United Nations Environment Programme
Terminal Evaluation of the
UNEP/GEF project GF/1100-99-07
The Role of the Coastal Ocean in the Disturbed and
Undisturbed Nutrient and Carbon Cycles
Peter David Whalley
Evaluation and Oversight Unit
October 2008

Abbreviations
C
Carbon
CEO
LOICZ-IPO Chief Executive Officer
DEWA
UNEP Division of Early Warning and Assessment
EC
European Commission
EU
European Union
GEF
Global Environment Facility
GEFSEC
GEF Secretariat
GPA
UNEP Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine
Environment from Land-Based Activities
Ias
GEF Implementing Agencies
IGBP
International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme
IHDP
International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental
Change
IW
GEF International Waters
LME
Large Marine Ecosystems
LOICZ
Land-Ocean Interactions in the Coastal Zone
LOICZ-IPO
LOICZ International Project Office
M&E
Monitoring and Evaluation
MSP
Medium Sized Project
PIR
Project Implementation Report
ProDoc
Project Document
TDA
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis
ToR
Terms of Reference
UNDP
United Nations Development Programme
UNEP
United Nations Environment Programme
UNFCCC
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
WB
World Bank
ii

Executive Summary
1. This report represents the Terminal Evaluation of the UNEP/GEF Medium Sized Project: The
Role of the Coastal Ocean in the Disturbed and Undisturbed Nutrient and Carbon Cycle.
2. The overall goals of the project were:
To estimate the impacts of nutrient enrichment on coastal waters;
To estimate the changes on regional and global biochemical cycling of nutrients and carbon
flux from coastal and shelf seas to the atmosphere;
To assist governments in assessing the role of their coastal waters as sinks/sources of carbon;
To resolve scientific uncertainties concerning the Global Carbon Cycle.
3. The project has given a first global appreciation of disturbed estuarine and coastal systems,
including the regional differences in intensity of disturbance and an array of system performance
under differential loading. This has implications for the status of natural resources and the
probable trends in system function; information that will have impact on thinking for
sustainability options and carbon-nitrogen cycling.
The final report provides policy
recommendations and reflects the implications of changing nutrient fluxes for management. The
report also provides an assessment of project outcomes and implications in the context of the GEF
Operational Programmes. This Targeted Research Project is still very relevant under GEF-4
Strategic Programme 2: `Reducing nutrient over-enrichment and oxygen depletion from land-
based pollution of coastal waters in LMEs consistent with the GPA'.
4. The Executing Agency was the LOICZ-IPO (Land Ocean Interactions in the Coastal Zone -
International Project Office). The project duration was initially 30 months starting in July 1999.
This was revised and extended to be completed in December 2006, making a total duration of 87
months.
5. The main sources of information for this evaluation have been the UNEP Task Manager, the
LOICZ-IPO CEO, and literature from the project and the wider LOICZ initiative. A short email
questionnaire was distributed to specialists within UNEP and the project to seek wider
information.
6. The project has:
Enabled estimates of nutrient enrichment in coastal waters to be made;
Estimated changes in biogeochemical cycling in coastal waters;
Using a typology approach (comparing coastal regions of similar types) enabled a relatively
small number of coastal budget estimates for nutrients and carbon to be extrapolated to
provide regional and global estimations of fluxes;
Provided training and tools to enable countries to assess the role of coastal waters as
sinks/sources of carbon and contributed to the on-going research to reduce the scientific
uncertainties in the global carbon cycle.
The sustainability of the UNEP/GEF project has been assured by
The LOICZ programme continuing;
The results from this UNEP/GEF project (and those of the on-going LOICZ) will
continue to be an important resource for GEF IW projects;
The work of LOICZ will continue to be applied in the activities of UNEP-DEWA.
7. A possible short-coming of the ProDoc was the failure to include the need for management
recommendations to enable mitigation steps to be adopted by governments. At the end of the
project the Task Manager and the LOICZ-IPO agreed to hold a final workshop to identify options
that led to the production of a final report providing UNEP and the GEF (and their International
Waters projects) with recommendations on how to utilise the work of LOICZ.
iii

8. Although this project contained a limited M&E system (as considered by current best practice) the
project did self-assess performance against the project objectives with indicators defined in the
ProDoc.
9. It is not clear how much use of this project (or the overall LOICZ programme) is being used by
governments in reporting carbon information to UNFCCC etc., although there are indications that
countries surrounding the North Sea, South Africa and the USA are beginning to adopt the
approaches of LOICZ. This is likely to expand further as the work of LOICZ is continued.
Conclusion and Rating
10. The overall rating of this project was satisfactory. The following important issues were rated as
being highly successful with regards to meeting the planned objectives:
The project has considerably added to the pool of budget models (170 added) for nutrients
and carbon in coastal waters. The project had a focus on sub-tropical and tropical sites
where data was previously limited enabling more comprehensive global assessments to be
made.
The information collected under the UNEP/GEF project is still being utilised by the
scientific community involved in the on-going work of LOICZ ensuring that the input of
UNEP/GEF is sustained.
The project has reached a wide number of scientific experts from government and
academic institutes around the world, and presented an agreed methodology for
undertaking coastal assessments of nutrients and carbon.
The project initiated a role of a `mentor' to provide regional assistance to the work
undertaken by the project and this is still continuing.
Recommendations
11. The following recommendations for GEF and UNEP are made:
i.
The GEF, in co-operation with the IAs, should develop a strategy to ensure that future
targeted research projects have a clear vision from the outset on how the GEF and IAs will
utilise the work to assist countries or to facilitate the work of other projects on similar issues.
ii. UNEP and the GEF need to have a mechanism for absorbing key recommendations that arise
from projects (this probably applies to all projects not just Target Research Projects).At the
end of the project, UNEP requested a final workshop to develop policy and management
recommendations. This was a useful addition to the original project design and provided
detailed analysis of how GEF policy could utilise the work with improved linkages between
policy and science. However whilst this report was completed in 2006 it does not seem to
have been integrated in to the development of IW nutrient or carbon programmes within
UNEP or the GEF.
iii. Future projects should explicitly develop a strategy (for subsequent use by GEF / IAs) for
how the products of the research can best migrate from the scientific community through to
policy change and management actions that can result in mitigation measures. This project
did not directly address the use of the scientific understanding in terms of management
planning, yet the techniques developed lend themselves to `what if' scenarios for evaluating
pollution reduction actions. (It should be noted that the final report � `A management
perspective' prepared by the project did provide some preliminary suggestions of the next
steps to utilise the LOICZ approach for management).
iv. As a first step to raising awareness on the topic, UNEP should include a detailed summary of
the main outputs (in graphical or map format) of the LOICZ work that clearly shows the
distribution of global budget model sites, trend information, sinks/sources of carbon and
nutrients, etc. This can be largely based on the Final Report of the project and other key
publications made by LOICZ.
iv

v. UNEP should develop a mechanism to further propagate the valuable work undertaken by
LOICZ for both on-going and future IW projects involved with nutrients and / or carbon
budgets in coastal waters. This should be a more comprehensive programme than just
publishing a simple brochure and making references to the LOICZ web site. A plan should be
developed to assist IW projects utilise the very technical work of LOICZ and to assist the
projects with an appreciation of how this science based information can best aid management
decision making. It is important that UNEP continue a close relationship with LOICZ to
ensure that the on-going work of this global programme can be assimilated and transferred to
IW projects, where appropriate utilising the extensive network of experts familiar with the
topic within LOICZ. It could be beneficial in this `awareness' raising to consider a side-event
at the next GEF IW Conference focusing on LOICZ. This could be an opportunity to
showcase the work undertaken and to explain how the budget models, results of LOICZ in
terms of trends, retrospective baseline conditions etc. and the network of experts in LOICZ
could assist IW projects addressing coastal issues of for example, nutrients. However prior to
this it would essential for UNEP to have in place a mechanism to continue support the
requests for information and assistance from IW projects on this issue.
vi. UNEP and GEF should identify means to ensure the results of targeted research projects, and
their networks of experts, are integrated into future IW projects addressing similar problems.
The current project offers an excellent set of data and assessments that could assist river and
coastal projects with, for example TDA baseline evaluations and scenarios resulting in
potential future management actions. For example, an important publication by the LOICZ
programme, utilising information obtained by the UNEP/GEF project indicates a three-fold
increase in coastal nutrients between the 1970s and 1990s. Whilst acknowledging that these
estimates were derived in different ways, the paper states there are clear evidence that the
increases are `real' as a result of human activity.
vii. UNEP and GEF require a better mechanism for engaging scientists and policy makers in
discussions to ensure that relevant tools are developed to assist management decisions and
that tools that are available are understood and applied. Such a mechanism would be valuable
in assessing the design of projects and programmes to ensure their relevance to global
environment issues.
viii.UNEP should ensure that the recently approved GEF MSP `Global: Enhancing the use of
Science in International Waters Projects to Improve Project Results' integrates the findings
of this evaluation within the project's work programme.
v

1 Introduction and Background
12. This report represents the Terminal Evaluation of the UNEP/GEF Medium Sized Project (MSP):
The Role of the Coastal Ocean in the Disturbed and Undisturbed Nutrient and Carbon Cycle.
13. (i) Project rationale
The status of coastal aquatic systems is changed by enhanced anthropogenic nutrient inputs. The
global extent, and the wider regional and global impacts of these changes is unclear due to the
absence of empirical estimates from a sufficiently large and representative set of coastal sites
world-wide. Nutrient enrichment of coastal waters has profound effects on biological productivity
and the health of the coastal ocean. Algal blooms, anoxia, fish kills, red tides, and pollution are
increasingly widespread problems in developing country regions of the world. Changes in the
biological systems alter the rates of carbon fixation and respiration in coastal waters resulting in
changes to the sink/source status of coastal areas with respect to carbon.
14. The overall goals of the project were:
To estimate the impacts of nutrient enrichment on coastal waters;
To estimate the changes on regional and global biochemical cycling of nutrients and
carbon flux from coastal and shelf seas to the atmosphere;
To assist governments in assessing the role of their coastal waters as sinks/sources of
carbon;
To resolve scientific uncertainties concerning the Global Carbon Cycle.
15. The outcomes from this project included:
The development of several hundred empirical models of carbon and nutrients in
undisturbed and disturbed (polluted) coastal systems that will be of value at the local and
national level in assessing the state of eutrophication and carbon source/sink status of the
coastal ocean;
By using a typological approach information on local budgets were extrapolated to model
regional and global estimates of carbon flux required for balancing the global carbon
budget and assessing the role of the coastal ocean in the global carbon cycle.
16. This project has given a first global appreciation of disturbed estuarine and coastal systems,
including the regional differences in intensity of disturbance and an array of system performance
under differential loading. This has implications for the status of natural resources and the
probable trends in system function; information that will have impact on thinking for
sustainability options and carbon-nitrogen cycling. Importantly a robust model was developed
that relates readily measured variables (runoff, land use and population) to coastal loads of
dissolved inorganic phosphorus and nitrogen, allowing description and scenario development of
the potential impacts of increasing human population on disturbance to coastal ecosystems. The
final report provides policy recommendations and reflects the implications of changing nutrient
fluxes for management. The report also provides an assessment of project outcomes and
implications in the context of the GEF Operational Programmes.
1

17. (ii) Relevance to GEF Programmes
In the GEF Contaminant-Based Operation Programme 10, targeted `global projects useful in
setting priorities for possible GEF interventions' and `meeting the technical needs of projects in
this focal area' are among the priority components that characterise the range of projects within
this Operational Programme. The Regional/Global Technical Support Component of this GEF
Operational Programme states that `targeted regional or global capacity building projects may be
necessary to help increase awareness on how to jointly address these contaminant problems.
Global projects in this component can help individual groups of countries to share experience
with other areas around the globe and lessons can be derived from the experience.'
18. This Targeted Research Project is still very relevant under GEF-4 Strategic Programme 2:
`Reducing nutrient over-enrichment and oxygen depletion from land-based pollution of coastal
waters in LMEs consistent with the GPA'.
19. The project was one of the first targeted research projects for GEF and to-date only 3 projects of
this type have been implemented in International Waters.
20. (iii) Executing Arrangements
The Executing Agency is the LOICZ-IPO (Land Ocean Interactions in the Coastal Zone -
International Project Office). The LOICZ-IPO, operating through the established biochemical
modelling centres of LOICZ located in the University of Stockholm, Sweden and the University
of Hawaii, were responsible for coordinating the day-to-day management of the project.
21. The project duration was initially 30 months starting in July 1999, which was revised to be
completed in December 2006, making a total duration of 87 months.
22. (iv) Project Activities
The project had five components:
Continuation of individual and institutional inputs to the LOICZ budgeting website;
A first tier of 8 preliminary regional workshops held over a period of 20 months (Central
America, Southwest Atlantic, East Africa, West Africa, Northwest Pacific, East Asia,
South Asia, Southeast Pacific);
Training of regional resource persons in the application of the modelling guidelines;
Second tier of more synthetic workshops � by ecosystem and climate type that cross-cut
geographic regions and involved the regional leaders;
A terminal global workshop would bring together the results of the thematic workshops.
Publication and wide dissemination of results via electronic and hard media.
23. Within the activities listed above the project developed 170 budget models for nutrients and
carbon in coastal sites around the world.
24. The LOICZ budget models represent the aggregated effect of all the living components of the
coastal ecosystem on nutrient fluxes and transformations as net ecosystem metabolism. It is
possible to develop more complicated budget models which divide the food web into primary
producers, consumers etc. and which represent exchanges and transfers among these components,
or in turn divides each of these trophic levels into different functional groups. It is further possible
to represent the exchanges and transformations within and between components as dynamic
processes, whose magnitude is controlled by the component properties and external
environmental variables. The choice among model types and levels of aggregation depends on the
intended use. Typically as model complexity increases, the model looks more realistic, but it
becomes more difficult to rigorously validate model predictions.
25. The LOICZ Biogeochemical budget modelling methodology provides a relatively simple
assessment technique that can be rapidly applied to coastal ecosystems and is based on the
2

