tisza biodiversity_undp-gef - welcome -...

UNDP PROJECT DOCUMENT

UNDP-GEF Medium-Size Project (MSP)

Government of Hungary

United Nations Development Programme

Global Environment FacilityPIMS 1980

Conservation and Restoration of the Globally Significant Biodiversity of the Tisza River Floodplain Through Integrated Floodplain Management –

(Tisza-biodiversity project)

Brief descriptionThe project will mainstream biodiversity conservation within floodplain management across the Tisza River Floodplain. The project will significantly improve floodplain and landscape management of 1,600 km2 through activities within pilot sites, while moderately influencing an estimated area of 9,400 km 2

(about 20% of the Great Hungarian Plain) applying supportive policy environment and institutional capacity at the national level. The local stakeholder cooperation will be improved to establish the Tisza Platform, which aim is to improve the common understanding on biodiversity values of the Tisza valley and the complex needs of measures to protect and improve them. To support local initiatives a technical and financial support will be provided for small scale initiatives which fulfill the set criteria by the Tisza Platform.

0

Table of Contents

Acronyms..........................................................................................................................................2

SECTION I : ELABORATION OF THE NARRATIVE..................................................................3

PART I: SITUATION ANALYSIS........................................................................................................3PART II : STRATEGY......................................................................................................................3PART III : MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS.....................................................................................3PART IV : MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN............................................................................6PART V: LEGAL CONTEXT.............................................................................................................6

SECTION II : STRATEGIC RESULTS FRAMEWORK................................................................7

PART I : LOGICAL FRAMEWORK ANALYSIS.....................................................................................7Objectively Verifiable Impact Indicators......................................................................................7Indicative Outputs, Activities and quarterly workplan...................................................................7

SECTION III : TOTAL BUDGET AND WORKPLAN..................................................................12

SECTION IV : ADDITIONAL INFORMATION...........................................................................14

PART I : APPROVED MSP PROPOSAL (ENDORSEMENT LETTER INCLUDED).......................................14PART II : TERMS OF REFERENCES FOR KEY PROJECT STAFF...........................................................97

National Project Director.........................................................................................................97National Project Manager........................................................................................................99Project Assistant...................................................................................................................101Monitoring Officer.................................................................................................................103

ANNEXES TO THE PROJECT DOCUMENT............................................................................105

Annex I: Monitoring and Evaluation Plan................................................................................106Annex II: Financial management and financial reporting arrangements, audit requirements.......112Annex III: Minutes of the Local Program Appraisal Committee (LPAC) of the project................117Annex IV: Commitment letters.................................................................................................119Annex V: Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool..................................................................122

SIGNATURE PAGE......................................................................................................................136

1

Acronyms

BNC Bureau of Nature Conservation (in the Ministry of Environment and Water) HNVA High Nature Value AreasHNPD Hortobágy National Park DirectorateICPDR International Commission for the Protection of the Danube RiverIHFM Integrated, holistic, floodplain managementLPA Landscape Protection Area (under the Nature Conservation Act)MEW Ministry of Environment and WaterMARD Ministry of Agriculture and Rural DevelopmentMGBP Micro Grants for Biodiversity ProgrammeNAEP (AEM) Agri-environmental Measures of the National Rural Development Plan NDP National Development Plan NLF National Land FundNPD National Park DirectorateNRDP National Rural Development ProgrammePMU Project Management UnitPPF Project Preparation Fund (for EU Operational Programmes)PMO Prime Ministers OfficePSC Project Steering CommitteeSSWM State Secretariat for Water Management TFTO Upper Tisza Floodplain Technical Support OfficeUNDP United Nations Development ProgrammeVTT Improved Tisza River Flood Control Plan (new “Vasarhelyi Plan”) WMB Water Management Boards (at the sub catchments level)

2

SECTION I : Elaboration of the Narrative

PART I: Situation Analysis

1. The globally significant biodiversity in the Tisza floodplain results from its unique geological and hydrologic conditions and from centuries of distinctive landscape and water management practices of the floodplains, where the extreme events of water, the agricultural activities and the management of natural resources were in harmony, with today’s terminology sustainable. However, over the past one and a half centuries, much of this biodiversity has been lost due to large-scale flood control program (river regulation) and agricultural development and drainage projects. Lately, climate extremities, landuse change at the catchments and other environmental processes caused higher and higher risk of floods -and damage in 2000, 2001- and risk of pollution from trans-border economic activities, such as gold mining. The region is at the border of different authority areas and sectors resulting that infrastructure (e.g. at municipalities for sewage; water management system at catchments) and landuse often than not planned without fully accounting for the needs of the local, by now chronically aging population, and of the ecosystem, and its natural processes. As a result, the remaining – still rich and many places internationally recognized - biodiversity is fragmented and endangered because of it, has to cope with the more and more increasing threat of summer water shortage, invasive species, spills of chemicals and not proper regional and rural development.

PART II : Strategy

2. This project aims to encourage and support alternative approaches to floodplain management that integrate flood control, agriculture, biodiversity conservation and social development, and ensure they are mainstreamed into government policies. The project will empower local communities to drive their development process and integrate biodiversity into it. It will also articulate the necessity to include the needs of the local communities and the preservation of biodiversity, integrated floodplain management into national plans and guidelines. With significant co-financing, the project will support the development, dissemination and operationalization of an integrated, pro-biodiversity approach to floodplain landscape management. Agriculture, landuse and other rural development activities will be influenced and hopefully modified as a result by technical support to local, regional stakeholders. Project activities include remedial actions in areas under threat and sustainable use and awareness components. A Tisza association will be formed to provide a tailor made institution for this specific unique region comprising and still not strictly being part of the official NUT II and III regions. It will articulate the specific needs of the Tisza-region and propose relevant strategy and measures for its holistic management. It will manage on long term the technical office and the micro-grant scheme as well. Market and fair trade (virtually on the web and at the pilot areas) for the floodplain products and services will be created to increase the collaboration and the cooperation among the stakeholders, and increase the social and economic wealth.

PART III : Management Arrangements

3. A national Project Steering Committee (PSC) will oversee all project activities, approving annual work plans and major outputs, helping coordinate activities, and helping the project to interact effectively with the National Agri-environmental Program (NAEP) and the Vásárhelyi Plan Further development (VTT). PSC will consist of members from ministries and other responsible stakeholders such as:

- Ministry for Environment and Water (MEW):o 1 person from the State Secretariat of Water Management;o 1 person from the State Secretariat of Economics and Budget;

3

- Ministry for Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) – one of the two bellow is the MARD Focal point:

o 1 person who is an appointed ministerial coordinator for VTT;o 1 person responsible for agri-environmental and rural development programmes

(MARD);- Prime Minister’s Office: 1 person appointed, responsible for complex rural development issues;- Ministry for Finance: 1 person appointed, responsible for conceptual development;- representative of Hortobágy National Park Directorate and Bükk National Park Directorate;- Representative of the Hungarian Association of Farmers (MAGOSZ);- Representative of civic organizations, having expertise on micro fund (possible ÖKOTÁRS

Foundation); - Representative of the Tisza-Platform /Tisza Szövetség (regional platform of stakeholders along the

Pilot area);- UNDP – Regional and/or national liaison officer;- National Project Director;- taking part as well: the Program Manager (PM) and the Monitoring officer (MO), in case of financial

issues the Financial Officer. (See Organigramm below)

4. Considering that the PSC is sitting twice a year, to assure the support and advise to the PM Team between PCS sittings a Project Board (PB) is established composed of selected members of the PSC. With other words, the PB will be composed of the NPD, PM, MO, HNDP Financial Director, the MARD focal point and the representative of UNDP. In case when PB is not able or wanting to make decisions alone it will initiate proposals to be forwarded to the PSC. It will also be consulted by the PM in relationship to various operative and professional matters during implementation.

5. The Project will be executed according to UNDP rules and regulations under the NEX execution by the Ministry of Environment and Water as Executing Agency (EA). The EA will appoint a senior official as National Project Director who will be assisted by a National Monitoring Officer (MO), carrying out duties described in his/her ToR. Considering that the implementation team of the Implementing Agency (IA - see below) is located at the project site, the MO has a duty to carry out liaising, coordination with ministries, assist in monitoring and reporting.

6. The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development will play a close supporting role through appointed project focal point (MARD-FP), who has full responsibility to coordinate the work related to VTT in the Ministry.

7. The project will be implemented by the Hortobágy National Park Directorate (HNPD) as Implementing Agency, having its headquarter in the project area. A Program Management Unit (PMU) established and located at the HNPD will carry out the project implementation. A full-time project manager will be selected through a competitive call for applications. Until it happens an interim PM (later to be on the short list of applicants for the PM position) nominated by the Executing Agency will be responsible for the preparation of the project work plan and budget and for launching the project.

8. The PMU will work independently at the HNPD, its work will be assisted by the financial department and additional special tasks based on the Decision of the PB by the HNDP. The decisions, communications, daily work will be carry out by the PM, as it is required by the independent status of the UNDP-GEF project.

9. In the first year, the PMU will also play a key technical role, ensuring that technical support is available to the Initiatives of the Project. As soon as possible (probably in the second year), this role will be taken over by the Tisza Floodplain Technical Support Office (TFTO) to be established by the project and staffed and run by the people originally hired to staff and run the PMU.

4

10. The PM will report directly to the National Project Director, and have the following responsibilities described in more detail in his/her ToR (see annex): (i) Based on submissions from the Initiatives/ pilots, prepare quarterly work plans and monitoring reports; (ii) Based on submissions from the Initiatives, preparing ToR for all project-related inputs and activities (subcontracts and tasks of the Initiative teams); (iii) Identify experts and consultants to be involved in the project, with the help of the monitoring officer monitor their work and evaluate; (iv) Facilitate all project activities, and help organize related events when appropriate; (v) Commission studies, reviews, etc as specified in the MSP Proposal or requested by the SC; (vi) Monitoring the timeliness and effectiveness of all project inputs; and (vii) Giving full support to the NPD.

Project Organigramm

11. At the Initiative level a Platform will be generated, in a form of association and/or Foundation. The role of the Platform is to bring all relevant stakeholders together to ensure that the region specific status is recognized, the need for measures and national level policy are formulated and articulated adequately. The Platform will have an important role to operate – with the help of the PMU – the Micro Grant, setting its criteria, select and monitor the projects and evaluate it at the end.

12. At the Initiative level, each site will appoint a liaison officer (or team as decided by local stakeholders involved in functions of the actual conditions). The liaison officer will provide work plans ahead each quarter of a year; s/he will identify the needs for support by PMU or TFTO and report on the activities of the Initiative of the previous quarter.

5

13. In order to accord proper acknowledgement to GEF for providing funding, a GEF should appear on all relevant GEF project publications, including among others, project hardware and vehicles purchased with GEF funds. Any citation on publications regarding projects funded by GEF should also accord proper acknowledgment to GEF. The UNDP logo should also appear being more prominent -- and separated from the GEF logo if possible. The Project own logo will be used as well wich will be used at the website and fair trade system as well as a trade mark.

PART IV : Monitoring and Evaluation Plan

14. The project progress will be monitored according to the provisions described in the MSP Proposal at Section IV and in the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan attached in Annex I of this project document. The Monitoring of the project impacts and of the biodiversity will be done in close cooperation with other ongoing national programmes in Tisza Floodplain. To carry out this activity the project will recruit a Monitoring Officer (part-time). For monitoring purposes the WB/WWF Biodiversity Strategic Priority 2 Tracking Tool will be used. Progress against the tracking tool scorecard will be measure at the time of project evaluations.

15. At the project outset, as part of the project inception, the indicators in the Logical Framework will be reviewed by the project team (PMU), the teams of Initiatives and the Monitoring Officer. For each Goal, Objective, Outcome and Output, the proposed indicator will be assessed and validated against the existing baseline information. It will also be decided what type of additional information will needed for a more complete baseline and which sectoral or geographical areas. Then, for each indicator, additional baseline information will be collected, annual targets established, and mechanisms put in place for collecting and collating the information necessary to monitor progress towards the targets. The revised, complete monitoring framework will be discussed, reviewed and validated at a stakeholder workshop, before final approval by the Project Steering Committee, including UNDP.

PART V: Legal Context

16. This Project Document shall be the instrument referred to as such in Article I of the Agreement between the United Nations Development Programme and the Government of the Hungarian Peoples Republic Concerning Assistance from the United Nations Development Programme, signed by the parties on 28 April 1967. The host country implementing agency shall, for the purpose of the Standard Basic Assistance Agreement, refer to the government co-operating agency described in that Agreement.

17. UNDP acts in this Project as Implementing Agency of the Global Environment Facility (GEF), and all rights and privileges pertaining to UNDP as per the terms of the SBAA shall be extended mutatis mutandis to GEF.

18. The Director of the UNDP Regional Centre in Bratislava, Slovakia is authorized to effect in writing the following types of revision to this Project Document, provided that he/she has verified the agreement thereto by the UNDP-GEF Unit and is assured that the other signatories to the Project Document have no objection to the proposed changes:

a) Revision of, or addition to, any of the annexes to the Project Document;b) Revisions which do not involve significant changes in the immediate objectives, outputs or

activities of the project, but are caused by the rearrangement of the inputs already agreed to or by cost increases due to inflation;

c) Mandatory annual revisions which re-phase the delivery of agreed project inputs or increased expert or other costs due to inflation or take into account agency expenditure flexibility; and

d) Inclusion of additional annexes and attachments only as set out here in this Project Document.

6

http://intra.undp.org/gef/programmingmanual/gef_logo_page.htm

http://intra.undp.org/gef/programmingmanual/undp_logo_page.htm

SECTION II : STRATEGIC RESULTS FRAMEWORK

PART I : Logical Framework Analysis

Objectively Verifiable Impact Indicators

The Logical Framework in Annex A provides indicators for the project’s Overall Goal, Objective, Outcomes and Outputs. See approved MSP proposal in Section IV of the PRODOC.

Indicative Outputs, Activities and quarterly workplan

OUTPUTS ACTIVITIES Year 1 Year 2 Year 3Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Project foundation basis Recruit staff X Establish Office X

Hold Inception Workshop X Prepare Work plans X Set up Steering Committee XDevelopment Monitoring and Evaluation Framework X

Outcome 1: A Financially Sustainable Mechanism for Supporting Local Initiatives and Feeding Local Lessons into National Policy and Planning Output 1.1 The Regional Platform

Subcontracting the Facilitation team X

Workshops, local discussions at the initiatives to discuss Platform’s role, mandate and operating procedures X

Develop draft Constitution and procedure, legal assistance, financial assistance X X

Self approval of Constitution and first workplan, further on yearly basis X X X

Regular meetings on board, committees X X X X X X X X X X Output 1.2 Upper Tisza Floodplain Technical Support Office (TFTO).

Within framework of Constitution, establish TFTO with office and 1 full time staff member X X

Develop initial business and financial plan for TFTO X X

Initiate and carry out the marketing of TFTO services across the floodplain and at national level X X X X X X X

Output 1.3 Platform and the TFTO providing demand-driven coordination and technical support to local initiatives and implementing region wide activities

Platform and TFTO both perform three kinds of services: (i) supporting individual Initiatives technically; (ii) supporting coordination and linkages across the Initiatives, and; (iii) ensuring findings and lessons from local level are mainstreamed into regional and national level processes. Activities to support individual Initiatives are listed under Outputs 3.1-3.4 X X X X X X X X X X

7


Activities for supporting coordination and linkages across the Initiatives include:

Electronic and paper newsgroups; X X X X X X X X X X X Exchanges and consultations across

the initiatives; X X X X X X Create and maintain a Website

and WEB market(e-commerce system) for marketing and creating market for products and services of the Region X X X X X X X X X X X

Activities for ensuring findings and lessons from local level are mainstreamed into regional and national level processes include:

Review of international experience with floodplain management; X X X X

Undertaking economic studies eg, of best uses of floodplain and or, eg, of ecosystem service payments. X X X X

Output 1.4 Platform and TFTO sustainable business plans

Preparation of sustainable business plans For the Platform For the TFTO X X X X

Preparation of communications and marketing strategy X X X

Identification of funding sources/clients X X X X X Initially project finance staff and

equipment, this is phased out after 20 months. X X X X X X X X X X X

Outcome 2: Tools to support biodiversity friendly, IHFM (Indicators are covered, at present, by Outputs 2.1 – 2.3. At project outset, a complete monitoring and evaluation framework will be developed) Output 2.1 Comprehensive guidelines defining the characteristics of the ‘model’ approach to IHFM, agreed to by local Initiatives.

a study to identify a best, common model for sustainable, biodiversity friendly landscape management, and prepare guidelines to ensure its implementation.

X X X facilitate a participatory process to

promote understanding, acceptance and finalisation of the guidelines. X X

Output 2.2 Integrated floodplain-wide biodiversity monitoring system

Review existing biodiversity monitoring systems, including by NGOs, NAEP, MEW

X X X X Develop a common, coordinated, cost-

effective monitoring system X X X X X Monitor biodiversity across the floodplain

(mostly not funded by GEF) X X X X X X X X X X X X

8


Assist monitoring of NAEP impact on biodiversity (mostly not funded by GEF) X X X X X X X X X X X X

Output 2.3 Programme for managing invasive species

Review impact of existing invasive species

X X X Review ongoing efforts to manage

invasive species X X X Identify priority species for management X X X Identify a series of measures to stop and

revert the spread of the species. This will focus largely on coordinating existing efforts. X X X

Determine priorities, costs, sequences, responsibilities, etc X X X

Implementation (mostly not funded by GEF), including through the Action Plans X X X X X

Outcome 3: At each of the seven Initiative sites, biodiversity, land, water and habitats are managed in an integrated, holistic manner that is supportive of socio-economic development with the assistance of the MGBP Output 3.1 Assessments Assess technical, institutional, financial

and legal capacity to manage land, water, biodiversity and social issues at each of the seven sites. X X

Identify gaps. X X X X

Output 3.2 Action Plans Review of existing land-use plans, guidelines etc. including the national development program II. X X

Participatory appraisal and preparation of medium term Action Plan (covering a ten year period) X X X X X

Output 3.3 Strengthened Institutional Framework

Participatory appraisal of existing arrangements X X

Proposed membership and mandate of a Land and Water Management Authority X X

Develop legal status and obtain necessary approval X X

Output 3.4 Action Plans under implementation, and monitored

Prepare detailed design of priority actions, eg in the form of proposals to EU, to VTT and to NAEP X X X X X X

Lobby VTT to include sites in VTT , with IHFM focus X X X X X X X X X X

Undertake training on technical issues or on resource mobilisation; X X X X

Monitor level of funding to each Action Plan X X X X X X X X X

Monitor impact of each Action Plan. X X X X X X X X X Measures to manage invasive species X X X X X X X X Output 3.5 Conservation Prepare criteria for MGBP X X

9


of local biodiversity through Micro Grants for Biodiversity Programme (note: each grant, once disbursed, will be accompanied by a monitoring and evaluation framework)

Develop management mechanism for MGBP – led by the Platform

X X X In line with individual Action Plan, each local initiative requests small grants for biodiversity activities (eg: leaflets on key species, restoring small habitats, observation towers) X X X X X X X X

Outcome 4: Changes in the policy and the implementation of the VTT and NAEP to integrate biodiversity concerns, feeding into related EU policy and decision - making. Output 4.1 Increased awareness of decision-makers

Prepare clear project message for communication X X Prepare regular newsletter

X X X X X X X X X X X X Host 2 National workshops X X Output 4.2 The integrated floodplain management model (Output 2.1) is adopted by the NAEP guidelines

Review guidelines and institutional framework of NAEP X X X X Host workshop to discuss NAEP and impact on biodiversity involving the Academy of Sciences X X Propose changes to NAEP implementation framework, in order to strengthen biodiversity focus on Upper Tisza Floodplain area, including measures to address invasive species X X Propose more effective linkages between NAEP institutions and biodiversity community. X X Advocate for adoption of integrated floodplain management as land-use meriting special funding under NAEP X X X X X

Output 4.3 New Implementation Decrees related to VTT with strong biodiversity conservation orientation

Review guidelines and institutional framework of VTT X X Host workshop to discuss VTT and impact on biodiversity X X Propose changes to VTT implementation guidelines in order to strengthen biodiversity focus and focus on integrated, holistic floodplain management, including measures to address invasive species. X X Propose more effective linkages between VTT institutions and biodiversity community X X X X X X X Negotiate changes in VTT to ensure that all VTT sites adopt the integrated, holistic approach to land management. X X X X X X X

10


Output 4.4 Support ongoing civic initiatives (such as WWF Europe-wide efforts to modify EU land and agriculture policy and contribute to UNDP-GEF regional Wetlands Network

Contact national civic organisations such as:- WWF (EU and global)- E-Misszió (to Romania, Ukraine) - MTVSZ – Friends of the Earth (EU level)- MAGOSZ, AGYRA (EU level)- Sustainable Institute Miskolc (Slovakia)- Nimfea (especially to Romania) X X Forward all project lessons learnt to involved Organizations, create a network nationally and internationally X X

Identify with Network members, areas of interest for special attention in terms of lessons and practices with the aim of deriving policy inputs X X X

11

SECTION III : Total Budget and Workplan

Award ID:Award Title: PIMS 1980 BD MSP: TiszaProject ID:Project Title: PIMS 1980 BD MSP: TiszaExecuting Agency: Ministry of Environment and Water (NEX)

OUTCOMES/ATLAS ACTIVITIES

Responsible Party

Source of

Funds

Atlas Budget Code

ERP/Atlas Budget

Description /Input

Amount (USD) Year 1

Amount (USD) Year 2

Total (USD)

Outcome 1: A Financially Sustainable

Mechanism for Supporting Local

Initiatives and Feeding Local Lessons into National Policy and

Planning

*HNPD 62000 74200 Printing & Production costs 8013 8013 16026

HNPD 62000 71300 Local consultants 21538 21538 43076

HNPD 62000 72100 Contractual services 96218 96218 192436

HNPD 62000 72800 IT equipment 13462 0 13462

Subtotal 265000

Outcome 2: Tools to support biodiversity

friendly, IHFM (Indicators are covered, at present, by Outputs 2.1 – 2.3. At project outset, a

complete monitoring and evaluation framework

will be developed)

HNPD 62000 74200 Printing & Production costs 11218 11152 22370



Subtotal 130000Outcome 3: At each of

the seven Initiative sites, biodiversity, land, water and habitats are managed in an integrated, holistic manner that is supportive

of socio-economic development.



HNPD 62000 72600 Grants 201350 108418 309768

Subtotal 379000Outcome 4: Changes in

the policy and the implementation of the

VTT and NAEP to integrate biodiversity concerns, feeding into related EU policy and

decision - making.



HNPD 62000 73300 Rental 359 0 359

12

OUTCOMES/ATLAS ACTIVITIES

Responsible Party

Source of

Funds

Atlas Budget Code

ERP/Atlas Budget

Description /Input

Amount (USD) Year 1

Amount (USD) Year 2

Total (USD)

&Maintenance of IT equip.

Subtotal 71000

Project management, monitoring and

evaluation

HNPD 62000 71200 International consultants 40000 40000

HNPD 62000 71600 Travel 2654 2654 5308

HNPD 62000 72200 Equipment and furniture 25500 0 25500

HNPD 62000 72800 IT equipment 6410 0 6410HNPD 62000 72400 Communication 2308 2308 4615

HNPD 62000 74100 Profess. Services (Audit) 1800 1800 3600


HNPD 62000 74500 Miscellaneous 5166 5166Subtotal 99000TOTAL 523948 420052 944000

NOTE: Local staff is responsible for achieving the specified outcomes, but the same people provide the project management functions as well, but their activity is not separable.

*HNPD = Hortobágy National Park Directorate

13

SECTION IV : ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

PART I : Approved MSP proposal (Endorsement letter included)

Medium-sized Project proposal

14

Request for GEF Funding

AGENCY’S PROJECT ID: #1980GEFSEC PROJECT ID: #1527COUNTRY: HungaryPROJECT TITLE: Conservation and Restoration of the Globally Significant Biodiversity of the Tisza River Floodplain Through Integrated Floodplain ManagementGEF AGENCY: UNDPOTHER EXECUTING AGENCY(IES): Ministry of Environment and waterDURATION: 3 yrs (including 12 months of impact monitoringGEF FOCAL AREA: BiodiversityGEF OPERATIONAL PROGRAM: OP 2GEF STRATEGIC PRIORITY: BD2ESTIMATED STARTING DATE: December 2004IMPLEMENTING AGENCY FEE: $146,000 * Indicate approval date of PDFA:

23 July 2003** Details provided in the Financing Section

FINANCING PLAN (US$)GEF PROJECT/COMPONENT

Project 944,000PDF A* 25,000SUB-TOTAL GEF 969,000CO-FINANCING**GEF AgencyGovernment MEW 528,200Government NAEP 709,000Gov. – Local Initiatives 497,900Others 14,200Sub-Total Co-financing: 1,749,300Total Project Financing: 2,718,300FINANCING FOR ASSOCIATED ACTIVITY IF ANY:

CONTRIBUTION TO KEY INDICATORS OF THE BUSINESS PLAN: The project will mainstream biodiversity conservation within floodplain management across the Tisza River Floodplain. The project will significantly improve management of 1600 km2 through activities within project pilot sites, while moderately influencing (through supportive policy environment and institutional capacity at the national level) an estimated area of 9,400 km2 (about 20% of the Great Hungarian Plain).

Record of endorsement on behalf of the Government:Mr. Tibor Faragó, Director General, Ministry of Environment and Water, GEF Focal Point for Hungary

Date: 04/16/2004

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

Mr. Yannick Glemarec Deputy Executive Coordinator

Mr. Nick Remple, Regional Coordinator for Biodiversity and International WatersProject Contact Person

Date: 6 December 2004 Tel. and email:+421 2 59 337 [email protected]

Table of Contents

Summary..............................................................................................................................................161 COUNTRY OWNERSHIP....................................................................................................................16

1 A) Country Eligibility..................................................................................................................161 C) ENDORSEMENT............................................................................................................................172 PROGRAM AND POLICY CONFORMITY............................................................................................17

2 A) Program Designation and Conformity........................................................................................172 B) BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT.....................................................................................................18

2 b i) Project Area and Environmental Context..........................................................................182 b ii) Political, Institutional and Legal Context.........................................................................192 b iii) Socio-Economic Context....................................................................................................202 b iv) Biodiversity: Value and Status...........................................................................................212 b v) Biodiversity: Threats and Conservation Opportunities.....................................................24

2 C) PROJECT DESIGN.........................................................................................................................262 c i) Baseline and Barriers........................................................................................................262 c ii) Project Alternative Strategy and Logical Framework.......................................................322 c iii) Global Environmental Benefits..........................................................................................352 c iv) GEF Project Cost..............................................................................................................35

2 D) SUSTAINABILITY.........................................................................................................................352 E) REPLICABILITY............................................................................................................................372 F) STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT....................................................................................................38

2 f i) Describe briefly how stakeholders have been involved in project development........................382 f ii) Roles and responsibilities of relevant stakeholders in project implementation........................38

2 G) RISKS AND ASSUMPTIONS...........................................................................................................402 I) IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS...........................................................................................402 J) MONITORING AND EVALUATION................................................................................................41

3 FINANCING......................................................................................................................................42

3 A) FINANCING PLAN........................................................................................................................42

4 INSTITUTIONAL COORDINATION AND SUPPORT..............................................................45

4 A) CORE COMMITMENTS AND LINKAGES........................................................................................454 B) CONSULTATION, COORDINATION AND COLLABORATION BETWEEN IAS, & IAS AND EAS.......45

5 RESPONSE TO REVIEWS.............................................................................................................46

5 A) GEF SECRETARIAT.....................................................................................................................465 B) CONVENTION SECRETARIAT.......................................................................................................465 C) OTHER IAS AND RELEVANT EAS...............................................................................................465 D) RESPONSE TO EXPERT FROM STAP ROSTER..............................................................................46

ANNEXES..................................................................................................................................................47

Annex A - Logical Framework............................................................................................................48Annex B – Endorsement/commitment Letter.......................................................................................58Annex C - Maps of the Project Area...................................................................................................61Annex D - The global significance of the biodiversity in the upper Tisza Floodplain........................67Annex E - Rationale for Integrated, Holistic, Locally Driven Floodplain Management – Philosophy and Concrete Steps in the Bodrogkoz Area.........................................................................................71Annex F - Detailed description of existing locally driven initiatives for an integrated, holistic approach to floodplain management in the Upper Tisza floodplain..................................................76Annex G. The VTT government and implementation orders...............................................................84Annex H: GEF Secretariat Comments on the PDF A and UNDP Response................................88

15

Annex I – Response to GEF Secretariat Comments of 30 August 2004.........................................90

16

Summary

The globally significant biodiversity in the Tisza floodplain results from its unique geological and meteorological conditions and from centuries of distinctive management practices that integrated flood control, agriculture and natural resource conservation. However, over the past one and a half centuries, much of this biodiversity has been lost due to large-scale flood control and agricultural development projects, more often than not designed without fully accounting for the needs of the local population, of the ecosystem or of biological diversity. As a result, the remaining biodiversity is fragmented and depleted.

In the last decade, devastating floods, declining agricultural competitiveness and the EU accession process have radically altered the government’s management objectives for the floodplain. With EU support, the government is set to implement well-funded plans to control floods, to reform the agricultural sector and to promote rural development. The initial motivation for these sectoral developments is not nature conservation or biodiversity management. However, these plans provide a good opportunity for mainstreaming the conservation and sustainable utilization of biodiversity into economic and sectoral development. With modifications to their design and implementation, the plans could lead to a significant improvement in biodiversity status. In essence, floodplain biodiversity can be largely restored through the mainstreaming of biodiversity values into the flood control, agriculture and rural development sectors.

At several sites in the floodplain, local stakeholders are already designing alternative approaches to floodplain management that integrate flood control, agriculture, biodiversity conservation and social development. This project aims to encourage and support these approaches and ensure they are mainstreamed into government policies. The project will empower local communities to drive their development process and integrate biodiversity into it. It will also articulate the needs of local communities and of biodiversity into national plans and guidelines. With significant co-financing, the project will support the development, dissemination and operationalization of an integrated, pro-biodiversity approach to floodplain landscape management. Agriculture and other rural development activities will be modified as a result.

Financial and institutional sustainability of project outputs is a dominant theme in project design. This project will provide valuable lessons on how to mainstream biodiversity into sectoral development (notably agriculture and flood control) for countries throughout the region, including countries benefiting from EU financial support and countries acceding to the EU.

1 Country Ownership

1 A) Country Eligibility

1. Hungary became a full party to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity on 24th February 1994. Hungary is eligible for technical assistance from UNDP.

1 B) COUNTRY DRIVENNESS

2. In line with accession to the European Union (EU), and notably in order to implement the EU Birds and Habitats Directives, the Government of Hungary undertook a thorough assessment of its most ecologically valuable sites. Through this process, the ecological and biodiversity priority areas in Hungary were formally incorporated into the Ecological Network, which was endorsed by the Government in 2002. Significant parts of the proposed Project area lie within this Network.

3. Based on the Ecological Network, the Government finalised the Hungarian Natura 2000 Implementation Programme. This Programme is currently subject to approval by the Hungarian

17

Parliament and the EU. Through this Programme, the Government will allocate significant funding to the proposed Project area. Several Natura 2000 sites are located in the proposed Project area.

4. The proposed Project area is also a priority area in terms of socio-economic development. Two over-riding priorities for national development are flood control along the Tisza valley and the development of Hungary’s economically deprived areas (of which the Tisza river valley is one). Several national plans aim at the social, economic and ecological transformation of the Tisza Floodplain, notably: The Improved Tisza River Flood Control Plan (known commonly as the Improved Vasarhelyi

Plan, or by its Hungarian acronym, the ‘VTT’); The National Rural Development Programme (the NRDP), particularly one of its sub-

components: the National Agro-Ecological Plan (NAEP).At the national level, each of these plans is committed to conserving the biodiversity and the integrity of nature in the Tisza valley.

