SECTION 2 – BACKGROUND AND PROJECT CONTRIBUTION TO OVERALL SUBPROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION

2.1 Background

The Wider Caribbean Region (WCR) comprises the marine environment of the Gulf of Mexico, the Caribbean Sea and the 200-mile zone of the Atlantic Ocean adjacent to the countries in the region. The Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystem is a sub-oceanic basin of the WCR, bounded to the south by South America and Panama, to the west by Central America and the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico and partially enclosed to the north and east by the Islands of the West Indies. The sub-region of the Caribbean Sea covered by this project-the Mesoamerican Caribbean Basin (MCB)-is the specific region of the southwestern Caribbean Sea bordered by four countries, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, and Colombia.

Agriculture is critical to the economies of the countries in the MCB sub-region, which

produce a significant portion of the world's coffee (12%), plantains (10%), fresh fruits (9%) and bananas (8%) and significant quantities of pineapples, sugar cane, ginger, oil palm, and flowers. Even with the increase in tourism in the sub-region during the past decade, export-oriented agricultural production remains the main source of foreign exchange earnings. The agricultural sector provides approximately 32% of the gross national product (GNP) in Nicaragua, 19% in Colombia and 18% in Costa Rica.

Increasing world demand for cash crops and the growth in competition for a share of global markets have resulted in significantly increased pesticide use in the sub-region. Government subsidies and tax incentives that encourage farmers to rely on chemical-based methods of pest management have also contributed to this trend. In recent years, however, some importing countries have put pressure on exporting developing countries to reduce the use of the most toxic and persistent pesticides through the setting of maximum pesticide residue levels in the products imported. Regional precedents also exist to turn agricultural market forces into a positive environmental benefit. Eco-friendly products such as organic produce or more recently “sustainably-grown” produce have a place in niche markets and such markets are widening as consumers become more environmentally aware.

In 1999, MCB countries imported more than 14,600 metric tons (active ingredients) of pesticides, and formulated an additional 13,300 metric tons (a.i.) for agricultural use on close to 3 million hectares for 21 principal crops for the region. These pesticides include insecticides that are severely restricted or banned for use in developed countries (e.g. methamidophos, phosphamidon, methyl parathion, and monocrotophos, which are covered by the Prior Informed Consent Procedure; and carbofuran and malathion).

The data and information gathered during the GEF PDF-B phase confirm that discharge and runoff of pesticides to surface or ground waters occur as the result of a variety of activities. The indiscriminate use and inappropriate application of pesticides are responsible for agrochemicals reaching non-target organisms. The mishandling of pesticides such as spills, improper storage, and improper rinsing and disposal of pesticide containers has also lead to the accumulation of pesticides in surface or ground waters. Moreover, transport by wind and runoff often results in the introduction of agricultural pesticides into aquatic systems even when they are properly applied. Many of these risks can be significantly reduced, however, through proper agricultural practices.

Continued pesticide runoff to the Caribbean Sea carries with it many environmental risks. The inappropriate and indiscriminate use of agricultural pesticides causes health hazards, both to humans and the coastal environment and its associated coastal economies. With the deterioration of the marine and freshwater environments in these countries, incidences of human poisoning and wildlife kills are commonplace. Excessive pesticide use can also lead to soil contamination and degradation, which induces phytotoxicity and pest resistance, and consequent low productivity and higher costs of production.

During the past two decades, evaluations of the effects of pesticides on non-target organisms and their transport away from areas of application to soils and surface and ground waters have been carried out in MCB countries. Very little, however, has been done to systematically organize the information. Moreover, it is often not possible to compare data from different sources because different methods were used for collection and analysis. Furthermore, data is not always publicly available. Despite these limitations, all three countries presented information in National Reports, which were produced as an output of the PDF-B, to support the hypothesis that a considerable proportion of applied pesticides were not reaching target organisms but were entering waterways and groundwaters and, eventually, the Caribbean Sea.

The PDF-B, through the work of National Committees and through the completion of the National Reports, has demonstrated that a large number of national stakeholders, including governments (ministries of agriculture, environment and health), NGOs, scientific institutions and local communities are concerned about the potential environmental and health impacts of pesticide runoff. In the MCB countries, the government ministries, in co-operation with the private sector, are committed to improving the management and control of the use of pesticides. Indeed, in recent years, all countries have taken steps to limit the risks to human health and the environment from the misuse of pesticides.

Regional and global efforts have also focused on the environmental threats posed by the presence of pesticides in aquatic systems. In Oct 1999, the Contracting Parties to the Cartagena Convention adopted a Protocol to the Convention Concerning Pollution from Land-based Sources and Activities (LBS Protocol). Annex IV to the LBS Protocol specifically requires that Parties develop national plans to prevent, reduce and control the runoff of pollutants from agricultural lands. Colombia and Costa Rica are already parties to the Cartagena Convention. Colombia and Costa Rica have also signed the LBS Protocol, signalling their intent to ratify it. Nicaragua is currently taking action to accede to the Cartagena Convention and ratify the LBS Protocol simultaneously. This project offers the added benefit of assisting participating countries in meeting their obligations under the LBS Protocol and serve as a demonstration for existing and potential parties to the Protocol. It will also contribute to the objectives of the recently adopted Convention for the coastal and marine areas of the North East Pacific.

2.2 Legislative Authority and Contribution to Subprogramme

This project will implement various provisions of the Cartagena Convention and specifically Annex IV – Agricultural Nonpoint Sources of the Protocol to the Convention Concerning Pollution from Land-based Sources and Activities.

This project comprises part of the 2002-2003 Workplan of the AMEP subprogramme of CEP as approved by the Tenth Intergovernmental Meeting on the Action Plan for the Caribbean Environment Programme and the Seventh Meeting of the Contracting Parties to the Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbean Region, Montego Bay, 7-11 May 2002. Further, as a GEF Project, the project brief was endorsed by the GEF Operational Focal Points of each participating country and the project brief received approval by the GEF Council in its meeting of May 2002.

2.3 Monitoring and [MSOffice3] Evaluation[tk4]

The main stakeholders for the project are farmers, agrochemical distributors, health, agricultural and environmental ministries and agencies, environmental NGOs and other community-based organisations, relevant international organisations, and academic institutions. These stakeholders were represented in the National Committees that participated in the production of National Reports and Action Plans for improved pesticide management under the PDF. The National Reports were discussed and revised through national workshops, each attended by more than sixty participants representative of the stakeholders. Regional actions were presented, discussed, and revised at a regional workshop with the attendance of more than 90 participants representative of the stakeholders. The Project was prepared using the National Reports as the main source of input.

The institutional framework, based on national committees of stakeholders established under the PDF-B, will continue under the Project. As Secretariat to the Cartagena Convention, UNEP-CAR/RCU will be responsible for overall execution of the project and coordination at the regional level. A Project Manager (L-5, who will be assisted by a Admin. Assistant – G-4) will be recruited by UNEP-CAR/RCU and posted to San Jose, Costa Rica for overall management and co-ordination of the project. Further specifics on the institutional framework can be seen in Annex IV.

CropLife Latin America is an active agrochemical industry association operating in all participating countries as well as others in the region. CropLife’s contributions (in cash and in kind), in addition to its position on the PSC, will be focused on training. Through the Project Manager, the PSC and the NCCs, CropLife will contribute to those aspects of training that deal with proper handling, application, and disposal of chemical pesticides.

At the national level, the executing agencies will be:

(a) Ministerio del Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (MARENA), Nicaragua;

(b) Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía (MINAE), Costa Rica; and

Regional coordination and information sharing as described in the project document will be implemented by UNEP-CAR/RCU. The GEF overall Steering Committee will be responsible for providing overall strategic and policy guidance to the project, and monitoring project progress against the workplan.

Prior to the second project-monitoring meeting of the PSC, the UNEP/GEF Co-ordination Office will undertake an external independent evaluation to determine any problems and suggest corrective action. Project management and delivery as well as quality and timeliness of outputs will be evaluated. The PSC will then receive the outcome of the evaluation and plan for any necessary remedial actions. The RPM, in co-ordination with the PSC, will also report to the Intergovernmental Meeting of the CEP on progress in the project. The Intergovernmental Meeting will provide feedback on the project and recommendations to ensure project reproducibility and use throughout the region. A final in-depth, participatory evaluation will be undertaken by UNEP according to the UNEP approved Monitoring and Evaluation procedures. Evaluation and overall performance of the project will be undertaken within the framework of the Monitoring and Evaluation Programme of the GEF Secretariat.

The Demonstration Projects will be regularly evaluated at the national level by the NCCs and reported to the PSC. This Panel will meet once a year to assess the projects and make recommendations to the NCCs for improvements, if necessary. National level reports will be the responsibility of the NPMs who will report to the RPM who, in turn, has the overall responsibility of reporting to UNEP and to the GEF.

SECTION 3 - THE UNEP LOGICAL FRAMEWORK MATRIX

The logical framework matrix found in Annex I, outlines the objectives, means of verification, activities, outcomes and assumptions. The overall objective of the project is to reduce pesticide run-off to the Caribbean Sea. However, as firm data on current coastal water quality regarding pesticides (and other contaminants) is not widely available, measurable reduction at the regional level during the four-year project will be difficult. There are several activities that provide for institutional and technical capacity building, and an evaluation of market practices that promote irrational use of pesticides, however, the heart of the project is in the demonstration projects. As such, the demonstration activities are aimed at reducing run-off on selected sites through best practices and innovative pest management methodologies. If this is measurable at the small scale of the demonstrations, it is presumed that larger scale and broader application of the same methodologies will lead to the reduction of overall pesticide run-off. Larger and broader scale application of the project methodologies will depend heavily on demonstration project success, communication of those successes, and political support for the process.

Commitment at the national level, through the National Project Managers and the National Coordinating Committees, will be crucial to ensure that the demonstration projects are implemented fully and according to plan. Greater regional and global benefits will be achieved through the various capacity-building activities as well as an active and continuous distribution and communication of project results.

SECTION 4 –WORKPLAN AND TIMETABLE, BUDGET, FOLLOW-UP

4.1 Outputs, Activities, Workplan, and Timetable

As seen in the logical framework (Annex I), this project contains a significant number of activities and various outputs. Below is a narrative of the key components and subcomponents with their primary outputs. Detailed information, including the timetable for implementation can be found in the Gantt chart in Annex II.

