UNEP GEF PIR FY 08
(1 July 2007 to 30 June 2008)

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 of the Russian Federation (MED)

Project partner
NEFCO
Agency:

Geographical Scope: The Russian Federation, Russian Arctic

Participating
Russian Federation
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 2009
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
10/2009
(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
31/08/2008
Committee meeting:
Revision*:
Disbursement as of
$2,009,216
Date of financial
N/A
30 June 2008*:
closure*:

Actual expenditures

Date of
2009
reported as of 30
$1721,928
Completion3*:
June 20084:
Total co-financing

Actual expenditures

realized as of 30
$5,554,923
entered in IMIS as of
$1414,466
June 20085:
30 June 2008*:

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.

1

Leveraged
N/A

financing:6

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 FY078
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. Draft Strategic Action Plan (SAP) document was
completed and submitted to EA and IA. 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. The list of hot spots in the Russian Arctic have been
updated and prioritized on a basis if new information. A short list of
companies expressed interest in pre-investment studies (PINS)
implementation was prepared.
Demonstration projects component. All three mentioned in Project
Document (PD) demo projects are in final stage of implementation.
Tender documents for three new pilot projects approved by the 2nd StC
meeting were also prepared and a tender for one of the new pilot
projects: "Cleaning of hazardous substances from the bottom sediments
of the Kola Fjord. Phase 1. Monitoring of hazardous substances in the
bottom sediments of the Kola Fjord" (KOLABAY-1) was held.

Project status FY089
The main achievements of the Project implementation in 2008 are approval
of the finalized SAP document by the 2nd meeting of an Inter-Agency work
group (IAWG), and distribution of the document for comments and co-
ordinations among Russian federal and regional authorities,

6 See above note on co-financing and Glossary (Annex 1)
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

nongovernmental organizations (NGO) and main industrial companies
operating in the Arctic. Positive responses were received from most of
respondents. Three tenders for preparation of regional PINS were held and
the selection process was completed. Three lead cooperating organizations
(LCO) for PINS implementation in western, central and eastern Russian
Arctic regions were selected and contracts for all three winners have been
prepared. During the reported period three contracts for small pilot projects
were also prepared and work on them was started. Pilot project "KOLABAY-
1 has been successfully completed. Three main demo projects (BASES,
CLEANUP and COMAN), which started last year, are entering into the final
stage of their implementation.

Planned contribution For the 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 SAP for the protection of the Arctic marine
environment from land-based activities by the Russian Government.
SAP is to be supported by the three demonstration projects aimed at
marine oil pollution reduction through the use of brown algae
(CLEANUP), decontamination of military bases (BASES), and co-
management of natural resources by Russian indigenous peoples and
other stakeholders (COMAN), 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 systemmatic 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)

The main achievements of the Project implementation for the reported period were the second draft
of the SAP document finalization, its approval by the 2nd meeting of the IAWG, and distribution the
document among Russian federal and regional authorities, NGO and main industrial companies
making business in Russian Arctic for comments and co-ordinations. Positive responses were

