UNEP GEF PIR Fiscal Year 2009
(1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009)

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 partners:
NEFCO

Geographical Scope: The Russian Federation, Russian Arctic

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

GEF project ID:
1164
IMIS number*1:
GFL / 2732-03-4694
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
October 30, 2010
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
$
Total Cost*:
Co-financing*:
Mid-term review/eval.
01/09/2009
Terminal Evaluation

(planned date):
(actual date):
Mid-term review/eval.

2
No. of revisions*:
(actual date):
Date of last Steering
25-26/03/2009
Date of last
31/08/2009
Committee meeting:
Revision*:
Disbursement as of
$3,138,811
Date of financial
N/A
30 June 2009*:
closure*:

Actual expenditures

Date of
October 30, 2009
reported as of 30
$2,678,288
Completion3*:
June 20094:
Total co-financing

Actual expenditures

realized as of 30
$6,207,700
entered in IMIS as of $2,563,370
June 20095:
30 June 2009*:
Leveraged
N/A


financing:6

Project summary7
Major outcomes will include a nationally approved Strategic Action

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)
7 As in project document

1

---

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 FY088
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, 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.

Project status FY099 During reported period Project Office (PO) finalised work with the third
and fourth drafts of the Strategic Action Programme (SAP) which have
been approved by third and fourth meetings of Interagency Work
Group (IAWG) in Moscow and by third meeting of the Project Steering
Committee (StC) In Helsinki. The SAP document was reworked in
accordance with Russian standards imposed for strategic documents
of such kinds. The final SAP document was submitted to Russian
Government and was approved by the Maritime Board at the
Government of the Russian Federation, the highest-level body of the
government in charge of coordinated efforts of federal enforcement
authorities in the field of maritime activities, investigation and
exploration of the World Ocean, Arctic and Antarctic. The Maritime
Board at the Government of the Russian Federation recommended the
SAP-Arctic for further promotion to the relevant governmental bodies.
Implementation of the pre-investment studies (PINS) component has
being successfully continued in all three selected regions: western,
central and eastern Russian Arctic. To date, all three PINS contractors

8 Please include additional lines to keep prior year implementation status (if any)
9 Progress made during current reporting period (one paragraph stating key changes since previous
reporting period)

2

---

finalilsed their first and second stages and proceeding to next stages.
The third Project component ­ Development and implementation of
Environmental Protection System (EPS) which launched by the Project
Office ahead of schedule (the implementation of this component had
been planned in the original Project Document for the Project Phase II)
has been also successfully progressed. To date a work on analyses of
International environmental legislation was finished and all consultants
focus their efforts on suggestions for improvement of legal framework
in the field of environment protection in Russian Arctic. Two mentioned
in the Project Document main demo (COMAN and BASES) projects
have been successfully finalised and a pilot CLEANUP project is in a
stage of final reporting. Two small pilot projects PILOT-
BIOREMEDIATION and PILOT-TIKSI which were approved by the 2nd
Steering Committee (StC) are also in their final stage.

Planned contribution Major outcomes will include a nationally approved Strategic Action
to strategic
Programme to address damage and threats to the arctic environment
priorities/targets10
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).

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,

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

---

please discuss any major challenges to meet the objectives or specific project outcomes (not
more than 300 words)

