Final Report
670 40 162
July 4, 2004
Mid-Term Evaluation of the UNDP/GEF Project
RER/01/G32
Danube Regional Project: Strengthening the
Implementation Capacities for Nutrient Reduction and
Transboundary Cooperation in the Danube River Basin
PREFACE
This report provides a mid-term evaluation of the UNDP/GEF funded Danube Regional
Project. The report is delivered in compliance with the Terms of Reference developed by
UNOPS, who are tasked with managing the DRP on behalf of UNDP. The evaluation is
based upon collected reference materials from the project, as well as a series of inter-
views carried out during an evaluation mission to the region, during April 1326 2004.
The conclusions and recommendations set out in the following pages are solely those of
the evaluators and are not binding upon the project management & sponsors.
Contacts:
Alan Fox & Antti Rautavaara
Soil and Water Ltd.
P.O.Box 50 (Jaakonkatu 3)
FIN-01621 Vantaa
Finland
Domicile Helsinki, Finland
Business ID. 0196118-8
Tel. +358 9 682 661
Fax +358 9 682 6600
E-mail: sw@poyry.fi
soilandwater.poyry.com
Mid-Term Evaluation of the DRP
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.1
Purpose of the Evaluation ..................................................................................................7
1.2
Key issues Addressed........................................................................................................7
1.3
Methodology of the Evaluation..........................................................................................7
2
THE DRP AND IT'S DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT ......................................................9
2.1
Project Start and its Duration .............................................................................................9
2.2
Problems that the Project Seeks to Address.........................................................................9
2.3
Immediate and Development Objectives of the Project...................................................... 10
2.4
Main Stakeholders .......................................................................................................... 10
2.5
Expected Results............................................................................................................. 11
3
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS...............................................................................13
3.1
Project formulation ......................................................................................................... 13
3.1.1
Relevance of the project design within the framework of GEF guidelines and global concerns...........................
3.1.2
Appropriateness of the concept and design.....................................................................................................................
3.1.3
Contribution of the project to the overall development objective ...............................................................................
3.2
Implementation approach ................................................................................................ 15
3.2.1
Analysis of LFA (Project logic /strategy; Indicators)................................................................................................
3.2.2
Lessons from other relevant projects (e.g., same focal area) incorporated into project implementation..............
3.2.3
Country ownership/Driveness............................................................................................................................................
3.2.4
Stakeholder participation ....................................................................................................................................................
3.2.5
Replication approach...........................................................................................................................................................
3.2.6
Cost-effectiveness................................................................................................................................................................
3.2.7
UNDP comparative advantage...........................................................................................................................................
3.2.8
Linkages between the project and other interventions within the sector................................................................
3.2.9
Management arrangements.................................................................................................................................................
3.3
Implementation............................................................................................................... 18
3.3.1
The logical framework used during implementation as a management and M&E tool...........................................
3.3.2
Effective partnership arrangements established with relevant stakeholders..............................................................
3.3.3
Feedback from M&E activities used for adaptive management ..................................................................................
3.3.4
Financial Planning................................................................................................................................................................
3.3.5
Monitoring and evaluation..................................................................................................................................................
3.3.6
Execution and implementation modalities.......................................................................................................................
3.3.7
Management by the UNDP country office ......................................................................................................................
3.3.8
Coordination and operational issues................................................................................................................................
3.4
Results ........................................................................................................................... 22
3.4.1
Attainment of objectives .....................................................................................................................................................
3.4.2
Sustainability.........................................................................................................................................................................
3.4.3
The likely sustainability of project interventions...........................................................................................................
3.4.4
Contribution to upgrading skills of the national staff ................................................................................................
4
RECOMMENDATIONS...............................................................................................31
4.1
Corrective actions for the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the project 31
4.2
Comments and recommendations on the current proposed activities for project Phase II...... 31
4.3
Actions to follow up or reinforce initial benefits from the project....................................... 34
4.4
Proposals for future directions underlining main objectives ............................................... 34
5
LESSONS LEARNED...................................................................................................35
5.1
Best /worst practices in addressing issues relating to relevance, performance and success.... 36
Mid-Term Evaluation of the DRP
3
ANNEXES
Annex 1 TOR for Mid-Term Evaluation
Annex 2 Mission Itinerary
Annex 3 List of Persons Interviewed
Annex 4 List of Documents Reviewed
Annex 5 Overview of Results of DRP Phase 1
Mid-Term Evaluation of the DRP
4
Executive Summary
The full title of the evaluated UNDP-GEF funded and UNOPS executed project is the Danube Regional
Project: Strengthening the Implementation Capacities for Nutrient Reduction and Transboundary Coop-
eration in the Danube River Basin. The project is known as the Danube Regional Project (DRP).
The overall objective of the DRP is to reduce nutrient loadings into the Danube River and its tributaries,
in order to improve water quality in the Danube, and in the Black Sea. The DRP is designed to com-
plement the activities of the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR),
an international commission established through the Danube River Protection Convention (DRPC), pro-
viding a regional approach to the development of national policies and legislation and the definition of
priority actions for nutrient reduction and pollution control with particular attention to achieving sus-
tainable transboundary ecological effects within the Danube River Basin (DRB) and the Black Sea area.
This Mid-Term Evaluation Report (MTE report) constitutes the combined outcome of a literature re-
view and evaluation mission, including a series of interviews with stakeholders, carried out in April
2004. The evaluation team interviewed selected stakeholders in Vienna (Austria), Budapest (Hungary),
Belgrade (Serbia-Montenegro) and Sofia (Bulgaria). These four countries out of the thirteen signatory
countries to the DRPC were selected as representative of regional diversity, providing an EU member
state, a soon to be EU member, an accession country and one country not currently in the EU accession
pipeline. This delineation of countries vis-ŕ-vis EU membership has direct relevance as implementa-
tion of the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) across the Danube River Basin has become one of
the driving forces for regional cooperation.
At this juncture in the project cycle, with the 2nd phase already underway based upon an approved pro-
ject document, the evaluation is not intended to serve as a gatekeeper for continuation of the project.
Rather, the objective is to assess the status of project management and implementation, to make rec-
ommendations for consideration during the 2nd phase, to derive lessons learnt from the effort, and to
consider the sustainability of project interventions after the DRP has concluded.
The main conclusion gleaned from the evaluation effort is that the project is being managed very well,
and is providing valuable assistance to the ICPDR and the Danube River Basin (DRB) participating
countries. The key challenge for the DRP team during the 2nd phase will be to ensure that the project's
monitoring, awareness raising, and capacity building efforts translate into real and lasting environmental
improvements.
Mid-Term Evaluation of the DRP
5
GLOSSARY
ECO/EG
Ecology Expert Group
APC/EG
Accident Prevention and Control Expert Group
APR
Annual Project/Program Report
AQA
Analytical Quality Assurance
AQC
Analytical Quality Control
BAP
Best Agricultural Practices
BAT
Best Available Technology
BEP
Best Environmental Practices
BOD
Biological Oxygen Demand
BSP
Black Sea Program
CAP
Common Agricultural Policy
COD
Chemical Oxygen Demand
DANUBIS
Danube Information System
DBAM
Danube Basin Alarm Model
DEF
Danube Environmental Forum
DPRP
Danube Pollution Reduction Program
DRB
Danube River Basin
DRP
Danube Regional Project
DRPC
Danube River Protection Convention
DWQM
Danube Water Quality Model
EC
European Commission
EMIS/EG
Emission Expert Group
EPDRB
Environmental Program for the Danube River Basin
EU
European Union
EUR
Euro
GDP
Gross Domestic Product
GEF
Global Environment Facility
GIS
Geographical Information System
HELCOM
Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission (Helsinki Commission)
HoD
Head of Delegation
ICPBS
International Commission for the Protection of the Black Sea
ICPDR
International Co mmission for the Protection of the Danube River
IFI
International Financing Institution
IPPC
Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive
IW
International Waters
JAP
Joint Action Program
LFA
Logical Framework Approach
M&E
Monitoring and Evaluation
MLIM/EG
Monitoring Laboratory and Information Management Expert Group
MOU
Memorandum of Understanding
MTE Report
Mid-Term Evaluation Report
NGOs
Non Government Organizations
OP8
Operational Program 8
PCU
Project Coordination Unit
PIR
Project Implementation Review
PRP
Pollution Reduction Program
RBM
River Basin Management
RBM/EG
River Basin Management Expert Group
REC
Regional Environmental Center
S/EG
Strategic Expert Group
SAP
Strategic Action Plan
SAPARD
Special Accession Program for Agriculture and Rural Development
TDA
Transboundary Diagnosis Analysis
UNDP
United Nations Development Program
UNOPS
United Nations Office for Project Services
USD
United States Dollar
WFD
Water Framework Directive
WWF
Worldwide Fund for Nature
Mid-Term Evaluation of the DRP
6
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1
Purpose of the Evaluation
The purpose and objective of the Mid-Term Evaluation of the Danube Regional project
(DRP) is to enable the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River
(ICPDR), the government bodies of 13 participating countries and EC, UNDP-GEF and
UNOPS to assess the project progress and to take decisions on the future orientation and
emphasis of the project during its remaining three year implementation period, to be
completed by the end of 2006.
1.2
Key issues Addressed
The evaluation is an activity in the project cycle that attempts to determine, as systemati-
cally and objectively as possible, the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sus-
tainability of the project. The achievements of the DRP are assessed against objectives,
including a re-examination of the relevance of the objectives and project design.
Based on discussions with the stakeholders and literature review, special attention has
been given to:
ˇ Relevance of the project activities, and outputs, with respect to the overall objective
of reducing nutrient loading and controlling industrial pollution sources
ˇ Mechanisms under development for post-project sustainability
ˇ Extent to which other key stakeholders (e.g. from agriculture, industry, etc.) are en-
gaged in the project implementation process
ˇ Likelihood of DRP reaching 2nd phase numerical targets, and the factors that may
impede success
ˇ Changing political circumstances in the region, and the extent to which such changes
have and will influence project implementation
ˇ Cooperation and linkage between the two GEF funded projects, DRP and Black Sea
Program (BSP)
ˇ Coordination and cooperation amongst overlapping water and sanitation initiatives in
the region
ˇ Key lessons learnt for consideration in future GEF International Waters focal area
projects
1.3
Methodology of the Evaluation
The Mid-Term Evaluation of Danube Regional Project was carried out using a two
folded methodology (i) literature review and (ii) interviews with stakeholder representa-
tives who are either affiliated to the project as direct beneficiaries or who have or might
be expected to be influenced by the DRP.
The evaluators visited four of the Danube states: Austria, Hungary, Serbia & Montenegro
and Bulgaria, to interview ICPDR experts, ministry officials, consultants and NGO's.
The list of persons interviewed and list of documents reviewed are presented in Annex 3
and Annex 4 respectively. DRP staff in Vienna organized the interviews based on re-
Mid-Term Evaluation of the DRP
7
quests by the evaluation team. The interviews were structured taking into account meth-
odological guidance by GEF and UNDP.
The Mid-Term Evaluation team consisted of two international consultants both employed
by Finnish consulting and engineering company Soil and Water Ltd, which is part of the
Jaakko Pöyry Group. The evaluators, as well as the company and group they represent,
have not been involved in any way in the design or implementation of the DRP.
1.4
Structure of the Evaluation
The evaluation has been structured in accordance with UNDP Guidelines for Evaluators.
It covers the issues set out in the Terms of Reference for this evaluation, and takes into
account the expectations of the UNOPS project manager, Andrew Menz.
The use of stakeholder interviews as the lead vehicle for evaluation has been done recog-
nizing that the DRP is a capacity building and "influencing" project, designed to build
stakeholder support for improved river basin management.
At this juncture in the project cycle, with the 2nd phase already underway based upon an
approved Project Document, the evaluation is not intended to serve as a gatekeeper for
continuation of the project. Rather, the objective is to derive lessons learnt from the 1st
phase, which can be applied to the 2nd phase efforts, and to other GEF International Wa-
ters focal area projects.
Mid-Term Evaluation of the DRP
8
2
THE DRP AND IT'S DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT
2.1
Project Start and its Duration
Phase 1 of the Danube Regional Project was commenced as planned in December 2001
and the majority of activities were completed, according to the Project Document, by the
end of October 2003. Phase 2 was designed to commence in December 2003 shortly af-
ter completion of Phase 1 and span a three-year period until 2006; the expected duration
of the DRP thereby totaling 5 years. Due to unexpected delays in the final commenting
and approval process of the Project Document for Phase 2, approval for phase 2 funding
was still pending during the evaluation.
2.2
Problems that the Project Seeks to Address
The Danube River is the second largest river in Europe (2 780 km) and drains an area of
817 000 km2. It includes entirely or partly Austria, Germany, Hungary, Czech Republic,
Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Serbia & Montenegro, Bulgaria,
Romania, Moldova and Ukraine. The river discharges into the Black Sea through a delta,
which is the second largest natural wetland in Europe. It is also of high social, economi-
cal and environmental value and supports drinking water intake, agriculture, industry,
fishing, tourism, power generation, navigation, tourism and others.
As indicated in the Project Summary (Phase 1 & 2), "the overall objective of the Danube
Regional project is to complement the activities of the ICPDR required to provide a re-
gional approach and global significance to the development of national policies and le g-
islation and the definition of priority actions for nutrient reduction and pollution control
with particular attention to achieving sustainable transboundary ecological effects with
the DRB and the Black Sea area". Recognizing this overall objective, it can be seen that
the problems the project seeks to address relate to pollution loading into the Danube from
sources along the river and its tributaries.
The DRP seeks to address the human impacts on the Danube and its tributaries, from ag-
ricultural and urban activities. The project objectives have been developed recognizing
that pollution remains a serious problem, with the volume of nutrients mainly from ag-
ricultural fertilizers, household projects and urban sewage - still too high. Toxic sub-
stances are also a key threat, especially from mining operations. These pollution prob-
lems not only affect the ecology of the Danube, and put at risk the drinking water sources
for millions of inhabitants; they also place the Black Sea at serious risk to eutrophica-
tion, algal blooms, and contamination. The long history of human settlement in the re-
gion has significantly altered the river's natural flow and filtering mechanisms. Some
80% of the Danube's wetlands and floodplains have been lost since the end of the 19th
century, threatening bird and fish habitats and compounding the devastation from peri-
odic floods.
Control and reduction of pollutants requires addressing specific "hot spots" as well as es-
tablishing an under girding of cooperation, commitment and capacity among key stake-
holders at the government, industry and community levels. While the World Bank, the
European Union and bilateral supporters have focused on the investment side, it has been
the role of the DRP to consider these "softer" but no less crucial aspects of pollution re-
duction.
Mid-Term Evaluation of the DRP
9
2.3
Immediate and Development Objectives of the Project
Long Term Development Objective
The DRP is designed to contribute to sustainable human development in the Danube
River Basin (DRB) through reinforcing the capacities of the participating countries in
developing effective mechanisms for regional cooperation and coordination in order to
ensure protection of international waters, sustainable management of natural resources
and biodiversity.
