Approved on behalf of the UNDP-GEF. This proposal has been prepared in accordance with GEF policies and procedures and meets the standards of the GEF Project Review Criteria for CEO endorsement.
Name & Signature Maryam Niamir-Fuller UNDP-GEF Officer-in-Charge	Andrew Hudson, Principal Technical Advisor, International Waters Project Contact Person
Date: 7 August 2007	Tel. and email: 1 212 906 6228 Andrew.hudson@undp.org

fOR jOINT PARTNERSHIP***
GEF Project/Component ($)
	(Share)	(Fee)
	(Share)	(Fee)
	(Share)	(Fee)

Financing Plan ($)
	PPG**	Project*
GEF Total	699,840	5,688,000
Co-financing	(provide details in Section d): Co-financing)
GEF IA/ExA		4,318,800
Government		9,849,799
Others		3,533,340
Co-financing Total		17,701,939
Total	699,840	23,389,939
Financing for Associated Activities If Any: Baseline $922,100,000

* For multi-focal area projects, indicate agreed split between focal area allocations

** May refer also to previous PDF grants

***Projects that are jointly implemented by more than one IA or ExA

1. Financing

a) project cost

Project Components/Outcomes	Co-financing ($)	GEF ($)	Total ($)
Learning, evaluation and adaptive management increased	1,639,300	585,000	2,224,300
BWM Strategies in place, with legal, policy and institutional reforms developed, implemented and sustained at national level	7,961,120	2,995,000	10,956,120
Knowledge management tools and marine monitoring systems are effectively utilized to expand global public awareness and stakeholder support, improved understanding of ballast water impacts on marine ecology, and enhance maritime sector communications	3,833,179	1,198,000	5,031,179
Public-private partnerships developed to spur the development of cost-effective ballast water technology solutions	3,448,340	230,000	3,678,340
Project management budget/cost	820,000	680,000	1,500,000
Total project costs	17,701,939	5,688,000	23,389,939

Budget Notes:

i. GloBallast Partnerships is a Global Project and there are no specific national projects and national budgets. As such, no GEF resources are budgeted for international travel for national projects (i.e. study tours), international workshops for national projects, non-training workshops and study tours and furniture, office rental and vehicles.

ii. International travel to Conventions meeting, and expertise exchanges, or other unspecified travel for project shall correspond to specific outputs designed into the log-frame.

iii. As much as possible, costs of office space (rental) and supplies, phone and computers and communications and audio visual equipment shall be provided and paid for by the host government and/or co-financing. However, exceptions may be made in the case of LDC or SIDs countries or where a project site is remote and no facilities are available. Some very limited resources for equipment and communication have, therefore, been requested for project coordination purpose, as given under Table 4b below, also considering the need for global project team communications.

iv. No GEF resources are budgeted for purchase of vehicles.

v. Training workshops shall be directly related to the log-frame of the project.

vi. The cost of venue and catering for ballast water related training workshops shall be borne by the host country or agency unless these are held in developing countries, in which case, every effort will be made to ensure these costs could be provided as in-kind contribution from the respective countries.

b) Project management Budget/cost[1]

Component	Estimated staff weeks	GEF ($)	Other sources ($)	Project total ($)
Locally recruited personnel (Administrative Assistant)**	220	300,000	-	300,000
Internationally recruited consultants (CTA and TA)**	78	195,000	-	195,000
Office facilities, equipment, and communications[2]		125,000	820,000	945,000
Travel		60,000	-	60,000
Miscellaneous		-	-	-
Total		680,000	820,000	1,500,000

** The budget allocation for the management and administration of this five-year global project has been kept to a minimum, considering the significant coordination support offered by the Regional Coordinating Organizations and the expected support from the IMO Secretariat. Local and international consultants in this table corresponds to the component of time spent by Chief Technical Advisor (CTA), Technical Advisor (TA) and Administrative Assistant (AA) for functions related to the management and administration of project. CTA and TA of the Project as well as other external Consultants (local and International) will be providing mainly technical assistance to the project by undertaking a number of specific tasks of technical nature including training. The details of their services are given in c) below:

c) Consultants working for technical assistance components[3]:

Component	Estimated staff weeks[4]	GEF($)	Other sources ($)	Project total ($)
Personnel
Local consultants	2,125	2,125,000	3,063,000	5,188,000
International consultants (CTA, TA and External Consultants)	832	2,080,000	1,729,355	3,809,355
Total	12,400	4,205,000	4,792,355	8,997,355