The main achievements of the Project towards meeting the project objectives include:
Finalization of the SAP document and its approval by the Maritime Board under the
Government of the Russian Federation.
PINS component implementation is progressing in all three selected regions of the Russian
Arctic: western, central and eastern in accordance with agreed timetable .
Work under EPS component started ahead of schedule in 2008. Two stages of EPS Task
Team (TT) planned work have been finalised and the TT came up with working document
which includes detailed terms of reference for the TT and its members and with a
comprehensive review (report) on environmental legislation of Arctic states comparing
these with Russian environmental legislation applicable to Russian Arctic. To date, a draft
concept of Report to the Government of the Russian Federation with proposals on
elimination of gaps in Russian environmental legislation with regard to Russian Arctic zone
has also been prepared.
During the reported period two demo projects (COMAN and BASES FJL) and three pilot
projects (CLEANUP, BIOREMEDIATION and TIKSIBAY) were successfully completed.
Implementation of these demo and pilot projects improved environmental situation on a
local scale in FJL archipelago (BASES FJL- demo), Murmansk region (BIOREMEDIATION-
pilot and CLEANUP- pilot) and in Tiksi Bay region ­ downstream of Lena river and near its
estuary zone (TIKSIBAY- pilot). Implementation of COMAN demo project showed stable
improvement of co-management practice of local authorities with the indigenous
communities of the North in the Russian Federation and establishment of conditions to
ascertain interest balance of the local indigenous population and extracting companies in
solving economic and environmental problems.
New revision of benchmarks where suggested by EA and were reviewed by StC members
at 3rd meeting in Helsinki. The following benchmarks has been approved and adopted as
major outcomes for the Project Phase I: 1. Project Management: Project implementation
structures established, including Project Office, Project Steering Committee, Project
Supervisory Council and Inter-Agency Working Group. 2. Strategic Action Programme:
Strategic Action Programme fully developed and endorsed by relevant stakeholders.
Diagnostic analysis document prepared and ready for publication in English and Russian. 3.
Pre-investment Studies: Hot spots list updated and finalised. Pre-investment studies
successfully carried out and interest of financial institutions preliminary confirmed. 4.
Improving Environment Protection System: Report on gap analysis of the environmental
legislation applicable to the Russian Arctic with recommendations on improvements e
Steering Committee prepared and implemented. 5. Project Phase I Evaluation: Project
results for all components evaluated by Interagency Working Group. Independent
evaluation of the project completed confirming satisfactory prepared and submitted to the
Russian Government. 6. Demo and Pilot Projects: Demonstration activities in accordance
with the original Project Document fully implemented. New demonstration and pilot projects
approved by the Steering Committee are implemented during the Project Phase I.
The benchmark #1 was successfully achieved. The benchmark #2 has been generally
achieved: Strategic Action Programme fully developed and endorsed by relevant
stakeholders (approved by Maritime Board under Russian Federation Government). As far
as Diagnostic analysis concerned the work on it is ongoing and the document will have to
be completed in November 2009.The benchmark #3: Hot spots list updated and finalised.
Pre-investment studies in western, central and eastern parts of Russian Arctic are in
progress and interest of some financial institutions preliminary confirmed. Works under
PINS component are planned to be completed to November of 2009. The benchmark #4:
This project component was started ahead of a schedule and would be completed in
December 2009. The benchmark #5: Demonstration activities in accordance with the
original Project Document fully implemented. New demonstration and pilot projects
approved by the 2nd and 3rd StC meetings are in the pipe line. Some of demo and pilot
project will be completed this year (2009) the other - in August-September 2010. The
benchmark #6. As per agreement reached at 3rd StC meeting in Helsinki the Project mid-
term review will be undertaken by a reviewer contracted by the UNEP DGEF for the period
from September 2009 to 27 November 2009. Interagency Working Group will evaluate
Project results in the middle of 2010 follow up by independent evaluation on the Project

4

---

Phase I completion.


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)

Under the GEF Strategic Priority IW-3: Balancing overuse and conflicting uses of water
resources in surface and groundwater basins that are transboundary in nature ­ Monitoring
improved water use efficiency in demonstrations; and IW-4: Reducing persistent toxic
substances and testing adaptive management of waters with melting ice ­ Monitoring level of
reduction of PTS releases at demonstration sites and Industry codes of conduct, possible
private sector initiatives for PTS reduction; the current Project is designed for the Russian
Federation to substantiate, consistently with its "World Ocean" FTOP initiative, the necessity to
institute major changes in legislation, procedures and public attitudes to environmental
protection and restoration in the Arctic environment; and to demonstrate that technological
barriers can be overcome or that measures aimed at removing barriers can be implemented.

During the reported period the Project made following progress towards the stated GEF
Strategic Priorities and Targets:
Strategic Action Programme has been approved by Maritime Board under the
Government of the Russian Federation - a federal governmental body in charge of any
efforts of federal authorities in the field of maritime, Arctic and Antarctic activities, e.g.
the SAP approved nationally.
Implementation of the pre-investment studies (PINS) component has being successfully
continued in all three selected regions: western, central and eastern Russian Arctic. To
date, all three PINS contractors finalilsed their first and second stages and proceeding
to next stages. About 20 pre-investment studies for investment projects has been
preliminary selected to date for further development in all three Russian Arctic regions
what will result in the long run to correction or prevention of transboundary impacts of
land-based activities.
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
together with several new demo and pilot projects were successfully completed.

