1

Danube

Basin countries
Riparian countries (from upstream to downstream): Germany, Austria, Slovakia, Hungary, Croatia,
Serbia & Montenegro, Romania, Bulgaria, Moldova, Ukraine.
Additional basin countries: Poland, Czech Republic, Switzerland, Italy, Slovenia, Bosnia-Herzegovina,
Albania, FYR of Macedonia.

Summary of basin characteristics Ukrainian Danube Delta on the shores of the Black
Sea. The Danube is also Europe’s only major river
he Danube basin, covering 817,000km2 – that flows west to east, from the current Member

T about one-third of continental Europe outside

Russia – is the most international river basin
in the world, extending over all or part of the territo-
States of the European Union through the former
eastern bloc countries of central and eastern Europe,
many of which are now prospective EU members.
ries of 18 countries. The Danube River itself crosses The European Commission recognizes the Danube as
ten countries and is Europe’s second longest river the “single most important non-oceanic body of
after the Volga, flowing over 2,857km from water in Europe” and a “future central axis for the
Germany’s Black Forest to the Romanian and European Union”.

Managing Rivers Wisely

2 Danube
Socio-economic importance marshes of the Danube Delta. These habitats are
The main economic uses of the Danube are: home to a rich and in many cases unique biological
diversity, including over 100 different types of fish,
■ domestic/drinking water supply among them six endangered species of sturgeon.
The 600,000ha Danube Delta has been desig-
■ water supply for industry nated as a Ramsar Site and UNESCO Biosphere
■ water supply for agriculture Reserve. It supports more than 280 bird species,
including 70 per cent of the world population of
■ hydroelectric power generation
white pelicans Pelecanus onocrotalus and 50 per
■ navigation cent of the populations of pygmy cormorant
■ tourism and recreation Phalacrocorax pygmeus and – in winter – red-
breasted goose Branta ruficollis.
■ waste disposal (both solid and liquid wastes)
■ fisheries. Priority issues for river basin
management
In addition, the Danube’s remaining floodplains
provide a range of economically important ‘ecologi- Until the end of the 19th century, the Danube was a
cal services’, such as water quality regulation and largely natural system with an extensive network of
flood control. channels, oxbows and backwaters. The river was
One of the most important factors influencing characterized by constant changes in its course and
river basin management activities is the socio-eco- dynamic natural exchanges with its floodplains.
nomic contrast between the ‘capitalist’ and former Since then, human interventions in the way of flood
‘socialist’ countries within the basin. Since the end protection, agriculture, power production and navi-
of communism in the late 1980s, the central and gation have destroyed over 80 per cent of the
lower Danube region has experienced a rapid shift to Danube’s wetlands, floodplains and floodplain
free-market democracies within the context of forests.
increased globalization, privatization and deregula- Major losses in habitats and wildlife have resulted.
tion, including the loss of much of the formerly guar- One example is the considerable reduction of nursery
anteed social security structure. areas for spawning fish and the blocking of migratory
At the same time, as a result of economic pathways for commercially important species such as
restructuring, many former socialist countries have sturgeon, which now survive only as small remnant
lost markets in neighbouring countries and the for- populations. Changes in flow volume and velocity,
mer Soviet Union. This is especially true of agricul- water temperature and quality as a result of river reg-
ture, which remains the economic mainstay in rural ulation and pollution have also had negative impacts
central and eastern Europe, in spite of tough compe- on biodiversity.
tition from EU-subsidized agricultural products. The Forty years of communism in central and eastern
result is rural decline, with increased poverty, unem- Europe resulted in both positive and negative effects
ployment and depopulation. Rural environments are for the middle and lower reaches of the river. On one
being exploited for short-term gain through overfish- hand, many wetland areas were drained to support
ing, over-grazing, deforestation and poaching, such unsustainable agricultural and forestry practices (e.g.
that traditional lifestyles and sustainable economic along the Tisza River in Hungary where 2,590,000ha
practices are at risk. of floodplains were reduced to 100,000ha). On the
other hand, the main Danube channel itself was not