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

received from most of respondents. Three tenders for preparation of regional PINS were held and
the selection process was completed. Three LCO for PINS implementation in western, central and
eastern Russian Arctic regions were selected and contracts for all three winners have been
prepared. During the reported period three contracts for small pilot projects were also prepared.
The pilot project KOLABAY has been successfully implemented. At the moment PO supervises
three main demo projects (BASES, CLEANUP and COMAN), which are in the final stage of their
implementation.
The following benchmarks are envisaged for the Phase I of the Project in the Project Document: 1.
Successful establishment of Project implementation structure, including Project Office, Project
Steering Committee, and Project Supervisory Council; 2. Strategic Action Programme fully
developed and endorsed by relevant stakeholders; 3. Working document revised at the first
meeting of each of sub-group for each pre-investment study; 4. Selected lead implementing
organization and members of each of the three working groups for the development of the
Environmental Protection System; 5. Fully designed demonstration activities; and 6. Mid-term
review of the project indicating satisfactory implementation of the Project in the phase I.
The benchmarks #1 and #5 are successfully achieved. As for the benchmark #5 the demonstration
projects are actually ahead of schedule all demonstration activities mentioned in the original PD
are fully designed and their implementation was started in 2007. In addition, several new demo and
pilot projects approved by the 2nd meeting of the Project StC were fully designed; three of them
started already and one of these projects was finished. The SAP document (benchmark # 2) is sent
for official comments to federal and local authorities and also to the major industrial companies
basing in Russian Arctic and NGO. Their comments will be considered in the SAP finial revision in
September-October 2008. Tender documentation for PINS (benchmark #3) is prepared and tenders
for selection of cooperating implementing organizations for 3 Arctic regions (western, central and
eastern parts of Russian Arctic) where the PINS should be undertaking have been finalised.
Contracts with all three tender winners are in the process of finalisation. Thus, the aim of the
benchmark #3 is also exceeded. Selection of a lead implementing organization for the development
of the Environmental Protection System (EPS) (benchmark #4) is planned for September this year.
Project Office in cooperation with EA is now in the process of consultants' selection for the EPS
project component.

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 StC 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 developed by MED.
The SAP is completed and submitted for approval to federal and local authorities, major businesses
and NGOs. PINS and EPS components' implementation are both ready to start in September.

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.

Progress towards achieving the project objective (s) The following logframe was developed for the whole project for which the phase I is
under implementation. The project started some selected activities that had been scheduled for phase II. The The modified project logframe is
under development to be agreed upon at the next steering committee meeting.

Project objective
Description of
Baseline level15
Mid-term target16
End-of-project Level at 30 June 2008
Progress
and Outcomes
indicator14
target
rating 17
Objective18
1. Adoption of the
The National
SAP fully
Adoption of the
90 %. The third draft of SAP
S
Improved
SAP for the
Action Plan (NAP)
developed and
SAP for the
is finalised and an English
management of the Protection of the
for the Protection
endorsed by
Russian Arctic
translation is finished. It will
Arctic environment
Arctic Marine
of the Arctic Marine relevant
as a component be submitted to the third StC
in the Russian
Environment from
Environment has
stakeholders
of the FTOP
meeting in September 2008"
Federation and
Land-based
been developed
`World Ocean' by
clear appreciation
Activities by
and agreed upon.
the Russian
of priorities.
relevant executive
Federation

authorities of the

Russian Federation

by the end of
Phase I.

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

5

Project objective
Description of
Baseline level15
Mid-term target16
End-of-project Level at 30 June 2008
Progress
and Outcomes
indicator14
target
rating 17
Environmentally
2. The reformed
There is an existing Selected lead
The work related The survey of the regulatory
MS
sustainable
regulatory
regulatory
implementing
to this indicator
framework at the local,
(this
development of
framework is
framework, which
organization and
was scheduled
provincial and federal levels
rating
natural resources
implemented by
does not take into
members of each
for phase II, and has been performed and
is
in the Russian
local, provincial,
consideration the
of the three
the only limited
environmentally sustainable
against
Arctic.
federal
programmatic
working groups for
activities
development concerns are
the

administrations.
requirements to be
the development of (organisation of incorporated in the SAP.
overall

outlined in the SAP the EPS
the working
Tender documents for WG
project

and NAP.
group) was
consultants' selection were
logfram

expected for
prepared. Tenders are
e and

phase I.
planned for July 2008. Major
not

work on EPS is planned from against

September 2008 to be
the

finalised in December 2008
phase I
Improved regional
bench
co-ordination of the
mark)
management of the Contributions by
The initiated work
The Russian

