GloBallast Pr
Global Ballast Water
oject
Management Programme
Independent Mid T
e
rm Evaluation (MTE)
GloBallast Project
Independent Mid Term Evaluation (MTE)
Final Report
31 March 2003
Final Report
.dwa.uk.com
Global Ballast Water
Management Programme
More Information?
l (+44) 020 7928 5888 www
e
Programme Coordination Unit
Global Ballast Water Management Programme
International Maritime Organization
4 Albert Embankment
London SE1 7SR United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0)20 7587 3247 or 3251
est & Associates, London. T
Fax: +44 (0)20 7587 3261
Web: http://globallast.imo.org
A cooperative initiative of the Global Environment Facility,
United Nations Development Programme and International Maritime Organization.
Cover designed by Daniel W
GloBallast Project
Independent Mid Term Evaluation (MTE)
31 March 2003
Final Report
Vousden, D. & Okamura, B.
___________________________________________________________________________
International Maritime Organization
Published in May 2003 by:
Programme Coordination Unit
Global Ballast Water Management Programme
International Maritime Organization
4 Albert Embankment
London SE1 7SR, UK
Tel +44 (0)20 7587 3251
Fax +44 (0)20 7587 3261
Web http://globallast.imo.org
The correct citation of this report is:
Vousden, D. & Okamura, B. 2003. GloBallast Project Independent Mid Term Evaluation (MTE): Final Report,
31 March 2003. IMO London
__________________________________________________________________________________________
The Global Ballast Water Management Programme (GloBallast) is a cooperative initiative of the Global Environment Facility (GEF), United Nations
Development Programme (UNDP) and International Maritime Organization (IMO) to assist developing countries to reduce the transfer of harmful
organisms in ships' ballast water.
The opinions expressed in this document are not necessarily those of GEF, UNDP or IMO.
GloBallast Project Independent Mid Term Evaluation (MTE): Final Report, 31 March 2003
Contents
Executive summary...............................................................................................................2
Acronyms...............................................................................................................................4
1. Background .......................................................................................................................5
2. An explanation of the MTE (Mid Term Evaluation) process..........................................8
3. Mid Term Evaluation results over all............................................................................9
A. Project design ............................................................................................................................9
B. Project implementation ...........................................................................................................11
C. Project impact ..........................................................................................................................13
4. Mid Term Evaluation results by component and GEF criteria ................................15
5. Assessment of achievements and constraints ............................................................50
6. Conclusions and recommendations arising from the evaluation ..............................59
7. Lessons from the evaluation for GEF to consider in future project development....67
Appendix 1: Description of assessment of project impacts from the 2002 Project
Implementation Review
Appendix 2: List of persons interviewed or consulted during the Mid Term
Evaluation
1
GloBallast Project Independent Mid Term Evaluation (MTE): Final Report, 31 March 2003
Executive summary
The evaluation of the UNDP GEF supported global project entitled Removal of Barriers to the
Effective Implementation of Ballast Water Control and Management Measures in Developing
Countries (GLO/99/G31) reached the following conclusions.
· The project has achieved an exemplary and outstanding level of awareness raising at the
national, regional and global level
· Project executing and management has been effective and remarkable in that so many
achievements have been realised under the constraints of time and manpower imposed by the
project design.
· The countries themselves have contributed significant and valuable support and have
provided very real and serious commitment to this project.
· Stakeholder participation and support has also been impressive, especially for a global project
of this nature.
· The project has created a solid foundation of support for the expected Convention on Ballast
Water Management, and has initiated many activities, which will stand the participating
countries in good stead when the Convention is adopted.
· The project has contributed significantly to our understanding of some of the barriers and
constraints which may be experienced at the national level in implementing the requirements
of a future Convention, and has provided (and will continue to provide) many lessons and best
practices which can be transferred and replicated both nationally and regionally.
· The project represents a unique and model example of GEF assistance being used during the
development stages of an International Convention related to GEF aims and objectives.
· There have been some delays in certain components and outputs (specifically those related to
legislation, compliance, monitoring and enforcement), which are not the fault of the project,
but are due to external circumstances.
· The evaluation has also identified some areas of project administration, management and
technical output that could be enhanced and improved.
The Evaluators made the following recommendations for consideration by the GPTF, and for
implementation before, and beyond, the final closure of this project.
Improvements to existing project administration and coordination
This set of recommendations provides advice on improvements to the administration and coordination
of the project. These address the need for GPTF intersessional input to project policy and steering,
improved international liaison and communications between the CFPs as well as the CFP-As, the
urgent need for finalisation of the Case Studies, and the need for additional resources to support the
GloBallast programme and the draft Convention.
Rationalisation of activities that are behind schedule as a result of inappropriate
project design
Under this heading, the Evaluators have made recommendations addressing problems caused by
inappropriate design through the original project document. These look at the need for targeted
awareness of policy makers, the engagement of missing stakeholders, the need for a review of the
Risk Assessment Component, hastening regional replication, the need for a review of financial
mechanisms for ballast water management, and a review of sustainable institutional arrangements for
ballast water management.
2
Executive Summary
Rationalisation of project activities constrained by the absence of an agreed
Convention
In the light of delays caused by the on-going absence of the expected Convention, the Evaluators also
address the need for a review of the CME Component, a review of training needs, and a review of
national ballast water plans.
Re-scheduling of Convention-related activities and full regional replication to a follow-
up project phase
Finally, probably one of the most significant and important recommendations looks at the very urgent
need to consider a follow-up project in order to take into account the effect of the delays in adopting
the Convention, to build on the excellent achievements of the project so far (despite such constraints),
and to protect the investment to-date by GEF and ensure that this investment is further leveraged.
Evaluators' note
We have been significantly impressed with the success of this project and its achievements within a
limited timescale and with limited resources. Much of the credit for this must go to the dedicated
work of the PCU, a fact that has been recognised by all stakeholders. However, significant and
specific credit is also due to each of the countries for making the activities happen also within the
limited timescale and resources available. We feel that this project stands out as a notable example of
a successful GEF Global initiative. In this respect we are concerned to ensure that it continues to
maintain this level of success and reaches an end-of-project scenario which can still be judged as very
successful and full of valuable lessons. We have therefore made every effort to detail any shortfalls or
potential hurdles that may prevent such a scenario.
It is vitally important that the countries and the PCU see the comments and opinions in the Evaluation
document as having arisen from their own input and not as some expression of the Evaluator's
opinion in isolation. Some parties may disagree with certain comments or observations but they have
still been included as their existence is important to the evaluation process. Often perceptions can be
as important as facts in the effect they can have on morale, and ultimately on project success. Where
an opinion or comment is felt to be ill-perceived then the respective parties should use this
opportunity to communicate and to resolve the issue. The Evaluators have noted in past evaluations
that this exercise can be very healthy and highly constructive in removing barriers, and building a
cooperative ownership of the project and better stakeholder understanding. Where issues or
perceptions are contentious, GPTF members should seek to place these onto the agenda for further
discussion and resolution. In this respect, the need for ex-plenary meetings (teleconference or
`virtual') of the GPTF on an intersessional basis would be of enormous value to project progress and
sustainability.
3
GloBallast Project Independent Mid Term Evaluation (MTE): Final Report, 31 March 2003
Acronyms
ANVISA
National Agency of Sanitary Surveillance (Brazil)
CFP
Country Focal Point
CFP-A
Country Focal Point Assistant
CME
Compliance, Monitoring and Enforcement
COSCO
China Ocean Shipping Company
CPTF
Country Project Task Force
CRIMP
Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pest (Australia)
EA Executing
Agency
FAO
Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations
GA General
Assembly
GEF
Global Environment Facility
GISP
Global Invasive Species Programme
GloBallast
Global Ballast Water Management Programme
GPTF
Global Project Task Force
IA Implementing
Agency
ICES
International Convention on the Exploration of the Seas
IEAPM
Sea Studies Institute of Admiral Paulo Moreira (Brazil)
IMO International
Maritime
Organization
INTERTANKO International
Association of Independent Tanker Owners
IUCN
World Conservation Union
IW International
Waters
MEPC
Marine Environmental Protection Committee of IMO
MMA
Ministry of Environment (Brazil)
MoE
Ministry of Environment
MoU
Memorandum of Understanding
MTE
Mid Term Evaluation
NGO Non-Governmental
Organisation
NIC
National Information Centre
NPA
National Port Authority
PBS
Port Baseline Survey
PCU
Project Coordination Unit
Petrobras
Brazil's National Petroleum Importation and Handling Agency
PIP
Project Implementation Plan
PIR
Project Implementation Review
ProDoc Project
Document
RA Risk
Assessment
RAP
Regional Action Plan
ROPME
Regional Organisation for the Protection of the Marine Environment
RPTF
Regional Project Task Force
STCW
Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping (IMO Convention)
UNCED
United Nations Convention on Environment and Development
UNDP
United Nations Development Programme
WHO
World Health Organisation
WSSD
World Summit on Sustainable Development
4
1 Background
It is estimated that around 10 billion tonnes of ballast water are carried around the world by ships each
year. While ballast water is essential to the safe operation of ships, it also poses a serious
environmental threat, in that at least 7,000 to possibly more than 10,000 different species of marine
microbes, plants and animals may be carried globally in ballast water each day. When discharged into
new environments, these species may become invasive and severely disrupt the native ecology as well
as having serious impacts to the economy and human health. The global economic impacts of invasive
marine species have not been quantified but are likely to be in the order of tens of billions of US
dollars a year.
In 1992, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) requested IMO
to consider the adoption of appropriate rules on ballast water discharge to address the spread of non-
indigenous organisms. IMO has responded to the ballast water `problem' by:
· forming a Ballast Water Working Group under its Marine Environment Protection Committee
(MEPC),
· adopting Guidelines for the control and management of ships' ballast water to minimize the
transfer of harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens (Assembly Resolution A.868 (20),
hereafter referred to as the IMO Guidelines),
· developing a new international legal instrument (Convention) on ballast water management
(currently entitled International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships'
Ballast Water and Sediments, hereafter referred to as the Convention), to be considered for
adoption by an IMO Diplomatic Conference in early 2004,
IMO has also joined forces with UNDP-GEF and has undertaken a number of missions to identify and
evaluate the barriers to effectively address the ballast water issue in some of the developing regions of
the world. Based on the recommendations of the preparatory missions and the agreement of the
concerned Governments the "Global Ballast Water Management Project" (GloBallast) was approved
by the GEF Council in 1999.
The project is funded by GEF through the UNDP and is executed by IMO. The total budget for the
project is US$ 10,192,000 (including executing agency AOS costs) including an in-kind contribution
from the governments involved of US$ 2,800,000. The project implementation began on 1 March
2000 (when the project Chief Technical Adviser started his activity in IMO Headquarters), and was
scheduled for a period of three years.
With the ultimate goal of reducing the transfer of harmful aquatic organisms in ships' ballast water,
the GloBallast project has development objectives to assist countries to:
· implement the existing IMO guidelines; and
· prepare for the implementation of the new IMO Convention regarding the management and
control of ships' ballast water and sediments.
The programme is working to achieve these objectives through six Demonstration Sites, located in six
Pilot Countries representing the main developing regions of the world, as follows:
5
GloBallast Project Independent Mid Term Evaluation (MTE): Final Report, 31 March 2003
Table 1. GloBallast Demonstration Sites
Demonstration Site
Pilot Country
Region Represented
Dalian China
Asia/Pacific
Kharg Island
IR Iran
The Gulf (ROPME Sea Area)
Odessa Ukraine
Eastern
Europe
Mumbai India South
Asia
Saldanha South
Africa
Africa
Sepetiba Brazil South
America
The project's nine immediate objectives are to:
· Establish a Programme Coordination Unit (PCU) and a Global Information &
Communication Network at IMO.
· Establish and support a Lead Agency, Country Focal Point (CFP) and multi-sectoral Country
Project Task Force (CPTF) in each country.
· Establish and support a Global Project Task Force (GPTF) to review the programmes and
advise upon the general direction of action.
· Develop and implement communication, education and awareness-raising programmes and
activities about ballast water threats and solutions at the port, national and regional level for
each demonstration site.
· Undertake an initial risk assessment and information gap filling exercise at each
demonstration site to provide a clear understanding of the level and types of risks of
introductions that each port faces, as well as the most sensitive resources and values that
might be threatened, and the management responses required.
· Develop and implement generic and country/port specific plans, with defined ballast water
management measures, to increase compliance with IMO guidelines and protect identified,
country specific most sensitive values at risk.
· Develop and implement generic and country/port specific compliance monitoring and
enforcement systems to ensure maximum practicable compliance with IMO guidelines.
· Where appropriate, establish and support Regional Project Task Forces to increase regional
awareness and cooperation and eventual replication of programme results across each region.
· Identify and secure opportunities for self-financing of the programme during its lifetime and
for the sustainable continuation of IMO efforts to address ballast water management issues.
At its first meeting in July 2000, the Global Project Task Force (GPTF), based on the Project
Document, reorganized activities in order to establish a more effective Project Implementation Plan
(PIP) and to better reflect the actual needs and capabilities of the Pilot Countries.
The need to ensure standardized approaches in countries situated all around the globe with such
different and diversified geo-climatic and politico-administrative conditions imposed flexible time
schedules and determined several adjustments in the initial indicative workplan.
When the initial Project Document was elaborated, the international community was planning to
adopt a regulatory regime for ballast water by the year 2002. Due to the complexity of the issue the
negotiations between IMO Member States took longer than expected and the adoption of the
Convention was postponed until late 2003. The time gap created between the scheduled end of
GloBallast in March 2003 and the possible adoption of a new convention has also raised concern and
risks losing the unprecedented momentum of concerted international action precipitated by the
6
1. Background
project. As of January 2002, the timing of disbursement was just over 53%, meaning that the project
was under spent, and the GPTF decided to extend the duration of the project by 12 months.
Direct beneficiaries of the project are the six Pilot Countries, which have established multi-sectoral
CPTFs prepared to address the ballast water issues and ready to consider the adoption and ratification
of the new Convention. The regional arrangements initiated during the project are expected to
facilitate replication of the success of the six demonstration sites in the respective regions thus
ensuring a timely entry into force of the international regulatory regime for ships' ballast water
discharges. The ultimate beneficiary of the project will be the people dependent on the marine
environment and its valuable resources including biodiversity, fisheries, marine food production and
coastal tourism.
Following the most recent MEPC meeting in London (7th-11th October 2002), it is now expected that a
draft Convention can be agreed at the MEPC 49 meeting in July 2003, and that a diplomatic
conference could approve the Convention for adoption by February/March 2004. Implementation of
the Convention is expected to happen in two tiers. Tier one will be for all ships, while tier two will
have more stringent requirements with possible design and equipment specifications.
7
GloBallast Project Independent Mid Term Evaluation (MTE): Final Report, 31 March 2003
2 An explanation of the MTE
(Mid Term Evaluation) process
The purpose of a Mid Term Evaluation (MTE) is to enable the direct stakeholders to the project
(National Participating Countries, Enabling Agencies, Implementing Agencies and GEF) to review
the progress of the project at or close to the mid-term in the project lifecycle, and to reappraise the
objectives and likely outputs from the project.
The evaluation attempts to determine, as systematically and objectively as possible, the relevance,
efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability of the project. The evaluation will assess the
achievements of the project against its objectives, including a re-examination of the relevance of the
objectives and of the project design. It will also identify factors that have facilitated or impeded the
achievement of the objectives. While a thorough review of the past is in itself very important, the in-
depth evaluation will also provide detailed recommendations and lessons learned for the future.
The evaluation was conducted during the period of late August and late September 2002. Two
consultants were hired for this process and the field-work was shared between them as follows:
Dr. David Vousden visited Brazil, India and South Africa (and also liased closely with Iran
although a visit was not possible).
Mr. Bin Okamura - visited China and Ukraine.
Both evaluators also worked closely with UNDP, GEF and IMO.
During the in-country evaluation process, the evaluators talked with the Country Focal Points (CFPs),
Country Focal Point Assistants (CFP-As), the Country Project Task Force (CPTF) members, and
other relevant national stakeholders. The evaluators also interviewed the NGO and Industry
representatives on the Global Project Task Force (GPTF), as well as the International Consultants
contracted for the Risk Assessment, Port Baseline Survey and Legal Review exercises.
A draft MTE was presented to the 4th GPTF meeting in Beijing 28th-30th October 2002 for discussion.
Following feedback from the GPTF members, the document was updated and presented to the PCU at
IMO, London. The document was then circulated to the CFPs for country review and final comments
before formal adoption.
8
3 Mid Term Evaluation results over all
A Project
design
The overall relevance of the project design, within the GEF guidelines, must be seen as ultimately
valid in view of the success achieved in meeting the fundamental GEF project criteria (see Semi-
Quantitative Assessment). The concept and design also appear to be appropriate to global concerns
over ballast water transfers, although there are a number of critical areas not covered by the project
(comprehensive baseline ecosystem and species studies beyond just identifying invasive species,
sensitivity mapping, targeted research into both ship-board and port-side treatment options. etc). The
reasons for not including these areas are related to interpretations of the GEF guidelines. But, it
should be remembered that it is the responsibility of a GEF project to identify related but non-GEF
fundable activities and to leverage and engage funding and support for such activities within the wider
scope of the project. In fairness, it should be noted that the project did sponsor a conference to look at
treatment options.
The Countries and the PCU feel that the project is still meeting the Objectives for which it was
designed (with the proviso that there are some concerns related to delivery which are discussed under
the Conclusions).
However, there are some concerns regarding project design which focus primarily on omissions or
inadequate allowance of resources, in some cases these oversights are fairly fundamental ones.
The project design has some specific shortcomings which have become more apparent as the
implementation process has progressed. It certainly seems to be a fault in the project design that the
project duration was set at only 3 years, which is far too short for a global project of this nature. As is
fairly typical in a project of this nature, it has taken at least one year to get things moving into a full
implementation situation. Furthermore, it was optimistic to say the least to expect the demonstration-
port countries to A. Develop lessons and best practices, B. Engage their neighbouring countries into a
regional networking process, and C. Implement a process of regional replication, all within such a
short period. As a consequence there are now very valid concerns related to the reality of meeting the
objective for regional replication within the remaining project timeframe. However, bearing in mind
that the project has been granted a 12-month extension, there is now every reason to be optimistic that
all of the Pilot Countries will have regional SAPs in place by the end of the project, thereby setting
the scene for regional replication. These SAPs will help to ensure that a more formal system of
communications can be maintained at the regional level. But the implementation of the SAPs is
undoubtedly a long and complex process and will almost certainly require input and assistance on a
timescale exceeding that of the current project, even with its one year extension. The critical
importance of the implementation of these SAPs and the associated regional coordination and
replication opportunities should not be underestimated. This possibly represents one of the most
valuable (in terms of GEF investment) and significantly sustainable outputs from this project.
As well as the project being subjected to unrealistic time-constraints, it is the opinion of the MTE
(supported by nearly all project stakeholders) that the allocation of inadequate human resource
numbers has also created a significant constraint to delivery. At the level of the PCU, much has been
achieved despite the shortage of manpower. This says a lot about the determination and the
productivity of the PCU staff. At the country level also, inappropriate project design and insufficient
human resources for supporting activities has been overcome only by the presence of dedicated and
hard-working staff. This constraint should not be underestimated and could well have changed an
otherwise successful project into a potential failure. The project owes much to the dedication and
determination of these staff at both country and global level.
There is an overall problem inherent in the project with regard to the legislative measures versus
voluntary enforcement of the IMO guidelines. It is unreasonable to expect the countries to introduce
formal legislation until they have at least signed an International Convention. But the role of the
project is partly to provide pilot studies to demonstrate how ballast water management measures (as
9
GloBallast Project Independent Mid Term Evaluation (MTE): Final Report, 31 March 2003
will be defined in the Convention) can be implemented, and how compliance will be achieved and
monitored. So the finalisation of the Convention can gain considerable benefit from the information
arising from the demonstrations in the selected ports. But successful completion of the demonstrations
needs the development and implementation of legislative measures, which are politically and
economically constrained by the need for an agreed and adopted Convention. It seems that the
original intention of the project was to use the IMO Guidelines to develop legislation and the
supportive CME. However, this has further created problems as not all countries wish to adopt a set of
guidelines ahead of an international agreement with, as yet, undefined legal and regulatory
commitments.
One concern regarding the project design that has been raised by several countries since early in the
project implementation is that, although there is funding allocated for regional replication of the
demonstration port activities and lessons, there were no funds initially allocated in the Project
Document for national replication at other ports. Different levels of effort and success have been
achieved with regard to the transfer of GloBallast activities and experience from the demonstration
port to other country ports. Some countries have made major advances in this respect, while others
feel that they have been held back as a result of limited resource allocation in the original budget.
There were no clear and focussed activities within the Project Document associated with, or
addressing mechanisms for this requirement. Even if the original `argument' against supporting this
national activity is one of 'funding' (i.e. it should be a national commitment) there should still be a
logical and sequential design within the project to encourage and monitor this requirement. However,
in response to the concerns of the countries, the PCU has been extremely flexible in encouraging
national replication. This encouragement has included the use of Programme funds to allow activities
to be extended to additional ports within each country (particularly seminars and awareness
activities), to support the participation of personnel from other ports in GloBallast capacity building
activities (e.g. Port Baseline Surveys and Risk Assessment) and the development of national policies
and management plans. This therefore represents a good example of a proactive response by the PCU
to original weaknesses in project design which has ultimately added to the success of certain project
activities.
The original Project Document refers briefly to the development of `toolkits' for the capture of best
practices and the transfer of lessons, although this concept seems to have been lost in the PIP and the
Workplans. In fact, there appears to be no clear mechanism left in the various Components and
Outputs for capturing lessons and best practices, analysing these for applicability under different port
or government conditions, and making such lessons and practices available for transfer, either national
or regionally. This absence of mechanisms and processes for capture and transfer of lessons has been
commented on by more than one Pilot Country and was independently noted by the Evaluators. A
careful review of both the PIP and the Project Document reveals almost no reference to how practices
and lessons are to be captured, reviewed and put into effect elsewhere within the countries or the
region. The Project Document states in Paragraph 99:
For the sustainability of the project, special consideration will be given in following each
country's national practices. For example, an explicit aim of the project is to develop Decision
Support Systems, "tool kits", and best practices. The project, through the PCU and the CPTFs,
will ensure that these mechanisms, while having generic components, are also adapted to each
country's practices.
And, under the success criteria for Component 5, Regional Task Forces it states:
Project developed, generic best management practices, training manuals, decision support
systems, and `tool kits" are employed by other regional countries.
Furthermore, under Section G on Monitoring, Reporting and Evaluation, Paragraph 134 notes:
The project will also participate in the UNDP-GEF International Water (IW) LEARN Project
through information exchange and sharing lessons learned with GEF and other regional waters
projects.
10
3. Mid Term Evaluation results over all
However, despite this shortcoming in the original project design, it is notable and laudable that the
project has reacted pro-actively to this need for capturing and replicating best practise and using
lessons learned from project experience. As an example they note that non-Globallast countries and
regions in the Mediterranean, in the Baltic, and in the APEC regions are adopting GloBallast methods
and Canada is seeking to use GloBallast risk assessment methodology. The GloBallast information
clearing house is also playing a vital role in this regard.
It is noted that GloBallast is working closely with the IW:LEARN programme, A virtual lecture on
ballast water management, and the GloBallast `flash' animation and other electronic materials has
been provided for placement on the IW:LEARN website. IW:LEARN has also assisted with the
GloBallast E-Forum, a website-based discussion and debate area. It is expected that this cooperation
will expand significantly after the completion of the training package, which will also be made
available through the IW:LEARN network.
Countries have expressed concern about the original criteria for selection of demonstration ports. This
was based primarily on the number of ships and the frequency of movement. But this criterion did not
take in account the difference between `sink' and `source' ports. Each country has ports that are
primarily involved with exportation of materials (`Sink' ports because ballast is discharged before
loading) and other ports dealing in the importation of materials (`Source' ports as ballast is taken on-
board after unloading).
Some countries noted that they would have liked to see more provision for expenses to cover the
attendance of stakeholders at meetings, thereby building a stronger stakeholder and participatory
foundation during the actual project lifetime. These stakeholders are prepared to give up their time but
cannot always afford to pay the expenses associated with such meetings. Furthermore, National
stakeholders would often like to be more involved in projects but the CFPs and CFP Assistants are
limited in the amount of time that they can give. A larger in-country project team would have helped
to increase efficiency.
The countries also feel that there could have been better use made of national expertise and existing
capacity within the countries. One country stated that there had (in their opinion) been no objective
assessment of the countries capacities to undertake what is needed in the project. However, it should
be noted that careful consideration of project delivery shows that national capacities have been fully
utilised in all GloBallast activities, including legislative reviews, port baseline surveys, risk
assessment, ballast water treatment research and development, Communication and awareness, etc.
This utilisation of national capacity has resulted in further strengthening of their capacity, with very
significant benefits for the countries, including their establishment as international experts.
In summary, the Project Design was certainly less than perfect. A number of the constraints or
oversights within the implementation process have to be traced back to the original Project Document.
Shortfalls and uncertainties within this document required the project to redefine the components at an
early stage through a Project Implementation Plan. This PIP represented a significant improvement on
the original Project Document in terms of clarity, definition of tasks, financial allocations, workplans
and evaluation criteria. These concerns need to be considered in the context of how they may affect
final project sustainability and successful delivery of outputs.
B Project
implementation
The public image of the project has been well broadcast at both the global and the national levels, and
there has been excellent outreach by the PCU. Also, the awareness materials produced by the PCU
have been very professional and effective. The PCU itself has done an exemplary job of project
delivery, and of handling the global logistics for a complicated project under a situation of significant
manpower constraints. The CFPs have also worked hard on implementation, and deserve much credit
in view of the almost voluntary, and very definitely part-time nature of their roles as designated in the
project. Just as much credit therefore has to go to the supporting role of the CFP Assistants who
manage the day-to-day functions of the project. The CPTF provide a fine example for other projects
11
GloBallast Project Independent Mid Term Evaluation (MTE): Final Report, 31 March 2003
of how such a body should be both comprehensive in its membership and full participatory in its
action. The GPTF is developing into a globally-effective body. It needs to develop a mechanism for
closer contact on an intersessional basis, and probably more of a sense of project ownership.
The countries feel that a lot of the earlier problems experienced during the project in time-delays on
agreements, contract and procurement could have been resolved if there had been more effective
Terms of Reference and clearer definition of responsibilities within the original Project Document.
