FINAL 30 June 2008
UNDP EEG and GEF
Annual Performance Report (APR)
Project Implementation Review (PIR)
2008 INTERNATIONAL WATERS
Reporting Period = 1 July 2007 to 30 June 2008
PLEASE COMPLETE ALL SECTIONS
Incomplete PIRs will not be accepted and will not be registered as submitted.
See background note for further guidance.
1. Basic Project Data
Official Project Title: Towards a Convention and Action Programme for the protection of the Caspian Sea
Environment
Project Summary (as in PIMS and Project Document)
The current project is a key element in support of the Caspian Environment Programme (CEP) in the
preliminary implementation of the Strategic Action Programme (SAP) and continuance of the Convention
process. Implementation of this project is to be undertaken by UNDP with execution by UNOPS. The
objectives of this project are to:
·
Commence implementation of the SAP in three priority areas: Biodiversity, Invasive Species and
Persistent Toxic Substances.
·
Continue with specific capacity building measures to ensure a regionally owned CEP coordination
mechanism capable of full implementation of the SAP and regional coordination of the National Caspian
Action Programmes (NCAP's).
·
Strengthen the environmental legal and policy frameworks operating at the regional and the national
levels and where necessary improve implementation and compliance of those frameworks.
·
Achieve tangible environmental improvements in SAP priority areas by implementation of small-scale
investments supported by a small matched grants programme
The project office is based in the CEP Programme Coordination Unit located in Tehran, I.R. Iran and will be
executed in close coordination with an EU-Tacis CEP support project targeting fisheries and sustainable
coastal development. UNEP's Regional Office for Europe took responsibility for guiding the Convention
process under a Memorandum of Understanding to be signed with UNOPS.
Country/ies: Azerbaijan, I.R. Iran,
PIMS Number
Kazakhstan, Russia, Turkmenistan
2622
Atlas Project
00044919
Number
Page 1 of 38
FINAL 30 June 2008
Project Type
FSP
* MSP EA
GEF Focal Area
International Waters
GEF Focal Area Strategic Objective and
Strategic Priority
IW I, II, III
GEF Operational Programme
8
Project timeframe:
Date of Entry into Work
15 November 2003
Planned Project Duration
Three years
Programme1
Project Document
April 6, 2004
Original Planned Closing
January 2007
Signature Date
Date
Date of First Disbursement April 2004
Revised Planned2 Closing
December 2008
Date
Is this the Terminal
YES
*
NO
Date Operationally Closed
n.a
APR/PIR?
(if applicable)
Project Supervision:
Dates of Tripartite Project Review (TPR) Meetings during reporting
February 6, 2008
period (if applicable)
Date of Project Steering Committee meetings during reporting period.
February 6, 2008
Project Evaluation:
Date Final Evaluation1
Planned date of Final
carried out
June-September 2007
Evaluation
No fixed dates
(if applicable)
Date Mid Term Evaluation
n/a
Planned date of Mid
carried out
Term Evaluation
n/a
(if applicable)
If the project had a MTE or FE please ensure they are posted in PIMS and the UNDP Evaluation Resource
Centre3 before final submission or provide justification.
Overall Rating of the project in the evaluation
Satisfactory
If the project had a MTE or FE, please attach the relevant tracking tool. The tracking tool should correspond
to the GEF Funding cycle:
For projects approved in GEF 2 and 3: use the tracking tools for GEF 3
For projects approved in GEF 4: use the tracking tools for GEF 4
Project documentation and information:
List documents/ reports/ brochures / articles that
Terminal Evaluation Report
have been prepared about the project.
APRs /PIRs 2005/6/7
1 All dates should be in the following format: day/month/year
2 Please explain any entry here in section 8
3 The UNDP Evaluation Resource Center can be found a http://erc.undp.org/index.aspx?module=Intra
Page 2 of 38
FINAL 30 June 2008
Caspian Environmnet Programme Booklet
2005
SAP and NCAPs Implementation
Assessment Reports 2007
Matched Small Grants & Micro
Environment Grants Booklet 2007
CEP Pamphlet 2005
A number of interviews/articles in Azeri ,
Turkmen, Kazakh , Russian and Iranian
newspapers
List other monitoring and/or reporting requirements
GEF Quarterly Operational Reports
for this project.
Reports to annual SCM by the project and
collaborating UN agencies and by National
Focal Points
Thematic Regional Advisory Group
Meetings
Monitoring visits to the littoral countries by
Project Manger and project staff , in
particular to projects funded including
Anzali Wetland, POPs, MSGP and MEG
projects
List the Website address (URL) of project.
www.caspianenvironment.org
Project contacts:
Title Name
E-mail
Date
Signature
International Project
Hamidreza
Hamid.ghaffarzadeh@undp.org 09/7/2008
Manager/Coordinator Ghaffarzadeh
(UNOPS)
UNDP Country
Saeid
s.ferdowsi@undp.org
09/07/2008
Office Programme
Ferdowsi
Manager
UNDP Regional
Vladimir
Vladimir.mamaev@undp.org
22/07/2008
Technical Advisor
Mamaev
Government GEF
OFP4 (optional)
Executing Agency
(optional)
4 In the case of a project involving more than 1 country, it is suggested that for simplicity only the OFP (optional)
and Country Office Programme Manager from the lead country sign-off. If representatives from more than 1
country sign off, please add additional rows as necessary indicating the country name for each signature.
Page 3 of 38
FINAL 30 June 2008
UNDP Country Officer ONLY (optional)
Please estimate the inputs delivered to this project in this reporting period as part of project
implementation oversight5.
Name of
Position
Work done
Estimated
Estimated
Other
Comments
UNDP Staff
and level
for the
days worked
travel costs
oversight
member
(P3, G5
Project
on project
costs
etc...)
Saeid Ferdowsi Programme Provided
20 n.a
n.a
Officer
regular
NOB
backstopping
to project
activities,
approved
payments,
issued
recruitment
requests,
attended in-
country
meetings, etc.
Farzaneh
Programme Kept financial 20 n.a
n.a
Derakhshi
Associate
track of
G7
project
activities in
ATLAS.
Issued
purchase
orders and
vouchers,
made
payment
requests,
prepared
recruitment
requests, etc.
Knut Ostby
UNDP RR, Provided
1.5 n.a n.a
D1
advice and
guidance as
required,
approved
payments,
approved
contracts, etc.
5 Note that in addition to the UNDP country office environment team staff, other staff might include the Resident
Representative, DRRs, ARRs, Finance Division Staff, drivers etc...
Page 4 of 38
FINAL 30 June 2008
Farideh Anisi ARR
Managed
2
n.a n.a
Operations, imprest
NOC
account
arrangements,
signed visa
letters,
cleared
contracts and
payments.
