UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Strengthening the Implementation Capacities for Nutrient
Reduction and Transboundary Cooperation in the
Danube River Basin
Final Report
Development of a Strategy and Concept of
Reporting by the ICPDR
Project Component 2.4: Support for reinforcement of the ICPDR
Information System
May 27, 2004
Prepared by: Dr. Jan Dogterom
Oudebildtdijk 1058, 9075 NK Westhoek, The Netherlands
Tel.: +31-518-491838 Fax: +31-518-491944
Email: j.dogterom@tech.nhl.nl
Table of Contents
Summary
1. Introduction
3
2. Reporting requirements according the Conventions
4
2.1
Danube
2.2
Rhine
2.3
Elbe
2.4
Meuse
2.5
Scheldt
2.6
Oder
2.7
Black Sea
3. Comparative analysis of re porting practices in different international 6 conventions
and agreements
6
4. Reporting requirements according EU Directives
7
4.1
Nitrate Directive
4.2
UWWT Directive
4.3
IPPC Directive
4.4
WFD Directive
5. The Websites
8
5.1
ICPDR
5.2
Others
6. The strategy and concept of reporting
9
6.1
Strategy: Core task of reporting and extended services
6.2
Recommendations on the concept
7. Literature and websites
14
Annex I: BSC Reporting Scheme and Procedures on the Implementation of the BS-SAP (BSC 10.13),
October 2003.
Development of a Strategy and Concept of reporting by the ICPDR
1
Summary
The ICPDR, with support of the Secretariat, has at the moment an extensive reporting practice. It is
substantially more extensive then the practices at comparable River Basin Commissions. It is
complying with the requirements according the DRPC and activities are added, based on other
regional and international agreements (MoU-D/BS JTWG, EU-DABLAS). The Secretariat, with
support of Expert Groups, produces at the moment the following reports: the Annual Report, the Joint
Action Programme and its periodical reviews, the TNMN Yearbook and many reports on specific
topics. In addition, an extensive website and number of databases have been produced: the TNMN and
EMIS database. These are regularly updated. The quality of reporting is good and in most cases
adequate. The Annual Report 2002 gives moderate attention to status and impact indicators. The JAP
covers many more topics then required.
Chapter 6 of this report presents recommendations for the strategy and concept of reporting by the
ICPDR, supported by the Secretariat, based on the requirements according the DRPC.
Recommendations are given on the objective, the topics to be covered and the main indicators for each
of the reports mentioned. Reviewing the topics to be covered in all reports, it turns out that the
following are key indicators: loads of nutrients as pressure indicators, concentration of BOD5 and
nutrients as status indicators, ecological indicators to be determined as impact indicators and
investments in municipal and industrial WWTP and introduction of BAP as response indicators. The
implementation of the DRPC and the WFD (response) should be assessed on basis of the indicators
recommended in the indicator report.
There seems to be little reason for major changes in the ICPDR reporting policy. The main issue to
pay attention to is to report in an efficient and cost effective way by avoiding duplication and efficient
data and information collection. It is advised to give priority in collecting high quality data for the
indicators mentioned in Chapter 6.
Development of a Strategy and Concept of reporting by the ICPDR
3
1.
Introduction
Since the establishment of the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River
(ICPDR), the Commission has built up a system of reporting and provision of information to the
Contracting Parties (CP), to other regional and international organisations and to the public at large,
which is executed mainly by the ICPDR Secretariat with financial and technical support by the GEF-
Danube Regional Project (GEF-DRP). This system of reporting and provision of information is at
present very extensive. It consists amongst others of: regular reports as the Annual Report and the
Joint Action Programme (JAP) Report, specific technical reports, eg the Report on the Joint Danube
Survey, reports and documents of Expert Groups, documents related to various meetings, an extensive
database with different components and a very sophisticated and large website with an external and
internal domain.
The Danube River Protection Convention (DRPC) is quite specific about the obligations of the CP to
inform each other on which issues: Arts. 4, 10, 12, 14, 18 and 22 refer to such obligations. The
responsibility of the Secretariat in this process is described in Art. 9 of the Statute of the ICPDR
(Annex IV to the Convention): "the International Commission submits to the Contracting Parties an
annual report on its activities as well as further reports as required, which in particular also include the
results of monitoring and assessment." Based on this obligation, the ICPDR Secretariat has developed
since it started in 1999 the system of reporting and provision of information. In practice, the term
"further reports as required" has been used to justify the production and publication of a wide range of
reports and documents. The fact that the GEF-DRP provided financial and technical support has
enlarged the possibilities of the Secretariat to cope with all the requests for producing and publishing
these reports and information. Moreover, the ICPDR has entered into regional and international
cooperation programmes, which established additional reporting mechanisms like the Memorandum of
Understanding (MoU) with the Black Sea Commission (BSC) and the EU Danube-Black Sea Task
Force (DABLAS).