As approved by the GEF Council, the project contains six main elements that will be implemented through three project components and various subcomponents. The six elements are: (1) Monitoring and Assessment of Impact; (2) Technology Transfer and Alternatives; (3) Education and Training; (4) Development of Incentives; (5) Institutional Strengthening; and (6) Information Management and Dissemination. The key activities will be the demonstration projects that include farmer education programmes on private agricultural land in each of the countries. Lessons learned from the case studies will provide a basis for post demonstration activities in the areas of institutional changes, training, and coastal monitoring. The Demonstration Projects will have an integrated design, incorporating the six elements described above.

COMPONENT 1: Project Coordination

Subcomponent 1.1: Project Management

UNEP/CAR RCU will be responsible for project coordination, and will assist the participating countries in developing the necessary mechanisms to strengthen and maintain stakeholder participation and the successful networking and coordination that took place within, and among, project countries during the PDF. However, the national authorities will carry out the substantive part of the national level activities, thereby building capacity and sustainability.

· Recruitment of a Regional Project Manager (RPM) - a project manager will be recruited and will report directly to UNEP-CAR/RCU;

· Designation of National Project Managers (NPM)- a NPM will be designated in each participating country by the National Executing Agency. The NPM will co-chair the NCC with a representative of the Ministry of Agriculture and will be a member of the PSC.

· Establish National Coordinating Committees (NCCs) will be established to provide the necessary stakeholder involvement in all aspects of the project at the national level, as well as to recommend crops and sites for Demonstration Projects to the PSC for approval. Through its review and approval, the PSC will ensure the complementarity of Demonstration Project sites between project countries.

· Develop Criteria and Guidelines for Demonstration Project Activities- Prior to the initiation of the demonstration projects, the PSC and NCCs will develop and approve the detailed project workplan, and set the criteria and guidelines for the demonstration projects (i.e. the selection of crops taking into consideration the major crops of the region-coffee, rice, corn, sugar cane, bananas, etc.). In addition the PSC and NCCs will approve demonstration project activities.

Subcomponent 1.2: Project Steering Committee Meetings

· Establishment of a Project Steering Committee-following agreements with the National Executing Agencies, a Project Steering Committee (PSC) will be established to approved annual workplans, guide the project, and set the basis for a regional entity for coordination and collaboration on reducing pesticide runoff. Advisory Panels will assist the PSC (see below). Draft terms of reference for the PSC are provided in Annex IV and will be approved at the first meeting of the PSC.

Subcomponent 1.3: Regional Project Advisory Panels

· Establishment of Project Advisory Panels - the Terms of Reference for the Project Advisory Panels will be drafted by the Project Manager and revised and endorsed by the PSC. These panels will establish monitoring protocols and design an appropriate education and training programme respectively. The Advisory Panels will report to the PSC through the RPM. Other Ad hoc panels may also be established as appropriate.

Outputs of Component 1:

· Establishment of project coordination unit;

· Continuation (from GEF/PDF phase) and expansion of regional and national institutional infrastructure for improving pesticide management in the project countries; and

· Establish institutional guidelines and administrative arrangements for demonstration projects.

COMPONENT 2: Demonstration Projects

Component 2 consists of two sub-components to ensure the successful outcome of the Demonstration Projects. The Projects will incorporate educational activities for farmers on improved pest management and the sustainability of cleaner production alternatives within farm communities, including large-scale producers (regional and extra-regional), taking into account economic feasibility and the existence or creation of markets for their resultant agricultural products, which in turn will provide valuable input to Sub component 3.1.2 on incentives.

Sub-component 2.1: Demonstration Project Preparation

· Demonstration Project Criteria – Criteria and Guidelines for the demonstration projects in each country will be drafted by the RPM with the assistance of consultancies. Such criteria and guidelines will be reviewed by the PSC and approved for the development of demonstration project workplans.

· Training - A training programme will be developed by an advisory panel and approved by the PSC. Training on proper pesticide use will be provided in coordination with CropLife Latin America. Other training on IPM and other methods and environmental monitoring will be provided in association with regional institutions. Training will be for each private landowner (and employees as appropriate) for: 1) the proper application of best management practices; and 2) an evaluation programme to monitor effectiveness of measures employed at the project site.

· Monitoring and assessment of the environmental and socio-economic conditions of demonstration sites.[1] Monitoring of the demonstration project sites will take place on various fronts to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the conditions prior to, during and post project implementation. In addition to specific data to be collected, other practices and conditions will also be evaluated to provide a holistic picture of the demonstration sites. These will include documenting things such as current practices and farm outputs:

- BMPs employed

- Training in IPM or proper pesticide use

- Current data collection methods

- Financial information on farm expenses

- Annual crop yields

- Historical crop pests and diseases

- Educational levels of farmers

- Access to outside resources (funding, marketing, information, etc.)

- Personal protective gear used

- Knowledge of/compliance with applicable laws and government/regional programmes

Pesticide data to be included are:

- Type and quantities of pesticides used (both total amounts and amounts of active ingredients) per hectare;

- Method of application;

- Target organisms

Environmental monitoring of demonstration sites will include:

- Rainfall (historical and during the project);

- Soil types (permeability);

- Soil loss;

- Run-off rates;

- Upstream and downstream surface water quality and ground water (if feasible);

Sub component 2.2: Demonstration Project Execution

· Demonstration Project Execution -- each participating country will develop four Demonstration Projects according to the criteria and workplans approved by the PSC. Two different crops on two different types of farm-high intensity and low intensity, or subsistence. Demonstration projects will be coordinated by the NPM and overseen by the RPM. Additional detail can be found in Annex I and the project brief.

· Technical Exchange --the NPMs in coordination with the RPM will facilitate technical exchange between the NCCs and Demonstration Project co-ordinators by funding study tours to other project countries.

Outputs Component 2: Training in pesticide management and monitoring of use is provided in preparation for and execution of demonstration projects. Well-developed, implemented, and documented demonstration projects in each country. Technical exchange will be carried out by study tours of demonstration project coordinators. Endorsed Monitoring Protocols for demonstration projects, which will serve as standardised protocols for the countries and models for the WCR and other regions;

COMPONENT 3: Institutionalising Improved Pesticide Management and Strengthening Capacity for Reducing Pesticide Runoff

The third component of the project will implement the activities necessary to take advantage of the lessons learnt during Component 2.

Sub-component 3.1: Sustaining Improvements for Reducing Pesticide Runoff

· Policy and Legislative Reforms Extensive stakeholder and expert consultative meetings will be carried out by the NPMs in coordination with the NCCs to develop and recommend the appropriate policy and legislative reforms necessary to allow for the application of the incentives, described above.

· Incentives --the project will examine the market forces that have led to indiscriminate use of pesticides and develop incentives towards the rational use of pesticides and other means of reducing pesticide runoff. NPMs will lead the NCCs to develop national level incentive programmes.

· Crop Certification Programme -- “eco-labelling” scheme will be developed under the direction of the RPM in coordination regional agricultural and economic bodies for the crops produced according to the principles and protocols developed under the project.

· Train-the-Trainer Programme--this activity will also use lessons learned during execution of the project to assist in the development of a “train-the-trainer” programme for the rational use of pesticides. Institutions used under Component 2 for training will develop and execute the training under the direction of the RPM.

· Regional Coastal Monitoring Programme and Database -- will be established using regional and national institutions to monitor pesticide runoff into the coastal environment. These activities will provide the basis for long-term monitoring by academic and oceanographic institutions in the region, including the ISO certification of laboratories, to build capacity to conduct the necessary analyses within the MCB.

Sub-component 3.2: Lessons Learnt –Education and Information Dissemination

· Case studies – The demonstration projects will each be a case study. All information on the progress and results will be regularly updated to ensure maximum use of the information and to ensure “cross-fertilisation” of results between and among project sites and countries.

· Regional Workshop on Demonstration Projects for participating countries to present their findings and results to other countries with similar circumstances.

· Development and Dissemination of Information -- Information and awareness materials on the project overall and the demonstrations will be developed and disseminated via the Internet, hard copy and through farmer groups using the most effective means of dissemination to reach all levels of farmers. Materials will inform stakeholders on the positive changes and lessons learnt in the participating countries towards sustainably reducing pesticide runoff.

· Establish and maintain a Project Website within CEPNET --The project website will be established during year one of the project, and will include linkages to the Caribbean Clearinghouse node for the Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities, as well as to existing national websites. Case studies of the demonstration projects will be developed and updated regularly on the website. The RPM will direct this work in coordination with staff of UNEP-CAR/RCU.

Outputs Component 3:

· Increased stakeholder awareness through participation in the project and through the development and dissemination of project outreach and awareness materials as well as specific materials on BMPs and IPM. All information to be included in a project website hosted by UNEP-CAR/RCU;

· Incentive programmes will include legislative and policy reform initiatives (government policy reports and proposed changes to legislation where appropriate);

· A crop certification programme will be established and promoted;

· Coastal pesticide monitoring programme established in the three countries (model for others), to include the certification of three laboratories-one in each of the participating countries;

· Training materials will be developed and a train-the-trainers workshop will be conducted; and

· Regional workshop for information exchange on the demonstration project results

Additional Outputs

Overall there are some additional non-specific outputs of the project which include the provision of necessary incentives, training and education to ensure farmers and other stakeholders understand the importance of implementing BMPs in pesticide management; availability of information and technology gained from the demonstration projects so that an increased number of farmers and other stakeholders will implement these practices and continue to do so in a sustainable manner after the completion of the project; and strengthened institutions within the MCB which promote improved and sustainable pesticide management. These additional outputs include:

1. Establishment of validated and recommended BMPs-this involves the development of a set of BMPs for major agricultural products in the MCB. Validation will be achieved through the results of the demonstration projects, which will cover six different crops, on two different types of farms. The BMPs will be environmentally sound, socially acceptable; economically feasible and transferable to other parts of the WCR and to similar areas of the world;

2. Implementation of BMPs by a significant group of farmers-this will be achieved through demonstrating that the use of, and dependency on, pesticides may be rationalised, whilst still maintaining yield and profits. This will be achieved through the development of 12 demonstration projects to be used as models for replication. In addition, implementation will be encouraged through the dissemination of information and technologies through case studies based on the demonstration projects, and through the training programmes;

3. Progress towards streamlined laws and regulations to allow for adequate enforcement-the steps taken to improve the legal framework will include a series of recommendations implemented by participating governments. Incentives policy documents will be developed and approved by the NCC and PSC;

4. Reduction in the conditions that encourage irrational or indiscriminate use of pesticides-this includes the elimination of market distortions. Recommendations will be implemented by the national governments;

5. A substantial increase in public awareness and increased political support for the project goals and objectives-this output involves improving general awareness of the importance of conserving the marine environment of the Caribbean Sea. This will include the establishment of a group of well-trained experts capable of providing further training to farmers and other stakeholders. In addition, a set of educational and public awareness raising materials will be developed. Surveys will be undertaken on a periodic basis to verify awareness of guidelines, recommendations, and procedures developed by the project;

6. Databases on Pesticide Runoff and Management-these databases will be available through the CEPNET Clearinghouse mechanism on the CEP website and will be developed in a user-friendly format.

