A COMPANY OF
Annex G: Evaluations of Caspian Environment Programme (CEP)
Annex G1: UNDP-GEF Component
Document title
Final Evaluation of the UNDP/GEF
Caspian Environment Programme
Status
Final
Date
28 November 2002
Author
Alexandra Holland
Client
United Nations Office for Project Services
Rightwell House
Bretton
Peterborough PE3 8DW
United Kingdom
+44 (0)1733 334455
Telephone
+44 (0)1733 333348
Fax
info@peterborough.royalhaskoning.com
E-mail
www.royalhaskoning.com
Internet
1
Caspian Environment Programme
Final Evaluation of the UNDP / GEF Component
CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
3
ACRONYMS
4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
5
1.
INTRODUCTION
11
2.
FINDINGS
12
2.1
Project design
12
2.1.1
Appropriateness to the overall situation of the Caspian Sea
12
2.1.2
Relevance to GEF and UNDP
14
2.2
Project implementation
15
2.2.1
General implementation and management arrangements
15
2.2.2
Budget and timeliness of disbursement
19
2.2.3
Overview of activities
21
2.2.4
Key visible outputs
25
2.2.5
Reporting
28
2.3
Overview of project impact
28
3.
SUGGESTIONS FOR UNDP/GEF AND THE FUTURE OF THE CEP
31
2
Caspian Environment Programme
Final Evaluation of the UNDP / GEF Component
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I gratefully acknowledge the support provided by Oksana Yermichova, Tim Turner, Hamid
Ghaffarzadeh and the staff of the PCU in Baku; Ms Gozel in Turkmenistan; Mr Assarbayev and Ms
Anara in Kazakhstan; Marina Olshanskaya in Russia; and Parvin Farshchi and Ali Mohammed in Iran
for their considerable efforts in coordinating my visit programme to the five Caspian states. I should
also like to thank all of those interviewed during this evaluation for offering their views and hospitality,
and for making available documents to support the evaluation. Many thanks are also due to Ms Elena
Mikhailova, for her interpretation skills. Finally, I should like to thank Ms Katherin Topar-Michon of
UNOPS and Mr Andrew Hudson, UNDP/GEF Technical Adviser for International Waters, for providing
the necessary briefing materials, and for sharing their thoughts on the CEP.
3
Caspian Environment Programme
Final Evaluation of the UNDP / GEF Component
ACRONYMS
BSAP
Biodiversity Strategic Action Programme
CEP
Caspian Environment Programme
CRTC
Caspian Regional Thematic Centre
EC/TACIS
European Commission / Technical Assistance to the Commonwealth of Independent States
EQO
Environmental Quality Objective
ERACL
Effective Regional Assessment of Contaminant Levels
GEF
Global Environment Facility
GIS
Geographical Information System
IAEA
International Atomic Energy Agency
ICM
Integrated Coastal Management
IOC
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission
IPPA
International Public Participation Adviser
IT-CAMP
Integrated Coastal Area Management Planning
MAGICA
Management Advisory Group Intersectoral Co-ordination Assistant
NCAP
National Caspian Action Plan
NFP
National Focal Point
NGO
Non-Governmental Organisation
OP
Operational Programme (GEF)
PCU
Project Co-ordination Unit
PPA
Public Participation Adviser
SAP
Strategic Action Programme
TDA
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis
UNDP
United Nations Development Programme
UNEP
United Nations Environment Programme
UNOPS
United Nations Office for Project Services
WMO
World Meteorological Organisation
4
Caspian Environment Programme
Final Evaluation of the UNDP / GEF Component
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Caspian Environment Programme (CEP) was established in 1998 to address the most pressing
environmental transboundary issues facing the sustainable use and management of the Caspian Sea.
It engages all five riparian States: Azerbaijan; Islamic Republic of Iran; Kazakhstan; Russian
federation; and Turkmenistan. The issues of concern include the over-exploitation of fisheries
resources; coastal habitat and landscape degradation; poor waste management practices;
unsustainable farming and mining practices; erosion of biodiversity; the introduction of alien and
invasive species; damage to coastal infrastructure from water level fluctuations; decline in human
health through poor air and water quality; and oil pollution. Weak management structures and a lack
of identified alternative economic opportunities are recognised constraints to the sustainable
management of the area.
The first phase of the CEP, which took place between 1998-2002, has been co-financed by
UNDP/GEF, the European Commission's TACIS programme, UNEP, and the World Bank. The key
elements of the UNDP/GEF support, which is the focus of this evaluation, have been assistance in the
development of:
· Improved regional co-operation and collaboration;
· A Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA);
· National Caspian Action Plans (NCAPs) for each country; and
· A Strategic Action Programme (SAP) for the region as a whole.
UNEP and UNDP/GEF have also provided support in the development of a Framework Convention
for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Caspian Sea, which is expected to become a
cornerstone of regional co-operation. This evaluation, which largely took place in July 2002, focuses
on assessing the effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability of the UNDP/GEF contribution to
the CEP. An overview of the findings and recommendations of the evaluation are provided below.
The Project Design
The CEP's concept and design are wholly appropriate to the political and institutional climate
concerning the management of the Caspian Sea, and demonstrate a good understanding of the
environmental concerns of the region. The timing of the CEP has been pertinent in terms of facilitating
regional dialogue on environmental management at a time when there was little formal structure
joining the five states, four of which were newly independent, on common issues. The design was
developed in a collaborative manner and the modus operandi for interventions was carefully tailored
to the regional situation.
The CEP design is also very relevant to the UNDP mandate on regional co-operation and
environmental protection, and to GEF policy in International Waters, especially Operational
Programme 8, which focuses on seriously threatened water bodies. It has attempted to institute
lessons learned from other regional seas programmes, such as the Black Sea Environment
Programme and the Mediterranean Action Programme. The focus on stakeholder participation
throughout CEP is central to GEF policy.
In addition to these positive aspects, there are a number of weaknesses in the project design, which
include: poor donor co-ordination between UNDP/GEF and EC/TACIS; ambiguous project objectives,
including unrealistic targets; a lack of an overarching purpose; and the lack of indicators to measure
impact.
5
Caspian Environment Programme
Final Evaluation of the UNDP / GEF Component
Project Implementation
The CEP Management Framework: The Project Co-ordination Unit (PCU), currently based in Baku,
Azerbaijan, has been the nucleus from which all CEP interventions have been facilitated. The
perception of the PCU within the region is that it is well-run and its national and international staff are
motivated, enthusiastic and effective. The PCU has been advised by a Steering Committee, which
has functioned in accordance with its terms of reference and has played a strong role in guiding the
CEP.
Within each country, CEP activities are co-ordinated by a Management Advisory Group Intersectoral
Co-ordination Assistant (MAGICA), who reports to a National Focal Point (NFP). This arrangement
has, on the whole, worked well, although staff changes in Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan created a few
transitional difficulties in CEP implementation in those countries. A reflection of the importance each
Caspian country places on the CEP has been the selection of senior government officials to the NFP
position, which has facilitated high-level decision-making. Each country has demonstrated its
commitment through attendance at all regional meetings, although Turkmenistan has occasionally
had difficulty in attending for political reasons.
Relationship with UNDP Country Offices: The UNDP Country Offices provide minor administrative
support to the CEP, for which they are reimbursed, and are understood to act as a local advocate for
the CEP and participate in its implementation. Relationships between the PCU and UNDP Country
Offices in Azerbaijan, Russian Federation and Islamic Republic of Iran are strong, however, there are
points of dissatisfaction that have been raised by both the PCU and Country Offices. The Country
Offices consider that the monetary reimbursement for administrative services is inadequate; that
authorisation arrangements are confusing; and they also feel a degree of disenfranchisement from the
Programme. The PCU on the other hand perceive a lack of enthusiasm of some Country Offices in
the CEP; consider responses to requests for administrative assistance are sometimes tardy; and in
certain cases there is a lack of trust. It was also apparent that a lack of co-ordination exists between
the project-related activities of some Country Offices and the CEP.
Relationship with UNOPS: UNOPS is responsible for the overall administration of the UNDP/GEF
contribution to the CEP and works in close collaboration with the UNDP/GEF Technical Adviser on
International Waters. The relationship between the PCU, UNOPS, and the UNDP/GEF Technical
Adviser is supportive and effective, on both administrative and technical terms. Areas that could be
strengthened lie in the closer sharing of financial information between UNOPS and the PCU.
Co-operation with other partners and projects in the region: The PCU takes every effort to ensure its
awareness of other relevant projects within the region, and has developed links with projects such as
CASCOM (a regional programme generating and sharing information on hydrometeorology and
pollution), the World Bank Ecotox project, and the USAID Kura River Project.
Private and public participation: The CEP has been effective at leveraging funds from the private
sector in support of its activities, to the amount of some $5-6 million. These funds have largely derived
from the hydrocarbon industry.
Public participation in CEP has largely been achieved through small grant projects (each less than
$3000), facilitated by Public Participation Advisers, to support NGO and community schemes. The
outputs generated have included public awareness and environmental education materials. Whilst
successful in some respects, the direct impact of the CEP on the public has so far been limited, due to
the prioritisation of high-level dialogue between the countries. It is anticipated that the next phase of
the CEP will do much more to engage the public.
6
Caspian Environment Programme
Final Evaluation of the UNDP / GEF Component
The budget and its disbursement: The UNDP/GEF component of the CEP will not exceed its stated
budget of $5.1 million. The budget has been appropriately apportioned, with a significant level of
resources being allocated to consultants and sub-contracts, followed by workshops and training
activities. This is appropriate in a project that is largely concentrated on developing dialogue and
facilitating the preparation of information and management tools.
Earlier criticisms that the CEP focused more resources on international consultants rather than
national expertise were quickly redressed, and the majority of contracts awarded over the last three
years have been to national and regional consultants. Azerbaijan has seen the highest number of
contracts awarded to national consultants, largely due to the presence of the PCU in this country,
which resulted in a greater need for support in areas such as translation and workshop / meeting
preparation. Kazakhstan, Russia and Turkmenistan have received equal distributions of national
contracts, whilst Iran had a marginally higher number due to the greater number of Caspian Regional
Thematic Centres (CRTCs) and the need for translations into Farsi.
Overview of activities and outputs
The CRTCs: These thematic centres have been instrumental in collating and generating information
required to inform the TDA, and consequently the NCAPs and SAP. There were 11 CRTCs
established under Phase I: four funded by EC/TACIS; six by UNDP/GEF; and one by UNEP. The
UNDP/GEF CRTCs focused on data and information management (Azerbaijan); integrated coastal
management (IT-CAMP, Iran); assessment of sediment contaminants (ERACL, Iran); emergency
response (Iran); biodiversity (Kazakhstan); and human sustainable development and health (HSD&H,
Turkmenistan).
The CRTCs were largely housed within national centres of expertise. Where appropriately situated,
their influence and effectiveness was undoubtedly stronger. Each of the UNDP/GEF CRTCs were led
by a national director, and supported by a relevant UN (or other) organisation that was able to provide
technical guidance. These organisations included the International Maritime Organisation,
International Oceanographic Institute, World Health Organisation, and Flora and Fauna International.
The CRTCs largely achieved what they were tasked to do, namely to support the development of the
TDA, NCAPs and SAP, and to regionally co-ordinate their activities. Some were more successful than
others in achieving their work programme, particularly ERACL. Others met difficulties that were to
some extent related to the onerous tasks facing these Centres, particularly IT-CAMP and HSD&H. IT-
CAMP's difficulties related to the short time period given to introducing the concept of integrated
coastal management to the region, and HSD&H's problems concerned the large scope of issues
within its remit.
Criticisms of the CRTCs included the high turnover of consultants engaged in their activities; the
duplication of activities of CRTCs funded by different donors; the fact that they were too numerous,
small and dispersed to make a significant contribution to environmental management; and their
general lack of sustainability (all have ceased to operate as a physical project entity, although staff
members within some CRTCs continue to work on the same themes within their national
organisations). Given these issues, the CEP partners are considering a) whether CRTCs will have a
future in the next phase; and b) what form they should take. The favoured approach is one multi-
disciplinary centre per country, each with a responsibility for one of the five core transboundary SAP
areas.
The TDA: The TDA provides the technical basis for the development of the NCAPs and SAP. It was
achieved through strong regional input, and supported by data provided by the CRTCs. The CEP
overcame significant barriers in its preparation, not least of which was the lack of transparency or
7
Caspian Environment Programme
Final Evaluation of the UNDP / GEF Component
culture of information sharing within the region. Criticisms of earlier drafts of the TDA included its
limited geographical extent (which was defined by the Caspian countries); weak, outdated, and often
incorrect data; repetition and poor coherence. A later redraft of the TDA has addressed all of these
criticisms, and the revised report is available on the CEP website in Russian and English.
The NCAPs: Each country has prepared an NCAP in accordance with the terms of reference provided
by the PCU. Each of these documents reflects the pertinent issues facing the transboundary
sustainable management of the Caspian Sea, which implies a recognition of the problems and a
willingness to address these co-operatively at the national and regional levels. The NCAPs have
informed the identification of Priority Investment Projects, to be funded by the World Bank. The first
drafts of the NCAPs have been presented to national fora for appraisal. These drafts vary in quality,
from a comprehensive assessment of issues and interventions to a simple listing of priority areas.
Areas of weakness within these early drafts included an inadequate assessment of the human,
institutional and financial resources required to undertake the interventions; poor consideration for the
time-scales required; a lack of indicators to monitor impact; and little reflection on the structure for
inter-sectoral co-ordination required to achieve the interventions effectively. The second drafts are
now underway and once complete will enter country specific approvals procedures.
The SAP: The SAP represents a natural progression from the TDA, and presents a structure for future
policy, legislation, regulatory and investment interventions relating to the management of the
environment. It is a shared plan between all CEP partners and therefore requires consensus. At the
time of the evaluation the SAP was in early draft. It has been developed in a participatory manner, but
in its initial stages it was considered largely donor-led rather than country-owned. Criticisms of the
early draft noted the broad range of environmental quality objectives and a lack of prioritisation of key
issues or funding required to address these issues. During consultation in the evaluation there
appeared to be a lack of awareness among some country representatives that the SAP, which will
form the core of CEP's next phase, will be largely funded by the Caspian States, with contributions
from UNDP/GEF and EC/TACIS as appropriate. This misunderstanding was removed at a recent SAP
meeting between all CEP partners. The SAP is now being revised in light of the earlier criticisms.
The Framework Convention: The Convention will serve as an overarching framework governing co-
operation on Caspian environmental management. The PCU, working closely with UNEP, has played
a key role in guiding and facilitating its development, which has evolved through the close
participation of all Caspian States. Whilst the path towards developing the Convention has not always
been smooth, it is anticipated that the Convention will be signed at the end of 2002. Ratification is not
expected until the legal status of the Sea has been resolved.
The CEP website: The CEP has placed considerable effort in developing and maintaining an
informative website, containing information on its activities. Key documents, such as the TDA, are
available for downloading. It will be an important tool to enable the wide dissemination of CEP
materials and a cost-effective way for enabling regional co-operation and collaboration on areas of
mutual interest.
CEP Impact
Despite not achieving some of the objectives defined in the predicted `end of project situation' noted in
the Project Document, i.e. those that were too ambitious, the CEP has far exceeded initial
expectations, given the political and economic difficulties facing the region at the time of its inception.
It has been a successful and worthwhile programme, which is well managed and widely respected
within the region. To the credit of the collaborating States, the CEP has become the leading forum for
environmental co-operation within the region. One of the major impacts of the programme has been
its influence in bringing all countries together in dialogue over the difficult issues facing the
8
Caspian Environment Programme
Final Evaluation of the UNDP / GEF Component
sustainable management of the Caspian Sea. The enthusiasm and support of the various
stakeholders, especially the Governments, have demonstrated strong political will to foster a regional
approach to resolving these issues, and the Framework Convention should set the right foundation for
capturing this political will.
The CEP has also raised the profile of environment in the States. Whilst once and still relatively weak,
ministries of environment within the region are now able to lobby their cause with greater effect,
resulting in a larger allocation of funds. Nonetheless, the private sector is expected to provide
substantial contributions.
One of the key pressures for the future phases of the CEP will be to maintain its momentum,
particularly in light of the socio-economic difficulties in each country, and the growing tensions over
the allocation of hydrocarbon resources and the legal status of the Caspian. Having had a
considerable impact at the institutional level in Phase I, substantial effort is now required to ensure
that institutional commitment is translated into effective action, which is the challenge for Phase II.
Suggestions
The suggestions provided by this evaluation are two-pronged; the first focusing on recommendations
for UNDP/GEF project cycle management; and the second on the future focus of CEP. These are
summarised below:
Suggestions for UNDP/GEF Project Cycle
Suggestions for the future of CEP
Management
Ø Improved donor co-ordination.
Ø Continued financial, institutional and human
resources support and commitment from CEP
partners in the CEP.
Ø Clear and relevant project objectives
Ø Caspian States should be more proactive in
linked by an overarching purpose.
encouraging regional dialogue and taking
ownership of CEP.
Ø Development of project performance
Ø Maintain commitment to the Framework
indicators that measure impact as well as
Convention and consider its future
outputs.
management.
Ø Maintained level of flexibility in project
Ø Communicate clearly the intentions of the CEP
design.
and separate it from political issues where
possible.
Ø Continued adherence to the
Ø Continue the revision of NCAPs and SAP into
recommendations put forward by the
robust and realistic documents with committed
Project Steering Committee.
resources, learning lessons from similar
programmes elsewhere.
Ø Continuation of support for CEP and
Ø Increase stakeholder participation and ensure
smooth and continuous transition between
a greater involvement of NGOs and the private
Phases I & II.
sector.
Ø Improved co-ordination and collaboration
Ø Ensure the sustainability of an effective PCU.
with UNDP Country Offices.
9
Caspian Environment Programme
Final Evaluation of the UNDP / GEF Component
Ø Consider and agree upon the most appropriate
structure, and financial and technical support
for the future CRTCs.
Ø Improve the framework for information
sharing: improve access to information; adopt
the TDA as a working document and continue
to update its contents; and improve the
effectiveness of the website.
Ø Place considerable effort on ensuring effective
inter-sectoral collaboration in decision-making
on resource use and management.
10
Caspian Environment Programme
Final Evaluation of the UNDP / GEF Component
1.
INTRODUCTION
The Issues
The Caspian Sea is the largest landlocked body of water on earth, and is bordered by Azerbaijan, the
Islamic Republic of Iran, Kazakhstan, Russian Federation, and Turkmenistan. It is a rich source of
natural resources and raw materials, some of which provide a substantial contribution to the
economies of the five riparian states, most notably hydrocarbon and sturgeon fisheries resources. The
States are looking to the resources of the Caspian to resolve some of the pressing social and
economic issues prevalent within the region, which include high unemployment and under-developed
transitional economies. The oil and gas sector is expected to make the largest contribution.
The increasing pace of economic development over the past ten years and the enclosed nature of the
Caspian has rendered it susceptible to environmental degradation. The issues that are perceived to
have had the most damaging effects are the over-exploitation of fisheries resources; coastal habitat
and landscape degradation; poor waste management practices; unsustainable farming and mining
practices; erosion of biodiversity; the introduction of alien and invasive species; damage to coastal
infrastructure from water level fluctuations; decline in human health through poor air and water quality;
and oil pollution. Weak management structures and a lack of identified alternative economic
opportunities are recognised constraints to the sustainable management of the area.
The Caspian Environment Programme
The Caspian Environment Programme (CEP) was established to address these issues in a
transboundary regional approach, engaging all five States. Given the past and recent political history
of the region, and the emergence of four newly independent states around the Caspian within the last
10 years, the first phase, which took place between 1998 and 2002, has been aimed primarily at the
establishment of institutional mechanisms to enable international dialogue on environmental issues.
The CEP has comprised a number of inter-related components, which have been funded by
UNDP/GEF, EC/TACIS, UNEP, and the World Bank. The key elements of the UNDP/GEF support
have been assistance in the development of:
· Improved regional cooperation and collaboration;
· A Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA);
· National Caspian Action Plans (NCAPs) for each country; and
· A Strategic Action Programme (SAP) for the region as a whole.
Similarly to UNDP/GEF, EC/TACIS provided support to the development of the TDA and assisted in
the establishment of the Project Coordination Unit (PCU). The World Bank provided funds for a
Priority Investment Portfolio aimed at supporting small environment-related projects, and UNEP has
been instrumental in guiding the development and endorsement of a Framework Convention for the
Protection of the Marine Environment of the Caspian Sea, which is expected to become a corner
stone in regional cooperation.
The Evaluation Process
This evaluation is concerned with the performance of the UNDP/GEF contribution to the CEP during
its first phase. Project evaluation is an essential and mandatory element of UNDP's approach to
project cycle management, being the main tool for assessing the relevance, effectiveness, impact,
and sustainability of its development interventions, and therefore accountability. Whilst a review of the
interventions of the project is a key component, an important role of evaluation is to point to the
positive and negative lessons learned throughout the process of the project cycle, from design to
implementation to termination, and to highlight recommendations for future similar interventions.
11
Caspian Environment Programme
Final Evaluation of the UNDP / GEF Component
Ultimately, the goal of evaluation is to strengthen UNDP's effectiveness in the delivery of development
assistance, through robustly designed and well-targeted projects.
The evaluation took place between 30 June and 2 August 2002. The core of the evaluation comprised
visits to each of the five riparian states between 30 June and 17 July. During this period, the evaluator
met with the Programme Coordinator and other staff of the PCU in Baku, and briefly attended a
regional workshop on the development of the NCAPs, which was held in Baku between 2-5 July.
Within each country, the evaluator met with the Management Advisory Group Inter-sectoral
Coordination Assistants (MAGICAs) and UNDP Country offices, and where possible, the National
Focal Points. Other stakeholders, such as those responsible for the development of the NCAPs,
representatives of the oil and gas sector, and NGOs, were also met. De-briefing was undertaken at
UNOPS and UNDP/GEF headquarters in New York between 1-2 August. A list of people consulted
during the mission is provided in Appendix 1.
The structure of the evaluation referred to the scope of work set out in the terms of reference
(Appendix 2) and the guidelines for project evaluation by the UNDP Central Evaluation Office. The
evaluation report describes the findings and conclusions of the mission, and offers suggestions for the
future shape of the CEP.
2.
FINDINGS
The evaluation has been tasked with assessing the effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and
sustainability of the UNDP contribution to the CEP in terms of:
·
Project design;
·
Project Implementation; and
·
Project Impact.
The results of the evaluation process are set out in accordance with these 3 areas.
2.1
Project design
The evaluation of the project design is largely concerned with its appropriateness to the overall
situation of the Caspian Sea and its relevance within the framework of GEF programmes and
guidelines.
2.1.1 Appropriateness to the overall situation of the Caspian Sea
Considering all inter-related aspects of the CEP, the Project's concept and design are considered
wholly appropriate to the political and institutional climate concerning the management of the Caspian
Sea. The CEP was borne out of a need to establish regional dialogue at a time when there were
insufficient institutional mechanisms encouraging formal communication and cooperation on any level,
let alone on an environmental management level. The timing of the CEP was very pertinent in light of
the emergence of four newly independent states in the early 1990s, and the political difficulties Iran
was experiencing in establishing an international presence, in terms of their need for a more concrete
means of communicating on all issues relating to the Caspian Sea.
It is understood that the UNDP/GEF component was developed with the full collaboration and
participation of the recipient countries, and sufficient time (two years) was given in the PDF-B phase
for developing the programme in such a manner. The two-year PDF-B timescale was very necessary
for a programme of this complexity, to ensure that its interventions were well targeted and meaningful.
The countries themselves were involved in determining and agreeing the institutional framework and
12
Caspian Environment Programme
Final Evaluation of the UNDP / GEF Component
content of the design, which is probably reflected in the support and respect that each country has for
the CEP, and has rendered it less susceptible to the pitfalls of poor project sustainability.
The Project Document demonstrates a good understanding of the issues facing sustainable
development within the Caspian Sea region, and also an understanding of the status of environmental
management at the institutional and policy framework level. The project beneficiaries have been
realistically identified at the direct project level, although the scope of target beneficiaries is perhaps
over-ambitious at this stage.
As is often the case with large complex projects, and is also relevant to this project, there are a
number of weaknesses within the project design, which should be acknowledged during the PDF-B
for Phase II. These are summarised as follows.
Assumptions of good donor co-ordination
The CEP design opted for a co-funding approach between different development agencies, namely
UNDP/GEF, EC/TACIS, The World Bank, and UNEP. In principle, approaches of this kind are
intended to ensure co-ordinated donor approaches within a given region and to leverage a greater
amount of funds to achieve the tasks in hand. In practice, however, they are usually extremely difficult
to manage for several reasons, one of which concerns the timing of funding availability, which if poorly
co-ordinated does not allow the various donor activities to start as planned, and introduces risks into
project success. This risk was not acknowledged in the project design.
One of the key weaknesses of donor collaboration, which was manifested in the initial stages of the
CEP, was the poor definition of responsibilities between the UNDP/GEF and EC/TACIS components
of the project. It had initially been agreed that both of these donor elements would begin
simultaneously, however, when GEF was unable to commit the required funds on time, EC/TACIS
had to initiate the project alone. By the time UNDP/GEF started its activities, the EC/TACIS
component was nearing completion.
EC/TACIS and UNDP/GEF both had responsibilities for the completion of the TDA and for each
supporting Caspian Regional Thematic Centres (CRTCs) within the region. The set-up and scope of
work for EC/TACIS and UNDP/GEF CRTCs differed somewhat, which yielded results that were not
always in synchrony with one another and variations in the national ownership of the Centres. There
were also differences in opinion between the donors as to whether the CRTC arrangement was the
right approach. These institutional problems did not lend themselves to rescuing the difficulties in co-
ordination, and weak collaboration between the management teams did not assist the process.
Unfortunately, in the early stages of the CEP the recipient countries took advantage of the poor donor
co-ordination, and progress with some elements of the project were hampered.
The set-up for the multi-donor approach was such that neither party was ultimately accountable to the
other, and therefore they were neither able to monitor the effectiveness and impact of each other's
activities, nor assess how their activities affected other donor programmes. This effectively reduced
the ability of the Programme Coordinator to control and manage certain activities that could have
jeopardised the success of the project. Fortunately, despite some difficulties experienced between
UNDP/GEF and EC/TACIS teams, significant problems relating to project performance did not arise,
and this is largely attributable to the commitment and competence of the PCU management.
On top of the internal wrangling, the countries themselves were confused over the different
procurement and administration systems imposed by the various funding partners, particularly UNDP,
EC and the World Bank. In some cases, differences between systems, such as salary and the terms
and conditions of employment, created friction amongst national project counterparts.
13
Caspian Environment Programme
Final Evaluation of the UNDP / GEF Component
Ambiguous objectives
Within the project design, a number of stated targets to be achieved at the `end of project situation'
are relevant and have been reached, for example the development of a strong regional institutional
framework; the identification of a regional SAP and NCAPs; increased public awareness; and the
ratification of the Caspian Framework Convention. However, this essentially sound and well-targeted
project design is somewhat weakened by the fact that other stated targets are not adequately
reflected in the specific activities of the Programme. The `end of project situation' includes some
ambitious targets, a few of which could not be possible given the scope of activities and the time and
resources allocated. Examples include the "conservation of habitats and species (within the Caspian
region)", and "sustainable use of transboundary stocks". Whilst these are pertinent issues, they should
be considered as regional goals, which activities such as the SAP should work towards. The
exaggeration of expected achievements at the outset might have led to unnecessarily raised
expectations.
There appears to be a missing link between the goal of the project, which is "environmentally
sustainable development and management of the Caspian environment...." and the objectives of the
project, of which there are 14, which are focused on developing coordination, generation of
information in key topic areas (CRTCs) to inform the TDA, and development of a SAP. These
objectives are good foundations for sustainable development and management; however, they alone
will not achieve the goal. The Project Document would benefit from a clear description of the purpose
of the project, which demonstrates the link between all of these objectives. This would also help to
avoid misconceptions about what the first phase of the CEP was trying to achieve.
Measurement of achievement
Success criteria have been defined for each output within the project's logical framework table (listed
in Appendix 4). These are mostly straightforward, easy to measure, and relate to the achievement of
activities within each output. The design does not make clear, however, how the overall impact of the
project will be measured against its defined goal. For example, how will environmentally sustainable
development and management be measured? Going beyond the measurement of attendance at
regional environment meetings or the institution of a robust environmental action plan, ultimately the
measurement of impact should measure direct change in activities such as more sustainable resource
utilisation; improved human behaviour and attitude towards wise use of the environment; and whether
biodiversity conservation efforts are effective.
Reliable and informed indicators are not always easy to define and often difficult to measure, but
these ought to be set in place now, so that the long-term impact of the CEP can be monitored and
lessons learned as to whether its approach and activities have been effective. This should in turn
strengthen UNDP/GEF's approach to project development in this field.
2.1.2 Relevance to GEF and UNDP
The CEP is relevant to two of the key UNDP mandates: regional cooperation and environmental
protection. The CEP is also very much in line with the current thrust of GEF policy in International
Waters, which is set out in the GEF Operational Strategy adopted in 1995. It is understood that GEF
will continue to provide support under this Strategy and therefore the programme will remain relevant
within the foreseeable future.
CEP demonstrates complementarity with Operational Programmes (OP) 2, 9 and 10, but is most
relevant to OP8 which focuses on seriously threatened water bodies and the transboundary threats to
these ecosystems. The threats considered include pollution; over-exploitation of living and non-living
resources; habitat degradation; and the introduction of non-indigenous species. The CEP design has
focused on all of these issues, which are pertinent to the Caspian. It has followed GEF policy by
14
Caspian Environment Programme
Final Evaluation of the UNDP / GEF Component
enabling the Programme to play a catalytic role in supporting countries to leverage co-financing from
the international community and private sector, focused on changing sectoral policies and activities
responsible for transboundary environmental concerns. Examples of this are CEP's facilitatory role in
the development of:
a) The Framework Convention, which will form one of the most important legal documents on
the transboundary management of the Caspian Sea, and will pave the way for future inter-
regional collaboration;
b) A regional TDA on transboundary issues; and
c) A SAP for the implementation of a group of countries, targeted at resolving the root causes of
environmental degradation.
By these interventions GEF has followed the typical form of assistance for projects of this nature, and
has also attempted to institute lessons learned from other similar programmes, such as the Black Sea
Environment Programme and the Mediterranean Action Programme.
Stakeholder participation is the cornerstone of GEF policy, and the CEP design was well set-up to
ensure good stakeholder dialogue, through Steering Committee Meetings, NFP meetings, workshops,
seminars, training courses, and public awareness activities. During the early days of project
implementation, it was recognised that more interface was required between the PCU and
NFPs/countries, and therefore the role of Management Advisory Group Inter-sectoral Coordination
Assistant (MAGICA) was instituted to ensure that the dialogue was maintained at optimal levels.
Similarly, the original project design had allowed for an International Public Participation Adviser
(IPPA), who would have been responsible for coordinating all local participation activities and
engaging NGOs in the Programme throughout the region. Again, it was decided that five local PPA
specialists, instead of one IPPA, would better deliver this role and so additional consultants were
recruited to take on these roles at a national level under the guidance of a part-time IPPA and the
PCU. This new arrangement was probably much more effective in achieving local dialogue on
environmental matters and served GEF policy well.
The project design assumes a number of discrete (but continuous) phases, which if successful will
achieve the expected programme outputs of GEF OP8. It has, essentially, been a planning phase,
laying the foundation for effective action. The next phase will need to move on from data collection
and the identification of issues, to the concrete implementation of interventions that will focus on
achieving the goals of GEF OP8. The scope of work for the next phase has already been outlined in a
Concept Paper, which has been submitted to GEF Secretariat for consideration. The timing for the
delivery of this has been appropriate, and will help ensure as seamless a transition between the two
phases as possible.
