Get documents about "Format of reports
Document Sample
Strengthening the Implementation Capacities
for Nutrient Reduction and Transboundary Cooperation
in the Danube River Basin
Progress Report – Phase II
First Grants Round
RER03/G31/A/1G/31 PS
Project Component 3.2: Small Grants Programme
April 30, 2005
Prepared by: Entela Pinguli Project Manager
Project Output 3.2: Small Grants Programme 3
Preface
This report was produced by the Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe
(REC) as part of the Danube Regional Project (DRP), which was launched on December 1st, 2002, as
part of the United Nations Development Programme‟s Global Environmental Facility (UNDP-GEF).
This report covers component 3.2 of the DRP – the „Small Grants Programme‟ – which has an aim of
strengthening and supporting NGO participation in Danube nutrient reduction by providing small
grants for projects. This component is managed by the REC, through its head office in Hungary, in
cooperation with its offices in the Danube basin countries.
In this report, the REC is only describing the grants monitoring processes at the regional and national
level that are part of Phase II of DRP project implementation.
Phase I: As a result of the grants selection process, which was part of the first phase of this project, 65
projects were supported with a total of 681,933 USD, enabling them to contribute to nutrient
reduction in eleven Danube Basin countries: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech
Republic, Hungary, Moldova, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Ukraine.
Phase II: In the second phase of the Danube Regional Project, which started in July, 2004, and will
continue for two years, the REC - through its network - is monitoring the implementation of the NGO
projects at the national and regional levels. Emphasis is given to the impact the projects have on
nutrient and toxic substance pollution. This report gives insight into what the NGOs have
accomplished during the implementation of their projects at the regional and national levels, and
describes the REC‟s role in assisting them to achieve these results. It covers the period from July,
2004, to April, 2005.
The REC‟s mission is to assist in solving environmental problems in Central and Eastern Europe
(CEE) by promoting cooperation among non-governmental organizations, governments, businesses
and other environmental stakeholders, and by supporting the free exchange of information and public
participation in environmental decision-making. The REC has been involved in Danube environment-
related projects since its inception in the early nineties, and has taken an active role in cooperating
with key Danube players to enable NGO involvement in the international environmental initiatives
related to the entire basin. The Danube represents quite an important environmental subject for the
REC; the organisation works with its NGOs, local and national governments, business and other
stakeholders. The REC is closely cooperating with other relevant stakeholders such as the
International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR) and the Danube
Environmental Forum. The REC took part on the Danube pollution Reduction Programme (1999–
2001), enabling NGO contributions to the process of pollution reduction. Additionally, the REC
participated in the ICPDR expert group developing the Danube River Basin Strategy for Public
Participation in River Basin Management Planning 2003-2009, which was adopted by the ICPDR in
June, 2003.
In the area of Public Participation, the REC implemented a medium-sized pilot project - Building
Environmental Citizenship to Reduce Transboundary Pollution in the Danube - in Hungary and
Slovenia from 2000-2002, which was also funded through GEF. Building on the results of this pilot
project, a new component has been developed and integrated into the Danube Regional Project -
Enhancing Support of Public Participation in Addressing Priority Sources of Pollution („hot spots‟)
through Improved Access to Information in the Frame of the EU Water Framework Directive
(component 3.4) - which is being implemented in Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro
and Bosnia and Herzegovina from 2004-2006.
Progress Report – Phase II
Prepared by REC
Project Output 3.2: Small Grants Programme 5
Table of contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 9
Project description .................................................................................................................... 11
National Grants monitoring .................................................................................................. 11
Regional Grants monitoring ................................................................................................. 13
Grant‟s analyses........................................................................................................................ 15
National grants (First Round) ............................................................................................... 15
Regional Grants (First Round) ............................................................................................. 19
Conclusions and considerations ............................................................................................... 35
Direct and indirect impact of the NGO actions on nutrient and toxics reduction ................ 35
How the selected NGO projects address the scope of the DRP programme. ....................... 36
Analyses of indicators measuring the progress/ success of the projects by country. ........... 36
Comments on stakeholders and tools used. .......................................................................... 37
Project Set-up ........................................................................................................................... 38
Annexes .................................................................................................................................... 39
Progress Report – Phase II
Prepared by REC
Project Output 3.2: Small Grants Programme 7
Abbreviations
CEE – Central Eastern Europe
CP – Concept Paper
DEF- Danube Environmental Forum
DRP – Danube Regional Project
FP – Full Proposal
ICPDR – International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River
NGO – Non-Governmental Organisation
REC – The Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe
UNDP/GEF – The United Nations Development Programme/Global Environmental Facility
Progress Report – Phase II
Prepared by REC
Project Output 3.2: Small Grants Programme 9
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This project was designed to issue grants that enable environmental non-governmental organisations
(NGOs) in the Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries of the Danube Basin to contribute to the
reduction of nutrients and toxic substances.
This project has two main components:
Nationally-based granting programmes for environmental NGOs in the Danube Basin
focusing on issues of national priority related to nutrients and toxic substances; and
A regional grants programme promoting regional cooperation and supporting regional
environmental projects being implemented by NGOs from CEE to address nutrient and toxic
substance issues.
The first round of grants implementation was split in two phases:
Phase I (October 2002 – October 2003): In the first phase of the project, the grants component was
established and taken to the point where NGO projects were selected. The following activities were
carried out:
The project‟s parameters were established and supporting documents drafted.
Staff implementing the call were provided with training on nutrient and toxic substance
pollution and the role of NGOs in mitigating it.
Calls were announced at both the national and regional levels, in local languages for national
grants and in English for regional grants.
Concept papers from NGOs throughout the region were collected by the REC‟s country
offices, as well as by the independent REC-Kyiv and REC Moldova offices for national
grants (167 CPs in total); and by the REC head office in Szentendre for Regional Grants (16
CPs). Concept papers (CPs) were evaluated by REC staff, DEF representatives and DRP
representatives. 109 CPs were chosen to move on to the full proposal (FP) stage at the
national level, and nine were chosen at the regional level.
207,754 USD was awarded to support five regional projects, involving NGOs from more than
one country. These projects focus on transboundary cooperation, regional networking,
stakeholder cooperation, best practices in agriculture and the basin/sub-basin approach to
decision making. Additionally 8748 USD are awarded to support the NGO preparations
meetings for preparing the proposals.
465,431 USD was awarded to support 60 National NGO initiatives, which take a sectoral and
multi-stakeholder approach to reducing nutrient and toxic substance pollution, focusing on:
Agricultural discharge: 35 % of the projects deal with environmental problems
originating from agriculture by, for example, promoting organic farming.
Municipal discharge: 40 % of the projects deal with environmental problems
originating from the activities of municipalities (e.g.. wastewater treatment), and/or
household and general community activities (e.g. consumption). Projects, for
example, aim to improve public awareness of household waste management.
Land use/wetlands: 12 % of the projects aim at improving the function of wetlands
and/or limiting erosion by, for example, revitalizing riverbanks or reforesting.
Industrial discharge: 13 % of the projects deal with environmental problems
originating from industrial discharge. Project activities, for example, disseminate
information on clean technology in mining.
Progress Report – Phase II
Prepared by REC
10 UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Phase II (July 2004 – November 2006): In the second phase, the REC and its network:
Coordinated 12 Winners Meetings with the involvement of all selected NGOs, at the Regional
and National levels.
Signed 65 contracts (award agreements), which specified budgets, preconditions and grants
implementation requirements.
Are managing the monitoring of the implementation of all 65 projects, in each of the
Danube Countries in the Danube Basin, at the regional and national scales.
Progress Report – Phase II
Prepared by REC
Project Output 3.2: Small Grants Programme 11
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The second phase of project implementation started with the preparation and negotiation of terms of
reference for each and every country managing National Grants.
These terms of reference included tasks related to the Grants Monitoring process, according to the
REC‟ Grants Manual‟s instructions:
Organise a Winners Meeting in each of the Danube Countries
Manage grants monitoring
Evaluate the grants‟ results with the help of indicators
Disseminate information and results broadly
National Grants monitoring
The total amount of grants awarded for the first round was 465,421 USD. The amounts allocated to
each country are noted in the table below. The maximum amount that was to be allocated to any one
NGO project at the national level was 15,000 USD, though offices were advised to give over 10,000
USD only in special circumstances.
