The overall objective of the Project is to develop and start implementation of a Lake Peipsi/Chudskoe Basin Management Program. This includes 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 regional context. The project ensures strengthening capacity of all stakeholders groups, as well as active involvement of them for preparation of the Management Program. The project substitutes 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 interests of local stakeholder groups and wider public.
II. Progress towards achieving project objectives
Project Objective and Outcomes
Description of Indicator
Baseline Level
Target Level
Level at 30 June 2006
Objective:
The overall objective of the Project is to develop and start implementation of a Lake Peipsi/Chudskoe Basin Management Programme
1. Management Programme is developed
Absence
Developed Programme
Done
2. Starting implementation of the Management Programme
Absence
Started implementation
Started
3.
4.
Outcome 1:
Lake Peipsi/Chudskoe Basin Management Plan developed and partially implemented
1.1. Establish project implementation mechanism and develop coordination mechanism for different projects and activities implemented
Absence
Done
Done
1.2. Assess state of environment in the L. Peipsi/Chudskoe Basin and identification of key water management issues/TDA
Preliminary
Done
Done
1.3. Prepare a program for coordinated surface water monitoring in the two countries using UN ECE guidelines for monitoring and assessment of transboundary lakes
Absence
Done
Done
1.4. Design a program of measures to reduce nutrient load pollution, including (1) a detailed program of environmental protection measures to reduce the nutrient load (Nutrient Load Reduction Plan); (2) feasibility study and a concept for ecological farming in the L/ Peipsi/Chudskoe Basin; and (3) feasibility study for water- and ecological tourism around the lake. An infrastructure demonstration project in Estonia.
Absence
Done
Done
1.5. Develop public and NGO involvement plan as a part of the Management Plan
Absence
Done
Done
Outcome 2:
National and local institutional capacity strengthened to implement the Management Plan
2.1. Strengthen institutional capacity of the Commission and the national authorities to implement the Programme
Low
Raised
Raised
2.2. Strengthen capacities of local authorities and stakeholder groups
Low
Raised
Raised
2.3. Support NGOs in the region
Some
Done
Done
2.4. Establishment of the Lake Peipsi museum
Absence
Done
Done
Outcome 3:
Environmental education and public awareness programs in the region
3.1. Develop and launch an information, education and communication system
Absence
Done
Done
3.2. Implement two water-related pilot projects
Absence
Done
Done
4.
5.
Rating of Project Progress Towards Meeting Objective[3]
NGO-driven project, the only one in Russian portfolio, has proven to be successful and such a modality could be used in a future for MSPs
UNDP Regional Technical Advisor
Action Plan to Address Marginal or Unsatisfactory Rating
Where a project has received a rating of MS or U describe the actions to be taken to address this:
Action to be Taken
By Whom?
By When?
III. Progress in Project implementation
List the 4 key outputs delivered so far for each project Outcome:
Project outcome is: Improved capacity of national/sectoral authorities to plan and implement integrated approaches to environmental management and energy development that respond to the needs of the poor
Project Outcomes
Key Outputs
Outcome 1:
Lake Peipsi/Chudskoe Basin Management Plan developed and partially implemented
1. Lake Peipsi/Chudskoe Basin Management Plan is ready
2. Public and NGO involvement plan prepared
3. TDA is ready
4. An infrastructure demonstration project in Estonia/Rapina is completed
Outcome 2:
National and local institutional capacity strengthened to implement the Management Plan
1. Increased networking, cooperation, and communication of the Joint Commission with other relevant commissions and organizations
2. Governments, NGOs, and other stakeholders fully engaged in preparation and implementation of the Management Programme
3. Lake Peipsi/Chudskoe Council/Forum established as an institutional network that incorporates agencies and stakeholders at different levels of governance across the border to promote a dialogue on water management issues
4. Lake Peipsi museums are set up on two sides of the lake
Outcome 3:
Environmental education and public awareness programs in the region
1. Public information and awareness system is in place through diverse communication channels and information formats
2. Two water-related pilot projects on eco-tourism in Estonia and Russia
3. Environmental education program is developed
4. Publications on Peipsi fishes, birds, life, eutrophication etc.
Action Plan to Address Marginal and Unsatisfactory Ratings
Where a project has received a rating of MS or U describe the actions to be taken to address this:
Action to be Taken
By Whom?