5. The proposed Project will mainstream biodiversity conservation into these priority processes.

1 C) Endorsement

6. The Project has been endorsed by the GEF Operational Focal Point in a letter dated 16 April 2004. The State Secretaries of the three concerned government departments1 have also provided supporting letters, indicating their financial commitment. Finally, representatives of other project stakeholders (the participating local communities and the two concerned National Parks) have confirmed, in writing, their support for the project. See Annex B for supporting letters.

2 Program and Policy Conformity

2 A) Program Designation and Conformity

7. The project meets GEF eligibility criteria under Operational Program #2 “Coastal, Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems”. The project promotes the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity of freshwater ecosystems. Threats will be removed in targeted areas by mainstreaming biodiversity protection with socio-economic goals2. Project activities include remedial actions in areas under threat3 and sustainable use and awareness components4. The project has built-in mechanisms for monitoring outcomes, both in terms of ecosystem structure/function and sustainable use by local populations5. Finally, project risks have been minimized by applying best practice and best available knowledge and by ensuring that local communities share the conservation objectives of the GEF project6.

8. The project follows closely the guidance provided by the GEF Council with regards to Strategic Priorities, based on the lessons learnt under the second operational phase of the GEF. The project corresponds to Biodiversity Strategic Priority 2, ‘mainstreaming biodiversity into production landscapes and sectors’. The upper Tisza Floodplain is a complex production landscape with important nature protection areas. The primary economic sectors in the floodplain are agriculture (including fisheries, animal husbandry and orchards) and forestry. The floodplain has been modified over the decades, to restrict flooding thus limiting its vital role in managing natural floods and droughts, and thus its role in the local and national economy. The project, at the landscape level, will

1 State Secretary for Water Management, State Secretary for Nature Conservation and Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development2 In accordance with GEF-OP2 criteria; see GEF-OP2 para 2.83 In accordance with GEF-OP2 criteria; see GEF-OP2; para 2.17 (c)4 In accordance with GEF-OP2 criteria; see GEF-OP2; para 2.17 (l)5 In accordance with GEF-OP2 criteria; see GEF-OP2; para 2.126 In accordance with GEF-OP2 criteria; see GEF-OP2; para 2.19 (a) and (c)

18

determine ways to effectively mainstream biodiversity conservation and sustainable utilisation into the agriculture, forestry and flood control sectors – it will restore floodplain biodiversity by reinstituting a degree of natural flooding, which will help recreate the general habitat mosaic. Given that this biodiversity rich mosaic is also a product of human management for subsistence and profit, the project will support local initiatives to support traditional agroecosystems and land management.

2 B) Background and Context

2 b i) Project Area and Environmental Context

10. The Tisza River and its major tributaries (notably including the Szamos, the Bodrog and the Sajó) originate in the Carpathian Mountains before descending into and criss-crossing the Great Hungarian plain (The ‘Alföld’) and eventually flowing into the Danube. Approximately one-third of the total river catchment lies in Hungary, with the rest being distributed among Slovakia, Ukraine and Romania. The Great Hungarian plain covers most of eastern Hungary, accounting for over half (47,000 km2) of the country.

11. The proposed Project area consists of those parts of the Tisza floodplain that lie to the north and east of Tisza Lake (Szolnok city) and up to the borders with Slovakia, Ukraine and Romania – see Annex C, Map 1. Total area is approximately 9800 km2. This area has been selected based on its globally significant biodiversity and the potential for participation in the VTT and NAEP. Many of the proposed Project activities focus directly on a series of ongoing small-scale social Initiatives in the Project area (see the ‘Pilot Sites’ in Maps 3a and 3b). In total, these Initiatives cover approximately 1600 km2. The proposed Project also supports activities at the national level.

12. Historically, geological and meteorological conditions combined to ensure that the Tisza River inundated vast areas of the Alfold every year, with large areas lying under water for several months each year. Hence, since ancient times, inhabitants of the Alfold practiced a complex form of land and water floodplain management. The original forests were partly cleared to grow food, raise animals and obtain construction materials. A complex, dynamic mosaic of land-uses and habitats developed, involving an ecological succession of different habitats – forest, cropland, meadows, bogs, marshes, orchards and ponds. Annual floods played a vital role in sustaining succession, the ecosystem and the economy. Floodplain management provided significant benefits in terms of ecological functions and agricultural productivity. However, annual floods greatly restricted urban and agricultural development in the Alfold.

13. Starting in the late 17th century, increased efforts were devoted to physically controlling the floodwaters, thereby allowing extensive arable farming and larger settlements. In the early 19 th

century, through the Vasarhelyi Plan (named after the plan’s chief architect and engineer), large-scale transformation of the floodplain began. The objective was to carry water in both the main rivers and tributaries away from the Alfold as efficiently as possible. Initially, this consisted of removing meanders and constructing dykes. In the late 19th century, large-scale draining of marshes and meadows and the conversion of grassland to arable land began in order to increase agricultural production in the Alfold. At many points in the floodplain, a second series of dykes (‘summer dykes’) was constructed to allow seasonal farming. A final transformation took place in the 1960’s and 1970’s, when the irrigated area increased from 700 to 5,000 km2.

14. It is notable that the many plans to transform the floodplain originated from outside the floodplain. They were both designed and financed by parties from outside the area. Hence, they did not necessarily respond to the needs and challenges faced by the inhabitants of the floodplain, nor did they necessarily fully appreciate the ecological conditions in the floodplain.

19

2 b ii) Political, Institutional and Legal Context

15. Following the fall of communism in the late 1980’s, Hungary quickly established democratic structures and processes as well as a market-oriented economy. However, recent democratic practice has been characterised by regular changes in the governing parties, which in turn means regular changes in the staffing of the civil service (at senior levels, but also at mid-levels in many cases) and regular changes in national priorities. Incoming governments, in order to establish their credibility, often establish new national flagship programmes, and existing programmes receive less priority. Overall, this contributes to a sense of instability in the planning and implementation of government funded programmes and projects.

16. For the last decade, the major social and political objective has been a smooth and rapid accession to the EU. To join the EU, Hungary has undertaken many economic, administrative and policy reforms. Without the incentive of EU accession, these reforms may have otherwise taken decades to complete. The EU has made available many large funds to support economic, social and environmental goals and the scale of available funds is likely to grow after accession. It should be noted that the rapidity of these reforms can cause difficulties for local governments, who are likely to lack the capacity to adapt and implement quickly.

17. The accession process has led to many new policies, programmes and institutions to meet EU objectives. However, in many cases, the former national policy and programme continue to exist. This has often led to duplication and confusion. Notably, local governments and residents in rural areas often find it difficult to determine which national programme or institution is the most pertinent to their cause, or to determine the latest procedures for accessing national support.

18. The administrative framework demonstrates this possible confusion. Historically, Hungary is administered through 19 counties and 3,200 municipalities7. These levels of government have strong decision-makers and institutions. Current law requires that land-use plans be prepared at these levels. Recently, in response to EU Directives, two new levels of local decision-making have been introduced: the Macro-region – which usually groups 2 or 3 counties; and the Micro-region – which usually groups municipalities8. In many cases, applications for EU funds have to be linked to Macro-regions or Micro-regions. There are now four levels of local government, and the exact distribution of roles and responsibilities across the four levels is still being determined. The proposed Project area includes 6 counties and 3 Macro-regions.

Local Associations and NGOs

19. In order to exploit financial opportunities, particularly EU-related, municipal governments are encouraged to group together to form ‘Associations’ representing one micro-region. These Associations have economic and social objectives. They often have a similar legal status to a private corporation. The membership is diverse, including government and local NGOs. Several Associations have recently been formed in the proposed Project area, and as described later, in some cases the Associations are taking a direct role in trying to shape flood water and ecological management in their vicinity.

NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

20. The Bureau of Nature Conservation (BNC) in the Ministry of Environment and Water (MEW) is responsible for nature conservation. Implementation of most conservation policies is through the system of National Park Directorates (NPD). NPDs report directly to the BNC. Two National Parks

7 Municipalities are diverse, ranging from small villages to large towns and cities.8 Typically one micro-region covers 5-15 municipalities.

20

(Bükk and Hortobágy) cover most of the proposed Project area. The large National Parks are divided into protected and non-protected areas. Although the Directorates have authority over the entire National Park, they only have direct managerial responsibilities for the protected areas.

21. The ownership of the protected areas is diverse; one protected area may have several owners – private individuals, the National Park, state entities such as the National Privatisation Agency, the National Land Fund, or the Hungarian Army.

22. The State Secretariat for Water Management (SSWM), also in MEW, is responsible for flood control. SSWM was only recently merged into MEW, and the coordination and integration arrangements within the Ministry have not been finalised. SSWM is responsible for overall implementation of the VTT. Through its local affiliates (the Water Directorates), SSWM is responsible for integrated water management, flood control, monitoring of main rivers and canals and controlling water extraction. Water Directorates prepare water management strategies for each catchment.

23. The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) is responsible for implementing national agricultural policy and all EU Directives related to agricultural and land reform. MARD is also responsible for rural development. MARD is also responsible for irrigation waters and drainage; it issues permits for agricultural water use and it supervises water management strategies for each municipality.

24. Water Management Boards (WMB) are established at the catchment and sub-catchment level. WMB are responsible for implementing the strategies prepared by the national government agencies. WMB include local officials and local regional representatives of MEW and MARD.

25. The Prime Ministers Office (PMO) is responsible for high-level coordination of national ministries. At present, collaboration between the MARD and MEW is improving but limited: more coordination and harmonisation is needed in some areas, such as rural development, agriculture, nature and environmental protection and integrated water management.

2 b iii) Socio-Economic Context

26. The Project area constitutes one of the poorer parts of Hungary, and hence one of the poorest parts of the enlarged EU. The socio-economic situation is very challenging (see Table 1). In the project area, the agricultural contribution to GDP remains over 15%9. The levels of unemployment are well above the national average, as are poverty levels. Other socio-economic indicators, such as level of education, access to suitable drinking water and heating, also illustrate the poverty in the region. Finally, although the overall population has been shrinking, ethnic minority population has been growing and exceeds 50% in some villages.

9 The contribution of agriculture to the national GDP dropped from 12.5% to 3.7% between 1990-200021

Table 1. Select economic and social indicators of the counties in the proposed project areaCounty Contribution of

agriculture to GDP in the county (%)(national average 3.7%)

Percentage unemployed

No. of cars/100 habitants (national average: 23)

Migration from the region (national average: - 1,4%)

Szabolcs Szatmár 15.30 15.40 13.60 - 2.27Hajdu Bihar 11.60 13.20 12.40 - 1.90Bács-Kiskun 21.30 6.50 19.20 - 1.85Békés 23.40 12.70 11.90 - 2.10

27. Overall, Hungary’s economy has fared well in recent years, due probably to EU accession. This growth has barely touched the proposed Project Area. A small but growing number of small and medium enterprises exist, but limited access to capital and markets restricts this trend. The leisure, tourism and recreation sectors are the most positive and promising, but both physical and managerial capacity is low.

28. Agricultural productivity has been declining since the 1970s, due largely to land degradation and the disrupted water cycle from drainage and conventional flood control systems. With the collapse of former markets in Eastern Europe, the demand for Hungary’s agricultural products also collapsed. This led to wide-scale unemployment in the Project area. It has also led to large areas of land being abandoned. In addition, industries existing in the cities have declined greatly since the fall of communism, and have not yet been replaced by new activities.

29. In communist times, the proposed Project area had many large state-owned farms, lying next to some small farms managed by families. The privatisation of land in the early 1990s led to an extreme parcelization of the land. In many cases, it has not been possible to complete this privatisation process, as it has not been possible to locate many potential landowners. Many small parcels of land have several legal owners. This complex and fragmented land ownership makes the implementation of agricultural policies difficult. In response, policies starting in the late 1990’s aimed at clustering land parcels into ownership patterns conducive to efficient farming. This process - financed largely through the National Land Fund (NLF) - is still ongoing, with many issues still to be resolved at both local and national level.

30. The economy in the proposed project area is almost entirely in the hands of the private sector. However, for the most part, it is family, micro or small-scale enterprises. Some larger-scale industry is to be found near urban areas.

2 b iv) Biodiversity: Value and Status

GLOBALLY SIGNIFICANT BIODIVERSITY

31. The Tisza floodplain is an excellent example of a species rich river in Central and Eastern Europe. The river is still in a relatively pristine condition, particularly in its upper sections, and the floodplains along the river provide habitats for a wide range of plants and animals, including many threatened species. The floodplains also contain significant biodiversity important to agriculture and farming systems. The following paragraphs provide some examples of this biodiversity; Annex D provides detailed information on the biodiversity at the ecosystem and species levels.

32. Historically, annual flooding of the floodplain created unique wetland forests. Over the centuries, management of the land by communities led to a complex dynamic mosaic of forests, grasslands, pastures, wetlands, marshes, meadows, natural forests, orchards, lakes, oxbows, rivers and managed

22

ponds. Management of the land led to increased diversity in habitats, which in turn led to an increase in the numbers of species that thrived in the floodplain.

33. One important aspect of the ecosystem mosaic are floodplain forests, which are predominantly mixed woodland. There are some remnant softwoods along the banks of the oxbows, and some hardwood gallery forests primarily along the dikes. There are remnant patches of oak, ash and elm climax forests in the floodplains. There are also significant areas of willow and poplar riparian woodland, primarily found in the lower lying floodplains of the lowland rivers.

34. Another important aspect of the ecosystem mosaic are the important wetlands and grasslands, of which the best examples are to be found in and around Hortobágy National Park, with over 100,000 hectares of wet and flooded grassland. This has been listed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site on account of its unique cultural, semi-natural landscape, and its globally important natural values. More than 310 species of birds have been recorded in the past 20 years in the Park’s wetlands, marshes and saline grasslands (a landscape mosaic known as puszta). The well-preserved landscape of the Hortobágy National Park is visible evidence of traditional use of more than two millennia, such as the grazing of domestic animals.

35. The oxbows are another unique aspect of the floodplain ecosystems. More than 100 distinct oxbow ecosystems are scattered along the upper Tisza River, on average these are 1.3 km long, and the largest are over 10 km. Some are natural; some were created through the implementation of the Vasarhalyi Plan in the 19th Century. These oxbow ecosystems contain a wealth of biodiversity. They also perform extremely important ecological functions (spawning, rearing, feeding, resting and staging, aquifer recharge, aquatic species "banks", habitat connectivity). If conserved and properly managed, these oxbows can also act as “incubators” for species for the less protected river and floodplain, and as such are a source of replenishment for riverine species in general. The system of oxbows is of particular importance for the large number of migratory bird species, providing important staging, resting and feeding areas.

36. As an indication of the global significance of the ecosystems in the proposed Project area, it includes the following internationally recognised important areas: 3 Ramsar Sites10, covering a total of 48,000 hectares; 12 International Bird Areas (IBA), covering a total of 140,00 hectares; 14 Natura 2000 sites, covering 150,000 hectares (subject to final approval by EU). These sites are indicated on Maps 3a nd 3b in Annex C.

37. The project focuses principally on the sites of the six Initiatives. These sites are selected for their potential to combine biodiversity conservation, agricultural development and flood control (i.e. for their potential to mainstream biodiversity into the agriculture and flood control sectors). Each of the six sites includes part of a Natura 2000 site; four of them include part of a Ramsar site, and all of them include or are contiguous with an IBA. More details are provided in section 2 c i) below.

38. In terms of species, over 300 species of bird (including 4 globally threatened species), 59 species of fish, 200-300 species of vascular plants, and a large number of invertebrate species are regularly recorded in the area. The area is notably very rich in farmland birds. Farmland birds including Lapwing (Vanellus vanellus), Skylark (Alauda arvensis), Yellow Bunting (Motacilla flava) and Corn Bunting (Emberiza calandra) are common. Recent studies show that the populations of European farmland birds are under threat, and the proposed Project area remains one of their last strongholds in Europe.

10 A part of the project area is the planned four-country Ramsar site covering parts of Hungary, Slovakia, Ukraine and Romania. Hungary and Slovakia have already completed the designation of the Ramsar site in 2003 while the Ukraine and Romania are currently undertaking the preparatory work.

23

39. The area is also home to numerous endangered and threatened flora species, including 57 orchid species alone, as well as Haliaetus albicilla, Adonis vernalis, and Trapa natans. Along the river, the remnants of former marshland areas still host a number of significant plant associations and species. Rare plants associations include Nanocyperion, Echinochloo-Polygonetum, Convolvulion sepium, Salicetum triandrae, Salicetum albae-fragilis, Fraxino pannonicae-Ulmetum Carici elongatae-Alnetum, Salicetum cinereae, Querco robori-Carpinetum, Myriophylleto-Potametum, Magnocaricion, Agrostidion albae and Molinion coeruleae.

BIODIVERSITY IMPORTANT TO AGRICULTURE

40. Over the centuries, the inhabitants of the Tisza floodplain developed unique land-races and breeds of animals. Although studies and records are incomplete, at least 75 crop strains and 25 livestock breeds (cattle and sheep) are found in the Project area and are known to be unique in Europe, and probably globally.

41. The proposed project area also retains many traditional, unique farming systems. A good example of these is the so-called “Fokgazdálkodás” or “Hook-management”11. Developed over the previous three to four hundred years, these include traditional technologies for diverting water, temporarily retaining water for agriculture and fisheries, and growing fruit. This symbiosis between the river and the local habitants ensured dynamic nature protection and a secure, sustainable income. Small supporting landscape changes uniquely adapted to the river character were introduced, for example small pits and hand-made water steering canals.

42. Present day economic land uses in the landscape include: Plantations: The cultivation of hybrid poplar and Robinia pseudoacacia plantations in large parts

of the floodplain. These are alien to the natural systems of the Tisza valley and have little ecological value.

Arable lands: Major crops include cereals, sunflower and maize. Pastures: This land use has significantly declined but should be supported both for nature

conservation and for ecological reasons. Hay meadows: Like the previous land use form, it can only be found in remnant patches. Orchards: One of the most important, original land uses that is a good example of harmony

between agriculture and natural systems.

Biodiversity Status

43. The large-scale physical transformations starting in the early 19th century have had a significant effect on floodplain biodiversity. The complex, dynamic mosaic that characterized the Tisza floodplains was largely altered and replaced by a two-component system: the active floodplain (inside the dykes) and the inactive floodplain (or the protected or secondary floodplain – lying outside the dykes). In the active floodplain, the land is now subjected to deep floodwaters that often stagnate for many months. In the inactive floodplain, land is only flooded in exceptional years. Hence many of the marshes, grasslands and pastures in the inactive floodplain have been converted to grazing land and to arable land; many of the original forests have been converted to mono-plantations. Hence many of the habitats have been destroyed, and the impact on species populations has been considerable.

44. Biodiversity important to agriculture has also suffered. Programmes to expand intensive agriculture, especially in the 1960s, meant that many traditional varieties and breeds were no longer used. Land management systems, such as the Foks(notch), have become a rarity. In recent years, the general rural socio-economic decline has not facilitated the strengthening or reintroduction of these traditional farming practices.

11 Fokgazdálkodás, or Foks (notch), is a traditional extensive fishery that operates in harmony with the flood system of the river and is based on artificial and natural creek structures.

24

45. Despite the above-mentioned infrastructure projects and trends, the Tisza River, some of its tributaries, and its floodplain do retain many of their original, unique characteristics at many points. Notably, these preserved elements can be found: In upper areas of the floodplain (near the borders with Slovakia and Ukraine). In these areas the

flood control measures were less complete; Between the dykes, at points where the distance between the two dykes is large enough for

healthy ecosystem function; In wetlands outside the dykes that were never drained, and are supplied with water either by small

rivers or through underground reservoirs and channels; In the many natural or man-made oxbows (many were created as the main river channels were

straightened). Some of these are connected to the main river by underground channels; others only receive rainwater. In many cases these oxbows provide a unique ecosystem that is protected from invasive species and river pollution and so provides a refuge for biodiversity;

On the edge of the riverbed, where the excavation of sand and gravel led to pits containing unique microhabitats, and unique mudflat communities.

2 b v) Biodiversity: Threats and Conservation Opportunities

46. Disrupted water cycle Floodplain transformation described in the previous sections brought challenges to optimal ecosystem function from the beginning, which only increased in scale with the increasing scale of the transformation. Dams, dykes, canals and pumps have been built since the early 19th century. These have contributed to droughts, water logging, salinization, stagnation, loss of fertility, siltation, sedimentation and erosion and reduced habitat and landscape diversity. The faster flowing river scours the riverbed leading to dropping water tables across the entire Great Plain. The overall quality of the land and water has declined, causing many species to decline or disappear.

47. In recent years, there have been no new large-scale hydrological engineering schemes. However, the existing infrastructure still functions, efficiently removing water from the floodplain. This leads to a slow but continuous degradation of the remaining oxbows, marshes and other floodplain ecosystems.

48. Land-use changes increased throughout much of the twentieth century to meet the increasing and changing demand for agricultural products outside the floodplain (and mostly outside Hungary). Marshes were converted to grazing land and meadows and pastures to arable farmland. Detrimental agricultural practices such as continuous monocropping, heavy mechanization, pesticide use, and over-grazing were common. This resulted in the loss of many species, a great decline in the health of many remaining species, and declining fertility of large areas of land. Although the demand for agricultural products has now declined - the region is no longer competitive - many of the unsustainable practices continue. The proposed Project area also contains large areas of abandoned agricultural land. This provides a natural habitat for some species, but it also facilitates the spread of invasive species.

49. This threat to biodiversity has somewhat stabilised, and indeed recent programmes, introduced largely in response to EU initiatives, offer more sustainable alternatives. These programmes are discussed in the Baseline (below).

50. Pollution. The threat of pollution comes from industrial hotspots found upstream. A study undertaken in 2000 identified 42 high-danger hotspots in Ukraine, Slovakia, Romania and Hungary12. As demonstrated by the Baie Mare spill in Romania in 2000, toxic substances can quickly be carried downstream and cause widespread damage to many parts of the river system.

51. This pollution threat is being addressed through a series of related initiatives, as follows, and is consequently not a focus of this project:Ukraine and Slovakia are currently taking steps to manage 300 mining sites with potential for spills;

12 Survey on the mining activities in Romania, Tisza – Szamos KHT, 2001-2002, Budapest 25

The 11 high-danger hotspots in Hungary are well managed with strong, well implemented management plans;

Romania, although further behind, is starting to implement projects with the aid of the international community to address the high-danger hotspots. These include the full-scale WB/GEF “Hazard Risk Mitigation and Emergency Preparedness Project”13;

The WWF International Danube-Carpathian Programme, promoting the conservation, restoration and sustainable management of the freshwater and forest resources in the Danube River Basin and Carpathian Mountains (well managed freshwater and forest resources would diminish the risk of catastrophic flooding)

The Tisza Project – carried out within the EU 6th Research Framework Programme;Several ongoing bilateral and multi-lateral projects, such as the Ukrainian water monitoring scheme

sponsored by the Hungarian MEW; The International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR) is a strategic

partnership covering the entire Danube Basin, including the Tisza watershed, addressing both pollution control and ecological restoration. The ICPDR benefits from the support of many international partners, including GEF, the World Bank, UNDP and UNEP. For example, the UNDP/GEF Danube River Basin Programme addresses transboundary environmental degradation in the Danube/Black Sea basin through policy and legal reform, public awareness raising, and institutional strengthening. Also, the World Bank Investment Fund for Nutrient Reduction in the Black Sea/Danube Basin is focused on the recovery of the Black Sea and aimed to help finance investment projects in industrial and domestic wastewater treatment, wetland restoration and environmentally friendly agriculture. The recently approved second phase of the Danube Regional Project contains Output 2.3 Improvement of procedures and tools for accidental emergency response with particular attention to transboundary emergency situations. The subject of this project component is to support development activities for accident emergency warning and prevention of accidental pollution. The experience from the 2000 accidental pollution events indicates that the basically established APC/EG needs substantial improvement before it can become a satisfactory tool for adequate management of transboundary contamination from catastrophic events. During Phase 1 of the Project, the operational bases of the alarm system were upgraded and preventive policy measures recommended. During Phase 2, the practical application of the alarm system will be further extended in the DRB. In this context, technical assistance and reinforcement of operational conditions are required in Phase 2 for:

o Reinforcing operational conditions in the national alert centers (PIACs) and geographical extension of the AEWS in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia & Montenegro14) (follow-up from Phase 1);

o Support to completing and prioritisation of the Inventory of old contaminated sites in potentially flooded areas in the Danube River Basin (follow-up from Phase 1);

o Support to upgrade of the ARS Inventory providing the detailed analysis, distribution on sub-basin and industry branches and implementation of the check-lists (follow-up from Phase 1);

13 The project aims “to assist the Government of Romania in reducing the environmental, social, financial and economic vulnerability to natural disasters and catastrophic mining accidental spills of pollutants through: (i) strengthening the institutional and technical capacity for disaster management and emergency response; (ii) implementing risk reduction measures for floods, landslides and earthquakes; (iii) improving the safety of water-retention dams; and (iv) improving the management and safety of tailings dams and waste dumps facilities.”14 The Serbia and Montenegro is situated in an extremely important geographical position in the center of the Danube River

Basin where the most important tributaries, Tisza, Sava and Drava join the Danube. During the accidental pollution the AEWS also informed Serbia and Montenegro (former FR of Yugoslavia) and cooperated with its technical staff to monitor the effects of accidental pollution. The UNEP Balkan Task Force and the EU-Baia Mare Task Force have closely cooperated with Yugoslavian authorities in the assessment of accidental pollution and the design of emergency measures.

26

o Maintaining and calibrating of the Danube Basin Alarm Model (DBAM), to predict the propagation of the accidental pollution and evaluate temporal, spatial and magnitude characteristics in the Danube river system and to the Black Sea (follow-up from Phase 1);

o Organization of workshops to reinforce cooperation in accident and emergency/warning and development of preventive measures (follow-up from Phase 1).

UNDP/GEF is initiating the regional project “Reversal of land and water degradation in the Tisza Basin Ecosystem – Establishment of Mechanisms for Land and Water management”. This project, building on what has already been achieved through the EU accession process and through ICPDR implementation, will establish the concept of Integrated River Basin Management at a regional level. The project has a focus on upstream issues, notably pollution and deforestation, as well as water retention or catastrophic flood prevention or amelioration. The project will prepare a River Basin Plan that addresses sustainability issues in the water, agriculture, energy, industry and navigation sectors. The project will also support transboundary pilot projects at the local level, demonstrating the economic, social and environmental advantages of water and land management integration. It will also develop participatory frameworks for cooperation between countries, sectors, communities and stakeholders in the basin.

52. Invasive Species. The hydrological changes in the 19th century increased the speed and ease by which species can travel across the river system and reach new parts of the floodplain. The spread of exotic plant species (for example Acer negundo, Solidago gigantea, Solidago canadensis, Amorpha fruticosa, etc.), as well as mammal and fish species, is posing an increasing threat to native species. Invasive species reduce biodiversity by changing habitat structure. They also drive out native species, e.g. by predation or by interbreeding. Evidence suggests this is a growing problem, but there is little detailed information available. The present approach to managing invasive species is unsystematic and uncoordinated. There are two lines of action. First, in agricultural areas, the containment of invasive species is the responsibility of the users/owners by law, with oversight from the municipalities and the Plant protection authorities. Enforcement is weak. Moreover, these small-scale measures are insufficient to address the threat – a broader ecosystem-wide approach is required. Second, in protected sites and buffer zones, the Nature Protection Department is responsible to protect the sites from the Invasive Species. However, there is no mechanism for coordination with land-owners in buffer zones and surrounding areas. There are considerable funds that could be used to manage invasive species (notably from NAEP), but they are not used effectively.

53. Opportunities for restoration . The government, with the support of the EU, is currently developing new approaches to flood control and agricultural development in the proposed Project area. These sectoral developments, in general, enjoy strong political and financial support. The initial motivation for these sectoral developments is not nature conservation or biodiversity management. However, the official documents outlining these sectoral developments do commit to helping to conserve biodiversity. These provide a good opportunity for mainstreaming conservation and sustainable utilisation of biodiversity into economic and sectoral development. This is discussed in detail in the following sections.

2 C) Project Design

2 c i) Baseline and Barriers

54. Overview In the baseline, over the medium term, the general decline of the rural socio-economy will continue. The number and intensity of agricultural activities will remain small. It will take time for tourism and new industries to grow and provide sufficient economic opportunities and jobs to offset losses in agriculture. The rural population will continue to decline and age over the medium term.

55. The baseline consists of a series of socio-economic and ecological activities: Large-scale national socio-economic development plans, with components in the proposed Project

area, with an impact or a potential impact on biodiversity;

27

The Hungary Natura 2000 Implementation Programme; Small-scale, locally driven, integrated, holistic, resource management initiatives.

56. Together, if managed well, these activities have the potential to reverse biodiversity loss and even greatly improve the biodiversity status. However, as described in the following sections, there is a series of barriers to realising their potential.

National socio-economic development plans. 57. The Improved Vasarhelyi Plan (VTT ) implemented by SSWM/MEW. This programme has the

overall objective of controlling floods in the Tisza valley and is a direct response to the devastating floods experienced in 1998-2002. The VTT (see Government Decree of March 2003 in Appendix G) focuses on strengthening dykes and constructing a series of eleven emergency storage reservoirs, with an aggregate volume of 1.5 billion m3. In most years the land inside these reservoirs will be dry and support conventional intensive farming. When river waters are high, floodwaters will be channelled into and stored inside the reservoirs. Farmers will be compensated for lost production. The VTT should also support rural infrastructure development in areas close to the reservoirs.

58. The total budget of the VTT is 250 billion forint15 over 10 years. The VTT is to be implemented in Phases. The sites for the first six storage reservoirs have been formally identified. The first three are to be constructed in the first phase (2005-2007). The VTT presently enjoys high-level support, as the devastation caused by recent floods is fresh in the minds of the public and politicians. Annex C, Map 2 illustrates the location of the first six reservoirs.

59. Overall, the VTT, through these large storage reservoirs, will have a negative impact on the remaining biodiversity. In years of low rainfall, the land will be intensively farmed. In very wet years, the land will be heavily inundated for a lengthy period. Biodiversity in the area will be grossly simplified by this cycle. The VTT will continue to damage the hydrological cycle across the floodplain.

60. Initially, the VTT was to have consisted only of the above-described emergency storage reservoirs and related dykes. Recognising that this irregular flooding could be bad for ecosystem function, for the economy and for biodiversity, some stakeholders have suggested an alternative approach to flood control using integrated floodplain management (see Box 1). As described in Box 1 and Annex E, this approach can be both ecologically and economically sustainable. The suggested approach is similar in many ways to the floodplain management practiced until the 17th century. The latest Government Implementation Decree (November 2003) states that all VTT sites could adopt such an integrated approach. Moreover, following pressure by local groups and ecologists, the VTT planners have agreed that one of the first selected VTT sites – Cigand – Tiszakaradi, should pilot the integrated, holistic floodplain management (IHFM) approach (see following paragraph). Hence, there is some support at multiple levels for this modified approach to floodplain management, but as will be explained in later paragraphs, there are barriers to the successful introduction of this approach.

Box 1: Integrated, Holistic Floodplain Management (IHFM)Floodplain landscape management was the traditional form of ecological agriculture in the Alfold. The land was inundated annually. As the land is not flat, the degree of flooding varied over short distances, causing a rich mosaic of habitats and ecosystems. Man’s early efforts at flood control contributed to this richness. All ecological processes such as soil formation, groundwater migration and habitat development were dependent on the exact nature of the flood. Conventional agriculture and flood control practices led to widespread degradation of this biodiversity rich mosaic primarily during the last 80 to 100 years.

Results from local experiments suggest this integrated, holistic approach to floodplain management (IHFM) can be reintroduced in the area, with restoration of significant ecological, economic and social 15 US$1 = 220 forint, approximately

28

benefits. The experiments show that this approach is financially viable. The precondition is the regular (at least annual) inflow of water from the river. The inflows must be carefully controlled through a complex ‘water-steering’ system.