Overall Objective
The DRP is to complement the activities of the ICPDR required to provide a regional ap-
proach and global significance to the development of national policies and legislation and
the definition of priority actions for nutrient reduction and pollution control with partic u-
lar attention to achieving sustainable transboundary ecological effects within the DRB
and Black Sea area.
The ICPDR is the legally established institutional mechanism for regional environmental
cooperation among the 13 riparian states and EC, to manage water resources in the Da-
nube River Basin. Among other activities, the DRP provides financial assistance in sup-
port of the ICPDR expert groups. Many of the DRP activities are de facto complement-
ing, sustaining and building continuity to the regional environmental cooperation archi-
tecture esta blished.
Specific Objective of Phase 1 (September 2001 August 2003)
The Project Document for Phase 1 includes preparation and commencement of basin-
wide capacity building activities, which are top be consolidated and completed during
Phase 2. Altogether 20 project components with 80 activities were to be carried out dur-
ing Phase 1
The following four project components were designed to respond to the overall develop-
ment objective:
a) Creation of sustainable ecological conditions for land use and water management;
b) Capacity building and reinforcement of transboundary cooperation for the improve-
ment of water quality and environmental standards in the Danube River Basin;
c) Strengthening of public involvement in environmental decision making and rein-
forcement of community actions for pollution reduction and protection of ecosys-
tems;
d) Reinforcement of monitoring, evaluation and information systems to control trans-
boundary pollution, and to reduce nutrients and harmful substances.
2.4
Main Stakeholders
There are various stakeholder groups that can be considered within the Danube River Ba-
sin
ˇ As the DRP's major objective is to support the ICPDR, the signatory member coun-
tries to the Danube River Protection Convention (DRPC) and their respective desig-
nated ministries participating in the ICPDR are key stakeholders.
Mid-Term Evaluation of the DRP
10
ˇ A second segment are the other ministries with direct relevance to ICPDR coopera-
tion, such as ministries of agriculture and research units that are semi-active partic i-
pants in the regional cooperation process through inter-ministerial cooperation
mechanisms established by the participating countries.
ˇ A third segment includes non-governmental organizations, who are actively incorpo-
rated into the DRP through such components as: institutional development of NGOs;
support for the NGO umbrella organization Danube Environmental Forum (DEF),
and the Small Grants Program (SGP).
ˇ A fourth segment are the public at large, whom the DRP seeks to influence through
such public information and participation initiatives as the Danube Day initiative, and
the magazine Danube Watch.
ˇ A fifth segment of stakeholders are the farmers, fishermen, mine operators, shippers,
transportation planners, developers and others whose activities directly impact on the
river basin and water quality. The ICPDR and DRP are working towards identifying
means and mechanisms to work proactively with private sector entities. The agricul-
ture sector as a whole and individual producers are one of the key stakeholder groups.
2.5
Expected Results
The project document for Phase 1 sets out a series of objectives and expected outputs.
These are as follows:
Objective
Output
1.1 Development and implementation of policy guidelines for river
1. The Creation of
basin and water resources management
Sustainable Ecological 1.2 & 1.3 Policies for the control of agricultural point and non-point
Conditions for Land
sources of pollution and pilot projects on agricultural pollution re-
Use and Water Man-
duction.
agement
1.4 Policy development for wetlands rehabilitation under the aspect
of appropriate land use
1.5 Industrial reform and development of policies and legislation for
the
application of BAT (best available techniques, including cleaner
technologies) towards reduction of nutrients (N and P) and danger-
ous substances
1.6 & 1.7 Assessments and development of water and wastewater
tariffs and effluent charges focused on nutrient reduction and con-
trol of dangerous substances
2.1 Inter-ministerial coordinating mechanisms for nutrient reduction
2. Capacity building
and pollution control
and reinforcement of
2.2 Operational tools for monitoring, laboratory and information
transboundary coop-
management with particular attention to nutrients and toxic sub-
eration for the im-
stances
provement of water
2.3 Improvement of procedures and tools for accidental emergency
quality and environ-
response with particular attention to transboundary emergency situa-
tions
mental standards in
2.4 Support for reinforcement of the ICPDR information system
the DRB
(DANUBIS)
2.5 Implementation of the Memorandum of Understanding between
the ICPDR and the BSC relating to the discharge of nutrients and
hazardous substances to the Black Sea
2.6 Training and consultation workshops for resource management
and pollution control with attention to nutrient reduction and trans-
boundary issues
Mid-Term Evaluation of the DRP
11
Objective
Output
3.1 Support for institutional development of NGOs and community
3: Strengthening of
involvement
public involvement in
3.2 Applied awareness raising through community-based Small
environmental deci-
Grants Program
sion making and rein-
3.3 Organization of public awareness-raising campaigns on nutrient
forcement of commu-
reduction and control of toxic substances
nity actions for pollu-
tion reduction and
protection of ecosys-
tems
4.1 Development of indicators for project monitoring and impact
Objective 4: Rein-
evaluation
forcement of monitor-
4.3 Monitoring and assessment of nutrient removal capacities of
ing, evaluation and
riverine wetlands
information systems
4.4 Danube Basin study on pollution trading and corresponding eco-
to control trans-
nomic instruments for nutrient reduction
boundary pollution,
and to reduce nutri-
ents and harmful sub-
stances
The logical framework for Phase 1 includes verifiable indicators for each project obje c-
tive and output. The Annual Project Review (APR) for 2003 indicates that all expected
objectives and outputs for Phase 1 will have been met prior to the start of Phase 2.
For phase 2, the verifiable indicators have been refined to include numerical goals for the
reduction of nutrients and phosphates.
ˇ The verifiable indicator for the overall project objective will be a reduction of nitro-
gen loading into the Black Sea by 21.1% and 32% for phosphorous.
ˇ For Objective 1, the expectation is that all ICPDR countries will have developed and
ratified policies and legal instruments for sustainable water management and nutrient
reduction. In particular, the EU Water Framework Directive is to be applied in the
frame of RBM plans.
ˇ Objective 2 will be verified through fully operational institutional and organizational
mechanisms in each ICPDR country, for transboundary cooperation, improved water
quality monitoring, emission control, emergency warning, accident prevention and
information management.
ˇ Objective 3 is to be verified through the active engagement of civil society in na-
tional pollution reduction program, as indicated through an operational and self-
sustained DEF secretariat and fully implemented Small Grants Program, with 80% of
all projects showing sustainable results.
ˇ Objective 4 is to be verified through a "considerable" increase in knowledge on
sedimentation, transport and removal of nutrients and toxic substances, and accep-
tance at national and regional levels of economic instruments to encourage invest-
ment for nutrient reduction. Specific verification sources include projects and meas-
ures in place to reduce toxic substances in the Iron Gates reservoir, and endorsed wet-
lands management programs.
Mid-Term Evaluation of the DRP
12
3
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
3.1
Project formulation
As per GEF and UNDP procedures, the new project was prepared in consultation with
the participating governments and UNDP and underwent final reviews and input by
UNDP-GEF (principally Andrew Hudson), the GEF STAP panel reviewer and the GEF
Secretariat prior to approval for inclusion in the GEF work program in 2001.
Based on the interviews conducted, it is apparent that wide stakeholder participation was
solicited prior to and during development of the DRP. Members of the ICPDR expert
groups and the Heads of Delegation were active participants in project development and
their recommendations were taken into account. Input was also solicited and received
from other project partners, including the World Bank, Worldwide Fund for Nature
(WWF) Regional Environmental Center (REC) and Danube Environmental Forum
(DEF).
During the inception phase, the project included an inception workshop, held February 6-
8, 2002 in Austria, which brought together a large stakeholder group to consider and re-
fine the specific activities under each project objective. In all, 67 technical experts, spe-
cialists, decision-makers and support staff attended the facilitated workshop, including
representatives of all 14 signatories to the DRPC and from the NGO community. During
preparations for the 2nd phase, the utility of holding a second stakeholder implementation
workshop was considered. Based on the time, expense and difficulty to achieve consen-
sus with such a large group, it was decided instead to discuss the project objectives and
planned outcomes by topic area, using the ICPDR expert groups. The expectation is that
smaller more focused groups can engage the subjects in greater depth, and provide more
specific recommendations. The change to smaller more focused meetings is appropriate
for the 2nd phase. A large stakeholder workshop, which serves the greater purpose of in-
clusion, information sharing and momentum building at the onset of a project, is not nec-
essary at the midpoint.
Project Document
The project document for Phase 1 is comprehensive and generally well conceived. It
takes into account and builds on the historical GEF work on the Danube. It is generally
well written, with consistent formulation and elaboration of project objectives, activit ies,
expected outcomes, timetables and budgets.
3.1.1
Relevance of the project design within the framework of GEF guidelines and
global concerns
GEF's objective in the international waters (IW) focal area is to contribute pr imarily as a
catalyst in the implementation of a more comprehensive, ecosystem based approach to
managing international waters and their drainage basins as a means to achieve global en-
vironmental benefits.
According to the Water-Based Operational Program 8 (OP8) the GEF funded activities
are to meet the incremental costs of:
a) assisting groups of countries to better understand the environmental challenges of
their international waters and work collaboratively to address them;
b) building capacity of existing institutions, and
c) implementing measures that address priority transboundary environmental concerns.
Mid-Term Evaluation of the DRP
13
The goal of OP8 is to assist countries in modifying the ways that human activities are
conducted in a number of sectors so that a particular water body and its international
drainage basin can sustainably support human activities.
The Project Documents for Phases 1&2 are in principle both describing a single project
which has been divided into two separate but very closely linked project phases due to
GEF and UNDP operational reasons. Both the Long-Term Development Objective and
the Overall Objective of DRP are fully in line with GEF guidelines, the Phase 1 Specific
Objective is to prepare and initiate basin -wide capacity building activities. The project
has four Immediate Objectives, breaking down to 20 project components and 80 activ i-
ties during the 1st Phase, which are designed to respond to overall and long-term devel-
opment objectives.
Through its launching of the DRP, GEF has played a catalytic role for the Danube River
Basin and as such the project design largely reflects the guidelines of GEF and UNDP.
The project design has allowed participating countries to receive timely assistance on
implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) as well as hands on ex-
perience and knowledge sharing at a basin-wide scale. The public participation and pub-
lic awareness issues have been given thorough consideration and support through several
project components and pilot projects have been developed to demonstrate best available
practices
Most importantly, the DRP has enabled the Danube River Protection Convention
(DRPC) to become operative through financial and technical support to the ICPDR.
3.1.2
Appropriateness of the concept and design
The project concept is appropriate, and builds upon the previous GEF support for the Da-
nube River Basin (DRB). During the past three years, as Phase 1 has been prepared and
implemented, the economic, institutional and environmental situation has been in a state
of transition across the region, especially with respect to EU expansion. Hungary, Slova-
kia, Czech Republic and Slovenia are now EU member states, and the future inclusion of
Bulgaria, Romania and Croatia is anticipated. This transition has made implementation of
the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) a binding objective for most of the DRB
countries. The design of the DRP has enabled it to play a leading role in regional prepa-
rations for WFD implementation. The project's emphasis on nutrient reduction is ap-
propriate in consideration of the high nutrient loadings into the Danube, the lack of atten-
tion to best agricultural practices in some Danube countries, and the resulting deteriora-
tion of water quality along the Danube and particularly in the Black Sea as a result.
3.1.3
Contribution of the project to the overall development objective
The overall development objective is to improve the water quality of the Danube by re-
ducing nutrient and other pollution discharges into the river and its tributaries, and by
preserving and rehabilitating natural ecosystems in the river basin area. The project is
focused on building the necessary governmental and civil society structures to ensure that
attention is paid to reducing human impacts on Danube water quality.
The Project Document sets out a series of expected outputs that should positively con-
tribute to meeting the overall development objective. In particular, it places emphasis on
building public awareness and support for improving and protecting water resources in
the region.
Mid-Term Evaluation of the DRP
14
3.2
Implementation approach
The implementation approach as formulated can be considered satisfactory. The DRP
provides technical, material and financial assistance to the ICPDR. The DRP does not
include large-scale investments for pollution reduction, nor are its recommendations
binding on the participating countries. The DRP instead provides a support mechanism
for countries to meet their obligations under the DRPC and increasingly within the legal
structures of the European Union. It succeeds in tandem with investment support
mechanisms from the EU, World Bank, bilateral donors and the participating countries.
3.2.1
Analysis of LFA (Project logic /strategy; Indicators)
The LFA for phase 1 was developed appropriately, providing generally clear objectives,
outputs and activities. A noted shortcoming is the lack of clarity with respect to the atten-
tion to be paid to other pollutants in addition to nutrients. For example, Output 1.5.5
seeks to develop necessary complementing policy and legal measures for the introduction
of Best Available Techniques (BAT) for the reduction of nutrients and dangerous sub-
stances. A nutrient focused effort would narrow this analysis to BAT for wastewater
treatment facilities and concentrated livestock facilities (e.g. feedlots and dairies). The
inclusion of dangerous substances opens the expectation to a broad array of industrial in-
puts, from mining, chemicals and other sectors.
The LFA also suffers from a lack of verifiable indicators of success for many of the out-
puts. In the above case, for output 1.5.5, the measure of success is completion of a report
that includes a discussion of complimenting policy and legal measures. Success in this
instance will not be measured by the adoption across the region of appropriate legal
measures for BAT, or the extent of implementation of BAT in a given economic sector or
at specific facilities. It is noted that the issue of verifiable indicators arose during review
of the Phase 2 Project Document, and that greater emphasis will now be placed on quan-
tifying results during phase 2.
In the frame of the Project Component 4.1 on indicators for project monitoring and im-
pact evaluation, the LogFrame for the Phase II was revised and a set of indicators has
been developed to be applied in the phase II in order to monitor the progress and results
of the project.
3.2.2
Lessons from other relevant projects (e.g., same focal area) incorporated into
project implementation
No indications are given in the project documents that lessons learnt from projects out-
side of the Danube area are taken into account. However, the Project Document was de-
signed based upon the foundation established through the previous two GEF International
Waters focal area projects for the Danube.
During the course of the interviews it was mentioned that water quality monitoring sys-
tems development for the Danube have benefited from assessing the monitoring efforts
on the Rhine. In addition, overlapping ICPDR member involvement in the Baltic Marine
Environment Protection Commission (HELCOM), have been useful to consider mecha-
nisms for reducing nutrient loadings and the impacts of eutrophication.
As the Danube is considered a pioneering effort for transboundary water system coopera-
tion, the DRP has hosted a stream of visitors from other regions, providing additional op-
portunities to share experiences e.g. hosting a GEF funded TumenNET
(RAS/98/G31/A/31) study tour visit in 2002 and visit from Peipsi Center for Trans-
boundary Cooperation in the frame of the GEF IW LEARN Inter-Project Stakeholder
Exchange Pilot Program
Mid-Term Evaluation of the DRP
15
3.2.3
Country ownership/Driveness
Country ownership of the program is an important aspect of the project formulation. The
close linkage to the ICPDR recognizes that success will be measured by the extent to
which the Danube countries apply the tool and techniques provided through the DRP.