Progress reports on the
S
Russian Arctic
the Russian
of this Project is
representative at
Project implementation are
environment and;
Federation to the
recognized by the
the AC provides
delivered to the AC and AC
Russia meets its
AEPS of the Arctic
Arctic Council and
information on the
WGs.
obligations under
Council (AC).
GPA.
SAP and the
NPA-Arctic Project is
the AEPS and its
Acknowledgement
minutes of the AC
mentioned in all minutes of
commitments to
by the Arctic
meetings can
the AC as well as in
objectives of the
Council of the SAP
indicates the
Salekhard Declaration of the
GPA.
as a component of
contribution of the
AC.
the Regional
SAP to the Arctic
Presentation on NPA-Arctic
Programme of
Council activities
project progress was given at
Action for the
2nd IGR of GPA
Arctic.

6

Project objective
Description of
Baseline level15
Mid-term target16
End-of-project Level at 30 June 2008
Progress
and Outcomes
indicator14
target
rating 17
Outcome 1:
By the end of
There is no SAP
Adoption of the
Strategic Action 90%. The third draft of SAP is
S
Finalisation and
Phase I, review
formulation at the
SAP by relevant
Programme fully finalised and translated in
endorsement of the and publication* of
onset of the
authorities
developed and
English. It will be submitted to
Strategic Action
the SAP for the
project.
endorsed by
the third StC meeting in
Programme for the
Russian Arctic
relevant
September 2008. SAP was
Russian Arctic
stakeholders
used as a basis for
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

20%. Tender documents
MS
Improved
Phase I, selection
legal, regulatory
implementing
including ToRs for WG
legislation,
of lead
and administrative
organization and
consultants' selection were
administrative
organisations and
framework, which
members of each
prepared. Tenders are
procedures and
members of the
does not take into
of the three
planned for July-August 2008.
institutional
working groups
consideration the
working groups for
Major work on EPS is
capacity for the
selected and
programmatic
the development of
planned from September
environmental
confirmed.
requirements to be
the Environmental
2008 to be finalised in June
protection of the
outlined in the
Protection System
2009
Arctic environment.
SAP.

7

Project objective
Description of
Baseline level15
Mid-term target16
End-of-project Level at 30 June 2008
Progress
and Outcomes
indicator14
target
rating 17
Outcome 3:
By the end of Phase The project PDF-B; Finalisation of the
Conducted pre-
40%.Three tenders for
MS
Conditions for
I, investments are
NEFCO and
pre-investment
investment
preparation of regional PINS

further
prepared based on Russian
studies
studies
were held and the selection

interventions and
at least 8-10 pre-
authorities,

process was completed.

investments to
investment studies
respectively issued

Three LCO for PINS

remediate or
and demonstration
a list of hot spots.

implementation in western,

prevent the
projects are fully
Limited

central and eastern parts of

degradation of the
developed and
demonstrative

Russian Arctic were selected

Arctic Environment
ready for
activities have

and contracts for all three

are realised.
implementation.
been developed or

tender winners have been

implemented.

prepared.

Demonstration
Implemented
100%+. The demo projects
S
projects are in the
demonstration
component is actually ahead
process of practical projects
of schedule all
implementation
demonstration activities
mentioned in the original
Project Document are fully
designed and their
implementation was started in
2007. In addition, several new
demo and pilot projects
approved by the 2nd meeting
of Project StC were fully
designed: three of them
started already and one of
these projects was finished.

8

Project objective
Description of
Baseline level15
Mid-term target16
End-of-project Level at 30 June 2008
Progress
and Outcomes
indicator14
target
rating 17
Outcome 4:
All project
There was no
Successful
Successful
100%. All project
HS
Successful
implementation
project structure
establishment of
establishment of implementation units are
establishment of
units are functional before.
Project
Project
established
the project
and deliver
implementation
implementation
implementation
expected outcomes
structure, including structure,
structure, incl.
on time.
Project Office,
including PO,
Project Office,
Project Steering
Project StC,
Project Steering
Committee,
Project SC, and
Committee, Project
Project Supervisory Russian IAWG
Supervisory
Council, and
Council (Phase I
Russian IAWG.
benchmark)

