PIR-APR for GEF 04 IW_DRP2004-Final.doc
ANNUAL PROJECT REPORT (APR)
FOR UNDP/GEF PROJECTS
2004
OFFICIAL TITLE:
Strengthening the Implementation Capacities for Nutrient Reduction and
Transboundary Cooperation in the Danube River Basin
(Short name: Danube Regional Project Phase 1)
COUNTRY:
Bosnia & Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Moldova,
Romania, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Ukraine
UNDP PROJECT NUMBER:
RER/01/G32/A/1G/31
GEF PROJECT NUMBER:
2184
DATE OF REPORT: 30 / 06 / 2004 DATE OF LAST APR: 31 / 01 / 2003
1. BASIC PROJECT IDENTIFIERS- Please enter all date (DD/MM/YEAR)
FOCAL AREA
International Waters
OPERATIONAL PROGRAMME
GEF Operational Strategy for International Waters/
Waterbody-Based Operational Programme (#8)
DATE OF ENTRY IN WP
May 11, 2001
PRODOC SIGNATURE DATE
19 December 2001 (last obtained signature)
DURATION (MONTHS)
Phase 1: 24 months
DATE OF FIRST DISBURSEMENT 1
December 2001
CLOSING DATE
Original:
Revised 1:
Revised 2:
1.1 BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION. (To be filled by Regional Coordinating Unit)
As it appears in PIMS. Please adjust if required.
The Regional Project contributes to sustainable human development in the DRB and to the wider Black Sea area
through reinforcing the capacities of the participating countries in developing effective mechanisms for regional
cooperation and coordination in order to ensure protection of international waters, sustainable management of natural
resources and biodiversity
Has it been adjusted? :
YES:
NO: x
2: IMPACTS AND RESULTS RELATED TO THE NEW GEF STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
A set of questions specific for GEF IW projects has been designed. . Please fill out Section 2 on impacts and results
after question 11 of the standard APR questionnaire.
1 To be filled in Headquarters
08/ 17/ 04
1
PIR-APR for GEF 04 IW_DRP2004-Final.doc
3. PROJECT PERFORMANCE
SRF Goal (*):
Environmentally sustainable development to reduce human poverty
SRF Sub Goal (*)
Strategic Area of Support (*)
(*) The UNDP Country Office will fill out these fields
3.1 OBJECTIVE
The specific objective of Phase 1 of the Project is to prepare and initiate basin-wide capacity-building activities with particular attention to creation of inter-ministerial
committees, concept development for implementation of policies, legal and economic instruments, mechanisms for monitoring and evaluation and development of
programmes for awareness raising and NGO strengthening.
Indicator 1
Value in
Mid-term
End of Project
2003 Measure
2004
Last year This year
year 0
Target
Target (Year 2003)
Measure
Rating
Rating2
(2001)
(Year 2002)
(2002)
(2003)
In the 1st phase of the
Outline of
All project
Concepts for
Concepts and methodologies Finalization HS
HS
project capacity-building
needs for
activities has implementation of
for all project components
of
activities are initiated,
concepts,
been initiated policies, legal and
have been discussed prepared outstanding
prepared for
methodolog - draft of
economic
in cooperation with the
project
implementation in the 2nd ies and
concepts,
instruments,
ICPDR and other key
activities
phase of the project, in
other
methodologi
mechanisms for
stakeholders.
particular focusing on
capacity-
es and
monitoring and
Designated capacity building
inter-ministerial
building
preparation
evaluation,
activities have been initiated
coordination mechanisms, activities in for capacity
methodologies,
and the training needs
concept development for
the frame
building
programs for
assessment finalized, as the
implementation of
of the
activities
increase of public
basis for training
policies, legal and
Danube
available
participation and
programmes of the 2nd phase
economic instruments,
Convention
capacity building
of the project
mechanisms for
was
activities are
The Danube Environmental
monitoring and evaluation identified
prepared, ready for
Forum (DEF) network was
and development of
in the
implementation in
strengthened and expanded
programmes for
Project
the 2nd phase of the
and a strategic plan has been
awareness raising and
Document
project.
formulated, training activities
NGO strengthening.
have been initiated.
Overall rating
HS
2 Ratings. HS: Highly Satisfactory / S: Satisfactory / MS: marginally Satisfactory / U: Unsatisfactory. Please refer to Instruction Sheet for definition of each
rating.
08/ 17/ 04
2
PIR-APR for GEF 04 IW_DRP2004-Final.doc
Project Comment on rating
CO Comment
RC Comment
PTA Comment
3.2 OUTCOMES. -
Outcome 1: Creation of sustainable ecological conditions for land use and water management
Value in year Mid-term
End of Project
2003 Measure
2004
Last
This
0
Target
Target
Measure
year
year
(2001)
(Year 2002)
Year 2003)
Rating Rating
Indicator 1: All Danube
Outline of
Project activities
Reviews on
HS
4
Almost all project activities
Finalization
HS
River Basin countries
needs for
initiated and
policies and legal
are under full
of
have reviewed policies
concepts,
harmonized with
instruments in
implementation and
outstanding
and legal instruments in
methodologies the ICPDR work
relation to
harmonized in the ICPDR
project
relation to ecological
and other
related to
ecological land
Expert Groups and their
activities
land use (River Basin
capacity-
RBMP, economic use (River Basin
Work-Programmes. In 2003
Management) and water building
analysis,
Management) and the project activities are
management and have
activities in
typology, GIS,
water
finalized, related to River
prepared mechanisms to
the frame of
public
management are
Basin Management,
adapt their national
the Danube
participation,
available and
economic analysis, typology,
legislation to
Convention
concepts and
mechanisms are
ecological classification,
international and EU
was identified
methodologies for prepared to adapt
GIS, groundwater assessment
standards.
in the Project
polices and legal
national
and public participation,
Document
instruments for
legislation to
concepts and methodologies
agriculture,
international and
related to polices and legal
industry and
EU standards.
instruments for agriculture,
wetlands
Results of these
industry and wetlands
restoration
activities are basis restoration, the analysis and
for the 2nd phase
concepts for water tariffs and
of the project
charges.