26. Major outcomes elucidated included:
The combined controls on nutrient loads and it was shown that both population density
and run-off are major anthropogenic drivers of change.
That coastal classifications � most notably dissolved inorganic phosphorus and dissolved
inorganic nitrogen loads � can be used as flux predictors, and identified the additional
data and tools required to fully implement up-scaling approaches.
27. (v) Budget
The final audited accounts indicated that the total budget used by the Executing Agency (LOICZ-
IPO) was US$ 1,151,936 with US$ 693,936 funded by the GEF Trust Fund and in-kind co-
funding from; University of Stockholm US$175,000, University of Hawaii US$ 75,000, LOICZ-
IPO US$ 198,000 and European Union US$ 10,000. The original budget allocated to UNEP for
supervision was US$ 40,000. In 2002 approximately USD14,000 that remained in UNEP's budget
was allocated to the project's final workshop and the final report for GEF (`A management
perspective').
28. (vi) LOICZ Programme
The Land-Ocean Interactions in the Coastal Zone (LOICZ) is a core project of the International
Geosphere-Biosphere Programme: A study of global change (IGBP) and the International Human
Dimensions Programme on global environmental change (IHDP) of the International Council for
Science (ICSU).
29. LOICZ is an international research project involving scientists from across the globe which has
been investigating changes in the biology, chemistry and physics of the coastal zone since 1993.
After 2003, LOICZ has expanded its areas of research to include social, political and economic
sciences in order to address the human dimensions of the coastal zone.
30. The goal of LOICZ is to provide knowledge and understanding of the interactions between global
change and local pressures and its implications for the coastal zone. The science of LOICZ has
been focused on the measurement of biogeochemical fluxes into, and within, the coastal zone.
LOICZ has established a biogeochemical budget modelling approach to provide a common
methodology for delivering comparable data on coastal ecosystem loads and net metabolic
performance of coastal systems.
31. LOICZ operates as an unbrella organisations for research projects that are affiliated addressing
issues of land-ocean interactions in the coastal zone. Since 1993 over 400 projects (including this
UNEP/GEF project) developing approaches for the following issues:
Methodologies or models that allow data assimilation, processing and synthesis, including
up and/or down-scaling
Scenarios of change and/or response to change in socio-ecological systems
Scientific context for the evaluation of existing policies and structures
Globally applicable tools for scientific synthesis, decision support and structure
development
3

Dissemination interfaces to provide information and assist sustainable coastal
development on appropriate scales.
4

2 Scope, objectives and methods
32. This terminal evaluation has been addressed in accordance with the Terms of Reference (ToR) for
this assignment (Annex 1). This report constitutes the combined outcome of interviews / email
discussions with key stakeholders including project participants and UNEP staff (Annex 2) and a
review of available project literature and correspondences (Annex 3). A short email questionnaire
(Annex 4) was distributed to specialists within UNEP and the project to seek wider information.
The list of experts was developed in partnership with the UNEP Task Manager and the LOICZ-
IPO CEO.
33. The main objectives of this evaluation were:
(i) To address key questions of the project, identified in the ToR as:
Has the project:
Assembled estimates of the impacts of nutrient enrichment on coastal waters?
Assembled estimates of the changes on regional and global biochemical cycling of
nutrients and carbon flux from coastal and shelf seas to the atmosphere?
Provided regional and global estimates of carbon flux required for balancing the global
carbon budget and assessing the role of the coastal ocean in the global carbon cycle?
Helped resolve scientific uncertainties concerning the Global Carbon Cycle in the wider
scientific community?
Helped individual groups of countries to share experience with other areas around the
globe and learn lessons derived from the experience?
Assisted governments in assessing the role of their coastal waters as sinks/sources of
carbon?
(ii) To establish the impact of the GEF funds by reviewing the potential outcome without these
resources;
(iii) To make recommendations for future activities.
5

3 Project Performance and Impact
34. At the time the project was contracted the ProDoc formed the basis of the contract. This
document, whilst clear in its objectives and programme did not foresee the need for a Project
Steering Committee, clear Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) plans, inception reports, etc. which
are now considered to be highly beneficial to the implementation of projects. This does not mean
that the project was poorly implemented or failed with regards to project supervision, but that the
procedures adopted at the start of the project for these activities have evolved within UNEP and
the GEF over the last decade.
3.1 (A) Attainment of objectives and planned results
3.1.1 Summary
35. It is clear from the LOICZ publications (see www.loicz.org) and a number of peer-reviewed
scientific papers that the UNEP/GEF project had a considerable benefit to the work of the overall
LOICZ programme and has substantively achieved the project objectives. The project also has
provided a valuable information base (which the LOICZ programme continues to add to) on
nutrients and carbon in coastal waters. This data resource is important to both future GEF
projects, UNEP DEWA (for example) and to national efforts to minimise nutrient releases and
providing guidance to understanding the important role of coastal waters as sources or sinks of
carbon. It would be beneficial to the IW community to create higher awareness of the
achievements of the LOICZ and this project through improved publicity of the approach and
results on UNEP (plus DGEF and IWLEARN) web sites. In addition this evaluation identified
that it would be beneficial to involve the LOICZ programme in the next IW Conference in 2009
to further increase the awareness in the approach and the potential benefits to other IW projects
addressing nutrients and / or carbon impacts in coastal waters.
36. In the achievements of the original objectives the following points should be highlighted:
The project has:
Enabled estimates of nutrient enrichment in coastal waters to be made;
Estimated changes in biogeochemical cycling in coastal waters;
Provided training and tools to enable countries to assess the role of coastal waters as
sinks/sources of carbon and contributed to the on-going research to reduce the
scientific uncertainties in the global carbon cycle.
37. This evaluation identifies the following points as being highly successful with regards to meeting
the planned objectives:
The project has considerably added to the pool of budget models (170 added) for nutrients
and carbon in coastal waters. The project had a focus on sub-tropical and tropical sites
where data was previously limited enabling more comprehensive global assessments to be
made.
The information collected under the UNEP/GEF project is still being utilised by the
scientific community involved in the on-going work of LOICZ ensuring that the input of
UNEP/GEF is sustained.
The project has reached a wide number of scientific experts from government and
academic institutes around the world, and presented an agreed methodology for
undertaking coastal assessments of nutrients and carbon.
The project initiated a role of a `mentor' to provide regional assistance to the work
undertaken by the project and this is still continuing.
38. However it is not clear how the results of this project (or the overall LOICZ programme) are
utilised by national authorities in reporting carbon information to UNFCCC etc., although there
6

are indications that countries surrounding the North Sea, South Africa and the USA1 are
beginning to adopt the approaches of LOICZ. This is likely to expand further as the work of
LOICZ is continued.
39. A possible short-coming of the ProDoc was the failure to include the need for management
recommendations to enable mitigation steps to be adopted by governments. At the end of the
project the Task Manager and the LOICZ-IPO agreed to hold a final workshop to identify options
that led to the production of a final report2 providing UNEP and the GEF (and their IW projects)
with some recommendations on how to utilise the work of LOICZ.
3.1.2 Effectiveness
40. The project has met the main objectives and outcomes identified in the ProDoc. The following
table indicates the main indicators used in the ProDoc against the achievements reported by the
project in interim and final reports.
Indicators (ProDoc logframe)
Actual Results reported in Project Terminal Report
(September 2007)
Integration of CO2 source-sink data
Too early to assess integration into national reporting
into countries national reports to the but it is happening on the level of global carbon
UNFCCC
assessments and policy advice deriving from the
activities of the Earth System Science Partnership3. This
work can be assessed as ongoing within the overall
LOICZ programme. LOICZ-IPO reported that the tools
and methods developed under LOICZ are being utilised
in the North Sea, South Africa and the USA.
Use of project outputs in national
This is occurring in, for example the discussions of the
planning and nutrient reduction
relevance of nutrient fluxes to coastal oceans in UNEP-
GPA (following the IGR II Oct. 2006). This reflects the
institutional dimensions such as Water Framework
Directives (EU) and regional seas planning which draws
on methodology and findings of this project (and the
wider LOICZ initiatives).
Reduced scientific uncertainty
An assessment of relative carbon sinks/sources of near
concerning the role carbon cycling
coastal
seas
was
completed
and
peer-review
in global coastal ocean
publications released.
Publication of regional and global
9 regional reports and a global assessment completed;
assessments of the nutrient/carbon
additional publications in progress. Nutrient load model
status and impacts of enhanced
developed and applied to regional differentiation of
nutrients to coastal waters
disturbance to coastal systems.
Public availability of at least 100
Dedicated website maintained including more than 200
sub-regional and local carbon and
main budget site4 information; hardcopy and CD
nutrient budgets
publications distributed.
Publicly available analyses of
Hardcopy reports/CDs distributed; uploading to LOICZ
impacts of enhanced nutrients on
related websites completed. Peer reviewed literature
coastal carbon flux
published and continuously in preparation. In addition a
policy and management related synthesis is published
and globally distributed.
1 See LOICZ web site for related activities and extensive publications of applications www.loicz.org
2 The role of the coastal ocean in the disturbed and undisturbed nutrient and carbon cycles: A
management perspective.
www.loicz.org/imperia/md/content/loicz/science/gef-booklet.pdf
3 www.essp.org parent body of IGBP, IHDP etc.
4 www.loicz.org
7

Indicators (ProDoc logframe)
Actual Results reported in Project Terminal Report
(September 2007)
Publication of regional/global
9 regional reports and a global assessment completed;
eutrophication status
additional publications in progress.
Published reports of 8 regional
9 budget workshops and 4 regional/global assessment
workshops in developing country
workshops plus one policy / management implication
sub-regions
workshop held; 8 budget and 2 assessment reports plus
one policy / management recommendations report
published. LOICZ continues to assist in assessment and
analyses in multiple regions.
Training of 6-8 developing country
Advanced training for 10 scientists; 4 acted as regional
scientists as regional advisors on
mentors, 5 acted as national focal points; 1 acted as
methods and analyses.
project analyst.
All involved in network building,
.
resource people for training workshops and two
extended into postgraduate training (1 PhD and 1 MSc
candidature).
Establish a network of trained
About 180 scientists trained and continue in the
modelling advisors in developing
network. Additional scientists being trained through
region
adoption of methodologies in University curricula (e.g.,
South Africa, Philippines, Mexico, Brazil, Russia, Black
Sea area). Networks continue to grow through the on-
going LOICZ programme
Additional nutrient and data models
About 170 models developed in workshops. Additional
to website
sites continue to be contributed � in 2006. More than
400 budget models have now been developed by the on-
going work of LOICZ.
Publish reports on 3 regional and 1
A combined 3-region report and a global report
global assessment
published with supplementary CDs plus a global
synthesis volume as part of the LOICZ Synthesis Book5.
3.1.3 Relevance
41. At the start of the project the work plan was clearly in-line with the GEF OP10 programme
(Contaminant programme). The GEF IW has moved to four Strategic Programmes within GEF-4.
The project undertaken is still highly relevant and applicable to Strategic Programme 2: Reducing
nutrient over-enrichment and oxygen depletion from land-based pollution of coastal waters in
LMEs consistent with the GPA. As a targeted research project the outputs (tools, budget models
etc.) should be fully integrated into all GEF IW projects involving nutrients and / or coastal
carbon budget assessments. However it is disappointing that the outputs and outcomes of this
project are not more integrated into the work of the GEF and UNEP (plus other IAs) IW
programmes. This is possibly due to an inadequate dissemination programme within UNEP. It
would be highly beneficial if UNEP DGEF (or IWLEARN) identify means to bring this important
research to the attention of other IW projects. This should be a more comprehensive programme
than just publishing a simple brochure and making references to the LOICZ web site. A plan
should be developed to assist IW projects utilise the very technical work of LOICZ and to assist
the projects with an appreciation of how this science based information can best assist with
management decision making.
3.1.4 Efficiency:
42. The use of LOICZ-IPO as the executing agency for this project enabled a very efficient
programme to be undertaken by UNEP/GEF. The existing methods, networks of scientists and
overall programme of the LOICZ greatly added to the resources provided by GEF. The project
5 "Coastal Fluxes in the Anthropocene" (Summer 2005) www.loicz.org
8

attracted additional co-funding in the course of the execution of the project. LOICZ contributed
additional resources to support the Polar and the Mediterranean / Black Sea regional workshops
(from within LOICZ). In addition, 10 k USD was provided by the European Commission to
support a workshop for the project on the Mediterranean / Black Sea to enable the attendance of
non-GEF eligible scientists in training of the project tools and methods for estimating nutrient and
carbon cycling in coastal waters. A summary of the co-financing provided is given in Annex 6.
The provision of GEF resources for this project not only accelerated the production of nutrient
budgets from sub-tropical and tropical regions but importantly enabled the participation of GEF
eligible scientists at the regional and global workshops.
3.2 (B) Assessment of sustainability of project outcomes
3.2.1 Summary
43. A key advantage that this project has over many other GEF funded projects is the on-going nature
of the LOICZ programme. LOICZ was operational prior to the GEF intervention and is
continuing post-project. However the LOICZ-IPO and other partners in the programme recognise
that the GEF project greatly assisted this global programme by providing the resources for
regional budgets to be established, for providing regional training and a network of `mentors'.
These structures are reported by LOICZ-IPO to be continuing in their on-going work.
44. In summary the sustainability of the UNEP/GEF project has been assured by:
The LOICZ programme is continuing;
The results from this UNEP/GEF project (and those of the on-going LOICZ) will
continue to be an important resource for GEF IW projects, IF an appropriate means is
developed by UNEP to further disseminate the approach and results of LOICZ aimed at
assisting with nutrient or carbon management projects;
UNEP-DEWA has reported that they currently use methodologies developed by LOICZ
(and other programmes) in their assessments of transboundary waters. DEWA consider
the LOICZ methods to be particularly useful for a better understanding of lands based
sources that affect coastal environments.
9

