PROJECT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
REQUEST FOR WORK PROGRAM ENTRY
GEFSEC PROJECT ID: 2261
FINANCING PLAN ($)
IA/EXA PROJECT ID: PIMS No. 3050
PPG
Project*
COUNTRY: Global
GEF Total
699,840
5,688,000
PROJECT TITLE: Building Partnerships to Assist Co-financing
(provide details in Section b: Co-financing)
Developing Countries to Reduce the Transfer of GEF IA/ExA
4,318,800
Harmful Aquatic Organisms in Ship's Ballast
Water (GloBallast Partnerships)
Government
9,849,799
GEF IA: UNDP
Others
3,533,340
OTHER PROJECT EXECUTING AGENCY(IES): None Co-financing
DURATION: Five years
17,701,939
Total
GEF FOCAL AREA: International Waters
Total 699,840
23,389,939
GEF STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES: IW Strategic Financing for Associated Activities If Any:
Objective (b) catalytic role in addressing Baseline $922,100,000
transboundary water concerns; IW Strategic ** For multi-focal projects, indicate agreed split
Programme I: Restoring and sustaining coastal
between focal area allocations
and marine fish stocks and associated biological
diversity
FOR JOINT PARTNERSHIP**
GEF OPERATIONAL PROGRAM: 10
GEF PROJECT/COMPONENT ($)
P
(Agency Name)
(Share)
(Fee)
IPELINE ENTRY DATE: 12 July 2004
(Agency Name)
(Share)
(Fee)
EXPECTED STARTING DATE: AUGUST 2007
(Agency Name)
(Share)
(Fee)
EXPECTED CEO ENDORSEMENT:
IA FEE: $574,905.60
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 work
program inclusion.
Andrew Hudson, Principal Technical Advisor,
International Waters
Project Contact Person
Frank Pinto
Tel. and email: 1 212 906 6228
UNDP/GEF Executive Coordinator
Andrew.hudson@undp.org
Date: 23 April 2007
1
GloBallast Partnerships
GEF Executive Summary
CONTRIBUTION TO KEY INDICATORS IDENTIFIED IN THE FOCAL AREA STRATEGIES:
The project directly supports IW Strategic Objective 2 (reiterated in GEF-4 IW Strategy to June
2007 Council) -to play a catalytic role in addressing transboundary water concerns by assisting
countries to utilize the full range of technical assistance, economic, financial, regulatory and
institutional reforms that are needed, including active leveraging of co-financing. The project
contributes to GEF-4 IW Strategic Programme I: Restoring and sustaining coastal and marine fish
stocks and associated biological diversity reflecting the fact that substances (e.g. invasive species)
toxic to fish, biodiversity, and humans (hazardous algal blooms and paralytic shellfish disease) are
transferred across borders in ship ballast water (by far the largest vector); it also directly addresses
SP-1 objective of supporting demonstrations addressing invasive species in ship ballast water. The
project supports several indicators of IW SP-1, including: adoption/implementation of regional,
national, and local policy/legal/institutional reforms; improvements in fish stock and coastal
habitat achieved; multi-agency partnerships for action developed; and regional
agreements/protocols enacted. The project further supports IW SP-I GEF objective of engaging
the business community to develop and implement solutions. Lastly, the project is the principle
vehicle for delivering SP-I programmatic impact of catalyzing State ratifications of the new global
ship ballast water convention on invasive species (Ballast Water Management Convention); a
planned outcome of the project is that at least two thirds of the LPCs (e.g. 9 countries), will have
ratified the Ballast Water Management Convention during the course of the project.
More specifically, GloBallast Partnerships will contribute to key objectives and targets for the
International Waters focal area as follows:
Global Coverage: GloBallast Partnerships Project will have a global coverage of 14
developing regions. The project will help to develop and/or strengthen national level ballast
water management frameworks in six new regions: Wider Caribbean, South East Pacific,
Mediterranean, Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, West and Central Africa, South Pacific. In
addition, ongoing ballast water management coordination efforts in the six GloBallast Pilot
regions will be strengthened. During the course of the project, synergetic linkages will be
established with at least two additional regions that are already strengthening their ballast water
management efforts as part of other GEF projects.
Agreed Joint Management Actions: 13 countries, as lead partner countries, have agreed to joint
management actions, and committed in-kind support, leading to realignment of national
policies regulations and institutions. An additional 33 countries have agreed to a less extensive
set of joint management actions.
Regional Cooperation: 6 regional bodies and management authorities will have strengthened
capacities, with regional action plans developed. An additional 8 regional bodies and
management authorities will participate.
Local Technology Development: 2 countries will host demonstration technologies, and as
many as 15 more may host demonstrations through an innovation fund to be established with
industry support. In addition, GloBallast Partnership will support the development of advanced
information technology and communication tools for better management of the issue, with the
involvement and participation of all the 13 lead partner countries.
2
GloBallast Partnerships
GEF Executive Summary
1. PROJECT SUMMARY
a)
PROJECT RATIONALE, OBJECTIVES, OUTPUTS/OUTCOMES, AND
ACTIVITIES
Rationale
The introduction of aquatic species to new environments through ships' ballast water and
sediments, is considered to be a significant threat to the world's coastal and marine environments.
While ballast water is essential to the safe operation of ships, it also poses a serious environmental
threat, in that more than 10,000 different species of microbes, plants and animals are carried
globally in ballast water each day. When discharged to new environments, such species may
become invasive, disrupt the native ecology and/or have serious impacts on the economy and/or
human health. The global economic impact alone, of invasive aqautic species, have been estimated
at US$ 100 billion per year.
Developing countries are among the largest "importers" of ballast water due to their significant
exports of bulk commodities. Many developing countries are especially vulnerable to aquatic
bioinvasions because of their reliance on coastal and marine resources. Developing countries also
face significant capacity and funding challenges in implementing ballast water management
programmes.
A GEF/UNDP/IMO pilot project was executed from 1 March 2000 until 31 December 2004
focusing on capacity building, institutional strengthening and technical assistance in six pilot
countries representing six developing regions (Removing Barriers to the Effective Implementation
of Ballast Water Control and Management Measures in Developing Countries GloBallast Pilot
Project). The pilot phase was designed to culminate in the establishment of cooperative regional
arrangements in each of the six pilot regions, and in the development of global tools and systems
that can be effectively used in any global scaling up and/or follow-up efforts of the GEF
intervention.
As a result of this successful pilot project and the increased awareness of the issue, there has been
an overwhelming demand from developing countries from all over the world to replicate the
GloBallast pilot activities and technical assistance. Adoption of the new Ballast Water
Management Convention (BWMC) in February 2004 provided a much needed standardized,
international regime to address this global threat.
Strategy
The strategy for GBP has been developed using a 3-tiered approach:
1. A global component, managed through IMO London, providing international coordination and
information dissemination, including the development of toolkits and guidelines, and
establishing a strong cooperation with industry and NGOs.
2. A regional component, providing regional coordination and harmonization, information
sharing, training, and capacity building in the application of ballast water management tools
and guidelines.
3. A significant country component, that establishes a fast track (Lead Partner Country-LPC) and
partner track (Partner Country-PC) process for GEF-eligible countries in the priority regions.
LPCs must commit to develop and implement a National Ballast Water Management Strategy
(NBWMS), and to adopt legal, policy and institutional Reforms (LPIR).
3
GloBallast Partnerships
GEF Executive Summary
It is expected that IMO and its Member States would take the burden of activities for
implementation of the Ballast Water Management Convention with GEF providing support for
incremental activities in highly sensitive countries and specific ecosystems that are of particular
global value and under serious threat from invasive aquatic species. A careful selection process,
based on certain system criteria such as biodiversity values, shipping activity and vulnerability as
well as contextual and project implementation criteria such as regional drivenness, regional
priority, practicality of implementation etc were used to determine the six high priority regions. In
turn, countries in each region were requested to indicate their interest in taking a lead partner
position, and to identify their planned financial contributions. Lead Partner Countries (LPC), as
the name indicates, are expected to take a lead role in developing legal, policy and institutional
arrangements and build associated capacity and in doing so to invite the neighbouring countries to
participate in the capacity building activities.
Six high priority regions have been selected for assistance during GloBallast Partnerships: Red Sea
/ Gulf of Aden, Wider Caribbean, Mediterranean Sea, South Pacific, Western and Central Africa
(Atlantic), and South East Pacific (South America). Within these regions, 13 countries have been
identified as Lead Partner Countries: Argentina, Bahamas, Chile, Columbia, Croatia, Egypt,
Ghana, Jamaica, Jordan, Trinidad & Tobago, Turkey, Venezuela, and Yemen. Another 33
countries have provided their endorsement to participate as Partner Countries.
Objective, Outcomes, Outputs and Activities
The objective of GBP is to assist vulnerable developing states and regions to implement
sustainable, risk-based mechanisms for the management and control of ships' ballast water and
sediments in order to minimize the adverse impacts of aquatic invasive species transferred by
ships. In the achievement of this objective, 4 outcomes have been identified, each with
corresponding outputs and activities, (see the project logical framework, Annex B).
The four key outcomes expected from the project are as follows:
1. Learning, evaluation and adaptive management increased;
2. Ballast Water Management Strategies in place, with legal, policy and institutional reforms
developed, implemented and sustained at national level;
3. Knowledge management tools and marine monitoring systems are effectively utilised to
expand global public awareness and stakeholder support, improve understanding of ballast
water impacts on marine ecology, and enhance maritime sector communications;
4. Public-private partnerships developed to spur the development of cost-effective ballast water
technology solutions.
The following diagram graphically depicts the outcomes, outputs and activities to be carried out.
4
GloBallast Partnerships
GEF Executive Summary
5
GloBallast Partnerships
GEF Executive Summary
b) KEY INDICATORS, ASSUMPTIONS, AND RISKS
It is expected that by the end of the project, all partnering countries can demonstrate significant
improvement in their legal, policy and institutional structures, with corresponding reduced risks
from ballast water borne marine bio-invasions. Achieving this will require that each LPC develop
institutional mechanisms for carrying out the project and take responsibility to develop a National
Ballast Water Management Strategy (NBWMS). Each LPC will ensure that all necessary legal
instruments are in place, a risk-based compliance monitoring and enforcement (CME) system is in
operation, and a sustainable financing scheme has been devised.
In addition, by project completion:
· Each country will have a National Task Force (NTF) operating
· A least two thirds of the LPCs (e.g. 9 countries), will have ratified the Ballast Water
Management Convention during the course of the project.
· Partnering Countries, using the expertise developed and with the support of LPCs will, at
the minimum, develop a draft NBWMS during the course of the project.
· Member states of the participating Regional Seas conventions and Large Marine Ecosystem
(LME) programmes will indicate their collective support, by approving regional strategies
and protocols on ballast water management.
· Cost effective technology solutions and standards will be developed, tested and promoted
through a successful partnership with industry, evidenced by testing facility standards
developed, sediment facility options piloted, R&D symposiums held, and a ballast water
management innovation fund launched.
· Each LPC will be able to identify the significant environmental and economic impacts and
threats to biodiversity in their major port areas, verified through port baseline surveys and
economic impact assessments conducted, as well as training provided for more than 250
experts on surveys and taxonomy.
· Sufficient information will be made available for countries to implement risk-based ballast
water management programmes. Verification will be through evidence that a web portal is
operating as intended, a global database has been established, and the public awareness
programme is in place.
· By the end of the project, the backbone for a GloBallast Marine Electronic Information
Systems (GMEIS) will be functional.
It is important to note that a successful conclusion of the project assumes that during the 5 years of
project implementation, research and development by industry will escalate and effective
technology solutions for ballast water treatment and sediment management will be made available
to shipping companies.
6
2. COUNTRY OWNERSHIP
a) COUNTRY ELIGIBILITY
13 countries have been identified as Lead Partner Countries (LPC) with another 33 countries
providing their endorsement as Partner Countries (PC). The 6 regions provide a wide geographic
distribution for project activities and all partnering countries are GEF eligible. The project will
mainly fund participation of the developing countries with particularly vulnerable or highly
sensitive marine environments eligible for GEF support under paragraph 9(b) of the GEF
Instrument. Non-eligible countries will be expected to finance their participation in project
activities.
b) COUNTRY DRIVENNESS
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 letter that they will utilise the technical assistance through the project to
review the implications and expect to ratify the Convention during the project time period. The
LPCs also comprise 13 of the 130 states that have requested assistance from GloBallast to consider
ballast water management issues in light of the convention being approved.
The project has been endorsed and is supported by over 40 Partner Countries, all the regional
coordinating organisations (RCO) and all the initial Pilot Countries. Formal agreements (MoUs)
will be concluded between GloBallast and the LPCs and RCOs. The strong interest expressed by
over 40 partnering countries, also signals the high chances of the project making a significant
global impact, especially since 37% of the global merchant fleet are registered in these partnering
countries. It is expected that this percentage will be significantly higher once the remaining
countries join the partnership during the course of the project.
Each of the RCOs has demonstrated their support for measures to address marine invasive species
and the threat posed by invasives transferred through ballast water, with direct reference made to
ballast water and invasive species in convention articles, protocols and plans of action. In addition,
each of the 13 LPCs has indicated significant incremental financial commitment to the project.
3. PROGRAM AND POLICY CONFORMITY
a)
FIT TO GEF FOCAL AREA STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES AND OPERATIONAL
PROGRAM
The project will demonstrate practical ways of overcoming barriers to the adoption of best
practices that limit contamination of international waters through shipping vectors and will harness
involvement of the UN agency specialized in addressing invasive aquatic species (IAS) in ships'
ballast water. The project identifies itself with the Contaminant-Based Operational Program (Ship-
Related Contaminants Component) where GEF plays a catalytic role in demonstrating ways to
overcome barriers to the adoption of the best practices to limit contamination of international
waters and IMO provides the technical expertise related to ships' ballast water management. The
Project clearly supports GEF IW Strategic Program I - Restoring and sustaining coastal and marine
fish stocks and associated biological diversity, reflecting the fact that substances (e.g. invasive
species) toxic to fish, biodiversity, and humans (hazardous algal blooms and paralytic shellfish
disease) are transferred across borders in ship ballast water (by far the largest vector), and supports
SP-1 objective of supporting demonstrations addressing invasive species in ship ballast water. The
project will also help to develop strategic links across the other strategic objectives and operational
programs in the focal area and contribute to an integrated approach to marine ecosystems
management, facilitating cross-cutting capacity building to address the potentially devastating
impacts of bioinvasions through ships' ballast water.
7
b) SUSTAINABILITY (INCLUDING FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY)
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 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. 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.
Environmental sustainability will be enhanced through the widespread training of persons in
Partner Countries on the techniques for carrying out port baseline surveys and handling the related
taxonomy issues. This training programme will ensure that there exists a cadre of experts in each
country with the skills to continue carrying out surveys after the project has ended.
With respect to financial sustainability, the project will push aggressively to loosen the financial
constraints that so often make capacity building projects difficult to sustain. The activities to be
carried out on the economic aspects of marine bio-invasions will include working with the LPCs to
determine and devise strategies for covering the costs of national ballast water management
programs. Guidance will emphasize the "polluter pays" principle. Incentives to stimulate
investment into ballast water related activities will be explored and barriers to private sector
funding will be assessed and measures implemented for their removal. Financial sustainability for
technology development efforts beyond the project duration will be addressed by expanding the
GloBallast Industry Alliance (GIA) with an aim to set up a revolving fund based on corporate
annual memberships.
With respect to institutional sustainability, long-term policy reforms at the national level will be
encouraged and integrated within regional mechanisms. 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.
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 be expected to actively 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.
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. 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.
c)
REPLICABILITY
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
8
achieved via the R&D forums (see Logframe 4.4.2) and participation of GB partners in regional
conventions (Logframe 1.1.7).
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.
d) STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT
Ballast water problems are inter-disciplinary in nature, so the success of the project depends on the
full involvement of a broad group of stakeholders. Experience from the pilot phase has given a
good indication of the main actors that will be involved. Without precluding the participation of
additional partners, the following types of institutions and organizations are expected to play a role:
· International Organisations: Donor community and international financial institutions.
· Environmental Organisations & Institutes: National and regional marine research institutions;
Relevant NGOs
· Regional and National Government partners: Maritime administrations; Environmental
agencies; Ministries of agriculture (fisheries); Ministries of health (quarantine and sanitary
services); Coast-guard and navy; Parliamentary committees for environmental protection
· Industry: Shipping and ports; Oil and gas; Mining
Key stakeholders at the national level will be involved through the establishment of National Task
Forces. The project will include extensive interaction with each country lead agency; it is expected
that the lead agency will be the government organization / agency that has provided the in-country
co-financing commitment and support to the project. Other government ministries, agencies and
institutes that have responsibilities relevant to ballast water management are to be included in
National Task Forces. The other participating agencies are expected to include: environment,
transportation, agriculture (fisheries) health (quarantine and sanitary services), and port state
control authorities (coast guards and navy).
GloBallast Partnerships recognises that industry must play a crucial role in any effort to improve
ballast water management. A GloBallast Industry Alliance (GIA) is being established parallel to
the project in order to provide advice and support as the project gets implemented
e)
MONITORING AND EVALUATION
Project monitoring and evaluation will be conducted in accordance with established UNDP and
GEF procedures and will be provided by the project team, with support from UNDP/GEF and
IMO. The Logical Framework Matrix in Annex B provides performance and impact indicators for
project implementation along with their corresponding means of verification. The Logical
Framework Matrix in Annex B also identifies the indicators in GEF Process (P), Stress Reduction
(SR) and Environmental Status (ES) framework for reporting in Annual APR/PIRs. These will
form the basis on which the project's Monitoring and Evaluation system will be built. The project's
Monitoring and Evaluation Plan will be presented and finalized as part of the Project's Inception
Report following a collective fine-tuning of indicators, means of verification, and the full definition
of project staff M&E responsibilities.
Day to day monitoring of implementation progress: will be the responsibility of the Chief
Technical Advisor (CTA) based on the project's Annual Work Plan and its indicators.
Periodic monitoring of implementation progress: will be undertaken by UNDP and IMO through
quarterly meetings with the CTA, and based from Project Coordination Unit (PCU) produced
9
quarterly reports. In addition, the UNDP-GEF IW Principal Technical Advisor will meet with IMO
designated officials and the project CTA during the three GPTF meetings (Inception, one interim
and final meeting) and the two executive management meeting in the 2nd and fourth year during
the 5 yr. project.
Annual Monitoring: will occur through the Tripartite Review (TPR). It is envisioned that the TPRs
will be held concurrent to the GPTF meetings. The first TPR will be held during the GPTF
Inception Meeting, which is scheduled for the beginning of the third quarter of project year 1.
The Annual Project Report/Project Implementation Review (APR/PIR) will be used as one of the
basic documents for discussions in the TPR meetings. The PCU-CTA will present the APR/PIR to
the TPR, highlighting policy issues and recommendations for the decision of the TPR participants.
External Evaluations: will be carried out at the project mid term and just prior to conclusion,
pursuant to GEF / UNDP monitoring and evaluation guidance.
Project Terminal Report: During the last three months of the project the PCU will prepare the
Project Terminal Report, summarizing all activities, achievements and outputs of the Project,
lessons learnt, objectives met or not achieved, structures and systems implemented, etc. and will be
the definitive statement of the Project's activities during its lifetime. It will also lay out
recommendations for any further steps that may need to be taken to ensure sustainability and
replicability of the Project's activities.
