PROPOSAL FOR REVIEW
Project Title: Developing the Danube River Basin
Pollution Reduction Programme
Countries: Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic,
Hungary, Moldova, Romania, Slovakia,
Slovenia, Ukraine.
GEF Focal Area: International Waters
GEF Eligibility: Eligible under para 9(b) of GEF
instrument
Total Project Costs: $ 7,500,000*
GEF Financing: $ 3,900,000
Parallel Financing: PHARE/TACIS 1996/97**
GEF Implementing Agency: UNDP
Eexecuting Agency: UN Office for Project Services
Estimated Approval Date: January 1997
Project Duration: 16 months
GEF Preparation Costs: $ 290,000 PDF Block B
* $US 3.6m were approved for 1996. US$ 9.8m are requested for 1997 programme (see project financing)
INTRODUCTION
1. The first phase of the Danube Programme concentrated on collecting information, evaluating and defining problems, implementing a basin-wide water quality monitoring strategy and establishing a warning system for accidental pollution. A major output of the first phase was the Strategic Action Plan (SAP). The SAP identified pollution hot-spots, wetlands and other environmentally sensitive areas to be restored, and problems in most urgent need of attention. National Action Plans were then prepared addressing the most important national problems.
2. The ongoing Black Sea Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis shows that the Danube River Basin is the most heavily pollution contributor to the Black Sea in general and the Western part of the Black Sea in particular. About 70 % of the nutrients emitted to the Black Sea comes from the Danube. It therefore became important to obtain a clearer picture of the pollution reduction targets and goals of the Danube countries, and to assist the Danube River Protection Commission in establishing the foundation of a Danube River Basin pollution reduction programmes. Such programmes were to focus on programmatic activities such as capacity building and institutional development and investment plans and constraints.
3. A Project Framework (see Tables) was approved by Senior Officials of Danube countries attending the joint Task Force and International Commission meeting in Vienna on 25 - 26 July 1996. The results of successful completion of this project will include:
BACKGROUND
The Danube River Basin
4. The waters of the Danube River and its tributaries combine to make up river-related ecosystems of high economic, social and environmental value. The River Basin includes numerous important natural areas such as wetlands (including floodplains), with a high number of endangered endemic plant and animal species. The river network supports drinking water supply, agriculture, industry, fishing, tourism and recreation, power generation and navigation but it also receives the waste waters for a region with a population of about 85 million in eleven different countries, which will become thirteen with the inclusion of Bosnia-Herzegovina and Yugoslavia. During the period of centralised planning the main emphasis of Central and Eastern European Countries was on production and policies took little, or no account, of the degradation of the environment. The economic transition now going on, including industrial restructuring and agricultural reform, created an opportunity to change this situation and to prevent, reduce and control pollution and waste generation substantially to the benefit of the environment and of peoples' quality of life. The breathing space provided by the transition can be used to ensure that environmental concerns are properly integrated into industrial, agricultural and other sector policies in the future. The development of public awareness and of environmental policies that will contribute to the sustainable development of countries concerned is a challenge to countries in transition.
Environmental Programme for The Danube River Basin
5. The Environmental Programme for the Danube River Basin was established in 1991 with a governing Task Force which consists of representatives of 11 major Danube countries (Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Moldova, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Ukraine), NGOs and bilateral and international donors. Danube countries are represented by a Country Programme Coordinator (CPC), and another person nominated by the Country Programme Coordinator. The representative of the European Commission Directorate-General for Environment, Nuclear Safety and Civil Protection is chairing the Task Force. A joint EU/GEF funded Programme Coordination Unit (PCU) was established to implement and coordinate a work programme largely developed by participating countries and approved by the Task Force. The work programme covered institutional strengthening, capacity building, NGO activities, water quality monitoring, data collection and assessment, accidental warning systems, pre-investment activities, applied research and preparation of a "Danube River Basin Strategic Action Plan" as well as National Action Plans (NAPs). The Task Force set up three Sub-Groups with the mandate to establish:
6. The main contributors to this programme were the European Commission (PHARE and TACIS programmes) and the GEF. The first GEF contribution of US$8,5 million for the project "Environmental Management in the Danube River Basin" came to an end in June 1996. The objectives of this project were to develop adequate institutional and human resource capacity; management and analysis of data related to the pollution situation in the Basin and preparation of pre-investment studies for selected tributaries. The World Bank executed the component related to pre-investments. The EU funds are coming from the PHARE Multi-Country Programme budget and supports training, project planning for infrastructure development, institutional capacity-building and protection and rehabilitation of wetlands and vulnerable ecosystems. The PHARE Programme contributed MECU 13,4 (US$ 16 million). PHARE's objectives are to promote economic development in Danube countries and assist them in fulfilling their commitments with EU Association Agreements. In addition, in 1996, the EU TACIS Programme started to fund vital monitoring-related activities in Moldova and Ukraine, with a contribution of approximately MECU 0,3. Contributions to this programme were also made by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the Governments of Austria, the Netherlands, the USA, and the Barbara Gauntlett Foundation. Danube countries supported the Programme with national expertise, country information and, wherever possible, facilities to hold meetings and workshops. Task Force NGOs as well as others (eg. Equipe Cousteau) made available the results of their relevant studies.
The Strategic Action Plan for the Danube River Basin 1995 - 2005
7. The preparation of the "Strategic Action Plan for the Danube River Basin 1995 - 2005" involved a drafting group including experts from Danube countries, donors and International Financing Institutions. The Task Force monitored the process and finalised it over three consecutive meetings during a period of five months. It was endorsed in Bucharest on 6 December 1994 by Environmental Ministers from the Danube countries and the EU Commissioner responsible for the Environment. The principles underlying goals and actions of the Plan include the precautionary principle; the use of Best Available Technologies (BAT) and Best Environmental Practice (BEP) for control of pollution at source; the polluter pays principle; and a commitment to regional cooperation and shared information among partners implementing the Action Plan. It lays out strategies for overcoming water-related environmental problems in the Danube River Basin. Its strongly supports the process of cooperation and collaboration to address transboundary problems. It provides a framework for actions and policy changes to be implemented by relevant local and central authorities in Danube countries as well as a framework to identify environmental activities and investments needs. This process included a broad range of consultative meetings in all countries involving NGOs, representatives of industrial enterprises and municipal utilities, central and local environmental, and sector institutions and authorities.
