Executive summary

Background

The overall objective of the project is to develop and start implementation of a Lake Peipsi / Chudskoe Basin Management Program including practical recommendations for the Lake Peipsi / Chudskoe nutrient load reduction and prevention and the sustainable conservation of habitats and eco-systems in the cross-border region. The project is substituting uncoordinated small-scale projects that would be otherwise implemented separately on the Estonian and Russian sides without sufficient coordination, education and public information component, and without taking into account interest of local stakeholder groups and wider public.

The main outputs of the project are:

Management Programme ( Strategy Document) and Action Plan prepared and approved by all relevant Estonian and Russian authorities;
Strengthened Capacity of key regional stakeholders (including environmental monitoring infrastructure and data collection and maintenance system);
Networking and information exchange established;
Two pilot projects implemented in Estonia: one on eutrophication reduction through planning water systems in small community and the second one on ecotourism and nature protection (ecological route).

The project is executed by international NGO Peipsi Center for Transboundary Co-operation. Due to the nature of the project the implementation of project activities are done by two Project Implementation Units situated in Tartu, Estonia and Pskov, Russia. Overall management of the project is responsibility of Project Manager situated in St. Petersburg liaison office, Russia.

Purpose

The purpose of this Mid-Term evaluation is to provide an overall assessment of the project and an opportunity to critically assess administrative and technical strategies and issues. The evaluation gives recommendations to improve the potential of the Project to achieve expected outcomes and objectives within the Project timeframe.

Progress

The project has four stated objectives (presented above). An estimate of completion of each of these objectives was given by the Project Manager. These estimates were considered by the Evaluation Team to be consistent with the quarterly reports submitted to UNDP/GEF.

Objective 1 – Management Programme – This was considered to be 30 – 40% complete. The nutrient reduction programme began as scheduled and there have been two joint monitoring programmes. The development of the overall joint Management Programme began in Year 2 (this was re-scheduled – originally planned to begin at the start of the project). Results from the EC Life Environment Viru-Peipsi CAMP project (Estonia), later referred as Life project and the EC Tacis project (Russia) will have significant inputs to this project. Both these projects are considered to be delayed and this will have an impact on this component. However this was not considered by either the Project Team or the key stakeholders to be significant. (The anticipated completion of the work from the Life and Tacis projects of benefit to the UNDP/GEF project is the end of 2004 enabling the final year of the project to develop a joint Management Plan.
Objective 2 – Strengthening Capacity of local stakeholders (Joint Water Commission / NGOs / Local Authorities) is considered to be 60% complete. This component is an important building block leading to the successful implantation of the Management Plan.
Objective 3 – Networking and Information exchange Some aspects of this component are complete and operational (e.g. web) although in need of continual maintenance. Dissemination of project information is on-going to general public, press and other stakeholders.
Objective 4 – Two Pilot Projects – These projects have been started in the first year of the project (originally planned to begin in year 2) and are considered to be over 75% complete.

Conclusion

The project ‘Development and Implementation of the Lake Peipsi / Chudskoe Basin Management Program’ is considered by the Evaluation Team to be progressing well according to the current plan and could be classified as a ‘satisfactory – good’ project. The range here indicates that there are certain aspects of the project implementation that are considered to be well executed or ‘good’ (for example, the project management and the team undertaking the work) and some aspects that were considered to be progressing ‘satisfactorily’ (for example the cross-border cop-operation leading to the development and implementation of the management plan which are outside the control of the project team) The project team undertaking the work is considered to have the necessary expertise on both technical issues and project management skills. There are few immediate concerns observed associated with this project, and the main issue here is probably beyond the scope of this project and clearly in the domain of the Governments of Russia and Estonia. However there were a number of points raised by stakeholders and staff that could lead to strengthening of the project. Some of these issues are known to have been addressed recently or are in the process of being addressed.

The following ‘Issues of Concern’ were identified:

Agreement on Water Quality Status between Russia and Estonia. This is a potentially serious issue that could lead to the failure of an agreement of a joint management plan for the lake. The problem stems from the differing approaches to monitoring (specifically, sampling and analysis) of water in Russia and Estonia. Whilst there have been two joint monitoring programmes there are believed to be still differing conclusions on the results. The impact of this is the interpretation of the water quality in the lake varying between ‘good’ and ‘moderate’ which has an impact on the level of measures that are needed to improve the situation in Russia and Estonia. To resolve this situation the following recommendations are made (these are not necessarily the responsibility of the UNDP/GEF project, but the project is urged to suggest these as urgent recommendations to the Russian/Estonian authorities):

Agreement is needed on comparable monitoring systems. This does not imply the need to use identical methods, but there needs to be sufficient confidence that the data provided is comparable. This can be achieved by strict testing of the analytical methods (‘performance’ testing), the introduction of a recognised system of analytical quality control and the participation of all laboratories in inter-laboratory check-sample tests. In addition to the analytical agreement needed, there should also be comparability in sampling methods.
Monitoring should be extended to include biological parameters (this is a requirement for Estonia under the WFD).
Data collected from the lake (and key tributaries) should be shared as soon as possible after validation.

Strengthening the role of the Joint Water Commission. As the designated body for implementing the Management Programme this organisation should be given greater resources and responsibilities. There are a number of models within Europe that could be taken for this role (Rhine Commission, Danube Commission, Black Sea Commission, etc.)
Development of Management Programme is dependent on the output of the EC Life and Tacis programmes Both projects are developing national management plans. The role of the UNDP/GEF project will be to build on these plans to construct an agreed international management plan. Whilst there is no suggestion that there is poor contact between the various projects associated with Lake Peipsi / Chudskoe, the evaluation team recommends:

Maintenance of frequent contact by the UNDP/GEF project with the EC Life and Tacis projects.

Extent of the Management Programme. Various stakeholders have different perceptions towards the Management Programme. The evaluation team did not get clear understanding on the content and extent of the management plan. Although but the interviews they did expressed quite a different perceptions on the programme. In the monitoring teams’ opinion for some stakeholders there are too high expectations towards the programme. It too early to provide statements, but fro evaluation team it seems obvious from the current state of development of the national river basin management plans for Lake Peipsi / Chudskoe that it would be difficult to comprise extensive and comprehensive common programme, based on those plans. As all three important projects end at almost same time there is also little time available for extensive elaboration of the plan. In the evaluation teams view the programme will rather list of objectives and tasks which will be basis for further activities. In order to avoid the disappointment of the stakeholders which do anticipate from the programme “an ideal product” the evaluation team recommends:

Compilation of basic structure and draft ideas of the Management Programme by the CTC and presentation it for comments and approval to the Joint Water Commission and its key members within close future.