4. FINANCING
a) PROJECT COSTS
Project Components/Outcomes
Co-financing
GEF ($)
Total ($)
($)
1. Learning, evaluation and adaptive management increased
1,639,300
585,000
2,224,300
2. BWM Strategies in place, with legal, policy and
7,961,120
2,995,000
10,956,120
institutional reforms developed, implemented and
sustained at national level
3. Knowledge management tools and marine monitoring
3,833,179
1,198,000
5,031,179
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
4. Public-private partnerships developed to spur the
3,448,340
230,000
3,678,340
development of cost-effective ballast water technology
solutions
5. 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, study tours and exchanges, or other unspecified travel for
project shall correspond to specific outputs designed into the log-frame.
10
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 limited resources for equipment and
communication have been requested for project management purpose, as given under Table 4b below,
considering the need for global project team communications.
iv.
No GEF resources are budgeted for purchase of vehicles.
v.
Workshops related to training for staff and counterparts, if any, shall be directly related to the log-frame
of the project.
vi.
The cost of venue and catering for workshops shall be borne by the host country or agency unless the
workshops 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/COST1
Estimated
GEF($) Other Project
Component
staff weeks
sources ($)
total ($)
Locally recruited personnel (Administrative
220
300,000 -
300,000
Assistant)**
Internationally recruited consultants (CTA and
78 195,000
- 195,000
TA)**
Office facilities, equipment, and communications2
125,000 820,000 945,000
Travel
60,000 -
60,000
Miscellaneous
- -
-
Total
680,000 820,000
1,500,000
** 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 technical assistance to the project by undertaking a number of specific tasks of
technical nature including training. The details of their services is given in c) below:
1 For the CTA and TA hired to manage project and to provide technical assistance, a description in terms of their staff weeks, roles
and functions in the project, and their position titles in the organization, are given in Annex D.
2 No GEF funding is requested for office furniture, office rental or vehicles.
11
C) CONSULTANTS WORKING FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMPONENTS3:
Estimated
GEF($) Other Project total
Component
staff weeks4
sources ($)
($)
Personnel
Local consultants
2,125 2,125,000 3,063,000
5,188,000
International consultants (CTA,
832 2,080,000 1,729,355
3,809,355
TA and External Consultants)
Total
12,400 4,205,000 4,792,355
8,997,355
d) CO-FINANCING SOURCES
The following table provides a breakout of all co-financing commitments by type and status. The
information reflects the status of discussion with co-financiers. Due to their size and number, the
endorsement letters are provided as separate attachments annexed to the Project Document.
Name of Co-financier
Amount
Classification Type
Status*
(source)
(US$)
IMO
Cooperating Agency
in-kind support and
Committed, letter
cash direct
$4,318,8005 attached
Argentina
Government
in-kind support
857,000 Committed, letter
attached
Chile
Government
in-kind support
628,000 Committed, letter
attached
Colombia
Government
in-kind support
223,629 Committed, letter
attached
Venezuela
Government
in-kind support
1,110,000 Committed, letter
attached
Jamaica
Government
in-kind support
339,000 Committed, letter
attached
3 GEF costs associated with Local Consultants represents the costs of delivering national activities using national
expertise in addition to the in-kind contribution by 13 lead partnering countries over a period of five years. Examples
of these activities include the rapid assessments, local expert inputs in training activities, economic impact
assessments, development of national legislations, port baseline surveys using local expertise, local IT experts for
development of country profile databases etc. GEF costs associated with the technical experts (Chief Technical
Advisor and Technical Advisor), who will deliver most of the technical outcomes, are incorporated in the International
Consultants component. Examples of these technical activities include training, development of guidelines and
templates, capacity building and coordination and facilitation of regional workshops, development of regional action
plans, implementation of activities within the Private-Public Partnership components etc. Extensive use of technical
expertise existing within PCU would ensure the much needed cost-efficiency required by tight budgets. International
Consultant Component also include any costs associated with hiring external international consultants for very
specialized activities identified in the Project such as midterm and terminal evaluation of the Project. The costs exclude
any travel costs associated with the delivery of technical assistance.
4 The staff weeks correspond to the GEF Costs ($) only, as the co-financing from other sources vary in terms of rates
etc.
5 The IMO endorsement letter (attached) indicates co-financing at the level of $12,687,000, which includes $8,368,200
for funding the IMO MEPC-Ballast Water Working Group and GESAMP- BW working group meetings. The MEPC
and GESAMP activities directly benefit the GloBallast Partnerships Project, however GloBallast has only limited
control and influence over these IMO activities, consequently 10% of this $8.3 million has been considered as direct
co-financing. So the IMO contribution is set at $4,318,800 based on discussions with GEFSEC IW.
12
Trinidad& Tobago
Government
in-kind support
414,000 Committed, letter
attached
Bahamas Government
in-kind
support
Committed, letter
418,600 attached
Turkey
Government
in-kind support
410,000 Committed, letter
attached
Government
in-kind support
443,500 Committed, letter
Croatia
attached
Egypt
Government
in-kind support
337,500 Committed, letter
attached
Yemen
Government
in-kind support
337,500 Committed, letter
attached
Sudan
Government
in-kind support
298000 Committed, letter
attached
Jordan
Government
in-kind support
337500 Committed, letter
attached
Ghana
Government
in-kind support
501400 Committed, letter
attached
CPPS
multilateral agency
in-kind support
168,120 Committed, letter
attached
REMPEITC
multilateral agency
in-kind support
735,800 Committed, letter
attached
REMPEC
multilateral agency
in-kind support and
305,000 Committed,
letter
cash direct
attached
PERSGA
multilateral agency
in-kind support
806,750 Committed, letter
attached
SPREP
multilateral agency
in-kind support
592,000 Committed, letter
attached
ROPME
multilateral agency
in-kind support and
224,000 Committed,
letter
cash indirect
attached
EBRD
multilateral agency
Cash, direct
362,500 Committed, letter
attached
IUCN International
In-kind support
400,000 Committed, letter
organization
attached
BP Shipping, UK
Private Sector
cash, direct
250,000 Committed, letter
attached
British Maritime
Private Sector
cash, direct
250,000 Committed, letter
Technologies, UK
attached
Vela Marine
Private Sector
cash, direct
250,000 Committed, letter
International, UAE
attached
APL Shipping,
Private Sector
cash, direct
250,000 Committed, letter
Singapore
attached
IESE, Singapore
Research Institute
in-kind support &
350,0006 Committed,
letter
cash, indirect
attached
Degussa, (Germany)
Private Sector
cash, indirect
25,000 Committed, Letter
attached
Environmental
Private Sector
cash, indirect
200,000 Committed, letter
Technologies Inc,
attached
(USA)
6 The cash / indirect co-financing amount from this partner and the remaining private sector partners has been derived
by taking 10% of the estimated co-financing for research and development on ballast water treatment technology that
each private sector partner has indicated in their attached endorsement letters that they will spend over the next 5
years. The private sector initiatives fully support the objectives of the project and can be considered incremental, this
percentage calculation was used to take into account the participation of these partners in GloBallast R&D forums,
Industry Task Forces etc and the expertise they bring to such forums. The private sector co-financing contributions
from the endorsements totals more than $ 20 million ($20,533,400), however much of this funding is intended by the
private sector parties also to take advantage of market opportunities opening as a result of the Ballast Water
Management Convention.
13
Ferrate Treatment
Private Sector
cash, indirect
700,000 Committed, letter
Technologies, (USA)
attached
MetaFil AS, (Norway)
Private Sector
cash, indirect
500,000 Committed, letter
attached
NIOZ, (Netherlands)
Research Institute
cash, indirect
47,100 Committed, letter
attached
NIWA, (New Zealand)
Research Institute.
cash, indirect
311,240 Committed, letter
attached
Sub-Total Co-financing
17,701,939
5. INSTITUTIONAL COORDINATION AND SUPPORT
a) CORE COMMITMENTS AND LINKAGES
The core organisations are GEF (funding), UNDP (implementing) and IMO (cooperating). In
addition, UNEP is playing a supporting role with respect to its financial support for several of the
Regional Seas that are GloBallast RCOs, including the Mediterranean and Caribbean regions.
IMO member states are fully committed to the GloBallast effort. The IMO Secretariat has
established an IMO Office for Ballast Water Management, and developed an expert group (through
GESAMP) to decide on approvals for the use of Active Substances for ballast water treatment.
IMO provides training and consulting support to member states on implementation of the ballast
water convention through its ITC division.
GloBallast Partnerships is widely supported with endorsements in writing from 13 lead
participating countries, 33 additional partner countries, six regional coordinating organisations, the
six pilot countries from the GloBallast Phase, nine businesses and industry organisations, several
research institutes and international NGOs.
Strategic partnerships have already been initiated with EBRD, which is providing direct support to
the Black Sea, Caspian Sea and Baltic Sea countries, to carry out training on ballast water
management using the GloBallast introductory training package on Ballast Water management. In
addition, there are direct linkages to the activities of the Global Invasive Species Program (GISP),
and their planned GEF -UNEP-GISP (global) Capacity Building Project on invasive species. The
World Conservation Union (IUCN) and Friends of the Earth International were participants in the
Global Project Task Force (GPTF) of the GloBallast pilot phase, and will continue to serve on the
GloBallast Partnerships GPTF. The WWF has requested to participate as well, and has been
invited to partner with GloBallast Partnerships Project. During GloBallast Partnerships, there will
be a concerted effort to link with other ongoing companion efforts such as the GEF/UNEP invasive
species project offered by CABI for the Caribbean, and a proposed GEF/UNDP Integrated
Ecosystem Management Programme: Prevention and control of introduction and spread of Invasive
Alien Species (IAS) for the Seychelles.
A GloBallast Industry Alliance (GIA) is being established parallel to the project in order to provide
advice and support as the project gets implemented. During the PDF-B effort, four major shipping
companies have pledged $1 million to seed the GIA Fund, which will be used to support project
activities. In addition, cooperation with the International Association of Independent Tanker
Owners (INTERTANKO), Oil Companies International Marine Forum (OCIMF), and International
Chamber of Shipping (ICS), which was developed during the GBP pilot phase, will be continued.
b) CONSULTATION, COORDINATION AND COLLABORATION
There have been frequent consultations between the GloBallast team, IMO and UNDP-GEF in
developing this Project proposal. Consultations commenced upon completion of the GloBallast
Pilot Phase in February, 2004, until submission of the GloBallast partnerships Project Document.
In particular, the UNDP-GEF PTA has been present at and contributed to the GloBallast GPTF
meetings during which the project was conceived and elaborated. The design and development
process for GloBallast, starting in 2003, included a series of consultations between IMO, UNDP
14
and the GEF Secretariat (GEFSEC) to evaluate the work of the initial phase of GloBallast, discuss
policy issues, analyze the provisions of the newly adopted Ballast Water Management Convention
and arrive at a common understanding of the possible approaches to take.
c) PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENT
The project will be implemented by UNDP in cooperation with the International Maritime
Organization (IMO). IMO is the regulatory body of the United Nations responsible for the
development of rules and regulations regarding the safety and security of shipping and the
prevention of pollution from ships and has provided significant "added-value" during the
GloBallast Pilot Phase. As with most maritime instruments, IMO provides Secretariat support for
the Ballast Water Management Convention.
GloBallast Partnerships Project will be steered by a Global Project Task Force, utilising the
successful approach taken during the first GloBallast project. The GPTF, which will be the apex
advisory body of the Project, will include the following members:
UNDP/GEF (1)
LPCs (5 in rotation - one from each region)
IMO (2)
Industry (2)
GloBallast PCU (1)
Environmental organisations / NGOs (2)
RCOs (6)
GBP pilot country representative (1-in rotation)
GloBallast Partnerships will be managed by a Project Coordination Unit (PCU), consisting of a
Chief Technical Advisor (CTA), Technical Advisor (TA) and Administrative Assistant (AA). The
PCU will be housed at IMOs London Headquarters, and will operate in close proximity and
cooperation with the Office of Ballast Water Management, at the IMO Secretariat which will offer
significant technical and administrative backstopping to the project. The PCU will consist of
technical experts in ballast water management and the major responsibility of these personnel will
be to deliver the technical outcomes of the project including training activities. Extensive use of
technical expertise existing within PCU would ensure the much needed cost-efficiency required by
the tight budgets. External expertise will be hired only to augment the technical expertise within
PCU. The PCU will also assume day to day operational control of the project, and will directly
liaise with counterparts at the regional and country levels, although such coordination/
administration will only take roughly 10 % of the PCU efforts.
RCOs have been brought on board to serve as coordinating mechanisms for the more than 30
countries directly involved and in order to organize regional workshops and seminars. In addition,
the RCOs will serve as the financial conduit to the participating countries, thus providing
administrative support to the PCU and enabling the PCU to effectively manage a global program
with just three staff. Financial management will be through established procedures between UNDP
and its co-financing partner, IMO, and between IMO and other co-funders, such as the EBRD. In
turn, the IMO will enter into contractual arrangements with the regional coordinating organisations
for the dispensation of funds for LPC and partner country activities.
15
ANNEX A: INCREMENTAL COST ANALYSIS
Incremental Cost Analysis
The Incremental Cost Analysis (ICA) couples the planned activities of the project, their expected
costs, and planned project financing. As indicated in the following narrative and tables, the project
envisions 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 above two tables on project co-financing and
administrative budget, there is also a significant amount of parallel financing that greatly supports
the GloBallast effort, which is included in the attached endorsement letters but has not been
identified as direct co-financing. This includes $7.5 million that IMO will spend for MEPC and
GESAMP meetings. Also considered parallel but not co-finance funding is roughly $17.7 million
that private sector partners have identified they will spend on research and development for ballast
water treatment and management technologies. Factoring just the direct co-financing, the ratio of
co-financing to GEF contribution is 2.8. Taking into account the parallel financing, which the
GloBallast pilot effort made possible, the total figure escalates to $48.5 million, a ratio of 8 dollars
raised for every 1 dollar of GEF funds.
Baseline
A financial baseline for the project has been set at $ 922 million, over 5 years, established using a
`business as usual' scenario where most countries are tending to their ship-related environmental
management activities with little effective regard for, or progress in, addressing ballast water-borne
invasive species issues. The baseline estimate adds up expenditures by Governments to manage
their marine environmental protection efforts, and then estimates the percentage devoted to dealing
with ship-based pollution sources: spills, wastewater, solid wastes, air pollution etc., but not ballast
water. Ballast water management is omitted because up until recently, with passage of the IMO
BWM Convention, there was little attention given to the environmental consequences of ships'
ballast, especially amongst the developing countries that are the focus of this project. The lead
partnering countries for GloBallast Partnerships have not yet developed and/or strengthened their
legal, policy and institutional structures for ballast water management. Consequently, all of the
government actions planned, and co-financing offered, are considered incremental measures.
Developing a precise figure for the baseline funding of relevant marine environmental expenditures
in the more than 40 countries involved in GloBallast Partnerships is exceedingly difficult, therefore
a number of proxies, estimates and interpolations have been used to establish a rough estimate.
The following table (1.1 (1)) sets out baseline figures for GloBallast Partnerships, reaching US
$922 million over the expected five year period of the project. The figures are based on
information received from government sources in representative economies of GloBallast partner
countries. National expenditures for general funding of marine environmental protection are
aggregated. The figures also utilize GDP figures taken from the World Development Indicators
Database, (World Bank, 1 July 2006). It is important to note that the following assumptions have
been used to derive these figures:
The cost of response to marine pollution is roughly proportional to the percentage of
contaminants entering the sea from various sources. There are some clear indications (based on
previous studies) that pollution from maritime traffic contribute to roughly about 15% of the
total pollution load
Larger economies spend proportionately higher percentage of their GDP on environmental
protection, including marine environmental protection
% of GDP can be used as an approximate guideline to assess national expenditure
Different levels of % GDP were assigned to different groups of economies, based on some of
the representative values obtained from certain governments such as India and Iran
16
Marine environmental protection in general includes inter alia - pollution prevention and
response costs for maritime traffic related pollution, coastal zone protection, and infrastructure
such as port reception facilities
Expenditure by Governments to prevent ship-based pollution of marine environment (core
thematic baseline for GBP) is estimated based on the assumption that the proportion of this
expenditure is similar to the proportion of contaminant loading from maritime traffic to the
land-based pollution: around 12% on average (reference GESAMP report 1990). Furthermore,
a tapering proportion (15% to 8%) was used to take into account the variations in shipping
trade (trade in stronger economies will be higher than those of others)
Table A (1): Aggregate Baseline Expenditures Estimate
No. Partner
Countries Total
Approximate Approximate
Approximate Approximate
(LPC, PC and GB
GDP
Expenditure
Expenditure on
percentage
expenditure
Pilots)
(2005)
on Marine
Marine
of
on ship-
(in
Environment Environment
expenditure
based
Million
Protection as Protection in total on ship-
pollution
US$)
Percentage
(in million US$)
based
prevention
of GDP (%)
pollution
(in million
prevention
US$)
(%)
1 China
2228862
0.02
445.77
15
66.87
2 Brazil
794098
0.02
158.82
15
23.82
3 India
785468
0.02
160.00
15
24.00
4 Mexico
768438
0.02
153.69
15
23.05
5 Turkey
363300
0.02
72.66
15
10.90
6 South Africa
240152
0.02
48.03
15
7.20
7 Iran, Islamic Rep.
196343
0.01
20.00
12
2.40
8 Argentina
183309
0.01
18.33
12
2.20
9 Venezuela, RB
138857
0.01
13.89
12
1.67
10 Colombia
122309
0.01
12.23
12
1.47
11 Chile
115248
0.01
11.52
12
1.38
12 Algeria
102257
0.01
10.23
12
1.23
13 Egypt, Arab Rep.
89336
0.008
7.15
10
0.71
14 Ukraine
81664
0.008
6.53
10
0.65
15 Peru
78431
0.008
6.27
10
0.63
16 Morocco
51745
0.008
4.14
10
0.41
17 Libya
38756
0.008
3.10
10
0.31
18 Croatia
37412
0.008
2.99
10
0.30
19 Ecuador
36244
0.008
2.90
10
0.29
20 Guatemala
31683
0.005
1.58
8
0.13
21 Angola
28038
0.005
1.40
8
0.11
22 Sudan
27699
0.005
1.38
8
0.11
23 Costa Rica
19432
0.005
0.97
8
0.08
24 Côte d'Ivoire
16055
0.005
0.80
8
0.06
25 Panama
15467
0.005
0.77
8
0.06
26 Trinidad and
14762
0.005
0.74
8 0.06
Tobago
27 Yemen, Rep.
14452
0.005
0.72
8
0.06
28 Jordan
12861
0.005
0.64
8
0.05
29 Ghana
10695
0.005
0.53
8
0.04
30 Jamaica
9696
0.002
0.19
7
0.01
31 Bahamas, The
5502
0.002
0.11
7
0.01
32 Benin
4287
0.002
0.09
7
0.01
33 Haiti
4245
0.002
0.08
7
0.01
34 Barbados
2976
0.002
0.06
7
0.00
17
35 Guinea
2689
0.002
0.05
7
0.00
36 Sierra Leone
1193
0.002
0.02
7
0.00
37 Belize
1105
0.002
0.02
7
0.00
38 Antigua and
905
0.002
0.02
7 0.00
Barbuda
39 Djibouti
702
0.002
0.01
7
0.00
40 Dominica
279
0.002
0.01
7
0.00
41 São Tomé and
57
0.002
0.00
7 0.00
Principe
Total baseline for 2005 (in million US$)
170.31
Approximate total projected core thematic baseline for GBP partner countries (2007-
$922.10
2011), assuming an overall 2% annual growth in expenditure (in million US$)
Global Environmental Objective
The overall goal of the GloBallast Partnership Project is to reduce the risks and impacts of marine
bio-invasions caused by international shipping and the specific objective of GBP is to assist
vulnerable developing states and regions to implement sustainable, risk-based mechanisms for the
management and control of ships' ballast water and sediments in order to minimize the adverse
impacts of aquatic invasive species transferred by ships.
