Annex 1
PROJECT BRIEF
1. IDENTIFIERS
PROJECT NUMBER:
PROJECT NAME:
GEF Strategic Partnership on the Danube/Black Sea
Basin, Element 1 - Regional (Bulgaria, Romania, Georgia,
Russian Federation, Turkey, Ukraine): Control Of
Eutrophication, Hazardous Substances And Related
Measures For Rehabilitating The Black Sea Ecosystem:
Phase 1
PROJECT DURATION:
2 Years (followed by 3 year Phase 2)
IMPLEMENTING AGENCY:
UNDP, in association with UNEP and the World Bank
EXECUTING AGENCY:
UNOPS
REQUESTING COUNTRIES :
Bulgaria, Romania, Georgia, Russian Federation, Turkey
and Ukraine
ELIGIBILITY:
Eligible under para. 9(b) of GEF Instrument
GEF FOCAL AREA:
International Waters
GEF PROGRAMMING
OP#8: Waterbody-Based Operational Program
FRAMEWORK
SUMMARY
The long-term objective of the project 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. This will be
achieved through a process of adaptive management in which agreed common targets are
pursued throughout the 17 country Black Sea Basin. The present project will assist the coastal
countries to meet the agreed first target (maintenance of nutrient loads at their 1997 levels) and
to set the subsequent target using the best available scientific information coupled with
benefit/cost studies and political pragmatism. The current project will also help to reduce
fisheries pressure on sensitive habitats and contribute towards rational fisheries management.
Major outputs will include a sustainable coordinating and consultative mechanism (with all 17
Basin countries); revision of the legal protocols governing management of pollution and resource
use in the Black Sea; new sectoral policies and laws to be implemented nationally in each coastal
State; objective State of the Black Sea reports including new information gathered from remote
sensing and conventional measurements; a comprehensive system of indicators of process, stress
reduction and environmental status; enhanced public participation, partly through a region-wide
programme of small projects for nutrient control and support to environmental NGOs; enhanced
economic instruments tailored to the realities of each coastal country; a new portfolio of
investment projects; and a rational agreement on fisheries management that takes full account of
the conditions necessary for habitat recovery.
This component of GEF Danube/Black Sea Strategic Partnership covers the Black Sea and its
coastal zone and those river basins not included within the Danube or Dnipro GEF projects. The
three projects, together with the World Bank/GEF Partnership Investment Facility for Nutrient
Reduction will coordinate their activities closely through regular joint planning sessions and
consultations. The Strategic Partnership represents an innovation in project design that should be
replicable in other regions and enhances the global benefits of the constituent projects.
i
3.
COSTS AND FINANCING (US $):
GEF Financing (Phase 1):
Project
US$ 3,703,700
PDF-B
US$ 349,920
Project Support Costs
US$ 296,300
Sub-total GEF
US$ 4,349,920
Co-financing:
National Governments
US$ 1,150,000
EU-Tacis
US$ [2,440,000]
UNDP
US$ 240,000
Others
US$ 115,000
Sub-total, Co-financing:
US$ 3,945,000
Total Project Cost (Phase 1):
US$ 8,294,920
________________________________________________________________________
4.
BASELINE (MILLION US $): 1
US$ 10,149,920
5.
GEF OPERATIONAL FOCAL POINT ENDORSEMENTS :
Bulgaria:
Neno Dimov, Deputy Minister, Ministry of Environment and Water, Bulgaria,
September 1, 2001
Romania:
Virgil Diaconu, Deputy Secretary General, Ministry of Waters, Forests and
Environmental Protection, Romania, September 11, 2001
Georgia:
Malkhaz Adeishvili, Deputy Head, Department of Economics, Ministry of
Environment and Natural Resources Protection, September 20, 2000
Russian Federation: Alexey Poryadin, First Deputy Minister, Ministry of Natural Resources,
Russian Federation, September 7, 2000
Turkey:
Okan Ucer, Deputy Under-Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Turkey,
September 15, 2000
Ukraine:
Yaroslav Movchan, GEF Operational Focal Point, Ministry of the Environment
and Natural Resources, Ukraine, September 20, 2001
6.
IA CONTACT:
Mr. Chris Briggs
UNDP, DC 1 Building
304 E. 45th Street
New York, NY 10017
Tel. (212) 906-5460
Fax. (212) 906-5102
e-mail: chris.briggs@undp.org
Baseline calculations are analyzed in the Incremental Cost Annex 1.
ii
ACRONYMS
AC
Activity Centre
APR
Annual Project Review
BSEC
Black Sea Economic Cooperation
BSEEP
Black Sea Environmental Education Project
BSEP
Black Sea Environmental Programme
BSNN
Black Sea NGO Network
CBC
Commissioner for the Bucharest Convention
CEC
Commission of European Communities (European Union)
CTA
Chief Technical Advisor
DP
Designated Person
FAO
Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations
GEF
Global Environment Facility
IC
Incremental Cost as defined by the GEF
ICBS
Istanbul Commission for the Black Sea (the body responsible for implementing the
Bucharest Convention)
ICPDR
International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River
IOC (of UNESCO)
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission
IMO
International Maritime Organisation
ISG
Ad-hoc Internatio nal Study Group for eutrophication in the Black Sea (established
by the PIU)
IW
International Waters
JMG
Joint Management Group (for the project between the ICBS and the IAs/donors)
JWG
Joint Working Group of the ICPDR and ICBS (may be extended to the Dnipro
Comm. etc.)
LEARN
Learning Exchange and Resource Network
TRAIN-SEA-COAST
GEF TRAIN-SEA -COAST Programme
MARPOL
International Convention for the Control of Pollution by Ships
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
OP
GEF Operational Program
PDF-B
Project Development Facility of the GEF
PIU
Project Implementation Unit of the Istanbul Commission (Black Sea Environmental
Programme)
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
UNDP-COs
Country Offices of the United Nations Development Programme
PIR
Project Implementation Review
PPER
Project Performance and Evaluation Review
SAP
GEF Strategic Action Program
STAP
GEF Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel
TDA
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis
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
iii
I. Background and Context (Baseline course of action)
Introduction
1.
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 third of the area of continental Europe. Its only connection is through the winding 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 and Don) all flow to the Black Sea. The Bosphorus 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.
2.
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 Danubian 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.
Previous response
3.
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. This new project, under the guidance of the United Nations
Development Programme, was named the Black Sea Environmental Programme.
4.
The GEF Black Sea Environmental Programme (BSEP) was formally launched in June 1993. 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
5
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.
5.
The BSEP Working Parties completed a series of background studies that enabled a Transboundary Diagnostic
Analysis to be finalized 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:
· That the principle cause for the decline of the Black Sea ecosystem is eutrophication;
· That without full co-operation with riparian countries of the main tributary rivers (Danube and Dnipro) this problem
cannot be addressed;
· That the institutional structure of the BSEP should be incorporated into that of the Istanbul Commission for the
Bucharest Convention;
· That an adaptive management approach should be adopted for the control of pollution in the Black Sea;
· That biological diversity and fisheries concerns should be part of the future agenda of the Commission;
· That greater stakeholder participation and transparency should be ensured (in line with the provisions of the Aarhus
Convention.
6.
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 institutionalization 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 (see Annex 5) and considerable support from the European
Commission by Tacis or direct support. Main achievements were:
· 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;
· Continued support 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;
· 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);
· Publication of the State of Pollution in the Black Sea report (see summary in Annex 7) and the Black Sea Red Data
Book;
· Agreement on a new set of water quality objectives to propose to the ICBS as required by the BS -SAP.
7.
In April 2000, a breakthrough was finally made in the negotiations for establishing the Commission's Secretariat
(see Annex 8). The Secretariat became operational in October 2000, following the selection of its senior officials at an
extraordinary session of the ICBS on September 10-11, 2000. Four countries (Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey and Ukraine)
already 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.
II.
Rationale and Objectives (Alternative course of action)
8.
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 see executive summary in Annex 7), the work of the ad hoc working group between the ICPDR and the ICBS, 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:
6
Ø A major decline in Black Sea commercial fish stocks and non-optimal harvesting of living resources;
Ø Introduction of opportunistic species by ships and releases from aquaculture;
Ø High accident risk of tankers, especially in the Turkish Straits;
Ø Deterioration in beach and nearshore habitat quality due to marine-based sources of oil and garbage as a result of
tanker operations and disposal of garbage at sea;
Ø Physical destruction and alteration of coastal habitats and landscapes;
Ø Lack of full understanding of the distribution of toxic organic compounds (heavy metals do not appear to be a
transboundary problem);
Short term objectives
9. The main focus of the current proposal is the issue of eutrophication. This requires co-ordinated actions to achieve
three objectives:
· Reduction of the nitrogen and phosphorus loads to the Black Sea;
· Enhancement of the service function of wetlands and benthic (seabed) plant communities for the assimilation of
nutrients;
· Improved management of fisheries to permit their economic recovery 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. In the case of oil pollution (a significant problem in
the Black Sea), attention will also be given to measures that may reduce the risk of spillage by ships.
10.
The actions identified in the current proposal are far-reaching and involve activities by the national and local
governments, regional organizations, 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 values, both
economic and ethical; (d) the availability of cost-effective practical alternatives to current practices; (e) their
institutionalization 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.
11.
Effective reduction of eutrophication in the Black Sea requires the full co-operation between all 17 countries
within the Basin. The present proposal builds on the co-operation already established between the ICBS 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.
Long-term project objective
12.
The long-term and intermediate objectives of the project are those established by the Joint ad-hoc Working Group
between the ICBS 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 (see paragraph 57).
7
III.
RATIONALE FOR GEF FINANCING
13.
The projected outputs, activities, and relationship of those outputs and activit ies with those of the countries,
regional entities, and other donors are seen as compatible with the three elements of the GEF-funded International Waters
activities to meet the incremental costs of:
a) assisting groups of countries better understand the environmental concerns of their international waters and work
collaboratively to address them;
b) building capacity of existing institutions, or through new institutional arrangements, to utilize a more comprehensive
approach for addressing transboundary water-related environmental concerns; and
c) implementing sustainable measures that address priority transboundary environmental concerns.
The GEF has been involved in the earlier stages of support to the Black Sea and Danube Basin. The project on the
''Control of Eutrophication, Hazardous Substances and Related Measures for Rehabilitating the Black Sea Ecosystem''
represents the second stage of support and is part of an "International Waters Strategic Partnership" (see Annex 13) agreed
between the GEF and its implementing agencies. This Approach has been developed to accelerate on the ground
implementation of policy, institutional and legal reforms, and facilitate priority investments. Additionally it is intended to
simplify implementation, ensure collaboration according to IA comparative advantage and to involve other donor
organizations. Based on the decisions reached between the GEF Secretariat and IAs in consultation with the participating
countries following the November 2000 Meeting of the GEF Council, where inclusion of the comprehensive 5 years
project proposal submitted had to be deferred due to resource constraints, the project was split into two phases. The present
proposal constitutes the 1st phase of the comprehensive project proposal that has been designed with a view to provide
the critically needed support to the Black Sea coastal states in addressing the transboundary problems specified above.
IV. PROJECT OUTPUTS/COMPONENTS AND EXPECTED RESULTS
14.
This project which constitutes the 1st phase of the Black Sea regional project is divided into five components
encompassing a total of eight specific objectives. They are summarized below and additional information is given in
Table 1. This Table also includes a list of relevant activities, responsibility (lead agency and partners) for
implementing these activities and indicative costs. Table 1 refers to GEF funded activities only and does not
incorporate the additional activities funded by Tacis and other partners. Attention is drawn to the role of the ICBS
Activity Centres in the implementation of specific project components. The network of Centres and associated
Advisory Groups is one of the strongest elements of previous interventions that will be sustained by governments
throughout the implementation of the present project. GEF support will be given to them for specific tasks related to
project implementation. While an indicative list of objectives, activities, outputs, target dates and resource
requirements for the second phase is provided in Annex 6A, the logical Framework for the suggested full project
(Phase I and Phase II) is given in Annex 6B).
COMPONENT I. CO-ORDINATION, INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY BUILDING AND LEGAL REFORM
Objective 1. Support the integration of a sustainable Secretariat for the Bucharest Convention
Rationale:
15.
The meeting of the Istanbul Commission held on 25-26 April, 2000 agreed on a mechanism for
institutionalising its Secretariat (see Annex 8) and for co-operating with the GEF Implementing Agencies in order to
sustain the work of the Black Sea Environmental Programme. The current Project Implementation Unit will continue
to operate within the framework of the Commission as the "body to provide support for specific projects and
processes related to the implementation of [the Black Sea] Strategic Action Plan" as defined in the Action Plan itself.
For the duration of the current project, administrative arrangements will include the Istanbul Commission with
executive functions, a Joint Management Committee to regularly oversee project management, and a Project
Implementation Unit for the day-to-day co-ordination of project activities. The PIU will be an integral part of the
Secretariat of the Commission (the relationship is described below). Regional Activity Centres will continue to
operate in the manner described in the BS-SAP, in most cases supported by a blend of National and collateral donor
8
funding. GEF support will focus on enhancing the work of Commission to address the key issues that are the subject
of the pres ent proposal and to help it achieve long-term sustainability.
Outputs
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 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
· Programme Implementation Unit (PIU) fully staffed and operational
· Joint Management Committee established and operational
· Advisory Groups and Activity Centres operational and engaged in addressing transboundary issues
· Istanbul Commission able to raise funding for transboundary projects
· Inter-Commission Working Group operating and setting common management objectives
· Information in the public domain throughout the Black Sea coastal region regarding the transboundary problems and
solutions offered.
Description of approach (see also paragraph 56 for details of basin-wide co-ordination)
16.
Good coordination is a prerequisite for solving transboundary environmental problems. The nascent core
Secretariat of the Istanbul Commission will have insufficient capacity to manage a large international project in addition to
its legal and administrative responsibilities. For this reason, the ICBS has encouraged the creation of a Project
Implementation Unit, working within its structure in a semi-autonomous manner. It will share the facilities of the
Secretariat and be linked to the ICBC through the Joint Management Committee (JMC). The JMC will consist of the Black
Sea Commissioners (or their designated representatives), representatives of the GEF implementing agencies and other
major donors, the Executive Director of the Secretariat and the Project Co-ordinator. Two NGO representatives and a
representative of UNOPS (the Executing Agency) will be invited as observers. The JMC will meet twice annually, review
progress and set the workplan and timetable for the project. Staff of the PIU and the Secretariat will liaise 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 ICBS for establishing basin-wide consultative groups (see table 1, Activity 1.2), National
Intersectoral 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 JMC.
17.
A particularly important facet of the coordinating role of the PIU will be diffusion of project outputs through
newsletters, posters, technical reports, public information bulletins and update and maintenance of the existing BSEP web
site. 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.
Objective 2. Regional actions for improving LBA legislation to control eutrophication and for tackling
emergent problems.
Rationale
18.
Work conducted during the PDF-B phase of the project by UNEP has shown that (see Annex 12) 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. This objective will assist the Commission and Contracting Parties to close this legislative gap.
19.
The need for action concerning emergent problems responds to the prerogative for a more proactive and
9
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
Outputs:
2.1
A new and more comprehensive protocol for the control of land-based activities in the Black Sea. This will pay
particular attention to the integral control of eutrophication.
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:
· New LBA Protocol approved and endorsed
· Black Sea Futures report approved by the Istanbul Commission and published.
Description of approach
20.
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.
Work on the LBA protocol will consist of technical assistance to the ICBS to help prepare a new draft protocol to the
Bucharest Convention in order to make it fully compatible with the GPA and the prerogative for controlling
eutrophication. Close co-operation will be maintained with the GPA Secretariat during this work. In the case of the study
of emergent transboundary problems, the work will build on the study planned by the Global International Waters
Assessment but will enable it to conduct a complete analysis of environmental and socio-economic impacts and their root
causes for all relevant GIWA issues.
COMPONENT II. SECTORAL LEGAL AND POLICY REFORMS, MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF
NUTRIENT CONTROL MEASURES AND REVIEWING TARGETS FOR ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
21.
This is one of the core elements of the project. The PDF-B studies have clearly demonstrated that: (a) existing
information on the nutrient 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
Rationale
22.
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 or to measure future changes. Joint studies at the beginning of the five 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:
3.1
State of the Black Sea report (as required by the SAP), focusing on eutrophication and hazardous substances, in
May 2003 (to coincide with the tenth anniversary of the signature of the Odesa Declaration). This activity will
enable the report to be made despite the absence of a functional monitoring network (see Objective 4).
Success criteria:
· Integration of international study group on Black Sea Eutrophication.
· Peer reviewed study plan.
· Completion of 4 surveys in 2001-2002, and studies of nutrient sources, sinks and fluxes.
· Publication of State of the Black Sea Report, 2003
10
Description of approach
23.
In order to make rational management decisions in the region it is necessary to count on a sound basic knowledge
of the current environmental situation in the Black Sea. The ICPDR/ICBS joint ad-hoc Working Group recognised that the
existing gaps in knowledge are very large (much larger than any other comparable system in the world) and must be filled
in order to make better management decisions. The integrated monitoring system that will be developed within Objective
4, will not produce results early enough in the project to influence the development of the project itself or to guide the
investments of the World Bank Partnership Investment Facility for Nutrient Reduction. This is why an initial intensive
study is proposed.
24.
In order to implement this objective, an "International Study Group" will be formed on an ad-hoc basis in order to
consolidate the best available expertise. Specialists (maximum 10) will be appointed to the group by the Project
Coordinator (in consultation with the Executive Director of the ICBS ) on the basis of their scientific merits and
institutional capacity (this is not a capacity building exercise) and will be drawn from government institutions, academies
of science and overseas institutions with a proven track record of studying the Black Sea. The initial work will consist of
consolidating existing information and formulating a one year study plan. This will be peer reviewed and approved by the
JMC.
25.
The study itself will include four seasonal surveys focussing on the most impacted areas. An example of the need
for this work is that there is no information as to whether the massive Zernov red algal field (the "keystone" species in the
NW Black Sea benthic system) has shown any recovery as a result of decreasing nutrient loads and accurate information is
lacking on the loads themselves. In addition to the surveys, a regional satellite tracking station will be used to download
interpret and freely distribute colour scan data regularly over the entire project period. This will enable real-time analysis
and decision making regarding seasonality and exceptional algal blooms.
Another large gap in existing knowledge is that regarding airborne nutrient inputs. Existing meteorological observation
networks will be capacitated to conduct these studies and an estimate of the total annual load and its distribution will be
made.
26.
The results of all of these observations will be employed for the preparation of a new State of the Black Sea
Report to be completed by May 2003. This will also include information on hazardous substances.
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 hazardous substances where
appropriate)
Rationale
27.
Currently there are few coordinated sectoral plans for nutrient reduction (see PDF-B report in Annex 9). Effective
legal and policy instruments are needed at a sectoral level but the work must extend beyond this to consider the issue of
implementation and enforcement. During the PDF-B, inter-sectoral committees including representatives from all
ministries or central structures involved in the management of the Black Sea resources and nutrient control, as well as
local authorities and other stakeholders were established in each country . These committees which have contributed in the
drafting of the national action plans for nutrient reduction during the PDF-B, will be extensively involved in the
technical/consultative process aiming at adoption and implementation of the sectoral master plans. There are almost no
regularly monitored indicators of success or failure of the measures taken to protect the Black Sea (see Annex 10). This is
particularly evident for indicators related to eutrophication and hazardous substances. 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:
4.1
Sectoral nutrient control master plans and associated indicators (agriculture, industry, municipalities) for each
country.
4.2
Amended laws and policies, as appropriate.
4.3
National nutrient reduction strategies.
4.4
An Istanbul Commission information base, initially managed by the PIU.
11
4.5
A pilot environmental status monitoring programme will be carried out with possible integration of process and
stress reduction indic ators in the 2nd phase.
Success criteria:
· Agreement of the agricultural, industrial and municipal sectors in each country to cooperate on specific indicators and
to help to develop and implement measures within their area of responsibility.
