UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME
PROJECT DECISION SHEET
Title of Project: Regionally-Based Assessment of Persistent Toxic Substances
Project number: GF/XG/4030-00-20
Sub-Project No:
NA
Implementation:
Internal (Chemicals Unit)
Approval: This project was:
For UNEP:
approved by the UNEP/GEF Programme Coordination Committee:
at its meeting of 5/10/99
For GEF:
a)
approved by the GEF Council Meeting at its meeting of 8-
10/12/99
b)
cleared by the GEF Secretariat in a letter from its Chief
Executive Officer dated: 21/7/00
Decision:
To approve this project with a duration of 24 months at a cost of
US$ 2,662,000 to the GEF Trust Fund
____________________
A. Djoghlaf, Executive Co-ordinator,
UNEP GEF Co-ordination Office
Date: _________________
_______________________
E. F. Ortega, Chief
Budget and Funds Management Service
Date: ______________
_______________________
S. Kakakhel, Deputy Executive Director,
Chairman, GEF Programme Co-ordination Committee
Date:______________
Project No. GF/XG/4030-00-20
STANDARD DISTRIBUTION LIST FOR
PROJECT DOCUMENTS/REVISIONS
To:
Chief, Financial Resource Management Service (FMRS)
(1 copy)
c.c.: Fund Management Officer: Ms. I. Njeru
(1
copy)
FMO UNEP Chemicals: Ms. C. Cameron (1
copy)
Director UNEP Chemicals: Mr J. Willis
(1
copy)
GEF PTS Programme Officer: Mr. L Granier
(1 copy)
GEF Data Management Officer: Ms. S. Aggarwal-Khan
(1 copy)
Chief, Programme Coordination and Management Unit
(1 copy)
Chief,
Evaluation
and
Oversight
Unit
(1
copy)
Director, Division of Regional Representation
(2 Copies)
BFMS:
Project Reports and Data Base (PRDB)
(1
copy)
Report
on
New
Projects
(1
copy)
UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME
PROJECT ACTION SHEET
Title of sub-programme: 4.3
Chemicals
Title of Project:
Regionally-Based Assessment of Persistent Toxic Substances
Project Number:
GF/XG/4030-00-20
Geographical Scope:
Global
Implementation: Internal
(Chemicals)
Duration of the Project: 24
months
Commencing:
1 September 2000
Completion:
31 August 2002
This Action Sheet, which is transmitted with a copy of the project document, lists the
actions required in connection with the implementation of the project. It constitutes the
authority from UNEP to the Financial Resource Management Service (FRMS) to effect the
disbursements listed therein.
Signature _______________________________
E. F. Ortega
Chief
Budget and Funds Management Service, UNON
Date: __________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Date: Action
Responsible
Office
August 2000
Record commitment in US$: PRDB/BFMS/UNON
2000
2001
2002
Total
Cost to GEF
526,500
1,704,000
431,500
2,662,000
UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME
PROJECT IDENTIFICATION
1.1
Title of sub-programme: 4.3
Chemicals
1.2
Title of Project:
Regionally-Based Assessment of Persistent Toxic
Substances
1.3
Project Number:
GF/XG/4030-00-20
1.4
Geographical Scope:
Global
1.5
Implementation: Internal
(Chemicals)
1.6
Duration of the Project: 24
months
Commencing:
1
September
2000
Completion:
31
August
2002
1.7
Cost of the Project: (Expressed in US$)
US
$
%
Cost to the UNEP-GEF Trust Fund:
2,662,000
61.2
Counterpart contributions:
Australia
200,000
4.6
France
65,000
1.5
Germany
420,000
9.6
Sweden
150,000
3.4
Switzerland
100,000
2.3
United
States
500,000
11.5
Canada
30,000
0.7
In-kind contribution from UNEP:
25,000
0.6
In-kind contribution from experts:
200,000
4.6
Total cost of the project (excluding PDF-B):
4,352,000 100.0
Funds not administered by UNEP
1
1.8 Project
Summary
The overall objective of the project is to deliver a comprehensive regionally based assessment
of the damage and threats posed by persistent toxic substances, and to evaluate and agree the
priorities between chemical related environmental issues at the regional level in order to
focus subsequent interventions on the most important and pressing issues. The twelve
Regional Reports will include assessment of the sources of persistent toxic substances in the
environment, their concentrations and impact on biota, their transboundary transport, and an
assessment of the root causes of the problems and capacity to manage these problems.
Consolidation of the results of the regional analyses will provide an assessment of global
priorities. The results of the assessment will be widely disseminated via the World Wide Web
and other media.
Signature _______________________________
E. F. Ortega
Chief
Budget and Funds Management Service, UNON
Date: __________________________________
2
PROJECT BRIEF
1. IDENTIFIERS
PROJECT NUMBER
Implementing Agency No. not yet assigned
PROJECT NAME
Regionally-based Assessment of Persistent
Toxic Substances
DURATION
1 April 2000-31 March 2002
IMPLEMENTING AGENCY
United Nations Environment Programme
EXECUTING AGENCY
UNEP
Chemicals
REQUESTING COUNTRY
Global - Not applicable
ELIGIBILITY
Not Applicable
GEF FOCAL AREA
International Waters
GEF PROGRAMMING FRAMEWORK
Contaminant-Based Operational Program # 10
2. SUMMARY
The overall objective of the project is to deliver a comprehensive regionally based assessment
of the damage and threats posed by persistent toxic substances, and to evaluate and agree the
priorities between chemical related environmental issues at the regional level in order to
focus subsequent interventions on the most important and pressing issues. The twelve
Regional Reports will include assessment of the sources of persistent toxic substances in the
environment, their concentrations and impact on biota, their transboundary transport, and an
assessment of the root causes of the problems and capacity to manage these problems.
Consolidation of the results of the regional analyses will provide an assessment of global
priorities. The results of the assessment will be widely disseminated via the World Wide Web
and other media.
3. COSTS AND FINANCING (MILLION US$)
GEF:
Project : 2.39
US$
PDF-B
: 0.34
US$
Executing
Agency
Costs
: 0.27
US$
Subtotal
GEF
: 3.00
US$
Co-financing: PDF-B (all sources)
:
0.14 US$
UNEP
(in
kind)
: 0.02
US$
Experts : 0.20
US$
Germany
: 0.42
US$
Switzerland
: 0.05
US$
Basel
Convention
: 0.08
US
$
To
be
identified
: 1.08
US
$
Subtotal
Co-financing : 1.99
US$
Total
Project
Cost
: 4.99
US$
4. IA CONTACT
Mr. Ahmed Djoghlaf, Executive Co-ordinator,
UNEP/GEF Co-ordination Office, UNEP, PO Box 30552, Nairobi,
Kenya, Tel: +254 2 624166, Fax: +254 2 624041,
Email: Ahmed.Djoghlaf@unep.org.
3
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AMAP
Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme
EA
Executing
Agency
FAO
Food and Agricultural Organisation
GEF
Global Environment Facility
GIWA
Global International Waters Assessment
IA Implementing
Agency
IGO
Intergovernmental
organisations
IFCS
Inter-Governmental Forum on Chemical Safety
INC
Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee
IOMC
Inter-Organisational Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals
IPCS
International Programme on Chemical Safety
LRTAP
Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution Convention
NGOs
Non-Governmental Organisations
OP
Operational
Programme
PDF
Project Preparation and Development Facility
POPs
Persistent Organic Pollutants
PTS
Persistent Toxic Substances
RBA
Regionally based assessment
UN
United Nations
UNCED
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development
UNECE
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
UNEP
United Nations Environment Programme
WHO
World Health Organisation
4
SECTION 2. BACKGROUND AND PROJECT CONTRIBUTION TO OVERALL
SUB-PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION
2.1
Background and Context
2.1.1 The introduction of xenobiotic chemicals that are generally referred to as "persistent
toxic substances" (PTS) into the environment and resulting effects is a major issue that gives
rise to concerns at local, national, regional and global scales. Many of the substances of
greatest concern are organic compounds characterised by persistence in the environment,
resistance to degradation, and acute and chronic toxicity. In addition many are subject to
atmospheric, aquatic or biological transport over long distances and are thus globally
distributed, detectable even in areas where they have never been used. The lipophilic
character of these substances causes them to be incorporated and accumulated in the tissues
of living organisms leading to body burdens that pose potential risks of adverse health
effects. Toxic chemicals, which are less persistent but for which there are continuous
releases resulting in essentially persistent exposure of biota, raise similar concerns. The
persistence and bioaccumulation of PTS may also result in increase over time of
concentrations in consumers at higher trophic levels, including humans.
2.1.2 A sub-group of the persistent toxic substances are the "persistent organic pollutants"
(POPs) identified by the international community for immediate international action1. These
chemicals have serious health and environmental effects, which may include carcinogenicity,
reproductive impairment, developmental and immune system changes, and endocrine
disruption thus posing a threat of lowered reproductive success and in extreme cases possible
loss of biological diversity.
2.1.3 Following the recommendations of the Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical
Safety2, the UNEP Governing Council decided in February 1997 (Decision 19/13 C) that
immediate international action should be initiated to protect human health and the
environment through measures which will reduce and/or eliminate the emissions and
discharges of an initial set of twelve persistent organic pollutants (POPs). Accordingly an
Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) was established with a mandate to prepare
an international legally binding instrument for implementing international action on certain
persistent organic pollutants. To date four3 sessions of the INC have been held. The GEF
Secretariat and the GEF Council have indicated their willingness for the GEF to serve as the
financial mechanism for the Convention should the contracting parties so desire.
2.1.4 Persistent toxic substances can be manufactured substances for use in various sectors
of industry, pesticides, or by-products of industrial processes and combustion. To date, their
scientific assessment has largely concentrated on specific local and/or regional environmental
and health effects, in particular "hot spots" such as the Great Lakes region of North America
or the Baltic Sea. In response to the long-range atmospheric transport of PTS, instruments
such as the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP) under the
auspices of the UN Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) have been developed. The
Basel Convention regulates the transboundary movement of hazardous waste, which may
1 The initial twelve POPs are: aldrin, chlordane, DDT, dieldrin, endrin, heptachlor, hexachlorobenzene,
mirex, toxaphene, polychlorinated biphenyls, dioxins and furans.
2 Conclusions of the IFCS sponsored Experts Meeting on POPs and final Report of the ad hoc working group
on POPs, Manila, 17-22 June 1996, "Persistent Organic Pollutants: Considerations for Global Action".
3 At the time of the submission of the project proposal, October 1999.
5
include PTS. Some PTS are covered under the recently adopted Rotterdam Convention on
the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in
International Trade. FAO has initiated a process to identify and manage the disposal of
obsolete stocks of pesticides, including PTS, particularly in developing countries and
countries with economies in transition.
2.1.5. A number of regional organisations have already conducted assessments of persistent
toxic substances. Where they exist, the present project will rely on these assessments which
include the Quality Status of the North East Atlantic completed by the Oslo and Paris
Commission, the State of the Arctic Environment completed by the Arctic Monitoring and
Assessment Programme, the State of the Marine Environment of the Baltic of the Helsinki
Commission, and the work accomplished in the European Union through the Dangerous
Substances Directive.
2.1.6. There is a need for a scientifically-based assessment of the nature and scale of the
threats to the environment and its resources posed by persistent toxic substances that will
provide guidance to the international community concerning the priorities for future remedial
and preventive action. The assessment will lead to the identification of priorities for
intervention, and through application of a root cause analysis will attempt to identify
appropriate measures to control, reduce or eliminate releases of PTS, at national, regional or
global levels (Annex D).
2.1.7 The actual priorities for action within each region may not be the same, reflecting
differences between regions in terms of economic development, agricultural and industrial
production, climatic, geographic and social and cultural conditions. Therefore, the
assessment will be based on an analysis of conditions in each region, using information
available from a variety of sources and following common methods and approaches.
2.1.8 The GEF Contaminant-Based Operational Programme makes direct reference to
contaminants that are so persistent that they can be considered to be "global contaminants"
and it states that "The GEF may support activities that help to characterise the nature, extent
and significance of these contaminants and support the agreed incremental costs of processes
and measures that demonstrate prevention of reduction of releases in recipient countries".
This project would provide an objective and rapid evaluation of the priorities within regions
and between chemical related environmental problems that will enable the GEF to focus
subsequent activities within OP 10 on the most important and urgent issues.
2.2
Project contribution to Overall Sub-programme Implementation
Rationale and Objectives
2.2.1. The objective of the project is to deliver a measure of the nature and comparative
severity of damage and threats posed at national, regional and ultimately at global levels by
PTS. This will provide the GEF and also UNEP with a science-based rationale for assigning
priorities for action among and between chemical related environmental issues, and to
determine the extent to which differences in priority exist among regions.
2.2.2. The outcome of this project will be a scientific assessment of the threats posed by
persistent toxic substances to the environment and human health. The activities to be
undertaken in this project comprise an evaluation of the sources of persistent toxic
substances, their levels in the environment and consequent impact on biota and humans, their
6
modes of transport over a range of distances, the existing alternatives to their use and
remediation options, as well as the barriers that prevent their good management.
2.2.3. Additional possible outcomes of the project are: a greater awareness of PTS related
environmental problems in developing countries; opportunities for bilateral or multilateral
action; network building and co-operation within and between regions; stimulus for research
through the identification of data gaps; support to international conventions, such as the
Rotterdam Convention, the UNECE LRTAP convention, Regional Seas Agreements or the
future POPs Convention. The project will make contributions to the Global International
Waters Assessment (GIWA) that is being carried out by UNEP with GEF funding.
SECTION 3. NEEDS AND RESULTS
3.1 Needs
The UNEP Governing Council in its decision 19/13C on POPs, concluded that international
action is required to reduce the risks to human health and the environment arising from the
releases of the 12 specified POPs. The Governing Council further identified the need to
develop science-based criteria and a procedure for identifying additional POPs as candidates
for future international action and recognized the need to develop an instrument that would
take into account differing regional conditions.
The project aims at meeting these and other needs, particularly in supporting the global
negotiations in making regional assessments of the damages and threats posed by persistent
toxic substances. By broadening the scope from the twelve POPs included in the UNEP GC
Decision 18/32 this project will assist UNEP and governments in better defining priorities
beyond the present negotiations.
3.2 Results
The project relies upon the collection and interpretation of existing data and information as
the basis for the assessment. No research will be undertaken to generate primary data, but
projections will be made to fill data/information gaps, and to predict threats to the
environment. The proposed activities (timetable for implementation Table 1) are designed to
obtain the following expected results:
Identification of major sources of PTS at the regional level;
Impact of PTS on the environment and human health;
Assessment of transboundary transport of PTS;
Assessment of the root causes of PTS related problems, and regional capacity to manage
these problems;
Identification of regional priority PTS related environmental issues; and
Identification of PTS related priority environmental issues at the global level.
3.3
Assumptions to achieve results
The establishment of a broad and wide-ranging network of participants involving all sectors
of society is critical for the collection and subsequent evaluation of sufficient and adequate
data on which to base regional priorities. Close cooperation with other intergovernmental
organizations such as UNECE, WHO, FAO, IPCS, UNDP, WORLD BANK, GESAMP and
others is essential.