The results have been of benefit to the international arctic environment, particularly the Arctic
Ocean basin and its shelf seas, and contributing to the 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).


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

5

---

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 2009
Progress
and Outcomes
indicator14
target
rating 17
Objective18
1. Adoption of the
The National
SAP fully
Adoption of the SAP 100 %. The SAP has
HS
Improved
SAP for the
Action Plan (NAP)
developed and
for the Russian
been adopted by
management of
Protection of the
for the Protection
endorsed by
Arctic as a
relevant executive
the Arctic
Arctic Marine
of the Arctic Marine relevant
component of the
authorities - the
environment in
Environment from
Environment has
stakeholders
FTOP `World Ocean' Maritime Board at the
the Russian
Land-based
been developed
by the Russian
Government of the
Federation and
Activities by
and agreed upon.
Federation
Russian Federation
clear appreciation relevant executive
which was
of priorities.
authorities of the
recommended the SAP-
Russian Federation
Arctic for further
by the end of
promotion by the
Phase I.
relevant governmental
bodies.

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.

6

---

Project objective
Description of
Baseline level15
Mid-term target16
End-of-project
Level at 30 June 2009
Progress
and Outcomes
indicator14
target
rating 17
2. The reformed
There is an existing Selected lead

The survey of the
S
regulatory
regulatory
implementing
regulatory framework at
framework is
framework, which
organization and
the local, regional and
implemented by
does not take into
members of each
federal levels has been
local, provincial,
consideration the
of the three
performed and
federal
programmatic
working groups for
environmentally
administrations.
requirements to be
the development of
sustainable
outlined in the SAP the EPS
development concerns
and NAP.
are incorporated in the
SAP. Work on EPS is
successfully
implemented and to be
finalised in December
2008
3. Contributions by
The initiated work
The Russian

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

7

---

Project objective
Description of
Baseline level15
Mid-term target16
End-of-project
Level at 30 June 2009
Progress
and Outcomes
indicator14
target
rating 17
Outcome 1:
By the end of
There is no SAP
Adoption of the
Strategic Action
100%. The forth draft of
HS
Finalisation and
Phase I, review
formulation at the
SAP by relevant
Programme fully
SAP was submitted to
endorsement of the and publication* of
onset of the
authorities
developed and
the third StC meeting in
Strategic Action
the SAP for the
project.
endorsed by
March 2009. The final
Programme for the
Russian Arctic
relevant
version of SAP
Russian Arctic
stakeholders
document has been
adopted by relevant
executive authorities -
Maritime Board at the
Government of the
Russian Federation
which was
recommended the SAP-
Arctic for further
promotion by the
relevant governmental
bodies.
Outcome 2:
By the end of
There is an existing Selected lead
50%.
Ahead
of
S-HS
Improved
Phase I, selection
legal, regulatory
implementing
schedule. A draft
legislation,
of lead
and administrative
organization and
concept of Report to the
administrative
organisations and
framework, which
members of each
Government of the
procedures and
members of the
does not take into
of the three
Russian Federation
institutional
working groups
consideration the
working groups for
based on
capacity for the
selected and
programmatic
the development of
comprehensive analysis
environmental
confirmed.
requirements to be
the Environmental
of Arctic countries
protection of the
outlined in the
Protection System
environmental
Arctic environment.
SAP.
legislation with
proposals on elimination
of gaps in Russian
environmental
legislation with regard to
Russian Arctic zone has
been prepared

8

---

Project objective
Description of
Baseline level15
Mid-term target16
End-of-project
Level at 30 June 2009
Progress
and Outcomes
indicator14
target
rating 17
Outcome 3:
By the end of Phase The project PDF-B; Finalisation of the
Conducted pre-
70%. PINS component
S-HS
Conditions for
I, investments are
NEFCO and
pre-investment
investment studies
implementation is
further
prepared based on Russian
studies

ongoing process in all
interventions and
at least 8-10 pre-
authorities,


three selected regions
investments to
investment studies
respectively issued

of the Russian Arctic:
remediate or
and demonstration
a list of hot spots.