· Use of the information base by all six countries.
· Indicator data employed for drafting and gradually implementing new policies.
Description of approach
28.
This objective is focussed on achieving the participation of all relevant sectors in nutrient reduction. It seeks to
bring together managers from the key sectors (agriculture, industry, municipalities), in separate regional workshops in
order to stimulate participation. Each sector will then develop national sectoral masterplans of pragmatic priorities. These
may involve adjustments to policy and law (e.g. legislation against phosphate detergents). The sectoral masterplans which
will have to be reviewed every two years together will form national nutrient reduction strategies. This work will require
considerable co-ordination and a full-time specialist will be engaged in the PIU for this purpose. He/she will also work
closely with the UNDP-COs.
29.
The work envisaged within this objective also requires the development and implementation of an effective M &
E programme based upon process, stress reduction and status indicators, its pilot and full scale operation in the 2nd phase,
official status reports and an ICBS nutrient information base. Further details of the approach are as follows:
Point sources
30.
Develop a simple cost-efficiency approach (US$/kg of N, P, etc. removed) to compare the costs of tackling
different point sources of pollution. Use this approach to prioritise capital and maintenance budgets for pollution control.
Review and where appropriate update funding of environmental enforcement bodies to ensure that monies raised from
prosecuting polluters are used to fund these agencies. Similarly, review funding of regulatory monitoring of industrial
plants/WWTPs. Fines should be set at an appropriate index-linked level to prevent repeated offences. Where possible,
move towards a system of increased self-monitoring by dischargers (preferably using composite samples rather than spot
samples), with greater regulatory agency involvement in QA/QC. Where possible, discharge consent conditions should be
based on chemical loads (not concentration). The revision of consent conditions should involve all interested parties.
A.
Municipalities. Review/revise discharge consent conditions and consent compliance data for WWTPs. Improve
specifications for the development/construction of future landfill sites. Improve prosecution rates for illegal dumping of
waste. Increase the use of sewage sludge as an organic fertiliser, particularly for forestry.
B.
Industry. Review/revise conditions for trade waste discharge to sewer and direct discharge to surface waters. For
the food processing/chemical industries, discharge consent conditions should include limits on total P, total N and total
ammonia. Where appropriate, industrial discharge consents should include heavy metal conditions. For discharges
containing high levels of toxic substances, COD consent conditions should be applied in addition to/instead of BOD
conditions.
Diffuse sources
C.
Agriculture. Develop guidance and educate farmers on cost-effective fertiliser application levels based on crop
requirements . This guidance should be for total (organic and inorganic) nutrient application rates, including livestock
manure. The guidance will promote the use of organic fertiliser and the development of mixed livestock/arable farms and
will complement the investment projects to be implemented under the World Bank- GEF Nutrient Reduction Investment
Facility. Where possible, the project will develop maximum livestock densities for farms, dependent on waste
handling/disposal strategies, provide advice/education to farmers on good agricultural practice to minimise land erosion.
D.
Forestry. Develop and implement a strategy for sustainable development of forestry.
Indicators
32.
Use currently available information to develop indicators of process and stress for nutrient use/export from the
agricultural, industrial and municipal sectors. Design and implement an environmental monitoring programme, using the
results to develop environmental stress indicators. Develop indicator targets and assess compliance with these targets in the
status reports. Use target compliance to monitor the success of the Regional Action Plan and, if necessary, review/revise
the plan on both a national and sectoral basis.
Objective 5. Support the Commissions in their periodic review of Adaptive Management objectives.
12
Rationale
33.
By the end of the two phases, the 1997 nutrient `cap' should be replaced by goals based on results of the present
project and its Danube counterpart. During the 1st phase environmental status indicators will be developed and
implemented while 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 in the 2nd phase. The initial
forum for these discussions will be the ICBS and ICPDR Joint Working Group (JWG) set up on the basis of the 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:
5.1
A benefit/cost study of the application of the recommendations (to be conducted jointly with the ICPDR)
Success criteria:
· Publication and positive reception of the Benefit-cost study
Description of the approach
34.
This activity will be managed by UNDP in close co-operation with the ICPDR, World Bank, UNEP and the CEC
and builds on the results of objectives 3, 4, 7 and the WB/GEF Partnership Investment Facility for Nutrient Reduction. It
will provide the ICBS and ICPDR with basic information to set new targets for nutrient control. The activities will include
a benefit/cost analysis of the actions proposed in the sectoral master plans and National Strategies and the preparation of
technical documents to the Commissions for recommending new targets.
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
36.
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 (see Annex 11). 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 strengthen the regional network of NGOs are included. The strengthening of WWF's role in
wetland management in the region is also foreseen.
Outputs:
6.1
Reports describing 29 completed actions in the first tranche (e.g. wetlands restored, videos produced, farms
converted to organic production, etc.)
6.2
Proposals for the second tranche.
6.3
Regional NGO newsletter `Black Sea Shared' produced and distributed quarterly (mainly electronically)
6.4
Regional report on wetland protection and restoration and recommendation for local actions (WWF)
Success criteria:
· Full implementation of first tranche of 29 projects (independent review).
· Successful second call for proposals.
13
· Effective contribution of NGO evinced by the establishment of a regional NGO WG on nutrient reduction, media
reports and presence at significant regional open meetings.
· Increased number of wetlands protected and/or restored (WWF)
Description of approach
37.
The PDF-B process has already resulted in a portfolio of peer reviewed projects that will enable this activity to get
underway immediately after project approval. A public participation specialist from the region will be appointed to
coordinate this initiative and ensure reporting and evaluation. She/he will also develop a regionally based evaluation
mechanism for a second tranche of proposals, to be submitted early in 2003. The specialist will also ensure that the entire
GEF project respects the provisions of the Aarhus Convention (Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation
in Decision-Making and Access to justice in Environmental Matters).
In addition to the small projects initiative, some support will be given to the Black Sea NGO network for a region-wide
project and for publication of their newsletter. Training of the general public and target groups will be facilitated through
close collaboration with the Black Sea component of the GEF Train-Sea-Coast Programme as well as the recently initiated
Black Sea Environmental Education Project, mostly funded by independent donors and by Tacis. In order to extend to the
Black Sea the excellent work of WWF in the Danube and in other European Seas, funds will be made available to this
organisation for work on wetland restoration and on fisheries conservation and policy. This will enable the participation of
Black Sea countries in these important Europe-wide initiatives.
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
38.
For the current project to be successful, it must assist the ICBS 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 the national and regional
financial institutions such as the Black Sea Regional Development Bank. The following outputs will enable the ICBS to
examine pragmatic options for improving financing, especially in the period following the implementation of the Strategic
Partnership (i.e. after GEF funding has expired):
Outputs:
7.1.
`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.
7.2.
Letters of agreement and other practical arrangements with regional/national funding institutions.
Success criteria:
· Actions taken within countries to correct identified gaps in the application of instruments.
· Loans for nutrient-related investments channeled through regional or national development banks.
Description of approach
39.
As part of its sectoral analysis of measures to reduce nutrient discharges, special attention will be required to
economic instruments, national and regional. This component will be managed by UNDP in close cooperation with the
World Bank. During a three year period, a full time economist will be engaged to help the PIU to liaise with sectors within
countries (including the finance sector) to explore how economic instruments can be devised and better integrated into
national strategies for nutrient reduction.
14
Work within this objective will also focus on widening the basis of financial support through private-public sector
partnerships and the use of national or regional development banks to manage funding for small/medium sized investment
projects (such as small municipal WWTPs).
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.
Rationale
40.
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. Articles 58 and 59 of the Black Sea Strategic Action Plan
call for specific measures:
(58) 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.
(59) In order to rehabilitate the Black Sea ecosystem and achieve sustainable fisheries in the Black Sea, fisheries
management policies need to be enhanced and fishing effort needs to be adjusted to the status of the stocks. In this regard,
the Black Sea coastal states are expected to expedite the adoption of the Fisheries Convention as soon as possible so as to
develop a fisheries management system which consists of the following components: regular regionally coordinated stock
assessments; national fishing authorisations for all Black Sea fishing vessels; a regional licensing system; and a quota
system. In addition, enforcement of fisheries regulations urgently needs to be improved. These measures and others, which
are required to attain more sustainable fisheries in the Black Sea, should be taken in close cooperation with the fishing
sector.
Article 58 has particular synergy with the measures proposed to enhance the service function of coastal and wetland
systems for nutrient removal. Neither of these articles has been implemented as yet and serious conflicts have recently
emerged between coastal countries over illegal fishing for much diminished stocks. The present projects seeks to
implement (58) and catalyse (59)
Outputs:
8.1.
Identification of the zones where fisheries would need to be regulated /banned to allow for restoration of
macrophyte habitats and recovery of nursery grounds.
8.2.
Design of measures for enforcement.
8.3.
Progress in/ conclusion of the fisheries convention with measures to limit fishing effort and provisions for
enforcement.
Success criteria:
· Gradual introduction of sensitive habitats as fisheries free zones which ultimately will help in the recovery of
macrophyte beds (including those damaged by trawling gear).
· Possible signing of the Fisheries Convention
· Signature, ratification and implementation of the new Biodiversity Protocol to the Bucharest Convention (prepared
with BSEP (GEF and Tacis) funding.
Description of approach
41.
Negotiations on a new fisheries convention for the Black Sea are currently stalled but countries have expressed
their willingness to resume and complete the process. The Black Sea Economic Cooperation is also attempting to facilitate
the discussions. It is proposed that the ICBS should join them in this work in conformity with their agreed responsibility as
stated in the BS -SAP.
15
42.
For new fisheries regulations to be effective in restoring stocks there should be measures in place to protect key
relevant underwater habitats that are expected to recover as nutrient loads to the Black Sea are reduced. This implies a
policy of restricted or fisheries-free zones, an effective procedure that is not part of the draft Convention. An intensive
effort will be required if this application of the LME rationale is to be accepted. The best mechanism for achieving this
goal is to complete and ratify the Landscape and Biological Diversity Protocol to the Bucharest Convention in parallel to
the negotiations on the Fisheries Convention itself. Activity 8.2 provides the basis for completing this work. Fisheries-free
zones (usually a temporary measure) and Marine Protected Areas (a more permanent measure) are useful tools to ensure
better habitat conservation. Finally, the other imperative for rational fisheries management is to improve knowledge of the
transboundary populations of fish species and to enhance the understanding of the impact of particular fishing practices on
the sustainability of populations. Surprisingly, this has never been realized in the Black Sea though detailed plans for a
multi-country assessment were prepared as part of the GEF Pilot Phase intervention and available at the PIU.
16
17
Table 1. Activities, lead agencies and associate partners, counterparts, completion dates and funding.
COMPONENT I. CO-ORDINATION, INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY BUILDING AND LEGAL REFORM
Objective 1. Support the integration of a sustainable Secretariat for the Bucharest Convention
Activities
Lead Agencies
National
Target date for
counterparts (Black
completion
Associated Int.
Sea countries)
Indicative GEF
Partners
fund allocation
Activity 1.1a
Establish and operate the Joint Management Committee.
ICBS/PIU
CBCs/DRs (MoE)
All bodies established by
Activity 1.1b
Two year operation of the Black Sea Project Implementation Unit of the
*UNDP -GEF
September 2001
Istanbul Commission (BS-PIU) to facilitate, co-ordinate, and communicate on
UNEP
the implementation of priority activities identified in this document.
World Bank
$580,000**
CEC
Activity 1.2a.
Establish joint mechanisms between the Istanbul Commission and the ICPDR
ICBS
CBCs
Annual meetings from 2001 -
for implementing and strengthening the MOU agreed at their spring 2000
PIU
2003
meetings.
ICPDR
Activity 1.2b.
To extend this process to cover formal river basin commissions in other areas
UNDP
of the Black Sea Basin. A Black Sea Basin Inter-Commission Consultative
UNEP
$40,000
Group should be established by 2002 and should meet on an annual basis to
WB
discuss issues of common concern.
CEC
Activity 1.3.
Assist with the establishment or strengthening of National intersectoral bodies
UNDP
CBCs/DRs (MoE)
All bodies to be operating by
and with providing them with technical information on the transboundary
ICBS/PIU
Sectoral focal points
Jan. 2002
issues included in this project.
WB, UNEP,
CEC
$48,000
Activity 1.4
Provide administrative support to Commission's Advisory Groups (co-
UNDP
CBCs/DRs (MoE)
Workplan for ACs by
ordinated by Regional Activity Centres) to conduct specific projects related to
ICBS/PIU
ACs
July 2001
the priorities defined in this document (see later sections).
UNEP, WB
Technical Focal Points
$140,000
CEC
UNDP COs
Activity 1.5.
Diffusion of information .through the following:
ICBS/PIU
CBCs/DPs
First materials by
a.
publication of at least one newsletter and one poster annually,
UNDP
ACs
July 2001
b.
production of short information clips for coastal TV stations
All Focal Points
c.
production of non-technical leaflets about the project
BSNN
NGOs
d.
production of technical reports
Tacis
UNDP -COs
$128,700
e.
update and maintenance 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, JMC costs, capital equipment
$936,700
18
Objective 2. Regional actions for improving land based activities (LBA) legislation to control eutrophication and for tackling emergent problems.
Activities
Lead Agencies
National
Target date for
counterparts (Black
completion
Associated Int.
Sea countries)
Indicative GEF
Partners
fund allocation
Activity 2.1a
Preparation of recommendations for the draft LBA Protocol and joint
UNEP
.CBCs/DRs (MoE)
1a May 2002
facilitation (with the ICBS) of negotiations on the new Protocol. This work is a
ICBS/PIU
Technical Focal Points
1b October 2001
continuation 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
UNEP
CBCs/DPs
Oct. 2002
causes of environmental degradation and the cost effectiveness of interventions
ICBS/PIU
Technical Focal Points
to correct current and emergent transboundary problems (using the GIWA
ACs
Total $70,000
methodology, including full impact assessment)
TOTAL
$160,000
19
COMPONENT II. SECTORAL LEGAL AND POLICY REFORMS, MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF NUTRIENT
CONTROL MEASURES AND REVIEWING TARGETS FOR ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
Objective 3. Assist countries to improve their knowledge of the process of eutrophication in the Black Sea
Activities
Lead Agencies
National
Target date for
counterparts (Black
completion
Associated Int.
Sea countries)
Indicative GEF
Partners
fund allocation
Activity 3.1.
Integration of an international study group (ISG) to plan and conduct the
UNDP
DRs, ACs and Technical
October 2001
practical studies. Formulation of the detailed study plan (eutrophication and
ICBS-PIU
Focal Points, Specialists from
hazardous substances) and its submission to peer review. Appointment of
2-3 specialist institutions
Academies of Science
$20,000
(existing) remote sensing centre.
experienced in other
selected on scientific merits
impacted areas
and experience.
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.
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
May 2003
Report (to be known as the Odessa Declaration + 10 Report), formulation of
ISG
the study + CBCs/DRs for
$40,000
recommendations.
review
TOTAL
$660,000
20
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 hazardous substances where appropriate)
Activities
Lead Agencies
National
Target date for
counterparts (Black
completion
Associated Int.
Sea countries)
Indicative GEF
Partners
fund allocation
Activity 4.1a
Thee 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 ICBS officials,
ICBS/PIU
Sectors
1b. Feb. 2003
experts, etc., to explore actions to reduce nutrient emissions.
1c. May 2003
Activity 4.1b
Sectoral master plans to be developed for nutrient control in each coastal
CEC, WB
$410,000***
country. These will incorporate revisions and amendments in laws and policies
AC for ICZM (Krasnodar)
and common indicators of process and stress reduction , and will be reviewed
for municipal sector.
every 2 years.
AC for Pollution Control
Activity 4.1c
Development and govt. approval of national nutrient reduction strategies and
(Istanbul) for Ind. Sector.
presentation to the ICBS , and will be reviewed every 2 years.
ICPDR (liaison)
Activity 4.2a.
Designation of monitoring institutions, provision of basic equipment and
UNDP
CBCs (to designate
2a. Sept. 2001
training in the new scheme (2x2 week practical courses/ country)
ICBS/PIU
monitoring institutions)
2b. May. 2002
Activity 4.2b.
Design of new monitoring programme incorporating environmental status
Technical focal points
2c. May 2002
indicators and its approval by the ICBS
AC for Pollution Assessment
$275,000
Activity 4.2c
Establishment of QA/QC procedures including intercomparison exercises.
(Odesa)
Additional activities may be
CEC, ICPDR (liaison)
co-funded by CEC
Activity 4.3
Pilot implementation of new environmental status programme.
UNDP
Monitoring institutions
May 2003
ICBS/PIU
CBCs/DRs (MoE)
AC for Pollution Assessment
$120,000 (pilot phase only.
(Odesa)
Operation of the full-scale
CEC
programme govt.
responsibility).
Activity 4.4
Develop and implement ICBS information base. Operation at the PIU.
UNDP
CBCs/DRs (MoE)
from January 2002-May 2003
ICBS/PIU
All technical focal points
UNEP-GRID, ICPDR
$100,000****
***Includes senior F/T staff member
TOTAL
****Includes F/T information officer
$905,000
21
Objective 5. Support the Commissions in their periodic review of Adaptive Management objectives.
Activities
Lead Agencies
National
Target date for
counterparts (Black
completion
Associated Int.
Sea countries)
Indicative GEF
Partners
fund allocation
Activity 5
Economic benefit/cost studies of the actions proposed in the Sectoral Master
UNDP
DRs (MoE)
May 2003 (completion)
Plans and the National strategies (Obj. 4, Activity 1). The recent study of the
ICBS/PIU
Technical focal points
economics of nutrient control in the Baltic (Gren, Turner, et al. 2000) will serve
ICPDR
as a working model. A specialist team will be appointed for this work by the
Dnipro Comm.
JWG. They will also pay attention to wetland restoration economics.
WB, UNEP
$120,000
CEC
(BS component)
TOTAL
$120,000
22
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.
Activities
Lead Agencies
National
Target date for
counterparts (Black
completion
Associated Int.
Sea countries)
Indicative GEF
Partners
fund allocation
Activity 6.1a.
Appointment of regional public participation specialist at the PIU, inter-alia to
UNDP,
NGOs,
1a. June 2001- May 2003
coordinate the small projects initiative.
ICBS/PIU
Local governments
1b. January 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.
ICBS/PIU
Local governments
CEC
Private sector
(salary inc. in 6.1)
Activity 6.3.
Support to the BSNN and BSEEP for increased involvement in regional aspects
UNDP,
NGOs
Review by March 2003
of reduction of eutrophication and for work on environmental educat ion in
ICBS/PIU
schools.
CEC
$50,000
Activity 6.4.
Independent report on wetland conservation and restoration in the Black Sea
WWF
NGOs
December 2001
region
ICBS/PIU
Technical and scientific
WB
institutes
$40,000
Governments
TOTAL
$470,000
23
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 to the Black Sea and establish
private-public sector partnerships for environmental protection.
Activities
Lead Agencies
National
Target date for
counterparts (Black
completion
Associated Int.
Sea countries)
Indicative GEF
Partners
fund allocation
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
ICBS/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)
March 2002
nutrients (e.g. introduction of phosphate-free detergents, new technology,
ICBS/PIU
Private sector organisations
organic farming, etc.). To be co-ordinated by the PIU economist.
WB, EBRD
(Chambers of Commerce,
$28,000
BSEC Business Forum
etc.)
(salary in Act. 1)
UNDP -COs
Activity 7.3
Evaluate the potential of the local and/or regional financial intermediaries
UNDP
Finance sector
March 2002
(eg.Black Sea Regional Development Bank) as a means of channelling funding
ICBS/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. 1)
TOTAL
$292,000
24
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.
Activities
Lead Agencies
National
Target date for
counterparts (Black
completion
Associated Int.
Sea countries)
Indicative GEF
Partners
fund allocation
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.
