UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME
Regional Project with participation from the governments of:
Bulgaria, Georgia, Romania, Russian Federation, Turkey, Ukraine

Summary of UNDP and Cost-Sharing
Project Budget Number:

RER/01/G31/*/**/**
UNDP:

Current Previous
Change

TRAC (1&2)
Project Title:
TRAC (3)
Control of eutrophication,
Other (GEF)

$3,703,700
hazardous substances and related
Regional Program
measures for rehabilitating the

Black Sea ecosystem: Phase1
Cost Sharing:

Government
Project Short Title:
Financial Inst.

Black Sea Ecosystem Recovery
Sub Total:

$3,703,700
Project


AOS:
Executing Agent:
SOF 03 (TRAC)
UNOPS
PPRR
Implementing Agent:
SOF 07
UNOPS
Regional Program
GEF Implementing Agency:
Other (GEF)

$296,300
UNDP

Project site:
Parallel Financing:
$4,052,366
Istanbul, Turkey


GRAND TOTAL
$8,052,366
Beneficiary Countries:
Bulgaria, Georgia, Romania, Russian Federation, Turkey, Ukraine

Estimated Start Date: December 2001


Estimated End Date (Phase1): December 2003





Programme Officer: Nick Remple, Regional Coordinator, UNDP-GEF RBEC
Classification Information
ACC sector & sub-sector



Primary type of intervention
0400 ­ Natural resources
0410 ­ Water resources planning and development
DCAS sector &sub-sector



Secondary type of intervention


Primary area of focus/ sub-focus


Primary target beneficiaries


Secondary area of focus/ sub-focus

Secondary target beneficiaries

Brief Description
The project will support Black Sea regional aspects of the Black Sea Partnership for Nutrient Control. It
will assist and strengthen the role of the Black Sea Commission (of the Bucharest Convention for the
Protection of the Black Sea against Pollution) and ensure the provision of a suite of harmonised legal and
policy instruments for tackling the problem of eutrophication, and release of certain hazardous substances,
and to facilitate ecosystem recovery. An important feature of the project is its encouragement of broad
stakeholder participation. This will be achieved by inter-sectoral co-ordination, the provision of small
grants to local initiatives and support for public information and environmental education. The project
will also enable a new suite of indicators for monitoring the effectiveness of the measures taken by the
Partnership. These indicators, together with targeted scientific studies, will help to set new regional
nutrient control targets within the concept of adaptive management. The PDF-B study has revealed that

---

making a remarkable progress in the attainment of these objectives would require at least a five years of
concerted action at the wider basin level. Unfortunately, owing to funding constraints, a two-phased
approach had to be taken for the implementation of the overall strategy. Phasing was based on a
reconsideration of the relative priorities of achieving certain targets and evaluation of the need for earlier
delivery of certain project outputs which will be essential inputs for the implementation of other activities
envisaged for the 5 years integrated project. . The current project will be part of the broader multi-donor Black Sea
Environmental Programme and clear mechanisms will be established for donor co-ordination and for co-ordination and
the sharing of objectives with the Danube and Dnipro GEF Projects.


On behalf of the
Name
Date
Signature
Governments of:









Bulgaria
------------------------
--------------
------------------------






Georgia
------------------------
--------------
------------------------






Romania
------------------------
--------------
------------------------






Russian



Federation
------------------------
--------------
------------------------






Republic of



Turkey
------------------------
--------------
------------------------






Ukraine
------------------------
--------------
------------------------



On Behalf of:







UNDP
------------------------
--------------
------------------------



UN OPS




------------------------
--------------
------------------------









2

---

TABLE OF CONTENTS


A CONTEXT
8


a. Background information
8
b.
Development
problem

10
c. Previous experiences and lessons learned by international partners 12



d. The development goal
13
ˇ Introduction
13
ˇ Long and medium term objectives
13
e. Strategy for attaining project objectives


14
f. Beneficiaries
14
g. The regulatory framework
15
ˇ International legal instruments: The Bucharest Convention
16
ˇ Policy tools: The Odesa Declaration and the BSSAP
16
ˇ Programmatic framework: The Black Sea Environmental 17
Programme
19
ˇ National legal and policy tools
19
h. National resources and commitment




20
B
STRATEGY FOR USE OF UNDP/GEF RESOURCES
20
a. Relationship to UNDP's mandate
20
b. Identification of alternative strategies
21
c. Relationship to the GEF International Waters Focal Area
22
C
IMMEDIATE OBJECTIVES, OUTPUTS, INDICATORS, AND
ACTIVITIES
23
Component
I Co-ordination, Institutional Capacity Building and
Legal Reform
23
Objective
1 Support the integration of a sustainable 23
Secretariat for the Bucharest Convention

Objective
2 Regional actions for improving land-based 25
activities (LBA) and legislation to control
eutrophication and for tackling emergent
problems

Component II.
Sectoral legal and policy reforms, monitoring and 27
evaluation of nutrient control measures and reviewing
targets for adaptive management

Objective 3.
Assist countries to improve their knowledge of the 27
process of eutrophication in the Black Sea

Objective 4. Introduce new sectoral laws and policies and a 29
system of process, stress reduction and
environmental status indicators for monitoring
the effectiveness of measures to control
eutrophication (and hazardous substances where
appropriate)

Committees


Objective
5.
Support the Commissions in their periodic 32
review of Adaptive Management objectives

Component III.
Supporting public involvement in nutrient 33
control

Objective 6.
Assist the public in implementing activities to reduce 33
eutrophication through a programme of grants for
small projects and support to regional NGOs

Component IV.
Innovative economic instruments for the control 35
of eutrophication


3

---

of eutrophication

Objective
7.
Formulate proposals for market-based or 35
alternative economic instruments for limiting
nutrient emissions to the Black Sea and establish
private-public sector partnerships for

environmental protection

Component V Sustainable exploitation of fish stocks as part of an 36
ecosystem approach

Objective 8.
A fisheries exploited within its maximum sustainable 36
yield and incorporating measures to protect
ecologically sensitive areas.

D INPUTS
52
a. Government Inputs

52
b. GEF Inputs


52
c. UNDP Inputs

53
d. UNEP Inputs

54
e.
EC-Tacis
Inputs

54
E
RISKS AND PRIOR OBLIGATIONS
56
a. Risks and steps taken to minimise them
56
b. Prior obligations and prerequisites
65
F INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK AND IMPLEMENTATION
65
ARRANGEMENTS

a. Institutional Framework
65
b. Implementation Arrangements
71
c. Arrangements for preparing and updating workplans
79
d. Accounting a reporting mechanisms
79
e. Reporting requirements
80
f. Description of host institution arrangements
80
g. Coordination mechanisms

81
ˇ Internal Coordination mechanisms
81
ˇ Regional Institutions
81
ˇ National Institutions

82
ˇ External Coordination mechanisms
84
G
MONITORING AND EVALUATION
85
H LEGAL
CONTEXT
85
I WORKPLAN
86
J BUDGET
92
a. Budget lines
92
b. Budget description and abbreviated terms of reference
93
ANNEXES
98
ANNEX I. Job descriptions for the PIU staff
98
ANNEX II. Terms of Reference for the International Study Group 108
(ISG)

ANNEX III. Details of project components to be executed by UNEP
110
ANNEX IV. Details of relevant decisions of the Commission for the 114
Protection of the Black Sea against Pollution (BSC)

A. Terms of Reference for the BSEP Joint Project Management 114
Group (JPMG) and the BSEP Executive Board

B. Headquarters Agreement between the Government of the 120
Republic of Turkey and the Commission on the Protection of
Black Sea Against Pollution

C. Work-programme and budget of the Black Sea Commission 126
within the duration of the project

D. Draft Memorandum of Understanding between the BSC and 143
the ICPDR


4

---

the ICPDR

ANNEX V. Cooperative arrangements with the European Commission 145
(copy of relevant documentation)

ANNEX VI. Copy of host country agreement
171
ANNEX VII. Supplemental Provisions
178
FIGURES

FIGURE 1. Programmatic and institutional framework
67
FIGURE 2. Implementation arrangements for the Black Sea regional
76
project (responsibilities matrix)



TABLES

TABLE
1.
Summary of immediate objectives, outputs, indicators, and 39
activities

TABLE 2. Risks and steps taken to minimise them
58
TABLE 3. Workplan
86
TABLE
4-
Budget description
92

5

---

ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS

AC Activity
Centre
APR
Annual Project Review
BSC
(Istanbul ) Commission for the Protection of the Black
Sea Against Pollution (the body responsible for the
implementation of the Bucharest Convention)
BSEC
Black Sea Economic Cooperation
BSEEP
Black Sea Environmental Education Project
BSEP
Black Sea Environmental Programme
Black Sea NGOs
Project's networking arrangement for Black Sea NGOs
CEC
Commission of European Communities (European
Union)
CTA
Chief Technical Adviser
FAO
Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United
Nations
GEF
Global Environment Facility
GEF LEARN
Learning Exchange and Resource Network
GEF TRAIN-SEA-COAST TRAIN-SEA-COAST Programme funded by the GEF
ICPDR
International Commission for the Protection of the
Danube River
IOC (of UNESCO)
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission
IMO
International Maritime Organisation
ISG
Ad-hoc International Study Group for eutrophication in
the Black Sea (established by the PIU)
IW International
Waters
JPMG
Joint Project Management Group (for the project
between the BSC and the IAs/donors)
JWG
Joint Working Group of the ICPDR and BSC (may be
extended to the Dnipro Comm. etc.)
M&E
Monitoring and Evaluation
MOE
Ministry of the Environment (exact title and status
varies between countries)
MPA
Marine Protected Area
NGO Non-Governmental
Organisation
NPC
National Project Coordinator appointed by the
respective Governments
OP
GEF Operational Program
PDF-B
Project Development Facility of the GEF
PIU
Project Implementation Unit of the current project
PIR
Project Implementation Review
PPS
Public Participation Specialist
SAP
GEF Strategic Action Program
SC
Steering Committee established for the execution of
the current project
STAP
GEF Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel
Sectoral Focal Point
Person or persons specifically responsible for this
programme within a given national sector
Technical Focal Point
Person or institution responsible for providing national
specialist input to a given Advisory Group
TDA
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis
TOR
Terms of Reference
UNDP-COs
Country Offices of the United Nations Development
Programme
UNDP-GEF
UNDP ­ GEF Unit

---

UNEP
United Nations Environment Programme
UNOPS
United Nations Office for Project Services
WB
World Bank
WHO
World Health Organisation
WMO
World Meteorological Organisation.
WWF
World Wide Fund for Nature
WWTP
Waste
Water
Treatment
Plant

7

---

A. CONTEXT

(a) Background Information

1. Following the signing of the Convention for the (Bucharest) Convention on the
Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution in 1992, international support was
provided to the Black Sea coastal states for facilitating the implementation of the
Convention. The UNDP/GEF, through the Black Sea Environmental Programme
which consists of two consecutive regional project implemented between 1993 -
1998, has been instrumental in helping to convert the political commitment made by
the Convention to regional action. The European Community (through its Phare and
Tacis Programmes) and a number of other bilateral donors provided additional
support to this regional initiative, which broadened the coverage of the Bucharest
Convention to sustainable development of the marine and coastal areas of the Black
Sea, and enhanced the regional management capacity. During this period, the
regional coordinating organ envisaged by the Convention (Black Sea Commission
and its Secretariat) also became operational and is currently exercising its legal and
political authority and responsibilities.

2. GEF intervention enabled identification of environmental problems threatening
the Black Sea marine and coastal ecosystems; elaboration of a Transboundary
Diagnostic Analysis - which not only indicated the problems beyond national
jurisdictions, but also their root causes as well as actions proposed to eliminate
them-, adoption of the Strategic Action Plan for the protection and Rehabilitation of
the Black Sea; development of National Action Plans compatible with the regional
SAP; establishment of a regional network of institutions responsible for further
developing and implementing different components of the Plan; enhancing the
capacity of these institutions for better environmental management through training
and policy analysis / development; and elaboration of a list of projects consisting
of largest domestic &industrial waste water sources and of all sources emitting
toxics in coastal countries (hot spots analysis), out of which a portfolio of 49
investment projects1 of regional significance2 was also prepared. It was calculated
that implementation of these investments which comprise of construction of new
facilities, extension, rehabilitation/upgrading of existing infrastructure, in-plant
precautions, would reduce the pollution emerging from the coastal states to a very
high extent3. On the other hand, the TDA has indicated that 30 % percent of the

1 Bulgaria 9, Georgia 6, Romania 6,Russian Federation 8, Turkey 10, Ukraine 10
2 Transboundary effects of these hot spots include diminishing of the water quality,
decline in productive capacity and fisheries, destruction of wetlands, of habitats of
fauna, of migratory fauna, landscape destruction, accidents causing transboundary
pollution, tourism losses, health hazards etc.
3
EXPECTED ABATEMENT
% of discharges from point
% of discharges
sources in coastal countries
from coastal
countries to
transboundary
rivers
Pathogenic bacteria
74

BOD 72
16
Total N
61.5
23
Total P
79
13

---

nutrients (mainly nitrogen and phosphorus compounds) which causes the most
severe problem of the Black Sea in terms of its coverage and impacts on ecosystems,
eutrophication, was emerging from countries other than the coastal ones which are
located in the wide water catchment basin of the Black Sea.

3. In accordance with the outcomes of the previous interventions in the region, the
Black Sea Commission and the International Commission for the Protection of the
Danube River Basin have initiated the first contacts on a wider Black Sea basin
scale, and have received GEF PDF-B funding with a view to further develop legal,
policy and technical measures to reduce the discharges of nutrients and other toxic
substances in the Danube and in the Sea itself. The projects that have been thus
prepared are comprehensive of reduction of pollution from point and non-point
sources, conservation of wetlands, floodplains, and critical marine habitats (in
particular fisheries spawning and nursery areas), setting of water quality standards,
prevention of accidental pollution, floods and river basin management. The two
integrated project proposals requiring GEF assistance for a total of five years, and
accompanying investment support shall complement the activities of the BSC and
the ICPDR.
4. The new GEF assistance, i.e. Black Sea -Danube River Basin Strategic
Partnership is designed as three complementary components:
i. two Regional Projects for the Black Sea and the Danube River Basin
which will be implemented in two Phases between (2002- 2003) and (2004-
2006);

ii. a series of country-related investment projects executed through the World
Bank-GEF Nutrient Investment Facility ;

iii. other GEF and donor interventions in the basin targeting reduction of
nutrients/toxic pollutants and restoration of critical habitats.
The GEF Black Sea/Danube Basin Strategic Partnership shall provide assistance to
the BSC and ICPDR to reinforce their activities in terms of policy/legislative
reforms and enforcement of environmental regulations (with particular attention to
the reduction of nutrients and toxic substances). The regional projects, individually
and jointly, will facilitate a coherent approach for policy and legislative measures to
be introduced by the participating countries at the national, regional and wider
basin levels. The two regional projects, and the Nutrient Investment Facility shall
cross-fertilise each other through inter alia, demonstrating the efficiency and
environmental effectiveness of laws and policies to be introduced by the regional
projects in investment projects implemented under the Nutrient Investment
Facility, thus enhancing their replicability; elaborating and implementing the most
suitable and feasible mix of management instruments, including the economic
instruments; highlighting the significance of certain interventions -investments- in
terms of environmental-economic costs and benefits etc.

5. Through the PDF-B funding a comprehensive project proposal of 5 years duration
aiming to address the three highest priority transboundary problems of the Black Sea
(namely eutrophication, discharge of toxic substances including oil, loss of critical
benthic habitats and wetlands) and to highlight emerging ones was prepared.
However, due to funding constraints experienced by the GEF, the Black Sea
Ecosystem Recovery Project proposal, alike the Danube River Basin Project had to
be split into two implementation Phases. The third component of the Strategic
Partnership, the Nutrient Investment Facility was also phased -into three- owing to

9

---

the same funding constraints. The new implementation schedule adopted for the
Strategic Partnership was as follows:

ˇ May 2001 tranche- Black Sea regional project: Control of eutrophication,
hazardous substances and related measures for rehabilitating the Black Sea
ecosystem: Phase 1. 2 year technical assistance, with a budget of 4,000,000$
(excluding the PDB-B funding of 349,920$); First envelope of Nutrient
Investment Facility (Black Sea and Danube basin countries): 20 million $.
ˇ December 2001 tranche- $); Second envelope of Nutrient Investment Facility :
25 million $.
ˇ May 2002 tranche- Black Sea regional project: Control of eutrophication,
hazardous substances and related measures for rehabilitating the Black Sea
ecosystem: Phase 2, consisting of 3 years technical assistance, with a budget of
5,555,000 $.
ˇ November 2002 tranche- Third envelope of Nutrient Investment Facility: 25
million $.

6. In phasing the comprehensive Black Sea regional project prepared under the
PDF-B and submitted for the November 2000 Council Meeting, the total duration ( 2
years followed by 3 years, in total five years), and the total budget of the regional
project (with 349,000$ for PDF-B, 4,000,000$ for Phase 1, and 5,555,000 for Phase
2) have been left as same. The immediate objectives, planned activities and
expected outputs that are included in the original proposal have also been preserved,
but were distributed among the two phases taking the following concerns into
consideration:
ˇ Logical sequencing of tasks (such as postponing the tasks that require the
availability of the products of earlier activities as input, and vice versa);
ˇ Compatibility with the Commission's own work-programme and the need for
responding to its immediate needs;
ˇ Not distorting the budgetary allocations made in the original proposal for
various project components;
ˇ Achieving concrete results in the first phase which the Commission's network
itself would be able to sustain onwards, and which would be further enriched
and replicated during the second phase.

7. Effective implementation of the first phase of the project which was approved by
the GEF Council at its 9-11 May 2001 meeting, timely delivery of its outputs,
enhanced commitment of the beneficiary countries at the national as well as at the
regional level are the most important factors which will contribute to the
achievement of the long term objective of reducing the levels of nutrients and
other hazardous substances to such levels necessary to permit Black Sea ecosystems
to recover to similar conditions as those observed in the 1960s. These are at the
same time basic indicators which will warrant GEF and other donor support
following the completion of the first phase.


(b) Development problem

Introduction
8.
The Black Sea is one of the most remarkable regional seas in the world. It is
almost cut off from the rest of the world's oceans but is up to 2212 metres deep and
receives the drainage from a 2 million square kilometre basin, covering about one

10

---

third of the area of continental Europe. Its only connection is through the winding
Istanbul (Bosphorus) Straits, a 35 Km natural channel, as little as 40 metres deep in
places. Every year, about 350 cubic kilometres of river water pour into the Black
Sea from an area covering almost a third of continental Europe and including
significant areas of seventeen countries: Austria, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, Moldova, Slovakia,
Slovenia, Romania, Russia, Turkey, Ukraine, Yugoslavia. Europe's second, third
and fourth rivers (the Danube, Dnipro (Dnipro) and Don) all flow to the Black Sea.
The Istanbul Straits has a two layer flow, carrying about 300 cubic kilometres of
seawater to the Black Sea from the Mediterranean along the bottom layer and
returning a mixture of seawater and freshwater with twice this volume in the upper
layer.

9. Isolation from the flushing effects of the open ocean, coupled with its huge
catchment, have made the Black Sea particularly susceptible to eutrophication (the
phenomenon that results from an over-enrichment of the sea by plant nutrients).
Eutrophication has led to radical changes in the Black Sea ecosystem in the past
three decades with a major transboundary impact on biological diversity and human
use of the sea, including fisheries and recreation. The North Western shelf of the
Black Sea for example, was converted from a unique system based upon rich and
extensive beds of red algae and bivalves, to an anoxic "dead zone", the seasonal
occurrence of which persists until present time. The nitrogen and phosphorus
compounds triggering eutrophication come from all over the Black Sea Basin. The
Black Sea Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (1996) indicates that, in 1992, 70%
of the nutrients were coming from the six Black Sea countries (three of which -
Romania, Bulgaria and Ukraine - discharge much of their nutrient load through the
Danube) and the remaining 30% comes from the non-coastal countries, mostly of the
upper Danube. Studies by the Danube Basin Environmental Programme suggest that
about half the nutrients discharged to the river are from agriculture, one quarter
from industry and a similar proportion from domestic sources. The current loads of
nutrients entering the Black Sea from the Danube has fallen in recent years due to
the collapse of the economies of most lower Danube and former Soviet countries,
the measures taken to reduce nutrient discharge in the upper Danube countries, and
the implementation of a ban in polyphosphate detergents in some countries. Current
phosphate levels appear to be roughly the same as in the 1960s but total nitrogen
levels are still at least four times as high as those observed during that period. There
is evidence of some recovery in Black Sea ecosystems but these observations lack
scientific rigour owing to the collapse of infrastructure to monitor and evaluate
changes in the system. It is widely considered however, that nutrient discharges are
likely to rise again with consequent damage to the Black Sea, unless action is taken
to implement nutrient discharge control measures as part of the economic
development strategies.

10. Failure to tackle the problem of eutrophication in a holistic manner would
severely constrain future development in the region. Activities such as tourism
development, fisheries, public health, are intimately related to the quality of shared
marine waters. Resolving the problem is not merely a matter of reducing the
discharge of nutrients but involves protective measures to help vital ecosystems to
become re-established, fisheries and other living resources to be exploited in a
sustainable manner and chemical contamination to be strictly controlled. The present
project adopts the necessary integrated strategy and is a vital component in a wider
GEF Black Sea Basin Strategic Partnership that includes separate GEF interventions
in the Danube and the Dnipro, a number of biodiversity projects and the World Bank
GEF Nutrient Investment Facility (to provide the necessary support for key
investment actions).

11

---

(c) Previous experiences and lessons learned by international partners

11. Prior to the 1990s, little or no action had been taken to protect the Black Sea. Political
differences during the Soviet era, coupled with a lack of general knowledge of the
environmental situation resulted in an absence of effective response. Perestroika changed this
By 1992 the Black Sea countries were ready and willing to co-operate. They had just signed
the Bucharest Convention. However they still lacked the policies which would enable
necessary measures to protect the sea. Agenda 21 provided a good model for a first Black Sea
Ministerial Declaration, the Odessa Declaration. Indeed, the Black Sea was the first region to
take up the challenge of Rio. This inspired the GEF and other donors, particularly the
European Union, to provide more than US$17 million support to the region to help implement
the Odessa Declaration and to formulate the longer-term Black Sea Strategic Action Plan.

12. The Black Sea Environmental Programme (BSEP, see section (f, iii)) was
launched in June 1993. The Programme included a number of interventions by the
GEF (and other donors), the first of which was entitled `Project for the
Environmental Management of the Black Sea, approved under the GEF Pilot Phase).
Its first task was to help create a strong international network of institutions,
specialists and other stakeholders. The BSEP established its headquarters in Istanbul
with the support of the Government of Turkey. The Programme was governed by a
Steering Committee that included senior government officials from all Black Sea
countries, the sponsoring organisations (the GEF and other donors), and
representatives of the Black Sea NGO forum (as observers). In order to spread the
technical responsibilities of the programme throughout the region and to make best
use of the excellent specialists in the region, a system of Regional Activity Centres
and Working Parties was devised. Each country agreed to sponsor one of its existing
institutions as a regional centre for a particular field of expertise. The regional
centres in turn organised Working Parties, specialist networks involving institutions
from all six Black Sea countries. Using this structure, it was possible to bring
together specialists who had sometimes not been able to co-operate previously. All
of the institutions were provided with equipment (computers, analytical instruments,
etc.) and specialist training and a new and productive dialogue began.

13. The BSEP Working Parties completed a series of background studies that
enabled a Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis to be finalised in June 1996. On the
basis of this comprehensive report senior government officials negotiated the Black
Sea Strategic Action Plan (BS-SAP), signed on October 31st at a Ministerial
Conference in Istanbul. The consensus on the BS-SAP was very broad. It provides a
very modern approach to environmental policy making and agrees on the following
key matters:
ˇ That the principle cause for the decline of the Black Sea ecosystem is
eutrophication;
ˇ That without full co-operation with riparian countries of the main tributary
rivers (Danube and Dnipro) this problem cannot be addressed;
ˇ That the institutional structure of the BSEP should be incorporated into that of
the Istanbul Commission for the Bucharest Convention;
ˇ That an adaptive management approach should be adopted for the control of
pollution in the Black Sea;
ˇ That biological diversity and fisheries concerns should be part of the future
agenda of the Commission;

12

---

ˇ That greater stakeholder participation and transparency should be ensured (in
line with the provisions of the Aarhus Convention.

14. Following the signature of the BS-SAP, GEF funding was sustained, albeit at a
lower level, in order to enable countries to complete National Black Sea Strategic
Action Plans and for the negotiations on the institutionalisation of the Istanbul
Commission's Secretariat to be completed. This was a very protracted three-year
process as countries struggled to overcome technical and legal issues of establishing
the Secretariat. In the meantime however, progress was made in implementing part
of the BS-SAP thanks to GEF seed money and considerable support from the
European Commission by Tacis or and DG XI (currently DG Environment). The
main achievements were:
ˇ Establishment of the ad-hoc technical working group with the ICPDR and joint
analysis of the problem of eutrophication in the Black Sea, including
recommendations for target for nutrient control;
ˇ Continued support to the BSEP Activity Centres and real progress through
demonstration projects in the areas of data quality control, oil spill response,
coastal zone management, aquaculture and biological diversity;
ˇ Strengthening of the programme for public participation, particularly through the
Tacis small grants initiative, largely focussed on actions around Black Sea (as a
reminder of commitments to the BS-SAP);
ˇ Publication of the State of Pollution in the Black Sea report and the Black Sea
Red Data Book;
ˇ Agreement on a new set of water quality objectives to propose to the BSC as
required by the BS-SAP.

15. In April 2000, a breakthrough was finally made in the negotiations for
establishing the Commission's Secretariat (see section (f)). The Secretariat became
operational in October 2000, following the selection of its senior officials at an
extraordinary session of the BSC on September 10-11, 2000. Four countries
(Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey and Ukraine) made their financial contributions to the
Commission. In addition, the Republic of Turkey is providing the facilities for the
Secretariat, to be shared with the PIU.


(d) The development goal

(i) Introduction

16.
The objectives, expected outputs and activities of this project have been
driven by the results of the TDA and the SAP that were developed by the countries
as part of their work under the previous GEF projects. They are also driven by the
recently published Pollution Assessment of the Black Sea (Black Sea Technical
Series No. 10, UN Publications New York) the work of the ad hoc working group
between the ICPDR and the BSC, and the results of the studies published during
execution of the PDF-B. These studies clearly demonstrate the overriding
significance of eutrophication as the transboundary issue having greatest long-term
impact on the Black Sea. It is also the issue involving more stakeholders distributed
over a wider geographical area than any of the other issues impacting the Black Sea.
There are a number of other transboundary issues requiring attention however, some
of which may be the subject of action by other donors:

ˇ A major decline in Black Sea commercial fish stocks and non-optimal
harvesting of living resources;

13

---

ˇ Introduction of exotic species by ships and releases from aquaculture;
ˇ High accident risk of tankers, especially in the Istanbul Straits;
ˇ Deterioration in beach and near-shore habitat quality due to marine-based
sources of oil and garbage as a result of tanker operations and disposal of
garbage at sea;
ˇ Physical destruction and alteration of coastal habitats and landscapes;
ˇ Lack of full understanding of the distribution of toxic organic compounds.


(ii)
Long and medium term objectives

17. The long-term and intermediate objectives of the project are those established by the Joint
ad-hoc Working Group between the BSC and the ICPDR (1999), namely:
The long-term objective is for all Black Sea basin countries to take measures
to reduce nutrient levels and other hazardous substances to such levels
necessary to permit Black Sea ecosystems to recover to similar conditions as
those observed in the 1960s.
As an intermediate objective, urgent control measures should be taken by all
countries in the Black Sea basin, in order to avoid that discharges of
nitrogen and phosphorus to the Black Sea exceed those levels observed in
1997. This will require countries to adopt and declare strategies that permit
economic development whilst ensuring appropriate practices and measures
to limit nutrient discharge, and to rehabilitate ecosystems which assimilate
nitrogen and phosphorus. This target, monitored and reported annually,
shall be reviewed in 2007 with a view to considering further measures which
may be required for meeting the long-term objective.
This project has been developed and coordinated in parallel with the World
Bank/GEF Partnership Investment Facility for Nutrient Reduction to help stimulate
investments towards these goals.


(e) Strategy for reaching the objectives

18.
The main focus of the current proposal is the issue of eutrophication. This
requires coordinated actions to achieve three sub-objectives:
ˇ
Reduction of the nitrogen and phosphorus loads to the Black Sea;
ˇ
Enhancement of the service function of wetlands and benthic (seabed)
plant communities for the assimilation of nutrients;
ˇ
Improved management of critical habitats to permit economic recovery of

fisheries in parallel with improvements to the ecosystem.
In addition to the above, and where appropriate, attention will also be given to transboundary
contamination by hazardous substances, particularly where these have similar sources to
nutrients. Phase 2 of the project will give attention to oil pollution (a significant problem in
the Black Sea), by further developing and implementing measures that may reduce the risk of
spillage by ships.

19.
The actions identified in the current project are far-reaching and involve
activities by the national and local governments, regional organisations, the GEF,
other donors, the private sector, NGOs and the public in general. Eutrophication on
the Black Sea results from the failure of a wide range of sectors to understand the
relationship between their activities and the decline of remote marine and coastal
ecosystems. Reversal of this situation requires: (a) better understanding of the
situation at all levels; (b) common environmental objectives; (c) a reappraisal of

14

---

values, both economic and ethical; (d) the availability of cost-effective practical
alternatives to current practices; (e) their institutionalisation in education, policy
and law, (f) effective structures for implementation; and (g) statutory procedures for
monitoring compliance, trends and emerging issues. The current project seeks to
address each of these requirements in order to control eutrophication in a
sustainable manner.

20.
Effective reduction of eutrophication in the Black Sea requires the full co-
operation between all 17 countries within the Basin. The present project builds on
the co-operation already established between the BSC and the ICPDR, extending
this further to include the proposed Dnipro Commission. The cooperation builds on
a process of joint goal setting based upon the adaptive management approach. It will
enable the Basin countries to complete the first iteration in this process and to set
new targets for the future, based upon objective technical information and pragmatic
economic considerations.

(f) Beneficiaries

21.
The current project is expected to result in a wide spectrum of beneficiaries,
especially when taking into account the long-term implications for sustainable
development in the Black Sea region. In the shorter term, the beneficiaries are
described as follows:

ˇ The Commission for the Bucharest Convention (BSC) ­ through a greatly
enhanced capacity to fulfil its mandate with respect to the implementation of the
Bucharest Convention and the BS-SAP;
ˇ National Governments ­ through support with the development and co-
ordination of effective policies to tackle the problem of eutrophication (as well
as other forms of transboundary pollution) and the rehabilitation of the Black
Sea ecosystem;
ˇ Local Governments ­ by improved participation in tackling environmental issues
that are beyond their immediate jurisdiction and by sharing experiences with
others on ways of doing this;
ˇ Non-Governmental Organisations ­ through support with their work, focussed on
local-level efforts designed to contribute significantly to the overall objectives
of the project;
ˇ Teachers, educational establishments, and major stakeholder groups, such as
farmers and fishermen­ by providing information, materials and networking to
support their essential role in empowering society to resolve and prevent key
environmental issues affecting the integrity of the Black Sea and the sustainable
use of its resources:
ˇ Public at large, through improved water quality and public health conditions, and
rehabilitation of recreational values.

22.
Successful implementation of the project will result in global benefits. These
result from the contribution that a healthy Black Sea ecosystem will make to
reducing environmental stress on the global marine environment, the global
importance of conserving habitats and biological diversity, and the replicability
value of a project that addresses one of the major threats to regional seas world-
wide.





15

---

(g) The regulatory framework

(i) International legal instruments: The Bucharest Convention

Approval
23.
The Convention and its three Protocols4 were adopted by the Diplomatic
Conference on the Protection of the Black Sea against Pollution held in Bucharest
on 21 April 1992, and deposited with the Government of Romania. The Convention,
as well as the Land-Based Sources Protocol and the Emergency Response Protocol,
entered into force on 15 January 1994, in accordance with Art. XXVIII of the
Convention, i.e. sixty days after their fourth ratification.

Structure and contents
24.
The name "Bucharest Convention" actually refers not only to the framework
convention itself, the Convention for the Protection of the Black Sea, but also to its
five Resolutions, and three Protocols: the Land-Based Sources Protocol, the
Emergency Response Protocol, and the Dumping Protocol. The Land-Based Source
Protocol and Dumping Protocol are accompanied by annexes containing so-called
black and grey lists. In accordance with general practice, pollution by the substances
and matter on the black lists (annex I), categorised as hazardous, needs to be
prevented and eliminated by the Contracting Parties. Pollution by substances on the
grey lists (annex II), categorised as noxious, need to be reduced and where possible
eliminated. In the case of land-based sources, there is an additional Annex III,
which prescribes restrictions to which discharges of substances and matters listed in
annex II should be subject to. Furthermore, dumping of wastes and materials
containing the noxious substances contained in annex II requires a prior special
permit from "the competent national authorities", while, according to annex III,
dumping of all other wastes and materials requires a prior general permit.

25.
The Convention addresses five of the six generally recognised sources of
marine pollution land-based (in Art. VII and Protocol), vessel-source (Art. VIII),
ocean dumping (Art. X and Protocol), exploitation of the seabed of the continental
shelf or margin (Art. XI), from or through the atmosphere (Art. XII). The only
source not covered is exploitation of the seabed of the international area, simply
because the Black Sea does not contain territory which falls under this definition. It
also deals extensively with emergency response (Art. IX and Protocol), a term which
refers to the use of techniques to prevent pollution arising from accidents, since the
Black Sea.

Implementation
26.
The provisions of the Bucharest Convention require implementation by the
six Contracting Parties: the Black Sea coastal states. They are, bound to implement
the provisions since the Convention is part of the legislation of all six countries. In
practice however, some countries were not immediately capable to implement it,
mostly because of economic constraints. The Convention does not provide for
special enforcement techniques, such as a dispute settlement mechanism (the
traditional enforcement technique, which is however not necessarily useful in case
of environmental matters, where prevention rather than resolving or restoration is
required) or a compliance reporting procedure, but, "in order to achieve the
purposes of the Convention", it does provide for the establishment of a Commission

4 Protocol on Protection of the Black Sea Marine Environment Against Pollution From Land-Based Sources, Protocol on
Cooperation in Combating Pollution of the Black Sea Marine Environment by Oil and Other Harmful Substances in
Emergency Situations and Protocol on the Protection of the Black Sea Marine Environment Against Pollution by
Dumping.


16

---

for the Protection of the Black Sea, which shall consist of at least one representative
of each Contracting Party. (Art. XVII). The Commission shall, inter alia, promote
the implementation of the Convention, inform the Contracting Parties of its work,
and assist them by making recommendations on measures necessary for achieving
the aims of the convention, and on recommendations of possible amendments to the
convention and protocols (Art. XVIII). The Convention further determines that the
"Commission shall be assisted in its activities by a permanent Secretariat" (Art.
XVII).
As a result of economic difficulties and the need to resume host country agreements,
there was a considerable delay before the Secretariat became operational. This
finally occurred in September 2000 and it is now fully functional, albeit with
reduced number of staff.


(ii) Policy tools: The Odesa Declaration and the BSSAP

The Odessa Ministerial Declaration
27.
The Bucharest Convention itself is a legal and diplomatic tool for joint
action and does not set out to establish environmental policy goals (e.g. targets for
reducing the loads of specific pollutants etc.). It also does not establish any
regulatory mechanism for exploitation or development of the natural environment
(e.g. straddled marine resources or specially protected areas). In order to develop a
common policy framework, a clear "Declaration of Environmental Quality
Objectives" was considered necessary. Following the initiative of the Government of
Ukraine and employing the stewardship of UNEP, a Ministerial Declaration was
formulated during nine months of negotiations and signed by all six countries in
Odessa in April 1993 (the "Odessa Declaration"). This Declaration was a pragmatic
and innovative policy statement that sets environmental goals and a time frame to
guide management regimes and associated investments. It was the first policy
agreement on regional seas to reflect the philosophy of UNCED, Agenda 21, and
features a heavy emphasis on accountability, periodic review and public awareness.
These features represented a major conceptual shift in a public statement from
countries of the region, particularly those emerging from totalitarianism.

28.
The Odessa Declaration consists of a preamble, a general policy statement
and nineteen specific actions. These actions were designed to facilitate the rapid
development of practical measures for controlling pollution from land-based and
marine sources (including the harmonisation of environmental standards); to restore,
conserve and manage natural resources; to respond to environmental emergencies; to
improve the assessment of contaminants and their sources; to introduce integrated
coastal zone management policies and compulsory environmental impact
assessments; and to create a transparent and balanced mechanism for reviewing and
updating the Declaration on a triennial basis. The Declaration was designed to
provide a basis for a flexible but continuous process for taking decisions on
coordinated national action towards common goals at present and in the future. Its
clear objectives and specific time-frames were to guide and stimulate
implementation of the Bucharest Convention. On the 7th of April 1996 the first
triennium came to its end. A report commissioned by UNEP evaluated to what
extent the Odessa Declaration has succeeded to serve as `agenda' for
implementation of regional measures, in accordance with the Bucharest Convention.
The results of this analysis were encouraging even despite the lack of formal
implementation of the Bucharest Convention. The Odessa Declaration had given a
strong signal to donors, particularly the newly created Global Environment Facility,
that the Black Sea countries were willing and able to cooperate on restoring and
protecting this severely damaged and unique shared environment. This paved the

17

---

way for financial assistance to be granted for implementation of the Odessa
Declaration.

29.
The Odessa Declaration was seen from the outset as an interim policy
arrangement. It signatories called upon the GEF partners to assist them with the
development of a medium/long-term action plan for the protection of the Black Sea.
It thus set the wheels in motion for a much more comprehensive strategy of which
the Declaration itself was to be one of the building blocks.

The Black Sea Strategic Action Plan
30.
The Development of the Black Sea Action Plan followed a carefully
implemented technical process spanning over two years. The first step was the
integration of an effective institutional network, a matter described in the previous
section. The network was then asked to conduct an analysis of Black Sea problems
within the field of specialisation of each "Working Party" (Biodiversity, Emergency
Response, Fisheries, Pollution levels and effects, Pollution Sources, Legislation,
Integrated Coastal Zone Management, etc.) The thematic analysis were conducted at
a national level and then integrated regionally. In the case of sources and levels of
pollution, new reliable information had to be gathered, a remarkable
accomplishment in such a short time and one which required the cooperation of
many national and international actors. A similar situation occurred in the case of
fisheries. The thematic analyses were then gathered together and studied intensively
by a group of regional and international specialists in order to construct a
"Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis" (TDA) of the Black Sea.

31.
The Black Sea TDA is a technical document which, in a highly analytical
manner, examines the root causes of Black Sea degradation and options for actions
which may be taken to address them. It examines each major environmental
problem, the "stakeholders" involved in the problem (who is responsible? who has
to act?) and the uncertainties in the information describing the problem (do we need
more information and if so what kind?). It then proposes solutions, often giving
various options and attempts to set a time frame and cost for the solutions. Some of
the solutions require policy changes, some require capital investments. They are all
part of a holistic management approach that does not limit itself to end-of-pipe
solutions but encourages the development of more environmentally sustainable
economic activities.

32. The
BS-SAP5 was developed from June to October 1996 as a direct
consequence of the TDA. It is a negotiated document, prepared during a series of
meetings between senior environmental officials of all six Black Sea coastal
countries and adopted (following in-country cabinet consultations) at a Ministerial
Conference, celebrated in Istanbul on 31 October, 1996. The Plan, only 29 pages in
length, contains 59 specific commitments on policy regarding measures to reduce
pollution, improve living resources management, encourage human development in a
manner which does not prejudice the environment, and to take steps towards
improving financing for environmental projects. In adopting this plan, the Black Sea
governments have committed themselves to a process of profound reform in the
manner in which environmental issues are addressed in the Black Sea and its basin.

33.
Notable features of the BS-SAP include its emphasis on integration of
pollution control efforts with those of the Danube River, the adoption of a system of

5 BSEP (1996) Strategic Action Plan for the Rehabilitation and Protection of the Black Sea, Istanbul, Turkey,
31 October 1996, 29pp.


