FINANCING PLAN (IN US$):

The Tisza river system is an internationally significant river system, which is seriously degraded and continues to be threatened. The river drains from the Carpathian Mountains into a 157,200 square kilometer area, and is home to some 14 million people. It begins in the territories of Romania, Slovakia and Ukraine as a number of smaller tributaries fed by mountain streams. It flows into the Pannonian flood plain of eastern Hungary and then south into Serbia and Montenegro where it joins the Danube. This river is the main water source for Hungary, a significant source for Serbia and Montenegro and significant for western Romania and southern Slovakia.

This project will build on what has already been achieved through the EU accession process and the EU and GEF support of the ICPDR in implementation of the Water Framework Directive, and the UNDP sustainable development initiatives in the basin. It will take the concept of Integrated River Basin Management further by truly integrating the management of land and water resources, embedding rather than retrofitting conservation and environmental policy into the planning framework.

Project Objectives

B - Country ownership

Only the non-EU countries will receive GEF support all of which are eligible for GEF support: Ukraine, Romania and Serbia and Montenegro. The EU countries of Hungary and Slovakia will be either supported by the EU through the ICPDR or will be self-supporting.

Generally the Tisza Basin is well-persevered landscape with vast complexes of forested areas, and viable populations of many species that are no longer found in Western Europe. The river basin is characterized by pollution hotspots, heavy industries in decline, poor economic development, high levels of unemployment, emerging patterns of regular flooding, and increasing levels of social and ethnic tensions exacerbated by the countries widely varying courses of transition. The condition of the waters is degraded by untreated waste waters from municipal and mining wastes, emissions from declining heavy industry, agricultural runoff, soil erosion, flooding, oil and deforestation in critical riparian habitats. Additionally, the canalization of tributaries, irrigation and draining of critical wetlands has left the Tisza river basin in significantly diminished conditions.

Where river floodplains traditionally supported flood tolerant grasses, water meadows a

nd fishponds, modern agricultural production demands low and tightly regulated water levels and protection from seasonal inundation. This trend has been exacerbated by the availability of arable area, crop intervention payments, and grant aid for drainage, including pumped drainage within floodplains. This has led to the development of arable agriculture that demands low water levels in associated rivers. Flood risks and urban building have also increased within drained floodplains.

In addition to the altered nature of floodplains, the land use of the upper catchment is also crucial to the overall risk management situation. Loss of uncultivated land, especially within the buffer zone of headwater streams, is increasing the speed of runoff, suspended solid and nutrient loads, and producing more unstable catchment behavior, where the retention time of rainfall is reduced, leading to larger flood pulses downstream. Cumulatively, the reduction in upper and mid-catchment water retention leads to more flood events downstream where river channels no longer contain peak water levels, even from minor flood events. Within the Hungarian plain, disruptive downstream flooding and consequent disruption of economic activity has been frequent, and is driving the relevant authorities to greater cooperative efforts to regulate the Tisza, primarily for socio-economic reasons.

National Contexts

Hungary

The Tisza River feeds into the Pannonian flood plain of eastern Hungary. In Hungary, the waters of the Tisza are used for irrigation of agricultural crops through a series degraded canals, and there is a desire to improve conditions to reduce flooding, improve agricultural yields and develop tourism. Agriculture is intensive in the Pannonian flood plain. As a result, river and tributaries are heavily regulated. For irrigation purposes, wetlands have been drained and rivers unbraided, resulting in the Hungarian portion of the Tisza being subject to severe flood damage. Though there have been efforts by international NGOs to mitigate pollution by identifying specific hot spots and lobbying the government, these efforts have not come to fruition. In Hungary, as in many of the Tisza basin states, environmental concerns are secondary to economic demands.

Immediate attention to mitigating flood damages has drawn the focus away from a more holistic and integrated water management strategy. As a result of efforts to reduce flood impacts by building higher dykes and continued regulation, there is a build up of silt within the canals, which inadvertently increases flood risks. Draining of the Tisza wetlands began in the 19^th century and today some 500,000 people – 5% of Hungary's population - live on land reclaimed from the Tisza. In towns and villages near the river, many are used to seeing strong dykes as their only defense against inundation. A new plan to allow floodwaters to flow into meadows planted with indigenous species that have high absorptive capacities, mimicking more natural flood conditions while reducing flood impacts on human settlements is under consideration. Though there is an interest in improving eco-tourism in Hungary, there is also the realization that until water conditions are improved this will be difficult to achieve.

Romania

The Romanian section of the Tisza is probably the most closely studied because of the 2000 cyanide spill. Romania depends on the Tisza for agriculture, industry, mining and domestic purposes. Flooding and pollution from agricultural and industrial and municipal sewerage are recognized as serious concerns. Basin runoff is highly variable and there are periods of drought and flooding that are difficult to forecast and manage effectively. The water pollution in the Tisza river basin is mainly generated by economic activities and accidental wastewater discharges: the Crisul Negru and Crisul Alb tributaries receiving mining waste, Crisul Repede receiving wasterwaters from chemical industries, the Barcau waste from oil drillings and refining industry and the Mures river from municipal sources and mining activities. Industry, specifically the mining for non-ferrous metals, generates much needed income within Romania along the Somes and Mures Rivers^¹ the major Romanian tributaries to the Tisza. However, the environmental dangers involved in these activities continue to raise concerns throughout the region as additional mining sites are established. According to studies, 80% of wastewater discharges are not adequately treated prior to discharge into natural receptors such as rivers in the Romanian Tisza basin.

Above the town of Borsa (Romania), whole hillsides of trees have collapsed because of indiscriminate logging, yet the economic conditions in Baia Borsa are so bleak that there are few other activities except forestry to generate income for local residents. Further downstream, the soils are lacking nutrients and therefore there are high levels of nutrients used in the agricultural industry. The soils are also polluted by heavy metals, and oil as a result of flooding incidents in the lower basin areas. There is also salinzation of soils due to poor irrigation practices. The agricultural production relies on agrochemicals, which runoff into rivers, and ground waters.

