EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA
BALTIC SEA (GEF)
Project Appraisal Document
Europe and Central Asia Region
ECSSD
Date: June 1, 2002
Team Leader: Inesis Kiskis
Country Manager/Director: Michael F. Carter, Julian F. Sector Manager/Director: Laura Tuck, Jane E. Holt
Schweitzer
Project ID: P048795
Sector(s): VY - Other Environment
Theme(s): Environment
Focal Area: I - International Waters
Poverty Targeted Intervention: N
Project Financing Data
[ ] Loan [ ] Credit [X] Grant [ ] Guarantee [ ] Other:
For Loans/Credits/Others:
Amount (US$m): 5.50
Financing Plan (US$m): Source
Local
Foreign
Total
BORROWER/RECIPIENT
1.79
0.00
1.79
GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY
0.00
5.50
5.50
FINLAND, GOV. OF (EXCEPT FOR MIN.FOR FOREIGN
0.00
1.00
1.00
AFFAIRS)
US, GOV. OF
0.00
0.50
0.50
NORWAY: MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
0.00
0.07
0.07
SWEDEN: SWEDISH INTL. DEV. COOPERATION AGENCY
0.00
2.28
2.28
(SIDA)
FOREIGN MULTILATERAL INSTITUTIONS
0.00
0.98
0.98
(UNIDENTIFIED)
Total:
1.79
10.32
12.12
Borrower/Recipient: HELCOM
Responsible agency: ESTONIA, LATVIA, LITHUANIA, POLAND, RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Coordinated by: The World Bank, Lithuania
Address: Vilniaus Str. 28, 2600 Vilnius Lithuania
Contact Person: Inesis Kiskis
Tel: (370-2) 622-728 Fax: (370-5)212-68-29 Email: ikiskis@worldbank.org
Other Agency(ies):
HELCOM
Address: Katajanokanlaituri 6 B SF-00160 Helsinki, Finland
Contact Person: Mieczyslaw Ostojski
Tel: (358-9)6220-2233 Fax: (358-9)6220-2239 Email: mostojski@helcom.fi
Estimated Disbursements ( Bank FY/US$m):
FY
2003
2004
2005
Annual
1.00
2.50
2.00
Cumulative
1.00
3.50
5.50
Project implementation period: Three years: September 2002 - July 2005
OCS PAD Form: Rev. March, 2000
- 2 -
A. Project Development Objective
1. Project development objective: (see Annex 1)
Project Development Objective:
Project Development Objective. The development objective of the Baltic Sea Regional Project - Phase 1 is
to create some preconditions for application of the ecosystem approach in managing the Baltic Sea Large
Marine ecosystem in order to acheve and maintain sustainable biological productivity of the Baltic Sea.
The project activities would be undertaken in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and the Russian
Federation, along their Baltic coastal areas and in the adjacent coastal and open sea area. It is expected that
Phase 1 will be followed by Phases 2 and 3. In March 2001, the GEF Council approved US$18.0 million
for the Baltic Sea Regional Project, which will be implemented in a phased manner.
Phasing:
Program Phasing. The Program will be implemented in three phases as funds are approved by the GEF
Council. Project objectives will be achieved through steady progress over an agreed 6-year period including
the following phases:
l
Phase 1, (The current Project). Introduction of the Ecosystem Approach (2002-2005). US$5.5
million. Establishment of the regional framework for introduction of the ecosystem approach in
managing the Baltic Sea Large Marine Ecosystem (BSLME); mobilization of partners in management
of coastal and open sea marine resources; initial activities for land and coastal management; and initial
investment to mitigate agricultural run-off.
l
Phase 2. Demonstration of the Ecosystem Approach (2005-2007). US$9.0 million. Undertaking
cooperative activities for assessment and management of coastal and open sea marine resources;
expansion of activities for land and coastal management; joint activities for linkage of land, coastal and
open sea management programs; and continuation of investment program in the agricultural sector.
l
Phase 3. Expanding Application of the Ecosystem Approach (2007-2008). US$3.5 million.
Identification of next steps by the cooperating parties for expanded application of the ecosystem
approach for land, coastal and open sea management; completion of field based management and
demonstration activities; and preparation and evaluation of assessment studies.
As Phase 1 progresses, the project documents for Phases 2 and 3 will be prepared and submitted for
endorsement by the GEF Council and approval by Bank's Board of Directors.
Annex 1, the Project log-frame, provides the key performance indicators for progress towards achieving the
program purpose, which will be tracked through a monitoring and evaluation system. This system is
detailed in the Project Implementation Plan and Project Procurement Plan (PIP/PPP). Annex 2 provides
description of the overall project.
- 3 -
Global Objective and GEF Operational Strategy:
Global Environmental Goal. The Project's global environmental objective is to facilitate the restoration of
ecosystems, improve coastal zone management and reduce agricultural non-point source pollution through
the introduction of ecosystem-based approaches in selected localities for land, coastal and open sea
environmental management in five recipient countries. Project activities support implementation of the
Baltic Sea Joint Comprehensive Environmental Action Program (JCP), developed by the Helsinki
Commission (1992, 1998). The JCP provides the basis for the Project, which is fully consistent with GEF
Operational Program Number 9 (OP-9), "Integrated Land and Water Multiple Focal Area Operational
Program"* The objective of OP-9 is to support "better land and water resource management practices on
an area wide basis." The Project provides opportunities for the GEF to be a "catalyst for action to bring
about the successful integration of improved land and water resource management practices on an area
wide basis while providing preventive measures to address threats rather than remedial measures." The
Project has a regional focus, involving local communities and stakeholders; its biodiversity considerations
focus on "prevention of damage to threatened waters." As part of an integrated approach, Project activities
will support linkages with activities of the cooperating countries, international financial institutions,
European Union, bilateral donors and NGOs.
Removing Barriers for Transboundary Management. Designed within the context of the Large Marine
Ecosystem (LME) concept, the Project includes activities for improved ecosystem health and productivity,
social and economic development, and provision of ecosystem management tools for decision-makers to
address transboundary issues identified in Annex 12. The most important aspects of the Project are its
linkages between land-based activities, coastal zones and open sea environments. The GEF funds, as
incremental costs, will achieve global environmental benefits by removing barriers to transboundary
management of land and open sea resources.
Cooperation and Coordination. With the support of the Global Environment Facility (GEF), UNDP and
the World Bank, Project activities will assist the recipient countries in implementing the Helsinki
Convention, other international agreements, and national policies and legislation. To some extent, it will
also support Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland in meeting their obligations under the European Union
accession process. The Project provides the basis for strengthening cooperation among the three
international bodies - HELCOM, IBSFC, ICES; recipient country counterparts and other cooperating
organizations. Preparation of the Project has been coordinated with the Rural Environmental Protection
Project in Poland and the Global International Waters Assessment (GIWA), which are both supported by
GEF. UNDP has participated in the development of the Project and will manage GEF funded activities
during Phases 2 and 3.
* Global Environment Facility (April 1997). GEF Operational Programs.
2. Key performance indicators: (see Annex 1)
The Project will be implemented as an integrated activity, with HELCOM serving as the GEF executing
agency, and working in coordination with IBSFC and ICES. Achievement of Project objectives will be
judged by following key indicators:
l
Institutional arrangements are in place for joint monitoring, assessment and evaluation of living marine
resources;
l
A technical assessment and joint monitoring system developed to determine abundance dynamics of the
- 4 -
key Baltic fish species, as well as the alien species;
l
Increasing number of farms and individual farmers (25-30 in Phase 1) participate in agri-environmental
investment scheme;
l
Surface and groundwater monitoring stations established in demonstration watersheds to track the
nutrient levels; and
l
One wetland being restored
l
The Baltic Sea Steering Group established and operational
B. Strategic Context
1. Sector-related Country Assistance Strategy (CAS) goal supported by the project: (see Annex 1)
Document number:
Estonia -- CAS document number 13539-EE,
Latvia -- CAS document number 23610-LV,
Lithuania -- CAS document number 19135-LT
Poland - CAS document number 16484-POL
Russian Federation -- CAS document number 24127-RU
Date of latest CAS discussion:
Estonia: September 21, 1994.
Latvia: April 25, 2002
Lithuania: April 19, 1999
Poland: April 14, 1997; update discussed September 16, 1999
Russian Federation: June 6, 2002
Sector Related CAS Strategies. For all recipient countries, the Project is consistent with CAS development
objectives pertaining to sustainable rural development, strengthening local institutions, protection of natural
resources and mitigating environmental decay.
Estonia CAS document number 13539-EE, Date of latest CAS discussion September 21, 1994.
A primary CAS objective is to prepare the agriculture sector for EU accession, reform production and
improve management practices; this is addressed within Component 2.
Latvia CAS document number 23610-LV, Date of latest CAS discussion April 25, 2002.
Rural areas are some of the most economically depressed areas in Latvia. The CAS goal is to stimulate the
economy in rural areas, and improve environmental management to promote regional development and
build sub-national government capacity. The Rural Development Project (Report No. 18158 /FY99)
supports sustainable agricultural activities to lay the groundwork for increasing income levels and
improving living standards of the rural population; this Project builds on those activities.
Lithuania CAS document number 19135-LT, Date of latest CAS discussion April 19, 1999.
Two CAS goals are to develop the rural economy and meet the formal EU accession agenda in agriculture.
This will require institutional strengthening, improvements in agricultural efficiency and product quality,
and upgrades and maintenance of infrastructure and environmental management. The proposed activities
for Component 2 focus on these goals.
Poland - CAS document number 16484-POL, Date of latest CAS discussion (April 14, 1997; Update was
- 5 -
discussed September 16, 1999, Document number R99-167 (IFC/R99-148). The new CAS will be
discussed in summer 2002.
One of the CAS's overarching objectives is to achieve environmental sustainability and meet the
requirements of the EU environmental directives. Specifically the CAS describes the Bank's objective to
help the Government reduce pollution from dispersed (or "non-point" sources) and move towards
compliance with EU directives and international agreements in a cost-effective manner. The indirect
long-term objective is managing the transformation from a state economy to a market economy and
enhancing market institutions and productivity in agriculture. This Project supports these objectives and
complements the current GEF supported Rural Environmental Protection Project (Report No. 19868).
Russian Federation CAS document number 24127-RU,
The Russian Federation faces several constraints on sustainable poverty reduction; a number of
simultaneous actions are being taken to reduce poverty. The CAS objective pertains to strengthening
institutional frameworks and enforcing existing national and international laws and regulations; utilizing
environmentally responsible practices; and reducing widespread degradation of land, fisheries, and forests.
The Project addresses this objective by supporting practical actions to improve management of fishery
resources, coastal zones and agricultural production in the Kaliningrad Oblast, and potentially in the
Leningrad Oblast during the later phases. The Project complements the recently approved Municipal Water
and Wastewater Project (Report No. 21416-RU) that will support investments in several municipalities in
the Baltic Sea drainage basin.
1a. Global Operational strategy/Program objective addressed by the project:
Global and Regional Strategies. The Project is consistent with the goals of Bank's Environment Strategy
to support sustainable development, reduce poverty, and improve quality of life by removing the
environmental constraints to economic development, and empowering people and societies to manage their
environmental resources. At the ECA level, it is consistent with the regional ECA Environment Strategy
and the Regional Natural Resource Management Strategy. In addition, the Project is consistent with the
Bank's high-level commitment since 1990 to work with HELCOM and its member countries to support
implementation of the JCP in order to achieve the long-term objective of "[restoring] the ecological balance
of the Baltic Sea." The proposed Project would be the first regional project undertaken by the Bank to
support the JCP and would build upon successful experience with previous national level JCP related
projects in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and the Russian Federation.
2. Main sector issues and Government strategy:
Since the late 1980s, the status of the Baltic Sea marine environment has been a major concern of the
riparian country Governments. The Baltic Sea Joint Comprehensive Environmental Action Program, which
is coordinated by the Helsinki Commission (HELCOM), also known as the JCP, was mandated by Heads
of Government meetings held in Ronneby, Sweden (1990); Visby, Sweden (1996); and Riga, Latvia
(1998). The long-term objective of the JCP is to restore the ecological balance of the Baltic Sea through a
series of complementary preventive and curative actions. It includes actions at over 130 municipal,
industrial and agricultural area "hot spots" that are significant sources of pollution to the Baltic Sea. The
JCP also includes actions for management of the ecologically important coastal lagoons and wetlands on
the Baltic Sea.
- 6 -
The first phase of the JCP addressed primarily municipal and industrial pollution sources in all riparian
countries. World Bank played a visible role in implementing the JCP in the three Baltic States and Poland,
by supporting environmental projects in Haapsalu-Matsalu Bays, Estonia; Daugavpils and Liepaja, Latvia;
and Klaipeda and Siauliai in Lithuania. These projects helped the recipient countries to improve their water
and wastewater services and to launch activities to reduce agricultural non-point pollution. Also,
introduction of integrated coastal zone management practices was an key part of the first phase JCP
projects. In the case of Poland, support was first provided through the Environmental Management Project
and lending operations to support improved municipal water and wastewater services. In the Russian
Federation, the Bank has worked to rehabilitate and upgrade water and sanitation services in St.
Petersburg.
The Program entered a second phase of implementation in March 1998, following approval by the
Ministers of Environment of the region of the JCP "Recommendations for Updating and Strengthening,"
which reviewed progress to date, identified priorities for future action and developed lessons learned to
guide upcoming efforts. Addressing the non-point source pollution remains high on the environmental
agenda as it contributes nearly half of the nutrient pollution load to the Baltic Sea. The Polish Rural
Environment Protection Project launched a series of "second generation" projects, which are jointly
supported by the GEF, NEFCO, and the World Bank in cooperation with the EU, bilateral donors and
operational NGOs. The Municipal Water and Wastewater project in the Russian Federation will support
investments in several municipalities in the Baltic Sea drainage basin.
The recipient countries, as contracting parties of the Helsinki Convention, are obligated to reduce point and
non-point source pollution, improve coastal zone management, and support sustainable fishery practices, to
restore over the long-term the ecological balance of the Baltic Sea. To this end, they have established
environmental policies and priorities that support the Helsinki Convention and the JCP. Other than the
Russian Federation, the recipient country governments are committed to moving into compliance with
relevant EU directives as part of the accession process.* The national governments recognize this Project as
a critical mechanism for supporting national programs and meeting the regional obligation of improving
environmental management of the Baltic Sea.
* This includes the European Union Nitrates Directive, Environment Directives, and the Water Framework Directive.
3. Sector issues to be addressed by the project and strategic choices:
The Project represents a strategic choice to concentrate human and financial resources to strengthen
regional management within the fisheries and agriculture sectors to achieve sustainable ecosystem
management over the medium and long term. It also includes measures to support coastal zone
management, which is a critical link between land, coastal and open sea environments. Component 1
addresses the marine sector and supports a coordinated approach to monitoring and assessment of coastal
and open sea resources, improving fisheries management practices, and strengthening regional management
for decision-makers. Component 2 addresses the agriculture sector, promotes investing in environmentally
responsible agricultural practices, supports monitoring and assessment of land-based inputs to the coastal
and open sea ecosystem, and strengthens national and regional capacity for integrated management.
Component 2 together with Component 1 will include targeted activities for coastal zone management that
are in the areas influenced by the agricultural demonstration sites. Component 3 in Phase 1 is financed by
donor contributions, and provides support for institutional strengthening and capacity building measures
that are necessary for implementation of the ecosystem management approach promoted by the Project.
- 7 -
C. Project Description Summary
1. Project components (see Annex 2 for a detailed description and Annex 3 for a detailed cost
breakdown):
The Project components are based on the Large Marine Ecosystem (LME) concept and include integrated
land, coastal and open sea activities to strengthen the local and regional capacity to achieve sustainable
ecosystem management of the Baltic Sea resources. Sustainable management will improve ecosystem
health while providing social and economic benefits to farming, coastal and fishing communities and
sectors such as businesses and tourism. The Project has four complementary components described below.
Annex 2 provides the Project description, identifies the management and implementation responsibilities,
Annex 2, Figure 1 illustrates the project design; the Project's organizational structure is represented in
Figure 2, and Table C summarizes the Component activities, sub-activities and tasks, and the proposed
phases for component activities.
Component 1 Large Marine Ecosystem Management Activities (US$5.62 million, or 46.5 percent of the
total cost). The prevailing coastal and open sea water management issues in the Baltic Sea are ecosystem
impacts from eutrophication and over fishing. Successful management of these issues requires strengthened
institutional and technical coordination of information, resources and management activities at the regional
and local levels. While threats to the system and other transboundary issues have been identified, current
resource management policies and practices are not holistic and ecosystem-based. To address these issues
and meet national obligations under the Helsinki Convention, the Component was designed within an LME
context with an ecosystem-based approach to monitoring, assessment, and management of the Baltic Sea
resources. The component's primary objective is to introduce the principles and demonstrate the application
of the LME concept for Baltic Sea coastal and open sea resources. Component activities are interdependent
and will be used jointly to overcome short-term sector-by-sector attempts to manage resources and
environments. Component 1 will introduce jointly planned and implemented multi-national monitoring
surveys that facilitate local cooperation and coordination and use of innovative methodologies for assessing
the changing state of the ecosystem and development of effective strategies for the management of these
shared resources. Component activities provide the mechanisms to meet these objectives through improving
coastal and open sea monitoring and assessment practices, understanding the carrying capacity of the
coastal and open sea ecosystem, promoting sustainable fishery practices, and supporting strengthened
regional management and local capacity. In coordination with the other Project components, Component 1
will: (i) establish local and regional administrative and organizational mechanisms, through the
Coordination Centers, for cooperative monitoring and assessment activities, (ii) develop management tools
through modeling and assessment to provide proposals for ecosystem-based management of land, coastal
zones and open sea waters, and (iii) support cooperating countries to move toward compliance with
international agreements, regional priorities and national policies, including the Helsinki Convention, Baltic
21, and EU environmental and water management directives (Russian Federation excluded). The Project
will support activities in the coastal near shore environment of the Eastern Baltic Sea and in selected
adjacent sections of the open sea environment. In general, the coastal near shore activities and monitoring
network will correlate with land-based coastal and associated demonstration activities supported under
Component 2.
Component 2 Land and Coastal Management Activities (US$4.99 million, or 44.0 percent of the total
cost). Addressing land-based agricultural inputs to coastal and open sea waters and improving coastal zone
management are critical for management of the Baltic Sea ecosystem. The JCP highlights management of
agriculture inputs and coastal areas of the Baltic as priority issues. The agricultural element of the
- 8 -
Component will (i) test administrative and organizational mechanisms (regional and local) and provide
advice and support to the farming community; (ii) assess farmers' interest in and willingness to pay for
improving their environmental management practices; (iii) assist farmers to lower both the risk and barriers
that currently hinder adoption of new practices; and (iv) provide support for small-scale environmentally
responsible agricultural investments. The Project will partially finance investment costs for on-farm
environmental facilities, operating expenses of local implementers, equipment recommended by the farm
management plans, and recurrent costs for local capacity building. The coastal zone management element
of the Component will (i) focus on the role that can be played by local communities in sustainable
management of coastal resources; (ii) link activities in the demonstration watershed to activities being taken
on the coast; (iii) support implementation of previously prepared management plans; and (iv) assist local
communities to overcome barriers to adoption of new planning and management methods in these sensitive
areas. The Project will partially finance costs for management activities, small-scale investments and
demonstration activities and selected costs for local capacity building.
Component 3 Institutional Strengthening and Regional Capacity Building. (US$0.15 million, or 1.2
percent of total cost). During Phase 1, activities under Component 3 will be limited in scope whereas they
will expand significantly during Phases 2 and 3. The Component's primary objective is to strengthen
regional and local capacity to successfully utilize outputs and recommendations from Component 1 and
Component 2 activities for sustainable ecosystem-based management. It will include activities for (i)
regional capacity building that will focus on regional administrative, socioeconomic, and technical matters
as they pertain to management of Baltic Sea resources; (ii) targeted activities to facilitate improved regional
level coordination and cooperation between HELCOM, IBSFC, ICES and regional stakeholders; (iii)
support for improved valuation of ecosystem goods and services though an evaluation of the socioeconomic
implications of reduced eutrophication on ecosystem resources; (iv) a program to support training activities
for community-based groups and local NGOs; and (v) a regional public outreach program.
Component 4 Project Management (US$1.36 million, or 11.2 percent of total cost). Component costs
are, inter alia, for local and regional Project management, contracting procurement services, and costs for
the social assessment and required financial audits.
Provisions for Reallocation of Funds. If in the course of implementing the overall BRSP, including Phase
1, it becomes necessary to reallocate funds within the project the steps outlined in this section would be
used consistent with the procedures of the GEF. Reallocations of funds could be required due to either
political/administrative issues arising with one or more cooperating countries or for technical reasons based
on implementation experience. If such a situation arises, HELCOM in coordination with the Bank, would
undertake the following steps: (a) identify the need for a potential reallocation and document its causes; (b)
based on the technical aspects of project design and the implementation performance record within project
supported activities it would propose how the funds would be reallocated between the Components; and (c)
as part of this process HELCOM would provide a technical description of the activities to be undertaken,
assess their benefits with regard to achievement of the objectives of Phase 2 of the Program, provide an
estimated budget and present an implementation plan and schedule. This submission would be provided to
the Task Team Leader, who review and approve the proposed reallocations in coordination with the Legal
and Loan Departments. The activities supported by the allocated funds would be integrated into the overall
implementation plan for the BSRP and be subject to evaluation as part of the regular project supervision
and Implementation Completion Report (ICR) for the BSRP.
Indicative
Bank
% of
GEF
% of
Component
Sector
Costs
% of
financing
Bank
financing
GEF
(US$M)
Total
(US$M)
financing
(US$M)
financing
- 9 -
Component 1
Natural Resources
5.62
46.4
0.00
0.0
2.60
47.3
Large Marine Ecosystem
Management
Management Activities
Component 2
Natural Resources
4.99
41.2
0.00
0.0
2.50
45.5
Land and Coastal
Management
Management Activities
Component 3
Institutional
0.15
1.2
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
Institutional Strengthening
Development
and Capacity Building
Component 4
Institutional
1.36
11.2
0.00
0.0
0.40
7.3
Project Management
Development
Total Project Costs
12.12
100.0
0.00
0.0
5.50
100.0
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
Total Financing Required
12.12
100.0
0.00
0.0
5.50
100.0
Percentages add up to more than 100% due to roundings of decimals.
2. Key policy and institutional reforms supported by the project:
Although the Project does not include policy or institutional reforms as a specific activity, it is inherent in
the overall objective to facilitate strengthening of regional, national and local capacities to promote, support
and implement improved ecosystem-based management. This Project will provide the recipient countries
with opportunities to develop mechanisms to implement and/or reinforce existing regional, national and
local policies.
l
Component 1 - Large Marine Ecosystem Management Activities. This Component will provide
opportunities for improving current fisheries management practices and subsequent policy reforms
compatible with IBSFC and HELCOM recommendations for fisheries and application of EU directives
in its member countries within the Baltic Sea region.
l
Component 2 - Land and Coastal Management Activities. Through support for agricultural run-off
demonstration activities and farm level management actions and investments, this Component will
assist in application of the Code of Good Agricultural Practices, which will support national
sustainable agriculture policy reforms. Coastal zone management activities will facilitate
implementation of demonstration activities in areas that have benefited from cooperative planning and
management studies prepared by national and local governments. This will allow for operational
experience with the coastal zone management process.
l
Component 3- Institutional Strengthening and Regional Capacity Building. This Component will
build local and regional capacity and strengthen institutions, providing them with experience in
development and application of ecosystem based management tools. The proposed Baltic Sea Steering
Group (BSSG) will serve as a mechanism for overall oversight of project implementation, and its
members will be instrumental in resolving the emerging issues and disseminate information and
experiences throughout the region.
l
Component 4 - Project Management. This Component will provide an opportunity for expanded
operational level cooperation among the three international bodies - HELCOM, IBSFC and ICES - all
of which have roles in management of the common resources of the Baltic Sea.
- 10 -
3. Benefits and target population:
The primary regional benefit lies in strengthening the decision making process at the regional, national and
local level for sustainable ecosystem-based management of the Baltic Sea resources. This should result
over medium and long-term in:
l
Strengthened regional institutional capacity for coordinated decision making and dissemination of
recommendations;
l
Empowerment of local communities in the management of agricultural and coastal resources;
l
Demonstration of an effective mechanism for environmental management and on-farm environmental
investments in agriculture;
l
Demonstration of community based coastal zone management activities;
l
Reduction of nitrate input to Baltic Sea coastal and transboundary waters;
l
Sustainable use of fishery resources at the regional and national levels;
l
Improved marine ecosystem health and related benefits associated with fisheries, other living resources
and coastal populations; and
l
Progress towards meeting HELCOM's goal of restoring the ecological balance of the Baltic Sea.
The Project's target population and beneficiaries include:
l
The Three International Bodies--HELCOM, IBSFC, and ICES: will benefit from the efforts to
facilitate regional cooperation and coordination in the decision-making process;
l
Recipient Country National and Local Governments: will have an opportunity to improve their
technical capacities and participate as equal technical and political partners in the three international
bodies;
l
Farming Communities: through farm investments, farmers will save money by not using chemical
fertilizers, increase revenues from improved productivity, and reduce noxious impacts from odor;
l
Coastal Communities: will be able to utilize resources from a better managed coastal ecosystem,
which will indirectly benefit the local businesses and employment through an increase in tourism;
l
Fishing Communities: will be able to use more efficient technologies and methodologies for sustainable
use of fishery resources; and
l
Tourism Interests: will benefit in the long-term through a rise in sustainable coastal tourism that
emphasizes natural resource and cultural values.
4. Institutional and implementation arrangements:
Project Coordination. HELCOM will serve as the executing agency for the Project and will undertake this
work in full coordination with IBSFC and ICES. A Project Implementation Team (PIT) will be established
in HELCOM headquarters in Helsinki, comprising HELCOM's Executive Secretary, two Professional
Secretaries, the Financial Officer, Project Assistant, and the two Component Coordinators. To support the
PIT, the services of a procurement consultant and assistant financial officer will be contracted. The The
Baltic Sea Steering Group (BSSG) will be established and will provide broad-based support for the
implementation process. The BSSG will consist of members from HELCOM, IBSFC, and ICES, senior
level representatives of the recipient countries, Baltic 21, UNDP, World Bank and WWF. The PIP/PPP
will provide TORs and details of the administrative and Project management arrangements.
Management of the Components. The following arrangements will be used for management of the
- 11 -
components included under the Project:
l
Component 1 - Large Marine Ecosystem Management Activities. Component 1 will be implemented
under the supervision of ICES, working closely with IBSFC and HELCOM. The Component 1
Coordinator (C1C), stationed in ICES, Copenhagen, will be responsible for overall management of
Component 1 and will supervise the implementation of Project-supported activities. The C1C will be
responsible for day-to-day Project management and administration, and will work directly with the
Local Project Managers (LPMs) at the Data Coordination Centers. The LPMs will be responsible for
day-to-day implementation in their respective countries. The PIP/PPP will provide TORs for the C1C
and LPM/Coordination Centers.
l
Component 2 - Land and Coastal Management Activities. Component 2 will be implemented under the
supervision of HELCOM, by the SLU and WWF.
o
Agricultural Activities. The Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU) will manage the
agricultural activities under this component on behalf of HELCOM. The SLU will provide a
Component 2 Coordinator (C2C), stationed in Uppsala who will be responsible for overall
management of Component 2 and will work with existing field structures established under the
Swedish supported BAAP Project and the Rural Environmental Protection Project in Poland. An
LIU will operate in each country and will be responsible for day-to-day Project implementation and
administration. The LIUs will be staffed with a unit manager, accountant, technical specialists, and
agricultural advisors. The PIP/PPP will provide TORs for the C2C, and the LIUs.
o
Agri-environmental Interventions. HELCOM will contract the Nordic Environmental Finance
Coproration (NEFCO) to jointly finance pilot scale investments in eligible farms. A total of USD
700,000 of GEF funds has been allocated to support agri-environmental interventions. The LIUs
will market the investment scheme among the farmers. Eligible farmers will be invited to attend
special agri-environmental and economic courses offered through the local Agricultural Advisory
Services (AAS). As a result of these courses, the participating farmers will prepare a business plan
which they will present to NEFCO for financing. NEFCO may approve the submitted plans or
reject them. If approved, the GEF money will be used to soften the NEFCO loans so that farmers
can repay it over a 10 year period. Total cost of a single sub-project (NEFCO loan+GEF grant)
should not exceed USD 200,000 equivalent, and the maximum amount of a GEF grant for each
sub-project shall not exceed the equivalent of USD 20,000. All funds (GEF and NEFCO) will be
paid to contractors/suppliers directly. The LIU staff will supervise implementation progress of
subprojects and will report to NEFCO and HELCOM accordingly. More details on the selection of
subprojects and practical arrangements for implementation of subprojects will be provided in the
PIP/PPP.
HELCOM will transfer funds in several installments for agri-environmental investments to a
subaccount held by NEFCO. The installments will not exceed 15% of the total amount earmarked
for agri-environmental investment. HELCOM will replenish the GEF funds when 80% of the
original installment have been spent for subprojects. To justify replenishment, NEFCO will provide
HELCOM with proof of eligible expenditures and loan committee decisions on allocation of the
grant portion for each specific project, contracts and invoices from contractors/suppliers, and
reports from LIUs on progress of works in the field.
o
Coastal Zone Management Activities. The coastal zone management activities under Component 2
will be coordinated with Component 1 and managed by the WWF, who will provide a coordinator
to work with the Area Task Teams, established in the demonstration areas during the earlier
- 12 -
HELCOM PITF MLW supported planning and management studies. The studies will serve as the
basis for implementation of these activities, and will be coordinated by local governments,
community based organizations and nongovernmental organizations. The PIP/PPP will provide
TORs for the coordinator and local counterparts.
l
Component 3 - Institutional Strengthening and Regional Capacity Building. Component 3 will be
managed by HELCOM in cooperation with IBSFC and ICES. The BSSG will work with these three
institutions to review and disseminate information and management tools developed under the Project.
l
Component 4 - Project Management. Component 4 will provide support for Project management by
HELCOM and the cooperating parties. This includes support for the PIT at HELCOM and the various
administrative services required for Project reporting, procurement, disbursement and financial
management. As noted above, HELCOM will retain the services of qualified consultants, with
significant experience in Bank procedures, to assist with procurement and disbursement actions. The
consultants will undertake preparation of the bidding documents and review of bids for civil works and
equipment, and preparation of terms of reference for services and facilitate evaluations and support
HELCOM in negotiations.
l
Accounting, Auditing and Reporting Requirements. The Project will comply with the "Guidelines for
Financial Reporting and Auditing of Projects Financed by the World Bank." The Bank together with
HELCOM will agree upon reporting requirements for Financial Monitoring Reports (FMR). Project
progress will be reported through annual, semi-annual and quarterly Project progress reports. An
Implementation Completion Report (ICR) will be prepared within six months of Project completion.
The Project will be consistent with the provisions of the World Bank, updated financial management
requirements. HELCOM's financial management capacity assessment and an up front agreement on
accounting and auditing procedures that are acceptable to the Bank were reached in May 2000 with
HELCOM. These were reviewed once again during the appraisal mission. This agreement includes a
time-bound action plan to address financial management issues and a reporting system that fully
complies with the updated financial management requirements. The HELCOM entity accounts will be
audited by Finnish State Auditor's office, based on HELCOM's Headquarter's Agreement with Finnish
Government. The Project and Special Account will be audited by competitively selected auditing firm
with qualifications acceptable to Bank and in accordance with terms of reference acceptable to Bank.
The PIP/PPP will detail the relevant Bank policies and requirements.
Project Monitoring and Evaluation. HELCOM will report to the Bank and be responsible for ensuring that
all GEF funded activities are carried out in compliance with Project design and contracts. The Project will
comply with the required monitoring and evaluation procedures as required for the Implementation
Completion Report. The evaluation will rely on both qualitative and quantitative criteria using Bank
guidelines, "Monitoring and Evaluation of Program Impacts." Resources have been set aside to support the
conduct of both these evaluations by independent reviewers. The ICR for Phase 1 will provide suggestions
on possible improvement of the implementation plan and steps that could be taken to ensure achievement of
Project goals during Phases 2 and 3. The Implementation Completion Report will be completed no later
than six months after the closure of the Project. The PIP/PPP will detail the process for these reviews.
D. Project Rationale
1. Project alternatives considered and reasons for rejection:
In designing the Project, several options were considered. In terms of financing, the Project was originally
planned and submitted to GEF as a traditional Bank operation. However, due to cash-flow concerns within
- 13 -
the GEF, the Project was restructured into three complementary, although separate, phases to match
availability of GEF resources. In terms of Project design, the proposed Project was selected on the grounds
that it provides for an integrated approach to addressing the land, coastal and open sea issues while
achieving JCP priorities. Component 1 is designed to provide linkages with existing regional programs and
initiatives and to meet Helsinki Convention obligations, while Component 2 builds on and expands the
successful pilot demonstrations begun under the BAAP, and complements the GEF supported Rural
Environmental Protection Project in Poland. It also supports implementation of the Coastal Lagoon and
Management Plans developed by the HELCOM PITF MLW and builds upon earlier experience with
coastal management under Bank supported projects in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Component 3 is
critical to facilitate the strengthening of regional and local capacity. The other design alternatives reviewed
and considered include:
l
Individual National Programs: These would be costly and likely result in duplication and
inconsistencies. Individual programs could not address transboundary issues or the need for systematic
and coordinated monitoring and assessment for regional management of the Baltic Sea resources.
l
Curative Investment Programs: These would respond only to problems rather than proactively
addressing the problems' source. Ultimately this type of program would be expensive with minimal
sustainable results, and provide little opportunity for coordinated regional management.
l
Sector Specific Programs Agriculture, Coastal or Open Sea Resource Programs: These would have
limited benefits, as they would address only half of the ecosystem issues. Addressing only the open sea
issues, for example, ignores the predominant problem of pollution from non-point sources. Again,
sector specific programs would not provide opportunities for regional management.
2. Major related projects financed by the Bank and/or other development agencies (completed,
ongoing and planned).The BSRP, builds on the lessons learned from complementary projects, and
provides linkages with ongoing projects in the area. This Project has been designed in conjunction with the
Rural Environmental Protection Project in Poland and has been coordinated with the work of GIWA, which
is conducting a pilot study on the Baltic Sea.
Latest Supervision
Sector Issue
Project
(PSR) Ratings
(Bank-financed projects only)
Implementation
Development
Bank-financed
Progress (IP)
Objective (DO)
Estonia - environmental management in Haapsalu and Matsalu Bays
S
S
coastal areas
Environment Project
(completed)
Estonia - strengthening agricultural
Agricultural Development
S
S
practices
Project (completed)
Latvia - environmental management in Liepaja Environment Project
HS
HS
coastal areas
(completed)
Latvia - strengthening agricultural
Rural Development Project
HS
HS
management practices
(completed)
Lithuania - watershed and water
Siauliai Environment Project
S
S
quality management
(completed)
Lithuania - water quality and
Klaipeda Environment Project
S
S
environment management in coastal
- 14 -
areas
Poland - GEF supported development Rural Environmental Protection
HS
S
of environmentally responsible
Project
agricultural practices
Poland - strengthening environmental
Environment Management
HS
HS
management capacity
Project (completed)
Poland - strengthening agricultural
Rural Development Project
S
S
management practices
Other development agencies
Regional - Government of Sweden
Baltic Agricultural Run-off
Action Program (BAAP)
IP/DO Ratings: HS (Highly Satisfactory), S (Satisfactory), U (Unsatisfactory), HU (Highly Unsatisfactory)
3. Lessons learned and reflected in the project design:
Lessons learned in the region, including those from GEF projects* were considered during Project
preparation. A review of "lessons learned" prepared for the first phase of the JCP and development of
Baltic 21 identified three key measures as critical to the success of activities at the regional, national and
local level: (i) sustained political and public commitment to the long-term objectives of the program; (ii) a
"shared vision" provided through a commonly prepared "strategic action program" or similar document;
and (iii) a broad based partnership to support implementation of the agreed "preventive" and "curative"
actions. It has been recognized that the major challenge facing all regional environmental programs/projects
is translating plans into action. At the operation level, the key lessons learned by the donors and recipient
countries that have worked in the region on agricultural and environment projects include:
l
Long-term commitment is required from the recipient countries to address the regional issues.
The recipient and cooperating countries are members of HELCOM, and have a demonstrated record of
taking actions to meet their commitments under the Helsinki Convention.
l
All participants must have a shared understanding of the goals necessary to address the issues.
The three cooperating international bodies and representatives of the recipient countries have actively
participated in the Project preparation process and in the previous activities related to implementation
of the JCP.
l
Linkages with other ongoing activities are necessary to optimize benefits for the recipient countries.
The Project design builds on BAAP Project activities, and links with GEF, EU, and Bank projects
where appropriate. Special measures will be used for coordination with the Rural Environmental
Protection Project in Poland and the Baltic Sea pilot study supported by GIWA.
l
Capacity building is critical for innovative and effective decision-making and management.
The Project objective is to build regional, national and local capacity to strengthen the decision making
process for sustainable ecosystem-based management of the Baltic Sea resources.
l
Consistent procedures are needed to evaluate and monitor transboundary issues.
The Project supports upgrading of the quality of the systems used by HELCOM, IBSFC and ICES to
evaluate, assess and monitor transboundary environmental conditions in the Baltic Sea. These systems
will be used by regional, national and local organizations for more effective environmental
management. The PIP/PPP will detail the monitoring and evaluation process, which addresses
- 15 -
transboundary issues.
l
The project design considers the cost-effectiveness and affordability of project activities.
The activities for Component 1 focus on streamlining current practices and optimizing more
cost-effective monitoring and assessment processes. Experience from BAAP activities for agricultural
management and previous Bank and WWF supported coastal zone management activities confirms that
the proposed activities are cost-effective.
In addition, the Bank's experience in the region has generated important lessons for Project design and
implementation mechanisms. These include:
l
Project design must consider and include lessons learned from similar rural development and
environmental management projects in the region.
