UNEP GEF PIR FY 07
(1 July 2006 to 30 June 2007)

1. PROJECT GENERAL INFORMATION

Project Title:
Russian Federation Support to the National Programme of Action for
the Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment, Tranche 1

Executing Agency:
Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of the Russian Federation
(Minekonomrazvitiya of Russia)

Project partner
ACOPS, NEFCO
Agencies:

Geographical Scope: Russian Federation, Russian Arctic

Participating
Russian Federation, Canada, Iceland, Italy, USA
Countries:

1164
GFL / 2732-03-4694
GEF project ID:
IMIS number*1:

Focal Area(s):
IW
GEF OP #:
10
IW-3
07/12/2001, revised
GEF Strategic
Innovative
GEF approval date*:
31/07/2003 and
Priority/Objective:
demonstrations
31/07/2005
UNEP approval date:
18/07/2005
First Disbursement*:
31/08/2005
Actual start date2:
01/07/2005
Planned duration:
60 months
Intended completion
30/06/2007 (Phase I)
Actual or Expected
December 2008
date*:
completion date:
(Project Phase I)
Project Type:
Full size
GEF Allocation*:
$5,885,000
PDF GEF cost*:
$306,000
PDF co-financing*:
$474,000
Expected MSP/FSP
$5,800,000
$12,465,000
Total Cost*:
Co-financing*:
Mid-term review
N/A
Terminal Evaluation
10/2008
(planned date):
(actual date):
Mid term review
N/A
2
No. of revisions*:
(actual date):
Date of last Steering
25-26/04/2007
Date of last
31/08/2007
Committee meeting:
Revision*:
Disbursement as of
$866,207
Date of financial
N/A
30 June 2007*:
closure*:

Actual expenditures

Date of
N/A
reported as of 30
$786,766
Completion3*:
June 20074:
Total co-financing

Actual expenditures

realized as of 30
$5,554,923
entered in IMIS as of
$684,008
June 20075:
30 June 2007*:
Leveraged
N/A

financing:6

1 Fields with an * sign (in yellow) should be filled by the Fund Management Officer
2 Only if different from first disbursement date, e.g., in cases were a long time elapsed between first
disbursement and recruitment of project manager.
3 If there was a "Completion Revision" please use the date of the revision.
4 Information to be provided by Executing Agency/Project Manager
5 Projects which completed mid-term reviews/evaluations or terminal evaluations should attach the
completed co-financing table as per GEF format.
6 See above note on co-financing and Glossary (Annex 1)

1

Project summary7
Major outcomes will include a nationally approved Strategic Action
Programme to address damage and threats to the arctic environment
from land-based activities in the Russian Federation; direct and related
improvements to environmental protection (legislative, regulatory and
institutional and technical capacity) within the Russian Federation; the
completion of ten pre-investment studies to determine the highest
priority and tractable interventions to correct or prevent transboundary
impacts of land-based activities; and three categories of demonstration
projects dealing respectively with marine environmental clean up, the
transfer of two decommissioned military bases to civilian control, and
involving indigenous peoples in environmental and resource
management. The results are intended to benefit the international arctic
environment, particularly the Arctic Ocean basin and its shelf seas, and
contribute to two principal international agreements: Arctic
Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS); and the Global Programme
of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-Based
Activities (GPA) as implemented in the Arctic Region through the
Regional Programme of Action for the Protection of the Arctic Marine
Environment from Land- based Activities (RPA) and the Arctic Council
Plan of Action to Eliminate Pollution of the Arctic (ACAP).

Project status FY068
Structure and content of the SAP were developed and agreed by SAP
Task Team and experts. Draft review of the current state of the
Russian Arctic environment was prepared. DA of the environmental
situation in the Russian Arctic was at the advanced stage of
development. PINS and 3 working groups for demo projects were
established. Document with basic PINS concept was prepared.
Preparation activities for 3 demo projects were started.

Project status FY079
The 2nd meeting of the Project Steering Committee was held on April
25-26, 2007, which took a decision on prolongation of Phase I of the
Project until the end of 2008. New Integrated Work Plan and budget
for Phase I were adopted.
SAP component. Most of individual sections of SAP document are at
the stage of their finalization. Regional component for the SAP
including investment projects is in the process of clarification on a
basis of regional consultations. SAP is used as a basis for preparation
of section "Environmental Security" of sub-program "Arctic" of the
Federal Targeted Program "World Ocean"
PINS component. Hot spots in the Russian Arctic have been updated
and prioritized on a basis of new information. A call for expression of
interests in Preparation of Regional Pre-Investment Studies was
announced and ToR for this study is drafted.
Demonstration projects component. Project documents for demo projects,
specified in the Project Document, have been further developed and
approved by the 2nd StC meeting. Tenders documentation for Demo-
Projects have been prepared, tenders have been conducted and contracts
with bid-winners have been prepared. Three new demonstration projects
and nine pilot projects have been also prepared in close cooperation with
local authorities. The projects were submitted to the StC meeting and
approved subsequently.

Planned contribution For project phase I: Improved management of the Russian Arctic
to strategic
environment with priorities and targets setting and monitoring plan
priorities/targets10
through the adoption of the Strategic Action Plan (SAP) for the

7 As in project document
8 Brief description of implementation status in previous year (not more than one paragraph)
9 Progress made during current reporting period (one paragraph stating key changes since previous
reporting period)

2

protection of the Arctic marine environment from land-based activities by
the RF Government. SAP is to be supported by the three demonstration
projects aimed at marine oil pollution reduction through the use of brown
algae, decontamination of military bases, and co-management of natural
resources by Russian indigenous peoples and other stakeholders,
respectively, and pre-investment studies providing conditions for further
interventions and investments to remediate or prevent degradation of the
Arctic marine environment from land-based and sea-based activities.

2. PROJECT
OBJECTIVE

State the global environmental objective(s) of the project11

The project's global environment objective is to protect the global marine environment in which
the Arctic plays a pivotal role. The more specific objective of the Project is to develop and
establish a sustainable framework to reduce environmental degradation of the Russian Arctic
from land-based activities on a system basis by implementation of the SAP developed at the
first stage of the Project in favor of all Arctic States and global community and to comply with
obligations of the Russian Federation under international conventions and agreements taking
into account decisions and programmes of the Arctic Council. As such, it would create
conditions, which will allow for capital investments to flow in the Russian Arctic in order to
ensure long term protection of coastal and marine environment of the Arctic and to address
main root causes of trans-boundary pollution in the Russian Arctic.

