(PDF) CC-WARE Mitigating Vulnerability of Water Resources under Climate Change WP5.2 -Framework of National/Regional Action Plans Guidance for Facilitating Development of Action Plans to Mitigate Vulnerability of Water Resources under Climate Change Report final

CC-WARE

Mitigating Vulnerability of Water

Resources under Climate Change

WP5.2 - Framework of National/Regional Action Plans

Guidance for Facilitating Development

of Action Plans to Mitigate

Vulnerability of Water Resources

under Climate Change

Report

final

2/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

CC-WARE – Mitigating Vulnerability of Water Resources under

Climate Change

SEE Project, supported by the means of the ERDF

(European Regional Development Fund) & by the Instrument of Pre-Accession

Assistance (IPA)

Lead Partner:

Austrian Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water

Management, Forest Department (AT)

Hubert Siegel, Head of Subdivision and Project Coordinator

Contact: www.ccware.eu

Editors of the WP5.2 report:

Ágnes Tahy

General Directorate of Water Management, Hungary

Department of Water Protection and River Basin Management

tahy.agnes@ovf.hu

István Bogárdi

Eötvös Lorand University, Department of Meteorology, Hungary

Author of particular sections:

Branislava Matić

Jaroslav Cerni Institute for the Development of Water Resources, Republic of

Serbia

branislava.matic@jcerni.co.rs

3/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

Partners and Persons working on this report within the CC-WARE project

LP

Austrian Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management,

Forest Department (AT)

Hubert Siegel, Elisabeth Gerhardt

Associated Organisations:

University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna (BOKU), Department of Forest-

and Soil Sciences

Eduard Hochbichler, Roland Koeck

PP1

Municipality of the City of Vienna, MA31 Vienna Waterworks (AT)

Gerhard Kuschnig

Associated Organisations:

University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna (BOKU), Department of Water,

Atmosphere and Environment

Hans-Peter Nachtnebel, Mathew Herrnegger, Tobias Senoner, Johannes Wesemann

University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna (BOKU), Department of Forest-

and Soil Sciences

Eduard Hochbichler, Roland Koeck

PP2

Municipality of Waidhofen an der Ybbs (AT)

Markus Hochleitner

University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna (BOKU), Department of Forest-

and Soil Sciences

Eduard Hochbichler, Roland Koeck

PP3

University of Ljubljana (SI)

Faculty of Natural Sciences and Engineering, Department of Geology

Barbara Čenčur Curk, Timotej Verbovšek, Petra Vrhovnik, Petra Žvab Rožič, Mihael Brenčič,

Nina Zupančič

PP4

Public Water Utility Ljubljana JP Vodovod-Kanalizacija d.o.o. (SI)

Branka Bračič Železnik

PP5

National Institute for Environment (HU)

András Almássy

Associated Organisations:

Smaragd GSH Kft.

Katalin Gondárné Sőregi, Zoltan Simonffy

Eötvös Lorand University, Department of Meteorology

Istvan Bogardi

General Directorate of Water Management, Department of Water Protection and River

Basin Management

László Perger

4/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

PP6

National Forest Administration (RO)

Adam Crăciunescu, Ion Codruţ Bîlea, Petrişor Vică

Associated Organisations:

- Petroleum-Gas University of Ploieşti – Faculty of Petroleum Refining and

Petrochemistry, Department: Engineering of Petroleum Processing and Environmental

Protection

Ion Onuţu , Caşen Panaitescu

- Forest Research And Management Institute Bucureşti

Cristinel Constandache

- Plobil Consulting Ploieşti

Aurel Bilanici

PP7

National Meteorological Administration (RO)

Sorin Cheval, Daniel Alexandru, Alexandru Voevozeanu, Cristina Drăghici, Cerasela Stoica,

Traian Breza

PP8

Executive Forest Agency (BU)

Albena Bobeva, Lubcho Trichkov, Denitsa Pandeva

Associated Organisations:

National Institute of Meteorology and Hydrology

Valery Spiridonov, Irena Ilcheva, Krasimira Nikolova, Snejanka Balabanova

PP9

Thessaloniki Water Supply & Sewerage Co sa (GR)

Spachos Thomas, Kostas Zambetoglou, Athanasios Soupilas, Marianthi Tsirtou

PP10

Decentralised Administration of Macedonia and Thrace, Water Directorate of Central

Macedonia (GR)

Konstantinos Papatolios, Stelios Michailidis, Charicleia Michalopoulou

Associated Organisations:

Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Civil Engineering Department

Margaritis Vafeiadis

PP11

Regional Agency for Environmental Protection in the Emilia-Romagna Region (IT)

Marco Marcaccio, Demetrio Errigo, Donatella Ferri, Franco Zinoni

Associated Organisations:

- University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Department of Chemical and Geological

Sciences

Alessandro Corsini, Francesco Ronchetti, Margarit Nistor

- University of Bologna, Department of Civil, Chemical, Environmental and Materials

Engineering

Lisa Borgatti, Federico Cervi, Francesca Petronici

5/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

IPA1

Jaroslav Cerni Institute for the Development of Water Resources (RS)

Dejan Dimkić, Prvoslav Marjanović, Branislava Matić, Dragana Pejović, Vladimir Lukić,

Milutin Stefanović, Dušan Đurić, Marko Marjanović, Miodrag Milovanović, Đulija Boreli-

Zdravković, Goran Mitrović, Nenad Milenković

Associated Organisations:

University of Belgrade, Faculty of Mining and Geology, Department of Hydrogeology

Zoran Stevanović, Saša Milanović

6/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

Acknowledgements

We want to express our gratitude to the Lead Partner, to all Project Partners and to the

whole CC-WARE project consortium for the project funding, for the spirit of transnational

cooperation and for the unbending efforts for accomplishing all project goals.

Furthermore we want to express our appreciation to the European Union, to the ERDF

(European Regional Development Fund) and to the IPA (Instrument for Pre-Accession

Assistance) for their support of CC-WARE project.

7/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 8

1 Action Plan Description ................................................................................................... 9

1.1 Public Policy Aspects.................................................................................................... 9

1.2 Scope ......................................................................................................................... 12

1.3 Time Frame ................................................................................................................ 14

1.4 Financial Background ................................................................................................. 17

1.5 Partnership ................................................................................................................ 18

1.6 Content and Format .................................................................................................. 26

2 Planning process ............................................................................................................ 32

2.1 Determine where you are ......................................................................................... 35

2.2 Identify what is important ......................................................................................... 41

2.3 Define what you want to achieve .............................................................................. 42

2.4 Determine the roadmap ............................................................................................ 44

2.5 Review your plan ....................................................................................................... 45

3 References ..................................................................................................................... 47

4 Appendix: Action Examples ........................................................................................... 51

4.1 Good Practice in Austria ............................................................................................ 51

4.2 Good Practice in Slovenia .......................................................................................... 55

4.3 Good Practice in Hungary .......................................................................................... 58

4.4 Good Practice in Romania ......................................................................................... 63

4.5 Good Practice in Bulgaria .......................................................................................... 66

4.6 Good Practice in Greece ............................................................................................ 95

4.7 Good Practice in Serbia ............................................................................................. 97

8/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

Introduction

The aim of this guidance is to facilitate the development of national or regional action plans

to mitigate vulnerability of water resources under climate change. This document is targeted

to those stakeholders who are directly or indirectly related to the protection of drinking

water resources and/or dealt with climate change issues.

The independent Reflection Group reported a wide range of problems the EU and member

states are confronted in the “Project Europe 2030: Challenges and Opportunities” in 2010.

One of the problems is the climate change and its effect on the environment and human life.

The Reflection Group was convinced that the EU can overcome the difficulties, if everybody -

politicians and citizens - agreed to pull together and act in a decisive manner to develop this

ambitious political project. Therefore it is essential that stakeholders support and participate

in actions for further development.

The main purpose of the CC-WARE project is to assess global climate change impacts on

water resources in South East Europe (SEE) and look for solutions to mitigate harmful effects

on drinking water resources. It is possible that the CC-WARE partnership would not come up

with the next grand idea how we can save the planet from climate change but we would like

to hand over a strategic planning framework for water suppliers, policymakers and other

stakeholders to preserve our drinking water sources that are important for society as a

whole. It is believed that citizens in SEE want actions to be implemented to make their

businesses and private lives easier and to improve the quality of their life. These demands of

people cannot be achieved without sufficient and good quality of water.

According to the findings of CC-WARE partners there is a big gap between strategic visions

and daily practices therefore we could do a lot on country or regional level as well.

This document is not an Action Plan but includes good practice examples while taking into

consideration that the European Union has already launched many strategic documents on

adaptation to climate change and the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) has

established a framework for Community action in the field of water policy.

In this guidance the good example text boxes are marked with

if the precedent – in general - comes from the Community practice;

if the example relates to implementation of the Water Framework

Directive (2000/60/EC);

if it is a contribution of CC-WARE project partnerships or a partner;

if it is an issue addressed by EU Danube Region Strategy

9/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

1 Action Plan Description

Action plan is the implementation document of a strategy. Action plan is one of the most

important elements of policy-making process because the action steps will lead to the

successful completion of the strategic objectives.

Action plan includes logically binding steps (measures and tasks) necessary to achieve the

strategic objectives, and their implementation deadlines and responsibility, as well as

financing plan. Although the funding sources are not required to be available at the

evaluation phase but usually essential for the implementation of the activities proposed in

the action plan.

There is no good action plan without a strategy that sets the goals. Action plan is not

mandatory element of the strategic documents, however necessary to implement the policy

and execute financial supports. And last but not least a responsible person or body is

needed, to coordinate the actions, and internal and external participating units are

necessary to implement actions.

1.1 Public Policy Aspects

National or regional action plan is a special element of the governmental (public) policy-

making procedure.

Public policy is the principled guide to action taken by the administrative executive branches

of the state (or region) with regard to a class of issues in a manner consistent with law and

institutional customs. The foundation of public policy is composed of national constitutional

laws and regulations. Further substrates include both judicial interpretations and regulations

which are generally authorized by legislation. Strong public policy should solve problems

efficiently and effectively, serve justice, support governmental institutions and policies, and

encourage active citizenship. Some academic school defines public policy as "courses of

action, regulatory measures, systems of laws, and funding priorities concerning a given topic

promulgated by a governmental entity or its representatives”.

Public policy making can be characterized as a dynamic, complex, and interactive system

through which public problems are identified and countered by creating new public policy or

by reforming existing public policy. Public problems can originate in endless ways and

require different policy responses (such as regulations, subsidies, quotas, and laws) on the

local, national, or international level. Thus public policy making is a continuous process that

has many feedback loops. Verification and evaluation is essential to the functioning of this

system. The problems that influence public policy making can be of economical, social,

environmental, or political nature.

In public policy making, numerous individuals and interest groups compete and collaborate

to influence policymakers to act in a particular way. The large set of actors in the public

policy process, such as politicians, civil servants, lobbyists, domain experts, and industry

representatives, use a variety of tactics and tools to advance their aims, including advocating

10/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

their positions publicly, attempting to educate supporters and opponents, and mobilizing

allies on a particular issue. Many actors can be important in the public policy making

process; however, government officials ultimately choose the ‘public policy’ in response to

the public issue or problem at hand. In doing so, government officials are expected to meet

public sector ethics and take the needs of all stakeholders into account.

Traditionally, the academic field of public policy focused on ‘domestic’ policy. However, the

wave of economic globalization which occurred in the late 20th and early 21st centuries

created a need for a subset of public policy that focuses on global governance, especially as

it relates to issues that transcend national borders such as climate change or watersheds. In

these cases – like mitigating vulnerability of water resources under climate change - a

national/regional action plan should consider cross-border issues moreover joint actions

needed for success.

Example: CC-WARE project

The task of CC-WARE project is to identify transnational issues and look for integrated

solutions to achieve common objectives through SEE region. There is a difference between

transnational and transboundary terms, namely:

transnational issues: occur similarly in several countries, and

transboundary issues: e.g. in case a river serving the border of countries, many problems

are common, or if the border crosses a river, lake or groundwater body and the upstream

country significantly influences the quantity or the quality of the shared surface and/or

groundwater resource.

Transnational issue: On the following map the highly productive fissured (including karst)

aquifers (by IHME15001) are highlighted based on CC-WARE findings. Common problems

include temporary water shortages during droughts, pollution caused by bacteria and

turbidity of drinking water due to torrent rainfalls. Both have been already observed in the

last decade in several countries of the SEE region and expected to be more frequent due to

increasing meteorological extremes related to changing climate.

Transboundary issue: The map shows the transboundary groundwater bodies (GWBs) of

Danube basin-wide importance by ICPDR2 Maps of the Danube River Basin District

Management Plan 2009 [27]. These GWBs have different hydrogeological characteristics,

significant problems and status, etc.

In some cases transnational and transboundary aquifers / GWBs are overlapping.

1

IHME 1500 - BGR & UNESCO (eds.) (2014): International Hydrogeological Map of Europe 1 : 1,500,000. Digital map data v1.0.

Hannover/Paris.

2

ICPDR - International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River / www.icpdr.org

11/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

Figure 1: Transnational and transboundary aquifers in SEE region modified after IHME1500 and ICPDR

As societies have changed in the past decades the public policy making system changed too.

Today public policy making is increasingly goal-oriented, aiming for measurable results and

goals, and decision-centric, focusing on decisions that must be taken immediately.

Furthermore, mass communications and technological changes have caused the public policy

system to become more complex and interconnected. These changes pose new challenges

to the current governments and pressure them to evolve in order to remain effective and

efficient.

Most of us will have been involved in the processes of an Action Plan orienting either on

preparing, implementing, or evaluating actions. Typically not a single person will be

'responsible' for all three aspects but at the top one person – in case of national action plan

practically he/she is a member of the state government - or a governmental body should

hold the political responsibility. Most action plans involve groups, teams, or a whole network

of institutions but the top responsible person shall give the mandate for them. The politically

responsible body will adopt and proclaim the strategy and will be responsible for progress of

implementation.

It is important to appoint main responsible body and if necessary allocate responsibilities

within governmental organisations and define their roles at the very beginning of the

‘project’. The decision on a specific course of action and the adoption of a program itself

does not guarantee that the action on the ground will strictly follow policy makers’ aims and

objectives. Therefore, there is a need to have a system of clear responsibilities and

hierarchical control to supervise the actions of implementers until the end of the ‘project’.

12/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

Example: water policy

In case of EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) the responsible body is named as

"Competent Authority".

Each Member State shall ensure the appropriate administrative arrangements, including the

identification of the appropriate competent authority, for the application of the rules of

WFD within each river basin district or the portion of any international river basin district

lying within its territory.

Member States shall identify the competent authority at the latest three years after the

date of entry into force of the WFD which is the first deadline mentioned in this regulation.

Member States shall provide the Commission with a list of their competent authorities and

the competent authorities of all international bodies in which they participate in the

execution of the WFD. Member States shall inform the Commission on any changes in the

competent authorities within three months of the change coming into effect. Member

States may identify an existing national or international body as competent authority for

the purposes of this Directive. On all competent authorities the Member States shall

provide the following information for their each river basin districts as well as the portion

of any international river basin district lying within their territory:

(i) The official name and address of the competent authority.

(ii) The names of the main rivers within the river basin district together with a precise

description of the boundaries of the river basin district. This information should as far as

possible be available for introduction into a geographic information system (GIS) and/or

the geographic information system of the Commission (GISCO).

(iii) A description of the legal status of the competent authority and, where relevant, a

summary or copy of its statute, founding treaty or equivalent legal document.

(iv) A description of the legal and administrative responsibilities of each competent

authority and of its role within each river basin district.

(v) Where the competent authority acts as a coordinating body for other competent

authorities or a river basin district covers the territory of more than one Member State or

includes the territory of non-Member States, a list is required of these bodies together with

a summary of the institutional relationships established in order to ensure coordination.

1.2 Scope

National or regional action plan deals with the implementation of relevant measures to the

scope of the strategy. Strategy should have clear subject matter and area that it scopes.

The scope can cover

 a specific sector, sub-sector (e.g. water policy);

 comprehensive topic (e.g. cross-cutting issues);

 horizontal policy (e.g. sustainable development, environment issues, equality); and

 geographic area (e.g. national, regional, river basin).

13/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

The main scopes of the strategic document should be specified before policy making starts

because otherwise there is no chance to properly allocate the responsibilities.

The Action Plan should be consistent with the already adopted policies. To ensure

compliance the European Commission has published the "Common Strategic Framework"

(CSF

3

) in regulation 1303/2013/EU in order to help Member States with their preparations

for the programming period 2014-2020. The CSF guides Member States and Regions in

setting clear investment priorities and enabling a better integration of various funds, to

maximise the impact of EU investments for the programmes between 2014 and 2020. It is

recommended to use this framework when drafting an action plan or operational

programme document which sets out the specific development needs, and how each of the

funds could be used to address these. The CSF is in line with the conclusions of the Europe

2020 Strategy published in 2010, whereby the Union strategy for smart, sustainable and

inclusive growth was adopted. The Union and Member States should implement the delivery

of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, while promoting harmonious development of the

Union and reducing regional disparities. The European Structural and Investment Funds

should play a significant role in the achievement of the objectives of the Union strategy for

smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.

To get support from the European Funds it is required to fulfil strategic (ex-ante) conditions

required by the EU and assigned by the above mentioned strategy. Therefore a national or

regional action plan (or operative programmes in EU) should pass over ex-ante evaluation.

Nevertheless the ex ante evaluation is more than a compulsory exercise within the

governance of CSF Funds as stipulated by the legislations. The key role of the ex ante

evaluation is to contribute to the development of an action plan which is in line with the

needs of the Member State on the one hand and with EU wide priorities on the other hand.

Moreover, the ex ante evaluation plays a practical role in relation to the delivery and

evaluation of the action plan or programme.

Example: Europe 2020 Strategy

Three priorities have been adopted in Europe 2020 Strategy:

 Smart growth – developing an economy based on knowledge and innovation.

 Sustainable growth – promoting a more resource efficient, greener and more

competitive economy.

 Inclusive growth – fostering a high-employment economy delivering economic,

social and territorial cohesion.

Under the second priority sustainable growth means building a resource efficient,

sustainable and competitive economy, exploiting Europe's leadership in the race to develop

new processes and technologies, including green technologies, accelerating the roll out of

3

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013R1303&qid=1423985944200

14/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

smart grids using ICTs, exploiting EU-scale networks, and reinforcing the competitive

advantages of our businesses, particularly in manufacturing and within our SMEs, as well

through assisting consumers to value resource efficiency. Such an approach will help the EU

to prosper in a low-carbon, resource constrained world while preventing environmental

degradation, biodiversity loss and unsustainable use of resources. It will also underpin

economic, social and territorial cohesion.

Therefore Europe must act and combat climate change. To Achieve climate goals emissions

should be reduced significantly more quickly in the next decade than in the last decade and

exploiting fully the potential of new technologies such as carbon capture and sequestration

possibilities. Improving resource efficiency would significantly help limit emissions, save

money and boost economic growth. All sectors of the economy, not just emission-intensive,

are concerned. We must also strengthen our economies' resilience to climate risks, and our

capacity for disaster prevention and response.

The CSF regulation (1303/2013/EU) sets up rules on horizontal principles and cross cutting

policy objectives. In relation to sustainable development all investments shall be consistent

with the water management hierarchy, in line with Directive 2000/60/EC of the European

Parliament and of the Council (Water Framework Directive), with a focus on demand

management options. Alternative supply options shall only be considered when the

potential for water savings and efficiency has been exhausted.

The CC-WARE project objectives on mitigating vulnerability of water resources under

climate change are consistent with the next thematic objectives and ex-ante conditionalities

of the EU Common Strategic Framework, namely:

To promote climate change adaptation, risk prevention and management the climate

change adaptation shall take into account in national or regional programming for risk

assessment, disaster management and risk prevention and management like in flood risk

management plan.

To preserve and protect the environment and promote resource efficiency in sectors

supported by the European Funds, a Member State has to ensure a contribution of the

different water uses to the recovery of the costs of water services by sector consistent with

the first indent of Article 9(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC having regard, where appropriate, to

the social, environmental and economic effects of the recovery as well as the geographic

and climatic conditions of the region or regions affected and the adoption of a river basin

management plan for the river basin district consistent with Article 13 of Directive

2000/60/EC.

1.3 Time Frame

Scheduling is important from several points of view: how long is the period referring to the

strategic document, how much time is needed for the preparation of an action plan and the

implementation of a measure or programme.

A strategic plan with key long-term objectives serves as a framework for making decisions

and provides a basis for planning. Long term means more than 10 years in public policy. Long

term planning begins with a vision, established goals, and specific objectives and analyses

strategic options based on assessed strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. The

15/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

process produces a green

paper and/or white paper

that is filled in with specific

priorities designed to meet

stated objectives and is

updated regularly.

A mid-term strategy ranges

minimum four years and

maximum ten years. It

contains more detailed

objectives and options to

provide basis for action

planning. Typically action

plans are short-term strategies and cover one to four year long periods.

Example: History of climate change strategy in Europe

At the end of the 1980s, the debate on global environmental risks, especially that relating to

climate change, reached the official agenda. Since 1985 a number of international

conferences had been urging for dramatic policy changes. In 1988, following an initiative

from the European Parliament taken two years earlier, the Commission reacted to those

international changes with its first general communication to the Council. In its second

communication to the Council in 1990, the Commission proposed a strategy to stabilise

emissions by using a mix of efficiency standards, fiscal instruments and research.

At the international level, the EU has been a prominent player in climate change politics via

the process initiated by the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

(UNFCCC)4.

The European Climate Change Programme (ECCP) was launched in June 2000 by the

European Union with the purpose of avoiding dangerous climate change. The goal of the

ECCP is to identify, develop and implement all the necessary elements of an EU strategy to

implement the Kyoto Protocol. All EU countries' ratifications of the Kyoto Protocol were

deposited simultaneously on 31 May 2002.