Design of the Project has benefited from the experience gained to date in implementation of a series of
rural development and environmental management projects that have been supported by the Bank over
the last decade in the Baltic Sea region. The design has also benefited from lessons from the Swedish
funded BAAP Phase I that addressed management of agricultural run-off at the regional level, as well
as related national level activities supported by the European Union, Denmark, Finland, the
Netherlands, Norway and United States. It also included examination of lessons learned in coastal zone
management from previous European Union, WWF and Bank supported activities in the region.
l
Mutual understanding and agreement is needed between the donors and local counterparts on
project process and expectations.
The Project Core Group has used a consultation process involving representatives from the recipient
countries and donor community who have been involved in Project design and preparation, including
participation in regional workshops. Project preparation included a regional meeting to review
transboundary water management issues in the region, a regional workshop on living marine resources
management, and a regional workshop on management of non-point source pollution from agriculture.
A study tour was also made to Poland to review the experience and management of the Rural
Environmental Protection Project.
l
Project goals and activities must be clearly defined in addressing the issues.
The transboundary and priority issues were identified in the JCP process, which helped in defining the
Project objective and supporting component activities. The goals and activities have been developed
through an interactive process that has included extensive regional workshops as well as meetings at
the national and local level. The Project builds upon earlier activities supported by HELCOM in the
context of implementation of the JCP.
l
A clear project framework is necessary for successful implementation.
The Project design supports the current development for ecosystem-based approach to management and
is consistent with the LME concept for sustainable ecosystem-based management and the activities
under the components have been divided in a manner to allow for effective management, supervision
and monitoring. The PIP/PPP will clearly outline the implementation process for successful
implementation.
l
The procurement and disbursement procedures are clearly understood by the regional partners and
recipient countries early in the project process.
The procurement needs are clearly identified, and HELCOM will subcontract an independent
consultant with experience in Bank procurement and disbursement procedures. Basic training on
- 16 -
procurement and disbursement procedures will be provided by the firm to Project managers and local
counterparts early in and during the Project implementation process. Supplemental training will be
provided as necessary.
l
Capacity building, assessing community needs, and working with the community to raise public
awareness can assure product quality.
The focus of the Project is on building capacity for the use of ecosystem based management for the
Baltic Sea at the regional level and at the same time strengthening capacity at the national and local
level to better manage environmental dimensions of agriculture, coastal zones and fisheries. Previous
work under the JCP, especially in agriculture and coastal zone management, has been based on
extensive consultations with communities to identify their goals and needs. Social assessment work to
be conducted during the Project will facilitate further consultations and improve the targeting of
interventions. All Project supported activities will include specific provisions for public awareness
activities for decision makers as well as farming, coastal and fishing communities.
l
It is important to have political support to establish a strong, functional institutional infrastructure.
The recipient countries are all members of HELCOM and are committed to meeting their obligations
under the Helsinki Convention. At the regional, national and local level throughout the region, there is
strong political and public support for measures to improve environmental management and to take
actions to restore the ecological balance of the Baltic Sea. The Project builds upon the long established
institutional infrastructure of HELCOM, IBSFC and ICES, which complements existing national and
local institutions. All activities build upon existing networks established by the three cooperating
international bodies in undertaking their work, as well as on the BAAP agricultural network and the
WWF coastal zone management network.
* Summary Report - Study of GEF Project Lessons, January 1998; HELCOM - Baltic Sea Joint Comprehensive Environmental
Action Programme: Background Document on Recommendations for Updating and Strengthening, December 1998; and Baltic
21 - "Financing The Baltic 21: An Overview." August 1998.
4. Indications of borrower and recipient commitment and ownership:
All the recipient countries are contracting parties to, and support implementation of the Helsinki
Convention; contribute to the operational costs of HELCOM; and are active in undertaking priority
activities included in the JCP. The Project design promotes strengthened coordination between the three
international bodies responsible for regional activities in the Baltic Sea and supports priority preventive and
curative measures and institutional development activities identified in the JCP. Preparation of the Project
has been conducted under the joint supervision of HELCOM, IBSFC and ICES with the participation of
national and local level representatives of the recipient countries. This process has included the involvement
of national academic organizations, applied research institutes, farmer organizations and non-governmental
organizations. The cooperating international bodies have made a commitment through formal decisions of
their executive bodies to support implementation of the Project and have provided significant expertise in
the preparation process.
At the national and local level, government officials and experts have participated in a large number of
regional and national level workshops and meetings that have been conducted in all cooperating countries to
support the design process. In this context, the cooperating international bodies and countries have made
facilities available for these consultations, which have included broad based participation. At the local
level, significant commitment and ownership has been shown for activities concerning agricultural and
coastal management by local communities and residents that have worked with the HELCOM/SLU,
- 17 -
NEFCO and WWF in the preparation process. Latvia hosted a regional meeting to support preparation of
Component 1 in July 2000; Lithuania hosted a regional meeting to support preparation of Component 2 in
June 1999; and Poland hosted a field visit program in May 2000 to review implementation experience with
activities supported by the Rural Environment Protection Project. In addition, a regional workshop for the
overall project was hosted by Latvia in June 2001.
5. Value added of Bank and Global support in this project:
The GEF's added value is to provide incentives for sustained operational level cooperation among the three
international bodies and financially support national and local governments and participating
non-governmental organizations to address priority transboundary water problems in the Baltic Sea
ecosystem. The Project's regional approach, with GEF support, contains provisions for making available
financial resources to the recipient countries; to meet the "incremental costs" to address transboundary
issues on an accelerated basis by buying down the costs for actions by the recipient countries. GEF funds
will specifically assist in providing linkages and harmonizing national and local actions with regional
environmental objectives.
The GEF is leveraging funds from national and local governments, European Union, bilateral donors,
NEFCO, applied research foundations and WWF that contribute to more effective regional coordination
and cooperation. Without the combined regional experience of the HELCOM, IBSFC, ICES, Bank,
NEFCO and WWF, and the incremental resources of the GEF, implementation of the Project would
proceed at a slower pace and would not fully benefit from integration, coordination and management
actions promoted by this Project. In addition, the GEF will support small-scale investments in agriculture,
coastal zone management and fisheries management that may provide a framework for potential future
investments supported by national and local governments in cooperation with the European Union, bilateral
donors and international financial institutions.
E. Summary Project Analysis (Detailed assessments are in the project file, see Annex 8)
1. Economic (see Annex 4):
Cost benefit
NPV=US$ million; ERR = % (see Annex 4)
Cost effectiveness
Incremental Cost
Other (specify)
Consistent with GEF operational policy, the requested GEF funds would only be used to finance the
incremental costs on a declining basis associated with addressing transboundary costs in the Baltic Sea
region. The GEF Alternative Scenario has evaluated a series of critical measures for transboundary
management that require support from GEF and other international sources to remove barriers to
implementation of key elements of the JCP. This Project is composed of a series of necessary activities to
improve transboundary management of freshwater, coastal and open sea ecosystems. Support from GEF is
necessary for transaction costs for cooperation to: (i) provide linkages and develop common approaches
and standards for marine ecosystem protection; (ii) coordinate efforts to close gaps in spatial and temporal
transboundary monitoring and assessment surveys; (iii) establish a practical framework for sustainable
fisheries management; (iv) assist local communities in implementation of coastal zone management plans;
(v) support measures to assist countries to reduce transboundary non-point source pollution from
agriculture; and (vi) facilitate strengthening of regional, national and local capacities for environmental
management. The incremental cost of realizing the benefits of the overall JCP have been estimated at
- 18 -
US$18.0 million over a 6-year period, and are additional to what each Government could be reasonably
expected to finance if national benefits alone were included in the economic analysis. These also
complement GEF investments made for the complementary Rural Environment Protection Project under
implementation in Poland.
2. Financial (see Annex 4 and Annex 5):
NPV=US$ million; FRR = % (see Annex 4)
The total cost for the Phase 1 Project is estimated at US$12.12million of which GEF will finance
US$5.5 million (45.4 percent). Of the US$18 million for all phases of the Project, the World Bank
will manage US$16.7 million and UNDP will manage US$1.3 million. The GEF will finance
foreign and local incremental costs and part of the recurrent costs on a declining basis. Local costs
are US$1.79 million (14.8 per cent), which will be provided in kind by national and local
governments and farmers through their contributions of labor and materials for on-farm
improvements. Part of the national government in-kind cost will be their contribution to HELCOM.
The foreign cost is the remaining US$10.33 million (85.2 per cent). Currently co-financing has been
committed by Finland, NEFCO, Norway, Sweden, and United States (NOAA). The WWF will be
providing technical services and other contributions in kind. The Project complies with relevant
Bank policies (OP/BP 10.02), and the procurement and financial management arrangements are
details in Annex 6.
The incremental costs from GEF, lines of credit from NEFCO, donor contributions and assistance
from WWF will supplement the recipient country national and local government contributions to
this Project. The budgets will be revised at the completion of negotiations; support from NEFCO
will be subject to cross conditionality of effectiveness with the GEF agreement signed with the
Bank. The Project has secured donor support and co-financing from the recipient countries; the
GEF funds will only be used to cover the incremental costs, minimizing the financial risks.
Disbursement will be based on traditional disbursement procedures (SOE). FMRs conforming to
updated financial management guidelines will be adopted for this Project. Audits of the Project and
Special Accounts will be conducted by an independent auditor acceptable to Bank in accordance
with the Terms of Reference acceptable to Bank. Finnish State Auditors who undertake review of
the HELCOM accounts as part of the Finnish contribution to Headquarters Agreement.
Fiscal Impact:
N/A
3. Technical:
The Project will support the adoption of proven planning methods, management techniques and
technologies that have been used at other locations in North America and Europe. Component 1 will assist
in the upgrading of technologies, analytical approaches and decision-making tools for biological
monitoring, ecological assessments and fisheries management measures in coastal and open sea waters.
Through the Coordination Centers, this will include standardization of data collection methods; laboratory
equipment; and the techniques necessary for quality assurance. Demonstration activities will support
coastal habitat and stream restoration. The planning methods and technology used in Component 2 include
development of environmental management and business plans for farms that are used in many countries in
the region and simple, low-cost, well-tested practices for nutrient recycling structures, which have been
- 19 -
extensively used in demonstration programs in the recipient countries as well as in Poland. Monitoring
equipment for in-stream measurements will be established in the demonstration watersheds and coordinated
with Component 1 coastal waters monitoring and assessment activities. Field level investments will not be
supported in Poland since these are already included in the GEF-funded Rural Environmental Protection
Project. The PIP/PPP will outline the technical specifications for equipment and small-scale civil works,
and Terms of Reference for consulting services, to reduce technical risks during Project implementation.
4. Institutional:
4.1 Executing agencies:
HELCOM, which became operational in 1980, will serve as the Executing Agency for the Project.
4.2 Project management:
HELCOM will undertake implementation activities in full cooperation with IBSFC and ICES. The
Components will be managed as follows: (i) Component 1 - HELCOM will have an agreement with ICES
which will coordinate this component; (ii) Component 2 - HELCOM will have an agreement with SLU to
coordinate agricultural activities and with WWF to coordinate coastal zone management activities; (iii)
Component 3 - will be coordinated by HELCOM in cooperation with IBSFC, ICES, SLU and WWF; and
(iv) Component 4 - will be coordinated by HELCOM. The World Bank will approve staff appointments
and any major changes in staffing. The UNDP will become increasingly involved only in Phases 2 and 3 of
the project and will supervise implementation of Component 3
4.3 Procurement issues:
HELCOM will, with agreement from the Bank, contract qualified consultants with significant experience in
procurement and disbursement to provide these services for GEF funds included under the Project. This
approach will significantly reduce both the costs to HELCOM and the risks associated with problems with
Bank procurement and disbursement procedures. If appropriate, the consultant may also provide
procurement and disbursement services for activities funded by other parties. The institutional
arrangements and experience of the potential regional consultants are such that the institutional
arrangements are sufficient and create limited possibility of procurement risks.
4.4 Financial management issues:
The financial management capacity assessment was conducted in May 2000 and updated in February 2002
following additional review of HELCOM's financial management system. The assessment concluded that
HELCOM is an organization with a high standard of accountability that meets Bank standards. HELCOM
can be anticipated to manage the GEF funds and coordinate effectively with cooperating donor
organizations. HELCOM specialist staff have received formal financial management, procurement and
disbursement training from the Bank at headquarters and Project funding will be provided for additional
training as required. In addition, informal linkages have been developed between HELCOM staff and the
Bank concerning these issues.
5. Environmental:
Environmental Category: B (Partial Assessment)
5.1 Summarize the steps undertaken for environmental assessment and EMP preparation (including
- 20 -
consultation and disclosure) and the significant issues and their treatment emerging from this analysis.
The Project will support a series of complementary measures to improve environmental management in
agriculture, the coastal zone and open sea environment. It will focus on supporting measures to reduce
non-point source pollution from agriculture; improve coastal zone management; and adopt an integrated
approach to the management of marine resources. The overall environmental screening category for the
Project is "B" and an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) has been prepared as an element of the
design process. An updated Integrated Safeguards Data Sheet is provided as Annex 12. The EMP and
PIP/PPP specify mitigation and monitoring measures that will be in place to minimize impacts and include
specific measures for Component 1, which include application of new monitoring, assessment and
management measures; and for Component 2, which include adoption of guidelines for design construction
of manure pads, slurry tanks and the use of their contents, and guidelines for nutrient retention and wetland
restoration activities. Preparation of the Project has been based on regional, national and local level
consultations that are reviewed in Annex 10. The EMP was made available in the InfoShop, Bank Resident
Missions, and recipient countries prior to the pre-appraisal in June 2001.
5.2 What are the main features of the EMP and are they adequate?
The EMP includes specific design measures, construction supervision methods and monitoring actions to
minimize and/or avoid the limited potential adverse impacts associated with activities included in
Components 1 and 2. The primary focus of the EMP is on issues related to the construction of small-scale
civil works for on-farm nutrient management and installation of monitoring stations. To minimize impacts
from land disturbance during short-term construction, mitigation measures will be in place and include (i)
adopting guidelines for design and construction of manure pads, slurry tanks, and other nutrient recycling
structures, and (ii) design and construction of in-stream monitoring stations and mitigation measures to
reduce construction impacts. Activities for coastal zone management and wetland restoration
demonstrations will be subject to proper management plans that will require formal review and approval by
national and/or local authorities as appropriate. These procedures are outlined in the EMP.
5.3 For Category A and B projects, timeline and status of EA:
Date of receipt of final draft: February, 2002
An Environmental Management Plan has been prepared as part of the Project design process. An updated
version of the EMP has been made available in the InfoShop, at Bank Resident Missions, and recipient
countries prior to the appraisal.
5.4 How have stakeholders been consulted at the stage of (a) environmental screening and (b) draft EA
report on the environmental impacts and proposed environment management plan? Describe mechanisms
of consultation that were used and which groups were consulted?
Development of the Project has involved a broad based consultation process that has included a regional
meeting to review transboundary water management issues in the Baltic Sea region resulting in the Vilnius
Recommendations, regional workshops, and national and local level meetings during which the
environmental aspects of the Project have been reviewed. For Component 1 discussion with counterpart
stakeholders concluded that there are only limited environmental impacts associated with the operation and
maintenance of scientific equipment, use of chemicals in certified laboratories and a need to collect live
specimens for certain types of biological monitoring. For Component 2, farmers and advisory organizations
already involved in the BAAP demonstration projects understand the environmental issues associated with
small-scale civil works for on-farm improvements and monitoring stations and already work closely with
local authorities and with the farm communities. Development of the proposed coastal zone management
- 21 -
activities has been done with direct input from local communities as part of their planning process
5.5 What mechanisms have been established to monitor and evaluate the impact of the project on the
environment? Do the indicators reflect the objectives and results of the EMP?
The Project supports an extensive program of interventions to monitor and evaluate its impacts in
agricultural and coastal zones and the open sea environment. This information will be made available to the
public through HELCOM, IBSFC, ICES and national and local governments. As part of the monitoring
and assessment activities, a full set of indicators will be developed for the Project to evaluate specific
environmental trends. Specific actions are included in Components 1 and 2 to monitor the implementation
of the EMP.
6. Social:
6.1 Summarize key social issues relevant to the project objectives, and specify the project's social
development outcomes.
Building on the approach used in the Rural Environmental Protection Project in Poland, the Project
includes a systematic social assessment to evaluate the social impacts from the component activities and
outreach program, and to provide potential modifications to the Project design as needed. This work will be
coordinated by a social scientist from the Bank and will be undertaken by local social scientists in order to
transfer skills in social assessment to the cooperating countries. The findings of these activities will allow
national and local governments, as well as beneficiary communities, to have an improved understanding of
the social dimensions of these environmental management interventions. Terms of Reference (TOR) for the
social assessment are included in the PIP/PPP.
While there has been no systematic social assessment during Project preparation, active engagement of
local stakeholders during preparation has been positive. In preparing Component 1 a consensus among the
stakeholders confirmed that the Baltic Sea fisheries and water quality have deteriorated. Any effort for
sustainable fisheries will benefit the fisheries and coastal communities, and improve businesses related to
the fisheries sector. The Project will support efforts to find solutions to problems and conflicts between
recreational and commercial fisheries, fisherman and fisheries managers, and for transboundary issues. For
Component 2, evaluations during the pilot demonstration projects showed positive social benefits.
Participating farm families noted increases in farm productivity, reduction of odor, and subsequent
environmental improvements from improved manure storage. The coastal zone management activities are
based on management plans that have been developed under the leadership of WWF as part of the
HELCOM sponsored PITF Working Group on Coastal Lagoons and Wetlands. The activities will directly
involve coastal fishing communities through small-scale investments and build local community capacity
for sustainable environmental management. The community will benefit from the Project's efforts to
improve understanding of ecosystem value.
Currently the social welfare system in the recipient countries provides little support to the farming, coastal
and fishing communities, which have suffered significantly during the period of economic transition. The
Project will support sustainable economic growth in agricultural, coastal and fishing populations by
providing them with opportunities to increase their incomes directly through more efficient use of these
resources. In agriculture the new approaches supported by the Project will reduce the need for use of
fertilizers and increase productivity of fields and improve efficiency of water use. In coastal areas, Project
supported planning and management activities will reduce problems caused by poor planning, increase
efficiency of resource use, create employment in small scale local enterprises and stimulate both
international and domestic tourism. The activities for fisheries management should diversify economic
- 22 -
opportunities for fishermen and allow for more stable income from more stable fishery resources. Coastal
zone management activities will strengthen community capacity by involving local people in community
driven activities, and improve the local standard of living for the farmer and fishing communities. The
long-term benefits, a sustainable ecosystem, will benefit the entire coastal community and business sector.
6.2 Participatory Approach: How are key stakeholders participating in the project?
The Project engages a range of stakeholders and beneficiaries in the preparation and implementation
process. Many of these parties have previously been involved in a number of activities related to
environmental management at the regional level under the JCP and/or national level activities associated
with Government programs. The parties include:
l
Cooperating international bodies--HELCOM, IBSFC, ICES;
l
National and local governments;
l
National universities and research institutes;
l
Farming, coastal and fishing communities;
l
Agricultural extension services;
l
Local community based organizations and nongovernmental organizations;
l
Public and private sector enterprises; and
l
International partners.
Local technical and fisheries institutions, which participate in HELCOM/IBSFC/ICES activities, are
familiar with current living marine resource management issues and these institutions have been actively
engaged in defining Project activities for Component 1. Local rural communities, who have been involved
in the BAAP project, provided insights on lessons learned and recommendations on Project modifications.
Local BAAP extension services are actively engaged in the farm communities, and can provide insights on
Project implementation. These extension services coordinate training programs, workshops and community
outreach activities and provide technical assistance for environmental investments. The communities have
been receptive to the activities, and are willing participants when resources are available. The coastal
communities where the demonstration activities are proposed have already participated in locally based
coastal zone planning and management studies undertaken in the context of the JCP.
Representatives of NEFCO, Sweden, United States (NOAA) and WWF have been participated in the
design of the Project and various preparation missions. The team has consulted with experts from the
European Union, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Norway, Poland, Sweden, United States and Coalition
Clean Baltic concerning various aspects of the Project.
6.3 How does the project involve consultations or collaboration with NGOs or other civil society
organizations?
Elements of the Project will be implemented under the coordination of the WWF, which has been actively
working in the recipient countries for a number of years. It has successfully managed similar activities
under Bank funded projects in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. These activities have been designed and will
be undertaken in cooperation with local communities and nongovernmental organizations. In addition, the
WWF will coordinate a capacity building activity for these same local counterpart groups as an element of
Component 3. In Component 2, the Agricultural Advisory Services (AAS) and Farm Interest Organizations
(FIO) will work with the farming communities during Project implementation and it is anticipated that these
activities will continue after the Project is completed. The detailed design and implementation of the
majority of the coastal zone management activities included in Component 2 will be undertaken by and/or
- 23 -
involve coastal communities and local NGOs.
6.4 What institutional arrangements have been provided to ensure the project achieves its social
development outcomes?
The close association of the Project activities with HELCOM, IBSFC and ICES programs, ensures that
local stakeholders can make significant contributions to meet Project objectives. Individually, each of these
bodies provides an institutional framework within which the Project can work, and mechanisms will be
made available to promote coordination and cooperation among the institutions and local stakeholders. A
reporting, monitoring and evaluation system will be established under the supervision of HELCOM. On a
local level, for Component 1 an institutional network will be established for local stakeholders. For
Component 2, the LIUs will work directly with the FIO, AAS, and farming community. In addition, the
Project includes a systematic social assessment to evaluate social impacts from the component activities
and outreach program, to provide potential modifications to the Project design as needed. From the efforts
within Component 3, local and regional capacity will be strengthened and the BSRP Steering Group will
continue to operate in its capacity after the Project is completed.
6.5 How will the project monitor performance in terms of social development outcomes?
HELCOM is responsible for overall Project implementation and will monitor Project performance in terms
of social development outcomes. The ongoing social assessment process will also be used to monitor
performance in terms of social development outcomes and provide a mechanism for making adjustments
particularly in Phase 3 to maximize these benefits. A monitoring and evaluation plan will be included in the
PIP/PPP.
7. Safeguard Policies:
7.1 Do any of the following safeguard policies apply to the project?
Policy
Applicability
Environmental Assessment (OP 4.01, BP 4.01, GP 4.01)
Yes
No
Natural Habitats (OP 4.04, BP 4.04, GP 4.04)
Yes
No
Forestry (OP 4.36, GP 4.36)
Yes
No
Pest Management (OP 4.09)
Yes
No
Cultural Property (OPN 11.03)
Yes
No
Indigenous Peoples (OD 4.20)
Yes
No
Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12)
Yes
No
Safety of Dams (OP 4.37, BP 4.37)
Yes
No
Projects in International Waters (OP 7.50, BP 7.50, GP 7.50)
Yes
No
Projects in Disputed Areas (OP 7.60, BP 7.60, GP 7.60)*
Yes
No
7.2 Describe provisions made by the project to ensure compliance with applicable safeguard policies.
The Project requires preparation of an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) consistent with the
requirements of the OP 4.01, "Environmental Assessment." The EMP has been prepared and will be made
available prior to appraisal at the offices of the InfoShop, in the cooperating countries and at the Bank's
Resident Missions in the five recipient countries. The potential application of OP 7.50 International Waters
was reviewed with the Legal Counsel for safeguard policies, who has specific responsibility for the policy,
and it was deemed not to be applicable to the Project.
- 24 -
To ensure compliance with the applicable safeguard policies, an Environmental Management Plan has been
prepared and implemented to address the impacts identified in the environment section (E.5. above). The
provisions of the environmental management plan will be included in the PIP/PPP.
F. Sustainability and Risks
1. Sustainability:
The Project will support a series of activities designed to promote the sustainable use of land, coastal and
open sea resources through an ecosystem based approach to management. These activities support what is
a long-term process for restoration of the ecological balance of the Baltic Sea, which is the goal of the JCP.
Since these actions are management focused, with investments being used to support management
objectives, the sustainability of the Project's interventions will rest upon the willingness and ability of
parties at the regional, national and local level to adopt new approaches to environmental management,
which are more preventive than curative in nature. The Project has been designed to accelerate the rate at
which new management approaches are adopted and put into use in the Baltic Sea region; while the
transition costs for these new approaches is significant, over the medium and long term these interventions
should be institutionally, technically and financially sustainable by the three cooperating international
bodies and the participating countries. In the case of the accession countries, some of these costs may be
assumed by the various programs of the European Union.
2. Critical Risks (reflecting the failure of critical assumptions found in the fourth column of Annex 1):
Risk
Risk Rating
Risk Mitigation Measure
From Outputs to Objective
Participating countries do not reach
N
The cooperating countries are all willing
consensus in defining the key ecosystem
participants in the Project and efforts will be
indicators
made to focus on a select number of key
ecosystem indicators for land-coastal-open sea
issues
Completion and output of initial Baltic
M
An element of this Project is to upgrade the
Sea carrying capacity model for fishery
monitoring and assessment capacity; all efforts
yields is not satisfactory
will be made to define the right goal, monitor the
appropriate data and select the optimal models
for the Baltic Sea
Consensus is not reached to initiate and
N
Similar to the measure noted above, cooperating
apply ecosystem health indicators to fill
countries are all willing participants in the
gaps for HELCOM/ICES/IBSFC
Project and efforts will be made to focus on the
appropriate ecosystem health indicators
The Multiple Marine Environmental
N
Before applying the model the necessary
Disturbances (MMED) model is not
parameters and variables will be reviewed and a
applicable to the Baltic ecosystem
model adapted to the Baltic Sea conditions
Survey will not fill present serious gaps in
N
An element of this Project is to upgrade the
spatial and temporal assessments of key
monitoring and assessment capacity; all efforts
fish stocks
will be made to define the right goal and monitor
- 25 -
the appropriate data
Support from local and national
N
The recipient countries support HELCOM and
governments (MoE, MoA, MoF)
its mandate
discontinues
After the technical assistance is finished,
M
Costs to farmers are very low and almost
the participating farmers will not
entirely offset by direct immediate benefits.
implement farm management plans and
Technical assistance will pay specific attention
will not use investments properly
to sustainability. There are inherent
cost-effective measures to maintain
sustainability. Within two years after
completing the Project, the social assessment
process will include a check to ensure that
investments are sustainable and investigate
reasons if they are not sustainable
The activities and outcomes are not
N
The PIP will include a participatory process and
understood by the community
outreach program to inform and communicate
with the fishing and farm community. Technical
advisors are involved at the local levels, as are
local governments, farmers, NGOs etc., to
ensure the community is informed and educated
about the Project
Other government programs contradict
N
The newly established BSSG will include
objectives of this Project
members from all relevant organizations and is
explicitly charged with coordinating with other
government programs. Mechanisms will be in
place, especially through outreach programs, to
ensure that national and local governments,
farmers' chambers, etc. receive public
recognition for their contributions to the Project
HELCOM, IBSFC and ICES do not
N
A major objective is to strengthen regional and
continue to collaborate after Project is
local governance and management. The three
completed, in implementing
regional bodies will appreciate the added value
ecosystem-based management approach
of cooperating and integrating the decision
making process. In addition, the recipient
countries requested this Project and will have
the strength and political will to optimize this
investment and support institutional cooperation
From Components to Outputs
Local governments do not remain
M
LIUs organized under BAAP have been
committed and do not continue
successfully operating independent of local
contributing to the Project (particularly to
government funding. Agreements and conditions
the LIU)
for participating will be established with local
governments at the outset, specifying their
commitment and contribution to the Project.
Outreach activities will give public recognition
to local governments' contributions, and they
- 26 -
will report widely on direct benefits to the
farmers. The Project will involve key
stakeholders, such as farmers, extension agents,
and NGOs to broaden support for initiatives of
this type
Governments, Bank and co-financiers
M
Substantial efforts will be made in Project
cannot streamline procedures for Project
preparation and the start-up phase to simplify
implementation
procedures included as key aspects in the PIP
rather than loan agreement, so that they can be
adapted during implementation
Co-financing is not available at
N
Donors have been engaged in the Project
appropriate time
preparation process. If funds are not available,
then a search for other potential co-financiers
for the Project will be undertaken
Project incentives are not sufficient to
N
Regular reviews during implementation will be
motivate farmers to participate in the
conducted. Details are outlined in the PIP; if
Project
problems occur, it is possible to increase the
portion of the Project dedicated to outreach and
training. It is also possible to increase the
proportion of investment costs covered by the
Project
Overall Risk Rating
M
Risk Rating - H (High Risk), S (Substantial Risk), M (Modest Risk), N(Negligible or Low Risk)
The Project is designed to minimize the technical, economic, financial, social, environmental and
institutional risks. Text in the "Risk" column is based on the Critical Assumptions from the fourth column
of Annex 1.
3. Possible Controversial Aspects:
By minimizing the risks, it is anticipated that the Project will not have any social, ecological, institutional,
or economic controversies. The proposed activities have formally been given high priority by HELCOM,
the European Union, national authorities of the recipient countries, and by international and local NGOs.
Some proposals related to the management of fishery resources could potentially be controversial at the
national or local levels. This will be carefully monitored by HELCOM, IBSFC and ICES to identify issues
when and if they arise and actions will be taken to address these issues.
Type of Risk: S
Rating:
M
- 27 -
Types of Risk S (Social), E (Ecological), P (pollution), G (Governance), M (Management capacity), O
(other)
Risk Rating H (High), S (Sustainable Risk), M (Modest Risk), and N (Negligible or Low Risk)
G. Main Conditions
1. Effectiveness Condition
HELCOM will appoint the PIT staff in accordance with the terms of the PIP/PPP.
HELCOM has appointed the component coordinators for Part A, and a component coordinator
for Part B,
A Project Implementation and Procurement Plan (PIP/PPP), including the Operations Manual covering the
Financial Monitoring Reports system, satisfactory to the Bank, has been adopted.
2. Other [classify according to covenant types used in the Legal Agreements.]
HELCOM will carry out the Project in accordance with the requirements of the Project Implementation and
Procurement Plan.
HELCOM will maintain the PIT with staff and resources under terms of reference satisfactory to the Bank
until completion of the Project.
HELCOM will maintain a financial management system, including records and accounts, and prepare
financial statements, in a format, acceptable to the Bank, adequate to reflect the operations, resources and
expenditures related to the Project.
HELCOM will prepare and furnish to the Bank a Financial Monitoring Report, in form and
substance satisfactory to the Bank
HELCOM will be responsible for standard reporting and supervise the achievements of the component
benchmarks and performance triggers for the three phases.
HELCOM will implement the Environmental Management Plan and undertake social assessment
HELCOM will convene regular meetings of the BSSG until completion of the Project, with terms of
reference and composition satisfactory to the Bank.
H. Readiness for Implementation
1. a) The engineering design documents for the first year's activities are complete and ready for the start
of project implementation.
1. b) Not applicable.
2. The procurement documents for the first year's activities are complete and ready for the start of
- 28 -
project implementation.
3. The Project Implementation Plan has been appraised and found to be realistic and of satisfactory
quality.
4. The following items are lacking and are discussed under loan conditions (Section G):
Design documents will be prepared as part of Project implementation.
I. Compliance with Bank Policies
1. This project complies with all applicable Bank policies.
2. The following exceptions to Bank policies are recommended for approval. The project complies with
all other applicable Bank policies.
Inesis Kiskis
Laura Tuck; Jane E. Holt
Michael F. Carter; Julian F.
Schweitzer
Team Leader
Sector Manager/Director
Country Manager/Director
- 29 -
Annex 1: Project Design Summary
EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA: BALTIC SEA (GEF)
\
Key Performance
Data Collection Strategy
Hierarchy of Objectives
Indicators
Critical Assumptions
Sector-related CAS Goal:
Sector Indicators:
Sector/ country reports:
(from Goal to Bank Mission)
Improve environmental
Sustained commitment of
management capacity in dealing
the recipient country
with transboundary issues
governments to ecosystem
based approach in
managing the Baltic
marine resources
GEF Operational Program:
Better land and water resource
management practices on an area
wide basis
Global Objective:
Outcome / Impact
Project reports:
(from Objective to Goal)
Indicators:
Create some preconditions for
Institutional arrangements
Reports of the working
HELCOM, IBSFC and
application of the ecosystem
are in place for joint
groups
ICES cooperate and
approach in managing the Baltic
monitoring, assessment
coordinate their respective
Sea Large Marine Ecosystem and
and evaluation of living
work in implementing the
achieving and maintaining
marine resources
Project
sustainable biological
productivity of the Baltic Sea
A technical assessment and
joint monitoring system
developed to determine
abundance dynamics of the
key Baltic fish species, as
well as the alien species
- 30 -
Key Performance
Data Collection Strategy
Hierarchy of Objectives
Indicators
Critical Assumptions
Output from each
Output Indicators:
Project reports:
(from Outputs to Objective)
Component:
Component 1.
Large Marine Ecosystem
Management
A system for monitoring,
l A network of Coordination
l Quarterly reports from
l Participating countries
assessing and evaluation of the
Centers and lead
Component 1
reach consensus on
status of the Baltic Sea marine
laboratories established
Coordinator
common
resources created and ready for
l A series of joint workshops/
l Annual reports of the
Environmental
application
seminars conducted
Baltic Sea Steering
Quality Indicators
l Joint monitoring programs
Group to National
l The Multiple Marine
developed
governments
Ecological
l Data evaluation and
l Bank supervision
Disturbances
assessment protocols agreed
mission reports
assessment model is
upon by all cooperating
applicable to the
parties
Baltic Sea ecosystem
l Selected Monitoring
equipment procured
l Intial near shore and open
sea surveys conducted
l Ships of opportunity
contracted
l Formats for international
fisheries data bases created
l Salmon river restoration
action plans prepared
l Salmon river restoration at
least in 3 rivers
Component 2. Land and
Coastal Activities
a) Environmentally sound
l 50 farms/individual farmers
l SLU reports to HELCOM
l The training packages are
farming techniques resulting in
have participated in
l AAS reports
adequately marketed and
reduced nutrient run off piloted
Environmental Management
l Bank Supervision missions
farmers are interested to
courses offered by BSRP
l Instream water quality
participate
l 25-30 farms/individual
reports
l The terms and conditions for
farmers have participated in
financing the investments
agri-environmental
are attractive end to farmers
investment scheme
and competitive on market
b) establish a system for
l Surface and ground water
l Groundwater quality
l Farmers are willing to
monitoring and assessment of
monitoring stations
(including the drinking
participate in the monitoring
non-point source pollution
established in demonstration
water well) monitoring
program
originating from these farms
watersheds
reports
l Baltic Agri-Environmental
l Nutrient balance
Assessment Network
calculations
Established
l Results of running the
watershed model
c) community based coastal zone
l Semi-natural grasslands in
l Local communities are
management activities are
Vainameri maintained
willing to participate in the
promoted
l Small business incubator in
l Project progress reports
coastal zone management
Mersrags established
prepared by WWF
program
l One wetland restored in
Kursiu lagoon/Kurshsky
Zaliv Area
- 31 -
Component 3. Institutional
Strengthening and Regional
Capacity Building
Increased awareness among
l A Baltic Sea Stering Group
l Minutes of the BSSG
Governments and cooperating
stakeholders of the value of the
established and operational
meetings
institutions delegate their
Baltic Sea ecosystem goods and
l A series of meetings on
l Workshop reports
representatives to BSSG
services at the regional, national
regional administrative
l Terms of reference for the
and local level
socioeconomic and technical
Regional socioeconomic
matters conducted
assessment prepared (to be
conducted in Phase 2 of the
BSRP)
Component 4.
Project Management
An effective project management PIT in HELCOM is operational
l Quarterly Progress reports
The parties to Helsinki
structure created
by effectiveness of the Grant
l Bank Supervision mission
Convention and the HELCOM
reports
Secretariat remain committed to
the Project
- 32 -
Key Performance
Data Collection Strategy
Hierarchy of Objectives
Indicators
Critical Assumptions
Project Components /
Inputs: (budget for each
Project reports:
(from Components to
Sub-components:
component)
Outputs)
Component 1. Large Marine
Ecosystem Management
l Strengthening institutional
US$5.62 million, of which
l Workshop and seminar
A comprehensive system
and Technical Capacity
US$2.6 million are GEF funds
reports
for monitoring, assessing
l Coordinated Monitoring
l Technical Reports of the
and evaluation of the status
Surveys in the Eastern
joint survey results
of the Baltic Sea marine
Baltic Sea
l Technical Reports of the
resources created and
l Cooperative Local and
joint assessments
ready for application
Regional Ecosystem
l Field level inspections,
Evaluations
Component Coordinator
l Demonstration activities
reports, Quarterly Projet
Progress Reports,
Financial Monitorin
Reports, Bank Supervision
mission Reports
Component 2. Land and
Coastal Management Activities
l Agricultural Interventions
US$4.49 million, of which 2.5
l AAS reports
l Environmentally sound
l Monitoring and Assessment million are GEF funds
l Quarterly Project Progress
farming techniques
of Non-Point Source
Reports
resulting in reduced
Pollution
l Financial Monitoring
nutrient run off
l Land Based Coastal Zone
Reports
introduced
Management
l Bank Supervision reports
l A system for monitoring
l Baltic Sea Regional
and assessment of
Environmental Assessment
non-point source
Network
pollution originating
from farms established
l Community based
coastal zone
management activities
take place
Component 3. Institutional
Strengthening and Regional
Capacity Building
l Regional capacity Building
US$ 0.15 million of non-GEF
l BSSG meeting minutes
Basis for coordinated
l Regional Socioeconomic
funds
l Quarterly Project Progress
management of the Baltic
Assessment
Reports
Sea Large marine Ecosystem
l Bank Supervision Mission
established
reports
Component 4. Project
US$ 1.36 million, of which US$
l Quarterly Progress Reports
BSRP is achieving its
Management
0.4 million are GEF funds
Bank, Financial Monitoring
objective, a project
reports
management structure is
l Bank Supervision mission
created which will be able to
reports
implement the Project
Phases 2 &3
- 33 -
- 34 -
Annex 2: Detailed Project Description
EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA: BALTIC SEA (GEF)
BALTIC SEA REGIONAL PROJECT - PHASE 1
A.
OVERVIEW
1.
