UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Policies for the Control of Agricultural Point
and Non-point Sources of Pollution
&
Pilot Projects on Agricultural Pollution Reduction
(Project Outputs 1.2 and 1.3)
Final Report for
Danube Regional Project Outputs 1.2 & 1.3
March 2004
GFA Terra Systems
in co-operation with Avalon
Your contact person
with GFA Terra Systems is
Dr. Heinz-Wilhelm Strubenhoff
Danube Regional Project - Project RER/01/G32
"Policies for the Control of Agricultural Point and Non-point Sources of Pollution"
& "Pilot Projects on Agricultural Pollution Reduction"
(Project Outputs 1.2 and 1.3)
Final Report for Danube Regional Project Outputs 1.2 & 1.3
Author: Mark Redman
Address
GFA Terra Systems GmbH
Eulenkrugstraße 82
22359 Hamburg
Germany
Telephone: 00-49-40-60306-170
Telefax: 00-49-40-60306-179
E-mail: hwstrubenhoff@gfa-terra.de
Final Report for Danube Regional Project Outputs 1.2 & 1.3
Preface
The overall aim of the Danube Regional Project (DRP) is to support the activities of the International
Commission for Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR) in implementing a regional, basin-wide
approach in 11 countries of the Danube River Basin (DRB) to solving the trans-boundary problems
associated with the protection of the Danube River - including the sustainable management of surface
and ground waters, the reduction of water pollution and the protection of water related ecosystems.
Objective 1 of the DRP is the creation of sustainable ecological conditions for land use and water
management. Under this objective there are two key outputs relating to agriculture:
Output 1.2 reduction of nutrients and other harmful substances from agricultural point source and
non-point sources through agricultural policy changes
Output 1.3 development of pilot projects on reduction of nutrients and other harmful substances
from agricultural point source and non-point sources
The main focus of the UNDP/GEF assistance to controlling agricultural pollution is to:
· identify the main sources of agricultural pollution within the countries of the DRB
· review the current state of policy development for agricultural pollution control in the DRB
countries
· identify the main administrative, institutional and funding deficiencies in the development and
implementation of these policies
· provide support for developing the concept of Best Agricultural Practice (BAP) in the DRB
countries including improvements in the management of livestock manure, minimising the use
of fertilisers and pesticides, better use of crop rotations and creation of buffer zones
· identify and develop pilot programmes and projects (e.g. training and institutional development)
for introducing and promoting the concept of BAP in order to improve environmental
management practices in agriculture in a number of priority countries.
Phase I of Output 1.2 and 1.3 was preparatory and undertaken by GFA Terra Systems (Germany) in
co-operation with Avalon (Netherlands). The GFA Terra Systems/Avalon consultancy team consisted
of 6 international consultants and a network of 35 national experts in the 11 central and lower DRB
countries eligible for UNDP/GEF assistance. The main focus of their work was:
· Updating available information on the use of agro-chemicals in the 11 central and lower DRB
countries
· Supporting the development of existing DRB inventories of non-point source agricultural
pollution
· Surveying and reviewing the current state of policy development for controlling agricultural
pollution in the central and lower DRB
· Identifying priorities for the strengthening of agricultural pollution control policies in the DRB
· Preparing a general concept of Best Agricultural Practice (BAP) for promoting farm management
practices which are less polluting
· Identification and preparation of potential pilot projects for demonstrating the general concept of
Best Agricultural Practice (BAP) at catchment level in priority countries of the central and lower
DRB during Phase 2 of the DRP
· Preparation of recommendations for agricultural policy reforms for the promotion of BAP in
central and lower DRB countries to be implemented during Phase 2 of the DRP
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Final Report for Danube Regional Project Outputs 1.2 & 1.3
Table of Contents
1
Purpose, Approach & Methodology of the Project Components ................................................... 1
1.1 Preparation
of
Inventories ........................................................................................ 1
1.2
Concept of Best Agricultural Practice (BAP) .......................................................... 2
1.3
Policy Recommendations for Introduction of BAP (DRP Phase II)........................ 3
1.4
Proposals for Pilot Projects (DRP Phase II)............................................................. 3
2
Achieved Results ............................................................................................................................ 5
2.1 Preparation
of
Inventories ........................................................................................ 5
2.2
Concept of Best Agricultural Practice (BAP) .......................................................... 7
2.3
Policy Recommendations for Introduction of BAP (DRP Phase II)........................ 8
2.4
Proposals for Pilot Projects (DRP Phase II)............................................................. 8
3
Recommendations for Phase II....................................................................................................... 9
3.1
Further Development and Introduction of Policy Instruments Adapted to National
Conditions ................................................................................................................ 9
3.2 Practical
Demonstration
of BAP within the Framework of Pilot Projects............. 10
3.3
Project Implementation Arrangements for Phase II............................................... 12
4
Lessons Learnt.............................................................................................................................. 15
4.1
EU Acceding Countries (entering May 2004): Czech Republic, Hungary,
Slovakia, Slovenia.................................................................................................. 16
4.1
EU Candidate Countries (entering after May 2004): Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia16
4.2
Non-EU Accession Countries: Bosnia & Herzegovina, Moldova, Serbia &
Montenegro, Ukraine ............................................................................................. 16
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Acronyms & Abbreviations
BAP
Best Agricultural Practice
BAT
Best Available Techniques
CAP
Common Agricultural Policy
DRB
Danube River Basin
DRP
Danube Regional Project
EC
European Commission
EU
European Union
GEF
Global Environmental Facility
GFP
Good Farming Practice
ICM
Integrated Crop Management
ICPDR
International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River
IPM
Integrated Pest Management
MONERIS
Modelling Nutrient Emissions in River Systems
UNDP
United Nations Development Programme
WFD
Water Framework Directive
Final Report for Danube Regional Project Outputs 1.2 & 1.3 1
1
Purpose, Approach & Methodology of the Project Components
1.1
Preparation of Inventories
Non-point Sources of Pollution
The purpose of this project component was to prepare a clear and easy-to-understand summary of the
final results of the project entitled "Harmonised Inventory of Point and Diffuse Emissions of Nitrogen
and Phosphorus in the Danube Basin" undertaken by the Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland
Fisheries (IGB), Berlin. The project aimed to determine and calculate the annual nutrient emissions
into the Danube River for the period 1998 to 2000 by applying the so-called MONERIS (Modelling
Nutrient Emissions in River Systems) mathematical model to the 388 sub-basins of the Danube River.
