PROJECT DEVELOPMENT FACILITY
REQUEST FOR PIPELINE ENTRY APPROVAL
AGENCY'S PROJECT ID:
GEFSEC P
FINANCING PLAN (US$)
ROJECT ID:
C
GEF A
OUNTRY: Regional: Albania, Algeria, Bosnia
LLOCATION
Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Egypt, FYR
Project (estimated)
US$ 85 million
Macedonia, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Serbia
Project Co-financing
US$ 250 million
and Montenegro, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, West
(estimated)
(leveraged)
Bank and Gaza
PDF A*
PROJECT TITLE: World Bank-GEF Investment
PDF B**
US$ 350,000
Fund for the Mediterranean Sea Large Marine
PDF C
Ecosystem Partnership
Sub-Total GEF PDF
Tbd
GEF AGENCY: World Bank
PDF CO-FINANCING (details provided in
OTHER EXECUTING AGENCY(IES):
Part II, Section E Budget)
DURATION: 6 years
IBRD/IDA/IFC
Tbd
GEF FOCAL AREA: International Waters
Government
Tbd
GEF OPERATIONAL PROGRAM: OP9, OP2
GEF S
Contribution
TRATEGIC PRIORITY: IW-1 Catalyzing
financial resources for implementation of agreed
Italy
US$ 100,000
actions; BD-1 Catalyzing sustainability of
Sub-Total PDF Co-
protected areas; BD-2 Mainstreaming
financing:
biodiversity in production landscapes and
Total PDF Project
sectors.
Financing:
ESTIMATED STARTING DATE: 2005
* Indicate approval date of PDFA:
ESTIMATED WP ENTRY DATE: JULY 2005
** If supplemental, indicate amount and date of
P
originally approved PDF:
IPELINE ENTRY DATE: (if applicable)
RECORD OF ENDORSEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT:
(Enter Name, Position, Ministry)
Date: (Month, day, year)
This proposal has been prepared in accordance with GEF policies and procedures and
meets the standards of the GEF Project Review Criteria for approval.
Emilia Battaglini, Regional Coordinator
Steve Gorman
and Task Team Leader
Tel.: (202) 473-3232
GEF Executive Coordinator, World Bank
Email: Ebattaglini@worldbank.org
Date: November 22, 2004
1
PART I - PROJECT CONCEPT
A SUMMARY
The World Bank and UNEP are proposing a GEF Strategic Partnership for the
Mediterranean Sea Large Marine Ecosystem to assist countries in implementing policy
reforms and priority investments that address transboundary pollution reduction and
biodiversity conservation priorities in hotspots as identified in two Strategic Action Plans
for the Mediterranean Sea. The Partnership would support capital investments, economic
instruments, implementation of policy reforms, strengthening of public institutions and
public participation through two elements: a regional technical assistance project,
implemented by UNEP and an Investment Fund, implemented by the World Bank.
The main objective of the proposed World Bank-GEF Investment Fund for the
Mediterranean Sea Large Marine Ecosystem Partnership is to facilitate the recipient
countries of the Mediterranean Sea basin in implementing their top transboundary
priority pollution reduction and habitat protection measures and contribute to reversing
the degradation of this large marine ecosystem and its freshwater basins. The Investment
Fund supported by the GEF with US$ 85 million grant financing over multiple tranches
and open to other donors' contributions is proposed as a vehicle for catalyzing
investments and accelerate urgent actions that are necessary for reducing pollution of the
Mediterranean Sea, and the Adriatic Sea in particular.
The Investment Fund would primarily finance investments that support achieving the
pollution reduction and biodiversity conservation targets agreed by the basin countries
under SAP MED and SAP BIO, including domestic and industrial wastewater treatment;
wetland restoration and/or construction; improved management of watershed and aquifers
for habitat conservation and pollution reduction; protection of endangered natural habitats
and sensitive areas. Projects will be selected according to eligibility criteria and overall
targets for the Investment Fund. The Investment Fund will be managed by the World
Bank.
A.1. CONTEXT - THE STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP FOR THE MEDITERRANEAN LARGE
MARINE ECOSYSTEM
The countries of the Mediterranean Sea basin1 face a variety of shared environmental
problems that are transboundary in nature. Key to the success in addressing
transboundary problems is the joint political commitment of all countries in the basin. To
1 Albania, Algeria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Cyprus, Egypt, France, Greece, Israel, Italy, Lebanon,
Libya, Malta, Monaco, Morocco, Serbia and Monte Negro, Slovenia, Spain, Syria, Tunisia, and Turkey, are
riparian countries. Bulgaria, FYR Macedonia and West Bank and Gaza are included as part of the broader
Mediterranean basin. SAPs have been endorsed by all riparian countries and the EU. All countries except
Cyprus, France, Greece, Israel, Italy, Malta, Monaco, Slovenia and Spain are eligible for GEF support.
2
this effect, the GEF Operational Strategy recognizes that a series of international water
projects may be needed over time to: a) build the capacity of countries to work together;
b) jointly understand and set priorities based on the environmental status of their water
body; c) identify actions and develop political commitment to address the top priority
transboundary problems, and then d) implement the agreed policy, legal and institutional
reforms and investments needed to address them.
With the support of the GEF, UNEP, UNEP/MAP, and FFEM, and consistent with the
GEF Operational Strategy, the Mediterranean countries have collaborated within the
context of the Barcelona Convention to revise the Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis2
prepared in 1997, and have agreed on the following major transboundary environmental
concerns for the basin:
· Decline of biodiversity due to over-fishing, conversion and degradation of critical
habitats, introduction of alien species, pollution in the form of excess nutrients,
toxic waste, including oil, solid waste and litter, and use of non-selective fishery
gears;
· Decline in fisheries due to over-fishing, use of harmful fishing practice, loss of
shallow-water habitats for some life stages of critical fisheries, adverse water
quality from rivers, coastal aquifers, sewage discharges, dredging, and non-point
discharges;
· Decline in seawater quality due to inadequate sewage treatment, lack of best
practices in agriculture use of fertilizers and pesticides, inadequate controls on
atmospheric emissions of heavy metals and persistent organic pollutants from
European industrial sources, inadequate source controls and discharge control for
industries along the sea, and increases in shipping traffic across the Mediterranean
with consequent increase in accidental and purposeful discharge of harmful
pollutants;
· Human health risks due to ingestion of seafood, ingestion of water while
swimming, contact with contaminated seafood products, and contact with
seawater contaminated with pathogens or viral agents;
· Loss of groundwater dependent coastal ecosystems due to the contamination,
salinization and over-exploitation of coastal aquifers.
The Mediterranean countries have worked together to set priorities related to these
transboundary problems and have jointly agreed on what interventions are needed to
address such priorities through two Strategic Action Programs (SAPs):
· The Strategic Action Program to Address Pollution from Land-Based Activities
(SAP MED); and
· The Strategic Action Program for the Conservation of Mediterranean Marine and
Coastal Biological Diversity (SAP BIO).
2 The Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) is a scientifically based assessment of the environmental
conditions of an internationally shared water-body, which identifies major problems, their causes, possible
solutions, and discriminates between those issues requiring international action (transboundary), and those
of an exclusively national nature.
3
The two Strategic Action Programs are aimed at: (i) reducing land-based sources of
marine pollution (SAP-MED) and (ii) protecting the biodiversity and living resources of
the Mediterranean, as well as their habitats (SAP-BIO)3. The two SAPs are now ready for
implementation, consistent with the GEF Operational Program 8 in the International
Waters focal area, and a third instrument, the ICM Protocol to the Barcelona Convention,
is under negotiation. Together the three instruments will help countries toward achieving
the MDGs and WSSD targets.
In order to accelerate on the ground implementation of the SAPs, and assist with the early
implementation of the ICM Protocol, a collective effort for the protection of the
environmental resources of the Mediterranean - the Strategic Partnership for the
Mediterranean Sea Large Marine Ecosystem - is being proposed by UNEP and the
World Bank to all the countries of the Mediterranean and to all international cooperation
Agencies, IFIs and bilateral and multi-lateral donors. The proposed Partnership which
builds upon the model and lessons learnt from the GEF Black Sea/Danube Partnership
is a basin-wide multi-stakeholder collaboration with the main objective to assist basin
countries in implementing reforms and investments in key sectors that address
transboundary pollution reduction, biodiversity decline, habitat degradation and living
resources protection priorities identified in the two SAPs. The Partnership will serve as a
catalyst in leveraging policy/legal/institutional reforms as well as additional investments
for reversing degradation of this damaged large marine ecosystem its contributing
freshwater basins, habitats and coastal aquifers. Interventions supported under the
Strategic Partnership will be mainstreamed into the programs of the GEF Implementing
and Executing Agencies.
The proposed Strategic Partnership will consist of the two components reflecting each
agency's comparative advantage:
· Regional Component: Implementation of Regional Activities for the Protection of
the Environmental Resources of the Mediterranean and its Coastal Areas (UNEP)
· Investment Fund for the Mediterranean Sea Large Marine Ecosystem Partnership
(World Bank).
The present Concept describes the Investment Fund as proposed by the World Bank. A
separate concept paper, prepared by UNEP, describes the Regional project.
A.2. BACKGROUND
1.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES OF THE MEDITERRANEAN SEA
The coastal areas around the Mediterranean are heavily populated and are undergoing a
dramatic process of development. The populations of coastal states have doubled in the
3 The environmental targets identified by the two SAPs are presented in Annex 2.
4
last 40 years to 450 million (in 1999) and will reach over 600 million in 2050. In
addition, tourism arrival is expected to rise from 135 million in 1990 to 350 million in
2025, doubling the population along the coast during summer. Population load is shifting
towards the southern and eastern Mediterranean and about 60% of it lives within 100 km
of the coast. Population density in coastal areas ranges from double to ten times the
national average due to the more favorable climatic, agricultural and often socioeconomic
conditions. As a result of the increased demand for space, water and natural resources,
the stress on coastal eco-systems, and the infringement on natural and agricultural land is
continuously increasing.
Eighty percent of the pollution load of the Mediterranean Sea originates from land
sources, mainly in the form of untreated discharges of urban waste (which includes
microbiological, nutrient and chemical contaminants) reaching the sea from coastal
sources and through rivers. Lack of sewage collection, treatment and disposal
infrastructure is still the greatest problem in many Mediterranean countries. 69 % of
coastal cities with more than 10,000 inhabitants have sewage treatment plants, resulting
in a large annual discharge of more than 1 billion m3 of untreated sewage to the sea.
Some countries have no treatment plants at all. Overall, 66 million m3 of untreated
industrial wastewater is discharged to the Mediterranean each year. To add to this,
agricultural practices cause significant soil erosion and pesticide pollution of surface and
groundwater resources, consequently, through rivers and direct runoff, affecting the
coastal and marine ecosystems. Uncontrolled coastal development, population expansion
and increasing coastal tourism, unregulated and unsustainable fishing, damming and
pollution are the greatest threats to the marine and coastal ecosystems.
The revised TDA for the Mediterranean Sea and recently adopted SAP BIO identify the
major environmental concerns in the Mediterranean Sea (Box 1).
5
Box 1. Major transboundary environmental concerns in the Mediterranean.
Transboundary degradation of coastal habitats and decline of biodiversity arise from the combination of the
following factors: Marine living resources are often migratory; coastal habitats provide nursery and feeding grounds to
migratory species, thus the degradation of coastal habitats contributes to an overall decline in biodiversity; The
sustainability of marine and coastal habitats depends on the integrity and viability of their interlinked, transboundary
ecosystems, that support trophic levels in the food chain.