As opposed to standard dykes and storage reservoirs, the IHFM approach to flood control has the following ecological and biodiversity benefits:

A more balanced and stable water regime. The levels of soil moisture, surface and subsurface waters increase, and the absorbed waters provide insurance against future droughts;

The mosaic landscape formed thereby contributes to much higher biodiversity, compared to mono-agricultural or non-flooded lands;

The landscape can be managed extensively, without large, economically unviable inputs of energy and materials;

The landscape is fully compatible with the agro-environmental objectives of the European Union.

Land is classified into three levels depending on the depth and duration of the flooding: deep flood plain; low flood plain and high floodplain. A diverse range of economic activities can be practiced at each level, ranging from fishing, to reed and bush collection, to orchards and livestock farming. In general, if well managed, these activities are supportive of biodiversity. This approach and the benefits are further described in Annex E.

61. As part of the VTT, at Cigand – Tiszakaradi, as a pilot programme, approximately 5000 hectares of the floodplain will be flooded every year in a controlled manner, mainly for agricultural areas. Natural resource management systems will be developed based on traditional systems, which exploit the annual floodwaters, providing benefits to land quality, to agriculture and biodiversity. The aim is to develop approaches to developing mosaics of habitats similar to those found across the Tisza floodplain in past centuries. Calculations also indicate that this approach will lead to economic benefits for the local communities16. If this approach is successfully implemented at the site, it will represent a great shift in the thinking and planning of decision-makers.

62. IHFM is, in essence, the mainstreaming of biodiversity into flood control. There are several barriers to the widespread successful adoption of IHFM through the VTT. First, the scientific principles of IHFM are not appreciated by decision-makers. Hence, at present, all VTT sites except one follow the traditional emergency storage reservoir approach. Second, political support to the VTT may fade if the government changes or if there are no floods in the coming years. Third, although the budget is large, the disbursements have been very slow and only 8 billion forint was disbursed in the first year. Fourth, the legal system regarding water trading leads to inflexibility. For example, it is possible that the land-users at the Cigand – Tisszakaradi will have to pay for the water they extract from the river, whereas they are actually providing a service in terms of flood and drought control. Likewise, there are no approved methods for environmental capital assessment, risk assessment and burden sharing, and compensation. Fifth, there is little support for the VTT from local stakeholders. Finally, the high speed with which the VTT is supposed to be implemented may preclude adequate planning and consultation.

63. The National Agro-Environmental Program (NAEP) The NAEP is a component of the National Rural Development Programme. It is implemented by MARD, and aims primarily to satisfy EU demands to remove 1.2 million hectares of land in Hungary from intensive agricultural production.

64. Nationally, at least 85 billion forint are available each year from the Government and the EU to implement the NAEP. Land-users make proposals to the Government for subsidies; in return they

16 See Annex E for a description of the IHFM approach, and a discussion of its merits including in relation to biodiversity.

29

must agree to take their land out of intensive agriculture. In line with the rules, land-users in High Nature Value Areas – HNVA (HNVA is a status allocated by MEW to land as part of the Natura 2000 Programme, and in almost all cases the land is rich in biodiversity) stand an increased chance of having their proposal approved. Moreover, NAEP awards higher subsidies for switches to biodiversity friendly land-uses, e.g., switching from cropland to grassland or wetlands will receive a high subsidy. Overall, the NAEP aims to change land-use in 300,000 hectares, of which at least 80,000 should be on HNVA.

65. The NAEP is ecologically sound, the macro-level policy documents associated with the NAEP state the importance of conserving biodiversity, and the NAEP also includes social objectives. The NAEP is, in essence, promotes mainstreaming of biodiversity conservation into the agricultural sector.

66. There are several barriers to the operationalization of the NAEP in a manner that leads to biodiversity conservation and sustainable use. First, the funding allocated is an upper limit, and these funds will only be disbursed if an appropriate number of high-quality proposals are received from land-users. Since capacity to prepare proposals is notably low at the sites deserving funds, many funds may never be disbursed, leading to a great missed opportunity. Second, the points and ranking system for making awards is biased against small-scale farming, the very areas where, in aggregate, most biodiversity conservation opportunities exist. Third, the awards are made for five-year periods – and this period is too short to persuade many farmers to make permanent land-use changes (e.g., to biodiversity friendly traditional orchards). Fourth, monitoring of the NAEP is weak – the main objective of the NAEP is to satisfy EU requirements, and biodiversity objectives may not be well monitored. Fifth, the NAEP does not follow a systematic or programmatic approach and awards are made in response to demands from land-users - thus, it is difficult to achieve economies of scale or coherence across a large landscape, which undermines efforts to achieve a landscape approach to biodiversity conservation. Finally, although the objectives of the NAEP are good, the technical capacity to develop and implement activities is limited.

67. Although the NAEP has no specific geographic focus, its focus on poor agricultural areas and HNVA means that the proposed Project area could greatly benefit from NAEP funds. In the proposed Project area, under the NAEP, in 2002, 243 million Ft17 were awarded to land-use change proposals.

68. The National Land Fund is a tool used by the government to find and identify landowners, to facilitate the buying and selling of land, and to help the state purchase land. The NLF could contribute to both the VTT and NAEP, as both Plans depend on good knowledge of land ownership.

69. In the baseline, the lack of coordination across the plans, the lack of a focus on biodiversity, the barriers to their successful operationalization, and the low capacity of local communities to exploit the plans, will mean that the impact on biodiversity across the floodplain is limited.

The Natura 2000 Implementation Programme

70. In the baseline, with significant support from the EU, the government is to take significant steps to establish a network of protected areas in the upper Tisza floodplain. Several protected area projects are being developed, including: A LIFE Nature project restoring original types of farming/water management in Nagykorű in

collaboration with WWF, €1.2 million; A LIFE Nature project at Dél-Borsodi in cooperation with Hortobágy NPD, to put in retention

dams and to introduce eco-management, €1.6 million; A LIFE Nature project to restore Pelyi meadow coordinated by the Bükk NPD, €0.8 million Two larger projects are under development in the framework of the EU Pre-Project Development

Fund. One is at Tiszadob (to prepare an oxbow rehabilitation project) and the other is at Körös valley (focusing on nature corridor development);

17 Report on the NAEP by the MEW, BNC, 2003.30

Four additional LIFE projects might be approved in 2004 – assisting concrete nature protection and rehabilitation at sites in the broader pilot area. These projects are very small-scale with concrete site measures such as water steering dykes and floodgates. There is a strong need to integrate IHFM into these initiatives to ensure sustainability and long term implementation, otherwise there is a big risk of failure due to lack of support by landowners, the public and the state.

71. These initiatives will have an impact on the biodiversity in the upper Tisza floodplain, though with some limitations. First, there are many important biodiversity sites in the area that receive little or no funding. These projects respond very much to EU procedures and criteria, and as a result many important sites can be neglected. Second, these projects are small in scale and time – and as they address symptoms rather than fundamental causes, they are unlikely to have sustainable impacts. These projects do not deal with institutional capacity building, development of management techniques and skills. Finally, local people benefit very little from the activities, and so are not supportive in general. In the baseline, these conservation efforts will benefit certain species, and some small unique ecosystems, however the impact across the entire floodplain will be limited.

Local Initiatives.

72. The baseline also includes a series of independent, locally driven Initiatives (see Annex F for detailed descriptions). Each Initiative has objectives related to improving the economic and ecological situation at a small site. Five Initiatives have started and are active, and two more are envisaged. The Initiatives all focus on ecological protection and social development of floodplains – some in the primary floodplain, some at the secondary (protected) site. Several of the Initiatives are working in areas close to proposed VTT emergency storage reservoir sites. All Initiatives are working in areas eligible to be included in the NAEP. The Initiatives are at different stages of development; they have differing priorities, and differing institutional structures. In general, there is some involvement of local government, national experts, NGOs or private companies. In many cases the recently formed Associations play a driving role.

73. For example, at one site, Bodrogkoz, the objective is to place 43,000 hectares of land into IHFM. Several local people have worked on this for decades. In 2001, Bokartisz (Environmental Management and Landscape rehabilitation Public Utility Company) was established. This partnership involves 12 municipalities, 3 associations, many local experts and the work is technically supported through national institutes. Bokartisz has undertaken detailed social and ecological research, and has developed a detailed approach to floodplain management. Initial cost-benefit analyses show how IHFM can lead to multiple benefits18.

74. At the other extreme, at two sites, Szamos and at Bereg, there is no capacity, they are simply sites with very significant, but threatened biodiversity.

75. The five active Initiatives were all originated by the actions of local people and experts, and have since grown into broad partnerships with technical support. Their recent history suggests they are entirely sustainable. They enjoy a lot of support amongst local people, but this support is not universal, as many land-users remain suspicious of efforts to introduce annual flooding of land. Table 2 provides a summary of the Initiatives. A more detailed description of the 5 active local Initiatives is provided in Annex F. Maps 3a and 3b in Annex C illustrates their geographical location.

Table 2. Introduction to the Local Initiatives

18 See Annex E for the detailed technical description. 31

Name of Initiative Local Capacity19

Inclusion in VTT Participation in NAEP

Globally recognized biodiversity value

Szamosköz Very limited – no activities at present

A Second Phase site Not presently included

Ramsar site.Significant Ecological Core Area (Natura 2000 sites)

Bereg Very limited – no activities at present

No site, but keen to participate

HNVA site since 2002, but low participation

Ramsar site.Significant Ecological Core Area (Natura 2000 sites)

Bodrogköz,BOKARTISZ

Strong First Phase – Pilot for IHFM

HNVA site –since 2003

Ramsar site. Significant Ecological Fragmented Corridor Sites (Natura 2000)

Tiszadob- InérhátCÖTKÉNY

Medium Not included in the first 6 approved sites

HNVA site Significant Ecological Core Area (Natura 2000 sites)

Borsodi MezőségCötkény

Strong A Second Phase site HNVA site- since 2002, active

Ramsar site.Significant Ecological Core Area (Natura 2000 sites). Great bustard site20

Nagykörű Medium First Phase – Pilot for water retention

Not presently included

Significant Ecological Core Area (Natura 2000 sites)

Körös valley21,Nimfea

Medium Not included Dévaványa – since 2002

Several LPAs, Great bustard site

76. These Initiatives are attempting to mainstream biodiversity into local development. In the baseline, there are several barriers to the success of the Initiatives and to their widespread replication and dissemination. First, as they lack self-funding, the Initiatives are funded by outsiders and through projects. They therefore respond to the interests of outsiders and their activities follow a project cycle. Second, there is no harmony or coordination across the Initiatives; efforts at one point on the floodplain may conflict with efforts at another point. There is no effort to develop economies of scale and share resources. The technical approach to IHFM differs across the Initiatives. Third, in many cases, the Initiatives actually compete with each other for donor funding.

Biodiversity in the Baseline

77. The future of biodiversity in the baseline is uncertain. The recent decline in industrial and agricultural activities will allow some biodiversity spots to recover and to flourish; some species are likely to return and the populations of others will recover. Increased protection and reforestation are likely to support this trend. However, the continually poor state of the hydrological cycle, likely exacerbated

19 Includes institutional capacity and technical capacity and understanding of integrated flood management approach20 One of the few internationally recognised Great Bustard (globally rare) protection sites 21 It is noted that Koros Valley is not in the proposed Project area. This Initiative has many important lessons to share with the other sites. Nimfea Nature Conservation Association has remarkable activities in the field of wetland rehabilitation and biodiversity protection. Nimfea will be a project partner, will participate in project general training, but will not benefit from other GEF activities, and there will be no Nimfea focussed activities.

32

by climate change, will mean more floods and droughts, having negative impacts on biodiversity. As presently envisaged, the VTT will have an overall negative impact on the remaining biodiversity. There will be few successful attempts to manage invasive species. In the baseline, given their limited scope and lobbying power, the local Initiatives will be too little, too late, to change these trends.

Summary

78. To summarise, in the baseline there is a series of well-funded, well-intentioned national plans. These plans have the potential to conserve biodiversity and lead to its sustainable use. However, a series of institutional, technical and financial barriers oppose this. Hence, the VTT will lead to large tracts of land being used for intensive agriculture and storage. The NAEP will lead to some small parcels of land being set aside for biodiversity protection, but only for short periods with little coordination across the areas. The local Initiatives are largely uncoordinated with the national plans; they are poorly funded and isolated. Most local stakeholders will be unable to exploit the opportunities provided by the national plans and will remain uninterested in biodiversity. Accordingly, the remaining biodiversity in the area will decline. Moreover, social and economic challenges in the area may increase.

2 c ii) Project Alternative Strategy and Logical Framework

Strategy

79. At the project end, all land near to the existing Initiatives will be managed according to the IHFM approach. All VTT sites should have fully adopted and started to implement the IHFM approach, meaning that biodiversity will be protected and restored at these sites. In addition, large areas of land in the proposed Project area will receive grants and subsidies from NAEP to transform land into biodiversity friendly uses, and these grants will be utilised effectively. In addition. The changes instigated by the project will have created a momentum across the entire floodplain for biodiversity friendly, floodplain management that contributes to economic development. Specific biodiversity restoration activities will have been implemented, funded by the project, the VTT and NAEP. Habitats will be restored and biodiversity increasing. Programmes for monitoring biodiversity and for managing invasive species will have been developed and will be under implementation. Project successes and lessons will be institutionalized into national policy for floods, agriculture and rural development.

80. The technical knowledge and finance for restoring and protecting the globally important biodiversity in the upper Tisza floodplain are available, mostly through the VTT and the NAEP, and the local Initiatives. However, as described in the previous section, barriers oppose this in the Baseline. The alternative GEF supported project will build on the Baseline, remove the barriers, and ensure that opportunities are fully exploited.

81. The project will work primarily at the local level with the Initiatives. Firstly, this is because locally driven and owned solutions are more likely to be adapted to local ecological and human needs. Secondly, this is because the local communities have a great deal of knowledge related to IHFM. Thirdly, given political instability at the national level, strong and stable local leadership is the only way to ensure that priorities become permanent.

82. Using the successes of the local level initiatives, the alternative project will mainstream biodiversity into national plans (the VTT) and sector policy (the NAEP). As necessary, it will build capacity, create institutions and coordination mechanisms, and develop tools.

83. The approach adopted through the project can be replicated throughout Hungary and is relevant to many other countries. The Government of Hungary, and the coordination mechanisms supported through the project, will ensure this replication and dissemination.

33

OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMES

84. The Overall Objective of this Project is biodiversity friendly, sustainable development of the Tisza floodplain. The Project Immediate Objective is to establish biodiversity friendly, holistic floodplain management as the dominant development paradigm in the Upper Tisza floodplain. Four Intermediate Outcomes will contribute to this. First, the Project will establish a sustainable regional mechanism (the Platform) to support local Initiatives and provide them with a direct communication channel to national decision-makers. Second, with support from the Project, the Platform will develop tools for supporting IHFM. Third, each Initiative will develop an Action Plan, and the Project will contribute to its implementation. Finally, the IHFM pro-biodiversity approach will be mainstreamed into the VTT and NAEP-related policy.

85. Project support will contribute to sustainable development by supporting IHFM. As described in more detail in Annex E, IHFM incorporates many income generation activities, including fishing, hunting, extensive livestock raising, energy plantations, orchards, reed and bulrush harvesting, composting and gardening.

OUTCOME 1: A SUSTAINABLE MECHANISM FOR SUPPORTING LOCAL INITIATIVES AND CHANNELING LOCAL LESSONS INTO NATIONAL POLICY AND PLANNING.

86. The first step is to establish a Platform linking all local Initiatives. The Platform is to be a decision-making and coordination body with regular meetings, but no permanent facilities. The Platform will have equal representation from each of the seven local Initiatives. The project will provide an independent facilitator to the Platform. In the first year, the project will also provide secretarial support to the Platform. The Platform will generally be tasked with: Minimising competition and increasing cooperation across the local initiatives; Ensuring that resources (human, technical and financial) are shared across the initiatives; Providing a channel of communication between the local level and the national level; Overseeing technical support to the initiatives (see Outcome 2 below).

87. Next, in order to technically support the local Initiatives and the Platform, an Upper Tisza Floodplain Technical Support Office (shorter name Tisza Floodplain Technical Office -TFTO) will be established. In the first year, the project will help design the TFTO. The TFTO will be established during the second year of the project, and will become financially viable before the end of year three. The TFTO will be a non-profit organisation.

88. By project end, the TFTO is likely to have two sources of funding: (1) general membership fees from each of the seven Initiatives (2) the selling of its technical services at affordable, commercial rates. For example, it may provide the following services: Providing technical support to local initiatives; Assisting in the drafting of project proposals; Organising inter-Initiative events, such as training; Establishing a network for exchanging experience and information directly amongst stakeholders

from the seven Initiatives; Reviewing international experience in floodplain restoration; Undertaking technical studies, as necessary and as requested.

89. Initially, GEF resources will be used to help local initiatives ‘purchase’ these services from the TFTO (rather than provide the GEF-financed services “free-of-charge”). From the outset, the financial and institutional sustainability of the Platform and the TFTO will be monitored.

Outcome 2: Tools to support biodiversity friendly, IHFM in the Upper Tisza Floodplain

90. Once established, the Platform and the TFTO will oversee preparation of some specific tools for managing biodiversity and other resources across the floodplain. These tools are:

34

Comprehensive guidelines defining the technical, financial and managerial characteristics of a ‘model’ approach to IHFM at the site level. These guidelines should be adopted by the seven Initiatives, and later disseminated across the entire floodplain. This model approach, similar to the approach described in Annex E, will instruct how land, water, biodiversity and habitats can be managed in an integrated manner, that is supportive of socio-economic development;

A programme for managing invasive species in a coordinated and systematic manner across the floodplain. This will be approved and implemented. Implementation will receive very little GEF support;

A floodplain wide monitoring network, monitoring the status of biodiversity and the impact of the VTT and the NAEP.

91. Outcome 3: At the site of each of the Initiatives, land, water, habitats and biodiversity are managed in an integrated manner that is supportive of socio-economic development.

92. Site-specific Action Plans are to be prepared and implemented. There will first be an assessment of existing technical, legal, institutional and financial capacity to sustainably manage and implement biodiversity friendly IHFM. Next, in a participatory manner, an Action Plan to fill the gaps will be developed. The Action Plan will focus on operationalizing the model approach to IHFM prepared under Outcome 2.

93. This Action Plan will cover a 10-year period. It will be clearly budgeted with targeted sources of funding. The Action Plan will be a tool for managing activities and mobilising resources. Notably, the Action Plan will be used to leverage funding from the NAEP, VTT, NLF, and ensure that this funding is effectively used to meet environmental, social and economic goals. It will also have a clear monitoring and management framework. The project will help the Initiatives to monitor Action Plan implementation and impact.

94. The contents of the Action Plan will vary from site to site. However, at most sites, implementation of the Action Plan is likely to start with a strengthening of the institutional basis for participatory and representative planning and decision-making. The institutional basis will build on existing institutions. For example, Associations have already been formed for most Initiatives. There is also an existing Water Management Authority. Through the lifetime of the project, these may be formalised into a Land and Water Management Authorities.

95. Although most responsibility for Action Plan implementation lies with the local people and the Government, the project will provide guidance and supervision. For example, the Project will assist local communities to prepare proposals for funding from NAEP and VTT. Importantly, the project will establish a Micro Grants for Biodiversity Programme (MGBP). MGBP will be oriented to support actions within the broader Action Plans that are focussed on biodiversity conservation. The MGBP will be overseen by the Platform; eligibility criteria, indicators and supervision arrangements will be designed and implemented by the Platform under the guidance and authority of the Project Steering Committee. Grants will be awarded in a transparent and accountable manner. The maximum size of grants will be $5,000. The MGBP is aimed at kick-starting Action Plan implementation.

96. Outcome 4: Changes in the policy and the implementation of the VTT and NAEP to integrate biodiversity concerns, feeding into related EU policy and decision making.

97. The Platform will establish a liaison with national agencies in Budapest to influence and modify national Policies and Plans so that they have a positive impact on biodiversity. Activities will include:

Reviewing the NAEP and the VTT (and other concerned programmes or policies) and securing changes in related policy and funding guidelines. Biodiversity conservation will become an official objective of NAEP and VTT, with associated funding possibilities;

35

Reviewing existing institutional structures, identifying bottlenecks, and making recommendations for remedial measures. Hence the local experts, officials and NGOs responsible for biodiversity conservation will have direct and regular access to economic decision-makers and planners in PMO, MARD and MEW;

Developing a new national policy to institutionalise sustainable floodplain landscape management in Hungary. Biodiversity conservation is central to this form of flood management;

Advocating necessary changes in pricing structures, land-use planning guidelines, environmental requirements, etc, in order to overcome any bottlenecks or barriers to biodiversity conservation;

Nurturing and assuring political support to IHFM; Raising awareness through newsletters, round-tables, websites, etc.

98. The project will also link into and support ongoing programmes (WWF, CEEWEB, REC, MTVSZ) which are monitoring and reviewing EU policy on nature protection, farming and agriculture.

99. The Full Logical Framework providing the Objective, Outcomes, Activities and Indicators is provided in Annex A.

100. The Project Strategy focuses on empowering local communities. For this reason, most project finances will be channelled through the local Initiatives. However, the Initiatives will use this funding to ‘purchase’ services (e.g., training, preparation of feasibility studies and project proposals) provided by the TFTO. This approach is designed to strengthen project ownership by local communities, develop and strengthen business practice, and help the TFTO to become financially sustainable over the longer-term by forcing them to work within a supply-and-demand context from the beginning.

2 c iii) Global Environmental Benefits

101. Tangible benefits will be seen at the sites of the Initiatives. These cover approximately 1,600 km 2. The IFHM approach will ensure that the globally significant biodiversity in these areas is conserved.

102. The project will also support the protection and management of the three Ramsar sites in the Tisza area. Moreover, important ecological core areas and corridors will be protected, rehabilitated and some wetlands created (16-40 km2).

103. The NAEP has the potential to ensure the use of traditional varieties and breeds, and re-introduce traditional farming systems. The project will pilot these through the Initiatives. It will also help develop a policy framework to support their replication more broadly across the floodplain.

2 c iv) GEF Project Cost

104. GEF Support will mostly go to local Initiatives (approximately 60%), to finance site-based local activities. GEF support will focus on catalytic and leveraging activities, it will be used to influence and modify the large sums expected to be disbursed under the national programmes addressing flood control, agriculture and rural development. Small amounts of GEF funding will lead to a shift in large amounts of national and EU funding, thereby having a broad impact on biodiversity.

2 D) Sustainability

105. Mainstreaming underlines the approach to sustainability – the project aims to modify the well-funded agriculture and flood control sectors working in the floodplain. There are barriers to this modification and the project will remove these barriers. Following mainstreaming, the sector funds will be available to ensure continuation and replication of desirable actions and necessary institutions.

106. Finances: Hungary is not a poor country. Large funds are dedicated to rural development in the Project area, most of which have secondary ecological objectives. Hence, finances should be available over the long term. The challenge is to ensure that the finances are used effectively, and will

36

produce biodiversity benefits. The project will achieve this by empowering local communities to access and utilise available financing. Developing this sustainable capacity to access financial resources will ensure a high degree of financial sustainability.

107. In addition, IFHM and the Action Plans are to generate social, economic and environmental benefits. Organic agriculture, obtaining payment for flood control, and tourism are examples of economic activities that the Action Plan can help. Hence, more local funds should be available after the project ends. This will help the local initiatives to be increasingly sustainable. However, it is true that local initiatives will continue to have some dependence on external funding. This is true throughout the EU: local governments require national level investments to meet local sustainable development objectives.

108. It is noted that the scale of the present proposed project is small in comparison to the available funds. The GEF project catalyses change and is insufficient to create dependencies or to distort market forces.

109. Institutions: The project works at three levels. At two of the levels, local and national, institutions already exist, and the project will support them, building their capacity, and facilitating change as and when they are ready. For example, at the local level, many of the local Initiatives have been active for several years, demonstrating their viability. However, they owe their survival to external funding, and are not fully independent. The project strategy is to empower local communities, enable them to interact with external forces, enable them to mobilise resources, and enable them to shape and forge their own development path. The aim is for them to become both financially viable and increasingly independent. A key part of this is the development of long-term action plans, with an emphasis on financial planning.

110. As the project is innovative, and as it addresses problems that have not been successfully addressed previously, there is a need to develop new institutions at the floodplain level. In designing and supporting these institutions, models known to succeed in Hungary will be used, and utmost attention will be given to ensuring a business-like approach and financial sustainability from the outset.

111. First, the project is to help establish the Platform. This is simply a practical forum amongst the existing Initiatives. The Platform’s activities will cost little. The Initiatives have requested such a forum, and experience during the project development phase at regional workshops indicate there is a strong demand for such a forum. Second, the Project will establish the Upper Tisza Floodplain Technical Support Office (TFTO). The innovative approach to developing the TFTO will minimise the danger of creating an unsustainable institution. This innovation has three components: Ensure the TFTO responds to market forces and is demand driven. Hence, it will sell its services

from the beginning, not provide them. Initially the services will be purchased by the Initiatives, using GEF money. The TFTO can also immediately market it services more broadly than the initiatives.

Phase the development of the TFTO. The project will create the TFTO. It will then immediately start phasing out support to it. As the project advances, the TFTO will have to increasingly generate its own income, whilst receiving decreasing support from the project.

Support TFTO business development. This will include developing the business and financial plan for the TFTO, and developing its capacity to market its services.

112. After the project, the TFTO will be generating funds from member fees and from marketing its services. It is anticipated that these services will be marketed across the region or to other parts of Hungary. These services may be purchased by the local community, by national agencies, or even by international agencies and NGOs. The TFTO’s ‘Constitution’, developed with project support, will ensure it maintains a strong focus on biodiversity conservation.

37

2 E) Replicability

Dissemination across the Floodplain

113. The project approach to replication and dissemination is inherent in mainstreaming. That is, the project aims to mainstream biodiversity conservation into the agricultural and flood control sectors. Once this mainstreaming is successfully achieved; the two sectors will be transformed, and future activities in the sectors will follow the new approach. Replication and dissemination follow. Project steps to achieve this include: Demonstrating transformation of local land-use practices (through the Action Plans); and Empowering local representatives to interact and influence regional bodies and national

government agencies; and then Modifying well-funded national policies and programmes – notably the NAEP and VTT (through

Outcome 4);

114. For example, the project will develop IHFM Guidelines based on what has been seen to work in the Initiatives. Through the Platform, under Outcome 4, the Guidelines will be integrated nationally into NAEP and VTT policy. NAEP and VTT funding will adopt the guidelines, ensuring their widespread dissemination.

Dissemination to other countries and to other Floodplains.

115. The project includes a strategy to disseminate lessons learnt to other wetland areas and other floodplains. Firstly, the EU specifically makes funds available for ‘twinning’. After Hungary’s Accession to the EU, the localities involved in this project will use these funds to: Twin with and learn from similar wetland areas in more developed parts of the EU; Twin with and pass technical skills on to similar wetland areas in poorer parts of Europe,

including outside of the EU.

116. Second, through the Platform and the TFTO, the project will join in international networks related to wetlands, such as the International Wetlands Institute based in Germany and Wetlands International in the Netherlands. The project will become part of a UNDP-GEF Wetlands network for Central and Eastern Europe to be established in the latter half of 2004, whose aim will be the sharing of lessons and experience and the common analysis of wetland related land use policy. In the project development phase, the project staff has already established initial linkages with international WWF programmes addressing EU policies related to nature and to agriculture.

117. Thirdly, participating research institutes will incorporate the achievements and lessons learned of this project into their international cooperation and research programmes. This will help publicize results and lead to further discussion on the solutions for holistic floodplain management and water management.

118. Finally, the Project shall also develop lessons applicable to all ecosystems in countries benefiting from EU structural and development funds. All Accession countries and countries moving towards EU Accession are eligible for significant EU funds and technical support. However, low capacity can mean that these opportunities are missed. Also, the speed of reform and Accession can make it difficult for many communities to benefit from EU opportunities, especially in areas rich in biodiversity22. The project will demonstrate how countries accessing the EU can best use existing EU finds to develop sustainable, biodiversity friendly, development paradigms. The lessons learnt should be of use to all countries accessing the EU.

22 Biodiversity rich areas tend to be economically and capacity poor.38

2 F) Stakeholder Involvement

2 f i) Describe briefly how stakeholders have been involved in project development

119. During the Project Development Phase, three large workshops were held, one in Budapest and two in the project region, to discuss overall project progress and design. In addition, many bilateral consultations and smaller workshops were held on specific issues, and a series of meetings was held with individuals from all categories of stakeholder. The Project Steering Committee met three times during project development.

120. These meetings helped develop the project approach and strategy, as well as developing a strong and broad local ownership over the project. All the stakeholders have expressed their strong and energetic support and commitment to the project. Representatives of each stakeholder group have written letters confirming their support for the project and its approach (See Annex B).

2 f ii) Roles and responsibilities of relevant stakeholders in project implementation

121. Based on the past consultations, Table 3 provides a list of the expected stakeholders in project implementation, and a brief introduction to their likely role in the project. All of the organisations and individuals listed in Table 3 were regularly consulted during the project preparation process, and were appropriately involved in the project design.

Table 3. Stakeholders and their likely involvement in the project

Category of Stakeholder Name of Stakeholder Possible role in project Local site or initiative levelMunicipal governments, Associations and other local actors already involved in the Initiatives.

Pilot sites – Bodrogköz, Szamosköz, Bereg, Borsodi Mezőség, Nagykörű, Körös ValleySee Annex F for details

Beneficiary of capacity development;Planning and driving project activities;Co-financing project activities and management;Local awareness raising and generating local support;Lobbying VTT and NAEP planners.

Environmentally oriented local NGOs

Possibilities include: Bokartisz Tiszatér Cötkény Felső Tisza Fundation Nimfea

Beneficiary of capacity development;Technically supporting activities;Possibly sub-contractor (eg for monitoring or restoration).

Local farmers and landowners Several farmers participating in HNVA programmes

Beneficiary of capacity development;Beneficiary of technical support for NAEP proposal preparation;Provider of local knowledge.

Micro Regional Associations Several associations related to the pilot sites

Can support the fundraising, harmonization of initiatives among the micro regions and municipalities, play an active role in the implementation of county and region level strategies

Multi-site or floodplain wide level National Park Bükk

Hortobágy(Szatmar-Bereg LPA)Körös-Maros

Partner in project management; Co-financing;Beneficiary of capacity development;Provider of technical support;Partner in restoration activities.

Regional Water and Environment Inspectorate

Felső-Tisza Regional Water and Enviroment Inspectorate

Beneficiary of capacity development;Provider of technical support;

39

Category of Stakeholder Name of Stakeholder Possible role in project Közep-Tisza Regional Water and Enviroment Inspectorate

Environmentally oriented NGOs E-MisszioCsemeteNimfea

Potential provider of technical supportPotential Sub-contractor

Regional Agricultural Authority Land OfficeAgency for Soil and Plant Protection

Potential provider of technical supportBeneficiary of capacity development;

National levelGovernment agency responsible for nature protection

The Bureau of Nature Conservation of MEW

National executing agency;Co-financer;Coordination of project activities and project management;Linkages with national programmes on nature protection;Technical support;Project beneficiary;Policy development in response to project findings.

Government agency responsible for flood control

The General Water Management Department (GWMD) of the Ministry of Environment and Water

Co-financer;Linkages with national programmes on flood control (VTT);Technical support;Project beneficiary; Policy development in response to project findings.

Government agency responsible for agriculture

Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD)

Co-financer;Linkages with national programmes on agriculture and rural development (NAEP);Technical support;Project beneficiary; Policy development in response to project findings.

Government agency responsible for financial allocations

Ministry of Finance Facilitation of financial allocations to co-finance

National Coordination Prime Minister’s Office Coordination amongst national programmesMainstreaming of project findings into national development plans.

Academic institutions and expert individuals

Hungarian Academy of Science, RISSACUniversity of DebrecenSzent István University, GödöllőMAKK

Technical support;Possible sub-contractor.

