PROJECT REVIEW SHEET
Work Program Inclusion - UNEP International Waters

Project Title: "Colombia, Costa Rica, Nicaragua - Reducing Pesticide Runoff to the Caribbean Sea"
Date: 7 January, 2002


Work Program Inclusion per criteria
Reference Paragraphs and Explanatory Notes:
established in Draft # 8 of the project
review criteria

1. Country Ownership
· Country Eligibility

· The participating countries are eligible under paragraph 9b of the
GEF Instrument ­ see cover page.
· Country Driveness
Clear description of Project's fit within:
· The project is set in the context of the land-based sources protocol to
· National reports/communications to Conventions
the Cartagena Convention, which all participating countries are
· National or sector development plans.
committed to signing and ratifying (para 11).
· Recommendations of appropriate regional
intergovernmental meetings or agreements.
· Endorsement
· Endorsement by national operational focal points
· Section 4 of the cover page contains a table with dates of endorsement
by all participating countries' GEF Operational Focal Points.
2. Program & Policy Conformity
· Program
Describe how project objectives are consistent with
· The project is consistent with the objectives of Operational Program
Designation &
Operational Program objectives or operational criteria
#10, and is part of the OP10 GEF strategy that was agreed upon with
Conformity

the GEF Secretariat ­ see paragraph 12.

· Project Design
Describe:
· The issues, barriers and threats to be addressed by this project are

·
Sector issues, root causes, threats, barriers etc
described in para 1-6, and incremental costs and root cause annexes

affecting global environment
(A and D). Chiefly, the issue is that of excessive pesticide use in

·
Project logical framework, including a consistent
tropical agriculture, and consequent impact on international waters.
strategy, goals, objectives, outputs
· The overall goal is the protection of the marine environment of the
inputs/activities, measurable performance
Caribbean Sea. Project outcomes are detailed in the logical
indicators, risks and assumptions
framework matrix (Annex B). These include: the provision of
·
Detailed description of goals, objectives, outputs
necessary incentives, training and education so that farmers and other
and related assumptions, risks and performance
stakeholders understand the importance of implementing BMPs in
indicators
pesticide management; availability of information and technology
·
Brief description of project activities, including
gained from the demonstration projects so that more farmers and

1

---

Work Program Inclusion per criteria
Reference Paragraphs and Explanatory Notes:
established in Draft # 8 of the project
review criteria

an explanation how the activities would result in
other stakeholders will implement these practices and continue to do
project outputs (in no more than 2 pages)
so in a sustainable manner after project completion; and strengthened
·
Global environmental benefits of the project.
institutions in the Meso Caribbean Basin promoting improved
·
Incremental cost estimation based on the project
pesticide management.
logical framework
· A detailed logical framework is included as Annex B. Objectively
· Describe project outputs (and related
verifiable indicators include a set of documented case studies and
activities & costs) that result in global
validated Best Management Practices.
environmental benefits
· Activities are grouped into 3 major components and include: Project
· Describe project outputs (and related
coordination and stakeholder Participation; Demonstration Projects;
activities & costs) that result in global and
and Institutionaling improved pesticides management and
national environmental benefits
strengthening capacity for reducing pesticides runoff.
· Describe project outputs (and related
· The incremental costs analysis in annex A describes the national,
activities & costs) that result in national
regional, and global benefits to be expected from the project. The
environmental benefits
regional/global environmental benefits stem from the global
· Describe the process used to jointly estimate
significance of the Caribbean Sea, which the project will protect.
incremental cost with in-country project
· The participating countries will contribute to baseline costs in relation
partner
to the domestic benefits that can be expected from the project.
· Present the incremental cost estimate. If
presented as a range, then a brief
explanation of the challenges and
constraints and how these would be
addressed by the time of CEO endorsement.
· Sustainability
Describe proposed approach to address factors
Issues regarding sustainability are discussed in paragraphs 30 ­ 31. The
(including financial
influencing sustainability, within and/or outside the
sustainability of the overall project is linked to the wider adoption of the
sustainability)
project to deal with these factors
best management practices that will be demonstrated during the project.
· Replicability
Describe the proposed approach to replication (for e.g. The nature of the project implies replicability both within each
dissemination of lessons, training workshops,
participating country, and to the benefit of other developing countries
information exchange, national and regional forum
throughout the tropical world. The whole project design is geared toward
etc.) (could be within project description)
ensuring replicability.
· Stakeholder
· Describe how stakeholders have been involved in · Primary stakeholders are the farmers, agrochemical distributors,
Involvement
project development
health, agricultural and environmental ministries and agencies,
· Describe the approach for stakeholder
environmental NGOs and other community-based organizations,
involvement in further project development and
relevant international organizations, and academic institutions. They
implementation
have been involved in the development of the project through the
national coordinating committees that were put into place - see para

2

---

Work Program Inclusion per criteria
Reference Paragraphs and Explanatory Notes:
established in Draft # 8 of the project
review criteria

national coordinating committees that were put into place - see para
32-36.
· Project implementation relies on a multi-stakeholder national
coordinating committee at the national level (para 22 and TOR annex
F).
· Monitoring &
· Describe how project design has incorporated
· Project design has benefited from the experience of the various
Evaluation
lessons from similar projects in the past
stakeholders involved in its preparation: from the private sector
· Describe approach for project M&E system,
(LACPA) to non-for-profit academic institutions (EARTH).
based on the project logical framework, including ·
Indicators for individual objectives and outputs are described in
the following elements:
Annex B. The Monitoring Protocol Advisory Panel which will be
· Specifications of indicators for objectives and
established will design the process and stress reduction indicators
outputs, including alternate benchmarks, and
which will be used to assess project success.
means of measurement.
· The demonstration projects will be regularly evaluated by the
· Outline organisational arrangement for
National Coordinating Committees.
implementing M&E
· Monitoring of project progress will be the primary responsibility of
· Indicative total cost of M&E (may be
the UNEP GEF Co-ordination Office and the Bureau of Fund
reflected in total project cost).
Management Services and will be undertaken via Quarterly
Operational Reports, half yearly and end of year financial and
substantive reporting in accordance with UNEP's internal guidelines
for project monitoring and evaluation.
· A mid-term and terminal evaluation will be conducted in
collaboration with the GEF Co-ordination Office of UNEP.
· The indicative cost of the M&E related activities for the
Implementing Agency is 68,000 US$ and is included within the
Implementing Agency Fee.
3. Financing
· Financing Plan
· Estimate total pro ject cost.
· Total project cost is estimated at 10.34 million US$ - see cover page
· Estimate contribution by financing partners.
and budget table 3.
· Propose type of financing instrument
· Estimated contribution from financing partners is 5.75 million US$
(including in-kind contributions) - see cover page.
· Grant financing.
Implementing Agency
Propose IA fee
· 382,000 US $ based on the agreed flat fee.
Fees

· Cost-effectiveness
· Estimate cost effectiveness, if feasible
· The approach adopted to rely heavily on demonstration activities

3

---

Work Program Inclusion per criteria
Reference Paragraphs and Explanatory Notes:
established in Draft # 8 of the project
review criteria

· Describe alternate project approaches considered
provides a cost-effective way to facilitate widespread adoption of the
and discarded
prescribed practices.

4. Institutional Coordination & Support
IA Coordination and
Describe how the proposed project is located within
· The project is to be implemented within the framework of UNEP's
Support
the IA's
Regional Seas Programme, support to the GPA, and activities in
· Core commitments
· Country regional/global/sector programs
Chemicals Management, including early implementation of the POPs
& Linkages
· GEF activities with potential influence on the
Convention.
proposed project (design & implementation)
· Links will be established with relevant activities. In particular,
linkages with the proposed UNEP/PAHO project on DDT alternatives
in Central America are described in para 36.
· Consultation,
· Describe how the proposed project relates to
· Project development benefited from the involvement of a number of
Coordination and
activities of other IAs and 4 RDBs in the
agencies at the steering group level, in particular FAO.
Collaboration
country/region.
between IAs, and
· Describe planned/agreed coordination,
IAs and EAs, if
collaboration between IAs in project
appropriate.
implementation.
5. Response to Reviews
Council
Respond to Council comments at pipeline entry
N/A
Convention Secretariat
Respond to comments from Convention Secretariat.
N/A
GEF Secretariat
Respond to comments from GEFSEC on draft project
N/A
brief.
Other IAs and 4 RDBs
Respond to comments from other IAs, 4RDBss on
Comments received from WB are supportive and responded to in Annex
draft project brief.
C1.
STAP
Respond to comments by STAP at work program
N/A
inclusion.
Review by expert from
Respond to review by expert from STAP roster
Comments received from STAP roster expert are supportive, and
STAP Roster
responded to in annex C1.