7
SECTION 4. OUTPUTS, COMPONENTS, WORKPLAN AND TIMETABLE,
BUDGET AND FOLLOW-UP
4.1 Outputs
i)
Establishment of a network of PTS experts from various sectors of academia,
government, relevant international organisations, NGOs and the private sector.
ii)
Establishment of an adequate management and co-ordination structure with a Project
Manager, Regional Co-ordinators, and a Steering Group.
iii)
Questionnaires to collect national information on PTS and guidelines on source
inventories and evaluation of environmental concentrations and impact assessment.
iv)
Twelve comprehensive Regional Reports including a list of regional priorities.
v)
A Global Report, which will extract and highlight the major issues from the
Regional Reports e.g. commonalities and cross-cutting issues, give a list of priority
issues on a regional and a global basis, and suggest interventions to address the
problems identified. The Global Report will provide guidance to the GEF for further
actions.
4.2 Components
COMPONENT 1: CO-ORDINATION AND MANAGEMENT
Establishment of the Global Network
4.2.1 A Network of participating institutions and individuals will be established for the
Regionally-based Assessment. In addition to utilising the experts and institutions involved in
the PDF-B phase, UNEP Chemicals will solicit inputs from relevant government
representatives such as UNEP national Focal Points, delegates to the INC POPs negotiations,
UNEP POPs Focal Points, and IFCS Focal Points regarding national experts or institutions
with relevant expertise who could participate in the project. The contact points will be asked
to be as specific as possible, for example which government department (and name of
resource person) should be asked about use of pesticides or which University(ies) (and name
of Department/team leader) should be asked about levels of contaminants in environmental
compartments. A minimum of one contact point will be identified per country, but where
UNEP has more than one contact in the country, they all will be asked to contribute details of
experts.
4.2.2. Scientists will also be contacted through recommendation of the Steering Group and
through scientific societies. Public interest NGOs concerned with the elimination of
persistent toxic substances will be contacted, in particular through the global network
provided by the International POPs Elimination Network. Industry will be invited to
participate through contacting directly, major companies and through trade associations (vide
Annex I).
4.2.3. For implementation of the project, the globe has been divided in twelve regions
(Annex F). These regions represent a compromise between the need for internally coherent
groupings of countries with similar characteristics and the need to keep the number of regions
small for financial and management considerations (see Annex I).
8
4.2.4. The output of this activity is the establishment of a network of PTS experts from
various sectors of academia, government, relevant international organisations, NGOs and the
private sector.
Technical Co-ordination and Management of the Project
4.2.5. Regional Co-ordinators for each region (Terms of Reference Annex H) will be
identified by UNEP Chemicals from the global Network, and endorsed by the Steering Group
at its first meeting. Decisions will be based on the list of experts provided by the Government
contact points in order to facilitate country buy-in and ownership of the project. The
Regional Co-ordinator will be responsible for organising the work at the regional level and
will be the principle editor of the Regional Report. The Regional Co-ordinators will require
infrastructure and logistic support from their institutions that will be assured through
contractual arrangements between the Executing Agency and the host institution.
4.2.6. In each region, a Regional Team of 4-5 members (excluding the Regional Co-
ordinator) will be constituted from the wider regional Network. Members drawn from
government, academia, public interest NGOs or industry will be identified by UNEP
Chemicals in consultation with the presumptive Regional Co-ordinators, and endorsed by the
first Steering Group meeting. Individual Regional Team members will be responsible for co-
ordinating specific components of the Regional Reports. Collectively, the Regional Team
will assemble and finalise the Regional Report.
4.2.7. A Project Manager will be appointed at UNEP Chemicals (Terms of Reference Annex
H). The Project Manager will act as Secretary for the Steering Group and will be responsible
for: managing all aspects of project execution; and dissemination of results and progress,
including maintaining a web site. The Project Manager will convene meetings of the
Regional Co-ordinators as and when necessary.
4.2.8. The Steering Group (Terms of Reference Annex H) will comprise UNEP Chemicals,
UNEP-GEF Co-ordination Office, UNEP Division of Environmental Assessment and Early
Warning, UNEP/GPA Co-ordination Office, the GEF Implementing Agencies UNDP and the
World Bank, a member of the Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel, the Global
International Waters Assessment Core Team, environmental NGOs such as the World
Wildlife Fund for Nature, Industry, independent scientists, and other UN Agencies (including
WHO, FAO and UNECE) The participation of non-UN members in the Steering Group will
be funded from the project budget.
4.2.9. The Steering Group will advise the Project Manager, promote buy-in to the project
from the organisations involved and co-ordinate with other projects inside and outside GEF
to avoid duplication and overlap. The Steering Group will suggest corrective actions, if
necessary.
4.2.10. The Steering Group will meet four times:
1.
At the onset of the project, to review and endorse the management and work plan; to
review and endorse the Regional Co-ordinators and other Regional Team members;
and to approve the release of a portion of the funds available under the "expert
consultants" budget line for those regions comprising only GEF-eligible countries,
and where it is already apparent that additional support to the Regional Teams is
necessary.
9
2.
Month 7 in the project, immediately after the phase of Country Level Contributions,
to review progress in implementation, resolve difficulties and suggest corrective
actions as needed; and decide on further budget allocation from the "expert
consultants" line for those regions where the Country Level Contribution phase have
shown that additional support to the Regional Teams will be necessary, and for
Incremental Costs case studies4 (the meeting may be attended by some of the
Regional Co-ordinators).
3.
Month 12 in the project, to review progress in implementation, resolve difficulties and
suggest corrective actions as needed; and identify possible needs for targeted research
(the meeting may be attended by some of the Regional Co-ordinators).
4.
At the end of the project, to assess lessons learnt and to recommend follow-up
activities within and outside the GEF.
4.2.11. A meeting of the Regional Co-ordinators will take place after the first Steering Group
meeting in order for the Project Manager to brief them further about the project, and to
discuss operational matters.
4.2.12. The output of this activity will be the establishment of an adequate management and
co-ordination structure with a Project Manager, Regional Co-ordinators, and a Steering
Group in place.
COMPONENT 2: DEVELOPMENT OF GUIDELINES
4.2.13. During the PDF-B phase, strategies for the assessment of priority chemicals were
developed, including guidance for inventorying sources, screening chemicals for hazards and
risk, and for priority setting among chemicals. Based on the outcomes of the scientific and
technical workshops held during the PDF-B phase, guidelines will be drafted prior to the
commencement of project activities in April 2000, on methods for undertaking source
inventories, the evaluation of environmental concentrations, and assessment of impacts.
These will be developed with a view to harmonising and facilitating the evaluation of the
information provided on a country or regional level. Guidance on other aspects of the
regional work will be developed as appropriate.
4.2.14. Based on the guidelines, and on the reports of the scientific and technical workshops,
detailed questionnaires will be drafted to collect information on the sources, levels and
effects, and transboundary movements of PTS, and on the barriers to their sustainable
management. The draft guidelines and questionnaires will be circulated for comments and
input, in particular from the individuals identified as possible participants in the Regional
Teams. These documents will be translated into the six UN languages to facilitate the
information gathering on a national level.
4
In the case of Incremental Costs calculations, a number of selected case studies of priority issues such as
the costs of disposal of stockpiles of mixtures of obsolete and banned pesticides, or the costs of reducing or
elimination particular types of stack emission of dioxins will be undertaken. The results of these case
studies can be used subsequently to make informed estimates of costs in similar situations elsewhere.
10
Table 1:
Timetable for implementation
Months after signature of project document
COMPONENTS / Activities
1 2 3 4 5 6 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Establishment of the Network
Co-ordination and Management
Steering Group meetings
*
* *
*
Regional Co-ordinators meeting
*
The Regional Assessments
Country level contributions
1st regional team meeting
*
Sources and concentration
Technical WS: sources and concentration
*
Impact and transport
Technical WS: impact and transport
*
2nd regional team mtg. (report draft 1)
*
Capacity and root causes
Regional priority setting meeting
*
3rd regional team mtg. (report draft 2)
*
Final review of report, and final draft
#
Global Synthesis
1st draft of global report
#
Task Force on alternatives/remediation
*
Global priority setting meeting
*
2nd draft of global report
#
Review of global report, and final draft
#
Dissemination of Products
· meetings / workshops; # successive drafts
11
Table 1:
Timetable for implementation
2000 2001 2002 2003
COMPONENTS / Activities
S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J
Co-ordination and Management
Steering Group meetings
Establishment of the Network
Regional Co-ordinators meeting
Development of database
Development of translated questionnaires
The Regional Assessments
Country level contributions
1st regional team meeting
Collation of Sources and concentration
2nd Steering Group Meeting
Technical WS: sources and concentration
Collation of impact and transport
Technical WS: impact and transport
3rd Steering Group Meeting
2nd regional team mtg. (report draft 1)
Capacity and root causes
Regional priority setting meeting
3rd regional team mtg. (report draft 2)
Final review of report, and final draft
Global Synthesis
Preparation of 1st draft of global report
4th Steering Group Meeting
Task Force on alternatives/remediation
Global priority setting meeting
2nd draft of global report
Dissemination of Products
12
4.2.15. The output of this component will be questionnaires to collect national information on
PTS and guidelines on source inventories and evaluation of environmental concentrations and
impact assessment.
COMPONENT 3: THE REGIONAL ASSESSMENTS
4.2.16. The bulk of activity at the regional level is to collect and interpret existing data and
information as the basis for the assessment and to produce the Regional Reports. The expert
workshops convened during the PDF-B phase have indicated that some data exist for all
regions, although both the quality and extent of data varies from region to region. Where
information or data regarding the fate of substances in the environment are lacking or
inadequate, projections will be made and scenario build through simple modelling. The
absence of readily available information on sources and transport of PTS in many developing
countries often reflects the difficulty of assembling such information from unpublished
government sources rather than the fact that the information does not exist. By ensuring the
establishment of as comprehensive a set of contacts at the country level as possible, the
project will attempt to redress this problem. It is envisaged that specialist, expert assistance
from outside the region concerned, may need to be provided to some Regional Teams. This
will help to build indigenous capacity, interest, and awareness about PTS issues in the
regions.
4.2.17.
The regional assessments will be implemented in two phases, a first phase
relying on e-mail communications between members of the Network, and a second phase
consisting of technical meetings where scientists from the region present and discuss their
individual work, and where the synoptic discussion documents prepared by the Regional
Team are presented, discussed and revised as appropriate. A draft of the chapter headings for
the Regional Reports is presented in Annex G. These will be reviewed by the members of the
Regional Teams and may be further refined at the 1st Steering Group meeting and as the
project proceeds.
4.2.18. The Regional Co-ordinator will be the principle editor for the Regional Report,
assisted by the Regional Team. The Report will be drafted on the basis of:
1. contributions from all individuals within the Network, addressed to the Regional Co-
ordinators;
2. a series of regional technical Workshops to review the regionally available data and
information collected by experts from the region;
3. a series of discussion papers setting the scene for these workshops; and
4. a "Priority Setting" meeting which will bring together a wide range of stakeholders to
prioritise the issues and discuss their root causes.
4.2.19. The Reports (Annex G) will contain inter alia the following components:
1. source characterisation;
2. concentration in the region, toxicological and ecotoxicological characterisation;
3. assessment of major pathways of contaminant transport within, and into and out of the
region;
4. preliminary assessment of the regional capacity and needs to manage PTS and
identification of barriers that prevent their reduction or elimination and their release in
the environment.
13
Country level contributions phase.
4.2.20. The guidelines and the questionnaires prepared in advance of commencement of the
full project will be distributed to the country experts identified by the government contact
points and other sources as described in paragraphs 13&14. It is expected that there will be a
number of experts/organisations contacted in each country. Questions that are likely to be
directed to a specific government department, for example amount of pesticides imported,
would be directed to one resource person identified in the relevant ministry, in order to avoid
duplication of effort. On the other hand, information and data regarding levels of PTS from
research and monitoring activities, for example, might be sought from a number of
organisations and independent experts within each country. In addition, the regional offices
of WHO, of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) and FAO will be
asked to contribute appropriate data and information to the Regional Teams regarding
persistent toxic substances, environmental and human health.
4.2.21. Six to nine months will be allocated for the bulk of primary data gathering, although it
is anticipated that additional data and information will continue to be assembled throughout
the life of the project to ensure as comprehensive a coverage of existing information as
possible. During this period the members of the Network at the regional (or sub-regional)
level will be communicating mostly by e-mail, with continuous exchange between
individuals at the country level, and between countries and the Regional Co-ordinators. It is
recognised however, that the phase of primary data and information assembly may overlap
considerably with subsequent analytical and synthetic activities in regions where expertise is
limited or the data scattered. The data/information will be assembled by the individual team
members according to responsibilities assigned during the first Regional Team meeting.
Overall co-ordination and synthesis of the data and information will be the responsibility of
the Regional Co-ordinator.
4.2.22. At the end of this period, and in anticipation of the second Steering Group meeting,
the Regional Team will take stock of available resources in the region as well as potential
problems and possible additional resource requirements needed to proceed with the
assessment. Specific expertise necessary for the evaluation process may be required, or,
where there are no data for PTS in the region, models could be applied to assess the potential
threats to the environment.
First Regional Team Meeting
4.2.23. The Regional Team Meetings will comprise the Regional Co-ordinator and the
Regional Team members. The first Regional Team meeting will be held immediately
following the first meeting of regional co-ordinators, to organise the work at the regional
level, and in particular to: finalise the overall workplan and timetable; identify potential
collaborators; assign responsibility for co-ordination of the various components of the
assessment; and to agree upon the agendas for, and participation in, the technical workshops.
Assessment of PTS sources and PTS concentration in the environment
4.2.24. Two individual members of the Regional Team will co-ordinate the assembly and
review of information and data related to assessing sources of PTS and their concentration in
the environment respectively. They will rely on a number of sources, including the guideline
documents and PDF-B workshop reports, the country level questionnaires, and unpublished
14
sources. Modelling and additional consultant assistance may be used at this stage where data
are lacking. The report will be submitted as a discussion paper to the following technical
workshop.
4.2.25. A technical workshop of 6 days duration, and with a minimum of 10 participants
(excluding the Regional Team members, or other participants covering their own costs), will
be convened on sources of PTS and concentrations in the environment. Participants will be
regional expert members of the Network drawn from government, academia, industry and
environmental NGOs invited to present and discuss their own work in these fields. The
workshop reports on sources and on concentration in environmental compartments will build
on the discussion documents and will make up the first draft of the Regional Reports for these
areas. All participants to the workshop will be invited to review this draft.
Assessment of (eco)toxicological impact of PTS and transboundary transport
4.2.26. Two individual members of the Regional Team will be given responsibility for
preparing the components of the Regional Report dealing with assessing the
(eco)toxicological impact of PTS on the environment and their transboundary transport
respectively. They will rely on a number of sources, including the guideline documents and
PDF-B workshop reports, the country level questionnaires, effects databases, and
unpublished sources. Additional consultant assistance may be used at this stage where
experience is lacking. The report will be submitted as a discussion document to the following
technical workshop.
4.2.27. A technical workshop of 6 days duration, and with a minimum of 10 participants
(excluding the Regional Team members, or other participants covering their own costs), will
be convened on (eco)toxicological impacts of PTS and transboundary transport. Participants
will be regional experts members of the Network drawn from government, academia,
industry and environmental NGOs invited to present and discuss their own work in these
fields. The workshop reports on (eco)toxicological impact on the environment and on
transboundary transport will build on the discussion documents and will prepare the first draft
of the Regional Reports for these areas. All participants to the workshop will be invited to
review this draft.
