GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
GEF - BLACK SEA ENVIRONMENTAL
PROGRAMME
RER/92/G31 - RER/93/G31 - RER/94/G41 - RER/96/006
FINAL REPORT
7 March 1997
1
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Content
List of Figures
Glossary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
PART I
BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW
1.1 Initial commitment of the Black Sea countries
1.2 Design of the Programme: Development objective and immediate objectives
1.3 Design of the Programme: institutional set-up
1.4 Expected end-of-project results.
1.5 Programme funding
PART II
INPUTS
2.1 GEF funding
2.2 PCU staffing
2.3 Technical expertise: use of Black Sea experts and international specialists.
2.4 Three agencies in partnership
2.5 Parallel support from the donor community
2.6 Government support
PART III
OUTPUTS AND RESULTS
3.1. Capacity Building
3.1.1. Equipping the laboratories and institutions
3.1.2. Training programmes
3.1.3. Regional and national cooperation
3.1.4. Data management and information tools
3.1.5. Public participation and NGOs involvement
3.2. Outputs from thematic areas
3.2.1. Emergency response
3.2.2. Pollution Monitoring
3.2.3 Biodiversity
3.2.4. Integrated Coastal Zone Management
3.2.5 Fisheries
3.3. Developing an appropriate policy and legislative framework
3.4. Facilitating the preparation of sound environmental investments (and innovative
financial mechanisms to finance the protection of the Black Sea).
3.5. Developing the BS-SAP
PART IV
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
5.1 Review of the Programme financial results by budget clusters or categories.
5.2 Distribution of the budget by thematic areas
5.3 Inter-Agency Agreements
PART V - LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CONCLUSION
2
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
BLACK SEA ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMME
RER/93/G31 - FINAL REPORT
DRAFT OUTLINE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PART I : BACKGROUND
1.
Historical background and development: initial commitment of the BS countries
2.
Design of the Programme: development problem and immediate objectives
(incl. Jeftic + prepare a table with objectives and achievements / activity)
3.
Design of the Programme: institutional organization a balanced approach for sharing
responsibilities and actions among 6 countries.
(incl. Schema of inst. Arrangements with Steering Committee, etc.)
4.
Management of the Programme: Implementation and Execution
Programme Funding and evaluation
Emphasizing:
identification of the problem/s (PA phase) and approach taken to address it/them
PART II: INPUTS
1.
GEF funding + budget management and analysis
2.
PCU staff - cost-effectiveness, team leader, etc.
3.
Extensive use of BS contracts combined with chosen and selective international expertise
4
Government inputs and backing / BS stakeholders (recipient of BSEP TA)
5.
Three agencies in partnership
6.
Additional and parallel support
PART III: OUTPUTS AND RESULTS
1.
Thematic results:
1.1.
Pollution
Monitoring
Data collection
Monitoring system in place (coherent, measurable, systematic and harmonized)
Pilot
studies
LBS and Hot Spot surveys
1.2.
Biodiversity
National and regional assessments + Bio. Investment Plan
Marine
Mammals
WG
1.3.
Fisheries
Stock assessment efforts for sustainable management of the resources
Emphasis on Aquaculture as viable option for sustainable development
1.4.
ICZM ICZM national networks, boundaries, nat. reports, reg. report and pilot projects
Tourism
initiative
1.5.
Emergency
Response: ?
Emphasizing:
- the factors that significantly facilitated or impeded the outputs, in particular.: the efforts
of BSEP to generate additional $ contribution as well as induce Government's interest
3
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
and support; the effectiveness of the networks; BSEP success in facilitating exchange of
info/experience with other prog. when possible (ER, ICZM), etc. but also changing
political situation; communication problems, etc.
2.
Capacity building
2.1.
Equipping the laboratories and institutions
2.2.
Regional
co-operation: networks established with communication facilities + support to
WP
meetings
2.3.
National Co-operation: coordination at national level not much improved ?
2.4.
Data management tools provided (GIS, BlackSIS)
2.5.
Training:
- formal training: No. of events both in the BS region and outside
- in-service training: incl. Contracts with institutions./consultants from
the BS region with methodology developed in consultation with
international experts
2.6.
P/A and P/P
(incl. BSEP publications & newsletters; NGO small grants and network; internet
connection; film;...)
2.7.
Legislation
2.8.
Establishment of BS Commission and Secretariat (?)
Emphasizing:
- effort of harmonization and consistency
- both policy and grass-roots activities
- training mainly undertaken in the region using regional facilities and expertise
-
"image"
created
3. Generating
investments
3.1.
Economic
instruments
3.2.
Regional Environmental Fund
3.3.
BSEPS
Portfolio (pending ?)
3.4.
UIP
3.5.
Biodiversity Investment Plan
Emphasizing:
- key role of the WB (obscure one of EBRD ?)
- innovative solutions proposed
PART IV: DEVELOPING THE BSAP: Process and product
Emphasizing:
- consultation process (incl. NGOs)
- pulling the best resources and expertise from the region
PART V: LESSONS LEARNED / FOLLOW-UP AND RECOMMENDATIONS
ANNEXES
4
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This is the final report for the Black Sea Environmental Programme. It combines final reporting
requirements for RER/92/G31 - Preparatory Assistance to the Environmental Management and
Protection of the Black Sea, RER/93/G31 - Environmental Management and Protection of the
Black Sea, RER/95/G41 - Development of a self-sustaining Mechanism to Ensure the
Environmental Management of the Black Sea, and RER/96/006 - Formulation of the Black Sea
Strategic Action Plan.
The purpose of the Programme was to strengthen and create regional capacities for managing the
Black Sea ecosystem, develop an appropriate policy and legislative framework for the
assessment, control and prevention of pollution and the maintenance and enhancement of
biodiversity, and facilitate the preparation of sound environmental investments. The Programme
was implemented by the United National Development Programme (UNDP) and executed by the
United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS). The Programme was to establish the
necessary scientific, institutional and policy framework for the design and preparation of a Black
Sea Strategic Action Plan.
The Programme achieved the following results:
· Black Sea technical networks were established in the thematic areas of : emergency response,
pollution monitoring, biodiversity, integrated coastal zone management, fisheries and
corresponding activity institutions strengthened to become regional centres of competence in
their respective area.
· Reference laboratories were fully equipped with modern and up-to-date instrumentation; and
pilot and routine pollution monitoring activities were carried out.
· Formal and on-the-job training to some 500 experts was provided, inter alia in: the use and
installation of equipment, the identification of issues and the development of appropriate
strategies to address them, assessment methodologies and the management of assistance
projects.
· Data management and information tools were developed, public awareness materials
produced and disseminated.
· A network for exchange of experience and integration and streamlining of efforts among
Black Sea non governmental organizations was established.
· A total of 88 national and regional thematic assessments were produced, fueling into the
preparation of the Black Sea Strategic Action Plan.
· A technical Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis was prepared, as the groundwork for the
Black Sea Strategic Action Plan.
· A Black Sea Strategic Action Plan was developed and signed by the ministers of the
environment of the six Black Sea countries (RER/96/006)
· A portfolio of urgent priority investments was identified and six selected pre-feasibility
studies were implemented.
· Development of innovative financial mechanisms to sustain environmental management of
the Black Sea.
In addition, the Programme facilitated the following results:
· Increased and coordinated donor support to the region. The Programme demonstrated how to
generate donors contribution to enhance the value of GEF investment.
5
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
· Enhanced regional and national cooperation in-between the Black Sea countries and among
the different sectors of the countries.
· Establishment of a strong and integrated management of the Programme with an effective
Programme Steering Committee channeling the inputs of the countries, the donor
communities and the GEF partners.
· Involvement, on a regional basis, of UNDP Country Offices in the implementation of
components of the Programme and cooperation with GEF-NGO Small Grants Programme
and UNDP Country Offices for support to the countries in the area of environmental
management.
· Coordination of the specialized inputs of the UN agencies, the World Bank, the private
sector, research institutes and NGOs into the implementation of activities.
The Black Sea countries expressed early on their appreciation with the implementation of this
Programme. They requested and fully supported the development of a second phase, which is on-
going at present. The institutional learning of the Programme will help focus the second phase on
these priority areas, such as the need for: a basin-wide policy umbrella, specific investment
projects generated through a coordinated donor approach, and enhanced public participation.
6
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION
The present Final Report presents achievements and results of the Black Sea Environmental
Programme (thereafter referred to as the Programme or the BSEP), as implemented through four
individual projects. Because the projects are mutually supportive and were designed to address
the same longer term development problem within a build-in institutional and policy framework,
it was decided to combine the presentation of all projects into one final report. This report then
covers the following projects:
Project No.
Project Title
Source of
Approved
Years of
Fund
Budget
impl.
RER/92/G31 Preparatory Assistance Project
GEF
$488,000
1992-93
RER/93/G31 Environmental Management and Protection of the
GEF $8,812,000
1993-96
Black Sea
RER/95/G41 Development of a Self-Sustaining Mechanism to
GEF
$49,000 1995
Ensure the Environmental Management of the Black
Bloc B
Sea
RER/96/006
Formulation of the Black Sea Strategic Action Plan
UNDP IPF
$194,761
1996
A number of substantive documents reviewing the progress and outputs of the BSEP have already
been prepared and published. These proved to be excellent background materials for this final
report and may be consulted in parallel to the reading of this document. These include:
· BSEP Annual Report 1994
published by the BSEP-PCU1
· BSEP Annual Report 1995
published by the BSEP-PCU
· BSEP Annual Report 1996 (draft)
published by the BSEP-PCU
· Project Evaluation Report RER/93/G31
of 20 November 1995
· Project Evaluation Report RER/93/G31 (update) of 4 February 1997 (thereafter referred to as
"Update of the Evaluation")
This final report, by no means, wishes to repeat the conclusions and findings of these reports, but
rather builds upon them and attempts to present the results of the BSEP in a coherent way, i.e.
stating the immediate problems the Programme was intended to address and the logic of its
approach to addressing them (in terms of inputs sought and used, strategy and methodology
developed and implemented and outputs produced). The document also presents financial
statements of all four projects and analytically introduce the management of the project as per the
sources of funds used. Finally, the report draws lessons learned from the implementation of the
Programme and propose recommendations for consideration when developing follow-up projects.
1 BSEP-PCU stands for the Black Sea Environmental Programme - Programme Coordination Unit or PCU,
based in Istanbul, Turkey.
7
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
PART I
BACKGROUND and OVERVIEW
1.1 Initial commitment of the Black Sea countries
The BSEP started with an initial commitment of the Black Sea countries. Faced with a rapidly
deteriorating water quality and environment, the six Black Sea coastal countries decided to act in
concert to revert this degradation. Inspired by the Regional Seas Conventions which emerged
after the 1972 Stockholm Conference on Environment and Development, representatives of the
Black Sea countries drafted their own "Convention for the Protection of the Black Sea Against
Pollution" (the Bucharest Convention), with technical advice provided by preliminary missions of
UN specialized agencies. The convention was signed in Bucharest in April 1992 and ratified by
all six legislative assemblies by early 1994. The Bucharest Convention includes a basic
framework of agreement and three specific Protocols on: the control of land-based sources of
pollution; dumping of waste, and: joint action in the case of accidents (such as oil spills). Under
the auspices of UNEP, which hosted a meeting of technical expert to discuss the final draft of the
declaration, a Ministerial Declaration was signed in Odessa in 1993 (the Odessa Ministerial
Declaration) in an effort to provide guidelines for policy and concrete actions, that would
complement the Bucharest Convention.
The recent political changes within the region favorably credited the initiative and created an
unprecedented opportunity for joint action at the regional and international level. Building upon
this momentum, a request was presented to the GEF to financially support a programme of
assistance for the Black Sea, through the creation of the Black Sea Environmental Programme
(BSEP). This programme was signed on 29 June 1993 for $9.3 million for three years, of which
some $500,000 was earmarked for preparatory activities.
1.2 Design of the Programme: Development objective and immediate objectives
The overall development objective of the Programme was stated as: "Restoration of the Black Sea
ecosystem and protection of all its natural resources"2, a theme of Chapter 17 of Agenda 21 of the
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development3. The Programme was the first
regional programme to be based upon this document.
The immediate objectives of the Programme together with corresponding success criteria were
agreed at the June 1993 initial meeting of representatives of the Black Sea governments
(thereafter named the BSEP first Steering Committee meeting) and expressly stated in the Project
Document RER/93/G31. These were to:
Immediate Objectives
Actions/
Expected end-of-project situation / Principal Determination of
Output
Achievements
1
Strengthen and create regional capacities for 6/11
Training programmes for capacity building, human resources
managing the Black Sea ecosystem
development and environmentally sound investment policies
implemented/
- Full implementation of Bucharest Conv. and Odessa Declaration
- Technical reports received from each of the working groups
- At least one institution per country contributing to regional
assessment
- Official adoption of contingency plan
- External review of the implementation of individual projects
- Monitoring outputs/poling public opinion
2 Revised Project Document RER/93/G31 of October 1995, page 16.
3 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, June 1992
8
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
2
Develop an appropriate policy and legislative 7/12
Support systems established for implementing the recently adopted
framework for the assessment, control and
Bucharest Convention and Ministerial Declaration when adopted
prevention of pollution and maintenance and
& preparation and adoption of the BS-SAP /
enhancement of biodiversity
- Signature of Odessa Declaration
- Preparation and adoption of BS-SAP
- Strategy developed for rehabilitation and sustainable
development of shared and straddling natural resources
- Completion of triennial status and trend report of Odessa Decl.,
its public diffusion and review
3 Facilitate the preparation of sound 6/8
A list of urgent investment ready and partly implemented /
environmental investments
- Portfolio of urgent investment accepted
- Financial support to pre-investment studies by major donors
- Adoption of a priority investment plan (as a component of the
BSAP) and biodiversity & fisheries investment plans.
- Publication of EIA case studies
-Promotion of transfer of appropriate technologies
The immediate objectives of the programme are far-ranging, going beyond mere biological and
natural resources management and are closely related to and dependent upon the political and
economic context of the region. Attaining these objectives pre-supposed that:
· regional (Black Sea) co-operation (embryonic at the start of the programme) would develop
and prevail in the medium to long term;
· international co-operation with and technical/financial support to the Black Sea region would
increase; co-operation among donors would be enhanced;
· inter-sectoral consultation and co-operation would take place within the countries;
· consultation among the different society's stakeholders would effectively take place within
the countries;
· financing from domestic (and foreign sources) would be maintained and/or secured.
This ambitious programme was highly dependent upon a concerted action, joint efforts and
adequate financing both from domestic and foreign sources.
1.3 Design of the Programme: institutional set-up
To address such a complex and ambitious goal, the Programme was institutionally designed in an
innovative way, centered around a Programme Co-ordination Unit. The programme relied upon:
a network of Activity Centers and corresponding Focal Point institutions in each of the other 5
countries. These Activity Centers would become center of competence in their respective area.
The approach follows the principle that responsibility for the management of the Black Sea is to
be shared among the riparian countries; therefore, actions and activities should be similarly
shared in a balanced way among the countries. This institutional network (see Annex 1), though
complex, time-consuming and demanding to manage, was successful in ensuring the
involvement of a great number of experts from all six Black Sea countries and in attributing a
specific leading responsibility to each of the countries. Each Activity Center and its
corresponding Focal Point institutions form a working group. Three additional working groups
are operational and based at the BSEP-PCU. These are the working groups on Data Management
and GIS, Environmental Economics, and the Advisory Panel on the Harmonization of
Environmental Quality Criteria, Standards, Legislation and Enforcement. Finally the BSEP-PCU
is coordinating activities to strengthen the capacities of non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
in the Black Sea to become more active in the design of environmental management programmes
and policies.
9
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Activity Centers
Location
Emergency Response
Varna, Bulgaria
Routine Pollution Monitoring (monitoring)
Istanbul, Turkey
Special Pollution Monitoring (control)
Odessa, Ukraine
Protection of Biodiversity
Batumi, Georgia
Development of Common Methodology for Krasnodar, Russian Federation
Integrated Coastal Zone management
Fisheries Constanta,
Romania
a rigorous approach towards the production of the outputs. The "stringent logic that is typical of
the Programme as a whole4" and through which the Black Sea Strategic Action Plan (BS-SAP)
was derived at was consistently followed throughout the implementation of the Programme and
across the various thematic areas. The whole work of the BSEP moved rigorously towards the
ultimate objective, i.e. the preparation of the BS- SAP, in a coherent and progressive fashion. The
figure (Figure 1) on the previous page illustrates this process and section III.1 of this report
explains, by taking each thematic area as example, the driving strategy of the Programme.
a central role for the Programme Coordination Unit (PCU). Instead of sub-contracting major
components of the Programme (as a clearing house), the BSEP-PCU, located in Istanbul, Turkey,
opted to carry out itself the design, organization and implementation of a wide range of small
activities (training, meeting, preparation of reports and studies, data collection, pilot projects,
etc.). This necessitated a considerable investment in time and dedication on the part of the project
staff members, but enabled the BSEP-PCU to 1) effectively drive the whole process and control
each step of the strategy and 2) make extensive use of regional and local consultants (through the
issue of small contracts), thereby enhancing the ownership of the Programme by the Black Sea
countries.
a service-oriented, catalytic approach. The BSEP-PCU helped coordinate donor support and
provided guidance for the preparation of terms of reference, the drafting of project documents and
the design of donor strategy for assistance to the region. This proved very valuable for mobilizing
parallel financing and harmonizing donor assistance and also helped forged confidence within the
region that the PCU was a trust-worthy service center for the Black Sea countries.
4 Project Evaluation Report, 20 November 1995, page 8
10
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Figure 1: BSEP Process for preparing a Strategy for a Medium / Long term
Environmental Action Plan (Black Sea Strategic Action Plan)
Thematic
areas
/
Activity
Centers
Data Management
Emergency Pollution Biodiversity
ICZM
Fisheries Env. Economics
Integration
Bulgaria Turkey Georgia
Russia
Romania NGO & information/PA
94/95
of institutional
Ukraine
Adv. Panel on standards
networks
BSEP-PCU
- Creating WP networks
Enhanced
- Equipping the institutes and lab
== > Management
-
Enhancing
communications
Capacity
WP
meetings
and
training
Analyses at
- Developing methodology for
Identification of
95 country level
analyses (int. expertise + reg. Cons.
urgent actions
and by
- Preparing national studies/analysis
== > Demonstration
themes
- Carrying out pilot studies
projects at country
-
Gathering
new
information
level
(Fisheries,
Pollution
Monitoring)
Early 96
Regional
- Compiling and reviewing all national
Immediate regional
Assessments
reports & analysis and preparing
== > actions
regional
synthesis
June 96
Preparation of
- Using best reg. and int. expertise,
Document proposing
(2 weeks)
TDA
extracting most relevant national info.
== > technical
assessment
and data of transboundary impacts
of problems and
quantified options to
address the issue.
June/Oct. 96
Preparation of
- Preparing draft in June 96
Politically acceptable
Black Sea Action Plan - National consultations in July/August
== >
actions at a regional
- Review and finalization in Sept. 96
level for medium term
protection of the BS.
31 Oct. 96
Ministerial
- signing of BS-SAP by Ministers (or
Conference
representatives) of 6 Black Sea countries
- Black Sea Action Day: a series of public awareness
activities mainly organized by NGOs in the
Black
Sea
countries.
11
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
a stool resting on 6 pillars: National Co-ordinators and Steering Committee advice, GEF and
UN policy guidance, UNOPS administrative support, donor support, SDAs and World Bank /UN
specialized agencies backing.
BSEP
MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION/EXECUTION
NCs /
GEF-
Donors
UNDP FOs
World
Steering
UN policy
SDAs
Bank and UN
Committee Agencies
The BSEP operates on the basis of management from the region. As such, it relies upon the
guidance provided by the countries at the Steering Committee meetings (yearly meetings) and
through frequent consultations between the PCU and the National Co-ordinators. The direct and
informal line of communication between the National Co-ordinators' offices and the PCU
enabled a smooth and constructive dialogue, necessary to a successful implementation of the wide
range of activities in the short time period allotted.
