Basin countries

Riparian countries (from upstream to downstream): Germany, Austria, Slovakia, Hungary, Croatia,Serbia & Montenegro, Romania, Bulgaria, Moldova, Ukraine.

Additional basin countries: Poland, Czech Republic, Switzerland, Italy, Slovenia, Bosnia-Herzegovina,Albania, FYR of Macedonia.

Danube

Summary of basin characteristics

The Danube basin, covering 817,000km2 –about one-third of continental Europe outsideRussia – is the most international river basin

in the world, extending over all or part of the territo-ries of 18 countries. The Danube River itself crossesten countries and is Europe’s second longest riverafter the Volga, flowing over 2,857km fromGermany’s Black Forest to the Romanian and

Ukrainian Danube Delta on the shores of the BlackSea. The Danube is also Europe’s only major riverthat flows west to east, from the current MemberStates of the European Union through the formereastern bloc countries of central and eastern Europe,many of which are now prospective EU members.The European Commission recognizes the Danube asthe “single most important non-oceanic body ofwater in Europe” and a “future central axis for theEuropean Union”.

1

Managing Rivers Wisely

Socio-economic importance

The main economic uses of the Danube are:

■ domestic/drinking water supply

■ water supply for industry

■ water supply for agriculture

■ hydroelectric power generation

■ navigation

■ tourism and recreation

■ waste disposal (both solid and liquid wastes)

■ fisheries.

In addition, the Danube’s remaining floodplainsprovide a range of economically important ‘ecologi-cal services’, such as water quality regulation andflood control.

One of the most important factors influencingriver basin management activities is the socio-eco-nomic contrast between the ‘capitalist’ and former‘socialist’ countries within the basin. Since the endof communism in the late 1980s, the central andlower Danube region has experienced a rapid shift tofree-market democracies within the context ofincreased globalization, privatization and deregula-tion, including the loss of much of the formerly guar-anteed social security structure.

At the same time, as a result of economicrestructuring, many former socialist countries havelost markets in neighbouring countries and the for-mer Soviet Union. This is especially true of agricul-ture, which remains the economic mainstay in ruralcentral and eastern Europe, in spite of tough compe-tition from EU-subsidized agricultural products. Theresult is rural decline, with increased poverty, unem-ployment and depopulation. Rural environments arebeing exploited for short-term gain through overfish-ing, over-grazing, deforestation and poaching, suchthat traditional lifestyles and sustainable economicpractices are at risk.

Biodiversity values

The Danube basin is home to a wide variety of natu-ral habitats. Among these are the Alps andCarpathian Mountains, Germany’s Black Forest, theHungarian puszta plains, the Lower Danube flood-plains and islands and the vast lakes, reedbeds and

marshes of the Danube Delta. These habitats arehome to a rich and in many cases unique biologicaldiversity, including over 100 different types of fish,among them six endangered species of sturgeon.

The 600,000ha Danube Delta has been desig-nated as a Ramsar Site and UNESCO BiosphereReserve. It supports more than 280 bird species,including 70 per cent of the world population ofwhite pelicans Pelecanus onocrotalus and 50 percent of the populations of pygmy cormorantPhalacrocorax pygmeus and – in winter – red-breasted goose Branta ruficollis.

Priority issues for river basinmanagement

Until the end of the 19th century, the Danube was alargely natural system with an extensive network ofchannels, oxbows and backwaters. The river wascharacterized by constant changes in its course anddynamic natural exchanges with its floodplains.Since then, human interventions in the way of floodprotection, agriculture, power production and navi-gation have destroyed over 80 per cent of theDanube’s wetlands, floodplains and floodplainforests.

Major losses in habitats and wildlife have resulted.One example is the considerable reduction of nurseryareas for spawning fish and the blocking of migratorypathways for commercially important species such assturgeon, which now survive only as small remnantpopulations. Changes in flow volume and velocity,water temperature and quality as a result of river reg-ulation and pollution have also had negative impactson biodiversity.