ICBS/PIU
Committees/Ministries
BSEC
CBCs
$60,000
Activity 8.2.
Preliminary study on the evaluation of potential fisheries-free zones and
UNDP
CBCs/DRs (MoE)
May 2003
Marine Protected Areas, their promotion with Black Sea governments and
UNEP,
Intersectoral Committees
$50,000
stakeholders; their incorporation into the Landscape and Biological Diversity
WWF,
Technical focal points
Protocol to the Bucharest Convention and training of coastguards etc. for their
Fisheries Convention Sec.
enforcement.
Fisheries Activity Centre
(Constanta),
Biodiversity AC (Batumi)
Activity 8.3
Assessment of transboundary populations of fish species and their relationship
UNDP
Fisheries
July 2002
with current fishing practices.
ICBS/PIU
Committees/Ministries
Fisheries and Biodi. ACs.,
CBCs
$50,000
FAO,
CEC
TOTAL
160,000
GRAND TOTAL FOR PROJECT
Net of support costs
$3,703,700
Gross, including support costs at 8% (UNOPS)
$4,000,000
25
V. Risks and Sustainability
Issues/Actions and Risks/Country Commitment
43.
The long term success of regional scale environmental management programs, such as the one proposed here
depend, inter alia, on the political willingness of the participating countries to cooperate, their willingness to continue
project programs and approaches after the life of the GEF intervention, and the extent to which activities successfully
engage system users of the resources that are the subject of intervention.
44.
In relation to political willingness, the countries have demonstrated their interest and ability to cooperate in a
consistent manner since the signature of the Odessa Declaration in April 1993. The Pilot Phase GEF intervention was one
of the few IW projects completed exactly according to schedule and with all of the anticipated outputs. This should not
however be interpreted to imply that all obstacles have been overcome and that risks are negligible. Negotiations on the
establishment of a Secretariat for the Bucharest Convention took eight years to complete, partly because of the changing
political and financial circumstances of the Contracting Parties. There are also frequent changes in the political and
institutional structures in some of the coastal countries and the profile of environmental protection may vary from time to
time according to the importance attributed to environment by central governments. In the case of the three countries in the
process of accession to the European Union (Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey) there is the additional prerogative to
approximation of their laws and policies to the EU Directives. This in itself carries the risk that there will be a widening
gap between the policies and laws in the accession and non-accession countries to the detriment of the Black Sea. The
support of the EU Tacis programme and the continued cooperation of the CIS Black Sea countries should help to avoid this
gap becoming a reason for poor protection of the Black Sea.
Sustainability
45.
The risk of this GEF-initiated programme and activities related to it, ending after the life of the project are also
seen as low. The project is designed to support agreements that are already in place and have been incorporated in national
laws and policies. The IAs have been cautious to delay submission of the project until there is a demonstrated commitment
of the coastal countries to the full institutionalization of the Bucharest Convention Secretariat. The project itself is
designed to anchor each achievement in legal and policy agreements that help to increase its sustainability. In addition, the
strong public awareness/participation component will raise public expectations and, together with the provisions of the
Aarhus Convention, ensure accountability.
46.
Project management will be firmly rooted within the ICBS Secretariat and it is anticipated that the PIU staff
(including its coordinator) will include a high proportion of nationals of the Black Sea countries. By maintaining the PIU
as a semi-autonomous unit, the statutory functions of the ICBS will not be confused with the technical tasks of the PIU.
This will be important for sustainability, as any tendency to over -rely on the presence of project staff for completing the
work of the Commission should be avoided. The network of BSEP Activity Centres will be part of the structure of the
Commission and should ensure a process of continued decentralization of responsibilities that also promotes sustainability.
47.
Ultimately sustainability will depend upon the perception of local people around the shores of the Black Sea that
this work is important for their daily lives and for future generations. If the project abstracts itself from the public, this
basic requirement will not be met and will inevitably fail. Authoritarian impositions and institutionalized secrecy are a
guarantee of long term unsustainability. Elements of the project to promote public information are one of the best tools for
longer-term success.
Financial Sustainability
48.
Financial sustainability is somewhat enhanced by the country commitment to sustain the Secretariat of the
Bucharest Convention. Care has been taken to place emphasis on economic instruments as an essential tool for future
nutrient control strategies. This by itself however, is insufficient. There needs to be a clear understanding that the long-
term benefits outweigh the immediate costs of environmental protection. This is the main reason for incorporating a
benefit/cost study into the project strategy. There also has to be an understanding that many of the short-term measures
also generate short-term domestic benefits. The equivocal message that eutrophication control is a purely remote and long-
term matter should be avoided. The recent rapid response of the system to lowered nutrient loads offers the perspective of
more transparent and attractive waters for coastal tourism, even in the short term. This message should not be lost against
the background of the lengthy process of full ecosystem recovery.
26
VI.
Stakeholder Participation
49.
The design of the current project incorporated a wide range of stakeholders. Consultations on regional priorities
began with the broad consensus achieved during negotiations on the BS -SAP. It was estimated that over one thousand
specialists, officials and NGO members were incorporated into this process. The consultations continued through (1) the
development of the National Black Sea Strategic Action Plans, (2) consultations by the Activity Centres; (3) a symposium
of religious leaders, scientists and public officials (summer 1997); (4) annual celebrations of Black Sea Day2 in coastal
towns throughout the region; (5) during the 17 country July 2000 Black Sea Basin stocktaking meeting; and (6) during the
preparation of the current proposal. A good example of active stakeholder involvement was the preparation of the small
projects initiative where a call for proposals was widely announced in all six countries and attracted considerable attention.
It resulted in strong proposals, all of which included counterpart funding from the beneficiary organizations.
50.
It is clear that successful project implementation will require that the stakeholder participation is broadened further
in order to include representatives of a wider spectrum of sectors. In the case of domestic sources of nutrients there needs
to be a greater involvement of municipalities. The earlier GEF interventions focussed on central governments, particularly
Ministries of Environment. Though these remain the principal national counterparts, direct contacts must be established
with other sectors including ministries or departments of agriculture, fisheries, industry, finance and municipal authorities.
Contacts will be established with civil society organizations including business associations, private banks, NGOs (via the
Black Sea NGO Network) and teachers (through the newly established Black Sea Environmental Education Project).
51.
Various mechanisms exist for promoting increased stakeholder involvement. Greater sectoral involvement is
incorporated in Objective 4 (sector consultations) and by supporting the continued development of National Intersectoral
Committees (Objective 1). In addition where appropriate, UNDP will organize country dialogues to provide additional
impetus to this process.
52.
In conformity with the recommendations of the BS -SAP and the Aarhus Convention, provisions will be made to
enhance public participation in the project decision making process. In the first instance, this will be ensured by inviting
two NGO representatives to attend meetings of the JMG. The small projects initiative is designed specifically to encourage
active public participation in project implementation. There are also provisions in the budget for diffusion of information
to the general public and for the production of at least one film clip.
VII. Project Implementation, Institutional Framework and National and Regional Institutions
Project Implementation
53.
The United Nations Office of Program Services (UNOPS) will be the Executing Agency for the project and on
behalf of the six participating countries. It will establish inter-agency agreements with UNEP for activities in which it acts
as lead agency. The UNDP Resident Representative in Turkey will act as Principal Project Resident Representative.
54.
The Project will have a very simple management structure (see description in paragraph 16) linking it to the
organic structure of the ICBS and to the major donors and IAs. The Project Chief Technical Advisor (Black Sea Project
Co-ordinator) will serve for renewable terms of two years, and will be appointed consistent with standard UNDP
procedures in consultation with the participating countries. The UNDP Project Document governing implementation of the
project will include full terms of reference of all project staff. It is envisaged that the following staff will be appointed as
specified in Table 1 (source of funding in parenthesis):
· Project Co-ordinator
(CTA, Objective 1)
· Sectoral reform and M & E specialist
(Objective 4)
· Data base and information manager
(Activities in objectives 1,3 and 4)
· Economist
(Objective 5 and 7)
· Public participation specialist
(Objective 6)
Management responsibilities will be distributed amongst these specialists by the CTA. It is hoped that additional staff may
be provided by secondments from governments or other donors. Consultants will be retained as necessary and priority will
2 International Black Sea Day is held on 31 October every year to commemorate the signature of the Black Sea Strategic Action Plan.
Activities to celebrate this day have been supported by NGOs, local authorities, BSEP and Tacis.
27
be given to the recruitment of national consultants as available. In addition, the CTA will appoint the support staff
specified in Table 1, Objective 1.
55.
The lead Implementing Agency (UNDP) will establish memoranda of understanding with other major donors
regarding task sharing within the PIU for managing project implementation. A very good working relationship was
established with DG Environment and Tacis in the previous GEF project and it is proposed to build upon this example in
the future. UNDP will also support the project through its Country Offices where possible. UNOPS will provide
administrative support and will be responsible for commitments such as major contracting and overall financial
management and reporting.
Programmatic Linkages to Other Agency Programs
56.
The proposed project is an integral part of the GEF Danube/Black Sea Basin Strategic Partnership. Co-ordination
is the essence of this approach and close co-operation will be maintained with other international projects in the region
throughout project implementation. In particular, this project has been specifically designed to complement a proposed
GEF project in support of the ICPDR; a proposed GEF/World Bank Partnership Investment Facility for Nutrient Reduction
in the Black Sea and Danube Basin; and to harmonize with the EU Nutrient Reduction Directives.
ICPDR
57.
Many of the activities listed in Table 1 specify the ICPDR as a partner organization and it would be difficult to
implement them without a working relationship and full and regular consultations. For this purpose, special provisions
have been included for two bodies that should meet on an annual basis to discuss issues of common concern:
A.
Joint Working Group (JWG) between the Istanbul Commission and the ICPDR, established through an
inter-commission MOU agreed at their spring/summer 2000 meetings.
B.
Black Sea Basin Inter-Commission Consultative Group to extend this process to cover all formal river
basin commissions in the Black Sea Basin.
It is assumed that the Inter-Commission Consultative Group would eventually replace the JWG and would include the
Dnipro and eventually the Dniester Commissions. In addition, the JWG or its successor may wish to establish joint ad-hoc
working groups to which they would assign specific functions. Since the JWG will be an inter-commission group, it will
work under the authority of the Directors of the ICPDR and ICBS who will be responsible for convening the meetings and
establishing working procedures. This would not preclude the possibility of additional informal contacts between the
various GEF projects working in the region.
World Bank/GEF Partnership Investment Facility for Nutrient Reduction
58.
The World Bank/GEF Partnership Investment Facility for Nutrient Reduction is proposed as a mechanism to
streamline the processing of GEF funds toward nutrient reduction investments in the Black Sea and Danube River
countries. In addition to the World Bank's role as a GEF implementing agency for Partnership funds, it has agreed to
promote nutrient reduction policies and Danube/Black Sea restoration objectives in its ongoing policy dialogue with the 15
GEF-recipient countries of these Basins. The World Bank's role in the Partnership requires close involvement with the
Black Sea Commission activities and this project since knowledge of and input toward ongoing activities is essential to
carrying out it's country dialogue and investment promotion commitments. Outputs of this project such as development of
a regional monitoring and evaluation program; sectoral masterplans for nutrient reduction; benefit cost analysis studies;
and nutrient reduction policy assessments will help recipient countries develop (and the Bank to appraise) more
comprehensive investment proposals for the Partnership. Similarly, the proposed Partnership provides a mechanism for
convening partners toward follow-up and implementation of key policy and investment recommendations of this project.
European Union
59.
Three of the countries in the region are at various stages in the process of accession to the European Union. Two
of these (Bulgaria and Romania) are beneficiaries of the EU's Accession programme and support for the third (Turkey) is
currently being negotiated. The process of accession has considerable bearing on the development of the project objectives
and outputs and great care has been taken to avoid actions that will be in conflict with EU policy. This is defined through
the Directives of the European Commission, those related to the control of phosphorus and nitrogen compounds (the
Phosphate and Nitrate Directives) and the recent Water Framework Directive. Close coordination will be maintained with
DG-Environment throughout project execution. In the case of the non-accession countries (Georgia, Russia and Ukraine),
these are beneficiaries of the Tacis programme and have already received over 10 million Euros of Tacis support as part of
the previous and on-going Tacis Black Sea Programme, an integral part of the BSEP. Tacis is currently formulating a new
28
project for continuing its support to the Black Sea region and this is expected to include a regional element as a collateral
project to the GEF intervention and a country-specific investment element that will work in close parallel to the Strategic
Partnership. The European Commission (through DG-Environment and Tacis) will be part of the JMG in order to achieve
the highest level of co-ordination and it is hoped that Tacis will continue to provide staff support to the PIU.
Other donors and agencies
60.
Close co-ordination will also be maintained with other international agencies, many of whom have projects
directly or indirectly related to the Black Sea. These include FAO, IOC (of Unesco), IMO, WHO, WMO, EBRD. A special
relationship will be developed with the Black Sea Economic Cooperation, which works closely with foreign ministries in
all Black Sea countries and beyond and has its own environmental committee. Closer relationships will also be developed
where relevant with the BSEC Business Council and the Black Sea Trade and Development Bank. There are also a number
of bilateral donors that support Black Sea region-wide programmes. Examples include USAID's assistance on oil spill
response, Dutch support to the Association of Black Sea Harbourmasters or the recent assistance from the British Council
for bringing together young people around the theme of Black Sea Protection.
Country-specific projects
61.
Much of the current support to collateral activities is in the form of country-specific projects and where possible,
these programmes will be invited to collaborate with the Black Sea Basin Strategic Partnership. The largest single donor is
without doubt the European Union particularly through its Accession Programme (formerly Phare) in Romania and
Bulgaria but also through a large number of smaller Tacis projects/Tacis Interstate Programme. UNDP has been
mainstreaming environment into its technical assistance and many of its national projects include work on relevant
environmental issues. There are also a very large number of smaller bilateral projects in the region and the PIU will
integrate an information base of these initiatives in co-operation with the UNDP-COs. Examples include the Danish
Technical Assistance Programme support to Romania for upgrading coastal WWTPs or Japan's assistance to fisheries
management in Turkey.
VIII. Incremental Costs and Project Financing
62.
The overall cost of the project is US$ 8,294,920. GEF financing (net of support costs and the PDF-B) is in the
amount US$ 3,703,700. Co-finance from National Governments (independently or via the ICBS), Tacis, UNDP, UNEP,
other UN Agencies, independent donors, etc. amount to US$ 3,945,000. Approximately 85% of the GEF contribution will
be disbursed within the region. Project costs, the full details of which including information related to the baseline are to be
found in Annex 1B are summarised in Table 2. Please note that baseline costs have been restricted to quantifiable activities
of direct relevance to the aims and objectives of the project. It probably considerably underestimates real costs but reflects
the current lack of information on small initiatives described in paragraph 58. Following is a tabular summary of the GEF
contribution by Output and Activity.
Table 2- Summary of Project Costs
Component
Objective
Baseline (B)
Alternative
Increment (A-B)
(A)
Gov
GEF
UNDP
UNEP
Tacis
Others3.
TOTAL
I. Co-
1. Support the integration of
1,080,000
3,194,700
1,150,000
936,700
28,000
2,114,700
ordination,
a sustainable Secretariat for
institutional
the Bucharest Convention
capacity
building and
legal reform
2. Regional actions for
30,000
245,000
160,000
55,000
215,000
improving LBA legislation to
control eutrophication and
for tackling emergent
problems
3 Includes WB, BSEC, WMO
29
II. Sectoral
3. Assist countries to
947,000
1,619,000
660,000
12,000
672,000
legal and
improve their knowledge of
policy reforms, the process of eutrophication
monitoring and in the Black Sea
evaluation of
nutrient control
measures and
reviewing
targets for
adaptive
management
4. Introduce new sectoral
5,552,000
7,497,000
905,000 [240,000]
[800,000]
1,945,000
policies and a system of
process, stress reduction and
environmental status
indicators for monitoring the
effectiveness of measures to
control eutrophication (and
hazardous substances where
appropriate)
5. Support the Commission
60,400
220,400
120,000
[40,000]
160,000
in their periodic review of
Adaptive Management
objectives.
III. Supporting 6. Assist the public in
472,520
1,142,520
470,000
[200,000]
670,000
public
implementing activities to
involvement in reduce eutrophication
nutrient control through a programme of
grants for small projects and
support to regional NGOs.
IV. Innovative 7. Formulate proposals for
1,648,000
3,140,000
292,000
[1,200,000]
1,492,000
economic
market-based or alternative
instruments for economic instruments for
the control of
limiting nutrient emissions
eutrophication and establish private-public
sector partnerships for
environmental protection in
the Black Sea.
V. Sustainable 8. A fishery exploited within
360,000
740,000
160,000
[200,000]
20,000
380,000
exploitation of its maximum sustainable
fish stocks as yield and incorporating
part of an
measures to protect
ecosystem
ecologically sensitive areas.
approach
Agency
296,300
296,300
Support Costs
PDF-B
349,920
349,920
Total
10,149,920
18,444,840
1,150,000
4,349,920 240,000
55,000 [2,440,000]
60,000
8,294,920
IX. Monitoring and Evaluation
63.
Project objectives, outputs and emerging issues will be regularly reviewed and evaluated annually by the PSC.
The project will be subject to the various evaluation and review mechanisms of the UNDP, including the Project
Performance and Evaluation Review (PPER), the Tri-Partite Review (TPR), and an external Evaluation and Final Report
prior to termination of the Project. The project will also participate in the annual Project Implementation Review (PIR) of
the GEF. Particular emphasis will be given to emerging GEF policy with regard to monitoring and evaluation in the
context of GEF IW projects. This document generally, and more specifically the logframe in this document, will be used
to identify relevant Process Indicators, Stress Reduction Indicators, and Environmental Status Indicators that will serve to
inform the M&E process and be adopted by the participating countries. This work will be considerably expanded as a
result of Objective 4 of the project itself which is focussed on the establishment of sustainable M & E procedures for the
entire region.
64.
In addition to the monitoring and evaluation described above, monitoring of the project will be undertaken by a
contracted supervision firm, and by a balanced group of experts selected by UNDP. The extensive experience by UNDP in
monitoring large programs will be drawn upon to ensure that the project activities are carefully documented. There will be
two evaluation periods, one at mid-term and another at the end of the Program.
30
65.
The mid-point review will focus on relevance, performance (effectiveness, efficiency and timeliness), issues
requiring decisions and actions and initial lessons learned about project design, implementation and management. The
final evaluation will focus on similar issues as the mid-term evaluation but will also look at early signs of potential impact
and sustainability of results, including the contribution to capacity development and the achievement of global
environmental goals. Recommendations on follow-up activities will also be provided.
66.
Approximately 1% of project funds will be allocated for the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) to be undertaken
by independent experts and UNDP. The evaluation process will be carried out according to standard procedures and
formats in line with GEF requirements. The process will include the collection and analysis of data on the Program and its
various projects including an overall assessment, the achievement of clearly defined objectives and performance with
verifiable indicators, annual reviews, and description and analysis of stakeholder participation in the Program design and
implementation. Explanations will be given on how the monitoring and evaluation results will be used to adjust the
implementation of the Program if required and to replicate the results throughout the region. As far as possible, the M&E
process will be measured according to a detailed workplan and a Logical Framework Analysis approach developed and
tabulated in the project document.
X. Lessons Learned and Technical Reviews
67.
This project, together with those for the Danube and Dnipro, consititute the first application of a basin-wide
approach to the GEF IW Programme. It is thus extremely important to review the lessons learned and to examine their
applicability in other candidate regions of the world. As in the case of earlier interventions, the project will be involved in
the GEF International Waters Learning, Exchange and Resource Network Program (IW: LEARN). IW:LEARN is a
distance education program whose purpose is to improve global management of transboundary water systems. It will
provide structured interactive conferencing capability across and within the GEF International Waters Portfolio and will
allow participants in GEF IW projects to share learning related to oceans, coastal zone management and to other river
basins in the region and beyond. For environmental professionals working on GEF related projects IW:LEARN will
greatly expand opportunities for peer to peer, collaborative research with physically distant colleagues, opportunities to
exchange best practices and training modules among projects, and the delivery of short courses.