Country USD Allocated USD Requested USD Awarded
Bosnia and Herzegovina 50,000 57,121 49,849
Bulgaria 50,000 51,951 33,470
Croatia 50,000 80,671 50,000
Czech Republic 40,000 61,555 40,000
Hungary 50,000 76,400 49,822
Romania 60,000 60,000 29,340
Slovakia 45,000 80,992 45,000
Slovenia 40,000 87,293 40,000
Serbia and Montenegro 60,000 113,327 60,000
Ukraine 40,000 70,962 27950
Moldova 40,000 123,922 40,000
Winners Meetings in 11 Danube Countries
During July and August, 2004, the REC Country offices in the Danube Basin countries, and REC
Moldova, organised Winners Meetings in their countries. 55 CEE NGOs took part and received
instructions on project management and reporting. The Ukrainian Winners Meeting took place later in
2004, due to problems faced in identifying and securing an organisation with the capacity to manage
the Ukrainian Grants.
In each case, grant winners were invited to the country office for the meeting. The project leader
presented their project to the other grantees. Discussions on the terms of the Award Agreements were
conducted, covering such things as: The schedule for providing progress and financial reports, and the
schedule for providing the NGO with funding, based upon their progress in implementing the project.
When signed by both the grantee and the Country Director, the Award Agreements became legally
binding contracts. The Award Agreement states the approved budget for the grant, the disbursement
schedule, the reporting requirements, and any other conditions. Two original copies of the Award
Agreement were sent to the NGO project officer who signed and returned both of them to the Country
Office. When the signed copies of the Award Agreements were received, the Country Director
accepted and signed them, placing one in the grant file and returning the other to the NGO project
officer.
Progress Report – Phase II
Prepared by REC
12 UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
The Award Agreement also states that the grantee is obligated to undertake the project as described in
the grant application. Any material changes to the project proposal must be submitted in writing in
advance to the Grants Manager and must be approved in writing by the Grants manager. Material
changes include a budget variance of 10% or more, a change in the dates of project implementation,
and significant changes to the nature of the project.
Funds were transferred to the NGO accounts directly from the RE COs, therefore detailed information
about the NGO back accounts was attached to the Award Agreements.
National Grants implementation progress in the 11 Danube Grants countries
Individual reports prepared by each of the REC offices coordinating and monitoring the NGO work
for implementation of the national grants are attached to this report. The reports indicate the progress
of implementation individually for each grant. Additionally, the national reports give some attention
to indicators from the grants and their contribution to the main objectives of the DRP project.
Most of the National grantees are half way through their project implementation and are expected to
finalise their activities and submit final reports by September, 2005. The second instalments are being
forwarded based on the status of their progress reports.
Since the implementation of the National Grants extends to Ukraine and Moldova, during the first
phase of the project the REC created partnerships with the independent Regional Environmental
Centres in these countries: REC-Kiev and REC Moldova, which managed the Grants selection
process. Their main tasks for the second phase of project implementation include:
Monitoring the implementation of the national grants in their countries according to the
designed structure, and
Reporting the results of the project to the REC.
There are some issues the REC would like to point out at this point of project implementation with
regards to the implementation of the National Grants scheme in Ukraine. The problems in Ukraine
were caused by the REC–Kiev office, which stopped operating in June of 2004. After the grants
selection process, which was managed by REC–Kiev during the first phase of the project, the
information about NGO contacts vanished with the staff, and REC had to put some efforts into
rebuilding the contacts and working relations with each of the selected NGOs individually. REC
Moldova helped in this process and the arrangement made is that REC Moldova is also assisting the
REC in monitoring grants implementation in Ukraine. Due to the above mentioned difficulties,
Ukrainian grants implementation is delayed. One of the Ukrainian NGOs also dropped out of the
project due to their internal management problems.
There are also some grants-management-related problems faced in Bulgaria, due to internal office
problems. The REC is working on improving the situation and hopes to solve these problems soon
with minimal impact on DRP National Grants implementation.
Progress Report – Phase II
Prepared by REC
Project Output 3.2: Small Grants Programme 13
Regional Grants monitoring
For regional grants, in the first round, 207,754 USD was awarded to NGOs throughout the Danube
watershed. The maximum that was to be allocated to an individual project was 50,000 USD.
Regional Winners meeting in Hungary
The Regional Winners Meeting was held in Budapest, Hungary, on June 26th, 2004, with the
participation of the five NGO leaders of the Regional Grants selected.
The Winners meeting agenda was:
10:00-10:20 Welcome and Introduction; Objectives of the call
10:20-11:00 REC Grant Requirements and Reporting Forms
Narrative (Entela)
Financial (Erzsebet)
11:00-11:30 Project Presentations I
(Each project had 30 minutes: 15 min. presentation and 15 min. discussion)
11:30-12:00 Break
12:00-13:00 Project Presentations II (2 presentations)
13:00-14:00 Lunch
14:00-15:00 Project Presentations III (2 presentations)
15:00-18:00 Reviewing and signing the Award Agreements
Meeting goal
The main goal of the meeting was to review and sign the award agreements between the NGOs and
the REC, as well as to provide explanations on the REC Grants Requirements and Reporting Forms to
NGOs. Any clarification about the projects, including the way the pre-conditions were addressed, was
discussed during the meeting. In addition to this, the meeting provided an opportunity for the NGOs
to present their projects and meet all organizations that were awarded a grant under this call. The
NGOs met the Grants Manager assigned to their projects, which is important as this person is their
main contact person at the REC during project implementation.
NGO Presentations
The NGOs were asked to present their projects in the winners meeting. The time scheduled for each
project was about 30 min. Each presentation was 15 minutes, and an additional 15 minutes was
allocated for questions and clarifications. Presentations were to be prepared in PowerPoint and
highlight:
The problem addressed by the project and the relevance to the scope of the call;
The goal and objectives and how do they relate to the Grant Programme objectives;
The methods for project work and cooperation, and rationale of the partnership;
Time frame of the activities;
Expected project outcomes and results, and how they contribute to the Grants Programme/
Danube Regional Project purpose; and
Indicators of success, ensuring the achievement of the project objectives.
Award Agreements
Following the REC‟s standard procedures, NGOs would normally sign their Award Agreements,
which serves as legal contracts by stating the disbursement of funds, the reporting schedule and other
terms and conditions, as the Winners Meeting. In this particular case, due to the Contract delay, the
Award Agreements were discussed but not signed during this meeting. The REC signed the Award
Agreements within days after the Contract with the Donor was signed. Prior to transferring the first
instalment, the Lead NGOs had to send the sub-award agreement(s) to their partner NGO(s) for
signature. The first instalment was transferred to each of the organizations involved only after the
Progress Report – Phase II
Prepared by REC
14 UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Lead NGO and the REC signed their Award Agreements, and the Sub-award Agreements signed and
stamped by the Lead and Partner NGOs were provided to the REC.
Regional Grants implementation progress
NGOs started working on the implementation of Regional Grants immediately after the Award
Agreements were signed in August, 2005 (after the contract between DRP and the REC was
finalised).
The grants monitoring process consist of:
Direct contacts: Direct contacts were initiated at the Winners Meeting. In order to keep in
contact with the NGOs throughout project implementation, the REC requires the grantee to
inform them, in advance, about any event organized within the framework of the Grant so a
representative can attend. Grantees must also officially request and justify any changes to
budget items.
Reporting review process, consisting of:
Assessing the activities according to the plan (project proposal)
Checking to what extend the projects have achieved the results set by phase and
overall
Checking the products and their quality
Checking if any changes occurred during project implementation, and how this
change is reflected in the project.
Site visits: The REC visits the NGOs, preferably in action during activities organized under
project implementation. This is the best way to get feed back regarding the impacts of the
project. The meetings usually take place in their office space and, in some cases, REC country
representatives are involved in the meetings. Every site visit requires preparation from the
NGOs on the project file, papers, documentation, financial issues, and so on. Each site visit is
documented with a “Trip Report”, which identifies the positive and negative issues of project
implementation and points out the changes and recommendations for future actions agreed
upon between the REC and the NGOs. They can also be reports on the NGO event that the
Grants Manager attends.
Progress Report – Phase II
Prepared by REC
Project Output 3.2: Small Grants Programme 15
GRANT’S ANALYSES
National grants (First Round)
The list of the selected grants is attached to this report (Appendix XII – List of DRP Grants).
Information is also published on the REC‟s web page:
http://www.rec.org/REC/Programs/NGO_Support/Grants/NationalDanubeGrants/Default.html#results
Four topic areas have been categorised, based on the following definitions:
Agricultural discharge: Projects that deal with environmental problems originating from
agriculture by, for example, promoting organic farming.