GloBallast Partnerships will provide a programmatic framework for the sustainable replication of
ballast water management and control measures, ensuring that maximum benefits accrue from the
foundation work achieved in the pilot phase. The aims and objectives of GloBallast Partnerships
focus on national policy and legal reforms in targeted developing countries and an emphasis on
integrated management. The approach will include:
Building on the achievements and momentum, and utilising the capacity and talent generated
by the pilot phase.
Replication of best-practices and technical activities in newly identified beneficiary countries
with the view to stimulate policy reforms at national level.
Supporting specially vulnerable and/or environmentally highly sensitive countries in their
efforts to enact legal reforms to implement the Ballast Water Management Convention.
Working towards advanced integration through other interested structures, mechanisms and
programs, including where optimal, GEF-IW LME projects and UNEP Regional Seas.
Promoting collaboration to facilitate the successful transfer of new technologies from
developed to developing countries.
Alternative
With GEF providing its catalytic support, the alternative is a global, regional and country-based
programmatic framework for the sustainable replication of ballast water management and control
measures, ensuring that maximum benefits accrue from the foundation work achieved in the pilot
phase.
All of the government actions planned, and co-financing offered under GloBallast Partnerships are
considered additional, incremental measures. Likewise, a portion of the co-financing support from
industry, for research and development, the testing of new equipment and solutions, and the
holding of R&D symposia, are considered additional activities, with an expectation that GloBallast
Partnerships will help set the legal, policy and institutional framework for countries that will
facilitate technology adoption and diffusion among the shipping industry worldwide, in response to
the requirements and timetables set out in the BWM Convention. All told, the incremental
financing building from the GloBallast partnerships effort should reach US $24.6 million.
Support for appropriate national institutional arrangements will be granted and regional
mechanisms will be used as catalysts for supporting national policy reforms. Generic Compliance
18
Monitoring and Enforcement (CME) systems, which could not be developed due to the delay in the
adoption of the Ballast Water Management Convention, will be prepared in accordance with the
requirements of the IMO instrument. Formalized communication systems through identified lead
agencies will be developed and early warning systems for invasions and outbreaks will be
established. Priority software and hardware will be designed and direct logistic support from the
more advanced countries will be sought. Some incremental investments will be supported by the
project to support technology development for ballast water treatment and management.
Standardised protocols and methodology for conducting port biological surveys and risk
assessments will be provided with direct assistance from the capacity built in the pilot phase.
Specific training on ballast water management and control will be provided, based on the training
courses developed during the pilot phase, with emphasis on various responsibilities under the new
Ballast Water Management Convention. Sustainable financial and institutional arrangements for
the long-term management of ships' ballast water will be established, including the mobilization of
public and private sector funding.
The global information clearing house function established during the pilot phase will be continued
and further strengthened, in support of a uniform approach. Strategies to integrate the ballast water
programs with existing marine and coastal management databases and maritime information
systems will be developed and implemented.
In essence, the proposed GEF project will build on the findings, institutional settings and capacity
developed during the pilot phase. The results of this GEF intervention should include a measurable
reduction in aquatic bio-invasions globally, with a significant mitigation of the detrimental,
sometimes devastating, effects of ballast water transfers, better protection of marine and coastal
ecosystems and habitats and conservation of biodiversity.
The following table (Table A(2)) sets out the anticipated financing for GloBallast Partnerships by
GEF and other partners and the pie-graph (Figure 1) shows the breakdown of co-financing as per
the sources:
Table A (2): Anticipated incremental financing
Total GEF funding
$ 6,387,840
A:
PDFB:
699,840
Full Project
5,688,000
Total Co-funding by partnering countries
$ 6,654,629
B:
Cash Contribution
In-kind contribution
6,654,629
Total Co-funding by regional coordinating organizations
$ 2,832,670
C:
Cash Contribution
304,000
In-kind contribution
2,528,670
Total Co-funding by IMO
$ 4,318,800
D:
Cash Contribution
914,000
In-kind contribution
3,404,800
Total Co-funding by Private Sector
$ 3,133,340
E:
Cash Contribution
1,000,000
In-kind contribution
2,133,340
Total Co-funding by Financial Institutions & International
$ 762,500
Organizations
F:
Cash Contribution
362,500
In-kind contribution
400,000
TOTAL INCREMENT
$ 24,089,779
(TOTAL BASELINE )
($922,100,000)
TOTAL ALTERNATIVE
$946,189,779
19
IFI & IO
Private Sector
3%
GEF
13%
26%
IMO
18%
Regional Organisations
Partner Countries
12%
28%
Figure 1: Breakdown of co-financing as per the sources
Incremental Cost Matrix
In the following matrix is set out each of the four anticipated project outcomes (components) set
against incremental costs, and providing a narrative description. As noted in the baseline
discussion above, the baseline is established generally for shipping-based pollution abatement and
does not include specific actions with respect to ballast water management (given little or no
expenditures to date by the participating countries and stakeholders to deal with this environmental
problem). Consequently, only the alternative / incremental costs are broken down by component.
The financial figures provided are further detailed in the ProDoc table 2.1.5 (1): Incremental Cost
Co-financing Details.
20
Component
Baseline
Increment
Alternative
Overall Objective:
$922,100,000 GEF: 6,387,840*
Total Alternative:
To assist vulnerable developing countries to implement sustainable, risk-based mechanisms
IMO: 4,318,800
$946,189,779
for the management and control of ships' ballast water and sediments in order to minimize
GIA: 3,133,340
the adverse impacts of aquatic invasive species transferred by ships
RCO: 2,832,670
LPC: 6,654,629
IUCN: 400,000
EBRD: 362,500
Total: 24,089,779
(* includes GEF PDF-b
support: $699,840)
Explanatory note:
A financial baseline for the project has been set at $ 922 million, over 5 years, established using a `business as usual' scenario where most countries are tending to
their ship-related environmental management activities with little effective regard for, or progress in, addressing ballast water-borne invasive species issues. The
baseline estimate adds up expenditures by Governments to manage their marine environmental protection efforts, and then estimates the percentage devoted to
dealing with ship-based pollution sources: spills, wastewater, solid wastes, air pollution etc., but not ballast water. Ballast water management is omitted because
up until recently, with passage of the IMO BWM Convention, there was little attention given to the environmental consequences of ships' ballast, especially
amongst the developing countries that are the focus of this project.
Given that the baseline does not figure in ballast water management, all alternative funding, from GEF and other sources, comprise the increment. The $922
million baseline (over 5 years) is not further broken down in this chart since it is not directly relevant to the carrying out of the four project components.
The alternative scenario includes financing from GEF, IMO, the regional organizations (RCO) and lead partner countries (LPC), and from industry (GloBallast
Industry Alliance GIA).
Outcome 1:
GEF:
1,265,000
Learning, evaluation and adaptive management increased
RCO: 1,154,800
LPC: 1,304,500
Total: 3,724,300
Explanatory note:
This component includes the various costs associated with managing the GloBallast project at the international regional and country levels. The GEF portion
factors in the costs for staffing the PCU, (including Chief Technical Advisor (P5), a Technical Advisor (P3), and an Administrative Assistant (G6)), as well as
carrying out monitoring and evaluation activities, and attending international conferences. Nominal GEF support is included to bolster regional and country
GloBallast Executive Summary
21
September 2006
Component
Baseline
Increment
Alternative
funding for the convening of task forces and coordinating with the PCU. The RCOs will each identify a coordinator responsible for GBP activities during the 5
year project cycle; and the LPCs each will appoint a National Focal Point (NFP) representing the Government's Lead Agency for ballast water management and
will identify a National Coordinator (NC). The regional and country cost calculations have been developed based upon the co-financing letters provided by each
of the RCOs and LPCs. In addition, a $362,500 cost borne by the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) has been added for the purposes of
holding Ballast Water Management Training Workshops for key government stakeholders in three additional regions (Black, Baltic and Caspian Seas).
Outcome 2:
GEF: 2,995,000
BWM Strategies in place, with legal, policy and institutional reforms developed, implemented
IMO: 3,582,400
and sustained at national level
EBRD: 362,500
RCO: 946,070
LPC: 3,070,150
Total: 10,956,120
Explanatory note:
The project is designed to assist all of the Partner countries to develop, implement and enforce legal, policy and institutional reforms (LPIR). The costs associated
with this outcome relate to the preparation of guidance, the convening of training workshops, and direct assistance to countries as they reform their laws, policies
and institutions, develop national ballast water management strategies, and implement compliance monitoring and enforcement programs.
Most of the IMO co-financing is included for the carrying out of activities within this outcome 2 ($12.1 m out of a total co-financing contribution of $12.6m). The
IMO co-financing estimates have been derived based on IMO ongoing and planned activities, as stipulated in the table in Annex G (see "Details of IMO
Incremental Co-Financing towards Achieving the Objectives of GloBallast Partnership Project in the next five years (2007-2011)"). For instance, the IMO
Ballast water Management Office and the IMO Marine Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC) will have regular meetings IMO HQ in London to discuss
the BWM Convention and to develop necessary guidelines.
Outcome 2 includes an extensive training program, based around the modular training course devised and successfully run during the GloBallast pilot phase. A
total of 9 training programs will be carried out (see output 2.2). GEF financing will be used for 4 Training Programs (CPPS, MED, PERSGA & SPREP). One
Training Program, in the WACAF region, will be funded jointly by IMO and the Guinea Current LME; one Training Program in the CAR region will be funded
by IMO using ITCP funding. The three additional training programs will be financed by EBRD for stakeholders in the Black, Baltic and Caspian Seas.
Outcome 3:
GEF:
1,198,000
Knowledge management tools and marine monitoring systems are effectively utilized to expand
IMO: 736,400
global public awareness and stakeholder support, improve understanding of ballast water
RCO: 731,800
impacts on marine ecology and enhance maritime sector communications
IUCN 400,000
LPC: 1,964,979
Total: 5,031,179
GloBallast Executive Summary
22
September 2006
Component
Baseline
Increment
Alternative
Explanatory note:
The knowledge management outcome is subdivided into three discreet outputs. The first involves efforts to build a better understanding of the ecological impacts
of bio-invasions and likely vectors. This involves continuation, refinement and expansion of the GB pilot phase port baseline survey work. The second output
will establish the GloBallast Marine Electronic Information System (GMEIS), designed to provide useful data and information to various stakeholders, including
the shipping industry using electronic / internet formats and platforms. The third output involves continuing to build on the GloBallast public awareness success
by providing information on ballast water management for public consumption, using especially print and video.
The associated costs under the outcome stem primarily from strategy development, training, and tech support activities, with very limited software development
and supply. Project participants at the national and regional levels are expected to cover hardware costs.
The GEF increment will be utilized throughout each of the planned outputs, and most notably to conceptualize and plan for the Global Marine Electronic
Information System (GMEIS). Some GEF support will help the LPC to develop their dedicated BW web sites.
Within outcome 3, LPC country port environmental managers and taxonomists will get trained on how to carry out port baseline surveys, but it will be the
responsibility of the LPCs to identify additional funding for the actual carrying out of baseline surveys. 6 workshops are planned, hosted by one LPC each from
CAR, PERSGA, CPPS and WACAF and SPREP. Each of the workshops will include approximately 20 participants (including other Partner countries in the
region). For the Mediterranean region, funding will be provided by the SAFEMED Project, which is being implemented by the RCO, REMPEC.
IMO's co-financing for this outcome will underwrite most of the costs of developing and disseminating the GloBallast quarterly newsletter.
Outcome 4:
GEF: 230,000
Public-private partnerships developed to spur the development of cost effective ballast water
LPCs 315,000
technology solutions
Industry: 3,133,340
Total: 3,678,340
Explanatory note:
The technology development effort is, and should be, driven by industry. The costs associated with the development of cost-effective treatment technologies for
ballast water management are properly addressed through market forces, especially as the market for designing, testing, installing and operating on-board ballast
water treatment equipment may reach $15 billion through the next 15 years, taking into consideration 40,000 international ships and almost 1000 new ship
constructions per year.
The $3,133,340 in co-financing from industry is of two types. It includes cash contributions of $ 1 million from the founding partners of the GloBallast Industry
Alliance (GIA) (see co-finance commitment letters Annex H). The remaining $2,133,340 represents 10% of what industry partners have identified as R&D
investments they will make to design and test ballast water treatment technologies. It is anticipated that the membership of the GIA will expand during the project.
Initial projections are achieving between US $ 3 to 5 million in direct cash contribution co-financing from industry. The $1 million indicated to date has been
pledged in writing (Annex H).
The nominal GEF funding within this component ($230,000) provides technical oversight of GIA activities by the PCU, including nominal support to the GIA
innovation fund (4.4.1), and participation in industry roundtables and R&D forums (4.4.2). The GEF contribution will also help to establish standards for testing
facilities, to ensure global consistency by the national testing facilities and agencies that are approving treatment technologies.
GloBallast Executive Summary
23
September 2006
Incremental Cost Co-financing Details
The following table provides an accounting of the co-financing contribution that has been indicated by GloBallast Partners. The amounts given were
provided by partners along with their project endorsement. In addition to the output and activity columns, which correspond to the designations in the
Logical Framework and work plan, there is also a column marked as linked. The co-sponsors filled in their financial tables using an early draft of the
Logical Framework that included a different numbering on the project components (outcomes, outputs and activities). The linked column therefore aligns
the sponsor financing tables with the DPD.
Table A (3) Incremental Cost Co-financing Details
Trinidad
Component 1, LPCs
Argentina Chile
Colombia Venezuela Jamaica &
Bahamas Turkey Croatia Egypt Yemen Sudan Jordan Ghana LPC
Total
Tobago
output activity
Linked
1.1 1.1.1
1.1.2
1.1.3
1.5
1.1.4
1.6
1.7 (a),
1.1.5
65,000 58,000 10,000
100,000 52,500 55,000 101,000 20,000 64,000
50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 180,000
905500
1.7 (b)
1.1.6 1.8
15,000 18,000
80,000 39,000 15,000 132,000
15,000
15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 10,000
399000
1.1.7
10.4c
1.2 1.2.1
1.2.2
1.2.3
1.3 1.3.1
Component
1
LPC
Subtotals
15,000 73,000 28,000
180,000 91,500 70,000 233,000 20,000 79,000
65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 190,000 1,304,500
Trinidad
Component 2, LPCs
Argentina Chile
Colombia Venezuela Jamaica &
Bahamas Turkey Croatia Egypt Yemen Sudan Jordan Ghana LPC
Total
Tobago
output activity
Linked
2.1
2.1.1
0
2.1.2
5.3
105,000
67,000
30,000
20,000
32,500
12,000
266500
2.2
2.2.1
0
2.2.2 2.2
12,000 12,000
3,600 200,000 8,000 12,000
6,000
12,000
12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 24,000
337600
2.3
2.3.1
0
2.3.2
9.5
6,000
20,000
4,000
8,000
38000
2.3.3
0
2.4
2.4.1
0
2.3 and
2.4.2
172,500 83,400
0 10,000
0
0
0 30,000 22,500
0
0
0 24,000
342400
3.2
2.4.3
3.3
33,000
15,000
21,000
40,500
33,000
8,000
33,000
33,000
33,000
33,000
5,400
287900
2.4.4 3.4
51,000 55,000 33,000
26,000 63,000 12,000 5,000 63,000
63,000 63,000 63,000 63,000 9,000
569000
GloBallast Executive Summary
24
September 2006
2.5
2.5.1
0
2.5.2
4.2
57,500
27,800
20,000
7,500
8,000
120800
2.5.3 4.3
31,000 51,000 22,000
62,000 51,000
3,200 10,000 51,000
51,000 51,000 51,000 51,000 36,000
521200
2.6
2.6.1
0
2.6.2
5.4
18,000
11,400
7,150
150,000
2,500
7,000
7,000
6,500
6,500
6,500
12,000
234550
2.7
2.7.1
0
2.7.2
7.4
57,500
27,800
10,000
7,500
12,000
114800
2.7.3
7.5
10,000
10,000
14,950
9,000
10,000
17,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
3,000
123950
2.7.4
7.6
10,000
10,000
14,950
4,500
10,000
12,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
2,000
113450
Component 2 LPC Subtotals
185,50
557,500 370,400 116,650 390,000 152,500 186,000
64,200 115,000 260,000
185,500 146,000 185,500 155,400 3070,150
0
Component 3, LPCs
Argentin
Chile Colombia
Venezuel
Jamaica Trinidad
Bahamas Turkey Croati
Egypt Yemen Sudan Jordan Ghana LPC
Total
a
a
&
a
Tobago
output activity
Linked
3.1
3.1.1
3.1.2
9.3
75,000
75,000
30,000
30,000
12,000
222,000
3.1.3
9.2
50,000
5,000
55,000
3.1.4
9.6
12,000
1,200
9.4 /
3.1.5
60,000 50,000 49979 300,000 70,000 60,000 53,200 65,000
70,000
60,000 60,000 60,000
60,000 80,000 1,098,179
Sp. P
3.1.6
3.2
3.2.1
3.2.2
3.2.3
3.2.4
8.3
57,500
27,800
10,000
20,000
7,500
10,000
132,800
3.2.5 8.4
27,000 27,000 29,000
25,000 27,000 6,000 40,000
27,000
27,000 27,000 27,000
27,000 32,000 348,000
3.2.6
3.2.7
10.4
4,800
2,400
5,000
5,000
17,200
3.3
3.3.1
3.3.2
10.2 +
3.3.3
20,000
54,800
5,000
79,800
Sp. P
104,50
Component 3 LPC SubTotals
219,500
184,600
78,979
340,000
95,000
157,000
116,400
165,000
87,000
87,000 87,000
87,000
156,000 1,964,979
0
GloBallast Executive Summary
25
September 2006
Component 4, LPCs
Argentin
Chile Colombia
Venezuela
Jamaic
Trinidad
Bahamas Turkey Croati
Egypt Yemen Sudan Jordan Ghana LPC
Total
a
a
&
a
Tobago
output activity Linked
4.1 4.1.1
4.1.2
4.2 4.2.1
4.2.2
4.2.3
4.3 4.3.1
4.3.2
4.3.3
4.4 4.4.1
a
4.4.1 b
200,000
5,000
110,000
315,000
4.4.2
Component 4, LPC subtotals
200,000
5,000
110,000
315,000
339,00
443,50
337,50
337,50
Total LPC Co-financing
857,000
628,000
223,629
1,110,000
413,000
418,600
410,000
337,500
298,000
501,400
6,654,629
0
0
0
0
GloBallast Executive Summary
26
September 2006
Component 1, RCO's
and other co-sponsors
REMPEIT
CPPS
REMPEC
PERSGA
GCLME
SPREP
ROPME
RCO
Total
IUCN IMO EBRD GIA Total
C
output activity Linked
1.1
1.1.1
0
1.1.2
0
1.1.3
1.5
64,900
144,000
225,000
137,000
150,000
720900
720,900
1.1.4
1.6
28,900
120,000
150,000
298900
298,900
1.7 (a),
1.1.5
1.7 (b)
1.1.6
1.8
0
1.1.7
10.4c
5,000
10,000
10,000
110,000
135000
135,000
1.2
1.2.1
0
1.2.2
0
1.2.3
0
1.3
1.3.1
0
Component 1 RCO +
410,000
98,800 154,000 225,000 267,000
1,154,800 0 0 0
2,309,600
subtotals
Component 2, RCO's
and other co-sponsors
REMPEIT
CPPS
REMPEC
PERSGA
GCLME
SPREP
ROPME
RCO
Total
IUCN IMO EBRD GIA Total
C
output activity Linked
2.1
2.1.1
40,000
2.1.2
5.3
6,000
98,000
93,750
102,500
300250
348,000
362,500
1,277,250
2.2
2.2.1
530,250
2,893,250
2.2.2
2.2
337,600
2.3
2.3.1
0
2.3.2
9.5
38,000
2.3.3
0
2.4
2.4.1
1,136,650
2,943,250
2.3 and
2.4.2
30,320
189,600 0
172,500 0 0
392420 0 0 0
734,820
3.2
2.4.3
3.3
2.4.4
3.4
2.5
2.5.1
943250
2,943,250
2.5.2
4.2
6,000
63,200
57,500
126700
247,500
2.5.3
4.3
2.6
2.6.1
80,000
50,000
2.6.2
5.4
2.7
2.7.1
544,250
2,943,250
GloBallast Executive Summary
27
September 2006
2.7.2
7.4
6,000
63,200
57,500
126700
241,500
2.7.3
7.5
2.7.4
7.6
Component 2 RCO +
48,320 414,000
0 381,250
102,500
946,070
3,582,400 362,500
5837,040
subtotals
Component 3
REMPEIT
CPPS
REMPEC
PERSGA
GCLME
SPREP
ROPME
RCO
Total
IUCN IMO EBRD GIA Total
C
output activity Linked
3.1
3.1.1
0
3.1.2
9.3
6,000
80,600
80,000
75,000
79,500
321100
321100
3.1.3
9.2
9,000
24,000
27,000
60000
60000
3.1.4
9.6
200000
0
9.4 /
3.1.5
200000
0
Sp. P
3.1.6
0
3.2
3.2.1
0
3.2.2
35000
0
3.2.3
0
3.2.4
8.3
6,000
63,200
57,500
126700
40000
126700
3.2.5
8.4
0
3.2.6
40400
0
3.2.7
10.4
0
3.3
3.3.1
224,000
224000
224000
3.3.2
0
10.2 +
3.3.3
566000
566000
Sp. P
Component 3 RCO +
21000 167800 80000
159500 79500 224000 731800 400000 736400
0
0
2,600000
subtotals
Component 4
REMPEIT
CPPS
REMPEC
PERSGA
GCLME
SPREP
ROPME
RCO
Total
IUCN IMO EBRD GIA Total
C
output activity Linked
4.1
4.1.1
45,000
45,000
4.1.2
30,000
30,000
4.2
4.2.1
0
4.2.2
40,000
40,000
4.2.3
0
4.3
4.3.1
20,000
20,000
4.3.2
80,000
80,000
GloBallast Executive Summary
28
September 2006
4.3.3
10,000
10,000
4.4
4.4.1 a
1,000,000
1,000,000
4.4.1 b
2,023,340
2,023,340
4.4.2
200,000
200,000
Component 4 RCO +
3,133,340
3,133,340
subtotals
Total RCO & other co-
168,120
735,800
305,000
807,750
0
592,000
224,000
2,832,670
400,000
4,318,800
362,500
3,133,340
11,047,310
sponsor co-financing
GloBallast Executive Summary
29
September 2006
ANNEX B: PROJECT LOGICAL FRAMEWORK
23,389,939 *
Project Goal: To reduce the risks and impacts of ballast water mediated marine bio-invasions caused by international
Total
(*not including GEF PDF-
shipping.