The BSEP also operated through the policy and administrative structure of the UN. UNDP, as
implementing agency, monitored the policy aspects of the Programme and relayed the changing
directives it received from the GEF Secretariat. UNDP also played a critical role in ensuring that
the Black Sea Strategic Action Plan would be finalized when it agreed to fund a 3-month bridging
project (RER/96/006) at the end of June 1996 when GEF funding ceased.
UNOPS, as executing agency, was responsible for the day-to-day administration of the
Programme. It facilitated the recruitment of long-term and short-term personnel, provided the
necessary administrative support in terms of finalizing contracts, preparing budget revisions, and
authorizing payments and advances to the Programme's Imprest Account. It organized the
international procurement and delivery of equipment (instrumentation and communication
equipment) and negotiating financial terms and conditions of major Inter-Agency Agreements
with the World Bank and UN agencies.
To carry out the implementation of the activities, the Programme relied on the technical expertise
of the World Bank and the UN specialized agencies (FAO, WHO, WTO, UNESCO-IOC, UNEP,
IMO, IAEA - see attached Glossary of acronyms). The World Bank played a particular influential
role in the Programme, not only because it was responsible for the implementation of over 30%
of the Programme ($2,975,000 from the latest budget revision), but chiefly because its association
with the BSEP enhanced the credibility of the Programme as a whole. The World Bank acted as a
representative of and a link to International Financing Institutions and thereby a guarantee that
Black Sea investment plans and feasibility studies would be submitted for consideration to those
institutions, thus validating, in the eyes of the Black Sea countries, the effort to undertake such
plans in the first place. Finally, the World Bank's technical reputation and its network of Field
Offices had the potential to reach out to those government sectors, like the Finance and Budget
ministries, able to support domestic efforts for environmental management. More effective
actions could have been undertaken there to capitalize on the World Bank influence in those
decision-making ministries and gain broader national support for the Programme. During the time
frame of the Programme, this reaching effort could only be limited.
12
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Central to the implementation of the BSEP has been the support of the donor community to
implement parallel and supporting activities. Within the framework of the BSEP, donors have
channeled some US$5.8 million to the region for Black Sea environmental management
activities. A key partner, the European Union, through the Phare and Tacis programmes, has
provided support to activities of the working parties from the start of the programme up till the
end of the century. It also came to the rescue of the PCU to cover the second bridging period in
1996 when GEF and UNDP funding was unavailable.
Finally within UNDP, the UN Field Offices, and particularly the newly appointed Sustainable
Development Officers (SDAs), have played an increasing role in programme implementation, not
only in administrative back stopping and monitoring but also in the provision of technical inputs
and in facilitating consultations at the national level. SDAs, for example, were partners in the
national discussions related to the proposed development of a Regional Environmental Fund,
participated in the BS-SAP process and were actively involved in the preparation of the Black
Sea Action Day.
A full account of the institutional and organizational set-up of the Programme is included in the
BSEP manuals5. For ease of reference, the relevant extract is attached in Annex 1.
1.4 Expected end-of-project results.
The present report will review in detail the results of the programme and, in the following
sections, show that:
· a strong institutional and scientific basis for implementing environmental policies has been built
· networks are functioning
· the location of main sources of pollution have been identified and their impact quantified (when
possible)
· training facilities are available and,
· a list of urgent investments has been prepared and partly implemented.
The project document makes reference to tangible results such as "improvement in the water
quality of the Black Sea and the discharges of rivers...identification of critical habitats and
introduction of measures to protect them"6 as indicators of achievement of the Programme's
objectives. Clearly the scope of the Programme itself (calling for an enhancement of the
managerial capacities of the countries to address environmental issues) as well as the aspects of
the Black Sea ecosystem recovery process makes it very unlikely that such results can be
witnessed within the lifetime of the project. In fact, Dr. Laurence Mee, Coordinator of the BSEP,
spells out in the introduction of the Annual Report 1996 that:
"The slight recovery of some shelf ecosystems and of the Turkish anchovy fisheries
is, most probably, more a result of decreasing economic activity (particularly the
decrease use of agrochemical) than of the protective measures taken by Black Sea
basin countries. On the other hand, the economic decline also leads to poorly
operating waste-water treatment systems and increased human-health hazards for
bathers and beach-lovers.... The small respite in the pressure from some pollutants
on the environment can be put to good use, thus offering a small window of
opportunity to implement some more effective protective measures than those which
5 GEF-BSEP Manuals for 1994, 1995 and 1996.
6 Project Document RER/93/G31 page 9
13
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
led to the earlier environmental catastrophe. The BS-SAP is all about such policy
changes."
1.5 Programme funding
Taking into consideration all parallel financing as well as the Governments' estimated in-kind
input, the total funding for the Programme is divided as follows:
BLACK SEA ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMME TOTAL FUNDING
GEF RER/92/G31
GEF
$488,000
GEF RER/93/G31
GEF
$8,812,000
GEF RER/95/G41
GEF Bloc B
$49,000
RER/96/006
UNDP IPF
$194,761
Sub-total
$9,543,761
Parallel Financing
$5,838,000
In-kind Government support (est.)
$4,200,000
___________
TOTAL
$19,580,761
Figure 2: BSEP FUNDING
In-kind
Government
GEF
support (est.)
RER/92/G31
$4,200,000
$488,000 2.5%
21.4%
GEF
RER/93/G31
$8,812,000
45%
Parralel
Financing
GEF
RER/96/006
$5,838,000
RER/95/G41
UNDP IPF
29.8%
Bloc B $49,000
$194,761 1%
0.3%
It is important to emphasize that funding from the GEF played an instrumental catalytic role in
securing additional contribution and gaining continuous support from the government. The
Project Evaluation Report notes that "the role of GEF partners and UN specialized Agencies is
crucial in the whole programme. The support of GEF seems to be a prerequisite for any action in
the region". Similarly, the Final Report of the Danube River Basin7 draws a conclusion which
may equally apply to the BSEP: "GEF has proven its worth as an important financing mechanism,
capable of initiating processes which allow countries to increase their environmental awareness
and give environmental issues higher importance in the national planning process, including
allocation of national financial resources". That $9.3 million of GEF funding (plus $0.2 of UNDP
IPF contribution) was able to mobilize over that same amount in parallel financing (donors plus
in-kind government inputs) points to the effectiveness of the Fund as a catalyst for securing the
7 Final Report, RER/91/G31 - Environmental Management in the Danube River Basin, Draft January 97
14
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
necessary investments as well as to the success of this Programme in mobilizing additional
funding.
15
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
PART II
INPUTS
2.1 GEF funding
A detailed financial analysis of the project forms Part V of this report. The present paragraph and
following figure (Figure 3) serve to show the composition of the budget and its distribution across
the years from the original project budgets to the final expenditures8 and also highlight some of
the key elements of financial management of this Programme. A table is attached in Annex 2
detailing the distribution, for the four projects combined, of the original budgets per year and the
final (or semi-final) expenditures.
Figure 3: ORIGINAL BUDGET VS. FINAL EXPENDITURES
BY YEAR - RER/92/G31 - RER/93/G31 - RER/95/G41 - RER/96/006
1996
1995
Final expenditures
Original Project Budgets
1994
1993
$0
$500,000
$1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 $3,500,000
Final expenditures are distributed across the years similarly to the original budget, with the
difference that 1996 final expenditures are much higher than originally planned. This is
essentially because BSEP activities, initiated in 1993-94, culminated in 1995 and 1996. Also the
World Bank Inter-Agency Agreement (IAA) disbursements were lower than anticipated in the
first three years and are expected to pick up in 1996, with much of the Urgent Investment
Portfolio obligations being disbursed. The last two years of the Programme, 1995 and 1996,
which can be considered as the time of full operation of the PCU (the full staffing of the PCU
came on board only in early to mid-94), account for 64% of the overall Programme, against 56%
originally budgeted.
Financially managing the Programme has been nothing but a challenge. The complexity of the
operation stems from the following elements:
(1) The original GEF Programme was split between RER/92/G31 (the PA phase) and
RER/93/G31. The workable amount available under the full phase proved difficult to estimate.
(2) Support costs arrangements were re-negotiated several times during the lifetime of the
Programme, from a 6% original rate up to an 8% average rate across the full life of the
8 Final expenditures for the whole BSEP are estimates only derived from real expenditures monitored by
the BSEP-PCU. Final expenditures from UNOPS accounting system will only be available at the end of
1997 when reporting of all expenses and IAAs disbursements will have been recorded.
16
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Programme9. That increase in support costs (an amount of $236,854) together with the prolonged
uncertainty as to its final rate made it difficult for the BSEP to develop longer term plans for its
proposed activities as well as to prepare accurate budget revision for the Programme.
(3) UNOPS budgetary system is principally based on management by budget categories and is
not conceived to adequately reflect expenditures by thematic areas or activities. The expenditures
related to an activity which would entail the recruitment of one international consultant, the
granting of two small regional contracts, and the organization of one workshop would be spread
over at least three different budget lines, this making it extremely complicated to monitor
afterwards the overall cost of the activity.
(4) UNOPS budgetary system works by obligated amounts which are then debited by the real
expenditure figures when these are recorded in the system. The latter can take at least three
months and closing an obligation would take a whole budgetary year. As a result, UNOPS
accounting does not operate in real costs but in obligated, i.e. requested, amounts. Since the
requested amounts are usually very conservative and higher than the planned expenditure, year-
end final expenditures reported by UNOPS differ substantially from the BSEP-PCU own records
of real expenditures. As an example, 1995 UNOPS reported figures for BSEP-PCU implemented
activities (i.e. excluding activities implemented by the World Bank and UN agencies, and PCU
personnel costs) were 15% higher than PCU-recorded real expenditures. Monitoring exact
expenditures with a view to better planning for future activities was then rendered somewhat
difficult. It is worth pointing out that, throughout the implementation of the Programme, the
BSEP-PCU kept its own records of real expenditures, while reconciling its figures with UNOPS
for budgetary revisions. This very-time consuming and cumbersome tasks enabled the PCU to
achieve a real implementation rate of virtually 100% on combined RER/92/G31 - RER/93/G31,
i.e. total estimated final expenditures of $9,264,017 versus a total budget of $9,300,000.
(5) Financial reporting from the World Bank and the UN implementing agencies has been poor.
Detailed updated figures for expenditures incurred by the organizations were not provided.
Lumpsum figures against IAAs were only made known, once yearly budget revisions were
prepared and agencies reported their total spending.
The above elements serve to introduce the discussion on the financial management of the
Programme, which will be detailed and reviewed in part V.
2.2 PCU staffing
In its full operation, the BSEP-PCU was composed of 11 to 12 staff members:
Title Disciplines
Dates
Status
Coordinator
marine chemistry/ env. man.
09/93 -
Int. staff
Information officer
marine biology
ongoing
Int. staff
Environmental Economist
economics
11/93 -
Int. staff
Institutional Dev. officer
instit. Dev./ env. man.
ongoing
Int. staff
Fisheries officer
fisheries
01/94 - 8/96
Int. staff
Assistant for legal matters *
law
04/94 - 9/96
Int. staff
Assistant for PA & publication * communication
05/95 - 5/97
Int. staff
05/95- 12/95
1/96 - 4/96
Executive secretary
multi
01/94 - 6/96
Local
9 Support costs rate were: 6% for RER/92/G31 and 11% in 1993, 9% in 1994 and 95 and 7% in 1996 for RER/93/G31.
17
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Editorial assistant
multi
01/94 -
staff
Accountant
multi
06/94 -
Local
Administration assistant
multi
01/94 -
staff
Driver
multi
06/94 -
Local
staff
Local
staff
Local
staff
* temporary staff
The Project Evaluation Report commends on the staffing of the PCU remarking that "the PCU
staff was forged into a strong unified workforce with neatly specified tasks but also a strong sense
of internal cooperation and camaraderie". That same report concludes its evaluation by
congratulating "the team of young, dynamic, competent people for a job well done"10.
Notwithstanding its achievements, it is regrettable that the BSEP-PCU did not include Black Sea
experts in its structure. Towards the end of the Programme, arrangements were being made to
have Black Sea NGO representatives field the position of Institutional Development officer
(renamed Public Participation officer) on a rotational basis and funded through Programme funds
and/or donor support. Though the Project Document for RER/93/G31 clearly "invites
[Governments of the region] to nominate and funds candidates for additional posts as counterpart
experts"11, this did not happen, chiefly because of lack of funding from the Black Sea
governments and lack of encouragement therefor.
Compared with the arrangements of the original Project Document, the PCU benefited from two
additional full-time staff members, an institutional development officer and a fisheries officer,
thanks to, respectively, a cost sharing contribution from the French Government and provision of
a Junior Professional Officer from the Japanese Government. The BSEP-PCU also made use of
temporary trainees, young professionals contracted at a low cost for a short-term focused
assignment.
2.3 Technical expertise: use of Black Sea experts and international specialists.
The Programme made extensive use of regional expertise, contracting altogether some 65
institutions and experts from the region (out of a total of 85 contracts), either through small
contract procedure or through recruitment of consultants under national project personnel service
contracts (NPPP). The figures below show that the geographic distribution of contracts is rather
homogeneous among the Black Sea countries, with a little more demand on Russia, Turkey and
Ukraine, respectively because the GIS effort was headquartered at Moscow State University,
Russia, pollution monitoring activities were headed from Odessa in Ukraine and most of the
BSEP-PCU publication and edition was contracted to local companies in Turkey.
10 Project Evaluation Report, page 6 and page 26.
11 Revised Project Document page 13.
18
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Figure 4a: GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF CONTRACTS
(in Numbers of contracts issued)
Bulgaria
9%
International
Georgia
23%
9%
Romania
13%
Ukraine
16%
Russia
Turkey
14%
16%
Figure 4b : GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF CONTRACTS
(in $ Terms)
Bulgaria Georgia
3%
Romania
3%
6%
Russia
14%
International
Turkey
54%
11%
Ukraine
9%
To implement the strategy throughout the thematic areas of the Programme, the BSEP made use
of a combination of local/regional experts and of international specialists who would assist in the
design of the methodology, the preparation of pilot studies and the training efforts. The following
diagram further details the distribution of contracts per thematic areas of the Programme.
Essentially, international experts were used in areas where experience of similar programmes
proved to be a valuable additional resources to the region, i.e: review of legislation, design of the
Action Plan and preparation of the BSEPS.
19
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Figure 5 : BSEP RER/93/G31 - CONTRACTS
DISTRIBUTION BY THEMATIC AREAS
(in $ amount)
Pub
Pu lica
b
t
lica io
t n
io
Policy
Po
Economi
c
c i
c nstruments /
n
BSEPS
BS contracts
Thematic areas
International
contracts
Pol
o luti
u on Monitoring
NGO
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
$140,000
$160,000
Total Amounts
The BSEP-PCU increased its
use of Black Sea and
Fig. 6: RER/93/G31 - CONTRACTS
international contracts as a
INTERNATIONAL VS. REGIONAL CONTRACTS PER
YEAR
project implementation tool
(in $ amounts)
over the period. This reflects
the higher need of the
Programme for contracted
1996
services and the concentration
Black Sea contracts /
consultants
of BSEP activities in those
two years of full operations,
1995
International
1995 - 1996.
contracts /
1994
consultants
Contracting experts (in
particular from the region)
1993
was a long and laborious
process, whether for a $500
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
contract or a $30,000 one.
The machinery for issuing contracts and monitoring its finalization, signature and payment can be
extremely cumbersome.
20
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Finally an analysis of the table of contracts in Annex 3 evidences that contracts were awarded to a
wide range of organizations, including research institutes, universities, individual consultants and
private companies, as well as non-governmental organizations:
Research institute and government agencies
23%
Universities
30%
Individual consultants / private companies
23%
NGOs
24%
Distribution of Regional Contracts RER/92-93/G31 (in $ amounts)
The BSEP-PCU made use of its extensive networks of regional experts and issued a great number
of contracts to the Black Sea technicians and scientists to contribute to the research and study
effort of the Programme. Though this approach stretched the workload of the whole staff of the
PCU to the limits, this enabled 1) the networks to survive and thrive, 2) the expertise from the
region to be tapped and effectively channeled to the BSEP and 3) the BSEP to rely on some 900
"friends" in the scientific, buraucratic and non-governmental communities of the Black Sea
countries for support and prompt delivery of services. This, combined with selective international
expertise (also contracting through the facilities of the UN specialized agencies), contributed
largely to the design and development of the BS-SAP.
2.4 Three agencies in partnership
The GEF is a trust fund managed by three parties: the UNDP, the UNEP and the World Bank.
Each of these agencies played a critical role in the guidance and implementation of the
programme.
UNEP was unable to use the $25,000 IAA earmarked at the start of the Programme and the
Agreement was subsequently canceled, for no activity had taken place. The Project Evaluation
Report noted that "it is evident that UNEP's role is too weak as an environmental agency and
should be strengthened in the future12". The Update of the Evaluation further reaffirms that "the
participation of UNEP's Water Branch was minimal due to their own lack of funding" but then
adds that "the UNEP GEF International Waters Coordinator took an active interest in the
programme and provided considerable personal expertise in the BS-SAP process13". Indeed, even
though the organization was unable to provide substantial support to the Programme as a whole,
because of general funding difficulties, its representatives participated actively in some BSEP
activities, in particular the preparation of the BS-SAP, and provided expertise in those areas
where UNEP hold comparative advantage.
UNDP worked closely with the BSEP-PCU via the GEF coordinator at the Regional Bureau for
Europe and the CIS and maintained a very active dialogue with the BSEP in the area of policy
development, GEF strategy and the design of a follow-up programme. UNDP showed genuine
interest in the implementation of the Programme and was well represented in activities and
Steering Committee meetings. Finally, as noted earlier, UNDP was instrumental in ensuring the
continuity at the PCU by funding a 3-month bridging project, RER/96/006.
The World Bank, in this Programme, was not only one of the GEF partners, but was also
entrusted with the implementation of a key component of the BSEP (essentially immediate
objective 3). Its role as an partner in the implementation of the Programme has been discussed
12 Project Evaluation Report page 11
13 Update of the Project Evaluation Report page 3.
21
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
above. As a GEF partner, the Bank has been very supportive of BSEP activities, "pledging to
continue its support for BSEP in several ways, [which may include]: participation in the SAP
process, financing specific Black Sea related investments, initiating country program discussions
on sectoral and macro-economic policy issues and coordinating donors support14". It has
consistently supported the design of a second phase of the Programme and has commented with
appreciation on the policy initiatives of the BSEP-PCU.
2.5 Parallel support from the donor community
The donor community was instrumental in enabling the implementation of parallel activities,
thereby strengthening the efforts of the BSEP. Associated partners made use of the BSEP
networks and favorably welcomed launching activities within the framework of the BSEP. In
fact, terms of reference for these projects were often prepared in close consultation with the
BSEP-PCU and, as a result, parallel projects became intrinsically associated with core BSEP
activities.
In total, some $5.8 million was mobilized in parallel financing. Contributions from associated
partners increased over the life of the project, from 16% of overall funding in 1993-94 to 52% in
1996, reflecting the fact that consultations and efforts with donors usually bring fruit a few years
later and also demonstrating the increased confidence of the donor community in the capacity of
the BSEP to effectively guide the design and implementation of Black Sea activities.
Figure 7: FINANCING THE BSEP: GEF AND DONOR SUPPORT
(in US$ million)
$6.00
$5.00
$4.00
Parallel
Parallel Financing
Financing
$3.00
GEF Contribution
$2.00
GEF
$1.00
Contribution
$0.00
1993-94
1995
1996
Pipeline commitments are also very strong, with over $12 million pledged for the years 97 to 99.
