Final Report
1 August 2007
Final Evaluation of the UNDP/GEF Project
RER/01/G32
Danube Regional Project: Strengthening the
Implementation Capacities for Nutrient Reduction and
Transboundary Cooperation in the Danube River Basin
PREFACE
This report sets out the final findings, lessons learned and recommendations
for the UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project. The report is delivered in compli-
ance with the Terms of Reference developed by UNOPS, who are tasked with
managing the DRP on behalf of UNDP. The evaluation is based upon collected
reference materials from the project, as well as a series of interviews carried
out during evaluation missions to the region, during March May 2007. The
conclusions and recommendations set out in the following pages are solely
those of the evaluators and are not binding upon the project management &
sponsors.
Contacts:
Alan Fox
Transboundary Consulting, LLC
7 Hampton Rd.
Scarsdale, New York 10583
Stephen de Mora
Aromed Environmental Consulting Services Inc
255 Melanie Avenue
Kingston, Ontario
Canada K7M 8C2
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ 4
GLOSSARY ........................................................................................................................ 11
1 INTRODUCTION TO THE EVALUATION......................................................................... 13
1.1
Purpose of the Evaluation...........................................................................................13
1.2 Evaluation
Report Components ...................................................................................13
1.3 Methodology
of
the Evaluation ....................................................................................14
1.3.1 Ratings .................................................................................................................14
1.4 Structure
of
the Evaluation .........................................................................................14
2 THE DRP AND IT'S DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT .............................................................. 15
2.1
Project Start and its Duration......................................................................................15
2.2
Problems that the Project Sought to Address.................................................................15
2.3
Immediate and Development Objectives of the Project ...................................................16
2.4 Main
Stakeholders.....................................................................................................17
2.5 Expected
Results.......................................................................................................17
2.5.1 Results
Indicators...................................................................................................18
3 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS................................................................................... 20
3.1 Project
formulation....................................................................................................20
3.1.1
Relevance of the project design ................................................................................20
3.1.2
Appropriateness of the project's concept and design ...................................................21
3.1.3
Contribution of the project to the overall development objective....................................21
3.1.4
The likely sustainability of project interventions. .........................................................21
3.2 Implementation ........................................................................................................22
3.2.1
The general implementation and management of the Project ........................................23
3.2.2
Adequacy of management arrangements ..................................................................25
3.2.3
Institutional set-up through the ICPDR and various Expert groups ................................27
3.2.4
Inputs of the Governments of the thirteen countries at national and local levels...............28
3.2.5
Responsiveness of project management to changes in the environment..........................28
3.2.6 Co-operation
among project partners. .......................................................................28
3.3 Project
impact ..........................................................................................................29
3.3.1
Achievements of the project against the original objectives, outputs and activities. ..........29
3.3.2
Awareness of the participating countries regarding project outputs. ...............................39
3.3.3
Level of ownership of the project by the participating countries .....................................39
3.3.4 Cost-effectiveness of the project...............................................................................40
3.3.5
Public participation and stakeholder involvement in implementation of project activities....41
3.3.6
Likely support from the Countries' Governments in integrating the project objectives. ......42
3.3.7
Project impact on improving capacities . ...................................................................43
3.3.8
Project impact on enhancing inter-agency and inter-ministerial co-operation . .................44
3.3.9
Cooperation among international organisations, NGOs and other stakeholders.................45
3.3.10
Cooperation with sister projects in the GEF IW portfolio..............................................46
3.3.11 Sustainability
of project impacts .............................................................................47
3.4
Recommendations, best practices and lessons learned....................................................51
3.4.1 Key
lessons learned ................................................................................................51
3.4.2 Best
practices ........................................................................................................51
3.4.3 Recommendations ..................................................................................................53
3.4.4 Ratings .................................................................................................................57
Annexes
Annex 1 Component Review
Annex 2 -- TOR for Terminal Evaluation
Annex 3 -- Mission Itinerary
Annex 4 List of Persons Interviewed
Annex 5 List of Documents Reviewed
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The full title of the evaluated UNDP-GEF funded and UNOPS executed project is the Da-
nube Regional Project: Strengthening the Implementation Capacities for Nutrient Reduc-
tion and Transboundary Cooperation in the Danube River Basin. The project is known as
the Danube Regional Project (DRP).
The overall objective of the DRP is to reduce nutrient emissions into the Danube River and
its tributaries in order to improve water quality in the Danube and in the Black Sea. The
DRP is designed to complement the activities of the International Commission for the Pro-
tection of the Danube River (ICPDR), an international commission established through the
Danube River Protection Convention (DRPC), providing a regional approach to the devel-
opment of national policies and legislation and the definition of priority actions for nutrient
reduction and pollution control, with particular attention to achieving sustainable trans-
boundary ecological effects within the Danube River Basin (DRB) and the Black Sea area.
This Terminal Evaluation Report (TE report) constitutes the combined outcome of a litera-
ture review and evaluation missions, including a series of interviews carried out in March
May 2007. The evaluation team interviewed selected stakeholders at the DRP PCU and the
ICPDR Secretariat in Vienna. In addition, stakeholders from each of the 13 countries that
are signatories to the Danube River Protection Convention (DRPC) were interviewed, with
travels carried out to 12 of the 13 countries for meetings and site visits to project demon-
stration sites. Additional interviews in New York and Washington DC and by videoconfer-
ence to Brussels rounded out a comprehensive project review.
The DRP can be considered in its wider context, as the culmination of 15 years of GEF as-
sistance and a lynchpin of the Danube-Black Sea Strategic Partnership. It has been a
highly successful project, and well-deserving in its characterisation as one of the flagship
efforts under the GEF International Waters Focal Area. The adaptive strategy which saw an
increasing focus on the WFD implementation was both reasonable and highly successful.
The Danube `Roof Report' is widely considered the best of the transboundary WFD river
basin assessment reports to be developed in compliance with the WFD, and the ICPDR can
thank the assistance of the DRP for helping achieve this success
At the conclusion of the DRP, additional regional large-scale support from GEF is not an-
ticipated, especially with the EU increasingly prominent in both policy setting and funding
support, and the riparian countries having set the ICPDR on a solid financial footing. There
are, however continuing areas for the GEF to consider extending its support for example,
for the continuation of the ongoing sub basin initiatives on the Sava and Tisza, and also to
further recommendations on the use of innovative economic instruments for continuing
water quality improvements and the reduction of nutrient loading.
In summary, the Danube Regional Project has been a highly successful and well-managed
project, helping to set the ICPDR and the Danube countries on a firm foundation for sus-
tainable efforts to protect and enhance the Danube River. The synopsis below considers
the main features of the report under the topics of design, implementation, impact and the
benefits that can be gleaned for other GEF projects.
Project Design
The DRP was well formulated and successfully built upon preceding regional agreements
and activities, including the establishment of the ICPDR. Emphasis was placed on the most
critical pollution issues for the Danube and Black Sea, namely eutrophication caused by
excessive nutrient loading. The project concentrated on building the necessary govern-
mental and civil society structures to ensure that attention was paid to reducing human
impacts on Danube water quality. Phase 2 of the project was able to respond to recom-
mendations made in the mid-term review, notably by preparing an Exit Strategy.
4
The DRP included consideration of public participation and access to information, that is,
the implementation of the Aarhus convention. In particular, emphasis was placed on build-
ing public awareness and support for improving and protecting water resources in the re-
gion.
The project design satisfied over-riding GEF objectives by assisting groups of countries to
understand better the environmental challenges of their international waters and work col-
laboratively to address them, building capacity of existing institutions, and implementing
measures that address priority transboundary environmental concerns. The design of the
DRP enabled it to play a leading role in regional preparations for WFD implementation.
Project Implementation
The DRP was implemented in a highly satisfactory manner. Looking across the breadth of
the project experience, it is easy to discern a high level of accomplishment, a significant
level of country interest and ownership, a successful working relationship between the Pro-
ject and key stakeholders, especially the ICPDR, and a high degree of professionalism in
how the Project Coordinating Unit carried out its duties. The DRP project team successfully
adhered to work plans. Faced with a large and ambitious set of expected outcomes, and
nearly 160 activities, the PCU did an admirable job in completing expected tasks.
A notable achievement of the DRP was its capacity to adapt to changing political and eco-
nomic realities, notably regarding the eastward expansion of the EU and the political up-
heaval in the former Yugoslavia. There has been strong regional appreciation of and sup-
port for this adaptive management.
The financial aspects of the project were handled exceptionally well. Aiding significantly
was the opportunity for the team to work using an imprest account with UNOPS for han-
dling local expenditures and small contracts. The one case where budgeting was not
closely monitored was in implementation of output 3.4, which was perceived to be an ac-
tivity separate from the rest of the project with a preset budget for the project team. The
DRP project managers had to respond to an effective (>20%) budget cut decline in the
value of the US dollar versus the Euro. Some envisioned activities, for example agricultural
pilot studies and some public communications efforts, were narrowed. Also, there was a
gradual phase out of support for national participation at EG meetings. Interestingly, and
somewhat paradoxically, the reduced DRP support for these activities spurred greater sup-
port from the riparian countries and other stakeholders, including industry.
The DRP progress was greatly facilitated by external factors, in particular the expansion of
the European Union. Acceptance of the WFD as a legally binding mechanism for Danube
water quality management has enabled the DRP to achieve considerable success in the
harmonization of riparian government policies and monitoring programmes. Secondly, the
economic downturn that many of the downstream Danube countries faced during the
1990's led, amongst other things, to reduced fertilizer use and a consequent reduction in
farm pollution runoff. The DRP's success in meeting its targets for nitrogen and phosphate
reduction is largely as a result of this decrease in farm emissions, coupled with continuing
measures across the breadth of the Danube River Basin to improve wastewater treatment
systems. A third set of factors that have facilitated progress relate to having a well-
functioning project team, strong cooperation with the ICPDR Secretariat and a supportive
project steering committee comprised of the Heads of Delegation of the ICPDR.
Project Impact
The DRP has had a major impact in the region, and even globally. It has enabled the
ICPDR to begin implementation of the Water Framework Directive and is now the bench-
mark for European transboundary water bodies. The project has helped the ICPDR to take
a holistic look at the pressures facing the river. Thanks to the DRP, evidence has been
given on the significant eutrophication problems caused by agricultural inputs, the impor-
tant flood buffering attributes of riverine wetlands, and the critical need to improve tariff
and charge schemes for water and sanitation systems. Due to the DRP, there is a wide and
expanding array of environmental NGOs who have increased their awareness and in-
5
volvement in the effort to clean up and protect the Danube and its tributaries. Through the
DRP, many of the Danube countries have enhanced their policies and procedures for in-
volving the public in water resource decision-making. The goal, to reduce nitrogen and
phosphate emissions into the Danube River by>20% and >30%, respectively, was
achieved and the western shelf of the Black Sea is clearly exhibiting signs of restoration.
While there is ample evidence that the DRP had positive policy and institutional impacts on
the downstream (GEF eligible) countries, there is some question as to whether the DRP
influenced the upstream Danube countries, in particular Germany and Austria, to
strengthen their policies and enforcement measures to reduce nutrient discharges into the
Danube. While much of the effort has necessarily been directed towards bringing the
downstream country policies and protection measures into line with their upstream
neighbours, henceforth, in the context of being equal partners within an EU-driven policy
framework, the impetus will fall on all parties to take further steps to reduce their nutrient
and other pollutant contributions to the River.
Benefits to other projects
The DRP has amply demonstrated the value of a GEF Project supporting a Convention Se-
cretariat, in this case the ICPDR. The project was able to strengthen, rather than compete
with, existing regional structures, notably the ICPDR Expert Groups. The Secretariat plays
both a beneficiary role and a management role, while the PCU provides funding and tech-
nical support to the Secretariat, but also manages other outputs beyond the scope of Se-
cretariat responsibilities.
The DRP achieved considerable success within the sphere of influence of the constituent
members of the ICPDR delegations (e.g., water management, riverine monitoring, and
WFD implementation). The project experienced the greatest difficulties in affecting policies
that fall outside of the purview of the Ministry of Environment (or its equivalent in each
country), like agriculture, industry, and transport, indicating that these resource-oriented
ministries need to be engaged in a meaningful way with project development right from
the concept stage.
There are many examples of best practices that can serve as models to other GEF pro-
jects. As noted above and in contrast to some other GEF projects, the rapport between the
DRP PCU and the ICPDR Secretariat has been very positive and their actions mutually rein-
forcing. Adaptive management was essential in order to deal with the changing political
and economic realities, particularly regarding EU accession and WFD implementation, as
well as the effective budget cut resulting from an unfavourable dollar euro exchange
rate.
A universally expressed view in the region was that a major benefit of the project was the
opportunity to establish networking of like-minded people, with communications having
been established or improved, both nationally and internationally, between scientists in
academia and government agencies or laboratories, between scientific communities, and
with other regional stakeholders, notably environmental managers.
DRP support strengthened the Danube Environmental Forum (DEF) as an umbrella organi-
zation, thereby enhancing the ability of member NGOs to respond to transboundary pollu-
tion issues. Significant progress was made in fostering NGOs, and through them, public
involvement, particularly in the downstream countries where NGO activities and the notion
of public access to information have short histories. NGOs, working on door-to-door cam-
paigns and hosting numerous meetings at the community level, provided the means by
which the DRP could reach many of the stakeholders, especially farmers.
Finally, the DRP, in consultation with ICPDR and agreed to by the national HoDs, devel-
oped an Exit Strategy to set in motion a phase down of DRP support in preparation of the
ICPDR operating as a self-financing Commission and Secretariat. In the wider sense, this
process of formulating an exit strategy became a self-assessment mechanism for the
6
ICPDR and brought considerable attention to the assistance provided by and outcomes of
DRP activities. The Exit Strategy required that countries and ICPDR examine the benefits
accrued from the GEF project, agree on what to continue and decide on how the ongoing
activities could be financed.
Recommendations
Recognising that the DRP is concluding, the following recommendations are set out
for consideration, in the first case by the ICPDR, and then for UNDP and GEF con-
sideration for future IW projects.
Recommendations for ICPDR
1. The DRP has generated a wide array of useful documents that should remain
available to the interested public. The ICPDR is encouraged to add a DRP ar-
chive section to its database and web site.
2. The ICPDR has gathered resources for two Joint Danube Surveys. These trans-
Danube research cruises are an important activity that should continue, and
plans should be made for a 3rd JDS after the upcoming 2007 survey. The sur-
veys are important to the continuing research effort for the Danube not so
much because of the groundbreaking research, as for the cross-boundary coop-
eration amongst researchers and especially as an educational and public aware-
ness tool.
3. The DRP provided useful support to the ICPDR for the enhancement of the
MONERIS nutrient model and to upgrade the Commission's geographic informa-
tion system (GIS). The ICPDR is encouraged to continue the use and refinement
of these tools
4. The ICPDR has been expanding its external funding support mechanism, and is
increasingly looking to the private sector, based on their quite successful coop-
eration to date with Coca Cola and the Alcoa Foundation. This private sector ini-
tiative is seen as critical to enabling the ICPDR Secretariat to continue many of
its public awareness activities in addition to its formal secretariat-country sup-
port role. Taking a cue from other successful international organisations, it will
be useful for the ICPDR to broaden this initiative into a more robust member-
ship programme to include foundations, bilateral donors and the general pub-
lic. Having a wide array of "Friends of the Danube" can build greater public
awareness and support, while also shielding the ICPDR from possible criticism
of its increasing reliance on industry sponsorship to promote environmental pro-
tection. The ICPDR may also want to consider drawing from the experience of
sustainable development and `green' mutual funds that have developed charters
and strict criteria for companies that can be listed.
5. The ICPDR member countries are considering how to proceed with possible
bans and voluntary agreements on phosphates in detergents. A recent determi-
nation from the European Commission states that the approaches being consid-
ered in the Danube region are "justified and proportionate". This provides a real
opportunity for the Danube basin countries, especially those that are EU mem-
bers, to champion this initiative. The work of the DRP and ICPDR Expert Groups
has made clear that phasing out the use of phosphates in detergents provides
the most cost-effective opportunity to make marked reductions in nutrient
emissions into the Danube River.
6. The Danube region can expect to experience alterations in the water cycle as a
result of climate change, with increasing risk of severe flood events and ex-
tended droughts. Water-related impacts of climate change should be targeted
7
as a focus area for the ICPDR. The Commission is encouraged to establish a
task group within its Expert Group structure to investigate the issue.
7. The DRP provided a very useful mechanism to broaden civil society involvement
in Danube River protection activities. In particular, GEF support has been in-
strumental in establishing the Danube Environmental Forum. The ICPDR is en-
couraged to continue and broaden this partnership with DEF. In addition to re-
taining its observer status, the DEF should be offered opportunities to partici-
pate in public awareness raising activities. Recognizing that the DEF's financial
sustainability remains an issue, the ICPDR delegations are encouraged to assist
in identifying potential funding support for the DEF.
8. The DRP provided a measure of support to the ICPDR with respect to industrial
pollution and in particular risks from flood prone contaminated sites. Further in-
vestigations are needed not only in terms of risk assessment but also with re-
spect to mitigation strategies, and the ICPDR is encouraged to promote this ef-
fort
9. The ICPDR has worked from 2001 2006 under its Joint Action Programme
(JAP) providing the road map for implementation of the Danube River Conven-
tion, and implementation of the Danube Strategic Action Plan. There has not
been a renewal of the JAP, in part from the conviction that the ICPDR effort has
shifted towards implementation of the WFD. The ICPDR, it's Secretariat and Ex-
pert Groups are now focused on developing the Danube River Basin Manage-
ment Plan, by 2009. It should be recognised that the scope of the Danube
Convention, and consequently the role of ICPDR, may be broader than what is
contained in the WFD. For instance, the Scope of the Convention (Article 3)
notes that the convention is applicable to issues of fisheries and inland naviga-
tion, and the operation of existing hydrotechnical constructions. Recognising its
broader mandate, the ICPD is encouraged to develop a JAP for the period 2008-
2012, which recognises the array of expected achievements in addition to WFD
implementation.
10. The DRP undertook a review of the monitoring and reporting requirements
within the ICPDR and compared these with those of the EEA and the EC taking
account of the development of the WISE (Water Information System for
Europe). The WISE is intended to minimise country's reporting of data while en-
suring that data can be utilised by a wide number of end users. Countries will
upload data to WISE (or provide links to where the data is) and then the vari-
ous reporting requirements (e.g. WFD, UWWTD, SoE reports) can extract the
required information. The DRP review recommended a greater use of available
data sources rather than replicating databases within the ICPDR to reduce the
burden on the countries and reduce the costs of collecting data for the ICPDR.
Although not all the recommendations were adopted at the time (2005) by the
ICPDR, the evolution of WISE and the increasing number of Danube countries in
the EU will inevitably require that these issues are further assessed. The ICPDR
should continue to evaluate their need to collect/archive data from the countries
against utilising existing EU-wide data sources of national data.
Recommendations for UNDP & GEF
1. The GEF has a put a substantial investment into the Danube River over the past
15 years. GEF support is now ebbing, which is understandable given pressing
environmental demands in other regions, the increasing capabilities of the Da-
nube countries to manage their own water resource affairs, and particularly the
expansion of the European Union across a majority of the Danube countries.
There are, however, important reasons for the GEF to retain an International Wa-
ters presence in the Region. These include: a) to continue strengthening the ca-
pacities of countries in the basin that are not a part of the EU and are facing con-
8
siderable economic constraints; b) to `protect' the investment by continuing to
support transboundary agreements at the sub-basin level, for instance in the
Tisza and Prut Rivers; and c) to continue to utilize the Danube as an incubator
and demonstration site for the use of policies and techniques that can be repli-
cated in other regions.
An example of further GEF activities could be to develop a GEF medium size pro-
ject to demonstrate innovative economic instruments to counter the Danube-
Black Sea problem of nutrient over-enrichment. This would include analysis of the
feasibility of a nutrient trading scheme as well as other economic tools, such as
the use of conservation easements for flood plain management, and promotion of
low cost wastewater treatment technologies, including engineered wetlands and
package treatment plants
2. The DRP/ICPDR Exit Strategy effort was well considered and generally well exe-
cuted. Developing and implementing such strategies should be a standard fea-
ture of GEF IW projects, especially in cases where there have been long-term in-
ternational investments and a corresponding need to start the process of sup-
planting international support with regional and local support. The key is to start
the process early, at the mid-way point of the project, so there is sufficient time
for the phase down process to take affect, the countries to budget for their in-
creased responsibilities.
3. The DRP was able to utilise an IMPREST account with UNOPS, enabling the PCU
to operate a more flexible budgeting and expenditure procedure, yet maintain
project accountability. All large-scale multi-country GEF projects should be given
this account opportunity, based on initial evidence of sound financial manage-
ment.
4. The DRP/ICPDR experience with expert groups compares favourably with other
projects and commissions that have utilised Regional Activity Centres. Expert
Groups, with rotating chairs, allow for leadership on issues to pass across the in-
volved countries, expanding country interest, participation and ownership.
5. The DRP/ICPDR agreement to phase out project support for country participation
in Expert Groups was a double success: it helped to build country ownership and
responsibility and also reduced DRP expenditures, enabling the project to meet
its objectives despite inflationary pressures. Future GEF projects should consider
including this phase out approach in ProDoc development.
6. The DRP was established as part of the Danube-Black Sea Strategic Partnership,
which linked the DRP and BSERP capacity building projects with an investment
facility (NRF). While coordination of these three projects could have been better,
the concept is sound and should be replicated. By linking capacity building and
investment support, the GEF can greatly increase the environmental benefits ac-
crued for targeted international waters.
7. One of the strategic programmes in the International Waters Focal Area for GEF-
4 concerns reducing nutrient over-enrichment and oxygen depletion from land-
based pollution of coastal waters. This was a key objective for the DRP, recognis-
ing that nutrient over-enrichment of the Danube is having adverse impacts on
the Black Sea. The DRP successfully implemented a few pilot projects to promote
farm management and was involved at the policy level on implementation of the
EU Nitrates Directive. Future projects addressing nutrient over-enrichment should
seek to broaden these investigations of agricultural policy impacts on the envi-
ronment, including farm commodity price support mechanisms. Efforts should be
made by the UNDP to achieve greater participation of local agricultural interests,
including local extension services, and also international partners, such as the
FAO.
9
8. The experiences from the agricultural pilots in the DRP demonstrated that farm-
ers are interested to implement best agricultural practices (BAPs). Yet the DRP
experience also showed that few if any BAPs will get carried out without financial
support especially when small and marginal farming concerns are the focus.
Future GEF projects that provide capacity building for BAPs need to tie directly to
investment support - either through country support commitments or additional
donor funding. This may be an area where micro-lending arrangements can be
considered.
9. In the DRP an issue arose with respect to the Intellectual Property Rights for the
use and enhancement of the MONERIS model. This raises a more general issue of
how future GEF projects should utilise proprietary systems and software. Open
architecture programmes and systems in the public domain are preferable as-
suming they meet the project needs. Otherwise, contractual negotiations may be
required to ensure that beneficiary countries receive license to utilise and en-
hance proprietary systems, or at the last resort, long term contracts are signed
that enable the countries to continue receiving systems support after the GEF
project has concluded. The risk in not taking one of these approaches is that sig-
nificant GEF moneys will be used for developing effluent models or GIS mapping
systems that are then discontinued once the GEF support ends.
10. The current joint APR/PIR reporting requirements for UNDP / GEF projects are an
improvement over the previous situation where separate APRs and PIRs were re-
quired. However the format and procedures are still cumbersome for the project
teams and too content-heavy for reviewers. Consideration should be given to
new formats for instance providing an annual `exceptions' report, which high-
lights only those areas of the project implementation that have changed since the
previous reporting period. Consideration should also be give to developing an on-
line format.
11. The DRP's inclusion of a small grants programme (3.2) was highly successful in
terms of increasing NGO participation, raising public awareness, and mobilising a
large number of environmental protection activities at a fairly modest cost. Not-
withstanding the existence of the GEF Small Grants Programme operating glob-
ally, it will be useful to consider including small grants programmes as a compo-
nent of future GEF large-scale projects
10
GLOSSARY
APC/EG Accident
Prevention and Control Expert Group
APR
Annual Project/Programme Report
AQA
Analytical Quality Assurance
AQC
Analytical Quality Control
BAP
Best Agricultural Practices
BAT
Best Available Technology
BEP
Best Environmental Practices
BOD
Biological Oxygen Demand
BSERP
Black Sea Ecosystem Recovery Project
BSP
Black Sea Program
CAP
Common Agricultural Policy
COD
Chemical Oxygen Demand
DANUBIS
Information System of the ICPDR
DBAM
Danube Basin Alarm Model
DEF
Danube Environmental Forum
DPRP
Danube Pollution Reduction Program
DQA
Data Quality Assurance
DRB
Danube River Basin
DRP
Danube Regional Project
DRPC
Danube River Protection Convention
DWQM
Danube Water Quality Model
EC European
Commission
ECO/EG
Ecology Expert Group
EMIS/EG
Emission Expert Group
EPDRB Environmental
Programme
for the Danube River Basin
EU European
Union
EUR Euro
GDP
Gross Domestic Product
GEF Global
Environment Facility
GIS
Geographical Information System
HELCOM
Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission (Helsinki Commission)
HoD
Head of Delegation
ICPBS
International Commission for the Protection of the Black Sea
ICPDR
International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River
IFI
International Financing Institution
IGO Inter-Governmental Organisation
IMCC
Inter-Ministerial Coordination Committee
IPPC Integrated
Pollution
Prevention and Control Directive
IW International
Waters
JAP
Joint Action Program
LFA
Logical Framework Approach
M&E
Monitoring and Evaluation
MLIM/EG
Monitoring Laboratory and Information Management Expert Group
MOU
Memorandum of Understanding
MTE Report
Mid-Term Evaluation Report
NGOs
Non Government Organizations
NRF
World Bank Investment Fund for Nutrient Reduction
OP8
Operational Programme 8
PCU
Project Coordination Unit
PIR Project
Implementation Review
ProDoc Project
Document
PRP Pollution
Reduction
Program
RBM
River Basin Management
RBM/EG
River Basin Management Expert Group
REC
Regional Environmental Centre
11
S/EG
Strategic Expert Group
SAP
Strategic Action Plan
SAPARD
Special Accession Programme for Agriculture and Rural Development
SGP
Small Grants Programme
TDA
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis
TNMN
Trans National Monitoring Network
UNDP
United Nations Development Program
UNOPS
United Nations Office for Project Services
USD
United States Dollar
WFD
Water Framework Directive
WWF
Worldwide Fund for Nature
12
1
INTRODUCTION TO THE EVALUATION
1.1 Purpose of the Evaluation
The objective of the terminal evaluation is to enable GEF, UNDP, ICPDR, the Gov-
ernment bodies in the participating countries, and UNOPS to assess the relevance,
efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability of the Danube Regional Project.
The evaluation will assess the achievements of the project against its objectives, in-
cluding a re-examination of the relevance of the objectives and of 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 overview and lessons learned for the
future.
1.2 Evaluation
Report
Components
The Final evaluation addresses the following issues:
Project design
ˇ Project Relevance of the project design within the framework of GEF guidelines
and global concern regarding the Danube River basin.
ˇ Appropriateness of the project's concept and design to the current economic, in-
stitutional and environmental situation in the target region.
ˇ Contribution of the project to the overall development objective as declared in
the Project Document.
ˇ The likely sustainability of project interventions.
Implementation
ˇ The general implementation and management of the UNDP/GEF project by the
Project Management in terms of quality of inputs and activities, adherence to
work plans and budgets, major factors which have facilitated or impeded the
progress of project implementation.
ˇ Adequacy of management arrangements, as well as monitoring and backstopping
support given to the project by all parties concerned.
ˇ Institutional set-up through the ICPDR and various Expert Groups and the degree
to which it has encouraged full involvement of the countries.
ˇ Inputs of the Governments of the thirteen countries at national and local levels.
ˇ Responsiveness of project management to changes in the environment in which
the project operates.
ˇ UNOPS and ICPDR execution.
ˇ Co-operation among project partners (UNDP/GEF, Project Team, ICPDR, National
Governments and international and national organisations and NGOs, specifically
with regard to the integration and support of ICPDR.
Project impact
ˇ Achievements of the project against the original objectives, outputs and activities
as detailed in the project document and the Project Implementation plan.
ˇ Awareness of the participating countries regarding project outputs.
ˇ Level of ownership of the project by the participating countries.
ˇ Commitment of countries to support the ongoing project and ICPDR JAP and EU
WFD implementation.
ˇ Cost-effectiveness of the project.
ˇ Public participation and stakeholder involvement in implementation of project ac-
tivities.
ˇ Likely degree of support from the Countries' Governments in integrating the pro-
ject objectives and into their national development programmes and other re-
13
lated projects, and how well the project fits into their national development pol-
icy.
ˇ Impacts on policy and strategy of countries.
ˇ Project impact on improving the capacity to prepare and implement collaborative,
targeted and effective efforts for the management of the Danube River Basin.
ˇ Project impact on enhancing inter-agency and inter-ministerial co-operation in
each country and on regional cooperation
ˇ Cooperation among international organisations, NGOs and other stakeholders.
ˇ Cooperation with sister projects in the GEF IW portfolio esp. Black Sea Ecosystem
Recovery Project and IW-Learn.
ˇ Sustainability of the project's impact.
Recommendations and lessons learned
ˇ Key lessons learned, best practices and recommendations from the DRP that are
relevant to the design and execution of future GEF/UNDP projects, and to the fu-
ture activities of the ICPDR.
1.3 Methodology of the Evaluation
Per the Terms of Reference, the final evaluation has consisted of four activities:
ˇ Document review
ˇ Participation at the Danube Final Seminar (February 2007) and the DRP Final
Wetlands Workshop (April 2007)
ˇ Field visits
ˇ Interviews with individuals who are either affiliated to the project in some way or
who have or might be expected to be impacted by the project.
In Annexes 3-5 are the mission itinerary, persons interviewed and documents re-
viewed. The mission schedule included an opportunity to meet with Heads of Dele-
gation, experts and NGOs in each of the 13 riparian countries of the Danube.
1.3.1 Ratings
Per the requirements set out in the TOR, the evaluators have utilised a five step
rating system (highly satisfactory, satisfactory, marginally satisfactory and unsatis-
factory) on the following criteria: a) outcomes/ achievement of objectives; b) im-
plementation approach; c) Stakeholder participation / public involvement; d) Sus-
tainability; and e) Monitoring & Evaluation.
1.4 Structure of the Evaluation
The evaluation has been structured in accordance with UNDP Guidelines for Evalua-
tors. It covers the issues set out in the Terms of Reference for this evaluation, and
takes into account the expectations of UNOPS.
The use of stakeholder interviews as the lead vehicle for evaluation has been done
recognizing that the DRP is a capacity building and "influencing" project, designed to
build stakeholder support for improved river basin management.
14
2 THE DRP AND IT'S DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT
2.1 Project Start and its Duration
Phase 1 of the Danube Regional Project was commenced as planned in December
2001 and the majority of activities were completed, according to the Project Docu-
ment, by the end of October 2003. Phase 2 was designed to commence in December
2003 shortly after completion of Phase 1 and span a three-year period until 2006;
the expected duration of the DRP thereby totalling 5 years. Due to unexpected de-
lays in the final commenting and approval process of the Project Document for Phase
2, the actual start-up of Phase 2 occurred in September of 2004, with an initial pro-
ject completion date of November, 2006, subsequently extended until June, 2007.
2.2 Problems that the Project Sought to Address
The Danube River is the second largest river in Europe (2 780 km) and drains an
area of 817 000 km2. It includes entirely or partly Austria, Germany, Hungary, Czech
Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro,
Bulgaria, Romania, Moldova and Ukraine. The river discharges into the Black Sea
through a delta, which is the second largest natural wetland in Europe. The Danube
is also of high social, economic and environmental value and supports drinking water
intake, waste emissions, agriculture, industry, fishing, tourism, power generation,
navigation, tourism and other activities.
As indicated in the Project Summary (Phase 1 & 2), "the overall objective of the Da-
nube Regional project is to complement the activities of the ICPDR required to pro-
vide a regional approach and global significance to the development of national poli-
cies and legislation and the definition of priority actions for nutrient reduction and
pollution control with particular attention to achieving sustainable transboundary
ecological effects with the DRB and the Black Sea area". Recognizing this overall ob-
jective, it can be seen that the problems the project seeks to address relate to pollu-
tion loading into the Danube from sources along the river and its tributaries.
The DRP seeks to address the human impacts on the Danube and its tributaries,
from agricultural and urban activities. The project objectives have been developed
recognizing that pollution remains a serious problem, with the amount of nutrients
mainly from agricultural fertilizers, household products and urban sewage - still too
high. Toxic substances are also a key threat, especially from agricultural, industrial
and mining operations. These pollution problems not only affect the ecology of the
Danube, and put at risk the drinking water sources for millions of inhabitants. They
also place the Black Sea at serious risk to eutrophication, algal blooms, and con-
tamination. The long history of human settlement in the region has significantly al-
tered the river's natural flow and filtering mechanisms. Some 80% of the Danube's
wetlands and floodplains have been lost since the end of the 19th century, threaten-
ing bird and fish habitats and compounding the devastation from periodic floods.
Control and reduction of pollutants requires addressing specific "hot spots", as well
as establishing an under girding of cooperation, commitment and capacity among
key stakeholders at the government, industry and community levels. While the
World Bank, the European Union and bilateral supporters have focused on the in-
vestment side, it has been the role of the DRP to consider these "softer", but no less
crucial, aspects of pollution reduction.
15
2.3 Immediate and Development Objectives of the Project
Long Term Development Objective
The DRP is designed to contribute to sustainable human development in the Danube
River Basin (DRB) through reinforcing the capacities of the participating countries in
developing effective mechanisms for regional cooperation and coordination in order
to ensure protection of international waters, sustainable management of natural re-
sources and biodiversity.
Overall Objective
The DRP is to complement the activities of the ICPDR that are required to provide a
regional approach and global significance to the development of national policies
and legislation and the definition of priority actions for nutrient reduction and pollu-
tion control with particular attention to achieving sustainable transboundary ecologi-
cal effects within the DRB and Black Sea area.
The ICPDR is the legally established institutional mechanism for regional environ-
mental cooperation among the 13 riparian states and EC to manage water resources
in the Danube River Basin. Among other activities, the DRP provides financial assis-
tance in support of the ICPDR expert groups. Many of the DRP activities are de facto
complementing, sustaining and building continuity to the regional environmental co-
operation architecture established.
Specific Objectives of Phase 1 (December 2001 August 2004)
The Project Document for Phase 1 included preparation and commencement of ba-
sin-wide capacity building activities, which were then to be consolidated and com-
pleted during Phase 2. Altogether 20 project components with 80 activities were to
be carried out during Phase 1
The following four project components were designed to respond to the overall de-
velopment objective:
a) Creation of sustainable ecological conditions for land use and water manage-
ment;
b) Capacity building and reinforcement of transboundary cooperation for the im-
provement of water quality and environmental standards in the Danube River
Basin;
c) Strengthening of public involvement in environmental decision making and rein-
forcement of community actions for pollution reduction and protection of ecosys-
tems;
d) Reinforcement of monitoring, evaluation and information systems to control
transboundary pollution, and to reduce nutrients and harmful substances.
Specific Objectives of Phase 2 (September 2004 June 2007)
The key objectives during Phase 2 were to set up institutional and legal instruments
at the national and regional level to assure nutrient reduction and sustainable man-
agement of water bodies and ecological resources. Related objectives included en-
suring the involvement of key stakeholders and building up adequate monitoring
and information systems. To reach these objectives and to secure the implementa-
tion and consolidation of basin-wide capacity-building activities, the Project built
upon the achievements of Phase 1, with a continuation of the above indicated four
project components. Altogether 20 project components and 79 activities were to be
carried out during the 2nd Phase of the Project.
16
2.4 Main
Stakeholders
There are numerous stakeholder groups that can be considered within the Danube
River Basin, including:
As the DRP's major objective is to support the ICPDR, the signatory member
countries to the Danube River Protection Convention (DRPC) and their respective
designated ministries participating in the ICPDR are key stakeholders.
A second segment are the other ministries with direct relevance to ICPDR coop-
eration, such as ministries of agriculture and research units that are semi-active
participants in the regional cooperation process through inter-ministerial coop-
eration mechanisms established by the participating countries.
A third segment includes non-governmental organizations, which are actively in-
corporated into the DRP through such components as: institutional development
of NGOs; support for the NGO umbrella organization Danube Environmental Fo-
rum (DEF), and the Small Grants Programme (SGP).
A fourth segment includes the public at large, whom the DRP sought to influence
through such public information and participation initiatives as the Danube Day,
the magazine Danube Watch, the project web site, media contacts and project
fact sheets.
A fifth segment of stakeholders are the farmers, fishermen, mine operators,
shippers, transportation planners, developers and others whose activities directly
impact on the river basin and water quality. The ICPDR and DRP are working to-
wards identifying means and mechanisms to work proactively with private sector
entities. The agriculture sector as a whole and individual producers are one of the
key stakeholder groups.