Forty years of communism in central and easternEurope resulted in both positive and negative effectsfor the middle and lower reaches of the river. On onehand, many wetland areas were drained to supportunsustainable agricultural and forestry practices (e.g.along the Tisza River in Hungary where 2,590,000haof floodplains were reduced to 100,000ha). On theother hand, the main Danube channel itself was notsubject to the same level of dam construction asoccurred in western Europe, where the upper1,000km of the river were converted into an artificialwaterway by an almost uninterrupted chain of 59hydropower dams. This contrasts with just two damson the lower 1,800km of the Danube. Overall, the

Danube2

central and lower reaches possess a generally higherlevel of biodiversity than do the upper reaches inwestern Europe. For example, the middle and lowerDanube still support some extensive areas of naturalor semi-natural floodplain forest and other wetlands,while more than 95 per cent has been lost furtherupstream.

Current priority issues at a basin scale include:

Proposed shipping developments

A number of proposals threaten severe ecologicaldamage to the Danube in central and eastern Europe.They include plans to construct a canal through theUkrainian Danube Delta to the Black Sea coast, andanother – the Danube-Odra-Elbe canal – linking theBaltic Sea with the Black Sea. In addition to the lossof natural and semi-natural areas that such develop-ments would cause, chronic pollution and the risk ofa major oil or chemical spill are also likely toincrease.

Impacts of EU accession

Many former eastern bloc countries are now in theprocess of joining the European Union. As part ofthis ‘accession process’, each prospective MemberState is required to transpose into national law – andimplement – a raft of EU legislation before they aregranted entry. Potential impacts on nature conserva-tion in the Danube basin are both positive and nega-tive. While the EU’s nature conservation legislationand the Water Framework Directive (which governswater policy and management throughout the EUaccording to the principles of river basin manage-ment) are recognized as positive mechanisms, it isexpected that threats to rural economic security in thecentral and lower Danube will be worsened by theEU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The CAP,though recently reformed, continues to support inten-sive, unsustainable practices and perverse subsidies.The EU may also provide funding for some of thepotentially destructive shipping development proj-ects through its Trans-European Networks forTransport (TENs-T) programme.

Environmental disasters

The last five years have seen a number of ecologicalcrises in the Danube basin that have gained world-wide media attention (e.g. the spillage in January

2000 of some 100 tonnes of cyanide into the TiszaRiver in Romania, following an accident at a goldmining operation). Unless more is done soon toimprove environmental security, especially in thoseparts of the region where industrial and urban infra-structure is old and decayed, further catastrophicincidents can be expected.

Nutrients and eutrophication

The main sources of nutrients in the Danube are agri-culture (c.50%), municipal waste (c.25%) and indus-try (c.25%). The total nitrogen load in the Danube isbetween 537,000 and 551,000 tonnes per year (com-pared with 50,000 tonnes for the Rhine). The totalphosphorus load is 48,900 tonnes per year. The legallimit for nutrient content in groundwater is oftenexceeded throughout the basin. As a result, theDanube is the biggest contributor of nutrients to theBlack Sea, where radical changes to the ecosystemand biodiversity loss have occurred in the last 40years as a result of eutrophication. There remainsinsufficient capacity along the Danube to treatmunicipal and industrial wastewater, and moresewage treatment plants are needed urgently.Restoring wetlands would also significantly increasethe river’s natural ‘self-cleansing’ capacity.

Role of WWF and its partners

In 1992, WWF’s activities in the Danube River basincame together under its Green Danube Programme(now the Danube-Carpathian Programme). Early onit was recognized that while the Danube Delta is theoutstanding natural feature of the region, it would benecessary to undertake activities throughout theentire river basin in order to deliver environmentaland socio-economic benefits in the long term. One ofthe principal achievements has been the developmentof partnerships with governments, managementauthorities, local communities and other NGOs.

