MEDIUM-SIZED PROJECT PROPOSAL

Document Sample
MEDIUM-SIZED PROJECT PROPOSAL Powered By Docstoc
					                         MEDIUM-SIZED PROJECT PROPOSAL
                         REQUEST FOR GEF FUNDING


AGENCY’S PROJECT ID: 3339                                            FINANCING PLAN (US$)
GEFSEC PROJECT ID:                                              GEF PROJECT/COMPONENT
COUNTRY : Hungary, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro,              Project                            999,972,00
Slovakia, Ukraine
                                                                PDF A*                                      0
PROJECT TITLE: Establishment of Mechanisms for
                                                                                                   999,972,00
Integrated Land and Water Management in the Tisza               Sub-Total GEF
River Basin
GEF AGENCY: UNDP
OTHER EXECUTING AGENCY (IES): UNOPS                             CO-FINANCING**
DURATION: 36 months                                             GEF Agency                  200,000
GEF FOCAL AREA: International Waters                            Government                  400,000
GEF OPERATIONAL PROGRAM: OP9 Integrated Land                    Bilateral
and Water                                                       NGOs
GEF STRATEGIC PRIORITY: IW 2 – Foundational                     Others UNEP                  50,000
Capacity Building for IW                                        ICPDR                        67,572
ESTIMATED STARTING DATE: April 2006
                                                                European Commission         200,000
IMPLEMENTING AGENCY FEE: US$90,000
                                                                Sub-Total Co-financing:     917,572
                                                                Total Project Financing:  1,917,544
                                                                FINANCING FOR ASSOCIATED ACTIVITY
                                                                IF ANY:
                                                                * Indicate approval date of PDFA n/a
                                                                ** Details provided in the Financing Section

CONTRIBUTION TO KEY INDICATORS OF THE BUSINESS PLAN:              The project will contribute to the
following specific targets of the GEF IW focal area: a) expand global coverage of foundational
capacity building (enabling activity equivalents) to a limited number of new transboundary systems
with a focus on key program gaps; b) undertake innovative demonstrations and c) address water
scarcity/competing water uses through IWRM, and protecting valuable groundwater supplies, including
initiatives involving public-private partnerships and innovative financing as a contribution toward the MDGs
and WSSD Targets.




 RECORD OF ENDORSEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT:
 Mr. Tibor Farago, GEF OFP, Hungary        Date: June 14, 2005
 Mrs. Katarina Novakova, GEF OFP, Slovakia Date: November 2, 2005
 Mr. Silviu Stoica, GEF OFP, Romania       Date: November 21, 2005
 Mr. Anatoliy Gritsenko, GEF OFP, Ukraine  Date: November 28, 2005
 Mr. Boro Vucinic, GEF OFP, Serbia and     Date: December 7, 2005
 Montenegro




                                                    1
This proposal has been prepared in accordance with GEF policies and procedures and meets the standards
of the GEF Project Review Criteria for a Medium-sized Project.


Mr. Yannick Glemarec                                  Project Contact Person: Juerg Staudenmann,
                                                      Vladimir Mamaev
Deputy Executive Coordinator                          Juerg Staudenmann: Tel: (+421-2) 59 337 250
Date: (Month, Day, Year)                              juerg.staudenmann@undp.org
                                                      Vladimir Mamaev : Tel: (+421 2) 59 337 267
                                                      vladimir.mamaev@undp.org




                                                  2
    A - SUMMARY

The Tisza river system is an internationally significant river system, which is significantly degraded and
continues to be threatened. The river and its tributaries flow from the Carpathian Mountains and a
157,200 square kilometer river basin which is home to some 14 million people. It begins in the territories
of Ukraine with the White and Black Tisza. This river with its tributaries is the only water source for
Transcarpathia region of Ukraine since 98% of its territory belongs to the Upper Tisza catchment area. It
also flows from Romania and Slovakia via number of smaller tributaries fed by mountain streams and
flows into the Great Plain of eastern Hungary and then south into Serbia and Montenegro where it joins
the Danube. This river is the main water source for Hungary, a significant source for Serbia and
Montenegro and an important source for western Romania and southern Slovakia. The floodplains of the
river extend to some 30 thousand square kilometer, the majority of which can be found in the Hungarian
Great Plain and the adjoining plains in Western Romania and Serbia.

The Tisza River Basin is in need of a coordinated regional effort to develop harmonized national and
regional policies for integrated land and water management. This project will address the issues of
flooding, pollution, loss of biodiversity, adaptation to climate change, and the need for sustainable
development in the Tisza River Basin. The project Establishment of Mechanisms for Integrated Land and
Water Management in the Tisza River basin will address these issues through the preparation of a
scientifically based Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) which will form the basis for the
development of coordinated National Integrated River Basin Management (NIRBMPs) which support a
regional Integrated River Basin Management Programme (IRBMP). Both will establish regional and
national priorities and coordinate policies throughout the region. Implementation and execution of small
scale demonstration project will support these efforts towards environmental governance reform strategies
and serve as a learning experience for other larger scale pilot projects to be conducted as the IRBMP is
implemented.

This project will build on what has already been achieved through the EU accession process and the EU
and GEF support of the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR) in
particular the implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) , with regard to the existing
ad hoc Tisza Group of the ICPDR and the Tisza- Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) “Towards a
River Basin Management Plan for the Tisza River supporting sustainable development of the region”
signed by all riparian countries in 2004. It will also build upon the numerous UNDP sustainable
development initiatives and GEF biodiversity projects in the basin, and it will link with activities of the
newly established interim secretariat of the Carpathian Convention. It will take the concept of Integrated
River Basin Management beyond the water sector and co-ordinate the development, management and
conservation of land and water resources, and embed rather than retrofit conservation and environmental
policy into the national and regional planning framework.

A major product will be the development of a regionally owned Integrated Tisza River Basin
Management Programme (equivalent of Strategic Action Programme), which will be meeting the
requirements of the EU Water Framework Directive, and incorporate a Flood Prevention and Risk
Management Strategy, while at the same time addressing wider sustainability issues in the water,
agriculture, energy, industry and navigation sectors, highlighted by the work of the UNDP in their Tisza
Basin Sustainable Development Strategy. Thus the project will provide a bridge between these on-going
initiatives in a single regionally owned and nationally coordinated planning document which will allow
for deepening and widening the planning scope.

The project long-term objectives are:




                                                    3
   To ensure that the integrated land and water management throughout the Tisza River Basin meets the
    short and long-term requirements for optimum ecosystem function as well as the needs of the
    communities using the river.
   To ensure realization of a long-term Flood Prevention and Risk Management Strategy
   A subsidiary long-term objective is to reduce the nutrient load into the Danube and Black Sea and
    improve its water quality.

    To achieve the overall objective, the outputs or the project are:
   Conduct a Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis and establish a shared vision for the Tisza sub-basin
    based on Ecosystem Quality Objectives resulting from the TDA findings and agreed by participating
    countries

   Develop or strengthen existing participatory frameworks for the cooperation between countries,
    sectors, communities and stakeholders on all levels in the basin.

   Develop and begin implementation of integrated management of water and land resources framework
    at the regional and national level. The framework will be oriented at the GEF TDA/SAP methodology
    and will be inclusive of the requirements of, and work in line with the EC Water Framework
    Directive implementation and will build on assessment work undertaken by the UNDP as part of the
    Tisza River Basin Sustainable Development Programme and the UNEP rapid environment assessment
    of the Tisza basin.

   Provide support to the ICPDR and its cooperating partner in flood issues, the Tisza Water Forum, for
    the implementation of the Memorandum of Understanding “Towards a River Basin Management Plan
    for the Tisza River.
   Through a transboundary demonstration project at the local and community level, demonstrate the
    economic, social and environmental advantages of water and land management integration
    approaches.

   Mobilize funding for tackling priority transboundary issues, identified by the TDA and agreed in the
    Integrated River basin management programme (IRBMP) in the next 5 to 10 years.


The long-term anticipated project outcomes will be:


   Established and functioning regional and national integrated land and water management
    mechanisms, in line with already existing structures.

   Basin wide harmonised water policies and land use policies that will reduce future detrimental human
    interference in the natural processes of the basin;

   Establish and test mechanisms for reversal or rehabilitation for damage done in the past due to human
    detrimental interference.

   Strong regional partnership, replication and dissemination of best practices and lessons learned.




                                                      4
The project will be closely linked to the activities of the ICPDR, the UNDP-GEF Danube Regional
Project (DRP), the UNDP Bratislava Regional Centre and the interim secretariat of the Carpathian
Convention located in Vienna. Together with these organizations the project will work with national
authorities and stakeholders at the regional, national and local/oblast level and will form and support
several advisory bodies. This also includes a Stakeholder Advisory Group made up of representative
stakeholders throughout the region who will assist in the development of the TDA/ IRBMP and demo
project by providing feedback from those they represent. The purpose of these groups is to increase
dialogue and collaboration among bodies in the Tisza River Basin to work most effectively together while
avoiding redundancy of efforts.


    B – COUNTRY OWNERSHIP

    1. COUNTRY ELIGIBILITY

All of the five Tisza basin countries are eligible for GEF funding. As Slovakia and Hungary are new
members of the European Union, significant parts of their participation in the project will be financially
supported by the European Union through their co-funding of the project.

    2. COUNTRY DRIVENNESS

Project Linkages to National Priorities, Action Plans, and Programs:

The project will link the long standing activities of UNDP and the Regional Centre, Bratislava in the
sustainable development strategy for the Tisza basin, the programmed activities of the ICPDR‟s ad hoc
Tisza Group, UNDP-GEF Danube Regional Project (DRP) the Interim Secretariat for the Carpathian
Convention and the Tisza Water Forum.

This project is intended to develop an integrated land and water management strategy that will serve to
bind the Tisza activities of the ICPDR and of UNDP/GEF DRP, the Carpathian Convention and the Tisza
Water Forum. The ICPDR maintains a primary focus on water management issues pertaining to the
challenges of pollution and other environmental challenges impacting the Danube and the Tisza countries;
the ICPDR states are obliged or committed to meet the requirements of the EU Water Framework
Directive. The UNDP-GEF Danube Regional Project (DRP) is the main pillar for ICPDR‟s work and in
its second phase aims at reducing nutrient and pollution loads into the Danube River and Black Sea.

The ad hoc Tisza Group of the ICPDR was formed on the basis of the Memorandum of Understanding
(MoU) signed by the Tisza basin countries in December 2004 to coordinate the implementation of the
MoU. (See Annex 8) The ad hoc Tisza Group provides a forum for exchange of information and
coordination of other Tisza related activities in the region and will act as the management advisory panel
for the Tisza GEF medium sized project. The members of the ad hoc Tisza Group will be part of the
extended Project Steering Committee, which also includes representatives of the Tisza Water Forum and
Carpathian Convention, and representatives from other organizations (including the GEF Implementing
Agencies).

The UNDP-GEF Danube Regional Project addresses the entire Danube River Basin whilst this MSP
focuses on the Tisza River Sub-Basin. It will follow an integrated approach to land and water
management and will expressly complement and coordinate existing initiatives within the sub-basin.




                                                    5
Institutional arrangements to that effect have been built into this project design to ensure coordination and
cooperation at every possible juncture.

The Carpathian Convention addresses the need for coordinated sustainable development through out the
Carpathian region, which includes significant portions of the Tisza Basin. The Convention‟s objectives
are closely linked to this project, and Article 6 specifically contains provisions for "Sustainable and
integrated water/river basin management". The Convention has been ratified by Hungary, Ukraine, and
the Slovak Republic, while Romania and Serbia & Montenegro are in the ratification process. The third
major regional body is the Tisza Water Forum, which was established by the Tisza Governments to
address land and water issues specific to the threats of flooding and coordination of efforts and policies
intended to remediate those specific issues. However, the Tisza Water Forum does not expressly address
integrated land and water management strategies over long term as they pertain to ecologically
sustainable development.

The Tisza Water Forum is an inter-governmental and inter-ministerial body which was formed in 2001
with the signing of the Budapest Declaration committing the basin states to co-operate and develop
regional plans on flood protection and control in the basin. There is no permanent secretariat; instead the
Ministers of five riparian countries responsible for water management meet annually at the Forum
sessions and the Forum, as it is known, meets twice a year, with the chair rotating around the basin states
every two years. There are eight working groups at the expert level that meet regularly dealing with
different aspects of flood protection and risk, which are supervised by national coordinators. This
GEF/UNDP MSP will assist the Forum in the development of a flood protection strategy and action plan
in line with EU best practices, building upon the existing Action Plan for Sustainable Flood Protection in
the Danube river basin developed in 2004, and incorporating the flood impact assessment to be developed
by ICPDR.

The GEF/UNDP Tisza MSP project will assist the countries in establishing, supporting, or extending
national inter-ministerial committees to address issues of integrated land and water management. The
countries may have already established such committees when putting together their national sustainable
development strategies, or under the UNDP-GEF Danube Regional Project. These national committees
shall endorse all documents prepared under this project including the TDA, National Integrated River
Basin Management Plans, Regional IRBMP and and Flood Action Plan. The inter-ministerial committee
membership would typically include the ministries of economy/finance, agriculture, environment, health,
industry, planning, and water resource management.

Another important aspect of the project will be the involvement of a range of stakeholders in the decision
process through the stakeholder group to be formed following a detailed stakeholder analysis. This group
will play a key role in reviewing project documents and the selection and design of the demo projects and
will be consulted during the implementation of the demo project for the Carpathian Mountains.

National Policies `

Hungary
In Hungary, the water management has three basic functions that determine its objectives, programmes
and methods as well as its relation to and cooperation with other sectors of society (National Strategy for
Water Management, 2000) These are: protection of the population against the hazard of water; supply of
the water needed by the citizens and their activities; preservation and improvement of water quality and
preservation of water resources, particularly drinking water supply, in such as state as to remain in
harmony with the environment to ensure their long-term sustainable use. Hungarian legislation has been
changing with the aim of adoption of the requirements of the EU. This legislation has been aligned with
the environmental acquis of the EU regarding the quality control requirements, specifically pertaining to


                                                     6
discharges of wastewaters and sewerage. With regards to water quantity and water management in
general, new government decrees have been adopted in the field of protection of water basins, water
management authorities, utilization and use of different water sections.

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

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

Future sustainable water sector development recommendations include preventative development of flood
protection, pollution control and neutralization, inlands water protection, watershed treatment, river
improvements, irrigation, agricultural protection, spatial and regional development, protection of
ecosystems and tourism. Additional suggestions from water management experts advocate an increase in
cross-sectoral cooperation. A multi-stakeholder group assembled to review the initiation phase of this
project recommended: involvement of multiple stakeholder groups, such as governments, international
organizations, academic institutions and NGOs in the creation of a basin wide common strategy for
sustainable development in the Tisza catchment area. They also recommended increased public awareness
building campaigns, at multiple levels from small communities to the transboundary river basin.

Romania
The Romanian sustainable water management is undergoing significant adjustments as it strives to meet
the requirements of the EU WFD and policies set forth by the ICPDR. The water bodies in Romania are
official state property. There is management of these by the Water Department of the Ministry of
Agriculture, Forests, Water and Environment. Existing water law is being amended and will be in concert
with the new Water Management Strategy based on the recommendations from the Second Forum for
Sustainable Water Management. All national laws pertaining to water management are also being brought
into line with the requirements of the EU WFD, and will require substantial investments. These laws
include national environmental laws pertaining to water use, and water management plans are the river
basin level.

Romania is a signatory to the Helsinki Convention on the protection and the use of transboundary
watercourses and international lakes; the Sofia Convention on protection and sustainable use of the
Danube River; and the Tisza Convention on measures to combat pollution of Tisza River and its
tributaries. There are numerous bilateral transboundary agreements with water management foci.

The Ministry of Agriculture, Forests, Water and Environment functions as a single ministry with
interlinked agencies. It focuses on multi-sectoral water management. These are supported by four national
research institutions which address: meteorology, hydrology and water management; environmental
protection; and the Danube Delta. The Ministry of Health is responsible for drinking water quality and
local and country level government supervise water abstraction, supply and treatment infrastructure.



                                                   7
Recommendations made by stakeholders specific to the Danube and the ICPDR, also apply to the Tisza.
These priorities are: increased information sharing; develop harmonized guidance; establishment of a
common technical and scientific base; capacity building and information management for reporting; and
integration of the horizontal principles in the Tisza River Basin.

Serbia and Montenegro

At the level of the State union Serbia and Montenegro there is no ministry responsible for water
resources. The legal framework for international cooperation is implemented through the Council of
Ministers of Serbia and Montenegro, acting on motions of member states or their responsible ministries.