Globally Important Region. The Baltic Sea ecosystem is a semi-enclosed water body connected
with the North Sea by narrow and shallow sounds that limit water exchange. Natural fluctuations are
characteristic of the Baltic Sea ecosystem; the water is largely regulated by the sporadic inflows of saline
and oxygen-rich North Sea water and intermediate stagnation periods. Contaminants and nutrients enter the
Baltic Sea via river run-off, through atmospheric deposition; and from human activities at sea. It is
estimated that renewal of the water of the Baltic Sea takes about 25-30 years. Although the Baltic Sea
ecosystem provides goods and services to 80 million people inhabiting its shores and drainage basin, its full
social and economic benefits are not currently being realized. Contaminants, especially persistent chemicals
and other pollutants, remain in the Baltic Sea for a long time. Transboundary threats to sustainable
economic development include: (i) degradation of water quality from point and non-point sources of
pollution; (ii) local degradation of the coastal zone from poor planning and land use practices; (iii) reduced
productivity from eutrophication and harmful algal blooms in coastal and marine waters; (iv) unsustainable
use of fisheries; and (v) diseases in marine life associated with pollution and emerging problems with
introduced "alien" species.
2.
Long-Term Program. Since the late 1960s, the status of the Baltic Sea marine environment
remains a major concern of the riparian country Governments. The Baltic Sea Joint Comprehensive
Environmental Action Program which is coordinated by the Helsinki Commission (HELCOM), also known
as the JCP, was mandated by Heads of Government meetings held in Ronneby, Sweden (1990); Visby,
Sweden (1996); and Riga, Latvia (1998). The objective of the longterm Program is to restore the
ecological balance of the Baltic Sea through a series of complementary preventive and curative actions. It
includes actions at over 130 municipal, industrial and agricultural area "hot spots" that are significant
sources of pollution to the Baltic Sea. The JCP also includes actions for management of the ecologically
important coastal lagoons and wetlands at the Baltic Sea.
3.
First Phase of JCP. The first phase of the program addressed primarily municipal and industrial
pollution sources in all riparian countries. World Bank played a visible role in implementing JCP in three
Baltic States and Poland by supporting Environmental projects in Haapsalu-Matsalu Bays, Estonia,
Daugavpils and Liepaja, Latvia, Klaipeda and Siauliai in Lithuania. These projects helped the recipient
countries to improve their water and wastewater services and to launch activities to reduce the agricultural
non-point pollution. Also, introduction of the integrated coastal zone management practices was an integral
part of the first phase projects. In case of Poland, support was first provided through the Environmental
Management Project and lending operations to support improved municipal water and wastewater services.
In the Russian Federation, the Bank has worked to rehabilitate and upgrade water and sanitation services in
St. Petersburg.
4.
Second Phase of JCP. The Program entered a second phase of implementation in March 1998,
following approval by the Ministers of Environment of the region of the JCP "Recommendations for
Updating and Strengthening," which reviewed progress to date, identified priorities for future action and
developed lessons learned to guide upcoming efforts. Addressing the non-point source pollution remains
high on environmental agenda as it contributes nearly half of nutrient pollution load to the Baltic Sea. The
Polish Rural Environment Protection Project launched a series of the "second generation" projects which
- 35 -
are jointly supported by the GEF, NEFCO, World Bank in cooperation with EU, bi-lateral donors and
operational NGOs. The Municipal Water and Wastewater project in the Russian Federation will support
investments in several municipalities in the Baltic Sea drainage basin.
5.
Implementation of the JCP. The proposed Baltic Sea Regional Project will support
implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Environmental Action Program for the Baltic Sea (JCP), which
was prepared under the coordination of the Helsinki Commission by a high-level task force comprised of
representatives of cooperating countries, international financial organizations and non-government
organizations. The JCP, as adopted in 1992, and strengthened and updated in 1998, constitutes the
"Strategic Action Plan" for the Baltic Sea region. The proposed Project will introduce ecosystem-based
assessment and management of the environment and resources of the Baltic Sea. It will serve as a
mechanism for managing the common resources of the Baltic Sea ecosystem through strengthened
cooperation between three international bodies--HELCOM, IBSFC, and ICES--and the recipient
countries. The Project will provide linkages with ongoing programs in the region and implement priority
actions that address transboundary environmental issues, to achieve sustainable production of biological
resources, conservation of living marine resources, and control of non-point source pollution from
agriculture and other contaminants threatening the health of the ecosystem.
6.
Recipient Countries and Cooperating Parties. The recipient countries include the eastern littoral
countries of the Baltic Sea drainage basin--Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and the Russian Federation.
The cooperating parties include three specialized institutions--HELCOM, IBSFC and
ICES--complemented by the European Union (EU), Denmark, Finland, Germany, Norway, Sweden,
United States, NEFCO, World Bank, and World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). Preparation of the Project
has been coordinated with two GEF supported activities, the Rural Environmental Protection Project in
Poland and the Global International Waters Assessment (GIWA). The Project preparation process has also
involved the participation of the Secretariat of Baltic 21.
7.
Project Goals and Objectives. Project design is based on the Large Marine Ecosystem Concept
(LME) and targets cooperative management of land, coastal and marine transboundary issues. Its objective
is to create some preconditions for application of the ecosystem approach in managing the Baltic Sea Large
Marine Ecosystem in order to achieve and maintain sustainable biological productivity of the Baltic Sea.
The long-term goal of the JCP is to support the "restoration of the ecological balance" of the Baltic Sea
through a phased program of actions. Consistent with JCP priorities, measures will also be taken to
improve environmental management at the regional, national and local level by strengthening assessment
and monitoring, and by supporting environmentally sound agriculture, coastal management, and fishery
practices.
8.
Approach. The LME concept includes five interrelated modules: productivity related to carrying
capacity, ecosystem health, fish and fisheries, socioeconomic, and management.1 Concept provides a
framework for an ecosystem-based approach for sustainable management. The ecosystem-based
management approach provides an additional tool to improve degraded conditions in the Baltic Sea. This
approach recognizes civil society, economics, and the land, coastal and marine environments as an
integrated system. Figure 1 illustrates the Project design and integrated approach. The Project design is
comprehensive, addressing JCP objectives, threats to the Baltic Sea and transboundary issues through land,
coastal and marine-based activities (see Annex 12, Transboundary Analysis).
9.
Project Phases. The overarching Regional Baltic Sea Program, for which the GEF Council has
approved $18.0 million, will be implemented over a 6 year period in three phases. The current project
- 36 -
constitutes Phase 1. Phases 2 and 3 will be implemented as stand alone projects and will be submitted for
endorsement by GEF Council and approval by the World Bank Board of Directors separately. The three
Phases are as follows:
l
Phase 1. The Current Project - Introduction of the Ecosystem Approach (2002-2005).
Establishment of the regional framework for introduction of the ecosystem approach; mobilization of
partners in management of coastal and open sea marine resources; and initial activities for land and
coastal management.
l
Phase 2. Demonstration of the Ecosystem Approach (2005-2007). Undertaking cooperative activities
for assessment and management of coastal and open sea marine resources; expansion of activities for
land and coastal management; and joint activities for linkage of land, coastal and open sea management
programs.
l
Phase 3. Application of the Ecosystem Approach (2007-2008). Identification of next steps by the
cooperating parties for expanded application of the ecosystem approach for land, coastal and open sea
management; completion of field based management and demonstration activities; and preparation of
evaluation and assessment studies.
10.
Project Components. Phase 1. The Project has four components (summarized in Table C of this
Annex). The Project has a total budget of US$ 12.12 million and will be implemented over a three-year
period from 2002 to 2004. The components and component activities include:
l
Component 1 - Large Marine Ecosystem Management Activities (US$5.62 million)
o
Activity 1 - Strengthening Institutional and Technical Capacity,
o
Activity 2 - Coordinated Monitoring Surveys in the Eastern Baltic Sea,
o
Activity 3 - Cooperative Local and Regional Ecosystem Evaluations and Assessments, and
o
Activity 4 - Demonstration Activities.
l
Component 2 - Land and Coastal Management Activities (US$4.99 million)
o
Activity 1 - Agricultural Interventions,
o
Activity 2 - Monitoring and Assessment of Non-Point Source Pollution,
o
Activity 3 - Land-Based Coastal Zone Management, and
o
Activity 4 - Baltic Sea Regional Environmental Assessment Network (RAN).
l
Component 3 - Institutional Strengthening and Regional Capacity Building (US$ 0.15 million)
o
Activity 1 - Regional Capacity Building
o
Activity 2 - Regional Socioeconomic Assessment.
l
Component 4 - Project Management (US$1.36 million)
- 37 -
o
Activity 1 - Project Management.
11.
Performance Indicators. The performance indicators are summarized in Annex 1. Performance
indicators of progress towards achieving the program purpose, and performance triggers to move from one
phase to the next will be tracked through a monitoring and evaluation system. This system is detailed in the
Project Implementation Plan and Project Procurement Plan (PIP/PPP).
B.
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Project Management and Administration
12.
Cooperating International Bodies. Responsibility for Project management and implementation
will rest with HELCOM in coordination with IBSFC and ICES. Though each institution has a distinct
operational mandate, their statutes call for cooperation and coordination with other bodies. The primary
roles of these three bodies are described briefly below.
l
Helsinki Commission (HELCOM). HELCOM, located in Helsinki, is the governing body of the
Helsinki Convention (1974, 1992), which has as its mandate to protect the Baltic Sea marine
environment. The Commission meets annually, with ministerial level representation. Decisions taken by
the Helsinki Commission, which are reached unanimously, are regarded as recommendations to the
Governments concerned. The implementation of the JCP is coordinated by the HELCOM Program
Implementation Task Force (PITF), which is comprised of representatives of the EU, countries in the
drainage basin, international financial institutions, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs).
l
International Baltic Sea Fishery Commission (IBSFC). IBSFC, based in Warsaw, was established
pursuant to Article V of the Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources in the
Baltic Sea and the Belts (Gdansk Convention, 1973). IBSFC's primary responsibilities are to
coordinate management of the living resources in the Convention area by collecting, aggregating,
analyzing and disseminating statistical data. It also recommends regulatory measures and promotes
enforcement schemes. Each year IBSFC establishes the "Total Allowable Catches (TACs)" for
commercial stocks in the Baltic and provides the Contracting Parties with recommendations to be
implemented in their respective fishery zones during the next calendar year.
l
International Council for Exploration of the Sea (ICES). ICES, based in Copenhagen, currently
operates under the terms of its 1964 Convention. It is the oldest intergovernmental organization in the
world concerned with marine and fisheries science. Since its establishment in Copenhagen in 1902,
ICES has been a leading scientific forum for the exchange of information and ideas on the sea and its
living resources, and for the promotion and coordination of marine research by scientists within its
member countries. Since the 1970s, a major area of ICES work as an intergovernmental marine science
organization is to maintain an international science program and to provide information and advice
contracting parties and international commissions (including the European Commission, HELCOM,
and IBSFC) for the protection of the marine environment and for fisheries conservation.
13.
Each institution has expanded its mandate to incorporate ecosystem considerations in its work. The
Project's objective of ecosystem-based management of Baltic Sea resources provides an opportunity for the
three organizations to cooperatively apply ecosystem-based management and assessment methodologies for
the Baltic Sea.
14.
Project Management. The institutional arrangements are based on a decentralized approach that
- 38 -
combines regional and national level coordination with local level implementation. Primary responsibility
for Project management will rest with HELCOM, which will serve as the executing agency for the Project
and will undertake this work in full coordination with IBSFC and ICES. A Project Implementation Team
(PIT) will be coordinated from HELCOM headquarters in Helsinki, comprising HELCOM's Executive
Secretary, two Professional Secretaries, Administrative Officer, Project assistant, and the two Component
Coordinators. To support the PIT, the services of procurement consultant and Assistant Financial officer
will be contracted. The current BSRP Core Group Core Group participants include: HELCOM, IBSFC,
ICES, Baltic 21, UNDP, World Bank and WWF. Representatives of GIWA have participated as observers.
The BSRP Core Group, which has supported preparation of the Project, will be replaced by the Baltic Sea
Steering Group (BSSG) that will provide broad-based support for the implementation process. The BSSG
will consist of members from HELCOM, IBSFC and ICES; senior level representatives of the recipient
countries; Baltic 21, UNDP, and WWF. The Steering Group will be jointly chaired by the Executive
Secretary of HELCOM and Secretary General of ICES. It will not compete with any of the existing
HELCOM or ICES Regional Working Groups, but cooperate to facilitate regional capacity building for a
coordinated ecosystem-based management approach for the Baltic Sea ecosystem. Figure 2 illustrates the
Project organization and management structure. The PIP/PPP provides TORs and details of the
institutional and Project management arrangements.
Table 2. Project Administrative Structure
Bilateral Donors
GEF
World Bank
Project Implementation Team
ICES
HELCOM
SLU
Component 1
Financial
Component 2
Coordinator
Officer,
Coordinator
and Assistant
Procurement
Coordinator
Specialist
Project
Assistant
PIT
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Poland
Russia
C1: Coordination
C1: Coordination
C1: Coordination
C1: Coordination
C1: Coordination
Center
Center
Center
Center
Center
C2: LIU
C2: LIU
C2: LIU
C2: LIU
15.
Component Management. The following arrangements will be used for management of the
components included under the Project:
l
Component 1 Large Marine Ecosystem Management Activities. Component 1 will be implemented
under the supervision of ICES, working closely with IBSFC and HELCOM. Component 1
Coordinator (C1C), placed in ICES, will be responsible for overall management of Component 1 and
will supervise the implementation of Project-supported activities. The Assistant Coordinator for
Component 1 (AC1) will support the work of the C1C; he or she will operate at the local level and be
- 39 -
responsible for day-to-day Project management and implementation. The AC1 will work directly with
the Local Project Managers (LPM) located at the Coordination Centers. The Coordination Centers and
Lead Laboratories will coordinate and supervise implementation of component activities in terms of
ecosystem health, productivity and fisheries. The LPMs will be contracted from established institutes in
each recipient country that engage in ICES activities. They will be responsible for day-to-day
implementation in their respective countries. The PIP/PPP provides TORs for the C1C and AC1.
l
Component 2 - Land and Coastal Management Activities. Component 2 will be implemented under
the supervision of HELCOM, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU) and WWF.
o
Agricultural Activities. The SLU will manage agricultural activities under this component on
behalf of HELCOM. The Component 2 Coordinator (C2C), located in SLU, will be responsible for
overall management of Component 2 and will work with existing field structures established under
the Swedish supported BAAP project and the Bank and GEF supported Rural Environmental
Protection Project in Poland. Local Implementation Units (LIUs) will operate in each country, and
will be responsible for day-to-day Project management and implementation. The LIUs will advise
regional groups and organizations, and will work closely with local counterparts and farmers. The
LIUs will be staffed with a unit manager, accountant, technical specialists, and agricultural
advisors. The PIP/PPP provides TORs for the C2C and the LIUs.
o
Coastal Zone Management Activities. The coastal zone management activities under Component
2, in cooperation with Component 1, will be managed by the WWF, which will provide a
coordinator to work with the Area Task Teams that were established in the demonstration areas
during the HELCOM Project Implementation Task Force Working Group on Lagoons and
Wetlands (PITF MLW) to support planning and management studies. The studies will serve as the
basis for implementation of these activities, which will be coordinated by local governments,
community-based organizations and NGOs. The PIP/PPP will provide TORs for the ICZM
coordinator.
l
Component 3 - Institutional Strengthening and Regional Capacity Building. This component will
be managed by HELCOM in cooperation with IBSFC and ICES. The work of the BSSG, which will
review and disseminate information and management tools developed under the Project, will be an
element of this component. Activites under this componenet will be expanded during Phases 2 and 3 of
the Project.
l
Component 4 - Project Management. Component 4 will provide support for Project management by
HELCOM and the cooperating parties. This includes support for the PIT at HELCOM and the various
administrative services required for Project reporting, procurement, disbursement and financial
management. HELCOM will retain the services of a qualified consultants, with significant experience
in Bank procedures, to assist with procurement, disbursement and financial management actions. The
procurement consultant will undertake preparation and review of bid documents for civil works goods
and consulting services; facilitate evaluations; and support HELCOM in contract negotiations. The
Financial Assistant and Project Assistant will assist HELCOM's Administrative Officer in managing
the Special Account, executing the payments to consultants, contractors and suppliers, and will run the
BSRP's Financial Monitoring Reporting system.
The social assessment, referred to in Component 2 (see Activity 3 - Land-Based Coastal Zone
Management), will be funded out of Component 4 proceeds, and will be used to obtain guidance on
optimizing local community involvement and benefits so that local communities use natural and economic
- 40 -
resources more efficiently, improve their livelihood, and conserve biodiversity.
16.
Project Implementation Plan (PIP) and Project Procurement Plan (PPP). The PIP/PPP,
prepared by HELCOM, IBSFC, ICES, and cooperating countries, describes in detail the Project
implementation and procurement process. The PIP includes a description of the major activities, terms of
reference and technical specifications, procurement plan, together with the monitoring and evaluation plan.
The PPP identifies the procurement of goods, works and services in accordance with "Guidelines for
Procurement under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits". Project activities not financed by the GEF will be
procured in accordance with regulations of the concerned Governments or co-financing institutions.
Procurement will follow the Project procurement identified in the PIP/PPP and will be linked with the
overall implementation schedule.
17.
Key Elements of the PIP/PPP. The PIP/PPP includes the following key elements:
l
For Component 1, the PIP/PPP:
o
Identifies the strategy for establishing the technical Coordination Centers,
o
Describes methods for coordinating the monitoring and assessment process and upgrading
monitoring and assessment capacity,
o
Identifies equipment and goods needed for monitoring and assessment,
o
Outlines requirements for demonstration activities, and
o
Includes TORs for all technical assistance and services.
l
For Component 2, the PIP/PPP:
o
Describes requirements for eligible agricultural interventions and demonstration activities,
o
Outlines investment support needs and farm credit conditions,
o
Provides a framework for watershed monitoring and assessment network,
o
Describes the coastal zone management activities, and
o
Identifies equipment, goods and deliverables, TORs for technical assistance and services.
l
For Component 3, the PIP/PPP:
o
Provides a framework for institutional strengthening and regional capacity building activities, and
o
Includes Terms of Reference for for services, training and deliverables.
l
For Component 4, the PIP/PPP:
o
Includes TORs for all levels of Project management responsibilities, and social assessment, and
o
Provides technical specifications for equipment and goods required for the PIT.
l
For the overall Project, the PIP:
- 41 -
o
Provides an overview of procedures that will be used for procurement,
o
Describes the applicable procedures of the World Bank,
o
Where appropriate, notes the applicable procedures of co-financiers, and
o
Presents a procurement plan for the first phase (2002-2005) of the Project.
18.
Changes in the PIP/PPP. The PIP/PPP can be modified by HELCOM during Project
implementation, in agreement with the World Bank. In addition, during the life of the Project, the
composition and responsibilities of the various Project management units may require adjustment. At any
time, the PIP/PPP can be revised by HELCOM to reflect these administrative changes in agreement with
the World Bank.
19.
Project Monitoring and Evaluation. HELCOM will report to the Bank and be responsible for
ensuring that all GEF funded activities are carried out in compliance with Project design and contracts. The
Project will comply with the required monitoring and evaluation procedures as required for the
Implementation Completion Report, which will be completed no later than six months after the closure of
the Project. The PIP/PPP will detail the process for these reviews.
By Component:
Project Component 1 - US$5.62 million
C.
PROJECT COMPONENT 1: LARGE MARINE ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT
ACTIVITIES
20.
Introduction. The prevailing coastal and open sea water management issues in the Baltic Sea are
ecosystem impacts from eutrophication and over fishing. Successful management of these issues requires
strengthened institutional and technical coordination of information, resources and management activities at
the regional and local levels. While threats to the system and other transboundary issues have been
identified, current resource management policies and practices are not holistic and ecosystem-based. As
part of their commitment to HELCOM, the recipient countries, except Lithuania, participate in collecting
data through the HELCOM-Cooperative Monitoring in the Baltic Marine Environment (COMBINE)
network. However, the recipient countries need to strengthen their institutional and technical capacity, and
improve standards for quality assurance to meet their commitments under the Helsinki Convention. Current
monitoring and assessment practices are not complete in the eastern Baltic Sea and provide inadequate
information for comprehensive ecosystem management of Baltic Sea resources.
21.
An Ecosystem-Based Approach. To address these issues and meet national obligations under the
Helsinki Convention, Component 1 was designed within an LME context with an ecosystem-based
approach to monitor, assess, and manage the Baltic Sea resources. The component's primary objective is to
introduce the principles and demonstrate the application of the LME concept to Baltic Sea coastal and open
sea resources. Component 1 activities are interdependent and will be used jointly to overcome short-term
sector-by-sector attempts to manage resources and environments. This approach will increase the emphasis
placed on the multiple interactions between resource use, human interventions, and environmental
variability. The component will introduce jointly planned and implemented multi-national monitoring
surveys that facilitate local cooperation and coordination and use of innovative methodologies for assessing
the changing state of the ecosystem. It will support implementation of actions that consider whole
ecosystem effects and optimize social and economic benefits for the Baltic Sea community of stakeholders.
- 42 -
22.
Phase 1 Activities. In coordination with the other Project components, Component 1, during the
course of the three year project, will: (i) establish local and regional administrative and organizational
mechanisms, through the Coordination Centers, for cooperative monitoring and assessment activities, (ii)
develop management tools through modeling and assessment to provide proposals for ecosystem-based
management of land, coastal zones and open sea waters, and (iii) support cooperating countries to move
toward compliance with international agreements, regional priorities and national policies, including the
Helsinki Convention, Baltic 21, and EU environmental and water management directives (Russian
Federation excluded).
23.
Participating Institutions. The participating institutions in Component 1 generally include the
technical institutes who have been engaged in the work of ICES within the Baltic Sea Region. They will
serve as the national Coordination Centers and Lead Laboratories for this component. The participating
local institutions include: (i) Estonia: Estonian Marine Institute, Tallinn; (ii) Latvia: Latvian Fisheries
Research Institute, Riga; (iii) Lithuania: Klaipeda University, Institute of Ecology, Klaipeda; (iv) Russian
Federation: AtlantNIRO, Kaliningrad; and (v) Poland: Sea Fisheries Institute, Gdynia. Other participating
institutions in the region include: (i) Denmark: Danish Institute for Fisheries Research, Copenhagen; (ii)
Finland: Finnish Institute for Fisheries Research, Helsinki; (iii) Germany: Baltic Fisheries Research
Institute, Rostock; and (iv) Sweden: Swedish Institute for Marine Fisheries Research, Lysekil.
24.
Primary Areas of Focus. In general, the Baltic Sea is one of the most intensively monitored;
however, the coverage, the quality and reliability of data has remained uneven. Over the last decade, the
Baltic Countries, Poland and Russian Federation have had significant difficulties in meeting their reporting
obligations to HELCOM, IBSFC and ICES. Also, the laboratory equipment has not been fully
intercalibrated between the laboratories on the Eastern and Western coasts of the Baltic Sea. The data
assessment and evaluation methodologies have not been uniform. This applies both to monitoring of the
state of marine environment and to monitoring of agricultural run-off. The mentioned factors have had a
negative impact on quality of scientific advice to decision makers and, subsequently, on quality of the
decisions made.
25.
The Project will support activities in the coastal near shore environment of the Eastern Baltic Sea
and in selected adjacent sections of the open sea environment. In general, the coastal near shore activities
and monitoring network will correlate with land-based coastal and associated demonstration activities
supported under Component 2, and noted on maps IBRD 31062 and IBRD 31063. The planned open sea
monitoring will include the current ICES network; this involves activities in ICES Subdivisions 25, 26, 28,
29S and 32. These areas include the Baltic Proper, the sea east of the island of Bornholm, and the Gulf of
Finland. The economic zones of the recipient countries are part of these Subdivisions.
26.
Component 1 - Management. Management of Component 1 will be as follows:
l
Role of ICES and CIC. As the coordinator for Component 1, ICES will be responsible for
implementing, managing and reporting on component activities to HELCOM and the BSSG. ICES will
supervise C1C and AC1. The CIC together with the AC1 will be responsible for supervising
component coordination and implementation. The Coordinator will work directly with HELCOM. The
C1C will be a member of the BSSG.
l
Role of the AC1. The AC1 will work locally and assist in day-to-day Project management and
supervise implementation. The AC1 will serve as the LIU and work closely with ICES, HELCOM and
the LPMs at the Coordination Centers. In addition to daily responsibilities, the AC1 will assist the
- 43 -
LPMs in developing and preparing standardized analytical and monitoring reports.
l
Role of the LPMs and Coordination Centers. The LPM will be contracted from institutes in each
recipient country that engage in ICES activities. Depending upon specialization, the institutes will
become technical Coordination Centers for ecosystem health, productivity, socioeconomics, and
fisheries information. In addition, a GIS-Data Coordination Center will synthesize the data information
for assessment and modeling purposes. The LPM will be responsible for day-to-day implementation at
the national level. In addition, the LPM will compile results from Project activities and report them to
the C1C and AC1. The AC1will work closely with the LPM and procurement consultant in preparing
bidding documents, carrying out evaluations, and drafting contracts. Representatives from the LPMs
will also participate in selected ICES and HELCOM meetings relevant to the Project.
27.
Component 1 - Activities. Component 1 has a primary goal to develop technical and local
capacity in the eastern Baltic countries, and through joint monitoring and assessment efforts and
demonstration activities provide incentives to improve the socioeconomic well being of targeted
communities. The approach to this component is to strengthen local institutional and technical capacities,
compile and evaluate information through integrated assessments, and facilitate identification and
application of proposed ecosystem-based management tools. Demonstration activities will illustrate a range
of possible cost-effective measures to improve management of the coastal ecosystem while building
capacity of coastal communities. The demonstration activities and the collection and evaluation of
ecosystem parameters will provide building blocks to better understand the Baltic Sea ecosystem process
and impacts of human activities on the eastern region of the sea. This process will also provide proposed
strategies to promote economic incentives and improve regional land, coastal and open sea ecosystem
management practices.
l
Activity 1 - Strengthen Institutional and Technical Capacity. Activity 1 will establish the
institutional framework for undertaking component supported activities to strengthen institutional and
technical capacity. It will support the following activities:
o
Sub-activity 1(a) Strengthened Institutional Capacity of Coordination Centers. The Coordination
Centers are fundamental to implementing Component 1 activities, and for linkages with other
component activities. The Centers, organized at technical institutes currently involved in ICES
efforts, will coordinate joint efforts and implement component activities and sub-activities. The
Centers will include a Fisheries Coordination Center, Productivity Parameters Coordination
Center, Environmental Health Parameters Coordination Center, and a GIS-Data Coordination
Center.
o
Sub-activity 1(b) Conduct Regional Training and Workshops to Strengthen Technical Capacity.
Training and workshops will strengthen technical capacity and will coordinate and link the
activities under the component with technical aspects of other regional programs.
o
Sub-activity 1(c) Coordinate Coastal-Near Shore Activities. This will include planning and
coordination of coastal monitoring surveys in the eastern Baltic Sea to fill the gaps for fisheries and
environmental parameters, as mandated by work programs of HELCOM and ICES. This will
include collection of data on additional key ecosystem indicators including important productivity
parameters (phyto- and zooplankton, phytobenthos). Trawlers will be used to extend the surveys to
shallower coastal waters where marine research vessels cannot go but whose information is needed
for a comprehensive ecosystem-based management for the region.
- 44 -
o
Sub-activity 1(d) Coordinate Open Sea Activities. This will include planning and coordination of
open sea monitoring surveys that will calibrate between vessels (for regional efficiency and
cost-benefits) and use existing research vessels for multi-national joint scientific surveys,
particularly for the eastern Baltic Sea. This activity will expand the geographic coverage of open
sea activities in the eastern Baltic Sea to reinforce the current ICES monitoring network and fill
gaps in both fisheries and environmental parameters to include additional ecosystem indicators and
productivity parameters (phyto- and zooplankton, phytobenthos), as mandated by ICES and
HELCOM.
l
Activity 2 - Operationalize Monitoring and Assessment Surveys in the Eastern Baltic Sea. Activity
2 will be planned in Phase 1 and fully commence in Phase 2 of the BSRP program, to include
procurement of necessary technical equipment for coastal and open sea monitoring surveys and
execution of the surveys as coordinated and planned during Activity 1. It will include:
o
Sub-activity 2(a) Conduct Coastal Near Shore Monitoring Surveys. Coastal fish, productivity and
ecosystem health parameters will be monitored and data collected as required by the
HELCOM/COMBINE monitoring program. Data will be collected based on ICES standards.
o
Sub-activity 2(b) Conduct Joint Open Sea Monitoring Surveys. The joint open sea surveys will
parallel efforts in the coastal waters, but will include a multi-national technical team to conduct
combined monitoring of fish, productivity and ecosystem health parameters from research vessels.
The proposed open sea surveys will take place annually, as required and supervised by ICES. The
surveys to be supported by the component will include Abundance Surveys - BITS (Baltic
International Trawl Survey) for demersal (bottom) fish, in March-April, and October-November,
and the Baltic International Acoustic Survey (BIAS) for pelagic fish.
o
Sub-activity 2(c) Ships of Opportunity (SOOPs). Data from ferries and cutters will be obtained
from equipment leased on board and the crew will be trained for data collection. Data will be
collected based on ICES standards.
o
Sub-activity 2(d) Data Collection from Commercial Fishing Vessels. Data from commercial
fishing vessels will be obtained from landings and logbooks, and landings statistics from
commercial fishing vessels will be collected in accordance with accepted technical standards. Data
will be collected based on ICES standards.
l
Activity 3 - Cooperative Local and Regional Ecosystem Evaluations and Assessments. Activity 3
will commence in Phase 1; however, most of the activities will be carried out in Phases 2 and 3.
Emphasis will be on coordinating collection and use of information collected from Component 1 and
Component 2 and on providing opportunities to expand beyond the current ICES assessment process
for joint coordinated assessments. This activity will enhance local assessment capabilities through
access to improved technical resources and capacity building measures. It will provide a forum for
regional coordination, cooperation and advice on application of ecosystem-based management tools.
o
Sub-activity 3(a) Evaluation and Assessment of Component 1 Information. This activity will
evaluate and assess the data collected in monitoring surveys under Component 1, Activity 2. The
assessments will investigate innovative methodologies and models to optimize cost-effective
strategies. The assessments will be used to formulate advice for IBSFC and HELCOM, and
propose ecosystem-based management tools.
- 45 -
o
Sub-activity 3(b) Economic Evaluation of Component Activities (in coordination with Component
2). This activity will use innovative methodologies for land, coastal and open sea socioeconomic
assessments to promote sustainable ecosystem-based management tools to improve the economic
benefits from living marine resources. The coordinated joint assessment effort will support local
authorities' decision-making capacity for integrated coastal resource management.
l
Activity 4 - Demonstration Activities. Demonstration activities will illustrate a range of possible
cost-effective measures to improve and restore the coastal ecosystem while building local capacity of
coastal communities. The demonstration activities and collection and evaluation of ecosystem
parameters will provide the building blocks for better understanding the Baltic Sea ecosystem process
and the impacts of human activities on the eastern region of the sea. Preparation for demonstration
activities will begin during Phase 1 and the activities will continue through Phases 2 and 3.
o
Sub-activity 4(a) Salmon River Restoration. In coordination with Component 2, sites will coincide
with proposed coastal zone management activities and recommendations in the Salmon Action Plan
(SAP) of the IBSFC. Segments of selected rivers will be restored to promote natural spawning and
long-term economic sustainability of salmon recruitment.
o
Sub-activity 4(b) Multple-Marine Ecological Disturbances (MMED) Predictive Tools for
Management. Multiple ecological disturbances are particularly important in coastal areas when
they affect human health and certain economic sectors, such as fishery, tourism, and recreation.
Existing information and data will be applied to the HEED (Health, Ecological and Economic
Dimensions of Global Change) model, a historical time series analysis, which will reconstruct
critical time-series suitable for tracking changes in the health of the ecosystem and provide a
cost-effective predictive management tool for ecosystem management.
o
Sub-activity 4(c) Coordinate Joint Activities ICZM. This activity will support and link into the
WWF-Coastal Zone Management activities for the in Component 2, ICZM sub-activities.
o
Sub-activity 4(d) Promote the Use of Baltic Herring and Sprat for Human Consumption. This
activity will initiate analysis of socioeconomic benefits which are offered by wider use of Baltic
herring and sprat in human consumption.
28.
Summary of Expected Outcomes. Component outcomes will introduce to HELCOM, IBSFC,
ICES and their member countries the benefits and cost-effectiveness of a joint coordinated monitoring and
assessment process for the eastern Baltic Sea. The BSRP will provide opportunities for the three
international bodies and the five recipient countries to close information gaps, facilitate a better
understanding of the need for a sustained regional monitoring and assessment program in the coastal and
open sea waters, and allow for initial implementation of improved management of the living marine
resources of the Baltic Sea. The component will strengthen the ability of participating parties to cooperate
and provide linkages between science-based assessments and ecosystem-wide management practices for
improving the health and long term sustainability of the ecosystem and its renewable biological resources,
including fish and fisheries.
Project Component 2 - US$4.49 million
- 46 -
D.
PROJECT COMPONENT 2: LAND AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
29.
Introduction. Addressing land-based agricultural inputs to coastal and open sea waters and
improving coastal zone management are critical for management of the Baltic Sea ecosystem. The JCP
highlights management of agricultural inputs and coastal areas of the Baltic as priority issues. Since 1992,
a number of field-based demonstration activities, through the Swedish supported BAAP program, have
been undertaken in recipient countries along the eastern and southern portion of the Baltic Sea drainage
basin. These activities have been complemented by additional activities at the national level, supported by
the EU, Denmark, Finland, Norway, and the United States. The environmental and economic benefits of
these activities have provided a basis for preparing and implementing projects that would eventually
support long-term measures to incrementally reduce non-point source agricultural pollution to the coastal
and marine environment. This component is intended to be a basis for developing future national programs
with environmentally responsible practices. Component 2 activities will be coordinated with the Bank and
GEF supported Poland Rural Environmental Protection Project.
30.
The agricultural element of the component will (i) test administrative and organizational
mechanisms (regional and local) and provide advice and support to the farming community; (ii) assess
farmers' interest in and willingness to pay for improving their environmental management practices; (iii)
assist farmers to lower both the risk and barriers that currently hinder adoption of new practices; and (iv)
provide support for small-scale environmentally responsible agricultural investments. The coastal zone
management element of the component will (i) focus on the role that can be played by local communities in
sustainable management of coastal resources; (ii) link activities in the demonstration watershed to measures
being taken on the coast; (iii) support implementation of previously prepared management plans; and (iv)
assist local communities to overcome barriers to adoption of new planning and management methods in
these areas.
31.
Component 2 - Management. Management of Component 2 will be as follows:
l
Role of HELCOM/SLU and WWF. The Swedish Agricultural University (SLU), as the overall
coordinator for Component 2, will be responsible for implementing, managing and reporting on
component activities. HELCOM/SLU will contract the Component Coordinator (C2C), based in SLU.
The C2C will also work closely with and supervise the local LIUs. In addition, WWF will appoint a
specialist who will work closely with the C2C and local counterparts and serve as coordinator for the
coastal zone management activities included in the component.
l
Role of the LIU. The LIU is the on-site implementing group in each recipient country for agriculture
and environment activities. Project activities will integrate the present BAAP implementing structure
and other existing organizations, such as national and local level Agricultural Advisory Services (AAS)
and Farm Interest Organizations (FIO). The LIU will benefit from short-term international and local
technical expertise as necessary, particularly for technical assistance and training. LIU staff will
comprise experts with a national perspective and agricultural extension agents working in Project
areas. The LIU will work closely with the C2C in preparing bidding documents, carrying out
evaluations, and drafting contracts. Interested farmers will present expressions of interest through local
extension services to the LIU. Representatives from the LIU will also participate in selected ICES and
HELCOM meetings related to the Project.
l
Coastal Zone Management Activities. The activities will be implemented by representatives of the
Area Task Teams established in the demonstration areas during the HELCOM PITF MLW supported
planning and management studies. These studies will serve as the basis for implementation of the
- 47 -
activities, which will be coordinated by local governments, community-based organizations and NGOs.
In locations where Area Task Teams do not currently exist, the WWF will work with national and local
authorities to facilitate their establishment.
32.
Component 2 Activities. Component 2 aims to significantly increase the prevalence of
environmentally responsible agricultural practices among eligible farms and organizations in the targeted
demonstration watersheds and to undertake a series of demonstration coastal zone management activities in
priority areas linked with the activities for agriculture. The field-level activities are based on River Basin
Modules including Agricultural Demonstration Watersheds and Agro-Environmental Task Areas. The
Agro-Environmental Task Areas are selected based on agricultural production intensity and risk to the
environment. Agricultural production in these areas has a major impact on local and/or distant water bodies
and ecosystems (see Table A). Component activities will demonstrate effective mechanisms for improving
recycling and retention of nutrients in transboundary waters and strengthening decision support for water
management from inland agricultural areas to coastal areas. The demonstration activities for integrated
coastal zone management in priority areas are linked with the activities for reduction of non-point source
pollution from agriculture (see Table B).
33.