Veera Tarapore Finance
Issued
1.5 n.a n.a
Assistant
cheques,
G6
calculated
DSAs.
Fariba
Travel
Arranged
5 n.a
n.a
Shekarriz
Assistant,
project travels
G5
List the dates of site visits to project during this reporting period.
General Comments: Neither the UNDP National Programme Officer nor the Programme Assistant in
charge of the project visited project sites during the review period, nor they attended the regional meetings
held under the project during the said period. However, the International Project Manager has actively
organised, and coordinated such meetings and reported back to UNDP as relevant.
UNDP Country Officers must sign this APR/PIR. This indicates that you have checked it and to your
understanding it is as complete and accurate as possible.
Name: Saeid Ferdowsi
Signature:
Date: 10 July 2008
Page 5 of 38
FINAL 30 June 2008
2. UNDP Regional Technical Advisor ONLY
If not included in the above table, please estimate the inputs delivered to this project by the regional
coordination unit/ practice team / service centre in this reporting period as part of project implementation
oversight6.
Name of
Position
Work done
Estimated
Estimated
Other
Comments
UNDP Staff
and level for the Project
days worked
travel costs
oversight
member
(P3, G5
on project
costs
etc...)
Vladimir
RTA, L5 Oversight
120 $13,000
Mamaev
implementation,
advise to the
CTA
List the dates of visits to project during this reporting period.
General Comments: The project is in the final year of operation, Final Evaluation concluded that the project
has implemented most of the activities foreseen in the project document and delivered tangible results on
the ground. Based on these findings the Caspian countries have requested additional support from GEF for
the implementation of the Caspian SAP in the area of Bio-resources management and to strengthen regional
government structures of the Teheran Convention. The project concept was approved by the GEF and the
FSP is under preparation.
Please insert the core performance information from the APR/PIR here before sending to the Principal
Technical Adviser.
Key indicator
PIMS number
2622
Pipeline Entry Date7
15/11.2003
CEO Endorsement Date
10/02/2004
Project Start Date
June 2004
Closing Date
June 2008
PDF Funding8, if any
n.a
GEF Grant
$ 6 M
6 Note that in addition to the UNDP country office environment team, staff might include the Resident
Representative, DRRs, ARRs, Finance Division Staff, drivers etc...
7 All dates should be in the following format: day/month/year
8 Figures should be in US$ million
Page 6 of 38
FINAL 30 June 2008
Total GEF Funding
$ 6 M
Co-financing
$ 25.6 M
Total Project Cost
$ 31.6 M
Total GEF disbursement as of June 30, 2008
$ 6 M
Proposed co-financing (only if MTE or FE was conducted in reporting period)
$ 25 M
Actual co-financing (only if MTE or FE was conducted in reporting period)
$110 M
Delay in project completion (in months)
12
Number of critical risks
None
Overall Rating9 of project progress toward meeting objectives
HS
Overall Rating of project implementation.
HS
Has the project strategy been adjusted?
Yes
No
*
Comments
UNDP RTAs must sign this PIR. This indicates that you have checked it and to your understanding it
is as complete and accurate as possible.
Name: Vladimir Mamaev__________________
Signature:
_______ Date: 22 July 2008__________________________
9 Overall rating can be determined as follows. For each rating assign the following figures to the rating: HS = 1, S
= 2, MS = 3, MU = 4, U = 5, HU = 6. The total of these figures should be divided by the number of ratings given
(maximum 5). Enter the final rating not figure (1 = HS, 2 = S, 3 = MS, 4 = MU, 5 = U, 6 = HU)
Page 7 of 38
FINAL 30 June 2008
3. Progress towards achieving project objectives
Project Objective and
Description of
Baseline
Target Level4 Level4 at 30
Outcomes
Indicator10
Level11
June 2008
Objective I:
Commence implementation of
the SAP in the priority areas of
Biodiversity, Invasive Species
and Persistent Toxic
Substances.
Information Gap
0in 2004
100= National
100= All coastal
Outcome 1:
Identification
10 in 2005
Reports on Coastal
reports produced
Survey
60 in 2006
Sites
A quantitative assessment of
100 in 2007
habitat loss in the Caspian and its
coastal zone and verification of
Sensitivity & Threats 20 in 2004
100= Completed
100= Coastal Sites
Evaluation and
60 in 2005
Coastal Sites
Survey (CSS)
critically threatened areas, and,
Incorporated in the 70 in 2006
Inventory
completed
the design and establishment of a Coastal Sites Inventory 100 in 2007
standardized monitoring
methodology programme for the
Environmental
20 in 2004
100= Developed and
100= incorporated in
Caspian Sea in conjunction with
Sensitive Data Index
40 in 2005
calibrated indices
CSS
the oil and gas industry
60 in 2006
100 in 2007
GIS Layers/ Inter-
20 in 2004
100= functional
100= Inter-active
active Maps
30 in 2005
IMPAS
maps developed by
90 in 2006
WCMC and placed
100 in 2007
on website
Updated Caspian
0 in 2004
100= Functional &
95 = BDB Versions 1
Species Checklist
20 in 2005
calibrated BDB
and 2 and 3
species description and 80 in 2006
developed and placed
Bio Database( BDB)
90 in 2007
on website .Version
3 still requires
adjustments
Prepare Regional
0 in 2004
80 = Protocols
Biodiversity
0 in 2005
100% = Developed
developed and
Monitoring Protocols
90 in 2006
and agreed protocols
agreed at expert
10080% in 2007
level. Official
approval by countries
awaited.