Municipal discharge: Projects that deal with environmental problems originating from the
activities of municipalities (e.g. wastewater treatment), and/or household and general
community activities (e.g. consumption). Project activities, for example, aim to improve
public awareness of household waste management.
Land use/wetland: Projects that aim at improving the function of wetlands and/or limiting
erosion by, for example, revitalizing riverbanks or reforesting.
Industrial discharge: Projects that deal with environmental problems originating from
industrial discharge. Project activities, for example, disseminate information on clean
technology in mining.
Here is a breakdown of the projects falling under each of the topics, by country:
Bosnia Herzegovina
Agricultural discharge Industrial discharge Land Municipal discharge
use/Wetland
Knowing pesticides and their use Building a partnership in local Ecological education
community against nutrient in primary schools
pollution
Ecological view on waters in river Protection of river
Vrbas basin Jadar
Nutrients sources reduction on area No phosphorous
of municipalities of Visoko and
Kladanj
Bulgaria
Agricultural Industrial Land use/Wetland Municipal discharge
discharge discharge
Ecoaccent – plant Protection and model Development of partnership for the
growing in Dobrudzha restoration of floodplain reduction of pollution of the Yantra
forests river basin
Improvement of the
environmental state of the dam Care and Responsibility for Our
of Dabravka River
Progress Report – Phase II
Prepared by REC
16 UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Croatia
Agricultural discharge Industrial Land Municipal discharge
discharge use/Wetland
Promoting Methods of Eco and Organic Cleaner Protecting the Danube Basin
Agriculture production from Pollution, Western
Lateral Channel
Agriculture for life: Agriculture as a Friend Monitoring Drava Pollution
to Animals - One Step in the Danube Basin and Informing Public and
Pollution Reduction Polluters
What has to be known about Nutrients and
Toxic Ingredients in Danube Environment.
Czech Republic
Agricultural discharge Industrial Land use/Wetland Municipal discharge
discharge
Nutrient reduction through Future without Reducing eutrophication in Public participation on
applying biological toxic 2004 in Pisecny pond in nature improving water quality in
preparations Danube basin reserve Horni Olsava basin
Eco-farming campaign in Environmental education in
the Morava river basin Morava
Hungary
Agricultural discharge Industrial discharge Land Municipal discharge
use/Wetland
Water quality protection in the Pollution spots along Ipoly Trans-danubian creeks and
South Great Plain region river - unveil and map small rivers pollution
monitoring
Chemical-free agriculture on
floodplains
Bio-agriculture in Bodrog-koz Awareness-raising about
floodplains the IPPC directive.
Toxic and nutrient reduction
in Sajo river valley
Moldova
Agricultural discharge Industrial Land Municipal discharge
discharge use/Wetland
Developing capacities to promote organic Pollution reduction with
farming, reducing nutrient pollution in the nitrogen compounds in the
Danube river basin (the project covers Danube river basin
Falesti district area)
Nutrient pollution reduction in
the Prut tributary rivers
A way to reduce the
concentration of water biogenic
elements (nutrients) in the
Danube basin
Progress Report – Phase II
Prepared by REC
Project Output 3.2: Small Grants Programme 17
Romania
Agricultural discharge Industrial Land Municipal
discharge use/Wetland discharge
Promoting Measures to be Undertaken for the Reduction of
Nutrient Pollutants Originating from Agriculture in the
Mehedinti County Danube Basin.
Program Promoting and Implementing Organic Farming
Practices, for the Reduction of Chemical–Farming
Substances, in the Low Danube Basin
Serbia and Montenegro
Agricultural discharge Industrial discharge Land Municipal discharge
use/Wetland
Organic agriculture – A step New technologies in DEF Serbia and Montenegro
towards Danube river basin Danube watershed mines Network towards EU Water
preservation Directive implementation
Tara – welfare and obligation The environmental value of
Moravica watershed and pollutants
identification
Towards pollution reduction Protection of Danube
of the upper stream watershed from nutrient
pollution
Slovakia
Agricultural Industrial Land use/Wetland Municipal discharge
discharge discharge
Revitalization of meadows and Watercourses are not for sewage!
nitrogen reduction in Žitava basin
Proposal for a participatory strategy
to decrease water sources pollution in
the Myjava River basin
River coalitions - cross-sectoral Management of national nature
partnerships in 3 Danube sub- reserve Cicovske mrtve rameno
basins in Slovakia
Martonka is living again
Revitalisation of the Stupava creek
Small reed bed wastewater treatment
plant
Slovenia
Agricultural discharge Industrial Land Municipal discharge
discharge use/Wetland
Promotion of Organic Farming, How does the River Clean Itself?
Environmental Farming Standards
My Good Neighbour Stream
Environmentally Friendly Dippers
and Washing Detergents
Progress Report – Phase II
Prepared by REC
18 UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Ukraine
Agricultural Industrial Land use/Wetland Municipal discharge
discharge discharge
Carpathians without School of Assisting with the conservation and The Blue Gold of the
Pesticides – Clean Environmental renovation of wetland ecosystems Danube is our
Danube Leadership in the Ukrainian Danube basin Common Heritage
The following table provides an overview of the national grants distribution among topic areas:
Agricultural Industrial Land Use Municipal Number
Country Discharge Discharge + Wetlands Discharge of projects
BiH 3 1 0 3 7
Bulgaria 1 0 2 2 5
Croatia 3 1 0 2 6
Czech Republic 2 1 1 2 6
Hungary 4 2 0 1 7
Moldova 1 0 0 3 4
Romania 2 0 0 0 2
Serbia and 7
Montenegro 3 2 0 2
Slovakia 0 0 3 5 8
Slovenia 1 0 0 3 4
Ukraine 1 1 1 1 4
Totals: 21 8 7 24 60
Percentage: 35% 13,3% 11,65 40% 100%
It is clear from the table that there is a strong focus on eliminating pollution originating from
agricultural discharge and from municipal discharge.
The figure below illustrates the topic areas graphically:
Agriculture
Industry
Land Use/Wetland
Municipal
Progress Report – Phase II
Prepared by REC
Project Output 3.2: Small Grants Programme 19
GRANT’S ANALYSES
Regional Grants (First Round)
The selected projects are:
(Project A) Addressing Nutrient and Toxic Pollution in the Sub-basins of the Morava, Mura
and Ogasta Rivers - The main aim of the project is to raise awareness of water pollution.
(Project B) The Prut Basin wide approach for Nutrient Reduction and Cross-border
Cooperation - The project aims to improve water management and conservation through a variety
of approaches.
(Project C) The Support and Promotion of Ecological Agriculture in the Production Areas
Located in the Danube Basin - The project aims to disseminate ecological farming in the
significant agricultural areas of the Danube Basin.
(Project D) Danube-Elbe-Oder Canal: Grassroots-National-European Campaign to Prevent
the Biggest Wetland Loss Threat in Central Europe - The aim of the project is to protect the
wetlands of the Danube from the Danube-Elbe-Oder Canal.
(Project E) Networking the River Coalitions for Healthy Watershed - The project aims to
support better environmental management and more effective cooperation amongst different
stakeholders.
All of these projects were analysed, using a research process developed by the REC, with the purpose
of seeing how these NGO projects are contributing to the DRP objectives. The research followed the
structure of: First, the objectives of the project were listed. Second, their method of work was listed.
Then, an overview of how the identified stakeholders/target groups are involved in the project, and
how the project intends to communicate with them, was provided. Thereafter, the indicators used to
measure the success of the project were summarised and analysed, with respect to their quantitative
and qualitative characteristics and usefulness. The expected direct and indirect environmental impact
of the project was listed, followed by an overview of the appropriate corresponding indicators relating
to the impact.
The next section aims to briefly discuss how the grants indicators relate to the DRP objectives.
Thereafter, a table will illustrate how the REC‟s grants scope relates to the selection criteria and
objectives and aims set by the DRP for the NGO component.
(Project A) Addressing Nutrient and Toxic Pollution in the Sub-basins of the Morava, Mura
and Ogasta Rivers
Objectives
Transfer and disseminate to the public existing information on the main point and non-point
sources of pollution in the three river basins.
Undertake a public campaign to motivate and mobilise local people in the three river basins to
take direct action for reducing water pollution in their neighbourhoods.
Promote environmentally friendly farming methods and stakeholder cooperation.
Contribute to nutrient reduction in the Ogasta basin through the construction of a wetland site.
Method of work
Collecting information on sources of pollution
Preparing and distributing leaflets in the three river basins, both on a national and river basin
basis.
Preparing and implementing media campaign.
Carrying out educational activities for school children in Bulgaria.