Please provide a narrative of progress made towards meeting the project objective(s). Describe
any significant environmental or other changes attributable to project implementation. Also,
please discuss any major challenges to meet the objectives or specific project outcomes (not
more than 300 words)

During FY 07 Project settle out several problems associated with project implementation in FY
06, established good working relations with Russian Arctic regions, developed and discussed
with some regional authorities a draft of the SAP, prepared tender documentation for planned
demonstration projects, identified new demonstration and pilot projects in consultations with
regional authorities, started practical implementation of demonstration projects. Decision was
made by the Steering Committee to prolong Phase I of the Project until the end of 2008 to
complete a minimum set of activities to ensure further project sustainability. It was also decided
to carry out and complete pre-investment studies during the Phase I. Project progress is
discussed below in comparison with benchmarks formulated for Phase I of the Project:
Benchmark 1. Successful establishment of Project implementation structure, including Project
Office, Project Steering Committee, and Project Supervisory Council; Russian Interagency
Working Group was also established - completed, 100%
Benchmark 2. Strategic Action Programme fully developed and endorsed by relevant
stakeholders; DA of the Russian Arctic environment is completed. Draft SAP is prepared,
regional consultations are in progress. Draft SAP is used as a basis for preparation of section
"Environmental Security" of sub-program "Arctic" of Federal Target Program "World Ocean" (70
% completion).
Benchmark 3. Working document revised at the first meeting of each of sub-group for each pre-
Investment Study; ToR for PINS was? drafted and international tender was? announced. PINS
are to be completed by Sep 2008 (completion 20%)
Benchmark 4. Selected lead implementing organization and members of each of the three
working groups for the development of the Environmental Protection System; planned for the
end of 2007. ToR for lead implementing organization will be prepared to the end of September
(completion 20%)

10 For Full Size Projects this information is found in the front page of the project Executive Summary; for
Medium-Sized Projects the information appears in the MSP brief cover page.
11 Or immediate project objective

3

Benchmark 5. Fully designed demonstration activities; Project documents for demonstration
projects have been approved by Project Steering Committee. International tender and national
competitive bids have been announced and contracts with bid winners have been prepared.
BASES and COMAN projects are at the implementation phase, while CLENUP contract is to be
signed. (completion 40%)
Benchmark 6. Mid-term review of the project indicating satisfactory implementation of the
project in the phase I. Planned for October 2008 and to be TE for Phase I.

Please provide a narrative of progress towards the stated GEF Strategic Priorities and Targets
if identified in project document 12(not more than 200 words)

Project is consistent with GEF policies as articulated in the description of Operational
Programme No. 10 that "focuses on poorly addressed contaminants and aims to utilise
demonstrations to overcome barriers to adoption of best practices, waste minimisation
strategies, and pollution prevention measures". The main requirements of interventions in
favour of environmental improvement in the Arctic is to deal with this decline and restore
environmental conditions while at the same time endeavouring to prevent further deterioration
and new threats. The planned and approved by the Project Steering Committee a number of
demonstration and pilot projects, that focus on certain types of contaminants that degrade the
International Waters environment, will demonstrate that technological barriers can be overcome
or that measures aimed at removing barriers can be implemented. In 2007 project results
contributed to preparation of section "Environmental Security" of sub-program "Arctic" of the
Federal Targeted Program "World Ocean" that is currently under development in MEDT. SAP is
at the final stage of completion and PINS tender fol owing from the updated hot-spots list is to
be issued in coming months.

12 Projects that did not include these in original design are encouraged to the extent possible to retrofit
specific targets.

4

3. RATING PROJECT PERFORMANCE AND RISK

Based on inputs by the Project Manager, the UNEP Task Manager13 will make an overall assessment and provide ratings of:

(i)
Progress towards achieving the project objective(s)- see section 3.1
(ii)
Implementation progress see section 3.2

Section 3.3 on Risk should be first completed by the Project Manager. The UNEP Task Manager will subsequently enter his/her own ratings in the
appropriate column.
3.1 Progress towards achieving the project objective (s)

Project objective
Description of
Baseline level15
Mid-term target16
End-of-project
Level at 30 June
Progress
and Outcomes
indicator14
target
2007
rating 17

13 For joint projects and where applicable ratings should also be discussed with the Task Manager of co-implementing agency.
14 Add rows if your project has more that 3 key indicators per objective or outcome.
15 Depending on selected indicator, quantitative or qualitative baseline levels and targets could be used (see Glossary included as Annex 1).
16 Many projects did not identify Mid-term targets at the design stage therefore this column should only be filled if relevant.
17 Use GEF Secretariat required six-point scale system: Highly Satisfactory (HS), Satisfactory (S), Marginally Satisfactory (MS), Marginally Unsatisfactory (MU),
Unsatisfactory (U), and Highly Unsatisfactory (HU). See Annex 2 which contains GEF definitions.

5

Project objective
Description of
Baseline level15
Mid-term target16
End-of-project
Level at 30 June
Progress
and Outcomes
indicator14
target
2007
rating 17
Objective18
1. Adoption of the
The National
Strategic Action
Adoption of the
70 %. A draft of
MS
Improved
Strategic Action
Action Plan for the
Programme fully
SAP for the Arctic
SAP is prepared,
management of the Plan (SAP) for the
Protection of the
developed and
as a component of
regional
Arctic environment
Protection of the
Arctic Marine
endorsed by
the FTOP `World
consultations have
in the Russian
Arctic Marine
Environment has
relevant
Ocean' by the
been conducted in
Federation and
Environment from
been developed
stakeholders
Russian Federation Murmansk,
clear appreciation
Land-based
and agreed upon.
Arkhangelsk and
of priorities.
Activities by
Yakutia and others

relevant executive
are in progress.

authority of the
SAP is used as a

Russian Federation
basis for

by the end of
preparation of

Phase I.
section
Environmentally
"Environmental
sustainable
Security" of sub-
development of
program "Arctic" of
natural resources
Federal Target
in the Russian
Program "World
Arctic.
Ocean"

18 Add rows if your project has more than 4 objective-level indicators. Same applies for the number of outcome-level indicators.