Biodiversity values subject to the same level of dam construction as
The Danube basin is home to a wide variety of natu- occurred in western Europe, where the upper
ral habitats. Among these are the Alps and 1,000km of the river were converted into an artificial
Carpathian Mountains, Germany’s Black Forest, the waterway by an almost uninterrupted chain of 59
Hungarian puszta plains, the Lower Danube flood- hydropower dams. This contrasts with just two dams
plains and islands and the vast lakes, reedbeds and on the lower 1,800km of the Danube. Overall, the
 Danube 3
central and lower reaches possess a generally higher 2000 of some 100 tonnes of cyanide into the Tisza
level of biodiversity than do the upper reaches in River in Romania, following an accident at a gold
western Europe. For example, the middle and lower mining operation). Unless more is done soon to
Danube still support some extensive areas of natural improve environmental security, especially in those
or semi-natural floodplain forest and other wetlands, parts of the region where industrial and urban infra-
while more than 95 per cent has been lost further structure is old and decayed, further catastrophic
upstream. incidents can be expected.
Current priority issues at a basin scale include:
Nutrients and eutrophication
Proposed shipping developments
The main sources of nutrients in the Danube are agri-
A number of proposals threaten severe ecological culture (c.50%), municipal waste (c.25%) and indus-
damage to the Danube in central and eastern Europe. try (c.25%). The total nitrogen load in the Danube is
They include plans to construct a canal through the between 537,000 and 551,000 tonnes per year (com-
Ukrainian Danube Delta to the Black Sea coast, and pared with 50,000 tonnes for the Rhine). The total
another – the Danube-Odra-Elbe canal – linking the phosphorus load is 48,900 tonnes per year. The legal
Baltic Sea with the Black Sea. In addition to the loss limit for nutrient content in groundwater is often
of natural and semi-natural areas that such develop- exceeded throughout the basin. As a result, the
ments would cause, chronic pollution and the risk of Danube is the biggest contributor of nutrients to the
a major oil or chemical spill are also likely to Black Sea, where radical changes to the ecosystem
increase. and biodiversity loss have occurred in the last 40
years as a result of eutrophication. There remains
Impacts of EU accession insufficient capacity along the Danube to treat
municipal and industrial wastewater, and more
Many former eastern bloc countries are now in the
sewage treatment plants are needed urgently.
process of joining the European Union. As part of
Restoring wetlands would also significantly increase
this ‘accession process’, each prospective Member
the river’s natural ‘self-cleansing’ capacity.
State is required to transpose into national law – and
implement – a raft of EU legislation before they are
Role of WWF and its partners
granted entry. Potential impacts on nature conserva-
tion in the Danube basin are both positive and nega-
In 1992, WWF’s activities in the Danube River basin
tive. While the EU’s nature conservation legislation
came together under its Green Danube Programme
and the Water Framework Directive (which governs
(now the Danube-Carpathian Programme). Early on
water policy and management throughout the EU
it was recognized that while the Danube Delta is the
according to the principles of river basin manage-
outstanding natural feature of the region, it would be
ment) are recognized as positive mechanisms, it is
necessary to undertake activities throughout the
expected that threats to rural economic security in the
entire river basin in order to deliver environmental
central and lower Danube will be worsened by the
and socio-economic benefits in the long term. One of
EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The CAP,
the principal achievements has been the development
though recently reformed, continues to support inten-
of partnerships with governments, management
sive, unsustainable practices and perverse subsidies.
authorities, local communities and other NGOs.
The EU may also provide funding for some of the
The Green Danube Programme began with five
potentially destructive shipping development proj-
projects located in natural areas critical for the sur-
ects through its Trans-European Networks for
vival of the river:
Transport (TENs-T) programme.
■ Mouth of the Isar River (Germany)
Environmental disasters
■ Morava-Dyje transboundary floodplains
The last five years have seen a number of ecological
(Austria-Czech Republic-Slovakia)
crises in the Danube basin that have gained world-
wide media attention (e.g. the spillage in January ■ Bulgarian Danube Islands