There appear to be varying degrees of support from the DRB countries' governments in
integrating the project objectives into their national development programs and other re-
lated projects. Countries motivated through EU accession are more engaged in the proc-
ess, and view the project as fitting well within their national development policy. Others
within the lower Danube basin may recognize the benefits of supporting the DRP obje c-
tives, but are constrained by financial considerations and competing interests. Country
ownership of the DRP has been made difficult by the continuing political instability in
several of the Danube countrie s. It is difficult to build governmental support at high le v-
els when the responsible authorities are in political turmoil and in constant change.
Country ownership and participation is especially strong in relation to the development
of legal instruments, and implementation of the Water Framework Directive. All of the
DRB countries with the exception of Ukraine have indicated their intention to set in place
legislation harmonized with the WFD. This common purpose towards WFD implementa-
tion provides a strong motivating force for transboundary collaboration on Danube water
quality issues.
The support from ICPDR and/or DRP to member countries to participate in EG meetings
has been well appreciated and in some cases countries have found national funding to
send second participants to the meetings. As such the EG meetings have been seen as
valuable information and knowledge sharing forums for the countries. Importantly the of-
ficial networks, Experts Groups, have enabled informal networking between officials and
experts in participating countries.
Based from the evaluation interviews, there should be some concern over the extent to
which enthusiastic support extends beyond the environmental ministries and hydrological
institutions that directly participate in the ICPDR EGs.
3.2.4
Stakeholder participation
The level of stakeholder participation in the DRP should be considered satisfactory.
There is active participation amongst most stakeholder segments, and a strong emphasis
on public participation. NGO's are closely involved in many DRP activities, and the pro-
ject is actively working to build local and regional NGO capacity.
The DRP has endeavored to work with the Heads of Delegation of the ICPDR to get the
Danube countries to establish inter-ministerial committees. There has also been some ef-
fort to bring agricultural officials to best agricultural practices (BAP) workshops. These
efforts notwithstanding, there appears to be a gap in the stakeholder base, in that agricul-
tural, mining, transportation and urban development interests have not been specifically
targeted to build support for DRP objectives. These stakeholders need to be brought into
the discussions if real and lasting pollution reduction is to be achieved. One area of direct
engagement with industry is expected through the DRP effort to phase out the use of
phosphate detergents in the DRB (Phase 1 output 1.8).
3.2.5
Replication approach
Phase 1 of the DRP is the information collection and stage-setting phase. During phase 2,
the project is then to include a series of pilot projects, covering wetlands restoration, best
agricultural practices, and tariff and water pollution charges. The project's emphasis on
Mid-Term Evaluation of the DRP
16
pilots is an effective approach to replication. But piloting useful techniques is only the
first step. The DRP team will then need to effectively publicize the findings and out-
comes, and make recommendations to the relevant country stakeholders on how to ex-
pand and sustain these activities. Replicability has already been demonstrated in the set-
ting up of the Sava pilot river basin management project, and the interest expressed by
Hungary and Romania to develop an RBM effort for the Körös / Cris river. Especially
the efforts to harmonize Danube participating country legislation with the EU-WFD
should ensure strong replicability as each country strives to implement its own river basin
management legislation.
The DRP replication approach should provide tools and lessons for other GEF projects.
Here attention should be paid to the efforts to develop performance indicators. As these
performance indicators are not yet in place, and have not been made operational outside
of the consultants recommendations, it is premature to gauge their efficacy. However, it
is expected that such indicators will be important to incorporate into future transboundary
water resource projects.
3.2.6
Cost-effectiveness
Cost-effectiveness can be considered in terms of the amount spent on a particular activ-
ity, what was accomplished using these funds, how much additional funding was lever-
aged as a result of the activity, and whether the costs would have been greater or lesser
using other means.
Cost effectiveness is difficult to determine in projects such as the DRP where the expen-
ditures are for analysis, training and public relations rather than sewage pipes and pumps.
It is also difficult to consider cost effectiveness midway through a project where the key
interventions are not yet complete, and where the verifiable indicators for project success
have been largely process focused, rather than results focused.
The issue of whether the DRP has been set up in a cost effective manner can and should
be narrowed to exclude a comparison to construction and investment projects. Large-
scale investment efforts are not within the GEF scope for the DRP, and funding support
for these efforts is being supplied from the EU, the World Bank and bilateral donors.
The question then is whether the project is designed properly to attain its expected out-
comes in a cost effective manner. In this case, evidence of cost effectiveness is provided
by the thin project overhead structure, the close partnership with ICPDR, the extensive
use of local consultants ministries and institutes, and the expanding use of internet com-
munication.
Annex 1 to the Project Document for Phase 2 identifies baseline and incremental costs
for the project. It is noteworthy to consider that approximately USD 17 million in Project
and PDF-B funding through GEF for phase 1&2 is expected to leverage just under 20
million USD in co-financing from the ICPDR countries.
The cost breakdown for Phase 2 also estimates USD 279 million USD of baseline costs
for structural projects in participating countries to achieve compliance with national and
EU water quality standards during the period 2003-2006. Other baseline costs, for non-
structural activities, are estimated at USD 251 million. The resulting total cost figure for
the period 2003-2006 is USD 554 million (baseline and incremental costs).
It is important to note that this baseline cost assessment in Annex 1 is less than compel-
ling. While the incremental cost figures and the specific outputs they will be directed to
are straightforward and verifiable, the additional baseline cost breakdowns, which give
the appearance of specificity and validity, are based on old data and rough estimates. The
baseline figures have been derived from a 1993 sector study, and it is unclear to what ex-
Mid-Term Evaluation of the DRP
17
tent factors such as inflation, expanding EU membership, the breakup of former Yugo-
slavia, and World Bank support activities have been taken into account.
3.2.7
UNDP comparative advantage
There is considerable advantage to having UNDP sponsorship for the DRP. As a global
organization, the UNDP brings no geo-political baggage that might limit the participation
of certain basin members. And the aid is not tied or otherwise encumbered by expecta-
tions to use specific country consultants. The management flexibility provided through
UNDP is also an advantage, as it enables the project team to adjust to changing circum-
stances, time frames and beneficiary needs. The UNDP is furthermore well considered
for its leadership in the international waters and river basin sector, so its imprimatur adds
additional stature to DRP efforts. Perhaps most important, the UNDP has funded three
successive projects now in the Danube Basin and has been the catalyst for a cooperative
effort that is the benchmark against which other basin initiatives compare themselves.
3.2.8
Linkages between the project and other interventions within the sector
In addition to supporting the ICPDR, other essential links are with the European Com-
mission, relating to implementation of EU legislation (the WFD in particular). Explicit
linkages include the UNDP/GEF Black Sea Regional Project and the World Bank In-
vestment Fund for Nutrient Reduction, in the frame of the GEF World Bank Da-
nube/Black Sea Partnership Program. Linkages are also established with the World Wide
Fund for Nature (WWF) in the area of wetlands protection and restoration. The extent
and success of these linkages over the 1st phase varies. Indications from the evaluation
point to a very successful linkage with the WWF, made all the more close with the sele c-
tion of the former director for WWF's Danube and Carpathian program(Philip Weller) as
ICPDR executive secretary. Linkages with the Black Sea efforts are increasing but as yet
not extensive nor considered a high priority.
Linkages with the European Commission appear to be narrowly focused through DG-
Environment, and aimed at WFD implementation. It was apparent during the interviews
that DRP professional staff are well informed of the key regional interventions occurring
within the sector, but are not generally aware of country investment projects. Comments
from the GEF reviewer of the Project Brief for the 2nd phase highlighted the need for bet-
ter coordination with the World Bank Investment Fund. The DRP Project Manager has
indicated a "stock-taking" meeting is to be set up in 2004 to consider improved coordina-
tion.
3.2.9
Management arrangements
The management arrangements formulated for the project are satisfactory. A full time
dedicated staff was employed to manage the DRP. Direct project oversight is provided
through UNOPS, including financial management. Technical supervision is provided
through UNDP, based first from the International Waters offices in New York, and since
the beginning of 2004 through the UNDP/GEF Offices for Europe and CIS in Bratislava.
Guidance for DRP activities is also provided by the ICPDR.
3.3
Implementation
The evaluation has occurred after approval of the 2nd phase proje ct brief, but prior to the
awarding of the second tranche funding. Accordingly, the discussion on implementation
Mid-Term Evaluation of the DRP
18
considers the full project to date. In general, implementation is highly satisfactory, with
only minor concerns relating to completion of several project outputs.
As indicated in the DRP Phase 1 Project Implementation Plan, the implementation ap-
proach for the DRP is focused on "supporting the ICPDR and the DRB countries in de-
veloping appropriate policies and legal instruments for river basin management, appro-
priate land use, improved water management and water quality control with particular at-
tention to nutrient reduction and toxic substances (e.g. agricultural, industrial, and mu-
nicipal policy and legislative reforms, wetlands management) and in developing mecha-
nisms for exacting compliance with policies and legislation." Implementation of this ap-
proach has been highly satisfactory. The DRP team has successfully forged close coop-
eration with ICPDR and has achieved most of the expected outputs.
One of the focus points for implementation, mentioned above, concerns appropr iate land
use. The project includes efforts to identify hot spots, to promote wetlands restoration,
and to improve agricultural practices, however it has not been designed to create the
kinds of interactions with land use and urban planners in the region that could lead to
more appropriate land use. A particular concern raised during the evaluation mission is
the potentia l negative impact on wetlands and flood plain areas as a result of trans-
European transportation pla nning.
3.3.1
The logical framework used during implementation as a management and
M&E tool
The Project Documents for both phases include detailed logical frameworks and also
Project Management Sheets per Output, detailing activities, implementation steps, spe-
cific outputs, timeframe, and implementation arrangements. Project progress is compared
back-to-back with Project Management Sheets by the DRP management.
While the Phase 1 logical framework is consistent with the project's objectives, it suffers
from a lack of verifiable indicators and by rather vague expectations in terms of certain
project outputs. These two shortcomings hinder the use of the LFA as a daily planning
tool. The DRP team indicates that they use the LFA periodically to gauge progress
against expectations.
3.3.2
Effective partnership arrangements established with relevant stakeholders
Partnership arrangements appear to be excellent with the ICPDR and the water quality
focused governmental agencies. Partnering has been satisfactory with other identified
stakeholders, including the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and the Regional Envi-
ronmental Center (REC). During the evaluation mission it was noted that the DRP and
REC were negotiating management structures and fees for the RECs responsibilities un-
der the Small Grants Program. The DRP indicates that these negotiations have been suc-
cessfully concluded.
Other stakeholders include the Danube Environmental Forum, and NGOs that have se-
cured SGP funding for national and regional projects in the Danube River Basin. Part-
nering arrangements with NGO's appear to be effective, although the funding holdup for
the Small Grants Program during the 2nd phase has created some strain.
The European Commission is a key member of the Project Steering Committee and cur-
rently holds the chair for the ICPDR, nevertheless interviews during the mission suggest
that some EU water sector operatives within the Danube countries are not generally
aware of DRP activities. Coordination with World Bank Investment Fund activities has
also been singled out as an opportunity for more effective partnering arrangements dur-
ing the 2nd phase.
Mid-Term Evaluation of the DRP
19
Regarding cooperation with their counterparts working to implement the Black Sea con-
vention (ICPBS), and affiliated UNDP/GEF project, it is noteworthy that an MOU has
been signed in 2002, promoting joint monitoring and assessment efforts. Based from in-
terviews during the evaluation mission, it seems that there is a willingness to promote
closer ties between the Danube and Black Sea efforts, but this has not been a high prior-
ity.
3.3.3
Feedback from M&E activities used for adaptive management
Feedback from monitoring and evaluations has been captured in revised work plans and
project documents. The team has demonstrated a capability to adapt to shifting demands
and expectations. For instance:
ˇ Comments and recommendations during the Inception Phase workshop were factored
into the project work plans;
ˇ The team has adapted to changing circumstances, in particular to support the ICPDR
on implementation of the WFD;
ˇ The delayed arrival of Serbia Montenegro into the ICPDR in 2003 was quickly sup-
ported and reinforced by the DRP.
3.3.4
Financial Planning
Based on authorization from UNOPS, the DRP office can manage and contract up to
USD 30 000 threshold, which allows DRP to plan and execute smaller scale activities,
such as workshops and short consultancies directly from Vienna. This flexibility enables
the DRP team to quickly address the needs of the participation countries.
The drive to maximize value for money is strong among the DRP team in Vienna, e.g.
consultants are only paid against deliverables and the maximum advance payment is
10%, however not exceeding USD 60 000.
The level of financial planning during project inception can be considered satisfactory,
with detailed budgets set for each project activity and output. There has also been room
given to reallocate funds from one output to another within each of the 4 objective areas,
based on changing circumstances and unforeseen costs or savings. So for instance, the
budget for output 1.1.1 to develop river basin districts map, was not needed as the
ICPDR was undertaking this effort. Consequently, funding was shifted to 1.1.5, GIS
needs assessment.
The initial budget for the DRP was set at a sufficient level for achieving project obje c-
tives. However, the financial planning did not take into account the fact that most DRP
expenditures are in EUR and USD has depreciated by 30 per cent against the EUR over
the past year. This substantial shortfall may mean that some 2nd phase project activities
cannot be funded as anticipated.
3.3.5
Monitoring and evaluation
Monitoring and evaluations have been carried out in a satisfactory manner. The DRP is
reviewed annually and was evaluated at the commencement and conclusion of Phase 1.
All annual reviews and evaluations have indicated so far a high degree of satisfaction
with project implementation.
It was acknowledged as part of the initial project document that this project could be very
useful in establishing benchmarks to gauge performance in relation to quantifiable meas-
ures for water quality improvement projects. During Phase 1, the DRP commissioned a
Mid-Term Evaluation of the DRP
20
report that has recommended a set of monitoring benchmarks, which will be used during
the 2nd phase. At the conclusion of phase 2 it will be useful to consider the effectiveness
of this benchmarking process and whether it can be replicated in other UNDP/GEF Inter-
national Waters focal area projects.
A Tripartite Review (TPR) for DRP was conducted in February 2003 for the period De-
cember 2001 to January 2003. The meeting was attended by ICPDR, Hungary, Serbia
and Montenegro, Bulgaria, DEF, UNOPS, UNDP and the DRP team.
UNDP STAP reviews were carried out prior to the launch of Phases 1 & 2. The same re-
viewer authored both, and rendered highly positive reviews concerning the project for-
mulation and likelihood of meeting objectives. Internal financial reviews are carried out
annually by UNOPS, with no financial improprieties reported.
The joint project steering committee / annual meeting format with ICPDR and DRP has
been very useful, reinforcing the assisting role that the DRP plays for the ICPDR, and
saving resources through the combined meeting structure. Interestingly, the series of in-
terviews with country experts highlighted the fact that many who are directly involved in
the ICPDR do not distinguish between DRP and ICPDR activities, but rather view it as a
combined and seamless effort in support of the Danube Convention. The Project Man-
ager manages DRP activities in close cooperation with ICPDR management.