Within the GEF-DRP, an activity (in the frame of project activity 2.4-1) has been defined to develop
"Reporting Guidelines-Formats and Procedures- in accordance with the DRPC and the ICPDR-JAP."
This activity includes an analysis of present practices on reporting and provision of information and to
propose a concept and a strategy for reporting by the ICPDR taking into account the experiences with
these practices since the Secretariat started its reporting activities in 1996 and taking into account
feasibility and affordability. The latter is relevant since it is expected that the GEF-DRP will not be
extended again after the completion of the 2nd Phase in 2006. The GEF-DRP has commissioned an
external consultant to implement this activity and has formulated the objective of this assignment as
follows:
Objective
The objective of this assignment is to propose an overall concept/strategy of reporting by the ICPDR ,
taking into account the reporting obligations under the Danube Convention, investment activities and
policy measures identified in the ICPDR-JAP and the DABLAS Task Force.
This assignment is not addressing a concept/strategy for reporting obligations by the CP to each other,
but addresses specifically the role of the Commission, supported by the Secretariat, in reporting to the
CP and the public. The recommended concept and strategy should be feasible and affordable also after
2006. This report presents the results of this assignment.
4
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
2.
Reporting requirements according the Conventions
At present there are 6 River Basin Conventions in West and Central Europe, which have the same
objective: protection against pollution. These are the Rhine (1976/1999), the Danube (1994), the Elbe
(1990), the Oder (1996), the Meuse (1994/2002) and the Scheldt (1994/2002). There are more
conventions for smaller basins (Saar, Moselle) and also for lakes or seas, like the Bucharest
Convention (1992) for the Black Sea.
All Conventions regulate the establishment of an International Commission as the governing body and
a Secretariat to support the Commission. All Secretariats have tasks to support reporting by the
Commissions. The European Environmental Agency (EEA) has produced a summary of reporting
obligations within the framework of international environmental conventions incl. those on river
basins and seas (ref. 1). The reporting obligations of CP to each other and the reporting obligations of
the Commissions to the CP, in practice usually done by the Secretariats, are described in the
Conventions.
2.1
Danube
The DRPC is specific about the obligations of the CP to inform each other on which issues: Arts. 4, 8,
10, 12, 14, 18 and 22 refer to such obligations. The responsibility of the Secretariat in this process is
described in Art. 9 of the Statute of the ICPDR (Annex IV to the Convention): "the International
Commission submits to the Contracting Parties an annual report on its activities as well as further
reports as required, which in particular also include the results of monitoring and assessment." Arts 18
and 22 say that the Commission has to report to the Conference of the Parties on policy issues
concerning implementation of the Convention.
2.2
Rhine
The obligations of CP to inform each other are formulated in Art. 5. The responsibility of the
Secretariat is formulated in Art. 8.3: "the Commission reports yearly on its activities to the
Contracting Parties".
2.3
Elbe
The Elbe Convention has no specific articles that regulate obligations of CP to inform each other. Art.
4 stipulates that the CP have to inform the Commission. The responsibility of the Secretariat is
formulated in Art. 13: "the Commission produces for the CP at least every two years an Activity report
and further reports as required, in which in particular the results of investigations and assessments
should be included".
2.4
Meuse
The obligations of CP to inform each other are formulated in Art. 3. The responsibility of the
Secretariat is formulated in Art. 4.4 (i): "the Commission publishes an Annual Report as well as
further reports as required".
2.5
Scheldt
The obligations of CP to inform each other are formulated in Art. 3. The responsibility of the
Secretariat is formulated in Art. 4.4 (i): "the Commission publishes an Annual Report as well as
further reports as required".
Development of a Strategy and Concept of reporting by the ICPDR
5
2.6
Oder
The obligations of CP to inform each other are formulated in Art. 4. The responsibility of the
Secretariat is formulated in Art. 14: "the Commission shall provide the Contracting Parties with an
activity report at least every two years and, if necessary, with further reports, in particular on measures
taken and the results of analyses and their evaluation".
At present, the Oder Secretariat does not produce an Activity Report (personal communication with
the Head of the Secretariat). It was agreed in the Commission, that the Expert Groups would produce
Annual Reports but in practice this does not happen at the moment. Reporting to the Commission is
limited to "protocols".
2.7
Black Sea
The Bucharest Convention has no specific articles on the exchange of information between
Contracting Parties. The Arts. 86 and 87 of the Strategic Action Plan (SAP) formulate reporting tasks
for the Secretariat. These include an Annual Report to the Commission on the progress of
implementing the SAP, presenting also recommendations for enhancing implementation and/or
adjustment of the SAP, and a comprehensive report every five year to the Black Sea States and the
general public to assess implementation of the SAP, containing recommendations to enhance
implementation and/or recommendations for amendments.
