a ship by a
piece of rope with depth markers. When observed from directly above, it disappears from sight at a
depth proportional to the transparency of the water. Most of the changes in transparency in the
open sea are due to fluctuations in the amount of phytoplankton present in the water. Almost all
scientific expeditions to the Black Sea have routinely conducted these measurements and thousands
of such data have been collected by scientists from the Marine Hydrophysical Institute in
Sevastopol, Ukraine, covering a period from the 1920s to present1. The results are illustrated in
Figure 1. Though there were inter-annual variations in the mean Secchi Depth (SD) of up to 5 m,
depths of over 20 metres (very transparent water) were recorded on several occasions prior to 1972,
from when transparency gradually decreased to a minimum of only 6 m in 1991. This was the
result of huge blooms of phytoplankton following a major ecological disturbance of the entire
Black Sea ecosystem. The transparency has since gradually recovered to values similar to those
recorded in the early 1980s.
The reason for some of these changes to occur will be discussed in subsequent sections, the
important point to recognise is that changes have been recorded in the entire Black Sea though it
will be shown that the most heavily impacted areas are clearly adjacent to the river inputs.
1 Vladimirov, V.L., V.I. Mankovsky, M.V. Solov'ev and A.V. Mishonov (1997) Seasonal and long-term
variability of the Black Sea optical parameters. In: Sensitivity to Change: Black Sea, Baltic Sea and North
Sea, E. Özsoy and A. Mikaelyan (eds.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands
4.
The Black Sea Eutrophication Problem in Perspective
The Black Sea is also one of Europe's newest seas. It was formed a mere seven or eight thousand
years ago when sea level rise caused Mediterranean water to break through the Bosphorus valley
refilling a vast freshwater lake tens of metres below the prevailing sea level. The salty water sank
to the bottom of the lake, filling it from below and forming a strong density gradient (known as a
pycnocline) between the Mediterranean water on the bottom and the freshwater mixed with some
seawater near the surface. The depth of this natural density barrier depended (and still depends)
upon the supply of fresh water from rivers and rain, and the energy available from the wind and the
sun for mixing it with the underlying seawater. The oxygen in the incoming water was quickly
exhausted by the demands of bacteria associated with decaying biota and terrestrial organic
material falling through the density gradient into the bottom water. Within a few hundred years, the
Sea, below some 100 - 200 metres depth, became depleted of oxygen. The bacterial population
switched to organisms capable of obtaining their oxygen by reducing dissolved sulphate to toxic
hydrogen sulphide and the resulting water body became the largest volume of anoxic water on our
planet.
For several thousand years therefore, only the surface waters, down to the "liquid bottom"
pycnocline, have been capable of supporting higher life forms. Though not very biologically
diverse compared with open seas at similar latitudes, the Black Sea developed remarkable and
unique ecosystems, particularly in its expansive north-western shelf where the sea is relatively
shallow. The seabed in this part of the Black Sea was well oxygenated since it is well above the
pycnocline. This area, and the adjacent shallow Sea of Azov, also receives the inflow of Europe's
second, third and fourth largest river basins, the Danube, the Dnieper and the Don. These rivers
transport nutrients and sediments from an area at least five times that of the sea itself. The areas
adjacent to the river discharges (including the entire Sea of Azov) were comparatively productive.
On the North-western shelf, a particularly unique ecosystem developed, based on the "keystone"
benthic (bottom living) red algae, Phyllophora sp., which formed a vast bed with a total area
equivalent to that of Belgium and The Netherlands. The term "keystone" is not used lightly: like
the keystone in the middle of a stone bridge, its removal causes the entire structure to collapse in a
precipitous manner. This particular keystone was also a place of great beauty, vast underwater
fields of red algae, home to a myriad of dependent animals, linked together in a complex web of
life.
Despite its uniquely fragile natural physical and chemical characteristics, the Black Sea ecosystem
appears to have been relatively stable. During the first half of the twentieth century, perhaps until
three decades ago, there was little evidence of human impact on the Sea or on its flora and fauna.
Some changes had occurred however, and these were precursors of much worse events to come.
Sensitive monk seal populations, for example, began to decline from the late nineteenth century,
driven from their breeding grounds by human activities. Nowadays the rarely sighted minuscule
population of these seals seems certainly doomed. Indeed, there is no certainty that any of these
animals remain in the Black Sea. Another early change was through the introduction of a number
of exotic animal species, introduced by accident from the hulls, bilge or ballast tanks of ships, and
which flourished to the detriment of the Black Sea's characteristic fauna. The voracious predatory
sea snail Rapana thomasiana, for example, arrived from waters around Japan in the mid-1940s and
devastated beds of the Black Sea genotype of the common oyster, Ostrea edulis. It is one of a list
of some twenty-six species introduced through human activity (accidentally or intentionally) since
the beginning of the century and which have profoundly altered the Black Sea ecosystem1.
1 Zaitsev, Yu., 1992. Recent changes in the trophic structure of the Black Sea. Fish. Oceanogr., 1(2): 180-
189
8
Danube Pollution Reduction Programme
Another gradual change was taking place on the coastlands of the Black Sea. Urban construction
occurred in an unplanned and haphazard manner. The Black Sea was an increasingly popular
tourist venue, particularly for the peoples of the former Soviet Union and the other Eastern and
Central European COMECON countries. This, together with competing demands for space from
shipping, industry and coastal settlements (mostly with inadequate waste disposal), placed
increasing demands on coastal landscapes. The damming of many rivers brought hydrological
changes, particularly through the decrease in sediment flux to the coast, a phenomenon that led to
major problems of coastal erosion2. This, in turn, was often ineffectively combated by the
construction of a very large number of structures to protect beaches (groynes). These further
degraded the landscape and exacerbated pollution problems. In the competition for coastal space,
the natural environment was the seemingly inevitable loser. The human population has
continuously encroached on the ecosystem that it is part of and upon which it depends.
From the late 1960s to the early 1990s, events occurred in the Black Sea that can objectively be
considered as an environmental catastrophe3. The strongest single symptom of the catastrophe was
the virtual elimination of the Phyllophora ecosystem of the Black Sea's north-western shelf in a
matter of some ten years. The chain of events leading to the decline of this ecosystem started with an
increase in nutrient flux down the major rivers, particularly in the late 1960's when fertiliser use
increased markedly as a result of the "Green Revolution". However, there were several issues which
coincided. Enabled by the "Green Revolution", primary agricultural produce was converted with an
increasing bigger share into meat. This 'meat production' was also undertaken in large-scale
industrialised production units, where it became more and more difficult to re-utilise animal manure
on fields. At about the same time, urban settlements were increasingly sewered, but nutrients were
not removed from sewage concurrently with the expansion of the sewer systems. Furthermore,
polyphosphates were introduced into detergent formulations, thus increasing the loads of phosphorus
in the loads transported. This increase in the long-distance transport of nutrients brought about a
decrease in light penetration in the sea due to the increased intensity of phytoplankton blooms
(eutrophication). Deprived of light, the red algae and other photosynthetic bottom dwelling (benthic)
species quickly died. Their function was lost as a source of oxygen to the bottom waters of the shelf
seas and as a habitat for a wide variety of organisms. The bottom waters of the north-western shelf
became seasonally hypoxic (very low oxygen) and even anoxic (no measurable oxygen). Thousands
of tons of benthic plants and animals were washed up on the shores of Romania and Ukraine and the
seabed became a barren area with a very low biological diversity.
The loss of the north-western shelf ecosystem had an impact on the entire Black Sea. It also
coincided with a period of expansion in the fisheries industry and the application of high
technology fish-finding hydro-acoustics and more efficient, though unregulated and destructive,
purse seining and bottom trawling gear. The consequence was a decrease in the diversity of
commercially exploitable fish species from some 26 to 6, in less than two decades. As
eutrophication advanced in the Black Sea, the smaller fish species such as anchovies and sprat were
favoured since they depend upon the phytoplankton-driven pelagic ecosystem, rather than the
benthic one. Furthermore, their predators had often been removed by overfishing or habitat loss. As
a consequence, fishing effort switched to these lower value species. Annual catches of anchovy for
example, rose from 225,000 tons in 1975 to some 450,000 tons a decade later4.
2 Kos'yan, R.D., & O.T. Magoon (eds) (1993). Coastlines of the Black Sea. Procedings of the 8th
Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management, Coastal Zone '93. Coastlines of the World, American
Society of Civil Engineers, 573pp.
3 Mee, L.D. (1992) The Black Sea in crisis: The need for concerted international action. Ambio 21(4): 278-
286.
4 MacLennan, D.N., T. Yasuda and L.D.Mee, 1997. Analysis of the Black Sea Fishery Fleet and landings.
Black Sea Environmental Programme, Istanbul, 25pp
Causes and Effects of Eutrophication in the Black Sea Summary Report
9
In the mid-1980s, another exotic species arrived in ship's ballast waters, the ctenophore
Mnemiopsis leidyi, sometimes known as the comb jelly5. This species was brought from the eastern
seaboard of America and, without predators, flourished in the eutrophic Black Sea environment
where it consumes zooplankton including fish larvae. Perhaps the word "flourished" is an
understatement. At its peak in 1989-90, it is claimed to have reached a total biomass of about one
billion tons (1,000,000,000 tons wet weight) in the Black Sea, more than the world annual fish
harvest! This massive population explosion had an enormous impact on the Black Sea's ecosystems
and commercial fish stocks. The loss of zooplankton allowed huge populations of phytoplankton to
develop in a series of blooms that reduced the mean Secchi depth (the maximum depth to which a
white disk lowered into the sea from a ship remains visible) from the normal average of twenty
metres, to only five metres. Anchovy catches plummeted in 1990 to only 60,000 tons.
The situation in the Black Sea was mirrored by another environmental stress on its coasts. The
economic decline of the Black Sea coastal countries and the political upheaval of transition to a
market economy led to a lack of maintenance of waste treatment facilities for domestic sewage and
industrial waste. Of course, many cities had never had effective sewage treatment but the general
decline was evidenced by an increased frequency of outbreaks of waterborne diseases such as
cholera and frequent beach closures due to unsanitary conditions. In Ukraine, for example, 44% of
bathing water samples taken in 1995, did not meet the national microbiological standards6. This
environmental problem, coupled with the decline in standards of tourism infrastructure and limited
spending power of people in the region, also led to a sharp decline in tourist numbers and in the
local economies7.
The state of the environment in the Black Sea in the early 1990's gave little reason for optimism.
The economic crisis did however give some respite for pollution. Farmers were often unable to
apply the quantity of fertilisers used in the former centrally planned economies. Many large
energy-inefficient and polluting industries were forced to close. By 1996 there was already some
evidence of recovery of benthic ecosystems on the north-western shelf of the Black Sea, albeit
small. Furthermore, Mnemiopsis populations started to decline and the anchovy fisheries recovered,
almost to their mid-1980s level. Most local economists and ecologists agree however, the pressure
on the environment will return as the economies recover, unless urgent measures are taken to limit
the environmental impact of renewed growth. Furthermore, new environmental pressures are
emerging as a result of the rapid increase in the use of the Black Sea as a maritime transport route,
particularly for the shipment of oil en-route from the newly opened Caspian oil fields.
Recent data8 has shown that the current nutrient loading to the Black Sea is much lower than in the
period of the seventies and eighties but appears to remain higher than in the 1960s. Data for N and
P, observed by the Romanian Marine Research Institute9 on Black Sea shelf waters indicate that the
phytoplankton growth in the Romanian shelf area seems to be limited by P; this 'observation area'
is some 60 km east from Constanta. A cruise of the Turkish Research Vessel Bilim in March and
April 1995 10 showed along a transsect in this area, and also along two additional transsects vertical
5 GESAMP (IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/WMO/WHO/IAEA/UN/UNEP Joint Group of Experts on the
Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection), 1997. Opportunistic settlers and the problem of
the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leiydi invasion in the Black Sea. Rep.Stud.GESAMP, (58):84p.
6 BSEP (1997) Black Sea Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis, (Ed. L.D. Mee) United Nations
Publications, New York. ISBN 92-1-126075-2, August 1997, 142pp.
7 BSEP (1996) Black Sea Sustainable Tourism Initiative (Background report), Istanbul, Turkey, 322pp.
8 see Annex I to the current report.
9 For Orthophosphate-P, data are available since 1963, for the sum of inorganic N (ammonium-N, nitrite-N
and nitrate-N) since 1980,i.e. the N to P ratio can be observed since 1980.
10 See the Turkish National Report, coordinated by Dr. Ö. Bastürk.
10
Danube Pollution Reduction Programme
to the Bulgarian coast, the same results. However, Turkish data 11 show that the Black Sea is in its
'open deep waters' nitrogen limited. These observations are here reported, albeit - as indicated
before - marine ecosystems are generally felt to be nitrogen limited. For the decision making
process, however, the situation in the Black Sea (Black Sea shelf area; deep waters of the Black
Sea) is important.
There is strong evidence of partial recovery of coastal ecosystems, though the recovery does only
partially extend to benthic systems or to predatory fish. The remarkable recent decrease in some
loads is a result of economic failure of agriculture and industry in coastal countries and to the
success of nutrient reduction programmes, particularly phosphate removal, in the upper Danube
countries. It has to be assumed that the economic failure in coastal countries is a temporary
situation and that it represents a "window of opportunity" for recovery of marine ecosystems and
for taking management actions to avoid a return to the previous situation of chronic eutrophication.
There is in general agreement that eutrophication is the most serious medium/long term problem to
be overcome in the Black Sea. This problem is certainly not exclusive to the Black Sea. Nitrate
reduction policies have had limited success in the countries of the European Union despite new
legislation. It is difficult to implement these policies where there are strong divisions between
sectors involved in competitive agricultural production and environmental protection and where the
public itself is generally unaware of the long-term dangers of a "business as usual" approach.
11 See again the Turkish National Report, coordinated by Dr. Ö. Bastürk.
5.
Evidence for the Decline of Black Sea Ecosystems
Annex I to this report is a set of tables which summarise many of the conclusions of the national
reports commissioned by the Danube and Black Sea programmes. Care has been taken to review
each statement and to qualify it where necessary. The information is presented in sequence of
trophic levels, starting with nutrient fluxes and nutrient concentrations in the Sea, and ending with
fish. Only very limited information has been presented on fish populations as this was not the main
focus of the national reports. Information has been limited to the phenomenon of eutrophication
and its biological consequences. No attempt has been made at this stage to examine the causes or to
assess the socio-economic impacts.
The information in the tables constitutes a remarkable quantitative account of the collapse of a
major ecosystem, largely as a result of eutrophication. The reader will note that the system became
destabilised in the early 1970s. The collapse of benthic ecosystems was catastrophic, occurring in
the space of less than three years (Romania). The entire ecosystem appears to have switched from
one relatively stable state to one of great instability but with a shortening of trophic chains (food
chains), particularly favouring the so-called "dead end" species of gelatinous organism. "Dead end"
refers to the fact that these organisms have few predators. The consequence is that the system
produces more biomass but this has a low food value for fish which are consequently
impoverished.
A summary of the switch in the species composition of the ecosystem is given by Zaitsev (1992)
and included as Figure 16 for ease of reference. Prior to the onset of eutrophication, the Black Sea
included two major interacting ecosystems; a benthic (bottom living) system with "keystone"
species of macro-algae (such as Phyllophera and Cystoseira) and including benthic animals and
fish, and a pelagic (upper water column) system supporting a food chain extending to predatory
fish and mammals. Eutrophication has virtually excluded the benthic system and severely altered
the pelagic one.
The reader will appreciate that the study of eutrophication in the Black Sea is an extremely
complex one and that there are a number of gaps to be filled in our current understanding. The
current decline in monitoring programmes is a particular cause for concern since the continuity of
measurements is essential for determining the effectiveness of future nutrient limitation strategies.
6.
Implications of the Study
The impacts of eutrophication are not limited to the coastal margins. The entire Black Sea
ecosystem has been altered by the combination of eutrophication and the intruding of
opportunistic alien species.
There has been some recovery of the Black Sea ecosystem in the past five years but this
does not imply that the degradation taken place is now fully reversed. The system has not
yet returned to a state similar to the 1960s. It is currently unlikely to do so as some
species have disappeared and others have arrived from outside.
The presence of large biomasses of gelatinous organisms in the Black Sea is a cause for
the decline in the health of higher trophic levels, including fish. This presence is made
possible by eutrophication.
Shelf waters south of the outfall of River Danube, and down to the Bulgarian coast,
appear to be phosphorus limited from the extremely low concentrations of phosphate in
surface waters, see the former quotations. This is not the case for the Central SW Black
Sea1 where surface N/P is below the Redfield ratio2.
Any nutrient reduction possible should be undertaken. The question 'where to put the
money first' seems legitimate. However, the full recovery of the Black Sea ecosystems is
not merely a matter of reducing phosphate loads (though such reductions may be
achieved at a relatively low cost and with a comparatively bigger speed). The ratio of
phosphate and nitrate (and in some cases silicate) in the sea should be maintained as close
as possible to the natural level (the Redfield ratio) and strategies are necessary for
decreasing both nitrate and phosphate inputs to the Sea. There seems currently to be a
large excess of total dissolved nitrogen in river inputs.
Protection of the remaining beds of benthic algae (Phyllophera; Cystoseira barbata) is
important to aid eventual recovery of the benthic ecosystem.
Increased effort is needed for comprehensive monitoring of the Black Sea and its
tributaries if improved Environmental Quality Objectives are to be developed in the
future.
1 For the SW Black Sea, mean phosphate concentrations are 0.12 µM P and mean nitrate is 0.28 µM N (Turkish
report).
2 The molar algal requirement for N:P is 7:1, which corresponds to a mass ratio ( = `weight ratio') of
15.5:1. It seems that marine scientists use molar ratios, whereas limnologists are used to mass ratios. It is
important to be aware of the differences between 'molar ratio' and 'mass ratio'.
7.
Sources of Nutrients to the Black Sea and Nutrient Control
Programmes
The problem of eutrophication cannot be resolved without integrating the nutrient management
strategies of all the States within the Black Sea basin. From a load allocation perspective, this is not
an easy matter as the assimilation and conversion processes along the paths of flow are only
incompletely known. Th Group also recognises that in the case of the Danube Basin, the ICPDR is
in charge of the load allocation.
As a result of the pollution source inventory conducted during the preparatory work for the Black
Sea Strategic Action Plan, it has been possible to gather data on the inputs of dissolved nitrogen
and phosphorus compounds to the Black Sea in 1995. However, the atmospheric input of nitrogen
was not taken into account in this inventory. Based on this pollution source inventory and some
additional data, [Topping, Sarikaya and Mee]1 conclude the following:
For total nitrogen, 14% are from Bulgaria, 27% from Romania, 12% from Ukraine, 10% from the
Russian Federation, less than 1% from Georgia, 6% from Turkey and about 30% from the non-
coastal countries2 (Austria, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Czech Republic, former
Yugoslavia, Germany, Hungary, Moldova, Slovakia, Slovenia).
For phosphorus, the figures are Bulgaria, 5%; Romania, 23%; Ukraine, 20%; Russia, 13%; Georgia
1%; Turkey 12% and 26%, for the remaining countries, a similar story to that of nitrogen.
The importance of showing these numbers here is simply to illustrate that nobody is "innocent", not
even the Georgians whose low percentage input reflects the current collapse in the coastal
economy, probably a temporary feature.
Romania plays a particularly important role in the discharge of nutrients to the Black Sea. Its entire
territory drains into the Black Sea, mostly through the Danube. The industrial and agricultural
practices adopted during the former political regime paid little regard to environmental protection,
especially in the "green revolution". Now that the economy of Romania is market-based, many
subsidies on fertilisers have been removed and large animal production complexes are closing. The
decrease in fertiliser use is beneficial to the environment but unless alternative and cost-effective
agricultural practices are adopted, there will be enormous social problems of unemployed farm
workers unable to compete with cheap food exports from places where cheaper production
techniques are applied and/or fertilizer subsidies still exist. A similar situation prevails in
neighbouring Moldova where large animal complexes have also closed but where smallholders
now have excessive numbers of animals literally in their back gardens, in very unsanitary
conditions. Human health is already declining in these places and shallow wells, the main local
water supplies, are polluted. A complete solution to these problems would require a change in
consumption patterns themselves - and how can countries with rampant over-consumption in the
west demand changes of their poorer neighbours in the east?
Though the biggest single contributor of nutrients to the Black Sea seems to be Romania it contrib-
utes less than one third of the total waterborne load. All the States in the Black Sea basin share the
responsibility to reduce nutrient loads to the Sea. The Danube river basin has its own management
regime, which includes the Danube River Protection Convention (which has entered into force on
October 22nd, 1998) and the `International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River
1 Topping, G., H. Sarikaya and L.D. Mee (1998) Sources of pollution to the Black Sea. In: Mee, L.D. and
G. Topping (Eds) (in press) Black Sea Pollution Assessment. UN Publications, New York, 280pp
2 The loads of nutrients discharged into the 'fine drainage web' of the river network in a regional drainage
area and the ones reaching the receiving Seas will always differ. For the Danube Basin, it will be one of
the tasks of the ICPDR to come up with good estimates for the reasons of these differences.
16
Danube Pollution Reduction Programme
(ICPDR)' charged to implement it, plus a Strategic Action Plan3 developed under the EPDRB, the
implementation of which with the DRPC's entry into force is now under the responsibility of the
ICPDR. The current `GEF River Danube Pollution Reduction Programme (GEF-RDPRP)' will
help to define new strategies for reducing pollution, including nutrients, in the entire Danube Basin.
Similarly, in the Dnieper River (shared by Ukraine, Belarus and Russia), a GEF-supported
programme is developing a new Action Plan. Parallel projects have been developed for the Prut
river (Tacis funding), the lower Don river (World Bank funding), the Sea of Azov (primarily Dutch
government funding) and the Dniester river (various donors).
3 EPDRB (1994) Strategic Action Plan for the Danube River Basin, 1995-2005, Environmental Programme
for the Danube River Basin, Vienna, 109pp.
8.
Policy Perspectives for Controlling Eutrophication
It is not possible at this stage, and with the limited historical data available on nutrient inputs, to set
clear ultimate targets for nutrient reduction. The data set tells us about the historical state of the
environment but eutrophication does not follow a linear cause-effect relationship. The collapse of
ecosystems seems to have occurred rather abruptly as the system "flipped" from one state to
another. However, the partial recovery of parts of the Black Sea ecosystem is encouraging.
The Black Sea Strategic Action Plans takes a pragmatic approach to the issue of pollution control
which follows the "paradigm of iterative management1". The basic approach is rather simple.
Firstly, there has to be a recognition that the integrity of marine and coastal ecosystems and/or
human health is threatened by pollution. The complete removal of the threat would be desirable but
is often impracticable in the short/medium term for social and economic reasons and an interim
strategy is necessary for pollution control. It also requires that there are measurable indicators of
ecosystem health. The coastal states (or those of the entire basin in the case of nutrients) as the
cooperating partners involved then agree on a short term target for reduction. In the first iteration,
the reduction is agreed on the basis of what can reasonably be achieved within a given time frame.
The agreement is made on the basis of common but differentiated responsibilities, in this case each
partner finds the most economically convenient approach for reaching the agreed target. It is
understood from the outset that the first reduction is modest and somewhat empirical. The partners
involved also agree on a programme of research and monitoring to refine the estimates of optimal
reductions so that - at the end of the first period - new targets may be set with lower uncertainty re-
garding the outcome. The iterations should continue until all partners agree that the environment is
adequately protected. At the same time, public understanding of the issues will also gradually
improve, as will the public's demands for tighter criteria for protection and, hopefully, their
willingness to pay. This is an open-ended process with a moving target, driven by continuity of
observation and reasoning and the full involvement of all stakeholders. Such an approach avoids
creating a stark division between "the public" and "the polluters" and seeks a consensus that
addresses pollution at its root causes.
This general approach was applied by the "Group" in the following manner:
by recognising and thus proposing to both Commissions concerned that the ecological
status to be aimed at should be similar to the one of the 1960s but that it is not practicable
to achieve this in a short time frame;
by considering that in order to start with, an agreement is needed on the limits of the
inputs of nutrients (and in fact also hazardous substances) into the Black Sea (and the Sea
of Azov) and on the ecological status related with these inputs;
to propose to both Commissions to limit the discharges to the Black Sea to the (only
partially known) 1997 level, in order to learn to know how the Black Sea ecosystem(s)
respond in regard to the already observed improvements.
The purpose of this approach is that there has to be agreement on improving the `knowledge base'
for optimal reductions such that at the end of this period, new targets can be set with a better
certainty regarding the social and economic implications of the decisions to be taken.
1 See, for example, Costanza, R., F. Andrade, P. Antunes, M. van den Belt, D. Boersma, D. F. Boesch, F.
Catarino, S. Hanna, K. Limburg, B. Low, M. Molitor, J.G.Pereira, S.Rayner, R.Santos, J.Wilson and M.
Young (1998). Principles for Sustainable Governance of the Oceans. Science 281:198-199
18
Danube Pollution Reduction Programme
In order to arrive at the goal to further maintain and hopefully improve the ecological status of the
Black Sea, the following principles for nutrient management measures and strategies will be
necessary:
Nutrients have to be 'kept on land' where they are needed for phototrophic productivity,
and
they have to be kept away from any waterborne transport.
The latter aim is to limit the phototrophic productivity in the receiving waters to adequate
conditions, including the receiving area of the overall Black Sea.
The public understanding of the basic issues involved will hopefully increase in the overall Black
Sea Basin over time, as hopefully will the willingness of this public to pay for actions required. In
order to arrive there, all `inlanders' will have to be made aware of what has happened with the
ecological status of the overall Black Sea over time, and what after the signs of improvement
since 1992 has to be avoided towards the future. The public should also know that `exact values
for the permitted discharges to the Black Sea' for the needed good ecological status are not yet
known, and that in order to arrive there, solid observations, good scientific reasoning and a full co-
operation are needed.
Based on the reported positive signs (reduced input loads and improved ecological status in the
Black Sea shelf), and also aware of the missing knowledge of the comparability of input loads
(resolution both in time since the 1960s, and in space all over the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov),
and aware that the load reductions are very likely linked with the decline of economic activity in
the countries in transition, but that towards the future economic development is expected to take
place in the overall Black Sea Basin, the `Working Group' defined in its 2nd Meeting the possible
strategies as follows:
The long-term goal for all States in the Black Sea Basin is to take measures to reduce the
loads of anthropogenically applied nutrients and hazardous substances to such levels
necessary to permit Black Sea ecosystems to recover to conditions similar to those
observed in the 1960s.
As an intermediate goal, urgent control measures should be taken by all States in the
Black Sea Basin in order to avoid that the discharges of nutrients and hazardous
substances into the Seas exceed those that existed in 1997 2. The `Group' recognised that
these 1997 discharges are only incompletely known and that further work has to be
undertaken to substantiate the size of the loads received by the Seas (Black Sea proper;
Sea of Azov).
The `Group' concluded that the inputs of nutrients and hazardous substances into both
receiving Seas have to be assessed in a comparable way, and that to this very end a
common AQC (Analytical Quality Control) system and a thorough discussion about the
necessary monitoring, including the sampling procedures, has to be set up.
The `Group' also concluded that the ecological status of the Black Sea and the Sea of
Azov has to be further assessed, and that the comparability of the data basis has to be
further increased.
2 Loads reported for 1997 to have been transported in River Danube were: orthophosphate, 16,000 tons (as
P); total inorganic nitrogen, i.e. the sum of ammonia-N, nitrite-N and nitrate-N, 300,400 tons (as N)
[A.Cociasu, 1998]. River scientists indicate that in order to `level the impact of river hydrology on the
transport of pollutants out', an averaging over e.g. a span of five years should be undertaken. This would
yield for River Danube an `averaged load for 1995' of 12,700 tons per year of orthophosphate-P and
456,000 tons of inorganic nitrogen per year. The corresponding value for 1997 can only be known as soon
as the value for 1999 is known.
Causes and Effects of Eutrophication in the Black Sea Summary Report
19
Both the reported input loads as well as the assessed ecological status will have to be
reported annually to both the ICPBS and the ICPDR.
The States within the overall Black Sea Basin shall have to adopt strategies that will
permit economic development, whilst ensuring appropriate practices and measures to
limit the discharge of nutrients and hazardous substances, and to rehabilitate ecosystems
which assimilate nutrients.
Based on the annual reports and on the adopted strategies for the limitation of the
discharge of nutrients and hazardous substances, a review shall be undertaken in 2007. It
will focus on the further measures that may be required for meeting the long-term
objective (reaching an ecological status similar to the conditions observed in the 1960s).
It is clear that placing such a "cap" on nutrient discharges would be a bold step towards restoration
of the Black Sea ecosystem. It would give the Black Sea ecosystem a chance to recover and would
offer economic benefits for the coastal countries in terms of improved fisheries and tourism. It
would also offer global and regional benefits, measured in terms of biological diversity. By
contributing to this process, the non-coastal areas within the overall Black Sea's hydrographic
catchment including those within the River Danube Basin would also contribute to these non-
tangible global benefits.
9.
The Danger of Doing Nothing
Holding nutrient inputs at their 1997 levels does not imply "doing nothing". There is an urgent
need to develop agriculture and industry in Black Sea and Danube Basin countries as the present
economic and food supply situation is unsustainable. These sectors should be developed in a
manner which will afford greater protection to the environment and decreased economic loss from
wastage. However, such development will require the commitment and engagement of all
concerned and the support of international donors. As will be discussed in a later section, many of
the necessary national policies and regulations are already in place but require activation.
Clearly, if nothing is done and the economies wil start again to be active by a strong 'principle of
materials flow-through', nutrient loads reaching the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov will soon begin
to rise again. The weakened ecosystems would degrade again and phenomena such as "dead zones"
would return. This could eventually lead again to a loss of biological diversity. It would also inflict
economic damage on the renascent tourist industry and affect fisheries in an unpredictable manner.
10.
Practical Short-term Measures
How can low-cost practical measures be developed for implementing the agreed goals? In a
developing or transition economy, there are many opportunities for implementing nutrient
reduction policies without huge capital costs. This is because many of the contaminating industries
and practices are already highly inefficient and in need of modernisation as part of a suite of
measures for economic reform. The removal of subsidies for fertilisers for example, provides an
incentive to reduce wastage and exploit animal manure currently discharged into rivers. In some
cases however, new technologies fall short of nutrient removal because they address problems of
short-term national interest. Many new municipal wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) are being
planned for example by oxydizing the biodegradable carbon in sewage, but these generally lack
provisions for nutrient removal and, despite solving important domestic problems of human health,
further exacerbate nutrient discharges. Such WWTPs are a good example of domestic baselines; the
cost of adding a nutrient reduction stage would be the incremental cost to address regional and
global environmental problems1. Similarly, a wetlands rehabilitation project, of immense value for
biodiversity conservation, may have true additional incremental benefits in the maintenance or
enhancement of a capacity for nutrient removal. This "ecosystem service" is rarely taken into
account when planning biodiversity projects: the cost of wetlands protection and restoration is an
incremental one and maybe a meaningful investment.
The "Group" has discussed some of the low-cost measures that could be taken to prevent increases
in nutrient discharge to the Black Sea. Some of these measures will have to be set in the context of
a new or revised legal frame, but the "Group" did not discuss this issue in any detail. The
recommendations for measures fall into four general categories:
1. Reform of agricultural policies. The use of market fertiliser has strongly declined in
many Danube Basin and NIS2 countries due to the current economic crisis. Agricultural
production has slumped to unprecedented levels. The sector is currently being
restructured in many countries in order to improve its productivity in several cases via
assistance from the World Bank. If a return to large increases in nutrient run-off is to be
avoided, it is important to include relatively simple policy provisions in the restructuring
process. These include such things as leaving strips of unploughed land ('buffer strips')
near streams, rivers and lakes; provision of storage clamps for overwinter storage of
manure; erosion control through practical demonstration projects, and incentives for
"biofarming3". Regulations concerning buffer zones for streams and rivers are already in
place in some countries (eg. Ukraine), but enforcement is still rather poor. Another area
requiring attention is freshwater fish farming: extensive (low feeding) aquaculture should
be encouraged rather than intensive rearing which has very large nutrient discharges.
Intensive farms should be subjected to discharge permits and levies as an incentive for
proper treatment of waste. Effective levies should also be imposed on intensive animal
rearing facilities that do not treat or recycle their waste.
2. Improved waste-water treatment, where applicable through the use of alternative
technologies. As mentioned earlier, conventional primary and secondary domestic
wastewater treatment does not prevent large nutrient discharges. Tertiary treatment
1 In practice, the matter is more complex. Even if funding can be raised to cover the capital cost of
technological removal of phosphorus and nitrogen, the operation and maintenance cost may be virtually
unaffordable for many countries in transition or in development. Funds from the GEF might theoretically
cover the capital costs but not the operations and maintenance. These issues of sustainability must be
carefully considered when prioritizing GEF interventions.
2 The term NIS, Newly Independent States, refers to the countries of the former USSR.
3 The term "organic farming" is commonly employed in some countries. In the UK, for example, standards
for this practice are set by the Soil Association.
24
Danube Pollution Reduction Programme
(including nutrient removal) implies high operation and maintenance charges which may
be unaffordable under current economic conditions. For small communities, an example
of low-cost alternative technology is the use of reed-bed techniques for sewage treatment
following screening. This is now also employed for small towns in western countries.
This technique has not been successfully applied for larger towns or cities, and it cannot
be recommended without adequate feasibility studies. One option that should be properly
evaluated for towns in Russia, Georgia and Turkey, is the use of deep discharge diffusers.
They can carry wastewater to depths well below the pycnocline (the density gradient at
about 100m depth in the Black Sea). With careful design, diffusers can be effective in
keeping the nutrients away from the phototrophic zone. With industrial wastewater,
nutrient removal should also be a statutory requirement.
3. Rehabilitation of key basin (aquatic) ecosystems. The creation of protected areas,
particularly in the case of wetlands, encourages the natural assimilation of plant nutrients.
The reflooding of wetlands results in nutrient removal in two stages - a fast initial
removal as aquatic plants grow and then a slower continuous removal as phosphorus is
bound into sediments and nitrogen returned to the atmosphere by denitrification. What is
presently only partially known is the long-term effectiveness of wetlands for nutrient
removal (respectively the 'backholding' of nutrients). The protected or reflooded wetlands
serve as biodiversity reserves and productive areas for fisheries. It was also felt that the
areas needed for such ecosystem rehabilitation should not only be along the main rivers,
but in the overall drainage web. The creation of terrestrial protected areas is also very
important as it allows buffer zones to enhance carbon and nitrogen removal. An urgent
priority is to afford protection to the remaining areas of marine macro-algae such as the
Cystoseira beds in Russia or the Phyllophera beds in Ukraine in order to seed recovery of
the Black Sea's ecosystems. These beds are currently under threat as a result of
development of the oil industry (Russia), tourism development (all areas) and trawling
(all areas).
4. Changes in consumer practices (including use of phosphate-free detergents). The
prohibition of polyphosphate-based detergents leads to a major reduction in phosphate
discharge to aquatic systems. These detergents seem to be already banned in most
Danubian countries and the ban should be extended to all Black Sea countries as soon as
possible (such a ban should be part of an agreement for cooperation). Public awareness of
the eutrophication issue should be raised and clear information provided on modifying the
consumer practices that lead to higher nutrient discharges. Awareness should also be
raised of the need for protected areas and the consequence of their loss to developers.
11.
Follow-up
The work of consolidating the information on eutrophication in the Black Sea, including the Sea of
Azov, is still incomplete. There are many gaps to be filled in, and research to be continued. This
report integrates a consistent record of change from which the impact of the phenomenon of
eutrophication of the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov can be clearly highlighted and practical
measures developed for controlling it. There is a broad consensus between specialists from Black
Sea and Danubian countries regarding the validity of the observations and deductions.
There are two follow-up actions necessary at this point:
1. At the policy level. The TOR of the 'Joint ad-hoc Group' requires that the Group's Report
will be made available to both the International Commission for the Protection of the
Black Sea and the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River, as
well as GEF as donor. This Report will be an input to a Meeting between the Black Sea
and the River Danube side, at the level of Heads of Delegations. The Heads of
Delegations of both Commissions should in such a joint meeting, based on cooperation,
consider endorsing the proposal to maintain nutrient levels at or below the loads recorded
in 1997, subject to review in 2007. They should also approve a series of practical
measures to achieve this goal including a total ban on polyphosphate detergents, clear
targets for wetland restoration, an agreement on monitoring, and a mechanism for "joint
implementation".
2. At the project level. Donors should establish mechanism(s) to support the agreed policy
objectives by funding a series of demonstration projects to share the costs of measures to
reduce nutrient discharge following the approach outlined in 10 (above). The approach
could use GEF funding to cover the incremental costs of specific projects. The support of
donors other than the GEF will be necessary in order to meet the agreed policy objectives.
For their part, the Contracting Parties to the Bucharest and Sofia Conventions should
ensure that a 'Memorandum of Understanding' is in place for implementing and
monitoring the agreed policies. Furthermore, funds should be made available for the
important task of raising the awareness of the general public and supporting local
initiatives for reducing nutrient discharge or protecting key (aquatic) ecosystems.
Annexes
Annex I
Summary of Data Sets Showing Evidence for
Eutrophication and Its Effects
t
a.
e
'
, as
.
es
ce
f
e
l
e
no
b
a
t
a
g
e
s
an
lu
d
d
til
e
e
te
n
e
se
ur
e
y
n
h
d
o
i
c
h
i
ver
h
th
ily
i
s
i
i
ver
l
l
va
an
h
e
t o
nub
i
ng
e
n
ar
N
h
errors
r
t
e
s do
. T
a
s
e
st
u
ani
m
d so
m
.
T
s
pt u
e Danu
ns
av
r
t
.
e
w
g
ed
t
o
of
ole r
l
i
ng
a s
86
e
b
. F
s
.
Th
es
a
te
e Da
m
ang
t
h
n
es
i
n
ot
s
of
s
f
r
o
ch
m
w
h
an
f
r
o
p
h
a
l
i
d tr
i
t
s
w
i
o
nt
-
d
lu
u
a
ta
es
ad
r
o
ch
ra
a
r
d
a
m
v
r
e
po
e
r
e
he
en
o
t
e
d
r
an
e
r
e
ke
t
i
l
19
e
g
a
r
i
a
tio
b
e w
t
ed
ologi
-
t
o
n f
t,
st
a
t
of
n
va
l
y
e
g
.
Q
. D
l
la
h
r
acy
u
p
w
h
e
of th
tical
os
g
n
e
p
se
ver flo
r
t
nt s
od
un
t
h
e
a
r
a
l
v
mme
ed
s r
ti
o
c
c
u
m
te
rge of t
ta
i
cal
e
ts
n
a
nia
e
l
s
w
at
n
20%
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
rc
a
si
s
t
u
%
c
a
l
cu
on
l ri
f
d
a
is
m
e
v
n
c
o
o
e
take
ist
vers
0
k S
l
s
t
atis
Co
t
i
o
c ra
ta
s
c
ha
l
da
aso
t
i
m
ef
ns
m
at
a
t
a
s
e
K
1
ac
'
ni
+/-
t
meth
ar
e
cre
r
e
o
o
r
e
al
from on
Ro
es
mp
l
y
es
loa
te
n
d
co
e
y
m
out
f
se
r
e
P
e
s
t
e di
h
for ri
b
e
Bl
its
r
e
t the
t a st
the
s
su
orga
n
t
i
o
s
t
r
at
i
a
t
a
a
r
a
t
i
on in
a
t
a
a
d
m
t
no
h
o
.
d
e
ry
r
emen
th
atic d
a
n
h t
a s
y
t
ts o
sho
to
e a
pical
n
i
n
n
e
a
in
a
t
e of
o
e
o
v
a
ta
e
g
s
u
e
s
e
n
ug
.
e
s
e
n
and
t
from th
ll
un
r
d
es
e
m
c
ent
a
ti
u
a
k
t
a
l/
e
ty
es
es
is is
s
t
e
m
a
e
m
st
n
e
lt
t
i
m
e
e
f
i
n
a
t
a
o
te)
h
y
981
p
s
ua
forma
ts in
und
at o
g
Th
m
t
o
ar
d
sy
Th
c
o
d
es
S
of d
Th
us
mea
r
e
pr
d
(
t
ho
si
T
r
e
pr
S
1
i
n
u
I
n
se
acco
f
o
th
e
s
]
in r
,
1,
1
/
/9
e
f
7)
a
nce
up'
99
e
r
t
a
ble
ro
. R
1
b
s
-
02A
po
e
port
g
t
Bal
u
n
n
ie
., T
]
]
]
`G
R
tr
R/1
Re
ori
RB (
ie
n
e
c
t
r.
s
]
m
D
tr
u
/A
om
u
o
P
u
U
the
i
nal
E
N
for Da
Co
Proj
E
F
[
R
[
Rom
[
Uk
[R
[R
d by
s
ne
f.
l
e 1
d 5b
Fig.
s
tio
Re
.
2
.
3
a
b
ased
an
Fig
T
Fig
(b
on Fig
4
of
que
n
'
e
n
r
a
t
a
.
e
a
to
ear
o
s
be
d
d
i
cal
o
y
th
m
r
f
m
g
g
of
r
,
d
r
o
a
t
e
s
ha
n
lle
l
e
r
o
l
o
)
t
60)
d
n
f
bout
v
ri
m
0
t/y
e
f
a
o
ode
r
o
u
out
59/
i
d
t
Si/y
95.
4
od
ilic
z
i
t
o
d
9/6
9
k
r
g
1
to a
a
n
y
i
m
1
.8
-
9
e
ri
d
o
e 'm
lling
7
19
3
97
-
8
0. S
l
m
n.
ith m
9
g h
a
x
195
r
(
h
c
ha
o
9
7
p
m
t
ve
417 k
19
7
n
n
m
9
f
A
, w
r
(
1 t
1
198
a
dis
c
line
i
o
e
ts
s
t
i
n
o
/
y
i
t
h
r
to 2
in
know
t
P
P
t
Si/y
'
is le
en
0 in
d
ta o
k
t
t
P
t
P
)
t
w
t
N
t
/y
199
10
r
in 1
r
om
a
ly
arat
k
k
s,
og
ce
f
d
e
por
0
5k
6
5
e exi
0
ing
t
e
f
r
om
crease i
d
r
3
2
h
g
tr
e
e
n
n
e
r
1
t/y
y
1
4
t
9/6
ear
e
r
10
60
;
10
790 k
ni
tw
e
sin
r
i
o
quate
Decl
tr
140 k
m
y
e
r
a
12.1 k
ov
.5k
l
a
r i
9-
n
l
ect
v
2
a
v
u
t
N;
t N
t N;
t N;
195
m
r
o
tal
f
silica
6
o
k
r
(
a
r
o
f
er 5
o
to ov
v
r
om
to
acu
e
r
pe
t ade
d
arest
195
c
0
9
5k
t
ref
f
d
f
t
a
r
s
be
,
to
e
Nutrients
20k
47k
/
y
n
se o
e
e
ls h
ch
9
34
d
s
e
9
ect
ov
y
6
h
no
)
8
4
no
8
i
s
i
ng
i
s
i
ng
5
e
t
P
se
ea
liding
e
n
g
r
/
L
crease.
sp
s
e
r
ve
nube
k
0-
ase i
,
r
g
t
lev
2
n
og
ar
b
e Bu
89)
2
ily
52-
en
d
h
/
89
r
the
8
s
do
1
rea
e
cr
is '
o
9
m
h
that t
e
o
Da
2)
8/
u
c
h
Decrea
40
7
e
t i
.
f
t
8
198
t
rren
te
m
9
92)
h
m
i
n
.
5
r
f
88-
t
t
e
a
d
.
2
n
nitr
o
l
v
ge
99
98
1
9
t
o
t
e
d
g averages o
decre
9
u
o
M
e
ls
o
n
s o
r
o
1
d
n
e
.
T
e
e
n
l
o
s
0
r
in 19
v
f
(
(1
fr
e
i
n
9
19
n
o
µ
1
b
n
a
nic
t. N
a
si
tions:
l
i
c
a
i
d
t
w
t
g
le
p
t/y
M. Cu
g
e
(
tim
t
Si/y
in
a
the
µ
s
inv
Cha
b
e
s an
e
d
Si
te
in
0.5
or
0s
s
e
e
k
l
a
t
e
d
t
r
og
be
r
a
dua
,
5k
a
a
t
e
r (1
n
in
r
in 1
70
w
9
te
s
of
o
t
h
cu
w
o
/
y
94
pha
h
low
l in
dur
n
ssum
y
creas
i
c
ni
89.
int
31.
4-
196
dat
e
o
ha
5. G
265
50-
8-
/
L
ta
c
o
cal
a
n
t
N
a
lue
hos
s
s
o
d
o
t
a
t
e
s
:
g
of
earl
i
n
a
e
re are gl
p
s
p
4 -
m
s
be
r
om
ed
p
r
om
r
f
ace
S
y
d
h
6 k
r
o
198
m
r
u
ite
pr
r
in 19
r
199
23
nt v
f
o
s
f
in t
l
at
u
n
f
h
a
rding
o
a
lue
i
m
/
y
t
e
d
r the
pho
45
rre
a
nic
e
n
30%
a
t
e
r re-
g
t
l
bia
are
o
1.9
s
p
v
t
e
loa
Inorg
ic
r
f
e
of
u
r
om
o
g
og
o
4
a
lue
u
is
tical
a
l
c
u
w
re
a
:
to
c
line
o
t
e
d
a
t
N
.
e
f
.
t/y
a
r
i
e
d
or
h
O
b
h
te
into s
a
nu
91.
r
esen
40 f
aly
Se
ph
tiv
90
a
ng
v
to c
a
t
e
t
p
a
es c
ace
o
90)
r
gan
t
.7 k
r
l nitr
n
ith v
o
u
D
ta
u
ith t
rf
os
9
s
p
tions
i
t
e
n
s
i
ons
c
k
r
esen
813 k
1
e
a
o
d
ace P
d an
13
d
x
s
e
n
ino
b
nitr
rf
s
t
no de
val
su
is
r
in 19
of
r
(
l
u
tua
r
in 19
a
tota
91 w
o
an
.