3.3.6
Execution and implementation modalities
Execution and implementation modalities for the DRP are complicated by the rapid po-
litical changes in the region. When the project commenced, it was not a foregone con-
clusion that half way through there would be four new DRB members of the EU; nor was
there any certainty that all of the countries of the former Yugoslavia would be in a posi-
tion to effectively cooperate within the ICPDR. One of the great successes of the DRP
has been its elasticity, providing support and assistance to the ICPDR amidst the chang-
ing political landscape.
The DRP is well managed by its Project Manager Ivan Zavadsky who brought to the pro-
ject an excellent background with respect to Danube issues, having participated in the
development of the convention as a Slovak environmental official. The 6-member pro-
ject team, based at the Vienna International Center, is comprised of a seasoned and capa-
ble group of experts. The project team for the 2nd phase will change, as a replacement is
now sought for the departing DRP Environmental Specia list, Andrew Garner.
Close attention is paid by the DRP to the quality and outputs of outside consultants. The
DRP has been able to utilize a highly qualified set of experts, who by and large have pro-
duced useful reports and conducted informative workshops. Some slippage has occurred
with respect to completion of consultant reports ( see below section 3-4-1 on attainment
of results) however these delays in completion have not materially impeded project pro-
gress.
3.3.7
Management by the UNDP country office
UNOPS is tasked with ongoing project management and financial issues. The UNDP es-
tablished the original proje ct brief, and continues to exercise its management responsi-
bilities on the technical project aspects, providing scientific and programmatic guidance,
and commenting on work plans prior to approval. The UNDP participates in the twice-
annual project steering committee meetings and there is frequent contact with the DRP
team leader. The management structure from UNDP through UNOPS to the DRP team
has been considered a success. All parties have expressed satisfaction with the arrange-
ments. UNDP has indicated satisfaction with UNOPS management, and both UNDP and
Mid-Term Evaluation of the DRP
21
UNOPS project supervisors have indicated they have the confidence in the DRP staff to
manage the project effectively.
Delays in approval of the 2nd phase Project Document pose a risk to the attainment of ob-
jectives during the 2nd phase. At the date of this evaluation, the DRP had not yet received
funding under the second tranche, despite having submitted the 2nd phase document in
September 2003. It is understood that the DRP was requested to revise the 2nd phase Pro-
ject Document, in particular to include greater emphasis on performance indicators. The
revised Project Document was then reportedly re-submitted within two weeks. It appears
that the delays have been largely incremental in nature, with no one specific issue hold-
ing up the process. The 6-month delay in Project Document approval has had a negative
impact especially on the Small Grants Program. The selected 65 NGO nutrient reduction
projects have been stalled since the beginning of the cale ndar year. For time sensitive
NGO projects, where activities were timed for the spring planting season, this delay
causes major problems.
3.3.8
Coordination and operational issues
Assistance has been given to 11 of the DRB countries (excepting Germany and Austria),
enabling them to participate fully in the ICPDR expert group meetings, and to attend
DRP workshops. A common theme of the stakeholder interviews was an appreciation of
the quality and timeliness of DRP assistance.
All partic ipating countries are expected to increasingly fund their own participation in the
ICPDR, and to actively assist the DRP in providing information and assistance to achieve
expected project outputs. The DRP has been slowly phasing out its direct assistance to
attend meetings, with the expectation that the DRB countries themselves will meet all lo-
gistical expenses for participation, prior to the end of the 2nd phase.
Interviews during the evaluation mission suggest that inputs through the ICPDR expert
group have been variable, with more complete and reliable data from the EU member and
accession countries implementing the WFD. It appears that several of the DRP reporting
efforts have experienced difficulties in obtaining complete and reliable data. For exam-
ple, the impacts and stresses report covering 1.1.2, 1.1.6 & 1.1.7, developed by experts at
Essen University, includes responses from country questionnaires with many omissions.
This suggests either no available data, or insufficient attention from the member coun-
tries, or insufficient follow-up from the consultants. Access to data remains problematic
in many of the DRB countries, with some institutes and ministries reluctant to share in-
formation without compensation.
Restricted access to water quality data posses a real challenge to the DRP and ICPDR. At
issue is the veracity of information published by the DRP on Danube water quality, as
well as successful implementation the Aarhus Convention and the public access provi-
sions of the WFD.
3.4
Results
The results for Phase 1 of the DRP needs to be considered in the context of a unified pro-
ject that was artificially split into two phases due to financial constraints at UNDP/GEF.
3.4.1
Attainment of objectives
Attainment of specific objectives during the project 1st phase is highly satisfactory as
measured against the completion of expected outputs. However, it is unclear at this stage
the extent to which the project has had and will have a demonstrable impact on water
quality and is helping to achieve the overall objective of substantially reducing nutrient
Mid-Term Evaluation of the DRP
22
and other pollutant loadings into the Danube. It is also unclear whether a future eco-
nomic resurgence in the region could boost farm production and exacerbate Danube pol-
lution problems regardless of the assistance that is being provided by the DRP.
The evaluation team received from the DRP team a status assessment, included as Ap-
pendix 5. All 20 identified outputs are nearly or completely achieved.
There are some minor variations between the expected outcomes as indicated in the pro-
ject document, and the attached status list. These include:
ˇ Output 1.1.1 indicates the team should develop a river basin districts map. This out-
put was actually carried out by ICPDR experts. The resources for this activity were
then shifted to reinforce the development of the Danube GIS for output 1.1.5;
ˇ Output 1.5.1 indicates an expectation that the team will update the basin-wide inven-
tory of hot spots. This effort is still incomplete but reportedly soon to be finished.
Delays were reportedly due to difficulties in obtaining data in the countries of former
Yugoslavia. The effort is soon to be completed, with expert input from Serbia &
Montenegro;
ˇ Output 1.5.4 indicates an expectation for identifying gaps between EU and national
legislation concerning BAT. This output has been included in the recently issued
draft final report for objective 1.5, which is soon to be finalized;
ˇ Output 1.8.4 requires that a workshop be organized basin wide to consider the im-
plementation of recommendations for phasing out phosphorus in detergents. The
workshop is still to be held, with the DRP team having taken additional time to select
the proper facilitation assistance for the workshop;
ˇ Output 2.3.3 includes the design of preventative measures for accidental emergency
response after having identified all high-risk accident spots within the basin (2.3.2).
The project consultant , after visiting several sites with the APC small working group
on inventories, developed a checklist and agreed methodology for the design of pre-
ventative measures. Training and implementation using the checklist approach is
planned for the 2nd phase. In particular, the project team has indicated it is develo p-
ing an approach that can be effectively utilized by inspectors to assess high-risk sites;
ˇ Output 2.6 sets out a specific list of training courses. The DRP team has not strictly
adhered to this list, but rather instituted during the 1st phase a needs assessment to
gauge the capacity building priorities in each country. The needs assessment has
been reviewed with the ICPDR to establish a priority list of training activities to be
carried out during the 2nd phase. Training for implementation of the WFD has been
carried out during the 1st phase, as well as facilitator training. In addition to specific
priority training programs, there will be training included as needed for completion of
other project outputs;
ˇ Output 3.3.3 sets an expectation for the publication of scientific papers. The DRP
team have included on its web site many of the technical reports now completed, but
have not specifically published scie ntific papers. It is anticipated during the 2nd phase
that results from pilot projects will lend themselves towards publication;
ˇ Output 4.1.3 sets expectations that the team will have a monitoring system in place
which will utilize specific project indicators (benchmarks) for project implementa-
tion. The DRP received the final consultant report for objective 4.1 in March, 2004.
The DRP, in consultation with ICPDR are now instituting a new monitoring program,
including recommended indicators for process, stress, pressure, status and legal re-
form.
Mid-Term Evaluation of the DRP
23
3.4.2
Sustainability
It is reasonable to assume that after the DRP there will be no further funding from GEF.
As a consequence, the DRP Phase 2 wraps up more than a decade of GEF support, and
elevates post-project sustainability as a key success criterion.
As a result of GEF support, the Danube states have made great strides in achieving the
aims set out in the Danube River Protection Convention. Monitoring and emergency
alert systems are in place across the region, stresses, pressures and hotspots have been
identified, and pilot projects for wetlands restoration, and best agricultural practices are
under development. Of equal importance, there is a stable core of water experts across
the region who are working cooperatively to improve Danube water quality.
Sustainability of the project activities amongst most of the Danube riparian states is
strongly supported by their accession plans for the European Union. It is clear that im-
plementation of the WFD has grown to become a dominant focus of ICPDR and DRP ac-
tivities. This focus exists not only for the EU member states, but also for the accession
states, Romania and Bulgaria, as well as the aspiring states, Croatia, Serbia & Montene-
gro and Bosnia & Herzegovina. Moldova has also indicated its interest to harmonize le-
gal codes with the WFD.
A common legal and regulatory basis for water resource planning and management
among the 13 countries should greatly assist the ICPDR in keeping momentum after the
DRP has concluded. It is noteworthy that a new Water Act has recently been drafted in
Serbia and Montenegro and the Bulgarian Water Act has been s been amended to re-
spond to WFD requirements. The institutionalization of ICPDR and related processes is a
major objective for GEF support in general and the DRP in particular.
WFD harmonization across the basin can ensure sustainability by codifying river basin
management, water quality and public participation requirements at the country level.
Sustainability requires that the merits of improved Danube water quality be accepted and
supported by persons who would not otherwise consider themselves environmentalists.
This poses a challenge for the DRP during phase 2, to expand its outreach efforts to
communicate with farmers and miners and the public at large.
Lower Danube Basin countries, especially non-EU and non-accession countries, are
likely to face difficulties to continue their ICPDR participation at current levels after the
DRP is completed. Consequently, financial sustainability of established structures and
processes of ICPDR should be given highest priority during Phase 2.
The DRP is taking a phased approach towards fading out of financial assistance for ex-
perts to attend ICPDR expert group sessions. Of the initial 11 states receiving logistical
assistance under the project, 4 (Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia) are now
entirely covering their own participation costs. The plan is for this phasing out to con-
tinue so that by the end of the project all 11 states have budgeted sufficient funds for their
ICPDR participation.
3.4.3
The likely sustainability of project interventions
The likely sustainability of specific project interventions is mixed, but on the whole there
is reason to believe much of the work will continue beyond the conclusion of the DRP. In
the following table, each of the specific Phase 1 interventions is considered in terms of
issues that may impact on their sustainability.
Mid-Term Evaluation of the DRP
24
Objective
Output
Sustainability
1 The Creation of
1.1 Development and im-
This is the project intervention that stands the greatest likelihood for long-term sustainability, as the policy
Sustainable Eco-
plementation of policy
setting aspects for water resource management are being driven by implementation of the WFD. However,
logical Conditions guidelines for river basin
setting legislation in place is only the first step. Each of the states must then implement and enforce their
for Land
and water resources man-
legal provisions. Interviews in several of the Danube states suggest that monitoring and enforcement of envi-
Use and Water
agement
ronmental laws are problematic, due to insufficient staff and a lack of rigor in the levying of sanctions and
Management
fines.
The WFD has a fairly extensive set of reporting requirements. The DRP team have been instrumental in co-
ordinating with ICPDR the annual roof reports, to be submitted to the EC, as required under the WFD. It
should be expected that after several years, the national experts, working through the ICPDR, should be able
to effectively meet their reporting requirements, without funding by GEF. There will be a significant effort
required to complete an integrated RBMP for the basin (2009)
1.2 & 1.3 Policies for the
A key issue in terms of sustainability will be the extent to which agricultural best practices for nutrient reduc-
control of agricultural point tion are supported and carried out within the farming community. There is a risk that increasing farm output,
and nonpoint sources of
spurred by EU farm supports, could increase pollutant loading into the Danube, unless improved fertilizer
pollution and pilot pr ojects
and pesticide management is practiced. To date, the DRP activities have been largely aimed towards the en-
on agricultural pollution
vironmental community at the government and NGO level. This stakeholder focus needs to be broadened
reduction.
to directly connect with agricultural interests. As indicated in the DRP report on this subject, focus should be
placed now on the utilization of agri-environmental funds under the EU's CAP (Common Agricultural Pol-
icy , and SAPARD (Special Accession Program for Agriculture and Rural Development), to assist farmers in
developing best agricultural practices.
1.4 Policy develo pment for
At this stage it is difficult to determine whether there will be a sustained effort to rehabilitate wetlands along
wetlands rehabilitation un-
the Danube corridor. The envisioned pilots should help to underscore the filtering, flood controlling, and
der the aspect of appropri-
habitat usefulness of wetlands. The key issue will be whether isolated pilot projects can translate into a
ate land use
widespread effort to protect and rehabilitate wetlands areas. The problem is one of land use competition.
Farming, transportation, industrial and urban development interests have and will continue to compete for
available lands in the flood plain, and many of the Danube states do not have in place legislation that com-
pels these interests to mitigate for wetlands losses.
Mid-Term Evaluation of the DRP
25
Objective
Output
Sustainability
1.5 Industrial reform and
Industrial reform and the application of BAT among the Danube states are being driven by EU membership.
development of policies
Member states and accession countries are required to harmonize their legislation with the Integrated Pollu-
and legislation for the ap-
tion Prevention and Control Directive (IPPC) and the Seveso II Directive. Sustainability should therefore be
plication of BAT (best
greatly assisted by the accession goals of most Danube countries.
available techniques, in-
cluding cleaner technolo-
The interventions to date in this area include a workshop and a report on the implementation of BAT in the
gies) towards reduction of
Danube region (draft Final recently submitted). In addition major pollution hot spots have been delineated.
nutrients (N and P) and
Sustainability depends very much on identifying practical techniques and implementing them at these spe-
dangerous substances
cific hot spots. The key drivers will be the regulatory requirements in place, coupled with financial assis-
tance. During the evaluation interviews, repeatedly raised were concerns about needed improvements in
mine management in the region, especially in Romania.
1.6 & 1.7 Assessments and
The DRP interventions have so far been useful in developing financial models for use in the Danube states
development of water and
and highlighting the basket of options that municipalities can consider with respect to water and wastewater
wastewater tariffs and ef-
funding. The DRP has also continued the important effort of capacity building in the area of environmental
fluent charges focused on finance.
nutrient reduction and con-
trol of dangerous sub-
The WFD sets out an expectation, but not obligation, that states will work towards full cost recovery. It will
stances
be up to each state, and to the municipalities themselves, to set tariffs and effluent charges as they see fit.
The pilot projects envisioned should help improve municipal financial management in these munic ipalities,
and it will be important to communicate the le ssons learnt along the Danube corridor.
Sustainability will depend on the extent to which financial assistance (national and international) to build and
upgrade systems is made contingent on improved utility management and better cost recovery.
2 Capacity build-
2.1 Inter-ministerial coor-
The DRP is worked with the ICPDR secretariat and heads of delegation (HOD) to assess and establish inter-
ing and rein-
dinating mechanisms for
ministerial coordination in each of the Danube states. The 1st steps are in place the current status review has
forcement of
nutrient reduction and pol-
been done, and the states have been offered assistance 5 countries (Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Slo-
transboundary
lution control
vakia and Slovenia) have indicated they are all set in terms of inter-ministerial coordination. The other 6
cooperation for
have requested assistance. The sustainability of this effort will be determined by the objectives of political
the improvement
leadership in each state, as well as the legal changes underway due to EU membership (reporting and public
of water quality
access to information requirements).