The table in Annex 4 details the contribution of each of the partners. The European Community,
through the CEC Phare (covering, for the Black Sea, Bulgaria and Romania) and Tacis
programmes (covering, for the Black Sea, Georgia, Russia and Ukraine), has been the biggest
contributor, investing already $4.8 million in the Programme and pledging some $10 million for
1997-99. Its activities have included:
· provision of equipment to Bulgaria and Romania: close consultations with the BSEP-PCU
ensured that the equipment delivered was conformed to the same standards and specifications
(1993-94);
14 BSEP Status of Bank Executed Components and bank Options for the Next Phase, June 1996 [Restricted
document]
22
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
· technical assistance programme for environmental impact assessment and audit training,
coastal zone management and public awareness. The programme was designed to strengthen
the BSEP-ICZM network with supplementary training, case studies and pilot activities
(1995);
· package of targeted activities to support environmental education and public awareness
activities, sustainable economic development, pollution assessment and control, coastal zone
management and the rehabilitation of the Batumi Aquarium (approved in 1996, implemented
in 1997).
The above description of the Phare/Tacis-supported activities clearly shows that one of the key
objectives of the European Union's assistance has been to further support the work of the BSEP
and capitalize on its on-going strategy and effort. This has been the underlying position of the
BSEP-PCU as a whole, when negotiating additional funding, i.e. to propose activities that can
both stand alone as an individual project and also contribute to a bigger picture and fit within an
overall framework.
Support from the European Union though does not benefit Turkey. The BSEP-PCU endeavored,
as much as possible, to provide its own funding to ensure the participation of Turkey in some of
the Phare/Tacis activities.
Bilateral governments have contributed to enhancing the scope of the Programme, each targeting
a specific area where they hold particular expertise and know-how. Among them, the Netherlands
completed assistance with the Black Sea Information System and the Azov Sea decision support
system. The Government of Austria supported preliminary work on sustainable tourism. Japan
financed the PCU fisheries officer and an aquaculture project in Turkey. France partly supported
the recruitment of the institutional development officer. Canada and Norway respectively helped
in setting up a training module and in fielding the Black Sea aquaculture mission. Finally the UK
Know How Fund helped schedule an NGO training seminar in late 1996 and is negotiating
support to the Bulgaria Emergency response activity center for 1997.
Denmark and Switzerland have clearly expressed their interest to contributing to the programme
and discussions are continuing in order to negotiate appropriate modalities of support.
UN agencies have provided their own funding to further strengthen their participation in the
Programme. WHO, UNEP and IAEA, all already partners in the implementation of the
Programme, and WTO cost-shared a number of training activities, the BSEP-PCU financing the
travel and costs of the Black Sea experts and the agencies taking the expenses related to the
organization of the workshop and/or the hiring of international trainers. This "cost-sharing
modality" gained support also with bilateral governments and seems to have been a favored
condition for delivering assistance.
Finally the BSEP-PCU has been cooperating closely with scientific research programmes such as
the NATO Science for Stability programme, the EU EROS and CoMsBlack programmes, thereby
ensuring that the BSEP-PCU was kept updated on latest scientific research and activities. This
cooperation has taken the form of joint training workshops and seminars and joint work
programmes for the preparation of the assessment of the state of the Black Sea pollution.
2.6 Government support
23
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
The commitment of the governments is reflected, to a certain extent, in the willingness to work
jointly for the benefit of the Black Sea, first by ratifying the Convention and signing the
Declaration, second by appointing National Coordinators and Focal Points institutions.
Governments also drove the process for developing and adopting the BS-SAP with continued
attention. Also, collaborating experts and scientists have all shown great dedication and support
to the implementation of the Programme.
However there seems to have been an unbalance between the commitment of the individuals and
the political will and action to make things happen. The Project Evaluation Report questions "to
what extent the governments realize that they must assume more active and innovative role in
creating new mechanisms to serve their common property, the Black Sea15".
Scientific institutions remain in a very vulnerable condition and in dire financial situation, often
unable to meet their commitments to the BSEP. The inability of the institutions to pay the salaries
of their employees or to secure the appropriate consumable supplies to carry out the
measurements contributed, at times, to slowing down the implementation of the activities. This
particular element was earmarked in the original Project Document with a risk of medium to
high16.
Also, the failure of the Istanbul Commission to establish a Secretariat by the end of the
Programme and the corresponding two-year procrastinated negotiations which failed to conclude
with a common understanding and a financial commitment also "does not seem to reflect any
sense of urgency for environmental action17". Higher level and increased commitment, political
and financial, is now required from the Black Sea governments in order to validate the joint effort
undertaken over the past three years by the international community, the GEF partners and the
Black Sea experts themselves.
15 Project Evaluation Report page 12
16 Revised Project Document RER/93/G31, F. Risks, page 25. "Economic disruption I one or more coastal
states to the extent that it delays preparation of studies due to shortage of funds to pay salaries or other
local currency expenses".
17 Draft Annual Report 1996.
24
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
PART III
OUTPUTS AND RESULTS
The ultimate output of the Programme was to finalize a BS-SAP and establish enabling
mechanisms to encourage its implementation. The BSEP selected and developed an optimal
strategy to prepare for the drafting of the BS-SAP. This approach first involved the set up of
thematic areas working parties, each entrusted with the task of elaborating an appropriate
methodology to guide the preparation of national assessments and regional synthesis reports.
The Project Evaluation Report and the subsequent Update of the Evaluation Report both review
in detail the achievements of the Programme with regards to meeting the original three immediate
objectives of the Project Document. The latter report includes a table, attached in Annex 5, which
evidences that the Programme has achieved its objectives to a close 100% completion rate. Few
activities remain incomplete, and reasons for this are spelled out in the following sections. The
present report proposes to:
1) highlight the elements of capacity building which helped facilitate the establishment and
strengthening of the networks;
2) bring out the outputs produced in each thematic area of the Programme, as they not only fueled
into the preparation of the BS-SAP but also stand alone as substantive outputs useful for the
design of individual strategies in each area;
3) show the policy advances achieved by the Programme;
4) present the outputs with regards to the preparation of sound environmental investments; and
5) describe how the BS-SAP was developed.
3.1. Capacity Building
Strengthening the capacities of existing institutions was the initial and an on-going process at the
BSEP. The objective was to enable these institutions to carry out, when relevant, accurate,
consistent and harmonized studies for the Programme as well as provide them with the tools to
better address and manage environmental issues. The BSEP also provided those participating
Focal Point institutes with communication and technical equipment; it helped enhance regional
cooperation and national cooperation, mobilizing experts around the design of a common
strategy. It scheduled both formal training workshops and in-service training through joint work
activities with international organizations. It developed data management tools and public
awareness materials for use and distribution to a wide audience. Finally it helped Black Sea
NGOs take a more pro-active role in environmental management issues.
3.1.1. Equipping the laboratories and institutions
Jointly with the European Union, the BSEP-PCU embarked early on in a process of equipping
one reference laboratory per country with updated analytical equipment, paying close attention
that similar instrumentation was supplied and that no duplication took place. This turned out to be
a very substantive effort, essentially benefiting the Pollution Monitoring network. A joint
Phare/Tacis/GEF-BSEP funded study, in early 1994, identified the needs of key institutions in the
six Black Sea countries in order to respond to the requirements of the Bucharest Convention.
Instrument supplies were financed by GEF for Turkey, Ukraine, Russia and Georgia and by Phare
for Bulgaria and Romania. A total of some $1.8 million (out of which $1.418 million for the GEF)
has been disbursed on instruments, but it has only been possible to satisfy about 60% of the list of
18 The figure includes the provision of not only analytical instrumentation but also the delivery of computer
and communication equipment to the BSEP Focal Point institutions.
25
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
purchases recommended during the joint study. Nevertheless, the support provided succeeded in
raising the capability of most countries to conduct the necessary pilot studies.
The BSEP-PCU also ensured that training sessions would be associated to the delivery of
equipment. Training workshops were organized in the region and international experts brought in
to assist the local laboratories in the installation and use of the instrumentation and in their
adoption of modern monitoring techniques. This training effort was funded either out of BSEP
core budget, UN agencies' IAAs or parallel financing arrangements, in particular with the
European Union. The provision of the necessary peripherals (glassware, chemicals, distilled
water, etc.) though remained problematic throughout the implementation of the Programme. The
BSEP-PCU was not in a position to provide the necessary supplies and could only resort to
calling on the governments that they meet their commitments. This proved to create unexpected
delays in the completion of BSEP monitoring programmes.
All Focal Point institutions have also been supplied with modern communication equipment,
including personal computers and an internet connection, allowing the network participants to
communicate easily with each other. Essentially also, it enabled the PCU to communicate with
those "difficult" areas of Georgia, Russia and Ukraine, where faxes and telephone calls rarely go
through. However, communication remained a problem whenever bigger documents had to be
sent and urgent telephone consultations had to take place.
Providing equipment to the region was a substantive effort, in money terms. In total, as noted
above, the effort of equipping the institutions amounted to $1.4 million or 15% of the overall
budget for the Programme (versus $1.1 million in the original budget). It was also a substantive
effort, time-wise, chasing equipment that had either disappeared or was stuck in customs offices.
International procurement was also slow and customs delays proved more costly and lengthy than
expected. Even though some laboratories were still waiting for equipment at the end of 1995, it is
remarkable that, within the short period of this Programme, a number of Black Sea institutions,
like the Odessa Ukrainian Scientific Center of the Marine Ecology, were completely re-equipped
and provided with modern and reliable instrumentation, thereby able to carry out effectively the
required monitoring programmes.
3.1.2. Training programmes
A total number of over 120 events have been organized and coordinated either by the BSEP-PCU
itself or by one of its associated partners in the framework of the BSEP. This amounts to a record
one activity per week over the three year period, an impressive record which could not have been
effectively carried out without a rigorous and effective administrative backstopping at the PCU
(in terms of logistics, travel, organization and accounting). In the process, some 1,800 persons
took part in one or several or these events, the GEF covering their participation for 40% of them.
Annex 6 presents the list of policy and training meetings organized over the period 1993 - 1996.
The nature of the activities range from working party meetings and coordination meetings (all
grouped under "meetings" in the financial tables), regional training workshops organized in the
Black Sea countries and training sessions organized outside of the region when the overseas
facility was viewed as the most appropriate location for conducting a particular training activity
(e.g. Plymouth laboratory in the United Kingdom for biological effects of pollutants, Delft
Hydraulics institute in the Netherlands for the Data Management sub-group meeting).
The figure below points out that 85% of the events were organized in the Black Sea countries (the
total number is shared among the BS countries, though a greater number of events was scheduled
26
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
in Istanbul, the location of the PCU, for convenience and proximity), thereby not only allowing
for the greatest participation of Black Sea country residents but also encouraging those institutes
and organizations hosting the event to share the responsibility for organizing and leading the
activity. Notable among these, a five-day environmental management training course was
organized for representatives of all activity centres to help forge competence in their organization
and management of BSEP activities. This brought results and, in the third year of activity, an
increasing number of events, such as the ICZM Third Working Party Meeting, were fully
organized by the Activity Center and/or the Government Focal Points.
Figure 8: Geographic Distribution of BSEP Events
Western Europe
Russia
13%
Other
Eastern Europe
10%
2%
1%
Romania
12%
Georgia
Turkey
6%
Bulgaria
32%
Ukraine
9%
15%
Credit for a number of training sessions have to be given to UN agencies, which, in part fulfilling
their IAA commitment, in part using their own financial resources, were instrumental in bringing
in the region up-to-date methodologies and processes. Also parallel activities implemented by
associated partners have included a good number of training workshops, in particular in the area
of coastal zone management, pollution monitoring and data management.
3.1.3. Regional and national cooperation
The scheduling of regional meetings (per thematic areas, working party meetings at least once a
year, training workshops once or twice a year), frequent communications between the PCU and
the Focal Points, participation of the experts into various BSEP activities, visits to each other's
institutes, all contributed to enhancing regional cooperation among scientists and experts. It was
thanks to these frequent interactions where experts were given a chance to exchange views and
ideas that the networks remained active and very much alive, motivated by a sense of common
achievement. The process also helped dilute old feeling of distrust and break the isolation of
research institutes working without comparative information.
Towards the end of the Programme, communication, which originally was essentially PCU
to/from Focal Points, also increased horizontally. This however remained limited and insufficient.
National cooperation also increased in the Black Sea countries. Experts, who used to work in
their own compartmentalized scientific area, had a forum to share views and discuss issues.
Though limited in the first phase of the Programme, this process is likely to become essential
when preparing the national BS-SAPs.
3.1.4. Data management and information tools
The BSEP-PCU undertook to develop a comprehensive information package, not only to make
use and combine the scientific and technical information gathered under the Programme but also
27
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
to regularly report on the progress of the BSEP and distribute the latest information. The outputs
produced include:
(1) a Black Sea Information System data base: this is the most comprehensive data base of
reference for Black Sea environmental issues. It includes inventories of scientists, institutes,
NGOs, private sector organizations, government counterparts, a directory of major marine
environmental data sets as well as international and national research projects in the Black Sea
region, a directory of cruise summary reports and the Black Sea bibliography. The data base was
developed with financial support from the Dutch Government and the software designed by Delft
Hydraulics and the Marine Information Service Information. It consists of 5,966 entries. The data
base is now available on diskette and on internet.
(2) a Black Sea Geographic Information System: led by a team of scientists from the Moscow
State University in cooperation with the BSEP-PCU and some 10 other associated institutes of
the Black Sea countries, the Black Sea GIS has evolved into a very powerful tool which, when
presented at international and regional events, commended admiration and respect. The product
combines information and data collected under the BSEP thematic areas and also incorporates
digitized cartographic and geographic information. The quality of the data and its resolution
varies both between countries and between the various topics. But the tool is likely to be of
precious assistance to scientists and managers involved with Black Sea protection. It will be
available on CD ROM in the Spring 97 and available to the BSEP networks.
(3) Black Sea technical series: building upon the wealth of information gathered under the
thematic areas, a series of technical reports have been professionally printed and published under
the UN Publications. At the time of this report, two books had been published ("Black Sea
Bibliography" - a 4,542 entries document which focuses on literature for the region since 1974,
and "Aquaculture in the Black Sea"), a third was due in the immediate future ("Romanian
Biodiversity") and a number of reports were being finalized ("Harmonizing legislation in the
Black Sea", "Developing Sustainable Tourism practices", "State of Pollution of the Black Sea"
among others).
(4) "Saving the Black Sea" newsletter: four regular issues of the popular Black Sea newsletter
have been published in both Russian and English (issued at 2000 copies in each language). The
newsletter is widely distributed and includes contributions from Black Sea experts and PCU staff
members.
(5) public awareness materials: the PCU has been very active in producing its own public
awareness materials which were then distributed through the focal points and NGO channels.
10,000 copies of the Black Sea poster have been distributed and posters have been seen not only
in all Black Sea countries but also in places like Washington World Bank headquarters, Eurocoast
European bureau in Dublin and Tacis Brussels office. An attractive ten-panel display has been
designed to colorfully and simply describe the status of the Black Sea and BSEP actions. The
portable panels were inaugurated at the Environment for Europe meeting (Sofia, October 1995)
and displayed at various BSEP-related events. A fisheries leaflet addressing the problem of the
decline in diversity of species supporting commercial fisheries in the Black Sea was published in
English, Turkish and Russian and distributed to schools, the general public, scientists and
governments. Financially sponsored by the World Bank, TVE and the BSEP, a video "Black Sea
death or reprieve" was produced to vividly expose the environmental issues related to the Black
Sea. Introduced by David Attenborough, it was broadcast on BBC channel and English, Russian
and Georgian copies were distributed to the Black Sea countries. Finally brochures, badges,
28
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
posters and a wealth of other public awareness materials were produced by the BSEP-PCU and
the NGOs at the occasion of the Black Sea Day (31 October 1995).
(6) a PCU library: with over 500 books and reprints, the PCU library covers all issues pertaining
to the Black Sea ecosystem and its environmental management.
(7) an internet connection: since Spring 1996, a BSEP Home Page is available on the internet at
http://www.domi.invenis.com.tr/blacksea. It contains general information on the BSEP, addresses
and contacts (it includes access to the Black Sea Information System) and lately the entire text of
the BS-SAP.
These tools were made available to the scientists and partners in the BSEP networks, facilitating
their access to information and professional contacts and giving them the means to promote their
activities and efforts in their own countries. Time-consuming, the BSEP emphasis on generating
and distributing information proved extremely valuable for nourishing an image of the BSEP and
sustaining an active network.
3.1.5. Public participation and NGOs involvement
Though endowed with very limited funding from the core budget, BSEP-NGO activities have
been successful in mobilizing the NGO communities of the Black Sea countries and helping
generate public awareness projects. NGO representatives not only benefited from special
activities targeted directly at them (NGO component of the budget), but also had the opportunity
to be involved in a number of working party meetings, contributed actively to the Sustainable
Tourism initiative (50% of the contracts for the preparation of the Sustainable Tourism reports
were awarded to non-governmental organizations) and participated in the BSEP policy processes,
such as the Donor Conference and the BS-SAP meetings. These can not be quantified in money
terms, but the budget figure of NGO-targeted activities under-scores the real BSEP efforts put
into strengthening the participation of NGOs into the Programme.
The degree of maturity of the NGO movements in each of the Black Sea countries varies greatly
from one to another; the incorporation of non-governmental organizations is fairly recent in the
Black Sea countries (with the exception of Turkey where some NGOs have been established for a
longer time) and their level of organizational structure ranges from fully staffed professional
offices to volunteer associations. Also their motives stem from various reasons. Often NGOs were
established out of a need to break away from the prevailing political system and/or to try and
capture the newly coming funds earmarked for NGOs. As a result, very few are community-based
organizations and linked to the people they are supposed to represent. In fact, often these NGOs
only represent themselves and have failed to gain credibility in the eyes of both the communities
and of the governments.
(1) Faced with the above situation, the BSEP opted to focus its efforts on mobilizing and
establishing functioning and representative networks of NGOs, both at the national and regional
level. The objective was to help Black Sea NGOs learn from each other in terms of mandate and
actions, expose Black Sea organizations to overseas experience, and organize and strengthen an
NGO network capable of bringing inputs into the BSEP and the environmental management of
the Black Sea in general.
Thanks to BSEP funding, national Black Sea NGO fora were organized in all Black Sea counties
at the end of 1994, 1995 and 1996, each attended by some 15 to 25 participants from various
29
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
organizations. These fora were an opportunity for Black Sea NGOs to exchange views and ideas
and discuss a common strategy for action. Two representatives from each national forum were
elected to take part in the International Black Sea NGO Forum meetings (Constanta, October 94;
Gurzuf, November 95; Tbilisi, January 1997). Representatives from other international NGO
networks such as the Danube NGO Forum, Coalition Clean Baltic, Eurocoast and Milieukontakt,
attended the Forum meetings. The regional fora grew more organized and more focused over the
years. The 1994 Regional NGO Forum agreed on a list of priority areas for actions and on the
national organizations that would lead each of the priority areas - these included environmental
education and public awareness (Georgia), public participation and NGO directory (Romania),
Information and communication (Ukraine). The 1995 meeting drafted an original mandate for the
Black Sea NGO Forum and prepared a set of pilot projects to be submitted to the BSEP Donor
Conference for consideration. Finally, the 1997 Forum reflected on a basin-wide strategy for
NGO involvement in the process of designing and implementing National Black Sea Strategic
Action Plan. International NGO Forum meetings elected two delegates to represent them at the
BSEP Steering Committee. This representation system, though limited because it could not reach
out to all those organizations interested in the process, proved however to work effectively and
enabled NGO representatives to participate in such BSEP policy activities as the Donor
Conference and the preparation of the BS-SAP and later join, as Black Sea representatives,
international meetings of relevance such as the "Seas at Risk" NGO forum.