18

---

economic instruments to regulate existing sources of pollution (and to avoid new
ones), enhanced protection status for sensitive coastal and marine habitats, inter-
sectoral planning and management of coastal regions and greatly improved
transparency and public participation. Implementation of the BS-SAP is currently
somewhat behind schedule. This does not imply that there is no implementation at
all but recent reports clearly indicate that the governments are not meeting the
deadlines they set for themselves. There are many reasons for this, including the
delays in completing the institutional arrangements described earlier and the
continuing economic difficulties confronted by many of the countries. In its April
2000 meeting, the Black Sea Commission, reiterated its commitment to oversee
implementation of the BS-SAP. They also agreed to approach the GEF and the
European Commission for renewed support to help them achieve this objective.

(iii) Programmatic framework: The Black Sea Environmental Programme
(BSEP)

34.
The support provided to the governments for implementing the Odesa
Declaration and for developing and implementing the Black Sea Strategic Action
Plan, took the form of a series of GEF, Tacis and Phare projects, and smaller donor
initiatives, coordinated within a loosely defined programmatic framework described
as the Black Sea Environmental Programme (BSEP). The BSEP `label' served an
important function of making the various interventions coherent and comprehensible
to the public and to the governments. It is also attracted donor interest to the
increasingly popular cause of `Saving the Black Sea', to which the BSEP label
became closely associated. The GEF project PCU became de-facto, the Secretariat
for BSEP (though this arrangement was never formalised). This enabled staff from
other projects (e.g. the Tacis Black Sea Project) to be seconded to the PCU and for
the Directorate General for Environment of the EC to grant emergency funding to
the unit during a period (1999-2000) of absence of GEF support.

35.
Following the signature of the BS-SAP, the BSEP label continued to be
applied to all interventions supporting the implementation of the Plan. The scope
and form of the BSEP was defined by the BS-SAP though it ownership has passed to
the Commission for the Bucharest Convention for the Protection of the Black Sea
against Pollution (a rather more difficult title for the general public to grasp).
Recently, the Black Sea Commission has agreed to formalise the BSEP as `a
coordinated programme of interventions designed to support the implementation of
the 1996 Black Sea Strategic Action Plan for the Protection and Rehabilitation of
the Black Sea' under its own aegis. Coordination of the projects within the BSEP
will be ensured through the Joint Project Management Group in which all
interventions in the Black Sea region at a programme or project level are
represented. Relevant decision of the Commission is given as ANNEX IV.A and a
schematic illustration of the programme approach is provided in Figure 1 .

(iv) National legal and policy tools

36.
National legal systems for environmental protection are characterised by
their diversity and rate of change. The legal systems of the former COMECON
countries, heavily dependent upon strict water quality standards, are gradually being
replaced by a more flexible and integrated `system-based' approach. This is
particularly true of the countries seeking accession to the EU (Bulgaria, Romania
and Turkey) where the new EC Framework Water Directive has become the guiding
principle for protecting water bodies and adjacent areas. A similar approach is being
pursued in Ukraine. Most countries have a queue of new legislation awaiting
parliamentary approval and environmental management depends on a mixture of

19

---

laws and institutional structures from the past together with the new laws. The BS-
SAP takes a pragmatic approach and recognises the need to harmonise the objectives
of laws and regulations, rather than the laws themselves.

37.
The BS-SAP also envisaged the development of National Black Sea Strategic
Action Plans that should provide a clear policy statement, at the national level, on
how the provisions of the regional SAP are to be implemented. These National Plans
were developed with the help of funding from the regional GEF intervention,
implemented in the period 1997-1999. GEF-PDF-B support also enabled completion
of reviews of the current legal, policy and institutional provisions for limiting
nutrient discharges to the aquatic environment at the national level in the year 2000.


(h) National resources and commitment

38.
Each of the Black Sea Countries has a legal and institutional framework
sufficient to enable its full participation in the project and has expressed its written
commitment to make its own infrastructure and resources available for project
implementation. As a result of previous interventions by the GEF and its partners
within the framework of the BSEP, as well as country-based capacity building
programmes, all six countries have received substantial support with equipment and
training. The present project therefore focuses on consolidating and integrating
these building blocks for the purposes of addressing the specific project objectives.

39.
The level of commitment of the participating countries can be judged by the
following criteria:
ˇ All six countries have been consistent in their participation in the BSEP
process in general and the UNDP/GEF projects in particular, since its
establishment in 1991.
ˇ All six countries have contributed expertise and information in the
development of previous interventions, the BS-SAP and the preparation of
the present project.
ˇ All six countries are providing in-kind resources for the development of the
project (the project `baseline', valued at US$ 9,916,920).
ˇ The countries have agreed to support the Secretariat of the Commission for
the Bucharest Convention with a total cash contribution estimated at US$
800,000 for the 2 ­year period (yet two of the countries, Russia and Georgia,
have to fulfil their commitment).
ˇ Senior government officials are currently discussing a Ministerial meeting to
reiterate their commitment to this process.



B. STRATEGY FOR USE OF UNDP/GEF RESOURCES

(a) Relationship to UNDP's mandate

40.
The principal reason for UNDP involvement in this project is that this project falls
under two of the key UNDP mandates i.e. governance and environmental protection. The
project, involving Bulgaria, Georgia, Romania, Russia, Turkey and Ukraine brings the
countries closer together in achieving common goals. The current project was developed as
part of the International Waters Portfolio of the UNDP-GEF. UNDP has been the lead agency
in this process from the outset.


20

---

41.
UNDP has country offices in all six beneficiary countries. The UNDP
Resident Coordinator in Turkey will act as the Principal Project Resident
Representative for the duration of the project.

(b) Identification of alternative strategies

Baseline
42.
Governments are fully aware of the problems afflicting the Black Sea but do
not feel fully empowered to resolve them. Since the early 1990s, economies have
collapsed in all countries except Turkey and much of the infrastructure has
deteriorated due to the need to spend limited revenues on other immediate priorities.
Even routine monitoring of the Black Sea ceased from the late 1980s in all countries
except Romania. However, the previous GEF interventions helped to keep protection
of the Black Sea firmly on the international and national agenda and led to a number
of positive actions. These included the establishment of a new policy and
institutional framework, a very large capacity-building effort and pilot studies and
investments (very significant ones in the case of Romania and to a lesser degree
Bulgaria and Georgia). Work to support public involvement and the diffusion of
information also continued. These interventions helped to raise the baseline from the
1993 inception level to the present one. They have also led to "buy in" by the
governments to the Bucharest Convention Secretariat and other measures to afford
better protection to the Sea itself.

43. Despite the previous projects however, the thorny central issue of
eutrophication control remains. The "business as usual" development scenario
would, inter alia, include projects to invest in more cost-effective agriculture and to
develop waste treatment to a level that would satisfy the immediate imperative of
improving public health, encourage economic recovery and protect adjacent natural
areas. Such projects would be unlikely to mitigate eutrophication; indeed that would
probably exacerbate it.

44.
At the same time, it should be noted that economic decline has brought
temporary relief to the Black Sea since the discharge of nutrients and certain
hazardous substances has also decreased. There is an unprecedented opportunity to
adopt a new development approach working from the current very low baseline. This
window of opportunity will most likely be a very small one.

GEF Alternative
45.
The GEF alternative consists of practical steps towards:
(a) better understanding of the situation at all levels;
(b) common environmental objectives;
(c) a reappraisal of values, both economic and ethical;
(d)
the availability of cost-effective practical alternatives to current
practices;
(e) their institutionalisation in education, policy and law,
(f) effective structures for implementation; and
(g) statutory procedures for monitoring compliance, trends and emerging
issues.

46.
This will be accomplished through GEF support to key measures that would be
unachievable without the active co-operation of the six countries in the region, the seventeen
countries in the wider basin and of the wider international community. The GEF alternative
will achieve its global and regional objectives through the following immediate objectives:


21

---

1. Support the integration of a sustainable Secretariat for the Bucharest
Convention
2. Regional actions for improving LBA legislation to control eutrophication
and for tackling emergent problems
3. Assist countries to improve their knowledge of the process of
eutrophication in the Black Sea
4. Introduce new sectoral policies and legislation, as well as a system of
process, stress reduction and environmental status indicators for
monitoring the effectiveness of measures to control eutrophication (and
hazardous substances where appropriate)and conservation of key habitats,
including wetlands and fisheries spawning and nursery areas.
5. Support the Commission in their periodic review of Adaptive
Management objectives.
6. Assist the public in implementing activities to reduce eutrophication
through a programme of grants for small projects and support to regional
NGOs.
7. Formulate proposals for market-based or alternative economic
instruments for limiting nutrient emissions and establish private-public
sector partnerships for environmental protection in the Black Sea.
8. A fishery exploited within its maximum sustainable yield and
incorporating measures to protect ecologically sensitive areas.

47.
The Black Sea project is highly replicable. Eutrophication is a problem
common to many enclosed and semi-enclosed seas and is one that is likely to
increase in the future if measures are not taken to adopt practices that result in
decreased nutrient discharges to rivers, the coastal zone and the atmosphere.


(c) Relationship to the GEF International Waters Focal Area

48.
The project is an integral part of the GEF Danube/Black Sea Basin
Programmatic Approach. This enables a process of goal setting and adaptive
management for the entire 17 country 2 million square kilometres Black Sea
Catchment area. The approach is fully consistent with the guidance for GEF
Operational Programme Number 8, "Waterbody-based Operational Programme." The
goal of this Operational Programme is to assist countries in making changes in the
ways that human activities are conducted in different sectors so that the particular
waterbody and its multi-country drainage basin can sustainably support the human
activities. Projects in this OP focus mainly on seriously threatened waterbodies and
the most imminent transboundary threats to their ecosystems as described in the
Operational Strategy. Consequently, priority is placed on changing sectoral policies
and activities responsible for the most serious root causes needed to solve the top
priority transboundary environmental concerns.

22

---

C. IMMEDIATE OBJECTIVES, OUTPUTS, INDICATORS, AND
ACTIVITIES

49.
This section of the Project Document includes detailed descriptions of the
project components to be implemented, immediate objectives, outputs, activities and
evaluation criteria. This material is drawn from the approved Project Brief
incorporating updates and amendments requested by the GEF Council and/or
resulting from new information/partnerships described in other parts of the Project
Document. For ease of reference, a substantial summary table (TABLE 1) has also
been incorporated to facilitate review and project co-ordination and planning.


Component I
Co-ordination, Institutional Capacity Building and
Legal Reform

50.
This component focuses on promoting cost-effective sustainable mechanisms
to support international instruments to protect the Black Sea Environment. It has
two major sub-objectives that (a) seek to support the implementation of the existing
Bucharest Convention and its Protocols and, (b) help the Commission for the
Convention to formulate recommendation for improving the existing Land-based
Sources Protocol, following the internationally agreed Global Plan of Action for the
Control of Land-based Activities (GPA).


Objective 1 Support the integration of a sustainable Secretariat for the Bucharest
Convention

Rationale:
51.
The meeting of the Istanbul Commission held on 25-26 April, 2000 agreed on a
mechanism for institutionalising its Secretariat and for co-operating with the GEF
Implementing Agencies in order to sustain the work of the Black Sea Environmental
Programme. An institutional structure has now been devised to formalise this agreement (see
Section F.f and ANNEX IV.A). At a programmatic (BSEP) level, a Joint Project
Management Group (JPMG) will be the subsidiary body of the Commission responsible for
BSEP policy planning. For day to day co-ordination between the projects within the BSEP, an
Executive Board has been devised. At a project level, the GEF project will have its own
Steering Committee (see section F for details). The current Project Implementation Unit will
continue to operate at the project level to ensure the management of its activities and the
delivery of outputs. The CTA of the project will be a member of the Executive Board, and an
observer on the JPMG and the Commission itself. The UNDP will nominate an official
representative to the JPMG. The structure has been devised in order to give maximum support
to the Commission and its Permanent Secretariat but to clear distinguish project (i.e. limited
term) elements from those that should be sustained by the countries themselves. The project,
together with interventions of collateral donors, will also continue to support relevant
Regional Activity Centres. These will operate in the manner described in the BS-SAP, in most
cases supported by a blend of national, regional (BSC) and collateral donor funding. The
project will support technical cooperation with the Danube river (and other major river) basin
countries through a Joint Working Group to be established between the BSC and ICPDR (and
other emergent river basin Commissions). In summary, GEF support will focus on enhancing
the work of the Black Sea Commission to address the key issues that are the subject of the
present proposal and to help it achieve long-term sustainability.


Outputs

23

---

1.1
A management regime capable of coordinating regional actions to overcome
the key transboundary issues facing the Black Sea, primarily the control and
abatement of eutrophication and hazardous substances but also the improved
management of critical marine and coastal areas, in particular those which
have significance in regard of sustainable fisheries (see component V).
1.2
A permanent mechanism for co-operation with the ICPDR (Danube) and
other emergent river basin commissions in the Black Sea Basin.
1.3
Publicly accessible programme materials in all Black Sea languages

Success criteria
ˇ Programme Implementation Unit (PIU) fully staffed and operational
ˇ Joint Project Management Committee established and operational
ˇ Advisory Groups and Activity Centres operational and engaged in addressing
transboundary issues
ˇ Istanbul Commission able to raise funding for transboundary projects
ˇ Inter-Commission Working Group operating and setting common management objectives
ˇ Information in the public domain throughout the Black Sea coastal region
regarding the transboundary problems and solutions offered.

Description of approach (see also paragraph 145 for details of basin-wide co-ordination)

52.
Good co-ordination is a prerequisite for solving transboundary environmental
problems. The nascent core Secretariat of the Istanbul Commission has insufficient
capacity to manage a large international project in addition to its legal and
administrative responsibilities. For this reason, the concept of a Black Sea
Environmental Programme has been formalised, as introduced in paragraphs 34-35
and further specified in section F. For the present project, the key management
bodies will be the Project Steering Committee (SC) at an executive level and the
Project Implementation Unit for project implementation itself. The Project Co-
ordinator (CTA) will have executive responsibility for the PIU itself. The PIU will
act in a semi-autonomous manner. It will share the facilities of the Secretariat. Staff
of the PIU and the Secretariat will liase closely on a day-to-day basis and be
mutually supportive but with clearly defined individual responsibilities. The PIU
will provide technical support to the Secretariat of the Permanent Secretariat for
establishing basin-wide consultative groups (see table 1, Activity 1.2), National
Inter-sectoral Bodies (Activity 1.3) and for assisting with the administration of the
Activity Centres and Advisory Groups (Activity 1.4). The working procedure for
this support will be agreed at the BSEP Executive board. Details of the above
arrangements and individual responsibilities (including job descriptions) are
provided in Section F of this document, in ANNEX I and ANNEX IV.A. A
coordination mechanism among the GEF projects implemented in the Black Sea
catchment basin (the Danube, Dnipro and Black Sea projects) will be devised
through six monthly meetings of the project CTAs, and the coordinator for the WB
implemented Partnership Investment Facility. These meetings will be held in
conjunction with the working group to be established between the BSC and the
ICPDR (see paragraph 145).

53.
A particularly important facet of the coordinating role of the PIU will be
diffusion of project outputs. The target audience should include the general public
and local administrations. Translation of the public information material into local
languages is essential. Another key product for diffusion should be one or more TV
clips on the issues behind eutrophication, to be made freely available to local TV
stations.


24

---

54.
This activity is exemplified by the following indicative products:
ˇ At least two BSEP newsletters.
ˇ At least one new poster highlighting the issue of eutrophication but with
a positive message.
ˇ Technical reports from major outputs listed in Table 1.
ˇ Accessible public diffusion bulletins outlining the main conclusions of
relevant project activities.
ˇ The Black Sea Environmental Education Study Pack (independently
funded draft currently being developed).
ˇ At least one TV clip in local languages.
ˇ Regular updating of the BSEP web site.


Objective 2
Regional actions for improving land-based activities (LBA) and
legislation to control eutrophication and for tackling emergent problems


Rationale
55.
Work conducted during the PDF-B phase of the project by UNEP has shown that
there is a significant gap between the existing Protocol for the Control of Land Based Sources
of Pollution of the Bucharest Convention and the requirements for (a), meeting the goals of
limiting nutrient loads to the Black Sea to their 1997 levels and (b), implementing the Global
Programme of Action for Land-Based Activities (GPA-LBA), embodied in the 1995
Washington Declaration. . It should be noted that the EU water policy which is a prerogative
for three countries in the region (Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey) needs to be taken into account
while reviewing the Protocol. This objective will assist the Commission and Contracting
Parties to close this legislative gap.

56.
The need for action concerning emergent problems responds to the prerogative for a
more pro-active and precautionary approach. Long-term planning strategies for emergent
transboundary issues will be identified, modelled and prioritised using the methodology
created for the GEF Global International Waters Assessment. In this respect it is important to
examine the problems from the perspective of their root social and economic causes, to
identify the barriers for overcoming these causes and to recommend medium/long-term
strategies for overcoming them.

Outputs:
2.1
Policy papers and technical recommendations to be presented to a technical
meeting of the BSC. These will ultimately lead to a new and more comprehensive
protocol for the control of land-based activities in the Black Sea (2.1a) which pays
particular attention to the integral control of eutrophication, and an action plan on
the implementation of the GPA in the Black Sea region (2.1b).
2.2
A detailed study of emergent problems in the Black Sea and their social and
economic root causes based on application of the GIWA methodology.

Success criteria:
ˇ New LBA Protocol approved and endorsed
ˇ Black Sea Futures report approved by the Istanbul Commission and published.

Description of approach

57. Activities regarding the LBA Protocol (2.1) and the study of emergent
transboundary problems (2.2) will be carried out in cooperation with UNEP. The
PIU will provide local support to these activities in all instances.

25

---

52. Activities 2.1a and 2.1b are envisaged as a single study having dual
complementary objectives. The activity will consist of a mission by a small team of
UNEP technical experts, together with a representative of the Secretariat to the
Istanbul Commission and/or the relevant GEF-PIU officer, to all six countries.
UNEP should also approach the European Commission with a view to solicit its
support for the overall process and providing for the participation of an expert
representative of DG Environment throughout the mission in order to ensure
compatibility with the EU water framework policy.

58. All experts selected should be fully familiar with the above issues, in particular
with the preliminary work undertaken during the PDF-B phase regarding:
a. background report and draft revised protocol on LBA for the Black Sea
b. process/outcomes of the preparatory process for the GPA Inter-
governmental Review in the Black Sea region (national and regional
process) carried.
The group of experts will review the written material available elaborate a strategy
and a work-plan for the mission together with the Secretariat and the GEF-PIU. It
may be appropriate to hire local experts in the case that information on national
legislation is not fully available.

59. The agenda of the mission in each country will include the following:
a. Consultations regarding the revised LBA protocol, such as
ˇ Review of the implementation of the current Protocol and obstacles to be
overcome;
ˇ Gaps in the current protocol with respect to (i) national legislation (ii) GPA
implementation (iii) the EC Framework Water Policy (including
implementation of all the relevant Directives, particularly for countries in
accession);
ˇ Current advances toward the establishment of monitoring, compliance and
enforcement arrangements under the protocol in its revised form;
ˇ Reporting and data exchange mechanisms in the revised protocol .
b. Consultations on the work-programme developed in PDF-B phase for the 2002-
2006 with a view to :
ˇ Further discuss the programme and its feasibility with a wide range of
stakeholders, and make recommendations for its updating as appropriate;
ˇ Explore the possibility of identifying new partnerships and pilot projects;
ˇ Identify additional training needs regarding the thematic GPA priorities
(such as the recommendations on sewage)
ˇ Explore synergies in activities to be undertaken at the regional level.

60. Following the mission(s), the team will prepare a policy paper containing an
appraisal of the above issues. It will suggest elements for a new LBS Protocol, if
this is considered pertinent; evaluate the regional work-programme for the
implementation of the GPA between 2002-2006 and suggest necessary amendments
as appropriate. The team will closely coordinate with the UNEP-GIWA team with a
view to suggest inclusion of emerging transboundary problems which are of
relevance to the GPA in the next 5 years implementation work-programme for the
GPA (2006 onwards) The policy paper will be distributed to all parties 2 months
prior to joint consultations (see below).

61. The policy papers and technical recommendations shall be presented to a
technical meeting of the BSC (or more than one if needed). This will involve
representatives and technical advisers selected by the Commissioners. The

26

---

meeting(s) will be organised by the PIU and financed by funding provided under
Objective 1 of the Project. For its part, UNEP will use part of the funding made
available under Activity 2.1 to provide the technical experts required for the
meetings(experts that participated in the mission(s)).

62. At the end of the technical meetings a draft revised protocol and revised work-
plan for the implementation of GPA during the 2002-2006 period will be completed
for submission to the Commission. It will enter a formal process of governmental
review, approval and ratification to be determined according to the rules and
procedures of the Commission itself.

63. Activity 2.2 should complement the GIWA study already under way in the
region. It is particularly important to integrate the results of the current GIWA study
with the work of the BSC. It is suggested that the studies conducted under the Sub-
Saharan Africa GEF MSP by ACOPS may prove to be the most effective model for
conducting this work. The experience and expertise of ACOPS should be integrated
into this project activity.

64. A full proposal for the completion of this study should be made by UNEP. This
should provide information that enables the impact of current and future patterns of
economic growth to be modelled as a series of viable scenarios. The barriers to
sustainable development of the Black Sea environment should be identified and
proposals should be made for the most cost-effective approach to overcome them. It
is important that this study should include national and international experts fully
familiar with the work of the BSEP in order to channel the results towards future
reviews of the Action Plan and associated documents. A list of such experts shall be
submitted to the CTA for comments and suggestions.

Component II. Sectoral legal and policy reforms, monitoring and evaluation of
nutrient control measures and reviewing targets for adaptive management

65. This is one of the core elements of the project. The PDF-B studies have clearly
demonstrated that: (a) existing information on the nutrient and toxics load to the Black Sea
and the response of the system is insufficient to enable more concrete goals to be set, and (b)
the countries do not have a mechanism for monitoring and evaluating indicators that will
enable the measurement of achievement of eutrophication control targets (including nutrient
reduction measures). This component of the project will make an important contribution to
closing the existing gap in compliance and for setting new pragmatic targets for the future.


Objective 3. Assist countries to improve their knowledge of the process of eutrophication in
the Black Sea

Rationale:
66. Despite compelling evidence of eutrophication and the degradation of marine habitats and
communities, there have been no system-wide studies of this problem in the Black Sea.
Evidence has been pieced together from fragmentary studies but there are huge gaps and
uncertainties. This makes it difficult to convince non-coastal states of the need for response.
Joint studies at the beginning of the two year period will correct this situation and better
define subsequent monitoring needs (Objective 4). Work will focus on the most impacted
areas (e.g. the NW Shelf) and will make extensive use of remote sensing.

67. The approach to be followed will use the best available research expertise from
the region, supplemented where necessary by outside expertise, particularly where
this is from previous cooperative projects with Black Sea institutions. This

27

---

component has been designed to allow a research team (the International Study
Group) to be established in support of BSEP. The team will have clear goals
according to the needs identified in the 1999 report of the Joint Danube-Black Sea
ad-hoc study group that, inter-alia, identified knowledge gaps on eutrophication in
the Black Sea. The ISG will be ad-hoc in nature (for the duration of the project). Its
work should not be confused with that of the Black Sea Commission's Advisory
Group on Pollution Monitoring and Assessment. The Advisory Group has a specific
narrower function in relation with the development of a monitoring network in
support of the Bucharest Convention and it will continue to receive Tacis assistance
for fulfilling its important duties. The ISG will have a specific cross-disciplinary
mandate to provide clear evidence for the causes and effects of eutrophication in the
Black Sea and to assess the likely effectiveness of measures proposed to control
eutrophication within the framework of the current project.

Outputs

3.1
State of the Black Sea report (as required by the SAP), focusing on
eutrophication and hazardous substances, in December 2002. This activity
will enable the report to be made despite the absence of a functional
monitoring network (see Objective 4).
3.2
Satellite maps of indicators of eutrophication issued weekly.


Success criteria

ˇ Integration of international study group on Black Sea Eutrophication.
ˇ Peer reviewed study plan.
ˇ Completion of 2 surveys in 2002 and studies of nutrient sources, sinks and
fluxes.
ˇ Publication of State of the Black Sea Report, 2003
ˇ Copies of the satellite colour scan maps and explanatory reports distributed
widely in all six Black Sea countries.


Description of approach

68. The approach taken for this objective will be to integrate a team of experts for
the ISG who will conduct a carefully coordinated targeted research project to reduce
current uncertainties regarding the measures to be taken to control eutrophication in
the Black Sea. The terms of reference of the ISG are given in ANNEX II.

69. The Project Coordinator, in consultation with the Executive Director of the
Permanent Secretariat, will issue a call for proposals for interdisciplinary
membership of the ISG. This will be a competitive process in which institutions will
nominate research team leaders and present brief proposals of the contribution they
intend to make to the overall research programme. The Programme Executive Board,
on the basis of these proposals and the recommendations of Steering Committee,
will select the membership of the ISG (a maximum of 12-14 scientists). The ISG
will elect its chairman who will be a well-recognised active research scientist with
expert knowledge on the Black Sea. He/she should have a proven clear
understanding of the management implications of the research exercise. This process
must be extremely efficient and has to be completed within 2months of project start-
up.


28

---

70. The first task of the ISG (Activity 3.1) will be to formulate a detailed research
study plan. This will be submitted for peer review (by selected scientists involved in
the field in other comparable regions). On the basis of the reviews and additional
comments from the National Coordinators and the Permanent Secretariat, the Project
Coordinator will give the go-ahead for fieldwork to begin (Activity 3.2). The work
will involve two research cruises in the Black Sea. The study area may be extended
to the Sea of Azov if this is clearly justified. For the fieldwork, it will be necessary
to make use of a local research vessel, selected by the ISG on the basis of
competitive specifications and cost. All fieldwork should be completed by January
2003. Data interpretation (Activity 3.4) should be completed by May 2003.

71. In addition to the fieldwork, the project will support the interpretation and
diffusion of satellite-based data on sea colour (to identify phytoplankton distribution
in `real time'). Satellite colour data is readily accessible through the internet (e.g.
from the Sea Wifs satellite) and there are a number of Black Sea institutions with
sufficient capacity to carry out this work. The ISG will recommend the appointment
of one or more of these institutions to the Project Coordinator. The institution(s)
will have responsibility for providing the interpreted satellite data to the network on
a weekly basis (Activity 3.3).

72. The ISG will liase closely with the Black Sea Commission's Monitoring Network
and with other region wide programmes or activities such as the Black Sea Global
Ocean Observing System (Black Sea GOOS) of the IOC-UNESCO, UNEP-GIWA
and UNEP Global Marine Assessment. The Network, inter-alia, will be collecting
information on the levels and effects of a wide range of contaminants in accordance
with its mandate. The ISG will assist with the consolidation of its own research
information and that of the Monitoring Network and other regional
programmes/projects, for the purpose of producing a new State of the Black Sea
report (Activity 3.4).


Objective 4. Introduce new sectoral laws and policies and a system of process, stress
reduction and environmental status indicators for monitoring the effectiveness of
measures to control eutrophication (and harmful substances where appropriate)

Rationale:

73. Currently there are almost no regularly monitored indicators of success or failure of the
measures taken to protect the Black Sea. This is particularly evident for indicators related to
eutrophication. A system of process and stress reduction indicators would help to facilitate
inter-sectoral negotiations, ensure greater transparency and raise the level of priority for
nutrient control. Environmental status indicators would enable the achievement of objectives
to be properly tracked and eventually replace the need for ad-hoc studies (Objective 3) with a
more permanent and sustainable mechanism. Work conducted in the PDF-B phase has led to a
detailed proposal for indicators and is the basis of the activities indicated under this objective.

Outputs

1. Sectoral nutrient control master plans and associated indicators (agriculture, industry,
municipalities) for each country.
2. National nutrient reduction strategies (in accordance with regional criteria).
3. Amended national laws and policies, as appropriate.
4. An Istanbul Commission information base, initially managed by the PIU.
5. Report of pilot status monitoring exercise (formal execution).


29

---

Success criteria

ˇ Written agreement of the agricultural, industrial and municipal government
sectors in each country to co-operate on specific indicators and to help to
develop and implement measures within their area of responsibility.
ˇ Fully tested new system of process, stress reduction and environment status
indicators, similar to that prepared in the PDF-B phase of the Project.
ˇ Indicator data used to enforce existing/new laws, policies and regulations for
regional status and trends reports
ˇ Use of the information base by all six countries.
ˇ Publishing of the pilot status monitoring report.

Description of approach

74. This objective is one of the most difficult to attain, as it requires action across
several sectors of government. It is however, the heart of the entire nutrient
reduction strategy. The approach that will be used consists of a number of logical
steps described as follows:

75. The strategy starts with three regional workshops (Activity 4.1a), each for
representatives of one of the three key sectors (agriculture, industry, municipalities),
together with Black Sea Commission officials, experts, etc., to explore actions to
reduce nutrient emissions. This first step will require careful prior preparation. The
purpose of the meetings is to develop a regional synergy between senior
representatives of particular sectors, making them aware of the problem of
eutrophication and providing a positive atmosphere for discussing solutions within
their own sectors. It is intended that the workshops will demonstrate win-win
solutions to the problems, and encourage the representatives to formulate such
solutions within their own sectors that give due consideration to the specific
conditions of their individual countries and of the region.

76. Having explored pragmatic solutions within sectors, Activity 4.1b. calls for the
development and government approval of national nutrient reduction strategies and
presentation to the Commission. The strategies, which will be reviewed every 2
years, will provide an overall policy blueprint based on the common objectives set
by the ICPDR and the Black Sea Commission. In order to be effective, these
national strategies will require clear sectoral master plans (Activity 4.1c). The
sectoral master plans are to be developed for nutrient control in each coastal
country. These will incorporate (a) proposed revisions and amendments in laws and
policies and (b) common indicators of process and stress reduction. Where
necessary, the Project will enable testing of proposed plans or specific measures
contained in the plans at a local or micro scale with a view to demonstrate the
environmental and other benefits to be derived through the implementation of those
measures (Activity 1d). The master plans will contribute to the overall national
strategies and can be renewed at two-year intervals. It will be necessary to develop
the master plans in parallel with the development of the national strategies.

77. The role of the project in the above tasks will be one of diffusion of information
and of facilitation. Effective policies for nutrient reduction require confidence
building at a national level and must be tailor made to the circumstances of the
individual country. The first challenge will be to ensure that regional objectives are
clearly understood at the national level. This should be achieved by combination of
sectoral workshops and individual visits by technical specialists from the PIU, with

30

---

additional consultant support where strictly necessary. The participation of the
National Coordinators in this work is essential; the objective is to strengthen the
environmental `sector' and not to undermine it. It corresponds with the policy of
mainstream environmental protection into the work of every sector. On the other
hand, stakeholder participation in the design and implementation of these strategies
is considered to be pivotal for the success. The activities under this objective will
also be carefully coordinated with the demonstration investment projects managed
by the World Bank.

78. An important facet of the master plans will be an emphasis on environmental
status indicators. These should have a broader basis than the traditional status and
trends indicators that are often limited to chemical analyses of water. The idea is to
introduce a comprehensive and cost effective set of indicators that will monitor the
manifestation of the environmental impact, the causes of the problem and the
specific actions taken to alleviate it. Such a set of indicators has already been
proposed in draft form during the PDF-B phase of the project. Activity 4.2 seeks to
support countries with the completion of this new scheme and its region-wide
introduction. It will make full use of the existing Black Sea Pollution Monitoring
Network, especially where chemical and biological monitoring are envisaged.
Sectors will also be encouraged to be self-regulatory with respect to monitoring and
transparent in their diffusion of information obtained in this manner

79. Specific steps for implementing this activity are:
(a) Designation of monitoring institutions by the participating governments,
provision of basic equipment and training by staff/consultants of the PIU in
the new scheme (2x2 week practical courses/ country)
(b) Design of new monitoring programme incorporating environmental status
indicators and its approval by the Black Sea Commission.
(c) Establishment of QA/QC procedures including inter-comparison exercises.
This work will be closely coordinated with the Advisory Group on Pollution
Monitoring and Assessment and the support offered to them by other donors. The
scheme proposed here goes well beyond the work of existing projects however.

80. Having agreed upon a comprehensive set of indicators, the new environmental
status programme will be tested on a pilot scale (Activity 4.3). The countries will
participate in the pilot programme within the framework of a formal agreement to be
concluded with the Implementing Agency. This agreement will clearly specify all
monitoring and reporting requirements for the pilot status programme as well as the
mutual liabilities of the parties. The Project Coordinator will consult with the
Advisory Group on Pollution Monitoring and Assessment, National Coordinators
and the Executive Director of the Commission regarding the most appropriate sites
for the pilot application. These should be large enough to permit a representative
evaluation of the indicators at the cause level as well as through studies of
environmental impacts. The Black Sea Commission will evaluate the results of the
exercise. The Commission will recommend whether or not to proceed to system-
wide application in the next phase of BSEP.

81. The final activity (4.4) within this objective is the establishment of the
information base for the Black Sea Commission. This task will be completed with
support of UNEP-GRID, EC (Tacis and the Inter-regional Forum (IRF) initiative)
and close liaison between all specialist staff of the Commission and the Project. The
information base will take a modular approach and the Commission (taking into
account the provisions of the Aarhus Convention and the BS-SAP) must establish
clear rules of access. This information base will be comprehensive and, in addition

31

---

to the status indicators, should include texts of regulations, projects, impact
assessments, etc. that are essential inputs to future management of the Black Sea.

Objective 5. Support the Commissions in their periodic review of Adaptive
Management objectives.

Rationale:

82. By the end of the second phase of the project, the 1997 nutrient `cap' should be replaced
by goals based on results of the present project and its Danube counterpart. Information from
the two Black Sea system response studies and the Danube and Black Sea M & E indicators
will provide the basis for discussions on setting new adaptive management targets. The initial
forum for these discussions will be the Black Sea Commission and ICPDR Joint Working
Group (JWG) set up on the basis of the draft MOU of 2000. This may be extended to
incorporate emergent Commissions for the Dnipro, Dniester and other major tributary basins
(see Obj. 1). The present objective is to support the necessary technical discussions. Obj. 6
will help assess the most cost effective ways of implementing the new targets.

Output

A benefit/cost study of the application of the recommendations

Success criteria

Publication and positive reception of the benefit-cost study

Description of approach

83. A benefit-cost analysis is an important way of assessing the economic viability
of proposed measures to reduce nutrient inputs to the environment. The recent study
of the economics of nutrient control in the Baltic (Gren, Turner, et al. 2000) has
demonstrated that such studies do not have to be highly expensive (as was the case
in the past) and can provide convincing arguments to decision makers.

84. For the purpose of the present project, the Baltic study will be used as a working
model in order to test the actions proposed in the regional and national nutrient
reduction strategies. The procedure for setting up the study will be similar to that
employed in Objective 3. A working group will be established under the
chairmanship of an internationally recognised specialist. It will include at least one
resource economist from each Black Sea Country. The Project Coordinator in
consultation with the members of JPMG will select the chairman. The Working
Group will design the study, gather and process the relevant information and
transmit it conclusions to the PIU.

85. Given the limitations in finance available for this activity, the study should be
clearly focused on consideration of the overall benefit/cost of the major elements of
the strategy. For example, it is initially important to estimate the cost of a
programme of agricultural reforms in each country compared to its benefit in terms
of nutrient reduction (as well as the parallel benefits to the economy). Similar
estimates can be made for modifying industrial processes with high nutrient loading,
for wetland restoration and for municipal utilities etc. In this manner regional
priorities for action can be justified from an economic perspective (e.g. agricultural
form in country `A' may have a greater benefit/cost than in country B where
improving municipal utilities may be more effective). It will be important to

32

---

cooperate with the ICPDR in this work in order to study the benefits and costs with
a basin-wide context.


Component III. Supporting public involvement in nutrient control.

Objective 6. Assist the public in implementing activities to reduce eutrophication
through a programme of grants for small projects and support to regional NGOs.


Rationale:
86. Environmental protection of the Black Sea depends not only on international agreements,
but also on the daily actions of the population in the basin. The PDF-B provided support to
develop a portfolio of small public initiatives contributing to nutrient reduction in the Black
Sea. These were submitted, evaluated and prioritised through a competitive process including
peer review. Selected NGO proposals are directed at minimising eutrophication in the Black
Sea through: (1) restoration of wetlands (Ukraine, Russia, Moldova), (2) promotion of cost-
effective water treatment facilities (Ukraine), (3) constructed wetlands (Bulgaria), (4)
development of organic farming (Georgia, Bulgaria), (5) production of educational materials
for schools and general public (Bulgaria, Romania, Russia, Turkey, Ukraine), (6) public
awareness and involvement campaigns (Turkey, Romania). Based on the outcome of these
initiatives, a second tranche of small projects is proposed after a two-year period. Project
implementation will be monitored from the PIU. Additionally, activities to support the
regional network of NGOs and of environmental educators are included. The strengthening of
public participation in wetland management in the region is also foreseen. Finally, support
will also be provided for a cooperative stakeholder training programme through cooperation
with Train Sea Coast.

Outputs

1. Reports describing 29 completed actions in the first tranche (e.g. wetlands restored,
videos produced, farms converted to organic production, etc.)
2. Reports showing proposed projects for the second tranche.
3. Regional NGO newsletter `Black Sea Shared' produced and distributed quarterly (mainly
electronically)
4. Regional report on wetland protection and restoration and recommendation for local
actions
5. First stakeholder training programme (training course developed by the Train Sea Coast
Black Sea Course Development Unit) delivered.


Success criteria

ˇ Full implementation of first tranche of 29 projects (independent review).
ˇ Successful second call for proposals.
ˇ Effective contribution of NGO evidenced by the establishment of a regional
NGO WG on nutrient reduction, media reports and presence at significant
regional open meetings.
ˇ Increased number of wetlands protected and/or restored
ˇ Lists of people trained (from each Black Sea country) in cooperation with the
Train Sea Coast-Black Sea Course Development Unit.



33

---

Description of approach

87. This component will ensure the participatory approach that underpins the
BSSAP. The projects it supports have already been subjected to careful analysis
during the PDF phase of the project. The implementation strategy will be as follows:
Immediately following the approval of the project, a regional public participation
specialist (PPS) shall be appointed to support the PIU with the implementation of
this components. He/she will be a person fully familiar with the situation of public
participation and NGOs in the region and should be fluent in both English and
Russian (the two UN languages of the region). The TOR for this position is given in
ANNEX I. .

88. With the assistance of the PPS, the Project Coordinator shall prepare draft
contracts for the projects selected in the PDF-B phase and cited in the Project Brief.
It will be important to verify the validity of the specifications of each project by
bilateral consultations between the PPS and the proposers. The PPS will
subsequently have the responsibility of monitoring implementation and preparing 6
monthly progress reports to the Steering Committee. He/she will also coordinate
production of the final report.

89. The PPS will formulate a detailed proposal for a transparent mechanism to
review and prioritise a second tranche of proposals (for implementation in the
second phase of the project). Following discussion and eventual approval of this
mechanism by the Steering Committee, a second call shall be issued and evaluated
(Activity 6.2).

90. The PPS, in close consultation with the Project Coordinator, will prepare terms
of reference for support to the Black Sea Environmental Education Project (BSEEP,
Activity 6.3). This will act as a forum for environmental educators in the Black Sea
region and assist them with the preparation of teaching materials and projects for
national/international funding.

91. It is important to clarify that the project will not act as a direct funding
mechanism to the existing/future structures of NGO Coordination in the region. The
project will be able to support their projects, submitted on a competitive basis, and
their participation in specific events. The objective is to act as a resource centre that
will allow the regional NGO movement to develop and flourish without outside
influence. This follows the successful model of Regional Environmental Centres.
Collaborative arrangements will be established with the existing RECs in Budapest,
Tbilisi, Kiev and Moscow.

92. Objective 6 will cover two additional activities. Activity 6.4 will be an
independent report on stakeholder participation in wetland protection. The report
will be commissioned to a regional NGO on a competitive basis. It will examine the
establishment of a network of wetlands and the need to establish transboundary
`green corridors' for the protection of migratory species or those whose distribution
may be affected by global change. The report will build upon the current work of
projects such as Black SeaWet and the work of Wetlands International.