45. UNEP should note the following observations that could assist with sustainability of the LOICZ
project:
LOICZ-IPO initially had contact with UNEP-GPA to further use the developed
methodology, but there has not been any contact from UNEP-GPA since 2006 with
regards future co-operation
GEFSEC expected that more could have been done by UNEP to utilise the results and
methods in other International Waters projects. GEFSEC consider that this targeted
research is significant to the current discussions on nutrients within GEF-4 and could
offer benefits to countries participating in future projects.
3.2.2 Financial resources
46. The project activities are clearly continuing through the on-going work of LOICZ. This can be
seen in publications and other reports (e.g. newsletters) on the LOICZ website. The project did
attract additional co-funding whilst in progress from the LOICZ partners and the European
Commission for additional workshops in the Mediterranean / Black Sea region.
3.2.3 Socio-political
47. This MSP was a targeted research project with global benefits to the understanding of nutrients
and carbon budgets in coastal waters. The main stakeholders of this work have been (and are
likely to continue to be, due to the very technical nature of the work) scientists drawn from
academic and government institutes. The LOICZ programme utilises a wide network of experts,
frequent newsletters, and a dynamic website to ensure that the work and its benefits are widely
disseminated.
3.2.4 Institutional framework and governance
48. The wide adoption of LOICZ methodology within the scientific community (academic and
government institutes) is a technical resource enabling governments to better understand nutrient
and carbon budgets within the coastal waters. Whilst the UNEP/GEF project had a relatively short
timescale, the on-going LOICZ programme should be seen as offering a sustainable future (by
updating tools and expanding the awareness of the approach within scientific communities, etc.).
This on-going work will provide technical support to government scientists utilising the LOICZ
methodology.
3.2.5 Ecological
49. There have been no identified risks as a result of the project's implementation. The environmental
benefits will arise through the better scientific understanding of the coastal process involving
nutrients and carbon that could lead to better local and regional management actions to mitigate
the impacts.
50. The data sets and models that were developed under the UNEP/GEF project continue to be
supplemented through the on-going activities of LOICZ. A strong recommendation to UNEP and
to the GEF is that this data resource should be better publicised within the International Waters
community and that UNEP should (through for example DEWA or the GPA) identify means to
ensure that these assessment approaches are utilised in their routine work of reporting on the
environment.
3.3 (C) Catalytic role
51. As a targeted research project the UNEP/GEF intervention has clear benefits to other IW
programmes if the results (methods, budgets, etc.) are absorbed by new projects. It could have
been reasonably expected that the ProDoc should have contained a concept of how the
outputs/outcomes of this targeted research would be utilised within UNEP and the GEF IW
community. The work of LOICZ is well documented but to-date there has been little focus on
10

52. Examples of catalytic benefits include:
The project began when there were only about 40 models / sites available. The GEF project
added 170 models/sites to this and the work has been continuing after the completion of the
project adding more data sets and using the data collected by the project. Over 400 budget
models now are available at LOICZ. An example of this can be seen in the peer-reviewed
scientific publication6 that clearly demonstrates the increasing desire to understand the
processes of eutrophication and acknowledges the support the work received from
UNEP/GEF. For example, the publication estimates that the total nutrient load of run-off to
the world's coastlines from major rivers has increased three times since the 1970s.
Adoption by universities, and EU projects and world-wide research programmes of the tools
and methodologies into curricula for fundamental and applied training of regional scholars
and scientists. Other follow-on activities have been seen in New Zealand7, Australia and the
EU8 are making use of the developed tools (biogeochemical assessment, typology approach)
in management and scientific synthesis work. Scientists in most global regions are adopting
the approach in project design and development, and as research tools. Links to extended
catchment information and data includes the human dimensions community to a growing
extent.
National use of the tools developed in science and coastal management information
assessments is leading to additional supportive research and monitoring projects, supported
by national and regional funders. UNIDO has engaged with LOICZ in using the approach for
a major project proposal for potential implementation in West Africa examining nutrient
reduction planning, monitoring and remediation interventions. The EU is interacting with
LOICZ on the relevance and implications of fluxes in the implementation of the Water
Framework Directive and the Marine Strategy and so is UNEP GPA before and during its
Intergovernmental Review II (Oct 2006).
53. Recommendations for future UNEP and GEF programmes include:
Targeted research projects should have a clear concept of how the outputs/outcomes can be
utilised by GEF, the IAs and the countries in the ProDoc. This should be more than just a
`dissemination plan' but be clear on what information will be provided, how it could be used
by the different stakeholders and the benefits from using the results of the research.
The project identified a number of lessons of value to UNEP and the GEF applicable to other
targeted research projects � specifically the use of regional `mentors' to assist with training
and regional awareness issues, re-engagement of regional participants in subsequent
workshops to encourage continuing learning, etc.
3.4 (D) Achievements of outputs and activities
54. It is important to note that LOICZ is continuing to utilise the data collected under the UNEP/GEF
project and provided more assessments/estimates of nutrients.
55. The following series of questions were highlighted in the ToR for this evaluation as being key
issues to be addressed. The responses to these questions can be summarised as:
6 Humans, Hydrology and he distribution of Inorganic Nutrient Loading to the Ocean' Smith et. al.
BioScience 53, 235, 2003
7 Reported in LOICZ Newsletters 2007/1, 2008/1 and 2008/2. www.loicz.org
8 For example: EC project daNUbs www. danubs.tuwien.ac.at and EuroCAT
www.cs.iia.cnr.it/EUROCAT/project.htm, www.dsa.unipr.it/lagunet, www.elme-
eu.org/public/results.aspx and other projects / results on the LOICZ web site www.loicz.org
11

Has the LOICZ project:
Response
Assembled estimates of the impacts of YES: This is documented in a number of
nutrient enrichment on coastal waters?
LOICZ issued reports, published work9 and
summarised in the Final Report prepared for
UNEP.
Assembled estimates of the changes on YES: Models used allowed a baseline to be
regional and global biochemical cycling of established and reported as above. During the
nutrients and carbon flux from coastal and execution of the UNEP/GEF project the focus
shelf seas to the atmosphere?
was on data gathering. But assessment of
change and the context of change is being
undertaken by the on-going LOICZ activities
(See references above).
Provided regional and global estimates of YES:
Models
and
budgets
developed
carbon flux required for balancing the global covering >170 sites (plus 40 pre-project). The
carbon budget and assessing the role of the results have been widely published by
coastal ocean in the global carbon cycle?
LOICZ (on www10 and peer reviewed
papers). The work answered issues relating to
coastal waters being sources or sinks for
carbon.
Helped
resolve
scientific
uncertainties YES: See references given above. This work
concerning the Global Carbon Cycle in the is obviously not complete (as uncertainties
wider scientific community?
still exist, but are being reduced) and is
ongoing within the LOICZ community.
Helped individual groups of countries to YES: The project has assisted through 9
share experience with other areas around the regional workshops (8 originally planned)
globe and learn lessons derived from the and the training of regional mentors.
experience?
University teaching courses are including the
LOICZ approach in their programmes.
Nutrient and carbon budgets developed are
included within the Erasmus Mundus11
programme.
Assisted governments in assessing the role of YES: Tools have been made available to
their coastal waters as sinks/sources of enable assessments to be undertaken. This is
carbon?
again `work in progress' and efforts within
LOICZ to promote this are continuing � see
LOICZ Newsletters. To date the approach
has been applied in the North Sea, USA,
South Africa and the Baltic12
9 Coastal Fluxes in the Anthropocene, The Land-Ocean Interactions in the Coastal Zone Project of the
International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme, Crossland C. et. al. 2005, ISBN: 978-3-540-25450-8.
Humans, hydrology and the distribution of inorganic nutrient loading to the ocean. Smith, S. et. al.
BioScience 53, 235-245
10 See www.loicz.org report 24 and in LOICZ newsletters
11 Erasmus Mundus is a co-operation and mobility programme in the field of higher education which
promotes the European Union as a worldwide centre of excellence in learning
12 Managing a sea: the ecological economics of the Baltic. Gren, M. et. al. 2000 ISBN 1853836087
H. Thomas, L.-S. Schiettecatte, K. Suykens, Y. J. M. Kon�, E. H. Shadwick, A. E. F. Prowe, Y. Bozec, H. J. W. de Baar, and A. V. Borges Biogeosciences
Discuss., 5, 3575-3591, 2008
Thomas, H., Bozec, Y. Elkalay, K., and de Baar, H. J. W.: Enhanced open ocean storage of CO2 from shelf sea pumping, Science, 304, 1005�1008, 2004.
Thomas, H., Bozec, Y., de Baar, H. J. W., Elkalay, K., Frankignoulle, M., Schiettecatte, L.-S.,Kattner, G., and Borges, A. V.: The Carbon budget of the North
Sea, Biogeosciences, 2, 30 87�96, 2005a,
Thomas, H., Bozec, Y., Elkalay, K., de Baar, H. J. W., Borges, A. V., and Schiettecatte, L.-S.:Controls of the surface water partial pressure of CO2 in the
North Sea, Biogeosciences, 2,323�334, 2005b,
12

3.5 (E) Assessment of Monitoring and Evaluation Systems
56. Although this project contained a limited M&E system (as considered by current best practice) the
project did self-assess performance against the project objectives with indicators defined in the
ProDoc. This self assessment performed by LOICZ-IPO was reported in the Terminal Report and
the PIR in 2002. A summary of this self-assessment is included in Annex 5.
3.5.1 M&E design
57. The ProDoc presents a logframe which has been used in reporting (PIR 2002 and Terminal Report
2002 and revised in 2006). The ProDoc also identified the University of Hawaii having
responsibility for internal quality assurance for project outputs.
3.5.2 M&E plan implementation
58. There was no formal implementation plan for M&E activities other than the use of the indicators
in the logframe.
3.5.3 Budgeting and funding for M&E activities
59. There was no formal budget allocated within the Executing Agency (LOICZ-IPO) to M&E
activities. UNEP had an initial budget of US$ 40,000 to supervise this project. Approximately
US$ 14,000 of this resource was transferred to LOICZ-IPO to implement the final workshop and
prepare the final report for GEF.
3.5.4 Long-term monitoring
60. The on-going activities of LOICZ will ensure that the key objectives of this UNEP/GEF
intervention will continue to be reported in the LOICZ Newsletter. The use of LOICZ
methodologies by DEWA will continue to demonstrate the benefits from this project, however
better `publicity' and awareness raising of the project by UNEP (for both internal and external
users) is important.
3.6 (F) Assessment of processes that affected attainment of project results
3.6.1 Preparation and readiness
61. The ProDoc was well developed and the implementation of the project was consistent with the
ProDoc. ToRs for activities and key roles under the project were included in the ProDoc. The
organisations leading the project (LOICZ-IPO) and the partners contributing co-funding, all had
appropriate expertise for implementing this Targeted Research Project.
62. The ProDoc did not foresee the need for a project steering committee and decisions appear to
have been left to the executing agency (LOICZ-IPO) and their project partners. There is no
evidence that this was a problem to the overall project with the objectives of this project having
been met.
63. The management structure responded favourably to requests by the UNEP Task Manager to
organise a final workshop and prepare the `Final Report' (in 2006) in a more user-friendly
presentation, when remaining resources were discovered by UNEP's Fund Manager after the
formal end of the project in 2002. Although it should be noted that this important activity should
have been anticipated by and included in, the ProDoc.
64. With hindsight more resources should have been directed towards identifying / recommending
management measures that could address the problems that were highlighted by the project with
13

65. It is also clear with hindsight, that UNEP should have had a strategy of how this important
targeted research project would be utilised by other GEF projects and for example, within UNEP
(e.g. GPA and DEWA). It is appropriate that UNEP now develop a programme to utilise the
knowledge and the network of experts within the planned GEF initiative on nutrients.
3.6.2 Country ownership/drivenness
66. This was a GEF Targeted Research Project, and as such was addressing technical issues of global
significance. The outputs of the project (assessments of coastal nutrient and carbon budgets) are
of potential benefit to all coastal states.
3.6.3 Stakeholder involvement
67. The project involved a large number of technical stakeholders (typically academic and
government scientists) involved in coastal pollution studies. The work undertaken was at a very
high technical level, but the information generated has been made available through the LOICZ
website to interested stakeholders. The LOICZ programme has made extensive use of outreach
such as periodic Newsletters and other publications available on their website � although this
information is primarily aimed at a technical audience with a good understanding of the subject.
In addition the models, nutrient and carbon budgets and other results of the UNEP/GEF project
together with on-going activities under the LOICZ umbrella are also available.
68. The project has undertaken a number of regional and global workshops to assist with both the
training of regional experts (mentors) and to wider technical audiences.
3.6.4 Financial planning
69. From the information available there are no questions over the financial management of the
project's execution by LOICZ-IPO. In 2002 (the end of the planned project) LOICZ-IPO was
subjected to an audit which summarised that:
The books of accounts and records have been maintained properly;
All project expenditures have been supported by vouchers and adequate documentation;
and,
Expenditures have been incurred in accordance with the objectives outlined in the project
document.
70. In 2002 the LOICZ-IPO reported a surplus of ca. US$ 18 k for return to UNEP. It appears that
there were delays in internal financial reporting within UNEP and two years later it was
recognised that the remaining funds identified by LOICZ-IPO together with additional resources
unspent within UNEP could be utilised resulting in the request to LOICZ-IPO by the Task
Manager to organise a final workshop and to prepare the final report. The final workshop and
report were completed in 2006 and a summary of the end-of-project finances is presented in
Annex 6 of this evaluation.
71. The project benefited from attracting additional co-funding than was originally envisaged. A
summary of the co-funding is also presented in Annex 6.
3.6.5 UNEP supervision and backstopping
72. The original design of the project did not include a plan on how UNEP (or GEF) would utilise the
completed project or the anticipated on-going activities of LOICZ.
14