Regional Biodiversity 0in 2004
100= sites agreed,
100= Protocols and
Monitoring Programme 0 in 2005
guidelines &
guidelines developed
established and
80in 2006
protocols developed
and agreed, sites
initiated
100 in 2007
and support
selected , support
equipment procured
equipment procured
10 This should describe the quantitative indicator
11 This should be a quantitative numerical value
Page 8 of 38
FINAL 30 June 2008
Biodiversity training
0 in 2004
100= minimum three
100= three
0 in 2005
training sessions
workshops carried
100 in 2006
out
Establishment of
0 in 2004
100=Eco-net formed,
60= Countries not
Outcome 2:
functional Caspian
30 in 2005
Quarterly reports by
keen for an
eco-net, annual Eco-
40 in 2006
members, annual
independent Eco-net,
Preliminary implementation of
net meetings, eco net
60 in 2007
meetings,
responsibilities
bulletin
publications
mostly assumed by
the Caspian Biodiversity Action
Biodiversity and
Plan, focusing on compliance
Invasive Species
with existing nature protection
Regional Advisory
Group ( BISRAG)
regulations, implementation of
and by Seals
species and habitat protection
Network
conservation action plans and
targeted public awareness
Development and
20 in 2004
100= annual
100= two annual
implementation of a
80 in 2005
population surveys,
seals census in
campaigns
Seals Conservation
85 in 2006
Seals Regional
collaboration with
plan
100 in 2007
Advisory Group
AGIPKCO. SCAP
(SRAG),Agreed and
developed and
initiated , Seals
approved by SCM
Conservation Action
Plan (SCAP) in ,
collaboration with
industry
Pilot lagoon identified
30 in 2004
100= representative
100= Anzali Lagoon
and a Pilot Water Level
40 in 2005
lagoon selected,
selected as
Fluctuation Adaptive
60 in 2006
stakeholders analysis
representative lagoon
Management Plan
80% in 2007
conducted, research
project management
developed and initiated
carried out, pilot
structure established,
management plan
stakeholders analyses
drafted and initiated
carried out , data and
information collected
and analyzed, Action
Plan developed and
approved at province
level for
implementation
Outcome 3:
Mnemiopsis Leidyi
30 in 2004
100= Regional
100= Monitoring
Monitoring
50 in 2005
monitoring initiated
carried out in late
programme carried
100 in 2006
and supported , data
2005 and results
Implementation of the CEP
out including
and reports shred out
shared out in early
invasive species action plan in
reporting to the
regionally
2006. Important to
region
note that the region
close coordination with the GEF
still undecided
Globlast Ballast Waters project to
regarding
address, in particular, the impact
mitigation/control
measures
of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis on
Page 9 of 38
FINAL 30 June 2008
Completion of Beroe
40 in 2004
100=Improved EIA
100= Full report on
the Caspian ecosystem
studies and
50 in 2005
and
all studies pertaining
development of
50 in 2006
recommendations to
to ML an d Beroe
proposal for Beroe
100 in 2007
BISRAG on
developed and shared
introduction
introduction of Beroe
with region.
approved
, controlled release of
No regional
Beroe
agreement on release
of Beroe as region
uncertain on
decision.
Introduction of
0 in 2004
100= Ditto
50= ditto
Beroe
20 in 2005
50 in 2006
50 in 2007
Formation of
20 in 2004
100= Functional
80= Completed
Regional authority
30 in 2005
authority to oversee
review of national
to over see agreed
60 in 2006
planned invasive
legislations,
introductions based
80 in 2007
species release,
concurrent work by
on a national
functional data base,
Tehran Convention
legislations reviewed
review of national
Interim Secretariat
and updated
legislations as base
on Biodiversity
for legislation update
protocol to facilitate
and possible regional
regional mechanism
authority
for agreed
introductions .No
regional agreement
on collective
measures regarding
invasive species
control /mitigation
Invasive species
50 in 2004
100= additional data
90= joint training
training provided and 60 in 2005
from regional
with Regional Seas
data base created
80 in 2006
monitoring ,
and Black Sea
90in 2007
additional training
Commission on
Invasive Species. No
dialogue amongst
Black Sea, Baltic sea
and Caspian Sea
regarding IS
mitigation/control
measures
Assessment of ship
20 in 2004
100= Full pre
100 = IMO carried
borne traffic of
30 in 2005
feasibility study
out pre -feasibility
Invasive species
100 in 2007
study on ballast
water .& results
presented at a
regional workshop.
No regional follow
up regarding the
proposed measures
Page 10 of 38
FINAL 30 June 2008
Endorsed Regional
10 in 2004
100=Regionally
100 = GIWA based
Outcome 4:
Plan to combat LBS
20 in 2005
endorsed plan to be
rapid assessment of
pollution
50 in 2006
incorporated in
LBS carried out in all
Assessment of the pollution
80 in 2007
revised SAP based on
five countries.
ground truthing
Concurrent work
loading of the Caspian and
reports and national
being pursued under
determination of distribution and
and regional LBS
LBS Protocol
composition of Persistent Toxic
pollution assessment
.Results fed into SAP
reports
and TDA Update
Chemicals (PTS, such as
process
persistent organic pollutants, oil
products, and heavy metals) in
the riverine waters and sediments
and coastal waters, in order to
priorities future interventions
Recommendation for
10 in 2004
100= Flux reports on
100= Volga and
directed at amelioration of the flux management in 50 in 2005
Volga and Kura ,
Kura flux reports
environment.
major rivers
80 in 2006
recommendations
completed and
100 in 2007
adapted by regional
assessed. Terek,
authorities
Sepidrood and Ural
information
collected.
Sea-wide survey of
20 in 2004
100= Regional
100 = in
sediments in riverine
40 in 2005
Laboratory
collaboration with
and sea waters
70 in 2006
assessment
IAEA have issued
including
100 in 2007
completed, pollution
Regional Laboratory
Turkmenistan
analysis and
Assessment Report,
assessment report for
carried out scientific
the Caspian Sea
cruises in coastal
waters of all five
courtiers, analyzed
and assessed samples
and findings, shared
current fining with
Pollution Regional
Advisory Group
(PRAG); fed results
into TDA Update
Regional Pollution
10 in 2004
100=Regional
100 = RPMP
Monitoring Programme
40 in 2005
agreement on
initiated, support
developed and
90 in 2006
Regional Pollution
equipment procured,
implemented including 100 in 2007
Monitoring
awareness activities
awareness programmes
Programme(RPMP) ,
supported through
results from first year
Micro Environmental
of monitoring ,
Grants (MEGs).
training on rapid
assessment
programme,
awareness
programme designed
and implemented
Page 11 of 38
FINAL 30 June 2008
Strengthened
0 in 2004
100=signed and
90=work on
Outcome 5:
legislation and
30 in 2005
ratified agreement on
improved national
guidelines on usage
60 in 2006
PTS , standardized
legislations is carried
Regional (developed as part of of Agro -chemicals
80 in 2007
plans in all countries
out through national
with each country
enabling initiatives.
the project) and National Action
committing five
Regional work is
Plans addressing the activities percent annual
being pursued
contributing to transboundary reduction
through LBS
protocol to the
Persistent Toxic Substances
Tehran Convention
(PTS) including
persistent
which is finalized
except for annexes
organic pollutants, oil products,
and heavy metal pollution (as
only two of the five Caspian Linkage to POPs
0 in 2004
100= ditto
95= Link to national
littoral states are presently national Enabling
60 in 2005
initiatives has been
activities
70 in 2006
established through
signatories to the Stockholm
90 in 2007
Pollution Regional
Convention, assistance by UNEP
Advisory Group and
in developing national support
partly through
Caspian National
for signature and in developing
Structures and
enabling activities will be part of
SAPICs. Full
collaboration with
the project
the new EU project
Water Quality
Monitoring and
Action Planning
.Support provided to
World Bank
Persistent Organic
Pollutants (POPs)
mitigation project
focusing on capacity
building in
Azerbaijan and Iran.
