Submission Date: April 10, 2008

Re-submission Date:

Expected Calendar
Milestones	Dates
Work Program (for FSP)	June, 2007
GEF Agency Approval	05/27/2008
Implementation Start	Sept. 2008
Mid-term Review (if planned)	Sept. 2010
Implementation Completion	March 2013

part i: project Information

GEFSEC Project ID:

gef agency Project ID: P084605

Country(ies): Republic of Albania; Republic of Montenegro

Project Title: Albania/Montenegro Lake Skader-Shkoder Integrated Ecosystem Management

GEF Agency(ies): World Bank

Other Executing partner(s): Albania Ministry of Environment, Forests, and Water Administration; Montenegro Ministry of Tourism and Environmental Protection

GEF Focal Area(s): International Waters

GEF-4 Strategic program(S): SO-2; SP3

Name of parent program/umbrella project: n.A.

A. Project framework (Expand table as necessary)

Project Objective: The Project objective is to maintain and enhance the long-term value and environmental services of Lake Skadar-Shkoder and its natural resources.
Project Components	Indicate whether Investment, TA, or STA**	Expected Outcomes	Expected Outputs	GEF Financing*		Co-financing*		Total ($)
				($)	%	($)	%
1. Capacity Building for Improved Understanding and Joint Management of Lake	TA	Bilateral Lake Management Commission (BLMC) and Working Groups are operational, sustainable and implementing priority joint activities identified in SAP).	Improved information and coordination for transboundary decision-making	1.41	51%	1.37	49%	2.78
2. Promoting Sustainable Use of the Lake	Investments/TA	Regulatory capacity, infrastructure and community level mechanisms and incentives in place to support natural resource utilization and sustainable tourism development	Strengthening Government regulatory and enforcement capacity for fisheries management to cease illegal fishing; amending national plans and regulations and programs; Development of lakewide stock assessment for sustainable fisheries management	1.06	27%	2.87	73%	3.93
3. Catalyze Pollution Reduction Investments	Investments/TA	Solutions for decreasing toxic and non-toxic pollutants entering into Lake Skadar-Shkoder identified and actions taken to reduce contamination	Restoration of lakeshore buffer vegetation to protect against siltation and chemical run-off	1.69	15%	9.26	85%	10.95
Project Management***				0.39	19%	1.71	81%	2.10
Total Project Costs				4.55	23%	15.21	77%	19.76

* List the $ by project components. The percentage is the share of GEF and Co-financing respectively to the total amount for the component.

** TA = Technical Assistance; STA = Scientific & technical analysis.

*** The project has been designed with 3 components. Project management costs are embedded in the various components to mainstream coordination functions within the normal responsibilities of the the institutions supported by the project.

B. Financing Plan Summary For The Project ($)

	Project Preparation*	Project	Agency Fee	Total at CEO Endorsement	For the record: Total at PIF
GEF (AL)	225,000*	1,986,000	198,990	2,409,990	N/A
GEF (MN)	225,000*	2,564,000	251,010	3,040,010	N/A
Govt. Direct (AL )		250,000		250,000
Govt. Direct (MN)		490,000		490,000
Local Sources Parallel financing (National Parks, Privatization Fund, Local Municipalities)		8,570,000		8,570,000
Bilateral Donor Parallel Financing (GTZ,REC, UNDP,USAID,NVA, KFW, SWISS)**		5,900,000		5,900000
Total	450,000	19,760,000	450,000	20,660,000	N/A

* PDF-B approved under GEF-3

** The project does not include direct co-financing from the World Bank because it is receiving adequate co-financing from other sources (government and other donors) that is specifically directed to support the GEF project activities. However, the project is anchored to a wider program supported by the World Bank which addresses issues that are geographically and sectorally related to the GEF project. The World Bank program includes a land administration project in Albania, currently under implementation, that cover urban planning in the Skodra area, and two projects in Montenegro that are under preparation: a land administration project and a rural development project. It is expected that the GEF project will leverage some co-financing from the World Bank projects under preparation which will be accounted for as catalytic results during project implementation.

C. Sources of confirmed Co-financing, including co-financing for project preparation for both the PDFs and PPG.

Name of co-financier (source)	Classification	Type	Amount ($)	%*
Government of Albania	Project Govt. contribution	Central Budget	250,000	1.64%
Government of Montenegro	Project Govt. contribution	Central Budget	490,000	3.22%
Local Sources Parallel financing (National Parks, Privatization Fund, Local Municipalities)	Local Budgets	Local Budgets	8,570,000	56.34%
Bilateral Donor Parallel Financing (GTZ,REC, USAID, NVA, KFW, SWISS)	Bilateral Donor Funds	Grant and soft loan	5,900,000	38.79%
Total Co-financing			15,210,000	100%

* Percentage of each co-financier’s contribution at CEO endorsement to total co-financing.

