RER/01/G33/A/1G/31: Control of eutrophication, hazardous substances and related measures for rehabilitating the Black Sea ecosystem: Phase2
Appendix G Letters from the Ministries on Countries' Inputs
Project Document for Phase II (Tranche 2)
141
March 2004
Document 75302-2003 EN
Page 1 of 2
Supplement to the
Official Journal
of the European Union
current language
data
02/05/2003 S85 PHARE, TACIS and countries of Central and Easter
Tender notice
Go to paragraph: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.
B-Brussels: Tacis - investment facility for the Black Sea
2003/S 85-075302
Service contract forecast
Georgia, Russia and Ukraine.
1. Publication reference: EuropeAid/116448/C/SV/Multi
2. Procedure: Restricted.
3. Programme: Tacis.
4. Financing: Regional environmental programme 2002.
5. Contracting authority: European Commission, on behalf of beneficiary c
Brussels.
6. Nature of contract: Technical assistance.
7. Contract description: The objective of this facility is to support investme
pollution remediation affecting the Black Sea and its basins.
Main components are:
- to assist in identifying high priority, high impact environmental investme
- to assist in identifying so called 'win-win' investments;
- to support planned loans with feasibility and pre-feasibility studies.
8. Indicative maximum budget: 4 000 000 EUR.
9. Intended timing of publication: June 2003.
10. Additional information: Not applicable.
11. Legal basis: EC Council Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 99/2000 of 29.12.1
concerning the provision of assistance to the partner states in eastern Eur
central Asia.
Remarks:
There must be a minimum period of 30 calendar days between the publication o
forecast and the publication of the corresponding procurement notice.
No applications or requests for information should be sent at this stage.
http://ted.publications.eu.int/dynamic/doccur/en/en/WrO5/0/75302-2003.htm?CDBNR=...
08/03/2004
RER/01/G33/A/1G/31: Control of eutrophication, hazardous substances and related measures for rehabilitating the Black Sea ecosystem: Phase2
Overview
P Inadequate management during Phase 1 with This is very much appreciated by the PIU. Interventions to improve the situation are:
respect to coordination and performance
· The CTA and Deputy Manager of the Project have additional related tasks for the monitoring
monitoring
and evaluation of the progress in the project implementation;
· A set of process indicators for the monitoring and implementation of the project are being
developed and currently under discussion between the DRP, BSERP, ICPDR, BSC. This
activity will be completed before the start of Phase 2
· The involvement of each riparian country in monitoring and evaluation of the project
implementation has increased through regular (monthly) reporting by each Country Team
Leader. This was introduced in Nov 2003.
· Quarterly reporting by the PIU on the project's progress will be initiated in Phase 2. The
recipients of the progress report will be members of the Project Steering Committee.
· The project management team have planned additional visits to each riparian country in order
to discuss project implementation issues with the Black Sea Commissioners, National
Coordinators, and country project office staff.
R Possible choice between hiring additional Recommended option is not to drop any activities, since they have been agreed and supported by the
support staff/experts versus dropping certain countries, as well as by international commissions (BSC, ICPDR). The preferred choice of the PIU
activities or outputs
would be to increase the budget of the project sufficiently to allow support for an additional professional
international staff member with experience in eutrophication and nutrient dynamics. This idea has been
preliminary agreed with the UNDP's Principal Technical Advisor for International Waters.
Istanbul, Turkey
March 5th, 2004
Project Document for Phase II (Tranche 2)
March 2004
274
RER/01/G33/A/1G/31: Control of eutrophication, hazardous substances and related measures for rehabilitating the Black Sea ecosystem: Phase2
Appendix O Countries Endorsement Letters
Project Document for Phase II (Tranche 2)
March 2004
275
MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION OF UKRAINE
35, Uryts'kogo str., Kyiv, 03035, Ukraine
03035, .
-35,
.