To mitigate climate change more efficiently the EU launched new policy by the GREEN

PAPER [29]: Adapting to climate change in Europe – options for EU action (SEC (2007) 849)

Due to ratification of the WHITE PAPER [30] - Adapting to climate change (COM(2009) 147

final): Towards a European framework for action the mainstreaming climate change

adaptation in EU policies is one of the main pillars of EU policy action since 2009, and

continues to be a priority within the EU Adaptation Strategy. The conclusion in the white

paper is that adaptation will be a long and continuous process. It will operate at all levels

and require close coordination with stakeholders. The EU will support international and

4

The UNFCCC was agreed at the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro and entered into

force in March 1994.

Figure 2: Conceptual schedule for strategic plans after [10]

16/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

national adaptation efforts ensuring that there are adequate resources for efficient and

cost-effective adaptation action to provide a sustainable and sound economic basis for

future generations. The Commission will regularly review progress in implementing the first

phase of the framework for action identified in this White Paper with a view to developing a

comprehensive adaptation strategy from 2013.

The EU Strategy on adaptation to climate change (http://climate-

adapt.eea.europa.eu/home), adopted by the European Commission in April 2013, aims at

making Europe more capable of facing climate change by reducing the vulnerability of its

sectors, systems, people and assets. It will enhance the preparedness and capacity of all

European governance levels to respond to the impacts of climate change.

This Strategy sets out a framework and mechanisms for bringing the EU's preparedness for

the current and future impacts of climate change up to a new level. It is proposed to do this

by encouraging and supporting action by the EU Member States on adaptation, by creating

a basis for better informed decision-making on adaptation in the years to come, and by

making key economic and policy sectors more resilient to the effects of climate change.

The preparation of a strategy or action plan usually need 4 to 6 months but necessary time

depends very much on the size and interrelations of the policy area, extent of the territory,

and practically the institution's strategic planning qualities.

The most time consuming part of the planning is the analysis of situation which itself can

take up to 2 months. To specify goals and objectives a relatively less time can be spent (1 to

1.5 months) but it depends on the collaborative joint work of the consultative bodies,

managers. The preparation of indicators, target values and planning actions also take about

2 months. In addition to that the planning institution should consider the necessary time

frame of public consultation and administrative reconciliation as well. The duration of public

consultation can be several months or as long as the actual planning was.

Example: programming rules in Europe

According to the rules set up in the CSF regulation (1303/2013/EU) on funds the

programming period is 7 years long (from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2020).

The Member States have four months to prepare and submit its Partnership Agreement to

the Commission after this regulation was entering into force. In this context the

'Partnership Agreement' is the national framework strategy and means a document

prepared by a Member State with the involvement of partners in line with the multi-level

governance approach, which sets out that Member State's strategy, priorities and

arrangements for using the ESI Funds in an effective and efficient way so as to pursue the

Union strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, and which is approved by the

Commission following assessment and dialogue with the Member State concerned.

There is an additional three months to prepare action plans called as ‘operational

programmes’ (Article 26.4 Programmes shall be submitted by the Member States to the

Commission within three months of the submission of the Partnership Agreement). In case

17/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

of European territorial cooperation programmes nine months is available for preparation

(by 22 September 2014) since they cover larger areas: multi-country/region coverage.

Example: timetable in water policy regulation

In case of EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) the timeframe for planning phases and

public consultations is equally six-six months. This is laid down in the Article 14 of WFD:

“1. Member States shall encourage the active involvement of all interested parties in

the implementation of this Directive, in particular in the production, review and updating of

the river basin management plans. Member States shall ensure that, for each river basin

district, they publish and make available for comments to the public, including users:

(a) a timetable and work programme for the production of the plan, including a

statement of the consultation measures to be taken, at least three years before

the beginning of the period to which the plan refers;

(b) an interim overview of the significant water management issues identified in the

river basin, at least two years before the beginning of the period to which the

plan refers;

(c) draft copies of the river basin management plan, at least one year before the

beginning of the period to which the plan refers.

…

2. Member States shall allow at least six months commenting in writing on those

documents in order to allow active involvement and consultation.”

1.4 Financial Background

Getting financial resource for a project is the most difficult task of an executor. To

implement a national or regional action financial support usually comes from state budget or

one of the European or other international funds like funds of United Nations or investment

banks or NATO, etc. Financing issue goes beyond the capabilities of this guidance but we

would like to point out some important source of information.

2014-2020 EU funding programmes and the budgetary provisions of the Multiannual

Financial Framework serve as the roadmap toward the renewal of a highly competitive social

market economy in Europe and globally. The complex economical challenges the EU

countries are tackling, make the Union resources useful tools to re-launch its economy, to

deliver high levels of employment, productivity and social cohesion and to generate a smart,

sustainable and inclusive growth.

Five main structural Funds work together to support economic development across all EU

countries, in line with the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy:

1. European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)

2. European Social Fund (ESF)

3. Cohesion Fund (CF)

18/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

4. European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)

5. European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF)

Every EU region may benefit from the ERDF and ESF. However, only the less developed

regions may receive support from the Cohesion Fund. Some other regional funds are

available for implementation of Europe 2020 Strategy, as well:

 The European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) provides assistance in case of major

natural disasters.

 Support for EU candidate and potential candidate countries is available via the

Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA).

To stay informed on EU regional funds please go to the next page:

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/index.cfm/en/funding/

The EU combines different types of support to countries in need outside Europe in

cooperation programmes. It provides funding in the form of grants to support projects and

organisations furthering its development objectives. It also offers public contracts and

provides budget and sector support. Please see the next: http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/about-

funding_en

Horizon 2020 is the biggest EU Research and Innovation programme ever with nearly €80

billion of funding available over 7 years (2014 to 2020) – in addition to the private

investment that this money will attract. It promises more breakthroughs, discoveries and

world-firsts by taking great ideas from the lab to the market. Are you interested in learning

more about EU funding opportunities for your research or innovation project? Then this is

the place you need to go: http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/how-get-

funding

In 2013, the European Investment Bank lent 72 billion Euros in support of the objectives of

the European Union: 64 billion in the Member States of the Union and 8 billion in the

partner countries. Capital investment projects with EIB financing are sought. The Bank is a

complementary source of financing for large and small-scale investment projects

contributing to EU policy objectives in all sectors of the economy. For further information,

please consult: http://www.eib.org/projects/index.htm

One of the best comprehensive overview on financing opportunities can be found on the

homepage of WelcomEurope: http://www.welcomeurope.com/. WE team guides European

citizens and institutions through the very numerous European funding programmes relevant

for any projects in the 7-year cycle of 2014-2020 programming period. Several European

institutions, non-profit organisations published practical guides on funding programmes of

the EU. These papers are very useful to read and address enterprises, institutions,

universities or citizens, thus almost broad public.

1.5 Partnership

Partnership, one of the key principles of governance, implies close cooperation between

public authorities at national, regional and local levels, economic and social partners and

bodies representing civil society (NGOs) including environmental partners, and other

19/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

relevant community-based and voluntary organisations. By involving stakeholders in the

planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of action plans will be better able to

ensure that funds are spent where they are most needed, and in the best way possible. Thus

partners should be involved in all stages of programming. The representatives of

stakeholders should also participate in the committees established for programmes, like

planning team, executive board or monitoring committee. Public participation in the

planning process will initiate or strengthen implementation of actions by stakeholders, as

well.

A partnership is an arrangement where parties agree to cooperate to advance their mutual

interests. According to the legal requirements in the European Union public involvement in

environmental decision making is obligatory, partners shall comprise

 competent national, regional, local, urban and other public authorities;

 economic and social partners; and

 bodies representing civil society, including environmental partners, nongovernmental

organisations, and bodies responsible for promoting equality and non-discrimination.

EU environmental laws have increasingly provided their own public participation provisions.

They were considered to be essential for good application and enforcement of the laws.

Public participation rights, therefore, have to be seen as one of the most important

horizontal tools in environmental policy. The Aarhus “Public Participation (PP)” Convention

and its implementation in Europe was a major step forward. Nowadays PP is incorporated

horizontally into the partnerships policy.

Example: partnership policy in Europe

Following the entry into force of the Common

Provisions Regulation for the European Structural and

Investment Funds, the Commission is empowered to

adopt a delegated (non-legislative) act on a European

code of conduct to support Member States (MS) in

organising the partnership. The code of conduct is

intended to provide a framework for partnership, in

accordance with institutional and legal frameworks of

MS, taking account of national and regional

competences. The Code of Conduct intends to

strengthen bonds among authorities and project

partners to facilitate the sharing of information,

experience, results and good practices in the 2014-

2020 programming period. The aim of the act on a

European Code of Conduct on Partnership (ECCP) is to

help MS in organising a meaningful partnership with

the relevant stakeholders. Commission publication on

ECCP [21] is available in electronic format in all EU

official languages. The ECCP Principle establishes a

common set of standards to bring enhanced

Figure 3: Cover page of the Commission

publication on ECCP [21]

20/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

consultation, participation and dialogue with partners for programming and implementing

the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF). The main principles of the ECCP

include the following:

 selected partners should be representative of the relevant stakeholders;

 selection procedures should be transparent and take into account the different

institutional and legal frameworks of the MS;

 partners should be involved in the preparation and implementation of the Partnership

Agreement and programmes; for this purpose, it is necessary to establish minimum

procedural requirements in order to ensure timely, meaningful and transparent

consultation (i.e. sufficient time for consultation, availability of documents, etc.);

 partners should be represented in the monitoring committees of programmes,

throughout the whole cycle (i.e. preparation, implementation, monitoring and

evaluation);

 effective implementation of a partnership should be ensured by strengthening the

institutional capacity of relevant partners through capacity building activities targeting

social partners and organisations representing civil society involved in the programmes;

 exchange of experience and mutual learning should be facilitated, in particular through

the establishment of a Community of Practice on Partnership covering all the ESI Funds;

 the role of the partners in the implementation of the Partnership Agreement, as well as

the performance and effectiveness of the partnership during the programming period

should be subject to assessment.

The partnership created for the purpose of developing the Action Plan should be properly

experienced in several subjects related to the scope of the strategy, like economist,

engineer, scientist, and politician. Partnership working in the development team and

between the development team and the external evaluators (public participants) will aid the

process in a number of further aspects. Primarily it brings those involved in programme

development and delivery together and with the benefit of an external appraisal, such early

involvement would represent a significant first step towards effective planning. This has a

number of further benefits for example in

 agreeing on scope, criteria and evaluation questions;

 providing a basis for mapping organisational involvement;

 agreeing on timelines and the provision of information;

 gaining the insights into operational interactions and intricacies;

 identifying and agreeing on relevant benchmarks and their sources e.g. relevant

reports and data;

 enabling the essential iteration between the development team and the other

stakeholders.

Partnership working within the development team has an additional advantage of

application group techniques like brainstorming.

21/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

Planning Tool: brainstorming

Brainstorming is a group creativity technique by which efforts are made to find a conclusion

for a specific problem by gathering a list of ideas spontaneously contributed by group’s

members. The term was popularized by Alex F. Osborn who began developing this method

for creative problem solving in 1939. Osborn claimed that brainstorming was more effective

than individuals working alone in generating ideas. It involves encouraging wild and

unconstrained suggestions and listing ideas as they emerge.

This tool is widely used in any method involving group thinking. The main objective of

brainstorming is to elicit ideas from a group of people. Used in a structured way, this

technique can be highly effective way of moving participants out of conflict and towards

consensus. Brainstorming is founded on the principle that the quantity of ideas increases

their quality. This technique has the following basic components:

 generating as many creative solutions as possible to tackle a problem

 setting time limits

 listing every idea presented without comment or evaluation - deferring the judgment of

ideas improves the volume of participant input and consequently the value and

encourage creativity

 all opinions are equal

 subsequently, grouping ideas to reduce redundancy, allow for related ideas to be

brought together

 evaluating or assign priorities to the ideas

Anyone can participate in a brainstorming session. No skills is previously required. It is

useful to encourage participants from diverse backgrounds in the issues to be discussed.

Effective brainstorming sessions are small (from 7 to 12 participants). Larger groups should

be divided into smaller groups. Brainstorming is a low-tech, always feasible technique. A

skilled facilitator and a way to record and display the ideas/information (e.g. a whiteboard

and/or flip chart, etc.) are basically the only requirements (besides the room with a

sufficient number of chairs and tables).

There are now also computer-based group decision aid software tools that support

brainstorming and other related activities by offering alternatives to the traditional use of

whiteboards and flip charts. They add value but do not compensate for a lack of skills in

facilitating the session. The gathering of ideas can be managed by using different types of

techniques to boost productivity of brainstorming. For example among the most common

used techniques there is: role-playing, mindmapping, story boarding, card clusters.

See more at:

http://forlearn.jrc.ec.europa.eu/guide/4_methodology/meth_crea_brainstorming.htm

Stakeholders in a process are actors (persons or organizations) with a vested interest in the

policy being promoted. These stakeholders, or “interested parties,” can usually be grouped

into the following categories: international/donors, national political (legislators, governors),

public institutions, labour (unions, associations), commercial/private for-profit and non-

profit (nongovernmental organizations [NGOs], foundations), civil society, and

users/consumers.

22/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

Policymakers can use a stakeholder analysis to identity the key actors and to assess their

knowledge, interests, positions, alliances, and importance related to the policy. This allows

more effective interaction with key stakeholders and increase support for a given policy or

program. When this analysis is conducted before a policy or program is implemented,

policymakers can detect and act to prevent potential misunderstandings about and/or

opposition to the policy or program. When a stakeholder analysis and other key tools are

used to guide the implementation, the policy or program is more likely to succeed.

Planning Tool: stakeholder analysis

Stakeholder analysis [15] is a process of systematically gathering and analysing qualitative

information to determine whose interests should be taken into account when developing

and/or implementing a policy or program. The analysis includes such stakeholder

characteristics as knowledge of the policy, interests related to the policy, position for or

against the policy, potential alliances with other stakeholders, and ability to affect the policy

process (through power and/or leadership).

Stakeholder analysis yields useful and accurate information about those persons and/or

organisations that have an interest on the scope of strategy. This information can be used to

provide input for other analyses; to develop action plans, to increase support of the policy;

and to guide a participatory, consensus-building process.

The analyser should define the stakeholder characteristics to be considered. The following

characteristics are usually included for each stakeholder:

 Identification data: name, position and organization

 Internal/external: internal stakeholders work within the organization that is promoting

or implementing the policy; all other stakeholders are external.

 Knowledge of policy: the level of accurate knowledge the stakeholder has regarding the

policy under analysis, and how each stakeholder defines the policy in question. This is

important for identifying stakeholders who oppose the policy due to misunderstandings

or lack of information.

 Position: whether the stakeholder supports, opposes, or is neutral about the policy,

which is key to establishing whether or not he or she will block the policy

implementation.

 Interest: the stakeholder’s interest in the policy, or the advantages and disadvantages

that implementation of the policy may bring to the stakeholder or his or her

organization. Determining the stakeholder’s vested interests helps policymakers better

understand his or her position and address his or her concerns.

 Alliances: organizations that collaborate to support or oppose the policy. Alliances can

make a weak stakeholder stronger, or provide a way to influence several stakeholders by

dealing with one key stakeholder.

 Resources: the quantity of resources—human, financial, technological, political, and

other—available to the stakeholder and his or her ability to mobilise them. This is an

important characteristic that is summarised by a power index and will determine the

level of force with which the stakeholder might support or oppose the policy.

23/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

Once the stakeholder groups are prioritised, the stakeholders' interests should be presented

and the specific strategies for

addressing their needs. Stakeholder

managers should be involved in further

developing the strategies into action

plans. Depending on the results, the

stakeholder managers may recommend

implementation of one key solution for

all stakeholders, or implementation of

several activities to address the needs

of several stakeholders. In the latter

case, the managers should recommend

which stakeholders should be targeted

for execution, given the limited

resources generally available for

implementation. Figure 4 shows

stakeholder matrix as result of analysis

and possible management solutions to

promote relevant strategy. Guidelines

and tools can be found on know-how

to develop and implement the strategies identified on communication, advocacy, and

conflict management or negotiation. See more at:

http://www.who.int/management/partnerships/overall/GuidelinesConductingStakeholderA

nalysis.pdf

To gain opinion of broader public questionnaire can be a very useful tool. This method was

used in CC-WARE project to obtain information about legislation, policies, state/regional

institutional structures and main regulatory discrepancies as opinions of the water experts in

SEE countries. The results are presented in the next box:

Example: public involvement in CC-WARE project

Based on the feedback provided in questionnaires water quality is ranked as the most

significant drinking water supply (DWS) issue followed by water quantity and land use

practices. The DWS issues recognized by stakeholders are exhibited in Hiba! A hivatkozási

forrás nem található.. With respect to solutions for cross-cutting issues the most significant

policy would address the majority of issues, followed by better cooperation among different

sectors. The most efficient solutions for cross–cutting issues are depicted in Hiba! A

hivatkozási forrás nem található.. Answers provided by participants stressed that cross –

cutting issues relevant for DWS5 ESS6, LU7 practices and CC8 should be more integrated, and

that although existing policies and legal framework at national and EU level address cross-

5

DWS - Drinking Water Supply

6

ESS - Ecosystem Services

7

LU - Land Use

8

CC - Climate Change

Figure 4: Stakeholder matrix and management of groups

24/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

cutting issues but improvement is needed.

Figure 5: Main drinking water supply issues

Figure 6: Solutions for cross – cutting issues

Numbers presented in figures are sum of all rankings (1 is the most significant, while 5 is the least one)

for the issues and solutions.

TOPIC

ANSWERS (%)

Familiarity/knowledge with ESS

37

Comprehensive

53

Moderate

11

Deficient

Ecosystems importance for DWS

72

Significant

22

Moderate

6

Insignificant

More integrated ESS, DWS, LU and CC

cross cutting issues

95

Yes

0

No

5

Neutral

ESS, DWS, LU and CC cross cutting issues addressed

by EU legal framework & policies

21

Yes

63

Yes, with

improvements

16

No

ESS, DWS, LU and CC cross cutting issues addressed

by national legal framework

12

Yes

47

Yes, with

improvements

41

No

Familiarity/knowledge with CC impact on water

resources

55

Comprehensive

35

Moderate

10

Deficient

Table 1: Statistical results of participants’ feedback on specific topics for cross cutting issues

Even if the level of expertise among participants is different, majority of them (53%) have

moderate knowledge on ESS and ESS role is judged (72%) as important for DWS within South

Eastern Europe. Awareness of climate change impact on water resources is evident e.g.,

over 50% of participants have comprehensive knowledge and 35% rated their familiarity as

moderate. Integrated approach (95%) rather than sectoral (5%) is crucial for cross cutting

issues with respect to ESS, DWS, LU practices and CC according to provided answers.

Approximately 21 % of participants estimate that the existing EU legal framework reflects

cross cutting issues while majority of them (63 %) underline the necessity for improvement.

On the contrary, 16 % of them judged that existing framework do not consider cross cutting

issues.

25/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

Diverse actors and actions are indicated to be significant for the improvement and

integration of DWS, ESS, LU and CC at national level, e.g. governments (national and local),

funding, political will, capacity improvement, water suppliers, better application of the

existing policies, appropriate subsidies, improved monitoring, national water strategy that

would address cross cutting issues deliberated within the scope of CC-WARE, etc.

With respect to DWS, ESS, LU and CC participants indicated following topics they would like

to be more familiar with: how to implement at local level, CC and water management

(supply and protection), impact assessment on ecosystem management, how to reduce

impact on water resources and ESS, more comprehensive economic measures for ESS, etc.

Some of additional comments suggest that results of CC-WARE project might be useful for

the next RBMPs9. Finally, all participants - except one - rate this type of workshop as very

useful.

Feedback provided by participants on significant topics for cross cutting issues within the

scope of CC-WARE project reveals the necessity for legal framework improvement. In

summary, based on the questionnaires outputs the problems identified in CC-WARE project

are significant for drinking water supply, ecosystem service, land use and climate change in

the SEE, and beyond.

Expert groups of stakeholders can improve strategy by using ‘Delphi method’ which helps to

depict future scenarios. The future is always uncertain in particular climate change should

consider. The Delphi method is a structured communication technique, originally developed

as a systematic, interactive forecasting method which relies on a panel of experts. Delphi is

based on the principle that forecasts (or decisions) from a structured group of individuals are

more accurate than those from unstructured groups. Delphi survey is a tool to bring

together the opinions or judgements of a large number of persons. These kinds of surveys

are mainly useful in processes where the exchange of opinions and the communication

effect is important but which are mainly result-oriented.

Planning Tool: Delphi method

The Delphi method is based on structural surveys and makes use of information from the

experience and knowledge of the participants, who are mainly experts. It therefore yields

both qualitative and quantitative results and draws on exploratory, predictive even

normative elements. In the most common form, the opinions sought concern the particular

developments that are likely to take place. The survey may focus on different topics – on

social or economical developments, for example. Instead of trying to forecast the time

scales of particular developments, Delphis can be constructed to help identify and prioritise

policy goals.

There is agreement that Delphi is an expert survey in two or more 'rounds' in which, in the

second and later rounds of the survey the results of the previous round are given as

feedback. Therefore, the experts answer from the second round on under the influence of

their colleagues' opinions, and this is what differentiates Delphi from ordinary opinion

surveys. The idea is that the respondents can learn from the views of others, without being

9

RBMP - River Basin Management Plan

26/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

unduly influenced by the people who talk loudest at meetings, or who have most prestige,

etc. Ideally, significant dissenters from a developing consensus would be required to explain

their reasons for their views, and this would serve as useful intelligence for others.

Characteristics of Delphi are:

 Delphi studies always tackle issues formulated in statements about which uncertain and

incomplete knowledge exists. Otherwise there are more efficient methods for decision-

making.

 Delphi involves making judgments in the face of uncertainty. The people involved in

Delphi studies only give estimates.

 The experts involved need to be selected on the basis of their knowledge and

experience so that they are able to give a competent assessment. They have the

opportunity to gather new information during the successive rounds of the process.

 The Delphi method stresses the psychological processes involved in communication

rather than mathematical models.

 Delphi tries to make use of self-fulfilling and self-destroying prophecies in the sense of

shaping or even 'creating' the future. Delphi method is mainly used when long-term

issues (up to 30 years) have to be assessed.