D. GEF Resources Requested by Focal Area(s), Agency(ies) or Country(ies)

GEF Agency	Focal Area	Country Name/ Global	(in $)
			Project Preparation	Project	Agency Fee	Total
World Bank	IW	Albania	225,000	1,986,000	198,990	2,409,990
World Bank	IW	Montenegro	225,000	2,564,000	251,010	3,040,010
Total GEF Resources			450,000	4,550,000	450,000	5,450,000

* No need to provide information for this table if it is a single focal area, single country and single GEF Agency project.

E. Project management Budget/cost

Cost Items	Estimated person/ Weeks*	GEF ($)	Other Sources*** ($)	Project total ($)
Local consultants (AL)	630	191,000	440,000	631,000
Local consultant (MN)	450	105,000	457,000	562,000
International Consultants (AL)	50	0.00	180,000	180,000
International Consultants (MN)	51	0.00	182,000	182,000
Office equipment and supplies, communication, translation and operating costs**		92,500	266,500	359,000
Travel(AL)			92,000	92,000
Travel(MN)			92,000	92,000
Total		388,500	1,709,500	2,098,000

* Provide detailed information regarding the consultants in Annex C. Note: All international consultants and local consultants in Montenegro are paid in Euro. The average fee for international consultants is Euro 450/day which equals US$720/day (or$3600/week). Euro is also the local currency of Montenegro.

** Provide detailed information and justification for these line items: communications/IT $30,000; office equipment and supplies $35,000; translation services $15,000; utilities $12,500.

*** The cost of managing parallel financing is estimated at 10% of the financing amount with the following breakdown (50% local consultants; 25% international consultants; 15% operating cost; 10% travel)

f. Consultants working for technical assistance components:

Component	Estimated person weeks*	GEF($)	Other sources ($)	Project total ($)
Local consultants*(Albania)	930	330,000	600,000	930,000
International consultants*(Albania)	650	333,000	2,000,000	2,333,000
Local consultants*(MN)	800	100,000	900,000	1,000,000
International consultants*(MN))	575	1,383,000	800,000	2,183,000
Total		2,146,000	4,300,000	6,446,000

* Provide detailed information regarding the consultants in Annex C. Note: All international consultants and local consultants in Montenegro are paid in Euro. The average fee for international consultants is Euro 450/day which equals US$720/day (or$3600/week). Euro is also the local currency of Montenegro.

G. describe the budgeted m&e plan: The M&E Plan is detailed in Results Framework of GEF PD, and will be managed both by the Bilateral Working Group on Monitoring and Evaluation and respective government management teams. An estimated $150,000 has been allocated to support M&E tasks.

part ii: project justification

A. describe the project rationale and the expected measurable global environmental benefits: See GEF PD

B. Describe the consistency of the project with national priorities/plans: See GEF PD

C. Describe the consistency of the project with gef strategies and strategic programs: See GEF PD

D. Outline the Coordination with other related initiatives: See GEF PD

E. Describe the incremental reasoning of the project: See GEF PD

F. Indicate risks, including climate change risks, that might prevent the project objective(s) from being achieved and outline risk management measures: See GEF PD

G. explain how cost-effectiveness is reflected in the project design: Related to climate change risk, the Project will be coordinated with the World Bank ESW on climate change adaptation in Albania aimed at getting a better understanding of risks for the region, including the lake undertaken in calendar years 2008 and 2009.

part iii: institutional coordination and support

1. Project Implementation Arrangement: SEE GEF PD

part iv: explain the alignment of project design with the original PIF: N/A

part v: Agency(ies) certification

This request has been prepared in accordance with GEF policies and procedures and meets the GEF criteria for CEO Endorsement.
Steve Gorman Executive Coordinator, World Bank	Project Contact Person : Emilia Battaglini, GEF Regional Coordinator, ECA (202) 4733232; ebattaglini@worldbank.org Karin Shepardson, TTL (202) 4581398 ; kshepardson@worldbank.org
Date: April 10, 2008