IMO tends to be very formal and bureaucratic in its process and administration, which is probably a
reflection of its mandate and the very formal, legal nature of its business. This formal bureaucracy
inevitably slows down administrative procedures and has restricted the speed and efficiency with
which the PCU and project staff in general can carry out activities and do their day-to-day work.
Hiring a consultant through the IMO system can be immensely time-consuming and frustrating
requiring review boards and short-listing down to 3 people, etc. As one example, it took nearly a year
to contract the Risk Assessment Consultancy. Some international Consultants were surprised by the
inordinate delays, which seem to be an inherent part of IMO's standard bureaucratic process.
However, it is equally important to note that all stakeholders recognise the enormous `value-added'
aspect to having IMO as the Executing Agency. IMO is greatly respected in all matters to do with the
shipping industry and its reputation for thoroughness gives the project a very necessary priority and
level of importance. IMO can smooth out a lot of the political and diplomatic problems and is (in the
opinion of the PCU and the Implementing Agency), without doubt, the most appropriate EA. But it is
notable that the level of bureaucracy that IMO imposes on project administration does make it very
difficult to function effectively, especially for a project of this nature that has very real time-
constraints.
Some suggestions which were put forward, and which might have improved this situation include
giving increased management and financial autonomy to the PCU, and adopting a pre-agreed list of
consultants for GloBallast which could be used as required without the need to go through the costly
and time-consuming process of selection.
The countries raised a query about why they had been expected to sign a MoU with IMO at the start
of project implementation. As they understood it, every country had provided a letter of endorsement
to the Implementing Agency for submission with the original Project Document to GEF. This
effectively committed the countries to an agreements highlighted in the Document, including in-kind
and direct contributions. However, such a letter of endorsement does not represent a legal document
obligating the countries to what is presented in the Project Document. As the countries themselves did
not sign the actual document it was felt that the MoUs would be a valuable contribution to cementing
country participation. This is an approach that has been tried and tested successfully in other GEF
projects.
Generally, this project has focused on the use of in-country and developing country experts and
consultants. However, a concern has been raised by the countries with respect to the hiring of persons
as expert national consultants. The project allows for national activities (Activity 1.B.4) that address
differences in regional capacity and information gaps. Many national experts already work for
government or academic institutes within the country. Often these people are not only the clear
national leaders in their field, they are the only national experts, However, the IAs policies make it
difficult for these people to be hired to work on project activities as they are government-funded and
should therefore only provide their services under an `in-kind contribution' arrangement. - This has
become a common problem in the implementation of a GEF project, and a clearer policy needs to be
defined by the IA in order to avoid delays related to such potential contractual constraints in future
project implementation.
One fairly serious concern must be the acquisition and sustainability of a regional replication
mechanism, along with active and effective regional fora. Currently, this is not happening at the
necessary speed that would leave an effective mechanism in place after the project closes in 2004.
Again, this must be seen as a fault in the project design. However, the countries and the PCU are
12
3. Mid Term Evaluation results over all
aware of this and the current Evaluation makes recommendations on how to address this issue through
a proposed focused second phase. The reasons for the limited success of this component are discussed
under `Project Design' as well as in the actual Component Assessment.
The removal of barriers to the awareness of ballast water issues through the project has been a great
success. Relevant stakeholder participation is also credit-worthy and these issues are discussed in-
depth in this document. The transfer of knowledge with respect to lessons and best practices still
needs some detailed attention. This is discussed in the Evaluation document, and recommendations
are made to address this concern. Policy development will, as a matter of necessity, follow adoption
of the Convention.
In general, project implementation has been effective and must be considered as excellent within the
constraints imposed by the project design. Those components that are delayed are in such a position
for reasons explained and discussed within the Evaluation text. For the most part these are not the
fault of any of the project stakeholders but, again, are circumstantial to project design and delays in
the progress in adopting the Convention.
C Project
impact
Project impact, as a reflection of raising awareness and bringing the issues to the international policy
table, has been excellent. The ballast water issue is now a `known-entity' within the international
donor community, the international NGO community, the academic sector and the maritime sector.
The success of this project as far as its impact is concerned can be seen within the MEPC itself where
support and interest in the Ballast Water Working Group had multiplied enormously in the last 3
years, increasing its standing membership from some 14 countries and organizations in 2000 to over
57 countries and organizations in 2002.
Generally, the countries consider the original project objectives to still be relevant and to address the
concerns related to global ballast water issues. However, some countries expressed the opinion that
the PIP does not provide adequate opportunity for the demonstration sites to get involved in research
activities (such as ballast water treatment methodologies and the development of standards), which
are felt to be very essential. However, 1.B.4 of the PIP allows countries to use programme funds for
country-specific projects. So far, most of these have been technical research activities. The countries
have also been fully funded to participate in the International Ballast Water Treatment R&D
Symposium and the Standards Workshop (PIP Activity 4.4), and the PCU notes that it has been
actively setting up twinning arrangements between the pilot countries and R&D groups within
developed countries. A number of PIP activities (e.g. 3.2, 3.3, 5.2 and 5.5) also have significant
research components which fully utilise and develop in-country capabilities.
The initial objective of raising awareness has been very successful at most levels and across most
sectors, but clearly less successful at the senior government policy level. At nearly all levels there is
awareness that there is a problem associated with ballast water discharges, but not everyone fully
understands what this problem really is.
Although the project has undoubtedly achieved a high level of success with raising awareness, there is
also a belief within some countries that the albeit important emphasis on awareness may have
overshadowed the need for hard data and surveys. The countries feel that there is a need for more
emphasis on the technical aspects of the project and on understanding the state of the existing
environment and situation in ports. Only then can the project be considered to be truly a global
demonstration project, providing a lead to other countries and ports on what needs to be done, and in
developing best practices and methodologies for such things as baseline studies, long-term port
environment surveys and ballast water surveys. However, it should be noted that technical activities
relating to data collection and surveys are actually fairly extensive and comprehensive, as can be seen
in the PIP activities 1.B.4, 3.2, 3.3, 4.4, 5.2 and 5.5.
13
GloBallast Project Independent Mid Term Evaluation (MTE): Final Report, 31 March 2003
At least one country expressed an opinion that they felt the project should have provided more
assistance to national capacity building. The Port Surveys were cited as an example. The country felt
that they already had the experienced personnel to carry out such an activity and only really needed
the training and methodologies. On the other hand they felt it would have been valuable to send
professional technicians away for capacity building and to gain experience in other countries that have
already established procedures for Risk Assessment and Baseline studies. However, this opinion
should be balanced against the fact that the PCU has always ensured that all the technical activities
under the project have included capacity building components. This includes sending pilot country
technical people to workshops in other countries. Furthermore, the use of standardised methods is
vital to ensure that minimum quality standards are met and that methods are compatible between
countries. Consequently, providing countries with just the methods and not the training and oversight
would be detrimental to the overall coordination of project activities and methodologies. It is the
opinion of the Evaluators that full and detailed training in such aspects as Port Baseline Survey and
Risk Assessment can only be given effectively in the country or countries concerned. The
standardisation of the methods is all-important to the success and sustainability of the project.
Training and capacity building has to be focussed in-country if it is to be effective. One possible
concern here is the need identified by some stakeholders, and the consultants, to repeat such exercises
several times to ensure that A. the expertise has been transferred successfully and B. to capture all of
the relevant human capacity that requires such training.
This project has brought together strategically different interests, in particular those of the
environmental community and those of the maritime community. The former are concerned in dealing
with issues of conservation and management of the environment, while the latter are concerned more
with efficient management of shipping (cost and safety). There seems to have been quite a reasonable
level of success in bringing these two different interest-groups to the same table to discuss their
mutual concerns. However, there is still probably room for further consideration regarding how each
group can better explain its concerns to the other so as to build on and invest in this growing
partnership. Although the shipping industry may see the commonsense need to control potential
vectors of invasive species, there may be opportunities for presenting the case in a different manner,
and one which may generate greater sympathies. Most of the awareness seems to focus on the
potential threat from such species but it often fails to define and quantify that threat in terms of lost
investment, cost of remediation, damage to marketing, and loss of jobs. This tends to be more the
language of the shipping industry as well as the policy-makers and more could be made of this
approach within any awareness and sensitisation programme. Equally, a better (and justified)
explanation by the shipping industry of the cost of the possible alternative management and treatment
methods (and what this might mean in terms of profit losses, safety margins, cost to the consumer,
and knock-on effects on job numbers) may also find some sympathy with those whose interests lie
more with conservation and management of the environment.
Possibly one of the most important impacts which this project has achieved is in its engagement in the
Convention development process. Although GEF frequently provides support to projects to assist
countries to meet their commitments to international agreements (Convention on Biological Diversity,
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, etc), this is a model example of GEF providing
important inputs to the Convention development process through project pilot trials leading to lessons
and practices (which have been captured from project activities).
Finally, in assessing the impact which the project has had on international organisation, NGOs and
industry representation one need only look as far as the GloBallast website and the number of links to
complementary and supportive activities across all of these sectors. During a period of 5 months
covering mid-June to the end of October 2002, the website shows 516,323 visits which averages at
3,661 `hits' per day.
14
4 Mid Term Evaluation results
by component and GEF criteria
Component 1: Programme Coordination and Management
Activities
A.1. Human
Resources
A.2. Hardware
A.3.
Information and Communication Network
A.4. PCU
Travel
A.5.
Programme Evaluation and Review
B.1.
Establish Lead Agency and County Focal Point
B.2.
Support CPTF and CFP Assistant
B.3.
Support CPTF Meeting
B.4. National
Workplans
C.1.
Global Project Task Force
Overall project administration at the mid-term stage is running successfully and effectively at the
global and national levels. Inevitably there have been some minor problems and constraints to project
delivery, but many of these are to be expected during the earlier stages of the project, and many of
them have been resolved and remain only as lessons for future project development and
implementation. The Project Coordinating Unit (PCU), the functions of the Country Focal Points
(CFPs) and the Country Focal Point Assistants (CFP-As), the Country Project Task Forces, and the
Global Project Task Force are all function as intended and, for the most part, very effectively.
The PCU has done an exceptional job in running and coordinating the global project, particularly in
view of the limited resources (funding and staff) made available to it through the project design. The
PCU recognises that there have been some delays in delivery of outputs, but that these are, almost
without exception, a result of limited human resources. The success achieved in raising awareness at
both the country level and the global level, coupled with the rapidly growing interest and concern over
ballast water issues, has led to a massive surge in demand on PCU time, materials and advice from
partners and non-pilot countries in recent months.
The operational establishment of the office, recruitment of staff, equipment procurement,
development of working relations with IMO, etc has undoubtedly been a success for the PCU.
Generally, the countries are well satisfied with the level of back-up and support given by the PCU.
However, some countries feel that the overall mechanism of support from the PCU to the country
project level could have been more efficient and reactive. This is seen by the countries in the context
of the excessive workload inflicted on the PCU by insufficient manpower being identified in the
Project Document. This has occasionally resulted in last minute requirements or notifications from the
PCU to the countries, giving them insufficient time to react. The countries also felt that response to
requests for information or assistance could have been faster in many cases. However, this
shortcoming should also be balanced in the realisation of the amount of effort that the PCU has put
into addressing individual country needs, often by the physical presence of PCU staff in-country to
assist and help in moving project activities forward. Clear examples of this include support from the
PCU in the development of National Workplans (the PCU visited all countries to assist them in the
development of their National Workplans). In fairness to the PCU, some of the criticisms related to
poor or ineffective communication are historic, have been raised at the GPTFs, and have been (or are
being) resolved by the Coordination Unit staff and management. Any criticisms towards the PCU tend
to refer to the earlier stages of the project, when communications with, and guidance from, the PCU
15
GloBallast Project Independent Mid Term Evaluation (MTE): Final Report, 31 March 2003
were felt to be inadequate. Examples given include not advising the countries of their responsibilities
to visiting consultants (e.g. cost of consultant local transport having to be covered by country project
funds). However, all countries agree that the situation has improved with time and gradual
understanding, and better communications. Overall, the CFPs and the PCU appear to have a good
mutual respect, and a healthy and efficient working relationship.
All of the countries were sympathetic to the problems attributed to the PCU administration, and noted
that the entire project hinges on the efficiency of the PCU. Yet, despite the core role of the PCU and
its overarching responsibility for the success of a global project of this nature, it is the country's
opinion that the PCU is definitely understaffed. This concern is shared by the PCU themselves who
admit to such problems as struggling to circulate Briefing Documents on time due to staff shortages.
In this respect, the countries expressed concern about the amount of time that PCU staff spent away
from the office travelling on ballast water related business, often at the invitation of other
international bodies and agencies. This concern was raised again at the 4th GPTF where it was
suggested that the PCU staff should now concentrate more on project activities and reduce the amount
of time spent on travel. In defence of the PCU staff, they have been undertaking much of this
additional travel as part of their regional/global commitment to Project Awareness. It should be noted
that most non-Pilot Country travel is done by the Technical Adviser, whose salary is paid by IMO,
with any such travel being funded by the invitees. GloBallast resources are therefore not used for this
purpose. Participation in such events provides a number of significant benefits to the programme,
including intelligence gathering (which feeds into the PCU clearing house mechanism), dissemination
of expertise and lessons learnt, promoting the regional replication process, securing additional
resources for the programme (e.g. IUCN funding of the newsletter, potential APEC funding for East
Asia) and development of beneficial partnerships with direct benefits to the Pilot Countries (e.g.
twinning between the pilot countries and R&D groups in developed countries). These functions are
explicit in the TA's Position Description. However, it is feasible that a certain proportion of such
regional travel and Programme presentation could be taken on by the capacities developed within
each of the pilot countries and regions. The evaluators understand that this is now being given due
consideration.
With regard to the Information and Communications network, the project must be applauded on its
excellent website and equally exemplary newsletter which is distributed approximately every 3
months, and is both informative and of a very high quality. The PCU has also developed a
comprehensive and well-stocked library and collection of bibliographies.
One area that did not seem to be covered too well was the potential for database linkage between the
PCU and the countries, and between each country. In fact, the project is weak generally when it
comes to networking between the countries. Communications between the CFPs in each country are
poor or non-existent. This is also true of the CFP Assistants. This is an area that needs attention. The
PCU has tried to encourage better communications but this is still not happening at present. The
countries should not work in isolation and need a more common and collective approach within the
project. This could be achieved through stronger and more frequent interaction and networking and
particularly by having more opportunity at the GPTF meetings to discuss issues and common
concerns outside of the more formal plenary meeting. The PCU has recently added an E-forum to the
website to encourage more communications between the countries, but it seems that this has hardly
been used so far. The PCU itself has noted that there appeared to be a poor appreciation of all of the
elements of the global information clearing house mechanism and communication system that has
been implemented by the PCU. It would seem therefore that more effort needs to be targeted at
`selling' the availability of these mechanisms and systems.
The countries were fairly unanimous in their praise of the efforts that the PCU staff undergo to ensure
a physical presence within the countries where appropriate, and to provide on-the-ground assistance
(for such activities as development of National Workplan, etc). The only criticism in this area is that
the PCU staff are required to travel so often that they cannot fulfil their desk functions at the PCU as
16
4. Mid Term Evaluation results by component and GEF criteria
effectively as the countries would wish. This is a reflection of project design and insufficient
manpower, and will be discussed further in this Evaluation.
The PCU expects to receive status reports on all national activities on a monthly basis as well as
frequent financial reports. However, the latter may not be monthly if there are no changes to report.
National reports are produced annually. The PCU has provided each country with a template for these
monthly activity reports.
In 2001, a Project Implementation Review was completed for the project. On of the clear shortfalls of
the project identified in the PIR was the lack of formal indicators within the Project Document. These
indicators are now included in the revised Project Implementation Plan (June 2002). The Descriptive
Assessment of Project Impact is included as Annex I to this Evaluation. This provides a valuable
insight into some of the earlier identification of project successes as well as constraints. Although the
PIR has no overall Executive Summary, the overall assessment of project objectives at the time was
satisfactory.
The CFPs have a varying degree of involvement in the project depending on the country. In some
countries, the CFPs are extremely active, while in others it is the CFP Assistants that handle all of the
day-to-day project activities while the CFPs only involve themselves occasionally and when
necessary. The CFP position is, by nature, part-time and quite limited. All of the CFPs have full-time
government jobs and have to make time to deal with GloBallast work. Consequently, much of the
responsibility for GloBallast activities and deadlines falls to the CFP Assistants. However, the CFPs
themselves feel it is important that the project is represented by a person in a government line position
who has access to national policy-makers.
Some countries noted that the Terms of Reference and particularly the criteria used for selection of
the CFPs could have been more clearly defined within the project document. In some countries the
role of CFP is designated at Director level (e.g. South Africa) while in others it is almost at
Ministerial level (e.g. Brazil where the CFP is the Secretary for Environmental Quality in Human
Settlements). As well as the obvious lack of equality at the communication level, there is also a
concern that having too senior a person in the CFP post may reduce sustainability and continuity
within the project, as such a post is more likely to be at the whim of political change. Also, on a
realistic note, it is unlikely that a CFP designated at such a high position within government will
actually be able to be actively involved in the project. This concern seems to true of the situation in
Brazil, where the designated CFP has allocated day-to-day responsibility to a representative of one the
CFP's government departments. The person holding the CFP position in China has changed three
times since project inception. As a future recommendation for other GEF projects it was suggested
that more emphasis be put on ensuring the selection of an appropriate person for this role, and
ensuring that person is maintained in that role and is not at the mercy of political sentiment. This
would help to ensure a continuity of action within the project. There is some concern that the CFPs
role will become very focussed and demanding when the project moves into the regional replication
requirements. This will place almost full-time demands on the CFPs (who, of course, have their own
national jobs to do).
The degree of contact between the CFP and the CFP Assistant varies from one country to another. In
some cases, the CFP Assistant sits in the same building and is in close contact with the CFP (e.g.,
South Africa). In other situations, such as in Brazil, the CFP sits in the Ministry of Environment
offices in the capital of Brasilia some 1,200 km away from the CFP Assistant who is in the Navy's
offices in Rio de Janeiro. To complicate matters in Brazil, the project imprest account is administered
by the offices of IEAPM (the Marine Research section of the Navy), which are a further 200 km away
from Rio de Janeiro. This widespread geographic dispersal of project administration brings extra
workloads and paperwork, and hampers communications and coordination for Brazil. Furthermore, in
the case of Brazil, the CFP does not work directly with the CFP Assistant, but has designated an
Adviser within the Ministry to do so. The Adviser and the Assistant communicate on a daily basis.
17
GloBallast Project Independent Mid Term Evaluation (MTE): Final Report, 31 March 2003
Most of the CPTFs are operating very effectively and with a good representation of stakeholders,
although each country has examples of stakeholders that should be on the CPTF but which do not turn
up and do not give enough priority to ballast water issues (e.g. India = State Pollution Control Board,
Ministry of Environment and Forests; South Africa = Department of Health; Brazil = NGOs, etc).
Generally, CPTF meetings are called by the countries when there are issues to discuss, and, on
average, they seem to meet about once every 6 months. Iran has held 7 CPTF meetings so far during
the current life of the project. Brazil has been functioning without a formal CPTF, but now feels that
the time is right to develop such a body and will hold its first formal CPTF meeting in October.
However, Brazil has maintained access to a loose assembly of stakeholders who work with the project
as needed, many of whom meet within the national IMO forum prior to an MEPC meeting. The
Coordinating Commission on IMO Matters (CCA-IMO) organises meetings of the maritime
community in Brazil to discuss issues related to the IMO Conventions. Brazil has made efforts to
ensure this comprehensive stakeholder group have been involved in the workshops to develop the
National Workplan and Communications Workplan. It is notable that the Project Implement Plan
identifies the CPTFs as having a number of responsibilities within the project. This has caused some
concern with certain CFPs as the CPTF members have full-time jobs and can give very little of their
time (especially unpaid) to fulfilling such responsibilities other than attending CPTF meetings. This
leaves the bulk of the work resting on the CFPs shoulders. The CPTF members recognised that there
was insufficient manpower resources available to the project in-country. Consequently there was a
need to hire people, but there was no allocated budget to do this. South Africa noted that many of its
CPTF members were line-managers and therefore extremely busy overseeing day-today activities
outside of the project. They can only really get involved for the time-span of the actually meeting with
perhaps a little preparation and follow-up.
Several stakeholders in several countries identified a desire that, in the event of the Convention going
ahead, they would like to see a group such as the CPTF becoming a more permanent body. They are
worried about continuity at the policy level. Changes in government can result in many changes at
policy and senior management level. Stakeholders are concerned about the need to establish a
structure to sustain awareness and continue support for ballast water issues and the project objectives.
All of the countries have completed their National Workplans using stakeholder representation, and
have had them approved by the PCU. Iran noted that it had no national workshop for development of
a National Workplan as such. However, the National Workplan was developed with the cooperation
of all CPTF members through a series of meetings, and has been approved and is under
implementation. Various other non-CPTF members, such as academics from Universities, were
invited to these meetings, and a consultant (a University professor) was used as to develop the plan.
Iran was particularly grateful to the PCU for its assistance in the preparation of its National Workplan.
Each country submits a monthly report on the status of project activities. In the early days of the
project they would receive brief comments back from the PCU. This does not happen anymore.
Again, this is almost certainly a reflection of workload versus limited human resources. The countries
felt that it was both useful and constructive to receive these comments. This reporting process is
generally valued by the countries as it helps them to stop and think about what they have achieved and
what still needs to be done for each activity.
There are mixed feelings at the country level regarding the effectiveness and transparency of the
GPTF. All of the countries feel that it is a very essential body. Some criticise it for not being effective
enough and not having built a real ownership for the project amongst its members. Again, there seems
to be a historically driven perception at work here. The first two GPTF meetings were held at IMO,
London and were considered by all countries to be too formal and failing to provide a platform for
discussion or country comments. In this respect the project had not initially created a global `team'
out of the GPTF members and the CFPs as has been seen in other GEF projects of a regional nature. It
seems that the PCU has been given the impression that the countries are only present to advise and
give opinion, and that the actual formal decision-making is the prerogative of the Executing Agency
(IMO) and the Implementing Agency (UNDP). As a consequence, some of the countries have
perceived themselves to be `Back-seat' players who were expected only to `rubber-stamp' decisions
18
4. Mid Term Evaluation results by component and GEF criteria
in the meetings, while most of the discussion and all of the decisions were actually made by the PCU,
IMO and UNDP. Furthermore, there is a lack of communication between GPTF members between
meetings, and agendas are not shared or discussed beforehand and documents relating to agenda items
are often presented for the first time at the meetings. One example quoted was the decision to extend
the project by one year. At least one country held the opinion that it was unnecessary but felt obliged
to agree with the consensus. All of the countries noted that the situation seemed to improve at the 3rd
GPTF meeting in Goa, Republic of India. Here the proceedings were more relaxed, less officious and
more congenial to open and transparent discussion. The countries have said that they would like to see
more time in the GPTF meetings for discussion and agreement by consensus and less of a situation
whereby the PCU and the IA are simply presenting agenda items for approval.
In general, therefore, it must be noted that many of the criticisms of the overly formal and non-
participatory nature of the GPTFs are historical perceptions which are now no longer entirely valid.
However, these perceptions are important and highlight an undesirable situation which should be
avoided in the future.
The latest GPTF was held in China and was attended by the Evaluation Team. This was very open and
transparent, and a successful model example of good democratic practice within a Task Force of this
nature. Regrettably, only one NGO/Industry representative attended this meeting. However, the
agenda was very tight and limited discussion. All of the countries agree that a schedule of annual
GTPF meetings is appropriate and would not wish to see any more or less.
So far, the countries report that there have been no scientific or technical advisory groups created
specifically to assist the GPTF. As many of the problems associated with ballast water issues are
technical ones, several of the countries feel that such groups would be valuable. The PCU notes that
such a group was assembled for the 1st International Ballast Water Treatment Standards Workshop.
Furthermore, scientific advisers were engaged to give presentations to the 2nd and 3rd GPTF meetings.
The Implementing Agency, at the global level (i.e. UNDP GEF in New York) has fulfilled its role as
required, assisting with the early implementation process, advising on the appropriate administrative
procedures, attending the GPTFs, etc. The PCU has noted the very supportive role of the IA, whilst
clearly avoiding any micromanagement. The Implementing Agency has provided valuable advice and
experience to the PCU in the administration of the project and in matters pertaining to UN rules and
procedures. However, at the country level there has been little or no involvement of the UNDP
Country Offices in this project. China is the exception in this case (the Evaluators were informed that
the UNDP Beijing Office is an active member of the CPTF). It is probably important to note that this
project is `different' from typical GEF IW Regional projects, where the UNDP Country Office in the
country with the PCU almost always plays a very important administrative support role to the GEF
project. In the Globallast case, the PCU is based in a UN agency and should therefore have immediate
access to a wide range of expertise and resources regarding UN administrative and financial
procedures and requirements. Therefore, in principal at least, there should be less need for the kind of
administrative backstopping which the country offices would typically provide. Nevertheless, the
apparent lack of involvement on the part of the UNDP Country Offices is disappointing as one of the
criteria which GEF used in adopting UNDP as one of the 3 original GEF Implementing Agencies was
the `value-added' potential which UNDP can offer by virtue of its network of country offices, and the
skill and experience of UNDP staff in correct administration, reporting, evaluation, monitoring and
auditing procedures for projects. UNDP Country Office representation has been invited to all CPTF
meetings in all countries, but almost always they choose not to attend. The project tries to follow the
correct UN procedures but, in some countries, this is made difficult as a result of lack of support and
advice from the UNDP Country Office. In Brazil, All UN environmental and development related
projects are usually handled by a Project Support Group within the Ministry of Environment.
However, because the UNDP Country Office is not involved in this project this support group would
not take any responsibility for coordinating and advising on the project administration. However, this
is clearly both a UNDP and a UN IMO project and it would have been fully justified to place some
responsibility for the project under this coordination group, which has much experience in UN
procedures and requirements. In fact, as in nearly all of the countries, there is no contact between the
GloBallast project and the UNDP Country Office in Brazil. Despite this apparent general lack of
19
GloBallast Project Independent Mid Term Evaluation (MTE): Final Report, 31 March 2003
interest shown by the UNDP Country Offices in the project so far, the PCU has stated its intention to
continue to keep the UNDP Country Offices informed and aware of ongoing ballast water activities.
