Annex 
5
Wetlands Restoration and Pollution Reduction Project GEF TF 050706 BUL
sMALL GRANTS PROGRAM
SUMMARY REPORT
For the period
October 2002- June 2006
Sofia
June 2006
Background
The Wetland Restoration and Pollution Reduction Project (WRPRP) is financed by the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) and by bilateral donors and is implemented by the Ministry of Environment and Water (MOEW) of the Republic of Bulgaria. The main objective of the WRPRP is to restore certain wetlands in the Bulgarian part of the Danube basin which are in critical condition and to study the possibility to use the coastal wetlands as nutrient traps. Furthermore, the project objective is to support the management of the protected area and to ensure sustainable management of natural resources. The two pilot project areas are the Kalimok-Brushlen Protected Area (within the Slivo pole and Tutrakan municipalties) and the Persina Nature Park (within the Belene, Svishtov and Nikopol municipalities).
The WRPRP has been trying to fulfil its objectives by way of: improving the coordination between the central, regional and local level institutions, the local communities and the municipal authorities on subjects such as land-use policy and development planning; raising the public awareness of the need to integrate the objectives of environmental and socio-economic advancement; and development of the processes toward the more complete involvement of the community in the decision making processes related to the project activities and to the sustainable management of resources inside the protected areas.
One of the tools to achieve the project objective of active involvement of the public in both project areas into the planning and management process is the „Small grants program for raising the public awareness concerning biodiversity conservation and training in sustainable management of natural resources”.
This program is being implemented simultaneously in both parks. A total of USD 200,000 has been provided for the three-year period of implementation in both areas, or USD 100,000 each. The specific objectives of the program are the following:
· Support for the activities in the Kalimok-Brushlen Protected Locality and in the Persina Nature Park aimed at biodiversity conservation and sustainable management of natural resources,
· Raising the awareness of the population and promotion of environmental education in the Kalimok-Brushlen Protected Locality and in the Persina Nature Park,
· Demonstration of the links between the goals of biodiversity conservation and the benefit for the local communities.
The program provides grants for admissible activities agreed in advance with the park administrations and with the MOEW. Two bidding sessions are held every year. One main requirement for the bidders is to be registered and to carry out the activity within the project areas. External bidders are encouraged to seek partnership with local bidders. All projects and activities financed by the program should benefit the Kalimok-Brushlen Protected Locality and the Persina Nature Park or be within their boundaries, should comply with their management priorities and should be directly linked to the wetlands. With a view to sustainability, the bidders are required to co-finance at least 10% of the project price. The financing of activities under programs is based on competition after concept and detailed projects are prepared. The programs are administered by both park administrations – the Persina Nature Park Directorate and the Administration of the Kalimok-Brushlen Protected Area, aided by the local project coordinators. The monitoring of performance of the supported activities is carried out by the project coordination unit.
Acceptable projects and activities, which can be financed by the SGP include, but are not limited to:
1. The development of environment-protection education programs for kindergartens, schools (primary, secondary, high schools, higher education vocational facilities) and communities (including teacher-retraining programs, on-site visits, best poster competitions etc.).
2. Public awareness raising programs and other programs about the direct benefits from nature protection – presentation of possibilities to generate revenue for the local population by sustainable use of natural resources.
3. Activities contributing toward the development of ecotourism in the region benefiting the local communities – creation of ecotourism products; formation or support of the activities of existing companies with a view to the establishing of products and their collective marketing; training of local suppliers of ecotourism services; marketing and promotion of created or existing ecotourism products.
4. Other activities which will raise the public awareness and the understanding of biodiversity conservation and of sustainable management of natural resources.
Scheme 1 presents the link between the Specific objectives of the program and the admissible activities under the program:
The grant amount under the individual project program may not exceed the leva equivalent of USD 5,000. The bidding process is a two-stage process – a concept stage and a subsequent improved project development stage. The bids in each project area are evaluated by an evaluation committee staffed by the Minister of Environment and Water and including representatives of the MOEW, the MAF/NDF, and an external consultant, and is chaired by the NP Persina Director for the Persina NP, and by the Executive Director of the Kalimok-Brushlen Protected Locality NGO for the Kalimok-Brushlen Protected Locality.