(2) In addition to facilitating the incorporation of the Black Sea NGO Forum, the BSEP helped
organize training sessions for enhancing the skills of those organizations genuinely involved in
the protection of the Black Sea. A workshop to develop information system and communication
facilities took place in Kiev in November 1995 and a regional training workshop in public
participation and organizational management, supported in part by funds from the UK Know
How Fund, was scheduled in early 1997.
(3) With limited funding available, the BSEP organized a small grants pilot programme in 1995
to enhance public awareness of environmental issues. Small contracts were awarded to Black Sea
organizations and each produced exceptional results, including an educational course package
with a 60-slide series and a teachers's manual for use in Crimea primary schools, a Black Sea
drawing competitions for school children and a 1996 calendar published from the selected
drawings, and a seminar and public awareness activities on the effect of coastal agricultural
activities on the pollution of the Black Sea. A Black Sea NGO directory was also commissioned
by the BSEP in 1995 and 1996 to facilitate networking and contacts among NGOs. These small
grants and commissioned activities greatly helped enhance the confidence of those organizations
in their ability to implement meaningful projects.
Finally a series of small but notable public awareness projects were organized in all Black Sea
countries by the national NGO Fora to celebrate the International Black Sea Action Day on 31
October 1996. The initiative for the Black Sea Day came from the NGOs themselves and it is to
their credit that the signing of the BS-SAP became an acclaimed public event. Celebrations of the
Black Sea Day will also take place in 1997, with support from the Phare/Tacis programme, and,
hopefully, every year thereafter.
(4) Associated partners contributed significantly to strengthening NGOs' participation in Black
Sea environmental management. The Phare programme has been very active in Romania and
Bulgaria, first conducting a full needs assessment of the organizations, then supporting the
establishment of environmental information centers in these two countries and developing a pilot
education project in Romania. Through the Phare/Tacis coastal zone management programme,
30
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
small public awareness projects were launched in the five Black Sea countries, including the
creation of an eco-library in Batumi, an exhibition centre in the Dneistr wetlands and a series of
media events on the coast of Romania. Finally the World Bank municipal infrastructure and
rehabilitation project supported the implementation of a 3-week Youth Eco-Academy training in
Georgia.
The GEF-NGO small grants programme in Turkey19 helped re-inforce the mandate of the GEF-
BSEP and included, in its area of support, projects that would contribute to the protection of the
Black Sea.
Though Black Sea NGOs are still searching for the means and goals of their survival and
effective participation, the BSEP, in a very cost-effective way, has given them a chance to be
involved and a chance to unite forces. The Evaluation Report noted that "NGOs were a party and
fully involved in the programme from its earlier stages20". In need of additional financial and
technical support, Black Sea NGOs will also require continuous exposure to international NGO
norms and activities but also will need to undertake a more profound internal questioning of their
scope of work and raison d'etre if they are to become effective partners in enhancing public
participation in the Black Sea countries.
The Evaluation Report "found that the impact of the BSEP on these [visited] institutions was
incisive21". With regards to the number of experts associated to the Programme and trained to up-
to-date methodology and instrumentation, with regards to the number of events organized by the
BSEP and the diversity of information and data management activities undertaken, with regards
to the increased involvement of the NGOs and the establishment of the Black Sea NGO Forum,
with regards to the level of cooperation achieved within the framework of the BSEP, there is no
doubt that the Programme has had a formidable impact upon these organizations and institutions
of the Black Sea and that the immediate objective in this area has been met, i.e. a strong
institutional and scientific basis for implementing environmental policies has been built, networks
are functioning and training facilities are available.
3.2. Outputs from thematic areas
For each thematic area, the same strategy was applied to guide the process all the way to the
preparation of the BS-SAP. This strategy was schematically presented in Figure 1 on page 5 of
this report and includes the following steps:
· establishment of the Activity Centers and working parties,
· enhancement of their capacities through provision of equipment and training,
· design of the methodology through joint work programmes between Black Sea institutions
and international organizations,
· preparation of national assessment reports,
· preparation of synthesis regional report,
· technical combined evaluation (Transboundary Technical Analysis)
· development of the Black Sea Strategic Action Plan.
19 In Europe, the GEF-NGO small grants programme is at present only operational in Turkey and Poland.
20 Project Evaluation Report page 9.
21 Project Evaluation Report page 8.
31
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
What is remarkable is that, though working in apparent isolation over the first half of the
Programme, working parties eventually were able to effectively combine their work and
consolidate their understanding of the issues. Because a common strategy was followed by each
working party, best experts from the networks could successfully pull together the most salient
results to produce a valuable technical analysis, the Transboundary Diagnosis Analysis (see
section 4 below), the technical ground work for the BS-SAP.
The results obtained in each of the thematic areas also constitute, by themselves, a substantive
source of information and a reference in terms of process and methodology. These results are
being reviewed in this section.
3.2.1. Emergency response
The Bucharest Convention includes a Protocol on cooperation in Combating Pollution of the
Black Sea Marine Environment by Oil and Other Harmful Substances in Emergency Situations".
It is within that context, that the BSEP, with support from the International Maritime
Organization (IMO), has helped enhance national and regional capacities to plan for and respond
to pollution emergencies.
BSEP activities in this area got an unexpected practical launch when the oil tanker "Nassia"
exploded and caught fire at the entrance of the Bosphorus strait in March 1994. Upon request
from the Turkish Government, the BSEP-PCU together with technical support of the IMO/UNEP
Regional Emergency Marine Pollution Response Centre for the Mediterranean Sea (REMPEC)
prepared an Action Plan identifying a set of pragmatic remedial measures which might be taken
in order to limit the environmental damage resulting from this accident. The Nassia oil spill
unwillingly helped bring urgency to the need for preparing national and regional emergency
response action plans. It also enhanced the confidence of the Turkish Ministry of the
Environment in the technical skills and professsionality of the PCU staff.
The three successive working party meetings recognized the need for developing national and
regional contingency plans identified by the Bucharest Convention; however it became clear that
the process of developing such plans required considerable more time and funding than that
available through the Programme. The work of the working party therefore concentrated on
assessing the current situation, developing guidelines for regional and national plans, preparing a
regional plan for emergency response, providing technical training and strengthening links with
private sector operators.
A regional assessment22 was issued by the BSEP in 1995 on the basis of a 1994 mission
undertaken by the IMO together with responses to a detailed questionnaire sent to each country.
And an IMO-prepared draft Regional Oil and Chemical Pollution Emergency Plan for the Black
Sea was considered instead.
The BSEP collaborated closely with the IMO for capacity building activities, i.e. the organization
of training seminars, technical assessments and advice in the Black Sea countries.
Thanks to its association with REMPEC, the BSEP brought in the region the experiences of the
Mediterranean in terms of emergency preparedness and response, methodology, international
regulations and liabilities and up-to-date technology of intervention.
22 Emergency Response and Contingency Planning in the Black Sea Region: Current Status and Strategies
for Improvement, BSEP-PCU, 1995.
32
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Finally, though the original outputs could not be fully completed because of shortage of time and
funding, it is important to point out that this working party was successful in inviting private
sector firms to participate in the BSEP work. Major oil companies involved in the production
and/or transport of oil in the Black Sea region attended the working party meetings. And the Shell
Company of Turkey organized an oil spill management workshop in Istanbul in December 1996.
These are but initial steps in a process of cooperation between BSEP and private sector interests.
These are encouraging initiatives, which may be replicated in other of the BSEP thematic areas.
3.2.2. Pollution Monitoring
From the inauguration of the Black Sea Environmental Programme (BSEP), it was evident that
much of the existing data on chemical pollution was not backed-up by the necessary reference to
data quality assurance and quality control programmes. So many management decisions depend
upon valid data that it was imperative to improve the capacity of the institutions in the region and
to work with them in order to produce a first pilot survey of chemical pollution in the Black Sea.
(including nutrients, hydrogen sulphide and oxygen as well as heavy metals and synthetic organic
compounds).
(1) The work of modernizing and upgrading the capacity of the six key institutions is still
incomplete. This is partly a result of the time and expense involved in re-equipping institution
and retraining scientists (see section 1 above). Also, equipment procurement tends to be a lengthy
process and some of our partners had not completed this process by the end of 1996. However,
remarkable progress has been made and, during 1995 and 1996, a pilot study of pollution in the
Black Sea was completed. The work included measurements of potential pollutants and, more
recently, the use of mussels as sentinel organisms for tracing the levels and biological effects of
key contaminants. The development of a "biological early warning system" is a major feature of
the agreed future monitoring programme.
(2) But pollution assessments are not merely a matter of good measurements of the environmental
levels and risks of the offending substances. It is necessary to ascertain the sources of the
pollutants and their rate of introduction. In the past, countries have been reticent in releasing such
information but the Black Sea is an example of how this can be achieved. The Land Based
Sources survey methodology, based upon the World Health Organization (WHO) rapid
assessment technique, was discussed and agreed at a workshop in Istanbul in late 1994. In early
1995 the methodology was translated into Russian, Turkish, Romanian and Bulgarian and
contracts were issued for implementation of the survey to the focal points for routine pollution
monitoring in all six Black Sea countries. Surveys were completed in all Black Sea countries by
June 1996. The Activity Centre for Routine Pollution Monitoring took responsibility for
conducting missions to assist the focal points and assure data of uniform quality and of analyzing
the data. The results of the study became one of the keystones of the Black Sea Transboundary
Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) and of the BS-SAP itself. The accuracy of the results is only as good
as these literature values and the response of the persons answering the questionnaires. The
present phase of the study needs following up with site surveys and successful intercalibration
and intercomparison exercises in order to achieve comparable results between all participant
laboratories.
(3) Work on the pilot monitoring studies was active during the three year of implementation of
the BSEP. The monitoring programme of the Odessa Activity Centre completed over eight
cruises using their own funding. Work on the Black Sea Mussel Watch was completed in all six
33
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
countries with the technical support of the IOC of Unesco (using the services of the Plymouth
Marine Laboratory in the UK and Texas A & M University of the USA) and the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Marine Studies Laboratory in Monaco. Additional financial
support was given by the European Union. The Mussel Watch was combined with an extensive
training programme, both in Plymouth and in the region, and the six participating institutions are
now ready to begin a full-scale biological effects monitoring programme.
The pollution pilot studies, for the most part completed in 1995, were reviewed at a major
workshop held at the Programme Coordination Unit (PCU) from 18 - 23 March 1996 under the
co-sponsorship of the BSEP and the EROS-21 programme and with the additional participation of
scientists from the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission's Global Investigations of
Marine Pollution (GIPME), from the NATO Science for Stability Programme and from the
CoMSBlack programme. A total of 98 leading Black Sea scientists met at the PCU for a total of
six days of analysis of the results of the EROS-21 and other studies. As a result, the first
comprehensive review of "The State of Pollution of the Black Sea" was prepared and will be
published in Spring 97 as part of the BSEP Technical Series. The review also describes the design
of the future Black Sea "Status and Trends" monitoring system.
Because these form the cornerstone of the overall assessment of the Black Sea ecosystem, the
main conclusions of the review are illustrated in Box 1 below.
34
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Box 1: How Polluted Is The Black Sea? Where Does The Pollution Come From?
Key Results Of The BSEP Studies.
Nutrients And Eutrophication
This is clearly the main culprit for the ecological degradation of the Black Sea environment. The present
study revealed that some 58 percent of the total nitrogen and 66 percent of the total phosphorus flowing in
dissolved form to the Black Sea come from the Danube basin, making the participation of Danubian
countries in the clean-up effort of paramount importance. Continued research efforts are also needed through
programmes designed to develop scientifically based strategies for mitigation.
Sewage
The BSEP pilot survey of microbial contamination of bathing waters was disappointing, largely due to the
unwillingness of certain authorities to use standard methodologies and to exchange data. Even so, the data
received showed a "fail rate" for samples of 5 - 44 percent. In other words, between 5 and 44 percent of the
samples did not meet the sanitary criteria established for the country in question. Of course, not all of the
Black Sea bathing waters are dirty but there are no commonly agreed criteria for informing the public
concerning the relative health risks. In the Black Sea coastal region, approximately 10,385,000 people are
linked to sewerage systems and discharge an estimated 571,175,000 m3/year into the Black Sea or into
downstream stretches of rivers and from there to the sea. The current pilot studies confirmed that regular
beach closures occur in many of the Black Sea countries and that, although no cause-effect relationship has
been clearly established, there are increasingly frequent outbreaks of serious water borne diseases such as
cholera and hepatitis A. The need for better sewage treatment is evident, as is the need for greater
transparency in the gathering and diffusion of information on this subject.
Oil Pollution
Of the 111,000 tons of oil entering the Black Sea each year, 48 percent is transported by the Danube river
and most of the remainder is introduced from land-based sources through inadequate waste treatment and the
poor handling of oil and oil products. The amount reaching the Black Sea from ballast water discharges by
ships is unknown but thought to be considerable.
The concentration of oil was measured in sediments and sea water. The sediment levels were found to be of
concern near sea ports (Odessa and Sochi), but in open coast and the Bosphorus outflow areas, the levels
were relatively low. The levels of oil and petroleum hydrocarbons in sediments were generally comparable
with those of the Mediterranean. In the EROS measurements of dissolved oil, rather high levels of fresh oil
were observed, especially near the discharge of the River Danube. Concentrations found in the surface waters
of the western Black Sea are one order of magnitude higher than in the western Mediterranean.
Concentrations of poly-aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), a group of particularly toxic petroleum hydrocarbon
compounds, are generally low. In view of the high levels of dissolved oil however, measures to reduce its
concentration in the Black Sea are considered necessary.
Pesticides and PCBs
The concentration of these compounds was found to be rather low in most cases. Some slightly elevated
concentrations of lindane were found near the Danube discharge, but most samples were comparable with the
Mediterranean. In order to double-check this situation a "Mussel-Watch" (survey of concentration of
chlorinated pesticides and PCBs using mussels as sentinel organisms) was conducted in autumn 1996.
Certainly these compounds are not a major concern in the open Black Sea.
Heavy Metals
Quite a large amount of reliable data has been gathered on the concentration of heavy metals in the Black
Sea. This data has been analyzed in such a manner as to distinguish natural sources of metals from
anthropogenic (human-induced) ones. From this analysis, it is apparent that the Black Sea is not generally
polluted by heavy metals. There are some areas where elevated concentrations may occur (near "industrial
hot spots") and it will be important to complete a more detailed survey of coastal sites. The fact remains,
35
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
however, that the heavy metal concentrations in the Black Sea are virtually indistinguishable from natural
levels.
Radionuclides
There are obvious concerns regarding the level of radionuclides in the Black Sea and, thanks to the
sponsorship and guidance of the IAEA, quite a large effort is underway in this area. Certainly, concentrations
of some radionuclides are one order of magnitude higher in the Black Sea than in the adjacent
Mediterranean. But studies on the radiological consequences of radionuclides in the world ocean and the
Mediterranean indicate that radiation doses to humans from anthropogenic radionuclides in the Black Sea are
low. Work will continue on this matter under the auspices of the IAEA.
Litter
There is little quantitative information on this problem in the Black Sea. Some municipalities in the south
and south-east part of the sea are known to be discharging municipal garbage to beaches, the sea or to river
banks discharging to the sea. As a consequence, beaches are highly littered. The situation below the
waterline is unknown.
(4) Regarding the bathing water and drinking water monitoring issues, there has been
considerable cooperation between the Activity Centre in Istanbul and WHO (Rome). Although
the degree of implementation of the work was limited and the results rather disappointing, enough
information was gathered to clearly demonstrate the severity of the microbiological pollution
problem in the region. WHO sponsored national workshops on cholera following a series of
outbreaks in 1994-95 and took a large number of initiative to seek additional donor funndig. The
main difficulty faced was the unwillingness of Ministries of Health in many countries to release
data to the public domain. A call for greater transparency in such information was incorporated in
the BS-SAP.
(5) The sharing of information on pollution sources is a notable achievement of the BSEP. In
order to make the data better available to managers and to the public, it is currently being
transferred to the BSEP Geographical Information System (GIS). This approach can gradually be
extended until information on the entire Black Sea basin becomes available and basin wide
management becomes a reality.
The cost of completely renovating the Black Sea pollution monitoring network was considerably
underestimated in the original GEF-BSEP project document, but it has nevertheless been possible
to significantly improve the capacity of laboratories in each of the Black Sea countries and to
derive measurable results. The forthcoming report on the "state of pollution of the Black Sea " is
bound to become an important reference document and the most up-to-date source of data
available on the Black Sea.
Achievements would not have been possible without the continuous support from those UN
agencies which, under the coordination of the BSEP, contributed valuable expertise and guidance
in their respective areas of competence. More so possibly in this thematic areas, cooperation
among UN agencies has been effective. Credit is herewith given to the IAEA Marine Studies
Laboratory in Monaco, the WHO Rome Environmental Health Division, and the IOC of Unesco
for their consistent support.
Finally it needs to be emphasized that pollution monitoring is a long term effort that requires the
collection and study of regular and reliable sets of data. This can only be achieved with further
support from the international community, since the cost of operating the "newly equipped"
36
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
facilities is not insignificant and training in the use of instrumentation and data quality assurance
must continue to be provided.
3.2.3 Biodiversity
This component of the BSEP was implemented jointly by the BSEP-PCU and the World Bank.
(1) Under the guidance of the BSEP-PCU and the World Bank, six national biodiversity reports
were completed by the end of Programme. Their preparation mobilized hundreds of specialists
throughout the region. Most are the first and most comprehensive reports ever to focus not only
on the individual country's fauna and flora but also on the surrounding environment in an attempt
to draw up habitat-preserving plans. These national reports, and a regional assessment based on
them, will be published by the Black Sea Environmental Programme (BSEP) in the UN
Publications' Black Sea Environmental Series.
(2) Biodiversity pilot proposals were prepared by the Black Sea countries in 1995 and submitted
to the World Bank, which was responsible for their review and initial funding as one-year pilot
projects (using funds from the BSEP-World Bank component). However, in late 1996, the World
Bank informed that funds initially made available proved exhausted and none of the pilot project
could be implemented, unless additional funding is secured.
The first draft of the Regional Investment Strategy, prepared in October 1996, has been found
inadequate and in need of considerable review and updating.
On the other hand, thanks to a coordinated effort by the BSEP-PCU and the European Union
Tacis programme, a high-profile project to rehabilitate the Batumi Biodiversity Centre and its
aquarium to its original educational vocation is underway. ECU500,000 have been earmarked in
the forthcoming 1997 programme of assistance to refurbish and repair the facilities.
(3) In the process of the assessment work undertaken under the biodiversity component, the four
marine mammal species of the Black Sea received a significant "high-profile", from both public
awareness and ecological perspectives. With assistance from UNEP and the World Bank, a sub-
group working party held an important meeting in December 1995 in Istanbul. It developed a
regional marine mammal strategy and identified initial pilot projects and longer-term investments
in line with the BSEP biodiversity strategy. In the same area, delegates from Black Sea and
Mediterranean states and representatives of the European Union signed a long-negotiated
Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans of the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and
Contiguous Atlantic Area. Such a step towards negotiated international convention exemplified
the efforts of the BSEP to associated both practical These advances in international conventions
and arena
With a package combining the production of scientifically based technical reports for assessment
purposes, the implementation of flag raising pilot projects and the negotiation of policy
documents for regional conservation measures, biodiversity is an area of the BSEP where
effective results could have been reached, should all its individual components have timely
materialized as originally planned.