western, central and
prevent the
projects are fully
Limited


eastern and progressing
degradation of the
developed and
demonstrative


now in compliance with
Arctic Environment
ready for
activities have


its timetable.
are realised.
implementation.
been developed or



implemented.
Demonstration
Implemented
100%+. The demo

projects are in the
demonstration
projects component is
process of practical projects
actually ahead of
implementation
schedule ­ all
demonstration activities
mentioned in the
original Project
Document have been
completed. In addition,
several new demo and
pilot projects approved
by the 2nd and 3rd
meetings of the Project
StC were fully designed
and pipelined.

9

---

Project objective
Description of
Baseline level15
Mid-term target16
End-of-project
Level at 30 June 2009
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
establishment of
units are functional before.
Project
Project
have been successfully
the project
and deliver
implementation
implementation
established
implementation
expected outcomes
structure, including structure, including
structure, incl.
on time.
Project Office,
PO, Project StC,
Project Office,
Project Steering
Project SC, and
Project Steering
Committee,
Russian IAWG
Committee, Project
Project Supervisory
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. Please include columns to reflect all
prior year ratings)

FY2008 rating FY2009. rating Comments/narrative justifying the current FY rating and explaining reasons for change (positive or
negative) since previous reporting periods
S
S-HS
During the period of July 2008 to June 2009, considerable progress has been made towards achieving project's
objectives - developing and establishing a sustainable framework to reduce environmental degradation of the
Russian Arctic from land-based activities on a system basis. The SAP was adopted by the high-level
governmental body and recommended to be integrated into other environmental governmental programmes in
the Russian Arctic. In addition, key demo and pilot projects has been completed and finalized. Additional
demo and final projects started in 2008 have been either finalized or being at a final stage of implementation.
Other demo and pilot projects started in 2009 have been making satisfactory progress. PINS and EPS
components are under implementation. Project data has been utilized to fill up substantive parts of the FTOP
"World Ocean" relating to Arctic issues.

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?







10

---

Action(s) to be taken
By whom?
By when?




This section should be completed if project progress towards meeting objectives was rated MS, MU, U or HU during the previous Project Implementation
Review (PIR) or by the Mid-term Review/Evaluation (To be completed by Project Manager).

Problem(s) identified in
Action(s) taken
By whom
When
previous PIR
Outcome 2.- MS. 20%. Tender
Tendering process was completed, contracts with EPS
PO October-December
2008
documents including ToRs for
consultants were signed, work on the EPS component is
WG consultants' selection were
progressing quite successfully and should be completed
prepared. Tenders are planned
to December 2009.
for July-August 2008. Major work
on EPS is planned from
September 2008 to be finalised
in June 2009
Outcome 3(1)- MS. 40%.Three
All contracts with LCOs were signed and works in all
PO September-November
tenders for preparation of
three regions of the Russian Arctic have been
2008
regional PINS were held and the
developing in accordance with timetable. PINS
selection process was
component planed to be finalised to December 2009.
completed. Three LCO for PINS
implementation in western,
central and eastern parts of
Russian Arctic were selected
and contracts for all three tender
winners have been prepared.





3.2
Project implementation progress

Outputs 19
Expected
Implementation
Comments if variance21.
Progress
completion
status as of 30 June Describe any problems in
rating22
date 20
2009 (%)
delivering outputs

19 Outputs and activities as described in the project logframe or in any updated project revision.

11

---

Outputs 19
Expected
Implementation
Comments if variance21.
Progress
completion
status as of 30 June Describe any problems in
rating22
date 20
2009 (%)
delivering outputs
Output 1: Preparation and adoption of a
June 2009
100
Completed
HS
comprehensive Strategic Action Programme for the
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-
HS
SAP sub-programs with recommendations for SAP
programmes are included in
SAP
Activity 3: Strategic environmental assessment on the
April 2007
100
Completed.
HS
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
HS
2007
Activity 6: Stakeholder analysis and development of
December
100 Completed
HS
public involvement. Information to stakeholders and
2008
Initially was planned to be
communication strategy to public on project results
executed by ACOPS.
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
HS
Activity 9: Review of the second draft of the SAP by
June 2008
100
Completed
HS
federal and regional executive authorities.
Activity 10: Preparation of the third draft of the SAP
Sept. 2008
100
Completed
HS
Activity 10.1: Preparation of the fourth draft of the SAP
Feb. 2009
100
Completed
HS