The summary was prepared specifically to support the work of the ICPDR Emissions Expert Group
(EMIS-EG) during their work on assessing the significant pressures from both point and diffuse
sources of pollution for the DRB Roof Report 2004.
Fertilizer and Manure
The aim of this project component was to a) develop an inventory of fertiliser market products for the
central and lower DRB on a country-by-country basis, as well as an overview of trends in manure
production, and b) to review the typical use and misuse of fertilizers and manures, together with the
potential for reduction of environmental impact.
Due to the limited availability of data sources on mineral fertiliser use in the region, national experts in
each of the DRB countries under study were asked to undertake a survey of:
1. the types of N and P mineral fertiliser that are commonly used in agriculture and horticulture
2. the amounts of mineral N and P fertilisers typically applied in their own country and how they are
used (e.g. what crops are they applied to)
3. information on the characteristics of N and P mineral fertiliser use by farmers, including
approximately what percentage of the crops grown currently have mineral fertilisers applied to
them, the current average or "typical" application rate (kg per ha) for N and P fertilisers, the
typical time of fertiliser application (e.g. in autumn or spring) and any information available on
bad practice by farmers regarding the use of these fertilisers
4. identification of problems relating to the use of mineral fertilisers, including known "bad
practice".
Pesticides
Pesticide usage in the central and lower DRB countries has declined significantly since the early
1990s. The aim of this component was to prepare an inventory of those pesticides still in use in the
DRB countries under study - together with descriptions of observed misuse, potential impact upon the
environment and potential for reduction.
The approach taken was to focus upon a total of 24 so-called priority pesticides for the DRB these
are pesticide substances that regularly occur in the aquatic environment of the catchment and are of
special concern for environmental and/or human health reasons. Due to the limited availability of data
sources on pesticide use in the DRB, national experts in each of the central and lower DRB countries
under study were asked to undertake a survey of:
1. available data on the amount of these pesticides applied in DRB countries and how they are used
(e.g. what crops are they applied to, number of applications etc.)
2. available information on bad practice by farmers and others regarding the use of these pesticides
The experts mainly submitted data based upon sales data and on the recommendations from the
pesticide product registration. Actual use data by location, crop and active ingredient were generally
2 UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
not available and could not be submitted. Therefore the figures presented mainly relate to general
estimations of national usage of the priority pesticides.
Agricultural Pollution Control Policy
The purpose of this review was to develop understanding of the existing policy context regarding
agricultural pollution control in the 11 central and lower DRB countries. In particular, the review
aimed to classify, describe and analyse 4 key issues:
1. The current policy objectives and strategies of the different DRB countries regarding the control of
water pollution caused by agriculture
2. The various policy instruments and practical measures that are currently used in the DRB countries
in order to promote the control of water pollution caused by agriculture (e.g. to implement national
policy objectives) - this included regulatory, economic and advisory/informative, as well as
project-based instruments and measures
3. The overall effectiveness of the "policy mix" used to control water pollution, with particular
attention given to the targeting of policies and any reasons for poor implementation
4. The effectiveness of the institutional arrangements that are operating to implement the various
policy instrument and measures - are the institutions effectively organised to implement policies
and practice for agricultural pollution control? Do the relevant institutions have appropriate power
and authority? Are sufficient resources allocated to the relevant institutions?
In order to collect the necessary information, a survey was designed and undertaken by national
experts working in each country of the 11 DRB countries under study. The information gathered were
analysed in order to draw recommendations for policy reform.
1.2
Concept of Best Agricultural Practice (BAP)
The objective of developing a concept of "best agricultural practice" (BAP) under Output 1.2 of the
Danube Regional Project was to support the design of new agricultural pollution control policies for
the central and lower DRB countries that will promote the greater integration of pollution control
considerations into the day-to-day management of crops, animals and agricultural land by farmers in
the central and lower DRB.
There are no concrete and universal definitions available for what is or is not best agricultural practice
(BAP) and so a location-specific concept had to be developed for the central and lower DRB countries
targeted by this project.
A draft concept was developed by the project team and presented for discussion at the Workshop on
"Promoting Best Agricultural Practice in the Danube River Basin" organised by the project consortium
on 6 7 October 2003 in Zagreb, Croatia.
This workshop was a key activity that brought together a unique cross-section of policy-makers in
agriculture and water quality from all 11 central and lower DRB countries, together with the GFA
national experts and consultants, to participate in discussion of the problems and potential practical
solutions associated with agriculture and water pollution in the region. The specific objectives for the
workshop were as follows:
1. To develop understanding of EU policy developments regarding agricultural pollution and
"good/best agricultural practice"
2. To present information collected on a) agrochemical use in the DRB and b) current status of
agricultural pollution control policies
3. To introduce and discuss a draft concept of Best Agricultural Practice (BAP) for the DRB
The workshop was structured to balance a number of presentations from keynote speakers and
consultants with the opportunity for discussion and feedback at a national level.
Final Report for Danube Regional Project Outputs 1.2 & 1.3 3
Of particular value were two "break-out" sessions during the workshops during which the national
representatives were divided into 3 working groups according to their country's status regarding EU
accession (i.e. the principal driving force for policy reform in the DRB at present). This approach
worked well, allowing the opportunity for discussion and feedback at a national level without the
complications arising from the widely differing policy-making context currently created by further EU
enlargement into the DRB.