Transboundary aspects in fisheries sustainability and management are of particular importance regarding migratory
and shared stocks, which makes it inevitable and essential to address fisheries on an international level. This task is
complex in the Mediterranean as there are a high number of riparian states in varying stages of development in the
management of fisheries. Future progress in terms of fisheries management however will be based on the ability to
build a multilateral dimension into national practices. The number of shared fisheries has increased in several areas of
the Mediterranean like the Alboran Sea, the Gulf of Lyons, the Northern Tyrrhenian Sea, the Adriatic Sea, the Ionian
Sea, the Aegean Sea, the Sicily Strait and the Gulf of Gabes. The number of shared fisheries identified already at this
stage justifies common action to be taken for those stocks at international level.
Transboundary concerns related to marine water quality arise from the fact that pollutants often travel great distances
through air, sea currents and rivers, before their effects can be traced. The Mediterranean seawater exchange patterns,
persistent toxic substances dispersed by atmospheric circulation, transboundary transport of pollutants such as
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), euthrophication and the evidence of long-range biological pollution
impacts on sea birds and other marine life, are the main focus areas of sea water quality. Pollution hot spots can also
affect biodiversity resources of Mediterranean-wide importance in addition to site-specific impacts.
1.
Transboundary elements affecting human health include the trade of contaminated seafood that diffuses health
concerns beyond Mediterranean basin and through the transboundary exposures of tourists to potentially
contaminated seafood; Risks of adverse health impacts from contaminated seawater such as gastroenteritis, ear, skin
and eye infections, viral diseases such as hepatitis A, cholera and superficial or deep mucoses from contact with
contaminated beach sand, whilst visiting Mediterranean beaches. Without adequate water resource management,
human health issues will continue to degrade. Lack of water and sanitation, inadequate waste and wastewater disposal,
potential waterborne diseases, unhealthy seafood and occurrences of euthrophication will increase.
Transboundary threats to coastal aquifers. The groundwater problems in the context of the Adriatic (eastern coast)
basin and in selected section of the Levantine and the Southern Mediterranean coasts are linked to the coastal aquifers
freshwater- saltwater interface. The problems are linked to and arise from functions for basin water balance and
freshwater discharges, water supplies, control of saltwater intrusion and coastal salinization, nutrient and contaminant
transport and SGDs and preservation of fresh-, brackish- and coastal water ecosystems. They are ultimately referred to
the lack of policy and sustainable legal and institutional frameworks for coastal aquifer management. The problems
vary depending on the vulnerability of the aquifer systems, the hydrogeology and importance of land-based water
pollution and are related to (a) sustainable protection and use of shared coastal aquifers, and ultimately to (b) the
sustainability of the regional basin including marine water balance and water quality and the impacts on the marine
ecosystems.
Transboundary problem of marine litter. Marine litter has been an issue of concern in the Mediterranean since the
1970s. Marine litter is an environmental, economic, health and aesthetic problem. It causes damage and death to
wildlife. It threatens marine and coastal biological diversity in productive coastal areas. Plastic litter is a source of
persistent toxic substances. Pieces of litter can transport invasive species between seas. Medical and sanitary waste
constitutes a health hazard and can seriously injure people. Every year, the presence of marine litter causes damage that
entails great economic costs and losses to people, property and livelihood, as well as poses risks to health and even
lives. And marine litter spoils, fouls and destroys the beauty of the sea and the coastal zone.
Status of Marine Protected Areas in the Mediterranean
In spite of the intensive human use it has experienced for more than two thousand years,
the Mediterranean Sea remains a global biodiversity hotspot, listed in the top 15 marine
hotspots by Conservation International (CI) and figuring prominently in the WWF Global
200 list. In such an intensively utilized environment, traditional "fortress" protected
6
areas established solely for the preservation of biodiversity are almost impossible to
create and enforce. As a result of this pressure to both conserve and use, Mediterranean
countries have already established some of the most innovative and successful marine
protected areas (MPAs) in the world, ranging from small specific areas for critically
important biodiversity, such as the MPAs established for protection of the Monk Seal in
Greece, Turkey and Morocco, the Port Cros Park in southern France, and the Pelagos
Sanctuary for Mediterannean Marine Mammals, a transboundary protected area created
by France, Monaco and Italy in the Ligurian Sea.
In spite of these innovations, the general situation with regard to marine protected areas
in the Mediterranean remains critically weak when measured against a goal of reducing
the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010, especially for the countries in the southern and
eastern parts of the Mediterranean, since the geographical distribution of Marine
Protected Areas around the Mediterranean clearly lacks balance: most of the MPAs are
located on the North Mediterranean coast (see map).
There are more than 150 Marine and Coastal Protected Areas in the Mediterranean under
the SPA Protocol, more than 50 of which are open water areas. Among the signatories to
the Protocol, only Italy has specific legislation for establishing marine protected areas.
Most of the other countries have adopted legislative texts permitting the establishment of
such areas, without detailed rules concerning regulation and management. In the case of
Wetlands, there are 150 Ramsar Sites in the region, but this number could be easily
doubled applying the Convention on Wetlands criteria.
Although countries have established MPAs, many of these remain "paper parks". In
addition, many were created purely for species protection without giving adequate
consideration to the opportunities to capture multiple benefits through the careful
consideration of location, size, (multiple-use) zoning/management, and the synergistic
effects of networks.4 At the same time several national reports have identified several
common problems affecting the selection, establishment and management of Marine
Protected Areas in the Mediterranean (Box 2).
4 Agardy, T. et al. (2003). "Dangerous targets? Unresolved issues and ideological clashes around marine
protected areas." Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems ; published online in Wiley
InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/ aqc.583.
7
Box 2. Common problems affecting the conservation of marine biodiversity through the use of MPA's in the
Mediterranean.
A series of problems have been recurrently identified by the National Reports, although, obviously, the importance of
magnitude of each problem differs between the countries bordering on the Mediterranean Sea:
·
Insufficient legal system, lack of adequate legislation
·
Confusion of competency, or fragmentation of responsibility (leading to problems of implementation of the
existing laws)
·
Lack of coordination between administrations, competencies overlap
·
Interference with other human activities occurring in the coastal zone, mainly tourism
·
Low or no participation of stakeholders and other agents in the decision-making process
·
Poor effort to improve public awareness on marine conservation issues
·
Lack of effective enforcement measures in some cases
·
Lack of effective scientific monitoring
·
Lack of sufficient economic resources to achieve the protection measures, so that a number of MPAs receive
only nominal management and protection ("paper MPAs")
·
Problems of mismanagement and deterioration caused by the limited experience of the people administrating
the MPAs
·
Lack of effective conservation measures to protect particular species (monk seal, sea turtles, cetaceans, etc.)
and/or communities (e.g. seagrass meadows)
·
Need to set up a network of MPAs, and therefore define of goals, mechanisms and management organization
for such a network
·
Need for integrated coastal zone planning and management.
Other identified problems that affect the selection, installation, management and evaluation of Mediterranean MPAs are
the following:
·
Need to clearly establish the specific goals of each MPA
·
Improved scientific basis for the selection (location, habitats included, depth range, etc.) and design (size,
shape, number, proportion of total surface protected, etc.) of MPAs
·
Need for appropriate monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness of MPAs, based on sound sampling
designs (e.g. BACIP, beyond-BACI...)
·
Lack of empirical evidence for potentially complex effects of MPAs, e.g. spillover, indirect effect on
ecosystems ("cascade" effects), effects on larval replenishment of commercially and/or ecologically important
species, genetic effects, socio-economic results, etc.
·
Need to ascertain the relationship of MPAs with other management tools.
As the SAP BIO clearly states, there is a critical need to review the existing MPA and
coastal PA networks in the light of an expanding literature5 on design and monitoring of
MPAs to achieve both conservation and sustainable use benefits (fisheries, tourism6,
etc.), thus bridging the BD-1 and BD-2 strategic priorities for biodiversity. Although
mass tourism remains a major threat to Mediterranean biodiversity, there are successful
examples of mainstreaming biodiversity; e.g. coastal tourism in Slovenia and southern
Albania, green tourism in the Cres-Losinj archipelago in Croatia, integrated management
of the coastal areas in the Antalya region of the southern coast of Turkey, and ecotourism
and whale-watching off the Balearic Islands in Spain.
5 Syms, C. and M. H. Carr (2001) Marine Protected Areas: Evaluating MPA effectiveness in an uncertain
world. Scoping paper presented at the Guidelines for Measuring Management Effectiveness in Marine
Protected Areas Workshop, Monterey, California, May 1-3, 2001, sponsored by the North American
Commission for Environmental Cooperation.
http://www.biology.ucsc.edu/people/carr/Syms/syms_download_page.htm
6 e.g. Alonnissos Marine National Park in the Northern Sporades in Greece combines tourism with
conservation of the Monk Seal, one of the 12 most threatened mammals in the world
8
From: "Hotspots for Marine Biodiversity in the Mediterranean". Marine Programme Team IUCN Centre
for Mediterranean Cooperation, 2003.
2.
HISTORY OF COLLABORATION AMONG MEDITERRANEAN COUNTRIES, AGREEMENTS
REACHED AND ONGOING ACTIVITIES
The riparian States of the Mediterranean Sea have long since recognized the threat that
pollution poses to the marine environment and have committed to preserving the
Mediterranean basin through actions at local, regional and global level. To this effect,
they agreed to launch an Action Plan for the Protection and Development of the
Mediterranean Basin (MAP) in 1975 and to sign a Convention for the Protection of the
Mediterranean Sea against Pollution (Barcelona Convention) in 1976 (Box 3).
The main objective of MAP was to improve the quality of the environmental information
available to governments as the basis for their policy formulation and strengthen their
ability to make environmentally sustainable choices for allocation of resources. The focus
of MAP shifted over time from a sector approach to marine pollution to integrated coastal
zone planning and management as a way to ensure linkages between environmental
protection and social and economic development.
9
Box 3. Barcelona Convention
The Barcelona Convention on the "Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution" which entered into force on
12 February 1978 is a notable instance of regional cooperation. Since 1994, several components of the Barcelona
system have undergone significant modifications. In June 1995 the Convention was revised in order to bring it into line
with the principles of the Rio Declaration, the philosophy of the new Convention on the Law of the Sea and the
progress achieved in international environmental law in order to make it an instrument of sustainable development. The
convention was amended to "The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of
the Mediterranean", hereinafter "the Convention" (the amendments are not yet in force).
The Barcelona Convention includes he following Protocols:
a) The Protocol for the Prevention and Elimination of Pollution of the Mediterranean Sea by Dumping from Ships
and Aircraft or Incineration at Sea, (amended 1995, not yet in force);
b) The Protocol Concerning Co-operation in Preventing Pollution from Ships and in Cases of Emergency, Combating
Pollution of the Mediterranean Sea, (2002, entered into force on 17 March 2004);
c) The Protocol for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution from Land-Based Sources and
Activities (LBS Protocol), (amended 1996, not yet in force);
d) The Protocol Concerning Specially Protected Areas and Biological Diversity in the Mediterranean, (of 1995,
entered into force 12 December 1999);
e) The Protocol Concerning Pollution Resulting from Exploration and Exploitation of the Continental Shelf, the
Seabed and its Subsoil, (1994, not yet in force); and
f) The Protocol on the Prevention of Pollution of the Mediterranean Sea by Transboundary Movements of Hazardous
Wastes and their Disposal, (1996, not yet in force).
In addition to the above, the Contracting Parties have adopted, at their last ministerial meeting in Catania, November
2003, the recommendation to draft the text of the Protocol on Integrated Coastal Area Management in the
Mediterranean. The text should be prepared and submitted for discussion at the next Contracting Parties Meeting in late
2005.