4

---

PROJECT BRIEF
1. IDENTIFIERS
PROJECT NUMBER:

[Implementing Agency Project Number not yet assigned]
PROJECT TITLE:
Regional (Colombia, Costa Rica, Nicaragua): Reducing
Pesticide Runoff to the Caribbean Sea
GEF IMPLEMENTING AGENCY:
United Nations Environment Programme
EXECUTING AGENCIES:
Secretariat for the Cartagena Convention ­ (UNEP-
CAR/RCU);
Ministerio del Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales,
Nicaragua;
Ministerio del Ambiente y Energía, Costa Rica;
Ministerio del Medio Ambiente, Colombia
REQUESTING COUNTRIES:
Regional: Mesoamerican Caribbean Basin -- Colombia, Costa
Rica, Nicaragua
ELIGIBILITY:
The participating countries are eligible under paragraph 9(b) of
the GEF Instrument.
GEF FOCAL AREA:

International Waters
GEF PROGRAMMING FRAMEWORK: Operational Programme 10 - Contaminant-based OP

2. SUMMARY
This project will demonstrate reduced pesticide runoff to the Caribbean Sea through improved pesticide
management throughout the life cycle of pesticides (from manufacture to application and ultimate fate).
Project elements include monitoring and assessment of impact; technology alternatives to intensive
pesticide use and management practices to reduce runoff and runoff impact; education and training;
development of incentives/institutional strengthening; and information management and dissemination.
Demonstration projects will be the means of co-ordinating these various elements and will be the basis
from which sustainable and widespread interventions will be developed and implemented in the region.
Best management practices, training, monitoring, and other elements tested through the demonstration
projects will be documented and widely disseminated to facilitate their adoption in the other countries of the
Wider Caribbean and beyond.
3. COSTS AND FINANCING (MILLION US $)

GEF:

Project



:
4.290



PDF-B



:
0.295



Subtotal GEF


:
4.585
Co-financing:
PDF-B (all sources)


:
0.127



Governments of the three participating countries



in cash & kind


:
5.185



UNEP (in kind)


:
0.070



LACPA (in cash and kind)

:
0.240



Other (academia and NGOs)
:
0.130



Subtotal Co-financing

:
5.752

Total Project Cost:



: US$ 10.337

i

---

4. Operational Focal Points Endorsements
Colombia
Claudia Martinez Zuleta, Minister, Ministry of Environment
Endorsement received 27/9/01.

Costa Rica
Elizabeth Odio Benito, Minister, Ministry of Environment and Energy
Endorsement received 27/9/01.

Nicaragua
Roberto Stadthagen Vogl, Minister, Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources
Endorsement received 27/9/01.

5. IA Contact:
Mr Ahmed Djoghlaf, Executive Co-ordinator, UNEP/GEF Co-ordination
Office, UNEP, Nairobi, Tel: 254 2 624165; Fax: 254 2 624041;
ahmed.djoghlaf@unep.org

ii

---

LIST OF ACRONYMS

a.i.

Active ingredient
AMEP

Sub-programme of the Caribbean Environment Programme of UNEP on the
Assessment and Management of Environmental Pollution
BMP

Best Management Practices
CEP

Caribbean Environment Programme
CEPNET

Sub-programme of CEP on Environmental Information Systems
EARTH

Escuela de Agricultura de la Región Tropical Húmeda (Agricultural School for the
Humid Tropics)
FAO

Food and Agriculture Organization
GAP

Good Agricultural Practice
GNP

Gross National Product
GEF

Global Environment Facility
GPA

Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from
Land Based Activities
ha

hectare
ICM

Integrated Crop Management
IEP

Independent Evaluation Panel
IICA

Instituto Inter-Americano de Cooperación Agrícola (Inter-American Institute for
Agricultural Co-operation)
IPM

Integrated Pest Management
ISO

International Standards Organisation
IW-LEARN

GEF International Waters web-based knowledge sharing project
IWM

Integrated Waste Management
IWRN

Inter American Water Resources Network
LACPA

Latin American Crop Protection Association
LBS

Land-based Sources of Marine Pollution
MCB

Mesoamerican Caribbean Basin
NCC

National Co-ordinating Committee
NGO

Non-governmental Organization
PAHO

Pan American Health Organization
PAN

Pesticide Action Network
PDF-B

Project Preparation and Development Facility Block B
PIC

Prior Informed Consent
PSC

Project Steering Committee
RPR

Reducing Pesticide Runoff
TOR

Terms of Reference
UNEP

United Nations Environment Programme
UNEP-CAR/RCU
UNEP's Regional Co-ordinating Unit for the Caribbean
US EPA

United States Environmental Protection Agency
WCR

Wider Caribbean Region


iii

---

OTHER TERMS
Cartagena Convention: Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment of
the Wider Caribbean Region, adopted 1983, Cartagena.

iv

---

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Background & Context (Baseline course of Action)

1.
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.

2.
Agriculture is critical to the economies of the countries of the MCB sub-region, which produces
a significant portion of the world's coffee (12%), plantains (10%), fresh fruits (9%) and bananas (8%)
and also significant quantities of pineapples, sugar cane, ginger, oil palm, and flowers. Even with the
increase in tourism in this sub-region during the past decade, export-oriented agricultural production still
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.

3.
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. Some 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 their places in niche markets
and such markets are widening as consumers become more environmentally aware.

4.
In 1999, the MCB countries imported more than 14,600 metric tons (a.i.)1 of pesticides and
formulated an additional 13,300 metric tons (a.i.) solely 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). Also included are 29 pesticides (including 23 insecticides) that are federally registered as

1 In any pesticide product, the active ingredient (a.i.) is the component that kills, or otherwise controls, target pests.
Pesticides are regulated primarily on the basis of active ingredients. Few pesticide substances are sold commercially
without being mixed with other inactive ingredients (carriers, diluents, solvents, wetting agents, emulsifiers, etc.).
Nonetheless, it is the active ingredient that is of greatest concern in relation to secondary impacts (runoff and
negative environmental impacts) and is therefore used as the unit of measure rather than the total amount of a
pesticide.



1

---

restricted use pesticides in the United States. Several other pesticides recognised as highly toxic are also
imported and used in the MCB countries. These include endosulfan, carbofuran, phorate, terbufos,
diazinon, malathion, oxamyl, acephate; zineb; and paraquat. Additionally, DDT, although not
reported to be used on agricultural crops, is stockpiled in the three countries and is still being used for
vector control for malaria and dengue.

5.
The data and information gathered during the 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. But 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 result 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.

6.
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.

7.
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 the 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 data 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. A number of studies conducted in Colombia, for example, confirm
the presence of pesticides in surface and ground waters at levels in excess of those recommended as
safe for human health and aquatic life by the US EPA. Agrochemicals encountered include DDT,
dieldrin, lindane, endosulfan, malathion, diazinon and aldrin. In Nicaragua, it was estimated that at
least 13 metric tons (a.i.) of pesticides reach the Caribbean Sea yearly through national waterways.
Pesticides of particular concern and of interest for further study and evaluation of impacts are:
chlorpyrifos, ametryn, pendimethalin, diuron and endosulfan.

8.
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


2

---

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. For example,
several government agencies in Colombia have proposed programmes to improve procedures for the
use and management of pesticides. In Costa Rica, regulations on trade, handling, and use of pesticides
have been developed. In Nicaragua, legislation is being developed to improve the management of
pesticides with the aim of reducing contaminant releases to watercourses and coastal waters. (Complete
information on the current practices and initiatives of the countries can be found in the National Reports
and is synthesized in the Regional Report developed during the PDF-B. See Annex E for the list of
publications prepared during the PDF phase.)

9.
IPM and pesticide health programmes are active in the region, including CATIE IPM
programmes in Nicaragua, PlagSalud also in Nicaragua, CIALs through CIAT in Colombia and policy
studies carried out in Costa Rica with assistance from the Pesticide Policy group in the University of
Hanover. These programmes, in addition to activities such as Better Banana project, Fair Trade, or
organic agriculture associations, provide a source of regional expertise in pest management, health
study, and pesticide policy.

