PIR-APR 05 IW_DanubeRP-final_12-vii-05International Waters
ANNUAL PROJECT REPORT (APR/PIR)
FOR UNDP/GEF PROJECTS
2005
OFFICIAL TITLE:
Strengthening the Implementation Capacities for Nutrient Reduction and
Transboundary Cooperation in the Danube River Basin
(Short name: Danube Regional Project Tranche 2)
COUNTRY:
Bosnia & Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia,
Region :
Czech Republic, Hungary, Moldova,
Romania, Serbia and Montenegro,
Slovakia, Slovenia, Ukraine
UNDP PROJECT NUMBER:
RER03/G31/A/1G/31 GEF PROJECT NUMBER:
3123 (tranche 1: 2184)
DATE OF REPORT:
01/05/2005
DATE OF PREVIOUS REPORT: Tranche 1: 31/06/2004
IS THIS THE TERMINAL
NO:
x
APR/PIR?
YES:
Date Project was Operationally Closed :
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)
PROJECT SIZE (FULL, MEDIUM SIZED)
Full size
DATE OF ENTRY IN WP
May 11, 2001
PRODOC SIGNATURE DATE
Tranche 2: (Tranche 1: 19 December 2001 / last signature)
DURATION (MONTHS)
Tranche 2: 36 months (Tranche 1: 24 months)
DATE OF FIRST DISBURSEMENT
Tranche 2: June 2004 (Tranche 1: December 2001)
CLOSING DATE
Original: December 2006 (Tranche 1: 30 November 2003)
Revised 1: May 2007 (Tranche 1: 31 May 2004)
Revised 2:
PROJECT FUNDING
GEF 12,240,000 USD
CO-FINANCING 12,878,000 USD
TOTAL :
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.
08/14/09
1
PIR-APR 05 IW_DanubeRP-final_12-vii-05International Waters
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 Tranche 1 of the Project was to prepare and initiate basin-wide capacity-building activities with particular
(pls. describe)
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.
The specific objective of Tranche 2 of the Project is is to set up and strengthen institutional and legal instruments and institutions at
the national and regional level to assure nutrient reduction and sustainable management of water bodies and ecological resources,
through implementing of concepts, methodologies, projects and programmes developed in the phase 1, involving all stakeholders
and building up adequate monitoring and information systems. To reach the project goals and to secure the implementation and
consolidation of those basin-wide capacity-building activities, the Project has to build up on the results achieved during the 1st
Phase of the Project.
Description
Value in year 0
Mid-term Target
End of Project Target
2004 Value
2005 Valuee
Last year
This year
(2001)
end phase 1
(Year 2006)
Rating
Rating1
(Year 2004)
(2003)
(2004)
Indicator Phase 1:
Outline of needs Concepts for
Finalization of
All preparatory
HS
HS
In the 1st tranche of the
for concepts,
implementation of
outstanding project
activities for the
project capacity-building
methodologies
policies, legal and
activities
phase 2 were
activities are initiated,
and other
economic
finalized.
prepared for implementation
capacity-
instruments,
in the 2nd tranche of the
building
mechanisms for
project, in particular focusing
activities in the
monitoring and
on strengthening inter-
frame of the
evaluation,
ministerial coordination,
Danube
methodologies,
concept development for
Convention was
programs for
implementation of policies,
identified in the
increase of public
legal and economic
Project
participation and
instruments, mechanisms for
Document
capacity building
monitoring and evaluation,
activities are
capacity building and
prepared, ready
1 Ratings. HS: Highly Satisfactory / S: Satisfactory / MS: marginally Satisfactory / U: Unsatisfactory. Please refer to Instruction Sheet for definition of each
rating.
08/14/09
2
PIR-APR 05 IW_DanubeRP-final_12-vii-05International Waters
Description
Value in year 0
Mid-term Target
End of Project Target
2004 Value
2005 Valuee
Last year
This year
(2001)
end phase 1
(Year 2006)
Rating
Rating1
(Year 2004)
(2003)
(2004)
communication activities and
for
development of programmes
implementation in
for awareness raising and
the 2nd tranche of
NGO strengthening.
the project.