The Executing Agency (IMO) is seen as a very professional organisation, which lends the project a lot
of credibility and respect from the global community. Although there have been complaints about the
unnecessary bureaucracy of the organisation and the time-consuming formality accorded to all
administrative procedures, all stakeholders seem to agree that IMO is the most appropriate Executing
Agency for the project. Being linked to IMO has opened doors for the global project at a senior
governmental level. One country did express concern that it had never been given the opportunity to
liase with relevant IMO administrative staff over budget management, procurement procedures or
contracting. However, the PCU notes that a representative from IMO's Budget and Finance section
has attended every GPTF meeting and the associated bilateral discussions. The concern by the
countries seems to focus on the need for some training on the very rigorous and fairly inflexible
requirements associated with UN Agency finance and procurement. This is generally arranged at the
beginning of other GEF projects implemented by UNDP and seems to have been an oversight in this
project. However, a valuable lesson has been noted here for future GEF projects. Stakeholders
associated with the GPTF felt that the project should be looking at building the institutional base for
addressing the invasive species issues outside of the IMO mandate as well. This would, they felt,
require forging new partnerships and developing innovative funding mechanisms.
The 4th GPTF noted that too many of the project's resources now risk being diverted to non-project
related issues. This is a result of the level of interest that has been generated by the project and the
development of the Convention. There is an urgent need now to encourage IMO to start taking over
the responsibilities for many of these issues (especially where directly related to the Convention) and
to contribute additional resources in support of global ballast water issues. It should be noted that a
significant amount of the demand for information and support is coming from developed countries,
that do not justify direct support from a GEF project. At present, IMO has no serious or effective `in-
house' capacity or expertise on ballast water issues (although one of the PCU technical positions is
funded by IMO and could be considered as `in-house' as long as the budget line for this is
maintained). IMO relies on the project PCU to handle this area. Although one of the core functions of
the PCU was to develop a global clearing house for ballast water related issues, the intention was that
this function would be encapsulated within some form of Convention Secretariat in the long term. The
opinion expressed within the GPTF was that as much use as possible should be made of the network
of national expertise (developed through the project) in providing assistance on ballast water issues
and attending relevant regional and international meetings. This could help to ease the demands on
PCU time and staff.
There has been some criticism of the multi-layered approach design of the project's administrative
structure. One country in particular felt that the IMO/PCU-down administrative approach was too
military and that there are too many Task Forces.
The project is still under-spent (although certain specific budget lines are reported to be exhausted).
Delays in expenditure are related partly to the slow execution of project activities by the countries
(partially a reflection of lack of human resources), and partly to the bureaucracy under which the PCU
has to operate (within the policies and regulations of the EA) which restricts the efficiency with which
funds can be disbursed and hence limits the progress of activities. Now that the project has been
extended for another year this should be resolved.
The extension of the project for a further year was approved by all GPTF members at the 3rd GPTF
meeting in Goa. Inevitably this required a budget review and reallocation of budget funds to cover
additional activities and support for 12 months (including Ballast Water Sampling and Port Baseline
Survey Workshops for the countries, an additional GPTF meeting, and salary costs for the PCU
although some of the latter is being covered as an in-kind contribution from the EA). This was all
done within the original GEF budget allocation. This budget revision and re-allocation was done in a
fair and equitable manner with the approval and agreement of the country representatives, the EA and
the IA. In reality, some countries were having difficulty in disbursing their allocated funds (as a result
20
4. Mid Term Evaluation results by component and GEF criteria
of exchanges rates giving them more local money per dollar) and all countries were behind in their
forecasted expenditure. Another carefully focussed and purposeful budget review may be in order in
view of some of the Evaluation's recommendations.
The overall view of the funding and disbursement process is one of being generally efficient, although
the usual bureaucratic delays have been incurred that are so often associated with execution by a large
multinational UN organisation. Some countries have queried the apparent variance within each
country for handling procurement or cash movements, there is a perception that in some countries the
accounting process follows simpler procedures than those defined in the document `Establishment and
Maintenance of an Imprest Account' provided by the UN. The PCU is satisfied that this is not the
case.
However, there have been a few fairly minor country-specific problems with the disbursement and
accounting process which might have been avoided or resolved if the project at the country level had
received more support and advice from either the Implementing Agency representatives (the UNDP
Country Offices) or from the Executing Agency, both of which have established procedures and much
experience in these matters. At a country-specific level, Brazil has experienced some in-country
delays in procurement and funding, but these are not the fault of the PCU. Internal arrangements for
handling funds in Brazil are less than satisfactory. IEAPM (the Navy's Marine research section)
handle the project accounts. It was decided that this would be easier than trying to open a new
company account under the Ministry of Environment (Lead Agency). There were many problems
with establishing the account, which delayed the start of activities in Brazil until June 2001. It also
creates delays in the monthly financial reports to the PCU. Iran has also experienced a few problems,
which initially delayed national project implementation. However, these were internal in origin
(project funds can only be accessed by a Finance Officer designated by the Lead Agency), but serve
to demonstrate that initial project implementation in a project of this nature can be more complex than
originally expected. China has similar financial arrangements to Iran. The PCU has been very
sympathetic to this and, in a demonstration of pragmatism, has tried to include these financial officers
in the GPTF meetings so as to impress on them the importance of the project. This has its drawbacks,
however, as they can only fund two people from each country, which should ideally be the CFP and
the CFP Assistant. In future, it might assist project implementation in the early stages if the project
document has an annex clearly defining disbursement and accounting responsibility and `chains-of-
command' for each country.
Certain countries have also questioned the limitation of US$2,000 as the top limit of expenditure that
a country can approve. They had been informed that any higher expenditure than this in-country
would require authorisation from IMO in London. This is despite the fact that national workplans
have been approved by the EA, and these workplans define national budget requirements. The
countries have noted that such authorisation requirements can cause real delays in activities and
general project progress. Under the circumstances, and with national budget requirements having been
detailed and approved, this limit of $2,000 would seem unnecessarily draconian and inappropriate to
the need for effective and timely implementation of project activities. In all fairness, none of the
countries have ever requested approval for expenditure exceeding $2,000.
Inflation has caused some anomalies that have been both negative and positive. In the case of the CFP
Assistants, their salary is paid in local currency. Contract periods are between 12-15 months. Their
salary is only reviewed at the end of the contract period and the salary raise given is usually lower
than the inflation rate. Inflation in countries like Brazil and South Africa is high. Consequently, the
CFP Assistants are earning less and less money as the project progresses and are in severe financial
difficulties toward the end of each contract period as their salary remains fixed but inflation rises
rapidly. On a more positive note, some countries are finding they cannot spend the dollar budget
allocation within their national workplan as the same amount of dollars buys more local currency
every month. In view of these two conflicting scenarios, it would seem to be more compassionate and
certainly more fair if the PCU/EA could make provisions to ensure that the CFP Assistants do not
suffer financially as a result of national inflation in relation to their contractual commitments, this
21
GloBallast Project Independent Mid Term Evaluation (MTE): Final Report, 31 March 2003
being a situation beyond their personal control but with some fairly serious financial implications to
their earnings and ability to support homes and families.
Under 1.B.4 (as part of the National Workplan funding) countries have developed some country-
specific activities in support of the GloBallast programme, primarily aimed at filling gaps in technical
knowledge.
Brazil has developed two projects. One is a study of the introduction and impacts of the Golden
Mussel, Limnoperna fortunei, in Brazil. Two meeting were held involving representatives from the
Ministry of Environment (MoE), the National Agency of Waters and the GEF Pantanal Project to
discuss the impacts of this species introduction in the Pantanal, an extremely sensitive area from the
biodiversity point-of-view. It is expected that, in 2003, MoE will allocate extra resources for
accomplishing some of the activities required under this project. A further country-specific activity in
Brazil is the production of a book on `Ballast Water and Bioinvasion' in both Portuguese and English.
China is undertaking research on the possible carriage of `red tide' producing dinoflagellates in ship's
ballast water and providing `red-tide' information to ship's captains. They are also undertaking
research on the impact of the chemical treatment of ballast water using chlorine compounds. Both of
these research projects have been approved by the PCU, and the activities have been started in Dalian.
In India, the 1st R&D Seminar was conducted in June 2002 at the National Institute of Oceanography
in Goa. Recommendations from this seminar have been documented in a set of proceedings and a
copy of the proceedings has been forwarded to all the GloBallast demonstration sites, and the PCU.
Furthermore, an article on the seminar has been submitted to the PCU for publication in the Ballast
Water Newsletter. India has also published an article entitled Marine Bioinvasion: Concern for
Ecology and Shipping in the journal `Current Science'.
Iran has initiated discussions with Australia to develop a Twin Port concept. This would involve a
special bilateral relationship between Iran/Khark Island, and a twin port in Australia that is advanced
in the field of ballast water management, and that is in a position to provide direct technical
assistance. Brisbane and Freemantle have already been officially contacted. Iran has also identified
the fact that effective implementation of ballast water management measures at Khark Island (or any
port) requires a detailed understanding of the physical oceanography related to that port and adjacent
areas (especially current regimes, circulation patterns, salinity, temperature and turbidity ranges, etc).
It is quite probably that species introduced through ballast water discharges at Khark Island may be
transported downstream to impact other areas and other countries. A detailed research plan and budget
is under development and will be submitted to the PCU for review and approval.
South Africa has submitted a proposal for a phytoplankton monitoring project, but this has not been
approved by the PCU in its current format. A third version of Terms of Reference has recently been
submitted for reappraisal and, hopefully, approval by the PCU. Terms of Reference for the pathogen
sampling programme and the Aureococcus case study development have also been submitted to the
PCU for approval. South Africa is also developing a proposal to conduct a treatment technology
workshop, in collaboration with a PCU-proposed activity, which will bring treatment technologies
from the United States to be tested in South African waters.
Ukraine has presented its project on Electronic Satellite Monitoring of Ballast Water Exchange at an
International Workshop in London (April 2002). This has also been published in the Ballast Water
Newsletter. They have also reported on progress with their GloBallast programme at the 2nd
Scientific and Practical Conference on Shipping Safety and Effective Shipping Management
(Feodosia, June 2002), the Annual International Symposium on Ecological Problems of the Black Sea
(Odessa, Oct-Nov 2002), and the 5th International Exhibition-Symposium on Shipping, Shipbuilding,
Ship Repair and Port Development (Odessa, Oct 2002).
All of the country-specific activities are logical additions to the GloBallast effort and demonstrate
country commitment as well as an active effort on the part of the PCU to meet and support national
needs.
22
4. Mid Term Evaluation results by component and GEF criteria
Component 2: Communication, Education and Awareness Raising
Activities
1. Programme
Identity
2. Generic
Communication,
Education and Awareness Raising Materials
3. Case
Studies
4. Country Communication Workshops and Workplans
5. Implement National Communication Workplans
Between the PCU and the project staff in the demonstration countries a high-profile programme
identity has been created. Project logos and the overall GloBallast image are well-known throughout
the maritime community as well as the related scientific and technical sectors.
Every country has noted that the project has made a major difference to national and global awareness
of ballast water issues. The project has developed a very successful public image throughout the
world through the development and adoption of a professional identity. This is apparent in the global
and national websites, programme logos, newsletters and reports.
However, countries are sensitive to the need to handle the awareness issue sensibly, diplomatically
and rationally. Too much pressure on, for example, fishing communities about the problems of ballast
water could cause communities to react strongly against the government, giving the project a bad
name and losing government support. Likewise, catalysing a strong reaction against the shipping
industry could jeopardise their support. For the same reasons the linkages between ballast water and
health need to be handled very cautiously in awareness campaigns.
In most of the countries, awareness was practically zero when the project started. Now countries have
developed awareness documentaries, short televisions clips, education programmes orientated at
teachers, press conferences with the media, etc. This has targeted millions of people in some countries
and many millions throughout the world. The PCU is providing a lot of assistance with awareness
materials, which the countries adapt to suit their needs and translate into pertinent languages. The
countries also produce some of their own awareness materials. These are often quite sophisticated and
effective.
In Brazil, GloBallast awareness materials have been translated into Portuguese and circulated to
government institutions, the shipping industry, and other stakeholders. A news release has been
prepared for the media and interviews given to national newspapers. A national website is now
nearing completion. The national project has given formal presentations on GloBallast activities to an
inter-ministerial group. They also keep the Navy informed and aware of project implementation. All
of the stakeholders who attend the MEPC technical meetings and Inter-ministerial meetings have been
educated in the problems associated with ballast water. The media are also aware but less well-
informed. One of the activities specified under the National Workplan is for the preparation and
distribution of an awareness video. A video producer has been contracted and work has started on the
video within the ports of Sepetiba and Rio de Janeiro, as well as the Itaipu hydroelectric Plant (where
the Golden Mussel and its incrustation of cooling intakes presents a classic example of the problems
arising from invasive species). The video is also looking at institutes which will assist in monitoring
ballast water issues (Port baseline Surveys, species identification, etc). A first edition of the video has
already gone to the Ministry of Environment. The MoE is also preparing a poster concourse regarding
ballast water management and introduced species as a means of awareness raising.
In China, a Chinese/English version of IMO Guidelines has been prepared and is available onboard
ships. By the end of July 2002, six seminars have been successfully held, and another two seminars
will be held shortly in the south of the country. The CPF-A has attended three national meetings on
the protection of the marine environment and delivered presentations on ballast water issues and the
GloBallast Programme. The 1st and 2nd 4-page ballast water news were prepared and disseminated at
relevant meetings and seminars and also as the middle pages of the journal "Transport and
23
GloBallast Project Independent Mid Term Evaluation (MTE): Final Report, 31 March 2003
Environment Protection". The 3rd ballast water news has recently been printed. A web site under the
name of "http//globallast-china.org" has been prepared and opened both in Chinese and English.
Central TV has transmitted a documentary film entitled `Stop unwanted stowaways in ballast water'.
In India, the NGO community is doing an admirable job in taking ballast water issues into the
communities and schools. It has helped that the NGO community is represented on the CPTF.
PowerPoint presentations have been developed to transfer information and concepts to other countries
in the region. Short awareness clips are being shown at train stations, cinemas and on TV. Awareness
documentaries are also being prepared for TV. Much of this is being handled by a national NGO
group (RMP). Presentations on ballast water management measures and threats have been made to the
maritime institutes in Delhi and Mumbai. Awareness raising activities have been conducted in the
coastal state of Maharashtra and Goa (near the pilot site) targeting fishing communities, school and
college students, and teachers as well as community representatives. In general, India has developed a
variety of high-quality awareness materials for distribution both nationally and regionally. The
national website has been constructed and will be launched very soon. India has also produced a very
effective visual presentation (on CD) of ballast water issues called `Saving the Seas The Indian
Experience', which was shown at the 4th GPTF in Beijing.
Iran is facing the problem of an infestation of Comb Jellies in the Caspian Sea, and toxic
dinoflagellates in the Persian Gulf, so the concerns about invasive species and the medium in which
they are transported is a very real one for that country. The public and the authorities are now well
aware of the problem and the on-going activities to try and resolve it. Iran has distributed various
awareness raising tools (developed by the PCU) at the national and regional levels. They are
developing posters in both Persian and Arabic, and are releasing various publications and media
information packages.
In South Africa, the project is beginning to present a good global image and is raising global
awareness. They identify the need to do more on awareness, especially at the school level, and they
need to do more outreach to the communities. Also they recognise that sensitisation and awareness
has been weak at the higher levels of government. The national Website has been developed and is
on-line, and a new national GloBallast poster has been designed, printed and circulated. Some
regional awareness raising presentations have been given at international for a. The PCU has
approved terms of Reference for the National Communication Officer and a suitable applicant has
been contracted. The Communications Officer is currently revising the website as well as planning a
National Coastal Outreach Programme. The CFP and CFP Assistant also attended the WSSD to
support the GloBallast National Display in the IMO stand.
In Ukraine, awareness has focussed on television and popular newspapers as well as in the
professional journals for seafarers. Ukraine has also produced posters in Ukrainian and translated
GloBallast materials into both Ukrainian and Russian. Awareness raising lectures have been delivered
to schools and colleges. Also two videos have been produced, one a more general scientific approach
and discussion of ballast water issues, the other aimed at specialists for training in Port Baseline
Survey techniques. The Odessa GloBallast website is fully functional and available in three
languages. Furthermore, the GloBallast programme and its objectives have been presented to formal
meetings and conferences of the shipping industry. International awareness of GloBallast activities
within Ukraine got off to an early start with a detailed report on Ukraine's activities in GloBallast
being delivered to the 1st GEF International Waters Conference in Budapest (October 2000).
The GloBallast Programme as a whole, under the initiative of the PCU, explored the possibility of
developing a Global TV Documentary. This was not an activity which was specifically included in the
original ProDoc or the PIP. In order to fund this the PCU asked the countries to relinquish some
US$120,000 from funds which had been intended for national use. Furthermore, the PCU managed to
leverage an admirable US$600,000 in co-funding from external resources. Not all countries were in
agreement with this, feeling that the cost was too high to be justifiable and that a cheaper but effective
product could be explored. However, the PCU felt that there could be huge potential benefits from
such a documentary reaching out to an international audience. In the final analysis such a proposed
24
4. Mid Term Evaluation results by component and GEF criteria
documentary was considered to be `inappropriate' by the Executing Agency (IMO) and the concept
was dropped. However, the fact that this had attracted a significant amount of co-funding must reflect
both on the perceived importance of GloBallast issues, as well as the effectiveness of the PCU to
represent the countries in their negotiations with the private sector.
Not all countries agree with the approach of this component. In Brazil, there has been concern and
argument over the emphasis on education. Brazil feels that the project should concentrate more on
communication and awareness. Brazil is not currently intending to undertake activities in awareness at
the school, college or institute level. Neither will their training in ballast water issues in the Naval
Seafarers Institutes. National thinking in Brazil is that any such training should be approved under the
STCW Convention (which defines the formal training requirements for seafarers).
Although the countries have gone through the process of developing case studies for specific
incidences in their countries, they need more information about such invasive species. The countries
have expressed a very real and urgent concern regarding the case studies. These national cases studies
represent one of the earliest activities of the project and were carried out in late 2000. However, none
of the countries have seen the final reports. This is of particular concern as the country stakeholders
feel that these reports would be very valuable in providing documented incidences for presentation at
the policy-level in support of ballast water issues and activities. The countries recognise the need to
engage the policy makers in the Convention development process and to sensitise them more
effectively regarding GloBallast objectives. Case studies relevant to each demonstration country
would help to `bring home' to national policy-makers just how real the problem is and how it is
having an effect on their very doorstep. Country stakeholders throughout the project are now
extremely anxious to receive these case study reports and would urge that they are now treated as a
high priority within the project's outputs. The PCU is aware of this concern and regret that it is a
reflection of the workload versus the shortage of human resources in the PCU. They do feel that all
parties will be impressed by the high quality of the product one it is finished.
Some countries have developed separate Communications Workplans, and others have included them
as part of the National Workplan. However, the separate Communications Workplans have not been
independently approved by the PCU according to the countries. There were no guidelines provided for
developing a National Communications Workplan. Brazil borrowed China's Workplan as an example.
Iran has already adopted its national Communications Workplan.
The NGO community (as represented on the GPTF) felt that public awareness materials should be
developed in more local languages and not just English.
In general, Component Two has been very successful in raising awareness and improving the level of
education on GloBallast, as well as creating an effective programme identity. The lack of access to the
case studies for use by the countries represents a Component constraint which can and should be
rectified as early as possible.
Component 3: Risk Assessment
Activities
1. Ballast Water Risk Management
2. Port Baseline Surveys
3. Information Gap Filling
4. International Port Survey Workshop
A Risk Assessment team has visited every country and provided standard methodologies for
collecting RA data. They have also identified discharge practices during this exercise, including port
policy on discharges, timing of discharges, areas of discharge, etc. The Risk Assessment activities are
being carried out in stages. The purpose of the first visit was to meet and brief the counterpart team,
25
GloBallast Project Independent Mid Term Evaluation (MTE): Final Report, 31 March 2003
check the adequacy of the computer resources, test software, review data, and train counterparts on
data collation tasks. The team will return to the countries again to review the data. Originally there
was no funding allocated in the budget for RA by the countries. However, after the CFPs raised this as
a concern, there was a budget reallocation to provide $3,000. Some countries do not feel this is
enough to do the job properly. They are also worried that the Port Surveys follow a standard Protocol,
which may be too generic and may not address certain issues in specific countries or certain
potentially invasive microorganisms. However, the PCU points out that an explicit part of this activity
was to adapt the protocols to local conditions at each demonstration site, and that this has been done.
The current project does not include ballast water sampling from visiting ships as a project activity
under Risk Assessment. The Risk Assessment for invasive species is only looking at `source' and
`sink' ports, checking on what species exist in situ within the port environment. However, activities
5.2 and 5.5 will fund equipment and provide training for the countries to carry out such activities
should they wish to implement such sampling strategies. Although the countries wanted sampling of
ballast tanks included in the risk assessment activity, they were informed the GEF would not support
this as it was considered to be scientific research, which does not fall under GEF's criteria for
funding. However, this interpretation of the GEF criteria for funding is not strictly accurate. Although
GEF will not fund pure scientific investigation without a GEF-related justification, it will and
frequently does support technical analysis of a problem which represents a barrier to project
objectives, or is pursuing an innovative or more cost-effective and replicable methodology. The GEF
Operational Strategy contains several references to `support for technological advances', and
`providing assistance for inventories, compilation, and analysis of information' as well as capacity-
building for `targeted research, including analysis and application of relevant information'. The real
criterion for judgement of whether it can be funded by GEF is whether the information gained can be
justifiably said to be of global benefit within the project's objectives. OP 10 (the Contaminant-Based
Operational Programme under which the GloBallast is justified) makes several references which
would support information monitoring and/or gathering to better understand the transfer of invasive
species in ballast water, as well as supporting `costs associated with targeted research to assess the
impact of specifically identified priority contaminants on human and ecosystem health'.
The Risk Assessment activity is therefore effectively a desk-top exercise that uses sets of collated data
to logically semi-quantify and rank the different risk posed by vessels on different trading routes that
intend to discharge or pick up ballast water at a demonstration site. The results will allow any future
ballast water tank sampling effort to focus on the riskiest routes. Countries cannot afford to undertake
sampling of all ships, and the industry would complain about the delays in any case.
There was some criticism from the stakeholders of the lack of preparation for the Risk Assessment
exercise. The second visit by the consultants (in which the RA exercise is performed) takes 8-10 days,
and few of the counterparts that were invited could actually afford to give up this much time. Those
that did attend did not always understand how they would make use of the training and knowledge
afterwards (i.e. at sites where no `Lead Agency' for RA has so far been identified). In one country, the
stakeholders attending the RA wanted to work with the lead agency to set up a working group to
discuss this issue after the exercise, but this never happened. At least two countries felt that they were
not advised as to what they were required to do as far as support was concerned, and they had no
budget for such support in any case. This was perceived as lack of guidance from the PCU, yet the
countries felt that they were then blamed for not being ready with support when required. However, to
counter this criticism it should be noted that one of the International Consultants on the Risk
Assessment team was invited to attend the 3rd GPTF meeting in Goa. This was a briefing exercise
with respect to the computer hardware needs, counterpart numbers and entry-skills, and data collation
requirements. The Consultants found this briefing to be very useful, and also allowed negotiation over
the site visit schedule thereby making it more manageable and acceptable to all countries. Yet even
the consultants felt that the majority of assembled counterparts were not aware of what was expected
of them and expressed concerns about the language translation and timely circulation of the briefing
materials. However, it was noted that the countries had more than a year to prepare for these Risk
Assessments, and they were provided with comprehensive briefings at two GPTF's (2 and 3). They
were also provided with the draft Terms of Reference to review twice, and the lead risk assessment
26
4. Mid Term Evaluation results by component and GEF criteria
consultant attended the 3rd GPTF to provide full details of what was required of countries well in
advance.
In South Africa, the first stages of the ballast water risk assessment activity were successfully
completed in August 2002. This activity involved two in-country workshops. South Africa now
believes that the capacity exists in-country for the replication of this activity at other South African
ports. The National Port Authority is already planning to undertake a Risk Assessment exercise for
Richard's Bay port. The country project staff have received favourable feedback from stakeholders
over the Risk Assessment. The Ship Owner's Association representative on the CPTF attended the
Risk Assessment exercise and stated that the project is now starting to make sense to them and they
can finally see what it is trying to achieve, what the practical applications will be, and how they will
be translated into policy and legislation.
The Risk Assessment process can be very time-consuming and demanding. China reports that the
collection of 12 samples each from 52 stations took some 38 diver-days.
Generally, improvements to this exercise may be simply a matter of providing stakeholders with a
clearer and simpler definition of the Risk Assessment exercise prior to the arrival of the RA Team.
(although see comment above regarding Consultant attendance at Goa). A lot of effort seemed to be
necessary to find and convince suitable counterparts to attend the Risk Assessment exercise. Skills in
English were also found to be limited among the counterparts in some countries, and no funds were
provided by the PCU to provide translation resources. The Consultants noted some particular
concerns over insufficient funding during their visit to Dalian. However, the exercise in Dalian was
ultimately very successful, with the data from 3,200 ballast water reporting forms collected from ships
and keyed into a database during the time between the two consultation visits. Data collection has
been extended in China to six domestic ports having major trade with Dalian.
The Consultants have noted the importance of providing time and resources to ensure appropriate
counterparts can be located before any capacity-building activity starts. Furthermore, these
counterparts must be allowed sufficient time to undertake their project duties. Some of the
counterparts have had undue stresses placed on them, mainly as a result of a lack of adequate in-
country funding and support mechanisms.
As part of the provisions of their ToR, the consultants considered the sustainability of their activities,
and noted an apparent lack of any formal project provisions or in-country mechanisms for ensuring
long-term capacity or use of Risk Assessment, particularly the need for one defined agency in each
country to accept responsibility for these activities. They have been alerting the sites to this issue
during their second missions, partly to apprise them of the need, and partly to catalyse a thought
process in country representatives which might lead to a solution. One important shortcoming noted
by the consultants was the lack of provision for sharing lessons and experiences between the various
national risk assessment activities. Consequently, the consultants have recommended a `wrap-up'
international workshop and are trying to assist the PCU in finding funds for such an activity. Several
countries are already implementing arrangements to replicate the risk assessments at additional ports
using their own resources, and regional replication provisions of the Programme are designed to
utilise the Pilot Country risk assessment teams to undertake regional risk assessments.
Most of the persons involved agree that the funding for the Risk Assessment Exercise has generally
been inadequate and is causing constraints to the effectiveness of the delivery. However, the
Consultants are confident that all sites will achieve an acceptable Risk Assessment result, although
they predict the effectiveness and overall outcome of their training will vary from site to site. In at
least one country, unexpected and unexplained mid-training changes to the counterparts caused severe
strain on the training exercise, along with a significant reduction in training effectiveness.