According to the current Water Law of the Republic of Serbia (from 1991), international activities in this
area are the responsibility of the Republic and are externally implemented through the Council of
Ministers of Serbia and Montenegro. Activities related to sustainable water management (use,
preservation, flood control, pollution control, water regime/quality and quantity, etc.) fall under the
jurisdiction of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management of the Republic of Serbia -
Directorate for Water.

Also involved in water management are the sectors of Ministry of Science and Environmental Protection;
Provincial Authorities; public water management officials; Republic hydro-meteorological institute;
socially owned water management companies; local governments; and NGOs. The management of water
issues is based on the specific territory, and water management is carried out separately.

The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management is overseeing the Water Directorate,
procedures for the new Water Law and Law on Financing of Water Management. The biggest challenge
are developing and implementing water quality and wastewater treatment status.

As the impetus to join the EU increases within Serbia and Montenegro it is expected that water
management will become a higher priority. The existing water management approach is still more
traditional in approach because of the remaining legal provisions that are still in force. New laws on
Environmental Protection were adopted in December 2004.

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

Recommendations made by an inter-sectoral body of stakeholders convened in 2003 includes: education
of staff; adoption of new legislation; precise definition of responsibilities; defining financial mechanisms;
reorganization and rationalization at all levels; renewal and establishment of international cooperation;
and support to development of projects at all levels. Long term tasks include revision of solutions
currently in use for water management, and revision of strategic objectives in compliance with the EU
WFD.

Slovakia
Slovakia has a fairly sophisticated environmental policy status regarding water management, with
awareness that circumstances require improvement, and what those specific improvements are. They have
a National Strategy for Sustainable Development, though there are difficulties with enforcement at local
levels. There is an acknowledgement of general problems with enforcement of environmental laws,
existing problems with abuse of power and low legislative and environmental awareness. Nonetheless, the


                                                     8
EU WFD has been transposed into the new draft law of the Water Act, focusing on watershed
management, protection of the ecosystem and human health. It is anticipated that these will improve
enforcement of existing laws.

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

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

There is fairly good inter-sectoral cooperation regarding water management issues in Slovakia.
Management is divided among several different groups. The Ministry of environment is now in charge of
water management. Monitoring of water quality is under the Slovak Hydro-meteorological Institute and
Slovak Water Management Enterprise. The Ministry of Soil Management is involved in agriculture and
forestry. Yet these are not linked as strongly with one another as some may wish, and there is weak
formal cooperation with NGOs.

Recommendations from a River Restoration Conference in Europe focused on Eastern Europe, and
coordinated by a regional NGO are: adaptation of a small integrated approach; prioritize conservation of
rivers, and stop further degradation; increase public awareness at all levels; develop hydro-ecological
knowledge; increase stakeholder involvement; and increase role of NGOs in the formal legislative
processes.

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

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


                                                     9
Ukraine is party to the Helsinki Convention on the protection and use of transboundary water courses and
international lakes, the Sofia Convention on cooperation for the protection and sustainable use of the
Danube River, and the Tisza Convention on measures to combat pollution of the Tisza River and its
tributaries. Ukraine also has bilateral agreements with Hungary, Slovakia and Romania.

Officially, there is multiple stakeholder input depending on various issues, as it pertains to specific
interests. Projects involving transboundary and international issues draw inter-sectoral cooperation,
though it is not clear that it is have been internalized formally by the governments. Recommendations that
may be made by stakeholders from multiple sectors may include: identifying the best practices for
integrated water management; encouraging cooperation between stakeholders for collaborative efforts;
identification of national and regional priorities and cooperation with international structures.

Regional Impetus

The priorities and efforts at the national level are also reflected by broader regional momentum that
provides a solid base for the Tisza Integrated Land and Water Management Approach. Under the GEF
assistance to the Danube River Protection Convention through the Environmental Programme for the
Danube River Basin (EPDRB) a SAP was produced in 1999, but the focus was specifically on the water
sector and there were practical problems in achieving parallel inter-sectoral and international co-
ordination in a programme involving thirteen states. In addition, the objectives of the Danube River Basin
Convention are limited in scope. It focuses on water management issues and with less specific reference
to the interaction between land and water, except in the case of prevention of damage to the Danube
environment. The Convention emphasizes the need to maintain and improve the environmental and water
quality conditions of the Danube and sustainable and equitable management of surface and groundwater
resources.

The ICPDR as a body took the decision in November 2000 to make the implementation of the WFD as
their highest priority. The activities of the ICPDR and the support provided by the GEF have been
focused in the intervening years on two major issues; the implementation of the WFD and, through the
GEF Strategic Partnership, the reduction of nutrient load to the Black Sea. The majority of the ICPDR
activities are through either the Ministries of Water or the Ministries of Environment and in several
countries there is limited inter-sectoral coordination. The GEF-supported project is currently assisting the
Danube countries to establish and/or reinforce inter-ministerial coordinating mechanisms. The MSP will
extend this support to include those agencies involved in, or impacted by integrated land and water
management, while further bolstering the support provided by the GEF DRP.

The WFD calls for the development of what are termed River Basin Management Plans (RBMP) that
contain geographical and hydrological basin details and a summary of the measures required to
implement the Directive in order to achieve good ecological status of the water. In December 2004 the
ICPDR prepared the first part of a River Basin Plan for the whole of the Danube basin – the basic
characteristics called the “Roof Report”, which will be supported by national reports to be prepared by
approximately mid 2005. The final Danube River Basin Management Plan consisting of basin-wide
overview (Roof Report) and national reports is to be prepared by 2009. Although a strong piece of
legislation the WFD has its shortfalls that are recognized by the EC and ICPDR and thus a wider
sustainable development approach is being sought in the Danube basin.

In November 2002 the 5 th Ordinary Session of the ICPDR decided to elaborate an Action Programme for
Sustainable Flood Prevention in the Danube River Basin until the end of 2004. The Action Programme
was adopted by the Ministerial meeting of the ICPDR in December 2004. The programme gives clear



                                                    10
strategy and guidance for the elaboration of the Flood Action Plans in the sub-basins through this inter-
ministerial body.

Support of the following documents may be cited as evidence of this policy shift:

   The Strategic Action Plan (SAP) and SAP Implementation plan which were previously the ICPDR‟s
    main guidance policy documents were combined in 2000 into the 2001-2005 Joint Action Programme
    (JAP) which is directed towards:

                       Improvement of the ecological and chemical status of the water
                       Prevention of accidental pollution events
                       Minimization of the impacts of floods

            o   The JAP also with wider sustainable development objectives calls for:
                    Improvement of the living standards of the Danube River basin population
                    Enhance economic development of the region
                    Restore the region‟s biodiversity

   By signing the Budapest Declaration the Tisza Water Forum was established in 2001 to address the
    issue of Flood Prevention, Protection and Mitigation committing the basin states to co-operate and
    develop regional plans on flood protection and control in the Tisza basin.

   The EU Communication and the Presidency summary of the Environment Council (Luxembourg 14
    October 2004) on Flood Risk Management that called for the development of flood risk management
    plans to be developed, based on the interdisciplinary approach in which all relevant aspects of water
    management, spatial planning, land use, agriculture, transport and urban development and nature
    conservation are taken into account. The plans would follow the best practice laid down in a
    document presented for the Informal meeting of Water Directors of the European Union in Athens in
    June 2003.

   At the WSSD in Johannesburg in 2003, the EU launched a Water Initiative (EECCA component)
    designed to contribute to the achievements of the Millennium Development Goals and WSSD targets
    on drinking water and sanitation, within the context of an integrated approach to water resources
    management.

   In December 2004, the Ministers of Environment and Water of the five countries signed the
    Memorandum of Understanding on in which they agreed: to commit to internationally integrated
    Tisza river basin cooperation development; to co-operate more closely in the framework of the
    ICPDR with the aim to produce a Tisza WFD River Basin Management Plan by 2009; to start
    immediately, as a first step, with the preparation of a Tisza Analysis Report including flood risk
    management with the aim to present it to the ICPDR Ordinary Meeting in 2006; to welcome the
    intentions of the European Commission to facilitate this process; to welcome the intentions of UNDP
    GEF to actively support this initiate by launching a new Tisza project whose activities would be
    closely coordinated with the ICPDR and competent authorities, to embed this initiative within the
    ICPDR.(See Annex 8 for full details of this MoU.) An ad hoc Tisza Group for River Basin
    Management has been established in the framework of the ICPDR to coordinate the related activities.

   The Framework Convention on the Protection and Sustainable Development of the Carpathians was
    signed by all seven Carpathian countries, including the five Tisza basin countries, in Kiev in May




                                                    11
    2003 and is currently in the process of ratification in most countries1. In May of this year, the EU has
    been invited through the Visegrad Group countries to consider accession to the Carpathian
    Framework Convention and to provide support to activities through its structural funds, cohesive fund
    and other initiatives. Prior to its ratification, an interim secretariat has been established under the
    stewardship of UNEP in the UN International Centre in Vienna. The Convention seeks to promote an
    integrated approach to land resource management through spatial planning, river basin management
    planning, sustainable agriculture and forestry, and sustainable tourism, amongst other approaches.
    The Interim Secretariat with the assistance of UNEP-GRID Geneva completed a rapid environmental
    assessment report of the Tisza basin, including an assessment of environmental risks from mining
    activities and in collaboration with UNDP is developing a protected areas programme project for
    submission to the GEF.

C – PROGRAMME AND POLICY CONFORMITY

    1. PROGRAM DESIGNATION AND CONFORMITY

The programming context and the design of the present project is directed by the GEF Operational
Programme #9 which states: “these projects focus on integrated approaches to the use of better land and
water resource management practices on an area-wide basis. The goal is to help groups of countries
utilize the full range of technical, economic, financial, regulatory, and institutional measures needed to
operationalize sustainable development strategies for international waters and their drainage basins (para
9.2).” The present project proposal meets these requirements and will assist the countries of the Tisza
River basin in meeting their obligations under various global conventions relating to biological diversity
and climate change.

The project is essentially regional and transboundary in nature and will enable the states of the basin to build
new and improve on existing regional cooperative frameworks, ensure adherence to international
conventions, as well as strengthen national laws, regulations, and management regimes to improve the
likelihood of sustainability of resource use and reduce existing and potential degradation. The
implementation of this project, and ultimately the IRBMP, will result in regional, and by extension global,
environmental benefits through protection of international waters, their resources, and sustainable use of
resources in conformity with the objectives of GEF Operational Program 9 i.e., “to achieve global
environmental benefits though the implementation of sound land and water management strategies as a
result of changes in sectoral policies and activities that promote sustainable development.

13.    Under the Integrated Land and Water Multi Focal Area Operational Programme 9, several outputs
from IW projects are envisaged. These include:

        a. a comprehensive transboundary diagnostic analysis identifying top priority multi-country
           environmental concerns;
        b. a strategic action programme or equivalent (IRBMP) consisting of expected baseline and
           additional actions needed to implement an integrated approach to land and water resources
           management;
        c. documentation of stakeholder participation to determine expected baseline and additional
           actions to be implemented as well as community involvement in the project; and
        d. implementation of measures related to integrated management of land and water resources
           that have incremental costs and that can generate global environmental benefits in several
           focal areas.
1
 The government of Romania has signed this Convention with reservations, pending possible modifications to
cartographic outlines


                                                      12
The project proposed will address all of the above points. The main stakeholders of the proposed project
are the users of the natural resources, and those whose livelihood depends on the natural resources of the
Tisza basin. Ministries of environment, ministries with control of land and water resources, as well as
new institutions created by the project will play a key role in the implementation of project activities, thus
enhancing capacity within the institutions as well as complementing and strengthening existing national
efforts to address environmental issues. Implementation of the final IRBMP will thus assist in the
conservation of natural resources and assist the countries in complying with their national and regional
obligations under various international conventions. At a global level, the project and its IRBMP put
together regional and national activities into a coherent component of the global environmental protection
effort.

The present project also is consistent with the new GEF International Waters Focal Area- Strategic
Objectives:

    IW2 is to expand global coverage of foundational capacity building (enabling activity equivalents) to
    a limited number of new transboundary systems with a focus on key program gaps and integrated,
    cross focal area approaches and to support targeted learning in the portfolio and for KM objectives. A
    focus is placed on integrated water resources management that can contribute to WSSD POI for areas
    affected by water scarcity/competing uses and highly dependent on groundwater. This constitutes a
    response to STAP recommendations and to catalyzing integrated approaches.
    IW3 is to undertake innovative demonstrations with emphasis on reducing persistent toxic substances
    (POPs are covered under OP 14), consistent with a GEF chemicals agenda, addressing water
    scarcity/competing water uses through IWRM, and protecting valuable groundwater supplies,
    including initiatives involving public-private partnerships and innovative financing as a contribution
    toward the MDGs and WSSD Targets. Actions to fully implement this third objective related to a
    GEF chemicals agenda will only be possible under the intermediate and enhanced funding scenarios.
Cross-cutting priorities. Through the MDGs and WSSD processes, international consensus has been
reached around the two basic approaches that should organize the global effort towards environmentally
sustainable development: (i) integrated management of natural resources, including energy; (ii)
enhancement of cooperation and synergies, with emphasis on the regional level. Further, the WSSD POI
recognizes that “managing natural resources in an integrated manner is essential for sustainable
development”, and adopts a target on “Integrated Water Resources Management”. In pursuing the
strategic objectives described above, the focal area will adopt these approaches, and will seek and
promote opportunities for: (i) Integration, intended as the joining of forces across focal areas towards a
common objective (INRM), (ii) Climate Change Adaptation, which more than any other area of GEF
interest, can best be addressed through integration among and across focal areas, and (iii) development
and implementation of IWRM and Water Use Efficiency Plans in SIDS and LDCs.

The Tisza basin countries will work together to establish region wide priorities and collaborate towards
addressing these priorities with in the IRBMP formulation process. The integration of GEF focal area
activities will be pursued, including attention to biodiversity, POPs, land degradation and adaptive
measures to reduce the anticipated impacts of climate change.

The project will play a catalytic role in bringing together five Tisza river basin countries for the purpose
of transboundary integrated river basin management. Previous water resource projects in the region
funded by UNDP, the World Bank, EU, and other sources have focused more on water resource and
environmental issues, without full attention to the integrated land and water use component.




                                                     13
The importance of the GEF MSP project is recognized by the international community and has already,
even at the preparation stage, attracted coordination efforts within the ICPDR, through the EU WFD
RBMP and through the UNDP Danube Regional Project.

During this project stage the countries will develop a Regional Integrated River Basin Management
Programme (IRBMP) to address priority transboundary problems in the Tisza basin, supported by five
National Integrated River Basin Management Plans which will serve as the implementation instruments
for the IRBMP at the national level. The IRBMP will be developed using the standard GEF TDA-SAP
methodology for international waters projects and will be carried out in accordance with the guidelines
developed under the GEF Train-Sea-Coast programme. The Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA)
will identify major transboundary problems and threats and fill the gaps in information. To maximize co-
funding potential, key donors such as WB, EBRD, USAID, TACIS, and other donors will be invited to
participate in the TDA-IRBMP process and help shape and later support IRBMP implementation.

The IRBMP to be developed will serve as basis for future formulation and implementation of projects in
accordance with the strategic priorities, and thus support capacity building in transboundary water
resource management, including encouraging the involvement of civil society, and implement a series of
transboundary demo projects addressing specific water quality and quantity issues in the basin. National
Integrated River Basin Management Plans (NIRBMP) will be created to harmonize priorities and actions
throughout the region. In cases where national priorities include meeting the accession criteria of the EU,
it is anticipated that the NIRBMP s will reflect activities already scheduled for support.

The major product will be a a Regional Integrated River Basin Management Programme (IRBMP) The
IRBMP will take into account already existing relevant policy frameworks such as the Danube JAP, the
July 2004 EC Communication on Flood Risk Management, and the 2004 Danube Roof Report, while at
the same time addressing wider sustainability issues in the water, agriculture, land use, energy, industry
and navigation sectors. Basic information on flood risks and flood management and pollution sources,
two key issues, will be taken from respectively the work of the Tisza Forum and the ICPDR Danube
Pollution Reduction Programme/EU DABLAS working group. This project is designed to build upon
these previous efforts and not to duplicate them but to support the exploration of more detailed
information with more attention to preventative coordinated efforts for integrated land and water
management.