 Delphi survey is time consuming to carry out.

The Delhpi survey procedure has to be fixed in advance. Will panel meetings be set-up or

will the teams work on-line? Is the questionnaire an electronic or a paper one? This means

that logistics (whether setting up the website or typing in results from the paper versions)

have to be organised. Will there be follow-up workshops, interviews, presentations? If so,

these also have to be organised and prepared. Printing of brochures, leaflets, questionnaire,

reports also have to be considered. When designing the questionnaire, it is important to

consider from the beginning how answers will be interpret and how to give feedback to the

participants during the second round. The usual way is to provide percentages or graphics

from the accumulated data in a similar way as in the first round questionnaire.

The questions should be clearly defined, possible to answer, and match the statements

made. The statements have to be formulated in a way that the criteria or questions can be

judged on the basis of them. Often questions are related to the date on which an event or

development occurs. Thus it is important in order to understand what time horizon you are

talking about. Questions may be related to the possible constraints (economical,

technological, social, political) to the occurrence of event or development.

See more at : http://forlearn.jrc.ec.europa.eu/guide/4_methodology/meth_delphi.htm

1.6 Content and Format

Policies are typically promulgated through official written documents. Policy documents

often come with the endorsement or signature of the executive powers within an

organisation to legitimise the policy and demonstrate that it is considered in force. Such

documents often have standard formats that are particular to the organisation issuing the

policy. While such formats differ in form, policy documents usually contain certain standard

components including:

 A purpose statement, outlining why the organisation is issuing the policy, and what its

desired effect or outcome of the policy should be.

27/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

 An applicability and scope statement, describing who the policy affects and which

actions are impacted by the policy. The applicability and scope may expressly exclude

certain people, organisations, or actions from the policy requirements. Applicability and

scope is used to focus the policy on only the desired targets, and avoid unintended

consequences where possible.

 An effective date which indicates when the policy comes into force. Retroactive policies

are rare, but can be found.

 A responsibilities section, indicating which parties and organisations are responsible for

carrying out individual policy statements. Many policies may require the establishment

of some ongoing function or action. Responsibilities often include identification of any

relevant oversight and/or governance structures.

 Policy statements indicating the specific regulations, requirements, or modifications to

organisational behavior that the policy is creating. Policy statements are extremely

diverse depending on the organisation and intent, and may take almost any form.

Some policies may contain additional sections, including:

 Background, indicating any reasons, history, and intent that led to the creation of the

policy, which may be listed as motivating factors. This information is often quite valuable

when policies must be evaluated or used in ambiguous situations.

 Definitions, providing clear and unambiguous definitions for terms and concepts found

in the policy document.

Compulsory elements of an action plan or program are:

 Specification of program details (i.e. how should the program be executed? How should

the law/program be interpreted?);

 Allocation of resources (i.e. how are budgets distributed? Which personnel will execute

the program? Which units of an organization will be in charge for the control?);

 Schedule (i.e. When will be the program completed? When are major milestones

expected to occur?)

 Decision points (i.e. how will decisions of single cases be carried out?).

The last step in the strategic planning process is one of the most important: the action steps

that will lead to the successful completion of your objectives. The following eight things

need to be considered for solid action plans:

Ownership: one institution/person must be responsible and accountable for tracing the

progress toward each objective, keeping the team informed; ensuring timely action steps are

occurring and adjusting the actions as reality teaches us what needs to shift.

Responsibility: each action step needs to have one organization/person responsible for

leading the action. This does not need to be the institution/person who is the owner of the

overall objective, and in many cases several people share responsibility for the various action

steps.

Support: for each action step, determine who will support the organization/person

responsible. This can be multiple institutions/people (e.g. a partnership). The key is that

they’re not responsible for the action or outcome; they’re simply acting as a support in some

capacity.

28/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

Action steps: each objective needs to have a series of action steps that lay out a clear path

throughout the programming period on how it can be achieved. If the objective is the

“what,” then the action steps are the “how.” It’s critical that the action steps are clear and

actionable steps versus vague ideas or thoughts.

Metrics and budget: to be clear on measuring the success of an action step, each one must

have a metric (indicators) that tells us that the action is complete. Concurrently, you might

require resources to execute the action step.

Milestone date: think of the milestone as the date the action step needs to begin to reach

the project’s completion date. Milestone dates are important because somehow we are all

subconsciously programmed.

Completion date: the date we plan to have the action step completed.

Inform: keeping the right people in the communication loop for each action is critically

important. Key people might need to understand the state of progress around your actions

to see how they affect other actions and objectives.

Once the action steps have properly framed out it is recommended to look back and see

how everything fits together. Here are some questions to check the plan:

 Are action steps clear and actionable, and do we know exactly what we need to do?

When we review this at our mid-term or quarterly “review, evaluate and revise” session,

will we understand what we meant?

 Are the completion dates consistent with the order of the action steps?

 Have we stacked many tasks too close to completion dates? For instance, are many of

actions due at the end of the quarter/mid-term (which can make for a manic last week of

quarter/mid-term end)?

 Are the right people being kept informed in the loop?

 Have we run plans past everyone who is responsible and supportive to ensure we

haven’t missed anything or gotten off track?

It is recommended to create a national/regional Action Plan which matches the European

Programmes. In this context the ‘Programme’ is synonym of ‘Action Plan’. Therefore it is

useful to know what the scopes of the programme evaluation are. There are relevant legal

provisions setting out the requirements for the ex ante evaluation for EU Funds. The

following Example provides an overview of what are the requirements in the ex ante

evaluation of the European Programmes.

Example: ex ante evaluation in Europe

General rules are that:

 Programme shall include the ex ante evaluation in order to improve its design quality.

 Member States shall ensure that the ex ante evaluator is engaged from an early stage in

the process of the development of the Programme, including the development of the

SWOT analysis and needs assessment, the design of the programme’s intervention logic

and the establishment of programme targets.

1. SWOT analysis and needs assessment

The analysis of the situation in terms of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats

29/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

(SWOT) is a prerequisite for the needs assessment and setting of relevant objectives to

meet the challenges and needs of the Programming Area.

The ex ante evaluator has to ensure that the SWOT analysis and the needs assessment:

 is comprehensive, based on full and appropriate data (context indicators), and provide a

holistic picture of the programming area;

 is logically interlinked with the identified needs sufficiently and properly justified by the

SWOT;

 is consistent and complementary to that for all Common Strategic Framework (CSF)

programmes;

 is consistent with the strategic environmental assessment (SEA);

 integrates the environment, climate change mitigation and adaptation and innovation

as crosscutting priorities of the EU2020 Strategy;

 enables the needs of particular stakeholder groups, people and territories to be

differentiated and addressed;

 takes into account the lessons from past interventions;

 provide the justification for any thematic sub-programmes included in the Programme;

 is developed in collaboration with the partnership referred to in Common Provisions

Regulation.

2. Design of the programme’s intervention logic

The design of the intervention logic is closely linked with the assessment of:

 the contribution of the Programme to the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable

and inclusive growth taking into account national and regional needs;

 the external consistency of the selected thematic objectives, priorities and programme,

objectives with the CSF, other relevant instruments and country-specific

recommendations of the EU;

 the internal coherence of the proposed programme or activity;

 the links between the intended outputs to the expected results;

 the consistency of the budgetary resources with the programme objectives.

3. Establishment of the programme targets

The identification of appropriate quantified targets for those indicators directly related to

the achievements of the focus areas is vitally important for measuring the extent to which

the original objectives of the programme are actually being met. During programme

implementation, progress towards each of the target values will be reported in the

Annual/Mid-term/Final Implementation Report.

The responsibility for establishing appropriate target values rests with the Managing

Authority. The evaluation team should verify that these values have been effectively

defined and also assess the plausibility of the estimates made in relation to the actions and

budget proposed, making recommendations for modifications if deemed appropriate. The

evaluation team should assure that the sources of information used are reliable and that

the methods proposed for their calculation are rigorous enough. This evaluation has three

topics:

 Programme indicators (output, results, impact, target, etc.);

 Adequacy of the quantified target values for indicators;

 Suitability of milestones selected for the performance framework (wheather the

millstones are appropriate and realistic, can give reliable indication on progress).

30/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

The next example is the Action Plan of the ‘EU Strategy for the Danube Region’ [32] which

nearly covers the SEE Region and identifies actions by structured form.

Example: Action Plan of the EU Strategy for the Danube Region

The organisation of the Action Plan seeks to identify priorities clearly, and make it explicit also

who is responsible for their implementation and follow-up. It also aims to assign the

responsibilities to different administrative levels and actors within the Region, with support

from the other partners, notably the EU institutions. The structure incorporates the following

features:

Pillars: These address the headline issues e.g. “Protecting the Environment in the Danube

Region”. They are at the core of the Strategy and are essential to the success of its work, and

how it is communicated.

Priority Areas: These represent the main areas where the macro-regional strategy can

contribute to improvements (either through tackling the main challenges or through seizing

the main opportunities). For each priority area the Action Plan presents the issue and

indicates main problems.

Coordination of each priority area is allocated to two Priority Area Coordinators nominated

by the government of the partner countries. These are at the heart of making the Strategy

operational, and bear a central responsibility for its success. They work on its

implementation, in close contact with the Commission, with all stakeholders involved,

especially other countries, but also Regional and Local Authorities, Inter-Governmental and

Non-Governmental Bodies.

Each priority area has to be considered with other policy fields. The Strategy encourages an

integrated approach (e.g. interrelation between environment, mobility, economic

development, human resource development, etc.). For example climate change mitigation

and adaptation have an impact on transport, energy, tourism, research, etc. policies whilst

the latter also have an impact on climate change. Therefore, for the implementation of each

Priority Area, it is important that there is involvement of bodies and institutions representing

other policy fields as well.

Actions: An Action is an important issue requiring intervention by the countries and

stakeholders involved to meet the objective of the Priority Area. It can be a new approach, an

increased coordination in policy making, a support to a process already engaged, a

networking initiative, etc. An action may not necessarily require financing. All actions should

be understood without prejudice to the existing EU competences and requirements of the EU

acquis (e.g. support to a process already engaged: “To implement fully the Danube River

Basin Management Plan”).

Projects: A project is concrete, with a start and end date. In general it requires financing, a

project leader and project partners. The Action Plan presents projects by way of examples to

stimulate further initiatives as the Strategy progresses, and as new ideas emerge. The aim is

31/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

also to illustrate what is needed. These projects can be financed by national/ regional funds,

EU funds such as the Structural Funds10, the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA)

and the European Neighbourhood Policy Instrument (ENPI), International Financial

Institutions or private investors, in line with the appropriate frameworks and practices. The

timeframe of the actions and projects varies. Some can be implemented in a short time (1-2

years) and some will need longer. As a general rule, each project would have a lead

organisation/country and a deadline. When not defined by the time of adoption of the

Strategy by the Commission, the Priority Area Coordinators would ensure that this is decided

by the countries.

In identifying the actions and projects suggested in the Action Plan, the following factors have

been taken into account:

 They should address identified priorities and be supported. The need for the action or

project should have been clearly expressed by countries, stakeholders or Commission’s

services. In addition, the support of these partners is also crucial for the implementation

and the proposals have been thoroughly discussed with them. In general, they should

reinforce existing EU policies such as Europe 2020, Territorial Cohesion, Trans European

Networks (transport and energy), the Energy and the future Transport Communities, or

implementation of Directives. Finally they should also associate existing transnational

bodies such as the International Convention for the Protection of the Danube River

(ICPDR), the Danube Commission, the Regional Cooperation Council, the Danube

Cooperation Process (DCP), the Council of Danube Cities and Regions, the Danube

Tourism Commission, and other such organisations as appropriate.

 They should have an impact on the macro-region (or a significant part of it). Many

projects should therefore be transnational. However, if a national project has a direct

impact on the macro-region (e.g. the construction of a waste water treatment plant that

improves the water quality of the rivers or the extension of a port to enable regional

transport networks) or contributes to a policy objective of the strategy (e.g. the

renovation of a town as part of a network to attract tourists) they could be included.

However, most actions and projects having an impact on the macro-region will involve

several countries who wish to cooperate. The impact should be articulated in the form of

an impact indicator which can be evaluated over time. Consideration should be given to

the data which will need to be gathered in order to evaluate the impact (including the

establishment of the baseline situation).

 They should be realistic. They should be feasible (technically and financially) and there

should be overall agreement between countries, stakeholders and the Commission of

their worth. In particular, a realistic source of funding should be identified. Indeed

proposing a project for the Action Plan is not a funding request, and inclusion in the Plan

is no guarantee of funding, but the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of a project should be

established.

 They should be coherent and mutually supportive. Actions and projects must be

compatible with each other and create win-win solutions. For example transport projects

or energy efficiency initiatives cannot jeopardise achieving environmental targets. The

10

Structural Funds are available for Member States. They are managed through Operational Programmes agreed and

managed by Member States, Regions and the Commission.

32/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

Action Plan should be stable for a certain period of time. However, over the years, the

priorities may evolve and hence, the actions and projects may be updated, transformed or

replaced. The Action Plan is therefore “rolling”, and will be regularly reviewed.

Content of the Action Plan

Introduction

A) Connecting the Danube Region

1) To improve mobility and multimodality

2) To encourage more sustainable energy

3) To promote culture and tourism, people to people contacts

B) Protecting the Environment in the Danube Region

4) To restore and maintain the quality of waters

Action: “To promote measures to limit water abstraction”

Action: “To strengthen general awareness and facilitate exchange of good practice in

integrated water management issues in the Danube Basin among decision-makers at all

levels and among the population of the Region”

Action: “To promote measures aimed at reducing knowledge deficits, developing and

transferring tools, methods and guidelines concerning the safeguarding of drinking water

supply”

5) To manage environmental risks

Action: “Anticipate regional and local impacts of climate change through research”

Good practice example project: “To foster transnational cooperation via ICPDR in

order to develop a Climate Change Adaptation Strategy for the Danube Region”

Action: “To develop spatial planning and construction activities in the context of climate

change and increased threats of floods”

6) To preserve biodiversity, landscapes and the quality of air and soils

Action: “To manage Natura 2000 sites and other protected areas effectively”

C) Building Prosperity in the Danube Region

7) To develop the Knowledge Society through research, education and information

technologies

8) To support the competitiveness of enterprises, including cluster development

9) To invest in people and skills

D) Strengthening the Danube Region

10) To step up institutional capacity and cooperation

11) To work together to promote security and tackle organised and serious crime

Annex:

Role of the European Investment Bank (EIB) in the EU Strategy for the Danube Region

2 Planning process

It is hard to achieve anything without a plan. Whether we are driving through a known city,

cooking for a party or running a drinking water supply system, we need a “strategic” plan. A

good action plan considers all things and focuses on priorities. It also helps governors or

policymakers determine where to spend or invest more time and money, strengthen human

capacities.

33/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

When creating action plans there are guided steps that need to be followed to ensure

success, however the structure can be altered in the process. Firstly, you will need to outline

what you want to achieve. By doing this you set yourself targets. After this, the specific roles

will need to be allocated ensuring sufficient amount of training, resources and issues have

been considered to ensure solving any problems that may occur. The next stage allows

members of the planning team to analyse the progress by outlining milestones, solving any

issues and making any necessary changes. Lastly, once the programme has come to an end

the final stage can be examined to ensure future success.

Developing a strategic plan might seem like an

overwhelming process, but if you break it down

to a few steps, it is easy to tackle. There are

many approaches for strategic planning

processes, but most of them are cyclic. In this

guidance we unfold planning process into 5 steps

but other methods offer 8 or more stages

[1][4][6][10][16].

The five steps are:

1. step: to analyse situation

2. step: to determine vision statement

3. step: to define objectives

4. step: to piece together actions to plan

5. step: review strategy

The following example demonstrates these five

steps approach through river basin management planning process as required by WFD

(2000/60/EK) and has presented in Common Implementation Strategy Guidance [21] on

planning process.

Example: planning cycle in WFD

The 2000/60/EK Water Framework Directive (WFD) is the strategy framework of the EU in

the field of water policy. For the purposes of this Directive other definitions are applied with

the same meaning as it is used in strategic planning.

The overall WFD planning process presented in the Figure 8 which includes the first so-called

planning cycle required in the WFD to be finalised in 2015. This figure shows the sequence of

and the relations between activities as well as the main deadlines and milestones of the first

planning cycle. Accordingly, the flowcharts apply to the first period (2002-2015) and the

preparation of the second and third one (2015-2021-2027), subsequent periods being

managed as the first one (same tasks and time schedule). It should be also noted that the

second/third planning cycle until 2027 needs to be developed on the basis of the experience

of the first cycle outlined below. The following ten components of the planning process were

considered:

1. Setting the scene;

Figure 7: Planning cycle and process in 5 steps

34/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

2. Assessment of the current status and analyse preliminary gaps;

3. Setting up of the environmental objectives;

4. Establishment of monitoring programmes;

5. Gap analysis;

6. Setting up of the programme of measures;

7. Development river basin management plans;

8. Implementation of the programmes of measures and prepare the interim report

on the implementation;

9. Evaluation of the first and the second period;

10. Information and consultation of the public, active involvement of interested

parties.

Figure 8: Planning cycle required in the WFD [21]

The planning process to be followed in accordance with the WFD comprises ten main

components that can be identified with these 5 steps shown in the next table:

Steps

Main stages

Components according to WFD

1. situation analysis

Current and foreseen

scenarios assessment

 Setting the scene

 Assessment of the current status and analysis of

preliminary gaps

2. vision statement

key objective has already

promulgated by WFD

To achieve good water status for all waters by 2015

(or 2021,2027)

3. objectives

Target setting

 Gap analysis

 Setting up of the environmental objectives

4. action plan

Alternative programmes

of measures and actions

 Setting up of the programme of measures

 Development of river basin management plans

35/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

taking

 Implementation of the programme of measures and

preparation of the interim report.

5. review

Linking stages

 Establishment of monitoring programmes

 Evaluation of the first and second period

 Information and consultation of the public, active

involvement of interested parties

Note that in the 2000/60/EK Directive there is no specific article on the planning process.

The preambles of the Directive deal with the planning process in an explicit way only to

stress the needs of considering different solutions for different conditions and to note that

water planning is a long term process (Preambles 13 and 28, see Annex 2). The specific

nature of river basin planning process is at the discretion of MS but the key tasks and

milestones have laid down in the WFD without the procedural detail necessary to support

the development of the river basin management plans.

The WFD requires MS to produce a management plan for each river basin district in Article

13 and 15 and the full contents of the plan are specified in Annex VII. The RBMP acts as the

central focal point for the outcome of river basin planning. RBMP records the current status

of water bodies within the River Basin District, sets out, in summary, what measures are

planned to meet the objectives, and acts as the main reporting mechanism to the

Commission and the public.

River basin planning is the process of collecting and analysing river basin data and evaluating

management measures in order to achieve the objectives of the WFD within prescribed

timescales. The river basin planning process is followed by implementation of the

programme of measures. The planning process together with the implementation of the

programme of measures is often referred to as river basin management.

As the name implies, the WFD establishes an outline strategic framework for the planning

and management of the water environment. The framework includes a series of key tasks to

be completed by prescribed deadlines. In order to confirm progress against these tasks, MS

are required to submit and publish a number of outputs from this process, in the form of

reports, to the Commission and public. From strategic planning process point of view the

output of the situation analysis is the document on interim overview of the significant water

management issues (SWMI), while RBMP includes the program of measures (PoM) complies

with the action plan.

The following sub-chapters present the five steps to achieve a national/regional action plan.

2.1 Determine where you are

The first step in the planning cycle is the analyses of situation. Some guide proposes to start

with determination of vision and mission but that can be only the second step. First of all

you have to know where the development will start or set up the baseline scenario. Usually

the analysis is based on current and past information and should cover the natural, social,

economic, institutional and legislative issues. In case you would like to develop an action

plan under climate change you may provide a baseline scenario for the future as well.

The situation analysis should address different sectorial issues but appraise horizontal

principles, i.e. sustainable development, equality, etc.

There are a lot of useful tools for strategic analyses like PEST (Politics, Economics, Society,

Technology) and trend analysis, SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and

36/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

Threats), the Problem Tree Analysis or DPSIR (Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response)

scheme relating human activities to the state of the environment.

These tools are presented in the following boxes:

Planning Tool: PEST Analysis

PEST analysis (Political, Economic, Social and Technological) describes a framework of

macro-environmental factors used in the environmental scanning component of strategic

management. PEST Analysis is a simple and widely used tool that helps you analyse the

political, economic, socio-cultural, and technological changes in your environment (milieu).

This helps you understand the "big picture" forces of change that you're exposed to, and,

from this, take advantage of the opportunities that they present. Some analysts added other

factors expanded it to get the whole picture. There are variations of PEST Analysis that bring

other factors into consideration, these include:

 PESTLE/PESTEL: Political, Economic, Socio-Cultural, Technological, Legal, Environmental.

 PESTLIED: Political, Economic, Socio-Cultural, Technological, Legal, International,

Environmental, Demographic.

 STEEPLE: Social/Demographic, Technological, Economic, Environmental, Political, Legal,

Ethical.

 SLEPT: Socio-Cultural, Legal, Economic, Political, Technological.

 LONGPESTLE: Local, National, and Global versions of PESTLE. (used for understanding

change in multinational level).

The following picture shows long but not complete list of elements to be analised:

In several cases the investigation for valuable information comprises a trend analysis of

collected data. The planning team is responsible to assign which factors and elements will be

included because it highly depends on the scope of the strategy or action plan.

See more: http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTMC_09.htm or

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PEST_analysis

37/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

In case of CC-WARE project mainly environmental factors were analysed in Work Package 3

of the project with focus on water resources vulnerability under climate change. In addition,

European and national/regional regulations were assessed as legal factor of integrated

transnational strategic planning. See the next box on summary of results:

Example: Analysis of LEGAL factor in CC-WARE project

Information and data on existing legal framework and policies within the scope of CC-WARE

project at EU and national / regional level were gathered. Analysed outputs, gaps and

recommendations are valuable inputs to significant transnational issues with respect to

drinking water supply, including management of land use and ecosystem services (ESS) and

taking into account the impact of climate change.