In a separate document, endorsed in the 10th meeting of the Commission in October 2003 (BSC
10.13), the reporting process to the Commission by the Secretariat was formalized. There will be 2
reports produced: (1) a State of the Environment of the Black Sea Report and (2) a Report on the
Implementation of the SAP. These reports will be produced yearly for the Commission and will be the
basis for 5-year reports to the Contracting Parties. For further details: see annex I.
6
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
3.
Comparative analysis of reporting practices in different international
conventions and agreements
A quick comparison of reporting practices in 6 basins of West- and Central Europe shows, that there is
usually a comprehensive "Annual Report" or "Activity Report" (Elbe and Oder every two years) and
further reports as requested. The Elbe Annual Report (Tatigkeitsbericht) is very short (6 pages) and
mainly refers to special reports per topic. The websites of the Commissions provide lists of
publications which roughly can be divided into 3 categories: (1) regular, legally requested reports, like
Annual Reports, (2) printed versions of databases (emission inventories, monitoring data) and (3)
numerous reports on specific topics like ecology, flooding, warning systems, special assessments etc.
All topics covered in the regular reports are listed and compared in box 1. They are indicated by
Chapter or by "yes". In the latter case, there is not (yet) a report to be consulted; the topics to be
covered are described in the draft work programme for the D-BS JTWG (30 March 2004) and in a
special document for the BSC (annex I). In this column there are some question marks, since it is not
clear from the text in the document whether these topics will be covered.
Box1: Comparative analysis of reported topics in different
international conventions and agreements
AR
JAP
D-BS
BSC/SAP
AR
AR
AR
AR,
AR,
ICPDR, ICPDR,
JTWG, (BSC
ICPR,
ICPE,
ISC,
ICPM,
ICPO
2002
2001-2005
2004
10.13), 2003 1999/2000
2003
2002
2002
Subject and DRP
Convention Article
Ecology, Art. 6 and 7
Ch. 3.3, 3.8
Yes
yes
Ch. 1.6
Ch. 13
EMIS, Art. 5 and 8
Ch. 5
Ch. 3.2, 3.4,
Yes
yes
Ch. 1.5
3.7, 3.10,
3.11
TNMN,
Ch. 4
Ch. 2.2, 2.3,
Yes
yes
Ch. 1.5, 2.13 yes
Ch. 5
Ch. 11,
Art 9
3.5, 3.6
12, 14
Research,
yes
Art. 15
AEWS,
Ch. 6
Ch. 3.9
yes
Ch. 2.11,
yes
Art. 16
2.12
Investments
Ch. 8
Ch. 3.2, 3.15 Yes
?
Ch. 4
Flood protection
Ch. 7
Ch. 2.6, 3.12
Ch. 1.4
yes
Ch. 4
Accident prevention,
Ch. 9
Ch. 3.9
?
Art. 6
Operational and
Ch. 1
Ch. 3.15
yes
Ch. 2.1, 2.2,
Ch. 1, Ch. 1, 2,
Institutional
2.3, 2.4, 2.5,
2
3, 4, 5, 6,
Framework
2.6, 2.7
9, 10
Finances and budgets
Ch. 2
Ch. 2.8, 2.9 yes
Ch. 8
Implementation of the Ch. 3
Ch. 3.14
yes
Ch. 1.2
yes
Ch. 3
Ch. 15
WFD
Information systems
Ch. 10
yes
Ch. 1.7, 2.10
Ch. 7
International and
Ch. 11
Ch. 3.1
yes
Ch. 1.8
yes
Ch. 6
regional cooperation
The box shows, that the ICPDR Annual Report is the most comprehensive, although the absence of
chapters on ecology and research is striking, followed by the ICPR Annual Report. The ICPDR JAP,
published in 2001, is a comprehensive Action Programme, covering many topics, including chapters
on wetland and floodplain restoration and water quality standards. The progress with the JAP will be
reported in 2004 and 2006. The reporting process in the BSC is different: there will be a yearly status
and trends report and a yearly report on implementation of the BS-SAP. These are the basis for five
year reports to the CP.
Development of a Strategy and Concept of reporting by the ICPDR
7
4.
Reporting requirements according EU Directives
Most CP to the DRPC are member or candidate member of the EU and have to comply with the
reporting requirements in the EU Directives. These are reports from the countries directly to the
European Commission. The ICPDR and the Secretariat are not officially involved in this process. Still
it is useful for the Secretariat to be aware of the scheme of reporting to the EU of some of the most
relevant EU Directives, since some topics are shared and information can be exchanged which will
save double work. A special case is the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD), where the Secretariat
has taken up specific tasks.
4.1
Nitrate Directive
Art. 10 and annex V give the reporting obligations of the Nitrate Directive. Member states have to
submit a report to the Commission every four years, 1996 being the first year. The report should be on
the introduction of good agricultural practices, polluted waters, vulnerable zones, monitoring results
and action programmes.