1.3
Policy Recommendations for Introduction of BAP (DRP Phase II)
The preparation of recommendations for agricultural policy reforms (e.g. new legal and institutional
instruments) for the promotion of BAP during Phase 2 of the DRP was founded upon the review and
analysis presented in four key documents produced within the framework of Output 1.2:
· Inventory of Agricultural Pesticide Use in the Danube River Basin Countries
· Inventory of Fertiliser and Manure Use (with reference to Land Management Practices) in the
Danube River Basin Countries
· Inventory of Policies for Control of Water Pollution by Agriculture in the Danube River Basin
Countries
· Draft Concept for Best Agricultural Practice for the Danube River Basin Countries
The recommendations also drew upon the conclusions from the international workshop held in Zagreb
in October 2003 that brought together a comprehensive cross-section of policy-makers in agriculture
and water resource management from all eleven central and lower DRB countries to discuss the
problems and potential practical solutions associated with agriculture and water pollution in the region.
1.4
Proposals for Pilot Projects (DRP Phase II)
Following on from the preceding project components came the development of a) the concept of pilot
projects as "tool" for promoting BAP in the central and lower DRB and b) the preparation of pilot project
proposals for implementation in Phase 2 of the DRP during the period 2004 2006.
It was proposed that the 7 priority countries of the central and lower DRB that will be eligible for pilot
project activities are:
· EU Pre-accession Countries (accession likely after 2004) - Romania, Bulgaria and Croatia
(currently preparing its application for EU membership)
· EU Non-accession Countries - Bosnia & Herzegovina (including Republica Srpska), Serbia and
Montenegro, Moldova and Ukraine
National experts in these countries began a process of identifying potential pilot projects according to
national priority. This led to the compilation of a "long list" of project proposals that were further
refined according to certain pre-determined selection criteria.
A key activity in the development of the BAP pilot project proposals was the workshop on
"Developing Pilot Projects for the Promotion of Best Agricultural Practice in the Danube River Basin"
that was organised by the project team on 19 20 January 2004 in Bucharest, Romania. This brought
together agricultural and environmental policy-makers, representatives of agricultural extension
services and environmental NGOs from the 7 priority countries, together with the GFA national
experts and consultants, with the specific objectives of:
· Raising awareness of the potential role of pilot projects and extension services in promoting the
reduction of agricultural pollution in the DRB (priority countries)
· Defining the function of pilot projects as a "tool" for a) building the capacity of extension services
and b) supporting policy reform for agricultural pollution control
4 UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
· Discussing and agreeing on clear selection criteria for pilot projects
· Presenting outlines of the proposed BAP pilot projects for review and discussion
· Refining proposed pilot projects.
The workshop was structured to balance a number of presentations from keynote speakers and
consultants with the opportunity for discussion and feedback at a national level.
Final Report for Danube Regional Project Outputs 1.2 & 1.3 5
2
Achieved Results
2.1
Preparation of Inventories
Non-point Sources of Pollution
The data presented in this inventory were derived from the final results of the project entitled
"Harmonised Inventory of Point and Diffuse Emissions of Nitrogen and Phosphorus in the Danube
Basin". The inventory was prepared as a series of national data sheets summarising a) the annual
nutrient emissions into the Danube River from agriculture via groundwater, tile drainage, soil erosion
and surface run-off estimated by the MONERIS (Modelling Nutrient Emissions in River Systems)
mathematical model, and b) the average national nutrient surplus (i.e. positive nutrient balance) of
agricultural topsoil.
Fertilizer and Manure
A range of mineral fertiliser products containing nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) are available to
farmers in DRB countries. There are no consistent patterns to the products being, except to say that
the most commonly used products in any country are inevitably those that are locally the cheapest such
as ammonium nitrate, calcium ammonium nitrate (CAN) and urea
The rapid decline (40-50 kg N/ha) in the N balance of agricultural land in central & lower DRB
countries since the late 1980s suggests that there has been a significant reduction in the risk of diffuse
N pollution from agriculture this is associated both with the significant reduction in N fertiliser use
by farmers in the region and the 50% decline in livestock numbers.
There are now indications that fertiliser use by farmers in the region is increasing again with an 18%
increase in total fertiliser N consumption (thousands tonnes/year) by all central and lower DRB
countries during the period from 19972002. Not surprisingly, the increase in fertilizer N use greatest
(up to 30%) in those countries preparing for EU accession in 2004 and it is highly likely that this trend
will continue with the implementation of the CAP in these countries.
Despite the relatively low levels of fertiliser use and manure production in most central and lower
DRB countries, the risk of significant nutrient loss to waters is increased greatly by a number of "bad
practice" by farmers that are consistently reported in all countries, including bad timing of fertiliser
application; spreading fertiliser and manure on frozen and snow covered ground, sloping land and too
close to surface waters; not considering the nutrient requirements of the crops that fertilisers (and
manures) are applied to e.g. over-application of fertiliser N at the time of sowing; treating manure as a
"waste" product rather than a valuable source of nutrients this commonly leads to the over-
application manure and slurry to small areas of land; in the poorest rural areas, manure is often
dumped in village waste heaps, streams and ponds etc., and; manure storage facilities are often poor -
without adequate storage facilities, manures are often applied to land at inappropriate times when there
is high risk of leaching or run-off.
In order to reduce the risk of diffuse pollution by nutrients (N and P) from agriculture it is necessary to
encourage practical farm management techniques that minimise the opportunities for nutrients to
accumulate in a form that is susceptible to loss. By using current and evolving scientific knowledge it is
possible to develop simple practical guidelines for the management of the nutrient inputs most commonly
used by farmers namely mineral fertilisers and manures. These should be applicable to all farmers at
little or no cost thereby minimising the need for financial incentives. Furthermore, it should always be
stressed to farmers that improvements in nutrient management also means improvements in productivity,
cost-effectiveness and ultimately profit.
The promotion of even the most basic "good practice" for farmers should be a high priority for
national governments and will benefit both farmers (through improved efficiency, productivity and
profit) and the environment. Policy objectives are recommended for all national strategies aiming to
reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture, together with comments on policy instruments that should
6 UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
be adopted where appropriate to national context (not all policy instruments are appropriate to all
countries).