4.2 Budget:

A summary budget (in millions US$) is provided here. Budget details by object of expenditure can be found in Annex III.

Project Components	GEF	Co-financing Countries		Co-financing Other		Total
		Co-financing Countries		Co-financing Other
		Cash	In-kind	Cash	In-kind
Component 1 -- Project Management and Stakeholder Participation	0.925	0.105	0.135	0.075	0.125	1.365
Sub-component 1.1 – Project Management	0.770	0.105	0.135	0.000	0.055	1.065
Sub-component 1.2 – Project Steering Committee	0.060	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.035	0.095
Sub-component 1.3 – Project Advisory Panels	0.095	0.000	0.000	0.075	0.035	0.205
Component 2 – Demonstration Projects	2.605	0.375	1.650	0.025	0.150	4.805
Sub-component 2.1 – Demo Project Preparation	0.105	0.265	0.150	0.025	0.150	0.695
Sub-component 2.2 – Demo Project Execution	2.500	0.110	1.500	0.000	0.000	4.110
Component 3 – Improved Pesticide Management and Strengthening Capacity	0.595	1.290	1.630	0.000	0.065	3.580
Sub-component 3.1 – Sustaining Improvements for RPR	0.410	0.900	1.555	0.000	0.000	2.865
Sub-component 3.2 – Lessons Learned	0.185	0.390	0.075	0.000	0.065	0.715
Subtotal	4.125	1.770	3.415	0.100	0.340	9.750
Executing Agency Overhead	0.165	--	--	--	--	0.165
Grand Total	4.290	1.770	3.415	0.100	0.340	9.915

4.3 Follow-up:

Sustainability of the project beyond the four years is built in to the project. Additionally there are some assumptions and risks involved. Critical assumptions and risks are detailed in the logical framework (Annex B). Some particularly noteworthy risks are:

(a) Territorial and political disputes between some of the project countries may inhibit co-operation in collecting and sharing data, specifically in trans-boundary watersheds and archipelagic borders, should these be chosen for demonstration sites. This risk is mitigated by all countries having shown interest in regional co-operation through this project, all countries being members of CEP and some being Contracting Parties to the Cartagena Convention.

(b) Extreme weather events are not uncommon in the south-western Caribbean. Earthquakes and hurricanes can (depending on their magnitude and damage) seriously disrupt project activities as they turn government and public attention to remediation efforts and meeting basic needs. Additionally, extreme damage, such as was seen with hurricane Mitch in 1998, can obliterate demonstration project sites. As natural disasters are unpredictable, planning for this contingency is difficult and will be managed as necessary. Nonetheless, the project will be co-ordinated with another CEP project to improve coastal watershed management to minimise community and environmental damage caused by hurricanes.

(c) Political commitment for a project can falter following a change in government. As the project will have an operational level management structure below the level of the political leadership, and will be based on broad support from the private and public sectors, the impact of political change is expected to be minimal.

Sustainability of the project initiatives after project completion is subject, in part, to political commitment at the national level, and in part to the success of the project itself (i.e. dissemination of a set of demonstrated practices to reduce pesticide runoff whilst maintaining profitability to appropriate audiences). Because many of the initiatives under this project will assist countries to comply with the LBS Protocol to the Cartagena Convention, in as far as the countries are committed to this regional legal instrument, it will ensure some sustainability as compliance with the LBS Protocol requires continued efforts to reduce pesticide runoff. Additionally, UNEP-CAR/RCU, as Secretariat to the Cartagena Convention and its protocols, will continue to provide a regional forum and organisational structure for continued co-operation over the long-term among project countries and provide wider dissemination of project results.

Specifically, the success of the activities of stakeholder groups during the PDF-B phase has reflected a real concern among regional stakeholders to reduce pesticide runoff. Participating countries are confident that this will continue beyond the life of the project. Additional means of sustainability lie in the development of incentives, including the crop certification programme. If successful, these initiatives have the potential to change policies and the market structure towards more sustainable production and greater economic benefits. Long-term sustainability also supposes that the project is successful in institutionalising, at governmental and corporate levels, the programmes of improved management and changes to corporate practices that will be implemented and tested. Furthermore, the development of a monitoring programme through laboratory certification, and the commitment of the countries to maintain a monitoring presence post-project, will help sustain the project goals by providing a continuing information base. It is anticipated that the PSC will form the nucleus of regional pesticide management committee to assisting in the co-ordination of, or liaison with, future efforts in this area thus providing further sustainability to project initiatives. The NCCs are also committed to permanence as national councils. Experience during the PDF indicates that the various stakeholders are dedicated to the success of these regional and national forums.

SECTION 5 – INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK AND EVALUATION

5.1 Institutional Framework:

UNEP-CAR/RCU will be responsible for the implementation of the project in accordance with the objectives and activities outlined in Section 2 of this document. UNEP, as the GEF Implementing Agency, will be responsible for overall project supervision to ensure consistency with GEF and UNEP policies and procedures, and will provide guidance on linkages with related UNEP and GEF-funded activities. The UNEP/DGEF Coordination Office will monitor implementation of the activities undertaken during the execution of the project. The UNEP/DGEF Coordination [MSOffice5] Office will be responsible for clearance and transmission of financial and progress reports to the Global Environment Facility. [tk6]

The Project Steering Committee will be responsible for drafting the final work plan and timetable.

All correspondence regarding substantive issues will be addressed to:

At UNEP-CAR/RCU

Nelson Andrade Colmenares

Co-ordinator

Attn. Mr. Tim Kasten

UNEP-CAR/RCU

14-20 Port Royal Street

Kingston, Jamaica

Phone: (876) 922-9267

Fax: (876) 922-9292

tjk.uneprcuja@cwjamaica.com

With a copy to:At UNEP/DGEF

Mr. Ahmed Djoghlaf

Director

UNEP/DGEF Coordination Office

UNEP, Box 30552,

Nairobi, Kenya

Phone: (254) 2 624166

Fax: (254) 2 624041

E-mail: Ahmed.Djoghlaf@unep.org

Attn: Walter Jarman

Walter.Jarmanm@unep.org

All correspondence regarding financial and budgetary issues will be addressed to:

Mr. E. Ortega

Chief, Budget and Financial Management Service

UNON, Box 30552

Nairobi, Kenya

Fax: 2542-623755

Edmundo.Ortega@unon.org

With a copy to:

Victor Ogbuneke

Fund Management Officer

UNON, Box 30552

Nairobi, Kenya

Tel: +254-2-623780

Fax : +254-2-623162

Victor.Ogbuneke@unep.org

Mr. Ahmed Djoghlaf

Director

UNEP/DGEF Coordination Office

UNEP, Box 30552,

Nairobi, Kenya

Attn: Immaculate Njeru

Immaculate.njeru@unep.org

SECTION 6 – MONITORING AND REPORTING

6.1 Management Reports

6.1.1 Progress Reports:

Within 30 days of the end of reporting period, the Programme Officer will submit to UNEP/DGEF Coordination Office, using the format given in Annex VIIIa and VIIb, [tk7] Quarterly Progress Reports as at 31 March, 30 June, 30 September and 31 December

6.1.2 Final Report:

Within 60 days of the completion of the project, the Programme Officer will submit to UNEP/DGEF a Final Report detailing the activities taken under the project, lessons learned and any recommendations to improve the efficiency of similar activities in the future, using the format provided in Annex X.

6.2 Financial Reports: N/A

6.4 Terms and Conditions: N/A

The RPM will maintain records of non-expendable equipment (items costing US$1500 or more, as well as items of attraction such as pocket calculators) purchased with UNEP funds and will submit an inventory of such equipment to the Chief, Budget and Financial Management Service, once a year, attached to the progress report submitted on 30 June. A final inventory of equipment will be submitted to the Chief, Budget and Financial Management Service, within 60 days of the completion of the project.

6.4.1 Responsibility for Cost Overruns

UNEP-CAR/RCU is authorised to enter into commitments to incur expenditures up to a maximum of 20% over and above the annual amount foreseen in the project budget under any budget line, provided the total cost of the UNEP annual contribution to the project is not exceeded. This may be undertaken without prior authorisation, but once the need for these additional funds becomes apparent, the RPM, through the CAR/RCU Coordinator shall inform, within 30 days, the Chief, Budget and Funds Management Service, about shifts made, and these must be reflected in a revision to the project document no later than three months after the shifts have been made.

6.4.2 Cash Advance Requirements

UNEP will issue sub-allotments to UNEP-CAR/RCU on a yearly basis for each project separately. The sub-allotment will be amended from time to time, based on project budget revisions. UNEP-CAR/RCU will submit status of allotment reports to UNEP on a monthly basis in accordance with the United Nations financial procedures.