By When?
IV. Risks
1. Please annex to this report a print out of the corresponding Atlas Risk Tab (please use landscape format and only print the frame).
2. For any risks identified as “critical” please copy the following information from Atlas:
Risk Type
Date Identified
Risk Description
Risk Management Response
V. Adjustments to Project Strategy
Please report any adjustments made to the project strategy, as reflected in the logical framework matrix, since the Project Document signature:
Change Made to:
Y/N
Reason for Change
Project Objective
N
Project Outcomes
N
Project Outputs/ Activities / Inputs
Y
Nutrient Load Reduction Strategy was developed only for the Estonian part of the basin due to the absence of input (data) from the EU TACIS project in Russia.
VI. Financial Information
Please present all financial values in US$ millions to 2 decimal places only (eg. $3,502,000 should be written as $3.50m)
Additional amounts committed after Project Document finalization8
Estimated Total Disbursement to
30 June 2006
Expected Total Disbursement by end of project
GEF Contribution
GEF
$1.00m
0
$1.00m
$1.00m
Cash Cofinancing – UNDP Managed
UNDP (TRAC)
UN Agency
Cash Cofinancing
TACIS project “Water management for Chudskoe lake”
Multilateral donor
$1.82m
$0.58m
$2.40m
$2.40m
LIFE-Environment project „Viru and Peipsi catchment area management plan“”
Multilateral donor
$0.17m
$1.83m
$2.00m
$2.00m
EU FP 5 “Integrated Strategies for the Management of Transboundary Water on the Eastern European fringe”
Multilateral donor
$1.44m
0
$1.44m
$1.44m
Danish EPA
Government
$0.665m
0
$0.665m
$0.665m
Peipsi CTC
NGO
$0.03m
$0.07m
$0.1m
$0.1m
In-Kind Cofinancing
Estonian Ministry of Environment
Government
$0.64m
0
$0.64m
$0.64m
Russian Ministry of Natural Resources
Government
$0.04m
0
$0.04m
$0.04m
Total Cofinancing
$4,805m
$2.48m
$7.285m
$7.285m
Total for Project
$5.805m
$2.48m
$8.285m
$8.285m
Comments
Please explain any significant changes in project financing since Project Document signature, or differences between the anticipated and actual rates of disbursement:
Differences in the EU financing are caused by the USD/EURO rate fluctuations and changes in the satellite projects implementation.
VII. Additional Financial Instruments used in the Project
This section only needs to be completed if the project provides funds to any Financial Instruments such as: Trust Funds, Sinking Funds, Revolving Funds, Partial Credit Risk Guarantees, Microfinance services, Leasing or Insurance mechanisms.
If this project does not use any Additional Financial Instruments skip this and go to Section VIII.
Financial Instrument
Financial Institution Responsible for Management
Basis for Selection of Financial Institution
For Each Financial Instrument please complete the following two tables:
Action Plan to Address Marginal and Unsatisfactory Ratings
Where a project has received a rating of MS or U describe the actions to be taken to address this:
Action to be Taken
By Whom?
By When?
End of Project Situation
What is to happen to any funds remaining in the Financial Instrument at the end of the project?
No any funds were left from the project budget after implementation.
VIII. Procurement Data
Note : For projects or project components executed by UNOPS this section must not be filled in - data will be provided by UNOPS headquarters.
Please report the US$ value(in Thousands, e.g. 70,000 = 70) ) of UNDP/GEF Payments made to GEF Donor Countries for Procurement. Please enter Project expenditureaccumulated from project start up to the date of this report into the matrix against the donor country supplying the personnel, sub-contract, equipment and training to the project. Please report only on contracts over US$ 2,000.
