Global: removal of barriers to the effective implementation of ballast water control and management measures in developing countries ()
GEF Secretariat Review:
Summary
GEF: $7.57 m; Total: $10.60 m
The long term objective of this project is to assist developing countries reduce the transfer of harmful organisms from ship ballast waters. PDF-B phase identified educational, informational, technical, institutional, financial, political, cultural, and legal barriers that need to be overcome. The project will support effective country based demonstration projects at specified ports within six developing nations (Brazil, China, India, Iran, South Africa, Ukraine), representative of each global development region. The objective is to address the need for effective management and coordination, stakeholder public awareness and education, barrier removal efforts, monitoring activities, identification of opportunities for self financing and the recruitment of additional donors to ensure long-term sustainability. Regional involvement will be effected through regional task forces. The project will increase the extent to which ships calling on developing country ports adhere to the International Guidelines of IMO, and will assist developing countries to define programs necessary to implement an anticipated ballast water annex to the MARPOL Convention.
Expected project outputs: (a) An established IMO based Project Coordination Unit ; (b) Defined generic and possibly country and port specific monitoring programs and stenghtened monitoring structures; (c) Removed barriers to establishment of ballast water management plans; (d) Generic, and possibly country and port specific, programs to increase the rate of compliance with IMO guidelines; (e) Identified opportunities for increased self financing of the project during and after the project’s timeframe.
Project duration: years months
Basic Project Data
Project GEF ID:
Cost Summary
Cost Item
|
Years
|
Amount (USD ‘000) |
|
Implementation Fee |
|
[Included in Corporate Budgets] |
|
- Phase I (Concept Development) |
|
“
|
|
- Phase II (Project Preparation) |
|
“
|
|
- Phase III (Implementation) |
|
“
|
|
- Phase IV (Completion/Evaluation) |
|
“
|
|
Preparation |
|
|
- PDF A
|
|
|
- PDF B
|
|
219.4
|
- PDF C
|
|
|
|
- Other (non-GEF) |
|
Various bilateral |
|
Project Allocation |
|
|
|
- Executing Agency fees and costs |
|
|
|
- Project management costs |
|
668.5
|
|
- Other incremental costs |
|
| |
Completeness of Documentation
Focal Point......... Budget................................. Logical Framework..........
STAP Review..... Incremental Cost.............. Length.................................
Full disclosure of administrative costs...................... Complete cover sheet......
1. Eligibility of the Country
Countries selected for demonstration projects are all eligible for UNDP technical Assistance. Although the project is global in nature, GEF focal points endorsements was required at time of PDF-B approval as evidence of country support.
2. Conformity with GEF Program and Policies
Portfolio balance
The project addresses a major problem affecting globally marine and freshwater ecosystems, and in particular enclosed waterbodies. In fact, OP 10 specifically refers to the prevention of transfer of non indigenous species in ship ballast waters as one of the main opbjectives of its Ship Realated Contaminants Component. This proposal is the first action of GEF in this field.
Evidence of country ownership
The endorsement of GEF Focal Points in countries selected for demonstrations is not present in the proposal. This endorsement was specifically requested at the time of PDF-B approval by the Secretariat as an evidence of country support. Cofinancing however is being provided by four of the six selected countries in various amounts, China providing a major support.
Replicability
While the proposal clearly states that “a key assumption of OP 10 is that successful demonstration projects will be replicated” no particular emphasis is placed in the Brief on mechanisms to maximise replication opportunities. Mention is made of IMO as being the most suited organization to disseminate results together with GEF IW LEARN. On the other hand, it is also stated that the project will “begin to build capacity within IMO to make possible replication os successful experiences in pilot demenstration sites”. Regional Task Forces will “to the extent possible” facilitate replication of project results. Major risk for replicability is seen in strong competitiveness among ports (ports enacting requirements for ballast control may become less attractive). This is on the other hand one of the barriers to be removed, possibly the major one.