Developed
0 in 2004
100 = Approved
100= Drafted Plan
POPs/PTS Regional
30 in 2005
Regional Plan
based on national
Action Plan
90 in 2006
information and
100 in 2007
inventories presented
to and approved by
the Steering
Committee.
Report on pesticide
10 in 2004
100 = Reports on
90= prepared under
stocks
30 in 2005
pesticide stocks
national Enabling
70 in 2006
initiatives.
80 in 2007
Pilot projects to
0 in 2004
100 = initially two
90=Four projects to
reduce POPs
30in 2005
pilot projects which
reduce POPs usage
60 in 2006
at the request of the
began in Azerbaijan,
80 in 2007
region were increased
Russia, Iran and
to potential five
Turkmenistan.
Iranian and Azeri
project fully
completed. Project in
Turkmenistan
abandoned near
completion due to
management change.
Russian project
abandoned half way
due to difficulties in
obtaining needful
local application
licenses.
Page 12 of 38
FINAL 30 June 2008
Public awareness
0 in 2004
100= reports on
90 = IMP model
activities including
20 in 2005
training conducted ,
farm and training
IPM model farm and
60 in 2006
IMPM model farm
carried out as one of
training of at least
80 in 2007
the above four
400 affirmers and 50
projects
officials
At SCM request
0 in 2004
100 = Report on
100 = satellites
additional studies
0 in 2005
causes of a large 400
images of the algae
being under taken on
60 in 2006
square km algae
appearance period
Algae Bloom in
100 in 2007
bloom in 2005 near
collected and
southern Caspian
he Iranian coast
analyzed. Sea
samples collected
and analyzed
Objective II:
Continue with specific capacity
building measures to ensure a
regionally owed CEP
coordination mechanism
capable of full implementation
of the SAP and regional
coordination of the NCAPs and
consolidate/update the TDA,
SAP and NCAP's following a
series of information gap-filling
measures.
Outcome 6:
Established, functional
30 in 2004
100=full time staffed 100= Effective PCU
and effective PCU
100 in 2005
PCU, web- based acting , inter alia, as
including transfer of
100 in 2006
PCU work plan, Interim Secretariat
A sustainable, strengthened, and Data and Information
100 in 2007
functional website for all the Regional
regionally owned coordination system infrastructure
linked to other Advisory Groups,
from Baku to Tehran
regional websites
working in close
mechanism for development and
tandem with Tehran
management of the Caspian Sea
Convention Interim
environment, in the form of a
Secretariat and
having in practical
newly formed country-supported
term assumed part of
PCU located in the Islamic
responsibility for
Republic of Iran capable of
CEP coordinational
functions .Re
execution of regional projects,
designed website.
strong country-supported
During reporting
period the PCU was
National Coordination Structures
downsized reflecting
capable of execution of national
reduced activities
projects, and a network of
and the pending
transfer to new
institutions addressing
location in region
Page 13 of 38
FINAL 30 June 2008
Training to PCU
30 in 2004
100= Training need 90= Training need
transboundary environmental
/National Caspian
50 in 2005
assessment report, assessment carried
issues as addressed in the NCAPs Structures
70 in 2006
workshop reports,
out, training on
and SAP.
90 in 2007
improved delivery Economic Valuation
from PCU and of Environment and
National Caspian
on Environment &
Structures (NSCs)
Diplomacy to most
SAPICs, who have
also been taking part
in most of other
technical training
eveners.
PCU staff have been
exposed to in- house
learning programme
as well as to training
on project
management and
communication.
Support to improved
100 in 2004
100= Recruited
100= continued
regional and national
100 in 2005
SAPICs, functional
support to SAPICs
coordination
100 in 2006
inter-sectoral national
and to inter-
100 in 2007
bodies.
sectoraloral
coordination
functions.
Organized SCMs
and APRs the last of
which was held in
Turkmenistan in
February 2008
Acted as the regional
arm of the Tehran
Convention Interim
Secretariat
Assisted WB efforts
towards a dialogue
with IRI regarding a
major Caspian
Bioresources
management
initiative that could
mobilize $ millions
towards fisheries
improvement.
SAP/NCAP
30 in 2004
100=reports on
100=Regional and
Implementation
50 in 2005
effectiveness of SAP
national SAP/NCAP
monitoring and
60 in 2006
implementation from
Implementation
revision of CEP
100 in 2007
SAPICs , improved
Assessment Reports
Concept Paper with
coordination of SAP
developed as part of
reference to CEP
implementation, CEP
TDA Revisit.
/Convention
Concept Paper
Page 14 of 38
FINAL 30 June 2008
Revisited
0 in 2004
100= Revisited TDA,
100 = Four Regional
TDA/NCAPs/SAP
30 in 2005
NCAPs, SAP
& Coordination
60 in 2006
Meeting held,
80 in 2007
information gaps
identified and
targeted research and
studies to fill gaps
carried out. SAP
Updated and
approved at SCM.
TDA Update and
NCAP Updates
completed and
endorsed/approved at
appropriate levels
after a delay of over
nine months has
occurred mostly due
to late nominations
by Govts for studies.
Led and organized
regional activities
towards development
of a project concept
for consideration by
donors.
Substantive support
to the Terminal
Evaluation of the
project
Outcome 7:
Development of Media
40 in 2004
100=Developed
100= Media Kit
kit for journalists /
100 in 2005
Media kit, Media
produced; Web
100 in 2006
Database, NGO
based Media
Enhanced and informed
100 in 2007
Database , Monthly E
Database , monthly
stakeholder and inter- sectoral
bulletin
E Bulletin published,
two Environmental
participation in the management
Journalism
of the Caspian environment
Workshops held with
40 participants.
Page 15 of 38
FINAL 30 June 2008
Strengthened NGOs
30 in 2004
100=NGO Database ,
95= NGO Data base
capacities &
50 in 2005
press release
developed &
Environmental
60 in 2006
mechanism in place,
updated,
awareness training
90 in 2007
NGO participation in
Stakeholders
initiatives
major meetings ,
Analysis revisited,
training held for
40 Micro
policy makers
Environmental
Grants targeting
environmental
awareness
implemented.
Promotion and
awareness materials
including educational
posters and banners
developed and
widely distributed.