6

Project objective
Description of
Baseline level15
Mid-term target16
End-of-project
Level at 30 June
Progress
and Outcomes
indicator14
target
2007
rating 17

2. The reformed
There is an existing Selected lead

The survey of the
S

regulatory
regulatory
implementing
regulatory

framework is
framework, which
organization and
framework at the

implemented by
does not take into
members of each
local, provincial

local, provincial,
consideration the
of the three
and federal levels

federal
programmatic
working groups for
has been

administrations.
requirements to be
the development of
performed and

outlined in the SAP the Environmental
environmentally
Improved regional
and NAP.
Protection System
sustainable
co-ordination of the
development
management of the
concerns are
Arctic environment;
incorporated in the
and Russia
SAP. Major work
meeting its
on EPS is planned
obligations under
from October 2007
the AEPS and its
Contributions by
The initiated work
The Russian

Progress reports
S
commitments to
the Russian
of this project is
representative at
on project
objectives of the
Federation to the
recognized by the
the Arctic Council
implementation are
GPA.
Arctic Environment
Arctic Council and
provides
delivered to the
Protection Strategy GPA.
information on the
Arctic Council (AC)
of the Arctic
SAP and the
and AC WG.
Council.
minutes of the
NPA-Arctic project
Acknowledgement
Arctic Council can
is mentioned in all
by the Arctic
indicates the
minutes of the AC
Council of the SAP
contribution of the
as well as in
as a component of
SAP to the Arctic
Salekhard
the Regional
Council process
Declaration of the
Programme of
AC.
Action for the
Presentation on
Arctic.
NPA-Arctic project
progress was given
at 2nd IGR of GPA

7

Project objective
Description of
Baseline level15
Mid-term target16
End-of-project
Level at 30 June
Progress
and Outcomes
indicator14
target
2007
rating 17
Outcome 1:
By the end of
There is no SAP
Adoption of the
Strategic Action
70 %. A draft of
MS (regional
Finalisation and
Phase I, review
formulation at the
SAP by relevant
Programme fully
SAP is prepared,
and federal
endorsement of the and publication* of
onset of the
authorities
developed and
regional
consultations
Strategic Action
the SAP for the
project.
endorsed by
consultations are in are delayed)
Programme (SAP)
Arctic
relevant
progress. SAP is
for the Russian
stakeholders
used as a basis for
Arctic
preparation of
section
"Environmental
Security" of sub-
program "Arctic" of
Federal Target
Program "World
Ocean"
Outcome 2:
By the end of
There is an existing Selected lead

The work is
S
Improved
Phase I, selection
legal, regulatory
implementing
scheduled for the
legislation,
of lead
and administrative
organization and
end of 2007. Draft
administrative
organisations and
framework, which
members of each
ToRs for lead
procedures and
members of the
does not take into
of the three
implementing
institutional
working groups
consideration the
working groups for
organisation is
capacity for the
selected and
programmatic
the development of
prepared
environmental
confirmed.
requirements to be
the Environmental
protection of the
outlined in the
Protection System
Arctic environment.
SAP.

8

Project objective
Description of
Baseline level15
Mid-term target16
End-of-project
Level at 30 June
Progress
and Outcomes
indicator14
target
2007
rating 17
Outcome 3:
By the end of Phase The project PDF-B; Finalisation of the
Conducted pre-
ToR for PINS is
MS
Conditions for
I, investments are
NEFCO and
pre-investment
investment studies
drafted and
further
prepared based on Russian
studies

international tender
interventions and
at least 8-10 pre-
authorities,

is announced. Hot-
investments to
investment studies
respectively issued

spots update report
remediate or
and demonstration
a list of hot spots.

Implemented
was produced, but
prevent the
projects are fully
Limited
Demonstration
demonstration
prioritization is not
degradation of the
developed and
demonstrative
projects are in the
projects
completed.
Arctic Environment
ready for
activities have
process of practical

are realised.
implementation.
been developed or
implementation

implemented.
Project documents

for demonstration
projects have been
approved by
Project Steering
Committee.
International tender
and national
competitive bids
have been
announced and
contracts with bid
winners have been
prepared.
Implementation
stage of the
projects is planned
for September

9

Project objective
Description of
Baseline level15
Mid-term target16
End-of-project
Level at 30 June
Progress
and Outcomes
indicator14
target
2007
rating 17
Outcome 4:
All project
There was no
Successful
Successful
100%
S
Successful
implementation
project structures
establishment of
establishment of
All project
establishment of
units are functional before.
Project
Project
implementation
the project
and deliver
implementation
implementation
units are
implementation
expected outcomes
structure, including structure, including established
structure, incl.
on time.
Project Office,
Project Office,
Project Office,
Project Steering
Project Steering
Project Steering
Committee,
Committee, Project
Committee, Project
Project Supervisory Supervisory
Supervisory
Council, and
Council, and
Council (Phase I
Russian
Russian
benchmark)
Interagency
Interagency
Working Group
Working Group

Overall rating of project progress towards meeting project objective(s) (To be provided by UNEP GEF Task Manager)

FY2006 rating FY2007 rating
Comments/narrative justifying the FY07 rating and explaining reasons for change (positive or negative)
since previous reporting period
N/A
MS
In comparison with 2005-2006 period, progress has been made towards achieving project's direct objective - to
develop and establish a sustainable framework to reduce environmental degradation of the Russian Arctic from
land-based activities on a system basis. SAP is at the final stage of preparation as well as auxiliary measures
such as DEMOS and pilot projects have been initiated. As project data are used to fill up substantive part of the
FTOP "World Ocean", there is a hope that specific measures directed at improving Arctic marine environment,
will be integrated into country's programming cycle before even the project ends. Major problems related to
insufficient public consultations to ensure ownership of the proposed SAP still persist, but remedial actions are
taken (PO regional consultations were initiated, but not yet completed).

Action plan to address MS, MU, U and HU rating (To be completed by UNEP GEF Task Manager in consultation with Project Manager)

Action(s) to be taken
By whom?
By when?
See action plan on project implementation

10

3.2
Project implementation progress

Outputs 19
Expected
Implementation
Comments if variance21.
Progress
completion
status as of 30
Describe any problems in
rating22
date 20
June 2007 (%)
delivering outputs
Output 1: Preparation and adoption of a
July 2008
70

MS
comprehensive Strategic Action Programme (SAP)
for the Russian Arctic
Activity 1: Development of financial mechanisms of the
July 2007
90
National consultant report is
HS-S
SAP implementation
approved, final report is
scheduled for September 2007
Activity 2: Preparation of scoping report on regional
August 2007
20
Delays with responses from
MS
SAP sub-programs with recommendations for SAP
regions. Only two consultants of
five initially planned are hired by
partner organization (ACOPS)
for donor funds reallocated for
this activity and only one report
was delivered to the Project
Office. Regional consultations of
PO on SAP aim at filling this
gap.
Activity 3: Strategic environmental assessment on the
September
70
The work is in line with the
MS
SAP
2007
schedule
Activity 4: Diagnostic analysis of environmental
September
80
Analysis is completed; Work on
S
situation in Arctic region
2007
the publication summarizing
results of the analysis planned
to be completed in June 07 is
delayed due to other
commitments of the project
office (to be resumed in 2008)

19 Outputs and activities as described in the project logframe or in any updated project revision.
20 As per latest workplan (latest project revision)
21 Variance refers to the difference between the expected and actual progress at the time of reporting.
22 To be provided by the UNEP Task Manager