2.5 Expected
Results
The project document for Phase 2 sets out a series of objectives and expected
outputs. These constitute the main project components. The components are
build from and are consistent with the Phase 1 Project Document, with some mi-
nor variation, reflecting mid term adaptive management strategies, and espe-
cially the greater focus placed on assistance to the countries and the ICPDR on
implementation of the WFD.
Objective
Output
1.1 Development and implementation of policy guidelines for river
1. The Creation of basin and water resources management
Sustainable Eco-
1.2 & 1.3 Policies for the control of agricultural point and non-
logical Conditions
point sources of pollution and pilot projects on agricultural pollu-
for Land Use and
tion reduction.
Water Manage-
1.4 Policy development for wetlands rehabilitation under the as-
ment
pect of appropriate land use
1.5 Industrial reform and development of policies and legislation
for the application of BAT (best available techniques, including
cleaner technologies) towards reduction of nutrients (N and P) and
dangerous substances
1.6 & 1.7 Assessments and development of water and wastewater
tariffs and effluent charges focused on nutrient reduction and
control of dangerous substances
1.8 Development of voluntary agreements to reduce phosphates
in detergents
2. Capacity build-
2.1 Setting up inter-ministerial coordinating mechanisms for the
ing and rein-
development, implementation and follow-up of national policies,
legislation and projects for nutrient reduction and pollution control
17
Objective
Output
forcement of
2.2 Development of operational tools for monitoring, laboratory
transboundary co-
and information management with particular attention to nutrients
operation for the
and toxic substances
improvement of
2.3 Improvement of procedures and tools for accidental emer-
water quality and
gency response with particular attention to transboundary emer-
environmental
gency situations
standards in the
2.4 Support for reinforcement of the ICPDR information system
DRB
(DANUBIS)
2.5 Implementation of the Memorandum of Understanding be-
tween the ICPDR and the BSC relating to the discharge of nutri-
ents and hazardous substances to the Black Sea
2.6 Training and consultation workshops for resource manage-
ment and pollution control with attention to nutrient reduction and
transboundary issues
3.1 Support for institutional development of NGOs and community
3: Strengthening
involvement
of public involve-
3.2 Applied awareness raising through community-based Small
ment in environ-
Grants Program
mental decision
3.3 Organization of public awareness-raising campaigns on nutri-
making and rein-
ent reduction and control of toxic substances
forcement of
community ac-
3.4 Enhancing support of public participation in addressing priority
tions for pollution
sources of pollution (hot spots) through improved access to infor-
reduction and pro- mation in the frame of the EU WFD.
tection of ecosys-
tems
4.1 Development of indicators for project monitoring and impact
4: Reinforcement
evaluation
of monitoring,
4.2 Analysis of sediments in the Iron Gates reservoir and impact
evaluation and in-
assessment of heavy metals and other dangerous substances on
formation systems the Danube and the Black Sea ecosystems.
to control trans-
4.3 Monitoring and assessment of nutrient removal capacities of
boundary pollu-
riverine wetlands
tion, and to re-
duce nutrients and 4.4 Danube Basin study on pollution trading and corresponding
harmful sub-
economic instruments for nutrient reduction
stances
2.5.1 Results Indicators
It was acknowledged from the beginning of the project that existing indicators to
gauge the results of UNDP/GEF international waters projects were insufficient for
accurately assessing project achievements, and that the DRP could provide a valu-
able service in developing indicators that could be utilized for this and future IW
projects. During Phase 1 of the DRP, conceptual design recommendations were
commissioned, and more precise output achievement indicators were recom-
mended. The Phase 2 ProDoc includes enhanced indicators with numerical goals for
the reduction of nutrients and phosphates.
The verifiable indicator for the overall project objective is a reduction of nitrogen
and phosphorus loading into the Black Sea by 21.1% and 32%, respectively.
For Objective 1, (creating sustainable ecological conditions), the expectation is
that all ICPDR countries will have developed and ratified policies and legal in-
struments for sustainable water management and nutrient reduction. In particu-
lar, the EU WFD is to be applied in the frame of RBM plans.
18
Objective 2, (capacity building), is to be verified through fully operational institu-
tional and organizational mechanisms in each ICPDR country, for transboundary
cooperation, improved water quality monitoring, emission control, emergency
warning, accident prevention and information management.
Objective 3, (public involvement), is to be verified through the active engage-
ment of civil society in national pollution reduction program, as indicated through
an operational and self-sustained DEF secretariat and a fully implemented Small
Grants Program, with 80% of all projects showing sustainable results.
Objective 4, (monitoring, evaluation and information systems), is to be verified
through a "considerable" increase in knowledge on sedimentation, transport and
removal of nutrients and toxic substances, and acceptance at national and re-
gional levels of economic instruments to encourage investment for nutrient re-
duction. Specific verification sources include projects and measures in place to
reduce toxic substances in the Iron Gates reservoir, and endorsed wetlands man-
agement programs.
19
3 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
3.1 Project
formulation
The DRP was well formulated and successfully built upon preceding regional agree-
ments and activities, including establishment of the ICPDR. The DRP was logically fo-
cused on the continuing need to enhance regional cooperation and coordination, and
to focus on the most critical pollution issues for the Danube and Black Sea, namely
eutrophication caused by excessive nutrient loading.
As originally conceived, the project included a distinct set of outcomes focused on
public participation and the Aarhus convention. This aspect of the project was de-
signed to continue GEF support for a previous and separate medium size project
(MSP) that focused on two pilot projects in Hungary and Slovenia. Phase 1 of the
DRP showed little progress on this initiative, and there was concern amongst stake-
holders that it represented a major financial outlay for the project, yet had seem-
ingly little connection to the rest of the project activities. During the second phase
the public participation component was successfully repackaged to focus on water
quality issues in particular with harmonization of the public participation require-
ments built into the WFD; (see component 3.4: Enhancing support of public partici-
pation in addressing priority sources of pollution (hot spots) through improved ac-
cess to information in the frame of the EU WFD).
As noted in the DRP mid term evaluation, the decision to utilize a two tranche fund-
ing mechanism for the DRP created additional work without much benefit. This artifi-
cial division was established due to GEF financing requirements. It necessitated the
development and approval of a second project document, and caused significant de-
lays in project implementation during the summer of 2004 while the second ProDoc
was moving through its approval process.
The second phase ProDoc included several very useful improvements over the first
phase. For instance, there was a coupling of similar projects (for example, themes in
agriculture and wetlands). The second phase also placed greater emphasis on work-
ing with agricultural ministries to address farm runoff pollution. Of particular note,
the second phase focused special attention on the sustainability of the ICPDR, and
included the joint development, with ICPDR, of an `Exit Strategy' to set in motion a
phase down of DRP support, in preparation of the ICPDR operating as a self-
financing Commission and Secretariat.
3.1.1 Relevance of the project design within the framework of GEF guidelines
and global concern regarding the Danube River basin.
GEF's overall objective in the international waters (IW) focal area is to contribute as
a catalyst in the implementation of a more comprehensive, ecosystem based ap-
proach to managing international waters and their drainage basins as a means to
achieve global (and regional) environmental benefits. According to the Water-Based
Operational Programme 8 (OP8) the GEF funded activities are to meet the incre-
mental costs of:
Assisting groups of countries to better understand the environmental challenges
of their international waters and work collaboratively to address them;
Building capacity of existing institutions, and
Implementing measures that address priority transboundary environmental
concerns.
20
Both the Long-Term Development Objective and the Overall Objective of the DRP
are fully in line with GEF guidelines. The project design enabled participating coun-
tries to receive timely assistance on implementation of the EU WFD (WFD), as well
as hands on experience and knowledge sharing at a basin-wide scale. The public
participation and public awareness issues have been given thorough consideration
and support through several project components, and pilot projects have been de-
veloped to demonstrate best available practices. Most importantly, the DRP,
through its technical and financial support, has enabled the countries of the region
to implement the Danube River Protection Convention (DRPC), and to establish a
well-functioning Commission and Secretariat.
3.1.2 Appropriateness of the project's concept and design to the current eco-
nomic, institutional and environmental situation in the target region.
The project concept was appropriate, and builds upon previous GEF support for the
Danube River Basin (DRB). While the DRP was being implemented, the economic,
institutional and environmental situation across the region evolved, especially with
respect to EU expansion. Hungary, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Romania
and Bulgaria are now EU member states, and a future inclusion of Croatia is antici-
pated. This transition has made implementation of the EU WFD (WFD) a binding
objective for most of the DRB countries. In fact a pivotal agreement by the ICPDR
countries in 2000 was for the EU WFD to serve as the unifying policy and legal
structure for basin management, including the ICPDR countries that were not part
of the EU accession process (e.g. Moldova, Ukraine, Serbia, Montenegro, and Bos-
nia Herzegovina). The design of the DRP has enabled it to play a leading role in
regional preparations for WFD implementation.
The project's emphasis on nutrient reduction is appropriate considering the high
nutrient emissions into the Danube, the lack of attention to best agricultural prac-
tices in some Danube countries, the limited quantity and quality of wastewater
treatment facilities, and the resulting deterioration of water quality along the Da-
nube and particularly in the Black Sea as a result.
3.1.3 Contribution of the project to the overall development objective
The overall development objective has been to improve the water quality of the
Danube by reducing nutrient and other pollution discharges into the river and its
tributaries, and by preserving and rehabilitating natural ecosystems in the river ba-
sin area. The project has focused on building the necessary governmental and civil
society structures to ensure that attention is paid to reducing human impacts on
Danube water quality.
The Phase 1 & 2 Project Documents set out expected outputs that positively con-
tribute to meeting the overall development objective. In particular, emphasis was
placed on building public awareness and support for improving and protecting wa-
ter resources in the region.
3.1.4 The likely sustainability of project interventions
The question of sustainability is taken up in detail in section 3.3, where the focus is
on project implementation and impacts. Here, the issue concerns the extent to
which the project was formulated in a manner providing likelihood for sustainability
of project interventions. For the DRP, this issue is complex, as it entails considera-
tion of both the first and second Project Documents, and must take into account
the fact that the project was carried out amidst dramatic political and economic
changes in the region, in particular the rapid expansion of the European Union
eastward.
21
Clearly the formulation of the second Project Document, with its emphasis on WFD
implementation and ICPDR capacity building, provided a solid foundation for sus-
tainability. The project team, and steering committee, recognised as they drafted
the 2nd Phase ProDoc that there existed a great opportunity for regional policy co-
operation and legislative change through harmonisation with the EU WFD.
Sustainability and project formulation are important to consider with respect to the
support that the DRP provided to the Danube Regional Forum. The DEF had been
created during the previous GEF intervention for the Danube (1997 99), and had
ceased to function when GEF funding ceased. So the question of sustainability for
the DEF the second time around is pertinent. The DRP set a helpful framework
structure for the DEF in particular by establishing a small grants vehicle. While
the small grants programme within DRP was not restricted to applications from DEF
members, it nevertheless featured them prominently and provided a much-needed
financial push. Based on discussions with DEF National Focal Points in Austria, Bul-
garia, Hungary and Romania, it is evident that the DEF members recognise the
challenge now to keep the effort going, and have had a measure of success in ac-
cessing new funding.
3.2 Implementation
The DRP was implemented in a highly satisfactory manner. Looking across the
breadth of the project experience, it is easy to discern a high level of accomplish-
ment, a significant level of country interest and ownership, a successful working rela-
tionship between the Project and key stakeholders especially the ICPDR, and a high
degree of professionalism in how the Project Coordinating Unit carried out its duties.
A notable achievement of the DRP was its capacity to adapt to changing political and
economic realities. Five examples are illustrative:
A. The project team over time increasingly focused on WFD implementation assis-
tance to the ICPDR and riparian countries. A signature output (through the
ICPDR) is the Danube Basin Roof Report, considered by several European Com-
mission managers to be the pacesetter for international river basin assessments
under the WFD.
B. Output 3.4. focused on public participation, began as a stand-alone effort focus-
ing on the Aarhus convention and generally on environmental protection. During
the DRP 2nd phase, this component was reconstituted to conform to the WFD fo-
cus of other outputs, providing assistance to Danube countries on how to imple-
ment the public participation aspects included in the WFD.
C. The project envisioned financial support to the (GEF eligible) countries throughout
the project duration for participation in the ICPDR expert groups. Instead, a de-
cision was reached by the Project Steering Committee, and approved by the
ICPDR to phase out this financial support over time, so that each country became
responsible for funding its own ICPDR participation, in addition to paying annual
dues. This decision and the successful follow through by the countries, created a
strong country buy-in and an easier transition to self-sufficiency post-DRP.
D. The evolving situation in the former Yugoslavia provided a challenge and oppor-
tunity for the DRP / ICPDR. During the project 2nd phase, the project team were
able to shift financial support in order to strengthen assistance to the newly
formed Bosnia-Herzegovina, including the placement of a full time project support
person within the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Relations.
E. The project included two complementary outputs on water tariffs and charges
that were logically combined. The effort took an additional adaptive turn when it
was realised that many municipal utilities lacked the basic data and software tools
22
to determine optimal tariffs and charges based on operation and capital costs. So
the consultants on this set of activities piloted use of the ASTEC model.
The DRP also envisioned a close cooperation between the DRP and associated pro-
jects in the region: the BSERP (UNDP implemented) and the NRF, (World Bank im-
plemented). These three projects formed the three legs of a Strategic Partnership for
the Danube/Black Sea region. The strategic partnership had difficulties through its
early years, and cooperation with the World Bank did not achieve expectation. Never-
theless, cooperation between the UNDP Danube and Black Sea projects has ex-
panded significantly in the final two years of both projects, in particular with the de-
cision to have the DRP team leader take on an overall management role for both pro-
jects.
3.2.1 The general implementation and management of the UNDP/GEF project by
the Project Management in terms of quality of inputs and activities, adher-
ence to work plans and budgets, major factors which have facilitated or
impeded the progress of project implementation
Annex 1 includes a breakdown of each of the expected project outputs, set against
achievements. What follows are a summary set of comments on the general im-
plementation and management of the project by the PCU.
Quality of inputs and activities
Inputs in the case of the DRP have been primarily technical consulting and training
oriented. The PCU should be given high marks for the quality of international and
local experts used across the project activities, particularly in relation to WFD im-
plementation.
Adherence to work plans
The DRP project team successfully adhered to work plans. Faced with a large and
ambitious set of expected outcomes, and nearly 160 activities, the PCU did an ad-
mirable job in completing expected tasks.
There has been strong regional appreciation of and support for the flexibility that
was permitted during the implementation of the DRP. The team was also able to ar-
ticulate, and receive steering committee approval, for adaptive strategies that sen-
sibly deviated form the original ProDoc expectations. Adaptive strategies include:
The DRP was able to accommodate changes resulting from the changing politi-
cal landscape, notably regarding EU accession and WFD implementation
The DRP received Steering Committee and ICPDR approval for the gradual re-
duction of support to countries for attendance at EG meetings
DRP was able to respond in a timely manner to requests from ICPDR.
Modification of the work plan saw the emphasis on dealing with water tariffs
and charges (Outputs 1.6/1.7) being aimed at plant managers rather than at
the national level.
Appropriate tools were developed to help bring financial stability to a fledgling
industry in the Middle and Lower Danube.
There were, nevertheless, some areas where deadlines were not met, and expecta-
tions not realised. For instance, the effort to get Danube countries to establish
mandatory or voluntary bans on the use of phosphates in detergent (Output 1.8)
only got moving during the project second phase and only began to demonstrate
23
results during the final months of the project. In addition, as noted above, the pro-
ject envisioned greater and more rapid achievements in the development of indica-
tors (Output 4.1). Finally, the project took a slow and overly cautious approach to
meeting the expectations of Output 4.4, to elaborate opportunities for nutrient
trading.
Budgets
The financial aspects of the project were handled exceptionally well. The DRP has
received notable and justified praise from virtually all stakeholders for the profes-
sionalism in which it handled project financial aspects. Time and again, stake-
holders and participants noted that daily subsistence allowances (DSA's) and con-
sultancy payments were handled quickly and professionally. In addition, the nego-
tiations that took place between the DRP and suppliers over contracts and costs
were judged to be handled well. The team was well aware of average consultancy
costs within the region and internationally, and kept costs in line with expecta-
tions.
The one case where budgeting was not closely monitored was in implementation of
output 3.4. In this case, budgets were largely managed by the consulting team
tasked with carrying out the exercise, (senior lawyers at Resources for the Future,
New York University, and the Regional Environmental Centre). The loose oversight
of Output 3.4 is somewhat understandable given it was perceived to be an activity
separate from the rest of the project, and its budget preset for the project team.
The PCU efficiently handled the procurement of local consultant assistance and the
management of meetings and workshops. Aiding significantly was the opportunity
for the team to work using an imprest account with UNOPS. This accounting prac-
tice enabled up to $60,000 during phase 1 and $100,000 during phase 2 to be held
in a Project-managed account and regularly replenished. The use of imprest ac-
counts can greatly increase procurement efficiency and project responsiveness in
large multi-country transboundary projects where frequent workshops and travel
create lots of procurement actions with last minute changes.
There was a planned step down in financial support for some of the public commu-
nications efforts such as Danube Day and Danube Watch. In addition, and as
noted above, there was a gradual phase out of funding for national participation at
EG meetings. Interestingly, and somewhat paradoxically, the reduced DRP support
for these activities spurred greater support from the riparian countries and other
stakeholders, including industry. This suggests that the DRP successfully managed
a phase-down approach that may be replicable elsewhere
A marked decline in the value of the US dollar versus the Euro during the project
period posed a significant challenge for project management. The DRP project
managers had to respond to an effective (20%) budget cut. As a result, some envi-
sioned activities were narrowed, so for example agricultural pilot studies only took
place in Serbia.
Major factors facilitating/impeding progress
The DRP progress was greatly facilitated by external factors, in particular the ex-
pansion of the European Union. When the GEF IW activities on the Danube com-
menced, two of the thirteen countries, (Germany and Austria) were members of
the EU. At project conclusion, there are eight, now including also Slovakia, Hun-
gary, Slovenia, Czech Republic, Bulgaria and Romania. Meanwhile, Croatia, Bosnia
Herzegovina and Serbia have expressed interest to join the Union. All of the Da-
nube riparian countries, including Moldova and Ukraine, have approved through the
ICPDR their intention to use the EU WFD as the guiding legal mechanism for re-
gional coordination on Danube water quality. Acceptance of the WFD as a legally
24
binding mechanism for Danube water quality management has enabled the DRP to
achieve considerable success in the harmonization of riparian government policies.
The WFD has proven a significantly stronger motivation than the Danube River Pro-
tection Convention for achieving regional coordination and getting riparian coun-
tries to take measures to clean up and protect the Danube River.
A second substantial external factor has been the economic downturn that many of
the downstream Danube countries faced during the 1990's as they adopted market
economies and shed inefficient state run enterprises. While a noticeable economic
recovery has been underway for the last 7 years, especially amongst the new EU
members, the dramatic drop in agricultural production remains. Lower agricultural
production and the closing of inefficient state run farms have caused considerable
economic hardship in the rural areas of the downstream Danube countries. It has
also led to reduced fertilizer use, and a reduction in farm pollution runoff. The ex-
tent of impact that agricultural economy woes have had on Danube and Black Sea
water quality are difficult to measure. However it can be surmised that the DRP's
success in meeting its targets for nitrogen and phosphate reduction are largely as a
result of this reduction in farm inputs, coupled with continuing measures across the
breadth of the basin to improve wastewater treatment systems.
A third `set' of factors that have facilitated progress are internal to the project ef-
fort. These include a well-functioning project team, and strong cooperation with the
ICPDR Secretariat. It is clear in contrast to some other GEF projects that the rela-
tionship between the DRP PCU and the ICPDR Secretariat has been very positive
and their actions mutually reinforcing. The project has likewise benefited from an
engaged and supportive project steering committee, which is wisely comprised of
the Heads of Delegation of the ICPDR. Several of these HoDs have been involved in
steering the project since its inception and have been instrumental in its success.
3.2.2 Adequacy of management arrangements as well as monitoring and back-
stopping support given to the project by all parties concerned
Management and monitoring relationships are of several types: (a) PCU manage-
ment, including supervision of the experts and consultants hired to assist; (b) Sup-
port and supervision from the project steering committee and ICPDR, and (c) sup-
port and supervision from UNOPS, UNDP and GEF.
In the first instance, there has been a high degree of professionalism with respect
to the relationships between the PCU, external project consultants, and project par-
ticipants in the countries. Many interviewed during the evaluation mission ex-
pressed their strong satisfaction with the excellent manner in which the PCU re-
sponded to questions and issues, and handled the procedural aspects of the pro-
ject. Capable experts were hired, and their outputs were of generally high calibre.
The management arrangements between the DRP PCU and the ICPDR functioned
very well. It is useful to note that this can be a difficult relationship in GEF IW pro-
jects, yet in the Danube region they were able to forge a successful partnership.
GEF IW project objectives typically include not only support for the creation and
operations of transboundary water commissions, but also measures to achieve a
variety of environmental objectives, including capacity building for NGOs, which
may extend beyond the authority that commissions like ICPDR are given by the ri-
parian countries. So the PCUs have a dual role both to assist the commissions
and also to achieve a set of separate objectives. Consequently, there is an inherent
dynamic tension in each of these projects. Is the PCU an independent player? Or
should it be primarily a support mechanism for the Commission Secretariat? The
DRP management expertly juggled this dual role. ICPDR Secretariat and Expert
Group members were directly supported, in particular to meet the WFD require-
ments, while other outputs, (see 1.5 industrial reform and BAT, 1.6 & 1.7 - efflu-
25
ent tariffs and charges, 3.4 public participation, 4.4 pollution trading) were
achieved independently.
Concerning the management of UNOPS and UNDP, it is our view that the executing
and implementing agencies provided appropriate backstopping to the DRP. The
(correct) perception was that this was a well-functioning project team that did not
need close and constant supervision.
UNDP management arrangements and execution
UNOPS provided project support as needed, and left the PCU to operate its day to
day affairs independently. The use of an imprest account allowed the DRP PCU to
handle its financial affairs well, and the mechanisms for replenishment through
UNOPS worked fine. The imprest account flexibility provided to the PCU enabled
more streamlined budgeting and expenditure procedures, and should be replicated
in future GEF projects (dependant on PCU capabilities). The PCU noted the financial
transfer and budgeting arrangements with UNOPS worked well with the exception
of a period in summer of 2004 when the conversion to the Atlas financial soft-
ware caused some delays at UNOPS. It was mentioned by the DEF that they had
experienced some delays in payments from UNOPS, especially during the summer
of 2004, and the payment delays during that period impacted upon implementation
of the first tranche of small grants.
The high regard held by UNOPS and UNDP for DRP PCU management capabilities
can be seen in the way that the DRP team was frequently asked to provide mentor-
ing and project management assistance to other GEF IW projects.
ICPDR Management and Execution
The focus of this evaluation is the DRP, not the execution of the ICPDR, never the
less, the symbiotic relationship between the ICPDR Secretariat and the DRP sug-
gest a few comments are in order.
One of the critical aspects of ICPDR execution with respect to the DRP support
mechanism has been development and implementation of an `Exit Strategy' which
sought to smooth the transfer of responsibility on various project initiatives during
the final years of the DRP, to improve the chances for the ICPDR to function inde-
pendently and increase the likelihood of long term sustainability. These final years
bring to a close 15 years of GEF support for improved water quality for the Danube.
The annual expenditure of $US 2-3 million is ending, and with it the ability to utilise
an array of local and international experts to assist in capacity building for river ba-
sin management. The DRP and ICPDR agreed in 2004 to develop jointly the exit
strategy serving as a road map for placing the ICPDR and its secretariat in a firm
position to manage their activities independent of the GEF after mid-2007. An Exit
Strategy was developed, and agreed to by the ICPDR HoDs. It called for continuing
and increasing the pace of reduction in DRP support for country participation in the
EGs. The Strategy also sought to articulate opportunities for future funding oppor-
tunities. The strategy documented also mentioned the need for ICPDR to decide the
breadth of Secretariat activities, and whether there was a project management role
that the Secretariat should play (for example in relation to the GEF supported sub-
basin initiatives for the Sava).
Future funding remains an issue for the ICPDR to resolve. The member states have
indicated they will provide sufficient funding for basic Secretariat responsibilities.
Extra funding for special projects such as the Danube River surveys, and for public
relations / communications activities like the Danube Day, will require external
funding sources. ICPDR is developing a private sector support mechanism, and is in
partnership with Coca Cola and the Alcoa Foundation. The strategy for expanding
and defining this private sector support base is in progress.
26
Developing and implementing an Exit Strategy should be considered as a standard
feature of GEF IW projects, especially in cases where there have been long-term in-
ternational investments, and a corresponding need to start early the process of
supplanting international support with regional/local support.
ICPDR execution of WFD implementation has also been an important management
issue. The development of the Danube `Roof Report' has received strong praise
from those who participated and the European Commission on the receiving end.
A remaining question at project's end is the extent to which the ICPDR will take
ownership of the written outputs of the DRP and continue to make reports avail-
able. For instance, it is unclear whether documents like the DRP produced Wetlands
Guidance Manual will be made available. It would be useful to know that the ICPDR
will establish a project archive where the DRP publications can be housed and ac-
cessed.
3.2.3 Institutional set-up through the ICPDR and various Expert groups and the
degree to which it has encouraged full involvement of the countries.
GEF IW projects typically work through a sequence of activities that commence
with TDA/SAP development, and ideally include formal agreements amongst basin
countries to set up international waters commissions, whose purpose is to imple-
ment the SAP as well as to develop a formal regional convention. Expert Groups,
and some times `Centres of Excellence' are also established, to provide technical
support to Commission decision makers.
The ICPDR expert group format has been very successful. The ICPDR EG structure
serves as a benchmark for how expert groups can and should function. The EGs for
the ICPDR are comprised of national experts from the contracting parties and also
representatives of observer organisations (NGOs for example). The purpose, finan-
cial basis and country ownership of the ICPDR EGs have continued to evolve and
improve, in keeping with the increasing importance of WFD implementation across
the basin and with the decision to phase out DRP financial support for EG member
participation. Currently, the following 4 permanent and 3 ad hoc EG's are in place:
Expert Group on River Basin management (RBM EG)
Pressures and Measures Expert Group (PM EG)
Monitoring and Assessment Expert Group (MA EG)
Expert Group on Flood Protection (Flood EG)
Information Management and GIS Expert Group (ad hoc IM+GIS EG)
Public Participation Expert Group (ad hoc PP EG)
Strategic Expert Group (ad hoc S EG)
Recognising the centrality of WFD implementation, the RBM EG, PM EG and MA EG
have all been involved in the development of the Danube `Roof Report'. There is
also one task force established, the Danube Black Sea Joint Technical Working
Group focused especially on nutrient impacts and reduction strategies for the
Black Sea.
Expert Groups stand a strong chance of being successful when: (a) the countries
are funding their own contributions and participation: (b) the persons participating
in the EGs are indeed technical experts rather than senior managers; (c) there is
low turnover of experts, allowing greater continuity and improving trust and com-
munications across the participants. The ICPDR EGs have succeeded in all three of
these areas. The EG arrangement for the ICPDR has also greatly benefited from the
participation of representatives from organisations that have ICPDR observer
status. The Danube Environmental Forum and the WWF are two that have been ac-
tive participants in the EGs.
27
3.2.4 Inputs of the Governments of the thirteen countries at national and local
levels.
National and local government inputs can be by way of financial contributions,
through assigning experts to participate, and also by adopting strategies and poli-
cies stemming from project activities. In all three areas, there is evidence of con-
siderable success for the DRP.
The participating countries and the DRP PCU have not set a monetary value for the
country in-kind and direct contributions to the project. While unfortunate this is
understandable, recognising the intricate mix of national, EU, ICPDR and project-
related activities. It is easier for the countries to quantify their contributions to the
ICPDR based on annual dues, and the time and travel of HoDs and EG partici-
pants. Already this pushes the joint in-kind contributions to more than US$ 3 mil-
lion per year. The agreement by all 13 Danube countries, plus the EU, to fund the
ICPDR and its Secretariat at levels sufficient to continue and slightly expand opera-
tions bodes well for the future sustainability of this regional initiative.
While the level of interest and support for the ICPDR appears strong across all par-
ticipating countries, there exists a quite normal variation in country involvement
and the level of engagement of ICPDR HoDs and EG members. It is noteworthy
that even among those countries not (yet) on track for EU membership, including
some who have gone through considerable economic and political upheaval, sup-
port for and involvement in the ICPDR has been maintained.
3.2.5 Responsiveness of project management to changes in the environment in
which the project operates
Responsiveness can be considered one of the key factors in the successes of the
DRP, as the team responded very successfully to the priority shift of many Danube
countries towards implementation of the EU WFD. Responsiveness was also appar-
ent in the increased priority given to coordination with the BSERP (GEF-Black Sea)
and World Bank under the Strategic Partnership toward the later project stages. A
third successful adaptation of the project management was the increasing support
given to Bosnia-Herzegovina during the last several project years. This support in-
cluded the detailing of a full time resource person for the project. The B-H case was
a special one, reflecting a unique need to fill the gap in authority over transbound-
ary waters issues in B-H as a result of the split federal government structure.
Moldova and Ukraine would have similarly welcomed a full time resource person,
however this was not possible within the available budget and would not have en-
abled those two countries to achieve the degree of country ownership that they
have achieved.
3.2.6 Co-operation among project partners (UNDP/GEF, Project Team, ICPDR,
National Governments and international and national organisations and
NGOs. specifically with regard to the integration and support of ICPDR.
Cooperation amongst the key project participants and major stakeholders was ex-
cellent. It is rare when a project can engender such an extent of support across a
wide spectrum of participants as has been the case with the DRP. Some may at-
tribute this high level of cooperation to be a fortunate alignment of the project fo-
cus with EU expansion. While external pressures were key determinants, the coop-
eration was also enabled through leadership by DRP and ICPDR management,
and Danube riparian governments. As with many GEF projects, the extent of na-
tional government involvement and support across the Danube countries has var-
ied, and there have been limited contacts outside of the water and environment
ministries. To their credit, the DRP management recognised this limitation early on
and included in the 2nd Phase ProDoc an output 2.1 that sought to encourage the
Danube countries to develop inter-ministerial mechanisms to involve other perti-
28
nent ministries, which in particular meant reaching out to agricultural interests and
flood control managers. The inter-ministerial effort has had some successes, such
as a June 2006 workshop on hydromorphological alterations that included the par-
ticipation of flood control managers, and the Final Wetlands Workshop which
brought together diverse groups and agencies (academics, IGOs, government, in-
ternational and local NGOs).
3.3 Project
impact
The DRP has had a major impact in the region, and even globally. It has enabled
the ICPDR to begin implementation of the WFD and is now the benchmark for
European transboundary water bodies. The project has helped the ICPDR to take a
holistic look at the pressures facing the river. Thanks to the DRP, evidence has
been given on the significant eutrophication problems caused by agricultural inputs,
the important flood buffering attributes of riverine wetlands, and the critical need
to improve tariff and charge schemes for water and sanitation systems. Due to the
DRP, there is a wide and expanding array of environmental NGOs who have in-
creased their awareness and involvement in the effort to clean up and protect the
Danube and its tributaries. Through the DRP, many of the Danube countries have
enhanced their policies and procedures for involving the public in water resource
decision-making.
Even after 15 years of UNDP/GEF support, it is difficult to discern the extent to
which the project has directly impacted water quality in the Danube. The goal was
to reduce nitrogen and phosphate emissions into the Danube River by>20% and
>30%, respectively. This goal was achieved, and the northwestern shelf of the
Black Sea is clearly exhibiting signs of restoration. It is impossible to determine
how much of this was as a result of the DRP, but it can be surmised that most of
the benefit came from reduced agricultural production and improvements in
wastewater treatment in the region. Nevertheless, the DRP has helped to set in
motion a series of actions across the region whose long-term benefits in water
quality improvement should not be in doubt.
While there is ample evidence that the DRP had positive policy and institutional im-
pacts on the downstream (GEF eligible) countries, there is some question as to the
extent that the DRP also pushed the upstream Danube countries, in particular
Germany and Austria, to strengthen further their policies and enforcement meas-
ures to reduce nutrient discharges into the Danube. While much of the past decade
or so of effort has correctly been directed towards bringing the downstream country
policies and protection measures into line with their upstream neighbours, from
now on, in the context of being equal partners within an EU-driven policy frame-
work, the impetus will fall on all parties to take further actions to improve Danube
water quality.
3.3.1 Achievements of the project against the original objectives, outputs and
activities as detailed in the Project Document and the Project Implementa-
tion Plan.
An overview of the evaluation findings regarding achievements is set out in this
section. Further information is provided below in the discussion on sustainability,
and then in Annex 1, which sets in tabular form the outcomes and achievements
for each of the project outputs.
To consider the achievements of the DRP it is useful to recall the overall objective
of the DRP, as spelled out in the first phase ProDoc: "The long-term development
objective of the proposed Regional Project is to contribute to sustainable human
development in the DRB and the wider Black Sea area through reinforcing the ca-
29
pacities of the participating countries in developing effective mechanisms for re-
gional cooperation and coordination in order to ensure protection of international
waters, sustainable management of natural resources and biodiversity". The 1st
Phase ProDoc was developed in June 2001. Six years later, there is evidence to
suggest that capacities have indeed been expanded in the Danube countries and
mechanisms for regional cooperation have been institutionalized.
Objective 1
n overview of the e valuation findings at it could have a negative consequence of f d be
made poierational n thw region.l r ofObjective 1 was widely praised as achieving sus-
tainable ecological conditions, verified through all ICPDR countries having developed
policies and legal instruments for sustainable water management and nutrient reduc-
tion. In particular, harmonisation with the WFD has become the driving force in the
development of policies and legal instruments for improved water quality management
on the Danube and its tributaries
In general, while the project outputs and activities have been completed, achievement
of the overall objective remains a work in progress, as the policies and legislation de-
veloped must now be implemented Many of the new EU countries achieved derogations
and extensions in WFD implementation because of the high cost of meeting urban
wastewater treatment requirements. Nevertheless, all of the Danube EU countries are
establishing basin management plans and districts and have agreed to issue a joint set
of plans for the Danube. In addition, the non-EU countries have all indicated their in-
terest to harmonise with the WFD requirements and most have taken initial legislative
steps in this direction.
Output 1.1 involved support for implementation of the WFD as well as assistance to
develop sub-basin initiatives for the Tisza and Sava rivers, as well as support to the
ICPDR on upgrading their geographic information system (GIS) tools, and capacity
building and training on biological sampling and analysis. The highlight of this effort is
surely the work done in support of the ICPDR and together with the 13 Danube coun-
tries to produce the Danube `Roof Report', (entitled The Danube River Basin District,
Part A Basin wide overview, 18 March 2005). The Roof Report has been highly ac-
claimed as the best of the transboundary reports presented to the EC under the WFD,
and is a fine accomplishment for all participants. All told, there were 58 project activi-
ties carried out to assist the ICPDR and countries in their implementation of the WFD
for the Danube.
The DRP can also be praised for its achievements on the sub-basin initiatives, including
political approval by all of the Sava riparian countries for a Framework Agreement for
the Sava River Basin and the Sava River Commission, and completion of the Tisza river
basin analysis report as the precursor to the Tisza WFD river basin management plan.
The DRP also met expectations with its assistance to the ICPDR for a Danube GIS Pro-
totype.
Output 1.2 and 1.3 were grouped together to focus on the development and
strengthening of environmental protection policies in the agricultural sector as well as
the implementation of best agricultural practices Activities included assistance to part-
ner countries on agriculture policy, in particular with respect to implementation of the
EU Nitrates Directive, eight pilot studies of farm best management practices carried
out in Serbia, a data collection and inventory effort designed to provide information for
the WFD Roof Report and support to ICPDR for upgrading the nutrient loading model
MONERIS.
During Phase I of the DRP, an analysis of point and non-point sources of pollution from
agriculture was undertaken, information on the use of agrochemicals was produced
and specific policy and legal measures were advanced to assist the participating coun-
30
tries in meeting their obligations to reduce agricultural point and non-point source pol-
lution. Particular emphasis was placed on implementation of the Nitrates Directive (EC
91/676/EC), with all of the Danube Basin EU countries adopting legislation to imple-
ment this directive.
During the project second phase, eight pilot farms in Serbia received technical assis-
tance on best agricultural practices. A visit to several of the farms by the evaluation
team suggests that the DRP support was well received, especially the study tour to
Denmark. Unfortunately, few of the on-farm improvements were carried out, due to a
lack of available financing. As is usual in UNDP/GEF capacity building projects, there
was no budget earmarked to support the introduction of BAPs, and no moneys were
provided by the Serbian government. In a tight and highly competitive farming envi-
ronment these small farmers were reluctant to put their own financing into BAPs that
were not required by the government, especially when they had other priorities with
direct economic gain, such as more cattle, a tractor, seeds and fertilisers, etc. In the
absence of a compelling requirement and/or financial support, farmers will likely con-
tinue to avoid introducing BAPs unless they see a direct economic benefit.
The Agriculture effort included awareness raising activities at more than 100 work-
shops with more than 2500 participants. There were also a series of reports and inven-
tories developed on policy, legislation, pesticides, fertilisers, manure handling and best
agricultural practices.