3.2.4. Integrated Coastal Zone Management
37
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) is a tool to develop coastal resources in a
sustainable manner while mitigating conflicts between users of these resources. The origin of
coastal problems is often located outside the coastal zone and may be associated with sectors that
are unaware of the consequences of their actions. Since sectoral policies pay limited attention to
issues outside their sectoral arenas, the key to addressing coastal problems is to enable inter-
agency collaboration, through establishment of ad-hoc multi-sectorral committees. Government
agencies, but also representatives of the private sector, NGOs, local authorities and the coastal
communities should be encouraged to participate in the discussion about and design of coastal
zone management plans.
The ICZM component of the BSEP, implemented jointly by the World Bank and the BSEP,
followed a rigorous strategy to develop and integrate national ICZM assessments:
· national ICZM networks were established in all six countries to gather support and inputs for
the preparation and review of the national reports;
· draft definitions of ICZM boundaries were proposed and are under internal government
review for adoption in each Black Sea countries;
· comprehensive national assessment reports were prepared, reviewing political,
administrative, geographic and socio-economic elements affecting the coastal zone and
summarizing national priorities and proposals for streamlining management of the resources
of the coastal area. These reports were the first attempts to synthesize the existing conditions
and identify the multi-sectoral issues that affect the coastal region within each country.
· a regional synthesis report and recommendations were drafted by the Activity Centre and
served as the key background document for the experts developing the TDA.
In preparation for the implementation of this strategy, ICZM focal points were taken on a study
tour in the USA to practically approach American experience of coastal zone management. A
series of successful training sessions were then scheduled in the Black Sea region, with expert
advice from the World Bank, to further guide and support the process of preparation of the
national reports. Though slow to take off, this component of the BSEP proved one of the most
successful, not only because of the quality of the reports produced, but also because the Activity
Centre and its associated focal points eventually constructed a solid and competent working
party.
This component of the BSEP is also probably the one which received most attention from donors.
Under the Netherlands collateral contribution23, Russian, Ukrainian and Dutch experts completed
the Decision Support System for the Azov Sea, a US$350,000 programme. In Georgia, the World
Bank's Municipal Infrastructure Rehabilitation Project (MIRP), earmarked funds for the
restoration of critical infrastructure services in the coastal municipalities and scheduled training
seminars on coastal zone management for local authorities, government officials and NGOs. A
12-month Phare/Tacis technical assistance programme provided advice and support, through a
series of workshops and practical case studies to authorities and organizations with coastal zone
management responsibilities. In particular the training focused on environmental impact
assessment and environmental auditing as tools for proper coastal zone management. Finally, in
1994, 95 and 96, the BSEP facilitated the participation of Black Sea representatives in
professional courses organized by the UNEP/Mediterranean Action Programme-backed Medcoast
institute.
23 Integrated Water Resources and Management of the Azov Sea programme, Parallel programme of the Dutch
Government, 1995
38
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
In parallel with the preparation of national reports, ICZM pilot projects were identified, selected
and fully developed. These were to demonstrate ICZM principles and methodologies at the
national and regional level. Though the pilot projects were approved by the World Bank, funds
initially earmarked for this activity could not be made available anymore. A recent status report
from the World Bank confirmed that it is currently seeking donor financing for the pilot project
proposals prepared during the pilot phase under this component24.
The ICZM working party solicited that particular emphasis be given on the study of the tourism
sector as one of the key stakeholders of the coastal zone. Given that special attention to this sector
should strengthen the assessment of coastal zone management issues, a project was developed to
review current coastal tourism practices and stimulate the development of sustainable tourism
practices. With support from the Austrian Government and the World Tourism Organization,
detailed assessment reports were prepared which highlight the different barriers to the
development of sustainable tourism activities in the Black Sea countries and propose a series of
pilot projects in the area of eco-tourism, institutional strengthening and training, and industry
cooperation and networking. The activity and the resulting synthesis report was received with
interest by both Black Sea government and donor organizations. Tourism is one of those sectors,
which, together with aquaculture, could contribute to the revival and/or development of the
coastal zone, if managed properly. As such, it holds great potential as sources of revenues to both
sustain the livelihood of coastal communities and, as users of the resources, finance part of the
cost for the preservation and sustainable management of the coast. The BSEP initiative in this
area helped focus attention on the issue and generate donor support to the sector. In 1997, the
European Union Phare and Tacis programme is launching a programme of assistance which
includes support to sustainable tourism activities and the Austrian Government has pledged to
provide additional support in this area.
Finally the efforts of the BSEP ICZM working party resulted in important breakthrough in policy
and legislation; a decree on the protection of the Black Sea Coastal Zone25 was passed in Russia
and a comprehensive coastal zone management legislation was recently adopted in Bulgaria.
Similarly in the other Black Sea countries, coastal zone legislation has been developed and is
under various stages of approval and review by the respective assembly.
Because it demanded that cross-sectoral linkages be established, the ICZM component of the
BSEP was possibly the most innovative in terms of institutional development for the region.
Though the short time frame of implementation could not allow for structures to be firmly
established, the notion of pluri-disciplinary teams has taken roots in a number of coastal pilot
sites, thereby facilitating the drafting of plans for an harmonious utilization and development of
coastal and marine resources. The ICZM networks thus established will play an important role in
the design and drafting of National BS-SAPs.
3.2.5 Fisheries
The rational management of fisheries is dependent on the possession of reliable data on the
exploited fish population and the economic circumstances of the fishery communities. Until
recently, the lack of this information had hindered all attempts to conduct a regional assessment
on the past and present status of fishery activities in the region. The BSEP organized a survey in
the form of extensive questionnaire-based interviews at major fishing ports and cooperatives in
the region to collect new data covering the period 1975 to 1995. The collected data are believed
24 BSEP - Status of World Bank Executed Components and Bank Options for the second Phase, June 1996.
25 Yeltsin decree, 1995
39
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
to be the most accurate and comprehensive currently available and the survey has established a
baseline for the future development of a regional database. However to consolidate the
information, surveys should be conducted every year.
Though outside of the scope of its Programme, the BSEP encouraged the Black Sea countries to
develop and negotiate a Black Sea Fisheries Convention. Unsuccessful so far in reaching a
common agreement, the Black Sea countries have however welcomed the support of the BSEP in
facilitating consultation and access to updated stock database and methodology.
In addition to the BSEP survey, a regional study26 has been completed, using historical data on the
stocks of commercial fish species in the Black Sea and their rational exploitation. The study , co-
funded by the Soros Foundation, is to be the regional report of reference for the preparation of the
BS-SAP. It is to be published under an FAO technical publication series.
The prime emphasis of the programme has been on aquaculture, a promising sector for the Black
Sea but still in its infancy. A study mission organized jointly by the World bank and the PCU
with support from the Government of Norway visited the Black Sea countries in 1994 to review
the situation of the marine aquaculture industry in the region and present a series of
recommendation and project proposals. The resulting UN-published report stressed the merit of
setting up demonstration projects of good commercial and environmental values. The finalization
of the report helped secure financial support from the European Union (demonstration projects
would be implemented in 1997 that incorporate training in both business management skills and
environmental consideration) and bilateral assistance from the Government of Japan to start a
cage farming project in Turkey.
The original spelling of the Odessa Declaration does not include a reference to the Fisheries
sector. However, when required, the BSEP provided technical advice and assistance from an
environmental perspective. It helped foster the exchange of information and encouraged an
increased dialogue among the countries. Finally, looking at aquaculture development in the Black
Sea, the Programme helped assess the current practices of the industry as well as identify the
potentials of the sector in terms of economic opportunities and environmental management.
Throughout these thematic areas, the BSEP-PCU has worked, successfully, to generate additional
support from parallel financial sources to strengthen the core efforts of the Programme. It also
benefited from the extreme dedication and loyalty of those Black Sea experts who were
associated with the Programme. The BSEP has effectively established and maintained networks
of active groups, building upon the excellent competence of Black Sea experts. Finally, it
received valuable support from the partner UN agencies and the other International Waters
Programme (GEF-sponsored Danube River Basin and UNEP-backed Mediterranean Action
Programme in particular) and with the private sector. These factors have significantly facilitated
the delivery of outputs. A tentative list of BSEP-produced outputs and publications is attached in
Annex 7 as reference.
On the other hand, the changing political context and mostly the difficult economic situation in
the Black Sea countries have, at times, slowed down the process. Communication and travel
proved to be more of a difficulty than anticipated and the costs (in time and money) of some of
26 Environmental Management of Fish Resources in the Black Sea and their Rational Exploitation, Soros
Foundation / FAO / BSEP, draft 1995
40
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
the activities were greatly underestimated (in particular for the development of national
contingency plans).
3.3. Developing an appropriate policy and legislative framework
The entry into force of the Bucharest Convention and its three Protocols established binding
requirement on the Black Sea governments to develop and implement legal tools for the
controlling marine pollution in the Black Sea the governments with requirements. Two regional
bodies were to help develop this policy and legislative framework: the Istanbul Commission and
its Secretariat and the PCU-based Advisory Panel on the Harmonization of Environmental
Quality Criteria, Standards, Legislation and Enforcement.
The Panel met in Istanbul in April 1995 and prepared recommendations concerning the
implementation of the Bucharest Convention and the enhancement and harmonization of
environmental legislation and standards, which were forwarded to the Istanbul Commission. In
addition, a comprehensive report reviewing the status of environmental legislation in the Black
Sea countries was prepared by the BSEP-PCU. Also, further to the requirement of the Odessa
Ministerial Declaration which calls for a triennial review of its implementation, the preparation of
a systematic review was commissioned. The review pointed to encouraging real progress made by
all, or most, Black Sea countries on a wide range of issue. This review was made available to
governments and BSEP partners.
On the other hand, the BSEP has provided continuous support and encouragement to the Black
Sea countries so that they reach an agreement over the integration of the Istanbul Secretariat of
the Black Sea Commission. Though not directly responsible for its establishment, the BSEP
rightly felt, from the start, that the sustainability of the Programme was highly dependent upon
the capacity of the Governments to jointly commit to the support of a Black Sea institution. This
endeavor has costed the BSEP-PCU considerable efforts and has, alternatively, been a source of
hope and disappointment over the full three years of the Programme. That ultimately no decisive
step has yet been taken in this area is a reason of concern and is contradictory to the commitment
expressed by the Governments at several occasions that they share a common interest and desire
in the implementation of the BS-SAP, commitment restated recently by the ministers of the
environment of the Black Sea countries who signed the BS-SAP document in Istanbul in October
1996.
Finally on the policy side, the key achievement of the Programme must have been the
preparation of the BS-SAP. The Black Sea Action Plan, culmination of three years of partnership
between the organizations involved in the GEF-BSEP and the government of Black Sea
countries, should facilitate profound policy changes in Black Sea countries as well as the
development of harmonized environmental objectives and key environmental investments.
3.4. Facilitating the preparation of sound environmental investments (and innovative financial
mechanisms to finance the protection of the Black Sea).
Facilitating the preparation of sound environmental investment was an essential component of the
Programme. The main tasks under this heading were to: 1) identify and select an Urgent
Investment Portfolio and 2) develop a Priority Investment Plan, a more comprehensive long term
investment strategy to be integrated into the BS-SAP. The World Bank, as associated agency
under IAA 93058 of August 1993, was responsible for the execution of this component.
41
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
(1) The Urgent Investment Portfolio is the largest Bank managed component of BSEP,
accounting for some 65% of the overall IAA amount, or $1.95 million. From the 13 projects
initially identified, 6 projects were finally selected for pre-investment studies financed under the
BSEP. As of today, all of the UIP funds have been committed to these projects and most have
been disbursed. Annex 7 presents a detailed description of the UIP process as well as a status of
other World Bank executed components. Below is a summary list of the UIP projects:
Country UIP
Description Budget
Bulgaria
Coastal Preservation Facilities
development of land use plans for 14 coastal
municipalities
$0.45
Bulgaria Water Company
Varna Municipal feasibility study
restructuring
Georgia Municipal
Infrastructure
EIA/audit/ICZM training prog., public $0.3
Rehabilitation Project
awareness projects, Batumi refinery env.
Audit, Kolkheti wetlands study
Romania n/a
Russia
Community Social infrastructure preparation of Greater Rostov Env. Strategic $0.41
Project
Action Plan
Turkey Solid Waste Management
study on appropriate solid waste man. $0.2
(scheduled for approval in FY99)
Practices on Black Sea coast
Ukraine
Municipal Water Project - Odessa feasibility study for municipal water services
(scheduled for approval in FY98)
and water quality monitoring
$0.45
Southern Ukraine Env. Project identification of hot spots in Mariupol and
(scheduled for approval in FY98)
biodiversity conservation schemes in Crimea
Regional
Preparation of guidelines ; reconnaissance $0.13
mission; preparation of UIP report.
TOTAL
$1.95
The UIP projects included a substantial training component (including practical execution of EIA
and environmental audit training). Noteworthy the first major investment was approved in the
Black Sea region, thanks to support from UIP funds. The World Bank granted a $20 million
emergency concessionary loan to Georgia to cover the rehabilitation and improvement of
municipal services, inter alia, to the coastal cities of Batumi and Poti. The loan also includes
provisions for coastal zone management along the Georgian Black Sea coastline.
(2) A second component of the World Bank-implemented programme was the development of a
Priority Investment Plan as a component of the BS-SAP. It was designed as a strategic
framework for assessing the costs and benefits of actions aimed at ameliorating the environmental
degradation of the Black Sea.
Faced with the concern that little progress had been made in the implementation of this
component, it was proposed to the World Bank that the tasks be split between the two
organizations, the BSEP-PCU and the World Bank. Agreement was reached in late 1995 and very
thorough and comprehensive Terms of Reference were prepared to launch the activities. The
renamed Black Sea Environmental Priority Study (BSEPS) was to be composed of six national
reports and six independent technical report. At the time of writing of this report, the status of
completion of the reports is as follows:
BSEPS Reports
Status
6 country reports
draft under review
Regional synthesis report
n/a
42
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
An economic analysis of BS Fisheries and Env. Management
draft
Technical report on coastal erosion
semi-final
Economic assessment of coastal erosion in the BS coastal countries
in preparation
The study of the impact of economic transition on the BS countries environment
initial draft
Technical support for estimating the economic value of reduced risks to human draft under review
health in BS coastal areas
Tourism related economic value of environmental quality of the BS
final
Economic valuation of BS coastal wetlands
initial draft
Because the BSEPS effort was initiated rather late in the implementation of the Programme
(activities started in late 1995), few of the reports could be completed by the time of the planned
end date of project RER/93/G31 (June 1996) and could contribute to the preparation of the BS-
SAP. As a result, it was then decided to extract those components of particular relevance to the
preparation of the TDA and the BS-SAP, the "hot spots reports", and first concentrate on their
review and analysis. The tourism report was also finalized in time for incorporation into the TDA
and BS-SAP.
All the reports are expected to be finalized in Spring 97, when the main impulse for the
preparation of the national BS-SAP will start.
When finalized, even not to its full extent, the set of national and technical reports clearly will
constitute a "useful contribution for the development of a reasonable prioritization procedure27".
The national reports, including the "hot spots reports", will translate into a prime source of input
for the preparation of the national Black Sea Strategic Action Plan, though they can not be relied
upon in terms of priority investment portfolio as originally anticipated. The technical reports are
of variable quality but have the potential to provide very valuable information on linkages
between environmental and economic issues.
(3) Investment plans for the enhancement and conservation of biodiversity and fisheries were to
be prepared under the Programme and a draft biodiversity investment plan was drafted in late
1996 (though in need of full revision). On the fisheries side however, the political positions of the
respective Black Sea countries and the depressed economic situation of the fisheries industry as a
whole made it inadequate to undertake such a task within the framework of this GEF project.
Reasonably, the BSEP focused its activities rather on the assessment of fish stocks and the
consolidation of existing data (see fisheries section in 2. 5 above). Investment emphasis was put
rather on the potential of the aquaculture industry. Investments in improved, cost-effective
technology was not done per se, but occasionally covered under particular thematic activities.
(4) The role of economic instruments in managing environmental issues is expected to increase in
the Black Sea countries as a result of 1) the transition to a market economy and the general trend
toward less government intervention, 2) the demonstrated cost-efficient response of enterprises
and households to economic instruments and 3) the collapse of the state revenue system,
restrictive budgets and the need to create new revenue-raising mechanisms for environmental
protection within the economies in transition.
The BSEP-PCU working group on environmental economics initiated a review of the use and
potential of economic instruments in the Black Se countries. A comprehensive workshop on the
Use of Economic Instruments for Environmental Protection in the Black Sea and its River Basins
was organized jointly by the PCU and the Danube River Basin Programme in December 1994.
27 Project Evaluation Report, page 21
43
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
(5) Black Sea Regional Environmental Fund
The implementation of newly ratified legal and policy agreements requires a sustainable
mechanisms of regionally-based financial support which does not rely upon haphazard voluntary
contributions. This problem of financing the management of commons has bogged down regional
programmes worldwide. Faced with the same issue, the BSEP proposed to study the development
of an innovative option, a Black Sea Environmental Fund (BSEF). The proposed fund could be
financed primarily through common economic instruments applied on a nation-by-nation basis
across the region. Ranging from the use of such instruments as charges, penalties, taxes or
subsidies to the creation of marketable permits, the Fund would rely on user-pays and polluter-
pays principles, classic principles of international agreements and conventions. The BSEF would
ensure the sustainability of international cooperation for the Black Sea by providing a source of
financial support for activities and investments dealing with issues of international concern,
which can not be dealt with by any single state.
Backed by the full support and technical contribution of the BSEP Environmental Economics
working group, the BSEP-PCU offered to conduct a consultative process in the Black Sea
countries to determine the interest of the Black Sea governments in the proposal. This was
undertaken in late 1995, thanks to a grant from the GEF Bloc B (RER/95/G41). All governments
confirmed their interest in the proposal and welcomed further investigation into the modalities for
implementing the BSEF. This was reflected in the drafting of the BS-SAP. Also, the European
Union's Phare and Tacis Programme has already strongly endorsed the concept of conducting a
full evaluation of the Fund and have made budgetary provisions for parallel financing of this sub-
objective. As a result, an in-depth feasibility study will be conducted in the second phase of the
BSEP.
The investment component of the BSEP has associated traditional feasibility studies of priority
investments with more innovative approaches using economic instruments. While the World
Bank has been effective in initiating the portfolio of UIP and carrying out the pre-feasibility
studies, other International Financing Institutions, such as EBRD, did not follow on the lead and
consider with more interest the financing of some of these urgent investment projects.
Considerable efforts remain to be done to convince the Financing Institutions of the merit of
supporting Black Sea capital projects. The forthcoming national BS-SAPs and the tentative
scheduling of a Donor/PPC meeting in the second phase of the Programme should help breach
this gap. On the other hand, Black Sea governments would be taking a closer look at their
internally-generated financial revenues which, if managed optimally, could contribute to the costs
of some of these larger investment programmes for the protection of the Black Sea.
3.5. Developing the Black Sea Strategic Action Plan (BS-SAP)
The Black Sea Strategic Action Plan (BS-SAP) was the culmination of a carefully implemented
technical process spanning over two years. The steps of this process were highlighted in Figure 1
on page 5 of this report. It relied on the joint work undertaken by international organizations
(essentially UN agencies) and Black Sea institutes to establish and empower technical networks
to prepare substantial thematic analysis and then integrate them regionally.
The first move in creating the BS-SAP was the completion of a systematic scientific analysis of
the root causes of environmental degradation in the Black Sea. This analysis, termed a
44
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis28 was completed in June 1996. The TDA was prepared by a
group of sixteen leading specialists, drawn from fourteen countries including all six Black Sea
countries, together with the five PCU specialist staff. Together they analyzed the thematic reports
based upon the work of over 100 Black Sea specialists cooperating through the BSEP network.
Altogether these represent some 75 national assessment reports and 13 regional synthesis reports
completed within the framework of the Programme. The results of this work were condensed into
a series of analytical tables. The TDA then is a technical document which, in a highly analytical
manner, examines the root causes of Black Sea degradation and options for actions which may be
taken to address them. It examines each major environmental problem, the "stakeholders"
involved in the problem and the uncertainties in the information describing the problem. It then
proposes solutions, often giving various options, and attempts to set a time frame and cost for the
solutions. Some of the solutions require policy changes; some require capital investments.