Serbia and Montenegro

The Tisza flows through Serbia and Montenegro for 164 kilometers through a catchment area of 8.000 square km. In Serbia and Montenegro, over 90% of all surface waters are from transboundary sources. The use of the Tisza is for waste disposal as for well as some agricultural uses, with high concerns regarding flooding. There is a lack of capacity in water management agencies and a strong need to develop environmental legislation. Further it is in Serbia and Montenegro where the Tisza meets the Danube and hence the risks of flooding are especially high here. International conflict including bombing of industrial sites in the 1990s has impacted the environment of the Tisza as well, though addressing these concerns has not been a top priority for the government. The low capacity in the country combined with the lack of reliable scientific data at present signals the intensity of the need for action in Serbia and Montenegro.

Slovakia

In Slovakia the Tisza river is 18.000 km², and the river basin makes up about 42% of the Slovak Danube basin. The northern part is hilly with high mountains, which are mainly woodlands. Forestry is one of the main economic activities and the intensity of forest management is having negative impacts on the retention capacity of the landscape. In Slovakia the desire for improved water management stems from the need to reduce flooding threats and to improve economic development through better agricultural practices. Additionally, in the lowlands, most streams are canalized, which reduces the flood mitigation efforts.

Ukraine

In Ukraine forestry management is acknowledged to be closely linked to the health of the Tisza river and therefore there has been a moratorium placed on forestry activities in the oblast where the Tisza headwaters are based. The Zakarptska oblast of western Ukraine has high levels of unemployment and thus there has been difficulty enforcing forestry regulations. Ukraine also has the legacy of unrealistically stringent and therefore unenforceable environmental regulations. As a result, the environmental conditions are historically degraded and there is a lack of reliable scientific data on specific regions. There is a need to support improved infrastructure, enforcement capacity and technological developments in this oblast. The Ukrainian Carpathians has been identified as potential area for tourist development, particularly winter sports, and real estate values are increasing.

Ukraine faces significant environmental challenges in water management in the Tisza basin. For instance, it was reported that on 17 September 2003 that a five-kilometer oil slick formed on the river Latorytsya in western Ukraine's Trans-Carpathian region as a result of a Druzhba oil pipeline incident. With no automatic shut off valves, a regional official said the amount released was likely to have been huge given the pumping rate and the pipe's diameter and reported that there was a risk that oil might get into the river Latyrka, the only source of drinking water for the city of Chop, on the Hungarian-Ukrainian border, and 20 other settlements in the region. Though the spill was largely contained, and downstream nations were less impacted, the treatment of such accidents remains an ever-present concern.

C – Program and Policy Conformity

The product will be a River Basin Plan which meets the requirements of the Water Framework Directive while at the same time addressing wider sustainability issues in the water, agriculture, energy, industry and navigation sectors. In a single planning document the project will provide a bridge between the two on-going initiatives, allowing for a deepening and widening the planning scope. However, in the design of this comprehensive Strategic Action Programme (SAP), great care will be taken in defining its bounds, as, if they are too wide, it could undermine the practical implementation. The SAP should be supported by national action plans, which in turn will take their clue from existing national and sectoral development plans. It is anticipated that the development of the SAP will provide the impetus needed to tackle the key issues in the basin which have been not given the regional priority they deserve, although they are acknowledged.

The Tisza basin has been subject to many assessment studies, particularly following the Baia Mare spill, but no concrete actions have resulted at yet from this work. Information on flood risks and flood management and pollution sources, two key issues, will be taken from the work of the Tisza Environmental Forum and the ICPDR Danube Pollution Reduction Programme/EU DABLAS working group respectively. The frustration in the countries is clear and there is a wish to move on beyond the assessment and early planning stages. The new GEF project will be designed to build upon these previous efforts and not to duplicate them. It is envisaged that the TDA stage will not be lengthy, though a formal stakeholder analysis and causal chain analysis should be undertaken. Similarly the SAP/NAP process can be accelerated, building upon the EU roof and national reports to be delivered a part of WFD compliance, utilizing the same technical planning bodies, while extending and deepening stakeholder involvement. It is proposed therefore that the development and promotion of the SAP and accompanying national plans be undertaken during the PDF-B stage. The focus in the PDF -B stage therefore will be the development of the pilot projects and perhaps the trialing of a project, and the formalization in each country of the inter-ministerial committee.

Decentralization of government in many of the Tisza states on the one hand brings fragmentation of the planning process but on the other hand provides an opportunity to introduce the concept of Integrated River Basin Management to a potentially more receptive planning authority, less affected by institutional and sectoral structural constraints. Clear terms of reference for the inter-ministerial committee, including its composition, are required to ensure that it is fit for purpose. The involvement of the Ministry of Finance as well as the other relevant Ministries on the Committee is critical if its decisions and endorsements are to hold and be confirmed at the highest Government level. The current GEF Danube project is working with the basin countries to establish the inter-ministerial committees under the ICPDR, and the new project will work with these committees very closely throughout, making every effort to strengthen them.

Major Threats

The Tisza River drew international attention in 2000 when heavy rains and severe flooding led to the overflow of a dam containing mine tailings laden with cyanide and heavy metals. For days news broadcasts of the devastation dominated the international airwaves as a horrified public looked on. Questions of how could this happen, and who is at fault prevailed while dead fish floated downstream towards the Danube. The shock of this incident highlighted the lack of infrastructure support in Eastern European countries since the collapse of the Soviet era. It also increased the public and international awareness of the need for coordinated efforts. Though this single incident fostered recognition of the initial cause of the spill, there are other interrelated challenges in the Tisza region that must be addressed by all countries through regional prioritization and coordinated efforts. These issues include: threats from flooding; pollution from industry, [including accidental spills], agriculture and municipal wastes; deforestation and associated environmental degradation and loss of biodiversity. These integrated problems must be addressed at a regional level in order to successfully mediate the threats to this unique ecosystem and can be overcome most effectively through integrated water and land use management strategies.

Flooding is a significant threat to the ecosystems of the Tisza River and to the communities settled in this basin. The rainfall in the Carpathian Mountains is substantial, as weather fronts crossing southern Europe and the Mediterranean spill rains into the crescent shaped mountain range. The sudden rains, combined with extensive drainage, floodplain development, deforestation and canalization reduces the ability of the catchment to attenuate the flood wave. When heavy rains occur, the flooding threatens human lives as water levels rise quickly and without sufficient warning. The lack of coordinated mechanisms for mitigating flooding upstream leads to compounded impacts downstream. When flooding occurs, industrial sites, mining areas and dams, agricultural fields, and municipal waste facilities become inundated and spill biohazards into the Tisza waters. The transboundary impacts of flooding are cumulative, especially for those counties further downstream and a coordinated flood mitigation strategy is essential. In order to be effective these measures must be taken throughout the entire river basin and not just on a country by country basis.