The Consultants to the Risk Assessment activity feel that the Activity, as initially implemented,
lacked a crucial `wrap-up' process whereby the results of all 6 countries can be presented and
objectively reviewed and where outstanding questions and concerns about method and application can
be addressed. The Consultants noted that the PCU agreed with their sentiment soon after the Activity
27
GloBallast Project Independent Mid Term Evaluation (MTE): Final Report, 31 March 2003
started, and all sites have supported the undoubted value of a `wrap-up' workshop. An international
workshop on Risk Assessment methods, results and application would be a valuable closure to this
activity in respect of the GEF project's obligations. In response to this request, the PCU has now
added a final `wrap-up' process consisting of a final round of country visits by a consultant
(scheduled for early 2003) followed by an international workshop that will include provisions for
discussing long-term capacity.
In the case of the Port Baseline Survey, the project teams were well prepared and organised for each
of the workshops. Necessary provisions had been made for translators, office space, presentation
facilities, etc. Contracting and assistance from the PCU was considered to be adequate. However,
during the surveys, it was found that many of the teams were inadequately prepared. This was
considered to be a reflection of the fact that they had not received the necessary funds from IMO. This
was an issue in a number of the countries. This meant that necessary field equipment had not been
purchased or manufactured. Ukraine has been quoted as one example where such funds failed to come
through in time, despite several requests. As a consequence the survey could not be adequately
undertaken and the consultants undertook methodology training at a curtailed level.
There were certain difficulties in each country with the PBS work. In some cases this was due to a
lack of preparation within the country, while in other cases it was down to an overall lack of
awareness of the logistical needs of such surveys. Most problems seemed to be related to a lack of
understanding of the survey protocols, which could have been a result of language difficulties or
simply a lack of thorough preparation despite the instruction and advice given at the workshops.
The time-frames allowed for this exercise by the project budget and overall short timeframe of the
project were restrictive, and did not therefore allow training to be tailored to individual country needs.
Some countries needed more oversight in the survey process but this was not possible as a result of
the limited time available. Also a post-survey component should have been included (e.g. taxonomic
sorting and identification of introduced species) but this did not occur. From a biological perspective,
the surveys were successful in that they initially identified 25 introduced species and 26 suspect
species. Furthermore, a number of new species were collected during the baseline surveys.
The ToR provided to the PBS consultants explicitly required the surveys to target only sites impacted
by ballast water (in contradiction to the CRIMP protocols that specify targeting all possible transport
vectors as well as pristine control sites). Identification of introduced species requires training and
considerable expertise. It would be highly ambitious to expect any of the countries to be able to
identify introduced species with any certainty without assistance from experts in the field of invasion
biology and taxonomy. The methodology taught during the PBS relies on identifying all specimens
collected to least taxonomic unit. The PBS consultancy team provided the PCU with a list of global
taxonomic experts for distribution to all participating countries.
The PBS consultants noted that, from their experience, it takes at least 3-4 training surveys for a team
of biologists to be able to adequately survey for introduced species, while non-biologists would
require more time and oversight. All survey designs should be vetted by an invasion biology
specialist, to guarantee congruity with the protocols and sufficiency of sampling. The field survey is
the simplest aspect of the work. The post-survey sorting and identification, vouchering and
verification of collections, determination of a species status and databasing of information is
extremely important, time-consuming and typically under-funded. The PBS consultants have not been
involved in this process although they were willing to assist and have the necessary expertise.
Generally, the countries are pleased with the Port Baseline Survey as an activity and feel that it was
handled well overall. As with all activities under the programme, time and scope has been limited by
the available budget and the short time-frame of the overall project as well as the linked nature of
various activities. The countries feel that the amount of money allocated for the baseline surveys was
too little (US$50,000). However, it should be noted that Australia conducts similar surveys for the
equivalent of $US30-60,000 in what is considered to be a cost environment that is considerably more
expensive than the Pilot Countries. Furthermore, it should be noted that the Pilot Countries are
28
4. Mid Term Evaluation results by component and GEF criteria
expected to contribute support-in-kind to the port surveys. In most countries, the actual funds
expended upon completion of the surveys have been significantly less than the allocated amount.
India has noted that, in some it is more complex than doing one survey. As well as changes in the
balance and distribution of species between summer and winter, India has changes associated with
pre- and post-monsoon. However, the PCU advised countries from the very beginning that two
baseline surveys should be done (to cover seasonal variations), and that China, Brazil and South
Africa elected not to do these. Concern has been expressed by at least one CPTF that the country
received no Terms of Reference for the PBS, and no defined timescale for the consultancy. Some
countries feel that they could have undertaken the work themselves if they had been sent the
methodology. India also noted that it is predominantly an importing country. This means that millions
of tonnes of ballast water are carried out of the port to other ports around the world. This makes it
even more imperative to have accurate baseline surveys of local species, as some of these may
constitute a major threat to other global ports. However, India still `imports' some 2.8 million tonnes
of ballast water per year and this remains a concern from the Risk Assessment point-of-view.
Iran has recognised the need for two phases of port biota sampling and survey to be carried out
(summer and winter) at Kharg Island as part of the Port Baseline Survey. The programme has
originally proposed one survey phase but advice from the national scientific team supported two
phases for the two main seasons to increase the accuracy and applicability. As a result, additional
national resources were used to expand the survey. These two phases have now been completed and
over 80% of the samples have been analysed so far. The final report is expected to be ready in the
near future.
In South Africa, a phytoplankton Identification Manual has been produced as a result of the survey
conducted in Saldanha Bay. 50 copies have been published for national and regional circulation and
the PCU has proposed publishing the manual as part of the GloBallast Monograph series for global
distribution. As with the Risk Assessment, the National Port Authority has proposed replicating the
Port Baseline Survey activity at Richard's Bay and at the newly-developing Coega Harbour, and has
approved the commitment of funds for these surveys at both harbours. Planning for the port survey at
Coega Harbour has begun and will be managed by the GloBallast Programme.
Ukraine has also expanded its Port Survey activities beyond the original survey conducted in Autumn
2001, in awareness of the seasonal variation of the flora and fauna in the Black Sea. This second
survey was conducted in summer 2002. After the satisfactory completion of the surveys in Odessa,
Ukraine plans a further baseline survey in the spring/summer of 2003 in the Danube delta area,
seeking cooperative arrangements with the GEF project on the Danube River. The second Port
Baseline Survey for the summer period (warm water season) was undertaken by the Odessa DS, the
Odessa Branch of the Institute of Biology of the Southern Seas (OBIBSS), and the Ukrainian Marine
Environment Centre (UMESC) as in-kind support to the project.
Some of the countries have recognised that the timing of the Risk Assessment activities is
inappropriate in relation to the Port Baseline Surveys. A port marine species survey should have been
commenced as early as possible after programme inception, since the results of this baseline survey
will provide very important and valuable inputs to the Risk Assessment. However, the original 3-year
time frame of the Programme meant that there was little choice but to start the risk assessment before
all data analysis and reporting from the port surveys was completed.
In view of the variety of concerns expressed (curtailed methodologies, need for more training, lack of
sufficient preparation, restrictive timeframes, inadequate funding, lack of a post-survey component,
etc), many of them by the consultants themselves, there seems to be a fairly strong case for reviewing
what has been done to date regarding both Risk Assessment and Port Baseline Survey, and for coming
up with 1. A `gap-filling' strategy, and 2. National programmes for long-term monitoring and data
collection related to these two activities. It is intended that the international workshop scheduled for
Brazil in April 2003 will discuss the post-survey component with respect to continued monitoring and
29
GloBallast Project Independent Mid Term Evaluation (MTE): Final Report, 31 March 2003
evaluation procedures. This may also be the appropriate forum in which to discuss the other concerns
identified above.
Funding for long-term survey programmes is considered to be critical to the control and management
of invasive species. The project document suggests that the country develop a mechanism for repeat
monitoring but there is no realistic funding or guidance identified yet for such follow-on activities.
Again, it is hoped that this can be raised as an issue and long-term monitoring can be discussed in the
international `wrap-up' workshop for this activity in April 2003 in an attempt to impress on the
countries their role in the sustainability of this process. The achievement of such sustainability is
critical. Clearly this is the responsibility of the country but it will need every support and assistance
from the PCU and from other relevant stakeholders. The countries also realise that they will need
advice on the taxonomy and other pertinent scientific aspects of any invasive species as, by their very
nature, such species will probably not be familiar to local or even regional experts. In Iran, the Lead
Agency has included long-term biological monitoring of the major national ports on its agenda, and is
negotiating with the teams and the authorities involved in the initial port survey in order to develop a
strategy for a long-term monitoring programme.
One problem that several countries have highlighted is the lack of knowledge about their
environmental situation (habitats, species, current status of coastal areas) within the vicinity of their
ports, and indeed throughout the entire coastline. There is plenty of good information in
environmental state agencies on meteorology, currents and tides but this is all mostly offshore and not
in the harbours. Therefore there really is no good baseline information on the potential risks from
ballast water carried from the country, as they do not know what species are present in the first place.
This makes it difficult to undertake a risk analysis also. Countries feel that the whole process needs to
be expanded to develop an overall national vulnerability/sensitivity index map. Iran is developing and
implementing activities in this as part of its national effort. However, the importance of such activities
should be recognised and addressed in other countries.
The PCU recognises the concern about needing more baseline date on actual native species
distribution and habitats but this would be too enormous an undertaking for inclusion in this project.
The CRIMP methodology is, in the PCU's opinion, quite comprehensive and very effective at
identifying new species. What the project hopes to do is to highlight the gaps and the need for these
studies to complement the project's objectives, and hopefully to encourage the countries to pursue
their own programmes of research and data collection. The project is now aiming to hold the Brazil
workshops on Global Port Survey in March 2003.
Brazil has noted that they would have preferred to have two demonstration ports and not one. Brazil
has an 8,500 km coastline running mainly north to south, and therefore has very different
environmental conditions ranging from tropical/equatorial to subtropical-temperate. They feel
therefore that two sites would have been justifiable.
The CPTF members in a number of countries felt that there should have been closer integration and
coordination between the GloBallast project and related issues and invasive species vectors such as
hull-fouling and aquaculture activities. It should be noted however, that he project has been linking
and coordinating initiatives relating to other vectors, including GISP, IUCN, ICES and FAO. The
countries also feel that the PIP should have been more research-oriented, looking at various fields
such as ballast water treatment, ballast water sampling and biological analysis of discharges in the
region. Although the countries wanted more research included they were informed that GEF would
not support this as it was considered to be scientific research, which does not fall under GEF's criteria
for funding. However, this interpretation of the GEF criteria for funding is not strictly accurate (see
discussion on this issue above under Component 3 Risk Assessment). Despite the fact that the
countries perceive that the PIP should have more research orientation, the PIP has a major focus on
research, including activities 1.B.4, 3.2, 3.3, 4.4, 5.2 and 5.5.
There has been some delay over the implementation of both the Global Port Survey and the Ballast
Water Sampling methodologies Workshops. The project is now aiming to hold the Workshop on
30
4. Mid Term Evaluation results by component and GEF criteria
Global Port Survey in March 2003 (as per re-scheduling in the Revised Indicative Four Year
Workplan of June 2002).
Component 4: Ballast Water Management Measures
Activities
1. Translate/disseminate IMO Voluntary Guidelines & ICS/INTERTANKO Model
2. Education and Training Packages
3. Legislation and Regulations
4. Global Research and Development Symposium
5. National Ballast Water Management Plans
INTERTANKO has distributed model ballast water management plans to assist ships in complying
with the IMO Voluntary Guidelines. All countries have the Voluntary IMO Guidelines.
Throughout all of the demonstration countries, it seems that there has been a very good response from
the shipping industry toward adopting the voluntary guidelines prepared by IMO. However, as far as
the development of national ballast water management plans is concerned, there is a general feeling
that this will only happen when there is a Convention in place to provide the momentum, although
some countries such as South Africa and China are prepared to go ahead and adopt new legislation
before the Convention, and therefore presumably, associated management plans. In Iran, the
Guidelines have been translated and distributed and are partly under implementation at the major
Iranian ports.
Countries have expressed varying levels of success with the reporting forms. 9 out of the 13 major
ports in India are now completing and submitting ballast water reporting forms. But not all ship's
masters have these forms and not all those that do are completing and returning them as there is no
real legislative power to make them do so.
In South Africa, the National Port Authority (NPA) reports that there is a very good level of
cooperation between Ports and the GloBallast Project and they are very supportive of what the project
is trying to achieve. Ports were aware of the ballast water issues before the project started, but the
project has really clarified and explained the concerns. They are finding that the ship's crews from the
Masters right the way down to the deck-hands are also now aware of the issues and supportive. The
South African NPA requests all ships to discharge ballast water out at sea next time they visit
Saldanha. All ports in South Africa are now collecting IMO Ballast Water Reporting Forms from all
vessels in-ballast. Some captains, especially the regular visitors, have the ballast water forms already
completed by the time NPA staff go on board. The ships have learned to accept this requirement.
Nowadays, only 1 out of about 35 vessels will not have changed their ballast water at sea (as a
voluntary request) before entering Saldanha. This shows a considerable amount of compliance and
concern by the ships and their owners, as the exchange process at sea is quite time-consuming and
costly for them, especially if the weather is not suitable. In bad weather the ships may have to make
do with just overflowing the tanks and cannot risk dropping ballast levels for safety reasons.
However, the Pollution Officer for the NPA admits that he has to take the Captain's word that the
tanks have been exchanged and he has no way of proving it. Port-specific ballast water management
regulations have been developed by the National Ports Authority, in consultation with GloBallast
staff, for the new deepwater port at Coega. These regulations are currently governing ballast water
operations during the port construction phase, and will carry over to become the ongoing port ballast
water regulations once the port becomes operational.
The maritime training institutes have also embraced the project in most countries. In India there is an
excellent working relationship between the training institutes and the country project office. As a
result, the institutes have introduced course modules on ballast water issues. All senior ship's crew
31
GloBallast Project Independent Mid Term Evaluation (MTE): Final Report, 31 March 2003
have to return to college for a period to update their requirements under STCW'95 and this now
includes ballast water issues.
Train-Sea-Coast Centres already exist in Brazil and South Africa, and these are being used to develop
a training package of 10 modules which would be given as a 1-week course. Brazil is developing 5 of
these modules and South Africa the other 5. These modules cover a variety of ballast water issues
from the ship's point-of-view including ports, problems of invasive species, etc. The structure of the
course follows the draft Convention. The TSC approach is using Train-X validation to test and then
disseminate this training package. The Train-X approach is material-dependent and not specialist-
dependent (i.e. the specialists may leave the institute or country but the material remains). Any TSC
unit can adapt the material to suit their needs or requirements. All training will use in-country experts
not outside international experts. The PCU reviewed the Train-X approach in detail and found it to be
very valuable in developing concepts from the grassroots to produce a specific and applicable training
package. It also has the benefit of encouraging country ownership as the training courses are
developed `in-country' using national experts at national institutes
These training modules would be delivered as lectures/programmes at the demonstrations ports first,
then at other ports within the demonstration countries, and then transferred to other countries in the
region, although how this transfer would be done was not clear. It is probable that the most effective
way would be to `train-the-trainers' by bringing them into the demonstration country institute
responsible for the training. Dissemination of training within the demo countries would be through a
formal training institute. This transfer of training modules and experience could be done through
regional replication, the Train-X network and IW:LEARN.
South Africa has been experiencing some problems in delivering the training packages which were
allocated to that country (5 of the 10 modules) and this has caused delays in these project activities. It
is likely that Brazil will take on the additional responsibility of these other 5 modules.
However, some of the country stakeholders feel that they are not ready for training yet as they do not
have a Convention on which to base such training. It would seem to them to be premature to start
training seafarers in ballast water management when the management measures have not yet been
defined. They wonder if the existing IMO voluntary guidelines will bear enough resemblance to the
requirements of the final Convention. Following the 2nd GPTF, the focus has altered toward training
of land-based personnel (Navy, Port, instructors in seafarer training centres, environment agencies,
health agencies). This supports the focus of the Guidelines, but not necessarily that of the Convention
as it is expected to be drafted.
One important aspect of training, which may have been overlooked, is the need for more basic
instruction in environmental issues as well as though more directly related to ballast water discharges
within the ports. In Brazil, port staff are generally trained in operations and maintenance and have no
environmental background. There are attempts now to try and introduce a programme of
environmental education within the ports in Brazil. Furthermore, in order to encourage a more
integrated understanding of the issues, Brazil is developing a national programme on environmental
capacity-building within the ports. This is a joint initiative from the Brazilian Navy, Ministry of
Environment and the Ministry of Transport promoting a one-week course developed under the Train-
X methodology by the Train-Sea-Coast unit in Brazil. A local initiative is coordinating Port staff with
Environment State Agency staff so as to help them understand each other's roles and needs.
Environment State Agency staff will visit the ports to see and understand the issues, and Port staff
would visit the Environment Departments.
In India, the Voluntary Guidelines have been included in the course curriculum for maritime
education. Effective training activities for port officials will be initiated after the final regulations on
ballast water management measures are in place. India feels that it is in a position to take a lead role in
training for ballast water management within its region. It could come up with location-specific
protocols for ballast water management for all of its ports as well as ports throughout the entire
32
4. Mid Term Evaluation results by component and GEF criteria
region. Furthermore, they feel that they could develop more appropriate location or case specific
training techniques than those being offered by Train-X.
An International Lead Legal Consultant was hired to assist and direct the project's national legal
review process. The contracting of this Consultant and the contracting of most of the locally based
Legal Consultants was very time-consuming and seems to further reflect the delays caused by the
administrative complexities and inherent bureaucracy of the Executing Agency as discussed under
Component 1. Again, it should be noted that this is not seen as an adverse reflection on the PCU. The
staff of the PCU have struggled with the problem of long delays in administrative procedures
throughout the project, a constraint which has absorbed much of their time which could otherwise
have been spent more fruitfully and directly engaged in project activities.
In each country, a locally-engaged national legal consultant (working with an international legal
advisor) has reviewed the in-country legislation and developed recommendations. These
recommendations have been presented at a workshop held at the World Maritime University in
Malmo. Any further progress is constrained by the formal adoption of the Convention (although some
countries may adopt the legislation and policy unilaterally. The legal review has not, in most cases,
been shared with all stakeholders in each country as it is still considered to be in its formative stages.
It is hoped that all stakeholders will be allowed to review it and make comments once the Convention
is agreed and the countries can be sure of the legislative need and requirements
The locally based Consultants worked hard to meet the challenges of a restrictive timeline and delays
in contracting. All of the Local Consultants responded very positively to the requirements of this
activity and worked well beyond their mandate. This should be seen also in the context of often
having to work in a second language.
The International Consultant felt that the Legislative Review could have benefited from the
Consultant having travelled to meet with the national consultants, either within each country or
(probably more efficiently) at a briefing workshop. In the final analysis, the International Consultant
undertook no `in-country' work at all and only met with the national consultants in the final
presentation workshop in Malmö. Again, this activity has to fall within both the time and financial
constraints placed on the project by the original project document.
This project activity has delivered a concrete and valuable product and has built some useful capacity
within the countries. However, there have been concerns as to whether this capacity has or will now
be integrated into the overall GloBallast Programme. These concerns have focussed on delays in
publishing the report electronically and in hard copy. The International Legal Consultant has set up
the electronic documentation specifically to allow the full text of the national reports to be accessible
to other researchers on the web (as PDFs, and to facilitate web links etc.). To clarify the current
situation, the full text of the national reports (as set up by the International Consultant, needs further
major editing effort and is not ready for dissemination through the GloBallast website. The
International Consultant was contracted a second time to summarise the national reports and to
incorporate the summaries into the published report, which is now in hard copy and on the website.
In China, the project (CFP and CFP Assistant) has been participating in the recent activities to amend
relevant national regulations relating to ballast water control. With a view to implementing IMO
Guidelines, the Chinese Government is planning to promulgate Regulations at Ministerial level late
this year. China expects that, by the end of 2003, most Chinese vessels engaged in international
voyages will be equipped with their ship-specific ballast water management plan as required by
Resolution A.868 (20). Chinese quarantine officials already require ballast water treatment of ships
coming from the area where WHO notifies of cholera epidemic. A Chinese/English version of IMO
Guidelines has been prepared and 6,400 copies have been printed. Some 5,000 copies have been
disseminated free of charge to shipping industry and relevant organizations nationwide. The book is
available on board all COSCO ships and will be available on board ships of China Shipping and other
shipping companies of China. Currently the IMO Ballast water reporting form is collected in the 4
major ports in the Bohai Sea. The information requested in the IMO Standard Form has now been
33
GloBallast Project Independent Mid Term Evaluation (MTE): Final Report, 31 March 2003
incorporated into ships' quarantine declaration requirements. Major shipping companies in China are
now developing the ship-specific Ballast Water Management Plan for their fleets.
However, it should be noted that even China (a country taking serious steps to implement the
Guidelines through adoption of appropriate legislation) has expressed strong concern regarding any
further delays to the Convention. They fear that any such delays could cause some re-analysis and
debate over the approval of national legislation, and the appropriateness of adopting the Guidelines in
view of considerable remaining discussion and debate over the final format of the Convention and its
national requirements and commitments.
In Ukraine, national legislation requires all ships entering Ukrainian ports to make an obligatory
exchange of ballast water. This is a `blanket' requirement for all shipping, and the information on
ballast water has been minimal. However, in order to conduct the risk assessment, by the Order of the
State Department of Maritime and Inland Water Transport, ships are required to provide information
on where the original ballast water was taken, using the IMO Ballast Water Reporting Form.
Procedures for collection and processing of ballast water information from ships entering ports in
Ukraine have been developed and entered into force by Order of the State Department of Maritime
and Inland Water Transport. This makes it obligatory for Harbour Masters in Ukrainian ports to
submit yearly ballast water reports to the Shipping Safety Inspectorate. Ukraine has also developed
proposals on the organisation of ballast water monitoring in ports and included these into the National
Programme on improvement of State Shipping Safety.
South Africa has held a National Ballast Water Policy Development Workshop at Saldanha Bay,
which involved representation from all major national stakeholders. A draft Document is currently in
circulation with national stakeholders for comments.
Each country has a different process for dealing with maritime affairs, and different agencies
responsible for different aspects. In most cases these are poorly coordinated and integrated. For
example, In Brazil, if there is a pollution incident at a port terminal then it is an Environment Agency
matter, but if it is an illegal discharge from a ship it becomes a Navy matter as they enforce IMO
regulations and impose penalties. If a new ballast water Convention is adopted then it would probably
be the Brazilian Navy that would have the main responsibility for compliance and enforcement, but in
close coordination with the Ministry of Health's National Agency for Health Inspection (ANVISA),
Ministry of Environment (MMA), and its Federal and State agencies. ANVISA enacted a National
Resolution in 2002 that established the mandatory presentation of ballast water reporting forms (as
defined in IMO Resolution A.868-20). This is now a requirement for all ships requesting `Free-
Pratique'.
The legal component of the project was not initially engaged in dialogue with the IMO Convention
development process, although clearly the substantial research and ideas undertaken and developed
in-country could have helped their deliberations. This was rectified through connections developed
between the International Lead Consultant and the drafting team, another example of proactive and
adaptive modification of a project activity in response to altered circumstances or unidentified
challenges. . The Convention drafting team did actually request that one of their members be
permitted to attend the Workshop in Malmo, and for an overview of the legal review to be presented
to the Convention drafting process for their information and to positively influence negotiations. One
concern here is the perception that the local consultants and the legal and institutional developments
and capacity were not coordinated with the other activities of the Programme. There is no apparent
linkage between the Component on Compliance, Enforcement and Monitoring (CME) and the
activities associated with the legal review, or the personnel involved in the legal review, which would
seem inconsistent with the need to integrate and coordinate the activities within the components and
between the components. However, it is further noted that the local legal consultants worked in close
cooperation and under the supervision of the CFPs and, through them, should have had access to all
the activities of the Programme. Some of the highly specialised and scientific content of certain
activities (particularly aspects related to port surveys and risk assessment) may prove difficult to
explain and/or translate into non-scientific language. Nevertheless, the PCU has endeavoured to assist
34
4. Mid Term Evaluation results by component and GEF criteria
the legal consultants in this situation by providing additional material and specific explanations on the
more specialised scientific activities.
The legal review identified a problem with the CME aspects of the project in relation to the legislative
aspects. This problem is the inherent differences that would exist between any enforcement and
compliance activities put into place before the enactment of either domestic regulations (e.g. adoption
of IMO Guidelines), or before a Convention (with the adoption of specific domestic laws to
implement it). The Convention is premised on the approach of Inspection and Certification, while the
Guidelines target filing, reporting and port-based decision-making. Although there may be overlaps,
the emphasis in enforcement and compliance activities would differ between the two regimes. This
has obvious implications both diplomatically and politically when considering the position of those
countries that might move ahead at an earlier stage to introduce legislation (with associated CME) in
support of the IMO Guidelines in contrast to those countries which wait for the Convention to be
agreed and adopted.
The same differences defined above between adoption of the Guidelines versus adoption of the
Convention (Port-based assessment and decision making versus Inspection and Certification) also
have a direct bearing on the training components of the project in that the different legislation and
supportive CME would require different training requirements at the specific level (although generic
education of all seafarers would still apply).
This was discussed with the PCU which takes the view that the provisions of the guidelines are
generic in nature and would apply in any scenario for ballast water management and control, as they
are based on common sense practice on board ships and in port. This opinion is not shared by the
Legal Consultant, or by the CFPs. This issue was raised again by one country at the 4th GPTF with
considerable strength of concern. The PCU does share the view that special consideration should be
given to the compliance, monitoring and evaluation activities, and how these would be affected by
pre- or post- convention or domestic legislation enactment.
The legislative review has identified some main differences between the Guidelines and the evolving
Convention, a concern shared by several pilot country representatives and the NGOs. The draft
Convention is obviously different in its approach from the Guidelines, which are premised largely on
risk based assessments by the port state, and this concern has been noted through the legal review
process. For example, the Guidelines are premised on the reporting form. According to the Legal
Consultant, the Convention does not have a reporting requirement or form. According to the PCU it
does have such requirements and the PCU notes that the IMO Ballast Water Reporting From has now
been incorporated into the Ballast Water Management Record Book.
Some concern has been registered regarding the need to ensure that the development of policy and
regulations at the national level is now kept in close synchrony and harmony with the requirements of
the Convention. The shipping industry acknowledges the fact that there will need to be some
flexibility within the Convention to allow for a certain amount of national legislative variations and
different port situations, Their concern is to avoid the development of too many local variations on
implementation approaches which could then translate into a variety of legal requirements for the
industry depending upon which Port State they are dealing with.