The small grants program for both project areas was initiated in April 2004. Introductory seminars were carried out in three municipalities – Belene, Slivo pole and Tutrakan – with potential participants in the program. The information campaign covered all stakeholders.
Implementation of the Program during the Reporting Period
The mid-term evaluation of the program implementation is based on the financed projects during the first three sessions of implementation of the SGP – April/2004, October/2004 and April/2005. Over this period 50 projects have been financed in both project areas for a total of 118,510.39 USD and a total grant of 75,526.31 USD has been provided, or 38 % of the amount of 200,000 USD envisaged for the entire implementation period. Regarding the Persina NP, 23 project have been financed, and 27 in Kalimok-Brushlen (Table 1).
Table 1. Data about the total number of financed projects under the Persina Nature Park and Kalimok-Brushlen Protected Locality programs for the period:
|
Persina NP |
Kalimok-Brushlen Protected Area |
|
Number of financed projects |
23 |
27 |
|
Total amount of projects approved for financing |
49 530.56 |
68 979.83 |
|
Including the granted amount |
|
|
|
Amount of utilised grants by 22.05.2006 |
USD 36146.71
36 % |
USD 39379.57
39 % |
One element of importance for the starting of the program was the implementation of the project “International Day of the Danube-Celebration and Possibilities” during the first session of both areas – the Persina Nature Park and the Kalimok-Brushlen Protected Locality. The project was implemented by an organisation external to both parks, with experience of organising and holding such mass events by involving the local community. Certain lessons and good practices of the implementation of the project demonstrated by the project performers proved a good example for the subsequent participants in the program and for the PCU and the park administrations with regard to the implementation procedures, such as:
- use of environmental celebrations as a way to involve the local community into the park ideas and networking of the local communities;
- implementation of the project in partnership with local organisations and capacity building in local partners;
- the produced materials have helped largely with the initial provision to the population and to the stakeholders of information about the WRPR project, the objectives of both parks and the objectives of the program;
- the experience of the project implementing company of record keeping and accounting for results.
The experience during the first three sessions of implementing the program in the Persina Nature Park and in the Kalimok-Brushlen Protected Locality has shown that at this stage of SGP implementation most of the projects aim to implement public awareness programs, development of environment conservation education programs, and, to a lesser extent, ecotourism development programs. The least interest is that toward biodiversity conservation, with 2 of the total of 50 projects being oriented toward biodiversity conservation in the Persina Nature Park only. The first session saw a lesser interest in the program among the potential grant users. In consideration of this fact, the PCU conducted a broad media promotion of the second session and organised training for potential bidders in September 2004. This resulted in a multiple increase in submitted and approved projects, which allowed for coverage of most of the admissible bidders and for valuable project implementation partnerships between external and local organisations.
The financing under the program allowed for many trips for students from local schools in the protected areas, photo exhibitions, eco-festivities, ecological centres were prepared in the schools using collected natural materials, posters, brochures, books, calendars, badges, stickers, T-shirts and hats were printed, and more than one hundred landscape paintings were made of the Persina and Kalimok-Brushlen areas, as well as seminars for teachers, school children, farmers and the general public etc. were conducted. Most of the schools which carried SGP projects purchased digital cameras for use by the entire school.
During the three SGP sessions 50 projects were approved, of which 17 are still under way, while the remaining 33 have been completed successfully. More detailed information about the approved projects under the program, the types of applying organisations and the amounts of the requested and allowed grant are presented in Tables 2.1. and 2.2.
Table 3 presents the degree of completion of each admissible activity of the Small Grants Program by session, following the logic of Scheme 1 from the perspective of the number of projects including the specified activity on the basis of the total number of projects financed so far – 50.