10.
These initiatives, however, are not carried out in a sufficiently systematic and coordinated
manner to ensure adequate protection of human health and the environment. These initiatives are based
on causal chain analyses carried out during PDF-B phase and were discussed during the national and
regional pesticides management workshops that were conducted in the framework of the PDF-B phase.
This project sets out to address these causes. A diagram of the problem and its cultural/social,
institutional, market and the technical root causes identified in these studies is included in Annex D.

11.
Regional and global efforts have also focused on the environmental threats posed by the
presence of pesticides in aquatic systems. In October 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 this 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 to ratify the LBS Protocol simultaneously. The project proposed here
will offer the added benefit of assisting the 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.

12.
The proposed project activities are wholly consistent with the Contaminant-based Operational
Program (OP # 10) of the International Waters Focal Area that makes direct reference to projects that
help demonstrate ways of overcoming barriers to the adoption of best practices that limit
contamination of the International Waters environment. This Operational Program further stresses,
pollution prevention measures and addresses substances such as persistent organic pollutants and


3

---

some pesticides that can disrupt human endocrine systems or pose human health threats are
candidates for global action.


Rationale and Objective (Alternative)

13.
The hydro-geographical data and ocean circulation patterns in the MCB clearly demonstrate the
rationale for regional action to address pesticide runoff. The MCB countries have over 3,000 km of
coastline on the Caribbean. The vast majority of the land area drains to the MCB rather than to the
Pacific Ocean. Drainage to the Caribbean Sea occurs from 96% of the land area of Nicaragua, >70%
of Colombia, 46% of Costa Rica and 23% of Panama. As illustrated in Figure 1, Annex A, the MCB
sub-region creates a circulation cell of surface currents such that a relatively large portion of the water
mass and its associated contaminant load is largely recycled among the four countries rather than being
diluted within the general oceanic circulation. This creates the potential for persistent sub-regional
transboundary pollution problems. The water mass of the MCB that is eventually stripped away from
this cell enters the general oceanic circulation pattern. As such, surface currents will carry contaminants
through the area north of the Central American isthmus and up through the Gulf of Mexico. From there
the currents enter the Gulf Stream. Reducing pesticide runoff in the MCB could therefore also be
expected to make a significant contribution to the standing stock of the more persistent pesticides in the
Atlantic Ocean.

14.
All of the participating countries are in favour of the rational use of pesticides to improve
agricultural output. They recognize, however, that the application of a diversity of alternatives that
permits maximum flexibility in pest management and policy is necessary and appropriate to ensure
maximum agricultural production with minimum environmental disruption. The GEF intervention
proposed in this project will serve to complement and enhance current national activities in the area of
agricultural pest management as well as addressing sectors that are not currently being addressed
through other interventions.2 Through co-operation and partnerships among relevant United Nations
agencies, the private sector and other national and regional stakeholders, the project has the overall
objective of demonstrating, to other countries of the Wider Caribbean Region, other signatories to the
Cartagena Convention and its LBS protocol and beyond, the sustainability of improved pest
management practices and their benefits in reducing runoff into the international and common water
body of the Caribbean Sea. Improved management, actively applied throughout the "life-cycle" of a
pesticides (i.e., manufacturedistribution and saleapplicationultimate fate) will reduce not only the
runoff of pesticides to the Caribbean Sea but also improve worker safety and public health and have the
added benefit of providing economic savings to farmers, thereby adding sustainability to the project's
objectives.

15.
One of the key issues identified in the PDF-B phase is the benefit associated with
demonstrations and training in the areas of alternative technologies or BMP. BMP for pesticide use

2 As other projects in the region deal with the use of pesticides to control disease vectors (including the UNEP/GEF
PDF-B on DDT in Central America executed by PAHO), this project will focus on the agricultural sector while
maintaining close co-ordination with other relevant projects and activities.


4

---

comprises sustainable alternatives that assure optimum agricultural yield with minimum adverse
environmental effects and maximum social and economic benefits. A wide variety of management
practices can minimize the extent of water systems contamination from agricultural activities. BMP
considers all phases of the production system including pre- and post-production. The key is to identify
and select those that are technically efficient and concomitantly reduce the risk of contamination of water
systems. BMP may include a reduction in the use of pesticides, but also includes proper pesticide use
and selecting the proper kind and amount of a pesticide, applying it properly and storing it safely.
On-farm handling of pesticides, which includes transportation, mixing, loading and storage, must also be
managed carefully to protect water sources. BMP also includes the application of integrated production
and pest management (IPPM). IPPM provides the opportunity to explore and apply a wide range of
alternatives to indiscriminate pesticide use, including physical and other non-chemical methods. Above
all, IPPM relies on the training of farmers and their understanding of the ecology of the crops and their
pests. The project proposes to explore various BMP opportunities and identify and establish within the
project and for post-project use and dissemination, those BMPs that are most appropriate for the
crops, climate, production methods, and socio-economic conditions of the MCB countries.

16.
Selecting and adopting correct tillage practices is also important for reducing pesticide runoff.
Various forms of conservation tillage and cultivation for weed control can affect the potential for
contamination of water systems. Tillage practices affect soil porosity and surface roughness, which, in
turn, affect rates of runoff, evaporation and infiltration. Planting strategies can also influence the types
and number of pests and pest control options. For example, planting crops in narrow rows can enhance
weed control. Lesser quantities of herbicides may then be needed to control weeds.

17.
The proposed project also addresses indiscriminate pesticide use caused by market forces and
incentives by creating counterbalancing incentives for rational use and the introduction of non-chemical
methods. The Swedish example of reducing pesticide use by 75% following a policy decision also
suggests that the recommended dose for pesticide application may often be higher than strictly
necessary. Government policies involving tax breaks, subsidies and pesticide market competition will
be reviewed and recommendations made to lead towards positive environmental and economic change.
Among these incentives to be developed will be the creation of an "eco-friendly" certification
programme. The project will explore possibilities and decide on a mechanism for such a certification
programme. Models of such programmes already exist in the region, for example the Better Banana
Project, coordinated by the Rainforest Alliance, a regional environmental NGO.

18.
The environmental and social solution to the problem of pesticide runoff is not something that
can be taken "off the shelf". Accordingly, this GEF intervention will be used to identify, develop and
demonstrate the means to reduce pesticide runoff while recognising that pesticides will continue to play a
role in agricultural production for years to come. 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. Examples of information dissemination
mechanisms that will be utilised include the GEF IW-LEARN, the Inter-American Water Resources
Network (IWRN), opportunities within the CEPNET Clearinghouse Mechanism, and the POPs and
GPA Clearinghouse Mechanisms.


5

---

19.
Consistent with the findings of the PDF-B phase, the alternative approach proposed in this
project will build on concerns raised by stakeholders regarding lack of adequate training, information
needs, institutional capacity improvements and the requirement to address market forces in a positive
way to improve environmental protection. Project outcomes are detailed in the logical framework matrix
(Annex B). These include: the provision of necessary incentives, training and education so that 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 more farmers
and other stakeholders will implement these practices and continue to do so in a sustainable manner
after project completion; and strengthened institutions in the MCB promoting improved pesticide
management.


Project Activities/Components and Expected Results

20.
The Regional Workshop held in Panama, 24-25 January, 2001 under the auspices of the PDF-
B involving representatives of a wide range of stakeholders (Government agencies, NGOs, International
Organizations, private sector, etc.) identified six major elements that must be addressed to reduce
pesticide runoff, based on consideration of the root causes of associated problems (see Annex D). 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. These six elements are addressed through three Project
Components and their activities as shown in Table 1. The hub of the activities will be 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.

21.
Component 1 will put in place the necessary Project Coordination and Stakeholder
Participation mechanisms as well as mechanisms to strengthen and maintain the successful networking
and coordination that took place within and among project countries during the PDF. A Project
Manager will be hired and will report to UNEP-CAR/RCU. Following agreements to be established
with the National Executing Agencies, a Project Steering Committee (PSC --see Terms of Reference
in Annex F) will be established to guide the project and set the basis for a regional entity for future
coordination and collaboration on reducing pesticide runoff. The PSC will be assisted by advisory
panels which will, inter alia, establish monitoring protocols and design an appropriate education
and training programme. The Terms of Reference of the advisory panels will be developed by the
Project Manager and endorsed by the PSC. Ad hoc panels may also be established as appropriate.
The PSC will maintain close contact by electronic means and meet several times during the four year
term of the project for decision making at critical junctures as well as to provide project oversight and
monitoring.