budget
b support: $699, 840)
Sources of Verification
P: Process Indicator
Funding
Objective
Indicators
SR: Environmental Stress Reduction
Budget
Risks & Assumptions
Source
Indicator
E/WR: Environmental Status
Indicator
To assist vulnerable developing
By the end of the project,
· All lead partnering countries
IMO Member States will
countries to implement
all partnering countries
(LPCs) have assigned a Lead
continue to develop and
5,688,000 GEF
sustainable, risk-based
can demonstrate
Agency, formed a National Task
finalize all BWMC
mechanisms for the management significant improvement
Force and developed National
guidelines.
and control of ships' ballast
in legal, policy and
Ballast Water Management
Approved BW Treatment
water and sediments in order to
institutional structures,
Strategy (NBWMS).
Technology solutions will
4,318,800 IMO
minimize the adverse impacts of
with corresponding
· Each LPC has revised its legal
be available in time for the
aquatic invasive species
reduced risk of ballast
instruments, instituted a risk-
shipping industry prior to
transferred by ships
water borne marine bio-
based compliance monitoring and
the BWMC entering into
invasions
enforcement (CME) system, and
3,133,340 GIA force
established a sustainable financing
structure for their national ballast
400,000 IUCN
water management program.
· All lead participating countries
are proceeding towards
362,500 EBRD
ratification of the IMO ballast
water management convention,
with at least 10 LPCS ratified and
implementing the Convention.
2,832,670
RCO
· At least 3 neighboring partnering
GloBallast Executive Summary
30
September 2006
countries of each LPCs developed
draft NBWMS.
· The Regional Seas & LME
conventions in each partner region
6,654,629 LPC
include approved provisions
supporting improved BWM, the
BWM convention and BWM
regional strategies.
Funding
Outcomes7:
Indicators
Sources of Verification
Budget
Risks & Assumptions
Source
The project team at
1,265,000 GEF
global, regional and local
Flexibility is built into the
Learning, evaluation and
levels is effectively
Satisfactory / Highly satisfactory
project for adaptive
1,154,800
RCOs
1
adaptive management increased
coordinating the project,
ratings on key activities and
management. IMO Office of
(P)
with objectives met, and
outcomes during terminal evaluation
BWM offers significant
outputs completed in time
1,304,500 LPCs backstopping support
and within budget
BWM Strategies in place, with
At project conclusion,
·
Country buy-in and political
By the end of the project, each
legal, policy and institutional
each LPC is
support is paramount to
2
LPC will have a National Task
reforms developed, implemented
implementing an effective
2,995,000 GEF ensure LPIR and planning
Force and approved NBWMS in
and sustained at national level
program of ballast water
recommendations get
place
(P)
management in line with
carried out
7 Each of the key outcomes of the Project includes an indication of the type of indicator used. Most of the indicators for GloBallast Partnerships are Process (P) indicators. This
is reasonable given the nature of the environmental problem and its mitigation. GloBallast Partnerships is designed to reduce the threat of invasives through ships' ballasting
operations, however it is very difficult to detect specific invasive outbreaks as they are just starting, and virtually impossible to eradicate once the new species has established a
foothold. The pathways and proliferation of marine invasives through international shipping make it difficult to set specific stress reduction indicators. This is a risk-reduction
effort, which by nature is process driven. Nevertheless, several Stress Reduction (SR) indicators have been identified under Outcome 4 tied to specific demonstration projects
for ballast sediment retention and new treatment technologies
During the inception phase, each of the lead countries will develop their implementation plans, within which indicators will also be included, with emphasis on stress reduction
where feasible. So for instance, once ballast management requirements are in place, baselines can be established for the number of vessels being screened for compliance with
ballast management and reporting system requirements. In addition, once the Ballast Water Convention enters into force, baselines can be established for the number of ships
that have installed ballast treatment technologies and are implementing approved ballast management plans.
GloBallast Executive Summary
31
September 2006
the IMO Convention and
· All LPCs will have revised legal
any Regional Strategies.
structures, improved CME
During the project, each
systems and a cadre of trained
LPC is sharing the lessons
experts
3,582,400
IMO
learned with other
· Regional Task Forces and
countries in the region
Regional Action Plans in place
in each cooperating region by
the end of the Project
· Regional Coordinating
Amongst the partnering
362,500 EBRD
Organizations are facilitating the
regions, the aim is for
participation of other partnering
countries to develop and
countries in capacity building
agree on a regional BWM
946,070
RCOs
activities hosted by LPCs
strategy. Support of
Contracting Parties of the
Regional convention for
3,070,150 LPCs adopting the Regional
Strategy is essential, for
sustainability of efforts
Sufficient information is
available by the end of the
1,198,000 GEF
project for LPCs to
Flexibility for adaptive
Knowledge management tools
implement risk-based
736,400 IMO
·
management is assumed,
GMEIS system is operational,
and marine monitoring systems
ballast water management
with the PCU empowered to
are effectively utilized to expand
systems. All LMEs and
web sites are in place in each of
respond to information
global public awareness and
regional Seas programs
the 13 LPCs. Newsletters are
requests from (not yet
globally have raised
published. The GMEIS web
400,000 IUCN
3
stakeholder support, improve
participating) LMEs, and
understanding of ballast water
ballast water management
portal includes information
able to build in
impacts on marine ecology, and
as an important coastal
showing ballast water protocols
opportunities for GB pilot
zone concern, with their
and strategies in each LME and
731,800
RCO
enhance maritime sector
country experts to assist in
Regional Sea globally.
communications. (P)
members taking steps to
regional and global
address the issue.
activities.
Momentum on GBM is
sustained in the GB pilot
1,964,979 LPCs
regions.
Public-private partnerships
Cost effective technology
· A GloBallast Industry Alliance
The GloBallast Industry
4
developed to spur the
solutions and testing
is launched, testing facility
230,000 GEF Alliance is developed early
development of cost-effective
standards are developed,
standards are developed,
during year 1 and forms a
GloBallast Executive Summary
32
September 2006
ballast water technology
tested and promoted
sediment facility options have
close partnership, meeting
3,133,340 GIA
solutions (P and SR)
through a successful
been piloted, at least 2 R&D
regularly with GPTF
partnership with industry
symposiums held, and the BWM
Innovation Fund gets launched.
315,000 LPCs
Funding
Outcomes/Outputs/Activities
Indicator
Sources of Verification
Budget
Risks & Assumptions
Source
The project team at
1,265,000
GEF
global, regional and local
·
Flexibility is built into the
Satisfactory / Highly satisfactory
1,154,800
RCOs
project for adaptive
Learning, evaluation and
levels is effectively
1
ratings on key activities and
coordinating the project,
1,304,500
management. IMO Office of
adaptive management increased
outcomes during terminal
with objectives met, and
BWM offers significant
evaluation
LPCs
outputs completed in time
backstopping support
and within budget
· PCU, RCOs and LCPs up and
1,125,000 GEF
running by end of 2nd Q, yr 1.
GPTF, RTF and LPTF meetings
PCU provided with space
A successful partnership
held on schedule.
1,154,800 RCOs and support at IMO. RCOs
in place providing
Project Management and
able to monitor and
effective management and · Financial and project
1.1
coordination structures in place
coordinate participating
direction for GBP at
management carried out
at global, regional and local level
country activities. Lead
global, regional and
according to GEF & UNDP
Partnering Countries (LPCs)
country levels
guidelines
· Project completed on time and
1,304,500 LPCs able to achieve co-financing
within budget. Low staff
turnover, high country buy-in.
· By 2nd Q, yr 1, PCU is in place
PCU start up contingent on
with all experts hired and
Hire, equip and maintain
Project coordination is
timing of contract approval.
project coordination unit staff
properly staffed and
working. TORs drafted,
Agreements on IMO
1.1.1
670,000
GEF
and office at IMO HQ
effectively managing
positions advertised, experts
support arrangements.
GBP
selected. Verified via APR,
Availability of adequate
PIRs MTE and terminal
office space
evaluations
GloBallast Executive Summary
33
September 2006
Membership builds from the
GPTF is launched and
· 3 full GPTF meetings (6 RCO
GPTF developed during the
provides guidance and
members + 6 RTF
1st GBP
direction for GBP
representatives + Partners +
150,000
GEF
Establish and support Global
GEF-UNDP + IMO)
Off year executive meetings
1.1.2
Executive management
Project Task Force (GPTF)
developed in order to ensure
meetings are held to
· 2 executive management
close project oversight
provide annual project
meetings at IMO (GEF, UNDP,
while keeping GPTF costs
oversight
IMO)
down.
MOAs developed as needed
for RCOs not yet with
720,900
RCOs
RCOs organize for
financial connection to
Designate and coordinate with
regional activities and
· RCOs in place and MOAs
IMO. RCOs focus
1.1.3
regional coordinating
serve as financial conduit
completed by end of 2nd Q, yr 1
especially on regional
organizations
for PCU to LPCs
inclusion of non-LPCs. GEF
75,000 GEF support for hiring ad-hoc
administrative assistance
RCOs effectively
· 3, meetings (2 days) in each of
coordinate regional
the five regions: during
Task forces to develop
activities and ensure
inception, prior to mid term
298,900
RCOs
recommendations for
sustainability after project
GPTF and prior to final GPTF
regional convention support
Establish and maintain regional
completion. All
1.1.4
(2nd and 3rd meeting coincides
and member adoption of
task forces
partnering countries in the
with activities under 2.4.2) -
BWMC. Task forces to
region nominate RTF
20,000 per region for Inception
include maritime and
members, BWM
meeting and 10,000 per region
180,000
environmental interests
discussed in regional
for 2nd and 3rd meeting, (LPCs
GEF
forums
hosting the meetings).
LO should comprise the
maritime authorities. NFP is
Establish project coordination in Effective structure of
a top manager of the LO.
each LPC, including identifying
country coordination is
· NFPs and NPCs assigned by
NPC is from middle level
1.1.5
lead organization (LO), national
established in each of the
905,500 LPCs
LPCs
staff and has allocated
focal point and national project
13 lead participating
significant time to the
coordinator
countries (LPCs)
project. teleconferences
every 6 mo. CTA, RCOs
GloBallast Executive Summary
34
September 2006
and LPC FPs
Guidance and
recommendations for
Includes key ministries:
national program.
port state control,
Generating support for
transportation, environment,
Establish and maintain National
legal policy and
·
1.1.6
NTF meetings every other year,
399,000 LPCs health, ports management.
Task Forces
institutional reform
prior to GPTF meetings
to include other stakeholder
(LPIR) and adoption of
involvement (industry and
the ballast water
NGO)
management convention
(BWMC)
GBP awareness and
50,000
Timing of international
stature is raised in
· GBP presence at 3 forums per
GEF
Represent and promote
meetings does not conflict
international and regional
GloBallast Partnerships in
year: IW conference, CBD COP
with other project activities.
1.1.7
forums through
international and regional
9&10, Regional Seas
Two persons form LPCs
participation of PCU,
conventions and forums
(participation by LPC or RCO or
plus PCU member to the IW
RCO and national focal
PCU)
135,000 RCOs conferences
points from LPCs
Monitoring and
evaluation support
Project monitoring, evaluation
M&E program carried out
provides timely assistance · MTE and TE carried out on time
1.2
and reporting systems
140,000 GEF based on GEF / UNDP
to keep project on track
established and implemented
and within budget.
procedures
and recommend strategies
to ease bottlenecks
Key is to have the mid term
Conduct mid term evaluation
Providing external
·
completed prior to the
1.2.1
and initiate mid course
recommendations on mid
Mid term Evaluation held prior
60,000 GEF GPTF so recommendations
corrections
course corrections
to yr 3 GPTF meeting
can be taken into account.
GloBallast Executive Summary
35
September 2006
At the end of GBP, the
Terminal evaluation in
project successes,
·
keeping with UNDP
1.2.2
Conduct terminal evaluation
shortcomings, lessons
Final evaluation and audit held
80,000 GEF
requirements. TE focused
learned and next step are
prior to final GPTF meeting
on lessons learned and
identified
sustainability
All reporting
requirements for GEF,
· Annual Project Reports (APR)
Develop and submit APR/PIRs
UNDP and IMO are
and Project Implementation
Requires timely reporting
1.2.3
and other required GEF/UNDP
observed and GPTF
Reviews (PIR) developed
(PCU internal)
GEF
of activities from the NFPs
project monitoring reports
receives timely updates
annually and submitted prior to
and RCOs
enabling proper
GPTF meetings.
management of the GBP
· By the end of the project, each
LPC will have a National Task
2,995,000 GEF Country buy-in and political
Force and approved NBWMS in
support is paramount to
place
ensure LPIR and planning
At project conclusion,
· All LPCs will have revised legal
recommendations get
each LPC is
structures, improved CME
carried out
implementing an effective
systems and a cadre of trained
3,582,400
IMO
program of ballast water
Amongst the partnering
BWM Strategies in place, with
experts.
management in line with
regions, the aim is for
legal, policy and institutional
2
the IMO Convention and
· Regional Task Forces and
362,500 EBRD countries to develop and
reforms developed, implemented
any Regional Strategies.
Regional Action Plans in place
agree on a regional BWM
and sustained at national level
During the project, each
in each cooperating region by
strategy. Support of
LPC is sharing the lessons
the end of the Project.
Contracting Parties of the
946,070 RCOs
learned with other
· Regional Coordinating
Regional convention for
countries in the region
Organizations are facilitating the
adopting the Regional
participation of other partnering
Strategy is essential, for
countries in capacity building
sustainability of efforts
3,070,150 LPCs
activities hosted by LPCs
Institutional capacities are
By end of yr 2, key
· By end of yr 2, more than 250
Existing BWM modular
2.1
370,000 GEF
enhanced through a
decision makers, industry
stakeholders from pertinent
course is updated to include
comprehensive training program representatives and
ministries, industries and
the BWM convention
on Ballast water management
maritime training
training institutes have
348,000 IMO requirements. Attention is
institutes in every priority
participated in BWM modular
paid to getting decision
region and LPC have
course.
40,000 GIA makers in the pertinent
GloBallast Executive Summary
36
September 2006
been provided
· By end of yr 3, selected
ministries to attend.
362,500 EBRD
introductory training on
maritime institutes in each
Attendees are then kept in
all aspects of BWM
region / LPC are training
the process via newsletter
maritime experts in all aspects of
266,500 LPC mailings and follow on
ship-based BWM.
events.
· By end of yr 2, the BWM
modular package is also made
300,250 RCO
available in an e-learning format.
Updated Modular course
Developed from initial
ready for regional training
20,000
GEF
course offerings during
· Completed course manual 2nd Q
Update GloBallast Introductory
by 2nd Q year 1.
GBP1
2.1.1
Modular Course for Ballast
yr 1, completed e-learning
package 1st Q yr 2. GMEIS
Water Management
E-learning module
portal posting. APR/PIR
E-learning platform GIA
available for modular
40,000 GIA financed and developed
course instruction in yr 2
with IW Learn
· Total 9 training programs : 4
362,500 EBRD
Training Programs (CPPS,
MED, PERSGA & SPREP
funded by GEF);
348,000 IMO Support for specific
· 1 Training Program in WACAF
Regional training
By end of yr 2, more than
funded through IMO-GCLME
350,000
GEF
workshops through several
Hold training courses on BWM
250 stakeholders from
IAA;
sources, including EBRD,
2.1.2
using updated Modular Training pertinent ministries in
· 1 Training Program in CAR
IMO, GEF and participating
266,500 LPC
package
every GBP2 region
funded by IMO ITCP (Training
countries.
trained on BW basics
programs to be hosted one LPC
Globallast Pilot Countries
per region);
offering experts for training
· 5 additional training programs in
in GBP regions.
