Document of
The World Bank
Report No: ICR0000585
Public Disclosure Authorized
IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT
(WBTF-51286)
ON A
GRANT
IN THE AMOUNT OF SDR 4.4 MILLION
Public Disclosure Authorized
US$ 5.5 MILLION EQUIVALENT
TO
ESTONIA, LATVIA, LITHUANIA, POLAND AND THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
FOR A
BALTIC SEA REGIONAL PROJECT PHASE 1
Public Disclosure Authorized
February 15, 2008
Sustainable Development Department
Central Europe and Baltics Country Unit, and Russia Country Unit
Europe and Central Asia Region
Public Disclosure Authorized
CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS
(Exchange Rate Effective January 24, 2008)
Currency Unit = Euro
1.00 = US$ 1.45
US$ 1.00 = 0.69
FISCAL YEAR
January 1 December 31
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AgECS
Agri-Environmental
Credit
Scheme
BAAP
Baltic Agriculture Run-Off Action Program
BS
Baltic
Sea
BSAP
Baltic
Sea
Action
Plan
BSRP
Baltic Sea Regional Project
BSSG
Baltic Sea Steering Group
CAS
Country
Assistance
Strategy
CPR
Continuous
Plankton
Recorder
EU
European
Union
GA
Grant
Agreement
GEF
Global
Environment
Facility
GEO
Global
Environment
Objective
GIS
Geographic
Information
System
HELCOM Helsinki
Commission
IBSFC
International Baltic Sea Fisheries Commission
ICES
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea
JCP
Joint Comprehensive Environmental Action Program for the Baltic Sea
LIU
Local
Implementation
Unit
LME
Large
Marine
Ecosystem
MLW
Working Group on Management Plans for Coastal Lagoons & Wetlands
MMED
Multiple Marine Ecological Disturbances
MoA
Ministry
of
Agriculture
MoE
Ministry
of
Environment
MoF
Ministry
of
Finance
NEFCO
Nordic Environment Finance Corporation
NGO
Non-Governmental
Organization
NMS
New Member States (of the EU)
NOAA
National Oceanographic & Atmospheric Administration (US)
O&M
Operation
and
Maintenance
PAD
Project
Appraisal
Document
PIP
Project
Implementation
Plan
PIT
Project
Implementation
Team
PITF
Program Implementation Task Force
QAG
Quality
Assurance
Group
RAN
Regional Agri-Environment Assessment Network
SIDA
Swedish International Development Agency
SLU
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
UAC
Unit
Abatement
Costs
VAT
Value
Added
Tax
WWF
World Wide Fund for Nature
Vice President:
Shigeo Katsu
Country Director:
Orsalia Kalantzopoulos
Sector Manager:
Juergen Voegele
Project Team Leader:
William R. Sutton
ICR Team Leader:
William R. Sutton
John Fraser Stewart and
ICR Author:
William R. Sutton
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and the Russian Federation
Baltic Sea Regional Project Phase 1
CONTENTS
1. Project Context, Global Environment Objectives and Design ................................... 1
2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes .............................................. 5
3. Assessment of Outcomes .......................................................................................... 12
4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome - Rating: Negligible to Low........... 15
5. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance ..................................................... 16
6. Lessons Learned ....................................................................................................... 17
7. Comments on Issues Raised by Borrower/Implementing Agencies/Partners .......... 18
Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing.......................................................................... 20
Annex 2. Outputs by Component ................................................................................. 21
Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis................................................................. 31
Annex 4. Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes ............ 32
Annex 5. Beneficiary Survey Results ........................................................................... 35
Annex 6. Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results................................................... 36
Annex 7. Summary of Borrower's ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR ..................... 37
Annex 8. Comments of Cofinanciers and Other Partners/Stakeholders....................... 39
Annex 9. List of Supporting Documents ...................................................................... 41
MAP
A. Basic Information
Europe and Central
Baltic Sea Regional
Country:
Project Name:
Asia
GEF Project - Phase I
Project ID:
P048795
L/C/TF Number(s):
TF-51286
ICR Date:
02/15/2008
ICR Type:
Core ICR
Lending Instrument:
SIL
Borrower:
HELCOM
Original Total
USD 5.5M
Disbursed Amount:
USD 5.3M