Recognizing that land based activities have the highest impact on the marine
environment, the countries signed a Protocol for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea
against Pollution from Land-Based Sources (LBS Protocol) in 1980 which entered into
force in 1983 and was revised in 1996. A year later, in 1997, the countries adopted a
Strategic Action Program to address pollution from land-based activities (SAP MED)
that identifies priority measures and targets to address pollution from land-based
activities in all countries and laid the ground for the preparation and implementation of
National Action Plans. In November 2003, the Mediterranean countries adopted the
Strategic Action Program for the Conservation of Mediterranean Marine and Coastal
Biological Diversity (SAP BIO) that identifies priority actions and targets to protect
fragile ecosystems and reduce damage to natural habitats.
UNEP/MAP and its marine pollution assessment and control program MEDPOL carried
out extensive preparation work in support of the SAP MED, including a Transboundary
Diagnostic Analysis for the Mediterranean Sea (TDA MED) prepared in 1997 and
revised in 2004. This TDA identifies the major sources of transboundary pollution and
hotspots and provide the foundation for interventions at national and regional level that
would benefits the individual countries as well the basin as a whole. In addition,
UNEP/MAP, through its Regional Activity Center for Special Protected Areas
(SPA/RAC), carried out activities on the preparation of SAP BIO, which was adopted by
the Contracting Parties to the Barcelona Convention in November 2003.
10
The SAP-MED and SAP BIO outline the specific targets and activities agreed by the
member countries to address the Mediterranean Sea environmental degradation. Some of
the key targets that address transboundary environmental issues, in line with WSSD,
include:
· Dispose municipal wastewater in conformity with the LBS Protocol in cities
exceeding 100,000 inhabitants by 2005 and in other cities by 2025;
· Dispose 50% of industrial wastewaters which are source of BOD, nutrients and
suspended solids by 2010 and 100% by year 2025;
· 50% increase in marine protected areas by 2012;
· Protection of 20% of the coast as marine fishery reserves by 2012;
· Maintain or restore fishery stocks to levels that can produce the maximum
sustainable yield with the aim of achieving these goals for depleted stocks on an
urgent basis and where possible not later than 2015; and
· Effective protection of endangered species by 2012.
SAP-MED and SAP BIO also identify the Adriatic Sea as one of the top priority areas for
protection in the Mediterranean Sea and proposed interventions in liquid and solid waste
treatment, water supply and monitoring programs for coastal zone and sensitive areas.
Other hotspots include: Haifa Bay in Israel, Abu Qir bay and El'Mex bay in Egypt, Saida
(Sidon) Gazieh in Lebanon, Tetouan in Morocco, and Durres and Vlora in Albania, and
others (see TDA, 2004)
The cost for pollution remedial actions in the Mediterranean Sea has been estimated in
1997 at almost US$ 10 billion [with approximately US$ 1.3 billion for intervention in the
Adriatic Sea]. The SAP BIO identified 226 actions at national levels and 30 actions at the
regional level for biodiversity protection, with estimated costs of US$ 100 million and
US $40 million respectively.
3.
SOME OTHER ACTIVITIES RELEVANT TO THE PROTECTION OF THE MEDITERRANEAN
SEA
Several other activities and initiatives have been undertaken by governments,
intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, some of which have relevance
for the Mediterranean Sea Basin. Among recent initiatives, reference should be made to
the Adricosm Project on land and coastal management, initiated by the Italian
government, as well as the Adriatic-Ionian Initiative supported by the governments of the
Adriatic region.
Reference should also be made to the Mediterranean Component of the EU Water
Initiative, as well as to efforts being made to improve the management of the many
transboundary basins and aquifers of SE Europe by introducing IWRM practices (the
Athens Declaration Process). A number of these waters flow into the Mediterranean and
11
have a significant impact on coastal ecosystems and water quality. Box 4 and 5 below
summarize these processes.
BOX 4. The Athens Declaration Process
Jointly coordinated by the Government of Greece and the World Bank
The Athens Declaration Process was launched during the major International Conference on Sustainable Development
for Lasting Peace: Share Waters, Shared Future, Shared Knowledge, 6-7 May 2003, Athens, Greece. The process aims
to assist countries of the region, in cooperation with relevant stakeholders, to draft IWRM and water use efficiency
plans for major river basins and would include a range of complementary interventions in individual river and lake
basins, with a coordination mechanism to allow for exchange of information and experience between activities. The
entire program is a building block of the Mediterranean Component of the European Union Water Initiative.
The Athens Declaration of May 2003 has four Recommendations for Action: Recommendation (1) Diplomacy for
Environment and Sustainable Development, (2) Southeastern Europe Transboundary River Basin and Lake Basin
M anagement Program, (3) Mediterranean Shared Aquifers Management Program, and (4) Assessment of Regional and
National Frameworks to Implement Integrated Water Resources Management.
Recommendations 2, 3 and 4 build on the implementation process of the European Union Water Framework Directive
and complement and draw lessons from the ongoing GEF Danube River Basin Program and the Lake Ohrid
Conservation Project among others.
Box 5. The Mediterranean Component of the EU Water Initiative (MED EUWI)
led by the Government of Greece
MED EUWI is an integral part of the overall EU Water Initiative, coordinated byt eh European Commission. It aims to:
-assist design of better, demand driven and output oriented water related programmes
-facilitate better coordination of water programmes and projects, targeting more effective use of existing funds and
mobilization of new financial resources and
-enhanced cooperation for project proper implementation.
MED EUWI, announced during WSSD in Johannesburg, gives particular emphasis to Mediterranean and SEE
priorities. Integrated water resources management with an emphasis on management of transboundary water bodies is a
defined priority theme of MED EUWI. The current Project will contribute as a pilot for enhancing the MED EUWI
objectives in the SEE region.
Political commitment for the development of MED EUWI has been expressed in various fora, inter alia, the EU
Informal Council of Environment Ministers (May 2003, Athens and December 2003, Brussels), 5th Pan-European
Ministerial Conference of the "Environment for Europe" process (May 2003, Kiev), Euro-Mediterranean Meeting of
the Ministers of Foreign Affairs (May 2003, Crete and June 2004, Dublin), three meetings of the North African
Ministers Council on Water (February and October 2003, April 2004, Cairo), etc.
The process is facilitated by a MED EUWI Secretariat, within Global Water Partnership Mediterranean.
4.
INITIAL GEF IW PROJECT: OBJECTIVES AND ACHIEVEMENT
In order to support the efforts of the Mediterranean countries in implementing the SAP
MED, in 1998 the GEF Council approved a US$ 6.3 million grant in support of the
project "Determination of priority actions for the further elaboration and implementation
of the Strategic Action Programme for the Mediterranean Sea" to be implemented by
UNEP together with other agencies (Box 5).
12
The project supported preparatory actions leading to: the adoption and implementation of
regional guidelines and plans; investment in the elimination of regionally prioritized
pollution hot spots; development of a strategic action program for biodiversity which
identifies targets and estimates costs (SAP BIO); enhancement of public participation and
institutional capacity in the region; development and implementation of economic
instruments for the sustainable implementation of the SAP MED; and development,
adoption and implementation of National Action Plans (NAPs) for the implementation of
the SAP MED.
Box 5. Initial GEF IW Project in the Mediterranean
The main aim of the UNEP-GEF "Determination of priority actions for the further elaboration and implementation of
the Strategic Action Programme for the Mediterranean Sea" Project was to create a solid ground for the implementation
of the SAP-MED, and to prepare the SAP-BIO, a basic instrument for the protection of marine biodiversity in the
Mediterranean. The activities of the Project are numerous and comprised of the following components:
- Revision of TDA;
- Capacity building;
- Development of regional guidelines and plans;
- Adaptation of existing and development of new economic instruments for sustainable implementation of the SAP
MED;
- Public participation;
- Preparation of National Action Plans (NAPs) to address pollution of the Mediterranean from land based sources and
activities; and
- Preparation of pre-investment studies for selected pollution hot spots.
The revised TDA is at the final stage of preparation and soon to be released.
Within the capacity building component, a series of regional and national training courses were organized. More than
400 national experts were trained on various issues, so far. The majority of them were taught in their mother tongue
using training material translated into their national languages. A set of regional guidelines and plans were prepared,
which will guide national experts that are preparing NAPs. These guidelines were endorsed by the meeting of MED
POL National Coordinators; and then approved by the meeting of the MAP Focal Points. In addition, two regional
plans were adopted by the meeting of the Contracting Parties to the Barcelona Convention.
One of the major goals of this Project is the preparation of NAPs. The first phase of this very complex and delicate
process has been accomplished by preparing national Baseline Budgets (BBs) of releases and emissions, and a National
Diagnostic Analysis. The second phase, the preparation of Sectoral Plans and Integrated NAPs is under
implementation. The adaptation of existing and development of new economic instruments for sustainable
implementation of NAPs is now under way and will soon be concluded (2005). Testing through pilot projects is being
conducted at a national level in numerous countries and the results will be implemented in the NAPs.
A common methodology for public participation in the process of preparing, adopting and implementing has been
prepared and distributed to the countries of the region. The countries are also receiving financial support for the public
participation.
The preparation of pre-investment studies for selected pollution hot spots is now under way in 11 Mediterranean
countries. The activities in four countries are directly supported by FFEM.
Finally, the SAP BIO is one of the main outputs of the Project. The SAP BIO document was based on national reports
and plans on the state of biodiversity, as well as numerous reports concerning various regional issues. The document,
was adopted by the meeting of the Contracting Parties to the Barcelona Convention (2003) and presents the main
issues, analyses their causes and proposes priority activities. It also contains, an Investment Portfolio at the regional and
national levels.
The two SAPs and the proposed ICM Protocol will help countries to achieve the Millennium Development Goals and
the WSSD targets.
13
B - COUNTRY OWNERSHIP
1.
COUNTRY ELIGIBILITY
The proposed Investment Fund follows the basin-wide approach in addressing
transboundary pollution and priority ecosystem conservation in the Mediterranean Sea.
Many issues affecting the Mediterranean Sea originate in upstream countries. In this
perspective, and conditional to receiving the endorsement of the individual country's
GEF Operational Focal Point, it is proposed that the Investment Fund be accessible to the
following GEF eligible countries: Albania, Algeria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria,
Croatia, Egypt, FYR Macedonia, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Serbia and Montenegro,
Syria, Tunisia, Turkey and West Bank and Gaza.
2.
COUNTRY DRIVENNESS
The riparian States of the Mediterranean Sea have long recognized the threat that
pollution poses to the marine environment and have committed to preserving the
Mediterranean basin through actions at local, regional and global level. To this effect,
they agreed to launch an Action Plan for the Protection and Development of the
Mediterranean Basin (MAP) in 1975 and to sign a Convention for the Protection of the
Mediterranean Sea against Pollution (Barcelona Convention) in 1976. These countries
signed also a Protocol for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution from
Land-Based Sources (LBS Protocol) in 1980 which entered into force in 1983 and was
revised in 1996. A year later, in 1997, they adopted a Strategic Action Program for the
Mediterranean Sea (SAP MED) that identifies priority measures and targets to address
pollution from land-based activities in all countries and laid the ground for the
preparation and implementation of National Action Plans. In November 2003, the
Mediterranean countries adopted the Strategic Action Program for the Conservation of
Mediterranean Marine and Coastal Biological Diversity (SAP BIO) that identifies priority
actions and targets to protect fragile ecosystems and reduce damage to natural habitats.
Both SAP-MED and SAP-BIO are ready for implementation, consistent with GEF
Operational Program #9 in the International Waters focal area and Operational Program
#2 in the Biodiversity focal area.