2.2 Project implementation
2.2.1 General implementation and management arrangements
Programme Co-ordination Unit
For the duration of this phase of the Programme, the CEP has been managed by a Programme
Coordination Unit (PCU) based in Baku, Azerbaijan. The PCU office is spacious and located within
the premises of a Government building provided in kind by the Government of Azerbaijan. The office
premises comfortably cater for the current staff of seven and also provide a general meeting room and
a small conference facility. The PCU is headed by an international Programme Coordinator, who is
assisted by a team of international and national technical specialists together with administrative
support. The PCU is responsible for administration; support in the preparation of technical studies;
15
Caspian Environment Programme
Final Evaluation of the UNDP / GEF Component
coordination of project activities; collection and dissemination of information relevant to the project;
reporting on project progress; and the preparation of reports.
The PCU appears to be well run, and is staffed by a motivated and enthusiastic team. Staff members
interviewed have a high regard for the management of the PCU, and relationships between team
members are good. It is apparent that the division of labour within the office is efficient and tasks are
appropriately delegated. All staff members have an excellent command of English, and the local staff,
which represent 70% of the team, are native speakers of Russian and Azeri. The Environmental
Economist to the PCU is fluent in Farsi. Therefore, there is fluency within all of the languages of CEP
within the PCU. All local staff members within the PCU have participated in English language training.
Members of the administrative team have also received training in word processing and basic
computing skills; account management; business administration; and data management. Staff
members are invited to attend weekly programme meetings, and ad hoc meetings are held as
required, which assists in good communication between all staff. The interest shown in the long-term
career development and involvement of PCU staff in the programme's implementation has served to
adhere the team and has clearly had a positive effect on the delivery of the programme.
Programme support to these activities goes beyond the more specific target achievements of the CEP
by setting an example of positive long-term development assistance. This view of the overall
efficiency and effectiveness of the PCU was very much reflected by those interviewed within the
region, who commended its ability to respond rapidly to the needs of those involved in the CEP
through regular dialogue and in-country visits.
Country-level coordination
Within each of the five participating countries, the main link between the CEP and the national level
has been through a National Focal Point (NFP), who is supported by a Management Advisory Group
Intersectoral Coordination Assistant (MAGICA). NFP and MAGICA positions have been filled by
Government nominees, although most of the MAGICAs are not currently civil servants or full-time
government employees, which is an issue for Programme sustainability.
An indication of the importance of the CEP to the region has been the selection of very senior
ministerial staff members to the NFP position, either at Minister or Head of Department level. The
MAGICAs have typically been selected by the NFPs, and this arrangement has helped to secure a
good working relationship and communication between NFPs and MAGICAs, thereby ensuring that
the process of coordination between the country level and the PCU is as optimal as possible.
Generally, continuity in the posts has been strong, with NFPs and MAGICAs remaining in position
throughout the duration of the project. The main exception has been in Kazakhstan, where a change
in NFP also resulted in a change in MAGICA. The effect of this was a reduction in activities related to
the CEP within the country during this period, and no doubt it reduced the effectiveness of the CEP in-
country coordinating office. However, the recently appointed incumbents have stated their
commitment to the continuation of the CEP and the implementation of the SAP.
In Azerbaijan, a new Environment Minister (who also assumed the role of NFP) was appointed in the
last year of the project. Whilst this caused a few transitional difficulties at the beginning, the
relationships are once again strong. Commitment of NFPs and MAGICAs is also evident in the other
countries, with good attendance at the regular project meetings and a steady stream of
communication between the PCU and the countries. Turkmenistan has not always been able to
attend CEP meetings, which has often been due to visa issues, but has stressed its commitment and
welcomes the move of the PCU to Iran at the end of the year where entry should no longer be an
issue.
16
Caspian Environment Programme
Final Evaluation of the UNDP / GEF Component
In accordance with the Project Document, the PCU has been supervised by a Steering Committee
composed of representatives of the recipient countries, UNDP/GEF, EC/TACIS, UNEP, and the World
Bank. At several meetings, observers were invited to attend, including members of NGOs and the oil
industry. In accordance with its terms of reference, the Steering Committee has met annually and was
responsible for the overall strategic policy and management direction of the CEP, decisions on which
have been agreed by consensus. It was also responsible for creating mechanisms for interaction with
the private sector and in assisting the CEP to find additional funding to support its outputs. The
minutes from the Steering Committee meetings demonstrate that the Committee did play a strong role
in the decisions relating to the implementation of the CEP, and the recommendations put forward by
the Committee were, where relevant, acted upon by the PCU.
One matter specified in the Project Document as a possible source of future funding for resolving
environment problems in the region, but which the Committee has not furthered, is the establishment
of an Environmental Trust Fund. The purpose of such a fund would be to meet foreseen commitments
towards environmental management and to reduce reliance on donor support. Generally, trust funds
of this type are seen as a means for over-coming institutional and market failures during transition to a
market economy. The downsides of such funds are that they can result in the inefficient allocation of
resources over the longer term, and can create vested interests, which places pressure on the fund.
The establishment of a trust fund for the Caspian was looked into carefully by all parties concerned,
and the CEP financed a seminar in July 2000, which provided information on the types of funds that
might be appropriate and the commitments required by the countries. Since the seminar, there has
been little enthusiasm for such a fund and the concept has therefore been postponed.
UNDP Country Office Arrangements
The design of the CEP included the involvement of the five UNDP Country Offices to undertake minor
administrative duties on behalf of UNOPS, such as the preparation of contracts and payment for local
experts; and to act as a local advocate for the Programme. In addition to supporting UNOPS in
administrative duties, for which they are reimbursed, it is also the understood role of UNDP Country
Offices to participate in the implementation of UNDP projects, including the CEP, for which they are
not reimbursed.
The arrangement has been somewhat unsatisfactory, a view largely expressed by the Country Offices
but in some cases also by the PCU (and UNOPS). The Country Offices consider that the monetary
reimbursement for administrative services is inadequate; that authorisation arrangements are
confusing; and they also feel a degree of disenfranchisement from the Programme. The PCU on the
other hand perceive a lack of enthusiasm of some Country Offices in the CEP; consider responses to
requests for administrative assistance are sometimes tardy; and in certain cases there is a lack of
trust.
The relationships between the PCU and UNDP Country Offices in Azerbaijan, Russian Federation
and Islamic Republic of Iran are strong. The PCU has probably had most contact with the Country
Office in Azerbaijan, due to the greater need for administrative assistance from this office owing to the
presence of the PCU in Baku.
Payment for the services of UNDP Country Offices is a standard percentage set by UNOPS. The
issue of inadequate payment is one that relates to the UNOPS project structure, rather than the CEP,
and can therefore only be addressed by those who set financial policy within the organisation.
However, the matter of disenfranchisement could perhaps have been resolved by more
communication and commitment from both sides, and more effort on presenting a united front to the
outside world.
17
Caspian Environment Programme
Final Evaluation of the UNDP / GEF Component
What was surprising was the lack of dialogue between the UNDP Country Offices and PCU on the
project activities that UNDP Country Offices are directly involved in. In Turkmenistan, for example, the
UNDP Country Office is supporting the development of a National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP);
however, there appears to be no formal communication or coordination between the Country Office
and PCU on areas of mutual interest. This lack of communication is undermining UNDP's involvement
in these countries.
Relationship with UNOPS
As the Executing Agency for UNDP/GEF support to the CEP, UNOPS has been responsible for the
overall administration of the UNDP/GEF Project, and undertakes day-to-day operational and
administrative duties. UNOPS works in close collaboration with the UNDP/GEF Technical Adviser for
International Waters, who guides the Programme from a technical standpoint. The relationship
between UNOPS, the UNDP/GEF Technical Adviser, and the PCU has been cohesive and mutually
supportive. All sides have commented on the other's ability to respond rapidly and appropriately to
requests, and the PCU has valued both the administrative and technical support offered by UNOPS
and UNDP/GEF. This positive relationship is demonstrated by the frequent correspondence between
UNOPS, UNDP/GEF and PCU, and a close dialogue on all activities underway within the Programme.
One area where UNOPS could have assisted the PCU more, but is a function of the UNOPS
budgeting system rather than the individuals involved, is the timeliness of sharing information on
budget expenditure. The current arrangement is apparently not conducive to the close management
of accounts by the PCU. The PCU would value more information on project expenses - whilst it
maintains a record of its own expenses incurred, it is not always aware of the expenses incurred on its
behalf and on funds that are still available. More agreement on financial information sharing between
UNOPS and PCU might assist in the future.
Cooperation with other partners and projects in the region
Due to the current perceived and predicted environmental issues relating to the Caspian Sea, there
are an increasing number of projects concerned with environmental management and sustainable
development within the region, some of which are national and others that intend to have regional
impacts. Where avenues are open for its involvement, the PCU has been keen to ensure dialogue
and to assist in developing coherence in activities, to avoid duplication of effort and also to maximise
the use of funds to achieve similar aims.
One such programme is the CASCOM, with which the PCU has signed a memorandum of
understanding. This is a regional programme under development aimed at collecting and exchanging
information on hydrometerology and pollution within the Caspian region. CASCOM is supported by
the hydrometeorological services of all Caspian States, together with World Meteorological
Organisation (WMO), UNEP, and UNESCO. CEP has also developed links with the USAID Kura River
Project, and has strong ties with the World Bank Ecotox project, amongst others.
Private sector participation
The CEP has been very effective at leveraging funds from the private sector in support of its activities.
During Phase I, the private sector provided between $5-6 million to CEP over 2.5 years, largely
contributed by oil companies operating within the region, particularly British Petroleum, Shell and
Agip. These contributions have supported activities such as biodiversity sensitivity mapping,
environmental impact assessments (EIA), the At-Sea-Training-Programme expeditions, oil spill
response planning, and elements of the TDA. The private sector has also actively participated in
Steering Committee Meetings, and is viewed by CEP as an important and constructive stakeholder in
the development of sustainable approaches to environmental management in the Caspian Sea
region.
18
Caspian Environment Programme
Final Evaluation of the UNDP / GEF Component
Public participation
Initially, public participation within CEP was to be co-ordinated by one International Public
Participation Adviser (IPPA). Recognising that this was inadequate support to effectively engage the
public on matters relating to the sustainable development of the Caspian, the PCU split this role into
five full-time positions (i.e. one local PPA per country) and one part-time IPPA (based in Geneva). The
IPPA assisted with the development of a work programme for the PPAs and provided support to their
activities as required. The arrangement has worked well, and the work programme delivered by the
IPPA has been informative and well structured. The arrangement of PPAs has been marred by the
difficulty that Kazakhstan and Russia have had in recruiting a suitable PPA; and a very recent
changeover in the PPA in Turkmenistan. Activities in Iran have not been as prolific as anticipated due
to a long illness of the PPA.
Public participation has largely been achieved through small grant projects (each of less than $3000)
awarded to schemes put forward by small NGOs and community-based organisations. The award of
grants were decided through consensus between the PPAs, PCU, and NGOs, and the projects
focused on activities such as environmental education and awareness raising, developing tools such
as booklets for children on the aquatic life of the Caspian Sea. These have been popular outputs.
Other achievements of the CEP public participation efforts include the work carried out in Iran, which
has attempted with some success to unite three coastal provinces in closer collaboration on
community-oriented activities.
The Initiation for Social Action in Euro-Asia (ISAR), a regional NGO coordinating body, has been
invited to participate at the Steering Committee Meetings, and presented a paper at one. Its role has
been to facilitate the participation of NGOs and the public in the CEP. This organisation, and others,
considers that CEP could do more to engage the public and suggests that the next phase allocates
more funds to support NGO activities, emphasising public awareness and environmental education.
The CEP has, to date, been fairly top-down as far as the involvement of the public and NGOs is
concerned, but perhaps this has been the necessary first step considering the stage of development
of the region, where the priority has been to develop coherent dialogue at a high level.
2.2.2 Budget and timeliness of disbursement
The UNDP/GEF component of the CEP began in July 1999, and was intended to have a 3-year
duration. Due to delays in the start of the programme, largely owing to uncertainties in GEF financing,
this component, which was intended to start at the same time as the EC/TACIS interventions, was
delayed by some six months. Within its agreed budget, UNDP/GEF has extended the end of the
project similarly, and the project is scheduled to finish at the end of September 2002. The total budget
of the project amounts to approximately $5.1 million, which has been delivered in accordance with the
amount set out in the Project Document, and will not be exceeded.
From an examination of a breakdown of budget expenditure into the broad areas of its distribution, the
budget appears to have been appropriately apportioned (Figure 1). Given that this Phase was largely
concentrated on developing dialogue, improving communication and collaboration regionally and
internationally, and preparing documents, a significant amount of resources went on consultants and
sub-contracts (40%), workshops and training activities (15%), and inter-agency agreements (7%).
Just over one-fifth of the budget was allocated to the administrative and managerial support of the
CEP in terms of the PCU and the national staff in each CEP national co-ordination unit. The
remaining resources were spent on the necessary travel costs, and equipment and supplies to
support CEP activities in each country.
19
Caspian Environment Programme
Final Evaluation of the UNDP / GEF Component
Equipment +
Sundries
PCU International
Communication
2%
Staff
7%
18%
Workshops/Training
15%
International
Consultants
8%
Travel
National Project Staff
6%
5%
Inter-agency
Agreements
7%
National Consultants
13%
Subcontracts National
8%
Subcontracts
International
11%
Figure 1.
Breakdown of CEP budget according to key areas of spend between 1999-
2002 (source: UNOPS, 2002)
In the early stages of the CEP, there was criticism from the countries regarding the high dependence
on international consultants, and not enough use made of national and regional consultants. CEP
acknowledged this criticism and redressed the balance accordingly (Figure 2). Other than the full-time
international staff working on the project (namely the Programme Coordinator; Economic Adviser; and
Scientific Liaison and Information Management Officer), which accounted for 18% of the budget
between 1999-2002, the use of international consultants on short-term to medium-term contracts only
amounted to 8% of the budget, whereas national staff and consultants comprised 18% of the budget
(Figure 1). Recognising that national consultant and staff fee rates are lower than for international
consultants, this represents a significant involvement of national and regional expertise in the CEP, as
is demonstrated in Figure 2. A consultants' database has been placed on the CEP website.
140
120
100
80
International contracts
60
National contracts
No. of Contracts
40
20
0
1999
2000
2001
2002
Year
Figure 2.
Number of contracts awarded to national and international consultants and
sub-contracts between 1999-2002 (source: UNOPS, 2002)
20
Caspian Environment Programme
Final Evaluation of the UNDP / GEF Component
The number of contracts allocated to national consultants and sub-contractors varied somewhat
between countries. Due to the presence of the PCU in Azerbaijan, more contracts were awarded in
this country, particularly in 2002 when the requirement for support such as report translations was at
its highest. Azerbaijan also hosted the greatest numbers of workshops and meetings (see Appendix
3), for which support was required. Few contracts were awarded in 1999 to any country, due to the
limited activities that took place during that year owing to project delays. The number of national
contracts awarded in Kazakhstan, Russia and Turkmenistan were approximately the same over the
duration of the project, but a little higher in Iran due to the greater number of Caspian Thematic
Research Centres and also the need for translations of documents into Farsi (Figure 3).
120
100
80
2002
2001
60
2000
40
1999
No. of national contracts
20
0
Azerbaijan
Iran
Kazakhstan
Russia
Turkmenistan
Figure 3.
Number of national contracts (consultants and sub-contractors) awarded per
country between 1999-2002 (source: UNOPS, 2002)
Of the key outputs of the CEP, the TDA, NCAP and Framework Convention have been largely
achieved by the involvement of national experts in both decision-making and report preparation,
facilitated by international consultants and the PCU. The NCAPs were wholly prepared by national
experts, and approved by national committees, with guidance from PCU as required. At the time of
this evaluation, there was criticism, however, both from the donor organisations and the countries
themselves, that the SAP was more donor-led rather than country-owned, having been largely
prepared by international consultants with consultation on its content. Countries would like to see
more national involvement in the direct preparation of this document. Whilst this would require more
time and effort, it would improve the perception of ownership. The issue of ownership appears to have
improved since the SAP meeting that took place in August 2002, at which all CEP partners
participated.
2.2.3 Overview of activities
The Caspian Regional Thematic Centres
One of the key aims of this phase of the CEP has been to both collate and generate information
relating to the Caspian Sea environment, which has resulted in the Transboundary Diagnostic
Analysis (TDA) and has informed the NCAPs and SAP. In an effort to engender project activities at a
country level, 11 Caspian Regional Thematic Centres (CRTCs) were established throughout the
region; four by EC/TACIS, six by UNDP/GEF, and one by UNEP. This evaluation is only focused on
the UNDP/GEF component of the CEP, but acknowledges other centres where relevant.
Each CRTC was assigned a particular subject area (listed below) within which it was tasked to collate
data from around the region, and in some cases undertake limited research.
21
Caspian Environment Programme
Final Evaluation of the UNDP / GEF Component
EC/TACIS CRTCs
·
Bioresources, Russian Federation;
·
Pollution Control, Azerbaijan;
·
Combating Desertification, Turkmenistan;
·
Water Level Fluctuation, Kazakhstan.
UNDP/GEF CRTCs
·
Data and Information Management, Azerbaijan (within the PCU);
·
Integrated Coastal Area Management Planning (IT-CAMP), Islamic Republic of Iran;
·
Effective Regional Assessment of Contaminant Levels (ERACL), Islamic Republic of Iran;
·
Emergency (oil spill) Response, Islamic Republic of Iran;
·
Biodiversity, Kazakhstan;
·
Human Sustainable Development & Health (HSD&H), Turkmenistan.
UNEP CRTC
·
Legal and regulatory instruments, Russian Federation.
The institutional approach adopted in the establishment of the CRTCs differed slightly between
EC/TACIS and UNDP/GEF, and may offer lessons in the future development of such centres. In most
cases, the CRTCs were established within institutions that had prior expertise in the given area, so for
example, the CRTC for Water Level Fluctuation was established within the premises of Kazakhstan
Hydrometeorology and the CRTC for Emergency Response (oil spills) was established within the
Iranian Port & Shipping Organisation.
This approach made much sense in that it enabled CEP to establish links with known centres of
expertise within the region, strengthening not only the CEP network and influence, but also improving
access to knowledge and information. However, in some instances, the CRTCs were not housed in
appropriate institutions, for example the CRTC for Biodiversity was situated in the UN Volunteers
Office and then moved to the University of Oil and Gas in Atyrau. Whilst this Centre collated useful
information on biodiversity, its contribution to capacity building within the region was limited. A number
of CRTCs were situated in the State capitals and many were thus removed from the actual
environment on which they were focused. This may be appropriate if the CRTCs are to contribute to
institutional capacity building, but for the purposes of undertaking research the States may wish to
reconsider whether to relocate any future CRTC-type institution to the Caspian region in a subsequent
phase of the CEP.
CRTCs received support from both national and international specialists in various subject areas;
EC/TACIS centres had international directors, whilst UNDP/GEF centres relied on local and regional
expertise. The latter approach was politically important, and the centres received additional support
through links established with various relevant international organisations, e.g. International Maritime
Organisation (CRTC Emergency Response), International Oceanographic Institute (CRTC IT-CAMP),
Flora & Fauna International (CRTC Biodiversity), World Health Organisation (CRTC Human
Sustainable Development & Health), and the International Atomic Energy Administration (CRTC
ERACL). Both approaches undoubtedly built capacity, but the UNDP/GEF approach probably
achieved more in terms of strengthening international links between the countries and the rest of the
world, which the countries consider very important.
A criticism of support to the CRTCs was the high turnover of consultants. Centres considered to have
suffered from this are the Pollution Control; ERACL; and Biodiversity. Lack of continuity frustrated the
countries and meant that much old ground had to be covered when meeting with NFPs and
MAGICAs.
22
Caspian Environment Programme
Final Evaluation of the UNDP / GEF Component
Did the CRTCs achieve what they set out to?
The Project Document envisaged that the CRTCs would:
a) develop a work plan and implement activities in their given area;
b) regionally coordinate in their given area;
c) assist in the TDA preparation; and
d) assist in the development and implementation of NCAPs and SAP.
From discussions with relevant individuals from all of the UNDP/GEF CRTCs, except Biodiversity, and
also staff from the Combating Desertification and Water Level Fluctuations CRTCs of EC/TACIS, it
can be concluded that they certainly achieved a) and c) in that they largely achieved their workplans
and the work produced informed the development of the TDA.
With respect to the UNDP/GEF CRTCs, a number of tasks defined in the workplans of several CRTCs
were not completed. IT-CAMP, whilst achieving considerable dialogue on the need for integrated
coastal management (ICM) within the region, did not implement its envisaged pilot projects under this
phase although outline plans were developed. It should be noted, however, that establishment of such
pilot projects in a region that is new to the concept of ICM was an ambitious aim within two years (the
CRTC was late in starting). It is hoped, and intended, that these projects will be developed under the
implementation of the SAP. The timing of this will in fact be more appropriate in a phase that is
concerned with action rather than planning.
All CRTCs worked towards regional coordination (task b) to some extent, which was largely achieved
through regional workshops, training courses, and meetings, of which 74 related to CTRC activities
and the preparation of the TDA, NCAPs and SAP. UNDP funded 60% of these, whilst the remainder
were supported by TACIS. Workshop, training courses and meetings took place in roughly equal
numbers in each country, apart from in Azerbaijan which hosted a greater number due to the
presence of the PCU in Baku. A list of the meetings, workshops and training courses that took place
throughout CEP Phase I is provided in Appendix 3.
From those interviewed during the evaluation, many had high regard for the cooperation efforts of
CRTC Biodiversity and CRTC IT-CAMP in particular. Many of the CRTCs contributed to strategy
development, such as the workshop on the development of a Caspian Sea Regional Plan on
Cooperation in the case of Major Oil Spill, held in April 2002.
In terms of specific regional collaboration on data collection, some of the most noteworthy activities
have been the three At-Sea-Training-Programme scientific expeditions organised by ERACL, which
investigated contaminant levels within sediments in various parts of the Caspian Sea. The expeditions
had multi-national teams with representatives from all five countries, who sampled at 150 locations
around the Caspian. The expeditions also served to demonstrate good collaboration between private,
public and multilateral partners on the co-funding of environment projects, with significant funding
being derived from British Petroleum. The results, which provided previously undocumented data from
some parts of the Caspian, were shared with all countries. Whilst this was a useful exercise in
providing a snapshot in time of the condition of the sediments, continued monitoring is required if
long-term meaningful data are to be generated.
Each of the UNDP/GEF CRTCs has an informative page on the CEP website, in which its activities
and findings are set out. This has probably been one of the most effective forms of communicating the
activities within the region and beyond.
23
Caspian Environment Programme
Final Evaluation of the UNDP / GEF Component
The CRTCs also contributed to task d), but not as fully as might have been hoped due to timing; the
NCAPs and SAP are still under preparation, whereas the CRTCs ceased to operate since CEP
stopped financially supporting them some months ago. However, the Directors of the CRTCs were
involved in the development of the Environmental Quality Objectives and in defining targets and
interventions as part of the TDA process. They also attended the first SAP meeting.
In some instances there is the perception that CRTCs have duplicated the efforts of other institutions
within the region. This point was noted by the Russian Hydrometeorological Service, whose mandate
includes investigating water level fluctuations within the Caspian, amongst others. The perception of
duplication could perhaps be avoided in the future through regular consultation and the participation
of as many relevant institutions in the implementation of the NCAPs and SAP as possible, and
through a review of workplans and activities of the CRTCs against other regional centres of expertise.
It was also considered that some of the CRTCs themselves duplicated effort, particularly the
EC/TACIS Bioresources CRTC and the UNDP/GEF Biodiversity CRTC. This is possibly a result of
poor donor coordination. The Steering Committee made a recommendation that it would resolve this
area of overlap. Whether this was achieved is unknown to the evaluator.
The Future for CRTCs
At the October 2001 Steering Committee Meeting, the Committee noted its disappointment that the
CEP would cease funding the CRTCs. Now, however, amongst the Steering Committee and others
engaged in the CEP, there is considerably less enthusiasm for their continuation as currently
structured. The general view held is that the CRTCs were too numerous, too small and too dispersed
to make any significant contribution to environmental management within the region. There has,
however, been considerable disappointment from those engaged in the CRTCs that the Centres were
not to continue, and perhaps the exit strategy did not appear to have been well-communicated to the
countries or employees of the CRTCs at the outset.
The CRTCs as designed and established were not sustainable, in that the recipient governments are
not willing to continue their support in the current form. On a negative side it can be argued that the
design concept of the CRTCs was not appropriate (and if one examines similar approaches that have
been adopted elsewhere, for example the Mediterranean Action Programme, one could also argue
that the lessons had already been learned), however, they have served a purpose in terms of
developing the TDA and contributing towards the NCAPs and SAP, and brought the countries into
technical dialogue on issues relating to the sustainable use of the Caspian Sea.
At the recent CEP meeting in Tehran (15-17 July 2002), at which the final deliberations on the
structure of the Framework Convention took place, one day was devoted to discussing the future
institutional arrangements of the CEP. During these discussions, all participants voted for a
restructuring of the CRTCs, favouring one multi-disciplinary centre per country, with responsibility for
one of the five core SAP areas, rather than a larger number of more dispersed centres as was the
case during this phase. The proposed institutional arrangements for the next phase of the CEP are
contained in the revised interim document and will be discussed at the Steering Committee Meeting to
be held 2-3 Oct 2002.
24
Caspian Environment Programme
Final Evaluation of the UNDP / GEF Component
2.2.4 Key visible outputs
This section provides a brief evaluation of five of the key visible outputs of the project, namely the
transboundary diagnostic analysis (TDA); the National Caspian Action Plans (NCAPs); the Strategic
Action Programme (SAP); the Caspian Framework Convention; and the CEP Website.
The Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis
The TDA provides the technical basis for the development of the NCAPs and SAP, and is set out into
three volumes:
1) An executive summary; a list of Environmental Quality Objectives (EQOs); and the provisional
SAP outline;
2) An overview of the Caspian environmental status, and major perceived problems and issues;
and
3) Supplementary materials and a causal chain analysis.
The TDA was achieved through strong regional input and in a very participatory manner, utilising
experts from around the region and internationally, with main dialogue achieved through four regional
meetings held between July 2000 and November 2001. The CRTCs were responsible for generating
(through data collection and some limited research) the considerable amount of information within the
TDA, and the long time-scale given to its preparation has been commended.
During the evaluation, a number of criticisms were made of the TDA as it stood at that time, namely
that its geographical coverage was not extensive enough. However, the geographical extent of the
TDA was defined by all countries in the CEP Charter as covering 100km of the coastal strip and the
Sea. This narrow definition was instituted due to sensitivities over the legal status of the Caspian Sea
and ownership of resources. Other criticisms noted were that data were often out-dated, incomplete,
or generally weak, and that the TDA lacked an overall synthesis, having been prepared by many
hands with different styles. Particular weaknesses included a lack of data on biodiversity, water quality
and on non-point sources of pollutants. Recognising the weakness in data, the At-Sea-Training
Programme was undertaken to collect information on sediment quality, and the countries and the
PCU considered the information generated useful.
Criticisms were made on the quality of regional consultants employed to assist in the preparation of
the TDA, some of whom made disappointing contributions. As is often the case, the translation of the
TDA into Russian and English lost some meaning and some of the text was repetitious and factually
incorrect. Overall, whilst the process for preparing the TDA was right, perhaps one of the main
reasons why the TDA was not as robust as it might have been is that the regional capacities and
institutions responsible for delivering the data to support the TDA were not as strong as had been
inferred during the CEP's design. Since the evaluation mission took place, the TDA has been
favourably revised in light of these criticisms. It is now available for downloading from the CEP
website in both Russian and English.
Despite its initial weaknesses, the TDA exists, even though a number of barriers were initially
perceived to counter its development, namely: 1) the lack of a convention and political will; 2)
inadequate regional communication and cooperation; 3) the lack of accountability and transparency;
and 4) the lack of a fully developed civil society. CEP has overcome these difficulties to develop the
TDA, and has in some cases removed the barriers: there is now a Convention; there is more political
will than before; regional communication and cooperation is adequate; and it has improved
transparency by enabling data to be shared more freely and willingly.
25
Caspian Environment Programme
Final Evaluation of the UNDP / GEF Component
The NCAPs
All countries have developed an NCAP (Kazakhstan has two due to internal differences in opinion
over its format), prepared by national experts and overseen by a national environment committee.
Each country (except Russia) recently delivered the first drafts of the NCAPs to national fora for close
scrutiny by other ministries, NGOs, and members of the public. There are a number of positive
elements that should be noted on the NCAPs:
· Firstly, each country prepared an NCAP within the time allotted, and each generally follows
the terms of reference set by the PCU to guide their development;
· Secondly, each NCAP reflects the issues highlighted in the TDA, and the interventions
suggested to combat environmental management issues are oriented towards achieving
some of the EQOs. The issues highlighted are comparable between the NCAPs; therefore
each country recognises the same national and transboundary issues facing the sustainable
management of the Caspian Sea;
· Thirdly, each of the NCAPs has been used to identify Priority Investment Projects (to be
funded by the World Bank), therefore ensuring no radical diversion from stated aims and
follow-up action; and
· Finally, there is a realisation of the obstacles facing the achievement of sustainable
development, but this is often blamed on regional cooperation difficulties and less so on
national responsibilities.
The first drafts of the NCAPs varied quite considerably in quality, from a comprehensive assessment
of issues and interventions designed to combat these issues, to a simple listing of priority areas. All of
them need more work to turn them into workable plans. Areas that would benefit from more effort are:
1) Better definition of the scope of interventions;
2) Prioritisation of interventions (which are most pressing; for which can resources be more
readily mobilised etc.);
3) Identification of institutional responsibilities to achieve interventions, and where inter-sectoral
coordination is required;
4) Time-scales for interventions break-down interventions into short-, medium-, and long-term
activities;
5) Assessment of resources (financial and human) required to undertake interventions, and
detail on the source of funding; and
6) Indicators to monitor effectiveness and impact of interventions.
The second drafts of the NCAPs are now underway, and once complete will enter into specific country
approval procedures.
The timing for the preparation and delivery of the NCAPs has been criticised by many, who consider
that the NCAPs would have been stronger and more coherent had they followed on from the SAP,
rather than being developed largely on the strength of the TDA (which was considered vague at the
time) and in advance of the SAP. Perhaps what might have further assisted the countries in the
preparation of their NCAPs would have been an exemplary model of an NCAP, from a country
(countries) facing similar issues.
Strategic Action Programme
Having set out the issues relating to the sustainable use of the Caspian Sea in the TDA, together with
EQOs, the SAP provides continuity to the process by presenting a road map for future policy,
26
Caspian Environment Programme
Final Evaluation of the UNDP / GEF Component
legislation, regulatory and investment interventions relating to the management of the environment. It
is a synthesis of the priority transboundary issues identified in the NCAPs and includes both baseline
and incremental interventions. The SAP is a shared plan between all CEP partners and it is therefore
essential that it has regional consensus, and focuses on actions and interventions that address
realistic political, economic and social constraints.
At the time of the evaluation, the SAP was in the early stages of its development, and therefore it is
not possible to provide an accurate evaluation of this document. Generally, it appears to have been
developed in a participatory manner; however, at least in its initial stages it was perceived to be donor
led. Since the SAP meeting held in August 2002, in which all countries, UNDP, and UNEP
participated, the regional ownership of the SAP has improved.
Criticisms of the early drafts of the SAP related to the need for more coherent and concrete actions to
match the EQOs. The EQOs themselves were considered too broad. As with the NCAPs, there is a
need to prioritise interventions, and be realistic on the costs required to implement the interventions.