31
List of Mandatory Annexes
Annex 1A -
Incremental Cost Narrative
Annex 1B -
Full Incremental Cost Matrix
Annex 2 -
Logical Framework Matrix
Annex 3 -
GEF Operational Country Focal Point Endorsement Letters
Annex 4A -
STAP Review
Annex 4B-
Response to STAP Review
Annex 5-
Executive Summary of the Terminal Evaluation Report for ''Developing the Implementation of the Black
Sea Strategic Action Plan (RER/96/G32/C)
Annex 6A-
Indicative list of Objectives, Activities, Completion Dates and Funding Requirements for Phase II
Annex 6B-
Suggested Logical Framework Matrix for the Full Project (Phase I and Phase II)
List of Optional Annexes
Annex 7 -
State of the Pollution in the Black Sea report (Executive Summary), 1999.
Annex 8 -
Report of the May 2000 meeting of the Istanbul Commission
Thematic Reports Prepared During the PDF-B Project Phase
Annex 9 -
Report on current policy and legislation for nutrient control in Black Sea countries.
Annex 10 - The development of process, stress reduction and environmental status indicators to monitor the effects of
nutrients within the Black Sea Basin
Annex 11 - Report on the development of a programme for public partic ipation in the Black Sea including grants for
small projects
Annex 12 - Development of a new Protocol for Land Based Activities in the Black Sea
Annex 13 - Danube/Black Sea Basin Strategic Partnership
32
Annex 1A: Incremental Cost Narrative
BROAD DEVELOPMENT GOALS
The Black Sea has suffered at least three decades of severe environmental degradation, mainly as a consequence of
eutrophication but also through irrational exploitation of its ecosystem, destruction of landscapes and habitats and
pollution from domestic, industrial and agricultural sources and shipping. Earlier GEF interventions led to the
development of a Black Sea Strategic Action Plan that gives the coastal countries a blueprint for tackling many of
these problems. The countries have also established a regional institutional framework for joint management of the
Black Sea's transboundary issues. These interventions however, lacked the scope and timeframe to deal with some of
the main underlying problems, many of which require co-operation amongst the 17 countries of the wider Black Sea
Basin:
1. The large load of nutrients, from agriculture, industry and municipal sources, causing eutrophication in the Sea;
2. The high risk of contamination from certain toxic substances including oil;
3. The unregulated and depleted fisheries that make it difficult to restore ecosystems in an effective manner.
The present project focuses on resolving these three transboundary issues as part of a Black Sea Basin Strategic
Approach. It places particular emphasis on the issue of eutrophication that is perceived to be the most serious threat
to the present and future integrity of the Black Sea Ecosystem.
Control of eutrophication is a particularly difficult task as the origins of the nutrients precipitating the problem are
intimately associated with rural and urban economy, practices and lifestyle. Measures to resolve the problem cannot
be unilateral and require the sustained cooperation of all 17 countries and the full support of all stakeholders,
including the general population. If the problem is not tackled however, economic scenarios predict that nutrient
loads will soon begin to rise in pace with economic growth and the Black Sea ecosystem will deteriorate further with
regional and global consequences.
The project seeks to assist the countries to strengthen their cooperative institutions; develop and implement new
regional and national tools (instruments, laws, policies, indicators, investments) for regulating nutrient discharge,
improve public participation; increase the level of understanding of the phenomenon itself and ensure that
exploitation of natural resources is at a level that allows key habitats to recover.
Baseline
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 inclu ded 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.
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,
econcourage economic recovery and protect adjacent natural areas. Such projects would be unlikely to mitigate
eutrophication; indeed that would probably exacerbate it.
33
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.
The baseline described in Table 2 reflects the current commitment of the countrie s and their international partners to
protecting the Black Sea. It does not include the costs of wider infrastructure and personnel involved in
environmental protection or non targeted research but has been strictly limited to the personnel and infrastructure
engaged in work directly related to the implementation of the Bucharest Convention or the Black Sea Strategic
Action Plan. It is presented as a realistic measure of current country commitment to the Black Sea.
Global Environmental Objective
The globa l environmental objective of the proposed project is: Reduction of eutrophication in the Black Sea in order
to protect the Biological Diversity and functions of its ecosystem, to reduce the risk to adjacent transboundary
systems and to protect the interests of current and future human generations. The project should be replicable and
serve as a case study for the reduction of eutrophication worldwide.
The GEF intervention in the Black Sea is based on the following main assumptions:
· That the national, regional and global benefits of co-operation developed in the project will act as an incentive
for sustaining the work in the future.
· Even if countries were to take unilateral action, they could not ensure the protection of biological diversity in the
marine and coastal areas of the Black Sea .
· High transactions costs and insufficient cooperation with non-coastal riparians have impeded regional co-
operation to address environmental externalities;
· Increased awareness of the problem and positive examples for resolving it will help to achieve longer-term
sustainability of proposed measures;
· Current donors supporting bilateral and multilateral programmes in the region will be willing and able to co-
operate with the GEF in implementing this project.
The potential global and regional benefits that will accrue if these problems are comprehensively addressed will
likely be substantial. The protection of one of the most immediately threatened systems in the world will stimulate
confidence in the regional co-operative approach to adaptive management of marine and coastal catchments.
GEF Alternative
The project is an integral part of the GEF Danube/Black Sea Basin Strategic Partnership. 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.
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;
34
(e) their institutionalisation in education, policy and law,
(f) effective structures for implementation; and
(g) statutory procedures for monitoring compliance, trends and emerging issues.
This would 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 way in which these measures build upon the national baseline is outlined in the incremental cost
table (Annex 1B). The GEF alternative would achieve its global and regional objectives through the following short-
term objectives:
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 a system of process, stress reduction and environmental status indicators for
monitoring the effectiveness of measures to control eutrophication (and hazardous substances where appropriate)
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.
The Black Sea project is highly replicable. Eutrophication is a problem common to all 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 and the atmosphere.
System Boundary (Scope of the intervention)
The project will inevitably result in a large number of downstream impacts and benefits and care has been taken to
include these within the system boundary. The Black Sea is a traditional tourist destination for countries throughout
eastern and central Europe and the number of beneficiaries from a cleaner sea is likely to be much larger than the
coastal population itself. For most purposes however, the entire system is neatly defined by its catchment area
boundaries. Because of the size of the overall catchment however, it was decided to implement the Black Sea Basin
Strategic Partnership as a series of closely co-ordinated projects covering the Danube Basin, the Dnipro Basin and
the remaining areas of the Black Sea Basin (including the sea and its coastal areas) respectively. The present project
thus covers the Black Sea proper, its coastal areas, the river basins of the Dniester, (Moldova/Ukraine), Don
(Russia/Ukraine), Kuban, (Russia), Rioni (Georgia), Choroki (Georgia/Turkey), Yesilirmak (Turkey), Kizilirmak
(Turkey) and Ropotamo (Bulgaria) and intermediate basins. It will obviously require very close policy co-ordination
with the Danube and Dnipro Programmes in order to avoid duplication of discussions/activities with individual
governments. A forum for ensuring this coordination is included in the project design (paragraph 56).
Incidental Domestic Benefits
Over the long-term, a variety of domestic benefits would accrue through implementation of the proposed project. The
most economically valuable short-term domestic benefits to be gained from the project are identified in Table 2 and
are associated with the attractiveness of cleaner seas for tourism and the benefits to human health. There will also be
benefits from substantially strengthened institutional and human capacity, increased technical knowledge and public
awareness of Black Sea environmental issues, and improved national capacities in environmental legislation and
enforcement as well as in fisheries management. The domestic benefit of no-fish zones (likely recovery of high
value species) is considered a longer-term one, beyond the time frame of the project itself. Bilateral aid programmes
35
focused on domestic improvements to the environment have been included within the baseline in order to clearly
distinguish between actions most likely to result in domestic benefits (baseline bilateral projects) from those that will
mainly result in regional and global ones (the present project).
Costs (not including PDF-B)
Baseline:
$10,149,920
Alternative:
$18,444,840
Increment:
$ 8,294,920
GEF Financing:
PDF-B:
$ 349,920
Project:
$3,703,700
Project Support Costs: $ 296,300
Total GEF:
$4,349,920
36
37
Annex 1B: Incremental Costs/Complete Matrix
Component
Objective
Cost
Cost
Domestic Benefits
Global Environmental Benefits
Category
Source
($ million)
I. Co -ordination, 1. Support the
Baseline
National central
360,000 Work on national Black Sea issues related to
Any action taken at a national level that
institutional
integration of a
govts.
the implementation of the Bucharest
results in a reduction of nutrient inputs or
capacity
sustainable Secretariat
Env. Inspectorates
720,000 Convention is focussed in Ministries of the
hazardous substances or that protects
building and
for the Bucharest
etc.
Environment and in Regional Environmental
natural areas will generate some regional
legal reform
Convention
TOTAL
1,080,000 Inspectorates.
benefits even though the actions are
focussed on solving priorities problems of
national concern.
Alternative
3,194,700 Full sustainable implementation of the
The Black Sea includes unique habitat s and
Bucharest Convention will result in tangible
associated biological diversity of global
improvements to water quality and beaches
significance that are threatened under
throughout the Black Sea region. This will
present conditions. The current state of
facilitate the redevelopment of tourism as well
eutrophication impacts adjacent systems
as a potential for aquaculture that is not possible
(the Aegean) and the Black Sea may be a
under present conditions. Wild fisheries should
staging post for the spread of opportunistic
also improve.
species to other enclosed systems. The
project will help to preserve Black Sea
habitats and reduce the environmental
impact on other systems.
Increment
GEF
936,700
ICBS
800,000
Govt. of Turkey
150,000
Govts. to ACs
200,000
BSEC Environmental
28,000
Group
TOTAL
2,114,700
2. Regional actions for
Baseline
ICBS WG Specialists
10,000 Current regional legislation does not place
The lack of a clear emphasis on nutrient
improving LBA
Local specialists for
20,000 particular emphasis on eutrophication or the
control in the current Land-Based Sources
legislation to control
futures WG
integrated management of Land-Based
Protocol to the Bucharest Convention does
eutrophication and for
activities. Countries are unable to take
not provide an adequate framework for
tackling emergent
unilateral action to resolve these problems.
addressing this problem. Furthermore, there
problems
are no provisions for understanding and
modeling emergent problems in order to
TOTAL
take the anticipatory approach called for in
30,000
the BS-SAP.
Alternative
245,000 Improved regional legislation will provide a
Successful implementation of the GPA in
framework for taking joint action to solve
the Black Sea will contribute greatly to its
problems that impinge on the economies of all
global aims and objectives. Similarly, the
Black Sea States. The anticipatory approach will study of emergent transboundary problems
save the high costs of mitigation of
will serve as a case study for GIWA
environmental problems in the future. The MEH implementation. The MEH is replicable and
will reduce the risk of costly accidents.
will help to reduce the risk to biological
diversity.
Increment
GEF
160,000
UNEP (GPA)
15,000
UNEP (GIWA)
40,000
38
TOTAL
215,000
II. Sectoral legal
3. Assist countries to
Baseline
BS Research Insts.
240,000 Capacity for conducting studies of the
Current knowledge of eutrophication in the
and policy
improve their
(in-kind)
environmental situation in the Black Sea has
Black Sea is based upon sporadic studies and
reforms,
knowledge of the
Other Research Insts.
320,000 deteriorated radically since the beginning of the
does not provide a sufficient knowledge base
monitoring and
process of
(in-kind)
1990s. Many national programmes have been
for reducing management uncertainties. The
evaluation of
eutrophication in the
Satellite monitoring
100,000 discontinued.
availability of reliable information underpins
nutrient control
Black Sea
centre (in-kind)
the development of regional response
measures and
Meteorological
72,000
strategies. Current institutional capacity is
reviewing
stations (in Kind)
sufficient for providing basic information but
targets for
funds and co-ordination are lacking for
adaptive
TOTAL
947,000
conducting a proper baseline study. There are
management
currently no international studies underway.
Alternative
1,619,000 Any measurement of project success in reducing A full set of measurements of the current
eutrophication must be compared with a reliable state of the Black Sea at an early stage in
historical baseline. The present activity will
project development. These measurements
ensure that each country has such a baseline.
will enable better focusing of project and
national resources. The inclusion of satellite
measurements of plant pigments will enable
all Black Sea specialists to have access to
recent technology and to be able to increase
general understanding of the temporal
changes in eutrophication and its response to
natural and human driving forces.
Increment
GEF
660,000
WMO
[12,000]
TOTAL
672,000
4. Introduce new
Baseline
Sector specialists etc.
80,000 Present day reductions in nutrient loads have
Rising trends in nutrient emissions will lead
sectoral policies and a
National M & E
1,200,000 resulted from economic failure rather than from
to further increases in eutrophication and
system of process,
institutions
targeted action. The coastal countries are
will reverse any positive trends in
stress reduction and
Technical focal points
32,000 becoming aware of the domestic benefits of a
ecosystem recovery. The present lack of
environmental status
Current bilateral
[240,000] cleaner seas but the connections between the
indicators will not facilitate a co-ordinated
indicators for
Country assistance
costs and the benefits has not been demonstrated pro-active response from the coastal
monitorin g the
National programmes
[4,000,000] in a manner that will stimulate a sectoral
countries. A similar situation exists with
effectiveness of
under EU Accession
response. There is no system of indicators to
hazardous substances (especially oil).
measures to control
Programme
provide decision-makers with clear
eutrophication (and
TOTAL
5,552,000 demonstrations of these connections. The
hazardous substances
nutrient emissions from coastal countries are
where appropriate)
likely to rise as economies recover, unless new
practices are adopted.
Alternative
7,497,000 New sectoral policies will: (a) help sectors to
The effective reduction of nutrient inputs to
increase resource usage efficiency and reduce
the Black Sea, enabling countries to meet
waste; (b) benefit national protected areas and
their obligations to keep nutrient emissions
the development of tourism, and (c) help
to their 1997 levels. This component will
countries seeking accession to the EU to meet
also enable compliance and ecosystem
the requirements of its environmental
response to be monitored.
directives.
Increment
GEF
905,000
Tacis
[800,000]
UNDP
[240,000]
TOTAL
1,945,000
39
5. Support the
Baseline
Technical focal points
8,400 Agreement on a "cap" on nutrient emissions at Bi-annual state of the Black Sea reports will
Commission in their
ICBS
40,000 their 1997 level is a temporary measure as a
demonstrate the degree of effectiveness of
periodic review of
Nation economic
12,000 first step in a process of adaptive management. the initial "cap".
Adaptive Management
institutions
When fully institutionalized and benefits begin
objectives.
to accrue at a country level, it should provide a
TOTAL
60,400 new baseline for future incremental
adjustments.
Alternative
220,400 A new set of practical measures based upon
New practical targets for nutrient control
benefit/cost studies of the sectoral masterplans. based upon the results of Objective 5 (and
the benefit/cost studies) will ensure optimal
incremental benefits at a regional and global
level.
Increment
GEF
120,000
Tacis
[40,000]
TOTAL
160,000
III. Supporting
6. Assist the public in
Baseline
Black Sea NGO funds
424,520 A number of public initiatives, mostly by
NGOs and the public in general are not
public
implementing activities
WWF
48,000 NGOs are successfully mobilizing support for
widely engaged in regional or global
involvement in
to reduce
environmental initiatives, mostly focused on
environmental protection in the Black Sea
nutrient control
eutrophication through
TOTAL
472,520 tangible issues of local concern.
region, particularly with respect to the issue
a programme of grants
of eutrophication.
for small projects and
support to regional
NGOs.
Alternative
1,142,520 Increased engagement of local people in
Measurable reduction of nutrient emissions
environmental issues in the coastal zone. This
or increase in service functions of natural
should also improve the likelihood of success
systems as a result of small projects with a
of national strategies and increase
high level of public involvement.
sustainability of actions to protect the
environment.
Increment
GEF
470,000
Tacis
[200,000]
TOTAL
670,000
40
IV. Innovative
7. Formulate proposals
Baseline
Government sectoral
80,000 Current funding for all projects for
Current coordination of financial
economic
for market-based or
specialists
environmental protection is very limited. This
instruments to protect the Black Sea is
instruments for
alternative economic
Private institutions
120,000 is partly due to the disconnection of
virtually non-existent. The slight
the control of
instruments for limiting
Regional associations
48,000 environmental issues and their solutions from
improvement in the state of the Black Sea is
eutrophication
nutrient emissions and
and banks
other sectors of the national economy.
a result of economic failure but will be
establish private-public
Bilateral donors
600,000 Economic instruments exist in many cases but
reversed as economies strengthen unless
sector partnerships for
(project preparation)
are applied inefficiently. There is almost no
appropriate instruments are agree and
environmental
EU Accession
[800,000] attention to nutrient reduction. This situation is
enforced.
protection in the Black
Programme (estimate)
unlikely to change without incentives and a
Sea.
coordinated approach. Funding for
private/public sector partnerships is growing in
TOTAL
1,648,000 importance but has not been applied to many
projects with environmental benefits.
Alternative
3,140,000 Effective economic instruments should
Economic instruments are an essential part
increase revenues to treasuries (or to National
of any strategy to protect the transboundary
or municipal Environmental Funds) and help
environment. Market mechanisms or
to change wasteful practices. A clear
alternatives could promote international co-
demonstration of "willingness to borrow" and
operation. Global benefits will be from the
"ability to pay" will make it easier to obtain
reduction of eutrophication and the
loans for improving waste treatment and
protection of biological diversity. The
environmental management. This will result in
success of this component will result in
a wide range of economic benefits (fisheries,
longer-term sustainability of the project
tourism, public health, etc.).
outputs.
Increment
GEF
292,000
Tacis
[1,200,000]
TOTAL
1,492,000
V. Sustainable
8. A fishery exploited
Baseline
Government fisheries
288,000 Catches are declining in all Black Sea
Serious transboundary conflicts have
exploitation of
within its maximum
agencies and
countries and their economic value is declining emerged as more fishermen seek less fish.
fish stocks as
sustainable yield and
institutions
at a faster pace due to the change in catch
Several human deaths have occurred in the
part of an
incorporating measures
Research insts.
60,000 composition. The sector is overcapitalised and
past two years. The overfishing of predator
ecosystem
to protect ecologically
ICBS Biodiversity
12,000 there are few effective regulations to control
species coupled with destructive practices is
approach
sensitive areas.
and FisheriesWG
destructive fishing practices.
threatening biological diversity (e.g. from
specialists
habitat destruction and by-catch of
TOTAL
360,000
mammals).
Alternative
740,000 A properly regulated fishery will increase the
Fish are an important part of the Black Sea
yield of high-value species and improve the
ecosystem. A more sustainable fisheries
quality of catch composition and economic
management regime, coupled with
revenue. The total yield of the fishery and
measures to protect habitats, will enable the
number of vessels must decrease in order for
system to recover as nutrient levels are
this to happen.
reduced. It may also help to avoid further
invasions of opportunistic species.
Increment
GEF
160,000
BSEC (meetings)
20,000
Tacis
[200,000]
TOTAL
380,000
41
TOTAL BASELINE
10,149,920
ALTERNATIVE
18,444,840
INCREMENT:
8,294,920
Consisting of:
PDF-B
349,920
GEF Project Funding
3,703,700
Project Support Costs (8%)
296,300
CO-FUNDING FROM BLACK SEA
1,150,000
COUNTRIES (ICBS)
Tacis
[2,440,000]
UNDP
240,000
UNEP
55,000
Other UN
60,000
42
Annex 2:
Logical Framework (Logframe)
Intervention Logic
Objectively Verifiable Indicators
Sources of Verification
Assumptions and Risks
Long-term and
intermediate Objective
The long-term objective · For the long term objective, the
· Black Sea Environmental Series vols. · Successful implementation of the current
is for all Black Sea basin
availability of state of the Black
3-8 for historical baseline data
project
countries to take
Sea reports that permit comparison
concerning ecosystems.