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

FY2007 rating FY2008 rating
Comments/narrative justifying the FY08 rating and explaining reasons for change (positive or negative)
since previous reporting period
MS S
In comparison with 2006-2007 period, considerable progress has been made towards achieving project's direct
objective - developing and establishing a sustainable framework, to reduce environmental degradation of the
Russian Arctic from land-based activities on a system basis. Third draft of SAP is at the final stage of its
approval; major demo and several pilot projects are at a final stage of their implementation (one of the pilot
projects has been finalized already). PINS and EPS components are in process of their implementation. 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.

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

9

3.2
Project implementation progress
The following table is prepared against the phase I expected outputs and benchmarks, which were agreed upon at the onset of the project
implementation. Therefore these would not include the results of the activities that were originally expected for phase II, but have got
implementation started during phase I.
Outputs 19
Expected
Implementation
Comments if variance21.
Progress
completion
status as of 30
Describe any problems in
rating22
date 20
June 2008 (%)
delivering outputs
Output 1: Preparation and adoption of a
September
90

S
comprehensive Strategic Action Programme for the
2008
Russian Arctic
Activity 1: Development of financial mechanisms of the September
100 Completed
HS
SAP implementation
2007
Activity 2: Preparation of scoping report on regional
June 2008
100
Completed. Regional sub-
S
SAP sub-programs with recommendations for SAP
programmes are included in
SAP
Activity 3: Strategic environmental assessment on the
April 2007
100
Completed.
S
SAP
Activity 4: Diagnostic analysis of environmental
October-
95
Analysis is completed; Work on
S
situation in Arctic region
November
the publication summarizing
2008
results of the analysis planned to
be completed to November
2008. The work was delayed
due to other commitments of the
project office.
Activity 5: Causal chain analysis
November
100 Completed
S
2007
Activity 6: Stakeholder analysis and development of
December
60
Initially planned to be executed
MU
public involvement. Information to stakeholders and
2008
by ACOPS (only 2 regional
communication strategy to public on project results
reports were completed). PO
has a lead now
Activity 7: Preparation of the first draft of the SAP
August 2007
100
Completed
HS
Activity 8: Preparation of the second draft of the SAP.
Dec. 2007
100 Completed
S

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

10

Outputs 19
Expected
Implementation
Comments if variance21.
Progress
completion
status as of 30
Describe any problems in
rating22
date 20
June 2008 (%)
delivering outputs
Activity 9: Review of the second draft of the SAP by
June 2008
100
Completed
S
federal and regional executive authorities.
Activity 10: Preparation of the third draft of the SAP
Sept. 2008
30
Planned for September 2008
S
Output 2: Completion of a set of Pre-investment
June 2008

S
studies (PINS)
MS (for the
pre-
investment
stueis that
need to be
carried
out)
Activity 11: Update and review of the existing hot spots July 2007
100
Completed
S
identified at PDF-B stage
Activity 12: Preparation of Guidelines on conduction of August 2007
100
Completed
S
pre-investment studies
Activity 13: Development of criteria for selection of hot
August 2007
100
Completed
S
spots for which PINS will be prepared
Activity 14: Hot spots screening and selection.
October 2007
100
Completed
S
Preparation of the list of potential pre-investment
studies.
Activity 15: Preparation of tenders dossiers and ToRs
January 2008
100
Completed
S
for three lead cooperating organisations.
Activity 16: Selection of three LCO for the conduction
September
90
All three tenders completed with
S
of PINS. Concluding the contracts with bid-winners
2008
selection of three LCO and all
three contracts are ready to be
signed. Delay is conditioned by
changing of the NPAF
leadership and problems with
obtaining the projects status as
grants (to be issued by
governmental commission in
September 2008)
Output 3: Environmental Protection System
June 2008

S
improvements (EPS)