The following results can be credited to the Danube Environmental Programme:
In addition three complementary activities exclusively funded by the EU were also achieved in this programme:
Remaining Needs:
8. The Strategic Action Plan for the Danube River Basin supports, and complement, the Convention on Co-operation for the Protection and Sustainable Use of the River Danube (DRPC) which was signed by Danube countries and European Commission in Sofia in June 1994. The Signatories to the Convention agreed on "conservation, improvement and the rational use of surface and groundwater in the catchment area", to "control the hazards originating from accidents" and "to contribute to reducing the pollution loads of the Black Sea from sources in the catchment area". They agreed to cooperate on fundamental water management issues by taking "all appropriate legal, administrative and technical measures to at least maintain and improve the current environmental and water quality conditions of the Danube River and of the waters in its catchment area and to prevent and reduce as far as possible adverse impacts and changes occurring or likely to be caused. By July 1996, six parties had ratified the Convention. Under the Convention, an Interim International Commission was established as a framework to stimulate regional cooperation. A small International Secretariat for the Interim Commission is now set up in the Vienna International Centre, and is sharing the premises of the PCU with voluntary contributions from the Government of Austria, EU, Croatia, Romania, Czech Republic and Hungary. The Commission will become a permanent body when five (out of twelve) signatories ratify, most likely early 1997.
9. The responsibilities for the implementation of the Strategic Action Plan will be transferred to the International Commission when the Convention enters into force. The three technical sub-groups established by the Environmental Programme for the Danube River Basin should be managed by the International Commission and its Secretariat. The operational tasks relating to the Task Force, and its networks currently undertaken by the Danube Programme Coordination Unit, should also be transferred to the Secretariat. The targeted time for the transfer is now Summer 1997. At this time, the transfer of responsibilities to manage the three Sub-Groups should have taken place, structure for staffing and financing the Secretariat decided upon, and a Programme Management Task Force established by the Commission. However, until there is an adequately funded Secretariat for the Convention to effectively plan and manage ongoing work, the responsibility for on-going programmes will stay under the PCU. In April 1996, an Ad-hoc Working Group was set up by the Danube Task Force and the Interim International Commission to consider the transfer of tasks from the Task Force to the Danube River Protection Convention. At their joint meeting on 25-26 July, the Task Force and Interim International Commission decided to submit a proposal to Ministers of Environment on the necessary political decisions for this transfer, and funding mechanisms. This proposal should be made at the Ministerial meeting to be held in Budapest mid 1997 and the need to work on a possible financial mechanism was also agreed at the Task Force meeting in Vienna.
10. A Strategic Action Plan Implementation Programme (SIP) was recently developed by the National Programme Coordinators with the support of the Danube Environmental Programme. National Action Plans currently drawn up by the Danube countries are also crucial in identifying and preparing projects that can be funded and implemented. The SIP, jointly prepared with the EU, includes a review of transboundary problems. However this document does not provide sufficient information on how to establish clear priorities on transboundary concerns, as required by the GEF Operational Strategy.
11. A preliminary Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis was only undertaken late in Phase I under a joint GEF/PDF UNEP/UNDP project (RER/95/G45). The main problems identified include transfer of gross pollution from inadequately treated urban waste waters; pollution by metals and organic substances from untreated industrial waste waters; high loads of nitrates from agriculture and phosphates from sewage and large animal farms affecting many tributaries and constituting the major factor in eutrophication of Eastern basin of the Black Sea; reduced and regulated flows from upstream hydropower plants combined with interruption to natural sediment flows leading to bank erosion and lowering of the stream bed downstream, damage to wetlands and river ecosystems.
12. Further review of these data has now to take place, in parallel with a review of proposed actions to address the problems identified. In particular, the description of " baseline environmental commitments (which have to be funded domestically or through donors or loans), and what activities are additional for solving the transboundary priority problems" have to be formulated in a detailed manner. Such a discussion will allow to determine the possible degree of GEF intervention in order to contribute as "a catalyst to the implementation of a comprehensive. ecosystem-based approach" to manage the Danube River Basin according to the GEF Operational Strategy.
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
13. The overall long-term objective of this new project is to foster sustainable programatic, institutional and financial arrangements for effective environmental management and control of a River Basin, in accordance with the International Waters Strategy of GEF Operational Programme. All activities will built upon existing work such as the Danube Strategic Action Plan, National Action Plans, and the Danube Strategic Action Plan Implementation Programme. This project is composed of four objectives to be carried out over 16 months:
Objective 1: Completion of the technical phase for priority identification
Objective 2: Priorities identification
Objective 3: Public awareness and participatory activities to facilitate priority identification
Objective 4: Developing the financing of the Danube Strategic Action Plan
In addition to these four objectives, the last component of the project is the financing of staff, accommodation, equipment and operating costs which are needed by the Programme Coordination Unit, to operate jointly with the PHARE/TACIS Programme of the European Union. The five components of this project are meant to be executed in parallel as they are complementary and mutually reinforcing each other.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Objective 1: Completion of the technical phase for priority identification
Sub-objective 1.1 Support country teams to expand national action plans
14. Small technical teams will be formed in each country to review, and expand where necessary, the existing National Action Plans. This will include producing summaries of all available information on water pollution, sediment contaminants, wetland reduction and dissipation and bio-accumulation of toxics. The scope is to include Danube basin surface, sub-surface, boundary, transboundary and in-country waters. Transboundary and boundary data will be coordinated with the affected countries. The monitoring systems for this information will describe available budgets, and monitoring stations. A separate section on current and anticipated near-term policies and standards on water supply, water pollution control and wetlands will be included. UNEP is expected to take a leading role with this component.