, 35
tel: 380 (44) 206 31 00
. (044) 206-31-00;
: (044) 248-49-33
fax: 380 (44) 248 49 33
To: Mr. Patrick J. Reynolds
Coordinator
UNDP-GEF Black Sea Ecosystem Recovery Project
Project Implementation Unit
Dolmabahce Sarayi, II. Hareket Kosku 80680 Besiktas
Istanbul - TURKEY
Tel: 90.212.310 29 17 (direct), 90.212.227 99 28
Fax: 90.212.227 99 33
February 16, 2004
Dear Mr. Reynolds,
Thank you very much for sending us the 2nd Phase BSERP Document. The
experts of the Ministry have reviewed this document and found it well prepared and
in general acceptable. In our opinion, in terms of expected results, this project
description is one of the best we ever dealt with. At the same time some comments
and proposals, depicted below, will serve to strengthen the implementation
mechanism of the Project and improve the quality of the results.
This letter is serve to inform you as well that we would be happy to provide the
letter of endorsement of the Project Document for Phase 2 activities on behalf of the
Ministry of Environmental Protection of Ukraine after incorporation of our
comments into Project proposals.
I do hope that GEF Council will approve these proposals and we will get new
opportunity and effective support for our joint efforts to improve Black Sea
environment. I do hope as well that PIU under your leadership is able to find the
proper way of management and allocate necessary resources to sustain PIU itsels
and National BSERP Office during interim period between 1st and 2nd phases of the
Project implementation.
Our comments:
1. We are glad to find that it is expected to implement Project activities involving
experts and professionals mainly from the region rather than rely upon international
consultants. At the same time we feel there are some contradictions between
outcomes expected from some activities and mechanism of their implementation. For
example, it seems to us that implementation of the item 4.1.7 (design and assist in
implementation of a pilot project for Black Sea VTOPIS, Table 14) will not be
possible without involvement of experts from Black Sea countries. Please reconsider.
2. In general, expected results of the Phase II are too ambitious in order to be
achieved within planned period of time and available PIU staff. In this regard, we
consider that national Project support structure will play exclusively important role in
2
facilitation of the Project activities at national level. On other hand, this
infrastructure is important also for strengthening the national capacities in the field of
marine environmental management and policy development, as well as for
accelerating the regional cooperation, which is in line with Project objectives.
It seems that Project designers clearly understand and support this approach
(items 91, 94, 96, 97, and others). Accordingly, corresponding funds have been
allocated in the budget for Phase II. Regretfully, allocations for the national Project
Support Structure (namly National BSERP Offices, line 1701 of table 13) can not be
accepted as an adequate, especially taking into account that there are no indications in
the budget about operational support costs. No funds were planned for the item 1.2.2
"Further establich and operate the Project Support Structure at national level ro
facilitate coopeartion between the BSERP and the National Commissioners..."
(Table 14). It means that inconsistency between 1st and 2nd Phases of the Project may
cause losses of the achieved results because sustainability of the Project support
structure at national level is still under threat of weakness of national institutional
structure and lack of national funding. We believe that Project should avoid this sad
option and request you to allocate relevant fund or foresee appropriate mechanism to
make this support system functioning.
3. Item 4.2.3 (Table 14): funding looks insufficient.
4. Item 106: It would be relevant to include the recommendations on how to
strengthen national legislation related to the ICZM into list of success criteria.
5. General remark: Time frame, in particularly, for activities scheduled for 2004,
evidently is not realistic. It's possible to keep as it is, but we realize that activities will
be delayed.
Please consider these comments and provide us with revised Project description
and explanation.
I am looking forward for successful cooperation.
Sincerely,
Dr. Anatoly Gristenko
Deputy Minister
National GEF Operational Phocal Point
UNDP-GEF Black Sea Ecosystem Recovery Project
Project Implementation Unit
Dolmabahce Sarayi, II. Hareket Kosku 80680 Besiktas, Istanbul - TURKEY
Tel: 90.212.310 29 24, 90.212.310 29 27
Fax: 90.212.227 99 33
e-mail: pjreynolds@blacksea-environment.org
web: www.bserp.org