    2. PROJECT DESIGN

Major Threats

The Tisza river basin faced a series of inter-related issues that span sectors and have impacts that are
largely transboundary in nature. The focus of previous efforts on individual components of this has
resulted in a lack of coordinated effort that is crucial to addressing these challenges. These issues include:

Flooding
The Tisza waters are impacted by seasonal flooding, which in turn increases water pollution from
industrial, mining, and agricultural sources. These flooding events are triggered by snowmelt and/or
heavy rainfalls and influenced by detrimental human interference such as deforestation and human
development in floodplains. The driving force of the development of the region was twofold, the
improvement of the navigability of the Tisza River to support the nautical transportation of the products
of the ore and salt mines being subject of Royal monopoly on the one hand, and the extension of arable
land as a respond to the agricultural boom created by the Napoleonic wars on the other. The interventions
needed to serve the objectives led to mass canalizations of the Tisza River, erection of flood
embankments and drainage of the land that allowed for significant human settlement and agricultural


                                                     14
cultivation in the floodplain. Where river floodplains traditionally supported flood tolerant grasses, water
meadows and fishponds, modern agricultural production demands low and tightly regulated water levels
and protection from seasonal inundation. Flood risks and urban building have also increased within
drained floodplains due to inadequate land use leading to the loss of uncultivated land and deforestation,
especially within the buffer zone of headwater streams, as well as due to the raising of damage potential
in the floodplains. Human settlements built within the floodplains also impact the Tisza waters with
industrial and municipal wastes, increasing the amount of nutrients, heavy metals and organic pollutants.
Flooding in the cultivated floodplains washes pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers into the river and
contributes to the eutrophication of the Danube and Black Sea, and their long-term health.

Deforestation and Loss of Biodiversity
Deforestation in the Tisza basin, especially in the tributaries endangers the water quality of the Tisza,
impacts the diverse biodiversity of this region and exacerbates the flooding problem. The loss of forests
encourages soil erosion and loss of absorptive capacity during heavy rains. Deforestation in mountainous
areas increases the propensity for landslides endangering human settlements. Forestry practices vary from
country to country and are often not addressed in conjunction with water management issues, despite the
very close linkages within an integrated ecosystem management framework.

In addition to deforestation the loss of biodiversity in the region is a significant threat. Despite it‟s
degraded condition, the Tisza is still one of the most natural river systems in the Danube, and all of
Europe, and therefore worth preserving. The cause of the loss of habitat and decline of biodiversity are
closely related to detrimental human activities: deforestation, draining of wetlands, canalization of
meandering streams and cultivation of flood plains. The result is loss of critical habitats for key species
unique to the region, including such species as bears and wolves. The loss of these species and habitats
creates gaps that are quickly filled by invasive species, which can further threaten the sustainability of
other local flora and fauna, and therefore impact the quality of the local ecosystem. The Tisza River Basin
is also a part of a significant international flyway for migratory birds.

Pollution
There are four main cause of the water pollution in the Tisza: agricultural runoff; industrial effluents,
mining activities and abandoned tailing ponds, and municipal wastes. During the second half of the 20 th
Century the use of heavy applications of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides was known as the “Green
Revolution”. Still, the Tisza waters suffer from high nutrient loading and relatively high pesticides levels
and the agricultural pollution load is among the highest of all tributaries of the Danube.

Another crucial problem in the Tisza region is the continued use of outdated industrial technology that
allows effluents to be discharged into the river waters. Mining activities in the upper Tisza combined with
deforestation in the Carpathian Mountains has further jeopardized the Tisza waters especially during
heavy seasonal rains as evidenced by the January 2000 Baia Mare cyanide spill. Municipal wastes are
sometimes not properly treated in many parts of the Tisza basin. Rural areas and smaller communities in
some countries lack the infrastructure and revenues to install primary treatment facilities. Also
agricultural facilities, specifically stock yards, discharge wastes and nutrients into the river waters.


The impact of pollution from both point and non-point sources is significant. The socio-economic impacts
are serious, affecting human health, the availability of resources, access to healthy fisheries, safety to
human settlements, and development of the tourism industry capable of competing with less
environmentally challenged regions. Lack of investment regionally hampers the use of cleaner, and more
environmentally sound industrial production techniques.




                                                     15
These integrated problems must be addressed at a regional level in order to successfully mediate the
threats to this unique ecosystem and the population living in the floodplains and can be overcome most
effectively through integrated water and land use management strategies. The ecosytemic impacts of these
issues are more fully explained in Annex 7

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

At a regional level:
       Lack of attention to fully integrated land and water resource management
     Weakness in formal policy recognition of the value of biodiversity conservation for current and
      future generations
     Weak public (stakeholder) participation at levels of decision-making and weak public awareness
      (under-developed civil society) of environmental issues
      Weakness of national budgets allocated for the environment due to low priorities
     Multiple initiatives occasionally working at cross purposes
     Lack of a framework for a sub-basin cooperation
     Lack of experience with economic models that feature sound sustainable development principles
     Weaknesses in existing policy, legal, and regulatory institutional frameworks to address specific
      problems of the Tisza basin
     Low enforcement of existing laws and regulations
     Weakness in analysis of socio-economic factors

At a national level of some of the Tisza countries, the current conditions include:
     Weaknesses to address specific problems of the Tisza river in existing national level policy, legal,
      and regulatory institutional frameworks
     Low enforcement of existing national laws and regulations
     Low income levels and poverty amongst some Tisza basin residents
     Limitations on Environmental Agencies/Ministries
     Weakness of government funding for environmental matters
     Abuse of power in natural resource management (use of resources, planning/management)Lack of
      effective buffer zone planning and management function
     Weak inter-sectoral cooperation pertaining to environmental issues

These combined causes must be addressed through concerted action and coordinated regional policies
aimed at reducing threats and increasing regional collaboration. It is expected that the following outcomes
will facilitate longer-term efforts to address these root causes, within the contexts, and vigilant to the
assumptions and potential barriers that could hamper project progress.


Expected project outcomes, with underlying assumptions and context

The MSP project will prepare the Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) a Regional Integrated River
Basin Management Programme (IRBMP) in line with the Action Programme of the ICPDR for
Sustainable Protection in the Danube River Basin, and the EU Flood Risk Management Action
Programme, Action Plan, and National Integrated River basin Management Action Plans. The IRBMP
will highlight implementing tools at national levels, and proposals for establishment for a Tisza River
Basin Management mechanisms. Preparation of the TDA/IRBMP will be carried out in accordance with
the approved GEF methodology. Once the IRBMP is successful developed and agreed by governments


                                                    16
and stakeholders, UNDP will apply to GEF for a second project to support IRBMP implementation, in
line with GEF IW Strategic Objective 1. This intervention comprise a series of agreed policy, institutional
and legislative reforms at regional and national levels, as well as lending incremental support to key, on-
the-ground, demo projects identified within the initial phases of the IRBMP development.
The project expects to contribute to the following inter-linked outcomes, based on the articulated
assumptions and within these specific contexts:

    Outcome 1. Established and functioning regional and national integrated land and water
    management mechanisms, in line with already existing structures.

Assumptions
    The basin countries see the value of establishing management mechanisms for integrated
     management of land and water in the Tisza River Basin over and above the minimal national
     requirements set out in the WFD and complementing the ICPDR.
    The various basin wide initiatives can be brought together under a single umbrella (WFD, RBMP,
     UNDP Sustainable Development Strategy, CEMAT Spatial Planning initiative, Carpathian
     Convention, etc.).
    All management mechanisms are supported politically and, importantly, financially by the basin
     countries.

Context
Financial commitment by the countries to support basin-wide management mechanisms for integrated
land and water management, which possibly include a permanent structure in case all the partners deem
this desirable, over and above already existing commitments to the ICDPR on the Danube River Basin
and water-management level, must be assured by the basin states; in some states this may be challenging.
The Danube Convention has thirteen member states and coordination of activities at the sub-basin level is
difficult particularly where overarching legislation or policy is lacking, incomplete or contradictory. The
main focus of the Danube Convention is on the management of the aquatic environment and, as a result,
the wider related development issues receive less immediate attention. Under an Integrated River Basin
Management Plan it is the integration of land and water use management policies and the coordination of
sectoral activities (agriculture, energy, forestry, fisheries, flood prevention, industry, municipal waste
disposal, navigation, land use and spatial planning) which are of key importance. This sort of detailed
planning cannot be easily done in a basin the size of the Danube and therefore a sub-basin approach needs
to be developed. Under the ICPDR this integrated approach has already begun in the form of a declaration
by the five basin countries to work closely together in producing a sub-basin WFD-compliant River Basin
Management Plan, to work on a Flood Prevention Action Plan, and through the signing of the Carpathian
Convention2 by all Tisza basin countries.

In December 2004, representatives of the Ministries of Environment and Water of the five Tisza riparian
countries signed a Memorandum of Understanding and expressed their commitment: to the development
of a cooperation within a sub-regional framework towards an internationally integrated Tisza River Basin
cooperation ; to welcome the EC to facilitate the process; to welcome the UNDP and GEF to actively
support this initiative with a project closely coordinated with the begun activities and existing structures
of the ICPDR

Potential Barriers:


2
 The government of Romania has signed this Convention with reservations, pending possible modifications to
cartographic outlines.


                                                      17
   Ability of international organizations to find cooperative sectors and to avoid confusion among
    appropriate sectoral representatives
   Appropriateness of linked efforts throughout the region, with successful ability to address issues
   Sufficient financial support for non-EU accession states
   Full support of all countries for existing agreements, including the Carpathian Convention


    Outcome 2. Basin wide harmonized water and land use policies and laws that will reduce future
    detrimental human interference in the natural processes of the basin and provide a balance
    between the demands of water use and sustainable environmental protection.

Assumptions
 That project ownership is clearly defined at the national and regional level.
 The five basin countries welcome the value of the coordination of environmental governance
   measures as a means to improve regional sustainable development and cooperative use of shared
   resources.
 That the dialogue is not overwhelmed by the long-standing discussion between Black Sea basin states
   regarding larger scale water management strategies.

Context
The current plethora of international projects in the region lack coordination at the regional level and
often work at cross purposes while trying to address the many social, economic and environmental needs
of stakeholders in the region. The presence of the EU accession countries and the environmental
requirements that accompany accession also has resulted in a significant discrepancy between national
policies across the region. These policies need to be harmonized, as per the declaration of all the Tisza
States to meet the requisitions of the EU Water Framework Directive. However, because the non-EU
accession states have more challenges to overcome, policy coordination is more difficult for these
countries. The project seeks to enable all countries in the Tisza River Basin to meet their stated objectives
through coordinated efforts for sustainable integrated land and water management with the support of
national, oblast and community level stakeholders. The establishment of new, or the strengthening of
existing inter-ministerial committees and mechanisms in each of the countries will ensure that there is
adequate feedback from all relevant sectors during the project, and that National Integrated River Basin
Management Plans (NIRBMP), as components of the IRBMP, receive the necessary political and
financial support. The project will establish and support new inter-ministerial committees, which should
include the finance ministries, where needed. In some of the Tisza countries, where adequate inter-
ministerial groups already work to address issues of the Danube River, the project will strengthen these
groups.

Potential Barriers:
 Unwillingness of communities to accommodate the natural processes of river basin
 Ability of international efforts to find common ground for cooperation and collaboration
 Ability to resolve the discrepancies between EU and non EU accession states
 Effectiveness of national support and inter-sectoral cooperation

    Outcome 3. Establish and test mechanisms for reversal or rehabilitation for damage done in the
    past due to detrimental human interference.

Assumptions
 Successful sustainable resource management practices can be introduced which will protect the
   environment and improve the economic livelihood of the people.
 The people place a value on their natural environment and wish to see it protected and conserved.


                                                     18
   Communities are willing to cooperate in management of land and water resource across borders.

Context
Harmonization and integration of national environmental policy within the basin is the first step in
establishing good environmental governance. Implementation and compliance with that legislation is the
crucial second step. The value of region wide agreements, plans and legislation must acknowledge
involvement of the local government and community levels as well as the national government level if
they are to be implemented successfully. A community level pilot project will be implemented as part of
the project to demonstrate concrete advantages of the integrated land and water resource management at
the community level in the wider context of river basin management. The project is intended to serve as a
test case for development of larger demonstration projects for inclusion in the IRBMP, helping to answer
questions regarding effective implementation, challenges faced, scaling problems, setting of
environmental protection limits, and appropriate monitoring and evaluation methodologies to be
employed. This first demonstration project will develop and investigate the application of improved land
and water resource management mechanisms in the upper Tisza catchment in the Carpathian Mountains.
The demonstration project will be looking for techniques which simultaneously protect the environment
and improve the livelihoods of the population. The demonstration project will be designed and executed
in close consultation with the interim secretariat of, and make use of existing participatory and consulting
mechanisms under the Carpathian Convention. The results of the demonstration project will be
disseminated widely and lesson learnt incorporated into the IRBMP.

The project will support the initial development of up to three further transboundary demonstration
projects to be undertaken as part of the IRBMP implementation. With guidance from the project, the
countries in the region will be responsible for drafting project documents for a transboundary
demonstration projects, including objectives, activities and interventions, budget, timetable and terms of
reference.

Potential Barriers:
 Ability to make noticeable reverse damages within the timeframe of the project
 Willingness of communities to support projects at the expense of status quo
 Economic short-term interests override environmental concerns

        Outcome 4. Strong regional partnership, replication and dissemination of best practices
        and lessons learned

Assumptions
 Upstream dialogue between partners established
 Joint project/program development and preparation
 Agreed & defined roles & responsibilities
 Frequent communication @ all levels
 Transparency of the process
 Joint oversight of the project implementation
 Partnership forum established
 Project replication strategy
 Best practices and lessons learned

Context
The need for regional integration and networking to develop active partnerships for IRBMP
implementation in the areas of, public awareness and stakeholders participation, policy-level sensitisation,


                                                    19
evolution of educational materials and new curricula, training, secondment, and the development of a
long-term strategy for sustainable IRBMP at the regional level. Effective IRBMP implementation requires
planning, coordination, and knowledge-sharing among the wide range of agencies and programmes
involved in IRBMP - related activities. The GEF and other donors working in the Danube River basin
recognise the need to co-ordinate their programmes in order to build on synergies and avoid duplication.
Consequently, this component also aims to develop a more strategic approach to partnerships in the
region through the review of existing and planned IRBMP related activities, development of partnership
networking, promotion of knowledge sharing on existing and emerging initiatives among involved
national, regional and international institutions; and development of an agreed strategic approach and
work-plan for donor support and regional cooperation in the implementation of the Tisza IRBMP.

An active partnership forum within the region will be established. A primary objective of this forum
would be more efficient and cost-effective use of financial and human resources in the development and
implementation of IRBMP and related environmental protection and sustainable development activities in
the region, the forum will also facilitate the dissemination of lessons learned and best practices
during the implementation of the project and enhanced replication of project outcomes through
the GEF IW projects.

Potential Barriers:
 Willingness of donor community to support IRBMP implementation
 Willingness of donor community to collaborate through IRBMP


Impetus for GEF Involvement
This project will give an opportunity to meld the outputs of five existing GEF and other Tisza basin
projects to a single integrated land and water management use project platform. There will be significant
crossover between the GEF Biodiversity and the International Waters portfolios with the potential for
significant synergies and perhaps ideas for new, more effective project design. The linkage to the UNDP
Carpathian-region Umbrella programme demonstrates the programmatic approach that is keenly
advocated by the GEF Council. The GEF have forged a long and successful partnership with the
European Union in the Danube basin. Together they have supported the implementation of the Danube
Convention, established the ICPDR and addressed priority transboundary issues. This project would be an
extension of that partnership. The ICPDR has 13 member states with different development paths and
speeds and a sectoral approach is often the only acceptable way forward. In basins, such as the Tisza, a
more integrated land and water management approach is needed to tackle the transboundary problems,
more complex than currently being implemented by the states under the EU Water Framework Directive.
The EU as a contracting party to the Danube Convention, is keen to see that its members comply with the
WFD at the basin and sub-basin level and link it to other initiatives such as the EU Flooding
Communication and their Water Initiative for the EECCA region. Other international assistance efforts
can gravitate to this effort as well, in order to best invest their efforts without being redundant, and create
a functional web of support for all countries within the region, rather than the current situation which is
challenged by segmented programmes that do not fully address the challenges of integrated land and
water management on a basin-wide scale.



Project cost and activities to be financed by GEF

In order to produce the outcomes listed above, the project will comprise of the following outputs:




                                                      20
Output 1: Establishment of the Project management structure at the regional and national levels,
including support for the establishment or adoption of inter-ministerial coordination committees at
the national level, where needed.

The Project Steering Committee will be confirmed and the Terms of Reference agreed, and the project
National Focal Points (NFPs) and/or Delegates in coordination with existing mechanisms under the
ICPDR appointed. A Chief Technical Advisor will be recruited to serve within a Project Implementation
Unit based in ICPDR Secretariat in Vienna to allow synergies between the project and the secretariat and
with Danube GEF project, as well as to fully utilize the institutional capacity of the ICPDR, including
Danube data bases and other institutional resources. ICPDR will provide the office space for the PIU and
will cofinance the secretarial support of for the CTA. The CTA will work in close contact with the
ICPDR secretary and the CTA of the Danube GEF project. A national project liaison office will be
established in each participating country. As adequate and possible, existing liaising offices and structures
established under the ICPDR and/or Danube Regional Project will be adopted.