15. Finally, baseline activities to address the above needs must be identified. The baseline includes funded, budgeted and documented commitments by the country, and with bilateral donors, of projects and programmes scheduled to be undertaken within the next 5 to 10 years. An assessment of the effects of these activities on the country's identified needs will be made. The objective is to assemble all relevant, existing water pollution and wetland data and analyses into a comprehensive Basin-wide inventory report suitable for wide distribution and use. The format and files are to be such so as to facilitate subsequent updating. The report will concentrate on boundary and transboundary water, both surface and groundwater, but will also include in-country and other information that is judged to be useful for subsequent revision of Basin priorities, projects and other similar purposes. This report will originate from an integration of the supplemented and expanded Country National Action Plans prepared under 1.2 above. It will also contain the location of water quality/sediment sampling stations, summaries of the data and analyses, assessments of the effect of more severe loadings and concentrations, and the identity of the sources where known. Water quality data gaps will be filled if the needed information is available. The integration will require that separate country information be harmonised both as to format and compatibility. Analysis will be undertaken to estimate pollution/wetland effects in a Basin context, in particular, the impact on the western Basin of the Black Sea. This will be undertaken jointly with the Black Sea Country Programme Coordinators and PCU as well as a Black Sea international team under the guidance of STAP experts. These results will be compiled in a technical report presented at a Basin-wide conference (see 3.1.2). UNEP will also be closely involved in this component. The following specific activities will be carried out:
Activity 1.1.1. Finalization of a report providing data on pollution status, including impact on the Black Sea (amount, location and sources with maps and graphics).
Activity 1.1.2. Analysis of country projects to identify their possible funding (baseline), as well as water pollution objectives, standard policies and financial gaps,
Activity 1.1.3 Inventory and strategy for wetlands policy (including Danube Delta and flooplains), with objectives, priority actions and identification of country projects.
Sub-objective 1.2 Completion of the Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis to formulate a Basin Wide framework to implement identified priority actions.
16. The objective of this task is to develop a set of actions addressing priority Basin water related needs beyond those in the countries' baseline programmes, and that, under current guidelines, are eligible for GEF funding. The process will begin with a synthesis of the expanded National Action Programmes and the Danube Basin Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis. This should produce identification of the Basin's residual (incremental in GEF terms) associated pollution problems and needs. An assessment of these residuals will be undertaken to produce an initial set of Basin need priorities.
17. Under the Environmental Programme for the Danube River Basin, a number of activities were set up to provide the scientific background information for the transboundary pollution to the transboundary rivers, the Danube river itself and to the Danube Delta and the Black Sea. Results from these activities will continue to be reported to the Task Force during the next year. Of particular interests will be the results reported by the Monitoring, Laboratory and Information Management Sub-group, the results from some of the projects within the Applied Research Programme, and the information provided in the National Action Plans. It is proposed to organise a Conference in cooperation with PHARE/TACIS during the first half year of 1997, aiming presenting scientific documentation and gaps in information on transboundary pollution in the Danube River Basin, and pollution received by the Danube Delta and emitted to the Black Sea. The conclusion of the Conference will be used to identify pollution reduction strategies and programmes necessary to improve the Danube and Black Sea environments. These activities will be carried out on the basis of STAP recommendations and in close cooperation with the GEF Black Sea PCU as well as UNEP GEF and Water Unit.
Activity 1.2.1: Synthesis of activities 1.1.1, 1.1.2 and 1.1.3 to formulate the Basin wide strategy in accordance with the GEF Operational Strategy, i.e. including "country commitments for implementation, actions addressing transboundary issues that would be funded in the baseline or by other means such as bilateral assistance, loans or through regular GEF Implementing Agency programmes; as well as additional actions needed to resolve the transboundary concerns that have incremental costs".
Activity 1.2.2 : Technical Conference on Transboundary Pollution at the end of 1997.
Objective 2: Priorities identification
18. The activities carried out under this second objective will deal with the strategic thinking needed to approve the priority pollution abatement strategies and programmes both on the national and basin-wide basis. The Danube Strategic Action Plan and the National Action Plans have identified important goals in order to reduce the negative impacts of activities and to maintain and improve the availability and quality of water in the Danube River Basin, the riverine ecosystems and the Black Sea. The development of a regional water management cooperation is a common goal of the Danube countries as well. As the Danube River is a very significant contributor to the quantity and quality of the waters entering the Black Sea, the objective aims at identifying the individual role of various rivers draining to the Black Sea in general, and the role of the Danube in particular. This will set the Danube in the appropriate perspective as to the highest priority actions to be taken to improve the waters and ecosystems of the Black Sea. Based on these priority actions to improve the Black Sea waters, the objective will further allow for support from the Danube countries individually. A general basin-wide support for detailed and concrete programme of actions which should be given the top priority in order to reach the goals will be the final aim of this objective.
Sub-objective 2.1: Facilitating a Black Sea Basin Approach
19. Many programmes are currently carried out in the Danube/Black Sea Region without clear coordination. At a meeting in March 1996, the three GEF Implementing Agencies have highlighted the following UN-related projects and programmes: UNDP is implementing the Danube and the Black Sea Pilot Phase GEF projects as well as the Dnieper PDF GEF project. The World Bank is implementing the Danube Delta Biodiversity projects. The Netherlands is contributing to a Sea of Azov project and the World Bank is working on the Lower Don as part of the environmental load to the Russian Federation. In addition, there are several biodiversity projects in the Region (GEF UNEP and/or World Bank) as well as World Bank and EBDR pre-investment studies. Other cooperation is also significant to the environmental improvements in the Danube/Black Sea Region, e.g. a number of national and regional EU PHARE and TACIS projects and programmes, as well at those between bi-lateral cooperation between individual Black Sea Region countries and donor governments. It was at the above meeting agreed that a Region wide meeting should be held which will allow to review on-going activities, in particular in the context of the implementation of the Strategic Action Plans which should take place in the near future. This would help to overcome some of the difficulties which are being faced in the planning of future GEF International Waters activities in the Region. Other major donors will invited to plan, organise and contribute at the meeting. Therefore, one specific activity is proposed to initiate this approach:
Activity 2.1.1 Technical and policy consultations to identify the necessary steps to begin development of an overall strategic approach to the Black Sea Basin consistent with GEF Operational Strategy on International Waters, resulting in a Danube/Dnieper/Black Sea workshop, likely to be held in May 1997.