Collaborations
continued with a
Darwin Initiative
funded project to
design, produce and
distribute educational
materials. CEP
Booklet produced
and widely
distributed on CEP
and.Caspian Vital
Graphics produced
by UNEP in
collaboration with
project. A Farsi
translation also
produced. Booklet
published on MSGP
and MEGs. NGOs
have been invited to
all major events.
Functional Caspian
10 in 2004
100= Five Caspian
70= PPAS recruited
Concern Groups &
30 in 2005
Concern Groups one
and functional.
Mayors Conference
30 in 2006
in each country
Caspian Marine
70 in 2007
supported by a
Litter Strategy in
Coastal Public
concert with UNEP.
Participations
Regional
Advisor ( PPAs) ,
Stakeholders Forum
Mayors Conference
organized in June in
held , Caspian NGOs
collaboration with
networked
UNEP. Still a
challenge to get the
coastal communities
form into
representative
groupings such as
Caspian Concern
Groups.
Page 16 of 38
FINAL 30 June 2008
Enhanced private
10 in 2004
100= Private Sector
90= the project
sector participation in
40 in 2005
Database, active
established a
CEP
70 in 2006
private sector
constructive
90 in 2007
regional advisory
dialogued with the
group
oil and gas industry
which resulted in the
industry sharing
valuable
environmental data
with the project ,
funding for seals
survey, funding for
three workshops and
participation in all
major events
including the Tehran
Convention COPI .
An MOU for
Partnership with the
oil industry was
pursued.
Nevertheless the
partnership is less
than the desired
level.
Developed and
10 in 2004
100= Designed and
90= PPS developed
approved Public
50 in 2005
approved and
& approved by
participation plan
70 in 2006
initiated Public
SCM. PPS fed into
90 in 2007
Participation
the revisited SAP
Strategy (PPS)
and NCAPs.
Objective III:
Strengthen the environmental
legal and policy frameworks
operating at the regional and
the national levels and where
necessary improve
implementation and
compliance of those
frameworks
Ancillary agreements
30 in 2004
100= Draft agreed
100 Four priority
Outcome 8:
to Tehran
60 in 2005
protocols
protocols in final
Convention
80 in 2006
form save for minor
Preparation of ancillary
80 in 2007
disagreement in EIA
in Transboundary
agreements to the Framework
Contact Protocol
Convention and drafts of the
and in Oil Pollution
major protocols targeting priority
Incidents Protocol .
The protocols to be
transboundary issues
approved by the time
(biodiversity, persistent toxic
of COP II in
November 2008. A
substances, invasive species,
Fisheries Scoping
land-based sources, marine and
Paper developed.
seabed pollution, and
Support to
50 in 2004
100= full ratification
100= Full ratification
environmental impact
ratification process
100 in 2005
by April 2006 and
assessment, data exchange)
100 in 2006
entry into force on
100 in 2007
August 12- although
no assistance was
requested form the
project towards the
process.
Page 17 of 38
FINAL 30 June 2008
Preparation for
30 in 2004
100=detailed
100= A major
functional
50 in 2005
legislation gap
Protocols
Convention
70 in 2006
analysis , Convention Harmonization
Secretariat /gap
100 in 2007
Rules and Procedure,
meeting was held in
analysis
supporting papers
Geneva in Summer
to finalize and
streamline the four
associated Protocols
to the Tehran
Convention.
UNEP was requested
by COPI to continue
as the Convention
Interim Secretariat
while fully
collaborating with
PCU.
A Fisheries Scoping
Paper drafted upon
COPI decision.
Enhanced legal
0 in 2004
100=targeted
95= Two
capacity pertaining
60 in 2004
workshops , national
Environment and
to int environmental
70 in 2006
Convention
Diplomacy
law
90 in 2007
compliance capacity
Workshops
reviews
providing training to
five Caspian
representatives,
national reviews
completed.
Promotion of
0 in 2004
100=technical
80= EIA Workshops
regional EIA and
60 in 2005
workshops on Espoo
held in most of the
use of economic
70 in 2006
in all five countries ,
countries, study on
instruments in env
70 in 2007
report on application
economics of
management
of economic
bioresources
instruments , EIA In
management
Transboundary
abandoned due to
Context protocol
lack of fisheries
sector interest in FR
.
Objective IV :
Achieve tangible environmental
improvements in SAP priority
areas by implementation of
small-scale investments
supported by a small matched
grants programme
Page 18 of 38
FINAL 30 June 2008
MSGP Grants
50 in 2004
100= Two rounds
100= Two rounds
Outcome 9:
awarded
100 in 2005
of Matched Grants
completed with a
100 in 2006
through
total of 12 grants
Matched Funding of small-scale
100 in 2007
competitive basis
awarded focusing
investments from the NGO,
dealing with pilot
on fisheries , soil
public and private sector, which
and small
cleansing, water
investment projects supply ,
target common or transboundary
with strong bearing forestation, IPM,
Caspian issues identified as
on Caspian
pollution control
priorities in the
environment issued and sustainable
TDA/NCAPs/SAP and will result
as identified in
development of
in tangible environmental
TDA/NCAPs and
small
SAP
communities.
improvements. This activity will
be a continuation of the Matched
MSGP grants
30 in 2004
100= Cost
100= All projects
Small Grants Programme
implemented
60 in 2005
effective and
finalized
currently being executed by the
70 in 2006
timely
effectively and
World Bank as part of the first
90 in 2007
implementation
timely except one
GEF support project to the CEP
project in Russia
canceled at the
request of the
grantee.
Booklet published
on all MSGP and
MEGs project in
English and
Russian
Page 19 of 38
FINAL 30 June 2008
Rating of Project Progress towards Meeting Objective12
Please see background note for further guidance.
2006
Rating
2007 Rating
2008
Comments13
(from 06 PIR
(from 07 PIR)
Rating
if available)
National Project
Manager/Coordinator
A Terminal Evaluation carried out during
the reporting period found the project
overall performance as Satisfactory. The
Objective I
HS
HS
HS
report was presented at the SCM in
Objective II
S
S
S
Ashgabat in February and in principle was
Objective III
HS
HS
HS
endorsed although the suggested rating
was deemed be low ever than the
Objective IV
S
HS
HS
regionally perceived rating of HS.
The Evaluation Report praised the project
for its achievements in institutional and
capacity building and policy and strategy
development while at same time seeing
room for improvement in turning strategies
and policies into concrete activities and in
monitoring . The report also called for
improvement in MSGP and MEG
Tehran Convention ratification and the
COPI decision to benefit from the
achievements of CEP provided the much
needed formal legal regional framework
for SAP and NCAPs implementation. This
helped improve the inter-secotaral
cooperation in the countries brining the
Bioresources management authorities
closer to environment authorities in
dealing with the Caspian issues. This was
evidenced in the new GEF supported
PIF/PPG project CASPECO which targets
ecosystem based approach to Bioresources
management.