93. Activity 6.5 will support the on-going work of Train Sea Coast (TSC)
programme in order to provide stakeholder training for nutrient reduction. This
project provides tailor-made demonstration-level training with a high degree of
replicability. The TSC is a GEF funded programme for conducting training needs
analysis and developing a joint menu of training courses tailored to the specific
needs of the GEF IW Projects. The United Nations Division for Ocean Affairs and

34

---

the Law of the Sea, Office of Legal Affairs (UNDOALOS) coordinates and acts as
the Central Support Unit of the TRAIN-SEA-COAST Programme. The TSC has
established a Black Sea Course Development Unit in Romania and have trained
experts on the standard methodology employed by the TSC. The Black Sea TSC
Course Development Unit, in close cooperation with the PIU is currently developing
a training course on the impacts of the agriculture sector on water and soil pollution,
in particular on eutrophication. Following completion of this work, and subsequent
course validation by the Central Support Unit, the project will support the delivery
of the course to a core group of agricultural specialists and or managers of farming
establishments from the region who will further train farmers.


Component IV. Innovative economic instruments for the control of
eutrophication

Objective 7. Formulate proposals for market-based or alternative economic
instruments for limiting nutrient emissions and establish private-public sector
partnerships for environmental protection in the Black Sea.

Rationale:

94. For the current project to be successful, it must assist the Black Sea Commission
to take measures that are financially sustainable. The lack of funding for
environmental protection has been a perennial problem in the Black Sea region.
Innovative approaches cannot simply be imported from the West as the
circumstances of countries in transition are unique and complex; they must be
created with full understanding of the priorities and economic realities of the region.
Currently, environmental protection is not high on the political agenda though it is
becoming increasingly important for the three countries seeking accession to the EU
(Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey). It is important to have closer dialogue with the
economy sector (treasuries, ministries of finance and economy), the private sector
and with financial institutions such as the Black Sea Regional Development Bank.
For the first phase of the project, a series of activities are envisaged that will enable
the Commission to initiate pragmatic options for improving financing, especially in
the regional context that parallels national action for the implementation of the
Strategic Partnership.

Outputs

95. `Gap analysis' published, showing difference between the current use of
economic instruments and those that would be required for the effective
implementation of national nutrient reduction strategies.

Success criteria

ˇ Reports of actions taken within countries to correct identified gaps in the
application of instruments.
ˇ Loans for nutrient-related investments channelled through regional or national
development banks


Description of approach

96. The main activity within this objective (Activity 7.1) is a strategic analysis of
the application of economic instruments for protecting the Black Sea from pollution

35

---

(with a special emphasis on nutrient control). The analysis will be conducted on a
country by country basis using a carefully coordinated approach to ensure regional
comparability. In this manner improvements may be suggested in order to attain
regionally agreed objectives. The results can eventually be employed to examine the
feasibility of a nutrient trading system (Phase 2 of the project).

97. In order to coordinate and conduct this analysis, a full time economist will be
appointed at the PIU. A number of short-term national consultants (3-6 months,
according to the complexity of the task) will also be employed for information
gathering in each of the countries.

98. The staff economist will also have additional functions for the implementation
of this objective. She/he will examine opportunities for public-private sector
partnership in measures to limit nutrients such as the introduction of phosphate-free
detergents, new technology, organic farming, etc. (Activity 7.2). He/she will also
evaluate the potential of the local and/or regional financial intermediaries (e.g.
Black Sea Regional Development Bank) as a means of channelling funding to
small/medium sized bankable projects related to nutrient limitation and habitat
restoration (Activity 7.3). This work will be closely coordinated with the
demonstration projects of the World Bank component of the strategic partnership
and with the work envisaged by the European Commission.


Component V. Sustainable exploitation of fish stocks as part of an ecosystem
approach

Objective 8. A fishery exploited within its biologically safe limits and incorporating
measures to protect ecologically sensitive areas.

Rationale:

99. The current irrational exploitation of fish stocks in the Black Sea has been
recognised in the Black Sea Strategic Action Plan (Articles 58 and 59) through a
call for the implementation of a number of specific measures to regulate fishing
effort and to assess stocks. Additionally a new Fisheries Convention is being
negotiated between all six Black Sea countries. In current circumstances, the heavy
disturbance of the Black Sea floor by inappropriate fishing practices is unlikely to
permit recovery of many of the habitats (such as Phyllophora beds). Unless an
environmental dimension is introduced to fisheries management in the Black Sea,
many of the potential benefits accrued by GEF funding of nutrient reduction will be
lost. The present objective therefore seeks to provide technical support to the overall
process of rational exploitation of marine living resources without undue
interference with the delicate negotiations going on between the Black Sea countries
on the new Convention. The promotion of modern approaches to management such
as fisheries no take zones (sometimes known as stock replenishment zones) or
Marine Protected Areas represents a powerful win-win solution however as it
accrues benefits to the fisheries (especially where these have proven difficult to
regulate because of illegal practices), to the natural environment (for biological
diversity conservation) and to the local stakeholders (through diversification of
employment).

100. Article 58 states that: "In order to rehabilitate ecosystems, which are of
particular importance to Black Sea fisheries as a whole, Phyllophora fields and
other critical nursery areas will receive special protection, spawning areas of
anadromous species will be restored, and coastal lagoons will be rehabilitated. By

36

---

2000, each Black Sea state will develop at least one pilot project which will
contribute to the restoration of areas vital to the recovery of Black Sea fish stocks."
Article 58 has particular synergy with the measures proposed to enhance the service
function of coastal and wetland systems for nutrient removal. Unfortunately it has
yet to be implemented. The present projects seeks to provide the necessary technical
support for its full implementation.



Outputs

1. Draft Declaration of fisheries free zones to allow for restoration of macrophyte
habitats and recovery of nursery grounds.
2. Suggested measures for enforcing the above.
3. Recommendation for ensuring that the new Fisheries Convention is developed in
close harmony with the Bucharest Convention and its current and proposed
Protocols

Success criteria

ˇ Reports proposing effective protection of sensitive habitats as fisheries free
zones and the subsequent adoption of a significant number of these areas.
ˇ Evidence of a successful dialogue between the Bucharest Convention and
Fisheries Convention Secretariat/ negotiating bodies.
ˇ Documentary evidence of the progress towards the conclusion of the new
Biological and Landscape Diversity Protocol to the Bucharest Convention
prepared with BSEP (GEF and Tacis) funding.


Description of approach

101. During the first phase of the project, the work under this objective will focus
on the relationship between habitat conservation and the maintenance of viable fish
stocks. This will involve three closely-related activities:

102. Activity 8.1 will provide support for liaison between the Istanbul Commission
Secretariat (and JPMG) and the group negotiating the new Fisheries Convention. It
will ensure sponsorship of appropriate regional experts to contribute information, as
required, for the new Fisheries Convention and hopefully for its technical
secretariat.
Activity 8.2 will consist of an assessment of transboundary populations of fish
species and their relationship with sensitive habitats and current fishing practices.
Until now there has been little emphasis on habitat loss when examining
transboundary fish populations. The study will compile existing information on
population behaviour and examine its relationship with habitats (such as benthic
macrophyte beds, wetlands, etc.). It will then examine current and projected
pressure on these areas as a result of the use of gear that compromises habitat
integrity. The study will also examine the ecosystem impact of removal of predatory
fish through overfishing. The study will be conducted by a small ad-hoc group of
regional specialists, supplemented where necessary by international consultants. The
ad-hoc group will work closely with the Advisory Group on Fisheries and Other
Living Marine Resources.
Activity 8.3. follows suite from the previous study and will consist of a preliminary
evaluation of potential fisheries-free zones and specially protected areas, their

37

---

promotion with Black Sea governments and stakeholders; their incorporation into
the Landscape and Biological Diversity Protocol to the Bucharest Convention and
training of coastguards etc. for their enforcement. This multi-criteria study will use
GIS techniques such as those employed in similar work on the OSPAR region by
WWF. The results of the study will be reported to the Black Sea Commission.

38

---

TABLE 1
COMPONENT I. CO-ORDINATION, INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY BUILDING AND LEGAL REFORM

Objective 1. Support the integration of a sustainable Secretariat for the Bucharest Convention
The meeting of the Istanbul Commission held on 25-26 April, 2000 agreed on a mechanism for institutionalising its Secretariat and for co-operating with the GEF Implementing
Agencies in order to sustain the work of the Black Sea Environmental Programme. An institutional structure has now been devised to formalise this agreement (see Section F and
Annex IV.A). At a programmatic (BSEP) level, a Joint Project Management Group (JPMG) will be the subsidiary body of the Commission responsible for BSEP policy planning. For
day to day co-ordination between the projects within the BSEP, an Executive Board has been devised. At a project level, the GEF project will have its own Steering Committee (see
section F for details). The current Project Implementation Unit will continue to operate at the project level to ensure the management of its activities and the delivery of outputs. The
CTA of the project will be a member of the Executive Board, and an observer on the JPMG and the Commission itself. The UNDP will nominate an official representative to the
JPMG. The structure has been devised in order to give maximum support to the Commission and its Permanent Secretariat but to clear distinguish project (i.e. limited term) elements
from those that should be sustained by the countries themselves. The project, together with interventions of collateral donors, will also continue to support relevant Regional Activity
Centres. These will operate in the manner described in the BS-SAP, in most cases supported by a blend of National and collateral donor funding. In summary, GEF support will focus
on enhancing the work of Commission to address the key issues that are the subject of the present proposal and to help it achieve long-term sustainability.

Outputs:
Success criteria:
1. A management regime capable of coordinating regional actions to overcome the key
ˇ
Programme Implementation Unit (PIU) fully staffed and operational
transboundary issues facing the Black Sea, primarily the control and abatement of
ˇ
Joint Management Committee established and operational
eutrophication and hazardous substances but also the improved management of
ˇ
Advisory Groups and Activity Centres operational and engaged in addressing
fisheries and critical habitats (see component V).
transboundary issues
2. A permanent mechanism for co-operation with the ICPDR (Danube) and other emergent
ˇ
Istanbul Commission able to raise funding for transboundary projects
river basin commissions in the Black Sea Basin.
ˇ
Inter-Commission Working Group operating and setting common management
3. Publicly accessible programme materials in all Black Sea languages
objectives
ˇ Information in the public domain throughout the Black Sea coastal region
regarding the transboundary problems and solutions offered.
Activities:
Lead
National
Target date for
Agencies
counterparts
completion
Associated
(Black Sea
Indicative GEF fund
Internat'l
countries)
allocation
Partners
Activity 1.1a
Establish and operate the BSEP Joint Programme Management Group, the BSEP
BSC/PIU
CBCs/DRs (MoE)
All bodies established by December
Executive Board and the Project Steering Group
*UNDP-GEF
2001
Activity 1.1b
Two year operation of the Black Sea Project Implementation Unit of the Istanbul
UNEP

Commission (BS-PIU) to facilitate, co-ordinate, and communicate on the
World Bank
$580,000**
implementation of priority activities identified in this document.
CEC

39

---

Activity 1.2a.
Establish joint mechanisms between the Istanbul Commission and the ICPDR for
BSC
CBCs
Annual meetings from 2002 - 2003
implementing and strengthening the MOU agreed at their spring 2000 meetings.
PIU
Activity 1.2b.
To extend this process to cover formal river basin commissions in other areas of
ICPDR
the Black Sea Basin. A Black Sea Basin Inter-Commission Consultative Group
UNDP

should be established by 2002 and should meet on an annual basis to discuss
UNEP
$40,000
issues of common concern.
WB
CEC
Activity 1.3.
Assist with the establishment or strengthening of National intersectoral bodies and with
UNDP
CBCs/DRs (MoE)
All bodies to be operating by March
providing them with technical information on the transboundary issues included in this project.
BSC/PIU
Sectoral focal points
2002
WB, UNEP,

CEC
$48,000
Activity 1.4
Provide administrative support to Commission's Advisory Groups (co-ordinated by Regional
UNDP
CBCs/DRs (MoE)
Workplan for ACs by
Activity Centres) to conduct specific projects related to the priorities defined in this document
BSC/PIU
ACs
Dec 2001
(see later sections).
UNEP, WB
Technical Focal Points
$140,000

CEC
UNDP COs

Activity 1.5.
Diffusion of information .through the following:
BSC/PIU
CBCs/DPs
First materials by
a.
At least two BSEP newsletters.
UNDP
ACs
March 2002
b.
At least one new poster highlighting the issue of eutrophication but with a positive message.

All Focal Points
c.
Technical reports from major outputs listed in Table 1.
Black Sea NGOs
NGOs

d.
Accessible public diffusion bulletins outlining the main conclusions of relevant project activities.
Tacis
UNDP-COs
$128,700
e.
The Black Sea Environmental Education Study Pack (independently funded draft currently being

developed) and TSC stakeholder training programme
f.
At least one TV clip in local languages.
g.
Regular updating of the BSEP web site.
*operational responsibilities for UNDP-GEF will be managed by UNOPS
TOTAL
**budget covers project co-ordinator, local staff, travel, O &M, JPMC costs, capital equipment
$936,700

40

---

Objective 2. Regional actions for improving LBA legislation to control eutrophication and for tackling emergent problems.

1. Work conducted during the PDF-B phase of the project by UNEP has shown that there is a significant gap between the existing Protocol for the Control of Land Based Sources of
Pollution of the Bucharest Convention and the requirements for (a), meeting the goals of limiting nutrient loads to the Black Sea to their 1997 levels and (b), implementing the
Global Programme of Action for Land-Based Activities, embodied in the 1995 Washington Declaration. This objective will assist the Commission and Contracting Parties to
close this legislative gap.
2. Emergent problems: The need for action concerning emergent problems responds to the prerogative for a more proactive and precautionary approach. Long-term planning
strategies for emergent transboundary issues will be identified, modelled and prioritised using the methodology created for the GEF Global International Waters Assessment. In
this respect it is important to examine the problems from the perspective of their root social and economic causes, to identify the barriers for overcoming these causes and to
recommend medium/long-term strategies for overcoming them.

Outputs:
Success criteria:
1. Policy papers and technical recommendations to be presented to a technical meeting of
ˇ
New LBA Protocol approved and endorsed
the BSC. These will ultimately lead to a new and more comprehensive protocol for the
ˇ
Black Sea Futures report approved by the Istanbul Commission and
control of land-based activities in the Black Sea. This will also pay particular attention
published.
to the integral control of eutrophication.

2. A detailed study of emergent issues in the Black Sea and their social and economic root
causes based on application of the GIWA methodology.
Activities:
Lead Agencies
National counterparts
Target date for completion
Associated
Indicative GEF
Internat'l
fund allocation
Partners
Activity 2.1a
Preparation of recommendations for the draft LBA Protocol and joint facilitation
UNEP
.CBCs/DRs (MoE)
1a May 2002
(with the BSC) of negotiations on the new Protocol. This work is a continuation
BSC/PIU
Technical Focal Points
1b March 2002
of the PDF-B study.
UNDP
ACs
$90,000
Activity 2.1b
Joint study (GPA Secretariat/ Istanbul Commission) of improving the
ACs

(meeting costs included in
implementation of the GPA in the Black Sea.
ICPDR
Objective 1.)
Activity 2.2.
Evaluation of future threats to the Black Sea, the social and economic root causes
UNEP
CBCs/DPs
May 2003
of environmental degradation and the cost effectiveness of interventions to correct
BSC/PIU
Technical Focal Points
current and emergent transboundary problems (using the GIWA methodology,
ACOPS
ACs
Total $70,000
including full impact assessment, as adapted by ACOPS)



TOTAL
$160,000

41

---

COMPONENT II. SECTORAL LEGAL AND POLICY REFORMS, MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF NUTRIENT CONTROL
MEASURES AND REVIEWING TARGETS FOR ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

This is one of the core elements of the project. The PDF-B studies have clearly demonstrated that: (a) existing information on the nutrient and toxics load to
the Black Sea and the response of the system is insufficient to enable more concrete goals to be set, and (b) the countries do not have a mechanism for
monitoring and evaluating indicators that will enable the measurement of achievement of eutrophication control targets (including nutrient reduction
measures).

Objective 3. Assist countries to improve their knowledge of the process of eutrophication in the Black Sea

Despite compelling evidence of eutrophication and the degradation of marine habitats and communities, there have been no system-wide studies of this problem in
the Black Sea. Evidence has been pieced together from fragmentary studies but there are huge gaps and uncertainties. This makes it difficult to convince non-coastal
states of the need for response. Joint studies at the beginning of the two year period will correct this situation and better define subsequent monitoring needs
(Objective 4). Work will focus on the most impacted areas (e.g. the NW Shelf) and will make extensive use of remote sensing.
Outputs:
Success criteria:
1. State of the Black Sea report (as required by the SAP), focusing on eutrophication and
ˇ
Integration of international study group on Black Sea Eutrophication.
hazardous substances. This activity will enable the report to be made despite the
ˇ
Peer reviewed study plan.
absence of a functional monitoring network (see Objective 4).
ˇ
Completion of 2 surveys in -2002 and studies of nutrient sources, sinks and
2. Satellite maps of indicators of eutrophication issued weekly.
fluxes.

ˇ
Publication of State of the Black Sea Report, 2003
ˇ Copies of the satellite colour scan maps and explanatory reports distributed
widely in all six Black Sea countries.
Activities:
Lead
National
Target date for
Agencies
counterparts
completion
Associated
Indicative GEF fund
Internat'l
allocation
Partners
Activity 3.1.
Integration of an international study group (ISG) to plan and conduct the
UNDP
DRs, ACs and Technical Focal
February 2002
practical studies. Formulation of the detailed study plan (eutrophication and
BSC-PIU
Points, Specialists from
hazardous substances) and its submission to peer review. Appointment of
2-3 specialist
Academies of Science selected
$20,000
(existing) remote sensing centre.
institutions
on scientific merits and
experienced in
experience.
other impacted
areas
Activity 3.2.
Two survey cruises in the entire Black Sea but with special emphasis on the
UNDP
Institutions identified by ISG
December 2002


impacted NW Shelf (and possibly Sea of Azov) covering period January ­
ISG
$510,000
December 2002.

42

---

Activity 3.3.
Download, interpretation and distribution of weekly SeaWifs colour scan
UNDP
Institution identified by ISG
May 2003


satellite data, July 2001- May 2003
ISG
$90,000

Activity 3.4.
Interpretation of results, drafting of new State of the Black Sea Environment
UNDP
All institutions engaged in the
May 2003


Report (to be known as the Odesa Declaration + 10 Report), formulation of
ISG
study + CBCs/DRs for review
$40,000
recommendations.


TOTAL
$660,000


43

---

Objective 4. Introduce new sectoral policies and laws, and a system of process, stress reduction and environmental status indicators for monitoring
the effectiveness of measures to control eutrophication (and harmful substances where appropriate)

Currently there are almost no regularly monitored indicators of success or failure of the measures taken to protect the Black Sea. This is particularly evident for
indicators related to eutrophication. A system of process and stress reduction indicators would help to facilitate intersectoral negotiations, ensure greater transparency
and raise the level of priority for nutrient control. Environmental status indicators would enable the achievement of objectives to be properly tracked and eventually
replace the need for ad-hoc studies (Objective 3) with a more permanent and sustainable mechanism. Work conducted in the PDF-B phase has led to a detailed
proposal for indicators and is the basis of the activities indicated under this objective.
Outputs:
Success criteria:
1.
Sectoral nutrient control master plans and associated indicators (agriculture, industry,
ˇ
Written agreement of the agricultural, industrial and municipal government
municipalities) for each country.
sectors in each country to cooperate on specific indicators and to help to
2. National nutrient reduction strategies (in accordance with regional criteria).
develop and implement measures within their area of responsibility.
3.
Amended national policies, as appropriate.
ˇ
Adopted new system of process, stress reduction and environment status
4. An Istanbul Commission information base, initially managed by the PIU.
indicators employed, in parallel with the work undertaken during the PDF-
5. Report of pilot status monitoring exercise (formal execution).
B phase.
ˇ
Indicator data used to enforce existing/new laws, policies and regulations
regulations and for regional status and trends reports
ˇ
Use of the information base by all six countries.
ˇ
Publishing of the pilot status monitoring report.

Activities:
Lead
National
Target date for
Agencies
counterparts
completion
Associated
Indicative GEF fund
Internat'l
allocation
Partners
Activity 4.1a
Three regional workshops, each for representatives of one of the three key
UNDP-CO
CBCs/DRs (MoE)
1a. Sept. 2002
sectors (agriculture, industry, municipalities), together with BSC officials,
BSC/PIU
Sectors
1b. Feb. 2003
experts, etc., to explore actions to reduce nutrient emissions.
1c. May 2003
Activity 4.1b
Development and govt. approval of national nutrient reduction strategies and
CEC, WB
$410,000***
presentation to the BSC , and will be reviewed every 2 years.
AC for ICZM
Activity 4.1c
Sectoral master plans to be developed for nutrient control in each coastal
(Krasnodar) for
country. These will incorporate revisions and amendments in laws and policies
municipal sector.
and common indicators of process and stress reduction , and will be reviewed
AC for Pollution
every 2 years.
Control (Istanbul)
Activity 4.1d Small demonstration projects for the implementation of sectoral plans/plan
for Ind. Sector.
components
ICPDR (liaison)


44

---

Activity 4.2a.
Designation of monitoring institutions, provision of basic equipment and
UNDP
CBCs (to designate
2a. Jan. 2002
training in the new scheme (2x2 week practical courses/ country)
BSC/PIU
monitoring institutions)
2b. Jun. 2002
Activity 4.2b.
Design of new monitoring programme incorporating environmental status
Technical focal points
2c. Jun 2002
indicators and its approval by the BSC
AC for Pollution

$275,000
Activity 4.2c
Establishment of QA/QC procedures including intercomparison exercises.
Assessment
Additional activities may be co-
(Odesa)
funded by CEC
CEC, ICPDR
(liaison)
Activity 4.3
Pilot implementation of new environmental status programme.
UNDP
Monitoring institutions
Sept. 2003

BSC/PIU
CBCs/DRs (MoE)

AC for Pollution
$120,000 (pilot phase only.
Assessment
Operation of the full-scale
(Odesa)
programme govt. responsibility).
CEC
Activity 4.4
Develop and implement BSC information base. Operation at the PIU.
UNDP
CBCs/DRs (MoE)
from January 2002-May 2003
BSC/PIU
All technical focal points
UNEP-GRID,
$100,000****
ICPDR
***Includes senior F/T staff member
TOTAL
****Includes F/T information officer
$905,000

45

---

Objective 5. Support the Commissions in their periodic review of Adaptive Management objectives.

By the end of the second phase of the project, the 1997 nutrient `cap' should be replaced by goals based on results of the present project and its Danube counterpart.
Information from the two Black Sea system response studies and the Danube and Black Sea M & E indicators will provide the basis for discussions on setting new
adaptive management targets. The initial forum for these discussions will be the BSC and ICPDR Joint Working Group (JWG) set up on the basis of the draft MOU
of 2000. This may be extended to incorporate emergent Commissions for the Dnipro, Dniester and other major tributary basins (see Obj. 1). The present objective is
to support the necessary technical discussions. Obj. 6 will help assess the most cost effective ways of implementing the new targets.
Outputs:
Success criteria:


1. A benefit/cost study of the application of the recommendations.
ˇ
Publication and positive reception of the Benefit-cost study


Activities:
Lead
National
Target date for
Agencies
counterparts
completion
Associated
Indicative GEF fund
Internat'l
allocation
Partners
1.
Economic benefit/cost studies of the actions proposed in the Sectoral Master Plans and the
UNDP
DRs (MoE)
October 2003 (completion)
National strategies (Obj. 4, Activity 1). The recent study of the economics of nutrient control in
BSC/PIU
Technical focal points
the Baltic (Gren, Turner, et al. 2000) will serve as a working model. A specialist team will be
ICPDR
appointed for this work. They will also pay attention to wetland restoration economics.
Dnipro Comm.
WB, UNEP
$120,000
CEC
(BS component)


TOTAL
$120,000


46

---

COMPONENT III. SUPPORTING PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN NUTRIENT CONTROL.

Objective 6. Assist the public in implementing activities to reduce eutrophication through a programme of grants for small projects and support to
regional NGOs.

Environmental protection of the Black Sea depends not only on international agreements, but also on the daily actions of the coastal population. The PDF-B provided
support to develop a portfolio of small public initiatives contributing to nutrient reduction in the Black Sea. These were submitted, evaluated and prioritised through a
competitive process including peer review. Selected NGO proposals are directed at minimising eutrophication in the Black Sea through: (1) restoration of wetlands
(Ukraine, Russia, Moldova), (2) promotion of cost-effective water treatment facilities (Ukraine), (3) constructed wetlands (Bulgaria), (4) development of organic
farming (Georgia, Bulgaria), (5) production of educational materials for schools and general public (Bulgaria, Romania, Russia, Turkey, Ukraine), (6) public
awareness and involvement campaigns (Turkey, Romania). Based on the outcome of these initiatives, a second tranche of small projects is proposed after a two-year
period. Project implementation will be monitored from the PIU. Additionally, activities to support the regional network of NGOs and of environmental educators are
included. The strengthening of public participation in wetland management in the region is also foreseen. Finally, support will also be provided for a cooperative
stakeholder training programme through cooperation with Train Sea Coast.
Outputs:
Success criteria:
1.
Reports describing 29 completed actions in the first tranche (e.g. wetlands restored, videos
ˇ
Full implementation of first tranche of 29 projects (independent review).
produced, farms converted to organic production, etc.)
ˇ
Successful second call for proposals.
2.
Reports showing proposed projects for the second tranche.
ˇ
Effective contribution of NGO evidenced by the establishment of a regional
3.
Regional NGO newsletter `Black Sea Shared' produced and distributed quarterly (mainly
NGO WG on nutrient reduction, media reports and presence at significant
electronically)
regional open meetings.
4.
Regional report on wetland protection and restoration and recommendation for local actions
ˇ Increased number of wetlands protected and/or restored
5.
First complete stakeholder training programme under Train Sea Coast.

ˇ Lists of people trained (from each Black Sea country) through Train Sea
Coast.

Activities:
Lead
National
Target date for
Agencies
counterparts
completion
Associated
Indicative GEF fund
Internat'l
allocation
Partners
Activity 6.1a.
Appointment of regional public participation specialist (PPS) at the PIU, inter-
UNDP,
NGOs,
1a. Dec. 2001- Sept 2003
alia to coordinate the small projects initiative.
BSC/PIU
Local governments
1b. June 2003
Activity 6.1b.
Implementation and evaluation of the first tranche of small projects identified
CEC
Private sector
1a. $60,000
and reviewed through the PDF-B process..
1b. $320,000
Activity 6.2
Second call for proposals and design of a fully transparent project appraisal
UNDP,
NGOs,
February 2003
mechanism.
BSC/PIU
Local governments


47

---

CEC
Private sector
(salary inc. in 6.1)
Activity 6.3.
Support to the BSEEP for increased involvement in regional aspects of reduction
UNDP,
NGOs
Review by Sept. 2003
of eutrophication and for work on environmental education in schools.
BSC/PIU
CEC
$35,000
Activity 6.4.
Independent report on wetland conservation and restoration in the Black Sea
BSC/PIU
NGOs
December 2002


region
Ramsar Bureau,
Technical and scientific
$30,000
WWF, WB
institutes
Governments
Activity 6.5.
Stakeholder training as part of the Train Sea Coast programme

National Institutes in the TSC
July 2003
BSC/PIU
network
UNDP, (Train Sea
Coast)

$25,000

TOTAL

$470,000

48

---

COMPONENT IV. INNOVATIVE ECONOMIC INSTRUMENTS FOR THE CONTROL OF EUTROPHICATION
Objective 7. Formulate proposals for market-based or alternative economic instruments for limiting nutrient emissions and establish private-public
sector partnerships for environmental protection in the Black Sea.
For the current project to be successful, it must assist the Black Sea Commission to take measures that are financially sustainable. The lack of
funding for environmental protection has been a perennial problem in the Black Sea region. Innovative approaches cannot simply be imported from
the West as the circumstances of countries in transition are unique and complex; they must be created with full understanding of the priorities and
economic realities of the region. Currently, environmental protection is not high on the political agenda though it is becoming increasingly
important for the three countries seeking accession to the EU (Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey). It is important to have closer dialogue with the economy
sector (treasuries, ministries of finance and economy), the private sector and with financial institutions such as the Black Sea Regional
Development Bank. For the first phase of the project, a series of activities are envisaged that will enable the Commission to initiate pragmatic
options for improving financing, especially in the regional context that parallels national action for the implementation of the Strategic Partnership.
Outputs:
Success criteria:
1. `Gap analysis' published, showing difference between the current use of
ˇ
Reports of actions taken within countries to correct identified gaps in the
economic instruments and those that would be required for the effective
application of instruments.
implementation of national nutrient reduction strategies.
ˇ Loans for nutrient-related investments channelled through regional or
national development banks.
Activities:
Lead
National
Target date for
Agencies
counterparts
completion
Associated
Indicative GEF fund
Internat'l
allocation
Partners
Activity 7.1.
Review the implementation of economic instruments for protecting the Black
UNDP,
CBCs/DRs (MoE)
December 2002
Sea from pollution (including nutrients) on a country-by country basis and
BSC/PIU
Finance sector
suggest improvements where relevant. F/T economist to be appointed (3 year
WB,
Intersectoral committee
$250,000
appointment) at the PIU, inter alia to conduct and co-ordinate this work.
ICPDR, CEC
Activity 7.2.
Examine opportunities for public-private sector partnership in measures to limit
UNDP
CBCs, DRs (MoE)
May 2002
nutrients (e.g. introduction of phosphate-free detergents, new technology,
BSC/PIU
Private sector organisations
organic farming, etc.). To be coordinated by the PIU economist.
WB, EBRD
(Chambers of Commerce, etc.)
$28,000
BSEC Business
UNDP-COs
(salary in Act. 7.11)
Forum
Activity 7.3
Evaluate the potential of the local and/or regional financial intermediaries
UNDP
Finance sector
May 2002
(eg.Black Sea Regional Development Bank) as a means of channelling funding
BSC/PIU
CBCs/DRs (MoE)
to small/medium sized bankable projects related to nutrient limitation and
WB, BSRDB
$14,000
habitat restoration.
EBRD
(salary in Act. 7.1)

TOTAL
$292,000

49

---

COMPONENT V. SUSTAINABLE EXPOITATION OF FISH STOCKS AS PART OF AN ECOSYSTEM APPROACH

Objective 8. A fisheries exploited within its maximum sustainable yield and incorporating measures to protect ecologically sensitive areas.

There is evidence to indicate that the fish stocks and fisheries in the Black Sea has been heavily impacted by the loss of habitat caused by
eutrophication and overexploitation. Article 58 of the Black Sea Strategic Action Plan states that: "In order to rehabilitate ecosystems, which are of
particular importance to Black Sea fisheries as a whole, Phyllophora fields and other critical nursery areas will receive special protection,
spawning areas of anadromous species will be restored, and coastal lagoons will be rehabilitated. By 2000, each Black Sea state will develop at
least one pilot project which will contribute to the restoration of areas vital to the recovery of Black Sea fish stocks." Article 58 has particular
synergy with the measures proposed to enhance the service function of coastal and wetland systems for nutrient removal. Unfortunately it has yet to
be implemented. The present projects seeks to provide the necessary technical support for its full implementation.
Outputs:
Success criteria:
1. Draft Declaration of fisheries free zones to allow for restoration of macrophyte
ˇ
Reports proposing effective protection of sensitive habitats as fisheries free
habitats and recovery of nursery grounds.
zones and the subsequent adoption of a significant number of these areas.
2. Suggested measures for enforcing the above.
ˇ
Evidence of a successful dialogue between the Bucharest Convention and
3. Recommendation for ensuring that the new Fisheries Convention is developed in close
Fisheries Convention Secretariat/ negotiating bodies.
harmony with the Bucharest Convention and its current and proposed Protocols
ˇ Documentary evidence of the progress towards the conclusion of the new
Biological and Landscape Diversity Protocol to the Bucharest Convention
(prepared with BSEP (GEF and Tacis) funding.
Activities:
Lead
National
Target date for
Agencies
counterparts
completion
Associated
Indicative GEF fund
Internat'l
allocation
Partners
Activity 8.1
Support to the process of concluding the regional Fisheries Convention
UNDP
Fisheries
March 2002
negotiations, particularly in relationship with the need to protect key habitats.
BSC/PIU
Committees/Ministries
BSEC
CBCs
$20,000
Activity 8.2
Assessment of transboundary populations of fish species and their relationship
UNDP
Fisheries
July 2002
with sensitive habitats and current fishing practices.
BSC/PIU
Committees/Ministries
Fisheries and
CBCs
$70,000
Biodi. ACs.,
FAO, CEC

50

---

Activity 8.3.
Preliminary study on the evaluation of potential fisheries-free zones and Marine
UNDP
CBCs/DRs (MoE)
March 2003


Protected Areas, their promotion with Black Sea governments and stakeholders;
UNEP,
Intersectoral Committees
$70,000
their incorporation into the Landscape and Biological Diversity Protocol to the
FAO, WWF,
Technical focal points
Bucharest Convention and training of coastguards etc. for their enforcement.
Fisheries
Convention Sec.
Fisheries Activity
Centre (Constanta),
Biodiversity AC
(Batumi)

TOTAL
160,000


GRAND TOTAL FOR PROJECT
Net of support costs
$3,703,700
Gross, including support costs at 8% (UNOPS)
$4,000,000


51

---

D. INPUTS

(a) Government Inputs

103. All six Governments are strongly committed to the enhancement and
implementation of the BSSAP, and to the attainment of the project objectives, in
particular reduction of nutrients and other toxic substances discharging into the
Black Sea. In all coastal states, substantial reforms in the legislative framework for
environmental protection are on their way, and investment programmes which are
financed through state and local budgets and other sources cover Black Sea hot-
spots.

104. Each Government will provide necessary staff time and facilities with a view
to ensure that the national coordinating mechanisms are functioning in a proper and
timely manner, and governmental institutions and other stakeholders actively
participating in the activities and mechanisms for the current project. At the
national level, this involves improved performance of environmental institutions,
including inspectorates; enhanced policy integration with other sectoral ministries;
and facilitation of public awareness and stakeholder participation. At the regional
level, it involves fulfilment of the programmatic and budgetary commitments made
vis a vis the Bucharest Convention and the BSSAP. The Black Sea Commission
has approved the Black Sea Ecosystem Recovery Project and included actions to
support the project objectives into its own work-programme and budget. Work-
programme and budget of the Black Sea Commission for the period 1 September
2001-31 August 2002, and the indicative budget and work-programme for the 1
September 2002-31 August 2003 are given as ANNEX IV.C. The Government of the
Republic of Turkey is also providing the facilities for the PIU in accordance with
the ''Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the Republic of
Turkey and the United Nations Development Programme on the establishment of the
Project Implementation Unit of the project entitled 'Control of eutrophication,
hazardous substances and related measures for rehabilitating the Black Sea
ecosystem: Phase1' and subsequent projects" given as ANNEX VI.

105. The Governments have also agreed to expand their cooperative action to
safeguard the Black Sea beyond the immediate political borders of the Black Sea,
and through the Black Sea Commission, have negotiated a Memorandum of
Understanding on common strategic goals with the International Commission for the
Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR). The European Commission has also
decided to support this cooperation process. The Draft MOU which is given as
ANNEX IV.D is expected to be formally adopted at the end of November 2001 at a
Ministerial Meeting sponsored by the EC.

(b) GEF Inputs

106. The GEF has allocated a total of US$ 4,349,920 for the implementation of this
project, including the PDF-B. The indicative timeframe is December 2001-
December 2003. The project consists of the 1st Phase of a comprehensive Black Sea
Ecosystem Recovery Project of two consecutive phases. An indicative list of objectives,
activities, completion dates and funding requirements for a 2nd phase of three years duration
has also been submitted to the attention of the Council in May 2001.




52

---

(c) UNDP Inputs

107. As the Implementing Agency, UNDP will support the Strategic Partnership and
the Black Sea Ecosystem Recovery Project through interventions in UNDP's
Environment and Governance focus areas under Country Cooperation Frameworks
and Regional Cooperation Frameworks . It will backstop the project with its own
staff members and financing both from the headquarters and locally from the
Country Offices in all six coastal states. The UN Resident Coordinator and the
Representative of the UNDP in Turkey will be the Principal Resident Representative
for the Project. He will be kept informed of all substantive developments of the
Project for his onwards coordination with the Government of the host country as
well as with UN Resident Coordinators/UNDP Representatives in other beneficiary
Governments and other international organisations with a view to better integrate
other activities at the country/region level with GEF programming.

108. UNDP provided over $2 million in support to Danube/Black Sea basin issues
through projects in the environmental focus area such as:
ˇ Ukraine: Improving Environmental Monitoring Capacity ($1.099 million;
1995-1999)
ˇ Ukraine: Environmental Impact Assessment Demonstration ($138,000; 1997-
2000)
ˇ Russia: Water Quality Evaluation and Prediction in Areas Affected by the
Chernobyl Accident ($278,000; 1997-2000).
ˇ Georgia: Capacity Building for the Ministry of Environment ($620,000;
1998-2000)

109. The Strategic Partnership for the Black Sea and Danube River Basin has a
strong focus on facilitating legal, policy and institutional reform in support of
transboundary pollution reduction. These new laws, policies and institutions can
only be effective if they have the appropriate level of trust, legitimacy and
credibility in civil society. In addition, as has been the case in the West,
environmental protection is being propelled more and more by public demand.
UNDP is supporting the empowerment of individuals and NGOs with skills and
information to increase their involvement in the environmental policymaking and
enforcement processes. During the Danube and Black Sea pilot phase programs,
UNDP provided assistance totaling nearly $6 million to the Black Sea basin
countries in support of governance, democracy and public participation. Sample
projects included:

ˇ Regional Umbrella Program to Support Democracy, Governance and
Participation in Europe and the CIS ($2.153 million, 1997-1999)
ˇ Georgia: Capacity Building for the Ministry of the Environment ($0.620
million, 1998-2000).
ˇ Regional Programme on the Environment and Development ($1.8 million,
1997-1999). National Agenda 21's, policy reforms, institutional
strengthening, public participation and networking, strengthening of inter-
sectoral cooperation.

In addition, through the GEF Small Grants Programme in Turkey, UNDP supported
a survey of monk seals and their habitats along the Black Sea coast, a coastal
management programme in the Black Sea province of Trabzon, and a small scale
Waste Water and Sanitation Project in the town of Hacimahmutlu.


53

---

110. Through its ongoing support to Environment and Governance in the Central
European and CIS countries, UNDP will continue to provide the framework for
successful implementation of the key reforms envisioned under the Programmatic
Approach. Within the next two years UNDP will support, inter alia, the following
projects which support the goals of the current project:


ˇ Implementing Local Agenda 21's in Turkey: Phase II (includes 3 Black Sea
provinces of Trabzon, Samsun and Zonguldak); ~$50,000.

ˇ Turkey: National Programme for Environmental Management and
Sustainable Development (includes efforts to combat desertification);
$50,000.

ˇ Ukraine: Promoting and Strengthening Horizontal Cooperation (supports
Ukraine's process of triple transition to statehood, democracy and a market-
oriented economy by acquainting Ukrainian government officials and
policymakers with relevant reform experiences in other countries of the
region, Asia and Latin America); $30,000.

ˇ Support to Economic, Social and Administrative Reforms in Ukraine (aimed
at facilitating the implementation of the government's economic, social and
administrative reform programme by providing timely and effective expertise
to develop and implement policy reform initiatives); $110,000.



(d) UNEP Inputs

111. UNEP will provide experienced specialist personnel for implementing the
following elements of this project assigned to it through an Inter-Agency
Agreement:
ˇ to lead the process of reviewing and revising the legislative background and
support further implementation of the GPA process in the region under the
guidance of UNEP through an inter-agency agreement.
ˇ Identification and analysis of emerging transboundary problems and
evaluation of the cost effectiveness of interventions to correct current and
emerging transboundary problems.
Details of the anticipated UNEP inputs to the project are given as ANNEX 3.


(e) EC-TACIS Inputs

112. The European Union is a major political and financial actor in project area
mainly through its enlargement and NIS relations' policies. The enlargement of the
EU to the thirteen candidate countries, three of which are the beneficiary countries
for the current project (Bulgaria, Romania, and Turkey) will involve:

ˇ The adoption and implementation by these countries of the EU environmental
legislation and standards as a prerequisite for their entry into the Union
ˇ The financial assistance by the EU to these countries toward the development of
the infrastructures necessary for the implementation of the EU legislation


54

---

113. The financial assistance will involve primarily the pre-accession financial
instruments PHARE , ISPA, SAPARD, and others as appropriate. In March 1998 the
Commission, the World Bank and the EBRD signed a Memorandum of
Understanding on pre-accession financing. This was updated in March 2000 to take
account of the new pre-accession financial instruments (ISPA and SAPARD) and to
extend co-operation to cover the NIS countries. The Memorandum includes
commitments to:
ˇ Co-ordinate project implementation;
ˇ Implement co-financing projects jointly which foster the adoption of the EU
legislation;
ˇ Identify future co-financing opportunities which could foster accession;
ˇ Be as flexible as possible with the delivery of the grants.