Sites for Field Level Activities. Proposed demonstration watersheds have been selected, using
criteria from the BAAP demonstration projects, in important agricultural areas with substantial effects on
coastal and marine ecosystems. The demonstration field level activities are within the priority watersheds
supported by the local governments, and listed below:
Table A. Component 2 Name and Description of the Demonstration Watersheds
Country and
Status
Catchment
Number of
Name of
Flows into the Baltic
name
area (km2)
farms
entering river
Sea at:
Estonia
Kabala
BAAP
22.5
23
Parnu River
Gulf of Parnu
established
Jandera
New GEF
23.7
5
Selja River
Gulf of Finland
Matsalu
BAAP
21.3
14
Ragina River
Matsalu Bay
established
Latvia
Mellupite
BAAP
9.6
18
Venta River
Baltic Proper
established
Berze
New GEF
3.6
17
Lielupe River
Gulf of Riga
Skiveri
New GEF
8.9
11
Daugava River Gulf of Riga
Lithuania
Graisupis
BAAP
13.7
14
Nemunas
Kursiu Lagoon
established
River
Bariunai
BAAP established
1.2
1
Lielupe River
Gulf of Riga
Large-scale
Silute
New GEF
6.0
1 family farm Nemunas River Kursiu Lagoon
1 polder
Vardas
BAAP
7.5
20
Nemunas
Kursiu Lagoon
established
River
Russian Federation Kaliningrad Oblast
Pobedinskoe
New BAAP
One field
1
Nemunas
Kursiu
Farm yard
Large-scale
River
Lagoon/Kushsky Zaliv
- 48 -
Table B. Component 2 Description of Coastal Zone Demonstration Sites
Country/Site
Status of Management Plan
Related Watershed
Area of Baltic Sea
Demonstration Area
Estonia
Vainameri
Management Plan prepared under
Matsalu
Matsalu Bay
Haapsalu and Matsalu Bays Environment
Project
Kihnu
Management Plan to be prepared under
Kabala
Gulf of Parnu
Project
Latvia
Engure/ Kemeri Management Plan prepared under
Berze
Gulf of Riga
HELCOM PITF MLF Phase IA and IB
Lithuania and Russian Federation
Nemunas
Management Plan prepared under
Silute
Kursiu Lagoon
Delta/ Kursiu Klaipėda Environment Project
Lagoon
Nemunas Delta/ Management Plan prepared under
Pobedinskoe
Kursiu Lagoon
Kursiu Lagoon HELCOM PITF MLW Phase IA and IB
Russian Federation and Poland
Vistula
Management Plan prepared under
Elblag
Vistula Lagoon/
Lagoon/
HELCOM PITF MLW
(included in Rural
Kaliningrad Lagoon
Kaliningrad
Environmental Protection
Lagoon
Project)
l
Activity 1 - Agricultural Interventions. This activity will expand upon BAAP supported investments
in environmentally responsible practices and target the farming community, agricultural advisory
organizations and local authorities, using national Codes of Good Agricultural Practices as the guiding
tool. The Codes are one of the major environmental commitments undertaken by the countries in their
accession to the environmentally responsible agricultural practices (agro-environmental) schemes of the
EU. This activity seeks to significantly increase environmental awareness and use of environmentally
responsible practices in agriculture and demonstrate effective mechanisms for improving recycling and
retention of nutrients.
o
Sub-activity 1(a) Local Agri-Environmental Capacity Building. Farmers in the watersheds will be
invited to participate in education and training activities to improve sustainable farm management.
Training activities will provide farmers with potential investment support through GEF grants,
combined with credits through cooperation with NEFCO. This activity will promote agricultural
training programs, and train farmers in sustainable practices. Critical to this effort is a
communication and public relations outreach program.
o
Sub-activity 1(b) Demonstrating Cost-Effective Nutrient Recycling and Retention Technologies.
A select number of on-farm, agro-environmental demonstration practices will be established,
including construction and restoration of wetlands for nutrient retention, construction of a naturally
based purification systems, and manure retention ponds.
o
Sub-activity 1(c)Agri-Environmental Credit Schemes (AgECS). Agro-environmental practices will
be promoted, potential on-farm environmental investments will be identified and farmer eligibility
for grants and/or loans will be assessed, and management plans prepared. Eligible on-farm
investments will be permanently installed for nutrient re-circulation; such investments include
- 49 -
manure pads and slurry storage, equipment for manure and urine spreading and technology for
seeding and soil preparation. The GEF grant and/or NEFCO credit will be complemented by
in-kind contributions in materials and labor by the farmer or agricultural company. The size of the
GEF supported grant is limited to a maximum of US$10,000. The credit line by NEFCO, parallel
to the BSRP, will support environmental investments up to US$200,000. With the assistance of the
LIU, AAS, and extension services, this effort will combine environmental concerns and business
development into a farm management plan that will form the basis for technical support, training
and small-scale on-farm investments. The investments in environmentally responsible practices will
also assist in upgrading the responsibilities of the extension services and authorities on a
nationwide scale to meet requirements of the EU Nitrate Directive.
l
Activity 2 - Monitoring and Assessment of Non-Point Source Pollution. This activity will
investigate nutrient loads from agriculture and aims to fill gaps in national monitoring programs and
assist in meeting the country's commitment to EU and Helsinki Convention obligations. The activity is
essential for preparation of joint ecosystem-based assessments of land-based and marine activities. It
will provide sustainable land and coastal management tools to be incorporated in regional management
of the ecosystem. It will establish an in-stream network to monitor and assess outputs from agricultural
watersheds and assess innovative methodologies for non-point source pollution retention. Design of the
monitoring system will be coordinated with the Rural Environmental Protection Project in Poland to
ensure comparability of data sets, quality assurance measures and planned applications for
management measures. Efforts will be linked with monitoring and assessment activities in Component
1.
o
Sub-activity 2(a) Catchment Measurement Programs. The catchment measurement programs will
measure loads of nutrients to surface waters from representative agricultural areas, and leaching of
nutrients to shallow groundwater in representative agricultural areas. The catchment measurement
program will provide background data on nutrient losses from representative agricultural areas, in
order to support national authorities in their development of sustainable agricultural production
systems and to meet the data requirement for reporting to various regional and international
organizations, including the EU, HELCOM and OECD.
o
Sub-activity 2(b) Effects of Specific Demonstration Activities. Specific demonstration activities
will show governments and farmers the efficiency of various nutrient reduction measures. Efforts
will include monitoring of plot demonstration activities concerning crop rotation systems and
optimal fertilizer use, and monitoring of natural and constructed wetlands and other hydrologically
manipulated systems that retain nutrient runoff from non-point sources.
o
Sub-activity 2(c) Agricultural Hot-Spots and Contamination of Drinking Water in Shallow Farm
Wells. This sub-activity will assess, at selected sites, the extent and causes of contamination of
drinking water in farm wells. This will include monitoring contamination of drinking water in farm
wells and contamination of surface and groundwater at local "hot spots" to determine the trends in
the area.
o
Sub-activity 2(d) Modeling of Nutrient Loads in the Berze-Lielupe Basin. A comprehensive series
of actions for training personnel and upgrading modeling capacity would be supported under this
sub-activity targeted in the Berze-Lielupe demonstration watershed. These are considered to be an
important contribution to regional capacity building in management of agricultural pollution. The
actions comprise training courses, transfer of knowledge and methodology, collection of data,
modeling, and establishment of a multi-parameter data set to validate and test the modeling. The
- 50 -
modeling approach will be linked to ongoing activities at SLU and SMHI in Sweden, and will be
carried out under supervision from SLU.
l
Activity 3 - Land-Based Coastal Zone Management. The integrated coastal zone management
(ICZM) activities will focus on practical measures to assist local communities in improving their
management of coastal zones. Activities will include involvement of local communities, NGOs, local
decision-makers and businesses. WWF has acted as lead party responsible for elaborating ICZM plans
for the six target areas under the activities of the HELCOM Working Group on the Management of
Coastal Lagoons and Wetlands (HELCOM MLW). These management plans are the framework for
implementing this activity, and are the basis for the sub-activities. The existing MLW networks are
composed of local authorities, local users of natural resources (farmers, fishermen, etc.) as well as
national experts. This activity will be coordinated with Component 1, to establish administrative
structures for coastal zone management in the selected areas. The sub-activities will contribute to
balanced and sustainable development of the area by means of cross-sector integration. They will
include environmentally based targeted efforts to build local capacity of the fishing communities and
support small-scale investments. Such efforts encompass investigating feasible opportunities for
recreational tourism, constructing fish bypasses on rivers, and restoring spawning habitats. A social
assessment process will be used to provide guidance to optimize local community involvement and
benefits so that local communities use natural and economic resources more efficiently, improve their
livelihood, and conserve biodiversity. An outreach program will expand these activities to other coastal
communities. Some preliminary activities will commence during Phase 1, and continue through Phases
2 and 3.
o
Sub-activity 3(a): ICZM Vainameri/Matsalu and Parnu Bay/Kihnu Island (Sites 1 and 2). In
coordination with Component 1 and through local capacity building and training, this will build
and/or restore three small wastewater treatment systems using ecological techniques on the island
of Kihnu, restore Lake Prastevik-Voormsi and promote small-scale tourism investments. A
demonstration project and investments for maintenance of semi-natural grassland will be initiated.
o
Sub-activity 3(b) ICZM Engure/Kemeri(Lielupe-Gulf of Riga (Site 3). The activity will establish a
local small business incubator in Mersrags, develop and distribute a bi-annual local newsletter, and
train fifteen local guides. In coordination with Component 1, a socioeconomic benefits program for
local farmers and fishermen will be developed and implemented.
o
Sub activity 3(c) ICZM Kursiu Lagoon/ Nemunas Delta (Site 4). The activity will support
development of recreational facilities, wetland restoration and preparation of meadow management
plans, which will review division of responsibilities for nature management as they pertain to
transboundary concerns. A cross-border protected area is being established to ensure protected
status for flooded forest on the Russian side of the border, for which educational activities will
include workshops at the local and national level, using the Lithuanian Visitor Center Facilities.
o
Sub-activity 3(d) ICZM Vistula Lagoon/Kaliningrad Lagoon (Site 5). This will include measures
to help restore the environmental balance of the Vistula Lagoon/Kaliningrad Lagoon and adjacent
land areas. Activities will focus on feasible low cost efforts to strengthen stakeholder involvement
and optimize use of resources to meet the needs of the population in accordance with principles of
sustainable development. To this end, an indicator-based system for ICZM evaluation will be
developed. A pre-feasibility study of selected small catchment areas will identify cost-effective
measures to ensure clean up of polluted waters discharging to the Vistula Lagoon, and a pilot river
- 51 -
tributary will be restored.
l
Activity 4 - Baltic Sea Regional Agri-Environment Assessment Network (RAN).
Agro-environmental and rural policies are under development in the region, and this activity will link
local field-level activities of the BSRP with national authorities and decision-makers. These activities
will commence during Phase 2, and through a series of workshops combine field-level activities under
the Project with development of agro-environment and rural policies. To increase the exchange of
experience between countries and individuals and achieve added value, a Regional Network will
communicate progress and results through an open and participatory process. Regional Network
activities will seek to increase communication, thus increasing Project sustainability. Several initiatives
in this direction have been taken in the Baltic Sea region and this activity will incrementally support
these initiatives, improving coordination and sustainability on a regional basis.
34.
Summary of Expected Outcomes. The main outcomes of Component 2 will lie in country
institutional capacity to control and manage non-point source pollution from agriculture, improve coastal
zone management practices at the local level, and reduce gaps in terms of commitments to HELCOM and
the EU. The outcomes will also address the farming community's need to improve socioeconomic standards
and provide tools that contribute to farm sustainability. Project implementation will achieve sector-oriented
outcomes related to management of non-point source pollution on the farm, national and regional level, and
management of the coastal zone in the demonstration areas. At Project completion, countries will have
upgraded their monitoring and demonstration capacity for catchment loads, adopted more sustainable
agricultural practices and improved their capacity to manage the coastal zone.
Project Component 3 - US$ 0.15 million
E.
PROJECT COMPONENT 3: INSTITUTIONAL STRENGTHENING AND REGIONAL
CAPACITY BUILDING
35.
Introduction. Important for the Project's success is strengthened local and regional
decision-making and management capacity, both to improve management and to better understand and
ameliorate socioeconomic conditions in the eastern Baltic. The aim of Component 3 is to facilitate
strengthening of regional, national and local institutions through capacity building efforts to enable these
institutions to coordinate and apply a comprehensive ecosystem-based management strategy to the Baltic
Sea.
36.
Component 3 - Management. This component will be managed and implemented by HELCOM in
cooperation with IBSFC and ICES. BSSG review and dissemination of information and management tools
developed under the Project will be an element of this component. Phase 1 will support limited activities
under this component which will be significantly expanded during Phases 2 and 3.
37.
Component 3 - Activities. During Phase 1, will support the initial work under Activity 1 and
detailed planning of Activity 2. The scope of activities under Componenet 3 will be expanded during
Phases 2 and 3 of the Proejct.
l
Activity 1 - Regional Capacity Building. This activity, through institutional capacity building efforts
and participatory meetings, will address regional administrative, socioeconomic, and technical matters
as they pertain to management of Baltic Sea resources, and will enable recipient countries to contribute
to strengthening local and regional institutions. This will also include a special program to support
training activities for community-based groups and local NGOs. A regional public outreach program
- 52 -
will increase awareness of the Project's benefits through multi-media information, including pamphlets,
information guides, and local radio and TV broadcasts. This activity will commence under the project
(Phase 1) and continue through the follow-up projects (Phases 2 and 3).
o
Sub activity 1(a) Regional Coordination. This activity will prepare a coordination strategy and
informal network and focus on facilitating regional coordination and cooperation between
HELCOM, IBSFC, and ICES. In addition, efforts will be made to coordinate with national
officials from the recipient countries, delegates of the EU and regional and local stakeholders.
o
Sub activity 1(b) Baltic Sea Steering Group. The BSSG will be established and operationalized to
facilitate strengthening of the regional decision-making capacity. This activity will support
coordination and cooperation among HELCOM, IBSFC and ICES and the regional stakeholders to
achieve a more integrated approach to ecosystem-based management.
o
Sub-activity 1(c) Regional Public Information and Outreach. The regional public information and
outreach program, in cooperation with locally based public awareness and outreach programs, will
educate and inform the public, stakeholders, and government officials on Project progress and
outcomes.
l
Activity 2 - Regional Socioeconomic Assessment.
o
Sub-activity 2(a) Improved Valuation of Ecosystem Goods and Services. The assessment process
will include evaluation of the socioeconomic implications of reduced eutrophication on ecosystem
resources. The value of ecosystem goods and services will be determined from outputs from the
scientific assessment, and various modeling efforts. Assessment outcomes and suggestions will be
synthesized in a practical and realistic context so they can be understood by individual fishermen
and farmers. The information will be used as a tool to inform and educate the range of stakeholders
on ecosystem values. The activity will link with similar socioeconomic and scientific assessments
in the region, to better understand the overall social and economic value of Baltic Sea resources.
38.
Summary of Expected Outcomes. The anticipated outcome from this component is increased
awareness among all stakeholders of the value of the Baltic Sea ecosystem goods and services and the
importance of appropriate management tools for ecosystem-based management at the regional, national and
local level.
Project Component 4 - US$1.36 million
F.
PROJECT COMPONENT 4: PROJECT MANAGEMENT
39.
Introduction. The objective of Component 4 is to successfully implement the BSRP to achieve the
stated development objective. Project management includes administrative, management, and
implementation responsibilities. Project management structure and responsibilities are detailed in the
PIP/PPP.
40.
Component 4 - Management. This component will be managed by HELCOM in cooperation with
IBSFC and ICES.
41.
Component 4 - Activities.
- 53 -
l
Activity 1 - Project Management. Component 4 will provide support for Project management by
HELCOM and the cooperating parties responsible for implementation of the various Components and
Activities. This includes support for the PIT at HELCOM and the various administrative and
management services required for Project reporting, procurement, disbursement, financial management,
and operationalizing the FMR. HELCOM will retain the services of a qualified consultants, with
significant experience in Bank procedures, to assist with procurement, disbursement and financial
management actions, and Project Assistant. The procurement consultant will undertake preparation and
review of bid documents for works, goods and services; facilitate evaluations; and support HELCOM
in contract negotiations. The disbursement and financial management consultant will assist the
HELCOM's Administrative Officer in managing the Special Account, executing the payments to
consultants, contractors and suppliers, and will run the BSRP's Financial Monitoring Reporting
system.
42.
Summary of Expected Outcomes. The anticipated outcome from this component is the
development of an effective management structure that will be able to successfully support all stages of
Project implementation.
43.
Reporting and Auditing. The Project will comply with the "Guidelines for Financial Reporting
and Auditing of Projects Financed by the World Bank." The Bank together with HELCOM has agreed
upon reporting requirements for Financial Monitoring Reports (FMR). Project progress will be reported
through annual, semi-annual and quarterly Project progress reports. An Implementation Completion Report
(ICR) will be prepared within six months of Project completion. HELCOM's financial mangement capacity
assessment and an up front agreement on accounting and auditing procedures that are acceptable to the
Bank were reached in May 2000. These were reviewed once again during the appraisal mission. This
agreement includes a time-bound action plan to address financial management issues and a reporting
system that fully complies with the updated financial management requirements. The HELCOM as an
entity will be audited by Finnish State Auditor's office, based on HELCOM's Headquarter's Agreement
with Government of Finland. The Project and Special Account will be audited by competitively selected
auditing firm with qualifications acceptable to Bank and in accordance with terms of reference acceptable
to Bank. The PIP/PPP will detail the relevant Bank policies and requirements.
- 54 -
- 55 -
- 56 -
2 Alg@line, BALERINA-Network, Baltic 2008, Baltic 21, Baltic Marine Biologists, BOOS, Coalition Clean Baltic,
GIWA, MARE, Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute (SMHI)-GOOS, Union Baltic Cities, VASAB-
2010.
Table C Component Activities Sub-activities and Tasks
Component 1 - Large Marine Ecosystem Activities
Activity 1 Strengthening Institutional and Technical Capacity
Sub-activity 1(a) Strengthened Institutional Capacity of Coordination Centers and Lead Laboratories
- 57 -
l Task 1: Fisheries Coordination Center, Latvian Fisheries Research Institute Riga, Latvia
l Task 2: Productivity Coordination Center, Institute of Aquatic Ecology, Riga, Latvia
l Task 3: Ecosystem Health Parameters Coordination Center, Fisheries Research Institute, Gdynia, Poland
l Task 4: GIS-Data Coordination Center, Lithuania Integrated Coastal Zone Management Information Center,
Vilnius, Lithuania
l Task 5: Socio-Economic Coordination Center, Estonia Marine Institute, Tallinn and Tartu University, Tartu,
Estonia
Sub-activity 1(b) Regional Training and Workshops to Strengthen Technical Capacity
l Task 1: Training and Transfer of Know-How for BSRP-Key Persons and Team Leaders
l Task 2: Seminar Series: Integrated Coastal Zone Management Regional Efforts in the Baltic Sea
l Task 3: Participate in ICES Working Group Activities
Sub-activity 1(c) Coordinate Coastal-Near Shore Activities
l Task 1: Conduct Introductory workshops
l Task 2: Prepare of coastal monitoring stations
l Task 3: Organize and conduct technical training and workshops
l Task 4: Provide International Technical Assistance for Near Shore Activities
l Task 5: Coordinate Local and Regional Information and Institutions
Sub-activity 1(d) Coordinate Open Sea Activities
l Task 1: Coordinate Joint Abundance Surveys
l Task 2: Upgrade Landing Statistics Knowledge
l Task 3: Promote Awareness among Commercial Fisherman on Logbook Data Reporting
l Task 4: Coordinate and Integrate Fish and Productivity Monitoring Assessment
l Task 5: Coordinate Observer Program for Sampling Discards and Non-target By-Catches
Activity 2 - Operationalize Monitoring and Assessment Surveys in the Eastern Baltic Sea
Sub-activity 2(a) Conduct Coastal Near-shore Monitoring Surveys
l Task 1: Procure monitoring equipment
l Task 2: Contract cutter and trawl vessels for the coastal monitoring
l Task 3: Engage the coastal fishermen in monitoring activities
l Task 4: Conduct Integrated Monitoring and Assessment Surveys
Sub-activity 2(b) Conduct Joint Integrated Open Sea Surveys
l Task 1: Procure necessary monitoring equipment
l Task 2: Joint Baltic International Bottom Trawl Surveys (BITS)
l Task 3: Joint Baltic International Acoustic Surveys (BIAS)
l Task 4: Progress from single species stock assessments to multi-species assessments
Sub-activity 2(c) Improve use of Ships of Opportunity (SOOP)
l Task 1: Extend the Present Spatial and Temporal Sampling of SOOP Vessels
l Task 2: Prepare for Establishment of a Rapid Information Exchange Network to Provide Comprehensive
Information on Plankton and the Environment:
l Task 3: Develop, Update and Implement Operational Activities to Ensure Appropriate Ecosystem Sampling and
Timely Output of Assessment Results
l Task 4: Report SOOP Results
Sub-activity 2(d) Collect Data From Commercial Fishing Vessels
l Task 1 Collect landing information
l Task 2: Improve collection of logbook data
l Task 3: Monitor ecosystem effects on non-target species
l Task 4: Collect fish landings stomach data
Activity 3 Cooperative Local and Regional Evaluations and Assessments
Sub-activity 3(a) Evaluate and Assess Component 1 Information
l Task 1: Compile and process data
l Task 2: Conduct integrated assessment
l Task 3: Review and apply fish stock assessment models
l Task 4: Build international fisheries databases
l Task 5: Provide ecosystem-based management recommendations and Tools
Sub-activity 3(c) Economic Evaluation of Component 1 Activities
Activity 4 Demonstration Activities
- 58 -
Sub-activity 4(a) Salmon River Restoration and Species Introduction
l Task 1: Prepare Salmon River restoration inventory
l Task 2: Conduct Hydrologic and Ecological Evaluations of the Three Rivers
l Task 3: Prepare Local Salmon River Restoration Action Plan
Sub-activity 4(c) Multplei-Marine Ecological Disturbances (MMED)
l Task 1: Organize the Principle Components of the Baltic MMED System
l Task 2: Arrange a First Regional Workshop
l Task 3 Arrange a Second Regional Workshop
Sub-activity 4(d) Joint Coastal Zone Management
l Task 1: Coordinate and Evaluate Results of the Joint C1/C2 Coastal Zone Management Activities
Sub-activity 4(e) Promote Use of Baltic Herring and Sprat for Human Consumption
l Task 1: Fish Technology Workshop
Component 2 - Land and Coastal Management Activities
Activity 1 Agricultural Interventions
Sub-activity 1(a) Local Agri-environmental capacity building
l Task 1: Market ing of the training programs and Outreach Activities
l Task 2: Evaluate Training and Outreach Program
Sub-activity 1(b) Demonstrating cost-effective nutrient recycling and retention technologies
l Task 1:Construct on Farm Installations to Demonstrate Environment Friendly Agricultural Practices
l Task 2: Restore wetlands
l Task 3: Construct Naturally Based Purification System for Nutrient Retention
Sub-activity 1(c) Agri-Environmental Credit Scheme (AgECS)
l Task 1: Establish an AAS Credit Facilitator
l Task 2: Complete Farm Environmental/Management Plans (Farm E/MP)
l Task 3: Screening Farmers and Investment Eligibility
l Task 4: Apply and Approve the Grant and Loan
l Task 5: Prepare Project Description
l Task 6: Disburse Grant or Loan
l Task 7: Quality Assurance of Manure Storage Constructions
l Task 8: Procure the Works for Cnstruction of the Manure Storage and Equipment
l Task 9: Monitor the Progress of Investment Projects
l Task 10: Strategy for Sharing Experience from the AgECS
l Task 11: International Technical Assistance for Complementary Training
Activity 2 Monitoring and Assessment of Non-Point Source Pollution
Sub-activity 2(a) Catchment Monitoring Programs
l Task 1: Estonia: Contamination of Private Farm wells
l Task 2: Latvia: Contamination of Private Farm wells
l Task 3: Lithuania: Contamination of Private Farm wells
l Task 4: Monitoring of Pesticide Residues in Water
Sub-activity 2(b)Effects of Specific Demonstration Activities
l Task 1 Latvia: Monitoring the Effects of demonstration Activities
Sub-Activity 2(c) Monitoring of Agricultural Hot-Spots and Contamination of Drinking Water in Farm Wells
l Task 1: Estonia: Contamination of Drinking Water Private Farm wells
l Task 2: Latvia: Contamination of Drinking Water Private Farm wells
l Task 3: Lithuania: Contamination of Drinking Water Private Farm wells
Sub-activity 2(d) Modeling of Nutrient Loads in Berze Lielupe Basin, the Gulf of Riga and Selected National
Watersheds
l Task 1: Establish a Model Expert Team (MET)
l Task 2: Select Watershed-Coastal Model
l Task 3: Apply and Assess Watershed Model
Activity 3 Land-Based Coastal Zone Management
Sub-activity 3(a): ICZM Vainameri/Matsalu and Parnu Bay/Kihnu Island ICZM Management (Sites 1 and 2)
l Task 1: Construct /Restore 3 WWTPs using ecological techniques at the island of Kihnu
- 59 -
l Task 2: Restoration of Lake Prastevik-Voormsi andsmall-scale tourism investments
l Task 3: Model Project and Investments for maintenance of Semi-Natural Grassland
l Task 3: Capacity building and training
l Task 4: Linkages with Component 1
Sub-activity 3(b) ICZM Engure/ Kemeri ICZM Management (Site 3)
l Task 1: Establishment of local small business incubator in Mersrags and installation of office equipment
l Task 2: Linkages with Component 1
Sub activity 3(c) Nemunas Delta and Kursiu Lagoon/Kurshsky Zaliv ICZM Management (Site 4)
l Task 1: Strengthen Local Stakeholders Involvement
l Task 2: Support for recreational facilities
l Task 3: Wetland restoration / preparation/meadow management
l Task 4: Ensure protection status for flooded forest on Russian side
l Task 5: Education activities, workshops at local and national level using the Visitor Center Facilities
Sub-activity 3(d) ICZM Vistula Lagoon (Site 5)
l Task 1: Strengthening of the stakeholders involvement
l Task 2: Public Awareness and Environmental Education (PA&EE)
l Task 3: Development of an indicator-based system for ICZM-process evaluation
l Task 4: Pilot restoration activities
l Task 5: Pre-feasibility study of selected small catchment area
Activity 4 Baltic Sea Agri-Environmental Assessment Network
l Task 1: Define Critical Issues and Tasks for the C2-Regional Assessment Network (RAN)
l Task 2: Coordinate Assessment and Advice with Component 1 and International Cooperating Bodies
l Task 3: Establish a Regional Database for Monitoring and Modeling
Component 3-Institutional Strengthening and Regional Capacity Building
Activity 1 Regional Capacity Building
Sub-activity 1(a) Regional Coordination
l Task 1: Facilitate coordination between HELCOM, IBSFC and ICES
l Task 2: Engage National, Regional and Intergovernmental Representatives
l Task 3: Engage Stakeholders
l Task 4: Conduct Launch Workshop
Sub-activity 1(b) Baltic Sea Steering Group
l Task 1: Review and approval of Baltic Sea Steering Group By-laws
l Task 2: Conduct meetings as set forth in the Steering Group Bylaws
l Task 3: Execute Responsibilities as identified in the Steering Group Bylaws
Sub-activity 1(c) Regional Public Information and Outreach
l Task 1: Develop a regional public outreach program strategy
l Task 2: Approve Public Awareness and Outreach Program Plan by Baltic Sea Steering Group
l Task 3: Implement the Regional Public Awareness and Outreach Program
Activity 2 Regional Socioeconomic Assessments
Sub-activity 2 (a) Improved Methodologies and Management Mechanisms for Assessing Ecosystem Goods and
Services
l Task 1: Research Principal Use of Ecosystem Resources
l Task 2:Conduct First Workshop to Asses Level of LME related Activities
l Task 3: Conduct Second Workshop to Assess Socio-economic Importance of the Ecosystem Resources
l Task 4: Submit Recommendations to BSSG
Component 4 - Project Management
Activity 1 Project Management
Sub-activity 1(a) Project Management
l Task 1: Manage and Administer Component Implementation
l Task 2: Auditing and Reporting
Sub-activity 1(b) Social Assessment
l Task 1 Social Assessment
1 K. Sherman and A. Duda, An ecosystem approach to global assessment and management of coastal waters,
Marine Ecology Series Vol. 190: 271-287, December 1999.
- 60 -
- 61 -
Annex 3: Estimated Project Costs
EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA: BALTIC SEA (GEF)
Local
Foreign
Total
Project Cost By Component
US $million
US $million
US $million
Large Marine Ecosystem Management Activities
1.09
4.01
5.10
Land and Coastal Management Activities
1.38
3.09
4.47
Institutional Strengthening and Regional Capacity Building
0.07
0.08
0.15
Project Management
0.16
1.04
1.20
Total Baseline Cost
2.70
8.22
10.92
Physical Contingencies
0.20
0.40
0.60
Price Contingencies
0.20
0.40
0.60
1
Total Project Costs
3.10
9.02
12.12
Total Financing Required
3.10
9.02
12.12
Local
Foreign
Total
Project Cost By Category
US $million
US $million
US $million
Goods
0.58
4.08
4.66
Works
0.44
0.70
1.14
Services
1.00
3.72
4.72
Training
0.20
0.42
0.62
Operational Costs
0.88
0.10
0.98
1
Total Project Costs
3.10
9.02
12.12
Total Financing Required
3.10
9.02
12.12
1 Identifiable taxes and duties are 0 (US$m) and the total project cost, net of taxes, is 12.12 (US$m). Therefore, the project cost sharing ratio is 45.4% of total
project cost net of taxes.
- 62 -
Annex 4
Incremental Cost Analysis
EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA: BALTIC SEA (GEF)
Overview
1.
The project development objective is to create some preconditions for application of the ecosystem
approach in managing the Baltic Sea Large Marine Ecosystem in order to increase the biological
productivity of the Baltic Sea. The global environmental objective of the project is to to facilitate the
restoration of ecosystems, improve coastal zone management and reduce agricultural non-point source
pollution through the introduction of ecosystem-based approaches in selected localities for land, coastal and
open sea environmental management in five recipient countries by integrating sound land and water
resource management tools. The GEF Alternative, in the first three year phase of the overarching action
program in the Baltic Sea region, intends to achieve these objectives at a total cost of USD 5.5 million
above the Baseline. The proposed GEF Alternative should be viewed as complementary to existing
environmental conservation activities of global significance in the Baltic Sea region.
Context and Broad Development Objective
2.
The Baltic Sea ecosystem is a semi-enclosed water body connected with the North Sea by narrow
and shallow sounds that limit water exchange. Natural fluctuations are characteristic of this ecosystem: the
water is largely regulated by the sporadic inflows of saline and oxygen-rich North Sea water and
intermediate stagnation periods. Contaminants and nutrients enter the Baltic Sea via river run-off, through
atmospheric deposition; and from human activities at sea. It is estimated that renewal of the water of the
Baltic Sea takes about 25-30 years. Although the Baltic Sea ecosystem provides goods and services to 80
million people inhabiting its shores and drainage basin, its full social and economic benefits are not
currently being realized.
3.
The project area encompasses the Baltic Sea watershed, and coastal and marine waters. The land
based and coastal activities are concentrated in targeted demonstration sites in Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia
and Russian Federation (Kaliningrad Oblast and Leningrad Oblast). The land-based demonstration sites
build upon the Baltic Sea Agricultural Run-off Program (BAAP) and target geographical areas vulnerable
to pollution from nitrates; coastal sites have been identified on the basis of earlier work by WWF; and the
marine sites correspond to and supplement current HELCOM/ICES monitoring network.
4.
Despite previous regional and national level efforts to reduce the pollution levels and regulate
fisheries, the Baltic Sea ecosystem is under serious threat. The major transboundary threats to Baltic Sea
ecosystem can be summarized as follows:
l
Degradation of water quality from non-point sources of pollution from agricultural sources;
l
Degradation of the coastal zone from poor planning and land use practices;
l
Reduced productivity from eutrophication and harmful algal blooms in coastal and marine waters;
l
Unsustainable use of fisheries; and
l
Diseases in marine life associated with pollution and emerging problems with introduced "alien"
species.
5.
In response to this situation, the countries in the drainage basin initiated a Joint Comprehensive
Environmental Action Program for the Baltic Sea (JCP). The GEF Alternative will address all the threats
- 63 -
above by assisting the recipient countries in implementing elements of the JCP in order to protect globally
and regionally important environmental and biodiversity resources.
6.
Despite the current economic hardships, the Governments of the recipient countries have remained
committed to protection of the Baltic Sea ecosystem and improvement in quality of life for the communities
who inhabit its shores. The immediate development goals of the recipient countries are to stimulate
economic growth in rural areas through improved agricultural productivity and to improve living standards
of the rural population. Other priorities include institutional strengthening and sub-national government
capacity building; the EU accession process and moving towards meeting the requirements of EU
Environmental directives. Improved management of environmental and natural resources in the pilot project
areas, which will be realized through this project, will contribute towards achieving the recipient countries'
economic development and conservation goals as identified in their CAS documents, and in various national
and international environmental strategy and action programs.
Baseline Scenario
7.
The recipient countries are undertaking a variety of domestically funded environmental
management programs and activities in the Baltic Sea region. These activities include reduction of pollution
discharges from point and non-point sources, coastal zone management, conservation of natural habitats of
global and regional importance; and more sustainable management of natural resources. The approximate
cost of domestic funding for these activities in the recipient countries during the project period is expected
to be in the range of USD 6.0 million.
8.
A number of relevant environmental management and biodiversity conservation activities in the
recipient countries are being financed by various international development agencies and donors. Nordic
bilateral grant assistance remains the main source of external aid to the environment sector in the Baltic
Countries and Poland. In addition to increased Nordic assistance to the Western Oblasts of the Russian
Federation, the EU TACIS program remains an active player. Activities funded by Sida support
implementation of the Baltic Agricultural Run-off Action program in recipient countries.
9.
There are a number of ongoing World Bank funded projects in the project region that promote
environmental management and sustainable agricultural practices through investments into productive
infrastructure, capacity building, and productivity improvement. The Estonia Agricultural Development
Project has provided USD 10.0 million for improved agricultural management practices and conservation
of wetland habitats. Latvia Rural Development Project has provided a total of USD 8.6 million in
investments to stimulate economic growth in depressed rural areas. The Daugavpils Water and Wastewater
Management component of the Latvia Municipal Development Project aims to reduce pollution discharges
into the Baltic Sea drainage basin at the cost of USD 12.0 million. The latter is also the main goal of the
Siauliai and Klaipeda Environmental Management Projects in Lithuania. The total cost of the water quality
improvement and coastal zone management investments of these projects is USD 54.0 million. The Poland
Rural Environmental Protection and Rural Development Projects support development of environmentally
responsible agricultural practices and improve productivity of farm operations at the cost of USD 3.3
million. Finally, the proposed project would provide funding for various open sea ecosystem, coastal zone
management and non-point source pollution control activities which generate direct domestic benefits. The
sources of funding that contribute to the Baseline cost include the European Union, Denmark, Finland,
Sweden, United States, NEFCO and WWF.
10.
The full Baseline Scenario is estimated to cost USD 6.6 million, and consists of: (a) large marine
ecosystem management activities - USD 3.02 million; (b) land and coastal management activities - USD
- 64 -
2.49 million; (c) institutional strengthening and regional capacity building activities - USD 0.15 million;
and (d) project management - USD 0.96 million. It is based on a realistic assessment of available resources
and is consistent with the existing institutional capacity and national development goals.
11.
The ecosystem conservation outcome of the Baseline Scenario is expected to be the following:
l
The recipient countries will continue to work toward meeting their obligations to the Helsinki
Convention at the national level. While each country has the basic capacity to meet these obligations,
the broader regional environmental goals will be difficult to achieve.
l
The recipient countries would continue to manage common resources in a limited capacity, without
standardized procedures for collecting data, monitoring and assessments. Lack of institutional
cooperation at the regional level would limit effective addressing of critical transboundary issues.
l
Lack of coordination among Baltic Sea countries would limit the efforts to stop over fishing, which
leads to reduced biodiversity and loss of economically important fish stock and genetic pool.
l
There would be an increasing impact from agricultural non-point source pollution as the agriculture
sector has started to show signs of recovery, contributing to excessive loads of nutrients and
widespread eutrophication in coastal waters (which leads to continuing deterioration of the open sea
ecosystem).
l
There would be continued degradation of the sensitive coastal wetlands and habitats due to poor coastal
zone planning and management practices at the national and local level.
As a consequence of the current course of action, regarded as the Baseline Scenario, existing government
resources and international financing efforts will not ensure adequate protection of the Baltic Sea shared
open sea and coastal ecosystems and its associated biodiversity of global and regional significance.
Global Environmental Objective
12.
The Project's global environmental objective is to create some preconditions for application of the
ecosystem approach in managing the Baltic Sea Large Marine Ecosystem in order to increase the biological
productivity of the Baltic Sea. Project activities support implementation of the Baltic Sea Joint
Comprehensive Environmental Action Program (JCP), developed by the Helsinki Commission (1992,
1998).
GEF Alternative
13.
The GEF Alternative would supplement the Baseline Scenario by establishing a coordinated
regional structure for ecosystem-based management of living marine resources, and funding activities at
geographically targeted sites to address priority transboundary issues, reduce non-point source pollution
and improve coastal zone management by linking activities undertaken on land, in the coastal zone and in
the open sea environment in a comprehensive manner. The GEF Alternative would also provide an
opportunity for the recipient countries to strengthen management and technical capacity necessary for
managing the common resources of the Baltic Sea ecosystem. Finally, the GEF Alternative would
accelerate dissemination of innovative field-tested technologies and approaches and link them with an
information outreach program. The results of the project could be replicated, with adjustment for local
conditions, in other international basins such as the Black Sea and Danube River Basin. The cost of
implementing the GEF Alternative over the 3-year project period is estimated to be USD 5.5 million. The
- 65 -
principal components of the GEF Alternative are:
l
Introduction of ecosystem-based assessments and management for the Baltic Sea Large Marine
Ecosystem coastal and open-sea resources. This would include coordination and integration of the
regional monitoring and assessment capacity, which would improve management and sustain fishery
yields and biological productivity of the Baltic Sea region. In the long term, this would improve both
the marine ecosystem and the economic benefits and standard of living of the fishing and coastal
communities. USD 5.62 million (GEF financing USD 2.6 million);
l
More sustainable management of land-based agricultural inputs to coastal and open sea water and
improving coastal zone management. Promoting environmental awareness related to agriculture
among farmers and communities. Financial support will be provided for implementation of
environmentally responsible farm management practices. In the long term, this would improve the
economic welfare and standard of living within the farming community while reducing non-point source
agricultural impacts. USD 4.99 million (GEF financing USD 2.5 million);
l
Strengthening of local and regional capacity building and institutional development, which is critical
for successful implementation and replication of the above activities. Regional capacity building will
focus on regional administrative, socioeconomic, and technical matters as they pertain to management
of Baltic Sea resources. Support will be provided for improved regional level coordination and
cooperation between HELCOM, IBSFC, ICES and regional stakeholders. Training for
community-based groups and local NGOs and regional public outreach program. USD 0.15 million
(GEF financing USD 0.0 million).
l
Support for local and regional Project management. USD 1.36 million (GEF financing USD 0.4
million).