Annex A: Project Results Framework

Results Framework and Monitoring

PDO and GO	Project Outcome Indicators	Use of Project Outcome Information
To maintain and enhance the long-term economic value and environmental services of Lake Skadar-Shkoder and its natural resources (GO); and to help establish and strengthen institutional mechanisms for transboundary cooperation through joint efforts to improve sustainable management of Lake Skadar-Shkoder (PDO).	Immediate and longer term threats to lake water quality and ecological system are reduced on both sides of the border, through direct investments, information exchange, bilateral planning and agreements. Status of key transboundary indicators of Lake water quality and ecological maintained or improved.	Site-specific monitoring will indicate whether on-the-ground investments are having the desired beneficial impacts on water quality and ecosystem health. If not, the bilateral Working Groups will be asked to identify other investment priorities. The level and quality of participation in, and follow-up on outputs of, transboundary processes will indicate the effectiveness of these institutional mechanisms to facilitate positive cooperation at technical and political levels. Indications of decline in key water quality and ecological parameters, and public access to this information through the bilateral database, will trigger renewed efforts to identify main causes and build commitment for resolving them.
Intermediate Outcomes	Intermediate Outcome Indicators	Use of Intermediate Outcome Monitoring
Skadar-Shkodra Lake Commission (SLC) and Working Groups are operational, sustainable and implementing priority joint activities identified in SAP).	Operational costs of maintaining and participating in SLC, lake-wide database and Working Groups are included in Governments’ budgets a year before project’s close. (P) Predictive hydrological model of Lake Skadar-Shkoder completed and being used to analyze likely impacts of policies and proposed investments. (P) Lake-wide zoning and management plan approved by both Governments and being incorporated in spatial plan updates. (P)	Government support for these institutional structures one year before project closing will reflect their usefulness and Governments’ commitment to transboundary cooperation for lake management per the Bilateral Agreement. Conversely, if one or both governments fail to provide for these costs, it will indicate a need for further awareness raising and exploring other options for institutionalizing cooperation. If the hydrological model of the lake is actively used by stakeholders and decision makers to analyze likely impacts of proposed development projects and investments in the lake basin, it will improve the level of informed debate about trade-offs at both national and transboundary/ regional levels. If the model is not used, consultations will be held with stakeholders to find out why (e.g., insufficient publicity; design insufficiently informative, or operational and user-friendly) The lake-wide management plan will provide essential input for improvement of local and national spatial plans, which provide the legal basis for controlling and regulating development, natural resource use and pollution sources affecting the lake.
Regulatory capacity, infrastructure and community level mechanisms and incentives in place to support natural resource utilization and sustainable tourism development	Targeted tourism infrastructure renovations and construction completed and attracting visitors (visitor centers, cultural sites, trails, etc.). (P) Reduction in numbers of fishermen using illegal fishing methods. (S) Socio-economic/attitude surveys indicate increased local understanding of, and engagement in, sustainable tourism and natural resource management. (P)	Data on tourist use of facilities in protected areas on both sides of the lake will provide a basis for planning further sustainable tourism development.
Solutions for decreasing toxic and non-toxic pollutants entering into Lake Skadar-Shkoder identified and actions taken to reduce contamination.	Government of Montenegro/KAP owners (Rusal) agreement on preferred solution and joint action plan for hazardous waste dump at KAP site. (P) Sewage collection and wastewater treatment system established at Vranjina village. (S) Area of water buffer vegetation restored in pilot areas to reduce sedimentation and runoff into lake. (S)	Agreement between GoM and KAP owners on the best solution (technical feasibility, cost, and community acceptance) and a joint action and financing plan, is a prerequisite to proceeding with the large investment to mitigate this urgent and significant threat to the lake and its users. Pilot wastewater management and ecological restoration investments will be used as models for replication around the Lake. Results will also be disseminated through IW-Learn network for replication and adaptation elsewhere. Project-supported monitoring activities will be designed to determine whether project interventions are effective in improving quality of water entering the lake. If problems persist despite investments, it would indicate the need for further research to identify priority pollution sources.

Arrangements for results monitoring

Annex B: Responses to Project Reviews (from GEF Secretariat and GEF Agencies, and Responses to Comments from Council at work program inclusion and the Convention Secretariat and STAP at PIF)

GEFSEC COMMENTS AT WORKPROGRAM TO BE ADDRESSED BY CEO ENDORSEMENT

1. There should be a greater emphasis on joint institutional framework for management of lake basin, including an indicator to ensure sustaining joint management after GEF.

Since workprogram entry, and as a condition for Bank appraisal of the project, the two governments signed a Bilateral Agreement for the Protection and Sustainable Development of the Lake and its Watershed, which is force. This agreement specifies agreed cooperative structures including the Skadar-Shkodra Lake Commission, and its operating structures. The project helps to start up this institutional structure and includes a monitoring indicator on financial sustainability. The project design plans for the two governments to take over full financing for the last year of the project.

2. Final Project should include an activity to establish exchange and replication among the three Balkan Lakes.

The Government of Albania has committed through the Bilateral Agreement to sustain the Secretariat of the Skadar-Shkodra Lake, and has consolidated its oversight from government with the same department and unit in the Ministry which has responsibility for the other two GEF-supported transboundary lakes. Funds under this project are provided to help enhance websites linking the three Lakes, and for participation in regional activities to promote exchange and replication. Public awareness materials will also be supported highlighting the environmental linkages between these three lakes.

3. Cooperation with IWLEARN, resources for participation in their events, and a website consistent with IWLEARN guidance shall be included in final project.

This has been included in both country grants, with a total of $66,000 allocated for IWLEARN and sub-regional basin exchange.

4. Widespread monitoring is not to be funded by GEF. GEF funding should focus on demonstration investment monitoring including stress reduction from fisheries management and toxics pollution reduction from waste site, as stated priorities in the TDA.

Project funds for monitoring are limited to incremental monitoring for stress reduction demo sites, and harmonization of monitoring system protocols across countries (using existing monitoring systems). Both governments are contributing own funds for regular monitoring which will be sustained and adapted to new joint protocols.

STAP REVIEW COMMENTS

Prepared by: J.A. Thornton, PhD PH CLM, Managing Director, International Environmental Management Services

Introduction

This review responds to a request from The World Bank (WB) to provide a technical review of the proposed International Waters project entitled Lake Skadar-Shkoder Integrated Ecosystem Management.