On the basis of the TDA, the high-level representatives of Black Sea governments were able to
negotiate a very pragmatic BS-SAP. The first draft of the BS-SAP was completed by the
governmental representatives on 30 June 1996 and submitted to intensive review at the national
level. Following two further meetings, the refined draft was ready for submission to the
Ministerial Conference four months later, on 31 October 1996.
The BS-SAP is considered a truly innovative document, in which the governments of the Black
Sea countries, together with the wider international community, commit themselves to a
pragmatic programme of actions based upon common objectives and milestones for restoring and
protecting the Black Sea. The next step in this process will be the preparation of national BS-
SAPs, where country's individual priorities, means and requirements will be considered within
the framework of achieving the full implementation of the (regional) BS-SAP..
28 Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis, BSEP-PCU, June 1996
45
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
PART IV
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
To be consistent with the general approach of this final report, financial data for the four projects
have been combined, when reviewing the distribution of the budget into the various clusters or
thematic components. Also, for this report, "Final Expenditures" represent final expenditures as
accounted by UNOPS but reworked in the correct budget lines and budgetary years to reflect a
more accurate cost of the project activities in line with the programming of the BSEP-PCU. In
addition, for 1996, the best estimates available have been taken into account, in particular for
BSEP-PCU activities and for personnel costs, as no final figures are yet published. The present
review has finally assumed that all UN agencies (and the World Bank) would deliver 100% of the
amounts committed in their Inter-Agency Agreement(s) with the UNOPS, the balance being
disbursed in 1996.
5.1 Review of the Programme financial results by budget clusters or categories.
Figure 8 : ORIGINAL BUDGETS VERSUS FINAL EXPENDITURE
BY TYPE OF EXPENDITURE
RER/92/G31 + RER/93/G31 + RER/95/G41 + RER/96/006
(in Thousands of $)
Overheads and
Support cos
o ts
Operations and
misc.
Equipment
Meetings and
trai
r ning
Final Expenditures
Other contracts
Original Budget
IAA wi
IAA w th U
th n
U
Agencies
e
IAA wi
IAA w th W
th
o
W r
o lrd
Bank
Pers
e onnel
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
A comparison of original budgets with final expenditures points to the following conclusions:
· Personnel costs were slightly lower than expected - this is possibly attributable to the cost-
effective use of young professionals at the PCU, the reliance on the contracting of Black Sea
46
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
experts as much as possible for undertaking temporary and specific tasks, and the provision
of a Junior Professional Office from the Government of Japan.
· The effort on equipment, as mentioned above (section 1.1) turned out to be more costly. The
increase, inter alia, also stems from storage costs at customs and levies.
· The IAA with the World Bank was decreased by $355,000 in 1996 to account for the transfer
of responsibilities to the BSEP-PCU, i.e. in the area of fisheries ($100,000), ICZM ($5,000)
and BSEPS ($250,000).
· The dollar amount disbursed for meetings and events was considerably lower than budgeted
for. This may come as a surprise in view of the extremely high number of events organized
by the Programme, but it is the result of carefully and optimally budgeting for each of these
activities. Bloc room reservations were negotiated by the PCU with the hotel and reduced
DSA rates then granted to the participating experts, the lowest travel routes and tickets were
used and meeting expenses were kept to a minimum. As a result, a meeting cost I average
about $8,000 for some 10 to 15 participants (duration of a meeting is usually 3 to 4 days).
· Overhead and support costs increased from $544,473 to $773,829.
· Contracts, not originally foreseen in the original project document, turned out to be used
regularly at the BSEP, to recruit the services of international but mostly Black Sea experts.
Fig. 9: BSEP PROJECTS - EXPENDITURE BREAKDOWN
RER/92-93/G31 - RER/95/G41 - RER/96/006
Communication
/misc
Overhead/support
3%
costs
Missions
8%
IAA with the World
2%
Bank
Equipment
31%
15%
Regional
workshops
2%
Group training abroad
IAAs with UN
1%
agencies
Meetings
4%
8%
International contracts
International
Int. consultants
Support staff
experts/staff
Regional contracts
4%
3%
16%
Reg. consultants
4%
Looking at the share of each categories of expenditure in the overall total, three components stand
out: IAA with the World Bank at 31% of the total ($2,975,000), international PCU staff personnel
cost at 16% ($1,491,207) and provision of equipment at 15% ($1,440,000).
In dollar amount, the share of international contracts (including the recruitment of international
consultants) versus regional (Black Sea) contracts is similar at 54-46.
The corresponding table from which these figures are derived is attached in Annex 8.
When international PCU personnel costs are redistributed into those thematic areas in which they
provide input and expertise,
5.2 Distribution of the budget by thematic areas
47
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Following the distribution of responsibilities and tasks at the PCU, the expenditures have been re-
allocated per thematic areas, i.e. Emergency Response, Pollution Monitoring, Biodiversity,
ICZM, Fisheries, Data management and information, Environmental economics, Urgent
Investment Portfolio, NGOs, Policy, and Coordination (essentially missions to the Black Sea
countries).
The distribution of the World Bank IAA follows the table below which is taken from the most
recent budget revision of the World Bank dated June 1996.
BSEP World Bank component
Black Sea Environmental Priorities Study (BSEPS)
225
Biodiversity
Investment
Plan 290
Fisheries
22.7
Coastal
Zone
Management 355
Administrations
and
Operations
135
TOTAL (in Thousand of $)
2,975
Figure 10 : BSEP - WORLD BANK EXECUTED ACTIVITIES
Revised Budget RER/92/G31 and RER/93/G31 (1993 - 1996)
Admin.&
ICZM
Operations
12%
5%
Fisheries
1%
Urgent Investment
Biodiversity Inv.
Portfolio
Plan
64%
10%
BSEPS
8%
In the first figure below (Figure 11), the operating cost of the PCU has been split into: PCU
international personnel costs and BSEP Administrative and Operations costs (this includes PCU
communication, supplies, local staff, equipment and miscellaneous costs as well as the World
Bank Administrative expenses).
48
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Fig. 11 : DISTRIBUTION OF BSEP EXPENDITURES BY THEMATIC AREAS
PCU Int. Personnel
NGO
Pollution Monitoring
14%
1%
BSEP Admin. &
22%
Operations
10%
Data Management and
Emergency Response
GIS
1%
3%
ICZM
5%
Policy
Fisheries
8%
2%Biodiversity
4%
Urgent Investment
Coordination activiti E
es nv. economics /
Portfolio
2%
BSEPS
23%
5%
The UIP and the Pollution Monitoring thematic areas accounted for respectively 23% and 22% of
the overall delivery, the highest share of the Programme. Indeed, both were probably the most
critical components of the BSEP, the UIP for it responded to the need to remedy urgent
environmental problems at the start of the Programme, the pollution monitoring for the BS-SAP
had to rely on a fresh, accurate and coherent set of data, collected with up-to-date equipment. The
UIP is a fully-funded World Bank component, the Pollution Monitoring area includes such
significant expenditures as the procurement of analytical equipment, IAAs with UN agencies
(WHO, IAEA and IOC of UNESCO) together with the usual meetings and contracts.
Apart from the policy component whose share increased over the past year to 8% because of the
effort on the BS-SAP, all other BSEP thematic components account for a similar modest share of
the budget between 1 and 5%.
In the second figure below (Figure 12), the PCU international personnel costs have been
redistributed into those thematic areas for which the respective officers have provided inputs and
technical expertise. Since the BSEP-PCU did not record staff time against the projects and
activities undertaken, the distribution is based upon the terms of reference of the officers and a
best estimate of their time sharing among the various thematic areas and activities.
49
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Fig. 12 : BSEP PROJECTS - EXPENDITURE BREAKDOWN BY THEMATIC
AREAS
BSEP Operations &
Emergency
Admin.
NGO
ICZM
Response
10%
2%
7%
Pollution Monitoring
2%
24%
Fisheries
2%
Biodiversity
5%
Coordination
Data Management
activities
and GIS
3%
5%
Env. economics /
Policy
BSEPS
Urgent Investment
10%
8%
Portfolio
22%
The redistribution of PCU international technical expert costs into thematic areas increased
slightly the percentage share of each of the thematic areas, to the exception of the Fisheries
component. However it is important to note here that the Fisheries officer was a direct cost-
sharing contribution from the Government of Japan and at no cost to the Programme.
BSEP Administration & Operations costs amount to 10% of the total Programme.
5.3 Inter-Agency Agreements
For the implementation of this Programme, the BSEP concluded Inter-Agency Agreements
(IAAs) with the World Bank, the IMO for the emergency Response component, the FAO for the
Fisheries component, and the IAEA, the WHO and the IOC of UNESCO for the Pollution
Monitoring component. Very few data have been provided to the BSEP-PCU regarding the
detailed expenditure use of these amounts in the course of the Programme.
There is also a note of concern, at the time of writing, in that only about half the total amount of
the IAAs has been reported ($1,734,005 against a revised total amount of $3,375,000 - see table
of IAAs in Annex 9). It is understood though that these amounts have been fully committed and it
is expected that the agencies will be reporting full expenditure against their Agreed amount
before the financial closure of the Programme.
On the assumption that the UN agencies and the World Bank eventually report full expenditures
against their IAAs, the Programme will have attained a 100% implementation rate, since final
expenditures for the full Programme (RER/92/G31, RER/93/G31, RER/95/G41 and RER/96/006)
will amount t $9,498,626 against a total budgeted amount of $9,543,762 (not taking into
consideration the direct cost-sharing from the French Government). Financially, it can be said
that the Programme has fulfilled its objectives and, with regards to the number of activities
implemented, very cost-effectively managed the total budget allocated.
50
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
PART V
CONCLUSIONS AND FOLLOW-UP
The contributions that have been made by the BSEP in terms of capacity building, thematic
outputs, investment identification and policy development but also in terms of regional and
national cooperation have made a real difference in the environmental management capabilities of
the Black Sea countries and have laid the first foundation for implementing a strong Bucharest
Convention.
The successful implementation of the Programme essentially results from:
· the full involvement of the Black Sea country governments in the design and management of
the Programme, including financial planning and review on an annual basis;
· the application of both "top-down-bottom-up" approach, which balanced the role of central
and local authorities with that of the general public;
· the reliance on regional expertise with limited use of foreign experts, only in areas of critical
policy issues;
· the establishment and development of networks, using local resources and infrastructure;
· an emphasis on on-the-job training which encourages the formation of local teams, rather
than on the training of individuals who may easily be lost to the network;
· the constant on-line communicatiion with experts, to guide and facilitate their work;
· the downloading of portions of the work programmes to Black Sea institutions, thereby
enhancing their "ownership" of the Programme;
· the design of parallel funding packages which donors can contribute to, thereby adding value
to the GEF initial investment and receiving visible credit for their assistance;
· the development of innovative concepts for financing future actions;
· the final preparation of an excellent technical analysis (TDA) and policy document (BS-
SAP), and
· the coordinated technical assistance of UN agencies.
On the other hand, a second GEF phase of the Programme has recently been approved for a one-
year $1.7 million, after a long and difficult period of preparation and endless revisions. This next
step will essentially provide for the development of national Black Sea Strategic Action Plans. It
will support institution building at the national and regional level for the design and
implementation of such plans and will seek to foster greater public involvement in the process.
Finally it will develop an investment portfolio for the elimination of hot spots and for other
actions for supporting the implementation of the BS-SAP. The four immediate objectives of the
second phase Programme are as follows:
· consolidation of the policy strategy to implement the Black Sea Strategic Action Plan
· preparing the technical implementation of the Black Sea Strategic Action Plan
· public involvement in the implementation of the Black Sea Strategic Action Plan
· developing the financing of the Black Sea Strategic Action Plan
After this second phase, the future of the Programme and the sustainability of its achievements
will rely on two factors:
51
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
1) the capacity of the Istanbul Commission to carry the process further. This will require
increased political will and commitment from the Black Sea countries but also will necessitate a
continued support from the international community to guarantee that institutions are able to
maintain the level of monitoring activities for surveys and pilot studies, have the means to sustain
an active network and can become real "Advisory Centres" , i.e. centres of competence, for the
Istanbul Commission.
2) the development of a basin-wide approach for the control and reduction of significant sources
of pollution. "Over 70% of the nutrients, the primary sources of euthrophication which has
severely damaged the Black Sea ecosystem, enter the Black Sea via international rivers29".
29 BSEP Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis, June 1996
52
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
PART VI
LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS
53
BSEP Process for preparing a Strategy for a Medium / Long term
Environmental Action Plan (Black Sea Action Plan)
Thematic areas / Activity Centres
Data Management
Emergency Pollution Biodiversity
ICZM
Fisheries Env. Economics
Integration
Bulgaria Turkey Georgia
Russia
Romania NGO & information/PA
94/95
of institutional
Ukraine
Ad. Panel on Standards
networks
BSEP-PCU
- Creating WP networks
Enhanced
- Equipping the institutes and lab
== > Management
-
Enhancing
communications
Capacity
WP
meetings
and
training
Analyses at
- Developing methodology for
Identification of
95 country level
analyses (int. expertise + reg. Cons.
urgent actions
and by
- Preparing national studies/analysis
== > Demonstration
themes
- Carrying out pilot studies
projects at country
-
Gathering
new
information
level
(Fisheries,
Pollution
Monitoring)
Early 96
Regional
- Compiling and reviewing all national
Immediate regional
Assessments
reports & analysis and preparing
== > actions
regional
synthesis
June 96
Preparation of
- Using best reg. and int. expertise,
Document proposing
(2 weeks)
TDA
extracting most relevant national info.
== > technical
assessment
and data of transboundary impacts
of problems and
quantified options to
address the issue.
June/Oct. 96
Preparation of
- Preparing draft in June 96
Politically acceptable
Black Sea Action Plan - National consultations in July/August
== >
actions at a regional
- Review and finalization in Sept. 96
level for medium term
protection of the BS.
31 Oct. 96
Ministerial
- signing of BSAP by Ministers (or
Conference
representatives) of 6 Black Sea countries
- Black Sea Action Day: a series of public awareness
activities mainly organized by NGOs in the
Black
Sea
countries.
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
LIST OF ANNEXES
1.
Institutional set-up of the Black Sea Environmental Programme
2.
Original project budgets versus final expenditures
3.
Contracts (International & Regional)
4.
Donors support to the Black Sea Environmental Programme
5.
Assessment of the outputs of the Programme
6.
List of BSEP events
7.
List of BSEP Publications
8.
Budget of the World Bank component of the Programme
9.
BSEP Final Expenditures by thematic areas and by budget categories
10.
Inter-Agency Agreements with UN agencies
69
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Annex 2 - Original project budgets versus final expenditures
RER/93/G31
ORIGINAL PROJECT BUDGETS
RER/92/G3 +RER/95/G41 + RER/96/006
1993 1994 1995 1996 Total
Personnel
$228,333 $630,000 $642,268 $532,501 $2,033,102
Subcontract
$170,000 $987,000
$1,765,000 $828,000 $3,750,000
World Bank
$60,000
$827,000 $1,655,000
$788,000
$3,330,000
IAA with UN Agencies
$110,000
$160,000
$110,000
$0
$380,000
other contracts
$0
$0
$0
$40,000
$40,000
Meetings and training
$174,666 $574,000 $496,882 $394,334 $1,639,882
Equipment
$949,000 $70,000 $70,000 $53,000 $1,142,000
Operations and misc.
$49,732 $138,195 $158,415 $87,963
$434,305
Total $1,571,731
$2,399,195
$3,132,565 $1,895,798
$8,999,289
Overhead / Support costs (6%) $94,304 $143,952 $188,862 $117,355
$544,473
Grand Total
$1,666,035 $2,543,147 $3,321,427 $2,013,153
$9,543,762
REVISED BUDGET AS PER FINAL EXPENDITURES
RER/92/G31
1993
1994
1995 (1)
1996 (2)
Personnel
317,441 25,067 418,097
531,473
507,126
Subcontract
35,000 21,168 769,932
754,012
2,404,581
World Bank
35,000
21,168
478,412
426,040
2,014,380
IAA with Un Agencies
0
166,853
114,975
92,511
other contracts
0
124,667
212,997
297,690
Meetings and training
69,387 64,960 352,526
364,622
173,515
Equipment
174,357 681,750 554,545 30,237
Operations and misc.
38,811 40,641 88,275
173,118
134,156
Total 460,639
326,193
2,310,580 2,377,770 3,249,615
Overhead / Support costs
27,639 41,654 232,424
275,728
196,384
Grand Total
488,278
$367,847
$2,543,004 $2,653,498 $3,445,999
Cost-sharing from France
0
$0
$0
$0
33,910
Grand Total for GEF/UNDP
488,278 367,847 2,543,004
2,653,498
3,412,089
(1) 1995 figures include real expenditures for RER/95/G41
(2) 1996 figures include real expenditures for RER/96/006
70
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Annex 3 - Black Sea Environmental Programme - Contracts (International & Regional)
BSEP CONTRACTS (1993-1996) RER/93/G31
Number
Organisation Country Th. Area Year
of Amount
payment
NGO
C-95639 contract
CRAEP
UKR
NGO
P/A 95
$3,000
C-95618
contract GYEM (Dartsimelia)
GEO
NGO P/A
95
$2,994
C-95508
contract GESS (Catalin Gheorghe)
ROM
NGO P/A
95
$2,758
C-95602
contract Ecoglasnost Varna (R. Peteva)
BUL
NGO P/A
Nov-95
$2,962
C-95510
contract RAREF (Y. Caglar) TUR
NGO
P/A
95
$3,000
SSA94-16171
NPPP L. Matenco (NGO Directory 1995)
ROM
NGO Dir Aug. 95
$4,100
Proc.
proc.
L. Matenco (NGO Directory 1996)
ROM
NGO Dir Aug. 96
$4,750
SSA
NPPP Black Sea Action Day (*)
BUL
NGO P/A Oct. 96
$3,000
SSA
NPPP Black Sea Action Day (*)
GEO
NGO P/A Oct. 96
$5,000
SSA
NPPP Black Sea Action Day (*)
ROM
NGO P/A Oct. 96
$3,000
SSA
NPPP Black Sea Action Day (*)
RUS
NGO P/A Oct. 96
$3,000
SSA
NPPP Black Sea Action Day (*)
TUR
NGO P/A Oct. 96
$3,000
SSA
NPPP Black Sea Action Day (*)
UKR
NGO P/A Oct. 96
$3,000
$43,564
BlackSIS
C-95625
contract Russian Academy of Sciences
RUS blacksis
95 $1,500
(Shiganova /Vinogradov)
C-95624 contract
IBSS
(Alexandrov) UKR
blacksis
96
$1,200
C-95623 contract
RMRI
(Nikolaev) ROM
blacksis
Oct-96
$1,000
proc
Ukr Sc. Center of the Ecology of tho Sea UKR blacksis
95 $1,000
(Ivanovich / Mikhailov)
proc
Bul. Academy of Sciences (Konsulov)
BUL
blacksis
95
$1,500
NSC-95-12647-0 NPPP Jaoshvili (NPPP)
GEO
blacksis
95 $1,000
NSC-95-12646-0 NPPP Adeishvili (NPPP)
GEO
blacksis
95 $1,000
NSC-95-12801 NPPP Todorov
(NPPP)
BUL blacksis
95 $1,000
C-951311
contract GYEM (Boris Pichkhadze)
GEO
blacksis
95
$800
NSC 95-12542
NPPP Adriana Pienaru
ROM
blacksis
95
$400
SSA 95-13118
Huseyin Tekin
TUR
blacksis
95
$1,000
SSA 95-13172
Andrej Buryakovsky UKR
blacksis
95
$1,100
SSA 95-13001
Andrej Buryakovsky
UKR
blacksis
95
$400
71
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
SSA 95-12801
Vassil Nikolov Todorov
UKR
blacksis
95
$1,000
SSA 95-13731
Alexander Petrosyan
RUS
blacksis
95
$1,000
C-96402 contract
A.