11

Outputs 19
Expected
Implementation
Comments if variance21.
Progress
completion
status as of 30
Describe any problems in
rating22
date 20
June 2008 (%)
delivering outputs
Activity 17: Proposals for and selection of the Co-
August 2008
30
ToR for TT and individual
S
ordinator of the Task Team on Implementation of the

consultants have been prepared.
SAP (TT EP).
Call for consultant services has
been announced
Activity 18: Proposals for and selection of TT members.
August 2008
30
Planned for September 2008
S
Output 4: Rehabilitation of the Environment by Use
November

of Brown Algae (Demonstration Project CLEANUP)
2007
Activity 19: Preparation of ToR and conduction of the
August 2007
100
Completed
S
tender and preparation of the contract with the lead
cooperating organisation for the CLEANUP demo
project. Signing of contract
Activity 20: Preparation and review of Progress Report October 2008
70
The project implementation
MS
to be considered at the Second Meeting of the WG
started in September 2007 and
entered now its final stage -- to
be completed in October 2008
Output 5: Environmental Remediation of Two

Decommissioned Military Bases (Demonstration
Project BASES)
Activity 21: Review of the working document at the
July 2007
100
Completed
S
First Meeting of the WG BASES, Moscow
Activity 22: Preparation of ToR and conduction of the
August 2007
100
Completed
S
tender and preparation of the contract with the lead
cooperating organisation for the BASES demo project.
Signing of contract
Activity 23: Preparation and Review of Progress
December
80
The project implementation
MS
Report to be considered at the Second Meeting of the
2008
started in September 2007 and
WG BASES
entered now its final stage -- to
be completed in December 2008
Output 6:
Indigenous Environmental Co-

management
(Demonstration Project COMAN)
Activity 24: Preparation of ToR and conduct of the October 2007
100
Completed
S
tender and preparation of the contract with the lead

12

Outputs 19
Expected
Implementation
Comments if variance21.
Progress
completion
status as of 30
Describe any problems in
rating22
date 20
June 2008 (%)
delivering outputs
cooperating organisation for COMAN demo project.
Signing of contract
Activity 25: Preparation and Review of Progress November
80%
The project implementation
S
Report to be considered at the Second Meeting of the 2008
started in September 2007 and
WG COMAN
entered now its final stage -- to
be completed in November 2008
Output 6: New Pilot projects

Activity 25: Preparation of project documentation for 1-2 quarters of
100 Completed
MS
pilot projects
2008
Activity 26: Contracting companies on selected pilot 3-4 quarters of
50
Planned for 4th quarter of 2008
MS
projects (preparation of tenders where applicable)
2008
Activity 27: Final evaluation of conducted pilot projects 3-4 quarters of
50
One of the projects is
MS
and their replicability potential
2008
successfully finalised; two more
pilot projects was started
already. Several other approved
by StC pilot projects are in stage
of preparation.

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

FY2007 rating FY2008 rating
Comments/narrative justifying the rating for FY08 and any changes (positive or negative) in the rating
since the previous reporting period
MS
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. However, the project
still suffers from the delay in the tendering and other administrative processes, showing the low level of
disbursement. The second draft of SAP is ready, awaiting for the final approval by the government. 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. PINS
component has been started practically (all three LCOs are selected and contracts are ready to be signed).

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)

13

Initial work on EPS component has started (tenders for consultants selection were held). The demonstration
projects component are actually ahead of schedule.

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?
Accelerated implementation of the additional
Project Office
By September 2008, the programme of work for
demonstration projects, as per the scheduled
these new demo projects are developed and
agreed upon by the Ministry, Project Office and
agreed upon at the steering committee.
UNEP in June 2008
Adoption of the SAP by the Government
Ministry of Economic Development
By September 2008, the comments provided by
the government agencies are successfully
incorporated and the government declared the
SAP adoption.
Increase public awareness of the Arctic project PO, sub-contractors
Continuously
through publication of DA results, public
awareness actions in regions
Organize Investment Forum/Partnership
PO, MED, UNEP, NEFCO and other project
2009
Conference
partners
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