Incremental Costs
14.
The project's incremental cost is USD 5.5 million, the difference between the Baseline Scenario
(USD 6.62 million) and the GEF Alternative (USD 12.12 million). Of this, the GEF is requested to fund
USD 5.5 million. The details of the Baseline and the GEF Alternative are presented in the attached
Incremental Cost Matrix.
- 66 -
Incremental Cost Matrix*
Component
Cost Category
Cost
Local Benefit
Global Benefit
USD
Component 1 Large Marine Ecosystem Management Activities
Strengthening
Baseline
0.8
Increased technical level of
Institutional and
national monitoring
Technical Capacity
institutions, resulting in
improved monitoring and
assessment capacity for Baltic
Marine LME.
With GEF
1.4
Scientific institutions
Alternative
conducting monitoring are
using the same equipment
and procedures while
monitoring the Baltic Sea,
which increases reliability
and compatibility of data.
Incremental
0.6
Operationalize
Baseline
1.6
Increased local capacity to
Monitoring and
assess and evaluate ecosystem
Assessment Surveys
interactions and conduct
in Eastern Baltic Sea
multi-species assessment.
With GEF
3.0
Increased use of unified
Alternative
modeling techniques prompts
better assessments of the
state of the Baltic Sea Large
Marine Ecosystem, as well as
forecasts of fish resource
development.
Incremental
1.4
Cooperative Local
Baseline
0.6
As a result of better scientific
and Regional
advice, integrated and holistic
Evaluations and
approach introduced to
Assessments
regional decision making for
ecosystem-based management.
With GEF
1.2
Improved capacity of the three
Alternative
international institutions
(HELCOM, IBSFC and ICES)
to manage critical habitats for
biodiversity enhancement of
the LME.
Incremental
0.6
Component 2 Land and Coastal Management Activities
Agricultural
Baseline
1.0
Reduced direct discharges of
interventions
nutrients to surface- and
groundwater in vicinity of
participating farms.
With GEF
2.1
Further reduction of nutrient
Alternatrive
run-off due to proper
application of good
agricultural practices in
retaining nutrients through
recycling. Pilot
demonstrations will provide
tools for economically and
environmentally sound
management of non-point
- 67 -
source pollution to
international transboundary
waters.
Incremental
1.1
Monitoring and
Baseline
0.4
Improved local capacity to
Assessment of
implement monitoring
Non-Point Source
network, and establish
pollution
nutrient retention practices.
With GEF
1.1
Increased regional awareness
Alternative
of the benefits of
environmental investments
and ability to measure impact
of coordinated action.
Incremental
0.7
Land Based Coastal
Baseline
1.1
Improved coastal zone
Zone Management
management resulting in
better use of resources and
increased incomes and
employment opportunities for
coastal communities.
Community driven
development approaches
promoted in target coastal
areas.
With GEF
1.8
Increased regional
Alternative
understanding of significance
of sound coastal zone
management practices;
comprehensive and
consistent management
practices introduced in major
nesting and resting areas on
the migratory bird North
Atlantic Flyway
Incremental
0.7
Component 3 Institutional Strengthening and Regional Capacity Building
Baseline
0.15
Strengthened local and
regional governance and
ecosystem-based management
capacity.
Improved local awareness of
environmental issues and
better management practices.
With GEF
0.15
Increased international
Alternative
awareness of the Baltic Sea.
Incremental
0
Component 4 Project Management
Baseline
0.96
Improved local project
implementation capacity
With GEF
1.33
Increased capacity of
Alternative
international organization to
manage the regional Baltic
Sea resources. Better
knowledge of social impacts
of environmental projects on
coastal and rural
communities
Incremental
0.4
- 68 -
TOTALS
Baseline
7.2
With GEF
12.12
Alternative
Totals
5.5
* Sources of non-GEF funding that contribute to the baseline cost include
Recipient, Finland, Norway, Sweden, United States, and NEFCO.
- 69 -
Annex 5: Financial Summary
EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA: BALTIC SEA (GEF)
Years Ending
IMPLEMENTATION PERIOD
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
Total Financing
Required
Project Costs
Investment Costs
2.0
4.1
3.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Recurrent Costs
0.8
1.1
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Project Costs
2.8
5.2
4.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Financing
2.8
5.2
4.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Financing
IBRD/IDA
1.0
2.5
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Government
0.1
0.3
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Central
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Provincial
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Co-financiers
1.6
2.0
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
User Fees/Beneficiaries
0.1
0.4
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Other
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Project Financing
2.8
5.2
4.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Main assumptions:
It is assumed that project would become effective without delays, and project activities would start
immediately after that. However, given the relatively large number of participating agencies and due to fact
that they have had only limited prior experience in implementing the Bank financed projects, the disbursements
during the first year of the project are estimated to be at lower levels than over the two remaining years.
- 70 -
Annex 6: Procurement and Disbursement Arrangements
EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA: BALTIC SEA (GEF)
Procurement
A.
Procurement Methods (See Table A)
1. Procurement Arrangements. The Baltic Sea Regional Project is a stand alone Global
Environment Facility (GEF) Project. Procurement of works and goods financed by the GEF Trust
Fund will follow the World Bank's "Guidelines for Procurement under IBRD Loans and IDA
Credits" dated January 1995, and revised January and August 1996, September 1997 and January
1999. Procurement of services financed by the GEF Trust Fund will follow the World Bank's
"Guidelines for Selection and Employment of Consultants by World Bank Borrowers" dated January
1997 and revised September 1997 and January 1999. The World Bank's latest editions of standard
bidding documents and contracts will be used. All procurement will be handled centrally by the Project
Implementation Team (PIT) to be established at HELCOM, which is based in Helsinki, Finland, prior
to the effectiveness of the Grant.
Procurement Capacity Assessment of HELCOM was conducted in June 2001. It is recommended
that: a) HELCOM retains the services of a qualified individual procurement specialist with significant
experience in Bank procedures, to assist with procurement and disbursement actions. This specialist
should have a good knowledge of international procurement. If necessary, he/she should be sent to
procurement training in ILO Turin.
b) Prior to effectiveness, a one-day procurement training session should be held for the staff of the
implementation agencies and the concerned beneficiary staff. Such training should be repeated during
the project launch workshop.
c) A detailed procurement manual containing the roles and responsibilities of all the agencies involved
in the project implementation should be prepared.
2. Civil Works. Works estimated to cost less than US$300,000 equivalent per contract will be
procured through NCB.(For the purposes of this multi-country project, NCB is the competitive
bidding procedure advertised in the country where works are to be provided using local
language and payment in local currency. Contractors from other countries are not restricted
from participation.) Works contracts estimated to cost less than US$ 50,000 each be subject to the
procedure applicable to minor works contract, based on quotations obtained from three qualified
domestic contractors in response to a written invitation. The invitation will include a detailed
description of the work, including basic specifications, the required completion date, a basic form of
agreement and relevant drawings, where applicable, and contracts will be awarded to the contractor
who offers the lowest price quotation for the required work, and who has the experience and resources
to successfully complete the contract.
3. Goods and Equipment. Technical services, equipment and other goods costing US$100,000 and
more per contract will be subject to International Competitive Bidding (ICB) requirements. For goods
estimated to cost less than US$100,000 contracts will be awarded on the basis of the Banks'
International Shopping (IS) procedure, where price quotations will be obtained from at least three
qualified suppliers from at least two eligible countries. Off-the-shelf goods, estimated to cost up to
US$50,000 per contract may be procured through National Shopping (NS), based on comparison of
quotations obtained from at least three domestic suppliers.
- 71 -
4. Consultants' Services. Consultants financed under the Project will be selected in accordance with
Bank consultant guidelines through a quality and cost-based selection (QCBS), and by using the Bank's
Standard Request for Proposals. Specialized local consultant services, will be selected on individual
basis as per Section V of Consultants Guidelines. Training under the project will be implemented
according to an annual training plan that the PIT will prepare and submit to the Bank for approval
before implementation.
5. Contracting of Agricultural Advisory Services (AAS). It is intended to use the services of the
AASs for (i) conducting the training courses for farmers participating in the Project, (ii) assisting them
in preparing the business plans, and (iii) supervising the actual field work. It is proposed to contract the
AASs on bais of single source selection.
Justification for Sole Sourcing. The Estonian Agricultural Advisory Service in Jäneda, Latvian
Agricultural Advisory Service in Ozolnieki, Lithuanian Agricultural Advisory Service in Dotnuva and
Institute for Retraining of Specialists and Agribusiness in Kalinigrad Oblast, Russia, will be contracted by
HELCOM, the recipient of GEF funds. The AASs will provide the Local Implementation Unit (LIU)
services to the Component 2 of the Baltic Sea Regional Project, which will be implemented in the territories
of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Russian Federation.
Given the unique role of the AASs and given the fact that there are no other neither private nor
state-owned agricultural extension services in the Baltic Countries and Kaliningrad oblast, selection of the
AASs on sole source basis is justified. The AASs are the only agricultural extension services in the each of
four states, and possess country-wide (in case of Kaliningrad Oblast - the Oblast wide) network of local
offices and have adequate experience in dealing with farmers. The total amount allocated for single source
selection is US$ 0.532 million.
The AASs are public non-profit organizations which are partly owned by the state and partly by farmer
organizations.
In case of Estonia, the state ownership is exercised more effectively as the director of the service is
appointed by the Ministry of Agriculture; in case of Latvia and Lithuania, the charters call the AASs the
non-profit making agencies. The shareholders (called participants) constitute the general meeting which
establishes the supervisory board and appoints its chairperson. The supervisory board includes, among
others, five nominees from Ministry of Agriculture. The executive board, members of which are elected by
the general meeting, is the executive body. The members of the board elect the chairman of the board. The
AASs have the right to engage the services of an auditing institution or certified auditors to audit its
accounts. The agencies appear to be financially and managerially independent of the government.
6. Incremental Operating Costs. The GEF will finances some of the incremental operating costs to
support local monitoring and assessment efforts, and the incremental costs of general office
maintenance and operation of the, LIUs, Coordination Centers, laboratories and field stations general
operating costs. This includes salaries and operating costs for the PIT, travel costs, operations and
maintenance costs, consumable office supplies, telecommunication, and other costs which would not
have been incurred in absence of the Project. Evidence of actual expenses will be retained by the PIT
and will be reviewed by Bank staff randomly during supervision missions. These expenditures will
vary according to annual budget that will be prepared by the PIT and submitted to the Bank for the
agreement before any expenditures are incurred.
- 72 -
7. Prior Review Thresholds (Table B). The World Bank will conduct a prior review of the following
procurement documentation:
a) Goods and Equipment: All ICB and NCB contracts, as well as first IS and NS contracts will
be submitted for prior review.
b) Works: First MW contract in each HELCOM country will be subject to prior review.
c) Consultants' Services: All contracts with firms above US$100,000, all sole source contracts,
and all contracts above US$50,000 with individual consultants will be subject to prior review.
d) The contracts that would not be subject to prior review would be subject to ex-post review.
Processing: All procurement packages will be prepared by the Procurement and Finance Specialist at the
PIT following the procurement plan and procedures agreed with the Bank. The PIT will forward these
packages to the Bank for prior review and 'no objection', as required
Procurement methods (Table A)
Table A: Project Costs by Procurement Arrangements
(US$ million equivalent)
1
Procurement Method
Expenditure Category
ICB
2
NCB
Other
N.B.F.
Total Cost
1. Works
0.00
0.00
0.30
0.45
0.75
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.24)
(0.00)
(0.24)
2. Goods
0.61
0.00
1.45
1.56
3.62
(0.61)
(0.00)
(1.11)
(0.00)
(1.72)
3. Services
0.00
0.00
1.67
2.69
4.51
(0.00)
(0.00)
(1.67)
(0.00)
(1.67)
4. Sub-projects under Part B
0.00
0.24
0.46
0.90
1.6
(4) of the Project
(0.00)
(0.24)
(0.46)
(0.00)
(0.70)
5. Training
0.00
0.00
0.55
0.10
0.65
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.55)
(0.00)
(0.55)
6. Incremental Operational
0.00
0.00
0.57
0.37
0.94
Costs
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.57)
(0.00)
(0.57)
7. Fee to NEFCO
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.05
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.05)
(0.00)
(0.05)
Total
0.61
0.24
5.53
6.32
12.12
(0.61)
(0.24)
(4.65)
(0.00)
(5.50)
1/ Figures in parenthesis are the amounts to be financed by the Bank Grant. All costs include contingencies.
2/ Includes civil works and goods to be procured through national shopping, consulting services, services of
contracted staff of the project management office, training, technical assistance services, and incremental
- 73 -
operating costs related to (i) managing the project, and (ii) re-lending project funds to local government
units.
- 74 -
Prior review thresholds (Table B)
Table B: Thresholds for Procurement Methods and Prior Review 1
Contract Value
Contracts Subject to
Threshold
Procurement
Prior Review
Expenditure Category
(US$ thousands)
Method
(US$ millions)
1. Works
<300,000
NCB
All NCB Contracts,
<50,000
MW
First MW contract in each
HELCOM country
0.4
2. Goods
ICB
All ICB contracts,
Specialized scientific
<100,000
IS
first IS contract in each
equipment
HELCOM country
<50,000
NS
first NS contract in each
HELCOM country
1.1
3. Services
QCBS
Above US$100,000 - All
contracts; below
US$100,000 - only TORs;
Specialized agricultural
IND
Above US$25,000 - All
advisory services
contracts; below
any
SSS
US$25,000 - only TORs;
All contracts
0.8
Total value of contracts subject to prior review:
US$2,3 million
Overall Procurement Risk Assessment
Average
Frequency of procurement supervision missions proposed: One every 6 months (includes special
procurement supervision for post-review/audits)
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1 Thresholds generally differ by country and project. Consult OD 11.04 "Review of Procurement
Documentation" and contact the Regional Procurement Adviser for guidance.
- 75 -
Disbursement
Allocation of grant proceeds (Table C)
Disbursements: The grant will be disbursed against 100% of eligible foreign expenditures, 100% of local
expenditures (ex-factory cost), 80% of local expenditures for goods and equipment procured locally; 80%
of local expenditures for works; and 100% of eligible expenditures for consultant services, operating costs
and fees.
Use of Statements of Expenses (SOEs): Disbursement will be made on the basis of Statement of
Expenditures (SOEs) for: (a) expenditures for goods under contracts below US$100,000 equivalent; (b) for
consultant services and training under contracts for firms below US$100,000 equivalent; (c) for consultant
services and training under contracts for individuals below US$25,000 equivalent; and (d) travel and
subsistence expenditures with respect to Consultants' services and training activities below US$10,000
equivalent per person. The appropriate documentation will be retained by the PIT and made available for
review by the auditors and for examination by Bank supervision missions.
Special Account: A Special Account denominated in US Dollars will be established by HELCOM in a
bank acceptable to the World Bank under terms and conditions satisfactory to the Bank. The authorized
allocation of the Special Account is US$750,000 for the equivalent of 4-5 months disbursements. The
Special Account will be administered and replenished in accordance with Bank guidelines, details of the
disbursement procedures will be included in the initial Disbursement Letters to be issued by the World
Bank.
Table C: Allocation of Grant Proceeds
Expenditure Category
Amount in US$million
Financing Percentage
Consultants services
1.67
100%
Goods
1.72
100% of foreign expenditures, 100% of
local expenditures (ex-factory cost) and
80% of local expenditures for other items
procured locally
Works
0.24
100% of foreign
expenditures, 80% of local expenditures
Sub-projects under Part B (4) of the
0.70
100%
Project
Incremental Operating Costs
0.62
100%
Training
0.55
100%
Total Project Costs
5.50
Total
5.50
- 76 -
Annex 7: Project Processing Schedule
EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA: BALTIC SEA (GEF)
Project Schedule
Planned
Actual
Time taken to prepare the project (months)
18
31
First Bank mission (identification)
08/01/1999
08/24/1999
Appraisal mission departure
09/11/2000
02/04/2002
Negotiations
12/05/2000
04/18/2002
Planned Date of Effectiveness
02/16/2001
09/15/2002
Prepared by:
HELCOM, IBSFC, and ICES in cooperation with SLU, Jordforsk and WWF
Preparation assistance:
BSRP Core Group
Bank staff who worked on the project included:
Name
Speciality
Mohammed Bekhechi
WB Legal Advisor
John Bryant Collier
WB Operations Officer
Henrik Dissing
WWF Denmark
Martin Fodor
WB Environmental Specialist
Tatyana Frolova
WB Disbursement Specialist
Andrina Ambrose-Gardiner
WB Financial Management Specislist/Disbursement Officer
Katherin Golitzen
WB Production Coordinator/Editor
Lennart Gladh
WWF Sweden
Martha Jarosewich-Holder
WB Environmental Specialist
Andrew Hudson
UNDP-International Waters Coordinator
Clifford Isaak
WB Financial Management Specialist
Richard Kenchington
GEF-STAP Reviewer
Naushad Khan
WB Sr. Procurement Specialist
Inesis Kiskis
WB Sr. Environmental Specialist/Task Team Leader
Stephen F. Lintner
WB Senior Technical Advisor
Staffan Lund
SLU-Swedish Agricultural University
Carl Gustaf Lundin
WB Peer Reviewer
Solveig Nordström
NEFCO
Norval Stan Peabody
WB Social Scientist
Rohan Selvaratnam
Program Assistant
Kristine K.Schwebach
WB Project Assistant
Alexandre Roukavichnikov
WB Procurement Specialist
Mahesh Sharma
WB Peer Reviewer
Jitendra Srivastava
Peer Reviewer
Jan Thulin
Chairman of the BSRP Core Group
- 77 -
Vladimir Tsirkunov
WB Sr. Environmental Specialist
Nils Vagstad
Jordforsk
Due to an automobile accident in Estonia on August 24, 1999 involving Jan Thhulin, Chairman of the
BSRP Core Group and Stephen Lintner, the World Bank Task Team Leader, Project preparation was
delayed for over 6 months.
- 78 -
Annex 8: Documents in the Project File*
EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA: BALTIC SEA (GEF)
A. Project Implementation Plan
HELCOM, IBSFC and ICES. 2002. Baltic Sea Regional Project. Project Implementation and Procurement
Plan.
B. Bank Staff Assessments
C. Other
1.
Key Regional Documents
Baltic 21 Secretariat. 1998. An Agenda 21 for the Baltic Sea Region Baltic 21, Baltic 21 Series No.1/98.
Environment for Europe. 1998. Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in
Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, June, 1998. Fourth Ministerial
Conference "Environment for Europe" in Aarhus, Denmark.
European Union Council Directive Concerning the Protection of Waters against Pollution caused by
Nitrates from Agricultural Sources (91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991).
European Union Council Regulation on Agricultural Production Methods Compatible with the
Requirements of the Protection of the Environment and the Maintenance of the Countryside, EEC No
2078/92 of 30 June 1992.
Government of Germany/World Bank. 1998 "Berlin Recommendations- Lessons Learned, Challenges and
Issues for the Future." Proceedings of the International Round Table on Transboundary Management -
Experience of International River and Lake Commissions, Berlin, Germany, September 1998.
Government of Germany/World Bank. 2000. "Vilnius Recommendations: Transboundary Water
Management of the Baltic Sea Region." Proceedings of the International Round Table, Vilnius,
Lithuania, June 1999.
Helsinki Commission. 1974, updated 1992. Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the
Baltic Sea Area (Helsinki Convention).
Helsinki Commission. 1992, updated 1998. Baltic Sea Joint Comprehensive Environmental Action
Program (JCP), HELCOM, 1992, updated 1998.
Helsinki Commission. 1998. Baltic Sea Joint Comprehensive Environmental Action Program: Background
Document on Recommendations for Strengthening and Updating.
International Baltic Sea Fishery Commission. 1973. Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living
Resources in the Baltic Sea and Belts (Gdansk Convention).
2.
Technical Materials - Component 1
HELCOM and ICES. 2000. Large Marine Ecosystem Workshop Participant Proposals, (Riga -
July11-14, 2000).
Sherman, K. and A. Duda.1999. "An Ecosystem Approach to Global Assessment and
Management of Coastal Waters," Marine Ecology Progress Series, 190:271-287.
- 79 -
3.
Technical Materials - Component 2
Lintner, Stephen F. 1997. "Agriculture and Environment in the Baltic Sea Region: An Agenda for Action"
Ambio 26:7, November.
National Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management (Poland). 1999. "Rural
Environmental Protection Project, Operational Handbook."
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. 1998. "Baltic Agricultural Run-off Action Program (BAAP)
1994-1997.
4.
Country Level Information
Estonia
World Bank. 1995. Estonia Haapsalu and Matsalu Bays Environment Project. (March 1995).
World Bank. 1996. Estonia - Agriculture Project. World Bank. (February 6, 1996).
World Bank. 1999. Estonia - Involving Farmers: Social Assessment in the Estonia Agriculture Project.
(October 1999).
World Bank. 2000. Estonia - Haapsalu and Matsalu Bays Environment Project - Implementation
Completion Report (draft).
Latvia
World Bank. 1994. Latvia Liepaja Environment Project. (MOP) (November 8, 1994) (Report No.
P6402).
World Bank. 1996. Latvia Agriculture Policy Update. (August 15, 1996) (Report No. 15913).
World Bank. 1998. Latvia Rural Development Project. (June 30,1998) (Report No. 18158).
World Bank. 1999. Farmers and Other Agriculture Organizations in Latvia.(November 1999) (Project ID.
309162336).
World Bank. 2000. Latvia - Liepaja Environment Project - Implementation Completion Report.
Lithuania
World Bank. 1994. Lithuania Klaipeda Environment Project. (November 9, 1994) (Report No. 13430).
World Bank. 1996. Lithuania Private Agriculture Development Project.(March 7, 1996) (Report No.,
14631).
Xie, Jian, "1997. A Good Practice of Environmental Performance Indicators Used in Lithuania Siauliai
Environment Project."
Poland
World Bank. 1996. Country Procurement Assessment Report. (March 15, 1996.)
World Bank. 1996. Poland-Agriculture Development Project - Implementation Completion Report
(December 30, 1996).
World Bank. 1997. Poland Environment Management Project, Implementation Completion Report. (May
30, 1997) (Report No. 16640).
World Bank. 1999. Poland-Rural Environmental Protection Project.(November 4, 1999). (Report No.
19868).
SWECO COWI Consultants. Pre-Feasibility Study of the Vistula River Basin and the Baltic Coast of
Poland, Reports and Appendices. World Bank, 1992.
Russian Federation
World Bank. 1994. Russian Federation Land Reform and Farm Restructuring in Russia. (February 1,
1994) (Report No. WDP233).
- 80 -
World Bank. 1996. Agricultural Reform in Russia: A View from the Farm Level. (June 1, 1996) (Report
No.WDP327).
Ministry of Agriculture and Food of the Russian Federation. 1998. Report concerning implementation of a
Swedish-Russian Environment Project at Tolmachyovo Farm, Kaliningrad.
*Including electronic files
- 81 -
Annex 9: Statement of Loans and Credits
EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA: BALTIC SEA (GEF)
Estonia
01-Mar-2002
Difference between expected
and actual
Original Amount in US$ Millions
disbursementsa
Project ID
FY
Purpose
IBRD
IDA
Cancel.
Undisb.
Orig
Frm Rev'd
P035775
2000 TRANSPORT
25.00
0.00
0.00
15.50
-6.11
0.00
P008403
1996 AGRICULTURE
15.30
0.00
0.00
0.53
4.33
0.00
Total:
40.30
0.00
0.00
16.04
-1.78
0.00
EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA
STATEMENT OF IFC's
Held and Disbursed Portfolio
Estonia
Jan - 2002
In Millions US Dollars
Committed
Disbursed
IFC
IFC
FY Approval
Company
Loan
Equity
Quasi
Partic
Loan
Equity
Quasi
Partic
1999
Baltic Hotel
3.40
0.00
0.84
0.00
3.40
0.00
0.84
0.00
2002
EVR
50.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1997/99
Eesti Uhispank
14.58
0.00
0.00
0.00
14.58
0.00
0.00
0.00
1996
Elcoteq Tallinn
1.54
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.54
0.00
0.00
0.00
1998/99
Horizon
6.10
0.00
1.79
0.00
5.20
0.00
0.98
0.00
2001
Krenholm
4.67
0.00
2.38
10.04
3.75
0.00
2.38
8.06
1999
Reval Hotel
6.78
2.00
0.00
0.00
2.20
1.00
0.00
0.00
Total Portfolio:
87.07
2.00
5.01
10.04
30.67
1.00
4.20
8.06
Approvals Pending Commitment
FY Approval
Company
Loan
Equity
Quasi
Partic
Total Pending Commitment:
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
- 82 -
LATVIA
01-Mar-2002
Difference between expected
and actual
Original Amount in US$ Millions
disbursementsa
Project ID
FY
Purpose
IBRD
IDA
GEF
Cancel.
Undisb.
Orig
Frm Rev'd
P058476
2001 LIEPAJA S.W. MGMT.
2.22
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.20
0.39
0.17
P008530
2001 RIGA DIST HEAT
36.16
0.00
0.00
0.00
35.62
7.39
0.00
P058520
1999 HEALTH
12.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.90
8.04
0.00
P055585
1999 STATE REVENUE SERVIC
5.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.01
3.08
0.00
P049172
1999 EDUC IMPROVMT
31.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.35
-6.49
0.00
P045716
1998 SOLID WASTE MGMT (GEF)
0.00
0.00
5.10
0.00
2.43
2.68
0.00
P040553
1998 SOLID WASTE MGMT
7.95
0.00
5.10
0.00
5.29
4.09
0.15
P035807
1997 WELFARE REFORM
18.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.32
7.09
0.00
P034584
1996 MUN SERVICES DEVT
27.30
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.50
0.52
0.00
Total:
139.83
0.00
10.20
0.02
65.61
26.80
0.33
EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA
STATEMENT OF IFC's
Held and Disbursed Portfolio
Jan - 2002
In Millions US Dollars
Committed
Disbursed
IFC
IFC
FY Approval
Company
Loan
Equity
Quasi
Partic
Loan
Equity
Quasi
Partic
0/95
Lattelekom SIA
2.86
13.55
0.00
0.00
2.86
13.55
0.00
0.00
1996
Vika Wood
1.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total Portfolio:
4.06
13.55
0.00
0.00
4.06
13.55
0.00
0.00
Approvals Pending Commitment
FY Approval
Company
Loan
Equity
Quasi
Partic
2001
Linstow Retail
17.00
8.00
0.00
35.00
Total Pending Commitment:
17.00
8.00
0.00
35.00
- 83 -
LITHUANIA
01-Mar-2002
Difference between expected
and actual
Original Amount in US$ Millions
disbursementsa
Project ID
FY
Purpose
IBRD
IDA
GEF
Cancel.
Undisb.
Orig
Frm Rev'd
P063656
2002 VILNIUS DISTTRICT HEATING (BB)
17.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
16.93
0.33
0.00
P068706
2001 SAL 2
98.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
47.77
49.43
0.00
P035780
2000 HEALTH
21.24
0.00
0.00
0.00
19.32
4.68
0.00
P035776
2000 KLAIPEDA PORT
35.36
0.00
0.00
0.00
19.90
2.54
0.00
P035802
1999 MUNICIPAL DEV'T.
20.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.50
-0.57
0.00
P008539
1997 SOC. POL. COMM SERV
3.70
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.39
1.39
0.00
P036011
1996 KLAIPEDA GEOTHERMAL
5.90
0.00
6.90
0.00
0.56
0.56
0.39
P008553
1995 KLAIPEDA ENVIRONMENT
7.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.24
1.24
1.18
P008537
1994 POWER REHABILITATION
26.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.81
0.81
0.81
Total:
235.30
0.00
6.90
0.00
114.44
60.42
2.38
EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA
STATEMENT OF IFC's
Held and Disbursed Portfolio
Jan - 2002
In Millions US Dollars
Committed
Disbursed
IFC
IFC
FY Approval
Company
Loan
Equity
Quasi
Partic
Loan
Equity
Quasi
Partic
2000
Drobe Wool
6.10
0.50
0.00
0.00
3.80
0.50
0.00
0.00
1999
Ekranas
10.39
0.00
1.94
0.00
10.39
0.00
1.94
0.00
0
Margarino
0.29
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.29
0.00
0.00
0.00
1999/01
Vilniaus Bankas
0.00
0.00
19.38
0.00
0.00
0.00
19.38
0.00
Total Portfolio:
16.78
0.50
21.32
0.00
14.48
0.50
21.32
0.00
Approvals Pending Commitment
FY Approval
Company
Loan
Equity
Quasi
Partic
Total Pending Commitment:
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
- 84 -
POLAND
01-Mar-2002
Difference between expected
and actual
Original Amount in US$ Millions
disbursementsa
Project ID
FY
Purpose
IBRD
IDA
SF
GEF
Cancel.
Undisb.
Orig
Frm Rev'd
P065059
2001 KRAKOW ENRGY EFF
15.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
15.52
4.29
0.00
P040795
2001 RAIL RESTRCT (PKP)
101.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
45.33
-15.78
0.00
P008615
2001 SEAWAY/PORT MOD. (SZCZECIN-SWINOUJSCIE)
38.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
33.23
6.49
0.00
P050660
2000 RURAL ENV PROT
2.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.10
0.91
0.00
P057993
2000 GEOTHERMAL & ENV (PODHALE) (GEF)
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.40
0.00
3.94
4.43
0.00
P058202
2000 RURAL DEVELOPMENT - PL
120.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
93.78
51.10
0.00
P059613
2000 RURAL ENV PROT (GEF)
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.00
0.00
2.74
2.00
0.00
P037339
2000 GEOTHERMAL AND ENVIRONMENT (PODHALE)
38.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
25.75
11.85
0.00
P008593
1998 ROADS II
300.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
115.36
92.03
0.00
P053796
1998 FLOOD EMERGENCY PL
200.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
61.53
61.53
-0.13
P036061
1997 PORT ACCESS & MGMT.
67.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.25
10.61
0.00
P008595
1996 BIELSKO-BIALA WATER
21.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.92
8.89
0.00
P008604
1996 POWER TRANSMISSION
160.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
52.60
78.19
0.00
P008563
1995 COAL TO GAS CONV (GEF)
0.00
0.00
0.00
25.00
0.00
6.59
10.30
0.89
P008587
1992 HEALTH
130.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
35.00
11.01
46.01
9.51
Total:
1,193.74
0.00
0.00
33.40
35.00
485.64
372.85
10.27
EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA
STATEMENT OF IFC's
Held and Disbursed Portfolio
Jan - 2002
In Millions US Dollars
Committed
Disbursed
IFC
IFC
FY Approval
Company
Loan
Equity
Quasi
Partic
Loan
Equity
Quasi
Partic
1996
Baltic Malt
2.30
0.00
1.93
0.00
2.30
0.00
1.87
0.00
1997
CPF
0.00
1.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.49
0.00
0.00
0
ESCO Polska
0.00
0.21
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.21
0.00
0.00
1996/97
Gaspol
0.00
0.98
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.98
0.00
0.00
1998
Global Hotels
2.82
3.20
3.92
0.00
0.00
3.20
2.34
0.00
1993
Huta Warszawa
5.08
0.00
3.75
0.00
5.08
0.00
3.75
0.00
1995/97/98/00
Intercell
0.00
2.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.06
0.00
0.00
1997
Norgips
7.14
0.00
0.00
12.40
7.14
0.00
0.00
12.40
1993
PEF-Poland
0.00
1.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.50
0.00
0.00
1998
Paroc Polska
6.41
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.41
0.00
0.00
0.00
1994
Peters
5.58
1.00
0.00
0.00
5.58
0.88
0.00
0.00
1993
Sandoglass
6.61
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.61
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total Portfolio:
35.94
10.55
9.60
12.40
33.12
10.32
7.96
12.40
Approvals Pending Commitment
FY Approval
Company
Loan
Equity
Quasi
Partic
Total Pending Commitment:
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
- 85 -
RUSSIAN FEDERATION
01-Mar-2002
Difference between expected
and actual
Original Amount in US$ Millions
disbursementsa
Project ID
FY
Purpose
IBRD
IDA
GEF
Cancel.
Undisb.
Orig
Frm Rev'd
P050489
2002 FISC FED & REG FISC REF
120.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
120.00
0.00
0.00
P008832
2001 MUN WATER & WW
122.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
122.50
20.42
0.00
P046061
2001 MOSC URB TRANS
60.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
58.32
12.99
0.00
P050474
2001 EDUC REFORM
50.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
50.00
4.27
0.00
P038551
2001 MUN HEATING
85.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
85.00
4.11
0.82
P064238
2001 N RESTRUCT
80.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
80.00
1.00
0.00
P053830
2000 SUST FORESTRY PILOT-RU
60.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
60.00
6.50
0.00
P058587
2000 REG FISC TA
30.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
25.82
9.12
0.00
P050487
1999 STATE STATS SYST
30.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
27.73
11.07
2.43
P046496
1998 SOC PROT IMPL
28.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
13.08
13.08
0.00
P042720
1997 ST PETERSBURG REHAB
31.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
P044200
1997 BUREAU OF ECON POL
22.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.69
2.78
-0.26
P008814
1997 HEALTH REFORM PILOT
66.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
41.82
33.26
0.00
P008825
1997 EDUC INNOV
71.00
0.00
0.00
3.00
51.46
29.09
0.00
P050891
1997 ELEC SECTR REF
40.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
37.61
37.61
37.61
P045622
1996 COAL IAP
25.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.40
7.40
7.40
P042622
1996 CAP MRKT DEV
89.00
0.00
0.00
33.75
31.38
65.13
9.80
P008801
1996 BIODIV CONSV (GEF)
0.00
0.00
20.10
0.00
2.22
4.10
-5.36
P008831
1996 LEGAL REFORM
58.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
28.61
28.61
19.10
P008800
1996 ODS CONSMP PHASEOUT(GEF)
0.00
0.00
60.00
0.00
14.53
21.75
-12.81
P035761
1996 COMMUNITY SOC INF
200.00
0.00
0.00
56.50
49.24
86.41
11.24
P035764
1996 BRIDGE REHAB
350.00
0.00
0.00
195.33
13.45
208.78
50.78
P036973
1996 ENT HOUSING DIVST
300.00
0.00
0.00
122.74
126.40
229.14
42.77
P008806
1995 URBAN TRANSPORT
329.00
0.00
0.00
77.60
2.60
80.20
1.17
P008803
1995 EGY EFF
106.50
0.00
3.20
40.00
9.92
86.42
-0.09
P040409
1995 EMG OIL SPILL MITIGATION
99.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.36
1.36
1.12
P008821
1995 ENV MGMT
110.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
52.51
52.51
5.63
P008823
1995 PORTFOLIO DEVT
40.00
0.00
0.00
6.95
7.92
14.87
12.84
P008827
1995 HOUSING
400.00
0.00
0.00
150.73
60.90
211.63
60.90
P034579
1994 LAND REF IMPL SUPPORT
80.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
22.93
22.93
-9.75
P008839
1994 ENTERPRISE SUPPORT
200.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
150.60
150.60
16.59
P008828
1994 FIN INSTS
200.00
0.00
0.00
59.50
65.16
124.66
27.18
Total:
3,483.20
0.00
83.30
746.10
1,425.20
1,581.82
279.10
- 86 -
EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA
STATEMENT OF IFC's
Held and Disbursed Portfolio
Jan - 2002
In Millions US Dollars
Committed
Disbursed
IFC
IFC
FY Approval
Company
Loan
Equity
Quasi
Partic
Loan
Equity
Quasi
Partic
1996/98
Alpha Cement
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1997/99
Aminex
0.00
0.12
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.12
0.00
0.00
1998
Borsteklo
0.00
15.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
15.00
0.00
0.00
2001
Bravo
15.00
0.00
0.00
7.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1999
Campina
6.88
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.88
0.00
0.00
0.00
1998
DCC
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.00
1999
DLV
0.00
0.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.60
0.00
0.00
1995
Depsona Z.A.O.
0.00
0.00
1.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.50
0.00
1998
DreVo
0.00
0.90
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.89
0.00
0.00
1995
First NIS Fund
0.00
6.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.30
0.00
0.00
1994
Framlington Fund
0.00
8.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
8.00
0.00
0.00
2000
Ikea MOS
15.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
15.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1998
Mosenergo
17.99
0.00
0.00
0.00
17.99
0.00
0.00
0.00
2002
NBD
2.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
2001
NMC
2.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2001
OMGC
10.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1996
Pioneer First
0.00
4.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.00
0.00
0.00
2001
Probusiness Bank
0.00
0.00
5.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.00
0.00
1994
RTDC
0.00
7.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.50
0.00
0.00
1998/01
Ramstore
30.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
30.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1995
Russ Tech Fnd
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
1994
Russia Registry
0.00
1.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.50
0.00
0.00
0
SCF Restructured
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.00
2002
Sonic Duo
24.00
0.00
0.00
10.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1998
Toribank
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1996
UNEXIM Bank
5.28
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.28
0.00
0.00
0.00
1998
ZAO Storaenso
5.40
1.50
0.00
0.00
5.40
1.50
0.00
0.00
Total Portfolio:
134.15
46.52
6.50
17.00
93.05
46.51
6.50
0.00
Approvals Pending Commitment
FY Approval
Company
Loan
Equity
Quasi
Partic
2001
Bema Gold
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
1999
DLV
3.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2001
Ford Russia
55.00
0.00
0.00
55.00
2001
Pakenso - RI
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.00
2001
Ruscam
13.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2002
Russ Stndard Bnk
15.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2002
Sonic Duo
0.00
6.00
0.00
0.00
2002
Swedwood Tichvin
5.90
0.00
0.00
0.00
2001
Volga-Dnepr
25.00
0.00
0.00
25.00
Total Pending Commitment:
116.90
6.00
1.20
80.00
- 87 -
- 88 -
Annex 10: Country at a Glance
EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA: BALTIC SEA (GEF)
Estonia
Europe &
Upper-
POVERTY and SOCIAL
Central
middle-
Estonia
Asia
income
Development diamond*
2000
Population, mid-year (millions)
1.4
475
647
Life expectancy
GNI per capita (Atlas method, US$)
3,530
2,010
4,620
GNI (Atlas method, US$ billions)
5.1
956
2,986
Average annual growth, 1994-00
Population (%)
-0.7
0.1
1.3
Labor force (%)
-0.4
0.6
2.0
GNI
Gross
per
primary
Most recent estimate (latest year available, 1994-00)
capita
enrollment
Poverty (% of population below national poverty line)
9
..