3 Please use the same format to report on additional outcomes in case the project has more than three.
4 Ratings. HS: Highly Satisfactory / S: Satisfactory / MS: marginally Satisfactory / U: Unsatisfactory. Please refer to Instruction Sheet for definition of each
rating
08/ 17/ 04
3
PIR-APR for GEF 04 IW_DRP2004-Final.doc
Outcome 2:Capacity building and reinforcement of transboundary cooperation for the improvement of water quality and environmental standards in the
Danube River Basin
Value in year 0 Mid-term
End of Project
2003 Measure
2004
Last
This
(2001)
Target
Target
Measure year
year
(Year 2002)
Year (2003)
Rating Rating
Indicator 1: Operational
Outline of
Project
Interministerial
All project activities were under
none
HS
HS
mechanisms for the
needs for
activities
coordination
full implementation and
monitoring of water
concepts,
initiated and
mechanisms are
coordinated with work of the
pollution and control of
methodologies harmonized
assessed in all
ICPDR EGs.
emissions from point and and other
with the
countries.
non-point sources and a
capacity-
ICPDR work The ICPDR
The project supported the ICPDR
reliable information
building
related to
information
Information System Danubis,
system under the ICPDR activities in
monitoring,
system is
through hardware upgrades of
are designed and ready
the frame of
laboratory and
upgraded and
national systems as well as the
for implementation at the the Danube
information
national experts
scope of training programmes for
regional and national
Convention
management,
trained.
users at national and regional level
level to assess
was identified
accident
Results of
- training courses were carried out
improvement of water
in the Project
emergency
activities related
in all 11 countries.
quality and nutrient
Document
response,
to monitoring,
Activities related to the TNMN
reduction in the Black
ICPDR
laboratory and
(Danube Water Quality Network),
Sea.
information
information
EMIS Inventory Harmonization
system,
management,
(Danube pollution in ventories) and
training
accident
Accident Emergency Response
emergency
(Danube Accident and Early
response are basis Warning System) were finalized
for the 2nd phase
and will serve as a basis for full
of the project
implementation of improvements in
Phase 2.
The Joint Danube-Black Sea
Technical Working Group
continued its activities in line with
its Work Plan.
08/ 17/ 04
4
PIR-APR for GEF 04 IW_DRP2004-Final.doc
Outcome 3: Strengthening of public involvement in environmental decision-making and reinforcement of community actions for pollution reduction and
protection of ecosystems
Value in year 0 Mid-term Target End of Project 2003 Measure
2004
Last
This
(2001)
(Year 2002)
Target
Measure year
year
Year 2003)
Rating Rating
Indicator 1:
Outline of
Project activities
DEF Secretariat All project activities to strengthen none
HS
HS
The Secretariat of the
needs for
initiated related
and network are public involvement were under
Danube Environmental
concepts,
to DEF
fully operational full implementation.
Forum (DEF) is fully
methodologies Strengthening
and ready for
The Strategy and a workplan for
operational and national
and other
(DEF
the 2nd phase
reinforcing the DEF was
representations exist in
capacity-
publications, web, activities. 1st
implemented amongst NGOs in
all Danube countries.
building
trainings, etc.),
call for national
all Danube countries.
National NGOs are
activities in
Small Grants
and regional
Following the first DEF General
involved in project
the frame of
Programme and
Small Grants
Assembly, held in October 02, 11
preparation and have
the Danube
Communication
Programme is
national DEF meetings were
identified community-
Convention
finalized and
organized between April-June
based nutrient reduction
was identified
projects ready to 2003 including training on
projects to be financed
in the Project
start.
nutrient reduction measures.
under the GEF Small
Document
Concept for
The Small Grants Programme
Grants Programme and
Communication (SGP) is being designed together
have prepared at least two
Strategy
with the Regional Environmental
national awareness-
Results of these Centre (REC), the sub-contractor
raising campaigns.
activities are
with involvement of regional
basis for the 2nd NGOs, DEF and the WWF.
phase of the
The first call for proposals was be
project
ready in March 2003. By
November 2003, the national and
regional projects were selected
and ready for full implementation
in all 11 countries with funding
that should be made available in
Phase 2.
08/ 17/ 04
5
PIR-APR for GEF 04 IW_DRP2004-Final.doc
Outcome 4: Reinforcement of monitoring, evaluation and information systems to control transboundary pollution and to reduce nutrients and
hazardous substances
Value in year 0
Mid-term
End of Project
2003 Measure
2004
Last
This
Target
Target
Measure
year
year
(Year 2002)
Year (2003)
Rating Rating
Indicator 1: The ICPDR
Outline of needs Project activities System of
Almost all project activities Finalization HS
HS
has conceptualized and
for concepts,
initiated and
Indicators for
were under full
of
developed its monitoring methodologies
harmonized with project
implementation and
outstanding
and evaluation system
and other
the ICPDR work monitoring and
coordinated with work of
project
and has identified the
capacity-
related to
impact
the ICPDR EGs.
activities
indicators for pollution
building
indicators,
assessment
reduction and
activities in the
monitoring of
developed.
Project support for the
environmental status;
frame of the
wetland nutrient
Methodologies
development of monitoring
knowledge on removal of Danube
reduction
for the
and evaluation system and
nutrients and toxic
Convention
capacities and
monitoring of
identification of indicators
substances is increased
were identified
economic
nutrient reduction have been harmonized with
and economic
in the Project
instruments for
in wetlands are
the requirements of the EU
instruments to encourage Document
nutrient
prepared as the
Water Framework
investments for nutrient
reduction
basis for pilot
Directive (WFD) via the
reduction are developed
programmes in
harmonization with the
at the national and
phase 2.
ICPDR Work Plan for
regional level.
Report on
producing the Danube
economic
River Basin Management
instruments for
Plan.
nutrient reduction Appropriate methodologies
at the national
for the monitoring of
and regional level nutrient reduction in
is available.
wetlands were assessed,
guidelines prepared as the
basis for establishing pilot
monitoring programmes in
phase 2.
Overall rating
HS
08/ 17/ 04
6
PIR-APR for GEF 04 IW_DRP2004-Final.doc
3.3 WORK PLAN
TIMING
For outcomes rated MS or U please describe priority Actions planned for the following reporting period to
overcome constrains
ISSUE/CONSTRAINT:
Date Entered:
PRIORITY ACTION:
Expected
BY WHOM
Completion:
ISSUE/CONSTRAINT:
Date Entered:
PRIORITY ACTION:
Expected
BY WHOM
Completion:
ISSUE/CONSTRAINT:
Date Entered:
PRIORITY ACTION:
Expected
BY WHOM
Completion:
3.4 RISKS.
Risk Description
Describe Status of Risk at
Describe Status Last Year Describe Status this Year
Rating*
start of project (Year 0)
A The ICPDR countries will not all Not all countries, in
The GEF Project and the
Particular support was given to non-
M
participate in implementing legal particular EU non-accession
ICPDR provided
accession countries to overcome
and institutional mechanisms for
countries have sufficient
administrative and
administrative and technical
pollution reduction and
resources to participate in
technical support to the
constraints in developing necessary
sustainable water management.
activities relevant to the EU
countries to fulfill their
legal and institutional mechanisms
In particular, there is a risk that
WFD implementation.
obligation for EU WFD
for pollution reduction, thus enabling
common approach in EU WFD
implementation.
them to fulfil timely the major tasks
implementation will not be
to implement the EU WFD.
undertaken by all countries
participating in the ICPDR.