Se
m
of
Bla
n to
es p
.
/
y
to 12
/
y
f
a
lling
of
su
g
ed
t
o
n
u
i
c
Ph
n
m
pre
l
uc
se
i/P
c
r
e
a
s
e
in in
re:
0
19
l
m
c
line
icant w
at
l e
u
s
e
in
lly
7
o
l
i
n
s i
t
P
out
into
f
ing
lar tren
ga
k
t
Si/y
a
s
s
f
re
t
N
dow
o
if
i
m
e
a
de
u
h
9
p
1
n
ad
ntion
0
e val
7
k
rea
k
2
ss N/P ratios
ss S
1 t
M. A
e
de
m
s
t
i
m
o
te
nnua
h
ing
a
a
v
a
r
i
a
tions
or
a
x
l
l
m
e
a
r
l
y
c
r
r
a
dua
oubl
c
r
e
a
s
e
of
r
e
µ
i
g
a
E
L
re
A
in 1
Flow
T
v
I
n
30.
m
154
A
be
y
In
dec
730
198
M
g
M
D
65%
I
n
Irreg
Ons
P
197
1
ha
s
s
ly
r
the
o
cal
ti
as
n
d
7 f
tis
n
r
P
o
-
9
t
a
and
od
0
8
t s
60 a
6
97 f
9
ads
servatio
o
peri
2
7
9
; 1
no
l
/
9
19
97
-
9
81
19
Ob
8
9-
0-
0
4 -
2-
9-
8
8
s
)
is
9
9
1
195
198
1
199
195
195
a
nd Si
N
at the
s
phate
i
ng
s
,
,
e
l
r
i
v
n
h
pho
a
lue
low
t
low
Sea)
(
f
ar
v
tf
n
tf
u
e
i
a
nne
u
v
g
o
catio
o
h
o
e
o)
z
o
elf
i
an
n
d
o
a
t
e
d
l
ow
r
ed
c
v
Straits
h
A
a
n
r
)
L
ov
na
o
tho
m
. S
m
o
cha
e
outf
a
nube
a
nube
a
nube
ilk
ro
ect
is
m
Estim
of
D
measu
Suli
D
as ab
D
(
V
Kerch
(f
NW
(Ro
S
h
T1 the
f
e
s
w
e
r
n
t
e
ng
t
d
e
s
l
t
s
r
s
o
ar
a
3
8
l
u
no
o
tte
al
e
s
u
as
9
r
y
of th
t
r
i
ki
1
va
e
d -
t
h
r
d
r
ic
e
r
s
a
t
e
lli
d
u
o
e
a
r
as
its
s
r
emen
US an
y
r
e-
h
d
ose
a
f
cl
ith pa
the
s
u
i
sto
i
a
n
t
n
s
acto
h
m
un
s
is
n
ude
p
d
n
r
ovi
w
ie
cl
.
h
o
o
nt
un
n
is
p
e
r
f
r
o
l
i
ng
.
is
tr
n
s
e
s
b
i
elf
o
h
u
s
e
s
a
iz
rror t
s
p
p
n
e
n o
t
ly
n
d f
r
e n
e
t
u
d mea
h
r
ui
a
m
i
v
n
e
d
e
d
s
i
l
a
r
ity
a
is
S
e
nt
r
a
te
e a
mme
e
r
til
g
a
t
ed.
s mi
a
t
i
o
e
s
te
s
c
e
d
Also me
u
f
s
r
s
and the
r
co
is
ists
m
er
s.
u
bas
i
c
c
r
ui
o
a
ta
ork
nt
c
c
u
h
p
h
Co
a f
ge
e
q
d
e
s
i
m
t
he
n
e
dat
cu
e NW
r
i
ou
t
re
m
p
a
n
is
h
io
h
ie
ch ne
by
h
g loc
n r
ncy
n a
gu
t
udy
e
e
r
r
o
T
at
e
t
w
th
ar
do
ns
c
lin
io
t
h
.
in o
n
.
T
to
a
t
ely
e
c
o
-
ogra
c
e
d
.
at
e
d
r
m
g
t
o
e
a sc
e
no
c
e
fi
b
n
n
.
re
e
se
o
e
d
e
r
.
o
atio
ic
.
r
e
que
ing
lin
ncy
S
e
ts
m
n
ube
a
mp
rt
in
oy
e
v
r
t
un
t
o
r
t
ant s
ea
l
ue
s
e
d
if
o
r
e
l
a
tiv
pl
inf
t
r
a
st
r
e
r
no
f
o
o
a
n
ar
p
e
f
t
a
from va
po
h
ta
s
e
r
v
w
s
e
r
v
b
b
o
n
ack
ta s
f
e
re
eed
b
inf
cl
Offsh
D
No s
cl
re
T
o
the
e
m
o
ho
N
s
a
mp
f
r
e
que
c
o
Da
Bl
Mo
da
phe
Un
re
n
I
m
of oc
o
/
2;
e
f
0
0
,
ta
. R
]
0
, 199
e
port
g
rk
v
]
z
R
g]
e
da
a
ori
r
.
]
s
]
m
k
ul
u
r
]
r
]
u
astü
itse
96]
o
9
u
[
U
[
B
[R
[T
[
B
Za
EROS-2
c
r
uis
1
[
R
[T
Yilm
f.
]
2
m
l
e
3
Fig.
Re
o
s
4
a
ble
b
[R
T
Ta
Fig
& 5
.
7
low
9
in
m
ly
9
e
r
e
d
to
r
ly
n
r
o
1
a
t
e
s
+
e
10
v
e
d
r
a
lly
n
i
f
ic
o
to be
r
r
e
nt
itr
i
h
ula
od
d
c
e
d
e
ne
e
u
7)
)
n
d c
nom
s
om
n
e
i
g
rtic
a
t
i
ons
e
ri
i
n
, c
99
96
e
(
(
r
ll
s
g
h
tr
p
1
c
o
m
pa
n
(
19
a
.
ha
,
2
e
n
decl
ntly
1980
ith a
50
e
c
t
or
in e
s
L)
units
phy
ns
9
onc
ce
s
e in
u
e
ce
on
g/
i
t
y
r
1960 a
ro
4 w
19
e
non
r
om
the
low
n
ti
µ
te
e
r
lo
t
a
tio
m
crease i
f
7
ns
v
e
r
c
o
d
be
val
e
s
h
n
97)
n
e
sin
a
nia
a
t
e
l
y
,
5
e
r
af
ns to
9
a
v
m
i
a
ha
e
199
1
r
i
o
i
gh
.
4 de
l
a
r i
)
to
o
r
e
duc
im
us
x
0
m
e
y
tio
hig
(
8
o
m
h
nd ch
s
hor
phe
5
8
R
ox
or
n
tra
tly
acu
e
ls h
l
e
h
u
e
r
pe
g
e
to
ph
0.3-
h
. T
n a
r sinc
i
de
d
n
u
e
n
e
r
1
w
ect
82-
ppr
os
Hyp
t
o
nd i
t
lev
ov
9
nc
s
l
i
g
1
r
si
s
d
l
f
in s
80s
o
ov
sp
n
e
n
in the
e
a
y
o
d
ph
l
bout
nk
c
s
i
n-
s
e
r
ve
o
d
a
in a
a
19
la
s
), lowe
b
rre
t
f
r
i
o
)
t
en
og
ta
h
t
u
y
n
ba
e
m
o
She
p
f
s
hor
o
8
8
t
s
r
1994 (
s
a
nitr
W
e
r
100 (
o pe
; t
t
o
a
lue
ge
9
2-
M
e
xcep
8
ace b
pth i
r
of
r
e
a
s
ing
f
te
n
µ M. Cu
the
e
v
n a
98
µ
(
a
t
e
s
r
rf
a
nic
tw
5-
de
Phy
f
o
1
s
ov
r
g
.
6
g
t
of
90
i
a
t on N
n
t
inc
a
tio
Cha
0.5
n
the
ilic
0m
o
u
3 (
2
or
o
e su
la
r
e
a
s
a
o
a
lue
tha
d s
h
-
4
ati
ry
2-
low
t
l in
v
ce 19
e
e
n
n
in 198
s t
e
s
e
n
5
phic
ri
h a
o
m
p
ta
n
tw
a
/
L
3
a
e
ve
tions b
tr
r
o
s
be
u
o
e
d to
r
amm
us
g
a
rd
n pr
m
u
f
t
n
f
r
om
e si
o
be
µ
w
te
o
8 to
tua
e
a
lue
s
of
i
e
r
v
at
e
e
d
hor
5
p
7-
e of v
(so
v
lv
g t
r
s
of
4
s
ph
t
r
at
os
33
n
m
/L
c
e
of
r
e
a
s
e
d
a
lue
obs
O
c
line
o
l a
e
f
l
uc
n
M.
e
d
a
te
r
o
rang
µ creased
r
n
h
ha
r Ni
e
e
c
r
e
a
s
e
in bot
ide
ith v
l ph
tte
p
o
e
n
l
a
rgi
w
2 f
Ch
a
r
g
v
e
inc
l de
5
e
de
n
f
ta
e
r
a
g
m
m
g
v
ace P
v
d
og
o
v
o
e
rf
e
i
- th
- L
r
pa
itr
T
a
e
en
.
0 k
ll
µ
ll
is
ha
91 w
bout
ha
n
y
0
y
r
r
e
nt. D
su
r
a
dua
ila
r
en
n
e
ls
is
on.
bott
00
v
h
5
h
u
h
re:
0
19
g a
e
c
lin
i
m
d
ti
c zo
ic
p
ed
p
c
a
tios
7
9
o
i
n
a
tios
ear t
a
nic
xi
o
o
15,
le
.
T
1
s
onium
1 t
M. G
µ
r
p
g
ed
i
m
cl
duc
m
r
es)
pox
o
0s
lor
lor
r
6)
/
P r
r
y
bo
r
e
/
P r
o
u
N
Offsho
P
197
0.4
reach
N
Ve
Sha
No
I
nor
pr
am
S
met
Hy
up t
196
Ch
exce
Ch
the
199
n
5
-
9
90
od
8
95
97
96
19
9
97
97
servatio
peri
9
19
19
19
89,
-
1
-
19
19
Ob
0-
7-
5-
0
0s
3-
6-
7
9
195
198
198
1
195
198
198
r
,
o
)
,
t
n
re)
n
e
a
k
i
o
,
y
a
ear
sect
at
ac
rren
gy
z
ov
B
f
n
catio
elf
i
an
a
n
l
st
one
ack S
l
f
el
Bl
cu
t
r
al
o
h
n
og
nta
r
)
e
l
f
ari
z
A
h
L
Bl
S
o
h
po
ta
ern
l
g
a
nr
She
S
zo
g
en
cen
ect
o
ritic
a
of
a
W
ons
e
st
d
NW
(Ukrai
S
W S
(Bu
S
ne
Se
T
Op
N
NW
C
W
Sea (rim
an
e
a
t
a
e
a
d
of
d
n
t
h
.
e
t
n
g
t
s
e
an
m
at
e
a
r
s
of
io
)
r
p
l
i
n
s
.
e
f
i
on.
e
r
e
d
0
ge i
a
ni
y
een
a
t
a
s
lla
7
0
m
i
cat
it
e
va
r
t
th
v
e
t
r
t
he
o
m
h
h
9
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
s
s
an
os
co
e
d
c
h
o
p
1
e
.
so
e
f
i
e
l
d
.
a
s
b
a
r
e
nt
o
p
iv
ta
nt
R
e
samp
at
e
r
i
e
s
o
m
onc
asse
re
s
u
e
iv
en
e c
r
l
y
e
iv
h
p
tr
o
ns
h
e
s
f
u
over 3
e
d
e
s
t
s
h
u
M
to
t
l
y
da
te
ns
ir
.
dd
th
ns
pl
(
n
ude
u
n
te
n
.
T
en
e
ap
n e
rt
x
e
a
r
s
te
cl
s
u
e ea
mme
e,
o
e
an th
am
tim
ca
ee
i
e
s
c
o
a
r
l
y
y
s
e
s
s
t
f
the
e
x
r
e
q
i
s
i
o
th
nc
e
x
n e
arch
m
y
r
em
s
t
h
ec
e
i
fi
0
t
of
n
t in
as
o
n
u
e
v
n
Co
s
t
r
a
t
e
s
th
tw
p
o
i
i
na
e
l
y
a
s
e
d
se
a
y
uns
g
on
inar
s
e rep
upo
i
t
y
b
ti
llu
be
to
d r
m
e
a
s
u
h
to
n
ns
n
o
o
e
m
i
s
b
m
e
re
r
d
s
t
r
a
te
n
ged
a
s si
e
d
e
s
no
a
s
t
e
m
l
e i
tr
i
c
re
l
u
over 4
io
tativ
y
x
ta
at
ao
n
g
s
n
ncy
s
w
a
l
m
tio
e
r
s it
h
at
a
s
e
d upo
atio
a
b
tr
bas
n
ng
os
i
e
s
d
e
m
x
cia
or of t
d
r
t
do
r
m
ort
e
s
e
n
ti
e t
e
m
cha
e
m
r
k
ec
i
s
da
o
e
ich il
t
h
po
o
pp
h
st
o
n
h
s
o
d
u
nsi
st
o
a
ta b
s
e
r
v
da
b
e ec
Th
s
p
s
e
t is
T
sy
f
r
e
que
bl
A
s
e
a
s
on
w
as
a
n
A
co
sy
W
c
overi
Re
inf
r
e
pr
D
o
up
Su
t
h
/
e
f
a
. R
e
port
g
]
]
]
a
-
v
]
]
R
ori
m
lg
lg
lg
r
]
s
]
r
]
m
r
]
o
t
r
o
a
r
a
djov
k
u
k
o
k
[
R
[
Bu
[
Bu
Pe
K
[
Bu
[
U
[R
[U
[R
[U
f.
l
e
4
l
e
5
Fig.
Re
b
.
6
.
7
8
b
Ta
Fig
Fig
Fig
Ta
n
f
e
s
e
t
v
by
0
d
a
r
ia
the
t
ace o
0
d
n
s
).
e
e
lg
u
.
n ha
h
tr
a
lly
u
,
b
o
. 5,4
to
e
n
3
. T
a
ve
l
a
t
e
v
tom
Som
n
a
s a
2
a
s
s
of
. N
lt)
e
c
t
or
nk
-
6
.
1
9
i
r
t
ua
s h
la
gae) an
6
e
d
w
9
m
m
be
n s
p
9
(dia
o
f
l
agel
illion t
o
al
biom
. k
nt or e
ta
a
nc
e
1
e
r
s
e
tha
one
e
r
e
v
at
a
tion to B
i
no
l
q
i
de
nn
hy
v
d
r
v
ta
w
r
a
inia
e.
ble
i
nc
w
f
d
o
k
cl
na
r
i
od 1
op
s
.
Di
m
y
d
ri
n a
80s
n
a
s 1.4 m
500 s
0
U
n
e-green
pe
r
e
div
e
d
i
o
ith t
5
l
u
e
f
r
e
que
o
h
ce o
w
ly
1
a
tio
19
r obse
n
(
in
i
f
e c
m
e
e
n
c
illa
m
unsta
n
w
i
cat
ila
e
n
ts
d
o
.
a
t
on a
a
(b
hic
i
nis
i
d-
h
crophytes
a
ss
ts
r
t
l
k
c
o
t
w
a
is
p
ci
a
i
e
d
bat
o
n
eri
e
ba
op
to a
m
n
p
e
por
d
h
tr
l
or
t
r
o
(sim
in 60s
ntis
r
r
act
e
be
t
u
m
g i
f
e
dim
biom
f
sh
b
v
a
s
s
be
o
v
n
m
ccu
c
ie
a bar
ila
o
ha
t
s
e
ste
f
eu
t
he
y
s
in the
rine m
. k
o
n s
es o
s
e
r
ve
i
c
r
opla
hora
d
an
om
e
d
a
(
s
r
e
a
s
e
d
a
q
e
ir
b
m
l
t
o
Sim
m
bi
3
s
to ha
o
creasi
. s
.
eci
o
t
e
d
9
t
e
d
n
M
llop
t an
y
tos
9
f
Cy
1970
long
e
inc
i
00
n
r
a
inia
7
ge
s
of
C
re
t
on
ina
ina
o
eem
blo
v
k
9
n
k
,8
es o
f
o
n
s
t
1
e
phy
illio
U
es"
, 1
i
s
t
i
c
sp
oom
t.
s
s
the
s ha
m
c
i
e
s
be
1990 -
h
m
as a resu
1
Cha
eci
be
dom
te
d
m
23t
un
p
n dom
o
t
y
eci
re
t
opla
l
oo
s, t
rt
y
e
s
e
n
te
r
om
l
o
e of
.
3
1
b
0
e
s
by
t
.
S
ra
h
pr
t spe
f
t
om
e
lla
7
0
e
sp
po
p
n
d
e
b
g
s
om
i
versi
ed
c
upie
73;
la
r
uis
n
o
op
r
e
s
s
e
d, bl
t
a
of
dia
at
oc
r
t
a
n
e
re
y
ns
(
19
)
in
ina
le
i
n
ceed
st
og
o
h
es d
nd of
y
i
t
h
p
h w
x
p
b
98 c
0
m
i
e
l
d
e
t ex
5t,
w
m
ic
o
a
s
note
inte
eci
o
s
pr
, dinof
o
19
i
h
c
r
e
a
s
e
to
dom
sta
e.
r
e
a
s
e
d
d
a
f
n
75
y
lly
the
n
e "ke
de
din
a
sp
9
s
w
1;
e
r
)
ua
n
m
i
d
h
l
aced
n ha
gl
s
w
on
inc
o
hor
n
d
a
bout 4
a
r the
8
e i
e
rsity
By
f
t
f
9
t
om
e
v
r
om
f
arp
nus
l
s
o
i
at
,
197
a
tio
30%
1
d
llop
s
it d
hora
o
u
s
a
0
ce o
creasi
e
n
by
f
dia
how
sh
m
a
s
f
ound i
ht)
n
op
t.
r
e
a
s
e
(
t
h
2 t
in div
o
ly
sition
l
y
e
of
ha
c
i
f
i
c
)
ecreas
e
s)
r
o
illion t.
f
8
ophic
n
71,
n
e
ig
ab
'
s
phy
o
earan
r
a was rep
tr
e
i
lith
90
19
nc
pe
l
d
s
d
p
w
u
m
ina
e
r
y
e
inc
197
v
ious
ge f
m
i
e
l
d w
sei
g
3-
a
rk
e
r
s
ity
an
o
a
9 m
f
t
o
s
e
e
tra
r
nov
sap
eco
c
c
o
u
om
e
v
h
m
c
i
de
onos
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
l
l
eagu
e en
y
A
b
c
o
dom
H
198
Until
Fr
r
e
c
o
pr
T
re
I
n
div
m
Overal
de
co
Ch
blo
Ze
a
l
g
th
the
Di
(
f
r
e
s
h
C
-
n
80s
od
, 19
94
0s
0s
servatio
peri
5
9
19
97
95
96
-
9
-
4
-
8
-
7
Ob
2-
1-
4-
1-
0
0s
0s
1
5
7
9
9
196
196
195
198
1
193
90s
196
1
c
k
d
n
Bay
ear
ack
a
)
ack
ack
)
)
)
an
f
n
Bl
n
Bl
n
Bl
n
n Bla
n
n
catio
el
a
n
o
a
lat
a
n
o
a
n
o
o
elf
ssiisk
l
f
elf
i
an
o
h
nta
a
Bay
a
Bay
ro
h
a
n
L
S
ta
ari
e
G
ari
ari
inia
Sh
o
She
S
inia
r
s)
l
g
l
g
l
g
ra
v
ssia)
m
ra
o
ons
arn
arn
ea regi
ea regi
ea regi
ea regi
W
NW
C
Bu
S
(Cap
Bu
S
(V
Bu
S
(V
Uk
S
(NW
No
(Ru
N
NW
(Ro
Uk
sect
e
.
t
y
e
r
e
can
a.
it
t
li
e
r
t
h
n
ain
or
r
n
t
bi
.
a
ni
u
e
e
a
e
l
f
s
w
ch
ect
tte
e
a a
e
s
t
.
la
h
a
r
t
h
m
tio
s
m
s
b
w
f
k S
ai
s
m
ca
r
d
v
r
o
a
s
f
u
ood
k S
Ro
tail
ges
e
o
ac
a
levels
s
W
hic
e
a
nis
r
i
a
n
e
a
r
pa
n
t f
s
.
ac
ic
.
ed
phi
e f
e
co
an
th
nt
N
if
nt
on
nc
r
g
o
r
cl
de
Bl
in
s
t
r
a
t
e
s
th
c
e
d
h
tr
lga
r
ea
n
a
tio
be
c
th
c
e
d
o
s
e
in
u
va
.
u
o
us
a
o
ch
e
il
llu
t
i
r
e
Bl
r
oph
the
s
gi
us
d
e
h
y
r
n
p
i
n
e
d
to
by
re
i
s
h
e Bu
t
os
t
s the
nd
m
mme
w
ad
w
er t
d
d
e
la
van
no
nuo
d
h
t
ud
ou
a
ste
th
ich
e
e
e r
te
te
p
th
e
t
chy
a
on
vou
over
nti
h
h
k
as
co
i
gh
Co
s
ho
a
ti
s
ho
p
l
i
g
r
of
e
e
f
t
d th
t
ar
i
na
o
on
e
l
a
ti
fa
h
e
r s
m
s
in
i
l
a
r
to
s
e
p
h
o
n
s
t
e
f
ul
m
t
ti
i
ca
n
h
ly
i
at
i
m
a
t
a
w
a
s
t
r
a
te
m
on
ca
d" g
g
e
s
t co
oth
in
us
n
s
t
r
a
te
t
i
o
sim
e
hig
n
r
t
is
e
t
nce
l
u
do
ti
n
e
r for h
s
te
hi
t
r
op
l
u
a
l
l
y
ng
i
r
th
a
re d
ba
s
t
e
m
d
il
uc
il
t
u
e
r
y
o
a
bl
n
e
po
r
e
d
is
o
y
is
s
y
is
s
e
rva
e
l
e
r
s
a
m
is
h
t
ur
h
s
t
e
m
r
od
t
r
op
s
eu
e
a
d e
c
r
e
a
si
h
en
e
v
h
ail
ow
h
ccur
e
h
os
T
e
c
o
s
y
p
eu
A
"
d
i
n
T
ev
Ob
ar
T
av
s
h
T
i
s
c
l
ea
o
t
h
T
offs
dis
ec
of fod
/
e
f
. R
e
port
g
]
]
]
R
g]
]
ori
m
m
r
]
s
]
o
o
ul
k
u
ur
[
R
[R
[
Rom
[
B
[
U
[R
[
T
f.
0
l
e
6
l
e
s
7
1
l
e
9
Fig.
Re
b
b
9
b
.
11
i
g.
Ta
Ta
& 8
Fig
F
Ta
Fig
e
s
e
r
h
0
pse
t
,
92-
d
t
t
a
,
9
s
of
i
e
.
m
9
ol
(
lla
a
a
e
r
as
on
, a
m
19
u
o
uc
te
Se
1
s ha
a
s
m
m
ti
ns
a
i
n
s
c
recen
til
la
a
s
c
k
a
s
t
op
m
i
o
h
m
w
the
duc
of
8.8%
a
s
the
n
v
u
o
lla
c
the
the
i
s
h
a
w
r
o
%
unitie
o
Bla
i
o
ing
er b
r
f
e
s
pr
inti
hic
of
e
Noc
o
0
e
c
i
e
s
"
in
m
s, t
uc
g
h
op
d to
f
2
p
m
a
t
a
f
the
i
on w
dur
t in Se
mm
sc
lik
o
c
til
d
, the
a
.8%
r
s
o
e
tr
e
g
9
s
.
e
le
s-60
n
t in t
v
out
b
0
w
r
e
r
y
e su
h
9
n c
N
i
on of
is
e
NE re
v
e
s
e
n
h
r
a
ts
tiluc
h, un
a
tions
a
to
5
h
p
o
g
h
t
ic
o
r
o
e
s
e
n
t
f
odde
e
c
o
ton
T
to t
p
unitie
h
nk
ei
s.
, s
plic
d
a
Noc
u
m
s to ha
h
e
r
e
pr
m
e
"
la
t
l
f
re
70s t
e
r
nk
d
m
h
p
ount of
e
d. T
a
s
pr
i
bute
m
e
r
i
od.
o
m
l
a
e 80
o
c
line
. T
o
m
i
t
h
19
o
w
h
r-ali
e
r
of
se
e
c
i
e
s
w
e
r
e
i
a
ss in the
She
e
r
g
s
d
t
ntr
pod w
m
o
i
bute
p
e
pe
e
z
e
a
h
W
m
oop
e
v
the
m
t
on c
h
er w
one
a
m
e
c
t
or
h
e
Z
r
inte
u
k
psis
e
s
s
s
7.
N
is
c
e
of
ope
o
to c
ontr
n
io
s
biom
r
om
n
s
e
r
ve
s
and
s
-
9
e
c
i
e
s
de
e
s
n
a
n, t
get
the
a
c
only
b
0
ha
6
h
r
e
d
s
c
e
m
t
hos
g
o
t f
is
9
t
the
iops
u
ide
o
e 7
n
(
h
9
r
"
s
p
n
a
nia
r
e
a
s
e
in t
v
Se
nd
h
ide
ha
oopla
n"
of
e
m
a
ge
e
c
i
e
s
f
in the
z
M
.
T
1
s b
n
d i
m
%
t
i
s
t
s
t
n
0
d
n
f
t
p
ns
to
o
i
rst be
inc
e
s
e
l
a
c
k
o
le
4
of
r
e
,
i
e
n
e
c
i
e
s
in
M
6
i
v
e o
e
c
i
es
d
9
p
o
nk
f
odde
4
ld
p
B
h
a
i
n)
ub
r
R
o
e
n
1
g
a
ine
Cha
ood s
c
i
a
l
l
y
t c
"
o
o
la
h
r s
e
s
p
f
sci
ta
m
o
ting
.
h
e
ecad
n
h
c
line
s
do
d f
r
e
f
s
pe
oop
a
tions f
a
.
s
h
w
the
d
is
t
e
n
a
s
note
ie
our
r
v
80s
odde
n
h da
s
,
e
h
e
de
ood c
e
c
i
e
s
of
c
r
z
tinous
it
rki
f
w
u
f
80s
n i
is
p
een
h
e
s
e
a
ic
e
la
ns
s
c
r
i
be
tiluc
onstitu
a
r
p f
nd
to
r
k
e
c
i
e
s
r
h
h
T
p
oom
e
r
y
g
c
h
a
y
e
of
19
u
on s
e
t
w
e
c
i
e
s
)
.
T
nd t
odde
v
nk
p
e
obse
s
te
a
tinous
a
r
i
ne
a
de
"f
a
t
de
Noc
la
e
T
m
6 s
s
b
e
s
.
T
.
e
bl
t
on w
e
c
o
non-
uc
h
r
om
70s
es b
c
l
i
n
la
p
h
i
on.
m
ly
d
e
m
t
s
.
A
o
m
k
e
r
s
e
la
by
f
o
n
n
lity
h
o
0
o
r
g
g
s
of
t
e
r
c
til
d
e
g
9
the
s
de
r
c
o
e
po
ti
hug
o
s
of
o
e
st sinc
t
e
d
e
seri
te
e
the
nt. T
p
i
x
the
t
as
e
e
n
e
r
z
ta
13
s
creased
opla
r
la
n
t of
d
o
o
Som
s
. N
tion t
ina
c
line
the
i
m
t
ra
i
nc
of
co
d
i
e
a
s
ona
.
low
tw
s
1990
n
de
f
t
o
por
by
e
n
z
of
nd SE
so
a
l of
e
r
bloom
i
bute
itua
a
lue
the
be
r
ly
m
11
ng
a
i
,
the
.
al
ood f
e
in s
m
t
i
ons
e
r
biom
r
s
e
dom
ods
d
6
g
r
r
i
v
v
p
te
s
i
s
o
ula
e
lopm
tinous
s
f
a
s
s
.
ontr
7
n
m
e
re
y
e
s
,
illus
u
m
lly
c
ula
m
0s
ila
i
nni
e
s
t in f
e
W
h
9
;
by
c
rease i
r
e
a
s
e
d
i
c
h
al
h
e
v
e
a
c
o
g
r
tic
h
y
e
la
h
s
n
1
a
onths
I
n
inc
w
D
g
a
c
t
a
biom
Cha
T
of
c
a
n
pop
Sum
196
Sim
95 w
be
Cope
be
r
e
por
A
c
r
uis
pa
ric
e
qua
in t
I
n
B
m
n
od
servatio
6
peri
8
6
-
91
94
95
95
90
-
9
Ob
0
0-
3-
7-
0-
0-
5
7
5
9
9
1
198
198
196
195
195
1
e
n
ack
Bay
Bl
f
s
hor
n NW
catio
elf
i
an
elf
i
an
elf
i
an
a
n
ssiisk
e
a
o
h
a
n
h
a
n
h
a
n
ast
ro
L
S
r
)
r
)
r
)
inia
m
o
S
m
o
S
m
o
ari
o
l
g
ra
l
f
v
ssia)
e
r
a
ll of
ea co
v
ack S
NW
(Ro
sect
NW
(Ro
sect
NW
(Ro
sect
Bu
S
Uk
She
No
(Ru
O
Bl
e
n
s
al
u
to
e
ar
n
t
e
ar
e
e
s
t
er
i
c
e
a
y
t
i
e
at
th
e
c
ie
h
i
s
e
s
ss
t
h
u
e
y
a
l
u
r
o
ea
p
p
s
t
a
n
t
m
of
i
c
e
s
o
o
r
u
le
f
t
b
h
g
re
v
e
s
s
tr
r
t
a
n
r
thr
c
es
a
nt
n
nt
h
h
u
u
m
t
a
l
s
. I
a
l
c
d as
r
t
he
o
n o
sis
p
i
o
a
n
t
t
s
p
e
n
a
s
the
f
e
of
at
be
n
e
n
.
m
nce
i
o
r
e
a
te
u
min
e
s
as a
n
n
and Be
nt
the
r
e
te
y
n
ic
t
c
h
m
r
y
e
ve
i
a
tio
.
o
i
vidu
r
p
u
n
m
g
.
o
ir
is
r
om
e
l
a
tino
ic o
s
i
o
c
c
i
d
t
u
d
s
eq
te
i
o
has
m
c
d
nf
f
va
a
bl
e
l
y
in
e
que
e
n
n
i
c o
ng
b
ps
e
n
n
e
s
. N
nt
at
e
v
o
hi
t
r
oph
i
f
i
c
a
n
e
c
i
e
s i
n.
ly
mme
r
g
r
i
st
n
o
r
i
in
ns
Mne
s
te
t
r
o
co
io
io
b
te
o
r
em
st
l
a
g
n
a
t
he
e i
pr
i
s
c
co
fe
s
y
s
g
l
to
r
e c
e
nt
eu
f
sp
ct
m
Co
ac
h
s
e
of a
t
be
e
r
ag
n
Bero
an e
e
r
y
l
e
co
o
c
o
pe
si
v
m
d o
ar
e
r
y
.
T
th
se
u
no
av
e
ext
s
i
e
st
ss o
e
du
s
i
s
is
g ca
on
d
f
the
si
l of
ntr
r
e
s
a
s
to
c
e of
t v
o
o
r
an
l
d
al
o
po
ng
e
co
r
es
n ch
p
in
ti
a
t
a
a
r
e f
u
n
p
va
co
ti
from b
m
e
n
r
e
.
r
nt
i
o
o
i
gu
e
l
th Mne
uc
o
r
ovi
ce
i
c
a
t
a
b
a
so
is
ie
f
i
s
h
f
te
s
t
e
ms
rri
s
te
,
p
y
m
s
t
at
e d
h
aso
p
n
x
e f
ges
r
t
no
i
v
d
tr
e
mi
e
d
al
s
y
s
equ
i
e
s. M
d he
i
p
e
o
os
es
e a
pr
as
e
es
po
d
te
e
va
t
r
od
d s
an
r
se
ey
ide
n
h
a
y
n
u
a
ss
r
i
o
r
adual
f
nu
h
J
e
lly
ar
ec
Mne
d
i
n
Th
an
o
t
h
e
v
M
T
un
act
m
the
Th
c
h
e
c
o
c
o
Re
st
no
M
pe
G
o
t
c. Bo
s
e
e
a
a
v
r
of
/
e
f
-
l
ar
t
e
a
. R
i
s
h
e
port
g
]
]
]
]
s
t
w
R
}
]
g]
, f
ori
m
m
m
m
kr
r
]
u
ur
ul
o
o
o
o
ds
lla
a
[
U
[T
[
T
[
B
[R
[R
[R
[R
po
pe
e b
co
th
f.
2
n
i
Fig.
Re
.
13
a
i
g 1
e
F
Fig
l
uding
c
S
0
i
n
ack
7
n
.
ld
6
the
2
a
.
d in
ra
Bl
m
i
s
ie
h
Se
W
nkto
r
o
tif
l
a
the
f
l
.t by
d
ht), or
f
t
c
k
n
ill he
m
t
o
op
0
in the
o
d to
0
e
i
g
e
lope
en
e
Bla 2
is w
82
f
z
5
v
m
h
/m
i
rst ide
h
r
te
creased
p
t
19
o
n
e
t
w
t
t
0 -
de
o
0g
n
r
o
p
i
d
a
s f
es
(w
tha
30
n
30
ato
rts of
00 i
eci
d
ans
rita
a
e
vel
d
p
e
u
to
ons
d
nd
,
0
t:
tr
p
pa
0
s
n
80s
e
a
6
0
e
u
n t
h
os
80)
E
d
e
r
ne
bita
9
lia a
d
19
t
iopsis, w
:
,
3
n
th
1
m
00 -
3
be
r
ed
nd W
rde
onc
n
9
ha
97
e
]
a
i
d-
billio
e
9
1
u
c
o
m
r
e
c
,
1 (
e
c
t
or
d
Aure
in the
1
19
[
1
e
m
vo
2
, 4,0
s
nism is a pr
hav
h
a
h E a
Mne
oob
2
n
tto
i
o
78)
ic
es;
a
f
i
sh
t
/
m
9
to
81
n
e
one
Z
bot
l
so re
b
1
lta
r
g
d
s
e
r
ve
9
m
ea f
eci
o
n
a
ntists a
,
14
y
(
b
e
l
l
y
1
a
t
e
on
a
l
s
/
m
0
e
d i
s
s i
e
re
d
ie
u
t
h
ode
sp
is o
o
predators (other than Noctiluca)
h
e j
i
d
udd
, 1
l
i
eve
h
76-
ack S
e
600 g
w
e
p
0
T
ge
r
r
i
v
titie
m
pre
n sc
82
2
8
d
m
8
,
25
.
n
f
t
19
77)
be
, a
a
s
s
of
o
lia
div
9
in pr
6
e Bl
a
n
a
n
19
9
m
9
1
80
y
9
lly
s o
is
re
1
in
s
in
1
9
is
om
h
u
f
s
u
a
r
ia
n
n
0
3
n
19
j
e
Cha
is
as
l
.t in
f
t
h c
i
1
e
q
lg
ic
i
0
at
e
r
s
it
e
latinous
m
m
iops
l bi
0
ps
s
o
rg
h
5, 2
, 2
8
,
2 i
in
: 30 (
es,
mb-
G
i
o
2
0,0
unitie
7
io
2
e
m
ta
n
a
s
s
e
s
o
f
ish A
. Bu
:
5
9
7
, 4
n
la
,
w
6
m
9
lly
eci
m
e b
2
to
n
y
97
9
10
77
p
g
o
i
t
i
o
om
ll
ral
re 1
m
1
s
t
a
t i
ata
19
1
s
:
o
n
ona
3
p
r
M
nd
je
r
n
5 =
c
i
19
ti
e
c
i
e
s
div
as a co
ing
bi
s
e
n
litto
d i
e
f
o
p
,
2
n
]
u
a
de
ts
e
ov
e
t
e
in 196
or
s
a. Mne
v
in
the
b
t
t
om
e
of
c
in
95
w
e
e avera
8
n
i
c co
r
o
tobe
o
es b
op
of
h
[
2
i
tta
h
pre
p
e
por
su
c
ha
ps
r
Be
y
phipo
y b
eci
s
t
acean
llus
pr
19
2
d
lla
o
ea t
62
tic
t
r
o
ta
e
ck
ack S
sp
o
e
d
very
es;
19
nis
a
s
s
e
s of
or
a
in Oc
poly
am
e
c
i
e
s
in 196
c
m
1989 a
is still
san
p
r
o
f
cru
eci
times kno
Bl
s
.
tu
e eu
is
Se
a
s
i
on.
s
e
duc
reco
l
ack S
49-
0
or
h
i
s
e
da
sp
, by
me
c
k
of
es o
4
19
8
!
T
iops
r
u
r biom
inv
e
s
in
e
s
in
s
t
acean
f
the
e B
n
ly 2
es.
t
e
noph
g
e
c
i
e
s
of
e
c
i
e
s
of
ity
s
t
rophic
eci
e
c
i
e
s
of
a
s
s
r
r
e
nt
,
1
h
k
e
m
7 c
ila
c
w
p
p
ng
p
p
4
s
o
t
e
opp
m
Bla
a
n
ta
h
eci
n
he
h
ns
ha
cru
s
9
8
5
i
om
ppa
9
ie
In
th.t i
e
nd of
T
quic
kg/
sp
M
199
Sim
T
the
a
ne
C
14 s
17 s
de
C
2
Ca
1
20 s
B
A
1
nism, so
c
a
e
p
r
g
s
e
n
s o
i
v
3
u
9
nat
od
0
9
tino
e
9
-
1
82
80
97
l
a
e
servatio
peri
19
80s
g
-
97
19
19
19
ich ar
Ob
9
1-
7
5-
7-
4-
4
h
9
e
19
-
l
ike
1
199
199
196
pr
197
199
w
r
of
e
a
r
ica.
ithe
e
n
k S
is a tube
ack
ack
m
ac
r
e
Bl
n
s
,
ne
f
A
catio
a
n
o
elf
i
an
elf
i
an
elf
i
an
elf
i
an
pho
r
e
o
l
Bl
r
e Bl
o
o
h
a
n
h
a
n
h
a
n
h
a
n
o
L
ari
r
)
r
)
r
)
r
)
n
r
d
s
h
S
m
o
S
m
o
S
m
o
S
m
o
pho
a
a
l
g
ea regi
o
cte
n
Overal
Off
Se
Bu
S
NW
(Ro
sect
NW
(Ro
sect
NW
(Ro
sect
NW
(Ro
sect
abo
A2
cte
se
r
al
r
s
e
r
t
he
i
c
s
is
p
d
t
u
e
s
e of
a
r
v
n
.
ce
l
ea
n
e
n
t
h
a
ve
ts
lla
.
th
r
f
s
e
n
e
c
ie
d l
t
i
o
h
o
f
the
e
.
u
e
n
ide
m
o
i
t
h
s
p
an
ey
i
on an
v
e mos
e b
pl
g a c
e c
at
s o
f
s
pm
e
w
ve a
h
ne
cs
r
k
h
s
te
u
lin
ic
ic
th
m
y
7)
nt
am
s
ti
i
s
t
r
i
b
e
l
o
r
t
s
led
s
to
a
b
o
if
as
99
l
e gi
d
v
n
o
s
of t
y
e
x
ati
al
nt
c
1
en
de
s
f
t
r
oh
oup
is
st
e,
c
ie
e tea
e
(
mme
f
ke
h
a
r
v
from T
nt
h
c
,
c
e tab
c
a
t
i
o
o
e
l
s
i
v
e
a
s
on
.
S
t
i
e
s
:
eu
n
r
.
thi
t
al
Co
t
h
e of los
ce
ith t
h
t
e
d
e
ce
y
a
t
es
catch
r
i
o
n
in
t
e
n
o r
ec
b
ud
w
uc
a
cto
d
w
x
w
p
t
r
ophi
t
i
m
it
r
t
a
n
n. T
e
itat
t f
be
ven
n
te
f
the
eu
n
g
po
h
tio
y
r
e t
i
c
s
lo
p
s
hed
nnan e
e es
s
t
e
m
t
h
e
s
gi
y
l
i
g
ver
e
o
e a
x
ica
astal
es
h
r
e
s sho
i
e
s
c
ond
e
n
t
s
t
o
if
e ma
os
e
im
ur
h
u
t
r
i
bu
ct
er
e
re
i
n
n
Th
a
r
ea
t
h
ec
T
hig
i
g
een
v
o
McL
F
dis
s
t
ud
b
pi
Th
of b
o
p
s
i
g
s furni
a co
e
ie
nd
a
/
e
f
ack S
Stud
. R
r
Bl
1996)
e
port
g
nal
R
l
. (
ori
r
]
s
]
r
]
r
l
i
e
k
u
u
a
e
t
a
[U
[R
[T
e
e Natio
v
h
f
the
ano
f.
r t
d
l
e
5
o
Fig.
Re
b
s
. 14
r
o
n f
Ta
10
Fig
& 1
ke
mnants o
f
P
e
o
d
r
s
n
.
i
s
erta
a
g
o
h
d
i
ng
i
n
t
a
t
e
d
i
c
T
n
i
v
t
udie
s
g
i
n
la
e
in
u
l
s
oung
om
ple
e
tt
a
ged
Se
tta
i
v
y
o
pe
t f
ar
b
, a
l
un
l
a
c
k
a
ve
crease.
t
the
e
u
u
c
i
a
lly
8
nd
o
8
p
nd is
n
B
s
h
a
i
h
b
to
10%
9
ch
d
o
d
s
pe
e reports
1
n
r
e
still de
e
d
t
t
. T
n, b
h
ing
illion t
e
o
e
r
e
d a
the
u
ps
t
tio
r
r
e
d
t
e cat
v
e
d
of
a
a
V.
u
fe
l
u
gro
lla
art
c
i
e
s
to a
x
t
hos,
60s
,
t
h
e
c
o
i
de
g
Se
o
e
r
e
los
e
re
s
60 m
c
n
e
n
is
r
i
n
c
k
)
st
e
d on
n
, inc
b
19
n
ot)
w
spe
i
l
poll
r
is
2
d a
o
te
lly
S s
b
rat
ds
d
A
m
o
4
iops
aw
Bla
bas
h o
a
te
h
la
p
sp
ade
e
m
d
i
she
t/k
ug
m
n
r
a
dua
s
.
tur
a
l be
o
re
d
0
in z
Fis
the
on the
at
NW
are -
0
ti
e
g
an
e
m
s
g
h
y
l
g
h
es
f
M
(
ility
e
l
y
the
v
e
25 f
thr
b
r
o
o
ha
ce t
i
c
a
m
e sh
s
e
r
ve
e
re
f
tir
n
cho
e), see also
b
val
it
t
i
ons
n
en
e
s
in
d
k
nth
so
n
r
t
s
.
T
ssibly
o
s
100-2
e
sta
is
po
pula
be
rai
ge
d a
s
e
s
w
tiv
a
pidly
e arri
as an
r
om
r a larg
,
po
n
r
e
the
s
evi
f
re
a
te
los
la
h
e
r
y
o
e
y
t
v
po
ch
s
the
d
m
re
i
sh stoc
t f
; Uk
i
z
y
Cha
90
i
t
h
ere i
i
s
h
su
s
ti
e
c
o
s
a
e
untr
i
sh.
h
st f
c
line
e
19
r
e
a
s
e
d
t
o
i
c
f
, bu
rk
in s
d
f
e
r
d
f
i
sh
d
r
e
is a
.