Second Regional Team Meeting
4.2.28. The Regional Team will meet, back to back with the technical workshop, and will
collate and finalise the chapters of the draft Regional Reports based on the discussion
documents and reports of the Technical Workshops. This draft will be submitted as a
discussion document for the Regional Priority Setting Meeting. The Regional Team meeting
will discuss and agree the agenda and list of participants for the Regional Priority Setting
meeting.
Assessment of regional capacity and needs to manage PTS, and the root causes of the
problems
4.2.29. One individual from the Regional Team will be responsible for: collecting and
collating information regarding the regional capacity to manage PTS; and analysing the root
causes of the problems. They will prepare an overall report that will be submitted as a
discussion paper to the Regional Priority Setting Meeting.
15
Regional Priority Setting Meeting
4.2.30. A Regional Priority Setting Meeting of approximately 30 participants lasting five
days will be organised in each region. Sufficient funding is available to ensure the broadest
possible participation of all relevant sectors. Participants will include government experts,
scientists, industry and public interest NGOs.
4.2.31. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the draft Regional Report, which will be
finalised after this meeting. This activity will establish a list of priority regional chemical
related environmental issues and their root causes. The meeting will also consider the
capacity and needs of governments in the region to manage PTS, and will seek to identify
examples of alternatives to PTS chemicals that have been successfully applied in the region
as well as best practices and techniques to minimise releases of PTS into the environment,
and the barriers to their adoption.
Third Regional Team Meeting
4.2.32. A third Regional Team Meeting will be held back-to-back with the Regional Priority
Setting Meeting, to finalise the draft Regional Report. Participants to the Priority Setting
Meeting, and other members of the regional Network will subsequently be invited to review
the Report.
4.2.33. The main output will be a comprehensive Regional Report (A draft outline of which is
provided in Annex G), including a list of regional priorities.
COMPONENT 4: GLOBAL SYNTHESIS
Comparative Review and Synthesis of Regional Reports
4.2.34. The Global Report will be written by the Regional Co-ordinators, assisted as needed
by other experts from the Network, under the overall co-ordination of the Project Manager.
The majority of this work will be conducted via electronic exchange of documents and views
and the Project manager shall synthesise the inputs to produce the first draft of the Global
Report.
Global Priority Setting Meeting and Outline of Alternatives/Remediation Options
4.2.35. A small-sized Task Force of 5-10 experts, including as appropriate Regional Co-
ordinators and Team Members, will prepare in advance of the Global Priority Setting meeting
a review paper evaluating the use and effectiveness of solutions to the identified priority
issues, e.g. evaluate alternatives to PTS chemicals and identify options for remediation. This
background paper will be discussed and amended during the course of the meeting as a first
step towards defining best practices to be encouraged in future interventions.
4.2.36. The first draft of the Global Report will be discussed during a five days Global
Priority meeting of approximately 30 participants, with the participation of the Regional Co-
ordinators together with other members of the Network representing the broadest possible
participation of the sectors involved with PTS. The meeting will review and evaluate the
environmental issues related to persistent toxic substances identified at the regional level and
consider and endorse or amend as appropriate, the relevant sections of the draft Global
16
Report. The outcome will be a set of agreed priorities on a global basis in terms of issues,
chemicals, and regions.
4.2.37. The output of this component will be a Global Report, which will extract and
highlight the major issues from the Regional Reports e.g. commonalities and cross-cutting
issues, give a list of priority issues on a regional and a global basis, and suggest interventions
to address the problems identified. The Global Report will provide guidance to the GEF for
further actions.
RISKS AND SUSTAINABILITY
4.2.38 The Logical Framework Matrix (Annex B) details the project-related risks and
assumptions. The first risk to the project is that, in some regions, the quantity and quality of
data available are not sufficient to draw conclusions. However, it is believed that there will
be enough information collected on potential sources to be able to assess the potential for
damage to the environment in all regions, through simple modelling and projection of the fate
of chemicals in the countries/regions concerned.
4.2.39. The second risk to the project is that the different stakeholders in the regions do not
participate to the project, and that they do not accept the conclusions of the Assessment.
These risks are minimised by the appointment of Regional Co-ordinators from within the
region, located in regional institutions, and by ensuring that the Regionally-based Assessment
Network is as wide as possible.
4.2.40. The Regionally-based Assessment is a one-off exercise. Thus the question of
sustainability is not relevant here. However, it is expected that the project will catalyse PTS
related activities in GEF eligible counties.
STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION AND IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS
4.2.41. The primary stakeholders in this project are the Ministries of Environment,
Agriculture, Health and Industry or the respective agencies involved with the management of
chemicals, members of the public at large and non-governmental organisations, including
various sectors of industry that use, produce, or dispose of, persistent toxic substances.
4.2.42. The implementation of the project will take place through a network of institutions
and individuals, led by Regional Co-ordinators responsible for the various regional
components, operating according to a common timetable (Table 1) and work plan.
4.2.43. The Arctic and the Antarctic regions present special cases. In the case of the Arctic,
the Arctic Assessment and Monitoring Programme (AMAP) has already carried out an
assessment of the State of the Arctic Environment including persistent toxic substances
(AMAP Assessment Report: Arctic Pollution Issues, Oslo, 1998). There is, however, a need
for reformatting the information in a form similar to the other Regional Reports, which will
be done by a small team of scientists familiar with the AMAP assessment. In the case of the
Antarctic, there is a limited amount of scientific data, and the work will be undertaken under
the auspices of and in collaboration with, the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
(SCAR). It follows that there will be no technical, priority setting, or Regional Team
meetings for these two regions.
17
4.2.44. UNEP is the Implementing Agency for a number of PTS related GEF activities which
will facilitate the synergy between these activities. Four countries in the Caribbean will
produce National Reports on pesticides use, levels and impact in the environment that the
Regional Team for this project will use. In each of the four countries, a National Working
Committee comprising all relevant stakeholders will facilitate the identification of
environmental NGOs and private sector representatives. Similarly, eight countries in Central
America will produce National Reports on DDT, and create National Working Committees.
The medium-sized project under preparation on PTS and Indigenous Peoples in Arctic Russia
will generate data that are of direct relevance to this project. Finally, the PDF-B on the
assessment of PTS national management needs complements this project by addressing
national solutions to some of the problems that the present project may highlight.
INCREMENTAL COSTS AND PROJECT FINANCING
INCREMENTAL COSTS
4.2.45. The project will comprise assessments that are complementary to the baseline
activities carried out by the various governments and research institutions world-wide. The
project will provide a common framework for assessment and comparison of the various
chemical related environmental issues across the world in order to identify those warranting
priority attention within GEF OP 10. Such an assessment would not take place without GEF
assistance. Accordingly, the project is fully complementary and the costs are eligible for
GEF funding. Government co-funding will finance the parts of the global assessment that are
carried out in non-GEF eligible countries.
4.2.46. This project complements rather than substitutes existing activities, since the existing
global activities do not undertake a comprehensive overview as intended for the Regionally-
based Assessment of Persistent Toxic Substances. The costs, where known, for existing
global, sub-regional and regional projects identified have been estimated and are included as
baseline activities (Annex A). Since no other organisation will undertake an assessment of
the scope of the RBA in the foreseeable future, and since the entire GEF project is
complementary, all costs can be considered incremental (Table 2).
Table 2:
Incremental Costs of the Regionally-based Assessment
US $ million
Baseline
Alternative Increment
Global Environmental
0 4.99
4.99
Benefits
Past activities contributing 30 30 0
to the baseline
On-going activities
15 15 0
contributing to the baseline
Total Costs
45
49.99
4.99
4.3
Work plan and timetable
Expected Date of Project Completion
Twentyfour months from GEF CEO approval. The preliminary timetable is presented in
Table 1.
18
4.4 Budget
Project Financing
4.4.1. The overall GEF approved budget is presented in Table 3. The GEF funding will be
used to support activities in those regions that are characterised by countries with developing
economies or economies in transition. This document includes an initial allocation by region,
reflecting the fact that weaker regions or more complex areas might benefit from additional
resources. Global coverage of the Regionally-based Assessment will be ensured through the
additional support of non-eligible countries through co-financing activities in developed
regions. The Implementing Agency, UNEP, will provide in-kind support to the Project
Manager, for World Wide Web dissemination of results, and for monitoring and evaluation.
4.4.2. Cash co-financing secured thus far amounts to approximately US $ 1,465,000: US $
420,000 from Germany, to support activities in sub-Saharan Africa and South America; US $
200,000 from Australia to support activities primarily in South East Asia; US $ 65,000
(400,000FF) from France; US $ 30,000 from Canada to support the assessment of the Arctic
Region; US $1 50,000 from Sweden for least developed countries; US $100,000 from
Switzerland, for project co-ordination; and US $500,000 from the USA. In order to complete
the assessment it is estimated that a further US $ 165,000 in cash co-financing will be
required, which includes a commitment from GEF non-eligible countries to complete the
assessment for those regions where GEF funds will not be expended. It is anticipated that the
costs involved in these regions are likely to be small given the well studied nature of these
regions and the availability of existing reviews and published sources. The remaining amount
of co-financing will be forthcoming during the project implementation.
4.4.3. It is anticipated that in some regions where expertise in persistent toxic substances is
weak the Regional Team might require assistance and/or specialist expertise, consequently
funds have been allocated for this purpose in the budget. Plans for disbursement of these
funds to the Regional Teams will be reviewed and endorsed by the Steering Group as part of
the work plan.
A detailed UNEP format budget is provided in Annex K.
4.5 Follow-up
The follow-up to components 1-4 will hopefully be specific country-based, regional or sub-
regional projects to address the priorities from this project.
19
Table 3:
GEF Approved Budget
In 000 US$
Component
Co-financing
Activity
GEF CASH
In-kind
Total
Germany
Switzerland
Basel
to be
UNEP Expert
Convention
identified
time
1. Co-ordination and Management
4 Steering Group Meetings
-
-
30
-
10
-
-
40
1 Regional Co-ordinators Meeting
21
-
21
-
-
-
-
42
Project
Manager
340
-
-
-
-
-
-
340
Travel Project Manager
50
-
-
-
-
-
-
50
Total 411
-
51
-
10
-
-
472
2. Development of Guidelines
Translation
25
-
-
-
25
-
-
50
Total
25
-
- - 25
-
-
50
3. The Regional Assessments
Data gathering and synthesis, discussion papers, 510
400
-
80
60
-
200
1250
and Regional co-ordination
3x10 Regional Workshops
580
20
-
-
660
-
-
1260
3x10 Regional Team Meetings
300
-
-
-
155
-
-
455
Expert
Consultants
420
-
-
-
-
-
-
420
Total 1,810
420
-
80
875
-
200
3,385
4. Global synthesis
Comparative review and synthesis of reports
-
-
-
-
30
-
-
30
Global priority setting meeting and alternatives 39
-
-
-
68
-
-
107
and remediation options
Total
39
-
- - 98
-
-
137
Dissemination
Website
activities
-
-
-
-
-
25
-
25
Regional Reports (printing, distributing)
76
-
-
-
44
-
-
120
Global Report (printing, distributing)
27
-
-
-
28
-
-
55
Total
103
-
- - 72
25
-
200
Executing Agency Fee
274
-
- - -
-
-
274
PDF-B Including establishment of Network
340
-
- - -
60 75 475
Total
3,002
420
51 80 1080
85
275
4,993
21
SECTION 5. INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK AND EVALUATION
5.1 Institutional
framework
This Internal Project will be implemented under the general guidance and direct supervision
of the Director of the Division of Technology, Industry and Environment. The Director of
Chemicals will be overall responsible for the formulation of internal and external project
documents attached to this project.
All correspondence regarding substantive matters should be addressed to:
Mr. James B. Willis
Director, Chemicals, UNEP
11-13, Chemin des Anémones
CH-1219 Châtelaine
Geneva, Switzerland
Fax: 41 22 797 3460
With a copy to:
Mr. Ahmed Djoghlaf
Executive Coordinator
Attn. Persistent Toxic Substances Officer
GEF Coordination Office, UNEP
PO Box 30552, Nairobi, Kenya
Fax: 254 2 624041
Correspondence regarding financial and budgetary matters should be addressed to:
Mr. E. Ortega
Chief Budget and Funds Management Service, UNON
P.O. Box 30552
Nairobi, Kenya
Fax: 254 2 623755
With a copy to:
Mr. James B. Willis
POPs Coordinator
Director, Chemicals, UNEP
11-13 Chemin des Anémones
CH-1219 Châtelaine
Geneva, Switzerland
Fax: 41 22 797 3460
Ms. Immaculate Njeru
(Cc: Persistent Toxic Substances Officer)
International Waters FMO
GEF Coordination Office, UNEP
PO Box 30552
22
Nairobi, Kenya
Fax 254 2 624041
5.2 Evaluation
The POPs Coordinator will maintain systematic overview of the implementation of the
project by means of monthly project monitoring meetings or other form of consultation, as
well as by regular quarterly and half-yearly progress reports. A terminal report and internal
desk evaluation of the project will be carried out by the POPs Coordinator at the end of the
project
SECTION 6. MONITORING AND REPORTING
6.1
Quarterly Progress Reports to the GEF
From September 1, 2000 and every three months thereafter (1 December, 1 March, 1 June)
the Director, Chemicals will submit to the UNEP-GEF Coordination Office, using the formal
given in Annex M, quarterly reports on the progress in project execution.
6.2
Half-yearly Progress Reports
Within 30 days of the end of the reporting period, the Director, Chemicals will submit to the
UNEP-GEF Coordination Office with a copy to the Chief, Budget and Funds Management
Services half-yearly progress reports as at 30 June and 31 December using the format given
in Annex N.
6.3 Mid-Term
Evaluation
In mid-2001 a mid-term internal evaluation will be undertaken under the supervision of the
UNEP-GEF Co-ordination Office to diagnose problems and suggest necessary corrections. It
will evaluate the efficiency of project management, including delivery of outputs and
activities in terms of quality, quantity and timeliness. The Steering Group will receive the
outcome of the evaluation and discuss any required remedial action, if necessary. Final desk
evaluation of the project will be undertaken by UNEP Chemicals according to UNEP
approved Monitoring and Evaluation procedures. Evaluation of the overall performance of
the project will be undertaken within the framework of the Monitoring and Evaluation
Programme of the GEF Secretariat.
6.4 Final
Report
Within 60 days of the completion of the project, the POPs Coordinator will submit a final
report to the UNEP-GEF Coordination Office with a copy to the Chief, Budget and Funds
Management Services, using the format given in Annex O.
6.5 Substantive
Reports
All substantive and technical reports will be submitted to the SPO International Waters, GEF
Co-ordination Office, for clearance. Both the cover and title page of all substantive reports will
carry the approved UNEP logo and the title "United Nations Environment Programme", and
23
acknowledge the Global Environment Facility (GEF) as the source of funds for the project.
10 Copies of all substantive and technical reports produced in accordance with the schedule of
work will be submitted to the SPO International Waters, GEF Co-ordination Office.
6.6 Financial
Reports
UNOG will submit status reports of the allotment to UNEP on a monthly basis in accordance
with the United Nations financial procedures.