Despite the great number of EU directives, international conventions, and various legislation

at national level, numbers of issues and gaps still exist with respect to DWS, ESS, LU and CC.

Although the services of ES are important for drinking water supply and protection existing

legal framework is deficient in internal linkage among them. The same applies to climate

change and land use practices. Figure 9 exhibits summary approach applied in legislation and

Figure 9: Summary on legislation assessment

within the scope of CC-WARE project

policies assessment.

Despite the transposition of ambitious targets

defined in EU Water Framework Directive into

national legislation the implementation of

drinking water protection measures are

insufficient in several countries due to high

water demands, lack of funding, discrepancy

with national legal framework, weak

coordination and harmonization among

different sectors, etc. In majority of countries

the drinking water protection legislation is not

implemented properly, like illegal

development within the water safeguard

zones perimeters, existing legislation of

significance for drinking water sources is not

unitary and practical implementation might be

confusing. Although, climate change is

addressed in different national documents

there are gaps that should be solved.

Diverse and numerous legislation and polices are recognized as significant for land use by

project partners, however, internal linkage is not always comprehensive. With respect to ESS

and water management, deficiency in integrated and common approach is identified. As an

example, the Water Protection Plans do not include details regarding how to account for

climate change and the role of ecosystem services.

The new policies are rarely assessed with respect to practical implementation. In addition,

the opportunity exists by coupling specific issues that would generate better results and

38/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

internal linkage.

Among other issues and gaps at EU level the preventive environmental risk management in

drinking water supply systems does not exist. Moreover, EU BLUEPRINT III Impact

Assessment indicated insufficient use of economic instruments, lack of support for specific

measures, poor governance, and knowledge gaps in EU legislation.

As a result of Legal Framework assessment within the scope of CC WARE project, an

improved, more applicable legal framework integrating specific subjects of relevance for

drinking water supply (DWS), ecosystem services (ESS), land use (LU) , climate change (CC) is

needed.

There was not enough possibility in the consultation of regulation issue to reach consensus

in the following questions:

 Do we regulate too much?

 Do we need just improvement of existing legal framework?

 Do we need new legal framework and policies?

The following tool is widely used in European practice, namely SWOT Analysis or Matrix is a

mandatory element to develop programmes under EU Funds.

Planning Tool: SWOT Matrix

SWOT matrix (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) is an analytical method

which is used to identify and categorise significant

internal (Strengths and Weaknesses) and external

(Opportunities and Threats) factors faced either in a

particular arena, such as an organisation, or a territory,

such as a region, nation, or city. It provides information

that is helpful in matching the resources and

capabilities to the competitive environment in which it

operates and is therefore an important contribution to

the strategic planning process.

It should not be viewed as a static method with

emphasis solely on its output, but should be used as a

dynamic part of the development process.

What makes SWOT particularly powerful is that, with a

little thought, it can help you uncover opportunities

that you are well-placed to exploit. And by understanding the weaknesses, you can manage

and eliminate them. Or you will be more powerful if you can intensify stengths and last but

not least you should mitigate threats that would otherwise catch you unawares. The main

tangible output is a matrix presenting the most important strengths, weaknesses,

opportunities and threats for the area, sector, region, country examined and aiming at

giving a reasonable overview of major issues that can be taken into account when

subsequently drawing up strategic plans for an institution.

To carry out SWOT analysis representatives from a variety of stakeholders groups in various

hierarchical levels of decision making should be involved, as they would bring in the analysis

Figure 10: SWOT matrix [5][10][16]

39/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

of their own particular perspectives. People are needed who have a good knowledge of the

sector, region, area or country, etc. under analysis in the specific exercise. At least one

expert in SWOT analysis should take part or moderate the process. As SWOT analysis is one

of the tools which can be executed by brainstorming to be more specific, the set of relevant

questions needs to be prepared and answered by participants.

Drawing up the Opportunities and Threats matrices encourages an assessment of the likely

probability and impact any factor may have on the scope of strategy. A scoring system can

be used to assign importance to factors. A factor with a high score on both 'probability of

occurrence' and 'likely impact on the scope', would have to be one worthy of close

attention and play a significant part in the development of a strategic plan. Similarly,

Strengths and Weaknesses can be assessed against a scoring system that allows the factors

to be identified according to their significance (i.e. major, minor, neutral) and level of

importance (high, medium, low). It is possible to represent this analysis in a Performance-

Importance matrix that highlights those factors which are both important and in which

performance is low. It is towards these factors that strategy should be addressed.

See more at: http://forlearn.jrc.ec.europa.eu/guide/4_methodology/meth_swot-

analysis.htm

The DPSIR framework has been used to assess and manage various environment-related

problems (e.g. in river basin management planning process) in addition or instead of SWOT

analysis. The DPSIR scheme is more than a situation analysis tool but the scope of the

investigation is narrower, only used for natural environment. Usage of the DPSIR framework

together with other methodologies in identifying relevant pressures and impacts has been

demonstrated to be a useful approach in assessing the risk of failing to meet the objectives

of the European Water Framework Directive (WFD).

Planning Tool: DPSIR Scheme

DPSIR (Driving forces, Pressures, States, Impacts, Responses) is a causal framework for

describing the interactions between society and the environment. This framework has been

adopted by the European Environment Agency.

Generally speaking, the DPSIR framework

comprises a systematic approach to environmental

management by exploring the interdisciplinary

links among socioeconomic drivers, environment-

related pressures, state of the environment,

impacts of environmental changes and, finally,

social responses to combat environmental

degradation.

As an indicator-based environmental reporting

approach, the DPSIR framework aims to describe

environmental problems by identifying the cause-

effect relationships between the environment and

various anthropogenic activities in a wider socio-

economic context. In terms of this framework,

Figure 11: DPSIR Scheme [18]

40/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

socio-economic development and socio-cultural forces function as drivers (D) of human

activities that increase or mitigate pressures (P) on the environment. Environmental

pressures would thus change the state of the environment (S) and result in impacts (I) on

human health, ecosystems and the economy. These may lead to responses (R) to the

corresponding drivers, pressures, state of the environment or impacts via various

mitigation, prevention or adaptation measures with regard to the environmental problems

identified.

It can be ascertain that investigation of cause-effect relationship along the Drivers,

Pressures, States, Impacts, Responses chain can identified as situation analysis. On Figure

11 arrows starting from ’Responses’ are representing actions, decisions, adaptations thus

measures in the action plan. The use of DPSIR both for analysis of situation and designing

measures can help to develop appropriate action plan. It would be useful to understand

that measures have several response like

 demand management measures will target drivers;

 supply management measures will reduce pressure;

 restoration or rehabilitation will directly improve status;

 compensation will decrease impact; and

for example changes in regulations can influence responses as well.

The last tool (problem tree analysis) under situation analysis which is presented in this

guidance can be helpful to determine easily appropriate objectives to your actions.

Planning Tool: Problem Tree Analysis

The Problem Tree method [5][16][17][18] is a planning method based on needs expressed

by stakeholders. The Problem Tree Analysis belongs to the family of participatory planning

techniques, in which all parties involved identify and analyse the needs together.

Participatory methods aim to create ownership and commitment among the involved

parties (e.g. beneficiaries, implementing organisations, local governments).

The problem analysis is of major

importance with regard to project

planning, since it strongly influences the

design of a possible intervention(s). It is

the basis and the justification for the

project design. The problem analysis

includes:

 verification of the subject of analysis;

 identification of problems related to

the subject; make an inventory of all

problems perceived by all

participants in the workshop;

 establishment of a cause-effect

hierarchy between the problems;

 visualisation of the cause-effect

relations in a diagram so called ‘problem tree’ (Figure 12).

Figure 12: Visualised cause-effect relations in ‘problem

tree’ diagram [31]

41/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

It is important that all participants get the chance to express the problems they experience.

After discussion and clarification by the ‘problem owner’ all problems should be respected.

It is important to determine whether the different groups of people recognise the problem

in the same way; if not the problem should be reformulated or split.

After a common understanding of all problems is reached, the analysis is presented in the

form of a diagram, or a problem tree. A problem is never an isolated negative perceived

situation, but relates to other problems. In the problem tree the relations and hierarchy

among all identified problems is expressed. Each stated problem is preceded by the

problem(s) which cause(s) it, and followed by the problem it causes itself. For example: the

rice production in the low lands is decreasing due to the irrigation water not reaching the

fields and due to the fact that there is an irregular supply of inputs for rice production. The

problem of a decreasing rice production itself contributes to the problem of food shortages.

A properly planned project addressing the real needs of the beneficiaries is necessarily based

upon a correct and complete analysis of the existing situation. The existing situation should

be interpreted according to the views, needs, interests and activities of parties concerned.

Outlining the baseline scenario should be followed by actual project planning.

2.2 Identify what is important

In this step you can determine the priorities that the strategic plan should focus on. Vision

statements are aspirational; they lay out the most important primary goals. Vision

Statements tend to be quite broad and can be described as a goal(s) that represents an

inspiring, overarching, and emotionally driven destination in the future. Vision statements

should be revised as needed to reflect the changing environment or as goals are met.

However, when you prepare the vision statement, you should approach it as a document

that will stay valid at least several years.

Vision statements should stretch the imagination while providing direction and clarity. A

good vision statement will help inform direction and set priorities while challenging

stakeholders. Here are some suggestions to keep in mind while key goals are formulated:

 When describing goals, project five to 10 years in the future.

 Dream big, and focus on success.

 Use the present tense.

 Use clear, concise language.

 Infuse your vision statement with passion and emotion.

 Have a plan to communicate your vision statement to stakeholders.

 Be prepared to commit time and resources to the vision you establish [20].

Example: The CC-WARE Vision Statement

The CC-WARE vision statement is that drinking water in sufficient quantity and quality will

be available for the whole population of the SEE area.

Taking into account the strong commitment for implementing WFD, it is assumed that all

principle aims of the WFD will be achieved under climate change as well, among them those

related to drinking water supply.

42/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

 Sustainable use of water resources, which means the consideration of ecological water

demand – essential for enhancing the role of ecosystem services in water management.

 Healthy drinking water for the population, which implies to comply with all quality

standards: drinking water quality, surface water quality used for drinking water supply.

 As a basic element of the precaution, water bodies providing drinking water should be

considered as protected areas or protection zones shall be designated.

 Need of regular monitoring of the quantitative and qualitative status inside protected

areas.

 The deterioration of the water resources is not allowed.

 Safe operation of the water works is supported by the application of cost recovery

principle, which allows considering the costs of the maintenance and the protection as

well.

See more issues in WP5.1 Report of CC-WARE project: ‘Transnational strategy for

mitigating vulnerability of drinking water resources’

http://www.ccware.eu/downloads/external-downloads/cat_view/1-external-downloads/22-

cc-ware-outputs/27-outputs-wp5-external.html

2.3 Define what you want to achieve

In this step you should define the expected objectives that clearly state what you would like

to achieve addressing the priority issues. The set up objectives’ ideally, you should involve

key players and do in close interaction with all them. It is vital for the success of the exercise

that there is a clear understanding of the objectives among both the sponsors of the exercise

and the people charged with carrying it out, such as the coordinator and the executive team.

The objectives obviously have to be realistic in relation to the available resources, in terms of

money and time. Accordingly, there will be an iterative process of adaptation. When - as is

often the case - resources are less generous than initially hoped, the objectives may have to

be reconsidered. As the success of the exercise will later be measured in the light of these

objectives it is extremely important not just to list everything that could possibly be

achieved but only those aims that will guide the exercise and can realistically be achieved. It

is probably better to agree to drop an objective than to promise something that will later

have to be abandoned. Most of strategic objectives are

 Measurable: There must be at least one indicator (or yardstick) that measures

progress towards fulfilling the objective.

 Specific: This provides a clear message as to what needs to be accomplished.

 Appropriate: It must be consistent with the vision and mission of the institution.

 Realistic: It must be an achievable target within the organization’s capabilities and

opportunities in the environment. In essence, it must be challenging but doable.

 Timely: there needs to be a time frame for accomplishing the objective.

The objectives have a hierarchic structure starting with the overall goal and moving down in

levels to (component, priority) purposes or outcomes, outputs and specific activities.

The objectives hierarchy can be constructed using an objective tree. The objectives at the

top of the tree should help frame goal and statements, while further down the tree

component objective and output statements can be identified.

43/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

The objectives hierarchy can be used as framework of actions or practically as titles of pillars,

priority areas and actions. However, it should not be expected that the objective tree can be

transposed directly, without further adjustment, into the hierarchy of the action plan.

Further adjustment and refinement of statements is usually required and checking of the

means-ends logic should be ongoing as the matrix is developed.

After having formulated the desired future situation the selection of possible interventions

starts. To analyse the strategies for implementation the following steps are taken:

 identification of the different possible groups of objectives contributing to a higher

objective (clustering);

 choice of a strategy for the intervention, choosing the scope of the project (scoping).

In the process of clustering and scoping it is important to realise that the aim is to contribute

the maximum possible to an overall objective, keeping in mind the priorities of the

beneficiaries, and the limitations and possibilities of the implementing organisation.

In the diagram of objectives, the different objectives sharing the same nature can be

considered to be clusters. The clustering should be based on common sense and should be

of practical value in the planning stage. The clusters should be neither too broadly nor too

narrowly defined. It concerns the identification and selection of potential alternative

strategies towards realising all or some of the objectives. Clusters are made based on

similarity of possible future activities, region or required expertise.

Out of the clusters, one (and often more) will be chosen and used as the strategy to achieve

a future desired situation: the aims of the intervention. This is called scoping, or choosing a

strategy. Based on a number of criteria, the most relevant and feasible strategy is selected.

Unrealistic objectives should be excluded and objectives that certainly should be included

have to be prioritised. The criteria have to be chosen and agreed upon by all stakeholders.

Examples of possible criteria: fit with mandate of government authorities, sectorial policies

or implementing organisation; expertise and experience of implementing organisation;

contribution to overall objectives; priorities of beneficiaries or donor; contributions of

different stakeholders; sustainability; likelihood of success; urgency; duration of

implementation; available budget; available human resources, institutions; inter-linkages

between clusters; shift in power relations; positive/negative side-effects; gender and social

diversity aspects.

Planning Tool: Objective Tree Analysis

After the problem tree analysis the analysis of objectives follows. The Objective Tree

Analysis [5][16][18] belongs to the family of participatory planning techniques, in which all

parties involved identify and analyse the targets together. This analysis includes:

 the translation of the negative situations in the problem tree into a realised positive

state (the objectives);

 verification of the hierarchy of objectives;

 visualisation of means-end relationships in a diagram.

Also in this step it is of importance that all stakeholders are involved. While transforming

problems into objectives and verifying the hierarchy, discussion and feedback on the

objectives is done. This helps building consensus amongst the stakeholders. It might also be

necessary to reformulate some of the problems.

44/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

Next, often the objective tree shows many objectives that cannot all be reached at once.

Therefore, choices will have to be made. Certain objectives seem unrealistic, too ambitious

or not feasible within the context of a possible intervention, so that other solutions need to

be generated for the problem concerned. However at this stage of the planning these

choices are not yet made. Still all possible ways (objectives) to achieve the desired future

situation are considered.

It seems to be easy to determine indicators of objectives but in practice this is one of the

most overwhelming tasks of the executive team. In case you are looking for indicators to

your goals aiming to mitigate vulnerability of water resources under climate change,

please, see http://www.ccware.eu/downloads/external-downloads/cat_view/1-external-

downloads/22-cc-ware-outputs/25-outputs-wp3-external.html and read CC-WARE Work

Package 3 Outputs:

 Report on Vulnerability of Water Resources in SEE; and

 Vulnerability Maps

2.4 Determine the roadmap

This is how you are going to get where you want to go. The conceptions, strategies, action

plans, and budgets are important milestones in the process that effectively communicates

how you will allocate time, human resources and money to address the priority issues and

achieve the defined objectives.

A good national / regional action plan should

 be consistent with the selected thematic objectives (the actions are reflecting the

identified national or regional challenges/needs and are in line with the Europe 2020

objectives and targets);

 be internally and externally coherent (the causal links between the different actions

will lead to the expected outputs, and these outputs are effectively helpful to reach

the planned results);

 meet horizontal principles (steps are made to meet equality between men and

women as well as prevention of discrimination and to consider cross-cutting

principles of sustainable development).

Although CC-WARE project will not have the chance to check the performance, as the

project objective is only to establish a framework for action plans but not a “real” strategy, it

is assumed that you will develop a national/regional action plan to mitigate vulnerability

of water resources under climate change by using this Guidance. It should be emphasised

that such kind of actions will be supported by the Danube Region Strategy which takes into

consideration the EU Water Framework Directive, the EC White Paper on Adaptation to

Climate Change, the EC Communication on Water Scarcity and Droughts, EC Blueprint to

safeguard Europe´s waters and the Europe 2020 strategy as well.

To do so, please, consult the outputs of Work Package 4 of the CC-WARE project on

http://www.ccware.eu/downloads/external-downloads/cat_view/1-external-

downloads/22-cc-ware-outputs/26-outputs-wp4-external.html in particularly the

 Output 5. Recommendations for Adaptive Management Concepts in Water

Protected Areas;

45/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

 Output 6. Options for Improving Water Use Efficiency;

 Output 7. Evaluation Report on Best Practice Catalogue for Drinking Water

Management.

You can find some good practice examples in the Appendix of this Guidance, too.

To create a national/regional action plan you should identify the specific tasks, resources,

timetables and responsibilities required to achieve your objectives. The following questions

can help you to formulate the plan:

 What action or change will occur?

 Who will carry it out?

 By when will it take place, and for how long?

 What resources are needed to carry out the step? How much money needed and

who will finance the program?

You can find several templates for action planning like the following picture shows one but

you should usually modify them to tailor made it for your unique purposes [16][17].

2.5 Review your plan

To ensure that the plan works as it was designed, you should monitor performance

indicators and regularly hold scheduled formal reviews of the process and refine when

necessary. In case of a strategy to adapt to climate change this step should be emphasized,

because of uncertainties of future climate scenarios and missing knowledge about several

natural processes.

To demonstrate the importance of reviewing and monitoring we would like to present only

one but complex example.

46/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

Please, Watch the George Monbiot video

on How Wolves Change Rivers by

Sustainable Man:

http://vimeo.com/86466357

When wolves were reintroduced to

Yellowstone National Park in the United

States after being absent nearly 70

years, the most remarkable "trophic

cascade" occurred.

What is a trophic cascade and how

exactly do wolves change rivers? George

Monbiot explains in this movie remix.

Think about!

 Phrase of John Muir: “When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to

everything else in the Universe.”

 Why is this case important from CC-WARE point of view?

 What is the link between this video and reviewing of action plan?

The progress in implementation will be a focus of attention by supporters and sponsors but

those of responsible should have interest as well. To ensure monitoring and evaluation of

progress a performance framework is used to lay down by financing authorities.

The reviewer shall examine the achievement of the milestones of the programmes at the

level of priorities, on the basis of the information (financial data and data relating to

indicators and milestones) and the assessments presented in the progress reports submitted

by executer. The authorities will check progress towards achievement of the European

Union strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, in particular in respect of the

milestones set out for each programme in the performance framework and the support used

for climate change objectives as well.

47/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

3 References

[1] John Levick (Wirral Metropolitan College): Guidance to making Action Plans

http://www.wmc.ac.uk/public/freedom/human_resources/Guidance%20to%20maki

ng%20Action%20Plans.doc

[2] Dean G. Kilpatrick Definitions of Public Policy and the Law (National Violence Against

Women Prevention Research Center Medical University of South Carolina)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_policy and https://mainweb-

v.musc.edu/vawprevention/policy/definition.shtml

[3] CC-WaterS (2010) Climate change and impacts on water supply. Final report.