W
e
a
r
. Sinc
h
t los
de
u
co
e
re
n
of
c
f
.
s
inc
ch
y
nth
y
. T
) an
w
3 a
;
T
, the
el
y
S. M
be
bita
duce
f
the
ia
3
e
r
ie
cat
one
e
,
e
l
a
gi
e
rsit
e
sh
al
ons
ha
)
.
otations
r
illion.t
ds
in
rk
0s
n
s
t
o
pox
u
n 197
i
s
h
nu
0 t
o
m
be
a
l
l
p
80s
00
f
T
197
r
om
s div
hy
ee
5
nd f
ons
N to the
bee
m
o
e NW
s
an
o
to
i
d-
d f
r
ie
e
n
t
tw
h
s
eira
t
s
a
n
00 t
s
(sm
r all qu
k
lte
Federation
t
o
ast
the
o
,
0
m
n
60s
n
hav
d i
l
uding
i
t
h
0
0
e
r
400,
m
i
o
s
u
f
i
she
t f
te
s
due
e
l
e
s
. Be
s
e
w
t
oc
0
0
e co
r
o
the
o
e
p
Cysto
s
,
0
ov
h
l
at
ia
s
s
ia
m
0
1
e
a
r
s
(
h
n
t
d f
u
e
r
v
n
u
litie
i
s
h
ing
p
y
-
f
0
e
rc
a
l
s inc
ing
ared
o
. T
p
he
s
t
l
y
ow
p
ha
m
t
y
a
atte
im
liv
m
c
hovy
y
n
er 5
o
itc
e
n
n
v
s
s
tha
r
r
e
ntly
a
m
e
Morta
a
dunt
a
n
I
n
co
A
o
le
c
u
(m
sw
Foll
f
i
sh
m
c
o
tw
a
nia; R
be
m
t
s
I to III is
o
e
no
n
f
Cystoseir
has
od
ds o
0s
l
garia; R
be
ns
90
98
97
u
servatio
peri
e Annex
ct
19
-
1
19
97
atio
th
ta
Ob
3-
0s
8-
5-
n
n
pul
197
196
196
196
e
d i
t
ates (B
po
i
n
S
e
i
s
h
h
t
a
f
ear
t
n
n
k
of
i
ac
con
i
parian
f
Russia has i
R
s
is
n.
catio
elf
i
an
e
a
Bl
tion
e
o
h
n
t
i
ons
a
l
area n
rissijsk,
a
ast o
L
S
r
)
ern
atio
o
ast
vo
ssia
c
hovy
ula
co
analy
n
ack S
e
st
a
r
m
e
e
h
r
m
NW
(Ukrai
sect
Co
No
Ru
A
pop
Bl
W
Se
f
o
orelin
h
o
In
sh
T
T
3
4
inf
Annex II
The Supporting Tables 1 to 10
Causes and Effects of Eutrophication in the Black Sea Summary Report, Annexes
39
Table 1
Content of Nutrients in the Danube Water, in micrograms of N or
P/l, as indicated, for the station Vylkovo, at Kilia arm, 1994-1996
(from the Ukrainian National Report)
Compound
1994
1995
1996
N inorganic
Average
890
1960
1920
Max
1500
2400
2800
Min
260
130
120
P inorganic
Average
430
190
270
Max
1000
580
90
Min
180
70
100
Table2
The changes of content of major nutrients(% of measured in the
50-60s.) in the north-western shelf of the Black Sea (from the
Ukrainian National Report, original data by Garkavaia G.P., 1998)
1950-1960
1950-1960
1977-1988
1989-1991
1994-1997
Compounds
µg per l
%
%
%
%
NH4
25,0
100
1780
262
133
NO2
2,5
100
216
196
126
NO3
10,0
100
424
454
587
Norganic
230,0
100
192
237
517
PO4
13,5
100
214
248
118
Porganic
16,0
100
159
166
77
SiO3
1262,0
100
106
73
48
Table 3
Chlorophyll-a concentrations along the Romanian marine area, in
µg/l, and where the highest concentrations are reported for the part
just in front of the (now abolished) fertiliser plant discharging
phosphates to Sea. (From the Romanian National Report). The
control area on the shelf (10 to 30 miles off the coast reported values
between 0.04 - 1
Range of Variation
Year
Minimum
Maximum
1983
0.031
85.32
1984
0.1
49.68
1985
0-1.09
62.50
1986
0.12
59.34
1987
0.09
86.91
1990
0.06
35
1991
0.01
96.80
1992
0.13
25.62-292.44
1993
0.06
36.48- 44.64--406.90-427
1994
0.14
3.66
1995
0.18
46.86
1996
0.08
31.58
1997
0.16
58.12
40
Danube Pollution Reduction Programme
Table 4
Maximum density (in millions of cells/l) produced by dominant
species during 1980-1994 (from the Romanian National Report).
Years
62-65 75-77
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
90
91
92
93
94
Species
Skeletonema
0.01 - 0.01 -
40
87.6
3.68 1074016
41.2
50.4
16.5
21.9
0.45
15.0
52.1
53
costatum
82.6
97
Cerataulina
0.80
0.95
0.10
0.56
7.09
11.1
2.73
9.38
9.46
2.13
bergonii
Detonula
33.7
confervacea
Chaetoceros
53.6
4.13
socialis
Chaetoceros
1.38
0.25
0.57
similis
Cyclotella
0.032
0.009
1.63
0.25
1.29
2.40
0.53
0.65
Caspia
-12
- 9
Prorocentru
1- 4
10 -
421
47.8
6.89
13.5
30.9
164
3.27
115
204
m cordatum
100
Heterocapsa
1.85-
65.2
3.12
5.35
0.30
7.73
29.5
3.49
triquetra
40.5
Apedinella
0.014
1.7
21.5
0.40
21.3
2.52
spinifera
Mantoniella
5.97
1.36
12.5
squamata
Table 5
Changes of Phytoplankton Diversity (total number of species) in the
north-western shelf of the Black Sea before and after large scale
eutrophication (from the Ukrainian National Report; data by
Zaitsev, Yu.p. and B.G. Alexandrov, 1998)
1954-1960
1973-1994
Type of Phytoplankton
before eutrophication
after eutrophication
Bacillariophyta
180
116
Pyrrophyta
76
104
Chlorophyta
62
52
Cyanophyta
24
30
Chrysophyta
17
20
Euglenophyta
12
2
Xanthophyta
1
2
Total
372
326
Table 6
Mean values of the densities (D=individuals per m3) and biomass
(B=mg per m3) of the pelagic copepods in the Romanian waters of
the Black Sea during 1970-1979 and 1980-1986 (from the Romanian
National Report, data by PORUMB, 1989).
Winter
Spring
Summer
Autumn
Annual mean
Period
D
B
D
B
D
B
D
B
D
B
1970-1979
2502
10.37
1340
7.10
6075
19.90
4742
5.38
4337
14.37
1980-1986
463
14.58
2131
21.67
8267
127.47
9840
81.41
7184
61.59
Causes and Effects of Eutrophication in the Black Sea Summary Report, Annexes
41
Table 7
Seasonal mean densities (D = individuals per m3) and biomasses (B =
mg per m3) of Noctiluca scintillans in Romanian continental shelf
waters (from the Romanian National Report)
Winter
Spring
Summer
Autumn
Period
D
B
D
B
D
B
D
B
1980-1986
16296
1300.86
17086
1367.33
62439
5022.43
40232
3258.77
Table 8
The dominance (share in %) of Noctiluca scintillans in the total
quantities of summer zooplankton in the Constantza area (from the
Romanian National Report)
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
Total
91.5
94.7
95.6
41.0
91.5
92.3
91.5
97.9
97.5
99.2
density
Total
95.8
96.7
99.1
34.3
98.3
98.5
98.5
99.9
99.3
99.8
biomass
Table 9
Abundance (D = individuals per m3) and biomass of zooplankton
(B = g per m3) in the period 1950 - 1995 in the north-western part of
the Black Sea (from the Ukrainian National Report; data by
Zaitsev Yu.P., and B.G. Alexandrov, 1998)
Noctiluca
Copepoda
Cladocera
Total
Years
N
B
N
B
N
B
N
B
1950-60
2806
0.16
9897
0.08
1511
0.03
16606
0.37
1961-70
2930
0.17
7177
0.02
727
0.02
19662
0.25
1971-80
43772
2.53
11955
0.06
2657
0.03
63254
2.71
1981-90
60996
4.33
8999
1.09
2670
0.41
111104
6.59
1992-95
14276
0.37
741
0.06
898
0.56
23636
0.93
Table 10
The change over time of the area where hypoxic conditions and
bottom animal deaths were observed during the years 1973-1990
(from the Ukrainian National Report; data by Yu.P. Zaitsev, 1992)
Year
Area, th.sq.km
Year
Area, th.sq.km
Year
Area, th.sq.km
1973
3.5
1979
15.0
1985
5.0
1974
12.0
1980
30.0
1986
8.0
1975
10.0
1981
17.0
1987
9.0
1976
3.0
1982
12.0
1988
12.0
1977
11.0
1983
35.0
1989
20.0
1978
30.0
1984
10.0
1990
40.0
(It should be noted that the improvements with the eutrophication process in the Black Sea started
after 1990!)
Annex III
The Supporting Figures 1 to 16
Annex IV
The Terms of Reference of the Ad Hoc Joint Technical
Working Group
Causes and Effects of Eutrophication in the Black Sea Summary Report, Annexes
59
Terms of Reference
Ad Hoc Joint Technical Working Group
established between Bucharest1 and Sofia2 Conventions
on issues in the Transboundary Waters in the Wider Black Sea Basin
1.
Scope of the Working Group
The wide mandate of this 'Joint Technical Working Group' between countries in the Black Sea
Basin is to reinforce the cooperation of the States of the Bucharest and Sofia Conventions in
relation to taking practical actions to protect the transboundary waters in the wider Black Sea
Basin.
2.
Objective of the Working Group
To create a common base of understanding and agreement on the changes over time of the Black
Sea ecosystem and the reasons for these changes, and to propose practical goals and objectives for
remedial actions to address them.
3.
Primary Activities of the Working Group
The following tasks are to be achieved by screening existing informations:
a. Assessment of the nutrient loads to the Black Sea from all sources in the Black Sea Basin,
and their impacts on the Black Sea ecosystem;
b. Assessment of the nutrient loads to the Black Sea from the Danube River Basin, and their
impacts on the Black Sea ecosystem, with emphasis on the Black Sea shelf;
c. Analysis of other types/sources of pollution to the Black Sea, and their impacts on the
Black Sea ecosystem, with emphasis on the input from the Danube river;
d. Assembling and assessing the available information on the likely response of the Black
Sea ecosystem to specified reduction in nutrient loads; and
e. Recommendation of a joint mechanism to evaluate progress over time and t report to both
Commissions.
The assessment of the nutrient loads to the Black Sea will include:
analysis of available water quality data (changes over time of the Black Sea and its
ecosystems, including the marine system (including the shelf area) and coastal systems
(including the Danube Delta; point and nonpoint discharges to surface waters, with
emphasis on the input to the Black Sea;
analysis of available water quantity data (as a means of determining nutrient loads).
1 Convention on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution
2 Convention on Cooperation for the Protection and Sustainable Use of the Danube River
60
Danube Pollution Reduction Programme
4.
Determination of possible strategies
For the nutrient loads and analysis of other types/sources of pollution, as noted in step (3) above,
strategies and approaches for implementation of pollutant reductions must be determined. This will
comprise:
a. Definition of common pollutant reduction goals (particularly nutrients) in the Black Sea
Basin;
b. Assessment of whether or not the implementation plans of Strategic Action Programmes
(SAPs) undertaken in the Black Sea Basin are sufficient to achieve the common pollutant
reduction goals identified in step(a) above; and
c. Proposal of recommendations for implrovements or amendments to the implementation
plans of the SAPs undertaken in the Black Sea Basin to facilitate achievements of the
common pollutant reduction goals.
5.
Definition of the Working Group and its Reporting Obligations
This 'Joint Technical Working Group' will be constituted upon agreement of both the Black Sea
and River Danube Protection Commissions. The opinions expressed in the Group activities are
informal and will serve to provide guidance for later decision-making at the level of Heads of
Delegations in a proposed Black Sea - River Danube Joint Meeting. The results of the Working
Group activities will be taken into consideration in developing the River Danube Pollution
Reduction Programme. Every representative in the Working Group has one position in regard to
the issues being addressed (i.e., States that participate in both the Danube River and the Black Sea
Commissions can only have one position). The findings of the Working Group are not for public
release, and upon completion of its work, the Working Group is to report its findings to the Black
Sea and River Danube Protection Commissions, and the Sponsoring donors.
6.
Composition of the Working Group
The composition of the ten-person Working Group is as follows:
For all the Danube States - comprising the chairman of the MLIM (Monitoring,
Laboratory and Information Management), the chairman of the EMIS (Emission) Expert
Groups, and representative of the Interim Secretariat (to be supplanted by the Permanent
Secretariat) with expertise in technical and scientific issues;
For the downstream Danube States - comprising representatives from Bulgaria, Romania
and Ukraine (who are also contracting parties to the Black Sea Convention), to be
selected on the basis of their technical and scientific merits by the national heads of
delegations of the two Commissions;
For all the other Black Sea States - comprising three representatives with technical and
scientific expertise, to be selected by the respective Black Sea Commissioners;
The representative of UNEP will serve as Chairman of this Technical Working Group.
The Working Group may consult other groups and individuals as it deems necessary to carry out its
tasks.
Causes and Effects of Eutrophication in the Black Sea Summary Report, Annexes
61
7.
Time Frame of the Working Group
The Group will begin its work immediately after its recognition by both Commissions, to
take place as soon as possible, and no later than 30 January 1998;
To facilitate completion of its work in time for the proposed joint Black Sea - River
Danube Meeting at the level of Heads of Delegations, the Group will meet at least every
three months;
In order to ensure sufficient lead time for discussions in the administrative systems of all
involved parties, the Technical Working Group must finalize its work no later than the
end of October 1998;
The finding of the Working Group will provide background material and guidance for the
proposed Black Sea - River Danube Meeting at the level of Head of Delegations,
anticipated for January/February 1999;
The Working Group will organize its work in such a manner as to also produce technical
inputs for the preparation of new GEF projects for the region, for submission to the
November 1998 meeting of the GEF Council.
62
Danube Pollution Reduction Programme
GEF Black Sea
Environmental Programme
List of participants
Environmental Programme
for the Danube River Basin
First joint consultation, Danube River Basin Programme
Task Force/Black Sea Environmental Programme Steering Committee,
Constanta, Romania, 8-9 December 1997
National Coordinators
Bulgaria
Mr. Plamen Djadjev
Chief Expert, Ministry of Environment and Water
67, W. Gladstone
1000 Sofia, Bulgaria
Tel:
359 2 84722291
Fax:
359 2 9811185, 359 2 521634
Georgia
Mr. Merab Sharabidze
Deputy Minister, Ministry of Environment of Georgia
68a Kostava str.
380015 Tbilisi, Georgia
Tel: 995 32 337340
Fax: 995 32 98345/943670/955006
Russian Federation:
Mr. Dimitri A. Zimin
Head of Department, State Committee of the Russian Federation for Environmental
Protection
B. Gruzinskaia Str. No 4/6
123812 Moscow, GSP Russia
Tel: 7 - 095-2541744
Fax:7 - 095- 254 1744, 7 - 095- 254 8283
Turkey
Ms. Sema Acar
Foreign Affairs Department, Ministry of Environment
Eskisekir Yolu 8 Km
Bilkend Sapagi - Ankara, Turkey
Tel: 312-2851705
Fax: 312-2853739
Causes and Effects of Eutrophication in the Black Sea Summary Report, Annexes
63
Activity Centers
Bulgaria
Mr. Lyubomir Stoyanov
Head of Department
Ministry of Transportation - Research Institute of Shipping
1 Slaveikov Str.
9001 Varna, Bulgaria
Tel 359 - 52 - 221407, 359 - 52- 226392
Fax 359 - 52 - 602594
Georgia
Mr. Akaki Komakhidze
Director, Black Sea Ecology and Fishery Institute
51, Rustaveli Str
PO 58 Batumi, Georgia
Tel: 995 - 222 74640
Fax: 995 - 222 74643
E-mail: akaki@isefi.edu.ge
Romania
Mr. Simion Nicolaev
Director, Romanian Marine Research Institute
Bd. Mamaia 300
8700 Constanta 3 , Romania
Tel: 40 - 41 - 643288
Fax: 40 - 41 - 831274
Email: rmri@rmri.ro
Russian Federation
Ms. Ekaterina Antonidze
Deputy Director, State Committee on Environmental
Protection of Krasnodar Region
19 Krasnaya Street
Krasnodor, Russia
Tel/Fax 7 - 8612 - 685-645
E-mail: kat@priroda.kuban.ru
Turkey
Mr. Hasan Sarikaya
Profesor, Environmental Engineering Department
ITU - Faculty of Civil Engineering
Tel + 90 - 212 - 285 - 3785; + 90 - 212 - 285 - 3787
Fax + 90 - 212 - 285 - 3781
64
Danube Pollution Reduction Programme
Ukraine
Mr. Valery Mikhailov
Ukrainian Scientific Centre of Ecology of the Sea (UkrSCES)
Odessa, Ukraina
27009 Franzyski blv. 89
Tel: 0482 - 63 - 66 - 22
Fax: 0482 - 63 - 66 - 73
E-mail: 732131ocean.uk
Representatives of International Organizations
UNDP Ankara
Mr. Paul van Hanswijck de Jonge
Resident Representative
197 Ataturk Bulvari Kavaklidere
Ankara, Turkey
Tel: 90 - 312 - 426 - 81 - 13
Fax: 90 - 312 - 426 - 13 - 72
UNDP Bucharest
Ms. Leucen Miller
Resident Representative
Aurel Vlaicu 16
Bucharest, Romania
Tel: 40 - 1 2100280
Fax: 40 - 1 2113494
Mr. Valenting Alexandrescu
Resident Representative
Aurel Vlaicu 16
Bucharest, Romania
Tel: 40 - 1 2119026
Fax: 40 - 1 2113494
UNEP
Mr. Walter Rast
Deputy Director, Water Branch
UNEP, Nairobi, Kenya
Tel:
254 2 62 32 44
Fax:
254 2 62 42 49
E-Mail: walter.rast@unep.org
Causes and Effects of Eutrophication in the Black Sea Summary Report, Annexes
65
Danube Task Force, PCU
Mr. Joachim Bendow,
GEF Coordinator
Vienna International Centre P.O. Box 500
A-1400 Vienna, Austria
Tel:
43 1 21345 5618/5617
Fax:
43 1 21345 5836/5837
Germany
Mr. Knut Beyer
Bundesministrium fur Umwelt,
Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit
Postfach 120629
53048 Bonn, Germany
Tel: 49 22 83052536
Fax: 49 2283052396
Ukraine
Ms Natalie Movchan
Ministry of Environmental Protection and Nuclear Safety
5, Khreshchatyk str. 252001
Tel: 380 44 2284250
Fax: 380 44 2285183
Austria
Mr. Karl Schwaiger
Bundesministrium fur Land und Forstwirschaft
Maxerg. 2,
1030 Vienna, Austria
Tel: 43 1 714095024
Fax: 43 1 714095030
Mr. Helmut Fleckseder
ICPDR Secretariate
VIC, P.O. Box 500, JOE 14
A-1400 Vienna
Tel:
43 1 21345 5737
Fax:
43 1 21345 5895
Hungary
Ms. Maria Galambos
Ministry for Environment and Regional Policy
F.O. Utca 44-50, Hungary
Tel: 361 - 2014782; 361 - 4573489
Fax: 361 - 2012846
66
Danube Pollution Reduction Programme
Croatia
Mr. D. Rumenjak
State Directorate for Environment
Ulica Grada Vukovara 78/III
HR - 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
Tel/Fax: 385 - 161 - 18970, 385 - 1 537203
Bulgaria
Mr. Nikolai Kuyumdzhiev
Ministry of Environment and Water
67 W. Gladstone Str.
1000 Sofia, Bulgaria
Tel: 359 - 2 - 84722291
Fax: 359 - 2 - 9811185
Danube Task Force, PCU
Mr. Ilya Natchkov
K. Yavozov, Bl.2
1113 Sofia, Bulgaria
Tel: 359 - 29800282
Fax: 359 - 29885349
Dnipro Programme
Mr. A. Mazurkevici
Ministry for Environmental Protection and Nuclear Safety
Director, Department of Water Basins and Resources
Dnipro River Basin Environmental Programme
5, Khreshchatyk Str. 252601
Tel:
228 - 45 - 20
Fax:
228 - 51 - 83
BSEP PCU
Mr. Laurence D. Mee
Coordinator
Dolmabahce Sarayi, II Harekat Kosku
80680 Besiktas, Istanbul, Turkey
Tel:
90 212 227 9927/8/9
Fax:
90 212 227 9933
E-Mail: blacksea@dominet.in.com.tr
Mr. Radu Mihnea
Deputy Coordinator
Dolmabahce Sarayi, II Harekat Kosku,
80680 Besiktas, Istanbul, Turkey
Tel:
90 212 227 9927/8/9
Fax:
90 212 227 9933
E-Mail: rmihnea@dominet.in.com.tr
Causes and Effects of Eutrophication in the Black Sea Summary Report, Annexes
67
Turkey
Mr. Asim Acikel
Ministry of Environment, Department of Foreign Relations
Eskisehir Yolu 8 Km
Bilkent Kavsagi - Ankara, Turkey
Tel: 312 285 1705
Fax: 312 285 3739
Annex V
The Composition of the 'Group' in Its Three Meetings
Causes and Effects of Eutrophication in the Black Sea Summary Report, Annexes
71
The TOR specifies in its para (6) the composition of the `Group'. Based on this para (6) and
additional participation in the three Meetings, the following representatives and additional
participants took part in these Meetings:
1st Meeting, Baden/Austria, March 26, 1998
Representatives.
Chairman: Dr. W. Rast, UNEP; MLIM Expert Group: Mr. L. N. Popescu; EMIS Expert Group:
Mr. B. Mehlhorn; ICPDR Secretariat: Dr. H. Fleckseder; Bulgaria: Dr. B. Boyanovsky; Georgia:
Not present; Romania: Dr. A. Cociasu; Russian Federation: Mrs. L. Stepanova; Turkey:
Dr. S.
Tarasova.
Additional participants.
Dr. A. Hudson, UNDP/GEF; Dr. L. Mee, Programme Manager, Black Sea Env. Programme;
Dr. R. Mihnea, Black Sea Env. Programme; Mr. J. Bendow, Manager, UNDP/GEF River Danube
Pollution Reduction Programme; Mr. A. Garner, UNDP/GEF River Danube Pollution Reduction
Programme.
2nd Meeting, Istanbul/Turkey, August 31st / September 1st, 1998
Representatives.
Chairman: Dr. W. Rast, UNEP; MLIM Expert Group: Mr. L. N. Popescu; EMIS Expert Group:
Mr. B. Mehlhorn; ICPDR Secretariat: Dr. H. Fleckseder; Bulgaria: Dr. B. Boyanovsky; Georgia:
Not present; Romania: Dr. A. Cociasu; Russian Federation: Mrs. L. Stepanova; Turkey:
Dr. Ö.
Tarasova.
Additional participants.
Dr. A. Hudson, UNDP/GEF; Dr. R. Mihnea, Manager, Black Sea Env. Programme; Mr. J. Bendow,
Manager, UNDP/GEF River Danube Pollution Reduction Programme; Dr. L. Mee, consultant to
UNDP/GEF.
3rd Meeting, Baden/Austria, December 10 / 11, 1998
Representatives.
Chairman: Dr. A. Hudson, UNDP/GEF; MLIM Expert Group: Mr. L. N. Popescu; EMIS Expert
Group: Mr. F. Überwimmer (as substitute for Mr. Mehlhorn); ICPDR Secretariat:
Dr. H. Fleckseder; Bulgaria: Dr. B. Boyanovsky; Georgia: Not present; Romania: Dr. A. Cociasu;
Russian Federation: Mrs. L. Stepanova; Turkey: Dr. Ö. ; Ukraine: Dr. O. Tarasova.
Additional participants.
Dr. A. Hudson, UNDP/GEF; Dr. R. Mihnea, Programme Manager, Black Sea Env. Programme;
Mr. J. Bendow, Manager, UNDP/GEF River Danube Pollution Reduction Programme; Dr. L. Mee,
consultant to UNDP/GEF; Mr. T. Botterweg, Manager for Phare and Team Leader, Danube PCU;
Dr. I. Natchkov, Manager for Phare in the Danube PCU.
72
Danube Pollution Reduction Programme
All the National Studies hold the same title, i.e. 'Report on the Ecological Indicators
of Pollution in the Black Sea'. All these reports have been undertaken in the frame of
the Danube River Pollution Reduction Programme and the Black Sea Environmental
Programme, and the have been financially assisted by UNDP/GEF.
Bulgarian National Study.
The report holds a total of 104 pages containing print.
The report has been compiled and the work has been coordinated by Dr. B. Boyanovsky, Prof.,
Faculty of Biology, Sofia University.
The study team consisted of B. Boyanovsky, G. Hiebaum, A. Konsulov; M. Mollov and V.
Vassiliev, with contributions by K. Dencheva, L. Kamburska, Tz. Konsulova, V. Kujumdjiev and
S. Moncheva.
Romanian National Study.
The report holds a total of 59 pages containing print.
The report has been compiled and the work has been coordinated by Dr. A. Cociasu, Researcher at
the Romanian Marine Research Institute, Constanta.
The study team consisted of colleagues of A. Cociasu from the Romanian Marine Research
Institute and has not been expressly mentioned in this report.
National Study, Russian Federation.
The report holds a total of 30 pages containing print.
The report has been compiled and the work has been coordinated by Dr. A. A. Shekhvotsov,
Director General of the State Center for Environmental Programmes. He had been appointedto this
position by the State Committee on Environmental Protection.
The members of the study team have not been expressly mentioned in the report.
Turkish National Study.
The report holds a total of 112 pages containing print.
The report has been compiled and the work has been coordinated by the team of Turkish Scientists
from the Middle East Technical University (METU), Institute for Marine Sciences, at Erdemli.
The study team consisted of Ö. Yilmaz, A. E.
Uysal..
Ukrainian National Study.
The report holds a total of 49 pages containing print.
The report has been compiled and coordinated by the Institute of Biology of the Southern Seas,
Odessa Branch.
The study team consisted of B.G. Alexandrov, V.A. Briantsev, G.P. Garkavaya, G.G. Minicheva,
D.A. Nesterova, I.G. Orlova, L.O. Sebakh, O.G. Tarasova and Yu.P. Zaitsev. Most of these
scientists work at the Institute of Biology of the Southern Seas, Odessa Branch.
Annex VI
The Final Minutes of the 1st Meeting of the "Group",
March 26, 1998, Baden/NÖ, Austria
Causes and Effects of Eutrophication in the Black Sea Summary Report, Annexes
75
1st Meeting of the Ad hoc Joint Technical Working Group established between the
International Commission for the Protection of the Black Sea (Bucharest Convention)
and
the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (Sofia
Convention), which took place at Baden/Lower Austria, March 26, 1998
1. The participants present encompassed (without titles and written as close as possible to
the spelling in English) the members of the Ad-hoc Group, Mr. W. Rast (UNEP;
Chairman), Mr. S. Beshiktepe (Turkey), Mr. B. Boyanovsky (Bulgaria), Mrs. A. Cociasu
(Romania), Mr. H. Fleckseder (Interim Secretariat, ICPDR), Mr. B. Mehlhorn (EMIS
Expert Group, ICPDR), Mr. L. Popescu (MLIM Expert Group, ICPDR), Mrs. L.
Stepanova (Russian Federation) and Mrs. O. Tarasova (Ukraine). Georgia was not
represented. In addition to the members of the Ad hoc - Group, Mr. J. Bendow (GEF
Representative in the Danube PCU), Mr. A. Garner (GEF Technical Adviser in the
Danube PCU), Mr. L. Mee (Team Leader, Black Sea PCU) and Mr. R. Mihnea (Black
Sea PCU) also participated in the Meeting. A handwritten list of participants was
circulated in the Baden Meeting. For this very reason, these draft minutes do not contain
a list of participants.
2. The Terms of Reference discussed December 8/9, 1997, at Mamaia, which form the base
for the work of this Ad-hoc Group (later only called 'Group'), were handed out again; they
are attached. The Agenda to agree upon was to follow these TOR and to screen what
actual work has to be undertaken. At the end of the Meeting at Baden, additional two
meetings were scheduled (August 17/18 at Istanbul; October 2/3, place to be decided),
and it was understood that in order to arrive at a draft report by early December 1998, at
least one additional meeting by mid-November 1998 will be required.
The Chairman highlighted the objective of the work of the Group by repeating it and
making it understood by every participant. It reads:
To create a common base of understanding and agreement on the changes over time of
the Black Sea ecosystem and the reasons for these changes, and to propose practical
goals and objectives for remedial actions to address them.
The Chairman also stated that the individuals participating in this Group are scientific
and technical experts and that the primary goal of their work is to fulfil the aims of the
TOR as good as possible.
3. Discussion to the Agenda:
One main issue initiated by Mrs. Tarasova, Mr. Bendow and Mr. Fleckseder was whether
the Sea of Asov and its catchment area is / are part of the 'system' to be considered in this
work or whether not. The Group was aware of the fact that the 'Convention for the
Protection of the Black Sea against Pollution' is a shoreline convention, whereas the
'Convention on Co-operation for the Protection and Sustainable Use of the Danube River'
is structured by the catchment area of River Danube. Both Programmes, the 'Black Sea
Environmental Programme' as well as the 'Environmental Programme for the Protection
of the Danube River' are - at least from their conceptual point of view - related to the
hydrographic catchments. Based on the 'catchment approach' common with UNEP work,
the Group concluded that the Sea of Asov and its catchment area are within the system to
be studied.
Additional comments by Mr. Mee to the Agenda were as follows:
There is an exciting point in time - both Conventions will be implemented at the latest
starting by the end of 1998. The DRPC will then have entered into force, the ICPBS will
hold its Secretariat.
76
Danube Pollution Reduction Programme
Thus, the political reality is speeding up. The two International Commissions charged to
fulfil the respective Conventions should not fail to talk to one another.
In order to support the contact between these two International Commissions, GEF would
like to entertain a new implementation phase on nutrient reduction (for nutrient reduction,
an incremental cost funding could take place). For this very reason, concrete proposals of
this study should go into the next meeting of the GEF Council in January 1999. The
remark by Mr. Duda, Leader of the GEF Secretariat on International Waters to both Mr.
Mee and Mr. Mihnea was that if the report is not ready by January 1999, the GEF money
will go to other projects, and not to the Black Sea and River Danube
Mr. Mee also reported that at present, the GEF Secretariat would like to bring around 30 -
35 Mio. US$ each for incremental cost funding to both sides, the Danube and the Black
Sea side. This money should go preferably into projects in agriculture and for wastewater
treatment. In addition, some of the bilaterally available money will be used to do some
international GEF work in both the Danube and the Black Sea.
The World Bank will also make ~ 500 Mio US$ available as bank loans for ~ 10 projects
in the Black Sea countries over the next 3 years, and something similar may happen in the
Danube countries too.
Mr. Bendow reported about the GEF RDPRP (River Danube Pollution Reduction
Programme) and the fact that this was started finally be end-of-November 1997 with the
Inception Workshop at Krems, and that this holds a duration of at least 18 months. From
his point of view and as contained in the report of the Krems November 1997 Inception
Workshop, the work output of this Group is part of the GEF RDPRP, and this work
output must fit into the time frame of the GEF RDPRP. For this very reason, the deadline
reported by Mr. Mee to be January 1999 is from his point of view not binding, since the
RDPRP can only be finalised in mid-1999. However, single projects coming out of the
national planning processes can be taken into account. Within the GEF RDPRP, the
'Danube Water Quality Model (DWQM)' is under development. This model is also
relating to the work of the Group, providing information to support the analysis.
The position of the Group's Chairman was that in order not to endanger any GEF support,
the time frame reported on by Mr. Mee (that the report of this Group should be ready for
the next meeting of the GEF Council in January 1999) should be followed.
In retrospect, however, it has to be noted that the output of the Group is not only to serve
the GEF Council (this is only slightly contained in its TOR, see the last part of para (5)),
but the more essential reporting by the Group contained in the TOR is to both
International Commissions for their decision making at their respective political levels -
be it domestic or also in the Commissions' Meetings.
4. The discussion then centred around the assessment of nutrients reaching the Black Sea
from all sources and also from the Danube, and the impact of these inputs on the Black
Sea ecosystem(s), including also the Black Sea shelf.
In order to make existing published information available, Mr. Fleckseder distributed
copies of the two papers 'Long-Term Ecological Changes in Romanian Coastal Waters of
the Black Sea' (A.Cociasu, L.Dorogan, Ch.Humborg and L.Popa, 1996) and 'Effect of
Danube River Dam on Black Sea Biogeochemistry and Ecosystem Structure'
(Ch.Humborg, V.Ittekkott, A.Cociasu and B.v.Bodungen, 1997), and the PhD-Thesis by
Ch.Humborg ('Untersuchungen zum Verbleib der Nährstofffrachten der Donau'.
Ber.Inst.Meereskunde, Kiel, 264, 1995). The Black Sea PCU made a pre-publication
paper available entitled 'Land-based Sources of Contaminants to the Black Sea' (authors:
G.Topping, L.Mee and H.Sarikaya).
Causes and Effects of Eutrophication in the Black Sea Summary Report, Annexes
77
Mr. Mee presented the contents of the last paper mentioned, of which he is co-author and
which is of importance for the work of the Group. The authors based their estimate on the
data available as of end-of-1997, and where when has to take into account that a common
system of quality assurance is not yet in overall use. Further, the inputs of totN and totP
(TN and TP as used in the enclosed figure) were structured as follows: All 'shoreline'
countries of the Black Sea (Bulgaria; Romania; Ukraine; Russian Federation; Georgia;
Turkey), which are also Contracting Parties to the 'Convention for the Protection of the
Black Sea', plus another column indicated as 'other countries'. The allocation is according
to 'countries' (i.e. national entities), and not according to catchment areas or direct inputs.
The biggest share for 'other countries' is for all the non-Black-Sea-shore-riparians of the
Danube, and only a minor share can be allocated to Bjelorussia.
The values presented assume for the Danube the following: Based on work undertaken in
the 'Applied Research Programme (ARP) of the Environmental Programme for the
Danube River Basin (EPDRB), the Project EU/AR/102A/91 ('Nutrient Balances for
Danube Countries') contains on p. 54 a comparison between the output of the regional
materials budgeting principle underlying this report, and the data obtained as an input into
the Black Sea from the Project EU/AR/203/91 (and in which Delft Hydraulics
participated). From p. 54 of Project EU/AR/102A/91, the following has to be quoted in
this context: 'On the basis of data available, the TN and TP loads reaching the Black Sea
can be estimated as 447 and 46 kt/a in 1988/89, and 345 and 25 kt/a in 1992 (Delft
Hydraulics, 1997). These immission based loads are about 45 and 35% of the TN and TP
emissions estimates (Section 3.1) clearly demonstrating the significant role of "self-
purification", retention and losses in the river system (settling, denitrification, ........).' The
passage quoted, however, seems not to have been intended for quantifying purposes, but
only for indicative ones.1
The percentages mentioned 'compare' in fact the average input of totN and totP into the
internal drainage network of the hydrographic catchment of River Danube due to the
amount of work undertaken (i.e. not in the overall Danube catchment) on the one hand
with the immission loads assessed by simple means according to the principles of
sampling and analysing in the respective years (1998/89 and 1992) on the other hand.
This also means that all the 'noise' (errors etc.) contained on both sides of the methods
enter such comparison.
Mr. Mee indicated that the authors of the study cited ('Land-based sources of
contaminants to the Black Sea') had, based on their interpretation of the Report of Project
EU/AR/102A/91 that 42% of the inputs of tot N and 24% of the inputs of totP into the
'internal Danube water web' reach the Black Sea. (The preceding estimates (in Arial
Narrow) show that the value for totP seems to be 'correct', whereas the value for totN
seems to be only ~ 35%). With the values in this study, the authors further assumed that
the same 'reduction' is applicable to the national indirect inputs by Bulgaria, Romania and
Ukraine to the a 'total sum' can be arrived at for these three countries, and that the
remainder of the immission load reaching the Black Sea has to be attributed to the more
upstream Danube countries, see the enclosed figure (and in a similar way also for the
1 N.B. Going beyond the mere reporting of this meeting at Baden, it has to be indicated that the work input to
Project EU/AR/102A/91 was not possible for Bosnia-Hercegovina, Croa-tia and the Federal Republic of
Yugo-slavia for funding reasons. This also means that it was impossible to in-clude the emissions of ~ 14.8
Mio. people ( ~18% of the overall population) and ~ 163.000 km2 ( ~ 21% of the drainage area). If one
assumes that these are 'on aver-age' of the same size as with all the other Danubian Riparians, the loads of
totN and totP were in 198/89 ~1.240 kt/a and ~ 161 kt/a, and in 1992 ~ 1.030 kt/a and ~ 133 kt/a. When these
estimates for 'overall emis-sions into the internal drainage web of River Danube' are compared with the
previously cited immission loads, these 'on aver-age' can only explain in 1988/89 ~ 36% of the totN and ~
29% of totP, and in 1992 ~ 34% of totN and 19% of totP.
78
Danube Pollution Reduction Programme
Dnjepr catchment area, reflecting the situation of Bjelorussia). The validity of this
approach will have to be discussed in the next meeting of the Group.
An additional presentation on nutrient inputs and also the 'status in nutrients' in the
Romanian shelf of the Black Sea was given by Mrs. Cociasu. She highlighted that for daily
samples taken at Sulina 5km upstream from entering of the Sulina branch into the the Black
Sea, silica and PO4-P are analysed since 1980 and inorganic N species since 1988, and
that modern analytical methods (see the paper handed out, of which Mrs. Cociasu is the 1st
author) are in use. She showed graphs which - when these Sulina data are extrapolated for
the overall Danube - indicate a steady decline over time, e.g. for inorganic N species from
~ 1.000 kt/a in 1988 to ~ 400 kt/a in 1996. She also indicated that the flow in River Danube
in front of the three branches also declined in the same period. Some historical data exist,
but they are limited, their reliability is unknown and thus their interpretation as yearly
immission loads should not be undertaken. The data Mrs. Cociasu showed for the
Romanian shelf indicate that since 1992/93 a slight improvement in the occurrence of algal
blooms has taken place, and a phosphorus limitation in the Romanian shelf exists.
Mr. Beshiktepe, an expert on the link between satellite imagery and the overall monitoring of
the situation of the Black Sea, presented 1997 images from algal blooms in the Black Sea.
The unfortunate situation is that (1) the Sea of Azov is holding a 'more or less permanent'
algal bloom of 50 mg/l or more during the warmer season (spring till fall), whereas (2) the
Black Sea is having such high concentrations at higher frequency in areas of the Black Sea
shelf area, stretching from the Romanian to the Bulgarian part. There are, however, also
some algal blooms in limited areas at lower concentrations along the Turkish coast.
The discussion centred around the following issues: (a) The atmospheric input of totN
into the Black Sea; the estimate given was 1/3 of the land-based discharges. (b) The
question of the importance of silica: Mrs. Cociasu and Mr. Mihnea, supported by Mr.
Boyanovsky, mentioned that from their point of view the idea expressed by Mr. Humborg
is correct and that silica seems to play a role in the shift of organisms which are
blooming, whereas Mr. Mee was of the opinion that the impact of the relative change of
silica is of lesser importance. (c) Any other polluting input from land-based sources of
importance into the Black Sea; here the main issue mentioned was mineral oil via River
Danube. (d) It was agreed that existing information, assembled by the Turkish Black Sea
Center at Middle East Technical University, Institute of Marine Sciences, at
Erdemli/IGEL, Turkey via Nato funded Workshops and undertakings, will be made
available as soon as this is in a form to be agreed on by the authors to be published.
5. The assembling and assessing of the available information on the likely response of the
Black Sea ecosystem to specified reductions in nutrient loads was only indirectly
accessible by reasoning. Mr. Mee remarked that the response of ecosystems to stresses
and their recovery is never a linear relationship. Ecosystems can have over a long period
in time only minor changes, due to their resilience, but as soon as a certain level of stress
is surpassed over a too long period, they collapse. In addition, and because of the shifts in
time, the likelihood that ecosystems reach the starting level is quite slim. The Black Sea
seems to have been in good shape still in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Starting from
then, the conditions in the shelf declined and got worst between 1990 and 1992. As
already mentioned, since then a slight improvement (decrease in the frequency and
intensity of algal blooms; improvement in oxic conditions, in order to name a few) has
taken place. The decrease of the input of N and P as reported by Mrs. Cociasu has been
comparatively bigger. Thus the only way to meaningfully advance in formulating a policy
for the protection of the Black Sea will be the need to reformulate it in intervals. It will be
possible to come up with a suggestion for the 1st period in sight, but the quantification in
absolute terms (load reduction values) is not very safe.
Causes and Effects of Eutrophication in the Black Sea Summary Report, Annexes
79
The discussion afterwards centred (1) around the fulfilment of the requirement of load
reductions in absolute terms and (2) around the P - limitation. The Bulgarian and
Romanian participants were of the view that a further reduction of the input of -
especially dissolved, but also easily bound total - P into the Black Sea is beyond doubt of
benefit for the frequency and intensity of algal blooms, whereas Mr. Mee held up his
position that due to internal cycling of P, a reduction of totN is equally needed. Mr.
Fleckseder indicated, in order to bridge to the issue of 'strategies', that a reduction of P is
on the time scale more easily obtainable, whereas due to the large pools of N in
groundwater aquifers, it will take decades until a longer-lasting reduction will be
achieved; this, however, does not mean that in regard to nitrogen no strategies should be
developed.
6. In regard to strategies, the Group took note of the information received that by the
summer of 1998, 6 NAPs for Black Sea countries should be available, and that within the
GEF RDPRP, National Reviews are in progress and will also by available by summer of
1998. Based on these and some other work, it should be possible to come up with
proposals for strategies.
7. Allocation of work to be accomplished until the next meeting of the Group, see para (2):
Mr. Bendow focused the attention and discussion to the point that the main objective is
not necessarily to reduce the nutrients discharged to the Black Sea, but to reestablish the
resilience of the ecosystems of the Black Sea. In order to arrive there, he raised the
question of suitable indicators to observe the development of ecosystems over time, to
record such changes, and also to analyse possibilities to safeguard or reestablish the
resilience of the ecosystems. Surprisingly, there were no precise indicators available to
demonstrate the change over time of ecosystems in various parts of the Black Sea. The
following discussion centered around the identification of suitable parameters available as
data, in order to arrive at a clear link between the input of nutrients (or other pollution)
and the change over time of Black Sea ecosystems. The 'state of the Black Sea ecosystem
over time' (e.g. 1960 - 1985/90 - 1997/98) was to be examined considering the following:
the secchi-depth; chlorophyll-a (phytoplankton biomass); N/P/Si (total /
available); macroalgae (phyllophera) - areal extent; oxygen concentration at shelf
(spatial and temporal extent); phytoplankton (# of species, density); zooplankton
(biomass, composition); micro-zoobenthos (biomass, composition); and finally
'Other pollutants'.
The participants from the Black Sea countries agreed on this proposal; however, they
requested additional financial support (10.000 US$ per country) to elaborate on the
ecological indicators. Mr. Bendow agreed to provide for financial support, but he
requested precise ToRs (including the indicating of available information, and the data
and expertise necessary to elaborate an assessment in change of the Black Sea
ecosystems). The participants from the Black Sea countries have been asked to submit
their respective proposals as soon as possible to the Black Sea PCU's Coordinator, in
order to liease with the Danube GEF Programme.
In the discussion, Mr. Beshiktepe held up the view that with the Nato funded work, most
of the information available has been put together, and that one has thus for the type of
work the Group has to deal with only wait until the reports of the Nato Workshops are
agreed upon by scientific panels and by the authors. This should be the case by late June
or early July at the latest, and that from this point of view the next meeting of the Group
should take place in mid-August 1998.
80
Danube Pollution Reduction Programme
Pollution Input into the Black Sea: There is work available by the Black Sea PCU; it will
- for review by the members of the Group - be made available either by the BSPCU or
Mr. Mee by early May 1998.
The members of the Group are asked to critically screen the material to both points
(pollution input as well as the ecological state of the Black Sea) mentioned; they were
told to receive this material before the next meeting (August 17/18, 1998, at Istanbul), for
futher discussion in this upcoming meeting.
These draft Minutes have been conceived by H.Fleckseder, IS/ICPDR. The delay in time relative to
the Meeting is due to a having been moved from one part in VIC to another, to the Easter Week, as
well as to other obligations of the rapporteur, and the fact that this was 'counter-read' by others.
Initially the draft had been finalised at Vienna on May 11, 1998
The final status has been indicated at Vienna on September 3, 1998
Annex VII
The Draft Minutes of the 3rd Meeting of the `Group',
December 10/11, 1998, Baden/NÖ, Austria
Causes and Effects of Eutrophication in the Black Sea Summary Report, Annexes
83
Hellmut Fleckseder
Officer in charge of scientific and technical issues in the
Secretariat of the Intern. Commission for the Protection
of the Danube River (ICPDR)
D0446, VIC, POB 500, A - 1400 Vienna
Tel. +43-1-26060-5737 (Sekr. 5738), Fax - 5895
e-mail: Hellmut.Fleckseder@unvienna.un.or.at
Draft Minutes of the 3rd Meeting,
Joint Ad-hoc Technical Working Group,
established between the ICPBS and the ICPDR.
Meeting dates: December 10 / 11, 1998.
Meeting venue: Schloßhotel Weikersdorf, Baden, Lower Austria
The participants in this 3rd meeting were the representatives to the Group and additional partici-
pants.
The representatives to the Group (or as their substitute in this meeting) were
Mr. A. Hudson (AH; UNDP-GEF, as Chairman, replacing the former Chairman, W. Rast, UNEP);
Mr. B. Boyanovsky (BB; BG);
Mrs. A. Cociasu (AC; RO);
Mrs. L. Stepanova (LS; RUS Fed.);
Mr. Ö.
Mrs. O. Tarasova (OT; UA);
Mr. F. Überwimmer (FÜ; substituting B. Mehlhorn, EMIS EG of ICPDR);
Mr. L.N. Popescu (LNP; MLIM EG of ICPDR; only participating December 11);
Mr. H. Fleckseder (HF; Permanent Secretariat, ICPDR).
Additional participants encompassed:
Mr. J. Bendow (JB; Project Manager, GEF River Danube Pollution Reduction Programme);
Mr. R. Mihnea (RM; Programme Manager, Black Sea PCU);
Mr. L. Mee (LM; former Manager of the Black Sea PCU and consultant to UNDP/GEF; December
10 and December 11 till ~ 1 1/2 hours before the end of the meeting);
Mr. T. Botterweg (TB; Programme Coordinator, Danube PCU) and I. Natchkov (IN; Phare / Tacis
Programme Manager, Danube PCU), both only on December 11, 1998.
1.
The opening of the Meeting and the introduction to the `Draft Summary
Report' by L. Mee.
Mr. A. Hudson opened the Meeting on December 10, 1999, at 9h30. He welcomed the participants
present. He hinted at - as no agenda had been prepared by the Chairman of the two preceding
meetings - that the 'Group' should screen the reports which had (with the exception of Ukraine)
been presented already at Istanbul and which are now finalised. The Group should also go through
the draft summary report by LM (which was stated to be based on the contributions from the Black
Sea shoreline riparian States). It should also discuss and come to an agreement as far as possible
relating to measures to be taken to limit the discharges into the Black Sea, as agreed upon in the
preceding 2nd meeting at Istanbul.
84
Danube Pollution Reduction Programme
The draft minutes of the Istanbul Meeting, agreed upon there to be available at the end of the 1st
full week in October 1998, were not available. The draft summary report by LM was neither
available before this 3rd Meeting, but printed out in this Meeting at Baden. Already during the
print-out and the following copying, LM informed the 'Group' about the contents of this draft
summary report, which he had entitled "Eutrophication in the Black Sea: Establishing the causes
and effects." This initial draft summary report is annexed to these draft minutes (Annex 1). LM told
the 'Group' also that the 'Black Sea side' will 'have to produce something productive for the net
GEF Meeting in May if GEF funding for investment should be further available'.