Involving local people in direct action to clean streams in selected municipalities.
Progress Report – Phase II
Prepared by REC
20 UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Organising a workshop on the reduction of pollution caused by agriculture in the Ogasta
Basin.
Organising stakeholder meetings, aiming to develop a plan for pollution reduction at selected
pilot sites, to be held once a year in each pilot site, for one day.
Presenting a pollution reduction plan to the authorities in each pilot site.
Exchanging information on wetland construction (Summer 2004).
Constructing a wetland site in the Ogasta Basin.
Stakeholders and modes of communication with the project NGOs
The stakeholders, as opposed to the target groups, are not directly defined, yet they must be assumed
to be the locals living in the selected pilot areas. They will be reached through a “most intensive
media campaign” aiming to raise public awareness on water pollution, promote community activities
that promote environmentally-friendly farming, and construct wetlands. This campaign will mainly be
based on the local media. It is not stipulated how long the campaign will last, nor its geographical
reach. However, it is stated that at least one press conference will be held per year and that the
relevant country NGO will contact the media at least four times a year during the implementation
period.
Leaflet distribution is also a means to reach and inform the stakeholders; yet again the geographical
reach of this is not stipulated. However, since only 1000 copies will be printed for each country,
clearly not many people will be targeted. Other stakeholders are also informed through educational
activities (school children). Thereby, they are actively involved. Stakeholders are also actively
involved in the cleaning up of streams and in the construction of wetlands. The mode of
communication is mainly one way (i.e. from NGO to stakeholders). However, there are some
activities where the stakeholders have an influence on the project: The organisation of a ‟workshop on
the possibilities to reduce pollution caused by agriculture in the Ogasta Basin„ and the ‟stakeholder
meetings in selected pilot sites to develop a plan for water pollution reduction„.
Analysis of indicators
The following have been identified as indicators for the success of the project.
1. Number of copies of information material printed.
2. Number of school children, teachers and schools participating in the three countries.
3. Number of press conferences organised, press releases, articles and interviews broadcasted.
4. Feedback provided by local people, based on a questionnaire.
5. Number of stakeholders involved in the workshop in the Ogasta Basin.
6. Feedback from workshop participants provided in evaluation forms.
7. Number of stakeholders involved in working groups for the pollution reduction plan.
8. Water pollution reduction plans for 3 pilot sites.
9. Design of wetland, monitoring conducted, good functioning of the system, quality of
pollution reduction in the wastewater.
10. Number of direct local actions to reduce water pollution.
11. Number of people participating in direct actions to increase water quality.
The indicators listed are good indicators for measuring the success of the project and most of them are
easy measurable. With regards to the indicators relating to disseminating information on
environmental problems in the basins, it is not necessarily clear-cut that the amount of leaflets copied
and distributed is a sufficient indicator to ensure success. Surely, an additional indicator will be the
results of the questionnaire distributed. It is not stated how many questionnaires will be distributed,
nor has it been put into the log frame or the timetable when to expect the summary of the
questionnaire to be completed.
Progress Report – Phase II
Prepared by REC
Project Output 3.2: Small Grants Programme 21
Linkages between grants indicators and the DRP objectives
Grants indicators 1-3 relate to the DRP objectives of raising and improving awareness and thereby
preventing pollution, but also to enable people to participate in decision making, hoping that
awareness raising will create demands for a better and healthier environment and quality of life. The
concrete DRP objective that this relates to is the “strengthening of public involvement in
environmental decision-making and reinforcement of community action for pollution reduction and
protection of ecosystems”.
Grant indicator 4 is an indicator of how good the campaign has been, and thus reveals the extent and
the quality of the awareness raising. Indicator 5, 6 and 7 are also qualitative indicators, which shows
the extent of public participation and thus relate to the DRP objective of “strengthening public
involvement in environmental decision making and to reinforce community actions for pollution
reduction”. Indicator number 8 also falls under the above category, but has a physical outcome, which
helps facilitate the process of solving pollution problems. This fulfils the DRP objective of “capacity
building and reinforcement of transboundary cooperation for the improvement of water quality and
environmental standards in the River Basin”. Indicators 9 and 10 directly help to reduce the pollution
of Danube tributaries but are at the same time instructive and educational, thus raising awareness.
Indicator 11 is a qualitative indicator, which illustrates the extent of awareness and interest in the
“practical projects” outlined in indicators 9 and 10.
Expected direct environmental impact
Through cleaning actions, the project will improve the local environment in three
localities.
The construction of wetland will act as nutrient sink and thereby decrease the negative impact
of a local pig farm.
Expected indirect environmental impacts
Raising public awareness of environmental issues and thereby the reduction of untreated
household wastewater released into the river.
Promotion of environmentally friendly farming (reducing the environmentally harmful effects
of conventional agriculture).
Development of three water pollution reduction plans, which will help raise awareness
amongst a broad range of stakeholders.
The table below illustrates how the DRP scope, as stated in the REC‟s grants announcement, relates
to the selection criteria and objectives and aims set by the DRP for the NGO component.
Progress Report – Phase II
Prepared by REC
22 UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
DRP grants Methods used NGO activity DRP objective Indirect effect Direct effect
scope
Impact on Interactive Construction Creation of Education on Reduction of
pollution1 case projects of wetland sustainable alternative pollution
Clean up ecological agriculture, from farm
actions conditions for helping to Removal of
Work shop on land use and reduce nutrients dumpsite
EA water in the long run
management
Model2 value Interactive Pilot projects Capacity Identification
and multiplier case projects + Development building of hot spots
effect involvement of water and solutions.
of other pollution Disseminati-
stakeholders reduction on of
plans information to
authorities
Regional Campaign in Leaflet Strengthening Raise
approach three distribution on transboundary
public
countries hot spot in the involvement in awareness,
Education in basin as a environmental improve
three whole. decision … international
countries Schools in cooperation.
three countries Disseminate
learning about experiences
water
pollution
As a conclusion of these analyses, this is a good example that tries to tackle pollution problems in
three sub basins simultaneously by utilising the strengths and experiences of different NGOs. There is
a good mix of actions that lead directly to nutrient and toxic pollutant reduction and others that have a
more indirect effect. The indicators suggested appear to be good indicators to measure the project,
both quantitatively and qualitatively.
(Project B) The Prut Basin wide approach for Nutrient Reduction and Cross-border
Cooperation
This project aims to improve water management by facilitating a transboundary approach during the
development of the Draft Prut River Basin Management Plan for Nutrient Reduction. It also seeks to
improve governmental cooperation between Moldavia and Romania; and to apply concrete measures
to reduce nutrient pollution sources in two-pilot areas in Romania and in the Republic of Moldavia.
Objectives
Awareness-raising on nutrients and other pollutants through campaigning and education
within the Prut River Basin, on both banks.
Provide access to knowledge by creating a database on water related information and
pollution prevention measures.
Support nutrient reduction policies by implementing pollution reduction measures in pilot
sites3.
1
The concrete scope is: Have a concrete and measurable impact on reducing nutrients and toxic substances.
2
Serve as a model for the other areas in the Danube River Basin.
3
At the time of project proposal submission, it was not known where the pilot sites will be and thus what the
particular water pollution problem is. Therefore, the project could not state exactly what measures to reduce
pollution will be implemented.
Progress Report – Phase II
Prepared by REC
Project Output 3.2: Small Grants Programme 23
Establish a multi-stakeholder forum, which is to act as a transboundary information network.
Develop the Prut Basin Management Plan.
Expand and improve governmental communication between the two countries, so as to
integrate data on nutrients and toxic substances in the development plans in the Prut River
Basin.
Method of work
Media campaign in all countries.
Collection and analysis of specific water related data.
Production and distribution of leaflets (4000 copies), CDs, web pages and posters.
Special edition of newspaper Natura (8000 copies)
Meetings with relevant stakeholders:
One inception conference for professionals working with water pollution issues in the
Prut.
Three expert meetings to develop a Draft Prut RBMP (Joint Project Team Meetings).
Six multi-stakeholder Meetings (MSMs), 4 in the Republic of Moldavia, 2 in Romania.
Two pilot demonstration projects
Education in schools.
Networking and partnerships.
Stakeholders and modes of communication
The stakeholders involved are very diverse, and include authorities, NGOs, locals and experts. The
project will facilitate the bringing together of the stakeholders from the two countries through an
Inception Conference and multi-stakeholder meetings, which will help transboundary cooperation in
the future. With regards to the public campaign, there is no information about how and to what extent
(i.e. channels of contribution) the campaign will reach the stakeholders. The pilot schemes involve the
education of school children, however, it is not indicated how many children will be involved.