B
Not all national experts are
Some countries do not
National commitment and
The project facilitated the use the
M
proactively participating in the
actively participate at the
national capacities to
ICPDR Information System
implementation of the DRPC
ICPDR activities due to lack
provide required good
(Danubis) through providing
and Governments have not
of human, technical and
quality data was reinforced
equipment at national and central
provided sufficient funding for
financial resources as well as by the technical assistance
level, and through training programs
the operation of national Info
unequal quality,
given to the respective
to improve users skills.
System.
comparability and
ICPDR Expert Groups,
compatibility of national
through active participation
data.
and involvement of national
experts and national
08/ 17/ 04
7
PIR-APR for GEF 04 IW_DRP2004-Final.doc
Risk Description
Describe Status of Risk at
Describe Status Last Year Describe Status this Year
Rating*
start of project (Year 0)
institutions in the execution
of the project and through
capacity-building activities
of the DRP. Particular
support was given to the
non-accession countries.
C
The DEF has not the necessary
The activities of the DEF
The project provided
The DEF organized 11 national level L
personnel and commitment to
were minimized due to
support for the
training workshops for the training of
play its role efficiently in the
limited funding.
strengthening of the DEF
NGOs at regional and national level,
Danube River Basin.
network, in particular DEF
with focus on nutrients reduction.
National Focal Points and
Comprehensive Communications
for improvement of the
network structures and
strategy was under development that
information flow (webpage, will effectively identify and prioritize
activities to be organized throughout
newsletter, leaflet, email
exchange networks etc.).
phase 2 that will lead to greater
involvement of governments and
NGOs in pollution reduction
activities.
D Cooperation of all countries and
The countries have different The countries have
The project prepared a system of
M
organizations, in particular the
methodologies for
commitment to undertake
indicators for project monitoring and
EU, in the development and
interpretation of project
common approach in EU
impact evaluation that will be used
application of indicators for
results and a system of
WFD implementation, i.e.
by the ICPDR to monitor and
project monitoring and
indicators.
to use common system of
evaluate impact of pollution
evaluation is insufficient.
indicators in line with the
reduction measures.
WFD.
Additional Risks or unexpected problems encountered during the last year of implementation
E
F
(*) H= High ; S= Substantial ; M=Modest ; L= Low. Please refer to Instruction sheet for definition of ratings for risks
Please describe actions taken or planned to manage High and Substantial risks
08/ 17/ 04
8
PIR-APR for GEF 04 IW_DRP2004-Final.doc
4. ADJUSTMENTS TO ORIGINAL PROJECT STRATEGY
Indication of any major adjustments in strategies, targets and outcomes.
a. Have the project's expected outcomes changed in the course of implementation?
There were no changes in the expected outcomes of the project
b. Explain how and when changes were made.
Not applicable
c. Was the logical framework matrix of the project updated to reflect changes in activities/outputs/objectives?
Not applicable
d. Has this affected the project's objectives or overall goal?
Not applicable
5. LESSONS
5.1 Are there lessons that could benefit the design or the implementation of other GEF-funded projects? Please
list up to three and indicate which one/s could be worth of developing case studies
a. Excellent Cooperation with the ICPDR and its structures (co-executing agency and primary beneficiary) and
Improving Administrative and Technical Capacities to Cooperate. The ICPDR was formed to implement the
Danube River Protection Convention (DRPC) and is since 2000 the platform for coordinating the implementation
of the EU WFD in the DRB.
The cooperation between the DRP and the ICPDR is excellent as the GEF project continues proactively working
together with the ICPDR at various levels, the Secretariat, the respective ICPDR Expert Groups and respective
National Governments. The project participates, together with relevant contractors where appropriate, in all
Expert Groups Meetings organized by the ICPDR. In this way the GEF Project has the full overview and
understanding and can thereby provide the best assistance and input to the further development of the work.
Further, these commonly implemented activities serve to improve administrative and technical capacities at the
National level based on guidelines and requirements set by the ICPDR and the Project. In this way, the GEF
project plays a catalytic role in stimulating DRB countries to meet their commitments to the DRPC and
increasingly the WFD. This encourages national governments to develop appropriate structures for regional
cooperation which is facilitating the strengthening of good governance in the Danube River Basin.
Linking Global Environment issues to EU Water Framework Directive. A key lesson learned is the benefit of a
close link between global environmental objectives and an appropriate legislative framework. The EU WFD
represents, perhaps, the most comprehensive water legislation in the world. It provides an excellent basis for the
implementation of the DRP given commonly shared principles such as a basin-wide holistic approach, ecosystem
management etc. By linking project activities closely with the WFD and its implementation, the DRP is both
increasing the ability to meet global environmental objectives in the frame of the project, but also establishing the
basis for the sustainability of project results as well as the mechanisms for ongoing improvements after the life of
the project.
b. Appropriate Level of Public Participation. The DRP has put a large emphasis on supporting increased public
participation in DRB cooperation. An important lesson learned is that it is critical to focus on developing
appropriate public participation mechanisms and strategies given specific level of activity (regional, national,
sub-basin, local.) The DRP is developing grassroots level (bottoms-up) activities via the Small Grants
Programme, as well as is supporting the development of the Danube Environmental Forum (DEF) which, as a
regional network is capable of working at all levels, sub-basin, national or local levels through its constituent
members. The provisions of the WFD provide an opportunity, based on legislative requirements, to enhance
public participation within the frame of the ICPDR and its parties for the first time. This will occur concretely by
incorporating adequate public participation activities and mechanisms into the process for developing the Danube
River Basin Management Plan. Emphasis here will be first at the regional (ICPDR or top) level. However,
guidance will also be developed, to assist national governments to incorporate public participation in river basin
management at the sub-basin, national and local levels. In addition to the above -mentioned activities, there are
08/ 17/ 04
9
PIR-APR for GEF 04 IW_DRP2004-Final.doc
considerations to develop a specific project component to improve access to information for key stakeholders and
to enhance their abilities to address priority sources of pollution (hot spots) in the DRB.
c. Developing Appropriate Training Activities. By first undertaking a training needs assessment, the DRP
learned that training activities need to build institutional capacities (ICPDR, DEF etc.) as well as to build
technical capacities (nutrient reduction, wetland rehabilitation, reduction of toxic substances etc.) to assure
increase of knowledge and capacity to act for water management and pollution control. The training needs
assessment also served as the basis to prioritize training needs given limited resources (human and financial.)
5.2 Have these lessons been exchanged with other GEF or NON-GEF-funded projects? If so, please list the
projects and describe the process.
The project hosted the TumenNET (RAS/98/G31/A/31) study tour visit in 2002 and visit from Peipsi Center
for Transboundary Cooperation in the frame of the GEF IW LEARN Inter-Project Stakeholder Exchange Pilot
Program in 2003.