6

---

22.
National Co-ordinating Committees (NCC ­ See draft Terms of Reference in Annex E) 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 the demonstration projects top the PSC for
approval. Through its review and approval, the PSC will ensure the complementarity of the
demonstration project sites between project countries. The National Executing Agency will designate a
National Project Manager (NPM). The NPM will co-chair the NCC with a representative of the
Ministry of Agriculture and be a member of the PSC. Recommendations from the NCC will be taken
to the PSC to ensure that the project objectives for regional and extra-regional demonstration are met.
NCCs will meet as necessary during the term of the project and will maintain and establish a permanent
means of national co-ordination to reduce pesticide runoff following project completion. NCCs will
also be responsible for the technical and administrative oversight of the Demonstration Projects
implemented under Component 2.

23.
Prior to the initiation of the demonstration projects, major decisions to be taken by the Steering
Committee and NCCs will include development and approval of the detailed project workplan, setting
criteria and guidelines for demonstration project activities (i.e., the selection of the crops taking
into consideration the major crops of the region -- coffee, rice, corn, sugar cane, bananas, etc.) and
approval of demonstration project activities. Suitable sites for the demonstration projects will be
proposed to the PSC by the NCCs in the respective countries, taking into account type of production,
extent of pesticide use, environmental risks, crop requirements and ownership and other criteria and
guidelines established by the PSC.

24.
The demonstration 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 (both regionally and extra-regionally) 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 3.1.1 on incentives. Component 2 has two sub-
components to ensure the successful outcome of the demonstration projects. Sub-component 2.1 will
provide the necessary technical tools for the operation of the demonstration projects themselves.
Training will be provided to 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 the demonstration sites (BMPs employed, water
quality information, pesticides used, prior training, etc.) will be conducted to provide a baseline from
which to measure progress within each demonstration project.

25.
Sub component 2.2 is the execution of the demonstration projects themselves. Each country
will have four demonstration projects, two different crops on two different types of farm - high intensity
and low intensity or subsistence.1 Decisions as to the types of farms most relevant to each country, and

1 Taking into consideration different levels of pesticide use, agricultural production systems in the MCB may be
categorized into subsistence, low intensity and high intensity. Subsistence crops are generally cultivated in marginal
areas and pest management strategy is primarily based on mechanical control, traditional cultural practices, multiple
associate crops, crop rotation, timing and pest tolerance. Due to sociological and economical circumstances,


7

---

most appropriate for extra-regional demonstration, will be reviewed by the NCC and a rationale will be
given with its presentation to the PSC for approval (as noted in Component 1). Each demonstration
project should have two control sites, and therefore each country will have a total of eight control sites.
Each demonstration project and its respective control sites will be comparable in size, crops and other
characteristics and in the same watershed. Incentives will be provided to encourage farmers'
participation, such as educational study groups, technical support, resources to implement the
demonstration (e.g., appropriate pesticides, application equipment, etc.) and recognition.
Demonstration projects will run for two years during which follow-up activities under Component 3 will
begin to be developed. The project will also facilitate technical exchange between the NCCs and
demonstration project co-ordinators by funding study tours to other project countries.

26.
Component 3 will implement activities necessary to take advantage of the lessons learned
during Component 2 through the dissemination of information to enhance replicability of the project
objectives. Additionally, this component will build institutional capacity through, among other things,
institutionalising the positive changes and lessons learned in the participating countries towards
sustainably reducing pesticide runoff. Sub-component 3.1 will establish the means to sustain the
advances made toward the project goal of reducing pesticide runoff. Activities will examine the market
forces that have led to indiscriminate use of pesticides and develop incentives towards rational use of
pesticides and other means of reducing pesticide runoff. Activities to develop incentives will include
extensive stakeholder and expert consultative meetings to develop and recommend the appropriate
policy and legislative reforms necessary to allow for the application of incentives. Additionally, Sub-
component 3.1 will develop a crop certification programme (i.e., "eco-labelling") for crops produced
according to the principles and protocols developed under this project and a marketing campaign for its
promotion.

27.
Activities of Sub-component 3.1 will also use the lessons learned in the project towards the
development of a "train-the-trainer" programme for the rational use of pesticides. The training
course developed and implemented under this sub-component will have utility in the participating
countries as well as a broader regional and extra-regional audience. Additionally, sub-component 3.1
will include the establishment of a regional coastal monitoring programme and database to monitor
pesticides runoff into the coastal environment. Realising the importance of regional monitoring in a region
with significant oceanographic inter-connectivity (see Figure 1, Annex A), the participating countries
have put significant co-financing into developing such a protocol and programme and are dedicated to
its permanent maintenance. 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.


pesticides are not extensively used in these systems, but when they are they are used with little instruction. In low
intensity farms, pesticides are used sporadically during periods of the growing season when pests become a problem.
High intensity farms are those with intensive use of pesticides. High intensity farms depend almost exclusively on
agrochemicals for crop protection.



8

---

28.
Sub-component 3.2 will implement activities to increase awareness and education regarding
rational pesticide use to minimize runoff as well as to share lessons learned with other countries and
regions. Within year one of the project, a project website will be established within the CEPNET sub-
programme of CEP with linkages to the Caribbean Clearinghouse node for the Global Programme of
Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities and with linkages to
existing national websites.2 Not only will this provide a forum and information source for project
participants, but also a means of information dissemination for replicability from project
commencement. Case studies of the demonstration projects will be built early and updated regularly on
the website. Other activities will include a regional workshop where participating countries will present
their findings and results to other countries having similar circumstances and the development of
awareness and educational materials for the identified stakeholders (including a communications strategy
for their use).

2 Nicaragua has benefited from previous CEP/CEPNET projects to assist in the development of an environmental
website and database. They have already sustained this database and website on their own (utilizing it for the
PDF-B of this project). Therefore, such a linkage will build on existing UNEP/CEP sponsored projects.


9

---

Table 1 -- Schematic Workplan and Timetable
Year
1
2
3
4
Quarter
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
Components, Sub-Components & Activities
















1. Project Co-ordination
















1.1 Project Management
















1.1.1 Hire Project Manager
















1.1.2 Establish agreements with National Executing Agencies
















1.1.3 Establish National Co-ordination Committees
















1.1.4 Develop criteria and guidelines for Demonstration Projects















1.1.5 Develop Demonstration Project workplans
















1.1.6 Establish Demonstration Project agreements
















1.1.7 Monitoring Missions and Evaluations
















1.2 Project Steering Committee Meetings
















1.2.1 Project workplan approval

















1.2.2 Approval of Demonstration Project workplans
















1.2.3 Project monitoring















1.3 Regional Project Advisory Panels
















1.3.1 Establish Monitoring and Evaluation Protocols for Demo Proj.
















1.3.2 Develop Education and Training Programme for Demo Proj.
















2. Demonstration Projects
















2.1 Demo Project Preparation
















2.1.1 Training ­ BMPs (IPM, GAP, IWM) for RPR
















2.1.2 Training ­ Monitoring and Assessment
















2.1.3 Site evaluation/monitoring baseline
















2.2 Demonstration Project Execution
















3. Institutionalizing Improved Pesticide Management and Strengthening Capacity for RPR












3.1 Sustaining Improvements for RPR
















3.1.1 Legislative/policy changes to promote incentives for RPR
















3.1.2 Crop Certification Programme
















3.1.3 Train-the-Trainer in BMPs
















3.1.4 Establish Coastal Monitoring Programme
















3.2 Lessons Learned - Education and Information Dissemination
















3.2.1 Case Studies
















3.2.2 Regional Workshop
















3.2.3 Develop awareness and education materials
















3.2.4 Website development for RPR


















10

---

Risks and Sustainability

29.
Critical assumptions and risks are detailed in the logical framework matrix (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 southwestern 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 societal needs. Additionally, extreme damage, such as was
seen with hurricane Mitch in 1998, can obliterate demonstration project sites. As such
natural disasters are unpredictable, planning for this contingency is difficult and will be
managed as necessary. Nonetheless, this project will be co-ordinated with another CEP
project that proposes to improve coastal watershed management to minimize
community and environmental damage caused by hurricanes.
(c)
Political commitment for the 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 such political change is expected to be minimal.

30.
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 to the
right audiences of a set of demonstrated practices that reduce pesticide runoff whilst maintaining
profitability). 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 will require
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 organizational
structure for continued co-operation over the long-term among the project countries and provide wider
dissemination of the project results.

31.
Specifically, the success of the activities of stakeholder groups during the PDF-B phase of the
project has reflected a genuine concern among the 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 to lead toward
more sustainable production and greater economic benefits. Long-term sustainability also supposes that


11

---

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 to sustain the
project goals by providing a continuing information base. It is anticipated that the PSC will form the
nucleus of a regional pesticide management committee to assist 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.