Sub-objective 2.2: Policies endorsement
20. It is vital that strategies and programmes foster sustainable institutional and financial arrangements for effective environmental management. In addition, control strategies must be supported and agreed by those who will be responsible for their implementation and the work carried out by the various national teams will also need to be discussed at a regional level . A first meeting should allow to review the findings of activity 1.1 and 1.2. A second, to finalize the formulation of the Basin-wide Pollution Reduction Programmes (PRP) for submission to the Danube River Protection Commission (at end 1997/beginning 1998)
Objective 3: Public awareness and participatory activities to facilitate priority identification
21. Participation of all sectors of society is an essential requirement for the development of sustainable policies in the Danube Basin. It requires the development of education projects, transparent and participatory decision making procedures, open rules and access to administrative and judicial procedures. Participation at all levels requires open exchange of data and information. Availability of information is a un-disputable requirement for involvement of decision makers, experts and the general public.
Sub-objective 3.1 : Public involvement in targeted public awareness activities coupled with remedial activities .
22. In the process of the Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis, all the effects of the pollution, including the conditions in economic, social and environmental terms on the country, and on others if known, should be carefully assessed and included. Moreover, there will be a need to involve all stakeholders at a very ealry stage and raise public awareness on the issues addressed by the priority identification process. Convincing arguments on the necessity for continuous long-term efforts to reduce pollution and protect and restore the environment will have to be presented. NGOs have proved over the past years their willingness and capability to play their indispensable part in contributing to activities and promoting public involvement. Activities to ensure wider public participation in the Project will be carried out in order to achieve this essential goal in conformity with the GEF Operational Strategy. Municipalities, as well as affected people, will be closely involved during the completion of Objectives 1, 2 and 4. As for most of the objectives of this project, the EU through the PHARE TACIS Programmes will also provide supporting activities for public awareness support within the framework of the Danube Strategic Action Plan/Implementation Programme, including supporting the activities of the Danube Environmental Forum and other suitable NGOs.
The detailed activities will be the following:
Activity 3.1.1 Socio-economic assessment of population affected by the pollution of the Danube River (to be executed in parallel with activity 1.1.)
Activity 3.1.2 Initial public awareness programme on the basis of the results of Objective, production of a summary of the results in a lay brochure for public distribution.
Activity 3.1.3 Consultations with local authorities, private groups and local NGOs, private investors and other stake holders to ensure that local investments in the design future investments and other activities (in coordination with 1.2.1, 1.2.3 , 4.1 and 4.2).
Activity 3.1.4 Publication of high quality and large dissemination of 3 Newsletters "Danube Watch".
Activity 3.1.5 Supporting the regional Danube NGO Forum and national NGO meetings
Activity 3.1.6 Supporting the implementation of concrete small scale environmental projects of regional/global significance.
Sub-objective 3.2 Coordination, information and data exchange mechanism
23. Support to the network of Country Programme Coordinators and Ministries of Environment has been an important objective of the previous Environmental Programme for the Danube River Basin. Contacts have been established with main data centres, and priority data files have been exchanged. As the information systems have been developed, the capacities for the Danube network to receive and provide data have been explored and supported. A key principle is for the main actors within the network to be able to communicate in an efficient, reliable and rapid manner using telecommunications in general and Internet/E-mail in particular. The Governments have committed to the staffing of data managers, which will further facilitate exchange of data and information.
The activities to be conducted will be:
Activity 3.2.1 Internet connections and Web-Services for main data centres, ministries of the Environment and the NGO Danube Environmental Forum and its sub-regional centre for information and data exchange.
Activity 3.2.2 Updating and making available the DANIS meta level information system and relevant data bases. Prepare a computerised map for displaying river classification hot-spots and other information relevant for pollution abatement strategies.
Objective 4: Developing the financing of the Danube Strategic Action Plan
Sub-objective 4.1 A well developed portfolio of Danube Basin environmental investments, reflecting Basin wide consensus and national concurrence for presentation to Donor's Conference and GEF.
24. Following activities carried out under 1.1 and 1.2, the next step will be to review the relevant abatement-restoration objectives and activities contained in the Strategic Action Plan (SAP) and the Strategic Action Plan Implementation Programmes (SIP) and assemble those that would respond to the priority needs into a preliminary Basin action plan. The effect of these actions on the residual needs would be assessed. The initial action plan would be reviewed and modified so as to improve the combination of its cost effectiveness and response to Basin objectives and priority needs. This would be an iterative process led by an international team of plan, formulation and evaluation experts with one representative drawn from each country. Periodic policy level reviews and public participation would be an integral part of the process leading to a major GEF action plan, supported by the countries, and suitable for submission to the GEF council in either May or November, 1998.
Activity 4.1.1 Review the investment-related conclusions and recommendations of the Strategic Action Plan Implementation Programme", the Danube Strategic Action Plan and other pre-feasibility studies to generate Basin wide consensus with national concurrence on top-priority investments in the context of the strategies defined under Objectives 1 and 2 for a Danube Basin wide investment plan. This should include the identification of key constraints to their successful financing and concrete proposals for future GEF funding.
In addition, as proposed by the Task Force, a Danube Projects Data Bank for investment projects will be developed, to document environmental and economic priorities, as well as a means to update investment portfolio. An inventory of Priority Pollutants will be funded through the PHARE/TACIS Programme, also as suggested by the Task Force.
Activity 4.1.2 Ministerial-level Conference aimed at achieving concrete commitments to high priority Danube Pollution issues followed by a donor pledging meeting late 1997.