Dissemination of project material. Whilst this is considered to be very successful in most areas (in particular the information on the web was praised by a number of the interviewees) some issues have been raised. There is a perception (by some interviewees) that there is an over-dependency on web based information over more conventional methods. More importantly, there have been issues over publications addressing the lake (on birds and fish for example) that have initially only been published in Estonia. These had maps that showed no details of the Russian side of the Lake. Whilst it is inevitable (and desirable) that publications are produced in the local language, it would also be more inclusive to show the lake as a whole. The Evaluation Team recommends:

Future publications are produced showing features of the whole lake, and produced in both the national languages;
Additional material is prepared (or if this exists) and disseminated to supplement material available on the web. The Evaluation Team accepts that this is a difficult issue to address as the comments made by interviewees were their perception and in general the Evaluation Team was very impressed with the level of information prepared for the general public by the project.

Industry and farming stakeholders. To date there has been little involvement of industrial stakeholders in this project and less input targeted at the farming community that would be desirable. The Evaluation Team recommends:

Greater involvement of industrial and agricultural stakeholders in the preparation of national and international Management Programmes for Lake Peipsi / Chudskoe.

Project duration: Whilst some stakeholders suggested a delay in the completion date of the project, the majority (and the Project Team) considered that the existing duration was sufficient to develop a Management Programme for Lake Peipsi / Chudskoe (subject to the timely completion of the relevant components of the EC Life and Tacis projects. The Evaluation Team recommends:

There is no need to seek an extension to the UNDP/GEF project.

UNDP/GEF Management Software: This is considered to be complex and inflexible. It is not considered to enable sufficient financial detail to be utilised to enable the project to be effectively managed

Lessons Learnt

This project is meeting or is planning to meet the key objectives presented in the project documents. This is largely due to the effective project management team that is executing the project plus a well designed and specified project plan. Some examples of lessons learnt from this project include:

Stakeholder involvement – there has been a high level of involvement of the stakeholders in this project. This has been recognised (evidence from interviews, reports on workshops/meetings, etc.) by a range of different stakeholders. The focus to-date has been more at government and the local public involvement than with industry and farming community. It is important that these stakeholders have a higher profile in the project in future.
Public awareness raising - linked to the stakeholder involvement, the project has clearly devoted significant attention to informing the public on the issues surrounding the project. This has involved the production of information packs for schools and other groups, preparation of press releases and the holding of meetings of interest to the general public. ;
NGO engagement the project has had 16 group interviews with local NGOs and has had participation at other meeting from NGOs. There is a perception from government experts that the project is focused more at NGOs than providing ‘assistance’ to the national governments. More effort is probably needed to explain the impact of the project to all stakeholders.
Capacity building through workshops and seminars – a significant number of specific seminars have been held related to this project. The beneficiaries of these training opportunities have been a range of stakeholders, including NGOs (on management issues), nature guides, municipality staff, etc. Feedback from the interviews conducted by the Evaluation Team has been very positive with respect to the topics and the contents. The key topics presented have included:

3 seminars on eutrophication
2 seminars on biological farming
2 seminars on eco-tourism;
2 seminars on water management plans

Support for project from local / regional government – local and national government officials interviewed for this mid-term evaluation, clearly indicated their support for the project. However this support needs to be translated into better co-operation and agreement on establishing regular international monitoring programmes to enable the key output – the development of a Management Programme – to be completed. The lesson here is not new – the difficulties of establishing acceptable politically agreed monitoring programmes and standards have been underestimated.
Small grant facility within the project – this has received considerable interest. 35 proposals were submitted by April 2004 and the project is now expecting to support 19 projects (with a total budget of about 4.5 k USD) in 2004. The assessment of the proposals followed agreed procedures (UNDP/GEF) and were evaluated against criteria developed under this project. The anticipation is that all projects will be completed this year. This procedure is expected to be repeated next year and is considered so far to be very beneficial to, and by, local communities.;
Web site dissemination the web site is perceived as a important output from this project by a range of stakeholders interviewed. The only concern raised was if too much attention was given to this form of dissemination against more ‘conventional’ methods which would disadvantage stakeholders with limited access to the web;
Internal project meetings – initially there had been concerns between the three project offices (Pskov, St Petersburg and Tartu) associated with communications and awareness within the project team. This seems to have been overcome through the introduction, within the project, of regular team meetings to ensure clear objectives for all staff and to improve the overall ‘team spirit’.

1 Introduction

1.1 Project Background

The development objective of the project is to prepare, adopt and launch Lake Peipsi/Chudskoe Basin Management Programme for the nutrient load reduction and the sustainable development of the cross-border region.

The main outputs of the project are:

Management Programme ( Strategy Document) and Action Plan prepared and approved by all relevant Estonian and Russian authorities;
Strengthened Capacity of key regional stakeholders (including environmental monitoring infrastructure and data collection and maintenance system);
Networking and information exchange established;
Two pilot projects implemented in Estonia: one on eutrophication reduction through planning water systems in small community and the second one on ecotourism and nature protection (ecological route).

1.2 Purpose of the evaluation

The Mid-Term evaluation is intended to provide a comprehensive overall assessment of the project. The mid-term evaluation provides an opportunity to critically assess administrative and technical strategies, issues and constrains associated with large international and multi-partner initiative. The evaluation gives recommendations for to improve the potential of the Project to achieve expected outcomes and meet objectives within the Project timeframe.

1.3 Key issues addressed

To assess overall performance against the Project objectives as set out in Project Document and other related documents;
To assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the Project;
To critically analyze the implementation and management arrangements of the Project;
To list and document initial lessons concerning Project design, implementation and management;
To assess Project outcomes to date and review planned strategies and plans for achieving the overall objectives of the Project within the timeframe;
To assess Project relevance to national priorities both in Estonia and Russia;
To provide guidance for the future Project activities and, if necessary, for the implementation and management arrangements;
To assess project sustainability and gender balance.

1.4 Methodology of the evaluation

An Evaluation Team was appointed by the UNDP/GEF Peipsi project comprising of:

Dr Peter Whalley – Team Leader – International Expert
Dr Evgeny Kurashov – Russian Expert
Toomas Pallo – Estonian Expert

The Mid-Term Evaluation has been undertaken through a combination of processes including a desk study, selected site visits and interviews stakeholders (but not restricted to): Peipsi CTC, UNDP, Government officials of Estonia and Russia on different levels, local municipalities, local NGOs, communities etc.

The methodology for the evaluation covered the following areas:

Desk study review of all relevant Project documentation
An assessment of the performance of the project against the ‘Indicators of success’ presented in the initial project document;
Consultations with Peipsi CTC, UNDP , PIUs and offices,
Site visits to Lake Peipsi and its adjacent areas, Tartu, Pskov and Tallinn
Interviews with stakeholders

Ministry of the Environment of Estonia and its authorities under its subordinance
Russian Ministry of Natural Resources and its territorial bodies
The Estonian-Russian Trans-boundary Water Commission
Local Municipalities
Local community representatives
NGOs from Lake Peipsi / Chudskoe region
Other projects in the Peipsi / Chudskoe region

1.5 Structure of the evaluation

The Mid-Term Evaluation is comprised of a series of documents compiled in this report, consisting of:

This main report, presenting a summary of the findings and recommendations for future activities;
A Mission report by the Evaluation Team following a visit to the Project offices in Tartu and Pskov including a list of all persons met or interviewed;
An assessment of the ‘Project Success Indicators’ compiled by the Evaluation Team and the UNDP/GEF offices;
List of the main information sources used from the Project;
Questions asked of stakeholders, staff at the project offices and other meetings;
Responses to these questions;

1.6 Structure of this Report

This report is divided into a number of key sections following the recommendations presented in the ToR for this mid-term evaluation (see Annex 1). The report is supported by a Annexes.