Annex I

Logical Framework Matrix

Reducing Pesticide Runoff to the Caribbean Sea

Summary	Objectively Verifiable Indicators	Means of Verification		Critical Assumptions and Risks
Overall Objective
Reduce pesticide runoff to the Caribbean Sea through improved agricultural practices and management.	Full success will only be measurable after completion of the project, as BMPs are applied systematically by an increasing number of farmers in the participating countries. Immediate success will be measured through the results of the sub-regional coastal monitoring programme, relatively to the baseline that will be established at the onset of the project at the demonstration sites; and through the reports of the quantities of pesticides used per ha.			That the impact of, and support for, the project are such that a large number of farmers will adopt BMPs.
Outcomes
Demonstration that the use of and dependency on pesticides can be rationalised whilst maintaining yield and farmer’s profit; dissemination of information and technologies through case studies based on demonstration projects and training programmes.	Voluntary implementation of BMP’s by a significantly large group of farmers.	Survey of producers by the Independent Evaluation Panel to quantify degree of utilization of BMP’s and change in practices.		That rational decisions are made by farmers regarding pesticide use, and that industry fully collaborates.
A set of BMP's for the major agricultural products of the MCB that are environmentally sound, socially acceptable, and economically feasible and that are transferable to other parts of the WCR and the similar areas of the world.	Set of validated and recommended BMP’s.	Endorsement of the BMP’s by the PSC.		That experts can agree on a common list of BMP’s for the region. The risk of non-agreement is small because of the corpus of experience that already exists on this subject.
Progress towards streamlined laws and regulations that allow for adequate enforcement.	Recommendations implemented by national governments.	Evaluation of steps taken to improve the legal frameworks by the Independent Evaluation Panel.		That governments will revise and improve present legal framework. This is a critical assumption since it requires legislative or executive action. This assumption is likely to be met, based on the consensus apparent during PDF-B phase, and as long as there is adequate public support that is conveyed effectively to the decision-makers.
Elimination of conditions that encourage irrational or indiscriminate use of pesticides.	Recommendations implemented by national governments.	National gazette.		That industry will accept the elimination of market distortions. This is likely since the industry has stated that they are willing to participate and collaborate fully in this programme.
Improved public awareness of the importance of conserving the marine environment of the Caribbean Sea.	Substantial increase in public awareness and increased political support for the project.	Survey of stakeholders to verify awareness of guidelines, recommendations, and procedures developed by the project. Mention of the project in national and regional fora.		Message will reach the majority of stakeholders in understandable and acceptable terminology. This assumption is likely since there is ample experience in the region in delivering training courses relating to pesticide management and safety.
Identification of high-risk sources of contamination at the Demonstration Project level and assessment of the environmental and human health risks involved.	Information is disseminated to national stakeholders through the NCC.	Periodic reports to PSC.		That a science-based procedure for risk assessment for application common to the region can be developed and applied.
Results
Validation of BMP’s through twelve Demonstration Projects covering six crops on two types of farms	Evaluation of demonstration projects by independent evaluation panel.	Reports to PSC and publication of case studies.		That agreement can be reached on validation methods and criteria.
Incentives policy documents.	Finalised and approved documents.		Endorsement of the incentives policy documents by the NCC and the PSC.	That the regional and national policy documents can be translated into national legislation and other necessary changes to support their implementation.
A group of well-trained experts capable of further training farmers and other stakeholders.	Number of training certificates earned.	Periodic reports to the PSC.		That the trained “trainers” will carry-on providing training. This is a common risk in “train-the-trainer” programmes and will be minimised through project follow-up under the auspices of the UNEP Caribbean Environment Programme.
Educational and public awareness materials.	Set of finalised documents and material.	Presentation of documents and materials to PSC.		That such material is prepared in terms that can be disseminated properly to the diverse audiences involved. This assumption is likely to be met based on experience with similar programmes.
A set of monitoring protocols for the Demonstration Projects, which will serve as standardized protocols for the countries and possible models for the WCR and other regions.	Set of monitoring protocols.	Endorsement of protocols by the PSC.		That countries can agree on common protocols for the region. The risk of non-agreement is small as several institutions are already working on this topic, and there are existing models for protocols and methods.
Geo-referenced databases on pesticide runoff available through the CEPNET clearinghouse mechanism on the Internet.	Databases available in user-friendly format on www.cep.unep.org .	Operational website.		The risk of the Governments not providing the necessary level of support is low, since all the participating countries have identified this as a critical need.
Three certified laboratories, one per participating country.	Certification of laboratories.	Presentation of certification documents to PSC.		That the costs of maintaining certification would not be sustainable. The work accomplished under the PDF-B indicates that there is indeed a need and a market for a certified laboratory in each country.
Components/Activities
Implementation of twelve demonstration projects using BMP’s (including site description, baseline monitoring and personnel training); and documentation and dissemination of case studies.	Demonstration Projects are being implemented on the ground.	Field visits by the NPM; periodic reports to PSC and publication of case studies.		Incentives will be provided to ensure that farmers are willing to implement the demonstration projects. The NPMs will monitor project sites regularly to minimise the risk that landowners might not maintain agreed practices.
Identification, publication, and dissemination of successful BMP's applied in the region for the rational use of pesticides, and for reducing pesticide runoff.	Completion of regional and national surveys and validation of successful projects using BMP’s.	Web page with validated BMP’s.		That experts can define and agree on what constitutes BMP’s. This assumption is likely to be met since there have been previous efforts to define BMP’s for the region and there are publications available to assist in this task.
Analysis of possible incentives for reducing pesticides runoff, and of required legislative and policy changes for their promotion; establishment of a crop certification programme.	Generic policy document and recommendations for implementation in the three participating countries.	Submission of documents to PSC for approval.		The project will raise awareness on incentives and the impacts of disincentives, but may fail to see changes in national legislation in a four-year period. Ensuring stakeholder participation in the process will help to minimise this risk by developing a cadre of knowledgeable people willing to make positive change. That an eco- certification programme will receive regional/international acceptance.
Train-the-trainer programmes for farmers and agricultural extensionists in best management practices.	Training material and trained personnel.	Record of training participation.		That enough potential instructors are willing to participate in the programme. This assumption is likely to be met as the PDF-B has demonstrated strong commitment from the stakeholders involved.
Development of training and education material (organic crop production and rational pesticide use).	Training material for Demonstration Projects and post-Demonstration Projects.	Submission of training material for approval by NCC and PSC.		None.
Establishment of a coastal monitoring programme and regional certification programme.	Three accredited laboratories; geo-referenced information system of sources of pesticides that drain into the Caribbean Sea; regional agreement on a list of pesticides prioritised according to their risks and sampling plan underway.	Laboratory accreditation certificates; information bank that contains records of pesticide types, volumes used or discharged; presentation to the PSC of the work plans of the Regional and national Committees.		That there is not enough time for laboratories to achieve accreditation. That countries do not follow up on data gathering and dissemination. Minimised by the existence of the CEPNET Clearinghouse operated by CEP, and country commitment to comply with Annex IV of the LBS Protocol.
Website development for RPR.	Website acts as clearinghouse for regional information.	Working website.		Risks are low to none. CEPNET already has an active website that is frequently visited by regional and extra-regional visitors. CEPNET is a permanent sub-programme of UNEP-CAR/RCU and will maintain the website post-project.
Setting-up project management structure: project manager, Project Steering Committee and three National Co-ordination Committees.	Hiring of staff; convening of meetings of PSC and NCC.	Issuance of employment contracts; publication of meeting reports.		That recruitment of the project team can occur within the first three months of the project and that they have the capacity to begin project implementation quickly. The PDF-B has already built technical and administrative capacity within the National Executing Agencies.

ANNEX III

BUDGET

UNEP/GEF Reducing Pesticides Runoff to the Caribbean Sea Budget (expressed in US $)
	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	TOTAL
10 PROJECT PERSONNEL COMPONENT
1100 Project Personnel
1101 Regional Project Manager (L-5)	0	135,000	137,000	140,000	142,000	554,000
1102 Administrative Assistant for the Project (G-5)	0	15,000	25,000	25,000	25,000	90,000
1103 AMEP Programme Officer (P-4)	6,000	5,000	3,000	5,000	15,000	34,000
1104 CEPNET Programme Officer (P-4)	0	10,000	10,000	10,000	16,000	46,000
1105 Admin, Assistant (CAR/RCU & UNDP-San Jose)	2,000	5,000	5,000	5,000	6,000	23,000
1106 Coordinator (D-1)	2,500	7,500	5,000	7,500	10,000	32,500
1199 Subtotal	10,500	177,500	185,000	192,500	214,000	779,500

1200 Consultants
1201 Demo Projects	0	18,000	20,000	0	40,000	78,000
1202 Develop BMP Training Materials	0	35,000	40,000	100,000	25,000	200,000
1203 Webpage Development	0	5,000	7,000	0	5,000	17,000
1204 Project Awareness and Outreach	0	10,000	5,000	10,000	7,500	32,500
1205 Legislation, Policy and Incentives	0	0	0	45,000	0	45,000
1206 Establish Crop Certification Programme	0	0	25,000	115,000	0	140,000
1207 Lab Evaluation/Certification	0	0	0	30,000	0	30,000
1203 Unspecified	0	10,000	15,000	15,000	10,000	50,000
1204 Consultant Travel	0	15,000	10,000	5,000	7,500	37,500
1299 Subtotal	0	93,000	122,000	320,000	95,000	630,000

1600 Travel on official business
1601 Travel of Project Staff	0	20,000	22,000	20,000	20,000	82,000
1602 Travel of CAR/RCU Kingston Staff	3,500	5,000	4,000	4,500	5,000	22,000
1699 Total	3,500	25,000	26,000	24,500	25,000	104,000
1999 Component Total	14,000	295,500	333,000	537,000	334,000	1,513,500

	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	TOTAL
20 SUB CONTRACT COMPONENT
2200 Sub-Contracts
2201 MOU with Supporting Org. for Coastal Monitoring	0	185,000	0	0	0	185,000
2202 LOAs for Demo Projects -- Nicaragua	0	500,000	0	0	0	500,000
2203 LOAs for Demo Projects -- Costa Rica	0	500,000	0	0	0	500,000
2204 LOAs for Demo Projects -- Colombia	0	500,000	0	0	0	500,000
2205 LOAs for Laboratory Certification	0	0	0	75,000	0	75,000
2206 LOAs for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment	0	0	0	400,000	0	400,000
2207 LOAs for Policy and Legislative Reform	0	0	0	30,000	0	30,000
2299 Total	0	1,685,000	0	505,000	0	2,190,000
2999 Component Total	0	1,685,000	0	505,000	0	2,190,000

30 TRAINING COMPONENT
3300 Meeting/Conferences
3301 Steering Committee Meetings	0	30,000	15,000	15,000	15,000	75,000
3301 Prep. Training Workshop for Demo Projects	0	85,000	0	0	0	85,000
3302 Train-the-trainer (BMPs)	0	0	0	0	30,000	30,000
3303 Advisory Panel on Coastal Monitoring and Eval.	0	20,000	10,000	10,000	10,000	50,000
3304 Advisory Panel on Education and Training	0	10,000	10,000	10,000	10,000	40,000
3305 Training on Coastal Monitoring and Assessment
3305 Legislative and Policy Workshop	0	0	0	20,000	0	20,000
3307 Regional Workshop	0	0	0	0	65,000	65,000
3399 Total	0	145,000	20,000	40,000	115,000	320,000
3999 Component Total	0	145,000	20,000	40,000	115,000	320,000