As this draft summary report is late and as it merits careful reading, it is understood that no
decision on its contents can be taken in this Meeting. However, in order to fulfil his commitments,
LM stated to be in need of amendments, in written at the latest in front of Christmas 1998, such
that he can finalise this draft summary report by the end of the year 1998.
LM communicated also the following report to the Danube PCU: 'An input-output study on
nutrient loads in the Danube River Basin'. 68 p. plus ~ 30 pages Annex. This report has been
written by V.J.P. van't Riet, and supervised by drs P.H.L. Bujis (from 'International Center for
Water Studies B.V.') and ir R.H. Aalderink (Landbouwuniversiteit Wageningen, Department of
Env. Sciences, Aquatic Ecology and Water Quality Management Group).
The main remarks by LM to the contents of the draft summary report were:
In going through the national contributions, the main question arriving was: Are the data
made available really reliable? Where are the sampling stations located, and for which
time span are monitored data available?
If one group of researchers stuck to specific methods over a specified time period, it
seems meaningful to assume that this data set can be compared in itself (but not
automatically with data monitored by other researchers).
The methodological problems seem to be bigger with biological data than with chemical
data.
The load assessment (and the 'comparing' of reported loads and where the way in which
these loads were assessed is not known) must be an issue of specific concern. Loads for
soluble parameters can be assessed with much less sampling effort than loads of
parameters, which are transported, sediment-bound.
LM repeated how the eutrophication problem of the Black Sea evolved over time:
The phytoplankton outcompeted the macrophytes, due to its ability to grow.
With an increase in nutrients available - and which is documented by measurements in
the Sea only in later phases, when the eutrophication process was already relatively
advanced - the growth and decay was such that (over time) not only the macrophytes
were outcompeted, but also they died off to a large extent. Conditions with low oxygen
concentrations (or even free of oxygen) evolved also ('hypoxia').
This led to an ecological status where there was very low biological diversity with both
phytoplankton and zooplankton, and based on this also with very low diversity of fishlife.
In the 1980s, alien "jellyfish" intruded, found very good growth conditions, and no
species utilising them.
The good news is that benthic algal beds (cystoseira barbata) are still present along the
coast of the Russian Federation, in other places in patches. Small patches of phyllophera-
fields also exist. If the conditions improve, these patches can be the stock from which
conditions similar to the pre-1960 conditions can develop over time.
Causes and Effects of Eutrophication in the Black Sea Summary Report, Annexes
85
There is a recovery in fisheries (e.g. anchovis).
(In the discussion to this, the colleagues from the Black Sea shoreline states indicated that
due to the zooplankton, the sprats and the anchovis, bonitos have intruded this year from
the Sea of Marmara into the Black Sea. The survival of bonitos in the Black Sea will also
depend on the respecting of their reproductive cycles).
The big 'eutrophication problem' of the Black Sea is, according to LM, the dominance in
the food chain of gelatinous organisms ("jellyfish"). These jellyfish - originally alien to
the Black Sea- are a 'dead end' in the foodchain, i.e. they cannot serve as food for higher
carnivores leading to diversity in fishlife. There is the only hope that with a further
decline in phytoplankton growth, the predominance of jellyfish will fade out.
Presently, the Black Sea is on the way of improving, but it has not yet reached the
situation of the 1960s.
According to LM, the main problem and the driving force for the planktonic growth is the
extreme surplus of nitrate. This, however, is in contradiction with the P-limitation in the
shelf area, to be discussed later.
Decisions taken in the last Meeting (i.e. the 2nd meeting of the Group at Istanbul, and
where no draft minutes of this meeting were made available) are in the opinion of LM
meaningful.
LM stressed in the discussion to the report the use of `inexpensive means' of removing
nutrients from wastewater, and BB supported him. For both these colleagues, the
technology describing the term 'inexpensive' is constructed wetlands. HF contributed in
the discussion to this point that the actual and long-lasting removal of nutrients via
constructed wetlands can primarily only be due to the harvesting of plants; if this is not
done properly, the treatment will ultimately fail. HF cited a study undertaken at the
relatively large and shallow `Lake Neusiedl'. This study revealed that the harvesting of
reed, such that the rhizoma are not destroyed and that the harvest is actually taken away at
the end of the growth period, is such expensive that the application of this method was
there discarded. RM reported about similar experience gained in the Romanian Delta of
River Danube, and OT claimed the same to have been arrived at in Ukraine. HF
concluded that such 'inexpensive technology' must have its limits in plant size.
2.
Discussion to the `Draft Summary Report'
Asking for proposed amendments:
As the `Draft Summary Report' written by LM was not known before, no full discussion was
possible in this Meeting. The agreement to respond to this draft not later than around Christmas
1998 has already been highlighted.
Remarks to individual aspects of the draft summary report:
There was some time to go through the report in reading, and afterwards, some amendments were
proposed. LM took note of them. One important aspect is with the nutrient data from Romania:
They are given in phosphates and silicates, but their actual dimension (not shown in the tables) is
phosphate-P and silicate-Si, and nitrogen is correctly shown as the 'nitrogen species' or 'sum of
inorganic nitrogen'.
Such proposed changes related to the text of the draft report, to the summarising table, but also to
the tables and figures annexed.
86
Danube Pollution Reduction Programme
Under debate: The limiting 'chemical species' for phytoplankton growth:
HF distributed a paper called `Sweden's nitrogen debate' (Water Quality International (WQI), Sep-
tember / October 1998, the `popular' news media by IAWQ) (Annex 2). In this paper, reference is
made to an ongoing debate in Sweden whether nitrogen is actually limiting for the eutrophication
process in the Baltic as claimed for long or whether at a systems level, this is actually falling to
phosphorus. In this debate in Sweden, the final conclusion is not yet reached. The interesting point,
however, is that nitrogen fixers (i.e. blue-green algae) are occurring in certain parts of the Baltic,
thus indicating that not nitrogen, but phosphorus is limiting.
The question by HF to the representatives of the shoreline States in the Joint Ad-hoc Group was
whether such blue-green algae occur, and there was a positive reply. The quantification of this
positive reply was split: LM claimed that these covered not more than 2% of the phytoplankton
occurring, whereas others felt that this value is higher.
AC indicated again - as she had done in both preceding Meetings of the 'Group' - that the
phytoplankton growth in the Romanian shelf is limited by phosphorus. ÖB agreed also that the data
obtained in the cruise of R/V Bilim in March and April 1995 allow the same statement for the
northwestern shelf area. This is the area in the Black Sea with the most intensive phytoplankton
growth, with the biggest spread. The currents then transport the phytoplankton into the direction of
the Bosporus.
HF indicated as he had already done in the previous Meetings of the `Group' that in regard to
actually achieving load reductions within a short span of time, reducing phosphates and phosphorus
is potentially much more easy and less costly than a quick 'curbing' of nitrogen. HF therefore
suggested discussing how the limitation of phosphorus can be achieved by legal and technical
means. The 'curbing' of nitrogen should be also undertaken from the beginning where possible (e.g.
by forbidding liquid discharges from large animal raising units, and thus curbing the discharge of
both nitrogen and phosphorus). With urban wastewater, the removal of nitrogen is much more
costly than the removal of phosphorus. In the Danube Basin, a large fraction of nitrogen is from
diffuse sources. From the point of view of HF, the 'curbing' of nitrogen has primarily to be
discussed at a strategic level, and maybe even not only at the scale of the hydrographic catchment
area of the Black Sea, but on a worldwide scale. LM responded that seas are nitrogen limited, and
that therefore - in line with the 'Redfield ratio of 7 to 1 (for N to P) - nitrogen has also to be
strongly limited from the start.
The view within the representatives to the `Group' was that the limiting of phosphorus must have
an impact, and that therefore some of the stress of the GEF incremental cost funding should be with
the curbing of phosphorus. This was i.a. stated by ÖB.
What load of nutrients in River Danube could be a `basis' for a comparison?
Reference is made in the Romanian national report, in which data by ALMAZOV are cited for the
years 1959 and 1960. The full-length paper by ALMAZOV was not available; OT stated that this
paper is written in Russian, and that she would send a copy to LM. The aim of this sending is to
gain better knowledge about how ALMAZOV arrived at the loads he presented. HF indicated again
that aside from the question of how many data sets were used by ALMAZOV care should be given
to the fact that the yearly loads vary also from hydrologic year to hydrologic year. An 'average load
estimate' should be based on at least data from 5 years.
Causes and Effects of Eutrophication in the Black Sea Summary Report, Annexes
87
3.
Where would the representatives of the States participating put GEF
funding for incremental cost?
Possible 'fields of action' for improving the ecological status of the Black Sea options
highlighted were:
The A reform of agricultural practices (influenced by the legal frame and the type of policy)
Use of wastewater treatment (including alternative methods)
Rehabilitation of key basin ecosystems
Changing of consumer practices (including the use of poly-P-free detergents)
Definition of the legal frame (including also the use of chemicals and import regulations).
Answers received
Suggestions by BB for Bulgaria:
Monitoring and control should be strengthened, incl. the import ban on poly-P-containing
detergents.
The nutrients should as much as possible be kept in / on the soil. This also relates to the
appropriate use of animal manure, to 'biofarming', to the necessary fighting against soil
erosion, to the setting-up of riverine buffer zones and to decrease intensive fish farming.
Sludge from WWT (= wastewater treatment) should as much as possible be used
agriculturally.
Wastewater treatment should be used, and for reasons of investment and where possible,
this should encompass low-cost removal of N and P. In order to better utilise N and P,
municipal and industrial wastewater should be treated in a combined way.
Measures in the Black Sea should also be considered, i.a. the creation of artificial reefs,
including the increased harvest of mussels, and fishing practices in such a way that the
carnivorous fish stock can grow.
Suggestions by AC, supported by LNP and RM, for Romania:
The loads via River Danube have decreased, and the application of fertilisers on
agricultural land is now for some time very low. A reform of the Act governing
agriculture still has to pass legislature.
WWTP have to be improved and to be built inland, along the Romanian coast, mainly
improvement is necessary, as there is no discharge of untreated wastewater into the Sea.
The main question here is in regard to the investment and ho this can be converted into a
'continuous series of payments'. Industry is - where possible - treated in a combined way.
Romania would like to utilise river-related ecosystems to minimise the nutrient transport.
Romania is holding a law demanding the use of poly-P-free detergents.
Suggestions by LS for the Russian Federation:
Agriculture is vital in RUS, but the input of mineral fertiliser has been drastically been
reduced. There is only small-scale raising of animals.
Both with the Sea of Azov as well as the Black Sea untreated or not sufficiently treated
wastewater is discharged, and thus the stress must be with wastewater treatment. This
relates to both municipalities and industries. Along the coast of the Black Sea, there are also
outfalls under the pycnocline, with only mechanically treated wastewater. Around
Novorossisk, there is also some oil pollution, due to the handling of oil. Methods of
wastewater treatment should be reliable, and the investment should life as long as possible.
88
Danube Pollution Reduction Programme
Wetland areas are along the Kuban, and also along the Don. If this works, RUS would
like to utilise the potential.
Detergents are imported, i.a. by Procter and Gamble.
Suggestions by ÖB for Turkey:
Agriculture is also important in TR, but even more important is the fighting of soil
erosion. Farming in the Black Sea catchment of TR is on small lots - e.g. some animal
raising, some garden-like agriculture, and also the growing of tea.
There are only a few large cities along the Turkish Black Sea coast, with the possibility
like in RUS to discharge below the pycnocline. The population is otherwise living in very
scattered settlements. It is relatively easy to force industry to do something, but its
tremendously more difficult to convince municipalities.
Wetlands play in TR - due to the character of the landscape - a minor role.
ÖB is not familiar with the legislation in TR covering poly-P in detergents.
Suggestions by OT for Ukraine:
In agriculture in UA, like in other States, the application of market fertilisers declined,
and there is no longer any type of industrialised animal raising. Nevertheless, there
should be a further stress with improving nutrient discharge from agriculture, assuming
that it will hopefully recover over time.
There is a huge demand for treatment of untreated or improvement of not adequately
treated wastewater, be it from municipalities or industries (e.g. mining, with acid mine
drainage and where mines are also no longer in operation; metallurgical enterprises; etc.).
The Seas impacted are both the Black Sea proper and the Sea of Azov. River Dnjepr,
dammed from upstream from Kiev and with large man-made lakes, is strongly
eutrophied.
There are many wetland areas in Ukraine, and UA would like to utilise the potential.
OT is not familiar with the legislation in UA covering poly-P in detergents.
During the presentation of these answers, HF highlighted that the EU is running a research
programme dealing with the assessment of buffer areas ('European river margins project'). This
joint research indicates that a potential for the reduction of nitrogen in groundwater exists primarily
in the 'transition zones' from groundwater to river water. He also indicated that this 'denitrification
potential' is only having a larger impact if as much river length as possible is utilised in this way.
HF also indicated that certain interests in chemical industry favour the use of poly-P in detergents,
by claiming that by precipitation, phosphates will be removed from wastewater anyhow. By
proposing this, there is an economic gain involved in both selling poly-P as well as additional
precipitants.
The need to establish (or to improve) a "transboundary assessment of indicators of the Black
Sea"
To this item, mainly RM contributed.
A Monitoring Programme for the Black Sea was fixed both in the Convention and the
Declaration.
Control stations have been proposed in 1994, a long list of parameters to be determined
exists also. The suggestion is to start with nutrients and with bathing water quality.
However, no station has been implemented. The stations are foreseen to be erected up to
10 ÷ 15 nautical miles from the shore, located at transboundary positions.
Causes and Effects of Eutrophication in the Black Sea Summary Report, Annexes
89
Discussion to this:
OT reported that UA would be undertaking for a period of two years a detection of oil pollution by
remote sensing. LNP and ÖB asked both to remind the politicians that the jointly agreed upon
monitoring programmes (e.g. the proposed monitoring programme for the Black Sea by the
shoreline riparians; TNMN in the Danube Basin) and the 'support structures' (e.g. the Expert
Groups under the ICPDR) should be funded, and where things are missing, this should actually be
implemented. Otherwise the work developed will collapse. HF asked whether GEF funding is
possible for monitoring stations. The reply by AH and LM was that this task is a 'national baseline
contribution'.
Legal and Political Issues
TB asked for the function of the existing Conventions and the Commissions charged to implement
them. ÖB, JB and HF stressed that any 'true acting' is only at the respective national level, and the
function of the Commissions is to have an 'umbrella' via the 'principle of cooperation'. JB hinted at
that an outcome could be e.g. a 'Memorandum of understanding between both the ICPBS and
the ICPDR', and that this memorandum should contain principles, whereas in step , the measures
to implement these principles should be clarified. OT stressed also the need for harmonisation and
cooperation between both Commissions.
LM indicated that he wanted to have a Ministerial Meeting among the Black Sea shoreline
riparians. This should i.a. deal with the banning of poly-P in detergents and an agreement on
certain areas of land to be utilised for aquatic ecosystems, including a joint implementation
principle.
JB suggested: Based on the reports (Minutes of the Meetings; the report drafted by L.Mee, after its
revision by the 'Group') a restricted group of persons (e.g. JB; RM; HF; LM) should be charged to
come up with a paper of 2 ÷ 3 pages and propose it to the 'Group'. This paper should contain the
essential elements to be communicated.
Vienna, February 2nd, 1999
Hellmut Fleckseder
Annex VIII
Draft Memorandum of Understanding
Causes and Effects of Eutrophication in the Black Sea Summary Report, Annexes
93
DRAFT
Memorandum of Understanding
between
the International Commission for the Protection of the Black Sea (ICPBS) and
the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR)
on common Strategic Goals
The `International Commission for the Protection of the Black Sea (ICPBS)' holds the
power to implement the `Convention on the Protection of the Black Sea against
Pollution'. This Convention is a `shoreline convention', i.e. it itself holds no power over
the inland activities of the States within the hydrographic drainage area discharging to the
overall Black Sea (Black Sea proper; Sea of Azov).
The `International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR)' holds
the power to implement the `Convention on Cooperation for the Protection and
Sustainable Use of the Danube River'. This Convention is a `hydrographic basin
convention', i.e. it itself holds power over the transboundary impact via the drainage
network of the River Danube Basin (valid only for Contracting Parties to this
Convention).
This Memorandum of Understanding becomes effective as soon as it has been agreed
upon in the respective Meetings of both Commissions mentioned and an exchange of let-
ters has taken place. It looses its effectiveness as soon as one of both the International
Commissions mentioned notifies the other.
This Memorandum of Understanding constitutes by no means a legal document for the
joint implementation of issues of importance for the protection of the Black Sea against
pollution by its Transboundary Waters in its wider basin.
Representatives of the ICPBS and the ICPDR with the assistance of UNDP/GEF and UNEP set up
on December 8 and 9, 1997, a Joint Ad-hoc Technical Working Group (`the Group') in a Meeting
at Constanta, Romania. The following elements of this Memorandum of Understanding correspond
with the results of `the Group':
The term `overall Black Sea' encompasses the Black Sea proper and the Sea of Azov as
water bodies receiving inputs via inland waters. Both the Black Sea proper and the Sea of
Azov are in regard to their ecology and their response to discharged pollution completely
different water bodies.
The term `Black Sea ecosystems' refers to ecosystems in both these Seas.
The term `wider Black Sea Basin' refers to the basin determined by the hydrographic
boundary of all inland waters discharging to the overall Black Sea and the surface area of
the overall Black Sea. For the sake of convenience and until decided otherwise between
both Commissions the outer border of this basin is looked upon to be the Straight of
Bosporus.
The results of studies on the 'Ecological Indicators of Pollution in the Black Sea', carried
out in the frame of the activities of the Joint Ad-hoc Working Group, have given evidence
of recovery in Black Sea ecosystems. However, the ecological status of the 1960s
which is deemed to be the goal to aim for is not yet reached.
94
Danube Pollution Reduction Programme
There is in general agreement that the status of Black Sea ecosystems is largely affected
by nutrients discharged within the wider Black Sea Basin, and to a large extent by the riv-
erine input into the overall Black Sea. Information of a possible role of other sources of
pollution and their impact on Black Sea ecosystems was not yet available.
The size of the pollution loads reaching the overall Black Sea (resolution both in time and
in space for the Black Sea proper and the Sea of Azov) are either not known, or
information is missing on the comparability of the data available.
`The Group' was aware of the decline of the economic activities in the countries in
transition, the possible impact of them on the discharge of pollution, and the reversal of
such a trend in case of future economic development (concerning in particular
agricultural and industrial activities).
The data available to `the Group' to undertake its assessment ended at best with values
for the year 1997.
In order to saveguard the Black Sea from a further deterioriation of the status of its ecosystems the
Contracting Parties to the `Convention on the Protection of the Black Sea against Pollution' and the
Contracting Parties to the `Convention on Cooperation for the Protection and Sustainable Use of
the Danube River' individually and in mutual contact with all States within the wider Black Sea
Basin strive to achieve the following strategic goals:
The long-term goal for all States in the wider Black Sea Basin is to take measures to
reduce the loads of nutrients and hazardous substances discharged to such levels
necessary to permit Black Sea ecosystems to recover to conditions similar to those
observed in the 1960s.
As an intermediate goal, urgent control measures should be taken by all States in the
wider Black Sea Basin in order to avoid that the discharges of nutrients and hazardous
substances into the Seas exceed those that existed in 1997. (These 1997 discharges are
only incompletely known.)
The inputs of nutrients and hazardous substances into both receiving Seas (Black Sea
proper and Sea of Azov) have to be assessed in a comparable way. To this very end a
common AQC system and a thorough discussion about the necessary monitoring ap-
proach, including the sampling procedures, has to be set up and agreed upon between the
ICPBS and the ICPDR.
The ecological status of the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov has to be further assessed, and
the comparability of the data basis has to be further increased.
Both the reported input loads as well as the assessed ecological status will have to be
reported annually to both the ICPBS and the ICPDR.
The States within the wider Black Sea Basin shall have to adopt strategies that will
permit economic development, whilst ensuring appropriate practices and measures to
limit the discharge of nutrients and hazardous substances, and to rehabilitate ecosystems
which assimilate nutrients.
Based on the annual reports and on the adopted strategies for the limitation of the
discharge of nutrients and hazardous substances, a review shall be undertaken in 2007. It
will have to focus on the further measures that may be required for meeting the long-term
objective.
This Memorandum of Understanding becomes effective by an exchange of letters between the
ICPBS and the ICPDR in which each of them mutually agrees on the contents of this Draft
Memorandum of Understanding. As soon as this is reached, a final version (with the omission of
the word `Draft') will be circulated between both the ICPBS and the ICPDR.
Project Brief / Danube Regional Project Phase 1
Annexes
ANNEX 12 Evaluation of the UNDP/GEF
Pollution Reduction Programme
Annex 12.1
Terminal Evaluation
Annex 12.2
Terminal Report
United Nations Development Program - Global Environment Facility
United Nation Office for Project Services
Developing the Danube River Basin Pollution Reduction Program
RER/96/G31
Terminal Evaluation
Stanislaw MANIKOWSKI
Esther PARK
Friedrich SCHWAIGER
François Van HOOF
JUNE 1999
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The consultation mission gratefully acknowledges Mr. R. Aertgeerts, from the UNOPS, Mr. A. Hudson, from the
UNDP/GEF, and Ms. T. Akhtar from RBEC-UNDP for their comments during the briefing sessions before and
after our time in the field. The Project Manager, Mr. J. Bendow, and his team provided the mission with all of
the necessary documentation, information, and technical support. They were always available to discuss the
Project and the issues relative to its evaluation. Finally, we are greatly indebted to Mr. I. Schuets-Mueller, the
Chief of UNOPS/ENVP, and Mr. W. Stalzer, the President of ICPDR, for the time they devoted to discussing
regional implications of national pollution reduction policies and the role of international cooperation in regional
programmes.
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
BOD
Biological Oxygen Demand
COD
Chemical Oxygen Demand
DANIS
Danube Information System
DANUBIS
ICPDR Information System
DEF
Danube Environmental Forum
DEFF
Danube Environmental Financing Facility
DPRP
Danube Pollution Reduction Program
DRPC
Danube River Protection Convention
DWQM
Danube Water Quality Model
EC
European Commission
EMIS
Emission Expert Group
ENVP
Division for Environmental Programmes
EPDRB
Environmental Program for the Danube River Basin
EU
European Union
FGG
Finanzierungs Garantie Gesellshaft
GEF
Global Environment Facility
Hot Spot
A local land or water area, which is subject to excessive pollution, and which requires specific
actions to prevent or reduce degradation caused by pollutants
ICPBS
International Commission for Protection of the Black Sea
ICPDR
International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River
IFI
International Financing Institution
ISEP
International Society for Environmental Protection
KfW
Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau
N
Nitrogen
NGO
Non Governmental Organization
P
Phosphorus
PAG
Project Appraisal Group
PCU
Danube Program Co-ordination Unit
Phare
Poland, Hungary: Aid for Reconstruction and Economy; Program of assistance for economic
restructuring in the countries of central and Eastern Europe
PIF
Project Implementation Facility
PMTF
Project Management Task Force
PPC
Project Preparation Committee
PRP
Pollution Reduction Program
RBEC
Regional Bureau for Europe and CIS
REC
Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe
SAP
Strategic Action Plan
TA
Transboundary Analysis
TACIS
Technical Assistance to the Commonwealth of Independent States
TDA
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis
TF
Task Force
TOPP
Target Oriented Program Planning
UNDP
United Nations Development Program
UNEP
United Nations Environment Program
UNOPS
United Nations Office for Project Services
WWF
World Wide Fund for Nature
SUMMARY
The "Developing the Danube River Basin Pollution Reduction Programme" project RER/96/G31 represents the
Global Environment Facility (GEF)'s contribution to the second phase of an Environmental Programme for the
Danube River Basin (EPDRB), created in 1992. The project was a continuation of two previous GEF projects
that assisted the EPDRB. All three projects helped the EPDRB to prepare a Strategic Action Plan (SAP), and
develop a Danube Water Quality Model (DWQM). They helped, as well, in creating public awareness, and
contributed to several other areas, including knowledge base building, information exchange and transboundary
water pollution understanding. Beyond these actions, they also showed preoccupation with Black Sea marine
ecosystem degradation.
There were eleven countries (Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, The Czech Republic, Hungary, Moldova,
Romania, Slovenia, Ukraine, and the Federal Yugoslav Republic) that benefited directly from the present project
activities while two others (Austria and Germany) collaborated closely. The International Commission for the
Protection of Danube River (ICPDR) was a regional partner of the project. The project came in at a cost of $3.9
million with its activities implemented between December 1996 and June 1999. (Four minor activities will
continue until December 1999).
The project's overall long-term objective was to stimulate sustainable, institutional and financial arrangements
for effective environmental management of the Danube River Basin. The immediate goal was to prepare for
funding pollution prevention and reduction activities required to both restore the Danube River basin and protect
the Black Sea environment. This immediate goal was composed of four objectives:
1. Complete the knowledge base for priority pollution loads and priority environmental issues in the Danube
River basin;
2. Review policy for protection (especially nature protection) of the Danube basin and Black Sea;
3. Increase public awareness and participation;
4. Develop financing for the pollution reduction programme under the Danube Strategic Action Plan.
The project fits into regional and national plans of the Danube River basin countries, into the GEF priorities, and
the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) areas of concentration. The Project Document clearly
designs beneficiaries, contains implementation plan, and corresponding financial provision. Under the project
dynamic leadership, and strong support of the backstopping agencies: the UNDP/GEF and the United Nations
Office for Project Services (UNOPS), the project successfully implemented and realized all activities, and
delivered all outputs. The data needed to the output production were collected and provided by national teams.
The project prepared framework and methodology for data collection. The methods were discussed in more than
35 meetings and workshops.
There was, however, great differences among the countries of the region in levels of their economical,
technological and knowledge skills. Because of that, the data national teams provides were not all of the same
quality and precision.
The project successfully completed the knowledge base for priority-settings. It updated national reviews of
Danube pollution, and prepared a list of 421 priority pollution reduction projects. It improved the DWQM model
and used it to simulate the nitrogen and phosphorus pollution of the Danube with and without the projects.
However, since the data used in description of the regional priorities and in modeling were of unequal quality,
the regional results have to be taken with precaution. To overcome the data inaccuracies and approximations, the
project developed a database that will in the future allow for more accurate diagnoses of pollution sources as
well as more efficient cost evaluation.
i
The reviews by national teams that contributed to formulation of the regional Danube basin and Black Sea
protection policies, and updating the SAP did not yet produced a global political or strategic approach to a
regional pollution reduction. The updated SAP gives to the policy and strategies too narrow a meaning.
The project successfully planned and organized the public awareness programme of pollution reduction
activities. However, the project's tight schedule and the NGO's ineffectiveness in promoting the programme,
hampered the public awareness campaign. The impact of this campaign is yet unknown.
On the basis of the national reports, the project developed a portfolio of 421 priority pollution reduction
investments. For each investment the project proposed a baseline and the incremental costs. For some of these
investments, the costs were estimated according to the best available information.
The project proposed to ICPDR the establishment of a Project Appraisal Group (PAG) that would advise the
ICPDR, the country, and the donors about conformity of the project with ICPDR standards. It also proposed the
creation of a Project Implementation Facility (PIF) that would support the ICPDR in regional investment
programme, assist member countries in project preparation, and monitor the results. The ICPDR endorsed the
project results, in particular, the updated SAP, the PAG, and the PIF. By the end of this year, the ICPDR will
present the proposals of SAP, PAG, and PIF to the ministries of the member countries for approval.
All project activities were deeply imbedded in the GEF priorities, however, To fully satisfy the GEF
requirements, some outputs need to be improved; the SAP will require further developments. Nonetheless, the
project fully justifies the GEF support.
The project's achievements were highly praised by the ICPDR. Especially appreciated were the following
participation methods the project employed: participating planning, logical approach, and consultative and
iterative planning process of the SAP revision. The project management paid close attention to strengthening
cooperation among various sectors the government decision makers, the administrative delegates, and the
private-sector representatives.
The project final results will likely remain sustainable. In particular, the principal objective will probably be
pursued well after the end of the project. Moreover, the method used to gather data as well as the regional
standardization of the collection procedure contributed to growth in national capacity and reinforcement of
regional cooperation.
To increase the impact of the current project, the mission recommends:
1.1 To the project management and the UNDP/GEF to finance a critical review of the project's
documentation. It is recommended they should also finance an evaluation of each country's progress in
water pollution reduction, including public participation and policy issues as they were outlined in the
previous Project Documents. This review should be organized and completed before the next phase of
financing. This critical review should be professionally edited, published, and widely distributed.
1.2 To the project management, to edit the existent technical materials according to the UNDP standards.
The project should pay close attention to rhetoric (clarity, organization, consistent and critical arguments)
and to the internal coherence of the documents
1.3 To the project management, to include, in the final report, an exhaustive evaluation of all achievements
and difficulties.
1.4 To ICPDR, to collect and disseminate information produced by the project and the national teams;
organize training, demonstrations, and transfer knowledge and technologies to the countries; this would
include the DWQM, standardized data collection methods and analytical procedures. Continue to edit and
distribute the Danube Watch, and to update regularly the DANUBIS web site.
ii
To implement regional assistance for future water pollution reduction plans in the Danube River basin, and in
addition to the activities and objectives specified in the past GEF projects, the mission recommends to the
UNDP/GEF to include into the project programme the following issues:
Supply management:
2.1 The regional organizations and the regional assistance projects should develop consistent criteria for
evaluating and monitoring water development investments. These criteria should take into account all
direct and indirect costs, as well as the potential risks and impacts.
Municipal and industrial programmes:
2.2 The efforts to control pollution should be both site-specific and consistent with water basin requirements.
Agricultural practices:
2.3 The regional projects should support tests and dissemination of sound agricultural practices, and support
national awareness campaigns.
Safety of abandoned industry and mine wastes:
2.4 The regional project should investigate the pollution from abandoned industry and mine wastes, and help
countries to find funding to ensure the environmental safety of this waste.
Toxic and persistent contaminants:
2.5 The regional project should promote a sense of cooperation among the affected countries to research the
best control measures and control policy.
Atmospheric pollution:
2.6 The regional project should collaborate with the other regional organizations involved in monitoring and
reduction of air pollution. It should support national efforts toward atmospheric pollution.
Regional policy instruments:
2.7 A mandate should be given to regional project to support the regional and international organizations
evaluating and applying regional policy tools. This support could cover such areas as evaluating future
projects priorities (according to GEF standards), establishing baseline and incermental costs, or investing
in a country that is complying with regional standards.
Integrate technical, economic, political, and social dimensions:
2.8 A holistic approach needs to be adopted to get to the bottom of the problem. The regional projects should
consider a long list of activities: data collection and dissemination, training and demonstrations, research,
norms and legislation standardization, and public participation promotion. These elements need to be
looked at in the context of supply and demand of each country's water and macroeconomic policy.
Country's contribution to regional efforts:
2.9 The regional project should prepare periodically a ledger of regional expenses and gains and inform the
countries about advantages of adhering to a specific cooperative programme. This balance will help to
mobilize national efforts for a particular programme, and decide on the amount a country may contribute
to the regional effort.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
PROJECT DESIGN
2
2
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
4
2.1 GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION
4
2.2 MANAGEMENT, MONITORING, AND BACKSTOPPING
6
2.3 CHANGES IN THE PROJECT'S ENVIRONMENT
6
3
PROJECT IMPACT
7
3.1 COMPLETE THE KNOWLEDGE BASE FOR THE PRIORITY-SETTINGS
7
3.1.1 Update National Reviews and Analyze National Actions Plans Using a Common Format
7
3.1.2 Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis
7
3.2 REVIEW POLICY FOR PROTECTION OF THE DANUBE BASIN AND THE BLACK SEA
8
3.3 INCREASE PUBLIC AWARENESS AND PARTICIPATION
8
3.3.1 Raise the Public Awareness of Pollution Reduction Activities
8
3.3.2 Improve Coordination and Information Exchange
9
3.4 DEVELOP THE FINANCING OF THE POLLUTION REDUCTION PROGRAMME WITHIN THE DANUBE
STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN
9
3.4.1 Portfolio of Danube Basin Projects
9
3.4.2 Mechanism for Sustainable Financial Support
10
3.4.3 Adopting a Revised SAP
10
3.5 PROJECT EFFECTIVENESS IN REALIZING ITS OBJECTIVES
10
3.5.1 Project's Actions and Results in Light of Existing GEF Guidelines
11
3.6 SUSTAINABILITY OF THE PROGRAMME
11
4
GENERAL IMPACT OF THE PROJECT
12
4.1 AWARENESS AMONG PARTICIPATING COUNTRIES OF THE PROJECT'S OUTPUTS
12
4.2 DEGREE OF OWNERSHIP AND COMMITMENT OF THE PROJECT AMONG PARTICIPATING
COUNTRIES
12
4.3 IMPACT ON NATIONAL POLICIES AND STRATEGIES
13
4.4 TECHNICAL AND MANAGERIAL COOPERATION AMONG COUNTRIES
13
4.5 INTERAGENCY AND INTER MINISTERIAL COOPERATION
13
4.6 COOPERATION AMONG INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
13
4.7 COOPERATION AMONG ALL SECTORS, INCLUDING NON-GOVERNMENTAL AND PRIVATE
SECTORS
13
4.8 LONG-TERM SUSTAINABILITY OF THE PROJECT IMPACT
13
5
CONCLUSIONS
14
5.1 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
14
5.2 RELEVANCE OF THE PROJECT DESIGN
15
5.3 HUMAN AND FINANCIAL RESOURCES USE AND BACKSTOPPING
16
5.4 PROJECT RESULTS
16
6
RECOMMENDATIONS
18
6.1 ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN TO INCREASE THE IMPACT OF THE CURRENT PROJECT
18
6.2 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FUTURE REGIONAL ASSISTANCE TO WATER POLLUTION REDUCTION
IN THE DANUBE RIVER BASSIN
19
v
7
LESSONS LEARNED
21
3.1 PROJECT DESIGN
1
3.2 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
1
3.3 PROJECT IMPACT
2
3.4 THEORY (PROJECT DESIGN REVISITED)
3
3.5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
3
3.6 MISSION TIMELINE
4
Figure 1. Implementation of Project Activities....................................................... 5
ANNEXES
I
Terms of reference
II
Mission Calendar
III
List of Persons Met
IV
List of Documents Reviewed
V
Project Activities
VI
Project Outputs
VII
Evaluation Report on the Completion
of the Knowledge Base for Priority Settings. Françis Van Hoof
VIII Public Awareness, Public Participation, Information Exchange. Esther Park
IX
Evaluation Report on Objective 4. Friedrich Schwaiger
vi
INTRODUCTION
Project evaluation aims to assess its relevance, performance, and success (Annex I). In principle, every
significant UNDP-sponsored project is subject to evaluation. The evaluation of the important UNDP/GEF
project "Developing the Danube River Basin Pollution Reduction Programme (RER/96/G31) took place
between June 8th and June 21st, 1999 (Annex II). Four consultants contributed to the evaluation. They were:
- Team leader, Stanislaw Manikowski;
- Public awareness specialist, Ester Park;
- Financial specialist, Friedrich Schwaiger; and
- Transboundary pollution assessment specialist, François Van Hoof.
During the evaluation process, the mission met with several stakeholders (Annex III). It encountered the UNOPS
and GEF officers who provided technical backstopping and administrative support for the project, the ICPDR
officials, the beneficiary country representatives, and the project team. The mission visited Vienna project
management headquarters, and offices of major technical contributors in Frankfurt, Munich, Delft and Budapest.
Briefing and debriefing of the mission took place in UN offices in New York.
The evaluation referred to the procedures described in the Terms of Reference provided by the UNOPS (Annex
I), and the guidelines for project evaluation by the UNDP Central Evaluation Office. The present report
describes findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the mission. The report is organized so as to reflect
UNOPS' concerns in regard to the Terms of Reference.
1
1
PROJECT DESIGN
The design of the present project RER/96/G31 (the Project) follows guidelines of the Global Environment
Facility (GEF) sponsored projects. It represents the GEF's contribution to phase two of an Environmental
Programme for the Danube River Basin (EPDRB)1, created in 1992. The Project was a continuation of two
previous GEF projects (RER/91/G/31 and RER/95/G45) that assisted the EPDRB in building a framework for a
long-term solution of pollution problem in the Danube River.
During the first phase of the framework building, between 1992 and 1996, both the EPDRB and the GEF
assistance projects concentrated their efforts on such priorities as:
- Building regional cooperation for water management;
- Evaluating and defining environmental problems;
- Establishing a basin-wide water quality monitoring strategy; and
- Establishing a warning system for accidental pollution.
The first-phase GEF assistance projects contributed to:
- Strengthening of national and regional institutions;
- Increasing awareness that agriculture be integrated into environmental policies;
- Addressing human health issues related to cross-border (transboundary) pollution;
- Improving the knowledge base and exchange of information;
- Promoting investment;
- Supporting public participation;
- Developing the Danube Water Quality Model (DWQM); and
- Drafting the Strategic Action Plan (SAP).
The Project Document of September 1997, stated the objectives of the present project (Project Document [15],
11 and 12):
The overall long-term goal of the new GEF project is to stimulate sustainable, institutional and financial
arrangements for effective environmental management of the Danube River basin, in accordance with
the International Strategy of GEF Operational Strategy and the International Water Operational
Programme No 8.
The immediate goal of the Project was (ibid., 12): "... to prepare for funding pollution prevention and reduction
activities required to both restore Danube River basin and to protect the Black Sea environment." Four
intermediate objectives should help to achieve this goal:
1.
Complete the knowledge base for priority pollution loads and priority environmental issues in the
Danube River basin;
2.
Review policy for protection (especially nature protection) of the Danube basin and Black Sea;
3.
Increase public awareness and participation; and
4.
Develop financing of the pollution reduction programme under the Danube Strategic Action Plan.
1 The EPDRB aimed at establishing an operational basis for the integrated management of Danube River Basin
environment.
2
The Project's objectives were approved by senior officials of eleven Danube River basin countries (Bosnia-
Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, The Czech Republic, Hungary, Moldova, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia,
Ukraine, and The Federal Yugoslav Republic) who, in July 1996, attended the EPDRB Task Force and
International Commission meeting in Vienna.
The United Nations Development Programme and the GEF (UNDP/GEF) contributed $3.9 million to the Project.
The Danube basin countries provided national personnel, salaries and appropriate allowances, offices, and
training facilities.
The United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS) was designated as the Executing Agency.
The Project was to be implemented over a period of 16 months, beginning August 1997.
The Project fits well into the GEF priorities (the eight International Water Operational Programme and important
transboundary concerns), and UNDP area of concentration (environmental problems and natural resources
management). The Project Document clearly set out the problems that needed to be solved, and it correctly
outlined the Project execution strategy. The intended regional and national users were properly identified.
Capacity building within the countries was part of the Project design. The Project Document contained a clearly
laid out logical framework, stated the outputs in verifiable terms, and included a work plan.
In summary, the Project Document analysis shows that the Project fits into regional and national plans, and into
the GEF and UNDP areas of concentration. The objectives, outputs and activities are clear. The Project
Document contains an implementation plan and specifies adequate financial provisions. The beneficiaries are
correctly identified.
3
2
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
The present section assesses the Project's general implementation, its management, monitoring, and
backstopping, all with regard to the quality and timeliness of activities and outputs. The section contains, as well,
an evaluation of how adequately management arrangements were made. Finally, some light will be shed on what
environmental changes were brought on by the Project. The elements discussed in this section constitute the
rationale for the GEF support, particularly in the areas of regional cooperation, policy development, and public
participation.
2.1
General Implementation
The Project was scheduled to start its activities in August 1997. However, since the document was signed in
September 1997 and the personnel recruited in autumn 1997, the Project's implementation was delayed until
December of the same year. Most of the Project's 29 activities ended in May and early June, 1999 (Figure 1).
The Project was operational for 19 months instead of the 16 originally scheduled by the Project Document. It
completed almost all intended activities and delivered all important outputs. Four activities are yet to be
completed:
- The community-based projects will last until September;
- The Danube Internet network will be established by December;
- The ministerial conference to revise and probably adopt the Strategic Action Plan (SAP) is scheduled for the
end of this year; and
- The fund-raising conference will take place by the end of 1999 or the beginning of 2000.
The allocated budget covered adequately all Project expenses.
The Project management efficiently and dynamically mobilized the region's 13 countries (11 signatory countries
plus Austria and Germany). This task was arduous since the countries are at the beginning of their environmental
cooperation. Moreover, language barriers, economic differences, and open hostilities in one part of the region
sometimes hampered collaboration. Nevertheless, the skill and persistence of the Project team did mobilize the
countries toward closer and more effective collaboration.
4
Figure 1. Implementation of project activities
1997
1998 1999
Month
Activities
A S
O
N
D
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
O
N
D
J
F
M
A
M
J
J - D
Objective 1
1.1..1 Update 11 National Review
1.1.2 Prepare Bosnia-Herzegovina, FRY National Reviews
1.1.3 Define National Baselines
1.2.1 Prioritise Hot-spots
1.2.2 Extend Danube Water Quality Model
1.2.3 Asses Priority wetlands/floodplains
1.2.4 Prepare social analysis of Danube pollution
1.2.5 Prepare draft Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis
1.2.6 Hold technical conference on transboundary pollution
Objective 2
2.1.1 Prepare review of Strategic Action Plan
2.1.2 Hold Danube/black Sea Basin technical consultations
2.1.3 Hold Danube/black Sea Basin policy consultations
2.1.4 Prepare pollution reduction programmes
2.1.5 Integrate pollution reduction strategy into SAP
Objective 3
3.1.1 Launch public-awareness programme
3.1.2 Hold stakeholder discussions on transboundary pollution
3.1.3 Distribute 3 editions of `Danube Watch'
3.1.4 Support the Danube NGO Forum and national NGO meetings
3.1.5 Provide grants for community-based pollution reduction projects
3.2.1 Establish Danube internet network
3.2.2 Update and disseminate DANIS
Objective 4
4.1.1 Develop financing strategies for pollution reduction programmes
4.1.2 Prepare project documents for hot-spots
4.1.3 Prepare project documents for wetlands and floodplains projects
4.2.1 Assess feasibility of Danube Environmental Fund
4.2.2 Prepare legal basis, procedures, etc. for Danube fund(s)
4.3.1 Integrate project portfolio into SAP review
4.3.2 Adopt revised SAP at Ministerial Conference
4.3.3 Hold donor pledging conference/facilitate meeting
5
The ICPDR (International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River), was the Project's regional
counterpart. The Project closely collaborated with the ICPDR: all the Project staff, national collaborators, and
national experts regularly participated in the ICPDR meetings.
Overall, the Project was very well implemented on a regional level and in the countries themselves. While
experience from the previous regional projects helps, it is still quite a challenge to successfully complete a
Project of such a dimension in so short time. It all requires good managerial skill from the staff as well as
unwavering support from the Executing Agency.
2.2
Management, Monitoring, and Backstopping
The Project management was located in the UNDP Vienna Office and benefited from the Vienna Office
administrative support. According to the management, the Office support was helpful because it freed up the
Project from the every-day administrative work and allowed staff to focus on technical issues. The monitoring of
the Project's progress and the additional administrative support was in the hands of the UNOPS. The
UNDP/GEF Office in New York took care of technical back-stopping. All administrative supports, monitoring,
and technical back-stopping were judged by the Project management as not only sufficient but very helpful in
implementing Project activities.
2.3
Changes in the Project's Environment
The Project activities spanned a period of less than two years. This is a relatively short time for detecting any
noticeable changes of attitude on a national or regional scale. However, that period coincided with emerging of a
strong, general, political and ethical trend in the region, and a collective set of goals: improvement of the
environment, pollution reduction and Danube basin and Black Sea protection. The Project itself helped to
reinforce this trend, by organizing more than 35 meetings and workshops, and making the regional and
transboundary issues of Danube protection more specific and easier to visualize. Thanks to the Project, the most
important river polluters were identified [3] and the river's pollution become something more than just an
impersonal and vague problem.
The Project has benefited from this impetus as well. According to comments of country representatives the
mission met (see Annex II for a list), the national collaborators were enthusiastic about the Project and devoted
themselves to realizing their assigned tasks. The results were considered "essential" by the countries'
representatives.
In conclusion, the Project worked in a climate favorable to realization of its assignments. The presence of the
Project contributed even further to the creation, among the Danube basin countries, of positive attitudes towards
pollution reduction. The Project implementation fully justifies the GEF support.
6
3
PROJECT IMPACT
This section reviews the Project's achievements measured against its goals, outputs, and activities. It will be
arranged according to the following outline: (1) Complete priority-setting; (2) Review policy for nature
protection of the Danube Basin and Black Sea; (3) increase public awareness and participation; (4) Develop
financing for a pollution reduction programme within the Danube Strategic Action Plan.
3.1
Complete the Knowledge Base for the Priority-Settings
The Project Document allocated 42% of the Project's budget toward the completion of the knowledge base for
priority-settings.
To complete the knowledge base for the priority-settings, the Project should have updated national reviews, and
analyzed the national action plans. This should have been achieved by using a common format. The national
reviews should be completed with the transboundary diagnostic analysis.
3.1.1 Update National Reviews and Analyze National Actions Plans Using a Common Format
In 11 of the 13 Danube basin countries (all but Austria and Germany), the Project, effectively using national
expertise, organized and updated national reviews2. The national reviews teams received from the Project a
thorough training in data collection and reporting. As a result, the reviews were based on common sampling
methodology and common reporting procedures. Despite of this, the data included in the national reviews were
of unequal quality, due to the differences in laboratory capacity and national staff training among member
countries3.
The updated reviews focused on priority pollutants and on sectors that contributed to Danube pollution. The
reviews have helped the pollution impact analysis, and the cost analysis of pollution reduction projects.