Pesticides
Of the 24 priority pesticides identified in the central and lower DRB countries, only three are
authorized in all DRB countries, seven are not authorized in any DRB country, while others are
restricted in some countries. The priority pesticides currently in use are all "high use" pesticides. The
most widely used pesticide substance in the region is copper, but since this is relatively immobile it
represents more of a localized soil pollution problem than a water pollution problem. The next most
commonly used pesticide was the herbicide Atrazine, followed by the herbicides 2,4-D, Alachlor and
Trifluralin.
The reported total use of priority pesticides is the highest in Hungary and the Czech Republic. It is
also clear that a high percentage of crops in the DRB countries do not receive any pesticide
applications at all. The pesticide usage data submitted by the national experts are only estimations
since they are based upon sales data (except Czech data) and often neglect trade. Furthermore, the
collected data only presents a picture of pesticide use at a national level it is not possible to estimate
pesticide use at a catchment level without significant extra survey work.
The problems commonly associated with pesticide use in the DRB include: uncontrolled and illegal
trade of pesticide products; high use in certain areas and on certain crops (e.g. Atrazine is mostly used
in maize); poor storage, including old pesticide stores; use in excess of recommended rates;
unauthorised use on crops they are not registered for; cleaning of spraying equipment and disposal of
unused pesticide, pesticide containers and "spray tank washings" nearby to or even in water courses;
drift of pesticide spray to adjacent areas due to the old spraying equipment used; lack of knowledge of
and/or compliance with obligatory "buffer zones" for surface waters and other protected areas, and;
poor timing of application.
The current low use of agricultural pesticides in the central and lower DRB presents a unique
opportunity to develop and promote more sustainable agricultural systems before farmers become
dependent again upon the use of agro-chemical inputs. There is concern, however, that as economic
conditions improve again (e.g. with the expansion of the Common Agricultural Policy into those DRB
countries joining the EU) that there is a risk of pesticide use increasing again.
The national governments of all central and lower DRB countries should therefore aim to effectively
control pesticide pollution in order to minimise the risks presented to human health, the quality of
environmental resources and the integrity of natural ecosystems in the region. As with fertilisers and
manures, policy objectives are recommended for all national strategies aiming to control pesticide
pollution from agriculture, together with comments on policy instruments that should be adopted
where appropriate to national context.
Agricultural Pollution Control Policy
All national experts reported some goals for water protection in their countries, although there is a
general lack of clear and targeted strategies for water protection that integrate different policy
measures and show the necessary path to the achievement of indicated goals. Most progress towards
the development of comprehensive water protection strategies has been made in those countries
preparing for EU accession in 2004 since these countries will shortly have to take over the whole range
of environmental legislation in the acquis communautaire, including the EU Water Framework
Directive.
Four basic types of policy instrument for the control of agricultural water pollution were reviewed:
Regulatory Instruments many of the main agricultural pollution issues (nutrients, pesticides, farm
waste and agricultural run-off) are addressed by existing regulatory instruments in the DRB countries,
with the most extensive coverage of issues in those countries preparing for EU accession in 2004. In
most other countries, existing regulatory instruments tend to be rather general with relatively few
specific regulatory instruments in place. Consequently there is much potential to prepare more
Final Report for Danube Regional Project Outputs 1.2 & 1.3 7
targeted instruments to prevent water pollution through the control of specific farming practices also
to improve compliance and enforcement.
Economic Instruments - not surprisingly, the economic instruments used in the DRB countries are
mainly disincentives due to the lack of financial resources to introduce incentive schemes. Where
economic instruments are in place they do not currently address all pollution issues in all countries.
The number of incentive measures in the four countries acceding to the EU in May 2004 is expected to
increase with EU accession and the availability of EU co-financing for rural development measures,
such as agri-environment programmes.
Advisory/Information Instruments - the transfer of knowledge and information to farmers via
advisory/informative instruments can play a key role in changing the management practices of farmers
and reducing agricultural pollution. However, the most frequent limitation upon this type of
instrument for controlling agricultural pollution in the DRB is that the actions taken are too small with
insufficient staff and financial resources. There is large potential to further develop
advisory/information instruments in all countries.
Project Based there are various types and sizes of projects targeting the prevention of agricultural
water pollution with a tendency towards research and policy implementation in those countries
working towards EU accession in 2004 and later.
Based upon the results of the policy review, the following general recommendations were made for all
central and lower DRB countries:
· to design more targeted and integrated strategies for the control of agricultural pollution
· to improve the control and enforcement of regulatory instruments for agricultural pollution control
· to put more emphasis upon the design and implementation of advice/information measures for
agricultural pollution control
· to develop within available resources financial incentives as appropriate economic instruments for
promoting agricultural pollution control
· to promote organic farming and integrated crop management techniques as viable alternatives to
the use of agrochemicals
· to design and implement standards of Good Farming Practice
· to increase farmer and advisor awareness of the importance of agricultural pollution control
· to support capacity building amongst relevant stakeholders for the implementation of agricultural
pollution control policies
2.2
Concept of Best Agricultural Practice (BAP)
For the purposes of this project, the term "best agricultural practice" (BAP) is only applied to farm
management practices that reduce the risk of pollution occurring from agricultural non-point sources in
the DRB this includes classical diffuse pollution and "small point source" pollution arising from
multiple, small-scale (and often accidental) discharges that occur from different farming activities.