I note that I am a designated expert on the STAP Roster of Experts with particular experience and knowledge concerning watershed management and land-ocean interactions. I have served as Government Hydro biologist with the Zimbabwe Government, Chief Limnologist with the South African National Institute for Water Research, Head of Environmental Planning for the City of Cape Town (South Africa), and, most recently, as Principal Environmental Planner with the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (USA), a position that I hold concurrent with my position as Managing Director of International Environmental Management Services Ltd, a not-for-profit corporation providing environmental education and planning services to governments worldwide. In each of these positions, I have had oversight of projects and programs designed to assess contaminant loads to aquatic ecosystems from land-based activities, and to develop appropriate and affordable mitigation measures to reduce such loads and minimize their impacts on the aquatic environment, both freshwater and marine.

This review is based upon a thorough review of the project document, consisting inter alia of the Project Document (22 pages plus Annexes 1, 3-5, 8 and 17); the Project Executive Summary and GEF Council Work Program Submission inclusive of Annex A; and, the (Draft) Lake Shkoder Transboundary Diagnostics Analysis (TDA). Other, relevant documents served as reference sources, including the GEF Operational Strategy, Agenda 21, and related materials establishing the necessity and priority of land-based activities to control marine pollution as set forth in the Global Program of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-Based Activities.

Scope of the Review

This review addresses, seriatim, the issues identified in the Terms of Reference for Technical Review of Project Proposals.

Key Issues

Key issue 1. Scientific and technical soundness of the project. Overall, the project appears to be scientifically and technically sound. The approach proposed, which includes an on-going diagnostic and demonstration project-based program, adequately addresses the needs to initiate actions to (1) create a binational mechanism to jointly manage the shared water resources of Lake Skadar-Shkoder, (2) quantify the risks associated with a legacy of historic water quality degradation and current threats to the biodiversity and ecology of the Lake, (3) strengthen the existing national mechanisms for management of land- and water-based activities within the drainage basin tributary to the Lake, and (4) encourage implementation of urgent environmental management actions through provision of incremental financing of remedial actions to address identified “hotspots”. The need for both a land- and water-based approach is documented in the Lake Shkoder Transboundary Diagnostics Analysis that was completed during the preparation of this project. The TDA also identified a number of priority interventions that could be considered as recipient activities under Component 4, targeting priority environmental concerns within the Lake Skadar-Shkoder Basin.

A review of the Components set forth in the project document suggests that the primary focus of this proposed project will be on capacity building and institutional strengthening; to wit, Component 1 focuses on the institutional and human resources necessary to manage and monitor the water resources of Lake Skadar-Shkoder at the binational level, Component 2 focuses on research and monitoring necessary to complete and refine the data available to substantiate the management measures employed, and Component 3 primarily focuses on the human resources necessary to undertake the management of the resource at the national level. In addition, Component 4 will provide important “on-the-ground” experience in problem solving. These needs are adequately documented in the TDA, especially for management actions at both the national and binational levels where the countries appear to have utilized a primarily passive and country-based management strategy, rather than a holistic approach to managing the shared resources of the Lake.

From a scientific standpoint, providing a framework within which the two countries can assemble a shared data base comprised of similar variables, measured in a consistent manner, and stored in an accessible form is an essential first step toward creating the baseline from which disturbances can be measured and assessed. Such a data base will also facilitate both individual and joint enforcement of regulations and standards by the countries within the shared basin. In addition, disseminating these data to interested parties, including citizens, nongovernmental organizations, and corporations, through an accessible data base will help to ensure timely action to correct problems, be they concerns regarding overexploitation of the living resources of the Lake, pollution from lakeshore development, or impacts related to human activities within the drainage basin tributary to the Lake.

With regard to creating an appropriate regulatory framework, an understanding of the current status of the Lake waters is also useful in determining whether or not conditions of impairment continue to exist, and in identifying emerging issues that could potentially adversely affect the Lake ecosystem. Appropriate data will permit a realistic evaluation of the standards likely to be applied by regulators at the country and local government levels. Further, the upgrading of the laboratories and enhancing of the institutional capacities to utilize shared methodologies, implemented by trained and competent staff in the Basin countries, is a necessary element in the shared enforcement process. Joint action of this nature can overcome the possibility that operations could be shifted between Basin countries in order to avoid regulations at the country and local levels.

Key issue 2. Identification of global environmental benefits and/or drawbacks of the project, and consistency with the goals of the GEF. The proposed project establishes a framework within which to address the major causes of environmental stress within the aquatic environment of Lake Skadar-Shkoder; namely, the historic legacy of contamination, the current threat of overexploitation of aquatic resources, and the likely future risk of uncontrolled development in the drainage area, including the inputs of contaminants washed off the land surface and into the aquatic ecosystem.

