UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Strengthening the Implementation Capacities for Nutrient
Reduction and Transboundary Cooperation
in the Danube River Basin
Final Synthesis Report
The Economic Analysis according to the
Water Framework Directive in the Danube
River Basin
Projec Component 1.1-3:Applying EU Economic Guidelines
for the Economic Analysis to the Danube River Basin
October 2003
The Economic Analysis according to the Water
Framework Directive in the Danube River Basin
A Cross-Country Assessment of Implementation Capacities and
Priority Gaps
Prepared within the Project Output 1.1 Activity 1.1-1.3:
Applying EU Economic Guidelines for the Economic Analysis
to the Danube River Basin
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Contract: RER/01/G32
Final Synthesis Report
October 2003
Eduard Interwies
Britta Pielen
Pierre Strosser
Ecologic, Institute for International and European Environmental Policy
Pfalzburger Strasse 43/44, 10717 Berlin, Germany;
Tel. +49 30 86 88 0-0 Fax +49 30 86 88 0-100;
Contact email: pielen@ecologic.de
Web-site: www.ecologic.de
Foreword
This report is one of the outcomes of a project entitled "Applying EU Economic Guidelines for the
Economic Analysis according to the Water Framework Directive to the Danube River Basin ". The
project forms part of the UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project. Its main objectives are:
- To take an inventory of the present information base available for conducting the economic
analysis according to the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) within GEF-eligible
countries in the Danube River Basin (DRB) through National Scoping Studies (conducted by
national consultants);
- To identify current data and capacity gaps and propose preliminary measures for filling these
gaps on the basis of the National Scoping Studies ;
- To support and facilitate capacity building with regard to the economic analysis through
workshops and supporting activities for the work on the national scoping studies;
- To elaborate a cross-country comparison which identifies the current overall capacity within
the DRB to conduct the economic analysis and proposes measures for closing priority gaps.
The project is undertaken by Ecologic, the German-based non-for-profit Institute for European and
International Environmental Policy with wide experience in the field of European water policy in
general and the implementation of the Water Framework Directive in particular.
The present synthesis report builds on National Scoping Studies (NSS) prepared by national
consultants in July-August 2003. It analyses in how far the upcoming demands for the economic
analysis due 2004 can be met with the presently available capacities within the DRB. A draft version
of this report has been presented and discussed at a workshop in Budapest 9-10 July 2003 under the
participation of national experts dealing with the implementation of the economic aspects of the WFD
in the Danube Basin as well as with the national consultants. Based on these discussions and taking
into consideration the revised national scoping studies, this final cross country analysis has been
prepared.
The Economic Analysis according to the WFD in the Danube River Basin
1
TABLE OF CONTENT
FOREWORD
1 SUMMARY
3
2 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
4
3 BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE OF THIS STUDY
5
3.1
The National Scoping Studies
5
3.2
The Synthesis Report
6
3.3
Scope of the Report
6
3.4
Structure of the Report
6
4 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE WFD AT THE DRB
8
4.1
Economic Aspects and Requirements of the Water Framework Directive
8
4.2
The Economic Analysis for 2004
9
4.3
The Economic Analysis within the Danube River Basin
10
4.3.1
The Role of the ICPDR
10
4.3.2
The Implementation of the Water Framework Directive at National Level
10
4.3.3
The Implementation of the Economic Analysis at National Level
12
5 A CROSS-COUNTRY COMPARISON OF DATA AVAILABILITY FOR THE
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS IN THE DRB
13
5.1
General Issues for Consideration
13
5.1.1
Quality Evaluation
13
5.1.2
The Issue of Scale
13
5.1.3
Restructuring Information According to Hydrological Boundaries
14
5.2
The Economic Importance of Water Uses
14
5.2.1
Data Availability and Quality
14
5.2.2
Restructuring of Available Indicators According to Hydrological Boundaries
17
5.2.3
Key Messages: The Economic Importance of Water Uses
17
5.3
Conducting the Baseline Scenario
18
5.3.1
Assessment of the Quality and Relevance of Available Projections
19
5.3.2
Responsible Authorities
21
5.3.3
Key Messages: Baseline Scenario
22
5.4
Assessing Current levels of Cost Recovery of Water Services
24
5.4.1
Data Availability and Quality
24
5.4.2
Environmental and Resource Costs
26
5.4.3
Restructuring Available Data According to Hydrological Boundaries
27
2
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
5.4.4
Key Messages: Assessing Current levels of Cost Recovery
27
5.5
Preparing for the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
28
5.5.1
Data Availability and Quality on Key Measures
28
5.5.2
Key Messages: Preparing for the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
29
5.6
Administrative Capacities
30
6 SYNTHESIS OF IDENTIFIED GAPS AND NECESSARY MEASURES
31
6.1
Identified Gaps and Necessary Measures at the National Level
31
6.1.1
Information/data related gaps at the national level
31
6.1.2
Methodological difficulties
33
6.1.3
Institutional and administrative arrangements
34
6.2
Required Activities and Possible Supporting Measures at the Danube Level
35
6.2.1
Possible Supporting Measures at the Danube Level
36
6.2.2
Key Issues Revisited: Possible Activities for Addressing Priority Gaps
37
BIBLIOGRAPHY
42
ANNEX I: DETAILED CROSS-COUNTRY COMPARISON
I
I.1
Economic Importance of Water Uses: Information Availability
i
I.2
Economic Importance of Water Uses: Quality of Available Indicators
xiv
I.3
Economic Importance of Water Uses: Hydrological Boundaries
xvii
II.
Baseline Scenario: Quality of Available Projections
xxi
III.
Assessing cost recovery: Availability and Quality
xxiv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.3--1: National Status of WFD Implementation
11
Table 4.3--2: Responsible National Institutions for the Economic Analysis
12
Table 5.2--1: Summary Table Economic Importance of Water Uses
16
Table 5.3--1: Summary Table - Baseline Scenario
21
Table 5.4--1: Summary Table Cost Recovery of Water Services
26
The Economic Analysis according to the WFD in the Danube River Basin
3
1 Summary
The European Union (EU) Water Framework Directive (WFD) is one of the first environmental policy
directives of the European Community that explicitly draws on economic considerations for achieving
its objectives. In particular, according to the requirements stipulated in Article 5 of the Directive, an
economic analysis of water uses has to be carried out by 2004 on a river basin district scale.
This synthesis report makes a cross-country assessment of the Danube River Basin (DRB) countries'
capacities to carry out specific tasks of the economic analysis as required by the EU WFD by the year
2004. This first step of the economic analysis requires in particular to:
1. Report on the economic importance of water uses;
2. Construct a baseline scenario that assesses forecasts for key economic drivers likely to
influence pressures and thus water status up to 2015;
3. Assess current levels of the recovery of the costs of water services;
4. Make first preparatory steps for the cost-effectiveness analysis of measures.
This report is based on National Scoping Studies (NSS) conducted by national consultants for all
GEF-eligible countries1 within the DRB. These NSS investigate the current information availability
and quality on the four key issues under consideration, based on a list of socio-economic indicators
developed by the ICPDR Expert Subgroup on Economics (Econ ESG) on the basis of the
recommendations of the European WATECO-working group. The results of a cross-country
comparison of all NSS are presented in this synthesis report. The analys is highlights priority gaps and
proposes preliminary measures to remedy these gaps. Special emphasis is given to the participating
countries' administrative capacities for carrying out the required tasks. Furthermore, proposals are
made as to which gaps can best be approached at the Danube level and where national activities will
be more effective.
1 With two exceptions: A national scoping study was not conducted for the Ukraine and Serbia and Montenegro
so that the situation there is not investigated in the present study.
4
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
2 List of Abbreviations
BLS
Baseline Scenario
CIS
Common Implementation Strategy
DRB
Danube River Basin
DRP
Danube Regional Project
Econ ESG
Economics Expert Sub-Group (initiated by the International Commission for the
Protection of the Danube River)
GEF
Global Environment Facility
HH
Households
ICPDR
International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River
NA
No information available (e.g. indicator is not monitored)
NN
No information provided
NSS
National Scoping Study
QNE
Quality not evaluated
RBMP
River Basin Management Plans
UNDP
United Nations Development Programme
WATECO
Working Group on Water Economics
WFD
European Water Framework Directive
Britta Pielen, Eduard Interwies, Pierre Strosser
Ecologic
The Economic Analysis according to the WFD in the Danube River Basin
5
3 Background and Rationale of this Study
The overall UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project (DRP) started in December 2001. The project is to
assist 11 Danube countries in reinforcing their capacities of developing effective mechanisms for co-
operation for the protection of international waters and biodiversity. The project complements the
activities of the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR) in its
attempt to strengthen a regional approach to transboundary problems. As part of its Objective 1
"Creation of sustainable ecological conditions for land use and water management", the DRP assists
the Danube countries in particular areas of the implementation of the Water Framework Directive
(WFD) in the Danube River Basin (DRB). Within the scope of Objective 1, Activities 1.1 1.3
"Applying EU Economic Guidelines for Economic Analysis to the DRB" are intended to assist the
ICPDR and member countries in applying the EU WATECO2 Guidance document to the DRB.
The overriding objective of this project component is the facilitation of capacity building. The
participating DRB countries are assisted in the development of common tools and in the
implementation of common approaches, methodologies and guidelines for the economic analysis as
required by the EU WFD by the year 2004. In this framework, a series of workshops has been
conducted.3 On 10 11 July 2003 a Workshop has been conducted in Budapest on "Applying EU
Economic Guidelines for the Economic Analysis to the Danube River Basin". A draft version of the
report at hand has been presented and discussed at this workshop under the participation of national
experts dealing with the implementation of the economic aspects of the WFD in the Danube Basin as
well as with the national consultants that conducted the national scoping exercises on which this report
is build (see section 3.1). Based on these discussions and taking into consideration the revised national
scoping studies, this final cross country analysis has been prepared.
3.1 The National Scoping Studies
As a major step within the described project component (Activities 1.1 1.3) a National Scoping
Study (NSS) has been conducted in all participating DRB countries, which assesses the current status
(availability and quality) of economic data and identifies data gaps as well as necessary measures for
filling priority gaps. The NSS are based on a common template, which was prepared by Ecologic. This
template has been discussed and communicated to the national consultants responsible for carrying out
this scoping exercise at a workshop in Bratislava on 5-6 April 2003. After the workshop, the template
has been finalised and distributed to all national consultants as the basic guidance for their work on the
NSS.
2 The "WATer ECOnomics" working group (under the lead of France and the Commission) consisted of
approximately 40 members, most of them water economists from EU -Member States and Accession Countries.
Its task was to clarify the understanding of the economic aspects of the WFD with a focus on the requirements
for the economic analysis due 2004 (Article 5, Annex III) and provide guidance on how to practically implement
the requirements of the WFD. From the set-up of the working group (December 2000) until the finalisation and
endorsement of the WATECO-guidance document by the water directors of the Member States in June 2002,
this group met 6 times.
3 On 3-4 February 2003, the first project workshop took place in Vienna at which members of the Econ ESG and
other national representatives where introduced to the objectives of this project and the overall content and aim
of the economic analysis and the WATECO process. In the aftermath of this workshop, national consultants
where contracted for conducting national scoping studies (NSS) for the economic analysis at the national level of
the Danube countries (see section 3.1). On 5-6 April 2003, a capacity building workshop was conducted in
Bratislava for the contracted national consultants, at which a template for the preparation of the NSS was
discussed and agreed upon and general guidelines for conducting the scoping expercise were provided. The
Budapest Workshop on 10-11 July 2003 finally discussed the cross-country comparison of the NSS and provided
a forum for discussion and exchange between the Econ ESG group and the national consultants.
6
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
The role of the NSS is to provide country specific information needed for the economic analysis as an
input for the overall UNDP/GEF-project, and therefore also to support the implementation of the
economic elements of the WFD at national level.
3.2 The Synthesis Report
This synthesis report makes a cross-country assessment of the DRB countries' capacities to carry out
specific tasks of the economic analysis as required by the EU WFD by the year 2004. A preliminary
version of this comparative analysis of the entire set of NSS was prepared as a background document
to the Budapest Workshop.
This report focuses, analogous to the NSS, in particular on:
- Availability and quality of relevant economic data for water use;
- Identification of main gaps (data and capacity) and
- Assessment of the DRB countries' abilities to carry out specific tasks required by the
economic analysis and identification of necessary measures for strengthening these abilities.
By indicating a first assessment of possible steps towards closing the main identified gaps, the
Synthesis Report facilitates the future stages of the UNDP/GEF-Project.
3.3 Scope of the Report
The study focuses on the GEF-eligible countries within the DRB. Accordingly, the following countries
are included in this cross-country comparison:4
- Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Moldova, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia;
It should be noted, that due to the limited time available for conducting the national scoping studies it
has not always been possible to identify whether a reported lack of information is due to:
- Information being not available or;
- Difficulties in identifying within the available timeframe, whether this information is collected
or whether estimation on the basis of other existing data could be feasible.
These two cases cannot be differentiated in all studies and therefore a clear-cut analysis is not in all
cases feasible in this synthesis report, which is then highlighted in the relevant sections and tables.
Members of the ICPDR Economics Expert Sub-Group (Econ ESG) serving as natio nal implementation
contact points for this project facilitated the scoping activities by assisting the national consultants in
their work, providing feedback and comments as well as by cross-checking the NSS.
3.4 Structure of the Report
The report is structured as follows: Chapter 4 gives a short introduction to the economic elements of
the WFD and the upcoming reporting requirements for 2004 as well as an overview on the institutional
framework for the implementation of the WFD in the DRB.
Chapter 5 presents a cross country analysis of the information availability for the economic analysis in
the DRB. After having outlined issues of general relevance within the framework of this analysis
(Section 5.1), the analysis is divided into four distinct parts complementary to the requirements for the
Economic Analysis due 2004 and the list of "Socio-Economic Indicators" prepared by the Econ ESG:
4 Of the GEF-eligible countries within the DRB, only the Ukraine and Serbia and Montenegro did not participate
in this study.
Britta Pielen, Eduard Interwies, Pierre Strosser
Ecologic
The Economic Analysis according to the WFD in the Danube River Basin
7
- Economic Importance of Water Uses (Section 5.2);
- Baseline Scenario (Section 5.3);
- Assessing Current Levels of the Recovery of Costs of Water Services (Section 5.4);
- Preparing for the Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Measures (Section 5.5).
For each of the four issues, information availability and quality within the DRB countries is evaluated
with an emphasis on existing data gaps as well as necessary measures for filling priority gaps. Key
messages that can be extracted from the comparison are highlighted. In addition, Section 5.6. evaluates
the administrative capacities available within the DRB countries for carrying out the economic
analysis by 2004. Detailed tables of the cross-country analysis on three of the four issues (excluding
Section 5.5 since the information provided by the NSS was too diverse for presenting it conveniently
in a table) can be found in the Annex to this report.
Chapter 6 finally presents a synthesis of the main identified gaps and a first assessment of possible key
measures that could be initiated for filling priority gaps. A draft version of this report has been
reviewed and discussed at the Budapest Workshop with a particular focus on chapter 6, the synthesis.
The report has been amended in accordance with the suggestions made by the participants and the
results of the dicussions have been included
8
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
4 Implementation of the Economic Aspects of the WFD at the
DRB
4.1 Economic Aspects and Requirements of the Water Framework Directive
The EU Water Framework Directive (WDF) is one of the first environmental policy directives of the
European Community that explicitly integrates economic considerations for achieving its objectives.
Economic principles are foremost addressed in Article 5 (and Annex III) and Article 9 of the
Directive.
According to the requirements stipulated in Article 5, an economic analysis of water uses has to be
carried out by 2004 on a river basin district scale as part of the Directive's river basin management
approach. Annex III complements Article 5 by detailing which factors need to be included in the
economic analysis.
Article 9 requires that by 2010, Member States take account of the principle of cost-recovery,
including environmental and resource costs. The polluter pays principle will be key to establishing
who should pay for existing and future water services. More specifically, Member States have to
ensure by 2010 that water pricing policies provide adequate incentives for water users to use water
efficiently and to secure that different water uses contribute adequately to the recovery of the costs of
water services.
Article 11 of the Directive requires each Member State to ensure for each river basin district, or for the
part of an international river basin district within its territory, a programme of measures, which takes
account of the results of the analyses carried out under Article 5 in order to achieve the Directives
objectives. Therefore, Annex III requires the economic analysis conducted in reference to Article 5 to
be in sufficient detail for preparing the selection of programmes of measures on the basis of cost-
effectiveness.
Besides these direct and explicit references to economic instruments, the WFD refers implicitly to
economic principles in many of its Articles, for example by allowing for derogation (e.g.: time and
quality) in the case of "disproportionate costs".
The implementation of the WFD raises challenges which are widely shared by Member States. With
many European river basins transcending territorial and administrative boarders, concerted and co-
ordinated action, a common understanding and a joint approach are considered prerequisites for a
successful and effective implementation. Therefore, the Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) has
been agreed upon at the EU level, to allow for a coherent and harmonious implementation of the
WFD. More than 15 European expert and working groups have been set up within the CIS on different
areas of the WFD.
As one of these EU Working Groups, the group WATECO (WATer ECOnomics) has developed a
"Guidance Document for the Implementation of the Economic Elements of the EU WFD". As all of
the guidance documents, it is legally non-binding. Being conceptualised as a general guide to the
economic aspects of the WFD, the WATECO guidance document needs further specification and
application to the specific situation of each river basin. This step will be facilitated for the Danube
River Basin (DRB) during this project.
Britta Pielen, Eduard Interwies, Pierre Strosser
Ecologic
The Economic Analysis according to the WFD in the Danube River Basin
9
4.2 The Economic Analysis for 2004
The year 2004 constitutes the first key milestone for the WFD implementation process in general, but
also for the economic analysis. In essence, it is required to analyse for each river basin district (RBD)
the following four focal issues:
1. Assessing the economic importance of water uses
According to Article 5 (and Annex III) of the WFD, an economic analysis of water uses has to be
conducted in order to assess how important water is for the economy and the socio-economic
development of the river basin district. The economic analysis should provide the river basin's
economic profile in terms of general indicators, e.g. economic turnover, gross income, employment or
number of beneficiaries for significant water uses.
In a broader context, the economic analysis is intended to pave the way for the assessment of
significant water management issues to be reported to the public by 2007 and the ensuing cost-
effectiveness analysis, by initiating investigations of likely trade-offs between socio-economic
development and water protection within the river basin.