The project web page has been established in early stage of the project, in order to disseminate existing available
documentation related to the project, as well as to inform the stakeholders, the public and other projects on the
context of the project and progress of implementation.
6. PARTNERSHIP STRATEGIES
This section refers to collaboration among institutions to achieve mutually shared or agreed upon objectives and
goals that draws on individual strengths and maximizes synergies. For the purpose of this report partners are
understood as those that either: i) cooperate with the project (through in kind, or financial collaboration); or ii)
are subcontracted providers of project services.
6.1 Please provide the following information
Partner Full Name
Type (*)
Role (*)
$ Value
(Do not give acronym only!)
Contributed Contracted
(leveraged)
ICPDR
MULTI In-kind cooperation
Danube Environmental Forum NGO
Sub-contractor
229,264
Regional Environmental
NGO
Sub-contractor
121,375
Center
WWF Danube-Carpathian
NGO
Sub-contractor
266,810
Programme
(*) Please refer to Instruction sheet for guidelines on how to fill out this section.
6.2 Please describe any changes on partnership strategy (if any) from previous year
There were no changes in partnership strategies of the Project
6.3 Additional information on Private Sector Involvement.
This refers to companies that contribute to a project as opposed to receiving financing from it as subcontractors.
1. What economic sector does the company work in (e.g. tourism, fisheries, forestry, agriculture)?
2. How is the company contributing to project objectives?
3. How is the company being involved in project implementation?
4. What benefit is the company deriving from contributing to the project?
5. If the project has not involved companies but could benefit from their resources please explain, given sufficient
resources, what could be done within the project to develop such involvement?
08/ 17/ 04
10
PIR-APR for GEF 04 IW_DRP2004-Final.doc
7. PROJECT SUSTAINABILITY
7.1
a) What are the key changes brought about (or that will be brought about) by the project which must
be maintained into the future.?
1) Capacity Building. A specific challenge is that capacity building needs in the DRB, and with key Danube
stakeholders far exceed the resources (and the scope) of the DRP. The project is responding to this challenge by
first developing a comprehensive training needs assessment as the basis for setting priorities and then
developing and conducting appropriate training and capacity building activities. However in the future, further
capacity building / training of ICPDR experts will be on responsibility of the ICPDR itself
2) Ensuring that the Capacities of NGOs are enhanced by the Implementation of the Small Grants Programme
(SGP.) It has been a challenge to design and structure the SGP such that it maximizes the potential to strengthen
DRB NGOs at both the national as well as the regional level in their capacity to address pollution reduction
issues. The project has placed a particular effort to integrate the Danube Environmental Forum (DEF) into SGP
implementation.
3) The testing and application of newly developed tools and methodologies (e.g. new AEWS software...) is
supported by the Project. Further use and necessary update will be under the responsibility of ICPDR and Danube
countries.
7.2 What are the critical conditions that must be maintained in order for these changes to be sustained?
Please refer to instructions for additional guidance.
Condition Required
Indications that it will be maintained
1) Continuation of the
The Danube countries are committed to implement the Danube River Protection
ICPDR activities
Convention, therefore the ICPDR, that has been created to implement the convention,
will continue its operation. The project activities are harmonized with the work plans
of the ICPDR and its Expert Groups. This ensures that the project is part of the
existing structures and the project results will be further utilized and developed.
2)
etc
7.3
a. Does the project make use of a micro-finance facility?
NO
b. If so, was such a facility developed specifically for the project, or was an existing one used? How
effective is it?
8. NON-PROJECT ASSISTANCE PROVIDED BY CO AND UNDP/GEF IN CONNECTION WITH
THE PROJECT
This section aims to identify activities carried out by UNDP (either the country office or the GEF unit) that were
not a part of the project, or which resulted from an unanticipated problem, but that have directly contributed
towards the achievement of project objectives. It encompasses activities such as advocacy, policy dialogue, and
knowledge management efforts. If soft assistance is not an issue for the project or too sensitive to address, this
section can be left empty.
08/ 17/ 04
11
PIR-APR for GEF 04 IW_DRP2004-Final.doc
9. MONITORING AND EVALUATION
Comments
CO Field Visit
LAST:
NEXT:
UNDP GEF Field Visit
LAST:
NEXT:
Tripartite Review
LAST: 21.2.2004
NEXT: 17.9.2004
Mid-Term Evaluation
PLANNED:
DONE: 14.4. 26.5. 2004
Final Evaluation
PLANNED:
DONE:
Other (*)
(*) Please explain whether the project has been subject to any additional review e.g. Country Evaluations,
GEF Specially Managed Project Review (SMPR), GEF Thematic Reviews.
10. FINANCIAL INFORMATION
Please present all financial values in US$ millions (e.g. 3,502,000 = 3.502)
10.1 PROJECT FUNDING. Please present all financial values in US$ millions (e.g. 3,502,000 = 3.502)
G
Equity
RANT
Loans (*)
Credits
In -kind
TOTAL
invest.
A. GEF
P
FUNDING
A
5.000
5.000
B. CO-FINANCING:
P
UNDP (TRAC) A
P
UN AGENCY
A
P
GOVERNMENT A
6.600
6.600
BILATERAL
P
DONORS
A
MULTILATERAL P
DONORS
A
REGIONAL
P
BANKS
A
NON-GOVERN. P
ORG.
A
PRIVATE
P
SECTOR
A
P
OTHER
A
TOTAL
P
CO-FINANCING A
6.600
PROPOSED
TOTAL FUNDING
ACTUAL 11.500
P=Proposed ; A=Actual
(*) Concessional or market rate
08/ 17/ 04
12
PIR-APR for GEF 04 IW_DRP2004-Final.doc
10.2 PROJECT DISBURSEMENTS. From project start up to date of this report
Cumulative actual disbursement ($millions)
5.000
Cumulative planned disbursement ($millions)(*) 5.000
Disbursements ratio
100% vs 100%
(% of actual vs. planned expenditures)
(*) As stated in original budget in PRODOC
11. PROCUREMENT DATA
Note : For projects or project components executed by UNOPS this section must not be filled in - data will
be provided by UNOPS headquarters-.
Please report the US$ value (in Thousands) of UNDP/GEF Payments to Supplying Countries for
Procurement in GEF Donor Countries. Please enter Project expenditure from project start up to the date of
this report into the matrix against the donor country supplying the personnel, sub-contract, equipment
and training to the project. Please report only on contracts over US$ 2000.