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

12

---

Outputs 19
Expected
Implementation
Comments if variance21.
Progress
completion
status as of 30 June Describe any problems in
rating22
date 20
2009 (%)
delivering outputs
Activity 10.2: Preparation of the SAP final document
May 2009
100
Completed
HS
Output 2: Completion of a set of Pre-investment
June 2008


S
studies (PINS)
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 of September
100 Completed
S
PINS. Concluding the contracts with bid-winners
2008
Activity 16.1: Completion of a set of Pre-investment
Oct.-Nov.
40-50
All three LCOs finalised second
MS
studies (PINS)
2009
stages of their studies
Output 3: Environmental Protection System
June 2008


S/HS
improvements (EPS)
Activity 17: Proposals for and selection of the Co-
Septebmer
100 Completed
HS
ordinator of the Task Team on Implementation of the
2008
SAP (TT EPS).
Activity 18: Proposals for and selection of TT members.
Sept. 2008
100 Completed
HS
Activity 18.1: Contract with coordinator of TT EPS
October 2008
100
Completed
HS
prepared and signed
Activity 18.2: Contracts with TT EPS members prepared
October 2008
95
Contract with one consultant not S
and signed
- June 2009
signed yet
Activity 18.3: Elaboration of proposals on improvements
December
50
Working document and
S
of Russian legislation for Environmental Protection
2009
International analysis both are
System (EPS). Submitting of these proposals to relevant
completed. Draft concept of
executive authorities
Report to the Government with

13

---

Outputs 19
Expected
Implementation
Comments if variance21.
Progress
completion
status as of 30 June Describe any problems in
rating22
date 20
2009 (%)
delivering outputs
proposals on elimination of gaps
in Russian environmental
legislation was prepared.
Output 4: Rehabilitation of the Environment by Use
November


HS
of Brown Algae (Demonstration Project CLEANUP)
2007
Activity 19: Preparation of ToR and conduction of the
August 2007
100
Completed
HS
tender and preparation of the contract with the lead
cooperating organisation for the CLEANUP pilot
project. Signing of contract
Activity 20: Preparation and review of Progress Report
October 2008
100
Completed
HS
to be considered at the Second Meeting of the WG
Activity 20.1: Finalisation of the project
August 2009
95
Final report on the project is
S
prepared and is under
consideration by the EA
Output 5: Environmental Remediation of Two



HS
Decommissioned Military Bases (Demonstration
Project BASES)
Activity 21: Review of the working document at the First July 2007
100
Completed
HS
Meeting of the WG BASES, Moscow
Activity 22: Preparation of ToR and conduction of the
August 2007
100
Completed
HS
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 Report December
95
Completed. Final report is in
S
to be considered at the Second Meeting of the WG
2008
process of final revision to
BASES
address comments of PO and
EA
Output 6: Indigenous Environmental Co-management


HS
(Demonstration Project COMAN)
Activity 24: Preparation of ToR and conduct of the October 2007
100
Completed
HS
tender and preparation of the contract with the lead
cooperating organisation for COMAN demo project.

14

---

Outputs 19
Expected
Implementation
Comments if variance21.
Progress
completion
status as of 30 June Describe any problems in
rating22
date 20
2009 (%)
delivering outputs
Signing of contract
Activity 25: Preparation and Review of Progress Report November
100 Completed
HS
to be considered at the Second Meeting of the WG 2008
COMAN
Activity 25.1: Finalisation of the project
Feb. 2009
100
Completed
HS
Output 7: New Pilot projects



HS
Activity 26: Preparation of project documentation for 1-2 quarters
100 Completed
HS
pilot projects
of 2008
Activity 27: Contracting companies on selected pilot 3-4 quarters
100 Completed
HS
projects (preparation of tenders where applicable)
of 2008
Activity 28: Final evaluation of conducted pilot projects 3-4 quarters
70
Three of the projects have been
S
and their replicability potential
of 2008
successfully finalised; Several
other approved by StC pilot
projects are in stage of
preparation, tendering and
contracting.