2. Baseline scenario
The specific role of the economic analysis in the development of a baseline scenario (BLS) is the
assessment of forecasts in key economic drivers likely to influence pressures and thus water status up
to 2015. In the BLS, trends in water supply and water demand will need to be evaluated. The focus
should be on changes in general socio-economic variables (e.g. population growth), in economic
growth of main sectors as well as changes in the implementation of planned investments linked to
existing regulation. Both hydrological as well as socio-economic drivers have to be investigated.
3. Assessing current levels of cost-recovery
The assessment of current levels of costs recovery of water services is in accordance with Article 9 of
the WFD. Key elements to be investigated in the economic analysis include the status of water
services, the institutional set-up for cost-recovery, the extent of the recovery of the costs (financial,
environmental and resource costs) of the water services, the contribution of key water uses to the costs
of these services as well as the incidence of subsidies.
4. Prepare for cost effectiveness analysis
In preparation for the cost-effectiveness analysis of possible measures and their combination, the
existing gaps in cost information should be reduced and data on the unitary costs of key measures to
be considered for the development of River Basin Management Plans (RBMP) should be gathered.
Ranges of costs (minimum, maximum) will have to be estimated and collected for individual
measures, along with key parameters influencing these costs. The emphasis will be on costs that are
non site-specific (i.e. financial costs of measures, indirect non-water related environmental costs) and
on basic measures.
The NSS are structured around these elements and focus on assessing for each of the four focal points,
gaps in information, knowledge and capacity and on proposing possible measures for filling priority
gaps. They thus conduct the first necessary preparatory steps, and indicate upcoming and existing
problems for the economic analysis by 2004. Accordingly, they may provide a key input for the
implementation of the economic analysis for 2004, not only at DRB level, but foremost also at
national level.
10
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
4.3 The Economic Analysis within the Danube River Basin
For a large international River Basin like the DRB, it is important to clarify the responsibilities for the
implementation of each aspect of the WFD. Therefore in the following, the division of responsibility
for the practical implementation of the WFD in general and the economic analysis in particular within
the DRB is reviewed briefly. The (potential) role of the ICPDR is investigated, as well as the national
status of transposing WFD requirements into national law and in assigning clear lines of responsibility
for conducting the economic analysis.
4.3.1 The Role of the ICPDR
The role that the ICPDR will play for the implementation of the WFD in general follows the overall
approach formulated in the relevant ICPDR documents:5 A two-tier approach will be followed for the
preparation of the economic analysis document for 2004, consisting of a
- Part A6, an umbrella or roof report giving all relevant information of basin-wide importance
(consisting of descriptive text, illustrative maps on the DRB overview scale and a description
of the methodological approach) and a
- Part B7 consisting of national reports giving all relevant further information on the economic
analysis.
The Part A report will be prepared on the basis of the national analysis; therefore, a common approach
for conducting the economic analysis will be needed in order to allow for the compilation of this roof
report.
The decision on which parts of the economic analysis will be reported at the Danube level (under the
responsibility of the ICPDR) based on information from the DRB countries is pending and will have to
be prepared by the Econ ESG working group. The present scoping exercise can support the decision
on which elements of the economic analysis were better to be conducted at the Danube level and
which parts should be subject to national reporting. Furthermore, by highlighting current
dissimilarities in data availability and quality, the NSS help to identify areas in which co-ordinated
action is required if reporting is to be done at Danube level.
4.3.2 The Implementation of the Water Framework Directive at National Level
The NSS provide insights into the present status of implementation of the WFD in the DRB countries.
They detail which national institutions are involved and responsible for WFD implementation, as well
as present the current status of WFD transposition into national legislation.
Table 4.3--1 gives an overview on the information on national WFD implementation that can be
deduced from the NSS.
5 The overall approach is for example outlined in the "Strategic Paper for the Development of a Danube River
Basin District Management Plan", prepared by the River Basin Management Expert Group of the ICPDR (May
2002).
6 It should be stressed that, while Germany and Austria do not participate in this study as they are not GEF-
eligible countries, information on the two countries will be included in the Part A roof report.
7 National reports for Part B are obligatory for EU Member States and Accession Countries.
Britta Pielen, Eduard Interwies, Pierre Strosser
Ecologic
The Economic Analysis according to the WFD in the Danube River Basin
11
Table 4.3--1: National Status of WFD Implementation in Danube Countries
Country
Status of WFD Transposition into Responsible Institution for
National Law
WFD Implementation
Bosnia & Herzegovina
Partial transposition through the
Expected: Ministry of Foreign Trade and
law on water protection;
Economic Relations;
Bulgaria
Considerable parts of the WFD are Ministry of Environment and Water;
conveyed in the Water Law; full
transposition is expected by 2005;
Croatia
Partial transposition;
Main responsibility: State Water Directorate and
Croatian Waters; concrete division of tasks has not
yet taken place;
Czech Republic
Partial transposition; full
Main responsibility: Ministry of environment;
transposition is expected by the end assistance from ad-hoc working groups with
of 2003 with the amendment of the representatives form other ministries, state
Water Act;
authorities and experts;
Hungary
Partial; full transposition expected
Ministry of Environment and Water (with
for December 2003;
involvement of Ministry of Agriculture and
Regional Development, Ministry of Interior,
Ministry of Economics and Transport and Ministry
of Finance). relevant division of ministry is
nominated: Department of River Basin
Management;
Moldova
Not completed: the responsible
Expected: Ministry of the Economy or National
authority for WFD transposition
Environmental Fund (under the Ministry of
into national law will be the
Environment and Construction, Territorial
Ministry of Environment,
Development);
Construction and Territorial
Development;
Romania
Partial transposition;
Ministry of Water and Environment Protection as
well as the National Administration "Apele
Romane" (NAAR);
Slovak Republic
Partial transposition exists (New
Inter-ministerial committee; Ministry of
Water Act); Full transposition is
Environment is the national contact point;
expected by 2003 through an
implementation process is supported by Working
amendment of the New Water Act; Groups and independent experts;
Slovenia
Fully transposed since July 2003
Ministry of Environment, Spatial Planning and
(New Water Act);
Energy;
Source: Authors' own compilation on the basis of the NSS.
As indicated in the table, DRB countries are at different stages of WFD implementation. Most of the
countries have established which governmental body will have the overall responsibility for
implementing the WFD. However, a clearer subdivision of tasks is often still missing (see also section
4.3.3), and in some countries no final decision on the responsible authority for WFD implementation
has been taken so far (Moldova, Bosnia & Herzegovina). Of the countries investigated, only the NSS
for Slovenia reported that the process of transposing the WFD into national legislation has been
completed. It should however be noted that, as the deadline for full transposition is (according to
article 23 of the WFD) December 2003, not all EU Member States have so far achieved full
transposition.
12
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
4.3.3 The Implementation of the Economic Analysis at National Level
The NSS may serve as a facilitator for the national economic analysis by identifying existing
information or data gaps and preliminary measures. Table 4.3--2 depicts which countries have already
decided on the competent body for implementing the economic analysis.
Table 4.3--2: Responsible National Institutions for the Economic Analysis in Danube Countries
Country
Responsible Institution Economic Analysis
Bosnia & Herzegovina
Not specified yet;
Bulgaria
Strategy, European Integration and International Co-operation Directorate
(assistance provided by external consultants);
Croatia
Assumption: State Water Directorate and Croatian Waters;
Czech Republic
Ministry of Agriculture (in collaboration with Ministry of Finance;
Ministry of Environment, Ministry for Regional Development and
Ministry for Industry and Trade);
Hungary
Not specified yet. (The most probable organisation could be either the
regional water directorates or the newly formed background institute of
MOEW);
Moldova
Ministry of Economy (supported by a Commission within the Ministry of
Environment, Construction and Territorial Development with envisages
the creation of an inter-ministerial working group on the implementation
of the economic analysis);
Romania
Ministry for Water and Environmental Protection (in co-operation with
relevant institutes, ministries and other actors);
Slovak Republic
Working Group 2.6: Slovak Water Management Enterprise (lead); Water
Research Institute; Slovak Hydrological Institute;
Slovenia
Institute for Water (supported by sub-contracted economic experts and
expert institutes);
Source: Authors' own compilation on the basis of the NSS.
Three of the NSS indicate that no final decision has yet been taken with regard to the responsibility for
the implementation of the economic analysis. In order to prepare for the economic analysis according
to the WFD, it is crucial to tackle this issue very soon and to establish clear lines of responsibility. As
long as responsibilities have not been clearly defined, co-ordination is inherently difficult, and
progress on important preparatory steps for 2004 might be severely hampered.
As a clear allocation of responsib ility is of high importance to a successful implementation of the
economic analysis by 2004, this discussion will be resumed in Section 5.6 on administrative
capacities.
Britta Pielen, Eduard Interwies, Pierre Strosser
Ecologic
The Economic Analysis according to the WFD in the Danube River Basin
13
5 A Cross-Country Comparison of Data Availability for the
Economic Analysis in the DRB
The following cross country comparison on data availability for the economic analysis in the DRB
aims in particular at highlighting parallels and differences across DRB countries with regard to the
different aspects related to the implementation of the economic analysis.
For each of the four focal issues of the economic analysis outlined in section 4.2 (economic
importance of water uses, baseline scenario, assessment of the recovery of costs of water services and
preparation of the cost-effectiveness analysis of measures), data availability and quality is evaluated
with an emphasis on existing data gaps as well as necessary measures for filling priority gaps.
Particular emphasis is also given to the evaluation of the administrative capacities available within the
DRB for carrying out the economic analysis by 2004. Key messages that can be extracted from the
cross-country comparison are highlighted.
Overview tables summarising the written information are integrated in this chapter. For detailed tables
containing information on indicators for each individual country please refer to Annex 1.
5.1 General Issues for Consideration
A number of issues have been identified as being of general interest to the evaluation of the DRB
countries capacities for carrying out the economic analysis by 2004. This section treats three aspects in
greater detail, namely the issue of
- quality evaluation;
- the right spatial scale; and
- restructuring available information according to hydrological boundaries,
as they are of particular importance and should be borne in mind during the upcoming analysis. To
make the reader aware of their respective specificity, the main aspects are revisited briefly in this
section.
5.1.1 Quality Evaluation
The NSS report not only on the availability of information, but also evaluate its quality. These quality
judgements are generally based on the opinion of interviewed experts or evaluations given in sources
used for compiling the NSS. As the quality assessments do not adhere to a common definition and are
of an inherently subjective nature, they must be interpreted with great care, and cannot be easily
compared across countries. Furthermore, the quality assessments can only be very preliminary, as
quality will directly relate to the use which will be made of the information or the scale at which
indicators will eventually be computed and effectively used for taking a given decision. Similar
limitations apply to the evaluation of the extent to which hydrological restructuring is feasible.
5.1.2 The Issue of Scale
In order to fulfil the information requirements of the economic analysis in a way that supports
reaching the overall goals of the WFD, the information has to be provided at different spatial scales.
Therefore, the NSS provide insights on the scale at which information is available. In addition, the
lowest possible scale at which information is readily available is investigated. This does not imply that
"the lower the scale, the better", but it constitutes important knowledge, since it is easier to restructure
disaggregated data according to hydrological boundaries (see below).
The decision on the appropriate reporting scale for the different inf ormation categories has yet to be
taken, both within the ICPDR as well as at a national level. This report provides an input to this
decision making process by presenting the existing disaggregation/aggregation possibilities.
14
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
5.1.3 Restructuring Information According to Hydrological Boundaries
Due to the WFD's river basin management approach, key units for reporting are derived from
hydrological boundaries. However, only a very small percentage of the data required for the economic
analysis currently is available in accordance with hydrological boundaries. Existing data collection
systems are normally conceptualised on the basis of administrative entities and data are gathered at the
municipal, regional (county), state or national level. To make these data applicable to WFD reporting,
they have to be restructured, depending on the particular indicator, according to e.g. river basin
districts, (sub-) river basins, (sub-) catchments or water bodies. As the extent to which data
restructuring can be done determines to a large degree whether the available information is suited for
WFD reporting, this issue will be addressed in greater detail at different stages of this study.
5.2 The Economic Importance of Water Uses
Section 4.2 provided the background from the WFD on the "Economic Importance of Water Uses",
one of the four focal issues of the economic analysis for 2004.
The National Scoping Studies (NSS) investigated for a list of indicators8 on the economic importance
of water uses:
- In how far the information on each indicator is currently available , with special emphasis
being given to the periodicity of update, the most recent figure available, the scale at which
the indicator is collected as well as the lowest scale at which it is available. In case the
indicator is currently not readily available, the NSS were to indicate in how far it could be
estimated on the basis of other existing data and information;
- The quality and reliability of the indicator (based on e.g. an assessment of the methods used
for projecting, on whether or not the projections are current, whether recent political decisions
support the projection, etc.); accordingly, quality judgements are of a subjective nature only;
- The source / reference compiling the data or information;
- In how far the information or data can be restructured according to hydrological boundaries
(e.g. the national sub-unit scale) is possible (e.g. evaluated on the basis of expert interviews,
etc.).
In the following, the information provided by the different NSS is presented by means of an analytical
cross-country comparison. Data availability and quality is analysed for all groups of indicators.
Problematic data clusters that will require further attention are highlighted. In case there are national
exceptions that divert from the clustered group, they are mentioned explicitly.
Special emphasis is given to the feasibility of restructuring the available information according to
hydrological boundaries. Finally, key messages emerging from the analysis are outlined and
preliminary measures for closing priority gaps are proposed.
5.2.1 Data Availability and Quality
The information presented in the NSS on data availability and quality can best be summarised along
the main thematic indicator groups, namely into:
1. General Socio-economic Indicators;
2. Characteristics of Water Services;
3. Characteristics of Water Uses.
8 Econ ESG, 4 November 2002: Preliminary List of Socio-Economic Indicators; this document was the msot
recent one available at the start of the project and for the preparation of the NSS.
Britta Pielen, Eduard Interwies, Pierre Strosser
Ecologic
The Economic Analysis according to the WFD in the Danube River Basin
15
While evaluating indicators within these three groups still produces heterogeneous outcomes, this
aggregation (or combined analysis) has the advantage of providing an overview not only on individual
indicator availability but also on the degree to which information can be provided on these "activities"
in general and not only on one specific indicator.
General socio -economic indicators:
Information has been compiled in the NSS on the following indicator groups: population, gross
domestic product, rate of economic growth, monthly net average income as well as employment and
unemployment.9
Cross-checking and combining the information presented in the different NSS on the availability of
information on the requested indicators leads to the following results:10
-
The information on general socio-economic indicators is generally not confidential;
-
The standard periodicity of update is annual with at times monthly updates (e.g. rate of
economic growth per sector);11
-
The indicators have a high overall rating in terms of quality, with an average rating of 1-2 (on
a scale from 1 excellent to 5 poor).12
Characteristics of Water Services
In general, it can be noted that the information provided on water services is reported less completely
by the NSS than information on the group of general socio-economic indicators: A number of NSS
provides no information (NN) on certain indicators, which may signal the increased difficulty of
obtaining the required information or alternatively that this information is not available.
In terms of availability, the indicators on water services can be grouped into three distinct groups:
- Group 1 contains the following (groups of) indicators: total water production, drinking water
production, water supply, leakage rate and wastewater treatment. Information on these
indicators or groups of indicators is on average unproblematic to obtain and generally not
confidential (exception: Bosnia & Herzegovina, here information is often only available at
request). In general, the quality of these indicators is rated as good (average rating of 1-2 on a
scale from 1 to 5), with the exception of the leakage rate, where reported quality ranges from 1
(Czech Republic) to 5 (Romania). The periodicity of update is generally annually (with the
exception of Moldova, where some of the updates are conducted on a quarterly basis);
- Group 2 consists of indicators on other services (e.g. deposit volume of water reservoirs) as
well as water supply to agriculture. Compiling information on these indicators seems to be
moderately problematic , and information is often not readily available. The quality of
information is on average rated as being of medium reliability with a ranking of 2-3. For the
data for which an indication on the periodicity of update has been provided it is annually;
- Group 3 comprises of indicators on irrigation water supply as well as indicators on self-
supply. According to the information provided by the NSS, it is highly problematic to report
on these indicators, as information is either not available at all, or not available in the required
9 Please refer to Annex 1: Economic Importance of Water Uses Information Availability for the complete list
of indicators investigated by the NSS.
10 Because the information provided in the national scoping studies is at times incomplete, the following
generalisations can only be taken as tentative evaluations. However, as an indication of data availability has been
given for the majority of general socio-economic indicators, no significant changes will be needed for the
generalised interpretations.
11 In many cases, the most recent date at which an indicator is available has not explicitly been mentioned.
However, considering annual updates, availability should in most cases be given for 2001.
12 With the exception of Moldova that has an average rating of 3.
16
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
form.13 The reliability of available information is very mixed, both within as well as across
countries, ranging from excelle nt to poor. The periodicity of update of the data has often not
been indicated in the NSS. For those indicators where it has been mentioned, updates take
place on an annual basis (with the exception of the Slovak Republic where seasonal and
weekly updates are provided on irrigation water supply linked to the provision of subsidies).
Characteristics of Water Uses
The availability of indicators on water uses is mixed, both within indicator subgroups (e.g. indicators
on agricultural water uses, tourism, etc.) as well as across the entire set of indicators. Particular
problems in terms of availability of information relate to indicators on agriculture; navigation and
transport; leisure fishing; boating and wind-surfing; tourism; and flood and drainage systems. For
those indicators where information is provided, quality is generally considered to be good to medium
(1-3). The standard periodicity of update is annually. The scale at which information is provided
ranges from municipal, to county and regional up to the national level. In most cases, information is
available on a lower scale (e.g. the municipal level) as well as at national level.
Table 5.2--1 provides an overview on the availability and quality of information on the economic
importance of water uses, as well as on the standard reporting scale and the periodicity of update.
Table 5.2--1: Summary Table Economic Importance of Water Uses
Indicator Group
Availability
Confidentiality Quality Periodicity of Scale
Update
1-excellent
[1. highest and 2.