Financial input: US $ 382,572, (GEF-280,000, Co-financing-102,572) including on-going management
costs. Partial funding through government and ICPDR cost-sharing.


Output 2: Undertake a Trans-boundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) including the preparation of
the Stakeholder Analysis
A Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) of the Tisza River basin shall be conducted with assistance
of national experts and adequate public involvement. The TDA is an empirically based scientific
evaluation of the transboundary and shared issues and problems of the basin and provides a factual basis
for formulation of a IRBMP, based on reasoned, holistic and multi-sectoral consideration. The TDA will
identify and describe the pollution hot spots in the Tisza basin. The TDA will also identify and fill gaps in
data and information. In particular, the TDA will build on the significant achievements within the
countries of the region of completing the EU WFD 'Roof Report' (Characterization Report) in March
2005 under the coordination of the ICPDR. The TDA will be undertaken in line with current best
practices and will comprise the following elements:

-     formulation of Technical Task Team (TTT) based on the ICPDR ad hoc Tisza Group and
      identification of priority transboundary water-related environmental issues and problems
-     preparation of detailed assessment of environmental issues and problems, based on existing
      information, studies and data and measured against the sustainable vision
-     hot spots analysis
-     analysis of existing legislation, policies and projected investments as needed
-     causal chain analysis
-     assessment of existing and future socio-economic conditions impacting on the environment,
      including an economic and water-pricing related analysis
-     synthesis of TDA

The first step will be the formation of a Technical Task Team (TTT) to undertake the assessment work
comprising of experts from the five participating states. A scoping study will be undertaken by the TTT to
identify and locate priority issues, gaps in reliable, standardized information, and studies will be
commissioned to assess the scale of each priority problem and its interactions. In addition, an analysis of
institutions, laws, policies, and projected investments will be undertaken in each of the participating
countries as warranted to supplement existing studies.

The TTT will undertake a Causal Chain Analysis (CCA) of the priority problems and issues to relate their
immediate physical and socioeconomic effects with their legal, policy, social and economic underlying


                                                     21
causes. This analysis will be invaluable in identifying the highest impact, cost effective options for
addressing priority transboundary issues and identifying monitoring and evaluation indicators for their
implementation. This CCA will focus on both the issues, causes and consequences of degradation of the
river basin, and will enable the project to target activities towards specific factors in order to be most
effective.

The CTA will be responsible for the synthesis of the TDA which shall be reviewed by the TTT and
Stakeholder Advisory Group before being submitted to the Steering Committee for approval.

In parallel to these activities c comprehensive Stakeholder Analysis will be conducted. The objective of
the Stakeholder Analysis (SHA) is to identify the major stakeholder groups impacted by and contributing
to the degradation of the Tisza River basin. This will involve individual, qualitatively oriented interviews
and quantitatively analyzed surveys with NFPs, actively organized and latent stakeholder group
representatives, to determine the broadest ranging transboundary interests and influences impacting
degradation of waters in the region. The stakeholder analysis will provide an overview of regional
priorities and will identify where tensions and potential conflicts between specific stakeholder groups
exist, both nationally and regionally. The stakeholder analysis will conclude with the formation of the
Stakeholder Advisory Group, consisting of an array of representative stakeholders from the region who
can assist the CTA in the evaluation and implementation of project components. The Stakeholder
Advisory Group will provide valuable feedback and will share information on project activities and
information with the groups they represent. They will also provide input into the Public Involvement plan
to be developed as part of the IRBMP, see Activity 4.


Financial Input: US $ 390,000. (GEF-230,000, Co-financing-160,000); partial funding through
government and ICPDR cost-sharing, and by UNEP.


Output 3: Prepare Regional Integrated River Basin Management Programme and National
Integrated River Basin Management Plans, in line with the EU Water Framework Directives.

With the identification of priority transboundary issues, a series of Ecosystem Quality Objectives will be
developed, constituting the long-term vision for the basin. The national representatives, in conjunction
with international staff will develop these Ecosystem Quality Objectives, along with targets and activities
towards achieving these. These will serve as the basis for the elaboration of the Regional Integrated
River Basin Management Programme.

In order for the IRBMP to be effective, complementary National Integrated River Basin Management
Plans should be developed as vehicles for implementation of the IRBMP at the national level, given the
necessary funding is available. The National Plans will be developed at the national level by the inter-
ministerial committee members with the lead ministry taking responsibility for gaining approval for the
plan and securing budgetary allocations. The National Plans will coordinate with the IRBMP and provide
national policy, legislative and budgetary commitments to its implementation. Additional budget support
may be sought through other international programmes.

The IRBMP will be enacted under the supervision of the ICPDR and the ad hoc Tisza Group. The ad hoc
Tisza Group will prepare detailed terms of reference for the contents of the plan and the consultation
process in line with Annex VII of the WFD. The data collection and analysis stages will run concurrently
and collaboratively with those of the TDA, thereby avoiding duplication effort and maximizing
integration. The ad hoc Tisza Group will approve the draft plan before presentation to ICPDR. If



                                                    22
appropriate the Stakeholder Advisory Group established under the project will be used as a sounding
board for the IRBMP.

Information and data on steps and measures to be taken to implement the WFD will be collected at the
national level and then synthesized at the basin level and incorporated into the IRBMP. As stated in the
EU WFD Article 13, paragraph 5: “River basin management plans may be supplemented by the
production of more detailed programmes and management plans for sub-basin, sector, issue, or water
type, to deal with particular aspects of water management. Implementation of these measure s shall not
exempt Member States from any of their obligations under the rest of this Directive.

The Regional Integrated River Basin Management Programme (IRBMP) will include a realistic financial
plan and an M&E framework based on GEF IW guidelines (process, stress reduction, environmental
status). The document will also include a public involvement strategy for IRBMP implementation, which
will be in accord with the public involvement plan developed under ICPDR with support from theGEF
Danube Regional Project. The regional IRBMP must be supported by the governments, including
endorsements and budgetary commitments from each country.

The project will organize two regional workshops to discuss the legal and institutional frameworks for
management of the water and land resources in the Tisza basin. These workshops will bring together
representatives from ICPDR, Tisza Water Forum, Carpathian Convention, the Stakeholder Advisory
Group, the inter-ministerial committees, and others to establish steps to be taken towards a regionally
managed basin.

Financial Input: US $ 387,000. (GEF-132,000, Co-financing-255,000) Partial funding through
government and ICPDR cost-sharing, and by EU co-funding (US $ 70,000) supporting IRBMP


Output 4: Development of the Flood Prevention and Risk Management Strategy and Action
Programme as an integral component of the IRBMP

Based on the findings of the TDA, and in line with the Action Programme of the ICPDR for Sustainable
Protection in the Danube River Basin, as well as with the EU Flood Risk Management Action
Programme, the IRBMP will include a Flood Prevention and Risk Strategy for the Tisza basin. The
Strategy shall include concrete, regional and national Action Plans to reduce the impacts of flood events
and improve ecosystem conditions to maximize the natural flood retention capacities. This work will be
carried out in conjunction with the on-going flood mitigation efforts in the region. The Flood Prevention
and Risk Management Strategy and Action Plans will be integrated into the structure of the IRBMP so
that these documents become mutually reinforcing.

Financial Input: SU $130,000, fully EU funded with governmental cost-sharing.


Output 5: Implementation of a transboundary demonstration project in the Carpathian Mountains
and initial design and preparation of at least three land and water resource management
demonstration projects for inclusion in the IRBMP.

Implementation of a demonstration project will showcase concrete advantages of the integrated land and
water resource management at the community-level in the wider context of river basin management. The
project is intended as a test case for development of (at least) three larger demonstration projects for
inclusion in the IRBMP, helping to answer questions regarding effective implementation, challenges
faced, scaling problems, setting of environmental protection limits and monitoring and evaluation


                                                   23
methodologies to be employed. This first demonstration project will investigate the application of
improved land and water resource management techniques in the upper catchment in the Carpathian
Mountains. The demonstration project will be looking for techniques which simultaneously protect the
environment and improve the livelihoods of the population. The demonstration project will be designed
and executed in close consultation with the interim secretariat of the Carpathian Convention. The results
of the demonstration project will be dissemination widely and lesson learnt incorporated into the IRBMP.

The project will prepare a replication strategy for at least three transboundary demonstration projects to
be implemented as part of the IRBMP. With guidance from the project, the countries in the region will be
responsible for drafting project documents (including objectives, activities and interventions, budget,
timetable and terms of reference) for successful replication of the demo project, and to start mobilizing
the required funding (both national and from external donors, including GEF as feasible.

Demonstration Project outcome, phases and intended activities

The outcome of the project will be enhanced knowledge of techniques and mechanisms for improved
environmental self-governance at the local and community level that can be applied throughout the basin,
providing both economic gains and environmental improvements through integrated water and land
resource management.

The project will be implemented in three phases containing the following intended activities and outputs:


Phase I – Selection of transboundary project site and preparation of project activities:

1. Development of a set of criteria3 for selection of a suitable transboundary project site in the
   Carpathian mountains, in cooperation with the interim secretariat of Carpathian Convention. The
   criteria will take into account geographic, socio-economic, and environmental indicators alike, and
   will emphasize the involvement of vulnerable groups and gender- and conflict-related issues4.
   Existing or planned activities or projects in the region shall be taken into account. The success or
   otherwise of community governance projects implemented through other international donor agencies
   will be factored into the selection criteria. It will be important to set criteria that mirror those found
   throughout the Tisza basin region while at the same time, taking steps to support a wide array of
   suitable candidate communities. The selection criteria will be finalized at a specifically held
   workshop to which national and local stakeholders will participate.

2. Selection of basic methodological approaches and establishing of concrete objectives, including
   mechanism for integrated land resource and water management at the local level. In a first step, this
   activity includes a number of consultations within the Carpathian Convention framework, as well as a
   participative process i.a. involving the Carpathian Eco-region Initiative (CERI) as the umbrella for
   local initiatives, and appropriate NGO's and research institutes of the region.Selected communities
3
  These criteria will be discussed and further developed during a regional consultation meeting with the Regional
Stakeholder Advisory Group of the umbrella UNDP/GEF project. Proposals for project sites will be solicited from
NGOs and communities, and based on the established criteria, projects ranked by UNDP and representatives of the
interim secretariat of the Carpathian Convention. A workshop will be organized to select the final site.
4
  Communities with disadvantaged populations, lower education levels, higher poverty rates or less access to social
services are
the most marginalized communities who often are more susceptible to environmental degradation and often place
more immediate strains on their surrounding ecosystems. As a result communities with these conditions will be
considered for selection above more affluent communities when all other conditions are equal.


                                                         24
    will in a second phase be assisted in determining priorities for small scale socio-economic
    interventions based on collective action management strategies and focusing on employment-
    generation or livelihood-improvement. This strategy of common property resource management
    includes defining: i) Geographical boundaries of which the participating groups are responsible; ii)
    Resources required to meet basic needs iii) Participation of all those impacted by the governance
    decisions iv) Rules to ensure a clear division of responsibility and benefits and transparency within
    the decision making process v) Rule enforcement including appropriate sanctions for those who act
    against the project interests vi) Conflict resolution mechanisms within the governance structure vii)
    Acceptance from local, district and national authorities of project design and objectives.

3. Development of a Monitoring and Evaluation framework and Learning Plan. The main focus of the
   M&E framework will be on the effectiveness of the governance mechanism, and secondly on the
   environmental improvements. Monitoring will have to be undertaken continuously without undue
   interference in the social development process and determine which outputs are unique to the societal
   make-up of the pilot community and which can be replicated in other communities. Attention will be
   given to the post-project sustainability of the efforts both in terms of governance and in terms of
   environmental benefits.

Phase II – Implementation of community-level interventions

4. Establishment of a community council and local implementation mechanisms; The Community
   Council shall represent, and include representatives of, all members of the community, including
   women (at least 30% of the council members), minority (Roma) population (at least 20% of council),
   and youth5. This council may build on efforts established by earlier community development projects,
   though the make up of the council should conform to the criteria set by this proposal.

5. Identification of issues and aspects to be addressed, and selection of activities and the strategy to be
   adopted by the project. Emphasis will be on concrete activities and investments to improve land and
   water resource management.

    Issues and aspects to be addressed by the pilot may include:
        a. Flood mitigation, through small scale wetland restoration, reforestation efforts, or other
            adequate measures;
        b. Pollution mitigation and restoration, through: sustainable agricultural practices, organic
            farming methods; split waste management and composting of organic waste; pollution
            hotspot alleviation through plantings of toxin absorbing flora, etc.
        c. Biodiversity preservation, through habitat restoration activities with clear economic benefits
            for local communities; re-introduction and promotion of indigenous species, etc.

    The entire community must vote on the projects to be selected and be willing to support the chosen
    projects. For any infrastructure improvements, it is expected that the community will contribute at
    least 30% of the budgeted cost of the project, with all households making a contribution either in cash
    or in kind, with labour and resources.


5
  To ensure effective and efficient project governance it will be important to clearly define the scope and rules for
the council‟s operation, also defining who is to join in, and benefit from, the project. Further important aspects
include the balance of environmental improvement objectives vis-à-vis the socio-economic community needs; the
inclusion of all representatives in the decision making process; transparency in all decisions and processes; the
adequate sanctioning of violations of agreed community rules and project implementation arrangements; adequate
conflict resolution mechanisms within the community.


                                                          25
6. Implementation of the defined set of community-based interventions, and monitoring of progress and
   lessons learnt throughout the project implementation. This work is to be overseen by an NGO
   selected prior to the criteria development section

Phase III – Analysis of project achievements and transfer of lessons learned

7. Using the M&E framework and Lessons Plan appraisal and evaluation of the demonstration project
   and the various interventions, focusing on successes and challenges6, and formulating lessons learned
   and recommendation for replication and transfer of the experience; to the extent possible, the
   project‟s findings will be utilized to produce or inform a number of value-adding knowledge
   products, including Action Reflection Notes, How-To-Guides, or other forms of publications. These
   products are to be targeted towards implementation of similar demo projects as part of the Tisza River
   Basin IRBMP.

8. Final project report. A comprehensive report on implementation of the pilot project with emphasis on
   guidance for future replication and transfer of good practices and lessons learned. The report will also
   directly inform the IRBMP for design of subsequent demonstration projects throughout the region.

9. Disseminate lessons learnt and organize public information activities. The dissemination effort will be
   through regional and national NGOs, community based organizations and international organizations.
   Additional dissemination through UNDP web pages and other information sources will also be
   included to broaden the scope of the project. Summary information should also be disseminated to the
   larger International Waters community, as appropriate and feasible.

10. Development of the replication strategy for the Demonstration Project throughout the Tisza and wider
    Danube basin.. The demonstration project implemented during this MSP will have its own replication
    strategy built in the project design. The replication strategy will define the replication context for each
    demonstration, i.e.: the number, location, areas/sites in the region where the specific
    technology/practice could apply; assess the value of demo projects replication, and evaluate the
    overall expected impact of the full replication.


Financial Input: US $ 340,000. (GEF-140,000, Co-financing (UNDP)-200,000).


Output 6: Development of Partners’ and Donors’ Involvement Strategy and establishment of
Partnership Forum, Evaluation and Reporting mechanisms.

Finally the project will develop a Partners‟ and Donors‟ Involvement Strategy for the successful
implementation of the IRBMP. The strategy will identify and involve all interested partners and donors
and will focus on the following:


6
 Of importance will be to develop an understanding about underlying causes of challenges to the formation of the
Community Council and election of its members, including the integration of parts of the community; the selection
of criteria or specific activities; the sharing of information and transparency of decision making; the wide transfer of
knowledge-gains from trainings throughout the community; the constructive handling of dissent and conflict
potentials within the community and particularly across geographic and ethnic borders; the equal distribution of
costs and benefits; and other aspects of project acceptance and implementation, also on the municipal and regional
government level.



                                                           26
     Upstream dialogue
     Joint project/program development and preparation
     Agreed & defined roles & responsibilities
     Frequent communication @ mult. levels
     Transparency
     Face-to-face coordination meetings
     Joint oversight
     Adaptive management


This output is also addresses the need for regional integration and networking to develop active
partnerships for IRBMP implementation in the areas of, public awareness and stakeholders participation,
policy-level sensitisation, evolution of educational materials and new curricula, training, secondment, and
the development of a long-term strategy for sustainable IRBMP at the regional level.

Effective IRBMP implementation requires planning, coordination, and knowledge-sharing among the
wide range of agencies and programmes involved in IRBMP - related activities.