· Ratification of new LBD and LBA
measures to reduce
with the historical data on the state · Annual environmental status
protocols by the Contracting Parties to the
nutrient levels and other
of the Black Sea before the onset of
monitoring reports, starting in 2002
Bucharest Convention
hazardous substances to
severe eutrophication.
and incorporating process and stress · Full implementation of the Bucharest
such levels necessary to · Full compliance with the new
reduction indicators 2003 onwards.
Convention and its Protocols
permit Black Sea
Protocol for Landscape and
· Reports required by the LBD
· Implementation of the Black Sea
ecosystems to recover to
Biological Diversity to the
Protocol.
Strategic Action Plan (ICBS)
similar conditions as
Bucharest Convention.
· Reports required by the LBA
· Conclusion of the fisheries convention for
those observed in the
· For the intermediate objective,
Protocol.
the Black Sea.
1960s.
annual reporting of the discharges · Information from the ICPDR and the · Full implementation of the Aarhus
As an intermediate
of P and N from rivers, direct point
Dnipro Commission when
Convention
objective, urgent control
sources and airborne fluxes
established.
· Timely release of information of annual
measures should be taken
(estimates based on ground
fluxes of N and P by all countries
by all countries in the
stations).
including the Members of the ICPDR
Black Sea basin, in order · Full compliance with the new LBA
·
to avoid that discharges
Sufficiency of scientific capacity in all
Protocol to the Bucharest
of nitrogen and
coastal countries
Convention.
phosphorus to the Black
· Effective participation of all stakeholders
Sea exceed those levels
· Continued country commitments to
observed in 1997.
environmental protection
· Implementation of investment portfolio
including the Partnership Investment
Facility for Nutrient Reduction.
· Continued support of other donors,
including the EU Tacis programme.
43
Project Purposes
· Assist groups of
· Regional approaches and
· PIU and ICBS documents and
· The harmonious integration of the project
countries to better
mechanisms to address root causes
working group reports.
and its PIU into the overall strategy and
understand
are sustained and further
· National and additional donor
implementation framework of the ICBS.
environmental
developed.
commitments to work plan elements. · Commitments of resources to the ICBS
concerns of shared
· Country participation in and
· Completed work plans.
will correspond to the magnitude of the
international waters
commitment of resources to
· Disbursement records.
task of compliance with the Bucharest
and collaboratively
required measures.
· Reports from NGOs and the public
Convention and its Protocols and of the
address them.
· Full co-operation with all relevant
media.
BS-SAP.
· Build capacity of
sectors, full transparency of
· Long-term security in commitments to the
existing institutions,
information.
ICBS.
or through newly
· Country participation on
· Freedom of distribution of environmental
created institutions to
committees and workgroups
information (as per the BS-SAP and the
utilize a more
associated with project activities..
Aarhus Convention).
comprehensive
· Strong ICBS and country support
· Governments sustain their own
approach for
for the creation and work program
environmental management framework to
addressing trans-
of the project PIU.
meet national and international legal and
boundary, water-
· Strong support from stakeholders in
technical obligations.
related environ-
the civil society.
· Full participation of all stakeholders
mental concerns.
assured (including NGO participation in
· Implement
project and ICBS activities).
sustainable measures
that address priority
transboundary
environmental
concerns
Immediate objectives (summary)
· Reduction of the nitrogen and phosphorus loads to the Black Sea;
· Enhancement of the service function of wetlands and benthic (seabed) plant communities for the assimilation of nutrients;
· Improved management of fisheries to permit their economic recovery 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. In the case of oil pollution (a significant problem in the Black Sea), attention will also be given to
measures that may reduce the risk of spillage by ships.
Detailed objectives and outputs (meeting the above immediate objectives)
44
Intervention Logic
Objectively Verifiable Indicators
Sources of Verification
Assumptions and Risks
Component I. Co-ordination, Institutional Capacity Building and Legal Reform
Objective 1. Support the integration of a sustainable Secretariat for the Bucharest Convention
Outputs
· Programme Implementation
· Regular annual reports of the PIU · ICBS Secretariat functioning prior
· A management regime capable
Unit (PIU) fully staffed and
and the ICBS
to project start-up.
of coordinating regional actions
operational
· External review reports
· Governments/donors willing to
to overcome the key
· Joint Management Committee · Financial statements of the ICBS
continue support to the Activity
transboundary issues facing the
established and operational
and the Project
Centres.
Black Sea, primarily the control · Advisory Groups and Activity · Copies of publications including
· ICPDR and ICBS MOU is signed
and abatement of
Centres operational and
multi-language newsletters, the
and fully implemented
eutrophication and hazardous
engaged in addressing
Technical Series publications,
· All emergent Commissions willing
substances but also the
transboundary issues
posters, film clips.
to co-operate in the spirit of the
improved management of
· Istanbul Commission able to
· Reports in newspapers throughout
Basin-wide Strategic Partnership
fisheries (see component V).
raise funding for transboundary
the region
· Governments respect the right to
· A permanent mechanism for
projects
· The ICBS web site
free circulation of information on
co-operation with the ICPDR · Inter-Commission Working
project outputs and issues.
(Danube) and other emergent
Group operating and setting
river basin commissions in the
common management
Black Sea Basin.
objectives
· Publicly accessible programme · Information in the public
materials in all Black Sea
domain throughout the Black
languages
Sea coastal region regarding the
transboundary problems and
solutions offered.
45
Objective 2. Regional actions for improving LBA legislation to control eutrophication and for tackling emergent problems.
Outputs
· New LBA Protocol approved
· Reports of the ICBS
· Governments are willing to enter
· A new and more
and endorsed
· Black Sea Futures publication
into discussions to adopt the new
comprehensive protocol for the · Black Sea Futures report
Protocol.
control of land-based activities
approved by the Istanbul
· Information will be provided that
in the Black Sea. This will pay
Commission and published.
enables the emergent problems
particular attention to the
study to be completed.
integral control of
· Sufficient expertise is available in
eutrophication.
the region to conduct the emergent
· A detailed study of emergent
issues study.
issues in the Black Sea and
their social and economic root
causes based on application of
the GIWA methodology.
46
Component II. Sectoral Legal and Policy Reforms, Monitoring and Evaluation of Nutrient Control Measures and Reviewing Targets for Adaptive
Management
Objective 3. Assist countries to improve their knowledge of the process of eutrophication in the Black Sea
· Outputs
· Integration of international · Reports of the ISG (available at the · All countries are willing to provide
· State of the Black Sea report
study group on Black Sea
PIU)
the best national expertise for the
(as required by the SAP),
Eutrophication.
· Study Plan published by the PIU and
study and ISG, irrespective of the
focusing on eutrophication · Peer reviewed study plan.
approved by the JMC
institutional setting.
and hazardous substances, in · Completion of 2 surveys in · Cruise reports (available through the · Selected international
December 2002. This
2001-2002 and studies of
PIU)
experts/institutions willing to
activity will enable the
nutrient sources, sinks and
· State of the Black Sea Report widely
participate in the study.
report to be made despite
fluxes.
published (by the ICBS/PIU) with a · Vessels and equipment can be
the absence of a functional · Publication of State of the
summary on local languages.
provided on a cost-sharing basis by
monitoring network (see
Black Sea Report, 2002
· Copies of all reports held by CBCs,
the countries.
Objective 4).
· Copies of the satellite colour
the PIU, AC on monitoring and key · Willingness to cooperate by one of
· Satellite maps of indicators
scan maps and explanatory
scientific institutions.
the regional institutions equipped
of eutrophication issued
reports distributed widely in · Use of information in popular guides
for receiving and interpreting
weekly.
all six Black Sea countries.
for public diffusion.
satellite images.
· Full transparency of information
obtained from the outputs.
· Willingness of the ICBS to assist
with publication and distribution of
outputs
47
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 hazardous substances where appropriate)
Outputs
· Written agreement of the
· Sectoral master plans for each
· Commissions for the Bucharest
· Sectoral nutrient control master
agricultural, industrial and
country published and distributed in
Convention able to catalyze in-
plans and associated indicators
municipal sectors in each
local languages and available at the
country support from other sectors.
(agriculture, industry,
country to cooperate on specific
UNDP COs and PIU, updated at
· High level participation from all key
municipalities) for each
indicators and to help to
least three times during project
sectors.
country.
develop and implement
duration.
· Willingness to co-operate at a
· Amended policies, as
measures within their area of
· Reports of new policies in the
sectoral level.
appropriate.
responsibility.
annual report of the PIU/ICBS and · Willingness of other donors to co-
· National nutrient reduction
· Adopted new system of
the newsletter
ordinate their work in this process
strategies.
process, stress reduction and
· National nutrient reduction
and avoid conflicting advice.
· An Istanbul Commission
environment status indicators
strategies published by the PIU
· Legislative authorities willing/able
information base, initially
employed, similar to that
· ICBS data base fully functional at
to amend regulations or adopt new
managed by the PIU.
described in Annex 8.
the PIU
ones as appropriate.
· Indicator data used to enforce · ICBS/PIU publication
· Information supplied freely to the
· Report of pilot status
existing/new regulations and for
PIU information base.
monitoring exercise.
regional status and trends
reports
· Full participation of the coastal
· Use of the information ba se
countries in the pilot monitoring
by all six countries.
exercise.
· Publishing of the pilot status
monitoring report.
48
Objective 5. Support the Commissions in their periodic review of Adaptive Management objectives.
Outputs
· Publication and positive
· Report of the benefit/cost study
· Sufficiency of local expertise and
· A benefit/cost study of the
reception of the benefit/cost
(PIU)
information for the completion of a
application of the
study
· Minutes of the ICBS and the ICPRD
region wide benefit/cost study.
recommendations.
indicating that the report has been
reviewed and considered by the
Governments.
49
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.
Outputs
· Full implementation of first
· Project reports collected at the PIU · Recruitment of a suitable candidate
· Reports describing 29
tranche of 29 projects
and edited versions distributed to
to co-ordinate the small
completed actions in the first
(independent review).
IAs, participating donors, UNDP-
projects/NGO component
tranche (e.g. wetlands restored, · Successful second call for
COs and all CBCs.
· Continued willingness of NGOs to
videos produced, farms
proposals.
· Independent review of the reports
participate in this work.
converted to organic
· Effective contribution of NGO
circulated as above and to the
· Existence of an independently
production, etc.)
evidenced by the establishment
participating public organisations.
funded regional network of NGOs
· Reports showing proposed
of a regional NGO WG on
· NGO newsletter widely circulated
acting autonomously.
projects for the second tranche.
nutrient reduction, media
and including regular updates on
· Governments are willing to allow
· Regional NGO newsletter
reports and presence at
work sponsored through the project
the projects to be completed in an
`Black Sea Shared' produced
significant regional open
or conducted as a counterpart
independent manner.
and distributed quarterly
meetings.
contribution.
· Local authorities are willing to
(mainly electronically)
· Increased number of wetlands · Public media reports, collated at the
cooperate in project implementation
· Regional report on wetland
protected and/or restored
PIU.
where this is required.
protection and restoration and
(WWF)
· WWF reports presented to the ICBS · Participating organisations report
recommendation for local
and the IAs and distributed to all
their projects in a timely manner.
actions (WWF)
relevant stakeholders.
· WWF able to provide the required
support from its National/Regional
bodies.
50
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.
Outputs
· Reports of actions taken within · Status reports presented to the ICBS, · Recruitment of suitable economist
· `Gap analysis' published,
countries to correct identified
the IAs and other relevant
to the PIU to provide local
showing difference between the
gaps in the application of
stakeholders.
expertise/co-ordination.
current use of economic
instruments.
· `Gap analysis' presented to the
· Project team and CBCs able to
instruments and those that
· Loans for nutrient-related
ICBS and including national studies
convince finance sector of the need
would be required for the
investments channelled through
that should be translated into
to participate fully in the project.
effective implementation of
regional or national
relevant local languages and
· Full co-operation of the national
national nutrient reduction
development banks.
presented to respective inter-sectoral
intersectoral committees.
strategies.
committees.
· WW COs participating fully in the
process.
· Successful implementation of the
WB/GEF Partnership Investment
Facility for Nutrient Reduction.
· Regional/national funding
institutions willing/able to
participate in this work.
51
Component V. Sustainable Exploitation 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.
Outputs
· Reports proposing effective
· Black Sea Status Reports as per
· Willingness of all Parties to reach a
protection of sensitive habitats
Objective 4.
timely conclusion to negotiations on
· Draft Declaration of fisheries
as fisheries free zones
· Fisheries reports edited at the PIU
the new Fisheries Convention.
free zones to allow for
· Signature, ratification and
and presented to all governments via · Acceptance of the need for Marine
restoration of macrophyte
implementation of the Fisheries
the CBCs, the fisheries AC and focal
Protected Areas by all Governments.
habitats and recovery of
Convention
points for the draft fisheries
· Acceptance/signature/ratification of
nursery grounds.
· Documentary evidence of the
convention. Independent review
the new Biological and Landscape
· Suggested measures for
progress towards the conclusion
available at the PIU.
Diversity Protocol by all Parties to
enforcing the above.
of the new Biological and
· Biodiversity Protocol available from
the Bucharest Convention.
· Recommendation for
Landscape Diversity Protocol to
the ICBS Secretariat/PIU;
· Sufficient institutional
completing the fisheries
the Bucharest Convention
substantive documents from the
strength/capacity to enforce the new
convention with measures to
(prepared with BSEP (GEF and
Biodiversity Activity Centre.
Convention and/or Protocol and the
limit fishing effort and
Tacis) funding.
· Reports of the proposed/partially
associated regulations.
provisions for enforcement.
implemented new Marine Protected · Governments/authorities willing to
Areas (MPAs) submitted to the
share the information needed to
ICBS, deposited in the Secretariat
measure the status of stocks and the
and published in the project
commercial yield of the fisheries.
newsletter.
· Full stakeholder participation in the
process of regulating the fisheries
and establishing MPAs/fisheries-
free zones.
· Willingness of other donors to co-
operate in this process.
52
Annex 4A STAP Review
Technical Review
Control of Eutrophication, Hazardous Substances and Related Measures For
Rehabilitating the Black Sea Ecosystem
by
Edwin D. Ongley Ph.D.
for
UNDP
September 6, 2000
Introduction
This project is reviewed against the background of the following sets of personal experiences that
have particular relevance to this proposal: a basin-wide, bi-national, program of nutrient and
hazardous substances reduction into the North American Great Lakes; the GEF Danube project;
and the World Bank's Environmental Management Project in Russia (North Caucasus sub-
component water quality management of the Lower Don Basin). All of these projects had legal,
technical, and institutional components. The Danube and Caucasus projects had significant
capacity concerns.
The project is well thought out, and the Project Brief is very well constructed and written; the
project team is to be complemented. Certain materials were not provided to the reviewer, such as
Tables 1 and 2 however these are probably not of great significance. Because there is much
background material that is omitted from the Project Brief, certain points raised below may be
redundant.
Timelines have probably changed since drafting the original Brief, therefore certain irregularities
between the text and the Tables that commence on page 19 are apparent.
Relevance to the GEF
It would be hard to envisage a project that was more relevant to the International Waters
component of the GEF. This project addresses virtually all of the objectives of this component
and would be, as the drafter suggest, a suitable template for similar projects elsewhere.
Objectives
The objectives encompass the full range of issues that must be included in such a project legal,
institutional, technical, public participation/education, and project management. These are well
focused and there are no omissions of consequence. I have some concerns about achievability,
especially in a technical context that is noted below. This does not detract from the essential
nature of the technical issues, but experience suggests that implementation and, therefore, outputs
and measures of success, may not be as straightforward as the Brief might imply. This applies
i
particularly to Objectives 3 and 4.
Approach
The approach is clearly defined, logical, and rests very comfortably on the earlier work carried
out in this region. There are, however, certain concerns, including some technical issues noted
elsewhere, that need to be clarified.
The failure of environmental programs, generally, within the region has been noted in the Brief.
However, the anticipation of mounting technical activities, as in Objective 3 and 4, does not seem
to allow for the present level of diminished capacity within the region. For example, my
information is that the Sotschi laboratory is not now functional, yet it was to have been one of the
flagship laboratories in the region under previous GEF(?) funding. The Brief should indicate
"doability" of these activities, otherwise the PIU will be faced with an impossible task in meeting
targets that may be quite unrealistic.
Specifically:
a) Objective 1: I have serious reservations about the staffing complement identified in the Brief
(p.29) for the PIU. For example, almost half of the GEF funding and about half of the total
alternative cost, is being directed to Objectives 3 & 4 which directly depend on technical
inputs and activities; these technical issues will be the crux of whether the program as a
whole succeeds or fails. The lack of any technical specialist(s) in marine and freshwater
assessment with expertise in land based pollution control and monitoring, seems an important
omission. The project manager cannot be expected to cover off this technical background,
and the level of activity identified would not likely be efficiently met by short-term
consultants. While there is expertise in some of these areas within the region and, presumably
through co-funding sources and programs, other areas will require detailed knowledge of how
these issues have been dealt with in other areas and jurisdictions.
I would certainly be inclined to combine the economist and sectoral reform positions insofar
as individuals having both types of expertise are available. The M&E specialist surely is
required only on a contractual basis. It is not clear to me if the specialist in sectoral reform
(usually an institutional specialist) is intended to lead the sectoral master planning activity
(4.1b) or not; if yes, then technical specialists in each of the sector areas will be essential to
achieve success. These sector specialists may be required for periods of up to one year, given
the complexity of the sector issues and the need to "shop" proposals to all the parties.
Interaction with a resource economist will be essential in order to identify optimal
interventions.
The amount of technical and administrative input, and identified (and major) outputs,
expected of the PIU in the first year, is very large. I think this is unrealistic given the
inevitable teething problems, new staff, and never enough staff. The best people are always
busy, therefore some allowance should be made for personnel acquisition over at least a six
month period.
b) Objective 3: I would be concerned that the four field surveys could not be mounted in the
time available planning alone normally requires 6 months to one year for such a major
activity. Also, the timing appears to be an issue insofar as the target completion date for the
ii
Black Sea Report is Dec. 2001 (p.11 of Brief). This is quite impossible relative to the time
that will be needed for data integration, synthesis and reporting.
If, as the Brief indicates, phosphorus is an important nutrient in this marine system, then
some estimate needs to be made of the amount of P that will be released from anoxic bottom
sediments. This will be an important part of the total load calculations from which the least-
cost management strategies are developed.
As part of this objective it will be critically important to determine the relative importance of
N and P in eutrophication. The control strategies and associated costs are likely to be quite
different, depending on the outcome.
c) Objective 4: This is an exceedingly difficult objective (technically, administratively and
legally). Activity 4.1a/b/c in the Great Lakes of North America occupied at least 3 years, yet
here the target completion date is June 2001. This is quite unrealistic given the political and
institutional complexity of the region, to say nothing of the fact that the technical inputs to
achieving a realistic set of outputs for the various sectors, are profoundly difficult.
Conservatively, given the situation in the region, I would predict that these three activities
will occupy at least three years if they are to be developed to the point where governments
will approve the plans, and implementation will be meaningful.
I have similar concerns about Activities 4.2a-c in view of experiences in the Danube and in
the Russian Federation. Similar problems were experienced, I understand, in the development
of the Dneipro project. There is no reason, however, why Activity 4.2 cannot proceed in
parallel with Activity 4.1.