4.2
UWWT Directive
Art. 16 and 17 give the reporting obligations of the UWWT Directive. Member States have to publish
situation reports on the disposal of urban waste water and sludge every two years and they have to
report every 2 years on the programme of implementation of the Directive, 1994 being the 1st year.
4.3
IPPC Directive
Art. 16 gives the reporting obligations of the IPPC Directive. Member States have to send reports on
the implementation of this Directive every three year, 1998 being the 1st year. The report should be on
limit values per industry and the application of best available techniques.
4.4
WFD Directive
The WFD Directive has a very strict and extensive reporting regime. Many articles contain reporting
requirements, incl. the topic and the deadlines. The ICPDR is supporting this process by producing
together with the CP the so called Roof Reports. Roof report 2003 deals with Article 3 and Annex I.
This information is due to the European Commission on 22 June 2004. The information concerns the
competent authorities, the geographical coverage of the basin and international relationships. Roof
report 2004 deals with Article 5, Annex II and III and with Article 6, Annex IV. This information
concerns (Art 5): analysis of characteristics, review of pressures and impacts and the economical
analysis of water use and (Art 6) a register of designated areas. This information is due to the
Commission on 22 March 2005.
8
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
5.
The Websites
5.1
ICPDR
The ICPDR has a very comprehensive website. It has by far the biggest content and is the most
complete website of all websites consulted for this report. The website presents practically all
documents produced by the Secretariat and the ICPDR Expert Groups. It also presents the ICPDR
databases: EMIS, TNMN and Joint Danube Survey. For access to the internal part of the website,
special authorization is needed.
5.2
Others
All River Commissions have websites. Usually the websites present the institutional structures and
governing bodies, legal documents (the Conventions), the action programmes, news on expert groups
and a list of publications. Compared to the others, the website of the Rhine Commission has a unique
structure. The site is structured on basis of the main topics: the Rhine, the Commission, Ecology,
Water Quality and Emissions, Flooding and Media and Publications. Only the Scheldt Commission
has a log in function. The Black Sea website is partly under construction yet.
Development of a Strategy and Concept of reporting by the ICPDR
9
6.
The strategy and concept of reporting
6.1
Strategy: Core task of reporting and extended services
The requirement for reporting by the ICPDR with support of the Secretariat is formulated with an
"open end": "an Annual Report and further reports as required". The practice is, that the Secretariat
produces 2 regular reports: the Annual Report and the JAP report, and that a long list of special reports
is produced and published related to the results of the Expert Groups, to the results of special projects,
like the Joint Danube Survey, and to the results of contractors. The Secretariat is facilitating and
supervising this process of reporting and is involved in writing these special reports. Many of them are
financially supported by the GEF-DRP. In addition to this, the Secretariat is responsible for the
construction and maintenance of the TNMN and EMIS databases. These are databases, which are
regularly updated and the results are published in the TNMN Yearbooks and the Emission
Inventories. There are special databases on the Joint Danube Survey database and the DABLAS
inventory.
For the strategy of reporting by the ICPDR, it seems reasonable to keep a close connection to the
obligations, as formulated in the DRPC. The content of the Convention should be the basis for the
reporting strategy. The topics for reporting are given in the relevant articles of the Convention. These
articles are: 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 15 and 16. The topics are summarized in art 12. Arts. 18 and 22 give an
additional reporting task to the ICPDR: to produce a review on the experience acquired with
implementing the Convention. It is not specified with what intervals. Proposals concerning
amendments or additions to the Convention should be submitted "as appropriate" (art. 18) and be
discussed at the Conference of the Parties (art. 22).
The core task of reporting is given in art. 12 and concern the following topics:
1. The general condition of the riverine environment; this is detailed in art. 5 and 9
2. Application and operation of BAT and results of research and development; this is detailed in
art. 6, 7, 8 and 15 (NB: BAP is not mentioned in art. 12, but should be included)
3. Emission and monitoring data; this is detailed in art. 8 and 9
4. Prevention, control and reduction of transboundary impact; this is detailed in art. 5
5. Regulations for waste water discharges; this is detailed in art. 7
6. Accidents involving hazardous substances; this is detailed in art. 16
The strategy of reporting could thus be formulated as follows:
The ICPDR will take reporting responsibilities on topics that are covered by art. 12 of the Convention,
further detailed in the articles, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 15 and 16. In addition, the ICPDR will report on
experience implementing the DRPC and submit proposals concerning amendments or additions to the
Conference of the Parties "as appropriate".
In order to fulfil these tasks, the ICPDR needs input and support from the CP and this is organised
now through the Expert Groups. Other requests on reporting should be considered as "extended
services" and be granted if they are explicitly endorsed by the ICPDR and fit into the working scheme
of the Secretariat. The load of reporting should be feasible and affordable, independent from the
support of outside donors.