Deforestation in the Tisza basin, especially in the tributaries endangers the water quality of the Tisza, impacts the diverse biodiversity of this region and exacerbates and the flooding problem. The loss of forests encourages soil erosion and loss of absorptive capacity during heavy rains. Deforestation in mountainous areas increases the propensity for landslides endangering human settlements. The traditional approach to forestry management focuses on trees rather than ecosystems and as a result the losses of biodiversity can be considerable. The increased economic reliance on forestry has been exacerbated by a decline in opportunities in transitional economic systems. Forestry practices vary from country to country and are not generally addressed in conjunction with water management issues, despite the very close linkages within an integrated ecosystem management framework.

Pollution in the Tisza originates from: agro chemicals, industrial effluents, untreated municipal wastes and mining tailings. These pollutants have resulted in portions of the Tisza River being considered unable to support fish life. Low economic conditions, high unemployment, poor usage of lands, ineffective monitoring and enforcement and the lack of standardized regulations have significantly impacted the river basin ecosystem.

The above threats to the Tisza environment have many underlying causes, including:

The concerned countries recognize the problems regarding River Basin Management in the Tisza. At this time their efforts tend to be fragmented even though they have a guiding policy document in the EU Water Framework Directive and strong institutional and legal frameworks in the form of the Danube and Carpathian Conventions. The Tisza countries need to make better use of these instruments to address the sub-basin problems. The EU member states of Slovakia and Hungary are required by to implement the WFD but cannot fully comply unless the non-EU basin states also comply. The non EU-states include Romania and Ukraine, which are upstream, and Serbia-Montenegro, which is at the bottom of the basin at confluence of the Tisza with the Danube. These non-EU states are committed to implementation of the WFD, along with much of the EU environmental acquis, but the implementation is likely to be slow. It is understood that the EU is not considering including Serbia and Montenegro and Ukraine in the EU enlargement process in the short or medium term. Therefore it is expected that the implementation of the EU WFD will be a long term processes in the Tisza basin. This delay is in part due to the lack of institutional and economic capacities of the non-EU countries to prioritise and address water management issues. It should be noted that even in the EU countries the implementation of the WFD focuses is on the water sector and Integrated River Basin Management is not fully practiced. Also, the participatory approach of multiple stakeholder groups is not practiced, except through the consultation process required by the WFD.

The ICPDR has thirteen member states and has made immense efforts in the last ten years to tackle the major problems of pollution on the River Danube; the organisation is now turning its efforts to implementation of other aspects of the Joint Action Programme including integrated river basin management planning. The Carpathian Convention has specific articles addressing sustainable and integrated river basin management and sustainable agriculture and forestry, which should be called upon in support of implementation of the GEF project and subsequent SAP.

International assistance has not helped this situation. Though there are many initiatives they have overlapping goals. These lack significant coordination with different regional and national champions. This further complicates efforts due to a myriad of projects that risk becoming competitive in the region, which has a dire need for cooperation. The situation is not intentional, and has developed largely out of a desire to assist this region. There is an urgent need for an implementable action plan to address key transboundary issues in the basin. This must be a joint plan to which all countries are committed.

The UNDP, the EU, the ICDPR and the Carpathian Convention recognize the impasse in the Tisza basin and have observed the frustration in the countries and the local communities that little is being done to address the key transboundary issues. They also admit that this problem is in part of their own making. This project will help build a common legal, institutional and planning framework, capable of attracting the national funding required to tackle the transboundary issues. It will dispel the myth that the EU will and can fund all the improvements. The project will enforce the need for proper regulation and compliance with standing legislation. Building on the WFD the project will encourage greater integration of inter-sectoral policy and planning, and wider and deeper stakeholder participation. The project will assist in implementation of the Tisza SAP and JAP that will then continue to develop, supported by the ICPDR, to tackle transboundary issues at the baseline and the regional level. Other international assistance efforts can also be included in this coordination effort and can develop more harmonious regional assistance.

The implementation of an initial transboundary demonstration project at the PDF-B stage will provide valuable information in the design of the full sized project demonstration projects, in terms of what can and cannot be done at the community level and, hopefully, begin to answer how basin wide sustainability criteria can be interpreted at the local level. It also should help answer whether sustainable development and economic improvements can be achieved in parallel, without accompanying relatively high levels of investment.

Why should GEF get involved at all?

This project will give an opportunity to meld the outputs of five existing GEF projects to a single land and water management use project platform. There will be significant crossover between the GEF biodiversity and the International Waters portfolios with the potential for significant synergies and perhaps ideas for new, more effective project design. The linkage to the UNDP Carpathian-region Umbrella programme demonstrates the programmatic approach that is keenly advocated by the GEF Council. The GEF have forged a long and successful partnership with the European Union in the Danube basin. Together they have supported the implementation of the Danube Convention, established the ICPDR and addressed priority transboundary issues. This project would be an extension of that partnership. The ICPDR has 13 member states and its approach cannot be as in depth as it would like, because its members have different development paths and speeds. In complex basins, such as the Tisza, a more integrated land and water management approach is required to tackle the transboundary problems. These are more complex than those currently being implemented by the states under the EU Water Framework Directive. The EU, which is a contracting party to the Convention, is keen to see that its members comply with the WFD at the basin and sub-basin level and link it to other initiatives such as their Flooding Communication and their Water Initiative for the EECCA region. Other international assistance efforts can gravitate to this effort as well, in order to best invest their efforts without being redundant.

The sustainability of the project will be ensured with the adoption of the SAP and NAPs at regional and national levels and the government commitment to implement them. The establishment and continuation of the inter-ministerial committees and allocation of government funds to these plans will be clear signs of sustainability. The project must work with the countries to implement the EU acquis and not sent up competing planning frameworks. There is no specific sub-basin legal and management framework for the Tisza at present and there is still discussion between the countries as to the best approach. It is envisaged that a final decision will be made on this matter at the end of the two-year PDF-B stage and should be set as a pre-requisite for endorsement of the full project.