Stakeholder Participation and Implementation Arrangements

32.
The main stakeholders for this project are the farmers, agrochemical distributors, health,
agricultural and environmental ministries and agencies, environmental NGOs and other community-
based organizations, relevant international organizations, 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. These National Reports were
discussed and revised accordingly through national workshops each attended by more than sixty
participants representative of these stakeholders. Regional actions were presented, discussed, and
revised at a regional workshop with the attendance of more than 90 participants representative of these
stakeholders. The Project was prepared using the National Reports as the main sources of input.

33.
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 (see draft post description in Annex F) will be hired by UNEP-CAR/RCU for
overall management and co-ordination of the project.

34.
LACPA is an active agrochemical industry association operating in all participating countries as
well as others in the region. LACPA's contributions (in cash and in kind), in addition to its position on
the PSC, will be in the area of training. Through the Project Manager, the PSC and the NCCs,
LACPA will contribute to those aspects of training that deal with proper handling, application, and
disposal of chemical pesticides.

35.
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
(c)
Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, Colombia.

36.
Coordination with the UNEP/PAHO project under preparation to phase-out DDT in Mexico
and Central America will be achieved through the National Project Managers being members of the
Consultative Committees set-up in the context of the DDT project whilst the National Technical


12

---

Coordinators for the DDT project will be members of the National Coordinating Committees. At the
regional level, the Project Director/Regional Coordinator will co-ordinate between the respective
steering committees.


Incremental Costs and Project Financing

37.
Table 2 presents an incremental cost table based on the component costs presented in Table 3
and the more detailed analysis contained in Annex A. As noted in that Annex, benefits under this project
accrue at the global, regional and national levels. Direct environmental benefits accrue as a consequence
of project activities on demonstration project sites. Considerably greater environmental benefits are
anticipated to arise through replication of these demonstrations at the national, regional, and global
levels.

38.
A regional project such as this one carries with it regional transaction costs, such as inter-
country co-ordination and associated administrative costs. As such the regional costs of co-ordination
will be largely incremental as they would not normally occur outside GEF intervention. The
demonstration projects themselves will most likely only provide benefits that are locally significant during
the project. The dissemination of the results, materials that are used in their preparation, and lessons
learned, will bring regional and global benefits such that much of the associated costs are incremental.

39.
Annex A provides more detail regarding the expected benefits at the global/regional and national
levels. As noted in Annex A, the marine resources of the MCB are both nationally and regionally
important, yet also hold global significance in terms of biodiversity. They are threatened by potential
transboundary runoff of pesticides into the Caribbean Sea due to improper pesticide management and
application.

40.
Table 3 presents the Project budget and component financing. Total Project cost, including the
PDF-B expenses, is US$10.580 million, of which more than half is coming from co-financing. Of
particular note, is the significant co-financing being offered by the countries for Project Component 3
(see Table 3). This is due to the importance they have placed on monitoring and assessment. As much
of these benefits will be national and regional in nature, the GEF funds being requested are significantly
lower, though not zero as clearly there will be global benefits and certainly regional ones. Also of note
in the co-financing are funds from the industrial sector towards training in the proper use of pesticides to
reduce runoff.










13

---

Table 2 Baseline and Incremental Costs and global and domestic environmental benefits.


BASELINE
ALTERNATE
INCREMENT
GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS
2.829
7.414
4.585
PDF-B Phase
0.127
0.422
0.295
Component 1 -- Project Management and Stakeholder Particip.



Sub-component 1.1 ­ Project Management
0.195
0.965
0.770
Sub-component 1.2 ­ Project Steering Committee
0.035
0.095
0.060
Sub-component 1.3 ­ Project Advisory Panels
0.050
0.145
0.095
Component 2 ­ Demonstration Projects



Sub-component 2.1 ­ Demo Project Preparation
0.260
0.365
0.105
Sub-component 2.2 ­ Demo Project Execution
1.000
3.500
2.500
Component 3 ­ Improved Pesticide Mngt and Strength. Capacity



Sub-component 3.1 ­ Sustaining Improvements for RPR
0.837
1.247
0.410
Sub-component 3.2 ­ Lessons Learned
0.325
0.510
0.185
EXECUTING AGENCY OVERHEAD
0
0.165
0.165
DOMESTIC ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS
2.923
2.923
0
PDF-B Phase
0
0
0
Component 1 -- Project Management



Sub-component 1.1 ­ Project Management
0.100
0.100
0
Sub-component 1.2 ­ Project Steering Committee
0
0
0
Sub-component 1.3 ­ Project Advisory Panels
0.060
0.060
0
Component 2 ­ Demonstration Projects



Sub-component 2.1 ­ Demo Project Preparation
0.330
0.330
0
Sub-component 2.2 ­ Demo Project Execution
0.610
0.610
0
Component 3 ­Improved Pesticide Mngt and Strength. Capacity



Sub-component 3.1 ­ Sustaining Improvements for RPR
1.618
1.618
0
Sub-component 3.2 ­ Lessons Learned
0.205
0.205
0


Table 3 Project budget summary and component financing (in million US $)

CO -FINANCING
CO -FINANCING
COUNTRIES
OTHER
PROJECT COMPONENTS
GEF
Cash
In-kind
Cash
In-kind
TOTAL
Component 1 -- Project Management and Stakeholder
0.925
0.105
0.135
0.075
0.125
1.365
Participation
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
0.595
1.290
1.630
0.000
0.065
3.580
Strengthening Capacity
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


14

---

Subtotal
4.125
1.770
3.415
0.100
0.340
9.750
EXECUTING AGENCY OVERHEAD
0.165
--
--
--
--
0.165
PDF Total
0.295
0.00
0.125
0.002
0.000
0.422
Grand Total
4.585
1.770
3.540
0.102
0.340
10.337

Monitoring, Evaluation and Dissemination

41.
Monitoring progress in the project will be accomplished through the fulfilment of UNEP and
GEF requirements for quarterly and half-yearly substantive and financial reports. Specific environmental
indicators to measure progress in achieving the objectives of reducing pesticide runoff to the Caribbean
Sea, particularly stress reduction and status indicators; will be addressed by the Monitoring Protocol
Advisory Panel during the course of the project. 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.

42.
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 Project Manager, 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 desk 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.

43.
A communication strategy will be developed by the Project Manager and approved by the
PSC. The communication strategy will ensure proper co-ordination with other relevant projects to
ensure comparability and avoid duplication. Communication and information dissemination will also
include the posting of quarterly progress reports on the CEP website for general information and
networking. Stakeholders will provide feedback on monitoring and evaluation through their regular
meetings and interaction through the Internet. Training materials and other relevant substantive outputs
will be published through the CEP Technical Report series and made available via the CEP website.



15

---

ANNEXES


A
Incremental Cost Annex
B
Logframe Matrix
C
STAP Roster Technical Review
C1
Implementing Agency Response to STAP/Council/Agencies Comments
D
Root Cause Analysis
E
Publications Prepared Under the PDF Block B Grant
F
Draft Terms of Reference for Project Manager and Project Steering Committee
G
Endorsement Letters and pledge of co-financing from LACPA




16

---

ANNEX A
INCREMENTAL COSTS AND BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT
REDUCING PESTICIDE RUNOFF TO THE CARIBBEAN SEA

BACKGROUND

The baseline and additional costs associated with achieving domestic and incremental environmental
benefits are both pertinent to the identification of GEF Incremental Costs (Table 2). These costs are
normally calculated in a national context, but the realm of this project is regional as well as national.
Therefore, the benefits arising from this project may be seen at the global, regional, and national scales.

GLOBAL BENEFITS

Assessing the benefits of this GEF project involves the recognition, from a global perspective, of the
global environmental importance of the MCB region as well as the potential for transboundary (both
global and regional) effects of pesticide runoff from the MCB into the Caribbean Sea. The coastal-
marine area of the Caribbean Sea is a critical region that requires special attention with respect to
adequate pesticide management. The resources in this area support important biodiversity. The
continental shelf supports strategic ecosystems which offer environmental services such as nutrient
recycling, biological control, food production, and a source of raw materials. Coastal resources in this
area also include diverse economic activities such as sport and commercial fishing and tourism (including
eco-tourism). Although there are no comprehensive studies that assess the impacts of pesticides on the
coastal environment of the MCB, all participating countries have reported data showing high levels of
pesticides in the aquatic environment. Studies in comparable areas such as the Gulf of Mexico have
demonstrated the negative transboundary environmental impacts that can result from pesticide
contaminants under these conditions.