The concept of a Strategic Partnership for the Mediterranean Large Marine Ecosystem
and its two pillars, a regional project and the Investment Fund, was endorsed by
representatives of the basin countries at a meeting convened by MAP in October 2004 in
Italy (the minutes of the meeting are provided in Annex 2).
C PROGRAM AND POLICY CONFORMITY
1.
PROGRAM DESIGNATION AND CONFORMITY
The proposal is consistent with the Integrated Land and Water Operational Program
(OP9) in the International Waters focal area and its objectives: implementing projects
14
that integrate sound land use and water resource management strategies as a result of
sectoral policy changes; facilitating collaboration among IA's and countries and
leveraging the involvement of IA programs and donors; developing projects ini
threatened marine waters in close cooperation with OPs biodiversity focal area and with
coastal/marine priority .
The proposed Investment Fund supports the GEF International Waters Strategic Priority
IW-1: Catalyze financial resource mobilization for implementation of reforms and stress
reduction measures agreed through the (TDA)/SAP or equivalent processes for particular
transboundary systems.
The proposal is also consistent with the Coastal, Marine and Freshwater Ecosystem
Operational Program (OP2) in the Biodiversity focal area and its objective: conservation
and sustainable use of biological resources in coastal, marine and freshwater ecosystems.
The proposed Investment Fund supports the GEF Biodiversity Strategic Priority BD-1:
Catalyze sustainability of protected areas and BD-2: Mainstream biodiversity in
production landscapes and sectors.
2.
PROJECT DESIGN
Objectives, Rationale and Benefits
The main objective of the proposed World Bank-GEF Investment Fund is to facilitate the
recipient countries of the Mediterranean Sea basin in implementing their top
transboundary priority pollution reduction and habitat protection measures and contribute
to reversing the degradation of this large marine ecosystem and its freshwater basins. The
Investment Fund supported by the GEF with US$ 85 million grant financing over
multiple tranches and open to other donors' contributions is proposed as a vehicle for
catalyzing investments and accelerate urgent actions that are necessary for reducing
pollution and conserving priority habitats of the Mediterranean Sea, and the Adriatic Sea
in particular. Through the Investment Fund, basin countries can pursue investments
aimed at common transboundary pollution reduction and ecosystem conservation goals,
and help jump start and further accelerate investments in sectors that are key for
environmental improvement as well as social and economic development..
The Investment Fund, through a combination of capital investments, economic
instruments, policy and regulatory frameworks and public participation will provide a
critical mass of financial resources and technical knowledge readily available to countries
that embrace the goal of improving the environmental conditions of the Mediterranean
Sea. It will also develop a strategic regional approach to investments for greater benefit to
the basin countries.
The key strategic elements of the Investment Fund are: 1) up-front commitment by the
GEF and partners to a significant amount of funds that signals the availability of a
predictable envelope of grant financing for beneficiary countries and co-financiers to
access; 2) a critical mass of investments to promote higher political visibility and
15
interest; 3) a design framework that takes advantage of on-the-ground learning to
replicate and transfer investment experiences throughout the region; 4) streamlined
financing through simplified GEF approval procedures; and 5) a regional approach to
investments that would benefit the countries individually and collectively.
The regional approach to investments has a number of important advantages. A regional
investment framework provides a vehicle for focusing individual country investments on
regional objectives, helps to transfer knowledge and share best practices, and promotes
adoption of policies to achieve common objectives. Stakeholders in individual countries
can gain satisfaction from knowing they are doing their part to contribute to a wider
regional cause and feel more committed to a regional investment program. A regional
framework provides also a better mechanism for cooperation with diverse partners, for
example the EU which has a significant role to play as a political driver for action and c-
financier of investments. A strategic approach is a more cost-effective vehicle to
demonstrate benefits than a series of individual projects. A strategic approach will also
help provide a targeted timeframe to promote action over a shorter period so that more
tangible results can be achieved.
Preliminary Design
Type of investments and eligibility criteria
The Investment Fund would finance priority projects that contribute to achieving the
pollution reduction targets agreed by the basin countries under SAP MED, and the
biodiversity targets agreed by the basin countries under SAP BIO. More specifically, the
Investment Fund would provide grant financing for projects that address transboundary
pollution and marine and coastal degradation in identified hot spots of the Mediterranean
basin. Examples of projects supported by the Investment Fund will include:
(i)
domestic and industrial wastewater treatment;
(ii)
wetland restoration and/or construction;
(iii)
improved management of watershed and aquifers for habitat conservation and
pollution reduction;
(iv)
protection of endangered natural habitats and sensitive areas and strengthening of
marine protected areas;
(v)
integrated coastal zone management.
Projects will be identified by the proposing country, with assistance from the World Bank
and/or other eligible financiers and in coordination with MAP. Projects proposed for
financing under the Investment Fund would have to meet specific eligibility criteria as
approved by the GEF Council. The proposed eligibility criteria include:
· the project focuses on priority hot spots and sensitive areas identified by the TDA
and the two SAPs;
16
· the project responds to the priorities identified by the two regional SAPs as well
as the priorities identified in the National Action Plan or equivalent strategic
documents endorsed by the requesting country;
· the project is included in the World Bank Country Assistance Strategy (CAS) or
is in support of the priorities identified in the CAS;
· adequate co-financing for non-incremental project costs is secured;
· the project adheres to the principles of the GEF International Waters Operational
Programs and is formally endorsed by the country's GEF Focal Point;
· the requesting country commits to the policy, legal and institutional reforms
related to transboundary pollution reduction and marine ecosystem conservation
supported by the project;
· the project has potential for replication within the country and the region;
· the requesting country is up-to-date on contributions to its regional convention.
It is proposed that special focus be given to the Adriatic Sea which has been identified
during the TDA/SAP process as a major hot spot of transboundary pollution. In doing so,
it is expected that the Adriatic will become an exemplary site of transboundary
cooperation for the benefit of all the countries of the Mediterranean basin.
A preliminary list of projects that could be eligible under the Investment Fund is provided
in Annex 1.
Financing modalities and targets
No portion of the GEF grant will be earmarked for any individual country or specific
project. All eligible countries will have an equal opportunity to benefit from the GEF
allocation to the Investment Fund and will be encouraged to submit project proposals.
Project proposals submitted by recipient countries will each be considered based on
merit. In principle, in the interest of speedy advancement of investments and to trigger
demonstration and replication effects on the ground, funds will be made available to
countries on a "first come first served" basis.
However, in the medium to long-term, the pipeline of projects put forward for financing
under the Fund will need to be managed to some degree, to ensure that the strategic
objectives of the Investment Fund are met fully. It is proposed that the rationale for
managing the Investment Fund project pipeline include:
17
· geographical balance, to ensure that the Fund captures the diversity of
environmental problems and country conditions typical of the Mediterranean
basin and to encourage cross-fertilization;
· diversity of investment typology, to learn from different technologies, approaches
and instruments, and increase the demonstration impact across sectors;
· leveraging ratio. The target co-financing ratio for the Fund overall is US$ 1 (GEF)
to US$ 3 (others), with a minimum of 1:0.5 allowed only on exceptional basis for
example for countries with significant resource constraints or for projects
addressing priority natural habitats or wetland restoration. If a high proportion of
these projects are put forward, then the Investment Fund would need to give
priority to other types of investments such as wastewater treatment plants where
the proportion of GEF incremental cost financing is normally significantly lower.
.
3.
SUSTAINABILITY (INCLUDING FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY)
The Investment Fund will provide a combination of financial and technical assistance
resources to countries that are committed to reducing and possibly reversing the
degradation of the marine and coastal ecosystems. Projects may support policy reforms as
a means to ensure long-term sustainability and would require the highest level of
government commitment. Also, as projects would be only partially funded by the GEF,
recipient countries would have to commit to contribute financially to cover all project
costs (on their own or through donor financing). In this regard, a critical goal of the
proposed Investment Fund will be to increase GEF grant leveraging against other project
financing sources, and to increasingly encourage other partners to take over larger shares
of pollution reduction investments. The total program leveraging target is US$ 1 (GEF)
to US$3 (other) by the end of the program, with a minimum leveraging ratio of 1:0.5
allowed only in very exceptional cases, such as for countries with the most significant
resource constraints or for projects addressing priority natural habitats or wetland
restoration. These will be offset by other investments, such as wastewater treatment
plants where the proportion of GEF incremental cost financing will be expected to be
significantly lower.
4.
REPLICABILITY
A second important goal of the Investment Fund will be to promote replication of
pollution reduction and biodiversity conservation investments within the Mediterranean
basin. Since the Investment Fund will provide only a small portion of the investment
needs to achieve significant reductions in pollution loads, the proposed fund will
specifically finance project components that promote wider replication of the
investments.
18
As part of preparation, individual projects will develop a replication strategy identifying
areas for replication within the country and the basin and estimating the potential impact.
This information will feed into the broader replication and reach-out efforts carried out
by the UNEP-led project at regional level. Projects under the Investment Fund will all
include communications campaigns, study tours, and other replication activities
especially among the countries receiving support from the Fund. The parallel GEF
regional project implemented by UNEP will develop and support a replication strategy
based on reaching out to all the countries in the basin to ensure the broader dissemination
of the lessons learnt and results achieved under the Investment Fund.
Individual projects will establish websites with project information and progress. This
information will feed into the overall Strategic Partnership website that should be
established under the UNEP project. Project websites will be linked to the IW-LEARN
program.
5.
STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT/INTENDED BENEFICIARIES
The beneficiaries of this project are governments, civil societies, economic sectors,
including private sector, communities, NGO's and the population of the riparian states.
Each project funded under the Investment Fund will develop a stakeholders participation
and involvement plan during project preparation.
D FINANCING
1)
FINANCING PLAN
The overall resource envelope requested from GEF in support of the proposed Investment
is US$ 85 million. The GEF Council will be asked to commit to the overall program.
However, funding will be made available to the Investment Fund only in tranches, on the
basis of the resources available within the GEF at the time of replenishment and subject
to the satisfactory progress in achieving the Fund objectives and targets7. The first
tranche will be for no more than US$ 20 million. It is expected that PDF-B resources will
be requested to further develop the Investment Fund.
.
2)
CO-FINANCING
The Investment Fund will be open to contributions from donors. These contributions
could be applicable to all countries/issues or targeted to specific regions/issues according
to the donor's priorities.
Project co-financing may be obtained from a combination of national sources, loans from
the World Bank or other IFIs, or additional grant funds from the EU and bilateral sources.
7 Detailed objectives and outcomes indicators and targets will be developed during preparation.
19
Eligibility for the Investment Fund does not necessarily require the use of World Bank's
loans but it does require counterpart finance which can include in-kind contributions from
countries and/or other donor support
E - INSTITUTIONAL COORDINATION AND SUPPORT
1)
CORE COMMITMENTS AND LINKAGES
The proposed Investment Fund fully supports the World Bank strategy for Water
Resource Management in South East Europe prepared in 2003. The strategy identifies
"partnerships" as an effective model for addressing transboundary problems and fostering
cooperation on water sharing, management of water quality, watershed management and
ecosystem and biodiversity conservation are the recommended measures. The strategy
also recommends to support full-scale implementation of agreed actions plans and
projects.
The GEF Strategic Partnership for the Mediterranean Sea and the Investment Fund would
also implement some of the recommendations of the Athens Declaration of 2003, an
action plan to promote sustainable management of transboundary water resources in
South East Europe supported by the EU and the World Bank and endorsed by the
countries.