Mid-Term Evaluation of the DRP
26
Objective
Output
Sustainability
and environ-
2.2 Operational tools for
The DRP has provided important assistance, especially to calibrate laboratory analysis across the states, to
mental
monitoring, laboratory and
ensure quality and consistency. Several key issues arise in terms of sustainability. One relates to the lack of
standards in the
information management
proper government laboratory and monitoring facilities among some Danube states. A second is the financial
DRB
with particular attention to
difficulties faced by the national institutes, whose budgets for water quality research have been slashed since
nutrients and toxic sub-
the early 1990's. A third is the competition between ministries and institutes in many states for the authority
stances
(and funding) to lead the monitoring and analysis efforts.
2.3 Improvement of proce-
The emergency response system is now in place, and should be well positioned to continue after the conclu-
dures and tools for acciden-
sion of the DRP. The system is internet and GSM based, and relies on communications at the expert level for
tal emergency response
pollution alerts. During the mission interviews it was indicated that work is still needed to calibrate the flow
with particular attention to
model for specific sections of the Danube. Also, there have been no simulations done to gauge state reac-
transboundary emergency
tions in the event of a major pollution disaster.
situations
2.4 Support for reinforce-
DANUBIS should be running smoothly when the DRP concludes. It will be up to the member states them-
ment of the ICPDR infor-
selves, through the ICPDR, to provide the necessary operational budget for the system to stay current and
mation system (DANUBIS) continue adding features. The DRP assistance for hardware upgrades has been very helpful. Continuing up-
grades, and especially increasing access rates and bandwidth may be challenges after the conclusion of DRP.
2.5 Implementation of the
The DRP has made efforts together with the ICPDR secretariat to improve cooperation with the ICPBS. The
Memorandum of Under-
MOU requires a common Analytical Quality Assurance (AQA) system gets set in place, that input loads and
standing between the
ecological status are assessed annually, that strategies are developed for economic development which reduce
ICPDR and the ICPBS re-
nutrient and other pollutant loading, and that the joint efforts be reviewed in 2007. The ult imate goal is to
lating to the discharge of
roll back pollution loadings into the Black Sea equal to levels in the 1960's.
nutrients and hazardous
substances to the Black Sea From the DRP side, there should be little difficulty in establishing a joint AQA system and providing annual
assessments. Sustainability rests on the monitoring efforts at the ICPBS ands more importantly, on the ef-
forts of the Danube and Black Sea states to implement non-polluting economic strategies. Close cooperation
with the ICPBS can continue beyond the conclusion of the DRP, however that does not ensure the MOU can
be fulfilled, as success must be measured in terms of reduced nutrient and other pollutant loadings.
Mid-Term Evaluation of the DRP
27
Objective
Output
Sustainability
2.6 Training and consulta-
The series of training and consultation workshops have been well appreciated and viewed as useful and in-
tion workshops for resource formative by the participants. Continuation of such training and consultations is unlikely without the DRP,
management and pollution
unless other multilateral or bilateral funding is found.
control with attention to
nutrient reduction and
Sustainability requires also that the audience for such workshops is enlarged to include agricultural interests.
transboundary issues
3: Strengthe ning
3.1 Support for instit utional DRP support has resurrected the Danube Environmental Forum. The DEF is now a formal organization,
of public involve-
development of NGOs and
with branches in each Danube state. The DEF was assisted under the GEF's previous Danube program, but
ment in environ-
community involvement
the organization dramatically decreased its activities after GEF funding ended. A key question will be
mental decision
whether at the end of this next (and last) GEF Danube support, it can stand on its own. A good sign in this
making and rein-
direction is that the DEF has recently succeeded to obtain additional funding from the European Commis-
forcement of
sion.
community ac-
tions for pollution 3.2 Applied awareness rais- NGO support and community involvement is also to be provided through the Regional Environmental Center
reduction
ing through community-
(REC). The REC has managed for DRP the identification of 65 NGO small grants recip ients. These 1st set
and protection of
based Small Grants Pro-
projects have been delayed pending release of Phase 2 funding. A 2nd set of small grants is also expected. It
ecosystems
gram
is difficult to assess yet whether some or many of the NGO `s receiving small grant support will be able to
continue their nutrient reduction projects without DRP funding. It is also difficult to ascertain whether the
projects implemented will have a lasting impact on agricultural practices in the areas where they occur. The
objective for DRP phase 2 sets out an expectation that 80% of the projects will be "sustainably successful".
It will be important for the DRP team to determine how this is to be measured.
A positive aspect of the small grants bidding procedure has been the requirement that proposals utilize proper
bid documentation, including logical frameworks, with REC and DEF assistance in how to develop these
documents. This should provide the grants recipients with useful training for future grant biding opportuni-
ties.
3.3 Organization of public
Public awareness raising has so far been through the publication of brochures, the DRP web site and the ini-
awareness-raising cam-
tial launch of Danube Day. Obviously the dedicated web site and brochures will fade out at the end of GEF
paigns on nutrient reduction funding, recognizing of course that ICPDR has its own web site and the publication Danube Watch. Danube
and control of toxic sub-
Day holds potential to become a popular fixture for public attention, assuming in subsequent years the cele-
stances
brations can be replicated along the entire Danube.
Mid-Term Evaluation of the DRP
28
Objective
Output
Sustainability
Objective 4: Rein-
4.1 Development of indica-
An initial report on indicators has been developed and is being applied within the DRP. Sustainability will
forcement of
tors for project monitoring
depend on such indictors being used by the ICPDR and member states.
monitoring,
and impact evaluation
evaluation and
information
4.3 Monitoring and assess-
Wetlands construction and restoration takes time, and the results of measures adopted may not be fully as-
systems to control ment of nutrient removal
sessed for 5-10 years. This creates a challenge for the several pilot projects to be launched during the second
transboundary
capacities of riverine wet-
phase. There will need to be continued support beyond the end of the GEF project.
pollution, and to
lands
reduce nutrients
and
4.4 Danube Basin study on
The pollution trading activity has not yet commenced. Interviews during the project mission suggest there is
harmful substances pollution trading and corre- a great deal of skepticism over how nutrient trading would work along the Danube. It is also noted that one
sponding economic instru-
of the ICPDR members (Austria) has indicated its opposition to the use of pollution trading for nutrient re-
ments for nutrient reduction duction. Skepticism and outright opposition notwithstanding, the DRP together with the ICPDR are obtain-
ing the kind of monitoring data that could enable a trading scheme to be instituted.
Mid-Term Evaluation of the DRP
29
3.4.4
Contribution to upgrading skills of the national staff
DRP phase 1 efforts can be considered satisfactory in terms of skills upgrading. Inter-
views with ICPDR country experts highlighted great appreciation for the skills and
knowledge transfer provided via the DRP through workshops, expert input and project
reports. In particular, the assistance given on implementation of the WFD has been sin-
gled out.
It has been noted earlier that the DRP team took a different approach to training than
was specified in the Project Document. The Project Document specified in output 2.6 a
series of specific training efforts, for instance including training for innovative waste-
water treatment techniques. The DRP team rightly requested and received approval to
first identify the training needs in the region and then to establish a revised training
program. A revised training regime is set out in the Phase 2 Project Document, which
more accurately reflects needs within the region. It is also recognized that training is
considered and included in each of the other expected outputs.
Participation of member government officials to DRP and ICPDR activities has without
a doubt increased the skills of national staff to not just participate, but to effectively
function and cooperate in an international organization. There are clear signs that this
experience and know-how is being utilized in the daily work of those who are part of
the EGs as well as their colleagues.
Mid-Term Evaluation of the DRP
30
4
RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1
Corrective actions for the design, implementation, monitoring and evalua-
tion of the project
As noted earlier, the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the project
are generally satisfactory, and no major changes are needed, assuming that the new in-
dicators for project management and evaluation are carried out.
4.2
Comments and recommendations on the current proposed activities for pro-
ject Phase II
ˇ A critical issue for phase 2 will be how to deal with the budget shortfall resulting in
the EUR strengthening against the USD, which may see as much as 30 per cent re-
duction in de facto available budget for phase 2. There will need to be cutbacks in
some phase 2 project efforts to bridge this gap. The evaluation team recommends
that a meeting be set up to discuss this matter, with DRP, ICPDR, UNDP and
UNOPS representation. The meeting attendees should prioritize project outputs and
establish a worst-case scenario on cutbacks that may be required. The workshop
could be held just prior to the ICPDR annual meeting, with the results then commu-
nicated to member HODs at the annual meeting.
Sustainable Ecological Conditions
ˇ To achieve project objectives it would be useful for the DRP to identify and pro-
mote agro-environmental support mechanisms under the Common Agricultural Pol-
icy (CAP) and the SAPARD program. EU enlargement may well trigger a resur-
gence in farm production along the Danube, with resulting increased nutrient load-
ings. Many farmers are not aware of opportunities through the agricultural support
mechanisms to reduce pollution by improving on-farm practices.
ˇ The wetlands rehabilitation and appropriate land use outputs (1.4), are well consid-
ered. Attention should also be paid to mixed-use opportunities and compensation is-
sues, recognizing that wetlands rehabilitation can restrict economic opportunities
for landowner. Lessons learnt in the US and elsewhere on the implementation of
conservation easements, and mit igation requirements for building in wetlands,
should be studied. Cost and benefit analyses should be part of the pilot rehabilita-
tion efforts.
ˇ Decisions need to be made as to the future thrust of the industrial pollution objec-
tive (1.5), as there has not been a clear consideration of what is to be achieved. Dur-
ing phase 1, the initiative has considered industrial pollutants in general and the cur-
rent status of governmental actions, largely based on implementation of EU direc-
tives (WFD, Dangerous Substances, IPPC, Seveso II). The outputs identified for
phase 2 continue this general approach, including developing a legal gap assessment
and providing country-specific recommendations on legal measures. As an addi-
tional note, the final report for Phase 1 output 1.5 recommends establishing a multi-
year assistance effort for industrial pollution reduction program deve lopment in the
lower Danube countries. The current and proposed activities are not aimed specif i-
cally at the DRP's central focus - nutrient reduction, and they fail to account for ef-
forts already underway in the EU accession states to transpose EU industrial pollu-
tion legislation. We suggest a narrowing of the scope, to specifically focus on nu-
trient loading, and the major industrial point sources within the Danube basin that
contribute significant nutrient and phosphorous loading (e.g. large scale agriculture,
Mid-Term Evaluation of the DRP
31
food processing, pulp and paper, detergents). Taking a more narrow sectoral ap-
proach would allow more effort to be directed towards identifying existing problem
sites, and researching and presenting BAT options for the specific sectors and sites.
Such an effort would lend itself towards additional piloting efforts, and recom-
mended investments. This effort should build from data developed under output 2.2
(emission analysis from point and non-point sources of pollution with particular at-
tention to nutrients and toxic substances)
ˇ The workshop to discuss with industry the phase out of phosphate detergents (1.8)
was originally planned for Phase 1, but has been carried over to Phase 2 as a result
of the prolonged search to find the proper facilitation. This initiative holds the
greatest promise for enabling the DRP to meet one of the overall project objectives -
to substantially reduce phosphate loadings into the Danube, and thereby reduce the
problems of eutrophication in the Danube delta and Bla ck Sea. It needs to be given
high priority during Phase 2, with consideration given both to regulatory and volu n-
tary mechanisms.
ˇ Several interviews during the evaluation mission highlighted questions concerning
the nutrient trading project. Some have suggested it is not a viable option for the
region, and one participating country (Austria) has reportedly indicated its oppos i-
tion to the idea. Evidence from the US experience in SO2 trading, and limited nutri-
ent trading (Chesapeake Bay) suggest that the idea of pollution credit trading has
merit if carefully applied. When dealing with a shared water such as the Danube,
nutrient loading is a collective problem resulting in degradation out to the Black
Sea. If a certain percentage of nutrient reduction can be achieved at high cost
through tertiary treatment and de-nitrification at an upstream wastewater treatment
plant, while the same nutrient reduction levels can be achieved at substantially
lower cost through improvements in farm manure management downstream, then a
trading program can offer cost effective opportunities. We recommend that the ef-
fort be continued, but recognize it may be a low priority for the DRP. The Project
Brief indicates that the DRP is committing no funds to this output during the 2nd
phase, with all financing coming through the ICPDR. This suggests no DRP in-
volvement, and only limited consultant assistance, which may ensure that little is
achieved. The activity either needs to be run properly, or then taken off the list of
expected outputs.
Capacity Building & transboundary cooperation
ˇ The Phase 2 project brief assumes the setting up of inter-ministerial committees has
been completed during Phase 1. In fact, this effort is incomplete and several coun-
tries have asked for continuing assistance with establishing inter-ministerial com-
mittee structures. The inter-ministerial committee development effort is an impor-
tant output, requiring attention and financing still during the 2nd phase, and special
emphasis needs to be placed on engaging agr icultural interests.
ˇ The river basin planning efforts that the DPR is spearheading for the region can
provide great opportunities to establish more holistic and sustainable land use pla n-
ning for the region. This will require that plans get designed not only to improve
water quality, but also to stimulate economic development and employment oppor-
tunities. The economic benefits of a clean and healthy Danube river system need to
be tangible for inhabitants to change behaviors and support costly improvements.
The DRP during phase 2 will continue its work to complete the outputs under 1.4,
dealing with wetlands and appropriate land use. Meanwhile, to complete section
1.1 the team will be working to develop an economic analysis of the region, consis-
tent with WFD requirements for establishing the Danube RBMP. Within these two
efforts there should be room to engage with spatial and regional planners in the
countries to consider how economic development aims and environmental protec-
tion aims can be reconciled.
Mid-Term Evaluation of the DRP
32
ˇ Consideration should be given to how the DRP can increase assistance to the
ICPDR and DABLAS task force in the prioritization, pre-feasibility preparation,
and dissemination of information on investment projects for nutrient reduction.
The ICPDR has drawn up a list of priority projects for nutrient reduction, within the
Joint Action Program. Based from inputs of the 13 countries, it indicates that
among 158 identified projects, 45 are fully funded with a total of 622 mil. EUR.
The investment needs for the remaining 113 projects is 2,567 mil. EUR, of which
2,121 mil. EUR are not yet secured. Interviews during the evaluation mission hig h-
lighted that some IFI's are not cognizant of the basin-wide work done by DRP and
ICPDR to identify nutrient reduction projects. The DRP Team Leader has indicated
plans for a stock-taking meeting with persons in charge of the World Bank In-
vestment Fund activities in the region. Stock-taking meetings should also be set up
with other IFI's, including persons managing EC investment instruments such as
ISPA and SAPARD in the lower Danube countries.
ˇ Opportunities exist with current technologies to make the DRP and ICPDR web
sites more interactive and user friendly. Real time information on flow rates, te m-
perature and water quality can be attached. Real time video footage of beautiful
and historic places along the river can now be viewed on line. Towards the end of
the DRP, the project's dedicated web site will need to phase down, with information
transferred into the ICPDR site.