MONERIS was upgraded, with improvements to the documentation, and to make the
model WFD compliant. As with all models there are limitations to its use, for instance
as an enforcement tool, however in the absence of precise nutrient loading data
across the basin, MONERIS is becoming an effective tool to model Danube inputs and
estimate nutrient fluxes. ICPDR should continue to use and refine the MONERIS model,
making it more user-friendly, and translating the documentation into local languages.
Output 1.4 was focused on wetlands rehabilitation and appropriate land use. It in-
cluded development of a methodology for land use assessment, and selection of three
pilot sites Zupanisjski canal, near Budakovac village, Drava sub-basin Croatia; Lower
Elan valley, Prut sub-basin, Romania; and Olsavica valley, Tisza sub-basin, Slovakia -
to test the methodology through implementation of specific site-based activities. The
pilot studies had varying degrees of achievement. Results were achieved in Slovakia,
whereby the pilot project was promoted as a success story to illustrate a mechanism
for changing land use. They trained 300 participants at 10 workshops throughout the
country, gaining national recognition eventually affecting national planning i.e.. Rural
development plan. In Croatia, the project involved re-flooding a wetlands area sur-
rounding a Sava oxbow that had dried up due to the canal construction. In February
2007, after a wait of several years, the Ministry of Irrigation finally funded the site
planning study and appears ready to allow excavations. Interestingly, there has been
local farmer support for the wetlands restoration pilot, out of recognition that the loss
of the wetlands has also affected the groundwater table and by extension their irriga-
tion options.
Output 1.5 concerned industrial policies and reforms. An emissions inventory was
created, and in the 11 (GEF eligible) Danube countries a review of industrial policies
was carried out detailing gaps between existing legislation and enforcement in the
countries and the EU requirements for industrial pollution control. The team also com-
missioned a road map for implementation of best available technologies (BAT) in Ser-
bia & Montenegro, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Moldova and Ukraine. The anticipated out-
comes of this effort included enhanced industrial policies in the 11 Danube countries,
taking into account WFD requirements and also the IPPC directive requirements. There
were also five reviews of specific industrial complexes developed as case studies on the
implementation of BAT.
31
The inventory activities were well considered and can help the 11 countries consider
additional steps necessary to better control industrial emissions and meet the require-
ments of the EU IPPC Directive. The road map effort for Serbia & Montenegro, Bosnia &
Herzegovina, Moldova and Ukraine should help these countries to commence introduc-
ing IPPC, which is especially of interest to Serbia and Bosnia & Herzegovina, who as-
pire to EU membership. The scale of the industrial activities were limited and some-
what overshadowed both by the DRP's focus on nutrients and to a great extent by
the EU's own activities in developing BAT reference materials for implementation of the
IPPC directive.
One of the real challenges in the region will be how to manage IPPC and BAT require-
ments for polluting facilities that are not economically viable, yet whose closure would
bring sever hardships to workers and their communities.
Outputs 1.6 & 1.7 provided technical assistance to the DRP countries in the area of
tariffs and water pollution charges. Starting during Phase 1 with a review of current
conditions for municipal water and wastewater utilities in eight of the Danube counties,
the effort then evolved into a series of workshops coupled with municipal policy reform
recommendations. The effort also included development and testing of the Accounts
Simulation for Tariffs and Effluent Charges (ASTEC) model that provides a tariff ad-
justment tool for municipal water and waste utilities.
A visit to the city of Karlovac in Croatia provided evidence that the ASTEC model can
be put to good use. Karlovac is the first Croatian city to receive approval for water and
wastewater treatment funding support under the EU Instrument for Structural Policies
for Pre-Accession (ISPA). It has been working with the ASTEC model for several years
and has appreciated the availability of this tool as they now engage in a major expan-
sion and improvement of their water and wastewater systems, with a significant in-
crease in debt to service. A translated model and instruction manual would greatly aid
expanded use of the model in Karlovac, in Pitesti, Romania, site of another of the pi-
lots, and throughout the region.
The expected outcomes for Output 1.8 were to achieve a basin-wide policy on P-
reductions, and development and implementation of a Voluntary Agreement on the
Phase-out of Phosphates in detergent, leading to a projected 24% reduction of P from
point sources of pollution and 12% reduction in total P loads from the DRB to the Black
Sea. Activities included a review of detergent use in the DRB and a stakeholder meet-
ing.
The goals for P-reduction in detergents have not yet been achieved. No basinwide
policy on P-free detergents has been reached, and the one voluntary approach insti-
tuted (Czech Republic) was deemed a failure so the Czechs are now planning to shift to
a mandatory programme. Romania may also take steps to instigate P-free detergent
regulations, but this has not yet been achieved. Romania has recognised that the
strong push from ICPDR has been a key factor in the progress being made. Industry
and governmental officials are planning to convene a working group and there are high
expectations that the country will move towards P-free detergents. Of considerable in-
terest is that about 20% of detergent production in Romania is already P-free, but it is
bound for the export market. If Romania and the Czech Republic adopt mandatory re-
strictions on phosphate detergents, they will then be joining Germany and Austria as
countries with such mandatory requirements. Although various actions were taken at
national levels to raise public awareness of the issue, overall, the topic is considered
still to have a low priority for general public in some countries (e.g. Bulgaria and
Moldova).
The EU Commission has prepared a white paper on phosphates in detergent. It is ex-
pected that any EU-wide measures for P-reduction will take years to become legisla-
tion. However, the EU has recognised the work carried out in the DRB and concurred
32
with the policy recommendation to countries to proceed with national legislation and/or
further voluntary agreements. The EU has indicated that in the absence of EU legisla-
tion this is a justified and proportionate approach.
Objective 2
Objective 2, focused on capacity building, and was to be verified through fully opera-
tional institutional and organizational mechanisms in each ICPDR country, for trans-
boundary cooperation, improved water quality monitoring, emission control, emer-
gency warning, accident prevention and information management.
The evidence suggests that each of the participating countries has made progress in all
areas mentioned above, however it is difficult to determine, and unlikely, that they
have all achieved "fully operational" institutional and organizational mechanisms. Hav-
ing laws and institutions in place is the first step. Having these laws then implemented
and working effectively is another. Especially in the areas of emission controls and ac-
cident prevention, there is much yet to be done in most of the Danube countries.
Output 2.1 sets expectations for inter-ministerial coordination (IMCM) and also identi-
fies a set of special actions to enable Bosnia-Herzegovina to fully participate in the
ICPDR and its EGs and to participate fully in the process of Danube region WFD imple-
mentation.
The BiH support was highly successful. Because of the federal / split system of govern-
ance in BiH, there was a real problem with ICPDR ands DRP coordination, which was
effectively dealt with by the hiring of a country coordinator. Very much as a result of
the support they received from the DRP, BiH was able to produce its first river analysis
report and to contribute directly to the development of the Danube Roof Report,
The IMCM effort was generally successful. Analyses were carried out for ten countries
and recommendations for six countries were subsequently agreed. There are no com-
mittees established in Moldova and Ukraine, although work is still in progress in
Moldova.
The expected outcomes for Output 2.2 focus on improved water quality monitoring.
The effort included upgrades to the transboundary monitoring network (TNMN), a bio-
logical database and developing a monitoring roadmap for Bosnia - Herzegovina.
This objective was achieved with beneficial consequences for the region, especially
with regard to the implementation of the WFD. Several aspects of the TNMN were
strengthened in order to comply with the WFD: defining sampling sites and frequency,
biomonitoring, setting water quality objectives and establishing data reporting proce-
dures. In some countries, TNMN methodologies are also being applied outside of the
DRB.
The implementation of the WFD introduces monitoring and indicators, notably with re-
spect to riverine biology, that are new for much of Europe. Thus, project components,
such as the intercomparison for macrozoobenthos as indicators for water quality, gen-
erate widespread benefits within the DRB. DRP involvement provided important oppor-
tunities at a technical level for networking. The River Quality Scheme, an output from
the Slovakian Workshop, was applied in the Tisza River Basin. A database was de-
signed to deal with biological indicators monitoring as part of the TNMN and Danube
surveys.
Nutrient standards in the DRB have been reviewed, but harmonised water quality
standards have not yet been agreed.
33
Output 2.3 dealt with accident prevention and control (APC). There were three sub-
sets of activities, dealing with emergency response and communications, special issues
with regard to refineries, and the problem of contaminated sites in flood control areas.
Achievements include standard forms and web-based communication solutions for
emergency information exchange in each of the 13 country accident alert centres.
Training programmes (2) were carried out for the checklist methodologies on refinery
risk and contaminated sites. There was also an ARS inventory carried out for 261 con-
taminated sites, with 157 sites evaluated.
Checklist methodologies for industrial sites and contaminated sites in flood-risk are
generally viewed as valuable tools, but implementation in the region should be manda-
tory. There also remains a need to update the inventory of industrial sites because
many countries still have insufficient data.
Output 2.4 concerns DANUBIS, the information database managed by the ICPDR. Ex-
pectations were that the DRP would help by providing recommendations on the re-
structuring of DANUBIS, help to develop standard operating procedures and guidelines,
and help to ensure that each of the countries has staff that are proficient at using and
imputing into the system.
A significant upgrade of DANUBIS has been achieved, both with respect to hardware
and site architecture. Notably, the facility has been made more user-friendly. At pro-
ject end, training has taken place, recommendations for system upgrades have been
provided, there are 630 registered users and web hits have increased five-fold from
2001 to 2005, with an average of 18,000 hits per month from September 2005 Sep-
tember 2006. There is widespread support and appreciation of DANUBIS, which is con-
sidered a valuable tool by members of ICPDR EGs and NGOs.
Implementation of the Danube Black Sea MOU is included as Output 2.5. Expecta-
tions were that this effort would enable a joint policy-making framework to be estab-
lished and functioning in the DRB and Black Sea region for reduction of discharges of
nutrients and hazardous substances into the Black Sea.
Achievements (jointly with the BSERP) include the re-establishment of the joint techni-
cal working group, which held four annual meetings since 2002. There was also a Da-
nube Black Sea Strategic Partnership Stocktaking meeting organized in 2004, with
participation of 80 high level country representatives of the ICPDR, BSC, GEF, UNDP
and other experts. Close association of the DRP and BSERP efforts was greatly en-
hanced at the end of 2004 with the decision to appoint the DRP CTA as overall man-
ager of both projects.
Output 2.6 consists of activities focused on capacity building and training. In particu-
lar under this output, the project provided support for 11 of the Danube countries to
participate at regular ICPDR EG meetings with 80-100 persons supported per year.
Additional workshops were held for capacity building of EG Chairs and the Secretariat,
workshops on the implementation of the WFD, and a workshop to discuss the post-DRP
future activities of the ICPDR.
These activities were successfully completed and have enhanced regional collaboration,
especially as regards WFD implementation. Apart from providing technical assistance
to experts and officials responsible for implementation, they also served to inform the
general public about WFD, an important consideration in the non-EU and non-accession
countries.
The Expert Group meetings, in contrast to Regional Activity Centres for example, pro-
vide an excellent mechanism for achieving regional collaboration along thematic lines.
34
Financial support from the DRP ensured that experts from every DRB country could at-
tend ICPDR EG meetings. Thus, each country had the opportunity to contribute to dis-
cussions and planning about pollution and water management issues, as well as to
learn from other experts in the region. For most countries, the funding decreased over
time. However, country ownership in the process was deemed vital, and all but a few
nations have maintained full participation at their own expense. Moreover, they have
agreed to sustain ICPDR EG participation. The means to support financially the contin-
ued attendance of experts from a couple of countries is being explored.
Objective 3
Objective 3 sought to raise significantly the public involvement, by actively engaging
civil society. The verifiable indicators established were to have a self-sustaining Da-
nube Environmental Forum and for 80% of all of the small grants projects run through
the DRP to show sustainable results.
Output 3.1 focused on reinforcing the Danube Environmental Forum, a regional NGO
network that had been developed during the previous GEF Danube project.
The outcomes have generally been attained. The DEF was successfully re-activated
during the DRP and played very useful roles as an ICPDR observer, a vehicle for public
awareness raising and helping NGOs across the region participate in the small grants
programme. The DEF has formulated a Water Policy Team, and members participated
in both WFD implementation and ICPDR EGs.
One role of DEF is to serve as a bridge between ICPDR and the public. This is achieved
through their help with communications: leaflets, newsletters, and brochures in na-
tional languages (translations and revisions for the general public are based on DRP
and ICPDR communications materials). DEF also played an active day in organising
Danube Day in some countries.
DEF had active participation at the national level in execution of Objective 3.4, serving
as a member of the inter-sectoral working group charged with developing a national
implementation strategy. DEF members were also deeply involved in the small grants
effort under DRP, with some DEF members awarded SGP projects
Output 3.2 was designed to administer a small grants programme. Two calls for pro-
jects were held in 2004 and 206. All told, 120 national small grant funded projects
were launched, led by national environmental NGOs. There were also 12 regional small
grant projects carried out, involving 35 NGOs working on transboundary problems. The
DRP utilized the management services of the Regional Environmental Centre (Hungary)
to administer the SGP.
The SGP has been a very successful project component, and in many case cost-
effective due to the enthusiasm of the NGOs concerned and their ability to raise co-
funding. There was strong support amongst the participating NGOs and other stake-
holders for the opportunity afforded by the small grants effort, and also for the manner
in which it was managed by the DRP and the Regional Environmental Centre (REC).The
DRP commissioned a review after the 2nd set of small grants projects, which assessed a
subset of projects, and indicated a great many successful outcomes and the prevalence
of public awareness raising activities over technical studies. The independent assess-
ment of the small grants programme was not extensive enough to determine to what
extent the DRP met its indicator of 80% of the projects showing sustainable results. At
this stage it is still too early to see the full benefits as the small projects are like throw-
ing a stone in a pond the ripples spread out from the centre. Small projects in one
village were noticed by surrounding communities, generally with the desire to replicate
the effort. National attention was achieved for some projects.
35
Output 3.2 was to administer a small grants programme. Two calls for projects were
held in 2004 and 206. All told, 120 national small grant funded projects were
launched, led by national environmental NGOs. There were also 12 regional small grant
projects carried out, involving 35 NGOs working on transboundary problems. The DRP
utilized the management services of the Regional Environmental Centre (Hungary) to
administer the SGP.
The SGP has been a very successful project component, and in many case cost-
effective due to the enthusiasm of the NGOs concerned and their ability to raise co-
funding. There was broad support amongst the participating NGOs and other stake-
holders for the opportunity afforded by the small grants effort, and also for the manner
in which it was managed by the DRP and the Regional Environmental Centre (REC).The
DRP commissioned a review after the 2nd set of small grants projects, which assessed a
subset of projects, and indicated a great many successful outcomes and the prevalence
of public awareness raising activities over technical studies. The independent assess-
ment of the small grants programme was not extensive enough to determine to what
extent the DRP met its indicator of 80% of the projects showing sustainable results.
At this stage it is still too early to see the full benefits as the small projects are like
throwing a stone in a pond the ripples spread out from the centre. Small projects in
one village were noticed by surrounding communities, generally with the desire to rep-
licate the effort. National attention was achieved for some projects.
The DRP achieved its objectives with respect to Output 3.3 on communications and
public awareness. The list of activities and achievements is impressive with over 100
articles in the regional and local media, more than 70 workshops organised bringing
together more than 1700 participants, and promotion of the annual Danube Day, which
grows in stature and public interest across all 13 Danube countries. Although the direct
impact of many DRP products (Danube Watch and Fact Sheets) has been limited, no-
tably due to language issues, NGOs in the region make use of the material - translating
and rewriting in a more simplified manner for public dissemination in various national
languages. DRP is commended on the scope and variety of seminars and workshops
that have been undertaken with considerable enthusiasm. The various sessions have
been aimed at a range of experts, stakeholders and the public. Penetration into civil
society has been successful when NGOs have been closely involved (e.g. small grants
programme and component 3.4).
The public participation effort (Output 3.4) involves enhancing public participation to
address Priority Sources of Pollution ("hot spots") through improved access to informa-
tion in the frame of the EU WFD. Expected deliverables by project end included a needs
assessment report, national and operational teams for public participation established
at respective national levels, improved structures for information provision, appropriate
legal framework established, tools developed and capacities to provide access and/or
to demand access, enhanced; and local demonstration projects implemented and pro-
ject reports submitted.
Five pilot projects were managed, with manuals and training workshops developed for
each, two study tours were held (US and Netherlands), two basin-wide workshops
were carried out including 90 country representatives, and a final workshop was
held.
An implementation plan was the subject of some concern early on for the DRP and
ICPDR because of its comparatively high cost and independent status. This component
was an add-on to the DRP and the project implementation was not always smooth.
Management devolved to REC International, with the advantage of having access to
their NGO network, but with the disadvantage of high overhead costs. The agreement
during the second phase to refocus towards implementation of the EU WFD (as well as
Aarhus) brought this effort into alignment with the rest of the DRP.
36
The overall impression in the region is that the Objective has been met. Although im-
plementation would be an obligation under the Aarhus Convention, the DRP facilitated
the process, notably in countries where there was no prior experience in this domain.
In Bulgaria and Romania, the DRP managed to achieve successful collaborations be-
tween government and NGOs. Positive benefits have been the production of manuals
for government use and brochures for NGOs and the general public on how to go about
getting access to information and becoming involved in environmental decision-
making. Much more information is accessible on the Internet in these countries, follow-
ing assistance with Web Site development. Reactions from the beneficiaries to the
manuals that were developed on public access, and to the pilot activities undertaken,
have been very favourable. In particular, the work done in the pilot for Bosnia-
Herzegovina has been highlighted as providing useful guidance to the government and
improved access to the public.
Objective 4
Objective 4, (monitoring, evaluation and information systems), was to be verified
through a "considerable" increase in knowledge on sedimentation, transport and re-
moval of nutrients and toxic substances, and acceptance at national and regional levels
of economic instruments to encourage investment for nutrient reduction. Specific veri-
fication sources include projects and measures in place to reduce toxic substances in
the Iron Gates reservoir, and endorsed wetlands management programs.
The subject of Output 4.1 was indicators. The objective was to develop a set of indi-
cators for project monitoring and evaluation. Expected outcomes included: M & E Sys-
tem established and progress measured and analyzed; information on progress in im-
plementation; progress monitoring system established and indicators applied; and
manuals for M&E and application of indicators existing in national languages. In the
end, a set of 35 indicators were developed and agreed with the ICPDR and 14 indica-
tors were tested and evaluated.
The indicators effort was problematic, in that the initial expectations were to have indi-
cators developed early on in the project that could then be used to gauge project suc-
cess. Unfortunately, the effort to identify indicators during the DRP first phase got
bogged down in a somewhat academic comparison of UNDP and EU indicator require-
ments. During the second phase, the 35 indicators were then developed. The late date
of development and sizeable number of indicators has left some should DRP country
participants with the view that the indicators exercise did not achieve expectations and
will be of limited future use.
A final report was produced at the end of the project lifetime. An obvious comment
about the report is the lack of information that was available for the indicators chosen.
In many cases, the report provides a snapshot of the situation only in 2005. In this
context, it is difficult to use the indicators to evaluate the success or failure of the pro-
ject to achieve objectives. However, the recommendations therein (page 40-41) do il-
lustrate what is needed in order to have and utilise an effective set of indicators to
measure project effectiveness. For example a core list of indicators has to be agreed at
the start of the project. Thereafter, suitable data and information has to be collected
systematically from the beginning of the project. For process indicators and some
stress reduction indicators, regular and structured consultations of stakeholders should
be organized, possibly every 3 years using questionnaires. However, a mechanism has
to be developed in order to receive enough responses to allow statistical analysis. Pos-
sibilities are: (1) to give an incentive to the respondents, (2) make returning of ques-
tionnaires conditional to the receipt of grants (for NGOs only), (3) distribute question-
naires during meetings or conferences and not through the web.
Output 4.2 sought to analyse the iron gates sediments. An assessment was carried
out using regional expertise.
37
This output can be considered a success in that it exemplifies effective collaboration
amongst Romania, Hungary and Serbia. The project started with a data review focus-
sing on the EU 33 priority substances, establishing that only limited data were avail-
able. The 3 countries conducted a survey, collecting surface sediments and 6 cores.
Split analyses were undertaken, whereby measurements were made in all 3 countries.
Many more data were obtained for a wide range of contaminants that had not previ-
ously been measured. However, some scientific questions remain, notably to charac-
terise and quantify the apparent nutrient pump effect by which there is a seasonal re-
lease of nutrients from the sediments. Thus, the sediments act as a temporary reser-
voir rather than a sink (illustrating the difference between retention and removal of nu-
trients).
There are expectations to re-sample the reservoir during the Joint Danube Cruise in
the summer 2007. Future work will relate to determining deposition rates (presently
estimated to be 3 cm/year) and measuring organic contaminants.
Although scientific knowledge has improved, it is not clear how the newfound informa-
tion is going to be translated into environmental management. The analysis has made
all parties recognise the high environmental and financial cost of dredging or flushing
the reservoir, so the overriding sentiment in the region seems to be to do nothing for
the next decade or so until the situation becomes more critical.
Output 4.3 involves the monitoring of wetlands and especially to consider the nutrient
removal capacities of wetlands.
Pilot studies were carried out in Moldova, Ukraine, and Romania. In addition, a manual
entitled Technical guidance on the integration of the nutrient reduction in riverine wet-
land management was produced in full (148 pages) and as a Summary document (19
pages). Taking a holistic view of wetlands, the study suggests that it is important step
to integrate wetland and river basin management, and to consider the linkages be-
tween all ecosystem functions provided by wetlands.
The investigations suggests that most riverine wetlands play a holding rather than
removal role with respect to nutrients, and it is important to recognise that nutrient re-
tention needs to be seen as an added benefit of wetlands management, beyond the
well-accepted biodiversity, and flood control benefits.
As noted under Objective 1.4, the Final Wetlands Workshop was a successful event
that brought together a diverse mixture of 50 participants from IGOs, academia, gov-
ernment agencies and laboratories, as well as international and local NGOs. The pres-
entations covered topics ranging from policy development and implementation to sci-
entific investigations; methodological developments to wetland management. Partici-
pants included personnel from other IGO sponsored projects (WB, TACIS, WWF, Ram-
sar) thereby providing a broad cross-section of current wetland investigations and res-
toration efforts throughout the Danube region. A network of protected area managers
was founded at this workshop.
Overall, understanding about nutrient retention in the Danube River basin was im-
proved and broadly disseminated. The workshop brought together relevant scientists
and wetland managers from throughout the region. Future application of the informa-
tion gained will depend upon its incorporation into the RBM Plan currently under devel-
opment, bearing in mind the wider benefits of wetland retention and restoration (con-
servations values, biodiversity, flood control, etc.), as well as competing interests of
the transport industry. It is not clear to what extent ICPDR will be able to influence
wetland management in the DRB, given that some countries see this issue as nature
conservancy rather then water management.
38
The nutrient trading output (4.4) was established to conduct a study on pollution
trading and to consider corresponding economic instruments for nutrient reduction.
The expected outputs included an analysis and assessment report regarding existing
concepts of pollution trading: policy and legal recommendations; an assessment of the
readiness of the region, on a country basis; and the general viability of the "pollution
trading" concept in the DRB. The effort also included a workshop.
The activity was only undertaken during the project second phase, and the results did
not fully achieve expectations. The effort proved to be a difficult concept for the Da-
nube countries to embrace and the DRP was unable to make much progress. The study
that was developed by external consultants was useful from a theoretical standpoint,
and included lessons learned form other trading efforts. However it came up short with
respect to assessing the viability of pollution trading in the DRB and it failed to provide
recommendations on how a system could be made operational in the region. During
the evaluation some country representatives were negative to the concept, especially
how the payment process would operate and that it could have a negative conse-
quence of delaying or curtailing local and national direct financial support towards re-
ducing nutrient emissions.
3.3.2 Awareness of the participating countries regarding project outputs.
Awareness needs to be considered with respect to the audience in this case pri-
marily the general public and the project stakeholders. Surveys were not commis-
sioned during the project so it is difficult to determine whether the project appre-
ciably raised public awareness. The proxy tools available are very subjective and
relate to DRP/ICPDR achievements such as the number of articles and interviews
generated, the expanding number of hits on the project / commission web sites,
and increasing numbers of persons participating in Danube day events. It is
unlikely that interested members of the public would have made the distinction be-
tween the DRP and the ICPDR. It is also likely that awareness of the DRP outputs
has been further blurred by the project focus on implementation of the EU WFD.
The broad appeal of much of the DRP public relations material may have been lim-
ited by the small translation budget, and its content complexity.
In terms of the extent of stakeholder awareness, the evidence from the evaluation
interviews suggests that members of the expert groups were narrowly aware of
those DRP activities that directly supported the ICPDR, especially with respect to
river basin management and monitoring and assessment. NGO's on the other hand,
were familiar with the small grants and various pilot projects.
It is unlikely that project awareness within the ministries stretches much further
than those agencies that have been directly involved typically within Ministries of
Environment and Water Resources. The inter-ministerial efforts were only partially
successful, which should be expected. Government ministries and agency interest
is driven by laws, budgets and responsibilities. There was interest and involvement
from other ministries to the extent that any of these three were impacted. So,
awareness was clearly raised with respect to the WFD implementation.
Heightened awareness over the last several years can be recognised from the
countries that were aligning themselves with EU law in order to become EU mem-
bers, so in this case first Romania and Bulgaria, and more recently Croatia, Bosnia-
Herzegovina and Serbia.
3.3.3 Level of ownership of the project by the participating countries
The level of project ownership amongst the countries can be considered high, espe-
cially with regard to the project's role in assisting with implementation of the WFD.
The lower Danube countries have been attracting substantial EU and WB funding
39
for water quality related investments, which also points to a high level of commit-
ment to meeting EU requirements.
The ICPDR has been able to tap additional ad-hoc funding from the Danube coun-
tries for special projects and events, including especially the 2nd Joint Danube Sur-
vey. The level of commitment to continue sharing of data and harmonising moni-
toring systems also appears strong in particular amongst the EU members and
accession states
A good example of country ownership can be viewed with respect to Objective 3.4
in Romania and Bulgaria. Public participation was required under the WFD and Aar-
hus Convention, but the countries really did not know how to proceed. There seems
to have been very good interactions between government and NGOs in this area in
both countries, albeit with some difficulties in Romania.
There was a lack of ownership generally when topic fell outside sphere of influence
of the Ministry of Environment (i.e. detergents, agriculture, industry, and even wet-
lands in Austria as this topic is considered a nature conservancy issue rather than
water management) It is not at all clear that there are widespread changes in
farming and other industry practices that impair Danube water quality, as a result
of the project
3.3.4 Cost-effectiveness of the project
The total project budget for the DRP was UN$25.1 million. This includes a contribu-
tion of $12.2 million from GEF, an estimated $6.8 million in parallel financing from
the Danube riparian governments (and others) and $6 million contributed by the
ICPDR. This breakdown of funding was included in the Phase 2 ProDoc. The end of
project outlays for the ICPDR and countries have not been tabulated; however, if
the ProDoc figures are anywhere close to the final tally, then there has been a sub-
stantial financial outlay by the Danube countries, including a 2 times multiplier of
the GEF contribution. Recognising that every dollar spent from other sources makes
the GEF contribution that much more effective, it can be well-argued that the DRP
was cost effective, especially since it involved 11 countries, was focused on one of
the world's major river systems, and included a large array of expected outcomes
and activities.
The project team had to cope with a significant strengthening of the EURO against
the US dollar, posing serious project implications since much of the project opera-
tional costs were Euro denominated. The project team's ability to achieve most
outputs despite the reduced `purchasing power' can be considered a successful as-
pect of its cost-effectiveness.
Cost effectiveness can be considered in some of the adaptive management strate-
gies carried out by the project team. The phase down of country support for ICPDR
EG participation was not initially envisioned, but was then approved by the project
steering committee and is now seen as a key measure of the chances for sustain-
ability and long term ICPDR financial stability.
Cost effectiveness is typically considered with respect to the mix of international
and local consultants that are utilised. The DRP utilised an effective mix of consult-
ants, ensuring there was always a local partner to all international consulting
teams, and making a significant effort to utilise expertise from the region where
possible.
Overhead costs are an issue when considering cost-effectiveness, and in this case
there were some concerns about the rather high overheads charged by third parties
40
in the completion of outputs 3.2 (Small Grants) and 3.4 (Public Access to Informa-
tion), notwithstanding the generally high quality of these outputs. On the other side
of the ledger, evidence of a positive contribution to cost effectiveness can be con-
sidered in relation to the SPG, as it made a big difference for the involvement of
fledgling NGOs. The SGP tended to work via the ripples in pond effect one little
community project spread outward to neighbouring villages (albeit with cost con-
straints).
3.3.5 Public participation and stakeholder involvement in implementation of pro-
ject activities.
Public participation and stakeholder involvement in project activities touched on
most aspects of the DRP implementation. The DRP sponsored, directly or through
the ICPDR, NGOs and the SGP, numerous events for raising public awareness or
training stakeholders. DRP formulated a communications strategy and made a con-
siderable amount of material available in printed and web-based formats. As noted
below, some of this material has been translated into the national languages of the
region. Danube Day has become established as a popular, annual event and a plat-
form to raise awareness on water pollution issues in the 13 Danube countries. An
estimated 1 million people have been actively participating in Danube Day activities
throughout the region in the recent past. Considering events aimed specifically at
stakeholders, there have been a wide series of workshops and seminars, with top-
ics encompassing, for example, WFD familiarisation and implementation, BAPs for
farmers and agricultural sector workers, financial management for water plant op-
erators, the identification and assessment of various future land-use alternatives
for wetlands. Other key actions comprised the support to DEF in particular and
NGOs in general, the operation of the SGP, and Objective 3.4 dedicated to public
participation and access to information. As a widely held view in the region, one
benefit from the project has been that real progress has been made in fostering
NGOs, and through them, public involvement, particularly with respect to WFD im-
plementation and in the downstream countries where NGO activities and the notion
of public access to information have short histories.
DRP support strengthened the Danube Environmental Forum (DEF) as an umbrella
organization, thereby enhancing the ability of member NGOs to respond to trans-
boundary pollution issues. The DRP helped to mobilise new members and funded
the DEF secretariat, National Focal Points, networking activities, and some opera-
tional activities. Of note, DEF representatives were able to participate at ICPDR
meetings, importantly including those of EGs. A prime role of DEF has been to fa-
cilitate information exchange between DRP/ICPDR and the public, notably assisting
with communications via its web site, leaflets, newsletters, and brochures in na-
tional languages, whereby translations were funded by DRP. PR materials based on
DRP outputs were written in a simplified way for public dissemination. DEF played
an active day in organising Danube Day in some countries. The DEF networking
model has been replicated at a national scale in some countries, bringing together
many smaller NGOs. This approach has facilitated cooperation between NGOs and
government agencies. The status of DEF affiliation, particularly for the spokesper-
sons, provides higher visibility and so more leverage nationally.
The Small Grants Programme provided many opportunities for public participation,
generally implemented at the community level through NGO activity. The pro-
gramme reached a wide range of stakeholders, including farmers, municipal au-
thorities, school children, and enterprises, through lobbying and awareness-raising.
In the later case, activities for the public varied markedly: round table discussions
at primary schools to communicate the value of environmental protection in simple
terms, seminars promoting best agricultural practices for farmers and workers from
the agriculture services sector. Typically, individual events welcomed up to 45-50
participants. Complementary actions encompassed launching or improving web
sites, organising small-scale competitions (children's art, slogan writing, photogra-
41
phy, etc.), distribution of brochures and environmental information, and commu-
nity-based riverbank clean-up and wetlands restoration projects. Such events, par-
ticularly when local dignitaries were in attendance, have received good media at-
tention in the press, radio and television. The importance of this penetration to civil
society comes through recognising that access to the Internet in rural communities
can be problematic due to the limited availability of computers and lack of English
language skills.
Public participation and access to information comprised DRP Objective 3.4. Al-
though implementation would have been an obligation under the Aarhus Conven-
tion, the DRP facilitated the process, notably in countries where there was no prior
experience in this domain. In both Bulgaria and Romania, the DRP managed to
achieve successful collaborations between government and NGOs. Positive benefits
have been the production of manuals for government use and brochures for NGOs
and the general public on how to go about getting access to information and be-
coming involved in environmental decision-making. Moreover, much more informa-
tion is accessible on the Internet in these countries, following assistance with Web
Site development.
3.3.6 Likely degree of support from the Countries' Governments in integrating
the project objectives and into their national development programmes
and other related projects, and how well the project fits into their national
development policy. Impacts on policy and strategy of countries.
Several components of the DRP were designed to influence countries in terms of
developing national policies and strategies. This is especially true for WFD imple-
mentation in those areas that were new for Europe as a whole and not just the
DRB, such as the riverine biomonitoring, setting water quality criteria, and trans-
boundary ground water aquifers.
Apart from its success as a regional showpiece, the Roof Report provided national
benefits. Firstly, countries within the DRB were able to use the document as a tem-
plate for their own National Reports. Secondly, the Roof Report was useful for na-
tional implementation of WFD in several countries, i.e. river basin directorates have
to use same approach and methodologies to give a nationally harmonised system
for water management. Thus, approaches adopted on a country-wide basis in-
cluded the upgraded TNMN strategy as a monitoring programme and the sub-basin
characterisation of water sheds, albeit recognising that EU countries were required
in any case to adopt such a river basin approach for water management. In the
same vein, the DRP river typology tools and MONERIS have been utilised in various
other river catchment areas.
WWF implemented a project to assist Danube countries to prepare new land use
and wetland policies in line with existing and emerging legislation, particularly the
EU WFD (Objective 1.4). They undertook pilot studies in Slovakia, Romania and
Croatia, with varying degrees of achievement. However, this bottom-up approach
achieved results in Slovakia, whereby the pilot project was promoted nationally as
a success story to illustrate a mechanism for changing land use. They trained 300
participants at 10 workshops throughout the country, gaining national recognition
that eventually affected national planning with respect to the rural development
plan.
Objective 3.4 helped shape governmental policy and practice on how to deal with
public participation in the environmental decision-making process and how to han-
dle access to information. Notably, some countries produced a manual/guide for
authorities to serve as a source book for the general public about the information
process and public participation. Much more information is accessible on the Inter-
net in these countries, following assistance with Web Site development.
42
3.3.7 Project impact on improving the capacity to prepare and implement col-
laborative, targeted and effective efforts for the management of the Da-
nube River Basin
Touching on most aspects of the DRP implementation, the capacity to effect col-
laborative management of the DRB has improved markedly. Benefits of the DRP are
discussed here under the categories of RBM tools, WFD implementation, investiga-
tions, human resources and networking. Several RBM tools have been improved or
developed, usually with suitable training being organized for appropriate audiences
/ users. Perhaps of most benefit is the upgrade of DANUBIS that has been
achieved. There is widespread support and appreciation of DANUBIS, which is con-
sidered a valuable tool by members of ICPDR EGs and NGOs. The facility has been
made more user-friendly and web hits have increased five-fold from 2001 to 2005.
MONERIS, a model for estimating diffuse sources of nutrients into fresh waters, has
also been upgraded. The model has been successfully applied in the Roof Report
and in some wetlands case studies, however, it must be stated that the model out-
puts are not universally accepted in the region. MONERIS will be a useful tool for
the production of roof reports, RBMs and GEF projects in the Prut, Sava, and Tisza
sub-basins. Finally, an interactive GIS has been developed. Maps are widely recog-
nised as a useful tool for raising public awareness of environmental issues. The sys-
tem was used to generate maps for the Roof Report, but has yet to become fully
operational on the Internet.
Many DRP activities were aimed at WFD Implementation. The Roof Report repre-
sents the most visible achievement under this topic. Although there was clearly a
requirement for EU and EU-accession countries in the DRB to produce such a re-
port, the contributions made by the DRP cannot be under-estimated and led to a
much better report than would otherwise have been generated. This assertion is ra-
tionalised on the basis that the DRP facilitated and funded many activities for the
Roof Report (especially ICPDR EG participation by all countries), with the result that
countries throughout the region asserted joint ownership in the efforts, significantly
expressed by the regional agreement that all countries (EU, EU-accession and non-
EU) would implement the WFD within the DRB. Moreover, the DRB Roof Report has
been acknowledged by the EU as an outstanding contribution, and essentially a
pace setter for Europe as a whole. The Roof Report marks an important step on the
way to formulating a RBM Plan, required by 2009 for WFD implementation. Several
aspects of the TNMN were strengthened in order to comply with the WFD: defining
sampling sites and frequency, biomonitoring, setting water quality objectives and
establishing data reporting procedures. The implementation of the WFD introduced
monitoring and indicators, notably with respect to riverine biology, that were new
for much of Europe. Thus, project components, such as the intercomparison for
macrozoobenthos as indicators for water quality, generate widespread benefits
within the DRB. A database was designed to deal with biological indicators monitor-
ing as part of the TNMN and Danube surveys. Finally, the DRP sponsored several
workshops in the region to familiarise the public and government agencies on as-
pect of WFD implementation.
Some key investigations in the region were supported by the DRP. Most notable
were the studies of sediments in the Iron Gates reservoirs and some wetlands case
studies / pilot projects. The Iron Gates component fostered collaboration amongst
Romania, Hungary and Serbia. Many data were obtained for a wide range of con-
taminants that had not previously been measured. Collaborative efforts are ex-
pected to continue in that some scientific questions remain, together with the un-
certainty of how the newfound information is going to be translated into environ-
mental management.