Table 3. Number of financed projects by admissible activity as compared to the total number of projects financed for the period:
|
Admissible activities under the Small grants program: |
Session I
|
Session II
|
Session III
|
Total for the theme |
Total number of project financed for the period |
PNP
|
KBPL
|
PNP
|
KBPL
|
PNP
|
KBPL
|
Number
|
% of the total number of financed projects |
|
A: Development of programs for education on environment protection for kindergartens, schools..... |
5 |
2 |
5 |
11 |
7 |
6 |
36 |
72 |
50 |
|
B Public awareness raising programs..... |
6 |
1 |
5 |
16 |
6 |
7 |
41 |
82 |
|
C. Activities, contributing toward ecotourism development in the region..... |
1 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
13 |
26 |
|
D Other activities that will raise the public awareness...... |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
4 |
The three program implementation sessions covered all categories of admissible participants not only as the main project contractors, but also as partner organisations. Most active in both areas are the non-governmental organisations – almost half of the financed projects were won by NGOs. The next active group is that of schools, while the local communities and the kindergartens are third, with almost equal percentage of participation. The NGOs were interested in the program during the three implementation sessions while the remaining participants were represented differently during the different sessions (Table 4).
Table 4. Number of financed projects by admissible groups of participants as compared to the total number of projects financed for the period:
|
.Admissible participants under the Small grants program: |
Number of financed projects by groups of participants in the program: |
Session I
|
Session II
|
Session III
|
Total for the group of participants |
% of the total number of project financed for the period |
PNP
|
KBPL
|
PNP
|
KBPL
|
PNP
|
KBPL
|
|
LC / Local communities. |
|
1 |
3 |
1 |
|
1 |
6 |
12 |
|
LS / Local school. |
4 |
|
|
2 |
5 |
1 |
12 |
24 |
|
NP / Natural person. |
1 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
2 |
4 |
|
LK / Local kindergarten. |
|
2 |
|
3 |
2 |
|
7 |
14 |
|
NGO / Non-governmental organization. |
3 |
1 |
4 |
8 |
1 |
5 |
22 |
44 |
|
HEF / Higher Education Facility. |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
2 |
|
Total for all groups |
8 |
4 |
7 |
16 |
8 |
7 |
50 |
100 |
The main target groups, to which the financed projects are aimed are: schoolchildren from the primary, secondary and upper education levels, teachers, the local population, farmers, the local authority, journalists, representatives of the state administration, etc.
The main small-grants program project implementing organisations in Kalimok-Brushlen were the National and World Economy University of Sofia, the Sofia University, and the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences – organisations of national importance whose presence has made a substantial contribution for the promotion of the protected area outside the region. The Sofia University implemented a project in the Persina NP as well.
The implementation of all 50 projects resulted in the production of a large number of printed materials such as brochures, leaflets, stickers, badges, posters, folders, T-shirts, hats, pens, educational booklets, notebooks etc., which were distributed among the participants and the visitors to Kalimok-Brushlen and Persina.
The program allowed local organisations to partner with external organisations, which allowed them to build their project implementation capacity. In total 10 projects were implemented in both areas involving external and local organisations – 3 for the Persina Nature Park and 7 for the Kalimok-Brushlen Protected Locality (Table 5).
Table 5. Number of partnerships for financed projects by participant groups in the program for the period:
|
External participants
Local participants |
External community |
External school |
External kindergarten |
External non-governmental organization |
External higher education facility |
|
Local community |
|
|
|
3
|
1
|
Local school
|
|
1
|
|
2
|
|
|
Local natural person |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Local kindergarten |
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
Local non-governmental organization |
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
Higher Education Facility |
|
|
|
|
|
The NGOs are most inclined toward establishing of partnerships – NGOs have initiated a total of 8 project implementation partnerships in both parks. The remaining participating organisations have established one partnership each and – one external school and one external higher education facility, both in the Kalimok-Brushlen area. Again, Kalimok-Brushlen is the location of a local partnership between two local kindergartens from both municipalities.
The program has attained its objective to “raise public awareness and promote the environmental education in the Persina NP and in the Kalimok-Brushlen Protected Locality” to the highest degree. More than 80% of the financed projects aim to fulfil this objective. This percentage stands out clearly against the projects financed in support of the two other objectives – support of the activities for biodiversity conservation and sustainable management of natural resources in the Persina Nature Park and the Kalimok-Brushlen Protected Locality” and “demonstration of the links between the biodiversity conservation goals and the benefits for the local communities” (Table 6).
