1 Review of Agricultural Water Pollution Control Policy and ... - ICPDR

20
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
• Advisory/informative instruments and measures – these use information (e.g. publicity
campaigns) and advice (e.g. agricultural extension service) to encourage farmers to voluntarily
change their farming methods in order to reduce the risk of water pollution.
• Project-based instruments and measures – in some countries the agencies most actively
working on agricultural pollution control are often operating outside of national policy-making
activities and are working instead with some other form of alternative assistance (e.g. from an
international donor) within the framework of a project.
The national experts were advised to be clear about the differences between the policy instruments
that sets the framework for changing agricultural practice, the practical measures that are
encouraged or required at farm level and the institutional arrangements for implementing the
various policy instrument and measures.
3. The current development of existing programmes and projects promoting best agricultural
practice for the reduction of water pollution by agriculture. For the purposes of the questionnaire,
Best Agricultural Practice was defined as “those practices and activities that reduce the risk of
causing water pollution and that it is reasonable to expect a farmer to do as part of the normal dayto-day
management of their agricultural enterprises”.
4. The overall effectiveness of the “policy mix” used to control water pollution caused by
agriculture. The national experts were advised to be as objective as possible and to cover:
a) the effectiveness of the policy instruments and practical measures being implemented – do
they match the main water pollution problems (nutrients, farm wastes, pesticides and soil
erosion)? Do they target all necessary enterprises? Are there any gaps in implementation?
What is the level of compliance by farmers? Are the regulations effectively enforced by the
responsible authorities?
b) the effectiveness of the institutional arrangements that are operating – including are the
institutions effectively organised to implement policies and practice for agricultural pollution
control? Do the relevant institutions have appropriate power and authority? Are sufficient
resources allocated to the relevant institutions?
Finally the experts were advised to only review those policies, programmes and projects etc that are
directly relevant to the Danube River catchment area in their country. For example – whilst all
national legislation is likely to be relevant, any area specific legislation that does not include territory
of the Danube River catchment area is not be relevant.
The GFA national experts completed the questionnaires with the assistance of ministry officials,
research institutions, advisory services and by referring to relevant national literature and other
sources. The national reports received from the experts are included in the Annexes of this review.
Inevitably some of the analysis is rather qualitative. The approach and scope of the project still left
some issues unquestioned especially because investigation and evaluation of policies remain sensitive
issues in some of the countries under study. Furthermore, in some countries the complex political
situation and lack of transparency did not allow all possible factors to be bought into the review and
analysis.
In order to address the potential sources of error on a country-by-country basis, the results from the
national questionnaires were summarised into tables and then grouped into one of three categories
according to their status relating to EU accession and the associated stages of policy design and
implementation:
EU Acceding
Countries
EU Candidate
Countries
Other DRB
Countries
Entering EU in 2004 Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia and Slovenia
Entering EU after
2004
No immediate plans
for EU entry
Bulgaria, Romania and Croatia (preparing
application to join EU)
Bosnia & Herzegovina, Moldova, Serbia &
Montenegro and Ukraine