There are no concrete and universal definitions available for what is or is not best agricultural practice
(BAP). It is our understanding that BAP actually encompasses a broad spectrum or hierarchy of
activities that must be interpreted according to local agronomic, environmental, social and economic
context. Not all elements of this hierarchy are relevant in all countries of the central and lower DRB
instead Best Agricultural Practice is defined as: "...the highest level of pollution control practice that
any farmer can reasonably be expected to adopt when working within their own national, regional
and/or local context in the Danube River Basin"
With this definition BAP can be applied as a uniform concept across the whole DRB, but the actual
improvement in the level of environmental management/performance (i.e. to "move up" the hierarchy
and adopt more demanding pollution control practices) that we can expect from farmers in different
regions/countries will vary significantly according to:
8 UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
a) the agronomic, environmental and socio-economic context in which they are operating
b) the availability of appropriate policy instruments
c) the availability of appropriate capacity, knowledge, information and other institutional and
technical resources for supporting farmers
The objective of policy strategies for agricultural pollution control in the different DRB countries
should therefore be to encourage farmers to "move up" the BAP hierarchy as far as possible in the
context in which they operate and deliver the highest level of pollution control that it is feasible for
them to do. The function of available policy instruments and measures for achieving this "shift" can
be summarised as follows:
a) Disincentives for dropping below the minimum level of environmental management practice that
is acceptable
b) Appropriate interventions for promoting and sustaining the minimum level of environmental
management practice on as many farms as possible, and
c) Incentives to go beyond the minimum level of environmental management practice and deliver a
higher level of environmental performance
Obviously the pursuit of such strategies will require a combination of policy instruments the so-called
"policy mix" - to achieve optimal pollution control and a number of additional factors will influence the
selection of these instruments, including environmental effectiveness, economic efficiency, equity and
accessibility to farmers, administrative feasibility and cost, and political acceptability.
2.3
Policy Recommendations for Introduction of BAP (DRP Phase II)
See the following section entitled "Further Development and Introduction of Policy Instruments
Adapted to National Conditions" under Recommendations for Phase II.
2.4
Proposals for Pilot Projects (DRP Phase II)
See the following section entitled "Practical Demonstration of BAP within the Framework of Pilot
Projects" under Recommendations for Phase II.
Final Report for Danube Regional Project Outputs 1.2 & 1.3 9
3
Recommendations for Phase II
The "Recommendations for Policy Reforms and for the Introduction of Best Agricultural Practices in
the Central and Lower Danube River Basin countries" have been developed to introduce new legal and
institutional instruments for reduction and control of water pollution from non point sources of
agricultural activities.
Further steps for the implementation of the proposed policy reforms and the introduction of measures
for Best Agricultural Practices in Phase 2 of the Project are presented in the following sections:
· Further development and introduction of policy instruments adapted to national conditions
· Practical demonstration of BAP within the framework of Pilot Projects
· Project implementation arrangements for Phase 2
3.1
Further Development and Introduction of Policy Instruments Adapted to
National Conditions
In the report on "Recommendations for Policy Reforms and for the Introduction of Best Agricultural
Practices in the Central and Lower Danube River Basin countries" six Strategic Aims with eleven
Objectives for measures for control and reduction of agricultural pollution have been identified related
to:
1. Use of mineral fertilisers and manure,
2. Use of pesticides,
3. Compliance and enforcement of regulatory instruments,
4. Development of appropriate economic instruments,
5. Development of capacities of agricultural extension services,
6. Promotion of organic farming and other low input farming systems.
The policy aims and objectives described have to be adapted to national and regional conditions
focusing on the review and further development of the legal and institutional frame at the national
level. In this context, the needed assistance should be provided to EU Accession Candidate Countries
due to join the EU after 2004: Bulgaria and Romania and possibly Croatia (preparing application to
join the EU) and to non-EU Accession Countries: Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia-Montenegro, Moldova
and Ukraine. Most of these countries should also benefit from agricultural demonstration projects for
the introduction of BAP in the Danube River Basin.
For practical implementation of proposed policies a two step approach is anticipated:
In the first step specific guidelines should be developed for each of the above mentioned countries to
facilitate reviews of national agricultural policies and legislation and to strengthen institutional
arrangements for the introduction of BAP:
· to improve agricultural practice (fertiliser, manure and land management) and to reduce the risk of
diffuse nutrient pollution through better management of fertilisers and manures,
· to reduce the levels of harmful active substances used for crop protection by prohibiting and/or
substituting the most dangerous pesticides with safer (including non-chemical) alternatives,
· to encourage the proper use of pesticides by farmers and other operators, and to assure compliance
with regulatory instruments through the control of specific farming practices,
· to develop and introduce appropriate economic instruments to encourage implementation of BAP,
· to review and adapt the mandate and structure of agricultural extension and advisory services,
· to develop the capacity of agricultural extension and advisory services for the promotion of BAP,
10 UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
· to develop and support pilot projects for the promotion of BAP by agricultural extension and
advisory services,
· to promote certified organic farming and other low input farming systems as viable alternatives to
the conventional use of mineral fertilisers and pesticides.
This work should be carried out by national consultants in close cooperation with international
assistance. Specific outlines for the review of existing national legislation and proposals for changes
and/or amendments of the legal and institutional frame should be prepared to facilitate the introduction
of the concept of Best Agricultural Practice (BAP) at the national level. Policy reviews should also
take into account trans-boundary issues to enhance regional cooperation as well as the requirements of
the process of EU integration in adopting relevant EU directives and regulations into national law.
Taking into account the limited financial capacities of the UNDP/GEF DRP, it would be necessary to
identify complementary sources of financial support to assist Governments in reviewing and amending
national legislation to reduce water pollution from non-point sources of agricultural activities in line
with the proposed recommendations for the introduction of Best Agricultural Practices.
This can best be achieved in the frame of Twinning Projects that are presently financed primarily by
European Commission funds to support the accession process in adapting national legislation and
developing mechanisms of compliance in line with EU requirements (Implementation of the Water
Framework Directive and other relevant directives for water protection and environmental
management).
Therefore, in the second step, EU-funded twinning projects should be promoted and developed
(outline of project description) and sources of financial and technical support for project
implementation should be identified to assure effective introduction of new concepts for agricultural
pollution control in national policies and legislation.