The Global Environmental Facility (GEF) has funded 4 biodiversity projects in the Tisza river basin at the country level. These are in Hungary, Romania, Slovakia and Ukraine. Additionally, a Biodiversity Strategic Action Programme in Serbia and Montenegro is supported by GEF.

These national level GEF biodiversity projects each have a demonstration component that links integrated land and water river basin management with socio-economic realities within this region. These projects are varied enough to serve as very important role model for other similar projects in a transboundary setting. Through sustainable watershed management these GEF Biodiversity projects address many of the environmental challenges facing the broader Tisza river basin. These will provide valuable lessons for the proposed project and have the potential to be replicated not only in the Tisza but also in broader Danube and other transboundary river basin management programmes.

The project would develop a series of demonstration projects for inclusion in the SAP implementation phase, aimed at improving water and land resource management; looking for win-win situations, where the principles of sustainable development can be applied to increase productivity and increase environmental protection.

D – Financing

The PDF-B stage would be two years duration, followed by a four year SAP implementation project.

In the PDF-B stage, EU funding will be used to fund EU member states involvement and specific basin wide elements relating to the implementation of WFD. GEF and UNDP funds will be used to support the three non-EU states: Romania, Serbia and Montenegro and Ukraine.

The UNDP Regional Centre for Europe and the CIS was established expressly to manage projects of a cross boarder nature, and is uniquely qualified to implement the proposed project. The Regional Centre is prepared to commit approximately $200,000 in cost-sharing to implement the PDF-B stage of the project.

Estimated GEF contribution for Full size project is USD 5.0mil, with co-financing USD 6.0 million.

The PDF-B would be co-funded by the EU, UNDP and the Carpathian Convention through UNEP, as well as the participating states. Approximately $2 million will be requested from the international agencies and GEF for PBF-B execution.

Co-financing for Full size project is expected from EU funds, UNEP and national and local governments of participating countries.

E - Institutional Coordination and Support

The Tisza countries are all signatories to the Danube River Protection Convention (DRPC), which is a legally binding document and provides a framework for cooperation between the parties. The Danube countries under the obligations of the DRPC have established the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR) creating an institutional framework not only for pollution control and protection of water bodies in the Danube basin, but also the integrated management and sustainable use of basin’s natural resources. In November 2000 the ICPDR adopted its first Joint Action Programme (JAP) for the Danube which addresses pollution from point and non-point sources, wetland and floodplain restoration, priority substances, water quality standards, prevention of accidental pollution, flooding and river basin management. Any planning document prepared for the Tisza basin must be consistent with the ICPDR’s JAP.

There are significant challenges in the management of the Tisza basin water resources, and the five countries of the basin are well aware of these challenges. The Tisza riparian countries are at different phases of development, and have widely divergent capacities to address local, national and regional river basin management issues. The combination of economic readjustment and development, transitional political systems, and expansion of the European Union has led to wide variation in capacity throughout the region to address and mitigate environmental risks. While some of these circumstances have resulted in advancements that have been positive for the region as a whole, historically there has been a lack of coordinated environmental management among the Tisza states, even though management and institutional structures may exist to do so. This lack of coordination has hampered efforts to successfully manage flood and other crisis events^².

Recent efforts of the EU (EU is holding the rotating presidency of the ICDPR this year) have taken steps to mitigate this situation (Annex 3). Yet, despite major coordination attempts, there are still challenges, as each country tends to focus primarily on the waters only within its own borders without fully recognizing the impacts of its actions on neighboring countries. This lack of coordination diminishes the success of other national and local level projects because it creates separate standards within each state for monitoring success and managing crises. On the positive side, each of the Tisza riparian countries has committed to implementing the EU Water Framework Directive (EU WFD), including the requirements for management of transboundary waters, but the capacity of each county to effectively meet the WFD requirements varies widely. Two of the five countries are not EU member or accession states, and therefore the high standards set by the WFD

The Project will be managed under the umbrella of the Danube River Basin Convention and coordinated by the ICPDR. Coordination with the GEF Danube Regional Project is crucial to avoid duplication but more importantly to benefit from wider basin activities under both the DRP itself and the associated Danube - Black Sea partnership. A donor co-ordination group will ensure good communication between the major environmental projects within the Tisza basin.

The new project will bring together and find common ground for the three major initiatives, and working closely with the ICPDR, the project will ensure maximum project synergy and minimum project overlap through the establishment of a ‘Friends of the Project’ group. The project will demonstrate flexibility and pragmatism in bringing the partners together.

UNDP Regional Centre in Bratislava would focus its efforts on substantive implementation/monitoring and supervision of the GEF project, and the execution work would be done by UNOPS who has well developed structures/systems for project execution.

The Project Steering Committee would include the five basin countries, the EU and the three GEF implementing agencies, UNDP, UNEP and the WB.

PART II - Project Development Preparation

This part is an additional information about PDF B stage, that will be submitted later on in 2004.

A - Description of Proposed PDF B activities

B - PDF Block B Outputs

C - Justification

The ICPDR under EU Presidency has this year prepared a discussion document (Annex 3) to initiate a dialogue on the Tisza. The document called for dialogue to concentrate, streamline and coordinate all the water resource management initiatives towards a common vision and goal. ICPDR wish to convert the pragmatic national approach to water resources currently operating in the Tisza, to a sub-basin approach in order to meet the demands of the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD). The WFD planning process requires development of RBM plan based on sound analysis of water bodies conditions, pressures and impact analysis, setting environmental objectives and a development of program of measures to achieve good ecological status of all waters in the basin. The roof reporting methodology, established by ICPDR as working method, is comparable to the GEF approach calling for TDA/SAP and national action plans. The ICPDR discussion paper also calls for further application of Integrated Water Resource Management, as promoted by the EU Water Initiative launched at the Johannesburg summit, and European Commission new Communication on ‘Flood risk management, flood prevention, protection and mitigation’. These proposals are closely compatible with the GEF TDA/SAP approach.

D - Timetable

Proposed project development strategy

The UNDP/GEF International Waters Projects (IWP) and the EU/WFD share similarities stemming from concurrent objectives of improving overall water quality though linked regional initiatives. They are highly complementary, and the processes for reaching the same ends are closely related.