At country level, the World Bank is committed to help the Investment Fund achieve its
objectives by:
· Promoting the Investment Fund and the Strategic Partnership objectives in the
country dialogues and including them in the World Bank Country Assistance
Strategies (CASs) as they are updated;
· Promoting policies that address (transboundary) pollution reduction and biodiversity
conservation as part of country dialogues;
· Championing and helping to mobilize funds from countries and donors for pollution
reduction;
· Working closely with UNEP and the other international agencies active in the region
to maximize coordination between the regional technical assistance project and
individual investment projects; and
· Coordinating with MAP project selection and preparation process, keeping them
informed on the project's progress and impact.
The Strategic Partnership for the Mediterranean and the Investment Fund have been
designed following the model of the GEF Strategic Partnership for the Black Sea and
Danube Basin and its Nutrient Reduction Investment Fund. This regional program, now
20
under implementation for a few years, is proving very successful and is providing
valuable lessons for the design and implementation of the proposed Investment Fund.
2)
CONSULTATION, COORDINATION AND COLLABORATION BETWEEN AND AMONG
IMPLEMENTING AGENCIES, EXECUTING AGENCIES, AND THE GEF SECRETARIAT, IF
APPROPRIATE.
The Investment Fund is proposed within the framework of the GEF Strategic Partnership
for the Mediterranean Sea Large Marine Ecosystem. The Partnership, led by the GEF,
brings together the World Bank, UNEP and a variety of agencies and donors active in the
Mediterranean region. Consultations have been carried out with this partners during the
preparation of this concept and extensive feedback were sought from GEFSec, UNEP and
MAP.
The preparation and implementation of the Investment Fund will be carried out in close
coordination and cooperation with MAP, UNEP and the other partners. The World Bank
will participate in both the Steering Committee and the Coordination Group for the
Strategic Partnership as described in the UNEP regional project. It is expected that
adequate resources will be made available from the regional project or directly from the
GEF to cover the costs associated with the coordination efforts. Detailed mechanisms for
ensuring regular consultations and reporting on progress will be developed during
preparation and in consultation with UNEP and GEFSec.
3)
IMPLEMENTATION/EXECUTION ARRANGEMENTS
The Investment Fund will be managed by the World Bank. Individual eligible projects
would be prepared, approved and implemented following standard World Bank
procedures and would be subject to World Bank Board approval. However, project
approval by the GEF would be streamlined through delegation of approval authority to
the GEF CEO.
21
PART II RESPONSE TO REVIEWS
A - CONVENTION SECRETARIAT
B - OTHER IAS AND RELEVANT EXAS
22
Annex 1
LIST OF PROJECTS FOR FINANCING UNDER THE INVESTMENT FUND
Bosnia/Croatia: Integrated Ecosystem Management of the Neretva and Trebisjnica River Basins
(already in GEF pipeline)
Bosnia: Water Quality (already in GEF pipeline)
Egypt: Alexandria Integrated Coastal Zone Management
Integrated Regional Environment Project in the Adriatic, Ionian and Aegean Seas
23
Annex 2
Draft minutes of the MAP-GEF Stocktaking Meeting held in Trieste, Italy
11-12 October 2004
Introduction
1. In order to assist Mediterranean countries to implement the Strategic Action Programme to
Address Pollution from Land-Based Activities (SAP MED), adopted by the Contracting Parties
at their Tenth Meeting held in Tunis in 1997, a GEF Project entitled "Determination of Priority
Actions for the Further Elaboration and Implementation of the Strategic Action Programme for
the Mediterranean Sea" has been implemented since January 2001.
2. As part of the GEF Project, a number of activities were conducted between January 2001 and
October 2004such as development and adoption of regional guidelines and plans, organization of
training courses in the priority areas identified in the SAP MED. In addition, countries have
been helped to prepare their sectoral plans, their national diagnostic analyses and their baseline
budgets of releases and emissions of SAP-targeted substances,, while the Transboundary
Diagnostic Analysis, prepared in 1997, has been completed and updated.
3. To enhance the implementation of the SAP MED and also of the Strategic Action
Programme for the Conservation of Biological Diversity in the Mediterranean Region (SAP
BIO), adopted at the Twelfth Meeting of the Contracting Parties held in Catania in 2003, and to
prepare the ground for the future application of the Protocol being prepared on integrated coastal
management (the ICM Protocol), the UNEP/GEF and the World Bank proposed to
Mediterranean countries, international organizations and financing institutions concerned the
establishment of a GEF Strategic Partnership for the Mediterranean, to be based, inter alia,
on the model and lessons learned from the Danube/Black Sea Partnership.
4. In order to foster this process by seeking the views of Mediterranean countries before the
GEF takes a decision, the MAP Coordinator in consultation with the GEF Secretariat decided to
invite all the actors involved to a meeting to review the proposed GEF Strategic Partnership and
to make any recommendations on its content and focus. As result of a generous invitation from
and with the support of the Italian Government, the meeting was held at the Savoia Excelsior
Hotel in Trieste on 11 and 12 October 2004.
Participation
5. The meeting was attended by representatives of the following Contracting Parties to the
Barcelona Convention: Albania, Algeria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Egypt, Greece, Italy,
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Morocco, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovenia, Syrian Arab Republic,
Tunisia, Turkey, and the European Union.
24
6. The meeting was also attended by representatives of the following specialized agencies of the
United Nations, other intergovernmental, governmental and non-governmental organizations:
World Health Organization (WHO//EURO), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), United
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO-IHP), International Centre
for Science and High Technology of UNIDO (ICS-UNIDO), United Nations Industrial
Development Organization (UNIDO), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United
Nations Environment Progamme (UNEP/Regional Seas, UNEP/GPA and UNEP/GEF),
Secretariat of the Global Environment Facility (GEF), World Bank, Mediterranean Information
Office for Environment and Sustainable Development (MIO/ECSDE), World Wilde Fund for
Nature (WWF), and the German Federal Institute for Geoscience and Natural Resources.
7. The MAP Secretariat, through the MED Unit and the MED POL Programme, the Regional
Marine Pollution Emergency Response Centre for the Mediterranean Sea (REMPEC), the
Regional Activity Centre for the Priority Actions Programme (PAP/RAC), and the Regional
Activity Centre for Specially Protected Areas (SPA/RAC), acted as the Secretariat of the
meeting.
8. The full list of participants is attached as Annex I to the present report.
Agenda item 1 : Opening of the meeting
9. Mr. Paul Mifsud, Coordinator of the Mediterranean Action Plan, opened the Meeting and
warmly thanked the Italian Ministry of the Environment for the welcome extended and for the
invaluable help given for the holding of the meeting. He pointed out that the presence of Mr.
Corrado Clini, Director General of the International and Regional Conventions Department,
Italian Ministry of the Environment and Territory, President of the Contracting Parties to the
Barcelona Convention, bore witness to the interest shown by the Italian authorities in
international and regional cooperation in the area of the environment and sustainable
development in the Mediterranean.
10. Mr. Corrado Clini welcomed participants to Trieste, a city whose geographical situation had
made it particularly well suited to act as a link between the North and the South, the East and the
West throughout European history. Trieste had been chosen for the meeting precisely because it
was a symbol of the integration that it was sought to promote in the Mediterranean. In hosting
the meeting, Italy, which chaired the Bureau of the Barcelona Convention, also wished to give a
practical demonstration of its commitment to the Mediterranean Strategy for Sustainable
Development currently being elaborated, which should be adopted at the forthcoming meeting of
the Contracting Parties in Slovenia in 2005 and until then would be the nexus for all the action
taken in the region.
11. Mr. Clini underscored the innovative nature of the cooperation programmes initiated by
MAP such as the SAP MED and the SAP BIO, whose practical implementation was taking shape
day-by-day, and the updating of the Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) under the MED
POL. All those activities had been made possible by the financial support given by the GEF, and
MAP was now called upon by the GEF and its associated institutions to embark upon a new
ambitious stage in coming years with the Strategic Partnership that would shortly be presented
25
and discussed. He then highlighted three cooperation initiatives in which Italy was participating
and to which it attached special importance: (1) integrated coastal zone management
programmes based on agreements with Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Morocco and Tunisia, which
would be extended to other countries; (2) the type II MEDREP Initiative to promote renewable
energy in the region, which was now moving into the implementation stage following the start-
up of a permanent Centre in Tunisia in 2004 composed of experts from UNEP, Tunisia and Italy
responsible for coordinating action; and (3) the Adriatic Initiative under the ADRICOSM
Partnership for the management of the Neretva river basin and the bay of Pula in Croatia. Lastly,
Italy reaffirmed its willingness to provide financial support for the planned Partnership, as of the
preparatory phase, on the understanding that it would not only focus on coordination but also on
effective, pragmatic and lasting implementation of the projects.
12. Mr. Alfred Duda, Senior Adviser, International Waters , the GEF Secretariat, speaking on
behalf of Mr. Len Good, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the GEF, thanked
UNEP/MAP for having taken the initiative to hold the meeting. He also thanked the Italian
authorities for their spontaneous and efficient support and welcomed the presence of the other
institutions involved in the planned Partnership. He pointed out that the International Waters
Program of the GEF only dealt with transboundary issues, recommending an ecosystem
approach, and the experience gained with MED POL, the updated TDA and conceptual and
programme bases established through the SAP MED and the SAP BIO were decisive factors for
the success of the Partnership, as could be seen from similar transboundary efforts already made
or under way in some 20 countries around the world. The strategic partnership formula had been
launched and tested for the Danube and the Black Sea for the first time three years previously,
bringing together 17 countries in two environmental programmes for the respective basins. The
present meeting would hear a detailed presentation on the first Partnership, which would form
the model for the Mediterranean Partnership based on two components: a regional project and an
investment fund. The GEF, like the World Bank, would respond to any questions that countries
might wish to raise and would listen carefully to their comments and recommendations so as to
focus on practical implementation, which remained the fundamental objective shared by all.
13. The MAP Coordinator endorsed the need for concrete implementation referred to by the
previous speakers. He drew attention to the numerous activities carried out in the Mediterranean
since the SAP MED had been adopted in 1997, particularly over the previous three years, under
the GEF MED Project, which had enabled countries that lacked resources to build their capacity
and to prepare programmes to abate pollution. The GEF had supported many SAP activities:
regional guidelines and plans for the major priority areas, preparation of national action plans
(NAPs), establishment of interministerial committees, preparation of pre-investment studies,
development of economic instruments for the sustainable implementation of SAP MED,
capacity-building, training courses. At the legal level, the revised Barcelona Convention of 1995
had entered into force with the deposit of 16 instruments of ratification. The SAP BIO had been
adopted by the Contracting Parties at their meeting in Catania in 2003. It was expected that the
present meeting would see countries make a firm commitment to the proposed Partnership and
decide to move ahead, utilizing the financial and institutional mechanisms afforded by the
Partnership.
Agenda item 2 : Review of the major achievements of the previous GEF Mediterranean project
26
14. In introducing the item concerning the previous GEF Project, the Secretariat informed
participants that they would be given a CD-Rom with the corresponding presentations and,
consequently, the report of the meeting would only provide a brief summary of them.
Subsequent presentations directly concerning the Strategic Partnership itself would, however, be
reported in greater detail.
15.Mr. Ante Baric, Project Manager of the GEF MED Project, underlined the objectives and the
corresponding activities of the current GEF Project: revision of the list of priority pollution "hot
spots" and "sensitive areas"; preparation of pre-investment studies, a set of nine regional
guidelines and six regional plans for the reduction of pollution from land-based activities;
revision of the TDA; development of new and adaptation of existing economic instruments for
the sustainable implementation of SAP MED; capacity building including regional and national
training courses for some 546 trainees. The National Action Plans (NAPs) had been launched,
and the SAP BIO finalized and adopted. In conclusion, he said that the majority of the Project's
objectives had been achieved and a solid basis had been established for the implementation of
the SAP MED and the SAP BIO at the regional and national levels. However, countries would
need further assistance for the implementation of activities at the national level.