Sub-objective 4.2 Assessment of a mechanism to provide sustainable financial support to the Danube programme
In the context to the transfer of responsibilities and tasks executed under the Environmental Programme of the Danube River Basin to the [Interim] International Commission of the Danube Convention, the issue of the sustainable financing to the Danube programme was addressed. The report produced by an international expert and the Ad-hoc Working Group is proposing to establish a Danube Trust Fund. This proposal was examined at the last meeting Task Force meeting in Vienna and the Governments agreed to request GEF funding to further develop this option.
The following activities are proposed to initiate this approach:
Activity 4.2.1 Conduct a detailed national-level examination of the feasibility of adopting selected, commonly agreed economic instruments as sources of revenue for a Danube Environmental Fund. Several potential instruments will be examined and will include consideration on legislative, fiscal and social impact.
Activity 4.2.2 Produce a framework paper describing the structure, rules and Governance procedure of the proposed Regional funding mechanism
Activity 4.2.3 National (one per country) and regional workshops to review and agree upon issues associated with revenue sources, disbursement priorities and governance.
RATIONALE FOR GEF SUPPORT
25. This project is fully consistent with the Waterbody-Based Operational Programme of the GEF Operational Strategy. It responds to Governments requests, both through the existing short-term action plan and the medium/long-term Strategic Action Plan, which it will help to implement. This transitional project will facilitate the development of the GEF strategic Black Sea Basin approach. GEF funding for this project would contribute to the elaboration of the needed strategic framework for a large programme of investments in the Basin during the project implementation period, particularly in municipal waste management. It will also lay the foundation for a longer programme of investments over time.
SUSTAINABILITY AND PARTICIPATION
26. The present project proposal takes into account and directly addresses the continuing challenge in ensuring the sustainability, not only of project-generated benefits, but rather of all benefits created during the past several years of regional environmental cooperation. The four elements of the project are designed to ensure that the various legal, institutional and human resources which have thus far been mobilised are further enhanced beyond the GEF Pilot Phase project. Only this combination of enhanced human, technical and financial resources can ensure the ultimate sustainability of regional benefits.
LESSONS LEARNED AND TECHNICAL REVIEWS
27. The Danube Environmental Programme is very complex. There are many actors: the Danube countries, decision makers (e.g. international and bi-lateral donors, and international financing institutions) and various other interested parties (e.g. international and national NGOs). In addition, there are several levels of involvement among, and between, these actors and decision makers. The Task Force and the PCU have actively leveraged the initial Programme budgets with additional funds, thus making it a challenge for evaluators to assess processes leading to successful implementation of projects and activities. An evaluation team was set up in 1995 for evaluating the GEF component resulted in an evaluation of a major part of the Programme. The report concludes that the Danube Programme has significantly contributed toward mitigation of water pollution. Monitoring and inventories are prominent, as are capacity building activities and pre-investment studies, however, the SAP focus on water related activities and human health issues have been set in the framework of water quality issues. High attention should be given to integrated water management projects of high demonstration value. In addition, more attention should now be given to ecological issues such as wetlands restoration and sustainable use of biological diversity. It is important to further strengthen and improve networking at national and regional levels, continue to strengthen the role of and support to the NGO community, encourage development of community-based involvement and activities, and continue to allocate funds for training and equipment. Training should be demand driven, and include grants to individuals. The observations and suggestions from the evaluation team are in line with recommendations made by the Task Force. They will be essentially taken account of in the future GEF project. A copy of the recent technical review of this project is attached (see Annex 1). Most of the comments have been taken into account. They will be fully integrated into the project document at a later stage.
PROJECT FINANCING AND BUDGET
28. The tables presented from page 15 to 20 were presented to the Task Force members during their last meeting in Vienna on July 25 and 26. Country representatives were asked to review and comment on the first draft. A revised version was again submitted in plenary and commented upon. This document as written includes all these comments. Government endorsement was then received (see Annex 2) within a week.
29. The 1996 Phare Multi-Country Programme for Environment will make available MECU 2.5 to the Environmental Programme for the Danube River Basin. TACIS Multi-country programme Environmental Programme (for CIS countries) provided ECU 300,000 to the Danube Programme in 1996. These funds, exclusively managed by the European Union will be disbursed over a period of three years (1996, 1997 and 1998). A programme of MECU15 was requested to the EU for the period 1996-1999 to further finance the Danube Strategic Action Plan Implementation Programme. After final allocation by the EU in 1997, these funds will be disbursed from 1997 to 1999. The EU project manager met in Vienna with UNDP representative to discuss future cooperation. It was agreed that these funds, in principle, could used in the future to finance activities identified by GEF Black Sea Basin wide strategy.
INCREMENTAL COSTS
29. This bridging project will facilitate the completion of the strategic work started at the end of the Pilot Phase and with the recently initiated PDF. The completion of the Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis, and the formulation of Pollution Reduction Programmes, are the activities which are now needed to enable the countries to comply with the GEF Operational Strategy. The full discussion on incremental costs will apply to the GEF project which will come out of this exercise, in FY1998, but it cannot apply here. However, significant co-financing from the European Union is available on a yearly basis, as agreed by the EU Council.
ISSUES, ACTIONS AND RISKS
30. The geopolitical factor in the context of the Danube River Basin is very important. In addition to the previously participating nine GEF countries, two newly independent states will likely become members of the Task Force, thus of this programme in 1997. It seems that the spirit of cooperation will be reasonably sufficient in order to overcome difficulty which may arise. This issue is one of the reason why the size of this project is deemed necessary to allow a smooth transition with the newly participating countries. The slow pace of ratification of the Danube Convention is another cause of concern. However, the activities proposed under this project will stimulate the economic approach to address the pollution problems of the Danube.
INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK AND PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
31. The Danube Task Force formed for the GEF Pilote Phase project will be responsible for overseeing project implementation and for establishing and monitoring a detailed workplan. The Governments will be requested to ratify its membership to the Task Force and to renew the mandate of this institutional agreement.