Indicator Phase 2:
The Danube
Preparation of detailed
Further
HS
At the end of Phase 2 of the
Countries, under the
workplans for project
preparation of
Project, nutrient loads to the
ICPDR, will
activities. Starting up
workplans,
Black Sea are considerably
implement policies
of largest project
implementation,
reduced by 21.1 % for
and investments
components e.g.
preparation for
nitrogen and 32.0 % for
aimed to nutrient
Public Access to
dissemination of
phosphorus,
reduction,
Information, Small
the project results.
involvement of
Grants
stakeholders and
Programme,etc.
public will play
important role in this
process.
Overall Rating
HS
Project Comment on rating
Country Office Comment
UNDP/GEF Regional Coordinator
Comment
UNDP/GEF Principal Technical
Advisor Comment
08/14/09
3
PIR-APR 05 IW_DanubeRP-final_12-vii-05International Waters
3.2 OUTCOMES.2-
Outcome 1:
Creation of sustainable ecological conditions for land use and water management
Pls Describe
Description
Value in year 0
Mid-term Target end
End of Project Target
2004 Valuye
2005 Value
Last year
This year
2001-tranche1
phase 1
(Year 2006)
Rating
Rating3
2004tranche2
(Year 2004)
(2003)
(2004)
Indicator Phase 1:
Outline of needs for
Reviews of policies and
HS
HS
All Danube River Basin
concepts, methodologies and
legal instruments in
countries have reviewed
other capacity-building
relation to ecological
policies and legal
activities in the frame of the
land use (River Basin
instruments in relation to
Danube Convention was
Management) and water
ecological land use
identified in the Project
management are
(River Basin
Document
available and
Management) and water
mechanisms are prepared
management and have
to adapt national
prepared mechanisms to
legislation to
adapt their national
international and EU
legislation to
standards. Results of
international and EU
these activities are basis
standards.
for the 2nd tranche of the
project
Indicator Phase 2:
Results from the phase 1
The Danube River
Finalization of
Full
HS
At the end of the Project
created basis for further
Basin countries are
outstanding project
implementation,
Phase 2, all Danube
implementation of activities
implementing nutrient
activity on
River Basin countries
related to River Basin
reduction policies and
Detergents.
have developed and
Management, economic
legal instruments with
ratified policies and legal
analysis, typology, ecological
particular attention to
Workplans for 2nd
instruments for
classification, GIS,
the EU Directives,
phase of project
sustainable water
groundwater assessment and
integrated river basin
components:
management and nutrient
public participation, concepts
management, best
Agriculture Policies
reduction and have put in
and methodologies related to
agricultural and
and Pilot Project,
place mechanisms for
polices and legal instruments
industrial practices,
Industrial Reform
exacting compliance.
for agriculture, industry and
appropriate land use
and Policies,
wetlands restoration, the
and wetland
Wetlands
analysis and concepts for
management and
water tariffs and charges.
economic instruments
Components under
implementation:
Tariffs and Charges
Outcome 1 Rating
HS
2 Please use the same format to report on additional outcomes in case the project has more than three.
3 Ratings. HS: Highly Satisfactory / S: Satisfactory / MS: marginally Satisfactory / U: Unsatisfactory. Please refer to Instruction Sheet for definition of each
rating.
08/14/09
4
PIR-APR 05 IW_DanubeRP-final_12-vii-05International Waters
Outcome 1:
Capacity building and reinforcement of transboundary cooperation for the improvement of water quality and environmental standards in the Danube River Basin
Pls Describe
Description
Value in year 0
Mid-term Target end
End of Project Target (Year
2004 Valuye
2005 Value
Last year
This year
2001-tranche1
phase 1
2006)
Rating
Rating4
2004tranche2
(Year 2004)
(2003)
(2004)
Indicator Phase 1:
Outline of needs for
Inter-ministerial
HS
HS
Operational mechanisms
concepts, methodologies
coordination mechanisms
for the monitoring of water
and other capacity-building
are assessed in all countries.
pollution and control of
activities in the frame of the
The ICPDR information
emissions from point and
Danube Convention was
system is upgraded and
non-point sources and a
identified in the Project
national experts trained.
reliable information system
Document
Results of activities related
under the ICPDR are
to monitoring, laboratory
designed and ready for
and information
implementation at the
management, accident
regional and national level
emergency response are
to assess improvement of
basis for the 2nd tranche of
water quality and nutrient
the project
reduction in the Black Sea.
