March 2005
NGO SMALL GRANTS PROGRAMME 2004-2005
Results of NGO Feed-back Mission
8 15 March 2005
AUTHORS
PREPARED BY:
, Zinke Environment Consulting for Central and Eastern Europe
AUTHORS:
Alexander Zinke
Table of Contents
Page
A. Introduction
4
B. Main Results of the Mission and Recommendations for Phase 2
5
B. 1. Trip organisation and mission strategy
5
B.
2.
Main
findings
6
B. 3. Summary of NGO meetings and Consultant comments
10
B. 4. Recommendations for Phase 2
13
C. Detail Results of the Meetings with NGOs, REC and DEF
16
C.1.
Meeting
with
REC
and
DEF
16
C.2.
Regional
Grant
Projects
17
C.3.
Czech
Republic
19
C.4. Slovakia
20
C.5.
Hungary
21
C.6.
Serbia
and
Montenegro
22
C.7. Croatia
22
C.8.
Slovenia
23
Annex: List of Granted and Assessed Projects
24
Abbreviations and Acronyms
BA
Bosnia i Herzegovina
BG Bulgaria
CS
Serbia and Montenegro
CZ
Czech
Republic
DRP
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
FY
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (today CS)
GEF
Global Environment Facility
HR
Croatia
HU
Hungary
MD
Moldova
PRP
UNDP/GEF Danube Pollution Reduction Programme (1997-1999)
PP
Public
Participation
REC
Regional
Environmental
Center
RO
Romania
SGP
Small Grants Programme
SI Slovenia
SK
Slovakia
UA
Ukraine
UNDP
United Nations Development Programme
WFD
EU Water Framework Directive
3
A. Introduction
Over the last years, UNDP/GEF projects in the Danube basin have included a number of
NGO support programmes for improving public awareness, stakeholder cooperation and
education on environment, specifically on nutrient pollution in the Danube basin. This is also
one of the key components of the UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project in its Phases 1 and
2.
The execution of the NGO Small Grants Programme is delegated to the REC (Regional
Environmental Centre), with its headquarter in Szentendre/HU and its national offices in DRB
countries.
In May 2003, the REC issued the first call for DRP small grants for NGOs in two tranches:
ˇ National grants (organised via the national REC offices)
ˇ Regional grants (organised by the REC headquarter).
Upon a 2-staged submission phase (NGOs were first invited to submit short concepts, then
the best were commented and invited to submit detail project proposals), the national and
regional REC selection committees granted in November 2003 5 regional projects (lasting up
to 2 years) and 60 national projects (lasting 1 year) in 11 Danube basin countries (all except
Germany and Austria). Their contracting and effective start had to be postponed several
times by the DRP until September 2004.
Objective of this Consultant contract was to gain information and a feed-back from NGOs on
the progress of their projects and to support the preparation and design of the upcoming
second SGP call for DRP Phase 2 (planned for May 2005). More specifically, the Consultant
was asked by the DRP office to execute the following tasks:
ˇ Screen the NGO projects and propose a mission strategy to the DRP office and
ˇ Agree with DRP the tentative mission programme and strategy.
ˇ Meet the SGP manager at the REC to assess progress / status of NGO projects in
the region, the perspective of the NGO responses for Phase 2, and propose local
NGOs to be visited;
ˇ Discuss first findings at DRP office and agree on missions to NGO project;
ˇ Meet with representatives from the Danube Environment Forum (H. Wolf, DEF
Secretariat);
ˇ Organise and execute the trips (travel, contacting of NGOs and REC offices).
ˇ Draft the mission report with findings and
ˇ Meet at DRP office to discuss the results and its implications.
The Consultant wants to herewith thank the REC headquarter and its national offices for their
support and contact facilitation. He wants to also thank all NGOs met during his trips for their
generous hospitality, open comments and valuable information on the grants programme. He
specifically thanks them for their understanding that due to time limits of this assessment and
some logistic needs the meetings had to be kept rather short. The Consultant did his best to
correctly report and provide his comments on the projects still far from being completed.
Small misunderstandings and misinterpretations cannot be excluded but should not be
decisive.
4
B. Main Mission Results and Recommendations
B. 1. Trip organisation and mission strategy
The total pool of NGOs that could theoretically be assessed was 77 in 11 Danube basin
countries, i.e. 5 regional projects with a total of 17 NGOs and 60 national projects and NGOs.
Logistic and organisational objective was to meet as many NGOs as possible without making
long travels. Prior to trip organisation, it was therefore agreed that NGO projects in BA, BG,
RO, MD and RO should not be visited. For the 6 countries travelled, the mission allowed to
visit 22 NGOs and to assess a total of 25 projects (32.5%): In the case of the NGOs
Sosna, Terra's and Pro Bio/EPOS, both a regional and a national project could be assessed.
Trip I (8 12 February 2004) resulted in meetings with 13 NGOs in
eastern Slovakia (2 in Kosice)
Hungary (2 in Miskolc, 1 in Budapest and 1 in Szeged)
Serbia and Montenegro (2 in Subotica)
Croatia (1 Vukovar, 2 in Osijek, 1 in Varazdin) and
Slovenia (1 in Maribor).
Trip II (14 15 February 2004) resulted in meetings with 9 NGOs in
Czech Republic (3 in Olomouc and 2 in Brno) and
Western Slovakia (4 in Bratislava).
During this mission, most NGOs (6) were met in SK, also because this country has the most
national projects (8; 5 visited) and is involved in 4 of 5 regional projects (all 4 visited). Largest
grant volume was spent in CS (USD 60,000 for 7 projects; 2 were visited), the largest grants
(USD 13,000 -15,000) were given to the 2 NGOs in RO and to one NGO in HR (visited on
this mission). The list of all granted DRP projects and of those visited during the mission
of the Consultant is given in the Annex (pages 23-24).
NGOs were contacted between 28 February and 14 February to agree on individual meeting
time and contents.
Mission strategy was to use a meeting time of 1.5 to 2 hours to discuss the following:
ˇ Presentation and explanation of the NGO projects (objectives, progress of activities)
and check of NGO action quality (scientific, preparatory work, efficiency to reach
target groups etc.) and their environmental relevance in relation to the DRP key
issues. This took mostly more than an hour.
ˇ Feasibility of the NGO projects: solving of local execution problems, link to - theoreti-
cally - available information from DRP, ICPDR and DEF (homepages and contacts).
ˇ Experience with the REC grant selecting process 2003 and budget situation in
contracts 2004; the recommendations for granting process 2005, NGO interest/
feasibility to submit a new project proposal.
ˇ Comment on the overall benefit of the grant for the NGO and of the NGO actions for
the environment (nutrient pollution).
5
B. 2. Main findings
Introductory remark: It has first to be stressed that the mission did not allow checking all
details and aspects of the NGO projects and activities. The findings are therefore given "as
good as possible" within the provided working conditions (e.g. travel budget, language skills
of NGO representatives met, present interim state of NGO activities).
The quality of the meetings was in nearly all cases excellent with some exceptions where
time constraints (logistics of travel) and the NGO's language barriers did not allow to receive
sufficient results: Somehow incomplete information was received in the meetings with Arnika
and Nautilus in CZ and with Csemete in HU. For 3 NGO (project)s, the Consultant did not
gain enough information to provide a sound result (but still decided to add it here): Very
incomplete for EPOS (CZ), partly for Sosna (national project) and probably also for Csemete
(the meeting lasted only 90 minutes and in that time confusion had to be cleared up re.
incomplete project info given by REC-HU).
1. Most NGOs were pleased about the visit and the interest of DRP in their activities (the
regular contacts and interest of the REC are largely limited to administrative aspects). They
were grateful to be invited for personal feedback and for addressing their questions to a
donor representative, which the Consultant could answer in most cases. The Consultant
could also provide them some valuable comments, advises for improving work and hints for
contacts and sources of information, which the NGOs much appreciated.
2. It became evident that the present pool of NGOs is largely familiar with the complex topic
of nutrients, and that their increased competence and knowledge (in few cases also at
scientific level) was in many cases (not in all!) a result of this SGP.
For Phase 2 this means that this pool of NGOs has a better starting point to design and
execute meaningful projects (in relation to nutrient reduction). In the majority of projects a
follow up of Phase 1 will be logical and secure more lasting results and benefits. This refers
both to stakeholder cooperation and concrete actions (in agriculture, wetland management
etc.).