InternationalEU and international policy related organisations

International wetland policy of Ramsar Convention

WWFICDPR

International Wetlands Institute Wetlands InternationalRIZA

Incorporating project results into EU advocacy activities

Preparation of the Romanian and Ukrainian part of quadrilateral Ramsar Site Assessment of natural valuesConsultation with interested parties of the countries concernedCatchment level approach

40

2 G) Risks and Assumptions

122. The Logical Framework in Annex A provides assumptions associated with each individual outcome and output.

Availability of Funding to Follow-up Project

123. A key output of the project is the site Action Plans, which are to be implemented with support from co-financing – mostly from VTT and NAEP. To some extent, project success depends on continued implementation of the VTT and agricultural adjustment programmes (NAEP), both of which in turn depend to some extent on EU financing. Should these programmes lose political support or be replaced by other national priorities, funding for the site Action Plans may be more difficult to find.

124. Even if the NAEP and VTT lose political support, there will continue to be national (and EU) funds available to local initiatives. The project aims to build the local capacity to channel those funds to biodiversity friendly activities, and so minimise this risk. To do this, the communities will be empowered to articulate their demand for national support, and as a result of the project the local communities will have the capacity to mobilise and manage national resources. Hence, whatever the priority of future national politicians, they will have to respect and respond to this demand from the local level. As with rural development everywhere, the project area will continue to rely on national investments to complement local initiatives.

Competition amongst Initiatives

125. At present, the seven Initiatives are somewhat incoherent and competitive. The project aims to generate coordination and collaboration across these Initiatives. There is a risk that this may prove too difficult. The Platform is designed to directly address this need for collaboration.

Danger of superficial changes

126. Both the VTT and NAEP are high profile, political programmes. They are subject to high levels of pressure to disburse quickly and have a visible impact. There is a risk that this pressure may translate into the programmes being implemented hastily, without allowing adequate time for consultation. Likewise, there is a danger that biodiversity concerns may be overseen in the haste to have a visible impact. Again, the project strategy to empower the local communities, build up their capacity, should mitigate this risk. Through the Project, the Initiatives should be able to manage national funds.

2 I) Implementation Arrangements

127. A national Project Steering Committee (PSC) will oversee all project activities, approving annual work plans and major outputs, helping coordinate activities, and helping the project to interact effectively with the NAEP and the VTT. PSC will consist of MEW (2 members), MARD, the Prime Minister’s Office (Chair) and UNDP.

128. The Project will be executed by the Ministry of Environment and Water. MEW will appoint a senior official as National Project Director. The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development will play a close supporting role. The MEW will appoint an official contact point to support program implementation at a practical level and delegate the most appropriate senior managers to the Project Steering Committee.

129. The Project will establish a Project Management Unit (PMU) in the Upper Tisza Floodplain. The PMU will report directly to the National Project Director, and have the following managerial responsibilities:

41

Based on submissions from the seven Initiatives, prepare quarterly work plans and monitoring reports;

Based on submissions from the Initiatives, preparing ToR for all project inputs and activities; Identify experts and consultants to be involved in the project; Facilitate all project activities, and help organise when appropriate; Commission studies, reviews, etc; Monitoring the timeliness and effectiveness of all project inputs.

130. The PMU will be staffed by one full time expert or coordinator, a part-time administrative/ financial assistant, and a part-time monitoring expert. Depending on needs, a senior international advisor may provide regular technical support to project activities.

131. In the first year, the PMU will also play a key technical role, ensuring that technical support is available to the Initiatives. In the second year, this role will be taken over by the TFTO.

132. At the Initiative level, each site will appoint a liaison officer, who will partly be financed by the project. The liaison officer will prepare monthly work plans; s/he will request inputs through the PMU.

133. A key tool for conserving biodiversity will be the Micro Grants for Biodiversity Programme (MGBP). A national expert will design the technical criteria and management arrangements for the MGBP. This will ensure transparency and efficiency, and ensure that funds are 100% used to conserve globally significant biodiversity. The Platform will oversee management of the MGBP.

134. In general, most project activities will be completed with 24 months. However, activities will continue at a lower scale for a further 12 months, and monitoring will also continue until the end of month 36.

2 J) Monitoring and Evaluation

Lessons Learnt

135. Key lessons learnt which were integrated into this project design include: Local level support is essential to project success and sustainability. This is a lesson from

previous projects in Hungary and from the GEF biodiversity portfolio. Hence, local stakeholders will be the drivers of the project, and their planning and decision-making capacity will be strengthened;

Institutional sustainability has to be addressed from the outset, and the key barrier is their financial sustainability. In general, this Project works with existing institutions. When new structures are created, it is in response to an expressed demand, and financial sustainability will be addressed through the project from the outset.

MONITORING PROJECT PROGRESS

136. Project progress will be monitored according to UNDP/GEF rules and regulations by using annual reviews against a set of implementation milestones. Monitoring will be ongoing, involving data collection and assessment of the project’s field implementation and will involve key project staff meeting periodically to review operations and field implementation and assess whether new priorities require a shift in the project’s implementation.

137. The Project Steering Committee (PSC) will meet at least twice a year to assess the project’s progress against planned outputs and to give strategic direction to the implementation of the project. Executing agency staff, the National Project Director and UNDP will undertake regular field visits. Quarterly Progress Reports reflecting all aspects of project implementation will be prepared by the National Project Director and submitted to the PSC members for review. UNDP CO will share short

42

updates on the progress of the project with the GEF Regional Coordination Unit RCU) on a quarterly basis.

138. Annual Project Reports/Project Implementation Reviews (APR/PIRs) will be prepared by the National Project Director and submitted to the PSC for approval. The APRs, prepared in UNDP/GEF format, shall assess the performance of the project and the status of achievement of project outputs and their contribution to the relevant UNDP Strategic Results Framework Outcomes. The project will be subject to at least one external financial audit in accordance with established UNDP/GEF regulations, and to one independent evaluation.

MONITORING PROJECT IMPACT – RESULTS BASED MANAGEMENT

139. The Logical Framework in Annex A provides indicators for the project’s Overall Goal, Objective, Outcomes and Outputs. These indicators will be the benchmarks against which project impact is measured.

140. The project will recruit a Monitoring Expert (part-time). At the project outset, as part of the project inception, the indicators in the Logical Framework will be reviewed by the project team, the Initiatives and the Monitoring Expert. For each Goal, Objective, Outcome and Output, the proposed indicator will be assessed and validated. Then, for each indicator, baseline information will be collected, annual targets will be established, and mechanisms put in place for collecting and collating the information necessary to monitor progress towards the targets. The revised, complete monitoring framework will be discussed, reviewed and validated at a stakeholder workshop, before final approval by the Project Steering Committee, including UNDP.

BIODIVERSITY MONITORING

141. There are several ongoing programmes for monitoring biodiversity in the proposed project area, including those sponsored by MEW, by the VTT and by the NAEP. The latter two monitor biodiversity and the impact of the VTT/NAEP. The Monitoring Expert will help develop a single, cost-effective approach to biodiversity monitoring in the region.

3 Financing

3 A) Financing Plan

142. The project mainstreams biodiversity into key economic sectors at all levels. It will therefore benefit from the large funding being allocated to socio-economic development. Notably, significant government funding will be applied to the implementation of the Action Plan, i.e. to Output 3.4. However, as the Action Plans will be used to mobilise resources from NAEP and VTT, most of this co-financing is logically not secured at project outset. In return, the project will contribute to strengthening the general development process.

143. Only three of the 16 Outputs are purely focussed on biodiversity per se: the Small Grants Programme, invasive species management programme and the monitoring programme. The former is funded solely by GEF. For the latter two, GEF funds the design of the programme, but implementation of the programme will be wholly or almost wholly funded by co-financing.

144. Table 5 provides a breakdown of the budget. Co-financing from national agencies reflects ongoing programmes that will be significantly modified or realigned as a result of the GEF programme. The Commitment letter is included in Annex B. The situation for the support from the initiatives is more complex. First, each initiative is different, and involves a diverse range of stakeholders: government officials, experts, NGOs, businessmen and/or local farmers. Second, the vast majority of this co-financing is to implement the Action Plans - hence details cannot be known

43

until after the Action Plan has been prepared. All the support from the initiatives is to be in-kind. It is likely to include: Participation in the Platform and starting-up the TFTO; Participation in the action planning process, providing data and technical support; Contribution to implementing the Action Plan through:

o Physical measures to manage flood waters;o Physical measures to transform agriculture;o Preparing proposals to submit to NAEP and VTT;o Officials attending training and meetings;o Monitoring;o Developing proposals for MGBP and co-funding the grants.

Depending on the locality and the Action Plan, in some cases this co-financing may originate from a LlFE project (e.g., the LIFE project at Tiszadob).

44

Table 5. Project budget, in US$, by outputs and by source

Outcomes/Outputs Cofinancing GEF MEW-

VTTMEW/ NCO

NAEP Local Initiatives

Other Total

Outcome 1: A Sustainable Mechanism for Supporting Local Initiatives and Channelling Local Lessons into National Policy and Planning.

Output 1.1 The Regional Platform 5000 4700 9700 85000Output 1.2 TFTO 5000 4700 9700 85000Output 1.3 Coordination & technical support to local initiatives

9500 14500 14300 38300 70000


5000 4700 9700 25000

Outcome 2: Tools to support biodiversity friendly, IHFM in the Upper Tisza FloodplainOutput 2.1 Agreed ’model’ approach to floodplain management

40000 9700 19000 68700 60000

Output 2.2 Biodiversity monitoring system

54000 24000 14200 92200 35000

Output 2.3 Programme for managing invasive species

47000 33500 595200 675700 35000

Outcome 3: At the site of each of the Initiatives, land, water, habitats and biodiversity are managed in an integrated manner that is supportive of socio-economic development. Output 3.1 Assessments 9500 14500 9500 33500 90000

Output 3.2 Action Plans 5000 5000 90000

Output 3.3 Strengthened Institutions 23800 5000 23800 52600 68000

Output 3.4 Action Plans Implemented 140000 14500 (2857.1)23

460000 614500 120000

Output 3.5 MicroGrants for Biodiversity Protection (MGBP)

5000 5000 11000

Outcome 4: Changes in the policy and the implementation of the VTT and NAEP to integrate biodiversity concerns, feeding into related EU policy and decision - making

Output 4.1 Increased awareness of decision-makers

23800 10500 23800 58100 35000

Output 4.2 Appropriate modifications to NAEP guidelines

33000 33000 17000

Output 4.3 New Implementation Decrees related to VTT

9500 9500 17000

Output 4.4 Modify EU land and Agriculture policy

9500 10400 14200 34100 2000

Total 366600 161600 709000 497900 14200 1749300 944000

CO-FINANCING SOURCES

Name of Co-financier (source)

Classification Type Amount (US$)Status*

MEW government Cash and in kind 528,200 Commitment

23 This is the estimated figure which is expected to be mobilised from NAEP during the lifetime of the project.45

included in endorsement letter

NAEP government Cash and in kind 709,000 Commitment included in endorsement letter

Initiatives (Municipalities, NGOs, experts, etc)

Government and non - government

In kind 497,900 Contribution discussed and confirmed at LPAC meeting

Other(Academy of Science, WWF-International, other NGOs)

Non- government Cash and in kind 14,200 Contribution discussed and confirmed at LPAC meeting

Sub-Total Co-financing 1,749,300

4 Institutional Coordination and Support

4 A) Core Commitments and Linkages

145. The UNDP Programme in Hungary focuses on three areas: Social and Economic Development, Development Cooperation, and Environment and Sustainable Development. The present proposed project contributes to all three areas, though primarily complementing activities in the latter area. UNDP efforts have concentrated on building support for application of sustainable development principles in the country’s legal and policy framework and through capacity building for environmental planning and management. As indicated in UNDP’s Country Cooperation Framework, cooperation with the Ministry of Environment and Water in the area of sustainable development and environmental management is a primary focus of the country programme.

146. UNDP is helping to strengthen the country’s capacities to comply with global environmental commitments, including those in the area of biodiversity protection. The proposed project represents an important government priority. It will be complemented by UNDP’s overall programme aimed at building the capacity of the government to achieve environmentally sustainable development.

147. UNDP also supports several projects in the region with a direct impact on the Tisza floodplain, including: “Strengthening the Implementation Capacities for Nutrient Reduction and Transboundary

Cooperation in the Danube River Basin” as described in Sections 2 b v) and 4 B); Projects under formulation for wetland restoration and management (Slovakia), sustainable forest

management (Ukraine), and landscape management for biodiversity conservation and rural livelihoods (Romania). These projects, in aggregate and if successful, will provide lessons learned and experience for more effective management of land and water resources in the Tisza River Basin; if widely disseminated, consequences for potential downstream flooding may be minimized over time.

4 B) Consultation, Coordination and Collaboration Between IAs, & IAs and EAs

148. During the preparation of this project regular consultations have been held with the FAO Sub-Regional Office for Central and Eastern Europe located in Budapest in order to ensure coordination between complementary activities of FAO and UNDP/GEF. The FAO, upon the Hungarian Ministry of Agriculture’s request, has been engaged in the preparation of the project titled “Support to the Development of a Strategy for Territorial Organization and Sustainable Land Management in Areas with High Natural Disaster Risk” (which has recently been approved in the amount of USD 349,000). Lately, an agreement has been reached that both at Implementation Agency level as well as at the pilot site level the two projects will be closely coordinated. On this matter the FAO is ready to sign a Memorandum of Understanding with UNDP. During the stakeholder consultations undertaken in the

46

preparatory phase of this project, similar implementation level coordination needs were discussed and agreed with the two major national programmes, namely with the VTT and the NAEP.

5 Response to Reviews

5 A) GEF Secretariat

See Annex H for responses to GEF Secretariat comments on the PDF A.

5 B) Convention Secretariat

5 C) Other IAs and Relevant EAs

5 D) Response to Expert from STAP Roster

N/A

47

Annexes

A) Logical Framework

B) Endorsement Letters

C) Maps of the Project Area1. The Proposed Project Area2. The VTT sites and the location of the 6 Initiatives (Pilot sites)3a and 3b) The location of the 6 initiatives (pilot sites) and the location of Ramsar, IBA, and Natura 2000 sites.

D) Global significance of the biodiversity in the upper Tisza Floodplain

E) Rationale for Integrated, Holistic, Locally Driven Floodplain Management – Philosophy and Concrete Steps in the Bodrogkoz Area

F) Detailed description of the locally driven initiatives for an integrated, holistic approach to floodplain management in the Upper Tisza floodplain

G) Government Decrees related to the VTT

H) GEF Secretariat Comments on the PDF A and UNDP Response

.

48

Annex A - Logical Framework

Conservation and Restoration of Biodiversity in the Upper Tisza River Floodplain through Integrated, Holistic, Locally Driven Floodplain Management.

Narrative Summary IndicatorMeans of

VerificationAssumptions Target and

Timeline Overall Goal: Sustainable, biodiversity friendly, development in the Tisza floodplain

a) Improving socio-economic conditions

b) Increased population of key farmland bird species.

c) Increased percentage of land under mosaic management based on CORINNE categories

Baseline: to be developed at project outset (related information is provided in Table 1, para 16 in main text).

CORINNE information exists but has not been tabulated to conform to project area. This will be done at project outset.

a) National statistical office

b) Birdlife Hungary annual surveys

c) CORINNE database

Continued economic stability

VTT and NRDP remain top national priorities

EU-related funding remains accessible

Quality of NAEP grants impact on biodiversity remains positive

1. 36 – 60 months

2. 36 – 60 months

3. 36 – 60 months

Targets to be developed at project outset

Project Objective: The Project Objective is to establish biodiversity friendly, holistic floodplain management as the dominant development paradigm in the Upper Tisza floodplain

a) The number of VTT sites in the project area that fully adopt biodiversity friendly IHFM

Baseline: only 1 of the 6 VTT sites has adopted this approach, in theory. This 1 site is not able to operationalise IHFM.

b) $ value of NAEP grants

a) and b) VTT and NRDP Reports

Political leaders and decision-makers remain open and flexible.

NAEP funding flows, and EU continues to be supportive.

a) The project aims to have all six VTT sites operationalise the methodology by the end of the project. The phasing is: 1 site operationally

49



Timeline going to biodiversity friendly activities.

Baseline 243 million forint or $1.1 million

adopts the methodology by end of Year 1; 3 sites formally adopt the methodology by end of Year 2, and; all 6 sites are operationalisng IHFM by end of Year 3.

b) 36 months

2 billion forint

Outcome 1: A Financially Sustainable Mechanism for Supporting Local Initiatives and Feeding Local Lessons into National Policy and Planning

a) Operating costs of Platform and TFTO are covered 100% by sustainable sources.

Baseline A comparable mechanism to the TFTO and Platform does not exist

b) National Ministries are influenced by the Platform

Baseline Platform does not exist. Local people very rarely influence national ministries, and only in a very ad-hoc manner.

c) Local Initiatives fully supportive and appreciative of TFTO

a) Platform and TFTO reports.

b) Minutes of meetings

Political stability and continued transition to EU Accession

a) 36 months

Platform meets biannually, TFTO employs at least 3 staff

b) 24 monthsAt least 2 changes in national policy based on advocacy from Platform

50



Timeline Baseline TFTO does not exist. Local initiatives all act independently and incoherently.

c) Project records c) 30 monthsLocal Initiatives regularly using TFTO services, and paying for them

Output 1.1 The Regional Platform a) The Platform’s Constitution

Baseline There is comparable mechanism to the Platform and no constitution

Platform meeting reports a) 3 months

Constitution approved by all stakeholders

Output 1.2 Upper Tisza Floodplain Technical Support Office (TFTO).

a) Office is established and has resources

Baseline There is no dedicated Office to provide technical support.

Project reports a) 12 months

Office exists and operates with 2 full-time staff members

Output 1.3 Platform and the TFTO providing demand-driven coordination and technical support to local initiatives and implementing region wide activities

(note strong linkages with Outputs 3.1 to 3.4)

a) Level of satisfaction of local initiatives with the Platform and TFTO

Baseline Baseline level of satisfaction cannot be measured as the Platform and TFTO do not exist. Survey will be undertaken at month 6.

b) Local initiatives financially contributing to Platform

Baseline No support from local initiatives for a coordination mechanism.

Reports from the Local Authorities

All local initiatives have funds to purchase the Platform’s services

a) 12 – 36

30% aware of existence;70% of users are satisfied

b) 24 months

Membership fees significant and paid on time


a) Plan implementation is fully funded

Baseline No plans have been prepared.

Project reports In accordance with legal situation

a) 24 months

Source of funds for all needs identified in the

51



Timeline plans have been found.

Outcome 2: Tools to support biodiversity friendly, IHFM (Indicators are covered, at present, by Outputs 2.1 – 2.3. At project outset, a complete monitoring and evaluation framework will be developed)

Output 2.1 Comprehensive guidelines defining the characteristics of the ‘model’ approach to IHFM, agreed to by local Initiatives.

a) Guidelines are fully understood (i.e. terminology, management criteria) and accepted by stakeholders at local and national level

Baseline There are no guidelines, model or coherent approach - each Initiative works independently

Project meeting reports Technically feasible to have 1 model appropriate to each site

a) 12 months

At least 5 Initiatives adopt the common guidelines and so work coherently

Output 2.2 Integrated floodplain-wide biodiversity monitoring system

a) Level of participation in the monitoring system

Baseline national agencies and NGOs have independent monitoring systems

Financing arrangementsPlatform meeting reports

Actors already involved in monitoring agree to cooperate

a) 24 months

MEW, NAEP, VTT and NGOs all contributing to a common monitoring system

Output 2.3 Programme for managing invasive species a) Commitment to implementing the Programme

Baseline MEW has dedicated activities, Other agencies have related initiatives, but there is no cooperation

Project reports a) 24 – 36 months

MEW, NAEP, VTT and NGOs all providing co-funding to implement the Invasive Species Programme prepared by this project.

Outcome 3: At each of the seven Initiative sites, biodiversity, land, water and habitats are managed in an integrated, holistic

a) percentage of land dedicated to the integrated floodplain

a) Project Reports a) 36 months, (target to be

52



Timeline manner that is supportive of socio-economic development. management approach

Baseline 0%

a) Population of key farmland bird species At seven sites

Baseline: figures to be collected at project outset

b) Project Reports & monitoring activities

determined)

b) 36 months (target to be determined)

Output 3.1 Assessments a) Agreement on capacity gaps

Baseline There has been no capacity assessment, so no agreement on needs.

Project Reports a) 6 months

Common agreement on capacity gaps at a minimum of 5 sites

Output 3.2 Action Plans a) Endorsement by local governments

Baseline No plans have been prepared

Reports from concerned agencies

a) 15 months

At least 5 sites have prepared Plans and they are fully endorsed

Following Outputs will depend on the contents of the Action Plan, and will vary from site to site.Output 3.3 Strengthened Institutional Framework a) E.g., Effective Land and

Water Authority established

Baseline There is an existing land authority

Project reports, minutes of Authority meetings

In accordance with legal situation

Time taken to harmonise with existing institutions is not too long

a) 18 months and ongoing

An effective authority responsible for both land and water is operating

Output 3.4 Action Plans under implementation, and monitored

a) Funding from NAEP at the site.

b) VTT projects adapted to Plan

Baseline The baseline and

Authority reports a) and b) 13-36

The baseline and monitoring framework will be specified in the Action Plan for

53



Timeline monitoring framework will be specified in the Action Plan for each site emanating from Output 3.2

each site emanating from Output 3.2

Output 3.5 Conservation of local biodiversity through Micro Grants for Biodiversity Programme (note: each grant, once disbursed, will be accompanied by a monitoring and evaluation framework)

a) MGBP operating and disbursing

Baseline No grant mechanism is available at present

Project reports a) 24 – 36

Disbursal reaches 80% of initial targets.

Each grant will have its own indicators of success.

Outcome 4: Changes in the policy and the implementation of the VTT and NAEP to integrate biodiversity concerns, feeding into related EU policy and decision - making.

a) Measurable policy statements

Baseline existing policy is not sufficiently focussed on globally significant biodiversity

a) 30 months

At least 1 significant policy statements issued, with clear financial implications, related to both VTT and NAEP, and the impact on Tisza biodiversity

Output 4.1 Increased awareness of decision-makers a) No. of high-level references to biodiversity by senior SSWM and MARD officials.

Baseline Biodiversity is rarely mentioned. Actual rate of mentions to be determined at project outset.

Project reports a) 12 – 30

The number of times senior officials mention biodiversity in policy or media statements increases by 100%.

Output 4.2 The integrated floodplain management model a) New NAEP guidelines NAEP records Modifications accepted a) 24 –36 months

54



Timeline (Output 2.1) is adopted by the NAEP guidelines recognise and prioritise IHFM

Baseline IHFM is not mentioned in NAEP guidelines

by EURevised guidelines issued with IHFM given priority.


a) Decree issued

Baseline no decree

Government records a) 24 months

Decree issued. Output 4.4 Support ongoing WWF Europe-wide efforts to modify EU land and agriculture policy and contribute to UNDP-GEF regional Wetlands Network

a) Project findings integrated into WWF ‘One Europe/One Nature’ Programme and ‘CAP Reform’ Programme; project findings disseminated widely through network

Baseline very informal, non-technical contacts between project proponents and WWF work.

WWF and EU documentation; assessment of network members

a) 24-36 months

WWF regional policy papers refer to Tisza river experience and disseminate the findings.

55

Activity FrameworkOutput Activities

Project Foundational Basis Recruit staffEstablish OfficeHold Inception WorkshopPrepare WorkplansDevelopment Monitoring and Evaluation Framework

Output 1.1 The Platform Identify and recruit independent facilitatorHost workshop of 7 initiatives to discuss Platform’s role, mandate and operating proceduresDevelop draft ConstitutionSelf approval of Constitution and first workplanRegular meetings

Output 1.2 Upper Tisza Floodplain Technical Support Office Within framework of Constitution, establish TFTO with office and 1 full time staff memberDevelop initial business and financial plan for TFTOInitiate the marketing of TFTO services across the floodplain and at national level

Output 1.3 Platform and the TFTO providing demand-driven coordination and technical support to local initiatives and implementing region wide activities.

Platform and TFTO both perform three kinds of services: (i) supporting individual Initiatives technically; (ii) supporting coordination and linkages across the Initiatives, and; (iii) ensuring findings and lessons from local level are mainstreamed into regional and national level processes. Activities to support individual Initiatives are listed under Outputs 3.1-3.4

Activities for supporting coordination and linkages across the Initiatives include: Electronic and paper newsgroups; Exchanges and consultations across the initiatives;

Activities for ensuring findings and lessons from local level are mainstreamed into regional and national level processes include:

Review of international experience with floodplain management; Undertaking economic studies eg, of best uses of floodplain and or, eg, of ecosystem

service payments. Other Activities listed under Outputs 4.1 – 4.3.

Output 1.4 Platform and TFTO operating sustainably Preparation of sustainable business plansPreparation of communications and marketing strategyIdentification of funding sources/clientsInitially project finance staff and equipment, this is phased out after 20 months.

56

Output 2.1 Comprehensive guidelines defining the characteristics of the ‘model’ approach to IHFM, agreed to by local Initiatives

Given the importance of this activity at both a national and floodplain level, this activity will be ’led’ by the TFTO. Based on experience in the floodplain, and on international experience, the TFTO will commission a study to identify a best, common model for sustainable, biodiversity friendly landscape management, and prepare guidelines to ensure its implementation.

It will then facilitate a participatory process to promote understanding, acceptance and finalisation of the guidelines.

Output 2.2 Integrated floodplain-wide biodiversity monitoring system Review existing biodiversity monitoring systems, including by NGOs, NAEP, MEWDevelop a common, coordinated, cost-effective monitoring systemMonitor biodiversity across the floodplain (mostly not funded by GEF)Assist monitoring of NAEP impact on biodiversity (mostly not funded by GEF)

Output 2.3 Programme for managing invasive species Review impact of existing invasive speciesReview ongoing efforts to manage invasive speciesIdentify priority species for managementIdentify a series of measures to stop and revert the spread of the species. This will focus largely on coordinating existing efforts.Determine priorities, costs, sequences, responsibilities, etcImplementation (mostly not funded by GEF), including through the Action Plans

Output 3.1 Assessment of 7 sites

TFTO will provide technical support, purchased by local Initiative

Assess technical, institutional, financial and legal capacity to manage land, water, biodiversity and social issues at each of the seven sites.Identify gaps.

Output 3.2 Action Plans


Review of existing land-use plans, guidelines etcParticipatory appraisal and preparation of medium term Action Plan (covering a ten year period)

Output 3.3 Strengthened Institutions


Participatory appraisal of existing arrangementsProposed membership and mandate of a Land and Water Management AuthorityDevelop legal status and obtain necessary approval

Output 3.4 Action Plans Under Implementation

This Output is closely linked to and overlaps Output 1.4

Prepare detailed design of priority actions, eg in the form of proposals to EU, to VTT and to NAEP Lobby VTT to include sites in VTT , with IHFM focusUndertake training on technical issues or on resource mobilisation;Monitor level of funding to each Action PlanMonitor impact of each Action Plan. Measures to manage invasive species

57

Output 3.5 Conservation of local biodiversity through MGBP Prepare criteria for MGBPDevelop management mechanism for MGBP – led by the PlatformIn line with individual Action Plan, each local initiative requests small grants for biodiversity activities (eg: leaflets on key species, restoring small habitats, observation towers)

Output 4.1 Increased awareness of decision-makers Prepare clear project message for communicationPrepare regular newsletterHost 2 National workshops

Output 4.2 The integrated floodplain management model (Output 2.1) is adopted by the NAEP guidelines.

Review guidelines and institutional framework of NAEPHost workshop to discuss NAEP and impact on biodiversityPropose changes to NAEP implementation framework, in order to strengthen biodiversity focus and focus on Upper Tisza Floodplain area, including measures to address invasive species. Propose more effective linkages between NAEP institutions and biodiversity community. Advocate for adoption of integrated floodplain management as land-use meriting special funding under NAEP


Review guidelines and institutional framework of VTTHost workshop to discuss VTT and impact on biodiversityPropose changes to VTT implementation guidelines in order to strengthen biodiversity focus and focus on integrated, holistic floodplain management, including measures to address invasive species. Propose more effective linkages between VTT institutions and biodiversity communityNegotiate changes in VTT to ensure that all VTT sites adopt the integrated, holistic approach to land management.

Output 4.4 Supporting ongoing efforts to modify EU land and agriculture policy; participation in UNDP-GEF regional Wetlands Network

Contact WWFForward all project lessons learnt to WWFIdentify with Network members, areas of interest for special attention in terms of lessons and practices with the aim of deriving policy inputs for

58

Annex B – Endorsement/Commitment Letter

59

Haraszthy LászlóDeputy State secretaryNature Conservation Office Ministry of Environment and Water

60

Budapest

Budapest, February 6th, 2004 Dear Mr. Haraszthy!

We would like to thank you for consulting us in the initial planning and preparations for the project titled “Conservation and Restoration of the Biodiversity in the Tisza River Upper Floodplain” supported by yourselves, the Government of Hungary, the Global Environment Facility and the United Nations Development Programme.

As you are aware, over many millennia, natural conditions and sophisticated management techniques created healthy, prosperous and rich ecosystems in the Tisza floodplain. During the past two centuries however, well-intentioned efforts to manage floods and increase short-term agricultural production have unfortunately led to great damage and losses in these eco-systems. Droughts, land degradation and declining agricultural productivity are now common. Two consequences of this are the declining biodiversity and a difficult economic situation.

Local experiments have shown a way out of this situation. Integrated floodplain management working with floods rather than fighting against them, and which respects the natural limits in the ecosystem, can be beneficial to biodiversity, to the economy and to the local communities. To be successful, the local communities must take responsibility for this process.

With the help of the project, and building on the support to rural development and flood control that is being provided by the national government and the European Union, we believe that such floodplain management techniques can be developed, introduced, disseminated and made permanent. This can help revive our local communities, regenerate unique ecosystems and provide a safe home for many globally significant species still living in the area.

We take great pleasure and honour in supporting this process.

With best regards,

Name of the initiatives/major/representativesTelepülés neve, polgármester/szervezet aláíró

61

Annex C - Maps of the Project Area

Map 1: The Proposed Project Area

Map 2: Administrative Borders in the Project Area

Map 3A and 3B: Ramsar, IBA and Natura 2000 sites in the Project Area.

Map 4: The VTT Sites and The Location of the Local Initiatives

62

Szamosi

Beregi

Bodrogközi

Tiszadob - Inérháti

Dél - Borsodi

MAP 3A. Key biodiversity sites: Natura 2000 network, RAMSAR sites SOURCE: MEW, VÁTI Public Nonprofit Company

Floodplain

Ecological CorridorEcological Fragmented CorridorEcological Core AreaBuffer Zone

Water surfaceProtected AreaRamsar SitesCountry border

Legend:

Pilot Areas

65

Tiszadob - Inérháti

Nagykörûi

Dél - Borsodi

MAP 3B. Key biodiversity sites: Natura 2000 network, RAMSAR sites SOURCE: MEW, VÁTI Public Nonprofit Company

Floodplain

Ecological CorridorEcological Fragmented CorridorEcological Core AreaBuffer Zone

Water surfaceProtected AreaRamsar SitesCountry border

Legend:

Pilot Areas

66

Annex D - The global significance of the biodiversity in the upper Tisza Floodplain

Globally significant biodiversity values The floodplains of the upper Tisza River provide excellent examples of the species richness of the rivers of Central and Eastern Europe. Since habitat along this section of the river is still in a relatively pristine condition, particularly in its upper sections, the floodplains contain a wide range of plants and animals, including many threatened species. The floodplain meadows and wetlands are important for national flood control and are also of global biodiversity significance, as evidenced by the number of Ramsar sites and Important Bird Areas within the Tisza river floodplain. In the northeastern part of Hungary along the upper Tisza River, there is the Bodrogzug Ramsar site (3,782 ha), the four individual sites at Hortobágy National Park (together totalling 23,121 ha), the Martély site (2,232 ha) and the two Pusztaszer sites (together about 5,000 ha). In addition, an international Ramsar site is being planned for the upper Tisza River, which would cover an area of about 15,000 ha on Hungarian territory alone. There are also twelve Important Bird Areas found along the Tisza River floodplain. This network of sites is home to numerous endangered and threatened species, including 57 orchid species alone, as well as Haliaetus albicilla, Adonis vernalis, and Trapa natans. However, floodplain hay meadows and pastures have decreased primarily due to the decline of extensive animal husbandry, and to the encroachment of intensive agriculture in the active flood plains. Only patches remain in good ecological condition.