d) Co-financing

Name of Co-financier (source)	Classification	Type	At Concept ($)	At Work Program ($)	At CEO Endorsement ($)[5]
IMO	Cooperating Agency	in-kind and in-cash	$3,300,000	$4,318,800	$4,318,800[6]
Argentina	Nat’l Gov’t	in-kind	200,000	857,000	857,000
Chile	Nat’l Gov’t	in-kind	200,000	628,000	628,000
Colombia	Nat’l Gov’t	in-kind	200,000	223,629	223,629
Venezuela	Nat’l Gov’t	in-kind	200,000	1,110,000	1,110,000
Jamaica	Nat’l Gov’t	in-kind	200,000	339,000	339,000
Trinidad& Tobago	Nat’l Gov’t	in-kind	200,000	414,000	414,000
Bahamas	Nat’l Gov’t	in-kind	200,000	418,600	418,600
Turkey	Nat’l Gov’t	in-kind	200,000	410,000	410,000
Croatia	Nat’l Gov’t	in-kind	200,000	443,500	443,500
Egypt	Nat’l Gov’t	in-kind	200,000	337,500	337,500
Yemen	Nat’l Gov’t	in-kind	200,000	337,500	337,500
Sudan	Nat’l Gov’t	in-kind	200,000	298000	298000
Jordan	Nat’l Gov’t	in-kind	200,000	337500	337500
Ghana	Nat’l Gov’t	in-kind	200,000	501400	501400
CPPS	Multilat. Agency	in-kind	200,000	168,120	168,120
REMPEITC	Multilat. Agency	in-kind	400,000	735,800	735,800
REMPEC	Multilat. Agency	in-kind and in-cash	400,000	305,000	305,000
PERSGA	Multilat. Agency	in-kind	400.000	806,750	806,750
SPREP	Multilat. Agency	in-kind	400,000	592,000	592,000
ROPME	Multilat. Agency	in-kind and in cash	400,000	224,000	224,000
EBRD	Multilat. Agency	in-cash	400,000	362,500	362,500
IUCN	International organization	in-cash	100,000	400,000	400,000
BP Shipping, UK	Private Sector	in-cash	200,000	250,000	250,000
British Maritime Technologies, UK	Private Sector	in-cash	200,000	250,000	250,000
Vela Marine International, UAE	Private Sector	in-cash	200,000	250,000	250,000
APL Shipping, Singapore	Private Sector	in-cash	200,000	250,000	250,000
IESE, Singapore	Research Institute	in-kind and in cash	200,000	350,00	350,000[7]
Degussa, (Germany)	Private Sector	in-cash		25,000	25,000
Environmental Technologies Inc, (USA)	Private Sector	in-cash		200,000	200,000
Ferrate Treatment Technologies, (USA)	Private Sector	in-cash		700,000	700,000
MetaFil AS, (Norway)	Private Sector	in-cash		500,000	500,000
NIOZ, (Netherlands)	Research Institute	in-cash		47,100	47,100
NIWA, (New Zealand)	Research Institute.	in-cash	200,000	311,240	311,240
Sub-Total Co-financing			10,000,000	17,701,939	17,701,939

2. Response to REviews

a) Council

1. France:

The comments emphasising the importance of ballast water issue especially in areas of heavy traffic, and the urgent need for capacity building, legal framework and experience sharing are noted with appreciation. A major consideration in selection of the highest priority areas, for this GEF intervention, was the shipping traffic intensity.

2. Switzerland (offered jointly with another IW Project):

The comments are noted with appreciation.

1. We appreciate this opportunity to provide additional clarification and information on this aspect that were perhaps not emphasized enough in the project documents. Although the project document identified leveraging US $5.64 million in GEF funding to achieve a total incremental financing of $23.34 million, as indicated in the footnotes to the tables on project co-financing (page 12 and 13 of GEF Executive Summary and page 4 of this document), there is also a significant amount of additional parallel financing that directly support the GloBallast Partnerships objectives. These commitments were included in the endorsement letters that were attached to the UNDP Project Document (ProDoc), but has NOT been fully accounted as direct co-financing in order to be consistent with the current GEF definition of “co-financing” (Table 2.1.5 (2) of ProDoc). This includes US$7.5 million that participating developing countries as well as developed countries will spend towards the IMO-MEPC Ballast Water working group meetings over the next five years. These efforts by countries at the international level is an integral part of the common efforts by the GEF member governments to address this urgent issue of marine bioinvasions and are clearly complimentary to the efforts of GloBallast Partnerships to assist the developing countries in implementing the global standards, protocols and guidance developed in these meetings.

2. Also considered parallel, but NOT currently accounted as direct co-finance funding, is roughly $17.5 million (as per the support letters attached to ProDoc) that the private sector partners have, during the preparatory stage, committed to spend on developing ballast water treatment technologies and in transferring these technologies, which are essential requirements to fully address ballast water issues. While, as per the tables, the ratio of direct co-financing for the Project (by member states and other stakeholders) to GEF contribution is 3.1, factoring the additional parallel co-financing, which the GloBallast Private Sector Partners committed during the preparatory stage, the total figure reaches US$48.3 million, a ratio of over 8 dollars leveraged for every 1 dollar of GEF funds.

3. It should also be noted that the direct cash contribution to the GloBallast Partnerships Project through the Global Industry Alliance, currently stands at US$ 1 million, the largest ever cash-contribution committed by the private sector to a global initiative on this issue. Also, the GIA model allows for scaling-up of this public-private partnership to any level.

4. The previous experience from the GloBallast pilot phase, shows that the actual co-financing for the project far exceeded the initial co-financing pledged by pilot countries (US$2.8 million pledge Vs 6 million actual – Ref: GEF-UNDP Terminal Evaluation Report)) and there is enough evidence to suggest that the second phase of GloBallast would follow this pattern, especially since countries like Turkey have already mobilized their cash finances far in excess of what the country committed during the preparatory stage.