5-poor
Lowest available
scale]
General Socio -
Complete availability;
Not confidential;
1-2
Annually;
1. National;
Economic Indicators
2. Municipal;
Characteristics of
Mixed;
Not confidential;
2-3
Annually;
1. National;
Water Services
2. Regional/
Particular problems relate
to:
Municipal;
- Water supply to
agriculture;
- Self-supply;
- Irrigation water supply;
- Other services;
Characteristics of
Mixed;
Not confidential;
1-3
Annually;
1. National;
Water Uses
Particular problems:
2. County/
Regional;
- Agriculture;
- Navigation/ transport;
- Leisure fishing;
- Boating & wind-surfing;
- Tourism;
- Floods & drainage;
Source: Authors' own compilation on the basis of the NSS. (HH: households)
13 Data on the "topic" (e.g. navigation) is available but not on the specific indicators required by the List of
Socio-Economic Indicators of the Econ ESG.
Britta Pielen, Eduard Interwies, Pierre Strosser
Ecologic
The Economic Analysis according to the WFD in the Danube River Basin
17
5.2.2 Restructuring of Available Indicators According to Hydrological Boundaries
According to the information provided in the NSS, a significant part of the available information can
be restructured according to hydrological boundaries. When comparing the information availability in
general with the reported feasibility of restructuring, it becomes apparent that for many of the
indicators that are difficult to restructure information is in general difficult to obtain. The reported
difficulties with restructuring are thus partly a logical consequence.
While in the draft versions, most NSS did not specify to which level of hydrological boundaries
restructuring is feasible or not (e.g. whether only restructuring to the river basin district is feasible or
also to sub-districts) the final versions cla rified in many cases, that restructuring to the river basin
scale is the most feasible option. It should be noted in this assessment that the evaluations made by the
national consultants are often based on expert judgement and have so far not been validated in
practice. Accordingly, difficulties may arise in the actual implementation, even if an indicator has
been ranked as posing no significant problems.
5.2.3 Key Messages: The Economic Importance of Water Uses
The following key messages can be identified from the cross-country analysis:
Positive Results
The group of socio-economic indicators (as a sub-group of indicators on the economic importance of
water uses) is in general terms not expected to pose major difficulties to reporting for the economic
analysis, both in terms of availability and quality (having in mind the issue of quality assessments
possibly being misleading, see section 5.1.1). Furthermore, if availability of information is given, no
particular quality concerns are related to the majority of indicators on the economic importance of
water uses: the information which is available is on average considered to be of reliable to medium
quality. Under the restrictions outlined in section 5.2.2 on this topic, hydrological restructuring has
been reported as being unproblematic or feasible without significant problems for a number of
important indicators groups.
Identified Problems
The major gap linked to indicators on the economic importance of water uses is missing or incomplete
information availability. Indicators that are currently not available in a number of countries include,
for example fish farming; boating and wind-surfing; leisure fishing; indicators on irrigation water
supply; indicators on agricultural water uses; indicators related to navigation/transport and to self-
supply. Furthermore, in particular with regard to the characteristics of water services, a major problem
may be the diversity of information quality. As section 5.2.2 outlined, important difficulties may also
relate to the restructuring of some of the main indicators according to hydrological boundaries.
For some of the countrie s investigated, the issue of "shadow economy" may render available
information practically unreliable as economic -related indicators based on official information and
data would only give a partial picture of the current situation.
A potential problem that could not be investigated in-depth within the scope of this project relates to
possible differences in variable definitions that might hamper the comparability of the different
national data sets.14
Compilation of Proposed Measures
Indicators that are not or only incompletely available are generally the same in the majority of the
countries studied. Therefore, the lacking information could be collected (or estimated through
extrapolation techniques / expert judgement) in a comparable way in order to facilitate Danube-wide
14 Indicators from the group "Employment & Unemployment" for example are subject to different definitions
across countries.
18
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
comparisons. To facilitate the filling of these gaps at minimum costs, the ICPDR member countries
could agree on common data definitions and collection systems. A similar approach could be taken
with regard to restructuring available data according to hydrological boundaries.
At the Budapest Workshop, some advances could be made on some of the identified problematic
issues in particular with regard to whether a Danube wide action would be required and welcomed by
the countries to remedy the existing gaps or difficulties:
- It was agreed that no specific Danube-wide activity or common action was required on the
issue of shadow economy, as it only concerns certain countries;
- With regard to self-supply for households, it was agreed that a common approach of how to
calculate self-supply at Danube level should be decided on;
- Irrigation water supply was considered by the workshop participants as not requiring a
Danube-wide approach as it only concerns some of the Danube countries. Countries where
this type of information is missing will individually find ways to estimate this parameter for
their respective sub-units,
- Indicators on navigation and transport were regarded as being highly problematic in most of
the NSS. It was agreed that the economic importance of both navigation and transport would
be qualitatively described in the roof report for the DRB, stressing the countries for which
these water uses are the most significant and providing quantified figures for some countries
whenever available and seen relevant for illustration purposes. For 2004, only information that
is currently available in the individual countries should be used and synthesised in an
appropriate way for the roof report;
- The same applies for the importance of boating and windsurfing, water related tourism and
leisure fishing. The roof report at Danube level will draw on the information provided in the
different national reports providing a qualitative assessment of the economic importance of
these uses for the Danube comple mented by quantified figures whenever available and seen as
relevant for illustration;
- The discussion on hydrological re-structuring stresses that the sub-unit is the common scale at
which indicators would be required "at the minimum" (i.e. lower common disaggregation may
in the future be identified for specific variables and parameters) in the longer term.
5.3 Conducting the Baseline Scenario
The general requirements for the Baseline Scenario (BLS) according to the WFD have already been
outlined in section 4.2. The NSS reported on the availability of projections of relevance for the BLS
(based on the preliminary list prepared by the Econ ESG), both at a national or regional level. The
information base for this section was centred more on published reports, studies, authority plans,
national environmental action plans and national strategies and less on explicitly figures. For each
parameter stated on the Econ ESG list, the NSS were to indicate:
- The source of information responsible for, or capable of, providin g the required information
and projections (e.g. ministries, private and public institutes, stakeholders, etc.);
- To what extent the projections are reliable (based on e.g. an assessment of the applied
methodologies, etc.);15
- The methods used for projecting;
- The timeframe (i.e. projection period, for example for the period 2000-2020) of the available
projections.
15 Quality judgements are thus again of a subjective nature and should be interpreted with great care.
Britta Pielen, Eduard Interwies, Pierre Strosser
Ecologic
The Economic Analysis according to the WFD in the Danube River Basin
19
Furthermore, the NSS were intended to indicate which administrative body could be responsible for
conducting the overall BLS.
In the following, the information provided by the different NSS is again presented by means of an
analytical cross-country comparison. The quality and relevance of available projections is analysed for
four major groups of policy projections, namely on:
- Exogenous drivers (e.g. population growth, general economic development, technological
changes, changes in taxes or fiscal regime, etc.);
- Water policies and investments (e.g. estimated investments in water supply, wastewater
treatment flood or protection, changes in water pricing policies, etc.);
- Macroeconomic policies (e.g. past trends and future projections in agricultural policy,
industrial policy, energy policy and transport policy etc.);
- Global policies (e.g. impact of accession to the European Union on key economic sectors,
WTO/GATS; etc.).
Policy areas for which information is only fragmentary or in poor quality available are highlighted. As
the methodologies used for the existing projections may allow to draw conclusions on the availability
of such methodologies as a required background for constructing scenarios, special emphasis is given
to this aspect as reported in the NSS. It needs to be noted here that for constructing valid scenarios, not
only methodologies for developing projections are needed, but an integrated approach based on
various management decisions e.g. on prioritising and weighting sectoral developments etc.
Furthermore, it will be discussed which administrative bodies could be responsible for conducting the
overall BLS. Finally, key messages emerging from the analysis are outlined and preliminary measures
for closing priority gaps are presented.
5.3.1 Assessment of the Quality and Relevance of Available Projections
Exogenous Drivers
Projections of population growth and economic growth are considered as available and reliable by all
countries (rating: 1-2). Difficulties seem to relate to projections on technological change, where only
four NSS report that projections are available, however with highly variant quality ratings (1-5). With
regard to changes in taxes or fiscal regimes, Bulgaria and Hungary report excellent data availability
(1), while for Slovenia and Moldova the reliability is rated as poor (4). For Croatia, Romania, and the
Slovak Republic, data is not available or only in draft form. 16
Water Policies and Investments
Judging from the reported information availability, projections on the majority of indicators in the
group of estimated investments (i.e. in water supply or wastewater treatment) are relatively easy to
obtain. The reliability of projections is ranked in-between 1-4, with the highest ratings for the Czech
Republic (1) and the Slovak Republic (1-2 on the majority of indicators) and the lowest rating for
Moldova (3-4).17 Reporting difficulties relate to the following indicators, which are eit her not
available, or have not been reported on at all: Investments in the field of flood protection, nature
conservation and wetland restoration, as well as river re-naturation. Bosnia & Herzegovina did not
report on water policies and investments, which may signal a generally poor availability of data on this
issue.
16 At this point, it should again be noted that quality judgements are largely of a subjective nature and can only
be compared across countries with great care.
17 Hungary, Croatia, Slovenia and Romania rank data reliability on estimated investments with 2-3. For Bulgaria
data reliability ranges from 1 to 3.
20
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Similar difficulties apparently relate to the availability of projections on changes in water pricing
policies. Only in the Czech Republic (rating 1), Moldova (rating 4) and the Slovak Republic (rating 1)
projections are available.18
Macroeconomic policies
The availability of projections on macroeconomic policies is mixed, both within countries on the
different indicators, as well as across countries. The quality of data is mainly considered to be
moderate with ratings around 2-3. For Moldova the quality of available projections on macroeconomic
policies has been evaluated to be relatively poor (with a quality rating of 4). The NSS for Hungary
reports that no projections are available on industrial, energy and transport policies.
Global policies
Across countries, it seems to be difficult to find information on global policy projections in general.
Only the NSS for Hungary and Romania report on all of the indicators and provide quality ratings:
they evaluate the reliability of the obtainable information with 3 (Hungary) to 4-5 (Romania). In some
cases, it seems to have been difficult to separate global and macroeconomic policy projections (e.g.
Bulgaria, Slovak Republic). Slovenia and the Czech Republic rank those areas for which projections
are available with an average quality of 1-2.
Table 5.3--1 provides a brief cross-country summary on information availability and quality for
conducting the BLS within the DRB countries considered in this study.
18 At the project's workshop in Budapest on 10-11 July 2003, it was mentioned by some of the national
consultants, that information exists on possible changes in pricing policies, but not in the form of coherent
projections or compilations.
Britta Pielen, Eduard Interwies, Pierre Strosser
Ecologic
The Economic Analysis according to the WFD in the Danube River Basin
21
Table 5.3--1: Summary Table - Baseline Scenario
Indicator Group
Availability of Projections
Quality of Projections
[1-excellent; 5-poor]
Exogenous Drivers
Availability:
- Group 1: 1-2;
- Group 1: Population growth;
- Group 2: if available 1-2;
economic development: good;
Exceptions: Slovenia (4-5),
- Group 2: technological changes &
Moldova (4);
changes in tax/fiscal system: mixed;
Water Policies and
Availability: good;
Investments
- Exceptions: Investments linked to
2 3 (medium);
nature conservation/ wetland
restoration, River re-naturation,
Exception: Moldova (3-4);
Changes in water pricing policie s;
Availability: medium poor;
Macro-Economic Policies
Availability: medium;
2 3 (medium);
Global Policies
Availability: poor;
3 5 (poor);
Exceptions: Slovenia (1-2) and the
Czech Republic (1-2);
Source: Authors' own compilation on the basis of the NSS.
5.3.2 Responsible Authorities
The NSS provide an indication on which administrative body or agency is (or could be) responsible of
constructing the overall baseline scenario (BLS), bringing together all the different main projections.
In addition, information on which experts/administrative bodies will then actually conduct the BLS (as
the executing body) was investigated.
In most of the countries under investigation no final decision has been taken yet on who will be
responsible for conducting the overall baseline scenario. Only Croatia, Hungary, Romania and the
Slovak Republic have indicated the general lines of responsibility19:
- Croatia: The need for an inter-ministerial co-ordinating body has been recognised, but no such
institutional set-up has been established, yet;
- Hungary: A working group has been formed with representatives from the ministry of
Agriculture, Interior, Economy and Finance as well as representatives of regional water
directorates; the working group is chaired by the Ministry of Environment and Water. This
group is considered by the national consultant as an appropriate forum for discussing and
developing the overall BLS. Preparation of the actual study on the BLS (and co-ordination
with the relevant aspects of pressures and impacts characterisation) will have to be carried out
by a specialised institution that has not been identified yet;
- Romania : The National Administration Authority "Apele Romane" (NAAR) in co-operation
with specialised institutions will be responsible for conducting the baseline scenario;
- Slovak Republic: A working group has been established through the "Strategy for the
Implementation of the WFD 2000-60-ES in the Slovak Republic" that was prepared by the
Ministry for the Environment. The Working Group is led by the Slovak Water Management
19 The NSS for the Czech Republic, Moldova and Slovenia do not specify whether the responsibility for the BLS
has already been identified.
22
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Enterprise in co-operation with the Slovak Hydrometeorological Institute and the Water
Research Institute. Clear working plans have however not been established so far.
These cases indicate already the two principal ways that exist for establishing institutional structures to
conduct the overall BLS, namely either having:
1. A working group formed for the purpose of having the responsibility for the overall BLS with
experts from different ministrie s and relevant institutions; or
2. A responsible authority that combines most of the required expertise in its own departments or
has the competence to call in the necessary expertise from other administrative bodies.
The lack of clearly assigned responsibility indicates that the issue of BLS is not yet high on the water
management/WFD implementation agenda. It needs, however, to be tackled soon in order to ensure an
efficient preparation for conducting the BLS. The current lack of information or data availability can
best be addressed by a specifically assigned body in a co-ordinated way, as this ensures a holistic view
on the matter and will avoid inefficient double or piecemeal work.
5.3.3 Key Messages: Baseline Scenario
Positive Results
While some policy areas are neglected in terms of data availability (or quality), it should be noted that
the general availability of projections signals that the foundation in terms of basic capacity exists and
can be build on. Projections on exogenous drivers and water policies and investments seem to be
available and relatively reliable so that these two areas will not pose major impediments to
constructing the baseline scenario.
Identified Problems
Special problems in terms of data availability as well as quality relate to projections on global policies.
For Bulgaria, it was noted that there is a lack of consistent documents assessing the impact of global
policies. Judging from the fact that half of the NSS that reported on this section have not addressed
information availabilit y at all or indicated only partial availability, this assessment seems to be
transposable to more general conclusion. This lack of available projections is closely linked to a lack
of methodologies for developing projections. At present, projections on the evolution of global
policies have been reported as being only rudimentarily available and thus constitute a major challenge
for conducting the baseline scenario.
Lack of co-ordination and development of an overall BLS has been reported as a major problem in a
number of NSS. Issues of co-ordination were identified on two levels: First, as e.g. indicated in the
NSS of Croatia, the development of projections has been marked by an insufficient co-operation
between the different ministries or institutions involved, which may lead to problems of coherence
between existing projections; Second, intra-sectoral consequences of changes in one specific sector for
some other sector are often not considered in the projections, rendering the applicability of obtained
results questionable (Croatia and Bosnia & Herzegovina). While only a selected number of NSS
explicitly addressed this issue, it seems to be likely that similar ambiguities prevail in other countries.
A problem applying to all of the four policy areas (exogenous drivers, water policies and investments,
macroeconomic policies and global policies) which is shared by all countries studied is that projection
periods are very different (both within as well as across policy areas). This difference in projection
times will hamper the compilation of an overall BLS and needs to be addressed.
Finally, the lack of clear assignment of responsibility for the BLS and for its practical development
must be considered as a serious impediment to the construction of an overall BLS. As responsibilities
are not clearly defined, preparations for the overall BLS will only be of a piecemeal nature, hampering
a later compilation and risking incompleteness. While it is possible to delegate certain tasks for the
overall BLS to different administrative institutions or levels, a co-ordinating body is required that sees
to the final compilation and completeness of the analysis.
Britta Pielen, Eduard Interwies, Pierre Strosser
Ecologic
The Economic Analysis according to the WFD in the Danube River Basin
23
Compilation of Proposed Measures
Since the development of the BLS is an important element of the economic analysis of Danube-wide
importance, it will be important to define further which of the following measures could be taken
concertedly and in priority at Danube level in order to enable the development of a river basin-wide
BLS.
To address the problem of deficient information on certain projections (in particular on global
policies), appropriate studies could be assigned that conduct the required projections. These studies
should be of an interdisciplinary approach and incorporate all relevant actors and stakeholders. On the
one hand, this ensures a complete and realistic projection (including possible effects on other sectors)
while on the other hand it allows for efficiency gains due to combined resources and synergy effects
from different administrative departments and actors.
With regard to global policies, the participants of the Budapest Workshop agreed that concerted action
at the Danube level to remedy the existing difficulties would be valuable. The Common Agricultural
Policy (CAP) was regarded as being likely to affect both national and Danube-level water status and
therefore as being of relevance for the Danube as a whole. Furthermore, it was concluded that trends
in the energy and industrial sectors could also be investigated at the Danube level. Accordingly, an
exchange of ideas should be developed early on activities and their results pertaining to 2015 trends in
these sectors.
A workshop aimed at exchanging information and training experts in the relevant techniques for
scenario building may further enhance available capacities and facilitate the development of the BLS.
In response to the reported lack of co-ordination at the national level, the following steps could be
taken:
- Initiate inter-ministerial working groups that combine the expertise of different experts on
relevant issues, to enhance vertical as well as horizontal co-ordination within the state sector
in order to obtain inter-sectoral projections. Furthermore, procedures for disseminating
(statistical) information between different ministries could be defined;
- Increase communication between ministries and academics or institutes;
- Articulate the need for priority inter-disciplinary research projects focused on issues connected
to the development of the BLS and initiate them;
- Integrate the expertise of national research institutes in the process of baseline scenario
development as they may constitute an importance source of knowledge and experience.
Furthermore, it was emphasised at the Budapest Workshop that improved communication with
decision makers is highly important, in order to enhance their understanding of the main issues and
difficulties inherent in the development of trend scenarios and to raise awareness on the need for co-
ordination.
As already outlined, the lack of clearly defined responsibilities for conducting the BLS needs to be
resolved soon. The decision needs to be taken whether an existing national institution combines most
of the required expertise in its field of operation and could be enriched with the missing capacity
through additional experts, or whether a working group approach would be more compliant with the
country's institutional set-up. Based on this, competent bodies both for the responsibility for the BLS
development and for the practical implementation have to be defined.