73. The UNEP Task Manager changed in 2002, effectively at the end of the project. This provided an
opportunity to review the programme and on identifying remaining resources to plan a final
workshop to develop the final `management perspective' report, that offered specific
recommendations relevant to UNEP and the GEF's IW strategy.
74. UNEP's Fund Management Officer discovered remaining budget after the completion of the
project in 2002 and the preparation of the terminal report by LOICZ-IPO. This led to an extension
of the contract and a request by UNEP to LOICZ-IPO to hold a final workshop and to deliver a
final report of greater benefit to the GEF IW community.
75. GEFSEC has commented during this assessment that the work undertaken should have enabled
UNEP to take a more proactive role in defining future nutrient (and carbon) related IW
programmes and projects. This comment could be avoided in future projects if there is a clear
strategy on how the targeted research planned would be used by IAs and GEF projects. It is also
important to note that the project prepared a final report (2006) directed at UNEP and GEF policy
makers with specific recommendations relevant to the IW programme.
3.6.6 Co-financing and project outcomes & sustainability
76. The project received greater co-funding than was anticipated (US$ 198,000 against US$192,600
planned). This included resources from the LOICZ partners and the European Union. In addition
the project outputs assisted with two EU projects (EuroCAT and daNUbs � the latter was of
significant benefit to the UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project).
77. The project execution benefited from the LOICZ being an existing programme when the project
began and subsequently will benefit as the programme has continued long after completion. This
has assisted with ensuring that the work of the UNEP/GEF intervention is sustained.
3.6.7 Delays and project outcomes & sustainability
78. The project underwent a number of variances regarding the conclusion date.
79. The project was originally planned to be completed in 30 months with an end-date of 31st
December 2001 and evolved to be an 87 month project ending in September 2006.
Revision 1; 30 May 2001: An opportunity was taken for an additional Polar and Africa
workshops in September 2002 and August 2002 Both initiatives were in response to
increased scientific interest in the regions and expanded the project scope and outcomes.
Revision 2; 16 January 2002: Data analyses was extended reflecting greater number of
budgets than expected. This led to a delay in the assembly and printing of final report.
Revision 3; June 2005: At the request of UNEP (following the identification of remaining
budget within UNEP in 2002) a final workshop and final report with a focus more on
policy and management were organised.
15

4 Conclusions and rating
4.1 Summary
80. This UNEP/GEF MSP Targeted Research Project The Role of the Coastal Ocean in the Disturbed
and Undisturbed Nutrient and Carbon Cycles has been an important contribution to the
understanding of coastal waters. The project has developed a large number of models (budgets)
for nutrients and carbon around the world and provided training and other tools for national
experts to utilise.
81. UNEP and the GEF have benefited significantly from working with LOICZ � a pre-existing and
on-going international programme. This has assured the scientific quality of the process and
enabled open discussion and agreement on the approaches adopted between the large number of
experts involved in the project.
82. The project has improved the understanding of nutrients and carbon source/sinks in coastal waters
by:
Developing 170 new models/budgets from global sites (particularly from previously less well
studied sites in sub-tropical and tropical regions);
Providing training through regional and global workshops on the agreed methodology to over
180 governmental and academic scientists;
Developing a mentoring system where four regional experts can help in local developments;
Providing an updated web based resource with data, models, budgets and assessments of
state.
83. The project did not (and was not designed to) provide usable management decision tools to enable
mitigation measures to be readily assessed. This would be a worthy enhancement to the work but,
understandably within a Medium Sized Project, this was not possible, especially as the work
focussed heavily on the science supporting the environmental assessments. At the end of the
project, and at the request of the UNEP Task Manager, LOICZ-IPO were requested to hold a final
workshop and to develop a more `management' focused final report with specific
recommendations for UNEP and GEF policy makers. This was achieved through utilising unspent
resources within LOICZ-IPO and from the initial US$ 40,000 UNEP management fee.
84. It is likely that much of the scientific data collection and evaluation within this project would have
been undertaken by LOICZ without the support of UNEP/GEF. However, this support was seen
as essential for involving scientists from GEF eligible countries in the many workshops and
training programmes undertaken (and leading to strengthened country capacity) and for using
sites for models and budget estimations from developing regions where globally relevant data was
scarce.
85. The project outputs and outcomes are sustainable through the on-going work of LOICZ and the
data contributed by the UNEP/GEF project is still being utilised resulting in further publications
and reports.
86. UNEP-DEWA has reported that LOICZ methodologies are utilised for the assessment of
transboundary international waters and improving the understanding of budgets in coastal zone
management.
87. However, the project outcomes are at risk of being overlooked within the GEF IW community as
this Targeted Research Project did not have a clear vision of how this work would be utilised in
other international waters programmes. It is clear that the work undertaken by this project and the
on-going work of LOICZ offers important tools and data to IW projects. At the request of the
UNEP Task Manager a final workshop and final report were prepared to assist develop
16

4.2 Evaluation Ratings
Evaluator's
Criterion
Evaluator's Summary Comments
Rating
A
Attainment of
The project met the objectives expressed in the ProDoc
project objectives
and results
HS
(overall rating)
Sub criteria
(below)
Effectiveness
The Project achieved or exceeded the expected outputs
HS
Relevance
This research is still of great relevance and importance to
HS
GEF IW projects
Efficiency
The UNEP/GEF project benefited from the existing and on-
S
going activities of LOICZ
B
Sustainability of
The work of the UNEP/GEF intervention is continuing
Project outcomes
through the LOICZ programme. The networks of experts are
(overall rating)
still involved and the information gathered still being utilised.
S
Sub criteria
(below)
The on-going nature of LOICZ assists with the financial
Financial
S
sustainability of the work undertaken by this project
As a target research MSP this project was aimed at
Socio Political
S
academic/government scientists
Institutional
The work is continuing in academic institutes undertaking
framework and
both research and teaching on nutrients and carbon budgets
S
governance
The outputs of the project have a significant potential benefit
to the understanding of nutrients in coastal waters.
HOWEVER this benefit will only truly be realised if
UNEP/GEF provide a mechanism for making the outputs of
LOICZ more widely accessible to other IW projects. If
Ecological
MS-HS
nothing is done to further exploit this work within GEF IW
community then a rating of MS is given. If, as expected, that
this work is further enhanced through the new GEF MSP on
`Enhancing the use of science...etc.', then a rating of HS is
provided.
C
Catalytic Role
This work is of potential benefit to a wide number of GEF IW
projects but there has been limited attention to developing a
MS
strategy to use the methods or results by either UNEP or the
GEF
D
Achievement of
The LOICZ team, through this project, have achieved the
outputs and
expected outputs and undertaken the required activities.
HS
activities
E
Monitoring and
The project M&E programme assessed the performance
Evaluation
against the indicators identified in the ProDoc and these were
(overall rating)
presented in the PIR and the Terminal Report.
MS
Sub criteria
(below)
M&E Design
Logframe in the ProDoc
MS
M&E Plan
Logframe in the ProDoc
MS
17

Evaluator's
Criterion
Evaluator's Summary Comments
Rating
Implementation
(use for adaptive
management)
Budgeting and
No information was available on budget for M&E activities
Funding for
within LOICZ-IPO
MS
M&E activities
F
Assessment of
The project was well designed, managed and supervised and
processes that
has resulted in the successful delivery of much useful
affected
information, and a wide network of experts capable of
S
attainment of
assisting governments develop strategies for mitigating
project results
impacts of nutrients and assisting with assessments of carbon
sinks/sources in coastal waters.
Preparation and
The project was undertaken by an organisation already active
readiness
in the subject. The ProDoc was well prepared and the project
S
followed this document.
Country
The project is of potential benefit to all coastal countries
ownership /
S
driveness
Stakeholders
High involvement from the targeted stakeholders (scientists
S
involvement
form academic and government institutions)
Financial
The project was undertaken with adequate financial controls
S
planning
UNEP
There appears to have been adequate supervision by UNEP.
Supervision and
The ProDoc did not anticipate the benefits of identifying a
backstopping
strategy for UNEP/GEF to utilise this work however the final
S
final report (developed at the instigation of the UNEP Task
Manager) did provide some recommendations. Unfortunately
these have not yet been followed.
Overall Rating
S
18

5 Lessons learned
88. The project identified a number of lessons that were considered to be beneficial to future projects,
including:
The establishment of a Regional Mentoring structure was considered to be very successful
greatly assisting the network development, training and regional growth/awareness of the
LOICZ tools and outputs. This also benefited regional regular training modules as a
component of academic training and capacity building reaching a growing number of young
scientists especially from developing regions.
For training workshops the project ensured that the same experts continued to participate from
within the network, building on previous experiences. This network approach rather than a
"single regional visit of experts" led to a committed, enthusiastic and continually involved
cadre of regional scientists. These links have had other successes in developing on-going
research and collaborative research actions.
The project team recognised the benefit of the final extension that led to the final report
providing a `management perspective' on the work. This was seen as important to achieve a
management and policy relevant digest of the project bridging into the human dimensions and
decision support.
19

6 Recommendations
89. The following observations are made as an introduction to the main recommendations.
Targeted research is an excellent instrument enabling the GEF to assist with improving the
science base on globally important issues. In this case, on nutrients and carbon source/sinks in
coastal waters providing access to scientists from GEF eligible countries to international
expertise, thus strengthening national capacity, and providing a mechanism to collect /
analyse data from regions where data is scarce leading to better global understanding of
problems.
This UNEP/GEF MSP developed, through the existing international structure of LOICZ,
models, budgets of nutrients and carbon, assessments of loads and networks of experts, etc.
information and methods that are of significant importance and relevance to the policy
objectives of the current GEF-4 International Waters Strategic Programme 2.
90. The following recommendations are made as a result of this evaluation of the UNEP/GEF
Targeted Research Project � `The role of the coastal ocean in the disturbed and undisturbed
nutrient and carbon cycles'.
i.
The GEF, in co-operation with the IAs, should develop a strategy to ensure that future
targeted research projects have a clear vision from the outset on how the GEF and IAs will
utilise the work to assist countries or to facilitate the work of other projects on similar issues.
ii. UNEP and the GEF need to have a mechanism for absorbing key recommendations that arise
from projects (this probably applies to all projects not just Target Research Projects).At the
end of the project, UNEP requested a final workshop to develop policy and management
recommendations. This was a useful addition to the original project design and provided
detailed analysis of how GEF policy could utilise the work with improved linkages between
policy and science. However whilst this report was completed in 2006 it does not seem to
have been integrated in to the development of IW nutrient or carbon programmes within
UNEP or the GEF.
iii. Future projects should explicitly develop a strategy (for subsequent use by GEF / IAs) for
how the products of the research can best migrate from the scientific community through to
policy change and management actions that can result in mitigation measures. This project
did not directly address the use of the scientific understanding in terms of management
planning, yet the techniques developed lend themselves to `what if' scenarios for evaluating
pollution reduction actions. (It should be noted that the final report � `A management
perspective' prepared by the project did provide some preliminary suggestions of the next
steps to utilise the LOICZ approach for management).
iv. As a first step to raising awareness on the topic, UNEP should include a detailed summary of
the main outputs (in graphical or map format) of the LOICZ work that clearly shows the
distribution of global budget model sites, trend information, sinks/sources of carbon and
nutrients, etc. This can be largely based on the Final Report of the project and other key
publications made by LOICZ.
v. UNEP should develop a mechanism to further propagate the valuable work undertaken by
LOICZ for both on-going and future IW projects involved with nutrients and / or carbon
budgets in coastal waters. This should be a more comprehensive programme than just
publishing a simple brochure and making references to the LOICZ web site. A plan should be
developed to assist IW projects utilise the very technical work of LOICZ and to assist the
20

vi. UNEP and GEF should identify means to ensure the results of targeted research projects, and
their networks of experts, are integrated into future IW projects addressing similar problems.
The current project offers an excellent set of data and assessments that could assist river and
coastal projects with, for example TDA baseline evaluations and scenarios resulting in
potential future management actions. For example, an important publication by the LOICZ
programme, utilising information obtained by the UNEP/GEF project indicates a three-fold
increase in coastal nutrients between the 1970s and 1990s. Whilst acknowledging that these
estimates were derived in different ways, the paper states there are clear evidence that the
increases are `real' as a result of human activity.
vii. UNEP and GEF require a better mechanism for engaging scientists and policy makers in
discussions to ensure that relevant tools are developed to assist management decisions and
that tools that are available are understood and applied. Such a mechanism would be valuable
in assessing the design of projects and programmes to ensure their relevance to global
environment issues.
viii.UNEP should ensure that the recently approved GEF MSP `Global: Enhancing the use of
Science in International Waters Projects to Improve Project Results' integrates the findings
of this evaluation within the project's work programme.
21

Annex 1 Terms of Reference for this evaluation
TERMS OF REFERENCE
Terminal Evaluation of the UNEP GEF project
"The Role of the Coastal Ocean in the Disturbed and Undisturbed Nutrient and Carbon
Cycles"
GF/1100-99-07
1. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW
Project rationale
The status of coastal aquatic systems is changed by enhanced anthropogenic nutrient inputs.
The global extent, and the wider regional and global impacts of these changes is unclear, due
to the absence of empirical estimates from a sufficiently large and representative set of coastal
sites world-wide. Nutrient enrichment of coastal waters has profound effects on biological
productivity and the health of the coastal ocean. Algal blooms, anoxia, fish kills, red tides, and
pollution are increasingly widespread problems in developing country regions of the world.
Changes in the biological systems alter the rates of carbon fixation and respiration in coastal
waters resulting in changes to the sink/source status of coastal areas with respect to carbon.
The overall goal of the project was stated as `to assemble: estimates of the impacts of nutrient
enrichment on coastal waters; estimates of the changes on regional and global biochemical
cycling of nutrients and carbon flux from coastal and shelf seas to the atmosphere; to assist
governments in assessing the role of their coastal waters as sinks/sources of carbon; and thus
to resolve scientific uncertainties concerning the Global Carbon Cycle.'
The expected outcomes from this project included:
1. Several hundred empirical models of carbon and nutrients in undisturbed and
disturbed (polluted) coastal systems that will be of value at the local and national level
in assessing the state of eutrophication and carbon source/sink status of the coastal
ocean;
2. Upscaling, using model derived empirical data as surrogate information, will provide
regional and global estimates of carbon flux required for balancing the global carbon
budget and assessing the role of the coastal ocean in the global carbon cycle.
Relevance to GEF Programmes
In the GEF Contaminant-Based Operation Programme 10, targeted `global projects useful in
setting priorities for possible GEF interventions' and `meeting the technical needs of
projects in this focal area' are among the priority components that characterise the range of
projects within this Operational Programme. The Regional/Global Technical Support
Component of this GEF Operational Programme states that `targeted regional or global
capacity building projects may be necessary to help increase awareness on how to jointly
address these contaminant problems. Global projects in this component can help individual
groups of countries to share experience with other areas around the globe and lessons can
be derived from the experience.'
Terminal Evaluation TORs � The Role of the Coastal Ocean in the Disturbed and Undisturbed Nutrient and Carbon Cycles
22