More generally, it would be useful to know if the activities planned under Objectives 3 and 4
have been developed within a known and agreed regional institutional context, or if the activities
have been developed in the expectation that appropriate institutional arrangements will be
developed once this proposal has been technically reviewed. If the latter, then the timelines need
to be revisited.
d. Objective 8: While this objective is an important component, I am less optimistic about the
overall success of this Objective in view of the probable lack of enforcement measures with
teeth that would be agreed to by the various parties. A major part of this would have to be the
provision of economic alternatives for redundant fishers and incentives for them to leave the
commercial fishing business. Obviously, the GEF can only catalyze an ongoing process,
hence my comments should not be interpreted negatively in regards to this proposal.
Background Information
Generally, and within the space limitation of a Project Brief, the background information is
adequate. Certain key issues, however, could be better explained. For example, why was 1997
identified as the basis for a nutrient cap (para. 12)? How accurate is the nutrient loading
information for 1997 given the failure of monitoring programs generally, within the region at that
time? This is critical information in view of the key role this value has within the overall
approach to developing and monitoring of nutrient reduction programs. Target loads have a long
history of technical problems and, politically, it would seem important that the size of the
probable error in the 1997 value be understood by governments as well as by this project.
Certain of the objectives, especially #4, have very large amounts of funding identified as from
iii
other sources. The Brief is not specific on how the objectives of this project will be integrated at
a practical level with, apparently, similar objectives of the external programs. Para 58 indicates
only that "these programmes will be invited to collaborate...". Because success or failure will be
critically dependent on such integration, a better indication of willingness to collaborate and
proposed mechanisms, would be informative, especially for the larger partners.
Funding Level
In view of the large co-funded amounts that are part of other related programs (e.g. Tacis, etc.)
and the lack of information on the integration of objectives of this project with similar objectives
of external projects, the level of total funding cannot be reliably linked to the objectives contained
in this Brief. However, assuming that the objectives of the various sources of funds are well
integrated, then the level of funding is reasonable.
Incremental cost analysis of Annex 1B (based on Table 2 -- not provided to the Reviewer) is
reasonable and consistent with GEF objectives.
Innovation
Perhaps the most innovative component of this proposal is the development of a portfolio of
public projects through NGOs. The proposal as a whole is also innovative as it approaches the
entire problem of marine rehabilitiation in a comprehensive and pragmatic manner.
Strengths/Weaknesses
The main strengths of the proposal are the comprehensive approach to the overall problems of
nutrient management, and the amount of information that lies behind the proposal. Clearly, the
proponents have done their homework most diligently. Weaknesses lie in what appears to be an
excessively ambitious set of activities with, in some cases, timelines that are not very realistic
either technically or institutionally given the circumstances of the region. I also find weaknesses
in the staffing complement proposed for the PIU and the very major amount of output anticipated
in the first year or so of the existence of the PIU.
Irrespective of the comments above, I fully endorse the proposal as a whole. Further discussions
with regional entities and partners will assist in clarifying timelines.
iv
Annex 4B:
Response to STAP Review
The objective and frank nature of this positive review is well appreciated. The comments are very
useful and will be taken into full account during the preparation of the full UNDP Project
Document. Specific responses are included below regarding the main points raised by the
reviewer:
Approach
The reviewer mentions the diminished capacity of institutions within the region. The specific case
of the Sochi laboratory is raised as an example of institutio nal failure. The Sochi laboratory has
indeed been closed as a result of an unexpected policy change by the Russian
Hydrometeorological Service. This was despite an agreement for its operation signed between
Hydromet, the BSEP and the State Committee for Environmental Protection, as well as its
provision with major items of equipment and staff training. The embarrassing closure was an
isolated but serious case of a government breaking its commitment within a GEF project.
Fortunately it was the only case of complete institutional failure in the previous GEF
interventions and a full explanation has been requested from the Russian Government. The strong
emphasis on fostering stronger inter-sectoral commitments in the present project (especially in
Objective 4) should help to avoid a repetition of this happening again in the proposed new
intervention. It is also one of the reasons for including Objective 3 as this provides a pragmatic
mechanism for producing a state of the environment analysis while a stronger permanent
monitoring network is being created.
Objective 1
The reviewer expressed reservations concerning the level of staffing of the project. Keeping the
core staff relatively small was a policy decision taken to avoid the creation of a management unit
that could not be sustained by the countries themselves on completion of the intervention. A
specialist in pollution monitoring was omitted intentionally as this is likely to be one of the posts
filled within the ICBS Secretariat from the beginning of the project and will thus be provided as a
counterpart contribution. On the other hand, it is difficult to find highly qualified economists and
sectoral reform specialists within the region and these are not included within the proposed
staffing for the ICBS Secretariat again the object is to achieve a combination of
complimentarity and incrementality. We agree however, that the sectoral reform specialist will be
hard pressed to work effectively with so many different sectors simultaneously. It is hoped that
the Tacis funds and those of other bilateral donors will enable additional long-term specialists to
be hired for this work (see Tables 1 and 2). Regarding the start-up time, it is hoped to keep this to
a minimum by employing at least some of the existing trained staff working within the PIU.
There is some confusion with our use of the term O & M. We see O & M in its widest context of
developing indicators to observe whether or not the project has made a significant impact on the
environmental issue itself (most of Objective 4 is thus O & M). The reviewer appears to be using
the narrower context of O & M of the project itself.
Objective 3
The reviewer expresses concern regarding the tight time schedule for the field surveys. This point
is well taken and the time frame will be adjusted accordingly in the full Project Document.
Regarding the release of phosphorus from sedimentary reservoirs, this is very pertinent to the
case of the NW shelf of the Black Sea. Recent studies suggest that this may indeed be an
v
important process fuelling eutrophication in the NW shelf. Phosphorus is readily released from
sub-oxic or anoxic sediments to overlying waters and it is a management imperative to maintain
bottom waters of the shelf oxygenated. This is one of the reasons that removing P from effluents
entering the major rivers will not, by itself, resolve the problem of eutrophication in the Black Sea
the P will be replaced by release from the bottom sediments for a period of many years.
Unfortunately, none of the regional institutions are equipped for studying rates of release from
bottom sediments and, in the short term, cooperation with one or more western institutions will be
necessary in order to fill the gap.
Objective 4
The reviewer is right to describe this objective as `exceedingly difficult' However, without
confronting the real need for profound sectoral reform, the project cannot hope to make a serious
contribution to reducing eutrophication. He is also right about the misleading time frame for this
work. Perhaps the description of completion dates on Table 1 was less ambiguous. The proposers
will take care to remove any ambiguities during drafting of the Project Document itself. The
intention is not to finish the work within Objective 4 by June 2001 but to take a phased approach
that will extend through the duration of the project. Some of the initial national strategies are
already presented as Annex 7 but these clearly need to be elaborated and refined as the project
continues.
Regarding the question of institutional context, the intersectoral committees/commissions for the
Black Sea already exist in several countries but these need to be reinforced and given "teeth".
Objective 8
Our approach to the fisheries component has been based upon pragmatism. The pr oject cannot
aspire to the design of a complete fisheries management system. It seeks to use the comparative
advantage of the institutions engaged in follow-up to the BS-SAP, in order to provide support for
aspects of new fisheries policy that promote more holistic protection of Black Sea habitats and
also generate benefits to sustainable fisheries.
Background information
The logic for the 1997 nutrient cap is contained in the 1999 report of the ICPDR/ICBS ad-hoc
joint working group. This will be annexed to the full Project Brief. The nutrient loading
information used will be based on a five year running mean, the results of which will be released
in late 2000. The weakness of this approach is recognized and is the main motive for introducing
Objective 5 in which tighter future targets are set as a result of the completion of Objectives 4 and
5.
Regarding other sources of funding and mechanisms for collaboration between donors, the
mechanism will be the Joint Management Group to which all major donors will be invited. The
biggest single collateral donor will continue to be the EU, through its Tacis project. The EU has
been represented at all preparatory meetings and it currently refining its own work plan and
budget for the project.
Innovation
We are encouraged by the reviewers comments and share his view that working directly with the
public is an essential element in an integral strategy for resolving eutrophication and the other
vi
issues covered by this project.
vii
Annex 5-Executive Summary of the Terminal Evaluation Report for ''Developing the
Implementation of the Black Sea Strategic Action Plan (RER/96/G32/C)-
The report contains terminal evaluation of an important UNDP GEF project-- RER/96/G32/C "Developing
the Implementation of the Black Sea Strategic Action Plan" executed by UNOPS between 1997 and 2000.
The project was a continuation of a RER/93/G31 "Environmental Management and Protection of the Black
Sea" financed between 1994 and 1997. Both projects assisted Black Sea littoral countries (Bu lgaria,
Georgia, Romania, Russian Federation, Turkey and Ukraine) in taking steps toward restoration of the Black
Sea environment. The evaluated project (RER/96/G32/C) corresponds to the GEF priorities and UNDP
areas of concentration. It was implemented timely and responded to the regional demand.
The attained objectives and some of the produced outputs strongly contributed to protection of the Black
Sea environment. The most important achievement was the project's support to the countries in preparation
of national Strategic Action Plans and in identification of priority national investments needed to improve
Black Sea environmental situation.
The evaluated RER/96/G32 and the preceding RER/93/G31projects gave impetus for regional co-operation
of Black Sea coastal countries in reduction of the sea pollution and in launching a sustainable exploitation
of the sea's resources. Both projects were decentralized and participatory. Thus, they left behind them
trained and experienced national personnel. The documents produced by the projects became a basis for
many legal and administrative modifications introduced by the governments to protect the Black Sea
environment. They are basis for further projects financed from both national and international resources.
Many priority investments identified thanks to the projects initiatives were introduced into national
investment plans. In summary, both projects very satisfactorily motivated the countries to introduce
changes in their policy, legislature and investment plans in favor of the Black Sea.
The evaluated RER/96/G32/C project received great attention from relevant governments and
administrations. Nevertheless, the governments are not implementing the recommended--and frequently
agreed upon--actions and are not all willing to commit funds to regional activities. Despite the project's
efforts the citizens were probably not sufficiently aware of the impact of the Black Sea degradation on their
welfare and prosperity; and the NGOs not sufficiently influent.
The project's impact on national policy, Black Sea problems perception, and regional cooperation was
important. Under this and the previous projects leadership, first time in their existence, the countries started
to work together towards constructive solutions of Black Sea environmental problems. This co-operation
was reinforced by the current global concern toward the environmental issue. Thus, the project's impact on
the region is probably highly sustainable.
The project achieved some remarkable and outstanding results, but it was also marred by weaknesses and
unsatisfactory achievements. The project document was unsatisfactory. Its development objective
overstated the conceivable project's achievements; there was no work plan; institutional arrangements were
flawed by conflict of interest; the list of beneficiaries was inadequately formulated; some risks were
identified but there was no information about actions needed to mitigate them. The project only partially
attained its four immediate objectives. The regional SAP's deadlines were not respected, by the beneficiary
countries; the national SAPs were not yet approved.
The GEF, Istanbul Commission and project Steering Committee should assure further scrutiny of the
project achievements and their impact on the beneficiaries. It is recommended to the UNDP-GEF as an
Implementing Agency to maintain its assistance to the Istanbul Commission in designing and
executing the next steps toward Black Sea protection. These steps may include:
- regional data gathering, analysis and distribution
- regional coordination of Black Sea state monitoring and research.
- co-ordination of national activities that have regional impact
viii
- private sector involvement
- regional funding management and optimization
- efficient citizen awareness rising,
- governments' decisions and implementation watching
ix
Summary of Recommendations
IA - Implementing Agency, EA - Executing Agency, IC - Istanbul Commission
No
Address
Recommendation
Project's design
1
IA
The project document was unsatisfactory. As such, it should have been improved at the early stages of the project
implementation. To avoid similar situations, the Implementing Agency should tighten its control over submitted proposals for
financing.
2
IA
The Implementing Agency should instruct the project co-ordinators to check the project documents and provide the
Implementing Agency with comments and proposals for improvement or actualization.
3
IA, EA
The Implementing Agency, through the Executing Agency, should instruct the project co-ordinators to prepare and regularly
update the projects' work plans.
4
IA, SC
The Steering Committees and other equivalent stockholder supervisory bodies should duly fulfill their obligations as project
monitoring institutions, and check the coherence and pertinence of the project documents' arrangements. The Implementing
Agency should instruct the Steering Committees about their obligations toward the projects.
5
IA
Implementing Agency should indicate who, in the project's channel of command, is responsible for the improvement and
actualization of the project document.
i
Project's Actions and Outcomes in the Light of the GEF Guidelines
6
IA
The Implementing Agency should duly instruct project managers about their responsibilities towards instructions contained in
the project documents and the additional UNDP and GEF regulations.
7
IA, SC
The Implementing Agency should instruct the Steering Committee or other body directly supervising the projects about their
obligations and responsibilities towards the project and the beneficiaries.
8
SC
It is recommended to the Steering Committee of the RER/96/G32/C (or the desirable next phase) to instruct the PCU to restore
as much information as is possible about activities' execution and the progress in output delivery achieved by the two projects.
9
IA
The Implementing Agency may expect that in the future, managerial and supervisory staff will be unacquainted with
operational regulations. Consequently, it may be useful to periodically organize briefing sessions that will familiarize the new
staff with the projects' administrating and reporting.
Sustainability of the Programme.
10
IC
The Istanbul Commission that took over the both projects' achievements should evaluate the importance and actuality of the
projects' outputs (such as for example, the network of the Activity Centers) to implementation of the Black Sea protection
program. The Commission should create conditions within the countries that will promote sustainability of the outputs
important for the Black Sea protection.
General Implementation and Management
11
EA
The Executing Agency should instruct the project management about the communication procedures with the Executing
Agency accounting system, and about the ways of updating project's spending. Since the project personnel are frequently on
short-term contracts, the Executing Agency should reinforce procedures for briefing managerial staff.
12
IA
The Implementing Agency should require that project managers report annually about the cost-effectiveness of their managerial
decisions. They should demonstrate that other decisions would have been more costly or less efficient in term of outputs quality
or delivery timeliness.
ii
Adequacy of Management Arrangements, Monitoring and Backstopping
13
IA
Implementing Agency should identify the reasons for the unsatisfactory monitoring and backstopping and issue instructions that
would prevent this inadequacy in the future.
Awareness of the Participating Countries
14
IC
It is recommended that before the next steps towards investment in the Black Sea protection project, the Istanbul Commission
take steps toward establishing a national and regional consensus about the importance of the Black Sea pollution, needed
commitments and agreements to be reached.
14
IC
It is recommended that the Istanbul Commission organize a study that will help it to understand the place of Black Sea
environmental problems in the central and local governments' and citizens' priorities. The study s hould be done by an impartial
institution, with no interest in the promotion of Black Sea protection.
Level of Ownership and Commitment
16
IC
The Istanbul Commission should re-assess the national commitments to implementation of the regional SAP and TDA
recommendations, and agree with the countries on new realistic deadlines.
17
IA
The Implementing Agency and the Istanbul Commission may invest in identification of appropriate measures that will
accelerate national actions aiming at Black Sea environmental improvement such as: further monitoring and research to provide
more arguments in favor of Black Sea protection, NGO support, creating citizens' awareness, mobilizing investment, or
promoting new, appropriate legislation.
Co-operation
18
IC
The Istanbul Commission should maintain the existing co-operation networks, animate them and promote the creation of new
ones. Especially, the Commission may motivate private sector investors, civil society organizations, education systems and the
NGOs to create associations voicing the environmental concerns.
19
IC
The Istanbul Commission should evaluate the networks with respect to their utility to Black Sea protection. It should support all
initiatives, but it may reward the most dynamic ones by promoting their quests for additional funding.
Sustainability of Further Actions
20
IC
The Istanbul Commission should critically analyze the sustainability of the project's launched initiatives and identify their
present and future viability for Black Sea protection. It should also identify the priority actions needed to be re-inforced.
21
IC
The international assistance may be helpful in re -inforcing the sustainability of the project's results. The Istanbul Commission
should decide if the aid will be more instrumental in creating new regional initiatives, or in reinforcing the on-going actions and
accelerating their implementation. It should decide the type of the most appropriate assistance and demonstrate its pertinence
and efficiency.
iii
Actions Upon Completion of the Projects
22
IA
It is recommended to the Implementing Agency to consider a few years' assistance the Secretariat to achieve objectives as:
- regional data gathering, analysis and distribution
- regional coordination of Black Sea state monitoring and research.
- co-ordination of national activities that have regional impact
- private sector involvement
- regional funding management and optimization
- efficient citizen awareness rising,
- governments' decisions and implementation watching
23
IC
Establish a common data gathering and exchange system that would help:
- environmental assessment
- monitor changes in environmental quality
- monitor progress in implementing national obligations towards a regional program
24
IC
To make the governments accountable, it is recommended that the Istanbul Commission support national institutions in
supervising the governmental agencies, and help citizens to organize themselves to keep governments liable for their
obligations.
25
IC
Maintain and develop the regional co-operation among the existing Activity Centers Focal Points and other affiliated
institutions. More attention than has been shown in the past should be paid to co-operation among Activity Centers, technical
institutions, administration, the private sector and social organizations. Future regional co-operation should be better-rooted in
national investment and policy planning, so as to avoid actions that cannot be financed and deadlines that cannot be respected.
26
IC
It is recommended to the Istanbul Commission to:
- involve the private sector to invest in technologies that will benefit the Black Sea, as for example, creation of fish nursery
grounds, development of fish reproduction plants, development of tourism and eco-tourism
- encourage governments to give the investors concessions and guarantees; the donors' specialized agencies may help
countries create conditions that would attract private industry to invest in Black Sea protection; the applied research
projects could help investors in the adjustment of existing technologies; other financing may come from the municipalities
and agriculture
- innovate the Sea protection methods, for example allowing the private sector to enter into research, monitoring, training
and control programs now reserved for the governmental institutions
- work out new partnerships with NGOs and other non-profit organizations based on both ethical commitments and
economical profitability
27
IC
To help both countries and donors optimize and co-ordinate the funds-allocation, it is recommended to the Istanbul Commission
iv
to assist the countries to develop project proposals of regional importance, and inform governments and donors about identified
appropriate projects.
Closing recommendation
28
IA, IC
It is recommended to the Implementing Agency and to the Istanbul Commission to elucidate the motivation of the governments
that accompanied their hesitation.
v
Annex 6A- Indicative list of objectives, activities, completion dates and funding requirements for the 2nd phase.
COMPONENT I. CO-ORDINATION, INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY BUILDING AND LEGAL REFORM
Objective 1. Support the integration of a sustainable Secretariat for the Bucharest Convention
Activities
Output / Target date for
completion
Indicative GEF funding
requirement
Activity 1.1a
Operat e the Joint Management Group
Fully functioning JMG May
Activity 1.1b
Three year operation of the Black Sea Project Implementation Unit of the Istanbul Commission (BS-PIU) to facilitate, co-ordinate, and
2006
communicate on the implementation of priority activities identified in this Appendix.
$1,110,000**
Activity 1.2a.
Supporting the Istanbul Commission for implementing the MOU with the ICPDR and for adapting it in line with the findings of the 1st phase.
Annual meetings from 2003 -
Activity 1.2b.
Cooperation with formal river basin commissions in other areas of the Black Sea Basin through the Black Sea Basin Inter-Commission
2005
Consultative Group.
$110,000
Activity 1.3.
Strengthening of National intersectoral bodies by providing them with technical and management information on the transboundary issues
May 2006
included in this project.
72,000
Activity 1.4
Provide administrative and technical support to Commission's Advisory Groups (co -ordinated by Regional Activity Centres) to conduct specific
May 2006
projects related to the priorities defined in this document (see later sections).
$260,000
Activity 1.5.
Diffusion of information .through the following:
May 2006
a.
publication of at least one newsletter and one poster annually,
b. production of short information clips for coastal TV stations
$300,000
c.
production of non-technical leaflets about the project
d. production of technical reports
e.
update and maintenance of the BSEP web site
TOTAL
$1,852,000
6
7
Objective 2. Regional actions for improving LBA legislation to control eutrophication and for tackling emergent problems.
Activities
Output / Target date for
completion
Indicative GEF funding
requirement
Activity 2.1a
Formal adoption of the LBA protocol elaborated in the 1st phase.