24
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
5.4 Assessing Current levels of Cost Recovery of Water Services
As outlined in Section 4.2, the economic analysis for 2004 requires an assessment of the current levels
of the recovery of costs of water services to be conducted.
The NSS provided information on the availability of information on institutional set-up of the water
sector, the financial costs of water services, the current prices of water services and the incidence of
subsidy payment. For a list of indicators20, the NSS investigated:
- In how far the information on each indicator is currently available , with special emphasis
being given to the most recent year of compilation, the periodicity of update, the scale at
which the indicator is collected as well as the lowest scale at which it is available. In case the
indicator is currently not readily available, the NSS were to indicate in how far it could be
approximated;
- The quality and reliability of the indicator (based on an evaluation of e.g. consistency of data
definition used; update periodicity sufficient; right spatial scale; element of cross-checking;
official statistic; primary data versus estimates and approximations; etc.);21
- The source compiling the data or information;
- In how far the information or data can be restructured according to hydrological boundaries
(e.g. the national sub-unit scale) is possible (e.g. evaluated on the basis of expert interviews,
etc.).
Furthermore, the issue of environmental and resource costs was to be paid special attention to. In the
following, the results from the combined analysis of all NSS on the issue of cost recovery of water
services are presented. Hydrological restructuring of available information as well as environmental
and resource costs are analysed in greater detail. Key messages emerging from the analysis are
highlighted.
5.4.1 Data Availability and Quality
Institutional set-up
For all countries that reported on the institutional set-up of the water sector, information is readily
available, not confidential and reliable. Most NSS provide a short overview on main actors and laws,
important authorities and institutions.
Current Water Prices
Information on the water price level is generally available, not confidential and subject to an annual
periodicity of update.22 The quality of available information is, however, subject to great cross-country
variability: While the NSS of Bosnia & Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Romania,
and the Slovak Republic report very good average quality (1), Moldova, and Slovenia consider the
available information as far less reliable with a rating of 4-5.
A more diverse picture presents itself regarding information on price structure. While Bulgaria and
Slovenia report that no information is available on these indicators, all other countries indicate that the
20 Based on the Eco ESG list of socio-economic indicators (2002).
21 Comparisons of quality judgements must again be done with great care due to their inherently subjective
nature.
22 Only in Slovenia, information is not published and only available upon request (with information on the water
price level for agriculture being not available at all).
Britta Pielen, Eduard Interwies, Pierre Strosser
Ecologic
The Economic Analysis according to the WFD in the Danube River Basin
25
available information is not confidential, annually updated and of quality 1 (with the exception of
Croatia (2), Hungary (3) and Moldova (4)).23
Data on Cross-Subsidisation are only available for Croatia, Romania and the Slovak Republic. Only
for Romania has the quality been evaluated (2). Accordingly, information on cross-subsidisation
constitutes a major lack of information availability and thus will pose problems to the determination of
actual cost-recovery levels.
Information on collection efficiency may also pose major practical problems. While information is
available in all of the countries investigated, it is often only available upon request or even
confidential. Only Croatia (2), the Czech Republic (1) and the Slovak Republic (1) readily provide the
data on an annual basis.
Subsidies
Information availability on subsidies is quite diverse (refer also to the detailed table in Annex 1). As
with collection efficiency, data are often confidential or only available at request. However, in those
countries where information on subsidies is (readily) available, quality ranks quite high (1-2).
Costs
Indicators on costs of individual measures can be grouped into three distinct groups, namely,
indicators on investment costs, on operation and maintenance costs and on costs of prevention and
mitigation measures.
Data on investment costs are confidential or only available at request in Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Hungary, and Romania. For Bulgaria 24, Croatia and the Slovak Republic data are available, not
confidential and reliable (1-3). Slovenia represents a special case, as here data are only available in the
case of significant price increases that require governmental approval.
Information on operation and maintenance costs is generally not confidential (with the exception of
Hungary) and often subject to annual updates. Reported data quality ranges from very reliable to
average quality.
In most of the countries, data on the cost of prevention and mitigation measures is not systematically
collected and thus largely not available. Only in Romania (on an annual basis and with medium
quality (3)) and the Slovak Republic (no indication of periodicity or data quality provided) information
is collected and made publicly available.
23 Bosnia & Herzegovina does not report on information availability for water price structure.
24 Only data on total investment costs are available for Bulgaria.
26
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Table 5.4--1: Summary Table Cost Recovery of Water Services
Indicator Group
Availability
Confidentiality
Quality
Periodicity of
[1-excellent;
Update
5-poor]
Institutional set-up
Good;
Not confidential;
Reliable: 1-2;
--
Current Water
Mixed;
Not confidential;
Very mixed;
Mostly annually;
Prices
Problems relate to:
Exceptions:
Quality often not
- Cross-subsidies
- Collective
evaluated;
(B&H, BU, HU,
Efficiency (HU,
Poor quality:
SL);
BU);
- Price level (CR, HU,
- Price structure
SL);
(SL, BU);
- Price structure (CR,
HU);
Subsidies
Mixed see
Mixed often
Quality often not
When indicated:
confidentiality;
confidential, or only
evaluated;
annually (or at
available at request;
request);
If evaluated: 1-2;
Costs
Mixed;
Not confidential,
Often not evaluated;
Information often
except for:
when reported: 2-3;
missing;
- Information on
Annual updates;
organisation,
maintenance and
administration costs
(HU);
- Financial costs of
water services (HU,
some indicators for
RO);
- Subsidies (CR);
Source: Authors' own compilation on the basis of the NSS.
5.4.2 Environmental and Resource Costs
In all of the countries studied, no systematic estimations of the environmental and resource costs of
water services is currently available, so that only fragmented and often inconsistent information can be
obtained. To a certain degree, this deficit in information provision can be accounted for by a general
lack of an overall approach and established methodologies for conducting this task. In light of these
findings, reporting on environmental and resource costs constitutes one of the largest problems
identified by most of the countries.25
Regarding the specific indicators of environmental and resource costs under evaluation for the NSS,
main difficulties of acquiring information seem to relate to the assessment of environmental damage
and changes in environmental quality as well as to determining the costs of restoring environmental
quality. Furthermore, as pinpointed, for example, in the NSS for Hungary and Romania, particular
problems are linked to the collection of information on the economic value or willingness to pay for
environmental quality. This factor has not been paid attention to in most information collection
25 It should be noted that EU Member States experience similar problems with regard to information on
environmental and resource costs. A newly established sub-working group within CIS-process will work on this
issue and is expected to present results by Mid-2004.
Britta Pielen, Eduard Interwies, Pierre Strosser
Ecologic
The Economic Analysis according to the WFD in the Danube River Basin
27
projects and therefore is scarcely ever available as an indicator. Both the Romanian as well as the
Hungarian NSS identify the lack of methodology for monetising environmental benefits as responsible
for the missing information on these variables.
While important difficulties are connected to the information collection on environmental and resource
costs, nevertheless, some information is available. A number of the countries under investigation
operate systems of charges and taxes for internalising environmental and resource costs to a certain
extent and report this regularly. Furthermore, in the case of Croatia, studies are available that evaluate
environmental and resource costs on a project basis.26 It remains to be checked, however, to which
extent this project based information or data could be generalised to serve reporting needs.
5.4.3 Restructuring Available Data According to Hydrological Boundaries
According to the information provided in the NSS, restructuring information on available indicators
according to hydrological boundaries again poses a signific ant challenge in a number of cases. The
NSS have provided less information on the feasibility for restructuring on this area (see also Annex 1)
which might signal greater difficulties for restructuring on the basis of the existing data base.
5.4.4 Key Messages: Assessing Current levels of Cost Recovery
Positive results
Information on the institutional set-up of the water sector seems to be readily accessible in all
countries and will thus not pose difficulties to reporting for the economic analysis.
Identified Problems
A particular problem (as already highlighted in section 5.4.2) shared by all DRB countries relates to
the information availability on environmental and resource costs. Furthermore, a number of other
indicators are subje ct to serious availability and quality constraints or are compiled on the basis of
intransparent or inconsistent methodologies (e.g. (cross-) subsidies). Some cost categories also pose
significant reporting difficulties, due to differences in definition and aggregation levels.27
Compilation of Proposed Measures
To remedy existing difficulties with regard to the availability of the above mentioned indicators (e.g.
on the breakdown of investment costs), increased data collection is necessary.
Further methodological development seems to be needed on certain indicators (e.g. for assessing
cross-subsidisation). International as well as national experts (e.g. from national or private research
institutes) may contribute to this development by providing technical assistance.
At the Budapest Workshop, cross-subsidisation was agreed as being an issue meriting a common
Danube-wide approach. However, before attempts can be made to compare methods for the
assessment of cost-recovery, it will be important to know exactly which information is currently
compiled and available at the national level. It was agreed that an expert workshop on this issue would
be valuable, as it provided a platform for exchange and learning.
In general, greater comparability of national data from different sources (e.g. from different
administrative levels) should be ensured, which seems to be a particular problem of information on the
recovery of costs of water services.
26 These evaluations are conducted as part of environmental impact assessments or feasibility studies for
projects.
27 While the NSS for Bulgaria reports difficulties related to the breakdown of total investment costs, other NSS
report that investment data are extremely fragmented, posing problems of aggregation.
28
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
In response to the current difficulties related to environmental and resource costs, the link between the
CIS-sub-working group on environmental costs and the Danube basin/Danube Basin countries should
be established. A strengthening of this link was also welcomed by the participants of the Budapest
Workshop.
5.5 Preparing for the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Section 4.2 provided the reference background from the WFD on "preparing for the cost-effectiveness
analysis" as one of the four focal issues of the economic analysis for 2004. With regard to this issue,
the NSS aimed at providing an overview on the information on unitary costs of measures that is
currently available in the different DRB countries and that could be used as a basis for the cost-
effectiveness analysis.
As the indicators required for different sets of measures will vary, it was proposed in the template to
investigate the information availability of past, present or planned measures in order to gain
indications on costs of measures in the specific country. Information availability on both costs of
"traditional" measures (e.g. wastewater treatment pla nts) as well as of "non-traditional" measures
(agricultural programmes to reduce diffuse pollution, renaturating a wetland etc.) was to be
investigated in the NSS. Sources of information investigated in the NSS compilation process included
for example reports by international funding, regional plans or rural development plans, project
documents (e.g. from past investment projects) or information provided by stakeholders.
In the following, a concise overview will be given on the presently available information base on key
measures and its quality.
5.5.1 Data Availability and Quality on Key Measures
Some of the NSS could only report on a few selected measures with often incomplete information
bases (e.g. information on environmental costs or the economic impact of measures missing). Even
internal comparability is thus low rendering the generalisation of obtained results very difficult.
Accordingly, data quality is in most cases not yet sufficient. This observation already triggers the
preliminary conclusion that data are particularly hard to obtain. However, as the economic analysis for
the year 2004 suggests initiating first preparatory steps for the analysis of cost-effectiveness, currently
other issues are higher on the agenda. Nevertheless, remedying actions will be required soon in order
to prepare for the cost effectiveness analysis by the year 2007.
In the following, a few cases from the NSS will be shortly reviewed as exemplary illustration. The
main identified problems are generally similar across the different NSS:
For Hungary, the available information on measures does generally not specify their environmental
costs and the associated economic impact. Organisation and maintenance costs, on the contrary, are in
most cases reported (at least as estimates). Information sources used for the Hungarian NSS include
information provided by the Ministry of Environment and Water, the National ISPA programme,
industrial users as well as the water directorates.
The NSS on the Slovak Republic indicates that environmental costs of measures were estimated
through baseline and approximation scenarios on costs (in the case of a study by the Danish
Environmental Agency (DANCEE)).28 It also reports that information on the economic impact of
measures could be found for selected measures. Information sources consulted for the Slovakian
contribution on measures include DANCEE, ISPA and PHARE financed projects as well as reports by
the Ministry of Finance.
The information on measures presented in the Romanian NSS signals that the available information is
relatively good: information on organisation and maintenance costs is available for all measures
28 The Slovakian NSS also indicates that in all other cases, information on the economic impact of measures is
very limited, in particular with regard to the indirect effects.
Britta Pielen, Eduard Interwies, Pierre Strosser
Ecologic
The Economic Analysis according to the WFD in the Danube River Basin
29
presented. Furthermore, for most of the presented measures information is available on environmental
costs as well as on their economic impact.
In the case of Moldova, information on the operation and maintenance costs related to measures is
reported as being difficult to obtain, while environmental costs and the economic impact of measures
is not estimated. Consulted information sources on measures for the Moldovian case include the
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), TACIS or Apa Canal Chisinau.
5.5.2 Key Messages: Preparing for the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Positive Results
A positive indication is that information on some individual measures (mainly "traditional"
constructing measures) is available in most countries.
Identified Problems
The situation on this issue is the most problematic in comparison to the other focal topics of the
economic analysis. Inconsistency in data provision creates problems of comparability and severely
restricts the degree to which generalisations are feasible within countries and even to a higher degree
across countries.
A general problem relates to the fact that information on costs of measures is not collected
comprehensively within countries. The lack of comprehensive data on individual measures constitutes
the major challenge which will have to be rectified. In particular, information is needed on the
required timeframe, the geographic al coverage as well as on the different categories of costs of
measures. Information on non-traditional measures is scarce or not at all available in most of the
countries studied.
Particular difficulties relate to information on environmental water related and non-water related costs
(see also section 5.4.2). Furthermore, in most of the countries, there is no reliable information or
method available for the assessment of the environmental impact of measures (in particular their
indirect impact is mostly not evaluated or provided information on).
Compilation of Proposed Measures
A capacity building workshop (or a series of meetings) could be conducted, outlining the central issues
of the cost-effectiveness analysis as anchored in the WFD in order to build up capacities in the DRB
countries.
In addition, a reporting framework for measures could be developed in order to establish a "Guide on
cost ranges for measures" as a preparation for selecting cost- effective measures. Information on past
projects could then be "fitted" into this framework and it could be aimed at achieving a comparable
database that can be build on over the upcoming years (maybe based on the already existing ICPDR-
database). It will be important to include "non-traditional" measures as well as measures to be taken at
the DRB level. Here action is required within a relatively short timeframe in order to facilitate the
collection process and to achieve a meaningful database volume by the time it is actually needed.
Specific studies could be performed on which methodologies could be applied to the evaluation of the
economic impact of measures or the evaluation of the environmental costs of measures. In case a
working group is formed on this issue, the methodological cross-cutting issues with the baseline
scenario should be taken into account in order avoid double work and exploit synergy effects. In this
area, it will be particularly important to integrate economic and technical expertise in order to obtain
better and more targeted results and approaches.
30
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
5.6 Administrative Capacities
The cross-country comparison of information provided in the NSS on the capacities of DRB countries
to deal with the four focal issues of the economic analysis has revealed that important obstacles or
bottlenecks can be related to insufficient administrative capacities.
As in particular the analysis in section 5.3 on the construction of BLS indicated, a general problem
seems to relate to insufficient co-operation, both on an inter-ministerial level as well as between
ministries and relevant public or private institutions or the academia (when it comes e.g. to the
development of new methodologies). Due to a lack of (procedures for) communication between
different parts of the public administration, only sub-optimal outcomes can at times be reached, or
double work has to be conducted. Furthermore, this lack of co-operation often goes hand in hand with
a lack of dissemination and sharing of statistical information between different ministries and other
government institutions as well. This can easily lead to data being gathered according to inconsistent
methodologies, rendering a combination or comparison difficult and making their use difficult for
certain applications.
As section 4.3 revealed, many countries furthermore still struggle with certain regulatory issues as
they have not yet clearly decided on who will be responsible for conducting the economic analysis (or
for the implementation of the WFD in general). While first arrangements often already exist at a
political level, they still need to be transposed to the working level to take effect.
In response to the problems outlined above, a number of remedying measures may be proposed. In
order to address the issue of lack in co-ordination, insufficient communication and sharing of data,
inter-ministerial working groups could be formed that combine the expertise of different experts on
relevant issues, to enhance vertical as well as horizontal co-ordination within the state sector.
Furthermore, procedures for disseminating (statistical) information between different ministries could
be defined.
It will also be important to increase the integration of expertise outside of the concerned
administrations and to aim at an integrated approach making use of private national as well as
international expertise and to further (international) interdisciplinary exchange on priority problems.
Furthermore, linking the implementation of the economic analysis with other areas of the WFD
implementation process should be an issue of high concern, in order to facilitate learning from each
other, to avoid double work as well as to strengthen the overall understanding of the key issues at
stake across the different elements of the WFD implementation process. The failure to strengthen
necessary ties from the early beginning on may lead to inconsistent approaches that might be difficult
to reconcile later on.
With respect to the unclear responsibilities for the economic analysis as revealed in section 4.3.3, it
should be stressed that missing to clearly allocate decision-making responsibilities, exact mandates
and legal powers to the different actors involved can severely hamper the WFD's implementation. The
issue of clear allocation of responsibility is intrinsically linked to the issue of staff working on the
economic analysis. It will be vital to involve a sufficient number of staff in the implementation process
of the economic analysis in order to be able to comply with the tight time-schedule set by the
Directive.
It can be concluded that important benefits may be derived from an enhanced administrative capacity.
Furthering progress in terms of capacity building will be decisive to a successful implementation of
the WFD in general and the economic analysis in particular.
Britta Pielen, Eduard Interwies, Pierre Strosser
Ecologic
The Economic Analysis according to the WFD in the Danube River Basin
31
6 Synthesis of Identified Gaps and Necessary Measures
At the Budapest Workshop, a draft version of this report has been discussed. A special emphasis has
been on the following synthesis chapter due to its orientation towards practical implementation and
next steps. In light of the participants' suggestions and comments it has now been revised and
amended. The participants' evaluation of the relevance of the identified priority gaps and the
feasibility of the different measures proposed have been taken into account in the process of revision.
As a first step, section 6.1 identifies major gaps that a majority of countries has in common29 and
proposes measures that could be taken in response at the national level. The discussion is structured
along the following three focal areas:
- Information and data related gaps (Section 6.1.1);
- Methodological deficiencies (Section 6.1.2); and
- Gaps related to institutional and administrative arrangements (Section 6.1.3).