16. Mr. Francesco Saverio Civili, Coordinator of the MED POL Programme, explained the
process of implementation of the SAP MED, which had marked a turning point in the history of
MED POL/MAP by defining concrete and quantified pollution reduction commitments following
the adoption of MED POL-Phase III and the "land-based sources" Protocol amended in 1996.
Following the same action-oriented approach, MED POL had prepared an "operational document
for the implementation of the SAP", approved by the Contracting Parties in 2001, which
provided, inter alia, a method for assessing the progress made in reducing pollution in each
country based on a national baseline budget of releases and emissions (NBB). Mr. Civili
presented a table showing that the NBB and the national diagnostic analyses (NDA) had been
concluded successfully in all eligible Mediterranean countries, which was a positive indicator for
preparation of the NAPs to be completed in 2005. In view of those achievements, it was his view
that the Strategic Partnership, provided that it received the expected strong support, would be
decisive for the successful long-term implementation of the SAP.
17. Mrs. Zeineb Belkhir, Director of the Regional Activity Centre for Specially Protected Areas
(SPA/RAC, Tunis) described the background to the SAP BIO, whose preparation had been
entrusted to the SPA/RAC and supported by financing from the GEF Project. Many actors had
been involved in preparing the report itself countries, intergovernmental, international and non-
governmental organizations, individual experts or teams. The preparation methodology had
enabled an assessment of the status, threats and trends affecting Mediterranean marine and
coastal biological diversity to be made, as well as the identification of priorities for action,
coordination among relevant organizations, an investment portfolio and the measures to be taken
for the follow-up. It was proposed that the funds be allocated primarily to the conservation of
sensitive habitats, species and sites (29 per cent), the inventory, mapping and monitoring of
marine and coastal biodiversity (24 per cent), with an investment portfolio totalling
US$39 million for 58 high priority activities envisaged in the national action plans. On the basis
of those elements, the SPA/RAC had submitted a proposal to the GEF.
27
18. Mr. Fouad Abousamra, MED POL Programme Officer, outlined the main features of the
TDA: objectives, methodology for its preparation under the responsibility of MED POL, major
perceived problems and issues, together with an analysis of their causal chain, decline of
biological diversity, decline in fisheries, decline in seawater quality, and risks for human health.
He also presented maps showing Mediterranean "hot spots", eutrophication areas and the
location of the major industries contributing to the release of pollutants that were toxic, persistent
and liable to biocumulate (TPBs). He then described the priority action recommended in the
TDA in the light of each problem.
Agenda item 3:
The proposed GEF Strategic Partnership for the Mediterranean
19. Mr. Andrea Merla, Programme Manager, International Waters, GEF Secretariat, said that the
GEF had embarked upon a new phase during which action could no longer be envisaged in terms
of individual projects but, in view of the multiple and complex actions that needed to be taken in
several areas, rather in terms of partnerships that brought together countries, relevant agencies
and financing institutions such as the World Bank in a position to facilitate the often very
heavy investment needed in order to create the climate required for their implementation. The
first such action had been taken for the Danube and the Black Sea and to date the results were
generally deemed to be positive. It was now time to turn to the Mediterranean, where the context
was particularly favourable: a plan of action that had been in effect for almost 30 years, an
updated and very comprehensive legal framework in the Convention and its Protocols, a TDA
which pinpointed the major problems, their causes and solutions, a SAP MED and a SAP BIO
already prepared and ready to be put into effect. The main advantages of such partnerships were
to provide a "leveraging or multiplier" effect that yielded from one to three or more times the
amount of the original funds invested by the GEF, to achieve better coordination and synergy
among the cooperating organizations, donors and other actors and to build the capacity of partner
countries so that they observed their commitments under the SAP and the MAP. If the present
meeting managed to reach a consensus on the framework concept for the Strategic Partnership, it
would be possible to work seriously and pragmatically: before the end of October 2004 a final
project concept could be submitted to the GEF and then several more months would be needed,
through the implementation of the PDF-B, to refine the two components, namely, the Regional
Component and the Investment Fund, before the Partnership as a whole would be approved by
countries and then submitted to the GEF Council for approval. If countries had any comments or
recommendations to make, they were requested to do so immediately so that the World Bank and
the UNEP could take them into account in the draft framework concept to be submitted.
20. Mrs. Emilia Battaglini, GEF Regional Coordinator for Europe and Central Asia, World Bank,
said that the purpose of the Mediterranean Partnership was to involve actively donor countries,
beneficiary countries and organizations concerned with a view to the long term, going beyond
the traditional concept of selective operations in favour of a strategic design. The proposed
framework concept was the result of a long consultation process among the GEF, the World
Bank, the UNEP/MAP, the UNEP/GEF and the other partners. The purpose of the present
meeting was to discuss the objectives, the underlying principles, the advantages and the cost, and
to seek the approval of countries of the Mediterranean and other partners with a view to moving
ahead. After referring to the major environmental problems in the Mediterranean and the
28
response by Mediterranean countries over the past 30 years, she stated that, according to an
estimate in 1997, some US$10 billion would be needed to remedy pollution in the region and
US$140 million to protect its biological diversity. Those were large amounts and went beyond
the resources available in the countries, even on the hypothesis that they adopted an activist
policy. What was involved in the Partnership? It was intended to establish cooperation among
many actors in the Mediterranean, to help countries to carry out reforms and make investments,
which had little lasting effect if they were not underpinned by a change in behaviour at the
national level. The Partnership would inject start-up capital that would serve as a catalyst to
produce the leverage effect already mentioned by Mr. Merla: in terms of figures, that meant that
an initial grant of US$70 to 80 million from the GEF should mobilize three times that amount in
co-financing from other sources. That was not an impossible hypothesis when seen in the light of
the results obtained with the Danube-Black Sea Partnership, which would be described to
participants. At the programme level, the Partnership would focus on transboundary pollution of
"hot spots" identified in both SAPs by means of a Regional Component for the protection of
environmental resources and an Investment Fund for pollution reduction.
21. The MAP Coordinator considered that the above description of the Partnership gave a clear
and consistent overall view and called on representatives of countries to speak in turn to give
their initial reaction, without eschewing any problems, questions or difficulties they perceived.
22. Representatives of all countries expressed a first very favourable reaction or at least an
agreement in principle concerning the framework concept that had just been described by the
World Bank. The framework appeared to be attractive and ambitious, giving them the resources
which they so badly needed. Some speakers saw it as an opportunity to rationalize projects and
outside assistance which they already received or to move further ahead with efforts undertaken
under difficult financial conditions. At the same time, however, several representatives queried
particular aspects of the Partnership: the difficulty for two or more neighbouring countries to
reach agreement on an assessment of transboundary impacts or, more generally, for countries to
work together on the same project; the absence of a specific timetable (three, five, ten years?);
the inadequate exchange of information; insufficient intersectoral work; the need to find a
language and arguments accessible to decision-makers, for example, by laying emphasis on the
long-term benefits of a measure that appeared costly in the short term; the interpretation of
certain concepts that could give rise to misunderstandings (for example, the "Mediterranean Sea
large marine ecosystem"). One representative said that, although he fully supported the
Partnership, implementation in his country would be difficult because of highly complex
domestic policy procedures. Another representative pointed out that there had already been GEF-
financed partnerships in the Mediterranean that had been more or less successful (date palms,
climate change, MedWet coast projects), and they should be carefully evaluated before gradually
and prudently moving forward with such a process, avoiding the danger of applying a well-
defined methodology at the outset. Lastly, one representative welcomed the emphasis laid on the
ecosystem approach, which was already at the heart of the EU's sustainable development
strategy.
23. As an incidental aspect, one representative expressed surprise that, at a meeting of such
importance, the MAP Secretariat had not translated the working documents circulated to
participants into French and made them available.
29
24. Responding to the comments made by certain countries, the representative of the World Bank
explained that, although the Partnership provided a regional framework, the GEF and the World
Bank were supporting action at the national level. Regarding the language to be found when
approaching decision-makers, she agreed that the long-term/short-term comparison of costs was
crucial in strategic economic sectors in the Mediterranean such as tourism, where it was
absolutely essential not to repeat the errors of the past and the price to be paid today to remedy
them. In general, the various aspects of the Partnership should be assessed in comparison with
what would happen if the Partnership did not come into being: there would be a return to
selective activities in each country with no focus on transboundary priority sectors and without
ensuring that there was a proper geographical balance among the activities undertaken in the
region. The Partnership would enable a "critical mass" of action to be achieved, it would
facilitate dialogue with other donors, once again underlining the decisive concept of a "multiplier
effect".
25. Without wishing to draw any hasty conclusions from the initial discussion, Mr. Clini made
some comments and suggestions it had stimulated. The GEF Partnership comprised some sectors
that had already been included under other programmes and it used or tied in with some existing
mechanisms (the Euro-Med Partnership, the GEF, the World Bank, etc.). It therefore had to be
seen not as an initiative to be added to others, but as value added, a way of placing in perspective
all existing or future measures with a view to greater efficiency because, as had already been
seen, counteracting pollution in the Mediterranean required US$10 billion of investment and it
was obviously impossible to envisage obtaining such an amount from any single institution
whatsoever. The purpose of the Partnership was therefore to establish the conditions needed to
ensure that pollution reduction became "self-financing", to launch a process that could attract
and involve new actors such as the private sector in a better position to manage the amortization
of investment by becoming aware of the benefits of integrating the environment in terms of
profitability, competitiveness and image. In such a context, in the preparatory phase of the
Partnership, the role of governments would be to decide on clear-cut rules so as to create an
environment that was favourable to proper management of the resources.
Agenda item 3.1:
Regional Project under the Strategic Partnership
26. Mr. Civili, Coordinator of the MED POL Programme, described the implementation of
agreed actions for the protection of the environmental resources of the Mediterranean Sea and its
coastal areas. In other words, the regional component of the GEF MED Strategic Partnership,
already mentioned by previous speakers, prepared in close collaboration by the UNEP/GEF,
UNEP/MAP, the World Bank, the GEF Secretariat and other partners, with the main objective of
implementing policy, legal and institutional reforms aimed at reversing marine and coastal
degradation trends, pursuant to the commitments made by countries when adopting the
SAP MED and the SAP BIO. He then reviewed the various components envisaged:
(1) facilitation of policy and legislative reform; (2) promotion of replication strategies;
(3) technical assistance (implementation of the SAP MED and SAP BIO and related NAPs,
regional strategies to manage and protect coastal aquifers); (4) regional integrated water
resources and integrated coastal management (ICM) strategies; and (5) overall coordination and
monitoring arrangements. During his presentation, Mr. Civili drew particular attention to one
30
essential element because it underpinned all the problems of implementing the SAP, namely, the
capacity of countries to ensure long-term financing of actions and projects. One of the major
objectives of the Partnership would be to build this capacity through environmental economic
instruments and innovative financing mechanisms - thereby simultaneously making a sizeable
contribution to sustainable development and also by setting up a regional network on
innovative financing practices.
27. Mr. Cornelis Klein, UNDP Resident Representative in Croatia, raised some issues
concerning the mass of information provided at the meeting. Firstly, when speaking of
investment, there needed to be strong coordination capacity on the spot and, in his experience,
that was far from being the case in the majority of countries, especially with regard to
intersectoral issues. He also wondered how investment at the country level could be intended for
transboundary activities because in such cases at least two countries were in principle involved.
Finally, the UNDP was preparing a GEF-financed project for the Croatian coast and islands and
it comprised almost all the elements previously mentioned in connection with the regional
project: how would such a project fit into the overall design of the Partnership?