The legacy of contamination stems from the presence of aluminum and steel plants in the drainage basin, and from ongoing discharges of wastewater from the human settlements in the Basin. While the data gathered during the TDA suggest that the legacy of the aluminum and steel processing plants has been mitigated by the rapid flushing rate of the Lake, the threat of ongoing degradation from wastewater discharges from urban and agricultural operations within the drainage basin remains. If unchecked, these discharges threaten the globally significant ecosystems of the Lake, including Ramsar sites in both countries, and downstream areas of the Adriatic Sea. These ecosystems, in addition to be transboundary aquatic systems in their own rights, are either directly or indirectly connected to the transboundary waters of the Mediterranean Large Marine Ecosystem (LME). Consequently, true global benefit is presumed as a result of the connection of the Mediterranean Sea with the North Atlantic Oceanic circulation.

The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of OP 8,[1] contributing to the global effort to address environmental concerns arising from industry, agriculture, fishing, and exploitation of the natural environment for tourism and recreation insofar as it relates to Lake Skadar-Shkoder. A regional approach is essential, and provides the basis for GEF participation, given that each country may need to engage in an additional level of effort beyond that required under their current national legal framework.

In this regard, the participation of a broad cross-section of governmental, nongovernmental and civil organizations with interests in the Lake and its drainage basin would be an important element in ensuring the implementation of the project outcomes, even though the outcomes, in the global sense, are environmental in nature. Currently, this participation is provided through the relevant national agencies. Establishment of the various working groups and secretariat, and the stakeholder involvement, as proposed in the project document, will contribute to achieving this objective, and add the necessary community and transboundary dimensions to the management of this resource. Unfortunately, the civil society organizations are not listed in the project document, so it is not possible to gain a full understanding of the extent or nature of the proposed stakeholder involvement in the project.

This project is complementary to other GEF initiatives within the eastern Mediterranean region, including the Lake Ohrid project. Given the GEF aim of incrementally funding projects that contribute to sustainable economic development in a replicable manner, the current proposal and its companion proposal would seem to be well-suited to achieving such an aim.

Key issue 3. Regional context. The participation in this project of the two countries in the Lake Skadar-Shkoder Basin argues persuasively that adequate and appropriate consideration has been given to the regional context of the project. Notwithstanding, the project team noted that a Basin-wide approach to water resources management, which would have significantly increased the area of influence of the project, was discounted due to the size of this larger geographic unit and the fact that the available financial resources would be insufficient to bring about meaningful change in such a large area. It was noted, however, that one reason for discounting this larger project area was the fact that the Basin would be incorporated into the River Basin planning and management program mandated by the European Union (EU) Water Framework Directive. Further, this larger drainage basin was included in the TDA and resultant Strategic Action Program (SAP), which should ensure that actions undertaken within the Lake Skadar-Shkoder ecosystem management project are fully integrated into this larger Basin framework.

Actions proposed to better integrate the national regulatory initiatives into a regional program are fully consistent with the development of a sustainable regional approach to managing this waterway. These actions are supported within the proposed project by complementary actions to strengthen the national regulatory programs and institutions. To this end, however, this reviewer notes that the project funds are expected to be allocated to each country and to the regional working group. It would seem advantageous, however, to further strengthen the binational entity by channeling the funds to each country through the binational organization. This would provide greater surety that the projects undertaken are truly regional in scope, even if located within the national territory of one or other of the Basin countries. By so doing, this financial management mechanism also would create a more substantial role for the binational authority and potentially accelerate the creation of a permanent binational commission tasked with jointly managing the shared water and ecological resources of Lake Skadar-Shkoder.

The proposal clearly indicates an intention to disseminate information and results on a regional basis, both within the Basin and elsewhere in the region. Such a regional (European) effort has been initiated during the project development process through the exchange visits to Lake Geneva and Lake Constance, amongst others. In part, this dissemination process will utilize the proposed binational secretariat as a repository and focal point for information on the protection and conservation of the ecosystem. As suggested above with respect to the fiscal arrangements for the project, delegation of such responsibilities to the Secretariat should help to hasten and strengthen the process of formation of a truly binational commission for the management of the Lake.

Key issue 4. Replicability. The implementation of demonstration projects as a key feature of this project clearly contributes to the potential for replication of beneficial practices and techniques. Further, the inclusion of mechanisms for disseminating information and results achieved fosters replication of effective and successful measures throughout the region, and especially within the participating countries. As identified through the Global International Waters Assessment process and related initiatives such as the Lake Basin Management Initiative of the International Lake Environment Committee Foundation (ILEC), GEF International Waters projects are a primary means by which basin-scale management practices are being developed and implemented through the world. These initiatives have endorsed the development and implementation of information sharing mechanisms at both the regional and global scales—in part, through the global IW-LEARN initiative. This endorsement underlines the importance of information sharing and dissemination between projects, a fact that is adequately and clearly identified within the project brief for this project. Nevertheless, it is recommended that this project seek to ensure the dissemination of lessons-learned in the broadest possible manner.

The project document suggests that the proposed activities will continue to embrace the concept of project twinning as one mechanism to enhance exchange of knowledge and experience. As recognized within the project brief for this project, there are considerable complementarities between this project and the projects currently being implemented in the eastern Mediterranean Basin. The inclusion within the Project Document of establishment of explicit linkages between projects is wholly consistent with this concept. Such communication will enhance the replicability of the project outputs and the results of the project, significantly contributing to the coordinated and comprehensive management of the Aegean Sea and Mediterranean Sea basins.