December 2010. 357 pp. http://www.ccwaters.eu/

[4] Local Government Association of South Australia (2012) Guidelines for Developing a

Climate Change Adaptation Plan and Undertaking an Integrated Climate Change

Vulnerability Assessment

http://www.lga.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/Guidelines_for_Developing_a_Cli

mate_Change_Adaptation_Plan.pdf

[5] The FOR-LEARN Online Foresight Guide

http://forlearn.jrc.ec.europa.eu/guide/4_methodology/

[6] ITS Education Asia: The Action Plan http://www.itseducation.asia/action.htm

[7] European Union Documents - European Commission - Green Papers

http://ec.europa.eu/green-papers/index_hu.htm

[8] European Union Documents - European Commission - White Papers

http://ec.europa.eu/white-papers/index_hu.htm

[9] Dr. Fekete Jenő György (2011): Környezetstratégia (in Hungarian)

http://www.tankonyvtar.hu/hu/tartalom/tamop425/0021_Kornyezetstragtegia/inde

x.html

[10] Közigazgatási és Igazságügyi Minisztérium (2013): Stratégiai irányítás megújítása a

központi közigazgatásban (ÁROP-1.1.8-2011-2011-0001 project, in Hungarian)

[11] WelcomEurope (Eurofunding 2014): 10 Keys to Fully Understand European Subsidies

for 2014 http://www.welcomeurope.com/

[12] WelcomEurope (Eurofunding 2014): The 2014 Guidelines for European Project

Leaders, 16th edition http://www.welcomeurope.com/

[13] Francesca Romana Zotta (European Projects Association asbl 2014): EU Funding

Opportunities 2014-2020 Practical Guide - ISBN 978-88-6306-039-3

http://www.eban.org/wp-

content/uploads/2014/04/EU_Funding_Opportunities_2014-

2020_Practical_Guide.pdf

48/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

[14] Stefan Scheuer et all (European Environmental Bureau, September 2005, Brussels,

Belgium) EU Environmental Policy Handbook - A Critical Analysis of EU Environmental

Legislation - ISBN 90 5727 055 2

http://www.eeb.org/publication/policy_handbook.html

[15] Kammi Schmeer (1999) Guidelines for Conducting a Stakeholder Analysis, November

1999. Bethesda, MD: Partnerships for Health Reform, Abt Associates Inc.

http://www.who.int/management/partnerships/overall/GuidelinesConductingStakeh

olderAnalysis.pdf

[16] Mike Desjardins (2011): "How to execute corporate action plans effectively", Business

in Vancouver. http://www.biv.com/article/2011/12/how-to-execute-corporate-

action-plans-effectively/

[17] Martha L. A. Stassen, Kathryn Doherty and Mya Poe (2001): PROGRAM-Based Review

and Assessment: Tools and Techniques for Program Improvement, Office of

Academic Planning and Assessment (OAPA), University of Massachusetts (USA)

[18] Xingqiang Song, Björn Frostell (2012): The DPSIR Framework and a Pressure-Oriented

Water Quality Monitoring Approach to Ecological River Restoration, Water 2012, 4,

700-712; doi:10.3390/w4030700, ISSN 2073-4441 www.mdpi.com/journal/water

[19] MDF Tool (2005): Problem Tree Analysis

http://www.toolkitsportdevelopment.org/html/resources/91/910EE48E-350A-47FB-

953B-374221B375CE/03%20Problem%20tree%20analysis.pdf

[20] Katherine Arline: What is a Vision Statement? Business News Daily Contributor

December 11, 2014 10:48am ET http://www.businessnewsdaily.com/3882-vision-

statement.html

[21] European Communities CIS Working Group 2.9 (2003): Common Implementation

Strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) Guidance Document No 11

- Planning Processes, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European

Communities, ISBN 92-894-5614-0 https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/4de11d70-5ce1-

48f7-994d-65017a862218/Guidance%20No%2011%20-

%20Planning%20Process%20(WG%202.9).pdf

[22] COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION EUROPE 2020 - A strategy for smart,

sustainable and inclusive growth http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52010DC2020&qid=1423988383935

[23] WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE –WFD (Directive 2000/60/EC of the European

Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for

Community action in the field of water policy) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32000L0060

49/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

[24] REGULATION (EU) No 1303/2013 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE

COUNCIL of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European

Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the

European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and

Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional

Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European

Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013R1303&qid=1423985944200

[25] European Commission (2014): The European code of conduct on partnership in the

framework of the European Structural and Investment Funds, Luxembourg:

Publications Office of the European Union - ISBN 978-92-79-35209-6

[26] BGR & UNESCO (eds.) (2014): International Hydrogeological Map of Europe 1 :

1,500,000. Digital map data v1.0. Hannover/Paris.

[27] ICPDR (2009) Danube River Basin Management Plan

http://www.icpdr.org/main/activities-projects/danube-river-basin-management-

plan-2009

[28] COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) No 240/2014 of 7 January 2014 on the

European code of conduct on partnership in the framework of the European

Structural and Investment Funds http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014R0240&qid=1424774994667

[29] GREEN PAPER: Adapting to climate change in Europe – options for EU action (SEC

(2007) 849) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52007DC0354

[30] WHITE PAPER - Adapting to climate change (COM(2009) 147 final): Towards a

European framework for action (SEC (2009) 386, 387,388) http://eur-

lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0147:FIN:EN:PDF

[31] BLUEPRINT to Safeguard European Water

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/blueprint/index_en.htm

[32] Action Plan of the ‘EU Strategy for the Danube Region’ SEC(2010) 1489 final

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/official/communic/danube/act

ion_plan_danube.pdf

[33] CODE(S) OF GOOD AGRICULTURAL PRACTICE http://www.fao.org/prods/gap/

[34] THE COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY (CAP) http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-

history/index_en.htm

[35] EU FOREST STRATEGY (2013)

http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/forest/strategy/index_en.htm

50/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

[36] ALPINE CONVENTION (1995) http://www.alpconv.org/en/convention/default.html

[37] CARPATHIAN CONVENTION (The Framework Convention on the Protection and

Sustainable Development of the Carpathians) http://www.carpathianconvention.org/

51/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

4 Appendix: Action Examples

4.1 Good Practice in Austria

Forest Management in Drinking Water Protected Areas

Roland Koeck

University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna (BOKU), Department of Forest- and

Soil Sciences

Reasons for Action

The drinking water protected area (DWPA) of the city of Waidhofen/Ybbs covers about 1000

ha and shows forest cover on more than 80 % of its surface. This situation calls for adaptive

forest management according to the guidelines defined in work package 4 for forested

DWPA (Koeck and Hochbichler 2014). Hence there was established a strategy to address this

issue in the course of “Ecosystem Service Talks” (EST) with the land owners within the DWPA

as part of the Regional Action Plan (RAP).

Objectives of Action

The defined objective of the EST was the first information of the forest owners within the

DWPA about the strategy of the Water Works of the city of Waidhofen/Ybbs to provide

payments for the provision of the Ecosystem Service ‘Protection of the Drinking Water

Resources’ through an adequate and target-oriented silvicultural management practice. The

information campaign should convince the forest owners about the synergies for them, if

they start being a partner of the water works in terms of applied drinking water protection

strategies. Payments for the target-oriented silvicultural management practices should

convince them about the strong public interest in a sustainably secured provision of drinking

water supply.

All the actions follow the overall purpose of the Regional Action Plan (RAP) for mitigating the

vulnerability of the drinking water resources.

Description of the Action

The first step was the declaration of intent of the Water Works of Waidhofen/Ybbs (WWW)

to be partner of the CC-WARE project and to establish a RAP for its DWPA. The water

supplier of this city decided to set up a proactive strategy to secure the drinking water

resources in a sustainable way. In order to accomplish this purpose the adaptation of the

forest management practices within the DWPA was regarded as crucial aspect of the

strategy. Adverse practices like the application of the clear-cut technique, excessive forest

road constructions or breeding of high densities of wild ungulates should be avoided and on

the other hand forest management strategies with the overall purpose of drinking water

protection should be advanced. The situation within the DWPA is challenging as almost all

land owners are private.

As basis for the RAP and the strategy elaboration, the Recommendations for Adaptive

Management Concepts –Best Practices for Forest Ecosystems in Mountains and Flatlands

52/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

(Koeck and Hochbichler 2014), the Forest Hydrotope Map of the DWPA (a CC-WaterS project

output) and forestry expertise were integrated as useful tools. The assessment of the

amount of transfer payments to the forest owners was carried out through the application

of the Hydrotope Map data according to the growth rates of the different forest sites, of the

prices at the timber market, of the costs for silvicultural management alternatives and of the

specific demands of water protection in forest ecosystem management.

The transfer rate was calculated with the purpose to provide a hectar-value which is due

every year and which also reflects the growth conditions of the whole DWPA hence it was

decided to provide the same rate for each forest owner.

The RAP for Waidhofen/Ybbs was based upon the major principles of the above mentioned

documents and intends to secure the drinking water resources by the proactive application

of the defined adaptive management concepts. The most crucial aspects of the RAP are:

1. Establishment of land use practices with the overall aim of integral drinking source

water protection - with a special focus on forestry practices

2. Avoidance of the application of the clear-cut technique and establishment of a

continuous cover forest system

3. Creation of tree species diversity within the DWPA according to the forest hydrotope

type

4. Limitation of wild ungulate densities to a forest ecologically sustainable level

5. Application of small-scale silvicultural techniques and practices according to the

timber-extraction limitation

6. Limitation of forest road constructions, application of best practices in case of

constructions

7. Prohibition of chemicals application (pesticides, fertilizers, etc.) within the DWPA

The RAP formed the basis for the EST with the stakeholders.

Schedule: Preparation, Implementation, Lag Time

The Ecosystem-Service Talks (EST) were prepared by project partner 2 (WWW), as the best

contacts to the land owners are given in his case. The preparation encompassed the

strategic concept of the EST based on the RAP and the establishment of the contact to the

land owners with the schedule set-up for the exact time and location of the talks.

All these steps were implemented in collaboration with all actors (WWW, forestry experts,

and stakeholders) and there was no time lag identified, as all steps were scheduled

accurately.

Budget

EST were carried out as part of WP 5, all the expanses were covered by the project budget.

53/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

Institutions Need for Implementation

It was of crucial relevance that the main actors for the strategic process of EST were

involved.

Legislation to be changed or improved and improved knowledge

Both legislation changes and improvements were identified. Also the knowledge about the

current situation within the DWPA was improved (Further details in the next chapter).

Result of the Action (impact on water quality and quantity, climate change vulnerability)

The EST resulted in increased awareness about the situation between the overall purpose of

drinking water protection and the specific points of view of the land owners (forest owners).

 Small and medium forest owners, most of them farmers, have shown a clear

understanding of the demanded forest management adaptations for drinking water

protection purposes. They tried to figure out that their actually applied forestry

practices do not differ substantially from the demanded ones. They see the transfer

payments as valuable strategy of cooperation between them and the WWW. Despite

the fact of a common and fundamental understanding of the specific requirements

for drinking water protection in the specific DWPA, they did not give a general

statement of agreement, but they have sent signals of willingness to cooperate.

 A forestry expert (forester) agreed with the concepts presented in the EST and

communicated that he regards the transfer payments as adequate according their

amount and purpose.

 A single forest owner (owning a relative great part of the DWPA) did not show signals

of willingness to cooperate. He was at the specific time of the EST carrying out a

large-scale clear-cut within the DWPA and is also well-known as hunter who tries to

keep a high density of wild ungulates.

If the forest owners within the DWPA cooperate as partners with the WWW, the impact on

water quality and quantity and climate change vulnerability can be rated as positive, as the

‘Adaptive Management Strategies’ as part of the RAP aim at the improvement of the water

protection functionality of the forest ecosystems, also under climate change.

Indicators of the action: status at start, status at the end

The main indicator of the action is the fact of information transfer to the land owners within

the DWPA. By implementing EST all stakeholders were informed about the strategic plans for

the establishment of a ‘Drinking Water Protection Concept’. The status at the start of EST

was neutral, at the end of the EST the forest owners were officially informed about the plans

of WWW with regard to strategic drinking water protection concepts (RAP) within the

DWPA.

Hence the ‘Official Information-Flow’ can be described as indicator for this action.

Stakeholders (SH) and acceptance, satisfaction of action by SH, highlight conflicts

Almost all stakeholders accepted (like mentioned above) the overall purpose of the drinking

water protection strategies communicated in the course of the EST. Only one forest owner

54/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

wants to continue his actually forestry practice, which is definitely adverse to the most

crucial aspects of drinking water protection within forest ecosystems and hence also adverse

to the RAP.

The majority of the SH was satisfied with the presented concept of a partnership between

WWW and SH with the purpose of a sustainable drinking water protection strategy. The

single SH showed partial interests according to his forest land which are in contradiction to

the public interest of drinking water protection.

The conflicts which are highlighted by the case of this single forest owner are following:

 There exists the lack of a clearly defined specific legal framework for forested DWPA

in Austria. If it would exist, forest owners would have to fulfil the law. The Austrian

Federal Forest Law should define the most crucial aspects of forest management with

the overall purpose of drinking water protection within DWPA as ley. Also the legal

frameworks for DWPA (province- or regional level) should take the principles for

adaptive management (like e.g. in forest ecosystems) into account.

 The regional forest authority which authorized the large-scale clear cut was informed

about the specific situation within the DWPA and also about the demands of forestry

with the overall purpose of drinking water protection. Despite this fact a clear legal

basis for a consistent application of forestry practices within DWPA is missing. A clear

legal base would support the forest authorities to act in alignment with public

interests and would prevent the dominance of adverse partial interests of forest

owners. This situation describes the most critical aspects of the current situation

within DWPA. A clear legal frame for DWPA would be a sound basis for the

application of drinking source water protection concepts. Until such a consistent

solution will take place, specific awareness-raising especially among forest

authorities in Austria could be able to prevent such an adverse case in future.

Conclusions

It can be concluded that the EST provided the necessary information flow to the

stakeholders. The establishment of forestry practices with the overall purpose of drinking

water protection will demand further awareness-raising, information campaigns and also an

improvement of the legal framework. Only if the legal situation is clearly defined (actual

deficits in the Austrian Federal Forest Law, and in the Legal Framework for the specific

DWPA were identified), forest owners can be forced to act according to the public interest of

drinking water protection. In the current situation the transfer payments (transfer payments

of WWW; advancement system under the framework of LE 2014 – 2020, Austrian Federal

Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management) for the provision of

Ecosystem Services are a valuable alternative and could provide the desired outcomes, if

land owners agree to be partners of water suppliers.

References:

Koeck, R, Hochbichler, E. (2014): WP 4 Appendix: Recommendations for Adaptive

Management Concepts: Best Practices for Forest Ecosystems in Mountains and Flatlands.

www.ccware.eu – Output Documentation - WP4.

55/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

4.2 Good Practice in Slovenia

Wetland management of Ljubljana moor, Slovenia

Barbara Čenčur Curk1, Petra Žvab Rožič1 & Branka Bračič Železnik2

1University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Natural Sciences and Engineering, Department of Geology

2Public Water Utility Ljubljana JP Vodovod-Kanalizacija d.o.o.

Area description and problems

Ljubljana moor is one of the largest wetlands in Slovenia, where the water regime is

artificially regulated by a system of channels together with barrage on the main stream of

Ljubljanica river, which regulates the water level in the entire area of the Lubljana moor. By

this regulation of the water at the Ljubljana moor large areas of agricultural land as well as

urban areas were provided.

 Ljubljana moor represents the largest natural reservoir for flood waters in Slovenia.

Floods on the area of the Ljubljana moor are even more frequent. Therefore, the

adequate regulation of water (maintaining of the streams and channels) as well as

ensuring of flooding areas is important. Due to the excessive extension of urbanization

and inadequate water management the ways of flooding change and run-off time of

flooding water increase. This leads to greater property damage and also environmental

pollution. The extensive cultivation and colonization of Ljubljana moor in the past also

caused excessive peat exploitation (important water storage), which accelerated, among

the others, the subsidence of the area and consequently the area is more exposed to

floods.

 Water regime of the Ljubljana moor depends on the amount and distribution of

precipitation, which is the subject to continuous changes due to climate change in recent

decades. Climate change impact on the decreasing of the groundwater quantity as the

result of more frequent droughts, and increased runoff during heavy rains. Conversely,

the moor due to its ability to retain water may mitigate climate change impacts.

Therefore, ensuring the adequate water regime on the Ljubljana moor is crucial. An

important factor affecting the amount of water in the Ljubljana moor is additionally the

proper maintenance of streams and channels and also adequate water use planning. Due

to a number of disagreements lowering of groundwater and runoff increase is occurring.

 Ljubljana moor is an important source of drinking water for Ljubljana and its

surroundings. The quality of that underground source of drinking water is threatened by a

number of activities such as agriculture, municipal sewages, illegal waste disposals etc.

These are also reflected in the surface waters of the moor. Climate change and changes in

land use (uncontrolled spreading of urbanization) have negative impact on aquifer water

quality.

56/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

 Ljubljana moor is the natural habitat for many animal and plant species, some of which

are highly connected to the water environment. Thus, the provision of adequate water

regime on the Ljubljana moor is also essential for the biodiversity preservation. The

Ljubljana moor is therefore an area where nature and human activities are trying to find

the best relation for living together.

Management solutions

1. In order to preserve the natural state and the values of the Ljubljana moor a big part of

the moor area was protected as Nature/Landscape Park of Ljubljana moor (Figure 1).

The aims of the protection and management of the area are prescribed by the Decree on

the Ljubljansko barje Landscape Park (Official Gazette of Slovenia, no. 112/08, 46/14 -

ZON-C). The decree defines the areas of the landscape park, protected areas and narrow

protected areas, management rules, protective measures, management and control,

financing and other actions to achieve the objectives of the landscape park.

2. In order to protect the quality of the Ljubljana moor aquifer the Decree on the water

protection area for the aquifers of Ljubljansko barje and outskirts of Ljubljana (Official

Gazette of Slovenia, no. 115/07, 9/08, 65/12 in 93/13) was adopted. The decree

establishes the water protection area for the body of aquifers of the Ljubljana moor and

its surroundings, which is used for drinking water supply of the population from the

municipalities on and in the vicinity of the Ljubljana moor. The decree also provides the

water protection regime and deadlines within which the owners of the land and buildings

should adapt the operations to the provisions of the regulation. Some areas of the moor

were classified as drinking water protection areas (DWPA) (Figure 2). Within the decree

are defined also (1) the measures, prohibitions and restrictions of water use, (2) the

measures, prohibitions and restrictions of building, (3) the prohibitions relating to land

management and forest, and (4) other conditions and restrictions. For preserving water

resources quality farmers are not allowed to use fertilizers and pesticides in the

narrowest DWPA (I) and they get compensations for income reduction because of lower

farming production.

3. The area of Ljubljana moor has been proclaimed as Natura 2000 site (Figure 1). The

European Union project "Natura 2000" is aimed to preserve the sites of international

importance flora and fauna and their habitats. The Ljubljana moor is due to its natural

biodiversity almost completely proclaimed as Natura 2000 site, which protects many

types of flora and fauna and their habitats. The protection of these habitats comprises

also the environment protection and subsequently the protection of natural state of

water quantity and quality in the Ljubljana moor.

4. In order to ensure the water regime on the Ljubljana moor maintenance (cleaning) of

major channels as well as the channels of lower order is crucial, which significantly

contribute to the regulation of water, especially during extreme events. Especially during

droughts it is also very important to ensure sufficient water level on the moor, which is

57/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

regulated with the lock gates on the Ljubljanica River (maintenance of water level at on

286 m asl). This helps to reduce larger land drainage during drought conditions.

Figure 1: Nature protection areas and Nature 2000 of the Ljubljana moor

Figure 2: Well fields and drinking water protection areas at the Ljubljana moor

58/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

4.3 Good Practice in Hungary

Drinking Water Source Protection Programme

Agnes Tahy, Robert Hegyi

General Directorate of Water Management (OVF), Water Protection and River Basin

Management Department

Reasons for Action

There is the continuous growth in the demand of Hungarians for sufficient quantities of good

quality water for all purposes particularly for human consumption. Nationwide investigation

on drinking water in the 1980ies discovered that quality standards were not met sufficiently

by all waterworks in Hungary. Most of the problem occurred at vulnerable resources

because of pollutions from several human activities. The drinking water protection areas

(DWPAs) were delineated according to an outdated regulation and methodology. In some

cases, the protection measures cannot be implemented because they are technically or

economically unfeasible. To override this problem a more comprehensive method is needed.

Objectives of Action

The main objective of the Drinking Water Safety Programme is to ensure sufficient quantities

of good quality water for human consumption meanwhile mitigate the vulnerability of

drinking water resources.

The following sub-objectives were defined:

 development of a new methodology and regulation for DWPA delineation and

operation;

 actual delineation of DWPAs for all drinking water sources;

 measures to protect resources;

 development of a new methodology and regulation for Water Safety Plans

Description of the Action

In Hungary, drinking water supply is a task of municipalities; therefore they are responsible

for the establishment of source protection zones and implementation of protection

measures. In practice the drinking water supplier institution or company should carry out all

administrative and operational activities related to drinking water protection. To assist

municipalities a National Drinking Water Source Protection Programme was launched by the

government. In the course of this program's diagnostic investigations, water catchment

areas are identified (Size of the area from which any possible pollution can reach the wells in

a specific period of time.). In the protected zones of wellfields, specified in the above

manner, potential pollution sources are assessed, and appropriate observation and

monitoring zones are developed. The cost of developing and maintaining protected zones is

paid for by the government in the case of prospective source and, in other cases, by the

license holder that uses the water (supplier institution). Decisions concerning the measures

59/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

to be taken in order to secure an area (in addition to developing a monitoring system) are

considered in a cost/benefit analysis of each of the alternatives. This can also include the

elimination of the existing pollution on the surface or in groundwater as well as

identification of the cause of pollution. If the pollution was caused by the state or if the

polluters are unable to clean up the site, the government will act according to the National

Environmental Remediation Program (OKKP) as well.

The scope of source protection regulation in Hungary covers sources of water serving the

supply of drinking water, mineral and thermal water, regardless whether it is actually used,

committed or designated for future use. Further it covers the facilities serving the treatment,

storage and distribution of water to at least 50 persons on a daily average or more than 10

m3.

Protection is understood the determination, designation, establishment and maintenance of

a protective block, area or zone. Protection is realised by the implementation of a part, or all

of the safety measures. The boundaries of the protective zones shall be determined by

observing the particular hydrological and hydrogeological conditions considering the

permitted rate of abstraction or in the case of future sources of supply the full capacity of

the aquifer(s). The protective measures set forth in the regulation serve the following

purposes:

a) The inner protective block, zone: protection of the abstraction works and the water

supplies from direct pollution and damage,

b) The outer protective block, zone: protection against refractory, further bacterial and

other decomposable pollutants,

c) The hydrology or hydrogeological block, zone: Protection against refractory

pollutants by measures prescribed for the entire, or part of the catchment (recharge)

area of the abstraction. The hydrogeological protective block or area is subdivided to

"A", "B" and "C" protective zones.

The most stringent restrictions refer to the inner zone, for example: The inner zone shall be

fenced or guarded in another effective manner. The owner of the inner zone shall be the

same as that of the water facilities. Regular access shall be permitted to the personnel of the

operator of the water facility, who performs work there and who possess a "health book"

demonstrating the regular medical checks provided for in another act of legislation. Entry

shall be authorised further to supervisors of the personnel and representatives of the

supervisory authority, further to persons authorised specifically (e.g. for the period of

performing work) by the owner of the protective area. The person authorising entry shall be

responsible for preventing those staying temporarily in the protective area from causing

pollution.

In the protection zones depending on in which zone, several activities are prohibited, or

prohibited for new facilities and activities, or may be allowed pending on the outcome of an

environmental audit or environmental impact assessment (EIA). Other activities are allowed

if they operates without pollution or new facilities and activities can let pending on the

outcome of an EIA, or environmental audit, or an equivalent investigation. Some activities

are not restricted at all in the hydrological or hydrogeological zones.