..
Urban population (% of total population)
69
67
76
Life expectancy at birth (years)
71
69
69
Infant mortality (per 1,000 live births)
10
21
28
Child malnutrition (% of children under 5)
..
..
..
Access to improved water source
Access to an improved water source (% of population)
..
90
87
Illiteracy (% of population age 15+)
..
3
10
Gross primary enrollment (% of school-age population)
94
100
107
Estonia
Male
95
101
106
Upper-middle-income group
Female
93
99
105
KEY ECONOMIC RATIOS and LONG-TERM TRENDS
1980
1990
1999
2000
Economic ratios*
GDP (US$ billions)
..
6.8
5.2
5.0
Gross domestic investment/GDP
..
30.2
24.7
24.1
Trade
Exports of goods and services/GDP
..
..
77.0
96.5
Gross domestic savings/GDP
..
22.3
18.7
19.8
Gross national savings/GDP
..
..
18.9
17.3
Current account balance/GDP
..
..
-4.7
-6.3
Domestic
Interest payments/GDP
..
..
0.4
1.6
Investment
savings
Total debt/GDP
..
..
47.4
50.5
Total debt service/exports
..
..
1.9
2.2
Present value of debt/GDP
..
..
..
39.1
Present value of debt/exports
..
..
..
39.6
Indebtedness
1980-90
1990-00
1999
2000
2000-04
(average annual growth)
GDP
2.2
-0.5
-1.1
6.4
4.9
Estonia
GDP per capita
1.5
0.5
-0.6
7.0
5.3
Upper-middle-income group
Exports of goods and services
..
11.3
-2.3
32.9
7.5
STRUCTURE of the ECONOMY
1980
1990
1999
2000
Growth of investment and GDP (%)
(% of GDP)
40
Agriculture
..
16.6
5.8
5.3
Industry
..
49.7
25.7
27.3
20
Manufacturing
..
42.1
15.4
16.9
Services
..
33.7
68.5
67.4
0
95
96
97
98
99
00
Private consumption
..
62.1
57.6
58.1
-20
General government consumption
..
15.5
23.7
22.2
GDI
GDP
Imports of goods and services
..
..
83.0
100.8
1980-90
1990-00
1999
2000
Growth of exports and imports (%)
(average annual growth)
Agriculture
..
-3.3
-1.4
-3.2
40
Industry
..
-2.7
-6.6
14.1
30
Manufacturing
..
3.3
-2.6
16.8
20
Services
..
1.6
2.1
3.8
10
Private consumption
..
1.2
-3.6
6.1
0
General government consumption
..
4.7
7.9
0.8
-10
95
96
97
98
99
00
Gross domestic investment
..
-1.6
-15.9
6.4
Exports
Imports
Imports of goods and services
..
12.0
-6.1
28.5
Note: 2000 data are preliminary estimates.
* The diamonds show four key indicators in the country (in bold) compared with its income-group average. If data are missing, the diamond will
be incomplete.
- 89 -
Estonia
PRICES and GOVERNMENT FINANCE
1980
1990
1999
2000
Inflation (%)
Domestic prices
(% change)
60
Consumer prices
..
..
3.3
0.3
40
Implicit GDP deflator
..
33.7
3.9
5.3
20
Government finance
(% of GDP, includes current grants)
0
Current revenue
..
..
36.4
35.8
95
96
97
98
99
00
Current budget balance
..
..
-2.5
-0.5
GDP deflator
CPI
Overall surplus/deficit
..
..
-4.7
-0.4
TRADE
1980
1990
1999
2000
Export and import levels (US$ mill.)
(US$ millions)
Total exports (fob)
..
..
2,515
3,289
5,000
Food
..
..
216
257
4,000
Minerals
..
..
60
74
Manufactures
..
..
2,239
2,753
3,000
Total imports (cif)
..
..
3,337
4,077
2,000
Food
..
..
371
432
Fuel and energy
..
..
207
271
1,000
Capital goods
..
..
1,056
1,110
0
94
95
96
97
98
99
00
Export price index (1995=100)
..
..
122
131
Import price index (1995=100)
..
..
88
94
Exports
Imports
Terms of trade (1995=100)
..
..
138
140
BALANCE of PAYMENTS
1980
1990
1999
2000
Current account balance to GDP (%)
(US$ millions)
Exports of goods and services
..
..
4,004
4,787
0
Imports of goods and services
..
..
4,262
5,035
94
95
96
97
98
99
00
Resource balance
..
..
-258
-249
-5
Net income
..
..
-102
-204
Net current transfers
..
..
113
138
Current account balance
..
..
-247
-315
-10
Financing items (net)
..
..
417
383
Changes in net reserves
..
..
-170
-69
-15
Memo:
Reserves including gold (US$ millions)
..
..
946
1,014
Conversion rate (DEC, local/US$)
..
..
14.4
17.0
EXTERNAL DEBT and RESOURCE FLOWS
1980
1990
1999
2000
(US$ millions)
Composition of 2000 debt (US$ mill.)
Total debt outstanding and disbursed
..
..
2,478
2,513
IBRD
..
..
88
71
A: 71
D: 105
IDA
..
..
0
0
E: 32
Total debt service
..
..
79
110
G: 853
IBRD
..
..
8
19
IDA
..
..
0
0
Composition of net resource flows
Official grants
..
..
0
1
Official creditors
..
..
7
-28
Private creditors
..
..
-35
-46
Foreign direct investment
..
..
222
324
F: 1,452
Portfolio equity
..
..
21
116
World Bank program
Commitments
..
..
0
25
A - IBRD
E - Bilateral
Disbursements
..
..
19
4
B - IDA
D - Other multilateral
F - Private
Principal repayments
..
..
3
14
C - IMF
G - Short-term
Net flows
..
..
16
-9
Interest payments
..
..
5
5
Net transfers
..
..
11
-15
Development Economics
10/9/01
- 90 -
Latvia
Europe &
Lower-
POVERTY and SOCIAL
Central
middle-
Latvia
Asia
income
Development diamond*
2000
Population, mid-year (millions)
2.4
475
2,046
Life expectancy
GNI per capita (Atlas method, US$)
2,870
2,010
1,140
GNI (Atlas method, US$ billions)
6.9
956
2,327
Average annual growth, 1994-00
Population (%)
-0.9
0.1
1.0
Labor force (%)
-0.8
0.6
1.3
GNI
Gross
per
primary
Most recent estimate (latest year available, 1994-00)
capita
enrollment
Poverty (% of population below national poverty line)
..
..
..
Urban population (% of total population)
69
67
42
Life expectancy at birth (years)
70
69
69
Infant mortality (per 1,000 live births)
14
21
32
Child malnutrition (% of children under 5)
..
..
11
Access to improved water source
Access to an improved water source (% of population)
..
90
80
Illiteracy (% of population age 15+)
0
3
15
Gross primary enrollment (% of school-age population)
96
100
114
Latvia
Male
98
101
116
Lower-middle-income group
Female
93
99
114
KEY ECONOMIC RATIOS and LONG-TERM TRENDS
1980
1990
1999
2000
Economic ratios*
GDP (US$ billions)
..
12.5
6.7
7.2
Gross domestic investment/GDP
25.6
40.1
27.0
27.1
Trade
Exports of goods and services/GDP
..
47.7
43.8
45.8
Gross domestic savings/GDP
32.7
38.8
16.7
18.6
Gross national savings/GDP
..
..
17.4
20.3
Current account balance/GDP
..
..
-9.7
-6.8
Domestic
Interest payments/GDP
..
0.0
1.5
1.1
Investment
savings
Total debt/GDP
..
0.0
39.9
41.0
Total debt service/exports
..
..
9.2
7.5
Present value of debt/GDP
..
..
13.1
13.2
Present value of debt/exports
..
..
28.4
26.5
Indebtedness
1980-90
1990-00
1999
2000
2000-04
(average annual growth)
GDP
5.8
-3.4
1.1
6.6
5.0
Latvia
GDP per capita
5.2
-2.4
1.8
7.2
5.7
Lower-middle-income group
Exports of goods and services
..
1.4
-6.4
12.8
6.9
STRUCTURE of the ECONOMY
1980
1990
1999
2000
Growth of investment and GDP (%)
(% of GDP)
60
Agriculture
11.8
21.9
4.5
4.5
Industry
50.9
46.2
27.0
25.3
40
Manufacturing
46.0
34.5
15.3
14.5
20
Services
37.2
31.9
68.5
70.2
0
Private consumption
59.4
52.7
62.8
62.5
95
96
97
98
99
00
-20
General government consumption
7.9
8.6
20.5
18.9
GDI
GDP
Imports of goods and services
..
49.0
54.1
54.3
1980-90
1990-00
1999
2000
Growth of exports and imports (%)
(average annual growth)
Agriculture
4.2
-7.0
-7.3
9.2
40
Industry
6.5
-8.4
-3.4
5.1
30
Manufacturing
6.7
-7.8
-5.9
5.7
20
Services
5.1
2.5
5.1
7.1
10
Private consumption
5.4
-4.8
5.1
5.6
0
General government consumption
5.0
7.8
0.0
-2.9
-10
95
96
97
98
99
00
Gross domestic investment
3.4
-1.9
-8.7
-1.3
Exports
Imports
Imports of goods and services
..
2.4
-5.2
4.8
Note: 2000 data are preliminary estimates.
* The diamonds show four key indicators in the country (in bold) compared with its income-group average. If data are missing, the diamond will
be incomplete.
- 91 -
Latvia
PRICES and GOVERNMENT FINANCE
1980
1990
1999
2000
Inflation (%)
Domestic prices
(% change)
45
Consumer prices
..
..
2.4
2.6
30
Implicit GDP deflator
0.5
-27.8
7.4
4.3
15
Government finance
(% of GDP, includes current grants)
0
Current revenue
..
..
40.0
37.5
95
96
97
98
99
00
Current budget balance
..
..
0.7
0.6
GDP deflator
CPI
Overall surplus/deficit
..
..
-3.9
-3.3
TRADE
1980
1990
1999
2000
Export and import levels (US$ mill.)
(US$ millions)
Total exports (fob)
..
..
1,724
1,869
4,000
n.a.
..
..
..
..
n.a.
..
..
..
..
3,000
Manufactures
..
..
1,582
1,711
Total imports (cif)
..
..
2,824
3,057
2,000
Food
..
..
256
285
1,000
Fuel and energy
..
..
129
135
Capital goods
..
..
538
521
0
94
95
96
97
98
99
00
Export price index (1997=100)
..
..
96
95
Import price index (1997=100)
..
..
93
99
Exports
Imports
Terms of trade (1997=100)
..
..
104
96
BALANCE of PAYMENTS
1980
1990
1999
2000
Current account balance to GDP (%)
(US$ millions)
Exports of goods and services
..
..
2,914
3,271
0
Imports of goods and services
..
..
3,605
3,876
94
95
96
97
98
99
00
-2
Resource balance
..
..
-691
-606
-4
Net income
..
..
-48
25
Net current transfers
..
..
93
96
-6
Current account balance
..
..
-646
-485
-8
Financing items (net)
..
..
811
513
-10
Changes in net reserves
..
..
-165
-28
-12
Memo:
Reserves including gold (US$ millions)
..
..
1,124
1,092
Conversion rate (DEC, local/US$)
..
..
0.6
0.6
EXTERNAL DEBT and RESOURCE FLOWS
1980
1990
1999
2000
(US$ millions)
Composition of 2000 debt (US$ mill.)
Total debt outstanding and disbursed
..
..
2,657
2,930
IBRD
..
..
200
242
A: 242
IDA
..
..
0
0
C: 35
D: 28
Total debt service
..
..
283
265
E: 55
IBRD
..
..
17
21
IDA
..
..
0
0
G: 1,288
Composition of net resource flows
Official grants
..
..
23
32
Official creditors
..
..
47
-10
F: 1,282
Private creditors
..
..
267
-233
Foreign direct investment
..
..
331
398
Portfolio equity
..
..
273
-321
World Bank program
Commitments
..
..
36
79
A - IBRD
E - Bilateral
Disbursements
..
..
28
63
B - IDA
D - Other multilateral
F - Private
Principal repayments
..
..
4
9
C - IMF
G - Short-term
Net flows
..
..
24
54
Interest payments
..
..
13
12
Net transfers
..
..
11
42
Development Economics
9/5/01
- 92 -
Lithuania
Europe &
Lower-
POVERTY and SOCIAL
Central
middle-
Lithuania
Asia
income
Development diamond*
2000
Population, mid-year (millions)
3.7
475
2,046
Life expectancy
GNI per capita (Atlas method, US$)
2,750
2,010
1,140
GNI (Atlas method, US$ billions)
10.2
956
2,327
Average annual growth, 1994-00
Population (%)
-0.1
0.1
1.0
Labor force (%)
-1.0
0.6
1.3
GNI
Gross
per
primary
Most recent estimate (latest year available, 1994-00)
capita
enrollment
Poverty (% of population below national poverty line)
16
..
..
Urban population (% of total population)
68
67
42
Life expectancy at birth (years)
72
69
69
Infant mortality (per 1,000 live births)
9
21
32
Child malnutrition (% of children under 5)
..
..
11
Access to improved water source
Access to an improved water source (% of population)
66
90
80
Illiteracy (% of population age 15+)
1
3
15
Gross primary enrollment (% of school-age population)
98
100
114
Lithuania
Male
100
101
116
Lower-middle-income group
Female
96
99
114
KEY ECONOMIC RATIOS and LONG-TERM TRENDS
1980
1990
1999
2000
Economic ratios*
GDP (US$ billions)
..
..
10.2
11.2
Gross domestic investment/GDP
..
32.6
22.7
20.7
Trade
Exports of goods and services/GDP
..
52.1
39.7
45.5
Gross domestic savings/GDP
..
24.0
12.3
14.2
Gross national savings/GDP
..
..
11.5
14.7
Current account balance/GDP
..
..
-11.7
-6.0
Domestic
Interest payments/GDP
..
..
1.6
1.9
Investment
savings
Total debt/GDP
..
..
44.4
43.2
Total debt service/exports
..
..
17.8
19.7
Present value of debt/GDP
..
..
..
..
Present value of debt/exports
..
..
..
..
Indebtedness
1980-90
1990-00
1999
2000
2000-04
(average annual growth)
GDP
..
-3.1
-3.9
3.3
5.0
Lithuania
GDP per capita
..
-3.0
-3.8
3.4
5.1
Lower-middle-income group
Exports of goods and services
..
4.8
-13.1
9.0
7.2
STRUCTURE of the ECONOMY
1980
1990
1999
2000
Growth of investment and GDP (%)
(% of GDP)
40
Agriculture
..
27.1
8.5
7.7
Industry
..
30.9
31.4
33.0
20
Manufacturing
..
20.9
17.9
21.4
Services
..
42.1
60.1
59.2
0
95
96
97
98
99
00
Private consumption
..
56.8
65.5
64.3
-20
General government consumption
..
19.2
22.2
21.5
GDI
GDP
Imports of goods and services
..
60.7
50.1
51.9
1980-90
1990-00
1999
2000
Growth of exports and imports (%)
(average annual growth)
Agriculture
..
0.4
-12.3
2.0
30
Industry
..
2.0
-10.2
2.0
20
Manufacturing
..
3.1
-8.7
10.2
10
Services
..
4.4
2.1
4.3
0
95
96
97
98
99
00
Private consumption
..
5.6
2.1
3.8
-10
General government consumption
..
1.1
-17.5
-0.7
-20
Gross domestic investment
..
7.0
-9.6
-9.3
Exports
Imports
Imports of goods and services
..
7.5
-13.1
4.5
Note: 2000 data are preliminary estimates.
* The diamonds show four key indicators in the country (in bold) compared with its income-group average. If data are missing, the diamond will
be incomplete.
- 93 -
Lithuania
PRICES and GOVERNMENT FINANCE
1980
1990
1999
2000
Inflation (%)
Domestic prices
(% change)
80
Consumer prices
..
..
0.3
1.4
60
Implicit GDP deflator
..
..
3.2
2.0
40
Government finance
20
(% of GDP, includes current grants)
0
Current revenue
..
..
32.1
30.1
95
96
97
98
99
00
Current budget balance
..
..
-4.0
-0.8
GDP deflator
CPI
Overall surplus/deficit
..
..
-8.5
-2.8
TRADE
1980
1990
1999
2000
Export and import levels (US$ mill.)
(US$ millions)
Total exports (fob)
..
..
3,004
3,809
7,500
Mineral products
..
..
452
809
Agricultural and food
..
..
282
446
5,000
Manufactures
..
..
1,391
1,621
Total imports (cif)
..
..
4,835
5,457
Food
..
..
384
363
2,500
Fuel and energy
..
..
709
1,185
Capital goods
..
..
722
684
0
94
95
96
97
98
99
00
Export price index (1995=100)
..
..
106
113
Import price index (1995=100)
..
..
93
102
Exports
Imports
Terms of trade (1995=100)
..
..
114
111
BALANCE of PAYMENTS
1980
1990
1999
2000
Current account balance to GDP (%)
(US$ millions)
Exports of goods and services
..
..
4,238
5,109
0
Imports of goods and services
..
..
5,338
5,833
94
95
96
97
98
99
00
Resource balance
..
..
-1,099
-724
-5
Net income
..
..
-258
-194
Net current transfers
..
..
163
243
Current account balance
..
..
-1,194
-675
-10
Financing items (net)
..
..
998
806
Changes in net reserves
..
..
196
-131
-15
Memo:
Reserves including gold (US$ millions)
..
..
1,242
1,359
Conversion rate (DEC, local/US$)
..
..
4.2
4.0
EXTERNAL DEBT and RESOURCE FLOWS
1980
1990
1999
2000
(US$ millions)
Composition of 2000 debt (US$ mill.)
Total debt outstanding and disbursed
..
..
4,528
4,857
IBRD
..
..
200
253
A: 253
IDA
..
..
0
0
C: 192
G: 1,114
Total debt service
..
..
776
1,046
D: 421
IBRD
..
..
15
24
IDA
..
..
0
0
E: 251
Composition of net resource flows
Official grants
..
..
10
63
Official creditors
..
..
267
84
Private creditors
..
..
442
142
Foreign direct investment
..
..
477
375
Portfolio equity
..
..
9
122
F: 2,626
World Bank program
Commitments
..
..
41
134
A - IBRD
E - Bilateral
Disbursements
..
..
30
66
B - IDA
D - Other multilateral
F - Private
Principal repayments
..
..
4
9
C - IMF
G - Short-term
Net flows
..
..
26
57
Interest payments
..
..
11
15
Net transfers
..
..
16
42
- 94 -
Development Economics
9/6/01
Poland
Europe &
Upper-
POVERTY and SOCIAL
Central
middle-
Poland
Asia
income
Development diamond*
2000
Population, mid-year (millions)
38.7
475
647
Life expectancy
GNI per capita (Atlas method, US$)
4,210
2,010
4,620
GNI (Atlas method, US$ billions)
162.7
956
2,986
Average annual growth, 1994-00
Population (%)
0.0
0.1
1.3
Labor force (%)
0.6
0.6
2.0
GNI
Gross
per
primary
Most recent estimate (latest year available, 1994-00)
capita
enrollment
Poverty (% of population below national poverty line)
..
..
..
Urban population (% of total population)
66
67
76
Life expectancy at birth (years)
73
69
69
Infant mortality (per 1,000 live births)
9
21
28
Child malnutrition (% of children under 5)
..
..
..
Access to improved water source
Access to an improved water source (% of population)
74
90
87
Illiteracy (% of population age 15+)
0
3
10
Gross primary enrollment (% of school-age population)
96
100
107
Poland
Male
97
101
106
Upper-middle-income group
Female
96
99
105
KEY ECONOMIC RATIOS and LONG-TERM TRENDS
1980
1990
1999
2000
Economic ratios*
GDP (US$ billions)
..
59.0
157.7
162.2
Gross domestic investment/GDP
..
25.6
26.4
26.5
Trade
Exports of goods and services/GDP
..
28.6
26.1
27.4
Gross domestic savings/GDP
..
32.8
20.0
19.6
Gross national savings/GDP
..
..
20.4
20.0
Current account balance/GDP1
..
..
-7.3
-6.1
Domestic
Interest payments/GDP
..
0.3
1.1
1.4
Investment
savings
Total debt/GDP
..
83.7
41.1
42.0
Total debt service/exports
..
..
26.6
29.3
Present value of debt/GDP
..
..
32.4
..
Present value of debt/exports
..
..
162.3
..
Indebtedness
1980-90
1990-00
1999
2000
2000-04
(average annual growth)
GDP
..
4.6
4.1
4.0
3.4
Poland
GDP per capita
..
4.5
4.1
4.0
3.2
Upper-middle-income group
Exports of goods and services
..
10.5
-2.6
6.0
7.1
STRUCTURE of the ECONOMY
1980
1990
1999
2000
Growth of investment and GDP (%)
(% of GDP)
30
Agriculture
..
8.3
3.9
..
Industry
..
50.1
35.8
36.2
20
Manufacturing
..
..
21.0
..
10
Services
..
41.6
60.2
..
0
Private consumption
..
48.0
63.5
64.0
95
96
97
98
99
00
General government consumption
..
19.3
16.5
16.4
GDI
GDP
Imports of goods and services
..
21.5
32.5
34.4
1980-90
1990-00
1999
2000
Growth of exports and imports (%)
(average annual growth)
Agriculture
..
-0.1
-1.7
..
30
Industry
..
4.2
3.0
6.8
20
Manufacturing
..
..
..
..
Services
..
4.1
7.3
..
10
0
Private consumption
..
5.4
5.8
2.6
95
96
97
98
99
00
General government consumption
..
3.2
1.0
1.8
-10
Gross domestic investment
..
10.6
5.9
4.2
Exports
Imports
Imports of goods and services
..
15.8
1.0
-2.5
Note: 2000 data are preliminary estimates.
* The diamonds show four key indicators in the country (in bold) compared with its income-group average. If data are missing, the diamond will
be incomplete.
- 95 -
Poland
PRICES and GOVERNMENT FINANCE
1980
1990
1999
2000
Inflation (%)
Domestic prices
(% change)
40
Consumer prices
..
..
7.3
10.1
30
Implicit GDP deflator
..
..
6.7
7.2
20
Government finance
10
(% of GDP, includes current grants)
0
Current revenue
..
..
20.5
19.8
95
96
97
98
99
00
Current budget balance
..
..
-0.8
-1.2
GDP deflator
CPI
Overall surplus/deficit
..
..
-2.0
-2.2
TRADE
1980
1990
1999
2000
Export and import levels (US$ mill.)
(US$ millions)
Total exports (fob)
..
14,322
27,407
31,651
60,000
Food and live animals
..
..
2,328
2,377
Machinery and transport equipment
..
..
8,305
10,858
45,000
Manufactures
..
..
12,715
13,680
Total imports (cif)
..
9,528
45,911
48,940
30,000
Food and live animals
..
..
2,534
2,561
15,000
Mineral fuels, lubricants and related products
..
..
3,303
5,307
Capital goods, machinery, and transport eq.
..
..
17,564
18,136
0
94
95
96
97
98
99
00
Export price index (1995=100)
..
34
141
143
Import price index (1995=100)
..
37
139
146
Exports
Imports
Terms of trade (1995=100)
..
90
102
98
BALANCE of PAYMENTS
1980
1990
1999
2000
Current account balance to GDP (%)
(US$ millions)
Exports of goods and services
..
..
29,657
31,772
6
Imports of goods and services
..
..
45,661
46,624
4
Resource balance
..
..
-16,004
-14,852
2
Net income
..
..
-793
-761
0
Net current transfers
..
..
1,604
1,680
94
95
96
97
98
99
00
-2
Current account balance1
..
..
-11,558
-9,946
-4
Financing items (net)
..
..
11,726
10,621
-6
Changes in net reserves
..
..
-168
-675
-8
Memo:
Reserves including gold (US$ millions)
..
..
25,494
27,466
Conversion rate (DEC, local/US$)
..
0.9
3.9
4.2
EXTERNAL DEBT and RESOURCE FLOWS
1980
1990
1999
2000
(US$ millions)
Composition of 2000 debt (US$ mill.)
Total debt outstanding and disbursed
..
49,366
64,890
68,198
IBRD
..
55
2,185
2,229
A: 2,229
IDA
..
0
0
0
G: 9,187
D: 2,554
Total debt service
..
966
8,374
9,955
IBRD
..
1
317
321
IDA
..
0
0
0
E: 21,426
Composition of net resource flows
Official grants
..
..
221
260
Official creditors
..
-77
-441
-1,108
Private creditors
..
-18
2,461
-2,755
Foreign direct investment
..
..
6,348
9,338
F: 32,802
Portfolio equity
..
..
1,058
894
World Bank program
Commitments
..
1,081
303
197
A - IBRD
E - Bilateral
Disbursements
..
54
247
349
B - IDA
D - Other multilateral
F - Private
Principal repayments
..
0
188
199
C - IMF
G - Short-term
Net flows
..
54
59
150
Interest payments
..
1
129
122
- 96 -
Net transfers
..
54
-70
28
Development Economics
9/13/01
Russian Federation
Europe &
Lower-
POVERTY and SOCIAL
Russian
Central
middle-
Federation
Asia
income
Development diamond*
2000
Population, mid-year (millions)
145.5
475
2,046
Life expectancy
GNI per capita (Atlas method, US$)
1,660
2,010
1,140
GNI (Atlas method, US$ billions)
241.6
956
2,327
Average annual growth, 1994-00
Population (%)
-0.3
0.1
1.0
Labor force (%)
0.0
0.6
1.3
GNI
Gross
per
primary
Most recent estimate (latest year available, 1994-00)
capita
enrollment
Poverty (% of population below national poverty line)
30
..
..
Urban population (% of total population)
73
67
42
Life expectancy at birth (years)
66
69
69
Infant mortality (per 1,000 live births)
15
21
32
Child malnutrition (% of children under 5)
3
..
11
Access to improved water source
Access to an improved water source (% of population)
99
90
80
Illiteracy (% of population age 15+)
1
3
15
Gross primary enrollment (% of school-age population)
109
100
114
Russian Federation
Male
109
101
116
Lower-middle-income group
Female
108
99
114
KEY ECONOMIC RATIOS and LONG-TERM TRENDS
1980
1990
1999
2000
Economic ratios*
GDP (US$ billions)
..
1,100.1
193.2
251.1
Gross domestic investment/GDP
..
30.1
14.8
17.2
Trade
Exports of goods and services/GDP
..
18.2
43.9
45.9
Gross domestic savings/GDP
..
30.3
31.2
38.2
Gross national savings/GDP
..
..
25.3
33.8
Current account balance/GDP
..
..
10.6
16.7
Domestic
Interest payments/GDP
..
..
1.1
1.1
Investment
Savings
Total debt/GDP
..
..
90.6
64.5
Total debt service/exports
..
..
11.5
9.6
Present value of debt/GDP
..
..
67.7
..
Present value of debt/exports
..
..
153.5
..
Indebtedness
1980-90
1990-00
1999
2000
2000-04
(average annual growth)
GDP
..
-4.8
5.4
8.3
4.3
Russian Federation
GDP per capita
..
-4.6
5.8
8.9
4.7
Lower-middle-income group
Exports of goods and services
..
-0.9
-1.8
4.3
2.0
STRUCTURE of the ECONOMY
1980
1990
1999
2000
Growth of investment and GDP (%)
(% of GDP)
20
Agriculture
..
16.6
7.4
7.1
Industry
..
48.4
35.5
38.7
0
Manufacturing
..
..
..
..
95
96
97
98
99
00
Services
..
35.0
57.1
54.2
-20
Private consumption
..
48.9
52.1
47.9
-40
General government consumption
..
20.8
16.7
13.8
GDI
GDP
Imports of goods and services
..
17.9
27.4
24.8
1980-90
1990-00
1999
2000
Growth of exports and imports (%)
(average annual growth)
Agriculture
..
-6.0
10.7
5.0
40
Industry
..
-7.6
9.8
11.8
20
Manufacturing
..
..
..
..
Services
..
-3.3
2.2
2.9
0
95
96
97
98
99
00
-20
Private consumption
..
2.0
-1.6
8.2
General government consumption
..
0.3
3.0
12.9
-40
Gross domestic investment
..
-18.4
5.7
17.3
Exports
Imports
Imports of goods and services
..
-7.4
-28.4
17.5
Note: 2000 data are preliminary estimates.
* The diamonds show four key indicators in the country (in bold) compared with its income-group average. If data are missing, the diamond will
be incomplete.
- 97 -
Russian Federation
PRICES and GOVERNMENT FINANCE
1980
1990
1999
2000
Inflation (%)
Domestic prices
(% change)
400
Consumer prices
..
5.6
85.7
20.8
300
Implicit GDP deflator
..
15.9
64.7
37.1
200
Government finance
100
(% of GDP, includes current grants)
0
Current revenue
..
..
33.5
37.1
95
96
97
98
99
00
Current budget balance
..
..
1.3
7.8
GDP deflator
CPI
Overall surplus/deficit
..
..
-3.6
2.9
TRADE
1980
1990
1999
2000
Export and import levels (US$ mill.)
(US$ millions)
Total exports (fob)
..
..
75,666
105,566
125,000
Crude oil
..
..
14,101
25,319
100,000
Natural gas
..
..
11,352
16,644
Manufactures
..
..
8,500
10,000
75,000
Total imports (cif)
..
..
41,757
47,192
50,000
Food
..
..
8,100
7,400
Fuel and energy
..
..
419
471
25,000
Capital goods
..
..
10,500
10,600
0
94
95
96
97
98
99
00
Export price index (1995=100)
..
..
82
112
Import price index (1995=100)
..
..
85
82
Exports
Imports
Terms of trade (1995=100)
..
..
96
136
BALANCE of PAYMENTS
1980
1990
1999
2000
Current account balance to GDP (%)
(US$ millions)
Exports of goods and services
..
..
84,738
115,200
20
Imports of goods and services
..
..
52,970
62,290
Resource balance
..
..
31,768
52,910
15
Net income
..
..
-11,900
-11,154
10
Net current transfers
..
..
542
90
Current account balance
..
..
20,410
41,846
5
Financing items (net)
..
..
-16,583
-23,432
0
Changes in net reserves
..
..
-3,827
-18,415
94
95
96
97
98
99
00
Memo:
Reserves including gold (US$ millions)
..
..
12,456
27,972
Conversion rate (Official, local/US$)
..
..
24.6
28.1
EXTERNAL DEBT and RESOURCE FLOWS
1980
1990
1999
2000
(US$ millions)
Composition of 2000 debt (US$ mill.)
Total debt outstanding and disbursed
..
..
175,103
162,023
IBRD
..
..
6,809
7,067
A: 7,067
IDA
..
..
0
0
G: 17,953
C: 11,613
..
..
Total debt service paid
..
..
9,761
11,165
D: 251
IBRD
..
..
520
679
IDA
..
..
0
0
..
..
Composition of net resource flows
Official grants
..
..
..
..
Official creditors
..
..
577
-688
F: 60,239
E: 64,900
Private creditors
..
..
-176
-330
Foreign direct investment
..
..
1,348
-347
Portfolio equity
..
..
-200
-100
..
..
World Bank program
Commitments
..
..
430
183
A - IBRD
E - Bilateral
Disbursements
..
..
538
540
B - IDA
D - Other multilateral
F - Private
Principal repayments
..
..
150
267
C - IMF
G - Short-term
- 98 -
Net flows
..
..
388
274
Interest payments
..
..
370
412
Net transfers
..
..
18
-139
Additional Annex 11: Public Participation Summary
EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA: BALTIC SEA (GEF)
1.
Participatory Approach. Experience from a number of regional GEF projects has demonstrated the
importance of broad based stakeholder participation for successful project development and
implementation. This is especially critical given the Project's long-term goal for regional engagement for
ecosystem-based monitoring, assessment, and management. The Project preparation process engaged
regional, national and local stakeholders to identify the key issues within the context of the Project, and
design activities to support improved social, economic and environmental conditions in the Baltic Sea
region.
2.
Social Issues in the Baltic Sea Region. There are two major social issues inherently addressed in
the Project design. First, the current social welfare system in the recipient countries provides little support
to the farming, coastal and fishing communities. The economic welfare of these communities has in turn
suffered the greatest during the period of economic transition. Subsequently, this affected other sectors such
as local businesses and local labor. A second issue is attributed to the deteriorated state of the Baltic Sea
ecosystem. Impacts from pollution, degradation of coastal areas and over fishing have increasing effects on
the regional economy, including the potential development of coastal tourism. Decreased quality of fish
stock results in reduced incomes in the fishing community, while conflicts between commercial fisheries
and subsistence fishing and between fisherman and fisheries management have increased transboundary
tensions between countries.
3.
Project Stakeholders. The primary stakeholders and beneficiaries include (i) national and local
governments, and agricultural, coastal and fishing communities in the participating countries; (ii) local
sector interests (businesses, fisheries, agriculture, tourism, shipping), and (iii) community based
organizations and local nongovernmental organizations. Secondary stakeholders include (i) regional
partners and cooperating bodies: HELCOM, IBSFC, ICES; and (ii) international partners: EU, other
member governments of HELCOM, cooperating international financial institutions (NEFCO, World Bank),
and regional nongovernmental organizations. The Project reflects the lessons learned from stakeholder
engagement in the Baltic Sea in the work of HELCOM, as well as previous Bank supported projects, donor
supported demonstration projects;* and technical assessments done by the three cooperating international
bodies.
4.
The stakeholders have been actively involved in the project preparation process. The Project
Coordinator has engaged the recipient country participants through workshops and meetings, and individual
consultations. The Baltic Sea Regional Project Core Group has actively incorporated representatives from
regional programs and initiatives in meetings, collaborated with technical specialists from the region,
helped integrate the land, coastal and open sea principles in the project design.
5.
Experience from the JCP. The Project builds on these lessons and the JCP priority activities,
which have a broad-based commitment from the wide range of stakeholders in the region. There have been
numerous regional meetings whose recommendations provided the parameters and criteria for
- 99 -
transboundary cooperation. Noteworthy among these are the Vilnius Recommendations, which are the
outcome of a Project related regional meeting on the management of transboundary waters. These
recommendations have provided the basis for the Project design that promotes an integrated approach
towards watershed, coastal and marine environments. They included an evaluation of lessons learned from
regional cooperation to date in the Baltic Sea region, and noted the importance of a spirit of cooperation for
managing transboundary waters and formation of broad based regional partnerships for successful program
development and operation.
6.
Component 1 Large Marine Ecosystem Management Activities - Participation. During Project
preparation, the Chaorman of the Core Group individually met with recipient country technical specialists
who are responsible for reporting to ICES and HELCOM. These specialists are familiar with the issues in
the region, and knowledgeable on fisheries matters in the Baltic Sea. During the Component 1 LME
Workshop (Riga, July 11-14) the individual Country Proposals were transformed into an integrated
regional ecosystem-based approach to coastal and open sea management. The proposed activities will
facilitate strengthened cooperation between the local and regional decision-makers on resource management
issues. WWF met with local coastal and fishing communities who shared their views and concerns about
the current state of coastal management and fisheries and their effects on their livelihood and welfare.
7.
Component 2 - Land and Coastal Management Activities - Participation. The Project's
agricultural activities build on the institutional and technical work undertaken by the Swedish supported
BAAP program, and coordinate with the GEF supported Rural Environmental Protection Project in Poland.
Farmers in the selected demonstration watersheds have been consulted concerning Project activities that
build upon those demonstrated earlier under the first phase of BAAP. The approach to be used in the
Project is based on the BAAP model and is interactive and very participatory with local farm communities,
authorities and the agricultural education system in the region. Through individual consultation,
participating farmers and the extension services involved in the BAAP project provided their perspective
and their recommendations were incorporated into the Project design. Local BAAP extension services
currently engaged in the farm communities also provided institutional and implementation
recommendations.
8.
Within the Project design two NGOs, the Agriculture Advisory Services (AAS), and Farmers
Interest Organizations (FIO)s, will interact directly with the farmers, and launch the educational programs
on a national level with the purpose of disseminating the Project message to a broader public. The
programs will be interactive, providing information to the farming community while gaining experience
from the lessons learned. This will be a participatory monitoring approach as part of a social assessment, to
learn best methods and determine impact. The AAS and FIOs will also provide input for the design of the
credit line under development by NEFCO. The Project will support local institutional strengthening of the
AAS and FIOs to continue providing technical assistance after the Project is complete. Farms located
within the coastal zone will be engaged in the coastal zone management activities, implemented jointly with
Component 1.
9.
The WWF will coordinate a series of locally based management demonstration activities for
coastal zone management. These activities will be based on previously developed management plans that
were prepared with the active participation of national, country and local governments, community
organizations and local nongovernmental organizations. To address local social and economic issues, the
Project will provide opportunities for agricultural, coastal and fishing communities to benefit from
small-scale investments, and strengthen the capacity of the local fishing associations to contribute to the
decision-making process. The communities' input has been considered in the coastal zone management
activities and adapted to link with other activities to meet Project objectives. Pilot coastal zone management
- 100 -
activities will involve stakeholder involvement in sustainable community development and environmental
conservation, and support small-scale investments to improve the local standard of living for these
communities. This effort will include the involvement of the local decision makers, community
organizations, local nongovernmental organizations, and the business community, with support from
WWF.
10.
Component 3- Institutional Strengthening and Regional Capacity Building - Participation.
Component 3 will facilitate the strengthening of local and regional institutions and build capacity for a
holistic approach to ecosystem-based management of the Baltic Sea resources. The valuation of ecosystem
goods and services will be a useful tool for local and regional decision-makers, the business community,
and other stakeholders to understand the implications of management decisions and practices. The WWF
will also be involved in Project implementation and will conduct a training program for community
stakeholders and local nongovernmental organizations. The Project budget includes funds for a systematic
social assessment to evaluate the social impacts from the component activities and outreach program, to
provide potential modifications to the Project design as needed, the social assessment is an activity with
Component 4.