Annex 1 Terms of Reference for the Mid-Term Evaluation of the UNDP/GEF Project ‘Development and Implementation of the Lake Peipsi / Chudskoe Basin Management Programme.

Annex 2 Proposed Approach by Team Leader to Evaluation

Annex 3 Mission Report

Annex 4 Key Documents Reviewed

Annex 5 Stakeholder Questionnaire

Annex 6 Project Staff Questionnaire

The Responses to the Stakeholder and Project Staff Questionnaire are located in a separate document together with notes from a ‘round-table’ meeting of stakeholders on 17 June 2004.

2 The Project and its development context

	Context
Project start and its duration	January 2003, Duration 3 years
Implementation status	On-going
Problems that the project seeks to address	Management Programme ( Strategy Document) and Action Plan prepared and approved by all relevant Estonian and Russian authorities; Strengthened Capacity of key regional stakeholders (including environmental monitoring infrastructure and data collection and maintenance system); Networking and information exchange established; Two pilot projects implemented in Estonia: one on eutrophication reduction through planning water systems in small community and the second one on ecotourism and nature protection (ecological route).
Immediate and development objectives of the project	To strengthen local capacity to implement an agreed international management programme for the protection of Lake Peipsi / Chudskoe.
Main stakeholders	Ministry of Environment – Estonia Ministry of Natural Resources – Russian Federation Joint Water Commission Local and Regional NGOs
Results expected	Management Programme agreed by Russia and Estonia with appropriately trained staff within responsible organisations and enhanced stakeholders involvement in the region.

3 Findings and Conclusions

3.1 Introduction

The assessment of the project’s performance has been evaluated as described above. The report will follow (where appropriate) the layout specified in the ToR, and covers three main areas:

Project Delivery
Project Implementation
Project Finances

3.2 Key Observations from Stakeholder and Project Staff Interviews.

Project is proceeding according to expectations of interviewed stakeholders.
There is good contact between UNDP/GEF project office and stakeholders;
Support for the ‘small grants’ procedures within project;
Web is considered to be significant access (providing stakeholders have access!);
Concern over the lack of co-ordination (to date) on developing an integrated monitoring plan;
Increased co-operation between government officials in Russia and Estonia in developing plans to protect the lake;
Some confusion exists over work of UNDP/GEF project and EC Tacis project. Although this could demonstrate that there is good integration between the projects;
Timing of project (both delayed start of TACIS and Life projects) could have an impact;
Project has had significant impact with local stakeholders by providing support for workshops and training programmes;
There is good communication between project team and stakeholders at all levels;
Important that the Management Plan developed is incorporated into operational plans by regional administrations/municipalities;
Published outputs are considered to be of significant benefit – especially as teaching material;
Project team are very positive in assisting the press;
Important that the Management Plan is published in the public domain and that there is a clear and demonstrable support for the plan from all the main stakeholders;
Project promotes international co-operation;

The project is viewed as having an impact at local, national and international levels;

The EC Tacis and Life projects are seen to be complementary to the UNDP/GEF project;
There is no need to extend the duration of the project – the key outputs from the Tacis project (in case of timely preparation) will enable the Management Plan to be developed.

3.3 Project Delivery

Progress of the project as a whole in achieving its stated objectives. The project has four stated objectives (presented above). An estimate of completion of each of these objectives was given by the Project Manager. These estimates were considered by the Evaluation Team to be consistent with the quarterly reports submitted to UNDP/GEF.

Objective 1 – Management Programme – This was considered to be 30 – 40% complete. The nutrient reduction programme began as scheduled and there have been two joint monitoring programmes. The development of the overall joint Management Programme began in Year 2 (this was re-scheduled – originally planned to begin at the start of the project). Results from the EC Life Environment Viru-Peipsi CAMP project (Estonia), later referred as Life project and the EC Tacis project (Russia) will have significant inputs to this project. Both these projects are considered to be delayed and this will have an impact on this component. However this was not considered by either the Project Team or the key stakeholders to be significant. (The anticipated completion of the work from the Life and Tacis projects of benefit to the UNDP/GEF project is the end of 2004 enabling the final year of the project to develop a joint Management Plan.
Objective 2 – Strengthening Capacity of local stakeholders (Joint Water Commission / NGOs / Local Authorities) is considered to be 60% complete. This component is an important building block leading to the successful implantation of the Management Plan.
Objective 3 – Networking and Information exchange Some aspects of this component are complete and operational (e.g. web) although in need of continual maintenance. Dissemination of project information is on-going to general public, press and other stakeholders.
Objective 4 – Two Pilot Projects – These projects have been started in the first year of the project (originally planned to begin in year 2) and are considered to be over 75% complete.

Effectiveness, efficiency and timeliness of project implementation. On the basis of the quarterly reports, discussion with project staff and with stakeholders, the project is proceeding close to the original plan. Two changes in timings were reported to ensure more effective delivery of results. The two pilot projects were brought forward to enable the outputs of these to be assessed whilst the UNDP/GEF project was still operational. The start of development of the joint Management Plan was delayed to the second year to enable more information to be available from the EC Life and Tacis projects.
Stakeholder participation and partnerships. This is a key part of this overall project and the feedback from all stakeholders interviewed on the involvement of, and awareness in the project was supportive. The compound of rising public awareness was stressed by all persons interviewed. Initiation of discussion on water management issues among local people was praised by stakeholders.