The Biodiversity SAP (BSAP), which forms a component of the SAP is making considerable progress,
and generating much interest. It has overgrown its remit somewhat at present, being almost as large
as the SAP itself, but will be dovetailed into the SAP in due course.
The interventions outlined in the SAP will be funded by all CEP partners, attracting private sector
support to achieve their aims. GEF and TACIS intend to fund some activities of the SAP, to an
estimated combined amount of some $10m, whilst the lion's share of SAP activities is to be funded by
the countries themselves. Whilst at the time of the evaluation mission some countries appeared to be
unaware that this was always the intention, the SAP meeting between CEP partners in August 2002
ensured that clarification on financing responsibilities was provided.
The Framework Convention
Dialogue over the establishment of a Framework Convention for the Protection of the Marine
Environment of the Caspian Sea started in 1995. Whilst the facilitation of the development and
endorsement of the Convention falls within the remit of UNEP, the PCU has been instrumental in
guiding the process through its active participation at all meetings. PCU and UNEP have enjoyed a
close and stimulating working relationship on this matter, which has no doubt assisted its fruitful
development.
The Convention will serve as an overarching legal framework governing cooperation on Caspian
environmental and sustainable bioresources management, while binding agreements on specific
problems would be governed by implementing protocols. Seven meetings have been held over the
past two years to determine the content and wording of the Convention, the last being that held in
Tehran on 15-17 July 2002. At this meeting, consensus was reached on its structure and content. It is
anticipated that it will be signed at the end of the year, along with the SAP and BSAP. Full ratification
and implementation of the Convention is dependent upon the resolution of the legal status of the
Caspian Sea.
CEP Website
One of the greatest achievements of the CEP has been the wide dissemination of materials relating to
environmental management and sustainable development through its website. The TDA, NCAPs and
eventually the SAP and Framework Convention will all be available on the website, together with links
to regional and international centres of expertise and experts. This transparency of information
sharing is very new to the region. Most, if not all, of those involved in the project have access to the
Internet, and therefore the CEP website, and whilst telecommunication systems in some parts of the
region are somewhat slow at present, information can be obtained. The website itself is imaginative
and informative, and contains a wealth of information. It is imperative that support for this website
27
Caspian Environment Programme
Final Evaluation of the UNDP / GEF Component
continues, so that new data emerging from the continuing studies underway in the region can be
incorporated into the site.
The planned and achieved activities and outputs that took place during CEP Phase I are summarised
in Appendix 4.
2.2.5 Reporting
The evaluation has examined the reports provided by UNOPS, namely the Project Document; Project
Implementation Review; Tripartite Review; and also those provided by the PCU, particularly the
Steering Committee Meeting reports and Project Progress Reports (which were bimonthly until
December 2001 and are now quarterly).
Reporting arrangements appear to have been adequate throughout the duration of the project,
particularly as they were reinforced by regular communication between the PCU, UNOPS, and
UNDP/GEF. The Steering Committee Meeting reports and progress reports provided the most
comprehensive information on the progress of the project, and reveal a highly productive and dynamic
team. It is recommended that the progress reports include a table detailing achievements against
actions outlined in the previous progress report. A terminal report is currently being prepared by the
Programme Coordinator.
2.3
Overview of project impact
An assessment of project impact should go beyond the measurement of activities and outputs to
examine whether the process and products arising from the Programme have in some way altered the
existing institutional, and ultimately human and natural, environment in the manner that was expected.
In the assessment of impact, the predicted end of project situation (set out in the Project Document)
has been examined, to assess whether this has been realised. From the end-of-project success
indicators outlined in the Project Document, the following conclusions can be drawn, based on the
discussions that have been presented in the preceding sections:
Predicted End of Project Situation
1. Strong regional institutional framework to enhance stakeholder communication, cooperation
and coordination to address transboundary environmental impacts.
Impact: This has been one of the key achievements of the CEP, bringing together five nations
that were formerly estranged into dialogue on common transboundary issues. The
establishment of CRTCs helped to cement regional communication and cooperation. Whilst
weak in many ways, there is a realisation that CRTCs served the purpose of informing the
development of the TDA and making those within the region aware of where technical
strengths lay.
2. Regional SAP and NCAPs with countries and donor commitments and incremental
interventions identified.
Impact: The SAP and NCAPs exist. Interventions have been identified. Countries have yet to
finalise their intended and projected commitments, and more tangible resources need to be
identified from other sources. The documents are still in their early draft phases, but will be
updated. The timing for their delivery has taken longer than expected, but this was due to
initial delays in the programme financing, and the fact that effective consultation and
stakeholder participation takes time.
28
Caspian Environment Programme
Final Evaluation of the UNDP / GEF Component
3. Increased public awareness and support for regional environmental issues. Enhanced overall
effectiveness of environmental awareness programmes through the organisation of concerted
region-wide activities, and exchange of lessons through an active regional network of NGOs
and community groups.
Impact: This has probably been one of the weakest areas of CEP, and is due to a) inadequate
financial and human resources to achieve these goals; b) inadequate time to undertake these
activities; and c) PPA change over and inability to recruit appropriate individuals in some
countries. The framework to enable effective public awareness does, however, exist through
a well thought out work plan and the inclusion of NGOs on the Steering Committee. More
efforts will be needed here in the next Phase when implementation activities begin.
4. Caspian Framework Convention ratified. Existing national and international laws and
conventions surveyed.
Impact: This has been one of the substantial achievements of the CEP, where impact has
been greatly felt, and will be heightened in the future should it be signed in December 2002,
as anticipated. The review of international laws and conventions has also been thorough, but
has yet to be adequately disseminated.
5. Regional Caspian Information System including data on institutional capacities, scientists,
environmental projects, environmental data sets in the region and GIS, accessible via Internet
to the world community. High quality, reliable data on Caspian environmental issues.
Improved regional capacity for data collection, integration, analysis, and use in decision-
making.
Impact: This is also another area where the CEP has achieved success. The website,
developed and maintained by the PCU, is informative and stimulating. It contains information
on experts and institutions within the region, the activities and outputs of the CRTCs, and
already some of the key outputs of the CEP (TDA). It is widely used by people engaged in
CEP within the region, who state they use it regularly. How much the website is referred to by
members of the public, NGOs and others is unknown, and will also depend upon their ability
to access the Internet. To ensure its wider impact on the population as a source of information
will require a public relations exercise, which might be carried out in the next phase.
6. Network of monitoring centres throughout the region. Reduction of existing and prevention of
new types of contamination.
Impact: Not achieved. The CRTCs were not set up to monitor environmental parameters in
the long-term. This expectation is beyond the reach of this Phase, but may be considered
relevant in Phase II.
7. Conservation of habitats and species of global significance. Regional network of protected
areas as a part of a global one.
Impact: This was one of the ambitious targets that could not be achieved by this Phase, nor
was it designed to achieve this. It is, however, a worthwhile goal for Phase II and the overall
concept of CEP.
8. Sustainable use of transboundary fish stocks building on sound stock assessment, region-
wide monitoring, and management plans. Conservation of threatened and endangered
species emphasising public awareness and participation.
Impact: This is not a realistic target, considering the actual scope of work for Phase I and has
not been achieved.
9. Adoption of common regional approaches to reduced environmental degradation and loss of
coastal habitats for migratory species and global biodiversity, by catalysing the development
29
Caspian Environment Programme
Final Evaluation of the UNDP / GEF Component
and implementation of national IT-CAMPs through regional training, exchange of lessons
learned and sustainable financing.
Impact: The concept of integrated coastal management (ICM) has been introduced in this
Phase, not with total success. Lessons from elsewhere show that ICM requires considerable
time and effort to instil in national planning and development systems; considerably more time
than has been allocated for this phase. Nevertheless, CRTC IT-CAMP has developed two
ICM plans, and the CEP should seek to implement these as pilot demonstration studies in
Phase II under the SAP.
10. Regional environmental health action plan as part of the CEP SAP.
Impact: This has not been achieved. It was a very ambitious target considering the scope of
environmental health issues within the region, and data were insufficient. The CRTC on
Sustainable Human Development & Health therefore concentrated on a much narrower area
of focus. How environmental health will be addressed in Phase II will need to be carefully
defined in the SAP.
11. Major reductions in risks of regional environmental degradation. Caspian regional oil spill
contingency planning, strong regional network for oil spill response.
Impact: The CEP has gone some way towards achieving this; largely through the support of
the private sector in the development of a regional oil spill contingency plan. This has only
very recently emerged and the evaluation is unclear what the regional perception of this plan
is. The CEP has not been able to reduce the risks of environmental degradation, but has
assisted in alerting those responsible for environmental management of the issues that exist
(through the TDA), and the means for combating these risks are to some extent identified in
the NCAPs and SAP.
Despite not achieving some of the above, i.e. those that were in the first instance too ambitious, the
CEP has far exceeded initial expectations, given the political and economic difficulties facing the
region at the time of its inception. In comparison with evaluations of similar programmes elsewhere,
the CEP has been a successful and worthwhile programme, which is well managed and widely
respected within the region. It has been carried out in a competent and enthusiastic manner by all
those involved, and has received high endorsement from the participating countries.
To the credit of the collaborating States, CEP has become the leading forum of environmental
cooperation within the region, and most importantly, it is the first, and at present sole, programme that
enables intra-regional dialogue. One of the major impacts of the programme has been its influence in
bringing all countries together in dialogue over the difficult issues facing the sustainable management
of the Caspian Sea. The enthusiasm and support of the various stakeholders, especially the
Governments, have demonstrated strong political will to foster a regional approach to resolving these
issues, and the Framework Convention should set the right foundation for capturing this political will.
The general impression is that CEP has created the right infrastructure required to enable active
environmental management to take place. It is also succeeding in overcoming barriers to information
exchange. All of those interviewed during the evaluation stressed the importance of the CEP in
bringing the nations together in dialogue on common concerns, and to enable more constructive
communication on contentious issues such as hydrocarbon allocation. Despite the difficulties that
CEP has had in trying to bring countries together, all agree that it is important that the Programme
continue, for whilst it might not be able to solve the political problems it can assist in resolving the
environmental problems.
30
Caspian Environment Programme
Final Evaluation of the UNDP / GEF Component
The CEP has also raised the profile of environment in terms of government agendas. Whilst once and
still relatively weak, ministries of environment within the region are now able to lobby their cause with
greater effect, resulting in a larger allocation of funds. Ministries of Environment will need to work
more closely with those line ministries responsible for the governance of natural resources, if
environmental management and sustainable development policies are to be effectively implemented.
Improving inter-sectoral coordination and collaboration will need to be core areas for Phase II.
One of the key pressures on the CEP will be to maintain the momentum on achieving sustainable
environmental development in the face of socio-economic difficulties in each country and the growing
tensions over the allocation of the vast oil resources. This first phase of the CEP has had great impact
at the institutional level, but momentum will now need to be greater than ever to ensure that
institutional commitment is translated into effective action, which is the challenge for Phase II.
3.
SUGGESTIONS FOR UNDP/GEF AND THE FUTURE OF THE CEP
Based on the discussion of activities and lessons learned in the preceding sections of this report, this
section provides a synthesis of the suggestions (recommendations) for the future development of the
CEP. The section has been sub-divided into suggestions for the more generic internal project-cycle
management of UNDP/GEF, and more specifically to the CEP Partners.
SUGGESTIONS FOR UNDP/GEF PROJECT CYCLE MANAGEMENT
1.
Donor co-
Ø Ensure a robust framework for donor co-ordination and collaboration,
ordination
with a clear distinction of activities and areas of responsibility;
Ø Try to avoid dependency of individual donor interventions upon
another, as this can lead to delays and the realisation of `killer
assumptions' if there are problems in project start-up and
implementation;
Ø Develop a single donor protocol for the administration of local
counterparts to avoid confusion, ill feeling, and inequity;
Ø Ensure clarity between the roles of different donor staff to avoid
struggles over management control;
Ø Institute joint objective and verifiable indicators to enable the
measurement of success for the whole programme;
Ø Institute joint monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, not just
responsibility for measuring impact of individual components.
2.
Project
Ø These should relate to the actual interventions planned under the
objectives
project. The design should also link together the individual objectives
of the project into a common purpose. As it is anticipated that the CEP
will continue, a clear over-arching goal for all phases should be
established.
3.
Success
Ø These should be designed to measure impact as well as output.
indicators
Indicators are needed at the project implementation level (i.e. per
phase), but also on a goal level (combination of phases).
31
Caspian Environment Programme
Final Evaluation of the UNDP / GEF Component
4.
Design
Ø Continue to support a process approach in project development, to
flexibility
enable changes to the design by the project management team, in
agreement with the project's Steering Committee.
5.
Reporting
Ø Ensure that recommendations or actions arising through Steering
Committee Meetings, progress reports or other internal reporting
mechanisms are acted upon, and the degree of success in achieving
these is recorded in subsequent progress reports.
6.
Phasing
Ø This evaluation recommends the continuation of the CEP through
Phase II. It will be important to ensure a seamless transition between
Phase I and II. As all CEP partners are aware, this will be critical in
terms of maintaining the momentum of the CEP.
7.
UNDP Country
Ø Regular meetings / workshops between the PCU and Country Offices
Offices
might be beneficial for a) improving the efficiency and effectiveness of
the relationship; and b) engendering more ownership of the project by
the Country Offices. Perhaps the more routine could be met through
an imprest account managed by the PCU for local purchases.
SUGGESTIONS TO CEP PARTNERS
8.
Support for the
Ø Continue support and commitment for the CEP, maintaining the active
CEP
involvement of senior government officials. To ensure that the next
phase generates the political impetus required, it is recommended
that all States assist in enabling their preferred candidates to
participate in all the meetings, particularly Steering Committee
Meetings;
Ø It is recommended that the CEP States continue to support MAGICAs
and NFPs to ensure co-ordination and dialogue is maintained.
Retention of the same individuals in these positions is to be
encouraged;
Ø Commit sufficient funds (national- and donor-derived) to ensure
Phase II has the critical mass of financial support to enable significant
interventions aimed at the sustainable use of the Caspian Sea;
Ø Identify alternative sources of funding to support any shortfalls, such
as commercial investments, loans/grants from international financing
institutions or bilateral development agencies. The Caspian States
may require facilitation in the development of proposals seeking
outside funding and introductions to potential collaborative partners.
9.
Ownership
Ø A greater degree of ownership of the CEP and SAP activities by the
Caspian States is recommended. These partners should seek to
become more proactive in encouraging regional dialogue and
collaboration between all CEP partners.
10.
Support for the
Ø Maintain commitment to the signing of the Convention, and ultimately
Convention
its ratification through the resolution of the status of the Caspian Sea;
32
Caspian Environment Programme
Final Evaluation of the UNDP / GEF Component
Convention
its ratification through the resolution of the status of the Caspian Sea;
Ø Consider the most appropriate modus operandi through which the
CEP will transform into a Secretariat for the Convention.
11.
Clear intentions Ø Although it was not its intention, because of its unique regional focus,
the CEP has naturally become embroiled in higher political issues,
particularly the legal status of the Caspian Sea. The result has been
that at times there was a risk that the CEP might lose the participation
of some States. The objectives and intentions of CEP Phase II should
be clearly communicated to avoid any confusion.
12.
The NCAPs and
Ø The interventions identified in the NCAPs and SAP are relevant and
SAP
pertinent to the sustainable development of the region. To improve
the effectiveness of these interventions, the development of the NCAP
and SAP should consider the following:
· Prioritisation of interventions (which are most pressing; for which
resources can be more readily mobilised etc.);
· Time-scales for interventions break-down interventions into
short-, medium-, and long-term activities;
· Assessment of resources (financial and human) required to
undertake interventions, and detail on the source of funding;
· Indicators to monitor effectiveness and impact of interventions.
Prioritise interventions according to their urgency in terms of the
sustainable use of the Caspian Sea, and set these out into short-,
medium-, and long-term activities;
· The establishment of an effective monitoring system to track the
successes and weaknesses of SAP implementation, and to
assess whether interventions remain relevant or change in
priority.
Ø GEF and UNDP might wish to share lessons learned and provide
`exemplary' examples of TDAs, NCAPs and SAPs from other regions,
to assist the five States in the development of these documents and
programmes. Phase II should endeavor to more fully utilize
knowledge sharing resources and services provided by the GEF
IW:LEARN project.
13.
Stakeholder
Ø This is key to the success of CEP in terms of realisation of the
participation
sustainable use of the Caspian Sea. More involvement of NGOs
would be recommended in Phase II, where concrete action is required
to resolve issues. Awareness raising and environmental education will
be key activities for NGOs and community-based organisations;
Ø The private sector should be encouraged to continue to play an
important role in the CEP, and efforts should be made to further foster
and strengthen this relationship.
33
Caspian Environment Programme
Final Evaluation of the UNDP / GEF Component
14.
The Future PCU Ø The PCU should continue to be located in a suitable environment with
close proximity to CEP country partners if it is to remain effective. The
selection of Tehran as the next location for the PCU appears to be
favoured;
Ø The PCU should continue to communicate effectively in all the
languages of the Caspian Sea region, both in written and vocal form;
Ø Maintenance of good communication between PCU and all CEP
partners, responding rapidly and coherently to requests;
Ø Engender staff ownership of the CEP through their involvement in
project meetings and professional-improvement incentives, to
encourage the long-term retention of good staff;
Ø Ensure an adequate transition period in the transfer of the PCU from
Baku to Tehran. Preferably staff members of the present PCU in Baku
should support this transition period.
15.
CRTCs
Ø Further consensus on the role, number and location of CRTCs in
Phase II is required if these are to be `owned' and successful;
Ø Ensure that CRTCs are co-ordinated, relevant to the CEP, and avoid
duplication of effort;
Ø Ensure appropriate management and funding arrangements.
Encourage national and regional specialist involvement, relying on
international consultants only where relevant and where international
knowledge can add weight to the CRTCs activities;
Ø Consider continuing the ad hoc technical support to CRTCs by
international UN agencies, and developing professional associations
with relevant international centres of expertise;
Ø Ensure an exit strategy is defined at the outset, should this be
appropriate.
16.
Information
Ø Much of the work of the CRTCs was hindered by the lack of formal
sharing
access to government archives. A regional legal agreement on data
sharing would be a useful step towards more open data exchange,
and would make for more efficient spend of resources. The aim of this
arrangement would be to establish a robust scientific foundation
underpinning important political decisions on the use of resources;
Ø The TDA should be viewed as a working document to guide decision-
making on the sustainable management of the Caspian Sea, and as
such should be regularly updated. This may require its structure to be
re-shaped to enable easy updating. The updating of the TDA should
be managed by the PCU to ensure consistency in format, style, and
quality. A template for the type and format of data required will be
required to enable countries to contribute data on a regular basis, and
should be developed in a collaborative manner between all CEP
34
Caspian Environment Programme
Final Evaluation of the UNDP / GEF Component
partners;
Ø Given the geographical distance between the CEP partners, and the
need to engage as wide an audience as possible within the region in
the most cost-effective manner, the website should be viewed as a
valuable interactive tool for sharing information. The website requires
marketing to this wider audience, which should include academic
institutes, schools, public sector offices, and relevant private sector
organisations. The audience should be encouraged to interact with
the website, to comment on its usefulness and to ensure its continued
relevance. Use of Russian and Farsi, as well as English, on the
website should be considered.
17.
Inter-sectoral
Ø Productive inter-sectoral co-ordination will be key to ensuring that
Co-ordination
Phase II is a success. It was weak in Phase I, but considerable effort
ought to be placed in ensuring good co-ordination between
environment and other sectors (particularly those that govern
resource use). Where these do not already function, the Caspian
States might consider establishing inter-sectoral governmental and
non-governmental committees to improve cross-sectoral thinking and
action.
35
Annex G2: Evaluation: UNEP-GEF Component of the Caspian Environment Programme (CEP)
IN-DEPTH EVALUATION
Project "Addressing Transboundary Environmental Issues in the Caspian
Environment Programme (CEP) - Strengthened Institutional, Legal, Regulatory
and Economic Frameworks for SAP Implementation" (GF/FP/5023-00-07)
2 PREPARED BY
Ljubomir Jeftic, Consultant
3
MAY 2003
Evaluation and Oversight Unit
36
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
4
1.
INTRODUCTION
7
2.
BACKGROUND
7
3.
8
PROJECT DESIGN
3.1
Overall appropriateness of the objectives of the project to the pertinent UNEP mission,
8
mandate, sub-programme objectives and strategic approach
3.2
Relevance of the project design within the framework of GEF programmes and
9
guidelines
3.3
Appropriateness and relevance of the concept and strategic approach of the project to
9
the overall situation of the Caspian Sea
3.4
Role of Component III to the CEP and synergy effects between the project components
10
of the CEP
4.
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
10
4.1
To what extent the project's objectives were met and planned results obtained and whether this has
10
been a cost-effective way of obtaining these results
4.1.1
Activity 1. Facilitation of the finalization of the Framework Convention for the Protection of the
10
Marine Environment of the Caspian Sea and institutional structures for the Convention and
relationship with CEP as a whole
4.1.2
Activity 2. Development of a strategy for and facilitation of integration of relevant transboundary
11
elements of the CEP with the Framework Convention.
4.1.3
Activity 3. Assessment of the status of implementation of relevant multilateral environmental
12
agreements
4.1.4
Activity 4. Assessment of national legislation and institutions related to the protection and
13
sustainable management of the Caspian environment and its resources
4.1.5
Activity 5. Provision of technical assistance to governments in the legislative/regulatory and
13
related institutional fields
4.1.6
Activity 6. Assessment of existing economic tools and instruments related to the protection and
14
sustainable management of the Caspian environment and its resources
4.1.7
Activity 7. Provision of technical assistance and advice to governments and other stakeholders
15
involved in application of environmental impact assessment processes in the Caspian, including
consideration of environmental valuation as a component thereof
4.2
The implementation and management of the project in terms of quality, usefulness and
15
timeliness of activities and outputs, adherence to work plans and budgets
4.3
The effectiveness of institutional arrangements, particular through the local partner, Center for
16
International Projects (CIP), as well as monitoring and backstopping support given to the project
by all parties concerned
4.4
The effectiveness of technical, administrative and financial support provided by UNEP
17
ROE and GEF
4.5
The flexibility demonstrated by the project management during project implementation in order to
18
obtain the planned results of the project
37
4.6
The level and effectiveness of co-operation among project partners (i.e., UNOPS, UNEP, World
18
Bank, UNDP/GEF, EU/Tacis, PCU, UNDP Country Offices and National Focal Points)
5.
PROJECT IMPACT
19
5.1
Level of stakeholder involvement during project implementation and ownership of the project by
19
the participating countries
5.2
Level of financial, technical and political commitment of countries to support ongoing project
19
activities and a potential future project phase
5.3
Degree of support given by the Riparian Governments in integrating the project objectives and
19
goals into the national development programmes and other related projects, and how well the
project fits into national development policy
5.4
Impacts on policy, strategy and action plan of countries created through this project
19
5.5
Impact on enhancing co-operation among project partners and coordination of (other) project
20
initiatives
5.6
Sustainability of the Caspian Framework Convention, in particular in terms of establishment of
20
convention secretariat and development of action plans
6.
RATING OF IMPLEMENTATION
21
6.1
Achievements of the project
21
6.2
Evaluation of the success of GEF/UNEP project implementation by using items as contained in
21
the TORs for the evaluation
7.
LESSONS LEARNED
22
8.
RECOMMENDATIONS
23
8.1
Development and implementation of a legal umbrella to CEP
23
8.2
Coordination of components in an environment management programme of this scale and
23
duration
8.3
Recommendations that outline design and strategic approach, prioritize activities and identify
24
institutional arrangements for a next phase(s) upon completion of the current project (e.g. rank in
terms of feasibility, if more than one recommended strategic approach)
8.4
Recommendations that can further enhance synergy and coordination between international and
24
European agencies in the sub-region
8.5
Recommendations that consider the replicability of this project and its legal umbrella approach for
24
other projects that address the need to promote sustainable environment protection and
development of environment programmes in sub-regions
9.
CONCLUSIONS
25
ANNEXES
Annex I
Terms of Reference for the evaluation
Annex II
List of interviewed persons from the international community
Annex III
Questionnaire sent to Caspian countries
Annex IV
Questionnaire sent to CIP
Annex V
List of documents consulted
Annex VI
Activities, Outputs and Achievements up to Date
Annex VII
List of acronyms
38
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This in-depth evaluation of the project "Addressing Transboundary Environmental Issues in the
Caspian Environment Programme (CEP) Component III. Strengthened Institutional, Legal,
Regulatory and Economic Frameworks for SAP Implementation (GF/FP/5023-00-07)" was conducted
in the period from 3 March to 30 April 2003.
CEP represents a regional cooperation process of five Caspian littoral states and is a
comprehensive response to the key environmental problems facing the Caspian region. This
intergovernmental process is currently supported by the international community through,
inter alia, GEF, UNDP, World Bank, UNEP and EU, and the private sector, in particular the
oil and gas.
UNEP is GEF Implementing Agency for this Project, which was to create the legislative umbrella to
CEP. The objectives of this component are to enhance national legal and institutional capacities,
including the harmonization of national legal regimes and to create an effective institutional legal
framework for environmental cooperation in the Caspian region. The concept of the Project was
wholly appropriate and relevant to the political climate and institutional situation of the Caspian Sea,
but the strategic approach of the development of the legal framework for the Caspian programme
should have been better integrated with the substantive activities funded by UNDP and EU/Tacis from
the outset. This would have made the Caspian countries aware that the long-term support for
substantive activities of CEP depends on the adoption of its legal framework and on the creation of an
institutional mechanism supporting both the Convention and CEP.
UNEP ROE was effective and instrumental in the facilitation of the negotiation and regional
discussions with regards to reaching an agreement on the text of the Framework
Convention. Under the stewardship of UNEP (in cooperation with UNDP, WB and EU/Tacis)
the countries are proceeding towards signing of the Framework Convention and SAP
(tentative dates 14/15 June 2003), agreeing institutional arrangements, and negotiating key
regional protocols and agreements. International partners are ready to assist the countries,
but only if governments are ready to accept the ownership of the Convention and the
Action Plan and demonstrate it by providing adequate financial and institutional
support. The NCAPs were developed by all Caspian countries and they are ready for
national endorsement although national endorsement procedure in some countries might
take up to two to three years, in order to obtain local, central and institutional agreements
prior to budget earmarking.
The warning has been delivered repeatedly to the Caspian governments by the present partners in the
implementation of CEP (UNDP, UNEP, GEF, EU) that their continued support depends on adoption
of an overarching legal and institutional framework for CEP. Delay in signing the Framework
Convention is putting the second phase funding from GEF in jeopardy and sending a worrying signal
to the partners. The degree of support given by the Riparian Governments in integrating the Project
objectives and goals into the national development programmes and other related projects are rather
modest at present. Lack of the concept of ownership is one of the main reasons, which is typical for
this type of the project. Quite often Governments were expecting that the international community
will fund and implement activities and plans. This position is gradually changing, particularly
recently, and there are good signs that countries are ready to commit more financial and human
resources in the protection of the Caspian Sea (Extraordinary Meeting of the Steering Committee,
Baku, March 2003). The international community has been a necessary and important catalyser of
these changes.
An important component of the strategy for and facilitation of integration of relevant transboundary
elements of the CEP with the Framework Convention is development and implementation of the
protocols to the Framework Convention. The Convention envisages seven protocols and the SAP
39
envisages the development of eight protocols. Judging by the current titles, from the two sets of
protocols only two protocols are the same in both the Framework Convention and the SAP, but
actually most corresponding protocols cover the same subject, although under different titles. By the
time of the adoption of the Framework Convention and the SAP the harmonisation of titles should be
achieved. It is planned that the SAP be revised before the signing of the Convention to bring it in line
with the NCAPs and, possibly, the Convention.
The negotiation and agreement of a regional Environmental Framework should advance the
environmental agenda onto the policy arena. The legally-binding regional agreement should be
translated into national policies and laws and should establish a solid regional legislative platform for
further specific commitments. The Framework Convention, once in force, and its future protocols
should provide the necessary overarching legal and institutional framework for the CEP and
legislative regime under which the SAP will be implemented and will contribute to its sustainability.
This will materialize if the Conference of Plenipotentiaries, when adopting the Framework
Convention, will decide that the Conference of the Parties is the highest authority of the Action
Plan. It is suggested that the SAP will act as the Action Plan of the Framework Convention and
that UNEP will act, on the ad interim basis, as the Secretariat of the Framework Convention.
Sustainability of the Framework Convention will depend on the determination of all involved parties
to the full implementation of the Convention. Implementation of the Convention in the first instance
requires the adaptation of the Parties' national legal regimes, policies, rules and regulations in order to
make them congruent with the requirements of the Convention and, second, the enforcement of these
in everyday practice. The Caspian Convention is a framework-type of convention and contains only
general obligations. Without protocols, annexes and specific decisions of the Conference of the
Parties such conventions lack substance on which action at regional or national level can be built.
Therefore, the real implementation of the Convention will start only when such instruments are added
to the Convention.
As of 31 Dec. 2002 uncommitted funds were about 40% of allotted. Over 80% of these
remaining funds are earmarked to activities scheduled in 2003 (EIA follow up workshop,
small projects of technical assistance, evaluation, conference of plenipotentiaries, etc.).
Currently new revision of the Project Document is under preparation, which will extend the
duration of the Project until the end of 2003 and thus allow that all uncommitted funds will be
committed and spent.
In the framework of strengthening legal and technical capacities of the Caspian States, several
workshops (MEAs and EIA) were held, two comprehensive reports were produced (regional review
of legal and economic instruments) and a small grant facility was developed and implemented in all
five participating countries. High level of cooperation with international partners (EBRD, REC and
Milieu Ltd.) and secretariats of relevant MEAs (Espoo, CITES and Aarhus Conventions) was
achieved. All these activities contributed toward capacity building and preparation for the
development and implementation of relevant legal and economic instruments at national level. For the
implementation of this Project, UNEP cooperated with UNDP, the World Bank, EU/Tacis and PCU
and worked locally through a supporting organization, CIP, Moscow, as well as with other local
partners.
Regarding the performance of CIP in the implementation of the UNEP Project, opinions are mixed.
On one hand CIP produced several reports and organised several meetings on the basis of MOUs
concluded with UNEP, but on the other hand the quality of some of these documents and
organisational skills of some of the meetings were questioned, as well as implication arising from the
mixed roles of CIP in the Project.
Assessment of the achievements of this Project were done in the following two independent
ways:
40
· review of individual activities/items of the CEP Component III as contained in the
TORs for evaluation. The findings of this report were prepared on the basis of the
review of numerous documents (Annex V); interviews with key persons from the
international community (Annex II) involved in the design, implementation and
management of the Project; answers to the questionnaire (Annex III) sent to national
contacts (NFPs and NPICs) in all five participating countries; and answers to the
questionnaire sent to the main national partner involved in the implementation of the
Project (CIP, Moscow); and
· comparison and analysis of the activities and outputs (as contained in the Project
Document) with the actual achievements to date. This comparison and analysis is
presented in the Annex VI of this evaluation.
An evaluation of the success of GEF/UNEP Project implementation was carried out by rating seven
items as contained in the TORs for the evaluation. Attainment of outputs, Completion of activities,
Project executed within budget, and Impact created by the Project were rated as "good" and
Timelines, Achievement of results, and Sustainability as "satisfactory", with Overall rating as "good".