11.
Institutional Arrangements and Monitoring and Evaluation. The WWF, a member of the BSRP
Core Group, has been engaged in the region and its interest and involvement will ensure the Project is
successfully implemented and achieves the projected social benefits. For component specific activities, the
activity Coordinator, and Local Project Managers will be involved with the fishing and farming community.
They will be responsible for daily implementation and monitoring and evaluation, and will report to the
BSRP Steering Committee. HELCOM will have overall monitoring responsibility of the Project. The social
assessment will be included as part of the monitoring and evaluation process.
12.
Outcomes and Indicators. While there has been no systematic social assessment during Project
preparation, active engagement of local stakeholders during preparation has been positive. A social
assessment process will be conducted during Project implementation, at a time when it will be easier to
gauge the progress of implementation and adapt activities for optimal results. The Project will facilitate the
strengthening of regional, national and local capacity. It supports efforts to find solutions to problems and
conflicts between recreation and commercial fisheries, fisherman and fisheries managers, and
transboundary issues. Participating BAAP farm families noted increases in farm productivity and income,
improved drinking water quality, and subsequent environmental improvements from improved manure
storage. Though the Project's basic objective is to create some preconditions for better managment of the
Baltic Sea ecosystem, it is implicit that this will improve the social and economic welfare in the region
because it will be done through activities that directly engage and benefit people in the area and help protect
their long-term interests. A summary of the key socially oriented performance indicators, detailed in Annex
1.
* Baltic 21 Programme, Phare supported ICZM project in the region, USEPA-PAWQP agricultural management project.
- 101 -
Additional Annex 12: Transboundary Analysis
EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA: BALTIC SEA (GEF)
Transboundary Analysis
Introduction
1.
Baltic Sea Environment. The Baltic Sea is the largest body of brackish water in the world. It has
thirteen major watersheds and a very narrow and shallow linkage with the North Sea. This restricted
linkage contributes to infrequent flushing of the Baltic Sea's waters. During this century, major inflows of
replenishing saline water have occurred approximately every 11 years but have recently been less frequent.
The last major inflow of saline water took place in 1976. The bottom water can remain stagnant for long
periods. Thus there is a distinct layering of water characterized by surface waters of low salinity and a
warm top layer and deep water with higher salinity. As late as 1950 the Baltic Sea was still regarded as
environmentally "healthy;" its ecological deterioration has been caused in recent years by an increase of
point source industrial and non-point source agricultural pollutants, degradation of the coastal zone and
non-sustainable use of living marine resources. The natural vulnerabilities have been seriously aggravated
by anthropogenic causes of environmental change and degradation. These problems of the Baltic Sea are
transboundary in nature, and difficult to address on an individual country basis.
2.
Strategic Action Program. The need to address the management of agricultural inputs into
international waters, improve coastal zone management and adopt sustainable management of living marine
resources has been highlighted in the "Baltic Sea Joint Comprehensive Environmental Action Program
(JCP)" which was prepared under the coordination of the Helsinki Commission by a broad based task
force. The JCP was adopted as the strategic action program for the region by the Ministers of Environment
in 1992 and was updated and strengthened in 1998. HELCOM prepares assessments of transboundary
trends and impacts in the form of Pollution Load Compilations and Periodic Assessments which support
implementation of the JCP. The JCP recognizes the need to use an ecosystem-based management approach
that recognizes the freshwater, coastal and marine resources as a management continuum. This Project
responds to the need to address regional transboundary issues and to establish a coordinated approach to
ecosystem-based management, in order to alleviate burdens from anthropogenic impacts and meet the
objectives of the JCP.
3.
Vilnius Recommendations. As a contribution to the JCP and to support Project preparation, the
Government of Germany and World Bank jointly sponsored an International Round Table on
"Transboundary Water Management of the Baltic Sea Region" which resulted in the "Vilnius
Recommendations." These recommendations--reflecting the views and experience of regional
organizations, national and local governments, international financial institutions and nongovernmental
organizations--emphasized the need for sustained preventive and curative actions to achieve environmental
improvements in both the short and long term. They noted the importance of cooperating at the regional,
national and local levels to address the diversity of transboundary water management problems in the Baltic
Sea region.
- 102 -
Transboundary Issues
4.
Living Marine Resources Management. The Baltic Sea and its catchment area have a range of
ecosystems and biological diversity. The brackish waters of the Baltic Sea contain a mixture of marine and
freshwater species. The coastal areas serve as spawning, nursery, and feeding areas for several species of
fish. Baltic 21 statistics have indicated that the fishery industry contributes significantly to regional and
local economy, and sustenance fishing is critical to the social and economic welfare of the coastal
communities in the eastern Baltic. Major coastal and marine transboundary issues prevail due to current
land, coastal and marine practices; they include: (i) changes in the productivity of the near coastal and
offshore waters from eutrophication; (ii) unsustainable condition of fish stock yields; and (iii) degraded
condition of coastal water quality from pollution, harmful algal blooms, multiple ecological disturbances,
and contaminant loading.
5.
Coastal Zone Management. The coastal zone of the Baltic Sea is physically diverse, of high
economic importance and is under a range of development pressures. These areas include a number of
important shared water bodies in the eastern Baltic Sea that include the Gulf of Finland, Gulf of Riga,
Kursiu Lagoon, Vistula Lagoon/Kaliningrad Lagoon and Oder/Odra Lagoon. Studies by HELCOM, Baltic
21, national governments, VASAB 2010 and WWF have emphasized the importance of development and
implementation of integrated management plans for these areas. Important coastal zone management issues
include: (i) rapid changes in land use in urban and industrial areas associated with economic growth and
restructuring; (ii) pressure for incremental development activities, especially related to tourism and
recreation; (iii) direct and indirect degradation of coastal lagoons and wetlands from waterborne pollution,
filling, and drainage; and (iv) conversion and destruction of fragile coastal habitats.
6.
Land Management. Agriculture is the largest anthropogenic source of non-point source nutrient
input to the Baltic Sea. HELCOM estimates that non-point source pollution from agriculture contributes
30-35 percent of the current nitrogen, and 10-15 percent of the current phosphorus loading entering the
Baltic Sea, as well as pesticide residues. Within the Baltic Sea catchment area, approximately 40 percent of
the land is in agriculture. In addition, the agricultural sector is traditionally conservative and it is often
difficult to introduce innovative, environmentally responsible practices if the benefit is not immediately
visible to the farmer. This has been a particular problem in the countries in economic transition in the
eastern and southern portions of the Baltic Sea drainage basin, where the restructured agriculture sector has
had to address a diversity of issues beyond environmental management. Reports by HELCOM and Baltic
21 have identified and reported on priority areas where poor agricultural practices have contributed to
environmental degradation which include: (i) increased eutrophication from improper storage and
application of animal waste and poor agricultural land management practices contributing to non-point
source nutrient run-off to local tributaries, and (ii) lack of understanding, resources, and capacity to utilize
environmentally responsible agriculture practices. Table A identifies the regional threats and issues from
non-point source pollution and a transboundary analysis.
7.
Eutrophication. HELCOM has identified eutrophication from non-point source nutrients and
organic matter as a top priority transboundary water problem. It is caused by excessive growth of biomass
stimulated by the large influx of nitrogen and phosphorus compounds. The common symptoms of
eutrophication are increased plant biomass in the form of algae, oxygen deficiency in water bodies,
formation of hydrogen sulfide and remineralization of the biomass. These processes disrupt the balance of
freshwater, coastal and open sea ecosystems and cause changes in their structure and function. Impacts
associated with eutrophication in Baltic coastal and open sea waters include: (i) a shift in the composition
of marine vegetation in many coastal areas, (ii) repeated large scale algal blooms, (iii) disrupted
reproductive cycles of some fish species, (iv) declines and shifts of the fish communities--decreases in
- 103 -
abundance of commercially more important fish species in some fish stocks and increases in others, (v) an
overall change in species composition, and (vi) a restriction of the depth range for the vegetation zone.
8.
Algal Blooms. Toxic algal blooms have been found in the entire Baltic Sea. The large-scale blooms
have been attributed to the high nutrient load in the Baltic Sea, with exceptionally sunny weather serving as
an effective catalyst for starting the blooms. For example, there were massive blue-green algal blooms in
the summer of 1997, and according to studies by the Finnish Institute for Marine Research, the surface
accumulations of blue-green algae during this period were the most extensive ever recorded in the whole
Baltic Sea area. Large amounts of blue-green algal biomass drifted ashore. In Helsinki, these blue-green
algal blooms forced the city to close many of its beaches for most of the swimming season. Several cases of
cyano-bacterial toxicosis were reported in humans and animals in Finland. This event caused widespread
demands from politicians and the public for intensified action to reduce nutrient loading to the Baltic Sea
from all types of sources to avoid such large-scale transboundary impacts.
9.
Social and Economic Issues. There are a number of factors that impact local and regional social
and economic conditions due to changes in ecosystem health, productivity, and biodiversity. The changing
species composition, over fishing and poor management of fish stocks are generally the main causes for
depleted viable fish stock in the Baltic Sea. This depletion, together with reduced market value for fish
caught impacts the fishing community, primarily in countries in economic transition, where fishery
infrastructure is less developed, and fishing may be the sole source of income. Where recreational use of
the sea is popular, eutrophication and poor hygienic conditions cause unpleasant consequences in coastal
waters and beaches. Summer algal blooms have periodically necessitated the closing of many bathing
beaches throughout the region with an adverse affect on their recreational use and tourist value.
Transboundary Challenges
10.
Adoption of an Integrated Approach to Management. The objective of the JCP is the restoration
of the ecological balance of the Baltic Sea. This requires undertaking on a long-term basis a series of
complementary actions to improve the management of transboundary land, coastal and open sea resources.
The Project addresses this concern by supporting three cooperating international bodies--HELCOM,
IBSFC and ICES--to work with the recipient countries to adopt and apply an ecosystem-based approach
to environmental management. This approach involves a range of interventions that address technical,
socio-economic and management issues that are central to improving the management of shared resources
between countries. Table B evaluates these threats and issues within the context of the LME framework.
11.
Challenges in Integrated Management of Coastal and Open Sea Waters. The countries in the
Baltic Sea region vary in their economic, technical and political capacities. There is a disparity in local
regional management of shared living marine resources. Effective management regimes include a
coordinated implementation of coastal and open sea ecosystem-based management practices, and incentives
for responsible fishing that maintain fishing at a level consistent with productive fisheries. The proposed
Project will upgrade local capacity by introducing innovative methodologies for monitoring and assessment
of living resources in coastal and open sea waters. An outcome will be the introduction and implementation
of ecosystem-based regional, national and local management of these shared resources.
12.
Challenges in Coastal Management Activities. The effective management of coastal areas requires
a commitment to cooperation by a wide range of stakeholders, recognition that management will occur at
various levels and a willingness to use participatory approaches. Demonstration activities provide an
opportunity to make coastal zone management an integral part of the planning process used by the
cooperating countries. All actions will be taken in areas that are shared transboundary waters and common
- 104 -
activities will be used to transfer experience between the demonstration areas. The Project will support
expanded cooperation between national and local governments, demonstrate low cost activities that can be
replicated elsewhere and involve community based organizations and local nongovernmental organizations.
13.
Challenges in Land Management Activities. As opposed to point source pollution, which can be
targeted for remediation, non-point pollution is caused by a large number of dispersed sources and requires
a regional approach. The proposed Project, through demonstration activities, will test mechanisms and use
lessons learned from the BAAP pilot activities to provide farmers with incentives and the level of support
needed to effectively implement environmentally responsible practices to reduce non-point source pollution
from agriculture to the coastal and open sea waters of the Baltic Sea. Successful implementation of the
demonstration activities can then be expanded to other watersheds, and the Code of Good Agricultural
Practices can be promoted on both a local and national level.
Table A: Threats from Non-Point Source Pollution
(HELCOM-JCP, 1998)
Regions of the
Salinity and Oxygen
Nutrients
Plankton and bottom fauna
Baltic Sea
Baltic Proper
o Eutrophication led to repeated oxygen
o Present estimates indicate that the total
o Data suggest that phytoplankton
depletion, areas of insufficient oxygen*
nutrient supply to the Baltic Sea (and
primary production has doubled in the
conditions for macrofauna in the last 25
the Sound) is about 730,000 tons
last 25 years from the Baltic Proper to
years, in central Baltic Proper
nitrogen and 50,000 tons of phosphorus
the Kattegat.
o Temperature increases in the deep
per year.
o Phytoplankton production has
layers
o High concentrations of nitrogen and
increased the biomass and subsequent
phosphorus affect oxygen conditions in
sedimentation; decomposed algae
deep sections of central Baltic proper
decreases oxygen levels.
Eastern Gotland
o Water stagnation in deepest areas have
Basin
decreased oxygen and increased hydrogen
sulfide levels.
Bothnian Sea
o In late summers of the 1980s,
eutrophication led to repeated oxygen
depletion
Gulf of Bothnia
o Water is exchanged through Åland Sea;
o High phosphate levels have remained
and Bothnia
the inflows are low-salinity and
the same since 1978
Bay
low-density surface waters from the
Baltic Proper.
Kattegat
o In the 1980s, eutrophication led to
o Regionally high levels of phosphorus
o Intense algal blooms indicate
repeated oxygen depletion
and nitrogen
increasing eutrophication occur more
frequently.
Gulf of Riga
o Regionally high levels of phosphorus and
nitrogen
Gulf of Finland
o Intense algal blooms indicating
increasing eutrophication occur more
frequently
The Sound
o Intense algal blooms indicating
increasing eutrophication occur more
frequently
Belt Sea
o Intense algal blooms indicating
increasing eutrophication occur more
frequently
* Low oxygen 100,000 km2 with less than 2ml/oxygen/liter in bottom waters.
- 105 -
Table B: Overview of Transboundary Issues in the Baltic Sea Ecosystem
LME Module and
Causes
Impact
Uncertain Risks
Transboundary Issues
Transboundary
Issues
Productivity
- Nutrient loading in coastal
- Public health concerns
- Increase of incidences of
- Agricultural watersheds
- Harmful eutrophication and
waters from anthropogenic
- Poisoning and mortality of
algal blooms
cross national boundaries
algal blooms
land and marine activities
human consumers of marine
- Continued impacts from
- Occurrence of algal blooms
- Environmentally insensitive
- Changes in living resource
organisms
anthropogenic sources
in coastal and open sea waters
agriculture practices
biodiversity
- Decreased recreational use
- Expansion of exotic species
- Migration of species across
- Changing state of ecosystem
- Introduction of exotic
of marine and coastal waters
national boundaries
species
Ecosystem Health
- Inputs from point and
- Public health concerns
- Cause-effect relationship
- Impacts from transboundary
- Deterioration of coastal and
non-point sources
- Ecosystem health and
- Continued degradation of
pollutants
open sea waters
(agriculture, industry,
resilience
water quality
- Reduced ability to use water
- "Hot Spot" pollution from
municipalities)
- Changes in species
- Continued degradation of
resources due to quality
point and non-point source
- Lack of policies and
dominance
watersheds, coastal lagoons
problems
pollution
enforcement for point source
- Decreased area of wetlands
and wetlands
- Decline in aquatic habitats
- Degradation of coastal
discharges
due to conversion in
- Future stress caused by
and species in watersheds,
lagoons and wetlands
- Weak coastal zone planning
watersheds and coastal areas
future demands for land and
coastal and open sea areas
- Reduced functioning of
water
coastal lagoons/wetlands as
filters
Fish/Fisheries
- Fishing over capacity
- Ecosystem dynamic change
- Irreversible ecosystem
- Most harvested open sea
- Non-optimal harvesting of
- Non-sustainable utilization
- High by-catch and undersize
change
living resources extend
living resources (e.g. over
of living resources
catch
- Collapse of commercially
beyond national borders
fishing, dumping of by-catch)
- Reduction of prey through
- Fisheries impacting
important stocks
- Coordination with EU on
- Reduction of economically
over fishing
productivity cycle
- Stability of key habitats and
fishery issues
valuable fish stock (cod)
- Competition for space and
- Pressure on selected habitats
their ability to respond to
- Effective ways to share and
- Threats to vulnerable
prey
from fishing practices
stress
manage common resources
species
- Lack of collaborative
-Threats to biodiversity
- Expansion of exotic species
- Conservation of key areas of
- Vulnerability of spawning
monitoring, assessment, and
- Opportunities for exotic
coastal and open sea habitat
habitats
management
species
Socioeconomic
-Continued over fishing
-Variable and uncertain
- Loss of national revenues
- Regional, national and local
- Continued exhaustive
-Changes in open sea
market
- Decrease in tourism
impacts from these problems
fishing practices
productivity
-Loss of fish and shellfish
- Unemployment increase in
- Reduced access to resources
- Reduced used of coastal and
-Eutrophication and pollution
markets
the fishing sector
- Reduced opportunities for
open sea waters, affecting
impacts farming coastal
- Threats to recreational
- Lower standard of living
income growth and
local income
communities, and living open
fishing
employment
sea resources
- Decrease in coastal tourism
Management
- The three international
- Inconsistent management of
- Degradation of watersheds,
- Information needs to be
- Lack of harmonized
bodies have different
Baltic resources
coastal areas and marine
coordinated between
cooperation between the three
mandates
- Imbalances within the
resources due to inconsistent
countries in the Baltic Sea
international bodies
-Limited inter country
region
management
region
(HELCOM/IBSFC/ICES)
exchange
- Limited cooperation
- Commitment to support
- Measures need to be taken
- Unequal distribution of
- Limited research and
between institutions
ecosystem management
to harmonize monitoring,
capacity in the Baltic Sea
laboratory capacity
- Inadequately informed
- Level of political will to
assessment and management
region
- Low salaries
decision makers
make changes in resource
between regional bodies,
- Lack of local capacity to
- Lack of knowledge of
- Limited public
management
national governments and
monitor and assess
decision makers concerning
understanding of issues and
- Uncertainty over future
local governments
environmental variability
ecosystem issues and
complex choices
economic conditions
- Partnerships are needed to
management
share knowledge and
experience across borders
- 106 -
Additional Annex 13: Environmental Management Plan
EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA: BALTIC SEA (GEF)
A.
OVERVIEW
1.
Introduction. The development objective of the Baltic Sea Regional Project (BSRP), a Global
Environment Facility (GEF) supported project, is to facilitate the restoration of a sustainable ecosystem,
improve coastal zone management and reduce agricultural non-point source pollution through the
introduction of ecosystem-based approaches for land, coastal and open sea environmental management.
Project activities support the long-term process for restoration of the ecological balance of the Baltic Sea,
which is the goal of the "Baltic Sea Joint Comprehensive Environmental Action Program" (JCP) (1992,
1998) prepared under the coordination of HELCOM by a broad based task force. The project will be
implemented by the Helsinki Commission (HELCOM) in cooperation with the International Baltic Sea
Fisheries Commission (IBSFC) and International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), and will
support field based activities in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Russian Federation. The BSRP
focuses on environmental restoration and includes a series of complementary measures to improve
environmental management in agriculture, the coastal zone and the open sea environment. Project activities
will have positive environmental impacts on the Baltic Sea and improve social conditions in farming,
fishing and coastal communities. The project will assist participating countries to meet their commitment to
the Helsinki Convention and support Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland in meeting their obligations
under the European Union accession process.
B.
PROPOSED PROJECT
2.
Three Phase Project. The BSRP will be implemented in three complementary phases over a
period of six years. The overall estimated cost for the BSRP is US$36.00 million, for which the GEF
Council has approved US$18.0 million and the remaining cost will be covered by support from cooperating
governments, bilateral donors and international NGOs. The Phase 1 Project has a total budget of US$12.12
million, including US$5.5 million from GEF, and will be implemented over a three-year period from 2002
to 2005. The project will ensure that, by year 2007, an ecosystem-based approach for sustainable use of
Baltic Sea resources has been demonstrated at the field level and is being adopted for management actions
by cooperating international bodies, national governments, local organizations and NGOs). These three
phases are as follows:
·
Phase 1. The Current Project - Introduction of the Ecosystem Approach (2002-2005).
Establishment of the regional framework for introduction of the ecosystem approach; mobilization
of partners in management of land, coastal and open sea marine resources; and initial activities for
land and coastal management.
·
Phase 2. Demonstration of the Ecosystem Approach (2005-2007). Undertaking cooperative
activities for assessment and management of coastal and open sea marine resources; expansion of
activities for land and coastal management; and joint activities for linkage of land, coastal and open
sea management programs.
·
Phase 3. Application of the Ecosystem Approach (2007-2008). Identification of next steps by the
cooperating parties for expanded application of the ecosystem approach for land, coastal and open
sea management; completion of field based management and demonstration activities; and
preparation of evaluation and assessment studies.
3.
Project Components. The project has four components that include the following activities:
·
Component 1-Large Marine Ecosystem Management Activities
- 107 -
o
Activity 1 - Strengthening Institutional and Technical Capacity
o
Activity 2 Operationalize Monitoring and Assessment Surveys in the Eastern Baltic Sea
o
Activity 3 - Cooperative Local and Regional Ecosystem Evaluations and Assessments
o
Activity 4 - Demonstration Activities.
·
Component 2-Land and Coastal Management Activities
o
Activity 1 - Agricultural Interventions
o
Activity 2 - Monitoring and Assessment of Non-Point Source Pollution
o
Activity 3 - Land-Based Coastal Zone Management
o
Activity 4 Baltic Sea Regional Environmental Assessment Network (RAN).
·
Component 3-Institutional Strengthening and Regional Capacity Building
o
Activity 1 - Regional Capacity Building
o
Activity 2 - Regional Socioeconomic Assessment.
·
Component 4-Project Management
o
Activity 1 - Project Management.
Projected expenditures, by component, during Phase 1 are planned as follows: Component 1 - $5.62
million, Component 2 - $4.99 million, Component 3 - $0.15 million and Component 4 - $1.36 million. The
scope of activities under Component 3 will expand during the later phases of the overall BSRP.
4.
Component 3 will support local and regional capacity building and institutional strengthening
activities and Component 4 will support project management activities. Neither of these components are
anticipated to have any adverse environmental or social impacts and are not covered by specific mitigation
or monitoring activities under the EMP.
C.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL REVIEW
5.
Environmental and Safeguards Screening. The project has been placed in environmental
screening category "B" under the provisions of World Bank Operational Policy 4.01, "Environmental
Assessment" and in safeguards classification category "S2". The project supports a series of environmental
management measures at the regional, national and local levels in five cooperating countries; it will have
limited adverse impacts that can be addressed as part of the design, implementation and operational process
for the concerned activities. The applicability of World Bank Operational Policy 7.50, "Projects on
International Waterways" was reviewed with the Legal Department of the World Bank, and it was deemed
not to be applicable to the project. Building on the approach used in the Rural Environmental Protection
Project in Poland, the project provides funds to include a systematic social assessment process to evaluate
the social impacts from component activities on a "rolling basis" during project implementation. This is
complemented by an outreach program to obtain input from cooperating parties and beneficiaries that can
be used to develop potential modifications to the project design as needed.
6.
Environmental Management Plan. The Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for the BSRP
summarizes the recommended design measures, construction supervision methods and monitoring actions to
minimize and/or avoid the limited potential short- and long-term impacts of activities under Components 1
and 2. It identifies environmental impacts related to the management of laboratory wastes, salmon river
restoration measures, construction of small-scale civil works for on-farm nutrient management, installation
- 108 -
of monitoring stations, and coastal zone management activities. These potential impacts and their
associated mitigation and monitoring actions are described below and summarized in Table A, "Mitigation,
and Monitoring Actions." Attachment 1 contains the Integrated Safeguards Data Sheet (ISDS) for the
project.
D.
PROJECT SUPPORTED ACTIVITIES PHASE 1
7.
Background. In general, the Baltic Sea is one of the most intensively monitored; however, the
coverage, quality and reliability of regional, national and local level data has remained uneven. Over the
last decade, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Russian Federation have had significant difficulties in
meeting their reporting obligations to HELCOM, IBSFC and ICES due to the economic impacts of the
process of moving to market economies. As a result, laboratory equipment has not been standardized
and/or fully intercalibrated between the laboratories on the Eastern and Western coasts of the Baltic Sea.
Data assessment and evaluation methodologies have not been uniform. This applies to monitoring of the
state of the marine environment as well as to monitoring of agricultural run-off. These factors have had a
negative impact on the quality of scientific advice to decision makers and, subsequently, on the quality of
the decisions made.
8.
The Project will support activities in the coastal near shore environment of the Eastern Baltic Sea
and in selected adjacent sections of the open sea environment. In general, the coastal near shore activities
and monitoring network will correlate with land-based coastal and associated demonstration activities
supported under Component 2. The planned open sea monitoring will include the current ICES network;
this involves activities in ICES Subdivisions 25, 26, 28, 29S and 32. These areas include the Baltic Proper,
the sea east of the island of Bornholm, and the Gulf of Finland. The economic zones of the recipient
countries are part of these Subdivisions. In the case of non-point source pollution from agriculture, the
priority is to develop a network of monitoring stations that will collect and disseminate data and prepare
technical reports that will allow for assessment of trends and the effectiveness of on-farm interventions. The
design of the non-point source pollution monitoring system supported by the project will ensure that the
small-catchment measurements and analysis are consistent with those used at the regional and national
levels.
9.
Component 1 Large Marine Ecosystem Management Activities
·
Activity 1 - Strengthening Institutional and Technical Capacity. This will support the following:
(a) Strengthened Institutional Capacity of Coordination Centers. Support will be provided to a
series of specialized centers in the region involved in implementation of project activities: Fisheries
Coordination Center, Productivity Parameters Coordination Center, Environmental Health
Parameters Coordination Center, and a GIS-Data Coordination Center; (b) Conduct Regional
Training and Workshops to Strengthen Technical Capacity. Training and workshops will
strengthen technical capacity and will coordinate and link the activities under the component with
technical aspects of other regional programs; and (c) Coordinate Coastal-Near Shore Activities.
Planning and coordination of coastal monitoring surveys in the eastern Baltic Sea will fill the gaps
for fisheries and environmental parameters, as mandated by work programs of HELCOM and
ICES; and (d) Coordinate Open Sea Activities. Planning and coordination of open sea monitoring
surveys will calibrate between vessels for regional efficiency and cost- effectiveness. This activity
will expand the geographic coverage of open sea activities in the eastern Baltic Sea to reinforce the
current ICES monitoring network and fill gaps in both fisheries and environmental data needed by
ICES, HELCOM and their member countries.
·
Activity 2 Operationalize Monitoring and Assessment Surveys in the Eastern Baltic Sea.
- 109 -
Activity 2 will be planned in Phase 1 and fully commence in Phase 2 of the BSRP, to include
procurement of necessary technical equipment for coastal and open sea monitoring surveys and
execution of the surveys as coordinated and planned during Activity 1. It will include: (a) Conduct
Coastal Near Shore Monitoring Surveys. Coastal fish, productivity and ecosystem health
parameters will be monitored and data collected as required by the HELCOM/COMBINE
monitoring program. Data will be collected based on ICES standards; (b) Conduct Joint Open Sea
Monitoring Survey. Joint open sea surveys will parallel efforts in the coastal waters, but will
include a multi-national technical team to conduct joint open sea surveys that combine monitoring
of fish, productivity and ecosystem health parameters from research vessels; (c) Ships of
Opportunity (SOOPs). Data from ferries and cutters will be obtained from equipment leased on
board and the crew will be trained for data collection. Data will be collected based on ICES
standards; and (d) Data Collection from Commercial Fishing Vessels. Data from commercial
fishing vessels will be obtained from landings and logbooks, and landings statistics from
commercial fishing vessels in accordance with ICES standards.
·
Activity 3 - Cooperative Local and Regional Ecosystem Evaluations and Assessments. Activity
3 will commence in Phase 1, however, most of the activities will be carried out in Phases 2 and 3.
Emphasis will be given to use of information collected from Component 1 and Component 2. It will
enhance local assessment capabilities through access to improved technical resources and capacity
building measures: (a) Evaluation and Assessment of Component 1 Information. Evaluation and
assessment of data collected in monitoring surveys under Component 1 will be used to formulate
advice for IBSFC and HELCOM, and propose ecosystem-based management tools; and (b)
Economic Evaluation of Component Activities (in coordination with Component 2). This will
support socio-economic assessments to promote sustainable ecosystem-based management tools to
improve the economic benefits from living marine resources. The coordinated joint assessment
effort will support local authorities' decision-making capacity for integrated coastal resource
management.
·
Activity 4 - Demonstration Activities. Demonstration activities will illustrate a range of possible
cost-effective measures to improve and restore the coastal ecosystem while building local capacity
of coastal communities. Preparation for demonstration activities will begin during Phase 1 and the
activities will continue through Phases 2 and 3. Planned activities include: (a) Salmon River
Restoration.- This will support recommendations in the Salmon Action Plan (SAP) of the IBSFC
by restoring segments of selected rivers to restore natural spawning and long-term sustainability of
salmon recruitment; (b) Multiple-Marine Ecological Disturbances (MMED) Predictive Tools for
Management. This activity will support application of a predictive model to examine and
understand multiple ecological disturbances in the Baltic Sea to provide a cost-effective
management tool for ecosystem management; and (c) Use of Ecosystem Based Assessments for the
Baltic Sea. This will improve management practices to increase and sustain fishery yields and
biological productivity of the Baltic Sea Large Marine Ecosystem (LME).
10.
Component 2 Land and Coastal Management Activities. This component will build on the
Swedish funded Baltic Agricultural Run-off Action Program (BAAP) activities and those of the HELCOM
Working Group on Coastal Lagoons and Wetlands (HELCOM PITF MLW) that was coordinated by the
World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). Activities 1 and 2 will not be undertaken in Poland, since similar
measures are being supported by the complementary Rural Environment Management Project which is also
funded by the GEF. The Component includes:
·
Activity 1 - Agricultural Interventions. This activity will support: (a) Local Agri-Environmental
Capacity Building. The activity will target the farming community, agricultural advisory
- 110 -
organizations and local authorities, using national Codes of Good Agricultural Practices as the
guiding tool that are one of the major environmental commitments undertaken by the countries in
accession to the environmentally responsible agricultural practices (agri-environmental) schemes of
the EU; (b) Local Agri-Environmental Capacity Building. Farmers in the watersheds will be
invited to participate in education and training activities to improve sustainable farm management.
Training activities will provide farmers with potential investment support through grants from GEF
funding combined with credits through cooperation with NEFCO; (c) Demonstrating
Cost-Effective Nutrient Recycling and Retention Technologies. A select number of on-farm,
agri-environmental demonstration practices will be established, including construction and
restoration of wetlands for nutrient retention; and (d) Agri-Environmental Credit Schemes
(AgECS). Agri-environmental practices will be promoted and eligible on-farm investments will be
installed for nutrient re-circulation; such investments include manure pads and slurry storage,
equipment for manure and urine spreading and technology for seeding and soil preparation. The
GEF grant and/or Nordic Environment Finance Corporation (NEFCO) credit will be complemented
by in-kind contributions in materials and labor by the farmer or agricultural company. Field based
activities under this activity will be concentrated on watersheds in the vicinity of Janeda, Kabala,
Matsalu in Estonia, Mellupite and Berze in Latvia; Vardas, Graisupis, Silute in Lithuania, and
Slavsk Region of Kaliningrad Oblast in Russian Federation.
·
Activity 2 - Monitoring and Assessment of Non-Point Source Pollution. This activity will
investigate nutrient loads from agriculture and aims to fill gaps in national monitoring programs
and assist in meeting the country's commitment to EU and Helsinki Convention obligations.
Development of the monitoring system will be coordinated with the Rural Environmental
Protection Project in Poland. It will support: (a) Catchment Measurement Programs. These will
evaluate loads of nutrients to surface waters from representative agricultural areas, and leaching of
nutrients to shallow groundwater in representative agricultural areas; (b) Effects of Specific
Demonstration Activities. Specific demonstration activities will show governments and farmers the
efficiency of various nutrient reduction measures and monitoring of plot demonstration activities;
(c) Agricultural Hot-Spots and Contamination of Drinking Water in Shallow Farm Wells. This
sub-activity will assess, at selected sites, the extent and causes of contamination of drinking water
in farm wells. This will include monitoring contamination of drinking water in farm wells and
contamination of surface and groundwater; and (d) Modeling of Nutrient Loads in the Bērze
-Lielupe Basin. A comprehensive series of actions for training personnel and upgrading modeling
capacity will be supported under this sub-activity targeted in the Bērze-Lielupe demonstration
watershed.
·
Activity 3 - Land-Based Coastal Zone Management. The integrated coastal zone management
(ICZM) activities will assist local communities in improving their management of coastal zones.
Activities will include involvement of local communities, NGOs, local decision-makers and
businesses. WWF has acted as lead party responsible for elaborating ICZM plans for the five
priority target as areas defined by HELCOM in under the activities of the HELCOM Working
Group on the Management of Coastal Lagoons and Wetlands (HELCOM MLW). These
management plans are the framework for implementing this activity, and are the basis for the
sub-activities. The BSRP social assessment process will be used to provide guidance to optimize
local community involvement and benefits so that local communities use natural and economic
resources more efficiently, improve their livelihood, and conserve biodiversity. An outreach
program will expand these activities to other coastal communities.
Some preliminary activities will commence during Phase 1, and continue through Phases 2 and 3.
Sites for activities include: (a) ICZM Väinameri/Matsalu and Pärnu Bay/Kihnu Island (Sites 1
- 111 -
and 2). In coordination with Component 1 and through local capacity building and training, this
will build ecologically based village wastewater treatment systems on the island of Kihnu, restore
Lake Prästevik-Voormsi and promote small-scale tourism investments; (b) ICZM Engure/Ķ
emeri(Lielupe-Gulf of Riga (Site 3). The activity will establish a local small business incubator in
Mērsrags, develop and distribute a bi-annual local newsletter, and train fifteen local guides. In
coordination with Component 1, a socioeconomic benefits program for local farmers and fishermen
will be developed and implemented; (c) ICZM Kuršių Lagoon/ Nemunas Delta (Site 4). The
activity will support development of visitors facilities, recreational facilities, wetland restoration
and preparation of meadow management plans; and (d) ICZM Kaliningrad Lagoon/Vistula
Lagoon (Site 5). Activities will focus on low cost efforts to strengthen stakeholder involvement and
optimize use of resources including a demonstration clean-up of a small catchment and restoration
of a pilot tributary river.
·
Activity 4 -Baltic Sea Regional Agri-Environment Assessment Network (RAN).
Agri-environmental and rural policies are under development in the region, and this activity will
link local field-level activities of the BSRP with national authorities and decision-makers. These
activities will commence during Phase 2, and through a series of workshops combine field-level
activities under the project with development of agri-environment and rural policies.
11.
Component 3 - Institutional Strengthening and Regional Capacity Building. This Component
supports local and regional capacity building and institutional strengthening with an emphasis on
regional/sub-regional technical meetings and training activities. These activities will be expanded in Phases
2 and 3.
12.
Component 4 Project Management. The Component includes the project management activities
and will cover expenses for selected management costs.
E.
POTENTIAL IMPACTS
13.
Background. As late as 1950 the Baltic Sea was still regarded as environmentally "healthy," its
ecological deterioration has been caused in recent years by an increase of point source industrial and
non-point source agricultural pollutants, degradation of the coastal zone and non-sustainable use of living
marine resources. Its natural vulnerabilities have been seriously aggravated by anthropogenic causes of
environmental change and degradation. The project will have some limited short-term environmental
impacts from the disposal of small amounts of chemical and biological wastes associated with analysis
conducted by cooperating laboratories; undertaking stream restoration measures; construction of
small-scale civil works for on-farm nutrient management and wetland restoration activities; construction of
water quality monitoring stations; and small-scale construction activities to support coastal zone
management. Mitigation and monitoring measures have been included as elements of the project design to
avoid or minimize anticipated adverse environmental impacts during project implementation.
14.
Component 1 Large Marine Ecosystem Management Activities. The potential impacts from
activities supported under Component 1 that will require mitigation activities are:
·
Laboratory Wastes. The Component will support monitoring activities and collection of samples
and specimens under protocols established by ICES for such activities in the North Atlantic, Baltic
Sea and North Sea. These samples and specimens will be collected in the open marine environment
and from near shore areas and transferred to participating laboratories for analysis and
examination. The primary impact from this Component will be the generation of a limited amount
of chemical and biological wastes from the laboratories conducting project related analytical work.
Potential impacts from these materials are limited and will be managed through the use of proper
waste collection and disposal procedures that will be overseen by the Component 1 Coordinator.
- 112 -
The project preparation process found that there would be no significant impacts associated with
the operation and maintenance of scientific equipment used for data collection and monitoring
under the project. Field equipment used for data collection, such as trawls and fyke nets, will be
discarded in accordance with current ICES procedures.
·
Salmon River Restoration. The Component will support the design and implementation of
demonstration activities for habitat restoration of coastal rivers used by salmon for spawning.
Activities will focus on a combination of management measures and improvement of physical and
biological conditions in these areas through small-scale modifications using ecological engineering
measures and biological improvements such as plantings and site clean-up. Potential adverse
impacts associated with these activities concern physical and biological disturbances during the
implementation of the restoration measures. Impacts will include minimal short-term in stream
bottom sediment disturbances from stream restoration, channel clearing/cleaning and
re-establishment of traditional habitat conditions. Activities will be undertaken consistent with
management plans prepared under the project and will be monitored by the Component 1
Coordinator and national and local authorities. The national and local level environmental and
fisheries institutions that participate in the work of HELCOM, IBSFC and ICES are familiar with
current living marine resource management issues and these institutions have been actively engaged
in defining project activities for Component 1. Discussions with national fisheries and aquatic
biology scientific research institutes as well as national authorities responsible for management of
the environment and living marine resources, concluded that there are only limited environmental
impacts associated with the proposed ecosystem restoration activities planned to be supported by
the project.
15.