40 EQUIPMENT AND PREMISES COMPONENT
4100 Expendable Equipment
4101 Office Supplies	0	3,000	2,000	3,000	1,500	9,500
4102 Unspecified (misc.)	1,000	1,000	1,000	1,000	1,000	5,000
4199 Total	1,000	4,000	3,000	4,000	2,500	14,500

4200 Non-expendable Equipment
4201 Computer Hardware (software pre-installed)	3,000	7,000	0	0	0	10,000
	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	TOTAL
4202 Printers	0	2,000	0	0	0	2,000
4202 Fax Machine	0	1,000	0	0	0	1,000
4299 Total	3,000	10,000	0	0	0	13,000

4300 Premises (rent)
4301 Office Rent	0	10,000	7,000	7,000	5,000	29,000
4399 Total	0	10,000	7,000	7,000	5,000	29,000
4999 Component Total	4,000	24,000	10,000	11,000	7,500	56,500

50 MISCELLANEOUS COMPONENT
5100 Operation and Maintenance of Equipment
5101 Rental and Maintenance of Office Equipment	0	500	500	500	500	2,000
5102 Rental of Meeting Rooms and Equipment	0	1,500	2,500	2,500	5,000	11,500
5199 Total	0	2,000	3,000	3,000	5,500	13,500

5200 Reporting Costs
5201 Translation and other support costs	4,000	15,000	10,000	10,000	25,000	64,000
5202 Printing and Publication	0	20,000	30,000	10,000	30,000	90,000
5203 In-depth, Participatory Project Evaluation	0	0	0	0	15,000	15,000
5299 Total	4,000	35,000	40,000	20,000	70,000	169,000

5300 Sundry
5301 Communications (phone, pouch, etc)	1,000	6,000	5,000	6,000	6,000	24,000
5302 UNEP-CAR/RCU (Kingston) Comm Costs	500	750	750	750	750	3,500
5399 Total	1,500	6,750	5,750	6,750	6,750	27,500
5999 Component Total	5,500	43,750	48,750	29,750	82,250	210,000

GRAND TOTAL GEF Funding	23,500	2,193,250	411,750	1,122,750	538,750	4,290,000

Annex IV

Draft Terms of Reference for Project Steering Committee (PSC), Project Manager and National Co-ordinating Committee (NCC): “Reducing Pesticide Runoff to the Caribbean Sea”

Project Steering Committee

The PSC will serve to guide the overall implementation of the project. The PSC will serve as the primary decision making body to which the Project Manager and the National Co-ordinating Committees will report.

Specifically, the PSC will ensure that project goals and appropriate GEF procedures for reporting are met. It will ensure complementarity across the three project countries and avoid duplication of efforts that could lead to wasteful expenditure.

1. Membership of the Project Steering Committee:

1.1 The members of the PSC will be the participating countries, the GEF Implementing Agency (UNEP), other donors to the project and regionally recognised organisations agreed to by the countries. Specifically:

§ Two representatives of each participating country will participate in the Steering Committee. One will be the National Project Manager and accompanied by an additional technical person. Additional advisors (up to 2) can also advise the country representatives at their own expense;

§ Invitations to participate as members in the PSC will be extended to the following organisations: FAO, LACPA, IICA, EARTH College, and two NGOs (one representing agricultural producers and one an environmental NGO) active at the regional level.

1.2 The Chairman and Vice-chairman of the PSC will be elected from the three participating countries and will rotate on an annual basis. The Chairman will preside over the meetings and be the key contact between the PSC and CAR/RCU.

1.3 The PSC may opt to invite additional experts (observers/advisors) as necessary to any meeting of the Committee.

2. Secretariat

2.1 CAR/RCU will act as secretariat for the Committee.

2.2 The Project Manager will serve on the secretariat and perform the functions of rapporteur.

3. Meetings of the Committee

3.1 The PSC will convene regular meetings in accordance with the schedule for the project. It will otherwise maintain regular communication by e-mail and teleconference. Intersessional meetings may be convened as necessary (and within budget constraints) if proposed by one of the three countries and agreed by all three.

3.2 Advisory Panels shall be established for Monitoring Protocols and Education and Training as called for in the workplan. Membership and terms of reference for these advisory panels will be established by the PSC. The advisory panels will report directly to the PSC.

3.3 In addition to the advisory panels the PSC may convene Ad hoc committees to advise the PSC on specific matters. The Project Manager may also request that the PSC establish Ad hoc committees.

4. Terms of Reference

4.1 The PSC will operate by consensus to:

a) Provide overall direction to the project and to give guidance to the Project Manager and National Project Managers;

b) Review and approve the workplan and budget for the project;

c) Develop and approve terms of reference for the National Co-ordination Committees and oversee their functioning to ensure inter-ministry involvement and the active involvement of all stakeholders;

d) Develop critieria and guidelines for the demonstration projects, review and approve workplans for the demonstration projects and oversee their execution – making recommendations for mid-course corrections if necessary;

e) Co-ordinate with the Project Manager to ensure the project stays on schedule and that project outputs are being completed on time and within budget;

f) Co-ordinate the work of advisory panels or Ad hoc committees that may be established;

g) Assist UNEP-CAR/RCU in the event that more co-financing must be raised during the life of the project; and

h) Agree to these terms of reference in their first meeting and make any amendments as necessary.

5. Conduct of Committee Business

5.1 The PSC will operate on the basis of consensus. When consensus cannot be achieved, the secretariat in co-ordination with the Chairman shall facilitate negotiations to reach consensus.

5.2 The PSC may from time to time review these terms of reference and its membership and make necessary adjustments and amendments.

Project Manager

Under the overall supervision and guidance of the Co-ordinator of UNEP-CAR/RCU and the Executive Coordinator of the UNEP/GEF Coordination Office, and following the project plan as described in the project brief, the incumbent will have full responsibility for the coordination of the project and specifically shall perform the following duties:

Technical/Programmatic

§ Manage regional co-ordination of the project according to the agreed workplan and co-ordinate national implementation through the National Executing Agencies (Ministries of Environment of participating countries);

§ Establish and maintain close liaison with National Project Managers for the effective implementation of the project;

§ Assist the project countries in establishing National Coordination Committees and other Advisory bodies as described in the project documents;

§ Foster effective stakeholder participation in the project at the regional and national levels;

§ Co-ordinate with the UNEP-CAR/RCU CEPNET Programme Officer for the development and maintenance of a project website; and

§ Presentation of project results at various forums as requested.

Administrative

§ Ensure that the project is managed and implemented in accordance with GEF and UNEP project guidelines; including budget and reporting requirements;

§ Develop and maintain appropriate records of expenditures and project outputs;

§ Organise and convene project meetings, provide secretariat services for the Project Steering Committee;

§ Draft appropriate terms of reference for project consultants, develop contractual arrangements as appropriate, manage their inputs to the project, and follow-up on administrative details in co-ordination with the Fund Management Officer of CAR/RCU;

§ Maintain project accounts in co-ordination with the Fund Management Officer of CAR/RCU and solicit any additional project co-financing required from project partners or through the cultivation of new donors; and

Perform other duties relevant to the project as assigned by the Co-ordinator or AMEP Programme Officer.

Qualifications:

Advanced university degree in agricultural, biological or environmental sciences, or other relevant subjects. Experience with co-ordination of multidisciplinary, inter-country projects, particularly in the area of agriculture or environmental protection. Fifteen years of relevant work experience with at least five years international experience. United Nations experience is strongly desirable; experience with GEF projects an asset. Experience with Central/Latin American agriculture issues desired. Proven success in private sector collaboration an asset. Excellent written and oral communication skills in English essential and demonstrated working knowledge of Spanish required.

National Co-ordinating Committee (NCC)

The NCC will serve to guide the overall implementation of the project at the national level and serve as the primary decision making body at the national level. The NCC will provide recommendations and information to the PSC through the National Project Manager (NPM).

Specifically, the NCC will ensure that project goals are being met at the national level and serve as the forum for national stakeholder participation.

1. Membership of the National Co-ordinating Committee:

1.1 The members of the NCC will be the national stakeholders, including, but not limited to: relevant government ministries (which at a minimum, will include the Ministries of Agriculture, Environment and Health), industry groups (agricultural producers and agrochemical), academia, and community-based, non-governmental and/or indigenous organizations.

1.2 The NPM will co-chair the NCC with a representative of the Ministry of Agriculture to both facilitate cooperation between the two ministries and enable adequate feedback to the Project Manager and PSC.

1.3 The NCC may opt to invite additional experts (observers/advisors) as necessary to any meeting of the Committee.

2. Secretariat

The NPM will arrange for secretariat services for the Committee and ensure that any reporting needs of the NCC, and NCC reporting to the PSC, are met.

3. Meetings of the Committee

3.1 The NPM will convene regular meetings in accordance with the schedule for the project. The NCC will otherwise maintain regular communication by e-mail and teleconference as appropriate and necessary.

3.2 The NCC may convene Ad hoc committees to advise the NCC on specific matters. Specifically, the NCC will consider the need for independent editorial review of demonstration project case studies.

4. Terms of Reference

The NCC will operate by consensus to:

a. Provide overall direction to the project and to give guidance to the National Project Manager;

b. Review and approve the workplan and budget for the national aspects of the project;

c. Assist the PSC, through the NPM in developing criteria and guidelines for the demonstration projects;

d. With the NPM, develop, review and approve workplans for the demonstration projects for submission to the PSC;

e. Oversee demonstration project execution;

f. Co-ordinate with the NPM to ensure the project stays on schedule and that project outputs are being completed on time and within budget;

g. Co-ordinate the work of advisory panels or Ad hoc committees that may be established;

h. Assist the NPM and PSC in the event that more co-financing must be raised during the life of the project; and

i. Agree to these terms of reference in their first meeting with any amendments as necessary.

5. Conduct of Committee Business

5.1 The NCC will operate on the basis of consensus. When consensus cannot be achieved, the NPM shall bring the issues to the PSC to facilitate problem resolution.

5.2 The NCC may from time to time review these terms of reference and its membership and make necessary adjustments and amendments.

Annex V. 1. -- STAP Roster Review

STAP ROSTER TECHNICAL REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED GEF-IW PROJECT: “REDUCING PESTICIDE RUNOFF TO THE CARIBBEAN SEA” (COLOMBIA, COSTA RICA, NICARAGUA)

by J. A. Thornton PhD

Managing Director

International Environmental Management Services Ltd – United States of America

Introduction

This review responds to a request from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to provide a technical review of the proposed International Waters project entitled Reducing Pesticide Runoff to the Caribbean Sea.