The evaluation provides ten recommendations of which the highest priority
recommendations were:
(i)
UNEP, being in charge of the preparation of the Framework Convention, jointly with
the countries of the region and other actors from the international community,
should concentrate efforts to achieve signing and entry into force of the Convention
and its protocols;
(ii)
Conference of Plenipotentiaries, when adopting the Framework Convention,
decides that the Conference of the Parties is the highest authority of the Action Plan
and that SAP acts as the Action Plan of the Convention;
(iii) countries be called upon for enhanced ownership of CEP and the Convention, including
increased financial commitment towards the next phase, as the CEP is moving from
institution-oriented to activities-oriented technical support approach;
(iv) selection and development of protocols be harmonised with the requirements of NCAPs,
SAP and the Framework Convention and that UNEP ROE ensures adequate in house
expertise in order to organise and implement such process; and
(v)
for the capacity building, in addition to the enhancement of the legal framework at national
level, UNEP ROE to provide technical assistance and advice to countries and other
stakeholders for the development and application of economic tools and instruments related
to the protection and sustainable management of the environment of the Caspian region.
The evaluator concludes that the remarkable and significant work which was done over the
last five years by the Governments of the region and International Partners in order to
develop and coordinate the joint efforts of the Caspian states and the International
community for the protection of the Caspian environment has about an even chance to be
successful or to fail. The only way to success will be if the Caspian Governments accept the
ownership of the Convention, the protocols, SAP and the CEP and demonstrate it by
providing adequate financial and institutional support.
41
1.
INTRODUCTION
This detailed review and evaluation of the Project "Addressing Transboundary Environmental Issues
in the Caspian Environment Programme (CEP) - Strengthened Institutional, Legal, Regulatory and
Economic Frameworks for SAP Implementation Project (GF/FP/5023-00-07)" was conducted as an
in-depth evaluation in the period from 3 March 2003 to 30 April 2003. The Terms of Reference for
the evaluation are attached as Annex I to this report.
The evaluator developed a participatory evaluation methodology to carry out this exercise through
interview with a number of individuals from the international community which were actively
involved in the development and implementation of the Project (Annex II to this report), through the
preparation of a questionnaire (Annex III to this report), which was sent to all Caspian countries, and
through the questionnaire (Annex IV to this report) which was sent to the main local partner (CIP,
Moscow). The evaluation was based on consulting the archives of UNEP ROE, review of large
number of documents (Annex V to this report), on visit to UNEP ROE and on interviews with the
Director of UNEP ROE, the Project Manager and a number of individuals listed in Annex II to this
report, on information collected during the participation at the Geneva Partners Meeting: CEP II
(Geneva, 3 March 2003), and on the responses to the questionnaires. Comparison and analysis of the
Activities and Outputs (as contained in the Project Document) with the Actual Achievements to Date
is presented in Annex VI to this report. List of acronyms is presented in Annex VII to this report.
This report contains sections 3 on Project design, 4 on implementation, 5 on impact, 6 on rating of
implementation of the Project, 7 on lessons learned, 8 on recommendations and 9 on conclusions.
According to the Terms of Reference for this evaluation, the recommendation and conclusions of this
evaluation will contribute to the preparation of the Project Brief that will be submitted to the GEF for
a second phase of CEP.
2.
BACKGROUND
CEP represents a regional cooperation process of five littoral states, namely Azerbaijan,
Islamic Republic of Iran, Kazakhstan, Russian Federation and Turkmenistan. CEP is a
comprehensive response to the key environmental problems facing the Caspian region with
GEF and the EU helping to address the priority transboundary issues. This
intergovernmental process is currently supported by the international community through,
inter alia, GEF, UNDP, World Bank, UNEP and the EU, and the private sector, in particular
the oil and gas sector. The overall goal of the CEP is:
"Environmentally sustainable development and management of the Caspian
environment, including living resources and water quality, so as to obtain the utmost long-
term benefits for the human populations of the region, while protecting human health,
ecological integrity and the region's sustainability for future generations."
The immediate foci of the overall CEP Project are:
Component I:
Development of a Caspian regional coordination and management
mechanism for the sustainable development and management of the
Caspian environment through the creation of regional, inter-sectoral and
thematic institutional frameworks, including a regional framework
convention;
Component II:
Completion of a Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) of priority
water-related environmental concerns for the Caspian ecosystem;
42
Component III:
Strengthened Institutional, Legal, Regulatory and Economic Frameworks
for SAP implementation;
Component IV:
Development of Priority Investment Portfolios for Transboundary Priorities; and
Component V:
Formulation and Endorsement of a Regional Strategic Action Programme (SAP)
and five National Caspian Action Plans (NCAPs) outlining priority actions, both
baseline and additional, to be taken on behalf of sustaining the Caspian and its
associated resources.
Within the framework of the GEF Project and in line with its mandate of assistance to the CEP and
support to the Caspian states, UNEP ROE is GEF Implementing Agency for Component III:
Strengthened Institutional, Legal, Regulatory and Economic Frameworks for SAP implementation,
which was to create the legislative umbrella to CEP. The objectives of this component are to enhance
national legal institutional capacities, including the harmonization of national legal regimes; and to
create an effective institutional legal framework for environmental cooperation in the Caspian region.
The original Project document "Addressing Transboundary Environmental Issues in the Caspian
Environment Programme (CEP) Strengthened Institutional, Legal, Regulatory and Economic
Frameworks for SAP Implementation" envisaged duration of the Project of three years (May 2000
May 2003). Due to the delay in the implementation of certain activities, mainly related to the
finalization of the Caspian Framework Convention negotiations, and after consultations with
Governments and Project partners involved, the duration of the Project was changed to July 2000
July 2003. Further extension to the end of 2003 is under preparation, in order to allow for the
finalisation of the Framework Convention process and the postponement of some of the activities
which were scheduled for May/June 2003 and which have had to be postponed because of the travel
restrictions due to the recent events in the region.
3.
PROJECT DESIGN
4
3.1
Overall appropriateness of the objectives of the project to the pertinent UNEP
mission, mandate, sub-programme objectives and strategic approach
Overall, the Project has appropriate objectives to the pertinent UNEP mission, mandate,
sub-programme objectives and strategic approach. The Project directly contributes to
Objective 2 "Strengthen regional and sub-regional cooperation as well as national capacities
to address global environmental issues and respond to emergencies in the region. This will
be done through partnerships with regional and sub-regional actors and advisory services to
governments" of the sub-programme 5, Regional Cooperation and Representation of the
UNEP Programme of Work 2002-2003, Regional Office for Europe. The Project also
contributes to a number of other programme elements, including sub-programme 2: Policy
Development and Law, programme elements: 2.1 Policy Analysis, Review and Development
and 2.2 Legal, Economic and Other Instruments; sub-programme 3: Policy Implementation,
programme element 3.1: Technical cooperation; sub-programme 4: Technology, Industry
and Economic, programme element 4.5: Economics and trade; and sub-programme 6:
Environmental Conventions, programme elements 6.1: Promotion of the development of
complementary policies and programmatic approaches among the work programmes of
related global and regional environmental conventions and processes, 6.2: Support the
development of new international conventions and agreements, including protocols, existing
conventions and agreements and 6.3 Coordination of the provision of UNEP programmatic
support to the implementation of the work programmes of conventions and related
43
international agreements and processes, particularly where programmatic interlinkages
exist.
3.2
Relevance of the project design within the framework of GEF programmes and
guidelines
5
THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN FORMULATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GEF
OPERATIONAL STRATEGY AND OPERATIONAL PROGRAMME #8 THE
WATERBODY BASED OPERATIONAL PROGRAMME. IT FORMS PART OF A
COORDINATED SET OF ACTIONS IMPLEMENTED BY UNEP, UNDP AND THE
WORLD BANK UNDER SEPARATE INTERNAL IMPLEMENTING AGENCY PROJECT
DOCUMENT. THESE ACTIONS ARE DESIGNED TO PROVIDE THE RIPARIAN
COUNTRIES WITH A COMPREHENSIVE PACKAGE OF ASSISTANCE IN
ADDRESSING THE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND PROBLEMS OF THE CASPIAN
SEA. THE SPECIFIC ACTIONS FOR WHICH UNEP IS RESPONSIBLE AND WHICH
ARE DETAILED IN THE PROJECT DOCUMENT CONFORM TO THE SPECIFIC
ACTIONS CONTAINED IN THE PROJECT BRIEF ENTITLED ADDRESSING
TRANSBOUNDARY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES IN THE CASPIAN ENVIRONMENT
PROGRAMME, APPROVED BY THE GEF COUNCIL IN NOVEMBER 1998.
The transboundary transport and effects of contamination in this water body and
transboundary nature of many of the Caspian's valuable bioresources warrant GEF support.
This Project coordinates actions among implementing agencies, countries, and other
stakeholders, and generates programmatic benefits for the global environment that would
not otherwise be achievable. This approach is fully in line with the GEF Operational Strategy
for International Waters, as well as for the Waterbody Based Operational Programme #8.
The Caspian countries consider the GEF to be a key donor for programme initiation,
focusing on institutional development and capacity building at the international level in an
integrated, comprehensive manner and with the emphasis on the identification and
implementation of policy and legal reforms. GEF funds will support the identification and
ultimate mitigation of transboundary issues that would be neglected if addressed only from
national perspective. In the Waterbody-Based OP, GEF plays a catalytic role in assisting a
group of countries seeking to leverage co-financing in association with national funding,
development financing, agency regular Programmes, and private sector action for necessary
elements of a comprehensive approach for sustainable managing of the waters environment.
3.3
Appropriateness and relevance of the concept and strategic approach of the
project to the overall situation of the Caspian Sea
6
The concept of the Project was wholly appropriate and relevant to the political climate and
institutional situation of the Caspian Sea, but the strategic approach of the development of
the legal framework for the Caspian programme should have been better integrated with the
substantive activities funded by UNDP and the EU/Tacis from the outset. It would be
important to harmonise the Convention and the SAP on all relevant subjects, including the
selection of protocols. Better integration would have made the Caspian countries aware that
the long-term support for substantive activities of CEP depends on the adoption of its legal
framework and on the creation of an institutional mechanism supporting both the Convention
and CEP, as the Convention's operational arm.
44
The possible strategy of having CEP and the Secretariat of the Convention as two separate entities and
possibly at two different locations will not be the best solution in the opinion of the evaluator. In the
interregnum between the signing of the Convention and its entry into force, probably the best solution
would be that UNEP plays the role of the Interim Secretariat of the Convention (which would be by
far the most logical and practical solution until the entry into force of the Convention). It can be
predicted that the period between the signing of the Convention and its entry into force will be long,
probably several years. There is a big danger that, in that period, the results of all the good work and
enormous efforts by UNDP, WB, UNEP and the EU/Tacis, as well as participating countries, will be
lost if the relation among CEP, SAP and the Secretariat of the Convention will not be well defined
and harmonised.
The harmonisation of the Convention, the SAP, and CEP is extremely important, particularly the
relations among the responsible Governmental structures within the countries. The ideas of having
two separate offices was tested and abandoned in the Mediterranean in late 70's and after that having
one integrated unit was a standard policy of UNEP's Regional Seas Programme.
Under the stewardship of UNEP (in cooperation with UNDP, WB and the EU/Tacis), the countries are
proceeding towards signing of the Framework Convention, agreeing institutional arrangements, and
negotiating key regional protocols and agreements. The development, adoption and entry into force of
protocols are extremely important, although this issue is not part of this present Project. It is clear that
the development of protocols and their entry into force will take several years and will probably be
dealt with partly in the second phase of CEP. The international partners are ready to assist the
countries with upgrading their policy and legal bases, to strengthen their institutional arrangements, to
assist in improvement of compliance with existing national legislation, and implementation of multi-
lateral and international environmental agreements, which will provide a firm basis for future
protection of the Caspian environment, but only if governments are ready to accept the ownership of
the Convention and the CEP and demonstrate it by providing adequate financial and institutional
support. Assistance from the international partners towards implementation of the Framework
Convention, CEP and the SAP is to provide the required impetus and momentum to the National
Governments for the implementation of the NCAPs and the SAP. Regional programmes of this kind
usually are passing first through an initial phase where the international community is assisting the
participating countries through provision of financial and organisational support in order to set the
ground for the development and implementation of a comprehensive programme which includes legal,
substantial and institutional aspects. Such a phase can take several years but it is not a sustainable
solution. The only sustainable solution is that the participating countries take a major role in financing
activities at the national level and, in such a way, give a clear indication of their ownership of the
programme. It is the opinion of the evaluator that the Caspian region and CEP are at present close to
completing the initial phase and entering into the sustainable phase.
3.4
Role of Component III to the CEP and synergy effects between the project
components of the CEP
UNEP ROE is the GEF Implementing Agency for Component III, which was to create the legislative
umbrella to CEP. The objectives of this component are to enhance national legal institutional
capacities, including the harmonization of national legal regimes; and to create an effective
institutional legal framework for environmental cooperation in the Caspian region. These objectives
cannot be met by Component III alone. Component III has been designed to contribute to setting up
an institutional framework, but lots of work is still needed, e.g. for the entry into force of the
Convention (after signing), for adoption and ratification of protocols, for development of the
ownership concept in all countries, and above all for merging the CEP with the Convention and
protocols. The objectives of this component and synergy effects will not be achieved unless the
Convention and CEP are completely harmonized.
The development of the institutional and legal capacity in the littoral states for environmental
management was one of the essential roles of this Project and its corresponding activities aimed at the
development of the basis for the legal and institutional cooperation mechanisms.
45
Another important role of Component III was to assist in the preparation of the TDA and the SAP. A
number of activities like the review of legal and economic instruments, work on EIA and MEAs, the
small projects on legal/institutional capacity building, all have contributed to the preparation of the
TDA and the SAP.
7
4. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
4.1
To what extent the project's objectives were met and planned results obtained
and whether this has been a cost-effective way of obtaining these results
4.1.1 Activity 1. Facilitation of the finalization of the Framework Convention for the
Protection of the Marine Environment of the Caspian Sea and institutional structures
for the Convention and relationship with CEP as a whole
At the request of the governments of the region, UNEP facilitated the development of the Framework
Convention and organized, in close cooperation with its international partners, seven meetings of
government-nominated experts. At its seventh meeting in Tehran (July 2002), the government-
designated experts succeeded in agreeing on the text of the Convention, with few outstanding issues,
which, it is believed, should be easily sorted out at the technical meeting to be held on the day before
the Conference of Plenipotentiaries. The Conference was scheduled to be held in Tehran in January
2003 but had to be postponed due to political difficulties. Further to the cancelling of the January
Conference, contacts have been made by UNEP with the five Caspian Governments to ascertain their
readiness to reschedule the meeting in the near future. A letter was received from Kazakhstan
suggesting minor adjustments to the text of the Convention, which, it is believed, should not cause
much concern and difficulty. The situation with Turkmenistan remains the same: it is unlikely that it
will agree to signing the Convention until the legal status has been sorted out, though there are signals
that the views might be changing. With regards to Russia, Azerbaijan and Iran, it is believed that all
three are ready to sign. At the Extraordinary Steering Committee Meeting (ESCM, Baku, 12 March
2003) it was agreed that on 14/15 June 2003 (tentative dates) in Tehran the Conference of
Plenipotentiaries would be held with the view of adopting the text of the Framework Convention and
opening it for signature. This will allow those present with plenipotentiary powers to sign the
Convention on the second day of the meeting, if they wish so.
The Framework Convention, once in force, and its future protocols (which will be the subject of CEP
II) should provide the necessary overarching legal and institutional framework for the CEP and
legislative regime under which the SAP will be implemented and will contribute to its sustainability.
It would be important that the Conference of Plenipotentiaries, when adopting the Framework
Convention, decides that the Conference of the Parties is the highest authority over the CEP and the
SAP.
The negotiation and agreement of a regional Environmental Framework should advance the
environmental agenda onto the policy arena. The legally-binding regional agreement should be
translated into national policies and laws and should establish a solid regional legislative platform for
further specific commitments.
UNEP ROE has been working through the management structures of the CEP to implement Project
activities. The current management structure for CEP includes the Steering Committee (SC), the
Programme Coordination Unit (PCU), National Focal Points (NFPs) and the Caspian Regional
Thematic Centres (CRTCs). The SC in its advisory role and PCU in its working and coordinating role
did a very good job so far. CRTCs were working as long as there was financial support from the
international partners and when such support ended so did their work. International partners insisted
that they should be supported by national resources but that never materialised.
46
4.1.2 Activity 2. Development of a strategy for and facilitation of integration of relevant
transboundary elements of the CEP with the Framework Convention
The main strategy for the integration of relevant transboundary elements of the CEP has been the
development of the SAP, which draws on the TDA, the NCPAs and the Framework Convention. The
SAP identifies the environmental interventions to be taken at both the national and the regional level
to address the priority transboundary areas of concern: it builds upon and complements the NCAPs.
Additionally, the SAP creates clear objectives and targets for priority investment action considerations
for the international community. The SAP identifies the national and regional interventions needed to
address four priority regional environmental concern areas: fisheries development; biodiversity
protection; pollution monitoring and control; and sustainable development of coastal areas.
The SAP sets the agenda for enhanced regional environmental cooperation among the littoral states
for the next five and ten years. To improve environmental stewardship and protect the ecosystems of
the Caspian, the SAP outlines five regionally agreed Environmental Quality Objectives - EQOs
(Conservation and sustainable use of commercial fisheries resources; Conservation of biodiversity;
Improvement of the water quality of the Caspian; Sustainable development of the coastal zones; and
Strengthen stakeholder participation in Caspian environmental stewardship) for areas of
environmental concern and defines a set of targets and interventions to meet these objectives to be
addressed over the next five- and ten-year periods. The SAP also highlights the financial resources
and the institutional structure required for the implementation of the priority actions for the next 5+5
years. The SAP might have been designed a bit over ambitious. The SAP (with its Biodiversity
Strategic Action Programme - BSAP as an integral part of SAP) will be the final output of a regional
consultation process, which has involved the littoral countries and the International Partners. It is
hoped that this process will be concluded in time that the SAP could be signed at the forthcoming
Conference of Plenipotentiaries.
The NCAPs and the TDA, which are the major pillars of the SAP, have been thoroughly
studied and reviewed at a number of regional meetings. One of the key achievements of
CEP is that NCAPs implementation has already started in a number of countries and it is
clear that concrete actions will be happening first through the NCAPs implementation.
An important component of the strategy for and facilitation of integration of relevant transboundary
elements of the CEP with the Framework Convention is the development and implementation of the
protocols to the Framework Convention. The Convention envisages seven protocols (pollution from
land-based sources; pollution from seabed activities; pollution from vessels; pollution caused by
damping; protection, preservation and restoration of marine living resources; sea level fluctuations;
and environmental impact assessment). The SAP envisages the development of eight protocols
(biodiversity; pollution from land-based sources; pollution by hazardous substances; environmental
standards; dumping at sea; control of invasive species; fisheries; and monitoring of pollution). At the
first glance it seems that only two protocols are the same in both the Framework Convention and the
SAP, but actually subjects covered are the same and mostly the difference is in the title. Still complete
harmonisation of protocols in the Framework Convention and the SAP has to be achieved. This
problem will have to be solved by the time of the adoption of the Convention and the SAP, although
the development and implementation of protocols will be one of the subjects of the CEP II.
4.1.3 Activity 3. Assessment of the status of implementation of relevant multilateral
environmental agreements
2.1.1
2.1.2 In the framework of strengthening legal and technical capacities of the Caspian
States, a Regional Legal Workshop was held in Baku in December 2001
focusing on implementation of Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEA) in
47
the Caspian region (CITES, Aarhus and Espoo Conventions), with participation
and contribution from the Secretariats of the Conventions. The overall
objective of the workshop was to facilitate the implementation of MEAs in the
Caspian region through discussing and reviewing the legal process of their
implementation at national level. Also the objective was to strengthen the
cooperation and understanding between participants from different countries
of the region as well as among the Secretariats of the conventions and thus
avoid unnecessary duplication of efforts. The workshop helped guide the
participants through the process of preparing national legislation and
regulations that would adequately transpose the obligations of MEAs into the
national legal system. The participants noted that often MEAs are ratified
before the countries have the means to properly implement them (e.g.
adequate legislation and institutional mechanisms or resources). The
participants praised the concept of organizing one single workshop for several
conventions.
The SCM (Oct. 2002) appealed to UNEP and the littoral states to further intensify and collaborate on
building institutional capacity in and between the countries for handling priority concerns related to
the implementation of MEAs in the context of CEP.
It could be argued whether the selection of the CITES, Aarhus and Espoo Conventions was
the best choice. CITES certainly was a good choice which is not necessarily true for the
other two. Also not selecting Ramsar Convention is surprising, as well as not including into
this activity most relevant international programmes, like GPA/LBA, GIWA, GOOS and
PEBLDS. It would be good to take this comment into account in the design of the CEP II.
4.1.4 Activity 4. Assessment of national legislation and institutions related to the protection
and sustainable management of the Caspian environment and its resources
The review "Legal, Regulatory and Institutional Measures for the Protection and Sustainable
Management of the Caspian Ecosystem in the Riparian States" was prepared in 2001 by an
independent consultant in cooperation with the CRTC/LREI, which supported the consultant through
the recruitment of local experts in each of the Caspian countries and consolidating the data. This is a
very good document, which concludes that, in general, the environmental legislation of the Riparian
States ensures legal protection of the Caspian Sea. The national legislation of the Riparian States,
which, in most cases, is very recent, now plays the principal role in regulating the use of natural
resources and environmental protection in the Caspian Sea and responds to the new challenges
sometimes successfully and sometimes with difficulties. The deficiencies are caused, sometimes, by
deficiencies of the laws and governmental regulations, gaps and inconsistencies, but also often by
economic constrains. Insufficient funding of the environmental protection ministries and departments
sometimes practically paralyses their work. The document identifies gaps and inconsistencies in the
national legislation and institutional measures of each Riparian State. On the basis of the analysis, the
report proposes recommendations for each of the Riparian States for improvement of the legal and
institutional measures for environmental protection of the Caspian Sea and sustainable use of natural
resources. Taking into consideration that the Riparian States have definite similarity of the legal and
institutional problems, the report proposes common approaches at the regional level, which could help
in solving issues of a transboundary character. This document served as a key input in the preparation
of the TDA and the SAP.
The direct impact of the UNEP Project on national legislations/regulations might not be very apparent
at this moment of time but it would certainly have positive implications in the near future when more
legally bounded cooperation will be in place due to existence of the Framework Convention and other
Regional Environmental Agreements.
48
4.1.5 Activity 5. Provision of technical assistance to governments in the legislative/regulatory
and related institutional fields
UNEP developed and implemented a small grant facility to further assist the Governments in
legislative/regulatory and related institutional fields, as these refer to the CEP, the NCAP and
SAP recommendations and/or the national obligations under the endorsement of Multilateral
Environmental Agreements. The objectives of these grants (projects) were to respond to
legal commitments and needs, as these refer to the CEP and SAP recommendations and/or
the national obligations under the endorsement of MEAs. The small project facility focuses
on capacity building and institutional/legal strengthening and enables governments to follow
up on the recommendations of the December 2001 MEAs workshop and the
recommendations of the legal review undertaken in 2001. The chosen path of
implementation of small projects in countries received much appreciation from the countries,
as enabling activities to help strengthen national institutions. Small projects were approved
and contracted in all Caspian countries with the exception of the project in Russia, which is
still under negotiations.
As part of the provision of technical assistance, UNEP ROE signed the following MOUs:
· Development and approval of methods, rules and regulations regarding monitoring of
sea water quality and calculation of norms (Kazakhstan Ministry of natural resources
and nature protection);
· Elaboration and distribution of a guidance for the public, explaining Aarhus
Convention and national environment protection legislation in the Caspian region
(Turkmenistan Ministry of Nature Protection);
· Elaboration and implementation of rules of protection of shoaling waters of the
Caspian Sea from pollution from vessels (Turkmenistan State Enterprise for Caspian
Issues);
· Development and dissemination of a guideline on (Overview Brochure, brief
summary, "call for" leaflets) raising public awareness about Aarhus Convention and
national legislation on nature protection in the Azerbaijan (Azerbaijan Ministry of
Ecology and Natural Resources);
· Trio-training workshop on application and provisions of CITES, Aarhus and Espoo
Conventions (Iran Department of the Environment); and
· Assessment of the national/local legal base for implementation of the provisions of
the "Convention on Environment Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context"
(Espoo Convention) for the Northern Caspian, Collection of the contact points for the
EIA in a transboundary Context (Russian Federation, CIP, under negotiations).
4.1.6 Activity 6. Assessment of existing economic tools and instruments related to the
protection and sustainable management of the Caspian environment and its resources
The CRTC/LREI has prepared in 2001 a comprehensive review of economic instruments for
solving environmental problems of the Caspian Sea. This review is based on the documents,
submitted by the national experts from all Caspian Riparian States. The review incorporates
an analysis of the experience in the development of economic instruments used for the
management of the environment, an assessment of the applicability of economic instruments
for the management of the environment and natural resources, other materials, as well as
recommendations on increasing the efficiency of economic instruments in addressing
environmental problems of the Caspian Sea, whose draft was presented at the Third
49
Conference of Experts of the CRTC/LREI (Moscow, August 2001), agreed upon during the
discussions, and approved by national experts.
The system of legal, regulating and economic instruments (LREI) was viewed as the basis for actual
management of the environment, including marine environment of the Caspian Sea as a complex
transboundary object. Internationally, the Caspian states significantly lag behind in introducing
economic free-market oriented instruments in the national economy. Economic instruments could also
be used to levy more charges on oil and gas companies and consortiums for the direct and indirect
damage caused to the Caspian fisheries.
This report is an analytical document, unfortunately most probably prepared through patching of
available academic documents, but it is not giving enough of the guidance to national experts and
authorities for practical action that will facilitate the development and implementation of economic
tools in the environmental management. There were no tangible recommendations and no follow up
activities to this review. Unfortunately, any change at the national level in applying economic
instruments in improved environmental protection is still to be seen.
The applicability of economic tools and instruments in environmental aspects is indispensable from
national policy set up and would not be implemented until and unless there is a strong government
will and appropriate Strategic Environmental Management in place. Therefore, the result of preparing
such report by the UNEP is very useful provided there is a will within the government to apply the
findings. It was anticipated by countries that UNEP would play a vital role in assisting the countries to
understand the benefit and the usefulness of such financial arrangements and will facilitate developing
a regional financial usefulness of such financial arrangements and will facilitate developing a regional
financial mechanism in order to provide sustainability to the regional cooperation beyond the CEP
Phase II.
It would be important in the next phase of CEP to implement a stronger capacity-building component
which will ensure provision of technical assistance and advice to governments and other stakeholders
in developing and implementing economic tools and instruments related to the protection and
sustainable management of the Caspian environment and its resources.
4.1.7 Activity 7. Provision of technical assistance and advice to governments and other
stakeholders involved in application of environmental impact assessment processes in
the Caspian, including consideration of environmental valuation as a component thereof
As part of this activity, a workshop "Capacity Building and the Implementation of EIA in a Trans-
boundary Context in the Caspian Sea Region" was held in November 2002 in Moscow, organized by
UNEP Regional Office for Europe in cooperation with the Secretariat of the UN UNECE Convention
on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Trans-boundary Context (Espoo), and the European Bank
for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), and with the support of the Centre for International
Projects (CIP), Moscow.
This workshop also draws from the 2001 regional report of the CRTC/LREI on `Economic
Instruments for Solving Environmental Problems of the Caspian' and the December 2001
UNEP/UNECE meeting in Baku on International Environmental Law (i.e., Espoo, Aarhus,
and CITES Conventions).
The workshop considered the establishment of a set of harmonised procedure for EIA in a
transboundary context, outlining obligations under the Espoo Convention agreed by all the countries
in Caspian Sea region.
It was agreed that procedure guidelines for implementing EIA in a transboundary context,
with outlining obligations under the Espoo Convention, would be produced. The guidelines
should be practical and easy to use and include examples of notification letters and
50
responses requested. Particular attention will be drawn on the petroleum related
development projects, including the prevention of oil spills from offshore oil development.
It was agreed that a follow up workshop would be held to finalise the guidelines. It was
scheduled for February 2003, postponed because the draft guidelines were not ready and
again postponed because of the events in the region. Other activities under this topic include
the preparation of draft guidelines for EIA in a transboundary context (currently being
developed and about to be sent to the countries), small contracts with each of the Caspian
countries to carry out a national consultation and feedback on the guidelines.
Acceptance of implementing transboundary EIAs in the region would require many pre-
requisite activities such as more training, more exchange of views, closer cooperation, better
understanding of the Caspian ecosystem, the appropriate demarcation of liabilities and
responsibilities which is quite time consuming and it requires willingness of the governments
of the region to come into an agreement, in addition to UNEP support.
UNEP was successful in enlisting the support and cooperation of other international partners
in this activity (EBRD and Espoo Secretariats) and in such a way proving to be attentive at
trying to bring on board other partners and linking with activities of such partners as well as
with other UNEP efforts.
4.2
The implementation and management of the project in terms of quality,
usefulness and timeliness of activities and outputs, adherence to work plans
and budgets
As it is quite often the case for this type of projects, the quality and usefulness of activities
and outputs ranges from excellent to satisfactory. UNEP ROE did a good job in managing
the project. Activities and outputs were often delayed comparing with the work plan but in
synergism with the UNDP, WB, and the EU/Tacis Project, a whole array of very useful
activities were carried out with outputs that certainly contribute significantly to setting the
stage for concrete activities which will go beyond the analysis of the situation and capacity
building (see Annex VI).
Work plans were not strictly adhered to. In hindsight it seems that the work plan in the Project
Document was overoptimistic, underestimating inertia and difficulties in the initiation of the
international cooperation among the countries of the Caspian Sea and in the development of the
institutional capacity for such work. These are common problems, which were faced in most, if not
all, projects of this kind around the world.
The UNEP GEF Project (CEP Project Component III), as revised, commenced in July 2000
for a 37 months period (i.e. until July 2003). The original Project Document was signed for a
3-year duration from May 2000 onward but due to considerable delay in the approval and
internalisation of the UNEP GEF Project Document, the initiation of the Project
implementation had to be postponed accordingly. The GEF has allocated a total of US$
614,715 for UNEP. UNEP provided US$ 60,282 from its own Environmental Fund (FP/5230).
In addition to the GEF funds and the Environment Fund contribution, US$ 400,000 was
spent from UNEP funds for the development of the Caspian Framework Convention and
related activities. US$ 300,000 was disbursed over the years 1995 to 1998 with a further
US$ 100,000 allocated from UNEP funds for support to the remaining work on the
preparation of the Caspian Framework Convention and towards development of its
protocols. As of the March of 2003 over 80% of these remaining funds are earmarked to
activities scheduled in 2003 (EIA follow up workshop, small projects of technical assistance,
evaluation, conference of plenipotentiaries, etc.). Currently new revision of the Project
51
Document is under preparation, which will extend the duration of the Project until the end of
2003 and thus allow that all uncommitted funds will be committed and spent.
4.3
The effectiveness of institutional arrangements, particular through the local
partner, Center for International Projects (CIP), as well as monitoring and
backstopping support given to the project by all parties concerned
In the framework of CEP, ten Caspian Regional Thematic Centres (CRTCs), covering eleven
themes, were established and were instrumental in collating and generating information
required for the preparation of the TDA, NCAPs and the SAP. The CRTC/LREI
(CRTC/Legal, Regulating and Economic Instruments) was the main local partner of UNEP in
the implementation of the Project. The Center for International Projects (CIP, Moscow) acted
as the CRTC/LREI.
Since 1997, CIP has been the coordination group on international cooperation of Interstate
Ecological Council of the CIS countries. In this role, CIP carried out, within the framework of
cooperation with UNEP, a number of projects related to solving priority environmental
problems of the Caspian. These projects are connected with the implementation of the
UNEP Project:
· Developing a Harmonized Approach to Environmental Legislation in the CIS
Countries;
· Elaboration of proposals for improvement of EIA process in environmentally sound
decision-making for CIS countries; and
· Integrated Environmental Management in the Volga-Caspian Region.