Table 6. Degree of obtaining of program objectives as a result of the implementation of the admissible activities for the period:
|
The main goals of the Small Grants Program |
Total number of project financed in support of this goal |
Degree of achievement of goals as a result of the implementation of the admissible activities /as %/ |
|
|
1. Support for the activities in the Persina NP and in the Kalimok-Brushlen Protected Locality aimed at biodiversity conservation and sustainable management of natural resources. |
2 |
2 % |
|
|
|
|
2. Raising the awareness of the population and promotion of environmental education in the Persina Nature Park and in the Kalimok-Brushlen Protected Locality. |
77 |
84 % |
|
|
|
|
3. Demonstration of the links between the goals of biodiversity conservation and the benefit for the local communities. |
13 |
14 % |
|
The reasons for the significant difference in attaining of the main objectives of the program may be searched for in several directions:
- a need of similar activities in both parks in support of objective 2 – both parks are relatively new protected areas and information about them has yet to be accumulated and disseminated,
- lack of capacity of the organisations to carry out projects in support of objectives 1 and 3 – these activities suggest better availability of expert capacity for biodiversity conservation and sustainable management of natural resources,
- absence of approved management plans for both parks regulating the management of natural resources,
- insufficient capacity of the park administrations to involve participants and keep them focused on the activities in support of objectives 1 and 3;
As the management planning process for the Persina NP and the Kalimok-Brushlen Protected Locality progressed, a joint workshop of potential participants in the program from both parks took place in Belene in September 2005. The goals and priorities of the future plans were presented on the meeting, as was the updated public relations strategy of both parks. This, and the good publication by the PCU have resulted in the financing during the third session of projects fulfilling the main objectives of the program to the highest extent. Experts from the Danube Wetland Management Project were also involved in the evaluation of the project proposals.
The preliminary expectations of the PCU and of the local park administrations for active involvement of the local authorities in the implementation of the small grants program for the Kalimok-Brushlen Protected Locality and the Persina Nature Park was not justified (Table 6). Regarding the three implementation sessions, the municipalities have become involved in the implementation of projects mainly as partner organisations.
Table 6. Involvement of the local municipal administrations in the Small Grants Program:
|
Local community |
TOTAL
|
Session I
|
Session II
|
Session III
|
Bidder
|
Partner
|
Bidder
|
Partner
|
Bidder
|
Partner
|
Bidder
|
Partner
|
|
Belene Municipality |
- |
3 |
- |
1 |
- |
1 |
- |
1 |
|
Nikopol Municipality |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
Svishtov Municipality |
1 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
Tutrakan Municipality |
1 |
3 |
1 |
- |
- |
2 |
- |
1 |
|
Slivo Pole Municipality |
1 |
5 |
- |
- |
1 |
3 |
- |
1 |
|
TOTAL |
3 |
11 |
|
Only two of the projects were won by the municipal administrations in Tutrakan and Slivo pole as leading organisations during sessions I and II. Although both projects have been implemented with success, the two municipalities had not bid again as leading organisations during Session III. Most actively involved in the program in the Persina Nature Park was the Belene Municipality. It was a partner in all three sessions but had not applied as a leading bidder. The Nikopol municipality had not been involved in the implementation of a project under the program. The Svishtov municipality has completed successfully a project aimed to promote and develop ecotourism from Session II of the program. Considering the fact, that the partners participate in parallel with the bidders in the implementation of projects, the municipalities of Belene, Tutrakan and Slivo pole are most active in the small grants program implementation process. The less active involvement of the Svishtov and Nikopol municipalities is due, most likely, to insufficient capacity and experience of project writing and management.
Presently, the implementing organisations have submitted the required project implementation reports on time. The operations manual has been accepted unequivocally by the beneficiaries. The practice of gradual (three stages, at least) transferring of funding has proven successful, in view of the capacity to utilise and account for funds. The project-implementation risk factors most often pointed out by the implementing organisations are related to delayed financial transfers (through administrative problems) and poor weather (2004 and 2005 had been extremely wet and with much precipitation).