In a potential twinning project, consultants and staff of public authorities of EU member states advise
their colleagues from comparable public institutions in the partner country. The key person in each
twinning project is the Pre-Accession Advisor (for EU accession candidate countries) or the
Partnership Advisor (for other countries). For the whole duration of a project (generally one or two
years) the Advisor makes his/her services available to the respective public authority in the partner
country. For this period, he/she is on leave from his home office. The advisor is supported by an
experienced project manager from the administration of his/her home country. This increases the
efficiency of projects because it facilitates the coordination and availability of other contributions (in
particular short-term assignments) of the EU member state. In addition, twinning may also comprise
study tours and internships for Government officials from the partner countries in administrations of
the EU member states. Similar EU programmes are also available for the private NGO sector (Support
to Civil Society and Local Initiatives).
Review and amendment of national policies and development of respective legislation should be
considered as an iterative process that takes into account the opinions and needs of the stakeholders
concerned as well as trans-boundary issues related to land management and environmental protection.
In this context, particular attention should also be paid to reviewing institutional mechanisms for
promotion of BAP focusing on the mandate and the needed support of agricultural extension services.
The financial support for twinning projects should be mobilized in the frame of bilateral and
multilateral assistance relating to the EU enlargement process and assistance to South Eastern Europe
(EU CARDS programme). This approach is in line with GEF operational principles to generate
additional financial and technical support for national capacity building and further implementation of
GEF proposed measures for nutrient reduction in the DRB countries.
3.2
Practical Demonstration of BAP within the Framework of Pilot Projects
Seven countries of the central and lower DRB region (Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia-
Montenegro, Bulgaria, Romania, Moldova and Ukraine) have been identified as a priority for the
development and implementation of pilot projects to promote the concept of Best Agricultural
Practice.
Final Report for Danube Regional Project Outputs 1.2 & 1.3 11
The pilot projects will be implemented in Phase 2 of the DRP (2004-2006) and it is anticipated that
this will involve 18-24 months of practical implementation. The immediate beneficiaries of the pilot
projects will be the agricultural extension and advisory services in the selected countries. The ultimate
beneficiaries of the results will be the farmers' community (environmental and economic benefits), the
consumers (healthy food products) and in the final analysis the society as a whole (healthy
environment and unpolluted surface and ground waters).
The specific objectives of the pilot projects will be to: "demonstrate how improvements can be made
in the capacity/effectiveness of agricultural advisers/extension services to provide appropriate
information and advice that supports the highest level of pollution control practice by farmers
according to local context".
Pre-requisites and selection criteria taken into account in identifying pilot projects for demonstration of
BAP responding to a specific pollution issue included:
· Coherence with Government policies and/or the political commitment to introduce BAP;
· Existence of a reliable counterpart organisation, credible to the agricultural community;
· Location in a specific geographical area, if possible reinforcing transboudary cooperation with
neighbouring communities;
· Response to a specific pollution issue fertiliser and manure handling, pesticides use and
agricultural run-off, as identified by stakeholders;
· Potential for replication at national and/or regional levels;
· Reinforcement of other GEF interventions and promoting cooperation with existing international
and bilateral projects in agricultural development.
In the workshop on "Developing Pilot Projects for the Promotion of BAP in the Danube River Basin",
which took place on 19 and 20 January 2004, six pilot projects have been identified, responding to a
specific pollution issue and allowing in most of the cases a transboundary approach (except Project
Number 5 and 6):
1. Communal Manure Management in the Danube Flood Plaines (Bulgaria and Romania)
2. Control of Agricultural Run-off for the Reduction of Nutrient Pollution in the Prut River Basin
(Moldova and Romania)
3. Non-chemical Weed Control in the Sava River Basin (Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia-
Montenegro)
4. Upland Manure Management in the Sava and Bosna River Basins (Bosnia-Herzegovina and
Serbia-Montenegro)
5. Good Agricultural Practice in the Intensive Agricultural Region of Vojvodina (Serbia-
Montenegro)
6. Introduction of Good Agricultural Practices in Odessa Oblast (Ukraine)
Taking into account the limited financial capacities of the UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project, it is
assumed that three Pilot Projects can reasonably be implemented. For the remaining Pilot Projects
other sources of financial support have to be identified.
It can be anticipated that priority will be given to trans-boundary projects with the highest
effectiveness of agricultural advisers/extension services to achieve the expected results that are:
· raised awareness of pollution risks amongst farmers
· increased avoidance of bad practice including improved compliance with relevant legislation
· increased adoption of good practice including utilization of economic incentives.
The finally selected pilot projects for introduction of BAP should demonstrate the practical
implementation of revised agricultural policies at the farmers' community level and the technical and
economic feasibility of proposed agricultural practices for fertiliser and manure handling, use of
12 UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
pesticides and run-off control to reduce water pollution from agricultural activities while improving
the economic situation of farmers.
For effective project implementation the following points should be considered:
· Specific concepts and outlines for the implementation of selected pilot projects should be
developed in consultation with the stakeholders concerned (farmers' community) and in
cooperation with related Government institutions and extension services. Further, relevant ToR
and scope of work for international assistance and national project management should be
prepared;
· Competent extension services should be identified, having the required experience as service
provider and being accepted by the agricultural community as well as by Government;
· Financial support should be made available for project implementation in particular to facilitate
the work of national extension services and to promote awareness raising in the farmers'
community;
· International assistance should be contracted to provide technical advice in introducing BAP
adapted to the local or regional context and to assure follow-up on project activities that includes
(i) regional coordination of pilot project activities, (ii) dissemination of results, (iii) organization of
training workshops, and (iv) cooperation with other projects of bilateral, EU and international
assistance in related subjects (agri-environmental policy development, introduction of BAP, farm
advisory capacity building, and other measures for nutrient reduction from agricultural non-point
sources of pollution).
In implementing the BAP pilot projects of the UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project, particular
attention should be paid to assuring effective coordination with other UNDP/GEF project activities
(Black Sea) as well as with EU projects in EU accession countries, in the Balkan countries and in NIS
countries aiming to reinforce national capacities and to adapt national legislation in line with EU
requirements (EU Water Framework Directive and other related directives for nutrient reduction and
priority substances) and to create the appropriate mechanisms for compliance.