Within the framework of the last of the above mentioned projects, the activity on preparation
of the Framework Convention on the protection of the marine environment of the Caspian
Sea was carried out until year 2000 and the later work was regulated through the MOU
between UNEP and CIP for CEP activities.
In order to organise the work between UNEP and CIP, the following seven Memorandum of
Understandings (MOUs) were prepared:
· Organisation of regional meeting (21-22 May 1999) to discuss the 3-year work plan
for the CRTC/LREI) (not funded under this Project);
· Organisation of the sixth meeting of experts of Caspian Riparian States (11-13 Oct.
2000) on the preparation of a draft Framework Convention (not funded under this
Project);
· Assessment of the Caspian states' relevant national economic tools and instruments
in the context of the sustainable management of the Caspian environment and its
resources and their effectiveness and preparation of the report (July 2000 Jan.
2002) (report issued);
· Assistance to the work of the international consultant in preparing the assessment of
national environmental legislation (July 2000 Jan. 2002) (report issued);
· Preparation of reviews and organisation of coordination (June 2000 Jan. 2002):
·
Preparation of a review of ongoing related capacity-building activities carried
out by other international agencies, bilateral donors and NGOs to strengthen
legal/regulatory/institutional economic frameworks in the Caspian region (report
submitted in Russian language only);
52
·
Preparation of a review on the existing multilateral legislation on the Caspian
Sea: multilateral and bilateral agreements and the status of implementation,
including bottlenecks to such implementation and regional needs (report
submitted in Russian language only);
·
Preparation of a review on international experience in creating and functioning
of legal and economic instruments for providing environmental safety in the
context of oil extraction (report submitted in Russian language only);
·
Implementation of overarching coordination, data base management and
analytical information activities in the major fields relevant to the tasks of the
CRTC/LREI;
· Organisation of CEP EIA transboundary workshop, Moscow, 27-29 Nov. 2002; and
· Assessment of the national/local legal base for implementation of the provisions of
the Espoo Convention for the Northern Caspian, Collection of the contact points for
the EIA in a transboundary Context (Jan. April 2003) (MOU under negotiation).
Unfortunately, certain delays were experienced in signing and financing of some MOUs and
one of the reasons was that CIP has been slow in providing all information pertaining to the
MOUs.
CIP played various roles in the implementation of this Project: as CRTC/LREI for CEP; as
support institution to the Russian NFP; as Russian Institute; and as UNEP's partner in the
implementation of various other projects (EIA in CIS, Volga, etc.). Such mixed roles of COP
sometimes created complications. Also on some occasions the quality of the organisation of
meetings by CIP was not adequate.
Regarding the outputs produced by CIP, the opinion of some experts was that the quality of
the document on economic instruments, produced by CIP, was not adequate. Another three
of the documents produced by CIP were published only in Russian language (due to the fact
that respective MOUs did not require translation into English) and that certainly limited
seriously the use of these documents at the regional level and also did not allow that the
quality of these documents be assessed. Also absence of follow-up to these activities was
noted. As a consequence, the cost-effectiveness of the work of CIP was questioned.
4.4
The effectiveness of technical, administrative and financial support provided by
UNEP ROE and GEF
UNEP ROE has remained focused on legal and institutional strengthening and provided
technical, administrative and financial support to the Project and technical assistance to all
Riparian Countries on various subjects, including legal strengthening of all Riparian
Countries through preparation of documents (assessment of legal and economic
instruments), organisation of workshops, provision of small grants, support to the preparation
of the SAP and to the implementation of EIA in Riparian Countries (see point 4.1.5 above).
UNEP ROE was effective and instrumental in the facilitation of the negotiation and regional
discussions with regards to reaching an agreement on the text of the Framework
Convention. Also, it is likewise instrumental in encouraging a high-level endorsement and
signing of the document. Due to continuous efforts of UNEP ROE and the Project Manager,
the text of the Framework Convention was adopted, with few outstanding issues, which
should be relatively easy to sort out, and is ready to be submitted to the Conference of the
Plenipotentiaries for signing. Working through both formal and informal channels, supporting
and facilitating, UNEP has allowed the countries to take a proactive and leading role in the
Convention process.
53
GEF was effective in the provision of the financial support to the Project. Following
completion of fact finding (TDA) and priority setting (SAP) exercise, GEF is ready to support
selected interventions aimed at assisting countries in implementing transboundary and/or
globally significant biodiversity elements of the SAP/NCAPs. GEF gained regional
acceptance as a major international partner and leader in regional and transboundary
environmental initiatives, along with the various UN agencies and EU/Tacis.
The administrative servicing of the Project has been a heavy burden on UNEP ROE. It is
questionable whether UNEP ROE can continue with the heavy load of contracts and MOUs.
UNEP ROE has often subcontracted UNOPS (with the assistance from the PCU) for the
organisation of meetings and this cooperation proved quite effective and easy.
4.5
The flexibility demonstrated by the project management during project
implementation in order to obtain the planned results of the project
The Project management was mostly exercised through the UNEP ROE and the PCU, with
the advisory role of the Steering Committee. UNEP ROE demonstrated remarkable flexibility
during Project implementation in order to adjust to often-changeable conditions in political
scene, communication with main actors and lack of the perception of ownership by the
Caspian countries. UNEP ROE has been extremely responsive to the concerns of the
Caspian Governments, and its Director undertook a number of trips to the region to liaise
and discuss problems with Governments. The implementation of UNEP activities has been
done in close collaboration with the PCU. In the design, running and monitoring of UNEP
activities, the PCU was closely involved and their comments and support sought
systematically. Finally, UNEP has been discussing the proposed implementation of activities
with the NFPs and kept the NFPs regularly informed of their implementation.
4.6
The level and effectiveness of co-operation among project partners (i.e.,
UNOPS, UNEP, World Bank, UNDP/GEF, EU/Tacis, Project Coordination Unit,
UNDP Country Offices and National Focal Points)
For the implementation of this Project, UNEP cooperated with UNDP, the World Bank,
EU/Tacis and PCU and worked locally through a supporting organization, the Center for
International Projects (CIP), Moscow Caspian Regional Thematic Center on Legal,
Regulatory and Economic Instruments (CRTC/LREI) and directly with local partners.
Cooperation can be considered as very successful providing a concerted effort towards the
protection and development of the Caspian Sea.
UNEP has been encouraging interest and participation of other partners, like EBRD (EIA
initiative), and the Secretariats of CITES, Espoo and Aarhus Conventions. UNEP has been
active in the regional meetings, participating and contributing to the TDA, the SAP, the SCMs
and other substantive meetings. UNEP has encouraged the cooperation of the CEP
international partners and maintained close collaboration with its CEP partners, the EU, WB
and UNDP. UNEP had excellent cooperation with the PCU throughout the Project. In fact
UNEP took a leading role in helping smooth out the strained relations among some
international partners whenever this began to impact the programme.
In collaboration with UNEP-Arendal, a CD-ROM was prepared reflecting the TDA findings in digital
form. This CD accompanied the publication of the Caspian TDA. UNEP also provided additional
legal and technical consultancy support to the preparation of the TDA, the NCAPs, Caspian
Information System, the drafting of the SAP, the discussions on CEP institutional arrangements and
the preparation of the second phase (CEP II) Project Brief. These are added inputs that UNEP
provided, though not specifically mentioned in the original activities. These activities demonstrate
54
that UNEP was an important partner in other CEP activities and that UNEP activities were an integral
part of the CEP.
8
5. IMPACT
5.1
Level of stakeholder involvement during project implementation and ownership
of the project by the participating countries
The governmental sector of the participating countries has been major partner to UNEP in
the implementation of the Project. Involvement of the governmental sector at the beginning
of the Project did show lack of the concept of ownership, which is typical for this type of
project. It takes time to develop and accept the concept of ownership, which is one of the
main driving forces for action. Recent developments indicate that countries are on the right
way to accept the ownership concept and with the continuous and additional help from the
international community chances are quite good for the future of the Project (see point 5.2).
5.2
Level of financial, technical and political commitment of countries to support
ongoing project activities and a potential future project phase
The level of financial, technical and political commitment of countries to support ongoing
Project was modest at the beginning of the Project but there are good signs that commitment
is gradually picking up. For instance at the recent ESCM (Baku, March 2003), the countries
accepted to pay for the cost of their participation in the regional meetings, the cost of hosting
regional meetings and the cost of running their own Caspian National Structures. Also under
the small project capacity building facility of UNEP, the Governments are progressively
showing that they are designing, managing and monitoring projects, but this process is
rather slow.
5.3
Degree of support given by the Riparian Governments in integrating the project
objectives and goals into the national development programmes and other
related projects, and how well the project fits into national development policy
The degree of support given by the Riparian Governments in integrating the project
objectives and goals into the national development programmes and other related projects
are rather modest at present. Quite often, Governments were expecting that the international
community would fund and implement activities and plans. This position is gradually
changing, particularly recently, and there are good signs that countries are ready to commit
more financial and human resources in the protection of the Caspian Sea (Extraordinary
Meeting of the Steering Committee, Baku, March 2003). The international community has
been a necessary and important catalyser of these changes. Under the small project facility,
Governments have also seen this facility as a way to strengthen their national legal and
institutional systems. The projects selected by them were often components of their NCAPs
and their national strategic priorities.
5.4
Impacts on policy, strategy and action plan of countries created through this
project
This Project and CEP as a whole had a very strong positive impact on policy, strategy and action plan
of the countries involved. A regional environmental management mechanism has been established and
the planned diagnostic work had been completed. Through the activities, including capacity building,
a number of ministries and other organisations improved considerable their know-how to prepare
policy statements, development strategies and concrete action plans.
55
5.5
Impact on enhancing co-operation among project partners and coordination of
(other) project initiatives
The Project certainly has had a very strong positive impact on the level of cooperation
among the countries themselves and between the countries and the International Partners. It
took time to develop such cooperation and it would be a great loss if the momentum will be
lost due to delay in the signing of the Convention, and eventually its entry into force. Also,
UNEP's initiatives on partners cooperation (meetings in Brussels in Oct. 2002 and Geneva in
March 2003) and linking with other programmes, like the Secretariats of CITES, Espoo and
Aarhus Conventions had an important positive impact on enhancing cooperation among
Project partners.
5.6
Sustainability of the Caspian Framework Convention, in particular in terms of
establishment of convention secretariat and development of action plans
The sustainability of the Framework Convention will depend on the determination of all
involved parties to the full implementation of the Convention. The Convention will become
sustainable only if each of the countries of the region take ownership of the Convention, the
SAP and CEP and if the International Partners have reasons to believe that the funds spent
on the development and implementation of the Convention and CEP are well spent. The
focus on developing regional legal mechanisms will assure that the regional basis is set for
sustainability.
A critical period for the sustainability of the Framework Convention will be the period starting
with the signing of the Convention and ending with its entry into force. This period could take
several years and it would be easy to lose momentum in the region if the Interim Secretariat
and PCU will not be mandated to do the work in this period.
The issue at stake is the implementation of the Convention which in the first instance requires the
adaptation of the Parties' national legal regimes, policies, rules and regulations in order to make them
congruent with the requirements of the Convention and, second, the enforcement of these in everyday
practice.
The Caspian Convention is a framework-type of convention and contains only general
obligations. Without protocols, annexes and specific decisions of the Conference of the
Parties such conventions lack substance on which action at regional or national level can be
built. Therefore, the real implementation of the Convention will start only when such
instruments are added to the Convention.
Furthermore, the implementation of the Convention at the regional level will require an
Action Plan to deal with issues of common nature and transboundary significance. The
adoption of the SAP as the Convention's Action Plan would be the most rational and
expeditious solution.
Last but not least, the Convention and its Action Plan would need an agreed funding mechanism in
order to be "sustainable" in any meaningful sense.
Another step towards sustainability will result from the GEF focus on interventions directed
at policy, legal, regulatory, and institutional mechanisms. By improving these at the outset,
each country would be poised with the proper basis for long-term sustainability.
The countries have to take their responsibilities and demonstrate, through their activities and
adequate funding, that the Convention and its associated Action Plan truly belong to them.
56
6.
RATING OF IMPLEMENTATION
6.1
Achievements of the project
The achievements of this Project were evaluated in the following ways:
· review of individual activities/items of the CEP Component III as contained in the
TORs for evaluation. Findings of this report were prepared on the basis of the review
of numerous documents (Annex V); interviews with key persons from the
international community (Annex II) involved in the design, implementation and
management of the Project; answers to the questionnaire (Annex III) sent to national
contacts (NFPs and NPICs) in all five participating countries; and answers to the
questionnaire sent to main national partner involved in the implementation of the
Project (CIP, Moscow); and
· comparison and analysis of the activities and autputs (as contained in the Project
Document) with the actual achievements to date. This comparison and analysis is
presented in the Annex VI of this evaluation.
9
6.2
EVALUATION OF THE SUCCESS OF GEF/UNEP PROJECT
IMPLEMENTATION BY USING ITEMS AS CONTAINED IN THE TORS FOR THE
EVALUATION
On the basis of a detailed assessment the evaluation of the success of the GEF/UNEP
Project implementation is presented below (applying items as indicated in the TORs for the
evaluation) and using following rating system: 1 = Excellent (90-100% achievement); 2 =
Very Good (75-89%); 3 = Good (60-74%); 4 = Satisfactory (50-59%); 5 = Unsatisfactory
(49% and below).
6.2.1 Timelines
For a number of activities, the timetable as indicated in the Project Document was not met
and outputs were produced in some instances with considerable delay (see Annex VI).
Rating: Satisfactory 4
6.2.2 Achievennnment of results
Some of the results were achieved as planned but some results were not achieved since
some activities were still not completed (see Annex VI).
Rating: Satisfactory - 4
6.2.3 Attainment of outputs
For activities that were completed outputs were in most cases in accordance with those
defined in the Project Document, but for activities that are still ongoing, outputs are still to be
produced (see Annex VI).
Rating: Good - 3
57
6.2.4 Completion of activities
Most of the activities envisaged in the Project Document have been completed, although
several activities are still ongoing (see Annex VI), with the good chance to be completed by
the closing of the Project (with the new revision which is being prepared, it is predicted that
the Project will be closed by the end of 2003).
Rating: Good 3
6.2.5 Project executed within budget
The Project was executed within budget, but there are still about 40% of uncommitted funds
that will have to be committed and spent by the completion of the Project (currently July
2003, but the revision which will extend the Project until the end of 2003 is under
preparation).
Rating: Good - 3
6.2.6 Impact created by the project
After a slow start, the impact created by the Project in the participating countries and in the
international community was good.
Rating: Good - 3
6.2.7 Sustainability
The sustainability depends on the signing and entry into force of the Framework Convention,
and there are indications that the Convention will be signed in June 2003.
Rating: Satisfactory - 4
6.2.8 Overall rating
Since four of the seven points were rated as "good" and three points were rated as
"satisfactory" the overall rating is considered to be "good".
7.
LESSONS LEARNED
It is quite typical for this type of regional programmes that, at the beginning, the international
community assist the participating countries to launch the programme and, usually, in the initial
phase, the countries are sluggish in identifying themselves with the programme and in accepting the
ownership of the programme. Clearly demonstrating the ownership to the programme through active
participation in the design and implementation of activities and through the provision of financial,
institutional and human support is the only way to make such programmes sustainable, because such
programmes should be of the countries of the region and have to be implemented by the countries of
the region. The international community should only support the programme but the ownership has to
be with the countries of the region. The sooner the countries of the region demonstrate their
ownership of the programme, the more efficient the programme will be. The timely demonstration of
ownership will send a clear signal to the international community that the countries of the region are
ready to take responsibility for the solution of their problems. This is the lesson learned in other
programmes of this type in the world and the Caspian region is no exception.
58
The Caspian Environment Programme is a very complex undertaking and different
components of the programme have been developed and implemented by different partners
of the international community (GEF, UNDP, WB, UNEP, the EU/Tacis and others) and at
different times. Various complex activities were undertaken, like the design and preparation
of TDA, NCAPs, SAP, Framework Convention, and a number of basic studies on various
subjects and it is inevitable that, on some occasions, a lack of coordination in substance
and/or time will be apparent. It is very important to try to harmonise and coordinate all basic
activities and such harmonisation should not be only in substance but also in time. For
instance, it is important that the legal base/framework for such a complex programme is
developed on time to be harmonised with other activities. The negotiations for the
development of the legal base (Framework Convention and protocols) for the Caspian region
have been lagging behind the development of some other components. Regional ownership
of this type of programmes can be demonstrated only through the timely adoption of the
legal framework. A lesson learned is that all basic components of regional programmes
should be designed and developed in close coordination not only in substance but also in
time.
Environmental protection and sustainable development of regions like the Caspian is a very costly
business. Proper protection and development of such regional programmes costs tens of billions of
dollars and it is neither feasible nor sustainable to expect that the public sector and the international
community alone will cover such costs. Without the very active involvement of the private sector,
there is no sustainable solution to the environmental protection and sustainable development of the
region. Participation of the oil and gas sector in the CEP is a very clear example of the active interest
of the private sector. It would be important that the participation of the private sector be broadened
also to other sectors. A lesson learned is to develop active participation of the private sector from the
very beginning of a regional programme of this kind. They should be involved not only in the
implementation of the programme but also in its design and management in order to share in the
ownership of the programme.
8.
RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1
Development and implementation of a legal umbrella to CEP
Signing and entry into force of the Framework Convention and its protocols, as an
overarching legal and institutional framework of CEP, SAP and NCAPs, is of utmost
importance for the long-term coordinated and systematic protection and sustainable
development of the Caspian environment. Signing of the Convention without further delay
will be a definite proof of the enhancement of the concept of ownership of CEP, the SAP (as
the action plan of the Convention) and the NCAPs by the countries.
It is recommended that:
(i)
UNEP, leading the preparation of the Framework Convention, jointly with the
countries of the region and other actors from the international community, should
concentrate efforts to achieve signing and entry into force of the Convention and its
protocols;
(ii)
Conference of Plenipotentiaries, when adopting the Framework Convention,
decides that the Conference of the Parties is the highest authority of the Action Plan
and that SAP acts as the Action Plan of the Convention;
(iii) UNEP should act in the period between the signing and entry into force as the
Interim Secretariat of the Convention; and
59
(iv) UNEP should be assisting the PCU in the transitional period.
8.2
Coordination of components in an environment management programme of
this scale and duration
In order not to duplicate the work and optimise the achievements of environment
management programmes of this scale and duration, it is very important to coordinate all of
the basic components (the NCAPs, the SAP, and Framework Convention with protocols),
particularly those implemented by various organisations, like UNDP, WB, UNEP, the
EU/Tacis and others. Coordination should be both substantive and in time. Likewise, such
coordination should also be achieved among various governmental departments and
between governmental and other organisations at the level of individual countries.
Coordination of legal and substantive components is particularly important when selecting
and developing protocols and agreements.
It is recommended that:
(v)
UNEP take appropriate actions in order that coordination mechanisms are enhanced among
all involved actors at the national level, at the international level and between national and
international levels.
8.3
Recommendations that outline design and strategic approach, prioritise
activities and identify institutional arrangements for a next phase(s) upon
completion of the current project (e.g. rank in terms of feasibility, if more than
one recommended strategic approach)
Upon completion of the current Project and when designing the next phase, efforts of UNEP
should focus on activities necessary for enhancement of the perception of the ownership
among participating countries, early entry into force of the Framework Convention,
development of protocols and relevant capacity building.
It is recommended that:
(vi) countries be called upon for enhanced ownership of CEP and the Convention, including
increased financial commitment towards the next phase, as the CEP is moving from
institution-oriented to activities-oriented technical support approach;
(vii) selection and development of protocols be harmonised with the requirements of the NCAPs,
the SAP and the Framework Convention and that UNEP ROE ensures adequate in house
expertise in order to organise and implement such a process; and
(viii) for the capacity building, in addition to the enhancement of the legal framework at national
level, UNEP ROE to provide technical assistance and advice to countries and other
stakeholders for the development and application of economic tools and instruments related
to the protection and sustainable management of the environment of the Caspian region.
8.4
Recommendations that can further enhance synergy and coordination between
international and European agencies in the sub-region
For the enhancement of synergy and coordination between international and European
agencies, it would be important to continue with existing coordination arrangements with
selected international conventions but also to develop cooperation with some other
conventions and most relevant international programmes.
It is recommended that:
60
(ix) UNEP ROE in addition to already existing cooperation with the secretariats of the
CITES, Aarhus, and Espoo Conventions, makes efforts to develop cooperation with
Ramsar Convention and most relevant international programmes, like GPA/LBA,
GIWA, GOOS and PEBLDS.
8.5
Recommendations that consider the replicability of this project and its legal
umbrella approach for other projects that address the need to promote
sustainable environment protection and development of environment
programmes in sub-regions
In order to consider the replicability of this Project and its legal umbrella approach in other
regions of the world it would be important to present the experience of the Caspian region at
relevant international meetings and to bring the Caspian Sea Convention into the family of
Regional Seas of UNEP.
It is recommended that:
(x)
UNEP ROE presents the experience of the Caspian region at relevant international
meetings and makes efforts to bring the Caspian Sea Convention into the family of
Regional Seas of UNEP.
2.1.1 9.
CONCLUSIONS
As a conclusion, the evaluator is of the opinion that the remarkable and significant work
which was done over the last five years by the Governments of the region and International
Partners in order to develop and coordinate the joint efforts of the Caspian states and the
International community for the protection of the Caspian environment has about an even
chance to be successful or to fail. The only way to success will be if the Caspian
Governments accept the ownership of the Convention with protocols and the SAP as
Convention's Action Plan, and demonstrate it by providing adequate financial and
institutional support.
61
Annex G3: Evaluation WB-GEF Component of Caspian Environment Program (CEP)
MID-TERM EVALUATION
11 August 2003
Project "Addressing Transboundary Environmental Issues
in the Caspian Environment Program (CEP): Component IV - Priority Investment Portfolio
Project" (RER/98/G32/A/1G/42)
10 WORLD BANK COMPONENT OF THE GEF-CEP PROJECT
Prepared by
Ljubomir Jeftic, Consultant
Zagreb, August 2003
62
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.
INTRODUCTION
2.
BACKGROUND
3.
PROJECT DESIGN
3.1
Appropriateness of the project's concept and strategic design to the overall
situation of the Caspian Sea, the World Bank's strategic strengths and the
overall goal of the CEP
3.2
Relevance of the project design within the framework of GEF programs and
guidelines
4.
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
4.1
Achievements of the project against the original objectives, outputs and activities as
detailed in the project document
4.1.1
Subcomponent No. 1 Investment Identification and Pre-Preparation
Activity 1. Support the identification and pre-preparation of investment projects, with
emphasis on the financial feasibility and blended funding for implementation
4.1.2
Subcomponent No. 2 Institutional Strengthening and Training for Project Preparation
Activity 2. Training on project preparation, financing, management and supervision;
Training or seminars on the role of investments in implementing the national policy
agenda
4.1.3
Subcomponent No. 3 Matched Small-Grants Program (MSGP)
Activity 3. Establish a grant program to support the implementation of small
demonstration or pilot projects
4.1.4
Subcomponent No. 4 Project Management
Activity 4. Project Management Coordination among many parties with a transparent
mechanism for managing all subcomponents
4.2
General implementation and management of the project in terms of quality and
timeliness of inputs and activities, adherence to work plans and budgets
4.3
Adequacy of management arrangements as well as monitoring and backstopping
support given to the project by all parties concerned
4.4
Institutional set-up, in particular in light of the changes made in administration of the
project
4.5
Responsiveness of project management to changes in the environment in which the
project operates
4.6
Co-operation among project partners (UNEP, UNDP, GEF, EU/Tacis, Project
Coordination Unit, UNDP Country Offices, National Focal Points)
4.7
Degree of co-operation and coordination between PIPP Team and other WB units,
including WB resident missions in the region
63
4.8
Cost effectiveness of the management structure
5.
PROJECT IMPACT
5.1
Level of ownership of the project by the participating countries
5.2
Level of commitment of countries to support ongoing project and potential future project
phase
5.3
Degree of support given by the riparian Governments in integrating the project
objectives and goals into the national development programs and other related
projects, and how well the project fits into national development policy
5.4
Impacts on policy and strategy of countries
5.5
Sustainability of the outputs in form of the knowledge transferred to the region to
identify, develop and fund investment projects
5.6
Project impact on enhancing co-operation among sectors and project partners
6.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1
The degree to which the project objectives were obtainable and the degree to which they
have been met
6.2
Significant lessons that can be drawn from the experience of the project and its results,
particularly those elements that have worked well and those that have not
6.3
Recommendations on further actions upon completion of the current project including
design and implementation arrangement for the next phase(s)
ANNEXES
Annex I
Terms of Reference for the evaluation
Annex II
List of documents consulted
Annex III
Questionnaire sent to LLCs
Annex IV
Questionnaire sent to NFPs and Magicas
Annex V
Answers to the Questionnaire received from NFPs/Magicas
Annex VI
List of all MSGP projects granted
Annex VII
List of acronyms
64
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This mid-term review and evaluation of the project "Addressing Transboundary
Environmental Issues
in the Caspian Environment Program (CEP): Component IV - Priority Investment Portfolio Project"
(RER/98/G32/A/1G/42) (World Bank Component of the GEF-CEP project) was conducted in the
period from 15 April to 30 July 2003.
CEP represents a regional co-operation process of five Caspian littoral states and is a
comprehensive response to the key environmental problems facing the Caspian region. This
intergovernmental process is currently supported by the international community through,
inter alia, GEF, UNDP, World Bank, UNEP and EU, and the private sector, in particular oil
and gas.
UNDP is GEF Implementing Agency and the World Bank the Executing Agency for this project. The
objective of this project is to increase the number and quality of priority environmental investments
that have a positive transboundary environmental impact and that contribute to economic growth.
The general concept and strategic design of the project is wholly appropriate to the political and
institutional situation regarding the management of the Caspian Sea and its resources and
demonstrates good understanding of the environmental concerns of the region. In addition to these
positive aspects on a general level, there are a number of weaknesses in the detailed project design,
one of them is that the Project Document is overoptimistic regarding the ability and readiness of states
to implement medium and larger scale investments, even when linked to agreed regional priorities
such as highlighted in SAP.
The first subcomponent of this project (Investment Identification and Pre-Preparation) was partially
successful in achieving its goals because investment projects have been selected and endorsed only by
the governments of Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan with a commitment for implementation, warranting
further expenditure of PIPP resources for preparation. Good projects have been identified in Iran,
Kazakhstan and Russia, but no firm commitment can be made for implementation funding at this
time. The main problems were: (a) significant investments required; and (b) national budgetary
constraints, especially with regard to environmental investments and vague support from national
level. On the other hand a very positive aspect of PIPP was that it activated a dialog between national
ministries and regional authorities about priority environmental investment necessary for the
implementation of NCAPs.
The second subcomponent of this project (Institutional Strengthening and Training for Project
Preparation) was effective and training courses were very positively received by participants
representing local governments, scientific institutions and NGOs. It was a common feeling that such
training should continue, especially regarding economic valuation methodologies. Most of the NFPs,
Magicas and LLCs interviewed considered this subcomponent successful, resulting in the enhanced
know-how in participating countries to formulate project ideas, to prepare project documentation and
search for possible sources of financing.
The third subcomponent of this Project (Matched Small-Grants Programme, MSGP) was
very successful in its initial phase, which was completed recently, although its development
took longer than planned. The success of MSGP in the initial phase was achieved by (a) an
excellent conceptualisation and selection procedure; (b) small size of projects with regional
priority; (c) strong motivation to leveraging of own resources; and (d) an excellent capacity
building program. The impact of the MSGP on the ground is still to be seen to allow for a full
assessment, as only 5 out of 16 selected Projects are being implemented at present.
Monitoring of MSGP Projects, which is extremely important, will pick up significantly now that
65
all the projects are funded (or almost so) and are under implementation, and no new grant
rounds are being prepared.
The general implementation and management of the project in the terms of quality was very good and
was cost effective. Regarding timeliness, it is true that a number of activities were significantly
delayed, but that turned out to be beneficial for the whole process because of the synergic effects with
the TDA, NCAP and SAP activities. Also credit should be given to the World Bank management
team that they did withstand the pressure of the deadlines and did not compromise the quality of the
outputs due to the deadlines that could not be met, and rather revised the target dates in order to have
high quality outputs. The institutional set-up was adequate, well designed and managed. In the cases
when the planned goals were not achieved, this was not due to the inadequacy of the institutional set-
up but rather to the lack of readiness of some governments to provide a clear indication of financial
support to selected projects. Co-operation among project partners was successful providing a
concerted effort towards the protection and development of the Caspian Sea. The management of the
project did demonstrate remarkable responsiveness to changes in the environment in which the project
has been operating, although some of the changes took considerable time to be implemented. Co-
operation (including information sharing) and coordination among international partners and
management structures can be considered as very successful providing a concerted effort towards the
protection and development of the Caspian Sea.
This project developed to a certain level the concept of the "ownership" by the countries although
further development of that concept would be desired. The level of commitment of the countries to
support the project was mostly adequate. This project had a significant impact on the participating
countries, particularly in capacity building regarding the formulation of problems, preparation of
proposals and selection and implementation of projects. It is hoped that the enhanced know-how will
have sustainable effects and that the synergic effects of NCAPs and SAP on one hand and PIPP and
MSGP projects on the other will be even more pronounced in the future.
Section 6 of the evaluation presents conclusions and recommendations, including lessons learned and
particular elements of this project that have worked well and those that have not worked well. The
main points of this section are presented below.
One of the lessons learned is that stakeholders view this project generally positively, but have tended
to maintain the unrealistic expectation that external donors would provide grant financing to support
all or almost all of the activities under the CEP. Environment Ministries (the lead counterpart) had in
some cases assumed that investments, once selected, would be managed within their own agencies. In
fact, the proponents for the candidate investments most often were other agencies or local government
bodies. These views are now changing, assisted by the NCAP process and other dialogue under the
CEP, but expectations are still very high.
Particular elements of this project that have worked well:
·
integration of the PIPP investment identification process with budget and
investment planning in the NCAPs;
·
creation of a consultative investment screening process and selection of
priority investments in each Caspian state for further preparation;
·
successful delivery of two formal training programs to develop capacity (a) for
use of economic analytical tools in environmental policy and program formulation
(valuation training), and (b) for project preparation (proposal writing training);
·
successful development and implementation of the First Round of MSGP
projects and successful development of the Second and Third Rounds; and
66
·
recruitment of one LLC in each Caspian state for capacity development,
support in investment identification and preparation for PIPP and MSGP projects and
connection to NCAPs and SAP.
Particular elements of this project that have not worked well:
·
the Bank experienced significant administrative difficulties as executing agency for
the PIPP, resulting in delays in implementation of the project. These were overcome, but
indicate that this is not the most efficient role for the Bank to play;
·
the lack of a regional entity satisfactory to all parties and legally capable of serving as
the executing agency hampered implementation and resulted in the project re-design
with the Bank in the role of executing agency. This situation will likely prevail until after
the states will have signed the Framework Convention;
·
relatively low national priority accorded to environmental and sustainable
bioresources management. The challenge is to design interventions that help decision
makers to balance environmental needs with other policy choices, so that sound
development decisions can be taken and implemented. The PIPP may have helped the
Caspian states in this regard in a modest fashion, through the economic valuation
training and cooperation on the NCAPs and SAP;
·
general lack of tradition and culture to develop and own fundable investment projects
in the region, in particular in CIS countries having as a result the inability or
unwillingness of some states to allocate budget or borrow for implementation of priority
investments identified via the PIPP and NCAPs. This is particularly true of the ministries
of environment, usually the CEP counterparts; and
· lack of serious involvement by the sectoral agencies including finance and economic
national agencies in project identification process.