The Water Safety Plan was introduced first at waterworks where all measures were taken on

DWPA but still the quality of water not sufficiently met the standards. Some volunteer

60/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

waterworks joined to develop the guidance tailor-made for national implementation based

on the WHO Guidance. The experts, operators and authorities have found the Water Safety

Plans (WSP) as the most appropriate method to ensure the security of the drinking water

supply system. The hazard analysis and risk assessment based water safety plan system is

able to achieve these purposes effectively. Recently, the operator shall prepare a drinking

water safety management system for water supply systems with an average capacity over

than 10 m3/day or serving 50 persons until 1st of July in 2016. The Water Safety Plan (WSP)

should be approved by the Chief Medical Office of the National Public Health and has to be

revised every five years but updated yearly.

Schedule: Preparation, Implementation, Lag Time

Nationwide investigation was carried out on drinking water quality in the 1980ies.

The preparation of the source protection programme lasted two years (between 1993 and

1995). Guidance on planning of investment programs for different waterworks was

developed to support financial planning. The National Drinking Water Source Protection

Programme was launched in 1995 by the government with the aim to secure both operating

and prospective sources that are located in vulnerable environments.

The National Environmental Remediation Program (OKKP) was launched in1996.

Guidance on delineation methods was composed in 1997 and reviewed in 1999.

The new drinking water source protection legislation was amended in 1997 by the

Governmental Decree 123/1997 (VII. 18.) on the protection of the actual and potential

sources, and the engineering structures of drinking water supply.

Implementation of the National Drinking Water Source Protection Programme was financed

by the government until 2004

and it has been supported by

the European Cohesion since

2007. The following Figure 13

shows how many investigations

of drinking water source were

started in a given year

supported by state or EU

budget (DWPAs financed by

operators not included). The

investigation on one source

lasts 2 to 4 years and an

additional year needed for

official act by the water

authority to designate DWPA.

The schedule of implementation depends on the capacity of the waterworks and the

vulnerability of the resources. The most vulnerable and large DWPAs should be designated

firstly. There are about 1700 waterworks and half of them vulnerable like bank filtered water

or karstic spring, etc.

Figure 13: Number of starting DWPA investigation

61/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

The first appearance of WSP in the Hungarian legislation occurred in 2009. The Hungarian

guidance was elaborated based on WHO Water Safety Plan Manual (Geneva, 2004) in 2008,

then reviewed version in 2013. This regulation has been implemented according to a

schedule: drinking water supply system over 100 000 persons, until 1st of July in 2012,

systems between 50 000-100 000 persons until 1st of July in 2013, systems between 5000–

49 999 persons until 1st of July in 2014, and the last systems between 50–4999 until 1st of

July in 2016.

Budget

The National Drinking Water Source Protection Programme has been financed from state

budget since 1993 but waterworks and municipalities have paid off designation of many

DWPAs as well. No

information is available on

the spending of waterworks

and municipalities but they

designated as much DWPAs

as the governmental

Programme done. Under EU

Funding Programme 2007-

2013 the expenses were

covered by budget of projects

partly to designate DWPAs

but mostly to implement

actions/measures to improve

water supply safety.

The Figure 14 shows how

much money was allocated

for DWPA delineation and for

implementation of actions. It

can be assumed that the implementation of measures is much more expensive than the

designation of protection areas.

Institutions Need for Implementation

The responsible institutions are the main actors for implementation. The water and health

authority, water supply companies, water directorates and the ministries carried out the

programme. The municipalities, universities, non-governmental organizations were involved

as well, in particularly associations of water suppliers, hydrogeologists and other experts.

Legislation to be changed or improved and improved knowledge

Both legislation changes and improvements were identified. Also the knowledge about the

current situation within the DWPAs has increased. In addition, methodological knowledge in

water exploration and risk assessment has developed.

In the legislation on DWPA the risk management concept is not included; thus it is not

harmonized with WSP legislation. The risk of climate change impact and mitigation should be

incorporated into both regulations and methodologies

Figure 14: Allocated budget by source of fund

62/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

Result of the Action (impact on water quality and quantity, climate change vulnerability)

Water quality has improved due to actions in DWPAs. Fewer problems related to pollution

by human activities can be detected at tap water. The programme has resulted in increased

awareness about drinking water protection.

Indicators of the action: status at start, status at the end

The main indicators of the action are the number of DWPAs designated and WSPs adopted.

A bit more complicated is to measure the improvement of water quality or safety. To this

end, growing number of monitoring points was installed. The information on DWPA has

improved as well.

Stakeholders (SH) and acceptance, satisfaction of action by SH, highlight conflicts

Practically all stakeholders accepted the overall purpose of drinking water protection and

safety strategies at the level of communication. The majority of problems turns up out of the

blue when an action touches the land owners or restrictions should be tolerated. The

individual attitude of stakeholders showed more resistance than cooperation which is in

contradiction to the public interest of drinking water protection.

References:

Állami Népegészségügyi és Tisztiorvosi Szolgálat (2013): Útmutató ivóvíz-biztonsági

tervrendszerek kiépítéséhez, működtetéséhez (Guidance on Drinking Water Safety Plan to

Develop and Operate, in Hungarian)

https://www.antsz.hu/data/cms14700/vbtutmutato2013.pdf

Magyar Víziközmű Szövetség (2008): Vízbiztonsági Terv készítése és hazai példák bemutatása

- A vízminőség kezelése a vízbázisoktól a fogyasztókig (WHO kézikönyv és hazai üzemeltetők

tapasztalatai alapján) (Development of Water Safety Plan and the National Practice -

Managing drinking-water quality from catchment to consumer according to WHO Guidance

and experience of operators, in Hungarian)

World Health Organization (2005) Water Safety Plan Managing drinking-water quality from

catchment to consumer

63/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

4.4 Good Practice in Romania

Torrential watershed management technics, erosion management

in the Putna River / Vrancea County, Romania

Adam Crăciunescu, Ion Codruţ Bîlea, Petrişor Vică

National Forest Administration, ROMSILVA

Putna River has a high torrentiality indicated by:

 275 torrential basins, 764 km degraded bed of the torrent representing about 60% of

hydrographic network, located in the mountains and high hills.

 over 1/3 of the agricultural lands in the hilly region affected by erosion, gullying or

sliding

 the range between the maximum (1323 m3/sec) and mean discharge (15,4 m3/sec);

 annual average sediment transported (16,4 t/ha/year).

Specific conditions of degraded lands required special works to strengthen the ravines,

torrential river beds and planning / consolidation of the slopes for planting and use of

specific procedures for afforestation.

Erosion management

Since the catchment is the origin of degradation and rain event, it is evident that the

correction and improvement works will be started there and then continued down the

slopesinto the alluvial fan. Basin work conjugation must be performed both spatially

(version-network) and well as from typological point of view (by providing all types of works)

"The main works - biological and hydro - used in spatial watershed management restoration

and conservation of soil and spills on regularization belongs to biological works

(afforestation) that is showing the property to selfregeneration and functions is giving

productions. Biological works are equally useful in strengthening the banks and, where

appropriate, the river beds

Works afforestation primordiality (eroded ravines, sliding) facing hydraulic works is a

fundamental principle in restoring and maintaining a balanced water regime.

The main works on slopes affected by erosion consist of:

 consolidation works of eroded land or gullies (terraces 70-80 cm wide, supported by

walls, hurdles or by root-suckers and sallow thorn branches.

 planting operations with Scots and black pine seedling (grown into polyetilen bags)

pure or mixed with broadleaves, or sallow thorn plantations on excessively degraded

lands and gully (vegetal corridors, planting in notches).

 consolidation the small gullies and holes with the stonework rapids with no mortar

were very successful.

64/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

Among the operation for land preparation the most successful ones were the terraces

supported by sallow thorn branches and twigs, which lead to an economic-technical

efficiency.

Torrential watershed management technics

Hydrotechnical works are decisive on their turn, for stabilising (fixation) of core levels for silt

retention, creating reservoirs for flood mitigation, for providing the necessary balance for

installing vegetation.

Hydraulic works located on the most critical parts of the hydrographic network, on the

basins that whites "alluvial sources" marked by excessive erosion, subsidence, landslides and

consist of cross work (rails, sills and dams) and longitudinal (groins, defences the sides,

whites regularization channels).

Table 2: Classification of transversal hydrotechnical works

Useful height

(measured on the

upstream - Ye)

The construction material

the running

After discharge

silt mode

through the

body work

After sizing

assumptions and

methods

- barages, Ye>1,5 m;

- aprons, 0 m

<Ye<1,5 m;

- traverse, Ye0 m.

- Wood;

- Dry stone masonry

(wrapped in wire mesh or

not);

- Stone masonry mortar

cement;

- Plain concrete;

- Reinforced concrete;

- Earth;

- Mixed;

- monolithic;

-filter.

- free admission of

streaching efforts on

the parameter

upstream

();

-on admission of

streaching efforts on

the parameter

upstream ( ).

Conclusion

Research in the Putna River basin emphasized the fact that the forest vegetation has a

determinating importance in rehabilitating the degraded lands by:

 reducing the volume of the surface flows by 4-10 times;

 reducing the average specific erosion from 57,5 t/ha year on lands with active

erosion below 1 t/ha.year, after 15-20 years of afforestation;

 retaining water and mud soil touching brances and in the litter;

 creating favorable conditions for water storage and infiltration in the forest soil.

65/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

To the concept of "classical" torrents correction, that set aside on secondary level the

preventive interventions, the concept of modern design of laying out the torential

hydrographic basins, brings to the fore mainly this side, heading attention primarily on the

causes of degradation phenomena and torrents and not on the consequences of which these

phenomena are causing.

Photo: N. Bogdan, 1962

Photo: C. Constandache, S. Nistor, N. Bogdan, 2012

A successful joint work on the river (dams, potting, etc.) and on slopes (plantings, patios,

fences, etc..) Andreiaşu Perimeter – Vrancea County

66/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

4.5 Good Practice in Bulgaria

Management of forests and forest watersheds in Bulgaria

Albena Bobeva, Denitsa Pandeva, Lubcho Trichkov, Liuben Zhelev, Darina Ilcheva

Executive Forest Agency

Impact of climate change on forests and forest watersheds

1. Changing habitats, respectively tree species, most suitable for them;

2. Reduction of total and net primary productivity of forests for the country and the

emergence of regional deficits of wood raw material;

3. Destruction of vegetation and degradation of forest areas (including erosion) in all

altitudes.

4. Increase the number and scale of forest fires as result of prolonged dry periods;

5. Increase in forest damage due to storms (winds), torrential rains, wet snow, late

spring frosts, which will support secondary pathogens and insect pests.

6. Reduction of wooded areas in the lower altitudes and increasing forest area over

timber line in the alpine zone;

7. Loss of biodiversity at all levels and increase of the risk of spreading invasive species.

Of great importance for the behavior of forest stands is the degree of change in habitats due

to climate change (Rafailov, Kostov 1994). Habitat with smaller buffer capacity (more drier

and of lower fertility) is more vulnerable. Climate change will affect weaker habitats and

mountain forests as the risk of multiyear water deficit is smaller.

Climate change will alter forests and the activities in them (Kostov, Stiptzov 2004):

1. The species composition of forests as in southeast Europe the share of drought-

resistant species will increase at the expense of mesophytes and hygrophytes;

2. Changes in the age structure of forests with an expressed trend towards their

rejuvenation. Younger forests are more flexible and adaptable;

3. Spatial structure of forest stands will also change as more frequent natural

disturbances will increasingly lead to the formation of heterogeneous in age and

composition of stands (as opposed to today's relatively even aged stands);

4. The productivity of forests in the country will decline. In areas where climate change

will lead to acute or chronic shortage of available moisture (De Marton index <30)

forests will be of low density, with a very low productivity. This will create

prerequisites for a deficit of timber and all types of wood products in the context of

the expected increased use of wood by over 20% towards 2020 (EU Forestry Strategy,

2013). Weak increasing of productivity due to the extension of the growing season in

mountain forests would not compensate the reduced growth in the rest forest areas.

5. Increased risk of extreme events due to climate, changes the planning activities of

logging in forests. The latter must be free in order to increase opportunities for the

67/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

unpredictable increase of the so called "Compulsory use of wood" as a result of fires,

calamities, etc.

6. Loss of forest cover due to difficult regeneration and/or degradation of stands. A

number of stands will not be able to regenerate naturally and there is risk of further

stand degradation;

7. Ecosystem functions of forests are gaining significant public importance. Restrictions

on logging due to an increase in the proportion of protective and protected forests

will increase the cost of the timber, respectively, will reduce the profitability of

existing chains of exploitation, primary and secondary wood processing.

Water protection forests whose primary purpose is to guarantee and protect the supply of

drinking water in Bulgaria occupy an area of 246 650 ha, which is 9.65% of forest areas in the

country. Of these, 69.62% are state owned, 17.99% - municipal, 8.10% - 4.29% private and

others. Water protective forests accumulate annually between 1-1.5 billion m3 of water.

Overall changes in forests and forestry as a result of climate change will affect differently

(but with predominance of negative effects) the implementation of ecosystem function - the

supply of clean drinking water from forests:

A. The change in species composition towards drought resistant and pioneer species

will increase transpiration (Raev, 2003). On the other hand, forest areas will be

retained by soil and wind erosion and will preserve the forest litter, important for the

water quality in forest watersheds (Kitin 1988);

B. Predominance of young forest plantations is associated with increased

evapotranspiration, which reduces runoff in the watersheds;

C. The complex spatial structure and species composition of stands is expected to

improve their mechanical stability and long-term preservation of ecosystem

functions associated with watersheds;

D. Windfalls, fires, calamities and other extreme phenomena lead to serious local

adverse changes in the watersheds, including disruption to the infrastructure

providing drinking water. Preliminary preventive measures for their limitation are

essential for the forests, especially in edge distribution areas for the different forest

types. Additional investment funds in silvicultural activities will be needed to ensure

suitable stand composition with better fire resistance and / or construction of fire

facilities.

E. Impeded or delayed natural regeneration of forest stands in catchment areas has a

negative impact on both the quantity and seasonal distribution of runoff, as well as

on water quality characteristics (increased sediments, temperature, etc.);

F. Deficiency of timber is a potential risk for the increase of illegal practices in forests

and disturbance of their ecosystem functions, so that control over markets of raw

timber and forest guarding should be increased, especially in the areas mostly

affected by the climate change.

G. Changing the sustainability of forest ecosystems increases the risk of non-

sustainable flow from forest watersheds. Therefore it is necessary to introduce

appropriate watersheds classification in order to achieve respective appropriate

management.

68/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

H. Reducing the cost-effectiveness of traditional forestry operations, and the need to

increase capacity for joint management of forest and water resources requires

growing opportunities for EU funding of dactivities toward appropriate and attractive

measures.

Pilot area: STRUMA RIVER WATERSHED

Water quantity vulnerability in Struma river watershed

Struma river watershed was the Bulgarian test area as part of CC-WaterS project. Based on

the common methodology and implementation of a system of indices to assess the

vulnerability (WEI, WSHI, reliability indices, etc.), an analysis of drought risk and climate

change was accomplished. Diverse climatic and hydrological scenarios, different scenarios of

current and future water use, various schemes for utilization of water resources are

analyzed.

Figure 1a. Vulnerability WEI,

scenario 1.1. 1961-1990

Figure 1b. Vulnerability WEI,

scenario 2.1. 2020-2050

When mapping vulnerability, the functioning of the water supply system, the regulation role

of the reservoirs (WSHI and reliability indices) the integrated assessment of water scarcity

and the risk of ecological status were taken into account. The calculations were based

on more than 82 water intakes for drinking purposes in 30 forest watersheds.

According to the methodology, the critical river sections are those with water shortage for

priority users as ecological runoff and drinking water supply, especially if these deficiencies

are aggravated during low water periods. If these areas are at risk for not achieving the

69/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

#

*

#

*

#

*#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

Vulnerability considering

Water management system 2020 - 2050

Legend

#

*SWater

mainriver

reservoirs

vulnerability

RIVER_NAME

DUPNISHKA BISTRITSA

BISTRITSA BLAGOEVGRADSKA

BISTRITSA SANDANSKA

BISTRITSA SOVOLYANSKA

DJERMAN

ELESHNITSA

GLOGOSHKA

GRADEVSKA

GRASHTITSA

LEBNITSA

NOVOSELSKA

OSENOVSKA

PETRICHKA

RILSKA

STRUMA PERNIK

STRUMESHNITSA

TOPOLNITSA

TSAPAREVSKA

vodosbori1

struma-bnd

#

*

#

*

#

*#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

#

*

Vulnerability considering ecological status

and management system

Legend

#

*SWater

mainriver

reservoirs

vulnerability

RIVER_NAME

DUPNISHKA BISTRITSA

BISTRITSA BLAGOEVGRADSKA

BISTRITSA SANDANSKA

BISTRITSA SOVOLYANSKA

DJERMAN

ELESHNITSA

GLOGOSHKA

GRADEVSKA

GRASHTITSA

LEBNITSA

NOVOSELSKA

OSENOVSKA

PETRICHKA

RILSKA

STRUMA PERNIK

STRUMESHNITSA

TOPOLNITSA

TSAPAREVSKA

vodosbori1

struma-bnd

Very low

low

Medium

Hige

Very hige

Very low

low

Medium

Hige

Very hige

objectives of the Water Framework Directive (WFD), this may be reflected in an integrated

vulnerability index.

Figure 2. Vulnerability including water resource management system

and ecological status

The WEI index gives usually higher vulnerability values since it does not take the operation of

dams into consideration. The index is in the range from 0 to 100 % but it often exceeds the

limit of 100 % in case of reservoirs. In similar sections simulation modelling takes into

account reservoir operation and shows no or small deficiencies. The regions of Pernik

(“Studena” res.) and Dzherman (“Dyakovo” res.) are examples in this context (Fig.1 and 2).

The water system in both regions can ensure 100 % of the water use provided the priorities

and requirements envisaged by the permits are adhered.

Just the opposite case is with Kyustendil and Blagoevgrad, where water supply is realized

from surface waters. Here the exploitation index WEI decreased vulnerability values and it

cannot identify water shortage too. There are calculated deficiencies but the exploitation

index is low. The reason for this is that the inter-annual runoff distribution is not taken into

account for the index. These rivers are with high variation of runoff and its major part flows

during the few months of high water. In the remaining of the year water is insufficient, i.e.

water resources are unevenly distributed in time or space.

Climate changes along the Struma river watershed are already in progress. The river runoff

in the watershed has decreased since 1961. A significant negative trend in runoff has been

proved. The runoff for the present period has been already reduced with about 8-10 %

compared to the baseline period (1961-1990).

The water balance for Struma river watershed identifies critical sections with deficiencies of

water supply for drinking purposes, irrigation and ecological runoff. The modelled water

balance in climate change, conditions reveals aggravation of these processes and runoff

70/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

reduction for future climate scenarios (more than 15-20 % for scenario 2021-2050). The

results and the measures on the problem were reported to the West Aegean River Basin

Directorate and Ministry of Environment and Waters.

71/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

Pilot area: RESERVOIR “TICHA” WATERSHED

The reservoir Ticha watershed (Figure 1) is a sub-catchment of the Kamchiya River. The Ticha

reservoir is created on the river Golyama Kamchiya near to the Ticha village and its water

resources are used for multiple purposes such as irrigation, potable and industrial water

supply, hydropower generation and ecological discharge provision downstream of the dam.

The watershed area of the Ticha dam is 977 km2. Its water storage corresponds to the

requirements for a large dam. The waters of the Ticha dam are used for drinking water

supply. The elevation of the watershed varies from 131 m to 1049 m, and its average slope is

16%.

Figure 3. Reservoir Ticha watershed

A special feature of this reservoir is that it provides an important part of water demand

outside of the watershed. These are both big domestic water supply systems /WS/ “Ticha-

Soumen -Veliki Preslav” and WS “Ticha – Turgovoshte” and the largest irrigation system /IR/

“Vinitsa’. So, one part of the return waters remains in another watershed. The other three

smaller irrigation systems are located along the river tributaries Dragaovska and Gyurlya

inside the Ticha watershed.

Water resources vulnerability and water supply risk is determined according the proposed

methodology. WEI and a system of indices estimating water supply system performance

such as Water shortage index WSHI, reliability in time (by years, months), reliability by

volume are implemented. This makes possible, at local level, to obtain vulnerability and the

risk of water supply for each water user.

The methodology includes several stages as follows:

 Estimation of meteorological factors, scenario modeling and water resources

(Figures.4 – 6).

72/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

Figure 4. Spatial distribution of average annual sum of precipitation and temperature

for the period 1961-1990

Figure 5. Spatial distribution of real evapotranspiration and runoff

for the period 1961-1990

Figure 6. Trends of precipitation and temperature during the period 2021-2050

 Modelling of the reservoir Ticha watershed is developed containing the river

network, all other water sources, and irrigation systems, places of water intake, all

water users and the way of water utilization.

 Recent and forecasted water demand is estimated, and the ecological minimum for

water ecosystems downstream the dam is determined.

 The parameters of the water resources system are given. A watershed network

model, consisting of nodes and arcs, is developed and vulnerability assessment is

performed. Through simulation program the water resources are allocated, in each

73/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

node. Water balance is calculated and the described indices of water shortage (WSHI:

water shortage index) by years, months and volumes, as well as the index of

reliability are determined. The obtained results demonstrate the degree of meeting

water demands (Table 1) and the vulnerability in case of water shortages.

Table 1 Calculated values of WEI

River/point

WEI 1961-1990 %

WEI 2021-2050 %

River Ticha source up to the village of Ticha

8.45

19.3

Reservoir Ticha

42.0

77.2

River Draganovska

4.73

8.1

River Gyurlya

11.6

19.7

0-20

20-40

40-60

60-80

80 - 100

Very low

low

Moderate

High

Very high

Scale of vulnerability

 As shown in the scale of WEI vulnerability, the rivers Draganovska, Gyurlya and the

section of Ticha river from its source up to the village of Ticha have very low

vulnerability for the basic period /0 -20%/. The value of WEI for the point res. Ticha

shows middle vulnerability /40%-60%/ - the river watershed is loaded with demand

and in dry periods will not be able to provide all the needs. (see also Table 2 with the

calculated shortage indices).