28. Mr. Anders Alm, Environmentalist, Mediterranean Environmental Technical Assistance
Programme (METAP), focussed on the contribution it could make to the Strategic Partnership
through the instruments it had been implementing for a long time such as Strategic
Environmental Assessments (SEA), the cost of environmental degradation (COED), integrated
coastal zone management (ICZM), assistance in identifying investment opportunities, feasibility
studies and project preparation. He presented a chart showing the cost of environmental
degradation as a percentage of GDP (environmental sustainability indicator) for seven of the
13 Mediterranean countries eligible for the METAP.
29. One representative wondered to what extent the cost of environmental degradation was based
on a realistic, quantifiable and verifiable basis. He was raising the question as a biologist
specializing in nature conservation and not as a decision-maker and it was in any case a much
more general question: could a quantifiable value in any currency be placed on the whole of the
Mediterranean and its natural resources or, for example, on a given area of desert? How could
the inestimable cultural heritage be valued? The only purpose of the question was to express a
degree of scepticism regarding the calculations of economists as far as the environment and
natural resources were concerned.
30. Mr. Pablo Huidobro, Director, UNIDO, pointed out that UNIDO was a privileged partner for
technical assistance in relation to the impact of industrial activities and cleaner production.
UNIDO could give the GEF MED Partnership the benefit of the vast experience it had gained in
the private sector with regard to issues of industrial pollution and the transfer of ecologically
sound technology. Mrs. De Palma, UNIDO, then described the tenor of her Organization's
proposal for the framework concept for the Mediterranean Partnership. The previous year,
UNIDO had developed an initiative entitled TEST MED aimed at replicating an experience of
transfer of ecologically sound technology that it had just completed in the context of the Danube
Partnership. The Mediterranean context lent itself ideally to this "replication" with the ongoing
SAP MED process and, above all, the existence of a dual network of national cleaner production
centres in the region set up under the auspices of UNIDO and UNEP, as well as a network of
31
units to promote investment in order to develop innovative projects in the private sector. The
over-riding idea was to link the dual network of cleaner production centres, focusing on
technology, processes and capacity building in industry, with the investment promotion network,
in order to facilitate the transfer of technology. The TEST MED proposal, for example, had been
formulated with the ultimate objective of building capacity in eligible countries, demonstrating
this approach by applying it to certain selected industrial "hot spots" and disseminating it
throughout the region. The preparatory stage of TEST MED, with financial support from Italy,
had been implemented and completed in 2004 in four countries (Egypt, Lebanon, Morocco and
Tunisia) and had led to the preparation of a draft plan of implementation and budget, leading to
the conclusion that there were substantial financing opportunities in the region but they were not
sufficiently rationalized and channeled in order to be exploited. The final proposal had been
incorporated into component III, "Technical assistance", sub-category 1, of the regional project
previously presented by the MED POL Coordinator.
31. Mr. Duda, Senior Adviser, International Waters, GEF Secretariat, said that Countries were at
the centre of the Partnership and it was therefore their responsibility to decide on the framework
concept, the projects proposed by organizations and the opportunities submitted to them. They
did not have to do so officially at the present stage. The comments and suggestions they made at
the present meeting would, over the following ten days, be taken into account by UNEP/MAP,
UNEP/GEF and the World Bank in order to revise the concepts where necessary and it would
then be transmitted to the GEF Secretariat, which would assess its eligibility. It was only in the
following weeks, at the most one or two months, that countries would be called on to make a
commitment to the Partnership. Some might decide to remain outside it, so the total resources
available would benefit a smaller number of eligible countries; they might, for instance, not have
any industrial pollution problems and not require the assistance of UNIDO or, on the contrary,
they might wish to benefit from know-how that presently allowed industry to be profitable and
become more competitive while at the same time adopting cleaner production processes and
good business practices.
32. Mr. Gennaro Longo, Director, ICS-UNIDO, described a series of activities through which his
Organization could assist the Partnership: training courses and seminars, fellowships, capacity
building. The Centre was involved in three major areas: advanced system in support of decision
making, integrated coastal zone management, and cleaner production, with a focus on capacity
building and the transfer of technology. It also cooperated closely with other international
organizations: with UNEP/MAP, it had undertaken the pre-investment study on pollution "hot
spots" in Croatia; with UNEP/MAP and the Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency, it had
initiated the pilot project for a pollution release and transfer register (PRTR/IETMP) in Egypt,
and was preparing to do the same in the Syrian Arab Republic with the Ministry of the
Environment. Lastly, it could also be of use to the Partnership by providing expertise on tools in
support of decision making: monitoring, Geographic Information System (GIS), remote sensing,
image processing, environmental simulation models to study the release of pollutants into certain
environments.
33. Mr. Jordi Lleonart, Department of Fisheries, FAO, introduced the FAO's project for the
Partnership, almost exclusively dedicated to fisheries. The FAO had a General Fisheries
Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM), which had initiated cooperation projects for various
32
sectors in the Mediterranean. The objectives for the Partnership were the following: in the long
term, to improve fisheries resources protection by setting objectives for catches to ensure their
sustainability and, in the immediate, to improve the management of fisheries. The FAO had, for
example, published a code of conduct for responsible fisheries. Among the expected results for
the project would be the facilitation of policy and legislative reforms, Mediterranean strategies
for the conservation and sustainable management of vulnerable or endangered fish species,
reducing the impact of trawling, eliminating particularly harmful fishing practices, and more
selective fishing gear and practices. All those objectives and activities responded to the
provisions in the SAP BIO.
34. One representative acknowledged the benefits of the work carried out by the FAO in the
GFCM, but could not see any tangible results in any Mediterranean country whatsoever: in his
view, no sustainable and responsible national fisheries programme had yet actually been put into
practice. The same remark could apply to other areas such as integrated coastal zone
management: a coastal management programme implemented in his country had led to an
impressive amount of theoretical work but, after many years, had not led to any concrete and
rational measure on coastal management. The basic question was more than ever: where were we
at present and where were we going? Another representative strongly supported that position,
stating that in his country as well a coastal management programme had not had any follow-up,
but that was not the fault of MAP but of the national and local authorities who had not, at the
time, taken advantage of the opportunity. The failures noted clearly pointed the direction in
which the proposed Partnership should move if the situation was to be truly reversed.
35. Mr. Ivica Trumbic, Director of the Regional Activities Centre for the Priority Action
Programme (PAP/RAC, Split), described the experience gained by MAP/PAP over the past
15 years in the area of integrated coastal zone management with the initiation of coastal area
programmes (CAMP) in the majority of Mediterranean countries. Undoubtedly the results were
uneven and depended on the country, but whenever the government concerned and the national
counterpart team had the will to utilize the findings of studies carried out on the spot, the result
was a success, as could be seen in the examples of Croatia and Albania. There had been a
decisive breakthrough in ICZM in the Mediterranean recently with the adoption of a
recommendation on drafting a new Protocol on the issue taken by the Contracting Parties at
Catania in 2003. The work was moving ahead and a draft text would be submitted to the
forthcoming meeting of the Contracting Parties in 2005. The legal framework to be adopted
would enable ICZM to be more systematically disseminated in the Mediterranean and the
Partnership envisaged attributed a central role to the issue alongside the SAP MED and the
SAP BIO.
36. Mrs. Alice Aureli, International Hydrological Programme (UNESCO-IHP), and Mr. Bo
Appelgren, Principal Consultant, UNESCO, gave a presentation on coastal aquifers in the
Mediterranean and the contribution of the IHP to the Partnership through various activities such
as demonstration projects (recharge, for example), inventories of aquifers, mapping of their
vulnerability, and a regional plan of action for their management. An addition on this issue had
been included in the TDA. The problem needed to be addressed as a priority because in all
Mediterranean countries there was a scarcity of underground water, with inadequate management
of a resource that was so crucial to their economies. The main threats were the sustainability of
33
the flow of underground water, saltwater intrusion and the salination affecting coastal wetlands,
the vulnerability of aquifers to surface pollution, and pressure on resources shared by several
countries.
37. Mr. Ellik Adler, Regional Seas Coordinator, UNEP, drew the participants' attention to the
fact that the "land-based sources" Protocol, revised in 1996, had still not entered into force.
Three instruments of ratification were lacking and that was one weak point in the legal system
underpinning the SAP MED. Efforts should be made to remedy the situation by promoting
awareness and by helping countries that had not yet ratified it to complete the procedure. One
other issue in the regional Partnership project that called for urgent treatment was that of coastal
litter, which was politically sensitive because of its visibility for local populations and for the
millions of tourists on Mediterranean beaches, but above all because of its imminently
transboundary scope.
38. The MAP Coordinator replied that the question of non-ratification of new or revised
Protocols had long been one of the major concerns of the MAP Secretariat and the Bureau of the
Contracting Parties, which had continually urged countries to ratify. Consequently, despite the
positive developments in ratification of the revised Convention and the new "prevention and
emergency situations" Protocol, the question of ratification of the "land-based sources" Protocol
and of other Protocols was the subject of ongoing efforts by the Secretariat, in cooperation with
the Bureau and the depositary State (Spain).
39. Mr. Paolo Guglielmi, WWF, and Mr. Vangelis Constantianos, Executive Secretary of
MIO/ECSDE, expressed the keen interest of their respective organizations in the regional
Partnership project, in view of their experience in the region, their work in the field and in
networks bringing together NGOs, local authorities and major actors in society. The question of
the role and participation of civil society in the Partnership had not yet been mentioned at the
meeting although it was decisive for winning over public opinion and, consequently, for the
overall sustainability of the project. Mr. Ulrich Dan Weuder, UNEP/GPA, pointed out that, with
the assistance of Italy, his programme had cooperated with UNEP/MAP on long-term financing
and that continuation of those efforts would be beneficial to the GEF Partnership.
Agenda item 3.2:
The Investment Fund under the Strategic Partnership
40. Mrs. Dahlia Lotayef, GEF Regional Coordinator for the Middle East and North Africa,
World Bank, introduced the second component of the GEF MED Partnership: the Investment
Fund for Pollution Reduction in the Mediterranean. The time had come for the practical
implementation of the two SAPs and, as already mentioned, the cost of pollution remedial
actions had been estimated at some US$10 billion for SAP MED and US$110 million for
SAP BIO. The Investment Fund would have to provide financing of up to US$60 to 70 million in
several tranches and open to contributions by other donors. It would be a participatory process
with information feedback from countries. The eligibility criteria for the resources would focus
in particular on pollution "hot spots" and "sensitive areas" listed in the two SAPs, conformity of
the projects with the GEF's International Waters Operational Program, the objectives of the
SAPs and the commitment made by countries to undertake relevant policy, legal and institutional
reforms. No GEF grant would be earmarked in advance for any particular country or project, but
34
financing would be on a case-by-case basis on the principle of "first come, first served",
depending on the relevance and admissibility of projects submitted with the objective for the
medium and long terms of ensuring a geographical balance in the distribution of resources in the
Mediterranean and achieving leveraging with a co-financing ratio of US$3 for each US$1
granted by the Fund.
41. During the discussion following the above presentation, several questions were put to the
World Bank and the GEF by country representatives: coordination and consistency with the
European Union which, under the Euro-Med Partnership and, more recently, the good-neighbour
policy, also had a strategy for dialogue and financing with Mediterranean countries for the
benefit of the environment; action by the European Investment Bank or other European bodies;
assistance to countries for project preparation; whether the US$60 to 70 million would be
available immediately; possibility of loans; need for a counterpart contribution; highly
approximate estimate of the amount of the grant a country might receive, even though it was
understood that no allocation would be made in advance, possibility of pilot or demonstration
projects.