Commitment:
Environmental Category: B
Global Focal Area: I
Implementing Agencies:
HELCOM
Cofinanciers and Other External Partners:
NEFCO
World Wildlife Fund (WWF)
FINLAND
NORWAY
UNITED STATES
GERMANY
Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA)
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES)
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU)
B. Key Dates
Revised / Actual
Process
Date
Process
Original Date
Date(s)
Concept Review:
07/21/1999
Effectiveness:
05/30/2003
05/30/2003
Appraisal:
02/05/2002
Restructuring(s):
Approval:
02/25/2003
Mid-term Review:
05/10/2005
Closing:
06/30/2006
06/30/2007
C. Ratings Summary
C.1 Performance Rating by ICR
Outcomes:
Satisfactory
Risk to Global Environment Outcome
Low or Negligible
Bank Performance:
Satisfactory
Borrower Performance:
Satisfactory
C.2 Detailed Ratings of Bank and Borrower Performance
Bank
Ratings
Borrower
Ratings
Quality at Entry:
Satisfactory
Government:
Satisfactory
Implementing
Quality of Supervision:
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Agency/Agencies:
i
Overall Bank
Overall Borrower
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Performance:
Performance:
C.3 Quality at Entry and Implementation Performance Indicators
Implementation
QAG Assessments
Indicators
Rating
Performance
(if any)
Potential Problem Project
Quality at Entry
No
None
at any time (Yes/No):
(QEA):
Problem Project at any
Quality of
No
None
time (Yes/No):
Supervision (QSA):
GEO rating before
Satisfactory
Closing/Inactive status
D. Sector and Theme Codes
Original
Actual
Sector Code (as % of total Bank financing)
Animal production
25
25
General agriculture, fishing and forestry sector
75
75
Theme Code (Primary/Secondary)
Biodiversity
Primary
Primary
Environmental policies and institutions
Primary
Primary
Pollution management and environmental health
Secondary
Secondary
Regional integration
Secondary
Secondary
Water resource management
Secondary
Secondary
E. Bank Staff
Positions
At ICR
At Approval
Vice President:
Shigeo Katsu
Johannes F. Linn
Country Director:
Orsalia Kalantzopoulos
Roger W. Grawe
Sector Manager:
Juergen Voegele
Laura Tuck
Project Team Leader:
William R. Sutton
Inesis Kiskis
ICR Team Leader:
William R. Sutton
ICR Primary Author:
John W. Fraser Stewart
William R. Sutton
ii
F. Results Framework Analysis
Global Environment Objectives (GEO) and Key Indicators(as approved)
Project Development Objective: to create some preconditions for application of the
ecosystem approach in managing the Baltic Sea Large Marine Ecosystem and achieving
and maintaining sustainable biological productivity of the Baltic Sea.
Global Environmental Objective: 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 (Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania, Poland and Russian Federation).
Revised Global Environment Objectives (as approved by original approving authority)
and Key Indicators and reasons/justifications
Neither objectives nor key indicators were formally revised in the course of
implementation, though the latter were refined in the light of experience.
Note: To assess achievement of the GEO the key performance indicators as described
in the PAD are used. Details on output indicators as set out in Annex 1 of the PAD are
provided in Annex 2 of this report. The information below has been adapted due to the
fact that there were no "Baseline Values" or "Original Target Values" provided in the
project documents.
(a) GEO Indicator(s)
Original Target
Formally
Actual Value
Values (from
Revised
Achieved at
Indicator
Baseline Value
approval
Target
Completion or
documents)
Values
Target Years
Institutional arrangements are in place for joint monitoring, assessment and
Indicator 1 : evaluation of living marine resources.
A network of
A network of
Coordination
No operational
Coordination
Centers and Lead
institutional network of Centers and Lead
Laboratories
scientists in the project
Laboratories
representing the
Value
beneficiary countries
representing the
Large Marine
(quantitative or
exists for joint
Large Marine
Ecosystem concept
Qualitative)
monitoring, assessment Ecosystem concept
modules has been
and evaluation of the
modules has been
created and is fully
living marine resources. created and is fully
operational; only
operational.
socio-economics
missing
Date achieved 02/25/2003
06/30/2007
06/30/2007
Comments
Near 100% achieved. The networks established are accepted by all parties and
(incl. %
will be used in the continuing work of HELCOM and ICES.
achievement)
iii
A technical assessment and joint monitoring system developed to determine the
Indicator 2 : abundance dynamics of key Baltic fish species, as well as alien species.