Executing Arrangements
The Executing Agency is the LOICZ-IPO (Land Ocean Interactions in the Coastal Zone -
International Project Office). The LOICZ-IPO, operating through the established biochemical
modelling centres of LOICZ located in the University of Stockholm, Sweden and the
University of Hawaii, was responsible for coordinating the day-to-day management of the
project. The project was expected to be completed within 30 months after its approval by
UNEP.
Project Activities
The project duration was initially 30 months starting July 1999, which was later revised and
extended to be completed in December 2006, making a total duration of 90 months.
The project had five components:
1)
Continuation of individual and institutional inputs to the LOICZ budgeting
website;
2)
A first tier of 8 preliminary regional workshops held over a period of 20
months (Central America, Southwest Atlantic, East Africa, West Africa,
Northwest Pacific, East Asia, South Asia, Southeast Pacific);
3)
Training of regional resource persons in the application of the modelling
guidelines;
4)
Second tier of more synthetic workshops � by ecosystem and climate type that
cross-cut geographic regions and involved the regional leaders;
5)
A terminal global workshop would bring together the results of the thematic
workshops. Publication and wide dissemination of results via electronic and
hard media.
Budget
The total budget was US$ 1,162,600 with US$ 720,000 funded by the GEF Trust Fund and
in-kind co-funding from; University of Stockholm US$175,000, University of Hawaii US$
75,000, LOICZ-IPO US$ 192,600.
Terminal Evaluation TORs � The Role of the Coastal Ocean in the Disturbed and Undisturbed Nutrient and Carbon Cycles
23

TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE EVALUATION
1. Objective and Scope of the Evaluation
The objective of this terminal evaluation is to determine the extent to which the project
objectives were achieved, or are expected to be achieved, and assess if the project has led to
any other positive or negative consequences. If possible the extent and magnitude of any
project impacts to date will be documented and the likelihood of future impacts will be
determined. The evaluation will also assess project performance and the implementation of
planned project activities and planned outputs against actual results. The evaluation will
focus on the following main questions:
Has the LOICZ project:
assembled estimates of the impacts of nutrient enrichment on coastal waters?
assembled estimates of the changes on regional and global biochemical
cycling of nutrients and carbon flux from coastal and shelf seas to the
atmosphere?
provided regional and global estimates of carbon flux required for balancing
the global carbon budget and assessing the role of the coastal ocean in the
global carbon cycle?
helped resolve scientific uncertainties concerning the Global Carbon Cycle in
the wider scientific community?
helped individual groups of countries to share experience with other areas
around the globe and learn lessons derived from the experience?
assisted governments in assessing the role of their coastal waters as
sinks/sources of carbon?
2. Methods
This terminal evaluation will be conducted as an in-depth evaluation using a participatory
approach whereby the UNEP/DGEF Task Manager, key representatives of the executing
agencies and other relevant staff are kept informed and regularly consulted throughout the
evaluation. The consultant will liaise with the UNEP/EOU and the UNEP/DGEF Task
Manager on any logistic and/or methodological issues to properly conduct the review in as
independent a way as possible, given the circumstances and resources offered. The draft
report will be circulated to UNEP/DGEF Task Manager, key representatives of the executing
agencies and the UNEP/EOU. Any comments or responses to the draft report will be sent to
UNEP / EOU for collation and the consultant will be advised of any necessary revisions.
The findings of the evaluation will be based on the following:
1. A desk review of project documents including, but not limited to:
(a) The project documents, outputs, monitoring reports (such as progress and
financial reports to UNEP and GEF annual Project Implementation Review
reports) and relevant correspondence.
(b) Notes from the Steering Group meetings.
(c) Other LOICZ-related material produced by the project staff or partners.
(d) Relevant material published on the project web-site: www.loicz.org.
2. Interviews with project management and technical support including the current
LOICZ team based in Germany, the former Project Coordinator at the LOICZ (Chris
Crossland, Brisbane Australia) and key actors involved in the regional workshops.
Terminal Evaluation TORs � The Role of the Coastal Ocean in the Disturbed and Undisturbed Nutrient and Carbon Cycles
24

3. Interviews and Telephone interviews with intended users for the project outputs and
other stakeholders involved with this project, including in the participating countries
and international bodies. The Consultant shall determine whether to seek additional
information and opinions from representatives of donor agencies and other
organisations. As appropriate, these interviews could be combined with an email
questionnaire.
4. Interviews with the UNEP/DGEF project task manager and Fund Management Officer,
and other relevant staff in UNEP dealing with International-Waters related activities as
necessary. The Consultant shall also gain broader perspectives from discussions with
relevant GEF Secretariat staff.
Key Evaluation principles.
In attempting to evaluate any outcomes and impacts that the project may have achieved,
evaluators should remember that the project's performance should be assessed by considering
the difference between the answers to two simple questions "what happened?" and "what
would have happened anyway?". These questions imply that there should be consideration
of the baseline conditions and trends in relation to the intended project outcomes and impacts.
In addition it implies that there should be plausible evidence to attribute such outcomes and
impacts to the actions of the project.
Sometimes, adequate information on baseline conditions and trends is lacking. In such cases
this should be clearly highlighted by the evaluator, along with any simplifying assumptions
that were taken to enable the evaluator to make informed judgements about project
performance.
3. Project Evaluation Parameters
A. Attainment of objectives and planned results:
The assessment of project results seeks to determine the extent to which the
project objectives were achieved, or are expected to be achieved, and assess if
the project has led to any other positive or negative consequences. While
assessing a project's outcomes the evaluation will seek to determine the extent
of achievement and shortcomings in reaching the project's objectives as stated
in the project document and also indicate if there were any changes and
whether those changes were approved. If the project did not establish a
baseline (initial conditions), the evaluator should seek to estimate the baseline
condition so that achievements and results can be properly established. Since
most GEF projects can be expected to achieve the anticipated outcomes by
project closing, assessment of project outcomes should be a priority.
Terminal Evaluation TORs � The Role of the Coastal Ocean in the Disturbed and Undisturbed Nutrient and Carbon Cycles
25

Outcomes are the likely or achieved short-term and medium-term effects of an
intervention's outputs. Examples of outcomes could include but are not
restricted to stronger institutional capacities, higher public awareness (when
leading to changes of behaviour), and transformed policy frameworks or
markets. The evaluation should assess the extent to which the project's major
relevant objectives were effectively and efficiently achieved or are expected to
be achieved and their relevance.
Effectiveness: Evaluate how, and to what extent, the stated project
objectives have been met, taking into account the "achievement
indicators" specified in the project document and logical framework13. In
particular, the analysis of outcomes achieved should include, inter alia, an
assessment of whether and to what extent the results of this project have
informed national, regional or international processes such as greenhouse
gas inventories, the IPCC or others.
Relevance: In retrospect, were the project's outcomes consistent with the
focal areas/operational program strategies and country priorities? The
evaluation should also assess the whether outcomes specified in the
project document and or logical framework are actually outcomes and not
outputs or inputs. Ascertain the nature and significance of the contribution
of the project outcomes to the wider portfolio of GEF Contaminant-Based
Operation Programme 10.
Efficiency: Cost-effectiveness assesses the achievement of the
environmental and developmental objectives as well as the project's
outputs in relation to the inputs, costs, and implementing time. Include an
assessment of outcomes in relation to inputs, costs, and implementation
times based on the following questions: Was the project cost-effective?
Was the project the least cost option? Was the project implementation
delayed and if it was then did that affect cost-effectiveness? The
evaluation should assess the contribution of cash and in-kind co-financing
to project implementation and to what extent the project leveraged
additional resources. Wherever possible the evaluation should also
compare the cost-time vs. outcomes relationship of the project with that of
other similar projects.
Specifically the evaluation shall:
Evaluate the outcomes of the project with regard to assisting governments
to assess the role of their coastal waters as sinks/sources of carbon.
B. Assessment of Sustainability of project outcomes:
Sustainability is understood as the probability of continued long-term project-
derived outcomes and impacts after the GEF project funding ends. The
evaluation will identify and assess the key conditions or factors that are likely
to contribute or undermine the persistence of benefits after the project ends.
Some of these factors might be outcomes of the project, e.g. stronger
institutional capacities or better informed decision-making. Other factors will
include contextual circumstances or developments that are not outcomes of the
project but that are relevant to the sustainability of outcomes. The evaluation
13 In case in the original or modified expected outcomes are merely outputs/inputs then the evaluators
should assess if there were any real outcomes of the project and if yes then whether these are
commensurate with the realistic expectations from such projects.
Terminal Evaluation TORs � The Role of the Coastal Ocean in the Disturbed and Undisturbed Nutrient and Carbon Cycles
26

should ascertain to what extent follow-up work has been initiated and how
project outcomes will be sustained and enhanced over time. In this case,
sustainability will be linked to the continued use and influence of scientific
models and scientific findings, produced by the project.
Four aspects of sustainability should be addressed: financial, socio-political,
institutional frameworks and governance, and ecological (if applicable) The
following questions provide guidance on the assessment of these aspects:
Financial resources. To what extent are the outcomes of the project
dependent on continued financial support? What is the likelihood that any
required financial resources will be available to sustain the project
outcomes/benefits once the GEF assistance ends (resources can be from
multiple sources, such as the public and private sectors, income generating
activities, and market trends that support the project's objectives)? Was the
project was successful in identifying and leveraging co-financing?
Socio-political: To what extent are the outcomes of the project dependent
on socio-political factors? What is the likelihood that the level of
stakeholder ownership will allow for the project outcomes/benefits to be
sustained? Is there sufficient public / stakeholder awareness in support of
the long term objectives of the project?
Institutional framework and governance. To what extent are the outcomes
of the project dependent on issues relating to institutional frameworks and
governance? What is the likelihood that institutional and technical
achievements, legal frameworks, policies and governance structures and
processes will allow for, the project outcomes/benefits to be sustained?
While responding to these questions consider if the required systems for
accountability and transparency and the required technical know-how are
in place.
Ecological. Are there any environmental risks that can undermine the
future flow of project environmental benefits? The TE should assess
whether certain activities in the project area will pose a threat to the
sustainability of the project outcomes. For example, construction of dam in
a protected area could inundate a sizable area and thereby neutralizing the
biodiversity related gains made by the project.
As far as possible, also assess the potential longer-term impacts considering
that the evaluation is taking place upon completion of the project and that
longer term impact is expected to be seen in a few years time. Frame any
recommendations to enhance future project impact in this context. Which will
be the major `channels' for longer term impact from the project at the national
and international scales? The evaluation should formulate recommendations
that outline possible approaches and necessary actions to facilitate an impact
assessment study in a few years time.
C. Catalytic role
The terminal evaluation will also describe any catalytic or replication effect of
the project. What examples are there of replication and catalytic outcomes that
suggest increased likelihood of sustainability? Replication approach, in the
context of GEF projects, is defined as lessons and experiences coming out of
the project that are replicated or scaled up in the design and implementation of
other projects. Replication can have two aspects, replication proper (lessons
Terminal Evaluation TORs � The Role of the Coastal Ocean in the Disturbed and Undisturbed Nutrient and Carbon Cycles
27

and experiences are replicated in different geographic area) or scaling up
(lessons and experiences are replicated within the same geographic area but
funded by other sources). If no effects are identified, the evaluation will
describe the catalytic or replication actions that the project carried out. No
ratings are requested for the catalytic role.
D. Achievement of outputs and activities:
Delivered outputs: Assessment of the project's success in producing each
of the programmed outputs, both in quantity and quality as well as
usefulness and timeliness.
Assess the soundness and effectiveness of the methodologies used for
developing regional and global estimates of nutrients and carbon flux
required for balancing the global carbon budget and assessing the role of
the coastal ocean in the global carbon cycle.
Assess to what extent the project outputs produced have the weight of
scientific authority / credibility, necessary to influence policy and
decision-makers, particularly at the national or regional levels.
E. Assessment of Monitoring and Evaluation Systems:
M&E design. Did the project have a sound M&E plan to monitor results
and track progress towards achieving project objectives? The Terminal
Evaluation will assess whether the project met the minimum requirements
for project design of M&E and the application of the Project M&E plan
(Minimum requirements are specified in Annex 4). The evaluation shall
include an assessment of the quality, application and effectiveness of
project monitoring and evaluation plans and tools, including an
assessment of risk management based on the assumptions and risks
identified in the project document. The M&E plan should include a
baseline (including data, methodology, etc.), SMART (see Annex 4)
indicators and data analysis systems, and evaluation studies at specific
times to assess results. The time frame for various M&E activities and
standards for outputs should have been specified.
M&E plan implementation. Was an M&E system in place and did it
facilitate tracking of results and progress towards projects objectives
throughout the project implementation period. Were Annual project
reports complete, accurate and with well justified ratings? Was the
information provided by the M&E system used during the project to
improve project performance and to adapt to changing needs? Did the
Projects have an M&E system in place with proper training for parties
responsible for M&E activities to ensure data will continue to be collected
and used after project closure?
Budgeting and Funding for M&E activities. Were adequate budget
provisions made for M&E made and were such resources made available
in a timely fashion during implementation? GEF projects must budget
adequately for execution of the M&E plan, and provide adequate
resources for during implementation of the M&E plan.
Long-term Monitoring. M&E of long-term changes is often incorporated
in GEF-supported projects as a separate component and it may include
determination of environmental baselines, specification of indicators,
provisioning of equipment and capacity building for data gathering,
analysis and use. This section of the TE will describe the actions and
Terminal Evaluation TORs � The Role of the Coastal Ocean in the Disturbed and Undisturbed Nutrient and Carbon Cycles
28