Supplying Country
Personnel
Sub-contracts
Equipment
Training
Total
(only donor countries)
(in US$)
(in US$)
(in US$)
(in US$)
(in US$)
Austria
$94,655
$398,440
Denmark
$285,000
Finland
$28,050
Germany
$55,391
$698,367
Netherlands
$34,650
$16,400
Norway
$192,076
United States
$356,082
Sweden
$29,100
08/ 17/ 04
13
PIR-APR for GEF 04 IW_DRP2004-Final.doc
IMPACTS AND RESULTS RELATED TO THE NEW GEF STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
1. Indicate what is the intervention type(s) the project addresses.
Trans-boundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA)
Strategic Action Programme (SAP)
Demonstration
x
Scientific Assessment
Knowledge Management
x
National Reform
Regional Reform
x
Regional Inst. Development
x
SAP Implementation
Other
2. Indicate which OP or Ops project falls under.
OP8
x
OP9
OP10
For OP8 and OP9 projects, respond questions 2 8.
For OP 10 projects go to question 9.
Coverage Indicators specific for OP8 and OP9.
3. Is the project concerned with a Large Marine Ecosystem
a. Large marine ecosystem go to question 4
b. Fresh water basin
x go to question 5
c. Aquifer
go to question 6
08/ 17/ 04
14
PIR-APR for GEF 04 IW_DRP2004-Final.doc
4. Indicate the code of the LME the project is concerned with.
LAC
Code
Africa
Code
Asia
Code
California Current
1
Mediterránea Sea
11
Bay of Bengal
18
Gulf of Ca lifornia
2
Canary Current
13
Gulf of Thailand
19
Gulf of Mexico
3
Guinea Current
14
South China Sea
20
Pacific Central America Coast
4
Benguela Current
15
Sulu-Celebes Sea
21
Caribbean Sea
5
Aqulhas Current
16
Indonesia Sea
22
Humboldt Current
6
Somali Costal Current
17
East China Sea
23
Patagonia Shelf
7
West Asia
Code
Yellow Sea
24
South Brazil Shelf
8
Arabian Sea
26
Sea of Japan
25
East Brazil Shelf
9
Red Sea
27
Eastern Europe
Code
North Brazil Shelf
10
Baltic Sea
28
Black Sea
30
5. Indicate the code of the name international river basin and subbasin if appropriate.
Name of Basin:
The Danube River Basin
Name of Sub-basin:
6. Indicate the code for the aquifer (Table to be completed)
Name of Aquifer
7. Indicate what are the mayor treats that the project addresses.
Threat Addressed by Project Component
-
Pollutants
x
-
Over-fishing
-
Land Degradation
-
Habitat Destruction
-
Excessive Water Withdrawals
-
Invasive Species
8. Indicate the geographical region where the project is taken place.
Regions
Africa
East Asia and Pacific
Europe and Central Asia
x
Latin America & Caribbean
Middle East and North Africa
South Asia
08/ 17/ 04
15
PIR-APR for GEF 04 IW_DRP2004-Final.doc
Coverage indicators specific for OP10
Coverage indicators for OP10 must reflect the fact that they are not focused on threats to a particular
transboundary waterbody but at demonstrating particular approaches to reducing the threat of
contamination of waterbodies globally.
9. Is this a demonstration project
a. Yes
b. No
10. Does the project address a global contaminant.
a. Yes
b. No
11. What type of global contaminant does the project address.
Name of contaminant 1:
Name of contaminant 2:
Name of contaminant 3:
Name of contaminant 4:
12. Does the project address a Ship related contaminant
c. Yes
d. No
13. What type of ship related contaminant does the project address.
Name of contaminant 1:
Name of contaminant 2:
Name of contaminant 3:
Name of contaminant 4:
Name of contaminant 5:
Name of contaminant 6:
Name of contaminant 7:
Name of contaminant 8:
08/ 17/ 04
16
PIR-APR for GEF 04 IW_DRP2004-Final.doc
14. Does the project include as a major objective technical support.
e. Yes
f. No
15. What subject of technical support does the project address (Table to be completed).
Subject 1:
Subject 2:
Subject 3:
Subject 4:
Subject 5:
Subject 6:
Subject 7:
Subject 8:
08/ 17/ 04
17
PIR-APR for GEF 04 IW_DRP2004-Final.doc
II. Process Outcome Indicators.
1. Process Outcome Indicators for Transboundary Diagnostic Analyses (TDA)
NOT APPLICABLE*
* The TDA and SAP are not subjects of the current UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project (DRP) . The TDA and the
SAP (1994) was carried during the previous UNDP/GEF Danube Pollution Reduction Programme (1997-1999).
Please select the condition that most clearly described the situation of the TDA:
Government Involvement (TDA):
Issue
Criteria
Select one
-TDA has endorsement by the chiefs of state of all governments.
-All governments have provided necessary staff and funding for the country's TDA-
Degree to which
related activities.
governments
support and endorse
-TDA has endorsement of all governments at the chief or state or ministerial level.
the
-One government has not provided necessary staffing and/or financial support for
TDA
the country's TDA -related activities.
-TDA has endorsement of all but one government.
-More than one but less than half the governments have not provided necessary
staffing and/or financial support to the country's TDA -related activities.
-More than one government has not endorsed the TDA.
-Half or more of governments have not provided necessary staffing an/or financial
support for the country's TDA-related activities
Stakeholder Participation (TDA)
Issue
Criteria
Select One
-Stakeholder analysis has been carried out and has identified all significant
stakeholders.
Degree to which
-Public stakeholder participation plan is fully implemented and documented.
the process
-All significant stakeholders feel they have been adequately consulted.
incorporates
stakeholders
-Stakeholder analysis carried out but has not identified all significant stakeholders.
-Not all of public stakeholder participation plan is implemented or documented.
-All but a few stakeholders feel they have been adequately consulted.
-Stakeholder analysis has been carried out but has failed to identify several
significant stakeholders.
-Much of the stakeholder participation plan is not implemented.
-A number of stakeholders feel they have not been adequately consulted.
-Stakeholder analysis has not been carried out.
-Governments have not published a detailed plan for stakeholder participation.
-Most stakeholders feel they have not been adequately consulted.
08/ 17/ 04
18
PIR-APR for GEF 04 IW_DRP2004-Final.doc
Sound Information (TDA)
Issue
Criteria
Select One
-Advisory group or other mechanism is established to ensure access to bes t
Degree to which a
available information from all relevant sources. It has adequate resources and meets
process has been
regularly.
established to
-TDA process incorporates most recommendations and information from
access the best
mechanisms and provides feedback to them.
available
-Advisory group or other mechanism is established but resources are inadequate or
information
meetings are sporadic.
-TDA process incorporates some recommendations and information but does not
provide feedback.
-TDA process does not incorporate any recommendation and provides no feedback.
-No advisory group or other mechanism for access to best available information is
established.
Process Results (TDA)
Issue
Criteria
Select One
-TDA analyzes the causes of trans-boundary environmental degradation, specifying
sectors, socio-economic sources, and locations, and identifies options for addressing
Degree to which
them.