1a Jun e 2003
Activity 2.1b
Development and use of appropriate technical and management tools for facilitating the implementation of the GPA in the Black Sea.
1b May 2006
Activity 2.1.c Istanbul Commission functioning as a regional node on GPA issues
1c May 2003=2006
$50,000
Activity 2.2.
Formulation of strategies, plans and projects to address the threats to the Black Sea, identified in the 1st phase through the evaluation of the
May 2006
social and economic root causes of environm ental degradation and the cost effectiveness of interventions to correct current and emergent
$30,000
transboundary problems (using the GIWA methodology, including full impact assessment).
Activity 2.3
To conduct a feasibility study of the use of `marine electronic highway' technology to reduce the risk of major accidents in the Black Sea and
Report by December 2004
Turkish Straits.
$100,000
TOTAL
$180,000
8
COMPONENT II. SECTORAL LEGAL AND POLICY REFORMS, MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF NUTRIENT
CONTROL MEASURES AND REVIEWING TARGETS FOR ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
Objective 3. Assist countries to improve their knowledge of the process of eutrophication in the Black Sea
Activities
Output / Target date for
completion
Indicative GEF funding
requirement
Activity 3.1.
Reviewing and revising the study plans and processes on monitoring and assessment of eutrophication and hazardous substances by the
October 2003
international study group (ISG).
$10,000
Activity 3.2.
Two survey cruises in the entire Black Sea with special emphasis on the impacted NW Shelf (and possibly Sea of Azov) possibly in 2005-
March 2006
2006 with a view to monitor the performance during the 1st and 2nd phases.
$350,000
Activity 3.3.
Download, interpretation and distribution of weekly SeaWifs colour scan satellite data, May 2003- May 2006 ; extended use of GIS
May 2006
$330,000
Activity 3.4
Study of inputs of nutrients to the Black Sea by atmospheric deposition. This will be conducted on a pilot scale for 12 months in 2003 2004
June 2005
and incorporated in the M & E indicators in subsequent years. Identification of possible control strategies.
$180,000
Activity 3.5.
Interpretation of results, publishing of new State of the Black Sea Environment Report Second five yearly review of the BSSAP|;
May 2006
formulation of recommendations.
$40,000
TOTAL
$910,000
9
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 hazardous substances where appropriate)
Activities
Output / Target date for
completion
Indicative GEF funding
requirement
Activity 4.1a
2 years review of the sect oral master plans developed for nutrient control in each coastal country for three key sectors (agriculture, industry,
1a. Sept. 2005
municipalities) in the 1st phase, for monitoring the performance in actions to reduce nutrient emissions together with ICBS officials, experts,
1b. Feb. 2006
etc.
1c. May 2006
Activity 4.1b
Consolidation of a basin wide report based on the reports by the Black Sea and the Danube River countries.
$530,000***
Activity 4.1c
Formulation of revised national, regional and basin wide nutrient reduction strategies and presentation to the respective national and regional
authorities.
Activity 4.2a.
Strengthening the capacity of monitoring institutions in improved ecological monitoring .
2a. May 2006
2b. May. 2006
Activity 4.2b.
Implementation of QA/QC procedures including inter comparison exercises.
$375,000
Additional activities may be co-
funded by CEC
Activity 4.3a.
Full-scale implementation of the new environmental status programme.
4.3a. March 2003= 2006
4.3b.May 2005
Activity 4.3b.
Production of first status reports..
4.3c. March 2006
$70,000
Activity 4.3c
Incorporation of the environmental status indicators with that for ICPDR.
Activity 4.4
Supporting the ICBS information base and its integration into other regional and global information bases. Operation at the PIU.
from May 2003-May 2006
$300,000****
Activity 4.5a
Incorporation of process and stress indicators in the status report (from 2003)
December 2005
Activity 4.5b
Institutionalisation of the indicators within national development strategies.
$60,000 (workshops)
TOTAL
$1,335,000
10
Objective 5. Support the Commissions in their periodic review of Adaptive Management objectives.
Activities
Output / Target date for
completion
Indicative GEF fund
allocation
Activity 5.1.
Economic benefit/cost studies of the actions proposed in the Sectoral Master Plans and the National strategies (Obj. 4, Activity 1) based on the
November 2006 (completion)
model used in the 1st phase.
$100,000
(BS com ponent)
Activity 5.2.
Preparation of technical recommendations regarding new objectives. This work will be conducted over a 6 month period. The study will
May 2006
identify target sectors and sub-sectors for priority action on the basis of the status reports and results of Activity 1.
$50,000
(BS participation)
Activity 5.3.
Final recommendations to the Commissions. These will be made about a year earlier than the current target set by the Commissions but the
May 2006
JWG may choose to recommend bringing this date forward in order to benefit from the current project funding.
Funding covered in Obj. 1
TOTAL
$150,000
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.
Activities
Output / Target date for
completion
11
Indicative GEF fund
allocation
Activity 6.1
Appointment of regional public participation specialist at the PIU, inter-alia to coordinate the small projects initiative.
May 2003- May 2006
$90,000
Activity 6.2
Implementation and independent evaluation of the second tranche of small projects.
May 2006
$320,000
Activity 6.3.
Support to the BSNN and BSEEP for increased involvement in regional aspects of reduction of eutrophication and for work on environmental
Review by March 2006
education in schools.
$60,000
Activity 6.4.
Progress report on wetland conservation and restoration in the Black Sea region
December 2005
$10,000
Activity 6.5.
Supporting the participation of public in particular the fishermen in the implementation of recommendations aimed at reforming of fisheries
December 2004
regulations *formulated in cooperation with WWF in the first phase
$70,000
TOTAL
$550,000
12
COMPONENT IV. INNOVATIVE ECONOMIC INSTRUMENTS FOR THE CONTROL OF EUTROPHICATION
Objective 7. Formulate proposals for market-based or alternative economic instruments for limiting nutrient emissio ns to the Black Sea
and establish private-public sector partnerships for environmental protection.
Activities
Output / Target date for
completion
Indicative GEF fund
allocation
Activity 7.1.
Review the implementation of economic instruments for protecting the Black Sea from pollution (including nutrients) on a country-by country
May 2006
basis and suggest improvements where relevant. F/T economist to be appointed (3 year appointment) at the PIU, inter alia to conduct and co-
$200,000
ordinate this work.
Activity 7.2.
Examine the feasibility of using market mechanisms such as trading nutrient credits (or alternatives) as a means to control nutrient emissions
June 2005
throughout the Black Sea Basin (completion and follow-up of work conducted in the PDF-B phase)
$100,000
Black Sea contribution
Activity 7.3.
Examine opportunities for public-private sector partnership in measures to limit nutrients (e.g. introduction of phosphate-free detergents, new
March 2006
technology, organic farming, etc.). To be co-ordinated by the PIU economist.
$20,000
(salary in Act. 1)
Activity 7.4
Coordination with local and/or regional financial intermediaries (eg. Black Sea Regional Development Bank) as a means of channelling
March 2006
funding to small/medium sized bankable projects related to nutrient limitation and habitat restoration.
$18,000
(salary in Act. 1)
Activity 7.5
Assist the ICBS with a scoping exercise to identify a portfolio of priority investment projects that meet the new environmental objectives
December 2005
defined the Activity 3 of Objective 5 A donor conference should be scheduled in December 2005 for the presentation of the initial portfolio.
$150,000
TOTAL
$488,000
13
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.
Activities
Output / Target date for
completion
Indicative GEF fund
allocation
Activity 8.1
Support to the process of concluding and implementation of the regional Fisheries Convention, particularly in relationship with the need to
May 2006
protect key habitats.
$40,000
Activity 8.2.
Recommendations on the establishment of fisheries-free zones and Marine Protected Areas, their promotion with Black Sea governments and
May 2004
stakeholders; and their incorporation into the Landscape and Biological Diversity Protocol to the Bucharest Convention and training of
$200,000
coastguards etc. for their enforcement.
Activity 8.3
Assessment of transboundary populations of fish species and their relationship with current fishing practices.
May 2006
$200,000
TOTAL
440,000
INDICATIVE GRAND TOTAL FOR 2nd PHASE
$5, 905,000
PROPOSED FUNDING FOR THE 1st PHASE
$4,000,000
INDICATIVE GRAND TOTAL FOR 2nd PHASE
$5,905,000
INDICATIVE GRAND TOTAL FOR THE BLACK SEA REGIONAL PROJECT
$9,905,000
14
Annex 6B-
Suggested Logical Framework Matrix for the Full Project (Phase I and Phase II)
Intervention Logic
Objectively Verifiable Indicators
Sources of Verification
Assumptions and Risks
Long-term and
intermediate Objective
The long-term objective · For the long term objective, the
· Black Sea Environmental Series vols. · Successful implementation of the current
is for all Black Sea basin
availability of state of the Black
3-8 for historical baseline data
project
countries to take
Sea reports that permit comparison
concerning ecosystems.
· Ratification of new LBD and LBA
measures to reduce
with the historical data on the state · Annual environmental status
protocols by the Contracting Parties to the
nutrient levels and other
of the Black Sea before the onset of
monitoring reports, starting in 2002
Bucharest Convention
hazardous substances to
severe eutrophication.
and incorporating process and stress · Full implementation of the Bucharest
such levels necessary to · Full compliance with the new
reduction indicators by 2003.
Convention and its Protocols
permit Black Sea
Protocol for Landscape and
· Reports required by the LBD
· Implementation of the Black Sea
ecosystems to recover to
Biological Diversity to the
Protocol.
Strategic Action Plan (ICBS)
similar conditions as
Bucharest Convention.
· Reports required by the LBA
· Ratification and full implementation of
those observed in the
· For the intermediate objective,
Protocol.
the fisheries convention for the Black
1960s.
annual reporting of the discharges · Information from the ICPDR and the
Sea.
As an intermediate
of P and N from rivers, direct point
Dnipro Commission when
· Full implementation of the Aarhus
objective, urgent control
sources and airborne fluxes
established.
Convention
measures should be taken
(estimates based on ground
· Timely release of information of annual
by all countries in the
stations).
fluxes of N and P by all countries
Black Sea basin, in order · Full compliance with the new LBA
including the Members of the ICPDR
to avoid that discharges
Protocol to the Bucharest
· Suffic iency of scientific capacity in all
of nitrogen and
Convention.
coastal countries
phosphorus to the Black
Sea exceed those levels
· Effective participation of all stakeholders
observed in 1997.
· Continued country commitments to
environmental protection
· Implementation of investment portfolio
including the Partnership Investment
Facility for Nutrient Reduction.
· Continued support of other donors,
including the EU Tacis programme.
15
Project Purposes
· Assist groups of
· Regional approaches and
· PIU and ICBS documents and
· The harmonious integration of the project
countries to better
mechanisms to address root causes
working group reports.
and its PIU into the overall strategy and
understand
are sustained and further
· National and additional donor
implementation framework of the ICBS.
environmental
developed.
commitments to work plan elements. · Commitments of resources to the ICBS
concerns of shared
· Country participation in and
· Completed work plans.
will correspond to the magnitude of the
international waters
commitment of resources to
· Disbursement records.
task of compliance with the Bucharest
and collaboratively
required measures.
· Reports from NGOa and the public
Convention and its Protocols and of the
address them
· Full co-operation with all relevant
media.
BS-SAP.
· Build capacity of
sectors, full transparency of
· Long-term security in commitments to the
existing institutions,
information.
ICBS.
or through newly
· Country participation on
· Freedom of distribution of environmental
created institutions to
committees and workgroups
information (as per the BS-SAP and the
utilize a more
associated with project activities..
Aarhus Convention).
comprehensive
· Strong ICBS and country support
· Governments sustain their own
approach for
for the creation and work program
environmental management framework to
addressing trans-
of the project PIU.
meet national and international legal and
boundary, water-
· Strong support from stakeholders in
technical obligations.
related environ-
the civil society.
· Full participation of all stakeholders
mental concerns.
assured (including NGO participation in
· Implement
project and ICBS activities).
sustainable measures
that address priority
transboundary
environmental
concerns
Immediate objectives (summary)
· Reduction of the nitrogen and phosphorus loads to the Black Sea;
· Enhancement of the service function of wetlands and benthic (seabed) plant communities for the assimilation of nutrients;
· Improved management of fisheries to permit their economic recovery 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. In the case of oil pollution (a significant problem in the Black Sea), attention will also be given to
measures that may reduce the risk of spillage by ships.
16
Detailed objectives and outputs (meeting the above immediate objectives)
Intervention Logic
Objectively Verifiable Indicators
Sources of Verification
Assumptions and Risks
Component I. Co-ordination, Institutional Capacity Building and Legal Reform
Objective 1. Support the integration of a sustainable Secretariat for the Bucharest Convention
Outputs
· Programme Implementation
· Regular annual reports of the PIU · ICBS Secretariat fully functional
· A management regime capable
Unit (PIU) fully staffed and
and the ICBS
prior to project start-up.
of coordinating regional actions
operational
· External review reports
· Governments/donors willing to
to overcome the key
· Joint Management Committee · Financial statements of the ICBS
continue support to the Activity
transboundary issues facing the
established and operational
and the Project
Centres
Black Sea, primarily the control · Advisory Groups and Activity · Copies of publications including
· ICPDR and ICBS MOU is signed
and abatement of
Centres operational and
multi-language newsletters, the
and fully implemented
eutrophication and hazardous
engaged in addressing
Technical Series publications,
· All emergent Commissions willing
substances but also the
transboundary issues
posters, film clips.
to co-operate in the spirit of the
improved management of
· Istanbul Commission able to
· Reports in newspapers throughout
Basin-wide Strategic Partnership
fisheries (see component V).
raise funding for transboundary
the region
· Governments respect the right to
· A permanent mechanism for
projects
· The ICBS web site
free circulation of information on
co-operation with the ICPDR · Inter-Commission Working
project outputs and issues.
(Danube) and other emergent
Group operating and setting
river basin commissions in the
common management
Black Sea Basin.
objectives
Publicly accessible programme
· Information in the public
materials in all Black Sea languages
domain throughout the Black
Sea coastal region regarding the
transboundary problems and
solutions offered.
17
Objective 2. Regional actions for improving LBA legislation to control eutrophication and for tackling emergent problems.
Outputs
· New LBA Protocol approved
· Reports of the ICBS
· Governments are willing to enter
· A new and more
and endorsed
· Technical report of the MEH study
into discussions to adopt the new
comprehensive protocol for the · Feasibility study of the MEH
and follow-up reports in the Project
Protocol.
control of land-based activities
published.
Newsletter
· Information will be provided that
in the Black Sea. This will pay · Black Sea Futures report
· Black Sea Futures publication
enables the emergent problems
particular attention to the
approved by the Istanbul
study to be completed.
integral control of
Commission and published.
· Sufficient expertise is available in
eutrophication.
the region to conduct the emergent
· A detailed study of emergent
issues study.
issues in the Black Sea and
· The maritime transport sector(s) of
their social and economic root
all governments are willing to
causes based on application of
participate in the MEH study.
the GIWA methodology.
· The Government of Turkey is
· A feasibility study for the
willing to allow the study to extend
establishment of a marine
to the Turkish Straits (without
electronic highway (MEH) in
implications for other project
the Black Sea and Turkish
activities).
Straits.
18
Component II. Sectoral Legal and Policy Reforms, Monitoring and Evaluation of Nutrient Control Measures and Reviewing Targets for Adaptive
Management
Objective 3. Assist countries to improve their knowledge of the process of eutrophication in the Black Sea
Outputs
· Integration of international
· Reports of the ISG (available at the · All countries are willing to provide
· State of the Black Sea report
study group on Black Sea
PIU)
the best national expertise for the
(as required by the SAP),
Eutrophication.
· Study Plan published by the PIU and
study and ISG, irrespective of the
focusing on eutrophication and · Peer reviewed study plan.
approved by the JMC
institutional setting.
hazardous substances, in
· Completion of 4 surveys in
· Cruise reports (available through the · Selected international
December 2001. This activity
2001 and studies of nutrient
PIU)
experts/institutions willing to
will enable the report to be
sources, sinks and fluxes.
· State of the Black Sea Report widely
participate in the study.
made despite the absence of a · Publication of State of the
published (by the ICBS/PIU) with a · Vessels and equipment can be
functional monitoring network
Black Sea Report, 2001
summary on local languages.
provided on a cost-sharing basis by
(see Objective 4).
· Copies of the satellite colour
· Copies of all reports held by CBCs,
the countries.
· Satellite maps of indicators of
scan maps and explanatory
the PIU, AC on monitoring and key · Willingness to cooperate by one of
eutrophication issued weekly.
reports distributed widely in all
scientific institutions.
the regional institutions equipped
· Recommendations to the
six Black Sea countries.
· Use of information in popular guides
for receiving and interpreting
Istanbul Commission and
· Use of the information in
for public diffusion.
satellite images.
ICPDR for new nutrient control
setting new adaptive
· New adaptive management goals
· Full transparency of information
objectives within the concept of
management goals
published as per Objective 5
obtained from the outputs.
adaptive management (see also
· Willingness of the ICBS to assist
Obj. 5)
with publication and distribution of
outputs
19
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 hazardous substances where appropriate)
Outputs
· Written agreement of the
· Sectoral master plans for each
· Commissions for the Bucharest
· Sectoral nutrient control master
agricultural, industrial and
country published and distributed in
Convention able to catalyze in-
plans and associated indicators
municipal sectors in each
local languages and available at the
country support from other sectors.
(agriculture, industry,
country to cooperate on specific
UNDP COs and PIU, updated at
· High level participation from all key
municipalities) for each
indicators and to help to
least three times during project
sectors.
country.
develop and implement
duration.
· Willingness to co-operate at a
· Amended laws and policies, as
measures within their area of
· Reports of new laws and policies in
sectoral level.
appropriate.
responsibility.
the annual report of the PIU/ICBS · Willingness of other donors to co-
· National nutrient reduction
· Adopted new system of
and the newsletter
ordinate their work in this process
strategies.
process, stress reduction and
· National nutrient reduction
and avoid conflicting advice.
· An Istanbul Commission
environment status indicators
strategies published by the PIU
· Legislative authorities willing/able
information base, initially
employed, similar to that
· ICBS data base fully functional at
to amend regulations or adopt new
managed by the PIU.
described in Annex 8.
the PIU
ones as appropriate.
· Annual environmental status
· Indicator data used to enforce · Environmental status monitoring
· Information supplied freely to the
monitoring reports, starting in
existing/new regulations and for
reports published by the ICBS/PIU
PIU information base.
2002 and incorporating process
regional status and trends
· Timely contributions from all
and stress reduction indicators
reports
countries to the status monitoring
by 2003.
· Use of the information base by
reports.
all six countries.
· Status reports showing positive
trends in selected indicators.
20
Objective 5. Support the Commissions in their periodic review of Adaptive Management objectives.
Outputs
· Publication and positive
· Report of the benefit/cost study
· Sufficiency of local expertise and
· A benefit/cost study of the
reception of the benefit/cost
(PIU)
information for the completion of a
application of the
study
· Minutes of the ICBS and the ICPRD
region wide benefit/cost study.
recommendations (to be
· Recommendations for new
indicating that the report has been
· Willingness of the ICBS and the
conducted jointly with the
objectives and priorities
reviewed and considered by the
ICPDR to reschedule the process for
ICPDR)
formulated.
Governments.
setting new adaptive management
· Technical recommendations for · Approval of the new objectives · Minutes of the JWG showing the
objectives (2005 instead of 2007).
new objectives including
by the two Commissions
completion of the process for
· Continuation of the good working
recommendations of target
(hopefully also the new Dnipro
recommending new objectives and
arrangement between the
sectors/sub-sectors for control
Commission).
including the recommendations
Commissions and the incorporation
measures and/or investments.
themselves as annexes.
of new river Commissions into the
· Final recommendations to the
· Copy of the final recommendation to
JWG.