I note that I am a designated expert on the STAP Roster of Experts with particular experience and knowledge concerning watershed management and land-ocean interactions. I have served as Government Hydrobiologist with the Zimbabwe Government, Chief Limnologist with the South African National Institute for Water Research, Head of Environmental Planning for the City of Cape Town (South Africa), and, most recently, as Principal Environmental Planner with the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, a position that I hold concurrent with my position as Managing Director of International Environmental Management Services Ltd, a not-for-profit corporation providing environmental education and planning services to governments worldwide. In each of these positions, I have had oversight of projects and programs designed to assess contaminant loads to aquatic ecosystems from land-based activities, and to develop appropriate and affordable mitigation measures to reduce such loads and minimize their impacts of the aquatic environment, both freshwater and marine.

This review is based upon a thorough review of the project document, consisting inter alia of the Project Brief (iii + 15 pages), and Annexes A through F, inclusive. Other, relevant documents served as reference sources, including the GEF Operational Strategy, Agenda 21, and related materials establishing the necessity and priority of land-based activities to control marine pollution. In this regard, the Global Program of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-Based Activities and the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea were especially informative and relevant. A knowledge of the UNEP Regional Seas Programme was also useful.

Scope of the Review

This review addresses, seriatim, the issues identified in the Terms of Reference for Technical Review of Project Proposals.

Key Issues

Key issue 1. Scientific and technical soundness of the project. Overall, the project appears to be scientifically and technically sound. The approach proposed, which includes an on-going diagnostic and demonstration project-based program, adequately addresses the needs (1) to quantify the nature and intensity of the problem(s) associated with the use and discharge of agricultural chemicals within the environment, and (2) to develop practical mechanisms to minimize such usage and discharge while maintaining sustainable economic levels of agricultural production. The inclusion of consideration of a life cycle approach[2] to the management of agrochemicals reflects the state-of-the-art. Inclusion of such an approach within the ambit of an integrated program of nutrient and pest management likewise indicates a comprehensive and technically-sound approach to the goal of reducing pesticide runoff to the Caribbean Sea. The need and desire to better manage nutrient and pesticide applications also is consistent with the actions on the part of the European Community and other importing countries to limit the exposure of their populations to carcinogens and mutagens transmitted through foodstuffs by restricting the importation of produce treated with specific agrochemicals.

While such actions provide powerful incentives to exporting countries to modify their agrochemical usage, it must also be recognized that the agricultural sector is often perceived as being resistant to change. Thus, the use of demonstration projects in each of the participating countries offers an opportunity not only to determine the technical feasibility and economic impact of specific management actions at the scale of the individual farmstead but also contributes to the development of practices that can be seen to have a beneficial impact on reducing agrochemical usage and costs without diminishing crop yields. The latter benefit contributes significantly to the replicability of the techniques identified and proven to be feasible and cost-effective.

Notwithstanding, the conduct of such demonstration projects over one cropping cycle may not be adequate to quantify benefit accrued from the use of modified agrochemical usage. The residual effects of past chemical applications are likely to remain within the fields for some time after agrochemical applications have ceased, extending over several cropping cycles. Further, the timeline for the project hardly allows monitoring of the pre-existing conditions to take place; in other words, it may not be possible to accurately establish the levels of agrochemical loss based upon existing practices. Both of these factors limit the ability of the project to definitively demonstrate the effects and effectiveness of the modified agrochemical usage patterns. Achievement of “good” results on the demonstration plots using integrated nutrient and pest management techniques may simply reflect “carry over” of agrochemicals from preceding chemical applications conducted during the years leading up to the initiation of the project. It would be difficult to establish whether or not the practices employed will be sustainable over the longer term, and whether or not the practices actually reduce agrochemical washoff from the land surface within the timeframe proposed.

In addition, the omission of the subsistence farmers from the project structure would seem to be a potentially serious omission. As a matter of fact, it has been this reviewer’s experience that subsistence farmers have not been immune from the message of agronomists and agricultural extension workers that agrochemicals are beneficial; indeed, the critical aspect of including subsistence agricultural operations in the scope of the project is that subsistence farmers often lack the training to properly use and dispose of agrochemcials even though they are generally aware of their "benefits". This often predisposes subsistence agricultural operations to a greater likelihood of agrochemical washoff than commercial or market garden operations. Indeed, the causal chain analysis included as Annex D suggests that this paradox has been identified; namely, that there is a tension between low product prices and high input costs.

Curiously, the incentive to apply agrochemicals not only stems from the cooperatives and corporations that sell the chemicals, but also from the corporations and cooperatives that buy the produce. Minimum application levels are often specified by the purchasers to ensure a consistent appearance of the crop—in the case of vegetables, especially, the application of excess quantities of nitrogen has been used to ensure a consistent “green-ness” in the product despite the fact that the excess nutrient spurs “weed” growth and the need to apply herbicides! This aspect of the agricultural business has not been identified in the project brief.

Finally, these factors all suggest that it is imperative that agricultural ministries and agricultural extension services be major participants in this project, even though the benefit is likely to accrue to the environment.

Key issue 2. Identification of global environmental benefits and/or drawbacks of the project, and consistency with the goals of the GEF. The proposed project addresses a major cause of environmental stress within the aquatic environment; namely, the utilization of excessive quantities of agrochemicals leading to downstream environmental degradation as such materials are washed off the land surface and into aquatic ecosystems. Many of these ecosystems are either directly or indirectly connected to transboundary watercourses, and many drain to coastal waters that are part of the larger oceanic circulation. In the case of the Caribbean Large Marine Ecosystem (LME), the coastal waters are intimately connected through the Caribbean basin to the North Atlantic circulation, as documented in Annex A. The majority of the territory of the countries within which this project is to be executed drains to the Caribbean basin. Hence, true global benefit is presumed. [In the GEF International Waters context, global benefit is considered as benefit accrued within transboundary water systems—while the locations of the demonstration projects are to be determined as an output of the project, and, hence, are not predetermined, there is every likelihood that the sites will be within watersheds that drain to transboundary waters, and, ultimately in any event, to the Caribbean coastal waters.]

In addition to the presumed direct global benefit, additional benefit accrues to this project through the fact that it addresses one of the most pressing of global concerns: the use of excessive and inappropriate types of agrochemicals, especially those classed as persistent organic pollutants (POPs). Practical demonstrations of effective alternative methods for ensuring consistent levels of agricultural production with reduced quantities of agrochemicals, through integrated nutrient and pest management measures, will have immense potential for replication throughout the world. The locations of the proposed demonstration projects in the inter-tropics will further recommend the results of the project to other countries, and enhance the potential for replication, and significant global benefit.

It would be important that the results and outputs be widely disseminated. In addition to the dissemination of the project results and outputs through CEPNET, linkages should be established with the Inter-American Water Resources Network (IWRN), the established regional water resources network adopted by the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), and the GEF International Waters IW-LEARN network, the global mechanism for disseminating the results of GEF International Waters projects.

The project is wholly consistent with the goals and objectives of OP 10,[3] contributing to the global effort to address environmental concerns arising from POPs. Many of the agrochemicals identified in the project brief are known to be widely circulated through the hydrologic and global atmospheric circulations. Substances such as malathion have been documented to effect ecosystems thousands of kilometers from their point of origin. Others are known to bioaccumulate. As noted, the proposed project is designed to identify practical and feasible techniques to minimize pesticide applications while maintaining productivity, and to document these techniques for wider dissemination. In this regard, the participation of agricultural ministries and agricultural extension services would be an important element in ensuring the implementation of the project outcomes, even though the outcomes, in the global sense, are environmental in nature.

This project is complementary to a further initiative being formulated within the LAC region to similarly address the use of DDT in the control of public health problem vectors. Through this dual approach, the two projects will enable the GEF to identify and disseminate specific, sectoral-based techniques to reduce the occurrence of POPs in waters draining to the Caribbean Sea. To this end, the participation of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) in this proposed project, and the proposed participation of the Pan-American Health Organization (PAHO) in the complementary DDT abatement project, strongly suggests that mechanisms have been considered to adequately disseminate the projects outputs and results in an appropriate and acceptable manner. Given the GEF aim of incrementally funding projects that contribute to sustainable economic development in a replicable manner, the current proposal and its companion proposal would seem to be well-suited to achieving such an aim.

Key issue 3. Regional context. The participation in this project of two countries from the Central American region, and one country on the South American continent, argue persuasively that adequate and appropriate consideration has been given to the regional context of the project. This is reenforced through the fact that the three participating countries have substantial land areas that drain to a common and shared LME, that is a major part of the North Atlantic circulation. The participation of these three countries also provides a range of agricultural settings wherein a number of best management practices (BMPs) can be developed and field tested under a variety of environmental conditions and with a variety of crops and cropping patterns, all typical of the LAC region. Thus, despite the lack of a requirement that the contaminant-based operational program include a multicountry collaborative process, this proposed project includes an high degree of regional cooperation and collaboration. Especially important elements of this regional approach include an emphasis on agricultural products typical and representative of the region as a whole, the concept of an “eco-friendly” certification program (which, presumably, will be run regionally rather than nationally?), and the proposal to develop a regionally-based laboratory certification program to ensure acceptable and consistent standards in monitoring and quantifying agrochemical contamination within the Caribbean LME. The emphasis, too, on the dissemination of project outputs and results using accepted regional information dissemination networks—CEPNET, including, per earlier comments, the IWRN and IW-LEARN mechanisms—reenforces the presumed and proposed regional approach to the conduct of this project.

While the proposal clearly indicates an intent to disseminate information and results on a regional basis, it is somewhat less clear in terms of the mechanisms envisioned for regional laboratory certification, certification of eco-friendliness, and farmer training. While the UNEP Regional Seas Programme and related legal instruments pertaining to the Caribbean basin could form the basis for a regional laboratory certification program (and subsequent monitoring program to be conducted using these certified laboratories), farmer training and eco-friendly certification might be better effected at the country level using existing agricultural extension workers and regulatory mechanisms. Should this be the case, the project will undoubtedly contribute to the regional knowledge base necessary for such extension workers and certification programs to be effective and accepted. Especially with respect to the eco-friendly certification program, it would seem important that such a program have worldwide recognition, particularly given the standards and “truth-in-labeling” laws that exist in many countries (such as the EC) importing, or potentially importing, produce from the Caribbean basin. Therefore, and perhaps despite the fact that these concepts are intended to be developed further as project outputs and results, it would seem reasonable that the vision with respect to these elements be articulated in the project document, especially with respect to their regional and/or country level mode of implementation.