11

Outputs 19
Expected
Implementation
Comments if variance21.
Progress
completion
status as of 30
Describe any problems in
rating22
date 20
June 2007 (%)
delivering outputs
Activity 5: Causal chain analysis
July 2007
40-50
Work has been initiated and
U
partially presented at the SAP
TT meeting. ACOPS reported to
EPA on completion of this task
already in December 2006,
however no final report has
been presented to the PO
Activity 6: Stakeholder analysis and development of
July 2007
30-50
Draft reports from federal
MU
public involvement. Information to stakeholders and
September
consultant and 2 regional
communication strategy to public on project results
2007
consultants have been received.
No final report on public
participation strategy from
ACOPS has been received.
Public awareness activities
initiated during regional
consultations in Jul-Oct 07
Activity 7: Preparation of the first draft of the SAP
September
80
International consultant is hired
S
2007
for final SAP document editing
and preparation to be submitted
for federal and local authorities
considerations.
Output 2: Completion of a set of Pre-investment
June 2008

S
studies (PINS)
Activity 8: Preparation of the working document and its
June 2006
100
Problems were with selecting
MU
review at the First Meeting of the WG.
consultants having proper
expertise in this field;
Coordinator of the WG resigned;
prepared report was criticized by
PO, ExA and IA for below-
standard quality.
Activity 9: Update and review of the existing hot spots
July 2007
90
The updated reports are
MS
identified at PDF-B stage
expected in September 2007
Activity 10: Preparation of Guidelines on conduction of
February 2007
90
Several versions of Guidelines
MS

12

Outputs 19
Expected
Implementation
Comments if variance21.
Progress
completion
status as of 30
Describe any problems in
rating22
date 20
June 2007 (%)
delivering outputs
pre-investment studies
have been submitted however
all comments still not addressed
Activity 11: Development of criteria for selection of hot
July 2007
50
An update of the document on
MU
spots for which PINS will be prepared
criteria for selection of hot spots
(delays in
is prepared, but some criteria
updating
are not agreed upon except
produced
environmental one
report)
Activity 12: Hot spots screening and selection.
September
30
A preliminary list of hot spots for MU
Preparation of the list of potential pre-investment
2007
pre-investments studies is
studies.
prepared by project office
without prioritization as a set of
criteria is not agreed upon yet
Activity 13: Selection of lead cooperating organisations
September
30
Tender documentation for
S
for the conduction of PINS.
2007
international tender is prepared
Output 3: Environmental Protection System
June 2008
ToR for EPS is to
Implementation of this Project
N/A
improvements (EPS)
be developed at the component can be started after
end of September the 2nd draft of SAP reviewed by
authorities.
Output 4: Rehabilitation of the Environment by the
November

Use of Brown Algae (Demonstration Project
2007
CLEANUP)
Activity 14: Preparation of the consultancy contract with October-
100
Delays with consultant contract
S
the WG CLEANUP co-ordinator and WG members
November
issuing
2006
Activity 15: Review of the working document at the First February 2007
100

S
Meeting of the WG
Activity 16: Preparation of ToR and conduction of the
August 2007
80
Tender documentation is
MS
tender and preparation of the contract with the lead
prepared and international
(contract
cooperating organisation for the CLEANUP demo
tender is announced. Contract
delayed)
project
will be concluded at the end of
September
Activity 17: Preparation and review of Progress Report
November
0

N/A

13

Outputs 19
Expected
Implementation
Comments if variance21.
Progress
completion
status as of 30
Describe any problems in
rating22
date 20
June 2007 (%)
delivering outputs
to be considered at the Second Meeting of the WG
2007
Output 5: Environmental Remediation of Two

Decommissioned Military Bases (Demonstration
Project BASES)
Activity 18: Proposals for and selection of a co-
August 2006
100

S
ordinator and members of the WG BASES.
Activity 19: Preparation and signing of contracts with
October-
100
S
the WG BASES co-ordinator and members.
November
2006
Activity 20: Preparation of the working document to be
April 2007
100

S
considered at the First Meeting of the WG BASES.
Activity 21: Preparation of ToR and conduction of the
July 2007
80
Field work on implementation of
MS
tender and preparation of the contract with the lead
this demo-project started in
(contract
cooperating organisation for the BASES demo project
September 2007.
delayed)
Activity 22: Review of the working document at the First November
0
N/A
Meeting of the WG BASES, Moscow
2007
Output 6: Indigenous Environmental Co-management

(Demonstration Project COMAN)
Activity 23: Proposals for and selection of a co-
August 2006
100

S
ordinator and members of the WG COMAN.
Activity 24: Preparation and signing of contracts with
November
100
S
the WG COMAN co-ordinator and members.
2006
Activity 25: Preparation of the working document to be
December
100
S
considered at the First Meeting of the WG COMAN.
2006
Activity 26: Review of the working document at the First May 2007
100

S
Meeting of the WG COMAN, Moscow.
Activity 27: Preparation of ToR and conduct of the July 2007
80
MS
tender and preparation of the contract with the lead
(contract
cooperating organisation for COMAN demo project
delayed)
Output 6: New Pilot projects

Activity 28: Preparation of project documentation for Second - third
80
Project documents have been
MS-S

14

Outputs 19
Expected
Implementation
Comments if variance21.
Progress
completion
status as of 30
Describe any problems in
rating22
date 20
June 2007 (%)
delivering outputs
pilot projects
quarter of 2007
prepared for new demonstration
and pilot project. Implementation
is delayed because of absence
of agreement between EPA and
UNEP
Activity 29: Tenders preparation (if applicable) and Third-fourth
30
To be decided by EPA and
N/A
contracting companies on selected pilot projects
quarter of 2007
NEFCO as donors
Activity 30: Final evaluation of conducted pilot projects Third quarter of
Planned for Oct

N/A
and their replicability potential
2008
2008

Overall project implementation progress 23 (To be completed by UNEP GEF Task Manager):

FY2006 rating FY2007 rating
Comments/narrative justifying the rating for FY07 and any changes (positive or negative) in the rating
since the previous reporting period
N/A
MS
Given prominent delays in project implementation as well as institutional obstacles experienced by the project
since its inception, during the reporting period project has achieved substantial progress and from U-MU rating
can now be transferred into MS. SAP is at the final stage of preparation. Project results are used to
substantiate section "Environmental Security" of sub-program "Arctic" of the Federal Targeted Program "World
Ocean" that if approved will ensure sustainability of project outcomes. Regional consultations on draft SAP and
hot-spots have been initiated in Arctic regions. DEMOS projects are in contract signing phase and several pilot
projects aimed at improving Arctic environment are in preparation. International tender for PINS is ongoing and
to be finalized by the end of the year. Significant drawback is insufficient SAP consultations at the federal and
regional levels that may impede smooth approval of SAP as well as public awareness raising.