6.2
Recommendations on the concept
6.2.1 Principles
The concept of reporting by the ICPDR is based on the strategy. The core tasks and the topics
mentioned have to be covered in regular, preferably standardized reports. The Annual Report has to be
10
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
yearly; intervals of reporting for other reports depend on the decisions of the Commission. The
following paragraphs present the recommendations on the concept of reporting for each type of report.
They present the objective of reporting, the topics, the indicators to be used (if relevant) and a very
brief indication of a procedure of production.
6.2.2 Annual report
The Annual Report is the main channel of reporting on the assessment of pressures, the status of the
Danube River, trends in changes in status and impact and the results of the interventions of the ICPDR
and the CP (response). It should in principle be the most comprehensive report. It is an appropriate
vehicle to exchange the information as described in art. 12 between the CP and to report to the public
and the international organizations like the EU and IFIs. It seems reasonable that it presents a
summary on topics as described in arts. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 15 and 16 with emphasis on the TNMN results
(including the ecological impact assessment) , the EMIS inventories, the AEWS, the investment
programmes in WWTP and BAP and the implementation of the DRPC and the WFD. The Annual
Report 2002 has a very moderate chapter on water quality and information on ecology (impact) is
missing. It is to be considered to strengthen these chapters.
Objective: The objective of the Annual Report is to present a comprehensive summary of the
activities of the ICPDR to the CP, the public at large, in particular in the Danube Basin, and relevant
regional and international organizations. The report should present the development of institutional
structures and interventions and should give a reliable assessment of pressure, status, impact and
response indicators.
Topics: see the Table of content of the Annual Report 2002 with an extended chapter on water quality
and a new chapter on ecology, including wetland and flood plain restoration.
Key Indicators: loads of Ntot and Ptot, in particular at discharges of the main tributaries and the
Black Sea; accidents; floods; concentration of BOD5, Ntot and Ptot; ecological indicators to be
determined; investments; introduction of BAP; implementation of the DRPC and the WFD
Procedure: as usual
6.2.3 Progress reviews of the JAP
Art. 8 of the DRPC requires periodical reviews of the Joint Action Programmes. According this
article, the JAP is based on emission inventories (the EMIS database) and includes the measures to be
taken to reduce pollution loads from point- and non-point sources. The JAP is the framework for
investment decisions and thus has a strong relationship with EU- DABLAS.
The 1st JAP covers many other topics; actually it is a comprehensive Action Programme on all issues
addressed by the ICPDR, including paragraphs on wetland and flood plain restoration and water
quality standards. The 1st progress review is planned to be published in the summer of 2004; the next
one in the summer of 2006.
Whether or not to stay in the JAP progress reviews to the core content, according art. 8, or extend the
content to other activities, depends on the policy of the ICPDR. It can be considered to shift some of
the topics from the JAP progress reviews to the Annual Report.
Objective: The core objective of the report on the JAP is to provide the information for prioritisation
on basis of urgency and efficiency in investment decisions by national governments and international
financing institutions, coordinated and facilitated through DABLAS.
Development of a Strategy and Concept of reporting by the ICPDR
11
Topics: The core topic of the JAP report is the presentation of the EMIS database, the ranking of
investment projects (see annex 1 and 2 of the JAP) and the measures to reduce pollution from non-
point sources.
Key Indicators: pollution loads from point- and non-point sources (pressure indicators), in particular
nutrients; investments in WWTP (industry and munic ipalities); introduction of BAP (response
indicators)
Procedure: EMIS inventory as usual; the progress reviews of the JAP to be determined
6.2.4 Yearbook TNMN
Art. 9 of the DRPC requires cooperation in the field of monitoring. This requirement has been met
with the establishment of the TNMN. Based on the data collected, the CP shall periodically assess the
quality conditions of the river and the results need to be presented to the public by appropriate
publications. This is the basis for the production and publication of the TNMN Yearbooks.
Objective : The TNMN Yearbooks are published to inform the CP and the public on the quality
conditions of the Danube River and progress made by measures taken aiming at prevention, control
and reduction of transboundary impacts.
Topics : The TNMN Yearbook presents the results of the TNMN; the presentation includes an
assessment of the ecological status and of trends in concentrations and loads of the selected
determinands and an evaluation of significant changes.
It is to be considered to strengthen the reporting on the assessment of the ecological status by selecting
additional ecological indicators eg. a flag ship species (endangered species??) or a limited number of
critical species at the top of the food web.
Indicators : agreed list of TNMN determinands; a limited number of ecological indicators could be
added (state and impact indicators) .
Procedure : according the present agreements in the MLIM Expert Group and in compliance with the
EU-WFD
6.2.5 Art. 18/22 Review
Art. 18 and 22 address the review of the policy issues concerning the implementation of the DRPC and
reporting this to the Conference of the Parties. No time frame is mentioned: it should be done "as
appropriate".