TDA analyzes
specific causes and
-TDA analyzes the causes of environmental degradation, specifying sectors, socio-
options for
economic sources, and locations, but does not identify realistic options for
addressing them
addressing them.
-TDA analyzes causes, specifying sectors, socio-economic sources, and locations,
but does not specify sources, location and sectors..
-TDA fails to properly identify root causes nor does it identify sources, locations and
sectors causing problems.
2. Process Indicators for Strategic Action Programmes (SAP)
NOT APPLICABLE*
* The TDA and SAP are not subjects of the current UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project (DRP) . The TDA and the
SAP (1994) was carried during the previous UNDP/GEF Danube Pollution Reduction Programme (1997-1999).
Government Involvement (SAP)
Issue
Criteria
Select One
-SAP has endorsement by the chiefs of state of all governments.
-All governments have provided necessary staff and funding for the country's
Degree to which
SAP-related activities..
governments
support the
-SAP has endorsement of all governments at the chief or state or ministerial level.
SAP
-One government has not provided necessary staffing and/or financial support for
the country's SAP-related activities.
-One government has not endorsed the SAP.
-More than one but less than half the governments have not provided necessary
staffing and/or financial support to the country's SAP-related activities.
-More than one government has not endorsed the SAP.
-Most governments have not provided necessary staffing an/or financial support
for the country's SAP-related activities.
08/ 17/ 04
19
PIR-APR for GEF 04 IW_DRP2004-Final.doc
Stakeholder Participation (SAP)
Issue
Criteria
Select One
- Stakeholder analysis has been carried out and has identified all significant
stakeholders.
Degree to which the
- Public stakeholder participation plan is fully implemented and documented.
process incorporates
-All significant stakeholders feel they have been adequately consulted.
stakeholders
- Stakeholder analysis carried out but has not identified all significant
stakeholders.
- Not all of public stakeholder participation plan is implemented or implemented.
- All but a few stakeholders feel they have been adequately consulted.
- Stakeholder analysis has been carried out but has failed to identify several
significant stakeholders.
- Much of the stakeholder participation plan is not implemented.
- A number of stakeholders feel they have not been adequately consulted.
- Stakeholder analysis has not been carried out.
- Governments have not published a detailed plan for stakeholder participation.
- Most stakeholders feel they have not been adequately consulted.
Sound Information (SAP)
Issue
Criteria
Select One
- SAP fully reflects information and analysis in TDA.
- Advisory group or other mechanism is established to ensure access to
Degree to which a
information from all relevant sources which is incorporated into the SAP
process has been
established to access
- SAP reflects most information and analysis in TDA.
the best available
- Advisory group or other mechanism is established and some information is
information
incorporated into the SAP
- SAP fails to incorporate TDA information and analysis on several important
points.
- Advisory group or other mechanism is established but little of the information is
incorporated into the SAP.
- SAP fails to reflect most information and analysis in TDA.
- No advisory group or other mechanism for access to best available information is
established
Process Results (SAP)
Issue
Criteria
Select One
For each problem identified in the TDA, the SAP includes commitments to
quantitative targets, timetables for policy/regulatory reform.
Specificity of
commitments to
For one or more problems identified in the TDA, specific commitments to
policy/regulatory
policy/regulatory reforms targets, and timetables have been defined.
reform
No commitments to policy /regulatory reform have specific targets, timetables.
SAP does not include commitments to specific policy/regulatory reforms
addressing all problems identified in the TDA.
08/ 17/ 04
20
PIR-APR for GEF 04 IW_DRP2004-Final.doc
Priority issues addressed by the SAP
What are the key priority issues addressed by the SAP.
Issue 1:
Issue 2:
Issue3:
Issue 4:
Issue 5:
Issue 6:
Issue 7:
Issue 8:
3. Process Indicators for Joint Institutional Arrangements (JIA)
Relevant Institution:
the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR)
Government Involvement (JIA)
Issue
Criteria
Select One
All member governments:
x
- Allocate staff resources to the JIA.
Degree to which
- Assign high level officials to the JIA.
governments
- Have line items for support of the JIA in their budgets.
support the
JIA
One government does not:
- Allocate staff resources in support of the JIA.
- Assign high level officials to the JIA.
- Have a line item in its budget in support of the JIA.
More than one but less than half of the governments do not:
- Allocate staff resources.
- Assign high level officials.
- Have a line item in its budget in support of the JIA.
Most governments do not:
- Allocate staff resources.
- Assign high level officials.
- Have a line item in support of the JIA in its budget.
08/ 17/ 04
21
PIR-APR for GEF 04 IW_DRP2004-Final.doc
Stakeholder Participation (JIA)
Issue
Criteria
Select One
- Stakeholder analysis has been carried out and has identified all significant
x
stakeholders.
Degree to which the
- Public stakeholder participation plan is implemented and documented.
process incorporates
- All significant stakeholders feel they have been adequately consulted.
stakeholders
- Stakeholder analysis carried out but has not identified all significant
stakeholders.
- Not all of public stakeholder participation plan is implemented or documented.
- All but a few stakeholders feel they have been adequately consulted.
- Stakeholder analysis has been carried out but has failed to identify several
significant stakeholders.
- Much of the stakeholder participation plan is not implemented.
- A number of stakeholders feel they have not been adequately consulted.
- Stakeholder analysis has not been carried out.
- Governments have not published a detailed plan for stakeholder participation.
- Most stakeholders feel they have not been adequately consulted.
Sound Information (JIA)
Issue
Criteria
Select One
-Advisory group or other mechanism is established to ensure access to best
x
available information from all relevant sources . It has adequate resources and
Degree to which a
meets regularly.
process has been
-JIA incorporates information from mechanisms into its operations and provides
established to access
feedback to them.
the best available
information
-Advisory group or other mechanism is established but resources are inadequate or
meetings are sporadic.
-JIA incorporates some information from mechanisms into its operations but
provides little or no feedback.
-Advisory group or other mechanism is established but have few resources or
seldom meet.
-JIA does not incorporate any recommendation into its operations and provides no
feedback.
-No advisory group or other mechanism for access to best available information is
established.
Process Results (JIA)
Issue
Criteria
Select One
-JIA has authority to coordinate activities between countries, make policy
x
recommendations to member countries and influences significant policies of
Degree of authority
member states.
and level of staffing
of the JIA
-JIA has adequate full-time staff.
-JIA has formal management authority for management functions but has little
influence on the policies of member states.
-JIA has inadequate full-time staff.
-JIA has formal authority for management functions but has no influence on
policies.
-JIA has little or no full-time staff of its own.
-JIA has no formal management authority.
-JIA has no staff of its own.