Capacity building at ICPDR
EG and PS level
AEWS upgrade, MLIM
IndicatorPphase 2:
Results from the phase 1
The ICPDR as the main
Workplans for
Full
HS
Institutional and
created basis for further
mechanism of transboundary
2nd phase of
implementati
organizational mechanisms
implementation of activities
cooperation, has necessary
project
on
for transboundary
related to capacity building
tools, methodologies and
components:
cooperation and improved
activities aimed at
capacities for improved water
water quality monitoring,
strengthening of inter-
quality monitoring, emission
emission control
ministerial coordination
control accident prevention
emergency warning,
mechanisms, TNMN
and warning, information
accidental prevention and
optimization, M2
management. All these tools
information management
methodology, further
are fully operational at the
are fully operational at the
development and
regional and national level to
regional and national level
mainstreaming of the
assess improvement of water
to assess improvement of
ICPDR InfoSystem, support
quality and nutrient reduction
water quality and nutrient
of the cooperation with the
to the Black Sea.
reduction to the Black Sea.
Black Sea, capacity
Cooperation at the level of
building activities aimed at
commissions for the Danube
strengthening the ICPDR
and Black Sea is
Structures (Expert Groups,
strengthened.
Secretariat)
Outcome 2 Rating
HS
4 Ratings. HS: Highly Satisfactory / S: Satisfactory / MS: marginally Satisfactory / U: Unsatisfactory. Please refer to Instruction Sheet for definition of each
rating.
08/14/09
5
PIR-APR 05 IW_DanubeRP-final_12-vii-05International Waters
Outcome 3:
Strengthening of public involvement in environmental decision-making and reinforcement of community actions for pollution reduction and protection of ecosystems
Pls Describe
Description
Value in year 0
Mid-term Target end
End of Project Target
2004 Valuye
2005
Last year
This year
2001-tranche1
phase 1
(Year 2006)
Value
Rating
Rating5
2004tranche2
(Year 2004)
(2003)
(2004)
Indicator Phase 1:The
Outline of needs for
DEF Secretariat and
HS
HS
Secretariat of the Danube
concepts, methodologies
network are strengthened
Environmental Forum (DEF) is
and other capacity-
and fully operational
fully operational and national
building activities in the
(national training on
representations exist in all
frame of the Danube
nutrient reduction measures
Danube countries. National
Convention was identified
DEF brochures / booklets),
NGOs are involved in project
in the Project Document
DEF ready for 2nd tranche
preparation and have identified
activities. 1st call for
community-based nutrient
national and regional Small
reduction projects to be
Grants Programme is
financed under the project's
finalized and projects ready
Small Grants Programme
to start, Concept for
(SGP) and have prepared at
Communication Strategy
least two national awareness-
prepared
raising campaigns.
Indicator Phase 2: The civil
Results from the phase 1
Community based
Workplans for
Full
HS
society and in particular
created basis for further
projects for nutrient
2nd phase of
implement
national NGOs in all Danube
implementation of
reduction (SGP) are
project
ation
countries are at the end of the
activities related to:
implemented in all DRB
components
Project proactively implicated
- reinforcement of the
countries and public
in national nutrient reduction
DEF, incl. new expert
concern and response to
programmes, have organized
structures, extended
ecological issues has
workshops and produced in
outreach, identity;
increased due to the
national language information
- continuation of the
organization of awareness
material for awareness raising
SGP 1st call project
raising campaigns and the
campaigns and have
implementation, their
regular publishing of
successfully implemented
monitoring and
basin-wide and national
community based nutrient
preparation of the 2nd
information material; the
reduction projects financed
call
DEF Secretariat is
under the GEF SGP.