Objective : The art. 18/22 Review is presented to the Conference of the Parties to initiate decision
making on amendments and/or additions to the Convention
Topics: Analysis of main pressures (agriculture, industrial and municipal sources of pollution);
assessment of key developments regarding chemical status and ecological impact of the basin and of
the north-western shelf of the Black Sea; assessment of implementation of JAP, in particular on
investments; justified and specific recommendations on amendments and/or additions to the
Convention.
Key indicators: point- and non-point source pollution; number of accidents (pressures); key state
indicators: BOD5 and nutrients; impact: key ecological indicators in Danube and Black Sea; response
indicators: investments, implementation process of DRPC and WFD
Procedure : to be determined
12
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
6.2.6 D-BS JTWG
The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the ICPDR and the BSC of November 2001
provides the basis for reporting by the D-BS JTWG. The draft workplan of March 2004 gives further
details. A reporting format and reporting procedures should be developed by June 2004. Topics to be
covered according the MoU are: load assessment and ecological status assessment. Topics mentioned
in the draft work plan are: harmonization of the monitoring programmes, development of ecology
status indicators, assessment of point- and non-point sources and implementation of the WFD. Two
types of reports are mentioned: a yearly report on input loads and ecological status assessment of the
Black Sea and a report every 5 years on measures taken to reduce inputs of nutrients and hazardous
substances in line with the JAP and the BS-SAP. These measures include policy measures and
investments. A review of the results of the JTWG will be undertaken in 2007.
Objective: A yearly report is published to inform the ICPDR and the BSC on trends in input loads, in
particular of nutrients, and the ecological status of the north-western shelf of the Black Sea. A five
year report is published to inform the ICPDR and the BSC on reduction of pressures (=responses), in
particular nutrient loads (point- and non point sources) and on the progress with implementation of the
WFD and the BS-SAP.
Topics : : Analysis of main pressures (agriculture, industrial and municipal sources of pollution);
assessment of key developments regarding chemical status and ecological impact of the north-western
shelf of the Black Sea; assessment of implementation of JAP, in particular on investments and
introduction of BAP; assessment of the implementation of the WFD and the BS-SAP.
Indicators : Nutrient loads at Danube discharge; at the north-western shelf of the Black Sea: nutrient
concentrations, oxygen regime and ecological status indicator(s); investments in municipal and
industrial waste water treatment plants; introduction of BAP; implementation of the WFD and the BS-
SAP.
Procedure : ICPDR and BSC collect and assess information on indicators as part of their own internal
routines and reporting obligations. The results are combined in a yearly report on loads and ecological
assessment of the north-western shelf of the Black Sea; every five years the report is extended with
assessment of trends in point- and non-point sources, supported by data on investments, and
information on progress of implementation of WFD and BS-SAP.
6.2.7 Other Reports
In addition to the reports mentioned in the previous paragraphs, the ICPDR publishes at the moment a
long list of reports, produced by the Expert Groups or contractors. The main channel of reporting is
the website. Hard copies are distributed on a limited scale and mainly to experts involved and hardly
to the public at large. The objective of publishing is to distribute the results of technical studies. The
publication of these reports could be regarded as "extended services". It can be a case by case decision
whether or not to put a specific report on the web and/or print it, depending on quality, usefulness,
feasibility and affordability.
6.2.8 Website
The ICPDR Website is a very useful tool for information of the CP and the public. It gives access to
practically all activities of the ICPDR, its Expert Groups and the GEF-DRP. The databases can be
consulted and used for further study after permission to access the internal part has been given. As
such it is also a management tool. The structure is strongly related to the organisational structure and
the operations of the ICPDR itself. It has a "static" part (information on institutions, legal documents,
etc) and a "growing" part (news, reports and other publications, updated databases etc). This website
Development of a Strategy and Concept of reporting by the ICPDR
13
requires a substantial effort to maintain and keep updated. It clearly distinguishes itself by its content
from the websites of all other River Basin Commissions.
As long as this website can be maintained in this way, there is no need for reconsideration. It is
advised to reconsider the "website policy" shortly before the GEF-DRP will be finished.
6.2.9 Instruction for the Secretariat by the ICPDR
The responsibility of the Secretariat to support the reporting requirements of the ICPDR is based on
art. 9 of the Statute to the DRPC and has a very open formulation: "an annual report and further
reports as required". A written instruction by the ICPDR for the Secretariat does not exist. It may be
considered to produce such an instruction describing the type of reports, the objective of each report,
the main topics and the interval of reporting.
14
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
7.
Literature and websites
1.
European Environment Agency, EEA support to the European Community in reporting
obligations within the framework of international environmental conventions, Technical
report 62, 2001
2.
Annual Reports of the following River Basin Commissions: Danube, Rhine, Elbe, Meuse and
Scheldt
3.