As a second step, section 6.2 addresses those priority gaps that have been identified at the Budapest
Workshop or during the cross-country analysis as meriting a Danube-wide approach. The final version
of this section integrates the discussions at the Budapest Workshop and it has been amended by four
in-depth proposals on concrete measures. Agreement was reached at the Budapest Workshop that
these areas should be prioritised and that Danube-wide efforts on these issues would be valuable.
Possible approaches on these issues were already discussed and elaborated in small working groups
during the Budapest Workshop. In this synthesis chapter, an attempt has been made to elaborate on the
proposals made by the different groups and to further specify possible actions on a practical level.
6.1 Identified Gaps and Necessary Measures at the National Level
It should be noted that the scope of this synthesis report only allows for advocating general guidelines
on how the identified priority gaps could be tackled. It will be important to further specify the
proposed measures for the different countries and to find a nationally adapted solution.
6.1.1 Information/data related gaps at the national level
The cross-country assessment of the analysed set of NSS as well as the discussions at the Budapest
Workshop have indicated particular problems in terms of availability or quality of information and
data related to the following indicators and parameters:
1. Providing information and data on indicators for the following water uses poses problems to a
majority of the countries investigated:
- Agriculture (e.g. average income, average gross production per year);
- Leisure fishing, boating and wind-surfing, (in most of the countries investigated, no
comprehensive information is currently gathered on related indicators; see Table 1, Annex 1);
- Water related tourism (e.g. number of beds, total turnover, average expenses per tourist per
day);
- Flood and drainage systems (e.g. population protected, turnover of protected economic
activities, potential loss of properties or economic activity).
With regard to water services, particular difficulties relate to gathering information on the
following indicators:
29 In addition to these cross-country gaps, there are also country-specific gaps that will not be treated in this
summary chapter but should not be forgotten.
32
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
- Irrigation water supply (e.g. main products of irrigated areas, farmers connected to public
irrigation water supply; total irrigation water supply, farmers with self-supply);
- Self-supply (e.g. population/ industry/ agriculture with self-supply, total water supply from
self-supply).
2. The assessment of the recovery of the costs of water services (mainly with regard to cross-
subsidies, collection efficiency and environmental and resource costs) poses significant problems
due to restricted information availability or access;
3. The NSS report difficulties related to the availability of projections (e.g. projections on changes in
water pricing policies, on the effects of EU accession on employment or on the development of
key economic sectors) that are needed as a basis for developing the baseline scenario. A further
problem in this context relates to the fact that projections are often only available for
inhomogeneous timeframes (e.g. ranging from 2 to 30 years). Accordingly, harmonisation will be
required, in order to allow for the development of a consistent baseline scenario up to 2015;
4. The availability of information on measures for preparing the cost-effectiveness analysis poses a
particular challenge, since information on costs of measures is not collected comprehensively
within countries and there is a lack of data on individual measures (e.g. on the required timeframe,
the geographical coverage or the different categories of costs, etc.). In general, difficulties relate to
information on non-traditional measures (such as agricultural programmes to reduce diffuse
pollution) and the assessment of the environmental impact of measures;
Finally, it should be noted that due to the limited resources available for conducting the NSS the
assessment of the quality of information is (in most cases) based on expert judgement only, and is thus
subjective. These judgements could be inaccurate and thus misleading (even "official" data can be of
low quality due to e.g. a large shadow economy). Accordingly, indicators that have not been identified
as highly problematic in the NSS may, nevertheless, pose severe problems to the actual
implementation of the economic analysis due to insufficient data reliability;
NECESSARY MEASURES AT NATIONAL LEVEL
The following measures could be taken in response to the identified information and data related gaps
at the national level.
1. For each individual country, the most urgent information gaps should be specified precisely
through a detailed national analysis. On a practical level, the current NSS could be expanded into
a national action plan, which investigates in more detail the national gaps related to water
management issues and prioritises necessary changes in data collection.
For some of the indicators identified above as posing particular problems, the following
suggestions were made at the Budapest Workshop on how to proceed (for 2004):
- For problematic indicators on navigation and transport it was suggested that for 2004 only
information that is currently available in the individual countries should be used and
synthesised it in an appropriate way for the Danube roof report (a qualitative description will
be provided in the roof report, stressing the countries for which these water uses are the most
significant and providing quantified figures for some countries whenever available and
considered relevant for illustration). The same procedure applies for indicators on boating and
windsurfing, water related tourism and leisure fishing;
- Irrigation water supply was considered by the participants of the Budapest Workshop as not
requiring a Danube-wide approach as this gap is only important in some of the Danube
countries. Countries where this type of information is missing will individually find ways to
estimate this parameter for their respective sub-units;
- With regard to self-supply for households, it was suggested that a common approach of how to
calculate self-supply at Danube level should be decided on, but then proceeded with at the
national level;
Britta Pielen, Eduard Interwies, Pierre Strosser
Ecologic
The Economic Analysis according to the WFD in the Danube River Basin
33
2. The participants of the Budapest Workshop agreed to the assessment made in the draft synthesis
report that increased data collection (or estimations based on e.g. extrapolation techniques or
expert judgement) will be needed on the categories identified by the cross-country analysis as
problematic, in order to conduct the economic analysis by 2004. While, in light of the severe time
constraints as well as due to financial restrictions, it will not be feasible to close all identified gaps
by 2004, it will be important to initiate activities for closing priority gaps as soon as possible in
order to ensure an improved information availability after 2004;
3. The problem of deficient information on certain projections (e.g. projections on the impact of EU
accession on sector policies) could be addressed by conducting or assigning appropriate national
studies. It will be important to use an interdisciplinary approach and to integrate all relevant actors
and stakeholders into this process.
With regard to insufficient information availability of projections on water policies and
investment, the participants of the Budapest Workshop agreed that they are mainly of relevance at
the national level (due to the fact that investment decisions are to a large extent made by national
authorities) and suggested that they should therefore be remedied through individual national
actions;
4. A reporting framework for measures could be developed in order to establish a "Guide on cost
ranges for measures" as a preparatory step for selecting cost-effective measures. This reporting
framework should build on information from past projects and include "non-traditional" measures
(e.g. renaturation of wetlands).
6.1.2 Methodological difficulties
As the cross-country analysis revealed, a variety of methodological difficulties exist for conducting
certain aspects of the economic analysis. This was confirmed by the participants of the Budapest
Workshop. Methodological difficulties are mainly related to the following issues.
1. There is a limited comparability of data from different sources within a country (mainly on issues
related to cost recovery) due to different methodological approaches and data classifications /
definitions used across institutions and reporting levels. Depending on the level of accuracy and
comparability required, this may act as an impediment to completing certain requirements of the
economic analysis.
Furthermore, differences in data definitions among Danube countries might hamper the
comparability of the different national data sets. For those indicators which are considered as
being of primary importance, it will be required to identify in greater detail the exact definition of
those indicators. By means of a sensitivity analysis project, different approaches could then be
compared. On the basis of this, an assessment could be made, indicating whether and which
changes would be required in order to increase the comparability of national data sets on those
areas where it is seen as a prerequisite;
2. Most of the NSS indicated that there is a of lack of experience with regard to methodologies to be
applied in the construction of BLS. The participants of the Budapest Workshop stressed the
limited experience of the water sector with BLS building. In all of the countries participating in
this project, there is neither a general projection method available which is used for all sectors, nor
a method for building an integrated BLS. Accordingly there is a clear need for methodological
development and capacity building;
34
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
3. Furthermore, methodologies on dealing with other specific issues are limited, for example, for:
- Defining and calculating subsidies (and cross-subsidies) for the assessment of cost recovery;
- Assessing environmental and resource costs;
- Evaluating the environmental impact of measures.
It should however be noted that, while the necessary expertise may be missing in the institutions
directly responsible for conducting the economic analysis, it may be possible that the required
experience resides with academic research institutes and external consultants;
4. Difficulties relate to the restructuring of information according to hydrological boundaries, e.g. for
information on certain aspects of water uses (e.g. rate of economic growth, agricultural water use,
self-supply, etc.) and cost recovery related information.
NECESSARY MEASURES AT NATIONAL LEVEL
In response to the methodological difficulties outlined above, the following measures could be taken.
1. Existing national data collection systems could be adapted in a way that reduces inconsistencies in
data definition and collection across countries. For this modification to take place, it will be
important pinpoint more precisely, which variables are of priority importance. Furthermore, an
exchange among relevant stakeholders will be required in order to bring forward a proposal for
modification that not only suits WFD reporting, but also continues to fulfil other national (data)
requirements;
2. A workshop aimed at exchanging information and training experts in the relevant techniques for
scenario building could be conducted, in order to enhance available capacities and understanding
of methodologies for the development of the BLS. It will be important to ensure that experts on
the wide range of methods and approaches participate in this workshop, but also experts on the
different sectors and fields of relevance to the scenario building. Furthermore, the participants of
the Budapest Workshop stressed that improved communication with decision makers is highly
important, in order to enhance their understanding of the main issues and difficulties inherent in
the development of trend scenarios;
3. In the medium term, a specific study on methodologies for assessing cost-recovery could help to
identify possible ways, in which specific problems could methodologically be dealt with, e.g. the
issue of subsidies and cross-subsidies. Analogously, specific studies could help to develop
possible methodologies for the evaluation of environmental and resource costs. In this learning
process, it will be important to integrate and make use of economic as well as technical expertise.
Research on the issue of environmental and resource costs should be linked to the current work of
the CIS-working group at the EU-level in order to make use of possible synergy effects;
4. With regard to the problem of restructuring existing data according to hydrological boundaries,
studies could help to develop methods of how to deal with this issue in a cost-effective manner.
The collection of new data or information should be brought in line with the requirement of
hydrological restructuring. With regard to this issue, it will important to integrate technical and
economic expertise.
6.1.3 Institutional and administrative arrangements
A lack of the necessary institutional framework and administrative capacities for conducting the
economic analysis has been noted, mainly due to the following issues:
1. Some of the NSS indicated that there is an insufficient number of experts currently available
within the responsible institutions for conducting the economic analysis as well as a limited
experience with the requirements of the WFD and the use of economic concepts;
2. In some of the countries under investigation the decision on who will be responsible for
conducting the economic analysis (or for the implementation of the WFD in general) is still
Britta Pielen, Eduard Interwies, Pierre Strosser
Ecologic
The Economic Analysis according to the WFD in the Danube River Basin
35
pending. While first arrangements often already exist at a political level, they still need to be
transposed to the working level to take effect. The dilatoriness to determine the required lines of
responsibility may seriously hamper the implementation of necessary preparatory steps for the
economic analysis (and the WFD implementation in general);
3. Some of the NSS identified a lack of co-ordination and co-operation between relevant ministries
(and other stakeholders). For example, with regard to the develo pment of the baseline scenario, it
was indicated that there is a lack of clear assignment of responsibility for conducting the BLS as
well as a lack of co-ordination for the development of an overall BLS.
NECESSARY MEASURES AT NATIONAL LEVEL
The following measures can be advised in response to the gaps in administrative and institutional
arrangements outlined above:
1. In some of the countries, it will be necessary to increase the resources and capacities available for
conducting the economic analysis, for example, increasing the number of people assigned for
compiling the relevant information, for developing the necessary tools and methodological
approaches and for co-ordinating the different activities. In this context, it should also be
considered to which extent external experts could be integrated into the implementation process,
providing methodological support;
2. It was stressed during the Budapest Workshop, that a clear division of roles for the economic
analysis has to be a agreed on as soon as possible in those Danube countries that have not resolved
the issue so far, as the entire process may otherwise be hampered;
3. To address the present lack of co-ordination and co-operation in some countries with regard to the
economic analysis or parts of it (e.g. the BLS), inter-ministerial working groups could be formed
that combine the expertise of different experts on relevant issues and could enhance vertical as
well as horizontal co-ordination on these issues. Furthermore, procedures for disseminating
(statistical) information between different ministries could be defined as well as further priority
research needs.
6.2 Required Activities and Possible Supporting Measures at the Danube Level
Certain decisions need to be taken at the Danube level soon in order to support the timely development
of both Part A (roof report) and Part B (national reports) of the economic analysis in the DRB.
- Since the economic analysis ,,shall contain enough information in sufficient detail (taking into
account the costs associated with the collection of relevant data)" (Annex III WFD), the Econ
ESG will have to reconsider the preliminary list of indicators for the economic analysis based
on the availability of information/data as established in the current study. In those cases in
which information is not available/not of sufficient quality, it needs to be decided what will be
feasible until 2004 and which precise measures will have to be taken in order to close the
gaps;
- Based on the current study, the issues of the economic analysis that will be dealt with in the
roof report (Part A) have to be defined at the Danube level. Based on this, clear guidelines
need to be developed on what information (and based on which methodology) will be required
from the Danube countries in order to enable the production of a homogenous roof report. For
some indicators (as outlined above, e.g. for leisure fishing), proposals have been made during
the Budapest Workshop on how to report on them in the roof report, yet, a general procedure
still has to be defined.
In addition, some of the identified gaps could best be addressed at the Danube level, both to take
advantage of possible spill-over effects due to concerted and co-ordinated actions as well as to
increase the comparability of national data and information, which will simplify the compilation of the
roof report.
36
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Section 6.2.1 proposes possible supporting measures at the Danube level, and outlines the expected
benefits from co-operation. Section 6.2.2 then turns to treating four issues that were identified by the
participants of the as priority issues for Danube-wide co-operation in greater detail, as was outlined in
the introduction to this chapter.
6.2.1 Possible Supporting Measures at the Danube Level
Certain measures could be taken at the Danube level in order to support the national activities for
conducting the economic analysis. Co-ordinating activities on the following issues would avoid
double-work and facilitate the production of the roof report of the economic analysis since relevant
national activities would be more comparable.
1. Since certain methodological difficulties are shared by many Danube countries (e.g. defining and
calculating subsidies for cost recovery assessment, assessing the environmental affects of
measures, restructuring information according to hydrological boundaries etc.), combined
activities (workshops, studies etc., see above) to improve knowledge and capacities could lead to
methodological developments being "shared by different countries";
2. Cross-subsidisation was agreed to at the Budapest Workshop as being an issue meriting a common
approach. However, before attempts can be made to compare methods for the assessment of cost-
recovery, it will be important to know exactly which information is currently compiled and
available at the national level. The participants of the Budapest Workshop suggested that an expert
workshop on this issue would be valuable, as it would provide a platform for exchange and
learning. Possible approaches for concerted action with regard to the assessment of cost-recovery
were discussed in detail in one of the working groups (see below, Section 6.2.2);
3. In order to increase efficiency of data collection, the quality and the comparability of information,
integrated information systems with obligatory and systematic reporting based on common
definitions would be useful at the Danube level. A basis could be the existing shared ICPDR
database that would have to be adjusted to the requirements of the WFD and updated. This
measure oriented towards the medium term and will not be able to enhance the reporting base for
2004, due to the time lag with which it will take effect;
4. Certain methodological questions (e.g. related to environmenta l and resource costs) are also
currently being worked on in the EU Member States and at EU-CIS Working Group level.
Therefore, it would be advisable that this work is being followed at the Danube level, checking in
how far obtained results can be employed in the DRB and disseminating the information the DRB
countries. This approach was welcomed by the participants of the Budapest Workshop and
common action was considered valuable. In particular with regard to the development of
methodologies for assessing environmental and resource costs, an exchange or a comparison of
possible methods between countries was regarded as vital;
5. The issue of BLS is of importance for the entire DRB. Therefore, integrating national approaches
into a Danube-wide approach (through specific workshops, a common working group on the issue,
etc.) based on a identification of what has to be dealt with at the Danube level, will be vital for
having a coherent picture of the development in the River Basin. It was agreed by the participants
of the Budapest Workshop that Danube-wide co-operation on the issue of BLS would be most
valuable, and possible approaches were discussed in-depth in two of the working groups (see
below, Section 6.2.2);
6. A platform for exchange of information and experiences regarding the ongoing work for the
implementation of the economic analysis (based on the Econ ESG and the ICPDR web-site) could
be established in order to facilitate implementation and to support the comparability of nationa l
results;
7. Since the information on costs of basic measures is similar across many DRB countries, it would
be advisable to develop the "Guide on cost ranges for measures" as a preparation for selecting
cost- effective measures in common for the Danube level. Information on past projects would be
"fitted" into this framework, and it would be important to include information on "alternative"
Britta Pielen, Eduard Interwies, Pierre Strosser
Ecologic
The Economic Analysis according to the WFD in the Danube River Basin
37
measures. Such a basin-wide approach would also have the advantage that the effects of certain
measures would be assessed at a river basin scale and that basin-wide measures could be included
into the preparatory work (based on the concept of integrated river basin management). Here
action is required within a relatively short timeframe in order to facilitate the collectio n process
and to achieve a meaningful database volume by the time it is actually needed.
6.2.2 Key Issues Revisited: Possible Activities for Addressing Priority Gaps
During the Budapest Workshop, four major issues, which had been identified during the discussion of
the draft synthesis report as priority areas meriting Danube wide co-ordination, were discussed in
small working groups in greater detail. The aim was to develop first ideas on how these priority gaps
could best be addressed in order to facilitate a Danube-wide approach to the respective issue.
The following issues were selected at the Budapest Workshop for elaboration in small groups:
1. How can Danube-wide trends in key economic sectors be investigated?
2. How can (common) methodologies for the development of the baseline scenario at the Danube
level be developed and tested?
3. How to agree on a common methods for assessing cost-recovery?
4. How to reach enhanced capacity for the cost-effectiveness analysis?
On the basis of the discussion results of the different working groups, the four priority issues have
been further elaborated in this revised synthesis report. The initial ideas of the participants of the
Budapest Workshop were translated into proposed activities with a realistic timeframe and practical
implementation guidelines.
For each of the four issues, the concrete objective is outlined, and a possible agenda for the required
activities is set up. Furthermore, the actors that should be involved in the different activities are
identified and a tentative timeframe in which the proposed actions could take place is included.
1. INVESTIGATING TRENDS IN KEY ECONOMIC SECTORS
The national scoping studies have identified the existence of forecasts for key economic sectors in
several countries. However, assessing the quality of existing forecasts, their coherence and consistency
between countries and their relevance to the development of the baseline scenario for the Water
Framework Directive could not be undertaken within the (short duration) of the study. Clearly, this
assessment needs to be undertaken if existing forecasts knowledge and information is to be mobilised
for developing the 2015 risk assessment.