The project time period needed to be
extended due to late start and also delay in
support studies caused often by late
nominations.
It is noteworthy that continued
depreciation in USD and the inflation in
most of the Caspian countries resulted in
challenges to find qualified experts who
are willing to work within the project
earmarked budgets and offered rates.
Government GEF OFP14
12 Ratings: See instruction sheet for definitions of ratings. Use only: HS - Highly Satisfactory; S Satisfactory;
MS Marginally Satisfactory; MU - Marginally Unsatisfactory; U Unsatisfactory; HU Highly Unsatisfactory.
13 Comment on the rating for 2008 and also on any observable trends from 2006 2008.
Page 20 of 38
FINAL 30 June 2008
(optional)
Executing Agency
(optional)
UNDP Country Office
HS/S S
S
The project has been able to
(optional)
satisfactorily achieve most of its
outcomes and continued to serve as a
platform of dialogue among countries
and stakeholders. It has set a ground
for collaborative and concerted action
by countries towards the betterment of
the Caspian environment. The Project
Support Unit has continued, during the
review period, to provide support to
the implementation of the Tehran
Convention and to prepare for the
establishment of the protocols to the
Convention. A final evaluation in late
2007 assessed the progress towards
project outputs as "satisfactory."
UNDP Regional
S/HS S
S/HS
During the reporting period the project
Technical Advisor
was able to successfully conclude its
activities and achieve its objectives
almost to the full. This is seen in the
findings of the Terminal Evaluation
Report which is praising the project
for some remarkable achievements
while at same time calls for
improvement in ensuring effective
monitoring , inter-sectoral
coordination and in policy-to- action
continuum. Success of the project was
a major element in the GEF
consideration to positively consider a
third support to the programme.
Action Plan to Address Marginally Unsatisfactory, Unsatisfactory or Highly Unsatisfactory Rating
Where a rating of MU, U or HU is noted above describe the actions to be taken to address this:
Action to be Taken
By Whom?
By When?
14 In the case of a project involving more than 1 country, it is suggested that for simplicity only the OFP (optional)
and Country Office Programme Manager from the lead country sign-off. If representatives from more than 1
country sign off, please add additional rows as necessary, clearly indicating the country name for each signature.
Page 21 of 38
FINAL 30 June 2008
4. Progress in Project implementation
List the 4 key outputs delivered so far for each project Outcome:
Project
Key Outputs
Outcomes
Outcome 1:
1. Operational Biodiversity Data- base ,
2. Agreed Environmental Monitoring Programme
3. Completed Coastal Sites Inventory
4. Operational IMPAS
Outcome 2:
5. carried out Seal population Surveys in 2005 & 2006
6. Developed and initiated Anzali Lagoon Adaptive Management Pilot Plan
7. Approved Seals Conservation Plan
8. Biodiversity and Invasive Species Regional Advisory Group Meetings and
Fisheries RAGs
Outcome 3:
9. ML/Beroe Survey carried out 2005 & the developed Beroe Introduction
Technical proposal yet to be introduced
10. Completed studies on Algae Bloom
11. Completed Survey of ballast Traffic in Volga
12. Completed review of Legislations on Invasive Species
Outcome 4:
13. Competed GPA /Rapid Assessment of Pollution in all five countries
14. Completed Volga and Kura Flux studies; Ural , Sepid rood and Terek studies
15. Developed Marine Litter Status Report and Strategy
16. Completed Caspian -wide survey of Sediments
Outcome 5:
17. Developed and Approved POPs/PTS Regional Action Plan
18. Three completed Pilot projects to reduce usage of POPs
19. POPs Awareness Posters /literature
20. Pollution Regional Advisory Groups meetings , Emergency RAGs and Coastal
Area Development RAG meetings
Outcome.6
21. Economic Valuation of Environment Workshop
22. Effective collaboration with the oil industry ,
23. Updated SAP, NCAP and TDA leading to Project Concept for a third phase of
GEF support
24. Effective and constructive international partners coordination including EU,
UNEP, World Bank, FAO and other International partners
Outcome 7:
25. Stakeholders Analysis Revisited and Regional Stockholders Forum established
26. 42 completed Micro environmental grants
27. Approved public Participation Plan
28. Awareness materials including CEP Website ,E Bulletin, posters
Outcome 8:
29. Four draft Protocols on LBS, BD, Oil Pollution Incidents and EIA in
Transboundary context
30. Ratified Tehran Convention
31. COPI to the Tehran Convention and the Ministerial Statement approving
Convention Work Plan, Financial Rules and Rules and Procedures
32. Three national EIA Workshops
Outcome 9:
33. Completed Six Matched Grants dealing with fisheries restoration
34. Completed Two Matched Grants to abate pollution
35. Competed Four Matched Grants focused on sustainable livelihood
36. Capacity built to prepare project proposals & Booklet on MSGP and MEG
Page 22 of 38
FINAL 30 June 2008
Rating of Project Implementation15
Please see background note for further guidance.
2006
Rating
2007
2008
Comments16
(from 06 PIR if
Rating
Rating
available)
(from 07
PIR)
National Project
HS
HS
HS
Project delivery completed and
Manager/Coordinator
appraised highly satisfactory as
noted by the TRI meeting of
February 2008 in Ashgabat. There is
still room for improvement in
regional ownership , improved inter-
sectoral coordination and in
effective monitoring and in turning
policies into concrete action as
noted in the Evaluation Report
Government GEF
OFP17 (optional)
Executing Agency
(optional)
UNDP Country Office
HS
S
S
The project has been able to achieve
(optional)
most of its intended income within
the planned budget limits, but
duration wise with some delays.
UNDP Regional
HS
HS
HS
Project implementation is highly
Technical Advisor
satisfactory with minor delays due
mostly to some national political
issues beyond project team control.
Action Plan to Address Marginally Unsatisfactory, Unsatisfactory or Highly Unsatisfactory Rating
Where a rating of MU, U or HU is noted above describe the actions to be taken to address this:
Action to be Taken
By Whom?
By When?
15 Ratings: See instruction sheet for definitions of ratings. Use only: HS - Highly Satisfactory; S Satisfactory; MS
Marginally Satisfactory; MU - Marginally Unsatisfactory; U Unsatisfactory; HU Highly Unsatisfactory.
16 Comment on the rating for 2008 and any observable trends from 2006 - 2008
17 In the case of a project involving more than 1 country, it is suggested that for simplicity only the OFP (optional)
and Country Office Programme Manager from the lead country sign-off. If representatives from more than 1
country sign off, please add additional rows as necessary, clearly indicating the country name for each signature.