24 UNEP Fund Management Officer should also be consulted as appropriate.

14

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: Despite the initial
of others
problems
difficulties, the management
structure started working.
The risk may involve the re-
structuring of the National
Pollution Abatement
Facility,which is providing
administrative service to the
project.
Governance
Steering
Body(ies)
Members lack
X

PM: Fifth meeting of the
x

structure
Committee
meets
commitment
Project SC was held in
and/or other
periodically but and therefore
March 2008 and joint
project bodies
guidance/input
the
meeting of EA. IA and PO
meet
provided to
Committee/bod
was held in MED in June
periodically
project is
y does not fulfil
2008 and provided effective
and provide
inadequate
its TOR
direction/inputs
effective
TM:
direction/inputs

15

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
Co-financing Co-financing
is Is secured but
A substantial

X

PM: Co-financing

x

secured and
payments are
part of pledged
channelled via Partner
payments are
slow and
co-financing
Agency (ACOPS) is not
received on
bureaucratic
may not
secured because of ACOPS
time
materialize
does not follow Procedures
approved by Steering
Committee on disbursement
of donor fund and reporting
TM: Despite the effort of the
Russian Government to
allocate co-fiacning, there is
a need to make effort in
securing more co-fiancing
from donors.
Budget Activities
are
Minor budget
Reallocation
X

PM: Project is within budget.

x

progressing
reallocation
between
within planned
needed
budget lines
TM: The disbursement rate
budget
exceeding 30%
is not at the optimal level
of original
and there is a need to
budget
establish a more realistic
budget plan for the
remainder of the project
duration.

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
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 by
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
good analysis
implementation
TM:
of project
issues
progress and
implementation
issues

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
External
Evidence that
Communicatio
Project
X

PM: New project website

x

com-
stakeholders,
ns efforts are
existence is
developed in 2006 and
munications
practitioners
taking place
not known
reworked in 2008:
and/or the
but not yet
beyond
http;//npa-arctic.ru. Aimed at
general public
evidence that
implementation
consolidating and
understand
message is
partners or
strengthening partner
project and are successfully
misunderstandi
network, disseminating
regularly
transmitted
ngs concerning
project outputs, and sharing
updated on
objectives and
experiences and lessons
progress
activities
learned. Project website is
evident
updated regularly by PO
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

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: The project is
encouraged to develop
more materials and activities
to disseminate the results of
the project.
Short
Project is
Project is
Longer term
X

PM: Project is meeting
x

term/long
meeting short
interested in
issues are
short-term needs and
term balance term needs and the short term
deliberately
results with a long-term
results within a with little
ignored or
perspective
long term
understanding
neglected
TM
perspective,
of or interest in
particularly
the long term
sustainability
and replicability
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 well methods or
technological
Project implementation
established
technologies
uncertainties
particularly in the SAP
technologies
but based on
development and demo
sound analysis
projects preparations.
of options and
External scientific expertise
risks
is attracted in case of some
scientific uncertainties.

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
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 on the project life
predictable and
time
not a threat to
TM: Due to the change in
project
the government system,
implementation
actions and decisions by
key ministries may be
postponed.
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 so far.
Nevertheless, in theory,
harsh Arctic climate
conditions can effect on field
implementation of some
demo/pilot projects.
TM

23

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 The project has been
may affect
project
cultural
desgined and implemented
project
implementation barriers
taking into full consideration
performance
but mitigation
the socio-economic
and results
strategies have
development of indigenous
been
peoples in the Russian
developed
North.
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:
Others ,

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

EXTERNAL RISK
Project context
please
specify

If there is a significant (over 50% of risk factors) discrepancy between Project Manager and Task Manager rating, an explanation by the Task
Manager should be provided below

5 out of 17 ratings differ (<50%).