Managing Rivers Wisely

4 Danube
■ Danube-Drava transboundary floodplains Evaluation of Danube Floodplains revealed that
(Hungary-Croatia-FR Yugoslavia) the average value per hectare per year of the
Danube floodplains was EUR383, resulting in
■ Danube Delta (Romania-Ukraine).
an annual basin-wide value of EUR666 million.
In 1998, the WWF International Danube- ■ Analysing the ecological potential for floodplain
Carpathian Programme was established to coordinate restoration along the whole of the Danube and
WWF activities in the Danube River basin, with an promoting a shift in thinking about floodplain
additional focus on the Carpathian Mountains and management. This in turn led to the intergovern-
ecologically sustainable forestry. The programme’s mental agreement known as the ‘Lower Danube
freshwater component currently has three objectives, Green Corridor’ under which the governments of
each contributing to the achievement of a long-term Bulgaria, Romania, Moldova and Ukraine have
vision for the region: committed themselves to the effective manage-
ment of up to 900,000ha of existing and new
1. Policy: By 2006, the Danube River basin is protected wetlands.
internationally recognized as a successful model
■ Implementing ‘Partners For Wetlands Ukraine’
for integrated river basin management.
which, within an overall conservation vision for
2. Capacity: By 2006, there is sufficient capacity the Danube Delta, aims to secure the restoration
amongst national NGOs, water stakeholders and and sustainable use of large floodplain areas.
governments to implement integrated river basin
■ Playing a key role in securing US$13.3 million
management in at least six countries within the
in World Bank/GEF funding for wetland restora-
Danube River basin.
tion in Bulgaria (see below) as a contribution to
3. Projects: By 2006, there are successful projects implementing the Lower Danube Green
in place throughout the Danube River basin Corridor.
demonstrating the restoration, protection and
■ Contracting of WWF by UNDP/GEF to deliver
sustainable management of freshwater habitats
part of the Danube Regional Project through
according to the principles of integrated river
assisting selected countries in the basin to pre-
basin management.
pare new land-use and wetland rehabilitation
policies and legislation in line with existing and
In addition, WWF is now seeking to integrate
emerging EU environmental requirements. The
more closely its freshwater, forests and Carpathian
overall output of this component will be a
ecoregion work to achieve effective conservation and
methodology for determining sustainable land
sustainable management of headwaters and mountain
use in the Danube River basin; the method will
wetlands.
be tested in the development of land-use con-
Major initiatives and achievements in the field
cepts at three pilot sites, in Croatia, Romania and
of river basin management to date have included:
Slovakia. The measures, once proven, will be
implemented on a wider scale using funds from
■ Forging links with the International Commission
Phase 2 of the Danube Regional Project (2003-
for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR),
2006). WWF is also contracted to deliver both a
the implementing body for both the Danube
Participation Strategy and a Communications
River Protection Convention and the EU’s Water
Strategy for the Danube River basin.
Framework Directive. WWF is an observer on
two ICPDR Working Groups that support imple- ■ Establishing strong and effective partnerships
mentation of the Directive in the Danube basin, with national and local NGOs, particularly in
and is also promoting public participation at all Bulgaria (Green Balkans), the Slovak Republic
stages of the process. (DAPHNE) and Croatia (Dravska Liga).
■ Ensuring that wetland issues are fully integrated ■ Working with NGO and government partners
into river basin management initiatives. For and the Ramsar Bureau to secure the designation
example, the 1994 WWF report Economic of a trilateral protected area and Ramsar Site
 Danube 5
along the Morava-Dyje floodplains shared by Chronology
Austria, the Czech Republic and the Slovak
Republic. This partnership was presented with 1992
the Ramsar Award in 2002. ● Establishment of WWF Green Danube Programme.
■ Responding rapidly and effectively to environ- 1998
mental crises in the region, such as the impacts ● Initiation of WWF Danube-Carpathian Programme.
of war in the Balkans on the Danube, and the
2000
effects of the Tisza cyanide spill.
● Lower Danube Green Corridor Agreement signed.

Conservation method demonstrated 2001

● Presidential Summit of Danube countries organized by
WWF’s vision for the Danube-Carpathian region is WWF and the government of Romania.
one in which high biodiversity and a rich cultural 2002
heritage are mutually supportive, and serve as a ● Ramsar Award presented in recognition of the
model of nature conservation and community pros- Austrian-Czech-Slovak trilateral protected area.
perity. With this in mind, WWF’s aims are the suc-
cessful conservation, restoration and sustainable 2003
management of nature, primarily of freshwater and ● Completion by WWF of the official ‘Danube River
forest resources, in the Danube River basin and the Basin Public Participation Strategy’ as a contribution
Carpathian Mountains. This requires a planning towards implementing the EU Water Framework
approach at the ecoregion scale involving demonstra- Directive in the basin.
tion projects, policy work, communications, net-
working, capacity building and crisis response.

Resources devoted

WWF’s expenditure in financial year 2002 was

US$1.68 million, largely contributed by WWF
National Organizations. Lead WWF office contact
Income from governments and aid agencies has
Dr David Tickner
been relatively modest, varying from around 7-15 per Freshwater Team Leader
cent per annum. The principal donors in this category WWF Danube-Carpathian Programme Office
have been the EU (through its ‘Phare’ programme), MariahilferStrasse 88a/111/9
the World Bank and the United Nations Development A-1070 Vienna
Programme (UNDP)/Global Environment Facility Austria
(GEF). Smaller contributions have come from T: +43 1 52 45 470 19
Danish environmental assistance to Central and F: +43 1 52 45 470 70
Eastern Europe (DANCEE), IUCN–The World E: dtickner@wwfdcp.org
Conservation Union, the Organization for Security W: www.panda.org/about_wwf/where_we_work/
and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), and the United europe/where/danube_carpathian
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

Managing Rivers Wisely

6 Danube

Lessons learnt

1. It takes a long time to make real progress

WWF’s respected role in the basin has been achieved after more than ten years of continuous technical
and financial investment and a permanent presence in the region. Objectives at a river basin scale
cannot be tackled seriously within the scope of a typical three-year project.

2. Work at different levels simultaneously

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

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

4. Effective partnership building is essential

The success of partnership building can be attributed to:
■ interpersonal and diplomatic skills and experience of key staff in the WWF Network
■ keeping partners’ expectations of WWF action to a level that can be met or, better still, exceeded
■ readiness to supervise rather than control
■ knowledge and understanding of the region
■ provision of concrete technical and financial support, often in quite small amounts
■ readiness to engage in long-term partnership and project activities
■ readiness to involve local expertise and experience
■ readiness to assist with building of local capacity
■ an open, constructive and modest approach when dealing with local stakeholders.
■ demonstrating that NGOs can be beneficial to governments
■ readiness to integrate partners’ priorities into WWF projects.

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

6. Base work on sound science

WWF’s mapping of floodplain restoration potential for the entire Danube basin was a major
breakthrough and provided a vision supported by hard scientific fact.