3. The quality of NGO projects at the present state of activities indicates in most cases a
high quality of work, a good understanding of the issue, a strong commitment to produce
meaningful outputs and a good sensitivity of the role NGOs can and should play within their
countries and local region.
The technical quality of projects in relation to the DRP key issues (nutrient
management, stakeholder cooperation) is basically high, only very few (2-3?) of the NGO
projects assessed have low relevance. Still, most NGOs could benefit from some technical
advise in order to make their projects more successful and more realistic. This refers to
topics such as:
ˇ Communication of the issue and the solutions (specific awareness raising)
ˇ Cooperation with stakeholders and media (how to secure their interest)
ˇ Contact to relevant expert institutions, other NGOs inside and across the borders
ˇ Access to relevant data, information, studies
ˇ Water quality monitoring (e.g. relevance of NGO action in comparison to laboratories)
ˇ etc.
4. The grant selection process as well as the administrative support of the REC was in
basically all cases much praised as being efficient, fair and good ("much better than by other
donors like Phare!"). The grant submission and reporting forms are considered as clear and
good to handle. For the next call some NGOs recommended to make the submission forms a
6
bit simpler (e.g. logical frameworks are not seen as really useful; several questions have
iterative character probably due to difficult translation - and should be improved).
Regional Grants
The quality of projects checked seems to be ok but now just after the preparatory phase of
these projects it is certainly too early to already make a valid assessment. There are,
however, some clear weaknesses, which could be reduced or prevented in Phase 2:
In comparison to national grants, the execution is more difficult for partners in regional
projects: It seems that most NGOs have actually the same or less money available for
activities than national NGOs but the double amount of time. Electronic communication
is used to cooperate but it seems that there are too few personal meetings among partners
(cut in budgets), and that some partners rather do national activities than real international
cooperation. The transfer of skills and exchange of experiences seem to work only to a
limited extent in the projects visited.
National Grants
Assessed at mid time of their project period, it was found that the quality of almost all
projects was high!
The time available for NGOs in DRP Phase 1 (9-12 months!) was in most cases critically
short. A follow-up in Phase 2 would be logical for various projects, both by continuing the
work (e.g. stakeholder cooperation) and by transferring the experience made to other sites
within their country and in other countries. This aspect was checked, results are given in the
table on pages 9-11.
5. Main problems to execute the NGO projects
The NGOs met gave basically always the same answers on this important question:
First, the time delay caused by UNDP/GEF in 2004 had in many cases a strong impact on
the NGO abilities to still execute the planned and awarded activities in the desired quality
and result: Many projects (e.g. agriculture, wetlands) depend on annual seasons, i.e. winter
is often used to prepare actions and spring/summer/autumn to execute them, so a project
start in September can result in a start of field action only in the next summer when the NGO
is actually already forced to write the final report. One NGO (Pajstun/SK) even withdrew its
awarded project (the non-used funds were then distributed to the other awarded SK
projects). NGOs also complained that they never knew in winter-spring 2004 when they can
really start their activities. This unexpected "challenge" clearly damaged the image of the
donor. The Consultant tried to explain that neither REC nor the DRP office in Vienna were
responsible for the delay and suffered themselves very much under these problems.
Second, important budget cutbacks caused another serious problem for many NGOs who
had budgeted their activities very carefully: This refers to
1. the loss of the USD between the NGO's project calculation and actual receipt of
grants (the currency risk period is 15-28 months and losses are at 10-30 %!).
2. the cut-backs decided (mostly by the national REC offices) during the grant selection:
Most complaints came from Slovak NGOs and could not be fully clarified during and
after the mission: It seems that over 80% of all projects submitted were awarded and
that all were strongly cut back. The Consultant assumes that there was an effort to
award as many NGO projects as possible but he also learned from REC-SK that the
excellent project of the NGO Creative received a very low score and would have been
the first to be excluded because it could not well meet some evaluation criteria.
In general, the granting committee should be careful with cutting budgets, which can
in most cases result in a deterioration of activities, i.e. the overall project quality and
results. Further, this cutting might be interpreted as a certain mistrust that NGOs
7
often budget more than really needed or that they are not able to make sound
calculations.
3. the loss by inflation (15-28 months difference between budget calculation and
start/end of project expenses) which was also an important factor in some countries.
4. the unexpected new requirement communicated by (some?) REC offices that VAT
can in no single case be reimbursed. This lead(s) to a lot of misunderstandings and
misinterpretations and should be urgently clarified, before NGOs increase their
financial problems.
Third, in few cases the guidance of REC for the proposal phase was received with some
irritation (NGOs accepted them even though they could not follow the logic). Further, there is
some confusion to NGOs on the use of DRP and REC logos: The Consultant has learned
that in some countries the logos may not be used (CZ "unless specifically asked for and
agreed", also rule for regional projects) while other NGOs used it because they were strongly
asked to do so. Only in few cases, the new DRP logo was forwarded to the NGOs. It seems
there are some misunderstandings by NGOs and national REC offices.
Fourth, for regional(?) projects the Consultant learned of a 30% limit set by REC for
salaries and office overheads. This seems to be a bit strange because the amount of
needed staff input much depends on the character of the proposed NGO activities (e.g. for
projects doing mainly awareness-raising it is a clear burden).
Other problems relate to local issues and have no general character.
6. Link to available technical information:
It was found that almost none of the visited NGOs made use of internationally available
technical information on nutrients (re. magnitude of this problem, solutions for their
reduction). Hardly any NGO knew about the technical results and publications available at
the ICPDR-DRP homepage (esp. "Ongoing Activities") as well as about the very useful
"Manual on Nutrients in Wetlands", prepared by DEF in April 2003. It seems that the REC
informed about these info sources only on their homepage but not later at national or
regional level (e.g. winners meeting). No systematic effort was made by the DEF to inform
the granted NGOs to use this reference (DEF trainings in spring 2003 involved only some
NGOs now executing granted projects). In 2004, only the leaders of regional projects were
invited to the REC winners meeting, so a lot of useful information was not really transferred
to their partners (also because communication between partners does not work as good in
most cases as assumed).
Various NGOs simply executed the project they had in mind and were not really pro-actively
interested in searching for more international information (partly due to the language barrier).
The Consultant stressed that a simple check e.g. of the technical infos that the DRP and
DEF homepages provide could have enlightened some NGOs, i.e. even if the DRP, REC or
DEF did not offer such infos to the NGOs, they themselves have to look for such resources.
7. Important questions to be commented by DRP and REC offices:
? Can one NGO submit and execute both a regional and a national project? In Phase 1, this
was the case for 2 NGOs (Sosna in Miskolc/HU, Terra's in Subotica/CS); both projects were
executed by different managers doing rather different activities. In a third case (ProBio/EPOS
in CZ), the manager of a regional project is also the main expert for a national project. The
Consultant did not identify a major problem in this situation but rather some advantage!
? Is there still grant money available from Phase 1 that was not spent? There is at least one
case (NGO Creative in Kosice) where the budget cut-back (some 50%!) decided by REC
8
granting committee threatened the success of the project (the NGO is presently looking for
co-funding but has to finish the project in a few months). In this case a model result for
nutrient treatment in rural areas the DRB could be lost!
? How much does DRP support (want) co-financing of projects? Budget cutbacks have
forced some NGOs to try this but it may be difficult to match the narrow time frame of the
DRP programme. NGOs need some guidance what to do when their planned action is
actually not feasible anymore!
8. Relevance of the NGO role in comparison to the complex nutrient pollution issue
Most NGOs are very realistic in rating their role and power in relation how much they can
actually reduce pollution. They think that indirectly they can have a strong impact on pollution
reduction (the Consultant thinks that concrete and well communicated NGO action e.g. with
farmers can have a lot of impact). NGOs consider their initiatives mostly as crucial for the
public awareness for the problem and see their role firstly as lobbyist and catalysers to
address the burning water pollution and cross-cutting(!) issues that in most cases the local
and national politicians and responsible authorities do not really like to address. The
Consultant feels that NGOs could have even more relevance when doing more concrete
nutrient reduction action and better communicating its model character to responsible
institutions (government) and groups (e.g. farmers, communities, industry).