The river’s extensive oxbow ecosystems also contain a wealth of biodiversity and are themselves rare ecosystems in Europe. There are currently over 100 distinct oxbow ecosystems scattered along the Tisza River, which provide numerous social and economic goods and services, including irrigation for agricultural lands, small-scale fisheries, recreation and flood control or mitigation. The Tisza River contains oxbows of up to 8–10 km, but their average length is 1.3 km. They continue to perform extremely important ecological functions (spawning, rearing, feeding, resting and staging, aquifer recharge, aquatic species "banks", habitat connectivity). The ecological quality of the oxbows varies from those that are still relatively undisturbed to some that have been heavily modified, have high production of algae and are likely to take substantial time to regenerate.

If conserved and properly managed, oxbow ecosystems act as “incubators” for species for the less protected river and floodplain, and as such are a source of replenishment for riverine species in general. Taken as a whole, oxbows can be considered as critical components of the floodplain landscape and strategically important for the full integration of biodiversity conservation into the surrounding production landscape. The system of oxbows is specifically of great importance for a large number of migratory bird species by being important staging, resting and feeding areas in a transformed landscape.

The floodplain forests are mixed woodland. There are some remnant softwoods along the banks of the oxbows, and some hardwood gallery forests primarily along the dikes (although the latter are more and more confined to levee pits). There are remnant patches of oak, ash and elm climax forests in the floodplains. There are also significant areas of willow and poplar riparian woodland, primarily found in the lower lying floodplains.

Hortobágy National Park encompasses over 100,000 hectares of wet and flooded grassland and has been listed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site on account of its unique cultural, semi-natural landscape, and its globally important natural values. More than 310 species of birds have been recorded in the past 20 years in the Park’s wetlands, marshes and saline grasslands (a landscape mosaic known as puszta). The landscape of Hortobágy National Park preserves intact and visible the evidence of its traditional use, such as the grazing of domestic animals, over more than two millennia. The Hungarian puszta is an outstanding example of a biologically diverse, cultural landscape shaped by a pastoral human society.

In addition to these ecosystems there are several economic land uses in this landscape. They include:

68

Plantations: The cultivation of hybrid poplar and Robinia pseudoacacia plantations in large parts of the floodplain. These are alien to the natural systems of the Tisza valley, and have little ecological value.Arable lands: Major crops include cereals, sunflower and maize. Pastures: This land use has significantly declined but should be supported both for nature conservation and for ecological reasons. Hay meadows: Like the previous land use form, it can only be found in remnant patches.Orchards: One of the most important, old land use forms that is a good example of harmony between agriculture and natural systems.

Flora

The floodplain meadows and forests are also of significant importance because of their flora, including hardwood riverine forests (Querco ulmetum). Along the river, the remnants of former marshland areas still host a number of significant plant associations and species. Under the framework of the Hungarian Biodiversity Monitoring System, distribution and population dynamics of selected taxa are monitored.

Plants associations include Nanocyperion, Echinochloo-Polygonetum, Convolvulion sepium, Salicetum triandrae, Salicetum albae-fragilis, Fraxino pannonicae-Ulmetum Carici elongatae-Alnetum, Salicetum cinereae, Querco robori-Carpinetum, Myriophylleto-Potametum, Magnocaricion, Agrostidion albae and Molinion coeruleae associations.

Priority plant species: Armoracia macrocarpa (endemic)Chrysanthemum serotinumElatine alsinastrum Gentiana pneumonantheLathyrus palustrisLeucojum aestivumSalvinia natansTrapa natansNymphaea albaNymphoides peltataVitis sylvestrisListera ovataPlatanthera bifolia

FaunaThe importance of the Tisza River, especially its upper reaches, can be verified by the number and distribution of bird species. Two globally threatened species of birds breed here with significant populations. Furthermore, the largest population of Sand Martin (Riparia riparia) in Central and Eastern Europe can be found here with 10,000-14,000 pairs.

Two other globally threatened species occur regularly in the area, and the river plays an important role in bird migration from northeast Europe to the west and southwest, particularly for waterfowl and passerine species. The majority of Common Cranes breeding in North Europe concentrate on the Tisza River and its surroundings (e.g., Hortobágy). A record number of nearly 80,000 individuals were counted in 2003.

Significant Breeding Bird species: Corncrake (Crex crex) 25-35 pairs – globally threatenedFerruginous Duck (Aythya nyroca) 5-10 pairs – globally threatenedSand Martin (Riparia riparia) 10 000-14 000 pairs – the largest breeding population in Central and Eastern EuropeBittern (Botaurus stellaris) 10-15 pairsLittle Bittern (Ixobrychus minutus) 25-30 pairs

69

Purple Heron (Ardea purpurea) 5-10 pairs Little Egret (Egretta garzetta)Squacco Heron (Ardeola ralloides)Night Heron (Nycticorax nycticorax)Black Stork (Ciconia nigra) 4-5 pairsBlack Kite (Milvus migrans)Lesser Spotted Eagle (Aquila pomarina) 2-3 pairsThrush Nightingale (Luscinia luscina) Grey-Headed Woodpecker (Picus canus) 3-4 pairsBee-Eater (Merops apiaster)Kingfisher (Alcedo atthis)

Migratory species: Lesser White-fronted Goose (Anser erythropus) – globally threatened (20-40 individuals)White-tailed Eagle (Haliaetus albicilla) – globally threatened (4-5 individuals)Common Crane (Grus grus)White fronted goose (Anser albifrons)

Fish 59 species have been recorded as a result of scientific studies. Endangered fish species include Grayling (Thymallus thymallus), Bullhead (Cottus gobio), Eudontomyzon danfordi, Rutilus pigus virgo, Leuciscus souffi agassizi, Barbus peloponessius petényi, Gobio uranoscopus, Gobio kessleri, Gobio albipinnatus Hucho hucho, Gymnocephalus schraetzer Zingel zingel, Zingel streber, Cottus poecilopus. Alburnoides bipunctatus. Other fish species also occur here such as Pike (Esox lucius), Catfish (Silurus glanis) and Bream (Abramis brama).

Other significant species include amphibians and reptiles: Triturus cristatus, T. vulgaris, Bombina bombina, Pelobates fuscus, Bufo bufo, B. viridis, Emys orbicularis, Natrix natrix.

InvertebratesInvertebrates found in the Tisza floodplain include a mayfly species Palingenia longicaudata, numerous dragonfly and wasp species, butterflies from the family Notodontidae and family Drepanidae.. Euphydryas maturna is a priority, endemic species, also E. maturna partiensis. Carabus hampei, Osmoderma eremita, Liocola lugubris, Dicerca aenea, Agrilus viridis, Anthaxia salicis, Dorcus parallelepipedus, Aromia moschata, Saperda carcharias, S. scalaris, S. octopunctata should be mentioned.

Molluscs:There is an endemic species Helicigona banatica, with a relatively strong population along the river. Other endangered species include Helix lutescens and Bielzia coerulescens.

Endangered farm breeds and races

Animal Varieties

The Act No. CXIV of 1993 on Animal husbandry and the Decree No. 36/1994 (VI.28) defines traditional and endangered farm animals, and the Decree No. 37/1994 (VI.28.) regulates the genetic conservation of these animals.

The Decree defines the following indigenous species and varieties:

Livestock Breeds Registered number of females, 2002Bovine animals:Cattle Hungarian Grey Cattle 4500

70

Livestock Breeds Registered number of females, 2002Sheep Hortobágyi racka 3800

Gyimesi racka 1100Cigája 850Cikta 300

Pigs:blond mangalica 1671black mangalica 215red mangalica 366

Avian:Chicken Hungarian yellow 1600

Hungarian speckled 1500Hungaian white 400Transylvanian naked neck (white, speckled, black)

1300

Turkey Copper and bronze coloured turkey 400Goose Curly feathered goose 500Equidae:

Gidrán 150Hucul 93Magyar cold blooded 612Lipicaner 521Shagya arabs 442Nóniusz 508Kisbéri 1110Furioso-North Star 392

Rare (indigenous) plant varieties

The Ministry of Agriculture announced the Decree No. 92/1997 (XI. 28.) on the conservation and utilization of plant genetic materials

The Agrobotanical Institute ensures continuous updating of the National Database and co-ordination between the databases of natural persons or organizations maintaining domestic base collections or active collections and the international gene bank information systems. These databases hold provenance data (passport and collection data) in internationally standardized form, as well as additional evaluation data of properties specified by the respective Committee of the Gene Bank Council.

The domestic utilization of the gene banks must be maintained by expanding the evaluation trials of the collections, through the publication of related data and recommendations of the gene resources and through the exploration of possibilities of dynamic maintenance in the cultivation area.

According to research of the Agrobotanical Institute, about 12 thousand Hungarian indigenous plant varieties are registered. Of the 12 thousand, a limited number can be considered to be suitable for re-entry to production.

71

Annex E - Rationale for Integrated, Holistic, Locally Driven Floodplain Management – Philosophy and Concrete Steps in the Bodrogkoz Area

Prepared by the BOKARTISZ KHT, Karcsa

Floodplain landscape management was a traditional form of ecological agriculture, a natural economy along the Tisza River and its catchments for a long time. Outputs from management corresponded to the river regime, moreover, this ecologically appropriate management itself played an important role in biodiversity through forming and maintaining flood plain habitats like ponds, meadows, pastures, landscape-specific forests and extensive orchards. The precondition of floodplain landscape management is the regular (at least annual) inflow of water from the nearby riverbed at high water. In the landscape all ecological processes such as soil formation, groundwater migration, development of habitats were dependent on the flood – its timing, amount and frequency. Therefore the channeling of rivers and the melioration of protected floodplain areas led to degradation processes such as salinization, degradation of ecological function and decrease of groundwater level. Mitigation of such activities can mostly be organised at lower flood areas of rivers like the Tisza, Duna, Bodrog, Sajó and Hernád to give a few examples in Hungary, where a direct and regulated connection can be built between river and floodplains.

The Further Development of the Vásárhelyi Plan (VTT) – one of the biggest infrastructure development programs in Hungary in recent decades – was in the planning phase in 2003. The main goal of VTT is to achieve flood protection while ensuring balanced, sustainable rural development along the Tisza River. As a result of the successful harmonisation of engineering and landscape management knowledge, the Plan incorporated the considerations and infrastructural demands of an ecological floodplain management scheme.

Re-organising landscape management might have several positive outcomes: 1. A more balanced, stabilised management of the water regime, such as soil moisture, surface and

subsurface waters, can be achieved by absorbing the periodically abundant water of floods and retaining this amount for drought periods via ‘water-steering’;

2. The mosaic landscape formed by traditional and ecologically adequate land use patterns can contribute to much higher biodiversity, compared to current mono-agricultural land. Such a landscape can also greatly increase water-absorptive capacity of the area, as a result of conscious ‘water-steering’;

3. Such a landscape management system can be re-organised around a more extensive type of farming instead of energy-, and material-intensive cultivation;

4. Such a landscape management – or landscape rehabilitation - system with its goals and techniques is in harmony with the agro-environmental objectives of the European Union;

5. Diverse land use and connected economic activities provide excellent possibilities for local inhabitants to increase their economic capacity, alternative income possibilities and - over the long term - lead to multifunctional farming.

Deriving agricultural benefitsThis form of landscape management – combined with other activities - should offer sufficient economic benefits to farmers and the affected rural population in general. Agricultural benefits on flood plains in an ecologically adjusted system are connected to spatial elevations. Traditional farming – and modified ecologically appropriate agriculture - is related to the maintenance of flood plain habitats, where the availability and level of water is a decisive factor. Therefore certain levels of the flood plain can be classified as follows: Deep flood plain – Deep lying areas of the flood plain, around the low water level of the river,

adequate as permanent reservoirs. (existing, permanent or old stream beds, ponds between and behind the dikes)

72

Low flood plain– Low areas of the flood plain that are in most years below the high water level of the river. In these areas water coverage might exceed 1 m.

High flood plain – Parts of the flood plain, which are below the high water level of the river in approx. six years out of ten, where the optimal water cover remains below 0.7 m.

The above vertical undulation of ground can only be considered on the flood plains of the protected side of river embankments, as water levels can only be controlled there.

73

Table E1. Deriving agricultural benefits at certain flood plain levelsFlood plain levels

Habitats Habitat management Benefits and income opportunitiesGeneral Concrete In general Related to the

specific habitatDeep flood plain

Open water surface

Open water ponds

Ensuring regular water supply, maintaining natural fish breed, no artificial fish intake

Water supply, canal cleaning and maintenance

Fishing, line-fishing, hunting

Pondweeds Floating and sessile pondweed associations

Water purification, composting of pondweeds

Bogs, marshland

Closed reed-bed and bulrush

Ensuring regular water supply, no artificial fish intake, mowing in adequate periods

Reed mowing, prohibition of burning

Using reed and bulrush

Floating associations

Prohibition of burning

Gastronomy (tourism related) and gardening

Rush associations

Mowing Using in extensive farming as bedding for animals

High sedges Mowing Extensive animal husbandry (bedding), grey cattle

Willows and fen forests

Willow and birch fens

Ensuring regular water supply, prohibition of burning

Prohibition of burning, assisting natural succession

Alder fens, fen forests with alder

Bush willows Willow sticksBenefits not related to habitats Energy plantation

Low flood plain

Fresh meadows, fen-meadows

Fresh and reedy meadows, fen-meadows

Ensuring regular water supply, mowing in adequate periods, prohibition of burning

Mowing Extensive animal husbandry

Drying fen-meadows

Mowing Extensive animal husbandry

Bog-meadows Mowing Extensive animal husbandry

Soft-wood groves

Willow and poplar groves

Ensuring water supply, Helping succession, removal of non-indigenous species

Helping succession, removal of non-indigenous species

Forest orchards, extensive orchards, forestry, removal of non-indigenous species

High flood plain

Hard-wood groves

Ash-Elm-Oak groves

Ensuring water supply, helping succession, removal of non-indigenous species



Alder groves

Benefits not related to habitats Plough-land, gardenFlood-protected areas

Open dry grass Perennial open plain grasses

Grazing, mowing in adequate periods, prohibition of burning

Grazing, mowing Extensive animal husbandry

Closed dry and semi-dry grass

Plains steppe meadows

Grazing, mowing Extensive animal husbandry

74

Flood plain levels

Habitats Habitat management Benefits and income opportunitiesGeneral Concrete In general Related to the

specific habitatDeciduous forests

Plain hornbeam oaks and fresh convallaria oaks




Benefits not related to habitats Plough-land, garden

Acknowledging ecological benefits As landscape management contributes to biological diversity via forming and maintaining flood plain habitats, the ecological services associated with this form of agriculture should be acknowledged by direct payments, in line with the provisions of the agro-environmental program of Hungary. Payments can help the transition from current intensive agriculture (or fallow land) to landscape management. Nonetheless, the entire program of landscape management should be elaborated - including the institutional framework, education and financing – and should be adjusted to the current institutional and financing system of rural development, water management and agriculture.

Pilot project experiences will assist in building the necessary institutional foundation and the criteria and decision making systems to support this new or renewed type of land use on a broader scale. At the Bodrogköz area the BOKARTISZ Public Utility Company (PUC), formed by 12 municipalities and three NGOs (E-misszió Environmental Association - Nyíregyháza, Palocsa Association - Zalkod; MAKK Foundation - Budapest) and some individuals started to develop and implement the above described land use system nearly three years ago. Some results:

Collaboration and trust among partners have developed, especially between farmers and regional authorities;

The rural development concept – including a SWOT analysis, an ecological survey and potential alternative income packages – has been elaborated;

The Bodrogköz area is included in the National Agri-environmental program as an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) – not due solely to its nature value but as a pilot area for floodplain rehabilitation (the Initiative is recognised and welcomed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development). The ESA TOR has been expanded based on our recommendations (floodplain management categories included).

Experts of the PUC have presented their concept for the VTT planning team, which acknowledged the initiative and involved their experts in the VTT work.

The VTT in its present form is built on the concept of ecological landscape management and provides an excellent framework for further work and finalization of the concept in its details, including adaptive management aspects.

Scientific collaboration is built between BOKARTISZ and different Universities and Research Institutes such as the BUES, RISSAC and the Technical University of Budapest.

In 2003, 15 farmers applied for ESA subsidy in the pilot area.

Operational issues of flood plain landscape managementThe system as a whole requires a controlled annual water inflow from the annual high waters of the river - therefore a ‘water-steering’ system should be in place for a sustained supply. The basis of landscape management is the operational plan of the water-steering system in which all the issues of water supply and water coverage should be regulated and governed, including operation and compensation at flood protection circumstances. The VTT is addressing these investments in the territory of the Bodrogköz area, however the activities for the successful implementation of land use/landscape rehabilitation and multifunctional farming have not been incorporated yet. Capital investment, education both practical and

75

theoretical, marketing and development of institutional and infrastructural framework is needed – step-by-step, consonant with the growth in capacities of relevant stakeholders.

76

Annex F - Detailed description of existing locally driven initiatives for an integrated, holistic approach to floodplain management in the Upper Tisza floodplain

BODROGKÖZ

Pilot name: Last Straw – landscape rehabilitation program in the BodrogközPilot area Bodrogköz – area of 43.000 ha secondary floodplain between the Bodrog and Tisza

Rivers. The area includes two Ramsar sites – Bodrogzug since 1989, and Upper Tisza since 2003; and several ecologically important mosaics

Project management and Partners

BOKARTISZ – Environmental Management and Landscape rehabilitation Public Utility Company involving 12 municipalities, 3 civic organisation and several individuals (E-Misszió – Environmental and Nature Conservation Association, Nyíregyháza; MAKK – Hungarian Environmental Economics Centre, BudapestPalocsa Association, Zalkod) Bükk and Hortobágy National Park, Budapest University of Economic Sciences; Budapest Technical and Economical University, Water Utility and Environmental Engineering Department; University of Agricultural Sciences, Debrecen; Research Institute for Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry, Hungarian Academy of Sciences; ÖKO Inc.; Szent István University, Gödöllő; VÁTI PNC.; VIZITERV Consult Ltd.

Time of operation Since 2001, but the partners have worked in this field for many decades Aim of the project The precondition of the Bodrogköz model is that - beyond the construction of flood

water reservoirs - former flood plains should be revitalised through the rehabilitation of former river beds, while water retention and water ‘steering’ should be made possible by constructing the required facilities on these flood plains. With the help of these facilities and rehabilitations, high waters of the river can be driven through the farming area with controlled depth and time-length of coverage. This kind of flood plain management requires:– a change in land use compared to current intensive farming practices, as the

presence of a mosaic landscape is an important feature of this new type of farming.

– Create a diverse landscape, which has a favourable impact on biological diversity and also on the water management of the area.

– Rehabilitation of small-scale water cycles in which water is retained in the area both as surface and as subsurface water, greatly balancing the extremities of precipitation and mitigating the harm from drought.

– Formation of reservoirs with large capacities, enabling these reservoirs to ‘cut’ the dangerously high water level of floods.

– Introduce or re-introduce the system of flood plain farming which offers diversity of farming benefits, and through this diversity of benefits much safer living.

– Based on floodplain farming development of tourism, marketing of special local products.

– Introducing floodplain land use management into the NAEP - The population of former flood plains gain promising economic opportunities via flood plain rehabilitation, water retention and flood plain farming as farmers can join the National Agro-environmental Program (NAEP) and the continuation of the program. The system of direct payments in the program offers a respectable level of livelihood for participating farmers. According to the philosophy of the program – in line with the relevant agricultural policy of the EU – farming that contributes to values of landscape and produces ecological benefits should be recognised through direct payments.

Experiences and results

– Investigation and assessment of ecological and social processes of floodplain management;

– Collaboration and trust among the partners has developed, especially between farmers and regional authorities;

– The rural development concept for the floodplains – including a SWOT analysis, an ecological survey and potential alternative income packages – has been elaborated;

– The Bodrogköz area is included in the National Agri-environmental program as

77

an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) – not solely due to its nature value but also as a pilot area for floodplain rehabilitation (initiative is recognised and welcomed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development). The ESA TOR has been expanded based on our recommendation (floodplain management categories included).

– Experts of the PUC have presented their concept for the VTT planning team, which acknowledged the initiative and involved the experts into the VTT work.

– The VTT in its present form is built on the concept of ecological landscape management and provides an excellent framework for further work and finalization of the concept in details.

– Scientific collaboration is built between BOKARTISZ and different Universities and Research Institutes such as the BUES, RISSAC and the Technical University of Budapest.

– In 2003, 15 farmers applied for ESA subsidy in the pilot area.Plans – As a pilot area for landscape based floodplain reactivation in the VTT the project

will play an important role in the accumulation of existing experiences and develop an implementation algorithm for water retention based floodplain management.

– Elaboration of a monitoring system to measure the impact of floodplain management on biodiversity, 12 months

– Development and realisation of energy use with renewable biomass produced on the floodplain, design of the system, discussion about the energy system with local inhabitants and with local municipalities, 36 months

– Monitoring the operation of the flood plain water system, setting up of an information system to monitor the operation of the water system, to gather data and to inform concerned land owners, 24 months

– Regular discussions with the stakeholders of local agriculture, shaping the method of discussions, ensure financial resources for the technical and human resource needs of the regular meetings,

– Education of flood plain management, elaboration of the education curriculum, obtain an accreditation, forming cooperation with the accrediting educational institution. Creating the required infrastructural conditions of education, getting the resources to start operation. Target groups: local farmers, students with university degree with different curricula, 24 months

– Continuous presentation and dissemination of results achieved, presentation of results to other organisations in the Platform, to local, county level and national decision-makers and to the media,

– Practical assistance for flood plain farming. Realisation of continuous assistance by establishing an office with permanent staff. Preparing them to answer practical questions concerning flood plain farming, ability to prepare agro-environmental applications, 36 months

– Share and further develop experiences for the future VTT sites.Further Information Bokartisz KHT 3963 Karcsa, Petőfi str. 11.

Phone: 36 47 542027 fax: 3647 342009E-mails: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], webpage: www.bokartisz.hu

78

http://www.bokartisz.hu/

mailto:[email protected]



TISZADOB- INÉRHÁTI

Pilot name: Tiszadob – Tiszató integrated rehabilitation program Pilot area 15 km long floodplain area north to Tisza Lake along the Tisza, including 9

oxbows and several LPAs. The area is more than 30.000 ha. In the area 6 genetic centres can be found.

Project management and Partners

4 municipalities, CÖTKÉNY Alliance for Local Development, Teampannon Ltd.In collaboration with Hortobágy National Park Directorate, Debrecen University, TIVIZIG

Time of operation 6 years of active participation in the area, but more than 20 years research and work in the field of Ecology by Teampannon Ltd.

Aim of the project – Complex rehabilitation of the area, build in the condition of higher water table due to the Tisza lake reservoir effect. Naturally started ecological rehabilitation processes should be carefully maintained and assisted.

– The aim of the project is to create an oxbow special nature park (reservatum) by rehabilitation of streams, water retention systems and support to the economic processed in the field of bio-cultivation and eco-tourism.

– Monitoring and research of ecological processes, state of oxbows and set a functional ecological zoning system

– Development of economic utilization program for the area– Implementation of the developed programmes–


– Results of the assessment of the oxbows– Studies on species in migration, and ecotones and so called “ecotone

effect”– Monitoring and assessment of succession processes, population dynamics

and change of ecotopes and habitats – Investigation of floodplain forest and their rehabilitation– Starting concrete wetland reconstruction and oxbow rehabilitation at

Tiszadob– Starting project development for oxbow rehabilitation and economic

development for the area in the frame of PEA –

Plans – Oxbow rehabilitation plan development, including monitoring development, ecological state assessment, development of usage of these habitats – 24 month

– Ecological corridors in the area, including the Király –Árkus creek rehabilitation program, and the Újszentmihály wetland rehabilitation – 36 months

– Ecological network development –connection between the left and the right part of the Tisza at the area of Tiszavalk – Borsodi Mezőség. Rehabilitation of the Nyárádka creek, and the floodplain linked to it by creating direct connection to water from the northern mountains.

Further Information Horváth BenőTeampannon Ltd., MiskolcCötkény Alliance, 3464 Tiszavalk, Tempol str. 2. Phone: 3649539002 e-mail: [email protected]

79


BORSODI MEZŐSÉG

Pilot name: Journey to the Future - Borsodi MezőségPilot area The southern part of the 35.000 ha area of the Kis Hortobágy (also called

Borsodi Mezőség) in the Hungarian Great plain bordered by the River Tisza provides the testing area for a pilot project. Over 50% of the area is SPA, and it is designated as a HNVA as well. The south part of the area belongs to a Ramsar site.

Partners Tiszatér Foundation, Cötkény Alliance for Rural Development in collaboration with 1 town and 5 villages Further partners: Bükk National Park, Borsodi Mezőség Farmers’ Association, Tisza-Szamos KHT, KÖTIVIZIG, Agriculture University, Gödöllő, ELTE, Budapest,

Time of operation Since 1995Aim of the project – The main aim is the implementation of an innovative water management

system and to work out a new land use system suitable to the new circumstances changed by water regulation.

– The three main aims are: – To use and protect the area according to its high nature value– To ensure that local activities can support appropriate living standards, and

stop the loss of population– To ensure that the profit, arising from the developments will mainly

benefit the indigenous people.–– In more detail, major parts of the programme are the followings:– Solution for regulation of the surface water balance to ensure currently

required provision of water– Re-cultivation and rehabilitation of the landscape in keeping with the

ancient floodplain of the Tisza– Formation of agricultural product structure best suited for the rehabilitated

land that will multiply its biomass– Formulation of agricultural structure based primarily on local private

ownership, which will provide the basis for regional cooperation– Develop diverse economic activities making multiple use of the

advantages of the landscape to an optimal level.–


– The project has good experience in participating in internationally funded projects (SAPARD, IEEP, WWF, ECOVAST, Dutch Government –Matra project), which helped to gain experience of other international pilot programmes, ideas and achievements.

– Besides the region as a HNVA, it is one of the most successful in gaining MARD – NEAP payments - by 2002 it exceeded 230 million forint in payments.

– Rural development program has been prepared, its implementation started.

– Due to its high nature values the site has not been selected as a VTT site, but water retention system – using karstic freshwater sources – is under implementation. Further negotiation has started to determine optimal combination of flood control water reservoir and nature protection.

80

Plans – LIFE project started recently will focus on the actions to provide a concerted multi sectoral model for handling the risks of very high floods, river contamination (eg. cyanide or heavy metals), nature conservation, agricultural production and integrated rural development challenges, to involve all important stakeholders. It will concentrate on the water supply from Bükk rehabilitate the Csincse and Tiszavalk channels, the Felsp Morotva creek.

– In collaboration with the Bükk NPD the water steering elements of the landscape should rehabilitate, proper management of these constructions planned and the wetlands operational plan developed.

– Ecological network implementation should take place. – Dissemination of results, using the network of beneficiaries among sectors

and relevant to governmental, regional, local and NGO levels in all countries of the Tisza river basin (Ukraine, Romania, Slovakia, Hungary and Yugoslavia).

Further Information Sárvári AttilaCötkény Alliance, 3464 Tiszavalk, Tempol str. 2. Phone: 3649539002 e-mail: [email protected]

81


NAGYKÖRŰI

Pilot name: Nagykörű Landscape Rehabilitation ProgramPilot area Tisza floodplain in the area of Nagykörű , Tiszabő, Tiszapüspöki, north to

Szolnok city, including the active and protected parts of the floodplain. The area where rehabilitation activities take place comprises 500-800 ha, but the potential area could include more than 12-15,000 ha. The area is part of the ecological network, it is rich in fragmented habitats with high ecological values and on the secondary floodplain, old creeks, and meanders can be found.

Partners Nagykörű Landscape Development Program Office, NagykörűIn collaboration with WWF Hungary, Budapest; the Agricultural University, Gödöllő, ELTE University, Budapest and Hortobágy and Bükk National Park Directorate, Ökotárs Foundation, Budapest

Time of operation Since 1995Aim of the project – The project focuses on floodplains and the potential for ecological

rehabilitation and landscape management and step-by-step, active measures for rehabilitation of the elements of the described and understood system.

– Project has the following concrete objectives:– Fok rehabilitation, including increase of fish population and revitalization

of former water system elements of the landscape– Complex rehabilitation of Nagykörű active floodplain with controlled

water steering– Floodplain re-activation on the secondary floodplain


– Rehabilitation of Kubik system on the Nagykörű active floodplain – increasing reproduction capacity of fish population

– Rehabilitation of Anyita lake – “Fok-management” rehabilitation of the active floodplain at Nagykörű region

– Creating a Floodplain Research Centre at Nagykörű, with the help of WWF (1 researcher)

– Establishment of Tourist Information Centre and Rural Development Office

– Landscape rehabilitation at Nagykörű region – sustainable land use, grazing (applying grey cattle) and implementing mosaic-like land use based on elevations

– Replicability of the model elsewhere in the area.– Operating a bi-monthly workshop for discussion among experts from

different disciplines on floodplain management. –

Plans – Water retention based floodplain reactivation and landscape management in the frame of the VTT, including land use change and increase in stakeholder participation (increase of employment); contribution to flood control

– Further development if the Research Centre by employment of experts with agricultural, financial, ecological and hydrological backgrounds

– Continuation of the already started rehabilitation programmes, including the successful implementation of LIFE project for the Middle Tisza region with WWF and KÖTIVIZIG

Further Information Balogh Péter, reseacherNagykörű, Május 1. str. 1. Phone: 36 56 543 014Mail: [email protected]/arter

82

http://www.nagykoru.hu/arter


Koros Valley 24

Pilot name: NIMFEA – Nature Conservation Program on the Tisza RiverPilot area Körös valleyPartners The "Nimfea" Environment and Nature Conservation Association is one of the

biggest organisations of the Trans-Tiszanian region, with more than a thousand members, 13 well operating member organisations and one central office in Túrkeve to ensure fluid operation. The organisation of 1000 members includes many professional local groups, which represent the aims and the viewpoints of the association, in their regions.

Time of operation 8 yearsAim of the project "Nimfea" works in the Great Hungarian Plain as a non-governmental

organisation, addressing issues related to the environment and nature protection. Nimfea has recently become active at national levels and with issues affecting the Carpathian basin, so their field of activity is continuously growing.– Active nature conservation, including ecological assessment, bird

protection, wetland rehabilitation– Environmental Protection– Environmental education– Lobby activities


– Flooding for habitat-reconstruction in several places, like Kecskeri-puszta near Karcag, Fegyverfenék near Körösladány, etc.

– Maintaining bird repatriation station since 1995, where sick birds are cured and repatriated. No subsidies were given to maintain the station in the last five years, although the maintenance of it is very important in the longer term.

– Placing of artificial nests and nest-boxes – Natural condition surveying, research: Continuously running with the help

of many volunteers and graduates, where colleagues and members do their research on the Upper-Tisza region, to the Őrség. Nature conservation plan proposals are made for four or five new places worthy of conservation on a nation wide level yearly, and new data is provided from the same number of protected areas. There were many cases of finding new species in Hungary by our colleagues.

– Species protection programs: The protection of the great bustard (Otis tarda) on the field is done by us, in the last four years, on behalf of the Körös-Maros National Park. Aside from bustard protection, colleagues look after the breeding population of collared pratincole (Glareola pratincola) and have major tasks with the protection of the barn owl (Tyto alba) and the Umbra crameri.