Action plan to address MS, MU, U and HU rating. (To be completed by UNEP Task Manager in consultation with Project Manager24)

Action(s) to be taken
By whom?
By when?
Complete consultations on draft SAP in Arctic
PO, MEDT
Dec 2007 for regions

23 Use GEF Secretariat required six-point scale system: Highly Satisfactory (HS), Satisfactory (S), Marginally Satisfactory (MS), Marginally Unsatisfactory (MU),
Unsatisfactory (U), and Highly Unsatisfactory (HU)
24 UNEP Fund Management Officer should also be consulted as appropriate.

15

Action(s) to be taken
By whom?
By when?
regions (Nenets, Yamal-Nenets and Chukotka)
Feb 2008 at the federal level
and at the federal level
Increase public awareness of the Arctic project PO, sub-contractors
Jan-Sep 2008
through publication of DA results, public
awareness actions in regions
Organize Investment Forum/Partnership
PO, MEDT, UNEP, , NEFCO and other project
Jun 2008
Conference
partners

16

3.3. Risk
There are two tables to assess and address risk: the first "risk factor table" to describe and rate risk factors; the second "top risk mitigation plan" should
indicate what measures/action will be taken with respect to risks rated Substantial or High and who is responsible to for it.

RISK FACTOR TABLE
Project Managers will use this table to summarize risks identified in the Project Document and reflect also any new risks identified in the course
of project implementation. The Notes column should be used to provide additional details concerning manifestation of the risk in your specific
project, as relevant. The "Notes" column has one section for the Project Manager (PM) and one for the UNEP Task Manager (TM). If the generic
risk factors and indicators in the table are not relevant to the project rows should be added. The UNEP Task Manager should provide ratings in the
right hand column reflecting his/her own assessment of project risks.

Project Manager
Notes
Task Manager
Rating
Rating
Risk Factor
Indicator of
Indicator of
Indicator of
e

e
Low Risk
Medium Risk
High Risk
ned
ned
b
e
b
e
o
o
Low
Medium
Substantial
High
Not Applicabl
T
determi
Low
Medium
Substantial
High
Not Applicabl
T
determi

INTERNAL RISK
Project management
Management Stable with
Individuals
Unclear
X

PM: Good management

X

structure
roles and
understand
responsibilities

structure with defined roles
responsibilities their own role
or overlapping

& responsibilities of network
clearly defined
but are unsure
functions which
members maintained and
and
of
lead to
operational
understood
responsibilities management
TM: PO often lacks capacity
of others
problems
to deal with multiple tasks
simultaneously; often all
responsibilities rest with the
PM that contributes to
inefficient functioning of the
management

17

Project Manager
Notes
Task Manager
Rating
Rating
Risk Factor
Indicator of
Indicator of
Indicator of
e

e
Low Risk
Medium Risk
High Risk
ned
ned
b
e
e
b
o
o
Low
Medium
Substantial
High
Not Applicabl
T
determi
Low
Medium
Substantial
High
Not Applicabl
T
determi

INTERNAL RISK
Project management
Governance
Steering
Body(ies)
Members lack
X

PM: Project Supervisory
X

structure
Committee
meets
commitment

Council met twice in July
and/or other
periodically but and therefore

and November 2006,
project bodies
guidance/input
the
second Steering Committee
meet
provided to
Committee/bod
met in April 2007 and
periodically
project is
y does not fulfil
provided effective
and provide
inadequate
its TOR
direction/inputs
effective
TM: past problems related
direction/inputs
to establishment and
maintaining co-ordination
with ACOPS ended with the
withdrawal of the latter from
co-operative agreement with
EPA
Internal com-
Fluid and
Communicatio
Lack of
X

PM: Fluid and cordial

X

munications
cordial
n process
adequate
deficient
communication
although
between team

18

Project Manager
Notes
Task Manager
Rating
Rating
Risk Factor
Indicator of
Indicator of
Indicator of
e

e
Low Risk
Medium Risk
High Risk
ned
ned
b
e
e
b
o
o
Low
Medium
Substantial
High
Not Applicabl
T
determi
Low
Medium
Substantial
High
Not Applicabl
T
determi

INTERNAL RISK
Project management
relationships
members
TM: Some communication
between team
leading to
problems still exist with PO-
members are
deterioration of
hosting organization RPOI
good
relationships
that cause delays in
and
contracting and other
resentment
administrative procedures
Work flow
Project
Some changes Major delays or
X

PM: Some changes in

X

progressing
in project work
changes in
project work plan adopted
according to
plan but
work plan or
by the Project Steering
work plan
without major
method of
Committee but without
effect on
implementation
major effect on overall
overall
implementation. A revised
implementation
work plan is carried out
according to plan schedule

19

Project Manager
Notes
Task Manager
Rating
Rating
Risk Factor
Indicator of
Indicator of
Indicator of
e

e
Low Risk
Medium Risk
High Risk
ned
ned
b
e
e
b
o
o
Low
Medium
Substantial
High
Not Applicabl
T
determi
Low
Medium
Substantial
High
Not Applicabl
T
determi

INTERNAL RISK
Project management
TM: With planned in 2008
emphasis on SAP public
consultations, organization
of the Investment Forum
and demand for monitoring
ongoing activities,
deficiencies of PO
management skills may
become obstacles for
meeting deadlines
Co-financing Co-financing
is Is secured but
A substantial

X

PM: Co-financing from USA

X

secured and
payments are
part of pledged
channelled via Partner
payments are
slow and
co-financing
Agency (ACOPS) is ended.
received on
bureaucratic
may not
Agreement between EPA
time
materialize
and UNEP on disbursement
of residuary funds is not
concluded. ACOPS did not
follow Procedures approved
by Steering Committee on
disbursement of donor funds
reporting

20

Project Manager
Notes
Task Manager
Rating
Rating
Risk Factor
Indicator of
Indicator of
Indicator of
e

e
Low Risk
Medium Risk
High Risk
ned
ned
b
e
e
b
o
o
Low
Medium
Substantial
High
Not Applicabl
T
determi
Low
Medium
Substantial
High
Not Applicabl
T
determi

INTERNAL RISK
Project management
TM: With the ACOPS
withdrawal from the
agreement with EPA, there
is a risk that some activities
will not be delivered or
delivered partially. No solid
co-financing reporting from
ACOPS was received till
today. Major part of Russian
co-financing accounts only
as in-kind within the FTOP
World Ocean and
represents mostly transfer of
FTOP results to the project
(baseline scenario)
Budget Activities
are
Minor budget
Reallocation
X

PM: Project is within budget
X

progressing
reallocation
between
and annual expenditures
within planned
needed
budget lines
and forward projections
budget
exceeding 30%
approved by the StC in April
of original
2007, including budget
budget
adjustments and re-
allocations made.