Black Sea, Baltic and Caspian
300,250 RCO
Sea to be funded by EBRD
(50,000 per training).
Risk-based, rapid status
Early in project yr 2 all
· 13 Rapid Assessment Reports
LPCs can quickly organize
2.2
assessment reports are developed LPCs have identified the
completed by the end of 1st Q,
345,000 GEF with the PCU to carry out
and used to guide country
key issues of BWM and
yr 2, covering all key aspects for
rapid assessments.
GloBallast Executive Summary
37
September 2006
activities
marine invasive species
BWM and AIS. Verified by
Information is available
and developed their LPC
report submission.
530,250 IMO amongst the LPCs
action plans under GBP.
concerning marine
LPCs have coordinated
biodiversity issues, ports
their planned activities
management and port state
with the other
control activities. The
participating countries in
National Focal Points and
the region
337,600 LPCs National Coordinators have
inter-ministerial support to
get information from other
ministries and institutes
Guidance is provided to
20,000
GEF
the LPCs during the 2nd Q · Guidelines and templates are
Globallast pilot (GBP)
of yr 1, enabling them to
experts will assist in
Develop template and guidelines
developed by PCU and
2.2.1
assess their situation with
developing the template
for rapid assessments
submitted to LPCs during 2nd Q,
respect to invasive species
yr 1, prior to GPTF inception
530,250 IMO based on experience from
and ballast water
meeting
pilot effort
management (BWM)
Assessment is not a full
transboundary diagnostic
analysis (TDA) but meant to
enable rapid assessment for
325,000 GEF project planning.
Assessments should include
All 13 LPCs have
identified their key
stakeholder reviews, expert
national issues for BW
·
rosters, general info on
13 Rapid Assessment Reports
marine species and ecology,
2.2.2
Develop rapid status assessments management and have
completed by the end of 1st Q, yr
identified their top
major ports and their traffic
2
priorities and plans for
mix, pertinent policies and
legislation, implications of
reforms during GBP
ballast water management
337,600 LPCs convention (BWMC)
ratification, related
legislation (e.g. MARPOL
& CBD), & port state
control arrangements.
GloBallast Executive Summary
38
September 2006
The economic impacts of
Data likely limited on the
marine invasive species is
370,000 GEF extent and reasons for
better understood, and
reduction of many fish
Economic aspects of marine bio-
· LPC specific and aggregated
economic impact as well
species. Effort requires that
2.3
invasions factored into national
economic impact reports
as management costs, are
each LPC assessment
strategic planning
completed by 3rd Q, yr 4
factored into strategic
38,000 LPCs utilized same economic
planning for ballast water
methodology, to enable
management
collating and comparisons
LPC economists are given
Able to utilize GISP
methodology tools
· Marine invasives economic
economic methodology as
Develop guidance for economic
2.3.1
enabling economic impact
60,000 GEF baseline. Providing step by
assessments
assessment guidance completed
assessments to be carried
2nd Q Yr 2
step instructions on the use
out
of models and calculations
Develop national economic
The economic
310,000 GEF Data likely limited on the
impact and response cost
consequences of marine
· Each LPC (13) completes an
extent and reasons for
2.3.2
assessments, taking into account
bio-invasions in each of
economic assessment by 3rd Q,
reduction of many fish
the need for financial
the LPCs is better
Yr 3.
species. Health statistics
sustainability
understood
38,000 LPCs may be difficult to access
Requires that each LPC
Global economic impacts ·
assessment utilized same
and response costs of
Aggregate Economic
2.3.3
Aggregate economic information
30,000 GEF economic methodology, to
marine invasive species
Assessment Report completed,
enable collating and
better understood
2nd Q, Yr 4.
comparisons
NBWMSs are approved at
900,000 GEF cabinet of ministers level.
All lead countries and
·
RAP is officially brought
All 13 LPCs develop approved
1,136,650 IMO
priority regions have
under the regional
National Ballast Water
approved and are
BWMSs by the end of yr 4. All 6
convention framework.
Management Strategy
priority regions (incl. SPREP)
2.4
implementing strategic
392,420 RCOs NBWMSs specifically
(NBWMS) developed and
plans to reduce the risk of
have a regional action plan
address legal, policy and
implemented
bio-invasions from ship
(RAP) for BWM in place by end
institutional reforms and
ballast water
of yr. 4
ratification of the ballast
1,199,300 LPCs water management
convention
GloBallast Executive Summary
39
September 2006
65,000 GEF
Develop guidelines for national
Guidance is developed
·
BWMS development, including
enabling the participating
PCU develops and disseminates
2.4.1
options for financial
countries to launch
guidance to RCOs and LPCs
during 1st Q, yr 2
sustainability
national planning efforts
1,136,650 IMO
· 5 regions, (20,000 per region x 2
200,000 GEF
meetings (2 day each), back to
Meetings serve as the 2nd
back with RTF meetings-
and 3rd RTF meetings; 1st
activity 1.1.4 (LPCs hosting the
meeting to consider issues
342,400 LPC
meetings).
and concerns in common:
Hold (a) regional harmonization
A regional ballast water
·
second meeting to adopt
(including regional LPI
management action plan
Draft Regional action plan
concrete proposal for
2.4.2
assessment) and (b)
approved in each of the 6
developed and submitted to
regional convention
regional convention meeting by
Sustainability workshops
priority regions
approval and to identify
2nd Q, Yr 5.
regional mechanisms for
· Builds from GBP national and
392,420 RCOs sustainability: 6th region for
regional planning efforts,
RBMP development is
amended to account for BWMC
SPREP
adoption.
Interested industry and
287,900 LPCs
LPCs meet with key
NGO parties are able to
stakeholders to take
· At least 3 stakeholder meeting in
review the draft NBWMS
Hold national stakeholder
2.4.3
comment on draft BWM
each of the 13 LPCs, before the
and provide comments prior
workshops
Strategies, and ensure buy
end of yr.3
to completion; Lead partner
in once plans are adopted
215,000 GEF country (LPC) managed
process
420,000 GEF
All 13 LPCs have in place · All 13 LPCs develop approved
Plans include milestones
a national strategy
BWMSs by the end of yr 4, PCU
2.4.4
Develop national BWMSs
and schedules beyond the
addressing ballast water
provides technical assistance
conclusion of GBP
management
($20,000 per country)
569,000 LPC
GloBallast Executive Summary
40
September 2006
Legal expertise available in
535,000 GEF
By the end of yr 4, all
LPCs to work with GBP
LPCs have instituted legal
experts on legislative
and regulatory changes
943,250 IMO
·
changes. NFPs devise
that improve BW
All LPCs adopt new legislation /
strategies to get new
2.5
National legal reforms instituted
management and adopt or
regulations to strengthen ballast
legislation approved through
water management by 1st Q yr 4
126,700 RCO
harmonize with the IMO
parliament. Industry and
Ballast Water
NGOs have been consulted
Management Convention
642,000 LPCs throughout legal effort, to
minimize opposition
· PCU thru consultancy to develop
35,000 GEF
By 1st Q yr 2, LPCs have
Builds from GB experience
Develop legal road map, model
tools available for
generic legal reform road map,
2.5.1
model legislation and template.
and PDF-b review; Experts
legislation and training manuals
revising BW legal
from GB to contribute
structures
Road map, model and manuals
943,250 IMO
developed by 4th Q, yr 1
220,000
GEF
Legal experts in priority
Legal road map, model
Train LPC lawyers on
regions trained on legal
· PCU to support LPCs with LPIR
legislation and training
2.5.2
developing legal frameworks for
126,700 RCO
aspects of BWM, by 2nd
module is prepared; Experts
BWM
technical consulting assistance
Q yr 3
from GB will assist
120,800 LPCs
Includes comprehensive
review of pertinent national
521,200 LPCs
All LPCs adopt new
legislation; GBP provides
legislation / regulations
·
ad hoc assistance to
2.5.3
Develop national legislation
National legislation revised,
strengthening BWM by
country reports submitted
legislative effort during yr
1st Q yr 4
3; LPCs work to ratify and
280000 GEF implement BWM
Convention
2.6
Specialist capacities improved
Expertise on key facets of · By the beginning of project yr.
Entry into force of the
65,000 GEF
for BWM
ballast water techniques
2, there exists global, regional
Ballast Water Management
and coastal biodiversity
and LPC rosters of taxonomists
Convention will spur
monitoring is enhanced
available to assist on coastal and
234,550 LPCs considerable interest
across the participating
port species surveys.
amongst countries and
GloBallast Executive Summary
41
September 2006
countries and regions.
· By the end of year 3, 6 port
maritime institutes for
species survey workshops have
specialist training. Other
been held.
related programs, such as
· By end of yr 4, selected
GISP, should be closely
80,000 IMO
maritime institutes in each
linked for port survey
region / LPC are training
training.
maritime experts in key aspects
of ship-based BWM.
Expected roll out as BWMC
By end of yr 4, specialist
·
enters into force; Role of
Develop model BWM (specialist)
course is prepared for
IMO completes specialist course
2.6.1
development, incorporating IMO
80,000 IMO GBP is to assist LPCs to
course
training institutes based
deliver model course in
on IMO Model Courses
STCW
maritime institutes
65,000 GEF Accreditation criteria is
By end of yr 5, sailors can ·
Capacitate Training Institutes
Training institutes identified 4th
developed to identify and
be trained to be a BWM
Q yr 4; At least 1 institute in
2.6.2
for delivery of Introductory
accredit institutes; Ad hoc
expert in any of the GBP
course and specialized courses
each of LPC offering BWM
support from PCU for LPC-
priority regions
specialist course during yr 5
234,550 LPCs led effort
CME systems include
380,000 GEF
By the end of yr 4, each
·
approved mechanisms for
By 2nd Q, yr 2, all Shipping
Compliance monitoring and
LPC has developed /
BW reporting, sampling,
companies calling on LPC ports
544,250 IMO
enforcement indicators are
enhanced its CME
citations, and streamlined
have received model BWM
developed and national systems
system. By end of year 4,
procedures for low risk ship.
2.7
plans. Follow on questionnaire
126,700 RCO
enhanced, with an emphasis on
35% of merchant shipping
Voluntary approaches,
risk-based priority setting, and
fleet calling on LPC ports
in mid yr 3 identifies shipping
including streamlined
companies implementing the
the use of voluntary approaches
indicates BWM plans
procedures for ISO and
being implemented
plans.
352,200 LPC `green award' certification
are strongly supported
By start of yr. 3, model
Build on CME activities
Develop and disseminate model
·
CME framework is
Model CME framework and
during GloBallast Pilot
2.7.1
CME framework, including
60,000 GEF
available for LPCs to
indicators developed, 3rd Q, Yr
Phase (scoping study and
indicators
develop their revised
2
CME symposium); Takes
GloBallast Executive Summary
42
September 2006
CME systems
into account approval of the
BWM Convention and IMO
guidelines; Emphasis placed
544,250 IMO on voluntary approaches,
streamlined procedures and
risk-based priority setting
By end of year 3, at least
150,000 GEF
100 Port State Control
Officers and CME
· Country CME managers trained,
Training of port state
Hold training workshops on
2.7.2
managers in partner
4th Q yr 3; Regional training
126,700 RCO control authorities - 5
CME
countries are trained on
workshop reports, APR/PIR
regions. $30,000
essential aspects of BW
114,800 LPC
CME
Technical assistance to 13
LPCs for implementing
By the end of yr 4, LPCs
130,000 GEF CMEs, Clear expectations
are effectively monitoring · By 2nd Q yr 4, all 13 LPCs have
on LPCs to improve CME
Countries implement modified
and enforcing BWM
2.7.3
regulations approved, procedures
systems; CME systems
CME systems
requirements based on
revised, budgets augmented for
utilize risk-based priority
new BWM laws and
revised CME programs
setting; LPC CME systems
procedures
123,950 LPC are harmonized with BWM
Convention
Follow up study developed
as part of concluding report
40,000 GEF
All 13 LPCs have
· PCU / RCOs to hire consultants
and sustainability
Conduct follow up reviews of
undertaken a review of
recommendations; CME
2.7.4
modified CME systems and
to report on progress with CME
CME improvements by
reforms 1 yr after
study to include # of BW
develop lessons learned study
end of yr 5
implementation by 5 regions.
report forms received, ships
113,450 LPC boarded, samples taken,
enforcement actions
Knowledge management tools
Sufficient information is
· GMEIS system is operational,
Flexibility for adaptive
and marine monitoring systems
available by the end of the
web sites are in place in each of
management is assumed,
3
are effectively utilized to expand
project for LPCs to
the 13 LPCs. Newsletters are
1,198,000 GEF with the PCU empowered to
global public awareness and
implement risk-based
published. The GMEIS web
respond to information
stakeholder support, improve
ballast water management
portal includes information
requests from (not yet
GloBallast Executive Summary
43
September 2006
understanding of ballast water
systems. All LMEs and
showing ballast water protocols
participating) LMEs, and
impacts on marine ecology, and
regional Seas programs
and strategies in each LME and
able to build in
enhance maritime sector
globally have raised
Regional Sea globally.
736,400 IMO opportunities for GB pilot
communications.
ballast water management
country experts to assist in
as an important coastal
regional and global
zone concern, with their
activities.
members taking steps to
address the issue.
731,800 RCO
Momentum on GBM is
sustained in the GB pilot
regions.
1,964,979 LPCs
385,000
GEF
· Baseline data from at least 1 port
55,000
IMO
By end of yr 3, LPCs
Actual survey assessments
Baseline information established
in each of the 13 LPCs
have detailed knowledge
carried out and funded by
3.1
on biodiversity and alien species
developed, plus expectation of
400,000 IUCN
of marine invasive species
other participating country
LPCs with additional
presence in major ports (SR)
risks, and presence
surveys, enabling ID of existing
cosponsor support
1,387,179 LPCs
invasive species prevalence
381,100
RCO
Builds from protocol
improvement
25,000 GEF recommendations during
Lessons learned from
GB survey
Update Port baseline survey
previous baseline surveys
·
3.1.1
PCU completes revised
protocols
are applied as revised
protocols; 1st Q yr 2
protocols
25,000 IMO
Hold training workshops on
Regional experts are
· 6 workshops (hosted by one LPC
Experienced trainers from
3.1.2
150,000 GEF
port baseline survey design and
trained during yr 3 to
each from CAR, PERSGA,
GloBallast countries can be
GloBallast Executive Summary
44
September 2006
implementation
carry out baseline port
CPPS and WACAF and
utilized
invasive species surveys
SPREP), each with 20
321,100 RCO
participants (including other
participating countries in the
30,000 IMO
region) + MED training to be
funded by SAFEMED Project
implemented by RCO for
Mediterranean Region.
222,000 LPC
Develop country, regional and
55,000 LPCs
Taxonomists are
Roster compiled by LCPs,
3.1.3
global rosters of taxonomy
·
identified in every LPC
Roster compiled 4th Q Yr 1
RCOs, PCU
experts
60,000 RCO
65,000 GEF
Train local taxonomists in
Able to utilize IOC capacity
Local expertise is raised
generic tools and methodologies
· 13 sessions carried out by 3rd Q
200,000 IUCN building program or Census
3.1.4
for marine taxonomy
for marine invasives detection
of Marine Life Project for
work in each LPC
year 2. 75 persons trained
and analysis
training content
12,000 LPC
PCU provides support to
LPCs provide
LPCs, including baseline
LPCs carry out baseline surveys
assessments and data on
· 13 LPC reports completed by 2nd
survey training, and
3.1.5
and develop national marine
130,000 GEF
biodiversity in major
technical assistance on
invasives reports
Q yr 3.
ports by end of yr 3
report and database
development; LPCs to seek
co-financing to carry out
surveys and then develop
report; LPCs are able to
raise own funds and get
200,000 IUCN additional co-sponsors
conduct port baseline
surveys for 2 or more major
ports; Each LPC conducts at
GloBallast Executive Summary
45
September 2006
least 2 commercial port
baseline surveys
1,098,179 LPC
Global marine electronic
LPC data is generated and
Compile country baseline data
information system is
·
provided in proper format
3.1.6
Data input received, entry
and input into GMEIS (see
enhanced through detailed
15,000 GEF for easy collation and
activity 3.2)
LPC information on port
completed Q4, Yr 5
GMEIS input
area biodiversity
GMEIS will expand in use
370,000
GEF
to encompass other
environmental applications
and will provide seamless
126,700 RCO linkages with
· GMEIS launched during yr 3.
existing/upcoming safety
By project year 5, the backbone
Architecture is agreed to
and navigational
for a Globallast marine
115,400 IMO applications such as MEHs.
Global Marine Electronic
and data entered for
electronic information system
Database should enable
Information System (GMEIS)
launch and updating of
3.2
for BWM has been designed.
risk-based priority setting
for Ballast Water Management
Global Marine Electronic
·
for port state control
Established
Information System
Web portal as the front-end of
authorities and greater
during yr s 3 - 5.
this system is operating, and a
country profile database is in
clarity on country
place
requirements to shippers.
498,000 LPCs Shipping industry and other
stakeholders buy into the
GMEIS concept and are
willing to use this system
for BWM purposes
Study identifies GMEIS
architecture options for
Identify GMEIS
Design options identified
·
3.2.1
Design options report,
25,000 GEF ballast, expandable to other
Design/architecture Options
and explained
completed by 1st Q, Yr 2
shipping & navigation
issues
By mid yr 2, top experts
· Expert Workshop held (Marine
Workshop succeeds to
Hold GMEIS expert workshop
have planned out the
3.2.2
Electronic Highway experts,
70,000 GEF develop recommended
for design / architecture selection GMEIS architecture, with
other database developers) to
GMEIS architecture
ballast water as 1st
finalize the global architecture
GloBallast Executive Summary
46
September 2006
application
35,000 IMO
By mid yr 2, participating
Develop country profile database countries receive tools
·
User-friendly format is
3.2.3
Guidance developed and sent to
format and disseminate to
and instruction for
20,000 GEF developed that LPCs can
participating countries
developing Country
LPCs by 1st Q Yr 2
readily utilize
Profile / BW databases
125,000 GEF
Provide training and technical
During yrs 3&4, training
· IT consultancy team provides
126,700 RCO
assistance on knowledge
enables experts to manage
Database guidance (3.2.3)
3.2.4
internet and (limited) on-site
management and database
database development in
assistance (5, per LPC) or sub-
40,000 IMO developed
development for LPCs
participating countries
regional training
132,800 LPCs
LPCs have existing IT
Each LPC is able to
100,000 GEF hardware and software
develop a database of
·
Develop country profile
All LPC databases developed by
capacity; LPCs organize
3.2.5
information on marine
databases
Yr 4, using local technical
data entry; LPCs and PCU
invasive species and
assistance
pre-agreed on information
ballast water management
348,000 LPC sharing
· Website updated and in
Scale up from existing
GloBallast web site is
operation during year 1,
50,000 GEF GloBallast site; GMEIS
updated for use in GBP
Develop and maintain GloBallast
augmented as GMEIS by year 3
database enhancements
3.2.6
during yr 1 and then gets
GMEIS web portal
ready by yr 3; Stakeholder
major transformation to
interest expands to utilize
GMEIS portal during yr 3
40,400 IMO portal features
Each LPC has a web site
17,200 LPCs
up and running early in
· All lead participating country
LPCs have financial and
Launch and maintain national
3.2.7
Yr 2, as main access for
websites developed and
human resources to develop
BWM websites
public to project
operational by 1st Q yr 2,
125,000 GEF and maintain
information
GloBallast Executive Summary
47
September 2006
Information made available
298,000
GEF
through various printed
media compliments the
GMEIS web porthole.
