Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel

The Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel, administered by UNEP, advises the Global Environment Facility
(Version 5)
STAP Scientific and Technical screening of the Project Identification Form (PIF)
Date of screening: 11 March 2008

Screener: Douglas Taylor, STAP Secretary

Panel member validation by: Meryl Williams
I. PIF Information
GEFSEC PROJECT ID: 3519
GEF AGENCY PROJECT ID: 4055
COUNTRY(IES): Argentina, Uruguay
PROJECT TITLE: Reducing and preventing land-based pollution in the Rio de la Plata/Maritime Front
through implementation of the FrePlata Strategic Action Programme
GEF AGENCY(IES): UNDP
OTHER EXECUTING PARTNER(S): CARP and CTMFM in coordination with other agencies involved with
the SAP
GEF FOCAL AREA (S): International Waters
GEF-4 STRATEGIC PROGRAM(S): IW SP-2

Full size project
GEF Trust Fund

II. STAP Advisory Response (see table below for explanation)

1. Based on this PIF screening, STAP's advisory response to the GEF Secretariat and GEF Agency(ies):
Consent


III. Further guidance from STAP

2. STAP strongly supports the thrusts of this project. It is well founded on the TDA and clearly needed
since the bilateral and cross-sectoral dimensions for implementing the SAP and NAPs are not assured
without further support.
3. In developing the project, research may be needed to better understand which sources make the
greatest contributions to the pollution detected in the environment. This would be in addition to the
source and hotspot monitoring. Experience in other large estuaries shows that once point source
pollution is more strongly controlled, the large and more difficult to control non-point sources (agriculture,
urban run-off, atmospheric) are revealed. In addition, more upstream monitoring of all sources may be
required to ensure that at-source measures are more effectively targeted. The current TDA appears to
focus on information in the estuary itself. Efforts to further improve the information systems and integrate
these are strongly supported.

STAP advisory
Brief explanation of advisory response and action proposed
response
1.
Consent
STAP acknowledges that on scientific/technical grounds the concept has merit. However, STAP may state its views on the
concept emphasising any issues that could be improved and the proponent is invited to approach STAP for advice at any time
during the development of the project brief prior to submission for CEO endorsement.
2.
Minor revision
STAP has identified specific scientific/technical suggestions or opportunities that should be discussed with the proponent as
required.
early as possible during development of the project brief. One or more options that remain open to STAP include:
(i)
Opening a dialogue between STAP and the proponent to clarify issues
(i ) Setting a review point during early stage project development and agreeing terms of reference for an independent
expert to be appointed to conduct this review
The proponent should provide a report of the action agreed and taken, at the time of submission of the ful project brief for
CEO endorsement.
3.
Major revision
STAP proposes significant improvements or has concerns on the grounds of specified major scientific/technical omissions in
required
the concept. If STAP provides this advisory response, a ful explanation would also be provided. Normal y, a STAP approved
review wil be mandatory prior to submission of the project brief for CEO endorsement.
The proponent should provide a report of the action agreed and taken, at the time of submission of the ful project brief for
CEO endorsement.

1

---