Notwithstanding the foregoing request for clarification, the project clearly meets and exceeds GEF requirements for a regional approach to global problems relating to POPs and other agrochemicals.

Key issue 4. Replicability. The implementation of demonstration projects as a key feature of this project clearly contributes to the potential for replication of beneficial practices and techniques. Further, the inclusion of mechanisms for disseminating information and results achieved fosters replication of effective and successful measures throughout the region, and especially within the participating countries. Discussions amongst GEF International Waters project managers at the recently concluded Fourth Inter-American Dialogue of Water Management (Dialogue IV) clearly identified GEF International Waters projects as the primary means by which basin-scale management practices were being developed and implemented through the LAC region. A key concern amongst these managers was the need for mechanisms to share experiences and lessons learned across project boundaries. This concern led to their endorsement of a complementary medium-sized project designed to develop and implement information sharing mechanisms at the regional scale—specifically the IWRN, as one element of the region’s participation within the global IW-LEARN initiative. This endorsement underlined the importance of information sharing and dissemination between projects, a fact that is adequately and clearly identified within the project brief for this project.

In addition, Dialogue IV embraced the concept of project twinning as one mechanism to enhance exchange of knowledge and experience. As recognized within the project brief for this project, there is considerable complementarity between this project and the project currently being developed to reduce DDT dependency within the LAC region. These projects would make ideal candidates for twinning, as this concept is envisioned and articulated within the Declaration of Foz do Iguacu: “international cooperation and meaningful exchanges, between multilateral organizations, the public sector and civil society, are key instruments for supporting the practice of comprehensive water planning and management.” Consequently, as both of these project develop, it is critical that the linkages and communication between the projects be open and frequent, as has been indicated in the project brief for this project. Such communication will enhance the replicability of the project outputs and results of both projects, and significantly contribute to the coordinated and comprehensive management of POPs in the Caribbean basin.

Key issue 5. Sustainability of the project. Annex D to the project brief identifies two key facets that will ‘make or break’ this project with respect to its sustainability. Of these, the external influences inherent in the marketplace—noted above in terms of both the demands for consistency in produce grown and the demands of the countries importing the produce for pesticide-free products—are likely to provide an irresistible driving force for industrial farms to adopt integrated nutrient and pest management programs that depend less upon agrochemicals and more on alternative methods likely to be developed as an output of this project. The concern that remains clearly relates to produce grown for home consumption and crops grown by subsistence level farmers, where the second of the key factors has paramount import. Annex D states that, “in most cases,...it is simply a lack of adequate resources for monitoring compliance with [existing] regulations and enforcement of [known] safety precautions, for both workers and the environment, that are the cause of inadequate protection” (emphasis added). While this project can address issues of training, and encourage voluntary compliance through certification programs, both of which have immense impact of the sustainability of alternative nutrient and pest management practices, it does not address the issue of the need for adequate finance from domestic sources to implement and enforce regulations and safety precautions. The project brief acknowledges a number of incentives for the participating countries to provide such resources, including their participation as signatories to the Cartagena Convention and its protocols, but does not directly address the issue of lack of adequate resources, per se. Indeed, encumbrances such as extreme climatic events and changes in government, noted in the project brief, identify additional demands on country-level finances and priorities that mitigate against sustainability. Notwithstanding, however, the project does propose to address one key element in the process of country’s devoting adequate resources to enforcement and environmental safety, and, that is, the availability of information and the development of a trained cadre of individuals with the knowledge and ability to train agricultural operators and inculcate a culture of integrated nutrient and pest management at the level of the individual farmstead. To this end, it has been noted that a close connection between the project and the agricultural ministries and agricultural extension services is essential to the sustainability of this project. Articulation and inclusion of this need as an important element of Component 1, Project Coordination and Stakeholder Participation, is strongly recommended in the interests of sustainability.

Key issue 6. Targeted Research Projects. Targeted technical demonstration and capacity building projects are key features envisioned within the GEF International Waters Contaminant-based Operational Program. These activities are clearly included as major elements of this proposed project, which is focused on the use of demonstration projects as the means of determining and identifying appropriate and applicable management measures to minimize agrochemical contamination of the aquatic environment. In addition, the provision within the project brief for development and implementation of the means to replicate successful management practices completes the GEF vision of disseminating results and outputs within the LAC region and elsewhere. Notwithstanding, the relatively short timeframe within which the project is proposed to be executed, and the known “lag time” that is generally associated with environmental management projects, potentially diminishes the scientific validity of the project as a research effort. As noted above, the project brief suggests that the demonstration projects will be carried out over only one, annual cropping cycle, which is not an adequate period within which to establish pre-existing conditions and responses to climatic events (a known risk in the region). Given external considerations, not the least of which is the requirement of the GEF that results be obtained over relatively confined timeframes, it may not be possible to accommodate this concern. On the other hand, though, given that the interventions that are funded in part by the GEF strive for sustainability, the continuation of the successful interventions beyond the project period may continue to provide the necessary information required to address this concern in a scientifically-valid manner. For this reason, it is most important that the measures identified by internalized within the agricultural ministries and agricultural extension services such that they continue to be implemented over the longer period. Likewise, it is equally important that the demonstration projects continue to be monitored, and the results reported using the information dissemination mechanisms previously identified, beyond the project period. Such continuity is totally consistent with the catalytic nature of UNEP and the GEF, and an essential element to the sustainability of the project. Capacity building and trainer training, envisioned in the project brief, thus become the basic building blocks upon which this project will succeed or fail, both from the point of view of its sustainability and from its scientific and technical integrity.

Secondary Issues

Secondary issue 1. Linkage to other focal areas. This project is formulated as an International Waters project under OP 10 of the GEF Operational Strategy. No specific cross-cutting areas are identified, although the project clearly has linkages to the cross-cutting area of land degradation,[4] and , potentially, to the protection of aquatic biodiversity. Expansion of the agricultural frontier and inappropriate use of agrochemicals is a common concern throughout Latin America. By developing alternative measures and management practices to address the use of agrochemicals in the LAC region, this project benefits land management generally, and contributes to the protection of aquatic biota commonly impacted by the discharge of such chemicals into the aquatic environment.

Secondary issue 2. Linkages to other proposals. The project recognizes the complementarities between the management of agrochemicals and the management of other biocides within the environment. Specific linkages with the proposed project on the environmental health implications of the use of DDT in Central America are proposed and identified in the project brief. In addition, the project makes use of the IWRN and CEPNET networks which complement the IW-LEARN initiative of the GEF International Waters program. Such overt linkages provide an high degree of sustainability and connectivity to this project, and contribute to the likelihood that lessons learned can and will be transferred beyond the project boundaries to other, similar situations and locations within the LAC region and beyond. The project embodies the principles invoked by the Declaration of Foz do Iguacu with respect to water management in the Americas.

Secondary issue 3. Other beneficial or damaging environmental effects. The project has no known or obvious damaging environmental impacts associated with the activities proposed to be executed. The beneficial impacts of the project have been fully articulated above, and include the identification of alternative methods for achieving high quality agricultural produce with minimal levels of agrochemicals, the provision of trained staff and agricultural workers needed to enforce and enhance existing environment and human health protection regulations and implement the alternative methods of production, and the dissemination of successful management measures. All of these benefits accrue not only within the project area, but, as a result of their wider dissemination using the electronic and other media provided, also to the wider Caribbean basin and beyond.

Secondary issue 4. Degree of involvement of stakeholders in the project. Component 1 of the project is geared toward the involvement of stakeholders, specifically those private landowners and farmers that participate in the demonstration projects as well as the wider public who can be involved in the project through the IWRN, CEPNET and other media. As previously noted, there is a pressing need to include the agricultural ministries and agricultural extension services in the execution and implementation of the project activities. Such involvement is in addition to the current level of involvement of the environment ministries, and is critical to the sustainability of the project and its expansion into areas not specifically involved in the demonstration projects.

Secondary issue 5. Capacity building aspects. Component 3 is aimed in part at the dissemination of information on the successful measures to reduce the use and dependency of agricultural operators on agrochemicals, specifically those associated with POPs that have the potential to negatively impact aquatic ecosystems and human health. In part, this Component will involve the training of agricultural extension staff who will, in turn, train others in the use, application and implementation of alternative pest management practices and the application of integrated nutrient and pest management techniques. In addition, Component 3, in part, seeks to encourage dissemination of lessons learned with respect to alternative pest management practices and best practices for integrated nutrient and pest management. This element should be conducted in liaison with complementary GEF International Waters initiatives, including the best practices data base being compiled by UNEP and the IW-LEARN initiatives being executed by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). These efforts will enable wider dissemination of knowledge of practices that have positive effects in reducing washoff of pesticides into the aquatic environment. Similarly, cross-posting such information for dissemination through the IWRN network will encourage and facilitate application of appropriate best practices throughout the LAC region. Such knowledge is an essential element in building capacity and strengthening institutions in the region. Again, however, efforts should be continued to involve the agricultural ministries and agricultural extension services, who form the first line of contact with individual landowners and farmers, in the dissemination of information and data on appropriate best practices.

In addition to the dissemination of knowledge and information, the development of standard methods for analysis and impact assessment will benefit institutions and staff throughout the region. In this regard, Component 3 also contains work elements aimed at establishing a certification process for laboratories engaged in the analysis and assessment of pesticide contamination in the aquatic environment. Knowledge of such standards and the confidence that certification engenders in the data generated by participating laboratories is another important element in reenforcing institutional capacity within the region. Maintaining such standards and certification requires trained individuals, actively and conscientiously applying their knowledge and skills for the public good. This can only benefit everyone in the LAC region.

Secondary issue 6. Innovativeness. Development of appropriate management practices governing the use of agrochemicals within the inter-tropics, within the context of integrated nutrient and pest management programs and with recognition of the life cycle of specific biocides, demonstrates a strong desire that the results and outputs of this project reflect the state-of-the-art with respect to agrochemicals. By selecting demonstration sites that span the range of likely conditions and crops within the three participating countries, the project team has clearly attempted to develop pest management programs that will be accepted by the agricultural producers, their customers, and, ultimately, their end users. By recognizing the linkages created through the landscape upon which agricultural operations are conducted with the aquatic environment, the project team is clearly applying state-of-the-art watershed-based management concepts to resolving a problem that is of global concern. For these reasons, the proposed project undoubtedly demonstrates an high degree of innovativeness in its approach and in its anticipated results.