The Green Danube Programme began with fiveprojects located in natural areas critical for the sur-vival of the river:

■ Mouth of the Isar River (Germany)

■ Morava-Dyje transboundary floodplains(Austria-Czech Republic-Slovakia)

■ Bulgarian Danube Islands

Danube

Managing Rivers Wisely

3

■ Danube-Drava transboundary floodplains(Hungary-Croatia-FR Yugoslavia)

■ Danube Delta (Romania-Ukraine).

In 1998, the WWF International Danube-Carpathian Programme was established to coordinateWWF activities in the Danube River basin, with anadditional focus on the Carpathian Mountains andecologically sustainable forestry. The programme’sfreshwater component currently has three objectives,each contributing to the achievement of a long-termvision for the region:

1. Policy: By 2006, the Danube River basin isinternationally recognized as a successful modelfor integrated river basin management.

2. Capacity: By 2006, there is sufficient capacityamongst national NGOs, water stakeholders andgovernments to implement integrated river basinmanagement in at least six countries within theDanube River basin.

3. Projects: By 2006, there are successful projectsin place throughout the Danube River basindemonstrating the restoration, protection andsustainable management of freshwater habitatsaccording to the principles of integrated riverbasin management.

In addition, WWF is now seeking to integratemore closely its freshwater, forests and Carpathianecoregion work to achieve effective conservation andsustainable management of headwaters and mountainwetlands.

Major initiatives and achievements in the fieldof river basin management to date have included:

■ Forging links with the International Commissionfor the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR),the implementing body for both the DanubeRiver Protection Convention and the EU’s WaterFramework Directive. WWF is an observer ontwo ICPDR Working Groups that support imple-mentation of the Directive in the Danube basin,and is also promoting public participation at allstages of the process.

■ Ensuring that wetland issues are fully integratedinto river basin management initiatives. Forexample, the 1994 WWF report Economic

Evaluation of Danube Floodplains revealed thatthe average value per hectare per year of theDanube floodplains was EUR383, resulting inan annual basin-wide value of EUR666 million.

■ Analysing the ecological potential for floodplainrestoration along the whole of the Danube andpromoting a shift in thinking about floodplainmanagement. This in turn led to the intergovern-mental agreement known as the ‘Lower DanubeGreen Corridor’ under which the governments ofBulgaria, Romania, Moldova and Ukraine havecommitted themselves to the effective manage-ment of up to 900,000ha of existing and newprotected wetlands.

■ Implementing ‘Partners For Wetlands Ukraine’which, within an overall conservation vision forthe Danube Delta, aims to secure the restorationand sustainable use of large floodplain areas.

■ Playing a key role in securing US$13.3 millionin World Bank/GEF funding for wetland restora-tion in Bulgaria (see below) as a contribution toimplementing the Lower Danube GreenCorridor.

■ Contracting of WWF by UNDP/GEF to deliverpart of the Danube Regional Project throughassisting selected countries in the basin to pre-pare new land-use and wetland rehabilitationpolicies and legislation in line with existing andemerging EU environmental requirements. Theoverall output of this component will be amethodology for determining sustainable landuse in the Danube River basin; the method willbe tested in the development of land-use con-cepts at three pilot sites, in Croatia, Romania andSlovakia. The measures, once proven, will beimplemented on a wider scale using funds fromPhase 2 of the Danube Regional Project (2003-2006). WWF is also contracted to deliver both aParticipation Strategy and a CommunicationsStrategy for the Danube River basin.

■ Establishing strong and effective partnershipswith national and local NGOs, particularly inBulgaria (Green Balkans), the Slovak Republic(DAPHNE) and Croatia (Dravska Liga).

■ Working with NGO and government partnersand the Ramsar Bureau to secure the designationof a trilateral protected area and Ramsar Site

Danube4

along the Morava-Dyje floodplains shared byAustria, the Czech Republic and the SlovakRepublic. This partnership was presented withthe Ramsar Award in 2002.

■ Responding rapidly and effectively to environ-mental crises in the region, such as the impactsof war in the Balkans on the Danube, and theeffects of the Tisza cyanide spill.