The PHARE-funded Large Scale Infrastructure Facility ( 250 million for 1998-99)
was developed to co-finance accession-related projects in transport and environment
with the international financing institutions (IFIs). Realising that environmental
projects would take much longer to put together than transport ones, DG
Environment of the European Commission co-operated with the World Bank to
develop a pipeline of viable projects to enable environment to take a reasonable
share of the new Facility, screening all projects for accession relevance. The result
was a substantial list of environmental co-financing projects for 1998 and 1999
(50% of the total Facility). The ISPA instrument has some 500 million a year to
spend on environmental infrastructure investment over the period 2000-06. The
minimum size of projects is normally 5 million, and there is money for project
preparation. Although the ISPA Regulation does not formally require co-financing
with the IFIs, this is greatly encouraged. ISPA needs a project pipeline, while the
grants could make it easier for the IFIs to lend to the accession countries. DG ENV
is developing a Priority Environmental Investment Programme for Accession
(PEPA), which aims to develop investment strategies, priorities and a project
pipeline for all Community sources of finance and potentially non-Community such
as the World Bank. World Bank officials have participated actively at a number of
meetings to promote this project.

114. The EU has concluded Partnership and Cooperation Agreements with each one
of the Newly Independent States. In this context it is providing financial assistance
through the use of the TACIS programme. To date Phare and Tacis have contributed
about 18 million to the Black Sea Environment Programme and about 8 million
to the Danube Environment Programme. The latest 4.6 million Tacis programme to
the BSEP has ended in 2000. It gave support to the Black Sea Implementation Unit
and to BSEP Activity Centres in Georgia, Russia and Ukraine.

115. The new TACIS Regulation foresees greater assistance on environmental pre-
investment activities. Under the new Tacis Regional Programme 2000 which is
expected to be officially launched by the end of 2001, the European Commission
has allocated a 4 million Black Sea Support Programme for 2001-2003; 3
million of which is planned for capacity building for the continuation of the work of
the Black Sea Commission and its three Activity Centres 6 to tackle the problems of
the Black Sea. The final draft of the Terms of Reference for the Tacis Regional

6
-Batumi, Georgia: biodiversity monitoring and development of strategy;
-Odesa, Ukraine: water quality monitoring and development of strategy;
-Krasnodar, Russia: coastal zone management.

55

---

Action Programme 2000 (Technical assistance in support of the Black Sea
Environment Programme) is given as ANNEX V.

116. EU is also anticipating a project on Nutrient Management in the Danube River
Basin and its impact on the Black Sea (total cost 3,5 million ) as part of its th
Framework Programme. It will be important to seek the close cooperation of the EU
programmes in the Danube and Black Sea areas with those of the GEF so that
synergies can be found in the execution of these programmes. In this context, the
Secretariats of the BSC and the ICPDR, and the PIU are currently elaborating a
project proposal for submission to the DG-Environment to further support the
implementation of the Memorandum of Understanding between the two
Commissions (following its formal launching in November 2001), and the Black
Sea Ecosystem Recovery Project, in particular through technical workshops,
harmonisation of methodologies, data exchange etc.

117. Furthermore, the European Commission has been drafting a Communication which
reviews the present environmental situation of the Danube-Black Sea region and the ongoing
environmental cooperation, highlights the priority actions that would be required for
improving the environmental quality and the strategy for achieving the environmental
protection objectives for the region. The draft Communication calls for an increased
involvement of the EU and its Member States in environmental cooperation within the region,
a key element for the development of broad cooperation among the countries and the peace
and stability of the Danube-Black Sea region. The draft Communication is expected to be
approved by the European Commission by the end of November 2001.



E. RISKS AND PRIOR OBLIGATIONS

(a) Risks and steps taken to minimise them

118. Risks identified for the implementation of the project are mainly linked to the political
and economic restructuring in all of the beneficiary countries. In addition a number of
operational risks associated with delays in coordinating arrangements may emerge.

119. The last 10 years have witnessed frequent changes in the Governments throughout the
region, resulting with relatively varied policy priorities, and a considerable turnover of senior
government officials. Although there have been important advances in development
and implementation of environmental policies, such changes have had negative
impacts on the regional initiatives for environmental protection from time to time.
These effects have ranged from weakening of the willingness of one or more
countries to cooperate, which unfortunately caused a loss of momentum in some
regional initiatives; to intervals in the decision-making process/a slow pace in
endorsement/enforcement of policy decisions, and to delays in the delivery of some
of the project outputs. In addition, the slow pace in reforming other sectoral policies
- municipalities, democratisation, investments, etc.- has negative effects on effective
and timely implementation of environmental projects. Although not widespread,
geo-political conflicts in some parts of the region have also hampered enforcement
of environmental protection measures. However it is believed that factors such as:
the recent establishment of the Permanent Secretariat, enactment of the Commission
budget, the EU accession prospects which will be supported by a Communication
on the Black Sea and the Danube River Basin, and a number of additional
regional/sub-regional projects/initiatives are all supportive of an increased level of
cooperation and mutual accountability in the region which will reduce the political

56

---

risks associated with the implementation of the Black Sea Ecosystem Recovery
Project.

120. In all of the countries the state of the economy continues to be a concern. The
state of the economy and rate of transition in the market conditions varies
considerably between countries. Financing constraints exist in every country in the
region. Investment priorities are frequently shifted towards areas with marginal or
even negative environmental benefits in weak economies, while macro-economic
balances do not allow for additional borrowing in some others where a considerable
number of pollution control investments are already going on . Under these
conditions, the risks in meeting the baseline costs of nutrient reduction in the Black
Sea region will continue to prevail. However, it has been noted that some of the
risks associated with the economical conditions are reduced/eliminated to a great
extent by a careful design of loan agreements, deployment of additional efforts to
increase the capacity of municipalities to manage and repay such loans, a speedy
privatisation process taking due consideration of environmental cost/benefits, and
establishing public-private partnerships.

121. The 10 years history of regional environmental cooperation contains a number
of failures in sustaining the technical institutions and coordination mechanisms,
which resulted in a lower level of attainment of common objectives. For example,
the 6 years delay in establishing the regional coordinating mechanism envisaged in
the Bucharest Convention has hindered the proper follow-up of the commitments
made in the BSSAP. Inability to sustain the regional activity centres (for example,
reduced budgets for activities, inability to pay salaries for the staff) provided by the
hosting Governments as an in-kind contribution has delayed the delivery of project
outputs. Although such risks still remain, regional cooperation has recently gained
a new momentum with the establishment of the Permanent Secretariat of the BSC,
and its budget becoming operational- with provision to support the Regional
Activity Centres. The EU accession process which involves Bulgaria, Georgia, and
Romania; and programmes such as TACIS to support the environmental policies and
pre-investment studies are other factors which ultimately are instrumental in
reducing the operational risks associated with implementation of the current project.

122. Risks which might have a specific impact on the implementation of activities
and/or delivery of outputs, their likelihood and measures proposed to minimise
them are listed in Table 2 below:

57

---

TABLE 2
ASSUMPTIONS,RISKS AND MEASURES
ASSUMPTION
S
RISKS
DEGREE
PLANNED MEASURE


ˇ
Continued country commitments for environmental protection, in particular,
ˇ
Relative priority decrease
ˇ
Medium
ˇ
promoting cooperation and accountability through
nutrient reduction at the national level

the SG; BSC, JPMG and other mechanisms
ˇ
Continued commitment at the regional level; Governments willing ˇ
Some countries do not ˇ
Medium
ˇ
Close inter-linkages between the

to continue to provide support to the regional network including the
actively participate in BSC
Commission and the Project mechanisms;
Activity Centres
and/or Project
ˇ
continuous dialogue with other political

implementation.
actors and the donor community with a
view to ensure that regional responsibilities
are also properly addressed in donor
assistance programmes;

ˇ
BSC continues to integrate project objectives into its own work-
Priority given to nutrient reduction
ˇ
Low
ˇ
Consideration at Tripartite Review
programme and facilitates project implementation
decreases
Meeting;

ˇ
BSC Secretariat functioning; long-term security in commitments to
Some countries do not fulfil ˇ
Medium
ˇ
Consideration at the Tripartite Review and
the BSC is ensured
financial commitments to BSC,
coordination with the BSC, BSEP-JPMG

or commitments of resources to
with a view to resolving the problem which

the BSC do not correspond to
can negatively affect the project

the magnitude of the tasks
implementation, but which is beyond the
capacity of the SG;
ˇ
Design of the 2nd phase accordingly.
ˇ
ˇ
Inadequate technical
ˇ
High
ˇ
Written confirmation of the willingness of
Governments are willing to involve their own environmental and
capacity;
the respective sectors to develop and
sectoral management framework in project implementation
ˇ
Direct and effective
implement measures within their own areas
working linkages with
of responsibility;
national sectoral bodies
ˇ
Thematic networks established and
can not be established;
workshops (national / international) held;
ˇ
inter-sectoral committees established;
ˇ
technical publications made; training
programmes held;
ˇ
web-based dialogue promoted and
materials disseminated;
ˇ
coordination with other regional/global
sectoral cooperation initiatives;
ˇ
close collaboration with projects funded

58

---

under Partnership Investment Facility;
ˇ
opportunities for public-private
partnerships and donor assistance in
implementing demonstration projects are
sought
ˇ
Willingness to adopt new/revised legislation (BD and LBA ˇ
Financial and
ˇ
Medium
ˇ
A careful assessment of national/regional
protocols)
technological constraints
legislation and enforcement mechanisms,
in enforcement may reduce
and design of a feasible and phased

willingness to adopt new
approach for the region (eg. environmental
legislation;
quality objectives);
ˇ
Slow decision making and
ˇ
harmonisation with EU policies that are
ratification process
imperative for the 3 accession countries;
ˇ
cooperation with the relevant bodies of
legislators' platforms such as PABSEC.
ˇ
Willingness to conclude the fisheries convention for the Black Sea
ˇ
Absence of technical data ˇ
High
ˇ
Gathering of technical information and data to

and information needed for
facilitate the negotiation process;
policy planning;
ˇ
Facilitating interim measures such as fisheries
ˇ
Proposed policies are not
free zones to allow for restoration of macrophyte
compatible with ecosystem
habitats and recovery of nursery grounds,
based fisheries
measures to limit fishing, establishment of Marine
Protected Areas;
ˇ
enhanced coordination with other regional
seas programmes and global platforms (eg.
UNEP-FAO);
ˇ
targeted training-education programmes
and awareness raising campaigns
ˇ
The harmonious integration of the project and its PIU into the
ˇ
Overlapping of
ˇ
low
ˇ
Strategic review at JPMG and day to day
overall strategy and implementation framework of the BSC.
responsibilities between
coordination/task sharing at the BSEP

the PIU, other project
Executive Board.
units and the Secretariat
ˇ
Willingness to share data/information freely, through the PIU ˇ
Social, legal and
ˇ
High
ˇ
widely acknowledging local communities
information base.
institutional bottlenecks
on BS-SAP and the Aarhus Convention in

hinder provision of

project activities;
information to the public
ˇ
promoting exchange of information within
and between thematic working groups;
ˇ
publicly accessible programme materials in
all Black Sea languages, including through
the web

59

---

ˇ
bureaucratic obstacles in ˇ
Medium
ˇ
Raising issues concerning the right to free
information exchange at
circulation of information on project
the regional level
outputs and issues in formal platforms
such as the BSC;
ˇ
collaborate with the Secretariat to establish
the legal and technical basis of
information/data exchange
ˇ
social, legislative and
ˇ
High
ˇ
specific mechanisms for the participation of all
institutional bottlenecks
stakeholders;
hindering full stakeholder
ˇ
support to networking of stakeholders;
participation
ˇ
enhanced collaboration with other regional
sectoral initiatives/ programmes and with RECs;
ˇ
dissemination of project outputs to specific target
groups;
ˇ
targeted education/training (eg. farmers).
ˇ
Continued/enhanced willingness of NGOs to participate in project ˇ
NGOs priorities do not ˇ
Low
ˇ
Facilitation of dialogue among the NGOs;
implementation
match with project
ˇ
Facilitation of a continuous communication

priorities
between the PIU/Secretariat and the NGO
community in the region;
ˇ
Ensuring involvement of grassroots organisations
and local communities through facilitation of
networking between them;
ˇ
Continuous flow of information /supporting
materials from the PIU;
ˇ
Facilitation of collaborative arrangements with
international NGOs;
ˇ
Facilitation of donors' support to project related
NGO activities
ˇ
Existence of independently funded regional network(s) of NGOs acting
ˇ
NGOs/NGO networks become
ˇ
High
ˇ
Liase with donors, international NGOs and the
autonomously
dependent on donors' funding
RECS for assisting the NGO community in the
and can not sustain themselves
region in capacity building and fund raising

ˇ
competition for funding
ˇ
Medium
ˇ
Project support mechanism to NGOs for
through the current project
executing small projects is clearly separated from
prevents cooperation between
the mechanism for participating in policy
NGOs, and hinders their
discussions, providing feedback and monitoring
participation in the project in
project performance;
general
ˇ
Transparency in achievements and failures
ˇ
Assist in establishing a mechanism which will
ensure efficient cooperation and between
environmental NGOs in the region irrespective of
the donor

60

---

ˇ
conflicts arise among the
ˇ
High
ˇ
Coordinate with donors with a view to ensure that
NGOs/NGO groupings
such programmes are supportive of ongoing
competing for projects funded
efforts, transparent and accessible to the NGO
by donors
community in general
ˇ
Local authorities are willing to cooperate in project implementation ˇ
Efficient working linkages
ˇ
Medium
ˇ
Facilitation of networking through the BSC,
where this is required; governments facilitate participation of local
/networking can not be
BSEC,and other platforms;
administrations in project activities
established
ˇ
Contacts with local administrations involved in

implementation of projects under Partnership
Investment Facility; supported by other donors
participating in the BSEP-JPMG and Local
Agenda 21 initiatives
ˇ
Scientific and technical capacity available at the region will be used to the
ˇ
Required level of scientific
ˇ
Medium
ˇ
Scientific expertise and prior involvement with
maximum extent, outside expertise will be channelled in the project where
expertise can not be
similar surveys and assessments will be the major
needed
guaranteed
criteria for ISG;

ˇ
The two surveys will be planned and conducted
on a scientifically competitive basis;
ˇ
Close coordination with other ongoing scientific
institutions/ programmes
ˇ
2 marine surveys can not be
ˇ
Medium
ˇ
Surveys will be undertaken with
undertaken in a cost-effective
national/international institutions/ programmes on
manner
a cost sharing basis
ˇ
A regional monitoring and assessment network and a data exchange ˇ
BSC Advisory Group not ˇ
Low
ˇ
Evaluation and recommendation made at
system is available and functioning; countries are willing to
properly
Tripartite Review Meeting for the 2nd year
participate in relevant project activities
functioning/sustainability
or the 2nd phase
is under risk
ˇ
failure by one or more ˇ
Medium
ˇ
Project assistance for the pilot
countries in contributing
environmental status monitoring
to data gathering on
programme will be made on a formal basis
environmental status
so as to ensure delivery of output/data by
each beneficiary country;
ˇ
release of information of annual fluxes of
N and P provided by all countries within
pre-determined time intervals
ˇ
Willingness to cooperate by one or more of the regional institutions ˇ
An appropriate institution ˇ
Low
ˇ
Satellite maps of indicators of
equipped for receiving, interpreting and disseminating satellite
to undertake the task can
eutrophication issued weekly;
images.
not be identified/task is
ˇ
Close collaboration with other programmes
not undertaken properly
performing similar activities (IOC-GOOS)

61

---

ˇ
The countries in the basin are willing to establish a permanent ˇ
The BSC-ICPDR (Danube) ˇ
Low
ˇ
Facilitation of high level consultations with
mechanism for co-operation
MOU is not concluded at
the participation of major policy actors
an early stage
(respective constituencies in GEF Council,
EC)
ˇ
emergence of other river ˇ
Low
ˇ
Facilitation of basin-wide high level policy
basin commissions (eg.
consultations, including within GEF
Dnipro) in the Black Sea
Council
Basin is delayed
ˇ
willing for integration of nutrient reduction policies into relevant sectors
ˇ
Causes of impacts are not ˇ
Medium
ˇ
Local and international experts will work
(agriculture, industry, municipalities)
properly highlighted;
in teams;

ˇ
Data/information for the
ˇ
Causes and impacts will be studied at the
completion of national/

country and region level, with special
region wide benefit/cost
emphasis on common elements for
study is not available;
transition economies and on the EU
ˇ
No or limited experience
accession process;
with team-working (of
ˇ
Inter-sectoral committees will ensure
sectoral and environmental
stakeholder participation;
experts);
ˇ
Close collaboration with organisations (eg.
ˇ
High level participation
OECD, UN-ECE and others) which have
from key sectors can not
expertise in policy and economic analysis
be ensured
and which gather/analyse sectoral data;
ˇ
Decision makers are not
ˇ
A comparative analysis of the
convinced of correcting
environmental/sectoral costs/benefits of the
policy failures
application of the recommendations will be
elaborated;
ˇ
Suggested measures with their respective
costs/benefits will be brought to the
attention of a high level inter-ministerial
meeting;

62

---

ˇ
Slow decision making ˇ
High
ˇ
Policy dialogue with other donors to co-ordinate
process
their work in this process and avoid conflicting
ˇ
Major policy reform is not
advice;
possible in short term
ˇ
Performance indicators are identified;
ˇ
Phased introduction policy measures
ˇ
Governments and donors maintain willingness to cover baseline
ˇ
Priorities for financing change ˇ
Medium
ˇ
Consideration at BSC and BSEP-JPMG and other
costs
platforms as appropriate;
ˇ
UNDP requests the advice of GEF
ˇ
Willingness of other donors for cost-sharing in addressing
ˇ
Problems in meeting the
ˇ
Low
ˇ
Consideration at BSC and BSEP-JPMG and other
transboundary problems; implementation of investment portfolio
baseline costs
platforms as appropriate
including the Partnership Investment Facility for Nutrient
ˇ
Inadequate support for
Reduction.
incremental costs
















63

---

64

---

(b) Prior obligations and prerequisites

123. Each of the beneficiary Governments are eligible for GEF funding, have
participated in the consultations for project preparation, and are committed to
actively participate in the implementation of the project. They have designated a
senior official as the GEF Focal Point as well as a National Focal Point exclusively
responsible for ensuring the Government's participation in the current project.

124. The Black Sea Commission has also endorsed the Project and agreed to render
its policy guidance throughout its duration. The BSC agreed to support the project
implementation by integrating the project objectives and activities an its own work-
programme, budget and regional coordination mechanisms. The Commission has
adopted its budget and work-programme for the first year of the implementation of
the current project which became operational by September 2001, and an indicative
budget and work-programme for the second year as provided in ANNEX IV.C . The
BSC has also agreed to provide for the joint use of its premises with the PIU
(ANNEX VI).

125. There are no further prior obligations or prerequisites to be fulfilled prior to
UNDP approval of the project.


F. INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK AND IMPLEMENTATION
ARRANGEMENTS

(a) Institutional Framework

126. The GEF project will be a component of the wider Black Sea Environmental
Programme, coordinated through the Joint Project Management Group (JPMG), a subsidiary
body of the Black Sea Commission. The JPMG functions as the "body to provide support -to
the Black Sea Commission-for specific projects and processes related to the implementation
of the Black Sea Strategic Action Plan" as defined in the Strategic Action Plan for the
Protection and Rehabilitation of the Black Sea' itself. The Black Sea Ecosystem Recovery
Project will provide assistance to the BSC, its Permanent Secretariat and Advisory Groups
specifically for reduction of nutrients and other toxic substances and for rehabilitation of
specific ecosystems. As with all projects/processes implemented under the JPMG of the Black
Sea Commission, the current project will include the necessary arrangements for ensuring
adequate policy guidance of the Commission and for building synergies with the various other
projects executed in the Black Sea region, including those implemented by the Nutrient
Investment Facility, and with the regional institutions in the Danube and Dnipro river basins,
such as the ICPDR - GEF Danube PIU, the GEF Dnipro PCU and the emergent Dnipro
Commission. The project will also closely liase with the European Commission (DG
Environment, TACIS) and with other programmes. A schematic diagram of the institutional
set-up of the Programme is given in Figure 1.

65

---

66

---

Figure 1. Programme Approach and Institutional Framework

STRATEGIC
PARTNERSHIP

Danube
Black Sea Commission
Regional
Project
Dnipro
BSEP Joint Project
Project
Management Group
JPMG

Permanent Secretariat

Integrated Coastal
Fisheries
Biodiversity
Pollution Monitoring
and Assessment
Land -based
Other
GEF Project
Pollution Control
Project Other Project
TACIS Steering
Advisory Group
S.C.
Steering
Committee
ACs
Project
Committee.
GEF
S.C
Ecosystem
Recovery
Project
BSEP Executive Board
Implementing
Coordinating
Other
GEF
Project
Other
TACIS
Team
Team
Project
Project
PIU
Team
Team
BSEP

67
Figure 1. Programmatic and Institutional Framework

---

68

---

69

---

---

(b) Implementation Arrangements

127. In close collaboration with the BSC, the project implementation will be
coordinated through the PIU and UNOPS as the Executing Agency on behalf of the
recipient countries and UNDP. The Project Co-ordinator and his team under the
guidance of BSC, and through support to the Permanent Secretariat will have the
mandate to organise and coordinate the planning process and implementation
activities in line with the project document, and to ensure under UNOPS direction,
proper management of GEF project funds.


128. UNOPS, as the Executing Agency for the project will coordinate the recruitment of
the PIU Coordinator and a core staff of specialists in accordance with the funding
available in the project budget, in close consultation with the beneficiary countries
and the Black Sea Commission. Donor and governmental contributions to staffing of
the PIU shall be considered if accompanied by sufficient funding for salaries and
operational expenses and following consultations with the beneficiary countries
through the Commission.

129. The GEF-PIU will operate as a semi-autonomous unit within the BSEP. It will be
hosted by the Black Sea Commission and share the facilities of the Permanent Secretariat of
the Commission provided by the Government of Turkey. The Commission and the
Government will reaffirm their consent for the use of the premises of the Commission by the
GEF-PIU through exchange of letters

130. The GEF-PIU will be linked to the Black Sea Commission and donor
community through the (JPMG). The working relations between the GEF-PIU and
the Secretariat agreed upon by the Executive Board of the JPMG and will be
formalised through a Letter of Agreement. Both bodies will conduct their work in
close cooperation, sharing the same facilities and infrastructure. Similar working
arrangements regarding task sharing may be concluded with other major project
implementation units to be established. A schematic presentation of the
implementation arrangements and responsibilities is given in Figure 2.

131. The financial and administrative mechanisms that apply to GEF projects
developed for the Black Sea Environmental Programme PCU (RER/93/G31), and to
the PIU (RER/96/006; RER/99/G42) shall be applied mutadis mutandis to the GEF-
PIU. A Memorandum of Understanding has been signed between UNDP and the
Government of the Republic of Turkey within the existing Standard Basic
Agreement between the Government and the United Nations Development
Programme to indicate such mechanisms and the terms of allocation of the premises
to the use of GEF-PIU (ANNEX VI).

132. The PIU will provide technical support to the Permanent Secretariat for the
attainment of the objectives defined in the current project document, in particular
for:
ˇ establishing basin-wide consultative groups;
ˇ establishment and functioning of national inter-sectoral bodies;
ˇ Reinforcing the legal background on LBA, promoting implementation;
ˇ Facilitating technical support to the Advisory Groups and Activity Centres
for the tasks specified in this project document;
ˇ Supporting information transfer and regularly updating existing information
on the Black Sea;

71

---

ˇ Diffusion of project outputs through newsletters, posters, technical reports,
public information bulletins;
ˇ Management of the small grants programme;
ˇ Developing/updating/maintaining the existing BSEP website jointly with the
Permanent Secretariat.

72

---

73

---

74

---

75

---

D
STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP
O
N
GEF Black Sea
O
Regional Project
GEF Danube
GEF Nutrient


Regional Project
R
GEF Dnipro
Investment Facility
B
JWG

S
Project




World


SP
UNDP
UNEP
ECI
Bank

G

AL
UNOPS
G
ISE
D

O
V


BS Commission
Steering Committee
E
R

R

N



M
Commission
INS

E
TIT
PIU
Secretariat
Members
R
N
UT
F
T
IO
JPMG
S
NS
Ex.Board
Monitoring
Inter-

sectoral
Biodiveity Fisheries
T
ST
Committees
A
LBS Advisory
KE
Groups
H
Sectoral WGs

OL
U
National
ACs
DE
Coordinators
RS
Figure 2. Implementation Arrangements for the Black Sea Regional Project (Responsibilities Matrix)

76

---

77

---

78

---

133. The status of international/local staff hired for project implementation through the
UNOPS or the UN Country Office shall correspond to that of UN Project Personnel,
following the grading applied throughout the UN System (ICSC grading) and the local staff or
temporary staff gradings where applicable. They shall follow the rules and regulations
applicable to UN Project Staff and enjoy the privileges and immunities granted to such staff
by the Government of the Republic of Turkey and by the Governments of the region.

134. The proposed initial core staff (full terms of reference given as ANNEX I) for
the fulfilment of the tasks specified above shall consist of the following:

ˇ Project Coordinator (CTA)

(Objective 1)
ˇ Sectoral reform and M & E specialist (Objective 4)
ˇ Data base and information manager (Activities in objectives 1,3 and 4)
ˇ Economist



(Objective 5 and 7)
ˇ Public participation specialist
(Objective 6)

135. Overall responsibility for project management and reporting to the UNOPS will
lie with the CTA. In addition to the core staff to be appointed by the UNOPS, the
CTA will appoint the support staff needed in consultation with the Executive
Director of the Permanent Secretariat. Exact composition of the GEF-PIU may vary
according to its financial possibilities and to the outcome of periodical review by
the Steering Committee. As necessary, consultants will also be retained. Priority
will be given to the recruitment of national project personnel from the region as
available.



(c) Arrangements for preparing and updating work-plans

136. The project Steering Committee is the organ which will review and adopt the
work-plans for the project; including the initial workplan given in Section I, Table
3. The CTA will coordinate with the National Coordinators, relevant organs of the
Black Sea Commission and other donors, and prepare a draft updated work-plan
which shall be submitted to the Steering Committee for its adoption at least one
month before its meeting. The CTA will be responsible for the conduct of project
activities in line with the revised work-plan and the budget. The Annual Project
Report (APR) to be prepared by the CTA will include detailed information on the
implementation of the Workplan, inter alia, achievement of project objectives and
delivery of project outputs in accordance with the Workplan.


(d) Accounting and reporting mechanisms

137. The rules, regulations and procedures governing the provision and
administration of UNDP project funds will apply to this project. UNOPS will be
responsible for overall financial management. The PIU will be accountable to the
Steering Committee for spendings made out of the project budget. The CTA will
appoint an Accountant who will assist him/her to ensure such accountability. The
CTA will be responsible for ensuring that budget releases are made in accordance
with the requirements of UNDP and the GEF, that all financial dealings are fully
transparent; and for reporting to the UNOPS. The Annual Project Report (APR) that
the CTA will prepare will include detailed information on financial management of
the project.

79

---

138. The CTA will prepare a draft revised budget for consideration and approval of
the Steering Committee each year, which will subsequently be processed by the
UNOPS in accordance with the rules of UNDP and the GEF. The CTA will be
responsible for preparing the proposals for minor revisions in the projec budget that
are imposed by the revision of the work-plan ; however proposals for a major
budgetary revision caused by significant changes in the work-plan will be submitted
by the CTA to the UNOPS for further processing following their approval by the
Steering Committee.


(e) Reporting requirements

139. The PIU will be responsible for preparing the following reports:

1. updated work-plans and periodic status reports which will be submitted
to the Steering Committee;
2. an Annual Project Report (APR) which gives an account of the level of
achievement of project objectives, delivery of outputs, financial
management, and recommendations for readjustment of strategies and
activities;
3. the reports required for the participation of the project into the GEF
Project Implementation Review (PIR) process;

4. a project terminal report for consideration by the Steering Committee at a
final review meeting. The report shall be prepared in draft sufficiently in
advance to allow review and technical clearance by the PIU.

In addition to the technical, financial and information reports described in this
project document, the PIU will prepare any other reports and publications that the
Steering Committee or the GEF Implementing Agencies may require of it.


(f) Description of Host Institution arrangements

140. The Government of the Republic of Turkey which hosted the PCU/PIU of the
Black Sea Environmental Programme incorporating the regional projects
RER/93/G31, RER/93/G32, RER/96/G006, RER/99/G42 funded by the GEF and
UNDP between 1993-2001 has agreed to host the Project Implementation Unit
(GEF-PIU) of the current regional project in Istanbul. The Government is also
hosting the headquarters of the Black Sea Commission and its Permanent Secretariat
in accordance with the "Headquarters Agreement between the Government of the
Republic of Turkey and the Commission on the Protection of Black Sea Against
Pollution" signed on 20 April 2000 in Istanbul by the respective Parties (ANNEX
IV.B) In accordance with Article 5 (Item 4) of the above referred Agreement which
stipulates that ''the Government and the Commission may jointly agree to allow for
the temporary or permanent use of the headquarters by third parties involved in
studies or programmes pertaining to the Black Sea'', the PIU will be co-located
with the Permanent Secretariat of the Commission in the premises of the
Commission. The ''Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the
Republic of Turkey and the United Nations Development Programme on the
establishment of the Project Implementation Unit of the project entitled 'Control of
eutrophication, hazardous substances and related measures for rehabilitating the
Black Sea ecosystem: Phase1' and subsequent projects'' is given as ANNEX VI.


80

---

(g) Coordination mechanisms


141. The Project will be linked to the national and transboundary governance structures via:
ˇ Project Steering Committee
ˇ observership at the Black Sea Commission (pending the decision of the
Commission)(representation by the GEF Implementing Agencies (UNDPand
UNEP);
ˇ representation in the BSEP Joint Project Management Group (JPMG)7 of the
Black Sea Commission )(representation by the GEF Implementing Agencies
(UNDPand UNEP);
ˇ membership (of the Project Coordinator) of the BSEP Executive Board , the
day-to-day management coordination mechanism with the Permanent
Secretariat of the Black Sea Commission and other projects;
ˇ close collaboration with the seven Advisory Groups of the Black Sea
Commission;
ˇ joint development and use of the information base.

(i)Internal coordination mechanisms

Regional institutions

The Project Steering Committee (GEF- SC)
142. The Steering Committee will be the body to provide policy guidance and to review the
project implementation at the regional level. It will:
ˇ review progress and annually approve the work-plan/timetable for the
project
ˇ review project implementation and expenditures, and adopt Annual Project Report
(APR) as an output.
ˇ decide/make recommendations to the Black Sea Commission on issues it may deem
necessary

143. The Steering Committee will consist of the representatives of participating
Governments, NGOs and other stakeholders, international environmental organisations and
donors as appropriate.

Members: Officially nominated National Project Coordinators from each country and
their advisors as appropriate, representatives of the GEF implementing agencies
(UNDP,UNEP, and the World Bank ) and other major donors (contributing 5% or
more of the annual project budget)(cost-sharing or co-financing).

Observers: will be have the right to participate in the discussions or make
recommendations, but not the right to vote. There will be two different categories of
observers:
i. The first category will consist of bodies or staff responsible for project
execution, including
ˇ a representative of UNOPS (the Executing Agency),
ˇ the Project Coordinator and

7 The functions and composition of the JPMG are described in the Attachment to the present Annex entitled
''Terms of Reference for the BSEP Joint Project Management Group (JPMG) and the BSEP Executive
Board'' adopted by the Black Sea Commission.

81

---

ˇ the Executive Director of the Secretariat
This group will take part in all sessions of the SC. The Project Coordinator and
the Executive Director of the Secretariat will ensure that their staff participating
in project relevant activities are present at SC meetings.

ii. The second category of `observers' will consist of
ˇ representatives of other/potential donors,
ˇ representatives from relevant regional/international/inter-
governmental organisations
ˇ three NGO representatives selected by the NGO community in the
region,
ˇ up to three representatives from different stakeholders groups (local
administrations, farmers associations, private sector associations)
from the region to be identified through consultations with the
Commission, the BSEC as appropriate.
This group will participate in the SC Meetings upon invitation.

144. The project Steering Committee shall reach its decisions by consensus. The Committee
will elect its chairman among the representatives of the project beneficiaries who will serve
until the next meeting of the Steering Committee. The Committee will have its first
(inception) meeting during the first month of the project start-up and will meet twice
annually. One of these regular meetings will be devoted to Annual Project Evaluation.
Chairman of the Steering Committee, the GEF-PIU Coordinator or the Commission may call
ad-hoc meetings, provided that no objections are raised by the members of the Committee,
including the GEF IAs and that budgetary resources are available..


The BSC-ICPDR Joint Working Group
145. A Joint Black Sea-Danube Basin Joint Working Group which will further elaborate the
technical requirements for the implementation of the recommendations made by the Ad hoc
Technical Working Group described in Paragraph 145 shall assure proper coordination of
activities between the current project and the GEF project for the Danube River Basin. In this
context, the JWG will also be an important mechanism to facilitate the implementation of the
Draft Memorandum of Understanding between the International Commission for the
Protection of the Black Sea (ICPBS) and the International Commission for the Protection of
the Danube River (ICPDR) on common strategic goals. In line with the basin-wide approach,
the Group will invite the PMU and other bodies of the GEF-Dnipro project to participate in
its work, with a view to facilitate adherence of the emergent Dnipro Commission into inter-
regional cooperation framework that is been developing between the BSC and the ICPDR.

National institutions

National Project Coordinators (NPCs):
146. National Project Coordinators will be nominated by the beneficiary
Governments for the purposes of the current project. The NPCs will be responsible
for coordinating the activities carried at the local/national levels under the overall
guidance and supervision of the Member of the Black Sea Commission for the
respective country. NPCs will represent their governments at the Steering
Committee Meetings and may be accompanied by other experts as may be needed.
National Project Coordinators are expected to have the technical/managerial
capacity and knowledge of the common project language (English) which will
enable them to interact with their counterparts in other countries and with the PIU
staff on a day-to-day basis.


82

---

Inter-sectoral Committees
147. Particular importance will be given to the effective functioning of inter-
ministerial cooperation bodies in developing and implementing national nutrient
reduction programmes. These coordination and consultation mechanisms within
beneficiary countries will facilitate policy integration at the national level and will
complement the approach proposed for the current regional project.

Participation Mechanisms for NGOs and Other Stakeholders
148. The success of the project is critically dependant on active participation of
public and private sector, NGO groups and other stakeholders such as farmers
unions, local administrations, industry and local communities living on wetland
resources.

149. Environmental NGOs: The project will establish a close dialogue with the
environmental NGOs and grassroots organisations. NGOs willing to contribute to
policy making process and project implementation will be identified through a
questionnaire disseminated to the wider NGO community by the PIU. Those that
satisfy previously agreed criteria will be accredited to the project. The set of criteria
applied will be similar to those used for GEF Small Grants Programme. Local,
national, regional or global NGOs will be able to apply for accreditation. Accredited
NGOs will receive information on project activities on a continuous basis. An
interactive dialogue among the NGOs will be encouraged inter alia through a web-
based system. The accredited NGOs will be asked to select two representatives
amongst themselves to represent the NGO community at the project Steering
Committee. The PIU will facilitate the selection process through its web-site. The
NGOs that have received an observer status from the Black Sea Commission will
also be asked to select one NGO representative among themselves to participate in
the Steering Committee Meetings. The three selected NGO representatives will be
requested to task-share the operation of the NGO communication system with the
GEF-PIU. Participation of up to three NGO representatives from the region may be
covered from the project budget where appropriate.

150. It is important to stress that the mechanism described above is for the purposes
of project implementation only. It is not intended to substitute or compete with
existing or future networking arrangements that exist between Black Sea NGOs.
Such networking arrangements will be encouraged by the project and may be able to
request technical and financial assistance from the small grants programme. The role
of the public participation specialist in the PIU will be critical in ensuring an
impartial and transparent support mechanism throughout the region. The NGO
technical assistance function of the project will be similar to that of the Regional
Environmental Centres (e.g. REC-Budapest and REC Caucasus) and it is hoped to
establish cooperative arrangements with these entities during project
implementation.

151. The small grants projects under Component III that have been identified during
the PDF-B phase will be implemented by the proponents of the projects under the
management of the PIU and achievements will be disseminated to the wider NGO
community for possible replication. A transparent and participatory project
appraisal mechanism for the second tranche of the project will be developed in close
consultation with the wider NGO community described above.


83

---

152. Other Stakeholders: The project will establish close working linkages with
these groups through the inter-sectoral committees established within each country
and will coordinate with institutions, processes or projects that currently involve
such groups for sectoral development. Where possible, the policy options for
reduction of nutrients and other toxic substances will be conveyed to the BSEC
Agriculture, Urban Management and other Working Groups. Opportunities will be
sought for performing the activities described within the project document jointly
with these groups as well as the diffusion of project outputs through their sectoral
networks. The project will facilitate the establishment/strengthening of a continuous
dialogue between the governmental and non-governmental groups mainly concerned
about protection of the marine environment. It will focus on those groups involved
in sectors that are of direct relevance to the reduction of nutrients and toxic
substances (such as agriculture, industry and municipalities) in each country and
throughout the region. It will also cooperate with groups working towards the
network of nature reserves agreed by all governments in the BS-SAP. The Project
Coordinator, in consultation with the National Focal Points, The Permanent
Secretariat and other relevant regional institutions, will identify representatives of
sectors mentioned above who are expected to contribute to the discussions at the
Steering Committee Meetings and invite them to the SC Meetings. Participation of
up to three representatives from such groups may be covered from the project
budget where appropriate.


(ii) External coordination mechanisms

153. The project will be coordinated with the activities other global/regional bodies
and programmes/projects through various mechanisms. Project implementation
modalities warrant an overseeing role for the Black Sea Commission, the
coordinating body for national and regional actions to protect and rehabilitate the
Black Sea environment established by the beneficiary countries. This role has been
reaffirmed by the endorsement of the current project by the Commission and
integration of the project related activities into the work-programme of the
Commission for the 2001-2002 / 2002-2003 biennium at its May 2001 meeting. The
project will seek observership on behalf of the BSC. In addition, the project will be
linked to the donor community and other projects/programmes implemented in the
region through the BSEP-JPMG framework. The Black Sea Commission has agreed
to formally establish a Joint Project Management Group (JPMG) which will operate
under its auspices and constitute the overall management framework for
coordinating and implementing the Black Sea Environmental Programme (BSEP), an
umbrella for national and donor sponsored multi-country projects aiming
improvement of the Black Sea environment. The project will be represented at the
BSEP-JPMG at a strategic level, and at the BSEP Executive Board at the project
management level. Further details of the BSEP framework as an external
coordination mechanism are given in ANNEX IV.A .

154. The project will participate in the UNDP-GEF International Waters (IW)
LEARN Project with a view to exchange information and share experiences with
other regional seas programmes.






G. MONITORING AND EVALUATION

84

---

155. The project will be subject to monitoring and evaluation through the following
mechanisms:
ˇ Steering Committee: A joint review by the representatives of Governments,
GEF Implementing Agencies and observers such as, donors, NGOs, and other
stakeholders. The Steering Committee will meet regularly twice a year. Ad hoc
Meetings can also be organised upon the request of the members of the
Committee, the CTA or the IAs provided that budgetary resources are available.
Details on the composition, and tasks of SC are described in paragraphs 142-
144 above.

ˇ Tripartite Review: In line with UNDP procedures the project will be subject to
Tripartite Review (TPR) once every twelve months. The CTA will prepare a
draft Annual Project Report (APR) and formulate recommendations for
adjustment of strategies and activities where necessary. The APR shall be
prepared at least two months in advance of the TPR to allow review by UNDP
prior to the meeting. The TPR will review and adopt the APR as appropriate.

ˇ External Evaluation: During the last quarter of its implementation period, an
external team of specialists selected by UNDP-GEF will evaluate the Project
with a view to assess the processes employed, outputs produced and their
impacts, and lessons learned.