3.3 Project
Implementation
Arrangements for Phase II
It is recommended that the project activities for implementation of Phase II of Outputs 1.2 and 1.3 of
the DRP should be organised as follows:
a) Project preparation phase
· Prepare concept, methodology and scope of work for project implementation
· Organise consultation meeting (policy review and pilot projects)
· Prepare inception report
b) Review of agricultural policies and legislation
· Prepare methodology and country specific guidelines for the introduction of policy concepts
for BAT in national legislation and for related institutional arrangements
· Instruct (training workshop) and providing initial support to national policy specialists
(national consultants)
· Follow-up on activities and reporting of results
c) Development of Twinning Projects
· Prepare concept paper, present concept to national Governments, outline and justification for
twinning projects
· Analyse existing twinning projects (seven middle and lower DRB countries) and define
possibilities of cooperation
· Identify other possible sources for financial and/or technical support
Final Report for Danube Regional Project Outputs 1.2 & 1.3 13
· Negotiate with Governments and donors the implementation of twinning projects for policy
review and introduction of BAP concept
· Follow-up on activities and report on results
d) Implementing of Pilot Projects
· Select most promising pilot projects (consultation meeting in preparation phase)
· Select national counterpart institutions
· Prepare country/subject specific guidelines for project implementation
· Provide technical assistance during project implementation
· Assure technical and financial follow-up of project implementation and report on result.
Project Personnel and Tasks
It is assumed that project implementation as a whole will be sub-contracted to a consulting firm or to a
consortium of consulting firms. Under the responsibility of the sub-contractor, the following
personnel should be provided:
a) International
Experts
· Project Manager Agricultural Project Component (CPM) - in line with TOR prepare
concept, methodology and scope of work for project implementation; guide and supervise
project activities; assure technical and administrative project management including timely
implementation of work programme and adjustment if necessary (with UNDPGEF PM);
prepare inception report and other progress reports; report to the UNDP/GEF Project Manger.
· Agricultural Policy Specialist (APS) - in cooperation with PM prepare outlines for national
policy reviews and introduction of policy concepts for BAP in national legislation; prepare
ToR and guidelines for the practical implementation of BAP in the frame of proposed/selected
pilot projects; participate in workshops and consultation meetings, assure coherence between
policy development and implementation of Pilot Projects; instruct and provide advise to
national consultants; support on an ad-hoc basis the introduction of policy changes in national
legislation; follow-up of project activities in relation to policy review and implementation of
pilot projects and report on results.
· Twinning Specialist (TWS) - in cooperation with PM, prepare concept paper, present concept
to Governments, outline and justification for twinning projects; analyse existing twinning
projects; identify possible sources for financial and/or technical support; negotiate with
Governments and donors the implementation of the "BAT" twinning projects; follow-up on
activities and report on results.
· Extension Service Specialist (ESS) - in cooperation with PM and APS prepare country/subject
specific guidelines for project implementation; participate in the selection of most promising
pilot projects; participate in identifying national counterpart organisations; provide technical
assistance during project implementation; follow-up project implementation activities and
report on results.
· Technical-Financial Supervisor (TFS) - in cooperation with PM and ESS follow-up financial
and technical implementation of pilot projects; control technical milestones of project
implementation; prepare reports on financial situation and propose disbursements in
accordance with payment plan; organise inception meeting and other consultation and training
workshops; assist in general project implementation tasks and report on results.
· Technical Support and Backstopping - Junior Processionals specialised in agricultural policy
and BAT and in agricultural extension and awareness raising concepts shall provide technical
support and backstopping to the PM and to other the Specialists to facilitate project
implementation.
14 UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
b) National Counterpart Organizations and Experts
· National Policy Consultant (NPC) - in each of the participating countries, national Policy
Consultants shall be identified to support the introduction of policy concepts for BAT in
national legislation; under the guidance of the APS and the PM he/she will perform the
following tasks: assist APS in preparing concepts and outlines for national policy reviews and
for the introduction of BAT concepts in national legislation; promote the introduction of
proposed policy changes and concepts for BAP in national legislation and assist the
Government to review legal and institutional mechanisms; observe coherence between policy
development and implementation of Pilot Projects (if applicable); report on results.
· Extension Service Provider (ESP) - the selected national extension service provider
responsible for the implementation of pilot projects in line with the TOR and with the agreed
guidelines referring to specified pollution issues shall provide the following services:
delimitation of project area; inventory of participating farmers; preparation of detailed work
plan including timeframe with milestones; project execution in line with work plan and agreed
timeframe; administrative and financial management of project implementation; regular
reporting to the CPM and the TFS on technical achievements and disbursement of funds in
line with defined milestones.
· National Extension Consultant (NEC) - the selected NEC shall support the activities of the
ESP, he/she should be preferably staff member of the ESP and act as a project manager for the
implementation of the pilot project; he/she shall fulfil the following tasks: cooperate with the
APS and the ESS to prepare the specific guidelines referring to specified pollution issues;
participate in preparing delimitation of project area and inventory of participating farmers;
participate in preparing a detailed work plan with timeframe and milestones; supervise project
execution and administrative and financial management of project implementation; work with
farmers' community and assure links with Government institutions; prepare technical reports
to the ESS and CPM.
c) Summary of Technical Assistance and Project Implementation Support
· General project preparation, management & supervision (CPM): 140 m/d
· Logistical support, reporting and backstopping (young professionals): 100 m/d
· National policy development (APS): 120 m/d
· Development of ToR and promotion of Twinning Projects (TWS): 120 m/d
· Preparation and follow-up of Pilot Projects (APS and ESS): 120 m/d
· Administrative/financial support for Pilot Projects (TFS): 65 m/d
· Implementation of three pilot projects (ESP and NEC): 3 x 150.000 = 450.000 USD
· Travel of international experts: To be determined
· Meetings and workshops: To be determined
· National Policy Consultant (NPC): 200 m/d x 7 countries
· National Extension Consultant (NEC): 200 m/d x 3 countries
Final Report for Danube Regional Project Outputs 1.2 & 1.3 15
4 Lessons
Learnt
The beginning of the 1990s was a political and economic milestone for all of the DRB countries. The
ensuing decade was accompanied by substantial socio-economic changes that affected agriculture
particularly severely. Major changes in farming during the first years of transition led to substantial
reductions in both agricultural production and in the input of agrochemicals. This was linked to an
extensification of land use, changes in farm structures and farm management practices. These
developments have profoundly if maybe only temporarily - changed the relationship between
agriculture and the environment in the region
As far as water pollution is concerned the resultant changes have largely been positive - reductions in
fertiliser and pesticide, as well as the significant reduction in livestock numbers and production of
animal wastes, has contributed greatly to enhanced water quality.