Strengthening of public involvement
ˇ Public awareness raising is an important objective during Phase 2. At this stage,
the public awareness efforts have focused on the usual media package: create a se-
ries of brochures and develop a web site that provides static information. The DRP
working with the ICPDR have the potential to do much more. Two planned initia-
tives are especially promising. First there is Danube Day, which is to take place
annually, and has the potential to become a major media event in many if not all of
the Danube countries, especially those with a major city along the banks of the Da-
nube. The first year's events are centered in Vienna. It is recommended that a me-
dia package gets developed to help local efforts in each participating country.
While the themes may be environmentally focused, the emphasis should be on
events, activities and fun, to bring people out to celebrate the Danube.
ˇ The public participation activities of ICPDR are supported partly by DRP and
partly funded by ICPDR. During the DRP Phase 1, ICPDR has prepared the Da-
nube Basin Strategy for Public Participation in River Basin Management Planning
2003-2009 and ICPDR Operation Plan to Ensure Public Participation in Imple-
menting the EU WFD on the Basin Wide (roof) Level. Both relevant and valuable
papers outlining roof level public participation efforts with long-term perspective.
During the DRP phase 2 ICPDR should gain further understanding on financing
possibilities of these activities including other ongoing public awareness activities
such as Danube Watch-magazine and Danube Day-initiative, both being activities
where private interest to participate could be attracted.
ˇ Several questions were raised during the interview regarding the large amount of
funding directed towards the public participation and access to information output
(3.4) which accounts for more than USD 1.7 million in GEF funds and just under
USD 3 million in ICPDR costs. It is understood that this subproject was initially a
stand-alone initiative that was added to the DRP because of the close correlation be-
tween it and other DRP objectives. This initiative can be very useful if it takes a
country-level and practical approach.
ˇ For the new member states and accession countries, they are wrestling with public
access and reporting requirements across dozens of new statutes. Signatories to the
Aarhus Convention have additional obligations. Establishing the proper mecha-
nisms both legal and practical, to meet these obligations presents a real challenge
Mid-Term Evaluation of the DRP
33
for participating countries that the project can help to meet. One particular problem
faced in many states is the lack of public access to, and participation in, not just spa-
tial and regional planning but also to Environmental Impact Assessment processes
for new development projects affecting them indirectly or directly.
4.3
Actions to follow up or reinforce initial benefits from the project
ˇ UNDP/GEF should remain steadfast in winding up their Danube support effort at
the conclusion of the DRP. However it is important to note that this constitutes a
several million dollar a year loss of support towards achieving the goals and obje c-
tives of the Danube River Protection Convention. The ICPDR should already now
be considering strategies for how it will proceed once the DRP concludes in 2007.
ˇ Project assistance will be needed from multilateral and bilateral funders for specific
pollution reduction measures, especially to deal with long standing problems such
as insufficient wastewater treatment systems, inadequate construction of mine tail-
ing ponds, and poor manure handling at animal feedlots. Additional funding will
be required to expand wetland rehabilitation and flood plain habitat preservation.
ˇ Special projects should be considered to expand agro-environmental cooperation,
with the aim to successfully boost local farm economies without contributing to
degradation of water quality. Phase 2 plans to have launched two tranches of NGO
small grant assistance projects for nutrient reduction. Those with the potential for
successful continuation, expansion and or replication should be further assisted. An
important task for the DRP team, assisted by the REC and DEF will be to identify
future funding sources for these projects.
ˇ Based on the results of the Phase 2 Iron Gates reservoir assessment (output 4.2)
there will likely need to be consideration for specific funding to address the series
of problems present, including substantial deposits of contaminated sediments, silt
and debris build which is eroding impoundments, and the impact of variable out-
flows on downstream aquatic species.
4.4
Proposals for future directions underlining main objectives
An important aspect of pollution prevention in the Danube basin is not being suffi-
ciently addressed directly through the DRP or through other bilateral and multilateral
support mechanisms. This aspect is the effective enforcement of environmental legisla-
tion once enacted into statute. The last 6 years have seen a plethora of new environ-
mental laws enacted in a majority of the DRB countries, to harmonize with the EU Ac-
quis. In many of these countries, inspection and enforcement mechanisms, and corre-
sponding legal and court structures, are inadequate to ensure compliance; and the com-
plexity is growing, as the IPPC directive requires that integrated permitting be estab-
lished for major pollution sources. An important future direction for the ICPDR, in
conjunction with EU structures, should be to assist participating countries as they strive
to improve enforcement measures.
Mid-Term Evaluation of the DRP
34
5
LESSONS LEARNED
Insights gained through the implementation of the DRP may be valuable elsewhere in
the GEF portfolio of projects focused on International Waters (IW) and the operations
program OP8. Lessons learnt include:
ˇ The quality and capability of the project team is paramount. If experienced and tal-
ented people are managing the effort, the chances of success are greatly improved.
ˇ Success requires close cooperation between the assisting project team and the
ICPDR executive secretariat. If one or the other parties is reluctant to share infor-
mation or work towards consensus, the project is imperiled. Peer to peer relatio n-
ships between project staff and key stakeholders can be instrumental to meeting ob-
jectives.
ˇ A common basis for participation in transboundary water commissions needs to be
achieved amongst all participating countries even if it means outside funding is used
to ensure the participation of all countries in expert working groups. A related as-
pect is that stability and consistency of expert group personnel is essential, The
same group of qualified experts, showing up consistently, has ensured a high quality
of outcomes for the ICPDR.
ˇ If countries receive assistance to attend meetings, such assistance should be phased
out during the course of the project to build sustainability.
ˇ Replication opportunities should be very much considered with respect to the coor-
dinated assistance given on implementation of the water framework directive.
While the WFD is region specific (Europe), the process underway to harmonize le-
gal frameworks can also be considered in other regions.
ˇ At the conclusion of the project it will be useful to ascertain the outcomes of the
small grants assistance program to NGO's for nutrient reduction. The effort may
hold real promise as a model to increase the effectiveness of environmental NGO's
working on water resource issues and to direct their energies specifically to work
with agricultural and other commercial / industrial interests to implement pollution
reduction measures.
ˇ When developing small grants programs in the future, attention should be given to
minimizing the management structures involved. In the current configuration, man-
agement authority passes from the UNDP to UNOPS to the DRP to the REC and
then dispensed to the grant recipients. This presents a large overhead structure for
the dispensation of funds.
ˇ Logical Frameworks are the building blocks to effective project management, ena-
bling the team to link objectives to outputs, verifiable indicators, timing, budgets
and risks. The DRP efforts to establish a more robust project monitoring program,
using environmental benchmarks, should create useful planning tools to be incorpo-
rated into future water resource project LFAs.
ˇ Where possible, arrangements should be made to launch and conduct international
water projects in a single phase, or then establish an abbreviated approval process
for the second phase in order to avoid long and debilitating financial gaps;.
ˇ Mid term evaluations should be done prior to the approval of 2nd phase project
briefs, so that resulting recommendations can be fully taken into account for the
second phase.
Mid-Term Evaluation of the DRP
35
5.1
Best /worst practices in addressing issues relating to relevance, performance
and success
Best practices include:
ˇ The DRP is the product of a long-term UNDP/GEF presence in the region and the
Project Document was the result of a participatory logical framework and project
planning process, which has enabled successful project implementation.
ˇ There are excellent levels of communication and cooperation exhibited by the DRP,
with respect to the ICPDR and the beneficiary countries.
ˇ Experience from earlier GEF assignments has been carried over to the DRP result-
ing in professional management of workshops and the dispensation of funds.
ˇ Attention given to NGO development in the region has been addressed through ex-
isting (REC and DEF) organizations, strengthening their capacities to become self-
sustaining organizations that are well placed to foster growth of civil society aware-
ness and activity in the member countries.
ˇ The flexibility in DRP design, execution and implementation modalities has al-
lowed the DRP to adjust it's content to match the changing political environment,
such as welcoming Serbia and Montenegro to become an active member and most
importantly providing the ability to utilize UNDP/GEF funding to assist countries to
implement the WFD.
Mid-Term Evaluation of the DRP
36
11-13 Chemin des Anémones, 1219 Châteleine-Genčve
Postal Address: Palais des Nations, CH-1211 Genčve 10
Consultants' Terms of Reference
For the Mid -term Independent Evaluation of the
Danube Regional Project
Strengthening the Implementation Capacities for Nutrient Reduction and
Transboundary Cooperation in the Danube River Basin RER/01/G32
1.
Introduction & Background
The long-term development objective of this GEF International Waters Project is to
contribute to sustainable human development in the DRB and the wider Black Sea area
through reinforcing the capacities of the participating countries in developing effective
mechanisms for regional cooperation and coordination in order to ensure protection of
international waters, sustainable management of natural resources and biodiversity.
In this context, the GEF Regional Project, being divided into two Phases, should support
the ICPDR, its structures and the participating countries in order to ensure an integrated
and coherent implementation of the Strategic Action Plan 1994 (revised SAP 1999), the
ICPDR Joint Action Programme and the related investment programmes in line with the
objectives of the DRPC.
The overall objective of the Danube Regional Project is to complement the activ ities of the
ICPDR required to provide a regional approach and global significance to the development
of national policies and legislation and the definition of priority actions for nutrient
reduction and pollution control with particular attention to achieving sustainable
transboundary ecological effects within the DRB and the Black Sea area.
The Danube Regional Project, in its Phases 1 and 2, shall facilitate implementation of the
Danube River Protection Convention in providing a framework for coordination,
dissemination and replication of successful demonstration that will be developed through
investment projects (World Bank-GEF Partnership Investment Facility for Nutrient
Reduction, EBRD, EU programmes for accession countries etc.).
The specific objective of Phase 1, December 2001 December 2003, is to prepare and
initiate basin-wide capacity-building activities, which will be consolidated in the second
phase of the Project. This second Phase will be implemented from April 2004 April 2007,
building up on the results archived in the first Phase. During the first Phase, altogether 20
project components with 80 activities have been carried out and thus establishing a solid
base for the implementation of Phase 2.
2.
Objectives and scope of the mid-term evaluation
The objective of the mid-term evaluation is to enable ICPDR, the Government bodies in the
participating countrie s, UNDP-GEF and UNOPS to assess the progress and to take
decisions on the future orientation and emphasis of the project during its remaining time.
The evaluation is an activity in the project cycle which attempts to determine, as
systematically and objectively as possible, the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact
and sustainability of the project. The evaluation will assess the achievements of the project
UNOPS Sept 2002
1
Consultant\Evaluator TOR
against its objectives, including a re-examination of the relevance of the objectives and of
the project design. It will also identify factors that have facilitated or impeded the
achievement of the objectives. While a thorough review of the past is in itself very
important, the in-depth evaluation is expected to lead to detailed recommendations and
lessons learned for the future.
The mid- term evaluation will address the following issues :
Project design
ˇ relevance of project design within the framework of GEF guidelines and global
concern regarding the Danube river basin;
ˇ appropriateness of the project's concept and design to the current economic,
institutional and environmental situation in the target region;
ˇ contribution of the project to the overall development objective as declared in the
Project Document; and
ˇ the likely sustainability of project interventions;
Project implementation
ˇ general implementation and management of the UNDP/GEF project by the PCU in
terms of quality of inputs and activities, adherence to workplans and budgets,
major factors which have facilitated or impeded the progress of project
implementation
ˇ adequacy of management arrangements as well as monitoring and backstopping
support given to the project by all parties concerned;
ˇ institutional set-up through the ICPDR and various Expert groups and the degree
to which it has encouraged full involvement of the countries;
ˇ inputs of the Governments of the Thirteen countries at national and local levels;
ˇ responsiveness of project management to changes in the environment in which the
project operates;
ˇ UNOPS and ICPDR execution;
ˇ co-operation among project partners (UNDP/GEF, Project Team, ICPDR, National
Governments and international and national organisations and NGOs. specifically
with regard to the integration and support of ICPDR
Project impact
ˇ achievements of the project against the original objectives, outputs and activities as
detailed in the project document and the Project Implementation plan;
ˇ awareness of the participating countries regarding project outputs;
ˇ level of ownership of the project by the participating countries;
ˇ commitment of countries to support the ongoing project and ICPDR JAP and EU
WFD implementation;
ˇ likely degree of support from the Countries' Governments in integrating the project
objectives and into their national development programmes and other related
projects, and how well the project fits into their national development policy;
ˇ impacts on policy and strategy of countries;
ˇ project impact on improving the capacity to prepare and implement collaborative,
targeted and effective efforts for the management of the Danube River Basin
ˇ project impact on enhancing inter-agency and inter-ministerial co-operation in each
country and on regional cooperation;
ˇ cooperation among international organisations, NGOs and other stakeholders;
ˇ cooperation with sister projects in the GEF IW portfolio esp. Black Sea Ecosystem
Recovery Project.
ˇ sustainability of the project's impact.
UNOPS Sept 2002
2
Consultant\Evaluator TOR
Final phase of the project
The mid-term evaluation mission will review the current proposed activitites for the
remainder of the project Phase II and provide comments and recommendations.
3.
Methodology
The evaluation will consist of three activities:
ˇ document review
ˇ field visits and
ˇ interviews with individuals who are either affiliated to the project in some way or
who have or might be expected to be impacted by the project.
Document Review
The evaluator(s) shall familiarise themselves with the project through a review of relevant
documents prior to the field visits. These documents include inter alia:
ˇ Project Document, PIP Phase 1
ˇ GEF Project Implementation Review (PIR)(APR) 2002 and 2003
ˇ Minutes of meetings of Steering Committee and Standing Working Group 2002-
2003 (Ordinary Meetings)
ˇ UNDP Handbook for Programme Managers: Results-Oriented Monitoring and
Evaluation
ˇ Information can also be found at the project web site: www.icpdr.org/undp-drp
Hard copies of selected documents, which are not available through the internet, shall be
sent by courier to the evaluator(s) in advance of the mission.
Field visits
The evaluator(s) will visit the participating countries of Hungary, Bulgaria and Serbia and
Montenegro, Vienna for debriefing.
Interviews
The evaluator(s) will carry out interviews with:
ˇ Project Staff (Chief Technical Adviser (CTA) and team.
ˇ Experts from the ICPDR PS
ˇ Selected members of the ICPDR Steering Committee and Standing Working
Groups
ˇ Selected members of the ICPDR Expert Groups
ˇ Representatives of the relevant NGOs, DEF, WWF
ˇ Other constituencies and stakeholders not directly involved in the project who may
have experienced, or may be expected to experience, its impacts.
Although the independent evaluators should feel free to discuss with the authorities
concerned all matters relevant to their assignment, they are not authorised to make any
commitment on behalf of UNOPS, UNDP or GEF.
UNOPS Sept 2002
3
Consultant\Evaluator TOR
4.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Based on the above objectives and methodology, the evaluation mission should provide
conclusions and recommendations, including:
ˇ general recommendations on the implementation of the project
ˇ the degree to which the project objectives have been satisfied
ˇ significant lessons that can be drawn from the experience of the project and its
results, particularly those elements that have worked well and those that have not
ˇ recommendations on further action upon completion of the current project
5.