The GEF and other donors working in the Danube River basin recognise the need to co-ordinate their
programmes in order to build on synergies and avoid duplication. Consequently, this component also
aims to develop a more strategic approach to partnerships in the region through the review of existing and
planned IRBMP related activities, development of partnership networking, promotion of knowledge
sharing on existing and emerging initiatives among involved national, regional and international
institutions; and development of an agreed strategic approach and work-plan for donor support and
regional cooperation in the implementation of the Tisza IRBMP.

Under this output an active partnership forum within the region will be established. A primary objective
of this forum would be more efficient and cost-effective use of financial and human resources in the
development and implementation of IRBMP and related environmental protection and sustainable
development activities in the region.

Under this output the project will also collaborate with IW:LEARN (UNDP/UNEP/WB-GEF
International Waters Learning), to facilitate the dissemination of lessons learned and best
practices during the implementation of the project and enhanced replication of project outcomes
through the GEF IW projects.

The project website will be linked with the IW:Learn information portal. All the historical
information produced by the project will be freely available to all GEF IW projects.

The project will also participate in the GEF IW biannual conferences to disseminate of lessons
learned and best practices as well as to enhance the replication of project outcomes.


Financial Input: US $ 213,900. (GEF-143,900, Co-financing-50,000) Partial funding through government
cost-sharing and by EU; negotiations with interested partners from the private sector on-going




                                                    27
For more details of the project strategy, details of the project goals and objectives with outcomes,
measurable performance indicators with sources of verification, risks and assumptions see the logistical
framework in Annex 2.


    3. SUSTAINABILITY (INCLUDING FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY)

The sustainability of the project will be ensured with the adoption of the IRBMP and National Integrated
River Management Plans (NIRBMP) at regional and national levels and the government commitment to
implement them. The establishment or extension, and the continuation of the inter-ministerial committees
and allocation of government funds to these plans will be clear signs of sustainability. It is anticipated that
the national budgets dedicated to the NIRBMP‟s will be within the standard budget allocations, except, in
some cases, where environmental regulations are adapted to conform to EU Directives and standards. The
project will work with the countries to implement the EU WFD aquis and will specifically not set up
competing planning frameworks, thus building on the direct and indirect EU support to the accession and
non-accession countries in the basin.

The IRBMP will only succeed if it is able to garner support of the local communities and governments
and national governments; support from international donors (multi-lateral and bi-lateral) would not be
sufficient. The IRBMP must be integrated into the national policy and planning frameworks and must
receive multi-sectoral support. The inter-ministerial committees will play a crucial role in achieving this
integration and the support of the IRBMP by the IFIs will also be influential. An inter-governmental body
of some form, such as a River Basin Council will be required to oversee implementation of the IRBMP,
which should build on the Tisza MOU, as well as possibly on recently established mechanisms such as
the ad hoc Tisza Group. This matter will be addressed more in detail towards the end of the project. It is
envisaged that a final decision will be made on this matter at the end of the three-year MSP stage and
should be set as a pre-requisite for endorsement of any further funding.

The project sustainability will depend upon whether the local and national governments remain true to the
„vision‟ defined in the IRBMP, committing the necessary political, institutional and financial support and
resources required. Successful replication will depend on whether mechanisms can be found to improve
resource management at the same time as increasing environmental protection. Therefore the scaling of
mechanisms, approaches and institutions are critical to consider throughout the development,
implementation and evaluation phases. Replication through transfer of the lessons learnt to larger scale
community programmes focused on integrated land and water resource management should be
investigated. In addition, if successful, similar projects could be implemented in other sub-basins of the
wider Danube River and Black Sea basin.

Project coordination will be under the umbrella of the Danube River Basin Convention and ICPDR and
the ad hoc Tisza Group, however, there will need to be coordination at other levels. The project will be
closely coordinated with the existing GEF Danube Regional Project (DRP) to avoid duplication of effort,
but more importantly to benefit from the Danube project‟s experience and the wider basin activities under
both the DRP itself and the associated Danube - Black Sea Partnership. Linkages will also be made to the
GEF IW-Learn programme and Water Wiki the project will endeavor to make maximum use of their
products and services. UNOPS, the executing agency for the GEF Danube project, will also be the
executing agency for the Tisza MSP stage and will be encouraged to form linkages between the two
projects at the project management level.

There will be direct linkages between the project and Carpathian Convention and Tisza Water Forum with
joint implementation of a land and water resources demonstration project in the Carpathians and the



                                                      28
development of a Flood Prevention Strategy and Action Plan respectively. Coordination will also be
required with the ICPDR on the development of the Flood Prevention and Risk Management Strategy and
Action Plans. The project will demonstrate flexibility and pragmatism in bringing the partners together.


     4. REPLICABILITY

The project will develop and support a replication strategy to ensure the broader dissemination of the
lessons learnt and results achieved during the implementation of the MSP. The replication Strategy will
be fully developed during the project implementation and will consist of two major elements:

1.    The MSP will promote replication of its activities. This will be achieved largely through an
      intensive monitoring, learning, outreach and evaluation process. In parallel, the project will
      promote replication of its successes, and particularly its more innovative initiatives, during its own
      lifetime. A key element of its replication strategy that will serve both these objectives will be an
      aggressive awareness and results dissemination program. This will employ multiple mechanisms
      and involve multiple partners. Through these multiple mechanisms and partnerships, information on
      successful investment and policy reform promotion strategies, innovative financing modalities and
      new partnerships will be widely disseminated. This will promote replication of this MSP in other
      Danube sub-basins.

2.    Replication of Demonstration Project throughout the Tisza and wider Danube basin. The
      demonstration project implemented during this MSP will have its own replication strategy built in
      the project design. The replication strategy will define the replication context for each
      demonstration, i.e.: the number, location, areas/sites in the region where the specific
      technology/practice could apply; assess the value of demo projects replication, and evaluate the
      overall expected impact of the full replication.


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

     The Hungarian project focuses on conservation and restoration of the globally significant
      biodiversity of the Tisza river floodplain through integrated floodplain management.
     The Romanian project focuses on strengthening Romania‟s protected area system by demonstrating
      public-private partnership in Romania‟s Maramures Nature Park.
     The Slovakian project focuses on integration of ecosystems management principles and practices
      into land and water management of Slovakia‟s Eastern lowlands.
     The Ukrainian project Conserving globally significant biodiversity and mitigating/reducing
      environmental risk by integrating biodiversity conservation principles and practices into forestry
      and watershed management in Ukraine‟s Trans Carpathian region.

These GEF biodiversity projects each have demonstration components that link and water river basin
management with socio-economic realities within this region. These projects are varied enough to serve
as very important role models for other similar projects in a transboundary setting. Through sustainable
watershed management these GEF Biodiversity projects address many of the environmental challenges
facing the broader Tisza river basin and will provide valuable lessons for the proposed project. The
project managers of the GEF project will be invited to participate in the identification and design of the
full-sized project demonstration projects.


                                                    29
    5. STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

A stakeholder analysis undertaken during the MSP will determine more precisely the roles and potential
or degree of involvement of concerned public and private sector agencies in each country. Without pre-
empting the findings of that analysis, it is likely that the following institutions and organisations will be
involved:

Ministry officials from: Environmental protection and water management; Agriculture and forestry;
Transportation; Energy; Public health; Planning and land use and urbanization; Soil management;
Industry; Mining; Education; Tourism; Communication and emergency services; Economic and or
finance; Foreign affairs; and Defense. Other stakeholders involved will include: district, local and
municipal leaders; international and bilateral assistance agencies; local, national, regional and
international NGOs; coastal residents; community based organizations; construction company owners and
workers; industry owners and workers; mine owners and miners; farmers; fishermen; forestry workers;
educators; agricultural support industry; public healthcare providers; scientists and researchers; tourism
industry specialists; media, including print and broadcast; and international investors interested in the
region.

A strong emphasis is to be placed on the input of stakeholder groups in the development and
implementation of the TDA, IRBMP. This input is to be a central component of the project, as
stakeholders from all levels are encouraged to collaborate among and with each other throughout the
project. Regional, national and in some cases, local stakeholder advisory groups will be charged with
providing critical input into the project direction based on their insights, experiences and interests. These
groups will provide a check on those with the technical expertise in the ad hoc Tisza Group. In turn, the
project will also emphasize increasing the institutional points for multiple stakeholder group input into
water and environmental policy making at the national, district, oblast and regional level.

Special emphasis will be placed on building the capacity of various stakeholder groups, through training,
workshops, public information and education campaigns, and pilot project examples. These will focus on
concrete solutions that have been successfully applied in other comparable situations. The intention of
this project is to increase ownership within the region, with multiple stakeholder inputs leading the way
with win-win scenarios that improve the environment while improving the quality of the stakeholder‟s
lives.

Public involvement and fostering a strong sense of stakeholder ownership is a key component of this
project. A stakeholder analysis will be conducted to determine key areas of interest and concern to a
broad range of stakeholder groups. This analysis will inform the TDA and will serve as a basis for the
development of the Stakeholder Advisory Group. This group will consist of representatives of the major
stakeholder groups: national, regional and local government officials, farmers groups, water users
associations, public and private industry officials, community based organizations, NGOs, women‟s
groups, youth organizations, researchers and scientists, national park officials and forestry managers. The
stakeholder advisory group will take part in the substantive TDA and IRBMP formulation meetings and
review and comment on the draft documents. This group will also be charged with informing their core
constituents of the activities and objects of the project. They will be asked to assist in the development of
public awareness building efforts and will provide feedback on the effectiveness of these efforts as they
are implemented.

The implementation of the demo project pertaining to environmental governance in the Carpathian border
community will be conducted by community level stakeholders with support from multiple stakeholder


                                                     30
groups, including scientists, experts, regional and national officials, and oblast and municipal government
representatives. The supporting stakeholder groups will also be encouraged to join in the development,
design, implementation, evaluation and monitoring on the pilot project. The stakeholder involvement
within the pilot projects will be well supported by the project and will include: community and municipal
leadership, land owners, farmers and farming cooperatives, land and water distribution agents, farmer and
land use education specialists, and agro-chemical distributors, public healthcare providers, women‟s craft
collectives, school teachers and school children, and local NGOs.

    6. MONITORING AND EVALUATION

Project strategy and objectives, intended outputs, implementation structure, work plans and emerging
issues will be regularly reviewed and evaluated annually by the Project Steering Committee. Periodic
Status Reports will be prepared at the request of the Steering Committee for presentation at key meetings
associated with the Project, such as i.e. the ad hoc Tisza Group Meetings.

The project will also be subject to:

     Regular quarterly Progress Reports by the CTA to the implementing and executing agencies;
     Internal Project Implementation Reviews to be conducted by the CTA and submitted to the
      implementing agency at the end of months 12, 24, and 36 of the project programme;
     Annual project report/ project implementation review (APR/PIR) will be prepared annually by the
      CTA and presented for discussion and approval to Tripartite meeting and shared with GEF
      Regional Coordination Unit.
     An independent interim mid-term project evaluation to be undertaken in month 18 to be presented
      to a tri-partite review to be held in accordance with UNDP procedures soon thereafter;
     An independent final project evaluation to be undertaken in the last month of implementation of the
      project.
     The project will be subject to the financial audit according to UNDP/GEF rules and regulations.

The project evaluations will be carried out in accordance with the GEF requirements and will cover all
aspects of the project. They will include: an assessment of (a) the outcomes generated, (b) the processes
used to generate them, (c) project impacts using indicators included in the logical framework matrix, and
d) lessons learned. Advice will be given on how to the M&E results can be used to adjust the work if
needed and on how to replicate the good results in the region.
For indicators for project objectives, outcomes, including intermediate benchmarks and means of
measurement, please refer to the log frame in annex 2.
Specific Process, Stress Reduction, and Environmental Status Indicators (according to GEF standards) for
the Tisza river basins will be developed during project implementation.

D – FINANCING

    1. FINANCING PLAN

The total budget for the project is US$1.92 million of which US$ 999,972.00 is being sought from GEF.

A full listing of co-funding from the beneficiary countries as in-kind contributions is listed in Annex 4.
ICPDR‟s in-kind co-funding amounts to US$ 67,572.




                                                    31
Co-funding of US$ 200,000 is provided by the PSPD Energy & Environment Practice of the UNDP
Regional Centre for Europe and CIS, based in Bratislava, from regional programme and other funds
(possible private sector contributions are currently under negotiation) and is directed towards support the
public awareness components and the Carpathian demonstration project. UNEP, through a number of
initiatives in the basin, will provide co/ parallel- funding of at least US$ 50,000 as a contribution to the
TDA exercise, which will go to the assessment of the environmental status of the Tisza basin with
particular regard to the mining industry / hotspots.

US$ 200,000 is provided by the EU through parallel funding of expertise and activities, or indirectly
through the participating states. The money is mainly allocated to assist the (new) EU member states
participate in the project, and for the preparation of the Tisza River Basin Management Plan and the
Flood Prevention and Risk Management Strategy and Action Plan. In addition there are a number of on-
going national and regional water projects, which the GEF project will engage through the ICPDR,
including:


     ICPDR/ ALCOA Establishment of an Integrated Monitoring Programme for the Somes River basin
      and WFD capacity building, Romania - $100k
      ICDPR/ALCOA Transboundary contaminant monitoring (technical assistance and equipment) in
      the Mures River Basin, Romania and Hungary -$260K
     ICPDR/French GEF Transboundary River Basin Planning in the Koros/Crisuri basin - $1.3m




                                                    32
                                      Expected total budget for the Project

  Outputs                                    GEF            EU       UNDP     UNEP        Gov’t    ICPDR      Total

  1. Coordination arrangements and        280,000                                         80,000   22,572   382,572
     project management (incl. CTA)
  2. TDA including Stakeholder            230,000      20,000                 50,000      70,000   20,000   390,000
     Analysis
  3. IRBMP and NIRBMP,s                   132,000      70,000                            160,000   25,000   387,000
  4. Flood Strategy                                    90,000                             40,000            130,000
  5. Demonstration project                140,000                   200,000                                 340,000
  6. Partnership Strategy, Forum,         143,900      20,000                             50,000            213,900
     Evaluation and Reporting
  Executing Agency Overhead (8%)           74,072

TOTAL                                     999,972    200,000        200,000   50,000     400,000   67,572 1,917,544




                                                 Co-financing Plan

                                       Co-financing Sources
        Name of Co-financier           Classification       Type               Amount (US$)
        (source)
        UNDP                         Impl. Agency                  cash                200,000
        Governments                   Government                 In kind               400,000
        ICPDR                     Intergovernmental              In kind                67,572
                                      Commission
        EU                            Multi-lateral               Cash                 200,000

        UNEP                            UN Agency                 cash                  50,000
        TOTAL                                                                          850,000




                                                       33
E - INSTITUTIONAL COORDINATION AND SUPPORT

The Tisza countries are all signatories to the Danube River Protection Convention (DRPC), which is a
legally binding document and provides a framework for cooperation between the parties. The Danube
countries under the obligations of the DRPC have established the International Commission for the
Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR) creating an institutional framework not only for pollution
control and protection of water bodies in the Danube basin, but also the integrated management and
sustainable use of basin‟s natural resources. In November 2000 the ICPDR adopted its first Joint Action
Programme (JAP) for the Danube which addresses pollution from point and non-point sources, wetland
and floodplain restoration, priority substances, water quality standards, prevention of accidental pollution,
flooding and river basin management. Any planning document prepared for the Tisza basin must be
consistent with the ICPDR‟s JAP and meet the requirements of WFD and EU Communication on Flood
Risk Management. It should also meet the commitments of the countries under the Carpathian
Convention (under ratification). Ensuring that this is achieved will require close communication between
main institutions and a mutual understanding of their objectives and policies.

The project will be implemented by the UNDP through its Bratislava Regional Centre (BRC) and
executed by the United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS) based in Geneva. The office space
for the project office will be provide by ICPDR in Vienna International Center as part of ICPDR co-
financing to the project. The Chief Technical Advisor-Project Manager for the project will be responsible
for overall implementation of this MSP together with ICPDR Executive Secretary. ICPDR will be
responsible in recruiting the CTA-Project manager under a sub-contract with UNOPS, based on agreed
TORs and in close coordination with UNDP Bratislava. The CTA –Project Manager will be directly
reporting to the ICPDR Executive Secretary and regularly communicating to the UNDP/GEF
Regional Technical Advisor. Additional secretarial support will also be provided by ICPDR as part of
in-kind contribution to the project.

Each country will support the establishment and the maintenance of an inter-ministerial committee and
host a liaison office. This will be coordinated with already existing mechanisms under the current GEF
support project to the ICPDR, which is also charged with establishing inter-ministerial committees.