H. LEGAL CONTEXT

156. This Project Document shall be the instrument referred to in Article 1 of the
Standard Basic Assistance Agreement (SBAA) signed between each of the
participating Governments and the United Nations Development Programme. For
non signatories of the SBAA at the time of the signature of this project, this project
document shall be the instrument envisaged in the supplemental provisions to the
project document, attached hereto (ANNEX VII).

157. The following types of revisions can be made to this project document with the
signature of UNDP only, provided that the organisation is assured that other
signatories have no objections to the proposed changes8:
ˇ Revision in, or addition of, any of the annexes to the project document;
ˇ Revisions which do not involve significant changes in the immediate
objectives, outputs, or activities of the project, but are caused by the
rearrangement of the inputs already agreed to or by cost increases due to
inflation;
ˇ Mandatory annual revisions which rephrase the delivery of agreed project
inputs or increased expert or other costs due to inflation or take into account
agency expenditures flexibility.




8 See. Section F

85

---

I-WORKPLAN
An initial workplan for project implementation which may further be amended by the Steering Committee is given as TABLE 3.
TABLE 3
WORKPLAN FOR PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION*

Objective 1. Support the integration of a sustainable Secretariat for the Bucharest Convention


Activities:

2002
2003
D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N
Activity 1.1a
Establish and operate the BSEP Joint Programme
Management Group, the BSEP Executive Board and the Project Steering Group



















Activity 1.1b
Two year operation of the Black Sea Project Implementation
Unit of the Istanbul Commission (BS-PIU) to facilitate, co-
ordinate, and communicate on the implementation of priority























activities identified in this document.
Activity 1.2a.
Establish joint mechanisms between the Istanbul
Commission and the ICPDR for implementing and



















strengthening the MOU agreed at their spring 2000

meetings.
Activity 1.2b.
To extend this process to cover formal river basin
commissions in other areas of the Black Sea Basin. A Black
Sea Basin Inter-Commission Consultative Group should be




















established by 2002 and should meet on an annual basis to
discuss issues of common concern.
Activity 1.3.
Assist with the establishment or strengthening of National
intersectoral bodies and with providing them with technical






















information on the transboundary issues included in this project.
Activity 1.4
Provide administrative support to Commission's Advisory Groups (co-
ordinated by Regional Activity Centres) to conduct specific projects
related to the priorities defined in this document (see later sections).
























Activity 1.5.
Diffusion of information .through the following:


























* Start-up of activities and interim outputs are marked with the symbol ; delivery of major outputs are marked with symbol .

86

---

Objective 2. Regional actions for improving LBA legislation to control eutrophication and for tackling emergent problems.


Activity 2.1a
Preparation of recommendations for the draft LBA Protocol



and joint facilitation (with the BSC) of negotiations on the



















new Protocol. This work is a continuation of the PDF-B
study.

Activity 2.1b
Joint study (GPA Secretariat/ Istanbul Commission) of





















improving the implementation of the GPA in the Black Sea.
Activity 2.2.
Evaluation of future threats to the Black Sea, the social and
economic root causes of environmental degradation and the
cost effectiveness of interventions to correct current and





emergent transboundary problems (using the GIWA


















methodology, including full impact assessment, as adapted
by ACOPS)

Objective 3. Assist countries to improve their knowledge of the process of eutrophication in the Black Sea



2002
2003
D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N
Activity 3.1.
Integration of an international study group (ISG) to plan and
conduct the practical studies. Formulation of the detailed
study plan (eutrophication and hazardous substances) and its


submission to peer review. Appointment of (existing) remote
sensing centre.
Activity 3.2.
Two survey cruises in the entire Black Sea but with special
emphasis on the impacted NW Shelf (and possibly Sea of





Azov) covering period January ­ December 2002.
Activity 3.3.
Download, interpretation and distribution of weekly SeaWifs
colour scan satellite data, July 2001- May 2003




Activity 3.4.
Interpretation of results, drafting of new State of the Black
Sea Environment Report (to be known as the Odesa




















Declaration + 10 Report), formulation of recommendations.

87

---

Objective 4. Introduce new sectoral policies and a system of process, stress reduction and environmental status indicators for monitoring the
effectiveness of measures to control eutrophication (and harmful substances where appropriate)

Activity 4.1a
Thee regional workshops, each for representatives of one of
the three key sectors (agriculture, industry, municipalities),








together with BSC officials, experts, etc., to explore actions
to reduce nutrient emissions.
Activity 4.1b
Development and govt. approval of national nutrient
reduction strategies and presentation to the BSC , and will













be reviewed every 2 years.
Activity 4.1c
Sectoral master plans to be developed for nutrient control in
each coastal country. These will incorporate revisions and
amendments in laws and policies and common indicators of
process and stress reduction , and will be reviewed every 2












years.

Activity 4.2a.
Designation of monitoring institutions, provision of basic


equipment and training in the new scheme (2x2 week
















practical courses/ country)
Activity 4.2b.
Design of new monitoring programme incorporating























environmental status indicators and its approval by the BSC
Activity 4.2c
Establishment of QA/QC procedures including




















intercomparison exercises.
Activity 4.3
Pilot implementation of new environmental status
programme.



















Activity 4.4
Develop and implement BSC information base. Operation at
the PIU.



Objective 5. Support the Commissions in their periodic review of Adaptive Management objectives.



2002
2003
D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N
2.
Economic benefit/cost studies of the actions proposed in the Sectoral
Master Plans and the National strategies (Obj. 4, Activity 1). The recent
study of the economics of nutrient control in the Baltic (Gren, Turner, et al.











2000) will serve as a working model. A specialist team will be appointed

for this work. They will also pay attention to wetland restoration
economics.


88

---

Objective 6. Assist the public in implementing activities to reduce eutrophication through a programme of grants for small projects and
support to regional NGOs.

Activity 6.1a.
Appointment of regional public participation specialist

(PPS) at the PIU, inter-alia to coordinate the small projects

initiative.
Activity 6.1b.
Implementation and evaluation of the first tranche of small
projects identified and reviewed through the PDF-B













process..
Activity 6.2
Second call for proposals and design of a fully transparent
project appraisal mechanism.















Activity 6.3.
Support to the BSEEP for increased involvement in regional
aspects of reduction of eutrophication and for work on





environmental education in schools.
Activity 6.4.
Independent report on wetland conservation and restoration
in the Black Sea region

















Activity 6.5.
Stakeholder training as part of the Train Sea Coast
programme






89

---

---

Objective 7. Formulate proposals for market-based or alternative economic instruments for limiting nutrient emissions and establish private-public
sector partnerships for environmental protection in the Black Sea.

Activities:

2002
2003
D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N
Activity 7.1.
Review the implementation of economic instruments for
protecting the Black Sea from pollution (including nutrients)
on a country-by country basis and suggest improvements


where relevant. F/T economist to be appointed (2 year




appointment) at the PIU, inter alia to conduct and co-
ordinate this work.
Activity 7.2.
Examine opportunities for public-private sector partnership
in measures to limit nutrients (e.g. introduction of







phosphate-free detergents, new technology, organic farming,






etc.). To be coordinated by the PIU economist.
Activity 7.3
Evaluate the potential of the local and/or regional financial
intermediaries (eg.Black Sea Regional Development Bank)
as a means of channelling funding to small/medium sized




bankable projects related to nutrient limitation and habitat
restoration.



Objective 8. A fisheries exploited within its maximum sustainable yield and incorporating measures to protect ecologically sensitive areas.


Activities

2202
2003

D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N
Activity 8.1
Support to the process of concluding the regional Fisheries
Convention negotiations, particularly in relationship with




the need to protect key habitats.
Activity 8.2
Assessment of transboundary populations of fish species and
their relationship with sensitive habitats and current fishing














practices.
Activity 8.3.
Preliminary study on the evaluation of potential fisheries-
free zones and Marine Protected Areas, their promotion with
Black Sea governments and stakeholders; their incorporation







into the Landscape and Biological Diversity Protocol to the













Bucharest Convention and training of coastguards etc. for
their enforcement.


91

---

J. BUDGET
Project Number:
RER/01/G31/*/**/**
Project Title:
Control of eutrophication, hazardous substances and related
measures for rehabilitating the Black Sea ecosystem: Phase1
a. Budget lines
The budget, presenting a breakdown of the budget implementation per year, has
been made by UNOPS.
TABLE 4








Budget
Description
Objective
Lead
Total MM
Total


Line
/Activity
Agency
Budget
2002
2003
$
$
$
10 PERSONNEL





1100
International Project Staff






Core International Staff





1101
Project Coordinator P5
1.1b
UNOPS
1x24
170,000
85,000
85,000
1102
Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist P4
4.1
UNOPS
1x24
130,000
65,000
65,000
1103
Economist
P4
7
UNOPS 1x24
130,000 65,000 65,000
1104
Information Specialist P3
4.4
UNOPS
1x12
60,000

60,000
1105
Public Participation Specialist P2
6
UNOPS
1x24
80,000
40,000
40,000
1151
Consultants development of sectoral
4.1a
UNOPS 2x10
20,000 10,000 10,000
integration framework
1151
Consultants economic cost-benefit studies 5
UNOPS
2x3
15,000
5,000
10,000
1151
Consultants- economic instruments
7.1
UNOPS
2x4
15,000
9,000
6,000
1151
Consultant-Public private partnerships
7.2
UNOPS
1x4
10,000
5,000
5,000
1197
Consultant BSC/ICPDR JW G study
1.2a,b
UNOPS
1x 2
10,000 6,000 4,000
1197
Consultants for Advisory Group(s)
1.4
UNOPS
6x1
12,000
6,000
6,000
1197
Consultants design/interpretation of
3.4 UNOPS
3x2 15,000
5,000
10,000
scientific surveys
1197 Consultants-fisheries
assessment
8.1,2
UNOPS 2x2
10,000 5,000 5,000
1199 Component
Subtotal



677,000 306,000 371,000







1300
National Support Staff





1301
Admin
Assistant/Accountant
1.1b
UNOPS 1x24
60,000 30,000 30,000
1302
Secretary
1.1b
UNOPS 1x24
36,000 18,000 18,000
1303
Driver
1.1b
UNOPS 1x24
36,000 18,000 18,000
1350
Additional Support (workshops)
1.1b
UNOPS
0.5
1,000
500
500
1399 Component
Subtotal



133,000 66,500 66,500







1500 Duty
Travel





1501
PIU
Travel
1.b
UNOPS
90,000 45,000 45,000
1502
Local
Travel
Gpc
UNOPS
110,000 60,000 50,000
1503
Government
Travel
Gpc
UNOPS
47,000 25,000 22,000
1599 Component
Subtotal



247,000 130,000 117,000







1600 Mission
Costs





1601
UNDP/UNOPS
1/b
UNOPS
30,000 15,000 15,000
1602 Project
Evaluation
1/b
UNOPS

18,000

18,000
1699 Component
Subtotal



48,000 15,000 33,000







1700
National Professional Project Personnel





1701
NPPP-National sectoral reviews &draft
4.1
UNOPS 6x6
54,000 30,000 24,000
action plans
1701 NPPP-economic
instruments
7.1
UNOPS 6x6
60,000 30,000 30,000
1701
NPPP -fisheries assessment
8
UNOPS
6x4
48,000
20,000
28,000
1797
NPPP-BSC/ICPDR JW G technical
1.2a,b UNOPS
6x
2
15,000 7,500 7,500
assessment
1797
NPPP -Technical reports for Advisory
1.4 UNOPS
6x2 18,000
12,000
6,000
Groups
1797
NPPP - Design/Interpretation of scientific
3.4 UNOPS
6x2
12,000 6,000 6,000
survey results
1797
NPPP- cost benefit studies
5
UNOPS
6x2
24,000 12,000 12,000
1799 Component
Subtotal



231,000 117,500 113,500







20 SUBCONTRACTS





2101
IAA UNEP Revised Land Based Protocol
2.1a
UNEP

70,000
50,000
20,000
2102
IAA UNEP GPA Implementation Program
2.1b
UNEP

20,000
15,000
5,000
2103
IAA-UNEP Evaluation of future threats
2.2
UNEP

70,000 20,000 50,000
using GIW A and ACOPS methodology
2104
IAA-IAEA-QA/QC-intercomparison of data
4.2
IAEA

35,000
20,000
15,000
2105
Subcontract-institute(s) for downloading,
3.3
UNOPS
90,000 50,000 40,000
interpreting and distributing satellite data
2106
Subcontract-implementation of 2 scientific
3.2 UNOPS

335,000
330,000
5,000
surveys
2107
Subcontracts for sectoral demonstration
4.1
UNOPS
80,000 40,000 40,000
projects
2108
Subcontract-institutes for pilot status
4.3 UNOPS

100,000
100,000
monitoring programme
2109
Subcontract-small projects initiative
6.1b
UNOPS

320,000
160,000
160,000
2110
Subcontract-wetland conservation report
6.4
UNOPS

30,000
30,000
-

92

---

2111
Production of TV clip
1.5f


20,000
-
20,000
2999 Component
Subtotal



1,170,000 815,000 355,000







30 FELLOWSHIPS/MEETINGS





3201
Meetings of the Project Steering
1/1a
UNOPS
35,000 15,000 20,000
Committee
3202
Meetings of the JPMG
1/1a
UNOPS

5,000
2,500
2,500
3203
Meetings of the Basin W ide JW G
1.2 a
UNOPS

20,000
10,000
10,000
3204
Meetings of the GPA/LBA Group
1.1b(2.1a.
UNOPS
12,000 6,000 6,000
b)
3205
Meetings of the inter-sectoral W G
1.3
UNOPS

48,000
24,000
24,000
3206
Meetings of the Advisory Groups
1.4
UNOPS

60,000
30,000
30,000
3207
Meetings of ISG
3.1
UNOPS

20,000
12,000
8,000
3208
Regional sectoral/intersectoral meetings
4.1
UNOPS
70,000 40,000 30,000
meetings
3209
Meetings on economic instruments
7.1
UNOPS

25,000
13,000
12,000
3210
Training status monitoring
4.2
UNOPS

90,000
70,000
20,000
3211
Training BSC data base
4.4
UNOPS

20,000
10,000
10,000
3212
Training BSEEP
6.3
UNOPS

35,000
17,500
17,500
3213
Training TSC
6.5
UNOPS

25,000
15,000
10,000
3214 Training
coastguards-fishermen
8.3
UNOPS

24,000

24,000
3999 Component
subtotal



489,000 265,000 224,000







40 EQUIPMENT





4501
Office equipment (computers, printers, fax, 1/1b UNOPS
25,000
20,000
5,000
etc.) for PIU
4502
Equipment for MIS, web-site development
1/5g UNOPS
5,000 4,000 1,000
etc..
4503
Expendable equipment (PIU)
1/1b
UNOPS

5,000
3,000
2,000
4504
Office Operation and Maintenance
1/1b
UNOPS

60,000
30,000
30,000
4505
Office equipment for Advisory Group(s) and 1.4
UNOPS
36,000 24,000 12,000
NFPs
4506
Monitoring equipment
4.2
UNOPS

150,000
150,000
4506
Expendable equipment (cruises)
3.2
UNOPS

175,000
175,000
4507
Expendable equipment (pilot monitoring
4.3


20,000 10,000 10,000
prog. for NFPs)
4999 Component
subtotal



476,000 416,000
60,000







50 MISCELLANEOUS





5201
Publication of major assessment
1
UNOPS
48,700 20,000 28,700
reports/outputs
5202
Printing and Publication Newsletters
1.5a
UNOPS

17,000
10,000
7,000
5203
Printing and publication posters, bulletins,
1.5b,d UNOPS
20,000 10,000 10,000
public awareness kits
5204
Publication of education study pack (EESP) 1.5e
UNOPS

25,000
15,000
10,000
5205
Publication of farmer training pack (TSC)
1.5e
UNOPS

20,000
5,000
15,000
5301
Communications
1/1b
UNOPS
78,000 40,000 38,000
5302
BSEP MIS and web-site upkeeping
1.5g
UNOPS

20,000
10,000
10,000
5301
Sundries
1.1b UNOPS
4,000 2,000 2,000
5999 Component
subtotal



232,700 112,000 120,700







90
PROJECT TOTAL (OPERATIONAL)



3,703,700
2,243,000 1,460,700







93
Project Support Cost (8%)



296,300








100 GRAND
TOTAL



4,000,000



b. Budget description and abbreviated Terms of Reference

158. The GEF budget will be executed by UNOPS with some activities sub-
contracted to other specialised organisations, notably UNEP. Brief descriptions of
aspects of the budget are included below:

International Project Staff:
a. Core International Staff
159. These experts will be recruited internationally, using processes and procedures
well established by UNOPS and accepted by United Nations member states. Their
salaries and expenses will be paid according to scales regularly reviewed by UNOPS
for UNDP operations world-wide. Five international experts are anticipated in
support of the project. Their detailed Job Descriptions are given in ANNEX I.

Project Coordinator, also referred to as the Chief Technical Adviser, will be
responsible for the implementation of the project at the Project Implementation Unit

93

---

in Istanbul. He/she will implement the workplan within the reporting and
management regulations of UNDP/UNOPS.

Sectoral Reform and Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist will be responsible for
coordinating the programme activities for developing and implementing sectoral
master plans in the Black Sea coastal countries which aim to reduce the nutrient and
toxic substances, and for developing an integrated set indicators. Her/his expertise
will be complementary to that of the Project Co-ordinator in order to provide a wide
base of expertise for project implementation and coordination.

Public Participation Specialist will be responsible for the project elements designed
for enhancing public awareness and participation in the implementation of the Black
Sea Strategic Action Plan.

Data base and information management specialist will be responsible for updating,
further developing and maintaining information system established under the
earlier stages of BSEP in accordance with the needs of the Black Sea Commission
and its subsidiary bodies, and of the current project.

The Economist will coordinate the project activities concerning the review of
management objectives for the Commission in terms of their economic costs and
benefits, and those concerning the use of economic instruments and establishment of
public-private partnerships for the control of eutrophication.


b. Short-term international consultants:
160. Short-term consultants will provide technical inputs to the project activities
carried out at the national and/or regional level, and give guidance on scientific or
methodological aspects. International expertise will be required in the following
themes (detailed Terms of Reference will be prepared by the CTA during project
implementation ­ note that additional consultants will be supplied through sub-
contracts and inter-agency agreements):

ˇ Consultants BSC/ICPDR JWG study
ˇ Consultants for Advisory Group(s)
ˇ Consultants design/interpretation of scientific surveys
ˇ Consultants development of sectoral integration framework
ˇ Consultants economic cost-benefit studies
ˇ Consultants- economic instruments
ˇ Consultant-Public private partnerships
ˇ Consultants-fisheries habitats assessment

National Support Staff
161. The GEF/UNDP has made a commitment to hire local staff to carry out
important functions of the PIU. The staff will include an Administrative Assistant/
Accountant, a Secretary and a Driver. Detailed Terms of Reference will be prepared
by the CTA during project implementation.

Duty Travel
162. These funds are for travel of the PIU staff throughout the region and elsewhere
in support of the Project. Local travel funds are primarily for regional personnel to
attend workshops, meetings, training, and other functions throughout the region.
Government travel funds are to assist officials to attend key technical meetings
during the implementation of the project.

94

---

Mission Costs
163. These include travel for developing and implementing programmes and
projects, particularly review meetings during the course of the project.

National Professional Project Personnel
164. National Professionals and Consultants will be recruited from qualified
candidates from the participating countries to work at the national level. National
Consultants will play an important role in detailed assessment of legislation and
enforcement measures, elaboration of national sectoral master plans and monitoring
performance in relevant sectors. They will reinforce the capacity and responsibility
of the countries to participate in the activities undertaken at the regional level. The
following National Professionals will be recruited according to the rules and
procedures of UNDP/UNOPS. The detailed Terms of Reference will be prepared by
the CTA during project implementation:

ˇ NPPP-BSC/ICPDR JWG technical assessment
ˇ NPPP -Technical reports for Advisory Groups
ˇ NPPP - Design/Interpretation of scientific survey results
ˇ NPPP-National sectoral reviews &draft action plans
ˇ NPPP- cost benefit studies
ˇ NPPP-economic instruments
ˇ NPPP - fisheries /habitats assessment

Subcontracts
165. Much of the work performed by associate organisations and international
agencies will be administered using the mechanism of subcontracts. Subcontracts
may be executed with the individual institutions, agencies, NGOs or other
recognised legal entity to perform specific activities associated with the GEF/UNDP
project. The subcontracts will be based upon specific terms of reference agreed prior
to contract execution. It is important to stress that the subcontracts are assigned on
the basis of comparative advantage for the countries in the region. The budgets
proposed by subcontractors will be carefully assessed to ensure that the maximum
possible use of national consultants and the transfer of benefits to the region. List of
the contracts is given below:
ˇ IAA UNEP (Revised Land Based Protocol/ GPA Implementation Program/
Evaluation of future threats using GIWA and ACOPS methodology)
ˇ IAA-IAEA-QA/QC-intercomparison of data
ˇ Subcontract one or two institute for downloading, interpreting and distributing
satellite data to the regional network participating in the pilot monitoring
programme.
ˇ Subcontract-implementation of 2 scientific surveys
ˇ Subcontracts for sectoral demonstration projects
ˇ Subcontract-institutes for pilot status monitoring programme
ˇ Subcontract-small projects initiative
ˇ Subcontract-wetland conservation report
ˇ Production of TV clip

166. UNDP will administer all sub-contracts other than the inter Agency
Agreements through UNOPS and select appropriate national and international
contractors in close consultation with the Steering Committee.

Fellowship/Meetings

95

---

167. This budget area covers all operational meetings for the project as specified in
the tables of objectives and activities. Funds are also reserved for training activities
for specialists from the region through individual and group training.

Equipment
168. The project will purchase US$ 36,000 office equipment for the national Focal
Points; US$170,000 of equipment (expendable and non-expendable) for institutions
in the region to implement the pilot status monitoring programme. In addition,
expendable equipment of US$ 125,000 will be purchased for the purposes of the two
scientific surveys, while sampling and laboratory equipment will be maintained
through a cost sharing mechanism. The specifications of this equipment will be
developed at the PIU in close consultation with the recipients, Permanent
Secretariat, the ISG and IAEA. Purchases will follow the procurement rules of
UNOPS taking advantage of the special status of UNDP with regard to exemption
from import duties where applicable.

Miscellaneous
169.Costs are included for project reporting (publications, technical documents) for
the PIU and Activity Centres. Sundries are the PIU items (for example postage and
removals) not falling within the other categories. The cost of activities undertaken
by the UNDP country office is included in this general category.

Support costs
170. Eight percent of the costs of the GEF/UNDP Project are made available for
Project Execution.

96

---

97

---

ANNEX I- Job Descriptions for the PIU Staff

1. Job Description- Programme Coordinator


General

The Programme Coordinator shall be responsible for the overall management of all
aspects of the current project. She/he shall liaise closely with the National
Coordinators to be appointed by the beneficiary Government and the representatives
of the GEF partners and other donors, in order to establish the annual work plan for
the programme. The work plan will provide guidance on the day-to-day
implementation of the current project document and on the integration of the various
donor funded parallel initiatives. He/she shall be responsible for all substantive,
managerial and financial reports from the Project. She/he will provide overall
supervision for all staff of the Project Implementation Unit (GEF-PIU) as well as
guiding and supervising all external policy relations. He/she shall consult with, and
coordinate closely with the Principal Project Resident Representative as well as the
respective UNDP officers in all Black Sea Countries.

The responsibilities of the PIU of relevance to this post include:

ˇ establishing basin-wide consultative groups;
ˇ establishment and functioning of national inter-sectoral bodies;
ˇ Reinforcing the legal background and promoting the implementation of
GPA;
ˇ Assisting with the project institutional network , including the Advisory
Groups of the Black Sea Commission and regional Activity Centres for the
tasks specified in the current project document as well as the participation
of NGOs and other stakeholders in project implementation;
ˇ Management of the small grants programme ;
ˇ Diffusing project outputs through newsletters, posters, technical reports,
public information bulletins;
ˇ Developing/updating/maintaining the existing BSEP web site jointly with the
Permanent Secretariat.
ˇ Coordination, where appropriate, of the relevant activities of donors,
participants in the funding and implementation of the overall Black Sea
Environmental Programme;
ˇ Preparation of progress reports concerning programme activities.

Duties

The Programme Coordinator will have the following specific duties:

ˇ to manage the PCU, its staff, budget and imprest fund;
ˇ to prepare the annual work plan of the programme on the basis of the Project
Document, in close consultation with the National Coordinators, GEF
Partners, relevant donors and the Permanent Secretariat;
ˇ to coordinate and monitor the activities described in the work plan;
ˇ to prepare and oversee the development of Terms of Reference for
consultants and contractors;
ˇ to prepare and oversee substantive and operational reports from the
Programme;

98

---

ˇ to assist the Black Sea Commission in the integration of its Secretariat and
institutional network and to plan activities jointly, in accordance with the
Letter of Agreement between the GEF-PIU and the Permanent Secretariat;
ˇ to ensure consistency between the various programme elements and related
activities provided or funded by other donor organizations;
ˇ to foster and establish links with other related Black Sea basin programmes
in particular those for the Danube River Basin and Dnipro, and where
appropriate, with other regional International Waters programmes.


Requirements

ˇ Post-graduate degree in Environmental Management or a directly related
field (e.g. applied marine science, natural resources economics, etc.)
ˇ At least fifteen years experience in fields related to the assignment. At least
ten years experience at a senior project management level. Demonstrated
diplomatic and negotiating skills.
ˇ Familiarity with the goals and procedures of international organisations, in
particular those of the GEF partners (UNDP, UNEP, World Bank).
ˇ Excellent knowledge of English.
ˇ Familiarity with the coastal countries, knowledge of one of their languages
would be an asset.

Duty station: Istanbul, Turkey
Duration: One year on a fixed term contract
Suggested post level P5

99

---

2. Job Description ­ Sectoral Reform and Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist

General

Sectoral Reform and Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist will, under the
supervision of the Project Coordinator, be responsible for coordinating the
programme activities for developing and implementing sectoral master plans in the
Black Sea coastal countries which aim to reduce the nutrient and toxic substances,
and for developing an integrated set of environmental status, process and stress
reduction indicators which will enable the measurement of achievement of
eutrophication control targets (Component II. Objective 4). She/he shall be based in
the Project Implementation Unit (PIU), already established for this purpose. She/he
will closely coordinate with the International Study Group which will plan and
evaluate the results of the special surveys aiming to produce the environmental
status indicators (Component II. Objective 3); and with the project team which will
study the costs and benefits of the actions proposed in the sectoral master plans and
strategies (Component II. Objective 5). His/her duties will include daily
administrative tasks associated with the overall management of the programme.


The responsibilities of the PIU of relevance to this post include:

ˇ organisation of a regional workshop for representatives of each of the three
key sectors (agriculture, industry, urban management) to explore actions to
reduce nutrient emissions;
ˇ Elaboration of sectoral nutrient control master-plans which will incorporate
revisions and amendments in laws and policies, and relevant indicators
(environmental status in the 1st Phase and process and stress reduction
indicators in the 2nd Phase) for government approval;
ˇ Drafting of addenda to the BSSAP in line with the outputs of the above
activity.
ˇ Pilot implementation of the environmental status programme;
ˇ Development of the BSC information base;
ˇ Assessing the economic cost and benefits of the actions proposed in the
sectoral nutrient reduction master-plans.


Duties

The Sectoral Reform and Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist will have the
following specific duties:

ˇ To coordinate the preparation of background documents on policies and
good practices in the three sectors concerned aiming to reduce the emission
of nutrients and other toxic substances in other parts of the world;
ˇ Organise a regional training programme and workshop for representatives of
the three sectors with a view to better acknowledge them with possible
options for the Black Sea countries;
ˇ Design a common strategy and format for the six countries for the
elaboration of national sectoral nutrient reduction reviews , and for the
efficient functioning of the national inter-sectoral committees;

100

---

ˇ Coordinate the work of the inter-sectoral committees for the elaboration of
national sectoral nutrient reduction master-plans and for the identification of
relevant process and stress reduction indicators;
ˇ Facilitate the formal approval process for the sectoral plans;
ˇ Coordinate the synthesis of national sectoral nutrient reduction master-plans
into a regional plan as a supplement to the Black Sea-SAP for submission to
the Black Sea Commission;
ˇ To coordinate with the National Project Coordinators, national inter-sectoral
committees and teams performing other activities under the current regional
project (such as that of the International Study Group or the cost-benefit
analysis) , as well as the World Bank which is implementing sectoral
restructuring and investment programmes under the Partnership Investment
Facility;
ˇ To establish linkages with relevant UN agencies or other global or regional
organisations such as the OECD, EC with a view to obtain their support on
thematic issues and for possible mainstreaming of project objectives in their
work throughout the region;
ˇ Ensure that the information gathered during the activities under his
responsibility are disseminated through publications and/or web-site as
appropriate.

Requirements

Skills and experience required:
ˇ a degree and post-graduate experience in public administration or in one of
the related sectors;
ˇ at least 15 years management experience with the public sector in the field
of agriculture, industry or urban management;
ˇ familiarity with economies of transition and associated needs for
restructuring;
ˇ familiarity with the environmental problems of the region, and with nutrient
reduction policies and practices elsewhere;
ˇ good diplomatic and proven administrative and management skills; and
ˇ full fluency (spoken and written) in English. Working knowledge of another
Black Sea (preferably Russian) language is essential.



Duty station: Istanbul, Turkey
Duration: One year on a fixed term contract
Suggested post level: P4







3. Job Description ­ Public Participation Specialist

General


101

---

The Public Participation Specialist will, under the supervision of the Project
Coordinator, be responsible for the project elements designed for enhancing public
awareness and participation in the implementation of the Black Sea Strategic Action
Plan. Public participation is a complex issue involving the interaction of public and
private sectors and other stakeholders, with a particularly important role afforded to
the NGOs. She/he shall be based in the Project Implementation Unit (PIU), already
established for this purpose. She/he will establish direct working linkages with the
NGO community and with RECs in the Black Sea region as well as with partners in
the Danube and Dnipro basins, and coordinate the implementation of the small
NGO grants programme. The Public Participation Specialist will also take part in
project activities concerning involvement of other stakeholder groups such as the
farmers, fishermen etc. , and with related information dissemination and training
activities. She/he will liaise with corresponding activities of other donors in this
field. His/her duties will include daily administrative tasks associated with the
overall management of the programme.


The responsibilities of the PIU of relevance to this post include:

ˇ Coordinating the implementation of the small projects identified in the PDF-
B Phase;
ˇ Assist with the design of a fully transparent project appraisal mechanism for
the second tranche;
ˇ Provide support to training and education initiatives (such as BSEEP and
Train Sea-Coast for their increased involvement in regional aspects of
eutrophication and for delivery of the products derived through these
initiatives to a wider community;
ˇ Prepare an independent evaluation of wetlands conservation and restoration
in the Black Sea region;
ˇ Develop sectoral nutrient reduction master-plans through a participatory
process;
ˇ Diffusion of information, including through developing and implementing
the BSC information base.
Duties

The Public Participation Specialist will have the following specific duties:
ˇ to coordinate technical support to the Black Sea NGO community for their
easy access to and participation in project activities and outputs;
ˇ to liase with other teams participating in the implementation of the Strategic
Partnership in the Black Sea, Danube and Dnipro River basins, with the
RECs, and with the global NGO networks;
ˇ to liaise with other donors on the implementation of projects which support
public participation/ public awareness in the Black Sea region;
ˇ to coordinate and assist in the implementation of the small grants projects
identified at the PDF-B Phase; produce a final report on implementation
and disseminate information on the products and lessons learned to the wider
NGO community;
ˇ coordinate the preparation of an independent evaluation on Black Sea
wetlands conservation and restoration;
ˇ Assist in expanding the context environmental training and education
programmes to transboundary aspects of reduction of eutrophication, and
in the delivery of such programmes to a larger group of targeted
beneficiaries (with special emphasis on schools , local communities and
farmers);

102

---

ˇ Assist in organising consultations (including meetings) with other
stakeholder groups, for introducing and implementing programme activities;
ˇ Collaborate with the project team working on data and information
management and contribute to the web-site;
ˇ to assist with the administration of the PCU where required by the
Coordinator.


Requirements

ˇ Post-graduate degree in environmental studies or a directly related field.
ˇ At least two years direct experience with the establishment and management
of NGOs and facilitation of stakeholder involvement.
ˇ Familiarity with the problems of the Black Sea region.
ˇ Full fluency (spoken and written) in English and another Black Sea language
(preferably Russian).

Duty station: Istanbul, Turkey
Duration: One year ALD contract
Suggested post level: P2



103

---

4. Job Description - Data base and information management specialist

General
The data base and information management specialist will be responsible for
updating, further developing and maintaining information system established under
the earlier stages of BSEP in accordance with the needs of the Black Sea
Commission and its subsidiary bodies, and of the current project. He/she will work
closely with other projects carried out under the overall BSEP framework (EC and
Tacis projects), with those under the Strategic Partnership, with other information
networks established under regional or international organisations (such as the GEF,
UNEP, EEA, OECD, NATO, etc.) or programmes, and with the NGO community.
She/he shall work under the supervision of the Project Coordinator within the
Project Coordination Unit (PCU), already established for this purpose. His/her
duties will include daily administrative tasks associated with the overall
management of the programme.

The responsibilities of the PIU of relevance to this post include:

ˇ Collection and dissemination of information on policy, economic, scientific
and technical issues related to the programme;
ˇ Coordination, where appropriate, of the relevant activities of donors,
participants in the funding and implementation of the overall Black Sea
Environmental Programme;
ˇ Assistance to the Black Sea Environmental Programme institutional network
including networking of the NGOs and other stakeholders for facilitating
their activities in support of the project.
ˇ Production of technical reports, newsletters and non-technical leaflets and
progress reports concerning programme activities.

Duties
The Information systems and scientific liaison officer will have the following
specific duties:

ˇ to supervise data exchange and the maintenance of the data communications
network between BSEP cooperating institutions;
ˇ to assist the Commission in the establishment of its Advisory Group on
Information and Data Exchange;
ˇ to supervise upgrading of information products (including Black Sea web
site, GIS) developed during the earlier stages of BSEP;
ˇ the upkeep and running of all computer hardware and software in the Unit,
including the establishment of an equipment register. As the IT specialist
he/she will also be responsible for updating and maintaining the BSEP web-
site , the PIU library and the virtual archiving system.
ˇ to liaise with other programmes/projects, donors, and other organisations
involved in establishing and managing scientific and substantial data and
information on the marine and coastal environment, in particular pertaining
to the Black Sea with a view to identify ways in which the Black Sea data
and information can be integrated with on-going programmes.
ˇ Liaise with the Black Sea and other regional NGO groupings to design and
implement a joint umbrella of the Secretariat and the current project for a
communication system with the NGO community (including interactive
web-based means of communication). In undertaking this duty the Database

104

---

and Information Specialist shall be guided by the Coordinator and the Public
Participation Specialist.
ˇ to supervise the production of the Black Sea Technical Series , newsletters
and other publications;
ˇ Preparation of progress reports concerning programme activities;
ˇ Arrange for responding to all outside inquiries regarding the current project,
the Black Sea-SAP, the Commission and any on-going programmes under
BSEP .

Requirements

ˇ Post-graduate degree in environmental science or a field directly related with
the post..
ˇ At least five years experience in similar international posts dealing with
information exchange and international scientific/environmental management
projects.
ˇ Familiarity with the problems of the Black Sea region.
ˇ Proven experience with computer databases and information systems.
ˇ Full fluency (spoken and written) in English and another Black Sea language.
ˇ Experience in training other specialists.

Duty station: Istanbul, Turkey
Duration: One year on a fixed term contract
Suggested post level P3







105

---

5. Job Description ­Economist

General

The Economist will work on the environmental economics aspects of the project.
He/she will work under the supervision of the Project Coordinator within the Project
Implementation Unit (PIU), already established for this purpose. She/he will
coordinate the project activities concerning the review of management objectives for
the Commission in terms of their economic costs and benefits (Objective 5), and
those concerning the use of economic instruments and public-private partnerships
for the control of eutrophication (Objective 7). He/she will closely collaborate with
the project team which will work on sectoral reforms, and on monitoring and
evaluation (environmental status, process and stress reduction indicators). The
Economist will liase with the World Bank team and the individual project teams
implementing the Partnership Investment Facility, the PIU of the Danube River
Basin project and the ICPDR Secretariat, and other organisations (such as the EC)
which support processes (such as accession to the EU) or implement projects in the
Black Sea region with a view to promote synergies in suggesting proper policy
actions or specific economic instruments to the countries in the region, or appraisal
of new public-private partnerships. His/her duties will include daily administrative
tasks associated with the overall management of the programme.


The responsibilities of the PIU of relevance to this post include:

ˇ Coordinating the review of economic instruments used in the beneficiary
countries for environmental protection and elaboration of recommendations
for improvement of such or introduction of new instruments for the control
of eutrophication and pollution by other high priority toxic substances at the
national (Phase 1) and regional (Phase 2) levels;
ˇ Examining the opportunities for public-private partnerships in limiting
nutrients;
ˇ Evaluating the potential of local and/or regional intermediaries as a means of
channelling funding to small/medium sized projects intended for limiting
nutrients and other toxics;
ˇ Introducing new sectoral policies and a system of environmental status,
process, and stress reduction indicators or monitoring the effectiveness of
measures to control eutrophication;
ˇ Support the Commission in its periodic review of adaptive management
objectives (through studying the costs and benefits associated with these);
ˇ Coordinating, where appropriate, with the relevant activities of donors,
participants in the funding and implementation of the overall Black Sea
Environmental Programme.

Duties

The Economist will have the following specific duties:

ˇ Elaborate a joint format for the review of economic instruments used in the
beneficiary countries for environmental protection ; and arrange for the
conduct of the study;
ˇ Liase with the National Project Coordinators, and other project teams
working on issues such as sectoral reforms, indicators, investment projects

106

---

with a view to ensure their participation in the activities under his own
responsibility (lead the establishment and functioning of a contact group);
ˇ Facilitate the process in the countries of the region for the review and for the
elaboration of recommendations on improvement/introduction of new
instruments for the control of eutrophication and pollution by other high
priority toxic substances;
ˇ Organising a regional workshop to exchange information on the findings of
the above review and exploring the prospectives for a harmonised approach
throughout the region;
ˇ to collect and disseminate information on policy, economic, technical and
business issues pertaining to his responsibilities; to participate in the
preparation of the economic and technical reports to be produced by the
project;
ˇ provide assistance to the countries of the region in the assessment of the
costs and benefits of existing and/or planned measures for the control of
euthrophication in the Black Sea; coordinate the study on the costs and
benefits of measures intended for use on a regional scale;
ˇ to liaise with the World Bank team and the individual project teams
implementing the Partnership Investment Facility, the PIU of the Danube
River Basin project and the ICPDR Secretariat, and other organisations
(such as the EC) which support processes (such as accession to the EU) or
implement projects in the Black Sea region with a view to promote synergies
in suggesting proper legal and policy actions or specific economic
instruments to the countries in the region, or appraisal of new public-private
partnerships.
ˇ to liase with the international financial institutions and local/regional
intermediaries with a view to channel funding for small and medium sized
bankable projects intended for nutrient control;
ˇ to assist with the administration of the PCU where required by the
Coordinator.
Requirements

Skills and experience required:

ˇ post-graduate degree in economics, business administration and, preferably
additional qualifications in environmental management;
ˇ at least two years experience in similar posts in international organizations
dealing with environmental management projects;
ˇ familiarity with problems of the Black Sea region; and
ˇ full fluency in English (knowledge of another Black Sea language will be an
asset).

Duty Station: Istanbul, Turkey
Duration: One year on a fixed term contract
Suggested post level P4

107

---

ANNEX II. Terms of Reference for the International Study Group (ISG)

Purpose

The International Study Group (ISG) is an ad-hoc body created exclusively for the purpose of
co-ordinating the scientific studies on eutrophication and the degradation of marine habitats
and communities defined in Component II, Objective 3 of the present document. It is not
designed as a statutory body within the Structure of the Black Sea Commission or its
subsidiary bodies. The ISG is designed to facilitate the best possible scientific advice for the
implementation of the study. It will be cross-disciplinary in nature.

Structure and membership

The ISG will consist of a team of leading specialists selected according to their expertise as
active scientists with a research capability. It will include a broad geographical representation.

The chairperson of the ISG will be a well-recognised active research scientist with expert
knowledge in multiple aspects of the problems of eutrophication in the Black Sea. He/she
should also have a proven knowledge of the management aspects of the research exercise and
good communications skills in the English language. She/he will be selected by the Project
Coordinator, in close consulation with members of the JPMG. The selection should be
completed within one month of the commencement of the project.