Programmes on the Tisza river:Fish research: The Association has fish research running for many years. The results obtained are entered into GIS (Geographical Information System). Data on amphibiants are also collected. Mammal research: The Nimfea and the CSEMETE have a research program on mammals along the Lower section of the Tisza river. The research is primarily on rodents and based on the analysis of owl-pellets of the tawny owl (Strix aluco).Sustainable tourism on the Tisza: Research on sustainable tourism on the Tisza river started in 1999. First, Tisza Lake was investigated. The Association demonstrated that tourism was having damaging effects on large sections of the river. Surveying of camp sites, beaches, holiday resorts and their effects (on biodiversity) has been running since 2000.Survey of pollution sources along the Tisza river: Colleagues surveyed

24 (this site is not included on the map, since field activities do not take place on the Upper Tisza, but their experience and lessons could be successfully introduced in the project)

83

pollution sources along the Hungarian section of the Tisza. Results are entered into a GIS database.

Plans Long term monitoring program to determine „hot spots” of biodiversity on the Tisza river. With the help of our monitoring programs, changes, trends would be identified for several species; nature conservation tasks would be designated for the protection of endangered species.– Mammal research: Nimfea Nature Conservation Association and the

CSEMETE continue work already initiated. – Fish monitoring: The Association continues to collect data on fish fauna of

the Tisza. Long term effects and processes can only be studied by continuous up-to-date data on fauna and flora.

– Monitoring of amphibians and reptile along the Tisza river: Amphibians and reptiles make good indicator species. Their monitoring could be done in parallel with the fish surveys. Faunistic research on amphibians and reptiles occurred over many years, mainly after Baie Mare cyanide spill, but no monitoring systems were established. Stand-alone data on amphibian and reptile fauna is not enough, because long-term effects and processes are not interpretable. There is no regular amphibian and reptile monitoring on the Tisza and on its oxbow lakes.

– Monitoring on aquatic macroinvertebrate fauna: The aquatic macroinvertebrate fauna is another very under studied group. The monitoring of aquatic macroinvertebrate fauna would occur on the same sampling sites as the fish surveys. Research on aquatic macroinvertebrate fauna could happen on selected oxbow lakes as well.

– Connections between the studied groups: Based on the data obtained on the fish, amphibian, and aquatic macroinvertebrate fauna, research should be carried out to determine the connections and relations between these groups, including connections between their occurrence and frequency. The concrete effects of pollution and increasing tourism on the different populations should be determined.

– Processing of archive data: Data and results should be published when possible.

Further Information Ákos MonokiTargetprogram leader of biodiversity protectionNimfea Nature Conservation AssociationTúrkeve, H-5420Kenyérmezei str. 2/dPO Box: 33. H-5421Hungarye-mail: [email protected]/fax: 00-36-56/361-505 www.nimfea.hu

84

http://www.nimfea.hu/


Annex G. The VTT government and implementation orders

After nearly ten years of dry weather and drought, four extremely dangerous annual floods occurred on the Tisza River. During these four years some 120 billion Forints were spent on restoration, mitigating and preventing damages caused by floods. Although the dikes did not break, public awareness grew.

The Government responded with resolution number 1022/2003 (III.27.) whose principles concerning flood prevention are as follows:

a) The Tisza River floods should be prevented with the dike systems built according to standard defensibility, and thus – with regard to ecological aspects – improve water flow circumstances.

b) Statistically rare floods that exceed the loading capacity of the dikes should be managed and controlled within national boundaries.

c) The flood management and control system should permit water in and out flow, should be constructed and operated to be useful for reaching goals set up in the National Agro-Ecological Plan, and programs dealing with the improvement of the Tisza floodplain and expansion of aquatic habitats.

d) Total flooding of emergency reservoirs should occur with less than 1% probability, thus averting damage and the need for restoration.

The new concept of flood-protection in the Tisza valley comes from the system invented and executed by Pál Vásárhelyi in the 19th century. By improving the original concept and making use of the floodplain enables its new development, making new land use and farming methods possible. That is where the name Improvement of the Vásárhelyi Plan (VTT, or IVP) comes from. The realization of the project will take 10 years with execution of the first item starting now.

The Government established an inter-ministerial committee to coordinate the realization of tasks connected with flood protection and the VTT. During the preliminary phase widespread social involvement was guaranteed by holding public information meetings in more than 100 villages and 80 different programs.

The Government discussed the program on the 15th of October 2003 and agreed to execute the first item of the IVP.

The flood protection program

The program suggested the reduction of floodwater-levels instead of building artificial dikes, to improve defensibility and also enable a new type of land use.

The IVP concentrates on two aspects concerning defensibility, namely improving flow in the riverbed, and use of emergency reservoirs.

As for improvement of the stream in the riverbed, the following possible measures were defined: The most important elements of the execution program for 2003-2007 are: replacement of the summer dikes, constructing a secure zone for emergency use as reservoirs, regulating the river, modification (replacement) of the current trace of the dikes.

The improvement of the flow in the riverbed is intended to be realized with the total restoration of the floodplain. According to hydraulic examinations carried out on the total length of the river Tisza, these improvements will help to reach the aims of the program on the most critical upper and middle-parts of the river, where floodwater-levels will decrease with use of the floodplain, by 0.5- meters.

85

The emergency reservoirs should be able to take in some 1.5 billion m3 water to reach the desired level. From the 30 original identified areas, eleven can be addressed in the first phase of the IVP. Use of the emergency reservoirs will be able to decrease water levels by 60 cms.

Securing the prosperity of the people living in the river basin, nature-protection, and sustainable development of the area according to EU requirements

Principles of rural development and environmental management were determined to combine rural development tasks with flood protection, by preparing changes in land and water use. This element is necessary to give the region, dealing with heavy social, economic and environmental difficulties, a chance to improve its living standards. According to these principles an integrated rural development and environmental management program will be designed, which can only be implemented with widespread and continuous cooperation of all stakeholders.

In the first phase of the IVP the necessary expansion in economic and infrastructural development was studied. Government proposals were reconciled with local stakeholders needs.

Development activities associated with the IVP cause changes to the local land use system, bringing about the need to initiate a system of subsidies. These changes can lead to potential problems with landowners, due to depreciation of the land caused by periodic inundation, although the new land use system using emergency outflow will be specifically advantageous.

Costs of the first phase of IVP

The total costs of the first four years (2004-2007) add to 138 billion Forints, half of which will be spent on investments connected with flood-protection, and half on rural development and infrastructural expansion. Approximately 25% of the costs will be provided from the EU funds.

1022/2003. Government decree

On the conception-plan on the increasing of flood safety in the Tisza Valley (Improvement of the Vásárhelyi Plan)

The Government reviewed the short and medium-term development tasks concerning flood-protection structures of the Tisza River, and resolved the following:

1. To fund development activities related to flood-protection on the Tisza River and to ensure continuous coordination of necessary interventions, the priority budget appropriation entitled “Development of the flood-protection system of the Mid-Tisza region of the XVI, Ministry for Environment and Water chapter of the 2003 year budgetary law” was raised by 1.0 billion Forint charged to the general reserve of the budget, as shown in the annex;

Amendable: Minister of FinanceMinister of Environment and Water

Deadline: Immediate

2. The basic principles of the conception-plan on improving flood safety in the Tisza Valley (Improvement of the Vásárhelyi Plan) are as follows:

a) The floods of the Tisza River must be primarily channeled between the protective dikes built for standard protection capability, and therefore – with regards to ecological aspects – runoff and water-carrying capacity must be improved.

b) Statistically rare floods that are beyond the capacity of flood protection systems and which might bring about dike breaches and overflows, must be decreased within the boundaries of the water carrying capacity of the river bed.

86

c) The flood discharge system designed to facilitate controlled discharge of the flood and to carry water back into the river or to drought-stricken regions if necessary have to be constructed and operated in a way that it could be utilized to reach the goals of National Agri-Environmental projects and those of the Development of the Tisza Valley as well as creating natural habitats.

d) The complete flooding of discharge catchment basins (e.g. extensive agricultural areas) may happen only in the case of floods with a statistical probability of less than 1 %. Therefore in case of unchanged use of the land, expropriation, compensation and damages should occur rarely.

3. In order to enforce the conceptual principles:a) A program for carrying out activities, including the detailed design of flood control systems should

be coordinated with the continuous involvement of the respective competencies. Within the program, financial resources should be determined with respect to the EU’s common joint financing conditions, The operational program should be scheduled taking into account both construction and financing requirements. For the land areas involved in the IVP, area development and land reclamation improvement plans (that would benefit local populations living conditions, should be carried out that are environmentally and nature-friendly and are in accordance with EU requirements) as well as respective sector economy and infrastructure development plans. Furthermore, a strategic environmental evaluation should be prepared in accordance with the principles of the 2001/42/EK.

Amenable: in point of working out the program and the sectoral development plans: Minister of Environment and WaterMinister of AgricultureMinister of Internal AffairsMinister of the Prime Minister’s OfficeMinister for Economy and Transport

Deadline: for preparing the program: 30th September 2003

b.) the Minister for Environment and Water, the Minister for Agriculture, the Minister for Economy and Transport, the Political State Secretary responsible for rural development of the Prime Minister’s Office, Political State Secretary responsible for tourism of the Prime Minister’s Office, the Minister of Internal Affairs, the Minister of Cultural Heritage and the delegates of the regional development committees establish an inter-ministerial committee to coordinate the execution of the flood-protection development and the related other sectoral development tasks. The chairman of the committee is appointed by the Minister for Environment and Water. The deputy to the chairman is appointed by the Minister for Agriculture;

Amenable: Minister of Environment and WaterMinister of AgricultureMinister of the Prime Minister’s OfficeMinister of Internal AffairsMinister of Cultural HeritageMinister for Economy and Transport

Deadline: for forming the inter-ministerial committee: 20th March 2003

4. The priority budget appropriation entitled Development of first-rate flood protection structures of the XVI, Ministry of Environment and Water chapter of 2003 year budgetary law was raised by 400 million Forint to finance preparation of execution of the Improvement of the Vásárhelyi Plan, for preliminary studies, design and analysis of activities as shown in the attached fact sheet;

Amenable: Minister of FinanceMinister of Environment and Water

Deadline: Immediate

87

5. To realize tasks for 2003 defined in the Improvement of the Vásárhelyi Plan concerning the rehabilitation of the floodplain, a 500 million Forint fund for open tenders called for by the Water Management Authorities concerned should be charged to the general reserve of the budget;

Amenable: Minister of Employment Policy and LaborMinister of Environment and Water

Deadline: 15th April 2003

6. For the realization of the first phase of the Improvement of the Vásárhelyi Plan in 2004-8 billion, in 2005-15 billion, in 2006-15 billion, in 2007-12 billion Forint will be ensured;

Amenable: Minister of FinanceDeadline: Planning of the yearly budget appropriation

7. A proposal for the development of flood protection structures of the Danube river should be prepared, in accordance with state and municipal regulations regarding protective structures, the potential use of EU funding, and building deadlines for 2006.

Amenable: Minister of Environment and WaterDeadline: 30th September 2003

88

Annex H: GEF Secretariat Comments on the PDF A and UNDP Response

Conservation and Restoration of the Globally Significant Biodiversity of the Tisza River Floodplain Through Integrated Floodplain Management

During PDF A implementation, project proponents moved quickly to seize the opportunity provided by important government changes in flood control and nature conservation policy to integrate biodiversity conservation and sustainable use into floodplain management in the Tisza River floodplain. The potential benefits of these changes and the prospect of their sustainability, replicability and impact, have been enhanced by proponents’ support to and work with a number of grassroots initiatives focused on renewing traditional management of the floodplain landscape for multiple economic and social benefits.

The project’s primary goal is the integration of biodiversity conservation principles and practices into major flood control and agricultural programs, as well as into local development initiatives. The longer-term result of this integration will be a more traditional landscape mosaic of different habitat types providing near optimal conditions for a variety of key species of global importance. These landscapes will encompass 1,600 km2 of directly impacted terrain, which will act as a pilot for the greater Tisza River valley and provide lessons and good practices for a large variety of other flood control program around Central and Eastern Europe. This project will provide the national government with concrete evidence of an economically, socially and ecologically viable alternative to conventional agriculture and flood control systems.

GEFSec Comments UNDP Response Reference in MSP proposal

(i) clarify the global significance of the site and global benefits to be secured;

The global significance of the project is argued in Annex D of the proposal. Species and habitats include natural, semi-natural and human cultural habitats with their accompanying species, including those important to agriculture.

See Annex D.

(ii) review the possibilities of addressing a regional approach, instead of a national one;

Proponents analysed the justification, benefits and drawbacks of a regional approach in detail. The primary threats to biodiversity in the floodplain were determined to come from conventional, capital-intensive agriculture (which produces a habitat and species poor homogeneous landscape in the floodplain) in contrast to more traditional methods (which produce a relatively complex mosaic of habitats with a corresponding high number of associated species, including agricultural species). Pollution is primarily a potential threat from mine dumps, as evidenced by the 2000 Baie Mare spill; in the course of the past three years, this issue has been increasingly addressed by governments and agencies with multilateral and bilateral resources. This threat is anticipated to decline significantly as time goes on. As the largest number of mine dumps occur outside Hungary, it was originally proposed that the project consider taking a regional approach. Given the ongoing work to be carried out under the Danube River Nutrient Reduction Project in terms of emergency prevention and given that existing individual national efforts are resulting in substantial aggregate benefits to the downstream river

See paragraphs 49 and 50.

89

ecosystem, a regional approach, with it’s attendant difficulties and risks, was not considered to be necessary.

(iii) highlight threats and root causes atproposed sites, including pollution issues;

Threats and root causes are generalized across the project sites and area: biodiversity loss is a result of historic abandonment of traditional forms of floodplain management under a centralized planning system that prized drainage, dyking and irrigation over more sophisticated methods based on traditional knowledge that resulted in a high biodiversity mosaic of land uses. Current opportunities to enhance biodiversity in the floodplain stem from the improved national flood control plan, which allows for re-introduction of flooding to significant portions of the floodplain, thus providing the ecological basis for revival of traditional forms of floodplain management, primarily but not exclusively agriculture. However, this new form of flood control can represent a threat to biodiversity in that if not managed wisely i.e., under more traditional forms of floodplain management, intensive agriculture – now more likely under market conditions created by EU entry - will increasingly lead to greater landscape homogenization and concomitant reductions in biodiversity. The project will counter these threats and seize this opportunity by enabling local grassroots initiatives to recover traditional floodplain management systems for agricultural benefits.

Pollution is considered to be a rapidly diminishing threat to floodplain biodiversity: upstream mine dumps are increasingly coming under stricter management and control, more and more upstream towns and villages are treating wastewaters, and non-point source pollution will be mitigated by optimal restoration of floodplain function.

See section 2 b v) Biodiversity: Threats and Conservation Opportunities, page 11.

(iv) consider the role of the private sector and industries generating substantive pollution loads and use of important amounts of water in their industrial processes;

See previous response regarding pollution. It is important to note that the project area is located on the Upper Tisza River. The vast majority of industries are found downstream of the project area. Smaller private sector enterprises (SME) in the form of individual farmers and associations are integrated into the project through the local grassroots Initiatives.

90

Annex I – Response to GEF Secretariat Comments of 30 August 2004

Comment Response or clarification References in Brief

1. The global benefits that will be generated through the intervention should be more clearly argued and justified.

The Project’s overall approach is mainstreaming i.e., to influence the agriculture and flood control sectors across the entire 9,800km2 of the project area. This will lead to improved land and water management at all of the Ramsar, IBA and Natura 2000 sites mentioned as well as wide-spread biodiversity conservation. The project’s support to the six initiatives is one of the tools for achieving this mainstreaming.

Within the 9,800km2, there are many sites of globally significant biodiversity, including the Ramsar, IBA and Natura 2000 sites.

The Hungarian Natura 2000 sites (which have recently been approved by EU) were designated based on former Hungarian classification. Hence, all former Landscape Protection Areas (LPA), High Nature Value Areas (HNVA) and Specially Protected Areas (SPA) are now Natura 2000 sites. There are four categories of Natura 2000 sites: Core Areas, Corridors, Fragmented Corridors and Buffer Zones.

The area is very diverse. The mosaic nature of the land is very complex as a result of long-standing patterns of traditional land use over varied terrain – this is the primary basis for a landscape approach to biodiversity conservation that includes Natura 2000 sites, IBA, and Ramsar sites, within the overall productive matrix. Natura 2000 sites are distributed across the 9,800km2 and are quite varied in size and structure.

A principal focus for the GEF investment is the location of the six initiatives. These sites are selected for their potential to combine biodiversity conservation, agricultural development and flood control (i.e. for their potential to mainstream biodiversity into the agriculture and flood control sectors). Hence, each of the initiative sites is relevant in terms of globally significant biodiversity and in terms of at least one of the sectors.

The revised maps make this clear:

Map 1 shows the overall project area of 9,800 km2, with the location of the six initiatives (identified as ‘pilot sites’ in the map).

Map 2 shows the location of the VTT sites, in relation to the six initiatives. Map 3a shows the location of four initiatives (Szamosi, Bereg, Bodrogkozi and

Tiszadob). From this map it can be seen that three of these sites include some Ramsar

Para 11

Para 37

Annex C

91

sites, three of these sites include ecological core areas and the fourth includes fragmented corridor areas (Natura 2000). All sites include (or are contiguous to) an IBA.

Map 3b shows the location of the other two initiatives (Del-Borsodi and Nagykoru). The former includes significant ecological core (Natura 2000) and Ramsar values, the latter includes an ecological core area. Both sites include (or are contiguous to) an IBA.

As mentioned by the reviewer, Natura 2000 sites can be small (as can IBA sites). Such small sites cannot be viably conserved unless managed within a broader landscape approach. The Government of Hungary has such an approach – through the Ecological Network and Natura 2000. The GEF Project supports this approach. By mainstreaming biodiversity into agriculture and flood-control programmes and practices, the GEF project will remove the main threats to landscapes in the Tisza floodplain, and so remove the threats to the small Natura 2000 and IBA sites.

The GEF reviewer also seeks reassurance that IHFM will lead to biodiversity benefits. IHFM’s principal goal is to maintain the ecological integrity of the site - this integrity would be lost in the baseline as the land would be managed under modern flood control and conventional intensive agricultural practices. The IHFM approach promotes, adopts, and adapts traditional land and water management practices that have been proven, over the centuries, to successfully conserve and even improve biodiversity at species and habitat levels. Components of this include:

6. Periodic flooding, similar to natural cycles, leading to a more balanced, stabilised water regime. This improves soil moisture, and quantities of surface and subsurface waters;

7. The mosaic landscape formed by IHFM land use patterns contributes to much higher biodiversity, compared to mono-cropped agricultural land;

8. The IHFM is organised around extensive types of farming, which are proven to be more diverse in terms of agroecosystems and thus good for biodiversity.

Box 1

2. Dissemination and Replication Strategies should be clarified

The project approach to replication and dissemination is inherent in mainstreaming. That is, the project aims to mainstream biodiversity conservation into the agricultural and flood control sectors. If this mainstreaming is successfully achieved; the two sectors will be transformed, and all future activities in the sectors will follow the new approach. Replication and dissemination follow. Project steps to achieve this include:

Demonstrating transformation of local land-use practices (through the Action Plans); and

Empowering local representatives to interact and influence regional bodies and national government agencies; and then

Paras 113 and 114

92

Modifying well-funded national policies and programmes – notably the NAEP and VTT (through Outcome 4);

It is noted that, formally, already both NAEP and VTT embrace biodiversity conservation. They are not yet able to operationalise this due to the barriers described in the Project Brief. The Project will remove these barriers, and so achieve the mainstreaming.

For example, the project will develop IHFM Guidelines based on what has seen to work at the Initiatives. Through the Platform, under Outcome 4, the Guidelines will be integrated nationally into NAEP and VTT policy. NAEP and VTT funding will therefore adopt the guidelines, ensuring their widespread dissemination.

3. Clarification of invasive species management within Hungary and what the project is complementing in this regard.

Present system to manage invasive species is unsystematic and uncoordinated. There are two lines of action. First, on agricultural areas, it is the responsibility of the users/owners by law, and controlled by the municipalities and the plant protection authorities. Clearly, enforcement is weak. Moreover, these small-scale measures are insufficient to address the threat – a broader ecosystem-wide approach is required. Second, in protected sites and buffer zones, the Nature Protection Department is responsible to protect the sites from invasive species. However, there is no mechanism for coordination with land-owners in buffer zones and surrounding areas. There are considerable funds available that could be used to manage invasive species, but they are not used effectively.

It is noted that the VTT, as presently designed, actually facilitates the movement of invasive species.

The Project will catalyse a systematic approach. It will act at three levels: First, at the level of the initiatives, it will ensure that each Action Plan has a component on invasive species. Hence, NAEP funding can be channelled to invasive species management through the Action Plans. Also, the impacts of VTT can be managed at the site level. Second, across the entire project area, through the Platform, the project will ensure that efforts to manage invasive species are coherent and coordinated. This is the main component under Output 2.3. Third, at the national level, the project will integrate management of invasive species into policy or guidelines for implementing VTT and NAEP programmes.

Para 52

Para 90

Logframe

4. Explanation of the complementarity and rationale for the Micro Grants biodiversity Programme (MGBP), given the project emphasis on mainstreaming through promotion of IHFM.

An important element of the Project strategy is to demonstrate IHFM at the sites. This demonstration is largely through the participatory development and implementation of Action Plans. The MGBP is designed to support the participatory nature of this action planning, and to ensure that the Action Plan is efficiently implemented.

The Action Plans will contain a series of measures leading to identified benefits – economic, social and ecological benefits. Overall, the Action Plan will be accepted by local people, as it

93

will contribute to improving living standards. However, it does not follow that all local people will immediately support all measures in the Action Plan. It will be necessary to demonstrate the longer-term benefit of some measures – notably those measures that focus uniquely on biodiversity. The MGBP will be used to support some of the measures that have purely biodiversity benefits. This will help overcome local resistance or hesitation to making pro-biodiversity investments.

It is important to note that the micro grants will not distort local conditions, and they will not set an unsustainable precedent. After project completion, there will continue to be moderate funding levels available for biodiversity conservation measures. Hungary is not a poor country, and, as in other parts of the EU, funding will be available for biodiversity conservation, e.g. initially through the NAEP, which can invest in biodiversity friendly land-use.

The use of a micro-grants facility draws on GEF global experience that small grants can be a very efficient and effective tool to support biodiversity conservation.

5. Explain risk mitigation strategies more comprehensively

The history of communities/NGOs being able to mobilise resources in the Tisza region is mixed. On the positive side, for example, some initiatives have been operating successfully for many years. There are several ongoing local projects supported, for example, by WWF and LIFE. They have been able to survive. However, in general, the region remains poor, and the local funding base is weak. Most communities in the region are unable to mobilise significant external resources. There is a risk that this lack of capacity will preclude future development of local initiatives. The project addresses this lack of capacity directly. The project empowers the local communities to interact with national and international funding sources, and empowers them to influence national policies. For example, the Action Plan is a tool for such empowerment, as is the related training on project development skills.

The Initiatives are not wholly dependant on external funding. Local resources (financial and technical) are available. It is, however, true that some external funding to the project region is required if the project impact is to be successfully maintained. As with rural development everywhere, national and international investments are necessary to complement local potential. In the Tisza region, external funding will continue to be available, through the EU and through national funds. By empowering local communities and ensuring they can engage with international/national funding sources, this project can ensure that future external funding is appropriately invested in IHFM.

Para 124

6. Logframe requires strengthening, as noted It is acknowledged that the system of indicators and related baseline information in the log-frame is incomplete. The strategy is, at project start-up, to recruit a half-time monitoring expert whose first task, in consultation with the project team and Initiatives, will be to prepare the detailed indicators, gather baseline information, and set annual targets for each indicator.

Of the six VTT sites, one has already formally adopted IHFM methodology. The project aims

Para 140

94

to have all six sites operationalise the methodology by the end of the project. The phasing is: 1 site operationally adopts the methodology by end of Year 1; 3 sites formally adopt the methodology by end of Year 2, and; all 6 sites are operationalisng IHFM by end of Year 3.

The reviewer also suggests that the percentage of floodplain area that adopts IHFM be an indicator of success. This ‘adoption’ can be achieved through both the VTT (which is restricted to the 6 pre-identified sites) and through the NAEP (NAEP funds can be used throughout the project area to transform land-use to biodiversity friendly practices). In the log-frame, the Indicator (c) under the Overall Goal of the Project (Increased percentage of land under mosaic management based on CORINNE categories) is in line with the suggestion. The data to establish the baseline is available through the CORINNE database, but has not been tabulated for the project region. The Project Monitoring expert will tabulate the information and use it to determine annual and final targets for this indicator.

It is noted that under the NAEP a monitoring system is being set up to monitor achievements at the farm and site level. The project’s monitoring expert will build synergies with the NAEP monitoring mechanisms.

Logframe

7. Clarification of Project approach to financial sustainability and financial viability of TFTO going forward.

Overall sustainability of initiatives Mainstreaming underlines the approach to financial sustainability (and so to viability) – the project aims to modify (or transform) the well-funded agriculture and flood control sectors working in the floodplain. There are barriers to achieving this and GEF funds are used to remove these barriers. Following the mainstreaming, the sector funds will still be available to ensure continuation (and replication) of desirable actions and necessary institutions.

It is noted that the scale of the GEF MSP is small in comparison to the available funds. GEF is catalysing change, but GEF funds are insufficient to create dependencies or to distort market forces.

Many of the local initiatives have been active for several years, demonstrating to some extent their viability. However, they owe their survival to external funding, and are not fully independent. The project strategy is to empower local communities, enable them to interact with external forces, enable them to mobilise resources, and enable them to shape and forge their own development path. The aim is for them to become financially viable and increasingly independent.

In addition, IFHM and the Action Plans are to generate social, economic and environmental benefits. Organic agriculture, obtaining payment for flood control, and tourism are examples of economic activities that the Action Plan can help start-up. Hence, more local funds should be available after project end. This will help the local initiatives to be increasingly sustainable.

Para 105

Para 108

Para 109

Para 107

95

However, it is true that local initiatives will still continue to have some dependence on external funding. This is true throughout the EU: local governments require national level investments to meet local sustainable development objectives.

TFTOThe idea to create a regional service provider originated in the PDF A stakeholder consultations, in response to a clear demand from local communities. In order to minimise the danger of creating an unsustainable institution, an innovative approach to the TFTO has been developed. This innovativeness has three components:

Ensure the TFTO responds to market forces and is demand driven. Hence, it will sell its services, not provide them. Initially the services will be purchased by the Initiatives, using GEF money. TFTO can immediately market its services more broadly than the initiatives.

Phase the development of the TFTO. The project will create the TFTO. It will then immediately start phasing out support to it. As the project advances, the TFTO will have to increasingly generate its own income, whilst receiving decreasing support from GEF.

Support TFTO business development. This will include developing the business and financial plan for the TFTO, and developing its capacity to market its services.

After the project, the TFTO will be generating funds from member fees and from marketing its services. It is anticipated that these services will be marketed across the region or to other parts of Hungary. These services may be purchased by the local community, by national agencies, or even by international agencies and NGOs. The TFTO’s ‘Constitution’, developed with project support, will ensure it maintains a strong focus on biodiversity conservation.

PDF A and other activities clearly observed a demand for the type of services that the TFTO is to offer. Activities under Outcome 1.2 (i.e. developing the business plan) will include a more detailed survey of demand.

In order to ensure the bottom up approach, the strategy is to channel Project funds directly to the initiatives. They will use these funds to purchase services that will be available from the TFTO.

Paras 111 and 112

8. There is no explicit letter assuring Government co-financing ($1.237 million) or local initiative co-financing ($497,000)

The letter from the government assuring the government’s $1.237 million has been included (Annex B), however an important annex to the letter was omitted in the original submission. This annex consists of the financial table (Table 5, page 33), which was discussed and approved by MEW State Secretaries as well as the GEF OFP. The table indicates that the MEW financing is in cash. NAEP co-financing will be in cash – please note that this co-financing will be leveraged throughout the duration of the project in the form of state grants to farmers

Para 144

Annex B

96

for agri-environmental schemes under EU/CAP programs.

The situation with regards to support from the initiatives is more complex. First, each initiative is different, and involves a diverse range of stakeholders: government officials, experts, NGOs, businessmen and/or local farmers. Second, the vast majority of this co-financing is to be used to implement their Action Plans - hence detailed amounts will not be known until after each Action Plan has been prepared.

All the support from the initiatives is in-kind. It is likely to include: Participation in the Platform and starting-up the TFTO; Participation in the action planning process, providing data and technical support; Contribution to implementing the Action Plan through:

o Physical measures to manage flood waters;o Physical measures to transform agriculture;o Preparing proposals to submit to NAEP and VTT;o Officials’ time attending training and meetings;o Monitoring;o Developing proposals for MGBP and co-funding to the MGBP grants.

Depending on the locality and the Action Plan, in some cases this co-financing may originate from a LlFE project (e.g., the LIFE project at Tiszadob).

An overall letter of support from local stakeholders has been translated and included in Annex B as well.

With regards to Objective 4 and the co-financing from WWF, this project will feed information into WWF existing advocacy and policy work.

In addition, given the generally positive discussion of the Tisza Basin-wide proposal “Reversal of land and water degradation in the Tisza Basin Ecosystem – Establishment of Mechanisms for Land and Water management”, the following has been added to paragraph 51 in Section 2 b v):

UNDP/GEF is initiating the regional project “Reversal of land and water degradation in the Tisza Basin Ecosystem – Establishment of Mechanisms for Land and Water management”. This project, building on what has already been achieved through the EU accession process and through ICPDR implementation, will establish the concept of Integrated River Basin Management at a regional level. The project has a focus on upstream issues, notably pollution and deforestation. The project will prepare a River Basin Plan that addresses sustainability issues in the water, agriculture, energy, industry and navigation sectors. The project will also support transboundary pilot projects at the local level, demonstrating the economic, social and environmental advantages of water and land management integration. It will also develop participatory frameworks for cooperation between countries, sectors, communities and stakeholders in the basin.

97

PART II : Terms of References for Key Project Staff

National Project Director

UNDP Project Conservation and Restauration of Globally Significant Biodiversity of the Tisza River Floodplain through Integrated Floodplain Management.

JOB DESCRIPTION

Duty Station: Ministry of Environment and Water, Hungary

Duration: Duration of the Project and until all the procedures for closure are completed

Background InformationThe Overall Objective of this Project is biodiversity friendly, sustainable development of the Tisza floodplain. The Project Immediate Objective is to establish biodiversity friendly, holistic floodplain management as the dominant development paradigm in the Upper Tisza floodplain. Four Intermediate Outcomes will contribute to this. First, the Project will establish a sustainable regional mechanism (the Platform) to support local Initiatives and provide them with a direct communication channel to national decision-makers. Second, with support from the Project, the Platform will develop tools for supporting Integrated, holistic, floodplain management (IHFM). Third, each Initiative will develop an Action Plan, and the Project will contribute to its implementation. Finally, the IHFM pro-biodiversity approach will be mainstreamed into the Improved Tisza River Flood Control Plan (new “Vasarhelyi Plan”, VTT) and National Agro-Ecological Plan (NAEP)-related policy.Project support will contribute to sustainable development by supporting integrated, holistic floodplain management, incorporating a number of income generation activities, such as fishing, hunting, extensive livestock raising, energy plantations, orchards, reed and bulrush harvesting, composting and gardening.

General Responsibilities:

The National Project Director (NPD), appointed by the Executing Agency is the principal representative of the Government at the Project level. The primary function of the NPD is to: (1) guide the Project to implement the decisions of the Steering Committee; (2) ensure that decisions related to Project implementation are done in a participatory and collective manner; and (3) support the mainstreaming of experiences and lessons learnt from project in to the Government's strategies and policies. The NPD, in partnership with the National Project Manager (PM), will represent the Project in the Steering Committee and will be responsible for managing the implementation of the Project which includes: personnel, subcontracts, training, equipment, administrative support and financial reporting. The NPD will be responsible for: (1) the achievement of the outputs and, hence, objectives of the Project; and (2) ensuring the co-operation and support from the Executing and Implementing Agency.