So far, there have been four projects since the beginning of the SGP (one for the Persina NP and three for the Kalimok-Brushlen Protected Locality) proposed for termination prior to the implementation phase caused by reasons internal to the implementing organisations without being related to the SGP criteria and requirements. It can be said in summary, that the SGP has a total degree of success of 92%.
Consistent with the experience obtained from the implementation of the program and from the advancement of the process of preparation and approval of the management plans for the Kalimok-Brushlen Protected Locality and the Persina NP, certain changes to the SGP Operating Manual were discussed and approved with the expert from the Wetlands Management Project team, related to:
- giving priority to the implementation of projects that meet the requirements of the forthcoming management plans presented in the Joint Communications Strategy and the Public Relations Plans regarding wetland restoration and management;
- increasing the size of the individual grants from 5,000 to 7,500 USD;
- renewing of the proposal evaluation criteria;
Examples of well implemented SGP projects in the Persina Nature Park:
- Ecoculture – Hristo Botev Primary School – town of Belene – organised and conducted on the Danube Day, a two-day rowing trip along the Danube, with excellent organisation.
- Extracurricular activity “Toward nature with love” with schoolchildren from the Vasil Levski School, town of Belene – two education programs have been developed under this project for various age groups of schoolchildren, for the elective subject of Ecology.
- A sports holiday in the Persina NP – Professor Ivan Shishmanov School, village of Dekov – an example of well matched activities, visits to the park and involving the schoolchildren in the issues of biodiversity conservation.
- Protection of natural resources through the creation of ecotourism development conditions – Svishtov Municipality – an interpretation centre was established under the project, training in ecotourism was organised, and eco trails were developed and tested with representatives of local stakeholders/hotel keepers, restaurant owners etc. /.
- Lessons of nature – the beauty of the native land in the harmony of children’s art – the Evropolis Association, town of Belene – an interesting proposal to celebrate the day of the environment and to start a tradition in this regard.
- An example of a project entirely oriented toward the promotion of environmental education is the “Improvement of the Educational Curriculum on Ecology and Environment Protection in the Dimcho Debelyanov Secondary School” in the town of Belene.
Examples of well implemented SGP projects in the Kalimok-Brushlen Protected Locality:
- The International Danube Day – a Celebration of Possibilities, implemented by the EKSO 2000 Ltd. from the town of Plovdiv in partnership with the Fishermen Association of the town of Tutrakan – the first project implemented in Kalimok-Brushlen and having gathered more than 300 residents and visitors to the village of Ryahovo, with many promotion materials;
- “Study of the old crafts of the residents of the Калимок- Brushlen Protected Locality and the possibilities for their restoration”, implemented by Margarita Gogova (as a natural person) from the town of Tutrakan – a successful effort to find and collect information about crafts in the region related to the wetland resources;
- The Kalimok-Brushlen Protected Locality – Wealth, Protection, Future, carried out by the First Primary School of Otets Paisi in the town of Silistra in partnership with the Hristo Botev Secondary School of the town of Tutrakan;
- Nature-Our Home, implemented by the St. Paisi Hilendarski School Board in the town of Slivo pole – a teaching aid for teachers was prepared and biology study groups were established in the school;
- Sustainability Through Partnership implemented by the Centre for Agrobusiness and Rural Development at the National and World Economy University in partnership with the Slivo pole Municipality – a very successful ecotourism development project;
- Acquainting the population of the Slivo Pole Municipality with the natural wealth and the advantages of the Калимок – Brushlen Protected Locality, implemented by the Slivo pole Municipality and entirely oriented toward the local population of the villages in the Kalimok-Brushlen Protected Locality, a Tour Guide to the Slivo pole Municipality was published;
- The Little Citizen – A Chance at Nature Conservation, implemented by the N. Y. Vaptsarov Primary School Board, town of Tutrakan – a specialised section with nature conservation books was established in the reading library;
- World environment day – ethnic culture, traditions, and customs around the KBPL, implemented by the N. Y. Vaptsarov reading library in the village of Babovo – a non-traditional celebration of the ecological festivity by involving and gathering in one place the ethnic groups of the area;
- Flying toward the Birds – a joint project between two local kindergartens – the Sintchets kindergarten from the village of Ryahovo and Polet from the town of Tutrakan – an extremely successful project helping the schools extend their equipment;
- The Nature of the KBPL – a Class Room for Students and Parents, implemented by the Hristo Botev Secondary School of Tutrakan – a notebook with results from the trips to the Kalimok-Brushlen Protected Locality was published and didactical materials were created;
- The Tutrakan Municipality – a New Image and Possibilities, implemented by the Tutrakan Municipality – a Tour Guide to the Tutrakan Municipality with 8 pages of information about the Kalimok-Brushlen Protected Locality was published;
- The Ninth European Night of Bats implemented by the Bat Study Group of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences – a professionally implemented project aimed to promote the wetlands as habitats of bats, the implementing organisation contributed 58 %.