Analysis of indicators
The following have been identified as indicators for the success of the project:
1. Data/research database on water management issues produced for professionals.
2. Draft Prut River Basin Management Plan produced.
3. Type and number of stakeholders that contribute to the development of the Prut RMBP.
4. Degree of cooperation amongst involved institutions.
5. Quality and amount of information flow.
6. Leaflets and other campaign material disseminated.
7. Production of articles.
8. Extent of media coverage.
9. Number of participants in the MSMs.
10. Number of volunteers involved in concrete activities in the pilot area.
11. Evaluation questionnaires completed after meetings.
12. Topic related demonstrative classes in schools of the pilot communities.
13. Efficiency of the methods implemented in the pilot areas.
14. Number of newly installed technical facilities.
There is a lack of qualitative indicators in this project. For example, it is not stated how the leaflets
are distributed, how many are to be produced and to what extent they are disseminated. The quality of
the leaflets should also be included as an indicator. There are no measurements in place to analyse
which parts of the public campaign have been the most effective, nor is there a breakdown of
countries, to see if both countries are evenly informed, or if the campaigning has been more effective
in some regions than in others and, if so, why. The extent of media coverage is a weak indicator of
success, as it is not stated at which point the extent of media coverage is satisfactory. Indicator
number 5 is not clear and should be more concrete. With regards to the pilot project, the indicator
Progress Report – Phase II
Prepared by REC
24 UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
suggested is extremely loosely defined. The projects are themselves very loosely defined and thus it is
understandable that it is difficult to come up with clear indicators. Educational activities at schools
should have a direct indicator, such as the exact number of classes given, which would signify
success. Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 14 are quantitative indicators. As mentioned above,
there is no level set that indicates at what quantity the indicator can be said to show success. The rest
of the indicators are qualitative which, especially with regards to the evaluations of the meetings, help
show the success of these.
Linkages between grants indicators and the DRP objectives
This project attempts to facilitate the management of transboundary pollution problems. In particular
it attempts to aid the flow of information through meetings and conferences with relevant stakeholders
and thus support the process of solving pollution problems in one of the Danube tributaries and build
transboundary cooperation. It, therefore, attempts to fulfil the DRP objective of: “Capacity building
and reinforcement of transboundary cooperation for the improvement of water quality and
environmental standards in the Danube River Basin”. The MSM meetings that are arranged and the
activities in the pilot sites also mean that it complies with the DRP objective of “Strengthening of
public involvement in environmental decision making and reinforcement of community actions for
pollution reduction and protection of ecosystems”. Furthermore, with the development of a Draft Prut
RBMP the objective of “Reinforcement of monitoring, evaluation and information systems to control
transboundary pollution, and to reduce nutrients and harmful substances” is also covered. To a lesser
extent the project attempts to increase the public awareness of hot spots on the river and apply
concrete solutions to them.
Expected direct environmental impact:
Nutrient reduction in selected pilot sites, through the possible application of various activities,
such as building biogas digesters, improving composting systems and/or constructing reed
beds.
Expected indirect environmental impact
Increased public awareness of environmental hot spots (catchments awareness).
Draft Prut RBM plan, which will help authorities to address pollution and the requirements of
the WFD. Nutrient reduction will also occur as a result of increased cross-border cooperation.
Better informed civil servants that will have easier access to environmental information
relating to socio-economic and water management data.
Increased knowledge on Best Available Technology (BAT) in farming, thereby promoting
more environmentally benign farming.
The table below illustrates how the DRP scope, as stated in the REC‟s grants announcement, relates
to the selection criteria and objectives and aims set by the DRP for the NGO component.
Progress Report – Phase II
Prepared by REC
Project Output 3.2: Small Grants Programme 25
REC Scope Methods NGO activity DRP Indirect effect Direct effect
objective
Promote Campaign Distribution of Strengthening Raised .
Aarhus Public leaflets, media of public awareness on
Principles participation campaign involvement. pollution
in MSM Creation of problems and
meetings, research database improved access
access to and organisation to information
information of MSM and decision
and decisions meetings. making for the
made. public.
Contribute to Make Prut Organisation of Development Increased
policy change RBMP in meetings with of national international
accordance with relevant policies and cooperation,
WFD. stakeholders. legislation. better
possibilities for
implementing
the WFD.
Employ Meetings and Inception and Capacity Transboundary
transboundary conferences for expert meetings building and and coordinated
perspective authorities. arranged. reinforcement focus on how to
of reduce
transboundary pollution.
cooperation.
Involve other Inviting Cooperate with Capacity Increased
stakeholders authorities to authorities on building and cooperation
meetings. strategy to reduce reinforcement between
pollution. of countries, better
transboundary plans made.
cooperation
Have an impact Identify pilot Implementation of Strengthen Reduction of
on nutrient sites, implement pollution reduction public nutrients at
reduction demonstration facilities, promotion involvement specific sites
facilities. of ecological Creation of on the Prut
farming. sustainable River.
ecological
conditions
In conclusion, this is an interesting project, especially with regards to the methodology, which
consists of meetings expected to facilitate cooperation between stakeholders with decision-making
power. However, the monitoring of the pilot projects and their added value is unclear. Therefore,
special attention is being paid to this aspect during the monitoring process.
(Project C) The Support and Promotion of Ecological Agriculture (EA) in the Production Areas
Located in the Danube Basin.
This project aims to disseminate ecological farming in the significant agricultural areas of the Danube
Basin.
Specific objectives
Disseminate EA in significant farming areas of the Danube basin.
Promote EA amongst farmers.
Promote and bring EA to the mainstream amongst academia, authorities, agricultural experts
and consumers.
Progress Report – Phase II
Prepared by REC
26 UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Acquaint the target group with the risks of conventional agriculture.
Give practical examples of EA (pilot farms) and disseminate „know how‟.
Support the European Summer Academy of Ecological Farming.
Create international NGO network and produce Action Plan.
Method of work
Create expert argument study on the benefits derived from EA.
Organise BIO academy 2004 conference, which focused on EA and the protection of water
and development of an Action Plan.
Hold press conference.
Seminars on EA at agricultural Universities.
Publication of two leaflets, one for agricultural experts, one for consumers.
Pilot farms with seminars and open days.
Stakeholders and modes of communication
Stakeholders, or at least the target groups, seem clearly defined. Yet, it is a bit unclear how
conventional farmers will come in contact with EA information (e.g. The expert‟s study). It is
mainly a campaigning project, and there seem to be few ways in which stakeholders could
influence the project. However, it is positive to note that the project attempts to reach the
academic sphere, and also consumers. People are targeted through campaigning in newspapers
and leaflet distribution. There should be some indicators developed relating to the quality of
the leaflets. Right now, it is not clear if there is any systematic distribution of leaflets and if it
has any effect. Some sort of petition or poll that illustrates the extent of concern amongst the
people could perhaps be conducted to pressurise authorities to change policies. It would also
function as an indictor of success. It is unclear what the effects of the target plan will be. It is
in general unclear how the project is going to influence decision makers.
Analysis of indicators
The following have been identified as indicators for success of the project:
1. Reduction of pollution originating from the use of pesticides in the Danube Basin.
2. Involvement of farming representatives in environmental policy planning.
3. Involvement of universities in the teaching of EA.
4. Growth of project target groups.
5. Awareness-raising on protection of water and EU issues amongst the broader public.
6. Increased acreage of EA farmed land in the targeted production areas.
7. Study published.
8. Establishing an accessible and effective source of information for the public on the web and
through leaflet production and dissemination.
9. Number of people participating in the Bioacademy (min. 150).
10. Action plan produced.
11. Four seminars taking place (with at least 80 participants) and open days organised.
12. Two-versions of a leaflet (each with 25000 copies).
These indicators are relevant to measure the impact of the project. However, it is not stated how the
level of public awareness raised through leaflet distribution will be measured; how the leaflets are to
be distributed; to what extent they are disseminated; and whether or not they create a change in
mentality. An interesting indicator would be the number of visits to pilot farms by the general public.
Open days will take place, which will be tours of the farm for the participants at the seminar. Also,
some of the indicators are quite ambitious, considering the short time that the project operates, such as
indicators 1 and 6. A missing indicator could be the extent of consumer awareness on EA products
and a gender perspective should also be considered when targeting consumers.