21

Project Manager
Notes
Task Manager
Rating
Rating
Risk Factor
Indicator of
Indicator of
Indicator of
e

e
Low Risk
Medium Risk
High Risk
ned
ned
b
e
e
b
o
o
Low
Medium
Substantial
High
Not Applicabl
T
determi
Low
Medium
Substantial
High
Not Applicabl
T
determi

INTERNAL RISK
Project management
TM: After last major budget
revision, risk remains low
Financial
Funds are
Financial
Serious
X

PM: Funds are correctly
X

management correctly
reporting slow
financial
managed and transparently
managed and
or deficient
reporting
accounted for. Detailed
transparently
problems or
financial reports are
accounted for
indication of
available in Half Yearly
mismanageme
reports.
nt of funds
TM
Reporting Substantive Reports are
Serious
X

PM: Substantive reports of

X

reports are
complete and
concerns about
Project Office are presented
presented in a
accurate but
quality and
in a timely manner and are
timely manner
often delayed
timeliness of
complete and accurate with
and are
or lack critical
project
a good analysis of project
complete and
analysis of
reporting
progress and
accurate with a progress and
implementation issues

22

Project Manager
Notes
Task Manager
Rating
Rating
Risk Factor
Indicator of
Indicator of
Indicator of
e

e
Low Risk
Medium Risk
High Risk
ned
ned
b
e
e
b
o
o
Low
Medium
Substantial
High
Not Applicabl
T
determi
Low
Medium
Substantial
High
Not Applicabl
T
determi

INTERNAL RISK
Project management
Stakeholder
Stakeholder
Consultation
Symptoms of

X

PM: Interagency Working

X

involvement
analysis done
and
conflict with
Group with Russian
and positive
participation
critical
stakeholders was
feedback from
process seems stakeholders or
established but its meetings
critical
strong but
evidence of
are not regular. Stakeholder
stakeholders
misses some
apathy and
analysis is not finalised by
and partners
groups or
lack of interest
consultants of ACOPS.
relevant
from partners
Positive feedback from
partners
or other
critical stakeholders and
stakeholders
partners is achieved during
regional consultations and
round table discussions
TM: Regional consultations
on SAP are initiated but not
completed; federal
consultations have not been
really started due to some
lag in SAP development

24

Project Manager
Notes
Task Manager
Rating
Rating
Risk Factor
Indicator of
Indicator of
Indicator of
e

e
Low Risk
Medium Risk
High Risk
ned
ned
b
e
e
b
o
o
Low
Medium
Substantial
High
Not Applicabl
T
determi
Low
Medium
Substantial
High
Not Applicabl
T
determi

INTERNAL RISK
Project management
External
Evidence that
Communicatio
Project
X

PM: New project website

X

com-
stakeholders,
ns efforts are
existence is
developed in 2006:
munications
practitioners
taking place
not known
http;//npa-arctic.ru. Aimed at
and/or the
but not yet
beyond
consolidating and
general public
evidence that
implementation
strengthening partner
understand
message is
partners or
network, disseminating
project and are successfully
misunderstandi
project outputs, and sharing
regularly
transmitted
ngs concerning
experiences and lessons
updated on
objectives and
learned. Project website is
progress
activities
updated regularly by PO
evident
staff. Detailed information
for all demonstration sites
and project activities easily
accessible online. Regional
round-tables are additional
source of external
communication. Information
on project is regularly
published in regional mass-
media

25

Project Manager
Notes
Task Manager
Rating
Rating
Risk Factor
Indicator of
Indicator of
Indicator of
e

e
Low Risk
Medium Risk
High Risk
ned
ned
b
e
e
b
o
o
Low
Medium
Substantial
High
Not Applicabl
T
determi
Low
Medium
Substantial
High
Not Applicabl
T
determi

INTERNAL RISK
Project management
Science and
Project based
Project testing
Many scientific
X

PM: Leading Russian
X

technological on sound
approaches,
and /or
scientists participated in the
issues
science and
methods or
technological
Project implementation
well
technologies
uncertainties
particularly in the SAP
established
but based on
development and demo
technologies
sound analysis
projects preparations.
of options and
External scientific expertise
risks
are attracted in case of
some scientific uncertainties
(example: CLEANUP demo
project was discussed on
the meeting with
participation of independent
Russian scientists and
experts)
TM
Political
Project
Signs that
Project is
X

PM: Project decisions and
X

influences
decisions and
some project
subject to a
choices are not politically
choices are not decisions are
variety of
driven.

27

Project Manager
Notes
Task Manager
Rating
Rating
Risk Factor
Indicator of
Indicator of
Indicator of
e

e
Low Risk
Medium Risk
High Risk
ned
ned
b
e
b
e
o
o
Low
Medium
Substantial
High
Not Applicabl
T
determi
Low
Medium
Substantial
High
Not Applicabl
T
determi

EXTERNAL RISK
Project context
Political
Political
Political
Very disruptive X

PM: There is no visible

X

stability
context is
context is
and volatile
political instability at the
stable and safe unstable but
moment in the project life
predictable and
time
not a threat to
TM: Upcoming in 2008
project
presidential elections and
implementation
ongoing changes in
government may seriously
jeopardize appropriate level
of SAP endorsement
Environment
Project area is
Project area is
Project area
X

PM: Project is implemented
X

al conditions
not affected by subject to more has very harsh
in Russian Arctic, e.g. under
severe
or less
environmental
severe weather conditions,
weather events predictable
conditions
however no severe weather
or major
disasters or
events were happening in
environmental
changes
areas of planned project
stress factors
activities
TM

29

Project Manager
Notes
Task Manager
Rating
Rating
Risk Factor
Indicator of
Indicator of
Indicator of
e

e
Low Risk
Medium Risk
High Risk
ned
ned
b
e
e
b
o
o
Low
Medium
Substantial
High
Not Applicabl
T
determi
Low
Medium
Substantial
High
Not Applicabl
T
determi

EXTERNAL RISK
Project context
Social,
There are no
Social or
Project is
X

PM: No evident social
X

cultural and
evident social,
economic
highly sensitive
and/or cultural events affect
economic
cultural and/or
issues or
to economic
project activities.
factors
economic
changes pose
fluctuations, to
issues that
challenges to
social issues or
TM
may affect
project
cultural
project
implementation barriers
performance
but mitigation
and results
strategies have
been
developed
Capacity
Sound
Weaknesses
Capacity is
X