In regard to coral reef resources in the Caribbean, the region just to the north-west of the MCB (the
area through which surface contaminants travel, see Figure 1) includes the Meso-american Barrier Reef
­ the largest continuous coral reef ecosystem in the world outside the Great Barrier Reef of Australia.
The Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network (GCRMN), in its 2000 report on the status of the coral
reefs of the world, reports that 21% of the coral reefs in the Caribbean were destroyed prior to 1998
and another 22% loss is expected over the next 10-30 years. A significant portion of this degradation is
attributed to human activities including land-based marine pollution. Competition, population growth
and poverty are all factors that lead to the deforestation of land for conversion to agricultural land. Not
only does the sedimentation of these deforested lands lead to the smothering of aquatic ecosystems, the
indiscriminate use of pesticides in these new lands exacerbate the situation as the pesticides reach the
marine environment attached to the sediment particles as they are washed into the sea.

Despite the large environmental deterioration that has occurred in the MCB, it still supports the major
part of the original natural richness of each country and its protection from further deterioration is vital to
the survival of the coastal resources and economies.


A- 1

---

Perhaps nothing exemplifies the regional and global importance of the MCB more than an illustration of
the ocean surface circulation patterns shown in Figure 1. The water mass that is eventually stripped
away from the cell created by the MCB countries enters the general oceanic circulation pattern. As
such, surface currents will carry contaminants through the area north of the Central American isthmus
and up through the Gulf of Mexico. From there the currents enter the Gulf Stream. Reducing pesticide
runoff in the MCB could
therefore also be expected to
make a significant
contribution to the standing
stock of the more persistent
pesticides in the Atlantic
Ocean.

REGIONAL AND NATIONAL
(DOMESTIC) BENEFITS

The major national benefits to
the project include those that
relate to the improvement in
the condition of the marine,
coastal, and freshwater
systems environments under

national jurisdiction. National
Figure 1. Ocean surface circulation patterns in the Meso-american
benefits also include those
Caribbean Basin, adapted from Ogden and satellite imagery
that relate to improvement in
farmer's capacity to handle
and properly manage the use of pesticides and reduce the adverse environmental impacts relating to the
indiscriminate use of pesticides. Regional benefits include those relating to the mitigation of
transboundary environmental impacts, such as contamination of strategic ecosystems and loss of
biological diversity and other benefits resulting from the adoption of a harmonised regional approach to
action, including benefits in terms of economies of scale for training, monitoring and assessment.

Further, national demonstrations that meet the requirements of Annex IV to the LBS Protocol to the
Cartagena Convention on Agricultural Non-point Sources, will likely have regional benefits of providing
other governments with the tools and impetus to ratify the LBS Protocol, thereby magnifying the benefits
of regional harmonisation.

In addition to the global benefits resulting from the protection of the coral reefs mentioned above,
regional benefits are gained through the protection of other sensitive ecosystems such as mangroves and
sea grass beds, which can be particularly sensitive to pesticides. The nursing areas naturally created by
mangroves and seagrass beds support both national and regional fisheries, and it is at the juvenile stage
that fish are the most sensitive to adverse effects from contaminants. Many species spawn and spend
their juvenile periods in one part of the Caribbean, yet spend their adult lives (when they are

A- 2

---

commercially important in regional and global markets) in the territorial waters of other countries
hundreds of miles away.

As noted above, with reference to global benefits, the MCB sub-region creates a circulation cell of
surface currents such that a relatively large portion of the water mass, and its associated contaminant
load, is largely recycled between the MCB countries rather than diluted in the general oceanic
circulation. Although exact measurements of the magnitude of the contaminant load have not been
made, experience in other regions strongly suggests regional impacts. Therefore the actions proposed
to address marine contamination are predicated on the need to establish harmonised preventative
approaches to discharges that will provide future protection of the basin, in line with the internationally
accepted precautionary principle. The benefit of these actions is that a reduction in pesticide runoff to
the Caribbean Sea in any one country, could mean a subsequent reduction in the contaminant load in the
coastal zones of the other countries in the region.

BASELINE ACTIONS

The participating countries have initiated actions at the national level to address the problem of pesticide
runoff to the Caribbean Sea and have collaborated in, and contributed to, various regional endeavours
including the work of the FAO and UNEP. The number of activities within the region demonstrates the
recognition by regional stakeholders of the need for a more concerted approach to pesticide
management. In most instances however, countries have been unable to devote sufficient internal
resources for the development of these necessary programmes and the level of commitment varies
widely from country to country.

Important, on-going, regional activities for strengthening programmes of technology transfer, education
and training, and institutional strengthening, to which the participating countries contribute directly or
indirectly, are also a basis for this project; including the current and proposed work of the Caribbean
Environment Programme (in its 2002-2004 workplan and draft Strategy for 2002-2006). It is through
the CEP workplan that the Contracting Parties of the Cartagena Convention realise activities to further
the goals and objectives of the Convention and its protocols. Activities undertaken or planed by the
CEP include a preliminary analysis and identification of BMPs and a methodology to assess quantities of
contaminant runoff from urban and agricultural areas from which a regional assessment of non-point
source pollutant loadings is planned. A small grants programme is also planned to assist subsistence and
low-intensity farms in meeting the capital investments of establishing BMPs to meet the requirements of
the LBS Protocol.

The baseline described in Table 2 reflects the current commitment of the countries, both nationally and
regionally, to control and diminish the runoff of pesticides to the Caribbean. Recognising the importance
of pesticides in modern agricultural practices, demonstration projects based on BMPs will be developed
at the national level. Mainly through these demonstrations, the project seeks to assist the countries to
realise both increased environmental protection and economic growth through the establishment of
programmes to:
· improve training, awareness and education;

A- 3

---

· make alternatives more accessible;
· analyse the impacts and risks generated by use of pesticides; and
· develop incentives for continued improvements in pesticide management to reduce runoff.

All three project components include activities that will have benefits at the national, regional and global
levels. Component 3, on "sustaining improvements and strengthening country capacity for reducing
pesticide runoff" is the component which attracts the greatest baseline contribution from the participating
countries, in recognition of the immediate national benefits that can be expected from these activities. It
includes the development of national and regional monitoring and data management systems, which will
bring regional benefits, but also greatly improve national capacities to deal with the problem of pesticide
runoff. Component 2 which is concerned with the preparation and execution of the demonstrations
projects also attracts substantial national co-financing, as there are direct benefits to the farmers
involved to be expected from these interventions.

INCREMENTAL ACTIONS

This project adds significantly to both the regional and national baselines to reduce pesticide runoff
through improved management. The level of funding currently available for national and regional co-
ordinated actions is insufficient to deal with the environmental problem of runoff of pesticides to the
Caribbean Sea. This is due largely to the magnitude of the problem, the lack of available training, and
the lack of information on the extent of its impact. Substantial improvements -- those that are necessary
to meet current need and to keep up with the ever-growing agricultural activities -- are unlikely to occur
in the absence of a GEF intervention.

The potential global and regional benefits that will accrue from this GEF intervention will be substantial,
with the potential to address the problem of pesticide runoff comprehensively. The protection of the
biological diversity of this ecosystem will stimulate confidence in regional co-operative approaches to
adaptive management of marine and coastal catchments. The reproducibility of the project will serve as
a case study for the reduction of pesticide runoff to water systems regionally and worldwide. This is
based on the following assumptions:
§ that the national, regional and global benefits of co-operation developed in the project will
be apparent and act as an incentive for sustaining work in the future;
§ that even if participating countries were to take unilateral action, due to the issues raised
above, they could not ensure the protection of biological diversity in the marine and coastal
areas of the Caribbean Sea; and
§ that increased awareness of the problem and positive examples for resolving it will help to
achieve longer-term sustainability of proposed measures.