Page 23 of 38
FINAL 30 June 2008
6. Risks18
Please see the attached ATLAS-generated Risk Log
Please ensure that those risks listed as critical are real risks (not potential) and have a high probability of
occurring which would result in the project not meetings its objectives. The number of critical risks is
used to determine whether the overall project is at risk.
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
Risk Description
Risk Management Response
Identified
7. 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.
Changes have been reported in previous PIR and there
Year reported:
are no additional changes to report
Change Made to:
Yes/No
Reason for Change
Project Objective
No
n/a
Project Outcomes
NO
n/a
Project Outputs/Activities/Inputs
Study of Algae
Requested by Iran and approved by SCM
Bloom in
Southern Caspian
added
Regional Seas programme
Development of
Marine Litter
Strategy
Support to
Request by the SCM
development of
18 Note that having a "high risk" project is not a problem, it is how the risks are managed that are important and a
well managed "high risk" project is better than a poorly managed "low risk" one.
Page 24 of 38
FINAL 30 June 2008
concept for
donors support
8. Adjustments to Project Time Frame
If the duration of the project, the project work schedule, or the timing of any key events such as project
start up, evaluations or closing date, have been adjusted since project approval please explain the changes
and the reasons for these changes.
Change
Reason for Change
Scope of delay
(in months)
Extended till June2008 as
Delay in signature of project document led to a late
approved by the SCM meeting
start which was further extended due to slow
held in Moscow in December
nominations by Govt's for support studies. Extension
2006 and the SCM meeting held
in duration required was also justified to finalize the
in Ashgabat in February 2008
TDA, to support the nascent Tehran Interim
Secretariat and to assist in resource mobilization from
donors. No additional cost in activities was caused by
the extension which was mostly funded through
release of additional funding to the project made
possible by EU support to the UNEP which in turn
covered a number of activities under the project .
Page 25 of 38
FINAL 30 June 2008
9. Financial Information: cumulative since project started to 30 June 2008.
Please present all financial values in US$ millions to 2 decimal places only (e.g. $3,502,000 should be
written as $3.50m)
Note that this section must be fully completed and must match the project document.
Name of
Nature of
Amount
Amount
Additional
Estimated
Expected
Partner or
Contributor19
used in
committed
amounts
Total
Total
Contributor
Project
in Project
committed
Disbursement Disbursement
(including
Preparation Document20 after Project
to
by end of
the Private
(PDF A, B)
Document
30 June 2008
project
Sector)
finalization11
GEF
GEF
$0.39 m
$6.03 m
$6.00 m
$6.03 m
Contribution
Cash
Cofinancing
UNDP
Managed
UNDP
UN Agency
(TRAC)
(add rows as
necessary)
Cash
Cofinancing
Partner
Managed
(add rows as
necessary)
In-Kind
Cofinancing
National
$21.14 m
$21.14 m
Governments
Others
$4.46 m
$4.46 m
Total
$25.60
m
Cofinancing
Total for
$31.63 m
$6.00 m
$31.63
Project
19 Specify if: UN Agency, other Multilateral, Bilateral Donor, Regional Development Bank (RDB), National
Government, Local Government, NGO, Private Sector, Other.
20 Committed amounts are those shown in the approved Project Document. These may be zero in the case of new
leveraged project partners.
Page 26 of 38
FINAL 30 June 2008
Comments
Please explain any other significant changes in project financing since Project Document signature, or
differences between the anticipated and actual rates of disbursement/co-financing:
Page 27 of 38
FINAL 30 June 2008
10. Procurement Data. DO NOT complete this section for projects or project components executed
by UNOPs.
The following information has been requested by the donor countries to the GEF. Please report the US$
value (in thousands, e.g. 70,000 = 70 / 2,000 = 2) of UNDP/GEF project funds in the amount of US$2,000
or more used to procure personnel, sub-contract, equipment and training from GEF Donor Countries only.
Please enter project expenditures accumulated from project start up to the date of this report.
Personnel
Sub-contracts
Equipment
Training21
contracted that
that are with
purchased outside of
with groups or
come from these
groups based in
the project country
individuals from
countries
these countries
from these countries
these countries
(US$ thousands)
(US$ thousands)
(US$ thousands)
(US$ thousands)
Total
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
China
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
India
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Nigeria
Norway
Pakistan
Portugual
Slovenia
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United
Kingdom
United States
21 Those not included under personnel and sub-contracts.
Page 28 of 38
FINAL 30 June 2008
11. 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 you
do not need to complete this section.
Financial
Financial
Basis for Selection of Financial Institution
Instrument
Institution
Responsible for
Management
For Each Financial Instrument please complete the following two tables:
Name of Financial Instrument:
Source of Funds
Funds
Amount
Issues or Comments
(add rows for each
Committed
Disbursed
source)
in Project
to Date
Document
GEF
Page 29 of 38
FINAL 30 June 2008
Rating of Performance of Financial Instrument22
2006
Rating
2007
2008
Comments
(from 06 PIR if
Rating
Rating
available)
(from 07
PIR)
National Project
Manager/Coordinator
Government GEF OFP
(optional)
Executing Agency
(optional)
UNDP Country Office
(optional)
UNDP Regional
Technical Advisor
Overall Rating23
Action Plan to Address Marginally Unsatisfactory, Unsatisfactory or Highly Unsatisfactory Rating
Where a rating of MU, U or HU is noted above 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?
22 For ratings, use only: HS - Highly Satisfactory; S Satisfactory; MS Marginally Satisfactory; MU - Marginally
Unsatisfactory; U Unsatisfactory; HU Highly Unsatisfactory.
23 Overall rating can be determined as follows. For each rating assign the following figures to the rating: HS = 1, S
= 2, MS = 3, MU = 4, U = 5, HU = 6. The total of these figures should be divided by the number of ratings given
(maximum 5). Enter the final rating not figure (1 = HS, 2 = S, 3 = MS, 4 = MU, 5 = U, 6 = HU)
Page 30 of 38
FINAL 30 June 2008
12. Good Practice in this reporting period.
Were any problems encountered? If so, how were they addressed?
Problem
Solution
Lack of inter sectoral coordination
Continued and persistent dialogue with all sectors
Effective implementation compliance monitoring
Creating a legal framework for Caspian
of strategies /policies produced by the project
environmental activities through the Tehran
Convention and the associated protocols, capacity
building efforts
General Comments:
Is there anything noteworthy/special/critical that was learned this year that is important to share with
other projects so they can avoid this mistake/make use of this opportunity?