9. Benefit of the DRP for the NGOs
Most NGOs acknowledged that these small grants have (some said strongly) increased their
technical capacities on the issue and strengthened their role and position among local
stakeholders (new and better contacts). Only few NGOs stated that they already had good
competence and capacity before and that the DRP support simply allowed them to do what
they planned already before.
10. Follow-up of NGO action in Phase 2
Only ca. half of the NGOs met had already the intention to again submit a project to this
grant programme. About one third did not know at all that a new grant would be called up. All
NGOs met are now "alarmed" and wait for further information from REC on the new call, i.e.
nearly all will be ready to submit a new proposal, provided they can meet the required
themes and other conditions.
9
B. 3. Summary of NGO meetings and Consultant comments
Note: The following information and comment is only an interim assessment of the visited projects and a quick impression of the Consultant:
Regional Projects
NGO Name
Project Subject
Relevance of NGO
Consultant comment
(leader + number of
action re.
First Impression of Project Quality
partners)
nutrients
21673 Daphne/SK + Sub-basin stakeh. Indirectly very high
Very good: Project runs well and will have a series of sound activities with
2 in BG and SI
cooperat. + actions
mutual benefits and good joint results (SI partner works a bit on its own).
2675 ProBio/CZ + 4 Promotion of
Very high!
Very good: Experienced NGO with strong standing and contact network
in BG, CS, SK + CZ
organic farming
supports developing partner NGOs (the one visited in CS is also very
strong). Multiple actions address farmers, agronomists and consumers.
21687 Hnuti Duha Lobbying re. cross- Project issue is the Very good: NGO is very competent and strong lobbyist with good contacts
/CZ +1 in SK
border navigation threat to destroy to all key stakeholders (national, local, intl.). Origin of problem and area for
canal
riverine landscapes most NGO action is in CZ but intl. networking is crucial.
21681 Sosna/SK + 4 Initiation of river Indirectly high
Good: Promotion of an innovative concept in DRB areas: good lobbyg. +
in HU, HR, RO + CS coalitions of stakeh. (stakeh. lobbying)
concrete actions but partner cooperat. could be better! Holocen activities
are not impressive, different to Sosna and Green Osijek.
National Projects
NGO Name
Project Subject
Planned Earliest
Consultant comment
(leader + number of
end of
end of
Quality of project
Rating (how to continue
partners)
project
project
action in Phase 2)
CZ Nautilus Club, New technology for Sept.
Aug.
??? Interesting innovative technology to ???? Theoretically much
Moravia
cleaning pond mud
reduce organic sludge from ponds but needed!
unclear if it really can be applied
CZ Arnika,
Prevent leakage
Sept. ?Sept.
Good?: This small NGO deals with a very Good?: unclear at the
Moravia
from a toxic waste
important issue typical for other DRB moment
deposit
regions; many good lobbying actions but
unclear issue competence
CZ EPOS,
Promotion of bio- Sept.
Sept.?
High: Small NGO but supported by a very ?? not assessed but
Moravia
farming
experienced expert. Initiation of converting certainly high
agriculture in a sub-region.
10
NGO Name
Project Subject
Planned Earliest
Consultant comment
(leader + number of
end of
end of
Quality of project
Rating (how to continue
partners)
project
project
action in Phase 2)
CZ Sagittaria, Improvement of fish Sept.
Sept.
High: Small, concrete and efficient project; High: Follow-up monitoring;
Moravia
pond management
nutrients are second problem after fish transfer method to other
stocking; good stakeholder cooperation
ponds
SK - STUZ Soc. f. Sub-basin pollution August end of
High: theoretical approach, sound data High: time and funds for
Sustain. Livg., Bratisl. analysis + stakeh.
July
collection (probably not so well presented), phase 1 were too small
action plan
good try to activate stakeholders
SK TINCA,
Restoration of an August
March!
High: Concrete action restoring a riverine High: Continue weed cut,
Bratislava
old river branch
wetland (weed cut + biomass disposal), v. monitor effect and do PR
(incomplete due to
good stakeh. cooperation, medium effect actions
budget cutback)
on nutrient pollution
SK SOVS BirdLife, wetland restora- August end of
Very high: small but concrete + well-based Very high: communicate
Bratislava
tion, reduced agri-
July
restoration action changing surrounding poll. reduction effect; monitor
cultural impact
agric. practises; good stakeh. cooperation
impacts
SK Sosna, Kosice
3 river coalitions
Sept.
?
High: Experienced NGO that introduces High: Continue building up
shared responsibility and need for coopera- coalition in the 3 areas;
tion in water management among stakeh.
possibly add other areas in
SK (more actions)
SK- Creative, Kosice Small reed WWTP
End of Sept.
Very high: Clear innovative and pilot action Very high: monitoring of
(incomplete due to June?
for important sewage treatment in rural pilot sites and copy of action
budget cutback)
areas. Good stakeholder cooperation.
to other sites
HU - Csemete,
Nature cons., envir. Sept. Aug. Medium: Good activities but it seems the High: If the NGO will get
Szeged
educat. + new farm
NGO wants to achieve too much and lacks more guidance (e.g. within a
waste treatment
experience and competence.
regl. project)
HU - MAKK,
Promoting bio- Sept. June Very high: Concrete action on a key issue Very high: Action should be
Budapest
farming in
in one of the key wetlands of the DRB. followed up and extended to
floodplains
Strong links to local stakeholders and other farms and wetlands
government.
HU - Zöld Akcio, Agric. pollutio October Aug.
Very high: Pro-active, small NGO with high Very high: Follow-up
Miskolc
policy + farmer
technical competence, excellent standing important to secure progress
cooperation
among key stakeholders and good lobbying and benefits
11
NGO Name
Project Subject
Planned Earliest
Consultant comment
(leader + number of
end of
end of
Quality of project
Rating (how to continue
partners)
project
project
action in Phase 2)
CS - Terra's,
Promotion of
May May Very high: Highest competence on the Very high: Want more
Subotica
organic farming
issue, impressive successes and clear model farms and better
nutrient impact, excellent awaren. material. literature for farmers.
CS - Green Network, awaren. on industr. May May High: Strong NGO with good network of High: Stakeh. lobbying (e.g.
Novi Sad
+ agric. pollution
contacts and poll. issue competence. to execute agreed actions)
(partly non-secured)
Probably excellent communicators.
should be followed up!
HR Europe House Promotion of
Sept. June Medium: NGO lacks experience in educa- High: If the NGO will get
Vukovar
organic-farming
ting farmers and has weak contacts. Good more guidance (e.g. within a
involvement of villages. Actions are fine.
regional project)
HR - Fr. Koscec Stakeh. activation Sept.
July
Very high: Experienced and effectively Very high: e.g. environm.
Soc. Varazdin
to reduce ind. +
working NGO, addressing inconvenient education programme; or
munic. pollution
subjects of transboundary relevance
cooperation with CS, BA, SI
HR Osijek Greens
Awaren. + monitor. Aug.
June
High: Limited baseline knowledge, good Medium: Continue local
of river pollution
media contacts, committed to serious awareness raising makes
pollution problems but unclear impact
sense
SI STORK,
Promotion of re- Aug. June High: Simple, innovative action with clear High: should follow-up in SI
Maribor
usable diapers
environmental benefits; NGO not very and become regional project
experienced but well established
For details of NGO projects (background, activities, outputs and comments) please see chapter C.
12
B. 4. Recommendations for Phase 2
1. Announcement of the next call: It is strongly recommended to very soon (early April!)
inform all NGOs involved in Phase 1 (i.e. not only the granted projects but also those who
lost the tender) that a new call is coming up e.g. in May. This will allow all NGOs to start
thinking about possible projects, even when the call details are not published. For NGOs
presently preparing the final activities of Phase 1 it is absolutely essential that they know:
ˇ by when a new call will start and
ˇ under which conditions they would be eligible (i.e. by when they have to complete
their ongoing projects at latest).
It may also be good to give some guidance to the NGOs what kind of project they should
submit in Phase 2 (see Consultant comments in the right column of the table on pages 9-
11).
2. It is recommended to shorten the call phase (announcement, pre-selection for proposals,
final selection and contracting) to 5 months.
For the submission of projects (templates), it is recommend to take out the Logical
Framework and to prevent questions with similar content (this may be caused by problems
with translating English terms and thoughts into national language).