6.7 Non-expendable
equipment
UNEP Chemicals will maintain records of non-expendable equipment (items costing US$
1,500 or more as well as items of attraction such as pocket calculators) purchased with UNEP
funds, and will submit as inventory of all such equipment to the Budget and Funds
Management Service once a year, attached to the progress report submitted on 30 June. A
final inventory of equipment will be submitted to the Budget and Funds Management
Service, within 60 days of the completion of the project.
6.8
Responsibility for cost overruns
Chemicals Director is authorized to enter into commitments or to incur expenditures up to a
maximum of 20 per cent over and above the annual amount foreseen in the project budget
under any sub-budget line, provided the total cost of the UNEP annual contribution to the
project is not exceeded. This may be done without prior authorization, but once the need for
these additional funds becomes apparent, Chemicals Director shall inform, within thirty days,
the Chief, Budget and Funds Management Services, about shifts made and these have to be
reflected in a revision to the project document, not later than three months after the shifts
have been made.
No commitment over and above the amounts authorized in the sub-allotments shall be
entered into unless specifically authorized by UNEP.
6.9
Cash Advance Requirements
UNEP will issue sub-allotment to the Chemicals Office on a yearly basis for each project
separately. The sub-allotment will be amended from time to time, based on project budget
revision. The POP Coordinator will submit status of allotment reports to UNEP on a monthly
basis in accordance with the United Nations financial procedures.
6.10 Publications
All publications must be produced/published, according to UNEP's publication manual with
the approval of the UNEP Editorial Committee to ensure peer review of manuscripts, and
distribution and marketing strategies. UNEP thereby affirms itself as copyright-holder of the
said manuscripts.
6.11 Communications
strategy
6.11.1. The 1st meeting of the Steering Group will review and finalize the communications
strategy drafted by the Project Manager. The strategy takes into account both short-term and
24
long-term communication needs, e.g. a central clearing-house for long-term sensing of the
sources, levels and impacts of PTS beyond the life span of the project, and/or regional
clearing-houses in the institutions hosting the Regional Co-ordinators.
6.11.2. Copies of the project brief and other information documents have been made
available, at display areas, to the delegates to the meetings of the INC for a POPs Convention.
Delegates have provided feedback and input to UNEP Chemicals. A graphic presentation of
the project is also available on the GEF PTS section of the UNEP POPs Homepage and is used
at all technical and capacity building workshops on PTS related areas executed by UNEP
Chemicals to increase awareness of the Regionally Based Assessment amongst Governments
and NGOs. In addition, the Regional and Global Reports will be made available at relevant
intergovernmental meetings.
6.11.3. The outputs of the Regionally Based Assessment will be made available to the public
in general, to educational institutions, and to national and regional authorities. The Regional
Reports and the Global Report will be widely disseminated in hard copy and electronically.
In addition, a review will be prepared for the greater public and decision-makers. The
database of all gathered information will be made freely available on the specially developed
GEF PTS homepage for PTS projects linked to UNEP POPs Homepage on the World Wide
Web, as well as an outline of the progress of the assessment with links to relevant
information sources. A hard copy on paper or on CD-ROM will be available where there is
no access to the Web.
25
Table 4:
Budget
In 000 US$
Thousands of US $
Component 1+ 2(+PDF) Component 3
Component 4
Project total
Budget Line
GEF Cofinancing GEF Cofinancing GEF Cofinancing GEF Cofinancing TOTAL
Personnel
Project manager
28
198
114
340
340
International consultants
30
300
90
420
420
Regional Teams
510 740
510
740
1250
Workshops
880
835 39
68 919
903 1822
Training
Equipment
Travel
10
35
5
50
50
Miscellaneous
Website activities
25
25
25
Translation
25
25 25
25 50
Publications
76
44 27
58 103
102 205
Other
21
31
20
10 21
61 82
Total for phase
114 56
1999 1639
275 161
PDF
340
135
340
135
475
Executing agency fee
91
91
92
274
274
Total cost to GEF (+PDF)
545
2090
367
3002
3002
Total co-financing (+PDF)
191
1639 161
1991 1991
GRAND TOTAL (PDF + project
4993
24
LIST OF ANNEXES
Annex A
Incremental Costs
Annex B
Logical Framework Matrix
Annex C
STAP Roster Technical Review
Annex C1
Response to STAP/Council/IA comments
Annex D
Preliminary Root Cause Analysis of the Use and Subsequent Release of PTS
in the Environment; & Impact and Transboundary Issues Associated With the
Contamination of Various Environmental Compartments
Annex E
Available Reference Documents
Annex F
Proposed Geographical Units of Assessment
Annex G
Draft Outline for the Regional Reports
Annex H
Terms of Reference for: the Steering Group; the Project Manager; the
Regional Co-ordinators; and the Regional Teams.
Annex I
Results of the PDF-B phase, "Regionally-based Assessment of Persistent
Toxic Substances" November 1998 - October 1999 and Preparatory actions to
be completed by April 2000.
Annex J
Preliminary Workplan: Summary of Project Activities, Milestones and
Products
Annex K
Commitments of Contributions to the GEF Regionally Based Assessment of
Persistent Toxic Substances
Annex L:
Budget in UNEP Format
Annex M
Format of Quarterly Report to UNEP/GEF
Annex N
Progress Report Format
Annex O
Final Report for Internal Projects
27
ANNEX A
INCREMENTAL COSTS
BACKGROUND
The Regionally-based Assessment of Persistent Toxic Substances is comparable to the GEF
funded Global International Waters Assessment in that it is a global assessment, albeit
regionally-based, that relies on pre-existing national and regional data and information. Thus,
much of the discussion of "Incremental Costs and Benefits of GIWA" is directly applicable to
this project (Annex 10 of the GIWA project document).
The concept of Incremental Cost was developed in the context of national activities for which
one can determine "domestic benefits" and "global benefits". The Regionally-based
Assessment is global in scope and thus there are conceptual difficulties when attempting
Incremental Cost calculations, since the direct national benefit of such assessments may be
small or negligible.
The Regionally-based Assessment relies on past and on-going activities such as
environmental monitoring in national or regional contexts, and research activities at the
national level on environmental fate and effects. The costs of these past and on-going
baseline activities upon which the Regionally-based Assessment builds can be estimated.
The Regionally-based Assessment complements these existing national and regional
activities related to the assessment of the impact of persistent toxic substances on the
environment. In addition, no other organisation is at present considering to undertake such an
assessment, and the assessment would not take place without the GEF intervention, thus the
entire cost of the Regionally-based Assessment can be considered incremental.
Whilst the entire project costs may be considered incremental, it should be noted however,
that not all costs are eligible for GEF funding. To ensure a global scope the assessment
requires the participation of donor countries in conducting assessments for those regions that
contain countries that are not eligible for GEF support. Present indications are that the
support required and detailed in the budget of the project brief (Table 3) will be forthcoming.
BASELINE: EXAMPLES OF PAST ACTIVITIES PROVIDING THE INFORMATION AND DATA UPON
WHICH THE REGIONALLY-BASED ASSESSMENT WILL BE BASED
An illustration of the baseline costs of past activities on which the Regionally-based
Assessment is dependant, can be made by examining the approximate costs of some regional
and global programmes that address persistent toxic substances, as provided by the relevant
co-ordinating bodies, or estimated:
AMAP: The cost of the first assessment done by the Arctic Monitoring Assessment
Programme (AMAP) was US $ 5 million. The total spent on persistent toxic substances can
be estimated at US $ 1.5 million.
28
IPCS: The International Programme on Chemical Safety provides hazard assessments on
persistent toxic substances through their Environmental Health Criteria Documents, Concise
International Chemical Assessment Documents, and through their monographs on pesticides
evaluated by the Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues. The biennial cost 1995-1997 of the
programme is US $13 million.
LRTAP: The Geneva Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution under the
auspices of the UN Economic Commission for Europe has a special monitoring and
assessment programme (EMEP) part of which is spent on persistent toxic substances. The
annual costs attributable to PTS are US $ 0.5 million. In addition, the Parties to the
Convention have national programmes of varying size which contribute to the LRTAP.
HELCOM: The Helsinki Commission runs a special programme on the marine environment
of the Baltic Sea and prepares periodic assessments of the state of the environment in the
Baltic Sea. The third assessment was published in 1996 and the fourth is ongoing. The
annual costs for monitoring and assessment of POPs are approximately US $ 1 million. This
sum does not include the costs of national programs' contribution to the assessment.
Danube Regional Pesticide Study: Under a PHARE contract from the European Union
Bulgaria has managed a project involving eleven riverine states to evaluate the risks of
pesticides to humans and the environment during 1995 to 1997. The cost of the project was
approximately US $ 300,000.
NACEC: The North American Commission on Environmental Co-operation has been
running since 1995 a programme on pollution and health including a sub-programme on the
Sound Management of Chemicals. The annual costs of the part of this programme that
addresses persistent toxic substances are approximately US $ 400,000.
IJC: The International Joint Commission between Canada and the United States is
continually assessing and monitoring persistent pollutants in the Great Lakes and along the
US-Canadian border. The annual costs may be estimated to several million US $.
The above are examples of the costs of different regional and global activities addressing
persistent toxic substances, the information and data from which will contribute to the
Regionally-based Assessment. A conservative estimate of the baseline of past activities on
the basis of these examples would be in the order of US $ 30 million (Table 2). This does not
take into account national monitoring or research activities on which the Regionally-based
Assessment will also directly rely. These could be conservatively estimated to be an order of
magnitude greater. The consideration of the costs involved in stock taking: inventories,
import/export figures, on which the Regionally-based Assessment will also rely would push
this figure even higher.
29
Baseline: Ongoing Regional and Global Activities Contributing to the Regionally-based
Assessment
Planned or ongoing activities that will contribute to the Regionally-based Assessment
include:
IPCS assessments, GESAMP assessment of the State of the Marine Environment (1997-
2002), the LRTAP, NAFTA/CEC, IJC and HELCOM activities, among others. An estimate
of the costs of such activities would be approximately US $ 15 million over the life of the
project. Again, the national level monitoring and assessment activities that will contribute to
the Regionally-based Assessment can be conservatively estimated to be at least an order of
magnitude greater than this figure.
BENEFITS OF THE REGIONALLY-BASED ASSESSMENT
The Regionally-based Assessment is based upon the evaluation of information and data
which, in most cases, have been gathered at the national level. The project will add value to
these national activities by making this information available and by offering a mean of
comparison within and between regions. The incremental benefits of the Regionally-based
Assessment are based on this ability to put chemical related environmental issues into
perspective, and thus to focus further actions of the GEF, partner agencies, and others to
address the priority chemical-related environmental issues within OP 10.
30
Annex B
LOGICAL FRAMEWORK MATRIX
SUMMARY
OBJECTIVELY
VERIFIABLE MEANS OF VERIFICATION
CRITICAL ASSUMPTION AND RISK
INDICATORS
Overall Objective
To complete one global and widely accepted and
Adoption of the findings of the
Selection by the GEF and others
That selection of future priority areas and
12 regional assessments of Persistent Toxic
RBA by various entities, including
of projects that address the
projects for interventions will be based on
Substances (PTS) issues, and priorities for action. the GEF and UNEP.
priority issues identified by the
rational decision making. An associated risk
Development of strategies for
RBA.
is that decision making is distorted by
implementation.
sectoral interests or external influences.
Outcomes
Improved knowledge and understanding of the
Adoption of the findings of the
Change of management
That conclusions and recommendations
threats posed by PTS to the environment,
RBA at the national level.
practices.
resulting from the project receive broad-base
amongst decision makers, managers, and the
Generation of highly focused
government acceptance.
public at large.
Adoption, use, and promulgation
GEF eligible projects by
That there is effective relay by civil society
of the findings of the RBA by
countries.
organisations to help disseminate the
NGOs and the media.
Popular articles.
findings of the RBA.
Support to the future Convention on Persistent
The findings of the RBA are the
Reports from meetings.
That conclusions and recommendations
Organic Pollutants and other global or regional
basis for decisions.
resulting from the project receive broad-base
agreements.
government acceptance.
Contribution to the Global International Waters
The results of the RBA are
GIWA products taking into
That good co-ordination is established
Assessment.
generated in parallel to GIWA's
account the results of the RBA.
between the two projects.
analytical phase, and can feed into
its predictive phase.
Results
Review of the state of the environmental
One Global Report based on, and
Report is published and
That there are indeed data already available,
contamination and subsequent impact from PTS,
synthesising, the Regional Reports. distributed.
so that the assessment is not mere list of
and recommended priority issues at the global
data gaps and research needs.
level.
Identified options for action to remediate priority
The identified options are the basis GEF or other projects implement
That the solutions proposed can be applied
generic problems at regional scales.
for future GEF, UNEP, or others,
remedial options outlined by the
in GEF eligible countries.
actions.
RBA.
31
SUMMARY
OBJECTIVELY
VERIFIABLE MEANS OF VERIFICATION
CRITICAL ASSUMPTION AND RISK
INDICATORS
12 regional assessments of the state of knowledge Production of 12 Regional Reports. Reports are published and
That there are indeed data already available,
of the contamination of the environment by PTS
distributed.
so that the assessment is not mere list of
and subsequent impact, and recommended
data gaps and research needs.
priority issues at the regional level.
Components/Activities
Dissemination of products.
Results are disseminated widely,
Publication of reports, brochures,
None
including to the public, decision-
CD-ROM, films, radio
makers, managers, and NGOs.
programmes etc.
Outcomes of the assessment are
presented in the form of
information documents/ briefing
sessions organised in the margins
of relevant intergovernmental
meetings.
Component 4: Global priority setting meeting and Priority chemical related
Draft chapter of Global Report.
That the experts from different regions can
outline of alternatives/remediation options.
environmental issues are agreed
agree on a set of priorities.
upon.
Component 4: Comparative review and synthesis
Global Report is produced
Draft chapter of Global Report.
That the Regional Reports are produced in
of Regional Reports.
according to workplan.
an orderly and timely manner to permit their
aggregation at the global scale.
That the Regional Reports are of
comparable quality, permitting comparison
and aggregation.
Component 3: Regional priority setting meetings
Priority chemical related
Draft chapter of Regional Report.
That there is agreement between regional
and assessment of regional capacity and needs to
environmental issues at the
experts and government representatives.
manage PTS, and the root causes of the problems. regional level are agreed upon.
That there is good co-operation and
The barriers that prevent the
response from industry and other
adoption of reduction/elimination
stakeholders.
measures of PTS are discussed and
That the association of governments and
best practices are identified.
NGOs will work well.
Component 3: Assessment of (eco)toxicological
Impacts of PTS on the
Draft chapter of Regional Report.
That the physical data such as river flows
impact of PTS and transboundary transport.
environment, including natural
are available and reliable.
32
SUMMARY
OBJECTIVELY
VERIFIABLE MEANS OF VERIFICATION
CRITICAL ASSUMPTION AND RISK
INDICATORS
resources, and human health, and
That there exist enough data that are
their transboundary transport are
reliable, and thus comparable between and
assessed.
within regions.
Component 3: Assessment of PTS sources and
Major regional sources of
Draft chapter of Regional Report.
That no major sources are omitted and that
concentration in the environment.
persistent toxic substances, and
emissions factors established in developed
their levels in the environment, in
countries can be extrapolated.
the regions are assessed.
That there exist enough data that are
reliable, and thus comparable between and
within regions.