Specific Responsibilities:

The NPD will: ensure that all prerequisites and prior obligations of the Government to the Project, including

Government's contributions, are met;

in cooperation with the PM, ensure the preparation and achievements of the Project Logical Framework that is linked to the preparation of the detailed work plan and implement participatory annual review of the project results to ensure effective delivery of outputs and use of resources;

98

act as the chief representative of the Project during review meetings, evaluations and in discussions and, hence, be responsible for preparation of review and evaluation reports such as the Annual Project Report;

nominate members of the Steering Committee in consultation with UNDP;

exercise overall technical, financial and administrative oversight of the Project, including supervision of national and international personnel assigned to the Project;

monitor the physical and financial performance of the Project and supported by the PM update the work plan at least every six months;

assume direct responsibility to the Government and UNDP for the funds provided under the Project, consistent with the relevant financial and accounting rules and procedures;

act as the authorized Government official for requesting funds from UNDP and certifying payment requests, to sign and authorize all other project related documents and decisions;

chair the Project Board and Steering Committee meetings.

Responsibilities on Project completion and follow-up:

The NPD will: prepare a draft Terminal Report for consideration at the Terminal Tripartite Review meeting, and

submit a copy of this report to the UNDP for comments at least 12 weeks before the completion of the Project;

make a final check of all equipment purchased under the Project through a physical inventory prepared by the PM, indicating the condition of each equipment item and its location; discuss and agree with the UNDP and the implementing agent(s) the mode of disposition of such equipment and follows up on the exchange of letters among the UNDP, Government and implementing agent(s) on the agreed manner of disposition of Project equipment; take action to implement the agreed disposition of equipment in consultation with the Project parties;

attend the Terminal Review and contribute towards the final preparation of the Terminal Report; and

at the final closure of the Project, ensure all terminal arrangements relating to Project personnel are completed.

Languages: Knowledge of English and Hungarian is recommended.

Appointment: The appointment of the NPD will be done by the Executing Agent in close consultation with UNDP. The NPD will be a high ranking official of the Ministry of Environment and Water responsible nature conservation. Changes in the NPD will be done only with the consent of UNDP.

99

National Project Manager

UNDP Project Conservation and Restoration of Globally Significant Biodiversity of the Tisza River Floodplain through Integrated Floodplain Management

JOB DESCRIPTION

Duty Station: Hortobágy National Park Directorate, HungaryPilot sites


Background InformationThe Overall Objective of this Project is biodiversity friendly, sustainable development of the Tisza floodplain. The Project Immediate Objective is to establish biodiversity friendly, holistic floodplain management as the dominant development paradigm in the Upper Tisza floodplain. Four Intermediate Outcomes will contribute to this. First, the Project will establish a sustainable regional mechanism (the Platform) to support local Initiatives and provide them with a direct communication channel to national decision-makers. Second, with support from the Project, the Platform will develop tools for supporting Integrated, holistic, floodplain management (IHFM). Third, each Initiative will develop an Action Plan, and the Project will contribute to its implementation. Finally, the IHFM pro-biodiversity approach will be mainstreamed into the Improved Tisza River Flood Control Plan (new “Vasarhelyi Plan”, VTT) and National Agro-Ecological Plan (NAEP)-related policy.Project support will contribute to sustainable development by supporting integrated, holistic floodplain management, incorporating a number of income generation activities, such as fishing, hunting, extensive livestock raising, energy plantations, orchards, reed and bulrush harvesting, composting and gardening.


The National Project Manager (PM) will be appointed following competitive selection by the Implementing Agent in accordance with the UNDP National Execution Guidelines (NEX) to manage and lead the project. The PM will support the work of the National Project Director (NPD) and will be entirely responsible for the provision of high quality support to the Executing Agent to achieve the outputs and objectives of the Project. For this, the PM will be responsible for management of the Project, use of resources and delivery of results in accordance to the project document.


The PM will: be responsible for managing the Project Management Unit (PMU) and the effective use of all UNDP

support, including available staff, to achieve the stated outputs and objectives of the Project;

set up and manage the PMU, including staff facilities and services, in accordance with the Project’s workplan;

prepare quarterly progress reports and annual reports;

prepare regular updates and ensure the implementation of a detailed work plan consistent with the provisions of the Project document. This work plan should follow UNDP guidelines and it should contain a time-phased listing of Project activities/tasks to be performed and the outputs that should result from any or a combination of these activities;

100

in cooperation with the NPD, ensure the preparation and achievements of the Project results framework that is linked to the preparation of the detailed work plan; and implement participatory annual review of the results framework to ensure effective delivery of outputs and use of resources;

adopt a partnership and opportunity-driven approach to mobilization and utilisation of resources from the Government, non-government and civil society organizations;

select and recruit national consultants;

ensure implementation of all activities and achievement of all outputs mentioned in the Project document;

promote the project locally, regionally and nationally.

Specific attention will be given to: undertaking key research activities in the areas related to the project as described in the project

document; networking among national (government, NGOs, private sector) and international stakeholder

groups; organizing round-tables, workshops and seminars for national stakeholder groups on issues related to

integrated floodplain management; establishing awareness and public information programme, establish and maintain contacts with

media

Qualifications MSc degree or equivalent with minimum five to seven years of experience in environmental/natural

resource management and economics; Know- how of research and development in the area of biodiversity, rural development, land

management etc.; Practical experience with management and project implementation in agricultural sector or nature

conservation; Experience with project management, knowledge of budgeting and basic financial management; Strong leadership abilities and experience in the co-ordination of development activities Basic understanding of marketing of agricultural production Experience in team work Excellent communication and presentation skills; Computer knowledge; Familiarity with agricultural subsidies, nature conservation subsidies or other related financial

schemes is preferable. Experience in public and press relation is preferable

Languages

Full Hungarian and English proficiency is needed.

101

Project Assistant


JOB DESCRIPTION

Duty Station: Hortobágy National Park Directorate, Hungary



The Project Assistant (PA) will work under the direct supervision of National Project Manager (PM).


The PA will:

assist PM in all matters related to the project, in special in reporting and administrative tasks;

assist the PM in preparing regular updates and ensure the implementation of a detailed work plan consistent with the provisions of the Project document. This work plan should contain a time-phased listing of Project activities/tasks to be performed and the outputs that should result from any or a combination of these activities;

assist the PM in the implementation of the activities described in the Project Logical Framework ; and implement participatory reviews of the PLF to ensure effective delivery of outputs and use of resources;

ensure that annual and independent reviews of Project performance is done and suggestions considered;

ensure documentation of Project implementation processes and experiences. Information of Project experiences will be developed into communication materials and appropriately disseminated;

maintain accurate financial and personnel records of the Project as required by UNDP;

ensure the maintenance of a filing system, reports or other documentation on the Project;

support other activities directly and/or indirectly linked to the success of the project as required by the Project Management

Qualification:

University degree with minimum 5 years of experience with assistance in project management Experience in the field of sustainable development projects and international relations, research and

development with sound learning capability to acquire new know-how and procedures; The knowledge of UNDP project administration procedures and regulations is an asset; Knowledge of accounting/book keeping systems and corresponding application software a pre-

condition; Computer knowledge and modern office techniques essential.

102

Languages:

Hungarian and English proficiency is needed.

103

Monitoring Officer


JOB DESCRIPTION

Duty Station: Hungary, both national level (mainly Budapest) and local regional level (based at PMU)



As the UNDP Evaluation Office states that the monitoring should “provide managers and main stakeholders with regular feedback and early indications of progress or lack thereof in the achievement of intended results”. In his/her work, the MO will be guided by the UNDP Handbook on Monitoring and Evaluation for Results The Monitoring (and Evaluation) Officer (MO) will work under the direct supervision of National Project Manager (PM), but in continuous contact with the National Project Director (NPD) and UNDP as well.

Specific responsibilities:

The Monitoring Officer (MO) will report to the Project Manager as well as to the National Project Director. The specific responsibilities of the MO are as follows:

To lead the day to day management of the monitoring and evaluation activities, and to be responsible for the timely implementation of monitoring and evaluation activities, more specifically to: (i) collect and analyze data on the project’s general project implementation process; (ii) monitor partnership performance; and (iii) -follow the effectiveness of converting inputs into outputs, outcomes and impacts;

Co-operate with the Initiative level and the Platform ;

Ensure that the activities set out in the project plan are carried out in a timely and efficient manner;

Ensure that the project activities address the special concerns and circumstances of the project area;

Provide necessary data for the project manager that will enable to mainstream the experience and lessons learnt from the project area into national policies and strategies;

Develop and implement plans for the dissemination of the results of the monitoring and evaluation of project activities to the widest possible audience in cooperation with the project team;

Organize local stakeholder co-ordination meetings, targeted trainings and/or other project meetings to disseminate information;

Develop recommendations for changes in activity design, or implementation for all project activities, based on the results of the monitoring and evaluation exercise;

Assist the NPD to network at national and local level, to receive sufficient information for the overall management of the project.

Duration: The monitoring officer will be recruited for the full duration of the project.

Qualifications: University degree, possibly in natural sciences or environment related field;

104

Minimum of 10 years professional experience, especially in the field of management of international integrated projects in the field of nature conservation and/or sustainable development

Familiarity with agricultural subsidies, nature conservation subsidies and other related financial schemes;

Basic understanding of marketing of agricultural production; Experience in team work; Excellent communication and presentation skills; Good writing and presentation skills; Computer knowledge;

Languages:

Besides Hungarian, knowledge of the English language is necessary.

105

ANNEXES TO THE PROJECT DOCUMENT

106

Annex I: Monitoring and Evaluation Plan

Project monitoring and evaluation will be conducted in accordance with established UNDP and GEF procedures and will be provided by the project team and the UNDP Country Office (UNDP-CO) with support from UNDP/GEF. The Logical Framework Matrix in Annex 1 provides performance and impact indicators for project implementation along with their corresponding means of verification. These will form the basis on which the project's Monitoring and Evaluation system will be built.

The following sections outline the principle components of the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan and indicative cost estimates related to M&E activities. The project's Monitoring and Evaluation Plan will be presented and finalized at the Project's Inception Report following a collective fine-tuning of indicators, means of verification, and the full definition of project staff M&E responsibilities.

1. MONITORING AND REPORTING

1.1. Project Inception Phase

A Project Inception Workshop will be conducted with the full project team, relevant government counterparts, co-financing partners, the UNDP-CO and representation from the UNDP-GEF Regional Coordinating Unit, as well as UNDP-GEF (HQs) as appropriate.

A fundamental objective of this Inception Workshop will be to assist the project team to understand and take ownership of the project’s goals and objectives, as well as finalize preparation of the project's first annual work plan on the basis of the project's logframe matrix. This will include reviewing the logframe (indicators, means of verification, assumptions), imparting additional detail as needed, and on the basis of this exercise finalize the Annual Work Plan (AWP) with precise and measurable performance indicators, and in a manner consistent with the expected outcomes for the project.

Additionally, the purpose and objective of the Inception Workshop (IW) will be to: (i) introduce project staff with the UNDP-GEF expanded team which will support the project during its implementation, namely the CO and responsible Regional Coordinating Unit staff; (ii) detail the roles, support services and complementary responsibilities of UNDP-CO and RCU staff vis à vis the project team; (iii) provide a detailed overview of UNDP-GEF reporting and monitoring and evaluation (M&E) requirements, with particular emphasis on the Annual Project Implementation Reviews (PIRs) and related documentation, the Annual Project Report (APR), Tripartite Review Meetings, as well as mid-term and final evaluations. Equally, the IW will provide an opportunity to inform the project team on UNDP project related budgetary planning, budget reviews, and mandatory budget rephasings.

The IW will also provide an opportunity for all parties to understand their roles, functions, and responsibilities within the project's decision-making structures, including reporting and communication lines, and conflict resolution mechanisms. The Terms of Reference for project staff and decision-making structures will be discussed again, as needed, in order to clarify for all, each party’s responsibilities during the project's implementation phase.

1.2. Monitoring responsibilities and events

A detailed schedule of project reviews meetings will be developed by the project management, in consultation with project implementation partners and stakeholder representatives and incorporated in the Project Inception Report. Such a schedule will include: (i) tentative time frames for Tripartite Reviews, Steering Committee Meetings, (or relevant advisory and/or coordination mechanisms) and (ii) project related Monitoring and Evaluation activities.

107

Day to day monitoring of implementation progress will be the responsibility of the Project Coordinator, Director or CTA (depending on the established project structure) based on the project's Annual Work Plan and its indicators. The Project Team will inform the UNDP-CO of any delays or difficulties faced during implementation so that the appropriate support or corrective measures can be adopted in a timely and remedial fashion.

The Project Coordinator and the Project GEF Technical Advisor will fine-tune the progress and performance/impact indicators of the project in consultation with the full project team at the Inception Workshop with support from UNDP-CO and assisted by the UNDP-GEF Regional Coordinating Unit.. Specific targets for the first year implementation progress indicators together with their means of verification will be developed at this Workshop. These will be used to assess whether implementation is proceeding at the intended pace and in the right direction and will form part of the Annual Work Plan. The local implementing agencies will also take part in the Inception Workshop in which a common vision of overall project goals will be established. Targets and indicators for subsequent years would be defined annually as part of the internal evaluation and planning processes undertaken by the project team.

Measurement of impact indicators related to global benefits will occur according to the schedules defined in the Inception Workshop and tentatively outlined in the indicative Impact Measurement Template at the end of this Annex. The measurement, of these will be undertaken through subcontracts or retainers with relevant institutions (e.g. vegetation cover via analysis of satellite imagery, or populations of key species through inventories) or through specific studies that are to form part of the projects activities (e.g. measurement carbon benefits from improved efficiency of ovens or through surveys for capacity building efforts) or periodic sampling such as with sedimentation.

Periodic monitoring of implementation progress will be undertaken by the UNDP-CO through quarterly meetings with the project proponent, or more frequently as deemed necessary. This will allow parties to take stock and to troubleshoot any problems pertaining to the project in a timely fashion to ensure smooth implementation of project activities.

UNDP Country Offices and UNDP-GEF RCUs as appropriate, will conduct yearly visits to projects that have field sites, or more often based on an agreed upon scheduled to be detailed in the project's Inception Report / Annual Work Plan to assess first hand project progress. Any other member of the Steering Committee can also accompany, as decided by the SC. A Field Visit Report will be prepared by the CO and circulated no less than one month after the visit to the project team, all SC members, and UNDP-GEF.

Annual Monitoring will occur through the Tripartite Review (TPR). This is the highest policy-level meeting of the parties directly involved in the implementation of a project. The project will be subject to Tripartite Review (TPR) at least once every year. The first such meeting will be held within the first twelve months of the start of full implementation. The project proponent will prepare an Annual Project Report (APR) and submit it to UNDP-CO and the UNDP-GEF regional office at least two weeks prior to the TPR for review and comments.

The APR will be used as one of the basic documents for discussions in the TPR meeting. The project proponent will present the APR to the TPR, highlighting policy issues and recommendations for the decision of the TPR participants. The project proponent also informs the participants of any agreement reached by stakeholders during the APR preparation on how to resolve operational issues. Separate reviews of each project component may also be conducted if necessary.

Terminal Tripartite Review (TTR)

The terminal tripartite review is held in the last month of project operations. The project proponent is responsible for preparing the Terminal Report and submitting it to UNDP-CO and LAC-GEF's Regional Coordinating Unit. It shall be prepared in draft at least two months in advance of the TTR in order to

108

allow review, and will serve as the basis for discussions in the TTR. The terminal tripartite review considers the implementation of the project as a whole, paying particular attention to whether the project has achieved its stated objectives and contributed to the broader environmental objective. It decides whether any actions are still necessary, particularly in relation to sustainability of project results, and acts as a vehicle through which lessons learnt can be captured to feed into other projects under implementation of formulation.

The TPR has the authority to suspend disbursement if project performance benchmarks are not met. Benchmarks are provided in Annex …/will be developed at the Inception Workshop, based on delivery rates, and qualitative assessments of achievements of outputs.

1.3. Project Monitoring Reporting

The Project Coordinator in conjunction with the UNDP-GEF extended team will be responsible for the preparation and submission of the following reports that form part of the monitoring process. Items (a) through (f) are mandatory and strictly related to monitoring, while (g) through (h) have a broader function and the frequency and nature is project specific to be defined throughout implementation.

(a) Inception Report (IR)

A Project Inception Report will be prepared immediately following the Inception Workshop. It will include a detailed Firs Year/ Annual Work Plan divided in quarterly time-frames detailing the activities and progress indicators that will guide implementation during the first year of the project. This Work Plan would include the dates of specific field visits, support missions from the UNDP-CO or the Regional Coordinating Unit (RCU) or consultants, as well as time-frames for meetings of the project's decision making structures. The Report will also include the detailed project budget for the first full year of implementation, prepared on the basis of the Annual Work Plan, and including any monitoring and evaluation requirements to effectively measure project performance during the targeted 12 months time-frame.

The Inception Report will include a more detailed narrative on the institutional roles, responsibilities, coordinating actions and feedback mechanisms of project related partners. In addition, a section will be included on progress to date on project establishment and start-up activities and an update of any changed external conditions that may effect project implementation.

When finalized the report will be circulated to project counterparts who will be given a period of one calendar month in which to respond with comments or queries. Prior to this circulation of the IR, the UNDP Country Office and UNDP-GEF’s Regional Coordinating Unit will review the document.

(b) Annual Project Report (APR)

The APR is a UNDP requirement and part of UNDP’s Country Office central oversight, monitoring and project management. It is a self -assessment report by project management to the CO and provides input to the country office reporting process and the ROAR, as well as forming a key input to the Tripartite Project Review. An APR will be prepared on an annual basis prior to the Tripartite Project Review, to reflect progress achieved in meeting the project's Annual Work Plan and assess performance of the project in contributing to intended outcomes through outputs and partnership work.

The format of the APR is flexible but should include the following: An analysis of project performance over the reporting period, including outputs produced and, where

possible, information on the status of the outcome The constraints experienced in the progress towards results and the reasons for these The three (at most) major constraints to achievement of results AWP, CAE and other expenditure reports (ERP generated)

109

Lessons learned Clear recommendations for future orientation in addressing key problems in lack of progress

(c) Project Implementation Review (PIR)

The PIR is an annual monitoring process mandated by the GEF. It has become an essential management and monitoring tool for project managers and offers the main vehicle for extracting lessons from ongoing projects. Once the project has been under implementation for a year, a Project Implementation Report must be completed by the CO together with the project. The PIR can be prepared any time during the year (July-June) and ideally prior to the TPR. The PIR should then be discussed in the TPR so that the result would be a PIR that has been agreed upon by the project, the executing agency, UNDP CO and the concerned RC.

The individual PIRs are collected, reviewed and analysed by the RCs prior to sending them to the focal area clusters at the UNDP/GEF headquarters. The focal area clusters supported by the UNDP/GEF M&E Unit analyse the PIRs by focal area, theme and region for common issues/results and lessons. The TAs and PTAs play a key role in this consolidating analysis.

The focal area PIRs are then discussed in the GEF Interagency Focal Area Task Forces in or around November each year and consolidated reports by focal area are collated by the GEF Independent M&E Unit based on the Task Force findings.

The GEF M&E Unit provides the scope and content of the PIR. In light of the similarities of both APR and PIR, UNDP/GEF has prepared a harmonized format for reference.

(d) Quarterly Progress Reports

Short reports outlining main updates in project progress will be provided quarterly to the local UNDP Country Office and the UNDP-GEF regional office by the project team. See format attached.

(e) Periodic Thematic Reports

As and when called for by UNDP, UNDP-GEF or the Implementing Partner, the project team will prepare Specific Thematic Reports, focusing on specific issues or areas of activity. The request for a Thematic Report will be provided to the project team in written form by UNDP and will clearly state the issue or activities that need to be reported on. These reports can be used as a form of lessons learnt exercise, specific oversight in key areas, or as troubleshooting exercises to evaluate and overcome obstacles and difficulties encountered. UNDP is requested to minimize its requests for Thematic Reports, and when such are necessary will allow reasonable timeframes for their preparation by the project team.

(f) Project Terminal Report

During the last three months of the project the project team will prepare the Project Terminal Report. This comprehensive report will summarize all activities, achievements and outputs of the Project, lessons learnt, objectives met, or not achieved, structures and systems implemented, etc. and will be the definitive statement of the Project’s activities during its lifetime. It will also lay out recommendations for any further steps that may need to be taken to ensure sustainability and replicability of the Project’s activities.

2. INDEPENDENT EVALUATION

The project will be subjected to at least two independent external evaluations as follows:-

110

(i) Mid-term Evaluation

An independent Mid-Term Evaluation will be undertaken at the end of the second year of implementation. The Mid-Term Evaluation will determine progress being made towards the achievement of outcomes and will identify course correction if needed. It will focus on the effectiveness, efficiency and timeliness of project implementation; will highlight issues requiring decisions and actions; and will present initial lessons learned about project design, implementation and management. Findings of this review will be incorporated as recommendations for enhanced implementation during the final half of the project’s term. The organization, terms of reference and timing of the mid-term evaluation will be decided after consultation between the parties to the project document. The Terms of Reference for this Mid-term evaluation will be prepared by the UNDP CO based on guidance from the Regional Coordinating Unit and UNDP-GEF.

(ii) Final Evaluation

An independent Final Evaluation will take place three months prior to the terminal tripartite review meeting, and will focus on the same issues as the mid-term evaluation. The final evaluation will also look at impact and sustainability of results, including the contribution to capacity development and the achievement of global environmental goals. The Final Evaluation should also provide recommendations for follow-up activities. The Terms of Reference for this evaluation will be prepared by the UNDP CO based on guidance from the Regional Coordinating Unit and UNDP-GEF.

Audit Clause

The Government will provide the Resident Representative with certified periodic financial statements, and with an annual audit of the financial statements relating to the status of UNDP (including GEF) funds according to the established procedures set out in the Programming and Finance manuals. The Audit will be conducted by the legally recognized auditor of the Government, or by a commercial auditor engaged by the Government.

3. LEARNING AND KNOWLEDGE SHARING

Results from the project will be disseminated within and beyond the project intervention zone through a number of existing information sharing networks and forums. In addition:

The project will participate, as relevant and appropriate, in UNDP/GEF sponsored networks, organized for Senior Personnel working on projects that share common characteristics. UNDP/GEF shall establish a number of networks, such as Integrated Ecosystem Management, eco-tourism, co-management, etc, that will largely function on the basis of an electronic platform.

The project will identify and participate, as relevant and appropriate, in scientific, policy-based and/or any other networks, which may be of benefit to project implementation though lessons learned.

The project will identify, analyze, and share lessons learned that might be beneficial in the design and implementation of similar future projects. Identify and analyzing lessons learned is an ongoing process, and the need to communicate such lessons as one of the project's central contributions is a requirement to be delivered not less frequently than once every 12 months. UNDP/GEF shall provide a format and assist the project team in categorizing, documenting and reporting on lessons learned. To this end a percentage of project resources will need to be allocated for these activities.

111

Table 1: Monitoring and Evaluation Budget Type of M&E activity Responsible Parties Budget US$

Excluding project team Staff time

Time frame

Inception Workshop (IW)

Project Coordinator UNDP CO, UNDP GEF 5.000

Within first two months of project start up

Inception Report Project Team UNDP CO None Immediately

following IWMeasurement of Means of Verification for Project Purpose Indicators

Project Coordinator will oversee the hiring of specific studies and institutions, and delegate responsibilities to relevant team members

To be finalized in Inception Phase and Workshop. Cost to be covered by targeted survey funds.

Start, mid and end of project

Measurement of Means of Verification for Project Progress and Performance (measured on an annual basis)

Oversight by Project GEF Technical Advisor and Project Coordinator

Measurements by regional field officers and local IAs

TBD as part of the Annual Work Plan's preparation. Cost to be covered by field survey budget.

Annually prior to APR/PIR and to the definition of annual work plans

APR and PIR Project Team UNDP-CO UNDP-GEF

None Annually

TPR and TPR report Government Counterparts UNDP CO, Project team UNDP-GEF Regional

Coordinating Unit (RCU)

NoneEvery year, upon receipt of APR

Steering Committee Meetings

Project Coordinator UNDP CO

None Following IW and annually thereafter.

Technical reports/ Lessons learned

Project team Hired consultants as needed

None TBD by Project team and UNDP-CO

Mid-term External Evaluation

Project team UNDP- CO UNDP-GEF RCU External Consultants

(evaluation team)

N/A (project life time is only two years)

At the mid-point of project implementation.

Final External Evaluation

Project team, UNDP-CO, UNDP-GEF RCU External Consultants

(evaluation team)

40,000 At the end of project implementation

Terminal Report Project team UNDP-CO External Consultant

NoneAt least one month before the end of the project

Audit UNDP-CO Project team 3,600 ($1800 per year) Yearly

Visits to field sites (UNDP staff travel costs to be charged to IA fees)

UNDP CO, UNDP-GEF RCU Government representatives 3,000 Yearly average one

visit per yearTOTAL INDICATIVE COST Excluding project staff time, UNDP staff and travel expenses. US$ 51,600

112

Annex II: Financial management and financial reporting arrangements, audit requirements

Financial accountability

The executing agent is responsible for the management of all UNDP resources allocated to a nationally executed programme or project. In this capacity, Governments are accountable to UNDP for the entirety of UNDP programming resources under their management.

The executing agent is responsible for maintaining an accounting system that contains records and controls sufficient to ensure the accuracy and reliability of programme or project financial information and reporting. The accounting system must also ensure that the receipt and disbursement of UNDP funds is properly identified and that budgetary categories approved are not exceeded.

The system of accounting and/or recordkeeping must track the advances received and disbursed, expenditure records by implementing agents and direct payments made by UNDP. The accounting system maintained by the executing agent must also be kept current.

The executing agent must maintain an inventory recording the acquisition and disposition of property and equipment used. This inventory contains information on all property and equipment, whether purchased directly by the executing agent from funds advanced to it by UNDP or purchased by others (implementing agent, contractor) on behalf of the executing agent.

The UNDP country office must maintain an internal control system designed to ensure that the UNDP Resident Representative can adequately monitor the financial activity and budget of a programme or project within the scope of her/his responsibilities. The UNDP Resident Representative is accountable to the UNDP Administrator and is responsible for the financial monitoring of programmes and projects, for ensuring proper use of UNDP funds and for providing advances of funds based on appropriate financial reporting.

Advances of funds

The standard means of funding the programme or project is through quarterly advances to the executing agent by the UNDP country office. Monthly advances may be provided if local conditions warrant. In order to ensure optimum use of UNDP resources, advances are based on a forecast of quarterly or monthly expenditures, in accordance with the programme or project workplan. Advances must not exceed funds required for the next quarter.

All requests for advances are submitted to the UNDP country office by the executing agent through the Financial Report. The Financial Report replaces the request for advances of funds, the government disbursement report, and the reconciliation of outstanding advance previously required to be completed by the executing agent.

At least each quarter, the executing agent prepares Table A of the Financial Report in the current advanced to record the current quarter period expenditures against any previous advances, to calculate the remaining advance and to request the advance for the next quarter based on the programme or project budget. Table B of the Financial Report in US dollars is also prepared, which translates the advance currency Financial Report into US dollars and calculates any exchange gain or loss on outstanding advance balances.

The request for advance in the Financial Report specifies the cash required for the next quarter in two components:

113

(a) Outstanding obligations. Outstanding obligations are any inputs that have been contracted for and are received, en route or in progress, but for which a check has not yet been written. Only obligations that will be paid in the next quarter are included ; and

(b) Planned expenditures. Planned expenditures are the new inputs that will be procured and paid for during the next quarter.

The executing agent submits the signed Financial Report, including both advance currency (Table A) and US dollars (Table B) components, to the UNDP country office within 15 days after the end of the quarter. Where possible, a diskette or Email containing the Financial Report electronic files is submitted with the Financial Report.

Advances of funds will be made by the UNDP country office only on the basis of the completed and signed Financial Report containing the details of the expenditures made against the previous quarter advance. UNDP country offices must, upon receipt of the Financial Report, verify that resources are available in the budget and ensure that the amount requested does not exceed the amount of funds reasonably required to cover disbursements for the next three months.

UNDP does not make advances of funds to an implementing agent, other than a United Nations agency. Funds required by an implementing agent are provided to them directly by the executing agent from their advanced funds or through the form of a Request for Direct Payment. With respect to United Nations agencies acting as implementing agents, funds are transferred to them by UNDP headquarters (Treasury section).

Normally, a separate bank account for the receipt and distribution of UNDP funds by the executing agent is required. Where the Government has confirmed in writing that local conditions prohibit the opening of a separate bank account, the UNDP Resident Representative may approve the utilization of a consolidated central bank account provided that the use of UNDP funds can be easily traced and audited.

Any unutilized advance of funds at the end of a programme/project is to be credited to UNDP programme funds, in order to clear the Operating Fund Account at UNDP headquarters, and any interest earned is recorded as miscellaneous income through a UNDP Government Inter-Office Voucher (IOV).

Direct payments

UNDP may be requested by an executing agent to make direct payments to other parties for goods and services provided to the programme or project. When UNDP makes a payment on behalf of an executing agent, the latter must forward to the UNDP country office a standard form “Request for direct payment”, duly completed and signed by the executing agent. Original documents are kept by the executing agent. Documentation of payment by the country office (inter-office vouchers, disbursement vouchers, copies of cheques, and other documents) must be made available to the executing agent by UNDP.

Financial reporting

The executing agent must submit the Financial Report to the UNDP country office no later than 15 days after the end of the quarter. The Financial Report presents quarterly expenditures; separate monthly totals are no longer required. If more frequent advances are given, the Financial Report must be submitted each time with the next request for advance. In other words, each Financial Report principally represents expenditures relating to a single advance with any ending balance revalued at the current exchange rate.

Any funds transferred by the executing agent to an implementing agent are considered as expenditures and are recorded against the appropriate budget lines. The executing agent is responsible for ensuring the performance of the implementing agents on all contracts and agreements.

114

United Nations agencies acting as implementing agents issue quarterly expenditure statements in accordance with the letter of agreement entered into between the executing agent and the United Nations agency. The statements reflect all expenditures by component/budget line and are submitted to the executing agent through the UNDP Resident Representative within 30 days after the end of each quarter. The Financial Report is produced in both the currency advanced and US dollars to facilitate communication and the reconciliation of budgets, disbursements and outstanding balances between the executing agent and UNDP.

The calculation of foreign exchange gain/loss is part of the Financial Report. The UNDP country office advises the executing agent of the UNDP exchange rates at the beginning and end of every quarter and the exchange rate used for advances of funds. When expenditures are made in local currency during the quarter, these are converted into US dollars at the United Nations rate at the date of the advance (usually the exchange rate in effect at the beginning of the quarter). Any outstanding advances at the end of the quarter are revalued at the end-of-quarter rate and the foreign exchange gain/loss is calculated.

The submission by the executing agent of the Financial Report at least every quarter is mandatory. If the UNDP country office does not receive the Financial Report from the executing agent within 15 days of the end of the quarter, it ensures follow up with the executing agent. If an advance is outstanding for two quarters and either the Financial Report is not received or the Financial Report reflects no spending against the advance, the UNDP Resident Representative must follow up with the executing agent. The programme or project implementation strategy must be reviewed to decide on measures to be taken to solve any difficulties with execution or implementation. The UNDP Resident Representative also informs UNDP headquarters (Country Programme Accounting) of all decisions taken.

Upon receipt of the Financial Report, the UNDP country office reviews it and verifies the exchange rates. If required, corrections are made by the executing agent and then returned to the UNDP country office. The report is then sent to the Country Programme Accounting Section at UNDP headquarters, where it is recorded.

All payments made by UNDP country offices for nationally executed programmes or projects are recorded on a UNDP-GOVT IOV and forwarded to the UNDP Country Programme Accounting Section each month. These payments include both advances made to the executing agent and direct payments made by the UNDP country office.

UNDP headquarters/Country Programme Accounting Section issues a Combined Delivery Report (CDR) four times a year. The CDR for each nationally executed programme or project is sent to the executing agent through the UNDP country office. The report contains disbursements made by the executing agent, UNDP country offices, and UNDP headquarters for the periods ending 31 March, 30 June, 30 September, and 31 December. Where United Nations agencies act as implementing agents, the report will also contain United Nations agency expenditure for the periods in which agencies report.