Environment is not seen a very high priority issue in most countries in spite of the official
positions. Nor is it high on the agenda of individuals who are grappling with the daily struggles to
earn a living. International donors should not therefore drop environmental initiatives too quickly
even though the recipient countries appear to be relatively rich or even wasteful as is the case with the
some of the Caspian countries. CEP and similar initiatives elsewhere will need to be supported for
some time to allow for the formation of an environmental culture.
Inter - donors dialogue and coordination is essential for the success. CEP has been very luck to
have experienced constructive inter donors cooperation for most of its life. This cooperation should
be encouraged and supported to the extent possible even it implies a donor paying for activities and
success by another one.
Being restricted to deal with only one national agency can be counterproductive. Inter sectoral
coordination needs to be given high attention in any initiative.
Concrete and on the ground quick impact initiatives are important to make a project popular even
though the impacts may not be highly remarkable or/and sustainable.
What would you do differently if you were to begin the project again?
I would urge that ministries other than the environmental agencies, in particular the ones dealing
with Bioresources management and with economic management, as well as the coastal communities
are more effectively engaged in the project processes.
I would go for much fewer number of activities and for les contracts and would pay higher rates
for `quality' .
The project and indeed the CEP have been mostly if not completely dealing with governments.
This in future should change to allow in enhanced involvement by NGOs, local communities,
industry and academia.
To what extent have UNDP GEF projects been relevant to national / local efforts to reduce poverty and/or
enhance democratic governance and/or strengthen crisis prevention and recovery capacity and/or promote
gender equality and empowerment of women. Please explain.
Poverty reduction or enhancement of democratic governance have not been amongst CEP immediate
goals and objectives although the programme has tried to alleviate pressure on coastal communities
through improved fisheries and/or lesser degree of pollution. The CEP and the CEPSAP project have
however been useful to alert the countries and the communities to need to prevent crisis that would
Page 31 of 38
FINAL 30 June 2008
come the region way through water level fluctuations, introduction of invasive species and
unsustainable stress on natural resources. GEF has been favoring gender equality with large number
of its staff and consultants being female.
Has this project been able to generate global environmental benefits while also contributing to the
achievement of national environmental management and sustainable development priorities? If yes,
please elaborate.
To quote from the Terminal Evaluation Report :
The primary accomplishments of the CEP-SAP Project relate to how it served as a catalyst for conservation of the Caspian Sea
and its environs. The Project brought together international, regional, national, governmental and non-governmental actors,
contributing to priority setting and undoubtedly generating synergies. Overall, the Evaluators consider it to be a good example of
the worth and the importance of international assistance in the environmental arena.
The Project's main achievement is to have sustained the Caspian Environment Programme (CEP) and the outcomes of the 1st
stages (notably the TDA/SAP/NCAP24). With project support, these became the vehicles supporting the ratification of the Tehran
Convention or Framework Convention for the Protection of the Maritime Environment of the Caspian Sea. This is the first ever
formal, legal commitment among the five Caspian countries. This is a startling achievement and heralds a new stage of
cooperation at a different level.
The project also facilitated the relatively rapid and ongoing negotiation of Protocols to the Tehran Convention. To be sure, most
of the credit for this belongs rightly with the five Countries and their Parliaments who ratified the Convention as well as the first
phase of GEF investment. However, this project and its partners at UNEP rightly deserve accolades for the impressive work
done in enabling this to happen.
Other notable outcomes generated by the Project include:
Continuing and consolidating the systematic, transparent approach to regional environmental problem solving in the
Caspian Sea. This is characterized by the TDA, the SAP and the many high quality planning documents that fed into these;
Continuing and consolidating the process to building inter-country trust and understanding and facilitating a meaningful
dialogue across countries;
The introduction and demonstration of best practices, methods and techniques, (e.g. for monitoring and analyzing pollution,
studying invasive species, identifying priority coastal sites and raising awareness on Caspian environmental issues in the
five countries;
Raising scientific and general understanding of the Caspian Sea as a region;
Continuing and consolidating the participation of major private sector stakeholders in the CEP process;
Enabling each of the five countries to develop National Caspian Action Plans (NCAP). These set out national SAP
implementation priorities;
The links between the increasing level of investments in coastal areas of the Caspian and the NCAPs merit further analysis
and clarification. Moreover, the exact role of the project in leveraging these investments is difficult to determine and varies
across the five countries. But there is enough evidence to suggest that the CEP-SAP25 Project has played a role in either
stimulating or coordinating some investments.
Overall, the project's range of achievements in four years -- from the exceptional to the average -- is noteworthy in a region as
ecologically, economically, socially, and politically dynamic as the Caspian.
24 Trans-boundary diagnosis analysis, Strategic Action Programme and National Caspian Action Plan
25 Both this stage and earlier stages.
Page 32 of 38
FINAL 30 May 2008
13. Project Contribution to GEF Strategic Targets in International Waters
The International Waters Results Template is designed to be cumulative and updated on an annual basis
(using a new color each year). Based on the results from the FY 07 reporting year, please update last
year's results template using green color font to highlight new and revised sections.
International Waters Results Template is attached separately.
Page 33 of 38
FINAL 30 May 2008
Annex 1: Project Quarterly Progress Report
Page 34 of 38
FINAL 30 May 2008
Page 35 of 38
FINAL 30 May 2008
Page 36 of 38
FINAL 30 May 2008
Page 37 of 38
FINAL 30 May 2008
Annex 2: Table 1: Co-financing
(For projects which underwent a mid-term, phase or a terminal evaluation in FY 2008)
Co financing
IA own
Government
Other Sources*
Total
Total
(Type/
Financing
(mill US$)
(mill US$)
Financing
Disbursement
Source)
(mill US$)
(mill US$)
(mill US$)
Proposed
Actual
Proposed
Actual
Proposed
Actual
Proposed
Actual
Proposed
Actual
Grant
6
6
4.6
13.2
10.6
19.2
10.6
19.2
Credits
Loans
Equity
In-kind 21.4
97
21.4
97
21.4
97
Non-grant Instruments
Other Types
TOTAL
6
6
21.4
97
4.6
13.2
32
116.2
32
116.2
*Other refers to contributions mobilized for the project from other multilateral agencies, bilateral development cooperation agencies, NGOs, the
private sector etc.
· "Proposed" co-financing refers to co-financing proposed at CEO endorsement.
· Describe "Non-grant Instruments" (such as guarantees, contingent grants, etc):
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
· Explain "Other Sources of Co-financing": ________________________________________________________________________
Page 38 of 38
Document Outline
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿðØ
- þÿðØ
- þÿðØ
- þÿ
- þÿ