5. IMO has recently been officially informed by India (a GloBallast pilot country and also a partner country for GloBallast Partnerships) that Government of India, subsequent to the consultations during the GBP preparatory phase, has allocated Indian Rs 50 crores (US$12 million) in their next five year plan (2007-2011) specifically for ballast water management including development of ballast water treatment test facilities and treatment systems (Ref: 11^th Five-Year Plan by India : National Planning Commission, Government of India). This is also confirmed as per the attached email from Additional Director-General of Shipping, Government of India). This will raise the GBP leveraged co-financing ratio even higher to 1:11, which is also a reflection of the unprecedented momentum that the GEF pilot phase mobilized, and strong example and proof of sustainability of GEF’s catalytic efforts and more importantly, the ongoing strong commitment of GBP partner countries and their country drivenness.

6. We agree that there was some lack of clarity in the Project document, when the country co-financing was shown as in-kind support. As a matter of fact, the country co-financing commitment made by the countries were very specific and direct commitments against the specific tasks identified for the practical implementation of the Project (Please refer to Table 2.1.5(1) of ProDoc) and should, in-a way, be accounted as cash financing, considering the actual cash requirement to implement these on the ground activities such as training, stakeholder meetings and data collection etc. Also, it is important to note that major focus of this Project is on national level activities and countries have already agreed to implement these national level activities by committing the co-financing for specific activities and as mentioned in their endorsement letters. An example again is the case of Turkey, which is a GBP Lead Partnering Country. Turkey’s contribution in the given table (Page 13 of GEF Ex. Summary) is accounted as in-kind contribution (US$410,000), however we have been already informed that Turkey has allocated close to US$ 0.8 million in-cash in their national budget and even transferred this resource to the national implementation partner (TUBITAK) to support implementing the GloBallast activities. In fact, Turkey-TUBITAK completed their first ballast water activity in March 2007.

7. As per co-financing in pages 12-14 of GEF Executive Summary (and Table 1.d of this document), the direct cash contribution (including the US$914,000 from IMO) accounted as co-financing to the project would amount to 78% of the GEF funding. This takes into account all the cash, co-financing from partnering private sector (this amount, while representing only 10% of the total cash-financing commitment by private sector, was agreed to be accounted as co-financing to the project after discussion with GEFSEC, considering the significant direct support of private sector to achieve the objectives of the project and their direct participation and contributions in GloBallast Partnerships activities). This number will reach 92%, if the contribution of just one Lead Partnering Country (Turkey) can now be considered as cash-contribution (US$800,000) as this will be the true and accurate reflection of the nature of contribution from this country. In addition, by including India’s recent allocation of additional cash US$12 million as co-financing, the cash co-financing from all partners reaches 320% of GEF financing. This is still not considering the significant parallel cash financing from Private Sector Partners (as pledged in the endorsement letters), which, if accounted for, will take this percentage to an impressive 670%. In summary, the cash co-financing alone for the next five years of GEF intervention to address ballast water issues will reach a ratio close to 1:7, and the total co-financing including in-kind contributions will reach a ratio of 1:11. We again agree that these aspects were not delineated enough in the project documents, leading to this interpretation of levels of co-financing.

8. The proposal for a GEF intervention and partnership between IMO, UNDP and GEF to scale-up their successful pilot phase was the direct result of the formal request and recommendation made by the Marine Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC) represented by over 150 member countries of IMO, in their 49^th Session of MEPC meeting in July 2003. The very high level of interest and commitment to address the issue of marine bioinvasion, is evident from the unprecedented level of endorsement letters from GEF OFPs of 19 developing countries and from Heads of Government Administrations of 27 additional developing countries, for the current project proposal. This is in addition to the endorsement and commitments from the Regional, Inter-Governmental Organizations, who have been given the mandate by their own member countries to support and coordinate the project at regional level. These countries, along with rest of the world, continued to meet at regional and international levels over the last 4 years, to develop an International Convention, and are still continuing their efforts to develop various guidelines (so far 16 guidelines have been approved through IMO resolutions) to help implementing the Convention. It is important to note that the Diplomatic Conference to adopt the Ballast Water Management Convention in 2004 was presided over by Government of India and vice-presided over by Brazil, South Africa and Ukraine, all of them GloBallast Pilot and Partner Countries and it is reasonable to expect that these countries will continue their efforts to support GloBallast Partnerships (ref: Final Act of the BWM Convention – IMO Diplomatic Conference Paper BWM/CONF/37). This shows the extremely high level of country drivenness by the developing countries that are integral part of the GloBallast efforts.

9. Country direct cash co-finance is only one indicator of country drivenness and perhaps not the most significant one. Considering that the main aim of the project is to have national level legal, policy and institutional reforms in place to address the issue of ballast water, the most important step one could anticipate to achieve this objective is the ratification of the International Convention by the participating beneficiary countries. Any commitment towards this most crucial step should be considered as a much stronger indicator of country drivenness than any cash contribution; in addition, ratification sets into motion a number of national policy, legal and institutional processes with significant ramifications for national budgets. Despite the fact that the Ballast Water Management Convention is a very recent development and usually the ratification of such Conventions involves lengthy processes, all 13 LPCs have indicated in their endorsement letters that they will utilise the technical assistance through the project to review the implications and they are expected to ratify the Convention during the project time period. Even more importantly, one of the Lead Partnering Countries (Egypt) has very recently ratified the convention to fulfil their promise, even before the project is commissioned. Similarly, the following beneficiary countries from four of the six GBP high priority regions have already ratified the Convention during the preparatory stage (Barbados and Saint Kitts and Nevis from Caribbean region, Nigeria from GCLME region, Syria from Mediterranean region, Tuvalu and Kiribati from SPREP region), even ahead of most of the developed countries (e,g., USA, France, UK, Germany, Australia and Canada who have yet to ratify the Convention). This clearly shows the commitment and drivenness of the participating developing countries and their interest in laying the foundation for the activities identified in the Project and also reflects the fact that the socio-economic impact of this issue on developing countries are much higher than developed countries.