The members of the ISG shall consist of 12-14 scientists leading research teams covering the
following specialities:
ˇ Oceanography;
ˇ Marine biology (benthic ecology, planktology, algology, icthiology, systems ecology,
primary productivity, etc);
ˇ Sediment geochemistry (recent diagenesis),
ˇ River chemistry and hydrology,
ˇ Marine chemistry,
ˇ Remote sensing (colour scan imagery),
ˇ Modelling
Members of the group will be selected through a competitive process in which institutions
will nominate research team leaders and present brief proposals of the contribution they
intend to make to the overall research programme. In order to initiate this process, the Project
Coordinator, in consultation with the ISG chairperson, will issue a call for proposals that will
be distributed widely in the Black Sea region. All Black Sea scientific institutions are eligible
to apply. The Programme Executive Board, on the basis of these proposals and the
recommendations of the ISG Chairperson, will select the membership of the ISG. They will
also recommend the inclusion of a small number of key international scientists that are
conducting key research work in the Black Sea of direct relevance to the proposal and that
complement regional know-how. This process must be extremely efficient and has to be
completed within 2-3 months of project start-up. The entire group (including outside
specialists and the chairperson) should not exceed 14 members. The Project Coordinator and
a representative of the Black Sea Commission Secretariat will also be invited to participate in
all ISG meetings in order to ensure close coordination with all relevant aspects of BSEP and
the Black Sea Commission.

Duties and responsibilities of the ISG

The workplan of the ISG is defined in the Black Sea Project Document (Component II,
Objective 3 and Table 1). The group will report its progress through the timely presentation of

108

---

reports and minutes of its meetings to the Project Coordinator. It will also inform the Project
Coordinator of any administrative actions that should be taken or proposed changes in
implementation strategy.

The ISG shall have responsibility for the preparation of the research study plan and for its
scientific implementation following peer review and approval (see Component II, Objective
3). The group will also be responsible, individually and collectively for the interpretation of
the results of the study and the production of its final report.


Convening of meetings

Meetings of the ISG will be convened by the Project Coordinator in close consulation with
the ISG Chairperson.

Financing and management

Financing and management of the group will be the responsibility of the Project co-ordinator
and the relevant staff of the PIU following the procedures of UNOPS.

Cooperation with other bodies

The Project Coordinator and the ISG Chairperson shall ensure that the ISG coordinates its
work closely with other relevant research projects, with the work of the Advisory Group for
Pollution Assessment, the Advisory Group on Biological Diversity and with international
programmes such as GOOS of the Inter-governmental Oceanographic Commission of
UNESCO.






109

---

ANNEX III-
ANTICIPATED UNEP INPUTS TO THE NEW BLACK SEA GEF PROJECT ­
ELEMENTS FOR AN INTER-AGENCY AGREEMENT

Objectives and Rationale

1. The present project is expected to lead the process of reviewing and revising
the legislative background and support further implementation of the GPA
process in the region under the guidance of UNEP through an inter-agency
agreement.

The PDF-B study has established the need for reviewing and revising as appropriate
the existing Protocol on the Protection of the Black Sea Marine Environment
Against Pollution from Land-based Sources. This need is justified by a number of
factors such as:
ˇ The outdated approach (command and control) of the existing Protocol;
ˇ Problems encountered throughout the region in implementing the Protocol;
ˇ Scientific studies, which have revealed that priorities accorded to certain
pollutant categories, do not coincide with actual problems of the Black Sea
(eg. Nutrients)
ˇ Emergence of more comprehensive global and/or regional binding and non-
binding instruments since the adoption of the Protocol in 1992 (eg. GPA);
ˇ The EU accession process which has made compliance with the EU
Framework Water Directive a compulsory requirement for at least three out
of the six coastal countries, hence implying that this policy has to be
incorporated into the regional one;
ˇ The need for developing new binding/non-binding instruments or revising
existing ones other than the LBS protocol, such as the biodiversity or
dumping, in order to be able to fully address the impacts of land-based
activities;
ˇ The need to better incorporate and address the negative impacts caused by
activities beyond the coastal countries.

On the other hand, addressing the negative impacts of land based activities will
require improved planning and phased implementation of a comprehensive set of
activities - such as voluntary agreements and involvement of the private sector,
capacity-building, innovative financing and use of economic instruments and
sharing experiences through reporting- in relation to priority pollutant source
categories identified by the regions to support legislation. The current project aims
to further the development and implementation of these programmes and pilot
activities, in particular for nutrients and other high priority toxic substances.


As an initial step, a Letter of Agreement was concluded between the BSEP and
UNEP in April 2001 (PDF-B Phase) with a view to facilitate the preparatory process
and inputs from the Black Sea coastal countries into the 2001 GPA
Intergovernmental Review of the Global Programme of Action for the Protection of
the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities (GPA). In its May 2001
Meeting, the Black Sea Commission formally decided to take part in the review and
follow-up the implementation process of the GPA at the regional level at a later
date. The Agreement envisages completion of following tasks by November 2001:
ˇ Assessment and analysis of regional GEF projects with relevance to GPA
implementation in the Black Sea region. This is to be undertaken jointly with

110

---

the specialists from the individual GEF projects and other stakeholders with
the purpose of distilling "lessons learned" and for formulating
recommendations for action at a regional and national level.
ˇ National and regional reporting on progress in implementing the GPA
ˇ The Black Sea GPA workprogramme 2002-2006, a multi-stakeholder
workplan identifying, inter alia, opportunities for partnerships with the
private sector and NGOs, opportunities for voluntary agreements with
stakeholders, demonstration projects, within the framework of Strategic
Action Plan for the Rehabilitation and Protection of the Black Sea.

Currently the regional process is continuing. However is suffers a series of
constraints:
ˇ inadequacy of the information base;
ˇ relatively low level of stakeholder participation throughout the region;
ˇ prevailing economic and social conditions.
Given this situation, it is reasonable to suppose that the outputs of this process will
be of a preliminary nature and that the countries of the region will need additional
support to launch and implement the various processes described in the GPA in the
coming years.


2. It is envisaged that the project component on identification and analysis of
emerging transboundary problems and evaluation of the cost effectiveness of
interventions to correct current and emerging transboundary problems will also
be implemented under the guidance of UNEP within this Inter-Agency
agreement.

The work will be designed along the lines of the root cause analysis planned by the
Global International Waters Assessment (or similar root cause analyses developed
for the ACOPS/UNEP/GEF Sub-Saharan Africa MSP). It will enable a
comprehensive analysis of environmental and socio-economic impacts and their root
causes for all relevant issues.


Finance for the following elements has been anticipated in the approved Project
Brief :

Activity 2.1a Preparation of recommendations for the draft LBA Protocol and
joint facilitation (with the BSC) of negotiations on the new
Protocol. This work is a continuation of the PDF-B study.
Activity 2.1b Joint study (GPA Secretariat/ Istanbul Commission) of improving
the implementation of the GPA in the Black Sea.
Activity 2.2. Evaluation of future threats to the Black Sea, the social and
economic root causes of environmental degradation and the cost
effectiveness of interventions to correct current and emergent
transboundary problems (using the GIWA methodology, including
full impact assessment)


Proposed implementation modality

1. Activity 2.1a and 2.1b


111

---

This is now envisaged as a single study having dual complementary objectives. It
will consist of a mission by a small team of UNEP technical experts, together with a
representative of the Secretariat to the Istanbul Commission and/or the relevant
GEF-PIU officer, to all six countries. UNEP should also approach the European
Commission with a view to solicit its support for the overall process and providing
for the participation of an expert representative of DG Environment throughout the
mission in order to ensure compatibility with the WFD.

All experts selected should be fully familiar with the above issues, in particular with
the preliminary work undertaken during the PDF-B phase regarding:
c. background report and draft revised protocol on LBA for the Black Sea
d. process/outcomes of the preparatory process for the GPA Inter-
governmental Review in the Black Sea region (national and regional
process) carried.
The group of experts will review the written material available elaborate a strategy
and a workplan for the mission together with the Secretariat and the GEF-PIU. If
needed, it may be appropriate to hire local experts in the case that information on
national legislation is not fully available.

The agenda of the mission in each country will include the following:
a. Consultations regarding the revised LBA protocol, such as
ˇ Review of the implementation of the current Protocol and obstacles to be
overcome;
ˇ Gaps in the current protocol with respect to (i) national legislation (ii) GPA
implementation (iii) the EC Framework Water Policy (including
implementation of all the relevant Directives, particularly for countries in
accession);
ˇ Current advances toward the establishment of monitoring, compliance and
enforcement arrangements under the protocol in its revised form;
ˇ Reporting and data exchange mechanisms in the revised protocol .
a. Consultations on the work-programme developed in PDF-B phase for the 2002-
2006 with a view to:
ˇ Further discuss the programme and its feasibility with a wide range of
stakeholders, and make recommendations for its updating as appropriate;
ˇ Explore the possibility of identifying new partnerships and pilot projects;
ˇ Identify additional training needs regarding the thematic GPA priorities
(such as the recommendations on sewage)
ˇ Explore synergies in activities to be undertaken at the regional level.

Following the mission(s), the team will prepare a policy paper containing an
appraisal of the above issues. It will suggest elements for a new LBS Protocol, if
this is considered pertinent; evaluate the regional work-programme for the
implementation of the GPA between 2002-2006 and suggest necessary amendments
as appropriate. The team will closely coordinate with the UNEP and/or ACOPS
teams with a view to suggest inclusion of emerging transboundary problems which
are of relevance to the GPA in the next 5 years implementation work-programme for
the GPA (2006 onwards) The policy paper will be distributed to all parties 2 months
prior to joint consultations (see below).

The policy papers and technical recommendations shall be presented to a technical
meeting of the BSC (or more than one if needed). This will involve representatives
and technical advisers selected by the Commissioners. The meeting(s) will be
organised by the PIU and financed by funding provided under Objective 1 of the
Project. For its part, UNEP will use part of the funding made available under

112

---

Activity 2.1 to provide the technical experts required for the meetings (experts that
participated in the mission(s)).

At the end of the technical meetings a draft revised protocol and revised workplan
for 2002-2006 period will be completed for submission to the Commission. It will
enter a formal process of governmental review, approval and ratification to be
determined according to the rules and procedures of the Commission itself.


2. Activity 2.2

This activity should complement the GIWA study already underway in the region. It is
particularly important to harmonise the outputs of the current GIWA study with the work of
the BSC. It is suggested that the studies conducted under the Sub-Saharan Africa GEF MSP
by ACOPS may prove to be the most effective model for conducting this work and that the
study should take full account of the BSEP process and of the BSC.

A full proposal for the completion of this study should be made by UNEP. This
should provide information that enables the impact of current and future patterns of
economic growth to be modelled as a series of viable scenarios. The barriers to
sustainable development of the Black Sea environment should be identified and
proposals should be made for the most cost-effective approach to overcome them.

It is important that this study should include national and international experts fully
familiar with the work of the BSEP in order to channel the results towards future
reviews of the Action Plan and associated documents. A list of such experts shall be
submitted to the BSEP coordinator for comments and suggestions.


113

---

ANNEX IV. DETAILS OF RELEVANT DECISIONS OF THE COMMISSION FOR
THE PROTECTION OF THE BLACK SEA AGAINST POLLUTION (BSC)

ANNEX IV.A -Terms of Reference for the BSEP Joint Project Management Group
(JPMG) and the BSEP Executive Board

COMMISSION ON THE PROTECTION OF THE BLACK SEA AGAINST POLLUTION

Terms of Reference for the
BSEP Joint Project Management Group (JPMG)
and the BSEP Executive Board

1. Objective

The Joint Project Management Group shall operate under the auspices of the Commission for
the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution (Istanbul Commission) and shall constitute
the overall management framework for coordinating and implementing the Black Sea
Environmental Programme (BSEP). The BSEP is an umbrella for national and donor
sponsored multi-country projects aiming improvement of the Black Sea environment. Its
activities are focussed on supporting the implementation of the 'Strategic Action Plan for the
Protection and Rehabilitation of the Black Sea' (BSSAP) which was adopted by the
Ministerial Conference held on 31 October 1996 in Istanbul.

2. Background

The Contracting Parties to the 'Convention on the Protection of the Black Sea
Against Pollution' have established a Commission with a Permanent Secretariat in
order to assist Black Sea Countries to co-ordinate their actions to implement the
Convention. The Secretariat hosted by the Government of Turkey is functioning in
its premises provided by the Republic of Turkey in Istanbul since 15 October 2000.

Prior to the establishment of the Secretariat, joint efforts to develop a regional
action plan and to develop the regional capacity for better environmental
management were supported by GEF through a Programme Co-ordination Unit
(PCU). This support was further strengthened through a series of TACIS, PHARE,
UNDP, and smaller donor initiatives as well as contributions from a number of
coastal states and became widely known as the Black Sea Environmental
Programme.

Effective coordination of activities carried out at the local, national, regional level,
and efficient use of donor assistance in support of these efforts is a prerequisite for
solving transboundary environmental problems in the Black Sea . Within this
context, Article 20 of the BSSAP adopted by the 1996 Ministerial Meeting
suggested the following:

''The Istanbul Commission having agreed to implement this Strategic Action Plan at
its second session, held in Istanbul on September 16-17, 1996, is invited to establish,
by November 1997, a body to provide support for specific projects and processes
related to the implementation of this Strategic Action Plan''.

In line with this recommendation, the PCU of the first regional project was
transformed to a Project Implementation Unit (PIU) as an interim arrangement, and
coordinated/implemented a number of additional donor assistance programmes.
Since its establishment, the PIU has functioned as a donor assistance coordination

114

---

mechanism, assisting the Commission and its recently formed core Secretariat by
delivering needed expertise (in the form of national and international consultants,
GEF project staff, as well as staff from other projects seconded to the PIU), training
programmes, workshops, equipment etc. Unofficially functioning as an interim
secretariat until the Permanent Secretariat is established, the PCU/PIU facilitated
the Black Sea environmental co-operation process and paved the way to the
establishment of a donor assistance coordination mechanism in support of this
process.

3. The Black Sea Environmental Programme

Figure one shows how the Black Sea Environmental Programme will function as an
umbrella for activities in support of the implementation of the Black Sea Strategic
Action Plan (BS-SAP). It is anticipated that each contributing project will have its
own Steering Group and its own personnel, some of whom will work at the
Permanent Secretariat. The structure of the BSEP is designed to coordinate the
various projects within a common overall work-plan, establish a good working
relationship between these projects and specialists, to make best use of the available
facilities, to enable clear management decisions, to avoid conflicts and, where
appropriate, to assist the Permanent Secretariat to perform the tasks that are required
of it by the Commission. In order to ensure adequate policy guidance and
management between various projects executed in support of the Black Sea
Environmental Programme, coordinating arrangements among the projects and their
linkages with the Black Sea Commission and its organs need to be agreed upon. The
key working groups within the BSEP are defined in the following paragraphs:

3.1 The BSEP Joint Project Management Group (JPMG)

The Joint Project Management Group is an integral body established by the
Commission that acts in an advisory capacity in accordance with the
requirements of the Commission and the Contracting Parties. The Joint
Project Management Group (JPMG) consists of
i.
A representative of each Contracting Party (the respective
Commission member), the Commission, and the Executive
Director of the Permanent Secretariat;
ii.
representatives of each of the major donors executing projects
that contribute to the BSEP.
It is important that these representatives should be formally authorised to
speak on behalf of their organisations. The chairpersons of Project Steering
Committees, the Project Coordinators9 , and the Heads of the Advisory
Groups/Activity Centres may also be invited to attend as observers at the
discretion of the Chairman. The working procedure within the JPMG will be
agreed at by the Group and communicated to the Commission.

The chairman of the JPMG will be elected from amongst its officially
nominated members for one year. The BSEP Executive Board described in
section 3.2 will take necessary measures for the provision of secretarial
services for the JPMG. The Executive Director of the Permanent Secretariat
will be responsible for liasing between the JPMG and the Commission, its
Advisory Groups and other organs of the Commission may deem to
establish..

9 The term `Project Co-ordinator' is used to indicate the technical officer who will have direct
responsibility for day-to-day management of the project. In the case of GEF projects implemented by
UNDP, this person is also given the title of `CTA' (Chief Technical Advisor).

115

---

The JPMG will be convened by the Executive Director, will meet at least annually
and will have the following functions:

1. To provide a permanent mechanism for joint planning between donors and the
Commission.
2. To set and implement practical coordinating arrangements for the day-to day
management of the BSEP with a view to make most efficient use of the
resources (human, equipment, information, premises) available.
3. To recommend to the Commission pertinent amendments in the overall
objectives (both short and long-term), structure and management of the JPMG.
4. To establish an annual work-plan and budget for the BSEP, integrating the
support of all donors contributing to the projects implemented through the
Group.
5. Following each year of implementation, to review the previous year of work and
the associated expenditures, suggesting to the Commission and individual donors
the reprogramming of activities where justified, and making any
recommendations as appropriate.

3.2. The BSEP Executive Board

The function of this Board will be to ensure implementation of the work-plan
agreed by the JPMG and the smooth day-to-day coordination between the
various projects within BSEP and the Permanent Secretariat. It consists of
the project coordinators and the Executive Director, and has the power to co-
opt additional members for specific issues that may arise from time-to-time.

The Executive Board will meet at least monthly, with the provision that
extraordinary meetings can be held at the request of any of its members upon
two working days of notice. The functions of the Board will be the
following:

1. To establish its own procedures, in consultation with the JPMG.
2. To coordinate the day-to-day implementation of the work-plan defined by the
JPMG.
3. To share information on project progress or key outside developments.
4. To programme the use of shared facilities, such as office space and equipment,
vehicles, communications.
5. To resolve any personnel disputes that may be brought to its attention.

3.3. The Project Teams

Project staff will be recruited according to the procedures of the individual donors. It
would be normal practice to consult with the Executive Director when making
specific appointments, particularly of staff destined to work in the facilities of the
Permanent Secretariat itself. Each of the teams shall have a team leader (or Project
Co-ordinator) who will participate in the Executive Board.

4. Financing

In accordance with the ''Interim Financial Rules Governing the Program of Actions
Undertaken Within the Framework of the Convention on the Protection of the Black
Sea Against Pollution'', which authorises the Commission to accept contributions
from third countries or from organisations to carry out specific tasks which are in

116

---

accordance with the objectives of the Convention10, the Commission may decide to
use any contributions through projects/processes directly executed under the BSEP
by its Permanent Secretariat, or by specific sub-units within the auspices of the
JPMG, established for executing projects aiming to support all or a group of
Contracting Parties. It is important that the donors contributing to BSEP should
assign funds for the purposes of supporting the functioning of joint bodies (the
JPMG and the Executive Board).

The BSEP shall be financed through project funding, cash and/or in-kind
contributions aiming the protection/rehabilitation of the Black Sea environment that
are provided by bilateral or multilateral donors to all or a group of Contracting
Parties to the Bucharest Convention, or to the Commission itself. Other possible
sources of funding may include:
Contributions by the Governments of the region earmarked for BSEP-JPMG
projects/processes,
Direct transfers from the Commission budget, and
Revenue from sales publications or other items produced through BSEP.

Budgetary arrangements for each project/process will be determined on an
individual basis. However, a budget indicating the overall expenditures shall be
drawn up on an annual basis by the Joint Management Group and presented to the
Commission. Biennial budgets shall be prepared following the first year of
operations. It shall include all contributions, direct or parallel, cash, in-kind or cost-
sharing..

5. Premises

The BSEP will continue its operation in the physical infrastructure of the current
PIU provided by the Government of Turkey as an in-kind contribution to the Black
Sea Commission and to the Black Sea Environmental Programme . In line with the
Article 5 (Item 4) of the 'Headquarters Agreement Between the Government of the
Republic of Turkey and the Commission on the Protection of Black Sea Against
Pollution' which stipulates that ''the Government and the Commission may jointly
agree to allow for the temporary or permanent use of the headquarters by third
parties involved in studies or programmes pertaining to the Black Sea'', the policy
regarding co-location of project within BSEP in the premises of the Commission
will be explicitly declared by the Government and the Commission. Should the
project implementation modalities require so, a separate Memorandum of
Understanding will be concluded between the donor organisation and the
Government. In the absence of specific arrangements for the functioning of any sub-
unit, the Commission and the Executive Director of the Permanent Secretariat will
be responsible for ensuring that the premises are used in conformity with the above
referred Headquarters Agreement.

6. Staffing

The status of BSEP personnel will be defined on a project/process basis in
accordance with the relevant project document and/or the decision of the
Commission pertaining to this activity. The staff recruited by the JPMG under

10 In such cases the Executive Director of the Permanent Secretariat is authorised to establish
special accounts to cover such contributions and report thereon to the Commission. These
contributions should be used and administered in accordance with the rules specified in the
above-referred document and for the activities agreed upon by the Commission.

117

---

separate projects/processes and that of the Permanent Secretariat will liaise closely
on a day-to-day basis and be mutually supportive but with clearly defined individual
responsibilities. Information on BSEP staff will be communicated to the
Government of the host country and to the Commission by the Executive Director.

7. Validation of this Terms of Reference

This agreement shall be validated through letters of consent from the six officially
designated Members of the Black Sea Commission.

118

---

Figure 1: Organigram of the BSEP illustrating its relationship to the
Commission and Donor organisations




Black Sea

Commission




BSEP Joint
Other

Project
subsidary

Management

bodies

Group



GEF
Tacis
Other

Project
project
project

SC
SC
SC




PERMANENT

BSEP


Executive
SECRETARIAT

Board






GEF
Tacis
Other

Project
project Project

Team
team
team




BSEP



















119

---

ANNEX IV.B- HEADQUARTERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF TURKEY AND THE COMMISSION
ON THE PROTECTION OF BLACK SEA AGAINST POLLUTION


The Government of the Republic of Turkey and the Commission on the Protection of
the Black Sea Against Pollution;

Having regard to paragraph 11 of the Article XVII of the Convention on the
Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution;

taking into account paragraph 6 of the Article XVII of the Convention as per which
the headquarters of the Commission and the Secretariat shall be established in
Istanbul;

taking into account paragraph 8 of the Article XVII of the Convention according to
which Representatives, Alternate Representatives, Advisers and Experts of the
Contracting Parties shall enjoy in the territory of the respective Contracting Parties
diplomatic privileges and immunities in accordance with international law;

taking into account the Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the Commission
on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution;

considering that the Government of Turkey is also hosting the Programme Co-
ordination Unit of the regional project entitled "Black Sea Environmental
Programme", the objective of which is to assist the coastal States of the Black Sea
for implementing the Convention, have agreed as follows:


Article I
Definitions

For the purposes of this Agreement:

a) "Convention" means the Convention on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution
signed in Bucharest, 21 April 1992;

b) "Contracting Party" means the State Party to the Convention;

c) "the Commission" means the Commission on the Protection of the Black Sea Against
Pollution established in accordance with paragraph 1 of the Article XVII of the Convention
and includes its Secretariat and other subsidiary bodies;

d) "the Secretariat" means the permanent body of the Commission to be established in
accordance with paragraph 6 of the Article XVII of the Convention;

e) "Government" means the Government of the Republic of Turkey;

f) "the Host Contracting Party" means, as the case may be, the Contracting Party on the
territory of which the Headquarters or premises of the Commission are located, a meeting of
the Commission or of its organ is held and where any staff member of the Secretariat is while
exercising mission for the Commission;

g) "Representatives of Contracting Parties" means Representatives, Alternative
Representatives and other members of delegations sent by Contracting Parties to participate in

120

---

the meetings held by the Commission or its organ, including Advisers and Experts of
delegations.

h) "the Executive Director" means the principal administrator of the Secretariat;

i) "the Officials of the Secretariat" means the Executive Director and other officials appointed
by the Commission and are subject to the staff regulations adopted by the Commission;

j) "the support staff" means the auxiliary, administrative and technical staff appointed by the
Executive Director, including those who are locally recruited and assigned to hourly rates of
payment and are subject to the staff regulations adopted by the Commission.

k) "premises of the Commission" means the buildings or parts of buildings and the land
ancillary thereto, irrespective of ownership, used by the Commission, on a permanent or
temporary basis, to carry out its functions.


Article 2
Interpretation

This Agreement shall be interpreted in light of its primary objective of enabling the
Commission at its Headquarters in the Republic of Turkey (city of Istanbul) to discharge its
responsibilities and fulfil its purposes and functions effectively.


Article 3
Juridical Personality

The Commission shall possess juridical personality. The Commission shall have the
capacity:

a) to contract;
b) to acquire and dispose of immovable and movable property;
c) to institute legal proceedings.
Article 4
Immunity from Legal Proceedings

1. Within the scope of its activities, the Commission shall enjoy immunity from any form of
legal proceedings, except in the case of:

a) civil action by a third party for damages arising out of an accident caused by a
vehicle belonging to or operated on behalf of the Commission, where these damages
are not recoverable from insurance;

b) civil action relating to death or personal injury caused by an act or omission of
the Commission or its staff member.

2. Without prejudice to the provision of paragraph 1 of this article, the property and assets of
the Commission wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search,
requisition, confiscation, expropriation and any other form of interference, whether by
executive, administrative, judicial or legislative action.


Article 5
Premises

121

---

1. The Government shall provide a convenient building to the Commission free of rent for an
unlimited time. The location of the permanent headquarters of the Commission will be
selected in consultation with the Commission. The premises of the Commission may be
changed upon mutual agreement.

2. The Government shall undertake to facilitate the acquisition or hire of additional premises
by the Commission at such time as they may be needed.

3. Any location other than the Commission premises which may be used in
concurrence with the Government for meetings convened by the Parties or the
Commission shall be temporarily considered as a part of the headquarters.

4. The Government and the Commission may jointly agree to allow for the
temporary or permanent use of the headquarters by third parties involved in studies
or programmes pertaining to the Black Sea.

5. The premises of the Commission shall be supplied with necessary public services,
including electricity, water, sewerage, gas, post, telephone, facsimile, telex, modem,
electronic mail, drainage, collection of refuse and fire protection; and that such
public services are rendered on terms not less favourable than that accorded by the
Government to other inter-governmental specialised agencies.

6. The premises of the Commission shall be inviolable.

7. The Government of the Host Contracting Party shall provide appropriate security
consistent with the status of the Commission as an Inter-Governmental Organisation
against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace nearby
or in the premises of the Commission.

Article 6
Funds and Currencies

Within the scope of its functions, without being restricted by financial controls, regulations or
moratoria of any kind, other than exercised by the Contracting Parties jointly, the
Commission:

a) may hold funds, gold or currency, of any kind and operate accounts in any
currency;

b) may freely transfer their funds, gold or currency, from one country to another or
within the Host Contracting Party and convert any currency held by it into any other
currency.


Article 7
Inviolability of Archives

The archives of the Commission shall be inviolable wherever located or by whomsoever held.
The term "archives" means all records, correspondence, documents, manuscripts,
photographs, films and recordings belonging to or held by the Commission or by any physical
or juridical persons nominated by the Commission to this effect.


Article 8

122

---

Expenditures

1. The Government shall meet 40 % of the total amount of initial expenditures regarding the
establishment of the Headquarters of the Commission. The remaining 60 % of the total
amount shall be met by the other Contracting Parties.

For a period of three years, the Government shall meet 40 % of the operational expenses of
the Commission. The remaining 60 % of such expenses shall be met by the other Contracting
Parties.

2. a) Equipment such as computers, printers, CD-ROM units, facsimile and photocopying
machines, modem and other equipment required by the Commission and the Secretariat will
be purchased from the budget of the Commission.

b) Furniture and other office elements/systems will be purchased from the budget of
the Commission.

c) All maintenance and operational expenses regarding (a) and (b) above will be
covered from the budget of the Commission.

d) The running costs, such as electricity and water supply (including air
conditioning/cooling), telephone, facsimile, E-mail and other communication
charges, cleaning, routine keep-up and sanitary services of the Secretariat will be
covered from the budget of the Commission.


Article 9
Exemption from Customs and Excise Duties

1. The Commission, its assets, income and other property shall be exempt:

a) from all direct taxes, including income and corporate taxes: it is understood,
however, that the Commission will not claim exemption from taxes which are in fact
no more than charges for public utility services;

b) from customs duties and restrictions on imports and exports in respect of articles
imported or exported by the Commission for its official use and its publications with
the exception of charges levied for specific services which may be imposed on the
Commission by reason of such imports and exports; it is understood, however, that
articles imported under such exemption will not be sold in the country to which they
were imported except under conditions agreed to with the Government concerned;

c) for the purposes of this article, the term duties means custom duties, taxes and
related charges which are established, or can be established, in accordance with
regulations of the respective Contracting Parties.

2. The Commission shall not, as a general rule, claim exemption from excise duties and from
taxes such as VAT on the sale of services or movable and immovable property which form
part of the price to be paid. Nevertheless, when the Commission is making important
purchases for official use of services or property on which such duties and taxes have been
charged or are chargeable, the Government of the concerned Contracting Party shall,
whenever possible, make appropriate administrative arrangements for the remission or return
of the amount of duty or tax.



123

---

Article 10
Communications and Publications

1. The Commission shall enjoy, in the territory of Turkey, for its official communications,
treatment not less favourable than that accorded by the Government to other UN specialised
agencies in the matter of priorities, rates and taxes on mails, cables, telegrams, radiograms,
telephotos, telephone and other communications, and press rates for information to the press,
television and radio.

2. No censorship shall be applied to the official correspondence and other official
communications of the Commission.


Article 11
Contacts with the Government

The Executive Director is authorised to contact the Government directly for issues pertaining
to the activities and to the day to day management of the Secretariat. However the counterpart
of the Government on substantial issues shall be the Commission through its Chairman.


Article 12
Representatives of the Contracting Parties
and the Chairman of the Commission

1. Representatives of Contracting Parties and the Chairman of the Commission, while
exercising their functions and during their journeys to and from the place of meetings, enjoy
the diplomatic privileges and immunities as stated in paragraph 8 of the Article XVII of the
Convention. This provision is not applicable between a representative and the authorities of
the Contracting Parties of which he or she is a national or a permanent resident.

2. Privileges and immunities accorded to persons, mentioned in paragraph 1 of the present
article, are intended to safeguard the independent exercise of their functions in connection
with the Commission and are not for the personal benefit of the individuals themselves.
Consequently, it is incumbent on a Contracting Party to waive the immunity of its
representatives or national acting as the Chairman of the Commission, if in the opinion of the
Contracting Party, the immunity would impede the course of justice, and where it can be
waived without prejudice to the purpose for which the immunity is accorded.


Article 13
Officials of the Secretariat

1. Officials of the Secretariat shall be immune from legal processes in respect of words
spoken or written and all acts performed by them in the exercise of their official functions or
to produce official correspondence and documents relating thereto;

2. Officials of the Secretariat except those who are the nationals of the Republic of Turkey
and permanent foreign residents shall enjoy within and with respect to the Republic of Turkey
the following privileges and immunities:

a) Exemption from taxation in respect of salaries and emoluments paid to them by
the Commission and on the same conditions as are enjoyed by the officials of the
United Nations of comparable rank in the territory of the Republic of Turkey in

124

---

accordance with the "Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United
Nations" (1946);

b) Exemption in respect of themselves, their spouses and their dependents of under
age 18 from immigration restrictions, aliens registration, from all personal services,
from all public services of any kind whatsoever, and from military obligations such
as those connected with requisitioning, military contributions and billeting in the
territories of the Republic of Turkey;

c) Privileges in respect of exchange facilities as are accorded to officials of
comparable rank of United Nations of comparable rank in the Republic of Turkey, in
accordance with the "Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United
Nations" (1946);

d) With their spouses and relatives dependent on them, the same repatriation
facilities in time of international crises as accorded to officials of comparable rank
of the United Nations in the territory of the Republic of Turkey, in accordance with
the "Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations" (1946);

e) The right to import free of duty their furniture and effects at the time of first
taking up their post in the Republic of Turkey, as provided for by the "Convention
on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations" (1946) with respect to
officials of the United Nations.

If the officials of the Secretariat on the termination of their functions export
furniture and effects to which this paragraphs applies, they shall be exempt from any
customs duties, except payments for services, which may be imposed by reason of
such export.

3. Privileges and immunities are granted to officials in the interests of the Commission only
and not for the personal benefit of the individuals themselves. The Commission shall have the
right and the duty to waive the immunity of the officials of the Secretariat, including the
Executive Director in any case where, in its opinion the immunity would impede the course of
the justice and can be waived.

4. With the purpose of facilitating the performance of their functions, identification cards with
the same effect of the residence permits shall be issued to them, their spouses and their
dependents of under age of 18, by the Government.


Article 14
Support Staff of the Secretariat

1. The support staff of the Secretariat are under no obligation to give evidence concerning
matters connected with the exercise of their functions, or to produce official correspondence
and documents relating thereto;

2. The support staff of the Secretariat except those who are the nationals of the Republic of
Turkey and permanent foreign residents in its territory:

a) shall with respect to services rendered for the Secretariat be exempt from any
obligations in regard to work permits imposed by the laws and regulations of the
Republic of Turkey concerning the employment of foreign labour;


125

---

b) shall be exempt from dues and taxes on wages which they receive for their
services;

c) shall be exempt of all personal services, from all public of any kind whatsoever
and from military obligations such as those connected with requisitioning, military
contributions and billeting in the territory of the Republic of Turkey.


3. With regard to the support staff of the Secretariat except those who are the nationals of the
Republic of Turkey and permanent foreign residents in its territory, the Government shall
issue identification cards in conformity with their status. These identification cards will be
used in 1ieu of residence permits.

4. The Executive Director shall have the right and the duty to waive the immunity of a
member of the support staff provided for in paragraph 1 of this article in any case where, in
his or her opinion the immunity would impede the course of justice and can be waived.



Article 15
Social Security

The provisions of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, dated 18 April 1961 shall
be applicable to the officials of the Secretariat in matters concerning social security.


Article 16
Cooperation

The Commission shall cooperate at all times with the competent authorities of the
Government to facilitate proper administration of justice, to secure the observance of police
regulations and to prevent the occurrence of abuses in connection with the privileges,
immunities and facilities mentioned in Articles 13 and 14 above.


Article 17
Notification of appointments

The Executive Director shall annually send to the Government, a list of all the officials and
support staff of the Secretariat. The Executive Director on behalf of the Commission shall
inform the Government when an official of the Secretariat takes up or relinquishes his duties.
The Executive Director shall in each case indicate whether or not the individual concerned is
a national of or resident in the Republic of Turkey.


Article 18
Amendments

The Commission and the Government may at any time propose an amendment to this
Agreement and it can be amended through negotiation between the Commission and the
Government.


Article 19
Settlement of Disputes

126

---

Any dispute that may arise from the interpretation and implementation of this Agreement
shall be resolved through negotiation between the Government and the Commission.


Article 20
Entry into force and termination

The present agreement shall enter into force on the date following the day the Depositary
receives written information from the Government of Turkey on the ratification of this
agreement in accordance with the national procedures, and shall be valid as long as the
location of the headquarters is in Istanbul.

In the event of the headquarters of the Commission being moved from the territory of the
Republic of Turkey, this Agreement shall cease to be in force after a reasonable period
required for such transfer and the disposal of the property of the Commission in the Republic
of Turkey upon the decision taken by the Contracting Parties.



Done in Istanbul, on the 28th day of the month April two thousand in the English and Turkish
languages, in three copies, both texts being equally authentic which are going to be
maintained by the Depositary, by the Government of the Republic of Turkey and by the Black
Sea Commission.