Overall project implementation progress 23 (To be completed by UNEP GEF Task Manager. Please include columns to reflect prior years' ratings):

FY08 rating
FY09 rating
Comments/narrative justifying the rating for this FY and any changes (positive or negative) in the rating
since the previous reporting period
S
S/HS
The project EA, PO, and partner agencies have made impressive progress in implementing the planned
activities during the reporting period, albeit delays and institutional constraints since the Inception. The SAP is
approved by relevant executing authorities. Project results were used to substantively support the section on
"Environmental Security" of sub-program "Arctic" of the Federal Targeted Program "World Ocean". PINS
component has been started and successfully progressing. Work on EPS component started and progressing
well. The demonstration projects component has been started ahead of the planned schedule.

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)

15

---

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?










This section should be completed if project progress was rated MS, MU, U or HU during the previous Project Implementation Review (PIR) or by the Mid-
term Review/Evaluation (To be completed by Project Manager).

Problem(s) identified in
Action(s) taken
By whom
When
previous PIR













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.

16

---

Risk Factor
Indicator of
Indicator of
Indicator of

d
d
Low Risk
Medium Risk
High Risk
r
mine
r
mine
Low
Medium
Substantial
High
Not Applicable
To be dete
Low
Medium
Substantial
High
Not Applicable
To be dete
INTERNAL RISK
Project management
Management
Stable with roles
Individuals
Unclear
X




PM: Good management
x





structure
and
understand their
responsibilities
structure with defined roles &

responsibilities
own role but are
or overlapping
responsibilities of network

clearly defined
unsure of
functions which
members maintained and
and understood
responsibilities
lead to
operational
of others
management
TM: Roles and responsibilities
problems
clearly defined and understood
Governance
Steering
Body(ies) meets
Members lack
X PM: Project StC meeting held
x





structure
Committee
periodically but
commitment
in March 2009 and two IAWG
and/or other
guidance/input
Committee/body
meetings held in February and
project bodies
provided to
does not fulfil its
May 2009 provided effective
meet periodically project is
TOR
directions and inputs
and provide
inadequate. TOR
TM: Stable with functions and
effective
unclear
support of the Committee
direction/inputs
Internal com-
Fluid and cordial
Communication
Lack of
X PM: Fluid and cordial
x





munications
process deficient adequate
although
communication
relationships
between team
between team
members
members are
leading to
TM:
good
deterioration of
relationships and
resentment

17

---

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

d
d
Low Risk
Medium Risk
High Risk
r
mine
r
mine
Low
Medium
Substantial
High
Not Applicable
To be dete
Low
Medium
Substantial
High
Not Applicable
To be dete
INTERNAL RISK
Project management
Work flow
Project
Some changes
Major delays or
X PM: Some changes in project
x





progressing
in project work
changes in work
work plan adopted by the
according to
plan but without
plan or method
Project Steering Committee but
work plan
major effect on
of
without major effect on overall
overall timetable
implementation
implementation. The Project
Phase I grew actually into full-
scale project which embraced
both phases envisaged in the
original Project Document.
TM:
Co-financing Co-financing
is Is secured but
A substantial
X PM: Planned and agreed
x





secured and
payments are
part of pledged
finances from Iceland and USA
payments are
slow and
co-financing may
are transferred to UNEP for
received on time
bureaucratic
not materialize
Project needs
TM:
Budget Activities
are
Minor budget
Reallocation
X PM: Project is within budget
x





progressing
reallocation
between budget
though some reshuffling of the
within planned
needed
lines exceeding
original budget has been
budget
30% of original
undertaken with permission of
budget
the Project StC .
TM:

18

---

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

d
d
Low Risk
Medium Risk
High Risk
r
mine
r
mine
Low
Medium
Substantial
High
Not Applicable
To be dete
Low
Medium
Substantial
High
Not Applicable
To be dete
INTERNAL RISK
Project management
Financial
Funds are
Financial
Serious financial
X PM: Funds are correctly
x