PM: Project ExA is a very
X

issues
technical and
exist but have
very low at all
reputable and influential
managerial
been identified
levels and
Russian ministry. Other
capacity of
and actions is
partners
partners involved in the
institutions and taken to build
require
project implementation
other project
the necessary
constant
process are also reputable
partners
capacity
support and
institutions. Scientific and
technical
technical capacity is high for
assistance
all project components
TM:

30

TOP RISK MITIGATION PLAN
Rank importance of risk
Risk Statement potential problem (condition and consequence)
Action to take action planned/taken to handle the risk
Who person(s) responsible for the action
Date date by which action needs to be or was completed

Rank
Risk Statement25
Action to Take
Who
Date

Condition
Consequence

High Co-financing

Additional
No additional funds are
To ask ACOPS to prepare detailed
funds planned in the
attracted for Project
report on activity associated with
project document to be
implementation. No clear attracting new bi-lateral and multi-
June 2007
raised by ACOPS will not picture of donor co-
lateral donors as well as on
PO with assistance of IA

be realized. There is no
financing. Delays in EPA
disbursement of funds received

clear understanding of
co-financing realization
from donors

ACOPS actual
and the risk of

expenditures and,
incompletion for pilot
Issue of co-financing from regions

therefore, existing co-
projects.
for pilot projects should be

Dec 2008
financing situation.
discussed.

ACOPS does not follow
To sign an agreement between
PO with assistance of

procedure on donor
EPA and UNEP on disbursement
ExA and IA

funds disbursement. Due
of residuary donor funds

to ACOPS withdrawal

from the agreement with
EPA and UNEP

EPA, new agreement btw
Oct 2007
EPA and UNEP is under
development.
Substantial Stakeholder analysis and Possibility to exclude
Increase of stakeholder awareness Project Office
Nov-Dec 2007
public involvement plan
several stakeholders
during regional and federal

are not completed (ready from the project and the
consultations.

for 50%)
lack of SAP ownership
Consider possibility of hiring
Project Office
Oct-Nov 2007
both, at the federal and
specific NGOs in representative

regional levels
regions

Investment Forum (Partnership
Project Office, Executing
June 2008

25 Only for Substantial to High risk.

32

Rank
Risk Statement25
Action to Take
Who
Date

Condition
Consequence

conference)
Agency, Implementing

Agency

To hold meetings of Russian
Project Office, Executing
Twice a year
Interagency Working Group on
Agency,
regular basis
Substantial Presidential elections in
These external political
Closely monitor situation
MEDT, PO
March 2008 and possible processes may influence
development and be ready for

changes in the Russian
approval and
preventive actions
Feb-Mar 2008

government
endorsement of the SAP

at federal level

Project overall risk rating (Low, Medium, Substantial or High):

FY2006 rating FY2007 rating
Comments/narrative justifying the rating for FY07 and any changes (positive or negative) in the rating
since the previous reporting period
N/A
M
Since the project experienced substantial delay in 2005-2006, current difficulties are partially explained by slow
progress in the previous period. Key challenge for PO and ExA is to organize inclusive public participation
process during SAP consultations at the federal and regional levels and include private business into
discussion. Concurrent tasks of organizing this process and supervising ongoing activities will challenge PO
management capacities. Situation may worsen due to unstable [uncertain?] political situation during
presidential elections and temporary vacuum in the administrative system coinciding with the SAP endorsement
process.

If a risk mitigation plan had been presented for a previous period please report on progress or results
of its implementation

33

4. RATING MONITORING AND EVALUATION

Based on the answers provided to the questions in 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 below, the UNEP Task Manager will provide ratings for the following aspects of
project monitoring and evaluation:

(i) Overall quality of the Monitoring &Evaluation plan
(ii) Performance in the implementation of the M&E plan

4.1. Does the project M&E plan contain the following:
Baseline information for each outcome-level indicator

Yes
No

SMART indicators to track
project
outcomes
Yes

No

A clear distribution of responsibilities for monitoring project progress. Yes
No

4.2. Has the project budgeted for the following M&E activities:

Mid-term
review/evaluation
Yes

No

Terminal
evaluation
Yes

No

Any costs associated with collecting and analysing indicators'
related information

Yes

No

Please rate the quality of the project M&E plan (use HS, S, MS, MU, U, HU): MS

4.3 Has the project:
Utilized the indicators identified in the M&E plan to track progress
in meeting the project objectives;

Yes
No

Fulfilled the specified reporting requirements (financial, including
on co-financing and auditing, and substantive reports)

Yes
No

Completed any scheduled MTR or MTE before or at project
implementation
mid-point;
Yes
No

Applied adaptive management in response to M&E activities
Yes
No

Implemented any existing risk mitigation plan (see previous section) Yes
No

Please rate the performance in implementing the M&E plan (use HS, S, MS, MU, U, HU): S

34

4.4. Please describe activities for monitoring and evaluation carried out during the reporting period26
Two Supervisory Council and Steering Committee meetings were held with the purpose of evaluating PO activities and Project implementation
progress and also to solve any uncertainties and problems. Detailed reports for all meetings with all associated documentation distributed among
all interested parties and uploaded on the Project website: http://npa-arctic.ru.
The PO scrutinised all technical reports prepared by the project consultants. After that, most of the consultant technical reports were reviewed by
ExA (through its Project advisor) and IA (through its representatives to the UNEP Moscow Office). From the other hand, all documentations issued
by PO were also under thorough quality control by both ExA and IA. These include Half yearly and Quarterly reports, all financial documents.
Packages of necessary documents for all project consultants' tenders as well as for lead cooperating organisations for 3 demo projects tenders
have been prepared by PO in close cooperation with both ExA and IA. ExA and IA representatives participated in most of TT SAP and WG
meetings and workshops hold by PO. All draft versions of the SAP document and its separate chapters and sections were closely reviewed also
by the representatives of both agencies. With the purpose of quality control improving ExA, IA and PO were held several meetings.
In June 2007, a joint PO, ExA and IA teleconference on project risk mitigation was held that resulted in common understanding of project implementation
problems and development of risk mitigation plan with assigned responsibilities. This corrective action has a positive impact on project performance at different
levels.

4.5. Provide information on the quality of baseline information and any effects (positive or negative) on the selection of indicators and the design of other
project monitoring activities
Quality of baseline information was quite satisfactory and positively effected on the selection of indicators and the design of other project
monitoring activities

4.6. Provide comments on the usefulness and relevance of selected indicators and experiences in the application of the same.
The indicators are useful and relevant to the Project purposes

4.7. Describe any challenges in obtaining data relevant to the selected indicators; has the project experienced problems to cover costs associated with the
tracking of indicators?
Project hasn't experienced any challenges in obtaining data relevant to the selected indicators

4.8. Please provide any other experiences or lessons relevant to the design and implementation of project monitoring and evaluation plans.
.