F. Assessment of processes that affected attainment of project results.
The evaluation will consider, but need not be limited to, consideration of the
following issues that may have affected project implementation and attainment of
project results:
i.
Preparation and readiness. Were the project's objectives and
components clear, practicable and feasible within its timeframe? Were
capacities of the executing institutions and counterparts properly
considered when the project was designed? Were lessons from other
relevant projects properly incorporated in design? Were the partnership
arrangements properly identified and the roles and responsibilities
negotiated prior to implementation? Was availability of counterpart
resources (funding, staff, and facilities), passage of enabling legislation,
and adequate project management arrangements in place at project entry?
Ascertain to what extent the project implementation mechanisms outlined
in the project document have been closely followed. In particular, assess
the role of the various committees established and whether the project
document was clear and realistic to enable effective and efficient
implementation, whether the project was executed according to the plan
and how well the management was able to adapt to changes during the life
of the project to enable the implementation of the project.
Evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency and adaptability of project
management and the supervision of project activities / project execution
arrangements at all levels (1) policy decisions: Steering Group; (2) day to
day project management: LOICZ-IPO; (3) GEF guidance: UNEP DGEF
ii.
Country ownership/Drivenness. This is the relevance of the project to
national development and environmental agendas, recipient country
commitment, and regional and international agreements. Examples of
possible evaluative questions include: Was the project design in-line with
the national sectoral and development priorities and plans? Are project
outcomes contributing to national development priorities and plans? Were
the relevant country representatives, from government and civil society,
involved in the project? Did the recipient government maintain its
financial commitment to the project? Have the government approved
policies or regulatory frameworks been in-line with the project's
objectives? Specifically the evaluation will:
Assess the level of country ownership, and whether the project was
effective in providing and communicating information and tools that
assisted governments in assessing the role of their coastal waters as
sinks/sources of carbon.
Assess the level of country commitment to the use of estimates of the
changes of regional and global biochemical cycling of nutrients and
carbon flux from coastal and shelf seas to the atmosphere for decision-
Terminal Evaluation TORs � The Role of the Coastal Ocean in the Disturbed and Undisturbed Nutrient and Carbon Cycles
29

iii.
Stakeholder involvement. Did the project involve the relevant
stakeholders through information sharing, consultation and by seeking
their participation in project's design, implementation, and monitoring
and evaluation? For example, did the project implement appropriate
outreach and public awareness campaigns? Did the project consult and
make use of the skills, experience and knowledge of the appropriate
government entities, NGOs, community groups, private sector, local
governments and academic institutions in the design, implementation and
evaluation of project activities? Were perspectives of those that would be
affected by decisions, those that could affect the outcomes and those that
could contribute information or other resources to the process taken into
account while taking decisions? Were the relevant vulnerable groups and
the powerful, the supporters and the opponents, of the processes properly
involved? Specifically the evaluation will:
Assess the mechanisms put in place by the project for identification
and engagement of stakeholders in each participating country and
establish, in consultation with the stakeholders, whether this
mechanism was successful, and identify its strengths and weaknesses.
Assess the degree and effectiveness of collaboration/interactions
between the various project partners and institutions during the course
of implementation of the project.
Assess the degree and effectiveness of any various public awareness
activities that were undertaken during the course of implementation of
the project.
iv.
Financial planning. Did the project have the appropriate financial
controls, including reporting and planning, that allowed management to
make informed decisions regarding the budget and allowed for timely
flow of funds. Specifically, the evaluation should:
Assess the strength and utility of financial controls, including
reporting, and planning to allow the project management to make
informed decisions regarding the budget and allow for a proper and
timely flow of funds for the payment of satisfactory project
deliverables throughout the project's lifetime.
Present the major findings from the financial audit if one has been
conducted.
Did promised co-financing materialize? Identify and verify the
sources of co- financing as well as leveraged and associated financing
(in co-operation with the IA and EA).
Assess whether the project has applied appropriate standards of due
diligence in the management of funds and financial audits.
The evaluation should also include a breakdown of final actual project
costs by activities compared to budget (variances), financial
management (including disbursement issues), and co- financing. This
information will be prepared by the relevant DGEF Fund Management
Officer of the project for scrutiny by the evaluator (table attached in
Annex 1 Co-financing and leveraged resources).
v.
UNEP Supervision and backstopping. Did UNEP Agency staff identify
problems in a timely fashion and accurately estimate its seriousness? Did
Terminal Evaluation TORs � The Role of the Coastal Ocean in the Disturbed and Undisturbed Nutrient and Carbon Cycles
30

vi.
Co-financing and Project Outcomes & Sustainability. If there was a
difference in the level of expected co-financing and actual co-financing,
then what were the reasons for this? Did the extent of materialization of
co-financing affect the project's outcomes and/or sustainability, and if it
did affect outcomes and sustainability then in what ways and through
what causal linkages?
vii.
Delays and Project Outcomes & Sustainability. If there were delays in
project implementation and completion, the evaluation will summarise the
reasons for them. Did delays affect the project's outcomes and/or
sustainability, and if so in what ways and through what causal linkages?
The ratings will be presented in the form of a table with each of the categories rated
separately and with brief justifications for the rating based on the findings of the main
analysis. An overall rating for the project should also be given. The rating system to be
applied is specified in Annex 1:
4. Evaluation report format and review procedures
The report should be brief, to the point and easy to understand. It must explain; the purpose
of the evaluation, exactly what was evaluated and the methods used. The report must
highlight any methodological limitations, identify key concerns and present evidence-based
findings, consequent conclusions, recommendations and lessons. The report should provide
information on when the evaluation took place, the places visited, who was involved and be
presented in a way that makes the information accessible and comprehensible. The report
should include an executive summary that encapsulates the essence of the information
contained in the report to facilitate dissemination and distillation of lessons.
Evidence, findings, conclusions and recommendations should be presented in a complete and
balanced manner. The evaluation report shall be written in English, be of no more than 50
pages (excluding annexes), use numbered paragraphs and include:
i)
An executive summary (no more than 3 pages) providing a brief overview of
the main conclusions and recommendations of the evaluation;
ii)
Introduction and background giving a brief overview of the evaluated
project, for example, the objective and status of activities;
iii)
Scope, objective and methods presenting the evaluation's purpose, the
evaluation criteria used and questions to be addressed;
iv)
Project Performance and Impact providing factual evidence relevant to the
questions asked by the evaluator and interpretations of such evidence. This is
the main substantive section of the report and should provide a commentary on
all evaluation aspects (A - F above).
v)
Conclusions and rating of project implementation success giving the
evaluator's concluding assessments and ratings of the project against given
evaluation criteria and standards of performance. The conclusions should
provide answers to questions about whether the project is considered good or
bad, and whether the results are considered positive or negative;
Terminal Evaluation TORs � The Role of the Coastal Ocean in the Disturbed and Undisturbed Nutrient and Carbon Cycles
31

vi)
Lessons learned presenting general conclusions from the standpoint of the
design and implementation of the project, based on good practices and
successes or problems and mistakes. Lessons should have the potential for
wider application and use. All lessons should `stand alone and should:
Specify the context from which they are derived
State or imply some prescriptive action;
Specify the contexts in which they may be applied (if possible who
when and where)
vii)
Recommendations suggesting actionable proposals regarding improvements
of the current project. They may cover, for example, resource allocation,
financing, planning, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation.
Recommendations should always be specific in terms of who would do what,
provide a timeframe, and a measurable performance target. In general,
Terminal Evaluations are likely to have very few (only two or three)
actionable recommendations;
viii)
Annexes include Terms of Reference, list of interviewees, documents
reviewed, brief summary of the expertise of the evaluator / evaluation team, a
summary of co-finance information etc.. Dissident views or management
responses to the evaluation findings may later be appended in an annex.
Examples of UNEP GEF Terminal Evaluation Reports are available at www.unep.org/eou
Review of the Draft Evaluation Report
Draft reports submitted to UNEP EOU are shared with the corresponding Programme or
Project Officer and his or her supervisor for initial review and consultation. The DGEF staff
and senior Executing Agency staff are allowed to comment on the draft evaluation report.
They may provide feedback on any errors of fact and may highlight the significance of such
errors in any conclusions. The consultation also seeks agreement on the findings and
recommendations. UNEP EOU collates the review comments and provides them to the
evaluators for their consideration in preparing the final version of the report.
All UNEP GEF Evaluation Reports are subject to quality assessments by UNEP EOU. These
incorporate GEF Office of Evaluation quality assessment criteria and are used as a tool for
providing structured feedback to the evaluator (see Annex 3).
5. Submission of Final Terminal Evaluation Reports.
The final report shall be submitted in electronic form in MS Word format and should be sent
to the following persons:
Segbedzi Norgbey, Chief, Evaluation and Oversight Unit
UNEP, P.O. Box 30552-00100
Nairobi, Kenya
Tel.: (254-20) 7624181
Fax: (254-20) 7623158
Email: segbedzi.norgbey@unep.org
With a copy to:
Maryam Niamir-Fuller
Director
Terminal Evaluation TORs � The Role of the Coastal Ocean in the Disturbed and Undisturbed Nutrient and Carbon Cycles
32

UNEP/Division of GEF Coordination
P.O. Box 30552-00100
Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: + 254-20-7624686
Fax: + 254-20-623158/4042
Email: maryam.niamir-fuller@unep.org
Isabelle Vanderbeck
Task Manager GEF Projects in Latin America and the Caribbean
1889 F Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Room 723
Tel: +1-202-458-3772
Fax: +1-202-458-3560
Email: isabelle.vanderbeck@unep.org or UNEPRep@oas.org
Takehiro Nakamura
UNEP/GEF SPO International Waters
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
Division of GEF Coordination (DGEF)
PO Box 30552-00100
Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: 254 20 7623886
Fax: 254 20 7624041
Email: takehiro.nakamura@unep.org
The final evaluation report will be printed in hard copy and published on the Evaluation and
Oversight Unit's web-site www.unep.org/eou. Subsequently, the report will be sent to the
GEF Office of Evaluation for their review, appraisal and inclusion on the GEF website. In
addition the final Evaluation report will disseminated to: The relevant GEF Focal points,
Relevant Government representatives, UNEP DGEF Professional Staff, The project's
Executing Agency and Technical Staff. The full list of intended recipients is attached in
Annex 5.
6. Resources and schedule of the evaluation
This terminal evaluation will be undertaken by an international evaluator contracted by the
Evaluation and Oversight Unit, UNEP. The contract for the evaluator will begin on 9th June
2008 and end on 24th August 2008 (27days) spread over 11 weeks (8 days of travel, to
Washington, Germany). The evaluator will submit a draft report on 14th July 2008 to
UNEP/EOU, the UNEP/DGEF Task Manager, and key representatives of the executing
agencies. Any comments or responses to the draft report will be sent to UNEP / EOU for
collation and the consultant will be advised of any necessary revisions. Comments to the final
draft report will be sent to the consultant by 4th August 2008 after which, the consultant will
submit the final report no later than 22nd August 2008.
The evaluator will have an initial telephone briefing with EOU and UNEP/GEF then travel to
meet with project staff.
In accordance with UNEP/GEF policy, all GEF projects are evaluated by independent
evaluators contracted as consultants by the EOU. The evaluators should have the following
qualifications:
Terminal Evaluation TORs � The Role of the Coastal Ocean in the Disturbed and Undisturbed Nutrient and Carbon Cycles
33

The evaluator should not have been associated with the design and implementation of the
project. The evaluator will work under the overall supervision of the Chief, Evaluation and
Oversight Unit, UNEP. The evaluator should be an international expert in marine science
with a sound understanding of biogeochemistry. The consultant should have the following
minimum qualifications: (i) experience in biogeochemical budgets in coastal seas modeling
and assessments; (ii) experience with management and implementation of research projects
and in particular with policy-related monitoring and assessments that generate knowledge and
information relevant to decision-making; (iii) experience with project evaluation. Knowledge
of UNEP programmes and GEF activities is desirable. Fluency in oral and written English is
a must.
7. Schedule Of Payment
Lump-Sum Option
The evaluator will receive an initial payment of 30% of the total amount due upon signature
of the contract. A further 30% will be paid upon submission of the draft report. A final
payment of 40% will be made upon satisfactory completion of work. The fee is payable under
the individual Special Service Agreement (SSA) of the evaluator and is inclusive of all
expenses such as travel, accommodation and incidental expenses.
The consultant's choice of payment option will be specified in the signed contract with
UNEP.
In case, the evaluator cannot provide the products in accordance with the TORs, the
timeframe agreed, or his products are substandard, the payment to the evaluator could be
withheld, until such a time the products are modified to meet UNEP's standard. In case the
evaluator fails to submit a satisfactory final product to UNEP, the product prepared by the
evaluator may not constitute the evaluation report.
Terminal Evaluation TORs � The Role of the Coastal Ocean in the Disturbed and Undisturbed Nutrient and Carbon Cycles
34