42. With regard to coordination with the European Union, the MAP Coordinator emphasized that
the new Strategic Partnership and the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership, far from being mutually
exclusive, could be complementary and benefit the region as a whole. The MAP had previously
had very close and constructive cooperation with the European Union that had led to the
preparation of a joint programme of work to be discussed at the forthcoming meeting of the
Bureau of the Contracting Parties in Cairo in November 2004 and then submitted to the next
ordinary meeting of the Contracting Parties in Slovenia in 2005 for adoption. The programme
would focus on projects that used all the financing mechanisms of the EU available.
43. The representatives of the World Bank and the GEF endorsed the MAP Coordinator's
statement. In their view, the European Union had a catalytic effect in many Mediterranean
countries not to mention in the six countries that were members and several of its directives,
such as that on water, constituted an inescapable point of reference. Considerable importance
should therefore be attached to the links between the Partnership and the EU, its partners, its
financing institutions, the follow-up to the Declaration and the Athens process. In general,
coordination had been weak at several levels even between the Fund and the regional project
in the Danube/Black Sea Partnership and it was important to ensure that such a problem did not
recur in the GEF MED Partnership. In that connection, a mid-term evaluation meeting appeared
to be indicated (the mid-term meeting for the Danube/Black Sea Partnership would be held in
November 2004) in order to make any necessary corrections and adjustments.
44. With regard to the questions raised on the financing modalities of the Investment Fund, it
was explained that: (1) there would be a sharing of responsibilities and close cooperation among
countries, organizations and the World Bank regarding the preparation and eligibility of projects,
but the final decision on financing lay with the GEF on the basis of agreed criteria; (2) the loans
granted to complement the GEF grants for blended operations were fully justified in the case of
large-scale projects, so as to have a more integrated and holistic approach, provided that they
were in line with the aid strategy between the Bank and the country concerned; (3) the highly
approximative amount of grants per country could be between US$5 to 7 million on the basis of
35
the Danube/Black Sea precedent and the estimated appropriation for the Mediterranean divided
by the number of eligible countries, subject to many factors such as the final number of countries
in the Partnership, the size and scope of the projects concerned, the possible association of two or
more countries in a single project, etc.; (4) the total appropriation, which would represent a firm
commitment by the GEF Council after its approval, could not be disbursed immediately but only
in three tranches (amounting to some US$20 million each), because the GEF was a trust fund
replenished every three years and the time taken to prepare projects had to be taken into account,
together with the need for follow-up and evaluation of the global trend in the implementation
process and effective use of the resources.
45. Concluding the agenda item, an exchange of views took place on the advantages of
participation by the private sector, which had already been mentioned in connection with the
introduction of cleaner technology in industry. The World Bank referred to several projects it
had carried out in the Mediterranean in the tourism sector and under the Danube/Black Sea
Partnership through farmers' associations.
Agenda item 4:
Experience with the Danube/Black Sea Strategic Partnership
46. Mrs. Battaglini, GEF Regional Coordinator for Europe and Central Asia, World Bank,
presented the Danube/Black Sea Partnership, pointing out that the first lessons drawn from that
Partnership had been valuable when preparing the framework concept for the GEF Partnership
for the Mediterranean, which replicated the major elements and principles. She described the
geographical, political and demographic features of the two basins, the major environmental
problems to be resolved (including the vast load of nutrients) and the process of preparing and
implementing the Partnership. She introduced a table showing the projects being implemented
(four countries) and in preparation (eight countries) financed by the Investment Fund for the
Partnership, with the amounts of the GEF grants, the co-financing obtained, and the leverage
ratio achieved, which represented an average of 1/4.6. In conclusion, the Partnership had had a
clearly marked catalytic effect, and had shown the possibility of introducing innovative
technologies, with a concrete number of projects under preparation and a significant trend to a
reduction in nutrients found in river and marine waters.
47. Mrs. De Palma, UNIDO, adding to her previous statement on UNIDO's activities in the
Danube Basin dealing with industrial "hot spots", described the case of a paper and pulp factory
in Romania, which had shown that substantial investment could be obtained from the private
sector to replace obsolescent technology when it led to increased profitability and
competitiveness by lowering production costs and improving the quality of the product.
48. As practical examples of eligibility for financing by the GEF Partnership Investment Fund,
Mr. Andreas Rohde, Sanitary Engineer, World Bank, described several projects: protection of
water quality in Bosnia and Herzegovina; integrated management of the ecosystem of the
Neretva River Basin in Bosnia/Croatia; integrated management of water and ecosystems in
Albania; combating pollution in towns on the Croatian coast. Mr. Anders Alm, Environmentalist,
World Bank, described four projects: integrated coastal zone management in Alexandria (Egypt);
integrated management of the ecosystem and abatement of pollution from land-based sources in
the Nador lagoon in Morocco; restoration of self-purification capacity in the Bizerta lagoon in
36
Tunisia; and integrated approach to the recovery of the ecosystem in the town of Ghazaouet in
Algeria.
49. Drawing lessons from the various presentations, particularly that on the Danube/Black Sea
Partnership, the MAP Coordinator said that they were tried and tested methods that had
demonstrated their effectiveness and where the catalytic effect was in fact significant enough to
gain support. The representatives of countries and other actors concerned by the GEF MED
Partnership now had sufficient elements to form an opinion and make comments or suggestions.
50. Mrs. Belkhir, Director, SPA/RAC, thanked the representatives of the World Bank and the
GEF for clarifying the financial aspects and for their presentations, which provided several
lessons. She considered, nevertheless, that biological diversity in Program 8 of the GEF's
International Waters Programme came a poor second in comparison with the amounts allocated
to SAP MED. Biological diversity had been endorsed downstream of the project. Although it
was true that combating pollution helped to conserve habitats, that was not one of the priority
actions in the SAP BIO. The Contracting Parties had approved the SAP BIO in Catania and they
had high hopes of the GEF in regard to its implementation, whose coordination had been
entrusted to the SPA/RAC. The latter had sent to the GEF a document on the financing phase
the GEF had from the outset accepted the principle of financing but no reply had been
received. She hoped that the GEF would explain what procedure had to be followed in order to
put the two SAPs on an equal footing in the interests of the region and of the sustainability of its
resources.
51. Three representatives of countries and one representative of a non-governmental organization
spoke strongly in support of the position of the SPA/RAC, pointing out that the intensive, highly
serious and comprehensive work that had been carried out during preparation of the SAP BIO
must not end in failure because of lack of financing, otherwise it would be a "stillborn project".
Since the Meeting of the Contracting Parties held in Catania, however, the process had been at a
standstill. One representative considered that the two aspects could be reconciled, while another
expressed disagreement with the SPA/RAC because there was overlapping between the two
activities and there was indeed a SAP MED upstream and a SAP BIO downstream. Drawing
conclusions from the discussion, the MAP Coordinator agreed that there was a need for more
effective implementation of the SAP BIO.
52. The representative of the GEF Secretariat said that, first of all, the Partnership framework
had been established for the two SAPs, which were both ready to be implemented. Secondly, the
response given by countries appeared to be clear and underlined their interest in the SAP BIO. It
was therefore necessary to draw the consequences by strengthening that component in the
regional project and adapting the Investment Fund so as to allocate resources more directly to
action in that area. Little time was left to do so. It was an opportunity for the GEF to undertake a
major project for the two focal areas of biological diversity and combating pollution and to
decide on eligibility at the end of October. It would therefore be useful if the meeting adopted a
recommendation to that effect.
Agenda item 5:
Multilateral and bilateral technical assistance
37
53. Mrs. Selma Cengic, representative of Bosnia and Herzegovina, introduced several projects
that had been undertaken in her country including, inter alia, the preparation of a plan for the
management of the Sava River Basin, transboundary cooperation through the management of
shared natural resources (Neretva Delta, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia, 2001-2003, within
the framework of the Stability Pact for South-Eastern Europe) and the integrated management of
the ecosystem of the Neretva and Trebisnjica River Basins (Bosnia and Herzegovina and
Croatia).
54. Mr. Francesco Presicce, Expert, Italian Ministry of the Environment, outlined the assistance
given by Italy to other Mediterranean countries. For example, the MEDREP Programme
promoted the concept of innovative partnership, bringing together some 20 major actors in the
region ministries, government agencies, scientific institutions, UNEP and the World Bank in
order to supply electricity and provide sustainable energy services, targeting rural populations.
One other example: Italy participated in a water programme for Africa with the objective of
creating desalination systems, reusing wastewater and plants for supplying water driven by
renewable energy. Through the variety and effectiveness of those cooperation activities, Italy
sought to show the vast potential for sustainable growth and the strength of the cultural links
uniting the countries of the North and South of the Mediterranean.
Agenda item 6:
Follow-up actions
55. Mr. Merla, Programme ManagerAdministrator, International Waters, GEF Secretariat,
explained the procedure to be followed in the coming weeks and months. The two organizations
responsible for the framework concept of the Partnership, namely, UNEP and the World Bank,
would take into account the reactions and recommendations of the countries at the present
meeting in order to revise certain parts of the document presented at the Meeting, where needed,
within a week or two and submit it in final form to the GEF Secretariat, which would either
approve it or request further modifications before the GEF CEO decided to accept it among the
projects in the pipeline. The GEF would then be in a position to disburse the funds (up to
US$700,000) for the more detailed design of the project as a whole, and countries would, for
their part, jointly provide their co-financing. The period for the detailed formulation of the full-
size Project PDF-B would be approximately one year from the PDF-B approval. The final
proposal, which had to be endorsed by the GEF National Focal Points (without countries
necessarily having to commit themselves to the Partnership) would then be put before the GEF
Council (which could occur within about one year).
Agenda item 7:
Conclusions and recommendations
56. The representative of UNEP/GEF considered that the meeting had been fruitful: countries
had shown their interest and the two organizations responsible for the framework concept could
work constructively with them. Three representatives of countries endorsed that view,
emphasizing that the Partnership provided a useful opportunity to respond to the need for
implementation underlined on several occasions at meetings of the Contracting Parties, even
though some questions still had to be settled, timetables fixed and further consultation meetings
planned. The representative of the Italian Government emphasized that the purpose of the
initiative was to catalyze financing and to ensure the sustainability of the SAPs by utilizing new
38
economic instruments and mobilizing the largest possible number of actors. That had now
become a plausible prospect. The GEF Coordinator at the World Bank considered that an
important step had been taken. There was a consensus among countries to let UNEP/MAP, the
World Bank and the GEF know that it was a project of interest to them and that they should
move ahead, which had been the sole purpose for organizing the present initial meeting.
57. The MAP Coordinator said that a draft recommendation had been drawn up by the meeting's
Secretariat on the basis of the discussions. After some editorial amendments had been made, the
meeting adopted the following text, as a message addressed to the GEF Council to be included in
the draft report of the meeting that would shortly be sent to all participants so that they might
make their comments:
58.
"The representatives of Mediterranean countries approved the proposed Strategic
Partnership as a whole. They also considered that the effective initiation of the SAP MED
activities and the recent adoption of the SAP BIO provided an excellent opportunity to
apply the integrated approach involving pollution reduction and biological diversity
proposed in the Strategic Partnership.
In addition, the representatives of countries emphasized that, at present, the
implementation of the SAP BIO called for additional resources under the "biodiversity"
component of the GEF in order to enable practical implementation of the activities at the
national and regional levels. Consequently, several representatives considered that the
GEF funds for biological diversity should be increased in order to provide a substantial
contribution to the launching of the SAP BIO in the region."
Agenda item 8:
Closure of the meeting
59. Following the customary exchange of courtesies, the MAP Coordinator declared the meeting
closed at 1.15 p.m. on Tuesday, 12 October 2004.
39