3.4 Project Implementation

Project Overview – The feedback from the interviews conducted with stakeholders in both Russia and Estonia was very positive on the overall performance of this project (interviews are presented in a separate document). There are difficulties with the project but these are unlikely to be solvable by the Project Team. For example, the development of the joint management plan is very dependent on international agreements between Russia and Estonia. However the involvement of stakeholders, including the general public, is good and an important success criteria of the project.
Project Execution – the project appears to be well planned and executed. Where changes to the programme have been requested (see above) the revised timescales have been adhered to.
General Project Implementation – the CTC office in Tartu and the Programme Implementation Unit in Pskov are well staffed and equipped. Interviews with the staff indicate a clear understanding of the overall objectives of the project. The staff available within the project offices are well qualified to carry out the components of this project. The fact that the CTC has offices in Estonia and Russia which are manned with local staff makes the project familiar with local conditions on both sides of the lake. This is of great advantages of the CTC which can not be underestimated and has been mentioned in several stakeholder interviews.
Professionalism of the project staff – Few stakeholders have made reference on the project teams’ capacity in water management. They although admitted that the project has managed to contract highly qualified specialists to fulfil the on water management and relevant areas. It shall be noted that despite of comprehensively small staff, they are also experts in their own fields. All interviewed stakeholders agreed also that the project management performance is excellent.
Project Administration – Financial management of this project is controlled from the CTC Tartu Office. All necessary procedures appear to be in place. Technical administration of the components is undertaken by the expert responsible in collaboration with the appropriate Project Co-ordinator, the Project Advisor and the Project Manager. In addition, both project offices have competent administrative assistants to provide project logistical support for workshops, seminars etc.
Project Planning – Planning is conducted on a regular basis by the senior project staff. This appears to be satisfactory.
Monitoring and Evaluation – The project is subject to regular (quarterly) reporting requirements to UNDP/GEF. This reporting appears to be a concise representation of progress of the project and planned activities. Input is also provided to the project from a Steering Group of national stakeholders and project meetings are held with both the Steering Group and representatives of the Joint Water Commission (e.g. meeting on 17 June during this Evaluation Mission) to inform on progress and to seek feedback and endorsement on the approach.
Coordination with similar projects – It is already referred several times in the current report that the project does cooperate closely with the EU funded Life and Tacis projects. As an example in Estonia the UNDP/GEF and Life projects have divided tasks of carrying out river basin modelling. The projects have had and are planning to have common public outreach activities. The projects have similar Steering Groups and project managers do meet regularly. Avoidance of duplication and share of resources is positive.
Public awareness – Rise of public awareness in water protection and management issues as well in environment in general is one of the tasks of the project. From the interviews with the local NGOs representatives and governmental authorities this was considered as one of the major outcomes of the project so far. Stakeholder groups in the area of Lake Peipsi / Chudskoe have been provided with information and they are given opportunities to participate seminars and workshops.
Risk Management – The key risk to overall project is the failure for the Joint Water Commission and the Governments of Estonia and Russia to agree important issues regarding monitoring and assessment of the trans-boundary lake. This is difficulty appears to be well known by all stakeholders. Whilst the title of the project refers to the ‘development and implementation’ of a management programme it is understood by all parties that this does not refer to the ‘full’ implementation of the management programme. However it is agreed that many of the components of this management programme will be implemented and these will have a beneficial impact on the final implementation of the recommended management programme by the two National Governments. There do not appear to be any other significant risks to the completion of the project.

3.5 Project Finance

Financial Planning is based on the direction of the Project Manager in consultation with the Project Advisor, the two Project Co-ordinators (Tartu and Pskov) and the Financial Manager. Planning of the project is on an annual basis with quarterly review. The procedures adopted appear to be sufficient to ensure a clear understanding of the financial position in line with the project activities.
Budget Procedures are linked to the Financial Planning process and the team agree any revisions of budget headings prior to seeking UNDP/GEF approval.
Disbursements there are no significant cash disbursements from the project other than reimbursement of travel/accommodation for participants at workshops / seminars. Sub-contractors are funded through quarterly pre-payments. The procedures adopted appear to be sufficient to control the external payments.
Effectiveness of funding mechanisms – A number of issues regarding the operation of the UNDP/GEF processes were highlighted. These have been brought to the attention of UNDP/GEF by the project team before, however the key concerns raised during the discussions included:

Considerable time is required to get budget change approval (both between years of the project and expense headings).
Significant problems have arisen from the introduction by UNDP/GEF of new project management / financial management software. The new system does not provide sufficient detail to manage the project. These problems have been acknowledged by UNDP/GEF but there is no solution as yet.
Payments from UNDP/GEF are made to the project in USD but payments to sub-contractors have to be made in local currency. Sub-contracts contain a clause that exchange rates are calculated on a quarterly basis. Since the start of the project the USD has dropped in value by over 30% against the Estonian Kroon. Fortunately sub-contractors have been very understanding and have been prepared to cut their work programmes to accommodate the budget available. This, inevitably, will have an impact on the overall project.

Sustainability of project organisation – Sustainability of project organisation which is executing the project - CTC is important aspect from the project financial point of view. CTC is an organisation which has been operational before the UNDP/GEF project and is carrying out other international and local projects. That gives for CTC certain independence from single funding agency. As it is understood from the interviews with the staff, in the cases of problems CTC can handle short term financial obligations to the sub-contractors within its budget limitations. It can be discussed though how much this is acceptable, but certainly this enables to keep the reputation of the project.
Risks – Financial risks for this project are considered to be low. Quarterly payments are made to sub-contractors. Audit procedures are in place and are operational from both UNDP/GEF and the Estonian Authorities.

Result Based Indicators to Measure Success of the Project (from project document)