Progress Report – Phase II
Prepared by REC
Project Output 3.2: Small Grants Programme 27
Linkages between grants indicators and the DRP objectives
The project directly addresses one of the main sources of pollution, namely agriculture, in a structured
and focused manner. It prevents pollution generation by raising public awareness of the issue and
project aims; and by supporting the conversion of conventional farmers to EA, reducing the amounts
of pesticides used, and thus improving water quality in the Danube. Grants indicators 1 and 6 relate to
the DRP objective of the “Creation of sustainable ecological conditions for land use and water
management”; Indicators 2, 3, 5, 8, 10 and 11 are linked to the DRP objective of “Strengthening of
public involvement in environmental decision making” (raising awareness), and also contribute to the
objective of providing “a regional approach to the development of national policies and legislation
and the definition of priority actions for pollution control”.
Expected indirect environmental impact
The promotion of general public awareness on the issue, but also the informing of professionals
(i.e. academia, farmers, and authorities). A change in mentality will, in the end, lead to a reduction
in the amount of pesticides being used on arable lands close to the Danube, thus reducing the
pollution of surface and ground waters.
The table below illustrates how the DRP scope, as stated in REC‟s grants announcement, relates to
the selection criteria and objectives and aims set by the DRP for the NGO component.
DRP grants Methods NGO activity DRP objective Indirect effect Direct
scope effect
Impact on Campaigning Distribution of Strengthening of Increased public
pollution Education. leaflets public awareness leading
Research. Organisation involvement in to less use of
Networking of seminars on environmental pesticides in
Establishing EA decision making farming
partnerships Creation of
with academia sustainable
and other ecological
NGO‟s conditions for
land use.
Capacity building
and reinforcement
of transboundary
cooperation
Change in Campaign Distribution of Increased demand
consumer Education. leaflets. for EA products.
behaviour
Regional Cooperation Information Build Agrilcultural sector
approach between NGO‟s sharing and transboundary in parts of the basin
in different public cooperation. becomes more
countries in the awareness environmentally
Danube basin. raising. friendly.
In conclusion, this is a focused project that utilises the strengths and skills of each NGO involved. It
has an element of sustainability due to the fact that it attempts to change education curricula, and it
embodies a preventive approach, as opposed to simply treating the symptoms of pollution. Perhaps
more activities and concrete outputs might be expected. A precise, identified target group in a
restricted, named geographical area could have been identified, as this would help measure more
easily the success of the project. All these aspects are and will be considered by the REC during
grants monitoring.
Progress Report – Phase II
Prepared by REC
28 UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
(Project D) Danube-Oder- Elbe Canal: Grassroots-National-European Campaign to Prevent the
Biggest Wetland Loss Threat in Central Europe
The goal of the project is to prevent the deterioration of wetlands and floodplains that would be
affected by the Danube-Oder-Elbe canal, by encouraging the official rejection of the canal by the
relevant local, national and EU authorities. Such official rejection will provide the necessary political
environment to demand the exclusion of the DOEC route from zoning and infrastructure development
plans.
Objectives
Campaign for the prevention of the construction of the DOEC.
Promote public participation in local planning processes in order to influence municipal and
regional authorities to reject the plan.
At the national level: Lobby decision makers and begin a public awareness raising campaign
AT the EU level: Prevent EU funding through a lobbying campaign.
Methods of work
Local level
Media campaign on the environmental consequences of the canal.
Production and distribution of 2 brochures (local and national level 300/400).
Production and dissemination of a video on the conflict between preserving wetlands and the
DOEC project.
Produce informational bulletins (local community) 5000 +.
Organise public events to promote public involvement.
Organise petitions.
Monitor opinions of relevant mayors, which will provide information on the nature of support
and opposition at the local level.
Organise public conferences on the DOEC project (lasting 1 or 2 days) 4.
Lobby local officials to ensure their understanding of the negative effects of the DOEC.
National level
Lobby government officials in both countries.
Actively use representatives in official bodies in order to convince official bodies to
recommend the project to be abandoned on legal grounds.
National media campaign on the negative ecological effects that the DOEC project will have.
Research and analysis of the state of the DOEC in respective countries.
EU level
Influence relevant EU policymakers.
Stakeholders and modes of communication
The stakeholders will mainly be informed of the detrimental effects of the canal and it is hoped that
the local stakeholders will pressure local authorities to prevent the construction of the canal. It is
mentioned that one of the public events will also include stakeholders who might gain positively (i.e.
economically) from the construction of the canal. A stakeholder analysis is not conducted and it is not
completely clear who are the stakeholders. The mode of communication between the project and the
stakeholders is mainly through campaigning. This means that it is mainly one-way communication.
The stakeholders will be informed through a media campaign and also through the organisation of
public events where people will be more actively involved. Public events, where the exchange of
information and opinions are expected, will be arranged in Austria, Poland, Slovakia and the Czech
Republic.
4
Location to be decided.
Progress Report – Phase II
Prepared by REC
Project Output 3.2: Small Grants Programme 29
Analysis of indicators
The following indicators have been identified as indicators for the success of the project:
1. Position papers produced.
2. Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) pushed through.
3. No approval for the construction of any part of the project in the Danube
River issued.
4. Adverse impacts of the canal officially recognised by governments.
2. Project declared not viable by the governments.
3. Project declared not viable by the EU.
4. Success of petitions.
5. Summaries of research findings produced.
6. Leaflets produced.
7. Organisation of public meetings on the ecological consequences of the DOEC.
8. Raising public awareness on the issue.
9. Production of articles on the negative impact of the DOEC.
10. Extent of media coverage in both the Czech and Slovak republics.
11. Number of partner NGO and other stakeholders.
The indicators are relevant to measure the impact of the project but there is a clear lack of quantitative
figures to support indicators, and of qualitative indicators in general. For example, it is not stated how
many leaflets are being produced, how they will be distributed and there is no indicator relating to the
quality of the leaflet. The petition will, however, be a qualitative indicator and an overall
measurement of the public awareness campaign. The outcome of the overall campaign (if positive)
may also reflect a more aware public and a change in mentality within the public. The extent of media
coverage is a weak indicator for success, as it is not stated at which point the extent of the media
coverage is satisfactory and at which stage it is not. Some form of feedback from the public meetings
(i.e. how many attended, could ordinary people express their view, did they, how diverse were the
stakeholders that attended the meetings?), should be considered. However, indicators that show
success are very clear; they are indicators 3, 4, 5 and 6, and should be monitored closely. Indicators 1,
8, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 14 are quantitative indicators. The rest of the indicators are qualitative which,
especially with regards to the petition, help show the extent of public awareness that has been
achieved.
Linkages between grants indicators and the DRP objectives
All of the indicators relate to the DRP objectives of raising and improving awareness and thereby
preventing pollution, and thus relate to the DRP objective of “strengthening public involvement in
environmental decision making and to reinforce community actions for pollution reduction.” By
pushing for SEAs and EIAs, the project also relates to the DRP aim of improving environmental
quality by strengthening structures and activities already in place to deal with environmental
degradation and pollution, which is an aim manifested in the long term DRP goal of “reinforcing the
capacities of the participating countries in developing effective mechanisms for regional cooperation
and coordination”.
Expected direct environmental impact
The DOEC will not be built and thus important wetlands that act as sinks for nutrients will not
be destroyed, thereby protecting the Danube from increased nutrient exposure.
Expected indirect environmental impacts
Increased public awareness on the detrimental environmental effects of the DOEC.
Public able to participate in decision-making.
SEAs and EIAs conducted by authorities.
Progress Report – Phase II
Prepared by REC
30 UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Linkages between the scope and objectives of the DRP
The table below illustrates how the DRP scope, as stated in REC‟s grants announcement, relates to
the selection criteria and objectives and aims set by the DRP for the NGO component.
DRP grants Methods NGO activity DRP objective Indirect effect Direct effect
scope
Promote Aarhus Campaign Distribution Strengthening of Raised awareness -
Principles of leaflet public on the negative
public Media involvement effects of the
participation campaign canal. Possible for
Producing the public to
video influence in the
Website decision making
Organise process.
public events
Petition
Have an impact Campaign (the Various project Creation of Canal is not
on nutrient project). activities sustainable built, and
reduction ecological thus
conditions pollution of
the Danube
is prevented.
Contribute to Campaign. Use WFD to Provide regional Support policies in
policy change prevent approach to the place (WFD, SEA,
construction development of EIA).
(lobby decision national policies
makers). and legislation.
Trans-boundary Campaign, Lobby decision Capacity building Raised awareness
cooperation lobbying makers at all and reinforcement across the region.
Cooperation levels.
with NGOs,
decision-
makers at
different
levels.