Various Reports and Documents of the ICPDR, DABLAS, D-BS JTWG and BSC
Websites:
ICPDR: www.icpdr.org
ICPR : www.iksr.org
ICPE : www.ikse.de
ICPO : www.mkoo.pl
ISC : www.isc-cie.com
ICPM : www.cipm-icbm.be
BSC : www.blacksea-environment.org
Development of a Strategy and Concept of reporting by the ICPDR
15
Annex I: BSC 10.13
Tenth Meeting of the Commission on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution
27-29 October, Istanbul, Turkey
BSC Reporting Scheme and Procedures on the Implementation of the BS SAP
Implementation of the Convention on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution as well as the Strategic
Action Plan for Rehabilitation and Protection of the Black Sea provide fore establishing the proper reporting
system on the progress according to regionally agreed criteria. Specifically the articles 86 and 87 of BS SAP
say:
It is advised that the Secretariat of the Istanbul Commission annually report to the Commission on the
progress made in implementing this Strategic Action Plan. The report should also contain
recommendations for enhancing imp lementation and adjustment of this Strategic Action Plan, taking
into account the Bucharest Convention and the Odesa Declaration. The Istanbul Commission should
consider the report and decide on any enhancements and/or adjustments which may be necessary to
secure implementation of this Strategic Action Plan.
It is advised that a comprehensive report, assessing the implementation of this Strategic Action Plan, be
prepared by the Istanbul Commission, upon the recommendations of its subsidiary bodies, and
presented to the Governments of the Black Sea states and to the general public every five years. The
report should also contain recommendations for enhancing implementation of the Strategic Action Plan
as well as recommendations for its amendment, with a view to adopting any further actions which may
be required to secure the rehabilitation and protection of the Black Sea.
The first report on the State of Environment of the Black Sea and the Report on Implementation of the Strategic
Action Plan for Rehabilitation and Protection of the Black Sea, 1996 2001 was based purely on the national
reporting to the Black Sea Commission. The lesson learnt from this experience showed that in order to be able
to compare national information and to make fair assessment of the progress with implementation of BSSAP
more attention should be paid to formalize reporting requirements, formats, layouts, etc. Moreover reporting to
the BSC should be regularly exercised by the Black Sea coastal states on the annual basis. Taking into account
the European experience, needs for compatibility of reported data on national, regional and European level,
expecting the future accession of some Black Sea coastal states to European Union as well in the complete
absence of well elaborated and established procedures and reporting formats due to delayed establishment of the
Permanent Secretariat of the Black Sea Commission, the BSC Permanent Secretariat in agreement with the
subsidiary bodies of the Black Sea Commission adopted the well establis hed reporting requirements of the
European Environmental Agency as the first approach.
Based on the above provisions the BSC Permanent Secretariat in cooperation with BSC institutional network
undertook the efforts to formalize the reporting process to the Black Sea Commission
The sequence of reports to be presented to the BSC by the Permanent Secretariat and BSC institutional network
for approval shall follow the arrangements provisioned in the BS SAP:
1. The five years report on the State of the Environment of the Black Sea, 2006 and the five years Report
on the Implementation of the Strategic Action Plan for the Rehabilitation and Protection of the Black
Sea, 2001-2006 are due by the year 2007 when next meeting of the Contracting Parties to the Bucharest
Convention shall be convened.
16
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
2. Annual reports to the Black Sea Commission on the same subjects shall be produced for operational
purposes and shall feed the BSC five years reports. Under the careful consideration of the available
information and taking into account the time necessary for the development of regional databases to be
supported by GEF the first annual report will be produced in 2004. Its production as expected under
MOU between BSC and EEA will be assisted by EEA in order to ensure streamlining of information on
the national, regional and European levels.
The five years scientific report on the State of the Environment of the Black Sea (SOE) with a thorough
analysis of driving forces, pressures, state, and impacts shall be the main subject of this report. The SOE Report
will incorporate the national reporting to the Black Sea Commission, results of the relevant scientific studies for
incorporation of which a mechanism shall be developed with assistance of EEA. In order to do this a special
working group that will focus solely on the preparation of SOE report shall be established. The request for
assistance in organizing this process has been made to the GEF BSERP Project. The task of this group shall be
to translate the technical reports of different projects into relevant information for the assessment of the Black
Sea Environment, to elaborate an agreed layout of this report, to consult the content of this report with different
stakeholders, to prepare this report for publication. The SOE report shall clearly distinguish the information
gaps from the knowledge gaps that will influence the future scientific activities in the region.