This evaluation provides twelve recommendations of which the highest priority are given to:
·
for larger-scale investments: to stop allocating funds under regional projects such as GEF-II
for identification and development of investment projects. Instead, countries should engage with
the Bank or other IFIs or donors on a bilateral basis to develop investment projects that meet
priority objectives as defined in the NCAPs and SAP, and that have the strongest probability of
financial and institutional support for successful implementation. Regional projects can and
should support this process, but should keep expectations matched to realities;
·
to continue the MSGP, keeping in place the approach for selecting projects on a merit basis,
instead of switching to a population-based or even-split approach to grants selection;
·
that the World Bank decision to use some of resources under the existing MSGP to train the
staff of MSGP II when operational be fully implemented;
·
that no efforts should be spared in order to ensure a smooth transition from MSGP I to MSGP
II, including transfer of knowledge, training of staff and relocation of PCU;
·
that MSGP II should be linked as much as possible to NCAPs and SAP; and
· For training: consider allocating resources for expansion of training in economic valuation.
1.
INTRODUCTION
This mid-term review and evaluation of the project "Addressing Transboundary
Environmental Issues
in the Caspian Environment Program (CEP): Component IV - Priority Investment
Portfolio Project" (RER/98/G32/A/1G/42) (World Bank Component of the GEF-CEP
67
project) was conducted in the period from 15 April to 30 July 2003. The Terms of
Reference for the evaluation are attached as Annex I to this report.
This evaluation is based on the review of a large number of documents (Annex II to this report), on
numerous communications with Ms Amy Evans (the World Bank); Mr Hamid Ghaffarzadeh (CEP
Coordinator), and Mr Andy Hudson (UNDP), on a number of interviews in Baku (PCU, UNDP, and
Ministry of Environment), and on the responses to the questionnaire (Annex III) sent to Lead Local
Consultants (LLCs) and questionnaire (Annex IV) sent to National Focal Points (NFPs) and
Management Advisory Group and Inter-sectoral Assistants (Magicas) members in each of the Caspian
states. The summary of answers by NFPs/Magicas to the questionnaire is presented in Annex V. A list
of all MSGP projects granted is presented in Annex VI and a list of acronyms is presented in Annex
VII to this report.
This report contains sections 3 on Project design, 4 on Project implementation, 5 on Project impact,
and 6 on Conclusions and recommendations.
2.
BACKGROUND
CEP represents a regional co-operation process of five littoral states, namely Azerbaijan,
Islamic Republic of Iran, Kazakhstan, Russian Federation and Turkmenistan. CEP is a
comprehensive response to the key environmental problems facing the Caspian region with
the international partners and others helping to address some of the priority issues. This
intergovernmental process is currently supported by the international community through,
inter alia, GEF, UNDP, World Bank, UNEP, EU, bilateral donors, and the oil and gas sector.
The overall goal of the CEP is:
"Environmentally sustainable development and management of the Caspian
environment, including living resources and water quality, so as to obtain the utmost long-
term benefits for the human populations of the region, while protecting human health,
ecological integrity and the region's sustainability for future generations."
The immediate foci of the overall GEF CEP project are:
Component I:
Development of a Caspian regional coordination and management
mechanism for the sustainable development and management of the
Caspian environment through the creation of regional, inter-sectoral and
thematic institutional frameworks, including a regional framework
convention;
Component II:
Completion of a Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) of priority
water-related environmental concerns for the Caspian ecosystem;
Component III:
Strengthened Institutional, Legal, Regulatory and Economic Frameworks
for SAP implementation;
Component IV:
Development of Priority Investment Portfolios for Transboundary Priorities; and
Component V:
Formulation and Endorsement of a Regional Strategic Action Program (SAP) and
five National Caspian Action Plans (NCAPs) outlining priority actions, both
baseline and additional, to be taken on behalf of sustaining the Caspian and its
associated resources.
Within the framework of the GEF project and in line with its mandate of assistance to the CEP and
support to the Caspian states, UNDP is GEF Implementing Agency and the World Bank is Executing
Agency for Component IV: Development of Priority Investment Portfolios for Transboundary
68
Priorities. The objective of this component is to increase the number and quality of priority
environmental investments that have a positive transboundary environmental impact and that
contribute to economic growth.
The project was initially planned to be implemented by the World Bank, but after a fairly long time this
proved impossible as no suitable executing body could be identified. At that point (late 1999), the states
and the GEF agencies agreed to have UNDP as Implementing Agency and the World Bank as Executing
Agency. That was one of the reasons for the delay that was referred to in a couple of places in this
document. The other major development, which also impacted the pace of delivery, was the withdrawal of
the US firm that had been contracted by the World Bank to manage the MSGP, which forced the World
Bank to go for full restructuring of the MSGP management.
The original project document "Addressing Transboundary Environmental Issues in the Caspian
Environment Program (CEP): Component IV - Priority Investment Portfolio Project" envisaged the
duration of the project to be three years (July 2000 June 2003). A revision agreed by the CEP
Steering Committee in October 2002 and implemented in March 2003 rephased funds and the period
of implementation to the period from October 2000 to December 2004.
3.
PROJECT DESIGN
3.1
Appropriateness of the project's concept and strategic design to the overall situation of
the Caspian Sea, the World Bank's strategic strengths and the overall goal of the CEP
The general concept and strategic design of the project is wholly appropriate to the political and
institutional situation regarding the management of the Caspian Sea and its resources and
demonstrates good understanding of the environmental concerns of the region. The project
concentrates rather well to the strategic strength of the World Bank (selection, development and
implementation of investment projects and corresponding training). The project is one of the five
components of the GEF CEP Project and as such covers a significant and important part of the whole
CEP.
In addition to these positive aspects on the general level, there are a number of weaknesses in the
detailed project design. The Project Document is overoptimistic regarding ability and readiness of
states to implement medium and larger scale investments, even when linked to agreed regional
priorities such as highlighted in SAP. It is surprising that the project of this complexity and
importance has neither a work plan nor a timetable of implementation. Objectives and activities of the
project are rather scattered over the document, they are not consistent and in some cases they use a
very confusing manner of information from the Project Brief. The lack of indicators to measure
impacts was also noted.
In their answer to the questionnaire LLCs were of the opinion that the Project design was quite
appropriate.
3.2
Relevance of the project design within the framework of GEF programs and guidelines
This project is definitely very relevant to the framework of GEF programs and guidelines. The GEF's
participation in the CEP stems from the broad global and transboundary impacts prominent in the
Caspian. The global environmental objective of the project is environmentally sustainable
development and management of the Caspian environment, including living resources and water
quality, so as to obtain the utmost long-term benefits for the human populations of the region, while
protecting human health, ecological integrity and the region's sustainability for future generations.
4.
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
69
4.1
Achievements of the project against the original objectives, outputs and activities as
detailed in the project document
Objective
The objective of the Priority Investment Portfolio Project (PIPP) implemented by UNDP and executed
by the World Bank is to increase the number and quality of priority environmental investments that
have a positive transboundary environmental impact and that contribute to economic growth.
Outputs
The planned outputs of the projects were enhanced capacity in the region to identify and prepare
investment projects suitable for finance from international financial institutions.
Subcomponents and Corresponding Activities
This project is composed of the following four subcomponents and corresponding activities:
(i)
Subcomponent No. 1 Investment Identification and Pre-Preparation
Corresponding Activity 1. Support the identification and pre-preparation of investment
projects, with emphasis on the financial feasibility and blended funding for implementation;
(ii)
Subcomponent No. 2 Institutional Strengthening and Training for Project Preparation
Corresponding Activity 2. Training on project preparation, financing, management and
supervision; Training or seminars on the role of investments in implementing the national
policy agenda;
(iii)
Subcomponent No. 3 Matched Small-Grants Program (MSGP)
Corresponding Activity 3. Establish a grant program to support the implementation of small
demonstration or pilot projects; and
(iv)
Subcomponent No. 4 Project Management
Corresponding Activity 4. Project Management - Coordination among many parties with a
transparent mechanism for managing all subcomponents.
The subcomponents and activities were designed to maximize the results of using limited GEF
resources. The first subcomponent assists the participating organizations to identify and begin to
prepare high-priority investment projects that meet program criteria. The second subcomponent
provides targeted technical assistance to participating organizations. The third subcomponent
establishes a matched small-grants program whereby a small amount of GEF funds is matched, one
for one, with in-country and other sources of funds for the implementation of demonstration or pilot-
scale projects in line with the overall objectives of the Caspian program. Finally, the fourth
subcomponent provides for transparent project management of coordinated activities.
After a very slow beginning made necessary by a complete re-design of the implementation structure of
this component, good progress has begun to be seen especially in the areas of investment identification,
matched grants, and formal training. In retrospect, it has been advantageous for the investment
identification process to occur towards the end of the UNDP/UNOPS and UNEP components of the
70
project, so that the investment identification process has benefited from a completed TDA and from active
collaboration in development of the NCAPs. There is still significant uncertainty about the ability of the
Caspian states to finance (via budget, commercial investments or IFI lending) investments that are
identified as priorities through the TDA/NCAP/SAP process. Realistic discussions with project
proponents and government stakeholders have been greatly facilitated by the presence of PIPP LLCs, who
have helped the Bank and national counterparts to identify and screen candidate investments.
In their answers to the questionnaire (Annex V) most of the NFPs/Magicas were of the opinion that
objectives of the Project were achieved although some thought that they were not achieved.
4.1.1 Subcomponent No. 1 Investment Identification and Pre-Preparation
This subcomponent has been implemented through the Activity 1. Support the identification and pre-
preparation of investment projects, with emphasis on the financial feasibility and blended funding
for implementation.
This subcomponent supports the identification and pre-preparation of investment projects, with
emphasis on the financial feasibility and blended funding for implementation. It had been anticipated
that priority investments could include transboundary environmental issues.
In the early stage of the work on this activity between 3 and 12 project ideas have been considered in
each state. At the time of Tripartite Review in Oct. 2002 within each country a set of investment
project ideas was screened and reached the point when one or two investment projects were
preliminary selected in each country which were to be further developed for implementation. Each
selection was supposed to be finalized with the government. The work on investment identification
and pre-preparation was conducted with involvement of the NFP, assisted by LLC, in consultation
with EU-TACIS and UNDP.
At that time the World Bank pointed out the difficulty in identifying financing for investments. By the
time of the Tripartite Review considerable work and resources for capacity building were provided in
form of grants and expectations continued to exist on the part of the Caspian states that most financing
would come from external funds and on the grant basis. Still at the stage of moving from capacity
building to investment, there had been a need for resources to be provided by the countries, both in
form of their budgetary contribution and in form of countries seeking international loan financing to
help finance some of the project investments and NFPs were supposed to bring this to the attention of
their governments. This issue was not only limited to concern of the PIPP but also indicated a critical
stage for the CEP where a significant additional contribution will was needed from countries.
It was expected by the Tripartite Review that by June 2003 preparation of five project
concepts, representing detailed documents describing objectives, funds, participants,
implementation arrangements and beneficiaries should be completed. Each project concept
document should have been developed according to the procedures and format of the
organization that is expecting to finance the project. Unfortunately such expectations did not
materialise.
The present status of the PIPP is summarized below.
Projects have been selected and endorsed by the governments of Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan with a
commitment for implementation, warranting further expenditure of PIPP resources for preparation.
Good projects have been identified in Iran, Kazakhstan and Russia, but no firm commitment can be
made for implementation funding at this time.
71
PIPP in Azerbaijan
The proposed PIPP Kura Delta project would spot-dredge the main channel to open a passage for fish
migration, restore spawning grounds upstream, expand protected wetlands and the coastal area by
establishing a reserve to connect with the existing Shrivan preserve, support development of
aquaculture, and establish a system for sustainable financing of bioresources management. The Kura
was last dredged in 1981. Since then, silting has been exacerbated by the Caspian Sea level rise in the
1980s, to the point that upstream migration of sturgeon and other fish is very restricted. Recovery of
the sturgeon fishery and protection of wetland habitats is among the highest priorities for Azerbaijan
and the Caspian region as a whole. A draft project description and accompanying proposal for a
GEF MSP are under preparation. The Government has taken a number of steps to bring in elements
that were previously missing and this is indicative of their commitment and further work in this
direction is encouraged.
PIPP in Iran
Discussions with the Department of Environment (main counterpart for the CEP) confirmed that a
PIPP project supporting the environmental management component of the Bank-financed Pashakola
Integrated Watershed Management Project does not have sufficient support within the Government to
warrant proceeding with preparation. The Government prefers to use the PIPP resources to support
preparation of a project on integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) in central Gilan province, as
this project would address several of the highest priority problems identified in the National Caspian
Action Plan for Iran. The proposed 5-year Gilan ICZM project would seek to reduce point and non-
point source pollution, improve biodiversity protection and better plan land use to improve water
quality and other environmental conditions in the central coastal area of Gilan Province in northern
Iran. Project costs are estimated at $28.5 million, and the Government may decide to request Bank
and GEF financial support. The proposed project area would include the Anzali wetlands, a Ramsar
site, and the lower Sefid Rud watershed, a critical sturgeon spawning grounds.
The counterparts agreed to work with the relevant government agencies to identify potential sources
of financing for the implementation of the investment project, and to confirm Government
commitment to the project. If part of the financing is intended to be provided by an international
financial institution, it was agreed that the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Finance would signal a
clear indication of willingness to borrow funds for this purpose.
PIPP in Kazakhstan
Meetings were held in February 2003 with representatives of several Ministries and local authorities on
the potential scope, costs and implementation arrangements for a possible $15.2M Atyrau Environmental
and Bioresources Project that would replenish and preserve sturgeon stocks and protect biodiversity on the
Ural River and delta.
The Ministry of Agriculture and Atyrau Akimat agreed to submit proposals to the Ministry of
Economy and Budget Planning for a budget allocation for implementation of the Project on a
priority basis in 2004 or 2005. After approval by the Ministry of Economy, financing for the
project will be identified from the state budget, Akimat budget, grant sources, and, if deemed
appropriate by the Government and Bank management, an IBRD loan. A letter confirming
these actions was to have been sent by the Ministry of Economy to the Bank.
Given the lack of an indication of commitment to implement the project, the Government will
be advised that Bank plans to allocate the PIPP resources to other priority objectives under
the CEP.
PIPP in Russia
72
The Russian candidate PIPP project involves construction of 1-2 vessels for transport of juvenile sturgeon
and other hatchery species to the sea, which will significantly increase the survival rate over that achieved
when the juveniles are released directly from the hatcheries into the Volga. Confirmation of funding for
implementation of the project (costed at $4.0-5.8M, depending on whether 1 or 2 vessels are built) from
the national budget and the State Fisheries Committee is being sought. The Russian Caspian NFP
expressed written support for the project, but the letter lacks a clear statement of willingness and the ability
to finance the project from the Russian Government or other resources. The option of co-financing in loan
from the WB or EBRD or any other organization remains open but initiative for that should come from the
Russian Federation. The most promising direction for fund seeking, pointed out by the WB, is to link the
process of allocating quota for sturgeon fishing to financing of the release of fingerlings. This would put
into place sustainable mechanism for release of fingerlings, create market and economic incentives to
increase productivity and effectiveness. PIPP resources can be made available to make such mechanism
workable if there is political will from the Russian Federation. The Bank has advised the Russian CEP
participants that, in the case of an absence of a written confirmation of funding for implementation of the
project, the Bank will reallocate the funds to other PIPP priorities.
PIPP in Turkmenistan
Work is proceeding to prepare a proposal for a GEF MSP to support biodiversity and habitat project
in the Hazar Reserve on the Turkmenistan Caspian coast. The GEF MSP would be submitted by
UNDP, and PIPP resources would be used for training and preparatory studies needed to implement
the project.
In their answers to the questionnaire (Annex V) NFPs/Magicas were of the opinion that this
subcomponent was partially successful. In their answers to the questionnaire LLCs were of the
opinion that this subcomponent was quite successful although one was of the opinion that it was not.
It can be assessed that this component was only partially successful in achieving its goals because
only two countries were ready to implement investment projects. PIPP was not fully successful in
achieving its stated aims due to: (a) significant investments required; and (b) national budgetary
constraints, especially with regard to environmental investments and vague support from national
level. On the other hand a very positive aspect of PIPP was that it activated a dialog between national
ministries and regional authorities about priority environmental investment necessary for the
implementation of NCAPs.
4.1.2 Subcomponent No. 2 Institutional Strengthening and Training for Project Preparation
This subcomponent has been implemented through the Activity 2. Training on project preparation,
financing management and supervision; Training or seminars on the role of investments in
implementing the national policy agenda.
This subcomponent addresses two main areas of institutional strengthening:
· Training of NFPs and other National personnel on project preparation, project cycle,
financing, management and supervision, and
· Training or seminars for NFPs and other senior National personnel on the role of
investments in implementing the national policy agenda.
The training element of the PIPP was successfully completed in 2002, with the delivery of
two formal training courses.
A training course "Environmental Valuation in the Caspian Sea" was held in Baku (29 Jan. 8 Feb. 2002)
to 27 technical experts and 10 decision-makers from all Caspian countries. The main objectives of this
73
workshop were to strengthen the capacity of technical experts in the Caspian Sea region to apply modern
methodologies of environmental valuation; to interpret the implications of valuation findings for the
purpose of decision-making; and to demonstrate economic costs of inadequate environmental policies and
benefits which could be achieved by undertaking curative and preventive measures and enhance public
awareness of social costs of environmental degradation. Two distinctive features of the training were
practical orientation (case-studies formed the basis for all presentations); and a learning-by-doing approach
with the participants working in teams. The course materials included following well prepared and detailed
papers: Monetary valuation of environmental impacts; Assessing the economic costs of air pollution; An
economic analysis of the problem of sturgeon depletion in the Caspian Sea; Measuring the economic value
of biodiversity and coastal habitats; and Using valuation of environmental impacts in decision-making.
The workshop was well attended and received very positive evaluations from the participants. The main
recommendations of the workshop were to execute economic analysis of Caspian environmental damages
and benefits; to organize a special study for future of CEP including financing sources; and to incorporate
environmental valuation in EIA.
The second main activity under the training component were formal 3-day workshops on
proposal writing that were delivered in each of the five Caspian states in July 2002. In five
workshops conducted by Counterpart International throughout the Caspian Region, 138
participants were trained in the World Bank-approved Project Design and Proposal Writing
workshops. This activity was implemented with the support of UNDP and Tacis. The
introductory workshop on Training the Trainers was held in Baku with five participants.
Subsequently to this workshop five workshops were held on Project Design and Proposal
Writing in Baku, Astrakhan, Ashgabat, Rasht, and Atyrau. Most of the attendees were from
government and academia, with few from NGOs. The main topics covered were: Donor
relations; A review of the project cycle; Problem analysis and problem trees; Problem
analysis exercise; Impacts and indicators; The log frame; Budget; Matching donors to
projects; and Research and communication. Participants valued the information presented in
these workshops. They all expressed interest in additional workshops and suggested that
workshops should be four or five days in length. Also it was suggested that it would be good
to end the training with the development of a real proposal. .
In addition to the two formal training courses mentioned above a very important document "Manual
for conducting very small-value procurement under World Bank/IDA small-grants, loans and credits"
was prepared and was an important contribution to implementation of projects under the MSGP.
In their answers to the questionnaires (Annex V) NFPs/Magicas were of the opinion that this
component was mostly successful. In their answer to the questionnaire most of the LLCs were of the
opinion that this subcomponent was quite successful, although some thought that it was not.
It can be assessed that the training component was effective and training courses were very positively
received by participants representing local governments, scientific institutions and NGOs. It was a
common feeling that such training practice should continue.
4.1.3 Subcomponent No. 3 Matched Small-Grants Program (MSGP)
This subcomponent has been implemented through the Activity 3. Establish a grant program to
support the implementation of small demonstration or pilot projects (Matched Small-Grants
Program)
The MSGP is an element of CEP, a regional initiative to promote the sustainable development and
management of the Caspian environment. This subcomponent of the project was developed in recognition
of the strong desire of the Caspian states and international partners to achieve results on the ground as
quickly as possible, and the fact that many projects actually require relatively small amounts of investment.
The purpose of the MSGP is to advance small-scale investment or pilot projects to address urgent
74
environmental problems in the Caspian region. With this program small-scale priority projects can be
implemented quickly, in order to take curative or preventive actions. The MSGP also helps to develop
capacity for further actions to improve the Caspian environment and operates in all five Caspian littoral
states. The following types of organizations that are legally registered in a Caspian state were eligible to
apply for the MSGP:
·
Private sector: companies, businesses, and scientific institutions, both foreign and locally
owned;
·
Governmental sector: state-owned enterprises, local, provincial and national authorities,
utilities, state scientific institutions and committees working on the regional level in the Caspian
Sea region; and
·
Non-governmental sector: foreign NGOs, local NGOs, Community-based organizations
(CBOs), local associations.
Grants were competitively selected by an Evaluation Committee (EC) comprised of Caspian National
Focal Points (NFPs), the Caspian Environment Program Coordination Unit (PCU), the World Bank,
and the European Union. In order to facilitate the implementation of the MSGP, detailed Evaluation
Criteria were developed, as well as the MSGP Flyer; the MSGP Reporting Guidelines; the
Application Forms and Guidelines; the Sample Grant Agreement; and the Manual for Conducting
Very Small-Value Procurement under World Bank/IDA Small Grants, Loans and Credits. Each
grantee must attend a one-day Grantee Orientation, where the Grant Agreement is reviewed, grantees
introduce their projects to one another, and MSGP staff explains the procurement, financial
management and reporting procedures.
As a result of these projects, it was expected that a number (order of 5 to 10) of the projects
could develop either into larger scale investment opportunities, or projects that can be
replicated in other locations around the Caspian Sea.
Under the MSGP, small-scale investment or pilot projects that produce tangible, practical results have
been financed. Preference was given to those projects that address transboundary environmental
issues and make tangible environmental improvements, create substantial innovation in solution of
environmental problems in the Caspian region and/or demonstrate a solution that can be readily
replicated at other locations in the region. Projects should help to address priority problems identified
in the TDA, NCAPs and SAP.
Projects eligible under the program may address the following areas identified as priorities in the SAP and
TDA, or may address Caspian national priorities identified in the NCAPs:
· decline in commercial fish stocks, including sturgeon;
· degradation of coastal landscapes and damage to coastal habitats;
· damage to coastal infrastructure and amenities;
· threats to biodiversity;
· overall decline in environmental quality;
· decline in human health;
· introduced species; and
· contaminaton from offshore oil and gas activities.
The MSGP focuses on investment projects and does NOT support the following activities: research;
monitoring; formal academic training; ongoing institutional core support; scholarships and
fellowships; study programs; or individuals applying on their own behalf, including for travel or
studies.
75
Two MSGP rounds were planned from the beginning of the project and were within the
project schedule and budget, but the third round was added towards the end of 2002.
Management of the MSGP was restructured in late 2001 when the firm administering the
MSGP withdrew from their contract. The restructured management entailed direct Bank
administration of the program. The MSGP is managed directly by the Bank Caspian team at
HQ, with support by two local consultants based at the CEP PCU in Baku and the LLCs in
each country. As a Bank-managed program, each MSGP project is executed via a Grant
Agreement (simple letter format) by the Bank and the Recipient. A formal monitoring and
evaluation procedure and schedule was established.
The First Round of MSGP Projects
11
12 THE MSGP COMPLETED THE FIRST ROUND OF SOLICITATION OF PROPOSALS
IN OCTOBER 2001 AND THE MEETING ON THE FIRST ROUND OF MSGP WAS
HELD IN MOSCOW, 2 NOV. 2001 AND A TOTAL OF $287,500 WAS ALLOCATED. A
TOTAL OF 53 APPLICATIONS WERE RECEIVED (AZERBAIJAN 20; IRAN 12;
KAZAKHSTAN 5; RUSSIA 11; AND TURKMENISTAN 5). PRE-SCREENING WAS
CONDUCTED BY MSGP STAFF, BASED ON TWO CRITERIA: THAT THE
PROJECTS HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO PRODUCE TANGIBLE RESULTS; AND THAT
MATCHING FUNDING IS CONFIRMED. AS A RESULT 32 APPLICATIONS WERE
SELECTED (AZERBAIJAN 16; IRAN 3; KAZAKHSTAN 3; RUSSIA 7; AND
TURKMENISTAN 3) FOR THE EC TO REVIEW FOR THE FIRST ROUND. THESE
APPLICATIONS REQUESTED A TOTAL OF $1,644,419. AN ELABORATE AND
EFFICIENT EVALUATION AND SELECTION PROCEDURE WAS APPLIED
(INCLUDING SCORING BY EC PRIOR TO THE MEETING BY APPLYING NINE
CRITERIA FORM THE "GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATION PROCEDURES") AND AS A
RESULT CONDITIONAL (DETAILED PRECONDITIONS FOR EACH OF THE
APPROVED PROJECTS WERE DEFINED) APPROVAL OF FIVE PROJECTS (ONE
FROM EACH COUNTRY) WAS AGREED UPON, TOTALLING $244,829. THE
MEETING CONSIDERED IN DETAIL MSGP PROCEDURES, THE APPLICATION
PROCESS, AND EVALUATION CRITERIA AND AGREED ON RECOMMENDATIONS
TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN PREPARATION FOR THE SECOND
GRANT ROUND.
The list of the First Round MSGP projects under implementation is presented in Annex VI.
The Second Round of MSGP Projects
A Meeting on the Second Round of MSGP was held in Ashgabad, 4 Oct. 2002. A total of $331,090
was allocated for the second round. A total of 19 applications were received (Azerbaijan 4; Iran 2;
Kazakhstan 4; Russia 3; and Turkmenistan 6). Administrative pre-screening was conducted by MSGP
staff and as a result 12 applications (Azerbaijan, Iran and Russia two each; and Kazakhstan and
Turkmenistan three each) were determined to be eligible for funding totalling $601,218. A review and
scoring of these proposals was conducted by the EC members prior to the meeting. A technical review
of the 12 projects was also conducted by MSGP staff, LLCs, and World Bank internal staff and
consultants. An elaborate and efficient evaluation and selection procedure was applied and as a result
a conditional (detailed request for project redesign for each of the approved projects were defined)
approval of five projects (one from each country) was agreed upon totalling $266,810. The meeting
76
agreed upon recommendations for improving MSGP to be taken into consideration in preparation for
the third grant round.
An orientation meeting for the five new second round grantees was held in Baku on 13 December
2002. The draft grant agreements and guidelines for procurement and reporting were reviewed in
detail, as well as project management procedures, and the grantees were assisted in finalizing their
draft procurement plans.
The grant agreements were finalized and the list of Second Round MSGP projects under development
is presented in Annex VI.
The Third Round of MSGP Projects
The October 2002 Tripartite Review Meeting of the PIPP and the CEP Steering Committee Meeting
of the same date endorsed the extension of the MSGP into the third round. Such extension required a
shift of an amount between $200,000 and $300,000 from subcomponent 1 (Investment Identification
and Pre-preparation) and `Project Management' budget line to subcomponent 3 (MSGP), increasing
the original budget from $570,000 to $870,000. The third round is to be completed by the end of
2004.
A Meeting on the Third Round of MSGP was held in Baku, 13 March 2003. A total of $351,000 plus
$200,000 as reserve was available for allocation in the third round. A total of 27 applications
(Azerbaijan 8; Iran 7; Kazakhstan 5; Russia 3; and Turkmenistan 4) were received. As a result of the
administrative pre-screening 18 applications (eight from Azerbaijan, two each from Iran and
Kazakhstan, three each from Russia and Turkmenistan) were determined to be eligible for funding
and were forwarded to the EC members for review. A technical review of 18 projects was also
conducted by the LLCs, and World Bank internal staff and experts. Sixteen applications were eligible
to be considered at the meeting, totalling $1,093,000. An elaborate and efficient evaluation and
selection procedure was applied and as a result a conditional (detailed request for project redesign for
each of the approved projects were defined) approval of six projects for a total $406,509 in new grants
was agreed. Though the process has been slow to reach to this point it was interactive across the
region and benefited from synchronization of priority project identification and preparation of
NCAPs. The meeting agreed upon recommendations for improving MSGP to be taken into
consideration in preparation for the next round of grants. Formal procedures for supervision,
monitoring and evaluation have been developed and are being implemented.
The list of the Third Round MSGP projects that were selected for the implementation is
presented in Annex VI.
A grantee orientation meeting for the six new third round grantees was held in Baku on 5 May 2003 to
review in detail the draft grant agreements and guidelines for procurement and reporting. The grant
agreements are in preparation and it is expected that they will be finalized in near future.
The MSGP team will now concentrate on start-up of the third round projects, monitoring
implementation progress of all MSGP project, and ensuring timely disbursements of funding for the
active projects. The team will also train the new MSGP staff to be recruited by the new CEP PCU in
Tehran under the UNDP-led Caspian GEF II project.
The Fourth Round of MSGP Projects
The next (fourth) grant round will be developed under the second CEP/GEF project and
administered by the PCU in Tehran, with support from UNDP and UNOPS. The World Bank
77
plans to keep the current MSGP team in place through 2004 to monitor and report on the
projects funded in the first three grant rounds, and to train the new MSGP staff on the
program's administrative systems. Work with PCU Tehran will start to enable the PCU to
become the Administrator of MSGP in the future as there is an intention of UNDP and UNEP
to include small-grant program into the CEP GEF II.
In their answers to the questionnaire (Annex V) most of the NFPs/Magicas assessed that the
MSGP component was "mostly" successful although there were some concerns with the
procedure and delay in the implementation. In their answers to the questionnaire all LLCs
were or the opinion that this subcomponent was successful.
It can be assessed that MSGP was very successful in its initial phase, which was completed
recently, although its development took longer than planned. The success of MSGP in the
initial phase was achieved by (a) excellent conceptualisation and selection procedure; (b)
small size of projects with regional priority; (c) strong motivation to leveraging of own
resources; and (d) an excellent capacity building program. It was pointed out by several of
the persons interviewed that MSGP information dissemination on the progress in the design
and implementation of the MSGP was not adequate (although there were significant
improvements lately). This resulted in the reduced interaction with some of the important
partners in the process. The impact of the MSGP on the ground is still to be seen to allow for
a full assessment, as only 5 out of 16 selected Projects are being implemented at present.
Monitoring of MSGP Projects, which is extremely important will pick up significantly now that
all the projects are funded (or almost so) and are under implementation, and no new grant
rounds are being prepared.
4.1.4 Subcomponent No. 4 Project Management
This subcomponent has been implemented through the Activity 4. Project Management -
Coordination among many parties with a transparent mechanism for managing all subcomponents.
A project of this complexity and the need for coordination among many parties requires a
transparent mechanism for managing all the subcomponents. In subcomponent 4, this
project did ensure efficient use of resources by:
(i)
establishing a PIPP Baku-based liaison officer at the CEP PCU, who did
facilitate coordination among the CEP participants; and
(ii)
establishing contracts with one LLC on a half-time basis in each Caspian
state to assist the NFP in implementation of the project.
Further information on project management can be seen in points 4.2 4.5.
It can be assessed that project management was successful.
4.2
General implementation and management of the project in terms of quality and
timeliness of inputs and activities, adherence to work plans and budgets
After a very slow beginning made necessary by a complete re-design of the implementation structure
of this project, good progress has begun to be seen especially in the areas of investment identification,
matched grants, and formal training. In retrospect, it has been advantageous for the investment
identification process to occur towards the end of the UNDP/UNOPS and UNEP projects, so that the
investment identification process has benefited from a completed TDA and from active collaboration
in development of the NCAPs. There is still significant uncertainty about the ability of the Caspian
states to finance (via budget, commercial investments or IFI lending) investments that are identified as
78
priorities through the TDA/NCAP/SAP process. Realistic discussions with project proponent and
government stakeholders have been greatly facilitated by the presence of LLCs, who have helped the
World Bank and national counterparts to identify and screen candidate investments.