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

Substantial Stakeholder analysis and Possibility to exclude
Increase of stakeholder awareness Project Office
Nov-Dec 2008
public involvement plan
several stakeholders
during regional and federal

25 Only for Substantial to High risk.

25

Rank
Risk Statement25
Action to Take
Who
Date

Condition
Consequence

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

for 60%)
lack of SAP ownership
Consider possibility of hiring
Project Office
Oct-Nov 2008
both, at the federal and
specific NGOs in representative

regional levels
regions

Investment Forum (Partnership
Project Office, Executing
2009
conference)
Agency, Implementing

Agency

Substantial Co-financing Additional No additional funds are
Issue of co-financing from regions
PO in cooperation with EA
Sep-Oct 2008
funds planned in the
attracted for Project
for pilot projects should be

project document to be
implementation. No clear discussed. Increase of stakeholder

raised by ACOPS will not picture of donor co-
awareness during regional

be realized. There is no
financing. Delays in EPA
consultations.

clear understanding of
co-financing

ACOPS actual
implementation and the
Investment Forum (Partnership
PO in cooperation with EA
2009
expenditures and,
risk of incompletion for
conference)

therefore, existing co-
some of pilot projects.

financing situation. Due
To speed-up the process of signing EA and IA
September 2009
to ACOPS withdrawal
an agreement between EPA and
from the agreement with
UNEP on disbursement of
EPA, new agreement btw
residuary donor funds
EPA and UNEP is under

development. Delay with

entering EPA/UNEP
entering into force

Substantial Given the low
There is a risk of timely
To firmly establish a revised
The steering Committee
September 2008-
disbursement rate, the
disbursement of funds to
budget plan for the remainder of

09-08
budget expenditures may carry out, inter alia, the
the project duration

not be completed within
additional demonstration

the project duration.
projects.
Accelerate the preparation of
PO

additional demo projects
September 2008
Substantial The government re-
Decisions and comments Project office and UNEP Moscow
PO and UNEP Moscow

structuring may change
on key documents may
Office will watch over the key
Office
the mandate and staff of
not be made in time.
changes that may take place in the
the key ministries
government systems.

26

Rank
Risk Statement25
Action to Take
Who
Date

Condition
Consequence

involved in the project.

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

FY2007 rating FY2008 rating
Comments/narrative justifying the rating for FY08 and any changes (positive or negative) in the rating
since the previous reporting period
M M
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 extent 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. While this commitments
continues, the changes in the government system may post risk to the project implementation in the coming
future. The maintenance of this support requires 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. A great deal of efforts has been undertaken in this direction by PO, EA and IA however it should be
noted that the dissemination of information on project implementation requires further improvement.
Project has being received full support and technical backstopping by the Executing Agency (Russian Ministry
of Economic Development) that assures that project recommendations will be taken at the highest level
possible and future interventions will be sustainable. Provisions of draft SAP are taking into account in FTOP
"The World Ocean" for 2008-2012 and in other documents related to the Russian Arctic.

Previous risk mitigation plan highlighted 3 risk statements which were ranked as "High" re Co-financing, and
"Substantial" re Stakeholder analysis and public involvement plan and re Presidential elections in Russian
Federation:
The situation with Stakeholder analysis and public involvement plan was improved in some respect but
still can be ranked as "Substantial". This analysis initially planned to be executed by ACOPS but
ACOPS quitted the Project and PO has a lead now. The work will have been done to December 2008.
Co-financing. Initially, it was planned in the project document that additional funds had to be raised by
ACOPS which quitted the Project later on. At the moment a risk associated with the problem still can be
ranked as ""High". No additional funds were attracted for Project implementation and no clear picture of
donor co-financing so far. These can result in incompletion of some extra pilot projects which were
approved by the StC.

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

27

4.