3. REC has a rule that NGOs cannot run 2 granted projects at the same time; this means that
all Phase 1 activities have to be finished before Phase 2 grant selection can start (the
Consultant recommends the call proposal phase!).
This would not allow NGOs participating in regional projects to submit a proposal for Phase
2. However, as there are the Consultant assumes successful cases in Phase 1where one
NGO is executing at the same time both a regional and a national grant project: DRP
office and REC should decide if such a situation can again be allowed in Phase 2. As long as
there is a clear capacity available at the NGO to run 2 projects and there is a clear splitting of
project management (e.g. 2 different persons, separate administration), the Consultant thinks
this could be allowed within the new granting conditions.
4. Due to the fact that many NGOs can finish their projects only by the end of August (please
compare column 3 and 4 of the previous table!), the Consultant suggests to postpone the
start of the NATIONAL grants programme until July or August: This would reduce the
stress to finish the present projects and allow many competent NGOs to still submit projects
(in several cases the desired and recommended follow-up of present activities). This delay
would mean that the winning projects would be contracted in early January 2006 and end in
late January 2007. Projects lasting less than 12 months will in most cases (depending on
the project character!) - not result in meaningful outputs but it would be better to allow more
than 12 months for national projects.
Also, NGOs who will not have succeeded with their submission to the Regional Grants
programme in May-July 2005 could still submit a project at national level in August. Further,
in case that not enough good regional projects would be received by REC (after the selection
process in ca. October 2005), still some grant funds could be shifted to the national level to
make full use of available funds and NGO capacities.
5. Regional Grants: With respect to the reduced time available within DRP Phase 2 (supply
of final report from REC probably in February 2007), it is suggested to do the call as
intended in May 2005 and to secure final selection in October and contracting by early
November. Projects could then still run for 15 months until end of January 2007.
13
Regional grants should have no more than 4 partners, otherwise each will have less than
USD 10,000 available for activities. Keep in mind that these partners need to budget more
international travelling. The lead NGO should secure cooperation and exchange of
experience. Preferably, there should be joint activities, not just joint issues!
Compared to national NGO activities there is no need to stretch regional projects over a
longer period (2 years), i.e. the 15 months should be sufficient (based on current
observation).
6. NGO budgets should not be strictly limited in their % of salaries and overheads. It is
proposed to give a 30% share as guidance and to ask for a clear justification if this rate will
be passed in the proposed action.
Grant application formats should not be extremely strict to allow NGOs to thoroughly
present their projects (one NGO reported that REC did first not allow to add one more
sentence).
7. Grant awarding has to be very careful with respect to budget cutbacks: If NGOs are
taken serious and competent they know how to calculate! Any really needed cutback should
therefore be specified and explained (i.e. no money for a specific activity which the donor
does not consider very needed). In other words: It is better to fully grant 6 projects than to
save 25% in all 8 granted projects which then will all struggle to achieve the planned results.
This may already be the rule at REC but has to be better applied.
8. Project (concept and proposal) evaluation criteria should be re-assessed: If e.g for
criterion 1.3 of the criteria list an NGO is "only" addressing one sector it could still have a
high environmental impact. The Consultant received the scoring result from REC-SK and has
several detail questions on this example.
DEF also recommended to involve experts into the evaluation of concept papers and
into consultation of full proposals. The Consultant supports this! These expert(s) should
be familiar with NGOs, ICPDR and the DRP-SGP, and it would be good to have a certain
system which kind and quality of projects should be preferred. REC and DEF input into this
process should remain the same this new input should only complement their work from
the technical level (DRP issue side).
9. NGOs should be urgently informed how to handle VAT, i.e. under which forms
(invoicing of receipts with or without showing VAT) VAT will be reimbursed or not by
REC/UNDP.
10. The use of the DRP logo in NGO publications (most coming up in the next 3 months!)
should also urgently be clarified by DRP office and explained to REC and the NGOs.
11. It would be good if DRP will still have some money left (reserve fund of e.g. USD
10,000) allowing to fund some key actions that go beyond the available national REC budget.
12. In addition to the good administrative support that the REC and its offices provide, all
awarded NGOs should receive a certain technical guidance, especially after the start of
their project. This can be quite simple advises but can also include contacts to some experts
or other NGOs working on the same subjects (e.g. 2 NGOs working on promotion of organic
14
farming). This support is meant in addition to the infos provided at the winners meeting (has
more administrative and general subjects and cannot specifically assess the local project
situation).
Regarding the quality of new projects, a sound technical guidance given before the project
start (e.g. at the end of Phase 1 or at the proposal phase after the call) could result in better
project proposals.
The mission in March 2005 showed that most NGOs benefit from such guidance but also that
not all NGOs need it and that few NGOs are not aware of the benefits this could have.
13. It would be very important that all winning NGOs will attend the "winners meeting".
This meeting should be used to push NGOs to make use of the available sources of
information from ICPDR, DRP, DEF, REC and other sources.
14. DEF (Danube Environment Forum) should not only be involved into the preparation of
the next call and in the selection of NGO projects but should also establish a regular
contact with the awarded NGOs both at regional and national levels, because all these
NGOs work under the same umbrella and general objective (awareness raising on and direct
reduction of nutrient pollution). DEF activities (trainings, workshops, meetings etc.) should be
communicated to those NGOs.
15. The Consultant feels that there are enough important project results (already in Phase 1)
that should be communicated at DRB level. He recommends again to hold a 1-2 days
presentation event at the end of the DRP-SGP (February 2007?) where the results of the
best and most effective NGO action is communicated to
ˇ DRB governments
ˇ National and international media
ˇ Other donors.
This event should be located at a place where also practical NGO action can be visited and
demonstrated!
Conclusion of the Mission
The interim result of the SGP showed that a lot of impressive NGOs actions are under way
and that GEF money is very well spent (and managed by REC). The selection of good
projects is a tricky process and there is no guarantee that always the best projects are
awarded and the worse are excluded.
Objective of this mission was not only to communicate the successes but to mainly(!) identify
weaknesses and gaps. Therefore this report has to be more critical than the general situation
is. Phase 2 preparation gives an opportunity to learn from recent experience and upgrade the
SGP in various ways (especially linking NGO action to DRP activities) and to thus increase
the overall success and environmental relevance of NGO activities.
15
C. Detail Results of Meetings with NGOs, REC, DEF
C. 1. Meeting with REC and DEF
Meeting with REC (Entela Pinguli) was held on 24 February in Szentendre with the objective
to learn about the present status of the entire SGP and the experience of REC made so far,
also in terms of pre-selecting NGOs that should be met during the mission. Second objective
was their status of preparing Phase 2 of the SGP. REC has published various information
about the SGP on its webpage, including brief infos about each granted regional and national
project (the mission showed that most NGOs do not know about this). For REC, the delayed
start created also a very difficult situation (for reducing the problem, winners meetings were
held even before signing the DRP contract). Since then, the projects are well under way.
National NGOs progress reports are being collected and summarised by REC (sent to
Vienna in April), regional projects reports will be ready in June.
REC has initiated last winter an assessment study, reflecting the expectations related to
NGO project "promises". A REC country questionnaire was sent to REC national offices to
summarise the expected results and used indicators. This report will be compared with the
NGO progress reports and used in the coming months to help NGOs to refine their activities
with respect to the DRP requirements. This report (ready in late April) will also indicate to
REC and DRP, to which degree the NGOs are able to meet certain expectations.
Ms Pinguli and Mr Pernecky (REC Hungarian country office) provided some key information
on NGOs that could be visited. The dissemination of a DRP-SGP press release drafted by a
Viennese PR company was received with mixed feelings and had no success (comment:
except for 1 NGO).
Regarding Phase 2, the Consultant pointed at the new DRP situation that the next granted
regional projects cannot last 2 years but only until early 2007 (some 15 months). The
resulting problem is that national NGOs finishing their projects only in September wouldn't be
eligible for submitting new project proposals in May. As these NGOs are probably well
qualified to do meaningful project, result of the discussion was that
1. NGOs should try to finish their projects already earlier (at best by end of June), and
the Consultant should check this aspect during the mission,
2. NGOs could still be eligible for Phase 2 if they submit their final report for Phase 1
before the selection of project concepts takes place at REC for the project proposal
phase (probably around early July).