Commissions (from the Joint
the Commissions and a copy of their
Working Group)
endorsement.
· Written responses from the
governments in the Black Sea
coastal countries.
21
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.
Outputs
· Full implementation of first
· Project reports collected at the PIU · Recruitment of suitable candidate to
· Reports describing 29
tranche of 29 projects
and edited versions distributed to
co-ordinate the small projects/NGO
completed actions in the first
(independent review).
IAs, participating donors, UNDP-
component
tranche (e.g. wetlands restored, · Successful second call for
COs and all CBCs.
· Continued willingness of NGOs to
videos produced, farms
proposals.
· Independent review of the reports
participate in this work.
converted to organic
· Full implementation of the
circulated as above and to the
· Existence of an independently
production, etc.)
second tranche (independent
participating public organisations.
funded regional network of NGOs
· Reports, as above, for the
review).
· NGO newsletter widely circulated
acting autonomously.
second tranche.
· Effective contribution of NGO
and including regular updates on
· Governments are willing to allow
· Regional NGO newsletter
evinced by the establishment of
work sponsored through the project
the projects to be completed in an
`Black Sea Shared' produced
a regional NGO WG on nutrient
or conducted as a counterpart
independent manner.
and distributed quarterly
reduction, media reports and
contribution.
· Local authorities are willing to
(mainly electronically)
presence at significant regional · Public media reports, collated at the
cooperate in project implementation
· Regional report on wetland
open meetings.
PIU.
where this is required.
protection and restoration and · Increased number of wetlands · WWF reports presented to the ICBS · Participating organisations report
recommendation for local
protected and/or restored
and the IAs and distributed to all
their projects in a timely manner.
actions (WWF)
(WWF)
relevant stakeholders.
· WWF able to provide the required
· Inclusion of the Black Sea in
· Introduction of fisheries no-take
support from its National/Regional
WWF's Europe-wide reports on
zones and analysis of those
bodies.
the reform of fisheries
subsidies to fishing that may be
management (WWF).
damaging to stocks or the
environment (WWF) see also
Objective 8.
22
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.
Outputs
· Reports of actions taken within · Status reports presented to the ICBS, · Recruitment of suitable economist
· `Gap analysis' published,
countries to correct identified
the IAs and other relevant
to the PIU to provide local
showing difference between the
gaps in the application of
stakeholders.
expertise/co-ordination.
current use of economic
instruments.
· `Gap analysis' presented to the
· Project team and CBCs able to
instruments and those that
· Decision of Commissions
ICBS and including national studies
convince finance sector of the need
would be required for the
regarding mechanism for
that should be translated into
to participate fully in the project.
effective implementation of
nutrient trading and/or
relevant local languages and
· Full co-operation of the national
national nutrient reduction
alternatives.
presented to respective inter-sectoral
intersectoral committees.
strategies.
· Loans for nutrient-related
committees.
· WW COs participating fully in the
· Feasibility study of the nutrient
investments channeled through · Nutrient trading analysis presented
process.
trading mechanism and its
regional or national
to the ICBS and the ICPDR.
· Successful implementation of the
alternatives (including action-
development banks.
· Copies of key correspondence with
WB/GEF Partnership Investment
oriented recommendations for · Substantial project portfolio
regional/national funding institutions
Facility for Nutrient Reduction.
the Commissions).
that can be taken to a 2005
held in PIU files.
· Regional/national funding
· Letters of agreement and other
donor conference or similar
· Draft project portfolio available in
institutions willing/able to
practical arrangements with
funding mechanism
the PIU and distributed to the CBCs,
participate in this work.
regional/national funding
IAs, relevant donors, UNDP and
institutions.
WB COs, etc.
· Long-term investment priorities
for the post Partnership
Investment Facility for Nutrient
Reduction period.
23
Component V. Sustainable Exploitation 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.
Outputs
· Reports demonstrating effective · New Black Sea Fisheries
· Willingness of all Parties to reach a
· First Black Sea Fish Stock
protection of sensitive habitats
Convention available in PIU and
timely conclusion to negotiations on
Assessment
as fisheries free zones
copied to all CBCs, IAs and relevant
the new Fisheries Convention.
· Declaration of fisheries free
· Recovery of macrophyte beds
stakeholders.
· Acceptance of the need for Marine
zones to allow for restoration of
damaged by trawling gear
· Black Sea Status Reports as per
Protected Areas by all Governments.
macrophyte habitats and
(indicators as per Annex 8).
Objective 4.
· Full cooperation of all fisheries
recovery of nursery grounds.
· Independent review of stock
· Stock Assessment edited at the PIU
institutions in the new stock
· Measures for enforcing the
assessment.
and presented to all governments via
assessment.
above.
· Signature, ratification and
the CBCs, the fisheries AC and focal · Acceptance/signature/ratification of
· Signed fisheries convention
implementation of the Fisheries
points for the new fisheries
the new Biological and Landscape
with measures to limit fishing
Convention
convention. Independent review
Diversity Protocol by all Parties to
effort and provisions for
· Signature, ratification and
available at the PIU.
the Bucharest Convention.
enforcement.
implementation of the new
· Biodiversity Protocol available from · Sufficient institutional
Biological and Landscape
the ICBS Secretariat/PIU;
strength/capacity to enforce the new
Diversity Protocol to the
substantive documents from the
Convention/Protocol and the
Bucharest Convention
Biodiversity Activity Centre.
associated regulations.
(prepared with BSEP (GEF and · Reports of new Marine Protected
· Governments/authorities willing to
Tacis) funding.
Areas (MPAs) submitted to the
share the information needed to
· Sustained increases in sensitive
ICBS, deposited in the Secretariat
measure the status of stocks and the
stocks (e.g. Turbot, Sturgeon)
and published in the project
commercial yield of the fisheries.
newsletter.
· Full stakeholder participation in the
· Reports of measures taken to
process of regulating the fisheries
enforce the MPAs and the Fisheries
and establishing MPAs/fisheries-
Convention to be included in the
free zones.
Status Reports from 2003.
· Willingness of other donors to co-
operate in this process.
24
Cover Note
Project Title:
Control of eutrophication, hazardous substances and related measures for rehabilitating the Black
Sea ecosystem.
Work Program Inclusion
Reference/Note:
1. Country Ownership
· Country Eligibility
Countries are eligible under para 9(b) of the GEF Front page, section 1; paragraph #78
instrument
· Country Drivenness
Clear description of project's fit within:
Paragraph #s: 8, 45, 46
· National reports/communications to Conventions This project is a direct response to the following agreements made
· National or sector development plans
between all six countries:
· Recommendations of appropriate regional
· Bucharest Convention for the Protection of the Black Sea
intergovernmental meetings or agreements.
Against Pollution (signed April 1992, ratified February 1994)
· Odessa Ministerial Declaration (April 1993)
· Black Sea Strategic Action Plan (signed at a Ministerial
Conference, October 31, 1996).
It also reflects the conclusions of a joint ad-hoc working group
between the Istanbul Commission for the Protection of the Black
Sea and the International Commission for the Protection of the
Danube River (1999)
· Endorsement
· Endorsement by national operational focal point. Annex 3, the project is also endorsed by the ICBS
2. Program & Policy
Conformity
· Program Designation &
Describe how project objectives are consistent with
Paragraph 13
Conformity
Operational Program objectives or operational
The project is fully consistent with the GEF Operational
criteria.
Guidelines for international waters and also with the GEF
Danube/Black Sea Basin Strategic Partnership
25
· Project Design
Describe:
Corresponding to bullet points at the left:
· sector issues, root causes, threats, barriers, etc,
§ Paragraphs 1-8
affecting global environment.
· Project logical framework, including a consistent
strategy, goals, objectives, outputs,
§ Annex 2 in its entirety. Annex 6 b for the full project (Phase I
inputs/activities, measurable performance
and Phase 2)
indicators, risks and assumptions.
· Detailed description of goals, objectives, outputs,
· Paragraph 15-42 (Phase I)
and related assumptions, risks and performance
The project is divided into five components and a total of eight
indicators.
strategic objectives. An indicative list for Phase II is given in
Annex 6A)
· Brief description of proposed project activities,
§ Table 1, following paragraph 42
including an explanation how the activities would
result in project outputs.
· Global environmental benefits of project.
§ Column 7, Annex 1b (Table 2)
· Incremental Cost Estimation based on the project § Annex I
logical framework.
· Describe project outputs(and related activities
· The project is designed in such a way as to achieve a mixture
and costs) that result in global environmental
of global, regional and national environmental benefits from
benefits
each objective. This is analysed in detail in Annex 1b
· Describe project outputs (and related activities
· The control of eutrophication will ultimately benefits all
and costs) that result in joint global and national
participating countries though the time -frame for these
environmental benefits.
benefits to accrue is likely to be well beyond that for project
implementation.
· Describe project outputs (and related activities § None of the activities proposed for GEF funding will result in
and costs) that result in national environmental
purely national benefits. The activities of other donors
benefits.
providing bilateral support to individual countries have been
incorporated in the baseline unless clear regional/global
benefits can be demonstrated.
·
§ Discussions at the Black Sea Basin Stocktaking Meeting
Describe the process used to jointly estimate
(funded through the PDF-B) in June 2000 and in the 6th
incremental cost with in -country project partner.
meeting of the ICBS (September 2000)
· Present the incremental cost estimate. If § Paragraph 62
presented as a range, then a brief explanation of Baseline:
$10,149,920
26
challenges and constraints and how these would Alternative:
$18,444,8 40
be addressed by the time of CEO endorsement.
Increment:
$ 8,294,920
· Sustainability (including
Describe proposed approach to address factors § Paragraphs 45-48
financial sustainability)
influencing sustainability, within and/or outside the
project to deal with these factors.
· Replicability
Describe the proposed approach to replication,(for
The project maintains strong links with IW-LEARN and GIWA,
e.g., dissemination of lessons, training workshops,
both of which will help facilitate diffusion of lessons learned. See
information exchange, national and regional forum,
also `Project Summary', p1.
etc) (could be within project description).
· Stakeholder Involvement
· Describe how stakeholders have been involved in · Paragraphs 4-8
project development.
· Describe the approach for stakeholder
· Paragraphs 49-52
involvement in further project development and
This is a major feature of the current proposal (see also comments
implementation.
of STAP reviewer)
· Monitoring & Evaluation
· Describe how the project design has incorporated · Paragraphs 49-52, 67 and Annex 5
lessons from similar projects in the past.
This has been part of a phased approach to interventions in the
region.
· Describe approach for project M&E system,
· Paragraphs 63-66
based on the project logical framework, including
the following elements:
· Specification of indicators for objectives and
· Logical framework Annex III.
outputs, including intermediate benchmarks, and
means of measurement.
· Outline organisational arrangement for
· Paragraphs: 64-66,
implementing M&E.
· Indicative total cost of M&E (maybe reflected in · 1% of total budget cost for external M & E but additional
total project cost).
provisions for internal M & E. (see also response to STAP
review).
27
3. Financing
· Financing Plan
· Estimate total project cost
· Cover page; III; Paragraph 62; Annex 1
· Estimate contribution by financing partners.
· Cover page; Paragraph 62
· Propose type of financing instrument
· Cover page
· Implementing Agency Fees
Propose IA fee
NA
· Cost-effectiveness
· Estimate cost effectiveness, if feasible.
· Annex 1a
· Describe alternate project approaches considered · Annex 1b
and discarded.
4. Institutional Coordination &
Support
IA Coordination and Describe how the proposed project is located
· This project is part of the GEF Danube/Black Sea Basin
Support
within the IA's:
Strategic Approach. The approach is presented in Annex 11
· Core commitments &
· Country/regional/global/sector programs.
and involves all thre e IA's (UNDP, UNEP, World Bank)
Linkages
according to their comparative advantage for particular
· GEF activities with potential influence on the
project elements.
proposed project (design and implementation).
· Consultation, Coordination
· Describe how the proposed project relates to
· The Danube/Black Sea Strategic Approach involves broad
and Collaboration between
activities of other IAs (and 4 RDBs) in the
based coordination with other donors. The specific
IAs, and IAs and EAs, if
country/region.
involvement of other major donors/IAs is described in
appropriate.
paragraphs 55-60.
· Describe planned/agreed coordination,
· Donors will coordinate their efforts through participation in a
collaboration between IAs in project
Joint Management Committee for the project (see paragraph
implementation.
16)
5. Response to Reviews
0 Council
Respond to Council Comments at pipeline entry.
NA
Convention Secretariat
Respond to comments from Convention Secretariats .
NA
GEF Secretariat
Respond to comments from GEFSEC on draft project
NA
brief.
Other IAs and 4 RDBs
Respond to comments from other IAs, 4RDBss on
NA
28
draft project brief.
STAP
Respond to comments by STAP at work program
Annex 4A
inclusion
Review by expert from STAP
Respond to review by expert from STAP roster.4
Annex 4
Roster
Ramon Prudencio C. de Mesa
M:\RAMON\Work Programs\WP03-2001\Danube-Black Sea Harmonized Proposal\Regional Black Sea (UNDP)\1brief - final.doc
April 9, 2001 6:39 PM
4 STAP Roster Review, and IA response, is a required annex of the project brief.
29
Cover Note
Project Title:
Control of eutrophication, hazardous substances and related measures for rehabilitating the Black
Sea ecosystem.
Work Program Inclusion
Reference/Note:
1. Country Ownership
· Country Eligibility
Countries are eligible under para 9(b) of the GEF Front page, section 1; paragraph #78
instrument
· Country Drivenness
Clear description of project's fit within:
Paragraph #s: 8, 45, 46
· National reports/communications to Conventions
This project is a direct response to the following agreements made
· National or sector development plans
between all six countries:
· Recommendations of appropriate regional
· Bucharest Convention for the Protection of the Black Sea
intergovernmental meetings or agreements.
Against Pollution (signed April 1992, ratified February 1994)
· Odessa Ministerial Declaration (April 1993)
· Black Sea Strategic Action Plan (signed at a Ministerial
Conference, October 31, 1996).
It also reflects the conclusions of a joint ad-hoc working group
between the Istanbul Commission for the Protection of the Black
Sea and the International Commission for the Protection of the
Danube River (1999)
· Endorsement
· Endorsement by national operational focal point.
Annex 3, the project is also endorsed by the ICBS
2. Program & Policy
Conformity
· Program Designation &
Describe how project objectives are consistent with
Paragraph 13
Conformity
Operational Program objectives or operational
The project is fully consistent with the GEF Operational
criteria.
Guidelines for international waters and also with the GEF
Danube/Black Sea Basin Programmatic Approach.
1
· Project Design
Describe:
Corresponding to bullet points at the left:
· sector issues, root causes, threats, barriers, etc,
§ Paragraphs 1-8
affecting global environment.
· Project logical framework, including a consistent
strategy, goals, objectives, outputs,
§ Annex 2 in its entirety.
inputs/activities, measurable performance
indicators, risks and assumptions.
· Detailed description of goals, objectives, outputs,
and related assumptions, risks and performance
· Paragraph 15-42
indicators.
The project is divided into five components and a total of eight
strategic objectives.
· Brief description of proposed project activities,
including an explanation how the activities would
§ Table 1, following paragraph 42
result in project outputs.
· Global environmental benefits of project.
· Incremental Cost Estimation based on the project § Column 7, Annex 1b (Table 2)
logical framework.
§ Annex I
· Describe project outputs(and related activities
and costs) that result in global environmental
· The project is designed in such a way as to achieve a mixture
benefits
of global, regional and national environmental benefits from
· Describe project outputs (and related activities
each objective. This is analysed in detail in Annex 1b
and costs) that result in joint global and national
· The control of eutrophication will ultimately benefits all
environmental benefits.
participating countries though the time-frame for these
benefits to accrue is likely to be well beyond that for project
· Describe project outputs (and related activities
implementation.
and costs) that result in national environmental § None of the activities proposed for GEF funding will result in
benefits.
purely national benefits. The activities of other donors
providing bilateral support to individual countries have been
incorporated in the baseline unless clear regional/global
· Describe the process used to jointly estimate
benefits can be demonstrated.
§ Discussions at the Black Sea Basin Stocktaking Meeting
incremental cost with in-country project partner.
(funded through the PDF-B) in June 2000 and in the 6th
·
meeting of the ICBS (September 2000)
Present the incremental cost estimate. If
presented as a range, then a brief explanation of § Paragraph 62
2
challenges and constraints and how these would Baseline:
$10,149,920
be addressed by the time of CEO endorsement.
Alternative:
$18,444,840
Increment:
$ 8,294,920
· Sustainability (including
Describe proposed approach to address factors § Paragraphs 45-48
financial sustainability)
influencing sustainability, within and/or outside the
project to deal with these factors.
· Replicability
Describe the proposed approach to replication,(for
The project maintains strong links with IW-LEARN and GIWA,
e.g., dissemination of lessons, training workshops,
both of which will help facilitate diffusion of lessons learned. See
information exchange, national and regional forum,
also `Project Summary', p1.
etc) (could be within project description).
· Stakeholder Involvement
· Describe how stakeholders have been involved in · Paragraphs 4-8
project development.
· Describe the approach for stakeholder
· Paragraphs 49-52
involvement in further project development and
This is a major feature of the current proposal (see also comments
implementation.
of STAP reviewer)
· Monitoring & Evaluation
· Describe how the project design has incorporated · Paragraphs 49-52, 67
lessons from similar projects in the past.
This has been part of a phased approach to interventions in the
region.
· Describe approach for project M&E system,
· Paragraphs 63-66
based on the project logical framework, including
the following elements:
· Specification of indicators for objectives and
· Logical framework Annex III.
outputs, including intermediate benchmarks, and
means of measurement.
· Outline organisational arrangement for
· Paragraphs: 64-66,
implementing M&E.
· Indicative total cost of M&E (maybe reflected in · 1% of total budget cost for external M & E but additional
total project cost).
provision s for internal M & E. (see also response to STAP
review).
3
3. Financing
· Financing Plan
· Estimate total project cost
· Cover page; III; Paragraph 62; Annex 1
· Estimate contribution by financing partners.
· Cover page; Paragraph 62
· Propose type of financing instrument
· Cover page
· Implementing Agency Fees
Propose IA fee
NA
· Cost-effectiveness
· Estimate cost effectiveness, if feasible.
· Annex 1a
· Describe alternate project approaches considered · Annex 1b
and discarded.
4. Institutional Coordination &
Support
IA Coordination and Describe how the proposed project is located
· This project is part of the GEF Danube/Black Sea Basin
Support
within the IA's:
Strategic Approach. The approach is presented in Annex 11
· Core commitments &
· Country/regional/global/sector programs.
and involves all three IA's (UNDP, UNEP, World Bank)
Linkages
according to their comparative advantage for particular
· GEF activities with potential influence on the
project elements.
proposed project (design and implementation).
· Consultation, Coordination
· Describe how the proposed project relates to
· The Danube/Black Sea Strategic Approach involves broad
and Collaboration between
activities of other IAs (and 4 RDBs) in the
based coordination with other donors. The specific
IAs, and IAs and EAs, if
country/region.
involvement of other major donors/IAs is described in
appropriate.
paragraphs 55-60.
· Describe planned/agreed coordination,
· Donors will coordinate their efforts through participation in a
collaboration between IAs in project
Joint Management Committee for the project (see paragraph
implementation.
16)
5. Response to Reviews
0Council
Respond to Council Comments at pipeline entry.
NA
Convention Secretariat
Respond to comments from Convention Secretariats .
NA
GEF Secretariat
Respond to comments from GEFSEC on draft project
NA
brief.
Other IAs and 4 RDBs
Respond to comments from other IAs, 4RDBss on
NA
4
draft project brief.
STAP
Respond to comments by STAP at work program
Annex 4A
inclusion
Review by expert from STAP
Resp ond to review by expert from STAP roster.1
Annex 4
Roster
1 STAP Roster Review, and IA response, is a required annex of the project brief.
5