Considering the human resources, training and workshops have had an influence at
many levels within the region. At local communities, people have come together to
accomplish small-scale projects (e.g., riverbank cleaning, wetlands restoration,
manure management, etc.). Targeted groups have benefited from specialized train-
43
ing (e.g., BAPs for farmers, financial management for managers of water treatment
plants). Scientific workshops brought together regional experts to agree on, for ex-
ample, biomonitoring methodologies for sampling and analysis, as required for WFD
implementation. Conferences, such as the Final Wetlands Workshop, brought to-
gether a diverse mixture of participants from IGOs, academia, government agen-
cies and laboratories, as well as international and local NGOs. The presentations
covered topics ranging from policy development and implementation to scientific
investigations; methodological developments to wetland management. Some at-
tendees represented other IGO sponsored projects (WB, TACIS, WWF, Ramsar)
thereby reflecting a broad cross-section of current wetland investigations and res-
toration efforts throughout the Danube region. Finally, ISPDR staff have benefited
from some training and through close collaboration with DRP colleagues.
The establishment of various networks has been an intangible benefit of the DRP.
The extent to which this process has succeeded is difficult to judge because inter-
actions now occur at the grassroots level, and thus without the knowledge of the
DRP-PCU or ICPDR. Nevertheless, anecdotal information gleaned from interviews
throughout the region consistently highlights the importance of this outcome. Thus,
communications have been established or improved, both nationally and interna-
tionally, between scientists in academia and government agencies/laboratories, be-
tween scientific communities, and with other regional stakeholders, notably envi-
ronmental managers. Networking has become better between NGOs at both na-
tional and international levels. Moreover, NGOs in some countries have improved
working relationships with government bodies and civil society, the overall effect of
which has been to initiate or enhance public participation in environmental deci-
sion-making process.
3.3.8 Project impact on enhancing inter-agency and inter-ministerial co-
operation in each country and on regional cooperation.
The project impact on enhancing inter-agency and inter-ministerial co-operation
varies markedly from one country to another. It is too soon to judge long-term
benefits in some countries with volatile political situations where key ministerial
appointments can change rapidly and personalities can radically affect collabora-
tion. Some countries are still developing inter-ministerial coordination mechanisms,
an ongoing task that the ICPDR will have to facilitate. Notably for the DRP, the
least successful results stem from instances in which the involvement of ministries
other than that responsible for the environment (e.g. agriculture, industry, and
transport) did not fully engage in the process. Detrimental consequences relate to
the water tariffs and charges, the use of P-free detergents, and promoting BAPs.
There are some success stories reflecting improved inter-agency cooperation in
some countries. Regarding phosphorus-free detergents, some limited success can
be claimed in Romania. Industry and governmental officials are planning to get to-
gether in a working group and there is a high expectation to move to increasingly
to P-free detergents. One SGP project held roundtable discussions following the
2005 floods in Bulgaria, bringing together various ministries and governmental
agencies. One key outcome was improved internal communications, particularly be-
tween the Ministry of State Policy for Disaster and Accidents and the National Insti-
tute of Space Research to make use of previously unappreciated / unknown capac-
ity in remote sensing.
The DRP has encouraged much regional cooperation, with many likely longstanding
benefits. Such relationships are best, but not exclusively, epitomized through the
implementation of the WFD, notably including the production of the Roof Report.
Non-EU countries have agreed to adhere to the WFD within the DRB. On the basis
of regional consensus, the overall process has necessitated upgrading / developing
and harmonizing various monitoring and RBM tools, comprising TNMN, GIS,
MONERIS, river typology classification, water quality objectives, biomonitoring, bio-
44
logical database and DANUBIS. Scientific investigations, such as the Joint Danube
Cruises and the Iron Gates sediment study, demonstrate sustained / sustainable
cooperation. The celebration of Danube Day has promoted bilateral activities, such
as joint cruises in the Prut River. The DRP supported work at the sub-basin level in
the Prut, Sava and Tisza Rivers. A notable outcome is the establishment of a Sava
River Commission in Zagreb. In all cases, ongoing cooperation is expected in order
to develop small GEF projects.
The DRP has helped to highlight conflicting requirements of riverine transport, flood
control and wetland conservation / restoration. Realization of these challenges
must help improve communications between ICPDR and the Danube Navigation
Commission.
Notwithstanding the successes noted above, the DRP failed to make significant pro-
gress on a regional ban of phosphate detergents. Similarly, checklist methodologies
for risk assessment of industrial sites and contaminated sites at risk of flooding
have been promulgated, but implementation in the region has not become manda-
tory. Consequently, there remains the need to update the inventory of industrial
sites, given that there is still a lack of data in many countries.
3.3.9 Cooperation among international organisations, NGOs and other stake-
holders.
The DRP has worked directly with a range of international organizations and NGOs,
notably DEF, REC, and WWF. As discussed below, these collaborations have en-
couraged / fostered wider cooperation in the region. However, interactions with the
Ramsar Secretariat and World Bank, especially with respect to the Regional Strate-
gic Partnership, seem to have been less well developed.
The Danube Environmental Forum (DEF) has flourished as an umbrella organiza-
tion, providing a mechanism for networking various NGOs regionally. At the same
time, the DEF model has been replicated at a national scale in some countries. The
DRP has helped to recruit new members to DEF. DEF affiliation facilitates interna-
tional exposure for small NGOs and gives greater visibility at national and local lev-
els. Notably in terms of cooperative efforts, DEF formed a Water Policy Team and
DEF representatives have been able to play an active role at ICPDR EGs meetings.
The DRP has enjoyed a mutually beneficial relationship with REC International, and
through them, various National REC Offices. REC provided management of the
small grants programme and Objective 3.4 on public participation and access to in-
formation. The SGP supported regional and national projects. In the first case,
partnerships between NGOs based in different countries were a requirement. This
mechanism provided some small NGOs their first opportunity to establish interna-
tional cooperation. The regional project in the Prut River has been selected by the
Global Water Partnership as part of their toolbox, reflecting a successful case study.
REC National Offices within some Danube countries were able to coordinate the
NGOs running SGP projects, bringing them together to facilitate project implemen-
tation and explore other collaborative possibilities.
The DRP worked together with the WWF, which implemented a project to assist
Danube countries to prepare new land use and wetland policies in line with existing
and emerging legislation, particularly the EU WFD (Objective 1.4). The WWF is al-
ready applying the results in other projects situated in the lower Danube River ba-
sin. Also, they expect to use lessons learned from DRP collaboration in other re-
gions, notably by developing a twinning arrangement with river basins in Africa and
South America.
The Final Wetlands Workshop marked a culmination of cooperation among interna-
tional organizations. This successful event brought together a diverse mixture of
45
participants from IGOs, academia, government agencies and laboratories, as well
as international and local NGOs. The presentations covered topics ranging from pol-
icy development and implementation to scientific investigations; methodological
developments to wetland management. Participants came from other IGO spon-
sored projects (WB, TACIS, WWF, Ramsar) thereby providing a broad cross-section
of current wetland investigations and restoration efforts throughout the Danube re-
gion. One significant outcome of the meeting was the creation of a Danube Network
of Protected Areas.
3.3.10 Cooperation with sister projects in the GEF IW portfolio esp. Black Sea
Ecosystem Recovery Project.
Explicit linkages for the DRP are to the UNDP/GEF Black Sea Regional Project
(BSERP) and the World Bank Investment Fund for Nutrient Reduction (NRF), in the
frame of the GEF World Bank Danube/Black Sea Partnership Program. The DRP
and BSERP are similar in structure and content as they focus on regional
TDA/SAP development and capacity building. The NRF is a $75 million investment
fund for projects to reduce nutrient loading.
DRP cooperation with the BSERP was formalised in the ProDoc for DRP, with output
2.5 designed to support implementation of the MOU signed between the Danube
and Black Sea Commissions. In particular, a Joint Technical Working Group (JT WG)
was established for implementation of the MOU and a work programme was de-
vised. In all, there were four annual JT WG meetings organised from 2002 on-
wards.
Close collaboration was not seen as a high priority by the project teams during
their formative years. During 2004, a Strategic Partnership Stock-taking meeting
was held to include 80 high-level country representatives of the ICPDR, BSC, GEF,
UNDP and other experts. Subsequently, a closer association was forged, especially
between the DRP and BSERP.
The DRP and BSERP projects became very closely aligned at the end of 2004, when
a decision was reached by UNDP/UNOPS to have the DRP CTA take on responsibility
for both projects. This decision was precipitated by management issues at the
BSERP. The decision was aided by a conviction that the DRP management team
was sufficiently strong, and the project moving smoothly enough, to enable a shar-
ing of the CTA's time.
Cooperation between the DRP and NRF remained infrequent throughout project im-
plementation. It was originally hoped that the TDA/SAP procedures and then sub-
sequent monitoring and capacity building efforts under the DRP and BSERP could
help to define project priorities and pipelines for investments under the NRF. In
practice, the timing of the NRF programme and WB requirements for investments
proved to be impediments to this ideal relationship. In the end, the capacity build-
ing and investment projects have been implemented independently, with little in
the way of shared information and coordinated priority setting.
The DRP has had very good collaboration with IW-LEARN, who has taken advantage
of the expertise that has developed within the staff. The DRP participated in
IW:LEARN's structured learning electronic discussion group on transboundary river
basin management. The DRP hosted IW:LEARN's first operational phase stake-
holder exchange, which united six GEF projects at a workshop to focus on the issue
of strategic communications. The DRP's specific comparative advantage in that
area, as well as collaboration with the SPREP project, provided invaluable informa-
tion and real-life examples to inform the discussion. Moreover, the DRP expedited
the production of a key output from the event, namely a strategic communications
guide for IW projects, now available as a "living document" at
europeandcis.undp.org/WaterWiki. The DRP was a key participant at roundtable
46
and capacity building workshops under the Athens-Petersburg II declaration proc-
ess, which has at its core the establishment of transboundary cooperation on
shared basins in southeastern Europe. DRP participation in the GEF international
waters conferences has benefited the entire IW portfolio through presentations and
informal exchange. In particular, DRP made a keynote presentation on public par-
ticipation at the IWC3. Additionally, IW:LEARN has, on more that one occasion,
supported the travel of DRP staff to make presentations at major conferences, most
recently the GPA Intergovernmental Review. Finally, the DRP has produced two IW
Experience Notes, a mechanism to transfer good practices and experiences in
document form. The project produced one note on their small grants programme
and one on the Danube NGO forum.
3.3.11 Sustainability of project impacts
A discussion on future sustainability of DRP impacts needs some clarification.
Firstly, some tasks have been completed and the benefits will continue. Limited ex-
amples of this nature encompass training courses that have improved the human
resources in ICPDR and the region, upgrading monitoring programmes (TNMN and
biomonitoring), and wetlands that have been restored. Secondly, not all program-
matic elements of the DRP fall within the purview of ICPDR. However, follow up ac-
tivities may be implemented by various organisations, apart from ICPDR, both in
and out of the DRB. The following table sets out each of the project outputs and ac-
tivities with a brief note on issues of sustainability.
Objec
tive Activity
Sustainability
1.1 WFD
support Given that all DRB countries have agreed to implement the WFD, rele-
activities
vant activities must continue at national and regional levels. ICPDR is
leading the development of the RBM Plan due for submission in 2009.
The countries have agreed to continue (and find) active participation at
ICPDR meetings, but it is understood that Moldova and Bosnia and
Herzegovina will need financial assistance.
Sava
Noting that the DRP financial contribution was limited compared to EU
inputs, there is little doubt that cooperative efforts in the sub-basin will
continue. A Sava River Commission was established in Zagreb and will
continue to function.
GIS
The GIS is considered to be a core activity of ICPDR, for which ICPDR
has allocated a portion of future budgets towards annual maintenance.
Future upgrades of hardware and development of software applications
will not come from the ICPDR operating budget. Thus, long-term sus-
tainability faces an uncertain future. ICPDR must find targeted financial
support from Contracting Parties or the Business Friends of the Da-
nube. There will be a need to modify GIS to interface seamlessly with
WISE.
Tisza
An expectation is that a GEF project will be proposed for this sub-basin.
WFD
work-
This task was completed, with the provision that ICPDR and the DRB
shops
countries will have to respond to changing requirements of EU as re-
gards WFD implementation.
Biological This task was completed, however, the development and harmonisation
method train-
of biomonitoring techniques remains a necessity for regional implemen-
ing
tation of the WFD.
1.2 /
Agriculture
Some policy and legal reforms stand a good chance of sustainability
1.3
especially relating to EU requirements for implementing the Nitrates
Directive. The implementation of Best Agricultural Practices will require
investment assistance, and /or limitations on farmer support mecha-
nisms. The small BAP pilot projects conducted through the DRP have
had marginal success and are likely not to continue unless additional
support is provided from the various governments. Changes in the EU
CAP hold out some hope for prodding farmers to improve nutrient
47
Objec
tive
Activity Sustainability
management and the WB Nutrient Investment Facility has been effec-
tive on a number of larger scale agricultural. In general, more is
needed with respect to working with farm extension services to get
them better trained, better paid, and more environmentally supportive
MONERIS
The fate of MONERIS as a tool for ICPDR and DRB countries is not
clear. The DRP funded improvements to the model, but does not hold
intellectual property rights. It has been indicated by the DRP that re-
searchers in the region will have continued access to the model in its
present form, however it is unclear whether there is sufficient support
for the model that additional funds will be found to continue its modifi-
cation, upgrade and translation.
1.4
Wetlands
The Danube River basin management plan now under development
and due to be completed by 2009 should include wetland site identifi-
cation, including one of the DRP pilot sites. It is also anticipated that
the Inventory of Protected Areas covering 237 sites, should be of use
not only for the Danube RBMP but also as a vehicle to help determine
sites to include in EU Natura 2000.
Methodologies for land-use assessments were tested in three pilot sites
(Slovakia, Hungary and Romania). The Slovakia pilot gained national
recognition affecting national planning with respect to the rural devel-
opment plan. WWF has applied these lessons learned to other projects
in the Lower Danube.
1.5
Industry
The work done through the DRP with respect to industrial emission and
the imposition of integrated permitting and best available technologies
(BAT) was small scale and directed especially towards researching ex-
isting Danube country practices, and then introducing the integrated
permitting and BAT concepts. It is hoped that the road maps developed
for Serbia & Montenegro, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Moldova and Ukraine
will help these countries to plan their industrial emissions control pro-
grams, and the three training programmes for BiH, UA and MD experts
have helped to spread interest and understanding of how to apply the
BAT and integrated permitting concepts. It is not anticipated that the
ICPDR will in the future put a great emphasis on providing technical as-
sistance on industrial emissions. The major push in this area will be
through the EU and implementation of the IPPC directive.
1.6 /
Tariffs &
Setting water tariffs and charges fall outside of the mandate of ICPDR
1.7
charges
and its constituent members - the various Ministries of the Environ-
ment. Although probably not initiated by the ICPDR, there are likely to
be follow-up activities because WFD implementation will require full
cost recovery for water plants. The DRP has produced useful tools for
financial management and widely disseminated information directly to
water plant managers. The EU has indicated that the products might be
useful in some countries outside of the DRB.
1.8 P-free
deter-
The DRP made only limited progress in this area, in part because it is
gents
not just an environmental issue, but also touches industry and trade.
Industry and governmental officials in Romania are planning to get to-
gether in a working group and there is a high expectation to move to
increasingly to P-free detergents. The Czech Government has indicated
that it plans to make compulsory its current voluntary ban on phos-
phates in detergent
The EU Commission has prepared a white paper on phosphates in de-
tergent. It is expected that any EU-wide measures for P-reduction will
take years to become legislation. However, the EU has recognised the
work carried out in the DRB and concurred with the policy recommen-
dation to countries to proceed with national legislation and/or further
voluntary agreements. The EU has indicated that in the absence of EU
legislation this is a justified and proportionate approach
2.1
BiH assistance
The DRP country manager for Bosnia-Herzegovina has now finished her
assignment. BiH will continue to participate in ICPDR activities, with
48
Objec
tive
Activity Sustainability
both parts of the Federation having established budgets to pay for the
attendance of their representatives to the ICPR Expert Groups.
IMCM
The sustainability of inter-ministerial coordination mechanisms will be
country-specific and likely to depend on the measures each country
puts in place to implement the WFD. The development of River Basin
Management Plans and establishing Management Districts under the
WFD are to include key stakeholders. A logical approach will be to es-
tablish and maintain the inter-ministerial committees set up through
the DRP.
2.2
Monitoring
Future sustainability of these project components is assured in that
they are mandatory under the WFD. The newly improved TNMN will
continue in the Danube River. TNMN methodologies are also being ap-
plied outside of the DRB. The River Quality Scheme has been applied in
the Tisza River Basin. The database established for biological indicators
monitoring will be maintained and grow. More work will be done on nu-
trient standards in the DRB. They have been reviewed, but harmonised
water quality standards have not yet been agreed.
2.3
AEWS
The DRP was able to achieve an upgrade of communications for AEWS
and the Danube Basin Alarm Model. All 13 countries are now utilising
the standard forms and web-based communications tools. The sustain-
ability of this effort is expected to be high, as each of the countries is
eager to avoid future spill incidents where governments are criticised
for a lack of effective communication. This is also likely to remain a pri-
ority of the ICPDR.
Refineries
The project activities included two training programs for two experts
from each contracting party, and development of a checklist methodol-
ogy. This effort has marginally increased the capacity of the countries
to do risk assessments for refineries. It is a small-scale effort whose
sustainability rests more with EU legal requirements than with continu-
ing ICPDR activities to implement the Danube Convention. Implemen-
tation of the IPPC and Seveso II Directives will be the real drivers for
sustainable change in the region.
Contaminated
The checklist methodology for risk assessment that was developed and
sites in flood-
tested for the 261 identifies sites should prove useful. Sustainability
risk areas
depends on each of the countries, (and in some cases using external
funding support) to remediate contaminated sites.
2.4
DANUBIS
As with the GIS, DANUBIS is considered to be a core activity of ICPDR,
for which ICPDR has allocated a portion of future budgets towards an-
nual maintenance. However, long-term sustainability is uncertain be-
cause there is no provision in the ICPDR operating budget for upgrades
of hardware and further development of software applications.
2.5
JTWG
The MOU between the Black Sea Commission and the ICPDR will re-
main in place after the end of the DRP and BSERP projects, so there is
an expectation that continued coordination on technical issues will oc-
cur. It is important that Romania, Bulgaria and Ukraine are on both
Commissions, and now with the European Commission is a party to
both. A key issue will be funding for future JTWG meetings.
GEF
D/BS Only one stocktaking meeting occurred, in 2004, and now with the DRP
Strategic Part-
and Black Sea projects phasing down, it is unlikely that there will be
nership Stock-
future meetings of this kind. However, the decision by Romania at the
taking Meeting
closing DRP meeting to invite Environmental Ministers from all of the
Danube and Black Sea countries to attend sets an interesting and use-
ful precedent. It may be that future cooperation beyond the technical
level can be sustained through periodic regional ministerial meetings.
2.6 Training,
This task was completed. ICPDR and the DRB countries will have to
meetings etc
provide future training in response to change: monitoring programmes,
software developments for GIS and DANUBIS, staff turnover.
3.1
DEF support
A network of NGOs has been successfully established, with active DEF
participation at various ICPDR meetings and with implementing various
49
Objec
tive
Activity Sustainability
DRP components, including Danube Day. Future sustainability is likely
given their momentum and enthusiasm. DEF has formulated a draft
fund raising strategy.
3.2 Small
Grants This task was completed and will not continue. Falling outside the
programme
mandate of ICPDR, they have neither the funds nor the personnel to
continue a small grants programme.
3.3 Communica-
The benefits of this component should live on in several guises. Many
tions
web sites dealing with water quality issues and the Danube River
throughout the region have been improved and will be maintained.
ICPDR has assumed responsibility for producing and publishing Danube
Watch. They also acquire the rights to various DRP outputs (brochures,
reports, technical guidance documents); however, their distribution
may depend upon repackaging to ensure the ICPDR logo is present
thereby ensuring a sense of ownership.
3.4
Access to In-
Future sustainability of this project component is expected in the Da-
formation /
nube countries since implementation is an obligation under the Aarhus
Aarhus Con-
Convention (to which most Danube countries are signatories), and un-
vention
der the WFD. Methodologies have been established to help government
agencies handle requests for information from the public. Future access
to information should be available in part though the web sites that
have been developed with DRP assistance.
4.1
Indicators
Indicators were perceived as an unrealised expectation by countries.
Several indicators had been proposed, but only a limited number were
evaluated in a final report. Hampered by a lack of data, the report of-
ten only provides a snapshot of the situation in 2005. Nevertheless,
some of the indicators may serve as a yardstick to measure future ef-
forts within the DRB with respect to policy implementation and envi-
ronmental quality. It is quite likely that the countries of the region will
now dispense with the UNDP/GEF indicators effort and focus solely on
the indicators that are to be established for assessment under the EU
WFD.
4.2 Iron
Gate
Investigations in the Iron Gates reservoirs will continue. The region will
Sediments
be sampled during the next Joint Danube Cruise. Some sites are part of
the TNMN.
4.3 Wetlands
Various project components have led to lasting accomplishments.
nutrients
Some wetlands, which have been restored though national and/or local
actions, are expected to be maintained. Some wetlands have gained
recognition under other programmes (Global Water Partnership, Natura
2000 designation). Although the DRP has demonstrated that wetlands
can have only a minor role in reducing nutrient discharges to the Black
Sea, wetland management must be integrated into the RBM Plan and
conservation activities. A technical guidance manual was produced, but
its future application is not clear.
4.4 Nutrient
trad-
Sustainability for this effort on trading is mixed. The DRP made little
ing
progress on establishing a workable concept for nutrient trading. In
part, this reflects the continuing ambivalence of governments and envi-
ronmental advocates in the region to the idea of trading as a mecha-
nism for water quality improvement. The DRP steering committee and
ICPDR responses to the assignment spanned from indifference to out-
right hostility.
Despite the lack of success and support to date, there remains a strong
interest from GEF to continue the discussion on alternative economic
mechanisms for water quality management and improvement in the
Danube Basin. Trading in air emissions was once viewed with even
greater scepticism yet is now a key feature of the EU's greenhouse gas
emissions abatement strategy.
50
3.4 Recommendations, best practices and lessons learned from the DRP that
are relevant to the design and execution of future GEF/UNDP projects
3.4.1 Key lessons learned
1. The DRP has amply demonstrated the value of GEF Project support for trans-
boundary river commissions. Critical to success is the relationship between the
Project management and Commission Secretariat. These are not easy relation-
ships to manage, since the Secretariat plays both a beneficiary role and a man-
agement role, while the PCU provides funding and technical support to the Se-
cretariat, but also may pursue some outputs outside the scope of Secretariat
responsibilities. If GEF project teams can get this relationship working well from
the outset, as occurred with the DRP and ICPDR Secretariat, and can make a
continuing effort throughout the project to maintain this relationship, such pro-
jects stand a real chance of achieving a high degree of success.
2. The DRP achieved considerable successes within the sphere of influence of the
constituent members of the ICPDR delegations. Thus, accomplishments fea-
tured, for example, in the areas of water management, riverine monitoring,
WFD implementation, etc. The project experienced the greatest difficulties in af-
fecting policies that fall outside of the purview of the Ministry of Environment
(or its equivalent in each country), like agriculture, industry, and transport.
Such failures reflect the limited clout of environmental ministries in many coun-
tries, and the inadequacy of inter-ministerial structures in most countries. To
have a greater impact on the policies and funding decisions of these resource-
oriented ministries, they need to be brought into the effort early on at the
project concept stage
3.4.2 Best practices
Cooperation with ICPDR
The DRP was designed to complement the activities of the International Commis-
sion for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR). In contrast to some other GEF
projects, the rapport between the DRP PCU and the ICPDR Secretariat has been
very positive and their actions mutually reinforcing. Project achievement in this re-
gard serves as a model for other GEF projects. Success can be attributed to having
a well-functioning project team and strong leadership on the part of both DRP and
the ICPDR. DRP benefited from making use of, and strengthening, the ICPDR struc-
tures, notably Expert Groups. The project steering committee was comprised of the
Heads of Delegation of the ICPDR, many of whom had been involved with the pro-
ject since its inception.
Adaptive Management
A notable achievement of the DRP, gaining strong regional appreciation and back-
ing, was its capacity to adapt to changing political and economic realities, particu-
larly regarding EU accession and WFD implementation. The team was able to ar-
ticulate, and receive steering committee approval, for various adaptive strategies.
For example, modification of the work plan saw the emphasis on dealing with water
tariffs and charges (Obj 1.6/1.7) being aimed at plant managers rather than at the
national level. DRP was able to respond in a timely manner to requests from
ICPDR. There was some discretion with respect to funding, with the proviso that
such flexibility could be a double-edged sword if not undertaken under strict con-
trols. Of course, the DRP PCU had to accommodate a budget cut resulting from an
unfavourable dollar euro exchange rate.
51
Project Ownership
A significant level of regional pride, national interest, and joint ownership of the
DRP was generated in all countries. This achievement seems to have been attained
by ensuring the widest possible country and stakeholder participation in the plan-
ning and implementation of various project components. Thus, the DRP facilitated
and funded many activities for the Roof Report, with the result that countries
throughout the region asserted joint ownership in the efforts, significantly ex-
pressed by the regional agreement that all countries (EU, EU-accession and non-
EU) would implement the WFD within the DRB. Similarly, the DRP financial support
ensured that every nation was initially represented at the ICPDR Expert Group
meetings. This mechanism enabled all countries to contribute to the regional effort,
with the result that all countries, including perhaps unexpectedly the upstream na-
tions, learned and benefited from each other. The benefits were self-evident, which
encouraged country ownership and financial commitments thereby guarantying
continued national participation, as well as the future sustainability and success of
the ICPDR EGs.
Expert Groups
The ICPDR Expert Group format serves as a benchmark for how expert groups can
and should function. Expert Groups stand a strong chance of being successful
when: (a) the countries fund their own contributions and participation; (b) the per-
sons participating in the EGs are indeed technical experts rather than senior man-
agers; (c) there is low turnover of experts, allowing greater continuity and improv-
ing trust and communications across the participants. The ICPDR EGs are com-
prised of national experts from the contracting parties and also representatives of
observer organisations, most notably NGOs. The purpose, financial basis and coun-
try ownership of the ICPDR EGs evolved and improved, in recognition of the in-
creasing importance of WFD implementation across the basin and with the decision
to phase out DRP financial support for EG member participation.
Networking
A universally expressed view in the region was that a major benefit of the project
was the opportunity to establish networking of like-minded people. The extent to
which this process has succeeded is difficult to judge because interactions now oc-
cur at the grassroots level, and thus without the knowledge of the DRP-PCU or
ICPDR. Communications have been established or improved, both nationally and in-
ternationally, between scientists in academia and government agencies or laborato-
ries, between scientific communities, and with other regional stakeholders, notably
environmental managers. Networking has become better between NGOs at both
national and international levels. Moreover, NGOs in some countries have improved
working relationships with government bodies and civil society, the overall effect of
which has been to initiate or enhance public participation in environmental deci-
sion-making process.
Strong support to DEF and NGOs
DRP support strengthened the Danube Environmental Forum (DEF) as an umbrella
organization, thereby enhancing the ability of member NGOs to respond to trans-
boundary pollution issues. The DEF played very useful roles as an observer at
ICPDR meetings, facilitating cooperation between NGOs and government agencies,
as a vehicle for public awareness raising and helping NGOs across the region par-
ticipate in the small grants programme. Regarding communications, DEF translated
and revised DRP outputs for public dissemination. Many NGOs played an active role
in Danube Day in various countries. One widely recognised achievement of the pro-
ject was to make significant progress in fostering NGOs, and through them, public
involvement, particularly with respect to WFD implementation and in the down-
52
stream countries where NGO activities and the notion of public access to informa-
tion have short histories. NGOs, working on door-to-door campaigns and hosting
numerous meetings at the community level, provided the means by which the DRP
could reach many of the stakeholders, especially farmers. The importance of this
penetration to civil society comes through recognising that access to the Internet in
rural communities can be problematic due to the limited availability of computers
and lack of English language skills. The ICPDR want to see the DEF continue to play
a coordinating role for NGO participation.
Exit Strategy
Following recommendations made in the mid-term review, the second phase fo-
cused special attention on the development of an `Exit Strategy'. Formulated in
consultation with ICPDR and agreed to by the national HoDs, the over-riding pur-
pose of the exit strategy was to set in motion a phase down of DRP support in
preparation of the ICPDR operating as a self-financing Commission and Secretariat.
Three key components of the strategy were:
ˇ to decide the breadth of the Secretariat's activities, including whether the Se-
cretariat should play a project management role, for example in relation to the
GEF supported sub-basin initiatives for the Sava.
ˇ to facilitate the transfer of responsibility of various project initiatives, including
the communications strategy
ˇ to articulate opportunities for future funding opportunities.
In the wider sense, this process was a regional evaluation and brought consider
able attention to the assistance provided by and outcomes of DRP activities. The
Exit Strategy required that countries and ICPDR examine the benefits accrued from
the GEF project, agree on what to continue and decide on how the ongoing activi-
ties could be financed.
3.4.3 Recommendations
Recognising that the DRP is concluding, the following recommendations are set out
for consideration, in the first case by the ICPDR, and then for UNDP and GEF con-
sideration for future IW projects.
Recommendations for ICPDR
1. The DRP has generated a wide array of useful documents that should remain
available to the interested public. The ICPDR is encouraged to add a DRP ar-
chive section to its database and web site.
2. The ICPDR has gathered resources for two Joint Danube Surveys. These trans-
Danube research cruises are an important activity that should continue, and
plans should be made for a 3rd JDS after the upcoming 2007 survey. The sur-
veys are important to the continuing research effort for the Danube not so
much because of the groundbreaking research, as for the cross-boundary coop-
eration amongst researchers and especially as an educational and public aware-
ness tool.
3. The DRP provided useful support to the ICPDR for the enhancement of the
MONERIS nutrient model and to upgrade the Commission's geographic informa-
tion system (GIS). The ICPDR is encouraged to continue the use and refine-
ment of these tools
53
4. The ICPDR has been expanding its external funding support mechanism, and is
increasingly looking to the private sector, based on their quite successful coop-
eration to date with Coca Cola and the Alcoa Foundation. This private sector ini-
tiative is seen as critical to enabling the ICPDR Secretariat to continue many of
its public awareness activities in addition to its formal secretariat-country sup-
port role. Taking a cue from other successful international organisations, it will
be useful for the ICPDR to broaden this initiative into a more robust member-
ship programme to include foundations, bilateral donors and the general pub-
lic. Having a wide array of "Friends of the Danube" can build greater public
awareness and support, while also shielding the ICPDR from possible criticism
of its increasing reliance on industry sponsorship to promote environmental pro-
tection. The ICPDR may also want to consider drawing from the experience of
sustainable development and `green' mutual funds that have developed charters
and strict criteria for companies that can be listed.
5. The ICPDR member countries are considering how to proceed with possible
bans and voluntary agreements on phosphates in detergents. A recent determi-
nation from the European Commission states that the approaches being consid-
ered in the Danube region are "justified and proportionate". This provides a real
opportunity for the Danube basin countries, especially those that are EU mem-
bers, to champion this initiative. The work of the DRP and ICPDR Expert Groups
has made clear that phasing out the use of phosphates in detergents provides
the most cost-effective opportunity to make marked reductions in nutrient
emissions into the Danube River.
6. The Danube region can expect to experience alterations in the water cycle as a
result of climate change, with increasing risk of severe flood events and ex-
tended droughts. Water-related impacts of climate change should be targeted
as a focus area for the ICPDR. The Commission is encouraged to establish a
task group within its Expert Group structure to investigate the issue.
7. The DRP provided a very useful mechanism to broaden civil society involvement
in Danube River protection activities. In particular, GEF support has been in-
strumental in establishing the Danube Environmental Forum. The ICPDR is en-
couraged to continue and broaden this partnership with DEF. In addition to re-
taining its observer status, the DEF should be offered opportunities to partici-
pate in public awareness raising activities. Recognizing that the DEF's financial
sustainability remains an issue, the ICPDR delegations are encouraged to assist
in identifying potential funding support for the DEF.
8. The DRP provided a measure of support to the ICPDR with respect to industrial
pollution and in particular risks from flood prone contaminated sites. Further in-
vestigations are needed not only in terms of risk assessment but also with re-
spect to mitigation strategies, and the ICPDR is encouraged to promote this ef-
fort
9. The ICPDR has worked from 2001 2006 under its Joint Action Programme
(JAP) providing the road map for implementation of the Danube River Conven-
tion, and implementation of the Danube Strategic Action Plan. There has not
been a renewal of the JAP, in part from the conviction that the ICPDR effort has
shifted towards implementation of the WFD. The ICPDR, it's Secretariat and Ex-
pert Groups are now focused on developing the Danube River Basin Manage-
ment Plan, by 2009. It should be recognised that the scope of the Danube
Convention, and consequently the role of ICPDR, may be broader than what is
contained in the WFD. For instance, the Scope of the Convention (Article 3)
notes that the convention is applicable to issues of fisheries and inland naviga-
tion, and the operation of existing hydrotechnical constructions. Recognising its
broader mandate, the ICPD is encouraged to develop a JAP for the period 2008-
54
2012, which recognises the array of expected achievements in addition to WFD
implementation.
10. The DRP undertook a review of the monitoring and reporting requirements
within the ICPDR and compared these with those of the EEA and the EC taking
account of the development of the WISE (Water Information System for
Europe). The WISE is intended to minimise country's reporting of data while en-
suring that data can be utilised by a wide number of end users. Countries will
upload data to WISE (or provide links to where the data is) and then the vari-
ous reporting requirements (e.g. WFD, UWWTD, SoE reports) can extract the
required information. The DRP review recommended a greater use of available
data sources rather than replicating databases within the ICPDR to reduce the
burden on the countries and reduce the costs of collecting data for the ICPDR.
Although not all the recommendations were adopted at the time (2005) by the
ICPDR, the evolution of WISE and the increasing number of Danube countries in
the EU will inevitably require that these issues are further assessed. The ICPDR
should continue to evaluate their need to collect/archive data from the countries
against utilising existing EU-wide data sources of national data.
Recommendations for UNDP & GEF
1. The GEF has a put a substantial investment into the Danube River over the past
15 years. GEF support is now ebbing, which is understandable given pressing
environmental demands in other regions, the increasing capabilities of the Da-
nube countries to manage their own water resource affairs, and particularly the
expansion of the European Union across a majority of the Danube countries.
There are, however, important reasons for the GEF to retain an International
Waters presence in the Region. These include: a) to continue strengthening the
capacities of countries in the basin that are not a part of the EU and are facing
considerable economic constraints; b) to `protect' the investment by continuing
to support transboundary agreements at the sub-basin level, for instance in the
Tisza and Prut Rivers; and c) to continue to utilize the Danube as an incubator
and demonstration site for the use of policies and techniques that can be repli-
cated in other regions.
An example of further GEF activities could be to develop a GEF medium size
project to demonstrate innovative economic instruments to counter the Da-
nube-Black Sea problem of nutrient over-enrichment. This would include analy-
sis of the feasibility of a nutrient trading scheme as well as other economic
tools, such as the use of conservation easements for flood plain management,
and promotion of low cost wastewater treatment technologies, including engi-
neered wetlands and package treatment plants
2. The DRP/ICPDR Exit Strategy effort was well considered and generally well exe-
cuted. Developing and implementing such strategies should be a standard fea-
ture of GEF IW projects, especially in cases where there have been long-term
international investments and a corresponding need to start the process of sup-
planting international support with regional and local support. The key is to
start the process early, at the mid-way point of the project, so there is sufficient
time for the phase down process to take affect, the countries to budget for their
increased responsibilities.
3. The DRP was able to utilise an imprest account with UNOPS, enabling the PCU
to operate a more flexible budgeting and expenditure procedure, yet maintain
project accountability. All large-scale multi-country GEF projects should be
given this account opportunity, based on initial evidence of sound financial
management.
55
4. The DRP/ICPDR experience with expert groups compares favourably with other
projects and commissions that have utilised Regional Activity Centres. Expert
Groups, with rotating chairs, allow for leadership on issues to pass across the
involved countries, expanding country interest, participation and ownership.
5. The DRP/ICPDR agreement to phase out project support for country participa-
tion in Expert Groups was a double success: it helped to build country owner-
ship and responsibility and also reduced DRP expenditures, enabling the project
to meet its objectives despite inflationary pressures. Future GEF projects should
consider including this phase out approach in ProDoc development.
6. The DRP was established as part of the Danube-Black Sea Strategic Partnership,
which linked the DRP and BSERP capacity building projects with an investment
facility (NRF). While coordination of these three projects could have been bet-
ter, the concept is sound and should be replicated. By linking capacity building
and investment support, the GEF can greatly increase the environmental bene-
fits accrued for targeted international waters.