On behalf of the Commission
On behalf of the Government of the
Republic of Turkey

127

---

ANNEX IV.C


Revised Work-plan of the Secretariat of the Istanbul Commission for the first year of its activity (2000-2001)




I. Establishing the Commission and Secretariat network

Area of Work
Activity
Partners
Status
Timing
1
Establishment of the office and accounting
Commission-Secretariat
Done November
system as well as the general administrative
15, 2000
practices of the secretariat
2
Establishment of the necessary Advisory
Commission-Secretariat
Done March
2001
Groups
3
Exchange of letters of agreement and
Secretariat
Done
December
cooperation with similar bodies such the
2000
Barcelona Commission, OSPARCOM,
HELCOM, etc, Black Sea Economic
Cooperation, European Commission,
specialised UN Agencies (UNEP, IOC,
IMO etc) and international non-
governmental organisations









II. Policy Actions

Area of Work
Activity
Partners
Status
Timing

128

---

4
Establishment of harmonized Water Quality Meeting of Advisory
Tacis and Phare
June 12-
Objectives and Water Quality Standards in
Group on Pollution
13, 2001
order to reduce the inputs of pollutants
Monitoring and
Assessment ­ Consultants
5
Establishment of a Regional Pollution
Meeting of Advisory
Tacis and Phare Done
March 1-2
Monitoring System in compliance with the
Group on Pollution

, 2001
Bucharest Convention. The programme will Monitoring and

integrate the national pollution monitoring
Assessment-Consultants-
programme. An independent quality
National Monitoring
assurance system will be developed.
Authorities
6
Define concentration levels for trace
Meeting of Advisory


June 14-
contaminants in dredged spoils, in
Group on Pollution
15, 2001
accordance with article 3 of the Protocol on Monitoring and
Dumping to the Bucharest Convention
Assessment-Consultants
7
To agree upon and implement a uniform
Meeting of Advisory
WHO, EC

June 28-29,
measurement technique and reporting
Group on Land Based
(Tacis-Phare)
2001
procedure for bathing water quality with a
Sources-Consultants
common quality assurance support
mechanism
8
Procedures for monitoring the actual
Advisory Group on


April 19 ­
discharge of effluent at point sources
Control of Pollution from
20
Land Based Sources-2
2001
meetings
9
To develop a draft text of a protocol on
Advisory Group on the
TACIS Done

Biological Diversity and Landscape
Conservation of

Protection to the Bucharest Convention
Biological Diversity-
Consultants
10
To develop a harmonised system of port
Advisory Group on
Danish EPA,
Done
state control through the adoption of a
Environmental and Safety
IMO
Memorandum of Understanding on Port
Aspects of Shipping-
State control
Consultants
11
To finalize the National and Regional Advisory Group on
IMO
Regional May 14-

129

---

Contingency Plans
Environmental and Safety
Plan
15
Aspects of Shipping-
finalized
Consultants
12
Establishment of a harmonized system of
Meeting of Advisory
Phare, FAO

June 21-
fish stock assessment
Group on Fisheries and
22
other Marine Living
Resources-Phare
consultants
13
The elaboration and adoption of a Black
Each Black Sea country
Temporari
July 5-6
Sea Coastal Code of Conduct based upon
will establish the
ly
the Black Sea National and Regional
legislative bases for the
cancelled
Policies and Strategies and, as a guideline
adoption of said document
document, The Council of Europe's
in accordance with the
European Code of Conduct for Coastal
Strategic Action Plan
Waters".
14
The co-ordination of increasing the public
-The Black Sea Newsletter Black Sea NGO


awareness on the Bucharest Convention and will be published jointly
Forum,
Action Plan
with the PIU;
International
-Each Black Sea state will NGOs
publish a popularized
version of its Strategic
Action Plan;
-Developing and updating
the Commission Home
Page on Internet;
-An information package
for use in schools will be
produced and translated
into all Black Sea
languages
-Implementation of
regionally coordinated

130

---

public awareness
campaigns, including
programs for schools,
local communities and
natural resources users.
15
Annual regular Commission Meeting




16
Co-ordination and participation in meetings of

Members of the


other bodies of relevance to the Commission
Commission,
tasks
Secretariat
Staff, AC
Directors


131

---

Budget of activities to be undertaken under the Convention on the Protection of the Black
Sea Against Pollution for the year 2001/2002

A. Revenues (Assessed contribution)


Country Share of Percentage(%) USD

Bulgaria
12 43 560

Georgia 12 43 560

Romania 12 43 560

Russian Federation 12 43 560

Republic of Turkey 40 145 200

Ukraine 12 43 560


TOTAL 100 363 000



B. Costs
1. Operational costs
1.1 Purchase and maintenance of equipment 3 000
1.1.1 Office furniture, upholstery, carpeting
1.1.2 All other office equipment



1.2Communication charges 22 000

1.2.1 Telephone, fax, postage


1.3 Purchase or subscriptions of books, newspapers, magazines 2 000


1.4 All kind of stationary 4 000


1.5 Temporary assistance (Miscellaneous) 3 000

1.6.1 Interpretation or translation

1.6.2 Secretarial work

1.6.3 Consultancy

1.6.4 Expertise

1.6.5 Vehicle renting


1.6
Representation
1 000


1.7 Unforeseen costs 5 000


Sub-Group Percentage: 10.47% Sub-Group Total 38 000



The contributions of Georgia and the Russian Federation for the financial year 2000/2001 are not included
in the income part of the budget

132

---

2. Personnel costs
2.1 Salaries, wages, medical/social


130 000
2.1.1 Director (1) - 4 500
2.1.2 Officer (2) - 7 000
2.1.3 Accountant (1) - 700 (half-time)
2.1.4 Secretary (1) - 1 300
2.1.5 Medical/social insurance

Sub-Group Percentage: 35.81% Sub-Group Total 130 000



3. 3. Activities included in the Work Programme

3.1 Meetings 185 000
2.2.1 Transportation
2.2.2 Per-diems
2.2.3 Representation


1.3 Publications 10 000

1.3.1 Secretarial documents, meeting reports

1.3.2 Information and promotional material
1.3.3 Annual report (yearbook), maps, card, etc

Sub-Group Percentage: 53.72% Sub-Group Total 195 000







GRAND TOTAL



363 000

133

---

Workplan of the Secretariat of the Istanbul Commission for the second year of its activity (2002-2003)




I. Improvement of the Commission and Secretariat network capacity

Area of Work
Activity
Leading
Partners
Agencies
1
Improvement of the institutional capacity of Maintenance of the
BSC-

the Commission
office and accounting
Secretariat
system as well as the
improvement of the
general administrative
practices of the
secretariat
2
Methodological guidance of the Advisory
Approval of the ToRs
BSC-

Groups
of the Ags,
Secretariat
establishment of a
reporting mechanizm
3
Enlargement of the cooperation with other
Preparation of draft
Secretariat BSEC
organizations of relevance
MoUs between the
PABSEC
Commission and BSEC
and PABSEC
4.
Direct involvment in project coordination
Establishment and
BSC-
UNDP-GEF
activities
participation in the
Secretariat
Black Sea
Joint Management
Environmental
Committee for the new
Programme PIU
GEF project
5.
Establish joint mechanisms between the Istanbul Establishment of a
BSC,
EC DGE,
Commission and the ICPDR for implementing
joint working group
Secretariat
UNDP-GEF
and strengthening the MOU agreed at their
and convening a joint
ICPDR
spring 2000 meetings.
meeting of the BSC and

ICPDR

134

---

6.
Establish joint mechanisms for cooperation
Establishment of
BSC,
UNDP-GEF
between the Istanbul Commission and the other
working contacts and
Secretariat
existing formal river basin commissions in the
preliminary talks
Black Sea Basin

7.
Enhancement of the commission capacity in Integration of an
PIU
DRs, ACs and
the practical studies field
international study
BSC,
Technical Focal
group (ISG) to plan and Secretariat
Points, Specialists
conduct the practical
UNDP-GEF
from Academies of
studies. Formulation of
Science selected on
the detailed study plan
scientific merits and
(eutrophication and
experience.
hazardous substances)
and its submission to
peer review.
Appointment of
(existing) remote
sensing centre.
8.
Improvement of the information support of
Develop and implement BSC, BSEP
ICPDR, EC DGE
the decision making process
ICBS information base
PIU, UNDP-
GEF
9.
Annual
commission
BSC/secretar

Meeting
iat


II. Policy Actions

Area of Work
Activity
Leading
Partners
Agencies
10.
Finalization of the definition of harmonized Meeting of Advisory
BSC
BSEP PIU
Water Quality Objectives and Water
Group on Pollution
Secretariat,
UNDP-GEF
Quality Standards in order to reduce the
Monitoring and
Tacis
inputs of pollutants and setting up an
Assessment ­
appropriate timeframe for their introduction Consultants

135

---

in the environmental management practice
of the states
11.
Initiating of the implementation of the
Meeting of Advisory
BSC
Tacis
Regional Pollution Monitoring System in
Group on Pollution
Secretariat,
compliance with the Bucharest Convention. Monitoring and
Tacis
The programme will integrate the national
Assessment-
pollution monitoring programme. An
Consultants-National
independent quality assurance system will
Monitoring Authorities
be developed.
12.
Incorporating environmental status
Meetings of the PMA
UNDP
BSC members,
indicators in the new monitoring
AG, training of the
BSC/PIU
National MoEs,
programme and its approval by the BSC
personnel of the
Designated
Establishment of QA/QC procedures
designated national
institutions
including intercomparison exercises
monitoring institutions
Tacis
13.
Define concentration levels for trace
Joint meeting of
BSC
BSEP PIU
contaminants in dredged spoils, in
Advisory Group on
Secretariat
IMO
accordance with article 3 of the Protocol on Pollution Monitoring
UNEP
Dumping to the Bucharest Convention
and
Assessment/Emergency
and safety Aspects of
Shipping-Consultants
14.
To agree upon and implement a uniform
Meeting of Advisory
BSC
WHO
measurement technique and reporting
Group on Control of
Secretariat
procedure for bathing water quality with a
Pollution from Land
common quality assurance support
Based Sources-WHO,
mechanism
Adoption of Draft
bathing water
monitoring programme
15.
Procedures for monitoring the actual
Advisory Group on
BSC

discharge of effluent at point sources
Control of Pollution
Secretariat
from Land Based
Sources

136

---

16.
Finalization of the draft LBS Protocol to
Preparation of
UNEP

the Convention
recommendations for
BSEP PIU
the draft LBS Protocol
BSC/Secretar
and joint facilitation
iat
(with the ICBS) of
negotiations on the new
Protocol. This work is
a continuation of the
PDF-B study.

17.
Evaluation of future threats to the Black
Full impact assessment, UNEP

Sea, the social and economic root causes of
using the GIWA
BSEP PIU
environmental degradation and the cost
methodology
BSC
effectiveness of interventions to correct
Secretariat
current and emergent transboundary)
problems
18.
To finalize the draft text of the Strategy on
Meetings of the
BSC
BSEP PIU
Biological Diversity and Landscape
Advisory Group on the
Secretariat
Protection and prepare a Regional
Conservation of
Tacis
Biodiversity Protection Action Plan
Biological Diversity-
Consultants
19.
Improvement of wetlands conservation and
Independent report on
BSEP, BSC

restoration in the region
wetland conservation
Secretariat
and restoration in the
WB
Black Sea region
WWF
20.
Support to the process of concluding the
Meetings of the
UNDP
FAO
regional Fisheries Convention negotiations, Advisory Group on
BSEP/GEF
particularly in relationship with the need to
Fisheries, joint meeting BSC
protect key habitats.
with the AG on the
Conservation of
Biological Diversity-
Consultants

137

---

21.
Increasing the knowledge on the
Assessment of
UNDP
FAO
transboundary aspects of the fisheries in the transboundary
BSEP/GEF
Black Sea
populations of fish
BSC
species and their
relationship with
current fishing
practices
22.
To finalise the National and Regional
Meeting of the
BSC
IMO
Contingency Plans
Advisory Group on
Secretariat
Environmental and
Safety Aspects of
Shipping- Consultants

23.
Elaboration and adoption of a Black Sea
Each Black Sea country BSC
BSEP
Coastal Code of Conduct based upon the
will establish and
Secretariat
Black Sea National and Regional Policies
present the legislative
Tacis
and Strategies and, as a guideline
bases for the adoption
document, The Council of Europe's
of said document in
European Code of Conduct for Costal
accordance with the
Waters".
Strategic Action Plan;
Meeting of the ICZM
Ag
24.
Promoting the intersectoral cooperation for
Thee regional
UNDP
MoEs
the reduction of the nutrient input to the
workshops, each for
BSEP PIU
Relevant national
Black Sea
representatives of one
BSC
authorities
of the three key sectors
(agriculture, industry,
municipalities),
together with ICBS
officials, experts, etc.,
to explore actions to
reduce nutrient

138

---

emissions
25.
Promoting public-private sector partnership Examine opportunities
UNDP
BSC members
for public-private
BSC/Secretar
MoEs
sector partnership in
iat
Designated
measures to limit
BSEP PIU
representatives
nutrients (e.g.
Private sector
introduction of
organizations
phosphate-free
(Chambers of
detergents, new
commerce, etc.)
technology, organic
farming, etc.). To be
co-ordinated by the
PIU economist.
26.
Evaluate the potential of the local and/or
Identification and
UNDP
Finance sector
regional financial intermediaries (eg.Black
subsequent
BSEP PIU
Sea Regional Development Bank) as a
consultations with the
BSC
means of channeling funding to
possible local and
Secretariat
small/medium sized bankable projects
regional financial
related to nutrient limitation and habitat
intermediaries, report
restoration.
27.
Preparation of the Ministerial Meeting in
Preparation of ToR for
BSC/Secretar
EC DGE
the fall of 2001
a EC-funded project to
iat
BSEP PIU
support the meeting
MoEs
Working out the basic
meeting documents
Technical support
28.
Cooperation with other international
Representing the
BSC/Secretar

programmes and organizations, especially
Commission at
iat
in the case observer status is granted to the
meetings, conferences,
BSC
workshops and other
for a, presentations,
delivering lectures,

139

---

reports, etc.
29.
Introduction of the principles of the EU
Review of the
BSC
ICPDR
Water Framework Directive in the
implications of the
Secretariat
Activities of the Commission
enacting of the
EC DGE
Directive.
Establishment of an ad
hoc working group
30.
Preparatory process and input of the black
Cooperation with
BSEP PIU

sea Region to the "Inter-governmental
UNEP/GPA for the
UNEP
Review" of the Global Programme of
regional and national
BSC
Action for the Protection of the Marine
contribution of the
Environment from Land-based Activities
Black Sea countries to
(GPA)
review the
implementation of the
GPA and preparation
of a five years
implementation
program
31.
Co-ordination of increasing the public
Support to the Black
BSEP PIU
Black Sea NGO
awareness on the Bucharest Convention and Sea NGOs and BSEEP
BSC
Forum/Network,
Action Plan Increasing the public
for increased
Secretariat
International NGOs
participation in the Black Sea process
involvement in regional Tacis
aspects of reduction of
eutrophication and for
work on environmental
education in schools.



140

---

Draft provisional budget for the activities to be undertaken under the Convention on the
Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution for the year 2002/2003

A. Revenues (Assessed contribution)


Country Share of Percentage(%) USD

Bulgaria
12 43 560

Georgia 12 43 560

Romania 12 43 560

Russian Federation 12 43 560

Republic of Turkey 40 145 200

Ukraine 12 43 560


TOTAL 100 363 000




B. Costs
1. Operational costs

Purchase of equipment and Maintenance
3 000


1.2 Communication charges 22 000



1.3 Purchase or subscriptions of books, newspapers, magazines 2 000


1.4 All kind of stationary 4 000


1.5 Temporary assistance (Miscellaneous) 3 000



1.6
Representation
1 000


1.7 Unforeseen costs 5 000


Sub-Group Percentage: 10.47% Sub-Group Total 38 000



2. Personnel costs

2.1 Salaries, wages, medical/social insurance 130 000

Sub-Group Percentage: 48.80% Sub-Group Total 170 000




141

---

2. Activities included in the Work Programme

3.1 Meetings 185 000


1.3 Publications 10 000

Sub-Group Percentage: 42.70% Sub-Group Total 155 000



GRANDTOTAL


363 000

142

---

ANNEX IV.D

Draft Memorandum of Understanding
between
the International Commission for the Protection of the Black Sea (ICPBS)
and
the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR)
on common strategic goals

The `International Commission for the Protection of the Black Sea (ICPBS)' was established
to implement the `Convention on the Protection of the Black Sea against Pollution'. This
Convention is a `shoreline convention', i.e. it itself holds no power over the inland activities
of the States within the hydrographic drainage area discharging to the overall Black Sea
(Black Sea proper, Sea of Azov).

The `International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR)' was
established to implement the `Convention on Cooperation for the Protection and Sustainable
Use of the Danube River'. This Convention is a `hydrographic basin convention' , i.e. it itself
holds power over the transboundary impact via the drainage network of the River Danube
Basin (valid only for Contracting Parties to this Convention).

This Memorandum of Understanding becomes effective as soon as it has been agreed upon in
the respective Meetings of both Commissions mentioned and an exchange of letters has taken
place. It looses its effectiveness as soon as one of both the International Commissions
mentioned notifies the other.

This Memorandum of Understanding constitutes a framework for implementing common
strategic goals.

Representatives of the ICPBS and the ICPDR with the assistance of UNDP/GEF and UNEP
set up on December 8 and 9, 1997, a Joint Ad-hoc Technical Working Group (`the Group') in
a Meeting at Constanta, Romania. The following elements of this Memorandum of
Understanding correspond with the results of `the Group':

ˇ For the purpose of this Memorandum, the term `overall Black Sea' encompasses the
Black Sea proper and the Sea of Azov as water bodies receiving inputs via inland
waters. Both the Black Sea proper and the Sea of Azov are in regard to their ecology
and their response to discharged pollution completely different water bodies and their
ecosystems are to be considered separately.

ˇ The term `Black Sea Basin' refers to the basin determined by the hydrographic
boundary of all inland waters discharging to the overall Black Sea and the surface
area of the overall Black Sea.

ˇ The results of the studies on the `Ecological Indicators of Pollution in the Black Sea'
carried out in the frame of the activities of the Joint Ad-hoc Working Group, have
given evidence of recovery in Black Sea ecosystems. However, the ecological status
of the 1960s ­ which is deemed to be the goal to aim for ­ is not yet reached.

ˇ There is in general agreement that the status of Black Sea ecosystems is largely
affected by nutrients discharged within the wider Black Sea Basin, and to a large
extent by the riverine input into the overall Black Sea. Information of a possible role

143

---

of other sources of pollution and their impacts on Black Sea ecosystems was not yet
available.

ˇ The size of the pollution loads reaching the overall Black Sea (dispersion both in time
and in space for the Black Sea proper and the Sea of Azov) are either not known, or
information is missing on the comparability of the data available.

ˇ `The Group' was aware of the decline of the economic activities in the countries in
transition, the possible impact of them on the discharge of pollution, and the reversal
of such a trend in case of future economic development (concerning in particular
agricultural and industrial activities).

ˇ The data available to `the Group' to undertake its assessment ended at best with
values for the year 1997.

In order to safeguard the Black Sea from a further deterioration of the status of its ecosystems
the `Commission for the Protection of the Black Sea against Pollution' and the `Commission
for the Protection and Sustainable Use of the Danube River' to achieve the following
common strategic goals:

ˇ The long-term goal in the wider Black Sea Basin is to take measures to reduce the
loads of nutrients and hazardous substances discharged to such levels necessary to
permit Black Sea ecosystems to recover to conditions similar to those observed in the
1960s.

ˇ As an intermediate goal, urgent measures should be taken in the wider Black Sea
Basin in order to avoid that the loads of nutrients and hazardous substances
discharged into the Seas exceed those that existed in the mid 1990s. (These
discharges are only incompletely known.)

ˇ The inputs of nutrients and hazardous substances into both receiving Seas (Black Sea
proper and Sea of Azov) have to be assessed in a comparable way. To this very end a
common Analytical Quality Assurance (AQA) system and a thorough discussion
about the necessary monitoring approach, including the sampling procedures, has to
be set up and agreed upon between the ICPBS and the ICPDR..

ˇ The ecological status of the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov has to be further assessed,
and the comparability of the data basis has to be further increased.

ˇ Both the reported input loads as well as the assessed ecological status will have to be
reported annually to both the ICPBS and the ICPDR.

ˇ Strategies for economic development have to be adopted to ensure appropriate
practices and measures to limit the discharge of nutrients and hazardous substances,
and to rehabilitate ecosystems which assimilate nutrients.

ˇ Based on the annual reports and on the adopted strategies for the limitation of the
discharge of nutrients and hazardous substances, a review shall be undertaken in
2007. It will have to focus on the further measures that may be required for meeting
the long-term objective.

The ICPDR and the ICPBS invite all other international organisations and States in the wider
Black Sea Basin to support the common goals of this Memorandum of Understanding.

144

---

ANNEX V.
Tacis Regional Action Programme 2000

Terms of Reference (21 May 2001)

Technical assistance in support of the Black Sea Environment Programme


Table of contents:

1. Background ________________________________________________________________ 147
1.1
Problem _______________________________________________________________ 147
1.2
Intervention logic _______________________________________________________ 149
1.3
Institutional setting______________________________________________________ 149
1.4
Tacis support___________________________________________________________ 150
1.5
Other donors support____________________________________________________ 154
2. Objectives __________________________________________________________________ 154
2.1
General _______________________________________________________________ 154
2.2
Long-term objective of the BSEP __________________________________________ 154
2.3
Objectives of present Tacis assistance ______________________________________ 155
3. Scope of work_______________________________________________________________ 155
3.1
General _______________________________________________________________ 155
3.2
Assistance for developing Secretariat activities _______________________________ 157
3.3
Reinforcement of the capabilities of the RACs _______________________________ 160
4. Required outputs ____________________________________________________________ 166
5. Required inputs _____________________________________________________________ 166
5.1
Budget ________________________________________________________________ 166
5.2
Staff __________________________________________________________________ 167
6. Coordination _______________________________________________________________ 169
7. Monitoring and evaluation ____________________________________________________ 170
8. Logistics and Timing _________________________________________________________ 170




Additional information (on floppy disc:
1.
Evaluation of the Tacis Interstate Programme in Environment", Final report,
30 September, 2000.
2.
Completion Reports of Phase 1 on the Tacis 1996 and 1997 Funds for the
Black Sea Environmental Programme
3.
Completion Reports of Phase 2 on the Tacis 1996 and 1997 Funds for the
Black Sea Environmental Programme
4.
Control of eutrophication, hazardous substances and related measures for
rehabilitating the Black Sea ecosystem, GEF/UNEP/WB, 14 documents

145

---

5.
Minutes of donor meeting of 5 February 2001

146

---

Background


Problem

The Black Sea is a virtually landlocked sea with few exchange of water with the
Mediterranean. It is surrounded by six countries: Bulgaria and Romania along its
western rim, Ukraine and the Russian Federation along its northern rim, Georgia
along its eastern rim and Turkey along its southern rim.

The Black Sea ecosystem has been damaged in the last decades. It continues to be
threatened due to:
ˇ Inflow of high loads of nutrients nitrogen and phosphorous causing massive
eutrophication problems;
ˇ Inputs of harmful substances like oil, metals and pesticides originating from
transport, industry and not sustainable agriculture;
ˇ Discharge of untreated or insufficiently treated sewage which results into the
presence of microbiological contaminants which constitute a threat to public
health and pose a barrier to the development of tourism and aquaculture;
ˇ Uncontrolled solid waste dumps in wetlands and along the shores finally ending
up into the Black Sea;
ˇ Introduction of exotic species seriously damaged the Black Sea ecosystem and
constitutes a threat to the adjacent Mediterranean and Caspian Seas;
ˇ Inadequate resources management, in particular inadequate policies with respect
to fisheries and coastal zone management.

The economic losses related to lost opportunities for tourism and the fishery sector
have not been assessed in detail. However, indicative calculations show that, in case
of beach tourism alone, actions leading to a 20% improvement in Black Sea water
quality could generate $550 million in annual economic benefits to coastal
economies. This estimate does not include expected benefits to human health and
fisheries.

This shows that restoration of the quality of the Black Sea is not only important
from an environmental point of view. Also from an economic point of view a
recovery of the Black Sea is of vital importance for the Black Sea countries in
revitalising their economies.

Institutional change is hesitant. Despite participation in the Black Sea
Environmental Programme (BSEP) activities, countries in the region have been slow
to prioritise their environmental problems and are reluctant to treat transboundary
problems as urgent. The scarce resources available for economic and social
improvement are going to sectors, which are expected to provide more immediate
and visible results11.
Ministries of Environment encounter difficulties in ensuring that environmental
management systems are being put in place.


11 None of the three countries: Ukraine, Russia and Georgia has selected "Environment" as a priority area for
their national programmes to be supported by Tacis. This implies that practically no synergy may be
expected between the Black Sea Environmental Programme and the national programmes co-funded by
Tacis. This is different for Bulgaria and Romania where substantial amount of funding is available from
ISPA funds.

147

---

The challenge, which the region now faces is to reverse environmental degradation of the
Black Sea environment at a time when economic recovery and further development are being
pursued as a first priority.

148

---

Intervention logic

There is a general agreement among the Black Sea countries that the above factors constitute
a serious risk of losing valuable habitats and landscape and ultimately, the biodiversity and
productivity of the Black Sea ecosystem.
In the beginning of the nineties this growing concern among the six Black Sea countries on
the condition of the Black Sea resulted into a concerted multi-country action to save its
resources.
In 1992 the six countries signed the Convention for the Protection of the Black Sea against
Pollution ("Bucharest Convention"), which was subsequently ratified and entered into force
in 1994.
The Black Sea Environmental Programme was initiated in June 1993 at the request
of the governments of the Black Sea countries. It is funded by the Global
Environment Facility (GEF) and a number of donors and managed by the United
Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in close co-operation with the World
Bank and other donors.

The long-term objective of the Black Sea Environmental Programme is the rehabilitation and
protection of the Black Sea as well as sustainable development of the region. The programme
enables the Black Sea countries to implement the environmental policies and targets laid
down in the Bucharest Convention and Odesa Declaration, and detailed in the regional and
national Black Sea Strategic Action Plans.

The regional Black Sea Strategic Action Plan (BSSAP) was signed by all six Ministers of
Environment of the six Black Sea countries in October 1996. This Action Plan sets out a
strategy for rehabilitation and protecting the Black Sea in the next decades.


Institutional setting

The Commission of the Convention of the Black Sea against Pollution (Black Sea
Commission) and its subsidiary bodies have received the task of co-ordination of
implementation of the Black Sea Strategic Action Plan.
To this aim the Black Sea Commission is assisted by the "Permanent Secretariat of
the Black Sea Commission" or simply the "Secretariat". The Director of the
Secretariat is Mr Plamen Dzhadzhev. Furthermore, the staff of the Secretariat
includes Mrs Oxana Tarasova, Pollution Monitoring and Assessment Officer.
According to the regulations for the staff of the Secretariat there should be four
additional officers, responsible for the control of land-based sources of pollution,
biodiversity, environmental information and environmental law. However, it is not
affordable for the coastal states to operate a full-scale Secretariat for the time being.
The Secretariat is being assisted by the Black Sea Programme Implementation Unit
(PIU), which has its office in the same premises as the Secretariat in Istanbul.
This PIU was set up because after the first phase of the Black Sea Environmental
Programme came to an end in January 1998 and, in the absence of the Secretariat,
there was nobody to oversee the continuation of activities initiated by the Black Sea
Environmental Programme. However, article 20 of the Black Sea Strategic Action
plan states: "The Istanbul Commission having agreed to implement this Strategic
Action Plan at its second session, held in Istanbul on September 16-17, 1996, is
invited to provide support for specific projects and processes related to the
implementation of this Strategic Action Plan".
Consequently a meeting of the Commission held on 10-12 December 1997 in
Constanta, proposed establishing a Programme Implementation Unit (PIU) as a

149

---

subsidiary body of the Istanbul Commission and as a successor to the Black Sea
Environmental Programme Coordination Unit (PCU).
The PIU would bridge the gap between the end of the activities of the PCU and the
establishment of the Secretariat. Since 1998 the PIU has been co-financed by Black
Sea countries, UNDP, DG Environment and other donors.
The PIU will continue to operate within the framework of the Commission as long as the
Black Sea countries will need technical assistance from international donors.

The tasks of the PIU are operational and include:
ˇ Help the Secretariat to perform its duties in the sectors not covered by the
technical officers of the Secretariat and to establish a working Secretariat;
ˇ Co-ordination between the countries through the national co-ordinators ensuring
timely implementation of the activities within the Black Sea Environmental
Programme;
ˇ Providing assistance to the Secretariat in operation and maintenance of an
electronic communication system between the Advisory Network members and
establishing a reliable clearing house for the exchange of information on
bibliography, data sources and research programmes;
ˇ Support to the Secretariat in communication with International Funding
Agencies, seeking their support for implementation of the Black Sea Strategic
Action Plan;

Management of the Advisory Network comprising 6 Regional Activity Centres and
30 Focal Points was a task of the PIU as well. This is being done now predominantly
by the Secretariat

The basic function of the PIU is to provide substantial input for the preparation and
implementation of the GEF (Global Environment Facility) funded nutrient reduction
programme (see paragraph 1.5).
As indicated above the PIU is envisaged to disappear when the Secretariat will be
fully staffed and well functioning.

For more information reference is made to the home page of the PIU at
http://www.blacksea-environment.org/PCU_PIU.html.


Tacis support

Tacis started to support the activities of the Black Sea Environmental Programme as
from the budget year 1995:

BUDGE AMOUNT
PROJECT END
DATE
T
IN M
YEAR
95
0.149
Black Sea Pollution Monitoring
9 Jan 97
95
0.150
Feasibility Study Reception Facilities Black Sea Ports
23 Apr 97
95
1.5
Tacis/Phare 1995 Funds for the Black Sea Environmental
18 Dec 99
Programme
96
0.018
Black Sea Environmental Programme
8 Sep 97
96
0.052
Batumi Dolphinarium
6 March 98
96
1.6/2.0 Tacis 1996 and 1997 Funds for the Black Sea
8 Nov 99
Environmental Programme - Phase 1
97
3.0
Tacis 1996 and 1997 Funds for the Black Sea
1 Jan 2001
Environmental Programme ­ Phase 2

150

---

The above projects were financed from the "Tacis Interstate Programme in
Environment". The whole programme was evaluated last year.
The general conclusions of this evaluation for the Black Sea related projects were
that these projects were highly relevant. However, the Black Sea Environmental
Programme focused too much on actions and solutions at inter-state level. The need
for supporting the Black Sea Environmental Programme with national level
measures was insufficiently recognised in the Black Sea Environmental Programme
as well as in the Tacis project design.
A firm conclusion from the Black Sea projects was that the effectiveness and
efficiency of the Tacis Interstate Programme was limited by amongst others lack of
national follow-up.
The report also highlights that the Regional Activity Centres focused too much on
national issues rather than on co-ordination of activities in and amongst the six
riparian countries as is the intention according to the relevant paragraphs of the
Bucharest Convention.


151

---

Recommendations for activities on the international level included:
ˇ Continuation of support of Tacis to the work of the Secretariat through the PIU
is of crucial importance for concerted action of the riparian countries to tackle
the problems of the Black Sea. A working Secretariat supported by PIU is a pre-
condition for the start up of a nutrient reduction programme financed from GEF,
which is considered vital to reach the objectives of the Black Sea Strategic
Action Plan.
ˇ Preparation or finalisation of the following key documents:
1. Integrated water quality and biodiversity monitoring programme/strategy for
the Black Sea including financing of the start up of implementation of water
quality monitoring.
2. Update of the inventory of past and present pollution of the Black Sea
including a proper priority setting for pollution parameters (so far there are
only indicative data on different sources of pollution exist).
3. Pollution reduction strategy, specifying how to start up reduction of
pollution of priority pollutants in a cost-effective manner by each of the
riparian countries.
4. Biodiversity recovery strategy for the Black Sea.
ˇ Re-focus on the regional support and coordination function of the Secretariat
and its subsidiary bodies like the Regional Activity Centres.

Recommendation was made that on the national level national well-targeted
programmes should be identified to the support the activities for Russia, Georgia
and Ukraine. These programmes should include a number of concrete projects,
which may serve as pilots for replication.
Assistance to the financing of concrete projects by Tacis should not only be
considered in the form of Technical Assistance. Also assistance to financing of the
projects themselves should be considered.

For more detailed information on the above projects and the their assessment
reference is made to the "Evaluation of the Tacis Interstate Programme in
Environment", Final report, 30 September, 2000. This report is attached as annex 1.
The Completion Reports of Phase 1 and Phase 2 on the Tacis 1996 and 1997 Funds
for the Black Sea Environmental Programme have been attached as annex 2 and 3.

The above recommendations have been taken into account in defining the "Tacis
Regional Action Programme 2000" as demonstrated in chapter 3.

The present project is a logical continuation of the earlier activities. It is financed
from the "Tacis Regional Action Programme 2000".
This programme contains two components for the Black Sea:
ˇ Continued technical assistance in support of the Black Sea Environment Programme
(BSEP) in order to implement the provisions of the Bucharest Convention. Particular
emphasis is being laid on enabling three Regional Activity Centres (RACs) in Batumi,
Krasnodar and Odesa to become sustainable entities with a regional function recognised
by all coastal countries. It also proposes to support the centres in collaborating with the
Secretariat to prepare and ensure the adoption of regional environmental management
strategies and procedures, which will help to reverse the decline of conditions. Public
awareness activities will form a key part of the work. This project will support relevant
components of the Black Sea Strategic Action Plan.
ˇ Investment preparation component aiming to identify and prepare projects in the Black
Sea region for investment in future programmes. E.g. World Bank, EBRD and GEF are
expected to co-finance substantial investment projects.

152

---

Co-financing of programmes and projects require considerable work to be done up-
stream. Therefore this component will be dedicated to ensuring adequate project
preparation and quick and satisfactory disbursement of funds on projects, which have
been identified as priority pollution hot spots.

The first mentioned continued technical assistance support is subject of this Terms of
Reference. The investment preparation component will be implemented parallel to the present
project.


153

---

Other donors support

No detailed overview of the total funding by donors since the start up of the
programme in 1992 is available. However GEF/UNDP provided around 10 M so
far. DG Environment provides currently 0.15 M /year to support the Secretariat.

UNDP, in association with UNEP and the World Bank, will implement a major GEF
financed programme on "Control of eutrophication, hazardous substances and
related measures for rehabilitating the Black Sea ecosystem". This programme will
run parallel to the present project.
The long-term objective of this programme is "to assist the beneficiary countries to
take measures to reduce nutrient levels and other hazardous substances to such
levels necessary to permit Black Sea ecosystems to recover to similar conditions as
those observed in the 1960s". For more information on this vital programme
reference is made to annex 4.
The present project has been designed to supplement the above GEF project.

A donor coordination meeting for the Black Sea and Danube River took place on 5
February 2001 in Brussels hosted by the European Commission. Minutes of this
meeting are attached as annex 5.



Objectives


General

The Black Sea is a region of strategic interest for the European Union because it
forms the interface between three countries applying to join the Union and four
NIS12. It is also a region where international and national rivalries have been intense
and whose stability is important.

Environmental degradation in the last four decades has lead to loss of biodiversity, loss of
fisheries and tourism revenues as well as to deterioration of public health, which jeopardises
economic recovery.


Long-term objective of the BSEP

The long-term objective of the Black Sea Environmental Programme (BSEP) is the
rehabilitation and protection of the Black Sea as well as sustainable development of the
region.
This implies for all 17 Black Sea basin countries to take measures to reduce emissions of
pollutants13 to such levels necessary to permit Black Sea ecosystems to recover to conditions
as observed in the 1960s. It was also emphasised that the intermediate target for the countries
in transition is to take measures to preserve the nutrients input at the level of 1997 taking into
account their economic growth.

12 Moldova is not a littoral country but the country also contributes to pollution of the Black Sea through the
Danube and Dniestr. In total 17 countries are situated in the Black Sea basin and discharge their rainwater
surplus (partly) into surface water ending up into the Black Sea.
13 Including nutrients and other hazardous substances. The GEF financed project focuses specifically on
nutrients.

154

---

In addition to reduction of pollution, the Black Sea Environmental Programme identifies
living resources management and sustainable human development as key areas.
The programme enables the Black Sea countries to implement the environmental policies and
targets laid out in the Bucharest Convention and Odesa Declaration, and detailed in the
Regional and National Black Sea Strategic Action Plans.


Objectives of present Tacis assistance

The Black Sea region forms an area of significant concentration of Tacis funds, whose overall
objective is to support national and international efforts to reverse environmental degradation
as a prerequisite for a return to economic growth.

The overall Tacis objective will be pursued through:
1. Assisting in securing investments in projects of strategic importance;
2. Technical assistance to capitalise on earlier Tacis and other international and
national efforts to ensure that the expertise gained in the BSEP implementation
remains available to support institutional and legislative changes and to underpin
investments as well as to continue establishing the framework for broader
environmental improvement.

Support for investments is included in the "Investment preparation component" as
described at the end of paragraph 1.4

The specific objectives of the present project include:
1. Work with the individual Regional Activity Centres to assist them to establish
their regional credibility and financial sustainability.
2. Maintain and develop the impetus of each of the Regional Activity Centres
technical work programme under the aegis of the Secretariat.
3. Assist the Regional Activity Centres to play their part in completing key
regional strategy documents including monitoring, priority setting for pollution
reduction, biodiversity recovery, improvement of the management of the coastal
zone, information and data exchange.
4. Continue the successful information preparation, dissemination and public
awareness activities of earlier Tacis support. The evaluation of the "Tacis
Interstate Programme in Environment" (annex 1) indicates that public awareness
raising was one of the most successful components of previous Tacis sponsored
projects.
5. Support specific activities of the Secretariat to become a fully operational
Secretariat.



Scope of work


General

The activities of the Regional Activity Centres have been divided as follows:
1. Environmental and safety aspects of shipping in Varna, Bulgaria;
2. Pollution monitoring and assessment in Odesa, Ukraine;
3. Pollution from land based sources in Istanbul, Turkey;
4. Integrated coastal zone management in Krasnodar, Russia;
5. Biological diversity in Batumi, Georgia;
6. Fisheries and other marine living resources in Constanta, Romania.

155

---

The Secretariat, temporarily assisted by the PIU, is responsible for information and data
exchange in which also the above-mentioned Regional Activity Centres and Focal Points play
an important role.

As indicated earlier the present activities will build on previous activities. The status of the
activities is described in detail in the annexes. The present status may be summarised as
follows:
1. A draft integrated Water Quality Monitoring Programme for the entire Black Sea has
been produced and was discussed on expert level (Advisory Group). Preparation of an
integrated assessment and monitoring strategy and programme are still needed.
So far no adequate concerted monitoring of the water quality of the Black Sea has taken
place on the regional level. Therefore, no proper trend evaluation is possible based on the
existing data, which is caused by absence of reliable data during a sufficiently long
period.
The Regional Activity Centre in Odesa is responsible for co-ordination of this activity
and to guide the national focal points in the other 5 countries.
2. The
Black Sea Pollution Assessment was prepared under the GEF programme. It was
published in 1998 and is based on data of 1997 and earlier. However, this assessment
was fragmentary in scope and not sufficiently Black Sea countries driven which would be
required to ensure the sustainability of the pollution monitoring and assessment system.
3. The GEF sponsored Black Sea Strategic Action Plan (BSSAP) dates back to 1996 and
may need upgrading and adjustment to the latest information and conditions. This is
critical because of its importance related to well targeted funding of investment projects.
4. A first draft Biodiversity Monitoring Programme for the Black Sea was also produced
under the GEF programme. It needs further development to be integrated into the Joint
Monitoring and Assessment Program. Although some scattered information is available
no adequate concerted monitoring of biodiversity of the Black Sea has taken place so far,
which would allow for a reliable trend assessment. This is caused by lack of reliable
monitoring data during a sufficiently long period. This program should be an integral part
of the joint assessment and monitoring program.
5. A
draft
Biodiversity Protocol was prepared recently as one of the outputs of the earlier
Tacis programmes. The draft Protocol with the amendments has been sent to the members
of the Advisory Group for comments. It is expected that the draft will be presented to the
Commission meeting in May 2001 and possibly submitted to the Ministerial meeting in
October for approval.
6. A
draft
Biodiversity (Recovery) Strategy for the Black Sea was also produced recently as
an output of the previous Tacis project. It should be developed further along with the
Action Plan and submitted to the Advisory Group and thereafter to the Commission for
approval.
7. A
strategy and action plan for landscape conservation and protection, similar to the
above Strategy document. should be produced.
8. Negotiations on a new Fisheries Convention for the Black Sea are assisted by the FAO14.
They are currently stalled but countries seem to be ready to take up the discussion again.

The scope of activities for this project are defined below:
1. Providing of assistance for developing Secretariat activities including public
awareness raising and dissemination of knowledge and information, see
paragraph 3.2.
2. Capacity building of the Regional Activity Centres to work regionally as well as
capacity building of the focal points paragraph 3.3.


14 Food an Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations

156

---

Tenderers may suggest minor variations to tasks listed below if they feel that this would
improve the project.


Assistance for developing Secretariat activities

The scope of this component includes:
1. Finalisation and adoption of the Water Quality Monitoring Programme and development
of the Environmental Assessment and Monitoring Strategy and Integrated Monitoring
and Assessment Program for the Black Sea (joint activities of all advisory groups).
2. QA/QC system and regional database on the state of the environment both for chemical
and biological monitoring.
3. Finalisation and adoption of the Biodiversity Monitoring Programme as a component of
the integrated assessment and monitoring program.
4. Finalisation and adoption of the Biodiversity (Recovery) Strategy and Action Plan.
5. Finalisation and adoption of the Biodiversity and Landscape Conservation Protocol.
6. Provide assistance to the Secretariat in finalisation and adoption the Fisheries
Convention.
7. Upgrading the existing Black Sea Pollution Assessment. Development of the
comprehensive strategy for the assessment and the necessary guidelines.
8. Preparation of a cost-effective Pollution Reduction Strategy based on selected priorities.
9. Finalisation of a strategy on effective land use and related coastal zone management
procedures to help control pollution.
10. Dissemination of information and public awareness raising and promotion of scientific
co-operation.
11. Upgrading the information exchange, regional databases and networking between the
Secretariat, Activity Centres and Focal Points.
12. Other tasks.

In terms of logistics a number of the above strategic documents should have been finalised
before the activities in the Regional Activity Centres may start effectively. In the proposal the
tenderer is expected to propose an adequate timing of the activities specified below.

Ad 1 and 2/Water quality
Adequate water quality monitoring is of vital importance for allowing trend assessment,
which on its turn allows for verification of the results of measures taken by the Black Sea
countries as well as for adequate priority setting. Therefore, the start-up of systematic water
quality monitoring of the whole Black Sea according to the Water Quality Monitoring
Programme is of vital importance for success of the Black Sea Environmental Programme.
This will also form one of the components for the creation of a regional database on the state
of the environment.
The existing draft Water Quality Monitoring Programme and the Water Quality Objectives
will be reviewed by the Contractor in co-operation with the Advisory Group on Pollution
Monitoring and Assessment and the Secretariat, and amendments discussed and proposed, if
required, along with necessary involvement of the focal points of the all Black Sea countries.
Development and adoption of the indicators for the assessment of the state of the environment
of the Black Sea and for efficiency and effectiveness of the measures undertaken by the Black
Sea countries is considered important. This would be an important tool for the Commission
and decision makers.
The recently (December 2000) adopted EU Water Framework Directive should be taken into
account when implementing the review.
Close cooperation should be sought with the GEF nutrient reduction programme and the
Odesa Regional Activity Centre. As indicated above the Regional Activity Centre Odesa has
the task to co-ordinate water quality monitoring by all Black Sea countries. It will be the task
of the Contractor to assist the Regional Activity Centres in implementing this task.

157

---

The GEF programme provides some funding for monitoring of nutrients and both
programmes should be implemented in a concerted way thereby avoiding duplication.
The Secretariat is responsible for adoption of the Water Quality Monitoring Programme and
the Water Quality Objectives by the Commission.

Ad 3,4 and 5/Biodiversity
Between the 1960s and 1990s the Black Sea was transformed from a balanced and divers
ecosystem, supporting a rich variety of life, to a system, which is dominated by eutrophication
and truncated planktonic food chains. Illustrative is for instance that the number of
commercial fish species declined from 26 in the 1960s to only 5.
The Biodiversity Monitoring Programme, the Biodiversity (Recovery) Strategy and
the Biodiversity Protocol exist in draft form.
Although e.g. the present "Strategy document" (Rev2, November 2000) contains a substantial
amount of valuable information the document is certainly not a strategy document listing
priorities and actions for short, medium and long term. E.g. the listing of threats to
biodiversity in the Black Sea in chapter 3 of the document is not complete. The ctenophore
Mnemiopsis leidyi (jelly fish), which is flourishing without controls from top predators, is
even not mentioned in this chapter.
Proposals have been made to introduce predator species to control the growth of
Mnemiopsis leidyi. However, the impression exists that not all consequences for the
bio system as a whole are clear and some experts think that it might be better if the
ecosystem would find its own new equilibrium.
From the available reports appears that some species have disappeared but also new
species have been "discovered" recently. It is not really known if they have been
introduced recently or just not been discovered earlier. This underlines the
importance of the start-up of systematic monitoring of biodiversity in the Black Sea
as a whole in accordance with the Biodiversity Monitoring Programme.
At this stage it is not clear if further processing of the Biodiversity Protocol is
effective, not having a clear Strategy available.
The Biodiversity Monitoring Programme, the Biodiversity (Recovery) Strategy and the
Biodiversity Protocol should be carefully reviewed taking into account the EU habitat
Directive and the EU Birds Directive.
Close cooperation should be sought with the Batumi Regional Activity Centre in the
finalisation of the above-mentioned strategic documents. As indicated earlier the Regional
Activity Centre of Batumi has the task to co-ordinate biodiversity issues among the Black Sea
countries. It will be the task of the Contractor to assist the Centre in implementing this task in
close consultation with the Secretariat.