Indicator	Status
The Management Program as an official legal document in Estonia and Russia for implementation of development and environmental protection measures in the Lake Peipsi/Chudskoe Basin.	The need for a Joint Programme has been confirmed. Agreement has been reached for a ToR to be prepared to enable a tender to be issued for the Programme. The Management Programme can be considered to be in a ‘preparation phase’ The Evaluation Team considered that this work was satisfactory
The coordinated monitoring program gives reliable and calibrated data for the Management Plan and a program of nutrient reduction plan.	Joint Monitoring Programme has still not been approved, but two joint sampling missions have been completed. Discussions on the harmonisation of the monitoring are under discussion but a conclusion is still considered to be distant; The preparation of a co-ordinated monitoring programme is considered to be one of the more significant challenges facing the project by the Evaluation Team. A recommendation is made for more active involvement from leading scientific organisations (Russian, Estonian and International) to assist with resolving this issue.
The Joint Commission as a basis for the strategic planning and coordination of different economic, environmental, and social activities that take place in the region use the Management Program developed.	The Joint Commission is fully briefed on the activities of the project; The initial concepts of the Management Programme have been discussed with the Joint Commission; The Joint Commission is actively involved in the preparatory phase of the Management Programme; Relevant Joint Commission experts are involved in the project; The Joint Commission will take on the responsibilities of many of the Management Programmes recommendations and they appear to be sufficiently actively involved to ensure that the outputs of this project will address their needs.
The Joint Commission acts as a facilitator for implementation of the Transboundary Water Agreement and in developing strategies for the long-term sustainable development in the region.	The Joint Commission operates under international agreement and the project has actively supported initiatives (e.g. financial support for meetings, equipment purchase, publications, etc.) The Joint Commission receive quarterly reports on the project and presentation on the project status are made by the Project Manager; The Joint Commission assists by providing direction for the UNDP/GEF project.
Agreed nutrient load reduction strategy and targets aimed towards ecosystem restoration and incorporating adaptive management approach for changing conditions identified through monitoring program.	A strategy is under development. The Estonian part of the strategy will bee completed by the end of 2004. The Russian side is delayed due to slippage of the EC Tacis project which is co-ordinating with the UNDP/GEF project; Problems associated with the harmonisation of the monitoring programmes will have an impact on the agreed nutrient reduction strategy.
River basin authorities and the Joint Commission receive a reliable and adequate environmental data those serve as a basis for the development of the Management Program. This includes data on nutrient load and eutrophication in the lake basin, status of the lake ecosystem, estimates of the riverine loads to the lake, estimate of the pollution sources, retention and buffering capacity in the drainage basin and the lake, and empirical data on the lake water quality.	Two joint sampling and analysis missions have been completed to collect data for establishing the status of the Lake. These missions has provided a good basis for the comparison of methods used for sampling and analysis in Russia and Estonia; Whilst differences in approach are not ideal, the available information enables initial estimates of nutrient (and other pollutant) loads to be made. The Evaluation Team recommends that the approach to sampling should be carefully reviewed and comparative data collected in the future
Harmonized monitoring program and information management system for the lake basin developed.	Information Management systems are under discussion between Estonia and Russia to agree the data that will be exchanged in the future. These discussions are being conducted with the involvement of the Joint Commission. These discussions can (and should) proceed in parallel to agreements being sought on a harmonised monitoring programme.
Governments, NGOs, and other stakeholders fully engaged in preparation and implementation of the Management Program.	This project has already completed many seminars, round-table meetings to provide a good base of understanding within stakeholder communities. There is excellent involvement of interested stakeholders. Key meetings completed include: 16 group interviews with local NGOs Meeting with specialists in region to establish training needs Joint seminar for Joint Water Commission (2003) Seminar with UNECE on Transboundary waters Transboundary Joint Water Commission Meeting (2004) 3 seminars on eutrophication 2 seminars on biological farming 2 seminars on eco-tourism 2 seminars on water management plans 3 seminars to introduce results on water management plans to local authorities; 11 meetings / workshops / seminars to promote the UNDP/GEF project
Web site is operational and widely utilized in lake basin;	Web site created (www.peipsi.org/gef) and intranet for project staff and invited stakeholders. The web site was considered by the Evaluation Team to be of significant benefit to the project assisting well with the dissemination of the products of this project.
Regular publications on lake issues broadly disseminated.	There have been numerous publications by the project in a wide range of the media. There are regular publications describing the Lake and its problems. These include: Birds on Lake Peipsi / Chudskoe Fish Eutrophication issues Two small grant programmes have been launched to promote environmental and water protection activities in the region.
Increased networking, cooperation, and communication of the Joint Commission with other relevant commissions and international organizations.	There have been several events devoted to this topic, with additional activities planned. Key international co-operation activities include: Joint seminar for Estonian – Russian Joint Water Commission and the Finnish – Norwegian Transboundary Water Commission aimed at exchanging experiences (May 2003) Seminar on UNECE Transboundary Convention and the EU Water Framework Directive aimed at Participatory approaches in Europe and the NIS countries to promote co-operation between the Estonian – Russian Water Commission and the Kazakhstan – Kyrgyzstan Transboundary water Joint Commission (June 2003)
“Lake Peipsi/Chudskoe Water Club” functioning as a mechanism for stakeholder involvement in lake management and decision-making processes.	Discussions on the establishment of a ‘water club’ or ‘water council’ is actively in progress. These discussions are expected to lead to the drafting of the main concepts of a Lake Peipsi / Chudskoe Water Club.
Water- and ecological tourism program is an environmental protection and local development program that motivates stakeholders to get involved in implementation of the Management Plan.	ToR on a feasibility study for water and eco-tourism is under preparation.
Two demonstration projects successfully implemented and monitored which produce measurable reductions in lake nutrient loads; lessons from these pilots broadly disseminated.	One project on public water supply and sewerage system in Rapina municipality is due for completion in July 2004; The second project is due to be selected soon.

4 Issues and Recommendations

The project ‘Development and Implementation of the Lake Peipsi / Chudskoe Basin Management Program’ is considered by the Evaluation Team to be progressing well and according to the current plan. The project team undertaking the work is considered to have the necessary expertise on both technical issues and project management skills. There are few immediate concerns observed associated with this project, and the main issue here is probably beyond the scope of this project and clearly in the domain of the Governments of Russia and Estonia. However there were a number of points raised by stakeholders and staff that could lead to strengthening of the project. Some of these issues are known to have been addressed recently or are in the process of being addressed.

The following ‘Issues of Concern’ were identified:

Agreement on Water Quality Status between Russia and Estonia. This is a potentially serious issue that could lead to the failure of an agreement of a joint management plan for the lake. The problem stems from the differing approaches to monitoring (specifically, sampling and analysis) of water in Russia and Estonia. Whilst there have been two joint monitoring programmes there are believed to be still differing conclusions on the results. The impact of this is the interpretation of the water quality in the lake varying between ‘good’ and ‘moderate’ which has an impact on the level of measures that are needed to improve the situation in Russia and Estonia. To resolve this situation the following recommendations are made (these are not necessarily the responsibility of the UNDP/GEF project, but the project is urged to suggest these as urgent recommendations to the Russian/Estonian authorities):

Agreement is needed on comparable monitoring systems. This does not imply the need to use identical methods, but there needs to be sufficient confidence that the data provided is comparable. This can be achieved by strict testing of the analytical methods (‘performance’ testing), the introduction of a recognised system of analytical quality control and the participation of all laboratories in inter-laboratory check-sample tests. In addition to the analytical agreement needed, there should also be comparability in sampling methods.
Monitoring should be extended to include biological parameters (this is a requirement for Estonia under the WFD).
Data collected from the lake (and key tributaries) should be shared as soon as possible after validation.

Strengthening the role of the Joint Water Commission. As the designated body for implementing the Management Programme this organisation should be given greater resources and responsibilities. There are a number of models within Europe that could be taken for this role (Rhine Commission, Danube Commission, Black Sea Commission, etc.)
Development of Management Programme is dependent on the output of the EC Life and Tacis programmes Both projects are developing national management plans. The role of the UNDP/GEF project will be to build on these plans to construct an agreed international management plan. Whilst there is no suggestion that there is poor contact between the various projects associated with Lake Peipsi / Chudskoe, the evaluation team recommends:

Maintenance of frequent contact by the UNDP/GEF project with the EC Life and Tacis projects.

Extent of the Management Programme. Various stakeholders have different perceptions towards the Management Programme. The evaluation team did not get clear understanding on the content and extent of the management plan. Although but the interviews they did expressed quite a different perceptions on the programme. In the monitoring teams’ opinion for some stakeholders there are too high expectations towards the programme. It too early to provide statements, but fro evaluation team it seems obvious from the current state of development of the national river basin management plans for Lake Peipsi / Chudskoe that it would be difficult to comprise extensive and comprehensive common programme, based on those plans. As all three important projects end at almost same time there is also little time available for extensive elaboration of the plan. In the evaluation teams view the programme will rather list of objectives and tasks which will be basis for further activities. In order to avoid the disappointment of the stakeholders which do anticipate from the programme “an ideal product” the evaluation team recommends:

Compilation of basic structure and draft ideas of the Management Programme by the CTC and presentation it for comments and approval to the Joint Water Commission and its key members within close future.