Mission Report
The evaluation mission will complete the Project Evaluation Information Sheet
(PEIS) according to the existing format and produce a report according to the
structure outlined in the UNDP Guideline for Evaluators. In addition, the final
report should contain at least the following annexes:
ˇ Terms of Reference for final evaluation
ˇ Itinerary
ˇ List of meetings attended
ˇ List of persons interviewed
ˇ Summary of field visits
ˇ List of documents reviewed
ˇ Any other relevant material
As the report is the product of an independent evaluation, it is up to the evaluator(s) to
make use of the information provided during the mission. However, the evaluator is
responsible for reflecting any factual corrections brought to his/her attention prior to the
finalisation of the report. Therefore, in order to ensure that the report considers the view of
all parties concerned, is properly understood, and is factually accurate, it is necessary for
the evaluator to submit draft reports to the project , UNDP/GEF and UNOPS. UNOPS will
revert promptly with collective feedback from project partners in order that the evaluator
may finalise the report.
The final version of the evaluation mission report should be submitted in electronic format
(MS Word) and hard copy to UNOPS no later than June 15th.
6.
Composition of the mid-term evaluation mission
The evaluation will be performed by two internationally recruited consultants. The
consultants will have considerable knowledge and experience regarding GEF IW
operational programme, including water legislation, policy, and EU WFD. A good
knowledge of river basin management issues and relevant scientific understanding and in-
depth experience of project evaluation techniques, particularly of those projects which are
funded by GEF. One consultant will be designated the lead consultant and will be
responsible for the production of the final report.
The consultants shall not have been directly involved in the design or implementation of
the project.
UNOPS Sept 2002
4
Consultant\Evaluator TOR
7.
Indicative mission timetable and itinerary
The duration of the consultancy working days, including travel time, based on the
following itinerary:
Date
Time
Location/Description
Institution
UNOPS Sept 2002
5
Consultant\Evaluator TOR
8.
Contact information
Contact information for DRP, UNOPS and UNDP/GEF:
DRP:
Ivan Zavadsky
Chief Technical Advisor
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Vienna International Centre
D0418, P.O Box 500
A-1400 Vienna, Austria
Tel: +431260605615
Fax: +431260605837
Ivan.Zavadsky@unvienna.org
UNOPS
Andrew Menz, Ph.D
Senior Portfolio Manager
Division for Environmental Programmes
UNOPS
11-13 Chemin des Anemones
1219 Chatelaine, Geneva
Tel. +41 (0)22 917 8556
Fax. +41 (0)22 917 8062
andrewm@unops.org
UNDP-GEF
Mr. Andrew HUDSON
Principal Technical Advisor International Waters UNDP-GEF
Global Environment Facility
United Nations Development Programme
Room FF-1076
One United Nations Plaza
304E 45th Street
New York, NY 10017, USA
Telephone: +1 212 906 6228
Fax: +1 212 906 6998
E-mail: andrew.hudson@undp.org
UNOPS Sept 2002
6
Consultant\Evaluator TOR
ANNEX 2
MISSION ITINERARY
Evaluators:
Mr. Alan Fox, Lead Evaluator
Mr. Antti Rautavaara, Evaluator
Tuesday 13.4.2004
08.30
Mr. Alan Fox arrival to Vienna LH 3530;
09.35
Mr. Antti Rautavaara arrival to Vienna OS 348;
11.00 12.00
meeting with DRP staff;
12.00 16.00
meeting with Mr. Ivan Zavadsky, Project Manager, Danube Regional Pro-
ject (DRP)
16.00 18.00
meeting with Mr. Philip Weller, Executive Secretary, International Com-
mission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR);
Wednesday 14.4.2004
09.00 10.00
meeting with Ms. Monika Kovacova, DEF Secretariat;
10.00 11.00
meeting with Dr. Fritz Holzwarth, Head of Delegation Germany, ICPDR
President 2003;
11.00 12.30
meeting with ICPDR staff: Mr. Karoly Futaki, Info and Admin; Ms. Mi-
haela Popovici, Technical Expert and; Ms. Ursula Schmedtje, Technical
Expert;
12.30 14.00
lunch meeting with DRP staff Mr. Andy Garner, Environmental Specialist
and Ms. Kari Eik, Finance /Administration Officer;
14.00 14.30
teleconference with Mr. Charlie Avis, World Wildlife Fund (WWF);
14.30 15.30
meeting with Mr. Johannes Wolf, DEF Speaker;
15.30 17.00
meeting with Ms. Jasmine Bachmann, ICPDR;
Thursday 15.4.2004
08.35 11.30
travel by train to Budapest, Hungary;
14.30 15.30
meeting with Dr. Ferenc László, MLIM EG, Director of Institute for Wa-
ter Pollution Control, Water Resources Research Centre Plc. (VITUKI Plc)
16.00 17.00
meeting with Ibolya Gazdag, RBM/ECON E SG, VEOLIA Water Hun-
gary;
Friday 16.4.2004
09.30 11.00
meeting with Mr. Gyula Holló, Head of Delegation Hungary, Ministry of
Environment and Water; and Ms. Mária Galambos, Ministry of Environ-
ment and Water
11.00 12.30
meeting with Mr. Peter Kovacs, RBM EG, and Mr. Zsuzsa Steindl, EMIS
EG, Ministry of Environment and Water;
13.30 15.00
meeting with Mr. Georgy Pinter, APC EG, Water Resources Research Cen-
tre Plc. (VITUKI Plc)
15.30 17.00
meeting with Ms. Aureola Ivanova, Deputy Director, and Ms. Entela Pin-
guli, SGP Manager, Regional Environmental Centre (REC);
Annexes 2-5, Mid-Term Evaluation of the DRP
1
Saturday 17.4.2004
reading and report writing;
Sunday 18.4.2004
travel by train to Belgrad, Serbia-Montenegro;
Monday 19.4.2004
09.30 10.30
meeting with Mr. Zdravko Tuvic, former Head of Delegation, Ministry of
Foreign Affairs
11.00 12.45
meeting with Ms. Jovanka Ignjatovic, APC EG, Ministry of Protection of
Natural Resources and Environment
13.30 17.00
meeting with Mr. Milan Dimkic, Director, Jaroslav Cerni Institute and Mr.
Miodrag Milovanovic, Deputy Director, RBM EG, Jaroslav Cerni Institute
Tuesday 20.4.2004
09.30 11.00
meeting with Mr. Nikola Marjanovic, Head of Delegation, Ministry of Ag-
riculture and Water Management Directorate for Water
11.30 12.30
Ms. Emira Maljevic, MLIM EG, Republic Hydrometeorological Service of
Serbia
14.00 15.30
meeting with Mr. Miroslav Spasojevic, National Consultant for DRP, Min-
istry of Science and Environment Directorate of Environment
16.00 18.45
meeting with Ms. Natasa Djereg, Green Network of Vojvodina, Ms. Medve
Agnes, Project Manager, Teras Natural Food Association and Representa-
tive of Regional Environment Centre Serbia Country Office
Wednesday 21.4.2004
travel by flight to Sofia, Bulgaria
Thursday 22.4.2004
10.00 11.00
meeting with Ms. Vania Shopova, National Consultant, Bulgarian Building
and Construction Chamber
11.30 12.00
meeting with Ms. Marietta Stoimenova was cancelled, brief talks with Ms.
Viktoria Gaydarova Administrator of Wetlands Restoration and Pollution
Reduction Project (WRPRP)
14.30 15.00
meeting with Ms. Lise-Lau-Bang Nikolaisen, ISPA Environment, EC Dele-
gation - Sofia
Friday 23.4 .2004
09.30 11.00
meeting with Mr. Nikolai Kouyumdzhiev, HoD of ICPDR, Deputy Minis-
ter, Ministry of Environment and Waters, Republic of Bulgaria
11.00 12.00
meeting with Ms. Violeta Roiatchka, Deputy HoD of ICPDR, State Expert,
Ministry of Environment and Waters, Republic of Bulgaria
12.00 13.00
meeting with Ms. Tsevetelina Ivanova, ECO EG, Ministry of Environment
and Waters, Republic of Bulgaria
13.00 14.00
meeting with Mr. Krasimir Gorchev, EMIS EG, Ministry of Environment
and Waters, Republic of Bulgaria
15.30 16.15
meeting with Ms. Eli Tsvetkova, RBM ECON ESG, Ministry of Environ-
ment and Waters, Republic of Bulgaria
Annexes 2-5, Mid-Term Evaluation of the DRP
2
Saturday 24.4.2004
report writing
travel by flight to Vienna, Austria
Sunday 25.4.2004
report writing
Monday 26.4.2004
08.30 09.00
debriefing with Mr. Ivan Zavadsky, Project Manager, Danube Regional
Project
09.00 09.45
conference call with Mr. Patrick Murphy, Deputy President of ICPDR, DG
Environment, European Commission
09.45 11.00
conference call with Mr. Mark Redmann, International Consultant for 1.2
and 1.3
11.00 12.00
meeting with Ms. Kari Eik, Finance and Administrative Officer, Danube
Regional Project
13.00 14.00
conference call with Mr. Gerhard Sigmund, Vice Chair for ECO EG,
ICPDR
14.00 15.00
conference call with Mr. Tom Owen, International Consultant for 1.5 In-
dustrial reform and BAT
15.00 16.00
conference call with Mr. Glenn Morris and Mr. Andras Kiss, International
Consultant for 1.6 and 1.7 Tariffs
16.00 18.00
debriefing meeting with Mr. Ivan Zavadsky, Project Manager, DRP
debriefing meeting with Mr. Andrew Menz, Principal Portfolio Manager,
UNOPS
Tue 27.4
13.00 15.00
meeting with Mr. Andy Garner, Environmental Specialist, DRP
15.00 17.00
meeting with Mr. Andrew Menz, Principal Portfolio Manager, UNOPS
meeting with Mr. Ivan Zavadsky, Project Manager, DRP
19.15 -
Mr. Alan Fox return flight LH 6337
19.35 -
Mr. Antti Rautavaara return flight O S 347
Annexes 2-5, Mid-Term Evaluation of the DRP
3
ANNEX 3
LIST OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED
1. Vienna, Austria
United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS)
Mr. Andrew Menz, Principal Portfolio Manager
UNDP-GEF Danube Regional Project (DRP)
Mr. Ivan Zavadsky, Project Manager
Mr. Andy Garner, Environmental Specialist
Ms. Kari Eik, Finance and Administrative Officer
International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR)
Mr. Philip Weller, Executive Secretary, ICPDR
Mr. Fritz Holzwarth, Former ICPDR President
Mr. Karoly Futaki, Info and Admin
Ms. Mihaela Popovici, Technical Expert
Ms. Ursula Schmedtje, Technical Expert
Ms. Jasmine Bachmann, Public Relations Manager
Danube Environment Forum (DEF)
Ms. Monika Kovacova, DEF Executive Secretary
Mr. Johannes Wolf, DEF Speaker
Teleconferences with
Mr. Charlie Avis, World Wildlife Fund (WWF)
Mr. Patrick Murphy, Deputy President of ICPDR, DG Environment, European Com-
mission
Mr. Mark Redmann, International Consultant for 1.2 and 1.3
Mr. Gerhard Sigmund, Vice Chair for ECO EG, ICPDR
Mr. Tom Owen, International Consultant for 1.5 Industrial reform and BAT
Mr. Glenn Morris and Mr. Andras Kiss, International Consultant for 1.6 and 1.7 Tariffs
2. Budapest, Hungary
Dr. Ferenc László, MLIM EG, Director of Institute for Water Pollution Control, Water
Resources Research Centre Plc. (VITUKI Plc)
Ms. Ibolya Gazdag, RBM/ECON ESG, VEOLIA Water Hungary
Mr. Gyula Holló, Head of Delegation Hungary, Ministry of Environment and Water
Ms. Mária Galambos, Ministry of Environment and Water
Mr. Peter Kovacs, RBM EG, Ministry of Environment and Water
Mr. Zsuzsa Steindl, EMIS EG, Ministry of Environment and Water
Mr. Georgy Pinter, APC EG, Water Resources Research Centre Plc. (VITUKI Plc)
Ms. Aureola Ivanova, Deputy Director, Regional Environmental Centre (REC)
Ms. Entela Pinguli, SGP Manager, Regional Environmental Centre (REC)
Annexes 2-5, Mid-Term Evaluation of the DRP
4
3. Belgrad, Serbia-Montenegro
Mr. Zdravko Tuvic, former Head of Delegation, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Ms. Jovanka Ignjatovic, APC EG, Ministry of Protection of Natural Resources and Envi-
ronment
Mr. Milan Dimkic, Director, Jaroslav Cerni Institute
Mr. Miodrag Milovanovic, Deputy Director, Jaroslav Cerni Institute
Mr. Nikola Marjanovic, Head of Delegation, Ministry of Agriculture and Water Manage-
ment Directorate for Water
Ms. Emira Maljevic, MLIM EG, Republic Hydrometeorological Service of Serbia
Mr. Miroslav Spasojevic, National Consultant for DRP, Ministry of Science and Envi-
ronment Directorate of Environment
Ms. Natasa Djereg, Green Network of Vojvodina,
Ms. Medve Agnes, Project Manager, Terras Natural Food Association
Representative of Regional Environment Centre Serbia Country Office
4. Sofia, Bulgaria
Ms. Vania Shopova, National Consultant, Bulgarian Building and Construction Chamber
Ms. Marietta Stoimenova was cancelled, brief talks with Ms. Viktoria Gaydarova Admin-
istrator of Wetlands Restoration and Pollution Reduction Project (WRPRP)
Ms. Lise-Lau-Bang Nikolaisen, ISPA Environment, EC Delegation - Sofia
Mr. Nikolai Kouyumdzhiev, HoD of ICPDR, Deputy Minister, Ministry of Environment
and Waters
Ms. Violeta Roiatchka, Deputy HoD of ICPDR, State Expert, Ministry of Environment
and Waters
Ms. Tsevetelina Ivanova, ECO EG, Ministry of Environment and Waters,
Mr. Krasimir Gorchev, EMIS EG, Ministry of Environment and Waters
Ms. Eli Tsvetkova, RBM ECON ESG, Ministry of Environment and Waters
Annexes 2-5, Mid-Term Evaluation of the DRP
5
ANNEX 4
LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
DPR Related Documents:
Project Document (Phase 1) Strengthening the Implementation Capacities for Nutrient
Reduction and Transboundary Cooperation in the Danube River Basin, June 2001;
Project Document (Phase 2) Strengthening the Implementation Capacities for Nutrient
Reduction and Transboundary Cooperation in the Danube River Basin, September 2003;
Project Brief for Danube Regional Project - Strengthening the Implementation Capacities
for Nutrient Reduction and Transboundary Cooperation in the Danube River Basin, 1
September 2000;
UNDP-GEF Danube Regional Project Project Implementation Plan, Phase 1 (2002-
2003), Revision 10.04.2002;
UNDP-GEF Black Sea Ecosystem Recovery Project Project Implementation Plan,
Phase 1 (2002-2004);
UNDP-GEF Danube Regional Project Inception Workshop Report, 6-8 February 2002
Austria;
GEF Council Work Program Submission Project Executive Summary;
UNDP Annual Project Report (APR) UNDP/GEF Project Implementation Report
(PIR) 2003;
Danube Regional Project Tripartite Review (TPR) Report for period Dec 2001 Jan
2003, February 2003;
Status of Project Implementation DRP Phase 1 (as of March 2004);
Checklist for Reports from the DRP Phase 1;
Final Report: Activity 1.1.2 "Adapting and implementing common approaches and
methodologies for stress and impact analysis with particular attention to
hydromorphological conditions":
Activity 1.1.6 " Developing the typology of surface waters and defining the
relevant reference conditions";
Activity 1.1.7 "Implementing ecological status assessment in line with re-
quirements of EU Water Framework Directive using specific bioindica-
tors"
Pilot Project for Promoting Best Agricultural Practice (BAP) in the Central and Lower
Danube River Basin Countries: Concept and Project Proposals,
February 2004, GFA Terra Systems in cooperation with Avalon;
Annexes 2-5, Mid-Term Evaluation of the DRP
6
Final Report: Policies for the Control of Agricultural Point and Non-point Sources of
Pollution and Pilot Project on Agricultural Pollution Reduction (Project
Outputs 1.2 and 1.3)
March 2004, GFA Terra Systems in cooperation with Avalon;