It was concluded that REC should receive and sign its contract with DRP no later than April
to still allow publishing the call in May. REC expressed its strong interest in the Consultant's
mission which could have a clear impact on the design of the next call.
DEF: A brief meeting was held with Johannes Wolf (one of 3 speakers of DEF) on 28
February in Vienna who offered DEF support for the Consultant's mission. DEF itself is not in
contact with most awarded NGOs and can therefore not comment on projects. Further, a
phone conversation was held on 15 March with Monika Kovaceva (DEF Secretariat): She
informed that DEF had received and summarised various comments from the DEF network
on the SGP. Some of the comments rather referred to the design of the call in early 2003
while others reflect some early experience with the project start and recommendations for
Phase 2. Some of these comments are:
ˇ Increase the limit of national grants to USD 15,000 if more than 5 NGOs are involved.
ˇ Extend the execution period for both regional and national grants in Phase 1, if
needed.
ˇ Re-allocate more funds from regional to national level.
16
ˇ Clarify the DRP/REC requirement of "measurable nutrient pollution reduction results".
ˇ Involve experts into the evaluation of concept papers and into consultation of full
proposals.
DEF has no overview how many NGOs attending their trainings in spring 2003 participated in
the SGP call and which eventually succeeded. DEF did not contact granted NGOs (e.g. to
offer them support, data, contacts, link to the manual on nutrients etc.) but agreed that this
kind of link and support should be done in Phase 2.
C. 2. Regional Grant Projects
21673 Pollution in 3 sub-basins (Morava/SK, Mura/SI and Ogosta/BG) Meeting with lead
NGO Daphne: Project focus is on awareness raising of stakeholders on water pollution
reduction, with the 3 NGOs supporting each other with their specific competences. The infos
collected on pollution sources in the local areas will be published in a general leaflet (3
languages), further each NGO will publish small leaflets on local topics. Later, a coloured 4-
languages brochure will present the common issues in the 3 river basins. Their new joint
media strategy will support the dissemination of infos. Publication of the DRP press release
in November 2004 was quite successful (newspaper, radio)! Action includes cleaning of
streams in pilot areas with local people, a school education programme (incl. water quality
monitoring) and an agri-environment workshop in BG for local farms and authorities (re. start
of SAPARD programme). Further, in BG a reed bed wastewater treatment plant will be built
for an eco-tourism hotel. At the end 3 water pollution reduction action plans will be developed
with local stakeholders. The 3 NGO partners meet regularly on occasion of DEF meetings.
The SI partner is not strongly participating in joint actions but probably still does good work.
21687 Danube-Odra-Elbe Canal Meeting with lead NGO Hnuti Duha (2nd partner in SK):
Project activities (i.e. public lobbying against this planned new transport facility) started
already on Danube Day 2004 with a public debate of key stakeholders (canal promoters,
opponents, locals) and a site visit in south Moravia. Actions include media work, contacting
of local politicians and municipalities as well as a public campaign on the new Czech
transport policy. Aim is to press for a Strategic Environment Assessment study presently
under discussion, which would also involve the neighbouring countries. Two Briefing Sheets
were already published, another two will come out in future, together with other PR tools
(extended webpage, semi-annual bulletin, DVD documentary etc.). The SK partner has
smaller tasks (monitoring of government activities and EU funds, upcoming publication of a
brochure). Partner meetings are held every 2 months. Strangely, REC asked the NGO not to
mention the donor or use the logo without prior agreement.
21675 Promotion of ecological agriculture Meetings with lead NGO ProBio and partner
Terra's (other partners in BG, SK, CS and CZ): Main project objective is the promotion of
organic farming through education and dissemination activities in all partner regions. One
key activity is the so-called Bioacademy (an international workshop in south Moravia with
250 participants and politicians from over 20 countries) where the water issue was already
addressed in 2004 (see proceedings!). A 30-pages study on the influence of organic farming
on ground and surface water is ready and will be translated in 4 local languages and printed
in April (the English version will be available on internet). Main results on water protection will
also be published in a leaflet (ready in late April in 4 languages) and distributed to specialists
(students, agronomists, nature conservation agencies etc.). The study will be used to
develop an NGO Action Plan to expand organic farming in DRB countries, which will be
agreed at the Bioacademy in June 2005. There, one key topic will be pollution of Danube
waters and non-chemical plant protection (all partner NGOs will attend), another activity a
competition of doctorands and then there will be 5 excursions to demo farms (also abroad).
One follow-up of the Bioacademy are seminars at 4 agricultural universities (first was in
March in Nitra/SK, others to be held in March and April). In summer 2005 open field days
17
(advertised via media, posters etc.) with workshops will be held at pilot farms for farmers and
consumers to address conversion of agriculture in mountain areas; a leaflet in 4 languages
will present this topic. ProBio hopes that the cooperation will improve after the next joint
meetings in March and June (first was in Aug. 2003).
While the lead NGO is already very advanced (500 members + consumer association of 200
members; good marketing system), its partners are still developing (yet not so professional):
The SK partner Eko-Trend focuses its action on consumer information.
The partner Terra's is the leading NGO for organic farming in CS (4 full time and 20 part-time
employees, 55 farm members: yet 30 are organic). It successfully lobbied the new agriculture
law of Serbia (versions 2000-2004). The former project manager is now certifying organic
farms. The DRP project is running well: Data collection on surface water quality is done, 2
leaflets are under preparation for wider public and for agronomists (to be published in late
March and August). Terra's hosts the next partner meeting, connected to their stakeholder
seminar (2 presentations by ProBio) on 23 March. Terra's also has 4(!) model farms (dairy,
cereals, vegetables, wine and flowers), to which they organise at least one visit of journalists
and farmers per year, and they do successful media work (pack of articles). They sell
products at local markets: Subotica with 100,000 people has already 10 eco-food shops!
21681: Networking River Coalitions meetings with lead NGO Sosna and the 2 partners
Holocen/HU and Green Osijek/HR (other partners in RO and CS): Sosna has introduced in
2002 the concept of "River Coalitions in Microregions" in the central Hornad basin. DRP
project objective is to transfer this stakeholder cooperation concept to partners working in
other river basins. In SK, they work with 16 villages on the lower Hornad river (downstream
of Kosice), water authorities, schools etc. (total 26 members) as well as with the big industrial
polluter US Steel (observer! Its serious water and air pollution is reducing but its WWTP is
still the biggest point pollution in SK). Another big polluter, the Agro-Torysa farm (chicken
and pigs) is yet not ready to cooperate. Communal wastewater is usually discharged directly
or via septic tanks into water. The members meet 4(!) times per year and signed a "River
Contract" requiring the execution of annual activities. Sosna task is to restore an oxbow lake
(re-connect it with the river) near the Hungarian border, for which they gained support by the
water agency (did the planning), US Steel (transport of excavated material) and local people
(on-site works). Farmers in this region are yet not ready to change their practises and have
no trust in organic farming. Another important success action was the installation of 2
compost toilets in villages: Sosna is now "exporting" this system to its DRP project partners.
The DRP project enables them to continue local activities (oxbow lake) and to network with
the other 4 partners how to establish river coalitions (meetings in September 2004 in SK, in
Sept. 2005 in HR and in Sept. 2006 in RO). The 5 partners are focusing activities on their
local needs and will jointly produce only a booklet and an exhibition (in 4 languages). They
have close electronic communication and interlinked websites but no budget e.g. for the
leader to become familiar with the situation of the 3 remote partners (Sosna already
cooperates with Holocen/HU). In SK, a leaflet will be distributed to key stakeholders and the
exhibition shown in Kosice and some villages. There is one press meeting per year.
The partner Holocen/HU is already cooperating with Sosna since 1996: This included intl.
youth conferences and river monitoring programmes. On 1 May 2004, they opened a joint
bicycle trail along Hornad river, incl. bilingual folder map (sponsored by Carpathian
Foundation). They made also a joint forest trail and brochure.
Their DRP project will focus on rural tourism in the village of Szanticska, a kind of open air
museum for traditional houses and lifestyle (5000 visitors per year). Holocen wants to
demonstrate alternative WWT with 2 compost toilets (one in village, one at parking: to be
built in April). Facility staff will be trained to explain the toilets and visitors invited for
comments in a guest book. The NGO has good contacts to local municipalities but cannot
sign river coalition contracts due to the complicate HU administration rules (in spite of strong
efforts, the meeting did not provide better information on the Holocen actions).