Sustainable development requires an interdisciplinary approach in which all relevant aspects and sectors
(environment, water management, spatial planning, transport, urban planning, tourism, etc.) are taken into
account. The Project Steering Committee would therefore include the five basin countries (including
ministers from the key affiliated ministries), the ICPDR, EU, the three GEF implementing agencies
(UNDP, UNEP and WB), and representatives from the Stakeholder Advisory Group. Additionally,
representation from members of the ad hoc Tisza Group, the Carpathian Convention Secretariat, and other
relevant international organizations will provide support to the Steering Committee.

It is further proposed that the demanding role of project steering and coordination be undertaken in close
cooperation with the ICPDR ad hoc Tisza Group. The project will support activities of the ICPDR ad hoc
Tisza Group and it is recommended that this group be enlarged to include representatives from the
national inter-ministerial committees established under the project.




                                                     34
WORK PLAN
                                Activity                Quarter 1   2   3        4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12
Inception meeting
Establish of Implementation arrangements and offices
1st TDA workshop – identify and scope issues
Stakeholder analysis and public involvement plan
Design of Carpathian demonstration project
Production of analysis of institutional, legal and policies and
projected investments in the basin countries.
Completion of the detailed TDA studies and production of
summary reports
National meeting and second TDA workshop to review
summary reports and initiate the causal chain analysis.
Completion of data collection for IRBMP and Flood
Strategy.
First IRBMPmeeting to define the vision statement in terms
of long-term EcoQOs, followed by national confirmation
meetings
Identification of regional and national IRBMP formulation
teams
Second IRBMP meeting to identify options to meet EcoQOs
and draft, preliminary IRBMP.
Selection of demonstration sites for replication projects
Completion of national studies of WFD implementation.
Interim report on Carpathian demonstration project
Draft Flood strategy prepared initial consultation meeting
3rd IRBMP meeting to review prelim IRBMP and launch
NIRBMP,s
Production of draft TDA
Completion of IRBMPoption feasibility studies.
Third TDA workshop to review draft TDA.
Fourth IRBMPworkshop to present draft NIRBMPs review
draft IRBMP.
Prepare draft project brief. Final report from Carpathian
demonstration project.
Final IRBMPand Flood Strategy and Action plan prepared
Partnership forum
Ministerial Conference and IRBMP adoption




                                                                            35
                                    Annex 1: Organizational Structure of the Tisza River Basin Project


                                                                                                               Lines of Management
                                                          PROJECT STEERING
                                                                                                               Consultation
                                                              COMMITTEE


  ADVISORY BODIES / GROUPS:
ICPDR ad-hoc Tisza Group, Stakeholder                  Project Implementation Unit /
  Advisory Group, Tisza Water Forum,                      CTA and Project Team
   Carpathian Convention Secretariat,




             HUNGARY                    ROMANIA               SERBIA -                  SLOVAKIA                UKRAINE
                                                            MONTENEGRO
           Country Project         Country Project          Country Project           Country Project        Country Project
               Office                  Office                   Office                    Office                 Office
           Inter-Ministerial       Inter-Ministerial         Inter-Ministerial         Inter-Ministerial      Inter-Ministerial
              Committee               Committee                 Committee                 Committee              Committee

         National Focal Point    National Focal Point      National Focal Point      National Focal Point   National Focal Point

            National Project       National Project          National Project          National Project       National Project
            Implementation         Implementation            Implementation            Implementation         Implementation
                 team                   team                      team                      team                   team




                                                                    36
ANNEX 2                                                             Logical Framework

Project Strategy                     Verifiable Indicator                Source of Verification              Assumption and Risks
   Long term goal: to develop harmonized national and regional policies and mechanisms for integrated land an water management in Tisza river
   basin that meets the short and long –term requirement for optimum ecosystem function as well as the needs for the communities using the river
   and development of long-term Prevention and Risk Management Strategy and Reduction of nutrient load on Danube river and Black Sea
   Basin.
   Outcome 1. Established and functioning regional and national integrated land and water management mechanisms, in line with already
   existing structures.
    Output 1: Establish MSP              Confirmation of NFPs for each country               Selection of NFPs supported by               Availability of qualified individual to
    Coordination and Implementation                                                            representative ministry                       serve as NFP
    Arrangements                                                                                                                            Ministry support for personnel to serve
                                                                                                                                             on project
                                         Steering Committee consisting of:                   Committee membership roster                  Availability of staff to serve on Steering
                                          NFPs, Representatives from ICPDR,                   Meeting reports                               Committee
                                          EU, and GEF implementing Agencies
                                         Meetings held every 6 months
                                         Panel consisting of representatives                 Reports on management and technical          Cooperation of all bodies
                                          from: Tisza Forum, Interim Secretariat               guidance received from the Panel             Availability of panel members
                                          of the Carpathian Convention, national               throughout the MSP Process                   Capacity of panel members to advise of
                                          coordination officers                                                                              technical issues
                                         Inter-ministerial Committee led by NFP              Quarterly reports of NFP of minutes of       Support for inter ministerial cooperation
                                          working with project issues across                   the meetings submitted to CTA                 by governments
                                          traditional sectoral boundaries                                                                   Ability of ministerial representatives to
                                         Meetings held at least every three                                                                 address transboundary and Inter-sectoral
                                          months                                                                                             issues
                                         Offices capable of offering assistance to                                                         Availability of staff and training
                                          support efforts of states with full                                                                resources
                                          equipment, staff and training                                                                     Country agreement on staffing
                                                                                                                                             components
Output 2: Conduct TDA including the      Desk study of Stakeholder inclusion                 A review of literature regarding social      Reliability of information obtained
Stakeholder Analysis                      projects in the region conducted                     and economic issues relating to river         through desk study
                                         With assistance of NFPs and local                    basin management issue                       Availability of local area consultants to
                                          consultants, design and administer                  Completed stakeholder survey                  administer survey
                                          stakeholder survey performed                        Database of resulting from compilation       Access to all stakeholder groups and
                                         operational database of stakeholder                  of stakeholder survey                         accuracy of representatives opinions
                                          concerns based on survey                            Report from SH consultant on major           Ability to reliably test broad stakeholder
                                         Data for trends in stakeholder group                 trends in SHG perceptions and                 opinions based on surveys of limited
                                          perception and concerns regarding                    concerns, to include recommendations          populations
                                          transboundary water issues analyzed                  for Public Involvement Plan
                                          and shared with stakeholders




                                                                                      37
                                        stakeholder representatives to serve on              Roster of SH advisory group in each           Availability of adequately diverse
                                         advisory groups at national level, and                country                                        stakeholder group representatives to
                                         allow them to select representatives for             Advisory group meetings held at                serve on advisory group
                                         regional SH Advisory group Identified                 national level                                Ability of group to reach agreement
                                         and involved                                         Advisory group representatives selected        and/or consensus on issues
                                        TOR for advisory group developed and                  by each advisory group                        Ability to successfully target multiple
                                         agreed                                               Mechanisms for dispersal of project            stakeholder groups
                                        Mechanisms to provide broader SH                      information to multiple stakeholder           Information dispersal mechanisms
                                         group review at critical project junctures            groups.                                        reliable and cross cutting as needed.
                                         developed by the advisory group                      Quarterly publication of region wide
                                        Region-wide newsletter published and                  newsletter with contact information
                                         disseminated widely                                   database
                                        Information on priority trans-boundary               Summary reports of studies                    Availability of sufficient scientific,
                                         issues pertaining to environmental,                  Linkages with other regional projects          socio-economic information on
                                         institutional and legislative issues                  established, as appropriate                    causality of priority issues
                                         gathered and widely disseminated                                                                    Reliability of information gathered
                                        Full use of information pertaining to the                                                           Other regional projects receptive to
                                         Danube and Black Sea, Roof Reports,                                                                  collaboration
                                         and WFD RBMP
                                        Gap in existing information sources                  Report of gaps and means to over come         Reliability of study finds
                                         Identified and clearly articulated                    these                                         Costs of studies within budget
                                        Draft ToRs for supplemental studies                  Study reports                                 Sufficient time and qualified staff to
                                         developed and agreed                                                                                 conduct studies.
                                        Commission studies to address gaps
                                         agreed
                                        Evaluate study findings published and
                                         widely disseminated
                                        Root cause identified through the                    Report on Causal Chain Analysis               Ability of group to identify root causes
                                         Causal Chain Analysis and widely                     Summary of appropriate interventions           and causal chain
                                         disseminated                                          for transboundary issues                      Clear instructions for groups in CCA
                                        Project interventions to address root                Listing of monitoring indicators for           methodology
                                         causes identified and agreed.                         actions and interventions                     Appropriate levels chosen for targeting
                                        GEF IW indicators for M&E of actions                 Specific P, SR, and ES indicators              interventions
                                         and interventions clearly identified and              (according to GEF-IWP standards) for          Monitoring indicators realizable and
                                         agreed                                                Tisza RB developed                             effective
    Outcome 2. Basin wide harmonized water and land use policies and laws that will reduce future detrimental human interference in the natural
    processes of the basin and provide a balance between the demands of water use and sustainable environmental protection.
Output 3: Development of IRBMP and      Ecosystemic Quality Objectives                       Clearly articulated EcoQOs with               Sufficient information from CCA, SHA
National IWRBM Plans                     (EcoQOs) based on findings of the                     specific targets and activities for each       and other sources
                                         Causal Chain Analysis established and                Series of EcoQOs delivered to IRBMP           Information clearly arrayed to be
                                         agreed,                                               formulation team                               accessible and meaningful to non-
                                        Established targets and activities for               Delivery of clearly articulated basin-         specialist audience
                                         each EcoQO with NFPs and national                     wide vision of long-term environmental        Basin wide vision realizable EcoQOs
                                         and international staff                               status to IRBMP formulation team               realistic within socio-economic and time
                                                                                                                                              constraints of the project



                                                                                      38
                                          Developed and Endorsed National                    NAPs delivered to CTA with Inter-              Consistency across Basin countries
                                           IRBMP Plans to incorporate EcoQOs                   ministerial Committee Approval                 Ability to obtain formal approval
                                           into national planning documents by                Proof of formal approval through lead          Government willing to allocate state
                                           inter-ministerial committees.                       ministry                                        funds to meet EcoQOs.
                                          Lead Ministry obtains approval for                 Budget allocations to meet EcoQOs
                                           National Plans                                      through NAP
                                          National Plans include budget allocation
                                           for activities to meet EcoQOs
                                          ToRs prepared by ad hoc Tisza Group,               Final draft of IRBMP based on                  Ad hoc Tisza Group able to clearly
                                           based on specific requirements of                   National Plans                                  articulate requirements for consultants
                                           Annex VII of the EU WFD                            Support of flood protection and Risk            based on Annex VII of the EU WFD
                                          Regional IRBMP developed based on                   Management Plan                                Experts/consultants with ability to fulfill
                                           National Plans and EcoQOs                                                                          ToRs available
                                          Flood protection and Risk Management                                                               National Plans standardized sufficiently
                                           Plan incorporated in IRBMP                                                                          to support IRBMP
                                       
                                          Ad hoc Tisza Group to approve draft of             Ad hoc Tisza Group formal approval             Plan of sufficient quality for ad hoc
                                           IRBMP based on the specifications laid             Presentation to ICPDR                           Tisza Group approval
                                           out in the ToRs                                                                                    Ad hoc Tisza Group consensus on
                                          Presentation of IRBMP to the ICPDR                                                                  approval
                                          Stakeholder Advisory Group approves                Presentation and feedback from                 IRBMP at a technical level that is
                                           IRBMP                                               Stakeholder Advisory Group                      accessible to members of the
                                                                                                                                               Stakeholder Advisory Group
                                          Approved Monitoring and evaluation                 Clear and effective M&E plans                  M&E plans actually measure EcoQOs
                                           plans (including specific P, SR, and ES            Approval of IRBMP by governments                with appropriate indicators
                                           indicators) for IRBMP EcoQO targets                National budgets dedicated to IRBMP            Realistic timeframe for activities
                                           and activities included in IRBMP                                                                   Governments willing to formally
                                          Specific 0-5 and 5-15 time frame                                                                    approve and financially support IRBMP
                                           included in IRBMP
                                          Regional IRBMP approved by
                                           governments
                                          National budget allocations to IRBMP
                                           agreed
Output 4: Realization of the Flood        ToRs prepared by Ad hoc Tisza Group,               ToRs for contents of report and                Ad hoc Tisza Group able to clearly
Prevention and Risk Management             based on approved Danube River Basin                consultations in line with expectation of       articulate requirements for consultants
Strategy set by the Action                 Flood Action Plan                                   needs in EC best practices on Flood             based on EC best practices on Flood
Programme of the ICPDR for                TDA findings in support EC best                     Prevention, Protection and Mitigation           Prevention, Protection and Mitigation
Sustainable Protection in the Danube       practices on Flood Prevention,                                                                     Experts/consultants with ability to fulfill
River Basin by the development of          Protection and Mitigation incorporated                                                              ToRs available
Tisza Flood Action Plan in                data for successful implementation EC              Draft report based on analysis to link to      Ability to analyze required data to meet
accordance with EU Flood Risk              best practices on Flood Prevention,                 TDA/ and IRBMP                                  the expectations of the EC best practices
Management Action Program                  Protection and Mitigation collected and                                                             on Flood Prevention, Protection and
                                           analyzed                                                                                            Mitigation

                                          Draft report on implementation of EC               Approve draft report                           Plan of sufficient quality for Working
                                           best practices on Flood Prevention,                Tisza Flood Prevention and Risk                 group of Tisza Forum and ICPDR ad
                                           Protection and Mitigation in Tisza River            Management Strategy and Action Plan             hoc Tisza Group approval
                                           Basin discussed and agreed                                                                         Consensus on approval of draft report
                                                                                      39
    Outcome 3. Established and tested mechanisms for reversal or rehabilitation for damage done in the past due to detrimental human
    interference.
Output 5: Develop and implement                 Defined criteria for location and                   Project implemented                           Ability to implement demonstration
demonstration project to show concrete           methodology for medium sized                        Monitoring and evaluation reports              project in short term
advantages of the Integrated River Basin         demonstration project in conjunction                Lessons learned and successes                 Cooperation with interim secretariat of
Management approaches                            with interim secretariat of Carpathian               documents                                      Carpathian Convention
                                                 Convention                                          Replicability assessment                      Success of project in IRBMP
                                                Demonstration project implemented for               Summary of project details                     techniques at local levels
                                                 integrated land and water management                Report on implementation of Carpathian         No net less of economic activity in
                                                 focusing on sustainable practices with               Mountain demonstration project and             community because of project
                                                 economic benefits to local communities               dissemination of results                      Demonstration project replicability
                                                Demo project successes and challenges                                                              Project addresses transboundary issue
                                                 identified and recorded                                                                             intended
                                                Replication strategy for the project                                                               Project successfully implemented
                                                 prepared and disseminated
                                                Draft report on lesson learned during the
                                                 implementation of the project widely
                                                 disseminated
                                                Developed project documents to address              Project documents for demonstration           Ability of NFPs to develop full project
                                                 transboundary issues, including log                  projects from each country                     documents and requirements clearly
                                                 frame, ToRs and monitoring evaluation               ToRs, logframes and monitoring plans           explained
                                                 plans                                               List of funding sources, with letters of      Ability to identify and articulate viable
                                                potential funding sources identified                 interests from appropriate authorities         projects
                                                                                                                                                    Ability to identify founders for projects
Outcome 4. Strong regional partnership, replication and dissemination of best practices and lessons learned
Output 6: Development of Partners’ and          Upstream dialogue established                       Reports of the meetings                       Willingness of donor community to
Donors’ Involvement Strategy,                   Joint project/program development and               Commitment from donors and partners            support IRBMP implementation
establishment of Partnership Forum and           preparation                                          to implement IRBMP                            Willingness of donor community to
establishment of replication, learning and      Agreed & defined roles &                            Coordinated donor efforts                      collaborate through IRBMP
dissemination strategy                           responsibilities                                    Report from Forum
                                                Frequent communication @ all levels
                                                Transparency of the process
                                                Joint oversight
                                                Partnership forum established
                                                Project replication strategy                        Proposals for replication                  
                                                Best practices and lessons learned                  Web site, IW:Learn portal, presentation    
                                                                                                      at the IWCs




                                                                                             40
ANNEX 3                                                                        Related Transboundary Projects for Tisza River Basin




                                                                                                                                                                                                  Conservation
                                                                                                                                                                        Development
Involvement




                     Title                     Short Description                   Keywords          Responsible          Cost       Possible     Status      Date




                                                                                                                                                                        Sustainable




                                                                                                                                                                                      Pollution
                                                                                                                                                                         Flooding
  Country




                                                                                                   organization or                   Source




                                                                                                                                                                                                    Nature

                                                                                                                                                                                                    Others
                                                                                                    author/s AND
                                                                                                    Implementing
                                                                                                       Agency