- communication
efficiently operating using
activities, including
its own resources and
media work aimed at
supports national NGOs
dissemination of the
in the Danube River
project results
Basin.
Outcome 3 Rating
HS
5 Ratings. HS: Highly Satisfactory / S: Satisfactory / MS: marginally Satisfactory / U: Unsatisfactory. Please refer to Instruction Sheet for definition of each
rating.
08/14/09
6
PIR-APR 05 IW_DanubeRP-final_12-vii-05International Waters
Outcome 4:
Reinforcement of monitoring, evaluation and information systems to control transboundary pollution and to reduce nutrients and hazardous substances
Pls Describe
Description
Value in year 0
Mid-term Target end
End of Project Target (Year
2004 Valuye
2005
Last year
This year
2001-tranche1
phase 1
2006)
Value
Rating
Rating6
2004tranche2
(Year 2004)
(2003)
(2004)
Indicator Phase 1:
Outline of needs for
System of Indicators for
HS
HS
The ICPDR has conceptualized and
concepts, methodologies
project monitoring and
developed its monitoring and
and other capacity-
impact assessment
evaluation system and has
building activities in the
developed.
identified the indicators for
frame of the Danube
Methodologies for the
pollution reduction and
Convention were
monitoring of nutrient
environmental status; knowledge
identified in the Project
reduction in wetlands are
on removal of nutrients and toxic
Document
prepared as the basis for
substances is increased and
pilot projects in next
economic instruments to encourage
tranche.
investments for nutrient reductions
Report on economic
are developed at the national and
instruments for nutrient
regional level.
reduction at the national and
regional level is available.
Indicator Phase 2:
Results from the phase 1
A Danube Basin wide system
Workplans for 2nd
Full
HS
Knowledge on sedimentation,
created basis for further
for monitoring and evaluation
phase of project
impleme
transport and removal of nutrients
implementation of
of environmental impacts is
components
ntation
and toxic substances is
activities related to
operational, using indicators
considerably increased and
indicators for monitoring
for process, stress reduction
economic instruments to encourage
and evaluation of
and environmental status in
investments for nutrient reduction
environmental impacts;
line with EU and international
are accepted and implemented at
methodology for
reporting requirements,
the national and regional level.
monitoring of nutrient
allowing at the same time
removal capacities of
follow-up and evaluation of
wetlands.
project implementation
results; special observations
on nutrient removal from
wetlands and accumulation of
heavy metals and other
pollutants in sediments at Iron
Gates are available and
economic instruments
(pollution trading) are
analyzed.
Outcome41 Rating
HS
Overall Rating
HS
6 Ratings. HS: Highly Satisfactory / S: Satisfactory / MS: marginally Satisfactory / U: Unsatisfactory. Please refer to Instruction Sheet for definition of each
rating.
08/14/09
7
PIR-APR 05 IW_DanubeRP-final_12-vii-05International Waters
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 2201)
A
The ICPDR countries will not all
Not all countries, in particular
Particular support was given to
The project will continue with support to
M
participate in implementing legal
EU non-accession countries,
non-accession countries to
the non-accession countries and activities
and institutional mechanisms for
have sufficient resources to
overcome administrative and
will focus on downstream countries to
pollution reduction and
participate in activities relevant
technical constraints in developing
help with implementation of the EU
sustainable water management.
to the EU WFD
necessary legal and institutional
WFD.
implementation.
mechanisms for pollution
In particular, there is a risk that a
reduction, thus enabling them to
common approach in EU WFD
fulfil timely the major tasks to
implementation will not be
implement the EU WFD.
undertaken by all countries
participating in the ICPDR.