Annex 1. OVERALL RATINGS TABLE
Evaluator's
Criterion
Evaluator's Summary Comments
Rating
Attainment of project objectives and results
(overall rating)
Sub criteria (below)
Effectiveness
Relevance
Efficiency
Sustainability of Project outcomes (overall
rating)
Sub criteria (below)
Financial
Socio Political
Institutional framework and governance
Ecological
Achievement of outputs and activities
Monitoring and Evaluation
(overall rating)
Sub criteria (below)
M&E Design
M&E Plan Implementation (use for adaptive
management)
Budgeting and Funding for M&E activities
Catalytic Role
Preparation and readiness
Country ownership / driveness
Stakeholders involvement
Financial planning
UNEP Supervision and backstopping
Overall Rating
RATING OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND RESULTS
Highly Satisfactory (HS): The project had no shortcomings in the achievement of its
objectives, in terms of relevance, effectiveness or efficiency.
Satisfactory (S): The project had minor shortcomings in the achievement of its objectives, in
terms of relevance, effectiveness or efficiency.
Moderately Satisfactory (MS): The project had moderate shortcomings in the achievement of
its objectives, in terms of relevance, effectiveness or efficiency.
Moderately Unsatisfactory (MU): The project had significant shortcomings in the
achievement of its objectives, in terms of relevance, effectiveness or efficiency.
Unsatisfactory (U) The project had major shortcomings in the achievement of its objectives,
in terms of relevance, effectiveness or efficiency.
Highly Unsatisfactory (HU): The project had severe shortcomings in the achievement of its
objectives, in terms of relevance, effectiveness or efficiency.
Please note: Relevance and effectiveness will be considered as critical criteria. The overall rating of
the project for achievement of objectives and results may not be higher than the lowest rating on
35

either of these two criteria. Thus, to have an overall satisfactory rating for outcomes a project must
have at least satisfactory ratings on both relevance and effectiveness.
RATINGS ON SUSTAINABILITY
A. Sustainability will be understood as the probability of continued long-term outcomes and impacts
after the GEF project funding ends. The Terminal evaluation will identify and assess the key
conditions or factors that are likely to contribute or undermine the persistence of benefits after the
project ends. Some of these factors might be outcomes of the project, i.e. stronger institutional
capacities, legal frameworks, socio-economic incentives /or public awareness. Other factors will
include contextual circumstances or developments that are not outcomes of the project but that are
relevant to the sustainability of outcomes..
Rating system for sustainability sub-criteria
On each of the dimensions of sustainability of the project outcomes will be rated as follows.
Likely (L): There are no risks affecting this dimension of sustainability.
Moderately Likely (ML). There are moderate risks that affect this dimension of sustainability.
Moderately Unlikely (MU): There are significant risks that affect this dimension of
sustainability
Unlikely (U): There are severe risks that affect this dimension of sustainability.
All the risk dimensions of sustainability are critical. Therefore, overall rating for sustainability will
not be higher than the rating of the dimension with lowest ratings. For example, if a project has an
Unlikely rating in either of the dimensions then its overall rating cannot be higher than Unlikely,
regardless of whether higher ratings in other dimensions of sustainability produce a higher average.
RATINGS OF PROJECT M&E
Monitoring is a continuing function that uses systematic collection of data on specified indicators to
provide management and the main stakeholders of an ongoing project with indications of the extent of
progress and achievement of objectives and progress in the use of allocated funds. Evaluation is the
systematic and objective assessment of an on-going or completed project, its design, implementation
and results. Project evaluation may involve the definition of appropriate standards, the examination of
performance against those standards, and an assessment of actual and expected results.
The Project monitoring and evaluation system will be rated on `M&E Design', `M&E Plan
Implementation' and `Budgeting and Funding for M&E activities' as follows:
Highly Satisfactory (HS): There were no shortcomings in the project M&E system.
Satisfactory(S): There were minor shortcomings in the project M&E system.
Moderately Satisfactory (MS): There were moderate shortcomings in the project M&E
system.
Moderately Unsatisfactory (MU): There were significant shortcomings in the project M&E
system.
Unsatisfactory (U): There were major shortcomings in the project M&E system.
Highly Unsatisfactory (HU): The Project had no M&E system.
"M&E plan implementation" will be considered a critical parameter for the overall assessment of the
M&E system. The overall rating for the M&E systems will not be higher than the rating on "M&E
plan implementation."
All other ratings will be on a six point scale:
36

HS
= Highly Satisfactory
S
= Satisfactory
MS
= Moderately Satisfactory
MU
= Moderately Unsatisfactory
U
= Unsatisfactory
HU
= Highly Unsatisfactory
37

Annex 2. Co-financing and Leveraged Resources
Co-financing (basic data to be supplied to the consultant for verification)
IA
own
Government
Other*
Total
Total
Financing
Disbursement
Co
financing
(mill US$)
(mill US$)
(mill US$)
(mill US$)
(mill US$)
(Type/Source)
Planne
Actual
Planned
Actual
Planned
Actual
Planne
Actual
Planned
Actual
d
d

Grants

Loans/Concession
al (compared to
market rate)

Credits

Equity
investments

In-kind support

Other (*)
-
-
-
-
-
Totals
* Other is referred to contributions mobilized for the project from other multilateral agencies, bilateral development cooperation agencies, NGOs,
the private sector and beneficiaries.
Leveraged Resources
Leveraged resources are additional resources--beyond those committed to the project itself at the time of approval--that are mobilized later as a
direct result of the project. Leveraged resources can be financial or in-kind and they may be from other donors, NGO's, foundations, governments,
communities or the private sector. Please briefly describe the resources the project has leveraged since inception and indicate how these resources
are contributing to the project's ultimate objective.
38

Table showing final actual project expenditure by activity to be supplied by the UNEP Fund management Officer. (insert
here)
39

Annex 3
Review of the Draft Report
Draft reports submitted to UNEP EOU are shared with the corresponding Programme or Project
Officer and his or her supervisor for initial review and consultation. The DGEF staff and senior
Executing Agency staff provide comments on the draft evaluation report. They may provide feedback
on any errors of fact and may highlight the significance of such errors in any conclusions. The
consultation also seeks agreement on the findings and recommendations. UNEP EOU collates the
review comments and provides them to the evaluators for their consideration in preparing the final
version of the report. General comments on the draft report with respect to compliance with these
TOR are shared with the reviewer.
Quality Assessment of the Evaluation Report
All UNEP GEF Mid Term Reports are subject to quality assessments by UNEP EOU. These apply
GEF Office of Evaluation quality assessment and are used as a tool for providing structured feedback
to the evaluator.
The quality of the draft evaluation report is assessed and rated against the following criteria:
GEF Report Quality Criteria
UNEP
Rating
EOU
Assessmen
t
A. Did the report present an assessment of relevant outcomes and achievement of
project objectives in the context of the focal area program indicators if applicable?
B. Was the report consistent and the evidence complete and convincing and were
the ratings substantiated when used?
C. Did the report present a sound assessment of sustainability of outcomes?
D. Were the lessons and recommendations supported by the evidence presented?
E. Did the report include the actual project costs (total and per activity) and actual
co-financing used?
F. Did the report include an assessment of the quality of the project M&E system
and its use for project management?
UNEP EOU additional Report Quality Criteria
UNEP
Rating
EOU
Assessmen
t
G. Quality of the lessons: Were lessons readily applicable in other contexts? Did
they suggest prescriptive action?
H. Quality of the recommendations: Did recommendations specify the actions
necessary to correct existing conditions or improve operations (`who?' `what?'
`where?' `when?)'. Can they be implemented? Did the recommendations specify a
goal and an associated performance indicator?
I.
Was
the
report
well
written?
(clear English language and grammar)
J. Did the report structure follow EOU guidelines, were all requested Annexes
included?
K. Were all evaluation aspects specified in the TORs adequately addressed?
L. Was the report delivered in a timely manner
GEF Quality of the MTE report = 0.3*(A + B) + 0.1*(C+D+E+F)
EOU assessment of MTE report = 0.3*(G + H) + 0.1*(I+J+K+L)
Combined quality Rating = (2* `GEF EO' rating + EOU rating)/3
The Totals are rounded and converted to the scale of HS to HU
Rating system for quality of terminal evaluation reports
40

A number rating 1-6 is used for each criterion: Highly Satisfactory = 6, Satisfactory = 5, Moderately
Satisfactory = 4, Moderately Unsatisfactory = 3, Unsatisfactory = 2, Highly Unsatisfactory = 1, and unable to
assess = 0.
41

Annex 4 GEF Minimum requirements for M&E
Minimum Requirement 1: Project Design of M&E14
All projects must include a concrete and fully budgeted monitoring and evaluation plan by the time of
Work Program entry (full-sized projects) or CEO approval (medium-sized projects). This plan must
contain at a minimum:

SMART (see below) indicators for project implementation, or, if no indicators are identified, an
alternative plan for monitoring that will deliver reliable and valid information to management

SMART indicators for results (outcomes and, if applicable, impacts), and, where appropriate,
corporate-level indicators

A project baseline, with:
a description of the problem to address
indicator data
or, if major baseline indicators are not identified, an alternative plan for addressing this within
one year of implementation

An M&E Plan with identification of reviews and evaluations which will be undertaken, such as
mid-term reviews or evaluations of activities

An organizational setup and budgets for monitoring and evaluation.
Minimum Requirement 2: Application of Project M&E

Project monitoring and supervision will include implementation of the M&E plan, comprising:

Use of SMART indicators for implementation (or provision of a reasonable explanation if not
used)

Use of SMART indicators for results (or provision of a reasonable explanation if not used)

Fully established baseline for the project and data compiled to review progress

Evaluations are undertaken as planned

Operational organizational setup for M&E and budgets spent as planned.
SMART INDICATORS GEF projects and programs should monitor using relevant performance
indicators. The monitoring system should be "SMART":
1. Specific: The system captures the essence of the desired result by clearly and directly relating
to achieving an objective, and only that objective.
14 http://gefweb.org/MonitoringandEvaluation/MEPoliciesProcedures/MEPTools/meptstandards.html
42

2. Measurable: The monitoring system and its indicators are unambiguously specified so that
all parties agree on what the system covers and there are practical ways to measure the
indicators and results.
3. Achievable and Attributable: The system identifies what changes are anticipated as a result
of the intervention and whether the result(s) are realistic. Attribution requires that changes in
the targeted developmental issue can be linked to the intervention.
4. Relevant and Realistic: The system establishes levels of performance that are likely to be
achieved in a practical manner, and that reflect the expectations of stakeholders.
5. Time-bound, Timely, Trackable, and Targeted: The system allows progress to be tracked
in a cost-effective manner at desired frequency for a set period, with clear identification of the
particular stakeholder group to be impacted by the project or program.
43

Annex 5 List of intended additional recipients for the Terminal Evaluation
Name
Affiliation
Email
Mail list
UNEP DGEF Professional staff
Aaron Zazuetta
GEF Evaluation Office
azazueta@thegef.org
Government Officials
GEF Focal Point(s)
Executing Agency
Hartwig Kremer
Loicz office in Bonn Germany
loicz.ipo@loicz.org
hartwig.kremer@loicz.org;
hartwig.kremer@loicz.ipo
44

Annex 2 List of interviewees
Organisation
Role
Email
Isabelle Vanderbeck
UNEP
Final Task Manager
UNEPRep@oas.org
John Pernetta
Ex-UNEP
Former Task Manager
pernetta@un.org
Rodney Vorley
UNEP
Current Fund Manager
rodney.vorley@unep.org
Takehiro Nakamura
UNEP
Division of GEF
takehiro.nakamura@unep.org
Peter Gilruth
UNEP
DEWA Director
dewa.director@unep.org
Peter.gilruth@unep.org
Peter Scheren
UNEP
WIO-Lab UNEP/GEF Project Director
peter.scheren@unep.org
Al Duda
GEF
GEF Secretariat
aduda@thegef.org
Hartwig Kremer
LOICZ-IOP
Chief Executive Officer, Project Co-ordinator
hartwig.kremer@loicz.org
Chris Crossland
University of the Sunshine
Former Project Co-ordinator within LOICZ-IPO
CCrossla@usc.edu.au
Coast, Australia
Bob Buddermein
University of Kansas, USA
Project Expert
buddrw@kgs.ku.edu
Laura David
University of the Philippines,
Project Expert
ldavid@msi01.cs.upd.edu.ph
John Parslow
CSIRO, Australia
Project Expert
john.parslow@csiro.au
Stephen Smith
Centro de Investigacion y de
Project Expert
svsmith@cicese.mx
Educacion Superior de
Ensenada, Mexico
Dennis Swaney
Cornell University, USA
Project Expert
dps1@cornell.edu
Nalin Wikramanyake
Open University, Sri Lanka
Project Expert
tomwiks@yahoo.com
Fredrik Wulff
Stockholm University, Sweden
Project Expert
wulff@mbox.su.se
Gianmarco Giordani
LaguNet
giordani@nemo.unipr.it
Andrea Merla
Consultant to GEF WB/UNEP Mediterranean Partnership
Laurence Mee
University of Plymouth, UK
Member of LOICZ scientific board
Bill Parr
UK
Former Nutrient expert � UNDP/GEF BSERP
45

Annex 3 Key Documents
Documents Available from UNEP
1.
ProDoc
2.
UNEP PIR report for FY02
3.
Terminal Report (July 02)
4.
`Self evaluation' (similar to Terminal Report)
5.
Note from LOICZ team in 2004 regarding project completion
6.
Audit report (KPMG) � August 2002
7.
Revised financial statement � September 2006
8.
Final Report from final workshop (2006)
9.
Revised terminal report
10.
Quarterly Operational Report July � September 2001
11.
Quarterly Operational Report October � December 2001
12.
6 month Project Report July � December 2001
13.
Inventory of Equipment List December 2001
Document Available from LOICZ
1.
UNEP/GEF-LOICZ Final Report � A management Perspective. www.loicz.org
2.
LOICZ Reports and Studies (No. 5, 9, 10, 12 � 19, 20, 22 -24 and 28). www.loicz.org
3.
Humans, hydrology and the distribution of inorganic nutrient loading to the ocean.
Smith et.al. BioScience 53 235 � 245, 2003.
4.
Coastal Fluxes in the Anthropocene: The Land-Ocean Interactions in the Coastal Zone
Project of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme. Crossland, C.J.; Kremer,
H.H.; Lindeboom, H.J.; Marshall Crossland, J.I.; Le Tissier, M.D.A. (Eds.)
2005, ISBN: 978-3-540-25450-8
46