Key issue 5. Sustainability of the project. The project executive summary indicates that a significant element of the sustainability of the project supported interventions rests upon the implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive and related initiatives. In addition, country-level actions in support of the project are identified as indicative of a commitment to ongoing support of project actions and activities, beyond the immediate period of project implementation with GEF support. The project brief acknowledges a number of incentives for the participating countries to provide the necessary resources beyond the project period, including their participation as signatories to the Ramsar Convention. Further, the project proposes to address another key element in the provision of adequate resources to ensure the future sustainability of the project-supported interventions; that is, the availability of information, the development of a trained cadre of individuals, and the strengthening of appropriate institutions with the knowledge and ability to implement actions to protect the Lake environment. To this end, the project document sets forth an array of financial and other mechanisms, both in-hand and proposed, to ensure the sustainability of the land- and water-based elements proposed to be developed during the project. These mechanisms include various bilateral financing arrangements and grass roots activities designed to sustain the project actions beyond the period of application of GEF funds. To a great extent, the to-be-determined stakeholder participation element will be critical to the long-term sustainability of the project, particularly those relating to future environmental challenges and threats.

Key issue 6. Targeted Research Projects. Targeted technical demonstration and capacity building projects are key features envisioned within the GEF International Waters Water body-based Operational Program. These activities are clearly included as major elements of this proposed project, primarily under Component B which is focused on the use of targeted surveys as the means of determining and identifying appropriate and applicable management measures to quantify emerging issues (such as avian influenza that is in part spread by waterfowl), and Component C which is focused on improved environmental management.

There is also provision within the project brief for creating and implementing an on-demand small-grant program that would support creation of capacity and strengthening of academic and research institutions in the Basin. Implementation of these provisions is strongly recommended. The interventions, funded in part by the GEF, strive for sustainability and the continuation of successful interventions beyond the project period. For this reason, it is most important that the lake and watershed management measures identified by the project be internalized within the appropriate ministries such that they continue to be implemented over the longer term. Likewise, it is equally important that the demonstration projects continue to be monitored, and the results reported using the information dissemination mechanisms previously identified, beyond the project period. Such continuity is totally consistent with the catalytic nature of the GEF, and an essential element to the sustainability of the project. Capacity building and trainer training, envisioned in the project brief, thus become the basic building blocks upon which this project will succeed or fail, both from the point of view of its sustainability and from its scientific and technical integrity.

Secondary Issues

Secondary issue 1. Linkage to other focal areas. This project is formulated as an International Waters project under OP 8 of the GEF Operational Strategy. While no specific cross-cutting areas are identified, the project clearly has linkages to the cross-cutting area of land degradation in terms of its focus on land-based activities and to the protection of aquatic biodiversity in terms of its focus on fisheries.

Secondary issue 2. Linkages to other proposals. The project recognizes the complementarities between the management of Lake Skadar-Shkoder and other GEF-related initiatives in the region. Indeed, actual linkages were explored and strengthened during the period of project formulation. Specific linkages with these projects are proposed and identified in the project brief. Where such linkages are based upon project development initiatives, this reviewer recommends that the project team seek to maintain ongoing contacts with relevant sister institutions during the period of project implementation and beyond. As noted above, such linkages include contacts with the Lake Geneva and Lake Constance organizations, among others.

In addition, the project proposes to make use of IW-LEARN. Such an overt linkage provides a high degree of sustainability and connectivity to this project, and contributes to the likelihood that lessons learned can and will be transferred beyond the project boundaries to other, similar situations and locations within the Mediterranean region and beyond.

Secondary issue 3. Other beneficial or damaging environmental effects. The project has no known or obvious damaging environmental impacts associated with the activities proposed to be executed. The beneficial impacts of the project have been fully articulated above, and include the identification of alternative methods for achieving a high quality lake environment through targeted interventions that address both chronic land-based sources and catastrophic lake-based events that contribute to the degradation of the Lake and its resources. The provision of trained staff and institutional capacities needed to enforce and enhance existing environmental protection regulations, and the dissemination of successful management measures further contribute to the benefit of the Lake and its drainage basin. All of these benefits accrue not only within the project area, but, as a result of their wider dissemination using the electronic and other media provided, also to the wider river basin and beyond.

Secondary issue 4. Degree of involvement of stakeholders in the project. Component C of the project is geared toward the involvement of stakeholders. Involvement of the wider public is catered for through an information system established by the Regional Environment Center and other media. Active stakeholder participation is encouraged through the committee and working group structure to be created under Component A. Unfortunately, there are few additional details as to the participants proposed to be included. That said, the project brief does allude to the participation of the relevant regulatory agencies and ministries in the execution and implementation of the project activities, and the project explicitly indicates support for capacity building and institutional strengthening with respect to these organizations. Such involvement is in addition to the current level of involvement of the country- and local-level institutions, and is critical to the sustainability of the project and its expansion into areas not specifically involved in the demonstration projects.