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





reports are
complete and
concerns about
Project Office are presented in
presented in a
accurate but
quality and
a timely manner and are
timely manner
often delayed or
timeliness of
complete and accurate with a
and are
lack critical
project reporting
good analysis of project
complete and
analysis of
progress and implementation
accurate with a
progress and
issues
good analysis of
implementation
TM: PO/EA provided quality
project progress
issues
and timely information
and
regarding activity
implementation
implementation
issues
Stakeholder
Stakeholder
Consultation and Symptoms of
X PM: Positive feedback from
x





involvement
analysis done
participation
conflict with
critical stakeholders and
and positive
process seems
critical
partners is achieved during
feedback from
strong but
stakeholders or
regional consultations and
critical
misses some
evidence of
round table discussions,
stakeholders
groups or
apathy and lack
presentations at different
and partners
relevant partners of interest from
meetings inside and outside
partners or other
Russia

19

---

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

d
d
Low Risk
Medium Risk
High Risk
r
mine
r
mine
Low
Medium
Substantial
High
Not Applicable
To be dete
Low
Medium
Substantial
High
Not Applicable
To be dete
INTERNAL RISK
Project management
stakeholders TM:

External com-
Evidence that
Communications Project existence X PM: The project website
x





munications
stakeholders,
efforts are taking is not known
http;//npa-arctic.ru is
practitioners
place but not yet
beyond
maintained properly. All
and/or the
evidence that
implementation
important events are reflected
general public
message is
partners or
in the website in due time.
understand
successfully
misunderstand-
Aimed at consolidating and
project and are
transmitted
ings concerning
strengthening partner network,
regularly
objectives and
disseminating project outputs,
updated on
activities evident
and sharing experiences and
progress
lessons learned. Project
website is 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
TM:

20

---

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

d
d
Low Risk
Medium Risk
High Risk
r
mine
r
mine
Low
Medium
Substantial
High
Not Applicable
To be dete
Low
Medium
Substantial
High
Not Applicable
To be dete
INTERNAL RISK
Project management
Short
Project is
Project is
Longer term
X PM: Project is meeting short-
x





term/long term addressing short interested in the
issues are
term needs and results with a
balance
term needs and
short term with
deliberately
long-term perspective
achieving results little
ignored or
TM: while address short-term
with a long term
understanding of neglected
problems, the results also
perspective,
or interest in the
provide long-term benefits in
particularly
long term
terms of sustainable and
sustainability
replicable lessons
and replicability
Science and
Project based on Project testing
Many scientific
X PM: Leading Russian scientists x





technological
sound science
approaches,
and /or
participated in the Project
issues
and well
methods or
technological
implementation particularly in
established
technologies but
uncertainties
the SAP development and
technologies
based on sound
demo projects preparations.
analysis of
External scientific expertise is
options and risks
attracted in case of some
scientific uncertainties.
TM
Political
Project decisions Signs that some
Project is subject
X PM: Project decisions and
x





influences
and choices are
project decisions to a variety of
choices are not politically
not particularly
are political y
political influences
driven.
politically driven
motivated
that may
jeopardize project
TM
objectives
Other, please









PM






specify. Add
rows as

21

---

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

d
d
Low Risk
Medium Risk
High Risk
r
mine
r
mine
Low
Medium
Substantial
High
Not Applicable
To be dete
Low
Medium
Substantial
High
Not Applicable
To be dete
INTERNAL RISK
Project management
necessary
TM

22

---

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

d
d
Low Risk
Medium Risk
High Risk
r
mine
r
mine
Low
Medium
Substantial
High
Not Applicable
To be dete
Low
Medium
Substantial
High
Not Applicable
To be dete
EXTERNAL RISK
Project context
Political
Political context
Political context
Very disruptive
X PM: There is no visible political
x





stability
is stable and
is unstable but
and volatile
instability on the project life
safe
predictable and
time
not a threat to
TM:
project
implementation
Environmental Project area is
Project area is
Project area has
X PM: Project is implemented in

x




conditions
not affected by
subject to more
very harsh
Russian Arctic sometimes
severe weather
or less
environmental
under severe weather
events or major
predictable
conditions
conditions, however no
environmental
disasters or
extraordinary weather events
stress factors
changes
happened in areas of planned
project activities so far.
Nevertheless, in theory, harsh
Arctic climate conditions can
effect on field implementation of
some demo/pilot projects.
TM: Knowledge of
environmental condition in the
project areas should be taken
into consideration when
planning and implementing
activities