Conservation method demonstrated

WWF’s vision for the Danube-Carpathian region isone in which high biodiversity and a rich culturalheritage are mutually supportive, and serve as amodel of nature conservation and community pros-perity. With this in mind, WWF’s aims are the suc-cessful conservation, restoration and sustainablemanagement of nature, primarily of freshwater andforest resources, in the Danube River basin and theCarpathian Mountains. This requires a planningapproach at the ecoregion scale involving demonstra-tion projects, policy work, communications, net-working, capacity building and crisis response.

Resources devoted

WWF’s expenditure in financial year 2002 wasUS$1.68 million, largely contributed by WWFNational Organizations.

Income from governments and aid agencies hasbeen relatively modest, varying from around 7-15 percent per annum. The principal donors in this categoryhave been the EU (through its ‘Phare’ programme),the World Bank and the United Nations DevelopmentProgramme (UNDP)/Global Environment Facility(GEF). Smaller contributions have come fromDanish environmental assistance to Central andEastern Europe (DANCEE), IUCN–The WorldConservation Union, the Organization for Securityand Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), and the UnitedNations Environment Programme (UNEP).

Chronology

1992● Establishment of WWF Green Danube Programme.

1998● Initiation of WWF Danube-Carpathian Programme.

2000● Lower Danube Green Corridor Agreement signed.

2001● Presidential Summit of Danube countries organized by

WWF and the government of Romania.

2002● Ramsar Award presented in recognition of the

Austrian-Czech-Slovak trilateral protected area.

2003● Completion by WWF of the official ‘Danube River

Basin Public Participation Strategy’ as a contributiontowards implementing the EU Water FrameworkDirective in the basin.

Danube

Managing Rivers Wisely

5

Lead WWF office contactDr David TicknerFreshwater Team LeaderWWF Danube-Carpathian Programme OfficeMariahilferStrasse 88a/111/9A-1070 ViennaAustria

T: +43 1 52 45 470 19F: +43 1 52 45 470 70E: dtickner@wwfdcp.orgW: www.panda.org/about_wwf/where_we_work/

europe/where/danube_carpathian

Lessons learnt

1. It takes a long time to make real progressWWF’s respected role in the basin has been achieved after more than ten years of continuous technicaland financial investment and a permanent presence in the region. Objectives at a river basin scalecannot be tackled seriously within the scope of a typical three-year project.

2. Work at different levels simultaneouslyThis means working at field/site, national, and basin levels (the latter including cooperation with thebasin authority [where one exists], regional donors, and policy drivers). It is important to develop asound reputation at field/project level to gain respect and attention, and at national level to gaincredibility. Participation in international/basin-wide processes can provide the credentials to open doorsat a local level. WWF is one of just a handful of organizations that have basin-wide experience.

3. Use unexpected/ad hoc opportunities to build a platform for river basin managementIn the case of the Danube basin, a fast and technically competent response to emergency situations,such as the Tisza cyanide spill, gained WWF high-level political and media access. Do not let suchopportunities slip by.

4. Effective partnership building is essentialThe success of partnership building can be attributed to:

■ interpersonal and diplomatic skills and experience of key staff in the WWF Network

■ keeping partners’ expectations of WWF action to a level that can be met or, better still, exceeded

■ readiness to supervise rather than control

■ knowledge and understanding of the region

■ provision of concrete technical and financial support, often in quite small amounts

■ readiness to engage in long-term partnership and project activities

■ readiness to involve local expertise and experience

■ readiness to assist with building of local capacity

■ an open, constructive and modest approach when dealing with local stakeholders.

■ demonstrating that NGOs can be beneficial to governments

■ readiness to integrate partners’ priorities into WWF projects.

5. ‘Piggyback’ the pursuit of wetland/river basin conservation objectives on other issues that aremore important to a wider range of stakeholdersSelling wetlands as pollution processors and nutrient sinks has been particularly successful in theDanube context.

6. Base work on sound scienceWWF’s mapping of floodplain restoration potential for the entire Danube basin was a majorbreakthrough and provided a vision supported by hard scientific fact.

Danube6