After review, UNDP country offices must forward the CDR immediately to the executing agent. The CDR must be verified and certified by the executing agent within 30 days of receipt, and returned to the UNDP country office for filing. If the executing agent informs the UNDP country office that there are errors in the CDR, the UNDP country office will contact UNDP headquarters (Country Programme Accounting Section) to determine jointly how to correct the CDR. The year-end CDRs must be given to the designated auditors as soon as possible to facilitate their completion of the audit by the 30 April deadline.

AUDIT REQUIREMENTS

Objective of audit

115

All nationally executed programmes and projects must be audited once in their lifetime, at a minimum. The government coordinating authority, in consultation with the UNDP country office, draws up an annual plan by November. The audit plan lists the programmes and projects scheduled to be audited on that given year, considering whether the programme or project has previously been audited, the volume of funds, number of programmes and projects, workload, among other things . The Office of Audit and Performance Review (OAPR) is kept informed about audit plans.

The objective of the audit is to provide the UNDP Administrator with the assurance that UNDP resources are being managed in accordance with:(a) The financial regulations, rules, practices and procedures prescribed for the programme or project ; (b) The PSD or the project document and workplans, including activities, management and

implementation arrangements, monitoring, evaluation, and reporting provisions ;(c) The requirements for execution in the areas of management, administration and finance.

Scope of audit

The audit of nationally executed programmes or projects must cover, but may not necessarily be limited to, the following:(a) Assessment of the rate of delivery;(b) Financial accounting, monitoring and reporting ;(c) Management systems for recording, documenting and reporting on resources utilization (d) Equipment use and management; and (e) Management structure, including the adequacy of appropriate internal control and record-keeping

mechanisms.

The audit must confirm and certify that:(a) The disbursements are made in accordance with the activities and budgets of the programme

support or project document ;(b) The disbursements are supported by adequate documentation ; (c) The financial reports are fairly and accurately presented ; (d) An appropriate management structure, internal controls and record-keeping systems are

maintained ;(e) The executing agent and the UNDP country office have undertaken and have prepared reports for

monitoring and evaluation of the substantive activities and of the management systems of the programme/project ; and

(f) The procurement, use, control and disposal of non-expendable equipment are in accordance with the Government’s or UNDP requirements.

The audit is normally carried out at the level where the original documentation is held. It shall cover the funds channelled through the government by advances of funds. Expenditures incurred on behalf of the programme or project by United Nations agencies acting as implementing agents or by the UNDP country office providing support to national execution, shall be covered by the appointed auditors of these organizations. In this case, the auditors of the programme or project, as described in paragraph 9.3.3, provide a scope restriction to the audit, stating that the audit opinion is limited to the funds received and expenditures incurred by the Government, and that the opinion does not cover expenditures incurred by United Nations organizations, including UNDP.

The audit process

116

The audit must be conducted in conformity with generally accepted common auditing standards25 and in accordance with the professional judgement of the auditor. The standards applied are normally referred to in the audit report.

The audit may use for information the standards and terms of reference established for the United Nations Board of Auditors. (See the UNDP Financial Regulations and Rules : Article XVII and XII and Information Annex).

The audit is normally conducted by the legally recognized auditor of the Government. However, in instances when such arrangements are not feasible, the audit may carried out by a commercial auditor engaged by the executing agent. The audit authority must be mentioned in the PSD or project document. It is the executing agent’s responsibility to identify and appoint the auditing body, to ensure that the audit is performed in accordance with generally accepted common auditing standards and to ensure that the report, duly reviewed and responded to, reach UNDP Headquarters (OAPR) via the UNDP country office by 30 April of the following year of the audit.

Governments are responsible for funding the costs of audit. However, the UNDP Resident Representative may exceptionally approve the use of the programme or project funds for audit costs if the audit is carried out by a commercial auditor. In that case, adequate financial provision for the audit must be included in the programme or project budget.

The UNDP country office must organize briefings with the auditors before the audit exercise and upon the completion of the audit. The briefings must occur even if the auditors have prior experience of auditing UNDP programmes or projects.

The findings of the draft audit report must be discussed in detail with the executing agent, including appropriate programme or project management staff, the government coordinating authority and the UNDP Resident Representative. Their comments are included in the final report. The executing agent is the recipient of the final audit report. The executing agent forwards it to the UNDP Resident Representative. The UNDP country office reviews the audit report from its perspective and forwards the report to UNDP headquarters. The audit report is to reach UNDP headquarters (Office of Audit and Performance Review) no later than 30th April to enable the United Nations Board of Auditors to comment on the report and incorporate their comments in their report to the General Assembly and the Executive Board of UNDP. The executing agent also shares the audit report with the government coordinating authority and other concerned parties, as appropriate.

The “UNDP Procedures for National Execution” provides guidance on the audit process, such as the audit plan, standard terms of reference and contract for the auditor, standard outline audit report, as well as issues and documentation to assist the audit.

25 "International Standards on Auditing (ISA)”, published by the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC). Information may be obtained at OAPR upon request.

117

Annex III: Minutes of the Local Program Appraisal Committee (LPAC) of the project

Conservation and Restoration of the Globally Significant Biodiversity of the Tisza River Floodplain Through Integrated Floodplain Management –

(Tisza-biodiversity project)

Date: 20.05.2005.Place: Sárospatak, Bodrog HotelPresented:

Géza Molnár, Bokartisz KHTPéter Balogh, NagykörűAttila Sárvári, CötkényMihály Bodnár, TiszatájSarolta Ebesfalvy, Hortobágyi National Park Directorate, SzBTKZsuzsanna Flachner, Hungarian Academy of ScienceIstván Tőkés, UNDP liaisonPéter Kajner, Hungarian Environmental Economy Centre Péter Tóth, appointed Project director

Agenda: State of the project submission – by Zs. Flachner and I. TőkésApproval of the final Project document and the Tracking ToolCommitment of the implementation and financial/inkind contribution by all stakeholdersOther issues- further steps

1. Zs. F.: listed the activities of the last half year. Draw the attention on the need of final clarification of the commitment of all stakeholders. Informed the partners on the parallel projects related to the Tisza, especially the activities of the ICDPR and the RISSAC – NeWater EU FP6 project.

2. I.T.: Confirmed the issues listed by Zs. F. and asked for final confirmation of the partners on the content of the project and the support by the different partners.

3. P.T: On behalf of the Ministry for Environment and Water did support the project and stressed the need for immediate start since the Ministry made its decision for financial contribution and commitment nearly a year ago and the cash contribution is allocated by ONC for the year 2005 for the Program Office at Hortobágy National Park Directorate. He refered to the meeting of the State secretaries for Water (Mr. Varga) and Nature Conservation (Mr. Haraszthy) as well as the GEF focal point Mr. Farago where the finacial table of the project (See project documentum) was approved, including the cash and inkind contribution as well. At that meeting the letter of support was finalized and to his best knowledge it was approved by the UNDP (Mr. Nick Remple).

4. I.T.: Confirmed the process of the letter of support and the situation with the state financial contribution approval. Stress the need of final approval and start of the project

5. A.S: on Behalf of Cötkény he welcome the project and ask for the next steps – the farmers of the area were informed on the project and they wait for the start.

6. G.Molnár: join the opinion of Attila Sárvári, and report on the cross border initiative of Bokartisz to involve Slovakian partner in the holistic floodplain management concept implementation. Interreg Proposal is made to support these activities, which can be channelled into the UNDP- GEF project.

7. P.B: agree and tell on the results of their LIFE project and its problems as well. There is a need to communicate the objectives and create a favourable atmosphere for the proposals of these pilot sites. The pilot area support the project and contribute as in kind with scientific works and the lessons learned from the LIFE project.

8. M.Bodnár: as a civic organisation of the area supports the project offers the local office space for the TFTO in the future at Tiszaújváros, since there is available office space for the TFTO as well.

118

9. E.S.: represents the Berege area , she reports of the formulation of the Bereg working-Group of the E-Misszio Association. It is a good basis for future organization responsible for management of the floodplain related activities.

10. Discussion among the partners11. Results of the discussion on the next steps (P.K and PT.):

- each pilot area will be visited by the PM and project discussed in details- local stakeholder meetings going to be organized for involving different

stakeholders- tasks will be defined on the work to do for the inception workshop hold in

September- Organization of inception workshop in the area- Finalization of the expert group and having a two days meeting for discussion of

conceptual elementsThese issues were approved and local managers offered their full support to implement the project start up – as soon as the decision is made on the Support.

12. Zs. F: closed the meeting and thanked the support of the local and national stakeholders in the process of implementation of the PDF A. She expressed the need for lobby activities by local associations and the hope the activities of the Tisza Biodiversity Project will help the efficient and effective implementation of the complex Tisza valley program.

13. I. T.: He agreed and offers the help for pushing the process of start to achieve a decision as soon as possible.

Istvan TokesBudapest, 21 May 2005

119

Annex IV: Commitment letters

120

Annex V: Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool

Tracking Tool forGEF Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Priority Two:

“Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Production Landscapes and Sectors”

Objective: This tracking tool will measure progress in achieving the coverage and impact targets established at the portfolio level under Strategic Priority Two of the biodiversity focal area and as agreed in the business plan for GEF Phase-3 (please see Annex A). The expected impacts of this strategic priority are to: (a) produce biodiversity gains in production systems; (b) improve livelihoods based on sustainable harvesting of natural resources; (c) replicate approaches applying positive incentive measures and instruments; and (d) mainstream biodiversity into the development and technical assistance, sector, and/or lending programs of the Implementing Agencies.

Structure of Tracking Tool: This tracking tool reflects a review of the types of projects that have been supported under Strategic Priority Two. In addition, the content and structure of the tracking tool have been informed by feedback from the GEF biodiversity task force, input from a workshop held in Cambridge in 2003, and pre-testing of the tool.26

Guidance in Applying the Tracking Tool: This tracking tool will be applied three times: at work program inclusion27, at project mid-term during project implementation, and at project completion. The completed forms from projects will be aggregated for analysis of directional trends and patterns at a portfolio wide level.

Projects which fall clearly within Strategic Priority (SP) #2 will only apply the tracking tool for SP#2. Projects that also contribute to SP#1, however, should also apply the tracking tool for SP#1. It is important to keep in mind that the objective is to capture the full range of a project’s contributions to delivering on the targets of the strategic priorities. The Implementing Agency will guide the project teams in the choice of the tracking tools. Please submit all information on a single project as one package (even where more than one tracking tool is applied).

Multi-country projects may face unique circumstances in applying the tracking tools. The GEF requests that multi-country projects complete one tracking tool per country involved in the project, based on the project circumstances and activities in each respective country. The completed forms for each country should then be submitted as one package to the GEF. Global projects which do not have a country focus, but for which the tracking tool is applicable, should complete the tracking tool as comprehensively as possible.

26 “GEF workshop to develop a “tracking tool” to evaluate the impacts of sustainable use activities in GEF Mainstreaming Projects”. Cambridge, October 2003. 27 For Medium Sized Projects when they are submitted for CEO approval.

123

The tracking tool is designed to be “user-friendly”, while attempting to ensure objective assessment of the progress of the project situation. Project proponents and managers will likely be the most appropriate individuals to complete the form, in collaboration with the project team, since they would be most knowledgeable about the project. Staff and consultants already working in the field could also provide assistance in filling out the form.

The tracking tool will be used for the remainder of the third phase of the GEF (GEF-3) until June 30, 2006 at which time feedback will be sought from the users of the tracking tool in order to improve and refine it for application during the fourth phase of the GEF. The tracking tools are best thought of as a work in progress that will require refinement through an iterative process of application, reflection and analysis throughout GEF-3. Please keep track of your experiences in applying the tool so that the tool can be improved based on your practical experience in its application.

Submission: The finalized form will be cleared by the Implementing Agencies and Executing Agencies under expanded opportunities before submission to GEF Secretariat for aggregation and analysis at the portfolio level. This tracking tool does not substitute or replace project level M&E processes, or Implementing Agencies’ own monitoring processes. As mentioned above, the tracking tool is to be submitted to the GEF Secretariat at three points:

1.) With the project document for work program inclusion28; 2.) Within 3 months of completion of the project’s mid-term evaluation or report; and 3.) With the project’s terminal evaluation or final completion report, and no later than 6 months after

project closure.

28 For Medium Sized Projects when they are submitted for CEO approval.124

ANNEX A

Strategic Priority Two: Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Production Landscapes and Sectors

1. Rationale: To integrate biodiversity conservation into production systems/sectors (e.g. agriculture, forestry, fisheries, tourism, and/or others).

2. Expected impact: (i) Produce biodiversity gains in production systems and buffer zones of protected areas and (ii) Biodiversity mainstreamed into sector programs of the IAs.

3. Targets (coverage)

a) At least 5 projects in each of the targeted sectors (agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and tourism) focused on mainstreaming biodiversity into the sector.b) At least 20 million ha in production landscapes and seascapes that contribute to biodiversity conservation or the sustainable use of its components.c) At least 5 countries promote conservation and sustainable use of wild species and landraces, taking into consideration their real and potential contribution to food security.

4. Performance indicators (impact)

a) X (Y %) projects supported in each sector have included incorporated biodiversity aspects into sector policies and plans at national and sub-national levels, adapted appropriate regulations and implement plans accordingly. b) X ha of production systems that contribute to biodiversity conservation or the sustainable use of its components against the baseline scenarios.c) X people (Y % of total beneficiaries) show improved livelihoods (especially local and indigenous communities) based on more sustainable harvesting.d) X number of replications (reported & verified through the project) applying incentive measures & instruments (e.g. trust funds, payments for environmental services, certification) within and beyond project boundaries.e) X% of projects mainstream biodiversity into IA loan and/or sector work.

5. Modality to track “targets” (coverage) and “performance indicators” (impact)

This tracking tool will be applied to all relevant projects approved under GEF-3 at work program inclusion, project mid-term and at project completion.

The information from each project will be aggregated for portfolio-level analysis. The progress towards meeting the targets and performance indicators will be published annually.

I. Project General Information

1. Project name: Conservation and Restoration of the Globally Significant Biodiversity of the Tisza River Floodplain Through Integrated Floodplain Management –(Tisza-biodiversity project)

2. Country (ies): Hungary

National Project:_x_ Regional Project:__ Global Project:___

125

3. Name of reviewers completing tracking tool and completion dates:

Name Title AgencyWork Program Inclusion

Péter Tóth National Project Director

MEW

Project Mid-term2006. JulyFinal Evaluation/project completion2008. July

4. Funding information

GEF support: 944.000 USDCo-financing:1.749.300 USDTotal Funding: 2.693.300 USD

5. Project duration: Planned_2+1 years Actual ….. years

6. a. GEF Agency: x UNDP UNEP World Bank ADB AfDB IADB EBRD FAO IFAD UNIDO

6. b. Lead Project Executing Agency (ies):Ministry of Environment and Water of Hungary

7. GEF Operational Program: drylands (OP 1) x coastal, marine, freshwater (OP 2) forests (OP 3) mountains (OP 4) agro-biodiversity (OP 13) integrated ecosystem management (OP 12) sustainable land management (OP 15)

Other Operational Program not listed above:The project is strongly linked to : OP13, OP 12 and OP15

8. Project Summary (one paragraph):

The project will mainstream biodiversity conservation within floodplain management across the Tisza River Floodplain. The project will significantly improve floodplain and landscape management at Tisza valley (app. 1,600 km2 ) through activities within pilot sites, while moderately influencing an estimated area of 9,400 km2 (about 20% of the Great Hungarian Plain) applying participatory territorial planning and bottom up approaches for supportive policy environment and institutional capacity at the national level.

9. Project Development Objective:

The Overall Objective of this Project is biodiversity friendly, sustainable landuse of the Upper-Tisza floodplain. To establish financial and technical support mechanisms for efficient landuse and development programs at floodplains. By creating sustainable landuse the project will support local society carrying capacity and social cohesion.

126

10. Project Purpose/Immediate Objective:

The Project Immediate Objective is to establish biodiversity friendly, holistic floodplain management as the dominant development paradigm in the Upper Tisza floodplain. Technical support will be provided by establishing an advisory group/office. This office will operate with the supervision of the created Tisza Platform and the micro grant. The activities of the Project significantly enhance the environmental awareness of local population, besides drawing the national, international attention on the high nature values and measures needed of the area.

11. Expected Outcomes (GEF-related):

Four Intermediate Outcomes will contribute to this. First, the Project will establish a sustainable regional mechanism (the Platform) to support local Initiatives and provide them with a direct communication channel to national decision-makers. Second, with support from the Project, the Platform will develop tools for supporting IHFM. Third, each Initiative will develop an Action Plan, and the Project will contribute to its implementation. Fourth, the integrated holistic floodplain management (IHFM) pro-biodiversity approach will be mainstreamed into the Hungarian national (i.e. VTT and NAEP-related) policy.

12. Production sectors and/or ecosystem services directly targeted by project:

12. a. Please identify the main production sectors involved in the project. Please put “P” for sectors that are primarily and directly targeted by the project, and “S” for those that are secondary or incidentally affected by the project.

Agriculture: _P_Fisheries: _P_Forestry: _S_Tourism: _S_Mining: _______Oil:__________Transportation: _S_Other (please specify) ___________

12. b. For projects that are targeting the conservation or sustainable use of ecosystems goods and services, please specify the goods or services that are being targeted, for example, water, genetic resources, recreational, etc

1. water resources2. land and landscape3. genetic resources (landraces, floodplain ecosystems, indigenous fruit species) 4. recreation and tourism potential5. biodiversity friendly farming6. soil protection

II. Project Landscape/Seascape Coverage

13. a. What is the extent (in hectares) of the landscape or seascape where the project will directly or indirectly contribute to biodiversity conservation or sustainable use of its components? An example is provided in the table below.

Targets and TimeframeProject Coverage

Foreseen at project start

Achievement at Mid-term Evaluation of

Achievement at Final Evaluation of Project

127

ProjectLandscape/seascape29 area directly 30 covered by the project (ha)

160,000 ha(pilot sites)

Landscape/seascape area indirectly31

covered by the project (ha)

940,000 ha(entire floodplain)

Explanation for indirect coverage numbers:

An indirect positive effect of the project is expected to appear in all of the Tisza floodplain through focusing policy decisions to help sustainable floodplain management. Environmental awareness raising and laying down the bases of biodiversity friendly farming and development will also have influence to the entire floodplain.Capacity building and institutional development will focus on setting up specific agri-environmental measures and payment methods while attention will be paid on the integration of sectoral development priorities as well.

13. b. Are there Protected Areas within the landscape/seascape covered by the project? If so, names these PAs, their IUCN or national PA category, and their extent in hectares.

Name of Protected Areas IUCN and/or national category of PA

Extent in hectares of PA

1. Szatmár-Bereg Landscape Protection Area (LPA), Natura 2000, Ramsar site

20 828 ha (partly covered)

2. Tokaj-Bodrogzug LPA; Natura 2000, Ramsar site

4070 ha (partly covered)

3. Long-forest Nature Conservation Area (NCA)Natura 2000

1129 ha

4. Tiszatelek-Tiszabercel-floodplain

NCA; Natura 2000, Ramsar site

2744 ha

5. Borsodi-Mezőség LPA; Natura 2000 17123 ha6. Közép-Tisza LPA; Natura 2000,

Ramsar site9810 ha (partly covered)

7. Körös Valley – Dévaványa National park core area, Natura 2000

130999 ha

8. Körös Valley –Kis-Sárrét

National park core area, Natura 2000, Ramsar site

7963 ha

III. Management Practices Applied

29 For projects working in seascapes (large marine ecosystems, fisheries etc.) please provide coverage figures and include explanatory text as necessary if reporting in hectares is not applicable or feasible. 30 Direct coverage refers to the area that is targeted by the project’s site intervention. For example, a project may be mainstreaming biodiversity into floodplain management in a pilot area of 1,000 hectares that is part of a much larger floodplain of 10,000 hectares. 31 Using the example in footnote 5 above, the same project may, for example, “indirectly” cover or influence the remaining 9,000 hectares of the floodplain through promoting learning exchanges and training at the project site as part of an awareness raising and capacity building strategy for the rest of the floodplain. Please explain the basis for extrapolation of indirect coverage when completing this part of the table.

128

14.a. Within the scope and objectives of the project, please identify in the table below the management practices employed by project beneficiaries that integrate biodiversity considerations and the area of coverage of these management practices? Note: this could range from farmers applying organic agricultural practices, forest management agencies managing forests per Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) guidelines or other forest certification schemes, artisanal fisherfolk practicing sustainable fisheries management, or industries satisfying other similar agreed international standards, etc. An example is provided in the table below.

Targets and TimeframeSpecific management practices that integrate BD

Area of coverage foreseen at start of project

Achievement at Mid-term Evaluation of Project


1. Grassland and arable land management with bird protection (HNVA participation)

20 000 ha

2. Management based on IHFM

50000 ha

3. Invasive species control 30000 ha4. Sustainable fisheries 3000 ha

14. b. Is the project promoting the conservation and sustainable use of wild species or landraces? __X__Yes ____ No Nanocyperion, Echinochloo-Polygonetum, Convolvulion sepium, Salicetum triandrae, Salicetum albae-fragilis, Fraxino pannonicae-Ulmetum Carici elongatae-Alnetum, Salicetum cinereae, Querco robori-Carpinetum, Myriophylleto-Potametum, Magnocaricion, Agrostidion albae and Molinion coeruleae.If yes, please list the wild species (WS) or landraces (L):(See page 69 from MSP)Species (Genus sp., and common name) and Rare plants associations

Wild Species (please check if this is a wild species)

Landrace (please check if this is a landrace)and farmland birds under high treath

1. Nanocyperion, : Haliaetus albicilla, Adonis vernalis, and Trapa natans

Racka sheep

2. Echinochloo-Polygonetum

Flora: Armoracia macrocarpa (endemic)

Chrysanthemum serotinumElatine alsinastrum Gentiana pneumonantheLathyrus palustrisLeucojum aestivumSalvinia natansTrapa natansNymphaea albaNymphoides peltataVitis sylvestrisListera ovataPlatanthera bifolia

Grey cattle

3. Convolvulion sepium Birds: Corncrake (Crex crex) Ferruginous Duck (Aythya nyroca)

Lapwing (Vanellus vanellus)

129

Sand Martin (Riparia riparia) Bittern (Botaurus stellaris) Little Bittern (Ixobrychus minutus)Purple Heron (Ardea purpurea) Little Egret (Egretta garzetta)Squacco Heron (Ardeola ralloides)Night Heron (Nycticorax nycticorax)Black Stork (Ciconia nigra)Black Kite (Milvus migrans)Lesser Spotted Eagle (Aquila pomarina)Thrush Nightingale (Luscinia luscina) Grey-Headed Woodpecker (Picus canus)Bee-Eater (Merops apiaster)Kingfisher (Alcedo atthis)

4. Salicetum triandrae Migratory species: Lesser White-fronted Goose (Anser erythropus) White-tailed Eagle (Haliaetus albicilla)Common Crane (Grus grus)White fronted goose (Anser albifrons)

Skylark (Alauda arvensis)

5. Salicetum albae-fragilis Yellow Bunting (Motacilla flava)

6. Fraxino pannonicae-Ulmetum Carici elongatae-Alnetum

Corn Bunting (Emberiza calandra)

7. Querco robori-Carpinetum8. Myriophylleto-Potametum, Magnocaricion9. Agrostidion albae and Molinion coeruleae10. hardwood riverine forests (Querco ulmetum)

14. c. For the species identified above, or other target species of the project not included in the list above (E.g., domesticated species), please list the species, check the boxes as appropriate regarding the application of a certification system, and identify the certification system being used in the project, if any. An example is provided in the table below.

130

CertificationSpecies

A certification system is being used

A certification system will be used

Name of certification system if being used

A certification system will not be used

14. d. Is carbon sequestration an objective of the project?

Yes X No

If yes, the estimated amount of carbon sequestered is: ______________________

IV. Market Transformation and Mainstreaming Biodiversity

15. a. For those projects that have identified market transformation as a project objective, please describe the project's ability to integrate biodiversity considerations into the mainstream economy by measuring the market changes to which the project contributed.

The sectors and subsectors and measures of impact in the table below are illustrative examples, only. Please complete per the objectives and specifics of the project.

The project is not focusing directly on market transformation, however indirectly it will have effects on it. Due to this fact later – after first assessment of production related to biodiversity at local level it is possible to deliver some indicators.

Name of the market that the project seeks to affect (sector and sub-sector)

Unit of measure of market impact

Market condition at the start of the project

Market condition at midterm evaluation of project

Market condition at final evaluation of the project

15. b. Please also note which (if any) market changes were directly caused by the project.Start: the project will focus on the internal market development and introducing fair trade

Mid-term assessment: _______________________________________Final assessment:

V. Improved Livelihoods

16. For those projects that have identified improving the livelihoods of a beneficiary population based on sustainable use /harvesting as a project objective, please list the targets identified in the logframe and record progress at the mid-term and final evaluation. An example is provided in the table below

Improved Livelihood Measure

Number of targeted beneficiaries

Please identify local

Improvement rateForeseen at project

Achievement at Mid-term Evaluation of

Achievement at Final Evaluation of

131

(if known) communities project is working with

start Project Project

1. Increased incomes in specific farm size compared to the national average

farmers in the pilot area

Tisza valley pilot sites

2 % increase over baseline

2. No. of registered farmers for agri-environmetal program receiving payments

Whole population of the area

Tisza valley pilot sites

5 % increase

3. Gypsies involved in the management of the protected areas

Whole population of the area

Tisza valley pilot sites – where gipsy population is remarkable

Increase with 2 %

VI. Project Replication Strategy

17. a . Does the project specify budget, activities, and outputs for implementing the replication strategy? Yes_X__ No___

17. b. Is the replication strategy promoting incentive measures & instruments (e.g. trust funds, payments for environmental services, certification) within and beyond project boundaries?Yes_X__ No___

If yes, please list the incentive measures or instruments being promoted:_Micro grant__________________________________________Technical advisory service______________________________Conferences and publications, communication________________________

17. c. For all projects, please complete box below. Two examples are provided.Replication Quantification Measure (Examples: hectares of certified products, number of resource users participating in payment for environmental services programs, businesses established, etc.)

ReplicationTarget Foreseen at project start

Achievement at Mid-term Evaluation of Project


1. Area (farms) applying IHFM grassland management

45000 ha

2. number of new civic organizations at the area

4

3. farmers participating in program (through NEAP)

200 farmers

4. municipality active in the program implementation

120

132

VII. Enabling Environment

For those projects that have identified addressing policy, legislation, regulations, and their implementation as project objectives, please complete the following series of questions: 18a, 18b, 18c.

An example for a project that focused on the agriculture sector is provided in 18 a, b, and c.

18. a. Please complete this table at work program inclusion for each sector that is a primary or a secondary focus of the project. Please answer YES or NO to each statement under the sectors that are a focus of the project.

Sector

Statement: Please answer YES or NO for each sector that is a focus of the project.

Agriculture Fisheries Forestry Tourism Other (please specify)

Other (please specify)

Biodiversity considerations are mentioned in sector policy yes yes Yes PartlyBiodiversity considerations are mentioned in sector policy through specific legislation

yes Yes yes Partly

Regulations are in place to implement the legislation Partly partly partly PartlyThe regulations are under implementation partly partly Not

significantNot significant

The implementation of regulations is enforced partly partly partly Not (no incentives)

Enforcement of regulations is monitored partly partly partly Not

18. b . Please complete this table at the project mid-term for each sector that is a primary or a secondary focus of the project. Please answer YES or NO to each statement under the sectors that are a focus of the project.

133

SectorStatement: Please answer YES or NO for each sector that is a focus of the project.



Biodiversity considerations are mentioned in sector policyBiodiversity considerations are mentioned in sector policy through specific legislationRegulations are in place to implement the legislationThe regulations are under implementationThe implementation of regulations is enforcedEnforcement of regulations is monitored

18. c. Please complete this table at project closure for each sector that is a primary or a secondary focus of the project. Please answer YES or NO to each statement under the sectors that are a focus of the project.

SectorStatement: Please answer YES or NO for each sector that is a focus of the project.



Biodiversity considerations are mentioned in sector policyBiodiversity considerations are mentioned in sector policy through specific legislationRegulations are in place to implement the legislationThe regulations are under implementationThe implementation of regulations is enforcedEnforcement of regulations is monitored

134

All projects please complete this question at the project mid-term evaluation and at the final evaluation, if relevant:

18. d. Within the scope and objectives of the project, has the private sector undertaken voluntary measures to incorporate biodiversity considerations in production? If yes, please provide brief explanation and specifically mention the sectors involved.

An example of this could be a mining company minimizing the impacts on biodiversity by using low-impact exploration techniques and by developing plans for restoration of biodiversity after exploration as part of the site management plan.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

VIII. Mainstreaming biodiversity into the GEF Implementing Agencies’ Programs

19. At each time juncture of the project (work program inclusion, mid-term evaluation, and final evaluation), please check the box that depicts the status of mainstreaming biodiversity through the implementation of this project with on-going GEF Implementing Agencies’ development assistance, sector, lending, or other technical assistance programs.

Time FrameStatus of Mainstreaming

Work Program Inclusion

Mid-Term Evaluation

Final Evaluation

The project is not linked to IA development assistance, sector, lending programs, or other technical assistance programs.The project is indirectly linked to IAs development assistance, sector, lending programs or other technical assistance programs.

Yes

The project has direct links to IAs development assistance, sector, lending programs or other technical assistance programs.

Expected in the future

The project is demonstrating strong and sustained complementarity with on-going planned programs.

IX. Other Impacts

20. Please briefly summarize other impacts that the project has had on mainstreaming biodiversity that have not been recorded above.

Improve the hierarchy of landuse planning (coherent and coordinated) in the light of protecting and improving biodiversity from local level through regional level up to national level. This is link to institutional development and better harmonized distribution of tasks – for resource management and control. As an efficient and effective set of measure more integration is needed at floodplain level while further on the task are more specialized, specified and split between different agencies, which could be a secondary benefit of the project. These impacts will be evaluated and reported under other impacts.

135

SIGNATURE PAGE

Country: Hungary

UNDAF Outcome(s)/Indicator(s): N/A

Expected Outcome(s)/Indicator (s):First, the Project will establish a sustainable regional mechanism (the Platform) to support local Initiatives and provide them with a direct communication channel to national decision-makers. Second, with support from the Project, the Platform will develop tools for supporting IHFM. Third, each Initiative will develop an Action Plan, and the Project will contribute to its implementation. Finally, the IHFM pro-biodiversity approach will be mainstreamed into the national policy.

Expected Output(s)/Indicator(s):The outputs of the project will be: 1) establishment of local institutions - a Platform and a technical support office with the representation of local stakeholders to support local initiative; 2) development of a) comprehensive guidelines for land, water and biodiversity and habitat management in an integrated manner supportive for socio-economic development, b) program for managing invasive species, and c) monitoring network; 3) development of site-specific Action plans focusing to operationalization of model approach defined under outcome and establishment of a Micro Grant Biodiversity Program to provide initial contribution to the implementation of the Action plans; 4) lobbying, advocacy and awareness raising.

Implementing partner: Ministry of Environment and Water (designated institution/Executing agency)

Other Partners: Hortobagy National Park Directorate (implementing agency)

Programme Period: _________ Total budget: 2,387,460Programme Component: _________ Allocated resources:Project Title: Conservation and Restoration of the

Globally Significant Biodiversity of the Tisza River Floodplain through Integrated Floodplain Management

Government: Other (in-kind):

o Local initiatives o National institutions

1,237,200

199,1607,100

Project PIMS ID:Atlas Award ID:Atlas Project ID:

1980 GEF financing 944,000

Project Duration: 3 yearsManagement arrangement:

NEX

Agreed by Government:

Gyula K. Szelei, Director General, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Date

Agreed by the Ministry of Environment and Water (Executing Agency):

László Haraszthy, State Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Water

Date

Agreed by UNDP:

136

Ben Slay, Director, UNDP Regional Centre Bratislava

Date

137

tisza biodiversity_undp-gef - welcome -...

Documents