7. One of the strategic programmes in the International Waters Focal Area for
GEF-4 concerns reducing nutrient over-enrichment and oxygen depletion from
land-based pollution of coastal waters. This was a key objective for the DRP,
recognising that nutrient over-enrichment of the Danube is having adverse im-
pacts on the Black Sea. The DRP successfully implemented a few pilot projects
to promote farm management and was involved at the policy level on imple-
mentation of the EU Nitrates Directive. Future projects addressing nutrient
over-enrichment should seek to broaden these investigations of agricultural pol-
icy impacts on the environment, including farm commodity price support
mechanisms. Efforts should be made by the UNDP to achieve greater participa-
tion of local agricultural interests, including local extension services, and also
international partners, such as the FAO.
8. The experiences from the agricultural pilots in the DRP demonstrated that farm-
ers are interested to implement best agricultural practices (BAPs). Yet the DRP
experience also showed that few if any BAPs will get carried out without finan-
cial support especially when small and marginal farming concerns are the fo-
cus. Future GEF projects that provide capacity building for BAPs need to tie di-
rectly to investment support - either through country support commitments or
additional donor funding. This may be an area where micro-lending arrange-
ments can be considered.
9. In the DRP an issue arose with respect to the Intellectual Property Rights for
the use and enhancement of the MONERIS model. This raises a more general
issue of how future GEF projects should utilise proprietary systems and soft-
ware. Open architecture programmes and systems in the public domain are
preferable assuming they meet the project needs. Otherwise, contractual ne-
gotiations may be required to ensure that beneficiary countries receive license
to utilise and enhance proprietary systems, or at the last resort, long term con-
tracts are signed that enable the countries to continue receiving systems sup-
port after the GEF project has concluded. The risk in not taking one of these
approaches is that significant GEF moneys will be used for developing effluent
models or GIS mapping systems that are then discontinued once the GEF sup-
port ends.
10. The current joint APR/PIR reporting requirements for UNDP / GEF projects are
an improvement over the previous situation where separate APRs and PIRs
were required. However the format and procedures are still cumbersome for the
project teams and too content-heavy for reviewers. Consideration should be
given to new formats for instance providing an annual `exceptions' report,
which highlights only those areas of the project implementation that have
56
changed since the previous reporting period. Consideration should also be give
to developing an on-line format.
11. The DRP's inclusion of a small grants programme (3.2) was highly successful in
terms of increasing NGO participation, raising public awareness, and mobilising
a large number of environmental protection activities at a fairly modest cost.
Notwithstanding the existence of the GEF Small Grants Programme operating
globally, it will be useful to consider including small grants programmes as a
component of future GEF large-scale projects
3.4.4 Ratings
The evaluation team was requested under the TOR to rate various criteria from the
project, based on a five-step system: highly satisfactory, satisfactory, marginally
satisfactory and unsatisfactory. The ratings set out below are necessarily subjec-
tive, yet based on consideration of project achievements against challenges, and
taking into consideration similar GEF/IW projects. In general, the Danube Regional
Project has been a highly successful project and managed well. It has helped to set
the ICPDR and the Danube countries on a firm foundation for continued efforts to
protect and enhance the Danube River.
Criteria for Evaluation
Rating
a) Outcomes/ achievement of objectives
Highly Satisfactory
b) Implementation approach
Highly Satisfactory
c) Stakeholder Participation / public involvement
Highly Satisfactory
d) Sustainability
Highly Satisfactory
e) Monitoring & Evaluation
Satisfactory
57
ANNEXES
Table of Contents
ANNEX 1: ANALYSIS OF OUTCOMES.................................................................... 2
1.1: RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT POLICIES AND TOOLS ...................................................... 3
1.2 & 1.3: AGRICULTURAL POLICIES AND PILOT PROJECT .................................................. 6
1.4: WETLAND POLICIES AND PILOT PROJECTS ................................................................ 9
1.5: INDUSTRIAL POLICIES AND REFORMS ................................................................... 12
1.6 & 1.7: WATER TARIFFS AND EFFLUENT CHARGES ..................................................... 14
1.8: DETERGENTS.............................................................................................. 17
2.1: INTER-MINISTERIAL COORDINATION MECHANISMS................................................... 19
2.2: OPERATIONAL TOOLS FOR WATER QUALITY MONITORING AND EMISSION ANALYSIS ............ 21
2.3: ACCIDENT PREVENTION AND CONTROL (APC)........................................................ 23
2.4: SUPPORT FOR THE ICPDR INFO SYSTEM DANUBIS ............................................. 26
2.5: DANUBE BLACK SEA MOU IMPLEMENTATION....................................................... 28
2.6: CAPACITY BUILDING AND TRAINING .................................................................... 30
3.1: NGO NETWORK REINFORCEMENT - DEF .............................................................. 32
3.2: SMALL GRANTS PROGRAMME............................................................................. 35
3.3: COMMUNICATION AND PUBLIC AWARENESS ............................................................ 37
3.4: PUBLIC ACCESS TO INFORMATION....................................................................... 40
4.1: INDICATORS................................................................................................ 42
4.2: ANALYSIS OF IRON GATES SEDIMENTS ................................................................. 44
4.3: MONITORING OF WETLANDS ............................................................................. 46
4.4: NUTRIENT TRADING....................................................................................... 49
ANNEX 2 TERMS OF REFERENCE ....................................................................... 51
ANNEX 3: MISSION ITINERARY ........................................................................ 57
ANNEX 4: LIST OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED ..................................................... 62
ANNEX 5: LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED ...................................................... 66
DRP TE Annex
1
ANNEX 1: ANALYSIS OF OUTCOMES
INTRODUCTION
This annex provides a review of project outcomes and outputs, based upon the
DRP's Project Implementation Plan (PIP), developed in early 2005. The PIP has
been matched against project outcomes, as identified by the DRP PCU, and
against the project budget through April 2007. The evaluation team provides a
discussion of its findings for each outcome based against a review of project
deliverables and stakeholder interviews.
DRP TE Annex
2
OBJECTIVE 1: CREATION OF SUSTAINABLE ECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS FOR LAND USE AND WATER MANAGEMENT
IN GENERAL, WHILE THE PROJECT OUTPUTS AND ACTIVITIES HAVE BEEN COMPLETED, ACHIEVEMENT OF THE OVERALL OBJECTIVE
REMAINS A WORK IN PROGRESS, AS THE POLICIES AND LEGISLATION DEVELOPED MUST NOW BE IMPLEMENTED MANY OF THE NEW
EU COUNTRIES ACHIEVED DEROGATIONS AND EXTENSIONS IN WFD IMPLEMENTATION BECAUSE OF THE HIGH COST OF MEETING
URBAN WASTEWATER TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS. NEVERTHELESS, ALL OF THE DANUBE EU COUNTRIES ARE ESTABLISHING BASIN
MANAGEMENT PLANS AND DISTRICTS AND HAVE AGREED TO ISSUE A JOINT SET OF PLANS FOR THE DANUBE. IN ADDITION, THE
NON-EU COUNTRIES HAVE ALL INDICATED THEIR INTEREST TO HARMONISE WITH THE WFD REQUIREMENTS AND MOST HAVE
TAKEN INITIAL LEGISLATIVE STEPS IN THIS DIRECTION.
1.1: RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT POLICIES AND TOOLS
Output 1.1: Development and
Phase 1 Results:
implementation of policy
ˇ Criteria for significant hydromorphological pressures developed
guidelines for river basin and
ˇ Overview report on hydromorphological stress and impact analysis of Danube River developed
water resources management
ˇ Synthesis and National Reports on availability / quality of economic data for water use, data
Sub- Components:
gaps, and existing national capacities to carry out specific tasks of the economic analysis
ˇ EU WFD Implementation
ˇ Proposal (Study) for typology and reference conditions for the Danube River
ˇ Danube GIS
ˇ Overview study on existing ecological status assessment and classification systems in the
ˇ Sava RBM plan
DRB
ˇ Needs Assessment and Conceptual Design for a DRB GIS
ˇ Concept for the development of the Sava RBM Plan
Budget Phase 1
Budget Phase 2
Total Budget Phase 1 & 2:
ˇ $392,201
ˇ Planned: $662,835
ˇ $ 1,139,991
ˇ Actual (April 2007): $720,871
ˇ Pending: $27,760
Expected End of Project Results:
ˇ EU WFD "Roof Report" for DRB
ˇ Functioning DRB GIS producing maps as required by EU WFD and for key water management purposes e.g. typology of surface
waters and their reference conditions etc.
ˇ Outline Sava RBM Plan developed
ˇ Study on basin- wide important measures addressing significant pressures with transboundary impacts
DRP TE Annex
3
PCU completion report:
Activity Outputs
Outcomes
Quantitative
Indicators
WFD
> Over 58 project
> Successful submission by
> Analytical report on Pressures & impact analysis,
support
activities aimed at
ICPDR (and CPs) of WFD
typology; ecological classification; Economic Analysis;
activities
strengthening the
Art. V report to European
HMWB, Nutrients, etc. used by the ICPDR for Danube
ICPDR and CPs WFD
Commission March 2005
Analysis Report
implementation in
> Completion of updated
> EU WFD Danube Roof report completed and agreed by
the Danube River
TDA for Danube River
13 countries
Basin.
Basin based on WFD
> Danube Analysis Report prepared, with the summary
Analysis Report
translated into 7 languages and distributed basin-wide
> 4 non-EU countries actively participate in process.
Sava
> Workshop and report
> Political approval by all
> RBMP templates for Sava basin, including gap analysis
presenting WFD
countries and commitment
are agreed with 4 participating countries
RBMP outline and
to develop RBMP
> River Basin Management Road-Map and Plan outline
road-map
delivered and approved
GIS
> Recommendations
> Agreed GIS system to be
> Danube GIS Prototype developed and ready for testing
and design of GIS
developed meeting needs
and further use - 1 test dataset for each shape-file
system for Danube
of ICPDR and CPs for WFD
template / table
and equipment
> Data for 8 countries available
Tisza
> Support for UA
> Active engagement of UA
> Data provided by UA
involvement in Tisza
in the Tisza river basin
> UA participate at Tisza Expert Group Meetings
River Basin
planning process enabling
Management process
completion of Tisza river
basin analysis report
leading to WFD river basin
management plan
WFD
> Workshops
> Full engagement of non-
> Workshops on Surface Waters, Ground Waters, Risk of
workshops
completed in MD,
EU countries in the WFD
Failure, HMWB,
UA, BiH and RS
process
> 3 trainings on assessment of water bodies organized to
DRP TE Annex
4
strengthen expert capacities of the ICPDR for EU WFD
implementation, >40 experts participated at each
workshop.
Biological
> 3 training courses
> Danube Countries have
> 3 training courses with participation of experts from all
method
involving all GEF
agreed common method
GEF eligible countries
training
eligible countries on
to report biological quality
macro-zoobenthos
element under WFD
sampling and
analysis compliant
with WFD
Evaluation Findings:
ˇ Output 1.1 involved support for implementation of the WFD and assistance to develop sub-basin initiatives for the Tisza and Sava rivers,
as well as support to the ICPDR on upgrading their geographic information system (GIS) tools, and capacity building and training on
biological sampling and analysis. The highlight of this effort is surely the work done in support of the ICPDR and together with the 13
Danube countries to produce the Danube `Roof Report', (entitled The Danube River Basin District, Part A Basin wide overview, 18 March
2005). The Roof Report has been highly acclaimed as the best of the transboundary reports presented to the EC under the WFD, and is a
fine accomplishment for all participants. All told, there were 58 project activities carried out to assist the ICPDR and countries in their
implementation of the WFD for the Danube.
ˇ The DRP can also be praised for its achievements on the sub-basin initiatives, including political approval by all of the Sava riparian
countries for a Framework Agreement for the Sava River Basin and the Sava River Commission, and completion of the Tisza River basin
analysis report as the precursor to the Tisza WFD river basin management plan. The DRP also met expectations with its assistance to the
ICPDR for a Danube GIS Prototype.
DRP TE Annex
5
1.2 & 1.3: AGRICULTURAL POLICIES AND PILOT PROJECT
Objective: Creation of sustainable ecological
Phase 1 Results:
conditions for land use and water management
ˇ In Phase 1 of the DRP, an analysis of point and non-point sources of pollution from
Output 1.2: Reduction of nutrients and other
agriculture was undertaken. This took into account the findings and
harmful substances from agricultural
recommendations of the field-based demonstration programs conducted in Central
point and non-point sources through
and Eastern European countries with the support of the EU and GEF.
agricultural policy changes
ˇ The project updated the information on the use of agrochemicals and identified
Output 1.3: Development of pilot projects on
specific policy and legal measures to assist the participating countries in meeting
reduction of nutrients and other
their obligations to reduce agricultural point and non-point source pollution.
harmful substances from agricultural
ˇ In a workshop on "Developing Pilot Projects for the Promotion of BAP in the Danube
point and non-point sources
River Basin", (January 2004), six pilot projects were identified, responding to
The two outputs were executed as a single project
specific pollution issues and allowing, in most of the cases, a transboundary
component
approach.
ˇ Preliminary work plans for potential pilots are available in the Final Report from
Phase 1 of the DRP and are available on the web site.
Budget Phase 1
Budget Phase 2
Total Budget Phase 1 & 2:
ˇ $480,968
ˇ Planned: $735,000
ˇ $1,210,625
ˇ Actual: $729,657
Expected End of Project Results:
Outputs
ˇ Analysis of current national legislation.
ˇ Recommendations for implementation of best agricultural practices in the DRB countries
ˇ Review of agrochemical inventories and Recommendations for reducing impact of agrochemicals
ˇ Report on introduction of BAP in DRB countries and Preparation of dissemination material on BAP
ˇ Agreement of Pilot Project(s)
ˇ Detailed work programme for Pilot Project(s)
ˇ Implementation of Pilot Project(s)
ˇ Training and Dissemination Workshops on Pilot Project results
DRP TE Annex
6
Outcomes (log-frame)
ˇ The integration of water quality objectives related to agriculture nutrient pollution into agriculture policies increased in 11 Danube countries.
ˇ New agricultural policies for controlling non-point sources of pollution from agriculture accepted by policy makers based on broadly
disseminated nation-specific BAP concepts.
ˇ BAP accepted by farmers in the field in DRB countries.
ˇ Point and non-point source agricultural nutrient emissions reduced in 5 pilot sites.
ˇ 100 farmers in lower DRB aware of and applying best agricultural practices.
ˇ 1000 farmers made aware of best agricultural practices for reducing agricultural nutrient emissions.
PCU completion report:
Activity Outputs Outcomes
Quantitative
Indicators
Agriculture
> Reports delivered on:
> Implementation of
> Reports and inventories on policy, legislation, pesticides, fertiliser,
Fertiliser and manure
BAPs on 8 pilot
manure handling, BAP etc.,
use and management
farms reduced N by
> Workshop: Agricultural policy and BAP concept participation of >
Pesticide use and
14 t/yr and P by 2
30 experts
inventories
t/yr.
> Workshop: Pilot projects development participation of > 40
Nutrient emissions
> Data collected led
experts
Policies for reducing
to successful
> Workshop: EU WFD and Agriculture participation of >40
agriculture pollution
submission of WFD
experts
-Best Agriculture
Danube Basin
> Visit of a farm in Denmark 40 participants from countries
Practices
Analysis to EC.
> Farmers aware of the BAP, through broadcastings on national TV
Training workshops
> BAP concept
and Radio of Serbia, interviews and articles in national
Pilot farm evaluation of
developed tested
newspapers and magazines specialized on agriculture
BAPs
and broadly
> 8 pilot projects under implementation / lessons learned
Estimation of nutrient
disseminated at
disseminated
emissions from pilot
basin-wide scale.
> Awareness raising with farmers (etc.) at >100 workshops with >
farms
2500 participants.
> Financial benefits evaluated in 8 pilot farms
> Web-site operational: http://www.carlbrodrp.org.yu/
DRP TE Annex
7
MONERIS
> Upgraded version of
> All countries having
> MONERIS model operational within ICPDR
nutrient basin-wide model
a common tool to
> ICPDR staff trained in its use
compatible with water
estimate nutrient
bodies defined for the
fluxes in the
WFD
Danube River Basin
leading to improved
management
decision capacity.
Evaluation Findings:
ˇ Output 1.2 and 1.3 were grouped together to focus on the development and strengthening of environmental protection policies in the
agricultural sector as well as the implementation of best agricultural practices. Activities included upgrading a nutrient loading model
(MONERIS), eight pilot studies of farm best management practices carried out in Serbia, and a data collection and inventory effort designed to
provide information for the WFD Roof Report.
ˇ During Phase I of the DRP, an analysis of point and non-point sources of pollution from agriculture was undertaken, information on the use of
agrochemicals was produced and specific policy and legal measures were advanced to assist the participating countries in meeting their
obligations to reduce agricultural point and non-point source pollution. Particular emphasis was placed on implementation of the Nitrates
Directive (EC 91/676/EC), with all of the Danube Basin EU countries adopting legislation to implement this directive.
ˇ During the project second phase, eight pilot farms in Serbia received technical assistance on best agricultural practices. A visit to several of
the farms by the evaluation team suggests that the DRP support was well received, especially the study tour to Denmark. Unfortunately, few
of the on-farm improvements were carried out, due to a lack of available financing. As is usual in UNDP/GEF capacity building projects, there
was no budget earmarked to support the introduction of BAPs, and no moneys were provided by the Serbian government. In a tight and highly
competitive farming environment, these small farmers were reluctant to put their own financing into BAPs that were not required by the
government, especially when they had other priorities with direct economic gain, such as more cattle, a tractor, seeds and fertilisers, etc. In
the absence of a compelling requirement and/or financial support, farmers will likely continue to avoid introducing BAPs unless they see a
direct economic benefit.
ˇ The Agriculture effort included awareness raising activities at more than 100 workshops with more than 2500 participants. There were also a
series of reports and inventories developed on policy, legislation, pesticides, fertilisers, manure handling and best agricultural practices.
ˇ MONERIS was upgraded to provide a useful tool to model Danube inputs and estimate nutrient fluxes. Improvements were made to the
documentation, and to make the model WFD compliant. As with all models there are pros and cons to its use, however in the absence of more
precise data, models are essential to help determine nutrient emissions from multiple sources, especially from diffuse sources and thereby
improve management decision capacity. Some feedback during the evaluation from users indicated it was not an especially user-friendly tool
and needs to be translated so it can be used by non-English speakers.
DRP TE Annex
8
1.4: WETLAND POLICIES AND PILOT PROJECTS
Objective: Creation of sustainable
Phase 1 Results:
ecological conditions for land use and water
ˇ The Phase 1 activities, finalized in November 2003, were focused on the development of
management
appropriate integrated land use concepts and policies for the protection of three selected
Output 1.4: Policy development for
sensitive wetland areas. Pilot activities were carried out in Slovakia Tisza basin), Croatia
wetlands rehabilitation under the aspect of
(Drava basin) and Romania (Prut basin) and provided following outputs:
appropriate land use
ˇ A straightforward, yet rigorous, land-use assessment methodology that was tested and
Sub- Components:
adapted as necessary for use across the region;
> Pilot
Projects
ˇ The selection of three pilot sites Zupanisjski canal, near Budakovac village, Drava sub-
> Methodology
basin Croatia; Lower Elan valley, Prut sub-basin, Romania; and Olsavica valley, Tisza sub-
basin, Slovakia - to test the methodology through implementation of specific site-based
activities including the holding of a workshop at each location to ensure stakeholder
involvement and wider public participation in the identification and assessment of various
future land-use alternatives;
ˇ
Specific proposals for final land-use concepts at each pilot site, including recommendations for the
actions and measures required to implement the concepts in practice, and
Budget Phase 1
Budget Phase 2
Total Budget Phase 1 & 2:
ˇ $143,415
ˇ Planned: $197,400
ˇ $308,415
ˇ Actual: $155,00
ˇ Pending: $10,000
Expected End of Project Results:
Outputs
ˇ updated inventory and map
ˇ Implementation Plan including specific activities,
ˇ Final concepts and strategies for appropriate land use in selected wetland areas
ˇ Agreed concepts and strategies for the implementation of integrated river basin land use for selected wetland areas
ˇ Workshops implemented; participants from the DRB trained on how to assess, develop and implement appropriate land use in wetland
areas in a consistent manner throughout the DRB
ˇ Implementation of technical measures and management agreements
DRP TE Annex
9
ˇ Wetland conservation and restoration activities ("mainstreaming")
ˇ Synthesis Report
Outcomes (log-frame)
ˇ Appropriate Land-Use Concepts accepted by local stakeholders and being implemented in 3 pilot sites in 3 respective countries leading to
wetland/floodplain protection and rehabilitation of approximately 7,000 hectars
ˇ Capacities of key stakeholders ( i.e. government, NGOs, private sector etc.) built in 11 DRB countries for implementing appropriate
land-use policies to reduce pressures on wetland and floodplain areas in the DRB
PCU Completion report:
Activity Outputs
Outcomes
Quantitative
Indicators
Wetlands
> Development of
> Integration of one pilot site
> Inventory of Protected Areas, covering 237 sites - database
agreed land-use
into the river basin
and map - input also for EU Natura 2000
assessment
management plan and
> Methodology for Land-use Assessment tested at 3 pilot sites
methodology and
submission of site to EC as
(SK, HR, RO) and 3 on-sites stakeholders workshops organized
results from
a proposed Natura 2000
with participation of 90 experts at 3 workshops
testing and
protected area.
> Land-use concepts implemented in projects at 3 pilot sites
evaluation of
> Elevating wetland
under implementation (Slovakia, Romania and Croatia), total
methodology in
understanding within river
area 4,400 hectares
three pilots
basin management
> A manual for appropriate land-use was developed and
planning.
presented at the basin-wide wetlands workshop in the Danube
Delta
> 1 preparatory workshop organized 20 participants
> Basin-wide workshop for wetland managers from government,
NGOs (linked with Component 4.3)
DRP TE Annex
10
Evaluation Findings:
Output 1.4 was focused on wetlands rehabilitation and appropriate land use. It included development of a methodology for land use
assessment, and selection of three pilot sites Zupanisjski canal near Budakovac village, Drava sub-basin Croatia; Lower Elan valley, Prut
sub-basin, Romania; and Olsavica Valley, Tisza sub-basin, Slovakia - to test the methodology through implementation of specific site-based
activities. The pilot studies had varying degrees of accomplishment. Results were achieved in Slovakia, whereby the pilot project was
promoted as a success story to illustrate a mechanism for changing land use. They trained 300 participants at 10 workshops throughout the
country, gaining national recognition eventually affecting national planning i.e. Rural development plan. In Croatia, the project involved re-
flooding a wetlands area surrounding a Sava oxbow that had dried up due to the canal construction. In February 2007, after a wait of
several years, the Ministry of Irrigation finally funded the site planning study and appears ready to allow excavations. Interestingly, there
has been local farmer support for the wetlands restoration pilot, out of recognition that the loss of the wetlands has also affected the
groundwater table and by extension their irrigation options.
DRP TE Annex
11
1.5: INDUSTRIAL POLICIES AND REFORMS
Objective: Creation of sustainable ecological
Phase 1 Results:
conditions for land use and water management
The Phase 1 report related to this assignment provided the following relevant
Output 1.5: Industrial reform and development of
outputs:
policies and legislation for application of BAT (best
> Review of policies and the identification of gaps between EU and existing
available techniques including cleaner technologies)
and future legislation for industrial pollution control and enforcement
towards reduction of nutrients (N and P) and dangerous
mechanisms
substances
> An examination of alternatives for the further support for the application
Sub- Components:
of Best Available Techniques in the DRB;
> Undertaking of a number of reviews of industrial complexes as case studies on
BAT.
> Providing details on the state of legislation, with respect to industrial pollution,
throughout the basin with summarised alternatives for the application of Best
Available Techniques (BAT).
Budget Phase 1
Budget Phase 2
Total Budget Phase 1 & 2:
ˇ $180,000
ˇ Planned: $273,338
ˇ $420,000
ˇ Actual: $240,000
Expected End of Project Results:
Outputs
ˇ Review of Policy, Legislation and Enforcement
ˇ Report on Implementation of BAT /IPPC in DRB
ˇ Report on Implementation of BAT in non-accession countries
ˇ Road Map for implementing BAT in Serbia & Montenegro, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Moldova and Ukraine
ˇ Discussion Paper on impact of IPPC in DRB
ˇ Workshops programme of training and dissemination
Outcomes
ˇ The integration of water quality objectives related to industrial pollution into industrial policy and regulatory framework according to
EU Directive on Integrated Pollution and Prevention Control enhanced in 11 Danube countries.
ˇ Priorities for pollution reduction revised, based on improved methodology for emissions inventories (reflecting the EU directives
requirements on reporting) and on better understanding of cause and effect relationships
DRP TE Annex
12
PCU Completion report:
Activity Outputs Outcomes
Quantitative
Indicators
Industry
> Emission inventory
> Transformation of
> Review of policies in 11 countries and the identification of gaps
review and
industrial
between EU and existing and future legislation for industrial
recommendations
regulations
pollution control and enforcement mechanisms
> Reports on
consistent with EU
> Report on Implementation of BAT /IPPC in 11 DRB countries
policy/legislation on
environmental
> Report on Implementation of BAT in 4 non-accession countries
BAT
requirements
> Road Map for implementing BAT in Serbia & Montenegro,
> Road map on
enabling better
Bosnia & Herzegovina, Moldova and Ukraine
implementation of BAT
access to EU
> 3 trainings on BAT & IPPC for experts from BiH, UA, MD
in non-EU states
markets.
> Undertaking of 5 reviews of industrial complexes as case
studies on BAT.
Evaluation Findings:
Output 1.5 concerned industrial policies and reforms. An emissions inventory was created, and in the 11 (GEF eligible) Danube
countries a review of industrial policies was carried out detailing gaps between existing legislation and enforcement in the countries and
the EU requirements for industrial pollution control. The team also commissioned a road map for implementation of best available
technologies (BAT) in Serbia & Montenegro, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Moldova and Ukraine. The anticipated outcomes of this effort included
enhanced industrial policies in the 11 Danube countries, taking into account WFD requirements and also the IPPC directive requirements.
There were also five reviews of specific industrial complexes developed as case studies on the implementation of BAT.
The inventory activities were well considered and can help the 11 countries reflect on additional steps necessary to control better
industrial emissions and meet the requirements of the EU IPPC Directive. The road map effort for Serbia & Montenegro, Bosnia &
Herzegovina, Moldova and Ukraine should help these countries to commence introducing IPPC, which is especially of interest to Serbia
and Bosnia & Herzegovina, who aspire to EU membership. The scale of the industrial activities were limited and somewhat overshadowed
both by the DRP's focus on nutrients and to a great extent by the EU's own activities in developing BAT reference materials for
implementation of the IPPC directive.
One of the real challenges in the region will be how to manage IPPC and BAT requirements for polluting facilities that are not economically viable, yet
whose closure would bring severe hardships to workers and their communities.
DRP TE Annex
13
1.6 & 1.7: WATER TARIFFS AND EFFLUENT CHARGES
Objective: Creation of sustainable
Phase 1 Results:
ecological conditions for land use and water
ˇ Phase 1 activities principally involved an examination of the current conditions related to
management
regional or Municipal Water and Wastewater Utilities (MWWUs) in eight countries of the
Output 1.6 Policy reform and legislation
region, identification of possible tariff and effluent charge reforms, and evaluation of these
measures for the development of cost-
prospective reforms. MWWU case studies have been developed in each of the countries.
covering concepts for water and waste
Baseline physical and monetary accounts for the MWWU were constructed. Budgetary,
water tariffs, focusing on nutrient reduction
tariff, service, and effluent consequences of various reforms were tested. The baseline
and control of dangerous substances
conditions and simulations were undertaken within the framework of the Accounts
Output 1.7: Implementation of effective
Simulation for Tariffs and Effluent Charges (ASTEC) model and numerous individual reform
systems of water pollution charges, fines
proposals were identified and evaluated.
and incentives, focusing on nutrients and
ˇ Reports available:
dangerous substances
o Volume I - An Overview of Tariff and Effluent Charge Reform Issues and Proposals
and
Sub- Components:
o Volume II Country Reports on Issues and Proposed Tariff and Charge Reforms.
Budget Phase 1
Budget Phase 2
Total Budget Phase 1 & 2:
ˇ $212,077
ˇ Planned: $357,565
ˇ $556,545
ˇ Actual: $324,468
ˇ Pending: $20,000
Expected End of Project Results:
Phase 2 activities primarily aim to set the basis for implementation with national stakeholders. This will involve undertaking a series of
information dissemination and assistance activities to encourage and expedite adoption of effective reform proposals by the countries and
MWWUs of the middle and lower Danube River Basin. Emphasis will also be given to the development, implementation and monitoring of Reform
Demonstration Projects in various countries and communities and to disseminate lessons learned
Outputs
ˇ Catalogue of country specific reform potential and requirements
ˇ Workshops implemented, appropriate workshop documentation broadly disseminated; increased cooperation of relevant stakeholders
ˇ Country specific systems of charges, fines and incentives
ˇ Guidelines for the introduction and implementation of the recommended systems of charges, fines and incentives
DRP TE Annex
14
ˇ Workshops implemented; appropriate workshop documentation broadly disseminated
Outcomes
ˇ Awareness of policy options for improved collection of water and wastewater service tariffs and fees in all 11 Danube countries and in
most municipalities enhanced.
ˇ Policy reforms aimed at improved collection of water and wastewater service tariffs and fees considered at the municipal level in 40
municipalities and adopted at the municipal level in 20 municipalities.
ˇ 60 municipal water systems actively consider tariff reforms aimed at improving sustainable financing; 20 municipalities adopt such
reforms.
ˇ 100 municipalities water and wastewater utilities understand the way in which computerized financial models can be used to assess the
financial and service consequences of policy reforms, budget allocations, tariff changes, and development plans,40 municipalities actively
use such a model to assess and support new tariff proposals, budget requests, or investment or grant applications.
ˇ Ministries and affected agencies of 11 DRB countries are aware of the effects of the current effluent charges designs on revenues, water
and wastewater tariffs, and pollution abatement investments.
ˇ Ministries or affected agencies of 3 DRB countries and 6 selected demonstration municipalities have used financial modelling to test the
consequences of possible reforms in the design of their effluent charges.
ˇ Ministries or affected agencies of 3 DRB countries are actively considering changing their emission charges to encourage reduction in
nutrients and toxics.
DRP TE Annex
15
PCU Completion report:
Activity Outputs
Outcomes
Quantitative
Indicators
Tariffs &
> Development of
> Enabling
> Two basin wide workshops organized to present the T&C reforms to the
charges
model (ASTEC),
utility
countries and increase awareness on T&C issues in 13 countries, 50 experts
training, policy
managers to
and high-level country representatives participated.
reform
make
> The current conditions related to regional or Municipal Water and Wastewater
recommendations
managemen
Utilities examined in 7 countries
for utility /
t decisions
> Possible tariff and effluent charge reforms identified and evaluated for 7
municipalities
through
countries and 7 municipalities as case studies were evaluated
> National analysis
better tools
> 40 municipalities considered policy reforms aimed at improved water collection
of state of the art
leading to
and waste water services, 20 municipalities applied such reforms
of water tariffs
reduction of
> 60 municipalities considered tariffs reforms to improve sustainability of
and charges and
pollution
financing, up to 20 municipalities applied such reforms.
implementation
through
> ASTEC model developed (Accounts Simulation for Tariffs and Effluent Charges),
of reforms
target
tested in 2 municipalities Pitesti (Romania) and Karlovac (Croatia)
> Policy reforms
investments
> Training workshop for ASTEC
recommendations
.
> Regional meetings and dissemination workshops at national level 470 experts
> Case studies at
and country representatives participated
utility level
> Information sheets on T&C prepared also in national languages and distributed
Evaluation Findings:
Outputs 1.6 & 1.7 provided technical assistance to the DRP countries in the area of tariffs and water pollution charges. Starting during
Phase 1 with a review of current conditions for municipal water and wastewater utilities in eight of the Danube counties, the effort then
evolved into a series of workshops coupled with municipal policy reform recommendations. The work also included development and testing
of the Accounts Simulation for Tariffs and Effluent Charges (ASTEC) model that provides a tariff adjustment tool for municipal water and
waste utilities.
A visit to the city of Karlovac in Croatia provided evidence that the ASTEC model can be put to good use. Karlovac is the first Croatian city to
receive approval for water and wastewater treatment funding support under the EU Instrument for Structural Policies for Pre-Accession
(ISPA). It has been working with the ASTEC model for several years and has appreciated the availability of this tool as they now engage in a
major expansion and improvement of their water and wastewater systems, with a significant increase in debt to service. A translated model
and instruction manual would greatly aid expanded use of the model in Croatia and elsewhere.
DRP TE Annex
16
1.8: DETERGENTS
Objective: Creation of sustainable ecological
Phase 1 Results:
conditions for land use and water management
This project component is implemented only in the phase 2.
Output 1.8: Recommendations for the reduction of
phosphorus in detergents
Budget Phase 1
Budget Phase 2
Total Budget Phase 1 & 2:
ˇ $0
ˇ Planned: $69,500
ˇ $100.300
ˇ Actual: $100,300
Expected End of Project Results:
Outputs
ˇ Report on the existing legislation, policies and voluntary agreements
ˇ Report reviewing, summarizing and evaluating data received from detergents industry
ˇ Develop proposals for accomplishing a voluntary agreement between ICPDR and the Detergent Industry including proposed time
frame
ˇ Workshop report, comprehensive documentation of workshop results
ˇ Periodic monitoring and evaluation reports
ˇ Analysis report on follow-up actions and effects on water quality and environment
Outcomes
ˇ Voluntary Agreement on the Phase-out of Phosphates in detergent developed in cooperation with stakeholders that leads to
implementation resulting in a projected 24% reduction of P from point sources of pollution and 12% reduction in Total P Loads from
the DRB to the Black Sea
DRP TE Annex
17
PCU Completion report:
Activity Outputs
Outcomes
Quantitative
Indicators
P-free
> Assessment of P-free
> Basin-wide ICPDR policy on
> 30 participants at Stakeholder Workshop on Detergents
detergents
detergent use in basin
P reductions
> Policy recommended for adoption by ICPDR about P
and recommendations
> Enabling EU-wide
reduction agreed by all countries
on means to
discussion between
encourage basin-wide
regulators and industry
P bans in laundry
> Romania taking first steps
detergents
to instigate P-free
detergent regulations
Evaluation Findings:
The expected outcomes for Output 1.8 were to achieve a basin-wide policy on P-reductions, and development and implementation of a
Voluntary Agreement on the Phase-out of Phosphates in detergent, leading to a projected 24% reduction of P from point sources of
pollution and 12% reduction in total P loads from the DRB to the Black Sea. Activities included a review of detergent use in the DRB and
a stakeholder meeting.
The goals for P-reduction in detergents have not yet been achieved. No basinwide policy on P-free detergents has been reached, and
the one voluntary approach instituted (Czech Republic) was deemed a failure so the Czechs are now planning to shift to a mandatory
programme. Romania may also take steps to instigate P-free detergent regulations, but this has not yet been achieved. Romania has
recognised that the strong push from ICPDR has been a key factor in the progress being made. Industry and governmental officials are
planning to convene a working group and there are high expectations that the country will move towards P-free detergents. Of
considerable interest is that about 20% of detergent production in Romania is already P-free, but it is bound for the export market. If
Romania and the Czech Republic adopt mandatory restrictions on phosphate detergents, they will then be joining Germany and Austria
as countries with such mandatory requirements. Although various actions were taken at national levels to raise public awareness of the
issue, overall, the topic is considered still to have a low priority for general public in some countries (e.g. Bulgaria and Moldova).
The EU Commission has prepared a white paper on phosphates in detergent. It is expected that any EU-wide measures for P-reduction will take years to
become legislation. However, the EU has recognised the work carried out in the DRB and concurred with the policy recommendation to countries to
proceed with national legislation and/or further voluntary agreements. The EU has indicated that in the absence of EU legislation this is a justified and
proportionate approach.
DRP TE Annex
18
Objective 2: Capacity building and reinforcement of transboundary cooperation for the improvement of water quality and environmental
standards in the DRB
OBJECTIVE 2, FOCUSED ON CAPACITY BUILDING, AND WAS TO BE VERIFIED THROUGH FULLY OPERATIONAL INSTITUTIONAL AND
ORGANIZATIONAL MECHANISMS IN EACH ICPDR COUNTRY, FOR TRANSBOUNDARY COOPERATION, IMPROVED WATER QUALITY
MONITORING, EMISSION CONTROL, EMERGENCY WARNING, ACCIDENT PREVENTION AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT.
THE EVIDENCE SUGGESTS THAT EACH OF THE PARTICIPATING COUNTRIES HAS MADE PROGRESS IN ALL AREAS MENTIONED ABOVE,
HOWEVER IT IS DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE, AND UNLIKELY, THAT THEY HAVE ALL ACHIEVED "FULLY OPERATIONAL" INSTITUTIONAL AND
ORGANIZATIONAL MECHANISMS. HAVING LAWS AND INSTITUTIONS IN PLACE IS THE FIRST STEP. HAVING THESE LAWS THEN
IMPLEMENTED AND WORKING EFFECTIVELY IS ANOTHER. ESPECIALLY IN THE AREAS OF EMISSION CONTROLS AND ACCIDENT
PREVENTION, THERE IS MUCH YET TO BE DONE IN MOST OF THE DANUBE COUNTRIES.