32. The project will be managed by the Programme Coordination Unit (PCU) of the Danube Environmental Programme which is located in Vienna International Centre (Austria). These facilities are shared with European Union programme and the Interim Secretariat of the Danube Convention which are contributing to all costs. Staff will be selected with great care in order to fulfill all the requirements needed for this key step to implement the workprogramme.
33. The UN Office for Project Services will execute this project for UNDP.
34. A renewed agreement of cooperation will be signed between UNDP and the European Union to reflect mutual understanding on the new GEF project and EU programmes.
MONITORING AND EVALUATION
32. The project will be subject to tripartite review (joint review by representatives of the Governments, executing agency and UNDP) after first six months of implementation. The executing Agency will prepare and submit to the tripartite review meeting a Project Performance Evaluation Report (PPER). Additional PPERs may be requested, if necessary, during the project.
Danube River Basin Pollution Reduction Programme
Objective 1: Completion of the technical phase for priority identification: $1,310,000
Objective 2: Priorities identification: $170,000
Objective 3: Public awareness and participation activities to facilitate priority identification: $730,000
Objective 4: Developing the financing of the Danube Strategic Action Plan: $980,000
Danube Project Coordination: $710,000
TOTAL GEF PROJECT: US$3,900,000
Programme Objective 1: Completion of the technical phase for priority identification
Sub-objective Description of Activities Implementatio Beneficiaries Estimated Est.
n Modality / Associated costs to associated
Actors GEF donor
contribution
1.1 Support country 1.1.1. Production of a report UNEP/UNDP National 350,000
teams to expand providing data on pollution status CPCs teams
national action (data analysis: location and
plans sources); (cf 3.1.1 impact effect
analysis) 500,000 75,000
CPCs/PCU/ PHARE
1.1.2. Identification of country UNEP
projects likely to be funded
(baseline), as well as water 100,000 450,000
pollution objectives, standard CPCs PHARE/TACIS
policies and financial gaps. /PCU
1.1.3. Analysis of wetlands
(including Danube Delta and PCU/CPCs 300,000
floodplains) inventory and strategy, UNEP
1.2 Completion of identifying country projects
the Transboundary (baseline) as well as technical, 40,000
Diagnostic Analysis legal and financial gaps. PCU/CPCs 60,000 PHARE/TACIS
to formulate a Basin UNEP
wide framework to 1.2.1 Synthesis of 1.1.1, 1.1.2 and
implement identified 1.1.3 into a technical report
priority actions identifying Basin wide priorities to
be used for the work under objective
4.1 and 4.2.
1.2.2 Technical Conference on
Transboundary Pollution
(July/September 1997). Presentation
of 1.3 report.
Total objective 1 1,310,000
Programme Objective 2: Priorities identification
Sub-objectives Description of Activities Implementatio Associated Estimated Estimated
n Modality Regional costs to associated
Actors GEF donor
contribution
2.1. Facilitating a 2.1.1. Scientific and policy PCUs Black UNEP 70,000
Black Sea Basin consultations to identify the Sea, Danube, (25,000)
approach necessary steps to begin development Dnieper and GEF Black
of an overall strategic approach to other GEF Sea
the Black Sea Basin consistent with projects
GEF Operational Strategy on
International Waters/ workshop. CPCs
2.2 Policies 100,000
endorsement 2.2.1. Two Basin-wide coordination
meetings to
finalize Basin-wide Pollution
Reduction Programmes and Submission
of the Pollution Reduction Programmes
to the Danube Commission (end 1997).
Total Objective 2 170,000
Programme Objective 3: Public awareness and participatory activities to facilitate priority identification
Sub-objective Description of Activities Implementati Associated Estimated Est.
on Modality Regional costs to associated
Actors GEF donor
contribution
3.1 Public 3.1.1 Social assessment of specially PCU 60,000
involvement in affected populations due to Danube
targeted public pollution (cf 1.1.1)
awareness strategy PCU/NGOs 90,000 *
coupled with 3.1.2 Initial public awareness
remedial programme PCU 80,000
activities.
3.1.3 Consultations with local
authorities, private groups and local
NGOs, private investors and other
stake holders to ensure that local
investments in the design future PCU 100,000 *
investments and other activities ( in
coordination with 1.2.1 and 1.2.3).
PCU 60,000 *
3.1.4 Publication and dissemination
of 3 Danube Newsletters and
"National Danube Watch". PCU 200,000 *
3.1.5 Supporting the regional Danube
NGO Forum and national NGO meetings
PCU/CPCs 60,000
3.1.6 Supporting the implementation
of concrete small scale environmental
3.2 Coordination. projects of regional/global
Information and significance.
data exchange PCU/CPCs 80,000
mechanism 3.2.1 Improvement of INTERNET
connections and Web-Server services
for main data centers and ministries
of the Environment for information
and data exchange
3.2.2. Updating and making available
the DANIS meta level information
system and relevant data bases.
Prepare a computerised map for
displaying river classifications
hot-spots and other information
relevant for pollution abatement
strategies
Programme Objective 3: Public awareness and participatory activities to facilitate priority identification
Sub-objective Description of Activities Implementati Associated Estimated Est.
on Modality Regional costs to associated
Actors GEF donor
contribution
Total Objective 3 730,000
Programme Objective 4: Developing the financing of the Danube Strategic Action Plan
Sub-objective Description off Activities Implementatio Associated Estimated Estimated
n Modality Regional costs to associated
Actors GEF donor
contribution
4.1 A well 4.1.1. Review the investment-related 660,000
developed conclusions and recommendations of
portfolio plan for the "Strategic Action Plan
Danube Basin Implementation Programme", the
environmental Danube Strategic Action Plan and
investments, other pre-feasibility studies to
reflecting Basin generate Basin wide consensus, with
wide consensus and national concurrence, on
national top-priority investments in the
concurrence for context of the strategies defined
presentation to under Objective 1 and 2. This should 60,000 Funding pledged
Donors' Conference include the identification of key by PHARE/TACIS
and GEF constraints to their successful 1997
financing and formulation of GEF
funding request.