Table 2 Calculation of WSHI and index of reliability

Name

Annual

demand

Short-

age

Exceedance probability

by

volume

by years

by months

index of

reliability

m3.102

%

WS SH U MEN -

PRE SLAV ,set tl.

200 000

0.0

100

0.000

WSTUG OVIS HTE

62998

0.0

100

0.000

IR VIN I TSA

628470

78816

87.46

86.67

90.80

6.120

IRKR A SNOS E LTS I

22783

3055

86.59

80.00

90.16

5.417

IRCH ER KOV NA

7401

100

98.65

96.67

98.45

0.123

IRGU ER LOV O

4448

115

97.41

96.67

98.45

0.443

HPPT ic ha

800000

33122

95.86

83.33

93.06

1.248

Eco

195712

0.0

100

0.000

74/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

Figure 7. Vulnerability of Ticha watershed according

WEI for the period 1961-1990

Drinking water supply is not at risk. It is provided up to 100%. There are some shortages in

irrigation but they are acceptable because the standard of irrigation is 75%. WEI and

shortages are in agreement.

During the period 2021-2050 WEI values are higher and some shortages in drinking water

supply appear although they are not very high, but all the irrigation is at risk – very low

probability of exceedance for IR “Vinitsa”, where Pvolume = 50.3%, Pyear =43.3% and Pmonths

=60.1%. Drinking water supply is provided up to 98.45 % of volume and ecological runoff -

100 %.

Figure 8. WEI for the period 2021-2050

75/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

Figure 9. Vulnerability (WEI) and risk of water supply

(WSHI) for the Ticha watershed in the period 2021-2050

Assessment of drinking water quality vulnerability from the Ticha dam

Analyses of the loadings with regard to surface water quality for drinking supply from the

Ticha dam watershed

Pressures that affect the quality of surface waters and those used for drinking water can be

divided into 4 groups:

1. Diffuse sources of pollution:

o Land use

o Presence of small settlements without sewerage system

o Waste disposal places not complying with EU requirements - without

insulating pad surface and drainage system

2. Point sources of pollution:

o Wastewater treatment plants

o Sewerage system

o Industrial waste water

o Livestock farms

3. Significant areas of water use

4. Significant morphological changes:

o Dams, roads

The high proportion - 41% of the arable land in the watershed indicates surface water

contamination of diffuse character. Main sources of pressures on drinking water quality of

the dam include the use of fertilizers and pesticides, the possible inflow to the water bodies

by runoff, water erosion or through the contact between groundwater and surface water,

and the existence of the grazing livestock..

The large proportion of forest vegetation - 52.6% from the total area of the watershed - will

have a preservation role for sediment yield and appearance of dissolved and suspended

solids in the water of the Ticha dam.

76/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

Very low

low

Medium

Hige

Very hige

Vulnerability of the waters for drinking supply

According to the calculated indices for water quality vulnerability /WQI/ for the watershed

of the Ticha dam 43.2% of the area is characterized by low vulnerability. Moderately

vulnerable are 41.3%, and very low vulnerable are 2%.

The calculated values for the WQI for future scenarios WQI_2050 in relation to land use

changes show negligible differences and WQI are in the same categories of vulnerability.

Figure 10. Map of water vulnerability of watershed of

Ticha dam according WQI 2006

The data in the figures 11 and 12 shows the spatial distribution of areas in Ticha watershed

regarding vulnerability of water quantity and quality for drinking and household supply.

Figure 11. Map of vulnerability of the water quantity and

quality (according WEI and WSHI) - period 1961 to 1990

77/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

Very low

low

Medium

Hige

Very hige

Figure 12. Map of vulnerability of the water quantity and

quality (according WEI and WSHI) - period 2020 -2050

Low and very low vulnerable water quantity are the watersheds of the following rivers: r.

Ticha up to village Ticha, river Draganovska, r. Gyurla, r. Gerila and r. Eleshnitsa. In terms of

water quality vulnerability these categories only watershed of the r. Ticha at village Ticha

and part of the watersheds of rivers Gerila and Eleshnitsa are referred. The area around the

dam is moderately vulnerable concerning water quantity and quality. Over the forecast

period - 2020 - 2050 this area falls in the category of highly vulnerable with respect to water

quantity, while in terms of water quality it remains unchanged.

Management options for mitigating vulnerability of drinking water resources

Impact of forests on vulnerability of water quantity and quality in climate change

conditions

The expected negative climate changes will result in shifts of plants, animals and habitats to

the higher altitudes; shift of plants, animals and habitats in north-south direction; soil

moisture decrease; increase of vegetation period duration; increase of the number of the

invasive species; losses of wetlands, etc. Water quality and quantity are influenced by the

tree species, forest type, forest cover within different parts of watersheds, forest

management practices, etc.

78/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

Figure 13. Distribution of the major tree species in the watershed of Ticha dam

sp – Scots pine, s - Spruce, bp - Austrian pine, bch - beech, hor - Hornbeam,

soak - Sessile oak, oak - other oaks, bl – Acacia

Zone up to 500 m a.s.l.

The most vulnerable to climate change in the watershed of Ticha dam are coniferous forests,

esp. coniferous plantations established outside of their natural habitat. The total area of

these forests is 2800.9 ha - Austrian pine – 1557. 4 ha, Scots pine - 1109.7 ha and spruce -

127.1 ha and Douglas fir - only 6.8 ha. The Silver Lime covers 20.1 ha of the watershed. It

could be expected that Silver lime will increase its area within the zone to 500 m a.s.l. and

thus will ameliorate water preservation and water retention functions processes of the

forests. Observations show that the regeneration processes in prevailing part of the coppice

stands will recover with the common and oriental hornbeams - 113.6 ha, as well as shrubs

species - hawthorn, blackthorn.

Forest management practices will be restricted within areas of Hornbeams forests as they

are of high conservation value. As Hornbeam is well adaptive species with good regeneration

ability, management activities to increase its area, need to be implemented. The total area

of high-stem forests is 7217.2 ha, which is 43% of the total afforested area. They are

presented mainly by oak and beech. Increase of Silver Lime participation in these forests is

expected. This will improve the structure of the forest stands and thus – their water-

preserving functions.

Zone above 500 m a.s.l.

The total area of the zone, higher than 500 m above sea level is 23477.22 ha. In this zone 59

% of the forests are high-stem deciduous forests including 10.1% mixed forests, which

79/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

supposes more favourable water-protective functions. Oak forests which currently occupy

7558.2 ha will play a key role in the future. The sessile oak forest have the highest share –

4627.0 ha, followed by the Hungarian Oak – 2777.4 ha, and Turkey Oak – with 152.6 ha.

Observation of the beech forests distributions, show that they occupy 5536.0 ha, of which

1921.8 are covered by Oriental Beech. The Oriental Beech is rather more thermophile than

the European Beech and is expected to extend their area.

Both pessimistic and realistic scenarios for the watershed of the Ticha reservoir show that

oak forests will increase their area, shifting upwards of the mountain and will occupy the

areas currently occupied by beech forests. The European Beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) and the

Oriental Beech (Fagus orientalis Lipsky) are late successional species in expansion and, being

acetophilic species, will preserve their participation. It is more realistic to expect formation

of mixed forest with lower growing indexes for the beech species. This trend will be however

favorable for the water balance and the forest water protective functions.

The coniferous plantations cover 2833.1 ha. At the higher altitudes, their sanitary condition

is expected to deteriorate at later stages. Their transformation might be postponed until the

age of 40-50 years.

Water preserving functions of forests within the watershed of the Ticha reservoir

The main water preserving functions of the forests in Ticha watershed are to protect the

water from pollutants, to improve water quality of the water bodies, which are discharged in

the reservoir, and to ensure the planned water quantities.

The forests of the watershed with their structure formed from the leaf mass, branches,

acorns, seeds, dead debris, etc. develop a kind of a “filter” for surface water preservation.

They protect the reservoir from pollutants in form of insoluble particles, detached from the

soil and moved by wind. Forests reduce soil erosion. The forests to a great extent guarantee

the annual amount of water in the dam and the required minimum water for maintaining

the ecological balance of the river “Big Kamchia”. The forests limit the solid particles input to

the water bodies and play an important role in the prevention of water quality, ensuring the

sustainable use of water supply for drinking purposes in future.

The hydrological efficiency of the forests is related to the re-distribution of precipitation,

mainly affected by interception and forest litter, on the exposition, age of the plants as well

as by their management.

The tree crowns retain a significant part of the rains water, which leads to a decrease of the

soil water content. The amounts of the retained rain water by the crowns (interception) of

coniferous plants in Bulgaria aged from 20 to 30 years vary from 25 to about 38 %.

In a region closed to the watershed of the Ticha dam (Northeastern Bulgaria, Suvorovo) it is

found out that for 20 to 24-old plantations of black pine at 505 mm annual precipitation, the

interception is 32.6% while in Turkey oak forests the average annual interception is from

12.0 to 20.7 % and in the period November-May almost all amount of precipitations reaches

the soil (Raev, 1989).

For the deciduous plants in the watershed, the predominant ones are older plants (above 80

years) – about 66%. It can be expected that the territories covered by this type of forest

possess good water-protective properties. These forests have also significant buffer

80/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

capacities in relation to the preservation of water purity. Regarding the conifer plantations,

85% of them are at age of about 40 years. To increase their water retention ability thinning

is necessary to be performed.

Some studies show that more significant vegetation cover changes are expected to occur at

the zone located at about 500 m above the sea level. That is why we suppose that the water

protection zone (zone II) for the protection of the water from reservoirs should be spread on

the territories from the riverbank to the 500 m above sea level height. The riverbank of the

Ticha reservoir is the longest one – up to 100 km. At this zone, the change of the land use,

road and building constructions, rented areas for agricultural uses, etc. should not be

allowed. In cases of insect attacks or other natural disasters a fast afforestation of the open

areas is allowed in order to control the erosion processes.

The boundaries of water protection zone III should include the remaining territories of the

watershed - 500 m above the sea level. Planned activities in this zone should be consistent

with the forests' preservation functions, while the forestry management activities need to be

directed to improving the water regulative and water preservative roles of the forests.

Recommendations for preserving the quantity and quality of water resources through

forest management practices in the watershed of the Ticha reservoir

The observed tendencies and prospects in the watershed of the Ticha reservoir are as

follows:

 a changes of the total forest area are not expected in the region of the watershed

 dryness of the coniferous and coppice forests is expected.

Forest area is expected to change in future under the influence of:

 the ongoing reforestation processes that benefit the deciduous species – mainly of

the genus Quercus

 secondary succession, accompanying the reforestation of the areas covered by

coniferous plantations, reached the maturity and reforestation stage

 the wildfire risk increase

 changes related to the run-off regime in relation to the temperature changes and

expected torrential rainfalls

 a growing risk for the climatic extremes: heat waves, strong precipitation events

(including heavy snow), drought and wildfires

 unfavourable consequences for quality of surface and underground water resources

 pollution of the water resources and the accompanying diseases.

The management of forests, threatened by climate change should be carried out by stands/

plantations, depending on the specific silvicultural characteristics specific for the given

habitat types. The guideline principles should be the development of such forests, which

reduce the surface water runoff and increase groundwater. In this respect we recommend

that all forests from the watershed of Ticha dam situated up to 500 m a.s.l. to be included

into the category of forests with special water-protective function.

81/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

Pilot area: “SRECHENSKA-BARA” WATERSHED

The explored “Srechenska bara” watershed is located in the alpine zone of the West Balkan

Mountains. The altitude of the drainage basins of the separate tributaries varies between

950 and 1797 m. The total area of the drainage basin is 10 220 ha and its 91% is forested.

Broadleaved tree species are dominant- 86.72%. Water protection forests average site class

is 2.6, average age- 102 years, growing stock /ha - 296 m3/ha and average increment- 27 323

m3 or 2.93 m3/ha.

The annual average rainfall amount is about 990 mm. The spring and summer rainfall

maximum, respectively in May and June, and the winter minimum in February are most

influential on the seasonal rainfall distribution.

The water catchment is conducted by a system of water courses organized in two main

collective derivations.

South derivation- located on the southern slopes of the mountain at about 1400 m, which

collects its waters using two collective canals. “Srebarna- Ginski” canal and “Iskrecki” canal.

The total area of this derivation’s drainage basin is 3895 ha with project catchable water

amount about Q= 1400 l/sec, at built-up amount of hydroelectricity facility- Qbuilt-up = 1900

l/sec.

North derivation- located on the northern slopes of the mountain at about 870 m. It collects

water from the feeders of Ogosta river using two collective canals: “Strugarnica” canal and

“Zanozhene” canal. The total area of that derivation’s water basins is 5246 ha with project

catchable water amount Q ≅ 1300 l/sec, at built-up amount of hydroelectricity facility-

Qbuilt-up = 2800 l/sec. This hydroelectric facility processes the water which has already gone

through “Petrohan” hydroelectric facility. “Vreshtitza” derivation also leads its waters

towards the dam. It captures the water of the upper feeders of Vreshtitza and Rakovitza

rivers using four water catchments in a zone with altitude between 760 and 560 m. The total

area of its drainage basin is 875 ha and the catched water amount is Q ≅ 97 l/sec.

Apart from the water from these derivations, water from its own drainage basin flow into

the dam. The area of its drainage basin is 225 ha and the average altitude is 460 m.

Water protective forests in “Srechenska Bara” watershed

The total afforested area of the drainage basins is 9312 ha, which is about 91% of the total

water catchment area. Most common tree species are beech (Fagus sylvatica), spruce (Picea

abies), Scotch pine (Pinus sylvestris) and fir (Abies alba). Beech occupies 7 817, 61 ha or 84%

of the total afforested area, spruce- 675. 95 ha(7.26%), Scotch pine- 358. 57 ha (3.85%) and

the fir- 190.55 ha or 2% of the area. These four tree species occupy 97% of the whole

protective forest area. VIII age class stands are dominant (over 140 years old)- 33.5 %,

followed by VII age class (age 121- 140)- 18.14% and II age class stands (age 21 to 40)- 11,

76% (figure 12).

82/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

Figure 14. Distribution of forests according to age classes in “Srechenska bara” watershed

The total growing stock is 2 759 330 m3 and about 50% of it is in stands over 120 years old.

(Figure 13)

Figure 15. Distribution of growing stock according to age classes in “Srechenska bara”

watershed

Impact of climate change on forests in the “Srechenska bara” watershed and

recommended silvicultural activities

The forests in “Srechenka bara” watershed are located mainly on the northern slopes of the

Balkan Mountain. The main water accumulation channels are located at about 700 m a.s.l.

According to (Raev et al. 2011), this mountain region falls within the area of forest

vegetation low to moderately (in the pessimistic scenario) vulnerable to climate change.

83/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

Habitats are fresh and moist and they will not change significantly even at the expected

changes in precipitations and temperatures. River flows will continue to be with a spring

maximum.

The forests in water protective areas (WPA) under the altitude of 700 meters are moderately

to highly vulnerable to climate change. Never-the-less these forests will not be significantly

affected by the expected climate change as the main flow is formed in the upper part of the

watershed.

The entire catchment area pertains into Natura 2000 areas which defines restrictions to the

management regimes.

The main tree species that dominates the forest vegetation is the beech (Fagus sylvatica L.),

which occupies 87% of the area of the watershed. In the scenarios examined by (Raev et al.

2011), Kostov and Rafailova (2009) and others, the impact of climate change are noted

following major risks and appropriate adaptive interventions for stands:

1. Increased damage in forest stands from heavy (wet) snow, strong winds and late

frosts. Particularly vulnerable are the young, dense, even-aged beech stands, which

occupy about 2500 ha. Water losses by evapotranspiration in these forests are great.

Conducting of thinnings in them is a priority, with intensity at a single intervention up

to 25%. Vulnerable are also the stands of very high age (over 140 years), which

occupy about 4,500 ha. Most of them are hardly accessible, forming so called "closed

basins". These “old forests", possess better water protective functions. On the other

hand the century-old trees are highly vulnerable to extreme weather events. It is

necessary to strengthen the monitoring and to invest in supporting heterogeneous

structure of the stands by selective thinning or irregular shelterwood with intensity

up to 20%.

2. Increased risk of erosion caused by natural disturbances or logging areas, especially

on steep slopes, prevails in the watershed. The latter is supported by the existing

brown forest soils with relatively deep but sandy (light) transitional (B) horizon that is

easy to wash up;

3. Loss of increment and reduction of potential timber volume for harvesting due to

possible adverse weather conditions. It should be added also possible deterioration

in the quality of part of the harvested wood due to shortage of the time for its

utilization. Both events will lead to negative financial results for the owners and

managers of the forest;

4. Loss of funds due to complicated management regime - the application of more

sophisticated silvicultural systems requires higher qualified staff, more complex

management of the forest and more expensive felling;

5. Fire risk in forest stands will increase periodically due to expectations of prolonged

droughts in summer and autumn and the presence of larger amount of dead wood.

Risks of fires exist also in subalpine meadows. It is necessary to build up fire

protection infrastructure, which does not currently exist in the majority of the area.

84/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

The available about 10% of Scots pine and spruce plantations are currently in the stage of

intense transformation to mixed beech-coniferous stands, which is in accordance with the

prescriptions for beech habitats in "Natura 2000".

The remaining 3% of other tree species are coppice oak and hornbeam forests located in

zone 1 and 2 of water-protected area of “Srechenska bara” dam. They fall in areas

potentially highly vulnerable to climate change (Raev et al., 2011). They require more

stringent protection from fires that can be transferred from adjacent agricultural and other

(urban) areas (ground monitoring). The management activities in these forests should lead

to smooth conversion of small areas of coppice stands into high stem ones. Since in this area

hornbeam (Carpinus betulus L.) participates in the composition of low stem beech and oak

stands and it is highly adaptive to warmer conditions the expansion of its participation in the

composition of future stands should be tolerated.

It can be stated that the forest vegetation in the watershed of “Srechenska bara” dam has

the adaptive capacity to the expected climate changes in the region. The forest management

will include long-term gradual and selective cutting and will ensure permanent coverage of

the territory with uneven (heterogeneous) forest. In order to avoid serious problems for the

natural regeneration of forest stands a Standard for the management of WPF is proposed

(see Annex I).

In the future the question about the provision of water quality and quantity from

“Srechenska bara” dam will be relevant due to the fact that it is located in the lower zone

where temperatures may increase significantly. This leads to increasing of water

temperature in the dam. On the other hand higher summer temperatures will increase

consumption of water for domestic and other uses.

85/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

Pilot area: VELINGRAD MUNICIPALITY CATHCHMENT

The investigated area is located in Western Rhodope Mountain. The altitude varies between

900m and 1000m. The annual average rainfall is between 750 mm and 960 mm. The

maximum is in May and June and the minimum is in August and September. The population

of Velingrad municipality receives drinking water from Batak and Belmeken dam and from

several underground sources situated in the region.

Water protective forests in Velingrad municipality

There are 1314.5 ha water protective forests in Velingrad municipality situated in the

territory of State Hunting Enterprise (SHE) “Alabak” (522,3 ha) and SHE “Chepino” (792,2

ha). Most common tree species are Beech (Fagus sylvatica), Spruce (Picea abies) and Scots

pine (Pinus sylvestris). Spruce is most widely spread and occupies 567.7 ha or about 43.83 %

of the water protective forests, followed by beech - 250.7 ha(19,36%) and Scots pine- 240.60

ha or 18.58 %. Those three tree species occupy 81.76% of the total afforested area (Figure

16). Coniferous tree species are dominant- 72 % of the total area. Water protective forests

average age is 95 years, the growing stock is 217 m3/ha and the average increment is 3136

m3 or 2.42 m3/ha.

Figure 16 Distribution of tree species in the water protective forests of Velingrad

municipality

Dominate stands of VIth age class (age 101- 120)- 26,8% , followed by Vth age class (age 81-

100)- 16.9 % and VIIth(age 121-140)- 15.4%.(Figure 17) Over 70% of the stands are mature.

86/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

The total growing stock is 281 410 m3. About 50% of it is in stands between 80

and 120 years old (Figure 18).

Figure 18. Distribution of growing stock according to age classes of water protective

forests in Velingrad municipality

Impact of climate change on forests in the watershed of Velingrad and recommendations

for their management

In Velingrad watershed forests in “Alabak” mountain are located on various slopes with

different inclination, mainly with east and north aspects. Catchment areas are located over

900 meters above sea level. According to (Raev et al. 2011), the forests at this elevation are

slightly to moderately vulnerable to climate change. The main tree species are: Scots pine,

spruce, fir and beech, which are indigenous species in this area with a good adaptive

potential and that build mostly mixed stands. Expected climate changes in the region are

Figure 17. Distribution according to age classes of water protective forests in Velingrad

municipality

87/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

related to reducing the amount of rainfall within 10%, i.e. from about 900 mm to 750-800

mm per year, and temperature increase averagely with about 3 degrees. This will not change

significantly the de-Marton index, which in this zone will remain at a value of around and

above 40, i.e. conditions will continue to favor the existing forest tree vegetation. The river

flow will continue to be characterized with a spring maximum.

Territories of the water protective zone under of 900 meters a.s.l. are in the belt of the low

oak forests which are moderately vulnerable to climate change. The main flow is formed in

the upper part of the watershed where the vulnerability of forest vegetation is relatively

low.

The area of the whole watershed pertains into Natura 2000, which imposes some

restrictions on the forest management regimes.

According to the examined scenarios (Raev et al., 2011), the impact of climate change could

be expresses by the following main risks that will need appropriate adaptive interventions,

concerning the main tree species in the region:

 Increase damage in forest plantations of heavy (wet) snow, strong winds and late

frosts. Particularly vulnerable are the young, dense, even-aged stands and coniferous

plantations, which occupy approximately 200 ha (Figure 15). Water losses by

evapotranspiration in these forests are big. Conducting of thinnings in them is a

priority with intensity at a single intervention up to 25%.

Vulnerable are also the old stands (over 140 years), which occupy approximately 300 ha.

These “old forests", possess better water protective functions. On the other hand, the

century-old trees are highly vulnerable to extreme weather events. It is necessary to

strengthen the monitoring on their condition and to invest in supporting heterogeneous

structure by selective felling and irregular shelterwood felling with intensity up to 20%.