23

---

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

d
d
Low Risk
Medium Risk
High Risk
r
mine
r
mine
Low
Medium
Substantial
High
Not Applicable
To be dete
Low
Medium
Substantial
High
Not Applicable
To be dete
EXTERNAL RISK
Project context
Social, cultural There are no
Social or
Project is highly
X PM: No evidence of social
x





and economic
evident social,
economic issues
sensitive to
and/or cultural events affects
factors
cultural and/or
or changes pose
economic
project activities.
economic issues
challenges to
fluctuations, to
that may affect
project
social issues or
project
implementation
cultural barriers
TM:
performance and but mitigation
results
strategies have
been developed
Capacity
Sound technical
Weaknesses
Capacity is very
X PM: Project ExA is a very
x





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















specify


24

---

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



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



No visible





essential risks







Project overall risk rating (Low, Medium, Substantial or High) (Please include PIR risk ratings for all prior periods, add columns as necessary):

FY08 rating
FY09 rating
Comments/narrative justifying the current FY rating and any changes (positive or negative) in the rating
since the previous reporting period
L
L
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.
Project has being received full support and technical backstopping by the EA (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.

25 Only for Substantial to High risk.

25

---

If a risk mitigation plan had been presented for a previous period or as a result of the Mid-Term
Review/Evaluation please report on progress or results of its implementation



26

---

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



27

---

4.4. Please describe activities for monitoring and evaluation carried out during the reporting period26
One StC and two 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 LCOs. After that, most of the technical reports were reviewed by
EA (through its Project advisor) and IA. 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 LCOs 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 most of meetings and workshops held by PO. All 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?
The Project has never experienced any challenges in obtaining data relevant to the selected indicators

4.8. Describe any changes in the indicators or in the project intervention logic, including an explanation of whether key assumptions27 are still valid
The Project on its lifetime evolved from Phase I into full scaled project which includes virtually all activities envisaged in Project Document for both Phase I and II
the third meeting of the Project StC decided to change original benchmarks in PD into new ones which correspond more to the new realities.

4.9. Describe how potential social or environmental negative effects are monitored
PO has constant feedback with local authorities and LCOs implementing Project activities (demo/pilot project and PINS) in the field.

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.
27 Assumptions refer to elements of the "theory of change" or "intervention logic" (i.e, the problem is a result of A, therefore, if we change B, this will lead to C) and not to
pre-conditions for project implementation. It is a common mistake to include statements such as "political will" as an assumption. This is rather a necessary condition to
implement the project.

28

---

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



4. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION EXPERIENCES AND LESSONS

5.1. Please summarize any experiences and/or lessons related to project design and implementation. Please select relevant 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 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.

29

---

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 incorporated. Provisions of SAP were used in the preparation of
Russian proposals for the PSI of the Arctic Council. Establish closer co-operation with existing initiatives
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, PINS and EPS
WGs. SAP endorsement procedure should accommodate both, national and international practices. NPA-Arctic GEF project developed Approved
SAP document incorporated 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 mass-media, including regional sources. Scheduled
meetings to the Arctic regions will provide further impetus to this process. Information on NPA-Arctic and first of all on approved SAP is planned for
SAOs of the Arctic Council. To date the Project web-site allows interactive communication and provids 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 the 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. This results
sometimes 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 keeps too long submitted reports and other documents slowing down the Projects implementation.

30

---

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. Wide use of photo and video materials on website helps in visualization of the project activities and its further promotion.
The following disadvantages or weaknesses can be noted:
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 four largest
industrial companies operating in the Arctic 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 human resources and time. More active involvement of working groups' coordinators 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.
Insufficient experience of ExA in implementation of large-scale international programs/projects that often concentrated on minor revisions of reports
prepared by Consultants which resulted in delays in project implementation.


31

---