2.1: INTER-MINISTERIAL COORDINATION MECHANISMS
Output 2.1: Setting up of Inter-Ministerial Coordinating Phase 1 Results:
Mechanisms for the development,
Available reports:
implementation and follow up of national
> Analysis report of existing inter-ministerial structures and mechanisms and
policies, legislation and projects for
of activities, competence and capacities of existing structures
nutrient reduction and pollution control
Budget Phase 1
Budget Phase 2
Total Budget Phase 1 & 2:
ˇ 70,567
ˇ Planned: $40,000
ˇ $203, 997
ˇ Actual: $114,530
ˇ Pending: $19,800
Expected End of Project Results:
Output
ˇ Workshops and workshop documentations
Outcome
ˇ Inter-Ministerial Coordinating Mechanisms functioning in 11 Danube countries in order to develop, implement and follow up national
policies, legislation and projects for nutrient reduction and pollution control
DRP TE Annex
19
PCU Completion report:
Activity Outputs Outcomes
Quantitative
Indicators
BiH
> National expert recruited to
> Expert requested to
> BiH actively involved in WFD process
assistance
work in Ministry of Finance to
be permanent staff.
assist with state and entity
BiH submitted first
implementation of WFD
river analysis report.
IMCM
> Country specific reports and
> Strengthened
> Analysis of IMCM was carried out in 10 countries,
recommendations
capacity within
recommendations prepared
> Country specific work plans
countries to deal
> Needs of 6 countries to strengthen their IMC capacities
endorsed by governments for
with cross-sector
agreed
implementation
activities
Evaluation Findings:
Output 2.1 sets expectations for inter-ministerial coordination (IMCM) and also identifies a set of special actions to enable Bosnia-
Herzegovina to participate fully in the ICPDR and its, as well as in the process of WFD implementation in the Danube region.
The BiH support was highly successful. Because of the federal / split system of governance in BiH, there was a real problem with ICPDR
ands DRP coordination, which was effectively dealt with by the hiring of a country coordinator. Very much as a result of the support they
received from the DRP, BiH was able to produce its first river analysis report and to contribute directly to the development of the Danube
Roof Report,
The IMCM effort was generally successful. Analyses were carried out for ten countries and recommendations for six countries were
subsequently agreed. There are no committees established in Moldova and Ukraine, although work is still in progress in Moldova.
DRP TE Annex
20
2.2: OPERATIONAL TOOLS FOR WATER QUALITY MONITORING AND EMISSION ANALYSIS
Objective 2: Capacity building and reinforcement of
Phase 1 Results:
transboundary cooperation for the
> Report on Environmental quality objectives and standards for nutrients
improvement of water quality and
and other Danube specific priority substances developed
environmental standards in the DRB
> Preparation of sets of reference materials of water, nutrients, heavy
Output 2.2: Development of operational tools for
metals and sediments
monitoring, laboratory and information
> Methodological concept for stress and impact analysis computerized
management with particular attention to
application developed = Concept paper for pressures and impacts
nutrients and toxic substances
> Report on Analysis of the results of the EMIS inventory and their
Subcomponents:
comparison with TNMN and JDS results with particular attention to the EU
> Monitoring,
Laboratory and Information
Priority List of Pollutants
Management Tools
> Report on proposals for TNMN upgrade and proposal for SOPs for new
> Intercalibration
determinants
> Report on Development of the Danube List of Priority Substances
Budget Phase 1
Budget Phase 2
Total Budget Phase 1 & 2:
ˇ Actual: $86,112
ˇ Planned: $235,000
ˇ $237,086
ˇ Actual: $148,424
ˇ Pending: $2,550
Expected End of Project Results:
Outputs
ˇ Revision of TNMN
ˇ Biological Database
ˇ Water quality standards for nutrients
ˇ Manual on intercalibration
ˇ Proposals for harmonization of intercalibration sites
Outcomes
ˇ Enhanced capacity of countries to develop policy measures for nutrients and toxic substances reduction based on improved
monitoring water quality for toxic substances and nutrients in line with EU WFD requirements, assessment of environmental stress
impact relationship, based on use of common harmonized classification system and standards
DRP TE Annex
21
PCU Completion report:
Activity Outputs
Outcomes
Quantitative
Indicators
Monitoring
> Upgrade of TNMN to
> Successful submission of WFD Art VIII
> TNMN harmonized with EU WFD
meet WFD
report to EC March 2007 based on DRP
requirement / annual reporting available,
requirements
activity.
all 13 countries participate
> Biological database
> Countries operate functional biological
> Biological database available
> BiH monitoring
database consistent with WFD
roadmap
> BiH strengthened to participate fully in
monitoring in Danube River Basin
Evaluation Findings:
The expected outcomes for Output 2.2 focus on improved water quality monitoring. The effort included upgrades to the transboundary
monitoring network (TNMN), establishing a biological database and developing a monitoring roadmap for Bosnia - Herzegovina.
This objective was achieved with beneficial consequences for the region, especially with regard to the implementation of the WFD.
Several aspects of the TNMN were strengthened in order to comply with the WFD: defining sampling sites and frequency, biomonitoring,
setting water quality objectives and establishing data reporting procedures. In some countries, TNMN methodologies are also being
applied outside of the DRB.
The implementation of the WFD introduces monitoring and indicators, notably with respect to riverine biology, that are new for much of
Europe. Thus, project components, such as the intercomparison for macrozoobenthos as indicators for water quality, generate
widespread benefits within the DRB. DRP involvement provided important opportunities at a technical level for networking. The River
Quality Scheme, an output from the Slovakian Workshop, was applied in the Tisza River Basin. A database was designed to deal with
biological indicators monitoring as part of the TNMN and Danube surveys.
Nutrient standards in the DRB have been reviewed, but harmonised water quality standards have not yet been agreed.
DRP TE Annex
22
2.3: ACCIDENT PREVENTION AND CONTROL (APC)
Objective 2: Capacity building and
Phase 1 Results:
reinforcement of transboundary
Status at the End of Phase 1
cooperation for the improvement
> Evaluation of needs and implementation schedule prepared
of water quality and environmental
> Standard forms and communication solution for information exchange in
standards in the DRB
emergency cases PIACs / ICPDR (using ICPDR web site) developed
Output 2.3: Improvement of procedures and
> Discussion paper on ARS Inventory ranking system (methodology)
tools for accidental emergency
> Discussion paper for development of basic guidelines and recommendations for
response with particular attention
old contaminated sites in potentially flooded areas in DRB
to transboundary emergency
> Concept paper for on-the-spot training (Case study) on application of check list
situations
methodologies at national level
Subcomponents:
> Study (concept for calibration options and selection of pilot areas) developed
> Pilot project for refineries `
> Draft Project Brief and TORs for DBAM calibration
> Check list methodology M2
> Outline for the DBAM calibration manual
> DBAM
support
> Recommendations for follow up activities to the ICPDR
> Support for PIACs
Budget Phase 1
Budget Phase 2
Total Budget Phase 1 & 2:
ˇ Actual: $81,975
ˇ Planned: $200,000
ˇ $237,117
ˇ Actual: $141,820
ˇ Pending: $13,322
DRP TE Annex
23
Expected End of Project Results:
Outputs
ˇ Pilot Site Refineries Identification and Approval
ˇ Development and Approval of training Programme, Completion of training
ˇ Review and Recommendations of checklist methodology
ˇ Dissemination of results
ˇ Development of M2 methodology and revised ranking of contaminated sites using M2
ˇ Revised checklist for site investigation
ˇ DBAM updated up to Danubis standard software tools
ˇ Operational PIACs in Bosnia i Herzegovina and Serbia and Montenegro and BiH
ˇ Upgraded AEWS international manual
Outcomes
ˇ Swifter and better coordinated response to accidents increased in all 13 Danube countries through reinforcement of PIACs (accident
alert centres) and geographical extension in Bosnia i Herzegovina and Serbia and Montenegro
ˇ Reduction of risk of accidents through implementation of check-list methodology used in 50 industrial locations / companies,
identified as sites with highest risk potential
PCU Completion report:
Activity Outputs
Outcomes
Quantitative
Indicators
AEWS
> Upgrade of
> Improved preparedness to
> Standard forms and web-based communication
communications for
alert countries to
solution for information exchange in emergency
AEWS and Danube
accidents
cases used by all 13 countries PIACs
Basin Alarm Model
Refineries
> Check-list
> Increased capacity of
> 2 training programmes given for 2 experts from each
methodology
countries on risk
Contracting Party on check-list assessment of
developed and tested
assessment
refineries
on refinery risks
> Assessment techniques
improved leading to
reduction of risks
DRP TE Annex
24
Contaminated
> Check-list
> Increased capacity of
> ARS Inventory carried out 261 sites identified 157
sites in flood-
methodology
countries on risk
sites evaluated
risk areas
developed and tested
assessment
> Training and evaluation of check-list methodology
for identifying and
> Assessment techniques
provided on contaminated site
assessing risks from
improved leading to
contaminated sites in
reduction of risks
flood-risk areas
Evaluation Findings:
Output 2.3 dealt with accident prevention and control (APC). There were three subsets of activities, dealing with emergency response
and communications, special issues with regard to refineries, and the problem of contaminated sites in flood control areas.
Achievements include standard forms and web-based communication solutions for emergency information exchange in each of the 13
country accident alert centres. Training programmes (2) were carried out for the checklist methodologies on refinery risk and flood-prone
contaminated sites. There was also an ARS inventory carried out for 261 contaminated sites, with 157 sites evaluated.
Checklist methodologies for industrial sites and contaminated sites in flood-risk are generally viewed as valuable tools, but
implementation in the region should be mandatory. There also remains a need to update the inventory of industrial sites because many
countries still have insufficient data.
DRP TE Annex
25
2.4: SUPPORT FOR THE ICPDR INFO SYSTEM DANUBIS
Objective 2: Capacity building and reinforcement of
Phase 1 Results:
transboundary cooperation for the
> Information System at the central and national level upgraded
improvement of water quality and
> new AEWS software implemented, tested and operational,
environmental standards in the DRB
> Report on assessment of needs in terms of equipment and human
Output 2.4: Support for reinforcement of ICPDR
capacities at national level prepared, including recommendations and
Information System (DANUBIS
detailed specifications for equipment
> 1st phase training carried out and appropriate manuals (training materials)
available
Budget Phase 1
Budget Phase 2
Total Budget Phase 1 & 2:
ˇ $236,791
ˇ Planned: $189,800
ˇ $292,627
ˇ Actual: $47,300
ˇ Pending: $8,536
Expected End of Project Results:
Outputs (pms)
ˇ Recommendation on the Restructuring of the ICPDR information System
ˇ Selection and implementation of appropriate solution for the Danubis management
ˇ Guidelines and SOPs for Danubis available, experts trained in Danubis use
ˇ Fully developed operational national units; improved knowledge in the use of the tools made available by the system
Outcomes:
ˇ Management of information for the ICPDR on work to manage the DRB enhanced for 130 experts involved in the ICPDR (Secretariat,
national experts working on ICPDR expert groups etc.) by the improvement of the DANUBIS information system as evidenced by an
expansion of the information available as well as the use of the system (from 1500 hits per month in 2002 to 8,000 hits per month in
2006)
ˇ Increased public awareness of DRB problems, issues and solutions (including initiatives of the ICPDR, NGOs etc.) due to an improved,
more user-friendly ICPDR and project web sites respectively as evidenced by an increase in hits to the web pages from 1000 hits per
month in 2002 to 8,000 hits per month in 2006.
DRP TE Annex
26
PCU Completion report:
Activity Outputs
Outcomes
Quantitative
Indicators
Danubis
> Upgrade, training,
> Improved information
> Training on the Danubis users provided at central
hardware/software for
management and
level 25 persons and at national level 11 countries
ICPDR data
improved access to
12 experts trained in each.
management system
technical information by
> 630 registered users
countries
> 18,000 hits / month average in (Sept 05-Sept06)
> Upgrade of the Danubis at the central level 1 new
server; Change of the platform for the System; open-
source system implemented and national level 36
PC sets provided to countries.
> Concept for Restructuring of the internal area of the
ICPDR Info system prepared.
Evaluation Findings:
Output 2.4 concerns DANUBIS, the information database managed by the ICPDR. Expectations were that the DRP would assist by
providing recommendations on the restructuring of DANUBIS, help to develop standard operating procedures and guidelines, and help to
ensure that each of the countries has staff that are proficient at using and imputing into the system.
A significant upgrade of DANUBIS has been achieved, both with respect to hardware and site architecture. Notably, the facility has been
made more user-friendly. At project end, training has taken place, recommendations for system upgrades have been provided, there are
630 registered users and web hits have increased five-fold from 2001 to 2005, with an average of 18,000 hits per month from
September 2005 September2006. There is widespread support and appreciation of DANUBIS, which is considered a valuable tool by
members of ICPDR EGs and NGOs.
DRP TE Annex
27
2.5: DANUBE BLACK SEA MOU IMPLEMENTATION
Objective 2: Capacity building and reinforcement of
Phase 1 Results:
transboundary cooperation for the
> TOR of the Joint Working Group and a Work Program for the
improvement of water quality and
implementation of MOU developed and agreed;
environmental standards in the DRB
> Status indicators to monitor nutrient and hazardous substances transport
Output 2.5: Implementation of the "Memorandum of
from the Danube and change of ecosystem in the Black Sea defined and
Understanding" between the ICPDR and
agreed upon
the ICPBS relating to discharges of
> Reporting procedure defined and agreed upon
nutrients and hazardous substances to
> The work of Joint Technical WG re-established and regular meeting held
the Black Sea
Budget Phase 1
Budget Phase 2
Total Budget Phase 1 & 2:
ˇ $12,558
ˇ Planned: $131,700
ˇ $100,974
ˇ Actual: $88,416
Expected End of Project Results:
Outputs
ˇ Working Programme applied
ˇ Final indicators defined and agreed upon
ˇ Reports in line with procedure available in time
ˇ Joint actions discussed and approved
ˇ Analytical Report on achievements and synergies of the Strategic Partnership
ˇ Meeting report and recommendations
Outcomes:
ˇ Joint policy-making framework established and functioning in DRB and Black Sea region for reduction of discharges of nutrients and
hazardous substances into the Black Sea.
DRP TE Annex
28
PCU Completion report:
Activity Outputs
Outcomes
Quantitative
Indicators
JTWG
> Re-establishment of
> Improved co-operation
> 4 Annual JTWG meetings organized since 2002
JTWG
between Danube and Black
> List of indicators
Sea Commissions
agreed
> Better understanding of
> First report on impact
impact of Danube on Black
of Danube on Black
Sea
Sea released
> Improved implementation
of MoU
GEF D/BS
> Stocktaking Meeting
> Mid-course correcting
> D-BS Strategic Partnership Stocktaking meeting
Strategic
(STM)
measures to streamline
organized in 2004, with participation of 80 high level
Partnership
> STM recommendations
the implementation of the
country representatives of the ICPDR, BSC, GEF,
Stocktaking
to the DRP, BSERP
Strategic Partnership;
UNDP and other experts
Meeting
and WB NRIF to
> Development of the Progress
assure meeting
Report to the GEF Council on
Partnership objectives
the D/BS Strategic
Partnership.
Evaluation Findings:
Implementation of the Danube Black Sea MOU is included as Output 2.5. Expectations were that this effort would enable a joint
policy-making framework to be established and functioning in the DRB and Black Sea region for reduction of discharges of nutrients and
hazardous substances into the Black Sea.
Achievements (jointly with the BSERP) include the re-establishment of the joint technical working group, which held four annual meetings
since 2002. There was also a Danube Black Sea Strategic Partnership Stocktaking meeting organized in 2004, with participation of 80
high-level country representatives of the ICPDR, BSC, GEF, UNDP and other experts. Close association of the DRP and BSERP efforts was
greatly enhanced at the end of 2004 with the decision to appoint the DRP CTA as overall manager of both projects.
DRP TE Annex
29
2.6: CAPACITY BUILDING AND TRAINING
Objective 2: Capacity building and reinforcement of
Phase 1 Results:
transboundary cooperation for the
> Capacity building training for the ICPDR EG Chairs and Secretariat
improvement of water quality and
on Facilitation Skills
environmental standards in the DRB
> Training Needs Assessment
Output 2.6: Training and consultation workshops for
> Workshops on EU WFD Implementation at national level for expert,
resource management and pollution control
policy makers/ senior ministry officials in Moldova, Serbia and
with particular attention to nutrient reduction
Montenegro
and transboundary issues
Budget Phase 1
Budget Phase 2
Total Budget Phase 1 & 2:
ˇ $367,061
ˇ Planned: $291,067
ˇ $803,144
ˇ Actual: $427,070
ˇ Pending: $9,013
Expected End of Project Results:
Outputs
> Workshops on EU WFD Implementation
> Training Programmes at national level and ICPDR level designed, implemented and results reported
> Harmonisation and streamlining the ICPDR Reporting and Information collection needs in line with EU directives and national
obligations
> Exit strategy prepared and implemented
Outcomes:
> Key Danube institutions (e.g. ICPDR) that are managing the DRB enhanced via the building of capacities of 130 experts involved in
ICPDR expert groups, ICPDR Secretariat etc.
> Essential Danube stakeholder groups strengthened in their abilities to reduce pollution due to increased capacities of 300
stakeholder representatives (e.g. environmental NGOs, wetland managers, municipal authorities, agricultural extension service
reps., industrial operators etc.)
> ICPDR and its structures are strengthened and the results of the project are sustainable
DRP TE Annex
30
PCU Completion report:
Activity Outputs Outcomes
Quantitative
Indicators
Training,
> Wide range of
> Strengthened
> Capacities of the ICPDR EG Chairs and Secretariat
meetings
capacity building
capacity of all ICPDR
strengthened through a Training on Facilitation Skills, 35
etc
workshops and
working structure
persons participated
Danube Basin
> Increased
> Workshop on Further future of the ICPDR supported the
management
understanding and
development process of the Commission, 65 country
meetings supported
co-operation
representatives participated
between CPs
> Workshops on EU WFD Implementation at national level
> Streamlining /
have strengthened capacities of experts in 4 countries -
restructuring of
policy makers/ senior ministry officials in MD, SM and BiH,
ICPDR PS, EGs, work
RO, in total 80 experts participated
plans etc. completed
> Support for 11 countries to participate at the regular ICPDR
EG meeting provided, 80-100 persons supported per year
Evaluation Findings:
Output 2.6 consists of activities focused on capacity building and training. In particular under this output, the project provided support
for 11 of the Danube countries to participate at regular ICPDR EG meetings with 80-100 persons supported per year. Additional
workshops were held for capacity building of EG Chairs and the Secretariat, workshops on the implementation of the WFD, and a
workshop to discuss the post-DRP future activities of the ICPDR.
These activities were successfully completed and have enhanced regional collaboration, especially as regards WFD implementation. Apart
from providing technical assistance to experts and officials responsible for implementation, they also served to inform the general public
about WFD, an important consideration in the non-EU and non-accession countries.
The Expert Group meetings, in contrast to Regional Activity Centres for example, provide an excellent mechanism for achieving regional
collaboration along thematic lines. Financial support from the DRP ensured that experts from every DRB country could attend ICPDR EG
meetings. Thus, each country had the opportunity to contribute to discussions and planning about pollution and water management
issues, as well as to learn from other experts in the region. For most countries, the funding decreased over time. However, country
ownership in the process was deemed vital, and all but a few nations have maintained full participation at their own expense. Moreover,
they have agreed to sustain ICPDR EG participation. The means to support financially the continued attendance of experts from a couple
of countries is being explored.
DRP TE Annex
31
Objective 3: STRENGTHENING OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION MAKING AND REINFORCEMENT OF COMMUNITY
ACTIONS FOR POLLUTION REDUCTION AND PROTECTION OF ECOSYSTEMS
OBJECTIVE 3 SOUGHT TO RAISE SIGNIFICANTLY THE PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, BY ACTIVELY ENGAGING CIVIL SOCIETY. THE VERIFIABLE
INDICATORS ESTABLISHED WERE TO HAVE A SELF-SUSTAINING DANUBE ENVIRONMENTAL FORUM AND FOR 80% OF ALL OF THE SMALL
GRANTS PROJECTS RUN THROUGH THE DRP TO SHOW SUSTAINABLE RESULTS.
3.1: NGO NETWORK REINFORCEMENT - DEF
Output 3.1: Support for institutional
Phase 1 Results:
development of NGOs and
> DEF Secretariat established and fully operational
community involvement
> Strategy for DEF Development and Final Work-plan completed
> DEF Media and Communication Strategy prepared
> Directory of DEF NGO members developed
> DEF newsletter established and then published bi-annually
> DEF Board Meetings (bi-annually)and General Assembly (annually) held
> DEF Public Participation strategy established
> DEF email exchange network established
> DEF Web-page expanded and translated into different national languages
> Training materials on Wetland Rehabilitation and Nutrient Reduction finalized in English
and in 9 national languages
> National Training Workshops held in 11 countries
> DEF brochure prepared in English and in 11 national languages
> Preparations for the Publication on DRB Environmental Issues
> Training Materials prepared
> Training of Trainers workshop implemented
Budget Phase 1
Budget Phase 2
Total Budget Phase 1 & 2:
ˇ $288,802
ˇ Planned: $413,480
ˇ $713,833
ˇ Actual: $405,031
ˇ Pending: $20,000
DRP TE Annex
32
Expected End of Project Results:
Outputs
> The DEF Secretariat is fully operational and able to support the national NGOs in administrative and organizational matters
> Financially sustainable DEF network able to fully operate effectively
> Training workshops conducted; appropriate documentation of results broadly disseminated
> Appropriate publications published and disseminated to key stakeholders
> Training courses conducted; and cooperation between NGOs is strengthened
Outcomes:
> Community involvement increased through an expanded and strengthened network (from 30 NGO organizations as members in 2002
to over 200 NGO organizations as members in 2006) to undertake awareness raising and pollution reduction activities in 11 DRB
countries;
> Sustainable operation of the DEF Secretariat achieved , leading the further expansion and effectiveness of the network;
> Active involvement of DEF members in policy development and pollution reduction activities assured through partnerships with DRB
governments (e.g. activities to involve the public in DRB Management Planning process in the frame of the EU Water Framework
Directive etc.)
DRP TE Annex
33
PCU Completion report:
Activity Outputs Outcomes
Quantitative
Indicators
DEF support
> Capacity
> Improved structure of
> Water policy teams created, to participate in EU WFD
building and
DEF
Implementation also at national leve
practical
> Participation of the
> DEF members participated regularly in ICPDR expert group
assistance on
DEF in the WFD
meetings
`identity'
implementation
> Training material on `Wetlands and Nutrient reduction' prepared,
provided to DEF
process
training provided in 11 countries with participation of 15 experts
> Extended membership
per country
> Increased capabilities
> Wetlands book produced
to undertake outreach
> Training manual available in 5 languages Network strengthened
and awareness raising
175 NGOs
activities
> National focal points in 11 countries active
> Increased capabilities
> 2 DEF bulletins regularly published per year also in other Danube
to respond to
languages
environmental issues
> DEF press releases regularly printed in National media
in the Danube river
> New branding and designed communication tools and DEF web-site
basin
Evaluation Findings:
Output 3.1 focused on reinforcing the Danube Environmental Forum, a regional NGO network that had been developed during the previous
GEF Danube project.
The outcomes have generally been attained. The DEF was successfully re-activated during the DRP and played very useful roles as an
ICPDR observer, a vehicle for public awareness raising and helping NGOs across the region to participate in the small grants programme.
The DEF has formulated a Water Policy Team, and members participated in both WFD implementation and ICPDR EGs.
One role of DEF is to serve as a bridge between ICPDR and the public. This is achieved through their help with communications: leaflets,
newsletters, and brochures in national languages (translations and revisions for the general public are based on DRP and ICPDR
communications materials). DEF also played an active role in promoting and organising Danube Day in some countries.
DEF had active participation at the national level in execution of Objective 3.4, serving as a member of the inter-sectoral working group
charged with developing a national implementation strategy. DEF members were also deeply involved in the small grants effort under DRP,
with some DEF members being awarded SGP projects
DRP TE Annex
34
3.2: SMALL GRANTS PROGRAMME
Objective 3: Strengthening of public
Phase 1 Results:
involvement in
> Inception Report / Work Plan submitted, stakeholder platform established
environmental decision
> Structure of the grant programme designed
making and reinforcement
> Regional Grant (1st call) Announcement Prepared and Announced
of community actions for
> Regional
Grants
Concepts submitted, assessed and selected for proposal phase
pollution reduction and
> Report on Evaluation of Regional Grants Proposals submitted including Projects
protection of ecosystems
selected in First Call
Output 3.2: Applied awareness raising
> National Grant (1st call) Announcement Prepared and Announced
through community based
> National Grants Concepts submitted, assessed and selected for proposal phase
"Small Grant Program"
> Report on Evaluation of National Grants Proposals submitted including Projects
selected in First Call
Budget Phase 1
Budget Phase 2
Total Budget Phase 1 & 2:
ˇ $121,920
ˇ Planned: $1,996,350
ˇ $1,738, 620
ˇ Actual: $1,828,732
ˇ Pending $-212,032
Expected End of Project Results:
Outputs
> Completed regional small grant demonstration projects
> Report on results of 1st call including recommendations
> Follow-up
programme
implemented
> Dissemination activities implemented
> Completed national small grant demonstration projects
> Report on results of 1st call including recommendations
> Follow-up
programme
implemented
> Dissemination activities implemented
Outcomes:
> Awareness of nutrient pollution and toxic substance problems in the DRB and involvement of DRB communities in 11 DRB countries
enhanced via 120 national small grant funded projects led by national environmental NGOs and 12 regional small grant projects
DRP TE Annex
35
involving 35 NGOs working on transboundary problems;
PCU Completion report:
Activity Outputs
Outcomes
Quantitative
Indicators
Small
> 130 small grants
> Capacity of NGOs to
> 6 regional and 58 national projects implemented
Grants
successfully
prepare proposals and to
within the 1st call, 25 project monitored
programme
implemented and
undertake project
> 6 regional and 56 national within the 2nd call.
completed with clear
enhanced.
deliverables
> Significant increased
awareness within
stakeholders and broader
public on environmental
issues
Evaluation Findings:
ˇ In Output 3.2, two calls for projects were held, in 2004 and 2006. All told, 120 national small grant funded projects were launched, led
by national environmental NGOs. There were also 12 regional small grant projects carried out involving 35 NGOs working on
transboundary problems. The DRP utilized the management services of the Regional Environmental Centre (Hungary) to administer the
SGP.
ˇ The SGP has been a very successful project component, and in many case cost-effective due to the enthusiasm of the NGOs concerned
and their ability to raise co-funding. There was strong support amongst the participating NGOs and other stakeholders for the
opportunity afforded by the small grants effort, and also for the manner in which it was managed by the DRP and the Regional
Environmental Centre (REC). The DRP commissioned a review after the second set of small grants projects that assessed a subset of
projects, and indicated a great many successful outcomes and the prevalence of public awareness raising activities over technical
studies. The independent assessment of the small grants programme was not extensive enough to determine to what extent the DRP
met its indicator of 80% of the projects showing sustainable results. At this stage it is still too early to see the full benefits as the small
projects are like throwing a stone in a pond the ripples spread out from the centre. Small projects in one village were noticed by
surrounding communities, generally with the desire to replicate the effort. National attention was achieved for some projects.
DRP TE Annex
36
3.3: COMMUNICATION AND PUBLIC AWARENESS
Objective 3: Strengthening of public involvement in
Phase 1 Results:
environmental decision making and
> DRB Communication Strategy developed;
reinforcement of community actions for
> Branding of DRP and new Web-page developed;
pollution reduction and protection of
> Preparations for a campaign on EU Water Framework Directive
ecosystems
implementation in the DRB made;
Output 3.3: Organization of public awareness raising
> Brochure on the DRP produced;
campaigns on nutrient reduction and
> Several editions of Danube Watch produced;
control of toxic substances
> Report: Communication Strategy
> Report: Assessment of the Danube Watch
Budget Phase 1
Budget Phase 2
Total Budget Phase 1 & 2:
ˇ $116,587
ˇ Planned: $938,533
ˇ $1,190,708
ˇ Actual:$1,021,273
ˇ Pending: $33,920
Expected End of Project Results:
Outputs
> Public Awareness Raising Plan and Media Action Plan implemented;
> Trainers and facilitators trained for organizing awareness raising campaigns;
> Public awareness is increased through conduct of national workshops (special attention to key DRB issues e.g. accidental pollution
and prevention);
> Public Awareness materials produced, public awareness raised;
> Publications in public press and mass media (journals, posters, leaflets, articles in mass media, www- info, TV);
> Assessment of effectiveness of materials produced;
> Articles in regular journals or special issues to disseminate information in the DRB and to the international public in English and /or
national languages;
> Media and communication network established;
> Training courses on communication and media held and capacities enhanced;
DRP TE Annex
37
Outcomes
> Awareness of public in overall DRB on the importance of pollution reduction and environmental challenges has been enhanced
through targeted communication activities and campaigns (farmers, municipalities, wetland mangers, environmental NGOs, etc. );
> Increase involvement of DRB Stakeholders in water management and pollution reduction activities;
> Increased capacities of Stakeholders to use communication and media to raise public awareness on importance of water
management and pollution reduction;
> Danube Day has been established as an annual event and a platform to raise awareness on pollution control in 13 Danube
countries. An estimated 1 million people have been actively participating in Danube Day activities throughout the region during the
last years.
> ICPDR has become a public oriented institution through enhanced quality of communication and by using awareness raising tools
and sustainable means of communication as the Danube Watch Magazine and the web-page.
PCU Completion report:
Activity Outputs Outcomes
Quantitative
Indicators
Communications
> Danube watch
> Improved understanding
> 10 issues of the Danube Watch published with DRP
support
of public outreach within
support
> Public Participation
ICPDR and NGOs
> 4 campaigns on Wetlands, detergents, BAP (SLO,
Strategy
> Improved public outreach
CRO, SK
> Campaigns on
by ICPDR
> Danube Day Events in 2005, 2006 in 13 countries
wetlands, detergents,
> Broadened public
> 100 articles in regional and international media
BAP
participation
> DRP fact sheets on 5 main themes > 40 Fact
> Branding of ICPDR /
> Increased awareness on
Sheets
DRP
nutrients and pollutions
> Over 70 workshops organised by DRP with over
> Communication
by all stakeholders
1700 participants (plus events organised by
strategy
> Improved capacity of
contractors on components)
> Media training
ICPDR PS on media
> 2 DRP/ICPDR Posters and roll-ups and 2 Brochures
on Public participation and Danube Analysis
> Delivery of '15 years of Managing the Danube River
Basin 1991- 2006
DRP TE Annex
38
Evaluation Findings:
The DRP achieved its objectives with respect to Output 3.3 on communications and public awareness. The list of activities and
achievements is impressive, with over 100 articles in the regional and local media, more than 70 workshops organised bringing
together more than 1700 participants, and promotion of the annual Danube Day, which grows in stature and public interest across all 13
Danube countries. Although the direct impact of many DRP products (Danube Watch and Fact Sheets) has been limited, notably due to
language issues, NGOs in the region make use of the material - translating and rewriting in a more simplified manner for public
dissemination in various national languages. DRP is commended on the scope and variety of seminars and workshops that have been
undertaken with considerable enthusiasm. The various sessions have been aimed at a range of experts, stakeholders and the public.
Penetration into civil society has been successful when NGOs have been closely involved (e.g. small grants programme and component
3.4).
DRP TE Annex
39
3.4: PUBLIC ACCESS TO INFORMATION
Objective 3: Strengthening of public involvement in environmental decision
Phase 1 Results:
making and reinforcement of community actions for pollution
No activities indicated for Phase 1
reduction and protection of ecosystems
Output 3.4: Enhancing Support of Public Participation in Addressing Priority
Sources of Pollution ("hot spots") through Improved Access to
Information in the Frame of the EU Water Framework Directive
Budget Phase 1
Budget Phase 2
Total Budget Phase 1 & 2:
ˇ $247,430
ˇ Planned: $1,987,942
ˇ $2,213,794
ˇ Actual: $1,707,037
ˇ Pending: $259,327
Expected End of Project Results:
Outputs
> Needs Assessment Report
Project Component 3.4 Implementation Plan
> National and operational Teams for Public Participation established at respective national levels
> Improved structures for information provision, appropriate legal framework established, tools developed and capacities to provide
access and/or to demand access, enhanced
> Local demonstration project implemented and project reports submitted;
> Clarified linkages to or help to establish a, national level public participation strategy
> Mechanism for disseminating information established
> Regional level workshops held
> Information material produced
Outcomes:
> Access to Information on DRB hot spots improved in 5 DRB countries through increased capacities of 100 governmental officials and
100 key stakeholders (environmental NGOs etc.) as well as through the appropriate legal frameworks and tools for providing
information that were developed;
> Pollution reduction processes initiated at 5 hot spots via the conducting of 5 pilot projects that were agreed with the respective key
stakeholders for each site based on improved access to information.
DRP TE Annex
40
PCU Completion report:
Activity Outputs
Outcomes
Quantitative
Indicators
Access to
> 5 pilot projects
> Strengthened capacity of
> Five Pilot projects with country specific outputs
Information /
with manuals and
countries to implement
> Participation of 20 governmental and 10 NGO
Aarhus
training workshops
Aarhus convention
representatives at two study tours (USA & NL)
Convention
on access to
> Enabling countries to better
> Two basin-wide workshops with participation of 90
environmental
provide environmental
country representatives
information
information to stakeholders
> Final workshop with 60 participants from all Danube
improving public participation
countries
Evaluation Findings:
The public participation effort (Output 3.4) involves enhancing public participation to address Priority Sources of Pollution ("hot spots")
through improved access to information in the frame of the EU WFD. Expected deliverables by project end included a needs assessment
report, national and operational teams for public participation established at respective national levels, improved structures for
information provision, appropriate legal framework established, tools developed and capacities to provide access and/or to demand
access, enhanced; and local demonstration projects implemented and project reports submitted.
Five pilot projects were managed, with manuals and training workshops developed for each, two study tours were held (US and
Netherlands), two basin-wide workshops were carried out including 90 country representatives, and a final workshop was held
An implementation plan was the subject of some concern early on for the DRP and ICPDR because of its comparatively high cost and
independent status. This component was an add-on to the DRP and the project implementation was not always smooth. Management
devolved to REC International, with the advantage of having access to their NGO network, but with the disadvantage of high overhead
costs. The agreement during the second phase to refocus towards implementation of the EU WFD (as well as the Aarhus Convention)
brought this effort into alignment with the rest of the DRP
The overall impression in the region is that the Objective has been met. Although implementation would be an obligation under the
Aarhus Convention, the DRP facilitated the process, notably in countries where there was no prior experience in this domain. In Bulgaria
and Romania, the DRP managed to achieve successful collaborations between government and NGOs. Positive benefits have been the
production of manuals for government use and brochures for NGOs and the general public on how to go about getting access to
information and becoming involved in environmental decision-making. Much more information is accessible on the Internet in these
countries, following assistance with Web Site development. Reactions from the beneficiaries to the manuals that were developed on
public access, and to the pilot activities undertaken, have been very favourable. In particular, the work done in the pilot for Bosnia-
Herzegovina has been highlighted as providing useful guidance to the government and improved access to the public.
DRP TE Annex
41
Objective 4: REINFORCEMENT OF MONITORING, EVALUATION AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS TO CONTROL TRANSBOUNDARY POLLUTION,
AND TO REDUCE NUTRIENTS AND HARMFUL SUBSTANCES
OBJECTIVE 4 WAS TO BE VERIFIED THROUGH A "CONSIDERABLE" INCREASE IN KNOWLEDGE ON SEDIMENTATION, TRANSPORT AND
REMOVAL OF NUTRIENTS AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES, AND ACCEPTANCE AT NATIONAL AND REGIONAL LEVELS OF ECONOMIC
INSTRUMENTS TO ENCOURAGE INVESTMENT FOR NUTRIENT REDUCTION. SPECIFIC VERIFICATION SOURCES INCLUDE PROJECTS AND
MEASURES IN PLACE TO REDUCE TOXIC SUBSTANCES IN THE IRON GATES RESERVOIR, AND ENDORSED WETLANDS MANAGEMENT
PROGRAMS.
4.1: INDICATORS
Output 4.1: Development of indicators for project
Phase 1 Results:
monitoring and impact evaluation
> Scoping Paper outlining all elements to be considered in developing the
DRB M and E system
> Framework for a general system of indicators including GEF system of:
Process, stress reduction, environmental status as well as other relevant
indicator systems (WFD, DPSIR etc.)
> Framework for impact indicators (process, stress reduction,
environmental status) to evaluate environmental effects of policy and
programme implementation
Budget Phase 1
Budget Phase 2
Total Budget Phase 1 & 2:
ˇ 38,874
ˇ Planned: $99,000
ˇ $86,285
ˇ Actual: 47,411
ˇ Pending:
Expected End of Project Results:
Outputs
> M & E System established and progress measured and analyzed
> Information on progress in implementation
> Progress monitoring system established and indicators applied
> Manuals for M&E and application of indicators existing in national languages
DRP TE Annex
42
Outcomes:
> Status of DRB environment as well as progress and impacts of interventions (especially the UNDP/GEF DRP) monitored by
comprehensive, tested and functioning system of indicators for monitoring and evaluation at project level and policy compliance in
the 13 DRB countries.