The future relationship between agriculture and the environment in the central and lower DRB is
however now uncertain further enlargement of the EU into the DRB will inevitably bring
environmental and socio-economic benefits to many rural areas, but there is also the risk of increasing
agricultural intensification as economic conditions and access to markets improve, as well as the
continuation of existing bad practice where farmers have no knowledge or incentive to adopt
alternative, more environmentally-friendly practices.
The second phase of the DRP will help to address these issues by supporting the improvement and
harmonisation of policy objectives and instruments for agricultural pollution control in the central and
lower DRB countries. However, even the best, most well-conceived and funded policy instruments
will only work as well as they are understood, absorbed and adopted by the farming community. This
is an important issue and major challenge for the DRP/ICPDR in promoting the concept of BAP in the
region.
In this respect, a number of key points must be noted:
1. The huge diversity of the 11 central and lower DRB countries must be taken into account when
developing and promoting the concept of BAP in the region. Promotion of the concept of BAP by
the DRP/ICPDR must therefore be flexible, adaptable and above all pragmatic!
2. Due to land privatisation and restitution policies, the 1990s witnessed a huge increase in the
number of farm holdings in the DRB region creating an extremely diverse set of actors with
contrasting farm sizes, degrees of specialisation and levels of education. This represents a major
challenge to both agricultural extension/advisory services and to environmental enforcement
agencies. Local capacity-building of these services and agencies remains a major challenge and
demands the commitment of substantial resources at a national level political commitment to the
provision of these resources must be encouraged and supported.
3. Farmers are economically-motivated and it is important to link the promotion of BAP to economic
benefits such as improvements in yield and savings in the cost of agrochemical inputs the
development of appropriate agricultural advisory messages is therefore essential, including well-
written and appropriate advisory materials, demonstration plots/farms, training for advisors and
other capacity building of agricultural extension services.
4. There should be more emphasis upon a "farming systems" approach to agricultural pollution
control rather than the "input reduction" approach encouraged by the methodology advocated in
the terms of reference for this project. It is necessary to promote not only the reduced use of
agrochemicals etc., but also the re-design of farming systems (e.g. using an ecological systems
approach) to make them more environmentally sustainable. A good example of this approach is
the promotion of organic farming which involves significant changes in crop rotation, soil
management, the storage and management of manure, management of field margins and non-crop
habitats etc. as well as prohibiting the use of pesticides and mineral fertilisers
16 UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Additionally, there are some specific lessons to be learnt from the three contrasting groups of countries
in the central and lower DRB:
4.1
EU Acceding Countries (entering May 2004): Czech Republic, Hungary,
Slovakia, Slovenia
There are two key issues noted in the Acceding Countries:
1. Stimulated by a need to adopt the acquis communautaire, the late 1990s saw the introduction of a
raft of new environmental laws or revisions to existing regulations in the EU acceding countries.
Unfortunately although legal harmonisation progressed well, the ability to enforce and monitor
new regulations has often lagged behind and the efficacy of much environmental legislation,
including that relating to the control of agricultural pollution remains questionable.
2. Questions about the future relationship between agriculture and the environment in the DRB are
most pertinent in the EU Acceding Countries where there is already evidence of the growing
influence of the market economy upon agriculture and the management decisions taken by
farmers.
Some national experts suggested that it will initiate a new period of more polarised land use
resulting in highly intensive farming and increased production in the most fertile areas, in contrast
to declining output or abandonment in less competitive regions. There is certainly evidence of this
beginning to happening in the acceding countries, such as the Czech Republic, where there is a
marked increase in fertiliser application to arable crops and pastures in the more productive areas.
Other national experts suggested that the influence of EU enlargement, the adoption of the acquis
communautaire by new Member States and the expansion of the Common Agricultural Policy
(CAP) into the region will produce a complex new set of driving forces for agricultural change in
the DRB with a diverse set of positive and negative implications on agricultural pollution .
4.1
EU Candidate Countries (entering after May 2004): Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia
Similar to EU Acceding Countries particularly for Bulgaria and Romania
4.2
Non-EU Accession Countries: Bosnia & Herzegovina, Moldova, Serbia &
Montenegro, Ukraine
The major issue regarding agricultural pollution control in the non-EU accession countries is how to
develop the appropriate pre-conditions for promoting BAP notably:
· Existing laws on pollution control and the management of natural resources need to reformed
· Appropriate legislation is needed to encourage greater land consolidation and the creation of more
viable farms with greater potential for improving agricultural practice. Greater co-operation
between farmers is also needed to make better use of limited resources to improve farm
technologies (e.g. more modern machinery)
· Access to information on the causes of agricultural pollution, plus the practical measures and
policy options for controlling agricultural pollution is very poor and needs to be improved in
particular, information on what lessons can be learnt from other DRB countries
· As a critical first step education and training are needed at all levels from farmers and advisers to
politicians and policy-makers
· More support for investment in basic manure handling facilities is needed, but the generation of
necessary funds remains a problem
· Pilot projects are needed to demonstrate good agricultural practices for the reduction of water
pollution by farmers farmers need to see things for themselves.
Document Outline