08/14/09
8
PIR-APR 05 IW_DanubeRP-final_12-vii-05International Waters
Risk Description
Describe Status of Risk at
Describe Status Last Year
Describe Status this Year
Rating*
start of project (Year 2201)
B
Not all national experts are
Some countries do not actively
The project facilitated the use the
Further support to the development and
M
proactively participating in the
participate at the ICPDR
ICPDR Information System
mainstreaming of the ICPDR InfoSystem
implementation of the DRPC
activities due to lack of human,
(Danubis) through providing
will be provided by the project at national
and Governments have not
technical and financial
equipment at national and central
and regional level.
provided sufficient funding for
resources as well as unequal
level, and through training
Laboratory equipment will be delivered to
the operation of national Info
quality, comparability and
programs to improve users skills.
selected national laboratories, to improve
System.
compatibility of national data.
quality of lab analyses
C
The DEF lacks the necessary
The activities of the DEF were
The DEF organized 11 national
The Project will further support
L
personnel and commitment to
minimized due to limited
level training workshops for the
strengthening of the DEF, with particular
play its role efficiently in the
funding.
training of NGOs at regional and
attention to creation of expert structures,
Danube River Basin.
national level, with focus on
extension of outreach and DEF
nutrients reduction.
involvement in Small Grants Programme.
Comprehensive Communications
A strategy for financial sustainability of
strategy was under development
the DEF will be prepared.
that will effectively identify and
prioritize activities to be organized
throughout tranche 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 project prepared a system of
In addition to the GEF indicators (Process, M
organizations, in particular the
methodologies for
indicators for project monitoring
Stress Reduction and Environmental
EU, in the development and
interpretation of project results
and impact evaluation that will be
Status), the project will support also
application of indicators for
and a system of indicators.
used by the ICPDR to monitor and
development of indicators to be agreed
project monitoring and
evaluate impact of pollution
and used at the ICPDR level.
evaluation is insufficient.
reduction measures.
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 respond to High and Substantial risks
08/14/09
9
PIR-APR 05 IW_DanubeRP-final_12-vii-05International Waters
4. ADJUSTMENTS TO ORIGINAL PROJECT STRATEGY
Please indicate whether changes have been made at any of the four levels of the Logframe hierarchy.
Where changes have occurred, please describe.
Changes to:
Y/N If Yes, please describe:
Goal
N
Objective
N
Outcomes
N
Inputs/Activities
N
Has the Logframe been
Y
The log-frame for the 2nd tranche of the project was extended, to reflect
modified?
requirements from the GEF council to indicate also the outcomes from the
project. No major changes of planned activities / outputs / objectives were
made.
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 of good / bad practice.
From the completion of Phase 1 and the on-going activities of Phase 2 key lessons learnt have included the need for the
development of a clear 'exit strategy' of the UNDP/GEF funded project from the region and assisting, the ICPDR in
particular, with plans for future sustainability. In addition, 9 of the 13 DRB countries are either EU members or in the
process of acceding to the EU. Whilst this has provided a clear and beneficial legislative framework for the DRP, it has also
re-emphasised the need for focusing on the four non-accession countries.
Other lessons include:
a. Excellent Cooperation with the ICPDR and its structures (co-executing agency and primary beneficiary) resulting in
improved 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 that facilitate 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
08/14/09
10
PIR-APR 05 IW_DanubeRP-final_12-vii-05International Waters
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 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 web page was established in the early stages 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.
The ICPDR together with the DRP hosted two study tour visits: ASREWAM Aral Sea Tacis Project 30560 in July 2004 and
a study tour visit of Suzhou Creek Environmental Rehabilitation Leading Office of Shanghai, China in September 2004.
The Project results and the cooperation with the ICPDR was presented also at the International Conference on Integrated
Water Resources Management, in Tokyo, in December 2004.
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
119,230 usd
Regional Environmental Center
NGO
Sub-contractor
798,480 usd
(*) 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?
08/14/09
11
PIR-APR 05 IW_DanubeRP-final_12-vii-05International Waters
7. PROJECT SUSTAINABILITY
This section refers to the extent to which project environmental benefits continue once GEF assistance has come
to an end.