Secondary issue 5. Capacity building aspects. Components A through C are aimed in part at the acquisition and dissemination of information on the successful measures to protect the Lake environment through the creation of appropriate institutions (Component A), conduct of targeted research and monitoring (Component B), and the training of agency staff and strengthen institutions (Component C). In addition, Component A, in part, seeks to encourage dissemination of lessons learned with respect to lake and watershed management practices. These elements should be implemented in conjunction with complementary GEF International Waters initiatives, including the best practices data base being compiled by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the IW-LEARN initiatives being executed by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). These efforts will enable wider dissemination of knowledge of practices that have positive effects. Such knowledge is an essential element in building capacity and strengthening institutions in the region.

In addition to the dissemination of knowledge and information, the proposed development of standard methods for analysis and impact assessment will benefit institutions and staff throughout the region. In this regard, Component B contains work elements that are likely to be aimed at establishing a certification process for laboratories, common standards, and reinforced institutional capacity within the region. Maintaining such standards and certification requires trained individuals, actively and conscientiously applying their knowledge and skills for the public good.

Secondary issue 6. Innovativeness. Development of appropriate management practices governing the protection of the Lake environment, within the context of an integrated land- and water-based management program, demonstrates a strong desire that the results and outputs of this project reflect the state-of-the-art with respect to the integration of lake management and economic development in transboundary inland lakes. By creating and strengthening the appropriate human resources, institutions, data acquisition and dissemination systems, and shared management mechanisms, the project team has clearly attempted to develop a management program that will be accepted by the basin governments and stakeholders. While many of the actions and approaches reflect state-of-the-art practice, their application in the Lake Skadar-Shkoder Basin will significantly advance current practice in that specific Basin and within the region as a whole. In this manner, the project promotes innovation and development of regionally applicable remedial practices and experiences.

General Conclusion and Recommendations

Overall, it is the conclusion of this reviewer that the proposed project, with the goal of “Lake Skadar-Shkoder Integrated Ecosystem Management”, is wholly consistent with the GEF International Waters operational program, its broader philosophy, and funding criteria. Consequently, this project is recommended for funding.

In completing the Project Executive Summary and GEF Council Work Program Submission, the reviewer recommends that each of the Components be elaborated so as to clearly summarize the following elements of each activity; namely, (1) the objectives of the Component, (2) the results or outcomes that this Component is intended to achieve, (3) the outputs or deliverables to be generated by the activities carried out under the Component, (4) indicative activities to be conducted, (5) the costs broken out as GEF funds requested, local share provided, and total cost of the Component, and (6) an indication of the likely stakeholders targeted to be participants in executing the activities. This information, to the extent that it is presented, is currently scattered throughout the document or indicated as an expected outcome of the project Appraisal process. The likely participants are not clearly identified, and the activities and component costs are shown in some detail only in Annex A, the Incremental Cost Analysis.

In implementing this project, the GEF Implementing Agency is enjoined to give consideration to strengthening the role of the binational Secretariat by centering project management, including financial management, and monitoring within this Committee. Such strengthening could accelerate the ability of the countries to create a River Basin Authority, pursuant to the EU Water Framework Directive, and contribute to the creation of lasting working relationships between the binational entity and the national ministries having responsibilities for the management of Lake Skadar-Shkoder.

IA RESPONSE TO STAP REVIEW PROVIDED PRIOR TO WORK PROGRAM INCLUSION[2]:

The STAP Reviewer’s main suggestion is that all GEF funds should be channeled through the binational Secretariat, rather than just funds that will finance jointly implemented activities. The proposal is that this would strengthen the Secretariat and potentially accelerate the creation of a permanent transboundary institution. While the objective is good, the proposal to channel all funds through the Secretariat is not realistic. This Secretariat does not yet have a clear legal status as does the Commission (through the Bilateral Agreement) and establishment of transboundary institutional structures needs to be done through a phased approach, giving them successively greater mandate and responsibilities as their specific roles are clarified, agreed and approved by the two Governments. It should also be borne in mind that the permanent institutional structure may be a formal coordination mechanism, rather than an implementing body. Finally, it is now considered Bank good practice to mainstream project implementation responsibilities within regular government structures to avoid the creation of independent “Project Implementation Units.” We believe the implementation structure as proposed provides the bilateral Secretariat with responsibility for implementing some activities to achieve coordination and efficiency (e.g. procurement of equipment which will be the same for both countries), but according to WB good practice the bulk of national level activities will be implemented by the respective responsible government agencies.

The STAP Reviewer also noted that the GEF PD could include more information regarding civil society organizations and other stakeholders which will participate in the project. We have included some more information on this aspect in Sections 3B and 4D of the GEF PD, to reflect some of the information from the Social Assessments already carried out in both countries during preparation. These assessments provided a starting point by identifying some relevant formal and informal local organizations (e.g. fishermen’s associations, religious organizations), and by raising awareness about the project through public meetings and focus group interviews. The GEF PD will be further strengthened based on the continued public discussions of the proposed project, which will take place prior to Appraisal.