Interested stakeholders
Stakeholder outreach to the
3.3
Stakeholder and public
·
and the general public in
Timely publication of
79,800 LPC
awareness of ballast water
newsletters, printing and
pilot regions and to new
all GBP regions and
management and marine bio-
regional partners is
participating countries
dissemination of brochures, and
supported through other
invasion issues is raised and
stay informed of the
widespread dissemination of the
sustained
BBC documentary
566,000 IMO GEF funding (direct to
issues and project status
LMEs and regional seas).
224,000 RCO
Assumes a mix of tools to
build and sustain
stakeholder momentum,
including direct contact,
Momentum on ballast
·
literature, participation in
Prior to the conclusion of GBP,
3.3.1
water management is
160,000 GEF events, review of strategies
maintained in the GB
all LMEs and regional seas
and resolutions and in the
Stakeholder outreach to GB pilot pilot regions and extended
globally have addressed the
case of the pilot regions,
regions, LMEs and Regional
to new regions,
issue of ballast water borne
some small scale financial
Seas
networked through the
invasive species, through
support for the inclusion of
LME and regional Seas
strategies, protocols, white
pilot country experts in
structures
papers, etc.
regional workshops. Any
direct support will be
224,000 RCO limited to use by and for
GEF-eligible countries.
Mailing list will need to be
Interested stakeholders
developed; Email preferred
Publish and post quarterly
are provided with regular
·
to keep postage to a
3.3.2
4 newsletters per yr, 20 total
88,000 GEF
newsletters
project updates by email
minimum; Newsletters also
posted on GMEIS portal
GloBallast Executive Summary
48
September 2006
50,000 GEF Translation services are
Public awareness is raised
acquired; Builds from
through selected
· 2 new brochures, 2 publications
successful publications
Develop, update and translate
development, translation
updated, 4 translated, 600 copies
566,000 IMO
effort during GB, including
3.3.3
GloBallast brochures and
and dissemination of
of BBC documentary
10 most wanted poster;
publications
pamphlets, posters, and
distributed.
BBC documentary to be a
the BBC documentary
major feature of promotion
efforts
79,800 LPC
230,000
GEF
·
Cost effective technology
A GloBallast Industry Alliance
Public-private partnerships
The GloBallast Industry
solutions and testing
is launched, testing facility
315,000 LPC
developed to spur the
Alliance is developed early
standards are developed,
standards are developed,
4
development of cost-effective
during year 1 and forms a
tested and promoted
sediment facility options have
ballast water technology
close partnership, meeting
through a successful
been piloted, at least 2 R&D
solutions
regularly with GPTF
partnership with industry
symposiums held, and the BWM
Innovation Fund gets launched
3,133,340
GIA
Shipping industry enters
GloBallast Industry
into close partnership
·
Alliance successfully
with other key
At least 5 major maritime
launched with sufficient
stakeholders under GBP,
industry players agree to join the
Strategic partnership forged
industry support. MOA
4.1
through the GIA, helping
GIA. The GITF and industry
75,000 GIA
with shipping industry
signed between IMO and
to overcome major
dialogue meetings held
GIA members on purpose of
barriers in developing and
concurrent to GPTF meetings
alliance and use of funds.
implementing technology
throughout 5 yr project.
GIA fund established
solutions
Shipping Industry
Set up a GloBallast Industry
·
Successful launch of a
organized throughout
3 GITF meetings held
Task Force to meet annually and
concurrent to industry dialogues
GloBallast Industry Alliance
4.1.1
project, providing timely
45,000 GIA
provide input to GloBallast
and approval of industry
advise and support to
and GPTF meetings. Minutes
Partnerships
funding
GBP
produced.
GloBallast Executive Summary
49
September 2006
Throughout the project,
Hold biannual industry
structured discussions are
· Industry dialogues held
Sequencing of meetings
4.1.2
dialogues between GITF and the
held for the GPTF to
concurrent to the (3) GPTF
30,000 GIA GITF Industry Dialogue -
GloBallast Steering Committee
receive industry advice on
meetings.
GPTF
GBP
Testing facility for
Port States can mutually
70,000 GEF
·
standards review in GEF
accept technologies
By end of yr 3, test facility
eligible country. Countries
Globally agreed standards
approved based on
standards and procedures for
prepared to set-up test
4.2
developed for ballast water
internationally agreed
endorsement of test facilities are
facilities in different regions
technology test facilities
testing standards and test
developed into IMO BWMC
and are willing to cooperate
facilities
guidelines
40,000 GIA in developing common
standards for test facilities.
Frameworks are
·
Develop framework for ballast
developed that identify
PCU to develop general
Government and industry
water treatment equipment test
the key issues and options
framework for global
interest to devise uniform
4.2.1
standardization of test facilities.
40,000 GEF
facility standards and inter-
for expert agreement on
standards for testing BW
calibration procedures
test facility standards and
Framework developed by 2nd Q,
treatment technologies
procedures
Yr 2
Willingness of key non-
Test facility standards and
GEF countries (US,
Hold experts workshop to
procedures are agreed to
· GIA to sponsor 1 workshop.
Australia, Norway and
4.2.2
propose test facility standards
and proposed to IMO for
40,000 GIA Singapore etc) to work with
and procedures
adoption into BWMC
Workshop held by 1st Q y r3
GBP on unified test facility
guidelines
standards development
GB or GBP lead country
will agree to host and pay
Develop and disseminate
·
for test facility construction:
standards and procedures
All IMO members receive
By end of yr 3, test facility
Consensus can be achieved
4.2.3
manual for ballast water
notice of recommended
standards and procedures are
30,000 GEF at experts meeting: IMO
developed into IMO BWMC
treatment equipment test facility testing facility standards
members will approve the
standards
guidelines
recommended standards and
procedures and include in
BWMC guidance
GloBallast Executive Summary
50
September 2006
Based on pilot site results,
Solutions devised and best
all port authorities within
practices publicized on port-
·
priority regions receive
Pilot site constructed in Yr 4,
sediment pilot established in
4.3
based reception facilities for
110,000 GIA
recommendations on
with results evaluated and
one of the GBP LPCs
ballast water tank sediments
construction of sediment
disseminated in year 5.
(SR)
facilities
Identify dry dock site and
PCU to organize
·
GIA funding agreed to by
4.3.1
conduct feasibility study for
feasibility study;
Feasibility study developed.
20,000 GIA industry partners; Suitable
pilot sediment facility
completed by 1st Q, yr
Report issued to PCU 1st Q, yr 4
site is found
Pilot site constructed by
· Construction and management of
Construct and manage pilot
Host provides significant in-
4.3.2
3rd Q yr 4, and
80,000 GIA
sediment facility (SR)
1 pilot facility. Start up report
kind support
operational
available by 1st Q, yr 5,
Operational
pilot site activity is enough
recommendations are
·
to yield lessons learned and
made available to
PCU to hire consultancy for
Assess pilot facility operation
recommendations; IMO
4.3.3
participating countries
evaluation and reporting.
10,000 GIA
and disseminate lessons learned
members prepared to
during yr 5 on
Assessment report completed 3rd
include results into guidance
construction of sediment
Q yr 5
for BW Convention
facilities
· Up to 10 innovative technology
projects provided with seed
money through GIA
160,000
GEF
(alternatively, 3 to 4 best
GIA willing to sponsor
Innovative solutions for
currently available technologies
State of the art in Ballast water
innovation effort. Singapore
ships to meet the BWMC
tested onboard a ship for
4.4
treatment technology solutions
willing to continue
requirements are
technology transfer/training
315,000 LPC
identified and publicized (P/SR)
sponsorship of Technology
developed and publicized.
purpose).
·
Conferences
2 technology conferences and 2
R&D forums held, with
participation by LPC scientists
2,908,340 GIA
and other representatives
Establish Ballast Water
Innovative research on
· PCU to send request for
From GIA industry partners
4.4.1
Innovation Fund and support
BW technologies is
proposals (RFP) for Technology
1,000,000 GIA directly to support the
innovative projects (P/SR)
supported
Testing, proposals reviewed by
innovation fund
GloBallast Executive Summary
51
September 2006
Expert panel and award
Awarding of funds using
decisions by GIA and GBP
60,000 GEF transparent screening
· Independent technology
procedures
solutions development by R&D
Private sector direct R&D
Sector within the GIA
315,000 LPC spend on GBP related issues
framework.
(e.g. sediment facilities,
· Fund developed by 4th Q yr 1,
testing facilities)
1st awards by 3rd Q yr 2 2nd
awards by 1st Q yr. 5. 20-25
1708,340 GIA
projects
Organizations continue
State of the art in BW
· R&D Forums and Technology
Hold biennial global R&D
hosting the ongoing
research and treatment
4.4.2
forums and biennial technology
Conferences (GBP funds used to
200,000 GIA Technology Conferences /
techniques are showcased
facilitate participation of LPC
conferences
IMO to provide venue for
every other year
nominees.
the R&D conference
GloBallast Executive Summary
52
September 2006
ANNEX C: RESPONSE TO PROJECT REVIEWS
STAP expert review and IA/ExA response
Dr. Jan P. Boon, Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research NIOZ, P.O. Box 59, NL-1790 AB
Den Burg, Texel, the Netherlands. E: boon@nioz.nl, T: +31(0)222 369 466.
Date: 10-09-2006
The comments and suggestions of the reviewer are boxed and in italics, followed by the PCU
responses.
General Comments:
The report describes an impressive plan for an inter-continental network to begin to manage the
problem of the transport of invasive alien species by ships' ballast water. Developing countries
are aided by a framework of a PCU at the IMO head-office in London and for each region LPC
to set up a regulatory framework in their own countries to develop legislation and a management
structure. The goals for this impressively large framework have been described in detail in the
table starting on page 81. This project builds on the experience gained during the pilot phase of
IMO's Globallast Program which has just been finished. When going through the document
however, I felt an imbalance between the impressively extensive description of the theoretical
framework of the project and the degree of detail in the description of the hands-on practical
implementation which is envisaged during the five year period 2007-2012. "Can this all be
implemented successfully beyond reasonable doubt?" is my main question.
The reviewer has raised an important point relating to the chances for project success and the
achievement of objectives. While the project goals and scope may be large, they are achievable,
because of several important factors:
1. The project builds upon the significant body of knowledge and experience gained during the
GloBallast Pilot Phase and will continue to draw on the expertise developed in this phase.
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 level who are fully
supportive and will serve in a coordinating capacity.
4. The PCU has succeeded to develop an extensive co-financing through regional, country and
industry partners, emphasizing the very catalytic nature of the GEF funding to the overall
initiative.
I will explain these doubts in the form of a number of questions and worries, that should in my
opinion be addressed:
GloBallast Executive Summary
53
September 2006
In my view, the document is not linked tightly enough to the IMO ballast water Convention,
which plays a pivotal role in this field of policy development. At the moment, ships can only treat
their ballast water by exchange in open sea according to the appropriate regulations (B 1-5 and
D1) of the BaWa Convention. However, they are not obliged to do so, and it is often considered
unsafe by nautical experts (which I am not!). BaWa treatment technology according to
regulation D2 is still in the prototype stage and well-defined protocols for the certification of
BWT installations are currently being developed. So what should the authorities in the LPCs and
PCs do when a ship arrives in a harbor without either having exchanged or treated its ballast
water in a country which has not yet signed the Convention? How should CME be enforced,
when well defined and accredited measurement methods to asses the quality of ballast water
have not yet been defined? GMEIS addresses this to some degree (5 items in activity 3.2.1. on p.
42).
GloBallast Partnerships has been developed in order to provide partner countries with the means
to reduce the threat of bioinvasions from shipping based vectors. It is not designed as an
instrument to push countries to ratify the IMO ballast water management convention (BWMC).
Nevertheless, there is a close linkage between GloBallast and the BWMC, as the Convention
represents an important lever to get countries to enact legal, policy and institutional reforms, and
to compel industries to develop technologies and manage ballast water in ways that reduce the
threat of bioinvasions.
The BWMC provides an important basis for the legal, policy development efforts of the project.
The LPI roadmap was developed based on BWMC and the timelines in the convention. In
addition, the compliance monitoring and enforcement (CME) plans expected to be produced
during GloBallast Partnerships are expected to be in place by the fourth and fifth project years
(by 2010-2011). This matches with the IMO member country expectations when they formulated
the BWMC i.e., that technologies will be ready by 2008. The IMO MEPC 53, 2005 undertook a
technology review and the conclusion of the review was that "the variety of systems being tested
on board ships have the potential to meet the criteria of safety, environmental accessibility and
practicality and that it is reasonable to expect ballast water management technologies and type-
approved systems will be available by end of 2008".
When a ship cannot exchange BW or treat it, there is a provision in the convention that member
countries can designate an area where ships can discharge ballast water. The policy
developments and legal frameworks developed during the project will incorporate such scenarios
and suggest strategies to deal with such issues. A central aim of LPI review and NBWMS in the
project is to address such issues. The project has taken into serious consideration the technology
hurdle and is giving a special focus on this through the GloBallast Industry Alliance, and
technology development support efforts. Such efforts can also include technologies for
monitoring of discharges.
With respect to enforcing ballast water management measures absent BWMC ratification, it is
important to note that several countries are already enforcing ballast water provisions prior to the
BWMC entering into force. These include Brazil, Argentina, Australia, USA, and New Zealand.
GloBallast Executive Summary
54
September 2006
In the world, many microbial, plant and animal species have already been imported by ships
from other continents up to this moment. Luckily, this has caused real plagues only in a small
minority of cases with the associated high ecological and economical costs. A classical
ecological response at the population level of an AIS is an initial rapid growth of the population
density, followed by a strong decrease some years later and a gentle merge in the existing
ecosystem. The mechanisms behind the main question "when and why does an organism become
a plague?" are often still not understood. Also, if one wants to monitor the import of alien
organisms into an existing ecosystem, one should know what one has at the start of the
environmental observation period in each region, i.e. at T0. Extra valuable habitats in terms of
biodiversity with their key-species and/or endemic species are of special importance (add
endemic species to activity 2.2.1. first item). So in my view, ecological research and education of
BaWa officers by marine research institutions and universities should be incorporated much
more firmly in this project. One can only manage, legislate, regulate, coordinate etc. (e.g. p. 22)
when one knows the subject where one is talking about, i.e. the marine ecosystem So, scientific
inventories of the different regions involved should be carried out within the project, of course
using the existing literature whenever possible. In this respect, it is risky that the money for the
different baseline surveys should be found outside this project, as stated on page 40. This makes
the success of this project dependent on other projects, of which it should be completely certain
that they do get financed. I would prefer to keep this in one hand.
The reviewer has made an important point regarding the need to gain a better understanding of
bioinvasions and ecological responses. Recognizing that GloBallast partnerships cannot fully
cover all aspects in the struggle to stem marine bio-invasions the GPTF, during the PDF-B
process, decided to focus greater project attention on the legal, institutional and policy aspects, as
well as to support a partnership with industry to make substantial progress on technology
developments. These decisions do not suggest that environmental monitoring is less important,
but rather that the project can best serve by focusing on LPI and technology development, while
building partnerships with other organizations for environmental monitoring. It is worth noting
also that the GEF Secretariat, in its comments at pipeline entry, emphasized that GloBallast
partnerships should not be focusing on monitoring type work and rather focused towards legal
policy and institutional reform.
The project has identified the need to establish baseline information on biodiversity and alien
species. Output 3.1 (LogFrame) identifies the expectation that by the end of project year 3, each
of the LPC's has done one or more baseline survey, and identified marine invasives risks and
presence. Some GEF funding is anticipated for this effort, in particular to provide training on
carrying out baseline surveys, to assist on strengthening taxonomy capabilities, and to ensure that
baseline data gets added into the GMEIS database.
It is important to note that PBS surveys are quite expensive to carry out properly (upwards of
$100,000 per survey per port), and therefore difficult to finance through a global project covering
8 regions and over 40 countries. GloBallast can have far greater impact as a catalyst that
generates interest and support from national and other international sources for these important
environmental monitoring efforts, in addition to the GEF supported training activities and tools
development.
During the inception period, the PCU will be working with its international, regional and country
partners to solidify financial support for baseline survey work. In particular, there is interest from
several Regional Seas and LME programs (e.g., CCLME) to provide funding for baseline survey
work. Several LPCs have already made allocations for surveys. Jamaica recently announced
GloBallast Executive Summary
55
September 2006
$3.5 million for survey work. Venezuela has also allotted a large sum for surveys in its co-
financing agreement. Similarly the co-financing table captures several other country
commitments for surveys and environmental monitoring. The Globallast Pilot phase countries
are continuing with the port surveys they had initiated (e.g. India allocated $600K for post-
GloBallast base line surveys and South Africa is also following this). Countries in the
Mediterranean region are currently mobilizing resources to undertake such port baseline surveys
(e.g., CIESM initiatives).
The document remains rather vague on who i.e. which instances, government bodies are actually
going to join this project in the different regions. Especially the organization in the LPCs should
be well established and look trustworthy before this plan is going to start.
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 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.
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.
Considering the ambitions and the anticipated scale of the activities described in the document, I
am not convinced that the anticipated PCU staff at IMO of only three persons seems is enough.
The anticipated GBTF should lead the entire project in the entire Atlantic Coast of Africa
(WACAF), the Pacific coast of South America (CPPS+ Argentina), the Caribbean, the
Mediterranean, and the many islands in the Southern Pacific Ocean. They must also make
newsletters, a web-site and manage the progress of the entire project. When a certain region is
lagging behind, they should jump in to revive it. What happens if one of these persons gets ill or
leaves? In my view, one officer for two regions and one chief officer for the overall management
of the project would be more appropriate. I am also worried that the WACAF region has only
one LPC (Ghana) for the enormous coastline of west-Africa, where many countries suffer from
political instabilities.
It is recognized that the PCU is lean for a global program. This limitation is overcome by having
a strong regional presence, with one person for each region (as part of the RCO), who will help
the PCU in implementing the project and especially in the coordination of regional activities.
The LPCs have committed to allocate a National Project Coordinator for the day to day running
of the Project. In addition, there will be backstopping support from IMO, from within the Ballast
Water Management Office within the MEPC. The GloBallast pilot phase included a 3 member
PCU, covering 6 countries globally. Now, with the strong involvement of the RCO, s it is
expected that the project scope can expand and still be manageable.
With respect to the WACAF region, the PCU will continue to work with the countries of the
region to raise one or more partner countries into the LPC role. Discussions have been ongoing
with especially Angola and Guinea; however no commitments for playing an LPC role came
forward in time for proDoc submission. The dialogue will continue, with the hope of adding at
GloBallast Executive Summary
56
September 2006
least one more LPC prior to project commencement. In the meantime, it should be noted that
there is a strong cooperation with the project's cooperating partners: Guinea Current LME and
Benguela Current LME. In addition, the Canary Current LME management has been in dialogue
to establish linkages and to use the LME project to replicate the efforts. As a consequence, the
full extent of the coast will be represented.