7.1 What are the key changes produced (or that will be produced) by the project which must be
maintained so that project environmental benefits continue after project closure?
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
the 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 made a particular
effort to integrate the Danube Environmental Forum (DEF) into SGP implementation.
3) In the frame of the DEF Strengthening, new expert structures are being created. This will allow to the DEF to become a
valid active partner in discussion with the ICPDR Expert Groups.
4) Further development and mainstreaming of the ICPDR Information System Danubis. The project will strengthen the
current Info-System and optimize information flows to ensure effective and efficient providing of the available information
to the ICPDR stakeholders. Further maintenance will be under responsibility of the ICPDR.
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 ICPDR
The Danube countries are committed to implement the Danube River Protection Convention, therefore
the ICPDR, which has been created to implement the convention, will continue its operation. Project
activities
activities are harmonized with the work plans of the ICPDR and its Expert Groups. This ensures that the
project is part of existing structures and that project results will be further utilized and developed.
2)
etc
7.3
a. Does the project make use of a micro-finance facility?
Yes
b. If so, was such a facility developed specifically for the project, or was an existing one used? How
effective is it?
A specific facility have not been developed, but mechanisms already in place have been used. Based on previous experience and good
performance, the Regional Environmental Centre has been contracted to implement the small grants programme. They are responsible
for preparation, selection, disbursing of funds, monitoring and evaluation of the projects. The REC ensures effectiveness of small
grants projects implementation through this overall coordination.
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.
08/14/09
12
PIR-APR 05 IW_DanubeRP-final_12-vii-05International Waters
9.
MONITORING AND EVALUATION.
Comments
Please enter date (DD/MM/YEAR)
CO Field Visit
LAST:
NEXT:
UNDP GEF Field Visit LAST:
NEXT:
Tripartite Review
LAST: 17.9. 2004
NEXT: 3.6.2005
Mid-Term Evaluation
PLANNED:
DONE: 14.4. 26.5. 2004
Final Evaluation
PLANNED:
DONE:
Other Evaluations or
studies (*)
(*) Please explain whether the project has been subject to any additional review e.g. UNDP Country
or Outcome Evaluations, GEF Thematic Reviews, others.
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 = 3,5)
Equity
GRANT
Loans (*)
Credits
In -kind
T
invest.
OTAL
A. GEF
P
12,240
FUNDING
A
12,240
12,240
B. CO-FINANCING:
P
UNDP (TRAC) A
P
UN AGENCY
A
P
6.000
6.000
GOVERNMENT A
6.600
6.600
BILATERAL
P
6.878
6.878
DONORS
A
6.878
6.878
MULTILATERAL P
DONORS
A
REGIONAL
P
BANKS
A
NON-GOVERN. P
ORG.
A
PRIVATE
P
SECTOR
A
P
OTHER
A
TOTAL
P
12.878
CO-FINANCING
A
12.878
P
TOTAL
ROPOSED
FUNDING
ACTUAL
P=Proposed ; A=Actual
(*) Concessional or market rate
08/14/09
13
PIR-APR 05 IW_DanubeRP-final_12-vii-05International Waters
10.2 PROJECT DISBURSEMENTS. From project start up to date of this report
Cumulative actual disbursement ($millions)
Phase 1 : 5.000 / Phase 2 : 3.000
Cumulative planned disbursement ($millions)(*)
Phase 1 : 5.000 / Phase 2 : 12.400
Disbursements ratio
Phase 1: 100% / Phase 2: 25 %
(% 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, e.g. 70,000 = 70) ) of UNDP/GEF Payments to Supplying
Countries for Procurement in GEF Donor Countries. Please enter Project expenditure accumulated
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.