Ad 6/ Fisheries
The adoption of a Convention on fisheries is conditional for a recovery of
biodiversity in the Black Sea. Therefore activities related to this subject are closely
linked to the activities listed above. The Contractor is expected to review the
existing draft Convention taking into account also the recently published green
paper of the EU Commission on fisheries.

In the inception phase an assessment will be made by the Contractor in how far
assistance is required complementing the activities of the FAO.

Ad 7 and 8/Pollution
Because of the fact that the existing Black Sea Pollution Assessment is getting outdated an
update is required as a basis for the preparation of a cost-effective Pollution Reduction
Strategy based on selected priorities. One of the Secretariat's tasks is a periodical update of
this Assessment. This activity is closely linked to the activities under "Water quality" above.
Close co-ordination should be sought with the GEF project with a broad involvement of the

158

---

local expertise from all Black Sea countries with emphasis on the sustainability and
comparability for future assessments.

Ad 9/ Land use and coastal zone management
Finalisation of a strategy on effective land use and related coastal zone management
procedures is of strategic importance to help control pollution. Although a substantial amount
of work has been done, still an adopted strategy does not exist yet. It is also not clear if the
recently adopted EU Water Framework Directive has been taken into account in the work
done so far.
The Commission will need the strategy and action plan for landscape protection and
conservation as it reflected in the Protocol.
The Contractor shall assist in finalising the strategy to such an extent that the Secretariat is
able to propose it for adoption. Close cooperation should be sought with the Krasnodar
Regional Activity Centre in the finalisation of the strategy. As indicated earlier the Centre in
Krasnodar has the task to co-ordinate this issue among all Black Sea countries. The task of the
Contractor includes to assist the Centre in implementing its coordination task.

Ad 10 and11/ Dissemination of information and public awareness raising and
promotion of scientific co-operation
Under the previous programme activities have been undertaken like exhibitions,
production of posters, teaching materials, organisation of the Black Sea Action day,
small grants programme, support to the Ocean Day, Wetland Protection Action Day
and information campaigns were held.
Implementation of activities related to public awareness raising and dissemination
of knowledge and information is also a core activity of this project. This may
include all effective actions to reach decision makers and the general public.
Expanding the present home page of the Secretariat in order to make available all
relevant information to decision makers, scientists and the public in electronic form
is a crucial element of this component.
Most of this information is coming from the Activity Centres and Focal Points.
Information exchange and networking between the Secretariat, Activity Centres,
Focal Points and other regional databases should be upgraded.
The Contractor is expected to provide input to accomplish both tasks.


159

---

Ad 12/Other tasks
Other tasks may include the provision of assistance to preparation of strategic documents and
activities as well as to assistance to regional and local authorities in upgrading of small
proposals related to implementation of the Black Sea Strategic Action Plan and to be
submitted for international financing. Also assistance may be provided to the Secretariat for
the organisation of the next donor meeting.


Reinforcement of the capabilities of the RACs

This programme will primarily focus on 3 Regional Activity Centres:
1. Pollution monitoring and assessment in Odesa, Ukraine;
2. Integrated coastal zone management in Krasnodar, Russia;
3. Biological diversity in Batumi, Georgia.


Regional Activity Centre Odesa

The Regional Activity Centre in Odesa adopted the regional task to oversee and coordinate
water quality monitoring in the Black Sea. Under previous Tacis programmes it received
considerable support in terms of technical advice, analytical equipment and chemicals.
The planned output of the phase 2 project was "Laboratory staff trained to a
standard, which allows them to successfully meet any national requirements and
international obligations under the Black Sea Environmental Programme".
The Ukrainian Ministry of Environment is presently finalising the statutes of the
Odesa Centre including the necessary provisions for regional activities and future
support. The Terms of Reference for the Advisory Group on Pollution Monitoring
and Assessment has been adopted by the Advisory Group and will be submitted for
the Commission's approval.
As soon the clear work plan will be submitted to the Ministry on the regional
activities by the Odesa Centre the Ministry is expected to allocate the necessary
financial support to the Centre in a sustainable way.
However, the present financial situation of the Centre is reportedly rather weak. In order to
meet the objectives of this project of establishing its regional credibility and financial
sustainability it is of utmost importance to increase the income of the Centre.
For details on the results of previous support reference is made to the phase 2 report
attached as annex.

The scope of activities for this sub-component include:
1. Preparation and providing assistance to the start-up of the implementation of the
business plan, mission statement, strategy and work plan.
2. Establishment of a sustainable quality assurance and quality control system
which is one of the basic responsibilities of the Activity Centre and the Advisory
Group. The set of technical guidelines should be discussed, developed and
adopted by the Advisory Group through the Odesa Centre. Information databases
and a regional information network shall be developed in a sustainable way
through the compatible interfaces between the focal points of all Black Sea
countries.
3. Implementation of a water quality monitoring programme in the Ukrainian part
of the Black Sea and co-ordination of similar monitoring activities by the focal
points in the other 5 countries in accordance with the Water Quality Monitoring
Programme.
4. Set-up of an information database and a regional information network.

Ad 1: Business plan, mission statement, strategy and a work plan (if required)

160

---

Presently the Centre is too dependent on scarce resources from the national budget. More
activities will have to be developed, which should contribute to a more stable financial basis.
In addition to its basic mission the Centre may have to acquire other skills as well.
In the inception phase the Contractor will assess the financial situation of the Centre and
evaluate the present and planned financing mechanism by the Ukrainian Ministry of
Environment.
This will determine if this activity is considered required. If the answer is yes, then the output
of this component will be a realistic business plan, a mission statement, and a strategy and a
work plan for the Odesa Regional Activity Centre. Providing assistance to implementation of
the plans is within the scope of this project. Whenever required adjustments will have to be
made during its implementation.

Ad 2: Quality assurance and quality control system
The output will be a quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) system, the
necessary technical guidelines, and a system of indicators in place. This system will be
introduced first of all in the Odesa Activity Centre and shall include accreditation as
well. This will be followed up by accreditation of laboratories of other Black Sea
countries.

Ad 3: Implementation of a water quality monitoring programme
It is important that the Centre will start to use its knowledge and skills acquired in the last
years. The best way to do this is to get involved in real monitoring of water quality.
To this aim the Odesa Centre will implement or ensure monitoring of the part of the Black
Sea for which Ukraine is responsible.
In Ukraine the State Committee on Hydrometeorology is formally responsible for monitoring
of rivers and some marine points close to river mouths and some ports. Reportedly the
UkrSCES (Ukrainian Scientific Centre of the Ecology of the Sea)/RAC is responsible for
ecological monitoring of the economic zones of the Black and Azov Seas. Both organisations
belong to the Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources of Ukraine.
In order to realise its regional task the Odesa Centre will, assisted by the Contractor, guide the
focal points in the other countries and assist these focal points technically and financially with
the implementation of monitoring of their part of the Black Sea whenever required.
Emphasis will have to be laid on key parameters as identified in the monitoring programme.
Because of budgetary limitations priorities may have to be set in terms of terms of the scope
of parameters and intensity of monitoring. This prioritisation exercise will also include the
assessment of the necessity of sampling sediments and biota in addition to water sampling.
This activity will also include a number of seminars including participants from the Centre
and the Focal Points.
Special attention will be given to coordination with the (limited) nutrient monitoring
assessment programme under the GEF programme. This nutrient monitoring program should
be an integral part of the integrated assessment and monitoring program.

Ad 4: Set-up of an information database and a regional information network
Efficient exchange of data between the Secretariat, the Focal Points, decision
makers and the general public is of utmost importance to ensure adequate use of the
data, which are being produced under the above described activities. See also the
above-defined tasks of the Secretariat, especially: Ad 10 and 11.


Regional Activity Centre Krasnodar

The Regional Activity Centre in Krasnodar deals with integrated coastal zone management
and covers issues related to sustainable development of land-use and spatial planning,
including issues such as coastal erosion, sustainable tourism, solid waste management and
organisational strengthening. (inventory of the erosion as

161

---

The Centre adopted the regional task to oversee and coordinate coastal zone management
issues among the Black Sea countries. The Centre is sometimes also referred to as the
International Activity Centre (IAC).
Under previous Tacis programmes the Centre received considerable support. The planned
output of the phase 2 project was "To stimulate sustainable development of land-use
including prevention coastal erosion, promoting sustainable tourism, solid waste management
and organisational strengthening". Activities included seminars, conferences, media activities,
preparation of solid waste management plans and implementation of sustainable tourism pilot
projects. At the same time a wide (international) network was built.
However, most of the materials produced under the Tacis programme are in Russian and not
developed to be regional documents.
The Centre survived the reorganisations from the "Committee of Environmental
protection" to the "Ministry for Natural Resources" very well. On request of the
Russian Federation Minister of Natural Resources and with strong support from the
region the Centre was re-established by the Krasnodar Committee for Natural
Resources. The leading persons are contracted as state official of the Ministry to
guarantee the existence of the centre in periods when project finances are lacking.
More and more the Centre co-operates with other organisations in the region to
support the Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) development or involving
these partner organisations, in this way strengthening and widening the process. For
details reference is made to the phase 2 report.
The Terms of Reference for the Centre was drafted and will be discussed by the Advisory
Group as soon as Russia will pay its contribution to the Convention. This Terms of Reference
also provides the work plan for the Activity Centre.
The Krasnodar Centre seems to be in a better institutional and financial position
than the Centres in Batumi and Odesa. However, this should be assessed into more
detail in the inception phase of the project.

In order to further strengthen the regional credibility and financial sustainability of the Centre
the scope of activities for this sub-component will include:
1. Finalisation and implementation of a business plan, mission statement, strategy
and a work plan (if required).
2. Implementation of a programme as detailed below.

Ad 1: Business plan, mission statement, strategy and a work plan
Presently the Centre is dependent on resources from the national and/or regional budget.
More activities may have to be developed, which will contribute to a more stable financial
basis. Participation in international, national and regional projects will be part of this. As
indicated above the necessity of this activity, and the support that Centre may need for this
activity, should be assessed in the inception phase of the project.

Ad 2: Other activities
It is important that the Centre will start to further expand and disseminate its knowledge and
skills acquired in the last years. Based on the activities implemented under the previous Tacis
programme the following activities are considered as a priority:
1. Demonstration
projects
To demonstrate on a regional basis the advantages of integrated coastal zone management
by taking up additional pilot projects especially in Ukraine and Russia. Co-operation with
the Georgian Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) project is required15. Special
attention should be given to institutional strengthening as follow up for the activities in
last phase.
2. Integrated Coastal Zone Management Information System for the Black Sea

15 This is a project targeted at the Georgian coast co-financed by the World Bank with a PIU in Tbilisi.

162

---

In the framework of the earlier Tacis projects a functional zoning system has been
developed as a basis towards Integrated Coastal Zone Management development in the
region. The pilot projects, in which the methodology was implemented, were confronted
with lack of information with the result that only a basic system, aiming for functional
zoning, was set up. The Information System aims at extending this towards an
information system, which is needed by decision makers in the fields of policy, planning
and management for Integrated Coastal Zone Management. The system will be developed
for the Russian and Ukrainian Black and Azov Sea coast with possible extension towards
the other Black Sea countries.
3. Education of Integrated Coastal Zone Management and spatial planning for
professionals and universities
Education on spatial planning is missing in the NIS. This was strongly experienced in the
Tacis Black Sea Environmental Programme Integrated Coastal Zone Management pilot
projects. Together with the European Union for Coastal Conservation a project proposal
has been developed for a distance learning Integrated Coastal Zone Management program
aiming at education on professional and university level. Examples from the
demonstration projects will be used to strengthen the link with practice. This component
will include (1) The set-up of Master courses including curriculum development in
integrated coastal zone management and spatial planning in cooperation with Russian,
Ukrainian and Georgian universities. To be linked with the distance learning programme
ICZM of the European Union for Coastal Conservation in the framework of the ICM
CEENIS Demonstration and Support programme and (2) Preparation of an Integrated
Coastal Zone Management plan in Russian language for the target group local
governments.
4. Landscape Diversity Strategy and Action Plan
The preparation and adoption of a "Landscape Diversity Strategy and Action Plan" is
considered a priority and the Contractor is expected to provide input in its drafting.
This includes a list of landscapes of the Black Sea importance and a Regional Coastal
Code of Conduct, which would be a substantial contribution to strengthening of the
regional activities of the Centre.
5. Coastal legislation in relation to integrated coastal zone management
Legislation and its enforcement is the basis for policy implementation. Improvement
of legislation is one aspect, another aspect is development knowledge and skills for
implementation of this legislation. This knowledge on local level is lacking, but also
legislation has to be improved. This component covers both the Ukrainian and
Russian Black and Azov Sea coast and includes (1) analyses of available legislation
(2) submission of recommendations for improvement and (3) to increase the
knowledge on local implementing level of legislation. The recently adopted EU
Water Framework Directive should be taken into account.
6. Red list on marine and coastal habitats
A red list on marine and coastal habitats will be prepared where cooperation with Helcom
will be sought taking into account their experience in this area. Also close cooperation is
expected with the Batumi RAC.
7. International conferences on Integrated Coastal Zone Management
This activity will be implemented yearly among at least the countries involved in the
Black Sea Environmental Programme, Caspian Environment Programme and the
Mediterranean Action Plan. This will be implemented in the framework of the ICM
CEENIS Demonstration and Support Programme, supported by the four regional seas
programmes, United Nations Environment Programme and European Union for Coastal
Conservation.
8. Upgrading of information management and dissemination of information between the
Activity Centre, the Secretariat and the Focal Points.
9. Continue the programme of public awareness raising which is a prerequisite for
acceptance by the public and decisions makers of the constraints on the use of coastal
zones as defined in a coastal zone management plan.

163

---

10. Assist local governments and NGOs in preparing proposals for bilateral and multilateral
projects in the field of Integrated Coastal Zone Management.

Implementation of integrated coastal zone management is the main umbrella for the project.
All mentioned items are supporting its implementation from different angles and at the same
time stimulating the network and international cooperation between the various regional sea
programmes.

In order to realise its regional task the Krasnodar Centre will, assisted by the Contractor,
guide the focal points in the other countries and assist these focal points technically and
financially with the implementation of the above tasks for their part of the Black Sea
whenever required.


Regional Activity Centre Batumi

The Regional Activity Centre in Batumi adopted the regional task to coordinate biodiversity
assessment, monitoring and referencing of marine and coastal environments of the Black Sea.
Furthermore, it is being developed as a research centre for management and conservation of
wetlands.
Under previous Tacis programmes the Centre received considerable technical support,
scientific information, Geographical Information System and data management equipment,
and laboratory and field equipment. Also refurbishment of the premises was co-financed by
Tacis.
The planned output of the phase 2 project was "Increased capability which will
enable the Centre to provide the required contribution to the implementation of the
Black Sea Strategic Action Plan by putting together expertise in marine and wetland
conservation policies and practices and providing coordination and guidance in the
Black Sea regional activities related to the monitoring and protection of
biodiversity".
Additional assistance was provided to produce a draft business plan, mission statement,
strategy and work plan as well as a research plan.
For details on the results of previous support reference is made to the attached phase 2 report.

A draft Terms of Reference for the Advisory Group on Biological Diversity
Conservation has been prepared for adoption by the Group. This will identify the main
tasks of the Centre and is expected to justify and effectuate national financial support.
The regional tasks for the Activity Centre includes:
ˇ Inventory of the biological and habitat diversity;
ˇ Preparation of Regional Conservation Strategy and Conservation Plan;
ˇ Update of regional Black Sea Red Data Book on endangered species;
ˇ Regional database on biological diversity and information exchange between
national focal points and the Activity Centre.

Tacis support is needed to for fulfilling the regional responsibilities by the Centre.

The financial situation of the Centre is reportedly rather weak. In order to meet the
objectives of this project of establishing its regional credibility and financial
sustainability the income of the Centre should increase.

The scope of activities for this sub-component include:
1. Finalisation and implementation of a business plan, mission statement, strategy
and a work plan.
2. Finalisation of the Biodiversity Monitoring Programme.

164

---

3. Implementation of a biodiversity monitoring programme in the marine, coastal
and wetland environments of the Georgian Black Sea.
4. Assist the Centre in coordination of similar monitoring activities by the focal
points in the other 5 Black Sea states in accordance with the Biodiversity
Monitoring Programme.
5. Providing of training in biodiversity data management including preparation of
list of Black Sea biodiversity species.
6. Support public education/public awareness raising activities on biodiversity
related issues.

Ad 1: Business plan, mission statement, strategy and a work plan
Presently the Centre is too dependent on scarce resources from the national budget. More
activities will have to be developed, which should contribute to a more stable financial basis.
In addition to its basic mission the Centre may have to acquire other skills as well.
The outputs of the previous activities notably the business plan, mission statement, strategy,
work plan and research programme should be assessed and adjusted if required. Providing
assistance for implementation of the plans is within the scope of this project. Whenever
required adjustments will have to be made.

Ad 2: Biodiversity Monitoring Programme
A biodiversity monitoring program should be adopted regionally before the Centre may
start with providing a necessary quality assurance and quality control system and
related technical guidelines. A comprehensive list of indicators for managerial purposes
should be the main outcome of this component. Preparation of this program for
approval by the Advisory Group is a major task of the Activity Centre assisted by the
Contractor.

Ad 3: Implementation of a biodiversity monitoring programme
It is important that the Centre will start to use its knowledge and skills acquired in the last
years. The best way to do this is to get involved in monitoring of biodiversity in accordance
with the Biodiversity Monitoring Programme. To this aim the Batumi Centre will implement
the monitoring of the part of the Black Sea in Georgian territory.
Close cooperation will be sought with the international research and conservation community
including Wetlands International, European Centre for Nature Conservation, MEDWET and
other relevant institutes and programmes.

Ad 4: Coordination by the Batumi Centre of monitoring activities in the Black Sea
In order to realise its regional task the Centre will guide the focal points in the other countries
and assist these focal points technically and financially with the implementation of
monitoring of their parts of the Black Sea whenever required.
Emphasis will have to be laid on key species as identified in the monitoring programmes.
Because of budgetary limitations priorities may have to be set in terms of terms of the scope
of species and intensity of monitoring.

Ad 5: Providing of training in biodiversity data management
Once adequate monitoring has started the data delivered by systematic monitoring have to be
managed and published in such a way that they will be easily accessible for scientists,
decision makers, NGOs and the general public. This activity will also include the preparation
of a list of Black Sea biodiversity species.

Ad 6: Support public education/public awareness raising activities on biodiversity related
issues
Under the previous Tacis programme the Eco-Educational Centre was established and
equipped with modern equipment and staffed. This component will build on the results from
this assistance and the results of the biodiversity monitoring activities described above.

165

---

Required outputs

In addition to the outputs from the activities identified above the following
reporting will be required:
ˇ The Inception report is due to be submitted after maximum 3 months and shall cover the
whole contract period. Quarterly interim reports describing progress of project
implementation and plans for the next reporting period will be submitted. These reports
will summarise progress, problems, and proposed solutions. They will be prepared in
accordance with the Tacis format and set out the previous period's use of resources and
describe the programme for the following period for the activities implemented at the
Secretariat as well as the Regional Activity Centres.
The final draft report will be presented 4 weeks before the end of the project and
cover the background to the project, its targeted and realised objectives, targeted
versus implemented activities, realised outputs versus planned outputs, constraints
and problems encountered and recommendations.
ˇ Technical documents like strategy documents, technical guidelines, management
plans, etc. are to be submitted for approval to the Director of the Secretariat.
Copies of these documents and samples of public information materials will be
sent to Tacis headquarters as well.

The contract reports will use follow Tacis formats and use the logframe
methodology.
The tenderer is invited to identify in the proposal what documents are expected to be
produced in order to meet the objectives of this project and to cover the above-
identified activities.


Required inputs


Budget

An indicative breakdown of the budget is presented below:
ˇ Development of PIU/Secretariat activities:
1,2 M
ˇ Reinforcement of capabilities of RAC: 1,8 M +
ˇ Total
maximum
3,0
M

As contribution to the running costs of the Secretariat 72,000 Euro will be included in the
proposal. This includes costs for translation.

Tacis cannot fund Turkish participation in the regional activities. Turkish participation must
nevertheless always be planned for and finance sought from the Government of Turkey, the
GEF project or other sources.
Also the participation of Bulgaria and Romania is of crucial importance and participation of
these countries must always be planned for and finance sought from the Governments of these
countries, the GEF project, Phare or other sources.
It is obvious that participation of participation of Turkey, Romania, and Bulgaria should be
granted for most important regional components like final discussions on regional strategies
or regional quality assurance training. If co-ordination with the donors is hampered by any
factor (like project delay, etc.) the whole regional activity would not make sense without
financial support for all participants.
Taking into account the economic problems in the region, including Turkey, the Contractor
will do his utmost to secure funding and Tacis may be approached to support from time to

166

---

time the participants from the other three countries. They can be invited in their capacity of
regional experts or any other mechanism but their timely funding is crucial for the regional
sustainability of Tacis support.
The preliminary budget for public awareness raising campaigns is set at 100.000 Euro to be
defined in the inception phase. An amount of 100.000 Euro will be reserved for equipment
also to be defined in the inception phase.


Staff

Required staffing

The tenderer is expected to submit CVs for the expatriate staff listed below. The local experts
will be identified in the inception phase of the project, except for the local information
experts. His/her CV is expected to be included the offer.

The financial offer will be based on the breakdown below.

Table 5.2.1: Staff required
Expert
EU person months
Regional person months
Project director
1

Project manager
20

Teamleader RAC components
16
48
Expert monitoring and pollution
5 30
(1)
Expert bio resources and fisheries
5 30
(2)
Expert coastal zone management
5 30
(3)
Expert legislation (4)
2
20
Information expert (5)
1
30
To be identified later
6
30
Total 61
218

The management of the Tacis support should be supported by adequate structures in the
Activity Centres. Therefore the teamleader for each component will be shadowed by the local
team leader in every activity.
One of the problems with sustainability in the region is the lack of personal responsibilities of
the local counterparts. Therefore, Tacis staff is expected to transfer leadership skills to local
teamleaders and teach local leaders project management skills.

The project manager is expected to work in the premises of the Secretariat in Istanbul whereas
the teamleader for the activities of the Regional Activity Centres will spend 90% of his/her
time at the Centres. The project manager will work under guidance of the Director and
Officers of the Secretariat and liase closely with the Coordinator of the GEF programme.
The EU experts (1)-(4) are expected to work partly on the tasks to be performed in the
premises of the Secretariat and partly in the Centres to assist the Centres and the teamleader

167

---

with preparation, implementation and monitoring of the tasks of the Centres as previously
described in paragraph 3.3. The information expert will work in the premises of the
Secretariat.

Except for the information expert the regional experts will work from their home offices in
Georgia, Russia or Ukraine and/or in one of the Centres depending on their field of expertise.
About 5% of their time expenditure is expected to be spent in the premises of the Secretariat
in Istanbul.
The local information expert will work most of the time in the premises of the Secretariat.

The remaining budget will be equally divided between the 3 Centres to assist to the
implementation of the tasks of each of the Centres as described in paragraph 3.3. Also the
focal points in the other Black Sea countries will benefit from the present project as indicated
earlier.

The tenderer is expected to present a proposal for the division of tasks among the
various fields of expertise and their specific inputs in terms of time and budget.


Project director

The project director is called on to work on a short-term basis. The principal tasks
of the project director will be to:
ˇ Supervise the project and take final responsibility for the Consultant for a timely
and professional implementation of the project.
ˇ Participate to meetings of strategic importance.

The project director should have more than 15 years of professional experience in a relevant
environmental management field and proven experience of international project management
and coordination, including successful negotiations with international organisations and
groups of countries. Knowledge of the following would be an advantage:
ˇ Phare/Tacis projects;
ˇ GEF/World Bank/EBRD projects;
ˇ Countries in the region;
ˇ EU legislation especially as regards water;
ˇ Eutrophication problems;
ˇ Economic instruments.


Project manager

The project manager will work on a long-term basis within the PIU and he/she will be
responsible for coordination of all Tacis-funded activities. He/she will liase closely with the
GEF Programme Coordinator under the guidance of the Director of the permanent Secretariat
of the Commission.
The main tasks of the project manager will be to:
1. Manage the Tacis-supported components of the Black Sea Environmental Programme
outlined in these Terms of Reference.
2. Foster regional cooperation by promoting a high level of exchange of information and,
where relevant, of staff between Black Sea Environmental Programme implementing
organisations.
3. Promote the sustainability of the Regional Activity Centres and focal points and help
ensure their long-term viability.

168

---

4. Assist in the technical work of the Secretariat including the preparation of cross-theme
analyses and recommendations arising.
5. Encourage and support the identification and implementation of actions implementing the
recommendations.

The project manager should have minimum 10 years of professional experience in a relevant
environmental management field and proven experience of international project management
and coordination. While specific experience in environmental marine projects, natural
resources management and coastal zone management is desirable important skills include
management of complex programmes, negotiation, understanding of the economic transition
process in the NIS, experience in setting up functioning monitoring and enforcement systems,
and a creative approach are required.
Knowledge of the following would be an advantage:
ˇ Phare/Tacis projects.
ˇ GEF/World Bank/EBRD projects.
ˇ Russian language;
ˇ Countries in the region.


Teamleader for the Regional Activity Centres component

The teamleader for the RAC component of this project will work on a long-term basis and
he/she will be responsible for coordination of all Regional Centres related activities within
this project. He/she will liase closely with the project manager and the GEF Programme Co-
ordinator. He/she will spend considerable amount of time at each of the Regional Centres.
The main tasks of the teamleader will be to:
1. Manage and supervise the activities for the Regional Activity Centres as identified in
these Terms of Reference.
2. Foster regional cooperation by promoting a high level of exchange of information and,
where relevant, of staff among the Regional Activity Centres, Focal Points and the
Secretariat.
3. Promote the sustainability of the Regional Activity Centres and focal points and help
ensure their long-term viability.
4. Act as deputy project manager.

The teamleader should have minimum 10 years of professional experience in a relevant
environmental management field and proven experience of international project coordination.
Specific experience in marine sciences, natural resources management and coastal zone
management is required. Knowledge of the Russian language is an advantage.


Specialist staff

The 5 expert staff listed above shall have adequate proven experience in their specific expert
area to be demonstrated in their CVs.


Coordination

Since this project will run parallel to the investment related Tacis project (paragraph 1.4) and
the GEF project (paragraph 1.5) close cooperation and consultation with these projects is
required. Overlaps with this programme are to be avoided and there should be a general strife
for complementary .


169

---

The present overview in chapter 1 is probably not complete. Reference is made to annex 5
which provides a good overview of the situation in the beginning of 2001. The contractor
must endeavour to identify relevant initiatives and determine how best to ensure
complementarity with them.

Furthermore, communication and consultation will be sought with the programmes for
especially the Mediterranean and the Caspian Sea (CEP) as well as with IFIs and bilateral
donors. As for all other activities this communication will take place in close consultation
with the Director of the Secretariat and the Co-ordinator of the GEF programme.


Monitoring and evaluation

It not clear at this moment how this project with components in many countries will
be monitored from the side of Tacis. However, this issue will have been clarified
before the start-up of the project.


Logistics and Timing

The project is expected to start on 1 January 2002. The expected duration is 24 months. The
inception phase will take preferably no more than 2 months, maximum 3 months.

The Secretariat in Istanbul will make available adequate office space. The same holds for the
3 Regional Activity Centres. No rents are expected to be paid for the use of these premises.

All international and local travel of the project staff will be financed from the project budget.


















170

---

ANNEX VI-


MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
Between
The Government of the Republic of Turkey and
The United Nations Development Programme
On
the establishment of the Project Implementation Unit
of the project entitled
"Control of eutrophication, hazardous substances and related
measures for rehabilitating the Black Sea ecosystem: Phase1"
and subsequent projects


Reference is made to the consultations among officials of the Government of Turkey (hereinafter
referred to as the "Government"), represented by the Ministry of Environment
(hereinafter referred to as the "Ministry") and of the United Nations Development
Program (hereinafter referred to as "UNDP") and of the United Nations Office for
Project Services (hereinafter referred to as "UNOPS") with respect to the project
entitled "Control of eutrophication, hazardous substances and related measures for
rehabilitating the Black Sea ecosystem: Phase1" and subsequent projects.



TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THAT

The Government of Turkey has decided to participate in the regional project entitled
"Control of eutrophication, hazardous substances and related measures for
rehabilitating the Black Sea ecosystem: Phase1" (hereinafter referred to as the
'Project' to be funded by the Global Environmental Facility (hereinafter referred to
as GEF) expected to be launched in December 2001;

The UNDP will act as the Implementing Agency, and the UNOPS will act as the
Executing Agency for the above-referred regional project;

The Government has agreed to host the Project Implementation Unit (hereinafter
referred to as "GEF-PIU") of this regional project in Istanbul;

Between 1993-2001, the Government has hosted the PCU/PIU of the Black Sea
Environmental Program incorporating the regional projects RER/93/G31,
RER/93/G32, RER/96/G006, RER/99/G42 funded by the GEF and UNDP, with the
common objective of restoring the Black Sea environment and protection of its
natural resources;

The Government is also hosting the headquarters of the Commission on the
Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution (hereinafter referred to as the
"Commission") and its Permanent Secretariat in accordance with the "Headquarters
Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Turkey and the Commission
on the Protection of Black Sea Against Pollution" signed on 20 April 2000 in
Istanbul by the respective Parties;

In accordance with Article 5 (Item 4) of the above referred Agreement, stipulating
that ' the Government and the Commission may jointly agree to allow for the
temporary or permanent use of the headquarters by third parties involved in studies

171

---

or programs pertaining to the Black Sea'', the co-location of the PIU of the GEF
project in the premises of the Commission has been agreed upon by both the
Government and the Commission (Attachment 1).

The major role of the GEF-PIU will be to provide technical support to the project
beneficiary countries (Bulgaria, Georgia, Romania, Russian Federation, Turkey and
Ukraine), and the Black Sea Commission and its Permanent Secretariat for the
attainment of the objectives defined in the respective project document.



THE PARTIES HAVE AGREED AS FOLLOWS


Article 1
The GEF-PIU is a project office based in Istanbul, Turkey, functioning under the
auspices of UNDP.

Article 2
The Government will provide office space for the GEF-PIU free of rent for the
duration of the Phase 1 (2001-2003) of the project and of its possible extension to
Phase 2 (2003-2006). The office shall be sufficient for the work of the project
personnel of up to five professional, three support and two seconded staff. The
physical requirements for such work are listed in Attachment 2.

Article 3
The GEF-PIU will be located within the premises of the Commission at:
Dolmabahce Sarayi, II. Hareket Kosku
80680 Besiktas, Istanbul- Turkey
The Government provides these premises unless agreed otherwise by the
Government and the Commission.

Article 4
Equipment and other items to be acquired during Phase 1 and possibly Phase 2 of
the current Project will be the property of UNDP. The ownership of these equipment
and items will be transferred to the Black Sea Commission at the end of the Project.
Similarly, equipment and other items acquired by the PIU/PCU of former
GEF/UNDP sponsored projects in support of the Black Sea Commission which shall
be jointly used with the Permanent Secretariat of the Commission, shall continue to
be property of UNDP until the formal closure of each project concerned. There
onwards the ownership of this property shall be transferred to the Commission.

Article 5
The working relationship and cost sharing arrangements between the GEF-PIU and
the Permanent Secretariat will be carried out within the framework of a Letter of
Agreement to be signed between both of them.

Article 6
The GEF-PIU will arrange for its running costs by providing cleaning services for
the office and sanitary facilities and electricity supply including air conditioning
and heating.

The operational and maintenance costs of equipment installed at the GEF-PIU will
be covered from the project budget.


172

---

Article 7
The Government will provide appropriate security consistent with the United
Nations norms and practice for the GEF-PIU personnel, office and goods, and will
make arrangements for insurance coverage for the premises.

Article 8
The Government will assist in the handling of all immigration requirements for the
GEF-PIU personnel, experts and consultants participating in seminars, conferences
and other activities sponsored by the project.

Article 9
The Government shall accord to all United Nations staff and experts on mission,
including those working for the GEF-PIU all privileges and immunities provided for
in the "Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations" (1946)
and consistent with the practice regarding the United Nations. It will ensure equity
of diplomatic status with the Permanent Secretariat of the Commission, the
Permanent Secretariat of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation etc.

Article 10
The Government grants local tax (VAT) exemption to local purchases of formal
character under the project in keeping with standard UN system local procurement
procedures.

Section 7 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations
provides, inter alia, that the United Nations, including its subsidiary organs, is
exempt from all direct taxes, except charges for utilities services, and is exempt
from customs duties and charges of a similar nature in respect of articles imported
or exported for its official use. This exemption is also valid for the Value Added
Tax, which is subject to review by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs from time to time
in accordance with the standing legislation governing the application of the Value
Added Tax.



Article 11
The Project Coordinator will consult the UN Resident Coordinator and the UNDP
Resident Representative in Turkey who is the Principal Resident Representative for
the Project on issues that require formal communication with the Government. The
Project Coordinator will maintain direct communication with the hosting
Government and other beneficiary Governments through the National Project
Coordinators on issues concerning the day-to-day management of the project. The
Principal Resident Representative will be kept informed of all substantive
developments of the Project for his onward coordination of the implementation with
the Government of the host country as well as with UN Resident
Coordinators/UNDP Representatives in other beneficiary Governments and other
international organizations with a view to better integrate other activities at the
country/region level with GEF programming.

Article 12
The present agreement will be valid for the duration of the Phase 1 of the Project
(approximately two years) and may be extended and /or modified through an
exchange of letters between the Parties in consultation with the Commission. The
extension and/or modification will take effect from the date of receipt of the last of
these.



173

---

On behalf of the Government of the
On behalf of UNDP
Republic of Turkey






Alfredo
Witschi-Cestari
UN Resident Coordinator and
UNDP Representative in Turkey


Attachment 1: Letters of Agreement (2 pages)
Attachment 2: Physical Requirements (1 page)



174

---

ATTACHMENT 1
(Letters of Agreement
(will follow)

175

---

ATTACHMENT 2

PHYSICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PIU

1. appropriate office space for the Project Co-ordinator (separate), 4 senior and 3
junior/seconded staff (shared);
2. space for office data management equipment and existence of physical
infrastructure for telephone, facsimile and internet access (for use jointly with
the Permanent Secretariat) ;
3. office space for documentation, archives and library (for use jointly with the
Permanent Secretariat) ;
4. meeting room (for use jointly with the Permanent Secretariat);
5. secure parking space for daytime parking of up to 2 cars, and 24 hour parking of
one office vehicle.









176

---

177

---

ANNEX VII. SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS TO THE PROJECT
DOCUMENT

178

---

Document Outline

• UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME
  • Bulgaria, Georgia, Romania, Russian Federation, Turkey, Ukraine
  • Bulgaria, Georgia, Romania, Russian Federation, Turkey, Ukraine
    • • • Classification Information
          • Brief Description
            • CONTEXT
            • STRATEGY FOR USE OF UNDP/GEF RESOURCES
            • IMMEDIATE OBJECTIVES, OUTPUTS, INDICATORS, AND ACTIVITIES
            • INPUTS
            • RISKS AND PRIOR OBLIGATIONS
            • INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK AND IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS
            • MONITORING AND EVALUATION
            • LEGAL CONTEXT
            • WORKPLAN
            • BUDGET
            • ANNEXES
  • Approval
    • • • • • • • The Black Sea Strategic Action Plan
      • Success criteria
      • Description of approach (see also paragraph 145 for details of basin-wide co-ordination)
      • Success criteria
      • Description of approach
      • Success criteria
      • Description of approach
      • Success criteria
      • Description of approach
• 86. Environmental protection of the Black Sea depends not only on international agreements, but also on the daily actions of the population in the basin. The PDF-B provided support to develop a portfolio of small public initiatives contributing to nutrie
  • • • Success criteria
      • Description of approach
      • Success criteria
      • Description of approach
      • Success criteria
      • Description of approach
• TABLE 1
• COMPONENT I. CO-ORDINATION, INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY BUILDING AND LEGAL REFORM
  • • Objective 6. Assist the public in implementing activities to reduce eutrophication through a programme of grants for small projects and support to regional NGOs.
• Environmental protection of the Black Sea depends not only on international agreements, but also on the daily actions of the coastal population. The PDF-B provided support to develop a portfolio of small public initiatives contributing to nutrient reduct
  • • Objective 7. Formulate proposals for market-based or alternative economic instruments for limiting nutrient emissions and establish private-public sector partnerships for environmental protection in the Black Sea.
    • Objective 8. A fisheries exploited within its maximum sustainable yield and incorporating measures to protect ecologically sensitive areas.
  • Net of support costs
• 106. The GEF has allocated a total of US$ 4,349,920 for the implementation of this project, including the PDF-B. The indicative timeframe is December 2001-December 2003. The project consists of the 1st Phase of a comprehensive Black Sea Ecosystem Recov
• I-WORKPLAN
• TABLE 3
• WORKPLAN FOR PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION*
  • • Objective 6. Assist the public in implementing activities to reduce eutrophication through a programme of grants for small projects and support to regional NGOs.
    • Objective 7. Formulate proposals for market-based or alternative economic instruments for limiting nutrient emissions and establish private-public sector partnerships for environmental protection in the Black Sea.
    • Objective 8. A fisheries exploited within its maximum sustainable yield and incorporating measures to protect ecologically sensitive areas.
      • • • • • b. Short-term international consultants:
              • National Support Staff
              • Duty Travel
              • National Professional Project Personnel
              • Equipment
              • Miscellaneous
              • Support costs
• 1. Objective
• 2. Background
• 3. The Black Sea Environmental Programme
• 3.1 The BSEP Joint Project Management Group (JPMG)
• 4. Financing
• 5. Premises
• 6. Staffing
• 7. Validation of this Terms of Reference
  • ANNEX IV.C
  • Revised Work-plan of the Secretariat of the Istanbul Commission for the first year of its activity (2000-2001)
  • I. Establishing the Commission and Secretariat network
    • Annual regular Commission Meeting
    • Co-ordination and participation in meetings of other bodies of relevance to the Commission tasks
  • Budget of activities to be undertaken under the Convention on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution for the year 2001/2002
    • • Bulgaria 12 43 560
  • Workplan of the Secretariat of the Istanbul Commission for the second year of its activity (2002-2003)
  • I. Improvement of the Commission and Secretariat network capacity
    • • Partners
  • Draft provisional budget for the activities to be undertaken under the Convention on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution for the year 2002/2003
    • • Bulgaria 12 43 560
  • ANNEX IV.D
  • Draft Memorandum of Understanding
  • between
  • the International Commission for the Protection of the Black Sea (ICPBS)
  • and
  • the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR)
  • on common strategic goals
    • • Tacis Regional Action Programme 2000
• Background
  • Problem
  • Intervention logic
  • Institutional setting
  • Tacis support
  • Other donors support
• Objectives
  • General
  • Long-term objective of the BSEP
  • Objectives of present Tacis assistance
• Scope of work
  • General
  • Assistance for developing Secretariat activities
    • • • • Ad 6/ Fisheries
          • Ad 7 and 8/Pollution
  • Reinforcement of the capabilities of the RACs
    • Regional Activity Centre Odesa
    • Regional Activity Centre Krasnodar
    • Regional Activity Centre Batumi
• Required outputs
• Required inputs
  • Budget
  • Staff
    • Required staffing
    • Project director
    • Project manager
    • Teamleader for the Regional Activity Centres component
    • Specialist staff
• Coordination
• Monitoring and evaluation
• Logistics and Timing
  • TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THAT
    • THE PARTIES HAVE AGREED AS FOLLOWS
      • Article 1
      • Article 2
        • Article 3
• Article 4

---