Component 2. The potential impacts from activities supported under Component 2 that will
require mitigation activities are:
·
Agricultural Interventions. The Component will support the design and implementation of
on-farm measures to reduce non-point source pollution from agriculture. These activities will focus
on implementation of Farm Environmental Management Plans that will include a series of
complementary measures for better land management practices such as improved tillage, manure
spreading and re-establishment of grassland, combined with selected investments to reduce run-off
including the construction of manure pads, restoration of wetlands and establishment of vegetative
buffer zones along stream courses. Potential adverse impacts associated with these activities
concern physical and biological disturbances during the construction period for the manure pads
and wetland restoration activities. These impacts will be highly localized and primarily concern the
need to control erosion and sedimentation at the construction site and areas immediately
downstream. Activities will be undertaken consistent with management plans prepared under the
project and will be monitored by the Component 2 Coordinator, Local Implementation Units
(LIUs) and national and local authorities.
The LIUs, which will be based in Agricultural Advisory Services, will be responsible for reviewing
the economic and environmental viability of the sub-grant and sub-loan applications and will
ensure that applicable national laws and regulations are followed for construction and on-farm
management activities. The design and use of the manure pads and other on-farm investments for
nutrient management will follow the recommendations laid down in the Codes of Good Agricultural
Practices which have been adopted in each of the Baltic States as part of the EU accession process.
While similar documentation does not exist in the Russian Federation, the LIUs will ensure that
comparable measures are followed in investment projects on Russian territory. In addition, the
LIUs will assure that proper site selection procedures have been used for small-scale civil works
and that construction contracts include provisions to control potential local impacts from erosion
- 113 -
and siltation during construction of these improvements.
·
Monitoring and Assessment of Non-Point Sources. The Component will support the
implementation of a water quality monitoring system for non-point sources of pollution. This will
include the construction and operation of a series of small water quality monitoring stations located
adjacent to watercourses in representative small watersheds. Potential adverse impacts associated
with these activities concern very small and highly localized physical and biological disturbances
during the construction period of the monitoring stations. Potential adverse impacts associated with
these activities concern physical and biological disturbances during the construction period for the
manure pads and wetland restoration activities. These impacts primarily concern the need to
control erosion and sedimentation at the construction site and areas immediately downstream.
Project supported construction contracts will include measures to reduce erosion and siltation. The
Component 2 Coordinator and the LIUs will undertake on-site monitoring during the construction
of project supported water quality monitoring stations. This will include site specific monitoring to
verify contractors are following mitigation measures.
·
Land-Based Coastal Zone Management. The Component will support the development and
implementation of management plans for integrated coastal zone management and wetland
restoration. These activities will focus on implementation of management plans, prepared with the
participation of local communities, to improve land and water management practices, support
small-scale civil works and restore wetlands. The project will support application of modern
management practices to enhance biodiversity and improved local management of natural
resources. Potential adverse impacts associated with these activities concern physical and
biological disturbances during the construction period for small-scale civil works and wetland
restoration activities. These impacts will be localized and primarily concern the need to control
erosion and sedimentation at the construction site and areas immediately downstream. To address
these issues mitigation measures will be included in the design and construction contracts and
implementation of these provisions will be monitored on a site specific basis.
These activities will be undertaken consistent with management plans prepared under the project
and will be monitored by the Component 2 Coordinator, LIUs and national and local authorities.
The management plans are subject to formal review and approval by national and/or local
authorities as appropriate. The Component will provide support for activities in some locations that
are formally protected areas: Matsalu State Nature Reserve, Estonia; Kihnu Strait Marine
Park, Estonia; Engure/Kemeri National Park, Latvia; and Nemunas Delta Regional Park,
Lithuania. Proposed types of activities under the BSRP include the restoration of wetlands
and construction of small scale facilities for wastewater treatment using ecological
engineering approaches. Other activities would involve the development and renovation of
nature trails, and construction of small scale recreational facilities including placement of
trash bins, small cabins for changing clothes and a limited number of toilets. All project
supported activities will be consistent with the protection status of these areas and any actions will
be part of management plans that have been reviewed, cleared by the authorities responsible for
their management and jointly implemented with these management organizations. Some of the
coastal communities where the demonstration activities are proposed have already participated in
locally based coastal zone planning and management studies undertaken in the context of the JCP
with support from the World Wild Fund for Nature (WWF) and other parties including the World
Bank.
- 114 -
F.
SOCIAL ASPECTS
16.
Social Assessment. The project includes a systematic social assessment to evaluate positive and
negative social impacts from the component activities, support community outreach programs and to
provide a mechanism to identify potential modifications to the project design as needed. The social
assessment also will monitor and evaluate the technical assistance provided to local stakeholders and
anticipated impacts from tourism development. This approach, similar to that used for the Rural
Environment Protection Project in Poland, provides for an on-going approach to social aspects of the
project on a rolling basis, targeting of actions for site specific needs and innovation over the course of the
project.
17.
Access to Employment. The project is anticipated to have a positive impact on local poverty
reduction through local employment opportunities and to improve socioeconomic conditions in the farming,
fishing and coastal communities. Consultations undertaken during the project preparation process identified
local access to short- and long-term employment by local residents as a key issue in the demonstration
activity areas. This issue has been included in the EMP to highlight its importance and to facilitate its
integration into the mitigation measures and monitoring actions. It is anticipated, on the basis of previous
experience with project implementation in the cooperating countries, that as a result of the project there will
be increased although limited opportunities for local short- and long-term employment.
18.
The short-term employment will be generated by opportunities to provide skilled and semi-skilled
labor to the local construction contractors, undertaking land and vegetation management activities and
providing services. Over the medium and long-term the activities for the management of living marine
resources and the salmon river restoration activities will increase the employment opportunities associated
with commercial and recreational fishing. The construction contracts for small-scale civil works for
on-farm improvements will generate employment for firms and workers with experience in excavation and
construction of concrete structures. The community based orientation of the coastal zone management
programs will target the development of both permanent and seasonal local employment from small scale
activities and development of services, especially related to national and regional tourism.
G.
MITIGATION MEASURES
19.
Overview. The mitigation measures outlined in this section will be undertaken as part of the
project implementation process to mitigate potential impacts from laboratory activities, salmon river
restoration measures, agricultural interventions, monitoring and assessment of non-point sources and
land-based coastal zone management activities. Mitigation measures include: management of chemical and
biological wastes from data collection and analysis; preparation of management plans with mitigation
measures to reduce environmental impacts, contractor efforts to reduce environmental impacts, and use of
archeological "chance find" procedures. The primary adverse impacts from the project are largely
associated implementation of ecological engineering measures for the salmon river restoration activities and
construction of small-scale civil works for on-farm improvements, water quality monitoring stations and
coastal zone management. These impacts are very localized, limited in their scope, short in duration and
can be addressed through both design and monitoring measures. Table A summarizes the activities,
mitigation issues and measures to be taken, and the monitoring and supervisory responsibilities.
20.
Key Measures. The key mitigation measures included in the project are as follows:
·
Management of Laboratory Wastes. Cooperating laboratories will use proper chemical and
biological waste collection and disposal measures that will be consistent with those recommended
by ICES. Field equipment used for data collection will be disposed of in accordance with current
ICES procedures. A review will be conducted by the Component 1 Coordinator of procedures used
at each laboratory to confirm their consistency with these procedures and modifications will be
- 115 -
made as appropriate. The management of laboratory wastes will be reviewed and reported on as an
element of project implementation activities by the Component 1 Coordinator.
·
Preparation of Management Plans. As part of the implementation process, the project provides
support for preparation and implementation of site specific environmental management plans.
These include the preparation of:
Component 1
o
Salmon River Restoration Action Plans (SRRAP). The SRRAP will include the design of
salmon river restoration measures and identify associated mitigation actions. The SRRAP
will incorporate use of appropriate eco-engineering approaches and management during
stream restoration activities to reduce erosion and siltation. It will contain site specific
guidelines concerning the timing for restoration and mitigation measures to minimize
in-steam disturbances, and recommendations for actions to be taken during stream
restoration activities to avoid habitat disturbance and reduce erosion and siltation.
Component 2
o
Farm Environmental Management Plans. The Farm Environmental Management Plans
will be prepared for each participating farm. These will specify timing of construction and
erosion control measures to reduce downstream impacts from construction of manure pads
and other structures. Contracts will specify measures to be taken during construction to
reduce erosion and siltation.
o
Monitoring and Assessment of Non-Point Sources. A design has been prepared for the
water quality monitoring system and sites proposed for construction of stations. Project
supported construction contracts will include measures to reduce erosion and siltation.
o
Integrated Coastal Zone Management Plans. Management Plans will be prepared for
each area included under this activity. These will provide a framework for management of
coastal resources and an active role for local communities in decision making and benefit
sharing. The management plans will specify timing of the actions to be taken for these
areas with regard to new management practices, small-scale civil works, measures for
mitigation of impacts from the development and use of visitor facilities, and change in land
use practices. The management plans will be formally reviewed and approved by national
and regional authorities. Management plans will address potential construction impacts.
Project supported construction contracts will include measures to reduce erosion, siltation
or damage to sensitive habitats.
The plans will provide a mechanism for the project implementation organizations to
communicate effectively with contractors and resource agency personnel regarding issues
pertaining to mitigation measures and farm installations, and identify training for
contractors responsible for construction and maintenance of farm installations and
restorations. The Agricultural Advisory Services (AAS) will train contractors to take
precautions during construction activities under Component 2.
·
Representative Mitigation Actions. The mitigation actions for project supported activities will
include, but not be limited, to the following:
o
Minimization of Impacts. Particular emphasis will be placed on scheduling activities to
minimize impacts on flora and fauna, specifically during the fish-spawning season and in
sensitive habitats. Erosion control mitigation measures, proposed ecosystem restoration and
- 116 -
farm management plans will comply with national environmental policies (standards and
permits) and are designed to conform to accepted engineering and environmental standards.
o
Design Specifications. Design specifications for mitigation measures will be provided to
contractors. The design specification will address required management practices for
installation, inspection, maintenance, erosion prevention and sediment control, such as:
·
Guidelines for design and construction (e.g. size, depth, soil properties, drainage
network) of manure pads, slurry tanks, and other nutrient recycling structures for
farm installations.
·
Guidelines and design specifications for construction of in-stream monitoring
stations to include appropriate erosion and sediment control measures to reduce
construction impacts (e.g. silt fences, drainage bypasses, biostabilization blankets
and eco-techniques for stream bank restoration).
·
Design guidelines for ecosystem and stream restoration to include erosion and silt
control mitigation measures and eco-engineering techniques (e.g. erosion control
silt fences, drainage bypasses, and bio-stabilization blankets).
·
Contractor Requirements to Minimize Environmental Impacts. The EMP supports specific
measures to mitigate potential construction and operation period impacts and to address safety
issues. Individual management plans will provide guidelines and actions to mitigate potential
environmental impacts, through instructions to design engineers and construction contractors to
undertake certain actions on a site specific basis. Contractors will be required to provide and
maintain equipment with proper noise abatement controls. Specific provisions should be included
in construction contracts to mandate the use of health and safety measures to minimize accidents
during the construction and post-construction process. Appropriate bidding documents for
construction will be prepared to support the EMP.
·
Archeological "Chance Find" Procedures. All cooperating countries have cultural heritage laws
and well developed institutions in this area. Archaeological and historical site surveys exist at the
county level for many of the areas in which project activities will be undertaken. The small-scale
nature of the civil works and wetlands restoration activities supported under the project allow them
to be sited in a flexible manner that can be used to avoid sites of archaeological or historical value.
Provisions will be included in contract documents to address archeological "chance finds" should
they be encountered during the course of construction activities; these provisions will follow
procedures accepted by the national and/or local authorities responsible for archeological and
historical sites and materials.
21.
Project Implementation Monitoring. The following project implementation monitoring actions
will be taken:
·
Component 1 - Activities 1 and 2. Management of Laboratory Wastes. The Component 1
Coordinator and team will monitor the proper collection and disposal of chemical and biological
wastes from cooperating laboratories. This will include the examination of laboratory records and
review of practices on-site and at the cooperating laboratories. These procedures will also be
monitored as an element of Bank supervision.
·
Component 1 - Activity 4. Salmon River Restoration. The Component 1 Coordinator and team
will undertake on-site monitoring during the implementation of project supported ecological
engineering activities and channel clearing/cleaning activities. This will include site specific
monitoring to verify contractors are following mitigation measures and spot checks in adjacent
- 117 -
areas and in water bodies influenced by the management activities. Site specific monitoring will be
conducted for standard water quality and ecological parameters to evaluate short-term restoration
impacts to stream habitats, submerged vegetation and spawning areas. Standardized observations
will be made concerning stream morphology and status of habitats before, during and after
construction. Samples will be collected to evaluate water quality, especially turbidity and
suspended materials and selected biological parameters. This will be complemented by longer-term
monitoring, in conjunction with spawning and post-spawning seasons, to evaluate benefits from
these interventions. The use of these procedures will also be monitored as an element of the Bank
supervision.
·
Component 2 - Activity 1. Agricultural Interventions. The Component 2 Coordinator and the
LIUs will undertake on-site monitoring during the construction of project supported small-scale
civil works and wetland restoration activities. This will include site specific monitoring to verify
contractors are following mitigation measures and spot checks in adjacent areas and in water
bodies influenced by the management activities. This will be complemented by baseline monitoring
supported under the project to assess pre-and post-project environmental conditions and benefits
from the interventions. This monitoring network will be coordinated with the coastal zone
monitoring activities described below. The use of these procedures will also be monitored as an
element of Bank supervision.
·
Component 2 - Activity 2. Monitoring and Assessment of Non-Point Sources. A design has been
prepared for the water quality monitoring system and sites proposed for construction of stations.
Project supported construction contracts will include measures to reduce erosion and siltation. The
Component 2 Coordinator and the LIUs will undertake on-site monitoring during the construction
of project supported water quality monitoring stations. This will include site specific monitoring to
verify contractors are following mitigation measures. The use of these procedures will also be
monitored as an element of Bank supervision.
·
Component 2 - Activity 3. Land-Based Coastal Zone Management. The Component 2
Coordinator and the LIUs will undertake on-site monitoring during the construction of project
supported small-scale civil works and wetland restoration activities. This will include site specific
monitoring to verify contractors are following mitigation measures and spot checks in adjacent
areas and in water bodies influenced by the management activities. This will be complemented by
baseline monitoring supported under the project to assess pre-and post-project environmental
conditions and benefits from these interventions. This monitoring network will be coordinated with
the agricultural monitoring activities described above. The use of these procedures will also be
monitored as an element of Bank supervision.
H.
CONSULTATION AND DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION
22.
The project preparation process has included a variety of consultations with a wide range of
stakeholders, including nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), at the regional, national and local level.
This process will continue during the project implementation period which will allow for inputs from
stakeholders especially at the activity specific level. The EMP has been made available to the public
through the Info-Shop at the World Bank, at the coordinating institutions--HELCOM (Helsinki), IBSFC
(Warsaw) and ICES (Copenhagen) and through the Ministries of Environment of the cooperating national
governments (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and the Russian Federation). It is also available at the
World Bank offices in the cooperating countries.
23.
The consultation processes during project preparation were diverse and used a range of formats
including regional and national meetings with scientific and technical institutes, parties concerned with
- 118 -
marine resources management, agricultural extension agents and nongovernmental organizations. As part
of this process a major international meeting was held in Lithuania to review the experience with
transboundary water management in the Baltic Sea Region and technical meetings were held in Latvia and
Poland to review the marine resource and coastal management issues. Design of the activities for control of
non-point source pollution and integrated coastal zone management included workshops at the national and
local level, which provided agricultural extension agents, cooperating farmers, community based
organizations and local nongovernmental organizations an opportunity to provide input to the project
design process based on their experience from the earlier bilateral and Bank supported demonstration
projects at the field level. A field trip to Poland to visit the ongoing Rural Environment Management
Project was the occasion for a variety of stakeholders to meet Polish experts, community representatives
and farmers to review their experience with on-farm activities to reduce agricultural pollution.
24.
These consultations emphasized the need to maintain a balance between meeting regional scientific
and technical objectives on the one hand, and improving environmental and social conditions at the local
level on the other. As noted in Section F above on Social Aspects, the key issue raised by fishing, farming
and coastal communities was their interest in the project supporting, over the short-, medium- and
long-term, expanded opportunities for permanent and/or seasonal employment. In this context, the project
will work with local communities to maximize their direct and indirect employment opportunities from
small-scale investment activities, participation in various types of management measures and to support
development of longer term employment opportunities associated with sustainable resource management. In
this context, it will build upon the experience from Bank supported environmental management projects in
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
I.
INSTITUTIONAL STRENGTHENING
25.
Institutional Strengthening. Component 3 of the project provides support for institutional
strengthening and capacity building measures necessary for the implementation of the ecosystem
management approach promoted by the project. Successful implementation of the project requires the
strengthening of regional and local institutional capacity to supervise the construction and maintenance of
the installations and restoration activities. The Component's primary objective is to strengthen regional and
local capacity to successfully utilize outputs and recommendations from Component 1 and Component 2
activities for sustainable ecosystem-based management. Under the three phase approach adopted for
implementation of the overall BSRP, Phase 1 will include a small number of institutional strengthening
activities; activities in this area will be expanded significantly during Phases 2 and 3 of the project. In
addition, the Component Coordinators will work with the local counterparts at the technical Coordination
Centers, the LIUs, and AASs to identify training needs and provide practical training in laboratory
methods, assessment and management of agri-environmental issues and coastal zone management.
J.
ESTIMATED COST
26.
The costs for implementation of management and monitoring activities included in the EMP have
been integrated into the estimated budgets for the individual activities and management costs for the Phase
1 project. This approach reflects the environmental management orientation of the project and the fact that
most mitigation actions are associated with project supported management plans, design approaches and
specifications in construction contracts. Monitoring of project supported implementation is an element of
the work program of the project management team while baseline and long-term environmental monitoring
are included as specific activities within the operational components of the project.
- 119 -
K.
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
27.
The proposed mitigation and monitoring activities during Phase 1 will be undertaken consistent
with the following schedule:
Component
Year 1 (quarters)
Year 3 (quarters)
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
Component 1 Laboratory Waste Management
Review Laboratory Procedures
X
X
Establish Laboratory Procedures
X
X
Monitor Use of Procedures
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Component 1 Salmon River Restoration
Prepare Restoration Plans
X
X
X
Monitor Implementation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Component 2 Agricultural Interventions
Prepare On-Farm Management Plans
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Monitor Implementation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Component 2 - Monitoring and Assessment of
Non-Point Sources
Finalize Designs and Site Selection
X
X
Monitor Implementation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Component 2 Land-Based Coastal Zone Management
Prepare Management Plans
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Monitor Implementation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
L.
REPORTING AND SUPERVISION
28.
Reporting. The Project will comply with the "Guidelines for Financial Reporting and Auditing of
Projects Financed by the World Bank." The Bank together with HELCOM will agree upon reporting
requirements for Financial Monitoring Reports (FMR). Project progress will be reported through annual,
semi-annual and quarterly Project progress reports. An Implementation Completion Report (ICR) will be
prepared within six months of Project completion.
29.
Supervision. The Component Coordinators will supervise the monitoring of project supported
activities on a routine basis. This will be complemented by Bank supervision of the project. The process
will include the participation of Bank environmental and social staff in supervision missions, as
appropriate, to review progress in the implementation of the EMP. The performance of the Executing
Agency in these project activities will be a standard element of supervision reports and the Implementation
Completion Report (ICR).
Component
Activities
Phase
Issue
Mitigation Measure
Monitoring
COMPONENT 1 LARGE MARINE ECOSYSTEM ACTIVITIES
Activity 1 Strengthen Institutional and Technical Capacity
Activity 2 Operationalize Monitoring and Assessment Surveys in the Eastern Baltic Sea
Activity 1
Monitor
Monitori
Minimization of
Cooperating laboratories will use What. The Component 1 Coordinator and team will monitor chemical
Sub-activity (a)
chemical
ng
risks associated
proper chemical and biological
and biological waste collection and disposal practices used in individual
- 120 -
Strengthened
and
with the disposal
waste collection and disposal
laboratories.
Institutional
biological
of chemical and
measures that will be consistent
Where. At cooperating laboratories participating in the BRSP.
Capacity of
waste
biological wastes
with those recommended by
When. Data on the management of these materials will be maintained
Coordination
disposal
from data
ICES. Field equipment used for
by cooperating laboratories and reviewed as an element of the
Centers
practices
collection and
data collection will be disposed
supervision process.
Activity 2
used by
analysis in
of in accordance with current
How. Examination of laboratory records and on-site review of practices.
Sub-activity (a)
cooperating
cooperating
ICES procedures.
Why. To avoid risks associated with improper disposal of chemical and
Conduct Coastal
laboratories
laboratories.
biological wastes from laboratories.
Near Shore
.
Monitoring
Surveys
Sub-activity (b)
Conduct Joint
Open Sea
Monitoring Survey
Activity 4 Demonstration Activities
Sub-activity 4 (b)
Prepare
Mitigatio
Prepare a site
The SRRAP will include design
What: The Component 1 Coordinator and team will undertake on-site
Salmon River
Salmon
n
specific Salmon
of salmon river restoration and
monitoring during the implementation of restoration activities and both
Restoration
River
River Restoration
mitigation actions, which will
baseline and long-term monitoring data will be collected to assess
Restoration
Action Plan
incorporate use of appropriate
impacts from implementation of the restoration programs.
Action Plan
(SRRAP) for each eco-engineering approaches and
Where: At the salmon river restoration sites, especially the locations of
(SRRAP).
river selected for
management during stream
ecological engineering measures and channel clearance/cleaning.
a demonstration
restoration activities to reduce
When: During the implementation process at the restoration sites and
activity.
erosion and siltation.
spot checks in areas adjacent to the restoration sites.
How: Site specific monitoring will be done during the restoration phase
by the LIU to verify that contractors are following mitigation measures
and that spot checks are carried out in adjacent areas and in water
bodies influenced by the restoration activities.
Why: To avoid unnecessary impacts to restoration sites from project
supported activities and to develop an adequate data base to understand
the effects of the selected actions on environmental and socio-economic
conditions. This will include an evaluation of pre-and post-restoration
conditions and assess benefits from interventions.
Restore
Construc
Minimal
The SRRAP will contain site
segments of tion
short-term in
specific guidelines concerning
the Parnu
stream bottom
the timing for restoration and
River in
sediment
mitigation measures to minimize
Estonia.
disturbances from in-steam disturbances. It will
stream
provide recommendations for
restoration, no
actions to be taken during stream
long-term
restoration activities to avoid
disturbances.
habitat disturbance and reduce
erosion and siltation.
Restore
Construc
Short-term in
The SRRAP will contain site
segments of tion
stream bottom
specific guidelines concerning
a selected
sediment
the timing for restoration and
river in
disturbances from mitigation measures to minimize
Latvia.
stream
in-steam disturbances. It will
restoration, no
provide recommendations for
long-term
actions to be taken during stream
disturbances.
restoration activities to avoid
habitat disturbance and reduce
erosion and siltation.
Restore
Construc
Minimal
The SRRAP will contain site
segments of tion
short-term in
specific guidelines concerning
Minija
stream bottom
the timing for restoration and
River in
sediment
mitigation measures to minimize
Lithuania.
disturbances from in-steam disturbances. It will
stream
provide recommendations for
- 121 -
restoration, no
actions to be taken during stream
long-term
restoration activities to avoid
disturbances.
habitat disturbance and reduce
erosion and siltation.
Monitor
Monitori
Restored rivers
The SRRAP will outline a
restored
ng
should be
short-term and long-term
rivers.
monitored by
monitoring schedule developed in
Regional
cooperation with environmental
Environmental
and fisheries authorities.
Offices and
Fisheries Offices.
COMPONENT 2 LAND AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
Activity 1 Agricultural Interventions
Sub-activity 1 (b)
Demonstrat
Construc
Minimal
Farm Environmental
What: The Component 2 Coordinator and LIU representatives will
Demonstrating
ing on-farm tion
short-term
Management Plans will be
undertake on-site monitoring during the construction phase and both
Cost-effective
agri-enviro
disturbances from prepared for each participating
baseline and long-term in-stream water quality data will be collected to
Nutrient Recycling nment
construction
farm. These will specify timing
assess impacts and trends from interventions to reduce nutrient loading.
and Retention
measures
activities at
of construction and erosion
Where: On-farm at the construction sites and in-stream below the
Technologies
constructio
participating
control measures to reduce
construction sites.
n of small
farms. Will not
downstream impacts from
When: During the construction process at the construction sites and spot
Sub-activity 1 (c)
scale
result in any
construction of manure pads and
checks in-stream below the construction sites. In-stream baseline will
On-Farm
civil-works
long-term
other structures. Contracts will
be monitored for streams in focus areas for on-farm interventions.
Environmental
for nutrient
disturbances.
specify measures to be taken
How: Site specific monitoring will be done during the construction
Investments
control.
during construction to reduce
phase by the LIU to verify that contractors are following mitigation
erosion and siltation.
measures and that spot checks are being done in-stream below the
construction sites. In-stream monitoring network with stationary
equipment and field samples will be established as part of Component
2, Activity 2 (see below).
Why: To avoid unnecessary impacts to stream channels, wetlands and
water quality during construction phases. In-stream monitoring will be
used to evaluate pre-and post-restoration conditions and assess benefits
from interventions.
Constructio
Construc
Minimal
Farm Environmental
n and
tion
short-term
Management Plans will be
restoration
in-stream
prepared for each participating
of
disturbances from farm. These will specify timing
wetlands.
wetland
of construction and erosion
restoration
control measures to reduce
activities. Will
downstream impacts from
not result in any
construction and restoration of
long-term
wetlands. Contracts will specify
disturbances.
measures to be taken during
construction to reduce erosion
and siltation.
Constructio
Construc
Minimal
Farm Environmental
n of water
tion
short-term
Management Plans will be
purification
in-stream
prepared for each participating
systems
disturbances from farm. These will specify timing
using
water purification of construction and erosion
ecological
activities. Will
control measures to reduce
engineering
not result in any
downstream impacts from
methods.
long-term
construction of water purification
disturbances.
systems. Contracts will specify
measures to be taken during
construction to reduce erosion
and siltation.
Activity 2 Monitoring and Assessment of Non-Point Source Pollution
Sub-activity 2 (a)
Establish
Monitori
Development of
A design has been prepared for
This sub-activity establishes the in-stream watershed monitoring
Catchment
monitoring
ng/
the monitoring
the water quality monitoring
network for Component 2, Activity 1 to support the construction of
- 122 -
Measurement
network in Constructi
system will
system and sites proposed for
on-farm investments for control of non-point source pollution from
Programs
demonstrati on
require
construction of stations. Project
agriculture. This monitoring network will be coordinated with the
on
construction and
supported construction contracts
coastal monitoring activities under Activity 3 (below). The Component
watersheds.
operation of water will include measures to reduce
2 Coordinator and the LIUs will undertake on-site monitoring during
quality
erosion and siltation.
the construction of project supported water quality monitoring stations.
monitoring
This will include site specific monitoring to verify contractors are
stations on
following mitigation measures.
selected
watersheds.
Develop
Monitori
Refer to
Monitoring schedule for data
data
ng
Monitoring
collection network has been
collection
column.
prepared.
program.
Collect
Monitori
Refer to
Monitoring schedule for data
data.
ng
Monitoring
collection network has been
column.
prepared.
Activity 3 Land-Based Coastal Zone Management
Sub-activities 3(a), Demonstrat
Mitigatio
Management
Management Plans will be
What: LIU representatives will undertake on-site monitoring during the
3(b), 3(c), 3 (d)
ing coastal
n
plans will result
prepared for each area included
construction phase and both baseline and long-term monitoring data will
zone
in improved
under this activity. These will
be collected to assess impacts from implementation of management
manageme
management of
provide a framework for
plans.
nt
sensitive coastal
management of these coastal
Where: At the coastal zone management site and at the location of
programs
and wetland
resources and an active role for
small-scale civil works and wetland restoration activities.
in
habitats. In order
local communities in decision
When: During the construction process at the construction sites and spot
cooperation
to achieve this,
making and benefit sharing. The
checks in areas adjacent to the construction sites and in water bodies
with local
objective
management plans will specify
influenced by the construction.
communitie
measures will be
timing of the actions to be taken
How: Site specific monitoring will be done during the construction
s.
taken to change
for these areas with regard to
phase by the LIU to verify contractors are following mitigation
land and water
new management practices,
measures and that spot checking is done in adjacent areas and in water
management
small-scale civil works, and
bodies influenced by the management activities.
practices, support
changes in land use practices.
Why: To avoid unnecessary impacts to coastal zone management sites
small-scale civil
Management plans will be
from construction activities and to develop an adequate data base to
works and to
formally reviewed and approved
understand the effects of the selected management on environmental
restore wetlands.
by national and regional
and socio-economic conditions. This will include an evaluation of
authorities.
pre-and post-restoration conditions and assess benefits from
interventions.
Implementa
Construc
Minimal
Management plans will address
tion of
tion
short-term
potential construction impacts.
coastal
disturbances from Project supported construction
zone
construction
contracts will include measures
manageme
activities at
to reduce erosion, siltation or
nt plans
coastal zone
damage to sensitive habitats.
including
management
use of new
sites. Will not
approaches
result in any
to resource
long-term
manageme
disturbances.
nt,
constructio
n of
small-scale
civil works
and
measures
for
wetlands
restoration.
Develop
Monitori
Potential impacts
Refer to Monitoring Column (on Coordination: This monitoring network will be coordinated with the
and
ng
during
previous page).
agricultural coastal monitoring activities under Activity 2 (above).
- 123 -
implement
construction
monitoring
phase should be
program.
monitored and
program
established to
evaluate
long-term
environmental
trends in areas
supported by the
project.
- 124 -
Additional Annex 14: STAP Technical Review
EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA: BALTIC SEA (GEF)
Date:
September 11, 2000
To:
Stephen Lintner, Senior Environmental Advisor, ENV, World Bank
From:
Richard Kenchington
RAC Marine Pty Ltd, PO Box 588, Jamison, ACT 2614, Australia
Subject:
STAP Review: GEF-Baltic Regional Project.
This review addresses the terms of reference set out in your Memorandum of 22 August 2000.
1
The project directly addresses clearly defined needs in the context of the International Waters
Convention. It addresses the urgency of regional issues in a marine ecosystem that is shared by and
impacted by the activities of several nations. It builds on existing capacity of HELCOM and other regional
mechanisms for collaborative action. It also builds on the critical opportunity provided by the need and
economic incentive to meet the requirements of EU directives.
2
The project objectives are valid, challenging and well focused. The proposed activities address very
difficult and important issues in the areas of fisheries, pollution and catchment management and the
development of long term economic opportunities for coastal people. The project builds on a decade of
work with HELCOM and it appears that the proposed activities are likely to be broadly supported and to
be effective in addressing the issues.
3
The approach of the project is logical and appropriate. The greatest challenge in implementation
will lie in achieving ongoing integration of the scientific and monitoring programs and outputs with the
information inputs required to address the immediate and longer-term needs of management.
4
The document provides sufficient strategic information for implementation. The Annexes and the
preparation of table E indicate that the issues of detail and coordination have been considered and are
available for the implementation team.
5
I have little direct knowledge of regional or country priorities but the document has addressed and
discussed priorities in a way that indicates that there has been substantial consideration, which is reflected
in the proposal.
6
The document is well presented and well argued. It clearly articulates the reasons and the urgency
for the project to be undertaken. The issue of incremental costs is particularly well addressed and present
arguments that apply to many shared coastal and shallow sea areas. It argues clearly and appropriately that
investment to halt and reverse otherwise inevitable decline of environmental conditions and
ecosystem-based productivity is as valid as technological investment to prevent future damage.
7
The activity descriptions present adequate information on what is intended to be accomplished.
- 125 -
8
Again, my ability to comment is limited by my lack of experience in the Baltic but the figures and
relative allocations appear reasonable, consistent and are clearly presented.
9
The project involves achieving social, economic and attitudinal changes in long established
practices of agricultural and fishing communities. Such changes take time. This project builds upon a
decade of work between the World Bank and HELCOM that has achieved significant and growing
community recognition of the problems and of the need for the changes proposed. The proposal as
presented should advance the objectives by delivering substance and results to address the needs and
demonstrate benefits to participating communities. The ultimate demonstration of success will be the
demonstration through ongoing and subsequent local and regional investment that the environmentally
sustainable technologies and practices demonstrated are being incorporated of into normal economic
activity in the catchments and coastal areas of the Baltic. In the light of the reports of attitudinal change in
the past decade the prospects appear good.
10
I consider this should be seen as a priority issue for GEF. This is clearly a project that addresses
international waters and biodiversity priorities of the GEF, the priority issues of Chapters 17 and 36 of
Agenda 21. Also, having regard to the long history of human settlement and use of the coastal and
catchments of the Baltic, it addresses the issues of Chapter 26 of Agenda 21. This is not only an important
project for its Region; it has important implications for addressing similar urgent needs in other coastal and
shallow marine ecosystems in the world.
11
Some comments on the professional challenges for fisheries managers, scientists and community
managers are attached separately. They reflect issues that may have been considered in project development
and in my view need to be addressed in initiation and throughout implementation of a project that I
recommend urgently for support.
R A Kenchington
- 126 -
Attachment to STAP Review of GEF Baltic Sea Regional Project
Issues for implementation
1)
The project is logical, well described and achievable. Its implementation presents several important
professional style and disciplinary challenges of approach and demands for an ongoing high level of
inter-disciplinary collaboration between scientists, fisheries managers and community leaders and
managers.
2)
From the perspective of managing a large marine ecosystem the following issues should be
addressed in implementation:
a)
The objectives of, and information collected in, research and monitoring programs must
directly address the clearly identified concerns and time scales important to managers as
well of those of ecological research:
i)
Short and long term management needs should be clearly identified and addressed
issues include:
(1)
Recruitment variability of fisheries target species;
(2)
interactions of apparently `natural' and apparently anthropogenic causes
of variations;
(3)
impacts of fishing methods on non-target species and the ecological
processes which sustain the ecosystem and fisheries of the Baltic;
(4)
understanding the interaction between investment cycles and fish stocks;
(5)
understanding the social and economic factors and potential to resolve
competition between commercial and recreational competition for fish
stocks.
b)
It is important to ensure the best possible data is available on catch, effort and location of
catch for the fisheries. Given the cultural tradition of all fishers to obfuscate such
information I would advocate a feasibility study of the use of vessel monitoring systems
and audited community catch reporting.
c)
There is a disturbing lack, anywhere in the world, of fisheries management schemes
capable of demonstrating sustainability with respect to stocks and to the environments and
ecological communities that sustain them. I would advocate the adoption of a goal and the
development of robust performance criteria that may be able to establish sustainability in
one or more of the Baltic fisheries.
d)
In the absence of robustly demonstrable sustainability of fisheries I would advocate the
application of the precautionary principle through the establishment of reference sites,
refugia or marine protected areas to provide area from which it may be possible for
recruitment and migration to restore area damaged by over fishing.
e)
In any case, I would advocate the pursuit of marine protected areas representative of all
major habitat types in the Baltic large marine ecosystem as a matter of conservation
importance. This issue is not directly addressed in the project proposal. It is possible that it
is being addressed elsewhere but it is important conceptually to the concept of sustainable
management of the Baltic Sea.
- 127 -
R A Kenchington
World Bank Response to
STAP Review of GEF Baltic Sea Regional Project:
The Project preparation team is pleased with the STAP Reviewer's positive response to the project
objective and project design, and appreciates the issues the Reviewer identifies for consideration during
Project implementation. The following provides an overview of the Project approach and how the issues
would be addressed. Reference is made to the Large Marine Ecosystem (LME) workshop was held 11-14
July in Riga, Latvia, for which the workshop reports are available on file, or responses refer to proposed
activities identified in Annex 2 Table C of the PAD document.
1)
Issue: Recruitment variability of fisheries target species.
Response: The Riga workshop report elaborates on the participants' discussions on fishery issues
and identifies proposed target species ranging from sprat and herring to cod, and Component 1
Activity 1.2 (c) will provide an opportunity to address recruitment variability during the proposed
multi-species stock assessment activity.
2)
Issue: Interactions of apparently `natural' and apparently anthropogenic causes of variations:
Response: This issue can be addressed within Component 1 Activity 1.1 elements, which include
modeling the carrying capacity modeling efforts to assess and evaluate fishery ecosystem
interactions and to better understand environmental effects into fish stock assessment. It is
anticipated that this information will contribute to a better understanding of the interaction of
natural and/or anthropogenic causes of species variations.
3)
Issue: Impacts of fishing methods on non-target species and the ecological processes which sustain
the ecosystem and fisheries of the Baltic;
Response: As part of the Riga workshop participants provided a baseline review on the status of
fishing vessels, data quality, and data needs. Though not specifically articulated in the PAD
document, the intent of Component 1 Activity 1.2 fishing methods will be evaluated and
cost-effective methods to collect sustainable and reliable fisheries statistics will be developed.
4)
Issue: Understanding the interaction between investment cycles and fish stocks;
Response: This issue can be addressed in an integrated approach within Component 1 Activity 1.2,
which will conduct multi-fish stock assessments, and relevant data will be coordinated with
Component 3 Activity 3.1 in assessing the value of ecosystem goods and services.
5)
Issue: Understanding the social and economic factors and potential to resolve competition between
commercial and recreational competition for fish stocks.
Response: This issue can be addressed in Component 1.2, which will target support for
improvements in, and provide recommendation for national and international ecosystem strategies
for problems and conflicts in transboundary coastal fisheries, this includes conflicts between
commercial and recreational fisheries. Elements from the output of this effort will be considered in
the proposed socioeconomic assessment.
General response to other comments: The project design was developed within the context of LME and in
developing the Project Implementation Plan this fall, there will be an opportunity to further develop project
indicators and long-term performance criteria for sustainable fisheries management practices. Though not
- 128 -
specifically stated in the PAD, an anticipated outcome from the Project activities will be recommendations
for environmentally responsible practices for sustainable management of Baltic Sea resources, and this
would include recommending sites for conservation and protection of ecologically significant coastal and
marine waters.
- 129 -
Additional Annex 15: Letters of Endorsement
EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA: BALTIC SEA (GEF)
Annex 15 includes GEF National Focal Point letters of endorsement from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,
Poland and the Russian Federation.
- 130 -
- 131 -
- 132 -
- 133 -
- 134 -
- 135 -
- 136 -
- 137 -
- 138 -
- 139 -
- 140 -
- 141 -