Component 3: Country level contributions phase.
Regional Co-ordinators collect and Progress reports to UNEP by the
That all major countries contribute and
synthesise the data submitted by
Regional Co-ordinators.
That the "right" country contact points are
individual countries.
identified.
Component 3: Regional Team meetings.
Production of outputs according to
Meeting reports.
That outputs are delivered in a timely
workplan.
manner.
Component 2: Development of guidelines.
UNEP Chemicals, with support
Publication of guidelines.
That the groundwork can be prepared
from experts, drafts guidelines and
during the last quarter of 1999, to ensure the
protocols for the assessment,
prompt start of the project early in 2000.
including country questionnaires.
Component 1: Establishment of the global
A network of PTS experts
Letters and e-mails are
That the groundwork can be prepared
Network.
including all stakeholders is
dispatched.
during the last quarter of 1999, to ensure the
established. Scientific institutions
prompt start of the project early in 2000.
and societies, government focal
points, Industry, International
Organisations and NGOs are
contacted.
Component 1: Technical co-ordination and
Hiring of staff.
Issuance of contracts.
That the groundwork can be prepared
management of the project.
Meetings of the Steering
Publication of meeting reports.
during the last quarter of 1999, to ensure the
Committee.
prompt start of the project early in 2000.
33
ANNEX C
STAP ROSTER TECHNICAL REVIEW
REGIONALLY-BASED ASSESSMENT OF PERSISTENT SUBSTANCES
I was asked to review this draft proposal and took receipt of an e-mail copy on Monday 4
October. After clarification of queries as to possible missing sections I was satisfied I had all
the necessary documentation by 5 October. Having now carefully studied the draft proposal I
have the following comments
General comments and overall assessment
The proposal is well written and, uncharacteristically, free of jargonistic phraseology. It does
of course make use of a number of acronyms but these are defined from the outset and their
use does simplify the reading of the draft proposal. I am a strong supporter of the concept that
globally imposed standards and mechanisms for control are unlikely to serve equally well and
effectively the needs of the world's different regions. This is not to say that the concept of
world-wide restrictions on the release of certain particularly harmful substances is
inappropriate. Rather, that the level of concern and the need for urgent and particularly
stringent measures may differ from region to region. For example if concentrations of a
particular substance are very high and obviously causing damage in one region it would be
more appropriate to impose a stringent and immediate ban on use and release there than in a
region where concentrations are lower and effects as yet are not detectable. In such a region
restrictions on use and release could be introduced on a time-scale more appropriate to the
needs of the area, taking account of the availability of suitable alternatives and the region's
ability to apply the necessary level of remediation measures and controls.
I therefore regard the concept of the proposed project as sound i.e. that any assessment of
persistent toxic substances ought to be regionally based. I further agree that regionally based
assessments provide the countries of the region concerned with a role in defining the need for
controls and therefore have a much greater chance of seeing them promptly and successfully
reacting in an agreed and appropriate manner. That being said I have to say I feel a number of
the regions are extremely large and whilst I note some are expected to operate as two halves
in the early stages it is unclear to me which these are and whether that will be enough to
ensure the necessary level of co-operation. I also have some reservations about the proposed
time-scale which does not seem to me to allow sufficient time for data gathering and
assimilation in the early stages and tends to underestimate the timescale under which people
prepare and react to, draft documents and agree conclusions. These last concerns may be less
valid if all concerned have their time dedicated to the project. However, given that some
participants are expected to contribute on a nationally paid in-kind basis, this seems unlikely.
I elaborate on these ideas in the more detailed comments that I provide below on a paragraph
by paragraph and Annex by Annex basis.
4.
As a further general comment I note a number of examples are given where
consultation is proposed with organisations which have conducted assessments wholly or in
part of toxic substances. There seem to me to be at least two notable exceptions and perhaps a
third. The notable ones are OSPARCOM, which is currently in the final stages of assessing
34
the Quality Status of the entire northeast Atlantic. This assessment includes consideration of
the inputs and effects of many of the PTS proposed for inclusion in the GEF study. The
AMAP study, to which the project proposal does refer, is a component of that overall
OSPARCOM Quality Status study, although it was initiated independently to start with. The
second major omission is the EU which, through its Dangerous Substances Directive has
carried out regionally based assessments of the problems posed by several of the listed PTS.
Finally I believe the Athens based group running the Barcelona Convention has concluded, at
least partial regionally based reviews for some of the PTS listed in the proposed project. I
suspect also that IMO has useful data, at least for the human and aquatic species toxicity of
some of the PTS concerned, through its assessments of the Hazards posed by Materials
carried by Ships.
COMMENTS ON POINTS OF DETAIL
The following comments relate mainly to the need to clarify details in the project proposal
and certain reservations as to, for example, time scale and the assumed ease of conducting
certain tasks. Whilst they do not necessarily imply a delay to the project, let alone serious
doubts as to its adoption, I do feel they require further consideration and clarification as soon
as possible after the project is adopted and given approval to start.
Para 5 It should be recognised that the assessment could conclude some of the 12 presently
designated PTS are wrongly so designated, or at least are already subject to (effective?) bans
or restrictions on production and use.
Para 11 I agree the combination of NGO and Governmental sources is a good one, indeed it is
almost essential as a means of ensuring extreme views are suitably balanced. I note in this
context that WWF seems to get a particular stamp of approval and, whilst I do not disagree
with that, I do feel GEF should be prepared for others to demand a seat at the table. This
could pose difficulties, as groups become very inefficient as they become larger. Also in this
paragraph reference is made on line 4/5 of use of `other sources of information', a few
examples of what is intended might help e.g. EU, OSPAR, MAP and IMO.
Para 13 I hope the UNEP Focal points referred to on line 3 will consult extensively at
national level and not simply rely on their already established contacts.
In the same para I suggest additional sources of data in many countries would be Government
laboratories and Agencies. Universities will be useful sources it is true but it would be
advisable to ask them for data on their quality assurance procedures. This applies to all data
sources of course but in my experience is particularly desirable for Universities, as they tend
to utilise relatively unskilled student labour.
Para 14 I note the proposal to involve industry,- good.
Para 21 I note UNEP Chemicals will consult experts. I assume they already have access to
them but is the cost of consultation an additional cost or is it already included in the budget?
Perhaps the experts are relied upon to give their time free, if so is this realistic these days?
35
Para 23 I note the expectation of infrastructure support, it will certainly be necessary and the
expectation should be made a condition of the appointment.
Para 25 The Steering Group is already looking pretty large but I note there are no proposals
to include Government representatives. I think there should be, though I realise the problem
of agreeing which countries get a seat. It is hardly practicable to have all involved and
perhaps a solution would be to have representation from a local intergovernmental body e.g.
in my area EU, ODSPARCOM and HELCOM.
Para 32 Bullet 2 should make it clear that what is most required are regionally derived data
and regionally appropriate test species.
Bullet 3 should make it clear that transport pathways into and out of the region are of equal
interest.
Para 34 Having been involved in a recent assessment of the Celtic Seas (as part of the
OSPARCOM Quality Status exercise), I have severe reservations as to whether 6 months is
enough for the data gathering stage, especially if it is intended to draw on sources in several
different countries rather than commissioning one individual to gather what is published
(which frankly would not reveal all grey source material).
Para 35 I think it would be wise to hold a get together of each Regional Team early on. The
purpose of such a meeting would be to clarify what is expected of the team members and
their contacts. Failure to do is likely to lead to inaction by some and diverging actions by
others. It would replace the first proposed meeting and include the activities currently
proposed for that meeting
Paras 36-39 I assume these meetings and workshops are all at Regional level? That is not
entirely clear and the matter should be clarified whether my assumption is correct or not.
Para 42 Whilst I applaud the intention of back to back meetings with relevant
intergovernmental meetings I wonder how often that will be feasible and note the added
complication of a second back to back meeting (i.e. 3 sequential meetings in all) proposal in
para 44.
Para 46 Clear guidelines will be required here on the extent to which Regional Co-ordinators
will be expected to work together in meeting(s) and at their home bases.
Para 47 This looks like being a big meeting. Is such a large group going to able to operate
effectively? I would suggest the answer could only be yes if some clear proposals are drafted
in advance by the Project Manger in consultation with the Regional Co-ordinators.
Para 57 Re the lack of obvious stake holders in the Antarctic region what about the countries
with Research Bases in the area? Perhaps this is what is meant by reference to using a
research institution?
36
Para 59 Note my earlier general comment about what the EU, OSPARCOM have already
done. I suspect HELCOM may also claim to have done at least a partial RBA for some of the
proposed PTS.
Table 2 Budget I do not feel qualified to comment on the adequacy or otherwise of the
budget.
Annex A Para 4 Whilst this is true within the context of the GEF defined regions note my
general comment and the specific one on para 59 re the activities of EU and OSPARCOM
etc.
Bulleted points page 18/19 I note no mention is made of the OSPARCOM Joint Monitoring
Programme/Joint Monitoring and Assessment Programme or of MAP or of the developing
European Environment Agency. These are in my view major omissions.
I endorse the final sentence of the final paragraph on Page 19 re national monitoring
networks and their cost.
Annex B Assumptions and Risks page 22 last entry I think a further assumption is that the
association of governments and NGOs will work well it may not.
Page 23 third entry. River flow data are in my experience highly questionable and data on
concentrations even more so.
Annex D I am not sure I understand the inclusion of increased cost of navigational dredging
and fish processing in the Social and Economic Impact box relative to Coastal, estuary and
marginal seas. Nor do I understand why in Rivers and Lakes there is a potential impact on
health status of humans but in groundwater the expression is potential human health effects.
Is this simply due to two different drafters or an intentional distinction. If it is intentional
what is the difference?
Annex E Aquaculture It should be noted that in addition to anti-foulants a range of chemicals
is used to treat diseases and to prevent or get rid of harmful parasites such as salmon lice.
Annex G Re regions IV and V In which of them does the Atlantic coast of France, Spain and
Portugal fall? That area has more in common with say UK and Ireland than the
Mediterranean.
For Region IV the problems of the areas of Europe bordering the NE Atlantic are somewhat
different and perhaps less serious than those around the Caspian or Black Sea and even
perhaps the Baltic.
Regions VI and VII At least in the first of these, few countries are listed but presumably it is
intended to deal with their Atlantic and Pacific coasts separately? Similarly I assume two sub-
Regions for the African Region?
Annex H Section 3 I feel it is important to emphasise that the primary focus should be on
regionally derived and regionally relevant data.
Sections 5 and 6 I feel are particularly sound.
37
Annex I The Project Manager is clearly going to be very busy. I do not envy the appointee
their task. Somebody needs for example to give thought to what facilitating and identifying in
Tasks (i) and (iv) in section 2 imply. I also question, in the same section, the wisdom of
including task (vi), which I think is almost bound to end up with all 12 regions expecting
help. Similarly the tasks listed under 4 could alone amount to a full time job. I would suggest
(i), (ii), (vi) and (vii) are the most important and that the rest should be dropped.
Annex J I note no governmental representatives are proposed. Is this deliberate? See my
earlier comment re para 25.
Annex L Para 2 does not specifically mention the Antarctic.
Final para See my earlier comment about local support being available, Para 23.
John E Portmann
7th October 1999.
38
ANNEX C1
RESPONSE TO STAP/COUNCIL/IA COMMENTS
REGIONALLY-BASED ASSESSMENT OF PERSISTENT SUBSTANCES
RESPONSE TO STAP REVIEW
The key issues raised by the reviewer were:
1) The regions are too large.
The delimitation and size of the regions were discussed during the PDF phase, and in
particular at the Management and Planning workshop and the final steering group meeting.
These discussions are reflected in the annex describing PDF-B results. The regional divisions
represent a compromise between the need to group countries with similar characteristics and
financial limitations. The transaction costs of regional co-ordination actions such as meetings
whilst not directly related to the number of regions, certainly increases substantially as the
number of regions is increased.
2) The time-scale is too short.
The reviewer's concerns are noted with appreciation, and the time allocated to country level
data collection has been expanded from six to nine months. It was recognised at the time of
PDF-B approval, however, that this should be a rapid assessment that would complement the
Global International Waters Assessment (GIWA) and the results of which would be available
promptly. It is the intention of the Executing Agency to use unspent PDF money between the
time of project brief submission and final Council approval, to prepare the groundwork for
this project. As described in Annex I (added as a response to the reviewers comments and to
the GEF Secretariat review) proposals regarding the composition of the Regional Teams and
the structure of the Network will be finalised during this period. These will be endorsed at the
first steering group meeting to be convened during the first month of project execution thus
ensuring rapid mobilisation of the Network and commencement of activities.
3) In relation with the previous point, the reviewer points out that it would be unrealistic for
participants to the project on an in-kind basis to react with the necessary promptness. It
should be noted however, that funding is available to support the Regional Team members
directly for the data gathering exercise.
4) The reviewer notes the absence of government representatives in the membership of the
Steering Group. It is felt however that further widening the composition of the Steering
Group would lead to a too large, and thus inefficient body (as the reviewer himself points
out). It is anticipated, however, that representatives of the donor governments will be
members of the Steering Group.
5) The reviewer makes a number of specific comments on points of scientific and technical
detail, or that relate to management and organisational detail. These have been addressed
directly in the revised text as now presented, with the exception of reference to the
39
OSPARCOM study in the Incremental Cost Annex since the actual costs involved are not
available.
RESPONSE TO WORLD BANK REVIEW
The World Bank review raises a number of points, most of which have been addressed in the
revised version now presented, or are answered in the context of the reply to the STAP
review. Regarding the distribution of funding among countries and regions: GEF funding will
be allocated to regions according to the proportion of GEF eligible countries that they
contain. The World Bank notes the risk that there be little or no data available in some
regions. It is noted by the project proponents that the assessment will access unpublished
government sources. In addition expert consultants will be allocated to those Regional Teams
that need specialist, expert assistance to supplement the lack of empirical data by modelling.
Finally, it should be noted that the inclusion of an assessment of alternatives implemented at
the regional level in the final regional priority setting meeting is intended to facilitate
experience sharing and technology transfer within a region.
RESPONSE TO UNDP REVIEW
The UNDP review proposes that a donor's conference be held towards the end of the project.
UNEP considers this an inappropriate suggestion since the objective is to determine priority
issues and areas for future intervention but not to develop proposals for action to the level of
detail required to solicit concrete financing. The review notes that the description of the
baseline is incomplete. The calculations of the project baseline will be expanded through
assembling further details of the costs associated with programmes and activities at regional
and global scales. It should be noted however, that this is a global project that is fully
complementary, hence the baseline has less relevance than is the case of single country
projects.
RESPONSE TO COUNCIL COMMENTS
USA
- The regional structure in the Americas has been revised following Council member's wish
that continental US not be split into two.
France
- Government representation in the Steering Group will be secured through participation of
government representatives from co-financing countries.
- The risk assessment activities that are envisaged within this project are the evaluation of the
comparative risks, and hence comparative urgency to mitigate, the various chemical related
environmental issues, rather than in-depth risk assessment of individual compounds.
- A procedure for developing an indicative list of substances for each region is described in
the "Guidance document for the collection and evaluation of data on sources, environmental
levels and impacts of persistent toxic substances" developed during project preparation
phase. A core list of the twelve global POPs and the sixteen POPs in the UNECE regional
LRTAP protocol is suggested for all regions, whilst it is emphasised that the project relates
to PTS which is a broader concept than POPs.