The following problems occurred during the SGP implementation process:
§ The lack of project-management experience during the first and, partially, the second sessions meant that some of the implementing organisations could not stick to the report submission deadlines and this lead to delays in the subsequent allocations, and in the implementation of the activities. To avoid such delays, the PCU prepared additional agreements for some of the organisations to extend the project implementation deadlines. This allowed avoiding violations of the agreements and conditions of the operating manual. Due to the lessons learnt by the PCU, no such problems existed during the implementation of projects from Session III.
§ The inadequate initial planning of budget expenses by the bidders has made some implementing organisations refrain from utilising all amounts and others increased the percentage of their own involvement over the initially planned involvement. This, again, is related to the lack of experience of project preparation and management. Due to the lessons learnt by the PCU, the bidders for subsequent session were advised to plan well and to include all required project implementation expenses. To build the capacity of the SGP beneficiaries to write, manage and account for projects, the PCU organised one-day hands-on seminars on Writing, Management and Financial Accounting of Small SGP Projects in December 2005 for those interested in the SGP in the Persina and Kalimok-Brushlen areas. The seminars were received extremely well, judging from the feedback from the participants.
§ Regarding the projects proposed for termination, the problem was with the discrepant expectations of the implementing organisations about the results. Regarding the projects with a leading external partner, the geographic distance did not allow the implementing organisations sufficient “presence” in the areas during the implementation of the activities and during the submission of the reports.
§ The lack of capacity for management and project reporting of the local project partners with a leading external partner did not allow the local organisations to regard the projects as their own and to stress upon the quality of implementation.
§ Insufficient capacity, resources and commitment by the park administrations during the administration of the program and involvement of the bidders;
Important lessons
§ As a whole, the SGP implementation in the Persina NP and in the Kalimok-Brushlen Protected Locality has built a stable capacity among the local communities to write and manage small projects for raising the awareness of the population, promotion of environmental education and of sustainable management of natural resources.
§ Due to the Program, both protected areas received prominence among the local population and nationwide. Persina and Kalimok-Brushlen are mentioned more frequently in the local media, and in the local development plans and programs, and local tour operators have included these locations among their visit sites.
§ Not only the biodiversity of both parks, but also the notions of wetlands, wetland resources, nutrient pollution, protected area management, environment protection benefits etc., have gained popularity.
§ A broad range of local stakeholders were involved in the implementation of environmental projects.
§ The implementation of SGP projects has allowed the combining of biodiversity objectives with the objectives of conservation of the cultural and historical heritage in the parks.
§ The SGP has encouraged innovative partnerships between the external and local organisations.
§ The SGP is a means for using of additional own funds for project implementation – the average percentage of involvement of the implementing organisations is 20.86 % for Kalimok-Brushlen and 16.87 % for Persina. The own contribution for some implementing organisations has exceeded significantly (by a factor of three and four) the minimum requirement of 10%.
The starting of each project cycle has allowed the sharing of experience between the implementing organisations and the local population of environmental protection and promotion of the wetlands and their values.