UNDP acknowledged the delays in implementation of the PIPP but also noted that these delays ended
up being in many ways beneficial to the PIPP, such as MSGP and investment identification, because
they permitted greater synergy and linkage with the parallel SAP and NCAP process.
The GEF has allocated a total of US$2,420,528 for the World Bank component, which
includes $67,513 for UNDP Country Office Support Costs and $21,000 for administrative
support cost to the Bank. In addition to the GEF funds, co-financing in the amount of
$3,551,000 has been made available to assist the Caspian Environment Program, and
support the investment portfolio development. These funds have been or are being
administered by the World Bank:
Japanese Policy and Human Resources Development: Two grants of $500,000 and $250,000 expended
during 1994-1999 have assisted the World Bank and the Region in initiating the CEP activities, including
investment portfolio issues.
A Norwegian Trust Fund provided a grant of approximately $500,000 for the recruitment of a full-time
staff at the World Bank, who has assisted in executing the CEP PIPP for a three-year period (late 2000
early 2003). A Norwegian Trust Fund also provided $155,000 to help develop mutual aid arrangements
for oil spills in the Caspian region in 1999-2001.
A Japanese Trust Fund has provided $994,000 to conduct an Ecotoxicology Study within the
CEP, which assisted in the TDA preparation and investment activities in the CEP. This
project had its kick-off meeting in October 1999 in Baku, Azerbaijan, and was completed in
December 2002.
In addition, the matching requirement for the MSGP leveraged $1,152,000 in co-financing,
approximately half in local currency, and half in in-kind contributions.
Based on decisions taken by the Caspian SC at its October 2002 meeting, advice of Bank management
and consultations with UNDP, and the realization that only 2-3 of the Caspian states would be able to
pursue actively investments prepared with PIPP resources, the Bank Caspian team has reallocated
approximately $400K from investment preparation and project management budget categories to
small-grants. A budget revision has been prepared to formalize the reallocation and to extend the
implementation period of the PIPP to end 2004. The extension is needed to allow time for completion
of the projects financed under the MSGP.
In their answer to the questionnaire (Annex V) most of the NFPs/Magicas assessed that Project
management was "mostly" effective, although some assessed that it was "fully" and some that it was
"partly" effective. In their answer to the questionnaire all of the LLCs were positive regarding the
general implementation and management of the Project.
It can be assessed that the general implementation and management of the project in the terms of
quality was satisfactory. Regarding timeliness, it is true that number of activities were significantly
delayed, but that turned out to be beneficial for the whole process because of the synergic effects with
the TDA, NCAP and SAP activities. Also credit should be given to the World Bank management
team that they did withstand the pressure of the deadlines and did not compromise the quality of the
outputs due to the deadlines that could not be met, and rather revised the target dates in order to have
high quality outputs.
79
4.3
Adequacy of management arrangements as well as monitoring and backstopping
support given to the project by all parties concerned
Management arrangements for this project can be considered as adequate due to the very good job
done by the World Bank, which has been also giving adequate monitoring and backstopping support
(see point 4.4 below).
The WB tasked their LLCs in the Caspian countries to cooperate with the NCAP teams to produce the
country's PIPP projects. The LLCs were main links in co-operation among NFPs, PCU, and the WB.
The process was fully nationally owned although CEP/PCU closely monitored the process through
visiting missions and close communication.
In their answer to the questionnaire (Annex V) some NFPs/Magicas assessed that the management
arrangements were effective and some that it could have been more effective. In their answers to the
questionnaire all but one LLC were of the opinion that the management was adequate.
4.4
Institutional set-up, in particular in light of the changes made in administration of the
project
The key institutions involved in the implementation of this project include:
·
Caspian governments. The Caspian states' national government bodies charged with
coordination of Caspian environmental co-operation serves as lead agency in each
country for the project. In most cases, the lead agency is the Ministry (State Committee,
Department) of Environment, and the Caspian National Focal Point (NFP) is a Minister or
Deputy Minister of Environment (or equivalent). The NFPs are responsible for national
coordination of the CEP at the inter-ministerial, national and sub-national levels within
their states. The NFPs play a leading role in the implementation of this project. Each
NFP is assisted by a part-time lead local consultant (LLC), who liases with the PCU,
World Bank and other CEP partners;
·
CEP Steering Committee for the Program (SC). The SC, composed of NFPs or other
senior representatives from Caspian countries representatives of international
organizations, bilateral programs, and other organizations that actively support the CEP,
is the supreme decision-making and supervisory body of the CEP, responsible for
approving strategic decisions and annual work plans, setting program direction,
reviewing CEP progress, and identifying new and additional funding related to
implementation of projects under the CEP;
·
PCU. The Program Coordinating Unit (PCU) provides a coordination and management
structure for the development and implementation of the CEP. The PCU is accountable
to and reports to the CEP Steering Committee. A Baku-based Project Manager is located
in the CEP PCU in Baku to assist in region-wide coordination of this project through
regular interactions with each LLC and international partners;
·
World Bank. As part of its role in execution, the World Bank expends and accounts for
project resources, provides advice in the identification of investment needs, funding
options and investment partners, delivers or contracts for training, participates in the
evaluation of proposals to the MSGP, and administers the MSGP. In addition, the Bank
team works closely with country teams at the World Bank (i.e., in Washington and at
resident missions) for each of the five Caspian states to ensure that, where appropriate,
activities comport with Country Assistance Strategies developed by the countries with
the assistance of the World Bank; and
80
·
UNDP. As the implementing agent of the GEF grant, UNDP is responsible for the overall
results of the program. Consequently, UNDP heads the supervision and monitoring
tasks related to this project.
In each of the five Caspian countries, a half-time LLC has been contracted to assist the Bank, the
Caspian NFP, and other stakeholders in the identification and selection of candidate investment
projects. The LLCs also assist with the MSGP and PIPP training activities on a national basis.
Several adjustments in local staffing support to the PIPP have been made in response to the budget
reallocations and the Bank's policies regarding STCs. The PIPP LLCs had been tasked on an
approximately half-time basis to assist with identification and early stage preparation of investments,
and also to advise and monitor MSGP projects and assist with the PIPP training activities (now
completed). The LLCs in Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan are expected to continue in this role on a
half-time basis, supporting preparation of the investment projects in their countries and assisting with
MSGP business. The LLCs in Iran, Kazakhstan and Russia have been advised that the Bank would
require their assistance at a reduced level approximately quarter-time primarily to support MSGP
supervision in their countries. Each has been urged to seek additional contract work that does not
conflict with their Bank assignment. The two full-time local consultants who support the MSGP from
the Caspian Liaison Office (former PCU) in Baku have been contracted by UNDP with PIPP funds
reallocated from the Bank to UNDP for this purpose.
It can be assessed that the institutional set-up was adequate, well designed and managed. In the cases
when the planned goals were not achieved, this was not due to the inadequacy of the institutional set-
up but rather to the lack of readiness of some governments to provide clear indication of financial
support to selected projects.
4.5
Responsiveness of project management to changes in the environment in which the
project operates
The management of the project did demonstrate remarkable responsiveness to changes in the
environment in which the project has been operating, although some of the changes took considerable
time to be implemented.
A positive aspect of the project implementation, in particular the MSGP, has been the willingness and
flexibility to adjust to the needs and requirements of the changes and challenges. Tasking the LLC to
become involved in SAP/NCAP process, introducing a technical pre-review by the WB staff of
MSGP proposals, changes in the MSGP Guidelines and MSGP Evaluation Meetings rules of
procedures, introduction of MSGP Information Bulletin and enhanced liaison with PCU are a few
examples of this flexibility to learn and adjust.
4.6
Co-operation among project partners (UNEP, UNDP, GEF, EU/Tacis, Project
Coordination Unit, UNDP Country Offices, National Focal Points)
For the implementation of this project, the World Bank cooperated with the Governments of
the Caspian states, UNDP, UNEP, EU/TACIS, and worked locally through a team of local
consultants in the region. WB participated actively in the Tripartite Review (Oct. 2002) and in
all meetings of the Steering Committee. Also WB took active part and contributed
substantially in the preparation of the TDA, NCAPs and the SAP. The World Bank agreed to
remain open to the suggestions to consider other elements of high priority to the CEP
programme if and when they arrive at the conclusion that all efforts were made to ensure
that the original objectives of PIPP are achieved to the extent possible. There was very clear
case of synergism among participating organisation, particularly UNDP, UNEP, EU-Tacis
and the WB, when working on various components of CEP. The WB has an excellent
relation with EU-Tacis, which helped develop some PIPP investment concepts. It also has
constructive relation with UNDP, which grew stronger as the project progressed and became
81
even more solid with the involvement of LLCs in the development of NCAPs. The WB had
excellent cooperation with the PCU throughout the Project.
In their answers to the questionnaire (Annex V) most of the NFPs/Magicas assessed that the
coordination was "mostly" coordinated although some NFPs/Magicas thought that it was
"fully", some "partly" and some "not" coordinated. In their answers to the questionnaire LLCs
assessed that the coordination was good.
4.7
Degree of co-operation and coordination between PIPP Team and other WB units,
including WB resident missions in the region
The degree of co-operation, information exchange and coordination between PIPP
Team and other WB units, including WB HQ staff and WB resident missions in the
region has been satisfactory. The Bank HQ was very communicative with LLCs and
local MSGP team providing continuous advice and instructions.
The Bank had three staff members at the HQ substantially supporting the programme and
that at times gave the impression that the Bank was perhaps not delegating enough
decision-making to the regional team (Programme Coordinator, PCU-based MSGP staff and
the LLCs). This could have reduced the work burden on the Washington-based WB team
and could have enhanced the Project's cost efficiency. Regarding delegation of decision-
making, the LLCs have a more consulting/advisory role regarding the investment
identification and screening process. They have had an important voice in the selection of
the final PIPP candidate projects, but the decision was taken by the Bank based on a
consensus of views of the LLCs, Bank HQ and field staff, and the national counterparts
(NFPs, Magicas, other stakeholders). The current MSGP team is tasked with administration
of the program, reporting to Bank HQ. The full-time team in Baku is definitely needed to
make the program work.
In most countries the relation between RMs and the LLCs and local MSGP was a fairly
constructive dialogue based on information exchange and consultation. In Iran the case was
different due to the absence of an RM. The NFPs and Magicas, which were representing
ministries of environment, and the WB RMs and/or visiting missions, which were
coordinating with the ministries of finance, did not always have appreciation of each other's
mandates. Coordination of the work on this Project with the Bank RMs and country teams
was mostly handled by the LLCs and Bank staff. Investment projects did not need to be
included in Bank Country Assistance Strategies (CASs) as the Bank wasn't the only possible
funder, though the HQ team worked to get the key CEP priorities reflected in the CASs as
this would be a precondition for any project entering the Bank lending pipeline. The LLCs
were key to bringing the parties together in country.
Without appropriate cooperation efficient implementation of the substantive sub-
components, i.e., Investment, Training and MSGP would not be possible.
In their answers to the questionnaire (Annex V) most of the NFPs/Magicas were of the opinion that
the cooperation was "fully" achieved, although some were of the opinion that the Project was not yet
implemented. In their answers to the questionnaire LLCs assessed that cooperation was good.
Co-operation (including information sharing) among international partners and management
structure can be considered as very successful providing a concerted effort towards the
protection and development of the Caspian Sea.
4.8
Cost effectiveness of the management structure
82
Regarding cost-effectiveness of the management structure latest revision of the Project Document indicates
that the contribution to the Project from GEF/UNDP/WB is US$2,334,128, of which US$1,138,836 (49%)
were to be spent on Identification and pre-preparation of investment projects; Training, and MSGP. The
rest of the funds were used for International experts - WB (7%), Consultants (19%), Administrative
support (1%), Travel of personnel (9%), Monitoring and Evaluation (0.9%), National professionals (7%),
Meetings and training (2%) and other costs (5%).
The actual Project expenditure by budget line and components for 2000-2002 is presented in the table
below. It should be noted that in addition to the funds spent there are US $ 916,409 committed, but not
spent yet, for MSGP grants.
Breakdown of the budget indicates that better part of the funds was spent on concrete activities and it can
be concluded that the Project was cost effective regarding the management structure.
Actual Project Expenditures by Budget Lines and Components for 2000-2002 (in US $)
13 COMPONENT
Budget line
1
2
3
4
Total
International experts (WB)
37,024
30,180
74,818
142,022
Consultants
4,500
13,596
13,250
88,263
119,609
Administrative staff
9,164
9,164
Mission travel (WB)
15,574
9,694
3,426
63,712
92,406
Consultants in-country travel
3,303
31,522
34,825
Five half-time in country consultants
13,515
26,280
72,911
112,706
Training providers (incl. logistics)
86,687
86,687
NGO Grants Administrator contract
84,000
84,000
Grants awarded
33,261
33,261
Investment Project Preparation
49,425
49,425
Training
Consultants in-country travel
7,446
65
7,511
Sundries
870
14,905
8,878
24,653
Shared secretarial support
1,643
1,643
TOTAL
57,098
213,056
178,490
349,268
797,912
The World Bank, as executing agency, had for a fairly long time three staff members (one of
those funded by the Norwegian Government) at the HQ substantially supporting the
programme. It is estimated that they spent about 65 working months on this Project since its
beginning which indicates considerable human resources dedicated to this Project by the
Bank in order to make the Project effective.
An important aspect of the cost effectiveness is the cost of the involvement of the WB staff. This is
not subject of this evaluation but careful analysis of such cost would be important for the development
of the realistic budget for the GEF CEP II MSGP II which is to be implemented without the
participation of the WB.
83
5.
PROJECT IMPACT
5.1
Level of ownership of the project by the participating countries
As it is typical for this type of projects at the beginning of the project the participating countries did
show lack of the concept of ownership and general feeling was that it is expected from the
international community to finance all activities. Gradually the concept of ownership was developed
to a certain extent and finalisation of NCAPs in all countries and finalisation and readiness to adopt
SAP are clear indications that the concept of ownership has been developing. Readiness to provide
finance for PIPP projects in Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan is clear proof of the ownership concept and
hopefully in Iran, Kazakhstan and Russia governmental structure will also decide to support
financially PIPP projects. Regarding MSGP the beneficiaries in all five countries provided matching
financial and in-kind support, which is another proof of the growing ownership.
It is noteworthy that the requirement for matching funding under MSGP has enhanced
ownership by the project proponents, that priorities identified in the TDA have been
addressed through pilot or small-scale projects such as sturgeon stock rehabilitation and
improved living conditions in coastal communities, and that a variety of stakeholders (NGOs,
local governments, research institutes, commercial firms) have been able to participate in
the program.
In their answers to the questionnaire (Annex V) NFPs/Magicas were of the opinion that the
ownership was achieved but one thought that it was not. In their answer to the questionnaire
all but one LLC were of the opinion that the level of ownership was adequate.
5.2
Level of commitment of countries to support ongoing project and potential future
project phase
As indicated in the point 5.1 above all participating countries did show commitment to the
implementation of the MSGP subcomponent and some countries did also demonstrate commitment to
the PIPP projects. In the type of countries that participate in this project, it takes time to build
commitment to support projects, particularly when it comes to counterpart financial contribution, but
with the quite impressive management work of the World Bank and other international partners, such
commitment has been definitely demonstrated in the recent past. Regional participants interviewed
did indicate clear commitment of their countries to the implementation of NCAPs, SAP and CEP, as
well as activities of this project.
It is important to note that MSGP co-financing is provided directly by the grantees, not by the
countries. The states all support this approach. In the past, some representatives of the states have
suggested to reduce the level of matching, but other states resisted, noting that 1:1 matching keeps up
the value of the investments.
In their answers to the questionnaire NFPs/Magicas assessed that the level of commitment was
"mostly" adequate (Annex V). In their answer to the questionnaire all LLCs but one were of the
opinion that the commitment was adequate.
5.3
Degree of support given by the riparian Governments in integrating the project
objectives and goals into the national development programs and other related projects,
and how well the project fits into national development policy
The degree of support given by participating countries in integrating the project objectives and goals
into the national development programs was modest at the beginning but did gradually develop. The
support given by participating countries to the integration of the project objectives and goals into the
national development programs was demonstrated by the selections process for PIPP and MSGP
84
projects since most of the subjects selected were taken from the TDA, NCAPs and SAP. At least in
this case slow development of PIPP and MSGP was beneficial since TDA, NCAPs and SAP were
developed and were used in the selection process (see also points 5.1 and 5.2 above).
In their answers to the questionnaire LLCs were of the opinion that the degree of support was
adequate.
5.4
Impacts on policy and strategy of countries
This project had a strong positive impact on policy, strategy and action plans of the countries
involved. Through the very successful training component and through the development and
implementation of the selection process for PIPP and MSGP projects the know-how in participating
countries to develop adequate and realistic policies and strategies was significantly enhanced. There
was a clear mutual benefit from the development of NCAPs and SAP on one side and from the
training component and selection process for PIPP and MSGP projects on the other side. Synergism
has been clearly demonstrated in this case.
The Bank Caspian team with primary inputs from the LLCs are contributing information on
investment priorities and financing to the NCAPs that were completed in 2002. This is the chief
mechanism for explicitly linking national priorities for the Caspian with PIPP investments and the
regional CEP.
An interesting aspect of MSGP was that the states seemed to benefit from and appreciate the
opportunity to participate in decision-making regarding projects and also learned about managing
finite resources for maximum impact.
In their answer to the questionnaire (Annex V) some of the NFPs/Magicas were of the opinion that
there was positive impact on the policy of countries and some that there was not. In their answer to
the questionnaire LLCs were of the opinion that there was positive impact on policy of the countries.
5.5
Sustainability of the outputs in form of the knowledge transferred to the region to
identify, develop and fund investment projects
The knowledge transferred to the region to identify, develop and fund investment projects was
enhanced considerably in the region through this project. The training component and selection,
development and implementation process for PIPP and MSGP projects were the main reasons for
such enhancement. It appears that there is a quite a significant connectivity between the PIPP and
MSGP projects with the NCAPs and SAP which makes the outputs of this project sustainable. For
instance the Bank PIPP LLCs have been tasked to assist the country NCAP and SAP teams to develop
the sections dealing with investments and costs of the anticipated actions. Whether the knowledge
accumulated through this project will have long lasting positive effect will depend on the
determination of the countries to utilize this knowledge and to continue to prepare and implement
projects on their own. Another important factor for the sustainability is the continuation of the support
of the international community in the preparation and implementation of projects. Without at least
catalytic role of the international community chances are rather slim that the level of sustainability
will be significant.
In the course of work on this Project it took some time and effort of the Bank CEP team to clarify to
participating countries the concept of funding which will distinguish between identification of sources
of funding in principle and financing for specific investments. The PIPP candidate investment projects
were screened against all potential sources of financing as part of the evaluation. The Bank CEP team
repeatedly emphasized to the states that the Bank wasn't to be viewed as the only or even the preferred
source of funding. Funding for mid-size ($500K-$1m) and large (+$1m) projects almost always
involves some national budget or borrowing commitment, and rarely can hope to be fully funded by
85
external grants. In response to the request from the October 2002 SCM, the Bank CEP prepared
consolidated information about sources of financing, which will be presented at the next SCM. The
real positive impact comes from linking a specific project idea with a specific funding source (or
sources).
In their answers to the questionnaire (Annex V) NFPs/Magicas were of the opinion that sustainability
was "mostly" or "partly" achieved. In their answers to the questionnaire LLCs were of the opinion
that sustainability was achieved.
5.6
Project impact on enhancing co-operation among sectors and project partners
The combined effect of the training component, selection, development and implementation of PIPP
and MSGP projects has strong positive impact on enhancing co-operation among sectors and project
partners. In addition synergic effects with NCAPs and SAP are further positive impetus for such co-
operation. Although the World Bank would not participate in the CEP II, it would continue to serve as
Executing Agency for the PIPP under the first GEF project, and would train staff at the new Tehran
PCU to manage the MSGP under the CEP II. The Bank would also continue to serve on the CEP
Steering Committee. Such a role for the World Bank will be another positive factor in the enhancing
of the co-operation.
In their answers to the questionnaire LLCs were of the opinion that there was a positive impact.
6.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 The degree to which the project objectives were obtainable and the degree to which they
have been met
The degree to which objectives of this project were achieved was assessed at the PIPP Annual Project
Review, Ashgabad, Oct. 2002. In the Table presented below first three columns were reproduced from
the Project Review document and the fourth column (most right hand sided) was introduced in order
to assess the achievement as of June 2003.
It can be concluded that the project was successful in the training component, quite successful in the
preparatory phase of the MSGP component (apart from the delay in the implementation) and partially
successful in the investment projects since only two projects have been selected for further
preparation using PIPP resources.
The first subcomponent of this project (Investment Identification and Pre-Preparation) was partially
successful in achieving its goals because investment projects have been selected and endorsed only by
the governments of Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan with a commitment for implementation, warranting
further expenditure of PIPP resources for preparation. Good projects have been identified in Iran,
Kazakhstan and Russia, but no firm commitment can be made for implementation funding at this
time. Main problems were: (a) significant investments required; and (b) national budgetary
constraints, especially with regard to environmental investments and vague support from national
level. On the other hand a very positive aspect of PIPP was that it activated a dialog between national
ministries and regional authorities about priority environmental investment necessary for the
implementation of NCAPs.
The second subcomponent of this project (Institutional Strengthening and Training for Project
Preparation) was effective and training courses were very positively received by participants
representing local governments, scientific institutions and NGOs. It was a common feeling that such
training practice should continue.
The third subcomponent of this Project (MSGP) was very successful in its initial phase,
which can be considered that was completed recently, although its development took longer
than planned. The success of MSGP in the initial phase was achieved by (a) excellent
86
conceptualisation and selection procedure; (b) small size of projects with regional priority; (c)
strong motivation to leveraging of own resources; and (d) excellent capacity building
program. The impact of the MSGP on the ground is still to be seen to allow for a full
assessment, as only 5 out of 16 selected Projects are being implemented at present.
Monitoring of MSGP Projects, which is extremely important will pick up significantly now that
all the projects are funded (or almost so) and are under implementation, and no new grant
rounds are being prepared.
Summary of Results and Achievements
Project
Achievements
Achievements as of
objectives
Indicators*
as of Oct. 2002*
June 2003
1.
Investment 1-2 qualified priority
1-2 qualified
One project each was
identification
investments per country priority
selected and endorsed
and pre-
identified, matched with investments per
by the governments of
preparation
funding source and pre- country identified Azerbaijan and
prepared
Turkmenistan with a
commitment for
implementation.
One good project each
was identified in Iran,
Kazakhstan and Russia,
but no firm commitment
can be made yet for
implementation funding.
2.
Training
Capacity development
2 formal training
Activity completed.
for project
for about 35
courses delivered
preparation
participants in
economic valuation and
for about 150
participants in proposal
writing
3.
Matched
At least 1 MSGP
1 project each in
In the First Round of
Small-Grants
project per country
Azerbaijan, Iran,
MSGP one project in
Program
implemented
Kazakhstan and
each of the Caspian
established
Russia selected
countries is under
and funding
and funded in 1st
implementation.
projects
grant round; 2nd
In the Second Round of
grant round
MSGP one project in
launched
each of the Caspian
countries was confirmed
and contracts are under
preparation.
In the Third Round of
MSGP six projects were
selected from all Caspian
countries.
87
Annual output
Achievement of
Proposed
Achievements as of
targets*
outputs*
output targets
June 2003
for next year*
1. 1-2
1-2 investments
5 project concept Target only partially
investment identified in 4 of 5
documents
achieved (see point
s per
countries consistent
prepared in
4.1.1).
country
with NCAPs and TDA;
accordance with
consistent tentative identification
requirements of
with
of investment in 5th
funding
NCAPs
country
organization
and TDA
identified
2. 2 Training
2-week environmental none
Targets achieved. Activity
courses
valuation training held
completed in 2002 (see
in Baku in Feb 02 with
point 4.1.2).
about 35 participants
from all five Caspian
states
3-day proposal writing
workshop presented
to 30-40 participants
in each Caspian state
in July 02
3. Matched
Program established
Resolve status
Targets for 3 grant
Small-
and 1st grant round
of 5th project
rounds achieved (5
Grants
completed with 5
from 1st round
Projects of the first round
Program
projects selected, 4
Conduct 2nd
being implemented; for 5
establishe
initially funded and
grant round
Projects of the second
d and
under implementation
round grant agreements
funding
If funds are
signed; 6 Projects
projects in
available,
selected for the third
all 5
conduct 3rd
round, see point 4.1.3).
Caspian
grant round
states
Train PCU in
Tehran to
administer
MSGP
*Taken from the PIPP Annual Project Review 2002, Ashgabad, Oct. 2002
6.2 Significant lessons that can be drawn from the experience of the project and its results,
particularly those elements that have worked well and those that have not
One of the lessons learned is that stakeholders view this project generally positively, but have tended
to maintain the unrealistic expectation that external donors would provide grant financing to support
all or almost all of the activities under the CEP. Environment Ministries (the lead counterpart) had in
some cases assumed that investments, once selected, would be managed within their own agencies. In
fact, the proponents for the candidate investments most often were other agencies or local government
88
bodies. These views are now changing, assisted by the NCAP process and other dialogue under the
CEP, but expectations are still very high.
Particular elements of this project that have worked well:
·
integration of the PIPP investment identification process with budget and
investment planning in the NCAPs;
·
creation of a consultative investment screening process and selection of
priority investments in each Caspian state for further preparation;
·
successful delivery of two formal training programs to develop capacity (a) for
use of economic analytical tools in environmental policy and program formulation
(valuation training), and (b) for project preparation (proposal writing training);
·
successful development and implementation of the First Round of MSGP
projects and successful development of the Second and Third Rounds;
·
recruitment of one LLC in each Caspian state for capacity development,
support in investment identification and preparation for PIPP and MSGP projects and
connection to NCAPs and SAP.
Particular elements of this project that have not worked well:
·
the Bank experienced significant administrative difficulties as executing agency for
the PIPP, resulting in delays in implementation of the project. These were overcome, but
indicate that this is not the most efficient role for the Bank to play;
·
the lack of a regional entity satisfactory to all parties and legally capable of serving as
the executing agency hampered implementation and resulted in the project re-design
with the Bank in the role of executing agency. This situation will likely prevail until after
the states will have signed the Framework Convention. Until a legal entity such as a
Secretariat and/or PCU is established, implementation of international grant projects will
continue to be managed by the international organizations or their proxies, not
implemented directly by the states. One feature of the MSGP that is very welcomed by
the states is that these small projects are implemented directly by the grantees, perhaps
the only example of local implementation (so far) in the CEP;
·
relatively low national priority accorded to environmental and sustainable
bioresources management. This is predictable and common in most countries, and not
necessarily a poor policy choice. The challenge is to design interventions that help
decision makers to balance environmental needs with other policy choices, so that sound
development decisions can be taken and implemented. The PIPP may have helped the
Caspian states in this regard in a modest fashion, through the economic valuation
training and cooperation on the NCAPs and SAP;
·
general lack of tradition and culture to develop and own fundable investment projects
in the region, in particular in CIS countries and result was inability or unwillingness of
some states to allocate budget or borrow for implementation of priority investments
identified via the PIPP and NCAPs. This is particularly true of the ministries of
environment, usually the CEP counterparts. As noted elsewhere, however, the
environment ministries are most often not the "owner" of the investment, more likely it
would be a sectoral agency (agriculture, fisheries, oil) or provincial or local government
body. This relates to weak intersectoral coordination (see below) and inadequate
consultation with the budget-making ministries. This problem was addressed in this
Project via the PIPP, but progress was noticed only in very small steps. The LLCs helped
a lot but the government officials should have been more engaged; and
89
· lack of serious involvement by the sectoral agencies including finance and economic
national agencies in project identification process. Better sectoral coordination was
attempted in a systematic way in the preliminary identification and screening of PIPP
Investment project ideas, where the LLCs met with the Ministries of Finance (or
equivalent) to understand the budget allocation process, review project concepts for
consistency with national priorities, etc. LLCs also met with sectoral ministries and
provincial government representatives to refine project concepts, gauge commitment,
etc. The process was pretty good but the results were less than hoped.
6.3
Recommendations on further actions upon completion of the current project including
design and implementation arrangement for the next phase(s)
The main question regarding further actions upon completion of the current project
are connected with the CEP GEF-II project, which seems to be realistic to be in place
by 2004.
Regarding the MSGP under the CEP GEF-II, questions are mostly focused on the need
to continue the program or replace it with direct targeted interventions. The matching
requirement of MSGP has limited the participation of beneficiaries to those that are
able to raise the counterpart contributions. It is noteworthy however that all
categories of applicants (national and local government agencies, municipalities,
companies, and NGOs) have been awarded grants. Depending on the program
criteria and selection method, targeted interventions would risk losing the matching
funding, would not be selected competitively based on merit, would not engage the
region as a whole in the selection process, and would result in projects implemented
by a GEF agency rather than the beneficiaries. These would be serious
shortcomings.
It is recommended:
·
to continue the excellent work on the MSGP component (particularly selection process, which
can serve as a model for the development of the know-how of participating countries in the
preparation and implementation of projects);
·
to assess the outcomes of the MSGP projects relative to NCAPs and SAP;
·
to develop a standard type of verification document for the matching contribution and define
the maximum percentage permitted for some budget categories, in particular for salary/labor
payment;
·
to organise follow-up of the training program in order to ensure sustainability of the know-
how enhancement;
·
in selecting projects for grants the merit-based approach should continue to be applied,
instead of shifting to a population-based or nationally even-split approach to grants selection;
·
for larger-scale investments: to stop allocating funds under regional projects such as GEF-II
for development of investment projects. Instead, countries would engage with the Bank or other
IFIs on a bilateral basis to develop investment projects that meet priority objectives as defined in
the NCAPs and SAP, and that have the strongest probability of financial and institutional support
for successful implementation;
·
to continue the MSGP, keeping in place the approach for selecting projects on a merit basis,
instead of switching to a population- based or even-split approach to grants selection;
·
that the MSGP allows the CEP and GEF-II to concentrate resources on achievable goals, even
if more modest in impact;
90
·
that the World Bank decision to use some of resources under the existing MSGP to train the
staff of MSGP II when operational be fully implemented;
·
that no efforts should be spared in order to ensure smooth transition from MSGP I to MSGP
II, including transfer of knowledge, training of staff and relocation of PCU;
·
that MSGP II should be linked as much as possible to NCAPs and SAP; and
· For training: consider allocating resources for expansion of training in economic valuation.
91
CASPIAN ENVIRONMENT
PROGRAMME
INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
(INTERIM)
(Extraordinary Steering Committee Meeting: March 12, 2003)
92
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Programme Structure 3
Regional Governance
5
National Governance
6
Regional Advisory Groups
6
Funding Arrangement and Responsibilities
7
II. Communications modalities
9
III. Inclusion of new projects under CEP Umbrella
10
IV. International Partner Coordination
11
Annex 1 Terms of Reference
12
1.1 Steering Committee
12
1.2 Programme Coordination Unit
13
1.3 National Focal Points
14
1.4 National Coordination Structures
15
1.5 Regional Advisory Groups
16
1.6 Programme Coordinator
17
Annex 2 Rules of Procedure for Steering Committee
18
Annex 3 Draft Application for Decision on formal status of
new projects under CEP umbrella
22
93
I.
PROGRAMME STRUCTURE
1.