PCU Completion report:
Activity Outputs
Outcomes
Quantitative
Indicators
Indicators
> Agreed and adopted
> Indicators available to
> Set of 35 indicators developed and agreed with
list of indicators (P,
ICPDR to evaluate
ICPDR
SR and E) by DRP and
progress on core activities
> 14 indicators tested and evaluated
ICPDR tested and
in accordance with DRPC
evaluated
Evaluation Findings:
The objective in Output 4.1 was to develop a set of indicators for project monitoring and evaluation. Expected outcomes included: M & E
System established and progress measured and analyzed; information on progress in implementation; progress monitoring system
established and indicators applied; and manuals for M&E and application of indicators existing in national languages. In the end, a set of
35 indicators were developed and agreed with the ICPDR and 14 indicators were tested and evaluated.
The indicators effort was problematic, in that the initial expectations were to have indicators developed early on in the project that could
then be used to gauge project success. Unfortunately, the effort to identify indicators during the DRP first phase got bogged down in a
somewhat academic comparison of UNDP and EU indicator requirements. During the second phase, a set of 35 indicators was developed.
The late date of development and sizeable number of indicators has left some DRP country participants with the view that the indicators
exercise did not achieve expectations and will be of limited future use.
A final report was produced at the end of the project lifetime. An obvious comment about the report is the lack of information that was
available for the indicators chosen. In many cases, the report provides a snapshot of the situation only in 2005. In this context, it is
difficult to use the indicators to evaluate the success or failure of the project to achieve objectives. However, the recommendations
therein (page 40-41) do illustrate what is needed in order to have and utilise an effective set of indicators to measure project
effectiveness. For example, a core list of indicators has to be agreed at the start of the project. Importantly, suitable data and
information has to be collected systematically from the beginning of the project. For process indicators and some stress reduction
indicators, regular and structured consultations of stakeholders should be organized, possibly every three years using questionnaires.
However, a mechanism has to be developed in order to receive enough responses to allow statistical analysis. Possibilities are: (1) to
give an incentive to the respondents, (2) make returning of questionnaires conditional to the receipt of grants (for NGOs only), (3)
distribute questionnaires during meetings or conferences and not through the web.
DRP TE Annex
43
4.2: ANALYSIS OF IRON GATES SEDIMENTS
Objective 4: Reinforcement of monitoring, evaluation
Phase 1 Results:
and information systems to control
> No actions taken during Phase 1
transboundary pollution, and to reduce
nutrients and harmful substances
Output 4.2: Analysis of sediments in the Iron Gate
reservoir and impact assessment of heavy
metals and other dangerous substances
on the Danube and the Black Sea
ecosystems
Budget Phase 1
Budget Phase 2
Total Budget:
ˇ $0
ˇ Planned: $120,000
ˇ $106,085
ˇ Actual: $103,575
ˇ Pending: $2,510
Expected End of Project Results:
Outputs
> Report on the contents of heavy metals, nutrients, silicates and the dangerous substances
> List and assessed quantities of dangerous substances
> Report on the environmental impacts on the Danube and the Black Sea
> Draft
forecast
> List of recommendations containing adequate measures
> List of recommended measures for the JAP
> Specific monitoring programme
Outcomes:
> The understanding of the impacts on Danube River and Black Sea ecosystem and potential risks of hazardous substances, nutrients
and silicates in Iron Gate reservoir sediments increased and programmes developed.
DRP TE Annex
44
PCU Completion report:
Activity Outputs
Outcomes
Quantitative
Indicators
Iron Gate
> Agreed assessment
> Improved knowledge and
> Assessment of the quality of Iron Gate Sediment
Sediments
(RO, RS) on quality of
co-operation between RO
Iron Gate Sediments
and RS to address the
future challenge of the
Iron Gate reservoir
Evaluation Findings:
Output 4.2 sought to analyse the iron gates sediments. An assessment was carried out using regional expertise.
This output can be considered a success in that it exemplifies effective collaboration amongst Romania, Hungary and Serbia. The project
started with a data review focussing on the EU 33 priority substances, establishing that only limited data were available. The three
countries conducted a survey, collecting surface sediments and six cores. Split analyses were undertaken, whereby measurements were
made in all three countries. Many more data were obtained for a wide range of contaminants that had not previously been measured.
However, some scientific questions remain, notably to characterise and quantify the apparent nutrient pump effect by which there is a
seasonal release of nutrients from the sediments. Thus, the sediments act as a temporary reservoir rather than a sink (illustrating the
difference between retention and removal of nutrients).
There are expectations to re-sample the reservoir during the Joint Danube Cruise in the summer 2007. Future work will relate to
determining deposition rates (presently estimated to be 3 cm/year) and measuring organic contaminants.
Although scientific knowledge has improved, it is not clear how the newfound information is going to be translated into environmental
management. The analysis has made all parties recognise the high environmental and financial cost of dredging or flushing the reservoir,
so the overriding sentiment in the region seems to be to do nothing for the next decade or so until the situation becomes more critical.
DRP TE Annex
45
4.3: MONITORING OF WETLANDS
Objective 4: Reinforcement of monitoring, Phase 1 Results:
evaluation and information
> Review of Existing Wetland Projects/Programmes and Respective Monitoring
systems to control
Strategies completed
transboundary pollution, and
> General Guidelines on Methodology for Monitoring Nutrient Removal prepared
to reduce nutrients and
> Pre-selection of Pilot Sites made
harmful substances
> Workshop on Monitoring of Nutrient Removal in Wetlands held
Output 4.3: Monitoring and assessment
> Recommendations for Monitoring in Pilot Areas including Pilot Site Monitoring
of nutrient removal
Programme and mechanism for knowledge exchange
capacities of riverine
> ICPDR expert groups ECO, MLIM, EMIS; WWF, Ramsar Convention, NGOs (DEF);
wetlands
linkages to other similar projects producing useful data, linkage to the 5th EU action
program
Budget Phase 1
Budget Phase 2
Total Budget:
ˇ $72,745
ˇ Planned: $182,313
ˇ $235,207
ˇ Actual: $123,565
ˇ Pending: $38,897
Expected End of Project Results:
Outputs
> Review of Phase 1 Outputs
> Training / Expert Consultation Workshop
> Report on the implementation of monitoring guidance
> Assistance to other Wetlands
> Dissemination
> Draft Action Plan for implementing monitoring guidance across DRB
> Final
Workshop
DRP TE Annex
46
Outcomes:
> Monitoring approaches for assessing nutrient removal in wetlands and floodplains accepted by DRB wetland managers as well as
DRB policy makers and being used;
> Nutrient removal and storage functions of wetlands and floodplains enhanced through agreement on a DRB wetland management
plan.
PCU Completion report:
Activity Outputs
Outcomes
Quantitative
Indicators
Wetlands
> Completion of pilot
> Improved understanding
> Three pilot projects implemented Case studies on
nutrients
projects
of wetland retention of
Nutrient removal capacities of wetlands (Moldova,
> Preparation of
nutrients and
Ukraine, Romania)
guidance document
incorporation of wetlands
> 40 participants from Danube countries participated
on best practices for
in WFD River Basin
at the workshop (joint with Component 1.4)
nutrient retention by
Management Plan through
wetlands
the Programme of
> International
Measures
workshop to share
experiences
Evaluation Findings:
Output 4.3 involves the monitoring of wetlands and especially to consider the nutrient removal capacities of wetlands.
Pilot studies were carried out in Moldova, Ukraine, and Romania. In addition, a manual entitled Technical guidance on the integration of
the nutrient reduction in riverine wetland management was produced in full (148 pages) and as a Summary document (19 pages).
Taking a holistic view of wetlands, the study suggests that it is important step to integrate wetland and river basin management, and to
consider the linkages between all ecosystem functions provided by wetlands.
The investigations suggests that most riverine wetlands play a holding rather than removal role with respect to nutrients, and it is
important to recognise that nutrient retention needs to be seen as an added benefit of wetlands management, beyond the well-accepted
biodiversity and flood control benefits.
DRP TE Annex
47
As noted under Output 1.4, the Final Wetlands Workshop was a successful event that brought together a diverse mixture of 50
participants from IGOs, academia, government agencies and laboratories, as well as international and local NGOs. The presentations
covered topics ranging from policy development and implementation to scientific investigations; methodological developments to wetland
management. Participants included personnel from other IGO sponsored projects (WB, TACIS, WWF, Ramsar) thereby providing a broad
cross-section of current wetland investigations and restoration efforts throughout the Danube region. A network of protected area
managers was founded at this workshop.
Overall, understanding about nutrient retention in the Danube River basin was improved and broadly disseminated. The workshop
brought together relevant scientists and wetland managers from throughout the region. Future application of the information gained will
depend upon its incorporation into the RBM Plan currently under development, bearing in mind the wider benefits of wetland retention
and restoration (conservations values, biodiversity, flood control, etc.), as well as competing interests of the transport industry. It is not
clear to what extent ICPDR will be able to influence wetland management in the DRB, given that some countries see this issue as nature
conservancy rather then water management.
DRP TE Annex
48
4.4: NUTRIENT TRADING
Objective 4: Reinforcement of monitoring, evaluation
Phase 1 Results:
and information systems to control
The project did not have results on this effort during the first phase.
transboundary pollution, and to reduce
nutrients and harmful substances
Output 4.4: Danube Basin study on pollution trading
and corresponding economic instruments
for nutrient reduction
Budget Phase 1
Budget Phase 2
Total Budget:
ˇ $0
ˇ Planned: $164,429
ˇ $203,329
ˇ Actual: 192,132
ˇ Pending: $11,197
Expected End of Project Results:
Outputs
> Analysis and assessment report regarding existing concepts of pollution trading or corresponding economic instruments
> Report on general possibilities for establishing appropriate economic instruments for nutrient reduction in the DRB
> Recommendation for policy creation and for legal framework adjustment
> Proposals for legal and policy changes required
> Report on pollution trading potential and readiness on a country basis
> Principles for definition of discharge quotas on a country basis
> Assessment of general viability of the "pollution trading" concept in the DRB and recommendations to the ICPDR
> Review of economic instruments
> Workshop and workshop report
Outcomes:
> Understanding by policy makers, regulators, polluters and investors of potential of innovative market-based nutrient pollution
control instruments to reduce the nutrient pollution in DRB enhanced.
DRP TE Annex
49
PCU Completion report:
Activity Outputs
Outcomes
Quantitative
Indicators
Nutrient
> Reports and workshop
> Increased awareness of
> Final workshop on nutrient trading
trading
on trading options
alternative means and
>
> Cost-effect nutrient
barriers for nutrient
management options
management by trading
> Reports on nutrient
> Recognition of need for
status within Danube
long-term programme to
River Basin and
evaluate options sharing
impact on NW shelf of
the nutrient burden
the Black Sea
between countries in a
cost-effective way
Evaluation Findings:
The nutrient trading (Output 4.4) was established to conduct a study on pollution trading and to consider corresponding economic
instruments for nutrient reduction. The expected outputs included an analysis and assessment report regarding existing concepts of
pollution trading: policy and legal recommendations; an assessment of the readiness of the region, on a country basis; and the general
viability of the "pollution trading" concept in the DRB. The effort also included a workshop.
The activity was only undertaken during the project second phase and the results did not fully achieve expectations. The effort proved to
be a difficult concept for the Danube countries to embrace and the DRP was unable to make much progress. The study that was
developed by external consultants was useful from a theoretical standpoint, and included lessons learned form other trading efforts.
However, it came up short with respect to assessing the viability of pollution trading in the DRB and it failed to provide recommendations
on how a system could be made operational in the region. During the evaluation some country representatives were negative to the
concept, especially on how the payment process would operate and thinking that it could have a negative consequence of delaying or
curtailing local and national direct financial support towards reducing nutrient emissions.
DRP TE Annex
50
ANNEX 2 TERMS OF REFERENCE
For the independent Final Evaluation of the:
Danube Regional Project
Strengthening the Implementation Capacities for Nutrient Reduction and Transboundary
Cooperation in the Danube River Basin, Danube Phase II 00036337
Introduction & Background
The long-term development objective of this GEF International Waters Project is to
contribute to sustainable human development in the DRB and the wider Black Sea area
through reinforcing the capacities of the participating countries in developing effective
mechanisms for regional cooperation and coordination in order to ensure protection of
international waters, sustainable management of natural resources and biodiversity.
In this context, the GEF Danube Regional Project, as part of the Danube- Black Sea
Strategic Partnership has been addressing water quality issues in the Danube and Black
Sea during the last 6 years.
The overall objective of the Danube Regional Project is to complement the activities of
the ICPDR required to provide a regional approach and global significance to the
development of national policies and legislation and the definition of priority actions for
nutrient reduction and pollution control with particular attention to achieving sustainable
transboundary ecological effects within the DRB and the Black Sea area.
The Danube Regional Project has been facilitating the implementation of the Danube
River Protection Convention and providing a framework for coordination, dissemination
and replication of successful demonstration that are being developed further through
investment projects (World Bank-GEF Partnership Investment Facility for Nutrient
Reduction, EBRD, EU programmes for accession countries etc.).
The specific objective of Phase 1 December 2001 December 2003, was to prepare and
initiate basin-wide capacity-building activities, which was then consolidated in the second
phase of the Project. The second Phase has been implemented from April 2004 to May
2007, building up on the results archived in the first Phase. During the Danube project,
altogether 20 project components with 80 activities have been carried out.
Objectives and scope of the Final evaluation
The objective of the final evaluation is to enable GEF, UNDP, ICPDR, the Government
bodies in the participating countries, and UNOPS to assess the relevance, efficiency,
DRP TE Annex
51
effectiveness, impact and sustainability of the Danube Regional Project. The evaluation
will assess the achievements of the project against its objectives, including a re-
examination of the relevance of the objectives and of 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 overview and lessons learned for the future.
The Final evaluation will address the following issues:
Project design
ˇ relevance of project design within the framework of GEF guidelines and global
concern regarding the Danube river basin;
ˇ appropriateness of the project's concept and design to the current economic,
institutional and environmental situation in the target region;
ˇ contribution of the project to the overall development objective as declared in the
Project Document; and
ˇ the likely sustainability of project interventions;
Project implementation
ˇ general implementation and management of the UNDP/GEF project by the Project
Management in terms of quality of inputs and activities, adherence to workplans
and budgets, major factors which have facilitated or impeded the progress of
project implementation
ˇ adequacy of management arrangements as well as monitoring and backstopping
support given to the project by all parties concerned;
ˇ institutional set-up through the ICPDR and various Expert groups and the degree
to which it has encouraged full involvement of the countries;
ˇ inputs of the Governments of the Thirteen countries at national and local levels;
ˇ responsiveness of project management to changes in the environment in which
the project operates;
ˇ UNOPS and ICPDR execution;
ˇ co-operation among project partners (UNDP/GEF, Project Team, ICPDR, National
Governments and international and national organisations and NGOs. specifically
with regard to the integration and support of ICPDR
Project impact
ˇ achievements of the project against the original objectives, outputs and activities
as detailed in the project document and the Project Implementation plan;
ˇ awareness of the participating countries regarding project outputs;
ˇ level of ownership of the project by the participating countries;
ˇ commitment of countries to support the ongoing project and ICPDR JAP and EU
WFD implementation;
ˇ cost-effectiveness of project;
ˇ public participation and stakeholder involvement in implementation of project
activities;
ˇ likely degree of support from the Countries' Governments in integrating the
project objectives and into their national development programmes and other
related projects, and how well the project fits into their national development
policy;
ˇ impacts on policy and strategy of countries;
ˇ project impact on improving the capacity to prepare and implement collaborative,
targeted and effective efforts for the management of the Danube River Basin
DRP TE Annex
52
ˇ project impact on enhancing inter-agency and inter-ministerial co-operation in
each country and on regional cooperation;
ˇ cooperation among international organisations, NGOs and other stakeholders;
ˇ cooperation with sister projects in the GEF IW portfolio esp. Black Sea Ecosystem
Recovery Project.
ˇ sustainability of the project's impact.
Recommendation and lessons learned
ˇ Provide key lessons learned and identify best practices as well as
recommendations, based on the experience of this project, for the design and
execution of future GEF/UNDP projects;
Methodology
The evaluation will consist of four activities:
ˇ document review
ˇ participation at the Danube Final Seminar (February 2007)
ˇ field visits and
ˇ interviews with individuals who are either affiliated to the project in some way or
who have or might be expected to be impacted by the project.
Document Review
The evaluator(s) shall familiarise themselves with the project through a review of
relevant documents prior to the field visits. These documents include inter alia:
ˇ Project Document, PIP Phase 1 and 2 including log frame
ˇ Specific project reports related to key activities;
ˇ GEF Project Implementation Review (PIR)(APR) from 2002-2006
ˇ Minutes of meetings of Steering Committee and Standing Working Group 2002-
2006 (Ordinary Meetings)
ˇ Mid-term evaluation report
ˇ UNDP Handbook for Programme Managers: Results-Oriented Monitoring and
Evaluation
ˇ DRP Exit Strategy
ˇ Information can also be found at the project web site: www.icpdr.org/undp-drp
Hard copies of selected documents, which are not available through the internet, shall be
sent by courier to the evaluator(s) in advance of the mission.
Participation in Danube Final Seminar
The evaluator(s) shall participate in the Danube Final Seminar to be organised in
Bucharest, Romania 21st and 22nd of February 2007. At this meeting all key
stakeholders will be represented and information and feed-back on implemented project
activities will be given.
DRP TE Annex
53
Field visits
The evaluator(s) will visit the participating countries and stakeholders of all Danube
countries. Timetable and meetings to be organised and decided.
Interviews
The evaluator(s) will carry out interviews with:
ˇ Project Staff
ˇ Experts from ICPDR PS
ˇ Selected members of the ICPDR Steering Committee and Standing Working
Groups
ˇ Selected members of the ICPDR Expert Groups
ˇ Representatives of the relevant NGOs, DEF, REC, etc.
ˇ Other constituencies and stakeholders not directly involved in the project who
may have experienced, or may be expected to experience, its impacts.
Although the independent evaluators should feel free to discuss with the authorities
concerned all matters relevant to their assignment, they are not authorised to make any
commitment on behalf of UNOPS, UNDP or GEF.
Ratings
The terminal Evaluation will include ratings on the following criteria: a) outcomes/
achievement of objectives (the extent to which the project's environmental objectives
were achieved; b) implementation approach, c) stakeholder Participation / public
involvement; d) Sustainability and e) Monitoring & Evaluation.
The ratings will be:
Highly satisfactory
Satisfactory
Marginally Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory and
N/A
Duration and timing of the Evaluation
The evaluation will involve a level of effort of 65 working days, to commence in February
2007 and to be fully completed by May 2007.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Based on the above objectives and methodology, the final evaluation should provide
conclusions and recommendations, including:
ˇ As assessment of the design, implementation and execution of the Danube
Regional Project;
ˇ An assessment of sustainability of outcomes;
DRP TE Annex
54
ˇ A summary of lessons and recommendations, that are supported by the evidence
presented;
ˇ The actual project costs (total and per activity) and actual co-financing used as
well as cost-effectiveness;
ˇ Provide stakeholders with and objective view of how wisely and effectively GEF's
funding for this project was spent;
ˇ Provide key lessons learned and best practices as well as recommendations, based
on the experience of this project, for the design and execution of future
GEF/UNDP projects;
Mission Report
The evaluation mission will complete the Project Evaluation Information Sheet (PEIS)
according to the existing format and produce a report according to the structure outlined
in the UNDP Guideline for Evaluators. In addition, the final report should contain at least
the following annexes:
ˇ Terms of Reference for final evaluation
ˇ Itinerary
ˇ List of meetings attended
ˇ List of persons interviewed
ˇ Summary of field visits
ˇ List of documents reviewed
ˇ Any other relevant material
As the report is the product of an independent evaluation, it is up to the evaluator(s) to
make use of the information provided during the mission. However, the evaluator is
responsible for reflecting any factual corrections brought to his/her attention prior to the
finalisation of the report. Therefore, in order to ensure that the report considers the view
of all parties concerned, is properly understood, and is factually accurate, it is necessary
for the evaluator to submit draft reports to the project, UNDP/GEF and UNOPS. UNOPS
will revert promptly with collective feedback from project partners in order that the
evaluator may finalise the report.
The final version of the evaluation mission report should be submitted in electronic
format (MS Word) and hard copy to UNOPS no later than June 30th.
Composition of the Final evaluation mission
The evaluation will be performed by a team of internationally recruited consultants. The
consultants will have considerable knowledge and experience regarding GEF IW
operational programme, including water legislation, policy, and EU WFD. An excellent
knowledge of river basin management issues and relevant scientific understanding and
in-depth experience of project evaluation techniques, particularly of those projects which
are funded by GEF.
The consultants shall not have been directly involved in the design or implementation of
the project.
DRP TE Annex
55
Contact information
Contact information for DRP, UNOPS and UNDP/GEF:
DRP:
Ivan Zavadsky
Regional Coordinator
UNDP/GEF Danube and Black Sea
Vienna International Centre
D0418, P.O Box 500
A-1400 Vienna, Austria
Tel: +431260605615
Fax: +431260605837
Ivan.Zavadsky@unvienna.org
UNOPS
Andrew Menz, Ph.D
Senior Portfolio Manager
Division for Environmental Programmes
UNOPS
Midtermolen 3
2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
Tel. +45 35 46 7665
Fax. +45 3546 7501
Andrewm@unops.org
UNDP-GEF
Mr. Andrew HUDSON
Principal Technical Advisor International Waters UNDP-GEF
Global Environment Facility
United Nations Development Programme
Room FF-1076
One United Nations Plaza
304E 45th Street
New York, NY 10017, USA
Telephone: +1 212 906 6228
Fax: +1 212 906 6998
E-mail: andrew.hudson@undp.org
DRP TE Annex
56
ANNEX 3: MISSION ITINERARY
Evaluators:
AF: Mr. Alan Fox
SdM: Dr. Stephan de Mora
DATE
Eval. Location
26 March AF & Vienna, Austria:
SdM DRP
Mr. Ivan Zavadsky, Project Manager
Mr. Peter Whalley, Environmental Specialist
Ms. Kari Eik, Information Management
Ms. Marcella Fabianova
Ms. Sylvia Koch
Mr. Paul Csagoly
Ms. Viennelyn Baba
27 March AF & Vienna Austria:
SdM ICPDR
Mr. Igor Liska
Ms. Mihaela Popovici
Ms. Jasmine Bachmann
Mr. Alex Höbart
Ms. Diana Heilmann
Ms. Birgit Vogel
Mr. Philip Weller
28 March AF & Bratislava, Slovakia:
SdM Slovak Hydrometeorological Institute:
Mr. Peter Roncák,
Mr. Boris Minarik, RBM EG
Ms. Jana Poorova, RBM EG
Mr. Eugen Kullman, MA EG
Ekopen
Mr. Tom Owen
Ms. Nora Bartkova
Slovak Water Research Institute
Ms. Emilia Kunikova, PM EG
Ms. Jarmila Markovinská
Slovak Ministry of Environment:
Marián Supek, HoD Slovakia, Director General Ministry of
Environment
Ms. Zdena Kelnarova, Chairperson EMIS EG, Ministry of
Environment
UNDP Regional Office
Mr. Vladimir Mamaev, UNDP
Mr. Juerg Staudenmann, UNDP
Mr. Mish Hamid, IW-Learn
29 March AF & Vienna, Austria:
Wofgang Stalzer, former AT HoD
DRP TE Annex
57
SdM
Dr. Fritz Holzwarth, HoD Germany, former ICPDR President
(2003)
29 March SdM Vienna, Austria:
Ministry of Agriculture
Mr. Helmut Fleckseder, EG RBM, Federal Ministry of
Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management
Ms. Veronika Koller-Kreimel, EG MA, Federal Ministry of
Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management
30 March AF
Brno, Czech Republic
Czech Water Research Institute
Mrs. Eva Sovjakova, Chair, GIS EG
Mrs. Ilja Bernardova, MA EG
Mrs. Darina Remenarova, MA EG
Mr. Stanislav Juran, member of PM EG
Mrs. Milena Forejtnikova
Ms. Doubravka Nedvedova DRPC coordinator for CZ
Mr. ( ) Union of Morava NGOs
2 April
SdM Sofia, Bulgaria:
Ministry of Environment and Water
Ms. Violeta Roiatchka, Ministry of Environment and Water
Ms. Kremena Plamenova, Ministry of Environment and Water
Ms. Denitsa Petrova, Ministry of Environment and Water
Mr. Ivan Kalamerov, Danube River Basin Directorate
Mr. Krasimir Gorchev, Ministry of Environment and Water, EG
PM
Mr. Hristo Kasadzhikov, EG MA, Danube River Basin
Directorate
Ms. Krasimira Bramcheva, EG FP, Danube River Basin
Directorate
Mr. Mihail Mollov, Executive Environment Agency
Ms. Mina Asenova, Executive Environment Agency
Mr. Nikolai Kouyumdzhiev, former HoD Bulgaria, Sofiyskas
Voda
, 3 April
SdM Sofia, Bulgaria
REC Bulgaria
Ms. Maria Velikova, NGO Bulgaria in Europe
Ms. Miglena Todorova, REC Bulgaria
Ms. Desislava Stefanova, Rec Bulgaria
Ms. Navena Pramatarova, Bulgarian National Radio
Ms. Miglena Todorova, Director - REC Bulgaria
Mr. Daniel Popov, Centre for Environmental Information and
Education
Ms. Nelly Miteva, Ecomission 21 Century
Mr. Petko Tsvetkov, More space for rivers and safety for
people
DRP TE Annex
58
11 April
SdM Chinisau, Moldova
Mr. Constantin Mihailescu, Minister of Ecology and Natural
Resources, ICPDR President 2006
Mr. Dimitru Drumea, HoD, Institute of Ecology and Geography
Mr. Phil Weller, ICPDR
Mr. Peter Whalley (DRP)
Ms. Tatiana Belous (EG PM)
State Hydrometeorological Service:
Mr. Gavril Gîlc, Ms. Ludmila Cunican (EG MA)
Ms. Svetlana Stirbu (EG MA)
12 April
SdM Kiev, Ukraine
Mr. Alexei Iarochevitch, EG RBM, Consultant
Ms. Oksana Manturova, EG MA, Institute of Hydrobiology
13 April
SdM Kiev, Ukraine
Mr. Stepan Lyzan, HoD, Deputy Minister of the Environment
Mr. Alexei Iarochevitch, EG RBM
Mr. Iurii, EG MA, Institute of Hydrobiology
Ms. Anna Tsvetkova, EG PP, MAMA-86
16 April
SdM Bucharest, Romania
Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development:
Ms. Ana Drapa
Mr. Valentin Brustur
Mr. Gheroghe Constantin, HoD
Ms. Jula Graziella,
Mr. Teodor Lucian Constantinescu
Mr. Aurel Varduca, EG APC
Mr. Liviu Popescu, EG MA
Mr. Gabriel Cluriac
Ms. Carweu Hawclievici
Ms. Carmen Toader
17 April
SdM Bucharest, Romania
REC Romania
Mr. Lucian Ionescu, Director, REC Romania
Ms. Eliza Teodorescu, Asociatia ALMA-RO
Mr. Emilian Burdusel, Clubul ecologic UNESCO Pro Natura
Ms. Mirela Leonte, Eco Councelling Center Galati, DEF
representative
Ms. Camelia Zamfir, Earth Friends - Galati
18, April
SdM Tulcea, Romania
Wetlands Workshop
Ms. Christina Bratrich, Consultant, WWF-DCP
Mr. Thomas Hein, Consultant, BOKU
Mr. Alexander Zinke, Consultant, Zinke Environment
Consulting
19 April
SdM Tulcea, Romania
Wetlands Workshop
Ms. Petruta Moisi, DEF Focal Point for Romania, DEF Speaker
for the Lower Danube
19 April
AF
New York, USA
DRP TE Annex
59
Ms. Jane Stewart, New York University Law Faculty,
consultant: 3.4
Mr. Ernestine Meijer, environmental lawyer (Holland),
(Conference call)
20 April
AF
Washington DC, USA
Ms. Ruth Greenspan Bell, Resources for the Future
Mr. Al Duda, GEF
23 April
AF & Vienna, Austria
SdM
Mr. Helmut Blöch (EC HoD) via Video conference
24 April
AF
Budapest, Hungary
Ministry of Environment and Water
Ms. Mária Galambos, Ministry of Environment and Water
Ms. Zsuzsa Steindl, EMIS EG, Ministry of Environment and
Water
Mr. Peter Kovacs, RBM EG, Ministry of Environment and Water
Ms. Zsuzsa Buzás, Department of River Basin management.
Ministry of Environment and Water
Dr. Ferenc László, Director of Institute for Water Pollution
Control, Water Resources Research Centre Plc. (VITUKI Plc)
25 April
AF
Karlavac, Croatia
Ms. Tanja, Stepinac, Karlavac ViK
26 April
AF
Zagreb, Croatia
Ministry of Agriculture Forestry and Water Ministry,
Karmen Cerar, International Projects, former RBM-EG
Virovitica, Croatia:
Mr. Darko Grlica, WWF wetlands pilot manager
27 April
AF
Szentendere, Hungary
Regional Environmental Centre:
Ms. Entela Pinguli, SGP Manager, Regional Environmental
Centre (REC)
Ms. Magdolna Toth Nagy, REC public outreach mgr.
Ms. Jovanka Ignjatovic, REC water expert
2-May AF
Vojvodina, Serbia
Vojvodina, Agriculture Pilot Projects
Mr. Goran Pastrovic, consultant to Carl Bro (1.2-3 agriculture)
(farmers)
3 May
AF
Belgrade, Serbia
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management
Directorate of Water
Mr. Miodrag Milovanovic, Deputy Director, Jaroslav Cerni
Institute
Ms. Milica Djuric, international projects, Directorate of Water
4 May
AF
Bosnia - Herzegovina
Ministry for Foreign Trade and Economic Relations
Aleksandra Ploco, DRP B-H country programme manager
Ms. Sabaheta Hafizovi, PM-EG member
Ms. Amra Ibrahimpasi, PM EG member
DRP TE Annex
60
Hazima Hadzovifocal point and RBM EG member
Anisa Cicic, MA EG member
Naida Andeli, Deputy HoD, RBM EG member
B-H Regional Environmental Centre
Inka Persic, REC B&H Grant/Information Manager
Dorde Stefanovic, Deputy Director, REC B&H
DRP TE Annex
61
ANNEX 4: LIST OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED
Secretariat to the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR)
Mr. Igor Liska
Ms. Mihaela Popovici
Ms. Jasmine Bachmann
Mr. Alex Höbart
Ms. Diana Heilmann
Ms. Birgit Vogel
Mr. Philip Weller
UNDP-GEF Danube Regional Project (DRP)
Mr. Ivan Zavadsky, Project Manager
Mr. Peter Whalley, Environmental Specialist
Ms. Kari Eik, Information Management
Ms. Marcella Fabianova
Ms. Sylvia Koch
Mr. Paul Csagoly
Ms. Viennelyn Baba
Ms. Kari Eik
Consultants to the DRP
Mr. Glenn Morris, USA, consultant, 1.6 and 1.7 Tariffs & charges
Mr. Andras Kiss, Hungary, Consultant, 1.6 and 1.7 Tariffs & charges
Mr. Tom Owen, EKOPEN, International Consultant for 1.5 Industrial /
BAT
Ms. Nora Bartkova, EKOPEN
Mr. Goran Pavlovic, Carl Bro - Serbia 1.2 Agriculture pilots
Ms. Jane Stewart, New York University School of Law, Outcome 3.5
expert
Ms. Ruth Greenspan Bell, Resources for the Future, Outcome 3.5
expert
Ms. Christina Bratrich (Consultant, WWF-DCP)
Ms. Ernestine Meijer, environmental lawyer (Holland), (Conference
call)
Mr. Thomas Hein (Consultant, BOKU)
Mr. Alexander Zinke (Consultant, Zinke Environment Consulting
Regional Environmental Centre
HQ - Hungary
Ms. Entela Pinguli, SGP Manager, Regional Environmental Centre
(REC)
Ms. Magdolna Toth Nagy, REC public outreach mgr.
Ms. Jovanka Ignjatovic, REC water expert
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Inka Persic, Grant/Information Manager, REC B&H
Dorde Stefanovic, Deputy Director, REC B&H
Bulgaria
DRP TE Annex
62
Ms. Miglena Todorova, REC Bulgaria
Ms. Desislava Stefanova, Rec Bulgaria
Romania
Mr. Lucian Ionescu, Director, REC Romania
Ms. Eliza Teodorescu, Asociatia ALMA-RO
Mr. Emilian Burdusel, Clubul ecologic UNESCO Pro Natura
Ms. Mirela Leonte, Eco Councelling Center Galati, DEF representative
Ms. Camelia Zamfir, Earth Friends - Galati
Danube Environment Forum (DEF)
Mr. Johannes Wolf, DEF Speaker
Ms. Monika Kovacova, DEF Speaker
Ms. Petruta Moisi, DEF Focal Point for Romania, DEF Speaker for the
Lower Danube
Mr. Daniel Popov, National Focal Point for Bulgaria
United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS)
Mr. Andrew Menz, Principal Portfolio Manager
UNDP-GEF IW
Mr. Al Duda, GEF
Mr. Andrew Hudson, Principal Adviser, UNDP-GEF
Mr. Vladimir Mamaev, UNDP Regional Technical Advisor
Mr. Juerg Staudenmann, UNDP
Mr. Mish Hamid, IW-Learn
European Commission
Mr. Helmut Bloch, DG Env
Austria
Mr. Wolfgang Stalzer, former ICPDR president, former Austria HoD
Mr. Helmut Fleckseder, EG RBM, Federal Ministry of Agriculture,
Forestry, Environment and Water Management
Ms. Veronika Koller-Kreimel, EG MA, Federal Ministry of Agriculture,
Forestry, Environment and Water Management
Bosnia &
Ministry for Foreign Trade and Economic Relations
Herzegovina
Ms. Aleksandra Ploco, DRP B-H country programme manager
Ms. Sabaheta Hafizovi, PM-EG member
Ms. Amra Ibrahimpasi, PM EG member
Ms. Hazima Hadzovifocal point and RBM EG member
Ms. Anisa Cicic, MA EG member
Ms. Naida Andeli, Deputy HoD, RBM EG member
Bulgaria
Ms. Violeta Roiatchka, Ministry of Environment and Water
Ms. Kremena Plamenova, Ministry of Environment and Water
Ms. Denitsa Petrova, Ministry of Environment and Water
Mr. Ivan Kalamerov, Danube River Basin Directorate
Mr. Krasimir Gorchev, Ministry of Environment and Water, EG PM
Mr. Hristo Kasadzhikov, EG MA, Danube River Basin Directorate
Ms. Krasimira Bramcheva, EG FP, Danube River Basin Directorate
Mr. Mihail Mollov, Executive Environment Agency
Ms. Mina Asenova, Executive Environment Agency
Mr. Nikolai Kouyumdzhiev (former HoD Bulgaria, Sofiyskas Voda)
DRP TE Annex
63
Ms. Maria Velikova, NGO Bulgaria in Europe
Ms. Miglena Todorova, REC Bulgaria
Ms. Desislava Stefanova, Rec Bulgaria
Ms. Navena Pramatarova, Bulgarian National Radio
Mr. Daniel Popov, Centre for Environmental Information and Education
Ms. Nelly Miteva, Ecomission 21 Century
Mr. Petko Tsvetkov, More space for rivers and safety for people
Ms. Karmen Cerar, International Projects, former RBM-EG, Ministry of
Croatia
Agriculture Forestry and Water Ministry,
Ms. Tanja, Stepinac, Karlavac ViK
Mr. Darko Grlica, WWF wetlands pilot manager, Virovitica
Czech
Eva Sovjakova, Chair of the GIS EG, Water Research Institute - Brno
Republic
Mrs. Ilja Bernardova, member of MA EG
Mrs. Darina Remenarova, member of MA EG
Mr. Stanislav Juran, member of PM EG
Mrs. Milena Forejtnikova
Ms. Doubravka Nedvedova DRPC coordinator for CZ.