Annex 4 Questionnaire
Terminal Evaluation of the UNEP/GEF project:
The role of the coastal ocean in the disturbed and undisturbed nutrient and carbon cycles
Objective of the Terminal Evaluation.
The main objectives of this evaluation are to establish the extent to which the project's objectives
have been met and to provide recommendations on how the work can be further exploited by current
and future UNEP/GEF programmes. It is important that the assessment is clearly supported by
examples that demonstrate the successes or impacts of the project - please identify any points that
help to demonstrate the impacts, outcomes and sustainability of the UNEP/GEF project.
In addition to the questions below, the evaluation is an opportunity to provide feedback to UNEP/GEF
on any issues that were encountered during the execution of the project that could lead to
improvements in future projects and to identify how the data sets and tools developed under the
project could be used in future UNEP/GEF programmes.
The questions should be briefly addressed with examples that highlight the achievements.
Specifically the Terminal Evaluation will address the following points:
1. Has the UNEP/GEF project:
Assembled estimates of the impacts of nutrient enrichment on coastal waters?
Assembled estimates of the changes on regional and global biochemical cycling of
nutrients and carbon flux from coastal and shelf seas to the atmosphere? (was a `baseline'
established against which changes were estimated?)
Provided regional and global estimates of carbon flux required for balancing the global
carbon budget and assessing the role of the coastal ocean in the global carbon cycle?
Helped resolve scientific uncertainties concerning the Global Carbon Cycle in the wider
scientific community?
Helped individual groups of countries to share experience with other areas around the
globe and learn lessons derived from the experience?
Assisted governments in assessing the role of their coastal waters as sinks/sources of
carbon?
2. As a `GEF targeted research' project � has the project helped to `raise awareness on how to
jointly address contaminant problems' � i.e. has it prepared guidance on management actions
that can be taken?
3. The Terminal Report showed that in 2002 (and updated in 2006) it was `too early to assesses'
(or in 2006 as `ongoing') the impact of the UNDP/GEF project. Could this be updated on the
basis of the continuing work of LOICZ? Specifically the two indicators that need to be
assessed are:
Integration of CO2 source-sink data into countries national reports to the UNFCCC
Use of project outputs in national planning and nutrient reduction
4. Please summarise how the work supported by UNEP/GEF has continued under the LOICZ
programme.
47

Annex 5 Project self evaluation
The following tables were prepared by LOICZ-IPO and included in the PIR (2002) and the project
Terminal Report (2006).
Project anticipated and achieved needs:
Anticipated
Achieved
Estimates of the impacts of nutrient
A global assessment of nutrient loads impinging on the coast
enrichment on coastal waters
ecosystems has provides an initial spatial picture of disturbed
and undisturbed systems and system response.
Estimates of the changes in regional
Net carbon flux estimates and net denitrification estimates
and global biogeochemical cycling
have been derived at local and region scales. Global
of nutrients and carbon flux from
tendencies for C, N and P fluxes were derived
coastal and shelf seas to the
atmosphere
Assist governments in assessing the
Capacity building was achieved across all global regions and
role of their coastal waters as sinks
further application of tools and skills are being made in
and/or sources of carbon
addition to the initial assessments of ecosystems locally and
regionally.
Resolve scientific uncertainties
Important steps have been taken within the work of the
concerning the Global Carbon Cycle
project to assess coastal system performance in the global
carbon cycle
Project anticipated and achieved results
Anticipated
Achieved
Develop several hundred
A suite of 400+ models was developed from existing data across all
empirical models of
regions of the world except South Asia. The surprising gap in robust
carbon and nutrients in
data for South Asia is being addressed by a current field program using
undisturbed and disturbed
the training skills given by the project. The Arctic region, wet tropical
(polluted) coastal systems
areas (e.g., Indonesia, West Africa) and arid coasts (e.g. Middle East)
that will be of value at
remain under-represented due mainly to limited or little existing data.
local and national levels
However, the typological approach to regional and global assessment
in assessing the state of
provided a useful proxy tool for this first global assessment.
eutrophication and carbon
The base data and models, and assessments and derivative models used
source/sink status of the
in synthesis for regions and at global scales are in electronic (web sites),
coastal ocean
hardcopy and CD formats and are being actively distributed to interested
parties.
The resultant network of scientists trained in the biogeochemical
modelling and typological assessment approaches have enhanced skills
and awareness that will be supportive to additional local and national
coastal evaluation processes.
The network of researchers and institutes actively involved in regional
assessment is continuously increasing; methods are under continuous
review and subject to updating; result dissemination has reflected in new
research projects and policy making on national and regional scale.
Up-scaling, using model
Up-scaling and integrating locally determined input and systems data
derived empirical data, to
from the extremely heterogeneous coastal zone remains a practical and
provide regional and
intellectual challenge � one that extends beyond the boundaries of this
global estimates of carbon
project. In the Final Report of the project (LOICZ Reports and Series
flux required for
No. 24, 2002), inter alia, we describe the spatial and temporal scales of
balancing the global
site variability and have derived a crucial model for assessment of
carbon budget and
coastal system loading of nutrients from land. Using the typology
assessing the role of the
approach, the global spatial distribution of "disturbed and undisturbed"
coastal ocean in the
coastal ecosystems is described. This also provides a basis for
48

Anticipated
Achieved
global carbon cycle
projection and scenarios that can reflect the future trends of increased
human density in the coastal land areas and potential for coastal system
impacts. In addition we have a suite of observations about coastal
system performance in response to elevated nutrient loads from land and
the influence of local variables (water residency times, system area and
coastal exchange) that indicates that the immediate estuarine/nearshore
regions is the site of rapid transformation of dissolved N and P. There is
a central tendency towards net denitrification and net carbon flux is less
clear cut with a slight tendency towards autotrophy with rates clustering
near zero. These and other interim findings are being further evaluated
as part of the longer journey being taken within LOICZ and are being
addressed by the collaborative actions of the network established by the
project. The combined typology approach and the numeric budget data
are proving vital tool in this process.
Project anticipated and achieved outputs:
Anticipated
Achieved
Capacity building in
Capacity building was achieved through 9 regional training workshops
coastal zone nutrient
(biogeochemical budgets) and effective application of skills into budget
modelling
products at local to regional scales, and 4 regional/global assessment
(up-scaling and typology) workshops.
Continued capacity building is based on extended regional work e.g.
Mediterranean and Black Sea, Latin America and in form of concrete
training and teaching modules build into the EU funded Erasmus
Mundus Master Programme for coastal and water management.
Information from budget assessment is growingly being used in policy
recommendation and decision making discourse following in particular
from the last project workshop in 2006 and the published results.
Network development for
Three regional mentors (Philippine, Mexico and South Africa) assisted
coastal biogeochemical
the wider project team expand the network of scientists by at least 170
scientists
new participants. The network continues to interact on further training
and scientific assessments (local to global scales) which give longer
life to the purpose of the project and is expected to provide subsequent
refinement and diminished uncertainty to the current findings of the
project activities.
Additional scientists are being trained through adoption of
methodologies in University curricula (e.g., South Africa, Philippines,
Mexico, Brazil, Russia). (see above for further info and www.loicz.org)
Inter-regional comparison
Nine budget workshops and 4 regional/global assessment workshops
and global assessment of N
were held, resulting in 8 budget and 2 assessment reports (with
and P fluxes and effects on
supplementary CD's) being published. Several peer literature articles
estuaries and coastal sinks-
have been published and more are in preparation.
sources for carbon and
Advanced training was provided for 10 scientists; subsequently 4 acted
nitrogen
as regional mentors, 5 acted as national focal points; 1 acted as project
analyst. All were involved in network building, contributed as resource
people in training workshops and two extended into postgraduate
training within the purpose of the project (1 PhD and 1 MSc
candidature)
About 140 models were developed in workshops with a further 60+
additional budget contributions being made outside formal workshop
activities. Additional site budgets continue to be contributed. Currently
more than 400. The methodology now enters a stage in which it is
furthering the implementation of the Global Earth Observation efforts
under the IGOS Partners.
Development of new tools
A new typological approach based on cluster analyses (LOICZView
for scaling and modelling
electronic clustering and statistical tools) was developed and a
49

Anticipated
Achieved
system forcings and
companion electronic typology database (140+ variables geo-
performance
referenced in 50,000 pixels at half degree resolution for the world
coastal zone) is continuing to expand. This is an exciting development
that is attracting interest from the scientific and coastal management
communities, and it is being actively used across a range of agencies
for a multiplicity of spatial scale-dependent purposes in coastal and
marine assessments. Importantly, it is accessible to and being used in
less developed as well as developed countries, as it is public web-based
and continually supported (by LOICZ) with CD access being provided
to users with limited web access. This was neither a trivial task and
nor outcome of the project. This is now subject to continued further
development and a complementary clustering software is being tested
(DISCO) for advanced and next generation application. This aims to
visualize and analyse complex systems interactions on multiple scales
� nutrient fluxes are one of the key variables here.
Additional biogeochemical modelling tools were developed to allow
estimation of run-off and other variables and processes essential for site
modelling; these were planned actions and opportunistic through
workshop interactions and need. An electronic budget calculation tool
(CABARET) was developed early and beta-tested through the
workshops. All tools are available electronically through the dedicated
website and supported with hardcopy and discs. Method review and
improvement is ongoing building on and extending the project derived
networks of experts world-wide.
50

Self-assessment against ProDoc Indicators
Activities
Indicator(s) including
Actual Level Achieved
2001
2002
target value and time
Rating
Rating
frame
Activity 1
100 budgets by January
140 budgets
HS
Develop 100 bio-
2001
plus
geochemical budgets
Additional budgets from
60+ additional budgets in
HS
network in 2001
2001 (and continuing)
Activity 2
Electronic toolkit by June
CABARET tool completed
HS
Development of tools for
2000
March 2000
bgc assessments
Opportunistic; 3 new tools by
Additional tools for input
Dec 2000 & continuing
HS
estimation by December
2000
Activity 3
6 regional workshops
Completed February 2001
HS
Training in use of
(budgets) by March 2001
biogeochemical tools and
1-3 additional workshops
3 completed by October 2001
assessments
subject to external
HS
funding 2001
Activity 4
Subcontract development
Completed November 2000
HS
HS
Develop scaling methods
by Dec 2000
(evolution continuing)
and databases (typology)
Activity 5
3 regional workshops by
2 completed by 30 June 2001
S
Training in scaling
August 2001
3rd completed in July 2001
methodologies and tools
S
Activity 6
1 global integration
Completed in November 2001;
S
Integration of site data to
workshop in November
write-up delayed
regional and global scales
2001
Activity 7
Budgets website
Achieved
HS
Website and publications
operational and updated
from workshops
Typology website
established Dec 2001
Established October 2000
HS
Workshop and tools
publications within 6
months of workshop
Generally w/shops and tools
publications achieved within
time
S
Activity 8
6 Scholarship training by
5 scholars completed
S
Network building,
April 2001
mentoring and capacity
3 Regional mentorships
extension
established by Dec 2000
3 mentorships established
HS
with local training over 3
October 2000 and 2
workshops by Oct 2001
workshops held by June 2001.
2 workshops held
September/October 2001
S
Overall Rating
S
S
51

Annex 6 Project Financing
Summary of co-financing
(a)
(b)
Initial
US$
%
GEF Trust Fund 720,000
61.9
Co-financing (in kind)
Univ. of Stockholm
175,000
15.0
Univ. Hawaii
75,000
6.5
LOICZ
192,600
16.6
Total Cost
1,162,600
100
(c)
Actual
GEF Trust Fund (in kind)
693,936
60.2
Co-financing
Univ. of Stockholm
175,000
15.2
Univ. Hawaii
75,000
6.5
LOICZ
198,000
17.2
European Union
10,000
0.9
Total Cost
1,151,936
100
52

Final Project Expenditure Accounts
Total project statement of allocation (budget), expenditure and balance (Expressed in US$) covering the period
July 1999 to May 2006
Project No. GF/1100-99-07 Rev 3 (2005/2006)
Agency name LOICZ International Project Office
Project title: The Role of the Coastal Ocean in the Disturbed and Undisturbed Nutrient and Carbon Cycles
Project commencing: 1 July 1999.....................
Project ending: 30 September 2006........................
Project budget
Total
Total
Cumulative
Unspent balance of budget
Object of expenditure by UNEP budget
allocation
expenditure
unliquidated
expenditure
allocation
code
obligations
m/m
Amount
m/m
Amount
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(2)-(5)
1200
Consultants
1201
Technical supervision and
59625
59667
59667
(42)
coordination
2200
Sub-contracts
2201
Marine Science Institute
8000
8020
8020
(20)
2202
University of Kansas
8480
8494
8494
(14)
2203
University of Stockholm
9540
9582
9582
(42)
1202
2299
sub-total: Sub-contracts
26020
26096
26096
(76)
3100
Fellowships
3101
Fellowship training
74041
74607
74607
(566)
3200
Group training
3201
Regional scholarships
32684
31779
31779
905
3202
Regional mentorships
48000
46258
46258
1742
3299 sub-total: Group Training
80684
78037
78037
2647
Meetings
Regional workshops
172580
170590
170590
1990
Thematic workshop
147210
144364
144364
2846
Global workshop
81600
80811
80811
789
Rev 3
Policy/Management Workshop
26064
26417
26417
-353.19*
3390 sub-total: Meetings
401390
395765
395765
5625
53

Project budget
Total
Total
Cumulative
Unspent balance of budget
Object of expenditure by UNEP budget
allocation
expenditure
unliquidated
expenditure
allocation
code
obligations
m/m
Amount
m/m
Amount
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(2)-(5)
4200
Non-expendable equipment
2240
2240
2240
0
5200
Reporting costs
5201
Regional workshop report
16075
11811
11811
4264
5202
Thematic workshop reports
9000
2703
2703
6297
5203
Global workshop report
3000
3010
3010
(10)
Rev 3 Policy/Management Report
14150
14231.82
14231.82
-81.82*
5299 sub-total: Reporting
28075
17524
17524
10551
99 GRAND TOTAL
672075
653936
653936
18139
Incl. 2005/06 Rev 3 Extensions
40214
40648.82
40648.82
-435.01
712289
694584.82
694584.82
17704.18
54

Document Outline

��
��
��
- ��
  - ��
  - ��
  - ��
  - ��
- ��
  - ��
  - ��
  - ��
  - ��
  - ��
- ��
- ��
- ��
  - ��
  - ��
  - ��
  - ��
- ��
  - ��
  - ��
  - ��
  - ��
  - ��
  - ��
  - ��
��
- ��
- ��
��
��