3.1.2 Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis
The Project improved on an existing Danube Water Quality Model (DWQM), and used it to forecast the nitrogen
and phosphorus pollution of the Danube4. The Project also financed a study of wetlands and floodplain areas of
the river5. The results of national updated reviews, the model, and the studies were used for transboundary
analysis. As in the national reviews, the transboundary analysis, which represents for the moment the best global
image of pollution in the Danube basin, also suffered the burden of an uneven quality of data. It should be
mentioned, however, that this shortage could not have been corrected within the short life of the Project6.
The updated national reviews, the analysis of national plans and the transboundary SWQM are outstanding and
lasting achievements of the project. To fully exploit the potential created by the Project, the member countries
should well appropriate the model and agree on a timetable for input data improvement. To facilitate
assimilation by those who have benefited from the Project's achievements, the reports describing the DWQM,
transboundary analysis [4 and 20] and other main Project's reports [1, 3 to 8, 16, and 17] dealing with the
transboundary problems should be edited in such a way that the users can easily see the progress from the data
collecting to the fully developed transboundary diagnosic.
2 Annex V, 1.1.1; VI, 1.1.1, and 1.1.2; VII, 6.1.
3Annex VII, 6.1.
4 Annex V, 1.2.2; VI, 1.2.1, 1.2.2., and 1.2.3, page 3; and VIII, 6.2.
5 Annex V, 1.2.3; VI, 1.2.3, and 1.2.5, page 3; and VIII, 6.3.
6 Annex VII, 6.2, and 6.3.
7
3.2
Review Policy for Protection of the Danube Basin and the Black Sea
The policy review received 5% of the Project's budget. As in previous activities, the policy review was
organized entirely by national experts, in consultation with national authorities. The Project's regional experts
collated that information and integrated it into the main document, the updated Strategic Action Plan (SAP)7.
It should be noted that the national environment policy has some specific mandates. It is concerned with
achieving the most cost-effective pollution reduction; an equitable distribution of the pollution reduction burden;
and an acceptable and just distribution of charges for pollution emission. It attempts to enforce the policy at the
lowest cost. It takes into account the ethical, moral, and traditional issues. The national strategy (the actual
implementing of the policy) describes the standards set down and the incentives employed to achieve the policy.
The regional policy is distinct from the national one. The regional policy is a sum of sovereign national policies
that specifically concern the region. A regional organization or a regional project may reinforce the will of the
countries for adherence to a given regional treaty.
The analysis of the policy description contained in the SAP, as well as in the meeting records and technical
documents produced by the Project [1 and 16], shows that the country delegates are still at the initial stages of
defining regional policies with respect to the Danube basin and the Black Sea protection8.
It is important to analyze exhaustively the pollution reduction approaches when embarking upon the regional
pollution reduction project. Analyzing national and regional policies, national policy instruments, and possible
international pressures could best indicate to project management and to donors how to allocate regional
resources, and how to help countries stick to their regional agreements.
3.3
Increase Public Awareness and Participation
According to the Project Document [16, page 24], "Wide public participation in the Project is an essential
requirement for development of sustainable policies in Danube Basin." Through the activities and outputs
developed under the objective " increase public awareness and participation", the Project would have to
increase the importance of pollution reduction in the public's mind. It would also have to reinforce
public participation in designing of regional and national policies and to improve coordination and
exchange of information.
The Project invested about 23% of its budget to make this all possible.
3.3.1 Raise the Public Awareness of Pollution Reduction Activities
Early on, the Project saw that through training, workshops, discussions and consultations, it will set up ways for
the public to be involved, and it will raise public awareness. The public involvement activities were held with the
participation of technicians, national government administrators, public, and NGOs. The NGOs9, and one of
their regional bodies, the Danube Environmental Forum (DEF), become the Project's principal proponents in
raising public awareness. The Project efforts were well planned, well organized and worked well with the Project
Document programme. However, the tight schedule and the NGO's10 ineffectiveness in promoting the Project,
hampered public awareness campaigns.
The Project was also responsible for financing five community-based project grants that totaled $200,000. At
this point, it is yet to measure the impact the investment had on the awareness of Danube basin citizens.
7 Annex V, 2.1.1 to 2.1.5; VI. 2.1.1. to 2.1.5.
8 Annex VI, pages 5 to 11.
9 Annex V, 3.1.1 to 3.1.5; VI, 3.1.1 to 3.1.5; and VIII.
10 Annex V, 3.2.1 and 3.2.2; VI 3.2.1 and 3.2.2, page 14; and VIII.
8
3.3.2 Improve Coordination and Information Exchange
The Project financed three editions of a periodical called Danube Watch, devoted to Danube pollution
issues, and it plans to finance two more editions. The Project also developed and improved an
information web site, called DANIS (transformed into DANUBIS).
In a final analysis of section 3.3 we can observe that the weakness of DEF was a major obstacle in efficient
implementation of the public awareness programme. While weak, NGOs for now are convenient partners for
many UNDP projects, even though, they may not, in the context of Central European traditions, be the best
intermediaries for a project and a group of citizens. These countries' traditional institutions such as the church,
older universities, mainstream media, and high-profile individuals may be better at influencing public opinion.
The NGOs are still new on the scene, and their position may be looked upon in the public eye with some
trepidation. In consequence, replacing the NGOs with another structure may give better results in public
awareness raising.
A well targeted public awareness campaign is vital for any environmental programme. It helps decision makers
appraise the breadth and strength of public attitudes. It may provide information that otherwise would be
unavailable and also can generate a dialog for the project. Open debate is the first step to improving mutual
understanding, promoting compromise, enhancing credibility, and making better final decisions.
Increase in public awareness should be carefully monitored through the appropriate tools. Such monitoring can
demonstrate the changes in public opinion over environmental matters more objectively than the progress
reports. It may also help the Project evaluate how well the message is being transmitted and then adjust it's own
working programme, thus making it more efficient.
To sum up, the Project planned and launched a systematic and well organized set of activities aiming at raising
public awareness and public participation in designing environmental projects. The ultimate results of these
activities are not yet known in detail. Since raising public awareness has long been the GEF project's goal,
efforts in this area should be carefully evaluated before further investment takes places.
3.4
Develop the Financing of the Pollution Reduction Programme Within the Danube
Strategic Action Plan
The Project should have developed under this objective a portfolio of Danube Basin projects and proposed a
mechanism that could provide sustainable financial support for Danube Basin pollution reduction. It should also
finalize and come to an agreement on how to go about adopting a revised Strategic Action Plan.
3.4.1 Portfolio of Danube Basin Projects
The present Project developed a portfolio of 421 projects worth $5.5 billion, including documentation for
priority hotspots and wetland projects for investment consideration. The projects' costs were estimated according
to the best available information, and the degree of priority for the project was duly documented11. However,
since the countries' inputs differ in quality and precision, and the ongoing national research is adding new
information, the portfolio should therefore be periodically updated. The Project has prepared a database that will
easily integrate the updated information [9].
National experts and consultants gathered all the information needed to the portfolio preparation, and later, along
with interested industries and public, agreed on the portfolio project's priorities. The projects were then reviewed
on a governmental level before being put on a regional priority list. The portfolio results from a national effort
and represents what is probably an exhaustive list of Danube pollution priorities.
11 Annex V, 4.1.1 to 4.1.3; VI, 4.1.1 to 4.1.3; and IX
9
The portfolio deals, however, with only half of all pollutants in the area. The other half originate from the so
called "non point" pollution sources, such as agriculture or storm water that periodically flushes in from cities
and villages12. The Project is aware of these pollutants but did not (and could not, given its workload) develop a
strategy that takes into account these factors.
3.4.2 Mechanism for Sustainable Financial Support
The Project Document favored establishing a fund that would support priority investments for the whole Danube
Basin or Black Sea. The Project Document [15, pages 23, 29, and 33] required a feasibility study for such a fund
and demanded that the Project direction prepare structures and rules for this type of regional financing.
As a result of a feasibility study [9] and preliminary discussions with regional partners, the Project put forward
two proposals to ICPDR: (1) establishment of a Project Appraisal Group (PAG) that would assess the projects
and, if they conformed to the ICPDR standard, recommend them to donors; and (2) creation of a Project
Implementation Facility (PIF) that would support the ICPDR in several areas including regional investments
programmes that would assist member countries in both project preparation, and results monitoring. The
estimate cost of PIF for 3 to 4 years was US$ 2.3 million.
The ICPDR endorsed the PAG and PIF proposals and expects that PIF may be financed by UNDP/GEF.
Although the Project's proposal of establishing PAG and creating PIF is in line with the Project Document
requirements and the ICPDR programme, it should be noted that it is not known as to what extent donors and the
financing institutions will use the PAG and PIF facilities in selecting projects for financing. On the other hand,
it cannot be taken for granted that the governments will address their financing requests through the ICPDR.
Without the donor's support of PAG and PIF and the governmental recognition of them, both facilities may
remain simply an administrative entity.
3.4.3 Adopting a Revised SAP
The revised SAP and the list of priority projects were discussed at a regional workshop in May, 1999 and
presented in the ICPDR Steering Group in June. It will be proposed for adoption in a conference of the involved
technical ministries, scheduled for either the end of this year or the beginning of next13.
The portfolio of the Danube basin pollution reduction investments, the proposal of implementation of PAG and
PIF, the SAP revision process are the Project's outstanding achievements.
3.5
Project Effectiveness in Realizing Its Objectives
The Project was effective in identifying national pollution sources and in preparing proposals for pollution
reduction14. It appropriately implicated the national expertise and the national administration in all steps of the
Project objectives realization. The results of these efforts, achieved in such a tight schedule, requires,
nevertheless, further improvements. The accuracy of the DWQM should be increased15. National policies, as
well as strategies for national policy implementation and regional approaches to pollution reduction need yet to
be described and analyzed16. The effectiveness of the public awareness campaigns is impossible to assess at this
12 Annex VI, 1.2.2.
13 Annex V, 4.3.2 and 4.3.3; and VI, 4.3.2 and 4.3.3.
14 Annex VII, 6.9.
15 Annex VII, 6.2 and 6.3.
16 Annex VI, 2.
10
point, since the campaigns' impact has not yet been evaluated17. The written documents produced by the Project
that transmit the results would have better served the interested users if they unequivocally stated their objectives
and working hypothesis. It would also have been helpful if within these documents the conclusions were clearly
stated and supported by evidence.
3.5.1 Project's Actions and Results in Light of Existing GEF Guidelines
The Project's actions were in line with GEF priorities. The pollution reduction projects portfolio is definitely
the most outstanding achievement and it represents a great step forward in identification of pollution reduction
activities18. Another great success of the Project is the fact that high levels of government have endorsed the
SAP19. The use of the DWQM and all efforts at attaining reliable data production may provide an excellent tool
to transboundary pollution monitoring. Finally, the Project's efforts to assume financing for priority pollution
reduction investments20 is one more example of successful GEF programme activity. Still, the SAP will require
further improvements, especially in the baseline calculation21. (The GEF considers the well-defined baselines as
a key element of the SAP.) Realizing these improvements is in fact independent of the project since it requires
better data inputs from the countries. The GEF requires, as well, that the SAP contains an examination of
national economic development plans and sector economic policies. This will better define feasible
environmental plans. The sections of the SAP dealing with these issues are not yet completed.
3.6
Sustainability of the Programme
The Project's main results point to a continued sustainability.
The Project's results benefit the national ministries responsible for Danube pollution, the national industries and
the Danube basin countries' people. It bodes well that these countries feel a strong motivation to clean up their
environment and that the pressure for a clean environment is growing. The Project results, especially the register
of hot-spots and priority pollution reduction projects, should make for a lasting contribution to Danube pollution
reduction.
On a regional level, sustainability of the Project's results and, to a larger extend, the Danube River Protection
Programme, was boosted recently after the signing of the DRPC Convention by 12 Danube Basin countries (all
except Yugoslavia) and its ratification by 11 (all except Ukraine and Yugoslavia).
17 Annex VI, 3.
18 Annex VI, 1.1 and 1.2; and VII.
19 Annex VI, 4.2; and IX.
20 Annex VI, 4.1 and 4.2; and VII.
21 For the standards description see WWW site gefweb.org/public/opstrat/ch4.htm, pages 6 to 8.
11
4
GENERAL IMPACT OF THE PROJECT
This section will look at the Project's general impact on the countries involved and on the international
organizations. This evaluation is based on eight criteria: (1) Awareness of the Project's outputs by the
participating countries; (2) Degree of ownership and commitment felt by the participating countries towards the
Project; (3) The extent to which policy and strategies of the countries are affected; (4) Technical and managerial
cooperation among the countries; (5) Cooperation within agencies and ministries of each country; (6)
Cooperation among international organizations; (7) Cooperation among the different sectors, specifically the
non-governmental and private sectors; (8) The Project's long term sustainability.
4.1
Awareness Among Participating Countries of the Project's Outputs
The Project systematically built up an awareness campaign of its activities and outputs. The national workshops
received attention in the media; the Project has trained national teams and working groups of citizens and
institutions concerned with identifying pollution problems. Three issues of the periodical "Danube Watch" were
devoted to information on Project activities and their outputs. Two additional issues will cover the SAP and the
projects included in Pollution Reduction Programme (PRP) [4]. All of the Project's results can be seen by going
to the DANUBIS web site.
The Project's achievements were highly praised by the ICPDR Steering Group meeting in June 1999. Especially
appreciated and recognized were the various methods used: participatory planning, logical approach, and
consultative and iterative planning process.
The Project's high profile and its usefulness served the UNDP/GEF well. In June 1999, the ICPDR Steering
Group expressed its appreciation and gratitude for UNDP/GEF's support, conceptual guidance, and coordination
in fulfilling the Danube pollution reduction programme.
Finally, encouraged by such a constructive collaboration, the Steering Group invited GEF to build a partnership
to help implement the PRP.
It should be noted, however, that there was no independent assessment on how the Project was perceived nor
was there a study to gauge awareness of the Project's output among the citizens in Danube region countries.
4.2
Degree of Ownership and Commitment of the Project Among Participating Countries
The countries participated in all the Project's efforts that had been scheduled in he Project Document. All the
information the Project needed to design regional programmes was collected by national teams, lead by ministry-
designed experts. The Project team itself provided the national teams with data collection methodologies and
funds for implementation. It may be presumed than, that the data collected, the working methodology, and
regional cooperation are all lasting legacies of the Project owned now by the countries' Ministries of
Environment or Water. On a regional level, the Project had been working in close collaboration and frequently
consulting with ICPDR. The ICPDR appreciated the outputs from the Project and is seriously looking at their
implementation.
The fact that both the countries' technical ministries and the ICPDR own the Project should not raise any
concerns. Nevertheless, the endorsement by other ministries and governments of the Project proposals,
especially those concerning pollution reduction investments, pollution limitations, and wetland restoration
cannot be seen as a fait accompli. Judging by the documents available in the Project files, this endorsement is yet
to be a reality. The respective governments will most likely endorse the proposals once they have added their
own studies. Several elements will probably need to be completed before the pollution reduction investment are
made: a more detailed financial analysis, alternative considerations, impact studies, and some type of public
opinion study. In the government's eyes, the Project proposals included in the PRP may be perceived, not as
final products ready to be financed, but as reliable indicators of important pollution problems.
12
4.3
Impact on National Policies and Strategies
The documents produced by the Project devote too small a space to political and strategic considerations. Since
policy is very important in designing sustainable and publicly acceptable projects, a wide and detailed approach
for policy issues clarification needs to be developed in the future.
The Project's positive impact on country policies probably results from having the pollution issues better
documented than in any other previous analyses. Showing the Danube pollution in all its severity provides solid
arguments for the environmental lobby.
4.4
Technical and Managerial Cooperation Among Countries
There was good technical cooperation among countries, particularly reinforced through joint efforts in
identifying pollution problems. Cooperation among countries is necessary for the purpose of reducing
transboundary pollution; the donor's funding being subject to regional scrutiny. Managerial cooperation also
stood out as it increased the skills of the various national experts. Much was garnered, as well, in the area of
project development, and institutional and private donor relations.
4.5
Interagency and Inter Ministerial Cooperation
The Project-financed workshops were attended by representatives of various ministries and national agencies.
However, it is not currently known as to what extent this participation will be responsible in furthering
cooperation.
4.6
Cooperation among International Organizations
The Project cooperated closely and successfully with the key international organizations involved in the regional
Danube River pollution reduction programme: Phare, GEF, Danube Task Force (became PTF), and ICPBS. The
cooperation bore positive results through joint meetings and mutual (and alternative) financing of meetings and
activities.
4.7
Cooperation Among all Sectors, Including Non-Governmental and Private Sectors
The Project management paid close attention to strengthening cooperation among the various sectors: the
government decision makers, the governmental administrative delegates, and the private sector representatives.
For this purpose the Project organized numerous meetings and workshops attended by them. However, no study
has been done on the collaboration's impact on pollution reduction practices among Danube basin countries.
4.8
Long-Term Sustainability of the Project Impact
The Project's activities and outputs affected many institutions and organizations. Their long-term effects will
vary depending on the lasting impressions and continued interests of the recipients. It is too early to assess the
sustainability of the Project, however, the available information, namely the meetings with the countries'
delegates, gives us a sense there has been an increase in the awareness of pollution reduction necessity in the
Danube.
13
5
CONCLUSIONS
The conclusions will be grouped under four headings: general conclusions stemming from an overall evaluation
of the Project; conclusions related to the Project design; conclusions related to assessment of the Project's
general implementation in terms of human and financial resources; and finally, a review of the Project's results
measured against its initial objectives and actions.
5.1
General Conclusions
The Project was designed as a UNDP/GEF contribution for reducing pollution in the Danube River Basin and for
eventually lessening pollution in the Black Sea. The Project's specific mandate was to have a strong effect on
transboundary pollution. It was, therefore, part of the ICPDR (a regional organization mandated to co-ordinate
the national programmes in Danube pollution reduction) effort. All Danube basin countries were involved in the
Project's activities. The immediate goal, as described in the Project Document, was to: "prepare for funding
pollution prevention and reduction activities required to both restore the Danube River basin and to protect the
Black Sea." To reach this goal, the Project had to put together a list of the main sources of pollution, review
countries' Danube basin protection policies, increase public awareness and participation, and develop financing
for pollution reduction programmes.
Overall achievement. The Project identified 421 of the most important pollution reduction investments and
ranked them according to the amount of pollution that each respective investment could reduce. Collectively,
these projects encompass all of the main sources of pollution in the basin. The Project evaluated their costs
according to the best available knowledge and prepared the project documents. The Project management should
be praised for this achievement that directly and successfully addressed the principal goal of the Project.
Sustainability. The pollution reduction projects were brought to fore by the efforts of several groups of
participants. National experts, administrative agents, national industry representatives, NGOs and members of
the private sector all contributed to execute the Project. In each country, national teams prepared lists of
pollution sources, evaluated their importance, and incorporated them into their national environmental plans. As
a result, the Project's effort will likely be continued well after its end. Moreover, the method used to gather data,
as well as the regional standardization of the collection procedure, contributed to a growth of national capacity
in environmental management and reinforcement of regional cooperation.
Data quality improvement. The pollution reduction projects were identified over a very short period of time,
encompassing 11 countries with varying economic levels and environmental standards. Consequently, the
collected data contain numerous inaccuracies and approximations. To overcome these limitations, the Project
developed a database to allow for more accurate diagnoses of pollution sources, as well as more precise cost
evaluation.
Limitations. These vital achievements, completed in less than one year (excluding training and final data
elaboration), was done at the expense of other Project's goals. As a result, the global image of Danube basin
pollution strategy is strongly biased towards point pollutants. The diffuse sources that contribute to more than
half of all pollution are not in the Project's priority list.
ICPDR, UNDP, and DEF concerns. The ICPDR, a regional organization that voices the need for transboundary
pollution reduction in the Danube River basin, was the principal beneficiary of the Project. Many of the Project's
activities coincided with the technical objectives of the ICPDR. The most important was the improvement of the
outdated SAP, originally prepared in 1994. The UNDP/GEF was interested in the formulation of pollution
reduction activities, so as to sort out national and regional (transboundary) costs and benefits. The endorsement
of the SAP at high levels of government was equally important for the UNDP/GEF.
14
The Project drafted a new version of the SAP. The road to improvement of the SAP involved a series of
consultations with the national teams and discussions in the technical meetings of the ICPDR. The new SAP
was finally adopted at a recent ICPDR meeting in June, 1999. The next step is for the ICPDR to present the SAP
to the concerned ministries at the meeting of the Danube basin member countries at the end of this year.
The Project Document insisted that the Project management develop financing for a pollution reduction
programme. The realization of this objective was an arduous task, since the Project management is not an ideal
intermediary for national and international financing institutions, nor for donors. The Project, however,
developed an original financing proposal. It was accepted by the ICPDR and will probably be accepted in the
future when the ministries of the member countries meet.
Technology transfer. The Project has satisfied an important UNDP requirement concerning technology transfer
and training of national agents. The Project management adequately adopted a standard for the training of
national personnel who collect and analyze pollution data. All subsequent steps regarding the treatment of
information and the elaboration of result were discussed in international and national workshops. The timeliness
of this realization as it relates to national activities attests to the effectiveness of the expertise and the transfer of
responsibility from the Project to the national teams.
Link with the past two GEF projects. Before the implementation of the Project, there were two other GEF
projects that aimed over six years to improve water pollution in the Danube basin and assist the ICPDR. They
helped to prepare the first SAP, as well as develop the DWQM model, gather a list of hot spots, finance public
awareness campaigns, edit the Danube Watch, and distribute small grants for pollution reduction programmes.
Yet, the documentation of the present Project make no references to past achievements. It is unclear as to what
extent the present Project made use of them and what lessons it learned from the past projects.
5.2
Relevance of the Project Design
The Project was a continuation of two previous GEF projects that assisted EPDRB in searching for a long-term
solution to the pollution problem in the Danube basin. All three projects concentrated their efforts on building
regional cooperation, evaluating and identifying pollution problems, establishing and developing basin-wide
pollution monitoring, supporting public participation and developing SAP.
The Project Document adequately covered the most important regional pollution reduction issues, namely:
Completing the knowledge base for priority pollution loads and priority environmental issues in the Danube
River basin;
- Reviewing policy for protection (especially natural habitat protection) of the Danube Basin and Black Sea;
- Increasing public awareness and participation;
- Developing the financing for a pollution reduction programme under the Danube Strategic Action Plan.
All these issues are relevant to the GEF priorities, and UNDP area of concentration.
All initial objectives were achieved. Some of them, however, still require more action. The next step in the
regional cooperation, therefore, should be to assure the full realization of those partially attained objectives, and
attainment of new goals that will emerge. These goals are outlined in more detail under Section 6:
Recommendations.
15
5.3
Human and Financial Resources Use and Backstopping
In practice, the Project completed all its intended activities. This was realized thanks to efficiency and dynamism
of the Project management, and strong motivation of the national teams. The UNDO Vienna Office
administration support, the administrative backstopping from the UNOPS, and the technical support from the
GEF all contributed to the Project's success. The Project funding adequately covered all activities.
Though the Project realized all its activities, the quality of the results was unequal. The next section will review
those results.
5.4
Project Results
The Project's main objective was to stimulate sustainable, institutional and financial arrangements for effective
management of the Danube River basin, in accordance with the International Water Strategy of GEF Operational
Strategy and the International Water Operational Programme No 8.
The immediate goal of the Project was to prepare for funding pollution prevention and reduction activities
required to both restore the Danube River basin and to protect the Black Sea environment.
This goal was composed of four objectives:
- Complete the knowledge base for priority pollution loads and priority environmental issues in the Danube
River basin;
- Review policy for protection (especially nature protection) of the Danube basin and Black Sea;
- Increase public awareness and participation;
- Develop the financing of the pollution reduction programme under the Danube Strategic Action Plan.
In this section we will review the degree of achievement of each of the four specific objectives. Then, we will
assess how well the Project contributed to the immediate goal, and finally, look at the long-term goal of the
Project.
Complete the Knowledge Base for Priority Pollution Loads and Priority Environmental Issues in the Danube
River Basin
The Project completed the knowledge base for priority pollution loads and priority environmental issues by
updating the national reviews. The updated reviews provide the best available set of data needed for both
pollution impact and cost analysis of pollution reduction projects. The Project improved the DWQM and
produced transboundary analysis, evaluated wetland and floodplain restoration, and analyzed the social impact
of pollution. The national reviews differ in quality due to the differences among the countries in data collection
standards and laboratory facilities. They focused strongly on pollutant concentration. Pollutant load was seldom
mentioned.
On the downside, their analysis and conclusions carry the burden of insufficient data on which they had been
build. Globally, however, the updated national reviews, and the very specific and detailed national action plans
that resulted from this activity are outstanding and will remain lasting achievements of the Project.
Review Policy for Protection (Especially Nature Protection) of the Danube Basin and Black Sea
The proceedings from the ICPDR and ICPBS meetings and the analyses of the Project's reports show that the
country's delegates are at the initial stages of defining the environmental policy concept. The 1999 updated SAP
describes in details the point pollution reduction projects and evaluates theirs costs. It does not describe and
analyze adequately the national policies and strategies.
16
Increase Public Awareness and Participation
The Project has planned and realized a systematic and well-organized set of activities that aimed at raising public
awareness and eliciting participation when designing environmental projects. Since raising public awareness has
long been the GEF Danube basin projects' goal, efforts in this area should be carefully evaluated before any new
public awareness activities are launched. Since they are so strongly tied to the NGOs, and in particular to the
DEF, the awareness programme needs these institutions to stay cohesive.
Develop the Financing of the Pollution Reduction Programme Under the Danube Stratgic Action Plan
Development of the pollution reduction programme and its financing proposals was completed by:
- A portfolio of 421 projects evaluated at $5.5 billion ranked according to investment cost effectiveness;
- Proposal of funding for regional activities;
- Revision of the Strategic Action Plan so as to include the newly identified projects.
The entire responsibility for realizing objectives was in the hands of national experts and was based on national
consultations. Unfortunately, that means, the results reflect national preoccupations and priorities. Even the data
quality weaknesses have important political and technical significance. They force one to realize where
improvements need to be made and will hopefully motivate the countries to attain similar technical standards.
The immediate goal: prepare for funding pollution prevention and reduction activities
The Project prepared, as it was requested by the Project Document, a list of prioritized pollution reduction
projects for co-financing by national and international sources.
The Project proposed to the ICPDR the establishment of a PAG to appraise newly submitted projects, and the
creation of a PIF to support the regional investment programmes. The ICPDR endorsed the PAG and PIF
proposals.
Overall Long-Term Goal: Stimulate Sustainable, Institutional, and Financial Arrangements for Effective
Environmental Management of the Danube River Basin
The Project activities helped to stimulate sustainable, institutional and financial arrangements. The Project
implicated fully the national ministry-designed experts, and trained them in data collection, environmental
assessment, and regional cooperation. These specialists probably will remain important agents, voicing the idea
of regional co-operation among national administrations. On the regional level, the Project has been working in
close collaboration with the ICPDR, who become a custodian of all three past UNDP/GEF projects. The role of
the ICPDR will be reinforced as well by the expected national project support through PAG and PIF. Both the
national administrations and the regional ICPDR will be significantly strengthened as a result of the Project
activities.
17
6
RECOMMENDATIONS
Now that project is complete, further actions need to be taken to sustain the Project's results in the region. These
actions, along the lines of GEF goals, will concentrate on two areas: actions to be taken to increase the impact of
the Project results, and suggestions for future regional efforts to reduce pollution in the Danube River basin.
6.1
Actions to be Taken to Increase the Impact of the Current Project
All three UNDP/GEF projects that helped develop pollution reduction in the Danube have left a very important
legacy on the countries of the region, the ICPDR and the GEF. There is now abundant technical documentation,
increased national capacities, and strengthened regional cooperation, as a result of these undertakings. The value
of this legacy, once the Project ceases its activities, is less certain. Soon, the technical reports, which have been
widely distributed, will no longer be available. The trained national personnel will probably be assigned to other
tasks. The institutions involved in the Project's programme will implement other projects. It is therefore
important to reflect on and learn from the Project's achievements, and widely distribute conclusions based on
this reflection. This Project should be given a special consideration upon its completion because the regional
cooperation in the Danube basin is more advanced than other GEF-sponsored river basin collaborations. More
importantly, there is a strong expectation from the Danube basin countries and the regionally-based ICPDR, that
the GEF assistance will continue. The evaluation mission supports these expectations.
The mission recommends to the Project and UNDP/GEF
1.1 In order to increase the Project's impact, the Project management and UNDP/GEF finance a critical
review of the Project's achievements. They may also finance an evaluation of each country's progress in
water pollution reduction, including public participation and policy issues as they were outlined in the
previous Project Documents. Such a review should be organized and terminated before the Project's next
phase of financing. The critical review should be professionally edited, published, and widely distributed.
The Project plans to publish two editions of the Danube Watch and to post the Project findings in the DANUBIS
web site. The mission supports these initiatives and recommends to the Project to
1.2 Edit the existing technical materials according to the UNDP standards; pay close attention to rhetoric
(clarity, organization, consistent and critical argumentation), and to the internal coherence of the
documents.
Finally, the Project itself did not yet evaluated its achievements with respect to the Project Document
requirements. This evaluation would have dealt with the GEF guidelines, UNOPS management services, the
ICPDR support, regional cooperation, national collaboration, and the countries' expectations. Such an evaluation
may be valuable for the Project's successors because it offers up the Project's results. The mission recommends
to the Project
1.3 Include, in the final report, an exhaustive and critical evaluation of its achievements and difficulties.
The ICPDR is the regional organization that will benefit directly from the Project outputs. Therefore, the ICPDR
should take steps necessary to safeguard the produced documents, databases, and models. The ICPDR should
also take all steps needed to assure transfer of outputs and technologies from the Project to the beneficiary
countries. The ICPDR should also ensure the necessary arrangements for regularly updating the database,
running the models, and actualizing the financial and technical parameters of the priority projects. To this effect,
the ICPDR should
1.4 Collect and disseminate information produced by the Project and national teams; organize training and
demonstrations; transfer to countries the Project's knowledge and technologies including DWQM;
standardize data collection methods and analytical procedures; continue to edit and distribute the Danube
Watch; and update regularly the DANUBIS web site.
18
6.2
Implementation of the Future Regional Assistance to Water Pollution Reduction in the
Danube River Bassin
The Project Document has covered a vast spectrum of activities, however, they did not bring out all important
issues for regional water pollution reduction. The mission recommends that, in addition to the actions outlined
in the Project Document, a future Danube project pay attention to the following issues:
Supply management: The easily foreseeable rapid economic growth of the region will increase demand for
water. This increasing demand may create both national and transboundary environmental problems, which, in
turn, will affect regional assistance.
2.1
The regional organization and the regional assistance projects should develop consistent criteria for
evaluating and monitoring water development investments. These criteria should take into account all
direct and indirect costs, potential risks, and impacts.
Municipal and industrial programmess: The demographic forecasts suggest that the countries' respective
populations will remain stagnant. However, an increase in living standard will stimulate municipal growth.
Industrial development will increase the use of water and thus raising risks of increased water pollution. The
regional projects, in collaboration with national authorities, should determine the most effective methods of
constructing wastewater and stormwater facilities for towns and industry, and stimulate efforts to reduce
industrial pollution through ecologically sound technologies.
2.2
Efforts to control pollution should be monitored for both their site specificity and adherence to water
basin requirements.
Agricultural practices: Agricultural practices are a major source of a very difficult to control diffuse pollution.
Preventing this type of pollution requires the mass application of sound agricultural practices.
2.3
The regional projects should help countries to identify, test and disseminate sound agricultural practices,
and support national awareness campaigns.
Safety of abandoned industry and mine wastes: The waste which accumulated during the past industrial
development periods and was abandoned after the closing of obsolete industry, is another source of diffuse
pollution.
2.4
The regional project should investigate this problem and help countries to find funding in order to ensure
the environmental safety of this waste.
Toxic persistent contaminants: Toxic wastes should be strictly controlled throughout their entire chemical life
from their release into the environment to their safe decomposition.
2.5
The regional project should promote coordination among the affected countries to research the best
control measures and an appropriate control policy.
Atmospheric pollution: Water quality is indirectly influenced by atmospheric pollutants such as sulfur dioxide
and nitrogen oxide. Atmospheric pollutants are essentially transboundary.
2.6
The regional project can collaborate with other regional organizations involved in the monitoring and
control of air pollution. It should support national efforts towards reducing atmospheric pollution.
Additionally, the following three aspects of regional cooperation should be included in a planned regional
project.
Project as a regional policy instrument: Regional cooperation is always voluntary. The countries should feel
economically or ethically motivated to adhere to regional treaties and standards. The regional projects, in
collaboration with the regional organizations, may selectively invest their resources according to regional
interest.
19
2.7
The mandate of the regional project may be to support regional and international organizations that are
attempting to apply the regional policy tools. This support may cover areas such as evaluation national
projects priorities from the regional point of view (according to GEF standards), establishing of baseline
and incremental costs, and investment help for a country complying with the regional standard.
Integrate technical, economic, political, and social dimensions: The regional projects have a unique opportunity
to integrate all three of these dimensions. The projects can gather technical data from several countries, collate
them, make statistics, prepare comparisons and spread information over the region. Most traditional regional
projects are satisfied to simply deal with a regional version of a current national technical problem. More
complex data gathering and more sophisticated analytical processing are required for successfully completing
environmental projects. Environmental degradation is a visible and measurable consequence of human behavior.
An investment that improves one environmental sector may have ramifications in several aspects of human life.
It may well become a welcome political issue but could also be seen as a new unwanted expense for the citizens.
The regional projects may help countries to comply to the regional decisions and have them consider the
technical, economic, political, and social ramifications.
2.8
The regional projects should adopt a holistic approach and take in a list of their activities: data collection
and dissemination, training and demonstrations, research, norms and legislation standardization, and
public participation and promotion. All of these would be seen in the broad sense of supply and demand
for water, and of a country's macroeconomic policy.
Finally, a country may expect that its contribution to a regional effort will be in proportion to its benefit. The
regional projects and regional organizations should manage their resources in such a way that the global regional
effort under their management has greater value than the sum of national efforts, and that the all participating
countries benefit from the cooperation. Therefore it is recommended that
2.9
The regional project prepare periodically a balance of regional expenses and gains, and informs the
countries about advantages of adhering to a specific cooperation programme. This balance will help the
project and its regional counterpart to mobilize national efforts for a particular programme, and to decide
on the amount a country may be willing to contribute to the regional effort.
20
7
LESSONS LEARNED
The Project experience offers constructive lessons for the UNDP in areas such as human development, capacity
building, and an improved understanding of transboundary pollution.
Human development. The sustainability of environmental projects depends on how much the public has learned
about the environmental impact, and how much the attitude of beneficiaries towards environment has changed.
Increasing the public's knowledge is a relatively easy task compared to changing the attitudes of beneficiaries.
Increasing knowledge or raising public awareness can be achieved through training sessions, documents
distribution or media implication. Changing attitudes, on the other hand, is very hard. The rate of message
adoption and behavioral change depend on the intrinsic value of the message, on the transmission medium, on
the past experience of the subjects, and on their expectations. A systematic evaluation of the message adoption
rate should be included in the environmental projects. This evaluation may help in selecting the best tools and
media to transmit the message.
Capacity building. Capacity increase among the project beneficiaries depends strongly on their personal
involvement in the project and on how attractive the project's activities appear to them. One may expect a strong
personal involvement in an activity that, for example, helps a person solve a similar problem in the future. For
example, the Project trained hundreds of national technicians in data collection and report preparation. They
have brought the acquired skills to the national levels. Virtually all information was collected nationally within
the national services, using local human resources. These individuals probably still contribute to increased
professionalism on the national environmental arena. It would be interesting to the UNDP and GEF to evaluate
the impact of these agents on national and regional environmental activities.
Understanding transboundary pollution. Completing the Project's activities advanced the national concerns about
the basin-wide water pollution reduction problem. The increase in transboundary pollution understanding will
become a lasting record since the Project transformed an abstract concept of a transboundary pollution into a
neat package of identified problems. The identified polluting agents have a clear and measurable consequence of
pollution. The Project strengthened, as well, personal collaboration among the high-ranking officials of the
various ministries. It is, therefore, possible to put a human face on an anonymous governmental decision. Putting
a recognizable features onto the vague problem of transboundary water pollution, the Project made this issue
more comprehensive than any before in the history of such regional collaboration.
21
ANNEX I
ANNEX I
TERMS OF REFERENCE
Objective and Scope of the Evaluation Mission
1.
Purpose
This is a final evaluation of the project: it will consider the impact, effectiveness and efficiency of the project.
Consider contribution of project towards capacity development, long-term sustainability and direction for the
future.
2.
Scope
The evaluation is an activity in the project cycle which attempts to determine as systematically and objectively
as possible the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability of the project. The evaluation will
assess the achievements of the project against its objectives, including re-examination of the relevance of the
objectives and the project design. It will also identify factors that have facilitated or impeded the achievement of
the objectives. While a thorough review of the past is in itself very important, the in-depth evaluation is expected
to lead to detailed recommendations and lessons learned for the future.
In particular the evaluation will address the following issues considering the participation of all countries
covered by the project:
2.1
Project Design
a.
Review and assess the appropriateness of the project's concept and design to the overall situation in the
Danube River Basin (DRB)
b.
Apprise the project's current effectiveness in realizing the four objectives, and the extend to which they
contribute to the overall development objective as announced in the project document
c.
Apprize the project's actions and outcomes in the light of the pertaining GEF guidelines
d.
Assess sustainability of the programme
2.2
Project Implementation
The mission will review:
a.
Assess the general implementation and management of the project in terms of quality and timeliness of
inputs and activities, with particular reference to financial and human resources management
b.
Evaluate the adequacy of management arrangements as well as monitoring and backstopping support
given to the project by all parties concerned
c.
Evaluate changes in the environment in which the project operates and which constituted the rationale
for GEF support, particularly in the areas of: regional cooperation, policy development, and public
participation.
22
ANNEX I
2.3
Project Impact
The mission shall review the achievements if the project against the announces objectives, outputs and activities
as detailed in the project document and summarized below:
I.
Complete the knowledge base for priority-settings
i.
Update national reviews and analyze national actions plans using a common format
ii.
Complete the transboundary diagnostic analysis
II.
Review policy for protection of the Danube Basin and the Black Sea
iii.
Promote pollution prevention and reduction policy freview
III.
Increase public awareness and participation
iv.
Raise public awareness about pollution reduction activities
v.
Improve coordination and information exchange
IV.
Develop the financing of the pollution reduction programme within the Danube Strategic Action Plan
i.
Develop portfolio of Danube basin projects
ii.
Mechanisms to provide sustainable financial support for the Danube River Basin
iii.
Finalize and agree on the process for adopting a revised SAP
In addition, the evaluation will consider the general impact of the project in terms of the following criteria:
-
awareness of the participating countries about the project's outputs;
-
level of ownership and commitment of the participating countries towards the project;
-
impacts on the policy and strategies of the countries;
-
technical and managerial cooperation among the participating countries;
-
interagency/interministerial cooperation in each country;
-
cooperation among sectors, including the non-government and private sectors;
-
sustainability of project impact.
3.
Method
The evaluation will be composed of two activities: studying documents and interviews of individuals who are
either involved in the project, or who have or might be expected to have impacted by the project.
Although the mission should feel free to discuss with the authorities concerned all matters relevant to
its assignment, it is not authorized to make any commitment on behalf of UNOPS, UNDP or GEF.
4.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Based on the above the mission shall:
a.
Write up its conclusions of the visit
b.
Address the relevance of the project design in view of the current situation of the Danube countries and
the priorities within the donor community, particularly UNDP, the World Bank, and GEF
c.
Assess the general project implementation in terms of use of human and financial resources, and
backstopping services provided
d.
Review in detail the project results against announced project objectives and actions
e.
Advice on the suitability of further actions in the region upon completion of the current project within
the overall objective of GEF.
23
ANNEX II
ANNEX II
MISSION CALENDAR
June 1999
7
New York. Meeting with Mr. R. Aertgeerts, UNOPS and Mr. A. Hudson UNDP/GEF
9
Vienna, meeting with the UNDP/GEF Project Management.
10
Vienna, meetings with the Project Management and documentary study.
11
Vienna, meetings with the Project Management and documentary study.
12
Vienna, participation in ICPDR meeting.
13
Vienna, mission internal meetings.
14
Vienna, meetings with the Project Management, FGG, mission internal meeting, documentary study.
15
Vienna, meetings with the Project Management, EU Phare, and documentary study; Budapest, meeting
in REC.
16
Vienna, meetings with the Project Management, ICPDR, WWF, EU Phare, and documentary study.
17
Vienna, meetings with the Project Management and documentary study; Frankfurt, meeting in KfW;
Munich, meeting in DEF.
18
Vienna, meetings with the Project Management and documentary study; Delft, meeting in Delft
Hydraulics.
21
New York, meeting in UNOPS and UNDP/GEF.
1
ANNEX III
ANNEX III
LIST OF PERSONS MET
AERTGEERTS, Roger
Senior Project Manager, Division for Environmental Projects, UNOPS,
New York
AKHTAR, Tehmina
GEF Regional Coordinator, RBEC UNDP, New York
BEDRICH, Milan
Povodi Moravy, Brno
BENDOW, Joachim
Project Manager UNDP/GEF RER/96/G31, Vienna
BOSNJAKOVIC, Branko
Regional Adviser on Environment, Economic Commission for Europe,
Geneva
BOTTERWEG,
Teun
Team Leader Danube Programme Coordination Unit, European
Commission Phare, and Tacis Environmental Actions, Vienna
FABIANOVA, Marcela
UNDP/ GEF RER/96/G31, Vienna
FLECKSEDER, Hellmut
Technical and Scientific Director, ICPDR, Vienna
GARNER, Andy Environmental Engineer UNDP/ GEF RER/96/G31, Vienna
GILS van, Jos Modeling Expert, Delft Hydraulics, Delft
HANTSCH-LINHART, Wilhelm
Infrastructure Financing Specialist, FGG Vienna
HUDSON, Andrew
International Waters Principal Technical Adviser, UNDP/GEF, New
York
JAKSIC, Borislav Water Management Institute, Banja-Luka
KITTINGER, Wilhelm
Former President, ICPDR, Vienna
LATIF, Mohammad, A.
USAID, Washington
LOTTMANN, Jürgen, H.
Chief of the Environment and Public Health Division, KfW, Frankfurt
LUKSIC, Mojca
State Water Directorate, Zagreb
MARA, Liliana
Ministry of Water, Forest and Environmental Protection, Bucharest
MARGRAF, Christine
DEF, Munich
MATUSKA, Milan
Ministry of Environment, Bratislava
NATCHKOV, Ilya
Deputy Team Leader, Team Leader Danube Programme Coordination
Unit, European Commission Phare, and Tacis Environmental Actions,
Vienna
PINGULI, Entela
REC, Budapest
POPESCU, Liviu
ICIM Research and Engineering Institute of Environment, Bucharest
SCHUETZ-MUELLER, Ingolf
Chief, Division for Environmental Projects, UNOPS, New York
SCHULZE-VORNHAGEN, Dieter
Senior Project Manager, Promotional Banks, KfW, Frankfurt
STALZER, Wolfgang
President, ICPDR, Vienna
THOMPSON, Stuart
Office of High Representative Bosnia and Herzegovina, Sarajevo
WANNIGER, Reinhard
Financial Consultant, Vienna
WARMUTH, Heike
UNDP/ GEF RER/96/G31, Vienna
WELLER, Phil
Director, WWF Danube Carpathian Programme, Vienna
1
ANNEX IV
ANNEX IV
LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
1
Analysis of Financing Mechanisms. PCU and Wanninger, R. 1999. No page numbering.
2
Convention on cooperation for the Protection of sustainable use of the Danube River (Danube River
Protection Convention). Uated. 43 p.
3
Danube Regional NGO Consultation Workshop Report. REC, 1998. 28 pp. and 5 volumes of specific
presentations.
4
Danube River Basin Pollution Reduction Programme Report. PCU, 1999. 57 p. and 15 annexes.
5
Danube Water Quality Model Simulations in support to the Transboundary Analysus. PCU, 1999. 54 p.
6
Eutrophication of the Black Sea: causes and effects. ICPBS and ICPDR, 1999. 70 p.
7
Evaluation of Wetland and Floodplain Areas in the Danube River Basin. PCU and WWF, 1999. 84 p.
8
Final Report. RER/91/G31 and RER/95/G45. Undated. 66 p.
9
Financing Pollution Reduction Measures in the Danube River Basin. PCU and KfW, 1999. 68 p. and 7
annexes.
10
Framework for Development of an Information Network for the ISPDR. PCU,
1998. 105 p.
11
GEF/UNDP Project Implementation Inception Workshop. PCU, 1997. 30 p. and 7 annexes.
12
Guidelines for Target Oriented Program Planning Workshop. PCU, undated. 91 p. and 23 flipcharts.
13
Local Grants for the Danube Pollution Prevention Program. REC, 1998. 16 p.
14
National Review Reports. (1999). Vol. 1,2, 3,and 4.
15
PMTF meetings 1,2 and 3 (1998 to 1999)
16
Project Document. RER/96/G31. 1997. 50 p.
17
Socio-Economic Analysis. PCU and R. Wanninger, 1999. No page numbering
18
Strategic Action Plan for the Danube River Basin 1995-2005. EPDRB, 1994. 109 p.
19
Strategic Action Plan for the Danube River Basin 1995-2005. Revision 1999. PCU, 1999. 130 p. and 4
annexes.
20
Terms of Reference for Programme Management Task Force (PMTF). ICPDR, 1998. 7 p.
21
Transboundary Analysis. Final Report. PCU, 1999. 218 p.