The Caspian Environment Programme (CEP) has participation on regional, national, and
international levels. The CEP organization has as its basis several overarching documents,
including:
· The Concept Paper (approved May 1998 in Ramsar)
· The Project Brief (approved May 1998 in Ramsar)
2.
The CEP is a programme for and from the five Caspian Littoral States, Azerbaijan, Iran,
Kazakhstan, Russia and Turkmenistan aiming to halt the deterioration of environmental
conditions of the Caspian Sea and to promote sustainable development in the area. This
intergovernmental process is currently being supported by CEP's International Partners, Global
Environmental Facility (GEF), UNDP, World Bank, UNEP and European Union, other
international organizations and the private sector, in particular the oil and gas sector. In the first
four years, CEP has developed and adopted a Strategic Action Programme (SAP) for the
protection and rehabilitation of the Caspian environment in four priority regional environmental
concern areas and assisted the littoral states to develop National Caspian Action Plans (NCAPs).
3.
Within the context of the CEP and the implementation framework provided by its various
programmes and projects the main responsibilities of the five Caspian littoral states will include
the following:
· to contribute to the overall strategic policy and management direction to the CEP through
their representation in the Steering Committee;
· to provide technical and management advice to the CEP through their representation on the
Advisory Groups;
· to provide national policy guidance for the CEP through their National Coordination
Structures (NCS) and Inter-sectoral Coordination Groups (ICG);
· to ensure that policy guidance from the Steering Committee is reflected in national CEP-
related policies and programme activities, as appropriate; and
· to contribute and commit, financially and in kind, to implementation of the National Caspian
Action Plans and the Strategic Action Programme.
4.
During its first four years (July 1998 to October 2002) the CEP has established and
prepared the following:
· A management structure, including a Programme Coordination Unit (PCU) and ten Caspian
Regional Thematic Centres
· Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA)
· National Caspian Action Plans (NCAPs)
· Strategic Action Programme (SAP)
· Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (BSAP)
· Priority Investment Portfolio Project (PIPP)
· Draft text of the Framework Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the
Caspian Sea
· Regional Cooperation Plan for Oil Spill Preparedness
94
CEP will concentrate efforts in the longer term on the implementation of the adopted NCAPs and
SAP and further support to the Framework Convention Process. Implementation of the SAP will
be supported by the CEP with the assistance of the International Partners at both the national
and regional levels. During SAP implementation it is anticipated that other international agencies
will apply (see section III) to have their projects included under the CEP umbrella and in so doing
become full international partners.
5.The CEP Institutional Arrangements will need to be modified in the future, in particular upon final determination of the
legal status of the Caspian Sea and subsequent ratification of regional agreements between the five littoral states.
6.
The overall programme structure is shown as Figure 1. The overall governance is
provided by the Steering Committee. The National Focal Point and the National Coordination
Structure (NCS) provide coordination at the national level. Overall CEP implementation is under
the guidance of the Programme Coordination Unit, led by the Programme Coordinator.
7.
Each of these elements is discussed below and Terms of Reference (ToR) are provided
in Annex 1.
Regional
National
2.1
Gove
CEP
National Focal
rnan
Steering Committee
Point
Programme
Coordination Unit
3
INSTIT
UTION
AL
Advisory
National
Intersectoral
Group
Coordination
Coordination
Structure
Group
Other
National
Donor
2
PR
European
GEF
WB
European
Caspian
NCAP
Union
OJ
Donor
Projects
Projects
--------------
UNDP SAP
UNEP
Trust
TACIS
EU, GEF,
Implementatio
Convention
Funds
SAP
n
Process
Implementatio
Key
Lines of Management
FIGURE 1
Lines of Coordination
Structure of the Caspian Environment Programme
Regional Governance
Steering Committee:
95
8.
The Steering Committee (Committee) comprises one senior representative from each
Caspian littoral state and one representative from the present four International Partners,
UNDP, UNEP, World Bank, and European Union. Project Managers of projects operating under
the CEP umbrella may attend meetings as observers, subject to the discretion of the Steering
Committee Chairman. Other interested parties may be invited as observers at the Steering
Committee's discretion.
9.
The Steering Committee is the principal policy-making body of the CEP. The Committee
will provide direction to the Programme Coordination Unit (PCU) on issues pertaining to the
regional governance of the CEP, and, when appropriate, to the National Coordination Structures
on issues pertaining to the national governance.
10.
The Steering Committee's approved Rules of Procedure (Baku in June 1999) are
included in Annex 2.
11.
Funding of Ordinary Steering Committee meetings will be shared between the countries
and International Partners. The country chairing the Steering Committee will be expected to host
and bear the costs of the Steering Committee meeting in its year of office whilst the other
countries and International Partners shall bear the costs of attendance at the meeting by their
representatives. Attendance of observers will be at their own cost.
12.
The ToR for the Steering Committee are provided in Annex 1.1.
Programme Coordination Unit:
13.
In accordance with the recommendations of the CEP Institutional Arrangements meeting in
Tehran July 2002, the PCU has been transferred from its first location Baku, Azerbaijan, to Tehran,
Islamic Republic of Iran, at the end of December 2002, reconfirming the decision made in Ramsar in
1998. The PCU will remain in Tehran until December 2006, in accordance with the decision taken at
the 2002 Tehran institutional arrangement meeting. The decision whether the PCU location is to be
permanent after December 2006 or will rotate around the littoral states, moving every four years, is
deferred until December 2003, one year after re-location to Tehran.
14.
The PCU will carry out the day-to-day coordination of the regional components of the
CEP and implementation of the SAP, and will act as the Secretariat for the Steering Committee.
The initial PCU structure will consist of a Programme Coordinator, an Assistant and the
necessary support staff. The Programme Coordinator and Assistant will be selected from
applicants proposed by the littoral states.
15.
The Programme Coordinator and Assistant will be selected by the Steering Committee by
simple majority. Nominations for the two posts will be accepted from any littoral state. The salary
and living expenses of the selected Programme Coordinator and Assistant shall be borne by the
nominating littoral state.
16.
Project Managers of umbrella projects will be subject to coordination of the Programme
Coordinator, and, where project staff is located within the PCU, the Programme Coordinator's
management authority with regard to office administration matters.
17.
Each individual Project Manager of an umbrella project will be responsible to the Steering
Committee members, as per project application (see section III) and the stated project
beneficiary, for his/her project activities.
96
18.
The Host Country will provide appropriate furnished accommodation, for the PCU and the
necessary support staff.
19.
The ToR for the PCU are provided in Annex 1.2.
20.
The ToR for the Programme Coordinator are provided in Annex 1.6.
National Governance
The National Focal Points:
21.
The National Focal Point is the main contact in each Country for the CEP. The NFP is
either a Minister or the Minister's authorized representative and will sit on all meetings of the
Steering Committee. The NFPs will hold an existing national governmental post.
22.
The NFP directs and manages the activities of the National Coordination Structure and
assures full inter-sectoral participation in CEP nationally, including ministries, academia, NGOs,
private sector and other pertinent stakeholders. It is recommended to establish a national Inter-
sectoral Coordination Group (ICG), chaired by the NFP, to ensure full partnership and
involvement of the other pertinent national stakeholders.
23.
Terms of Reference for the NFP are provided in Annex 1.3.
National Coordination Structures:
24.
The National Coordination Structure (NCS) in each country is responsible for
coordination of NCAP implementation, national SAP implementation and provision of national
input into the regional programme.
25.
The NCS is a permanent body directed and managed by the National Focal Point, which
will maintain close contact with the PCU and be aware of all PCU activities.
26.
The ToR for the NCS are provided as Annex 1.4.
The Regional Advisory Groups
27.
The five Regional Advisory Groups (RAG), established to replace the Caspian Regional
Thematic Centres that were operational during the first four years of CEP are as follows:
-
Advisory Group on Biodiversity and Invasive Species
-
Advisory Group on Fisheries
-
Advisory Group on Emergency Response
-
Advisory Group on Pollution
-
Advisory Group on Sustainable Coastal Development
Each littoral state will chair and host one of the Advisory Groups.
97
28.
The Regional Advisory Groups purpose is to assist CEP PCU in concert with the PCU to
coordinate its activities in the priority regional environmental concern areas. The Regional
Advisory Groups will oversee implementation of the SAP in their specific concern area and,
where required, develop specific implementation plans. Through the Regional Advisory Groups
the littoral states will contribute to the overall regional coordination of the CEP.
29.
The Regional Advisory Groups will operate on the basis of working parties, involving the
participation of all littoral states, PCU representation, and, when necessary, outside experts.
Each littoral state, through the NFP, will appoint a technical expert from the appropriate authority
to sit on each Regional Advisory Group and act as the country focal point, reporting to the NCS
and NFP.
30.
The Regional Advisory Groups will meet at least twice a year. The host littoral state will
bear the costs of convening the Advisory Groups meetings. The other littoral states and PCU
shall pay the costs of their representatives' attendance at the meeting.
31.
The National Coordinating Structure of the host country shall act as the Secretariat to the
Regional Advisory Group and shall prepare meeting minutes and an annual report on the
activities of the Group to be submitted to the host country's National Focal Point and the PCU.
The Steering Committee will be informed regarding the activities of the Regional Advisory
Groups through the PCU. The PCU will assist in assuring relevant communication and data
exchanges across the Regional Advisory Groups.
32.
Terms of Reference for the Regional Advisory Groups are provided in Annex 1.5.
2.1
2.2
2.3 Funding Arrangements and Responsibilities
2.4
2.5 33.
It is recognized that the CEP International Partners in funding umbrella
projects must abide by their own rules and regulations governing the provision
and administration of project funds.
34.
Within these regulations and conditions, the Steering Committee will have the ability to
pass comment on project work plans through an annual review. Subsequently, it will be the
responsibility of the Project Managers of umbrella projects (in coordination with the CEP
Programme Coordinator and in consultation with the NFPs through the National Coordination
Structures) to revise the work plans where appropriate.
35. The littoral states contribution to CEP shall include:
· Mobilize sufficient resources to implement all national activities and support all regional
actions, specified in CEP National Action Plans and Strategic Action Programme in
accordance with programme dates.
· Provide all umbrella projects with appropriate work space.
98
· Provide the NCS and its staff with the necessary financial support to execute its Terms of
Reference; this includes adequate office space, utilities, meeting expenses and
administrative support.
· Provide access to all data and information required for implementation of the CEP, in
accordance with the rules and procedures of the littoral state.
· Each country shall, as the incumbent Chair of the Steering Committee, host and support
the Steering Committee meeting and Regional Advisory Groups meetings, providing
venue, logistical support and translation.
· Provide support for their representatives to attend the Steering Committee meetings and
the meetings of the Regional Advisory Groups.
99
II.
COMMUNICATIONS MODALITIES
The Programme Coordinator, as Secretary to the CEP, will help maintain clear
channels of communication. The Secretary will be responsible for:
· preparation of materials for Steering Committee meetings;
· assisting the Chairman of the Steering Committee in providing inter-
sessional updates;
· assuring that all parties have the latest versions of the SAP and NCAP
reports and CEP implementation progress report and other pertinent
documents;
· distribution of all major reports from the umbrella project to all parties, for
review and comment;
· Communication exchange between the RAGs and distribution of RAG
minutes and reports to the members of the Steering Committee;
All correspondence between the NFPs and PCU, should be copied to all
Steering Committee Members and the NCSs.
100
III.
INCLUSION OF NEW PROJECTS UNDER CEP UMBRELLA
PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINING THE STATUS OF ASSOCIATED PROJECTS
WITHIN THE CASPIAN ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME
Preamble: The Caspian Environment Programme (CEP) is a body of the five Caspian Littoral
States, which formally came into being at the 1998 Ramsar Steering Committee Meeting. In its
inception, the CEP was assisted by umbrella project implemented by the four CEP International
Partners, European Union, UNDP, UNEP and the World Bank.
It is desirable to attract other international partners to place their projects under the CEP
umbrella. The advantages to the CEP include bringing more resources to address the goals of
the CEP; minimization of overlap and duplication of project activities; broader Programme
participation; involvement of CEP at the project design phase, thereby ensuring better targeting
of resources.
Advantages to the new projects of being under the CEP umbrella include resources of the CEP
will be made available to the umbrella project; the PCU may be able to help guide the project,
and provide resources to assist; formal acceptance under the CEP umbrella will ease the
process of obtaining official government approval of the project; duplication and overlap can be
minimized; certain governmental activities (licenses, permits, etc.) may be obtained more easily.
In this context, two types of projects will likely be conducted, namely those under the CEP
umbrella; those outside the CEP umbrella, but still encouraged to coordinate/communicate with
the CEP through the PCU.
This second category may exist for several reasons, i.e. short duration of the Project; limited
congruence with the goals and objectives of the CEP.
Full Status: Full status will be approved to those projects whose goals coincide strongly with
those of the CEP, and which would benefit close collaboration and cooperation with the CEP.
The project would be expected to interact closely with the PCU in matters of coordination,
communication, and conduct of the work. Such projects may even have Staff located within the
PCU. Their Work Plans should be subject to review by the Steering Committee.
Associated Status: Associated status may be given to projects whose goals only partially
coincide with those of the CEP. The benefit to CEP of association is the maintenance of close
communication and awareness of the goals and products of the project. The benefit to the project
is that it enables the project to benefit from the coordination capacity and products of the CEP,
such as contact lists, reports and meeting notes and attend and participate in relevant technical
meetings.
Procedure for applying for Status under the CEP: The Form, included in Annex 3 should be
filled out by any Project applying for Umbrella or Associated status under the Caspian
Environment Programme to be submitted to the PCU, and distributed to the Steering Committee
and Regional Advisory Groups for comment. The final decision on acceptance will be made
Steering Committee following advice by the PCU. Communication with the applicants will be
through the Chairman of the Steering Committee.
101
IV.
INTERNATIONAL PARTNER COORDINATION
The International Partners in supporting the Caspian Environment Programme
acknowledge the guidelines provided in the Concept Paper, as approved at
Ramsar in 1998, whilst complying with the specific project development and
intervention goals set down by their implementing bodies. As a result of this
commitment, the International Partners, will seek to develop their projects in
close collaboration and, if possible, in parallel with each other, in order to
ensure that both overall CEP and specific project goals are met with minimum
overlap and maximum targeting.
In this regard, the International Partners agree to:
· With the assistance of the Programme Coordinator, develop an integrated
implementation plan and programme, to be shared with the Steering
Committee.
· Hold the following schedule of meetings:
- Task managers, once a year, chaired by Programme Coordinator, with
meeting notes sent to Steering Committee;
-
Project managers, three times a year, chaired by Programme Coordinator,
meeting notes sent to Steering Committee;
· Submit all public reports in draft form to the Programme Coordinator for
review and comment before finalization; this does not include reports
intended for internal distribution within the International Partner
organizations.
· Submit all final public reports to all International Partners and Steering
Committee in electronic and paper form for review and comment.
102
2.5.1 ANNEX 1: TERMS OF REFERENCE
Annex 1.1 Terms of Reference
Caspian Environment Programme
14 STEERING COMMITTEE
Background: The CEP Steering Committee will direct the activities of the CEP.
The CEP Steering Committee will also act as the Steering Committee for the
GEF/UNDP and the EU/TACIS projects and any other projects that are
incorporated under the CEP umbrella (at which time additional donors to the
CEP may designate a Steering Committee member from their agency, upon
agreement of Steering Committee). The CEP Steering Committee will make
decisions based on the consensus principle.
Membership: Initial Steering Committee membership will include a
representative from each of the five littoral countries as well as one each from
UNDP, EU/TACIS, UNEP, and The World Bank.
Tasks:
· Provide management direction to the Programme;
· Assist in identifying and allocating Programme support for activities consistent with
Programme objectives;
· Annually review and assess the progress of the Programme and its projects;
· Annually review and approve the work plan and comment on the budgets of the Programme
and its projects, and provide overall direction on the work plan implementation;
· Provide guidance to the PCU in coordinating and managing the Programme and its projects,
and review and provide guidance on Regional Advisory Groups recommendations;
· Create mechanisms for interaction with the Private Sector, including a Trust Fund;
· Coordinate activities of International Partners projects, ensuring maximum targeting of the
NCAPs and SAP;
· With the assistance of National Coordinating Structures, review the implementation of the
NCAPs and SAP.
103
15 ANNEX 1.2 TERMS OF REFERENCE
Caspian Environment Programme
16 PROGRAM COORDINATION UNIT (PCU)
Background: The PCU will provide a coordination and management structure for
implementation of the Caspian Environment Program in accordance with the rules and
procedures and directions provided by the Steering Committee.
Tasks:
· Assist in networking between National Focal Points and National Coordination Structures in
all five coastal countries (Azerbaijan, Iran, Kazakhstan, Russian Federation, Turkmenistan)
and act as a Secretariat to the CEP Steering Committee;
· Coordinate the activities of the International Partner projects ensuring maximum targeting of
the NCAPs and SAP;
· Cooperate and liaise with RAGs;
· With the assistance of the National Coordinating Structures, prepare the reports on
implementation of the NCAPs and SAP on a regular basis for the Steering Committee;
· Assistance in capacity building within and among littoral countries;
· Prepare progress reports (administrative and financial) concerning programme activities;
· Maintain the CEP web-site and Caspian information system;
· Disseminate information on policy, economic, environmental, scientific and technical issues
related to the programme;
· Coordinate international, multi-lateral and bi-lateral environmental activities in the Caspian,
where appropriate; and
· Assist in resource mobilization for the NCAPs and SAP.
104
Annex 1.3 Terms of Reference
Caspian Environment Programme
National Focal Point
Background: National Focal Point is the main contact point for the Caspian Environment
Programme in the littoral state. The NFP is a member of the Steering Committee, and
represents his/her country's interests in the governance of the CEP. The National Focal Point is
tasked with coordinating national activities on the Caspian within CEP, as well as coordinating
and being responsible for his/her country's participation in the CEP. The National Focal Point
oversees the office and functions of National Coordination Structure. The NFP must hold an
existing national governmental post.
Tasks:
·
Member of the Steering Committee representing his/her country;
·
Performs Intersectoral Coordination with his/her country, including ministries, private
sector, NGOs, and other stakeholders;
·
Directs and manages the National Coordination Structure;
·
Nominates Advisory Group staff;
·
Nominates Chairperson of RAG hosted by his/her country;
·
Assures participation of national representatives at the Steering Committee meeting and
Regional Advisory Group meetings.
105
Annex 1.4 Terms Of Reference
Caspian Environment Programme
National Coordination Structure
17
18 BACKGROUND: THE NATIONAL COORDINATION STRUCTURE (NCS) IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATION OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NATIONAL
CASPIAN ACTION PLAN AND, IN COLLABORATION WITH THE PCU, NATIONAL
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN. THE NCS WILL BE A
PERMANENT BODY LOCATED EITHER WITHIN THE MINISTRY OR A HOST
INSTITUTION DESIGNATED BY THE NFP. THE NFP SHALL OVERSEE AND
MANAGE THE OFFICE AND FUNCTIONS OF THE NCS. IT WILL ASSIST THE NFP
IN THE EXECUTION OF HIS/HER DUTIES UNDER CEP, INCLUDING INTER-
SECTORAL COORDINATION FUNCTION (SEE ARTICLE 22). THE NCS SHALL
MAINTAIN CLOSE CONTACT WITH THE PCU AND BE AWARE OF ALL ITS
ACTIVITIES.
Tasks:
· Promote and coordinate NCAP implementation;
· Assist in resource mobilization for the NCAP;
· Report annually on NCAP implementation and national SAP implementation against
programme timelines and submit report to the Steering Committee and PCU;
· Review and comment on CEP documents prepared by PCU, Advisory Groups and
National Focal Points;
· Act as the secretariat to the nationally hosted RAG and monitor and report on its activities
to the PCU;
· Assist in coordination of all national inputs into umbrella projects;
· Assist with practical arrangements for international and regional cooperation (e.g. meeting
arrangements, logistics, visa applications, etc.);
· Assist in identifying national institutions and experts to undertake different thematic tasks with
the umbrella projects and coordinate the different themes at the national level.
106
2.1 Annex 1.5 Terms of Reference
Caspian Environment Programme
19 REGIONAL ADVISORY GROUPS
Background: The Advisory Groups' purpose is to provide the PCU with the best possible advice
and information on topics key to the implementation of the SAP. They will operate on the basis of
working parties involving participation of all littoral states and the PCU, together with outside
experts when considered necessary. The involvement of NGOs is encouraged. The Advisory
Groups will meet at least twice a year and the country NCSs (see Annex 1.4) will act as the
Secretariats.
Tasks:
· With the assistance of the PCU and the International Partner support projects, develop
where necessary specific implementation plans to operationalise the relevant section of
the SAP;
· Work closely with the PCU to ensure regional coordination within the area of competency;
· When and where appropriate, make recommendations to the Steering Committee, on
guidance and strategy within area of competency;
· Assist in further development and revision of the TDA and SAP;
· Make recommendations for training within area of competency;
· Liaison closely with National Coordination Structures and PCU;
· Cooperate with other Regional Advisory Groups.
Annex 1.6 Terms of Reference
107
Caspian Environment Programme
Programme Coordinator
General Job Description: The Programme Coordinator shall be responsible in general for the
overall coordination of all aspects of the Caspian Environmental Programme (CEP) and
implementation of the SAP in particular. He/she shall liaise directly with the National Focal Points
and the representatives of International Partners and other donors in order to coordinate the
annual implementation plan for the programme (SAP, and NCAPs).
The implementation plan will provide day-to-day guidance on implementation of the programme
and on the integration of the various donors funded initiatives. He/she shall be responsible for all
CEP substantive managerial and financial reports. He/she will provide overall administrative
supervision of the Programme Coordination Unit, as well as guiding and supervising all external
policy relations. He/she will be active in promoting the CEP and mobilizing funds from other
donors and the private sector to assist with SAP implementation.
Tasks:
· Prepare an annual implementation plan for CEP on the basis of the SAP, NCAPs and
support projects, in close consultation and coordination with the National Focal Points,
International Partners and relevant donors. The plan will provide day-to-day implementation
guidance on the programme and assist with integration of donor funded initiatives;
· Cooperate closely with NCS and RAGs;
· Coordinate and monitor the implementation of the SAP and, with the assistance of NFPs,
RAGs and the NCSs- NCAPs;
· Ensure consistency between the various programme elements and related support project
activities;
· Oversee preparation of the regional technical documents, such as protocols to the
Framework Convention, relating to environmental governance of the Caspian; and
· Foster and establish links with other related Caspian programmes and, where appropriate,
with other Regional Seas programmes.
108
ANNEX 2
CASPIAN ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME
STEERING COMMITTEE
RULES OF PROCEDURE
(ADOPTED AT 1999 BAKU STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING)
20
21 RULE 1. DEFINITIONS
For the purposes of these Rules:
a)
"Steering Committee" means the Steering Committee of the Caspian Environment
Programme;
b)
"Programme Coordination Unit" means the Programme Coordination Unit of the
Caspian Environment Programme;
c)
"Chairperson" means the Chairperson nominated in accordance with Rule 6;
d)
"Meeting" means any meeting of the Steering Committee;
e)
"Caspian littoral States" means Azerbaijan, Islamic Republic of Iran, Kazakhstan,
Russian Federation and Turkmenistan.
Rule 2. Composition
1.
The Steering Committee shall be composed of representatives of the Caspian littoral
states and of the United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Environment
Programme, The World Bank, and European Union TACIS.
2.
The Steering Committee may decide that other organizations become Members of the
Steering Committee.
Rule 3. Meetings
1.
The Steering Committee holds an ordinary meeting at least once a year, upon
convocation by the Chairperson. At each ordinary meeting, the Steering Committee shall decide
upon dates and venues of the next ordinary meeting.
2.
An extraordinary meeting may be convened at any time at the request by any Member of
the Steering Committee submitted to the Secretariat, subject to concurrence of the majority of the
Steering Committee. The requests for an extraordinary meeting shall be circulated by the
Secretariat to all Members with a deadline for reply. The requesting member shall be informed
by the Secretariat about the replies it receives.
3.
The ordinary meetings shall be held in each Caspian littoral State in turn in alphabetic
order of the Caspian Littoral States in the English language. The venue for extraordinary meeting
should be defined by the Chairman of Steering Committee in consultations with Secretariat.
109
4.
The meetings shall be held in private unless the Steering Committee decides otherwise.
Rule 4. Agenda
1.
The Secretariat shall in consultation with the Chairperson prepare the provisional agenda
for each meeting.
2.
The provisional agenda for each ordinary meeting shall include:
a)
items the inclusion of which was decided at a previous meeting;
b)
items proposed by any member;
c)
items proposed by the Chairperson.
3.
The provisional agenda for an extraordinary meeting shall consist only of those items
proposed for consideration in the request for the holding of the extraordinary meeting.
4.
The provisional agenda together with supporting documents shall be circulated in all
working languages by the Secretariat to the members at least four weeks before the opening of
the meeting.
Rule 5. Representation
The Caspian littoral states shall be normally represented at ministerial level or by senior officials
designated by their respective governments.
Rule 6. Chairmanship
1.
The chairmanship of the Steering Committee shall be given to each Caspian littoral
State, in turn, in alphabetical order, of the Caspian littoral States, in the English language.
2.
The Caspian littoral State chairing the Steering Committee shall nominate the
Chairperson and a Vice-Chairperson. If the Chairperson finds it necessary to be absent during
any meeting or any part thereof and/or is unable to perform his/her functions, the Vice-
Chairperson shall take his/her place.
3.
The Chairperson shall serve for a period of one year.
4.
In addition to exercising the powers and duties conferred upon him/her elsewhere in
these rules the powers and duties of the Chairperson shall be:
a)
to convene the ordinary and extraordinary meetings;
b) to declare the opening and closing of each meeting;
c) to preside at all meetings;
d)
to ensure observance of these Rules and to decide all questions of order raised at
the meetings;
e) to make such decisions and to give such directions to the Secretariat as will ensure,
especially in the interval between the meetings, that the business of the Steering Committee is
carried out efficiently and in accordance with its decisions;
f)
to hold responsibility for public awareness, particularly through mass media, in
consultations with Secretariat and in accordance with Steering Committee policy.
Rule 7. Secretariat
110
1. The Programme Coordination Unit shall serve as the Secretariat of the Steering Committee.
2. In addition to exercising the powers and duties conferred upon it elsewhere by the Rules,
the Secretariat shall:
a) issue the invitations to the meetings;
b) prepare the provisional agenda for the meetings in accordance with Rule 4;
c) make all necessary arrangements, including secretarial assistance, for the meetings of
the Steering Committee and its subsidiary bodies;
d) prepare reports of the meetings; and
e) perform such other functions and tasks entrusted to it by the Steering Committee.
Rule 8. Conduct of business
1. A majority of the members shall constitute quorum.
2. Proposals shall normally be introduced in writing and submitted to the Secretariat, which
shall circulate them to the members.
3. The decisions of any meeting shall be taken by consensus.
4. Between meetings, any proposal for a decision falling within the competence of the Steering
Committee shall be circulated in writing by the Secretariat to all members with a specified
deadline for reply.
5. A written decision shall be taken by consensus subject that all members reply.
Rule 9. Subsidiary bodies
1. The Steering Committee may establish any subsidiary body if it deems it necessary.
2. The Rules of Procedure of any such Subsidiary body shall be, mutatis mutandis, those of
the Steering Committee.
Rule 10. Languages
The working languages of the Steering Committee shall be English and Russian.
Rule 11. Participation of Observers
1. The Steering Committee may invite observers to participate in its meetings.
2. The observers may participate, without the right to participate in decision-making, in the
deliberations of the Steering Committee and its subsidiary bodies, if any, upon the invitation of
the Chairperson, as the case may be, on question within their competence or scope of activities.
3. Observers may, upon invitation of the Chairperson, submit written statements that shall be
circulated by the Secretariat to the members of the Steering Committee or of the subsidiary body
concerned.
111
Rule 12. Amendments and Suspension
Any of these rules may be amended or suspended by the Steering Committee in accordance
with Rule 8.
112
2.1
2.2 ANNEX 3: DRAFT APPLICATION FOR DECISION ON
FORMAL STATUS OF NEW PROJECT
UNDER THE UMBRELLA OF THE
CASPIAN ENVIRONMENT PROGRAM
STATUS DESIRED:
UMBRELLA STATUS_________
ASSOCIATE STATUS_________
DATE OF APPLICATION: _______________________
APPLICANT: __________________________________
CONTACT INFORMATION FOR APPLICANT (ADDRESS, PHONE, FAX, EMAIL, ETC.):
____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
FULL PROJECT TITLE: _____________________________________________________
SOURCE OF FUNDS: _______________________________________________________
LEVEL OF FUNDING: ______________________________________________________
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ATTACH ONE-PAGE DESCRIPTION
PROJECT START DATE: __________________________
PROJECT DURATION: __________________________
MODALITY OF INTERACTION WITH THE CEP:
STEERING COMMITTEE: _____________________________________________
PROGRAMME COORDINATION UNIT: _________________________________
REGIONAL ADVISORY GROUPS: ______________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
REGIONAL EXPERTS_________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________PAG
E 1 OF 2
REQUIREMENTS FOR ASSISTANCE FROM THE CEP (PCU, PERMITS, LICENSES,
CUSTOMS, ETC.): __________________________________________________________
113
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
Please send this Application to the Programme Coordination Unit:
Programme Coordinator
Email: caspian@caspian.in-baku.com
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OF KAZAKHSTAN
Date: 08.10.2003
# 02-05-CEP/4857
Dear Mr. Ghaffarzadeh,
As you are aware the draft of National Action Plan of the Republic of
Kazakhstan on rehabilitation of Caspian environment for 2003-2012 (NCAP
RK) has been developed by national experts within the framework of the
CEP.
Ministry of Environmental Protection has prepared a section for the State Programme of
Kazakhstan Caspian Sea sector development (KCSS) "Environmental safety provision", which
included actions taken from the NCAP to the amount of 15 951 712 USD.
In connection with it and further to our letter # 02-05 CEP /4114 dated
22.08.03 on co-funding of CEP/GEF, we are glad to inform you that 15 951
712 USD have been allocated for implementation of NCAP transboundary
activities within the first component.
With respect,
S.K.Kesikbayev
First vice-minister
121
122
From: Jan.BEHRENS@cec.eu.int [mailto:Jan.BEHRENS@cec.eu.int]
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 5:46 PM
To: hghaffarzadeh@caspian.in-baku.com; Anna.Bramwell@cec.eu.int
Cc: andrew.hudson@undp.org
Subject: RE: Tacis funding
Dear Hamid,
these are the values:
- Sustainable Management of Caspian Fisheries ( 900, 000 services, 100,000
supply)
- Sustainable development of Caspian coastal communities, Contract is with A.
Bramwell but my firm understanding is the following: ( 900, 000 services, 1,500,000
pilot projects)
Hope this helps
Wishing a good weekend
Jan
-----Original Message-----
From: Hamid Ghaffarzadeh [mailto:hghaffarzadeh@caspian.in-baku.com]
Sent: vendredi 22 août 2003 12:39
To: BEHRENS Jan (AIDCO); BRAMWELL Anna (AIDCO)
Cc: Andrew Hudson (E-mail)
Subject: Tacis funding
Dear Colleagues
Could you please confirm that EU/Tacis will provide funding of approximately Euro 3.5 millions for the
following projects in support of CEP:
- Sustainable Management of Caspian Fisheries
- Sustainable development of caspian coastal communities
This confirmation is required for GEF internal processing of CEP/GEF II project.
Best regards
Hamid
Hamidreza Ghaffarzadeh
Environmental Economist
WB162478
M:\ProjectDocs\International Waters\REGIONAL-CASPIAN SEA Addressing Transboundary Env. Issue in the Caspian Phase II\10-
14-03 CEP Annex G H I.doc
October 15, 2003 6:57 PM
123