Dissemination of project material. Whilst this is considered to be very successful in most areas (in particular the information on the web was praised by a number of the interviewees) some issues have been raised. There is a perception (by some interviewees) that there is an over-dependency on web based information over more conventional methods. More importantly, there have been issues over publications addressing the lake (on birds and fish for example) that have initially only been published in Estonia. These had maps that showed no details of the Russian side of the Lake. Whilst it is inevitable (and desirable) that publications are produced in the local language, it would also be more inclusive to show the lake as a whole. The Evaluation Team recommends:

Future publications are produced showing features of the whole lake, and produced in both the national languages;
Additional material is prepared (or if this exists) and disseminated to supplement material available on the web. The Evaluation Team accepts that this is a difficult issue to address as the comments made by interviewees were their perception and in general the Evaluation Team was very impressed with the level of information prepared for the general public by the project.

Industry and farming stakeholders. To date there has been little involvement of industrial stakeholders in this project and less input targeted at the farming community that would be desirable. The Evaluation Team recommends:

Greater involvement of industrial and agricultural stakeholders in the preparation of national and international Management Programmes for Lake Peipsi / Chudskoe.

Project duration: Whilst some stakeholders suggested a delay in the completion date of the project, the majority (and the Project Team) considered that the existing duration was sufficient to develop a Management Programme for Lake Peipsi / Chudskoe (subject to the timely completion of the relevant components of the EC Life and Tacis projects. The Evaluation Team recommends:

There is no need to seek an extension to the UNDP/GEF project.

UNDP/GEF Management Software: This is considered to be complex and inflexible. It is not considered to enable sufficient financial detail to be utilised to enable the project to be effectively managed

5 Lessons Learnt

Stakeholder involvement – there has been a high level of involvement of the stakeholders in this project. This has been recognised (evidence from interviews, reports on workshops/meetings, etc.) by a range of different stakeholders. The focus to-date has been more at government and the local public involvement than with industry and farming community. It is important that these stakeholders have a higher profile in the project in future.
Public awareness raising - linked to the stakeholder involvement, the project has clearly devoted significant attention to informing the public on the issues surrounding the project. This has involved the production of information packs for schools and other groups, preparation of press releases and the holding of meetings of interest to the general public. ;
NGO engagement the project has had 16 group interviews with local NGOs and has had participation at other meeting from NGOs. There is a perception from government experts that the project is focused more at NGOs than providing ‘assistance’ to the national governments. More effort is probably needed to explain the impact of the project to all stakeholders.
Capacity building through workshops and seminars – a significant number of specific seminars have been held related to this project. The beneficiaries of these training opportunities have been a range of stakeholders, including NGOs (on management issues), nature guides, municipality staff, etc. Feedback from the interviews conducted by the Evaluation Team has been very positive with respect to the topics and the contents. The key topics presented have included:

3 seminars on eutrophication
2 seminars on biological farming
2 seminars on eco-tourism;
2 seminars on water management plans

Support for project from local / regional government – local and national government officials interviewed for this mid-term evaluation, clearly indicated their support for the project. However this support needs to be translated into better co-operation and agreement on establishing regular international monitoring programmes to enable the key output – the development of a Management Programme – to be completed. The lesson here is not new – the difficulties of establishing acceptable politically agreed monitoring programmes and standards have been underestimated.
Small grant facility within the project – this has received considerable interest. 35 proposals were submitted by April 2004 and the project is now expecting to support 19 projects (with a total budget of about 4.5 k USD) in 2004. The assessment of the proposals followed agreed procedures (UNDP/GEF) and were evaluated against criteria developed under this project. The anticipation is that all projects will be completed this year. This procedure is expected to be repeated next year and is considered so far to be very beneficial to, and by, local communities.;
Web site dissemination the web site is perceived as a important output from this project by a range of stakeholders interviewed. The only concern raised was if too much attention was given to this form of dissemination against more ‘conventional’ methods which would disadvantage stakeholders with limited access to the web;
Internal project meetings – initially there had been concerns between the three project offices (Pskov, St Petersburg and Tartu) associated with communications and awareness within the project team. This seems to have been overcome through the introduction, within the project, of regular team meetings to ensure clear objectives for all staff and to improve the overall ‘team spirit’.

Annex 1 ToR for the Mid-term Evaluation of the UNDP/GEF Project

“Development and Implementation of the Lake Peipsi/Chudskoe Basin Management Programme”

RER/02/G35

1. Introduction

Standard UNDP/GEF Monitoring and Evaluation requirements

The Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) policy at the project level in UNDP/GEF has four objectives: i) to monitor and evaluate results and impacts; ii) to provide a basis for decision making on necessary amendments and improvements; iii) to promote accountability for resource use; and iiii) to document, provide feedback on, and disseminate lessons learned. A mix of tools is used to ensure effective project M&E. These might be applied continuously throughout the lifetime of the project – e.g. periodic monitoring of indicators -, or as specific time-bound exercises such as mid-term reviews, audit reports and final evaluations.

In accordance wit UNDP/GEF policies and procedures, projects with long term implementation period or standing at any other critical milestone of project implementation are strongly encouraged to conduct mid-term evaluations. In addition to providing first review of implementation process, this type of evaluation is responsive to GEF Council decisions on transparency and better access of information during the implementation. Mid-term evaluations are intended to identify project design problems and to be conducted by an independent evaluators not associated with the implementation of the project.

Project objectives

The overall objective of the project is to develop and start implementation of a Lake Peipsi/Chudskoe Basin Management Program including practical recommendations for the Lake Peipsi/Chudskoe nutrient load reduction and prevention and the sustainable conservation of habitats and eco-systems in the cross-border region. The project is substituting uncoordinated small-scale projects that would be otherwise implemented separately on the Estonian and Russian sides without sufficient coordination, education and public information component, and without taking into account interest of local stakeholder groups and wider public.

The main outputs of the project are:

Management Programme ( Strategy Document) and Action Plan prepared and approved by all relevant Estonian and Russian authorities;
Strengthened Capacity of key regional stakeholders (including environmental monitoring infrastructure and data collection and maintenance system);
Networking and information exchange;
Two pilot projects implemented in Estonia: one on eutrophication reduction through planning water systems in small community and the second one on ecotourism and nature protection (ecological route).

Project is executed by international NGO Peipsi Center for Transboundary Cooperation. Due to the nature of the project the implementation of project activities are done by two Project Implementation Units situated in Tartu, Estonia and Pskov, Russia. Overall management of the project is responsibility of Project Manager situated in St. Petersburg liaison office, Russia.

2. Objective and purpose of the Mid-term Evaluation

The Mid-Term evaluation is intended to provide a comprehensive overall assessment of the project mid-way. The mid-term evaluation provides an opportunity to critically assess administrative and technical strategies, issues and constrains associated with large international and multi-partner initiative. The evaluation should also provide recommendations for strategies, approaches and/or activities to improve the potential of the Project to achieve expected outcomes and meet objectives within the Project timeframe.

The purpose of the Mid-Term Evaluation is:

To assess overall performance against the Project objectives as set out in Project Document and other related documents;
To assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the Project;
To critically analyze the implementation and management arrangements of the Project;
To list and document initial lessons concerning Project design, implementation and management;
To assess Project outcomes to date and review planned strategies and plans for achieving the overall objectives of the Project within the timeframe;
To assess Project relevance to national priorities both in Estonia and Russia;
To provide guidance for the future Project activities and, if necessary, for the implementation and management arrangements;
To assess project sustainability and gender balance.