1
ANNEX V
ANNEX V
ACTIVITIES
Objective 1: Complete the knowledge base for priority setting
Sub-objective 1.1: Update National Reviews and analyze National Action Plans, using a common format
1.1.1 Update National Reviews focusing on priority pollutants/sectors agreed in SAP
The UNDP/GEF staff, assisted by three international experts and eleven teams of national experts (45 national
experts in total), prepared, from December 1997 to January 1998, guidelines for national reviews including the
electronic formats for substance emissions and other water quality data required by the DWQM. Between
February and November 1998, the national teams, in consultations with the NGOs and the public, prepared the
national reports according to the provided guidelines. These reports were validated between September 1998 and
January 1999, and became available to the DWQM. In 1999, the project team, together with the national and
international experts, used the information available to prepare, for each country, an analysis of water pollution
socio-economic effects, and a description of financial mechanisms for pollution reduction projects.
Two of the countries situated in the Danube River Basin (Austria and Germany) were not eligible for the project
funding. Consequently, the project provided the countries with guidelines and formats, but not with financial
support for the data collection. Up till now, these countries sent to the project the water quality data essential to
development of the DWQM; however, they provided the project only with a part of information needed for their
respective national reviews.
1.1.2 Prepare National Reviews for Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Croatia
Bosnia-Herzegovina, Federal Yugoslav Republic, and Croatia were included in the national review studies
during the same time as the other countries (see activity 1.1.1), and they provided all the data as scheduled,
before the end of January 1999.
1.1.3 Definition of national baselines contribution through analysis of national policies, projects, investments,
etc. defined in National-Action Plans
The project staff, assisted by a consultant and by EMIS, prepared in December 1997 and January 1998, a format
for the national baselines. Then, in each country, the national teams in consultations with public and NGOs,
prepared the national baselines. Between November 1998 and April 1999, the national baselines were introduced
into the DWQM.
1
ANNEX V
Sub-objective 1.2: Complete the Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA)
1.2.1 Prioritization of `Hot spots'
The hot spots screening methodology that enables their prioritization for N and P pollution reduction projects
proposals was completed by the project staff in January 1998. Between February and November 1998, in each
country, the list of hot spots was completed ant they were prioritized according to the prepared screening
methodology. Between November 1998 and January 1999, the project team, assisted by one consultant and by
ICPDR Steering Group, incorporated the prioritized hot spots into a Transboundary Analysis Report.
1.2.2 Develop extended Danube Water Quality Model for priority pollutants
From September 1998 to May 1999, the project team, assisted by a consultant, validated the DWQM results.
Simultaneously, the project improved and developed further the DWQM by increasing its analysis capability.
1.2.3 Asses the priority sites for wetland/floodplain restoration for pollution reduction and ecological
rehabilitation
Between February 1998 and February 1999, the project team, assisted by a consultant, reviewed wetlands and
floodplains in the Danube River Basin, and assessed their ecological functions; especially their nutrient removal
capacity. The results were described in a basin-wide overview. Simultaneously, the project prepared an
intervention program of wetland and floodplains restoration for inclusion in the Transboundary Diagnostic
Analysis and drafted a management schemes outline (with baseline and total costs of management). A detailed
development of wetland and floodplain management, initially included in the project document, appeared to be
not feasible within the given budget.
1.2.4 Social analysis of pollution in the Danube River Basin and Black Sea
Between November 1998 and January 1999, the project team assisted by a consultant, completed a generalized
format of reporting information on social impact of water pollution. In the meantime, the international consultant
assisted by the project staff, and on a base of information provided by the national consultants, prepared a basin-
wide overview of the national reports. Between January and April 1999, the results were incorporated into the
overview of the Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis.
1.2.5 Integrate updated National Reviews and DWQM results with initial Transboundary Analysis (TA) to
produce a draft basin-wide environmental status and strategy for tackling priority transboundary issues
The first draft of the transboundary analysis was completed in January 1999, the second in February 1999.
1.2.6 Hold Technical conference on transboundary pollution
In November 1998, the project management selected location, proposed dates, and organized logistic
arrangements for a conference on transboundary issues. The program of the conference was developed in
December 1998, and the conference itself was held in January 1999. The conclusions and proceedings of the
conference were circulated among the Danube basin countries five weeks later. The definitive version of
transboundary analysis was available in May 1999.
2
ANNEX V
Objective 2: Review Policy for Protection of the Danube Basin and Black Sea
Sub-objective 2.1: Promote a Pollution Prevention and Reduction Policy Review
2.1.1 Prepare a timetable and a process for implementing and, if needed, updating the Danube SAP with an
aim of aggregating quantified targets for pollution prevention and reduction
The project has, so far, within the frame of PMTF meetings, and in collaboration with the International
Commission, organized three consultative meetings (in November 1997, October 1998, and in May 1999) with
Danube countries to discuss updating the Danube Strategic Action Plan. The participants of the meeting agreed
upon approaches to updating the SAP. Working groups, consisting of experts from the Danube Basin Countries,
were organized to develop SAP progress indicators, prioritize work on hot-spots and wetlands, achieve policy
consensus concerning TDA and GEF pollution reduction targets and ecological rehabilitation. The SAP update
was also discussed in national NGO workshops an in national planning workshops.
2.1.2 Hold joint technical discussions with Danube and Black Sea countries to agree load/concentrations and
sources of priority pollutants and wetland/floodplains of overall (Black Sea) basin-wide significance
2.1.3 Hold policy discussions with Danube and Black Sea countries to agree necessary pollution reduction
strategies for the Black Sea Basin, consistent with GRF Operational Strategy
The project held one technical workshop on December 1998 to discuss: loads, concentration and sources of
priority pollutants impacting the Danube and the Black Sea; and the rehabilitation and management of wetlands
and floodplains of basin-wide significance. It held also three meetings in March, August and December 1998 to
discuss technical strategies and policy basis for reducing the impact of priority pollutants within Black Sea basin.
2.1.4 Prepare pollution prevention and reduction programs for priority pollutants, especially nutrients
In December 1997 and January 1998, the project management developed a general framework for prevention
and reduction programs for priority pollutants. The national teams prepared pollution programs and, between
January 1998 and June 1999, held consultations with both the economic sector and non-governmental
organizations involved. The program was completed in June 1999.
2.1.5 Integrate pollution prevention and reduction strategy into the SAP revision process
Between February and June 1999, the project team incorporated the results of the initial pollution prevention and
reduction programs into the drafting process for the revised SAP.
Objective 3: Increase public awareness and participation
Sub-objective 3.1: Raise public awareness about pollution reduction activities
3.1.1 Launch public awareness program based on updated National Reviews and TDA produce and
disseminate a general brochure
In February and March 1998, the project prepared materials for a basin wide workshop to train national
facilitators from the government and NGOs, and published guidelines for conducting national workshops.
Eleven workshops for national NGOs and eleven national planning workshops were held between May and
November 1998.
3
ANNEX V
3.1.2 Hold consultations with local Stakeholders about priorities for transboundary pollution reduction
During the eleven national planning workshops held between May and November 1998, the project organized:
(1) review of national transboundry pollution problems, (2) overview of national baselines, and (3) overview of
wetlands and floodplains. Then, in January 1999, the project organized a technical conference on transboundary
pollution. The conference reviewed the results of the transboundary diagnostic analysis. The project held as
well, between May and November 1998, sub-regional and national consultations (planning workshops) and
discussions about common strategic approaches to pollution reduction and ecological rehabilitation in the river
basin and coastal Black Sea areas. To gain some feedback on the emerging pollution reduction programs, the
project organized in May 1999 a pollution reduction program workshop.
3.1.3 Distribute three editions of "Danube Watch"
In March, June and September 1998, the project prepared, edited, and published three issues of the "Danube
Watch". The fourth issue (not included in the original work program) will be edited and published in July 1999.
Finally, the project will edit an easy-to-read volume of Danube Watch reporting the key points of the SAP and
PRP. This fifth edition is scheduled for September 1999.
3.1.4 Support the Danube Environmental Forum and national NGO meetings
The project held two meetings of the Danube Environmental Forum (in November 1998 and in March 1999) to
discuss and agree the response of environmental groups to the on-going review of the SAP. From May to
September 1998, the project has organized national NGO meetings to discuss strategies for influencing the
government, business, and the public on the issues relevant to the Strategic Action Plan review. Finally between
May and October 1998, the project, jointly with the Danube Environmental Forum, organized in Bulgaria,
Romania, and Ukraine the national workshops aiming at reinforcement of cooperation between the NGOs from
these three Danube and Black Sea countries.
3.1.5 Provide small grants for community-based pollution reduction and awareness projects
Between March and May 1998, the project established the mechanisms of awarding small decentralized grants in
each Danube country. The grant program was elaborated and publicized widely between May and June 1998.
The implementation of grants started in September 1998. The total budget of US$200,000 was allocated. The
small grant program will probably be completed in September 1999.
Sub-objective 3.2: Improve coordination and information exchange
3.2.1 Establish Danube internet network
Between January and March 1998, the project assessed the existing information system in Danube region. After
that assessment, the project convened, still in March 1999, a Danube information system workshop that reviewed
the existing information and created ad hoc working group that developed tools for information Internet network.
The members of the workshop, jointly with the project management and the ICPDR, decided to establish the
Danube Internet network as a part of the larger ICPDR information system. The government of Austria provided
additional US$280,000 for development of that information network. The development of network itself will
take one year, between December 1998 and December 1999. Actually (June 1999), the project installed the
appropriate hardware and software for the network (supported by additional funding by the Austrian Agricultural
Ministry by US$50,000). It is foreseen that the final product of this activity will be delivered as scheduled, in
December 1999.
4
ANNEX V
3.2.2 Update and disseminate DANIS
Following the recommendation of the workshop held in March 1998 (activity 3.2.1) and by joint decision of the
project management and the IPCDR, the obsolete DANIS information network was incorporated into modern
and widely used ICPDR information network DANUBIS
Objective 4: Develop the financing of the pollution reduction program within the Danube SAP
Sub-objective 4.1: Develop portfolio of Danube basin projects
4.1.1 Develop financing strategies for the pollution reduction program within the SAP, in accordance with the
Basin-wide strategy
The project prepared formats for financing strategy for pollution reduction as early as in December 1997 and
January 1998. The national teams confirmed their readiness to contribute to development of financing strategies
and started to prepare the national strategies between February and November 1998. Overall basin-wide
financing strategies were reviewed in a workshop held in February 1999. They were finally incorporated in the
revised SAP in June 1999.
4.1.2 Prepare project documents for priority hot-spots projects for investment consideration
The model structures of project documents for pollution reduction in Danube countries were prepared by the
project management, assisted by a consultant, in December 1998 and January 1999. The elaborated national
projects were incorporated progressively into a computerized project file and, in May 1999, all developed
projects (according the model) were reviewed in a Pollution Reduction Program Workshop.
4.1.3 Prepare the outline descriptions of wetland, floodplain and demonstration projects for potential donor
grant support
The model structures for project document were proposed between February and June 1998. Between June and
November 1998, the country teams prepared individual projects with assistance of an international consultant.
The implementation strategies were identified and developed between October 1998 and April 1999.
Sub-objective 4.2: Mechanisms to provide sustainable financial support for the Danube River Basin
4.2.1 Feasibility of establishing a Danube Environmental Fund, including the exploration of the economic
instruments needed
Between April 1998 and April 1999 the project team, ICPDR, and a consultant conducted a feasibility study of
options for establishing an international Danube Environmental Fund. The feasibility of this fund was discussed
in a workshop in February 1999. From September 1998 to February 1999, the international community was
consulted on provision of funds for the Danube Environmental Fund.
4.2.2 Prepare structures, rules etc. for a Regional Fund, or other mechanism as agreed
The rules and structures of the regional funds were elaborated by the project between April 1998 and January
1999 as a part of the feasibility study (activity 4.2.1).
5
ANNEX V
Sub-objective 4.3: Finalize and agree on the process for adopting a refined SAP
4.3.1 Integrated portfolio of investment and capacity-building projects, and regional financing mechanisms,
into SAP
Between February and May 1999, the project organized discussions of results of financing strategies and project
pipelines for pollution reduction programs. These strategies were discussed with groups responsible for the
updating SAP. As a result, between February and May 1999, the project, the ICPDR, and the drafting group have
prepared an updated version of the SAP.
4.3.2 Adopt updated Danube SAP at the ministerial conference
The updated versions of SAP and PRP were discussed at a regional workshop in May 1999 and then presented to
the IPCDR Steering Group in June 1999. The ministerial conference that will discuss and eventually adopt the
Danube SAP will be organized by ICPDR in November 1999 or early in 2000.
4.3.3 Donor Pledging conference (or PC meeting) for priority investment projects
The project documents, including proposed financing packages for pollution reduction projects, were finalized
by June 1999. These documents were consulted with donors during the regular PMTF meting, during individual
consultations, and during presentation of country or regional documents to the PMTF. Subsequent meetings with
donors are scheduled for November 1999. Two special editions of a journal `Danube Watch' will discuss the
pollution reduction program and review the SAP.
Cooperation between UNDP and The European Commission
The Project assisted the UNOPS and EC in updating an agreement between the UNDP and the European
Commission. The updated agreement was presented to the Danube Task Force for review in 1998. The
agreement was approved in 1998.
Danube Task Force
The project organized one meeting of the former Task Force (TF), two meetings of the new Program
Management Task Force (PMTF), and provided financial support to the recipient countries for attendance. The
project participated in discussions concerning the transfer of responsibility for implementation of the SAP from
the PMTF to the new TF established under the DRPC.
6
ANNEX VI
ANNEX VI
OUTPUTS
Objective 1: Complete the knowledge base for priority setting
(Output description is based on Van Hoof findings Annex VII )
Sub-objective 1.1: Update National Reviews and analyse National Action Plans, using a common format
1.1.1 Eleven updated National Reviews and an extended and improved Danube Water Quality Model for
analysis of transboundary pollution loads and export to the Danube delta and Black Sea
1.1.2 Two National Reviews and an extended and improved Danube Water Quality Model for analysis of
transboundary pollution loads and export to the Danube delta and Black Sea
The project has received national reviews from nine countries (except Austria and Germany). The reviews were
updated and put in a common format. Each of them contained pollution emission data required for the
transboundary analysis and the water quality model simulations. However, the quality of data and the reports
produced by the countries was unequal. The most salient inadequacies are:
Slovenia
Frequency of the immission measurements on surface waters is very low (four per year) and mostly performed at
low river flows which does not allow reliable calculations of loads of priority pollutants.
Czech Republic
Immission measurement frequency is only twelve per year; load calculations are not given.
Slovakia
Missing information on sampling frequencies; no details on calculation of loads
Only immision concentrations for the priority parameters requested are given. Organochlorine pesticides and
triazine herbicides residues are reported without mentioning concentrations.
Hungary
No observation.
Bulgaria
Data available are limited to priority parameters. Low sampling frequency (once per month).
No load calculation description. The report is written in very general terms.
1
ANNEX VI
Romania
Methods used for load calculation are not described.
Moldova
Different water quality problems mentioned, but not described systematically. No systematic information on
parameters measured and sampling frequencies; no indication on load calculation. Information reported in a non
structured way.
Ukraine
Lack of systematic information on sampling frequencies and analyzed parameters. Only immision concentrations
are reported. No information about loads.
Croatia
Sampling frequencies are not mentioned. Loads have been calculated by scientifically unsound method.
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Only a very limited set of water quality data is available. Hot spots were not prioritized.
Federal Yugoslav Republic
Lack of reliable time series of immission values after 1992.
1.1.3 Calculation of the national bselines for pollution reduction from priority substances (especially
phosphorus) impacting the Danube River and Black Sea
Pollution Reduction Program Report (PRP), page 48, provides national baselines and incremental costs for the
proposed projects. The division of total costs into baseline and incremental were calculated in a simple and
schematic manner that is satisfying at this stage of PRP reporting. The baselines should be, however,
recalculated once an identified donor will consider the project for implementation.
Sub-objective 1.2: Complete the Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA)
1.2.1 Prioritised list of hot-spots relevant to the pollution reduction program in the Danube River Bassin
The list of prioritized hot spots is incorporated into a report "Transboundary Analysis," June 1999.
2
ANNEX VI
1.2.2 Substantially validated Danube Water Quality Model capable of quantifying transboundary pollution
loads in the Danube River Basin and export to the Black Sea, ready for discussion and approval as a
management tool by all Danubian countries
The output is described in a document "Danube Water Quality Model simulations in support of the
Transboundary Analysis and the Pollution Reduction Programme", dated June 12, 1999. The model (DWQM)
simulates the flow of pollutants through the Danube River basin. The Model may simulate pollution by such
substances as BOD, COD, N, P, or oils. It aimed at evaluation of transboundary pollution and calculation of
various pollution reduction scenarios.
However, now, due to the limited water pollution quality data available, the model may be used in preference to
simulate the N and P pollution according to two scenarios (high or low pollution). The results should be
interpreted with caution.
The first simulations by the DWQM indicate the most important sources of N and P pollution, demonstrate that
diffuse pollution is the most important contributor to N and P pollution in the Danube basin and that the impact
of wetlands on N and P reduction is limited.
1.2.3 Basin-wide overview of the wetlands and floodplain network and a program of baseline and incremental
management interventions which will contribute to transboundary pollution reduction and nature
conservation.
The draft report `Evaluation of Wetlands and Floodplain Areas in the Danube River Basin' (February 1999)
evaluated indirectly (e.g. by the number of days a landstrip has been flooded) the effect of wetlands on N and P
removal. The report made clear that:
- Nutrient reduction by wetlands is only a side effect of wetland rehabilitation and should not be considered as
an alternative for waste water treatment;
- Involvement of beneficiaries in this activity is a prerequisite for success for wetland restoration.
1.2.4 Basin-wide overview of Danube water pollution on people is prepared and integrated into the
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis
A document that covers this subject is very general and does not handle the hygienic risks adequately.
1.2.5 Draft final version of the Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis for wide international review, including by
IC Emissions Expert Group
Transboundary analysis is based on national reviews that contained many inconsistencies The repport describes
the results but not mention any conclusions neither in relation to the Danube River basin nor to the Black Sea.
1.2.6 Conference proceedings and the final version of the Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis
The conference was held in January 1999; the results of discussions were incorporated in the definitive version
of the transboundary analysis in May 1999.
3
ANNEX VI
Overall output of Objective 1:
The outputs from the first sub-objective represent the best available knowledge on Danube River basin pollution.
All together, the information provided a first input to the basin pollution model. It helped the countries and the
project to identify the important sources of pollution, and to prepare proposals for pollution reduction projects.
The overview of national reports shows, however, that they differ strongly in quality. All reports focus on
pollutant concentrations (quantity of pollutant in a given volume of water), whereas pollutant loads (quantity
released from the pollution point) - important tools for policy evaluation - are seldom mentioned.
A major problem affecting successful implementation of the objective was lack of sufficient and reliable
imission water quality data needed for the transboundary analysis and for the validation of the Danube Water
Quality Model. This shortage could not have been overcomed within the duration of the project.
In general, the reports produced represent a high quality despite of the burden of insufficient data. Report on the
Danube Water Quality Model demonstrate elegant approach to solve this basic problem. The model as well as
other outputs represent a good achievement of the immediate objectives of the project, and will contribute to the
development of the region.
Objective 2: Review policy for protection of the Danube Basin and Black Sea
(Findings of S. Manikowski)
2.1.1 An agreed timetable and approach for updating part or all Danube SAP is prepared. In particular the
project has designed an approach to updating the pollution reduction targets for priority substances and
sectors, required to ensure protection the Danube River Basin and the Black Sea
A common timetable and approach for updated the Danube SAP was elaborated and agreed upon durind a
Facilitator Training Workshop in March 19, 1998. The workshop's approach was based on the Target Oriented
Program Planning methodology which aimed at reinforcing country-driven initiatives, and ensuring that
government, administration, NGOs, scientific institutions, and cooperating agencies are all involved in the
planning process.
2.1.2 An agreement is reached on the priority pollutants and sectors affecting the Black Sea Basin, and a
strategy is developed to overcome current environmental problems
The agreement on priority pollutants and sectors was reached and the list of the priority pollutant incorporated
into the revised Strategic Action Plan (SAP). This agreement was based on the National Reviews, which
described and analyzed the socio-economic impact, water quality, water engineering, and financial mechanisms.
At the regional level, these data were synthesized and used to prepare a comparative socio-economic analysis,
develop a financing mechanisms, and complete an investment portfolio.
2.1.3 First steps are taken toward a technical and policy agreement. These agreements cover the strategy
pollution reduction and ecological rehabilitation in the Danube/Dniester/Dnieper/Don river basins and
along the Black Sea coastal zones
The workshop and meetings initiated by the project created both a basis for national and regional policies; and
strategies for pollution reduction, and ecological rehabilitation of both basins.
4
ANNEX VI
2.1.4 Draft national Pollution Reduction Programs for all Danube contries
The drafts of the national pollution reduction programs and the draft of the Danube River Basin Pollution
Reduction Program (PRP) were prepared and finalized in June 1999. The final PRP draft was amended on the
basis of comments and validating arguments of the decision-makers from the member countries. The PRP
corresponds to the priorities defined separately by each nation. It focuses on point source pollution. The PRP is
the basis for developing investment portfolio in support of the SAP.
2.1.5 Introduction into the SAP the policy directions concerning pollution prevention and reduction
The SAP was finalized in June 1999, and in contains the policy considerations perceived by member country
representatives.
Overall output of Objective 2
According to the Project Document, the activities conducted and the products achieved in the frame of objective
2 should
- Contribute to an agreement on policy directions for pollution prevention and reduction in the Danube River
and Black Sea basin;
- Lead to an updating of the Danube SAP;
- Identify in each Danube country a range of pollution reduction targets.
The present section will evaluate activities and their outputs. It will describe how they contributed to achieving
each of these aforementioned three goals.
A.
Agreement on policy directions for pollution prevention and reduction in the Danube River and Black
Sea basins.
The studies and investigations undertaken in activities 2.1.2, and 2.1.3 designed a picture of a progressive
poisoning of the Black Sea ecosystems due to pollutants produced by surrounding countries. The studies clearly
indicated the countries responsible and warned them about the economic and social consequences of polluting
civilization. The studies indicated the current weaknesses in the monitoring of pollution. The information
provided helped to bring the issue of reducing Black Sea pollution to politicians, political organizations,
economic agents, research institutions, NGOs, and citizens attention.
The project, jointly with ICPBS and ICPDR, attempted to formulate both policy and strategy for reduction and
prevention of pollution. The policy is discussed in the "Summary Report of the joint ICPBS and ICPDR of Ad-
hoc Technical Working Group" dated May 1990. On page 12, under the section "Policy Perspectives for
Controlling Eutrophication", the report makes reference to an "iterative management" that has been taken by the
Black Sea Strategic Action Plan as an approach to reducing pollution.
The iterative management approach is as follows: When complete removal of pollutants is desirable but
unattainable in the foreseeable future, the progress in pollution reduction may be achieved by an iterative
process. In the first step of this process, each partner agrees to reduce pollution by some reasonable amount
during a given time frame. Once this is attained, the partners set the next reduction target. The iteration continues
until all partners agree that pollution emission has been reduced to a satisfactory level. The iterative steps in
pollution reduction are accompanied by research programs, pollution measurements, and public awareness
building.
5
ANNEX VI
It seems that both Commissions tacitly agreed on this approach. According to the cited Summary Report (page
11), the group proposed to both Commissions that pollution reduction should aim at restoration in the Black Sea
of an ecological state similar to that of the 1960s. This well corresponded to the "satisfactory level" attended at
the end of the iterative management method. Furthermore, (keeping in mind the iterative steps) the group
believed that (still on page 11) "in order to start, an agreement is needed on Black Sea nutrient input limits and
on the state of the ecology regarding these inputs." Then, in the next paragraph, the document proposes to both
Commissions to maintain temporarily the discharges at 1997 level in order to see the Black Sea ecosystems
response.
The Commission's proposal needs yet to be endorsed by the States and translated into specific commitments by
the countries concerning the first step of the iteration process: the limitation of pollutants, and then, the
programmes accompanying these limitations. The countries should take initiative in determining the policy
directives and policy implementation instruments for pollution reduction since, as it was rightly stressed by three
participants of a third meeting Group, and cited in the Draft Minutes of the third meeting (page 5) "any true
acting is only at the respective national level, and the function of the Commissions is to have an `umbrella' via
the `participation of cooperation'."
The Group has also attempted to develop some strategies. In the second meeting of the joint ICPBS and ICPDR
Ad-hoc Technical Working Group, the Group defined "possible strategies" for reducing pollution as follows
(Summary Report, page 12):
- The long-term goal for all States in the Black Sea Basin is to take measures to reduce the loads of
anthropogenically applied nutrients and hazardous substances to such levels necessary to permit Black Sea
ecosystems to recover to conditions similar to those observed in the 1960s.
- As an intermediate goal, urgent control measures should be taken by all States in the Black Sea Basin in order to
avoid that the discharges of nutrients and hazardous substances into the Seas exceeded those that existed in 1997.
The `Group' recognized that these 1997 discharges are only incompletely known and that further work has to be
undertaken to substantiate the size of the loads received by the Seas (Black Sea proper; Sea of Azov).
- The `Group' concluded that the inputs of nutrients and hazardous substances into both receiving Seas have to be
assessed in a comparable way, and that to this very end a common AQC (Analytical Quality Control) system and a
thorough discussion about the necessary monitoring, including the sampling procedures, has to be set up.
- The `Group' also concluded that the ecological status of the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov has to be further
assessed, and that the comparability of the data basis has to be further increased.
- Both the reported input loads as well as the assessed ecological status will have to be reported annually to both the
ICPBS and the ISPDR.
- The States within the overall Black Sea shall have to a adopt strategies that will permit economic development,
whilst ensuring appropriate practices and measures to limit the discharge of nutrients and hazardous substances, and
to rehabilitate ecosystems which assimilate nutrients.
- Based on the annual reports and on the adopted strategies for the limitation of the discharge of nutrients and
hazardous substances, a review shall be undertaken in 2007. It will focus on the further measures that may be
required for meeting the long-term objective (reaching an ecological status similar to the conditions observed in the
1960s).
The Group's definition of the strategy may be considered as a preliminary identification of problems related to
the pollution reduction policy implementation. The elaboration of national and regional strategies is yet to come.
In conclusion, the activities 2.1.2, 2.1.3 and their outputs yielded several positive results. They helped in
understanding the Black Sea eutrophication problem, provided evidences for the decline of coastal ecosystems,
raised the problem of nutrient sources to the Black Sea and warned about the danger of doing nothing. They are
the first steps in designing a specific common approach on policies, strategies, and technical measures to
pollution reduction and ecological rehabilitation in the Danube/Dniestr/Dnieper/Don river basins and from Black
Sea coastal zones.
6
ANNEX VI
B.
Updating the Strategic Action Plan
The Danube River Basin Environmental Declaration of 1994 required that the SAP prepared in 1994 be
evaluated and updated by 1997. The activities 2.1.1, 2.1.2, and 2.1.5 and their outputs aimed at this outcome.
The final SAP, the SAP-1999, is one of the outputs.
The SAP-1999 is a document of 150 pages that summarizes the most important pollution reduction measures
both current and future for the Danube. For over a year an half, the project its member countries have mobilized
representatives of technical ministries concerned, NGOs, and, through the consultations on the national level, the
private sector. The project provided several inputs, such as overall guidance, organization, financial support and
technical expertise. The national level contributors collected data, prepared documentation, and formulated
proposals for the revision of the SAP. As a result, the SAP 1999 reflects an understanding of how pollution
reduction is approached by DRPC member countries. The SAP-1999 is accompanied by a Danube River
Pollution Reduction Program (PRP) containing description of priority targets for pollution reduction identified in
each Danube country. The draft SAP-1999 was discussed at a workshop in May 1999, adopted in June 1999, and
will be presented for approval to the technical ministries of the member countries by the end of this year.
Both the SAP-1994 and SAP-1999 stem from the decisions taken by the Environmental Program for the Danube
River Basin (EPDRB) created in Sofia in 1991. The content of the SAP should indicate to the countries how the
EPDRB program formulated in a document called Danube River Protection Convention (DRPC) will be
implemented. The SAP should serve as an important tool for policymakers (SAP dated 1994, page i) and provide
direction and framework for regional cooperation among countries in the Danube River basin (Ibid., page iv).
The SAP should indicate the regional policies and strategies for water pollution reduction and environment
protection (SAP-1999, page v).
Since the SAP-1999 is continuation of the SAP-1994, and both documents concern the program formulated in
the DRPC, an evaluation of the SAP-1999 requires a brief presentation on both the DRPC and the first SAP.
Danube River Protection Convention (DRPC)
According to DRPC or Convention, the cooperation among the Danube River basin countries in river pollution
reduction may take on several forms including consultations, joint actions and exchanges of information (Article
4 of the Convention). This cooperation should consist of the following (Ibid., Articles 5 to 17):
- Prevention, control and reduction of transboundary impact;
- Specific measures for water resources protection;
- Limitations on emission objectives and criteria for water quality;
- Emission inventories, action programs and progress reviews;
- Monitoring programs;
- Obligatory reporting;
- Consultations;
- Information exchange;
- Informing the public;
- Research and development;
- Communication, warning and alarm system, emergency plans;
- Mutual assistance.
The Convention covers a broad area of pollution reduction, without necessarily involving the EPDRB into policy
and strategy efforts. In fact, the word policy or strategy does not appear in the Convention.
7
ANNEX VI
Strategic Action Plan of 1994 (SAP-94)
The first Strategic Action Plan (SAP-94) was drafted by a special group mandated by a task force that had been
established by the EPDRB. The draft was completed in October 1994. In December 1994, the Environment or
Water Ministries of the Danube countries and a Member of the European Commission responsible for the
Environment, endorsed the SAP-94.
The SAP-94 has four goals (page 13):
(1) Improvement of aquatic ecosystems and biodiversity in the Danube River basin and reduction of
pollution loads entering the Black Sea;
(2) Maintaining and improving the quantity and quality of water in the Danube River basin;
(3) Controlling the damage from accidental spills; and
(4) Development of regional cooperation in water management.
The SAP clusters the sources of pollution and water quality problems into `Sectors'. The SAP identifies four
sectors (page 9 and 10):
(1) cities;
(2) rural towns and villages;
(3) industry, energy production and transport; and
(4) agriculture.
The agents that need to change their behavior so as to ease the pollution problems are called `Actors'. The SAP
considers actors to be (page 10):
(1) public authorities;
(2) public and private enterprises; and
(3) general public and NGOs.
The policies that should help countries achieve the goals consists of (page 16):
(1) Integrated water management;
(2) Environmentally sound sector policies;
(3) Lowering the of risks of accidents; and
(4) Investments.
The SAP-94 identifies 59 wetlands to restore and 179 hot spots for action. It also describes the Danube River
basin environment and its important pollution problems and priorities.
The SAP contains some inconsistencies. We will discuss those relevant to the evaluated SAP 1999.
First, the formulation of the SAP-94 goals differs depending on which area of the document you read.
The goals listed on the page 13 have been quoted previously in this section. On the page 71, the first two goals
were stated as follows: (1) "Maintain and improve the availability and quality of waters in the Danube River
basin;" (2) "Reduce the negative impact of activities in the Danube River basin on the riverine ecosystem and
the Black Sea." In the executive summary, page v, the first goal from the page 71 become the second, and the
second become the first.
Furthermore, the sectors cited earlier from the pages 9 and 10, are classified differently in page 15: (1) Phased
expansion of sewerage and municipal waste water treatment; (2) Reduction of discharges from industry; (3)
Reduction of emissions from agriculture; (4) Conservation, restoration and management of the wetland and
floodplain areas of the tributaries and main stream of the Danube River basin.
Finally, the meaning of so called "Actors" is not defined. On page 10, the SAP-94 describes the role for two of
them in pollution reduction: the public authorities and the general public. Nowhere does it state the role for
public and private enterprises. The definition of regional cooperation (page 9) is circular: "Regional cooperation
8
ANNEX VI
means the full participation in and utilization of regional mechanisms and structures for international
cooperation, consultation and coordination." Table 1.3 that identifies links between actors and actions to water
management problems (page 12), proposes some questionable links. For example, the public authorities should
ensure adequate tariffs to cities but not to rural towns and villages, nor to industry, agriculture, and livestock.
The public and private enterprises should safely dispose the hazardous waste from rural towns and villages but
not from cities, industry, or agriculture. Finally, the general public and NGOs are in charge of managing the
livestock manure. On pages 16 to 18, the SAP lists the short term and medium term targets, and on pages 18 to
23, it describes in general and qualitative terms, short- and medium-term actions. However it is virtually
impossible to put target on these actions.
In conclusion, it can be stated that, (1) the SAP really needed to be improved and updated; (2) nevertheless, it
covers a gamut of actions included in the Convention.
Strategic Action Plan of 1999
The SAP 1999 identifies one "core problem" namely the "ecologically unsustainable development and
inadequate water resources management in the Danube River basin". From this core problem stems one
objective: "Achievement of sustainable development in the Danube River basin," which in turn is composed of
three sub-objectives:
1)
Improvement of the wastewater and solid waste management. This objective concerns municipalities. Its
realization will deliver the following outputs:
- Extended and upgraded public sewer system by the year 2005, operated in 90% of municipalities
with population over 5000;
- Appropriate wastewater treatment, by the year 2005, assured in 70% of settlements with population
over 5000;
- Proper solid waste management by 2010, applied in 90% of localities with population over 50 000.
2)
Introduction of best available techniques, best environmental practice, and abatement of water pollution.
This objective concerns industry and mining; it will be achieved through four outputs:
- Clean technologies and the abatement of water pollution, introduced by the year 2010;
- Pre-treatment facilities of industrial waste-water, implemented by the year 2010;
- Adequate management of all enterprises, ensured by the year 2005;
- Hazardous substances treated and disposed of in proper landfillls by 2010.
3)
Implementation of good agricultural practices and mechanisms for sustainable land management. This
objective will be achieved through five outputs:
- Integrated approach for land and water management in all countries by 2010;
- Adequate use of pesticides and fertilizers; by the year 2010, the number of certified organic farms be
increased by 20%, and in other farms the P and N consumption stabilized at 1998 level;
- Waste water discharged by animal farms properly treated. By the year 2005, 50% of animal arms
with over 500 livestock units equipped with the wastewater treatment plants, and by 2010, 75%
farms be equipped;
- An accelerated run-off and erosion prevention plan. By 2010, the length of hedgerows, forest belts
and wind breaks increased by 25%, and 2000 km of regulated rivers be restored;
- Wetlands and floodplains adequately protected and restored. By the year 2005, 110 000 ha, and by
2010, 140 000 ha of wetlands restored.
The SAP 1999 lists 328 hot spots of high and medium priority for consideration by the pollution reduction
program.
9
ANNEX VI
The SAP 1999 contains a list of nine plans and programs suitable to regional cooperation (page 128). However
there is no indication on a specific role these plans would play in pollution reduction or on their link with
national plans. It is not clear if national and regional policies as well as institutions are sufficient to support and
successfully implement the SAP 1999.
The SAP contains two important sections: 4: Regional Policies and Strategies (pages 45 to 66), and 5: Sector
Strategies (pages 67 to 112).
Section 4: Regional Policies and Strategies analyzes regional problems (the core problem, its direct causes, roots,
and direct and ultimate effects), identifies causes of water pollution (hot spots, diffuse sources of pollution, and
Significant Impact Areas), describes the pollution effects (transboundary and effects on the Black Sea
ecosystems), and finally, analyzes the objectives and targets for pollution reduction and sustainable water
management. Thus, the section content develops the arguments supporting investment in pollution reduction
projects (proposed in the SAP and outlined in detail in the RPR) than rather the regional policy and strategies.
Section 5: Sectorial strategies. The section contains, for all three sectors (municipal, industry and mining, and
land use agriculture), a situation analysis (sector importance, current assets as know-how, legislation,
financial resources, public awareness, transboundary effects); a problem analysis (sector core problems, causes
end effects of environmental problems); and sector objectives (their description, expected results, important
assumptions and impact indicators).
There is no doubt that both sections reflects well the results of national investigation and that they both
(summarized) have their place in the SAP. However, the SAP, a document of such political importance, should
detail and discuss policy considerations and strategy issues in details. The need for policy and strategic
considerations may be justified as follows:
The environmental policy and macro economy's concerns are as follows:
- Finding the best way to achieve an efficient and cost-effective pollution reduction. (This means the point
where marginal pollution abatement cost and marginal damages ere equal);
- Finding the ways to assure equitability in distribution of the burden for pollution reduction (the relatively
well - off people may be charged more than the less fortunate);
- Funding the ways to assure an acceptable distribution of pollution emission charges;
- Knowing how to assure the policy is enforced at the lowest cost;
- Finally, that it take into consideration ethical issues, moral considerations, and national traditions.
It's important for the project to know to what extent implementation of its objectives helps or hinders national
policy; and, on the other hand, to evaluate the policy influence on the project's pertinence, impact, and duration.
It would be the most useful for the project, it's implementing agencies, financing institutions, and donors to
know the government environmental policy and to check it against the project costs, objectives, assumptions and
indicators.
The national policy may be evaluated as well for its coherence at the central, sector and local levels and, on a
regional scale, for its coherence among the countries. In particular, it would be useful to evaluate periodically
how it compares to the regional and country policies and the proposed project's objectives so as to assure that
the project's activities and objectives aim for the same goal as the policies coming from the government or
region.
Strategy (or policy implementation instruments)
The governmental strategy for the implementation of an environmental policy is based on two basic instruments:
environmental standards and incentives.
An environment standard is the mandated level of performance that is enforced by the law. The best available
technology (BAT) which DRCP recommends (DRCP, Annex I part I) is a standard. The maximum released level
10
ANNEX VI
of a given pollutant is also a standard. The standards have drawbacks. To be just, the standards cannot be
identical for all industries and often the standards do nothing to stimulate, improve or innovate.
The incentives remunerate agents in proportion to their compliance with the law. Taxes, subsidies and
transferable discharge permits are the most common incentives. The incentives stimulate the polluter's invention
and contribute to technology progress, but they are difficult to apply if the pollution discharge measurements are
inadequate.
As in the case of the policy, it is important for the project designers to be aware of the government instrument
used to realize the environmental policy. The project's viability and its economic importance depend strongly on
the policy implementation strategy.
Regional policy
Finally, the success of a regional pollution reduction project depends on member countries' policies and regional
agreements. Regional policy is of equal weight to sovereign national policies. However, international agreements
are (usually) voluntary. In consequence, it is reasonable to suppose that a country will not sign a new agreement
or honor an old one if the agreement will make it worse off. Knowledge of national policies can help negotiators
of environmental agreements to strike the required equilibrium. More important, the regional project which is
familiar with national environment policies and regional issues, can invest its resources among countries in such
a way that the investment will encourage all countries to take part in a regional agreement. With a wide set of
investments, the regional project may well assist a country to resist the temptation to free ride on the pollution
control efforts of others.
C. Pollution Reduction Targets: Danube River Basin Pollution Reduction Program (PRP)
The Danube River Basin Pollution Reduction Program (PRP) supports the SAP 1999. It lists the projects for
pollution reduction that has been agreed upon by the Danube basin countries during a series of meetings and
workshops. The main source of information on projects, priorities and costs are found in the National Reviews.
The RPR contains a detailed technical summary of priority projects to be executed in the Danube River basin. It
describes 513 identified hot spots, and formulates 421 projects. For each of the 421 projects, the document
specifies expected load reduction for BOD, COD, N, and P, baseline costs, incremental costs, and total
investment cost.
The total investment is estimated at $US 5 522 million, of which US$ 3 289 million represent the baseline costs
and US$ 2 034 million the incremental costs (PRP, Annex 6, page 32). The investment should reduce the load of
pollutant as follows:
Type of emission
Estimates of emission in Expected emission Improvement in %
thousand tons per year reduction (PRP, Annex 6,
(SAP 199, page 52)
page 30)
BOD
324
421
?
COD
851
623
73..2
N
884 944
100
8.8 9.4
P
103 119
20
19 17
The projects were evaluated only in financial terms according to the current (1997) value of local currencies.
There is no economic evaluation of the projects. There are great differences in financial cost effectiveness of the
projects among countries and among sectors.
According to the PRP, the separation of total costs into basic and incremental is provisional and should be
updated.
11
ANNEX VI
For five of the eleven countries involved, the total investment in pollution reduction, according to the PRP,
represents a budgetary burden equivalent to more than 6% of Gross National Product in 1997 of the Danube
River basin area of the country. For Bosnia-Herzegovina, it represents as much as 16% (PRP, Annex 11, page 1).
The PRP discusses little the economic and political consequences of the program on the beneficiary countries. It
remarks, however, that the pollution reduction may result in two kind of economic consequences (page 39):
- Inflation of construction prices due to the short-term rise in demand for construction services;
- Restoration of wetlands may require the forfeiting of arable land.
Objective 3 : Increase public awareness and participation
(Based on the contribution of Esther Park, Annex VIII)
Sub-Objective 3.1: Raise Public Awareness about pollution reduction activities
3.1.1 Materials and events to publicise the need for pollution prevention and reduction and ecological
rehabilitation in the Danube River Basin
3.1.2 Input to the development of the technical basis and policy for pollution reduction in the Danube River
Basin and Black Sea is available.
The project did not produce materials or hold events to raise public awareness as outlined in the project
document. Instead, the project felt that the objective 3 would be better served by holding a regional training
workshop called "Target Oriented Program Planning" (TOPP), in which one NGO representative and one
government representative from each country were trained in public participation methodology.
These representatives then became facilitators in the National NGO Workshops convened by the Regional
Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe (REC), where national priorities were discussed and
identified. These priorities were consequently introduced in the National SAP Planning Workshops where the
results from the National Reviews (and the National NGO Workshops) were brought together to result in the
revised SAP and the Pollution Reduction Program.
Further, the results of the National NGO Workshops were brought to a Regional NGO Consultation Meeting, in
which NGO representatives from all 13 countries came together to discuss regional priorities and to re-establish
or revitalize the Danube Environmental Forum (DEF).
In general, the DEF has been weak and unable to participate effectively in implementation of this project.
Instead, the REC has taken responsibility for the National NGO meetings. For similar reasons, the DEF was
unable to hold a joint workshop with the Black Sea Basin NGO Forum. Cooperation with the Black Sea project
has been slow as a whole. So far there has been only a joint technical working group with the Black Sea.
3.1.3 Wide awareness of pollution reduction issues in the Danube River Basin and in international community
The "Danube Watch" has been published in three issues, with two more special editions forthcoming. Four
thousand copies of each issue were being disseminated, and now the edition increased to 8000 copies. In the
future, the Danube Watch will be published on the DANUBIS site, and its condensed version inserted into
another existing environmental publication (in Austria).
After PHARE funding stops in October 1999, sustainability of the Danube Watch will be in the hands of a new
publisher. There is the possibility of inserting advertisements into the journal by which it might be self-
sustaining.
12
ANNEX VI
3.1.4 Stronger role for environmental NGOs in the Danube River Basin and practical cooperation with similar
groups in the rest of the Black Sea region
The project was effective in the arena of public participation. Considering the scope of the project, most of the
major NGOs in each country were brought into the SAP planning and revising.
The project greatly relied on the DEF for its sustainability in this component. However, the DEF is weak and
unable to take on this burden. In the future, the ICPDR is willing to support public participation, but does not
necessarily identify DEF as the agency through which it should happen.
It should be noted that the past failures of the DEF have alienated some NGOs from participating, most
noticeably those in Hungary. As a group, a number of Hungarian NGOs refused to participate in the National
NGO meeting and sent a letter of protest stating that they would not have anything to do with the DEF.
Currently, the DEF is in the rather precarious position of not being legally registered as an entity. As with many
NGOs, the organization has little know-how with regard to legality, financial viability, and general management.
However, they have made good progress in information sharing. The members have created an e-mail network.
3.1.5 A series of community-based projects which will contribute to pollution reduction in the Danube River
Basin and Black Sea
The small grants program destined to finance community-based projects was carried out by the REC. The project
management developed guidelines for the grant attribution and publicized the program. Because of a delay in
actually disseminating the grants, the impact and results of the program have not yet been revealed.
Sub-objective 3.2: Improve coordination and information exchange
3.2.1 Strong communication links among Danube experts, decision-makers and NGOs, and cost-effective
means of publishing information about the Danube River Basin
3.2.2 An improved and extended DANIS information system accessible to the general public
The PCU began work on an web site DANIS (the Danube Information System) and found that it would be more
effective in the big picture to incorporate DANIS into the system being created by the ICPDR, "DANUBIS." To
date, the web site is not yet functional, but is expected to be fully operational by the fall of 1999. In the
meantime, PHARE has published a Danube home page connected to that of REC, from which all activity will be
forwarded to DANUBIS once it is functional. This home page is being hosted by the REC web site and has the
appropriate links to maps, legislation, donors, and other relevant information. A counter was put into the system,
from which it can be assumed that up to 1000 people have visited the site.
Overall output from the objective 3:
Although the project achieved its objectives concerning increase of public awareness and participation, the
project design hampered the intentions and the goal of the public participation component of the project. While
NGOs were effectively drawn into the decision-making process, the government side was less prepared for
cooperation on this level. Nevertheless, overall, the project did what it needed to in order to fulfill the objectives.
The full impact of many of these efforts has yet to be seen, as timing is a factor. And still, as in the case of any
development project, this is just one step in the process.
The past weakness of the DEF and its current unresolved status is a critical factor for the future sustainability of
public participation and cooperation in the Danube region. If the legal status of the organization is not adequately
established from the beginning, its capacity to attract funding will be greatly diminished. Currently, the
representatives of the DEF are unaware as to how and effectively establish the organization.
13
ANNEX VI
Objective 4: Develop the financing of the pollution reduction program within the Danube SAP
(Prepared on the basis of findings of Friderich Schwaiger)
Sub-objective 4.1: Develop portfolio of Danube basin projects
4.1.1 Financing strategies for pollution reduction developed for the particular circumstances of each Danube
Country
The report "Analysis of Financing Mechanisms " issued in March 1999 gives a general financing strategy
recommendation for all countries. For the project financing, the study recommends to use at first the national
resources (mainly water revenues and public funds), and then, when the national funding is no more available,
the international financing. The study recommends promotion of private sector participation. Implementation of
these recommendations requires significant improvement in revenue collection for water and waste water
services.