The participants in the July 2003 workshop that discussed the preliminary finding of the scoping study
for the Danube stressed the need to focus in priority on agriculture, with energy and industry (or sub-
industrial sectors) been also important sectors to be investigated in the context of such activity.
Objective
The main objective of this activity is:
- To develop robust consistent forecasts for key economic sectors in the Danube region, with
particular emphasis on agriculture, energy and industry.
Thematic focus of the activity and key steps
The activity aims at developing forecasts for key economic sectors significantly affecting water status
in the Danube river basin. The results of this activity could already be input into the 2004
characterisation report for the Danube River. Although the three sectors are mentioned, it is expected
that more emphasis will be given to agriculture because of the importance of diffuse pollution issues in
the Danube region.
38
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
- Step I Review of existing forecasts and trends for the three main sectors, identifying key
assumptions made in existing forecasts, etc.;
- Step II Share existing information and knowledge. Workshop with experts from water and
economic sectors and experts in forecasting/modelling/statistics, for sharing information and
identify gaps and complementary measures required for filling these gaps;
- Step III (Based on workshop) propose methods for developing forecasts (including scale at
which forecasts developed) for the three sectors and implement proposed methods for the
Danube region;
- Step IV Present draft results to water experts, representatives of economic sectors and
decision makers for reviewing, refining and validating results;
- Step V Report and disseminate.
Involvement
Work undertaken by consultants with involvement from experts from ministries in charge of the
implementation of the WFD and sector ministries (agriculture, energy, industry) along with selected
experts/stakeholders with good knowledge in the three sectors. Advisory group (possibility Econ ESG
extended) with representative from the three economic sectors and key experts in these sectors and
their forecasts.
Time frame
It is proposed to initiate the activity in November 2003 and end it in June 2004, thus to be able to
provide some input into the 2004 characterisation report for the Danube river.
- Step I November 2003 to December 2003;
- Step II January 2004;
- Step III February 2004 to April 2004;
- Step IV May 2004;
- Step V June 2004.
2. DEVELOPING AND TESTING METHODOLOGIES FOR THE BASELINE SCENARIO
Some of the national scoping studies have identified existing information on trends in key economic
sectors and investments in the water sector. However, studies stress the absence of practical
methodologies and capacity for integrating existing trend and forecasts information and develop the
baseline scenario of relevance to the planning process of the Water Framework Directive (WFD).
Indeed, specific efforts are required to ensure baseline issues can be tackled in a timely manner and
adequately contribute to making the 2015 risk assessment basis for the identification of significant
water management issues and the selection of measures.
Objective
The main objectives of this activity are:
- To propose and test methods for developing a baseline scenario of relevance to the Danube
countries;
- To enhance capacity in the development of baseline scenario;
- To disseminate the results of the testing and communicate issues of relevance to the
development of the baseline scenario to water experts and decision makers.
Britta Pielen, Eduard Interwies, Pierre Strosser
Ecologic
The Economic Analysis according to the WFD in the Danube River Basin
39
Thematic focus of the activity and key steps
The activity focuses on methodology development and its testing, i.e. how to develop a baseline
scenario of relevance to the WFD and that can help better decisions and support development of
selection of measures.
- Step I - Proposing methodology. Based on experience in selected countries, using the outcome
of the CIS drafting group dealing with this issue, integrating lessons from the Lille IV
conference. Methodology building on statistical trends, stakeholder knowledge and expertise,
technical expertise for identifying significant pressures and their drivers;
- Step II - Testing the methodology in pilot sites (3 sites). Selection of pilot sites, training of
experts and stakeholders who will get involved, identifying priorities for each pilot studies,
undertaking the studies, workshop for discussing results and evaluating approach;
- Step III - Reviewing and combining the results. Review pilot studies, identify gaps and
constraints in proposed methodology and propose likely changes, workshop for exchanging
and discussing results/propose revised methodology;
- Step IV - Develop practical guidance on the revised methodology;
- Step V Organise training session for experts from the Danube countries;
- Step VI - Inform and communicate with key stakeholders and decision makers.
Involvement
Work undertaken by researchers or consultants and experts from ministries/selected stakeholders
(depending on key issues selected for the pilot studies), with an informal group of experts including 1-
2 experts in participatory processes and 1-2 experts from pressures/impacts (or the Econ ESG) as
advisory body. Active joint lead from the countries that will propose pilot sites for testing.
Time frame
It is proposed to initiate the activity in November 2003 and end them in June 2005. This stresses that
the main objective of the activity is to ensure operational methods are available for the development of
the river basin management plan, i.e. after the 2004 characterisation deadline.
- Step I November 2003 to March 2004;
- Step II April 2004 to September 2004;
- Step III October 2004 to December 2004;
- Step IV April 2005 to June 2005;
- Step V June 2005;
- Step VI April 2005 to June 2005.
COMPARING METHODS FOR ASSESSING COST-RECOVERY
Assessing the extent of cost-recovery is an important task to be undertaken by 2004 for the
characterisation report. While it is recognised that the first assessment to be produced by that date will
build on existing information and knowledge, it is important to stress that many questions still remain
with regards to methodologies for assessing cost recovery in particular with regards to the way various
subsidies, in particular cross subsidies and hidden subsidies, should be considered into the analysis.
Clearly, different methods are likely to be applied within different institutional framework. However,
it remains to be assessed whether such methods are effectively coherent and deliver comparative
results.
40
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Objective
The main objectives of the activity are:
- To compare and evaluate methodologies applied by different countries for assessing cost-
recovery, with particula r emphasis on the approaches chosen for integrating cross-subsidies
and hidden subsidies;
- Through their comparison, to identify means for improving existing methodologies for
delivering comparative results.
Thematic focus of the activity and key steps
Focuses of the activity are methods for assessing cost-recovery, with particular focus on subsidies,
cross subsidies and hidden subsidies. However, as methods directly link to existing institutional
frameworks, information collected on these frameworks will also be mobilised to adequately review
existing methods and put them into their context.
- Step I - Exchanging information and first application of assessment. Proactive (electronic +
through focused discussions at Econ ESG) exchange of information between the different
Danube countries for sharing first assessment of cost-recovery;
- Step II Participating in the Lille IV conference. Early contacts with the Lille conference
organisers for ensuring cost-recovery sessions discuss key concerns of Danube countries, i.e.
subsidies including cross-subsidies and hidden subsidies. For sharing experiences with other
countries, and present first assessments undertaken by selected Danube countries;
- Step III Reporting for the 2004 characterisation report;
- Step IV h Proposing improvements for cost-recovery assessment methods. Workshop for
comparing methods used by different countries, identifying comparability of results,
identifying improvements in existing methods for enhancing the comparability of results;
- Step V Dissemination and communication. Report on proposed methodological
improvements aiming at enhancing the quality and consistency of cost-recovery assessment
to be included in the 2008 draft river basin management plan for the Danube.
Involvement
Experts from government agencies in charge of conducting the 2004 cost-recovery assessment for
their country, selected experts in water services and institutional framework providing input into the
comparative workshop (Step IV).
Time frame
- Step I September 2003 to January 2004;
- Step II February 2004;
- Step III up to December 2004;
- Step IV March to May 2005;
- Step IV June 2005.
ENHANCING CAPACITY ON COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYS IS
Undertaking a cost-effectiveness of measures will be an important part of the analysis to be
undertaken by 2008 (draft river basin management plan) for supporting the selection of measures. In
most EU existing and future Member States, or for other countries of the Danube river basin,
experience in cost-effectiveness analysis is rare, and almost non-existent at the scale of hydrological
units. Enhancing capacity in making cost-effectiveness analysis operational is then a key step
Britta Pielen, Eduard Interwies, Pierre Strosser
Ecologic
The Economic Analysis according to the WFD in the Danube River Basin
41
identified by the participants in the July workshop for which a Danube wide approach can prove most
cost-effective.
Objective
The main objective of the activity is:
- To develop capacity in the Danube countries in the application of methods and tools for
undertaking a cost-effectiveness analysis of measures.
Thematic focus of the activity and key steps
Undertaking a cost-effectiveness analysis requires both expertise in economic issues (the cost element)
and in the analysis of pressures and impacts (the effectiveness element). And integrating both
expertise into a common analytical and methodological frame remains a challenge. In terms of the
economic elements, it will be important to ensure issues linked to the scale at which the analysis is to
be undertaken are adequately understood, along with the sensitivity of the analysis to the assessment
of costs (i.e. which costs to be integrated).
- Step I Launching the activity. Workshop with illustrations of cost-effectiveness analysis
undertaken in different countries, review existing experience in Danube countries, identify
specific elements of the cost-effectiveness analysis to be specifically investigated and for
which experts are to be trained (taking account of progress and activities in the EU Common
Implementation Strategy). To identify the "public" for which "capacity building" is required,
and implication this choice has on possible training activities and material;
- Step II Develop hand-on training sessions selection of 3 case studies, development and
testing of cost-effectiveness analysis (or specific components of this analysis: for example, the
overall approach, assessing the economic impact on sectors/users, integrating non-water
related environmental costs) in each case study, writing draft reports on the case studies,
develop 2 day training for experts (researchers, consultants, experts from governmental
organisations) who will undertake cost-effectiveness analysis in the future based on the results
of the three case studies, develop 1 day training for experts from government departments
responsible for delivering the economic analysis;
- Step III Develop practical guidance using illustrations and results of the hand-on training;
- Step IV - Dissemination and communication. Policy reports on the results of the cost-
effectiveness analysis in the three sites, shared and discussed during workshop/ bilateral
meetings with water management experts and decision makers at different scales (Danube,
countries, regions).
Involvement
Researchers and consultants from the different countries, participation from government
officials/representatives and Econ ESG members in first workshop and in identification of the "public"
for capacity building.
Time frame
- Step I March 2004 to September 2004;
- Step II September 2004 to July 2005;
- Step III August 2005 to December 2005;
- Step IV December 2005.
42
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Bibliography
Common Implementation Strategy Working Group 2 June 2002: "EU Guidance Document:
Economics and the Environment. The Implementation Challenge of the Water Framework
Directive". August 2002, available at http://forum.europa.eu.int/Public/irc/env/wfd/library.
European Commission DG Environment, 2000: "Water pricing in selected Accession Countries to
the European Union, current policies and trends", European Commission, Brussels.
International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICDPR), 2002: "Strategic Paper for
the Development of a Danube River Basin District Management Plan", prepared by the River
Basin Management Expert Group/Drafting Group Strategic Paper, DOC-101, 14-May-
2002,Vienna.
International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR), 2002: "Issue Paper on the
Implementation of the Economic Analysis of the WFD in the Danube River Basin", prepared
by the River Basin Management Expert Group/Drafting Group on Economics, DOC-137, 05-
Nov-2002.
International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR), 2003: "List of socio-
economic indicators", prepared by the Economics expert subgroup, Annex to DOC-137, 13-
March-2003
International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR), 2002: "Work Plan for
Producing the Danube River Basin Management Plan 2001 to 2009", DOC-100, 05-Nov-2002.
Kluvánková-Oravská, T., 2003: "Applying EU Economic Guidelines for the Economic Analysis to the
DRB - National Scoping Study for The Slovak Republic", prepared within the UNDP/GEF
Danube Regional Project, Project Output 1.1, Activity 1.1-1.3.
Laryushin, T., 2003: "Applying EU Economic Guidelines for the Economic Analysis to the DRB -
National Scoping Study for Moldova", prepared within the UNDP/GEF Danube Regional
Project, Project Output 1.1, Activity 1.1-1.3.
Lesnic, M., 2003: "Applying EU Economic Guidelines for the Economic Analysis to the DRB -
National Scoping Study for Romania", prepared within the UNDP/GEF Danube Regional
Project, Project Output 1.1, Activity 1.1-1.3.
Nared, N., 2003: "Applying EU Economic Guidelines for the Economic Analysis to the DRB -
National Scoping Study for Slovenia", prepared within the UNDP/GEF Danube Regional
Project, Project Output 1.1, Activity 1.1-1.3.
Nechvatal, J., 2003: "Applying EU Economic Guidelines for the Economic Analysis to the DRB -
National Scoping Study for Czech Republic", prepared within the UNDP/GEF Danube
Regional Project, Project Output 1.1, Activity 1.1-1.3.
Simtran., A., 2003: "Applying EU Economic Guidelines for the Economic Analysis to the DRB -
National Scoping Study for Bosnia and Herzegovina", prepared within the UNDP/GEF
Danube Regional Project, Project Output 1.1, Activity 1.1-1.3.
Staykova, D., 2003: "Applying EU Economic Guidelines for the Economic Analysis to the DRB -
National Scoping Study for Bulgaria", prepared within the UNDP/GEF Danube Regional
Project, Project Output 1.1, Activity 1.1-1.3.
Tóth, K., 2003: "Applying EU Economic Guidelines for the Economic Analysis to the DRB - National
Scoping Study for Hungary", prepared within the UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project,
Project Output 1.1, Activity 1.1-1.3.
UNDP GEF Danube Regional Project, 2002: "Project Implementation Plan Phase 1 (2002-2003)",
Berlin.
Britta Pielen, Eduard Interwies, Pierre Strosser
Ecologic
The Economic Analysis according to the WFD in the Danube River Basin
43
United Nations Office for Projects Services, no Year: "Water Tariff Study in the Danube River
Basin", prepared by IAWD / Kommunalkredit Austria AG in co-operation with the
International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River.
Villa, Zeljka Kordej-De, 2003: "Applying EU Economic Guidelines for the Economic Analysis to the
DRB - National Scoping Study for Croatia", prepared within the UNDP/GEF Danube
Regional Project, Project Output 1.1, Activity 1.1-1.3.