We note that the “small grants program” referred to on p. 6 of the STAP Review is actually the competitive research grants program under Component B.

The Project Description and the Results Framework have been revised to more clearly identify the objectives, outputs, deliverables, activities and financing (GEF vs. other) for each component, as indicated on p. 8 of the Review. However, we note that in keeping with WB procedures, the GEF PD includes a Results Framework rather than a LogFrame, and that the former does not call for a detailed breakdown of project activities. Detailed activity and cost breakdowns are not normally part of a WB GEF PD, but they have been prepared and were used as the basis for the more general descriptions and aggregate project cost tables presented in the GEF PD.

Annex c: consultants to be hired for the project

Position Titles	$/ person week	Estimated person weeks	Tasks to be performed
For Technical Assistance
Local
Communications Expert	1200	12	Public Outreach Communications
Planning and natural resource management specialists	800	12	Preparation of Lake-wide Mgmt. Plan (2 consultants)
Aquatic Biology and Information Technology specialists	1000	50	Develop joint lake water/ecological monitoring Manual
Fisheries experts	1000	90	Develop joint fisheries monitoring and management plan
Information Technology	2000	40	Establishment of a Joint Database
Hydrologist/water resources specialist	1200	70	Predictive hydrological model
Sociologist/anthropologist	800	16	Socio-economic
Scientist and NGOs	800	24	Other targeted studies identified by WG
Business, tourism	1200	35	Training and capacity building for tourism development, small entrepeneurs
Landscape Architect	1200	6	Develop Architectural/landscape guidelines
Historian/ethnographer	1200	10	Inventory cultural heritage sites
Engineer	1400	6	Pilot renovations of Cultural Sites
Engineering services	1400	6	Renovations of other tourists sites
Public Relations specialist	1200	10	Capacity Building (community outreach/extension)
Fisheries specialist	1200	16	Fisherman’s organizational Support
Social scientist	1000	16	Public Awareness
Design Engineer	1300	60	Vranjina Feasibility Studies
Public Relations	1200	10	Public Awareness
Community Organizer	800	12	Community-Based Lakeside Vegetation Mgmt. Pilot
International
Planner, Water Resources Management	3500	80	Prep. Lake-wide Mgmt. Plan
Engineering, Industrial Process, Hazardous Waste Site clean-up	3800	200	Inventory/Site Investigation/Options Analysis/Feasibility
Environmental Firm	3500	50	EIA
Industrial Pollution Specialist	3800	29	Technical Advisory Support
Engineering Design	3500	10	Stream bank erosion control

Note: All international consultants and local consultants in Montenegro are paid in Euro. The average fee for international consultants is Euro 450/day which equals US$720/day (or$3600/week). Euro is also the local currency of Montenegro.

Annex d: status of implementation of project preparation activities and the use of funds

1. explain if the ppg objective has been achieved through the ppg activities undertaken. Yes, the PPG Objectives have been Achieved, including completion of transboundary diagnostic analysis with extensive public participation and development of an agreed strategic action plan. PPG also supported project preparation studies.
2. describe if any findings that might affect the project design or any concerns on project implementation.
3. provide detailed funding amount of the ppg activities and their implemtation status in the table below:

Project Preparation Activities Approved	Implementation Status	GEF Amount ($)				Co-financing ($)
		Amount Approved	Amount Spent To-date	Amount Committed	Uncommitted Amount*
Albania/Montenegro (TDA)	Completed	100,000.00	100,000.00	0.0	0.0
Albania
Consultant Services (including audits)	Completed	100,986.00	82,468.45	0.0	18,517.15	85,000 **
Goods	Completed	8,500.00	8,328.76	0.0	171.24
Works	Completed	4,418.00	4,313.16	0.0	104.84
Training	Completed	39,650.00	33,648.77	0.0	6,001.23
Incr. Operating Costs	Completed	21,446.00	18,832.87	0.0	2,613.13	25,000
Total		175,000.00	147,592.01	0.0	27,407.59
Montenegro
Consultant Services (Ind.)	Completed	6,400.00	25,451.97	0.0	19,051.97	85,000**
Consultant Services ( firms)	Completed	78,000.00	58,452.72	0.0	19,547.28
Goods	Completed	50,000.00	53,301.40	0.0	(3,301.40)
Training	Completed	20,000.00	3,320.06	0.0	16,679.94
Incr. Operating Costs	Completed	20,600.00	3,883.89	0.0	16,716.11	25,000
Total		175,000.00	144,410.04	0.0	33,396.05	220,000

* Uncommitted amount should be returned to the GEF Trust Fund. Please indicate expected date of refund transaction to Trustee. Expected date of refund is June 30, 2008, after completion of final project audits.

** Parallel financing through government supported environment and natural resource management programs in watershed

Key PPG Activities include: Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis; Strategic Action Plan; Stakeholder public consultations and public participation; monitoring and evaluation plan; training and public awareness activities, project management, and baseline studies (social, environmental). For more details see Activity Completion Report.

---

Converted with Word to HTML.