All           Tisza River Basin    Surveyed of stake holders, contact           Mapping,           REC/Tisza-                      UNDP-British closed      2001-2002   Yes    Yes    Yes         Yes
              Sustainable          persons and find networking institutions     networking,        Szamos      Public    100(in    Embassy
              Development          for sustainable development in the TRB.      sustainable,       Benefit Co.          thousand
              Programme-                                                        development                              EURO)
              Initiation Phase

All           Integrated Tisza    Identification of legal infrastructures,      Sustainable        REC Szentendre       US $150    UNDP-        Completed               Yes    Yes    Yes         Yes
              River Basin         institutions, policies, stakeholders, and     development,                                       Regional
              management, Phase   key capacity building issues for              institutions and                                   TRAC
              I, II               improvement of river basin governance,        stakeholders
                                  based on sustainable development
                                  principles.
All           Integrated Tisza    Improvement of river basin governance         River basin        Undecided            US $100 K UNDP –        Initiated   2004-2005   Yes    Yes    Yes         Yes
              River Basin         based on sustainable development with         management,        UNDP?/                         regional
              Management, Phase emphasis on mutli stakeholder groups,           sustainable        undecided                      TRAC
              III                 mapping to poverty reduction, socio-          development
                                  economic analysis and risk mitigation
All           Strategic           Eligible areas of intervention for support    International      ICPDR/ IBDR           US $ 34   IBRD         Initiated   2003                      Yes
              Partnership for     under the Fund include investments to         Waters                                   m, US $                            approved
              Nutrient Reduction remediate and mitigate nutrient pollution                                              275m co-
              in the Danube River in municipalities, industry and                                                        finance
              and Black Sea -     agriculture, as well as policy and legal
              World Bank-GEF      reform and capacity building for
              Nutrient Reduction enhanced monitoring and enforcement.
              Investment Fund:    The Investment Fund provides a focused
              Tranche 3           regional framework for country level
                                  investments aimed at a common goal of
                                  combating eutrophication in the Black
                                  Sea and allows for a streamlined
                                  approach to project processing by the
                                  GEF.
All           Danube/Black Sea    The GEF World Bank Investment Fund            International      IBRD                    US      IBRD         Initiated   2002               Yes    Yes         Yes
              Strategic           (IF) is the investment arm of the GEF         Waters, waste                            $83.8m
              Partnership -       Strategic Partnership on the Black            water treatment
              Nutrient Reduction Sea/Danube Basin which also funds two
              Investment Fund:    regional projects, one in Black Sea
              Tranche 2           littoral countries and one in the Danube
                                  Basin, focusing on capacity building
                                                                                                       41
                                                                                                                                                                                         Conservation
                                                                                                                                                               Development
Involvement
                     Title                     Short Description                    Keywords        Responsible      Cost       Possible     Status     Date




                                                                                                                                                               Sustainable




                                                                                                                                                                             Pollution
                                                                                                                                                                Flooding
  Country



                                                                                                  organization or               Source




                                                                                                                                                                                           Nature

                                                                                                                                                                                           Others
                                                                                                   author/s AND
                                                                                                   Implementing
                                                                                                      Agency

                                   activities. Eligible sectors for investment
                                   under the Fund include advanced
                                   municipal and industrial wastewater
                                   treatment, agricultural nutrient pollution
                                   control and wetland restoration.
All           Developing the       The immediate goal for this project is to     International    ICPDR/ UNDP       US $7.79   UNDP        Completed 1996 -                  Yes         Yes
              Danube River Basin prepare for funding pollution prevention        Waters, Danube                        m                             2000
              Pollution Reduction and reduction activities to both restore
              Programme            the Danube River Basin and to protect
                                   the Black Sea environment. The main
                                   output will be prioritised pollution
                                   projects for co-financing by national and
                                   international sources, set within a
                                   strategic policy framework for the
                                   Danube and Black Sea Basin.
R,            Danube River Basin The purpose of this project was to              International    UNDP                $ US     UNDP        Project    1991 -   Yes           Yes         Yes
H,            Environmental        contribute to the creation of the             Waters, Danube                      43.5m                 Closure    2000
U,            Management           framework for a long-term solution to the
Sl                                 problem of pollution of the Danube River
                                   Basin. The project had four main
                                   objectives in order to facilitate the
                                   formulation of a Danube Action
                                   Program: collecting pollution emission
                                   data and creating regional data network,
                                   identifying policy and legal options, and
                                   feasibility studies for local and
                                   international funding.
All           Strengthening the    The overall objective of this project is to   International    ICPDR/ UNDP        US $      UNDP/GEF    Active     2001     Yes           Yes
              Implementation       complement and support the activities of      Waters,                            11.95m
              Capacities for       the Danube Commission (ICPDR)                 Institutional
              Nutrient Reduction required to provide a regional approach         Development,
              and Transboundary to the development of national policies          Danube
              Cooperation in the and legislation and to define priority
              Danube River         actions for nutrient reduction and
              Basin-Phase I        pollution control, with particular
              Project Short Title: attention to transboundary effects within
              Danube Regional      the Danube Basin and the Black Sea. The
              Project Phase 1      full project would address the following
                                   immediate objectives: (i) development of
                                   policies, legal instruments and measures
                                   for nutrient reduction as well as for
                                   exacting compliance; (ii) institutional
                                                                                                    42
                                                                                                                                                                                        Conservation
                                                                                                                                                              Development
Involvement
                     Title                    Short Description                   Keywords       Responsible       Cost       Possible      Status     Date




                                                                                                                                                              Sustainable




                                                                                                                                                                            Pollution
                                                                                                                                                               Flooding
  Country



                                                                                               organization or                Source




                                                                                                                                                                                          Nature

                                                                                                                                                                                          Others
                                                                                                author/s AND
                                                                                                Implementing
                                                                                                   Agency

                                 strengthening and capacity building; (iii)
                                 awareness raising and reinforcement of
                                 NGO participation; (iv) development of
                                 transboundary strategies and concepts
                                 related to nutrient reduction and pollution
                                 control; (v) provide the framework for
                                 the dissemination and replication of
                                 successful demonstration activities in the
                                 region.
All           Strengthening the  The overall objective of the Danube           International   UNDP/ICPDR          US$      GEF/UNDP,     Active     2003     Yes           Yes         Yes
              Implementation     Regional Project is to complement the         Waters,                           24.878m    World Bank,
              Capacities for     activities of the ICPDR required to           Institutional                                EU,
              Nutrient Reduction provide a regional approach and global        Development,
              and Transboundary significance to the development of             Danube
              Cooperation in the national policies and legislation and the
              Danube River Basin definition of priority actions for nutrient
              (Tranche 2)        reduction and pollution control with
                                 particular attention to achieving
                                 sustainable transboundary ecological
                                 effects within the DRB and the Black Sea
                                 area.
U             Biodiversity       The project will directly address the         Biodiversity    UNEP              US$ 1.458 UNEP           Active     2002                               Yes
              Indicators for     development of indicators of biological
              National Use       diversity in four of the operational
                                 programme areas of the GEF biodiversity
                                 focal area: coastal, marine and freshwater
                                 ecosystems; forests; mountains; and agro
                                 biodiversity. Ukraine - Agricultural
                                 ecosystems: In the Ukraine, agricultural
                                 land covers more than 70% of the
                                 country and therefore plays a critical role
                                 in biodiversity retention. The country is
                                 home to more than 50 globally threatened
                                 species. The National Biodiversity
                                 Action Plan, which is under
                                 Parliamentary review, will highlight the
                                 effects of 1991 land reform and the need
                                 for indicators to monitor this and the
                                 environmental impacts of agriculture on
                                 biodiversity
R,            Transfer of        The project's objective is to build           International   UNIDO/ UNDP       US$ 2.4m   UNDP/GEF/                2000                   Yes
Sl,           Environmentally-   capacity in existing cleaner production       Waters                                       UNIDO
                                                                                                 43
                                                                                                                                                                                                      Conservation
                                                                                                                                                                            Development
Involvement
                     Title                     Short Description                   Keywords          Responsible           Cost        Possible       Status      Date




                                                                                                                                                                            Sustainable




                                                                                                                                                                                          Pollution
                                                                                                                                                                             Flooding
  Country



                                                                                                   organization or                     Source




                                                                                                                                                                                                        Nature

                                                                                                                                                                                                        Others
                                                                                                    author/s AND
                                                                                                    Implementing
                                                                                                       Agency

H             sound Technology    institutions to apply the UNIDO test
              (TEST) to Reduce    procedure. The project will demonstrate
              Transboundary       ways to reduce pollution while remaining
              Pollution in the    financially viable. The project includes
              Danube River Basin  the transfer of this technology to 20 pilot
                                  enterprises that are contributing to
                                  transboundary pollution, primarily
                                  nutrients, in the Danube River basin and
                                  Black Sea.
H             Enhancing           This project aims to improve, on a            Biodiversity       UNEP                    US$      UNEP/GEF        Active      2003                                  Yes
              Conservation of the sustainable basis, the conservation status                                             13.115 m
              Critical Network of of African/Eurasian migratory water
              Sites of Wetlands   birds, by enhancing and coordinating the
              Required by         measures taken by GEF-eligible
              Migratory Water     countries to conserve key critical wetland
              birds on the        areas that these birds require to complete
              African/Eurasian    their annual cycle, including their stop-
              Flyways.            over sites during migration and their stay
                                  in their "wintering grounds".
H             Building            The project will be designed to help          Public             UNDP                  US$ 1.583 GEf/UNDP         Active      2000        Yes           Yes
              Environmental       countries operationalize information          participation,                              m
              Citizenship to      access and public participation in a          pollution,
              Support             manner that advances the goals of             demonstration
              Transboundary       reducing toxics and nutrients discharges      projects
              Pollution Reduction to the Danube River Basin. As such, the
              in the Danube: A    activities conducted in Hungary and
              Pilot Project       Slovenia will serve as a pilot for future
                                  efforts to operationalize public
                                  involvement in support of pollution
                                  reduction in the Danube in other
                                  countries in the Danube River basin.
All           CEMAT               Initiative on sustainable development of      Sustainable        Council of               na      Council of      Initiated   Sept 2001   Yes    Yes                Yes     Social
              Sustainable Spatial the Tisza River Basin, to improve socio-      development,       Europe                           Europe                      -2008                                         /econ
              Development in the economic development, reduce                   social planning                                                                                                               omic
              Tisza River Basin   environmental damage, develop energy
                                  resources, and urban rural interactions
                                  with cartographic data and
                                  socioeconomic analysis
All           Budapest            Commitment to flood protection                Legal agreement,   Secretariat rotates     Na       Funded by       Active      2001               Yes    Yes         Yes
              Declaration/Tisza   coordination among all Tisza countries        flood prevention   among the 5                      participating
              Water Forum                                                                          Tisza countries                  states

                                                                                                       44
      Regional            Initiative of the Hungarian Ministry for      Tisza River Basin, Competent                    n/a           Concept   2001         Yes   Yes   Yes
All   Environmental       Environment. The initiation of the            environmental      environment and        n/a
      Management and      Programme was adopted by the five             management         water authorities
      Development         riparian countries.                                              of the countries
      Programme for the                                                                    concerned
      Tisza River Basin
SL,   EU Tisza River      Demonstration project focusing on GIS         GIS Mapping,        Academic              n/a   EU            Active    2001         Yes
HU,   Project             modelling techniques for river basin          Flood Prevention    institutions, water
RO,                       management as part of the EUs larger          Water Framework     management
UK                        CATCHMOD project for implementation           Directive           agencies, and
                          of the WFD                                                        NGOs/ EU
                                                                                            funded
All   Baia Mare Tisza    Following Baia Mare Spill in 2001,             Baia Mare Spill,    REC Yugoslavia,       Na    Na            Na        2001         Yes   Yes
      River Forum        group formed to study pollution impacts        pollution,          UNEP OSHA,
                         in the Tisza, though UNEP/OCHA                 hotspots            WWF Danube
                         assessment, public involvement, and                                Carpathian
                         hotspot identification with ICPDR,
                         formed Baia Mare task force
All Framework            Emphasises integrated land and water use       Sustainable         Convention            Na    Ministerial             2003   Yes         Yes   Yes
+CZ Convention on        management; conservation and                   development,        located in UNEP,            Environment
    Protection and       sustainable use of biological and              integrated water    Vienna                      for Europe
    Sustainable          landscape diversity; development of            management                                      Conference
    Development of the sustainable agriculturem forestry,
    Carpathians          transportation, industry and tourisms;
                         preservation of cultural heritage;
                         environmental impact assessments; and
                         increase public awareness and
                         participation
All UNEP GRIDA           Impact assessment of the Tisza, now            Pollution           UNEP/GRIP             Na                  Active    2000         Yes   Yes
    Rapid Assessment     focusing on mining/environmental
    of the Tisza         security in the Tisza
SL, WWF Carpathian       Addresses Environmental issues                 NGOs,               Foundation for        Na    WWF ?         Active    1998   Yes               Yes   Ethni
RO, Ecoregion Initiative including biodiversity preservation, the       biodiversity,       the Eastern                                                                        c
H,                       political environment and NGOs and             ethnic diversity,   Carpathians
U,                       multiple ethnic groups within the              sustainable         Biodiversity
+Po                      Carpathians, includes small grants and         development         Conservation and
l                        model projects throughout the region                               the
+Cz                                                                                         Environmental
                                                                                            Partnership for
                                                                                            Central Europe
                                                                                            (EPCE) and
                                                                                            supported by
                                                                                            WWF
Sl,   NATURA 2000         A network of protected areas which            Biodiversity        EC                          EC
H,                        includes sites containing priority habitats
R                         and species of EC interests
RH    Pilot project for   Testing of some Guidelines regarding the      Water Framework National                  n/a   Common        ongoing   2003         Yes   Yes         GIS
      implementation of   implementation of Water Framework             Directive,      Administration                  project

                                                                                                45
                                                                                                                                                                                                Conservation
                                                                                                                                                                      Development
Involvement
                     Title                      Short Description                    Keywords           Responsible       Cost     Possible      Status        Date




                                                                                                                                                                      Sustainable




                                                                                                                                                                                    Pollution
                                                                                                                                                                       Flooding
  Country



                                                                                                      organization or              Source




                                                                                                                                                                                                  Nature

                                                                                                                                                                                                  Others
                                                                                                       author/s AND
                                                                                                       Implementing
                                                                                                          Agency

              Water Framework        Directive :                                  implementation      “Romanian                  Hungary-
              Directive in Somes     Guide WG 2.7. Monitoring                                         Waters”                    Romania
              River basin            Guide WG 2.6 Economic Analysis                                   Hungarian
                                     Guide WG 3.1 GIS                                                 Ministry of
                                                                                                      Environment and
                                                                                                      Water
RH            Plan for defence        Harmonized Plan for accidental              Pollution           National            n/a    Common        ongoing       2003            Yes
              against accidental     pollution prevention in both Romania         prevention,         Administration             project
              pollution in Somes     and Hungary                                  accidental          “Romanian                  Hungary-
              River basin                                                         pollution s         Waters”,                   Romania
                                                                                                      Hungarian                  Financing
                                                                                                      Ministry of                source:
                                                                                                      Environment and            Norway
                                                                                                      Water                      Government
RH            Plan for defense       Harmonized Plan for accidental pollution Pollution               National            n/a    Finland       Completed                     Yes    Yes
              against accidental     prevention in both Romania and Hungary prevention,               Administration
              pollution in Barcau                                             accidental              “Romanian
              River basin                                                     pollution               Waters”
                                                                                                      Hungarian
                                                                                                      Ministry of
                                                                                                      Environment and
                                                                                                      Water
RH            The monitoring of      Implementing and testing specific            Modeling, GIS       National            n/a    NATO,         In                            Yes
              dangerous flooding     algorithms for detection, measurement        monitoring, flood   Administration             Science for   preparation
              using satellite data   and analysis of floods using satellite and   detection and       “Romanian                  Peace
              in Hungary and         radar data                                   analysis            Waters”
              Romania in Crisuri     GIS monitoring based system for floods                           Hungarian
              Rivers basin                                                                            Ministry of
                                                                                                      Environment and
                                                                                                      Water
RH            SQUASH Project         The research of quantitative and             Groundwater         Technical           n/a    NATO,         ongoing       2001 -                 Yes
                                     qualitative aspects of groundwater in        quality and         University in              Science for
                                     Hungary and Romania in Somes River           quantitative        Constructions              Peace
                                     basin                                        research            Bucharest;
                                                                                                      Miskolc
                                                                                                      University;
                                                                                                      INMHGA
                                                                                                      Romania;
                                                                                                      University Liege,
                                                                                                      Belgium
R             “Hazard risk                The aim of the project is to conduct Mining risk            The project has            World Bank    Under                  Yes    Yes    yes
              mitigation and              risk assessment and identify risk- reduction                the technical and                        Developm
                                                                                                         46
                                                                                                                                                                  Conservation
                                                                                                                                        Development
Involvement
                     Title               Short Description           Keywords     Responsible       Cost   Possible     Status   Date




                                                                                                                                        Sustainable




                                                                                                                                                      Pollution
                                                                                                                                         Flooding
  Country



                                                                                organization or            Source




                                                                                                                                                                    Nature

                                                                                                                                                                    Others
                                                                                 author/s AND
                                                                                 Implementing
                                                                                    Agency

              emergency             based priority actions and to               financial support                     ent
              preparedness          promote dialogue on basin-wide              of the World
              project –             cooperation with the riparian               Bank, and is
              Component D –         countries in Tisa basin.                    developed by the
              Risk reduction of                                                 Romanian
              mining accidents in                                               National Agency
              the Tisa basin”.                                                  for Mineral
                                                                                Resources.