100,000 id.
4.1.2 Ministerial-level Conference
aimed at achieving concrete
commitments to high priority Danube
Pollution issues followed by a donor
pledging meeting late 1997.
4.2 Assessment of
a mechanism to 4.2.1 Conduct a detailed
provide national-level examination of the 90,000
sustainable feasibility of adopting selected,
financial support commonly agreed economic instruments
to the Danube as sources of revenue for a Danube
programme Environmental Fund. Several 70,000
potential instruments will be
examined and will include
consideration on legislative, fiscal
and social impact.
4.2.2 Produce a framework paper
describing the structure, rules and
Governance procedure of the proposed
Regional fund
4.2.3 National and regional
workshops to review and agree upon
issues associated with revenue
sources, disbursement priorities and
governance.
Total Objective 4 980,000
GEF Danube Project coordination
Items Implementatio Associated Estimated Estimated
n Modality Regional costs to associated
Actors GEF donor
contribution
5.1 Staffing Project manager, Financial Technical UN OPS 310,000 PHARE
Adviser and Support staff.
5.2 Operations Operating costs (including rent, id. 400,000
communication, supply, equipment,
contingency and management fee
etc...)
710,000
Total
Annex 1
REVIEW OF GEF INTERNATIONAL WATERS PROPOSAL
DEVELOPING THE RIVER BASIN POLLUTION POLUTION
PROGRAMME
J.M. Bewers
July 30th, 1996
Overall Impressions
1. This proposal appears partly to be a logical extension of activities completed during the preceding GEF-funded project "Environmental Management in the Danube River Basin" and partly to embody activities leading to unfulfilled objectives of the previous project. It contains vague statements and lacks clarity and specificity in many instances. As such, it is an extremely difficult proposal to review and needs considerable editorial work and additional information to make it more amenable to thorough evaluation. It would appear that some of the activities of the preceding project did not get pursued with the vigor that they warranted and some project management weaknesses are suspected by this reviewer. Accordingly, the proposed tripartite review based on the Project Performance Evaluation Report (PPER) after 6 months of implementation is essential. This will provide an opportunity to ensure that management of the project is sufficiently aggressive and focused on objectives rather than peripheral matters. This is especially important in the context of suspected deficiencies in the management of the previous GEF-funded project.
2. There is little "science' in the proposal in its present form and considerable vagueness about the actual state-of-play in terms of problem identification and priority setting. As a result, there is a limited basis on which to discern how new objectives are being tailored to the results of the previous project in the region. One aspect of the proposal that I wholly endorse is the move towards a holistic Black Sea Basin priority setting exercise that will enable incremental activities to be broadly and lucidly identified.
3. Clearly, this region deserves continued support in identifying and dealing with its environmental contamination problems especially in the context of the political and social heterogeneity within the region and the (stated) opportunities for coordinated and harmonious action to reduce existing -problems and forestall new ones. In this sense, I wholly support the thrust of the proposal. However, I have considerable difficulty, as will be evident from later sections of this review, in accepting all that is proposed - sometimes because I disagree with what is specifically proposed, or sometimes because some specific proposals are worded in a manner that makes the actual intentions and activities too opaque to fully comprehend.
Relevance and Priority
4. GEF Operational Strategy. The project would appear to match GEF aspirations and intentions both in respect to the suitability of the proponent States and the regional focus of activities. Furthermore, this region offers some rather unique potential benefits as a model involving States moving from centrally-planned economic development to private enterprise initiatives which are at different stages of transition and having differing social and technical capabilities. From this perspective, I am positive about the proposal.
5. Relevant International Environmental Conventions: Clearly, the project has been formulated in the context of the Convention on Co-operation for the Protection and Sustainable Use of the River Danube. I was rather surprised not to see reference to either the Black Sea Convention or, more importantly, the Agreement on a Global Programme of Action for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Land-Based Activities concluded in Washington, D.C. in November, 1995. The latter, in particular, should have been given some prominence to ensure that relevant States deal with their impending commitments to this agreement sooner rather than later, preferably in the formulation of National Action Plans. I note that this agreement has been considered important in the development of Black Sea Programme activities as evidenced by the recent GEF funding proposal from this region.
6. National/Regional Priorities: This is somewhat difficult to answer because little concrete is provided regarding either regional or national priorities in the current proposal. I accept that some attention is given to: contaminant sources, transport and effects; hydrologic control and its effects on water abstraction, river flows and levels and sediment transport; and the preservation of biological diversity. However, all such references are in general, rather than specific, terms. I would have expected more detail regarding priorities at the completion of the previous GEF-funded project than provided here.
Project Approach
7. In view of the limited detail provided (or limited fulfillment of objectives of the previous project), the approach appears reasonably logical and sound. During the course of this review, the requested financial allocations to Objectives 1 to 4 were significantly revised providing a much improved balance among the respective activities. I am still somewhat concerned that the allocation to Objective 2 is somewhat smaller than it should be, taking the view that the development of a holistic regional approach (focusing on the entire Black Sea drainage basin) should be undertaken with some urgency, thereby enhancing the true regional focus of the activities, enabling much clearer and authoritative identification of incremental programme elements, and ensuring that follow-up activities focus on the major regional priorities.
8. I am somewhat surprised that the previous GEF-funded was not able to complete a more detailed identification of priorities. Little specific information is provided regarding the provisions of the Danube Strategic Action Plan other than the principles on which it is founded. Yet this proposal embodies the development of a further Strategic Action Plan (Sub-objective 1.2.) that includes priorities and, presumably, associated National Action Plans that will provide more specifics about national priorities and national activities to ameliorate adverse environmental impacts.