Potential global environmental benefits of the project
To minimize the transfer and introduction of harmful species in ship’s ballast water would bring about obvious global benefits and prevent well known dramatic consequences: loss of biodiversity, ecosystem collapses...The project aims primarily at establishing the conditions necessary to achieve this goal in developing countries by building national and regional capacities to implement IMO’s ballast water management guidelines and to adhere to the anticipated MARPOL Ballast Water Annex. Brief states that “the six sites (demonstration projects?) represent over one half of the populations of developing world as well as some of the fastest growing economies”. Sites seem here to refer to entire nations, contrary to PDF-B commitments (one “demonstration project” in each developing region).
Baseline course of action
Selected developed countries may continue to take unilateral action to protect their own aquatic resources from exotic species invasions while developing countries will take only limited action because of lack of awareness and technical and institutional capacity. The role of International Agencies, principally IMO,is to create guidelines for effective application of Convention regulations.
Alternative action supported by the project
Raising awareness and capacity building in developing countries will enhance their ability to adhere to and implement IMO guidelines. Project will develop generic, country and port specific programs to increase rate of compliance.
Conformity with GEF public involvement policy
The proposal includes public awareness and education activities in the six selected countries.
3. Appropriateness of GEF Financing
Incremental cost
The total project cost is indicated as $ 10.6m in the Brief and as $ 44.1m in the Incremental Costs Annex. The increment is indicated as $ 7.5m (GEF contribution). Co-financing ($ 3m) is mentioned in the cover page only: is it part of $ 36.7m baseline? The Annex 1C containing the details of the large baseline is missing.
Appropriateness of the financial modality proposed
Financial sustainability of the GEF-funded activity
In this project, as is generally true for projects focussed on demonstrations, sustainability should be viewed at two different levels: firstly the indivudual site level i.e. examine within each site modalities to make the structures, policies, practices etc. self-sustaining; sustainability should also be provided for the regional coordination and support structure (in this case, PCU in IMO?). In this respect the proposal includes a review of the opportunities for self-financing of project components (not the demonstration projects results) and the organisation of a donors conference. Resources allocation for this component of vital importance is surprisingly limited ($ 100.000). No particular commitment is being taken by IMO to take over fully the coordinating function upon project completion.
4. Coordination with Other Institutions
Collaboration
IMO being the executing agency, no collaboration with other institutions is foreseen.
Complementarity with ongoing activities
The project does not provide mechanisms to link with or complement other GEF sponsored activities. Mention is made of IW LEARN.
5. Responsiveness to Comments and Evaluations
Consistency with previous upstream consultations, project preparation work, and processing conditions
Recommedations made at the time of PDF-B approval have not been considered or have not been fully incorporated.
Monitoring and evaluation: Minimum GEF standards, M&E plan, proposed indicators, lessons from PIRs and Project Lessons Study
Normal UNDPP monitoring and evaluation procedures.
Implementing Agencies’ comments
UNEP is not supportive of the project and has provided extensive technical justifications.
STAP Review
Stap review is in general supportive of this initiative. Some questions are raised on the lack of a component involving the the private sector on new design of ships taking into account the need for ballast water treatment.
Council Members’ comments
Other technical comments
The proposal does not provide essential information: the expected plan of action for each demonstration site, the explanation of what will be demonstrated and how it will be evaluated nor evidence of the agreement to demonstrate from the Governements. Also, the schedule of commitments is missing. Consideration should have been given to mid-ocean and other exchange of ballast water methods which have been reported to be the most effective measures. More sofisticated experimental measures are not to be supported if simpler ones can overcome the barriers.
Further Processing
The Program Manager would not recommend for Work Program inclusion at this stage on the basis of several main concerns: lack of responsiveness to recommendations during preparatory phase, lack of evidence of country commitments to demonstrate as well as explanation on what will be demonstrated, diffuse overlappings with IMO’s regular mandate, unsatisfactory incremental costs analysis.