The five years report on the Implementation of the Strategic Action Plan for Rehabilitation and Protection of
the Black Sea (SAPIR) shall show the efficiency of regional cooperation, measures introduced by the Black Sea
Coastal states, and indicate the potential problems that will require more attention.. The SAPIR report shall be
indicator-based with thorough analysis of political, legislative, regulatory and technical measures implemented
by the Black Sea coastal; states over the period of five years. It shall also serve as a basis for any amendments,
revisions, changes in the Black Sea Convention, its Protocols and corresponding BSSAP. The preparation of
indicator-based SAPIR report will be assisted and published by EEA as proposed in the Joint Work Plan
between BSC and EEA under the corresponding MOU.
The approach implied by the BSC institutional network and the BSC Permanent Secretariat is to clearly identify
the impact of policy measures on the state of the environment of the Black Sea. Therefore the BSC Permanent
Secretariat in cooperation with BSC institutional network elaborated and tested a set of questions related to each
article of the BSSAP that has to be answered by the national focal points annually and submitted to the BSC
Permanent Secretariat through the member of the Black Sea Commission of corresponding Black Sea Coastal
State The BSC Activity Centers will analyse submitted data, compile thematic reports and distribute them to the
focal points for comments and explanations. The BSC Permanent Secretariat will integrate thematic reports in
the BSC Annual Report, discuss the report on the meeting of the relevant Advisory Groups and submit it to the
BSC for approval.
The formats for annual submission of data to the Black Sea Commission were drafted by the Permanent
Secretariat and discussed and adopted by the Advisory Groups. For these reporting formats the following
approach was followed:
· When the reporting requirements of EEA were developed, these formats were tested for the Black Sea
Commission
· When the reporting requirements were not elaborated the reporting requirements of the relevant
conventions dealing with this issues were explored and adjusted for the purposes of the Black Sea
Commission
· When the reporting requirements were not elaborated to cover the article in question, the reporting
formats were elaborated by the Permanent Secretariat.
The information flow, expected involvement of supporting projects and timetable are presented
schematically.
Development of a Strategy and Concept of reporting by the ICPDR
17
STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT OF THE BLACK SEA, 2006
1. SOE Information Flow
Interdisciplinary working group of leading scientists (EGSOE)
(GEF, BSC, TACIS, ARENA, other projects)
?
?
?
BSC institutional network
Regional networks of
National network of
scientists
scientists
National reporting
Regional Scientific
National Scientific
studies/projects/regional
Studies/Projects
publications
/Publications
2. SOE Timetable
Activity
Deadlines
Leading
Financial
Institution
sources
Establishing interdisciplinary expert group Second half of 2004
BSC, GEF
GEF, ARENA,
of leading scientists and developing the
operational scheme for organization of the
preparation of the report (EGSOE)
Inventory of available scientific knowledge December 2004
EGSOE, BSC GEF, ARENA,
and databases
institutional
other projects
network
Elaboration of Report Layout
March 2005
EGSOE
GEF, ARENA,
other projects
Establishing mechanism for cooperation with March 2005
EGSOE, BSC, BSC PS, GEF,
on-going and emerging projects
EEA
ARENA,
Other Projects
Preparation of the State of the Environment September 2006
EGSOE, BSC GEF
Report
institutional
network
Editing and Publication 0f SOE, 2006
March 2007
EGSOE, GEF, GEF
BSC PS
18
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN FOR
REHABILITATION AND PROTECTIONOF THE BLACK SEA (SAPIR)
2001-2006
1. SAPIR Information flow
BSC Permanent Secretariat in Cooperation with EEA
?
?
?
BSC institutional network
BSC Institutional network,
BSC institutional network
EGSOE
assisted by EEA
Annual national reporting on
Annual national reporting to
Annual reports of the BSC:
policy measures
BSC on the state of the
translation of the scientific
environment of the Black
information and national
Sea (the same reporting as
reporting into policy related
for the State of the
indicators
Environment)
2. Timetable
Activity
Deadlines
Leading Institution
Financial sources
Fine tuning the reporting April, 2004
BSC institutional BSC, GEF BSERP,
formats to BSC on policy
network, GEF
TACIS
measures
Annual national reporting to the September 1st of National focal points In kind contribution by
BSC on policy measures
each year , starting through BSC member
Black Sea Coastal States
from 2004
Annual national reporting to September 1st of National focal points In kind contribution by
BSC on state of the environment each year , starting through BSC member
Black Sea Coastal States
(the same as for SOE)
from 2004
Establishing mechanism for March, 2004
EEA, BSC
EEA, BSC
cooperation with on-going and
emerging projects
Preparation of indicator-based Staring from 2004
BSC PS, BSC BSC PS, EEA, GEF,
annual reports
institutional network TACIS
EEA for the year 2004
Preparation of indicator based December, 2006
EEA, BSC PS, BSC BSC PS, EEA, GEF
five years report in the
institutional network
Implementation of BS SAP
2001-2006
Printing of indicator based five March, 2007
EEA
EEA, BSC
years report in the
Implementation of BS SAP
2001-2006