18
The partner Green Osijek is also a small NGO but will undertake a series of activities during
the DRP project: Organisation of 2 composting places in Baranja region, cleaning of river
banks and Danube villages (in spring 2005), monthly water quality survey around the mouth
of the Drava into Danube as well as stakeholder meetings (first of five was in late March) and
media work (started in December) to promote river coalition. River contracts should be
signed in autumn 2005 and first activities be executed by summer 2006. The NGO did not
know before the other network partners (except Sosna).
Green Osijek has long-years activities in Kopacki rit, the 2nd most important floodplain area in
the Danube basin. It started an impressive youth education programme in its own, recently
renovated forest school house in the center of the wetland (supported by USAID).
C.3. Czech Republic
Arnika, Moravia: The project target is a hazardous waste dump in western Moravia
(Pozdatky) which exists since 1995 (yet 45,000 tons) and is leaking into downstream waters
since 1996. After the first owner broke down, the site was bought in 2002 by an Italian
construction firm which recently submitted a proposal to continue waste depositing using
better management (drainage system, WWTP, cover of surface against rain water etc.). An
EIA is announced to start in April. Arnika has disseminated a leaflet on the dumpsite to local
people and held a workshop in November 2004. An exhibition is under preparation and a
school painting competition started. A study on the chemical industry in the Middle Moravia
region and a political petition of local communities (yet 2000 signatures) are under
preparation. (the NGO rep. meeting with the Consultant did not speak good English and was
technically not very competent).
Nautilus, Moravia: The project aims at the transfer of an innovative French biotechnology to
CZ (cleaning the organic sludge/mud from ponds): It uses certain bacteria which are spread
from a small boat into pond water to start decomposing the sludge ("they do not essentially
need oxygen"). Numerous meetings were already held with potential partners (municipalities
and other institutions responsible for Czech ponds' water quality). A simple mapping has
identified some 20 eutrophicated ponds. Pilot action is prepared for the Plumov reservoir (8
ha, near Prostejov) and Dalov pond (3.5 ha north of Olomouc). Problem is that this pond
cleaning needs an investment of some USD 8,500/ha for which co-financing is presently
searched for. The technology was tested last year at the Bolevesky fish pond near Plzen (12
ha) and in 1997 in France (documents proving positive results were shown to the
Consultant). DRP funds are used to lobby, to apply the method in larger ponds and to
monitor field results in spring 2005. The action is executed by a single person with very little
support from the NGO. A new project info is presenting on the cover side the REC and the
new(!) DRP logos. (the NGO rep. meeting with the Consultant did not speak good English
and his technical competence was hard to check). It is strongly recommended to check this
project again by a Czech expert (e.g. biochemist).
Sagittaria, Olomouc: The NGO works on improving the management of Pisecny fish pond
(19 ha; south Moravia), which is eutrophicated from surrounding agricultural land and
municipal sewage of Milotice. It is the core of a 40 ha nature reserve with very important
macrophyte stands (Nymphaea alba; Nymphoides peltata) and surrounding meadows (e.g.
Orchis palustris). The fish pond (max. 2 m deep, divided into 2 parts) is harvested (emptied)
every year (carp, pike, eel). In the past, manure was put into the pond to improve fish growth
but surplus nutrients disturb the balance of zooplankton weed fish macrophytes fish).
This was recently stopped and a 50 m green belt created to reduce nutrient drainage from
fields. The DRP project includes the preparation of a new management plan (improve self-
cleaning, better fish stocks for 2005-2014: already approved!), the production of macrophyte
seeds (in a pond enclosure of 20x20 m) for storage in a seed bank, scientific monitoring and
awareness raising: 2-3 info panels, a brochure for fish managers and local people, a website
and 3 meetings to lobby the municipality and other fish managers.
19
EPOS, Moravia: This project is run by a local NGO in south Moravia but the head of ProBio
(see regional project no. 21675) is closely involved in the promotion of organic farming. The
project aims at developing a concept for a sub-region and at consulting farmers and local
authorities to change farming practises. The REC-CZ request to also produce a case study
was accepted but not considered as very useful by the NGO.
C. 4. Slovakia
Sosna, Kosice: This NGO is exporting the River Coalition concept from Hornad river not only
to 4 other countries (see regional project 21681) but also to 3 other sub-basins in central
SK. A number of practical activities (e.g. wetland restoration) were cut from the budget
(should be done in Phase 2). There was no time to assess project details.
STUZ Society for Sustainable Living, Bratislava: Focus is on the Myjava sub-basin (806 km˛,
85,000 people) of the Morava river with manifold pollution problems (municipal, industrial and
agricultural). Activities started with a review of SK legislation regarding water quality
management and WFD implementation in the Myjava region; the results have also national
relevance. Detailed data collection on the local key problems will be followed by structured
interviews with key stakeholders. In June, they will be invited to a workshop to assess results
and possibly start a river basin forum. Results will be disseminated in a 60 pages b/w
brochure. Main problem is the budget cutback.
ZOVS BirdLife SK, Bratislava: Project aims at improving 80 ha grassland in a Natura 2000
rated floodplain area and converting 15 ha of arable fields surrounding it to a grassland to
better serve as a nutrient sink and flood retention area. Action will be executed with local
farmers and is planned and closely coordinated with Nature Conservation Agency, Vah river
water managers and municipalities (with latter: joint info leaflet!). It will include monitoring
(together with students from Nitra) of nutrients and improving biodiversity. The used
restoration technique builds on the key experience of NGO Daphne on Morava river. The
harvested hay (= removed nutrients) can be well sold. Action will be communicated by 2
press releases and to 3 local schools and to local stakeholders.
TINCA, Bratislava: Project aims at reducing the silting up of an old oxbow lake (national
nature reserve) near the Danube. This eutrophication results in a mass growth of macro-
phytes (Myriophyllum) and is caused by drainage of agricultural land (both within the oxbow
and outside). Cutted weeds are used as compost in the local agricultural company. Good
cooperation exists with stakeholders (nature cons. and water agencies, municipality and local
NGO). Project had to be executed under big stress in September (the only period possible)
and seriously suffered from the late start and the budget cutback (3.5 ha mowed = 30% of
the aim; no info panels set up). The agency submitted a comprehensive EU-Life project for
further actions (decision in September 2005). Tinca already submitted their final report to
REC in March!
Creative, Kosice: This NGOs is realizing pilot projects for alternative wastewater treatment in
small rural communities, which will not get any support for WWT from the EU. Two projects
were supported by the Heinz Endowment Fund (USA) in Tichy Potok (for 150 people, 2
treatment steps, well operating since November 2004; USD 60,000) and in Krasna luka (700
people, 3 steps, under construction, USD 200,000 but still need of co-funder). Their
technology uses simple processes (already tested in Czechia) without electricity, which meet
emission standards for BOD and suspended solids. This secures low maintenance costs and
user fees.
The DRP project is located at Nalepkovo (600 m asl., in Spis region 75 km west of Kosice)
where wet meadows of Hnilec river (Natura 2000 site, downstream the Slovak Paradise
national park) are affected by sewage from 5 houses (17 people): A special septic tank
(Czech system with 3 compartments) retains the solids and improves water quality (BOD
20
standard). Below a 90 m˛ reed bed (Phragmites + Phalaris) retains the nutrients. Gained
commitment of the municipality: They build the collector (USD 11,000) and provide the land
for the WWTP next to the river. This WWTP is a pilot activity for Slovakia. For promotion, the
NGO prepares a big broshure presenting all 3 pilot sites (Slovak + English) as well as a
webpage. These pilot projects have visible and measurable environmental benefits.
Regrettably, the budget cutback by REC-SK (from $ 15,000 to 5,600) leaves unsecured ca.
USD 7,000 (requests for co-funding were submitted but not yet decided). Surprisingly, in the
SK grant selection this project got very low points (scoring sheet), which indicates a certain
weakness of the REC scoring system. The NGO also struggles with the $ loss (from SKK 45
to now SKK 28!).