Objectives
9. Are the project objectives valid? Yes
10. Are the project objectives properly focused? In my opinion, they are not. Objective 1 (Completion of the technical phase for priority identification) is legitimate to complete outstanding objectives from the earlier project. This objective must be fulfilled aggressively and in a wholly regional context. It would appear that much of the groundwork for this objective has been laid but there will need to be an appropriate emphasis, within project management, on priority-setting at an early stage in this new project, if funding is granted. The reduction in the funding allocation to this objective is appropriate as emphasis should be on assimilation of information and identification of priorities, not the collection of additional data. I would also argue that the preparation and delivery of a Basin Technical Report (Activity 1.1.1. under Sub-objective 1.1) should be undertaken in concert with, not necessarily prior to, activities 1.1.2 and 1.1.3. It might also be appropriate to develop what are referred to as "baseline activities" (as I understand it, commitments from participating countries of their intended activities in the 5-10 year time-frame) in general terms in a manner subordinate to the priority-setting exercise. There is too much reference to technical data under this item in Paragraph 19 - this smacks of putting the cart before the horse.
11. As noted, Activity 1.2.1. involves formulating a Strategic Action Plan that is claimed to be a product of the previous project. Some additional clarity, discriminating between the existing SAP and the proposed SAP would be useful.
12. I think the title for Objective 2 (Policy support for priority identification) is an unfortunate choice of words. Paragraph 22 is, in my view, one of the most salient in the entire proposal as I have stated in section 1 above. I would hope, that towards the latter part of the proposed funding cycle, this objective could be fully achieved realizing that it partly depends on continued support for the Black Sea Environmental Programme and other relevant peripheral Black Sea programmes. I am concerned, however, about the rather weak wording in the Description of Activities for Sub-objective 2.1. "Technical and policy consultations to identify the necessary steps to begin development of an overall strategic approach to the Black Sea Basin consistent with GEF Operational Strategy on International Waters/Workshop (May 1977)" This is not aggressive or forthright enough! It relies on a contribution from the GEF Black Sea Programme but, if the funding request here is too low, as I suspect it is, it should be increased.
13. Objective 3 I find particularly confusing. It spends time elucidating, in a most opaque manner, the principles on which the SAP is founded and catalogues, in vague and unsatisfactory terms, the results of the Danube Environmental Programme. For example, it includes: "Human health issues related to pollution of the Danube have been raised." What does this mean? Further, it states: "Pre-feasibility studies have been prepared for fourteen transboundary and national tributaries to the Danube River." What are these "pre-feasibility studies" addressing? I find this catalogue of successes weak and unconvincing - indeed, it weakens the whole proposal measurably. Equally, I find the Activities 3.1.1. through 3.1.6. lacking in meaning and substance and somewhat divorced from the objective. Nevertheless, Sub-objective 3.2. is comparatively straightforward, supportable and claims an appropriate proportion of the proposed financial resource allocation to the project.
14. Can the objectives be achieved given the activities which have been outlined? It would appear so. But this conclusion is drawn from a the words of the proposal rather than its spirit. Given good and conscientious management, I think it is fair to say that the objectives proposed can be met on the basis of the activities defined.
15. Are there opportunities or problems which have been overlooked in the formulation of the objectives? On the basis of the information provided, I see little fundamentally wrong in the assumptions about the execution of the project. Neither do I see any obviously-missed opportunities.
Background and Justification
16. The background should contain more specific and technical information. As noted previously, much of the introductory text, other than the reference to specific agreements, such as the Convention itself, is vague and unsubstantiated. At the least, some more specific information should be provided regarding the SAP.
17. The justification for the project is-clear but rather weak. I suspect this weakness is more attributable to the way the proposal has been drafted than with the potential value of the project. It is somewhat premature to review issues such as incremental costs, degree of threat, and cost-effectiveness, because little substantive information on these topics are provided or, specifically in the case of incremental costs, the project is intended to identify these for the region concerned.
Critical Analysis of the Situation
18. The situation has not been critically analyzed. One would need more specific information about the deliverables and achievements of the previous project to draw judgments here.
Activities
19. Are the proposed activities appropriate? See comments under 4 above.
20. Should some activities be added or deleted? No but relative emphasis might be altered - see comments under 4 above.
21. Is there a logical sequence of activities to achieve the stated objectives? Subject to comments under 4 above which might re-order some of the Sub-objectives, I have no major problem with the sequence proposed.
National Priorities and Community Participation
22. Cannot comment
23. Countries appear appropriate in the context of profile suitability for GEF support but I would have liked to have seen, even if through the European Commission, a more direct and tacit role for Austria and Germany as partners in the development of regional priorities.
24. It would appear that adequate public information and involvement is being undertaken within the proposed project envelope.
25. It is not possible, with the limited detail provided, to comment on the degree of consultation with local communities in all project steps. However, the spirit and wording of the relevant sections of the proposal would lead me to believe that such consultation is fully intended.
Institutional Arrangements
26. To the limited extent that details are provided, these seem appropriate. I would, however, be most concerned about the management of the project in the sense that focus is placed on the critical objectives and not unjustifiably invested in the collection of new data of purely incidental interest.
Time Frame
27. Given appropriate project management, the proposed objectives can be met within the proposed time frame.
Funding
28. I cannot judge, with the limited information provided, whether the proposed funding levels are appropriate. Certainly, the revised financial allocations among the objectives is more reasonable than those in the original proposal.
29. The projected co-financing contributions appear to be realistic.
Innovative Features/Reliability
30. I have already commented on the potential for replication within the "countries in transition" context. In principle, I would have thought the drainage-basin model being used here could implicitly be replicated in many other locations throughout the world.
Sustainability
31. The mechanisms being put in place (partly facilitated by this proposal) offer an appropriate basis for sustainability in a stable multilateral framework.
Development Dimensions and Rationale for GEF Support
32. I have already commented on this above.
Additional Comments or Questions
33. My copy of the draft proposal is heavily annotated with question marks and editorial suggestions that might be useful to those re-drafting the proposal at some future time. I am willing to provide this annotated copy if deemed useful.
{Remaining Annexes are not available in electronic format. Copies of these are available on request from the GEF Secretariat}.