10. In addition to the cash and in-kind contribution committed by the Lead Partnering Countries for very specific national level and regional activities (as per UNDP ProDoc Table 2.1.5(1)), strong indicators of Country drivenness by the Lead Partnering Countries have also been manifested in the following examples:

Turkey

- $0.8 million (cash) already allocated to National Implementation organization TUBITAK

- Project activities such as Risk assessment and initial stock-taking have already been initiated with an aim to lay the foundation for GBP

- Additional ballast water risk assessment activities for certain ports in partnership with private sector such as BP Exploration

- Turkey organized a national Training on ballast water Risk Assessment and funded the whole activity.

- Several other work-packages to address the issue of ballast water are progressing.

Egypt

- Ratified the convention in 2007

- Hosted the Regional Port Baseline Survey Training workshop: (this was an activity identified in the proposed Project, but the region and the Regional Coordinating partner (PERSGA) have already gone ahead with this activity even without GEF funding to implement this activity)

- Egypt will be hosting the first Regional Ballast Water Regional Training Meeting for the Mediterranean Region in December 2007. This was another activity identified in the Project for this region, but the country is taking a lead in implementing this activity, using non-GEF funding.

Jamaica:

- In August 2006, the Environmental Foundation of Jamaica (EFJ) approved a $3.45 million grant allowing local scientists the opportunity to research the full extent of ballast water issues in their ports. In addition $2.5 million is to be provided by way of cash and in-kind by the Institute of Jamaica who is implementing this project.

- Jamaica has already gone ahead with the national training of ship ballast water sampling (May 2007) with the expert support of another GloBallast Pilot country Brazil, showing not only country drivenness but also the catalytic role that the pilot phase is playing in the new phase.

- Jamaica, who is chairing the Western Hemesphere Transport Initiative, has already brought the ballast water to the top of agenda of WHTI.

Ghana:

- Ghana, one LPC in West Africa Region hosted the Regional Meeting of 16 Western African Countries to develop the Regional Action plan for ballast water management. This activity was already identified in the Project, however the countries have already gone ahead with this activity using non-GEF funding.

Croatia :

- Croatia, another LPC in the Mediterranean Region, is an active member and main contributor of the Adriatic Initiative (Slovenia and Croatia) on Ballast water management and also a member of the Trilateral initiative (Croatia, Italy and Slovenia) to address ballast water issues in Adriatic / Ionian Seas. Several activities such as risk assessment, sampling etc have already been undertaken through these initiatives using non-GEF funding. Croatia also informed PPU that they have incorporated ballast water management issues and issues related to ballast exchange zones in their ongoing discussions and preparations to support the establishment of a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area (PSSA) for the Adriatic Sea.

Argentina and Chile:

- Both LPC countries from the South East Pacific region have already developed local regulations to control the discharge of unmanaged ballast water in certain ports.

Venezuela:

- In 2006, Venezuela hosted a Regional Needs Assessment Meeting to identify the high priorities and needs for ballast water management

- Co-financing support letters from Venezuela indicates an additional US$2.676 million to support the specific activities of GBP. However this was not accounted as in-cash or in-kind contribution towards the incremental financing (as this was marked as baseline support), although Venezuela is already going ahead with their national activities and considering this as baseline.

11. Another recent examples/evidences of strong country drivenness are the high-level national consultation meetings (June 2007) of key policy makers and decision makers (200 delegates in total) in four East Asian Countries (Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand and Malaysia) to develop and agree on national action plans to address the ballast water issues and to form national task forces to implement the national action plans. All these efforts were supported by non-GEF funds. This is in addition to the recent allocation of US$12 million in the next five-year plan by another pilot / partner country (India) in South Asia, to specifically address ballast water issues and the recent announcement by this country to call for the First International Conference on Biofouling and Ballast Water Management, in partnership with IMO-GloBallast (ref: www.icbab.nio.org) .

12. All the above are only selected examples, and by no means a comprehensive list of initiatives by GloBallast Pilot and LPC countries. However these initiatives alone strongly manifest the country drivenness by the participating countries in this much anticipated GEF intervention to help address this serious threat of marine bioinvasion.