4.1.2 A portfolio of investment-related pollution reduction projects for co-financing
4.1.3 A portfolio of wetlands and capacity-building projects for co-financing (grant) consideration
The "Danube River Basin Pollution Reduction Programme Report" of June 1999 contains a portfolio of 421
projects, .including 246 hot-spots and 298 693 hectares of wetlands. The projects were identified, and their cost
estimated by national experts. The PCU checked the information for plausibility. Total investment cost equals
US$5.5 billion. The total is distributed as follows: municipal projects US$3.5 billion; wetlands US$1.1
billion; others US$0.9 billion The baseline cost are of US$ 3.5 billion, the incremental cost, US$ 2.0 billion
According to the GEF regulations, only the transboundary project incremental costs are eligible for financing.
Regarding the waste water treatment plants, the incremental costs represent the tertiary treatment. Regarding the
wetland and floodplain projects, incremental is the cost of restoration.
The projects were ranked according to investment cost needed per unit of removed BOD, COD, P and N.
Although the data should be systematically updated, according to the project management, the ranking of the top
series projects should not be affected, as experience shows a good positive correlation between project size and
priority ranking.
Sub-objective 4.2: Mechanisms to provide sustainable financial support for the Danube River Basin
4.2.1 An agreed feasibility study for establishing a fund
4.2.2 Agreed mechanism to set up long-term financing mechanisms for pollution reduction
projects in the Danube River basin
A specialized agency (KfW) that conducted the study for creation of a Danube Environmental Fund have
concluded that such a fund would not be feasible. The study, described in April 1999 in a report `Financing
Pollution Reduction Measures in the Danube River Basin: Present Situation and Suggestions for new
Instruments', arguments thoroughly and convincingly against the fund. The arguments are supported by
examples of difficulties experienced by other similar funds. The main arguments are:
- The wealthier countries have not interest in a compensation mechanism (wealthy countries contribute to the
fund, less well off countries receive from fund);
- International taxes and pollution charges as source of finance is not accepted by all countries;
14
ANNEX VI
- The amount of available donor and IFI money would not increase by such fund - why to carry administration
cost for such fund;
- EU extends sizeable concessional money to potential accession countries but not to a fund;
- PMTF can take over a possible brokerage function of the fund and assistance in project preparation.
As an alternative, the agency proposed a fund that will provide assistance for project identification, grants for
investment projects, and packaging of projects for financing. This alternative was rejected by ICPDR Steering
Committee.
As a result of the rejection, the KfW recommended establishment of a Project Appraisal Group (PAG) that
would apprise the projects and, if they were conform to the ICPDR standard, recommend them to donors.
Simultaneously with PAG, the KfW recommended creation of a Project Implementation Facility (PIF) that
would support the ICPDR in regional investment programs, assist member countries in project preparation, and
monitor the results. The cost of PIF for a 3 to 4 years would be of US$2.3 million. The ICPDR endorsed the
PAG and PIF proposals, and expects that the PIF may be finance by UNDP/GEF.
4.2.3 Updated revision of the SAP
The project has revised the Strategic Action Plan and enriched it with inputs from national reviews, workshops
and international expert studies. The SAP follows the target-oriented project planning method. However it is
overloaded with information and contains repetitions. In consequence, the document should be streamlined,
restricted to essentials, well structured and made easy to read.
4.2.4 High level endorsement for the policy objectives and pollution reduction targets of the SAP
Endorsement of the final version of the revised SAP by the Ministers of the Danube countries is expected to take
place at the Ministerial conference in Romania, scheduled for the end of 1999 or beginning of 2000.
4.2.5 Agreed co-financing for pollution projects
A donor pledging conference or a PPC meeting has not been held yet. However, according to the project
management, the regular meetings of the PMTF (two to three times a year), usually combined with the Steering
Committee in presence of major donors representatives, actually substitute such a meeting.
Overall output from objective 4
The successful completion of all outputs within the objective four allowed the project to
- Present a portfolio of 421 projects evaluated at US5.5 billion;
- Rank them according to investment cost effectiveness;
- Propose funding for regional activities; and
- Revise the Strategic Action Plan so as to include the newly identified projects.
The whole load of objective realization was in the hands national experts and based on national consultations. In
consequence, the results genuinely reflect the national preoccupations and priorities. Even the output's
weaknesses due to the difference in the quality of data available in the countries have important political and
technical significance. They identify the domains to improve and motivate the countries to attain the same
technical standards in project elaboration
15
ANNEX VII
ANNEX VII
PROJECT NUMBER:
RER/96/G31 /A/1G/31
PROJECT
TITLE: DEVELOPING THE DANUBE RIVER BASINPOLLUTION REDUCTION
PROGRAMME
Author:
FRANCOIS VAN HOOF
Title of Report:
EVALUATION REPORT ON THE COMPLETION OF THE KNOWLEDGE
BASE FOR PRIORITY SETTING
Duration of Contract: 12 18 JUNE 1999 (7 days)
Contract Number:
99-15094
1
ANNEX VII
TABLE OF CONTENT
page
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3
2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
3
3
INTRODUCTION
4
3.1
PROJECT BACKGROUND
4
3.2
EVALUATION MISSION
4
4
OBJECTIVES
4
5
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
5
6.
REPORT OF FINDINGS
5
6.1
NATIONAL REVIEWS
5
6.2
TRANSBOUNDARY ANALYSIS
8
6.3
THE DANUBE WATER QUALITY MODEL
8
6.4
WETLANDS AND FLOODPLAINS
9
6.5
SOCIAL ANALYSIS OF POLLUTION IN THE DANUBE BASIN
9
6.6
NATIONAL BASELINES FOR POLLUTION REDUCTION
9
6.7
PROJECT CONCEPT AND DESIGN
9
6.8
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
9
6.9 PROJECT
RESULTS
10
7 CONCLUSIONS
10
8
RECOMMENDATIONS
11
9
LESSONS LEARNED
11
10. ANNEXES
12
2
ANNEX VII
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This evaluation mission had to find out whether the objectives related to the knowledge basis for priority setting
had been realised .
The major tasks mentioned in the project document have been carried out within the time schedule originally
proposed
This resulted in documents being available at the time of the mission on the following topics :
° updated national reviews
° transnational diagnostic analysis ( TDA )
° development of a Danube Water Quality Model ( DWQM )
° assessment of the priority sites for wetland and floodplain restoration
° social analysis of pollution in the Danube River Basin
Some of these reports were available in draft form only
This project has been very relevant to the Danube river basin countries and The Black Sea and was well in line
with UNDP and GEF priorities.
It has been focusing on nitrogen and phosphorus pollution mainly . Although the project has been managed
efficiently and produced several high quality reports , some parts ( mainly TDA and DWQM) had to deal with
insufficient data for emission and imission of N and P .This created uncertainties which have compromised the
results obtained in TDA . In the DWQM work , these shortcomings were overcome these with success .
Apart from the technical aspects , increased cooperation between the countries in the Danube region is without
doubt a very positive output of this project .
In order to enable sustainability after the ending of this project , the International Commission for Protection of
the Danube River ( ICPDR ) should be supported by intenational financial sources to enable the implementation
of differents parts of this project .
2. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Special thanks are herewith extended to:
Mr. R. Aertgeerts , portfolio manager , Mr. J. Bendow , project manager and Mr.A. Garner , environmental
specialist , for introducing us to the project and providing all the necessary information .
The colleagues of the evaluation team : Esther Park , Fritz Schwaiger and Stanislaw Manikowski , team leader ,
for their collegial attitude and stimulating discussions .
3
ANNEX VII
3. INTRODUCTION
3.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND
After the end of the first phase of the Danube River Basin Evironmental Programme ( 1992 - 1996 ) , which
concentrated on building regional cooperation for water management , evaluating and defining problems ,
implementing a basin wide water quality monitoring strategy and establishing a warning system for accidental
pollution , the need was felt for an extension which would cover the following items :
° pollution reduction programmes for substances causing eutrophication in the Danube river and the Black
Sea
° ecological rehabilitation programmes for priority wetlands
° development of a revised strategic action plan including linkages with the Black Sea
° increasing public awareness
° strengthening capacities of NGO's
° preparing project documents for priority pollution reduction
° improvement of international cooperation
The project should have started August 15 1997 with a duration of 16 months . In practice it started December
15 1997 and will end July 1999 .
3.2 EVALUATION MISSION
UNOPS contracted the final evaluation of the project to a team of individual consultants.
They carried out a field mission from June 12 to June 20 1999.
The team consisted of :
Stanislaw Manikowski , environmental Policy specialist , Team Leader
Francois Van Hoof Environmental Assessment Specialist
Esther Park Institutional Development/ Public Awareness Specialist
Fritz Schwaiger Environmental Finance Specialist
In accordance with the TOR each team member prepared separate mission report . These reports were brought
together in one integrated report by the team leader .
4. OBJECTIVES
According to the TOR the main objectives of the evaluation mission should consider the impact , effectiveness
and efficiency of the project . In particular the evaluation had to address the following issues :
Project design
Project implementation
Project impact ( completion of the knowledge base for priority setting , review the policy for protection of the
Danube Basin and the Black Sea , increase public awareness and participation , develop the financing of the
pollution reduction programme within the Danube Strategic Action Plan )
4
ANNEX VII
5. SOURCES OF INFORMATION
This evaluation report is based on information and documents received during the evaluation mission in Vienna
and other locations (cfr. Itineraries of the team members ).
The following documents have been consulted :
° Updated national reviews of all Danube River Basin Countries except Germany and Austria
° Transboundary Analysis ( draft report , March 1 1999 )
° Danube Water Quality Model Simulations ( June 12 1999 )
° Social analysis of pollution in the Danube River Basin ( final version 1999 )
° Evaluation of wetlands and floodplain areas in the Danube river Basin ( draft report , February 1999 )
° Pollution Reduction Programme Report ( June 1999 )
° Environmental Programme for the Danube River Basin : Annual Report 1996
6. REPORT OF FINDINGS
6.1 NATIONAL REVIEWS
All national reviews , updated in a common format , were available ( except for Austria and Germany).
All reports contain lists of hot spots in the municipal , industrial and agricultural sectors . Only the report for
Bosnia Herzegovina does not mention priotirisation due to lack in experience in this field.
In most cases , the hot spots are categorised according their urgency ( high , intermediate , low ) .
Each report was evaluated with respect to the data needed for the transboundary analysis and water quality
model simulations .
A short overview of the findings for each of the countries is given below .
SLOVENIA
° apart from the priority substances ( N,P,COD and BOD ) , the report brings data on some pesticides
( a.o.atrazine and its metabolites desethylatrazine and desisopropylatrazine) and mentions that fifty percent of the
ground waters are unfit for human consumption as a consequence of diffuse pollution ( nitrates and pesticides )
° the frequency of the immission measurements on surface waters is very low ( four per year ) , mostly
performed at low river flows . This approach doesnot allow reliable calculations of loads of priority pollutants .
CZECH REPUBLIC
° in adddition to the priority substances to be monitored , attention has been given to some organic and inorganic
micropollutants , especially mercury and PCB's which have caused some problems .
° the measuring frequency for immision measurements is twelve per year . The approach for load calculations is
not given .
° 3000 - 4000 abandoned waste sites ( industrial and municipal ) are mentioned as potential threats to water
quality
SLOVAKIA
° information on sampling frequencies is completely missing
° no details are given at all on the calculation of loads
° information is only given in terms of immision concentrations for the priority parameters requested , in
addition organochlorine pesticides and triazine herbicides have been found , without mentioning concentrations
5
ANNEX VII
HUNGARY
° in addition to the priority parameters requested , a wide set of parameters is measured additionally
° sampling frequencies used for immission measurement areonce a month , once per two weeks or weekly
depending on locations and parameters
° the laboratories performing the analysis follow strict quality assurance schemes
° the data obtained are being statistically treated
° in addition to the priority parameters , sufficient data for reliable load calculation are available for phenols ,
anionic detergents and oil .
BULGARIA
° data available are limited to priority parameters
° sampling frequency once per month
° calculation of loads is not described
° the report is written in very general terms
ROMANIA
° data on priority parameters available
° loads have been calculated over the period 1988 - 1996 for priority parameters
° methods used for load calculation are not described
MOLDOVA
° the report mentions different problems related to water quality but fails to describe them systematically
° there is no systematic information on parameters measured nor on sampling frequencies
° information on priority parameters and and a few parameters is being reported in a non structured way
° no indications on load calculations could be found
UKRAINE
° the report shows a lack of systematic information on sampling frequencies and parameters analysed
° as far as immissions are concerned , only concentrations are reported , loads are not mentioned at all
CROATIA
° results on priority parameters are available for the Danube and the Sava and Drava rivers , results for some
organic and inorganic micropollutants have been produced
° the sampling frequencies are not mentioned
° loads have been calculated by multiplying the yearly average concentrations with the yearly average
discharges : this approach is scientifically unsound and doesnot allow to produce reliable load figures . as such
it renders evaluation of transboundary effects impossible .
6
ANNEX VII
BOSNIA HERZEGOVINA
° due to the war in which the country was involved for several years , only a very limited set of water quality
data is available as well in terms of parameters analysed as samplings performed .
° due to this situation , the calculation of loads as well as the evaluation of transboundary effects is rendered very
difficult
In addition to the chapters on water quality gives important information on the recent evolutions in Bosnia
Herzegovina :
° unaccounted for water percentages ranging between 30 to 70 %
° of the waters used , only 15 % is purified in waste water treatment plants
° 30 -40 % of the drinking water doesnot meet the quality criteria
° hot spot prioritisation was not carried out due to lack of experience in this field , nevertheless a list with
municipal , industrial and agricultural hot spots is included in the report
° future policies will stress reconstruction of sewerage collection and waste water treatment plants
FORMER REPUBLIC OF YUGOSLAVIA
° the report stresses that Yugoslavia receives confluents of the Danube river which drain 360.000 km2
( 45 % of the Danube River basin ) and also attracts the attention to the difficult relations with its neighbour
countries and international exclusion
In relation to water quality it mentions the following points of attention :
° emission data collected after 1992 are limited and unreliable
° there is a lack of reliable time series of immission values
° unsufficient laboratory equipment
° the laboratories perform only first line quality control , participation in interlaboratory tests ( third line control )
is non existant
The overview of all national reports learns that they differ strongly in quality . Excellent reports have been
produced by e.g. Hungary . On the other hand , the reports of Moldova and Ukraine provide little usefull
information .
In general and as far as water quality data are concerned , all reports strongly focus on concentrations . Pollutant
loads on the other hand are seldom mentioned , although they are important tools for policy evaluation .
6.2 TRANBOUNDARY ANALYSIS
The document which was available to the evaluation mission is the March 1 , 1999 draft report .
The authors of the document realised that the data available in many of the national reviews were insufficient for
carrying out their task . Due to the fact that the 1996 report of the TNMN was not available at the time this topic
was engaged , it was decided to use the data in the national reviews for this purpose in spite of many
inconsistencies .
The documents correctly mentions that the recommended procedure for calculating loads should be based on
monthly average discharges and concentrations corrected for monthly average discharge . This approach can be
defended in cases where data are scarce . The report does not give indications whether this approach has been
used consistently .
7
ANNEX VII
A source of important errors lies in the calculations of BOD loads based on immission results : these values are
in most cases very low and as such subject to important analytical errors . Using these figures for load
calculation , will lead to unreliable load figures .
The draft report does not mention any conclusions ( they will be added later ) nor in relation to the Danube River
nor to the Black Sea , although the introduction describes the relation between both in detail .
6.3 THE DANUBE WATER QUALITY MODEL
The report entitled " Danube Water Quality Model simulations in support of the Transboundary Analysis and the
Pollution Reduction Programme ", dated June 12 1999 was available to the evaluation team .
This report meets the requirements formulated in the project document , taking into account the limited water
quality data sets available . As a consequence of this limitation , no modelling could be applied regarding to
BOD , COD and oil .
The DWQM was built on generic software used for many years by Delft Hydraulics , which was adapted to The
Danube basin and to which were added elements from the AEWS model (Project Code 95-0412 : Development
of a Danube Basin Alarmmodel in support of the Accident Emergency Warning System ) .
The development of the DWQM aimed in a first phase on nutrients pollution ( N,P ) with a double aim :
° evaluation of transboundary pollution
° implementation of pollution reduction programmes
In addition the effects of wetlands in terms of nutrient removal had to de addressed as well .
As well as the transboundary analysis , the application of the model came across the lack of consistent and
reliable data . Due to the uncertainties in emission values for nitrogen , two emission scenarios ( high and low )
were considered .
The uncertainties for P , due to a.o. stratification in the river , were taken into account by multiplying the
figures with a factor two . Taking into account these hypotheses , simulations have been carried out in support to
the Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis and the Pollution Reduction Programme .
Given the prerequisites mentioned above , the results obtained have to be interpreted with caution . Nevertheless,
the first results give indication on the most important sources of N and P pollution : they demonstrate a.o. that
diffuse pollution is the most important contributor to N and P pollution in the Danube basin and that the impact
of wetlands on N and P reduction is limited .
The report lacks clear conclusions and recommendations for future work .
6.4 WETLANDS AND FLOODPLAINS
The draft report " Evaluation of Wetlands and Floodplain Areas in the Danube River Basin " ( February 1999 )
and its annex was available to the evaluators .
This document meets the criteria put forward in the project document including the discussion of the potential of
wetlands for nutrient removal . The effect of wetlands on N and P removal , has been evaluated indirectly ( e.g.
by the number of days a landstrip has been flooded ).
During the discussion of the report with the authors , it was made clear that nutrient reduction by wetlands is
only a side effect of wetland rehabilitation and should not be considered as an alternative for waste water
treatment or policies aiming at reducing nutrient input from diffuse sources . This point of view is confirmed by
the limited impact predicted by the DWQM model for nutrient removal by wetlands .
8
ANNEX VII
Apart from the activities themselves the sub-contractor carrying out this work , made it clear that ivolvement of
local people in this activity is a prerequisite for success . Keeping this in mind , finacial support has been given
to local people for improvement of tourism infrastructure ( WWF funds ) .
6.5 SOCIAL ANALYSIS OF POLLUTION IN THE DANUBE RIVER BASIN
A report on the above mentioned subject written by Reinhard Wanninger ( dated March 1999 )was available to
the evaluators . It covers the topics mentioned in the project document .
The information given in chapter 4 ( Population potentially affected by unsanitary conditions in the Danube
River Basin ) is very general and doesnot cover hygienic risks adequately . However this topic was very poorly
described in the project document ( point 57 , page 18 : " There is no indication of the extent to which
transboundary pollution may contribute to the incidence of these diseases . The project document should have
mentioned several outbreaks of waterborne gastro intestinal diseases which have occured in several Danube
countries ( e.g.Romania ) and which are very relevant in this context .
6.6 CALCULATION OF NATIONAL BASELINES FOR POLLUTION REDUCTION
All details for cost analysis , including baseline and incremental costs can be found in the Pollution Reduction
Programme Report ( section 7.2.4 ) .
6.7 PROJECT CONCEPT AND DESIGN
The concept and design of the project were appropriate at the time when the project was approved and fit in
different UNDP areas of concentration : environmental problems , national resources management , management
development and technical cooperation between the countries in the Danube River Basin .
The first UNDP project tied up very well with the EU PHARE project ( 1992 - 1996 ) . For the second phase ,
cooperation between both programmes is less evident .
The project document clearly states the problems which the project intended to solve . Political risks especially
linked to the situation in Croatia , Bosnia Herzegovina and the Former Republic of Yugoslavia were recognised .
The framework of the project document clearly stated the objectives and outputs . The phasing of the project
activities is realistic given sufficient input ( water quality data ) is available . However , this was not the case .
The project document strongly stresses the effects of wetlands and floodplains in terms of nutrient reduction ,
while nutrient reduction in this context should be considered as a beneficial side effect .
The project's actions and outcomes are in line with GEF guidelines related to quality of transboundary waters ,
habitat degradation , excessive exploitation of resources and the GEF role as a catalyst for eco-system based
approach , assisting groups of countries to understand the environmental concerns of their international waters
and implementation measures adresssing transboundary concerns . The focus of the project on control of land
based sources of pollution and prevention of degradation of critical habitats agree with GEF's focuses .
6.8 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
A work plan was developed from the beginning . The project took off several months after the start date
mentioned in the project document .
All activities mentioned in the project document have been implemented . Some of them ( e.g. the transboundary
analysis ) were implemented in a less effective way due to lack of water quality data .
The involvement of national staff occurred mainly through the input of local consultants ( e.g. the drafting of
national reviews and the study related to wetlands and floodplains ) .
9
ANNEX VII
At least two countries (Bosnia Herzegovina and the Former Republic of Yugoslavia ) were in a war situation or
were emerging from it , as a consequence their capacity to supply inputs to the project was very limited .
The administrative management of the project was excellent , without cost overruns hindering implementation .
A major problem affecting successful implementation was the lack of sufficient and reliable imission water
quality data which were needed for the transboundary analysis and for the validation of the Danube Water
Quality Model .
This shortage could not be overcome within the duration of the project .
6.9 PROJECT RESULTS
The results obtained are relevant in the current context and the programme was efficiently managed .
The project produced all the reports required ( some of them in draft form at the time of the evaluation mission )
. Most of the reports produced have a high quality , nevertheless some reports carry the burden of the insufficient
amount of data on which they had to build ( transboundary analysis ) , others demonstrate elegant approaches to
solve this basic problem ( Report on the Danube Water Quality Model )
Overall there was a good achievement of the immediate objectives of the project , which can make a contribution
to the development of the region .
Effectiveness and efficiency could have been improved by describing the information needs more precisely
before the start of the project .
Sustainability can be secured by transferring the results of the project to th International Commission for the
Protection of the Danube River .
7. CONCLUSIONS
1. All updated national reviewshave been produced . The reports on Bosnia Herzegovina and the Former
Republic of Yugoslavia report only a limited number of water quality data due to their particular political
situation .
2. Al national reviews contain lists of municipal , industrial and agricultural hot spots made up by a common
methodology , information on national policies with focus on N and P reduction .
3. Based on these data , national baselines are available in the pollution reduction programme report .
4. A mathematical model ( DWQM) has been developed which should be used in the evaluation of
transboundary pollution and implementation of the pollution reduction programme . Although the model as
such is very valuable , its application is greatly hindered by a lack of sufficient and reliable emission and
imission data .
5. The lack of reliable imision date and the low frequency of measurements render the calculation of loads
necessary for transboundary analysis ( TDA ) very difficult . It was impossible to generate the data necessary
for TDA and application of the DWQM within the project duration .
6. The assessment of the priority for wetlands and flood plain restoration has been carried out in a very
satisfactory way .
7. One of the most obvious achievements of this project is the fact that countries in the Danube region have
learned to cooperate in spite of enormous differences in their economic and political situations .
10
ANNEX VII
8. RECOMMENDATIONS
With regard to the future planning of similar projects , it should be kept in mind that sufficient , reliable water
quality data should be available for vital parts of the project . If not , monitoring experiments should be carried
out which can supply these data .
Knowledge transfer from this project to the ICPDR should occur in order to use the information generated for
water quality management by the commission and further development of those elements in the project which
could not be fully implemented by lack of data .
In order to use and further develop the information produced in this project , international funding should be
made available to the ICPDR . This is considered the only way to secure sustainability of the project impact and
results .
During the last years , the load of some priority pollutant , especially P , from the Danube towards the Black Sea
has decreased . At the same time a reversal of trends in algal blooms and its negative consequences has been
observed in the Black Sea . As far as the input of P is concerned , the poor economic situation in many Danube
countries has certainly contributed in this trend .
It should be strongly advised that under a future improvement of economic activities , stringent policies are
implemented which limit the input of nutrients in the Black Sea to at least present day levels .
In order to evaluate the input of pollutants in the Black Sea , a common methodology covering adequately the
inputs in the Black Sea should be developed . This should be accompanied by the introduction of quality
assurance schemes in the laboratories performing the analytical and sampling activities .
9. LESSONS LEARNED
A major positive lesson is certainly that through this project countries in the Danube River Basin have learnt to
cooperate better in management of the Danube waters .
Another positive element is the input of local consultants and NGO's in different parts of the project ( e.g.
updating national reviews , wetlands and floodplain study ).
A negative lesson to be kept in mind is the lack of communication between different important actors ( GEF -
UNDP , EU PHARE and the World Bank ) . The refusal of the World Bank to fund transboundary projects is
experienced as negative for effective cooperation among Danube countries .
In the same context , the change in PHARE rules ( from multicountry to single country approach ) and the take
over of former PHARE projects by TACIS did not improve effectiveness nor efficiency .
Another lesson is that before engaging in pollution loads and mathematical modelling sufficient and reliable
imission data should be available before the start of these activities . Generating these data in an ongoing project
is impossible .
11
ANNEX VII
10. ANNEXES
ITINERARY AND SITE VISITS
Sunday , June 13 : Travel from Brussels to Vienna . Arrival in Vienna 15.00 . Meeting with Stanislaw
Manikowski , team leader , Esther Park and Roger Aertgeerts , UNOPS portfolio manager : introductory
discussion on the tasks of the mission .
Monday , June 14 : Meeting with Joachim Bendow , Programme Manager , Stanislaw Manikowski , team leader
, Andy Garner , Esther Park and Roger Aertgeerts , UNOPS portfolio manager , Fritz Schwaiger at the Vienna
international Center. Discussion on the methodology to be followed during evaluation .
Afternoon : Discussion of the points to be adressed and where the information can be found . This meeting was
attended was attended by the same persons as the morning session , except Mr. Schwaiger .
Evening : evaluation of the national reports of several countries
Tuesday , June 15 : Meeting with Mr. Teun Botterweg , EU/PHARE Programme and Mr. F.Schwaiger, Vienna
International Centre on the activities of the PHARE and TACIS in the Danube region
Further evaluation of the national reports of several countries
Afternoon : Meeting with Mr. Andy Garner , environment specialist and Mr. F.Schwaiger on different aspects of
the project , Vienna International Centre
Evening : evaluation of the national reports of several countries
Wednesday , June 16 : Meeting with Mr. Helmuth Fleckseder , Technical and Scientific Director of the ICPDR
and Mr. F.Schwaiger, Vienna International Centre on the strategies of nitrogen and phosphate reduction .
Evaluation of the national report on the Republic of Yugoslavia
Afternoon : Meeting with Mr. Phil Weller WWF Danube - Carpathian Programme Director on different aspects
of wetlands and floodplains at the WWF office Ottakringer Strasse 114 - 116, Vienna .
Meeting with Mr.Wolfgang Stalzer , Director at the Ministerium of Landwirtsschaft and President of the ICPRD
on the activities of the ICPRD with Stanislaw Manikowski , team leader , Esther Park and Fritz Schwaiger .
Thursday , June 17 : Meeting with Mr. Stanislaw Manikowski , team leader on the preliminary conclusions of
the mission at the Vienna International Centre .
Flight from Vienna to Brussels , arrival in Brussels 21.30
Friday , June, 18 : Travel from Hove to Delft . Meeting with Mr. J. van Gils at Delft Hydraulics .
Return to Hove
Saturday , June 19 : Report writing
Sunday , June 20 : Report writing
12
Annex VIII
ANNEX VIII
Esther PARK
3. Public awareness, public participation, information exchange
3.1 Project Design
The public awareness component of the project was designed to increase public participation and awareness not
only in the individual countries, but also on a regional level. Central and Eastern European countries (including
NIS countries) in transition were the main targets, assuming that Austria and Germany already had effective
third sector development. The rationale for this output is that it will lead to sustainable policies in the Danube
Basin.
This aspect of the project had a threefold objective, which was only partially effective due to an inattention to
structural considerations, which will be expounded on in section 3.4. The project's effectiveness with regard to
public awareness was limited because the "public" was not well defined. It was not clear to whom exactly the
awareness campaign should reach. If the target group was non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and
governments, then the project was mostly effective. If the target group was the wider public, then the
effectiveness of the project is a bit more ambiguous. It is difficult to measure the impact of the project on the
wider public without doing a large-scale study. Additionally, the final outcome of the small grants that were
given to awareness raising projects is still pending.
The project was more effective in the arena of public participation. NGOs were effectively brought into the
process of SAP planning/revising and their input noted. Considering the scope of the project, most major NGOs
in each country were brought into the decision-making process. Perhaps the biggest drawback was that of the
Danube Environmental Forum (DEF). The project overestimated the potential effectiveness of this organization
and its force within the objective was minimal.
Overall, this component contributed well to the development objective, but the most constraining factor on all
the elements was timing. From a structural point of view, transitioning governments are dealing with various
pushes and pulls, and thus are not always able to be in the ideological position that the project already assumes.
For this reason, it would be difficult to implement public participation in countries that were not ready for it.
Additionally, the strict time frame of the project caused many components, which could and should have
contributed to one another, to overlap.
The project greatly relies on the DEF for its sustainability in this component. At this point, the DEF is weak and
unable to take on this burden. The ICPDR is willing to support public participation, but does not necessarily
identify DEF as the agency through which it should happen.
Cooperation with the Black Sea NGOs has been somewhat unrealistic. The NGOs in the Danube River Basin
must have some history of cooperation among themselves before attempting cooperative efforts with the Black
Sea NGO Forum.
3.2 Project Implementation
The project was implemented by the PCU in an excellent fashion with regard to timeliness. Though the design
of the project itself was constrained by time, the PCU made the best effort that it could to allow the different
components and stakeholders to interact. The PCU also considered the expansion and contraction of various
objectives as they deemed relevant to prevailing circumstances.
1
Annex VIII
The bulk of this component of the project was contracted out to the Regional Environmental Center for Central
and Eastern Europe (REC), which was in an excellent position to provide this kind of specialized support for the
PCU. The REC is a long-standing organization dedicated to the support of environmental NGOs and
administers grant programs from governments and other international donors. While headquartered in
Szentendre, Hungary, the REC has local offices in every country in which they work. These local offices have
formed good relationships with the governments and the NGO communities, respectively; and they know the
specific needs of each country. Thus, the REC was an ideal candidate for the work of the project. Because they
are established as an organization, there was little reinventing of the wheel and the implementation of the Small
Grants Program was relatively smooth. Timeliness of this program was an issue because of the lack of effective
communication between the REC and the PCU.
Given the time limits of the project, the REC was probably the best option as subcontractor. However, as a
trade-off, the PCU was two steps removed from the NGOs. There was little direct interaction between the two,
which may have reflected poorly on the CPCs' level of cooperation with the NGOs.
The "Danube Watch" was also subcontracted out to an independent editor and publisher. Three copies of the
Watch were published, but along the way it became clear that the editor was unreliable and the PCU lost control
of the content of the publication. At this point in time, the editing and publishing of the Watch has changed
hands. Phare has been actively involved in the process and was instrumental in finding a new editor/publisher.
The PCU began work on the Danube Information System (DANIS) and found that it would be more effective in
the big picture to incorporate DANIS into the system being created by the ICPDR, "DANUBIS." This project is
being co-funded by a combination of Phare, Austrian Trust Fund, and the Austrian Ministry of Agriculture and
Industry. To date, the web site is not yet functional, but is expected to be fully operational by the fall of 1999.
In the meantime, Phare has published a Danube home page connected to that of REC, from which all activity
will be forwarded to DANUBIS once it is functional.
3.3 Project Impact
The PCU did not produce materials or hold events to raise public awareness as outlined in the project document.
Instead, the PCU felt that they would be better served by holding a regional training workshop called "Target
Oriented Program Planning" (TOPP), in which one NGO representative and one government representative from
each country were trained in public participation philosophy and methodology.
These representatives then became facilitators in the National NGO Workshops, arranged and facilitated by the
REC, where national priorities were discussed and identified. These priorities were consequently introduced in
the National SAP Planning Workshops where the results from the National Reviews (technical) and the National
NGO Workshops were brought together to result in a revised SAP and the Pollution Reduction Program.
Further, the results of the National NGO Workshops were brought to a Regional NGO Consultation Meeting, in
which NGO representatives from all 13 countries came together to discuss regional priorities and to re-establish
or revitalize the DEF. The DEF has been weak and unable to participate effectively in the implementation of
this project. Instead, the REC has taken the responsibility for the National NGO meetings. For similar reasons,
the DEF was unable to hold a joint workshop with the Black Sea Basin NGO Forum. Cooperation with the
Black Sea project has been slow as a whole. So far there has been only a joint technical working group with the
Black Sea.
It should be noted that the past failures of the DEF have alienated some NGOs from participating, most
noticeably those in Hungary. As a group, a number of Hungarian NGOs refused to participate in the National
NGO meeting and sent a letter of protest stating that they would not have anything to do with the DEF.
Currently, the DEF is in the rather precarious position of not being legally registered as an entity. As with many
NGOs, the organization has little know-how with regard to legality, financial viability, and general management.
However, they have made good progress in information sharing. The members have created an email network,
which acts essentially as a list serve, and so far there has been good participation.
2
Annex VIII
The Small Grants Program was carried out by the REC, working together with the PCU to develop guidelines
and publicize the program. Because of a delay in actually disseminating the grants, the impact and results of the
program have not yet been revealed.
The "Danube Watch" has been published in three issues, with two more special editions forthcoming. Four
thousand issues were being disseminated, and now it has increased to 8000. Future plans have it being published
on the DANUBIS site, as well as a condensed version inserted into another existing environmental publication
(in Austria). Unfortunately, the former editor at some point stopped following the developments of the Danube
program. After Phare funding stops in October 1999, sustainability of the publication will be in the hands of the
new publisher. There is the possibility of inserting advertisements into the journal by which it might be self-
sustaining.
The establishment of the Danube program home page has been facilitated by Phare, as mentioned above. This
home page is being hosted by the REC web site and has the appropriate links to maps, legislation, donors, and
other relevant information. A counter was put into the system, from which it can be assumed that up to 1000
people have visited the site.
Instead of updating DANIS as the project document outlined, the PCU felt it would be better to create a new
system with a wider scope, and thus created a working group to create "DANUBIS" in March 1998. Existing
components of DANIS, as well as the program home page, will be integrated into the new system.
3.4 Theory (Project Design revisited)
When considering the design of a project, it is important to analyze how it affects societal structure as well as
how the project is designed internally. First, looking at societal structure, the decision making process is the
focal point. Individual actors bring their own self-interest and ideologies to the table and make decisions based
on those interests. Each of these actions comes together to create a collective action, the output from which
affects the environment in some way. When the environment is altered, the individual's perception of reality
changes. And so the cycle continues. Between each of these stages, there is an imperfect flow of information
and communication. Disjunctures among individuals' worldviews can create greater disparity in the outcome of
the collective action (if there be any outcome at all), and thus will maintain or intensify the differences among
worldviews. If the point is to alter the outcome, the set of notions with which each person comes to the decision-
making table must also be altered. Simply introducing a new set of actors will not necessarily bring about the
desired outcome.
With regard to the design of a project, factors such as principal-agent problems must be addressed. A hierarchy
arises such that the donors and the project staff form one relationship, and the project staff and the sub-
contractors form another. Increasing levels of hierarchy widens the opportunity for miscommunication and
information gaps. Thus any organization has it within its best interest to minimize its hierarchical levels.
Additionally, the number of decision points through which any action must go through is directly related to the
cohesiveness and efficiency of that action. The decision to sub-contract usually comes out of the necessity to
have specialized services as well as a low level of uncertainty. Also, special effort must be made to assure that
processes are linked to goals.
3.5 Conclusions and Recommendations
Overall, the project did what it needed to into order to fulfill the objectives of the project. The full impact of
many of these efforts has yet to be seen, as timing is a factor. And still, as in the case of any development
project, this is just one step in the process.
In all, the project design hampered the intentions and the goal of the public participation component of the
project. While NGOs were effectively drawn into the decision-making process, the government side was less
prepared for cooperation on this level. Because many of the countries in the Danube river basin are still in a
transitional phase from an authoritarian to democratic rule, government authorities have yet to fully understand
3
Annex VIII
the importance of accountability to the public. With this disparity in social framework, the collective action will
also suffer either from a lack of action at all or some of the participants dropping out of the process.
The decision to contract out a large part of the public participation component was probably the best decision to
make, though there were trade-offs involved. The project had to its advantage that the REC was a large and
well-established organization with a history in many of the countries in the Danube river basin. However, this
also necessitated that the contact with NGOs had to go through the REC's bureaucratic structure in addition to
that of the project, which at times conflicted. Also, the fact that the REC did not work in all the countries in the
basin contributed to a somewhat patchwork approach to NGO involvement as a whole. The nature of
subcontracting similarly caused somewhat of a rift between process and goals. The result was that the process
was adequately executed, though somewhat in isolation from the other processes in the project. This
disconnectedness may also contribute to an undesirable collective action in the implementation stage of the SAP
or Pollution Reduction Program.
The past weakness of the DEF and its current unresolved status is a critical factor for the future sustainability of
public participation and cooperation in the Danube region. NGOs in Hungary have already collectively decided
not to participate in the DEF. If the legal status of the organization is not adequately established from the
beginning, its capacity to attract funding will be greatly diminished. Currently, the representatives of the DEF
are unaware as to how to most effectively establish the organization.
In light of the above, recommendations are as follows:
1. Support should be given to the Commission to find or implement third sector awareness programs on the
governmental level, especially for developing countries. EU requirements for free press have been
instrumental in ascension countries thus far, but training programs are still needed. There has to be some
kind of history of intra-sectoral cooperation before real changes in decision-making can take place.
2. The Commission should support the DEF through management skills in legality and financial liability, and
work consistently to facilitate communication between the DEF and government officials.
3. Should the DEF fail to establish itself, personnel support should be given to the Commission to maintain a
network among NGOs regionally until another means of regional cooperation should become apparent.
4. The Commission should update and maintain the DANUBIS system until it can be sustainably given to the
work of the DEF or a like organization.
3.6 Mission Timeline
Saturday, June 12:
arrival in Vienna
Sunday, June 13:
meeting with team leader
Monday, June 14:
briefing with project leader, Joachim Bendow
project delineation, Joachim Bendow, Andy Garner
Tuesday, June 15:
meeting with Entela Pinguli, REC in Budapest
Wednesday, June 16:
meeting with Teun Botterweg, Phare
meeting with Wolfgang Stalzer, ICPDR
Thursday, June 17:
meeting with Christine Margraf, DEF rep in Munich
Friday, June 18:
depart from Munich
4
Annex IX
ANNEX IX
PROJECT NUMBER:
RER/96/G31/A/1G/31
PROJECT TITLE:
DEVELOPING THE DANUBE RIVER BASIN POLLUTION
REDUCTION PROGRAMME
Author:
FRIEDRICH SCHWAIGER
Title of Report:
EVALUATION REPORT ON OBJECTIVE 4
DEVELOP THE FINANCING OF THE POLLUTION REDUCTION
PROGRAMME WITHIN THE DANUBE STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN
Duration of Contract:
12th 22nd June 1999 (9 Working days)
Contract Number:
CFS-99-1720
Project:
RER/97/RG1
1
Annex IX
TABLE OF CONTENT
PAGE
1. Executive Summary
3
2. Introduction
4
2.1 Project Background
4
2.2 Evaluation Mission
4
3 Acknowledgements
4
4 Objectives
5
5. Sources of Information
5
6. Reports of Findings
5
6.1 Project Design
5
6.1.1 The Scope of Works as per the Project Document
5
6.1.2 Comments on the Project Design
7
6.2 Project Implementation
8
6.2.1 Time Schedule
8
6.2.2 Project Management
8
6.2.3 Project Approach
9
6.3 Project Impact
9
7. General Remarks
12
7.1 Activities of Other Organisations in the Sector and Region
12
7.2 Remarks on the General impact
13
8 Conclusions
14
9 Recommendations
15
ANNEX
Schedule of Meetings
2
Annex IX
1. Executive Summary
This is the end of project evaluation report, covering objective 4 of the project, the financing of the pollution
reduction programme.
A team of four experts carried out a mission to the Project Co-ordination Unit at Vienna. The financial expert
was there from 14th to 18th June 1999 with the exception of a visit to KfW Frankfurt, who did the feasibility
study for the proposed Danube Environmental Fund.
Some sections of the project document were designed rather optimistically. It practically assumed that an
environmental fund will be feasible and that implementation of investment projects could start quickly. In some
cases it is very specific and did not cover "what to do if ... not". However, the project management applied a
very practical approach and so compensated above fact.
The project was implemented within the extended time frame (agreed at the beginning of the project) with the
exception of getting the revised SAP endorsed by the Ministerial conference.
The project work was well organised and strictly managed.
The project management applied the logical framework method (ZOPP) and involved to a high extent national
experts, which is found good.
Some 400 hot spot projects have been identified with a total investment portfolio of USD 5.5 billion, the
majority of projects being municipal waste water projects.
Costs have been split into baseline cost and incremental cost, according to GEF funding criteria. No reliable
operation and maintenance cost could be obtained, so the ranking of projects was done on the basis of
investment cost effectiveness.
Existing financing strategies in each country have been studied and general financing strategies were presented.
KfW did the feasibility study on the establishment of a Danube Environmental Fund and came to a negative
conclusion. The result is found correct. The proposed alternative of establishing a grant facility fund was turned
down by the ICPDR, as it would require a modification of the International Convention.
It is now proposed to install under the directive of the ICPDR a PIF (Project Implementation Facility) and a PAG
(Project Appraisal Group). The PIF will support ICPDR with regard to investment programs and all regional
activities, project preparation and identification. The PAG is a group of national experts who approve investment
projects confirming by their seal to a potential donor that a) the project is of quality as defined by ICPDR and b)
that it is a priority project.
A comprehensive SAP has been prepared which is not any more a revision but practically a new document.
Some more editing is recommended to shorten it and make it easier to read. The document is scheduled to be
approved at the Ministerial conference in Romania on 11th November 1999.
The project management does not consider a special donor pledging conference necessary since practically all
interested donors are represented in the PMTF which meets 2 to 3 times annually anyway.
Revenues from water supply waste water services is a primary source of finance of waste water projects. A
project should be executed aiming at improving the revenue collection efficiency.
Financing of investment projects will be done on a bilateral basis. There are good prospects for substantial
WB/GEF funds for financing primarily incremental cost. Addition financing by UNDP/GEF to ICPDR, their
bodies and activities is essential for maintaining the integrative element and financing of regional projects. The
cost for running the PIF are about USD 2.5 million for a period of 3 to 4 years.
The Multi Country Programme of the EU ends by October 2000. Future assistance will be given only at the
country level and primarily to EU accession countries. This also stresses the need to extend further GEF support
to ICPDR.
3
Annex IX
2. Introduction
2.1 Project Background
A first phase of the Danube Programme was carried out from 1992-96, concentrating on building regional co-
operation in the water sector in the Danube river basin. The main output of this phase was the Strategic Action
Plan (SAP) 1994.
A Phase II project was designed and named "Developing the Danube River Basin Pollution Reduction
Programme" being the project subject to this evaluation.
The main purpose of this project is to prepare prioritised pollution reduction projects for co-financing by national
and international sources within the strategic policy framework for the Danube river basin and Black Sea.
The project comprises of the following objectives:
Objective 1:
Complete the knowledge base for priority-setting
Objective 2:
Review policy for protection (especially nature protection) of the Danube River Basin and the
Black Sea
Objective 3:
Increase public awareness and participation
Objective 4:
Develop the financing of the pollution reduction programme within the Danube Strategic Action
Plan (SAP)
2.2 Evaluation Mission
UNOPS contracted the end of project evaluation of referenced project to a team of individual consultants. Every
team member worked on particular objective. The team consisted of:
Dr. Stanislaw Manikowski
Team Leader, Policy and Institutional Expert
Dr. Francois Van Hoof
Technical Specialist
Esther Park
Specialist on Public Awareness
Fritz Schwaiger
Financial Specialist
The team carried out a field mission to Vienna with individual trips to Budapest, Frankfurt and Delft in calendar
week 24/99. The Financial Specialist stayed in Vienna from 14th to 18th June 1999 with the exception of a one
day mission to KfW Frankfurt on 17th June 1999.
In accordance with the TOR the team members prepared individual mission reports covering their tasks and
discussed their findings with the Team Leader who prepares an integral final report.
Consequently this financial report should be read in conjunction with the other reports.
3. Acknowledgements
Special thanks is herewith extended to:
· all PCU-GEF Project Team headed by the Project Manager Mr. Joachim Bendow at the UNDP office in the
VIC (Vienna International Centre) for all administrative and logistic support extended to the evaluation team
· the KfW (Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau) for the lively discussions in their offices and sparing sufficient
time.
· Mr. Rainhard Wanninger, Financial Consultant to the PCU
· the Team Leader and all other members of the evaluation team for the fruitful discussions during project
evaluation.
4
Annex IX
4. Objectives
This is the final evaluation of the project and should consider the impact, effectiveness and efficiency of the
project and its chances for sustainability. The scope of the evaluation shall cover the:
· Project design
· Project implementation
· Project impact
5. Sources of Information
This evaluation report is based on information and documents received during the evaluation mission to Vienna.
A schedule of meetings held and documents received is attached in Annex 1.
6. Report of Findings
6.1 Project Design
6.1.1 The Scope of Works as per the Project Document
Objective 4 consists of four sub-objectives and each sub-objective consists of several activities and tasks. They
are briefly summarised below.
Sub-objective 4.1: Development of project portfolio and financing strategies
Activity 1: Develop financing strategies.
National and international financing strategies should be developed for each country for the two different types
of projects (i.e. capacity building / demonstration projects and investment projects) by:
a) preparing a model structure for each Danube country
b) preparing national financing strategies including confirmation of national contributions
c) holding a workshop to review basin-wide financing strategy.