The similarities between IWP objectives and those of the EU/WFD can both apply to the Tisza River Basin through integrated river basin management strategies. Common broad objectives include: protection of fresh water sources against pollution; use and conservation of wetlands; sensitivity to environmental impacts of human development in coastal areas; the recognition of multiple uses for water and the economic, social and political sensitivity of shared water resources; the ability for shared cooperation over natural resources to extend into other spheres throughout the region.

TDA/SAP methodology and WFD implementation commonalities include: the importance of intersectoral cooperation; regionally linked national policies for monitoring and prevention of degradation through natural or anthropogenic causes; the need to include economic and environmental needs in project development; importance of including all users within the basin equally and working with multiple stakeholder groups to develop processes; the need to coordinate national and basin wide policies as much as possible; the importance of developing long term regionally sustainable practices; setting commonly accepted objectives for improvements; application of the polluter pays principle and precautionary principle whenever achievable; use of pilot projects; recognition and compliance with existing environmental international agreements.

These similarities enable these two approaches to work closely together, in a complementary fashion. With regards to some environmental challenges, the EU/WFD implementation strategy is more fully developed and quite sophisticated, while with regards to other challenges, the IWP TDA/SAP process can enhance the approach advocated by the EU/WFD Implementation Strategy. Neither is necessarily better than the other, and should not be thought of as such. Rather, at this juncture these approaches have the ability to enable organizations to learn from each other in a cooperative manner.

The Framework Convention on the Protection and Sustainable Development of the Carpathians provides for the development of River Basin Management Plans, particularly in the upper catchment where forestry management, nature conservation and downstream flood management are inter-linked.

The UNDP Tisza River Basin Sustainable Development Programme (TRB SDP) has the following broad objectives:

Within UNDP the TRB SDP has developed into a broader Carpathian -region development programme, which will provide an umbrella not only for this project, but also some 20 regional and local development projects, including ethnic issues, and environmental governance initiatives (see concept paper Annex 4). The GEF project will be one of two major regional matrix projects under the - Carpathian region umbrella, to which the smaller local development projects will be linked and into which lessons learnt will be fed. The matrix projects will deal with the twin issues of Environmental Sustainability and Sustainable Income Generation, contributing to the UNDP objective of harmonious social, economic and environmental development in the region’s communities.

The new project will bring to together and find common ground for these three major initiatives, in addition to the European Council CEMAT initiative (see section above). Working closely with the ICPDR, the project will ensure maximum project synergy and minimum project overlap through the establishment of a ‘Friends of the Project’ group. The project will demonstrate flexibility and pragmatism in bringing the partners together.

Part IV – Response to Reviews

Annex 3: Towards a Sub-River Basin Management Plan for the Tisza River: A Discussion document initiating a dialogue on the Tisza by the EU Presidency and the Permanent Secretariat of the ICPDR

The Tisza River Basin is the largest tributary to the Danube. The streams and rivers feeding into the Tisza originate in the Carpathian Mountains and flow through Hungary, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, and Ukraine (see map of Tisza basin, annex 2). These rivers pass through areas significantly degraded by deforestation, industrial, agricultural and municipal wastes, past deleterious mining sites and through precariously protected wetlands. The waters of the basin serve as a crucial means of irrigation for crops, for transportation, for domestic and industrial use, as a waste disposal mechanism, to sustain other human activities and to support the regional ecosystems.

The Tisza River serves a variety of purposes within the wider basin. The waters serve as a crucial means of irrigation for crops, for transportation, for domestic and industrial use, as a waste disposal mechanism, to sustain other human activities and to support the regional ecosystems. The countries of the Tisza river basin are aware of the challenges before them in management of their collectively owned water resources.

In 2000 the Tisza drew international alarm due to a cyanide spill from the Romanian mine tailings dam in Baia Mare during seasonal flooding. 100,000 tones of cyanide laden sludge spilled into the Tisza leaving almost 1,000 kilometers of the river lifeless, including fish, invertebrates and birds. The water became lethal, and though the cyanide decomposed quickly, the heavy metals remained leaving legacy of the event, including an increase in long-term ill health risk among residents in the region. Though significant international attention has been paid to the region in terms of studying the effects and taking steps to minimize the impacts of Baia Mare, there has been a lack of regionally coordinated mitigation efforts that focus on transboundary remediation. Furthermore, there are a variety of international initiatives within the region addressing different aspects of river basin management; however there is lack of coordination of these efforts and resources are being squandered. This project is designed to address these shortfalls.

The Tisza riparian countries are at different phases of development, and have wide ranging capacities to address local, national and regional river basin management issues. The combination of economic readjustment and development, transitional political systems, and expansion of the European Union has led to a wide variation in capacity throughout the region to address and mitigate environmental risks. While some of these circumstances advancements have been positive for the region as a whole, historically there has been a lack of coordinated environmental management among the Tisza states, even though management and institutional structures may exist to do so. This lack of coordination has hampered efforts to successfully manage flood crisis events. The Tisza flood plain in Hungary has over time has become drained and developed, the main channel has been canalized and braiding removed. Upstream canalization has been particularly critical. All of this has caused reduced flood attenuation and a concentration of the flood wave in downstream countries in the Tisza basin and beyond.

Recent efforts of the EU ICDPR have taken steps to mitigate this situation. Yet, despite major coordination attempts, there are still challenges, as each country tends to focus primarily on the waters only within its own borders without fully recognizing the impacts of its actions on neighboring countries. This lack of coordination diminishes the success of other national and local level projects because it creates separate standards within each state for monitoring success and managing crises. These efforts have been promising as each of the Tisza riparian countries has committed to implementing the EU Water Framework Directive (EU WFD), including the requirements for management of transboundary waters, though the capacity of each county to effectively meet the WFD requirements varies widely. Further, two of the five countries are not EU member or accession states, and therefore are distinctly disadvantaged by the high standards set by the WFD.