40
ANNEX D
TABLE 1. PRELIMINARY ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS OF THE USE AND SUBSEQUENT RELEASE OF PTS IN THE ENVIRONMENT
(Based on the causal chain analysis for chemical pollution developed in the preparation phase of GIWA, and further refined during the fourth
technical workshop on social and economic considerations for the assessment of PTS.)
Immediate
Secondary
Ultimate
Uncertainties
Agriculture
Intensification of agriculture
Increased demand for food
Lack of internalisation of
The uncertainties pertaining
Development of resistance
proteins
costs of environmental
to the impact of PTS on the
Lack of training
Inappropriate subsidies
degradation
environment can be grouped
Aggressive marketing
Lack of support for
in two major categories:
Lack of buffer zones
alternatives (IPM)
Increased demand for cash
(1) Uncertainties on sources:
crops
Population growth
- difficulties in quantifying
Sylviculture
Yield maintenance
Population growth
Lack of internalisation of
relative magnitude of sources
Shorter replacement time
Growth centred development
costs of environmental
- lack of information on
Demand for fiber
Need for cash revenues
degradation
production rates and use of
Demand for lumber
Lack of conservation policies
PTS and their locations
Demand for energy
- future releases from
Development of resistance
environmental reservoirs
Lack of training
- persistence
Aquaculture
Aquaculture development
Need for cash revenues
Lack of internalisation of
Enhanced use of anti-foulants
costs of environmental
(2) Uncertainties on effects:
Enhanced use of anti-
degradation
parasites
Lack of conservation policies
- dose/response relationship
Lack of enforcement of
uncertain (low-doses)
regulations
- effects of mixtures
Human health protection
Lack of preferable/acceptable Concentration of population
Lack of financial and/or
- consequence of observed
(Vector Control)
alternatives
Settlement of previously
technical resources
effects at the cellular level at
Social and economic costs of
sparsely inhabited areas
a higher level (individual,
morbidity and mortality
Lack of medical facilities
community, ecosystem)
Lack of education
41
Immediate
Secondary
Ultimate
Uncertainties
Industrial chemicals and
Enhanced manufacture and
Population growth
Poor development and/or
Same as above
by-products
use of chemicals
Enhancement in standards of
regulations pertaining to
Increased use of vehicles
living
environmental impacts of
Increased fossil fuels
Increased urbanisation
industrial development
combustion
Inadequate transport policies
Lack of internalisation of
Difficulty in monitoring
costs of environmental
Lack of knowledge of
degradation
pollution impacts
Lack of research/
development in alternatives to
fossil fuels
Lack of financial and/or
technical resources
"Natural" by-products
Land clearance
Demand for arable land
Inadequate enforcement of
Increased combustion of
Concentration of population
regulations
natural vegetation
42
TABLE 2 IMPACT AND TRANSBOUNDARY ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONTAMINATION
OF VARIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL COMPARTMENTS
ISSUES:
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT
POTENTIAL
CONTAMINATION
TRANSBOUNDARY
OF:
CONSIDERATIONS
OPEN OCEAN
- contamination of pelagic species and potential
- public concern for the deterioration of the marine - transport of contaminants via
biological effects, including potential effects on
environment*
marine currents
biological diversity
- potential loss in fisheries
- "biotransport" through
contaminated marine species
COASTAL ZONE,
- contamination of pelagic and benthic species
- loss/change of "way-of-life", in particular of
- transport of contaminants via
ESTUARIES &
with resulting potential biological effects at the
indigenous peoples
marine currents
MARGINAL SEAS
cellular, organ, individual, population and
- loss of tourism/recreational opportunities
- "biotransport" through
community levels
- loss of protected areas
contaminated marine species
- loss or disruption of fisheries and other marine
- release of PTS from the water
resources
column to the atmosphere
- diminished health status of humans
- long-term reservoir in
- increased cost of human health protection
sediments and release to
measures
the water column
- reduced options for aquaculture development
- increased cost of water treatment
- cost of potential clean-up
RIVERS AND
- contamination of freshwater species with
- loss/change of "way-of-life", in particular of
- transport from upstream to
LAKES
resulting potential biological effects at the
indigenous peoples.
downstream in both
cellular, organ, individual, population and
- loss of tourism and recreational opportunities
dissolved and particulate forms
community levels
- potential human health effects
- sediments act as long-term
- increased cost of water treatment or finding
reservoir and source of release
alternative supplies
- compromise of other uses of freshwater
- increased cost of navigational dredging
- reduced options for aquaculture development
- cost of potential clean-up
* this impact would apply to all media in this table where significant concerns were identified, but it is not repeated in order to simplify the
presentation.
43
ISSUES:
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT
POTENTIAL
CONTAMINATION
TRANSBOUNDARY
OF:
CONSIDERATIONS
GROUNDWATER
- unknown effect on micro-organisms
- loss/disruption of drinking water supply
- possibly, if shared aquifer
- potential human health effects
- through release of PTS to
- increased cost of water treatment or finding
surface waters
alternative supplies
- compromise of other uses of freshwater
- cost of potential clean-up
AGRICULTURAL
- possible source of contamination of surface or
- loss of use for agricultural purposes
- source of exchange and release
SOILS AND
ground waters
- possible local contamination of food-stuff,
to atmosphere
TERRESTRIAL
- contamination and potential biological impact on particularly indigenous peoples food supply
ENVIRONMENT,
the terrestrial ecosystem, including acute toxicity - increased costs of food processing activities
INCLUDING
on a local scale
- use for lower value products and impediment to
CONTAMINATED
economic use of land
LAND
- cost of potential clean-up
- increased cost of human health treatment
- loss of pristine environment
ATMOSPHERE
- local or regional impact on air quality
- reduction in health and well-being
- acts as a significant medium
- increased cost of human health treatment
for transboundary movement
- costs of intervention to remediate
and redistribution of PTS
44
ANNEX E
AVAILABLE REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
1. Minutes of the 1st meeting of the Steering Group, Geneva, November 11-13 1998.
2. Report from the 1st scientific and technical evaluation workshop on persistent
manufactured chemicals produced for non-agricultural applications and unintentional
persistent by-products of industrial combustion processes, Geneva, January 11-15 1999
3. Report from the 2nd scientific and technical evaluation workshop on persistent organic
pesticides used in agriculture, human health, and other related sectors; and 3rd scientific
and technical evaluation workshop on organometallics, Geneva, February 22-26 1999
4. Report from the 4th workshop on policy, social, and economic issues in assessing
persistent toxic substances, Geneva, April 12-15 1999
5. Report from the 5th workshop on management and planning issues for the Regionally-
based Assessment of Persistent Toxic Substances, Geneva, May 17-20 1999
6. Major Information Sources (a compilation of information sources consulted during the
PDF-B phase)
7. The publication "Regionally-based Assessment of Persistent Toxic Substances
Workshops Reports from a Global Environment Facility Project", UNEP-Chemicals,
Geneva, September 1999
8. Report of the 2nd meeting of the Steering Group, Washington, June 28-30 1999
45
ANNEX F - PROPOSED GEOGRAPHICAL UNITS OF ASSESSMENT
(TO BE ENDORSED BY INCEPTION STEERING GROUP MEETING)
REGION COUNTRIES
I Arctic
Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russian Federation,
Sweden, United States of America (Alaska)
II North America
Canada, United States of America, Mexico
III Europe (Northern part,
Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech
including Baltic, Black Sea Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Hungary,
and Caspian Sea)
Ireland, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands,
Norway, Poland, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation,
Slovakia, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland
IV Mediterranean
Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Cyprus, Egypt,
France, Greece, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,
Malta, Monaco, Morocco, Palestine, Portugal, San Marino, Slovenia,
Spain, Syrian Arab Republic, The Former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia, Tunisia, Turkey, Yugoslavia
V Sub-Saharan Africa
Angola, Benin, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi,
Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo
(Brazzaville), Cote d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti,
Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau,
Guinea, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali,
Mauritania, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda,
Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia,
South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Zambia,
Zimbabwe
VI Indian Ocean
Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq,
Kuwait, Myanmar, Nepal, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sri
Lanka, United Arabic Emirates, Yemen
VII Central and North East Afghanistan, China, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, South
Asia (Western North
Korea, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Russian Federation,
Pacific)
Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan
VIII South-east Asia and
Australia, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao People's Republic, Malaysia,
South Pacific
Maldives, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Singapore,
Thailand, Viet Nam
IX Pacific Islands
Small Island Developing States and other small islands of the Pacific
X Central America and the Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Colombia, Costa
Caribbean
Rica, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala,
Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Nicaragua, Panama, Puerto Rico,
Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines,
Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Venezuela
XI Eastern and Western
Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay
South America
XII Antarctica
-
46
ANNEX G
DRAFT OUTLINE FOR THE REGIONAL REPORTS
The outline of the Regional Reports, subject to changes based on discussions and outcome of
the 1st Steering Group Meeting should be as follows:
Preface
i)
Overview of the global project;
ii)
Structure of Regional Team;
iii) Acknowledgement.
1. Introduction
Regional definition (physical setting, climate, patterns of development);
Problem definition (scope of the regional assessment, methodology, overview of outcomes or
limitations).
2. Source Characterisation
The responses obtained during the country contribution phase, particularly from the
questionnaires for source identification developed during the preparatory phase, will be
evaluated. The regional Network and the existing regional structures of intergovernmental
organisations will be utilised to obtain additional information. Already available
information such as UNEP Chemical's questionnaires on POPs and other compiled
information will be used as well.
i)
Production and use data for PTS pesticides, identification of major agricultural areas;
ii)
Sources of industrial chemicals, identification of major industrial centres or specific
production sites;
iii)
Sources of unintentional PTS by-products (identification of point sources and diffuse
sources, information on industries potentially releasing PTS);
iv)
Import and export statistics of PTS and PTS containing wastes;
v)
Identification of stocks and reservoirs of PTS;
vi) Data
gaps;
vii)
Summary of most significant regional sources.
3. Environmental Levels, Toxicological and Ecotoxicological Characterisation
On the basis of the questionnaires, searches in the open literature and access to other
published and non-published sources, data on measured concentrations of persistent toxic
substances in various environmental media and in biota, including humans, within each
region will be assembled, as well as observed damage caused by environmental exposure to
PTS. The likelihood that an observed damage has been caused by PTS may also be recorded.
Based on the assessment of sources and environmental levels and/or impacts in the region,
the risk of adverse effects on human health and the environment, including natural resources
will be assessed.
47
i)
Concentrations of PTS in abiotic compartments of the environment (highlight of
hotspots, trend analysis if data permits);
ii)
Concentrations of PTS in biota, including humans;
iii)
Evidence of harmful effects;
iv)
Comparison of measured data with health or environmental quality criteria;
v)
Existence of regionally derived ecotoxicological data and appropriate test species;
vi) Data
gaps;
vii)
Identification of the major contributors, by sector, to damage to natural resources,
ecosystems, and humans.
4. Assessment of Major Pathways of Contaminants Transport
This section of the assessment seeks to relate, at least on a qualitative basis, the measured
environmental levels with the sources. The final result will be a picture of the comparative
importance of transport mechanisms of contaminants within regions and into and out of
regions.
i)
Qualitative (or quantitative if data permits) assessment of input and output from the
region (ocean currents, atmospheric circulation, river and groundwater flow,
bio-transport);
ii)
Qualitative (or quantitative if data permits) assessment of transport within the region;
iii)
Data gaps (concentrations, flows).
5. Preliminary Assessment of the Regional Capacity and Needs to Manage PTS
Rapid overview of the regional capacity to analyse the presence of PTS in the environment,
the existence of alternatives and reduction measures, and the regulations and their
enforcement. This will be based mostly on the replies from the questionnaires, and on
existing data in UNEP and elsewhere. Because these issues are mostly pertinent at the
national level, the analysis will emphasise the regional aspects of the problem (for example
the feasibility of regional or sub-regional centres for monitoring, or pesticides destruction
facilities, regional agreements, etc.)
i)
Capacity to monitor PTS;
ii)
Existing regulation and management structures addressing PTS;
iii)
Status of enforcement in the region;
iv)
Examples of alternatives or measures for reduction;
v)
Technology transfer issues;
vi)
Identification of needs, in particular for regional co-operation.
6. Conclusions
i)
Identification of the barriers that prevent the reduction or elimination of PTS and
their release in the environment (institutional, social/cultural, economic, technical);
ii)
Priority chemical related environmental issues in the region;
iii)
Recommendations for future activities.
48
ANNEX H
TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR: THE STEERING GROUP; THE PROJECT MANAGER; THE
REGIONAL CO-ORDINATORS; AND, THE REGIONAL TEAMS.
STEERING GROUP
The Steering Group will be responsible for providing overall guidance to the process of
implementation of the project. More specifically, the Steering Group will:
i)
review and endorse the management plan and work plan for the project as developed
by the Project Manager;
ii)
review and endorse the Regional Co-ordinators and other Regional Team members;
iii)
review and endorse the other components of the Network as proposed by the Project
Manager;
iv)
allocate funds from the "experts consultant" budget line to the regional teams that
require assistance and/or specialist time;
v)
facilitate co-ordination with other related activities to avoid duplication of work;
vi)
facilitate access to Networks and individual expertise;
vii)
review progress in the implementation of the various activities of the project and
viii) suggest corrective actions, as necessary;
ix)
assist the Project Manager and the Regional Co-ordinators in soliciting wide support
for the execution of the project; and
x)
assist in dissemination and acceptance of the results of the assessment.
The Steering Group will meet at four times:
i)
at the onset of the project, to review and endorse the management and work plan; to
review and endorse the Regional Co-ordinators and other Regional Team members;
and to approve the release of a portion of the funds available under the "expert
consultants" budget line for those regions comprising only GEF-eligible countries,
and where it is already apparent that additional support to the Regional Teams is
necessary;
ii)
month 7 in the project, immediately after the phase of Country Level Contributions, to
review progress in implementation, resolve difficulties and suggest corrective actions
as needed; and decide on further budget allocation from the "expert consultants" line
for those regions where the Country Level Contribution phase have shown that
additional support to the Regional Teams will be necessary, and for possible
Incremental Costs case studies (the meeting may be attended by some of the Regional
Co-ordinators);
iii)
month 12 in the project, to review progress in implementation, resolve difficulties and
suggest corrective actions as needed; and identify possible needs for targeted research
(the meeting may be attended by some of the Regional Co-ordinators); and
iv)
at the end of the project, to assess lessons learnt during the project and to recommend
follow-up activities within and outside GEF.
49
Between regular meetings, the Steering Group will work via correspondence or conference
calls. At its first meeting, the Steering Group shall decide upon its own rules of procedure and
standing orders.
The Project Manager will act as Secretary to the Steering Group.
Membership of the Steering Group will consist of UNEP Chemicals, UNEP GEF Co-
ordination Office, UNEP Division of Environmental Assessment and Early Warning,
UNEP/GPA Co-ordination Office, the GEF implementing agencies UNDP and the World
Bank, a member of the Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel, the GIWA core team,
environmental NGOs such as the World Wildlife Fund for Nature, Industry, independent
scientists, and other UN agencies (including UNECE, FAO, and WHO). Additional
representatives, in particular from co-financiers, may be added as partnerships and
collaborative arrangements are extended and finalised.