Suvorov
UKR
blacksis?
96
$1,700
$15,400
GIS
C-95221
contract Rom. Center of Marne Geology and
ROM GIS
95 $7,500
Geoecology (Nicolae Panin)
C-941351
contract Marine Hydrophysical Institute (L. Ivanov) RUS
GIS
Apr-95
$5,500
C-941349
contract Moscow State univ. (Oleg Musin)
RUS
GIS
94-95 $26,000
Amendment contract
Moscow
State
univ. (Oleg Musin)
96
$20,000
C-941350
contract Fed. Res. Ins. of Fisheries (V. Babayan) RUS
GIS
95
$4,200
C-96393
contract IBSS (Boris Alexandrov) UKR
GIS
Oct-96
$4,500
$67,700
Pol. Mon. - LBS
C-95806 contract
Hydromet
(Diasamidze) GEO
LBS
Geo
95
$3,000
C-95620
contract 19 Mayis Univ. (H. Buyukgungor)
TUR
LBS Tur
95
$6,500
C-95603
contract RMRI (Radu Mihnea)
ROM
LBS Rom
95
$3,000
C-95601
contract Ukr Sc. Center of the Ecology of the Sea UKR LBS
Ukr
95 $5,000
(Denga)
C-95509
contract ITU (Regional Rapid Asses.) - D. Orhon TUR
LBS Reg
95 $12,000
C-95
contract Res. Ins. of Shipping (Ivanov)
BUL
LBS Bul
95
$3,000
C-95
contract Krasnodar (Doroshenko)
RUS
LBS Rus
95
$3,000
$32,500
Pol. Mon. - Misc.
C-95619
contract Bogazici Univ. (Nilsun Ince) -Biossay
TUR Pol
Mon
95
$15,000
Techniques Workshop (Ist., April 95)
C-951207
contract Univ. of Sydney (Prof. Underwood) -
Austra- Pol Mon
96 $20,000
Training on Experinmental Design for BS lia
Monitoring, Odessa October 95
C-95981
contract Ukr. Sc. C. of the Ecology of the Sea
UKR
Pol Mon
11/95 -
$20,000
(Mikhailov) - Asses. of contamination of
96
Ukr. CZ (research vessel)
C-96176 contract
ACOPS
UK
Meeting 96
$15,000
$70,000
ICZM - Tourism
72
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
C-95984
contract Dampo Planning (Remzi Sonmez)
TUR
Tourism
95/96
$2,000
C-95985
contract Caucasian Club (VanoVashakmadze) GEO Tourism
95/96 $2,000
C-95986
contract IBSC Bulgaria (Radul Kovatchev)
BUL
Tourism
95/96
$2,000
C-95988
contract MEP Kiev (Tamara Panchenko) UKR
Tourism
95/96
$2,000
C-95989
contract Research Ins. for Tourism (Cristian
ROM Tourism 95/96
$2,000
Diaconescu)
C-951313 contract
REINFO
(Serguey
Shuklin) RUS
Tourism
95/96
$2,000
C-95987
contract Krasnodar Region (Nikolay Shishkov) RUS Tourism
contract
cancelled
$12,000
Eco/BSEPS
SSA 94-16281
SSA
Zsuzsa Lehoczki
Hungary Eco
94
$1,500
SSA 95-15477
SSA
Zsuzsa Lehoczki
Hungary Eco
Ap. 95
$3,400
SSA-94-16274
SSA
J. Shogren - Vienna workshop
USA
Eco
94 $10,000
C-951206
contract Ecos Sochi (Oleg Rybak)
RUS
BSEPS
95
$1,250
C-95974
contract Ecos Sochi (Olga Maiboroda)
RUS
BSEPS
Aug-95
$7,500
C-951468 contract
EcoPlus
POL
BSEPS
Feb.
96
$95,000
C-961235
contract Center for Eco.Design (M. Sertel)-erosion TUR
BSEPS
Dec. 96
$4,500
C-96182
contract METU (Unluata)-eco. aspects of
TUR BSEPS Feb-96 $3,500
Fisheries
SSA-96-14874
SSA
Ivar Strand (D. Knowler SSA96-14116)-
USA BSEPS jan.
96 $15,000
fisheries
C-961174
contract Medconsult-hot spots
TUR
BSEPS
Sept. 96
$5,000
SSA
SSA
Ing Marie Gren -wetlands
SWE
BSEPS
96
$12,000
SSA SSA
Gardner
Brown-Tourism USA
BSEPS
96
$30,000
S
NPPP Panin -erosion technical
ROM
BSEPS
96
$2,500
S
NPPP Kosyan -erosion technical
RUS
BSEPS
96
$2,500
$193,650
Publication/edition
SSA 95-15410
NPPP Rachel Lewis
Editing
95
$3,500
SSA 95-15409
NPPP George Balashov - Translation of WHO
BUL
95
$1,500
guidelines
SSA 95-15408
NPPP Radu Mihnea - Translation of WHO
ROM
95 $1,500
guidelines
SSA 94-15542
NPPP Gareth Jenkins
Newsletter
95
$3,000
SSA 95-15225
NPPP Gareth Jenkins
Newsletter
95
$2,700
73
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
SSA 95-13299
NPPP Gareth Jenkins
Newsletter
95
$4,500
SSA 94-13297
NPPP Alexy Triumphov
Newsletter
95
$1,200
SSA 95-13598
NPPP Alexy Triumphov
Newsletter
95
$2,750
SSA 95-12293
NPPP Alexy Triumphov
Newsletter
95
$2,750
SSA 95-13298
NPPP David Millingen
Exhibit
95
$3,500
NSC 95-12348
NPPP Inna Soltys
UKR
Transl.
95
$1,500
SSA-94-15676 SSA Daan
Everts
USA Assistant
94 $5,250
SSA-94-15926 SSA Nilufer
taspinar
USA Assistant
94 $1,650
SSA-95-16113 SSA Nilufer
taspinar
USA Assistant
95 $8,000
SSA-96-14054 SSA Nilufer
taspinar
USA Assistant
96 $8,100
$51,400
Biodiversity
SSA 94-15815
SSA
Andrew Greenwood
UK
Biod.
95
$2,375
SSA- SSA
Luisa
Leu
BRA
Biod. 94
$1,950
$2,375
Policy/Legal
SSA 95-15376
NPPP Prof. Alexander Vysotsky
UKR
Legislation
95
$1,500
SSA-94-16022 SSA Netty
Baartman
NL
Legislation
94-95
$8,800
SSA-95-15335 SSA Netty
Baartman
NL
Legislation
95
?
SSA-
SSA
H. Dumont, Melvasalo, Wanninger -
BEL Evaluation
95
$40,000
evaluation
SSA-96-14724
SSA
H. Dumont - Biod. component of TDA
BEL
TDA
96
$3,500
RLA-96-16092
RLA
E. Hey - Action Plan
NL
BSAP
96 $11,875
SSA-96-14438
SSA
Hannah van Vonderen
NL
TDA
96
$6,150
$71,825
Fisheries
SSA
SSA
David MacLennan
UK ?
Fleet
96
$6,000
S- NPPP
P.
Kolarov
BUL
Fleet
96
$1,400
S- NPPP
A.
Komakhidze
GEO
Fleet
96
$750
S NPPP
S.
Nicolaev
ROM
Fleet
96
$1,100
S NPPP
E.
Laudar
RUS
Fleet
96
$1,500
S NPPP
Y.
Erdem
TUR
Fleet
96
$4,000
S NPPP
V.
Shlyakhov
UKR
Fleet
96
$2,500
74
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
$17,250
(*) RER/96/006
TOTAL
$577,664
75
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Annex 4 - Donors support to the Black Sea Environmental Programme
1993-94
1995
1996
Total
Pipeline for
1997-99
Cost-sharing contribution
France
$38,000
$38,000
Japan
$40,000
$50,000
$90,000
Subtotal
$0
$78,000
$50,000
$128,000
$0
Direct Parallel Contribution
European Union
$370,000 $1,850,000 $2,640,000
$4,860,000
$10,000,000
Austria
$20,000
$10,000
$30,000
$300,000
Canada
$25,000
$25,000
$100,000
Norway
$20,000
$20,000
Netherlands
$200,000
$200,000
$200,000
$600,000
$500,000
UK Know How Fund
$20,000
$20,000
Denmark
$600,000
Switzerland
$500,000
Japan
$500,000
WHO
$60,000
$60,000
UNEP
$20,000
$20,000
IAEA
$50,000
$50,000
WTO
$20,000
$20,000
$50,000
Subtotal
$615,000 $2,070,000 $3,020,000
$5,705,000
$12,550,000
Total Direct support to BSEP
$615,000 $2,148,000 $3,070,000
$5,833,000
$12,550,000
Parrallel Contribution (Scientific research)
NATO
$1,000,000 $1,000,000 $2,000,000
$4,000,000
EU-EROS
$1,000,000 $1,000,000
$2,000,000
CoMsBlack
n/a
n/a
n/a
In-kind support
Turkey
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Bulgaria, Georgia, Romania
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Russia, Turkey, Ukraine
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Subtotal (estimate)
$4,200,000
77
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Annex 5- Assessment of the Outputs of the Programme
79
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Annex 6 - List of BSEP events
Black Sea Environmental Programme
Statistical Overview of Meetings, Training and Working Parties
1994, 1995 and 1996
Type of
Total # of
# GEF
Associated
THEME
EVENT
DATES
Activity
Black Sea
financed
Donors/Agencies
Coordination
Prtcpnts
Prtcpnts
I. Emergency
First WP, Varna
16/5/94 - 18/5/94
Working
9 9 MAP/IMO BSEP
Response
Party
(REMPEC)
Second WP, Varna
24/10/94 - 26/10/94
Working
7 7 IMO
BSEP
Party
Maritime Safety and Protection,
1/11/94 - 3/11/94
Meeting
20
3
IMO/ITU
Associate Activity
Istanbul
Black Sea / Mediterranean Joint Training on
6/10/95-14/10/95
Training
15
7
IMO/REMPEC
BSEP/REMPEC/
Marine Pollution Response and Preparedness
MoE Turkey
Third WP, Istanbul
16/10/95-17/10/95
Working
8 8 IMO
BSEP
Party
Oil Spill Management Workshop, Istanbul 5/12/96-12/12/96
Workshop 1
1
BSEP
Shell Company of Turkey
II. Pollution
BS Scientific Research Sponsors,
6/1/94 - 7/1/94
Meeting
10
2
CEC,NATO,
BSEP
Monitoring
Istanbul
IOC, Danube
Oil Pollution Monitoring Workshop, Budapest
11/4/94 - 15/4/94
Training 8
5
DANUBE
Collateral
Contribution
First Joint Working Party,
3/5/94 - 6/5/94
Working
15 15
-
BSEP
Odessa
Party
Workshop: Contaminents in Sediments,
20/9/94 - 25/9/94
Expert
3 3
IAEA/MAP
Associate
Activity
Lesbos
Group
EROS,
22/11/94 - 24/11/94
Training
19
17
CEC
BSEP
Istanbul
Harmonization of Methodologies,
22/11/94 - 25/11/94
Training
22
22
WHO
BSEP
Istanbul
IAEA Course on the Measurement of
14/11/94 - 25/11/94
Training
17
-
IAEA
Associate Activity
Radionuclides, Istanbul
Coordinated Research Programme,
21/11/94 - 25/11/94
Training
13
-
IAEA
Associate Activity
Istanbul
Second Routine Pollution Monitoring,
15/12/94 - 16/12/94
Working
8 8
-
BSEP
Istanbul
Party
Second Special Pollution Monitoring,
6/12/94 - 8/12/94
Working
11 11 IOC
BSEP
Odessa
Party
Azov Sea Hydrodynamics and Water Quality
1/3/95 - 27/3/95
Working
3
-
The Netherlands
Associate Activity
Meeting, Delft
Party
80
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Type of
Total # of
# GEF
Associated
THEME
EVENT
DATES
Activity
Black Sea
financed
Donors/Agencies
Coordination
Prtcpnts
Prtcpnts
Workshop on Alternative Bioassay Techniques
26/4/95 - 28/4/95
Training
18
18
Bogazici University,
BSEP
suitable for Monitoring Toxicity in the Black
Istanbul
Sea, Istanbul
Regional Seminar on Drinking Water Quality,
24-/5/95 - 27/5/95
Seminar
18
18
WHO
BSEP
Istanbul
Azov Sea Project Coordination Meeting,
14/6/95 - 16/6/95
Meeting
6
-
The Netherlands
Associate Activity
Rostov
Workshop on Biological Effects of Pollutants in
14/8/95 - 18/8/95
Training
18
18
IOC GEEP BSEP/Plymouth
Marine
the Black Sea, Plymouth
Laboratory
Azov Sea Economy Meeting, Delft
30/8/95 - 1/9/95
Working
5
-
The Netherlands
Associate Activity
Party
Training Workshop on Cholera Control and
11/9/95-13/9/95 Training
15
-
WHO
WHO/BSEP
Epidemiology, Odessa
Training Workshop on Cholera Control and
14/9/95 - 15/9/95
Training
15
-
WHO
WHO/BSEP
Water Supply, Odessa
Training Workshop on Control of Drinking
18/9/95 - 20/9/95
Training
18
-
WHO
WHO/BSEP
Water Quality, Odessa
National Workshop on Recreational Waters and
11/9/95 - 15/9/95
Training
14
14
WHO
BSEP
Beach Quality Monitoring, Sochi
Training Course on Marine Geological and
13/9/95 - 29/9/95
Training
7
3
IOC, UNESCO
IOC
Geophysical Data Management,, Gelenzhik
Azov Sea DSS Preliminary Evaluation and
9/10/95 - 13/10/95
Meeting
5
-
The Netherlands
Associate Activity
Project Planning, Delft
Training Workshop on Experimental Design for
16/10/95 - 27/10/95
Training
18
18
-
BSEP
the Black Sea Monitoring Programme, Odessa
Training Course on Determination of Organic
27/10/95 - 10/11/95
Training
5
-
IAEA
BSEP
Contaminants, Odessa
Training Course on Determination of Trace
15/11/95 - 27/11/95
Training
7
-
IAEA
BSEP
Metals, Odessa
National Workshop on Recreational Waters and
30/11/95 - 2/12/95
Training
15
15
WHO
BSEP
Beach Quality Monitoring, Batumi
Black Sea Pollution Monitoring Workshop,
18/3/96-22/3/96
Meeting
44
European Union/
BSEP
Istanbul
NATO/ IMO/ WHO/
IAEA/ UNESCO/
Woods Hole/ Danube
PCU
Technical Meeting on the Global Programmes of
26/09/96-27/09/96 Meeting
1
1
UNEP/
BSEP
UNEP
Actions, Geneva
Mussel Watch Training Workshops, Plymouth
20/09/96-25/09/96
Training
7
7
IOC/UNESCO
BSEP
(UK), Odessa, Istanbul, Plymouth
(Odessa)
Plymouth Marine
81
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Type of
Total # of
# GEF
Associated
THEME
EVENT
DATES
Activity
Black Sea
financed
Donors/Agencies
Coordination
Prtcpnts
Prtcpnts
12/10/96-13/10/96
Training
3
3
Laboratory
(Istanbul)
04/11/96-29/11/96
Training
3
3
TACIS
(Plymouth)
Workshop on Drinking Water Supply and
22/04/96-27/04/96 Workshop
1
Quality, Sinaia, Romania
WHO Meeting in Ukraine
III. Biodiversity
First Working Party,
3/2/94 - 4/2/94
Working
19 19
-
BSEP
Istanbul
Party
Second Working Party,
16/10/94 - 18/10/94
Working
11 11
-
BSEP
Batumi
Party
Third Working Party, Varna
4/7/95 - 7/7/95
Working
8 6 WB
BSEP
Party
Coordination Meeting with Wetland
11/01/96-12/01/96 Meeting
1
1
Wetland
International Wetland
International/
International, Slimbridge
BSEP
Regional Wetland Workshop, Odessa
04/03/96-
Workshop
25
1
PHARE/ TACIS
Wetland International
08/03/96
Pan-European Biological and Landscape Strategy
24/09/96-25/09/96
Meeting
3
1
Council of Europe/
Council of Europe/ UNEP
Meeting, Geneva
UNEP/ IUCN
Negotiating Meeting on Agreement on the
19/11/96-24/11/96
Meeting
25
1
UNEP/ Monaco
UNEP/ Monaco
Conservation of Cetaceans of the Black Sea,
Mediterranean Sea and Contiguous Area,
Monaco
Coordination Meeting for the Preparation of the
26/11/96 Meeting 1
1
_
IUCN/
BSEP
BS Red Data Book, Gland
Executive Bureau Meeting for the Pan-European
27/11/96-29/11/96
Meeting
3
1
Council of Europe/
Council of Europe/ UNEP
Biological and Landscape Strategy, Geneva
UNEP
IV. ICZM
First Working Party,
15/6/94 - 17/6/94
Working
15 12
-
BSEP
Gelenzhik
Party
Lab Analysis and Info Management,
6/9/94 - 10/9/94
Training
18
3
CEC
Collateral
Sofia
Contribution
Mangalia Training Workshop
7/8/94 - 20/8/94
Training
40 7 Canada
Collateral
Contribution
Sustainable Tourism In Coastal Zones,
23/9/94 - 27/9/94
Training
21
3
-
Associate Activity
Odessa
ICZM Coordinating Meeting,
20/10/94 - 21/10/94
Meeting
10
5
WB,CEC,
BSEP
Istanbul
Holland
World Bank MIRP - Georgia ICZM
3/1/95 - 12/31/95
Meetings/
15 - 25
15 - 25
WB, WWF,
WB
(7 different activities in Tbilisi, Batumi, Kolheti)
Training
(per activity)
(per activity)
ERM
82
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Type of
Total # of
# GEF
Associated
THEME
EVENT
DATES
Activity
Black Sea
financed
Donors/Agencies
Coordination
Prtcpnts
Prtcpnts
Second Working Party, Novorossiysk
28/3/95 - 30/3/95
Working
20 12 WB
BSEP
Party
ICZM Methodology, Varna
22/5/95 - 25/5/95
Workshop
15
15
WB
WB
Black Sea Coastal Environmental Project, First
22/5/95 - 26/5/95
Workshop
36
-
Tacis/Phare
Tacis/Phare
National Workshop, Constanta
Black Sea Coastal Environmental Project, First
29/5/95 - 8/6/95
Workshop
42
-
Tacis/Phare
Tacis/Phare
National Workshop, Odessa
Black Sea Coastal Environmental Project, First
12/6/95 - 21/6/95
Workshop
33
-
Tacis/Phare
Tacis/Phare
National Workshop, Gelendzhic
Black Sea Coastal Environmental Project, First
10/7/95 - 14/7/95
Workshop
21
-
Tacis/Phare
Tacis/Phare
National Workshop, Varna
Black Sea Coastal Environmental Project, First
18/7/95 - 27/7/95
Workshop
25
-
Tacis/Phare
Tacis/Phare
National Workshop, Tbilisi and Kobuleti
Medcoast Institute 95,
27/8/95 - 16/9/95
Training
2
2 Medcoast
Medcoast
Ankara/Marmaris/Fethiye/Capadocia
Black Sea Coastal Environmental Project, Second
28/8/95 - 1/9/95
Workshop
25
-
Tacis/Phare
Tacis/Phare
National Workshop, Krasnodar
Black Sea Coastal Environmental Project, Second
4/9/95 - 8/9/95
Workshop
26
-
Tacis/Phare
Tacis/Phare
National Workshop, Constanta
Black Sea Coastal Environmental Project, Second
4/9/95 - 8/9/95
Workshop
20
-
Tacis/Phare
Tacis/Phare
National Workshop, Varna
Inception/ preparatory Meeting for Launch of
4/9/95 - 5/9/95
Meeting/
6 6
WTO,
Austria BSEP
Sustainable Tourism Activity, Istanbul
Training
Black Sea Coastal Environmental Project, Second
12/9/95 - 16/9/95
Workshop
22
-
Tacis/Phare
Tacis/Phare
National Workshop, Tbilisi
Black Sea Coastal Environmental Project, Second
3/10/95 - 7/10/95
Workshop
22
-
Tacis/Phare
Tacis/Phare
National Workshop, Odessa
Black Sea Coastal Environmental Project,
7/10/95 - 18/10/95
Workshop
10
-
Tacis/Phare
Integrating Workshop, Odessa and Varna