National Policies

Hungary

In Hungary, the water management has three basic functions that determine its objectives, programmes and methods as well as its relation to and cooperation with other sectors of society (National Strategy for Water Management, 2000) These are: protection of the population against the hazard of water; supply of the water needed by the citizens and their activities; and, preservation of water resources, particularly drinking water supply, in such as state as to remain in harmony with the environment to ensure their long-term sustainable use. Hungarian legislation has been changing with the aim of adoption of the requirements of the EU. This legislation has been aligned with the environmental acquis of the EU regarding the quality control requirements, specifically pertaining to discharges of wastewaters and sewerage. With regards to water quantity and water management in general, new government decrees have been adopted in the field of protection of water basins, water management authorities, utilization and use of different water sections. Work is still being carried out to meet the EU WFD, though the government has adopted a Strategic Document defining the tasks and deadlines to be achieved. Other legislative work remains in other related sectors.

In the past two years there has been an effort to link water management institutions, including those for water protection and environmental protection authorities, inspectorates and various regional agencies. There is an intergovernmental, multi-sectors national body dealing with sustainable water management issues and coordination among the different sectors including environment, agriculture, tourism, transport, and nature conservation. This body coordinates the implementation of the EU requirements and EU directives to specific sectors.

Hungary is party to the Helsinki Convention on the protection and use of transboundary water courses and international lakes, the Sofia Convention on cooperation for the protection and sustainable use of the Danube river, the New York Convention on the law of the non-navigational use of international water courses and the Tisza Convention on measures to combat pollution of the Tisza river and its tributaries. Hungary also has bilateral agreements with Romania, Slovakia, Serbia and Montenegro, and Ukraine.

Romania

In Romania the water bodies are state property and overseen by the Water Department of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forests, Waters and Environment (MAFWE). As Romania strives to accede to the European Union all the EU water directives are being transposed into the Romanian legislation, by amending the existing water laws. The transition period for implementation is under negotiation, and heavy investment is needed. Also a new Water Management Strategy based on the recommendations of the Second Forum for Sustainable Water Management is under preparation. Currently the main legal acts for sustainable water management in Romania address: environmental permits and licensing issued by water bodies; meeting the requirements for the EU WFD; water management plans at the basin level; legislation to involve all ministries dealing with water issues; and legislation on drinking water quality and the expansion and rehabilitation of the water supply system.

Romania is party to the Helsinki Convention on the protection and use of transboundary water courses and international lakes, the Sofia Convention on cooperation for the protection and sustainable use of the Danube river, the ECE Convention dealing with transboundary impacts of accidents, and the Tisza Convention on measures to combat pollution of the Tisza river and its tributaries. Romania also has bilateral agreements with Hungary, Serbia and Montenegro, and Ukraine.

Serbia and Montenegro

The situation in Serbia and Montenegro remains relatively fluid. The management of water issues is based on the specific territory, and water management is carried out separately. There is a Constitutional Charter in progress in Serbia and Montenegro, though at this time the Water Law of the Republic of Serbia is beginning enacted contrary to the federal laws which have not been enforced until now. The Ministry of Agriculture and Water Management is overseeing the Water Directorate, procedures for new Water Law and Law on Financing of Water Management. The largest problems currently are developing and implementing water quality and wastewater treatment status because of the lack of legislation and poor economic conditions.

The relatively unstable situation has hampered water management at a priority. However as the impetus to join the EU increases within Serbia and Montenegro it is expected that water management will become more important. It is acknowledged that water management based on sustainable development will be critical to the integration and accession process. The existing water management approach is still more traditional in approach because of the remaining legal provisions that are still in force. New laws on Natural Resource and Environmental Protection are under going adoptions.

Though flood control is most closely regulated based on existing laws, it is expected that more coordination throughout the basin will assist these efforts. Serbia and Montenegro (as the Former Yugoslavia) are party to the Sofia Convention on cooperation for the protection and sustainable use of the Danube River, and the Tisza Convention on measures to combat pollution of the Tisza river and its tributaries. Serbia and Montenegro also has bilateral agreements with Romania and Hungary.

Slovakia

Slovakia tends to have a fairly sophisticated environmental policy status regarding water management, with awareness that circumstances require improvement, and what those specific improvements are. They have a National Strategy for Sustainable Development, though there are difficulties with enforcement at local levels. There is an acknowledgement of general problems with enforcement of environmental laws, existing corruption and low legislative and environmental awareness. Nonetheless, the EU WFD has been transposed into the new draft law of the Water Act, focusing on watershed management, protection of the ecosystem and human health. It is anticipated that these will improve enforcement of existing laws.

Within the Slovak legislation is the Water Act, which specifies water management tools and tools for protection of water quality. This includes obligations for water withdrawals and wastewater discharge. Water management, water quality, and quantity protection and its rationale utilization, as well as river basin management, flood protection an control are ensured though this law, through the River management plan and hydro-ecological plans of the watersheds and based on the Generel of water utilization and its protection.

Slovakia is party to the Helsinki Convention on the protection and use of transboundary water courses and international lakes, the Sofia Convention on cooperation for the protection and sustainable use of the Danube river, the Espoo Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in the transboundary context, Stockholm Convention on persistent organic substances, The Bern Agreement- Convention on protection of European wildlife and natural sites, Convention on transboundary transport of dangerous wastes, the Ramsar Convention on wetlands protections and the Tisa Convention on measures to combat pollution of the Tisa river and its tributaries. Slovakia also has bilateral agreements with Hungary and Ukraine.

Ukraine

The Ukrainian Water Code is comprehensive and covers most issues of water quantity and quality management groundwater protection and others. There is division between the Ministry of Environmental Protection of Ukraine and State Committee of Ukraine on Water Management share responsibilities for water management. Other laws such as Law on Environmental Protection also address water management issues and there are multiple agencies charged with various aspects of water related management. As a result the situation tends to be quite complicated. All waters are owned by the state, and overseen by the Parliament, elected councils of the oblasts and local level.

Ukraine as a former Soviet state has the legacy of extremely stringent environmental policies. The legislation is some of the most aggressive environmental in history, however, enforcement during the Soviet era left something to be desired. Nonetheless, there is an interest in adjusting national policies to meet the EU WFD as part of an ambition towards eventual accession to the EU. Within Ukraine there is an interest in harmonizing water policy with the EU approach including development of basin principles of water management and water protection; developing improved tariff policy and water pricing; developing of ecological standards of water quality; improving the environmental situation in watersheds; increasing stakeholder and public participation involvement in water management. These ideals have yet to be reached in either the EU or Ukraine, though for different reasons. The main challenge that will face Ukraine will be enforcement, effective monitoring and compliance with the EU WFD over time.