C.5. Hungary
Csemete, Szeged: This NGOs is executing 3 activities: 1. rehabilitation of Tisza habitats
(replacement of alien by typical vegetation); 2. School activities, incl. building of a green path
for children (together with the municipality: opened in October 2004); 3. Cooperation with
farmers: 100 farmers will be invited in April and September to 2 fora to learn how to reduce
nutrient pollution: This will be done at the agricultural faculty' demonstration farm. They
expect 40-50 farmers to attend and 15-20 to eventually cooperate and build reed beds to
retain nutrients. The NGO will help farmers to apply for subsidies from the government. Other
activity is a hot spot survey in cooperation with county authorities (they want to get paid by
the NGO Consultant advised to inform the minister). The project suffers from the short DRP
time, which does not allow to show results. (the meeting with the Consultant was difficult due
to weak English of the NGO and too little time of the Consultant).
MAKK, Budapest: This NGO has competence on economic issues but focuses in this project
on water-oriented activities at the mouth of the Bodrog river into Tisza (one of the GEF-PRP
1999 key wetland sites). Objective is to rehabilitate a landscape, which was destroyed in the
20th century by intensified agriculture (later collapsed). The area is presently subject of the
HU subsidy programme for extensive farming in environment sensitive areas (ESA) as well
as of the Vasarhely Plan for flood protection (trying to use the wetland for emergency flood
retention in 3 diked polders = non-ecological). The BOKARTISZ Group (kind of NGO
coalition headed by MAKK) lobbies for annual flooding (= ecological) and mosaic land use,
and has started in 2003 a joint planning activity with river engineers (pilot area for the Tisza).
Second (= DRP project), MAKK is cooperating with 6 farmers (170 ha) to develop and realise
specific cultivation and economic plans. Requested agro-environment support was approved
in October 2004 but payments are today uncertain (see present political dispute). Further,
MAKK organised 6 info seminars for 240 farmers together with farm advisors. They were
reported in local TV and in some national newspapers. In this project, MAKK became a link
between farmers and government and addresses an issue that is usually ignored.
MAKK is the only NGO visited that is familiar with DRP issues (due to their involvement into
component 1.6) but they did not know about the DEF manual.
Zöld Akcio, Miskolc: The DRP activities are part of their agro-environment programme since
2003 in the Bükk mountains (surroundings of the Bükk national park and Natura 2000 site)
west of Miskolc. Zöld Akcio lobbies that this area becomes one of the Hungarian pilot areas
for agricultural subsidies (ESA: to reduce pollution of the waters by farming and local sewage
in the NP buffer zone): The farming at the mountain slopes (800 m asl to 100 m asl) is also in
conflict with 2 drinking water abstractions. In December 2004, they prepared an outline
(borders, development objective, measures etc.) for such a programme with Bükk NP and
local communities (incl. regional development association), which was complemented by the
agricultural university in Gödöllö and submitted to the ministry for agriculture in early 2005.
The NGO proposed agri-environment measures and special farming methods for this region
(habitat and species protection) and will now discuss it with the ministry in Budapest. The
NGO is organising 2 micro-region fora (one in October with 32 local participants, the 2nd in
21
May). They prepared a comprehensive inventory on agro-technical and economic data (e.g.
list of 60 communal, industrial and agricultural waste sites and 6 wastewater point sources
which they relate to the WFD = good ecological status). Zöld Akcio is in close contact with
local and county authorities and with a rural development partner in Austria (Moststrassen-
Verein). The Zöld Akcio' ESA proposals will be disseminated in a brochure to increase
farmer cooperation.
C.6. Serbia and Montenegro
Green Network Vojvodina, Novi Sad: Project subject is the raising of public awareness in 3
areas (Apatin, Backa Palanka and N. Sad) on the impact of agricultural and industrial
pollution on wetlands (mainly the Danube incl. the DTD canal), in which nutrients are trapped
but which have to be better managed. The NGO addresses local authorities through 4-5
lectures (first was in N. Sad with some 40 participants; next will be in Becej together with
DEF-CS and in April in Sombor) at their parliaments, involving water managers, industries,
farmers, foresters and NGOs: Objective is to initiate local actions. The events are also
broadcasted via radio, other action is a photo exhibition (in late March in N. Sad) and a
special webpage. In mid March, a colour brochure was published (only 300 copies; 12 A4
pages, professional quality, excellent presentation of problems, impact, alternative ways and
DRP activities). A second bulletin is financially NOT secured (costs calculated in 2003!).
Terra's, Subotica: This national project is executed by a different person than the regional
project with ProBio. Promotion of organic farming is done in the DRP project through the
production of a Manual on the principles of organic farming and laws (coloured, in Serbian
and Hungarian!). 3 seminars are held in Subotica (Aug. 2004), Becej and Beocin (February)
for farmers and local administration experts. Terra's has a revised website (also in English).
They cooperate with municipalities to establish a green fund (exists already in Subotica) and
they lobby that from the new municipal fund for agricultural development 12% will be given to
30 farmers to pay the inspections during their conversion to organic production. Another
action is a questionnaire (with REC + DRP logos) sent to farmers of the 3 municipalities
regarding their knowledge (gaps) on organic farming (= baseline info). Objective is to reduce
pollution of protected areas. Terra's will produce with DRP funds radio and TV spots in 2
languages and a TV film (30 minutes), using their own material. These will be ready in April
and distributed to cooperatives and 3 local TV channels. Consumer seminars are being held
for elderly people and schools.
C.7. Croatia
Franjo Koscec Society, Varazdin: This project "had to be checked", as it is, together with 2
Romanian NGOs, receiving the largest grants from DRP. The NGO is very well established
and experienced both at local and international level. It organises 12 stakeholder workshops
in local communities in north-western Croatia facing severe pollution problems (municipal,
industrial and partly also agricultural sources). The region is located on gravel deposits and
thus prone to groundwater pollution. Some villages are located near protected river sections
and wetlands. Key problems are leaking sewers, pollution of drinking water wells, bad waste
collection (some villages not serviced), illegal disposal of animal waste (penalties are
cheaper than disposal), farmers totally ignoring agricultural advisory services and lack of
WWTPs (some industries built their WWTP but operate it only rarely).
Workshop selection was based on 4 years of "green telephone" where infos on local
problems were collected. Further, the NGO based its strategy on collected pollution data,
which it shares with the Green Forum (HR NGO platform). So far, 5 workshops were held
(reports given to the Consultant!) which always involve a local NGO partner, municipal
experts and representatives from polluters. Each workshop is announced via a media round-
22
table 2 weeks before the event and started at 10 a.m. with a 15 minutes discussion broad-
casted live on radio; it ends at ca. 5 p.m. The workshop is also a tool for public awareness:
Thanks to excellent contacts, the NGOs contracted local TV stations (for USD 800, each
workshop is reported 4 times at prime time and seen even across the borders in HU and SI).
A colour brochure (12 pages, 1,000 copies) will later present project results. The project
budget suffers from new 22% VAT for HR NGOs since May 2004 (i.e. need to reduce
actions). The NGO knows the DRP via DEF & WWF; REC-HR informed about www.drp.org !
Osijek Greens (do not mix them up with the NGO Green Osijek, involved in project 21681 on
River Coalitions!): The project aims at reducing industrial and municipal pollution around
Osijek. It started already in August 2003 (due to urgent problems), i.a. with a data research
on Drava polluters (450 private and 50 public enterprises), some of them not paying any
fees. Activities include monitoring of pollution-emitting industries from the river side. Work is
done in good cooperation with Croatian Waters agency and the ministry in Zagreb. The weak
cooperation with the municipality and county is now improving. Pollution scandals are
regularly published via media (press, radio), on their webpage and in the magazine "Alert"
but local people do still not care very much about environment. In June, public meetings
(open to journalists) will be held with HR Voda and municipal water works. In Sept. 2005, a
brochure (100 copies) will be published on past and present problems and promised
investments. The project facilitated the NGO to arrange cooperation with Serbian NGOs and
stakeholders on Danube protection (yet 2 meetings held). In November 2004, a "Declaration
on the Middle Danube" was signed by 3 HR and 4 CS stakeholders.
Europski Dom, Vukovar: This NGO has 3 activity fields (lectures on health, culture etc.; work
on psychophysical health of traumatised local people; environment protection and farming). It
works under very difficult local conditions (very low interest of most inhabitants in any issue,
no support from municipality to this "non-Croatian" group etc.) and has limited staff capacity.