08/ 17/ 04
22
PIR-APR for GEF 04 IW_DRP2004-Final.doc
4. Indicators for the Inter-Ministerial Committee Process
Relevant project component is under development (too early to assess):
- Project output 2.1: Setting up of "Inter-ministerial Coordination Mechanisms" for development,
implementation and follow -up of national policies legislation and projects for nutrient reduction and
pollution control
Government Involvement (Inter-Ministerial Committee)
Issue
Criteria
Select One
All relevant ministries support the process by:
-Allocating staff resources
The degree to which
-Assigning a high level official
relevant ministries
-Responding to information requests.
have given political
-Collaborating in the implementation of a plan with targets that are being met.
support to the
process
One relevant ministry does not support the process by failing to:
-Allocate staff resources
-Assign high level officials
-Respond to information requests.
-Targets are not being met.
More than one but less than half the rele vant ministries do not support the process
X
by failing to:
-Allocate staff resources.
-Assign high level officials.
-Respond to information requests.
-No clear targets set.
Most relevant ministries do not support the process by failing to:
-Allocate staff resources
-Assign high level officials
-Respond to information requests.
Stakeholder Participation (Inter-Ministerial Committee)
Issue
Criteria
Select One
- Stakeholder analysis has been carried out and has identified all significant
Degree to which the
stakeholders.
process incorporates
- Detailed public stakeholder participation plan is implemented and documented.
stakeholders
- All significant stakeholders feel they have been adequately consulted.
-Stakeholder analysis carried out but has not identified all significant
X
stakeholders.
- Not all of public stakeholder participation plan is implemented or documented.
- All but a few stakeholders feel they have been adequately consulted.
- Stakeholder analysis has been carried out but has failed to identify several
significant stakeholders.
- Much of the stakeholder participation plan is not implemented.
- A number of stakeholders feel they have not been adequately consulted.
- Stakeholder analysis has not been carried out.
- Governments have not published a detailed plan for stakeholder participation.
- Most stakeholders feel they have not been adequately consulted.
08/ 17/ 04
23
PIR-APR for GEF 04 IW_DRP2004-Final.doc
Sound Information (Inter-Ministerial Committee)
Issue
Criteria
Select One
- Advisory group or other mechanism is established to ensure access to best
Degree to which a
available information from all relevant sources. It has adequate resources and
process has been
meets regularly.
established to access
- Committee incorporates most recommendations and information from
the best available
mechanisms into its deliberations and provides feedback to them.
information and
- Advisory group or other mechanism is established but resources are inadequate
analysis.
or meetings are sporadic.
- Committee incorporates some recommendations and information into its
deliberations but does not provide feedback.
- Advisory group or other mechanism is established but have few resources or
seldom meet.
- Committee does not incorporate any recommendation into tits deliberations and
provides no feedback.
- No advisory group or other mechanism for access to best available information is
established.
Process Results (Inter-Ministerial Committee)
Issue
Criteria
Select One
Committee adopts quantitative targets and, timetables addressing all priority
actions identified in the SAP.
Specificity of
commitments to
Committee adopts targets and timetables for some but not all priority actions
policy/regulatory
identified in the SAP.
reform
Committee adopts commitments to specific policy and regulatory reforms for all
priority actions identified in the SAP but no targets and timetables
Committee does not adopt commitments to specific policy/regulatory reforms for
any priority actions identified in the SAP.
5. Indicators for Mobilizing Resources for agreed activities
Efforts to obtain mobilizing for resources for agreed activities.
- NOT APPLICABLE
Financing found for all investment needs
(100%)
Financing found for most of investment needs.
(>75%)
Financing found for less than half of investment needs
(<50%)
Financing found for few needed investments.
(<25%)
08/ 17/ 04
24
PIR-APR for GEF 04 IW_DRP2004-Final.doc
6. Indicators for Demonstration Activities
Relevant project components are under development (too early to assess):
- Project output 1.3: Development of pilot projects on reduction of nutrients and other harmful substances
from agricultural point-sources
- Project output 1.4: Policy development for wetlands rehabilitation and appropriate land use
- Project output 3.2: Applied awareness raising through community based Small Grants Program
Replication Strategy (Demonstration Activities)
Issue
Criteria
Select One
Replication strategy is in place and elicits strong interest by stakeholder.
Significant replication is taking place and has been documented.
Degree of success of
replication strategy
Replication strategy or plan is in place and elicits interest by stakeholders in
replication, but minimal or no replication taken place or has been documented.
Replication strategy has been developed and adopted but elicits no interest in
replication from stakeholders.
No strategy or plan has been developed aimed at encouraging Replication or no
significant actions have been taken to adopt plan or strategy
Criteria for Success (Demonstration Activities)
Issue
Criteria
Select One
Appropriateness and
Criteria for success are both appropriate and measurable.
measurability of
Criteria for success are appropriate but not measurable.
criteria for
successful
Criteria for success are not appropriate or measurable.
demonstration
No criteria for success of demonstration are adopted.
Monitoring and Evaluation (Demonstration Activities)
Issue
Criteria
Select One
Plan for monitoring and evaluation of succes s results and replication is
implemented in full and data collected has been analyzed.
Effectiveness of
monitoring and
Plan for monitoring and evaluation of success and replication under
evaluation of success
implementation, data is collected but there is no analysis or reporting.
Plan for monitoring and evaluation of success is drafted but not implemented.
No plan for monitoring and evaluation of success is drafted.
08/ 17/ 04
25
PIR-APR for GEF 04 IW_DRP2004-Final.doc
Stakeholder Participation (Demonstration Activities)
Issue
Criteria
Select One
Stakeholder analysis has been carried out and has identified all significant
stakeholders and future adopters have been fully engage in design and
Degree to which the
implementation. Participation has been documented.
process incorporates
stakeholders
Stakeholder analysis carried out and identified all significant stakeholders, and
future adopters.
Some important stakeholders and adopters did not fully participate in design and
implementation.
Not all of stakeholder participation plan is implemented.
Stakeholder analysis carried out but has not identified several significant
stakeholders and future adopters.
Little or no participation of stakeholders and future adopters in design and
implementation-.
Stakeholder analysis has not been carried out.
No significant participation of stakeholders and future adopters in design or
implementation.
08/ 17/ 04
26
PIR-APR for GEF 04 IW_DRP2004-Final.doc
IV.
Indicators for Stress Reduction.
1. Types of Stress Reduction Indicators at the project level.
-
Pollution
x
-
Over-fishing
-
Habitat Loss
-
Excessive Water Withdrawals
-
Land Degradation
-
Invasive Species
2. Program Performance Indicators Related to Stress Reduction.
2.2.1. Progress in Monitoring and Reporting on Selected Environmental Stresses.
Relevant project components are under development (too early to assess):
- Project output 2.2: Development of operational tools for monitoring, laboratory and information
management and for emission analysis from point and non-point sources of pollution
- Project output 2.5: Implementation of the MoU between the ICPDR and the ICPBS relating to
discharges of nutrients and hazardous substances to the Black Sea
- Project output 4.1: Development of indicators for project monitoring and impact evaluation
Process Indicators for Stress Reduction
Issue
Criteria
Select One
Situation of impact
Monitoring systematically gathers and reports relevant data related to the
Monitoring and
baseline. Reported data is adequately documented and analyzed
Reporting
Monitoring plan for stress reduction is under implementation but no data have
been reported or analyzed.