Ukraine is party to the Helsinki Convention on the protection and use of transboundary water courses and international lakes, the Sofia Convention on cooperation for the protection and sustainable use of the Danube river, and the Tisa Convention on measures to combat pollution of the Tisa river and its tributaries. Ukraine also has bilateral agreements with Hungary, Slovakia and Romania.

Sub-regional Policies and Cooperation

Currently there are a number if existing international assistance and regional initiatives aimed at various components of water management. There is a lack of coordination across these initiatives and often they have overlapping or redundant efforts. The International Commission on Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR) serves as an umbrella agency for the larger Danube Basin, but there is not a similar organization functioning in the Tisza basin. In some cases various Tisza initiatives have taken similar parallel approaches to addressing components of water management. Though each of these initiatives contributes to the over progress being made there is a need to more formally link these projects to avoid possible redundancy of efforts, and to develop a strong transboundary approach to river basin management. Each of these projects makes important contributions and should be appreciated as such. These initiatives include: the Tisza Forum; and the Tisza Environmental Forum; the Sustainable Spatial Development of the Tisza River Basin; UNEP Feasibility Study : Integrated Management of the Carpathian River Basins - Tools and Implementation, Framework Convention on Protection and Sustainable Development of the Carpathians; Tisza River Project – EU Research Project; Tisza River Basin Sustainable Development Project; and several GEF biodiversity projects focusing on water related habitat conservation measures.

The interim secretariat of the Convention is located in the UNEP Vienna office that promotes its ratification, information exchange, documentation, and acts as a liaison office with the Alpine Convention and the ICPDR.

Following the Baia Mare spill, the Tisza Environmental Forum was formed to address regional environmental challenges. Within this forum four major initiatives emerged: REC Yugoslavia organized NGOs and public participation; UNEP/OCHA which conducted studies of the implication of the Baia Mare spill focusing on water quality specifically; the WWF Danube Carpathian Task Force built upon public access to information and increased participation; and the Creation of the Baia Mare Task Force of Ministers of Hungary, Romania, Slovakia and Ukraine in conjunction with the ICDPR developed a list of key hotspots, agreed to protocols for identification, inspection and emergency measures to be taken in the event of future incidents. This organization appears to be latent at this time.

All countries have stated an eagerness to address transboundary management of the Tisza in order to improve water quality, reduce flood threats and to develop legislation that is in line with the EU WFD. The impetus for this is largely economic enhancement in regions with degraded infrastructure, high rates of unemployment and poorly enforced or nonexistent water management plans. This incentive for environmental cooperation and coordination must be harnessed in order to direct action rather than to allow a myriad of competing projects to muddy the vision of an improved environment for the Tisza basin.

Initiating a dialogue on the Tisza
by the EU Presidency the Permanent Secretariat of the ICPDR

The Tisza River Basin, the largest sub-catchment of the Danube, is a significant transboundary river shared with the enlarged EU. Its catchment area of 157.186 km² is larger than, e.g. the Elbe or the Odra river basin. The Tisza catchment is shared by five countries, Ukraine, Romania, Slovak Republic, Hungary and Serbia-Montenegro, two of which recently became members of the European Union. As part of the implementation of the Water Framework Directive, the European Commission is therefore attaching a high priority to promoting multilateral regional co-operation on a river basin scale. The strengthening of co-ordination in the Tisza river basin will considerably improve the implementation efforts of the EU Water Framework Directive in the whole Danube and, thereby, ensure a high quality of life and a healthy environment in the region.

The Tisza River Basin has been focus of attention in the past. Particularly, in 2000, the Tisza became headline news because of the cyanide spill from the Romanian tailings dam in Baia Mare. In the aftermath of the accident the European Commission set up the Baia Mare Task Force to look at the reasons for the accident and recommend measures to minimize the risks of similar accidents (cf. Final Report of Baia Mara Task Force). These included strengthening of the regulatory framework. And resulted in a number of changes to EU environmental law^³.

Now that two of the Tisza countries have become EU members, the approach of fostering co-operation in the region should be developed to a new level.

This document is intended to start a dialogue with the countries in the Tisza basin under the umbrella of the ICPDR in order to identify the best options for the way forward.

Current situation

Regional co-operation in the Tisza catchment has a long tradition and has always been intensive, both on a bilateral and on multi-lateral level. At the moment, several initiatives are targeting the Tisza region. A non-exclusive list of such activities covers, in particular, e.g.:

There are numerous other initiatives by many different partners in the Tisza region so the above list is far from being comprehensive. Currently, the UNDP is compiling an overview on all initiatives and activities in the Tisza basin in the context of a GEF project. A conclusion that is shared by many, however, is that all these initiatives and activities are not well co-ordinated and are not leading to a concerted effort to improve the environmental situation in the region. Often, these initiatives are running in parallel and are, to some extent, even counterproductive. This does have negative feedback, both on the countries and the donors and partners in the region leading to duplication of efforts and standstill. In consequence, despite considerable efforts and funding money being invested, these resources are not spent as wisely and efficiently as they could be.

In conclusion, it is high time that a dialogue is initiated to concentrated, streamline and co-ordinate all the efforts in the Tisza basin in relation to water resource management towards a common vision and goal.

Key focus

The sustainable development of the Tisza river basin will be shaped by a number of EU and other policies.

There are many other relevant pieces of EU legislation which, once fully implemented, will contribute to sustainable protection of the Tisza basin, such as, e.g., pollution prevention and control policy (e.g. IPPC Directive), prevention of accidents (e.g. Seveso II Directive).

The close co-ordination between these policies can provide a focus for the future work. It is noticeable that a number of other international initiatives and fora are based on the same principles and with similar objectives set out in these policies mentioned above.

The Danube River Protection Convention (DRPC) of 1994 includes all the objectives and necessary actions related to the improvement of the environmental situation in the entire Danube basin. The International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR) is implementing the DRPC and all Danubian countries are participating actively. In 2002, it was decided to implement the above-mentioned EU Water Framework Directive throughout the Danube and to use the ICPDR as co-ordinating platform. This will lead, inter alia, to the preparation of a Danube River Basin Management Plan by 2009. It follows from this decision that also for the Tisza river basin, there will be the need to develop this sub-river basin management plan in support of the ICPDR commitments.