Most countries are waiting on the outcome of discussions defining the text of the Convention before
adopting a port-specific and national Ballast Water Management Plan. No templates have been
provided to assist in this process as yet. Some countries have not yet developed ballast water
discharge guidelines or shipboard management plans as they feel that it is necessary to have the
outcome from a number of various project activities before such guidelines and plans can be
developed. South Africa, which is moving ahead regardless of the Convention, is waiting for its
policy document to be approved before developing port-specific regulations and a ballast water
management plan. They then intend to adapt these regulations to other ports in South Africa.
35
GloBallast Project Independent Mid Term Evaluation (MTE): Final Report, 31 March 2003
In China, It is expected that by the end of 2003, most ships engaged in international voyages will be
equipped with their ship-specific ballast water management plan as required by Resolution A.868
(20).
On the other hand, as far as the development of national ballast water management plans is concerned,
the large shipping companies are supportive of the idea, but the process needs momentum and to be
pushed ahead. This will only happen when there is an adopted Convention, and resultant national
legislation upon which to base such a management plan.
Clearly, this need for harmony in the strategic development of national policy and legislation, and the
need to work closely with the shipping industry to maintain and improve momentum on national
ballast water management plans, represents a major functional and supportive role of the project.
There is no doubt that the project is taking such responsibilities very seriously and is playing a high-
profile and active role in coordinating these important and critical cooperative national and
international efforts.
The range of present activities within various countries addressing policy and regulations for ballast
water management is an indication of the very real concern that those countries feel regarding ballast
water issues. This, in turn, is a reflection of the very effective public awareness and sensitisation
activities of the GloBallast project. The countries themselves have adopted a selective approach with
regard to ballast water management, agreeing to postpone the implementation of the Compliance,
Monitoring and Enforcement measures until the text of the Convention is in its final and agreed form.
This inevitably places unexpected pressures on the GloBallast project as far as delivery of its
objectives is concerned and, once again, the project will need to act dynamically and proactively to
encompass this requirement. Far from being a criticism of the project, this should be seen as an
example of how projects of this nature, which are dealing with evolving international treaties and
regulations, need to be able to respond in a dynamic and effective manner throughout the
development process, and in the interests of all stakeholders.
A review of the status of ship-board and port-specific ballast water plans would be a valuable exercise
at this stage to identify A. what has been achieved by each country, B. what each country plans to do
prior to and after adoption of the Convention.
There is still no clear solution to the ballast water problem that can be embraced by the Convention.
Consequently, the industry remains uncertain as to what type of management plans should be
developed for either ships or the ports. The R & D component is therefore very critical to the long-
term success of the project objectives and to the adoption of the Convention.
A Research and Development Symposium was held in London (March 2001), which countries felt
had an impressive turn-out. It was followed by a workshop to discuss what had been learned from the
Symposium and to try and define some ballast water management standards. The recommendations
from the workshop went to the MEPC meeting. However, some countries felt that the symposium
produced a lot of scientific papers but no real agreement on the way forward with regard to which
methods should be developed for handling and/or treating ballast water. The 1st international Ballast
Water Conference was held in Singapore and, again, there was the same discussion on technological
development but no real consensus on what need to be developed. Both the R&D Symposium and the
Singapore Conference did, however, help to define the technologies being researched, and where the
various research projects are based; the fact that significant further research is required and that it is
likely to be some years before a new ballast water treatment system is developed and acceptable for
operational use; that the current R&D budget is insignificant compared to the potential cost of marine
introductions; there is a desperate need to develop and implement international standards and
procedures for evaluation and approval of new treatment systems. In the meantime, it is apparent that
the GloBallast project is fulfilling an important coordinating function in collating and disseminating
existing state-of-the-art with respect to R&D, and in attempting to guide the Convention development
process on the basis of any recent developments.
36
4. Mid Term Evaluation results by component and GEF criteria
Countries are also concerned about the transfer of lessons and replication of best practices within their
other major ports national (outside of the demonstration port). There is no real mechanism defined
within the Project to undertake this national replication process, although the actual process itself
could help to develop a good model for use in other countries. It may be seen as implicit within
Activity 4.5 (National Ballast Water Management Plan), but there is no requirement to develop a
mechanism to do this. However, it is an admirable reflection of the proactive nature of this project (as
well as the commitment from the countries) that, in many cases such national replication is moving
ahead in a timely and successful fashion,
South Africa is undertaking this replication to other national ports as a national priority. The South
African National Port Authority has committed its own funds to undertaking baseline surveys of other
ports besides Saldanha using the GloBallast methodology. The next step is a workshop to develop
port-specific regulations and a ballast water management plan. This would happen after the Policy
development stage. The NPA can then adapt these regulations to other ports in South Africa.
Everything that the GloBallast project has done for Saldanah is being replicated by NPA in its other
ports, including the Risk Assessment. Financially, NPA would need an on-going revenue to cover
data systems, staffing, etc. NPA has already revised their budgets to incorporate some ballast water
management requirements.
India is also attempting to replicate its demo port practices to other ports, and is extending the
collection of ballast water reports to all of its13 major ports (7 of which are already providing this
information as a standard procedure).
Iran, too, has extended the requirement for the collection of ballast water reporting forms beyond
Kharg Island and has been collecting from other national ports since the commencement of the
project. Iran would like to see more of the project funds being allocated to research and development
directly related to ballast water issues.
Component 5: Compliance, Monitoring and Enforcement
Activities
1. Develop a generic CME System
2. Ballast Water Sampling equipment
3. In-country CME Personnel and Training
4. Adapt and implement CME Systems in each country
5. International
Ballast
Water Sampling Workshop
The original project Document and Workplan was accepted on the basis that the new international
Convention would have been adopted before or during the project inception process, and participating
countries could commence CME activities based on the provisions of the envisaged Convention. In
the event, drafting the new Convention has proved to be far more complex and drawn-out that was
expected. Some countries have found it difficult to enforce the existing IMO Ballast Water Guidelines
(A868 (20)) prior to the adoption of a new Convention (due to their voluntary nature). Some have
simply chosen not to in view of the long-term implications relating to potential differences between
the Guidelines and the Convention. However, it was agreed that it would be useful to initiate, at an
early stage, the development of a set of measures to ensure CME of country/port specific ballast water
management arrangements. The initial measures could then be assembled in a CME system, which
will help to determine the extent of compliance with both the new Convention and country specific
ballast water management requirements. Due to the importance of this component and its association
with the rest of the activities of the GloBallast programme a 'Scoping Study' was commissioned to
provide advice on what constitutes a CME system, the key steps to design it and details on how this
may be achieved. The consultant recruited to develop the study circulated a questionnaire on issues
related to CME in 2001. Based on the outcome of the questionnaire and on best practices identified in
other jurisdictions, the Scoping Study was finalized in the second half of 2001 and circulated to all
37
GloBallast Project Independent Mid Term Evaluation (MTE): Final Report, 31 March 2003
involved during the 3rd GPTF. A detail briefing paper on this subject has been presented by PCU
under agenda item 9 of that meeting. At the 3rd GPTF meeting it was agreed that the progress of the
new Convention and the CME component are directly linked so the CME activities may need to be re-
scheduled to 2003.
So, the problem experienced within this Component is the difficulties experienced by the countries in
making the Guidelines function effectively in view of their having been purely voluntary now for a
number of years. The allocation of responsibilities, accountabilities, administrative resources and
management needs requires government policy and legislative changes. Countries do not want to go
down this road prior to adopting a Convention for fear that the agreed Convention text may require
them to make significant amendments to policy and legislation at a later stage.
Most of the countries are following the advice given by IMO not to develop and implement their own
unilateral legislation regarding ballast water discharges and management. This is partly to ensure that
countries don't try to pre-empt the Convention and end up putting inappropriate legislation in place,
and partly to protect the countries from losing revenues from shipping as a result of vessels and
owners using other ports in nearby countries. However, it should be noted that at least one country has
estimated that it may take as much as 5 years for the necessary laws and regulations to be approved by
its government even after the Convention has been formally adopted (judging by previous national
experiences with IMO Conventions). South Africa and China are proceeding with the development of
national policy and technical regulations, as well as the development of CME strategies, in
preparation for the adoption of the IMO Convention
South Africa is developing a draft ballast water policy paper for circulation to senior government
policy-makers. A workshop was held to initiate the drafting of the policy document and this workshop
included all stakeholders. The CPTF members were also invited to the policy-drafting workshop. This
approach has the advantage of priming and preparing policy-makers for the forthcoming Convention
and developing an enabling environment for discussion of important issues such as which agencies or
bodies will be responsible for monitoring and enforcement. The CFP has conducted a review of
existing CME systems and has presented a summary of these at the National Ballast Water Policy
Development Workshop. The participants went on to review details of potential systems which could
be applied within the South African context.
China is also taking steps to adopt the necessary legislation to enforce the IMO voluntary guidelines.
The Liaoning Maritime Safety Administration will be responsible for CME, for conducting ballast
water sampling, and for maintaining the sampling equipment. China has identified the suitable people
for training in CME. However, the comments included under Component 4 (above) regarding China's
reaction to further delays in the Convention are cause for concern. Ballast water records have been
included in the FSC and PSC inspections in some ports. Further activities will be carried out after the
sampling equipment is made available and the relevant training has been completed.
Other countries have introduced elements of the IMO Guidelines (which relate to CME) to varying
degrees. These include Ship-Shore communications and reporting procedures, surveillance and
inspection systems, record-keeping and establishment of a database, and the countrywide application
of these same reporting and record-keeping systems. In Iran, for example, the Port State Control
monitors the ballast water record books of ships calling on major Iranian ports, although no
mandatory regulations are enforced as yet.
Brazil has made it clear that, as they do not intend to undertake unilateral measures, the findings and
recommendations of the legislative review will only be considered and/or implemented after the
adoption of a Ballast Water Convention.
India has stated that this component will only be initiated after the risk assessment activity is
completed and guidelines are available for effective monitoring by port officials.
None of the countries have yet received any sampling equipment as defined under this component.
This equipment would be for Port Officers or designated compliance officials to use for compliance
38
4. Mid Term Evaluation results by component and GEF criteria
and enforcement purposes. This would be premature at present, as the CME component is delayed by
the on-going negotiations over the Convention. Consequently, sampling methods for the
demonstration countries are not standardised as yet. For the same reasons, the countries have not yet
designated CME officers or a lead CME agency. Although there have been no CME training
workshops so far, the PCU is proposing that a team from each country meet for an International
Workshop sometime in April 2003.
In many of the countries, there are very obvious overlaps in responsibilities for enforcement of laws
relating to maritime issues. Such overlaps are a major problem to effective environmental legislation.
In Brazil, for example, it is quite possible that issues of responsibility and accountability for
environmental legislation will represent the greatest hurdle to the development and implementation of
effective ballast water management
In short, this project component has experienced significant delays as a result of the delays in
finalising the draft Convention, and the understandable reluctance of countries to translate the IMO
Guidelines into policy and standard practice through regulations prior to finalising the Convention.
Most countries do not want to proceed any further with the development of new rules and regulations
for ballast water management based on the existing IMO guidelines as they feel that the draft
Convention could look very different. There are too many costs and political decisions involved
which might have to be revised or overturned once a draft Convention is agreed.
However, on the positive side, this has allowed the project and the demonstration countries to be more
proactive in assisting in the development of the Convention based on practical experience. Some real
examples of where GloBallast has provided experience and input to the draft Convention include:
· Convening the 1st International Ballast Water Treatment Standards Workshop which was
instrumental in catalysing the development of global ballast water treatment standards, (the
need for which was a major obstacle to concluding the Convention).
· Providing the global ballast water treatment R&D Directory as a significant resource to
supporting discussions of ballast water treatment options in the context of the draft
Convention.
· Developing standardised methods for risk assessment, port biological surveys and ballast
water sampling which are under consideration for use in the Convention.
· Stimulating a significant increase in the participation of developing countries in Convention
negotiations.
· The active participation of PCU staff as technical advisors to the IMO Ballast Water Working
Group.
Countries are now keen to see a clear purpose and agenda for the proposed workshop in Brazil, which
will look at defining best techniques and approaches to sampling. The development of international
standards will also be on the agenda of this workshop. Logically, many of the CME components will
be the last steps in the national activities but the countries expect to get the component finished before
the end of the project. This now needs more serious consideration in light of the national and
international concerns regarding the final format of the Convention, and how this will affect or delay
CME activities within the project.
Component 6: Regional Replication
Activities
1. Form Regional Project Task Forces
2. RPTF Meetings and Study Tours
Various levels of success have been achieved within the six regions covered by GloBallast with
respect to the regional replication of national GloBallast activities and the establishment of a Regional
39
GloBallast Project Independent Mid Term Evaluation (MTE): Final Report, 31 March 2003
Task Force. Again, different countries are at different stages of progress with this component, and
have different perspectives of what is intended. The project has recognised that this component is a
higher priority for those countries that (for economic, geographic, oceanographic, and/or ecological
reasons) are more vulnerable to the introduction and spread of harmful organisms and pathogens. As a
consequence (and in consideration of the fact that the regional cooperative networks are already in
existence and functional) it was decided to launch the GloBallast regional initiatives within the
ROPME Sea Area (Khark Island Demonstration Site Iran), and the Black Sea (Odessa
Demonstration Site Ukraine). Some of the other countries have encountered constraints in meeting
the objectives of this component which are partly a reflection of delays in the draft Convention,
coupled with the absence of sufficient resources and capacity needed to move GloBallast from the
national demonstration stage to the regional replication stage
As host to one of the regional initiative launch sites, Iran had its 1st Regional Conference on Ballast
Water Management in the ROPME Sea Area, 17th-19th June 2002. This Conference was organised by
the Government of Iran and the PCU, with the support of the ROPME Secretariat. Representatives
from all but one of the countries bordering the ROPME Sea Area attended this Conference, along with
observers from regional government and non-government agencies. The Conference objectives were
to:
· Enhance regional awareness and cooperation in the field of ballast water management and
control;
· Consider and endorse a draft Regional Action Plan;
· Agree on the machinery for implementation of the RAP including an appropriate coordination
mechanism.
National presentations were given by each country from the ROPME region. The Conference
endorsed a Regional Action Plan (RAP) to address ballast water management and related issues. The
principal objectives of the RAP are to:
· Provide a framework for specific regional activities under the GloBallast Programme;
· Facilitate the preparatory process in the region for the introduction of the new IMO
Convention:
· Enhance regional cooperation utilising the existing bodies established under ROPME.
In the Conference resolution, the participants agreed to work towards formation of a Regional Project
Task Force for implementation of the RAP. Formal adoption of the RAP is expected to take place
through a high-level diplomatic conference sometime in early 2003. The representatives from each of
the countries who attended are responsible for the transfer of information to their relevant authorities
and related stakeholders. Iran is in regular communication in this regard with other countries and
stakeholders in the region. Iran is undertaking the distribution of awareness materials developed by
the PCU and its own Iranian GloBallast team (in Persian and Arabic) both within the country and to
other countries in the region. This includes the development and implementation of a national
GloBallast website, and the presentation of various seminars on GloBallast in the country and in the
region. Prior to the Regional Conference mentioned above, representatives of the national GloBallast
team travelled to all the countries in the region and, along with an IMO consultant, presented the
GloBallast project in detail and initiated support for the programme. The Lead Agency has published
articles in the national newspapers and initiated telecasts on national TV giving interviews and
providing news of various activities like the Port Baseline Survey as well as the Regional Conference.
Ukraine is hosting the other regional initiative launch site. The Lead Agency in Ukraine has sent out
letters (June 2001) to the maritime administrations of another five countries in its region (Bulgaria,
Georgia, Romania, Russian Federation and Turkey) providing them with information on GloBallast,
along with requests for cooperation. In a cooperative effort between the Odessa Demonstration Site
and the PCU, a first version of a Regional Action Plan to minimize the transfer of unwanted marine
species and pathogens in ship's ballast water, and the draft of a resolution, to bring the plan into force,
40
4. Mid Term Evaluation results by component and GEF criteria
were developed. In Summer 2001, the PCU commissioned a consultant to visit these countries to
discuss the GloBallast project, the possibilities for regional cooperation, and the draft resolution and
Regional Action Plan (RAP). All countries unanimously supported the idea for regional cooperation.
As a result of an enormous amount of preparatory work (involving IMO-responsible persons, all PCU
staff, dozens of enthusiasts from Odessa demonstration port, and Shipping Safety Inspectorate of
Ukraine) the 1st Black Sea Conference on Ballast Water Management and Control was held in Odessa
from 10th-12th October 2001. The conference was attended by more than 50 officials from all the
countries of the region representing different interested organizations, the shipping industry, the
scientific sector, and mass media. Amongst others, the RAP provides for the establishment of a
National Information Centre (NIC) within the framework of the GloBallast Programme. Once the NIC
becomes operational, it will provide information to the Istanbul Commission through its Advisory
Group on the Environmental Safety Aspects of Shipping (ESAS) on possible sources of unwanted
species, measures for prevention and control undertaken and planned in the region, as well as the
worldwide experience and trend in this matter. This Centre could also deal with regional training
regarding ballast water issues, and could assist in establishing national training centres and facilities.
It is now important for Ukraine and the PCU to progress implementation of the RAP through the
Black Sea Environment Programme and the Istanbul Commission.
Brazil has already presented its planned approach to regional coordination and replication at the 3rd
GPTF in Goa. They intend to host a small workshop of regional representatives from just 6 South
American partners (Argentina, Chile Colombia, French Guyana, Peru and Uruguay) to discuss ballast
water issues. Some arrangements have already been made through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to
define diplomatic issues regarding the organisation of such a regional meeting in Brazil. There is not
intention to visit other countries in the region prior to this meeting, or as part of a regional awareness-
raising exercise. Brazil is cooperating with its neighbours where appropriate (e.g. coordinating a
project on the Golden Mussel). Brazil is also hosting its 2nd Seminar on Ballast Water in November
(the 1st was in November 2000) and will invite neighbouring countries to attend.
China has taken first steps toward regional cooperation in ballast water management and control by
organising a regional cooperation meeting, which will be convened in conjunction with the 4th GPTF
Meeting to be held in October 2002. Indonesia, Japan, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Singapore and
Vietnam have been invited to participate in the meeting.
India has established a Regional Task Force, having made contact with selected representatives in
neighbouring countries. The CFP has talked individually with each designated RPTF Focal Point and
forwarded all the relevant materials from the project. The first RPTF is planned for June 2003. Prior
to that meeting, the CFP will visit each country to brief the Focal Points. Again, other countries have
been less successful citing limited human resources and funding as potential problems. India is
relatively well advanced in its intentions to transfer information and concepts to other countries in the
region.
South Africa is still in the early stages of developing a strategy for regional coordination, and for
creation of a Regional Project Task Force. They are about to become members of 2 marine and
coastal management conventions for sub-Saharan Africa (similar to Regional Seas Programmes).
They are trying to decide which countries would actually be representative of their region in relation
to GloBallast. It has been decided by the programme that, while assistance will be given to any
African country that request it, focus will be made on those countries with which strong agreements
and affiliations already exist. They feel that developing regional coordination and working
relationships with Angola and Namibia on the west coast and the Nairobi Convention Countries on
the east coast would be the most logical regional extension for GloBallast. This would amount to a
total of 12 countries. The South Africa Project Office has given lots of successful presentations at
regional meetings and fora to raise awareness on the ballast water issue. They hope to have the first
RPTF meeting next year. They have not yet identified all of the country representatives for such a
meeting as yet. One concern here is how they can ensure that the most appropriate people are sent by
the countries, i.e. people who can make a real contribution to the process. They feel that subtle
diplomatic input and advice from IMO may assist in ensuring that the countries send the right
41
GloBallast Project Independent Mid Term Evaluation (MTE): Final Report, 31 March 2003
attendees. The CFP and CFP Assistant have already visited a number of target countries in their
region to give presentations on the ballast water programme. Planning has also been initiated for a
port survey to be conducted in Mombasa, Kenya. This will be conducted in conjunction with a
regional port survey training workshop.
Further to the pilot country activities carried out under this component, the transfer of experience and
lessons has extended beyond the pilot regions, with the PCU organising the first Baltic Regional
Workshop on Ballast Water Management (October 2001) in joint cooperation with the Estonian
Government. Since this workshop, the PCU has assisted the region to secure funding of $36,000 from
the US State Department to initiate aquatic species surveys and monitoring within the northeast Baltic
region. Furthermore, these actions have helped to place ballast water issues firmly onto the agenda of
the Helsinki Commission and the GEF Baltic Sea Regional Project, and efforts continue to secure
further funding and resources for regional ballast water management and control activities.
The PCU has continued to develop and sustain cooperative links with various other bodies, including
the Caspian Environment Programme (CEP), the Helsinki Commission (HELCOM), the South Pacific
Regional Environment Programme (SPREP), the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), the
Regional Cooperation among the Maritime Authorities of South America (ROCRAM), and the
Mediterranean Action Plan (MAP).
The proceedings of both the Black Sea Conference and the Baltic Regional Workshop have been
published as part of the GloBallast Monograph Series.
The PCU is actively coordinating all of these regional activities. The 2nd International Waters
Conference held in September 2002 in Dalian provided an excellent opportunity to share experiences
and to promote regional cooperation. This Conference was attended by the CFPs from China and Iran,
and by the Chief Technical Advisor from the PCU. This also provided a valuable opportunity for
awareness-raising. The GloBallast project, through the Chinese Maritime Safety Administration, was
presented to the Conference delegates through a dedicated stand and exhibition. During the
Conference, the PCU held discussions with representatives of the HELCOM as well as the Black Sea
Commission. GloBallast also invited new regions that are currently developing strategies for
integrated coastal area management and for management of large marine ecosystems to include ballast
water as a topic in their regional policies and to take advantage of the programme's `ready-made'
tools to address the transfer of marine invasive species.
Clearly, significant steps have been taken through the GloBallast Programme to promote and support
regional replication of project activities. Efforts in two priority geographical areas (with Iran and
Ukraine as their demonstration sites) have produced remarkable results in a very short period. Ideally,
these results and their related lessons should now be transferred to other regions while maintaining the
momentum in the two priority areas.
However, it seems clear that the regional replication component is a large-scale and complex
undertaking. To attempt to do this constructively within a 3-year timeframe was realistically far too
optimistic. The implementation of Component 6 requires the demonstration port and country to have
advanced considerably with their own management plans, legislation and CME processes. This was
never realistically feasible or practical within such a short time period. Having said that, a number of
countries have taken very considerable steps towards developing the necessary regional alliances,
creating Regional Action Plans, adopting training strategies, etc. nevertheless, the key deliveries of
the demonstration ports through this project (i.e. best practices and lessons learned and transferred)
have not been realised as yet. In reality, fulfilling the objectives of this component will require more
than the remaining 15 months left to GloBallast. It would be unrealistic to expect significant further
progress to be made until the Convention has been drafted. Consequently, the project should now give
serious thought to completing the activities of this Component under a second phase. This would
provide further leverage to the investments made so far, while recognising the significant successes
achieved already in regional replication, and ensuring that the lessons are captured and transferred.
42
4. Mid Term Evaluation results by component and GEF criteria
Component 7: Resources and Financing
Activities
1. National Resources and Financing
2. Donor
Conference
There have been no real attempts within the countries to review the opportunities for self financing
of the programme components and future ballast water management arrangements. Although there
seems to be a general acceptance of the `user-pays' and `polluter-pays' philosophy (within reason, as
far as the shipping industry is concerned), there has been no identification of mechanisms for
financing ballast water control or management. There is a general assumption that port fees will be
raised to cover this, or that management and control will be a ship-board activity covered by the ship-
owners. Having said this, all current national activities that are being carried out in relation to the
collection of data on ballast water, boarding and checking ships (where this is done), overseeing
compliance with discharge requirements, etc are being covered by staffing and revenues at the
national level.
Iran feels that consideration will probably be given to a levy on shipping within the Islamic Republic
ports, linked to the legislation and regulations adopted by the ROPME Sea Area RAP. Such an
approach has been applied successfully in some jurisdictions already.
The countries have expressed a need for guidance in this area and would wish to see a review
undertaken of existing mechanisms used in other parts of the world for the CME of similar IMO
conventions.
India has made efforts to impress upon the Chairmen of all the major ports the need to allocate funds
and resources in their budgets in the long-term to replicate activities carried out in the pilot port.
However, so far the response has been poor. India now intends to initiate a dialogue with industry
associations including the Confederation of Indian Industries and the Indian National Ship-Owners
Association in the hopes of addressing this issue. India noted that their workplan had provided for a
national donor conference but that the funding was removed/reallocated by the PCU. India had been
planning to gather all relevant industries (shipping, refineries, etc) together in a stakeholder workshop
as a donor conference. India will now see if it can do this by itself using national funding (possibly
with support from stakeholders).
In South Africa, the National Port Authority has committed substantial funds to efforts to replicate
GloBallast port related activities. Funds are being given directly to the programme to support a
baseline survey at the developing deepwater port at Coega in late 2002. Furthermore, funds have been
approved for a port survey at Richard's Bay for later in 2003. NPA has also incorporated allocations
into its annual budgets for risk assessment activities for all five major national ports.
The original Project Document identifies an activity `to sponsor a donor conference using the on-
going GEF project as leverage for the creation of necessary additional donors and the securing of
loans and confirm with IMO their support for the continuation of post-project activity from their
regular budget'. According to the text of the Project Implementation Plan, `A donor conference is
scheduled towards the completion of the programme to establish the benchmarks and medium and
long term strategies regarding Ballast Water Management and Control'. It would seem, therefore, that
the original intention of this activity was to agree on medium and long term strategies for ballast water
management, and to assist the project and countries to identify funding to continue the objectives
post-project and to support these strategies. It may now be necessary to consider revising and refining
this activity with a view to identifying further requirements within the context of a Global Ballast
Water Management Programme, and possible further funding to support those requirements, both
from GEF (Where eligible) and from other donors and co-funders. This conference should maintain
its original aim to explore cost recovery mechanisms at the national level as well as
institutionalisation of the Ballast Water Programme within IMO. However, the donor conference
could also focus on achievements so far within the Globallast Programme, further requirements to
43
GloBallast Project Independent Mid Term Evaluation (MTE): Final Report, 31 March 2003
support the Convention, mechanisms for transferring the lessons from the pilot phase on a regional
(and ultimately global) level, etc.