___________________________________________________________________________
PROJECT MANAGER
Under the overall supervision of the Director of UNEP Chemicals and the Executive Co-
ordinator of the UNEP-GEF Co-ordination Office, the Project Manager will be responsible
for the timely delivery of all products of the assessment and for overseeing expenditures in
the regions. More specifically, the Project Manager will:
1. Direct and supervise the implementation of the project by:
i)
preparing contracts and agreements with the institutions, organisations, and individual
experts comprising the Regional Teams, including the Regional Co-ordinators;
ii)
acting as Secretary for the Steering Group;
iii)
convening meetings of the Regional Co-ordinators, as necessary;
iv)
monitoring project progress, and preparing Quarterly Operational Reports to the GEF
to be submitted to the UNEP-GEF Co-ordination Office;
v)
preparing half-yearly progress reports to UNEP; and
vi)
preparing financial reports to UNEP and other co-financing organisations.
2. Support the assessment at the regional level by:
i)
facilitating and supporting the work of the Regional Teams through provision of
advice and identification and provision of external expertise as required ;
ii)
providing guidance to the work of the Regional Teams;
iii)
participating in regional meetings as necessary; and
iv)
ensuring the transfer and sharing of experiences and information between the various
Regional Teams.
3. Support and co-ordinate the assessment at the global level by:
i)
Formulating and recommending policies and strategies to the Steering Group for the
establishment of the Network;
ii)
developing guidelines and questionnaires for the conduct of the project, with expert
assistance as appropriate;
50
iii)
identifying eventual needs for special expertise and identifying appropriate experts
and sources of information;
iv)
identifying participants and organising the Global Priority Setting Meeting and the
alternatives/remediation Task Force; and
v)
co-ordinating the writing of, and providing substantive input to, the Global Report.
4. Manage interactions with external entities through:
i)
liaison with organisations and institutions to ensure the greatest synergy between the
Regionally-based Assessment and related activities;
ii)
liaison with co-financiers and other potential donors;
iii)
liaison with relevant NGOs and other stakeholders;
iv)
liaison with governments to secure participation and support for the process of the
assessment and its conclusions;
v)
organisation of press briefings as appropriate;
vi)
directing the establishment and maintenance of a web site; and
vii)
organisation of the publication and wide dissemination of the findings of the
Regionally-based Assessment.
Qualifications:
Advanced degree in environmental science, natural sciences, chemistry or engineering.
Expertise in the field of persistent toxic substances an advantage.
Experience at the international level for over seven years. Experience of interdisciplinary
projects involving scientific institutions, governments, Industry and other stakeholders.
Knowledge of environmental and institutional conditions in developing countries. Record of
managing capabilities. Ability to assess and resolve complex scientific and technical issues.
Ability to communicate effectively with peers and managers at all level. Excellent managing
skills.
Excellent command of English.
___________________________________________________________________________
REGIONAL CO-ORDINATORS
With the assistance of the Project Manager, the Regional Co-ordinator will be responsible for
the timely delivery of the products of the assessment at the regional level. More specifically,
each Regional Co-ordinator will:
1. Direct the implementation of the project in the region by:
i)
acting as Secretary to the Regional Team meetings;
ii)
convening Regional Team meetings, with support from UNEP Chemicals, as
necessary;
iii)
convening the technical workshops and regional priority meeting, with support from
UNEP Chemicals, as necessary;
iv)
monitoring project progress, and reporting on a regular basis to the Project Manager;
v)
preparing Quarterly Reports to be submitted to the Project Manager for further
51
vi)
integration in a Quarterly Progress Report; and
vii)
preparing financial reports as necessary.
2. Co-ordinate and support the regional assessment by:
i)
presenting and explaining the purpose of the Regionally-based Assessment, its
protocols and methodologies, to the members of the regional Network;
ii)
identifying potential institutions, organisations or individuals for participation in the
Network;
iii)
identifying participants to the technical workshops and regional priority meetings;
iv)
co-ordinating the collection and analysis of the country specific data submitted during
the "country contribution" phase;
v)
identifying the need for external expertise;
vi)
co-ordinating, supervising, and providing substantive input to the discussion papers;
and
vii)
co-ordinating, supervising, and providing substantive input to the drafting and review
of the Regional Report.
3. Support the assessment at the global level by:
i)
co-ordinating with the other regions, ensuring in particular that results are
comparable;
ii)
participating to the drafting and/or reviewing of the Global Report;
iii)
participating to the meetings of Regional Co-ordinators, if necessary;
iv)
participating to meetings of the Steering Group, if necessary;
v)
participating to the Global Priority Setting Meeting.
4. Manage interactions with external entities at the regional level by:
i)
liasing with organisations and institutions in the region to ensure the greatest
participation to the Regional Assessment;
ii)
identifying and liasing with potential donors;
iii)
liasing with relevant NGOs and other stakeholders; and
iv)
liasing with governments to secure participation and support for the process of the
assessment and its conclusions.
The regional co-ordinator will be agreed upon by the Steering Group at its first meeting, on
the basis of the details of national experts submitted by government representatives such as
UNEP focal points, delegates to the INC POPs negotiations, UNEP POPs Focal Points or
IFCS Focal Points.
The specific expertise of the Regional Co-ordinator may vary from one region to another, but
it is expected that this expertise would be related to persistent toxic substances. Fluency in
English would be an advantage, to facilitate co-ordination of the project.
It is anticipated that the Regional Co-ordinator will be nested in an institution such as a
university or government research centre, that will provide infrastructure and logistic support
to manage the project, as well as facilitate access to a pool of resources for substantive
support.
___________________________________________________________________________
52
REGIONAL TEAMS
The objective of the Regionally-based Assessment of Persistent Toxic Substances is to
deliver a scientific assessment of the threats posed by persistent toxic substances to the
environment and human health. The assessment is focused at a regional level but
consolidation of the regional analyses will enable identification of priorities at the global
scale.
The assessment will be organised in twelve regions as the basic units, as per the list annex F.
If required, the regions might be slightly adjusted as the project proceeds.
The Regional Teams will consist of 4 to 5 members. As is the case for the regional co-
ordinator, the other team members will be reviewed and endorsed by the Steering Group at its
first meeting, on the basis of, inter alia, the details of national experts submitted by
government representatives such as UNEP focal points, delegates to the INC POPs
negotiations, UNEP POPs Focal Points or IFCS Focal Points. The team members which will
be drawn from government, academia, public interest NGOs or industry will preferably be
members of an institution or an organisation, so that each team member can easily tap into a
pool of resources. Particularly where membership does not include a member of an
environmental NGO or the private sector, it will befit the Regional Team members to forge
links with these sectors.
Collectively, the Regional Team is responsible for gathering reviewing, and analysing the
collected information, and delivering the Regional Reports as described in the work plan and
project document. Much of the work of the Regional Team will depend on day-to-day
electronic mail communications.
Specifically, the Regional Team will:
i)
meet once at the onset to organise the programme of work at the regional level, and
identify participants for the technical meetings;
ii)
identify the need for assistance and/or specialist expertise to complete the assessment;
iii)
organise and participate to the technical meetings, and regional priority setting
meeting, and meet afterwards to advance the writing of the Regional Report; and
iv)
strengthen the regional Network by encouraging the participation of a wide variety of
stakeholders.
Individual members of the Regional Team will:
1. Support the implementation of the project in the region by:
i)
participating to Regional Team meetings;
ii)
assisting the Regional Co-ordinator to convene the technical workshops and regional
priority meeting;
iii)
monitoring project progress, and reporting on a regular basis to the Regional Co-
ordinator;
iv)
preparing Quarterly Reports to be submitted to the Regional Co-ordinator; and
v)
preparing financial reports as necessary.
53
2. Support the regional assessment by:
i)
presenting and explaining the purpose of the Regionally-based Assessment, its
protocols and methodologies, to the members of the regional Network;
ii)
identifying potential institutions, organisations or individuals for participation in the
Network;
iii)
identifying participants to the technical workshops and regional priority meetings;
iv)
identifying the need for external expertise;
v)
taking responsibility for preparing a specific component of the Regional Report; and
vi)
providing substantive input to the drafting and review of the Regional Report.
Members of Regional Teams from GEF eligible countries will receive financial support from
the project budget to participate in meetings and to fulfil their tasks. It is expected that
participants from non-eligible countries will cover their own costs as in kind or co-financing
contributions to the project.
54
ANNEX I
RESULTS OF THE PDF-B PHASE,
"REGIONALLY-BASED ASSESSMENT OF PERSISTENT TOXIC SUBSTANCES"
NOVEMBER 1998 - OCTOBER 1999
AND PREPARATORY ACTIONS TO BE COMPLETED BY APRIL 2000
BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT PREPARATION ACTIVITIES
As defined in the approved PDF-B document the objectives of the project preparation phase,
were to:
· provide a basis for a regionally based, comprehensive, objective and comparative
assessment of the damage and threats posed by persistent toxic chemicals to the aquatic
environment, its resources and amenities;
· establish a scientific basis for determining the relative priorities among persistent toxic
chemicals taking account of the distance scales of transport and the nature and modes of
adverse effect and threats associated with exposures to aquatic organisms and human
consumers of aquatic foodstuffs;
· design an assessment mechanism that takes full account of the specific regional
conditions, the multi-sectoral nature of the sources of persistent toxic chemicals and
includes all relevant disciplines and agencies in the assessment process;
· prepare a GEF Project Brief, specifying mechanisms, participation, identification of the
co-financing, and approaches to evaluating incremental cost elements and requirements
for intervention at national and regional levels.
The PDF phase was executed by the Chemicals Unit of UNEP that also serves as the
Secretariat for the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for an international legally
binding instrument for implementing international action on certain persistent organic
pollutants. Activities commenced with an initial Steering Group meeting in November 1998,
followed by a series of four expert workshops, a management and planning workshop, and a
final Steering Group meeting convened in Washington in June 1999.
OUTCOME OF THE PDF-B ACTIVITIES
A general outcome of the PDF phase was the initiation, via the workshops, of contact and
partnership with individual experts and organisations that will form part of the Network
which will execute the full project. A total of fifty-seven experts from around the world were
consulted during this phase, including twenty-one from developing countries or countries
with economies in transition, participating in the various workshops. Expert participants in
the five workshops were drawn from Government, from academia, from NGOs (Greenpeace,
World Wildlife Fund for Nature, Pesticide Action Network) and from the industrial sector
(Table 1).
55
Table 1.
Representation of different stakeholder groups in the PDF-B activities.
Numbers in parentheses are the numbers of organisations represented by the individuals
concerned.
International
Government University &
agency
Department
Research
INDUSTRY
NGOs
Institution. Organisation
Workshop 1
5
[4]
7 12 2 0
Workshop 2
3 10 8 1 1
Workshop 3
3 10 8 0 1
Workshop 4
5
[4]
9 6 1 2
Workshop 5
8
[5]
7 2 0 2
TOTAL [%]
24 [21%]
43 [38%]
37 [32%]
4 [3.5%]
6 [5.3%]
The first scientific and technical workshop on "Persistent manufactured chemicals produced
for non-agricultural applications and unintentional persistent toxic by-products of industrial
and combustion processes", was held from 11-15 January 1999. The workshop developed a
generic approach and recommendations for methods to be used in assessing sources of PTS;
drafted a reference list of processes known to emit PTS; prepared a list of source inventories
in different regions; and designed a ranking scheme for prioritisation of PTS based on their
ecotoxicological properties.
The second workshop on "Persistent organic pesticides used in agriculture, human health,
and other related sectors", was convened from 22-25 February 1999. The workshop
reviewed and agreed on a scheme for the evaluation of persistence and potential for long
range transport and an approach to evaluating overall toxicity and exposure. The outputs from
this workshop together with those from the first workshop provide the strategy needed to
complete the regional assessments and the tools for ranking and prioritising chemicals within
each region.
A one day workshop on "Organometallic compounds", held in February 1999 reviewed the
state of knowledge on environmental pathways of organometallic compounds; drafted a list
of sources of organometallic compounds; and evaluated the likely geographic extent of
contamination in relation to the source type. The outputs provide a framework for the
assessment through identification of known problems and data gaps.
A workshop on "Policy, social, and economic issues in assessing persistent toxic
substances", was held from April 12-15 1999. The workshop: prepared an annotated listing
of available management interventions; the use of economic analysis in decision-making;
prepared a tabulation of the impact and transboundary issues associated with the
contamination of various environmental compartments (Annex D); drafted a preliminary root
cause analysis of the use and subsequent release of PTS in the environment (Annex D); and
prepared a matrix of the available techniques and technologies available to reduce/eliminate
the use and release of PTS.
56
The final workshop on "Management and planning issues for the Regionally-based
Assessment of persistent toxic substances", was convened May 17-20, 1999 to: discuss and
agree implementation arrangements; the rationale for the proposed regional framework;
elaborate a management structure for the project; discuss expected key outputs from the
assessment, and finalise the list of activities to be completed during the full project. The main
output from this workshop consists of the list of activities to be completed in each region in
the form of a draft outline for the Regional Reports (see Annex I)
The experts also agreed on a tentative definition for substances to be considered under the
project: for the purpose of this assessment, substances to be considered should have toxicity,
bioaccumulation and persistence to be of concern. The toxicity could be expressed as effects
on organs, organ systems or functions in intact animals or humans, or in the absence of such
data, as interactions with cellular or sub-cellular in vitro systems linked to events leading to
such effects. The toxic effects would include but not be restricted to death, disease,
behavioral abnormalities, cancer, genetic mutations, endocrine disruption, or physiological,
developmental, reproductive or physical deformities in any living species or its offspring. The
persistence of the chemical in the environment could be due to its inherent properties, e.g.
resistance to degradation or because of its continuous release to the environment from
significant local or regional sources. In both cases the exposure to the chemical was
considered to be essentially continuous.
RATIONALE FOR THE PROPOSED REGIONAL FRAMEWORK.
The rationale for the regions chosen for the assessment was discussed during the
Management and Planning workshop, held 17-20 May 1999, Geneva, and during the second
Steering Group meeting, held June 28-30 Washington. It was agreed that: to the extent
possible, countries with similar production and consumption patterns, similarities in level of
economic development and chemicals assessment capacity and regulatory infrastructure
should be grouped in the same regions or sub-regions. It was decided that countries would be
placed in only one region, in order to facilitate the integration of country data aggregated on a
national basis. It is expected however that the Regional Reports will take into consideration
information from neighbouring regions that serve as sources of, or sinks for PTS within the
region concerned, and that scientists from one region could participate in the workshops of a
neighbouring regions as appropriate.
It was further recognised that any regional division, unless at a large scale, would represent a
compromise between the need for precision and the costs involved. Dividing the world
according to major atmospheric circulation patterns and marine currents, whilst at the same
time taking into account countries commonalities, led to 21 regions, which was considered
too great a number for the available financial resources.
ACTIVITIES TO BE UNDERTAKEN PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE FULL PROJECT
The following actions and activities will be undertaken over the next five months using the
unspent balance of the PDF-B funds. These actions will ensure completion of all outputs
anticipated as being produced through the PDF-B. these outputs were as follows:
57
1. Reports of the two Steering Group meetings, the four expert workshops and the
management workshop.
2. Complete scoping of the project and terms of reference of the assessment in terms of both
the characteristics of potentially relevant chemicals and the anthropogenic activities to be
considered.