The other initiative in the region should be invited to contribute and co-operate with the ICPDR in the preparation of river basin management plans. In particular, the UNDP/RBEC Regional Environmental Governance Programme for the Tisza has a huge potential to support the achievement of the overall long term objectives.

Purpose and Objective of the Tisza Dialogue

One key future priority of the International Commission for the Protection of the River Danube is the preparation of a Danube River Basin Management Plan by 2009 based on the principles and objectives of the EU Water Framework Directive. Currently, the Danube-wide issues are compiled in a Roof Report which is then complemented by national reports. It was clear from the beginning, however, that in the long-term this pragmatic “national approach” should be transformed in a “sub-basin approach” in order to meet the demands of the Water Framework Directive. Since Tisza River is one of the major multi-national tributaries of the Danube, it is most appropriate that, together with the Sava river, preparation for the implementation of a “sub-river basin approach” should be started there as soon as possible.

This “sub-basin approach” built on the EU Water Framework Directive should be complemented by the approaches on flood prevention and protection proposed by the recent Communication of the European Commission and by specific measures as regards the prevention and risk management of accidents. By linking these pillars of integrated water management even more closely than in the past, the Tisza could become a pilot in the Danube as well as in the EU if it would aim at producing on single management plan covering all these issues.

For example, a first focus of such a process could be the preparation of an analysis report for the Tisza basin by 2006 (Working Title: “Tisza Report - From analysis and monitoring to management”), which builds a bridge between the Roof Report and the national reports of 2004 and the preparation of the programme of measures in 2009. By looking at all elements of integrated water management including flooding and accidents, the Tisza basin would become one of the first major international river basin which aims for a joint extensive river basin management plan beyond the WFD requirements.

In practical terms this would mean to reproduce a similar report as the Danube Roof Report 2004 on the more detailed Tisza scale, including aspects of preventive flood management (e.g. including flood risk maps) and prevention of accidents. In addition, however, the report should be complemented to make proposals for an improved monitoring network (including flood and accident early warning) and identify key issues of water management as a first step towards the preparation of a programme of measures as part of the river basin management plan. These complementary elements would allow to bridge the gap between the analysis report 2004 and the river basin management plan of 2009 in a meaningful way since it is a logical interim step. These initial ideas should be discussed and developed further in order to develop a common understanding on the focus of any joint effort.

The Tisza Dialogue between the countries and jointly facilitated by the EU Commission, the ICPDR and UNDP/GEF should aim at finding the best ways forward to implement such an approach step-by-step. It is important, however, to define very clearly the milestones, outputs and timetable for each step having a common long-term vision and objective in mind.

Finally, it is not proposed that new structures or institutions are created but rather making best use of the existing structures. In order to launch such a dialogue, a more detailed outline and a roadmap would have to be developed by the end of this year to such an extent so that we can invite the succeeding Hungarian Presidency to continue the efforts.

Proposed way forward

The idea of the joint ICPDR/EU Tisza dialogue will be launched during the upcoming meeting of the Danube Co-operation Process on 13/14 July 2004 in Bucharest. The ICPDR President and the Executive Secretary will take the opportunity of this meeting to arrange a discussion with delegations from the five Tisza countries, Ukraine, Romania, Hungary, Serbia-Montenegro and Slovakia, in order to seek the principle commitment to support the above-mentioned initiative and explore the best ways forward.

The outcome of the discussions will be presented to the ICPDR Standing Working Group in September 2004 in order to discuss the initiative as part of the ICPDR work programme. For the Standing Working Group, a draft document on the next steps of this Tisza dialogue will be presented.

In order to co-ordinate the process, the ICPDR should be the platform for carrying forward the Tisza dialogue and the RBM Group should regularly discuss the issue on the basis of progress reports. No new structures should be set up at this stage. Instead, the five Tisza countries are invited to mandate their RBM representatives to contribute to the preparation and the implementation of this initiative.

The occasion of the RBM meeting in October in Brussels could be used to hold an ad-hoc meeting involving representatives from the five Tisza countries, the ICPDR Secretariat, UNDP GEF project and the European Commission. The meeting could be chaired by the RBM Chairman. The aim of this meeting is to discuss and finalise the document so that it can be presented and agreed during the Ministerial Meeting in December 2004.

1The Somes and Mures rivers are the primary tributaries to the Tisza in Romania.

2 In 2000 a cyanide spill from the Romanian mine tailings dam in Baia Mare drew international alarm due during seasonal flooding. 100,000 tones of cyanide laden sludge spilled into the Tisza leaving almost 1,000 kilometers of the river lifeless, including fish, invertebrates and birds. The water became lethal, and though the cyanide decomposed quickly, the heavy metals remained leaving legacy of the event, including an increase in long-term ill health risk among residents in the region.

3 Communication from the Commission on “Promoting sustainable development in the EU non-energy extractive industry” (COM(2000) 265 final of 3 May 2000)

Concept/PDF Template: Version 2

March 2004

Financing Plan (US$)
GEF Allocation
Project (estimated)	5.0 mil.
Project Co-financing (estimated)	6.0 mil.
PDF A*
PDF B**
PDF C
Sub-Total GEF PDF

(Enter Name, Position, Ministry)	Date: (Month, day, year)

Sub-Total GEF PDF

Project Objectives

B - Country ownership

National Contexts

Hungary

Romania

Serbia and Montenegro

Slovakia

Ukraine

C – Program and Policy Conformity

Major Threats

Why should GEF get involved at all?

D – Financing

E - Institutional Coordination and Support

PART II - Project Development Preparation

A - Description of Proposed PDF B activities

B - PDF Block B Outputs

C - Justification

D - Timetable

Proposed project development strategy

Part IV – Response to Reviews

National Policies

Hungary

Romania

Serbia and Montenegro

Slovakia

Ukraine

Sub-regional Policies and Cooperation

The interim secretariat of the Convention is located in the UNEP Vienna office that promotes its ratification, information exchange, documentation, and acts as a liaison office with the Alpine Convention and the ICPDR.

Current situation

Key focus

Purpose and Objective of the Tisza Dialogue

Proposed way forward