Ecological farming activities started 3 years ago (different donors) and target villages in the
back-country where farmers intensively use fertilisers and pesticides. The NGO is holding
stakeholder meetings (mostly farmers) in different villages (yet 5), based on cooperation
agreements with the 2 related municipalities (they have to organise meetings and assure
participation): Introductory lectures (attended by each 20-30 farmers) are followed by half-
day workshops (with agronomists) and practical demonstrations on composting (free
distribution of California worms). Then, 2000 leaflets are distributed to farmers and
households. Another activity are questionnaires (one at beginning, one at the end: all farmers
have to respond) to explore how farmers produce, what they know about organic farming,
what assistance they need to change etc. A key problem is the marketing (main products are
pumpkin and vegetables). The NGO wants to re-involve Biopa (eco-farming NGO from
Osijek) and, upon advise of the Consultant, also contact Terra's/CS. An upcoming activity is
the growing of biological vegetable seeds in primary school gardens of 2 villages (250 kids).
C.8. Slovenia
Stork, Maribor: The project aims at introducing re-usable cotton diapers, which is innovative
for Slovenia. Target groups are parents, doctors and nurses who all report very positive
about the NGO initiative (better for baby skin). Promotion is done through a coloured
brochure (32 pages, 10,000 copies). The NGO reacted very embarrassed that they forgot to
mention the donors REC and DRP but both are mentioned on the cover side of the webpage
(online since October 2004). The questionnaire on the webpage was already filled in by 100
visitors (= project target). Lobbying activities are expanding and focus is now on copying the
Austrian model where users of cotton diapers get a re-fund of 100 from the local
municipality (for their saving of waste disposal costs). Media articles are being published in
baby and health magazines. The NGO is looking for NGO partners in other countries
(recommended to contact DEF). The project is not really reducing nutrients but a big amount
of complex waste (4,600 diapers / baby = 1 ton of waste needing 500 years to decompose).
23
UNDP/GEF-DRP NGO Grants Programme 2003-2005
List of Granted and Assessed Projects
Regional Grants (5 projects: USD 32,500 50,000)
Projects visited Lead NGO
Environm. Issue NGO action
Szentendre/HU REC
SGP
coordination
n.a.
Vienna/Bratislava
DEF
NGO institute. Develop. n.a.
21673 3 sub-basins Daphne
nutrient pollution
sub-basin coop. + stakeh.
21674 Prut cooperation ECO Center
nutr. pollution
studies, pilot actions,policy
21675 ecol. agriculture Pro Bio + Terra's ecolog. farming
promotion, action plan
21678 DOE canal
Hnuti Duha
navigation canal
wetland protection, lobby
21681 River coalition Sosna + Gr. Osijek river basin networks stakeholder cooperation
+
Holocen
National Grants (60 projects: USD 4,700 13,400)
Place visited
NGO Name
Environm. Issue NGO action
Bosnia and Herzegovina
USD 50,000 for 7 projects (USD 5,000 9,600)
Tuzla
Ecolog. Union
Ecolog. education
training teachers
Srbac (near Sava)
Green Vrbas
Pesticides
educating farmers, pupils
Sarajevo
Eko Tim
PO4-free detergents
consumer awareness
Banja Luka
EcoS
Vrbas pollution
info for public & polluters
Visoko / Sarajevo
Fondeko
Bosna r. agric. pollut. Eco-info to farmers
Milici NE Saraj.
Flora & Fauna
Jadar r. illegal waste
awareness-raising
Bulgaria
USD 33,500 for 5 projects (USD 5,000 8,200)
Plovdiv
Green Balkans
Marica floodpl. pollut. wetland restoration
Belogradchik
Env. Prot. Soc.
Dabravka dam pollut. Restoration of land fill
Veliko Tarnovo
Ecoglasnost
Yantra basin pollution awareness, water manag.
Lovech
Ecomission 21
Osim r. nutr. pollution awareness + practises
Varna
Black Sea NGO
Dobrudzha agric. pollut. awareness, good practise
Croatia
USD 50,000 for 6 projects (USD 4,700 9,700 + 13,400)
Zagreb
PBN Club
cleaner food product. Trainings of professionals
Vukovar
Europe House
organic agriculture
trainings + awareness
Slavonski Brod
Brod Ecol.Soc.
Sava water pollution media work, authorities
Zagreb
Eleonora Soc.
Agric. pollution
awareness + education
Varazdin
Fr. Koscec Soc.
Drava water pollution workshops + media work
Osijek
Osijek Greens
Drava pollution
monitorig + awareness
Czech Republic
USD 40,000 for 6 projects (USD 5,000 8,000)
Brno
Veronica
agric. pollut./detergents awareness + authorities
Moravia
Nautilus club
agric. pollut.
introd. cleaning technique
Bile Karpaty
VIS
water pollution
awareness + nature cons.
24
West. Moravia
Arnika
toxic waste dump
prevent leakages
South. Moravia
EPOS
eco-farming
promotion
South. Moravia
Sagittaria
pond eutrophisation
self-cleaning + promotion
Hungary
USD 50,000 for 7 projects (USD 5,800 8,400)
Ipoly
Magosfa
industrial pollution
hot spot awareness rais.
Szeged
Csemete
agric. practises
nature cons., poll. reduct.
Bdp.
WWF HU
agric. in floodplains
BAP + awareness
Budapest
MAKK
bio-farmg. in floodpl. Farmer cooper. + awaren.
Bdp.?
MTVS
IPPC
brochure + awareness
Miskolc
Zöld Akcio
agric. pollution
policy + awareness raising
Bakony
Pangea
small rivers pollut.
monitor., municip. educat.
Moldova
USD 40,000 for 4 projects (USD 8,500 11,500)
Cahul
Ecoinginerie
municipal water pollut. pilot installat. + traing.
??
Edinet
Ciuhur r. pollution
monitor., reconstr.+traing.
Ungheni
Calit. Mediului
pollut. of small creeks WWTP reconstr., awaren.
Falesti
Cutezatorul
organic agric.
train., awaren. + action
Romania
USD 35,000 for 2 projects (USD 14,500 14,800)
Mehedinti county
Speo-Alpin
BAP agric.
action plan, traing. + awar.
4counties BIOTECH
organic
farming
training,info material,monitor.
Serbia and Montenegro USD 60,000 for 7 projects (USD 5,600 10,500)
Subotica
Terra's
organic farming
public campaign + educat.
Bor
Soc. Young Resear. Pollution from mining worksh. new technologies
Belgrade
DEF CS
WFD implemnt. in CS stakeholder awareness
Aleksinac
Experts network
Moravica pollution
monitor. + awareness
??
CEDI
industrial pollut.
Stakeh. cooper. + awaren.
Tara
Soc. Tara Friends agric. pollution
awaren. rais.
Vojvodina
Green Network
agric. pollution
stakeh. awaren. + educat.
Slovakia
USD 45,000 for 8 projects (USD 5,000 7,000)
Liptov
Tatry
munic. water pollution envir. educat. + action
Morava
Soc. Sustain. Livg. Water pollution
participatory strategy
Danube
TINCA
wetland pollution
macroph. cleaning action
Zitava/east Nitra
BirdLife
wetland rehabilitation restorat. to retain nutrients
Ipel
Poiplie - Ipel Union pollution of wetland
clean-up and awareness
3 SK regions
Sosna
river coalitions
awaren, clean-up, cooper.
Stupava/Bva.
* Pajstun
munic. pollution
awareness + education
Kosice
Creative
alternative WWT
pilot plant + awaren.
* Pajstun withdraw its submitted and granted project because the DRP-SGP start was delayed so much:
The therefore available funds were distributed among the other granted NGOs.
Slovenia
USD 40,000 for 4 projects (each USD 10,000)
NW Slovenia
ICRO
river self-purificat.
Envir. educat. + participat.
Goricko
Lutra
envir. protection
water protection seminars
Ljubljana
Union Organ.Farms Promotion org. farmg Education of stakeholders
Maribor
Stork
water pollution
promot. ecolog.. diapers
Ukraine
USD 36,000 for 4 projects (USD 8,000 10,000)
Tisa,Prut, Siret
WETI
Pesticides
awareness
??
UNEP
Committee
wetland
management
awareness
??
Black Sea Network delta navigation canal awareness raising
Snyatyn
New Generation
water pollution (food) stakeholder train. + coop.
25