General Conclusion and Recommendations

Overall, it is the conclusion of this reviewer that the proposed project, with the goal of “Reducing Pesticide Runoff to the Caribbean Sea”, is wholly consistent with the GEF International Waters operational program, its broader philosophy, and funding criteria. Consequently, this project is recommended for funding.

In implementing this project, the GEF Implementing Agency is enjoined to give specific attention to:

· inclusion of agricultural ministries and agricultural extension services in the execution of the demonstration projects,

· continuation of the demonstration projects beyond the project period so as to better evaluate the longer term performance of selected best practices determined to be feasible and practicable,

· recognition of the broader market forces (including both external standards and legal requirements, and consumer demands) affecting the use of agrochemicals,

· consideration of the linkages between this project and related contaminant-based projects within the LAC region, including (specifically) the proposed initiative to eliminate the use of DDT for public health purposes, and

· dissemination of results and outputs utilizing a variety of media but especially utilizing the regional IWRN and CEPNET networks and the global IW-LEARN network.

Annex V. 2 – Implementing Agency Response to STAP/Council/

Implementing Agencies Comments

Response to STAP Review

In general, the comments of the STAP ROSTER reviewer Dr. J. A. Thornton are supportive of this project, “Reducing Pesticide Runoff to the Caribbean Sea (Colombia, Costa Rica, Nicaragua)”. The reviewer states that “the project appears to be scientifically and technically sound”, and endorses the approach based on demonstration projects which will “enhance the potential for replication and significant global benefits” and “undoubtedly demonstrates an high degree of innovativeness in its approach and in is anticipated results”. Notwithstanding, Dr. Thornton has indicated some issues that he believes require further consideration in the formulation of this project. The following paragraphs provide a detailed response to the principal queries raised. No further comment is provided to those issues identified as being adequately addressed by the Project Brief.

Key Issues

Key issue 1. Scientific and technical soundness of the project.

The reviewer brings up concerns about the time line for the demonstration projects. Specifically, conduct of the demonstration projects over only one cropping cycle, possible “carryover” effects of past agrochemical management schemes, and the lack of monitoring of pre-existing conditions at each site were mentioned as hindrances to the success (or measure of success) of the overall Project. These points are indeed critical and have been carefully considered in the planning of the Demonstration Projects. As outlined in the Timetable (P. 10 of the Brief), the demonstration projects will be studied for two years. During the period prior to beginning the actual Demonstration Projects, monitoring and assessment of sites, as well as training for the stakeholders involved with the demonstration projects, will be conducted during one year. Any pre-existing conditions will be clearly documented so as not to prejudice the results obtained from the succeeding two years of study at the sites. In addition to each demonstration project, there will be two control sites in the same watershed. These sites will also add to the information concerning pre-existing conditions and possible carryover effects. As data are collected and results are published, additional funding opportunities will be sought to allow for the continuation of the Demonstration Projects.

The reviewer also expresses concern about the omission of subsistence farmers from the project structure citing that “subsistence farmers often lack the training to properly use and dispose of agrochemicals even though they are generally aware of their ‘benefits’. This often predisposes subsistence agricultural operations to a greater likelihood of agrochemical washoff than commercial or market garden operations”. Work undertaken in the framework of the PDF-B (cf regional report) established that it was at the high and low intensity farms that the majority of the agrochemicals were used, and that due to sociological and economical circumstances, pesticides were not extensively used in subsistence farming systems. It was recognised, however, that if agrochemicals were used, they were used with little instruction. Therefore, identification and possible inclusion (at the discretion of each National Coordinating Committee) of subsistence farmers in the Demonstration Projects is an option (Paragraph 25, Sub component 2.2 of the Project Brief).

The reviewer includes in his discussion mention of agri-business aspects of agrochemical use. Concerns are expressed that some aspects are not sufficiently identified in the Project Brief, particularly the drive from those who purchase the agricultural products for a consistent appearance of the crop. In the Root Cause Analysis (Annex D), four major causes contributing to pesticide runoff into the Caribbean Sea were identified: cultural/social, policies and institutional structures, market, and technical. The market analysis clearly identified this aspect of the problem. Low agricultural product prices coupled with high quality standards demanded by the consumers tend to maintain the producer in a situation of ever increasing pesticide use, where costs and benefits are not analysed properly and the costs of environmental degradation not internalised. As part of the analysis of the Demonstration Projects, the agri-business aspects of agrochemical use will be explored and documented as part of the “incentives” element of the project.

The final concern the reviewer identifies with respect to this first issue is that of participation by the agricultural ministries from each of participating countries. Indeed, as outlined in the National Reports and as summarized in the Regional Report, there are three ministries in each country involved in policies and regulations on pesticide registration and control of environmental pollution (Table 2, Regional Report). In each case, this includes the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Environment, and the Ministry of Health. UNEP agrees with the recommendation and will pay particular attention to the full participation of the agricultural sector to the project. Formally, the concern of the reviewer is addressed through the Terms of Reference for the National Coordinating Committee (NCC - Annex F to the Brief) allowing for the participation of each of these ministries. Moreover, the same Terms of Reference call for a representative of the ministry of agriculture to co-chair the NCC.

Key issue 2. Identification of global environmental benefits and/or drawbacks of the project, and consistency with the goals of the GEF.

The reviewer notes, “it would be important that the results and outputs be widely disseminated” and mentions such networks as IWRN and IW-LEARN as possible mechanisms for dissemination. As pointed out in paragraph 18 of the Brief, “Once successful demonstrations have been developed and implemented in the project, the lessons learned will be employed in other countries and regions to provide for global and regional environmental benefits as well”. Paragraph 18 of the Project Brief specifically mentions IW-LEARN and IWRN as mechanisms for information dissemination.

Key issue 3. Regional context.

The reviewer requests a more detailed development of the Project’s vision with respect to the regional and or country mode of implementation of the aspects of laboratory certification, certification of eco-friendliness and farmer training. As stated in paragraph 27 of the Project Brief, and as suggested by the reviewer, laboratory certification will be at the regional level, following the guidelines of the International Standards Organisation (ISO). With respect to the eco-friendly certification, it is indeed important, as stated by the reviewer, that such a program have worldwide recognition, and the member countries will look to regional examples of established programmes to decide on what mechanisms should be used in the present project (see paragraph 17, Project Brief).

Key Issue 5. Sustainability of the project.

The reviewer notes that “a close connection between the project and the agricultural ministries and agricultural extension services is essential to the sustainability of this project”. He states that it is essential that this be articulated and included in Component 1 of the Project. This is an important point and indeed has been included in the Project Brief. As outlined in Component 1, paragraph 22 (Project Brief) a representative from the Ministry of Agriculture from each of the member countries will co-chair their respective NCC (see also Annex F, Draft Terms of Reference NCC). Also important is that the participating countries do not have agricultural extension services per se, but universities, NGOs and private companies that carry similar activities. Stakeholders from these various groups will also be invited to actively participate in the NCC.

Key Issue 6. Targeted Research Projects.

The reviewer expresses valid concerns about the time line for the demonstration projects, though perhaps misinterpreting the Project Brief. The demonstration projects will in fact be studied for two years (see timetable of Brief and see also, Key Issue 1 in this Response to STAP Review), and not only one year as noted by the reviewer. In addition to the two years of demonstration projects implementation, there will be a period prior to this in which the pre-existing conditions will be monitored to establish a baseline. Nonetheless, UNEP realises that even this longer time frame may be too short a time frame to address the concern of the “lag time” associated with the contamination of aquatic environments by agrochemicals. Participating countries, however, are confident that project activities will continue beyond the life of the project (see paragraph 31, Project Brief). The goal is that the demonstration projects continue to be monitored, and the results reported beyond the Project period, using the information dissemination mechanisms previously identified.

Secondary Issues

In the Secondary Issue 4 (Degree of involvement of stakeholders in the project) and Secondary Issue 5 (Capacity building aspects), the reviewer reiterates his concerns about the groups of stakeholders involved in the Project, particularly those from the agricultural ministries and those who work in agricultural extension type jobs. These are answered in the previous discussion in this Response to the STAP Review (Key Issues 1, 2 and 5).

Response to Implementing Agencies Comments

Comments were received from the World Bank. These comments are supportive, and only lament the lack of inclusion of some Caribbean Island States that could benefit from such a program. Indeed these Island States should be some of the first candidates for replication. This will be facilitated by these States also being member of the Caribbean Environmental Program.

		Cash	Cash*	In-kind	%
Cost to GEF Trust Fund		4.290			43.3
	Subtotal	4.290
Cofinancing Cost to Govts			1.770	3.415	52.3
Cost to UNEP-CAR/RCU				0.070	0.7
Cost to CropLife		0.100		0.140	2.4
Cost to Other				0.130	1.3
	Subtotal	0.100	1.770	3.755
Subtotals		4.390	1.770	3.755	100
Grand Total Project Cost		9.915

Name / Functional Title	Nationality	Duration of Contract	Fee (in US$)	Brief Terms of Reference	Object of Expenditure (code per the budget e.g 1101, 1301 etc..)

Name / Functional Title	Nationality	Duration of Contract	Fee (in US$)	Brief Terms of Reference	Object of Expenditure (code per the budget e.g 1201, 1202 etc..)

Problems:	Causes:	Consequences:
(a) Substantial/Programmatic
(b) Institutional
(c) Financial

Grand Total Project Cost

SECTION 4 –WORKPLAN AND TIMETABLE, BUDGET, FOLLOW-UP

Subcomponent 1.2: Project Steering Committee Meetings

Sub-component 3.1: Sustaining Improvements for Reducing Pesticide Runoff

Additional Outputs

GEF

Co-financing

Countries

Co-financing

Subtotal

SECTION 5 – INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK AND EVALUATION

Components, Sub-Components & Activities

ANNEX III

Project Steering Committee

2. Secretariat

2. Secretariat

Introduction

Scope of the Review

Key Issues

Secondary Issues

General Conclusion and Recommendations

OTHER TERMS

GEF Funding

Name and Address of Organisation	Object of Expenditure (code per the budget e.g 2201, 2301 etc..)