Monitoring plan for stress reductions has been established and adequate staff
budget provided.
No plan for monitoring stress reduction has been established.
3. Progress in Achieving Stress Reduction Objectives.
Relevant project components are under development (too early to assess):
- Project output 2.2: Development of operational tools for monitoring, laboratory and information
management and for emission analysis from point and non-point sources of pollution
- Project output 2.5: Implementation of the MoU between the ICPDR and the ICPBS relating to
discharges of nutrients and hazardous substances to the Black Sea
- Project output 4.1: Development of indicators for project monitoring and impact evaluation
Process Indicators for Stress Reduction
Issue
Criteria
Select one
Stress Reduction:
Project has documented achievements significantly beyond the targeted stress
reduction improvement.
Achievements in
Project has documented achieving or close to achieving the targeted stress
Stress Reduction
reduction improvement.
Progress in achieving stress reduction objectives is on target.
Progress towards achieving stress reduction objectives is significantly behind
targets.
08/ 17/ 04
27
PIR-APR for GEF 04 IW_DRP2004-Final.doc
V.
Indicators for Environmental Status.
1. Indicators for Monitoring and Reporting on Environmental Status.
Relevant project components are under development (too early to assess):
- Project output 2.5: Implementation of the MoU between the ICPDR and the ICPBS relating to
discharges of nutrients and hazardous substances to the Black Sea
- Project output 4.1: Development of indicators for project monitoring and impact evaluation
Environmental Status
Issues
Criteria
Select One
Monitoring systematically gathers, reports and analyzes data related to the
baseline.
Situation of impact
monitoring system
Monitoring plan for environmental status is under implementation but no data
have been reported or analyzed.
Monitoring plan for environmental status has been established and adequate staff
budget provided.
No plan for monitoring environmental status has been established
VI.
Indicators for Results of Scientific Assessments
- NOT APPLICABLE
Accessibility of out come to relevant stakeholders (Scientific Assessment)
Issue
Criteria
Select One
All or nearly all relevant stakeholders are aware of and clearly understand key
Extent to which
finding of the assessment.
information
Most relevant stakeholders are aware and clearly understand key finding of the
generated by
assessment.
scientific assessment
A significant number of relevant stakeholders are unaware of or do not clearly
is relevant to all
understand key findings of the assessment.
stakeholders
Most relevant stakeholders are mostly unaware of or do not understand key
findings of the assessment.
Accessibility of out come to relevant policymakers (Scientific Assessment)
Issue
Criteria
Select One
All or nearly all relevant policymakers are aware of or clearly understand key
finding of the assessment.
Extent to which
information
Most relevant policymakers are aware and clearly understand key finding of the
generated by
assessment.
scientific assessment
A number of relevant policymakers are not aware of or did not clearly understand
is relevant to the
key findings of the assessment.
Policymakers
Most policymakers are not aware of or did not understand key findings of the
assessment.
08/ 17/ 04
28
PIR-APR for GEF 04 IW_DRP2004-Final.doc
Usefulness of out come to relevant policy or programming issues
(Scientific Assessment)
Issue
Criteria
Select One
Usefulness to
Assessment has been cited or used extensively in discussing and making decisions.
relevant policy or
Assessment has been cited and used in several instances in discussing or making
programming issues
decisions.
Assessment has rarely been cited or used in discussing or making decisions, but
only slightly.
Assessment has not been cit ed or used at all in discussing and making decisions.
Contribution of out come to scientific knowledge (Scientific Assessment)
Issue
Criteria
Select One
Contribution to
Assessment clearly represents new scientific knowledge and understanding of
scientific knowledge
issues.
Assessment is consistent with state of the art scientific knowledge and
understanding of issues.
Contribution to scientific knowledge and understanding of issues are unclear or
debatable.
Assessment makes no significant contribution at to scientific knowledge.
Rigor of research methodologies used (Scientific Assessment)
Issue
Criteria
Select One
Rigor of research
Assessment is scientifically sound and draws on state of the art concepts and
methodologies used
methods.
Concepts and knowledge and overall rigor are state of the art. Rigor of
methodologies used are debatable.
Concepts and knowledge are not state of the art. Rigor of methodologies used are
debatable.
Assessment behind state of the art knowledge an methods.
08/ 17/ 04
29
PIR-APR for GEF 04 IW_DRP2004-Final.doc
VII. Indicators for Results of Knowledge Management Activities
Relevant project components are under development (too early to assess):
- Project output 2.4: Support for reinforcement of ICPDR Information and Monitoring System
- Project output 3.3: Organization of public awareness raising campaigns on nutrient reduction
and control of toxic substances
Accessibility to relevant stakeholders (Knowledge Management)
Issue
Criteria
Select One
All or nearly all relevant stakeholders are aware of the information and found it
Extent to which
easy to access and understand.
information generated
Some relevant stakeholders are unaware of the information or information was
by knowledge
found by some diffic ult to access and understand.
management activities
Many relevant stakeholders are unaware of the information or many of those
is relevant to all
aware of the information , difficult to understand.
stakeholders
Very Few relevant stakeholders are aware of the information or find it
accessible and easy to understand.
Accessibility to relevant policymakers (Knowledge Management)
Issue
Criteria
Select One
All or nearly all relevant policy makers are aware of the information and found it
Extent to which
easy to access and understand..
information generated
Some relevant policy makers are unaware of the information or information was
by knowledge
found by some difficult to access and understand.
management activities
Many relevant policy makers are unaware of the information or many of those
is relevant to all
aware of the information , difficult to understand.
policymakers.
Very Few relevant stakeholders are aware of the information or find it
accessible and easy to understand.
Usefulness to Stakeholders (Knowledge Management)
Issue
Criteria
Select One
All relevant stakeholders find the information useful in policymaking.
Extent to which
Most relevant stakeholders find the information useful in policymaking.
management activities
are relevant to
Many relevant stakeholders do not find some of the information useful in
stakeholders.
policymaking.
Few relevant stakeholders find the information useful in policymaking.
Usefulness to relevant policymakers (Knowledge Management)
Issue
Criteria
Select One
All relevant policymakers find some of the information useful in policymaking.
Extent to which
Most all relevant policymakers find some of the information useful in
management activities
policymaking.
are relevant to
Many relevant policymakers do not find some of the information useful in
policymakers.
policymaking.
Few policymakers find the information useful in policymaking.
08/ 17/ 04
30