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): S

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

28

4.4. Please describe activities for monitoring and evaluation carried out during the reporting period26
Two SC and IAWG 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 and LCO. After that, most of the technical reports were reviewed by
EA (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 EA and IA. These include Half yearly, Quarterly and PIR reports, all financial documents.
Packages of necessary documents for all project consultants' tenders as well as for lead cooperating organisations (LCO) for pilot projects and
three PINS tenders and contracts have been prepared by PO in close cooperation with both EA and IA. EA and IA representatives participated in
all meetings and workshops held 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 EA, IA and PO were held several meetings.

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.
.

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:

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.

29

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 degree 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 channeling contributions from donors and from the Russian
stakeholders for the project needs. Bearing this in mind, during the reporting period for the project implementation 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 extent 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
requires 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. A great deal of efforts has been undertaken in this direction by PO, EA and IA however it should be noted that the dissemination of
information on project implementation requires further improvement.
Project has being received full support and technical backstopping by the Executing Agency (Russian Ministry of Economic Development) that
assures that project recommendations will be taken at the highest level possible and future interventions will be sustainable. Provisions of draft
SAP are taking into account in FTOP "The World Ocean" for 2008-2012 and in other documents related to the Russian Arctic.
Amongst other lessons learned the following should be noted:

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

30

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 by
Project Office, and SAP, PINS and EPS WGs. SAP endorsement procedure should accommodate both, national and international
practices. NPA-Arctic GEF project developed 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)
Key federal and regional bodies' technical support in the process of finalisation of diagnostic analysis of current state of Arctic
environmental situation is of very high importance. Regional and federal authorities provided necessary information (copies of latest
reports on environmental protection for the regions, other information specifically requested by the Project Office). Scheduled meetings to
the Arctic regions could be useful to fill the gaps in.
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. Information on NPA-Arctic and first of all
on SAP is planned for SAOs of the Arctic Council. To update the web-site allowing interactive communication and providing the basis for
long-term dialogue and for the continuous participation of regional stakeholders in the project. To use regional sources of information to
provide broader dissemination of information on the Project.

Financial management and co-financing
Project is executed in the framework of Agency Agreement between Ministry of Economic of the Russian Federation (Trustee) and the
Legal Entity "Executive Directorate of the Russian National Pollution Abatement Facility" (Agent), which did not provide a Power of
Attorney to the PM for procurement of goods, works and services, including awarding of contracts with Russian and international
consultants under the Project, members of task teams and working groups, and leading organizations, etc. and raised additional
requirements not specified in the Agreement. Some problems were raised due to new leadership of ED NPAF. This results in delay with
payments of consultants contracts, etc. Problems with the Commission for Humanitarian and Technical Assistance under the Government
of the Russian Federation also contributes in the delay with sub-projects funding resulting in delay of these projects implementation.
Executing Agency is trying and should further try to resolve this issue.
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. To
establish closer cooperation with regions and industrial companies of all forms of ownership and invite them to participate in PINS working
group. Scheduled meetings to the Arctic regions could be useful. The IAWG should have its meetings on a regular basis twice a year as
stipulated in the Project Document.

31

The following advantages can be formulated:
Sustainable political commitment at federal and regional levels ensuring the adequate level of project ownership;
Broad public involvement including organizations of indigenous people of North;
Formal and informal communication mechanisms for 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.
Creation of the Project website that helps in the Project publicity: http://npa-arctic.ru . The website should become a forum on Arctic
environmental issues.
The following disadvantages or weaknesses can be noted:
Members of interagency working group (IAWG) 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 normally 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.
Project document, benchmarks, logframe and working plan were designed targeting the whole project duration, which initially planned to
be composed of two phases. As result it is rather difficult sometimes to evaluate project progress against the indicated parameters.
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 the IAWG.
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, website maintenance etc. More to it, 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. Delays with consideration of documents by ExA causes sometimes
delays in project implementation. There is also delay in preparation of documentation by PO.
Complicated relationship with ED NPAF leading officers. Instead of being of some help for the Project ED NPAF leadership impeded in
many cases the Project progress by laying down groundless claims and demands for simple bureaucratic procedures.

32