The Report of the Mid-term Evaluation will be stand-alone document that substantiates its recommendations and conclusions.

The Report will be targeted to meet the evaluation needs of all key stakeholders (GEF, UNDP, MOE, MNR, Peipsi CTC and other stakeholders of Estonia and Russia).

3. Evaluation

Project elements to be evaluated include:

Project Management and Administration

Collect, document and assess relevant elements and processes including:

Project related administrative procedures
Key decisions and outputs
Major project implementation documents prepared with an indication of how the documents and reports have been useful

Assess processes to support national components and transboundary dimension of the project

Project Substantive and Technical Implementation

1. Project Delivery

The evaluation will assess to what extent the Project has achieved its immediate objectives. It will also identify what outputs have been produced and how they have enabled the Project to achieve its objectives.

This section will focus on following priority areas:

Progress of the Project as whole in achieving anticipated outcomes:

Efficiency of Project activities
Progress in achieving of immediate objectives (level of indicator achievements when available)
Quality of Project activities

Partnership:

Assessment of collaboration between governments, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations
Assessment of collaboration between implementation units of other related projects
Assessment on national-level involvement and perceptions
Assessment of local partnerships
Assessment on involvement of stakeholders

2. Project Implementation

The Evaluation Team will be provided with an explanation of the implementation structure of the project by Peipsi CTC and UNDP (on need basis).

This section will focus on following areas of implementation:

Project oversight:

Peipsi CTC
PIU in Pskov – Chudskoe Projekt
Liaison office in St. Petersburg
UNDP
Tripartite Review Process
Steering Committee

Project Execution (incl. Cooperation between PIU’s):

Peipsi CTC as executing agency (under the UNDP NGO Execution )
PIU’s

Monitoring and evaluation:

Has there been a monitoring and evaluation framework for the project, is it efficient?
Is the reporting framework effective/appropriate?
Is this framework suitable for replication/continuation for any future project support?

Risk Management:

Identify problems/constraints which have impacted or might have impact on the successful delivery of the Project
Are they likely to repeat or occur in next phase?

3. Project finances

Review the changes to fund allocations as a result of budget revisions and provide an opinion on the appropriateness and relevance of such revisions, taking into account the project activity timeframe
Review the effectiveness of financial coordinating mechanisms

4. Methodology for Evaluation Approach

The Mid-Term Evaluation will be done through a combination of processes including a desk study, selected site visits and interviews - involving all stakeholders (but not restricted to): Peipsi CTC, UNDP, Government officials of Estonia and Russia on different levels, local municipalities, local NGO’s, communities etc.

The methodology for the evaluation is envisaged to cover the following areas:

Desk study review of all relevant Project documentation
Consultations with Peipsi CTC, UNDP , PIUs and offices,
Site visits to Lake Peipsi and its adjacent areas, Tartu, Pskov and St.Petersburg and, optional, to Tallinn and Moscow
Interviews with stakeholders

Ministry of the Environment of Estonia (incl. Sub-departments)
Russian Ministry of Natural Resources and its territorial bodies
The Estonian-Russian Transboundary Water Commission
Local Municipalities
Local community representatives
NGO’s from Lake Peipsi/Chudskoe region

5. Products

The main product of the Mid-Term Evaluation will be:

Mid-Term Evaluation Report

The final Mid-Term Evaluation report will include:

· Findings and conclusions in relation to issues to be addressed identified under section Evaluation of this TOR;

· Assessment of gaps and/or additional measures needed that might justify further funding to Peipsi/Chudskoe lake region;

· Recommendations for the further implementation.

The draft and final report will be written in the format outlined in Annex 1 of this TOR. The draft report will be submitted to Peipsi CTC no later than 06 of April 2004.

Based on the feedback received from stakeholders a final report will be prepared by 15th of May 2004.

The report will be submitted both electronically and in hard copies.

Presentation of basic information on the project and evaluators’ rating and textual assessment.

Summary presentation of findings to be presented in final evaluation meeting

Team leader will conduct a final meeting for selected stakeholders and prepares summary presentation of conclusions and findings of the Mid-Term Evaluation.

The presentation will be followed by questions&answers session and round-table discussion on effective implementation of evaluation recommendations.

6. Evaluation Team

The Mid-Term Evaluation will be carried out by team of three external consultants:

International consultant - expert on areas of international projects’ monitoring and evaluation with the focus on water management plans preparation, water protection measures, including engineering, integrated water management approaches;
Estonian consultant – expert on areas of environmental and/or water management, specifically issues of eutrophication and non-point source pollution reduction approaches, additional knowledge on NGO community would be an asset
Russian consultant – expert on areas of environmental and/or water management, cross-border cooperation, additional knowledge of economy, business administration and public participation would be an asset

The team will be lead by International Consultant, who has overall responsibility over successful completion of the evaluation and finalizing Mid-term Evaluation report. The team leader is expected to be familiar with the region and have basic knowledge of the project area (such as transboundary waters, transboundary cooperation etc.)

7. Implementation Arrangements

Evaluation management arrangements

Role of Peipsi CTC office in Tartu

Overall coordination of evaluation activities in Estonia and Russia
Overall administrative arrangement of evaluation
Organization of site visits in Estonia
Organization of meetings with selected stakeholders in Estonia

Role of Project Manager (located in St. Petersburg liaison office)

Coordination of evaluation activities in Estonia and Russia

Role of Chudskoe Projekt in Pskov

Administrative and logistical support to Evaluation Team members during their mission in Russia
Coordination of evaluation activities in Pskov

Role of UNDP

Coordination of evaluation activities in Moscow
Administrative and logistical support for Evaluation Team in Moscow

Tentative timeframe

Selection of evaluators February 2004 - March 2004
Briefings for evaluators April 2004
Desk review May 2004
Visits to the field (including allocation for travel), interviews, questionnaires

Estonia May 2004
Russia May 2004

Debriefings May 2004
Validation of preliminary findings with stakeholders through circulation of initial reports for comments, meetings, and other types of feedback mechanisms

May 2004

Preparation of final evaluation report May 2004
Presentation of report & roundtable meeting May – June 2004

Annex 1: Outline of Mid-Term Evaluation Report

Executive summary

Brief description of the project
Context and purpose of the evaluation
Main conclusions, recommendations and lessons learned

Introduction

Project background
Purpose of the evaluation
Key issues addressed
The outputs of the evaluation and how will they be used
Methodology of the evaluation
Structure of the evaluation

The Project and its development context

Project start and its duration
Implementation status
Problems that the project seeks to address
Immediate and development objectives of the project
Main stakeholders
Results expected

Findings and Conclusions

Project delivery

Progress of the project as a whole in achieving its stated objectives
Effectiveness, efficiency and timeliness of project implementation
Stakeholder participation, partnerships

Project implementation

Project oversight
Project execution
Project implementation
Project administration
Project planning
Monitoring and evaluation
Risk management

Project finances

Financial planning
Budget procedures
Disbursements
Effectiveness of funding mechanism
Risks

Recommendations

Corrective actions for the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the project
Proposals for future directions underlining main objectives

Lessons learned

Best and worst practices in addressing issues relating to relevance, performance and success

Annexes

TOR
Itinerary
List of persons interviewed
Summary of field visits
List of documents reviewed
Questionnaire used and summary of results

Other relevant material

Annex 3 Mission Report

Mid-Term Evaluation Report

‘Development and Implementation of the Lake Peipsi / Chudskoe Basin Management Programme

RER/02/G35

Mission Report

The Evaluation Team selected was:

Peter Whalley
Toomas Pallo

Evgeny Kurashov

Programme:

The Evaluation Team completed a programme of meetings and discussions with key stakeholders suggested by the Project Team and with the project offices in both Tartu and Pskov (14 June – 18 June 2004).