Annex I: Detailed cross-country comparison
i
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
I.1
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE OF WATER USES: INFORMATION AVAILABILITY
[NN: NO INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE NSS; NA: NOT AVAILABLE; = REFERS TO CELLS IN BOLD PRINT ABOVE;]
Indicator
Bosnia & Bulgaria
Czech
Croatia
Hungary
Moldova
Romania
Slovak
Slovenia
Herzegovina
Republic
Republic
General Socio-Economic Indicators
Population
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
(Confidentiality, most recent annually;
2002, annually; 2002, annually; 2001, update:
2001, annually; periodical
annually, Y
2001, annually; 2002, annually;
date of the information,
all ten years
update;
missing;
periodicity of update)
(census);
Total population
=
=
=
=
=
Not confidential, =
=
=
2002, estimated;
Total No. of the population =
=
=
=
=
Not confidential, =
=
=
of economic active age
2001, annually
No. of Households
=
Not confidential, =
=
=
Not confidential, =
=
Not
2001, annually;
2001, annually;
confidential,
2002 annually
Distinction between rural
=
Not confidential, =
Only rough
=
Not confidential, =
=
and urban population
2001, annually;
estimation
2001, annually;
possible (based
NN
on settlement
classification);
Population density,
=
Not confidential, =
Only rough
=
Not confidential, Not readily
=
Not
Distinction between rural
2000;
estimation
2001, annually;
available, but
confidential,
and urban population
possible (based
basis for
2002 annually;
on settlement
calculation
classification);
available
(simple);
Gross Domestic Product Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
annually;
2001, annually; 2002, annually; based on SNA
2001, annually; periodical
annually;
2001, annually 2002 annually ;
1993, annually
update;
and quarterly;
Overall
=
=
=
=
=
=
= but with 1 year =
=
time lag;
Britta Pielen, Eduard Interwies, Pierre Strosser
Ecologic
The Economic Analysis according to the WFD in the Danube River Basin Annex I
ii
Indicator
Bosnia & Bulgaria
Czech
Croatia
Hungary
Moldova
Romania
Slovak
Slovenia
Herzegovina
Republic
Republic
Per capita
=
=
=
=
=
=
Not confidential; =
=
Per employee
NN
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Rate of Economic
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
Growth
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
annually;
2001, annually; 2002, annually; annually;
2001, annually; 2002, quarterly, annually;
2001, annually 2002 annually;
annual
and quarterly;
Overall =
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Per sector =; monthly
=
=
=
=
=
= but with 1 year =
=
updates for
time lag;
industry;
Per branch NN
=
=
NN
NN
NN
NN
NN
NN
Monthly Net Average
Not available;
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
Income
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
confidential;
2001, annually; 2002, annually; Monthly
2001, annually; 2002, quarterly, annually with 1 2001, annually 2002, 2003
Per capita
update (2
annual
year time lag;
and quarterly; monthly;
months lag);
Per Household =
=
=
=
= (per
=
=
=
Estimation only;
employee)
Employment &
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
Unemployment
confidential;
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
2001, annually; 2002, annually; Monthly
2001, annually; 2002, annually annually;
2001, annually, latest available
update (2
quarterly and,
2001, annually;
months lag);
monthly for
selected sectors;
Total number of people =
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
employed
Population employed in main =
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
economic sectors
Unemployment rate =
=
=
=
=
= (and
=
=
=
quarterly)
iii
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Indicator
Bosnia & Bulgaria
Czech
Croatia
Hungary
Moldova
Romania
Slovak
Slovenia
Herzegovina
Republic
Republic
Characteristics of Water Services
Total Water Production Available at
Not
Not
Not
Semi -public
Not
Not
Not
Not
request;
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
(water sector),
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
2001, annually; 2002, annually; annually;
2002, annually; 2001, quarterly, annually;
2001, annually; 2002, annually;
annually
From surface water =
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
From Groundwater =
=
=
=
=
Not confidential, =
=
=
not periodically,
1998;
Available at
Not
Not
Not
Semi -public
Not
Not
Not
Not
Drinking Water
request;
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
(water sector),
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
Production
2001, annually; 2002, annually; annually;
2002, annually; 2001, quarterly, annually;
2001, annually; 2001, annually;
annually;
From surface water =
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
From Groundwater =
=
=
=
=
Case study,
=
=
=
quarterly, annual
1998
Available at
Not
Not
Not
Semi -public
Not
Not
Not
Not
Water Supply
request;
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
(water sector),
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
2001, annually; 2002, annually; annually;
2002, annually; Quarterly,
annually;
2001, annually; 2002, annually;
annually;
No. of water supply =
=
=
=
=
=
Permanent count =
=
companies
by the
commerce
register
Public water supply
Available at
Not
Not
Not
=
Not
Not
Not
Not
request;
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
2001, annually; 2002, annually; annually;
2001, quarterly, annually;
2001, annually; 2001, annually;
annually;
periodical
update;
Population connected to =
=
=
=
=
=
Available;
=
Not confidential
public water supply
latest 2002;
Britta Pielen, Eduard Interwies, Pierre Strosser
Ecologic
The Economic Analysis according to the WFD in the Danube River Basin Annex I
iv
Indicator
Bosnia & Bulgaria
Czech
Croatia
Hungary
Moldova
Romania
Slovak
Slovenia
Herzegovina
Republic
Republic
Total public water supply =
=
=
=
=
=
=
Not
confidential,
2002, annually;
Surface water =
=
=
=
NN
=
Available;
=
=
Groundwater =
=
=
=
NN
=
Available;
=
=
Water supply to Households =
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Water supply to Industry =
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Water supply to the =
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Not available,
agricultural sector
officially not
collected;
Self-supply
NN
Not
NN
Not
Semi -public
Not available,
Not
Not
Not available,
confidential,
confidential,
(municipality), estimation
confidential,
confidential,
officially, not
2001, annually;
annually;
2002, annually; possible
annually;
2001, annually; collected;
Population with self-supply =
Not confidential, =
Not available;
=
=
Not available,
=
Not available;
on the basis of
estimation
estimations;
possible
Industry with self-supply =
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Not
confidential,
2002, annually;
Agriculture with self-supply =
Not confidential, =
Not available;
=
=
=
=
Not available
on the basis of
not collected so
estimations;
far;
Total water supply from self- =
Not
=
NN
NN
=
Not available,
=
Not available
supply
confidential,
estimation
not collected so
2001, annually;
possible;
far;
Surface water =
=
=
Not available;
NN
=
=
=
Not available
not collected so
far;
Groundwater =
=
=
Not available;
NN
=
Not available,
=
Not available;
estimation
possible;
Water demand
Available at
Not available,
Not
NN
Semi -public
Not available,
Not available,
Not available;
Not available,
request;
Alternative
confidential,
(water sector),
estimation
estimation
estimation
calculation
proposed;
2002, annually;
2002, annually; possible;
possible;
possible;
possible;
Per capita =
=
=
=
NA; estim. pos.; =
Available "
=
=
v
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Indicator
Bosnia & Bulgaria
Czech
Croatia
Hungary
Moldova
Romania
Slovak
Slovenia
Herzegovina
Republic
Republic
Per household =
=
=
=
NA;
=
=
=
=
estimation
possible;
Water demand per unit of NN
=
NN
=
NA;
=
=
=
NN
production
estimation
possible;
Leakage rate
Available at
Not
Not
Not
Semi -public
Not
Not available,
Not
Not
request;
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
(water sector),
confidential,
estimation
confidential,
confidential,
2001, annually; 2002, annually; annually;
2002, annually; 2001, annually; possible;
2001, annually; latest available
2001;
Not
Not
Not
Not
Semi -public
Not
Annual
Not
Estimate
Waste Water Treatment confidential;
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
(water sector),
confidential,
Inventory;
confidential,
available, not
2001, annually; 2002, annually; annually;
2002, annually; 2001, annually;
2001, annually; confidential;
Population connected to =
=
=
= (2000)
=
=
=
=
=
public sewerage system
Population connected to Not available;
=
=
=
-=
=
=
=
=
WWTP
Treatment plants
NN
Not
Not
Not
Semi -public
Not
Annual
Not
Estimate
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
(water sector),
confidential,
Inventory;
confidential,
available, not
2001, annually; 2002, annually; annually;
2002, annually; 2001, annually;
2001, annually; confidential;
Total No. and capacity =
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
No. and capacity of =
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
mechanical treatment plants
No. and capacity of =
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
biological treatment plants
No. and capacity of =
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
advanced treatment plants
Publicly collected
NN
Not
Not
Not
Semi -public
Not
Not
Not
Not
wastewater
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
(water sector),
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
2001, annually; 2002, annually; annually;
2002, annually; 2001, annual
annually;
2001, annually; latest 2001,
annually;
Total per year =
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Total from Household sector =
=
=
Data available
=
Not confidential, =
=
for 1996 + 1999
=
annually;
Britta Pielen, Eduard Interwies, Pierre Strosser
Ecologic
The Economic Analysis according to the WFD in the Danube River Basin Annex I
vi
Indicator
Bosnia & Bulgaria
Czech
Croatia
Hungary
Moldova
Romania
Slovak
Slovenia
Herzegovina
Republic
Republic
Per capita per year =
=
=
Not available;
=
NN
Not available;
=
=
Per household per year =
Not confidential, =
Not available;
=
NN
Not available;
=
=
estimation
possible;
Total from industrial sector =
=
=
Data are
=
Not confidential, NN
=
available for
=
annually;
1996 and 1999;
Total from agricultural sector =
=
=
Data are
NN
=
Partially
=
Not available,
available for
available;
not collected;
1996 and 1999;
Irrigation water supply
Available at
Not
Not
Not available;
Semi -public
Case study
Not
Not
Not
request;
confidential,
confidential,
(water sector),
1998;
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
2001, annually; 2002, annually;
2002, annually;
annually;
2001, seasonal, 2001, annually;
weakly (for
subsidy
allocation);
No. of irrigation water =
=
=
There are no
=
=
Available;
=
Not available;
companies
entities engaged
in this activity
Total area irrigated =
=
=
Not confidential, =
=
Available,
=
=
annually;
"yearly
evidence";
Main products of irrigated =
=
Not confidential; =
=
Not confidential, Not available.
=
Not available;
areas
2001, annually,
Estimation
Case study;
possible (poor);
Farmers connected to public =
Alternative
Not confidential; =
=
Not available,
=
=
Not available;
irrigation water supply
proposed;
estimation
possible;
Total irrigation water supply Not available;
=
Not confidential; =
NN
=
=
=
=
estimation
possible;
Surface water =
=
Not confidential; =
NN
=
=
=
=
Groundwater =
=
Not confidential; =
NN
=
=
=
=
Farmers with self-supply available at
=
Not confidential; =
=
=
NN
Not available;
Not available;
request;
vii
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Indicator
Bosnia & Bulgaria
Czech
Croatia
Hungary
Moldova
Romania
Slovak
Slovenia
Herzegovina
Republic
Republic
Total irrigation with self- =
=
Not confidential; =
NN
=
?
Not available,
Not available;
supply
estimation
possible;
Surface water =
=
Not confidential; =
NN
=
Available,
Not available,
Not available;
annually;
estimation
possible;
Groundwater =
=
Not confidential; =
NN
=
Not available,
Not available,
Not available;
cannot be
estimation
estimated;
possible;
Other services
Available at
Not
Not
Available;
Semi -public
Not available,
Not
Not
NN
request / with
confidential,
confidential,
(water sector),
estimation
confidential,
confidential,
government
2001, annually; 2001, annually;
2002, annually; possible;
annually;
2001, annually;
approval;
Storage capacity (for multi NN
NN
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
purpose and specialised)
No. of water reservoirs =
=
=
=
=
=
=
Not available;
=
Volume of water reservoirs =
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Manageable/retentive =
= (only for
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
volume of water reservoirs
complex dams)
Deposit volume of water =
= (only for
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
reservoirs
complex dams)
Multipurpose or specialised NN
= (only for
=
NN
=
=
=
NN
=
complex dams)
Characteristic of Water Uses
Agriculture
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
annually;
2001, annually; 2001, annually; 2001, annually; 2001, annually; 2001, annually; annually;
2001, annually; 2001, annually;
Total arable land =
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Not
confidential,
2000, annually;
Use pattern =
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Farm and farming system Not available,
Not confidential, Not confidential, Available, year
=
=
Not available,
Not confidential, NN
Britta Pielen, Eduard Interwies, Pierre Strosser
Ecologic
The Economic Analysis according to the WFD in the Danube River Basin Annex I
viii
Indicator
Bosnia & Bulgaria
Czech
Croatia
Hungary
Moldova
Romania
Slovak
Slovenia
Herzegovina
Republic
Republic
types estimation
2002, annually;
2001, annually;
and periodicity
estimation
2001, farm
possible;
missing;
possible (poor); structure census;
Livestock - No. per type =
=
=
=
=
=
=
= (also
=
monthly);
Total gross production =
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Not
confidential,
2000, annually;
Average gross production =
Estimation
=
=
=
=
=
=
NN
per hectare
possible;
Income average income NN
=
=
=
NN
Not confidential, =
Not confidential, NN
2001, quarterly,
for each season
annually;
2000/2001,
annually;
Total use of key inputs NN
NN,
=
=
NN
=
=
Not confidential, Not
Alternative
for each season
confidential,
proposed;
2000/2001 and
2000, annually;
in 5 year period,
annually;
Nitrates Not confidential, Not available,
=
=
NN
=
=
Not confidential, Not
annually;
but Nitrogenous
for each season
confidential,
(not
2000/2001 and
2000, annually;
confidential,
in 5 year period,
2001, annually);
annually;
Phosphates Not confidential, Not available,
=
=
NN
=
=
Not confidential, Not
annually;
but P2O5 (not
for each season
confidential,
confidential,
2000/2001 and
2000, annually;
2001, annually)
in 5 year period,
annually;
Pesticides Not available;
Not available;
=
=
NN
=
=
Not confidential, Not
for each season
confidential,
2000/2001 and
2000, annually;
in 5 year period,
annually;
Industry
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
annually;
2001, annually; 2001, annually; 2001, annually; 2001, annually; 2002 quarterly, annually,
2001 annually, 2001, annually;
annual, case
monthly,
study;
ix
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Indicator
Bosnia & Bulgaria
Czech
Croatia
Hungary
Moldova
Romania
Slovak
Slovenia
Herzegovina
Republic
Republic
Total turnover =
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Turnover for key sub-sectors =
=
=
=
=
=
=
Not
=
confidential,
2001, annually;
Services
Not
Not
Not
NN
Not
Not
Not
Not
Not
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
annually;
2001, annually; 2001, annually;
2001, annually; 2002 quarterly, annually;
2001, annually, 2001, annually;
annual, case
monthly,
study;
Total turnover =
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Turnover for key services =
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Hydropower
Available at
Not
Not
Not
Two sources: 1) Not
Not
Not
Not
request;
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
Not
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
2001, annually; 2001, annually; 2001, annually; confidential,
2002 quarterly, annually,
2001, annually, 2000, annually;
2001, annually; annual, case
monthly,
2) semi -public
study;
(water sector),
2001 , annually;
Installed hydropower =
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
capacity
Total Electricity produced Available;
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
As % of national production =
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Britta Pielen, Eduard Interwies, Pierre Strosser
Ecologic
The Economic Analysis according to the WFD in the Danube River Basin Annex I
x
Indicator
Bosnia & Bulgaria
Czech
Croatia
Hungary
Moldova
Romania
Slovak
Slovenia
Herzegovina
Republic
Republic
Conventional thermal power Available at
Not
Not
Not
Semi -public
Not available;
Not
Not
Not
and nuclear power
request;
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
(water sector),
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
2001, annually; 2001, annually; 2001, annually; 2002, annually;
annually;
2001, annually, 2001, annual ly;
monthly;
Installed conventional power =
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
capacity/nuclear power
capacity
Electricity produced =
=
=
=
=
Not confidential, =
=
=
Total
2002 quarterly,
annual, case
study;
As % of national production Not available,
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
estimation
possible;
Navigation/transport
NN
These
Not
Not
Semi -public
Not
Not
Not
Not relevant,
indicators are
confidential,
confidential,
(water sector),
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
Slovenias's
not available,
2001, annually; Quarterly;
2002, annually; 2002 annual;
annually;
2001, annually; rivers are not
but a range of
suitable for
other indicators
navigation;
related to
Navigation and
transport; see
p. 12/13;
No. of boats through key =
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
NN
points
Goods transported
=
=
=
=
available
=
xi
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Indicator
Bosnia & Bulgaria
Czech
Croatia
Hungary
Moldova
Romania
Slovak
Slovenia
Herzegovina
Republic
Republic
Quantity =
=
NN
=
=
=
=
=
Not
confidential,
2001, annually;
Value =
=
NN
Not available;
=
=
Not available,
NN
NN
estimation
possible;
Activity of harbours
=
=
NN
No. of harbours Not confidential; =
NN
=
=
NN
Permanently
=
NN
available;
Quantity of goods Available at
=
NN
=
=
NN
=
=
Not
request;
confidential,
2001, annually;
Quality of goods Available at
=
NN
Not available;
=
NN
=;
=
NN
request;
Gravel extraction
Available at
Not
Not
Not
Not
not available
Not
Not
Not
request;
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
2001, annually; 2001, annually; annually;
2001, annually;
annually;
2001, annually; 2002, annually;
No. of companies =
=
NN
=
=
=
=
=
=
No. of sites =
=
NN
Not available;
=
=
=
=
=
Turnover =
Not available,
NN
=
=
=
Not available,
=
Not available;
estimation
estimation
possible;
possible;
Total volume of gravel =
=
NN
=
=
=
=
=
=
extracted per year
Fish farming
Available at
Not available;
Not
Not available;
Not
Estimation
Not
Semi -Public,
Not
request;
confidential,
confidential,
possible:
confidential,
2001, annually; confidential, ,
2001, annually;
2001, annually; premise
annually;
annually;
delivery;
No. of fish farms =
Not confidential, =
Not confidential, =
=
=
=
=, latest 2002
2001, annually;
annually;
Turnover =
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Not
confidential;
Britta Pielen, Eduard Interwies, Pierre Strosser
Ecologic
The Economic Analysis according to the WFD in the Danube River Basin Annex I
xii
Indicator
Bosnia & Bulgaria
Czech
Croatia
Hungary
Moldova
Romania
Slovak
Slovenia
Herzegovina
Republic
Republic
Quantities of fish sold per =
=
=
=
=
=
=
Not confidential, Not
year
2001, annually;
confidential;
Leisure fishing
Not available,
Not available;
Not
Confidential,
Semi -public
Estimation
Confidential
estimation
confidential,
annually;
(individual
possible:
and incomplete;
possible;
2001, annually;
collection of
premise
data), 2002,
delivery;
annually;
No. of persons =
=
NN
=
=
=
Permanent
=
NN
evidence;
No. of persons per day =