An important point was made relating to the achievability and sustainability of achievements. While we agree with the comments that the project goals and scope may be large, we believe that they are achievable and can be sustained, because of several important factors:

1. It is important to note that the proposed Project does not start from scratch but rather builds on the significant body of knowledge and experience gained during the GEF-UNDP-IMO GloBallast Pilot Phase and will continue to draw on the experience and expertise developed in this phase. The pilot phase developed and clearly demonstrated effective strategies and tools for building and sustaining national capacities to address the issue of ballast water. All the pilot countries have sustained their efforts and the momentum after the project completion and such examples include – countries extending port surveys to other national ports and allocating additional resources for ballast water management, organizing further training courses, assisting and encouraging private sector to develop treatment technologies, continuing the efforts to expand the collection of ship reporting forms, funding additional R&D activities and hosting international conferences, to name a few. These pilot countries are also now partners to the second phase of GloBallast and they have committed their support (please see the endorsement / support letters) in replicating the relevant activities in the new LPCs, by sharing their expertise and resources. Some clear examples include the technical support of Brazil in organizing a ship-board sampling workshop in Jamaica (the new LPC), the support of China is organizing a regional training course using their own funds for the ASEAN countries, organization of the first international conference on ballast water and biofouling by India in early 2008, support of Ukraine in conducting national seminars in other CIS countries, contribution of Iranian expertise for a regional training meeting in ROPME region, South Africa undertaking a national port baseline survey training and survey at the Port of Mombassa, Kenya, India developing a electronic ballast water reporting system and sharing this tool free of charge with all the new LPCs. These are only few examples, but highlight the significant influence of this body of knowledge and experience from pilot phase in achieving the outcomes anticipated.

2. The project will be implemented concurrent to the efforts of IMO Member States to ratify the Ballast Water Convention. Consequently, the guidance being developed at IMO for the Convention will be directly pertinent to the partner country efforts.

3. The Project includes a wide array of experienced personnel at the regional coordinating organizations who are fully supportive and will serve in a coordinating capacity (as given in the endorsement / support letters).

4. The preparatory stage has succeeded to mobilize extensive co-financing through regional, country and industry partners, emphasizing the very catalytic nature of GEF intervention. As mentioned before, a total of US$48.5 million has been mobilized (excluding the latest commitments by Turkey and India) as cash and in-kind contributions from various stakeholders including governments and private sector. The achievability of the proposed outcomes should be viewed in light of these significant efforts by various stakeholders in achieving the common objectives and to generate global environmental benefits. A clear example is the outcome 4 - development of technology solutions: the Industry Partners have already committed US$1 million direct cash financing to form the GloBallast Industry Alliance (GIA) within GBP framework and the private sector has in addition committed close to US$17 million to help the technology development process, which is an integral part of addressing the issue of ballast water.

5. It is also important to consider the generally low level of risk and modest assumptions associated with the outcomes as articulated in the project Logframe.

6. The project will enable the partnering counties to improve their ballast water management systems, will help to stimulate research and development on treatment technologies and sediment handling, and will enable improvements in global communications and information on shipping, which should drive improved risk management globally. The key is then to have these national activities continue on beyond project closure. The best mechanism to ensure this sustainability is widespread ratification of the Ballast Water Management Convention, amongst the countries in the Partner regions, and the Project has a heavy emphasis on this aspect. Since all the above activities are stipulated in the Convention, the Convention ratification will compel these States to develop the necessary national legislation that will drive environmental management improvements at commercial ports and amongst flagged vessels.

7. The Project focuses on a number of specific training programmes to achieve the sustainability of outcomes. This training programmes in new LPCs, that will draw the experience and experts of the pilot countries, will ensure that there exists a cadre of experts in each country with the skills to continue carrying out activities after the project has ended. Significant resources are externally mobilised for such training activities in addition to the GEF funding, considering the importance of training in sustaining national activities. Such cash commitments include the funding from IMO-ITCP programmes and from IFIs such as EBRD (please see the financial commitments in the support letters from IMO and EBRD).

8. An important stakeholder to ensure sustainability of outcomes is the private Sector who should continue developing technologies and continue complying with the Convention requirements. There exists a key opportunity to scale-up and expand the current GloBallast Industry Alliance (which has already received US$1 million direct cash commitment from major oil majors and ship owners) that will be setup by the Project. The financing model based on corporate annual memberships allows any level of scaling up and extension of such a private-public partnership.

9. Special care has been taken with respect to institutional sustainability- long-term policy reforms at the national level is one of the main output and this will be integrated within regional mechanisms and the high level of involvement of RCOs will help this process. Specific provisions regarding ballast water management and control will be included in the existing government cooperation mechanisms to ensure long-term governmental commitment and continuation of ballast water activities after GEF’s intervention. A clear example is the inclusion of the ballast water management issues in the Nairobi Convention discussions (post pilot phase efforts in South/East Africa), development of a Red Sea and Gulf of Aden regional action plan with an aim to include the issue in the Jeddah Convention, and the ongoing discussions at the Tehran Convention Meeting and the Black Sea Convention Meetings with an aim to integrate the ballast water issue into these regional conventions.

10. At the regional level, sustainability will be enhanced through opportunities provided for non-lead country participation, enabling all countries in the regions to receive basic tools and mechanisms that can help improve port environmental management and reduce IAS threats. The regional organisations will also promote regional cooperation on ballast water management, including agreements on restricted ballast exchange areas and risk-based inter-regional exemptions to ballast treatment and exchange requirements, providing a regional impetus for continuation of activities after the project.