 Increased risk of erosion on areas affected by natural disturbances or on felling areas,

especially on steep slopes as prevalent in the watershed. This risk increases also due

to the existing brown forest soils with relatively powerful but sandy (light) transition

(B) horizon, which washes up easily.

 The expected climate changes will create better conditions for the growth of Scots

pine above 1200 m a.s.l. In the middle mountain belt beech will replace coniferous

species (spruce, fir) as it is more adaptive to prolonged droughts. This process should

be properly controlled through forest management practices in order to keep the

mixed composition of the stands and their heterogeneous structure.

 Loss in increment and reduced timber volume due to possible adverse weather

conditions. It should be added also possible deterioration of the harvested wood.

Both events will lead to negative financial results for the owners and managers of the

forest.

 Loss of funds due to the complicated management regime. The data from

experimental station Bazenika show that the most appropriate way of managing

coniferous forests in the watershed is implementation of selective fellings. (Rafailova

2003). Silvicultural systems for establishment of heterogeneous stands ensuring

continuous forest coverage of the territory require highly skilled personnel and more

expensive organization of fellings. Forest owners will require additional

investments for the implementation of the above described practices;

88/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

 Fire risk in forest stands will increase periodically due to the expected prolonged

droughts in summer and autumn and due to the increased quantity of dry wood and

litter. The same danger exists for subalpine meadows in the area. Improvement of

existing fire protection facilities is necessary.

The remaining 15% territories are occupied by oak and hornbeam coppice stands (9%) and

black pine stands (about 6%), which are situated in the Ist and IInd belt of water protected

area and are highly vulnerable to climate change (Raev 2011). They require more stringent

fire protection regarding fires that can be transferred from adjacent agricultural or other

urban areas. Forest management activities in these forests should lead to their

transformation to high stem ones. Since hornbeam (Carpinus betulus L.) in this area is highly

adaptive to warmer climate its expansion in the composition of future stands should the

tolerated.

In general, forests in Velingrad watershed can be successfully adapted to expected climate

changes in the region. No serious problems for the natural regeneration of forest stands are

expected. The implementation of the above mentioned recommendations and suggested

standards in Annex I will guarantee the supply of clean drinking water to the city. In the

future more relevant will be the problem for the water supply from Velingrad watershed

because of the expected increase in the consumption due to higher summer temperatures.

89/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

Proposal of a Standard for management of water protective forests

In Bulgarian legislation there are no clear and unified measures and regimes for forest

management in water protected areas or watersheds. In many cases, these practices are

arranged in separate catalogues (case studies, lists), but higher level is the development of

standards for their application. In such cases, appropriate criteria and indicators are those

the performance of which guarantees in full scale the ecosystem functions of forests for

sustainable drinking water supply.

Principle 1. The management of Water Protective Forests (WPF) is implemented in

accordance with the legislation and ensures full performance of their specific functions.

CRITERIA

INDICATORS

1.1. The management of

WPF meets all national laws

and local administrative

requirements and is open

for improvement.

1.1.1. All responsible administrative persons are familiar with

the relevant regulatory requirements and their obligations.

1.1.2. In the responsible administrations there are copies of

the applicable laws available for staff usage.

1.1.3. The responsible administrations reflect and report the

established incompatibilities with the law.

1.1.4. The responsible persons are familiar with all relevant

international conventions

1.1.5. The responsible administrations have established a

monitoring system (documented periodic inspections.)

1.2. The long-term land use

rights and the restrictions

on them (e.g. deed,

customary rights or lease

agreements) are

unequivocally proven and

they are managed

according to management

plan.

1.2.1. There are legal documents proving the ownership or

the right to manage the forest area.

1.2.2 Legislative act declaring the territory as Water

Protective Forest (WPF) is valid.

1.2.3. Valid plan for management of the water protective

forest territories, prepared in accordance with the national

legislation, is available and contain written description of the

management purposes.

1.2.4. The exact boundaries of all properties are labelled or

clearly marked on the terrain and on maps (eg, along the

natural boundaries).

1.2.5. The responsible administrations keep registers for

conflicts on property rights and use.

Principle 2: Forest stand structure in WPF. The structure of forest stands supports the

protection of soil, water flow regulation, protection of biodiversity and ensures

sustainable protection of the adaptative capabilities of forest tree species and stands.

CRITERIA

INDICATOR

90/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

2.1 The species composition

of stands in WPF ensures

the implementation of their

specific functions

2.1.1. The dominant forest tree vegetation is in its natural

habitat, corresponding to the site conditions.

2.1.1 Forests are mixed in composition or are in process of

formation of mixed stands.

2.2 The origin of the stands

in WPF ensures the

implementation of their

specific functions

2.2.1 In WPF stands with seed origin are dominant or are in

the process formation

2.2.2. In WPF stands with natural origin are dominant or are

in the process of formation.

2.3 The stand age in WPF

ensures the implementation

of their specific functions

2.3.1 Mature stands predominate.

2.3.2 Rotation period of even aged forests in WPF is

increased by at least one age class

2.3.3 In WPF uneven-aged forests dominate or are in the

process of formation

2.3.4 In WPF at least 10% of the total stock is dead wood

2.3.5 Old, hollowed and withered trees are left in the forest,

taking into account national requirements for work safety.

2.4. The structure of the

WPF is in accordance with

their main purpose

2.4.1 Stands with heterogeneous vertical and horizontal

structure or with multilayer structure dominate.

2.4.2 Stands with average canopy closure of 0.6-0.8 dominate

or are in the process of formation in WPF

2.4.3 In the stands of WPF could be found vital trees of all

DBH classes

2.5. Fragmentation of WPF

is not permitted and is

limited. Guidelines to

ensure the functions of WPF

for: erosion control,

minimizing the damage

from logging, road

construction and other

mechanical disturbances, as

well as water conservation,

are developed and

implemented.

2.5.1 The total area of infrastructural facilities in the water

protected areas does not exceed 3% of the area suitable for

afforestation.

2.5.2 No afforestation is applied on natural open spaces-

meadows, bogs, rocks, etc..

2.5.3 There is 15 m buffer strip around the hydrographic

network where no activities are performed. The strip is

designed from the edge of the side slope towards the inner

part of the stand.

2.5.4. The location of existing and planned forest roads,

bridges, warehouses and routes for transportation of

harvested timber corresponds to the scale and intensity of

management activities.

91/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

2.5.5. During construction of forest roads for passing through

elements of the hydrographic network, actions against

drainage, flow deviation or water pollution should be taken.

2.5.6. Before performing of big scale forestry activities such as

forest road constructions, maintenance of drainage systems,

etc. the contracting authorities have conducted

environmental impact assessment and the contractors are

informed and posses copies of the assessments.

2.5.7. In construction of new roads the following should be

considered: 1) New roads are preliminary planned and

mapped taking into consideration the existing water bodies.

2) The terrain features are not changed or not are slightly

modified by the project, 3) Roads are designed and

constructed on natural terraces, ridges and low-grade slopes.

4) Roads should not pass through ecologically sensitive areas.

5) The construction activities observe erosion control

requirements. 6) The number of river crossings is minimized.

7). Roads and walkways should not be located close to rivers

or streams.

2.5.8. In the river beds no wastes from site preparation and

any other activities shall not be placed.

Principle 3: Silvicultural activities in water protective forests. The silvicultural activities in

WPF aim to improve and maintain the structure of forest stands to ensure their

sustainable and optimal water protection functions.

CRITERIA

INDICATOR

3.1. Activities in young

stands in WPF ensure the

formation of viable

heterogeneous forests

which will perform their

specific functions in long

term period.

3.1.1 Thinnings ensure domination of indigenous tree species

corresponding to the site conditions.

3.1.2 Thinnings ensure formation of sustainable stands with

high structural diversity. Thinnings are implemented unevenly

in the area.

3.1.3 Thinnings in belt III of water protected areas are with

intensity up to 25%, in belt II - up to 20% and in belt I are not

allowed.

3.1.4 Thinnings ensure restoration of the indigenous forest

tree vegetation and conservation of the overall genetic

diversity.

3.1.5. Combined method of thinnings, predominantly from

above, are planed and conducted. This helps the regeneration

on small areas in belt II of water protected zone.

3.2 Silvicultural activities in

mature stands ensure

3.2.1 Regeneration fellings are conducted in belt III of water

protected areas and outside their borders.

92/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

successful seed

regeneration of indigenous

tree species, formation and

sustainable maintenance of

heterogeneous forest

structure

3.2.2. Regeneration fellings ensure and tolerate natural

regeneration of native tree species.

3.2.3 Long-term shelterwood system is used with

regeneration period over 30 years for coppice forests and

over 40 years for high-stem forests.

3.2.4. Selective thinnings are used.

3.2.5 In stands where the shelterwood system already has

started, the final phase of the system is not implemented

even for coppice forests.

3.2.6 Small group of century-old trees (at least 5) are left

without any treatment (Old growth trees).

3.2.7 The activities in coppice forests are directed to their

transformation into seed stands.

3.2.8. The spread of introduced in the past exotic species is

monitored and, if necessary, measures are taken to control or

eliminate them.

3.3. The protective functions

of marginal mountain forest

ecosystems have to be

ensured

3.3.1. Stands and forest areas in the subalpine belt, and the

200 meter timberline are mapped and any commercial

activities are not conducted there.

Principle 4: Afforestation activities in WPF. Afforestation and other silvicultural activities

support rapid restoration and long-term implementation of water protective functions of

forests

CRITERIA

INDICATOR

4.1 Afforestation activities

ensure establishment of

vital heterogeneous forests

corresponding to the site

environmental conditions

4.1.1 In case of natural disturbances part of the area should

be left to natural succession, unless there is a risk of rapid

degradation of the habitat, as well as in belt I of water

protective area.

4.1.2 Afforestation is performed in group schemes, incl.

pioneer tree species corresponding to the natural

regeneration.

4.1.3 No afforestation is conducted along the slopes of the

hydrographic network, unless the same is not part of an

integrated project for establishment of supportive facilities.

4.1.4 If supplementation of natural regeneration or

replenishment of previously established plantations is

required, native tree species and origins collected at lower

altitudes are used.

93/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

Principle 5: Protection of WPF. Activities to protect forests with water protective functions

ensure their vitality and long-term provision of the ecosystem services

CRITERIA

INDICATOR

5.1 Qualifications of the

staff admitted for activities

in WPF

5.1.1 Workers/employees are instructed in emergency

procedures such as accidents, fires or spills of fuel and

lubricants.

5.1.2 Everyone in WPF should be aware on the prohibited

activities in these forests.

5.1.3. Practitioners who work in WPF are trained to

implement adaptive management

5.2 Protection of WPA from

fires and pollution

5.2.1 In areas with a high danger of fire firebreaks on the

ridge parts are traced, shaped and maintained with breadth

1.5 times the height of adjacent stands.

5.2.2 In WPF the use of chemicals for cultivation, protection

against diseases, pests etc., incl. –fertilization is not allowed.

5.2.3 in using petrol chain saws and other mechanized tools

biodegradable oils are applied.

5.2.4 The forestry machinery and the operators of

mechanized tools are equipped with absorbents.

5.2.5 Efforts are being made by the manager to control and

prevent the disposal of all types of waste in forests, including

waste from visitors.

5.2.6 Any leakage of oil / fuel from the forestry machinery is

not allowed.

5.3 Protection of the forest

territories

5.3.1 In WPA livestock grazing is prohibited.

5.3.2. At high density of game populations the forest

regeneration areas are fenced.

5.3.4. In WPF no intensive game breeding stations and

hunting traps are established.

Principle 6: Harvesting activities in WPF aim improvement of their specific functions

CRITERIA

INDICATOR

6.1 The access in WPF is

regulated and controlled

6.1.1 The access of vehicles and carts in WPF shall be

governed and shall be subject to the relevant permissions.

Access to belt I WPA is according to the requirements of

Ordinance 3 of Water Act.

6.1.2 Movement of any vehicles in wet soils is not allowed.

94/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

6.2 Logging in WPF is done

according to the regulations

and with the aim to improve

and maintain the specific

forest functions

6.2.1 During harvesting activities, the undergrowth and the

standing trees left should be protected.

6.2.2 Close-to-nature technologies must be applied for the

transportation of harvested timber and temporary storages

must be outside the belt I of WPA, buffer strips, hydrographic

network and other vulnerable areas (springs, marshes, slopes,

etc.)..

6.2.3 Forestry equipment for removal and transportation of

timber uses only roads incl. technology breaks

6.2.4 Percentage of the logging wastes and of the brushwood

is not removed out of the stands, in accordance with the

existing regulation.

6.2.5 The wastes from logging and the brushwood should not

contaminate water courses and regeneration areas.

References

1. Alexandrov, V., V. Spiridonov. 2012. WP3. Change and Impacts on Water Supply,

CC_WaterS.

2. Balabanova, Sn., I. Ilcheva et al. 2012. Assessment of the trends of water resources at

different scenarios of climate change. The agreement with Ministry of Environment and

Water, Head Prof. D. Dimitrov (in Bulgarian)

3. Ilcheva I., I. Niagolov, T. Trenkova. 2008. Aspects of the Integrated Water Resources

Management of the Struma River Basin, Proceedings of the Conference of Water

Observation and Information system for Decision Support, BALWOIS, 27-31 May,

2008,Ohrid, Macedonia

4. Niagolov, I., I. Marinov, I. Ilcheva, A. Yordanova, K. Nikolova, E. Velizarova. 2012. Analysis

of climate changе impact on water resources in the Struma river basin. BALWOIS 2012 -

Ohrid, Republic of Macedonia - June 2012

5. Kostov G., Stipcov V., 2004, “Common forestry”, Ruta, Sofia

6. Raev I., Knight G., Staneva M., 2003, Drought in Bulgaria – climate changes. Natural,

economic and social impact of the drought, Bulgarian academy of science, 1982-1994,

Sofia

7. Raev I., 1989, Investigations on the hydrological role of coniferous ecosystems in

Bulgaria, PhD thesis, Forest research institute, Sofia

8. Raev et al. Programme of measures for adaptation of the forests in the Republic of

Bulgaria and mitigation the negative effect of climate change on the them, FutureForest

project, Interreg IVC

9. Rafailov G., Kostov G., 1994, “Stefanov B. about climate changes and theories. Scientific

session of Bulgarian academy of science, FU-PSSA, Volume II, p.7-13

10. Rafailova E., 2004. Impact of forest management practices on the hydrological indicators

of mixed coniferous forests, PhD thesis, Forestry University

95/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

4.6 Good Practice in Greece

Treated effluents used for irrigation purposes in Thessaloniki -Greece

Athanasios Soupilas, Kostas Zabetoglou, Thomas Spachos

Thessaloniki Water Supply & Sewerage Co sa (EYATH sa)

Summer climate conditions in the Greater Thessaloniki Area have become increasingly

hotter. Periods of drought are not infrequent and this has created an increased demand for

water. In addition, Regional Climate Models in the area predict lower annual precipitation

and increased mean temperatures, which could thus result in water shortages for the future.

The Thessaloniki water reuse project that it is implemented by Thessaloniki Water Supply &

Sewerage co (EYATH sa), is the first application of its kind in Greece and has fully succeeded

in demonstrating the viability of employing recycled water as a valuable water source which

can be used as a substitute for irrigation water, thus reducing the impact of water shortage

during drought.

EYATH’s objective, in using wastewater effluents for irrigation, is to provide a cost-effective,

sustainable water source in a tight footprint while reducing discharge to the environment.

This objective is particularly significant because reclaimed water is an important alternative

water source which can replace fresh water for irrigation demands and other beneficial uses.

Moreover, using reclaimed water will reduce possible negative environmental effects in

recipients, since fewer nutrients will be added to them.

The project has been applied

successfully for the last 7 years

during the summer period, with

varying quantities being sent to

agricultural fields for irrigation

purposes from the Thessaloniki W/W

treatment plant ( ThWWTP).In a daily

basis 160.000m3 treated effluents

are send for agricultural irrigation

Since the establishment of the

ThWWTP, several wastewater reuse

projects, financed either by the

European Union or by EYATH, have

been carried out, with varying

success such as:

 Studies concerning reuse options.

 Cooperation in research programmes with other organizations.

 Small scale pilot studies conducted in order to gain experience and technical know-

how

 Experimentation in agriculture with different crops (rice, sugar-beets, horticulture).

96/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

Special emphasis was given to the gathering of analytical results concerning the quality of

the processed wastewater. As a result all the Environmental permits and terms were

obtained introducing also a very extensive monitoring system that is applied during the

project period.

EYATH’s policy is to keep water and wastewater tariffs low for the consumer, in order to

encourage the idea of reclamation. Moreover, to assist farmers in the area, the Company

has imposed no irrigation fees; treated effluents are supplied at no cost and the Company

covers the various operational expenses.

The project is implemented in co-operation with the local farmer’s Union and with the

support of the Decentralized Administration of Macedonia-Thrace.

At present there is in Greece an up to date legislation that covers the most relevant re-use

issues that don’t need to be modified.

Dealing with this project resulted in gaining experience by our personnel on how to

implement environmental projects both in technical terms but most important in

approaching and persuading the public.

The acceptance of water reuse by the local community and especially by farmers has been

influenced by local circumstances during drought periods. Moreover, the perception of the

quality of the reuse water was high among the farmers who had been made aware of our

efforts and monitoring implementation plan.

One of the most difficult facets of

the Project was the time, effort, and

patience, spent in trying to

persuade the public authorities to

promote the Project.

In general using reclaimed water in

place of fresh water for existing uses

can free up existing water supply

system capacity to cater for new

water needs. This can result in

saving the cost of developing new

water sources, water transfers

treatment and distribution systems.

Environmentally, it can also result in significant improvements in the recipients’ water

quality. Concerning the social issues relevant to our project, we found that end users’

perception was of key importance in the acceptance of it.

97/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

4.7 Good Practice in Serbia

Danube River Enterprise Pollution Reduction GEF Project in Serbia

Branislava Matić

Jaroslav Cerni Institute for the Development of Water Resources

Danube River Enterprise Pollution Reduction GEF Project in Serbia (2005 - 2011) with global

environmental objective to reduce nutrient flows into water bodies connected to the

Danube River from selected Republic of Serbia (ROS) enterprises.

The main project components are:

 Support to policy and regulation reform;

 Investment in Nutrient Reduction;

 Water and Soil Quality monitoring, Public Awareness Raising and Replication

Strategy;

 Project Management and Project Impact Monitoring.

The area of project implementation covers practically the overall territory of the Republic of

Serbia with a main objective to increase the prevalence of and promote environmentally

friendly practices in the Danube Basin and its tributaries’ basins in Serbia, e.g., Sava, Tisza,

Velika Morava, etc. In particular, the objective of this project was to reduce nutrient load

discharged into the River Danube and its tributaries from livestock farms, notably pig and

cattle farms, as well as the reduction of the nutrient discharge from slaughterhouses.

The project financed manure management investments on 105 livestock farms compared

with 60 planned farms. The annual decrease in the amount of nutrients, which are not taken

up by plants and eventually flow into watercourses from beneficiary farms is conservatively

estimated at 44% for nitrogen and 100% for phosphorus compared to the baseline levels.

Additionally, the GEF Grant has funded manure management storage facilities and

equipment, and nutrient management curriculum development at six agricultural high

schools, which is expected to have significant long-term replication impact by exposing

future farmers, agricultural advisors, and agro-industrial professionals to proper farms

nutrient management practices. The project activities improved Serbia’s capacity to collect

and process risky animal waste generated at slaughterhouses and meat processing

enterprises and thereby reduced the likelihood of inappropriate dumping of these

substances and resulting water pollution.

For the more effective project implementation the following regions were selected within

the Serbia: Požarevac, Šabac ,Novi Sad and Vrbas that is located within the Tisza River sub -

basin. Numerous of Construction and manure equipment supplying - DREPR Project farm

beneficiaries are located within the Tisza River sub-basin, e.g., farm ”ABC food” in Ruski

Krstur, Farm “Titel Agro” (Figure 1), Farm “Sima Davidov” (Figure 2), etc.

Besides the farms, several workshops (Figure 4) and field trips (Figure 3) at the Project

demonstration farms were organized within the Tisza River Basin in Serbia.

98/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

Figure 1: Farm “Titel Agro” - Titel

Figure 2: Farm “Sima Davidov”- Deronje,

municipality of Odzaci

Figure 3: Field trip

Figure 4: Workshop

Finally, project activities included the upgrade of the facilities in the selected Agriculture

High Schools. It is very likely that providing of the equipment that practically demonstrates

implementation of the nutrient discharge reduction to high school students would

contribute to the sustainability and reliability of project outcomes and results. Pictures from

the construction works at Agricultural High School in Bačka Topola are provided bellow.

In addition to the above mentioned, the Code of Good Agricultural practices was developed

and published in March 2011. This document is available for free download at the web site.

Finally, as a part of the project activities 150 farmers went through training for nutrient

balance implementation and advising one day training for “ Farm Nutrient Management Plan

99/99 WP5.2 report 30.11.2014

Preparation for Implementation of Nitrate Directive in Serbia. The trainees for this module

came from different sectors, e.g., public, private, etc, and some of them attended seminars

or training courses on good agricultural practice.

More information is available at the:

http://web.worldbank.org/external/projects/main?pagePK=104231&piPK=73230&theSitePK

=40941&menuPK=228424&Projectid=P084604

CC-WARE Mitigating Vulnerability of Water Resources under Climate Change WP5.2 -Framework of National/Regional Action Plans Guidance for Facilitating Development of Action Plans to Mitigate Vulnerability of Water Resources under Climate Change Report final

Abstract

Recommended publications

CC-WARE WP5.2 - Framework of National/Regional Action Plans, Guidance for facilitating development o...

Mitigating vulnerability of water resources under climate change CC-WARE - brochure

CC-WARE Mitigating Vulnerability of Water Resources under Climate Change, WP3 - Vulnerability of Wat...

CCWARE - Mitigating Vulnerability of Water Resources under Climate Change

CC-WARE Mitigating Vulnerability of Water Resources under Climate Change, WP5 - Transnational Strate...