During this mission two workshops were held in Tartu related to the project. The opportunity was taken by the Evaluation Team to participate in some of these events and to meet participants.

UN ECE Transboundary Water Convention and the EU Water Framework Directive – Implementation through participatory approaches in Europe and NIS Countries (16 June 2004, Tartu)
UNDP/GEF Project Meeting (17 June 2004, Tartu)

A series of questions were used for seeking information on the performance of the project and its impact on environmental issues in the Lake Peipsi / Chudskoe basin. These questions are presented in Annexes 5 and 6 (of Main Evaluation Report) for stakeholders and project office staff respectively

A ‘round-table’ discussion was held with participants at the Project Meeting (17 June 2004). These were representatives of the Joint Water Commission and Project Steering Group. The following three key objectives of this project were discussed.

Management Programme ( Strategy Document) and Action Plan prepared and approved by all relevant Estonian and Russian authorities;
Strengthened Capacity of key regional stakeholders (including environmental monitoring infrastructure and data collection and maintenance system);
Networking and information exchange established;

Personnel Met

Project Office Staff met

Natalia Alexeeva – Project Manager

Sille Talvet - Project Advisor

Aija Kosk – PIU Tartu – Estonian Project Co-ordinator

Olga Vassilenko – PIU Pskov – Pskov PIU Co-ordinator

Lea Vedder – Financial Manager

Ulo Sults – Water Monitoring Expert

Eilika Molder – Webmaster

Erkki Vedder – Capacity Building Expert

Angelika Rehema – Capacity Building Expert

Elena Bystrova – Capacity Building Expert

Darja Postnova – Webmaster and information expert

Mari Keskkula – Administrative Support

Stakeholders met

Estonia

Harry Liiv – Deputy Secretary General – Environment Protection

Jurgen Kiris – Legal Secretary - Lohusuu Municipal Government

Russia

Mikhail Radinov –Head of Department of Municiple Services – Pskov City Administration

Asja Zamareva – Journalist – Sterkh Newspaper – Pskov

Alexander Evgenevich Shkrebets – IT Expert – NGO TEIA

Elena Alexeevna Armand – Head of Environment Unit UNDP Moscow

Nikolaiy Ivanovich Danilkin – Head of department of Complex Planning – Pskovvodproekt

Ioulia Ronanovna Nefefova – Head of Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection – MNR Pskov Region

Marina Viktotovna Kazmina – Head FGU Pskovvodkhoz MNR

Mikhail Livovich Kallistratov – Head of Regulation and Water Use – Pskovvodkhoz

Dmitry Alexandrovich Antonyuk – Centre of Civil Initiatives Support

Evgenij Aleksandrovich Afanasiev – Head GosNIORKH (State Institute of Lake and River Fish)

Participants at the ‘Round-Table’ Meeting 17 June 2004.

Vladimir Budarin - Ministry of Natural Resources (RF)

Alla Sedova - Ministry of Natural Resources (RF)

Svetlana Basova - Ministry of Natural Resources (RF)

Alexander Ovanesyants - Ministry of Natural Resources (RF)

Jalmar Mandel - Ministry of Environment (EE)

Ago Jaai – Ministry of Environment (EE)

Marina Kazmina, Ministry of Natural Resources (RF)

Other Experts

Dr Gulnara Roll – INTAS (former Project Advisor)

Vladimir Skorokhodov – Manager Tacis Local Support Office – St Petersburg

Participants at the two workshops held in Tartu.

Annex 5 Stakeholder Questions

UNDP/GEF Lake Peipsi Project – Mid-term Evaluation – Stakeholder Assessment

An important component of this mid-term review is an assessment of stakeholder perception of the progress of this project and their involvement in the project. The stakeholders fall into a number of categories:

International Stakeholders

· UNDP/ GEF

· Peipsi CTC

· Estonian – Russian Trans-boundary Water Commission

· International NGOs

· EC Tacis

· Other international projects

Government Officials

· Estonian Government officials

· Russian Government officials

Local interest

· Local municipalities

· Local Community representatives;

· Local NGOs

· Local projects

This assessment will evaluate the level of collaboration between

the project and identified stakeholders
between different government agencies
international organisation;
local organisations

The purpose of the interviews will be to establish the level of contact between stakeholders and the project, to establish the ‘value’ placed on the project by the stakeholders and to obtain feedback on the execution of the project. The questionnaire (SHORT!) should be divided into several sections – to establish the role of the person being interviewed and their involvement with Lake Peipsi/Chudskoe and then to establish their perception of the progress of the project, the information being provided by the CTC and the involvement of the public in general in the improvements to the environment as a result of this project.

UNDP/GEF Lake Peipsi Project – Mid-term Evaluation – Stakeholder Assessment

· What is your job function and in what way are you involved in Lake Peipsi/ Chudskoe?

· What is your expectation from the Lake Peipsi/Chudskoe project?

· Please give your views of the benefit of this project from a local/national/international perspective (based on your involvement in the project)

· Are the objectives of the project reasonable and will they lead to the expected environmental benefits? If not, why?

· From your perception, is the Project meeting your anticipated needs? If not, in what way is it failing?

· Do you have contact with other stakeholders involved in the project? If yes who and for what purpose?

· Is the project assisting international co-operation on the Lake Peipsi/Chudskoe? If yes, please give some examples. If not, please give examples of why not and how this could be improved.

· Are the longer term aspects (i.e. beyond the completion of this project) of this project clear? Will the outcome of this project be sustainable? Can you suggest how this sustainability will be achieved?

· Do you have sufficient contact with the Peipsi CTC project team and does this meet your needs? If not, please indicate how often you have contact with CTC (project team)?

· Is the information coming from the Peipsi CTC of sufficient clarity to enable you to monitor the progress of the project? If not how could this be improved?

· Do you think this project is interacting satisfactorily with other national/international projects? If not please explain.

· Is the information provided by the project to the general public of benefit? If not how could this be improved?

· Please provide any suggestions that would enhance the benefit of this project to you or other stakeholders?

· Any other comments?