                                                                                   47
ANNEX 4 IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS


Estimation of in-kind contributions from the beneficiary countries of the Tisza Project for 2005-2006
Output 1: Establishment of national structures
National Focal Point + liaison office                                                                                 Av salary
item / costs per country (usd)                            SK        HU       SM        RO       UA          Total      SK       HU    SM     RO     UA
75% professional staff *                                     14,400     18,000    9,000   12,600    9,000    63,000     800   1000    500    700    500
1 Administrative staff*                                       9,600     12,000    6,000    8,400    6,000    42,000     400    500    250    350    250
office costs (communication, rental)                          2,000      3,000    1,000    1,600    1,000     8,600
Subtotal                                                     26,000     33,000   16,000   22,600   16,000   113,600
* costs per staff = 50% of national annual gross salary for relevant position
Output 2: Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis including Preparation of the Stakeholder Analysis
Stakeholder Advisory Group                                                                                            Av salary
item / costs per country (usd)                         SK       HU        SM      RO       UA               Total      SK       HU    SM     RO     UA
1 governmental expert / 10 days                               5,000      6,000    2,000    3,000    2,000    18,000     250    300    100    150    100
other stakehoders                                            n.a.                                                 0
Subtotal                                                       5,000     6,000    2,000    3,000    2,000   18,000
item / costs per country (usd)                                 SK        HU       SM       RO       UA      Total      SK     HU      SM     RO     UA
1 governmental expert / 10 days                                5,000     6,000    2,000    3,000    2,000    18,000     250     300     100     150   100
                                                                                                                      2 TNMN stations on Tisza (Hungary) - cca
TNMN stations (Tisza)                                                                                        47,059   9,000 euro per station per year
Subtotal                                                       5,000     6,000    2,000    3,000    2,000    65,059
Output 3: Preparation of IRBMP and NIRBMP,s
item / costs per country (usd)                                 SK        HU       SM       RO       UA      Total      SK     HU      SM     RO     UA
1 governmental expert / 10 days                                5,000     6,000    2,000    3,000    2,000   18,000      250   300     100    150    100
Subtotal                                                       5,000     6,000    2,000    3,000    2,000   18,000
item / costs per country (usd)                                 SK        HU       SM       RO       UA      Total      SK     HU      SM     RO     UA
1 governmental expert / 10 days                                5,000     6,000    2,000    3,000    2,000    18,000     250     300   100    150     100
                                                                                                                      River Basin Management EG in
ICPDR RBM EG**                                                                                               31,373   2005 in euro                         120,000
                                                                                                                      Tisza WG in 2005 (estimate) (1
Tisza Working Group                                                                                          52,288   member from each country)             20,000
Subtotal                                                       5,000     6,000    2,000    3,000    2,000   101,660
Output 4: Flood Prevention and Risk Management Strategy
item / costs per country (usd)                        SK                 HU       SM       RO       UA      Total      SK     HU      SM     RO     UA




1 governmental expert / 10 days                                5,000     6,000    2,000    3,000    2,000    18,000     250    300    100    150    100

                                                                                            48
national hydrological data                                 3,000     4,500     3,000     4,500    3,500     18,500
                                                                                                                     Flood Protection EG in 2005 in
ICPDR FP EG**                                                                                               13,072   euro                                   50,000
Subtotal                                                   8,000    10,500     5,000     7,500    5,500     49,572
** 10% of domestic and travel costs for relevant EG, based on nr. of EG members, meetings per year,
time needed for preparation, participation and completion of national tasks
Output 6: Partnership Forum
item / costs per country (usd)                              SK       HU        SM        RO           UA   Total      SK      HU     SM     RO        UA
1 governmental expert / 15 days                            7,500     9,000     3,000     4,500    3,000     27,000     250    300    100     150      100
Subtotal                                                   7,500     9,000     3,000     4,500    3,000     27,000
TOTAL                                                     61,500    76,500    32,000   46,600    32,500    392,891




                                                                                          49
ANNEX 5 Map of Tisza River Basin




              50
                                              ANNEX 6
                                 Major Threats to the Tisza River Basin


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

Flooding
The Tisza waters are impacted by seasonal flooding, water pollution from industrial, mining, and
agricultural sources, deforestation and human development in floodplains. The development of the region
was initially most impacted by the development of mass canalisation of the Tisza that allowed for
significant human settlement and agricultural cultivation in the floodplain. This was initiated in the
1800‟s and the impacts are still felt today, as loss of floodplain to development and cultivation impacts
the health of the regional ecosystem. In the 20th Century under the Communist regimes, industrial and
large scale agricultural projects increased strain on the water systems, using the river water both for waste
disposal and for crop irrigation. Mining activities in the upper Tisza combined with deforestation in the
Carpathian Mountains has further jeopardized the Tisza waters especially during heavy seasonal rains.

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

In addition to the altered nature of floodplains, loss of uncultivated land and deforestation, especially
within the buffer zone of headwater streams, is increasing the speed of runoff, suspended solid and
nutrient loads, and producing more unstable catchment behaviour, where the retention time of rainfall is
reduced, leading to larger flood pulses downstream. Cumulatively, the reduction in upper and mid-
catchment water retention leads to more flood events downstream where river channels no longer contain
peak water levels, even from minor flood events. Within the Hungarian plain, disruptive downstream
flooding and consequent disruption of economic activity has been frequent, and is driving the relevant
authorities to greater cooperative efforts to regulate the Tisza, primarily for socio-economic reasons.
Down stream, the impacts of flood events are further exacerbated by a lack of undisturbed floodplains,
buffer areas and wetlands to absorb the rising waters. Floodwaters now rise quickly in highly canalized
streams and rivers, endangering human settlements built within the floodplains. These settlements also
impact the Tisza waters with industrial and municipal wastes, increasing the amount of nutrients, heavy
metals and organic pollutants. Flooding in the cultivated floodplains washes pesticides, herbicides and
fertilizers into the river and contributes to the eutrophication of the Danube and Black Sea, and their long-
term health.


                                                      51
Deforestation and loss of Biodiversity
Deforestation in the Tisza basin, especially in the tributaries endangers the water quality of the Tisza,
impacts the diverse biodiversity of this region and exacerbates and the flooding problem. The loss of
forests encourages soil erosion and loss of absorptive capacity during heavy rains. Deforestation in
mountainous areas increases the propensity for landslides endangering human settlements. The traditional
approach to forestry management focuses on trees rather than ecosystems and as a result the losses of
biodiversity can be considerable. The increased economic reliance on forestry has been exacerbated by a
decline in opportunities in transitional economic systems. Forestry practices vary from country to country
and are not generally addressed in conjunction with water management issues, despite the very close
linkages within an integrated ecosystem management framework.

In addition to deforestation the loss of biodiversity in the region is a significant threat. The Tisza is still
one of the most natural river systems in the Danube, and all of Europe, and therefore worth preserving.
The cause of the loss of habitat and decline of biodiversity are closely related to human activities:
deforestation, draining of wetlands, canalization of meandering streams and cultivation of flood plains.
The result is loss of critical habitats for key species unique to the region, including such as species of
bears and wolves. These species once populated significant portions of Europe, but only remain in remote
pockets in the Carpathian mountain ranges now. The effect of the loss of these critical habitats, is the
decline in the survival rate of important species. These species and habitats are important to the heritage
of mankind as well as the functioning of a healthy, indigenous ecosystem. Further, the loss of these
species and habitats creates gaps that are quickly filled by invasive species, which can further threaten the
sustainability of other local flora and fauna, and therefore impact the quality of the local ecosystem. The
TRB is also a part of a significant international flyway for migratory birds.


Pollution
There are four main cause of the water pollution in the Tisza: agricultural runoff; industrial effluents,
mining activities, and municipal wastes. During the Cold War, the use of heavy applications of fertilizers,
pesticides and herbicides was known as the “Green Revolution”. This revolution was intended to increase
crop production, especially during the 1970‟s when severe food shortages threatened the Eastern Bloc.
Throughout the Communist era large scale agricultural projects were implemented in the Tisza basin,
which included intensive irrigation, straightening of rivers and streams to increase access to river waters,
drainage of wetlands, and cultivation of floodplain soils, rich in nutrients from regular flooding. The Tisza
waters suffer from high nutrient loading and relatively high pesticides levels and the agricultural pollution
load is among the highest of all tributaries of the Danube.

Another challenge in the Tisza region is the continued use of outdated industrial technology that permits
effluents to be discharged into the river waters. High levels of Cr, Cd, Hg, have been observed in the
Tisza waters and are considered to be a significant transboundary issue. Much of the industrial
technologies currently in use in the basin have not been replaced or updated since the Communist era.
Overall, lack of investment hampers the use of cleaner, and more environmentally sound industrial
production techniques.

Mineral deposits of non-ferrous and precious metals within the river basin have attracted attention from
domestic and international investors. Cheap, out-dated processes for extracting the precious metals using
large amounts of mercury and cyanide are still practiced in the region and washings from the tailings are
stored in bounded lagoons. The water is released during flood periods, usually during the spring thaw;
however, accidents can happen.




                                                      52
Municipal wastes are often not properly treated in many parts of the Tisza basin. Rural areas and smaller
communities lack the infrastructure and revenues to install even primary treatment facilities. This
increases the oxygen demand on the river waters and nutrient loading, as well as microbial contamination.
Also agricultural facilities, specifically stock yards, discharge sizable amounts of wastes and nutrients
into the river waters.

The build up of heavy metals and organic pollutants impacts all forms of life, especially those like
humans who are at the top of the food chain, since these contaminants bind to lipids accumulating within
animal tissues. A decline in human health can result from accumulation of organics and heavy metals
however pinpointing the specific environmental causes decline are difficult, but they certainly contribute
to these lower conditions. The eutrophication is significant problem throughout the Tisza basin, reducing
the ability of some species to thrive. It is also a perceived problem in the Black Sea, specifically near the
Danube river delta and the North West shelf.

The impact of pollution from both point and non-point sources is significant. The socio-economic impacts
are serious, affecting human health, the availability of resources, access to healthy fisheries, safety to
human settlements, and development of the tourism industry capable of competing with less
environmentally challenged regions.




                                                      53
                                                ANNEX 7

                              Towards a River Basin Management Plan
                for the Tisza River supporting sustainable development of the region

                                      Memorandum of Understanding

On the basis of the outlined related earlier activities and objectives indicated in the Annex and encouraged
by a dialogue initiated by the EU Presidency of the International Commission for the Protection of the
River Danube (ICPDR), the countries sharing the Tisza river basin, Hungary, Romania, Serbia and
Montenegro, Slovak Republic, and Ukraine (subsequently called the Tisza countries), on the occasion of
the 1st ministerial meeting of the ICPDR held in Vienna on 13 December 2004 agree on the following:

The Tisza countries
ARE COMMITTED towards an international integrated Tisza river basin cooperation development – in
  line with the objectives and provisions of the relevant international and regional environmental
  obligations, conventions and programmes, including EU policies - supporting sustainable
  development in the region

AGREE to co-operate more closely in the framework of the ICPDR in order to produce a Tisza River
  Basin Management Plan by 2009 aiming at the objectives set by the EU Water Framework Directive
  as implemented through the Danube River Protection Convention and the ICPDR Flood action
  Programme and thereby complementing the efforts of the ICPDR, the bilateral co-ordination and the
  national level.

AGREE to start immediately, as a first step, with the preparation of a Tisza Analysis Report with the aim
  to present it to the ICPDR Ordinary Meeting in 2006. Such a report shall include, inter alia, aspects
  on water quality, review of human activities and water uses, water quantity and flood risk
  management.

WELCOME the intentions of the European Commission to facilitate this process.

WELCOME the intentions of UNDP GEF to actively support this initiative by launching a new Tisza
  project whose activities would be closely co-ordinated with the ICPDR and the competent authorities
  of the countries and strengthen the Tisza countries in their activities to achieve sustainable river basin
  management.

INVITE the ICPDR to express their support to this initiative and take the necessary steps to ensure that
  this initiative is fully embedded in the ICPDR, in particular, by setting up an appropriate group and
  allowing this initiative to use structures and mechanisms of the ICPDR.




                                                    54
                                         ANNEX to MoU

1. The Tisza countries are committed to an international integrated Tisza river basin cooperation
   under the umbrella of the ICPDR. It should be built on and developed taking into account the
   achievements and experiences of existing relevant activities as well as earlier international
   initiatives in this area, especially regarding environmental protection and flood control.

2. The Tisza countries welcome the initiative „Towards a Sub-basin Management Plan for the Tisza
   River” of the EU, initiated by the ICPDR Presidency in 2004, and are ready to actively participate
   in its further development and realisation as outlined in the minutes of the related consultation
   held in Bucharest (15 July 2004).

3. We are strongly interested in a well established Tisza river basin cooperation which – focusing on
   specific common interests - integrates national activities and bilateral activities in line with the
   Danube river basin level cooperation.

4. In this context we emphasize the necessity of sub-basin approach in the WFD implementation
   process for the Tisza river basin.

5. The challenge is to establish effective cooperation supporting sustainable development in the
   Tisza basin - the largest sub-basin of the Danube catchment – which is shared by five countries
   with specific economic and social conditions.

6. We fully agree with the outlined integrative approach, that in line with the relevant EU policies
   and the provisions of the Danube River Protection Convention to step-by-step develop:
        coordinated river basin management planning
        measures for protection and sustainable use of water resources
        harmonised flood management
        measures for reduction of environmental risks, prevention of transboundary pollution,
         increase of environmental safety
        provide good quality of life all of the people living in that large region of the Tisza river
         basin.

7. We appreciate the readiness of the EU and ICPDR to take part in launching and developing this
   process. The Tisza Dialogue initiated by the EU has to be continued with the involvement of all
   the riparian countries and the EU and the ICPDR.

8. We accept the proposal that at this developing phase the ICPDR provides framework for the
   Tisza cooperation development activities making use of existing structures. We would suggest to
   set up an ad hoc expert group for the work. In this process relevant initiatives and cooperation
   achievements (i.e. the Tisza River Basin Forum on Flood Control/Tisza Water Forum, the Tisza
   Environmental Program) should be taken into account. Proper cooperation, exchange of
   information and coherence of work should be ensured with the Tisza Water Forum. Better
   coordination and avoiding duplication should be ensured also with the other relevant initiatives
   (i.a. the “Initiative on sustainable spatial development of the Tisza/Tisa river basin”). To achieve
   this, establishment of suitable mechanisms is necessary.




                                                 55
9. Taking into account the specificities of the Tisza region, and the complexity of the tasks for the
   Tisza countries deriving from the EU and other obligations, establishment at a later stage of
   appropriate legal framework for the Tisza river basin cooperation should be considered. When
   developing this, provisions of the relevant international legal instruments including ECE
   conventions and protocols as well as the multilateral regional agreements should be analysed and
   adopted.

10. Cooperation with partners being interested and active in the Tisza region (e.g. UNDP, GEF, FAO,
    UNEP) should be reinforced and with other potential international professional and financial
    institutions developed.

11. The EU has a significant role in the Tisza cooperation development. The relevant EU policies i.e.
    water policy, flood policy, cohesion policy, neighbourhood policy and related initiatives are
    extremely important and have implications to the Tisza-river basin, ensuring the region‟s benefit
    from the EU‟s enlargement. We consider as most relevant:

a) Realisation of EU policy conform
   achievement of good status and sustainable use of water resources as well as protection of
     water related ecosystems in the Tisza river basin (as required by the WFD)
   WFD based river basin management planning in the Tisza river basin,
   sustainable flood management at Danube and Tisza basin levels,
   in line with the related activities in the Danube river basin.
b) Joint efforts to make use of EU funds, such as
   EU pre-accession funds
   EU regional funds (CBC, Interreg, LIFE etc.)
   EU cohesion policy (accession to funds available for development support in eligible countries)
   EU research funds (submission of joint projects)




                                               56