In summary, although it is written in the report that this UNDP effort is complementary to other
actions on the ballast water issue, the interaction becomes not very clear and therefore the items
described above seem to miss.
Detailed comments:
P. 14: Implementation. Technology development is essential, for BaWa treatment as well as for
CME.
Agreed. Revised sentence to read: Some incremental investments will be supported by the
project to support technology development for ballast water treatment and management.
P 29, outcome 2, first paragraph: HOW can the risk of bio-invasions from ships' BaWa activities
be reduced if the Convention is not yet mandatory? ........measures that insure financial
sustainability under the polluter pays" principle. How do you do that when there are no
measurement protocols for BaWa quality yet?
It is expected that majority of the LPCs will ratify the convention during the project. As per the
convention, several types of ships will be required to meet the regulatory requirements by 2008
and most by 2012. This is very much in line with the project time line.
There are already several countries with mandatory requirements for ballast water discharge,
signaling that IMO convention entering into force (becoming mandatory) is not an essential pre-
requisite for countries to start taking action. In addition, there are already several surrogate
compliance monitoring methods for enforcement purposes when BW exchange is used. While
technologies get developed and perfected for treatment technologies, some of these measures can
now be used (e.g. the US Coast Guard measures salinity to gauge whether mid-ocean exchange
occurred and Australia has developed the "New Castle" method for verifying exchange). In
addition, several research organizations are developing hand-held tools for measuring water
quality (e.g., flow-cytometry based monitoring tool development efforts of NIOZ).
P. 32, text below the 7 items addresses only economy, but ecology seems to be forgotten. A
sustainable use of the sea however, requires a successful merging of both aspects!
We agree that sustainable use of the sea requires the merging of economic and ecological
aspects. The Project Document includes both considerations, with Output 2.3 focused on
economic aspects to be factored into national strategic planning, and output 3.1 designed to build
further information on ecological issues, and the intention that both will drive development of
NBWMS (Output 2.4), and both will feed into the project database development: GMEIS
(Output 3.2)
P. 32, activity 2.3.3. (bottom lines). I am afraid that a recovery of an ecosystem affected
seriously by a plague is often impossible. One simply has to prevent this to happen.
Agreed; "recovery" costs has been replaced with management costs. Nevertheless, it is
important to recognize that while an invasion is practically irreversible, the water resource can
GloBallast Executive Summary
57
September 2006
settle into a new equilibrium after the invasion, and natural predators may in time bring the
infestation under control (e.g. the Black Sea), although in most of the cases we cannot depend on
such phenomenon.
P38: CME courses: What do they contain and how do they relate to the IMO BaWa Convention?
The CME courses cover mainly Port state control requirements and guidelines for BWM
(developed through the IMO process as a Convention guideline). This guideline is still under
development, but is likely to contain:
Generic CME frameworks
Case studies from other countries who are having CME systems
Risk-based priority settings and decision support systems
Shipboard sampling aspects
Report forms and verification procedures
Port state control MOUs and relationships with BMW Convention etc.
The ProDoc text has been amended to include the above information.
P. 43, last paragraph "Marine Bio-Invasions:....... I wonder why satellite data on the plant
pigment chlorophyll have not been mentioned. Algae are the main food and therefore a tracer of
a productive ecosystem. When possible, ships should avoid loading ballast water in the midst of
an algal bloom. Many data on chlorophyll are nowadays obtained by satellites (e.g. the seawiffs
satellite). These data could for instance be collected by IMO in London and made available to
ships.
We agree with the reviewer on this important consideration. The GMEIS workshop can look into
this and consider ways on how to incorporate such information.
P. 46, first three sentences: This is absolutely crucial for the project!
P. 46, outcome 4: Ships of 5,000 meters, should this perhaps be metric tons?
Text is revised to read Metric Tons
P. 47: GIA: Item "Acceleration of research and development". There is a lack of involvement
even in some western countries!
The aim of the GIA is to bring a group together that includes representation from the "western"
countries as well as developing nations. The founding members of the GIA are global
companies.
nP. 49: Test facilities. Is miss the ones being developed at my own institute, the Royal
Netherlands Institute for Sea Research NIOZ at Texel at the moment? Why haven't they been
mentioned?
This was an omission and the text is now revised. A support letter from NIOZ has been included
in the endorsements.
Abbreviations: The document is full of abbreviations. Yet I missed some of them in the essential list at the
beginning of the document: REMPEC, OBIC being sub-committee of CoML (p.43 bottom), ROPME (p.
45, 2/3 from above), IAS (!!), RAC/REMPEITC-Carib (p.54) UNEP CAR/RCU (p.54), ROAR (p.63).
GloBallast Executive Summary
58
September 2006
The abbreviations mentioned have been included, and the text reviewed for others to be added.
Recommendation:
I recommend that general theory and anticipated practical implementation practices should be
in a better equilibrium in the proposal.
Much more anticipated partners (government bodies, harbor authorities, maritime and marine
research institutions, academia) should actually be identified for the different regions.
The role of marine sciences for the understanding of processes leading to a plague and the
inventory of the different coastal areas to be protected should become more prominent.
The recommendations are very much appreciated, and have been taken into consideration. As
indicated previously, the specific government bodies at the regional and country level that will
be the focal points for project management have been defined. It is anticipated that during the
implementation stage, there will be efforts between the PCU, RCOs and Country Focal Points to
identify specific governmental bodies, maritime institutes and other partners. In the case of
establishing task forces, these partners need to be identified early on, and requested to
participate. In the case of specific tasks such as undertaking analyses, writing reports and
managing training programs, the partnerships will need to be tied to specific Terms of Reference,
as the project progresses. Finally, we agree that the role of marine sciences and an understanding
of bioinvasions processes are important. The Project as written gives prominence to these issues,
even as it emphasizes legal policy and institutional reforms, and partnerships for technology
development, in accord with the views of the GEF Secretariat and the GloBallast GPTF.
GloBallast Executive Summary
59
September 2006
GEF Secretariat and other Agencies' comments and IA/ExA response
General Response:
The design and development process for GloBallast, starting in 2003, included a series of
consultations occurred between IMO, UNDP and the GEF Secretariat (GEFSEC) to evaluate the
work of the initial phase of GloBallast, discuss policy issues, analyze the provisions of the newly
adopted Ballast Water Management Convention and arrive at a common understanding of the
possible approaches to take. The GEFSEC emphasized:
Need for national level legal, policy and institutional reforms,
Importance to develop financially sustainable BWM strategies at the national level;
Incremental focus of GEF intervention in particularly vulnerable countries;
Objective of spurring North-South collaboration.
Opportunities for the project to instigate action on marine electronic information system
development, and linkages with the Marine Electronic Highway (MEH) development efforts.
Desire to have the project foster a close partnership with industry.
All of these issues are taken into account. Legal policy and institutional reform is the major
focus of the coordinated effort with partnering countries (a), financially sustainable strategies are
to be a central feature in the development of national Ballast Water Management Strategies (b).
The six regions in which the partnering countries reside have been selected for their high
vulnerability, high needs and high marine biodiversity (c). Each of the partner countries are
GEF eligible developing countries. Their involvement should spur south- north collaboration,
recognizing the interest also amongst developing countries to participate, (d). The project
includes a series of outputs and activities focused on knowledge management, including the
development of a Global Marine Electronic Information System (GMEIS), to enhance
communications on ballast water management. The GMEIS should in time link with other
marine systems, including the Marine Electronic Highway (e). The project includes as one of its
most significant features a close association with industry, with the GloBallast Industry Alliance
to be launched, and co-financing of $ 3 million (including $ 1 million direct cash contribution to
the project by major maritime industry sectors) and parallel financing of over $15 million by
industry partners who have agreed to work very closely with GloBallast Partnership Project(f).
It was agreed that IMO and its Member States would take the burden of activities for
implementation of the Ballast Water Management Convention with GEF providing support for
incremental activities in highly sensitive countries and specific ecosystems that are of particular
global value and under serious threat from IAS.
Specific Comments and suggestions are boxed, followed by PCU responses.
GEFSEC Concept Agreement Review - Expected at Work Program Inclusion
(i) Countries targeted by the project will be identified
This was achieved, through extensive regional and national level consultations
(ii) It is expected that at WP entry all countries that will participate to, and benefit from the
project, will have signed/ratified the Ballast Water IMO Convention. In addition the four
countries involved in the Pilot Project will also have signed/ratified (Brazil has already done
so).
GloBallast Executive Summary
60
September 2006
Brazil has signed the Convention and South Africa has recently (9 September) taken the Cabinet
decision to sign the Convention. The other four pilot countries have not signed but are in the
process of assessing impacts of ratification and identifying implementation strategies. The
Government of China has completed a study that looked into the implication of ratification and
has recommended to the Parliament to ratify the Convention. India has progressed considerably
in the ratification process and has allocated US$600K for implementing the early activities such
as country-wide port base line surveys. The BWMC was approved at IMO in February 2004. It
has so far been signed / ratified by 9 countries. This pace is common for international
environmental treaties and in no way suggests problems for eventual entry into force. Even
those countries that have been in the forefront of ballast water management and enforcement
efforts, including Australia, Canada, the US and New Zealand, have not yet ratified the
Convention, although these countries have unilateral requirements for BWM.
After approval of the Convention, more than 130 nations were in contact with the IMO
Secretariat asking for information and assistance on implementation of the Convention. There is
strong support to ratify and implement the Convention, but also concern that proven treatment
technologies must be in place for the convention to succeed.
The LPCs have agreed to make a good faith effort to sign / ratify the BWMC during the
GloBallast Partnerships project period.
(iii) At WP entry, all GEF eligible countries where project activities will be concentrated will
have endorsed the project.
The Project focuses on 13 Lead Partnering Countries (LPC) all of whom have endorsed the
project. 10 of the 13 LPCs have provided GEF OFP endorsements, with the other 3 endorsed by
senior officials of the maritime authority. Additionally 10 of the 27 Partner Countries (PCs)
have endorsed the project through their GEF OFP, with the rest endorsing through other, mostly
senior maritime, officials. Within the 5 regions where country-specific activities are planned,
there are 40 (13 LPCs and 27 PCs) that have endorsed, meaning that the effort has accomplished
support from 56% of the GEF-eligible countries in the target regions to date, with a notable
100% from the CPPS region. It is anticipated that during the course of the project, many of the
remaining countries in each of the 5 key regions will endorse the effort and become partner
countries. (Note: 2 additional endorsements are from non-GEF countries: Canada and the
Netherlands, which have territories in the targeted regions). Tables provided in the ProDoc,
(Section 1.2.3, National Component, as well as index table given in ProDoc Section 3.1.1) list all
countries in the target regions, their GEF eligibility and endorsement status.
(iv) At WP entry, the brief will clearly demonstrate the incrementality of March 2005. GEF
funded activities with respect to IMO regular mandate, and to Country commitments under the
Convention.
The Incremental Cost Assessment included as part of the ProDoc provides a clear breakout of
GEF funded activities, IMO's regular mandate, country commitments and also industry support.
(v) As an OP10 demonstration project, the bulk of the project activities will be directed to
recipient countries in most vulnerable coastal areas, and include specific replicable actions.
The bulk of project support activities are indeed directed towards GEF eligible countries in
vulnerable coastal areas. The regions selected for inclusion were chosen by the GloBallast
GPTF in keeping with GEF eligibility requirements, and taking into account vulnerability,
sensitivity of the resource, and government capacity. All identified LPCs are GEF-eligible.
GloBallast Executive Summary
61
September 2006
Specific replicable actions have been included, such as training programs, the development of
CME systems, and guidance on legal policy and institutional reform. The two tier country
arrangement, of LPCs and PCs, has been designed with the expectation that replication
commences from project day 1. Partnering Countries may in fact escalate their activities during
the course of the project and be considered to enter the LPC tier.
(vi) Countries that will be supported in the projects should be identified, and the criteria for the
selection will be presented. It should also be specified what activities / achievements from the
first project that will be replicated where.
The process of selecting regions and countries to participate in GloBallast Partners has been
deliberate and participatory. At the start of the PDF-B project, an analysis was carried out
identifying high priority regions and countries using a ranking of regions built upon
considerations of several criteria, including bio-invasion risk and vulnerability, socioeconomic
importance of the marine and coastal resources, and relative global and transboundary
significance. Other criteria driving the regional selection process were GEF eligibility,
region/country interest, the practicality of implementation, and links to other GEF projects. The
GloBallast GPTF, at its June meeting in 2005, then agreed upon six high priority regions (see
ProDoc, section 1.2.2). Following this decision, contact was made to the countries in each of the
regions, with the assistance of the partnering regional coordinating agencies, (especially the
Regional Seas Conventions and LMEs).
As noted in the ProDoc (section 1.2.3), all countries within the priority regions were invited to
express their interest in being an LPC. In order to be an LPC, each country had to provide a letter
of endorsement and commitment to the project, and to commit co-financing support. At the time
of ProDoc submission, 13 countries are identified as Lead Partner Countries (LPCs). This
designation has been arrived at based upon the confirmed interest of these 13 states to play a
leading role in GloBallast Partnerships Due to time and financial constraints, a decision was
made, and supported by the GPTF, to have no more than 3 countries from any given region serve
as LPCs.
Many of the activities in the project build upon the achievements of the GloBallast pilot phase.
These include the `road map' on legal policy and institutional reform, (2.5.1) the development of
national ballast water management strategies (2.4) and risk-based CME systems (2.7.1), and
training on procedures for carrying out port baseline surveys (3.1.1). Where possible, expertise
for training and analysis work will involve experts from the pilot countries.
(vii) In addition to actions at country level (see above), the project will include special focus on
two regions where GEF action is being developed in ship related pollution and hazards: the
Western Indian Ocean, including the Gulf of Aden, and the Mediterranean. At WP entry
activities to capture synergies and coordinate action with all relevant GEF projects (in
particular MEH related projects) will be included in project design.
The Gulf of Aden and Mediterranean are included as two of the 5 priority regions. Specific
linkages will be made to the WI Ocean Projects dealing with IAS (WIOLaB, A&SCLMEs),
including the one being proposed for Seychelles. With respect to MEH, the PCU established
close linkages with the Mediterranean and Turkish Straits MEH projects (both in preparation
phase) during the PDF-b phase, including a detailed discussion amongst UNDP, MEH
Consultants and the PCU in New York in May, 2006. The culmination of these discussions has
been the establishment of the GloBallast Marine Electronic Information System (GMEIS) output
(see LogFrame Output 3.2). GMEIS is envisioned to serve as the backbone of a global marine
GloBallast Executive Summary
62
September 2006
electronic information system, which, while focused initially on ballast water, can in time serve
to meet a broader array of maritime communications and data management needs, including
those of MEHs. It is expected that the MEH experts and project managers of all ongoing MEH
projects will be involved in the global workshops planned within Activity 3.2.2 and contribute to
the design of the GMEIS.
(viii) The component for financial sustainability should be well developed.
Financial sustainability aspects have now been fully articulated in the DPD, (see section 1.2.10,
and in particular, note the articulation of activities 2.3.2 and 2.4.1). The project will provide
countries with a wide array of tools/methodologies/strategies for (national) financial
sustainability of ballast water management. These tools will be both in how to develop and
implement strategies, and how to finance ballast water management activities, and also the
strategies for enabling them.
It is important to note that during the course of the GloBallast effort, including the pilot phase
and PDF-B phase for GloBallast partnerships, full sustainability at the global level has been
achieved, through the creation of the IMO Ballast Water Management Office, the significant
ongoing efforts of the IMO member states through the MEPC to develop guidelines, and through
the IMO GESAMP Expert Group for Approval of Active Substances used in Ballast Water
Treatment.
As detailed in the table on regional plans, protocols and activities (see DPD section 1.2.9), there
are high expectations for regional sustainability based upon the efforts of the partnering RCOs
(Regional Seas and LMEs), to adopt and promote conventions and protocols supporting ballast
water management, and to incorporate the issue into their committee work plans. As just one
example, a Regional Action Plan for Ballast Water Management was adopted and a regional task
force was formed by PERSGA at their meeting in Jeddah, November 2005. In addition in the
WACAF region, the Abidjan Convention recognizes invasive species as an important issue, with
the GCLME TDA/SAP including ballast water/invasive species as a priority area.
It is important to recognize that the role of the project with respect to financing is to provide
recommendations to countries on how they can meet the financial obligations of their maritime
environmental programs. While the project management cannot guarantee financial
sustainability, it can enable the countries to make financial decisions that provide financial
sustainability. Ample opportunities are provided throughout the duration of the project to enable
the countries to identify the optimal mechanisms and to harmonize them across the region.
The project will also engage the private sector, especially in the effort to identify and bring to
market cost-effective treatment technologies. Incremental and additional co-financing from
industry will amount to more than $20 million.
(ix) During project preparation the issue of financial sustainability at the national level will be
addressed along the lines recommended in June 2004, including a feasibility of "charging the
ships" schemes. By the time of WP entry, the brief will present the identified solution(s).
The Project Document now lays out 5 different options for how countries may choose to finance
ballast water management activities, including:
Fees for port services,
Port fees directly levied to support BWM activities.
Penalties
GloBallast Executive Summary
63
September 2006
Partnerships with stakeholders benefiting from BWM
National budgets
These will be further elaborated early on in the project, within the activities under outcome 2.3,
(see LogFrame) and especially activity 2.4.1, factoring economic aspects into national ballast
water management planning. The feasibility of "charging the ship" schemes has been proven
with countries already utilizing this method for BW and other purposes.
(x) Being eligible as an OP10 demonstration project, a replication strategy, to be developed
during preparation, will be an essential component. The strategy will build upon but not be
limited to the IMO CHM and IW LEARN tools.
Replication is built in to all aspects of the country-based efforts. As noted in the DPD (Section 1.2.11),
the project will promote dissemination and replication of its best practices and lessons learnt
through the Global 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
Replication will be further enhanced through the networking efforts of the PCU and partners.
While the main focus is on 6 regions, there are 8 additional regions directly involved (from the
pilot phase countries and through the EBRD supported training workshops). This wide level of
inclusion should help with replication of lessons learned ands best practices. Further
opportunities to share knowledge will be achieved via the R&D forums (4.4.2) and participation
of GB partners in regional conventions (see activity 1.1.7). What's more, through the GloBallast
website / GMEIS portal, the GBP quarterly newsletters and the several reports to be prepared as
IMO monographs, there will be opportunities for other interested countries to learn from the
GBP efforts and replicate them
In addition, it is important to note that replication is a key feature of the three-tier
implementation modality. This globally directed, regionally coordinated and country-based
project is ideally suited to replication and the sharing of best practices. For instance,
The work done by the LPCs will be shared regionally with other partner countries (PCs) and
replicated.
The training approach taken for LPI and CME development is a train-the trainers approach,
with project mechanisms in place to ensure that trained experts can in turn train other
regional and national colleagues; and
The close linkages being established with the Regional Seas and LMEs will ensure the
replication of project activities on a much broader scale.
(xi) Stakeholder involvement plan should be available at time for Work Program inclusion.
A stakeholder plan has been included in the ProDoc, and will be further detailed country by
country during the Project Inception Phase.
(xii) M&E plan should be available at time for Work Program inclusion.
The M&E plan is included in the ProDoc.