A- 4

---

ANNEX B
LOGICAL FRAMEWORK MATRIX
REDUCING PESTICIDE RUNOFF TO THE CARIBBEAN SEA




SUMMARY
OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE
MEANS OF VERIFICATION
CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS AND RISKS
INDICATORS
Overall Objective



Reduce pesticide runoff to the Caribbean Sea
Full success will only be measurable after completion of the project, as
That the impact of, and support for, the project are such that a large
through improved agricultural practices and
BMPs are applied systematically by an increasing number of farmers in the
number of farmers will adopt BMPs.
management.
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.
Outcomes



Demonstration that the use of and
Voluntary implementation of
Survey of producers by the
That rational decisions are made by farmers regarding pesticide use, and
dependency on pesticides can be rationalised
BMP's by a significantly large
Independent Evaluation Panel to
that industry fully collaborates.
whilst maintaining yield and farmer's profit;
group of farmers.
quantify degree of utilization of
dissemination of information and

BMP's and change in practices.
technologies through case studies based on
demonstration projects and training
programmes.
A set of BMP's for the major agricultural
Set of validated and recommended
Endorsement of the BMP's by the
That experts can agree on a common list of BMP's for the region. The
products of the MCB that are
BMP's.
PSC.
risk of non-agreement is small because of the corpus of experience that
environmentally sound, socially acceptable,
already exists on this subject.
and economically feasible and that are
transferable to other parts of the WCR and
the similar areas of the world.
Progress towards streamlined laws and
Recommendations implemented by
Evaluation of steps taken to
That governments will revise and improve present legal framework. This is
regulations that allow for adequate
national governments.
improve the legal frameworks by
a critical assumption since it requires legislative or executive action. This
enforcement.
the Independent Evaluation Panel.
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
Recommendations implemented by
National gazette.
That industry will accept the elimination of market distortions. This is
irrational or indiscriminate use of pesticides.
national governments.
likely since the industry has stated that they are willing to participate and
collaborate fully in this programme.

B- 1

---

SUMMARY
OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE
MEANS OF VERIFICATION
CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS AND RISKS
INDICATORS
Improved public awareness of the
Substantial increase in public
Survey of stakeholders to verify
Message will reach the majority of stakeholders in understandable and
importance of conserving the marine
awareness and increased political
awareness of guidelines,
acceptable terminology. This assumption is likely since there is ample
environment of the Caribbean Sea.
support for the project.
recommendations, and procedures
experience in the region in delivering training courses relating to pesticide
developed by the project. Mention
management and safety.
of the project in national and
regional fora.
Identification of high-risk sources of
Information is disseminated to
Periodic reports to PSC.
That a science-based procedure for risk assessment for application common
contamination at the Demonstration
national stakeholders through the

to the region can be developed and applied.
Project level and assessment of the
NCC.
environmental and human health risks
involved.


Results



Validation of BMP's through twelve
Evaluation of demonstration
Reports to PSC and publication of
That agreement can be reached on validation methods and criteria.
Demonstration Projects covering six crops
projects by independent evaluation
case studies.
on two types of farms
panel.
Incentives policy documents.
Finalised and approved documents.
Endorsement of the incentives
That the regional and national policy documents can be translated into
policy documents by the NCC and
national legislation and other necessary changes to support their
the PSC.
implementation.
A group of well-trained experts capable of
Number of training certificates
Periodic reports to the PSC.
That the trained "trainers" will carry-on providing training. This is a
further training farmers and other
earned.
common risk in "train -the-trainer" programmes and will be minimised
stakeholders.
through project follow-up under the auspices of the UNEP Caribbean
Environment Programme.
Educational and public awareness materials.
Set of finalised documents and
Presentation of documents and
That such material is prepared in terms that can be disseminated properly
material.
materials to PSC.
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
Set of monitorin g protocols.
Endorsement of protocols by the
That countries can agree on common protocols for the region. The risk of
Demonstration Projects, which will serve as
PSC.
non-agreement is small as several institutions are already working on this
standardized protocols for the countries and
topic, and there are existing models for protocols and met hods.
possible models for the WCR and other
regions.
Geo-referenced databases on pesticide runoff
Databases available in user-friendly
Operational website.
The risk of the Governments not providing the necessary level of support
available through the CEPNET
format on www.cep.unep.org .
is low, since all the participating countries have identified this as a critical
clearinghouse mechanism on the Internet.
need.
Three certified laboratories, one per
Certification of laboratories.
Presentat ion of certification
That the costs of maintaining certification would not be sustainable. The
participating country.
documents to PSC.
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




B- 2

---

SUMMARY
OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE
MEANS OF VERIFICATION
CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS AND RISKS
INDICATORS
Implementation of twelve demonstration
Demonstration Projects are being
Field visits by the NPM; periodic
Incentives will be provided to ensure that farmers are willing to implement
projects using BMP's (including site
implemented on the ground.
reports to PSC and publication of
the demonstration projects. The NPMs will monitor project sites regularly
description, baseline monitoring and
case studies.
to minimise the risk that landowners might not maintain agreed practices.
personnel training); and documentation and
dissemination of case studies.
Identification, publication, and
Completion of regional and
Web page with validated BMP's.
That experts can define and agree on what constitutes BMP's. This
dissemination of successful BMP's applied in
national surveys and validation of
assumption is likely to be met since there have been previous efforts to
the region for the rational use of pesticides,
successful projects using BMP's.
define BMP's for the region and there are publications available to assist in
and for reducing pesticide runoff.
this task.
Analysis of possible incentives for reducing
Generic policy document and
Submission of documents to PSC
The project will raise awareness on incentives and the impacts of
pesticides runoff, and of required legislative
recommendations for
for approval.
disincentives, but may fail to see changes in national legislation in a four-
and policy changes for their promotion;
implementation in the three
year period. Ensuring stakeholder participation in the process will help to
establishment of a crop certification
participating countries.
minimise this risk by developing a cadre of knowledgeable people willing to
programme.
make positive change. That an eco- certification programme will receive
regional/international acceptance.
Train -the-trainer programmes for farmers
Training material and trained
Record of training participation.
That enough potential instructors are willing to particip ate in the
and agricultural extensionists in best
personnel.
programme. This assumption is likely to be met as the PDF-B has
management practices.
demonstrated strong commitment from the stakeholders involved.
Development of training and education
Training material for
Submission of training material for
None.
material (organic crop production and
Demonstration Projects and post -
approval by NCC and PSC.
rational pesticide use).
Demonstration Projects.
Establishment of a coastal monitoring
Three accredited laboratories; geo-
Laboratory accreditation
That there is not enough time for laboratories to achieve accreditation.
programme and regional certification
referenced information system of
certificates; information bank that
That countries do not follow up on data gathering and dissemination.
programme.
sources of pesticides that drain into
contains records of pesticide types,
Minimised by the existence of the CEPNET Clearinghouse operated by
the Caribbean Sea; regional
volumes used or discharged;
CEP, and country commitment to comply with Annex IV of the LBS
agreement on a list of pesticides
presentation to the PSC of the
Protocol.
prioritised according to their risks
work plans of the Regional and
and sampling plan underway.
national Committees.
Website development for RPR.
Website acts as clearinghouse for
Working website.
Risks are low to none. CEPNET already has an active website that is
regional information.
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:
Hiring of staff; convening of
Issuance of employment contracts;
That recruitment of the project team can occur within the first three
project manager, Project Steering
meetings of PSC and NCC.
publication of meeting reports.
months of the project and that they have the capacity to begin project
Committee and three National Co -
implementation quickly. The PDF-B has already built technical and
ordination Committees.
administrative capacity within the National Executing Agencies.



B- 3

---

B- 4

---

ANNEX C ­ 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.




C- 1

---

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 approach3 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.


3 See Sven-Olof Ryding (1992) Environmental Management Handbook: The Holistic Approach--from Problems to
Strategies, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, 777 pp.

C- 2

---

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,

C- 3

---

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 10,4 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

4 Operational Program 10 includes as indicative activities, inter alia, global pollutant projects which are designed to
address "toxic pollutants that are persistent in nature...are transported long distances in ocean currents or through
the atmosphere....[and] are associated with certain industrial sectors or processes...[that] cannot be cleaned up
through regional action because this would place the countries or enterprises at an economic disadvantage in world
markets....[Such are] candidates for global action in global pollutant project." Agrochemicals have been documented
as fitting this description.

C- 4

---

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

C- 5

---

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

C- 6

---

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,5 and ,

5 Note: As of 2001, both POPs and land degradation have been added to the GEF family of focal areas as a
consequence of the adoption of international conventions within these areas of emphasis. Thus, this project has
clear linkages to both of these focal areas even though its primary concern is the protection of the marine

C- 7

---

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

environment.

C- 8

---

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.

C- 9

---

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.




C- 10

---

ANNEX C1 ­ 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

C1- 1

---

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

C1- 2

---

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.