3. Bibliography of major reviews and metadata sources of relevance to the assessment.
4. GEF Project Brief for the Regionally Based Persistent Toxic Chemicals Assessment.
Of these outputs the reports of the various meetings are published and available (Annex G)
whilst the present document constitutes the fourth output. A preliminary draft bibliography
(output 3) has been prepared in the form of a compilation of the major information sources
consulted during the PDF-B and this will be further amplified and refined during the next five
months in advance of commencement of the full project. In addition to metadata, the
bibliography will include PTS related articles published in international journals related to
GEF eligible countries for the period 1990 to 1999 as a source of information for use by the
Regional Teams.
The present document (the project brief) presents the scope of the full project whilst further
detail concerning the nature of actions and activities to be undertaken at the country and
regional level are provided in the reports of the various expert consultations.
As the Executing Agency for the PDF-B, UNEP Chemicals, with the assistance of
appropriate experts, and in close collaboration with the members of the Steering Group, will
prepare the final draft guidelines for the conduct of the assessment. These will be based on
the outputs from the PDF-B expert workshops, and will provide countries and Regional
Teams with the tools that will ensure comparability between and within regions. Drafts will
be circulated to potential members of the Network for comments and review, prior to the final
draft being presented to the first Steering Group meeting.
Specifically, guidelines for the Regional Teams will be drafted outlining methods for:
conduct of source assessments; quality control of data concerning concentrations in the
environment; and impact assessment, including a compendium of environmental quality
criteria. Questionnaires for completion at the national level will also be drafted concerning:
known sources; levels in the environment; known impacts; transboundary movement; and
barriers to adequate management of persistent toxic substances.
The elements of the Network, described in paragraphs 13&14 of this project brief, will be
contacted and appropriate memoranda and or contracts drafted for review and endorsement
by the first meeting of the Steering Group. Many of the experts involved in the PDF-B
workshops will be involved directly in the execution of the full project. The composition of
the Regional Teams can therefore be agreed upon during the first Steering Group meeting
following project approval, and the Network will become operational within one month of
signature of the final project document. Through involvement of the potential members of the
Network in reviewing the draft guidelines they will become fully aware of the magnitude of
the task in advance of project commencement.
58
The future responsibilities of environmental NGOs such as WWF and Greenpeace, that have
participated in the PDF activities will be determined and their advice sought concerning
possible roles for them and for other appropriate NGO's in the execution of the project. The
International POPs Elimination Network (IPEN) which represents the broadest possible
spectrum of the public interest NGOs involved in the ongoing POPs negotiations for a global
treaty will be contacted to identify relevant NGOs active at the national or regional levels that
might participate in the work of the Network at regional and national levels. IPEN will be
asked to nominate the two NGO members for the Steering Group.
Experts from Industry that have participated in the PDF activities, as well as the International
Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA) and the Global Crop Protection Federation
(GCPF) will be asked to assist in identifying the most appropriate trade and industry
associations that could assist in the execution of the project. In addition their assistance will
be sought in identifying possible sources of additional co-financing. Additional contacts will
be established with industry observers participating in the INC negotiations. Specific
arrangements will be made by time of endorsement for the participation of the two NGOs,
and two representatives of Industry / the private sector in the Steering Group.
Experts from academic and research institutions that have participated in the PDF-B
workshops, as well as well as international scientific societies such as the International Union
of Toxicology (IUTOX) and the Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
(SETAC) will be asked to assist in identifying appropriate international and regional
scientific societies and associations active in research related to persistent toxic substances
with a view to soliciting their support and active involvement in the execution of the project.
The calculations of the project baseline will be expanded during this preparatory phase
through assembling further details of the costs associated with programmes and activities at
regional and global scales that address issues related to persistent toxic substances.
59
ANNEX J
Table 1. Preliminary Workplan: Summary of Project Activities, Milestones and Products
(to be further refined and endorsed at the first Steering Group Meeting)
Activity
Time period
Implementation Products
1. Project development phase (PDF-B)
1.1. Establishment of Steering Group and November
UNEP
Two Steering Group Meeting reports, five Technical Expert Workshop Reports
meetings of Steering Group and Technical 1998-June
Expert Groups
1999
1.2 Preparation of preliminary
May-August
UNEP
Preliminary bibliography in project brief.
bibliography
1999
1.3 Analysis of the expert meeting results June-August
UNEP
Project Brief
and design of the project brief
1999
1.4 Approval of the project brief
December
UNEP
Approved project brief
1999
1.5 Appraisal and finalization of the December
UNEP
UNEP Project Document
UNEP Project Document including co- 1999-June
financing arrangements
2000
1.6 Final Clearance
June 2000
CEO
Final clearance by GEF CEO
2. Component 1: Co-ordination and management
2.1 Appointment of Project Manager
June 2000
UNEP
Appointed Project Manager
2.2. Establishment of project network
January-
UNEP
Functional network of participants from different sectors of society in all
August 2000
regions
2.3 Identification of regional collaborators January UNEP
Recommendations to the Steering Group on: identification of participants in all
and focal points
August 2000
regions, selection and formation of Regional Task Teams and Co-ordinators
2.4 1st Meeting of the Steering Group
August 2000
UNEP
Review of appraisal phase activities, acceptance of project workplan, Regional
Co-ordinators, regional teams
3. Component 2: Development of guidelines
3.1 Completion of guidance document on December
UNEP
Guidance document
sources, environmental levels and 1999-April
environmental impacts
2000
3.2 Development of questionnaires
July-August
UNEP
Questionnaires on sources, environmental levels and environmental
2000
impacts
4. Component 3: The regional assessments
60
4.1 Country level contributions phase
September
Project Manager Assembled data on PTS from all countries involved in the project
2000- June and Regional
2001
Teams (Core
team)
4.2 Meetings of Regional Teams
October 2000 Core team
Meeting reports
December
Successive (and final) drafts of comprehensive regional report including a
2001
list of regional priorities
4.3 Workshops on sources, levels, impacts May- October Core team
Workshop report on sources, levels, impacts and transport in the region
and transport
2001
Draft chapters for regional report
4.4. Assessment of regional capacity and September
Core team
Draft chapter for regional report
needs to manage PTS and the root causes 2000-
of the problems
November
2001
4.5 Regional Priority Setting Meeting
December
Core team
List of regional priorities
2001
4.6 Steering Group meetings
February
- UNEP
Assessment of progress
July 2001
Corrections to work plan if necessary
5. Component 4: Global Synthesis
5.1 Comparative review and synthesis of January Core team
First draft of the global report
regional reports
February
assisted by
2002
experts from the
network
5.2 Global Priority Setting Meeting and March-April
UNEP/Core
Second draft of the global report
outline of alternatives/remediation options 2002
team plus experts
and Task Force of Alternatives
5.3 Review of global report and final draft May-June
UNEP/Core
Final draft of global report
2002
team plus experts
6. Communications strategy and implementation
6.1 1st meeting of the Steering Group
August 2000 UNEP
Communications
strategy
6.2 Establishment of web-site
October 2000 UNEP
Web-site with password protected areas
6.3 Production of information products, November
UNEP/Core
Project brochure
brochure, regional reports, global report
2000-July
team
Regional Reports in hardcopy and CD-ROM
2002
Global Report in hardcopy and CD-ROM
Popular layman's regional and global reports
6.4 Evaluation and reports to co- July-August
UNEP
Evaluation reports
sponsoring organizations
2002
61
ANNEX L. COMMITMENTS OF CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE GEF REGIONALLY BASED
ASSESSMENT OF PERSISTENT TOXIC SUBSTANCES
Country/organization Contribution
(US$)
Comments
Australia
200,000
Primarily to South East Asian
countries
Canada
30,000
Targeted for the assessment of the
(Not administered by UNEP)
(50k Can$)
Arctic region through AMAP.
More possible for 2001-2
France
~65,000(400.000FF) More possible for 2001-2
Germany
420,000
Primarily for activities in Sub-Saharan
Africa and South America. Additional
$230,000 available for 2003.
Sweden
150,000
Primarily directed to least developed
countries (LDC)
Switzerland
100,000
For project co-ordination.
More possible for 2001-2
United States
500,000
UNEP and others in kind
360,000
Total co-financing
1,825,000
To be identified
166,000
The individual commitments are attached below.
69
ANNEX M - FORMAT OF QUARTERLY REPORT TO UNEP/GEF
1. IDENTIFIERS
Country: Global
Focal Area: International Waters
Project Title: Regionally Based Assessment of Persistent Toxic Substances
Implementing Agency: UNEP
GEF
funding:
US
$
Co-funding:
US
$
Other Support:
UNEP
(in
kind) US
$
Others
(in
kind) US
$
2. FINANCIAL
STATUS
[Commitment and disbursement data as of the date of the report]
3.
IMPLEMENTATION OF PROGRESS
[Statement of progress of the project components in relation to agreements or plans. Assessment of Overall
status. Report on the reasons, in the event of delays, cost overrun or positive deviations]
4.
ACHIEVEMENT OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES
[Assessment of likelihood that project objectives will be achieved]
87
ANNEX N- PROGRESS REPORT FORMAT
UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME
SIX MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORT
SECTION 1 - BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1.1
Project Title: ________________________________________________________________________________
1.2
Project Number: ____________________________________________________________________________
1.3 Responsible
Office: (PAC/Unit/Branch) _________________________________________________________
1.4
Coordinating Agency or Supporting Organization (if relevant):
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.5 Reporting
Period: (the six months covered by this report) ___________________________________________
1.6
Relevant UNEP Programme of Work Component Number: (3 digits)
___________________________
SECTION 2 - PROJECT STATUS
2.1
Status of the Implementation of the Activities and Outputs Listed Under the Workplan in the Project
Document
(check appropriate box)
Project activities and outputs listed in the Project workplan for the reporting period have been materially
completed and the responsible Office is satisfied that the project will be fully completed on time (give
reasons for minor variations as Section 3 below).
Project activities and outputs listed in the Project Workplan for the reporting period have been altered
(give reasons for alterations: lack of finance; project reformulated; project revisions; other at Section 3
below).
Project activities and outputs listed in the Project Workplan for the reporting period have not been fully
completed and delays in project delivery are expected (give reasons for variations in Section 3.1 and new
completion date in Section 3.2 below).
Insufficient detail provided in the Project Workplan.
2.2
List Actual Activities/Outputs Achieved in the Reporting period:
(please
tick
appropriate
box)
(a) MEETINGS (UNEP-convened meetings only)
Inter-governmental (IG) mtg
Expert Group Mtg.
Training Seminar/Workshop
Others
Title:_______________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Venue and dates_____________________________________________________________________________________
Convened by ___________________________________ Organized by ________________________________________
Report issued as doc. No/Symbol_______________ Languages ________________ Dated _________________________
For Training Seminar/Workshop, please indicate: No. of participants _____________ and attach annex giving names and
nationalities of participants.
88
(b) PRINTED MATERIALS
Report to IG Mtg.
Technical Publication
Technical Report
Others
Title: _____________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Author(s)/Editor(s) __________________________________________________________________________________
Publisher _________________________________________________________________________________________
Symbol (UN/UNEP/ISBN/ISSN) _______________________________________________________________________
Date of publication __________________________________________________________________________________
(When technical reports/publications have been distributed, attach distribution list)
(c)
TECHNICAL INFORMATION
PUBLIC INFORMATION
Description ________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Dates ____________________________________________________________________________________________
(d) TECHNICAL COOPERATION
Grants and Fellowships
Advisory Services
Staff Missions
Others (describe)
Purpose ___________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Place and duration __________________________________________________________________________________
For Grants/Fellowships, please indicate:
Beneficiaries
Countries/Nationalities
Cost(in US$)
___________________ ___________________
__________________
___________________ ___________________
__________________
___________________ ___________________
__________________
___________________ ___________________
__________________
(e) SERVICES
Description ________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________ Dates _____________________
89
(f) OTHER OUTPUTS
For example, Centre of excellence, Network, Environmental Academy, Convention, Protocol,
University chair, etc.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
SECTION 3 - PROJECT DELIVERY
3.1
Summary of the Problems Encountered in Project Delivery (if any)
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.2
Actions Taken or Required to Solve the Problems (identified in Section 3.1 above)
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
90
ANNEX O - FINAL REPORT FOR INTERNAL PROJECTS
1. Project
Title:
2. Project
Number: (include number of latest revision)
3.
UNEP Programme of Work Component Number: (3 digits)
Include a statement of how effective the project has been in attaining this component
and its contribution to overall Subprogramme implementation
4. Performance
Indicators:
UNEP Programme of Work: {State the relevant Performance Indicators (with the
Quantity figure) from the Programme of Work, and compare against actual results}
5. Scope:
6. Duration:
(a)
Initial {(as indicated in the original project document)
List day/month/year of start and end of project.
List project duration in terms of total months}.
(b)
Actual {(as indicated in the latest project revision)
List day/month/year of start and end of the project.
List project duration in terms of total months}.
(c)
Reasons for the variance {When there is a difference between the initial and
actual duration, list the consecutive project revisions (number and date of
approval), and summarize justification for each revision}.
7. Cost:
(a)
Initial {(as indicated in the project document)
List the total project cost (UNEP and "Others") and give breakdown by
funding source. Give actual figures and contribution in terms of percentages}.
(b)
Actual {(as indicated in the latest project revision)
List the total project cost (UNEP and "Others" and give breakdown by funding
source. Give actual figures and contribution in terms of percentages}.
(c)
Reasons for the variance {(When there is a difference between the initial and
actual cost, list the consecutive project revisions (number and date of
approval) involved in amending the project costs. List any other reasons for
discrepancy}.
(d)
Relate expenditure to achievement of outputs (e.g. 100% expenditure and 82%
output completion).
8. Needs:
(a)
Identified needs (as indicated in the original project document).
(b)
Satisfied/realized needs (List needs fulfilled due to implementation of the
project).
9. Results:
(a)
Expected Results (as indicated in the original project document).
(b)
Actual Results (indicate actual results achieved/attained from project
implementation).
(c)
Reasons for the variance (state the reasons for the difference between expected
and actual results).
(d)
State corrective action(s) to be taken.
91
10. Outputs:
(a)
Expected Outputs (as indicated in the original project document).
(b)
Actual Outputs (List actual outputs resulting from project implementation
emphasizing activities undertaken.
(c)
Reasons for the variance (state reasons for the difference between expected
and actual outputs).
(d)
State corrective action(s) to be taken.
11.
What are the catalytic effects of the project on other agencies or governments?
(a)
intellectual:
(b)
financial:
12.
Describe the problems encountered during project implementation:
Problems: Causes: Consequences:
(a)
Substantial/Programmatic
(b) Institutional
(c) Financial
13.
Lessons learned from the achievement and/or weaknesses of the project:
14 Recommendations:
Make recommendations to:
(a)
improve effect and impact of similar projects in the future;
(b)
indicate what further action might be needed to meet the project needs/results.
15.
Further follow-up action required:
(a) Action Required: (b) Responsible unit(s): (c)
Schedule:
16. Evaluated
by:
Name and position of Evaluator:
_______________________________
Date:___________________________
17. Approved by:
Name of Programme Manager/Regional Director: Chief, Project Design and Evaluation
Unit:
________________________________ __________________________________
Date:____________________________ Date:_____________________________
92
Document Outline