Global GEF Criteria
Country commitment
Country Commitment has been variable but high. Longterm political support for the project
objectives varies from country to country. In most cases it was felt that senior policy level
commitment still needed strengthening, mainly through a better programme of sensitisation, and
through developing mechanisms that would maintain continuity and overcome frequent changes in
staff and political leadership. However, the overall opinion in all countries is that the government is
aware that this important issue will not go away and that they will have to embrace it and develop a
policy to deal with it. It is important that governments realise that invasive species are an all-or-
nothing situation that cannot be reversed. Oil spills can be cleaned up and remedial measures taken,
but once an invasive species is established it can never realistically be removed. Ballast water issues
are about prevention, not cure.
It is important that the project delivers some clear conclusions from the pilot study to present a clear
statement of the concerns and requirements for control and management to the policy-makers. It is
also important the project does all it can to encourage permanence and continuity within the countries
with regard to ballast water issues. Decision-makers are always going through flux and change from
the point-of-view of their priorities as well as in regard to actual responsible personnel. Formal and
sustainable positions need to be created within the correct national agencies to ensure this continuity
and permanence. This is most important if there is to be continued motivation for ballast water issues
and to ensure a constant pressure of awareness on the changing senior level of government.
Once the Risk Assessment exercise has been completed, it may be a good time to consolidate that into
a report and present it to high-level policy-makers to clarify and define the risk and to thereby gain
their attention.
On the subject of country in-kind and direct contributions, this is always a difficult area to evaluate
unless the figures given in the project Document are broken down into specific and defined items of
expenditure. However, there is undeniable evidence that in all countries significant contributions have
been made in-kind by way of office space and support, technical input and voluntary contributions
from academia and experts. Certainly it is the PCU's opinion that all countries have set outstanding
examples of `in-kind' contributions to this project.
India's record of financial commitment has been very impressive, and they are doing an excellent job
in collecting ballast water information from their ports. Brazil has dedicated funding through its
regular budget. South Africa has exceeded its in-kind contribution, and has taken on additional ballast
water responsibilities through its National Ports Authority to support certain project objectives such as
risk assessment. Ukraine had made extra staff commitments. China is replicating the pilot port
procedures in 4 other main ports by Ministerial Decree. Iran has extended much of its implementation
of the voluntary guidelines to the rest of its national ports.
In Brazil, Parana State University has established a laboratory facility specifically for ballast water
issues, and the government has given seed money (over $150,000) to establish a core of professionals
and to provide supportive equipment for monitoring and management. The long-term intention is to
make the University of Parana a Centre of Excellence for ballast water monitoring. There is a
realisation in the country that they need to become self-sustainable over ballast water issues. MoE is
also keen to provide some financial support to IEAPM on ballast water issues under a broad
agreement with the Navy. The Brazilian Navy is expecting IEAPM to take on a specialised role for
monitoring water quality. Brazil has also contributed to the project through its input to Train-Sea-
Coast, through development of the `dilution' method (by Petrobras), and through its solid national
support to the MEPC (As well as the in-country forums and inter-ministerial meetings, Brazil sends
44
4. Mid Term Evaluation results by component and GEF criteria
10 people to MEPC for every meeting). Furthermore, there is thousands of dollars of research and
development underway at IEAPM and ANVISA, which has direct links to ballast water issues. All the
national experts and personnel working to support GloBallast through the Port Baseline Surveys and
the Risk Assessment are effectively donating time and salaries. Brazil is also producing a book on
Invasive Species and the several authors will forego copyright on this.
In China, awareness-raising seminars have been very successful. Each seminar has attracted some 60
people from a variety of relevant stakeholders. Although the National Workplan only budgeted for 6
seminars, 2 additional seminars were possible because the Chinese Government is bearing much of
the cost of the participants. Copies of Ballast Water News (The Global Ballast Water Management
Programme's Newsletter) have been incorporated into the pages of the national journal entitled
`Transport and Environment Protection'.
Also in China, a programme for the protection and control of the Bohai Sea marine environment was
approved in October 2001 by the State Council, with a budget of US$6 billion. This 15-year
programme (3 stages of 5 years duration each) is aimed at reducing and ultimately eliminating
pollution of the Bohai Sea from all sources of pollution, in particular industrial and agricultural run-
offs. It includes discharges from ships of oil, chemicals, garbage and ballast water. In the early stages,
strict enforcement of the MARPOL requirements will be applied and as the reception facilities to
receive wastes from ships become available, zero discharges will be enforced.
The Republic of India has set an excellent example in giving direct contributions to the project, and in
keeping up-to-date on the commitments agreed within the Project Document. The Government of
India had committed to an in-kind and direct contribution of $900,000. So far it has given $300,000
in-kind with commitments agreed for a further $300,000 in the next year. This money is going to
support the input of the scientific institutes into looking at technical solutions for Ballast Water and
into port baseline surveys at the other Indian ports. Also, education orientation programmes have been
given to over 90 teachers, and a number of press conferences on ballast water issues have been aired
on TV. This outreach has targeted millions of people across India.
Iran has contributed to baseline activities by forming a National Committee which is involved in
analysing the status of invasive organisms in the waters under its jurisdiction, analysing the extent of
infestation and damage caused, and planning for the eradication of these invasive species. This
committee is fully funded by, and affiliated to, the President's Office. Although the Committee is
currently concentrating on the Caspian Sea, they intend to extend their activities to other national
water bodies as well. The government is very concerned about ballast water management in view of
the invasions that have already occurred in both the Caspian Sea and the Persian Gulf. The CPTF
meetings have discussed the possibilities of securing funding from the private sector. There have been
some contributions and assistance already under GloBallast and in other marine environmental
programmes. They feel optimistic that the shipping and oil industry will continue to be sympathetic to
supporting ballast water issues.
South Africa has taken the decision to draft and circulate a Policy document for approval so that there
is clear understanding and formal commitment to ballast water issues and concerns at the national
policy level. There has only been a limited effort to `sell' the project or its concepts to the higher
levels of decision-making within the government. Drafting a policy document for approval at the
decision-making level should help to resolve the lack of targeted awareness. The Country Project
Office In South Africa genuinely believes that there will be strong support at an inter-ministerial level
once the Policy document is circulated.
In nearly every country, the shipping industry has demonstrated real support to the project and its
objectives. This support is based on both a moral duty to respond to the problem as well as the
recognition that there will be an international legal imperative with which they will have to comply.
There is a growing concern that the project has put a lot of effort and resources into raising awareness
(very successfully) but that the project is now losing momentum because of the absence of the
Convention. Stakeholders have been successfully targeted over the last two years and are very
45
GloBallast Project Independent Mid Term Evaluation (MTE): Final Report, 31 March 2003
familiar with the issues. The media and even the general public have been repeatedly sensitised. In
most countries this awareness and sensitisation is gradually finding its way up to senior management
and policy levels. The stakeholders in the countries now feel that the governments have an interest in
ballast water issues that is independent of the role of the project and its lifecycle. The problem now is
that so much of the programme is on hold. Following the legal reviews carried out in 2001, a number
of countries were in a position to move ahead and adopt new/amended laws and regulations for ballast
water management. Advice from IMO had been not to act unilaterally (a logical policy) in
establishing rules and regulations, while continuing to try and promote the voluntary Guidelines. But
the project has now already reached a point of high profile. Ballast water is now given the same level
of importance on the agenda as other IMO issues, but there is general uncertainty and doubt now
among stakeholders about what actions should be taken in the absence of any regulations.
The concern now is that ballast water will start to lose the level of priority within governments, and
which the project has worked hard to achieve. On the other hand, once a Convention is ready for
diplomatic discussion, the profile of ballast water issues at the higher policy level will be raised
significantly. The approach being adopted by South Africa is an interesting and potentially valuable
one. This country has decided to develop a Policy document on ballast water management, based on
the findings of the legislative review and the probable requirements of the Convention. This document
is now nearly ready for circulation to policy level government staff and will serve as an awareness and
sensitising instrument as well as laying the groundwork for the Convention when it arrives.
This concern is also reflected in comments from stakeholders who have asked simple questions such
as "What is the GloBallast project (and presumably the MEPC) expecting from the countries by the
end of the project?" and "How will information collected from the countries through the project be
used at the global level?"
With regard to the end-of-project situation, the Project Document states that `Upon completion of the
project the above mentioned results should create adequate conditions for the successful
implementation of improved IMO Guidelines and the anticipated Ballast management
annex/Convention to IMO's MARPOL Convention. The participating countries, having played an
important and informed role in updating global approaches and agreements on the ballast water
transfer issue, will be positioned to continue a leadership role at the regional and global levels'. This
therefore implies that the 6 pilot countries will A. Demonstrate how the GloBallast project activities
have assisted them in successfully meeting the implementation requirements for the new Convention
and can therefore be used by other countries B. will be expected to take a lead role thereafter in ballast
water issues and approaches at the regional and global level.
It seems that there is now a need to re-group and advise (at a formal level) each country on A. The
status of the Convention in relation to project activities and the GloBallast Project delivery as a whole
(and the Guidelines) and B. provide a more precise and scheduled `End-of-Project' landscape for both
the countries and the MEPC to embrace based on the most up-to-date Convention expectations. This
would need to take into consideration the very real possibility that there may not be an agreed
Convention by the time that the Project closes. It is difficult to see how the end-of-project scenario (as
very briefly summarised in the ProDoc) could be achieved if the project were to close before a
Convention was defined and agreed.
From a non-national point-of-view, the PCU sees the project's role as one of stimulating the national
effort, not substituting it. From GEF's perspective this is a very important concept. GEF's role as a
donor is to assist countries to meet their commitments and adopt sustainable mechanisms for doing so,
not to provide a long-term replacement to national commitments. A project can only be deemed to be
successful if a mechanism has been put in place that is nationally sustainable.
Sustainability
The likelihood of political sustainability would seem to be fairly strong, as long as countries do not
lose too much momentum waiting for the Convention. As with all GEF projects, there is always the
fear that national leaderships will change and with it the political will and agenda. Sensitisation at the
46
4. Mid Term Evaluation results by component and GEF criteria
higher level of policy-makers must now be a priority but this, again, is constrained by the delays in
the draft Convention. Hopefully progress will be made on this between now and the end of the
project. Realistically, the sustainability of the current GloBallast project may not be realisable before
the end of the project simply because of the absence of an adopted Convention. GEF should therefore
consider and discuss this state of affairs with the Implementing Agency and the Executing Agency, as
well as the PCU and Countries, and give further consideration to the possibility of an additional
project to focus clearly on regional replication and sustainability, under a more realistic target and
time-frame, and with respect to the amended Convention signatory date. This may be a necessity in
order to protect the current investment as well as building on the exemplary achievements within the
project so far.
The ship-owners and shipping industry as a whole seems prepared to fund training (in order to meet
the requirements of a future Convention). It is unlikely they will fund research, except where it
develops improvements to equipment and treatment processes. In short, they will provide support and
funding which addresses legislated issues.
Some countries are finding it difficult to see where any sustainable funding for ballast water issues
would come from once the project is complete. They feel that it would be merely a process of
amending job descriptions for existing posts to cover new responsibilities. There is a general concern
that this whole area of sustainability and national self-financing needs more guidance and discussion.
An international donor conference is planned for 2003 but stakeholders are not sure if this will
provide any resolution unless it has a clear agenda. Most countries would like to see some sort of
survey undertaken to identify how this is handled in other countries that have existing self-financing
mechanisms in place for similar Conventions or Annexes (i.e. An international review of the various
alternatives for funding and sustainability based on existing practices in other countries).
In Iran, the stakeholders have given particular consideration to the overall concern of long-term
sustainability. They feel that the issue of ballast water and invasive species is a complex one and they
recognise the potential for severe conflict with the economic aspects of shipping and port
management. They felt that more time was necessary before they could determine whether the project
was effectively removing the barriers that it set out to remove. A lot depends upon how national
standards for ballast water management are selected and adopted. However, the project is making a
significant contribution toward coordinating global efforts and standardising activities related to
ballast water issues. The private sector stakeholders are satisfied that there is a high level of national
commitment to supporting the GloBallast project and its objectives, and toward adopting a lasting
ballast water management strategy. Nevertheless, there is some doubt in the private sector as to how
sustainable the objectives may be after the project support is finished. These stakeholders do
recognise the need to surmount national and regional politics and for all countries to cooperate on
these urgent issues relating to ballast water transportation and discharge.
Another concern expressed by the oil companies and shipping industry representatives is the different
rules and regulations that may come into existence, making it difficult for shipping to comply. They
are concerned that some member states of IMO will manage ballast water issues through their national
legislation (As some are already doing) and will requires ships from other member states to comply
with their national rules and regulations. Where these are stricter than the Convention, some ships
may be detained for non-compliance even thought they are meeting with the Convention
requirements. There is also concern regarding the lack of success in identifying an acceptable
treatment process, and the on-going uncertainty about the form and status of the Convention. These
concerns have been particularly expressed by both the shipping industry and the environmental groups
Stakeholder participation
Undoubtedly, the intersectoral nature of this project has been exemplary and illustrative. Every
country has expressed satisfaction with the stakeholder involvement and participation. The
stakeholder group themselves (e.g. the CPTFs in many cases) have confirmed the comprehensive
47
GloBallast Project Independent Mid Term Evaluation (MTE): Final Report, 31 March 2003
nature of their membership. The involvement of the shipping industry and owners is a major benefit to
the development of long-term working relationships and transparency, as well as sustainability.
Stakeholders involved in the GPTF are pleased with the way it operates. They also have a very high
opinion of the way that the PCU functions, referring to it as a model for UN coordination and
collaboration with the NGO community. They also feel that the project itself is realistic and that the
outputs are coherent with the objectives.
However, despite the excellent efforts and very real successes in relation to stakeholder participation
and ownership of the project, as always there are some exceptions which are preventing full input and
participation. Efforts need to be increased to try and engage these missing stakeholders if the
Convention it to rest on the firm foundation of an integrated management of ballast water issues that
will be necessary to make such an agreement functional.
Different countries are having different problems with stakeholder participation. Brazil is
experiencing problems with getting NGOs involved; India is having difficulty in engaging the
Ministry of Environment and Forests. The shipping industry seems to be involved as a stakeholder in
all of the countries, but to a greater or lesser degree. South Africa has had problems engaging the
shipping community (as well as the Department of Health) through the CPTF. The MTE could be
used as a formal opportunity for the PCU to `remind' the Lead Agencies of the need for full and
participatory stakeholder involvement, citing some `absentees' from the active national stakeholder
input.
In South Africa, the academic community at the University of Cape Town has shown a very distinct
interest in the project and has provided a lot of technical support and advice. They have expressed an
interest in getting further involved in research into reproductive viability of invasive species, their
distribution and spreading rates, etc. It may also be possible for them to assist with invasive species
monitoring. They have been asked to be linked into the project's national website.
In discussions with representatives of the ship-owners associations, the Evaluators found them to be
very supportive of the project and to consider themselves to have been closely and actively involved
in the project from the earliest stages. The South African Ship-Owners Association were particularly
vocal on the overall issue of ballast water and the Convention. They can see their function within the
project as ensuring that ballast water is adequately managed, but in a realistic and pragmatic manner.
There needs to be a policeable mechanisms and an effective policy. The biggest fear from the ship-
owners is over-legislation. They want to see an equitable way to assess the problem and to legislate
and enforce. They do not want to see `blanket' legislation that will impose unrealistic requirements on
`safe' vessels at the same level as for `high-risk' vessels as this would inevitably translate into
unworkable additional costs. They believe the ship-owners would be prepared to see a `user-pays'-
principle type of fee from each ship as long as there is some government commitment and funding to
handle management, monitoring and control. Governments need to realise that, once the project is
finished, then the governments have to pick up a lot of the funding for continuing project activities
and meeting objectives. But they believe that ship-owners around the world are not adverse to
additional charges to control and manage the ballast water issue as long as it is reasonable and fair and
not all dumped on the owners. They support the idea of a Convention, as this will encourage
standardisation and a `level playing-field' around the world.
Representatives of the Shipping Industry on the GPTF noted that one of their concerns is that the
emphasis may be rather too much on creating controls on ships that must discharge ballast water.
Early and unilateral implementation of such controls may well cause disturbance to trade flows, and
thereby to the economic affairs of developing countries when large costs fall on the export industries
(although those costs may not seem large to many developed countries). They feel that it may be more
appropriate to encourage investigation of other protective measures such as shore reception of water,
and treatment by local people where the value-for-effort is more cost-effective and can be appreciated
locally.
48
4. Mid Term Evaluation results by component and GEF criteria
One overall problem with stakeholder involvement (as identified by many of the stakeholders
themselves) is that people are expected to contribute their time and involvement without any
reimbursement for time or expenses. It is difficult for the Country Project Office to follow-up on
deadlines for activities or information when people are volunteering their time. An example of this
can be seen in Brazil where the project has a very keen Port Survey team but they are not paid for
what they do and therefore it is unrealistic and embarrassing for country project staff to chase theses
volunteers for results.
The time may now be ripe for each country to review its stakeholder involvement with the PCU, to
identify and `gaps', and to take measures to engage missing stakeholders into the GloBallast process,
using the development of the Convention as an incentive and encouragement.
Transparency of process and availability of information
There are no apparent problems with transparency of actions or access to data within this project.
Some countries would wish to see more communication from the PCU and more sharing in the
planning process of the project (e.g. Consultancy scheduling, etc). But they all recognise that this is
less an issue of lack of transparency, and more one of excessive workload balanced against shortages
of manpower.
Sometimes, the bureaucratic nature of a large UN Agency such as IMO may seem to be less than
transparent and certainly less than efficient to a very proactive and time-constrained project of this
nature. But this is never a deliberate attempt to hide or confuse, simply the necessary nature of
running such a complex and highly-accountable body. Some of the PCU's recommendations for
resolving this have included placing more accountability and responsibility within the PCU entity.
This may be a valuable and serious consideration for any future projects of this nature.
On the subject of the overall Convention transparency, some stakeholders have perceived a movement
within the MEPC meetings to replace the concept of ballast water exchange (sequential, flow-through,
dilution, etc) with adoption of a policy of ballast water treatment (ultra-violet, filtration techniques,
ultra-sound, heat treatment, chemical treatment, etc.). They perceive this as pressure from developed
countries who are being lobbied by their equipment-developers and suppliers who stand to make
enormous profits from such treatment approaches. However, stakeholders are pleased to note that
there have been some important voices in the MEPC standing up for retaining ballast water exchange
as a viable option.
As the countries themselves have requested, it would be of great advantage to all pilot countries if
they shared examples of their awareness material and compared notes on issues, barriers, constraints
and solutions regarding ballast water issues.
49
GloBallast Project Independent Mid Term Evaluation (MTE): Final Report, 31 March 2003
5 Assessment of achievements and constraints
In looking at the achievements of the GloBallast Project to date, it is necessary to review the
workplan, and the PIP tables listing Component Outputs against Success Criteria. The problem which
always affects the Mid Term Evaluation is that the success criteria are always geared to a final
evaluation process. In theory, the only way to assess a project at the mid-term is to draw a line
through the workplan at the date of the MTE and `assess' what should have been achieved by that
date against what has actually been achieved. This is by nature inevitably somewhat subjective for a
number of reasons, some examples of which are:
· Projects are dynamic and several changes may be made to actual activities (both in content
and sequence) during the project lifetime, arriving at more than one workplan revision.
· Assessing the progress made in a series of activities leading to an output is in itself subjective,
as each activity will require a different level of effort (so any one activity may require as
much time and effort as all of the others combined).
· Comparing between countries will be subjective as certain activities may be of a higher
priority in one county than in another, either politically, or from the point-of-view of the
importance of that specific activity to the success and sustainability of an output.
A more reasonable evaluation technique would be to review what has actually been achieved against
what needs to be achieved by the end of the project, and arrive at an assessment of the likelihood of
this happening. However, this also involves a certain amount of assumptions on the part of the
Evaluator with regard to future actions, continued political support, etc. To complicate the process
further, the Evaluators themselves may recommend amendments or changes to activities, outputs and
Workplans, which will inevitably then change the schedule and requirements for delivery.
However, it is necessary to arrive at some assessment of the progress within the project, and the rate
of delivery, so as to be able to advise the IA and EA on the best way forward to fulfil the success
criteria by the end of the project.
This requires some level of rating or quantitative scoring. In this Evaluation of the GloBallast project
we have used a Semi-Quantitative Assessment approach which aims to assess the actual achievements
of the project up to the time of the MTE against the achievements defined in the Workplans. These
Workplans are not designed to be an evaluation tool so much as a sequential guideline of events
necessary to complete the project outputs. Also it requires the Evaluators to balance between the
original workplan and the various revisions. It would be unfair to use just the original workplan as this
may have been revised fairly early on in the implementation stage to account for necessary changes in
sequence of delivery. Equally it would be improper to use the latest approved workplan as this may
have been modified only a few weeks before the evaluation process and show a very favourable
comparison between actual and scheduled workplan delivery!
This SQA approach assigns a scale of achievement for each output (based on the expected delivery
and the success criteria for measuring that delivery) This provides a useful and quite accurate
guideline to see which components are keeping up with the work plan and which have fallen behind,
and in what activities they have fallen behind. The point to remember in this exercise is the
fundamental requirement of the MTE, which is to provide guidance and improvement to the project
implementation process to assist it in achieving its objectives successfully and sustainably.
In making this assessment the Evaluator has to make a judgement of the percentage of achievement
per activity against the original work plan. To smooth-out the subjective nature of this approach, this
is then converted to a scale from 1-5 whereby:
0 1.1 = Almost no delivery Project sustainability severely in jeopardy. The Project stands a
strong chance of failing in its objectives.
50
5. Assessment of achievements and constraints
1.1-2.0 = Some effective delivery but generally poor and well behind schedule unsustainable
at present. Drastic measures needed to secure objectives.
2.1-3.0 = Borderline Some notable achievements but needs greater delivery to be sustainable.
Project certainly salvageable and can still be successful.
3.1-4.0 = Good to Impressive Delivery Some activities may be behind, most are on or ahead
of schedule. Project stands every chance of meeting its objectives and is expected to
succeed but would benefit from some improvements and a review of priorities.
4.1-5.0 = Excellent Delivery All outputs keeping pace with or ahead of the work plan. At
present rate of delivery and achievement, project will be successful and sustainable.
Table 2 shows the semi-quantitative assessment of achievements within each component based on the
evaluation process, the information recorded above, and the success criteria adopted in the 2002
Project Implementation Plan.
The overall delivery and success rate is extremely good with an average across the components of 3.8.
This is on the high side of the 3.1-4.0 category listed above (in fact, not far removed from a rating of
`Excellent Delivery') and suggests that the project is delivering pretty much to schedule and that good
progress is being made through the various activities toward completing the outputs and successful
meeting the project's overall objectives. However, the `delivery to schedule' assessment has to be
balanced against the project having been granted a 12 month extension to allow for this delivery rate.
This is, once more, a reflection of inappropriate project design and not current project achievement.
The value of this process is that it clearly highlights the activities which, for various reasons, have
fallen behind or are experiencing difficulty in delivery, and allows the Evaluators to make suggestions
and recommendations for improvement.
The following is a component-by component review of project delivery. As well as the 7 Project
Components, the Evaluators have included a further category for assessment based on the primary
GEF funding criteria of Country Commitment, Sustainability, Stakeholder Participation and
Transparency of Process/Information Accessibility.
51
GloBallast Project Independent Mid Term Evaluation (MTE): Final Report, 31 March 2003
Table 2. Semi-quantitative assessment of achievements within each component
ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE OF WORK-PLAN COMPLETED BY MTE
COMPONENT
SUCCESS
OUTPUTS
CRITERIA
5 10 15 20
25 30 35 40
45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80
85 90 95 100 1-5 Rating
PROGRAMME COORDINATION AND
MANAGEMENT
Prog. Coord. & Man.
PCU established
Mech. Established
and operational
5
and functional
Effective coordination Information and
between and among
Communications
3.75
stakeholders
network established
and functional
Prog. Performance
Programme
improves over time
evaluation and
4.25
with input from
review procedures
evaluations/reviews
operating effectively
In-Country
Lead Agency and
administrative and
CFP designated and
4
coordination
functional
arrangements
CFP Assistant
established and
engaged and
4
functional
functional
CPTF formed and
4
functional
GPTF formed and
Programme advised
functioning effectively and assisted by
4
GPTF
Component Total =
4.1
COMMUNICATION, EDUCATION AND
AWARENESS
Level of awareness of Programme identity
5
ballast water issue
established
raised among all
Case Studies
stakeholders resulting complete and
in increased
2.5
communicated to
commitment to
stakeholders
implement
programmes and
Generic
address the issues
communication
4.25
material produced
Communication
workplans
4
developed
Communication
workplans
4
implemented
Component Total =
4.0
RISK ASSESSMENT
All levels of
Risk Assessment
management and all
completed for each
4
stakeholders have a
demonstration site
clearer understanding Baseline Port
of the level and types Surveys completed
of risks of
4
for each
introductions that
demonstration site
each port faces, as
well as the most
System in place for
sensitive resources
2.5
future surveys
and values that might
be threatened, and
Information gaps
the management
identified and
responses required
3
activities to fill gaps
defined
Component Total =
3.4
52
5. Assessment of achievements and constraints
Table 2. (Cont'd)
ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE OF WORK-PLAN COMPLETED BY MTE
COMPONENT
SUCCESS
OUTPUTS
CRITERIA
5 10 15 20
25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
1-5 Rating
BALLAST WATER MANAGEMENT
MEASURES
Effective ballast
IMO Guidelines and
water management
industry models
5
measures
widely disseminated
implemented at each
demonstration site
Education and
(consistent with IMO training packages
3
guidelines and
developed and
standards) to reduce delivered
the transfer of
Legislation reviews
aquatic organisms in completed and
ballast water,
4.25
recommendations
discussed
Global R&D
4
Symposium held
BW Management
Plans
2.5
developed/adopted
Component Total =
3.8
COMPLIANCE, MONITORING AND
ENFORCEMENT
Generic Compliance, Pilot countries ready
Monitoring and
and prepared to
Enforcement
adapt CME systems
2.5
systems developed
after adoption of the
anticipated
Convention
Component Total =
2.5
REGIONAL REPLICATION
Creation of a
Demo sites
programme regional
protected against
3
support base
non-compliance by
competing ports
Increased likelihood
Programme outputs
of regional
adopted by other
3
cooperation
countries
Mechanism for
Formal
regional replication of communication
3.5
demo results and
system functioning
lessons
at regional level
Strengthening of
Programme regions
regional roles in
are an effective
3.5
ballast water issues
presence in ballast
water fora
Component Total =
3.3
53
GloBallast Project Independent Mid Term Evaluation (MTE): Final Report, 31 March 2003
Table 2. (Cont'd)
COMPONENT
SUCCESS
ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE OF WORK-PLAN COMPLETED BY MTE
OUTPUTS
CRITERIA
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
45 50 55 60
65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 1-5 Rating
RESOURCES AND FINANCING
Potential resourcing
Potential in-country
and financing
resources and
mechanisms
financing
3
identified for national, mechanisms
regional and global
identified
ballast water
Identification of
management
3
interested donors
arrangements in
accordance with IMO Active participation of
guidelines/requireme variety of donors and
nts
3.5
developing countries
at conference
Specific
commitments of
2.5
donors to post-
programme work
Component Total =
3.0
PROJECT - GENERAL GEF CRITERIA
Country Commitment In-Kind contributions
4.75
as per ProDoc
Policy Commitment
4.5
to Project
Sustainability
Potential for post-
4
project funding
National support for
4.5
Convention
Stakeholder
Appropriate
Participation
stakeholders
4.25
engaged
Direct involvement in
4.5
project activities
Transparency of
Direct involvement in
4.5
information
project evaluation
Country info available
to PCU/Experts as
4
required
Info available to
global/regional
3.75
partners
Component Total =
4.3
PROJECT TOTAL =
3.8
54
5. Assessment of achievements and constraints
Component 1: Programme Coordination and Management Rated 4.1
Undoubtedly this has been a very successful component of the project. Despite some early teething
troubles in implementation (which are frankly inevitable in any project let alone a global project of
this nature), the overall management and coordination approach seems to have settled down into a
well-organised and professional mechanism providing support and feedback to the project. There are
still some areas for improvement but, again, these tend to reflect the global, widespread nature of the
project, as well as the constraints to human resources at both the national level and that of the PCU.