26 Do not include routine project reporting. Examples of M&E activities include stakeholder surveys, field surveys, steering committee meetings to assess project progress,
peer review of documentation to ensure quality, etc.

35

5. PROJECT
IMPLEMENTATION EXPERIENCES AND LESSONS

5.1. Please summarize any experiences and/or lessons related to project design and implementation. Please select a minimum of two areas from the list
below:

Conditions necessary to achieve global environmental benefits such as (i) institutional, social and financial sustainability; (ii) country ownership; and
(iii) stakeholder involvement, including gender issues.
Institutional
arrangements,
including project governance;
Engagement of the private sector;
Capacity
building;
Scientific and technological issues;
Interpretation and application of GEF guidelines;
Factors that improve likelihood of outcome sustainability;
Factors that encourage replication, including outreach and communications strategies;
Financial management and co-financing.

The success of the project depends on level of involvement of top-level stakeholders from governmental institutions at federal and regional level, the
implementation of the activities at the regional level as well as on proper channelling contributions from donors and the Russian Federation for the
project needs. Bearing this in mind, during the reporting period Project Office continued to pay special attention to defining clear procedures of project
management mechanisms and administrative procedures. Special emphasis was also given to establish good working relations with the Arctic
regions of the Russian Federation.
The success achieved to date in the implementation of the project is directly related to sustained political commitment at federal and regional levels,
ensuring the adequate level of the project ownership, to the broad-based public support, including support of indigenous communities it has received
as well as to closer cooperation with existing and planned programmes and projects in Arctic region. The maintenance of this support required
effective dissemination of accurate information about the objectives, achievements and challenges of the project. The broad support is critical for
mobilization of domestic resources and obtaining commitments from municipalities, local NGOs and companies of all forms of ownership. However it
should be noted that the dissemination of information on project implementation requires further improvement.
Project received full support and technical backstopping by the Executing Agency (Russian Ministry of Economic Development and Trade) that assures
that project recommendations will be taken at the highest level possible and future interventions will be sustainable.

The following advantages can be formulated:
Sustain political commitment at federal and regional level ensuring the adequate level of project ownership;
Broad public involvement including organization of indigenous people of North;
Formal and informal communication mechanisms for the exchange of information, which have been developed;
Institutional procedures and structures have been established for long-term dialogue and for the continuous participation of multiple-stakeholders.

36

Creation of the Project website what helps in the Project publicity: http://npa-arctic.ru/. The website should become a forum on Arctic environmental
issues after its renewal.
The following disadvantages or weaknesses can be noted:
Members of interagency working group (IAWG) in Arctic regions as a rule are heads of corresponding environmental agencies or top-level
representatives of regional administrations with a rather tight schedule and a lot of duties which caused delays in responses from Arctic regions.
Contact persons for day-to day communication can be proposed. Representatives of industrial companies in this group are as a rule the persons who
are responsible for environmental issues in their companies and they respond only after getting permission of top managers. This also causes delays
in communication. IAWG was convened only once since the Project commencing,
Relatively small involvement at this stage of industrial companies of different ownership in the process. ExA invited several large companies to
participate in the Project implementation and to hold negotiations on this issue. Positive responses were received. Representatives of three
companies were included in Interagency working group. However negotiations on co-financing have not been hold yet. They should be arranged by
Project Office together with ExA. Representatives of companies should be invited to participate in PINS working group ASAP.
Insufficient capacities of the Project Office staff. Project Office organizes and coordinates all the activities, prepares all ToRs for task teams, working
groups, individual consultants, etc. In addition all these documents should be prepared in English and Russian, which require additional resources
and time. More active involvement of working groups' co-ordinators in preparation of ToRs for consultants and meetings of working groups is needed.

Institutional arrangements, including project governance

Closer cooperation amongst existing and planned programmes that address the impact of various sources and activities on the Arctic marine and
coastal environments is needed. Information on the Project was presented at the Arctic Council ministerial meeting as well as to Senior Arctic Officials
and PAME Working Group. Russian NPA-Arctic activity is noted in Salekhard Declaration, SAOs' Report to Ministers, Arctic Marine Strategic Plan
and work plan of PAME for 2006-2008. The work of several other Arctic Council Working Groups, first of all ACAP, is very pertinent to the NPA-Arctic
and Project Office should consider how these sources of expertise could be best incorporated. Establish more closer co-operation with existing
initiatives is still needed.
The compatibility of NPA-Arctic that corresponds to related governmental obligations under the Arctic Council, the GPA, different conventions and
other pertinent intergovernmental agreements as well as reflection of the national practices needs to be considered more thoroughly by Project Office,
and SAP and PINS WGs. Format of the final SAP document as well as the endorsement procedure should accommodate both, national and
international practices, NPA-Arctic GEF project decided to develop SAP document incorporating elements of the Federal Targeted Programme
(regional interventions matrix with cost estimates and financial sources) keeping at the same time internationally recognized elements of such
documents (e.g., causal chain analysis). Furthermore, there is a chance that some of the project outputs will be incorporated into newly developed
section "Environmental Security" of sub-program "Arctic" of the Federal Targeted Program "World Ocean". This will ensure mainstreaming of SAP
activities into one of the key state development and financial mechanisms Federal Targeted Program.
Information on the project should be further disseminated at the widest possible levels through the project web-site as well as mass-media, including
regional sources. Formal and informal communication mechanisms for the exchange of information should be further developed. Scheduled meetings
to the Arctic regions will provide further impetus to this process.

37

Financial management and co-financing
Further work is needed for involvement of key stakeholders from Arctic regions and industrial companies to increase their commitments, obtaining
necessary information on regional and private co-financing and their involvement in preparation of investment projects.
There is no clear understanding with donors' funding for the whole project, despite of this issue was raised several times for partner agency (ACOPS)
at the meeting of different level. Partner agency (ACOPS) did not perform fund-raising activities and this work is to be performed by the Project Office
in co-operation with both Implementing and Executing Agencies Project Office.
Donor money was channeled via ACOPS and no reports of disbursement of donor money in acceptable form were prepared by ACOPS.
No appropriate reports have been prepared by ACOPS including those funds spent by ACOPS before actual implementation of the Project
ACOPS hired consulting company "Tethys Consultants" to represent ACOPS and this consulting company channeled major money flows to its
account. Practically none of activities to be implemented by donor funds was implemented.

38