Equipment
Training
Total
Supplying Country
Personnel
Sub-contracts
(US$
(US$
(US$ thousands)
(US$ thousands)
(US$ thousands)
thousands)
thousands)
Austria
152,712
543,504
6,100
110,309
812,625
Denmark
5,000
5,000
Finland
33,754
33,754
Germany
4,573
132,217
136,790
Netherlands
21,000
21,000
08/14/09
14
PIR-APR 05 IW_DanubeRP-final_12-vii-05International Waters
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
08/14/09
15
PIR-APR 05 IW_DanubeRP-final_12-vii-05International Waters
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 California
2
Canary Current
13
Gulf of Thailand
19
Gulf of Mexico
3
Guinea Current
14
South China Sea
20
Pacific Central
4
Benguela Current
15
Sulu-Celebes Sea
21
America Coast
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
-
08/14/09
16
PIR-APR 05 IW_DanubeRP-final_12-vii-05International Waters
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
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
08/14/09
17
PIR-APR 05 IW_DanubeRP-final_12-vii-05International Waters
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:
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:
08/14/09
18
PIR-APR 05 IW_DanubeRP-final_12-vii-05International Waters
I. 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) were
carried out 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.
Degree to which
-All governments have provided necessary staff and funding for the country's TDA-
governments
related activities.
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 the
TDA
country's TDA-related activities.
-TDA has endorsement of all but one government.
-More than one but less than half the governments has 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
Degree to which the
stakeholders.
process incorporates
-Public stakeholder participation plan is fully implemented and documented.
stakeholders
-All significant stakeholders feel they have been adequately consulted.
-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.
08/14/09
19
PIR-APR 05 IW_DanubeRP-final_12-vii-05International Waters
Sound Information (TDA)
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
-TDA process incorporates most recommendations and information from mechanisms
the best available
and provides feedback to them.
information
-Advisory group or other mechanism is established but resources are inadequate
or 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
Degree to which
sectors, socio-economic sources, and locations, and identifies options for addressing
TDA analyzes
them.
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
addressing them
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.
Degree to which
-All governments have provided necessary staff and funding for the country's SAP-
governments
related activities..
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.
08/14/09
20
PIR-APR 05 IW_DanubeRP-final_12-vii-05International Waters
Stakeholder Participation (SAP)
Issue
Criteria
Select One
- Stakeholder analysis has been carried out and has identified all significant
Degree to which the
stakeholders.
process incorporates
- Public stakeholder participation plan is fully implemented and documented.
stakeholders
-All significant stakeholders feel they have been adequately consulted.
- 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.
Degree to which a
- Advisory group or other mechanism is established to ensure access to information
process has been
from all relevant sources which is incorporated into the SAP
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
Specificity of
targets, timetables for policy/regulatory reform.
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.
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:
08/14/09
21
PIR-APR 05 IW_DanubeRP-final_12-vii-05International Waters
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
Degree to which
- Allocate staff resources to the JIA.
governments
- Assign high-level officials to the JIA.
support the
- Have line items for support of the JIA in their budgets.
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.
Stakeholder Participation (JIA)
Issue
Criteria
Select One
- Stakeholder analysis has been carried out and has identified all significant
x
Degree to which the
stakeholders.
process incorporates
- 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
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.
08/14/09
22
PIR-APR 05 IW_DanubeRP-final_12-vii-05International Waters
Sound Information (JIA)
Issue
Criteria
Select One
-Advisory group or other mechanism is established to ensure access to best
x
Degree to which a
available information from all relevant sources. It has adequate resources and
process has been
meets regularly.
established to access
-JIA incorporates information from mechanisms into its operations and provides
the best available
feedback to them.
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
Degree of authority
recommendations to member countries and influences significant policies of
and level of staffing of
member states.
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.
08/14/09
23
PIR-APR 05 IW_DanubeRP-final_12-vii-05International Waters
4. Indicators for the Inter-Ministerial Committee Process
Relevant project component is under implementation (more results will be available in the later stage of the project):
- 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:
The degree to which
-Allocating staff resources
relevant ministries
-Assigning a high level official
have given political
-Responding to information requests.
support to the process
-Collaborating in the implementation of a plan with targets that are being met.
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 relevant ministries do not support the process by
X
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.
08/14/09
24
PIR-APR 05 IW_DanubeRP-final_12-vii-05International Waters
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 mechanisms
the best available
into its deliberations and provides feedback to them.
information and
analysis.