This is reflected in the reduction of review procedures since the start of the project visible in the lack
of feedback on monthly national reports. Another improvement would be networking between
countries and more sharing of experiences and information. The GPTF needs to be encouraged to be
more active at an intersessional level and to develop more complete ownership of the project. In some
significant part, the PCU staff must take a lot of the credit for this high rating, especially in view of
the workload with which they are having to contend versus the paucity of support staff. However,
much of this credit must also be extended to the country project entities at the CFP and CFP-A levels
who are also showing themselves to be highly dedicated and motivated staff working almost single-
handed, but with the support of well-constructed and representative CPTFs. There is some imbalance
across the project in the level of the designated CFPs and how the CFPs and their Assistants interact.
Component 2: Communication, Education and Awareness Raising Rated 4.0
Also a very successful component. The entire project and the GloBallast programme have an excellent
profile and a very visible identity. Priority now needs to be given to completing the Case Studies and
delivering them to where they are most needed the countries. These Case Studies are critical to the
awareness and sensitisation process and need to be available at a time when policy-level sensitisation
must become a high priority (in parallel with the build-up to the draft Convention). The Case Studies
provide the ammunition in the battle to engage the politicians and decision-makers into the process of
ballast water control and management. Good communications material has been developed but
`within-project' networking and sharing of lessons/experiences is less than adequate.
Component 3: Risk Assessment Rated 3.4
Risk Assessment and its associated Baseline Surveys are well underway. However, there were some
fairly significant initial delays as a result of EA procedures. At the country level, national
commitment from stakeholders to counterparting these activities has been less than perfect. If
momentum can be maintained (and bearing in mind the project extension for one year) then delivery
should be successful. The real areas of concern for the sustainable achievement of objectives under
this component must be 1. The need to fill the information gaps (especially for ports in areas with
poor information on species and habitat presence and distribution) and the need to identify
mechanisms and activities to do this, and 2. The urgency of adopting a mechanism for long-term,
sustainable assessments and surveys (a concern that was strongly identified by the relevant
consultants), 3. The need for more information regarding species viability between ports (i.e. what
will survive where, and survival rates in-transit). An important step now must also be a review of the
RA and PBS process for each country to ensure that best practices are captured and lessons are
learned, and due consideration to be given to an International Workshop to share and discuss findings.
This could be done through the wrap-up workshops which are planned for 2003.
Component 4: Ballast Water Management Measures Rated 3,8
The IMO Guidelines have been successfully disseminated and, as far as can be judged, are being
followed and adhered to within each demonstration port. There is less clear information regarding the
adoption of the Model Shipboard Management plans. However, the shipping industry appears to be
highly supportive, and most of the demonstration ports are successfully collecting the required data
55
GloBallast Project Independent Mid Term Evaluation (MTE): Final Report, 31 March 2003
and ballast water exchange information. There have been some delays in the development of the
training packages. The Evaluators now understand that South Africa will almost certainly not be able
to meet its agreed target to deliver 5 of the 10 Train-X modules, and that Brazil may have to complete
all 10. There is still a need to move further on the R&D front to encourage rapid development of
treatment techniques. One of the concerns now is how long to continue with the voluntary guidelines
before actual Convention-related management plans can be put in place. The countries are unsure how
to react at present prior to the Convention and need some guidance.
Component 5: Compliance, Monitoring and Enforcement Rated 2.5
Clearly this component has fallen well behind the original expectations of delivery. This is a result of
the delay in moving forward with the draft Convention coupled to the reluctance (based on direct
guidance from IMO) on the part of most countries to adopt new or amended legislation on ballast
water control and management. Without clear national policies, laws and regulations, the countries
perceive it to be very difficult to make any progress in CME. Consequently, they are a long way from
completing the activities needed to bring them into a state of readiness for effective and sustainable
CME (procurement and use of equipment, designation of personnel, training, implementation of the
CME system, etc). Countries could have adopted interim legal measures in support of the voluntary
guidelines (as, in fact, at least two countries seem to be doing). However, this raises concerns
regarding the differences (in the final analysis) between the original IMO Guidelines and the draft
Convention. There seems to be an urgent need here to review the requirements of the CME
component in the context of the status of negotiations over the draft Convention, and to assess what
can and should be done between now and the end of the project. This should constitute a set of
guidelines to the countries, and may well require a revision and re-think of the component activities
and outputs in order to rationalise the delivery from this component with the status of the
development of the Convention, and national regulations and policies. This would be a valuable
example of support from both IMO and the PCU towards the pilot policy and CME development
process in each country.
Component 6: Regional Replication Rated 3.3
This Component has achieved significant success within the pilot-country regions that were seen to be
of the highest priority, notably Iran and Ukraine. These two countries (with the assistance of the PCU)
have created a regional recognition of the GloBallast Programme which has extended to the creation
of more formal agreements through action plans and through the designation of regional coordination
institutions (i.e. ROPME and the Istanbul Commission). The degree of success in engaging other
regional countries through other pilot countries varies considerably. Most are making efforts to
develop formal communications with their regional counterparts, and some have already planned
regional meetings to discuss the transfer of GloBallast lessons and to review institutional
arrangements. However, there is still much to be done before the regions can be considered to be
coordinated and functional as an effective presence under the GloBallast concept. In reviewing the
success criteria for this Component, it is not realistic to say that the programme outputs have been
fully adopted by other countries, that there is a fully functional and effective formal communication
system at the regional level, or that all of the programme regions are an effective presence in the
ballast water fora. Furthermore, any protection which the demonstration sites currently have against
non-compliance by competing ports is a reflection of the voluntary nature of current compliance
practices within the pilot countries (i.e. no competition has been created). However, this should be
viewed in the context of the complex and global nature of this project and the actual significance of
the regional achievements in replication which are exemplary in comparison to most other global
projects of this nature. Again, where shortfalls in delivery under this Component exist, these must be
seen in the context of inappropriate project design and not in the context of any inadequacies within
the project delivery and staff efforts. Three years was a far too optimistic assessment of the time
necessary for developing and consolidating such regional agreements, and the transfer of lessons and
experiences from the pilot countries. Obviously this Component is very dependent on the
56
5. Assessment of achievements and constraints
development and success of other project activities (i.e. there has to be `lessons and best practices'
before they can be replicated and transferred). This transfer of lessons from the pilot countries to
regional partners in GloBallast is a critical objective of the project. Careful thought must now be
given as to how this complicated and time-consuming process can now be improved and successfully
completed.
Component 7: Resources and Financing Rated 3.0
This Component is borderline between `Satisfactory' and `Good' reflecting a mixture of national
uncertainty (and, once again, inadequate guidance and shortfalls in project design), and the need to
place higher priority on delivery in other critical components in an environment of constrained human
resources. Actual resources and financing associated with supporting the IMO voluntary guidelines
have, to a large extent been identified. Potential resource and financing mechanisms are still
dependent on the Convention and how the text defines the resource requirements at the country level.
However, credit must be given to the countries for having started to adopt their own national
mechanisms for funding IMO guideline implementation and compliance. Although interested donors
have not specifically been identified, the generally widespread and high-quality awareness campaign
has almost certainly initiated and generated interest and will assist in this process at the necessary
time. Therefore, although there may be no specific commitments from donors, there is a high
expectation of support in view of the high profile and excellent awareness campaigns of the
GloBallast Programme. The International Donor Conference (as identified in the Project Document
and the PIP) must now be seen a high priority to ensure success under this Component.
General GEF Criteria Rated 4.3
An excellent rating for a GEF project. All of these criteria are being met and the project is providing
model examples in some cases.
The `In-kind' contributions to this project have been exceptional. There are some outstanding direct
contributions which should be made as per the UNDP ProDoc and these may not be entirely up-to-
date. However, this is overshadowed by the very real support given across all sectors by way of staff,
research, administration, equipment, office space, support for meetings. Etc.
The policy commitment to the project at the national level appears to be very good. There is still a
very real need for sensitisation at the highest political levels, and the need to ensure that awareness is
dynamic and proactive to safeguard against changes in senior positions. The danger here is losing
momentum whilst waiting for the Convention. National support for the Convention also appears to be
very strong across all national sectors. They know its coming and wish to meet it head-on with
strategies for successful implementation of relevant legislation and CME. The ship-owners are wary,
however, of the form of legislation and the cost of complying with the Convention. Responsibilities
for CME still need to be assigned.
Despite the lack of a donor conference so far, the potential for post-project funding must be high in
view of the successes so far of GloBallast and the high global profile. This is an assumption out of
necessity, but a fairly reasonable one based on available information.
National support for a Convention to address ballast water issues is high in all sectors (Government,
private, NGO, etc).
Stakeholder engagement has been excellent. There are still some main `players' missing in each
country and this needs to be acted on as soon as possible. All stakeholders have been directly involved
in project activities. This includes membership of the CPTFs, involvement in planning workshops,
involvement in actual field exercises, etc. The only down-side to this success criterion is that not
every main payer has been engaged. All project stakeholders have had the opportunity, where
57
GloBallast Project Independent Mid Term Evaluation (MTE): Final Report, 31 March 2003
possible, to be involved in the evaluation process. No-one was knowingly or deliberately excluded.
Time constraints may have made a fully comprehensive involvement impractical.
There are no signs that country information is being withheld from the project out of misplaced
sensitivity. Communications may not be all that would be desired however. Furthermore, there is no
evidence that information would not or is not being shared with global partners. Again, the necessary
communications and networking may not be ideal as yet.
58
6 Conclusions and recommendations arising from
the evaluation
Overall, the project has been remarkably successful, particularly in view of the initial constraints
inherent in the project design and the delays in the development and adoption of an International
Convention. An exceptionally high level of awareness has been achieved across most sectors at a
national and international level. The project has developed excellent websites, which are frequently
visited by stakeholders, and a variety of most effective awareness materials (posters, calendars,
brochures), which are on display in many institutes and agencies (academic, government, regional
organisations, etc) throughout the world. There is a strong level of awareness and understanding
throughout a diverse range of stakeholders, and a general level of strong support for the project that
has undoubtedly been developed through the activities undertaken by the project.
The overall execution, management and coordination of the project has been carried out in a
professional and diligent manner, an observation which is even more notable in view of the design
constraints (particularly funding and manpower) and delays in the Convention. The PCU deserves
credit for much of the drive behind keeping the project on-line and delivering. However, the in-
country staff (CFPS and their Assistants) made a lasting impression on the Evaluation Team with their
level of dedication and determination, and their desire to get the job done regardless of the efforts
required. In this respect, and bearing in mind some of the criticism arising from the earlier meetings,
the Evaluators were impressed with the ownership and professional bonding between the CFPs and
their Assistants that was noticeable at the 4th GPTF meeting.
Country support and commitment has been exemplary for a project of this nature and, indeed, for any
GEF International Waters project. Many countries are already embracing the concepts of ballast water
management within their national policies and regulations. All of the participating countries have also
committed substantial funding to ballast water activities, both within and beyond the demonstration
sites, and well beyond their commitments as recorded in the original signed Project Document.
Consistent with this commitment has been the high level of representative and pertinent stakeholder
participation through the CPTFs and through in-country activities and workshops.
As a consequence of these achievements, commitments and support, the project has laid a very solid
and enduring foundation for the long-term development and commitment to ballast water
management in the developing world and economies in transition, and for the support of the
forthcoming Convention. The activities and outputs of the various components have contributed to the
understanding of barriers and constraints to the implementation of ballast water management
strategies and approaches, and therefore to the on-the-ground implementation requirements for the
expected Convention. An unusual but most desirable side-product of the successes of this project (and
one not pre-conceived in the project design) is the model and unique nature of project deliveries in
providing support and direct input/steering to the development and drafting of a major international
Convention addressing both International Waters and Biodiversity issues as supported by GEF.
Undoubtedly, one of the more outstanding achievements of this project has been the impact that it has
had on the elaboration of the Ballast Water Convention itself, Input from the GloBallast project
(stemming from the basic GEF requirement of transparency and full participation) has assisted in
making the draft text of the Convention more acceptable to all stakeholders, especially the Member
State representatives. Furthermore, the very successful development of global partnerships and
understanding that the project has created regarding the ballast water issue, along with a general
global consensus of support for its activities, has laid the strongest possible foundations for paving the
way for an early entry-into-force for the Convention. We feel that this will become clear and evident
once the Convention becomes operational. In this respect, GEF should make every effort to capture
the lessons from this project as Best Practices in support of developing future MEAs and GEF-related
Conventions.
59
GloBallast Project Independent Mid Term Evaluation (MTE): Final Report, 31 March 2003
However, as with any project there have been some areas which have been less successful and some
constraints and hurdles which have reduced the overall efficiency and success of the project. It is
important to identify and address these, both for the sake of improving and fine-tuning the existing
project, and with a view to providing feedback to GEF as lessons captured from this project which
should be taken into consideration in future project design and implementation.
Any specific criticisms of project management and coordination must focus on the logistical and
administrative delays, which seem to be an unavoidable product of the manpower shortages already
identified, coupled with the unusually demanding bureaucratic requirements of the institute
supporting the project PCU. Such concerns with the overall project coordination and management
have focused on delays in contracting procedures, delays in disbursement of funds (e.g. to support
consultant-supported activities such as Risk Assessment and Port Baseline Surveys), inadequate
timelines allowed for project in-country activities (e.g. legal reviews, and the Evaluation process), and
inadequate communication procedures between the PCU, the country representatives and/or the field
consultants (e.g. excessive response times on email request for confirmation and/or information). In
turn, country responses to the PCU over requests for action on particular project deliverables have not
always been efficient, and in some cases have caused equal delays to PCU administrative procedures
and project outputs (e.g. delays in the nomination of counterparts for in-country field exercises,
nomination of inappropriate counterparts,).
On a more general level, the Evaluation has some concerns regarding the overall `end-ofproject'
landscape in relation to delays within certain components, and the overall delay in agreement over a
draft Convention text leading to postponement of the proposed dates for a diplomatic conference to
adopt the Convention. Although the latter issue is a political one which is clearly beyond the control
of the GEF project, regrettably it does impact on project delivery and the possible end-of-project
scenario.
Several stakeholders involved with the project to a greater or lesser degree have expressed concern
regarding the apparent lack of any effective mechanism within the Project Document to capture and
transfer best lessons and practices at the national level. This is perhaps more a reflection of the project
design, which concentrates on the full suite of supportive activities at the demonstration site, with far
less emphasis on how the outputs and successes at the demonstration sites can be replicated
throughout the rest of the ports in each of the 6 countries. Although there are obvious arguments
against expecting GEF to fund replication of project achievements at other national ports (incremental
cost eligibility, the concept of national versus global benefits, country commitment), it is still the
responsibility of a GEF project to show how its investments in demonstration activities will be
captured at the national and global level, and to identify the mechanisms, and indeed the sustainable
funding for such mechanisms, if that project is to be considered as having been successful in its
objectives. It is a creditable reflection on the commitment of the participating countries that many of
them have, indeed, taken the initiative to promote replication of ballast water management approaches
throughout their major national ports in the absence of such a clear mechanism. It is equally creditable
that, where national entities have chosen to do this, they have been supported in this strategy by the
PCU. However, a more clearly defined strategy for replication which identifies responsible bodies,
mechanisms and funding sources would be of enormous benefit to the pilot countries.
At a regional level, replication of project objectives and deliverables, although having made
significant steps, has also run into constraints as a result of aforementioned delays in country delivery
and the adoption of the Convention. There is, however, considerable variation in the level of success
with respect to regional engagement in the project. Both the country CFPs and the PCU must be given
significant credit for the widespread and effective awareness campaign which has led to many
countries approaching both the PCU and the demonstration-site countries with a view to wanting
direct involvement in the GloBallast project. At least three countries have been extremely proactive in
developing a high level of regional support for replication of the GloBallast processes, often through
the direct involvement of substantive regional organisations with a high profile.
60
6. Conclusions and recommendations arising from the evaluation
With regard to the ultimate objective of the project and its relation to the proposed Convention, the
Evaluation recognises the concern, and the need for the project to address this concern in a dynamic
and proactive manner. The delay in agreement over the draft Convention text and the subsequent
delay in adoption of the Convention itself has inevitably and logically led to a consequent delay in the
progress in those components related to legislation, compliance and enforcement, and (to some extent)
education, training and the development of national ballast water management plans. Countries which
are moving ahead with the adoption of the Guidelines into national policy and regulations are having
to do so cautiously so that any changes and amendments are not out of line with the final Convention,
which might risk the need for further and significant revision at a later date. These concerns are
discussed in more detail in that section (above) which reviews the legislative activities under
Component 4: Ballast Water Management Measures. Part of the problem lies in the fact that the
original IMO GloBallast Programme and its legal activities and outputs were developed before this
shift in direction relating to the Convention (i.e. It was initially believed that a future Convention
would essentially adopt the existing Guidelines). The Guidelines themselves are premised on a
technological and regulatory approach, and this is increasingly contrary to the general direction being
taken by the States negotiating the Convention. As a result, the GloBallast Programme has needed to
respond to these changes in direction in a dynamic and innovative manner, and now needs to react
effectively to any shift in emphasis which the dynamic process of Convention negotiation may be
causing with respect to the original Guidelines. This is particularly relevant to Component 5 on
Compliance, Monitoring and Enforcement, which has run into delays as a result of uncertainties
generated themselves by the delays in finalising the Convention text (and its inherent
guidance/directives on compliance monitoring and enforcement). These concerns focus now
particularly on what the end-scenario for the project will look like (especially with respect to
Component 5 on C, M & E) if there is no formal diplomatic agreement on the Convention text before
the project reaches the end of its life in approximately 12 months time.
As a result of the delays in the adoption of the Convention, as well as the directional changes in the
possible end-product vis-ą-vis national policy and legislative requirements, an unanticipated risk to
the project delivery and the ultimate project success has emerged and moved to the forefront of
project sustainability. In a commendable response to this situation, the pilot countries have taken the
opportunity to continue to build up the foundation for a new legal regime and thereby helped to pave
the way for easier and timely ratification of the Convention in its final form. In order to address the
concern they have put compliance, monitoring and enforcement on hold while actively implementing
all other activities in readiness for this new regime. Clearly there is now a need for a careful
reconsideration of the activities and deliverables within Component 5 to see if they can still be
achieved in time and what modifications or amendments might be in order to ensure their success,
This will require an `adaptive management' strategy on the part of the PCU and the countries.
However, this project has already shown itself to be very capable of such proactive adaptation to
oversights and new events and, in the opinion of the evaluators, can no doubt rise to this new
challenge. The real concern here must be the time limitations and we would urge the IAs and the EAs
to give the PCU every support in addressing and resolving this critical issue.
Recommendations arising from the GloBallast Mid Term Evaluation process
Based on the findings of the review of each component and its delivery, and on the overall
conclusions above, the Evaluators make the following recommendations for consideration by the
GPTF, and for implementation before, and beyond, the final closure of this project,
1 Improvements to existing project administration and coordination
A GPTF intersessional input to project
In order to maintain momentum, build ownership and ensure full participation there is a very real
need for intersessional involvement of the GPTF in the discussion and decision-making process
for project policy. The Evaluation recommends that the GPTF members engage in `round-robin'
feedback processes, teleconferences, and more intersessional reviews of documents pertaining to
61
GloBallast Project Independent Mid Term Evaluation (MTE): Final Report, 31 March 2003
policy and direction. This should not interfere in any way with the day-to-day coordination and
management of the project. Examples of important policy and directional decisions which this
process could assist include review and agreement of proposals for further activities beyond the
project lifetime (see recommendation 4).
B Improved international liaison and communications between the CFPs as well as the CFP-As
There is little evidence of any coordination or discussions between project staff from different
countries, yet this is an important opportunity for sharing lessons and best practices. One very
useful output from this could be sharing of awareness/educational materials developed at the
national level. The role of the PCU as the clearing-house should not be overlooked and this
information should always be lodged with the Coordinating Unit. The project might also consider
continued work with IW:LEARN to utilize strategies and technologies for intra-project
knowledge-sharing.
C Finalisation of Case Studies
It is now most urgent that the Case Studies are finalised and circulated to each country. This is an
example of where momentum has been lost (for reasons that can be related to resource shortages).
These Case Studies are now very important for sensitising policy-makers in each country (see
Recommendation 2.A).
D Additional resources for programme and draft Convention
Real attention must now be given to the need to concentrate the efforts of the PCU staff on direct
project activities in order to deliver the outputs on time. There is absolutely no criticism aimed at
the PCU in respect of this recommendation but their services and time have been diluted in order
to respond to the multitude of issues and questions arising from the Convention process and
global ballast water issues per se. As a consequence, the PCU has started to act and to be treated
as some sort of pre-Convention Secretariat. It is not the function of a PCU coordinating a GEF
project to service the needs and demands very often originating from developed countries. This
should now be IMO's role (i) as part of their commitment to developing the Convention, and (ii)
as part of their `in-kind' value given to the project as an Executing Agency. It now seems vital
that additional resources (human and funding) need to be identified to support this process and
this may be the time for the Implementing Agency, the Executing Agency and the PCU to sit and
resolve this issue, possibly with serious consideration given to attracting the interest of other
donors, many of whom are interested in supporting the programme and the Convention. It should
be noted, however, that the ultimate decision on a support structure to implementation of the
Convention lies in the hands of the Contracting parties to the Convention and would probably not
be agreed upon until the first Conference of the Parties; presumably the parties would mandate
IMO with certain Convention-related functions and IMO would request additional contributions
from its member states to cover such function. So while the project Executing and Implementing
Agencies might act to `urge' such `mainstreaming' of Convention support functions, it is
important to remember that it is primarily the responsibility of the contracting parties to ensure
such mechanisms are put in place.
2 Rationalisation of activities that are behind schedule as a result of inappropriate project
design
A Targeted
awareness
Although the project has done an excellent job of awareness-raising at both the national and
international level, there is now a need to focus on sensitising national policy-makers. This is
particularly important now to build national and regional support for implementation and
compliance to the Convention, and to consolidate the achievements of the project so far.
Countries should now focus on the development of an awareness package aimed specifically at
the top-level decision-makers in government and the private sector (e.g. shipping industry). These
packages can be tailored to the needs of the country using country-specific input and examples
which are more sensitive to national political concerns and understandings. Selected information
62
6. Conclusions and recommendations arising from the evaluation
from the Case Studies and from the Risk Assessment Component would be most valuable and
effective within this package. Emphasis should be given to invasive species threats in terms of
lost revenue and investments, costs of remediation, damage to markets, loss of jobs, and other
socio-economic impacts. Project staff should give careful consideration (possibly assisted by the
PCU) to the best mechanism for delivery at the national level so as to ensure the greatest impact.
B Engagement of missing stakeholders
Although the GloBallast project stands as a model for stakeholder involvement and participation,
there are still important groups which are not fully represented at each national level, usually
despite attempts to engage them in the project. Capturing their participation is particularly
important in view of the need to ensure that national ballast water management policy and
strategy is an integrated approach, with effective coordination and management, and sharing of
information across all sectors. The role of IMO as the Executing Agency for the project could be
of enormous value as they could approach each pilot country through a parallel formal letter
updating relevant stakeholders in each country on the status of the Convention, and the need to
work together to support and adopt this critical agreement. The input of the CFPs will be critical
in this process in order to access the necessary stakeholders, and to handle the situation
diplomatically and avoid any possible offence or misconception.
C Review of the risk assessment component
Both the stakeholders in-country and the consultants for PBS and RA have identified the need to
review the activities within this component to identify any gaps, identify the need for further
surveys in order to strengthen and sustain capacity, and to identify mechanisms and
responsibilities for long-term monitoring related to these activities. Each country should
undertake this exercise in coordination and liaison with the consultants and produce a brief
overview and workplan to address these needs. The consultants and the countries have requested a
`wrap-up' workshop to review the activities, to capture lessons, and to discuss the way forward
for each country. The PCU has supported this need. A sequential plan-of-action needs to be
defined to guide the countries through this process to the workshop stage, and funding for the
workshop will need to be identified. A document for presentation at an international workshop
could be developed by each country with two representatives going forward to present their
document/proposed workplan.
D Strengthening regional replication
Each country should now develop a workplan showing how it intends to move forward with its
regional replication activities. This plan should be built around a realistic timeframe (even if this
extends beyond the existing project lifetime). This will be an important moment in which to
coordinate between the pilot countries and for those countries more advanced in the regional
replication process to share their experiences with others. These work-plans will also be of
enormous benefit in assisting with the realisation of Recommendation 4 (below).
E Review of possible financial mechanisms for ballast water management
Countries have expressed the wish to explore the options for financing ballast water management
and the capture of revenues for the same. They wish to see what other countries are doing in this
respect. The countries, along with the PCU should review how other countries control and finance
CME for ballast water management, and for similar international agreements and conventions
(including other IMO Conventions, annexes and protocols). The findings of such a review would
make a valuable contribution to Recommendation 4 (below).