Germany
Mr. Fritz Holzwarth, HoD, Former ICPDR President
Ms. Mária Galambos, Ministry of Environment and Water
Hungary
Ms. Zsuzsa Steindl, EMIS EG, Ministry of Environment and Water
Mr. Peter Kovacs, RBM EG, Ministry of Environment and Water
Dr. Ferenc László, Director of Institute for Water Pollution Control,
Water Resources Research Centre Plc. (VITUKI Plc)
Mr. Constantin Mihailescu, Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources,
Moldova
ICPDR President 2006
Mr. Dimitru Drumea, HoD, Institute of Ecology and Geography
Ms. Tatiana Belous (EG PM)
Mr. Gavril Gîlc, State Hydrometeorological Service
Ms. Ludmila Cunican (EG MA) State Hydrometeorological Service
Ms. Svetlana Stirbu (EG MA) State Hydrometeorological Service
Romania
Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development:
Ms. Ana Drapa
Mr. Valentin Brustur
Mr. Gheroghe Constantin, HoD
Ms. Jula Graziella,
Mr. Teodor Lucian Constantinescu,
Mr. Aurel Varduca, EG APC
Mr. Liviu Popescu, (EG MA
Mr. Gabriel Cluriac
Ms. Carweu Hawclievici
Ms. Carmen Toader
Slovakia
Mr. Peter Roncák, Slovak Hydrometeorological Institute
Mr. Boris Minarik, Slovak Hydrometeorological Institute (RBM EG
Mr. Eugen Kullman, Slovak Hydrometeorological Institute (MA EG)
Ms. Jana Poorova, Slovak Hydrometeorological Institute (RBM EG)
Ms. Emilia Kunikova, Water Research Institute (PM EG)
Ms. Jarmila Markovinska, Water Research Institute
Mr. Marián Supek, HoD Slovakia, Director General Ministry of
Environment
Ms. Zdena Kelnarova, Chairperson, EMIS EG, Ministry of Environment
DRP TE Annex
64
Serbia
Mr. Goran Pastrovic, consultant to Carl Bro (1.2-3 agriculture)
Mr. Miodrag Milovanovic, Deputy Director, Jaroslav Cerni Institute
Ms. Milica Djuric, international projects, Ministry of Agriculture,
Forestry and Water Management Directorate of Water
Ukraine
Mr. Alexei Iarochevitch, EG RBM, Consultant
Ms. Oksana Manturova, EG MA, Institute of Hydrobiology
Mr. Stepan Lyzan, HoD, Deputy Minister of the Environment
Mr. Alexei Iarochevitch, EG RBM
Mr. Iurii, EG MA, Institute of Hydrobiology
Ms. Anna Tsvetkova, EG PP, MAMA-86
DRP TE Annex
65
ANNEX 5: LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
Web Sites
International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR)
http://www.icpdr.org/pls/danubis/danubis_db.dyn_navigator.show
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
http://www.icpdr.org/undp-drp/
Danube Environmental Forum (DEF)
http://www.de-forum.org
The Regional Environmental Center (REC)
http://www.rec.org/
Teras Natural Food Association (NGO) - Serbia and Montenegro
http://www.terras.org.yu
Danube Watch, The Magazine of the Danube River,
Evaluation and Monitoring Guidelines and Manuals
Handbook on Monitoring and Evaluating for Results, United Nations
Development Programme (UNDP), Evaluation Office, June 2002;
Monitoring and Evaluation Policies and Procedures, Global Environment
Facility (GEF), January 2002;
Monitoring and Evaluation Indicators for GEF International Waters Projects,
Monitoring and Evaluation Working Paper 10, Global Environment Facility
(GEF), November 2002;
Integrating Capacity Development into Project Design and Evaluation
Approach and Frameworks, Monitoring and Evaluation Working Paper 5,
Global Environment Facility (GEF), December 2000;
Incremental Costs, GEF/C.7/Inf.5, 29 February 1996;
DRP TE Annex
66
DPR Related Documents:
1. RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT
COMPONENT
DELIVERABLES FINAL REPORTS AND OTHER FINAL PRODUCTS
/ TASK
1.1-5 Danube
GIS Needs Assessment and Conceptual Design* (KTH Royal Institute of
GIS:
Technology; Fredrik Hannerz and Sindre Langaas; 80 pages; 2003)
Developing GIS Final Report on System Definition & Design (Umweltbundesamt; Ingrid
for the Danube
Roder, Doris Riedl, Cordula Goke, Kerstin Placer, and Michael Hadrbolec; 153
River Basin
pages; 2005)
Final Report on Prototyping (Umweltbundesamt; Ingrid Roder, Doris Riedl,
Cordula Goke, Kerstin Placer, and Michael Hadrbolec; 252 pages; 2006)
1.1 RBM:
Stress/ pressure and impact analysis, typology of surface waters and ecological
Analysis for
classification
River Basin
> Ecological Status* (UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project; Mario
Management
Sommerhauser, Sabina Robert, Sebastian Birk, Daniel Hering, Otto Moog,
Planning
Ilse Stubauer, Thomas Ofenbock; 60 pages; 2003)
> Stress and Impact Analysis* (UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project; Otto
Moog and Ilse Stubauer; 79 pages, 2003)
> Typology and ecological classification* (UNDP/GEF Danube Regional
Project; Mario Sommerhauser, Sabina Robert, Sebastian Birk, Daniel
Hering, Otto Moog, Ilse Stubauer, Thomas Ofenbock;97 pages; 2003)
> Economic analysis* (ECO Logic; Eduard Interwies, Britta Pielen, Pierre
Strosser; 78 pages, 2003)
1.1 Roof
Roof Report final version for approval (ICPDR; 191 pages, 2005)
Report:
Roof Report final version for printing (ICPDR, Ursula Schmedtje and
Development of ICPDR; 191 pages, 2005)
the Roof Report
2004 (DRB
Contribution of the DRP to the following chapters of the Roof Report:
District MP)
Hydromorphological Pressures and Impacts / Nutrient Loads and Eutrophication /
Heavily Modified Water Bodies and Artificial Water Bodies / Significant Point and
Diffuse Source of Pollution / Ground Waters / Identification and Characterization
of Water Bodies / Thematic Maps
DRP TE Annex
67
COMPONENT
DELIVERABLES FINAL REPORTS AND OTHER FINAL PRODUCTS
/ TASK
1.1 RBM
Workshops and Trainings reports:
Workshops and
> Assessment of the risk of failure to reach the environmental
Trainings
objectives of the WFD in the Danube River Basin District (3rd
Surface Water Workshop, June 2004)* (IFOK, 16 pages, 2004)
> 2nd Groundwater Workshop on the Implementation of WFD in the
Danube River Basin (2nd GW Workshop, May 2003)*
(Unweltbundesamt; Johanner Grath, Helga Lidninger, Andreas
Scheindleder; 222 pages, 2003)
> "Workshop on "Nutrients as a Transboundary Pressure in the DRB,"
(Jan 2004)* (DaNUbs; Helmut Kroiss, Christoph Lampert, and Matthias
Zessner; 60 pages; 2004)
> Workshop on Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified
Water Bodies in the DRB (Feb 2004)* (ECO Logic; Wenke Hansen,
Eleftheria Kampa; 24 pages; 2004)
> Training courses on River Assessment (Schulung Fliessgewaesser GbR;
Christian K. Feld, Armin Lorenz, Andrea Sundermann; 27 pages, 2006)
1.1 RBM
Final Report River Typologies (UBE; Tanja Pottgiesser, Sebastian Birk; 37
River
pages; 2006)
Typologies:
Comparison of
National
Typologies
1.1-9 Sava
Final report phase 1: Preparation of the Sava RBM Plan* (UNPD/GEF
Pilot RBMP:
Danube Regional Project; prepared by Zinke environment consulting for CEE in
Sava River
Vienna; 35 pages; 2004)
Basin
Concept for the Preparation of the Sava RBM Plan* (UNPD/GEF Danube
management
Regional Project; prepared by Zinke environment consulting for CEE in Vienna;
Plan Pilot
35 pages; 2004)
project
Final Report: Development of Sava River Basin Management Plan Pilot
Project (Hydro Inginieure, Umweltbundesamt, ECO Logic; Alexander Zinke and
Zinke Environemnt Consulting for CEE; F. Humer, E. Kampa, Andreas
Scheidleder, Franko Humer, Alfred Rauchbüchl; 202 pages, 2007)
2.2
River Basin Management Tools: Intercalibration - Technical
Intercallibration Implementation and Communication of the WFD Intercalibration
- River Basin
Exercise in the Danube River Basin (UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project;
Management
Sebastian Birk; 109 pages; 2007)
Tools
DRP TE Annex
68
COMPONENT
DELIVERABLES FINAL REPORTS AND OTHER FINAL PRODUCTS
/ TASK
2.2 MLIM tools: Final report phase 1: Support for TNMN and EMIS Inventory
Development of Harmonization* (Rodeco Consulting GmbH; Paul H.L. Buijs; 455 pages; 2003)
Operational
with the following parts:
Tools for
> Executive
Summary
Monitoring,
> Part I: Orientation on environmental quality standards for nutrients
Laboratory and
and other Danube specific priority substances
Information
management
> Part II: Preparation of a proposal for connection/operational link of
the data collected during the Joint Danube Survey (JDS) into ICPDR
Info System, with attention to biological database
> Part III: Analysis of the results of the EMIS inventory and their
comparison with TNMN and JDS results with particular attention to
the EU Priority List of Pollutants
> Part IV: Development of the Danube List of Priority Substances and
SOPs for newly included determinands
> Part V: Five-years Report on Water Quality in the DRB based on
TNMN
> Part VI: Development of a methodological concept for assessment of
environment stress and impacts as a basis for preparation of a
computer-based application for stress impact analysis
Review and recommendations for upgrade of TNMN report (Environmental
Institute; Jaroslav Slobodnik, Jarmila Makovinska; 73 pages; 2007)
Report on Water quality standards and classification for Nutrients
(Environmental Institute; Paul Buijs; 80 pages; 2006)
Report on Biological database (Environmental Institute; Alex Hoebart; 58
pages; 2007)
4.2 Iron Gates: Final report - Romanian Assessment of Sediments at Iron Gates (ICIM
Sediments
Bucharest; Liviu N. Popescu, Carmen Hamchevici; 42 pages; 2006)
assessment
Report on technical assistance for sediments assessment (VITUKI; Bela
Csanyi, Maria Bihari; 49 pages; 2006)
Iron Gate Sediments Evaluation - Synthesis report (UNDP/GEF Danube
Regional Project; Ferenc Laszlo; 114 pages; 2007)
DRP TE Annex
69
2. AGRICULTURE AND DIFFUSE POLLUTION
COMPONENT
DELIVERABLES FINAL REPORTS AND OTHER FINAL PRODUCTS
/ TASK
1.2&1.3
Final Report- Phase 1: Policies for the Control of Agricultural Point and
Agriculture
Non-point Sources of Pollution & Pilot Projects on Agricultural Pollution
Reduction of
Reduction* (GFA Terra Systems, Avalon; Mark Redman; 24 pages, 2004)
Pollution
Technical Reports*:
Releases
through
> Inventory of Agricultural Non-point Sources of Pollution by
agricultural
Nitrogen and Phosphorus in the Danube Basin (GFA Terra Systems,
Policy change
Avalon; compiled by UNDP/GEF; 20 pages, 2004)
and
> Inventory of Agricultural Pesticide Use in the Danube River
demonstrations
Countries (GFA Terra Systems, Avalon; compiled by UNDP/GEF; 220
by Pilot
pages, 2004)
Projects
> Inventory of Policies for Control of Water Pollution by Agriculture in
the Danube Countries (GFA Terra Systems, Avalon; Jaroslav Prazan,
Mark Redman; 379 pages; 2004)
> Inventory of Agricultural Fertilizer and Manure Use in the Danube
River Countries (GFA Terra Systems, Avalon; compiled by UNDP/GEF;
119 pages, 2004)
> Recommendations for Policy Reforms for the Introduction of Best
Agricultural Practice in Central and Lower Danube Countries (GFA
Terra Systems, Avalon; compiled by UNDP/GEF; 48 pages, 2004)
> Pilot Projects for Promoting Best Agricultural Practice in the Central
and Lower Danube Countries; Concepts and Project Proposals (GFA
Terra Systems, Avalon; Holger Afflerbach; 77 pages; 2004)
> BAP Technical Guidelines for Manure Management in Central and
Lower Danube Countries - English Version (GFA Terra Systems,
Avalon; Mark Redman; 19 pages, 2004)
> BAP Technical Guidelines for Manure Management in Central and Lower
Danube Countries / national versions: Error! Hyperlink reference not
valid. - Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. - Error! Hyperlink
reference not valid. - Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. - Error!
Hyperlink reference not valid.
Workshop on Promoting BAP in the Danube River Basin - Zagreb, October
2003 (GFA Terra Systems, Avalon; 102 pages; 2003)
Workshop on Developing Pilot Projects for the Promotion of BAP in the
Danube River Basin - Bucharest, January 2004 (GFA Terra Systems, Avalon;
28 pages; 2003)
DRP TE Annex
70
COMPONENT
DELIVERABLES FINAL REPORTS AND OTHER FINAL PRODUCTS
/ TASK
Final Report: Reduction of pollution releases through agricultural policy
change and demonstrations by pilot project (Carl Bro; Jesper Ansbaek,
Slobodan Milosevic, Goran Pastrovic, Suzana Djordjevic Milosevic, Gisela Felkl,
Henning Foged; 171 pages; 2007)
Technical Reports:
> Best Agricultural Practice (CarlBro; Suzana Djordjevic-Milosevic,
Henning Lyngso Foged; 31 pages, 2006)
> Analysis of current national legislation on fertilizers, manure and
pesticides (Carl Bro; Jens Skau, Slobodan Milosevic, Jesper Ansbaek,
Gisela Felkl; 26 pages, 2006)
> Review of agrochemical inventories and recommendations fro
reduction the impact of agrochemicals (CarlBro; Gisela Felkl, Jesper
Ansbaek, Slobodan Milosevic; 55 pages, 2006)
> Recommendations for BAP and introduction of concepts for the
application of BAP in lower DRB countries (CarlBro; Jesper Ansbaek,
Henning Foged, Slobodan Milosevic, Gisela Felkl; 35 pages, 2006)
> Detailed work programme for Pilot Project(s) (CarlBro; Henning
Foged; 55 pages, 2006)
More information is available on a CD
4.4 Pollution
Final Report* (Niras; Jens Lonholdt; 218 pages; 2005)
trading: Study
Final Workshop report* (Niras; Jens Lonholdt; 44 pages; 2005)
on economic
instruments for
pollution
reduction
4.4 Pollution
Cost Effective Measure for Agricultural Nutrient Reduction Implemented
trading: Study
by Concerted / Joint Action in the Danube River Basin (Stefan Speck; 12
on economic
pages; 2007)
instruments for
pollution
reduction
phase II
4.4 Pollution
Technical Support on Danube Nutrients (Vienna Institute of Technology;
trading:
Helmut Kroiss, Matthias Zessner, Christoph Lampert; 46 pages; 2007)
Danube
Nutrients
Studies
DRP TE Annex
71
2. INDUSTRY AND MUNICIPAL ACTIVITIES
COMPONENT /
DELIVERABLES FINAL REPORTS AND OTHER FINAL PRODUCTS
TASK
1.5 Industry:
Final report phase 1: Industrial reform and the development of
Industrial Reform
policies and legislation towards the reduction of nutrients and
and Development
dangerous substances*(RAMBOLL; Stanislav Kosina, Tom Owen, Danka
of Policies and
Jassikova-Thalmeinerova; 125 pages; 2004)
Legislation for
application of BAT Final Report Phase 2: Industrial Reform and Development of Policies
towards reduction and Legislation for application of Best Available Techniques towards
of Nutrients and
Reduction of Nutrients and Dangerous Substances (RAMBOLL, Ekopen;
Dangerous
Eleonora Bartkova, Stanislav Kosina, Danka Thalmeinerova, Martina
Substances
Vagacova; 191 pages, 2007)
1.8 Detergents:
Summary Final Report (WRc plc; Helene Horth, Edward Glennie, Lacey-Jane
Recommendations Davis, Pauline Jones, Oana Tortolea; 133 pages; 2006)
for the Reduction
Technical Report of the Stakeholder Seminar (UNDP/GEF Danube
of Phosphorus in
Regional Project; 4 pages; 2007)
Detergents
2.2 DBAM:
Final report phase 1:Development and maintenance of the Danube
Technical
Basin Alarm Model* (Delft Hydraulics; Jos van Gils; 116 pages; 2003)
Assistance to the
Monitoring &
Assessment of TNMN and gap analysis* (Delft Hydraulics; Jos van Gils; 22
Assessment
pages; 2006)
Expert Group
2.3 APC
Final report phase1: Support for the Extension of Accident Risk
Accident Risk
Spots Inventory and Preventive Measures* (ICSS, IABG; Kathrin Werner,
Spots Inventory
Andre Dahn; 212 pages; 2004)
2.3 APC M2
Final report: Development of M2 methodology and check list
methodology:
(Umweltbundesamt; Hermine Weber; 118 pages; 2006)
Activities for
Accident
Prevention -
Development of
M2 methodology /
checklists
2.3 Refineries
Final Report: Pilot Project on Refineries (R+D Indistrie Consult; Ralph von
Pilot Project:
Dincklage, Jorg Platkowski; 31 pages; 2006)
Activities for
An Interactive view of all products is available on a CD
Accident
Prevention / Pilot
Project -
Refineries
DRP TE Annex
72
COMPONENT /
DELIVERABLES FINAL REPORTS AND OTHER FINAL PRODUCTS
TASK
1.6 1.7 Tariffs
Final Reports Phase 1: Assessment and Development of Municipal Water and
and Charges
Waste Water Tariffs and Effluent Charges in the Danube River Basin
The study on
> Volume 1: An Overview of Tariff and Effluent Charge Reform
assessment and
Issues and Proposals* (MAKK; Glenn E. Morris, Andras Kis; 173
development of
pages; 2004)
Water and Waste
> Volume 2: Country-Specific Issues and Proposed Tariff and Charge
Water Tariffs and
Reforms*:
Effluent Charges
> Bosnia I Herzegovina National Profile (64 pages)/ Case
in DRB
Study (53 pages)/ Summary (7 pages) (UNDP/GEF Danube
Regional Project; Ramiza Allic; 2004)
> Bulgaria
National Profile (UNDP/GEF Danube Regional
Project; Galia Bardanrska; 80 pages; 2004)/ Case Study
(Dimitar Tropchev; 54 pages; 2004) , Summary (UNDP/GEF
Danube Regional Project; Dimitar Tropchev; 6 pages; 2004)
> Croatia
National Profile (56 pages)/ Case Study (42
pages) / Summary (8 pages) (UNDP/GEF Danube Regional
Project; Dubravka Mokos and Ivan Klakocer; 2004)
> Czech Republic National Profile (50 pages)/ Case Study
(42 pages)/ Summary (6 pages) (UNDP/GEF Danube Regional
Project; Lenka Camrova, 2004)
> Hungary
National Profile (UNDP/GEF Danube Regional
Project; Gabor Ungvari, Zsuzsanna Mohai; 52 pages; 2004))/
Case Study (UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project; Gabor
Ungvari; 25 pages; 2004) / Summary (UNDP/GEF Danube
Regional Project; Gabor Ungvari; 11 pages; 2004)
> Romania
National Profile (78 pages)/ Case Study (34
pages) / Summary (8 pages) (UNDP/GEF Danube Regional
Project; Victor Platon, Geroge Dulcu; 2004)
> Slovakia
National Profile (35 pages)/ Case Study (33
pages) / Summary (7 pages) (UNDP/GEF Danube Regional
Project; Danka Thalmeinerova; 2004)
ASTEC Model User Guide (UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project; Glenn
Morris, Andras Kis, 47 pages; 2007)
Case study Pitesti (UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project; Glenn Morris,
Andras Kis, Magdalena Dumitru; 84 pages; 2007)
Case study Karlovac (UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project; Glenn Morris,
Andras Kis; 72 pages; 2007)
DRP TE Annex
73
4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
COMPONENT DELIVERABLES FINAL REPORTS AND OTHER FINAL PRODUCTS
/ TASK
3.2 SGP:
Guidelines for National Grants (REC, UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project; 18
Small Grants
pages; 2005)
Programme
Guidelines for Regional Grants (REC, UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project; 22
pages; 2005)
National SGP Announcements (REC, UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project; 15
pages; 2005)
Regional SGP Announcement (REC, UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project; 17
pages; 2005)
Final report 1st round (Regional Environmental Center; Entela Pinguli; 49 pages;
2006)
> Full list of projects (18 pages)
3.2 SGP
Evaluation Mission Report 1st round (Zinke Environmental Consulting;
Evaluation
Alexander Zinke; 24 pages; 2005)
Evaluation Mission Report 2nd round (Zinke Environmental Consulting;
Alexander Zinke; 72 pages; 2007)
3.4 Public
ICPDR Assessment on Public Participation and Observer Status (The
access to
Regional Environmental Center, RESOURCES, NYU Law; E.E. Meijer; 53 pages;
information:
2004)
Enhancing
Inception Report (The Regional Environmental Center, RESOURCES, NYU Law;
Access to
Magda Toth Nagy, Jane B. Stewart, Ernestine Meier, Ruth Greenspan Bell; 210
Information
pages; 2004)
and Public
Participation
1st Progress Report (The Regional Environmental Center, RESOURCES, NYU
in
Law; 41 pages; 2005)
Environmental 2nd Progress Report (The Regional Environmental Center, RESOURCES, NYU
Decision
Law; 98 pages; 2005)
Making
3rd Progress Report (The Regional Environmental Center, RESOURCES, NYU
Law; 25 pages; 2006)
4th Progress and Final Report (The Regional Environmental Center,
RESOURCES, NYU Law; UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project; 48 pages; 2006)
DRP TE Annex
74
5. WETLANDS
COMPONENT
DELIVERABLES FINAL REPORTS AND OTHER FINAL PRODUCTS
/ TASK
1.4 Wetlands:
Final report phase 1: Field and Policy Action for Integrated Land Use in
Integrated
the Danube River Basin Methodology and Pilot Site testing with special
land use and
reference to wetland and floodplain management* (UNPD/GED Danube
wetland
Regional Project; WWF International Danube-Carpathian Programme; 152 pages;
management 2003)
Pilot projects
Field and Policy Action for Integrated Land Use in the Danube River Basin
Methodology and Pilot Site Testing with Special Reference to Wetland
and Floodplain Management (WWF Danube-Carpathian-Programme Office;
Michael Baltzer, Christine Bratrich, Darko Grlica, Orieta Hulea, Andreia Petcu,
Gyongyi Ruzsa, Jan Seffer, Susanna Wiener; 62 pages, 2007
4.3 Wetland
Final report phase 1: Monitoring and Assessment of Nutrient Removal
Monitoring
Capacity of Riverine Wetlands* (WWF International Danube-Carpathian
Programme David Tickner, Thomas Hein, Helmut Kroiss, Jan Seffer, Philip Weller,
Susanna Wiener, Isabel Wolte, Matthias Zessner; 110 pages; 2004)
Technical guidance document on the integration of the nutrient reduction
function in riverine wetland management Summary (University of
Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Vienna; WasserCluster Lunz GmbH,
Technical University, Vienna, Geological Institute of Hungary (MAFI); Thomas
Hein, Elisabeth Bondar, Verena Kucera-Hirzinger, Oliver Gabriel, Matthias
Zessner, Gyozo Jorda; 32 pages; 2007)
4.3 Wetland
Case Studies: - "Monitoring and Assessment of Nutrient Removal Capacity of
Monitoring
Riverine Wetlands" (Romania, Moldova and Ukraine):
> Case Study Romania: Lower Danube Wetland - Corabia and Turnu
Magurele Sector (UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project; Iulian Nichersu,
Mircea Staras; 50 pages; 2007)
> Case Study Moldova: Yalpugh and Cahul River Basins, Moldova
(ECOS; Dumitru Drumea; 45 pages; 2007)
> Case study Ukraine: Restoration of Katlabuh Lake - Danube Delta,
Ukraine (Project management: WWF Danube - Carpathian Programme
Project implementation: Odessa Oblast State Water Management Board
(WMB), Mikhail Nesterenko; 41 pages; 2007)
3.3 DEF
Reports from DEF campaigns on Wetlands:
Wetlands
> Croatia (Franjo Koscec; Dora Radosavljevic, Marko Stancin; 20
Campaigns
pages; 2006)
> Serbia (Nature Conservation Movement of Sremska Mitrovica; 12
pages; 2006)
> Slovakia (DAPHNE Institute of Applied Ecology, Milan Janak,
Barbara Immerova; 59 pages; 2007
DRP TE Annex
75
6. INSTITUTIONAL STRENGTHENING
COMPONENT
DELIVERABLES FINAL REPORTS AND OTHER FINAL PRODUCTS
/ TASK
2.1 IMCM:
Final report phase 1: Setting up of Inter-ministerial coordination
Interministerial mechanisms for the pollution control - Evaluation of Results of National
Coordination
Reports (UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project; Michael von Berg, Joachim
Mechanisms
Bendow; 70 pages; 2004)
Current status on IMCM (EKOPEN; Eleonora Bartkova, Martina Vagacova; 51
pages; 2006)
2.1 Support for Assistance for Bosnia & Herzegovina on WFD Compliant Monitoring
Bosnia and
Towards WFD compliant Monitoring in BiH (UNDP/GEF Danube Regional
Herzegovina
Project, Nicolaus Fleischmann; 75 pages; 2007)
2.4 Danubis;
Assessment of the ICPDR Information System - Danubis (UNDP/GEF
Support for
Danube Regional Project; Stefan Schwarzer, Sylvain Ponserre; 47 pages; 2004)
reinforcement
Report on the `Restructuring of the ICPDR Information System',
of ICPDR
(UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project; Miroslav Melisko; 28 pages; 2005)
Information
System
Reconstruction Analysis (Datalan ; Michal Rusko ; 49 pages ; 2006)
DANUBIS
2.5 Danube
Report to the GEF council (GEF Council; 19 pages; 2005)
Black Sea
> Annex 1: Strategic Partnership Progress report (DRP,BSERP; 70
cooperation /
pages; 2007)
JTWG and MoU
Implementation
> Annex 2: Summary report on Partnership mid-term evaluation
and Stocktaking Meeting (UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project; 10
pages; 2005)
Improving the understanding of the Danube River impact on the status
of the Black Sea (report to the D-BS JTWG) (BSERP, WRc; W. Parr, Y. Volovik,
S. Nixon, I. Lipan; 114 pages; 2005)
Trends in nutrient loads from the Danube River and trophic status of the
Black Sea (UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project; 26 pages; 2006)
2.6 Trainings /
Quality guidelines for workshops (UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project;
capacity
Holger Nauheimer; 31 pages; 2002)
building
Facilitation skills training background doc (Beraterkompetenz; UNDP/GEF
Danube Regional Project; 75 pages; 2003)
DRP guidelines for reporting (UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project, Agentur
Sieben; Marcella Fabianova, Peter Whalley, Fanak Mossaheb; 12 pages; 2006)
Open-Space ICPDR Workshop (Instinct Domain; 39 pages; 2005)
ICPDR Reporting (WRc PLC; Tim Lack, Steve Nixon; 25 pages; 2005)
Exit strategy (UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project; 14 pages; 2006)
3.1 DEF
DEF Strategy and Work Plan (DEF, UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project, 36
support:
pages; 2006)
DRP TE Annex
76
COMPONENT
DELIVERABLES FINAL REPORTS AND OTHER FINAL PRODUCTS
/ TASK
Support for
DEF Final Report 2002*(DEF, UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project, 55 pages;
Institutional
2002)
Development of DEF Final Report 2003*(DEF, UNDP/GEF DRP, 65 pages; 2003)
NGOs and
Community
DEF Bulletins: Volume 1 (5 pages)/ Volume 2 (6 pages)/ Volume 3 (7 pages)
Involvement:
DEF Leaflet (1 page)
Developing the
DEF Network
DEF Training Material on Nutrient Reduction and Wetlands Restoration
(DEF; Jan Seffer, Jaromir Sibl; 110 pages; 2003)
DEF Report on National Trainings (DEF; 46 pages; 2003)
4.1 Indicators:
Final report Phase 1: Development of Indicators for Monitoring and
Indicators
Impact Evaluation* (UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project; J. Dogterom, J.P.E.
van Leeuwen, N. Koopmans, G. Robijn; 74 pages; 2004)
Final Report: Testing of a selection of core indicators to monitor stress
reduction, status and process for the GEF DRP (updated draft version)
(UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project; J. Dogterom, J.P.E. van Leeuwen; 122
pages; 2007)
7. DRP SPECIFIC REPORTS AND PRODUCTS
COMPONENT
DELIVERABLES FINAL REPORTS AND OTHER FINAL PRODUCTS
/ TASK
3.3
DRP Publications and Brochures
Communication
> DRP Brochure: Danube Regional Project (UNDP/GEF DRP; 2 pages)
and public
participation
> DRP Brochure: Danube Regional Project and Danube River Basin
Analysis (UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project; 4 pages;)
> DRP Brochure: Danube Regional Project and Public Participation
(UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project; 3 pages)
> DRP Brochure: Danube Regional Project - January 2007 (UNDP/GEF
Danube Regional Project; 8 pages)
> DRP posters (UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project; 2 pages)
> "15 years of GEF intervention in the DRB" (UNDP/GEF Danube
Regional Project; 46 pages; 2007)
> Project Information Sheets 1st edition (on River Basin Management,
Agriculture, Wetlands, Industry and Municipal activities and Public
Participation) (UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project; 125 pages; 2007)
Other reports:
> Communication Strategy (UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project; 72
pages; 2005)
> Communication Planning Manual (joint report produced with IW
Learn).... (UNDP/GEF; Kari Eik, Paul Csagoly, Steve Menzies; 48 pages;
2006)
> DRP Draft Final Report (UNDP/GEF DRP; 56 pages, June 2007)
DRP TE Annex
77
DRP TE Annex
78
5. WETLANDS
COMPONENT
DELIVERABLES FINAL REPORTS AND OTHER FINAL PRODUCTS
/ TASK
1.4 Wetlands:
Final report phase 1: Field and Policy Action for Integrated Land Use in
Integrated
the Danube River Basin Methodology and Pilot Site testing with special
land use and
reference to wetland and floodplain management* (UNPD/GED Danube
wetland
Regional Project; WWF International Danube-Carpathian Programme; 152 pages;
management 2003)
Pilot projects
Field and Policy Action for Integrated Land Use in the Danube River Basin
Methodology and Pilot Site Testing with Special Reference to Wetland
and Floodplain Management (WWF Danube-Carpathian-Programme Office;
Michael Baltzer, Christine Bratrich, Darko Grlica, Orieta Hulea, Andreia Petcu,
Gyongyi Ruzsa, Jan Seffer, Susanna Wiener; 62 pages, 2007
4.3 Wetland
Final report phase 1: Monitoring and Assessment of Nutrient Removal
Monitoring
Capacity of Riverine Wetlands* (WWF International Danube-Carpathian
Programme David Tickner, Thomas Hein, Helmut Kroiss, Jan Seffer, Philip Weller,
Susanna Wiener, Isabel Wolte, Matthias Zessner; 110 pages; 2004)
Technical guidance document on the integration of the nutrient reduction
function in riverine wetland management Summary (University of
Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Vienna; WasserCluster Lunz GmbH,
Technical University, Vienna, Geological Institute of Hungary (MAFI); Thomas
Hein, Elisabeth Bondar, Verena Kucera-Hirzinger, Oliver Gabriel, Matthias
Zessner, Gyozo Jorda; 32 pages; 2007)
4.3 Wetland
Case Studies: - "Monitoring and Assessment of Nutrient Removal Capacity of
Monitoring
Riverine Wetlands" (Romania, Moldova and Ukraine):
> Case Study Romania: Lower Danube Wetland - Corabia and Turnu
Magurele Sector (UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project; Iulian Nichersu,
Mircea Staras; 50 pages; 2007)
> Case Study Moldova: Yalpugh and Cahul River Basins, Moldova
(ECOS; Dumitru Drumea; 45 pages; 2007)
> Case study Ukraine: Restoration of Katlabuh Lake - Danube Delta,
Ukraine (Project management: WWF Danube - Carpathian Programme
Project implementation: Odessa Oblast State Water Management Board
(WMB), Mikhail Nesterenko; 41 pages; 2007)
3.3 DEF
Reports from DEF campaigns on Wetlands:
Wetlands
> Croatia (Franjo Koscec; Dora Radosavljevic, Marko Stancin; 20
Campaigns
pages; 2006)
> Serbia (Nature Conservation Movement of Sremska Mitrovica; 12
pages; 2006)
> Slovakia (DAPHNE Institute of Applied Ecology, Milan Janak,
Barbara Immerova; 59 pages; 2007
DRP TE Annex
79
6. INSTITUTIONAL STRENGTHENING
COMPONENT
DELIVERABLES FINAL REPORTS AND OTHER FINAL PRODUCTS
/ TASK
2.1 IMCM:
Final report phase 1: Setting up of Inter-ministerial coordination
Interministerial mechanisms for the pollution control - Evaluation of Results of National
Coordination
Reports (UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project; Michael von Berg, Joachim
Mechanisms
Bendow; 70 pages; 2004)
Current status on IMCM (EKOPEN; Eleonora Bartkova, Martina Vagacova; 51
pages; 2006)
2.1 Support for Assistance for Bosnia & Herzegovina on WFD Compliant Monitoring
Bosnia and
Towards WFD compliant Monitoring in BiH (UNDP/GEF Danube Regional
Herzegovina
Project, Nicolaus Fleischmann; 75 pages; 2007)
2.4 Danubis;
Assessment of the ICPDR Information System - Danubis (UNDP/GEF
Support for
Danube Regional Project; Stefan Schwarzer, Sylvain Ponserre; 47 pages; 2004)
reinforcement
Report on the `Restructuring of the ICPDR Information System',
of ICPDR
(UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project; Miroslav Melisko; 28 pages; 2005)
Information
System
Reconstruction Analysis (Datalan ; Michal Rusko ; 49 pages ; 2006)
DANUBIS
2.5 Danube
Report to the GEF council (GEF Council; 19 pages; 2005)
Black Sea
> Annex 1: Strategic Partnership Progress report (DRP,BSERP; 70
cooperation /
pages; 2007)
JTWG and MoU
Implementation
> Annex 2: Summary report on Partnership mid-term evaluation
and Stocktaking Meeting (UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project; 10
pages; 2005)
Improving the understanding of the Danube River impact on the status
of the Black Sea (report to the D-BS JTWG) (BSERP, WRc; W. Parr, Y. Volovik,
S. Nixon, I. Lipan; 114 pages; 2005)
Trends in nutrient loads from the Danube River and trophic status of the
Black Sea (UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project; 26 pages; 2006)
2.6 Trainings /
Quality guidelines for workshops (UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project;
capacity
Holger Nauheimer; 31 pages; 2002)
building
Facilitation skills training background doc (Beraterkompetenz; UNDP/GEF
Danube Regional Project; 75 pages; 2003)
DRP guidelines for reporting (UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project, Agentur
Sieben; Marcella Fabianova, Peter Whalley, Fanak Mossaheb; 12 pages; 2006)
Open-Space ICPDR Workshop (Instinct Domain; 39 pages; 2005)
ICPDR Reporting (WRc PLC; Tim Lack, Steve Nixon; 25 pages; 2005)
Exit strategy (UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project; 14 pages; 2006)
3.1 DEF
DEF Strategy and Work Plan (DEF, UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project, 36
support:
pages; 2006)
DRP TE Annex
80
COMPONENT
DELIVERABLES FINAL REPORTS AND OTHER FINAL PRODUCTS
/ TASK
Support for
DEF Final Report 2002*(DEF, UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project, 55 pages;
Institutional
2002)
Development of DEF Final Report 2003*(DEF, UNDP/GEF DRP, 65 pages; 2003)
NGOs and
Community
DEF Bulletins: Volume 1 (5 pages)/ Volume 2 (6 pages)/ Volume 3 (7 pages)
Involvement:
DEF Leaflet (1 page)
Developing the
DEF Network
DEF Training Material on Nutrient Reduction and Wetlands Restoration
(DEF; Jan Seffer, Jaromir Sibl; 110 pages; 2003)
DEF Report on National Trainings (DEF; 46 pages; 2003)
4.1 Indicators:
Final report Phase 1: Development of Indicators for Monitoring and
Indicators
Impact Evaluation* (UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project; J. Dogterom, J.P.E.
van Leeuwen, N. Koopmans, G. Robijn; 74 pages; 2004)
Final Report: Testing of a selection of core indicators to monitor stress
reduction, status and process for the GEF DRP (updated draft version)
(UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project; J. Dogterom, J.P.E. van Leeuwen; 122
pages; 2007)
7. DRP SPECIFIC REPORTS AND PRODUCTS
COMPONENT
DELIVERABLES FINAL REPORTS AND OTHER FINAL PRODUCTS
/ TASK
3.3
DRP Publications and Brochures
Communication
> DRP Brochure: Danube Regional Project (UNDP/GEF DRP; 2 pages)
and public
participation
> DRP Brochure: Danube Regional Project and Danube River Basin
Analysis (UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project; 4 pages;)
> DRP Brochure: Danube Regional Project and Public Participation
(UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project; 3 pages)
> DRP Brochure: Danube Regional Project - January 2007 (UNDP/GEF
Danube Regional Project; 8 pages)
> DRP posters (UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project; 2 pages)
> "15 years of GEF intervention in the DRB" (UNDP/GEF Danube
Regional Project; 46 pages; 2007)
> Project Information Sheets 1st edition (on River Basin Management,
Agriculture, Wetlands, Industry and Municipal activities and Public
Participation) (UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project; 125 pages; 2007)
Other reports:
> Communication Strategy (UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project; 72
pages; 2005)
> Communication Planning Manual (joint report produced with IW
Learn).... (UNDP/GEF; Kari Eik, Paul Csagoly, Steve Menzies; 48 pages;
2006)
> DRP Draft Final Report (UNDP/GEF DRP; 56 pages, June 2007)
DRP TE Annex
81
DRP TE Annex
82