11. At the global level, as a result of the pilot phase of the project, IMO in 2003 created a strong institutional basis by establishing the “Office for Ballast Water Management” and funding a senior technical position and associated secretarial support. The ongoing commitment from IMO in sustaining the efforts is evident from the fact that this office has now been further strengthened to form the “Biosafety Section” with an additional full-time senior technical officer supporting the Section. This, together with the adoption of ballast water management as a new thematic priority of IMO’s Integrated Technical Cooperation Program will ensure the necessary sustainability at the global level during and beyond the proposed period of the GloBallast Partnerships Project. In addition, IMO member States are committed to an ongoing process of guidance development for the implementation of the BWM Convention.

12. Replication will be enhanced through the networking efforts of the PCU and partners. While the main focus is on 6 high priority regions, there are 8 additional regions directly involved (from the pilot phase countries and through training workshops supported by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, EBRD). This wide level of inclusion should help with replication of lessons learned and best practices. Further opportunities to share knowledge will be achieved via the R&D forums (see Logframe 4.4.2) and participation of GB partners in regional conventions (Logframe 1.1.7).

13. The project will promote dissemination and replication of its best practices and lessons learnt through the GloBallast Marine Electronic Information System (GMEIS) and GloBallast Web Portal, and through specialized communication projects such as GEF IW: LEARN. The training package designed using Train-X methodology in the pilot phase will be enhanced and delivered at new locations and will be made available worldwide through the maritime training institute networks as well as through an e-learning module. Certain technical and capacity-building activities implemented in the Pilot Countries will be replicated at additional demonstration sites during the proposed project.

1. We fully agree with the comments that national governments and private institutions have a major role to play for the envisaged outcomes. In this context we would like to draw attention to the detailed stakeholder involvement plan (section 3.4 of UNDP proDoc, page 135) for the implementation of the project and the very extensive stakeholder consultations conducted during the preparatory stage (Plese Refer to the GEF Project Preparation Status Report. In summary, these consultations involved over 10 global meetings, 14 regional meetings participated by national stakeholders,13 national meetings and 15 meetings with private sector).

2. Focussed consultation workshops were conducted in all the high priority regions selected for GBP (table in page 137 of ProDoc) that were attended by a spectrum of national stakeholders from each country in the respective regions, representing maritime administrations, environmental ministry, relevant other ministries, scientific community and ports and shipping industry. In addition to these discussions, more in depth national level consultations took place for the highest priority region, in order to augment the consultation process.

3. An important consultation process, that was perhaps not given much highlight in the project document, was the three years of continuous dialogue between IMO and the national representatives of each lead partnering countries during the IMO MEPC meetings (MEPC 53 to 56) that took place in London, the IMO Sub-committee meetings on numerous occasions and the Ballast Water Working group meetings that are attended by the GEF-beneficiary countries (a detailed list is attached to the GEF Project Preparation Status Report). During each of these meetings in London, attended by over 400 national delegates, the GloBallast Project Preparation Unit organized several side meetings with the national delegates who represented not only the maritime administrations (the most likely lead agency for the project) but also the ministries of environment , industry representatives, various IGOs and NGOs and sister UN organizations. This consultation process during MEPC meetings, while saving considerable resources, significantly helped getting the full engagement and commitment of the most relevant stakeholders, which resulted in an unprecedented level of support and endorsement letters as well as co-financing.

4. A very high level of stakeholder participation was achieved during the pilot phase, which was highlighted as one of the most important achievements of GloBallast pilot phase. This was achieved by developing national level, inter-ministerial and cross-sectoral national task forces to implement the project activities. It is expected that GloBallast Partnerships will continue using the same model and the pilot phase experience suggests that the risk of not achieving such extensive involvement of various stakeholders at national level is very minimum.

5. During Project design, according to the guiding principle of GEF funding and incremental financing, due care was given to the fact that GEF resources shall NOT be used for specific activities that will have a substantial direct benefit at the country or local level. However, considering the important need of maximum stakeholder participation at national and local levels, significant external resources have been identified and mobilized for stake-holder participation at national, regional and global levels mainly through mobilizing commitments from a) national governments to undertake specific stake-holder consultation meetings, b) regional coordinating partners to undertake regional stakeholder meetings and harmonization meetings as well as c) industry and strategic partners to participate in the global discussions and forums. GEF resources will only partially augment these activities. Referring to the Table 2.1.5 (1) that shows specific contributions from LPCs and RCOs towards activities that involve various stakeholders at national level (stakeholder meetings and training etc), it can be seen that the total resources committed by the LPCs and RCOs amount to US$8.23 million and this is in addition to the US$3.7 million allocated from GEF resources towards the activities mostly at regional and global level. Such a strong commitment by the countries and RCOs manifests as effective stakeholder involvement during the implementation of activities. This is in addition to the significant commitments by the countries and industry partners for stakeholder meetings and discussions at the international/IMO level.