Activity 2: Portfolio of hot-spot projects
Brief project documents should be prepared for priority hot-spot projects. Cost estimates should distinguish
between incremental cost and base line cost. O&M cost should be considered carefully. This to be achieved by:
a) preparing a model structure for project documents
b) preparing project documents for individual projects
c) agreement on implementation strategies for each project
5
Annex IX
Activity 3: Prepare wetland, floodplain and demonstration projects
This types of projects would not create any revenue stream and should therefore be grant financed. Cost
estimates should distinguish between incremental cost and base line cost. O&M cost should be considered
carefully. To be achieved by:
a) making a model structure for project documents
b) preparing project documents for individual projects
c) the agreement on implementation strategies for each project
Sub-objective 4.2: Mechanisms to provide sustainable financing (Danube Environmental Fund)
Activity 1: Feasibility study on establishing an environmental fund
In order to promote and finance transboundary pollution projects, the establishment of an international (or a
series of national) Danube Environmental Funds (Trust Fund) should be studied. This should be achieved by:
a) preparation of a feasibility study of options to establish an international fund and possibly merge with the
upcoming Transnational Danube Recovery Fund
b) Hold a workshop to agree on the approach
c) Hold consultations with the international community
Activity 2: Prepare structures, rules and mechanisms for the environmental fund
The legal basis, organisational structure, rules of procedure, financing sources etc should be prepared for the
fund by:
a) preparation of basic documents for establishing the fund
b) completion of administrative procedures to establish legal basis
c) setting-up the required organisations to manage the fund
Sub-objective 4.3: Finalise, agree and adopt a revised SAP
Activity 1: Integrate portfolio of investment and capacity building projects and the financing mechanisms into
the SAP
The existing SAP shall be refined and augmented with the elements described above, leading to a single
document. This shall be achieved by:
a) discussion of the results of the financing strategies and proposed projects with the group responsible for
updating the SAP.
b) Preparation of an updated version of the SAP.
6
Annex IX
Activity 2: Adopt updated SAP at Ministerial Conference
The original SAP, being adopted by the member countries through the Minister Conference in 1994 states that it
will be updated after 3 years. A Ministerial Conference should therefore be organised covering the following:
a) organisation of a consultation meeting with the Country Programme Co-ordinators and representatives of the
International Commission
b) provide support to logistic organisation of the conference
c) prepare wide spread publication of the SAP including the Ministerial declaration
Activity 3: Preparation of a donor pledging conference (or PPC meeting)
Careful preparation and intensive consultations with bilateral and multilateral donors and IFIs should be done to
ensure a successful conference.
a) Finalisation of project documents
b) Hold a series of consultations with potential financiers
c) Hold a donor pledging conference
d) Publicise widely the achievements and settled financing
6.1.2 Comments on the Project Design
General
Generally the project document is well prepared, well structured, easy to understand and to read.
The project was designed at the end of Phase I. It is set up in a way to ensure a smooth change from Phase I to
Phase II and a rapid progress in the next step in the project cycle, leading finally towards actual project
implementation and investments.
The project document reflects much optimism. It is commonly agreed that national as well international
financing contributions should be combined. It seems that the establishment of a Danube Environmental Fund
(trust fund) has actually been decided.
Due to this "clear vision" where the project will go to, not much room has been given to thoughts about
alternatives if things do not develop as programmed.
It is understood that project documents need to be formulated in an optimistic way and with objectives set rather
high, in order to achieve all the project settings. Criticsm mentioned above needs to be seen in this respect.
Sub-objective 4.1
specifies the development of financing strategies / financing models for each Danube country and the
confirmation of expected national contributions. Due to the economic problems these countries are facing at the
moment, it is very unlikely that any commitments can be achieved for these projects.
Sub-objective 4.2
comprises the preparation of a feasibility study on a Danube Environmental Fund and the associated legal
requirements and rules and structures for operating such fund. It actually recommends to merge with the
upcoming Danube Recovery Fund lead by Germany and does not deal with the possibility of a negative result of
the study.
7
Annex IX
The feasibility turned out to be negative. The project team (and their consultant) could have stopped working on
this issue then. Nevertheless, they continued looking for alternative solutions.
Sub-objective 4.3
is again specified with much optimism but generally considered correct.
6.2 Project Implementation
6.2.1 Time Schedule
The project was originally set up for a period of 16 months. This is unrealistically short.
When the project team (manager) started to work and made its work planning, a project period of 24 months was
agreed. This is still considered very short.
The project has been executed within the specified 24 months. All outputs have been produced as specified with
the exception of the conference for high level endorsement of the revised SAP and the donor pledging
conference.
Endorsement of the revised SAP is scheduled for the conference of Ministers in Romania on 11th November
1999.
A special donor pledging conference has not be organised since donors meet anyway regularly in the PMTF
(Project Management Task Force). So the Project Manager does not expect any benefit from organising a special
conference.
6.2.2 Project Management
The project was well managed and strictly controlled. High priority was put on keeping the time schedule.
The contacts already established in Phase I of the project helped to quickly have efficient communication with
the Country Co-ordinators and Experts. Workshops and clear guidelines how to collect and present data and
information substantially contributed to the efficient information flow. All 13 Danube countries submitted the
National Review Reports, without exception.
Concern has been raised that the strict time keeping and the time pressure may have affected the quality of input
data, work and output. Regarding objective 4 this can not be confirmed. According to the project team and their
Financial Consultant, the quality of the input data would not have improved significantly if more time was
available.
KfW (Kreditanstalt fuer Wiederaufbau) of Frankfurt was commissioned to carry out the feasibility study for the
establishment of a Danube Environmental Fund. KfW is the state owned bank in Germany in charge of export
financing and bilateral and multilateral economic co-operation. This fact and the fact that Germany is the most
potential Danube river riparian country may have made KfW the consultant of choice for doing the study. KfW
usually does not provide consulting services but accepted this request since it was channelled through the
German Ministry of Co-operation. The output of the study is satisfying. It has to be seen in the future whether or
not such an involvement of a bank will additionally benefit project work (e.g. selling of projects to IFIs easier).
6.2.3 Project Approach
The project was organised and executed such that the involvement of national experts was given priority to the
execution of the works by international experts. They were only used to co-ordinate the national experts and
summarise the results. This approach is considered correct.
8
Annex IX
Generally the logical framework method of (ZOPP) target oriented project planning was applied. National
experts were trained in this method which helped considerably to create a uniform structure of all inputs and
reports. Nevertheless, also this approach has its limits of application and should not be reflected in reports to an
extend which makes them difficult to read (see revised SAP report).
6.3 Project Impact
Sub-objective 4.1: Development of project portfolio and financing strategies
Financing strategies
The report "Analysis of Financing Mechanisms " issued in March 1999 deals with the requested model for a
financing strategy of pollution reduction projects. In a summarised form the essence of this report is contained
also in the revised SAP report.
The report describes well the existing financing mechanisms and environmental funds in each of the Danube
countries. It outlines the big differences of national financing capacity and in parallel the decreasing efficiency
of water / waste water revenue collection systems in each country with a clear falling gradient following the
Danube river in flow direction.
The study does not present individual model structures for financing strategies for each country (as per ToR) but
gives a general recommendation for all countries. In short this is
a) to improve and to use to a maximum the national resources (mainly water revenues and public funds) and
b) only then to use international financing
c) to promote private sector participation.
This requires that the revenue collection systems for water and waste water services are significantly improved
in most countries in order to change the situation that the governments / municipalities have to raise the
financing.
The approach is considered correct and absolutely essential for the financing of such projects.
A confirmation of expected national contributions to the projects as specified in the ToR has not been
received.
Financing mechanisms were discussed at each of the National Planning Workshops. Preliminary results of the
study were presented in the Transboundary Analysis workshop in Baden in January 1999 and finally in the
workshop on Development of a Financing Facility in Baden in February 1999.
Portfolio of hot spot and wetland & floodplain projects
The "Danube River Basin Pollution Reduction Programme Report" of June 1999 contains a portfolio of 421
projects. In total 513 hot spots were identified with 246 of them being actually based on existing improvement
projects. A summary of the key figures is contained also in the revised SAP.
9
Annex IX
The grand sums are:
Total investment cost
USD 5.5 billion
Thereof
municipal projects
USD 3.5 billion
wetlands
USD 1.1 billion
others
USD 0.9 billion
Thereof
baseline cost
USD 3.5 billion
incremental cost
USD 2.0 billion
The projects were identified and cost estimates provided by national experts. They were trained in a workshop
on how to collect and verify the information and a model structure of a project document (data sheet) was
handed over to them.
The PCU team managed to get from all Danube countries without exception information in return and
managed to compile country reviews. The quality of work certainly varies from country to country.
The PCU team checked the so collected information for plausibility. A source of error is seen in the conversion
of cost estimates from local currency to USD. Generally the official exchange rates were applied.
The careful assessment of operation & maintenance cost is specified in the ToR but no reliable information
could be obtained.
As per GEF funding regulations, water projects need to have a transboundary effect and only this element is
eligible for GEF funding. It is generally accepted that the annual nutrition load (nitrogen and phosphorus) is the
main cause of eutrophication of the Black Sea. The river Danube is one of the main contributors. The general
approach was that measures aiming at P and N removal are incremental cost and all other cost are baseline cost.
Regarding waste water treatment plants the incremental cost represent the tertiary treatment. The removal of
carbon and other elements are considered as baseline cost. Regarding wetland and floodplain projects, the
provision of land is considered as baseline cost and the cost for restoration as incremental cost.
The cost effectiveness method was used as a parameter for ranking of projects. Due to the vague O&M cost
information, a ranking of projects was done according to investment cost needed per unit of removed BOD,
COD, P and N.
The method using the present value approach was presented in the Pollution Reduction Programme in Hernstein
in May 1999 to the country experts and it was agreed that the project data need to be completed and updated to
be able to apply such method.
Concern has been raised about the quality of data, also in relation to the short project period. PCU staff
explained that the quality of financial data (cost estimates) would not have improved with and extension of time.
Data are based mainly on cost estimates on projects of former years and an improvement of the data quality
could only be obtained if individual (feasibility) studies are carried out for each project.
The PCU staff confirms that the identified projects include all major hot spots. Some medium size projects may
still be missing and smaller projects are not included. However, the data bank established needs to be regularly
updated and projects be included step by step. The ranking of the top series of projects should not be affected as
experience shows a good positive correlation between project size and priority ranking.
Regarding the argument of possible deficiencies in cost data and the incompleteness of projects, the big gap
between projects identified with associated investment cost and the realistic investments to take place in the next
years has to be seen. In addition each project will be checked again before investments actually take place.
10
Annex IX
The ToR also specify the need to agree on implementation strategies for each of the pollution reduction
programme rather vague. If this term refers to eligibility of GEF funding and the ranking of projects by cost
effectiveness than this task has been covered.
The ToR further require the definition of revenues achieved by the projects. Most of the projects are waste water
treatment projects which do not generate any revenues. Only in exceptional cases they have an effect of
reduction of alternative treatment cost.
Sub-objective 4.2: Mechanisms to provide sustainable financing (Danube Environmental Fund)
Feasibility study on establishing a Danube Environmental Fund
PMU contracted this task to KfW who published their work in the report: "Financing Pollution Reduction
Measures in the Danube River Basin: Present Situation and Suggestions for new Instruments" in April 1999.
After careful analysis they came to the conclusion that such fund is not feasible due to the following:
· The wealthier countries have not interest in a compensation mechanism (wealthy countries contribute to the
fund, less well off countries receive from fund,
· International taxes and pollution charges as source of finance is not accepted by all countries
· The amount of available donor and IFI money would not increase by such fund; why to carry administration
cost for such fund?
· EU extends sizeable concessional money to potential accession countries but not to a fund
· PMTF can take over a possible brokerage function of the fund and assistance in project preparation.
Very similar was the outcome of a study from a different consultant regarding a Black Sea Environmental Fund.
KfW then investigated into alternative solutions and recommended a Danube Environmental Facility Fund
(DEFF). This fund would not be an intermediary for IFIs but would concentrate on providing grant money for:
· Technical assistance for project identification
· Grants for investment projects (which can not be financed by loans)
· Packaging of projects for financing by IFIs.
KfW provided details who such fund should function and be administered. The DEFF was supposed to be placed
under the ICPDR. However, this would require an addendum to the International Convention to set the legal
basis. In view of the difficulties and the time needed to implement and ratify such addendum, the idea to
establish an DEFF was dropped in the June 1999 Steering Committee Meeting of the ICPDR.
The KfW study then recommended the establishment of a Project Appraisal Group (PAG) and a Project
Implementation Facility (PIF), both of them under the ICPDR.
The PAG would be an expert group for project appraisal. By this, less attractive projects could be sold better to
donors. Secondly the PAG would approve and authorise projects from individual countries, confirming that the
project is up to the standard defined by the ICPDR and an ICPDR priority project. The President of the ICPDR
thinks that the PAG facility will be necessary for a some period of time, until national experts have gained
experience in this work.
The role of the PIF would be
· To support the work of ICPDR regarding regional investment programs
· Assist member countries in project preparation (acceptable for IFIs and GEF)
· Monitoring of results
11
Annex IX
ICPDR has welcomed this idea and hopes that the required financial support is provided by UNDP/GEF. An exit
strategy could be that finally PPC takes over this role or the PMTF is charged with additional competencies,
similar to the METAP model.
The cost of the FIP for a 3 to 4 year period are USD 2.5 million.
Preparation of structures, rules etc. for the Environmental Fund
The project document was set up with the assumption that the fund will be certainly established. It also
mentions, that the proposed fund should be merged with the upcoming transnational Danube Recovery Fund,
lead by Germany. Such fund has not materialised.
As outlined above, the feasibility of the Danube Environmental Fund was negative and so there is no need to
prepare structures and rules for the fund. Nevertheless, KfW has outlined such structures and rules for the
proposed DEFF.
Sub-objective 4.3: Finalise, agree and adopt a revised SAP
Preparation of a revised SAP
The ToR specify the revision of the original SAP by refining the existing content and integrating the portfolio of
projects and the regional financing mechanisms.
The PMU prepared practically a new SAP. The main reason for it was, that the SAP should be a strategic paper
containing policy and strategy issues and no actions and projects. They were put into the "Pollution Reduction
Programme" report. These major changes are not very much appreciated by country experts who were strongly
involved in the preparation of the first SAP.
The revised SAP is a comprehensive and substantial document with inputs from the national reviews, the results
from the workshops and from international experts. The document has recently been sent out for the final review
by the national experts.
The document strictly follows the target oriented project planning method which is principally appreciated. But,
the document is overloaded with information and contains repetitions. The report should be streamlined,
restricted to the essential information, well structured and made easy to read.
The previous SAP document was considered the "bible" for the ICPDR. As long as the International Convention
was not signed and ratified, it was the only document binding ICPDR together. The revised SAP should be
finalised with the same expectations.
Ministerial endorsement of the revised SAP
The PMU does not expect major changes and comments to come back from the national experts on the SAP, so
the endorsement of the final version of the revised SAP by the Ministers of the Danube countries is expected to
take place at the Ministerial conference in Romania, scheduled for 11th November 1999.
Donor pledging conference
A donor pledging conference or a PPC meeting has not been held yet.
The project management informs that the regular meetings of the PMTF (2 to 3 times a year) which are usually
combined with the Steering Committee meetings actually substitute such a meeting. At these meetings all major
IFIs and donors are present and a special donor conference would not attract additional financiers.
12
Annex IX
7. General Remarks
7.1 Activities of Other Organisations in the Sector and Region
EU Phare and Tacis
This project co-operated well with EU Phare in Phase I. Phare and also Tacis complemented the Phase II
programme of UNDP/GEF covering the early warning model, financing pilot projects, some of the working
groups and activities of ICPDR, the PMTF etc.
The fact that some countries fall under Phare and others under Tacis makes administration for their Project
Manager rather difficult. It also does not support the crucial aspect of integrating all countries into the
programme.
The project operates under the Multi Country Programme which was terminated by the EU. Approximately ECU
5 million are still available under the ongoing project and have to be earmarked until October 1999. The project
will end by October 2000.
It is planned that Phare and Tacis will then continue their assistance in this sector and region at the country level.
Special technical assistance and financial support (ISPA funds etc.) is expected to be given to the EU accession
candidate countries which have to improve the environmental situation before becoming EU member country.
This aspect obviously does not contribute to the integrative aspect of all Danube countries.
Private Sector Participation
In view of the budgetary constraints of the down stream Danube river countries, private sector participation may
play an important role in achieving the set goals. French water companies are already established in the region.
The Austrian company FGG Finanzierungsgarantiegesellschaft is an organisation of the Ministry of Finance
extending guarantees to Austrian companies for foreign investments. FGG has recently established in Budapest
with an Hungarian state bank the joint venture company Duna Development Ltd. This organisation identifies and
formulates projects in the environment and energy sectors and promotes them to private industries.
KfW is in the process of establishing credit lines through local banks among others also in the Danube river
countries. They aim at projects in the range of DM 5 to 10 million by financing up to 2/3 of the total project cost.
7.2 Remarks on the General impact
The project has been working mainly with national experts which is good. These experts are the people who are
already convinced about the need for investments in improving the environment. The dissemination of this
understanding still needs to go on in horizontal and vertical direction in the governments and administrations,
but this needs time.
The involvement of the private sector was not part of this project, but should be promoted.
Project implementation will mainly be going on at the country level. Donors and IFIs will negotiate on a bilateral
basis. There are expectations that WB/GEF could make available a USD 70 million WB/GEF grant portfolio for
investment projects for the Danube and Black Sea region. These funds could cover incremental cost and WB will
offer (might tie) complementary loan financing for meeting the base line investment cost.
In addition to above, the integrative element of the ICPDR is very important. Further assistance should be
extended by UNDP/GEF to the ICPDR and its activities. Some of the projects do not qualify for loan financing
and have regional character, so need to be promoted through ICPDR. Continued UNDP/GEF assistance in
parallel to incremental financing of WB/GEF is essential.
ICPDR needs continued financial assistance to ensure sustainability of the integrative role of ICPDR.
13
Annex IX
8 Conclusions
1) All substantial elements of the project have been completed within the (modified) project period.
2) All outputs in form of reports and workshops have been delivered.
3) A portfolio of some 400 projects (hot spot and wetland) has been prepared.
4) A priority ranking of the projects has been done on the basis of investment cost effectiveness as no reliable
operation & maintenance cost could be gathered. Cross checking of the data is advised but can be done on a
project to project case when picked up by a potential financier.
5) Projects still need to be hooked on to national / international financiers.
6) The establishment of a "big" Danube Environmental Fund is not feasible.
7) The alternatively proposed Danube Environmental Financing Facility (a grant fund facility) can not be
realised as well.
8) The revised SAP is actually a new report and not only a revision. Some more editing would improve easy
reading and quality of the document.
9) Ministerial endorsement of the revised SAP is expected to be obtained on 11th November 1999.
10) The primary source of finance for this type of investment projects is revenues collected from water and
waste water services plus other national financing plus international grants. Only then international loans
should be used.
11) The project management does not consider a special donor pledging conference necessary since practically
all interested donors are represented in the PMTF which meets regularly.
12) Financing of investment projects will (and should) be done on a country level. GEF funds for financing
incremental cost (here nutrition removal) is needed for the proposed projects but should not be tied to
international loan financing.
13) Private sector participation could play an important role and should be promoted.
14) EU accession countries are faced with the requirement of the EU, to improve their environmental situation.
Significant financial assistance from the EU is expected towards these countries. It can be expected that this
is the main driving force for investments in the environmental sector in these countries.
15) The main driving force for the other (non EU accession) countries is a) the will to improve the
environmental situation, b) to reduce pollution load to the Black Sea. Both incentives are weaker than the
EU accession arguments. An increase of the existing disparity in the environmental situation between the
Danube countries can be expected.
16) The ICPDR is an integrative element. It needs to be given the power and financial capacity to maintain its
role in particular in view of above prospects.
17) Any future non-national (regional) activities / projects must be placed under the umbrella of the ICPDR.
18) ICPDR´s activities should be on the policy and strategy level. However, regional activities which are of no
significant interest to individual countries need to be taken up by ICPDR. Special bodies under ICPDR like
PIF, PAG etc. should be charged with these activities.
14
Annex IX
9 Recommendations
1) Further editing of the revised SAP to make it a smart policy and a strategy document.
2) Get Ministerial endorsement for the SAP
3) Co-ordination of all future regional activities by the ICPDR.
4) Any future body established (PCU, PIU, PIF, GAP etc.) on a regional level must be under the directive of
ICPDR.
5) Continued UNDP/GEF support to the ICPDR, their activities and bodies is needed in order to maintain the
integrative element and to implement regional projects which are of low priority to individual countries.
6) ICPDR should operate on the policy and strategy level and get involved in activities only for regional
aspects which would not be taken up by individual Danube countries.
7) Project implementation and investment financing will go on at the country level. Each country will negotiate
its own terms. ICPDR should assist the national experts in preparing bankable projects.
8) An essential financial source for financing waste water projects is the revenues from water sales. A project
should be formulated covering each individual country to improve revenue collection efficiency with the
following scope of work:
a) analysis of the current revenue collection system (technical legal and practical aspects)
b) define the socially acceptable tariffs
c) calculate the revenue potential country wide
d) defines the necessary legal modifications to improve the situation
e) define the necessary technical and administrative modifications to improve the situation
f) formulate the investment package (water meters, computer systems etc)
g) formulate training requirements of water company staff
h) define an project with budget for public awareness building
i) make realistic projections for increased income from water sales
9) GEF financing of incremental cost is needed but should not be tied to international loan financing.
10) Private sector participation should be included in future activities.
15
Annex IX
ANNEX 1
RER/96/G31/A/1G/31
DEVELOPING THE DANUBE RIVER BASIN POLLUTION REDUCTION PROGRAMME
FINANCIAL ANALYST
SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS
Date/ Time
Location / Participants
Subject / Documents received
Mo. 14.06.99
Arrival in Vienna
08:30
Mo. 14.06.99
VIC
Introduction to the team members and to the project by
09:00 11:00
Mr. Joachim Bendow, Project Manager
the Project Manager
Mr. Roger Aertgeerts, UNOPS
Mr. Stanislaw Manikowski, Team Leader
Documents received:
Mr. Francois van Hoof, Technical Specialist
List of documents.
Ms. Ester Park, Public Awareness Specialist
All documents (output) produced by the project.
Mr. Fritz Schwaiger, Financial Specialist
Mo. 14.06.99
VIC
Introduction by the Team Leader to proposed approach
11:00 13:00
Mr. Roger Aertgeerts, UNOPS
and discussion of individual tasks.
Mr. Stanislaw Manikowski
Mr. Francois van Hoof
Documents received:
Ms. Ester Park
Checklist for drafting the evaluation report.
Mr. Fritz Schwaiger
Mo. 14.06.99
FGG-Finanzierungs Garantie Gesellschaft
Introduction to their approach to stimulate private sector
13:30 15:00
Dr. Wilhelm Hantsch-Linhart, Infrastructure investments in Hungary and other CEECs by establishing
Financing Specialist
a Project Development Company in the recipient country.
Mr. Fritz Schwaiger
Documents received:
FGG Brochure
Description of Duna Development Ltd.
Tu. 15.06.99
EU Phare
The Phare Environmental Programme for the Danube
09:00 10:30
Mr. Teun Botterweg, Team Leader
river.
Mr. Francois van Hoof
Mr. Fritz Schwaiger
Documents received:
1996 Annual Report
Danube Strategic Action Plan Implementation
Programme 1996-99
Tu. 15.06.99
VIC
Internal;
10:30 11:30
Mr. Stanislaw Manikowski
Relevant Documents
Mr. Francois van Hoof
Mr. Fritz Schwaiger
Tu. 15.06.99
VIC
Organisations involved in the Programme
13:30 15:00
Mr. Andy Garner, PCU, Environmental Engineer
Mr. Francois van Hoof
Mr. Fritz Schwaiger
Tu. 15.06.99
VIC
Time schedule, comments on outputs, and organisations
15:00 16:30
Mr. Joachim Bendow, PCU Project Manager
involved in the Programme
Mr. Fritz Schwaiger
Tu. 15.06.99
VIC
Social elements in the project
16:30 17:30
Mr. Stanislaw Manikowski
Mr. Fritz Schwaiger
We. 16.06.99
VIC
09:00
Mr. Stanislaw Manikowski
Documents received:
A - 1
Annex IX
Date/ Time
Location / Participants
Subject / Documents received
Mr. Fritz Schwaiger
Revised and agreed project time schedule (07/97-06/99)
We. 16.06.99
ICPDR office, VIC
Status of the Danube river and the Black Sea; monitoring;
10:30 11:30
Mr. Hellmut Fleckseder, Technical & Scientific
Director,
Documents received:
Mr. Francois van Hoof
Eutrophication in the Black Sea: causes and effects
Mr. Fritz Schwaiger
We. 16.06.99
VIC
Objective 4 of the project; data collection, calculations,
13:30 15:30
Mr. Reinhard Wanninger, Financial Consultant conclusions
to the PCU
Mr. Fritz Schwaiger
We. 16.06.99
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Vienna
Performance and benefits of the project to ICPDR, future
16:00 17:00
Mr. Wolfgang Stalzer, ICPDR President
activities needed.
Mr. Stanislaw Manikowski
Mr. Francois van Hoof
Ms. Ester Park
Mr. Fritz Schwaiger
We. 16.06.99
Vienna
Performance and benefits of the project to ICPDR, future
18:00 19:00
Mr. Wilhelm Kittinger, past President of ICPDR
activities needed.
Mr. Francois van Hoof
Mr. Fritz Schwaiger
Th. 17.06.99
KfW, Frankfurt
Feasibility Study on the Danube Environmental Fund.
10:00 15:00
Mr. Jürgen H. Lottmann, Chief of the
Environment and Public Health Division,
Mr. Dieter Schulze-Vornhagen, Senior Project
Manager, Promotional Banks
Mr. Fritz Schwaiger
Fr. 18.06.99
VIC
Clarification of questions, future input needed from
10:00 11:00
Mr. Joachim Bendow
UNDP/GEF
Mr. Fritz Schwaiger
Documents received:
Fr. 18.06.99
VIC
Debriefing of the Team Leader
10:00 11:00
Mr. Stanislaw Manikovski
Mr. Fritz Schwaiger
A - 2
Developing the Danube River Basin Pollution Reduction Programme
TERMINAL REPORT
Sept. 10, 1999
Basic programme/project information :
Programme/Project number and title:
RER/96/G31/A/1G/31
Developing the Danube River Basin Pollution Reduction Programme
Designated institution:
Project starting date:
Sept. 1, 1997
Originally planned:
Actual:
Project completion date:
Originally planned:
Dec. 31, 1998
New:
Sept. 30, 1999
Total budget ($):
Original:
3,900,000 US Dollars
Latest signed revision:
3,900,000 US Dollars
Period covered by the report:
Sept. 1, 1997 to Sept. 30, 1999
PART I: NUMERICAL RATING
Rate the relevance and performance of the programme or project using the following scale:
1 - Highly satisfactory
4 - Unsatisfactory
2 - Satisfactory
X - Not applicable
3 - Unsatisfactory, with some positive elements
Place your answers in the column that corresponds to your role in the programme or project.
SUBSTANTIVE FOCUS
Rating
Comments - Project Manager
by
Project
Manager
A. RELEVANCE
1. How relevant is the programme
1
The project is highly relevant to efforts to build regional
or project to the development
cooperation, improve water quality as well as to prepare
priorities of the country?
most Danubian countries for entry into the European Union.
It fits well into regional and national plans of DRB
countries.
2. How relevant is the programme
1
The programme is very relevant to the promotion of SHD,
or project to the promotion of
via capacity building, use of national experts, development
sustainable human
a) X
of cooperation with national counterparts etc.
development? Indicate your
b) Project contributed via activities leading to nutrient
rating on the thematic focus
b) 1
reduction to the Black Sea, and positive impacts on water
which the programme or project
quality in the DRB.
was designed to address.
c) X
d) Achieved positive result due to use of participatory
(a) Poverty eradication and
d) 2
approach, NGO involvement and activities to strengthen
sustainable livelihoods
NGOs in the Danube.
(b) Protection and regeneration
of the environment
(c) Gender in development
(d) Promoting an enabling
environment for SHD, including
governance
3. To what extent are appropriate
c) All Danube Countries participated actively in the project
beneficiary groups being
a) X
with a particular emphasis on integrating Bosnia-
targeted by the programme or
b) X
Hercegovina. NGOs and the civil society were involved as
project, based on the following
well as national focal points from the respective
considerations?
c) 1
governments
(a) Gender
(b) Socio-economic factors
(c) Geographic location
4. Given the objectives of the
1
The appropriate institutions have been involved with a
programme or project, are the
particular focus on the ICPDR, focal points at the national
appropriate institutions being
level and NGOs.
assisted?
2
SUBSTANTIVE FOCUS
Rating
Comments - Project Manager
by
Project
Manager
B. PERFORMANCE
1. Using the following indicators,
rate the contribution of the
outputs to the achievement of
the immediate objectives: a/
(Indicator 1)
1
Knowledge base for priority setting significantly improved
Completion of knowledge base
and expanded. The Pollution Reduction Programme
for priority setting
represents a large step forward in the knowledge of priority
pollutants (emphasis on N and P) as well as hot spots and
identification of priority projects and measures. The new
level of information, has been placed in a databank which
the ICPDR will now be updating and improving regularly.
(Indicator 2)
2
National and Regional policies for protection and
Policy review for protection of
improvement of the Danube River Basin/Black Sea
the Danube River Basin and the
reviewed and recommendations for improvements
Black Sea
prepared. National policies were reviewed and
recommendations for improvement were developed in the
frame of National Review reports and inter-sectoral
National Planning Workshops including national
stakeholder representatives. The Strategic Action Plan was
also developed by reviewing National outputs in a regional
context. The SAP was finalized in a regional participatory
workshop. Further joint technical working group Danube-
Black Sea provided the base for development of basin-
wide policies.
(Indicator 3)
1
Public Awareness and Public Participation increased.
Increase in Public Awareness
NGOs were included in important elements of the project
and Public Participation
including national NGO consultation workshops, National
Planning Workshops etc.
(Indicator 4)
1
Financing for the Pollution Reduction Programme
Development of financing for a
developed. Financing mechanisms of all DRB countries
Pollution Reduction
reviewed. Regional mechanisms in the frame of Danube
Programme within the Danube
Environment Financing Facility developed. Investment
SAP
portfolio prepared and donors meeting planned.
2. Rate the production of target
1
Outputs expected from Project document largely achieved
outputs.
within the constraint of very tight time limits.
3. Are the management
1
Management arrangements of the programme functioned
arrangements of the programme
very well with excellent cooperation with the ICPDR, DRB
or project appropriate?
countries, PHARE/TACIS Danube programme, World
Bank etc.
a/ The programme or project manager must list the indicators as reflected in the programme support document
or project document or agreed on by the stakeholders.
3
SUBSTANTIVE FOCUS
Rating
Comments - Project Manager
by
Project
Manager
4. Are programme or project
resources (financial, physical
and manpower) adequate in
terms of:
a. financial resources
1
adequate for tasks required
b. physical resources
1
equipment, office space etc. met project needs
c. manpower
(a) quantity?
2
Project support (i.e. secretary) missing at project start
(b) quality?
1
Project team worked well as a team and identified and
cooperated well with large team of international and
national experts
5. Are programme or project
1
Project resources were allocated efficiently with an
resources being used efficiently
emphasis on utilizing national expertise where possible
to produce planned results?
which was also more cost effective
6. Is the programme or project
1
The GEF Danube Pollution Reduction Programme has
cost-effective compared to
been very cost effective particularly in comparison to the
similar interventions?
previous GEF intervention in the Danube.
7. Based on its work plan, how
would you rate the timeliness of
the programme or project in
terms of:
(a) Production of outputs and
1
Outputs were timely with all major outputs completed by
initial results?
June 1999.
(b) Inputs delivery?
2
Mainly satisfactory however there were some difficulties
with UNOPS concerning contracts and services
Please indicate your overall rating of the programme or project using the following numbers:
1 - Highly satisfactory
3 - Unsatisfactory, with some positive elements
2 - Satisfactory
4 - Unsatisfactory
5 - Not applicable
Rating by
Comments - Project Manager
Project
Manager
OVERALL RATING OF
1
The Project Objectives were significantly achieved. The
THE PROJECT
results have been well received by the ICPDR as well as
Danube River Basin Countries assuring the sustainability of
results. The results provide an excellent basis for
implementing pollution reduction measures in the future.
Explain the basis of your rating, which need not be limited to, or which may be different from, the relevance
and performance criteria rated above. For the last year of the programme or project, the overall rating should
include an assessment of the potential success of the programme or project as well as its relevance and
performance.
4
PART II: TEXTUAL ASSESSMENT
1. What are the major achievements of the programme or project vis-à-vis the expected results? Please explain them in detail in terms of
potential impact, sustainability of results and contribution to capacity development.
Table: Major Achievements vis a vis Expected Results
Expected Results (per
Major Achievements
Potential Impact
Sustainability of Results
Contribution to Capacity
Project Document)
Development
1. National and basin-wide
a) National Reviews completed, a) Impact expected to a) Results should be sustainable and a) National capacities were
pollution reduction
hot spots of pollution (N and
significantly focus and
long lasting. Use of participatory
strengthened given the project's
programmes for
P) identified and projects
stimulate implementation at
approach ensures "ownership of
approach of primarily using
substances causing
planned; National Planning
the national level;
results".
national expertise to collect and
eutrophication (especially
Workshops held to develop b) Expected to lead to greater b) Project Database developed to
analyze data and information at
nitrogen and phsophorus)
national strategies and
implementation of pollution
allow for countries to constantly
the national level under
coming from
programme for pollution
reduction projects in the
improve information about
guidance of international
municipalities, industry
reduction resulting in an
Danube Basin. Allows a basis
projects in the Pollution
experts.
and agriculture;
agreed national approach for
for monitoring results (project
Reduction Programme, as well as b) Consistent use of methodology
reduction of nutrients;
database) and to quantify
allows for projects to be added
for data collection and analysis
b) Pollution Reduction
achievements.
and subtracted based on
in each country harmonized
Programme developed
implementation and consistent
approach. Regional workshop
containing 421 projects for
review at both the national and
to develop PRP integrated and
reducing N and P and
regional levels.
strengthened national capacities
quantifying reduction
throughout the basin.
2. Revised Danube River a) The Strategic Action Plan for a) The revised SAP is expected to a) The SAP should be a living a) Only experts from the Danube
Basin Strategic Action
the Danube River Basin was
serve as the guiding policy
document and reflect the current
River Basin were involved in
Plan (SAP) which
revised based on a
document for the
environmental, socio-economic
developing the SAP as well as
includes a policy
participatory approach based
implementation of the Danube
and political situation in the
the national plans that form the
direction for the Danube
on input from all DRB
River Protection Convention
Danube River Basin. Thus it is
basis of the 1999 revision. This
River Basin;
stakeholders. The national
by the ICPDR.
expected that revisions are to be
unique cooperation using a
policies and strategies for
done periodically to "revise" the
logical framework approach,
pollution reduction developed
SAP to new circumstances. The
strengthened national capacities
in a consistent approach at
SAP revision 1999 reflects the
in developing coherent, logical,
the National Planning
current policy and strategic needs
target oriented policies and
Workshops were integrated
in the Danube River Basin and
strategies.
and placed in a regional
should serve as the guiding policy
context.
instrument until the next revision
in 2003.
5
Expected Results (per
Major Achievements
Potential Impact
Sustainability of Results
Contribution to Capacity
Project Document)
Development
3. National and basin-wide a) Danube River Basin Wetland a) This relatively small a) Given the direct involvement of a) National wetland focal points
pollution reduction and
Inventory completed and a
component of the GEF
national and regional NGOs in
were utilized to collect and
ecological rehabilitation
Basin-wide Wetland and
Programme will have a very
developing the programme, the
verify data and information at
programmes for priority
Floodplain Rehabilitation
important impact in stimulating
activities in wetland rehabilitation
the national level using a
wetlands, floodplains,
Programme was developed.
wetland rehabilitation activities
should not only be sustainable but
consistent methodology. The
and adjacent groundwater
Programme was developed in
in the Danube River Basin. It
also expanded in the future.
project results were strengthen
resources, and
close cooperation with the
provides concrete rehabilitation
Efforts to develop a Lower
capacities of national
demonstration projects in
EU's PHARE and TACIS
projects that can be supported
Danube Green Corridor are
governments to appropriately
cooperation with the
programmes which have
by national governments,
currently underway to rehabilitate
integrate wetland rehabilitation
European Union`s Phare
initiated demonstration
NGOs as well as be presented
wetlands in Bulgaria, Romania,
and protection projects and
and Tacis Programmes
projects in wetland
to interested donors.
Moldova and the Ukraine with
measures into national
rehabilitation.
significant donor interest and
pollution reduction
involvement.
programmes.
4. Transboundary Analysis
a) Transboundary Analysis a) The TDA provides the first a) This first TDA provides a a) National experts were used to
of actual water pollution
(TDA) of Water Pollution in
comprehensive basin wide
comprehensive framework for
collect and analyze data and
and its effects from
the Danube River Basin was
analysis of transboundary
collecting and analyzing
information working in
country to country and to
completed.
pollution problems in the
transboundary water pollution. It
multidisciplinary teams.
the Black Sea;
b) Danube Water Quality Model
Danube and lays the technical
is expected that this will
Experts participated in a
(DWQM) greatly improved
basis for identifying remedial
continuously be improved and
regional target oriented
as a tool to analyze
and preventative measures;
updated in the future as better
planning workshop to finalized
transboundary pollution b) The DWQM is a tool that
more consistent water quality data
the Danube Transboundary
(from country to country) as
improves the ability to identify,
is collected in the DRB.
Analysis.
well as to evaluate potential
quantify and to evaluate
rehabilitation measures.
transboundary pollution.
5. Increased public
a) National NGO Workshops a) Both NGO and National a) The activities developed a a) Experience in conducting and
awareness and
held in 11 Danube Countries;
Planning Workshops ensured
framework for bringing NGOs
participating in target oriented
participation in pollution
b) National Planning
broad participation from all
together at the national level
planning workshops provided
reduction activities
Workshops held in 11
stakeholders as well as
which should be utilized again in
to national NGOs.
related to the SAP and
Danube Countries;
provided a vehicle to build
the future.
b) Experience in conducting and
improved information
c) 5 issues of Danube Watch
public awareness at the b) National Planning Workshops sets
participating in
accessibilitiy and
published (including special
national level.
the basis for multidisciplinary,
multidisciplinary, inter-sectoral
transparency;
editions on the b) same as above
inter-sectoral planning in the
target oriented planning
Transboundary Analysis and c) Used to inform the interested
future.
workshops provided to Danube
the SAP/Pollution Reduction
public about Danube Pollution c) Successfully started using the sale
Stakeholders.
Programme respectively);
Reduction Programme
of advertisements to reduce the c) Experts and journalists from the
d) ICPDR Information System
activities.
cost of producing the Danube
Danube River Basin provided
(DANUBIS) developed in d) A primary goal of the new
Watch with the ultimate goal of
input to Danube Watch.
part to disseminate results.
ICPDR Information System
self-sufficiency.
d) Danube River Basin experts
6
Expected Results (per
Major Achievements
Potential Impact
Sustainability of Results
Contribution to Capacity
Project Document)
Development
being developed in the frame d) The information system will be
responsible for developing
of GEF assistance, is to
owned and operated by the
ICPDR information system.
significantly increase the
ICPDR, a permanent institution
Training to be provided to
ability of the public to access
funded by member countries
primary users within the
information produced in the
assuring the further operation of
ICPDR.
PRP as well as to provide a
the information system.
better way for building public
awareness and support for the
PRP.
6. Strengthened capacity of
a) National NGO Workshops a) Both NGO and National a) The activities developed a
a) Experience in conducting and
environmental non-
held in 11 Danube Countries;
Planning Workshops ensured
framework for bringing NGOs
participating in target oriented
governmental
b) NGOs participated in
broad participation from all
together at the national level
planning workshops provided
organizations (NGOs)
National Planning
stakeholders as well as
which should be utilized again in
to national NGOs.
involved in Danube and
Workshops in 11 Danube
provided a vehicle to build
the future.
b) Experience in participating in
Black Sea issues;
Countries;
public awareness at the b) National Planning Workshops sets
multidisciplinary, inter-sectoral
c) Danube Environmental
national level.
the basis for multidisciplinary,
target oriented planning
Forum was re-established and b) same as above
inter-sectoral planning in the
workshops provided to Danube
framework developed for c) National representatives to the
future.
Stakeholders as well as
sustainable operation;
DEF were chosen at the c) Slovakian NGO supporting DEF
representing civil-society
National NGO Workshops.
Secretariat. DEF developed
interests.
Two regional DEF meetings
statues and then established itself
c) Strengthened ability of Danube
were held. DEF
as a legal entity in Slovakia.
River Basin NGOs to organize
representatives participated in
Proposal developed and presented
themselves at the regional
the regional workshops.
to donors for the further
level.
development of DEF.
7. Improved international
a) GEF programme supported a) DRPC ratified, ICPDR a) Permanent Secretariat of the a) Improved ability to cooperate
cooperation in the
the ratification process of the
established with a permanent
ICPDR established financed by
with donor organizations;
sustainable management
ICPDR;
secretariat which will
member country contributions b) Provided national experts with
of the Danube river Basin
b) Both Bosnia-Herzcegovina
strengthen regional
assuring continued regional
experience with cooperating at
and Black Sea, including
and the Federal Republic of
cooperation.
cooperation in the DRB;
the regional level as well as
the integration of Bosnia-
Yugoslavia were successfully b) Valuable cooperation as well b) Strong institutional contacts as
with working with international
Herzcegovina and the
integrated into all GEF
as much needed technical
well as contacts at the expert level
organizations. Experience in
Federal Republic of
Pollution Reduction
information gained from B-H
established providing the basis for
target oriented planning
Yugoslavia in
Programme activities.
and Yugoslavia's participation
further cooperation in the future
workshops provided as noted
international management
providing comprehensive
despite the conflict in the region.
above.
of hte Danube River
information needed for the
The functioning of this network in
Basin.
Transboundary Analysis, SAP
the FRY after the war indicates
revision and the completion of
the sustainability of the
the PRP.
cooperation established.
7
Expected Results (per
Major Achievements
Potential Impact
Sustainability of Results
Contribution to Capacity
Project Document)
Development
8. Prepared project
a) Pollution Reduction a) Expected to lead to greater a) Project Database developed to a) Consistent use of methodology
documents and financing
Programme developed
implementation of pollution
allow for countries to constantly
for data collection and analysis
packages for a series of
consisting of 421 priority
reduction projects in the
improve information about
in each country harmonized
priority pollution
projects as well as important
Danube Basin. Allows a basis
projects in the Pollution
approach. Regional workshop
reduction projects, and
policy measures that will lead
for monitoring results (project
Reduction Programme, as well as
to develop PRP integrated and
mechanisms for attracting
to the reduction of priority
database) and to quantify
allows for projects to be added
strengthened national capacities
additional international
pollutants in the Danube
achievements;
and subtracted based on
throughout the basin;
support;
River Basin.
b) Provides basis for presenting
implementation and consistent b) Provided experience to national
b) Danube Partnership
prepared projects to interested
review at both the national and
experts in preparing investment
Programme, a portfolio of 60
international financial
regional levels.
projects with sufficient
priority investment projects,
institutions (IFIs) and donors;
b) Donor conference scheduled to
documentation and level of
prepared for presentation to c) Provided clear understanding
assure implementation of part of
detail for presentation to IFIs
donors;
of what are the strengths and
investment portfolio;
and donors;
c) National review of financing
weaknesses of existing national c) Sound analysis of what options c) Strengthened the ability to
mechanisms conducted and a
financing mechanisms.
would be sustainable in the future.
identify the strengths and
detailed proposal for the
Reviewed possible regional
weaknesses of existing and
development of a Danube
financing mechanisms
proposed financing
Environmental Financing
resulting in a proposal for the
mechanisms.
Facility (DEFF) was
DEFF.
completed and presented to
donors.
8
2. What factors affected the achievement of programme or project results?
While we rate the project overall to be a very good success, the achievements were affected by the
following:
· Data gaps as well as inconsistency and the lack of good quality, verifiable data from country to
country. This made it difficult at times to compare.
· Lack of information on diffuse sources of pollution. Due to the negligible level of information
on diffuse sources, it was generally not possible to adequately include concrete measures to
address difuse sources of pollution in the final Danube Pollution Reduction Programme.
· Short project time frame. The project had a very tight implementation period (initially 16
months) that even after extension was perhaps too tight. The results might have been even
stronger given more time.
3. What lessons (both positive and negative) can be drawn from the experience of the
programme or project?
We saw the need to develop national review databases consisting of 5 individual databases: Emissions,
Water Quality, Socio-Economic data, financial information as well as a Project database. These databases
will respond to the need for:
a) periodically updating national information and to fill data gaps,
b) an incentive for countries to improve data provided or to provide data in the future where currently
it does not exist and
c) tools to monitor implementation.
This will help to insure the sustainability of the Pollution Reduction Programme.
4. What are the views of the target groups with regard to the programme or project? Please
note any significant gender-based differences in their views.
The main target groups of the UNDP/GEF assistance were the participating countries particularly as
represented by the ICPDR. They have indicated satisfication with the results and feel that it has
strengthened cooperation between countries as well as within the framework of the ICPDR itself. It should
also be said that the main beneficiaries i.e. the countries, were also primary contributors to the programme.
Thus the ICPDR and the participating countries are also "owners" of the successful outputs of the Pollution
Reduction Programme.
5. If the programme or project has been evaluated, what is the implementation status of the
recommendations made by the evaluators?
As we have just received the project evaluation, we have not yet had time to respond to the
recommendations.
9
6. What activities or steps do you recommend as follow-up to the project?
Follow-up activities to the GEF Danube River Basin Pollution Reduction Programme should focus on primarily
the support the further development of the ICPDR and include activities to stimulate implementation of the PRP
with a particular focus on facilitating the necessary policy changes in DRB countries for nutrient reduction.
7. Provide any other information that may further support or clarify your assessment of the
programme or project. You may include annexes as you deem necessary.
Please see the project evaluation report.
10
Project Brief / Danube Regional Project Phase 1
Annexes
ANNEX 13 Endorsement Letters