Black Sea Coastal Environmental Project, Spain
29/10/95 - 12/11/95
Study Tour
10
-
Tacis/Phare
and UK Study Tour, Valencia and Peterborough
Sustainable Tourism Seminar, Sochi
20/11/95 - 23/11/95
Meeting
10
6
WTO
BSEP
International Workshop on Coastal Protection
15/12/95
and Management
Third ICZM Working Party, Sochi
27/3/96-31/3/96
Working
14 15 WB
BSEP
Party
PHARE/TACIS
Black Sea Sustainable Tourism Conference,
2/5/96-4/5/96
Conference 28
18 PHARE/TACIS
BSEP
Yalta
Austrian Government
BSEC, WTO
83
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Type of
Total # of
# GEF
Associated
THEME
EVENT
DATES
Activity
Black Sea
financed
Donors/Agencies
Coordination
Prtcpnts
Prtcpnts
Medcoast Workshop, Sarigerme, Turkey
02/11/96-05/11/96
Workshop 24
9
BSEP/MAP
MED-COAST
SECRETARIAT
V. Fisheries
First Working Party
27/4/94 - 29/4/94
Working
10 10 FAO
BSEP
Party
Aquaculture Study Mission
24/10/94 - 16/11/94
Meeting
10
10
Norway
BSEP
Consultation for the Preparation of a Fisheries
13/10/94 - 15/10/94
Meeting/
22 1
World
Bank,
Associate Activity
Convention, Constanta
Mission
Turkey
Second Working Party,
26/10/94 - 28/10/94
Working
9 9 FAO
BSEP
Constanta
Party
Second Meeting of the GESAMP Working
20/3/95 - 24/3/95
Meeting
9
3
UNEP/IMO/FAO/
UNEP
Group on Opportunistic Settlers and Problem of
Unesco
Ctenophore Mnemiopsis Leidyi in the Black Sea
Third Working Party, Constanta
29/6/95 - 1/7/95
Working
7 5
FAO,
UNEP BSEP
Pary
Second RAMS Meeting
24/10/95 - 26/10/95
Meeting
9
7
FAO
BSEP
Fourth Working Party, Constantza
5/6/96-7/6/96 Working 14 9 FAO
BSEP
Party
VI. GIS/DBM
Sea of Azov Workshop,
1/3/94 - 5/3/94
Meeting
12
1
Holland, CEC
Collateral
Amsterdam
Comsblack
Contribution
First Working Party,
5/4/94 - 7/4/94
Working
9 9
-
BSEP
Istanbul
Party
Oceanographic Data Management,
1/8/94 - 11/8/94
Training
17
1
-
Associate Activity
Obninsk
Second Working Party,
5/9/94 - 7/9/94
Working
6
6
IOC of Unesco
BSEP
Moscow
Party
Database Management Workshop,
December /94
Training
12
12
Holland
Collateral
Istanbul
Contribution
Third Working Party, Bucharest
16/10/95 - 17/10/95
Working
7 7
-
BSEP
Party
Fourth Working Party, Moscow 13/5/96-15/5/96
Working
10 4
GRID/
UNEP BSEP
Party
Workshop on the Evaluation of the Netherlands
16/04/96-18/04/96 Workshop
23
1
Netherlands
Delft Hydraulics/ BSEP
Contribution to the BSEP, Rostov-on-Don
Third Meeting of the Data Management, Sub-
13/02/96-15/02/96 Meeting
3
1
Netherlands
Delft Hydraulics/ BSEP
group
VII. Economics
Environmental EconomicsExpert Group Meeting,
13/6/94 - 15/6/94
Working
6 6
-
BSEP
& Investments
Istanbul
Party
Priority Investment Programme Meeting, 9/2/94
Meeting
11
11 -
BSEP
84
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Type of
Total # of
# GEF
Associated
THEME
EVENT
DATES
Activity
Black Sea
financed
Donors/Agencies
Coordination
Prtcpnts
Prtcpnts
Istanbul
Economics Instrument Workshop,
13/12/94 - 15/12/94
Training 21
14
Danube
BSEP
Vienna
Environmental Economics Expert Group,
20/4/95 - 22/4/95
Workshop
5
5
-
BSEP
Technical Sub-Group on Environmental
Financing: Workshop on Establishing a Black
Sea Environmental Fund, Istanbul
Environmental Economics Expert Group
15/11/95 - 17/11/95
Workshop
5
5
-
BSEP
Workshop to Launch the Black Sea
Environmental Priorities Study, Istanbul
National Consultation Meetings on Establishing a
15/9/95 - 22/11/95
Workshops
40
8
-
BSEP
Black Sea Environmental Fund (Ankara,
Constanta, Kyiv, Moscow, Sofia, Tbilisi)
International Waters Task Force Meeting,
26/11/96 Meeting
WB
WB GEF
Washington
UNDP
BSEP
Meeting on the Appropriate Solid Waste
16/05/96 Meeting 30
1
WB/
Turkish Turkish Ministry of
Management Practices, Republic of Turkey
Ministry of
Environment
Environment/
Province of Trabzon
VIII. NGOs
PHARE NGO Meeting,
26/6/94 - 28/6/94
Meeting
22
1 CEC,
NGOs Collateral
Varna
Contribution
Preparatory NGO Meeting,
2/10/94 - 7/10/94
Meeting
3
3
NGOs
BSEP
Istanbul
Turkish NGO Forum Meeting,
5/10/94 Meeting 12
12
NGOs
BSEP
Ankara
International NGO Forum,
7/11/94 - 9/11/94
Meeting
18
18
NGOs
BSEP
Constanta
National NGO Forum Meetings (Ankara, Tbilisi,
1/9/95 - 30/10/95
Meetings
(10-20)*6 (10-20)*6 NGOs
BSEP
Constanta, Varna, Odessa, Sochi)
International NGO Forum, Gurzuf, Crimea
16/10/95 - 18/10/95
Meeting
30
12
NGOs
BSEP
National NGO Forum Meetings, Varna,
1/10/96-30/12/96 Meetings (10-20)*5 (10-20)*5 NGOs
BSEP
Constantza, Ankara, Tbilisi, Kerch
IX.
Donor Coordination Meeting,
21/4/94 - 22/4/94
Meeting
4
4
CEC, US, Austria,
BSEP
Coordination
Istanbul
Canada, Holland
Steering Committee Meeting,
28/11/94 - 30/11/94
Meeting
26
26
-
BSEP
Moscow
Donor Coordination Meeting, Istanbul
14/11/95 - 15/11/95
Meeting
40
6
-
BSEP
Inter-sectoral Coordinator meeting on hthe
3/96
Meeting
1
1
UNDP/ UNEP/ WB/
85
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Type of
Total # of
# GEF
Associated
THEME
EVENT
DATES
Activity
Black Sea
financed
Donors/Agencies
Coordination
Prtcpnts
Prtcpnts
Danube and Black Sea Regions, New York
BS & Danube PCUs
Meeting of international waters secretariats and
29/01/96-30/01/96 Meeting
1
1
BSEP/ Danube PCU/
HELCOM
ad hoc programme coordination units, Helsinki,
Govm. of Finland/
Finland
EC/
OsParCom/Rhine
Com./UNOPS/WB//
First Inter-Parliamentary Conference on the
10/07/96-12/07/96 Conference
80
2
BSEC/BSEC
PABSEC
Environmental Protection of the Black Sea,
Council/UNDP/
Istanbul
Council of Europe/
Black Sea University/
International Assembly on Ecological Safety of
9/10/96-10/10/96 Meeting
78
2
BSEP/BSEC/ Russian Foreign Policy
the Black Sea and Mediterranean, Gelenzhik
UNEP/UNESCO/
Foundation/ Russian
UNIDO /
Federation and Krasnodar
Region governments
X. Policy
National Coordination Contact Group,
7/2/94 - 8/2/94
Meeting
11
11
-
BSEP
Istanbul
BS Commission Prep. Meeting,
6/4/94 - 10/4/94
Meeting
12
-
BSCOM
Collateral
Istanbul
Contribution
Europea Legislation & Policy,
17/4/94 - 19/4/94
Training
15
2
CEC
Collateral
Kiev
Contribution
BSEC Conference on Sustainable Development
28/9/94 - 29/9/94
Meeting
24
3
CEC, BSEC
Associate Activity
and Environment, Tbilisi
National Coordinators Contact Group Meeting,
17/10/94 - 18/10/94
Meeting 6
6
BSCOM
BSEP
Istanbul
First Meeting of the Advisory Panel on the
10/4/95 - 14/4/95
Meeting/
11 11
-
BSEP
Harmonization of Environmental Quality
training
Criteria, Standards, Legislation and Enforcement
First Meeting of the Commission on the
4/5/95 - 5/5/95
Meeting
17
11
Istanbul Commission
Istanbul Commission,
Protection of the Black Sea, (Istanbul
Commission) Varna
Law Placement Programme, London
10/7/95 - 12/8/95
Training
8
2
Conservation
Conservation Foundation
Foundation
Regional Training Seminar on the Management
4/9/95 - 8/9/95
Training
6
-
-
BSEP
of International Waters Programmes in Central
and Eastern Europe, Istanbul
Management Training for the BSEP Actitivity
2/10/95 - 6/10/95
Training
12
12
-
BSEP
Centers, Istanbul
Strategic Action Plan Technical Experts
17/6/96-21/6/96
Meeting
10
9
WB/ UNEP/ UNDP/
BSEP
meeting, Istanbul
WHO/ FAO/ IAEA
Strategic Action Plan Task Force Consulting 24/6/96-28/6/96
Meeting
14
14
UNDP/ WB/ UNEP/
BSEP
86
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Type of
Total # of
# GEF
Associated
THEME
EVENT
DATES
Activity
Black Sea
financed
Donors/Agencies
Coordination
Prtcpnts
Prtcpnts
Meeting, Istanbul
UNOPS
Strategic Action Plan Review Meeting, Istanbul
20/9/96-21/9/96 Meeting
14
14
UNDP/ WB/ UNEP/
BSEP
UNOPS
Ministerial Conference, Istanbul
30/10/96-31/10/96 Meeting 22
14 UNDP/
UNOPS/
Government of Turkey/
UNEP/ WB/ GEF/
BSEP
FAO/ TACIS/
PHARE/ Danube
Commission/
Mediterranean AP/
HELCOM/
OSPALCOM/
NATO/ IOC/
Switzerland/ Austria/
IAEA/ BSEC/
PAPSEC/ Medcoast
TOTALS 127
Activities
1,887
830
87
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Annex 7 - List of BSEP Publications
BLACK SEA ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMME
SIGNIFICANT PUBLICATIONS
A. EMERGENCY RESPONSE (BSEP/IMO)
Title Funding/
Author Date
Status
Sponsor
Emergency response and Contingency planning BSEP/IMO
L. Stoyanov, J.
30 Sept. Draft
in the BS region: current status and strategies
Ostergaard et al.
1995
for improvement.
ER Action Plan for the straits of Istanbul and
BSEP/IMO/
March
English/Turkish
the Western BS Territorial Waters of the
REMPEC
95
PCU Publ.
Republic of Turkey following the Nassia Oil
Tanker Accident
Regional Oil and Chemical Emregency Plan for BSEP/IMO -
n/a Draft
the Black Sea
Study of Oil Receptiion Facility
BSEP/TACIS/
- -
Study
underway
IMO
Meeting reports
Emergency Response working party I, II, III
BSEP
-
1994-6
PCU Publ.
B. POLLUTION MONITORING
Title Funding/
Author Date
Status
Sponsor
Assessment of Pollution in the Black Sea
BSEP/IAEA/
L.D. Mee et al.
April 97 Draft
WHO/EROS
Land Based Sources of pollution surveys in all
BSEP -
1995/96
Drafts
incorporated
six Black Sea coutnries + regiional synthesis
in TDA
Bathing waters regiional assessment
BSEP/WHO
J. Bartram et al.
1996
Draft
Pollution pilot surveys in Bulgaria, Romania,
BSEP/CEC-
- 1995/96
Drafts
Russia, Turkey and Urkaine
EROS
Meeting reports
Joint Pollution Monitoring working party
BSEP -
1994-6
PCU
Publ.
meetings I, II and III
Proceedings of the GEEP workshop o
BSEP
M. Moore
Oct. 95
PCU Publ.
biological effects of pollutants in the BS,
Plymouth Aug. 95
C. BIODIVERSITY (BSEP/WB)
Title Funding/
Author Date
Status
Sponsor
Biodiversity Activity Centre, Batumi: a strategy BSEP
L.D. Mee et al.
1994
Bound
for institutional sustainability
Proceedings of the first international
UNDP/Istanbu
B. Ozturk ed.
1996
Published
symposium on the marine mammals of the
l Uni./BSEP
Black Sea
Regiional Biodiversity Investment Plan
BSEp/World
M.W. Wilson et
1996
Draft to be revised
Bank
al.
Regional assessment of the Black Sea
BSEP
Yu. Zaitsev et al. 1996
Draft (to be
Biodiversity
published)
88
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Romanian National Biodiversity report
BSEP
A. Petranu et al.
1996
Draft (to be
published)
Bulgarian National Biodiversity report
BSEP
T. Konsulova et
1996 being
edited
al.
Georgian National Biodiversity report
BSEP
N. Mazmanidi et 1996 being
edited
al.
Russian National Biodiversity report
BSEP
S. Volovik et al.
1996
being edited
Turkish National Biodiversity report
BSEP
B. Ozturk et al.
1996
being edited
Ukrainian National Biodiversity report
BSEP
Yu. Zaitsev et al. 1996
being edited
Meeting reports
Biodiversity working party meetings I, II, and
BSEP
-
1994-6
PCU Publ.
III
D. ICZM
Title Funding/
Author Date
Status
Sponsor
Bulgarian National ICZM report
BSEP
K. Galabov et al. Dec. 95
semi-final
Georgian National ICZM report
BSEP
M. Dzeneladze
1996 rough
draft
et al.
Romanian National ICZM report
BSEP
I. Postolache, D.
Dec. 95
semi-final
Diaconeasa et al.
Russian National ICZM report
BSEP
ICZM A.C.
Dec. 95
semi-final
Turkish National ICZM report
BSEP
R. Sonmez et al.
June 96
Final
Ukrainian National ICZM report
BSEP
A. Tkachov, A.
Dec. 95
semi-final
Topchiev et al.
Regional ICZM report
BSEP
I. Kharitonov
June 96
semi-final
Manual and case studies of Black Sea coastal
CEC Phare -
Posford Duvivier
Draft to be
zone management (3 volumes)
Tacis
et at.
published
Regional Tourism Assessment (includes all 6
BSEP Horwath May 96
PCU Publ.
national Tourism reports + regional synthesis)
Consulting (+
national
consultants)
Yalta meeting report and recommendations
BSEP/Austria
BSEP
July 96
PCU Publ.
n Gov.
Meeting reports
ICZM working party meetings I, II, and III
BSEP
-
1994-6
PCU Publ.
Conference for the development of sustainable
May 96
PCU Publ.
tourism practices in the BS countries, Yalta
May 96
E. FISHERIES
Title Funding/
Author Date
Status
Sponsor
Fisheries leaflet: commercial fisheries in the
BSEP
L.D. Mee
1996
PCU Publ.
Black Sea - Three years of decline
Environmental management of fish resources in Soros
K. Prodanov et
1995 Draft
the Black Sea and their rational exploitation
Foundation/F
al.
Being edited
AO/BSEP
Marine Aquaculture in the Black Sea region
BSEP/WB/Go
N. Svennevig et
1996 UN
Publication
vernment of
al.
Norway
Analysis of fleet structure and performance in
BSEP
D. MacLennan et 1996 Draft
being
the Black Sea fisheries
al.
reviewed
89
GEF - Black Sea Environmental Programme
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Meeting reports
First meeting RAMS, Constanta Oct. 94
BSEP
Oct. 94
Draft
Fisheries working party meeting I, II
BSEP
1995-6
PCU Publ.
F. DATA MANAGEMENT / GIS
Title Funding/
Author Date
Status
Sponsor
Black Sea Information System
BSEP/Netherla V. Mamaev et al. 1996
Diskette
nds
internet
GIS
BSEP
BSEP et al.
Early
soon on CD-ROM
97
Black Sea Bibliography (1974-1994)
BSEP/Woods
V. Mamaev, DG
April 96 UN Publ.
Hole
Aubrey, VN
internet
Eremeev
Meeting reports
Data management and GIS working party
BSEP -
1994-6
PCU
Publ.
meetings
G. ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS AND INVESTMENT
Title Funding/
Author Date
Status
Sponsor
Sustainability and the international commons
Dec.
94
Working paper
Establishing a BS Env. Fund
Draft-restricted
1995
Summary report
Proceedings of the workshop on the use of
BSEP/Danube
Rough draft (to be
economic instruments for environmental
P
published)
protection in the BS and its river basin, Vienna,
Dec. 94
BSEPS country reports
BSEP
1996
Drafts being
reviewed
BSEPS: An economic analysis of BS Fisheries
BSEP
D. Knowler, I.
1996 Draft
and Env. Management
Strand, E.
Barbier
BSEPS: Technical report on coastal erosion -
BSEP
N. Panin, R.
semi-final
BSEPS: Economic assessment of coastal
Kosyan
erosion in the BS coastal countries
in preparation
N. Sertel
BSEPS: The study of the impact of economic
BSEP
B. Fiedor
1996
initial draft
transition on the BS countries environment
BSEPS: Technical support for estimating the
BSEP
S. Czaja, J.
1996 Draft
being
economic value of reduced risks to human
Dojlido, S.
reviewed
health in BS coastal areas
Takowski
BSEPS: Tourism related economic value of
BSEP G.
Brown
1996
final
environmental quality of the BS
BSEPS: Economic valuation of BS coastal
BSEP
I-M. Gren
1996
initial draft
wetlands
Meeting reports
Meetings of the Env. Economics experts group
BSEP
-
1994-6
PCU Publ.
BSEPS (TORs)
BSEP
-
April 95 PCU Publ.
H. NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONS / PUBLIC AWARENESS
Title Funding/
Author Date
Status
Sponsor
90
Sheet1 Chart 3
Figure 7: FINANCING THE BSEP: GEF AND DONOR SUPPORT
(in US$ million)
$7.00
$6.00
$5.00
$4.00
Parallel Financing
Parallel Financing
GEF Contribution
$3.00
$2.00
GEF Contribution
$1.00
$0.00
1993-94
1995
1996
Page 1
Sheet1 Chart 3
ORIGINAL BUDGETS VERSUS FINAL EXPENDITURE
BY TYPE OF EXPENDITURE
RER/92/G31 + RER/93/G31 + RER/95/G41 + RER/96/006
(in Thousands of $)
Overheads and Support costs
Operations and misc.
Equipment
Meetings and training
Final Expenditures
Original Budget
Other contracts
IAA with Un Agencies
IAA with World Bank
Personnel
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
Page 1