6. The project is co-financed by 13 Lead partnering Countries and has been endorsed and supported by over 40 Partner Countries, co-financed by 8 regional organisations and supported by all the six initial Pilot Countries. In addition, endorsement letters with co-financing have been received from over 13 private-sector companies and 9 strategic partners including IUCN, UNEP regional Seas, International Chamber of Shipping, INTERTANKO, NEPAD, UNESCO-IOC to name a few. All these are important stakeholders who will participate in the implementation of various activities and have been closely consulted during the preparation of the Project (please refer to the endorsement / support letters in ProDoc Annexes)

7. In each LPC, a lead organization is already identified based on the letter of commitments. Mostly these are maritime administrations, which are best suited for a project related to a ship / maritime regulation/policy issue. The initial project activities focus on efforts in each country to form a National Task Force (NTF) that will bring various other key stakeholders into the project decision-making process. The PCU will provide guidelines suggesting who should be involved, as the countries form their NTFs. This process worked very well during the pilot phase and will be replicated. It is important to note that all of the 13 LPCs undertook extensive internal consultations with various government bodies before sending their commitment/support letters.

8. As to the regions, the regional coordinating organizations have all been identified. They are duly authorized by the countries within their respective regions to focus on maritime environmental issues. In each case, they are already directly linked to GEF, UNDP and/or IMO through pre-existing funding arrangements and MOU’s.

Comments are noted with appreciation.

1. As described in the previous sections, this global project was designed through an extensive consultation with the various stakeholders including Lead partnering Countries, Regional Organizations, Strategic Partners and industry partners that gave considerable focus on the practical implementation of the activities, level of involvement of various stakeholders and specific contributions and roles for specific activities. These focused consultations spanned across a period of over three years since the Project Concept was submitted in year 2004 until the Project was presented to GEF Council in 2007. This is in addition to the numerous other consultations / meetings that took place with an aim to obtain stakeholder inputs to the project design.

2. Attention is drawn to the detailed description of the 50+ detailed tasks (global, regional and national) in Section 1.2.6 of the UNDP project Document (pages 22 to 46). Considerable efforts were made to identify specific involvement and contribution by various stakeholders (national governments, RCOs, Strategic partners such as Financial Institutions and Private Sector) and this is reflected in Table 2.1.5 (1). The Project Logframe also captures the involvement of various stakeholders in implementing the specific activities.

3. Further breakdown of the specific tasks into a more detailed day-to-day implementation plan was considered inappropriate for the purpose of this proposal as a detailed project implementation plan is expected to be developed and agreed upon after forming the national, regional and global task forces. Again, this follows the successful model developed in the pilot phase, one which lends itself for taking ownership of the day-to-day activities by the stakeholders.

We believe this matter was addressed in section (i) of this Response.

3. India (verbal comments offered during Council meeting in June 2007 ):

1. Government of India provided a letter of support for this proposed project (Annex B). Also, the following points emphasis the continuous involvement of India during the preparatory stage and the commitment of Government of India to sustain the efforts of GloBallast efforts, although the focus of the new phase is very much on new developing regions and countries who have not benefited from Phase 1.

2. India being a Phase 1 pilot country is considered as a Centre of Excellence that would share the expertise and knowledge developed during the pilot phase. As agreed in the first Global Inception Meeting held during the preparatory phase, which India participated, detailed consultations and GEF OFP endorsements were generally confined to the new 13 Lead Partnering Countries (LPCs) who are directly benefiting from the Project and the Regions they represent.

3. Notwithstanding the above, extensive and frequent consultations were conducted with Government of India through the Ministry of Shipping who has been the focal point for the GloBallast Phase 1 Project. These consultations were conducted to encourage India to sustain the momentum precipitated in pilot phase and to identify potential partnership opportunities for the second phase.

4. As mentioned before, India was also invited to the Global Inception Meeting held in London during the preparatory stage and the Mr Ajoy Chatterjee (Chief Surveyor and Addition Director General of Shipping, Ministry of Shipping), on behalf of Government of India, participated in this strategic meeting that discussed and agreed the regional and country selection criteria and roles of Pilot countries.

5. Discussions continued during the preparatory phase of the project with NIO of India and Ministry of Shipping and activities such as joint-conference and workshops were identified. The first joint activity between GloBallast and India is planned for February 2008, which is the first Global Conference on Ballast Water and Biofouling to be held in Goa, India. Also GloBallast and NIO, India agreed to organize a Global expert workshop on ballast water treatment technology test facilities. This is captured in the Project Document.

6. Subsequent to these discussions, India has also made a firm budget proposal of almost US$12 million in the next Five Year Plan, by the National Planning Commission of India, specifically to address ballast water issues and treatment technologies. This also shows the tremendous support and commitment of India to the GEF efforts and to sustain the outcomes of first GEF intervention.

7. All the above examples clearly demonstrate that India, although not a Lead Partnering Country for the second phase, was still part of the extensive discussions and consultations during the preparatory phase. Also we are not aware of any information exchange gaps between various ministries, as all the relevant ministries, including Ministry of Environment were involved in the National Task Force established during phase 1 and were behind the success of the Project in India. Government of India’s interest and support expressed through the support letter from Ministry of Shipping and later on proven through the a firm multi-million dollar budget proposal in the National Five-Year Plan is highly appreciated. We are, in fact, are very proud of the fact that India presided over the International Convention on Ballast Water Management, that was adopted in 2004 in a Diplomatic Convention in London, a clear example of Leadership from a GloBallast Pilot Country.

b) GEF Secretariat

All comments received from GEF Secretariat until Work Programme Entry were addressed at Work Programme Entry.

c) Review by expert from STAP Roster (if required)

All comments from STAP Review Expert were addressed at Work Programme Entry

3. justification for major changes in the project, if any[8]

No major changes are made.