- Advisory group or other mechanism is established but resources are
x
inadequate 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
Specificity of
identified in the SAP.
commitments to
Committee adopts targets and timetables for some but not all priority actions identified
policy/regulatory
in the SAP.
reform
Committee adopts commitments to specific policy and regulatory reforms for all
x
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%)
08/14/09
25
PIR-APR 05 IW_DanubeRP-final_12-vii-05International Waters
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
Degree of success of
replication is taking place and has been documented.
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
demonstration
Criteria for success are not appropriate or measurable.
No criteria for success of demonstration are adopted.
Monitoring and Evaluation (Demonstration Activities)
Issue
Criteria
Select One
Plan for monitoring and evaluation of success results and replication is implemented in
Effectiveness of
full and data collected has been analyzed.
monitoring and
Plan for monitoring and evaluation of success and replication under implementation,
evaluation of success
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.
Stakeholder Participation (Demonstration Activities)
Issue
Criteria
Select One
Stakeholder analysis has been carried out and has identified all significant stakeholders
Degree to which the
and future adopters have been fully engage in design and implementation. Participation
process incorporates
has been documented.
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.
08/14/09
26
PIR-APR 05 IW_DanubeRP-final_12-vii-05International Waters
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 baseline.
Monitoring and
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 Stress
Project has documented achieving or close to achieving the targeted stress reduction
Reduction
improvement.
Progress in achieving stress reduction objectives is on target.
Progress towards achieving stress reduction objectives is significantly behind targets.
08/14/09
27
PIR-APR 05 IW_DanubeRP-final_12-vii-05International Waters
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 plan for environmental status is under implementation but no data have
monitoring system
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
Relevant project components are under development (too early to assess):
- Project output 4.2: Analysis of sediments in the Iron Gate reservoir and impact assessment of heavy metals and
other dangerous substances on the Danube and the Black Sea ecosystems
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 finding
Extent to which
of the assessment.
information generated
Most relevant stakeholders are aware and clearly understand key finding of the
by scientific assessment
assessment.
is relevant to all
stakeholders
A significant number of relevant stakeholders are unaware of or do not clearly
understand key findings of the assessment.
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
Extent to which
the assessment.
information generated
Most relevant policymakers are aware and clearly understand key finding of the
by scientific assessment
assessment.
is relevant to the
Policymakers
A number of relevant policymakers are not aware of or did not clearly understand key
findings of the assessment.
Most policymakers are not aware of or did not understand key findings of the
assessment.
08/14/09
28
PIR-APR 05 IW_DanubeRP-final_12-vii-05International Waters
Usefulness of out come to relevant policy or programming issues
(Scientific Assessment)
Issue
Criteria
Select One
Usefulness to relevant
Assessment has been cited or used extensively in discussing and making decisions.
policy or programming
Assessment has been cited and used in several instances in discussing or making
issues
decisions.
Assessment has rarely been cited or used in discussing or making decisions, but only
slightly.
Assessment has not been cited 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 issues.
scientific knowledge
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 methods.
methodologies used
Concepts and knowledge and overall rigor are state of the art. Rigor of methodologies
used is debatable.
Concepts and knowledge are not state of the art. Rigor of methodologies used is
debatable.
Assessment behind state of the art knowledge an methods.
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 easy
Extent to which
to access and understand.
information generated
Some relevant stakeholders are unaware of the information or information was found
by knowledge
by some difficult to access and understand.
management activities is
relevant to all
Many relevant stakeholders are unaware of the information or many of those aware of
stakeholders
the information, difficult to understand.
Very Few relevant stakeholders are aware of the information or find it accessible and
easy to understand.
08/14/09
29
PIR-APR 05 IW_DanubeRP-final_12-vii-05International Waters
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 easy
Extent to which
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 is
relevant to all
Many relevant policy makers are unaware of the information or many of those aware
policymakers.
of the information, difficult to understand.
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 policymaking.
management activities
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.
08/14/09
30