C1- 3

---

ANNEX D
ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS:
CAUSES OF PESTICIDE RUNOFF TO THE CARIBBEAN SEA

BACKGROUND

A regional overview of the problems associated with pesticide runoff was obtained from four national6
reports and synthesized into a regional report on reducing pesticide runoff through improved
management. Each national report reviewed the current state of pesticide management from cradle to
grave (i.e., from manufacture or import to sale, application and ultimate fate). As a result of these
evaluations, the national reports, whose development was overseen by committees including a wide
range of stakeholders, were able to identify the major issues and their causes, as well as to identify some
solutions to the problems.

Increased agricultural activity in recent years in the countries of the Southwestern Caribbean Region,
due to growing populations and competition for a share of global markets, has heightened concern
about possible contamination of soils, groundwater and surface water. Significant quantities of pesticides
are mobilized from agricultural land uses and transported through watercourses into receiving coastal
waters. The capacity of coastal zones and marginal seas to assimilate wastes is limited. The information
available in the Gulf of Mexico on the effects of high levels of contaminants in sediments and marine
organisms demonstrates the transboundary/regional character of marine environmental problems related
to the use of pesticides in comparable settings.


ROOT CAUSES OF IMPROPER PESTICIDE MANAGEMENT LEADING TO PESTICIDE RUNOFF IN THE
CARIBBEAN SEA

In the analysis of the problem of pesticide runoff into the Caribbean Sea in the National Reports under
the PDF-B, a series of root causes were identified, of which the most important were:
§ cultural and social aspects;
§ policies and institutional structures;
§ markets; and
§ availability of technical information.

Figure 1 of this annex (below) graphically illustrates the underlying root causes of each of these major
causes and identifies their interlinkages and consequential effects and measurable symptoms.

6 The four countries of the Mesoamerican Caribbean Basin participated to PDF-B activities, but Panama has opted
not to participate in the full project due to other national priorities competing for co-financing resources.

D- 1

---

CULTURAL/SOCIAL

A number of issues were identified related to cultural and social factors prevailing in the countries.
Foremost was the lack of awareness on the part of most farmers of the gravity of the problem and of
the possibility of alternatives to the agricultural practices that they currently employ. Second is that when
farmers have not been properly trained in the use of agricultural pesticides, they are often unaware of the
dangers, both to themselves, and to the environment. Finally, there is a fewer number of farmers who
may be aware of the correct procedures or existence of alternatives, but through negligence or apathy
choose not to apply them. All of these situations are a direct result of a lack of education and training.
Without proper knowledge in the use of agro-chemicals, the actions of farmers in these countries will
continue to be a major cause of the contamination of the environment.


POLICIES AND INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURES

The policies and institutional structures of the three countries also have a negative impact on the
environment. Often, inefficient administrative bodies are in charge of implementing the laws that govern
pesticide use and environmental protection; or there may be various institutions with similar functions,
but with conflicting regulations or requirements. The laws themselves can be very complex and difficult
to operationalise. In most cases, however, it is simply a lack of adequate resources for monitoring
compliance with regulations and enforcement of safety precautions, for both workers and the
environment that are the cause of inadequate protection.


MARKETS

The structure of markets are also an important root cause to this environmental problem, mainly due to
the influence of the pesticide producers, both in the countries of the region and in those countries who
import pesticides to the region. The value of the agricultural products paid to the producer is often very
low, even though the required quality standards are very high. The chemical companies sell their
products at high prices, and the producer must use large amounts of inputs, both pesticides and
fertilizers, to maintain high quality standards and to produce higher yields to compensate for low prices.
This tends to maintain the producer in a situation of ever increasing pesticide use, where costs and
benefits are never analysed properly and the costs of environmental degradation never internalised.








D- 2

---

ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS PESTICIDE RUNOFF TO THE CARIBBEAN SEA

SYMPTOMS
Human
Loss of
Pest
Loss of
High Cost
Wildlife Kills
Phytotoxicity
Poisoning
Biodiversity
Resistance
Tourism
of Production
EFFECTS
Health
Deterioration of
Fresh Water
Soil Contamination
Hazards
Marine Environment
Pollution
and Degradation
Low Productivity
PROBLEM
Pesticide Runoff into the Caribbean Sea
CAUSES
Cultural/Social
Policies & Institu-
Market
Technical
tional Structures
Lack of Awareness
Inefficient
Low prices paid to farmers
Information Gaps
of Danger
Administration
for products
Inappropriate and Indiscriminate
Negligence
Legal Complexity
High "esthetic" Quality
Use of Pesticides
Lack of Education
Duplicity of Functions
Standards
Lack of Alternatives (BAP)
and Training
Lack of Resources
High Price of Inputs
Lack of Technology Transfer
for Enforcement
Failure to internalise
Incentives for
Environmental Costs
Pesticide Use
Dominance of
Pesticide Producers
Lack of Research and Development
Inadequate Cost/Benefit
Analysis




TECHNOLOGY AVAILABILITY AND INFORMATION

The fourth root cause of pesticide runoff and environmental pollution of the Caribbean Sea identified in
the National Reports is the lack of technology transfer. Frequently the most current technological
information is not available to the farmers and other stakeholders in the countries of the region. When
farmers do not have information concerning the correct pesticide application procedures, the result is
inappropriate and indiscriminate pesticide use. Furthermore, the lack of information concerning safety
requirements for handling of pesticides has lead to the incorrect use of personal protection equipment.
Many times equipment is not used because workers find it hot and cumbersome, thus greatly increasing
their health risks.7 Another issue is the lack of information concerning the BMPs that could be

7 Though this project is primarily concerned with environmental protection, this point is important as it indicates a

D- 3

---

employed. Many times alternatives are not considered because there is a lack of information to simply
identify which BMPs are appropriate.

lack of knowledge or consideration for one's own personal health, and exemplifies the challenges for awareness and
education if one is to ask these same workers to concern themselves with the environment. The project which is
focused on the environment will have the added benefit of increased personal protection and safety of agricultural
workers.

D- 4

---

ANNEX E
PUBLICATIONS PREPARED UNDER THE PDF BLOCK B GRANT


The following PDF-B outputs used as background for this brief can be found at:
www.cep.unep.org/pubs/meetingreports/GEF-Pesticides/GEF%20Pesticides.htm

§ Vertimiento de Plaguicidas en el Mar Caribe de La República de Panamá, Autoridad
Marítima de Panamá, Dirección General de Marina Mercante, Departamento de Prevención y
Control de la Contaminación, pp. 151, Panamá, 17 de Noviembre de 2000. (Spanish only,
Executive Summary in English)

§ Informe Nacional sobre el Uso y Manejo de Plaguicidas en Colombia, Tendiente a
Identificar y Proponer Alternativas para Reducir el Escurrimiento de Plaguicidas al Mar
Caribe, Ministerio del Medio Ambiente, Direccion General Ambiental Sectorial, Proyecto
Pnuma//UCR/CAR-Global Environment Facility, Juan Pablo Bonilla Arboleda, et. al., pp.
155, Bogotá, noviembre 24 de 2.000. (Spanish only, Executive Summary in English)

§ Reduccion del Escurrimiento de Plaguicidas al Mar Caribe, Informe Nacional: Costa
Rica, Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía (MINAE), Escuela Agrícola de La Región del Trópico
Húmedo (EARTH), pp. 94, Diciembre 2000. (Spanish only, Executive Summary in English)

§ Proyecto de Reduccion del Escurrimiento de Plaguicidas en el Mar Caribe, Informe
Nacional de Nicaragua, Ministerio del Ambiente y Los Recursos Naturales (Direcccion
General de Control Ambiental Direccion de Vigilancia y Control Ambiental), Programa de
Naciones Unidas Para el Medio Ambiente, Mario A. Vaughan, et. al., Managua, Nicaragua,
noviembre de 2000. (Spanish only, Executive Summary in English)

§ Reducing Pesticide Run-off to the Caribbean Sea, Regional Report, Global Environment
Facility, UNEP-CAR-RCU, EARTH College, pp. 99, February 2001. (Spanish and English)








E- 1

---

ANNEX F
DRAFT TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR PROJECT STEERING COMMITTEE (PSC), NATIONAL CO-
ORDINATING COMMITTEE (NCC) AND PROJECT MANAGER: "REDUCING PESTICIDE RUNOFF TO
THE CARIBBEAN SEA"
(TO BE FINALISED DURING APPRAISAL PHASE)


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


F- 1

---

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.


F- 2

---

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;

F- 3

---

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.

______________________________________________________________

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.

F- 4

---

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 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. Ten years of relevant work experience with at least three years
international experience. United Nations experience an asset. Experience with Central/Latin American
agriculture issues desired. Excellent written and oral communication skills in English essential and
demonstrated working knowledge of Spanish required.




F- 5

---