Supplying Donor Country
Personnel
(US$ thousands)
Sub-contracts
(US$ thousands)
Equipment
(US$ thousands)
Training
(US$ thousands)
Total
(US$ thousands)
Estonia
182,1
143,6
52,4
52,5
430,6
Russia
103,6
64,1
24,9
25,4
218
Norway
43,0
43,0
Total
285,7
250,7
77,3
77,9
691,6
IX. Lessons
Are there any lessons from this project that could benefit the design and implementation of other GEF-funded projects? Please list up to three and indicate which one/s could be worth developing into case studies of good/bad practice.
i) Coordination with other in-region projects (implemented as co-financing to the GEF project) requires a lot of time and demands extra resources – so, it is highly recommended to allocate special resources for cooperative activities and plan relevant time for executing such tasks
UNDP/GEF Project was closely working with two satellite projects financed by the EU and this experience could be chares with other projects.
ii) Experience exchange with other transboundary water basins is very useful in terms of networking and getting lessons learnt and best practices from colleagues
iii) Relevant stakeholders involvement and active public participation in the decision-making processes are essential for the efficient project implementation
Lake Peipsi/Chudskoe region is well-known due to developed public activities so project experience could be replicated and developed into a case-study.
X. Project Contribution to GEF Strategic Targets in Focal Area
This project was implemented under the OP 9 “Integrated Land and Water Multiple Focal Area Operational Program”, focal area “International Waters”.
Activities under this operational program provide benefits in multiple focal areas and the benefits are achieved through integrated approaches that emphasize better land and water resource management practices. The goal of this operational program is to help countries prevent damage to threatened, but not yet highly degraded, transboundary water systems.
So, this goal was fully covered by the project activities since integrated approach was used for the Management Programme, covering both surface and ground waters, biodiversity issues and joint fish stocks management questions; basin approach was also used in all documents in order to ensure proper integrated water resources management in this transboundary region.
Financing of the joint measures in the region still to some extend being sought from international donor agencies and national governments fail to cover transboundary externalities while managing joint transboundary waters – addl risk
OPERATIONAL
19/10/2005
Potential impediments to implementation of a joint water management plan under the EU Water Directive principles that are not a part of the Russian water legislation – low risk
19/10/2005
Differences in water monitoring programs, water sampling and analysis methods – modest risk
19/10/2005
The language barrier – low risk
19/10/2005
The workshop and training seminars are badly designed and planned – low risk
19/10/2005
Low environmental awareness of the population and stakeholders in the region that can negatively affect implementation of environmental protection measures in the basin – low risk
ORGANIZATIONAL
POLITICAL
19/10/2005
Aggravation of intergovernmental relations between Estonia and Russia – low risk
19/10/2005
Low commitment of policymakers, especially the national governments, including Transboundary Estonian Russian Water Commission – low risk
19/10/2005
Low interest among local authorities and stakeholders to environmental protection issues that may result in a low support to the project – low risk
REGULATORY
STRATEGIC
19/10/2005
NGO executed project will remain an NGO project – and will not be taken over by the governments – low risk
X_OTHER
[1] If an evaluation has been carried out in the last 12 months the report should be attached to this document.
[2] If multiple country project Lead country OFP and UNDP Programme Manager to sign-off.
[3] Ratings: See instruction sheet for definitions of ratings. Use only:
HS - Highly Satisfactory; S – Satisfactory; MS – Marginally Satisfactory; U – Unsatisfactory.
[4] If multiple country project Lead country OFP and UNDP Programme Manager to sign-off.
[5] Ratings: See instruction sheet for definitions of ratings. Use only:
HS - Highly Satisfactory; S – Satisfactory; MS – Marginally Satisfactory; U – Unsatisfactory.
[6] If multiple country project Lead country OFP and UNDP Programme Manager to sign-off.
[7] Specify if: UN Agency, other Multilateral, Bilateral Donor, Regional Development Bank (RDB), National Government, Local Government,NGO, Private Sector, Other.
[8] Planned amounts are those shown in the approved Project Document. These may be zero in the case of new leveraged project partners.
[9] Ratings: See instruction sheet for definitions of ratings. Use only:
HS - Highly Satisfactory; S – Satisfactory; MS – Marginally Satisfactory; U – Unsatisfactory.
1-14 of 14 
Last