4. required attachments

a) Project Appraisal Document - Attached

b) Report on the Use of Project Preparation Grant - Attached

c) Confirmed letters of commitments from co-financiers (with English translations) – Separate Annex attached with Project Document due to the size and numbers of these endorsement letters

d) Agency Notification Template on Major Project Amendment and provide details of the amendment, if applicable.- No major amendments made.

Annex A: Terms of Reference for TECHNICAL ADVISORS

Chief Technical Advisor (CTA), International Hire

The CTA’s main responsibilities will be in the role as an international ballast water management expert responsible for the delivery of the technical outcomes through technical assistance activities and coordination of all related activities identified in the GloBallast Partnership Project. The CTA will also be responsible for the management of the project (10% of time) and overall co-ordination of all aspects of the GloBallast Partnership Project in general, and in addition he/she shall mainly be responsible for the delivery of a number of technical activities involving training, capacity building in participating developing countries and liaise directly with the units established under the project, i.e., the Global Project Task Force (GPTF), Regional Project Task Forces (RPTFs), the National Project Task Forces (NPTFs), potential additional project donors, private sector, national focal points and the representatives of Global Environment Facility (GEF) partners, in order to co-ordinate the annual work plan for the Programme. The estimated number of staff-weeks for this position is 220.

The CTA will in particular:

· In the capacity as an international expert in ballast water management field, provide technical assistance and capacity building services to the to the participating developing countries with an aim to increase learning, evaluation and adaptive management, and to ensure ballast water management strategies are in place, legal, policy and institutional reforms developed and implemented at national levels.

· Manage the GEF components of the Programme Co-ordination Unit (PCU), its staff, budget and imprest funds if any;

· Prepare the annual work plan of the Programme on the basis of the Project Document, in close consultation and co-ordination with the GPTF, national focal points, GEF partners and relevant donors;

· Co-ordinate and monitor the activities described in the work plan and provide progress reports to IMO and UNDP as per the project monitoring and evaluation plan;

· Ensure consistency between the various programme elements and related activities provided or funded by other donor organizations;

· Prepare and oversee the development of terms of reference for additional consultants and contractors when needed;

· Co-ordinate and oversee the preparation of reports from the Programme;

· Foster and establish links with other related GEF programmes and, where appropriate, with other regional international waters’ programmes;

Qualifications and Experience

Post-graduate degree in environmental science and engineering, marine engineering or a directly related field (e.g. marine science, natural resources economics, etc.). At least fifteen years experience in related fields, of which at least 8 years experience in ballast water management field and related capacity building activities. Experience as a senior project manager. Demonstrated diplomatic and negotiating skills; Familiarity with the goals and procedures of international organizations, in particular those of the GEF partners (UNDP, IMO, World Bank); Excellent knowledge of spoken and written English; and familiarity with the shipping industry and issues related to the industry in general; direct knowledge of or work experience in one or more of the participating countries would be an asset.

Technical Advisor (TA), International Hire

Under the supervision of the Chief Technical Adviser (CTA), the Technical Adviser (TA) will be responsible for the delivery of a number of technical activities that includes training, capacity building and coordination of the knowledge management and private-public partnership component of the GloBallast Partnership Project. He/she shall be responsible for activities aimed at the collection of information, exchange and networking between a wide range of project participants including government officials, scientists, non-governmental organizations and the public at large. He/she will work closely with institutional focal points, project lead agencies, specialized UN Agencies, international NGOs, national and local NGOs, and will co-operate and encourage the activities of other donors in the area of project communications. While providing the necessary project management services for the Project as requested by CTA, the TA’s main responsibilities will be in the role as an international expert responsible for the delivery of the technical outcomes and coordination of all related activities. The estimated number of staff-weeks for this position is 220.

The TA will have the following specific duties:

· Assist the CTA in delivering technical activities as per the Project Plan

· Generate and maintain a directory of all persons and institutions engaged in work related to the implementation of the programme;

· Supervise data exchange and the maintenance of the data communications network between and among project related institutions and individuals;

· Create, edit, and distribute a regular information bulletin on the programme;

· Collect information on ballast water management options, related research projects and their results, as well as on new invasions of aquatic species, on related financial implications and on related remediation programmes;

· Supervise the development of an electronic information and communications system as part of a global resource information centre;

· Supervise the development and maintenance of information management strategies;

· Develop and maintain a World Wide Web home page for project;

· Consult in the creation of and supervise the creation of awareness and education programmes in each participating country;

· Lead the development of a global marine electronic information system for ballast water management

· Supervise the technical activities identified under the Global Industry Alliance which is the Private-Public Sector Partnership component of the GloBallast Partnership Project

· Assist the CTA in delivering technical activities as per the Project Plan

· Assist in the administration of other information-related communications systems as required by CTA.

· Carry out any other tasks as requested by the Chief Technical Advisor of the Project.

Qualifications and Experience:

Post-graduate degree in marine science, information management, natural resources economics or a directly related field; At least five years experience in the international arena dealing with information exchange and marine scientific/environmental management projects; Experience in international communication technologies, computer data bases, web design and information systems; Experience in the development of awareness and training programmes; Excellent knowledge of spoken and written English; Familiarity with maritime transportation issues.

---

Converted with Word to HTML.