=
NN
=
=
=
Not available,
=
Data can be
vague estimation
obtained from
possible;
number of sold
fishing
allowances;
Boating and wind-surfing
NN
Not available;
Not available;
Data not
available in a
systematically
collected way;
No.of persons per day NN
Not available;
=
Not confidential; Semi-public
NN
Not available,
Not publicly
Data not
twice a year;
(individual
cannot be
available; no
available;
collection of
approximated;
estimation
data), 2002,
possible;
annually;
Tourism
Not available,
NN
Not
Not published
Not
Not
Not available,
Not
Not
estimation
confidential,
(but obtainable confidential,
confidential,
no estimation
confidential,
confidential,
possible;
2001, annually; from strategic
2001, annually; 2001, quarterly, possible;
2001, annually, 2001, annually;
documents);
annually;
quarterly;
No.of tourists per day Not confidential; =
=
Not confidential, =
=
Not confidential, =
=
Monthly (2
annually;
months lag) and
annually;
No.of beds NN
Not confidential, NN
NN
NN
Not available;
NN
=
=
2002, annually;
Total expenses from tourists Available at
=
NN
=
=
Not available;
=
=
=
request;
Average expenses per day Available at
=
NN
=
=
Not available;
=
Not available;
=
request;
estimation not
xiii
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Indicator
Bosnia & Bulgaria
Czech
Croatia
Hungary
Moldova
Romania
Slovak
Slovenia
Herzegovina
Republic
Republic
possible;
Total turnover Available at
=
=
=
=
Not confidential, Not available,
=
=
request;
2001, quarterly, can be estimated
annual
(poor);
Flood control and drainage Available at
Not available;
Not
Not published
Semi -public
NN
Not
Not
Not
request and by
confidential,
in official
(water sector),
confidential,
confidential,
systematically
governmental
2001, annually; statistics;
2002, annually;
annually;
2001, annually; collected,
approval;
available upon
available as a
request free of
result of a
charge;
study, latest
2000;
Urban drainage and =
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
agricultural drainage
Overall length of water Not confidential; Not confidential, =
=
=
=
=
=
Not
courses
2000;
confidential;
Overall length of conditioned =
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Not
water courses
confidential;
Population protected =
Not confidential, =
Not available,
Not available;
=
Not available,
Not available, no NN
2000;
estimation
estimation
estimation
estimation
possible;
possible
possible;
possible;
Turnover of protected =
=
=
Not available;
Not available;
=
Not available, no Not available, no =
economic activities
estimation
estimation
estimation
possible;
possible;
possible;
Potential loss of =
=
=
Not available;
Not available;
=
=
Not available, no =
properties/economic
estimation
activities
possible;
Source: Authors` own compilation on the basis of the NSS. [NN: no information provided by the NSS; NA: not available; = refers to cells in bold print above;]
Britta Pielen, Eduard Interwies, Pierre Strosser
Ecologic
The Economic Analysis according to the WFD in the Danube River Basin Annex I
xiv
I.2
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE OF WATER USES: QUALITY OF AVAILABLE INDICATORS
Indicator
Bosnia &
Bulgaria
Czech
Croatia
Hungary
Moldova
Romania
Slovak
Slovenia
Herzegovina
Republic
Republic
General Socio Economic Indicators
Population
(Confidentiality, most recent
3
date of the information,
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
periodicity of update)
(If aggregation possible)
1 national
1
3 (disputable
Gross Domestic Product
2
1
1
2
1
1
4 district
methodology)
1 national
1
3 (unclear
Rate of Economic Growth
2
1
1
2
1
1
3 district
methodology)
Monthly Net Average
1 national
3 (shadow
Income
Not available;
1
2
1
3 district
income)
3
1
1
Employment &
3
1
1
1
1
3
2
1
1
Unemployment
Characteristics of Water Services
Total Water Production
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
Drinking Water Production
2
2
1
2
1
2
3-4
1
1
Water Supply
1-2
1
2-3
1
1
2
2
1
3
Public water supply
1-2
1-2
1
2-4
1
2
2-3
1
2
1 (for
population and
2 for industry
industry);
with self-
Not available
Self-supply
NN
5 (agriculture
2-3
supply; other
3
NN
Divers: 2-5
3
(industry with
and total water
indicators not
self-supply: 2);
supply from
available;
self-supply)
xv
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Indicator
Bosnia &
Bulgaria
Czech
Croatia
Hungary
Moldova
Romania
Slovak
Slovenia
Herzegovina
Republic
Republic
Water demand
NN
NN
1-3
NN
3
NN
4
NN
NN
Leakage rate
3
2
1
2-3
3
3
5
2
2
2-3 (if indicator
Waste Water Treatment
2 (partial)
1-2
1
NN
1
2
1
NN
available)
Treatment plants
NN
1
1
NN
1
2
2
1
NN
Publicly collected
NN
1-3
1
NN
1
2
2
1
NN
wastewater
5 for total area
1 (for available
3-4 (exception:
Irrigation water supply
3 (partial)
1-2
irrigated; other
1
3
1-3
NN
data)
indicators not
No. of water
companies: 1)
evaluated;
Other services
NN
1
1
NN
1
NN
2
1
NN
Characteristic of Water Uses
2 (exceptions:
total arable
Agriculture
1-3 (partial)
1
1
1-3
1
2
land: 1, farm
1
1
and farming
system types: 5)
Industry
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
Services
2
1
1
NN
1
3
2
2
1
Hydropower
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
Conventional thermal power
NN, electricity
and nuclear power
1 (partial)
1
1
1
1
produced: 2
2
1
1
1 (where
3: No. of boats
Navigation/transport
1 (partial)
NN
1-2
1
1-2
1
1
available)
through key-
points, NN
Gravel extraction
2-3 (partial)
1-2
2-3
1
1
NN
3
1
2
Divers: No. of
1 (No. of fish
1 (No. of fish
fish farms: 1;
Fish farming
2-3 (partial)
farms; other
2
farms, other
1
NN
turnover: 4;
NN
2
indicators are
indicators are
quantity of fish
not available);
not available);
sold: 3;
Leisure fishing
NN
Not available;
3
3 (No. of
3
NN
3
Data are not
NN
public and are
Britta Pielen, Eduard Interwies, Pierre Strosser
Ecologic
The Economic Analysis according to the WFD in the Danube River Basin Annex I
xvi
Indicator
Bosnia &
Bulgaria
Czech
Croatia
Hungary
Moldova
Romania
Slovak
Slovenia
Herzegovina
Republic
Republic
persons), NN
fragmented;
¾ of the data do
Boating and wind-surfing
NN
Not available;
3-4
not include
3
NN
NN
NN
NN
private boats;
Divers: No. of
1 (bed-nights);
1 for number of
2, but:
Tourism
2 (partial);
1-2
1
NN
tourists: 2;
1
NN
tourists per day;
protection of
expenses and
individual data;
turnover: 4;
1 (if indicator
1 if indicator
2 (if indicator
Flood control and drainage
1-2 (partial);
available);
1
NN
NN
NN
available; 3 for
3
available);
estimations;
xvii
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
I.3
ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE OF WATER USES: HYDROLOGICAL BOUNDARIES
Indicator
Bosnia &
Bulgaria
Czech
Croatia
Hungary
Moldova
Romania
Slovak
Slovenia
Herzegovina
Republic*
Republic
General Socio Economic Indicators
Population
Possible but
NN (possible
Possible;
Possible;
Possible;
Possible;
Possible;
NN
Costly;
for total
population)
Gross Domestic
Difficult: rough
Product
Possible/
Possible but
possible;
Possible;
estimates based
NN
Difficult;
NN
difficult;
on expert
Costly;
research needed;
knowledge;
Rate of Economic
Possible, but
Possible but
possible;
Very difficult;
NN
NN
Difficult;
NN
Growth
time consuming;
Costly;
research needed;
Monthly Net Average
Difficult: rough
Income
Possible but
possible;
NN
Not possible;
estimates based
NN
Difficult;
NN
on expert
Costly;
research needed;
knowledge;
Employment &
Total No. of
Unemployment
Possible, quality
people
Possible but
possible;
Possible;
NN
Possible;
NN
questionable;
employed: not
Costly;
research needed;
possible; rest
possible;
Characteristics of Water Services
Total Water Production
Possible;
Possible;
NN
Available;
NN
Possible;
Possible;
NN
already
available at sub
units;
Drinking Water
Possible;
Possible;
NN
Available;
NN
Possible;
Possible;
NN
Production
already
available at sub
units;
No. of water
Possible;
No. of water
Available;
NN
Possible;
Possible;
NN
WATER SUPPLY
supply
supply
already
companies:
companies:
available at sub
Britta Pielen, Eduard Interwies, Pierre Strosser
Ecologic
The Economic Analysis according to the WFD in the Danube River Basin Annex I
xviii
Indicator
Bosnia &
Bulgaria
Czech
Croatia
Hungary
Moldova
Romania
Slovak
Slovenia
Herzegovina
Republic*
Republic
possible, NN
possible, NN
units;
Public water supply
NN; Public
Possible;
NN
Available;
NN
Possible;
Possible;
NN
water supply to
the industrial
sector: possible;
Self-supply
NN
Possible;
NN
NN
NN
possible;
Possible;
NN
research needed;
Water demand
Possible as
NN
NN
NN
NN
possible;
Possible;
NN
projections;
research needed;
Leakage rate
Possible
Possible;
NN
NN
NN
possible;
Possible
NN
(difficult);
research needed;
(difficult);
Waste Water
NN
Possible;
NN
Available;
NN
Possible;
Possible;
NN
Treatment
already
available at sub
units;
Treatment plants
NN
Possible;
NN
Available;
NN
Possible;
Possible;
NN
Publicly collected
NN
Possible;
NN
Available;
NN
possible;
Possible;
NN
wastewater
research needed;
Irrigation water supply
Possible;
Possible (if
NN
Available;
NN
Divers:
Possible;
NN
indicator
possible;
already
available);
research needed; available at sub
units;
Other services
Possible;
Possible;
NN
Available;
NN
Possible;
Possible;
NN
already
available at sub
units;
Characteristics of Water Uses
Agriculture
Possible, partly Possible (except
Difficult: rough
Possible but
NN
possible;
Possible
NN
difficult;
for total gross
estimates based
Costly;
research needed; (problematic for
production and
on expert
average income
if indicator
knowledge;
and gross
available);
production);
Industry
Possible, partly
Possible;
Difficult: rough
Possible but
NN
possible;
Difficult;
NN
difficult;
estimates based
Costly;
research needed;
on expert
knowledge;
xix
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Indicator
Bosnia &
Bulgaria
Czech
Croatia
Hungary
Moldova
Romania
Slovak
Slovenia
Herzegovina
Republic*
Republic
Services
Possible
Possible;
NN
Possible but
NN
possible;
Difficult due to
NN
(difficult);
Costly;
research needed; the protection of
individual data;
Hydropower
Possible;
Possible;
Possible for
Available;
NN
Possible;
Possible;
NN
installed
hydropower
capacity; NN
Conventional thermal
Possible;
Possible;
Possible for
Available;
NN
Possible;
Possible;
NN
power and nuclear
installed
power
conventional
thermal power
capacity/
nuclear; NN
Navigation/transport
Possible for
NN
NN
Available;
NN
possible;
Possible;
NN
indicators
research needed;
already
provided; (rest
available at sub
NN);
units;
Gravel extraction
Possible;
Possible;
NN
Possible but
NN
Possible;
Possible;
NN
Costly;
already
available at sub
units;
Fish farming
Possible;
Possible for No.
Possible for No.
Possible but
NN
Possible,
Possible if data
NN
of fish farms;
of fish farms;
Costly;
research needed; exist for each
NN
individual fish
source;
Leisure fishing
Possible;
Not available;
NN
Individual
NN
Very difficult;
Uncertain;
NN
collection of
data;
Boating and wind-
NN
Not available;
NN
Individual
NN
NN
NN
NN
surfing
collection of
data;
Tourism
Possible;
Possible for
Possible for No.
Possible but
NN
Difficult;
Difficult;
NN
expenses;
of tourists per
Costly;
day;
Flood control and
Possible;
Possible for
NN
Available;
NN
Possible;
Possible (if
NN
drainage
overall length of
indicators are
water courses;
available);
Britta Pielen, Eduard Interwies, Pierre Strosser
Ecologic
The Economic Analysis according to the WFD in the Danube River Basin Annex I
xx
Indicator
Bosnia &
Bulgaria
Czech
Croatia
Hungary
Moldova
Romania
Slovak
Slovenia
Herzegovina
Republic*
Republic
and of
already
conditioned
available at sub
water courses;
units;
Source: Authors' own compilation on the basis of the NSS; Legend: NA - not available, NN - not filled out, QNE - indicator available but Quality not evaluated;
* For the Czech Republic no indicator specific information on hydrological restructuring has been provided; instead, the NSS States that "The majority of
economical information are available only by administrative division (national, level, regional level and generally also in district level). Restructured data according
to the hydrological boundaries is available at present only for hydrological and special water management data. Restructuring of other data according to the
hydrological boundaries is not problematic by using of Graphic Information Systems (GIS). The negotiation about this problem between Ministries of Environment,
Ministry of Agriculture and the Czech Statistical Office are running at present."
xxi
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
II.
BASELINE SCENARIO: QUALITY OF AVAILABLE PROJECTIONS
Indicator
Bosnia &
Bulgaria
Czech
Croatia
Hungary
Moldova
Romania
Slovak
Slovenia
Herzegovina * only
Republic
** information
No table on
Republic
piecement
available in an
individual
studies
overall
projections;
available
document but
not specifically
Exogenous Drivers
Population Growth
2
1
1
2
1
NN
2
1
1
2: shorter
General economic development
2
projection
1
2
1
NN
2
1
1
period;
uncertain data
Technological changes
NN
NA
2
NA**
2
NA
still under
1-2
5
discussion;
2: shorter
Changes in taxes / fiscal regimes
1
projection
2
NA**
1
4
as above;
draft version;
4
period;
Water Policies and Investments
Estimated investment
1
2/3
4
Water supply
3
QNE
NN
2/3
2
3-4
3
1-2
3
3 (not much
New supply
NN
developed
NN
2/3
2
NN
3
1-2
NN
prognostic
part)
3 (not much
developed
New technologies
NN
NN
2/3
2
NN
3
1-2
NN
prognostic
part)
Wastewater treatment
3
1
1
2/3
2
NN
3
1-2
3
Collection systems
NN
1
1
2/3
2
NN
3
1-2
3
Treatment plants
NN
1
1
2/3
2
NN
3
1-2
3
Britta Pielen, Eduard Interwies, Pierre Strosser
Ecologic
The Economic Analysis according to the WFD in the Danube River Basin Annex I
xxii
Indicator
Bosnia &
Bulgaria
Czech
Croatia
Hungary
Moldova
Romania
Slovak
Slovenia
Herzegovina * only
Republic
** information
No table on
Republic
piecement
available in an
individual
studies
overall
projections;
available
document but
not specifically
Pollution reduction programmes
NN
NA
1
2/3
2
3
3
3
2
in agriculture
Pollution reduction programmes
for industries
NN
1
1
2/3
2
NN
3
3
2
Flood protection
NN
NA
1
2/3
2
3
2
3-4
NA
Nature conservation/ wetland
2 (shorter
NN
1
NA
2
3
2
1-2
NA
restoration
projection
period)
River re-naturation
NN
NN
1
NA
3
3
2
1-2
NA
NA; under
Changes in water pricing policies
NN
NA
1
NA
NA
4
NA
1
preparation;
Macro-Economic Policies
Past trends and future projections
in:
2 (shorter
Agricultural policy
2
projection
NN
3
3
4
3
1
3
period)
(2 shorter
Industrial policy
3
projection
1
QNE
NA
4
3
3
4
period)
(2 shorter
Energy policy
NN
projection
2
QNE
NA
4
2
3
2
period)
(2 shorter
Transport policy
2-3
projection
2
QNE
NA
NA
3
3
2
period)
xxiii
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Indicator
Bosnia &
Bulgaria
Czech
Croatia
Hungary
Moldova
Romania
Slovak
Slovenia
Herzegovina * only
Republic
** information
No table on
Republic
piecement
available in an
individual
studies
overall
projections;
available
document but
not specifically
Global Policies
Accession to the European
QNE,
NN
NN*
1
NA
1
Union
not entirely
available;
QNE,
1-3 (depending
Impact on key economic sectors
NN
NN*
NN
not entirely
3
NA
4
on the sector)
1
available;
QNE,
CAP
NN
NN*
1-2
not entirely
3
NA
4
1
2
available;
QNE,
1 (labour
Employment / Unemployment
NN
NN*
1-2
not entirely
3
4
5
market)
QNE
available;
QNE,
WTO / GATS
NN
NN*
NN
not entirely
QNE
NA
4
NN
NA
available;
Britta Pielen, Eduard Interwies, Pierre Strosser
Ecologic
The Economic Analysis according to the WFD in the Danube River Basin Annex I
xxiv
III.
ASSESSING COST RECOVERY: AVAILABILITY AND QUALITY
Indicator
Bosnia & Bulgaria
Czech
Croatia
Hungary
Moldava
Romania
Slovak
Slovenia
Herzegovina
Republic
Republic
(no written text)
Public and
Available, not
Available, not
Available, not
Available, not
semi-
Available, not
Available, not
Available, not
Available, not
confidential,
confidential;
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
Institutional set-up
confidential;
confidential,
QNE;
Q1;
QNE;
QNE;
Q1;
QNE;
QNE;
2003, Q2;
Current Water Prices
Semi-
Not
Not published,
Not
Not
confidential,
Not
Not
Price level
Available, not
confidential,
Not
available upon
confidential,
confidential,
2003, Q2
confidential,
confidential,
confidential;
2000, annually,
confidential,
request,
(agriculture, industry, household)
2001, annually; 2002, annually;
industry and
2001, annually,
annually, 2001,
Q1;
(agriculture not
(agriculture not
Q1;
Q1;
Household, Q5
Q4;
annually, Q1;
Q1;
available) Q1;
available), Q4;
agriculture;
Not
Not
Not
Not
Price structure
confidential,
Semi-
Not
NN
confidential,
confidential,
confidential,
Not available;
2000, annually,
confidential,
confidential,
Not available;
(agriculture, industry, household)
2002, annually;
2001, annually,
annually, 2001,
(agriculture not
Q3;
annually, Q1;
Q1;
Q4;
Q1;
available) Q2;
Not available
Not
Cross-subsidisation between the
Not available
Cross-
Available (in
Not available;
(no aggregated
Not available;
Available, Q2;
confidential,
Not available;
different economic sectors
consistently,
subsidisation is
favour of HH),
data at any
annually, 2001,
QNE;
not allowed
QNE;
level);
QNE;
Data provided
Collection efficiency
Not
Not
Available at
Confidential,
Not confidential
Available on
upon request by
confidential,
Confidential,
confidential,
(i.e. gap / ratio between actual
Available, Q2;
request; Q2;
2002, annually,
2000, annually,
case study basis
public service
2002, annually;
Q2;
annually, 2001,
and projected revenues)
Q1;
companies,
Q1
Q2;
only, Q3;
Q1;
QNE;
Available for
Investment
Not
Not
Information is
Semi-
Not
investment
Subsidies
Available at
subs. Available,
confidential,
confidential,
Government
Not available;
request; Q4;
not publicly
confidential,
confidential,
subsidies; (does
not confidential, 2002, annually;
annually, 2001,
not specify
Q1;
Q1
available, QNE;
Q2;
annually, Q1;
Q3;
level), QNE;
Investment
Not
Available upon
Not
EU
NN
subs. Available,
confidential,
=
Not
NN
request, QNE;
confidential,
confidential,
not confidential, 2002, annually;
annually, 2001,
xxv
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Indicator
Bosnia & Bulgaria
Czech
Croatia
Hungary
Moldava
Romania
Slovak
Slovenia
Herzegovina
Republic
Republic
(no written text)
Q1;
Q1
annually;
Q3;
Not
Available upon
Not available
confidential,
request; data are
Not
Region
NN
(non-existent in
=
Not available;
confidential,
Not available;
NN
2002, annually; not transparent,
Bulgaria);
annually;
Q1
QNE;
Costs
Not
Not
Available in
Available, 2000,
Confidential,
cases of
Financial costs of water services
NN
confidential,
NN
confidential,
2001, annually,
annually, Q3;
Q2;
NN
NN
annually, 2001,
significant price
Investment costs (total)
Q1;
Q1;
, QNE;
Available at
Confidential,
Historical value request and with Not available;
NN
=
=
NN
=
NN
government
Q4;
approval; Q2
Confidential,
Replacement value
=
Not available;
NN
=
=
NN
=
NN
Q3;
Not
Not
Future investment cost Not available;
Not available;
NN
=
=
NN
confidential,
confidential,
NN
annually, Q4;
2000, QNE;
Available at
Not
Not
Operation and maintenance &
Not
Not
request and with
confidential,
Available, 2000,
Confidential,
NN
confidential,
NN
Administration
confidential,
confidential,
government
2001, annually,
annually, Q3;
Q2;
2002, all 3 annually, Q2;
2000, QNE;
approval; Q2;
Q1;
years; Q4;
Environmental and Resource
costs
Not available
NN
Not available
Not available
Not available
Semi-
Publicly
Partly
confidential,
Internalised through taxes and
available
Available,
Available, 2002,
Not
internalised
NN
2002, Q2 (for
NN
Not available;
charges (abstraction &
QNE;
Q2;
confidential,
through waste
water
sewerage
abstraction
2000, Q3;
water charges,
charges), Q1
QNE;
charge);
Not
confidential; no
Direct assessment
NN
Not available;
NN
Not available;
NN
regular update,
NN
fragmented
information.;
Britta Pielen, Eduard Interwies, Pierre Strosser
Ecologic
The Economic Analysis according to the WFD in the Danube River Basin Annex I
xxvi
Indicator
Bosnia & Bulgaria
Czech
Croatia
Hungary
Moldava
Romania
Slovak
Slovenia
Herzegovina
Republic
Republic
(no written text)
Changes in environmental
Confidential;
Not available,
Not available;
Not available;
NN
=
NN
=
NN
quality
project based,
estimation
QNE;
possible;
Economic value / willingness to
Not available,
Not available;
Not available;
NN
Not available;
=
NN
NN
Not available;
pay
estimation
possible;
Costs of preventive & mitigation
Annually (from
Not
measures
NN
Not available;
NN
Not available;
Not available;
NN
2001 onwards),
confidential,
Not available;
Q3;
2000, QNE;