Involve other Lobbying and Involve Multi- A wide range of
stakeholders invited to authorities, at stakeholder stakeholders
meetings and local, national approach. targeted and
conferences. and EU levels. invited to
participate in
campaign.
In conclusion, this project has a very clear goal and a structured campaign. The methods and activities
that are proposed are logical and the possibility of a positive outcome is enhanced due to the fact that
politicians, the public and other stakeholders are targeted at three levels. This is expected to create a
synergetic effect. This project clearly contributes to an increase in public participation, providing
information to the public, but also provides a platform where different interested parties have the
possibility to make their opinions heard.
Progress Report – Phase II
Prepared by REC
Project Output 3.2: Small Grants Programme 31
(Project E) Networking the River Coalitions for a Healthy Watershed
The goal of this project is to support better environmental management and more effective
cooperation amongst stakeholders through river based networks in 5 countries, which have
interconnecting watershed regions. These watershed regions and countries are: The Hornád river
valley (Slovakia), the Hernád river valley (Hungary), the Tur valley (Romania), the Nature Park
Kopacevo wetland on the Danube River (Croatia) and the Tisza River (Serbia and Montenegro).
Objectives
Establish river coalitions and facilitate the signing of river contracts (reduction of pollution
strategy) in the partner countries.
Create a cross boundary network between the partners and facilitate the flow of information
and mutual cooperation. The objective is to support the transfer of know how and experience
among partners to improve river conditions, exchange relevant information, new
methodologies and success stories.
Realise concrete activities that improve water quality, defined in the river contracts.
Increase public awareness of the environmental problems of the watershed and the activities
of the project.
Method of work
Set up river coalitions and River contracts
Organise NGO meetings and trainings for NGOs in Slovakia.
Organise negotiation meetings with stakeholders in each watershed.
Organise round tables with industries/polluters in each watershed.
Foster transboundary networking
Facilitate information flow by creating an internal information and communication system.
Three-day partner meeting in Croatia.
Three-day evaluation meeting in Romania.
Realise concrete activities towards improving water quality
Restoration of floodplain on the Tur River.
Building composting toilets.
Building reed bed wastewater Treatment (WWT)
Clean up actions on the Riverbanks of the Danube and Tisza Rivers.
Monitoring of water quality on the Danube and/or Drava Rivers.
Promote and introduce community composting in the Danube Drava Watershed.
Revitalise ox bows and wetlands on the Hornád River.
Increase environmental awareness
Establish public exhibitions in each targeted watershed.
Media campaigns (on the project in all watersheds, on industrial waste in Serbia on the
improper use of pesticides in agriculture in Serbia).
Produce and distribute brochures (in local languages, 1500 copies).
Create websites.
Prepare and distribute educational material (manuals on composting toilets and bio-waste
water treatments, and how to build them).
Stakeholders and modes of communication
It appears that the stakeholders are quite clearly defined and actively engaged in either the river
coalition, with the river contract as an outcome, or in the concrete activities in which local
participation is anticipated. There is, therefore, room for the exchange of ideas and opinions between
the project and the stakeholders. Local people are also targeted through campaign material in
newspapers and leaflet distribution. The educational manual will be placed at libraries, info centres,
self-governments, businesses and with probate persons. With regards to the campaign material on
Progress Report – Phase II
Prepared by REC
32 UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
industrial waste and pesticide use, it is not stipulated how the materials (posters and leaflets) will be
distributed.
Analysis of indicators
The following have been identified as indicators for the success of the project:
1. Number of participants in training.
2. Number of established river coalitions and river contracts.
3. Number of members of partner organisations acknowledged with new methods for reducing
pollution in their watersheds.
4. Number of realised follow up activities.
5. Number and length of revitalised oxbows.
6. Number of composting toilets and bio WWT.
7. Size of reforested flood plain area.
8. Length of cleaned river banks in pilot sites.
9. Number of composting places built on pilot sites.
10. Number of hits on websites.
11. Extent of media coverage.
12. Number of published media articles.
13. Number of questions from the public.
14. Number of polluters who change their environmental policy progressively.
15. Number of installed exhibitions.
16. Number of leaflets produced.
These indicators are relevant for measuring the impact of the project. Perhaps more qualitative
indicators that measure the extent of the public awareness raised and extent of change in mentality
could be included. The leaflets and posters in Serbia lack an explanation of how they are going to be
distributed, to what extent they are disseminated and whether it creates an actual change in people‟s
understandings of the issue. There is also no “feed back indicator” from the participants in the river
coalition meetings and contracts. Furthermore, a more interesting indicator of success would be to see
how many people visited the exhibitions and how many volunteers took part in the clean up actions.
Also, the demand for leaflets should be an indicator and not only the amount produced, as this is
already decided from the outset. The quality of the leaflet should also be an indicator. It could be
indicative to measure the extent of public awareness in the pilot areas through questionnaires or some
other form of feedback. For example, the composting facility that is built could have an indicator that
identifies whether people actually use them or not. An interesting indicator is the number of polluters
who have changed their environmental policy. It could also be a qualitative indicator for success to
see if more general policy changes would come about as a result of the contracts.
Linkages between grants indicators and the DRP objectives
The project contributes to the reduction of some point sources of pollution on a national basis. In this
way, the project is fulfilling the DRP objectives of “Creation of sustainable ecological conditions for
land use and water management” and “reinforcement of community actions for pollution reduction
and protection of ecosystems”
Through the river contracts it may be able to facilitate the process of solving pollution problems. It
also aims to increase awareness of the river coalition and of environmentally friendly technologies.
Furthermore, the project will promote transboundary cooperation involving many stakeholders, as one
of its main facets. Therefore, the DRP objective of “reinforcing the capacities of the participating
countries in developing effective mechanisms for regional cooperation and coordination,” is covered.
There is also a great degree of sustainability within this project, because, with the signed River
Contracts, long-term commitments are ensured to keep the rivers clean. The increased control of
polluters that the contracts will ensure essentially helps to reinforce “monitoring, evaluation and
Progress Report – Phase II
Prepared by REC
Project Output 3.2: Small Grants Programme 33
information systems to control transboundary pollution, and to reduce nutrients and harmful
substances”, another DRP objective.
Expected direct environmental impact
Improved self-cleaning ability of the river (revitalising oxbows and restoring wetlands).
Improved water quality and retention capabilities in the Tur River (through the restoration of
floodplains).
Reduction of wastewater (building of composting toilets).
Improved wastewater quality (reed bed WWT).
Removal of waste dumps on the Riverbanks of the Danube and Tisza Rivers.
Construction of public composting places in the Danube Drava Watershed.
Polluters of the rivers become more environmentally friendly.
Expected indirect environmental impact
Increased networking amongst stakeholders that have signed a contract will increase the
control of activities that may affect the river water quality in the above-mentioned targeted
rivers.
The promotion and strengthening of environmentally friendly activities amongst the members,
which will help ensure less pollution in the rivers.
Monitoring will establish the water quality of the river and identify possible polluters.
Linkages between the scope and objectives of the DRP
The table below illustrates how the DRP scope, as stated in REC‟s grants announcement, relates to
the selection criteria and objectives and aims set by the DRP for the NGO component.
DRP grants Methods NGO activity DRP objective Indirect effect Direct effect
scope
Impact on Interactive Reconstruction Creation of Public Increased
pollution case projects. of wetland/ox awareness raised self-
sustainable
Immediate bow ecological on pollution and cleaning
reduction of Reforestation conditions for increased capability
nutrient and Clean up actions land use and knowledge on of rivers,
toxic pollution Composting and water alternative reduction
Promotion of environmentally management composting of nutrients
alternative friendly methods. Removal of
end of pipe technology. Cooperation dumpsites
solutions. River contracts amongst (less
Influence stakeholders, pollution).
policy at reducing
national water pollution
shed level
Employ Cooperation Information Capacity Regional
transboundary between sharing building and network and
perspective NGO‟s Distribution of reinforcement overview of
Campaign, leaflets, media of pollution
public campaign, transboundary problems
participation, leaflets to cooperation. created.
environment- schoolchildren Reinforcement Public
al education. in pilot sites, of community awareness
monitoring of actions for raised on
water quality. pollution pollution and
reduction and increased
protection of knowledge on
ecosystems. alternative
technologies.