(xiii) Incremental reasoning will be provided, clearly defining the roles of the IMO, the countries
under the Convention, and the GEF funded activities.
GloBallast Executive Summary
64
September 2006
Roles have been defined, and incremental reasoning utilized to indicate the appropriate roles of
the various stakeholders.
(xiv) Co-financing from the shipping industry and the project's countries will be assured.
Co-financing from the shipping industry has been identified, with co-financing letters submitted.
In particular, the activities to be undertaken under, and financed by, the GloBallast Industry
Alliance are pivotal to the success of the project.
(xv) Specific mechanisms of collaboration and/or coordination with UNEP's Regional Seas, GEF
LME and costal management projects, and with GEF Projects dealing with navigational issues
will be identified per region/country.
The Regional Seas and GEF LMEs constitute key stakeholders for the project, and are serving as
regional coordinating organizations for many of the project activities. Wherever possible, close
linkages with on-going and forthcoming GEF projects have been identified (e.g., linkages with
MEH projects, CCLME project, proposed GISP and CABI projects and specific GEF projects
such the proposed IAS project for the Seychelles.
With respect to MEH, the PCU established close linkages with the Mediterranean and Turkish
Straits MEH projects during the PDF-b phase, including a detailed discussion amongst UNDP,
MEH Consultants and the PCU in New York in May, 2006. The culmination of these discussions
has been the establishment of the GloBallast Marine Electronic Information System (GMEIS)
output (see LogFrame Output 3.2). GMEIS is envisioned to serve as the backbone of a global
marine electronic information system, which, while focused initially on ballast water, can in time
serve to meet a broader array of maritime communications and data management needs,
including those of MEHs. It is expected that the MEH experts and project managers of all
ongoing MEH projects will be involved in the global workshops planned within Activity 3.2.2
and contribute to the design of the GMEIS.
GloBallast Executive Summary
65
September 2006
Upstream/pre-submission GEFSEC Comments:
Comments from Peter Bjornsen, Senior Policy Officer, Date: Friday, September 15, 2006
I have based my comments on the previous Concept Review which summarizes a number of
requirements identified at concept approval and at PDF-B submission. Most of the concerns and
requirements raised (in the Concept Review) have in my view been adequately addressed in the
Draft Project Document that you sent to GEFSEC in August. I have tried to summarize the issues
that I believe still remain in the following:
1. It is a strong assumption - probably a 'killer' assumption - for the sustainability and relevance
of the Project, that the BWMC eventually enters into force. As noted in the DPD, only 6
countries representing 1% of global shipping tonnage have ratified, and none of the selected
LPCs have ratified the BWMC. I would suggest that the DPD could provide a more thorough
analysis of the likelihood and time perspective of BWMC entering into force, a documentation of
the selected LPCs and LPs commitment towards ratification, and the incentives and barrier
removal provided by the Project for partner countries to ratify the BWMC.
(see response to item one from the GEFSEC Concept Agreement Review)
2. The DPD (p. 57) describes how financial sustainability will be analyzed during
implementation. This description, however, offers no assurance of financial sustainability and no
feasibility analysis of schemes for charging ships as suggested in the Concept Review. I would
suggest in the DPD to provide an estimate of post-Project costs to sustain outputs and outcomes,
and a realistic plan for meeting these costs, including a feasibility analysis of charging the ships.
An expanded discussion on financial sustainability has now been included in the text, with
specific reference to five financing instruments that will be promoted. The expanded discussion
suggests that most of the compliance costs will be borne by the shipping industry, and that
government infrastructure investments will be minimal.
The suggestion that a post-Project costing analysis be done, to include a feasibility study for
charging ships, is most welcome. These activities fit will within the planned output (2.3)
Economic aspects of marine bioinvasions factored into national strategic planning, and especially
the development of National Ballast Water Management Strategies (see activity 2.4.1). The log
frame and ProDoc have been revised to include these outputs. Conducting this work during the
project itself enhances its practical application, as the analysis can then feed directly into country
strategy development.
As the analyses are developed, they will consider case experience from around the world.
Australia, for example, has one model worth studying. The Australian government established a
limited duration 2 cents per ton of cargo fee on every ship, raising $2 million to fund ballast
water management R&D. When the $2 million goal was achieved, the scheme was discontinued.
3. The DPD (p. 58-59) provides a replication strategy through expansion of LPs within regions
and involvement of remaining regions. It is not quite clear to me whether the costs for this
expansion from the presently selected countries is covered within the present budget. It has been
stated earlier from the GEFSEC, that the GEF should not slide into a role as a financial
GloBallast Executive Summary
66
September 2006
mechanism for the BWMC. It is therefore important that the replication strategy also provides an
Exit Strategy for the financial involvement of the GEF.
The financial burden of implementing the Convention is primarily borne by the shipping
industry, and then by the IMO member states. The project will assist to develop tools and to gain
experience from LPC initiatives so that other countries can replicate the LPC experiences.
Representatives of the PCs (partner countries) will get the opportunity to be trained through
training workshops coordinated by the RCOs (see the relevant training portions of outputs 2.5.
2.6, 2.7 and 3.1 for examples). Further training and other activities will be the responsibility of
the PCs themselves.
4. The DPD specifies present country selection and criteria and notes that the status (PC, LPC)
of individual countries may be revised during implementation. I think it would be useful to
specify criteria, procedures and responsibilities for revising the status of partners - who is going
to do this, when and how?
Criteria, procedures and responsibilities with respect to revising the status of partners will be
developed by the PCU during the initial months of project inception, subject to management
committee (IMO/UNDP) approval, and then included in Memorandums of Understanding with
the lead agencies of each LPC and also the RCO's. The agreements will be tabled for
endorsement at the Project Inception meeting of the GPTF.
The LPCs have signaled their interest to play a lead role through project endorsement and also
through their co-financing agreements. Current Partner Countries who wish to be considered for
escalation to an LPC role would be required also to indicate their co-financing commitment. The
limiting factors for additional LPCs will be the overall budget and the management complexity
when more than 3 LPCs are active in a given region.
It is envisioned that a presently identified LPC could slip back to a partner role, based upon
repeated evidence that they were not meeting their commitments. This would include failure to:
a) establish a national task force,
b) participate regularly in project meetings and workshops,
c) utilize agreed co-financing
d) achieve milestones under the LPIR "road map"
e) develop and implement a NBWMS
f) pursue signing and ratification of the BWMC
g) utilize any provided funds according to IMO/UNDP/GEF requirements
5. Following a dialogue between GEFSEC, UNDP and IMO, it was agreed that the baseline
`business as usual' scenario means most countries going about their ship-related environmental
management with little effective regard to and progress in addressing the ballast invasives issue
(e.g. core environmental management budgets and maritime administrations.)
As detailed in the Incremental Cost Analysis (see DPD section 2.1), a financial baseline for the
project has been set at just over $ 900 million, over 5 years, established based on a `business as
usual' scenario where most countries are tending to their ship-related environmental
management activities with little effective regard for, or progress in, addressing ballast water-
borne invasive species issues. The baseline estimate adds up expenditures by Governments to
GloBallast Executive Summary
67
September 2006
manage ship-based pollutions (spills, wastewater, solid wastes, air pollution etc), but not ballast
water. Up until the GloBallast pilot phase activities, and then the IMO BWM Convention, there
has been little attention given to the environmental consequences of ships' ballast, especially
amongst developing countries. None of the lead partnering countries for the upcoming project
has as yet ratified the BWM Convention, nor have they yet developed and/or strengthened their
legal, policy and institutional structures for ballast water management. Consequently, all of the
government actions planned, and co-financing offered, are additional measures. Likewise, the
co-financing support from industry, for research and development, the testing of new equipment
and solutions, and the holding of R&D symposia, are considered additional activities, with an
expectation that GloBallast Partnerships will help set the legal, policy and institutional
framework for countries that will facilitate technology adoption and diffusion among the
shipping industry worldwide, in response to the requirements and timetables set out in BWM
Convention. All told, the incremental financing building from the GloBallast partnerships effort
should reach just under US $50 million.
6. Substantial co-financing has been assured (DPD, pp. 76-79). I think it would be useful to have
some specification of the in-kind contributions from IMO and from the GIA, and a qualification
of the incrementality of the IMO contribution, in the light of point 5 above.
The IMO co-financing contribution is summarized in Annex G, as per the suggestions by
GEFSEC.
As agreed with GEFSEC 10% of the PS development activities, which include the significant
and crucial contribution of the GIA, remain as co-financing, and the justifications have been
augmented accordingly. Also see response to item 2 from the GEFSEC Concept Agreement
Review.
7. I believe that there has been a lot of debate on the relative significance of ballast water as a
carrier of IAS in comparison to other ship and non-ship vectors and drivers of marine IAS. I
don't want to reopen that discussion given that there is now a BWMC in place, but I do think it
would be useful if the DPD could put BWM into a wider perspective, both in relation to IAS
(when/if ballast water is properly managed globally, how far would we then be in controlling marine
IAS?) and in terms of costs (I was quite intrigued by the figure given on p.46 of the DPD of 15 billion
USD as a market value for ballast water treatment technologies - this implies that the global costs of
complying with the BWMC would be much higher - is that realistic?)
A recent study (Gollasch et. al.) suggests that the two main vectors of marine invasives are
ballast water and hull fouling (with small contributions by aquaculture, aquarium trade, floating
platforms etc). The study also showed that ballast water and hull fouling almost equally
contribute to the risk of bioinvasion, although there exist some variations depending on the
regions. However, there are significant differences in how these two vectors are considered from
the shipper's point of view. Hull fouling is more self-regulating, as it impacts on the efficiency of
vessels traveling from port to port. Hull fouling producing drag, which reduces fuel efficiency,
and therefore failure to address this issue adds costs. So there is an incentive for shippers to
minimize this problem. The proper management of Ballast water to reduce bioinvasions risk, on
the other hand, represents an extra cost, and potential safety issue, for shippers, hence there is a
greater need for regulatory mechanisms and there are more complex technologies to manage.
These differences notwithstanding, the project has been designed to tie in to broader marine IAS
GloBallast Executive Summary
68
September 2006
aspects, through linkages with GISP, CABI and also through the cooperation of the LMEs and
Regional Seas.
The cited $15 billion figure originated from a market study by Royal Haskoning of Netherlands.
This estimates the market for R&D, new installations and retrofits for treatment technologies
over the next 10 to 15 years. As noted in the (revised) ProDoc text on financial sustainability,
most of the BWMC compliance costs are on the treatment technology end, not on the monitoring
and enforcement end. It is important to keep in mind that even if the total compliance and R&D
costs came to twice this price (e.g. $30 billion for the next 10 to 15 years), which is highly
unlikely, the compliance costs would still be much less than the economic impacts of just three
well known bioinvasions: Zebra mussels into the US Great Lakes, Golden Mussel into the
Pantanal of Argentina and Brazil, and the Comb Jelly infestation into the Black and Caspian
Seas. In addition, it is important to recognize that the cost per ship to ship owners is not that
large, as a $500,000 investment in ballast water treatment equipment may be required to fit a
ship costing $100 million to build.
8. Finally, from the big perspective to a small formal note: just to remind you that there is a
formal requirement for an executive summary of the DPD. Also, if there could be a systematic
hierarchical heading and enumeration of chapters and sub-chapters (e.g. 1, 1.1, 1.1.1, ...) it
would be easier to read.
An executive summary has been produced, and a systematic hierarchical heading and
enumeration of chapters and subchapters has been added.
Comments from follow-up GEFSEC Concept Agreement Review, October 2006
1. Need for continued attention to LPC's and PC's commitment to ratify BWMC, as it is a 'killer'
assumption for project sustainability that BWMC enters into force.
Agree on the need for continued attention throughout the project, to LPC's and PCs commitment
to ratify the Convention, and this aspect has been captured in the LFA as one of the indicators of
the success of the project. During national and regional consultations at the PDF-B Phase, it was
made clear to all potential LPCs that ratification was a high expectation for their efforts during
the project. All of the LPCs have indicated they intend to initiate legal, institutional and policy
reforms, and many have directly linked this to intended ratification of the BWMC. Some partner
countries (PC) have also indicated they intend to ratify, and one has already ratified. From the
GloBallast Pilot Phase, Brazil has ratified and South Africa has announced in the cabinet
meeting that the country is going ahead with ratification. Clear indications to IMO are that
several other participating countries are currently working to ratify and several countries, Iran for
example, have taken it into their parliamentary process. In addition, the Government of China
has completed a study that looked into the implication of ratification and has recommended to
the Parliament to ratify the Convention. India has progressed considerably in the ratification
process and has allocated US $600K for implementing initial activities such as country-wide port
base line surveys. The pilot countries are continuing their post-project activities even when the
Convention is not in force (evident from the support letters). If one considers the fact that
progress achieved in ratification process within GloBallast pilot countries is much higher than
that of several developed countries who have not yet ratified the convention, it clear that
GloBallast Pilot phase had a significant influence and played a catalytic role in accelerating the
ratification processes and it is reasonable to assume that GloBallast Partnership will continue to
GloBallast Executive Summary
69
September 2006
play this catalytic role, especially since the project focuses directly on LPIR and removal of
associated barriers through enhanced stakeholder participation (including shipping industry),
awareness raising, capacity building and regional harmonization activities. The progress in
ratification process will be closely monitored and encouraged throughout the project duration
and the flexibility that was built in the project to bring PC-track countries to LPC-track and vice-
versa, would provide great incentives for the countries to accelerate the ratification process.
The Convention includes 2009, 2012 and 2016 as years for phasing in BWM requirements and
this was done with a reasonable assurance by the IMO Member Countries that the Convention
will enter into force before the first application date (2009). The shipping industry (the most
important stakeholder) is keen to address the issue and it is strategic to them to support an early
entry into force of an international instrument rather than subjecting themselves to a plethora of
unilateral requirements, (there are already mandatory requirements by USA, and Australia for
instance and several countries who are severely affected by IAS have indicated they will move to
unilateral actions if the IMO instrument is delayed).
Although one of the main concerns on hurdles to Convention ratification could be the availability
of cost effective treatment technologies, the technology review by the IMO member countries
(MEPC-53 in 2005 confirmed again in MEPC-55 in 2006) concluded that it was reasonable to
assume that technologies would be available by 2008; hence this concern shouldn't pose a major
long term risk. In the interim, ships can meet the BWMC requirements through ballast water
exchange in mid-ocean. IMO has also established a technology review committee as well as an
approval mechanism for potential active substances that can be used in ballast water treatment.
The basic approval of four or more such active substances in 2005-2006 by IMO indicates that
the confidence by the shipping industry and therefore the member governments to mandate the
requirement is much higher than before. As a consequence of these factors, an early entry into
force of the BWMC is distinctly possible, and GloBallast Partnerships can be instrumental in
hastening this process.
2. Adjustment of the stated co-finance from PS and from IMO to comply with GEF requirements
for co-finance.
As agreed with GEFSEC, the PS co-financing is now reduced to 10% of the original co-
financing figures. Recognizing that the GloBallast Pilot Phase was a critical instigator for
passage of the Ballast Water Convention and an essential driver for the R&D that is now being
spent to develop ballast water treatment technologies, there is a solid ground to include the entire
committed R&D spend as co-financing for GloBallast Partnerships. It is recognized, however
that the convention ratification process is ongoing, with the new GEF project to move
simultaneously, so there may be questions as to whether the R&D is really being spent to co-
finance the GloBallast Partnerships Project. As per the suggestions by GEFSEC, the PS co-
financing level is now reduced to 10% of the committed Private Service R&D providing a co-
financing of approx. 2 million, in addition to the 1 million direct cash contribution, so the
industry co-financing then rests at just above $3 million. This inclusion of some PS investment
budget is justified as the project includes activities in Outcome 4 relating to holding R&D
symposiums, industry forums, the development of test facility standards and piloting sediment
facilities, all of which will drive industry R&D spending and all of which will require industry
funding beyond the already promised GIA cash contribution, including the active participation of
the private sector in such meetings and activities.
GloBallast Executive Summary
70
September 2006
As agreed with GEFSEC, the IMO co-financing figure has been reduced to $4.3 million from the
original $12.7 million. This takes into account the fact that the IMO Office for Ballast Water
Management will provide significant technical and administrative backstopping for the project.
In addition, GESAMP-Ballast Water activities are crucial for supporting technology
developments, one of the main objectives that the Project supports. In addition, the IMO consists
of member governments and the costs associated with the travel to MEPC's dedicated ballast
water working group meetings by project participants (LPCs and PCs) can be captured as co-
financing, as these meetings not only contribute to the global benefits (and are incremental in
nature), but they also reduce the costs of administering the project since MEPC-BW meetings
and GloBallast meetings will in many cases occur in parallel, at the IMO HQ. In view of the
above and as agreed with GEFSEC, only 10% of the MEPC-BW and GESAMP-BW related
costs is now accounted for as co-financing.
GloBallast Executive Summary
71
September 2006
ANNEX D: TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR PROJECT STAFF
Chief Technical Advisor (CTA), Level P5, International Hire
The CTA will be responsible for the overall co-ordination of all aspects of the GloBallast
Partnership Project in general, and in addition he/she shall 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. While providing the necessary project management services for
the Project, 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 estimated number of staff-weeks for this position is 220.
The CTA will in particular:
· 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;
· 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.
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 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.
GloBallast Executive Summary
72
September 2006
Technical Advisor (TA), Level P3, 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:
· 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.
GloBallast Executive Summary
73
September 2006
Administrative Assistant (AA), Level G6, Local Hire
As part of the GloBallast Programme Coordination Unit (PCU), the AA will perform a variety of
secretarial, coordinating, monitoring and administrative services to ensure the efficient daily
running of the PCU and in support of project/programme activities. The AA will work within the
PCU with a considerable degree of independence, ensuring the smooth functioning and
continuity of the projects/programmes and will receive directions from the Chief Technical
Advisor on technical matters. The estimated number of staff-weeks for this position is 220.
Typically, the AA will perform the following duties:
· Draft correspondence and documents of an administrative nature in consultation with the
CTA and TA.
· Coordinate the procurement activities for the PCU and support the financial control and
monitoring activities of the PCU.
· Establish and maintain the filing system of technical documents and general internal and
external correspondence. Establish and update a proper computerized information system on
on-going activities, collaborating partners, activities of other international organizations
related to the Project. Access and retrieve information from relevant databases and update as
required. Support the TA in maintaining the GloBallast Information Clearinghouse.
· Make administrative arrangements with regard to recruitment of additional consultants /
experts for the Project
· Assist in the organization of meetings held by PCU (Global Task Force Meetings, working
groups, and symposia), i.e. make general administrative preparations, including providing
logistical support to the delegates such as sending invitation letters and other advises as
necessary and preparation of meeting documents. Provide administrative and secretarial
support during the meetings.
· Identify and recruit temporary office staff, if required, and provide briefing and guidance to
any temporary staff on general office practices and procedures
Qualifications and Experience:
Equivalent to graduation from secondary school or equivalent technical or commercial school
and specialized training preferably in administration / management related fields. Basic training
in secretarial/administrative training, or equivalent work-related experience, including typing and
proven skills on standard office software. Work with computerized systems and databases.
Demonstrated managerial and communication skills. Considerable and progressively responsible
experience in the secretarial/clerical/administrative field. Knowledge and practical experience in
ERP systems desirable. Sound computer skills
GloBallast Executive Summary
74
September 2006