F Review of sustainable institutional arrangements for ballast water management
Each country, through its Lead Agency, should undertake a survey of its institutions and
personnel that are dealing with (or are most likely to deal with) ballast water issues. This survey
should identify the roles, responsibilities and relationships of such institutes/persons. It should
define an acceptable and integrated management and coordination mechanism for ballast water
63
GloBallast Project Independent Mid Term Evaluation (MTE): Final Report, 31 March 2003
management once a Convention has been adopted. This information would also make a valuable
contribution to Recommendation 4 (below).
3 Rationalisation of project activities constrained by the absence of an agreed convention
It would now be valuable to review those activities that have been delayed or affected in some way by
the delays in the adoption of the Convention. This is particularly important in view of the fact that the
project expected the Convention to be adopted shortly after it began implementation in 1999. In
considering the following recommendation points (A-C) the project needs to prepare itself to act
swiftly and effectively in its final months to respond to any final draft text of the Convention. This
response must include immediate action (once the text has been clarified) to implement Component 5
on Compliance, Monitoring and Enforcement as far as is feasible and possible within the remaining
time-constraints and resources available. To some extent this will also apply to the need to update
training requirements and ballast water plans based on the final Convention text.
A Review of CME component
Adoption of CME systems and most of the activities under this component are, too some extent,
dependent on the final format of the Convention. The 3rd GPTF agreed that the progress of the
draft Convention and the CME activities are directly linked, and that therefore the CME activities
should be re-scheduled until after a Convention has been adopted. It would be appropriate now for
the project to review this situation and to act dynamically (where appropriate) to identify how the
CME components can achieve an acceptable measure of delivery and success. This could include
a comparison of the existing IMO Guidelines with the latest text for the draft Convention, as well
as the expectations from the shipping industry and IMO. This review should (i) define what short-
term measures could be taken within the IMO Guidelines that would be unlikely to need
significant amendment after a new Convention is adopted, (ii) develop and implement a short-
term action plan to adopt such CME methods and strategies, (iii) Define what will need to be
postpones and re-scheduled for after a Convention is adopted. This latter activity would then input
into Recommendation 4 (below). Due consideration must be given here to different legislative and
regulatory requirements which are likely to apply to the latest text of the draft Convention versus
the original IMO Guidelines.
B Review of training needs
Training is likely to be directly affected by the final contents of the draft Convention. Again, there
is a concern that the project is developing training modules addressing the Guidelines, which will
no longer be appropriate when the Convention is adopted. However, Train-X allows for easy
changes to the module's content and the modules are being written, wherever possible, with due
attention to the provisions of the draft Convention. In view of the on-going delays in the drafting
and agreement on the new Convention, a comparison of the most probably training requirements
for the draft Convention with those being developed under Train-X would help to understand and
address and differences which might arise. Once again, this information would make a valuable
input to Recommendation 4 (below).
C Review of ballast water plans
As for A & B above, it would also be valuable to review what each country has done, and what it
intends to do before the end of the project, with respect to both shipboard and port-specific ballast
water management plans. Again, the final Convention text will have a direct impact upon how
effective such plans can really be. Once more, this information should input to Recommendation
4 (below).
4 Re-scheduling of convention-related activities and full regional replication to a follow-up
project phase
Two constraints have affected the implementation of this project, and are likely to have an even
greater affect as the project reaches its final stage. One of these is the original project design, and the
other is the unexpected but quite prolonged delay in agreement on a draft Convention text leading to
64
6. Conclusions and recommendations arising from the evaluation
adoption of the Convention. It is important to reiterate that both of these constraints are exogenous to
the various entities involved in the implementation of the project, the PCU, CFPs, etc. These
constraints represent unanticipated risks that the project must now endeavour to address through a
process of adaptive management.
Undoubtedly the original project design was far too optimistic in its expectations of delivery when
considered against the human and financial resources allocated, and the time-frame. This has resulted
in a number of delays in outputs which Recommendation 2 attempts to address through review and
conclusion. However, in doing so it is inevitable that these conclusions will identify two simple
options. The first is that delivery on these outputs will not be achieved, as there is insufficient time or
resources under the existing project. The second is that the outputs can be achieved as planned, but
only through an additional input of time and resources.
The delays in the Convention could not have been foreseen, although a more cautious approach within
the design of the project and the initial implementation of activities might have attempted to address
this. In view of the prolonged nature of the delays it is unlikely that any successful strategy could have
resolved this situation. The future Convention appears likely revolve around a flag-state based
International Certificate rather than the combined ship management and port based risk assessment
system provided in the Guidelines. In any event, port baseline studies and laboratories and inspections
to assess risk may well be beyond the financial and resources (equipment and human) capacity of
most countries (not just the pilot countries used in the project). It should be noted that the port-based
approach may tend to shift the onus for risk decisions to the port country government (and therefore
may affect future liability for decisions which may prove wrong) while the Certificate system tends to
place primary responsibility to the flag state and/or ship itself. In short, there is still much to be
discussed and agreed and so much of this has a direct bearing on the project's activities and delivery.
This situation should be considered in light of the excellent and exemplary progress made within
those activities and outputs that are not so directly dependent upon the text of the Convention, and
which (mainly as a result of sheer determination and dedication at the national and international level)
have not been affected by resource and time constraints. In many ways this project is a model
example to GEF of global cooperation and participation, and enormous strides have been taken in
promoting awareness, building capacity, creating a global partnership, developing regional plans for
ballast water, effective and transparent stakeholder participation, etc. So many of these represent GEF
criteria that it is hard to consider any regional or international project that has met so many of GEF's
strict requirements in such a short time across such a large geographical area.
Taking all of the above concerns into consideration, this Evaluation can only reach one logical
conclusion. This project needs:
· A review of activities to see what can now realistically be achieved within the remaining short
timeframe (see relevant outputs from Recommendations 2 and 3 above)
· An assessment and synopsis of what the likely requirements of the Convention will be in
relation to the existing IMO Guidelines
· The development of a new project focused on regional replication of best practices for ships'
ballast water management integrated in the broader context of aquatic invasive species
building on the existing investment, and excellent progress of this first project (GloBallast I)
The principle elements of such a second project should contain the following:
A The capture of lessons and best practices from GloBallast I.
B Consideration of the inputs to such a follow-up project from Evaluation Recommendations 2
and 3 with respect to regional replication workplans, training needs, and future national and
shipboard ballast water management plans.
65
GloBallast Project Independent Mid Term Evaluation (MTE): Final Report, 31 March 2003
C The execution of a Conference of Stakeholders to review the content and requirements of a
further project proposal, ensuring input to specific Conference Agenda items from the review
of financial mechanisms (recommendation 2.E.above, and the review of institutional
arrangements (recommendation 2.F. above), as well those items listed under 4.B. The original
project document identifies the need for a conference to discuss donor support and funding.
This newly-recommended Conference will undertake this role, but for a second project as
well as for long-term GloBallast sustainability.
The Evaluators feel strongly that there is a very real risk of losing GEF's investment in this vitally
important global initiative if such a second project is not considered. In this regard, it should be
recalled that the GEF (Operational Strategy) ranked invasive aquatic species as one of the four most
important threats to international waters, and it is widely agreed that ship ballast water is by far the
most dominant vector for transfer of invasive species. On the other hand, this recommendation is not
made lightly, and the Evaluators would not consider supporting any such further proposal if there was
a chance that GEF money would be wasted and that the overall global objectives might be anything
other than successful following this additional initiative. Furthermore, the Evaluators also feel
strongly that such a proposal would need to clearly and absolutely reflect the fact that this next phase
of GloBallast is building on the first phase, and not duplicating it. Emphasis should be made on
Implementation of regional Action Plans to support the Convention, on the capture of the lessons and
practices from GloBallast I, on building regional and global partnerships with related initiatives and
programmes.
The Evaluators would like to extend their gratitude to all stakeholders who assisted them throughout
the world. We have been treated with every possible hospitality and given every assistance. We also
greatly appreciated the opportunity to attend the 4th GPTF and to present a draft summary of the MTE
findings. It was most enlightening and valuable to be able to receive group feedback at that forum.
Please accept our heartfelt thanks!
66
7 Lessons from the evaluation for GEF to consider in
future project development
A Project
design
Generally, a more careful process of vetting is recommended for Project Design before approval. This
should consider all of the following requirements.
1 Timeframe: A realistic and justifiable time-scale based on a workable time schedule and
workplan. The need to fall within a pre-conceived budget bracket should NOT drive this. It is
better to reduce the project's objectives than to force a project into an unachievable (albeit
theoretically tidy and logical) set of deliveries.
2 Human resources: The human resources allocated to a project through the ProDoc needs very
careful consideration. Many projects have been handicapped by laudable and realistic objectives
and outputs, which were unachievable as a result of insufficient and/or inappropriate staff. This is
an area of a project that is classically underestimated. The commitment of support from the
Executing Agencies and the potential for support from other donors or NGOs should be more
thoroughly explored. Careful consideration must be given to staffing levels within the Project
Coordination Unit. These must be realistic for the responsibilities and deliveries required and
must relate to the regional and global nature of projects, where considerably more effort and
travel is required for successful coordination. National staffing levels and responsibilities need
careful consideration also. A Country Focal Point provided by a government agency cannot be
expected to run the project at the national level. Such a person has their own responsibilities and
duties to government, and must be given a dedicated full-time assistant at the very least.
3 Financial resources: Funding for project activities must be more carefully estimated so as to be
adequate and appropriate. Again, the need to fall within a pre-conceived budget bracket should
NOT drive this (although it nearly always does). There is little point in writing-in a project output
if there will be insufficient finances available to deliver such an output. This relates directly to
project timeframe and human resources (1 & 2 above).
4 Stakeholder participation: Stakeholders to projects often represent organisations with very
limited financial resources. This can prevent their effective participation in project workshops and
meetings. The need to allocate financial support for such important participation should be taken
into account when creating the project budget and should be identified as a priority within the
ProDoc.
5 Administrative streamlining: Executing Agencies need to streamline their administration
procedures and avoid unnecessary bureaucratic delays when dealing with projects facing strict
deadlines, as opposed to their normal day-to-day procedures. The Implementing Agency needs to
resolve acceptable procedures with the EA at the inception stage. Production of an early national
workplan by each country should allow the EA to approve pre-agreed expenditures to a realistic
ceiling level, and to agree on consultancy requirements (national workplans should therefore
include ToRs for all expected consultancies) to streamline the procuring and contracting
processes.
6 National capacity assessment: The PDF phase should undertake a clear and precise assessment
of national capacities to carry out proposed activities. This is essential not only for the long-term
success and sustainability of the project once implemented, but also as a vital aid to defining
human resource/consultancy requirements and therefore a realistic project budget.
7 Roles and responsibilities: The responsibilities and functions of all project Committees, Task
Forces, Working Groups and individual project staff need to be clearly defined within the ProDoc
(both to avoid any later confusion and dispute, and to save time at a later stage in trying to get
67
GloBallast Project Independent Mid Term Evaluation (MTE): Final Report, 31 March 2003
such ToRs developed by the countries). In the case of `in-kind'-contributed personnel, the relative
position of that person within an organisation is also important and should be specified. This is
particularly important in the case of Country Focal Points. Obviously it is the prerogative of the
country itself to nominate such a person, but clear guidance should be given on the most
appropriate existing level of such a person within government (e.g. A line-manager. Not too
senior or that person will not be able to give any attention to project. Not too junior as the person
must have access to policy-makers). It should also be made clear that the government agency or
department seconding such a person to project activities will make arrangements to allow that
person time to work on the project (albeit voluntarily).
8 Letters of endorsement: The need to approach countries during the project implementation stage
for their signatures to additional MoUs and LFCs causes additional frictions and delays which can
be quite harmful to the all-important process of building trust and project ownership at the early
stages of implementation. It would be far more effective if the countries were to sign the original
UNDP Project Document thereby agreeing to the contents in total. Although this may take
additional time in finalising the GEF requirements prior to implementation, this would be more
than balanced by the saving in time, the avoidance of friction, and the need to prevent the
inevitable re-visiting of project deliverables during project implementation
9 Contracting of persons in national employment: The Implementing Agencies need to reach a
clear understanding of the definition of there own policies on the hiring of national experts in
existing government or academic employment. Such a definition of the policy, while needing to
be accurate, also needs to be pragmatic and address the need for the input from such experts (who
are frequently the only specialist in-country), while recognising the politically-correct policy of
not paying nationally-salaried staff, or of creating competition between GEF and Government for
staff services. This definition should then be unambiguously clarified in the ProDoc to avoid
further delays and frictions in project implementation.
B Project
implementation
1 Training on IA rules/regulations: Relevant staff should be given direct training on
administrative, procurement and contracting procedures as required by the Implementing Agency.
This should happen at the inception stage to avoid many of the inherent delays and
misunderstandings caused by these processes. In the case where UNDP is the IA, UNDP Country
Offices can provide this service and this should be clarified within the project document.
2 Realistic timeframes and funding for international experts: Assuming that the timeframes and
funds for such activities have been properly assessed and realistically reflected in the original
ProDoc, the EA must ensure that such funds are available to support consultancy activities and
that sufficient time is allowed for these activities. This funding requirement does not just refer to
the salaries of consultants but to the need to provide support to the activity by way of equipment,
transport, translation facilities, meeting facilities, etc. Similarly, the time requirement does not
only refer to the available time of the consultant, but also to the need for equipment to be procured
and arrangements for meetings and transportation to be made well in advance to support the
relevant activity (see also Recommendation A1, A2, A3).
3 Counterpart selection/identification: Counterparts working on specific activities (often
alongside International Experts) need to be selected and approved well in advance of the activity
starting. Lead Agencies in-country need to be given a clear definition of the purpose and function
of such a counterpart, qualification requirements, availability vis-ą-vis the timeframe of the
activity, and expected country support to that counterpart (equipment, laboratory facilities,
transport, per diem allowances, etc). International Experts, who will be working on or overseeing
the activity for which the counterpart will be engaged, should assist in the preparation of this list
of requirements.
68
7. Lessons from the evaluation for GEF to consider in future project development
4 UNDP Country Office role: In specific cases where UNDP is the Implementing Agency, the
support role of the UNDP Country Offices should be clearly defined and agreed with those
offices. One of their main functions should be providing assistance with administrative procedures
controlled by the Rules and Regulations of the IA. These include procurement of equipment,
salary levels, and staff contracting. However, in all fairness to the UNDP Country Offices, they
must receive compensation from the EA for such execution-related support services; this is the
agree procedure and requires a negotiation between the CO and the EA and comes out of the EA
support costs
C GEF support to international agreements
The lessons learned from this current project are particularly valuable to GEF as this is probably the
first instance of a GEF project providing capacity building and technical assistance in parallel to the
development of a significant global Treaty, as is the draft Convention on Ballast Water. One clear
lesson from this has been the problem caused by the delay in the Convention. The project was
designed on the basis of a Convention being approved during the first year of implementation.
Because this did not happen, selected activities are on-hold. In future it would be advisable to design
such a project in support of Convention or Treaty development and implementation into those two
phases. In other words, the project should address the development phase first, creating and
supporting demonstrations specifically to provide lessons and experience to provide input to the
development process of the Convention/Treaty. Then, a separate phase or project should deal with the
implementation of the Convention/Treaty vis-ą-vis full application of Convention requirements at the
pilot/national level followed by transfer of lessons and practices on a regional/global level.
The real concern here is to design the process in such a way that it can be flexible to the inevitable
delays which will be experienced in the design and adoption of any International Agreement of this
nature, while still delivering valuable outputs within GEF's guidance and criteria.
69
Appendix 1:
Description of assessment of project
impacts from the 2002 Project
Implementation Review
Appendix 1: Description of assessment of project impacts from the 2002 Project Implementation Review
(Taken from the GloBallast Project Implementation Review, June 2002)
The GloBallast project, a cooperative initiative of the Global Environment Facility, the United
Nations Development Programme and the International Maritime Organisation commenced in March
2000 and this review covers the period until June 2001.
The project is firmly engaged to deliver the development objectives as described in the ProDoc, and
the establishment of the Project Coordination Unit (PCU) at the IMO headquarters in London was the
first step towards achieving this goal. The three-person unit comprises the Chief Technical Adviser,
the Technical Adviser and the Administrative Assistant. During the reviewed period it became clear
that the workload was in many cases underestimated, and additional secretarial support was engaged,
on a temporary basis.
The first major task of the PCU was to review the original Project Document and develop an
operational Project Implementation Plan (PIP). The plan was reviewed by the 1st Global Project Task
Force (CPTF) in July 2000 and approved by UNDP and IMO. Implementation of activities is now
proceeding in accordance with the PIP. The PCU established a global information/communication
network, information resource centre and clearinghouse function. This was meant to assist increased
dissemination and communication of ballast water management issues (two ways) to and from
relevant stakeholders.
In spite of some delays in transferring the necessary funds to the pilot countries the institutional in-
country arrangements were completed and the Lead Agencies and the Country Project Task Forces
(CPTF) are currently operational. Senior officials have been appointed by all the participating
governments to act as Country Focal Points (CFP) and CFP assistants were recruited in all the six
countries. PCU produced guidelines for CPTFs providing each country with a standardised framework
for the roles and functions, membership and structure of CPTFS and how to run CPTF meetings. It is
notable that all the CPTFs comprise a broad range of stakeholders, including representatives of
ministries, industry, NGOs and academia. Through a highly participatory process and with direct
assistance from PCU the CPTFs developed their National Workplans and budgets and the local
activities are currently conducted in accordance with the approved National Plans.
All six participating countries have commenced inspection of ships calling at their established
demonstration sites and collect on a systematic basis the IMO reporting forms recommended in the
IMO guidelines. The information is currently stored and processed electronically in three of the pilot
countries and two countries have already enforced these activities through ministerial ordinances and
local regulations. Two countries are currently contemplating the extension of inspection regimes at
national level and the establishment of national databases.
It has become increasingly evident that the GloBallast project has steadily gained essential credibility
and momentum in the international arena. Significant progress has been made in building "win-win"
relationships with other UN programmes and GEF sister projects. Cooperative relationships were
established with the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Train- Sea- Coast
project of DOALOS and the GEF-Caspian Environment Programme. Exploratory discussions are
currently taking place with UNEP Mediterranean Action Plan and Black Sea Environment
Programme.
IMO's commitment towards supporting the GloBallast project and adopting the ballast water
convention is in line with the objective of the Contaminant-Based Operational Programme regarding
involvement of UN agencies in global projects.
The direct contributions to the short-term objectives of the above GEF Operational Programme
include:
· Providing new technologies for ballast water treatment
· Comprehensive capacity building to deal with port baseline surveys and risk assessments.
1
GloBallast Project Independent Mid Term Evaluation (MTE): Final Report, 31 March 2003
· Gradual removal of the barriers to the effective implementation of ballast water control and
management measures; and
· Adoption of the best practices for minimising the transfer of harmful aquatic organisms and
pathogens.
The incremental costs associated with development of new technology for ballast water treatments
and the costs associated with the establishment of an information sharing mechanism in Brazil and
China are examples of outputs from the GloBallast project in the Operational Programme No.10.
While adherence to the IMO guidelines would result in the significant reduction in the threat posed by
uncontrolled ballast water release, compliance with voluntary guidelines may not be totally efficient,
and in many cases, is difficult to enforce. Consequently one of the priorities of IMO is the completion
and adoption of the international convention to regulate and monitor ballast water issues. Due to the
complexity of such an instrument the adoption of the convention was postponed for the second half of
2003, which falls beyond the lifespan of the GloBallast project. If the parties involved, including pilot
countries, IMO and ultimately UNDP and GEF will not be able to bridge the gap between the
termination of the project and the adoption of the convention, GloBallast will not succeed in
achieving the development objective and will remain a theoretical exercise with very limited practical
impact.
2
Appendix 2:
List of persons interviewed
or consulted during the
Mid Term Evaluation
Appendix 2: List of persons interviewed or consulted during the Mid Term Evaluation
PCU
Dandu Pughiuc, Chief Technical Advisor
Steve Raaymakers, Technical Advisor
Brazil
Robson Jose Calixto, Representative of Country Focal Point
Alexandre de C Leal Neto, Country Focal Point Assistant
Fernando S. N. De Araujo, Chief of Environmental Section, Brazilian Navy
Flavio da Costa Fernandes, Chief Scientist, Sea Studies Institute of Admiral Paulo
Moreira
China
Liu Gongchen, Executive Director, Maritime Safety Administration
Zheng Heping, Country Focal Point, Deputy Director General of China MSA
Zhao Dianrong, Country Focal Point Assistant
Wang Bin, Division Director, China State Oceanic Administration (SOA)
Fang Zhiqiang, Deputy Division Chief, China State Inspection and Quarantine
Administration
Fan Enyuan, Deputy Director Research Institution, Fishery Authority, Ministry of
Agriculture
Wei Jingtian, Senior Officer, Department of International Cooperation, Ministry of
Communications
Wang Weibin, Deputy Director, Engineering Department, COSCO Shipping
Company
Gao Jie, Director, Environment Protection Center, Ministry of Communications
Lao Hui, Consultant, Environment Protection Center MOC
Xu Shiming, Senior Officer, China MSA
Yang Chun, Deputy Director General Liaoning MSA
Zhao Dexiang, Division Director of Control of Pollution from Ships, Liaoning MSA
Zhang Jiuxin, Deputy Director of Control of Pollution from Ships, Delegate to
MEPC BW Working Group, Liaoning MSA
Xu Xiaoman, Environment Officer, Liaoning MSA
Jiang Yuewen, Manager, Port Baseline Survey, Marine Environment Monitoring
Center of SOA
Wang Lijun, Biologist, Marine Environment Monitoring Center of SOA
Guo Hao, Biologist, Marine Environment Monitoring Center of SOA
Zhang Shuohui, Professor, Dalian Maritime University
Dang Kun, Associate Professor, Dalian Maritime University
Liu Yan, Database Officer, Liaoning MSA
India
Sanjoy Chakrabarty, Country Focal Point
Geeta Joshi, Country Focal Point Assistant
A.C. Anil, Head of Marine Corrosion and Material Research, National Institute of
Oceanography
Sanjay V. Deshmukh, Director of Research, Rambhau Mhalgi Prabodhini (NGO)
U.B. Ranadive, Principal Surveyor, Indian Register of Shipping
J.K. Dhar, Extra First Class Engineer and Vice Principal LBS College of Advanced
Maritime Studies and Research
A. W. Karkare Master Pilot, Mumbai Port Trust
Thekkekere Narayana, Principal of the Shipping Corporation of India Ltd
S. B. Kundargi. General Manager of the Shipping Corporation of India Ltd
Iran
Hassan Taymourtash, Country Focal Point
Yavari Vahid, Country Focal Point Assistant
Nasser Kayvanrad, Marine Environment Expert, Ports and Shipping Organisation,
Ministry of Road and Transport
Farrokh Nejad, Senior Berthing Master, National Iranian Offshore Oil Company
1
GloBallast Project Independent Mid Term Evaluation (MTE): Final Report, 31 March 2003
South Africa Lynn Jackson, Country Focal Point
Adnan Awad Country Focal Point Assistant
Jimmy Norman, Pollution Officer, NPA Saldanha Port
Gavin Durrel, South African Ship Owners Association
Charles Griffiths, Zoology Department, University Of CapeTown
Ukraine
Vladimir Rabotnyov, Country Focal Point
Sergey Limanchuk, Country Focal Point Assistant
Igor Borovskyy, Head of Ecology Division, Odessa Sea Commercial Port
Roman Bashtannyy, State Inspector, Shipping Safety Inspectorate of Ukraine
Prof. Yuvenaliy Zaitsev, Odessa Branch, Institute of Biology of Southern Seas
Others
Roger Lankester, Friends of the Earth, International Oceans Division
Alec Bilney. International Chamber of Shipping, UK
Carl Gustaf Lundin, Head of Global Marine Programmes, IUCN
Iain Chadwick, Oil Companies International Maritime Forum
Tim Wilkins, INTERTANKO
Marnie Campbell, GloBallast Port Baseline Consultant, Marine Ecologist, Corporate
Process Management, Australia
Robert Hilliard, GloBallast Risk Assessment Consultant, Principal Marine
Environmental Scientist, URS Dames and Moore, Australia
Moira McConnell, GloBallast Legal Consultant, Professor of Law and Professor of
Maritime Affairs, World Maritime University, Sweden
2
GloBallast Project Independent Mid Term Evaluation (MTE): Final Report, 31 March 2003
South Africa Lynn Jackson, Country Focal Point
Adnan Awad Country Focal Point Assistant
Jimmy Norman, Pollution Officer, NPA Saldanha Port
Gavin Durrel, South African Ship Owners Association
Charles Griffiths, Zoology Department, University Of CapeTown
Ukraine
Vladimir Rabotnyov, Country Focal Point
Sergey Limanchuk, Country Focal Point Assistant
Igor Borovskyy, Head of Ecology Division, Odessa Sea Commercial Port
Roman Bashtannyy, State Inspector, Shipping Safety Inspectorate of Ukraine
Prof. Yuvenaliy Zaitsev, Odessa Branch, Institute of Biology of Southern Seas
Others
Roger Lankester, Friends of the Earth, International Oceans Division
Alec Bilney. International Chamber of Shipping, UK
Carl Gustaf Lundin, Head of Global Marine Programmes, IUCN
Iain Chadwick, Oil Companies International Maritime Forum
Tim Wilkins, INTERTANKO
Marnie Campbell, GloBallast Port Baseline Consultant, Marine Ecologist, Corporate
Process Management, Australia
Robert Hilliard, GloBallast Risk Assessment Consultant, Principal Marine
Environmental Scientist, URS Dames and Moore, Australia
Moira McConnell, GloBallast Legal Consultant, Professor of Law and Professor of
Maritime Affairs, World Maritime University, Sweden
2
GloBallast Pr
Global Ballast Water
oject
Management Programme
Independent Mid T
e
rm Evaluation (MTE)
GloBallast Project
Independent Mid Term Evaluation (MTE)
Final Report
31 March 2003
Final Report
.dwa.uk.com
Global Ballast Water
Management Programme
More Information?
l (+44) 020 7928 5888 www
e
Programme Coordination Unit
Global Ballast Water Management Programme
International Maritime Organization
4 Albert Embankment
London SE1 7SR United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0)20 7587 3247 or 3251
est & Associates, London. T
Fax: +44 (0)20 7587 3261
Web: http://globallast.imo.org
A cooperative initiative of the Global Environment Facility,
United Nations Development Programme and International Maritime Organization.
Cover designed by Daniel W