Progress Report – Phase II
Prepared by REC
34 UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Regional Regional River cooperation Reinforces Plans for
approach cooperation with and contracts community pollution
NGOs, decision established on action for reduction at
makers and regional basis. protection of selected localities
other watershed at in the targeted
stakeholders on selected watersheds.
rivers localities.
influencing the Reinforcement
quality of the of monitoring,
Danube regional
approach
Involve other Involving River contracts Capacity Cooperation Sources of
stakeholders authorities, and pilot projects building and between pollution
polluters, and reinforcement different halted, and
other of stakeholders self-cleaning
stakeholders. transboundary ensured. abilities of
cooperation Increased watershed
Regional capacity for restored in
approach to further pollution pilot project
the reduction plans areas.
development to be
of national developed.
policies.
This is an interesting NGO attempt to solve pollution problems through both direct and indirect
nutrient reduction actions. Furthermore, it allows stakeholders with diverse and opposing agendas to
meet to discuss river contracts. In this way, real players are brought onboard which might, in the long
run, result in tangible, substantial nutrient reduction. The link to the WFD is not so clear and it could
be actively used.
Progress Report – Phase II
Prepared by REC
Project Output 3.2: Small Grants Programme 35
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS
Direct and indirect impacts of the NGO actions on nutrient
and toxic pollutant reduction
The overall majority of NGO activities at the national and regional levels have an indirect effect on
nutrient and toxic pollutant reduction in the Danube. This is not surprising, as one of the strengths of
NGOs is their ability to raise public awareness on different issues, which may indirectly cause
pollution reduction. Some of the NGO activities have a mix of both indirect and direct nutrient
reduction activities, but the overall focus is on creating public awareness on various issues, indirectly
reducing nutrients.
There are a range of NGO activities at the national level planned that will lead to direct nutrient
reduction and the removal of toxins. These activities range from the removal of illegal dumps close to
waterways to the reforestation of riverbanks to avoid erosion and improve water quality. The creation
of artificially constructed wetlands that can function as wastewater treatment areas is also planned,
along with the management of hydrophytes and the management of nature reserves, improved water
quality of ponds and the creation of three new protected areas.
These activities lead to a range of environmental benefits, such as improved quality of bird habitats,
an improvement in the condition of nature reserves after clean up actions , the reoccurrence of typical
wetland species of flora and fauna, the reduction of silt in water ways, and better water quality in the
dam.
In connection with this, it should be noted that many of the projects have poor indicators with regards
to this category. In general, many projects have not clearly indicated what the environmental benefit
of the activities are. The setting of indicators was evaluated as the weakest point of proposal
development; therefore, the REC strongly recommends that the Logical Framework (LOG Frame)
methodology be used and further developed and explained.
In the case of regional grants, the figure below illustrates which different NGO activities contribute
directly or indirectly to nutrient and/or toxic pollutant reduction, which is the overall aim of the DRP
project.
Progress Report – Phase II
Prepared by REC
36 UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Actions Indirect effects
Workshop/ conferences on EA; 1. Increased public awareness of EA
Water pollution reduction plans; 2. Identification of hot spots and solutions
Campaign on hot spots; 3. Public awareness on hotspots
Education in schools; 4. Pupils have increased knowledge
Regional campaign; 5. Regional awareness
Meetings and conference with 6. Increased transboundary cooperation
transboundary stakeholders; 7. Consumers buy EA product, thus reduce farmers pesticide use
Change consumer behaviour; 8. EA part of curriculum, changed expert awareness.
Mainstream EA in academia; 9. Improved awareness and support for BAT and improved cooperation
River contracts; and between directly opposed stakeholders.
Study/research. 10. Regional overview of pollution problems and solutions created
Actions Direct effects
End of pipe approach: 1. Reduction of pollution from pig farm and improved self-cleaning
Construction of wetlands capability of river
Demonstration composting 2. Reduction of wastewater and organic pollution
toilet 3. Cleaning of wastewater
built. 4. Reduction of waste
Construction of reed beds 5. Improved self-cleaning capability of river
Composting programme 6. Removal of dumps from waterways
introduced 7. Reduction of pollution
Reforestation of riverbanks 8. Prevent canal from being built, thus protecting wetlands that serve
Cleaning: as nutrient sinks
Clean up actions
Preventative:
Environmentally friendly
technology introduced
Campaign on DOEC canal
How the selected NGO projects address the scope of the DRP programme
The part of the scope that has been addressed the most by the National Grants is agriculture, namely
to “Address flood management, irrigation, and drainage with attention to the associated pollution-
related effects”. This is followed in popularity by the other agricultural part of the scope, namely to:
“Promote eco-farming methods and alternative rural development”. Also popular, under municipal
discharge, is to: “Address urban waste-water collection and treatment”. Pollution from agriculture is
the most common target, followed by pollution from municipal discharge. The least popular part of
the scopehas been industrial discharges, within which the specific aim to, “Assist in reducing the risk
of accidental release of pollutants from facilities” falls.
Only one project in Serbia and Montenegro directly deals with the EU‟s Water Framework Directive.
With respect to land use and wetlands, many projects attempt to resurrect degraded or construct new
wetlands, as a natural method to absorb nutrients. Other projects have more educational foci, trying to
raise public awareness on the importance of wetlands and their functions.
Analyses of indicators measuring the progress and success of the projects by country
Croatia has very developed and well thought-out indicators. The indicators are appropriate, relevant,
concrete and thus easily measurable. Also, the qualitative indicators have been thought through. For
example, the quality of the web pages, posters and leaflets has been considered.
Bosnia and Herzegovina and Bulgaria have good indicators overall, but will work a bit more with
identifying the verifiable ways, thus avoiding general statements such as, “increase NGO
cooperation” as a qualitative indicator.
Progress Report – Phase II
Prepared by REC
Project Output 3.2: Small Grants Programme 37
The Czech Republic will have to pay more attention to indicators development. The qualitative
indicators are especially weak. For example, indicators such as, the quality of leaflets distributed,
quality of excursions, and type of participants could be added.
The Hungarian projects have concrete, measurable, objective and verifiable indicators and the
expected results from the projects are clear and concrete.
The Moldavian office will pay more attention to the development and measurement of quantitative
indicators that could help show the results and progress of the projects.
The Romanian indicators and general descriptions of expected results are poorly explained and
developed therefore they should take care on measuring the project results during the reporting
process.
Serbia and Montenegro has very developed indicators and very clear goals for the projects in general.
In particular, they have very well developed qualitative indicators, which measure the quality of the
leaflets; have public hearings involving a range of stakeholders; and extensively use questionnaires to
gain knowledge on the project topics and they evaluate seminars. A high level of quality control of
projects is, therefore, likely to be ensured.
The Slovak and Slovenian projects are well described and very ambitious with correspondingly
relevant indicators to measure the success of the projects.
Comments on stakeholders and tools used
A range of stakeholders have been targeted, including farmers, authorities, school children,
enterprises, and designers. In general, it can be said that the project attempts to reach a wide range of
stakeholders, as expected. The biggest challenge for the involved NGOs and for the REC is to monitor
and measure the extend to which the stakeholders are impacting the success of the project. This aspect
of the monitoring work is already emphasised with the country offices and will be considered during
the project evaluation phase.
With respect to the tools used, considering the nature of the NGO work, some are favoured over
others. For example, lobbying and awareness-raising is used extensively, whereas research and
monitoring are less popular tools.
Progress Report – Phase II
Prepared by REC
38 UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
PROJECT SET-UP
The project staff is composed of members of the REC‟s NGO Support Programme staff, employed at
the REC head office in Szentendre Hungary; members of the REC Country Office staff in the Danube
Basin countries REC-CEE operates within; and representatives of REC Moldova.
REC head office
Project director: Robert Atkinson, Director of Civil Initiatives
Activity manager: Entela Pinguli, Grants Manager, NGO Support Programme
Project management
The following chart shows how the work has been managed:
Project Committee
NGO Support representatives
Country Office representatives
DEF representatives
Donor representatives
Project Director
Robert Atkinson
Project Manager
Entela Pinguli
Project implementation Team
NGO Support staff
Capacity Building staff
Information Programme staff
9 Country Office staff
REC Moldova staff
Expert advisors
Progress Report – Phase II
Prepared by REC
Project Output 3.2: Small Grants Programme 39
ANNEXES
Appendix I – Bosnia and Herzegovina Report
Appendix II – Bulgaria Report
Appendix III – Croatia Report
Appendix IV – Czech Republic Report
Appendix V – Hungary Report
Appendix VI – Moldova Report
Appendix VII – Romania Report
Appendix VIII – Serbia and Montenegro Report
Appendix IX – Slovakia Report
Appendix X – Slovenia Report
Appendix XI – Ukraine Report
Appendix XII – List of DRP Grants
Progress Report – Phase II
Prepared by REC