Recommendations for Policy Reforms for the Introduction of Best Agricultural Practice
(BAP) in the Central and Lower Danube River Basin Countries,
February 2004, GFA Terra Systems in cooperation with Avalon;
1st DRAFT of Final Report: "Development of Indicators for Project Monitoring and Im-
pact Evaluation", 12 March 2004, University of Leeuwarden;
Terminal Evaluation Developing the Danube River Basin Pollution Reduction Program
(RER/96/G31), June 1999;
ICPDR Related Documents:
Joint Action Programme for the Danube River Basin January 2001 December 2005, In-
ternational Commission for the Protection of the Danube River / Permanent Secretariat;
Convention on Cooperation for the Protection and Sustainable Use of the Danube River
(Danube River Protection Convention);
Annual Report of the Activities of the ICPDR in 2002;
Strategic Paper for Development of a Danube River Basin District Management Plan,
May 2002, RBM EG, ICPDR;
Danube River Basin Strategy for Public Participation in River Basin Management Plan-
ning 2003 2009, ICPDR, October 2003;
ICPDR Operation Plan to ensure Public Participation in implementing the EU Water
Framework Directive on the basin-wide ("roof") level;
Stakeholder Analysis Workshop, Baden, Austria, December 10-12 2003, by Holger Nau-
heimer, BeraterKompetenz;
Workshop on Public Participation in the Danube River Basin, 4-5 April 2003, Slovakia;
Outline of Part A Roof Report 2004, 22 March 22 2005 by RBM EG, ICPDR;
Outline of Part B National Report 2004, 22 March 2005 by RBM EG, ICPDR;
Summary Report on the 6th Ordinary Meeting of the ICPDR, 1-2 December 2003, Aus-
tria;
Summary Report on the 1st Standing Working Group Meeting of the ICPDR, 12-13 June
2003, Germany;
Annexes 2-5, Mid-Term Evaluation of the DRP
7
Summary Report on the Ordinary Meeting of the ICPDR, 28-29 November 2002, Aus-
tria;
Summary Report on the 7th Steering Group Meeting of the ICPDR, 6-7 June 2002, Czech
Republic;
Agenda of the 7th Steering Group Meeting of the ICPDR, 6-7 June 2002;
Common Platform for the Development of National Policies and Actions for Pollution
Reduction under the DRPC, May 2000, ICPDR;
Status of the Project Implementation DRP Phase 1 (as of March 2003);
List of National and International Service Contractors for DRP;
List of active Non-Governmental Organisations in the Danube basin;
List of Selected Projects for SGP Funding;
Danube Environmental Forum: NGO platform for the protection of the Danube River;
Annual Report on the Activities of the ICPDR in 2002;
Blue Print for the Reorganisation of Water Management in the Republic of Serbia and
Montenegro, Jaroslav Cerni Institute, April 2003;
Other
International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR)
http://www.icpdr.org/pls/danubis/danubis_db.dyn_navigator.show
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
http://www.icpdr.org/undp-drp/
Danube Environmental Forum (DEF)
http://www.de-forum.org
The Regional Environmental Center (REC)
http://www.rec.org/
Terras Natural Food Association (NGO) - Serbia and Montenegro
http://www.terras.org.yu
Danube Watch, The Magazine of the Danube River, ICPDR 2/2003 and 1/2004;
Evaluation and Monitoring Guidelines and Manuals
Handbook on Monitoring and Evaluating for Results, United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP), Evaluation Office, June 2002;
Monitoring and Evaluation Policies and Procedures, Global Environment Facility (GEF),
January 2002;
Annexes 2-5, Mid-Term Evaluation of the DRP
8
Monitoring and Evaluation Indicators for GEF International Waters Projects, Monitor-
ing and Evaluation Working Paper 10, Global Environment Facility (GEF), November
2002;
Integrating Capacity Development into Project Design and Evaluation Approach and
Frameworks, Monitoring and Evaluation Working Paper 5, Global Environment Facility
(GEF), December 2000;
Incremental Costs, GEF/C.7/Inf.5, 29 February 1996;
Annexes 2-5, Mid-Term Evaluation of the DRP
9
ANNEX 5
OVERVIEW OF RESULTS OF THE DRP PHASE 1 (DRP - JANUARY 2004)
Project
Title of Component
Status at the End of Phase 1
Component
Output 1.1
Development and implementation
See specific activities below
of policy guidelines for river basin
management
1.1-2: Develop methodologies for
-
Criteria for significant hydromorphological pressures devel-
stress and impact analysis (hydro-
oped
morphological etc.)
-
Overview report on hydromorphological stress and impact
1.1-6: Develop the typology of sur-
analysis
face waters and define the relevant
-
Proposal (Study) for typology & reference conditions for the
reference conditions
Danube River
1.1-7: Implement ecological status
-
Overview study on existing ecological status assessment and
assessment in line with EU WFD us-
classification systems in the DRB
ing specific bio-indicators
1.1-3: Apply the EU Guidelines for
-
Synthesis and National Reports on availability / quality of eco-
economic analysis and arrive at a
nomic data for water use, data gaps, and existing national ca-
comparative overall economic analy-
pacities to carry out sp ecific tasks of the economic analysis
sis for the Danube River Basin
1.1-5: Develop RBM tools (mapping,
-
Report: Needs Assessment and Conceptual Design for a DRB
GIS) and related data management
GIS
1.1-8: Characterization and analysis
-
Report: Synthesis of Workshop, Analysis of the Results of the
of transboundary groundwater bodies
Groundwater Questionnaires, Findings, Recommendations
1.1-9 Developing RBM Plan in a pi-
-
Work plan for development of the Sava RBM plan
lot project (Sava River Basin)
1.1-11: Organize workshops and
-
Surface Water Workshop held and Report completed
training courses in order to produce
-
Groundwater Workshop held and Report finalized
the River Basin Management Plan
-
Public Participation Workshop held, Report finished including
and to strengthen basin-wide coop-
draft Danube River Basin Public Participation Strategy and
eration
draft ICPDR Operational Plan
Output 1.2
Policies for the control of agricul-
-
Report on agricultural policies and state of enforcement in
and 1.3
tural point and non-point sources
DRB
of pollution and pilot projects on
-
Pesticide and fertilizers and market products and use inventory
agricultural pollution reduction
-
Report on existing situation in policy development and imple-
mentation of BAP in DRB
-
Concept for introduction of BAP
-
Guidelines for manure handling (also in national languages)
-
Criteria and selection procedure for pilot projects and pilot pro-
jects proposal
Output 1.4
Integrated Land Use Assessment
-
Methodology for Integrated Land Use Assessment finalized
and Inventory of Protected Areas
-
Protected Areas Inventory and Map including report completed
-
3 Pilot Sites projects prepared (Case studies on land use in se-
lected pilot areas completed, 3 On-site Stakeholder meetings
held, Concepts for appropriate land use in 3 pilot areas devel-
oped (December 2003))
Annexes 2-5, Mid-Term Evaluation of the DRP
10
Project
Title of Component
Status at the End of Phase 1
Component
Output 1.5
Industrial Reform and the Deve l-
-
Methodology on preparation of inventories of industrial pollu-
opment of Policies and Legislation
tion sources
Towards the Reduction of Nutri-
-
Agreed methodology for determining "hot spots and SIAs"
ents and Dangerous Substances
"Priority Action Areas" (PAA)
-
Report on Outdated Techniques in up to 5 key industries
-
Report on legislative and policy measures and enforcement
mechanisms for industrial pollution control,
-
DRB Report on relevant complementary measures for the in-
troduction of BAT
Output 1.6
Assessment and Development of Wa-
- Reports on institutional capabilities and required arrangements at
and 1.7
ter and Waste Water Tariffs and Ef-
country level
fluent Charges Designs focusing on
Nutrient Reduction and Control of
- Country -specific analysis and assessment on actual tariff and
Dangerous Substances in DRB
charges setting
-
Country -specific potentials, requirements, principles and rec-
ommendations for tariff and charges reforms
- Adequate country-specific set of tools
Output 1.8
Recommendations for the reduction
- Report on the existing legislation, policies and voluntary agreements
of phosphorus in detergents
and on data received from detergents industry
- Develop proposals for accomplishing a voluntary agreement be-
tween ICPDR and the Detergent Industry including proposed
time frame
Output 2.1
Setting up of Inter-Ministerial Co-
- Analysis report of existing inter-ministerial structures and mecha-
ordinating Mechanisms for nutrient
nisms and of activities, competence and capacities of existing
reduction and pollution control
structures
-
Proposal for new structures or for improvement of existing
structures
Output 2.2
Development of operational tools for
-
Report on Environmental quality objectives and standards for
monitoring, laboratory and informa-
nutrients and other Danube specific priority substances
tion management with particular at-
-
Methodological concept for stress and impact analysis comput-
tention to nutrients and toxic sub-
erized application
stances
-
Report on Analysis of the results of the EMIS inventory and
their comparison with TNMN and JDS results with particular
attention to the EU Priority List of Pollutants developed
-
Report on proposals for TNMN upgrade and proposal for SOPs
for new determinants
Output 2.3
Improvement of procedures and
-
Standard forms and communication solution for information
tools for accidental emergency re-
exchange in emergency cases PIACs / ICPDR (using ICPDR
sponse with particular attention to
web site) developed
transboundary emergency situations
-
Discussion paper on ARS Inventory ranking system (method-
ology)
-
Discussion paper for development of basic guidelines and rec-
ommendations for old contaminated sites in potentionaly
flooded areas in DRB
-
Concept paper for on-the-spot training (Case study) on applica-
tion of check list methodologies at national level
-
Study/concept for calibration options and selection of pilot ar-
eas
-
Concept for DBAM calibration
-
Outline for the DBAM calibration manual
Annexes 2-5, Mid-Term Evaluation of the DRP
11
Project
Title of Component
Status at the End of Phase 1
Component
Output 2.4
Support for reinforcement of ICPDR
-
Information System at the central level upgraded
Information System (DANUBIS)
-
New AEWS software implemented, tested and operational
- Report on assessment of national national level prepared, including
recommendations and detailed specifications for equipment
-
Use of DANUBIS at the national level enhanced via 11 na-
tional information trainings
-
Project web page developed and updated regularly
-
Reporting format integrated into DANUBIS
Output 2.5
Implementation of the "Memoran-
-
Joint Technical WG re-established and regular meetings held
dum of Understanding" between the
-
TOR of the Joint Working Group and Work Program agreed
ICPDR and the ICPBS relating to
discharges of nutrients and hazard-
-
Status indicators to monitor nutrient and hazardous substances
transport from the Danube and change of ecosyst. in the Black
ous substances to the Black Sea
Sea developed
-
Reporting procedure defined and agreed upon
Output 2.6
Training and consultation work-
-
Training Needs Assessment Report (Dec. 2003)
shops for resource management and
-
DRB Human Resource Development Plan (Jan. 2004) contain-
pollution control with particular at-
ing Proposed Training Courses defined for:
tention to nutrient reduction and
transboundary issues
i) Effectiveness and efficiency of transboundary institutions i.e.
ICPDR and other key stakeholders (DEF etc.)
ii)
Technical training as needed related to river basin manage-
ment issues
-
Two training courses held (Information Facilitator training and
Facilitation Skills for ICPDR meetings)
Output 3.1
Support for institutional develop-
-
DEF Secretariat established and fully operational
ment of NGOs and community in-
-
DEF Development Strategy & Media/Communication Strat-
volvement
egy prepared
-
DEF brochure prepared in English and in 11 national lan-
guages
-
DEF newsletter established, published bi-annually in national
languages
-
DEF Board Meetings (bi-annually)and General Assembly (an-
nually) held
-
DEF Web-page expanded and translated into different national
languages
-
Training Workshops on Wetland Rehabilitation and Nutrient
Reduction held in 11 countries (Training materials in English
& national language)
-
Preparations for the Publication on DRB Environmental Issues
made
Output 3.2
Applied awareness raising through
-
Regional Grant Progr amme (1st call) Prepared, Announced and
community based "Small Grant
Projects Selected (5 regional projects)
Program"
-
National Grant (1st call) Programme Prepared, Announced,
and Projects Selected (58 projects in 11 countries)
Output 3.3
Organization of public awareness
-
DRB Communication Strategy developed (Dec. 2003)
raising campaigns on nutrient reduc-
-
Brochure on Danube Regional Project produced
tion and control of toxic substances
-
Danube Watch on Public Participation in the DRB published
-
Report: Assessment of the Danube Watch with Recommenda-
tions made
Output 4.1
Development of indicators for pro-
- Scoping Paper on elements to consider in a DRB M & E system
ject monitoring and impact evalua-
tion
- Framework for a general system of indicators including GEF system
as well as other relevant indicator systems (WFD, DPSIR etc.)(
Mar. 2004)
-
Framework for impact indicators to evaluate environmental ef-
fects of policy and programme implementation ( Mar. 2004)
Annexes 2-5, Mid-Term Evaluation of the DRP
12
Project
Title of Component
Status at the End of Phase 1
Component
Output 4.3
Monitoring and assessment of nutri-
- Report including: Guidelines on Methodology for Monitoring Nutri-
ent removal capacities of riverine
ent Removal, Recommendations for Monitoring in identified Pi-
wetlands
lot Areas
Output 4.4
Danube Basin study on nutrient pol-
- Analysis and assessment report regarding existing concepts of pollu-
lution trading and corresponding
tion trading or corresponding economic instruments
economic instruments for nutrient
reduction
- Report on general possibilities for establishing appropriate economic
instruments for nutrient reduction in the DRB
- Report on pollution trading potential and readiness on a country basis
including principles for definition of discharge quotas
- Assessment of general viability of the "pollution trading" concept in
the DRB and recommendations to the ICPDR
Annexes 2-5, Mid-Term Evaluation of the DRP
13