Abundance
Abundance
dynamics of the
dynamics of key
key Baltic fish
Baltic fish species
species including
incl. coastal fish
the coastal fish
species monitored
Fish monitoring and
species is
and regular
assessment system
monitored and
technical
existed before 2003;
Value
regular technical
assessments
however, coastal fish
(quantitative or
assessments
produced. Proposal
assessment and
Qualitative)
produced. Alien
for inclusion of
monitoring did not exist. species monitoring
alien species
No specific alien species is implemented as
monitoring into the
monitoring.
a part of BS
BS environmental
environmental
monitoring program
monitoring
(COMBINE)
program
submitted to
(COMBINE)
HELCOM
Date achieved 02/25/2003
06/30/2007
06/30/2007
Comments
90% achieved. System established under project will form the basis of
(incl. %
COMBINE program, which will allow continued evaluations of status of BS
achievement) LME.
(b) Intermediate Outcome Indicator(s)
Original Target
Actual Value
Formally
Values (from
Achieved at
Indicator
Baseline Value
Revised
approval
Completion or
Target Values
documents)
Target Years
Increasing number of farms and individual farmers (25-30) participate in agri-
Indicator 1 : environmental investment scheme.
Value
(quantitative or 0
25-30
20
Qualitative)
Date achieved 02/25/2003
06/30/2007
06/30/2007
84% achieved.
Comments
In addition, 48 farms that completed Project's EMS training received financing
(incl. %
for environmental investments outside BSRP credit scheme, i.e. from other
achievement) resources.
Surface and ground water monitoring stations established in demonstration
Indicator 2 : watersheds to track the nutrient levels.
Monitoring
Network
Value
Network of monitoring
stations
established with 3
(quantitative or stations incomplete and established in
stations and
Qualitative)
poorly equipped.
demonstration
monitoring
watersheds.
equipment for 4
iv
stations.
Date achieved 02/25/2003
06/30/2007
06/30/2007
100% achieved.
Comments
2 new monitoring stations constructed (Lithuania, Estonia), 1 renovated and
(incl. %
upgraded (Latvia); 4 sets of monitoring equipment purchased (Estonia, Latvia,
achievement) Lithuania, Russia-Kaliningrad region).
Indicator 3 : One wetland being restored.
Wetland restoration
Value
Wetland
No wetland restoration
activity
(quantitative or
restoration activity
activity demonstrated.
demonstrated in 3
Qualitative)
demonstrated.
countries.
Date achieved 02/25/2003
06/30/2007
06/30/2007
Estonia: 240 ha of coastal wetlands/meadows restored in Kihnu Strait Marine
Comments
Park; Latvia: 80 ha restored wetland/meadows in Lake Engure area; Lithuania:
(incl. %
Aukstumale bog restored as wetland. Sea trout and lamprey river in Western
achievement) Estonia restored.
Indicator 4 : A Baltic Sea Steering Group established and operational.
Established, but
Regional
operational through
oversight of HELCOM working
the project
Value
Project activities
groups, Heads of
carried out by
(quantitative or No steering group.
are steered on a
Delegation (HOD),
HELCOM
Qualitative)
regional forum.
Commission
HOD and
(HELCOM) and
ICES
ICES Bureau
Committee. meetings.
Date achieved 02/25/2003
06/30/2007
10/15/2004
06/30/2007
Comments
Steering Group was established but ceased operation in October 2004, because of
(incl. %
overlap of functions with already established working structure of HELCOM
achievement) and ICES.
G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs
Actual
Date ISR
No.
GEO
IP
Disbursements
Archived
(USD millions)
1
06/17/2003
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
0.00
2
12/01/2003
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
0.00
3
05/20/2004
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
0.00
4
11/09/2004
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
0.00
5
05/31/2005
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
0.00
6
03/29/2006
Satisfactory
Moderately Satisfactory
0.00
7
06/13/2007
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
0.00
8
06/29/2007
Satisfactory
Moderately Satisfactory
0.00
v
H. Restructuring (if any)
Not Applicable
I. Disbursement Profile
vi
1. Project Context, Global Environment Objectives and Design
1.1 Context at Appraisal
For all five recipient countries1, the project was consistent with high level Bank commitments to
address regional environmental management issues made at the Heads of Government Meeting on the
Baltic Sea (Ronneby, Sweden - 1990) and the respective Country Assistance Strategy (CAS)
development objectives pertaining to sustainable rural development, strengthening local institutions,
protection of natural resources and mitigating environmental decay. More details are in Annex 10.
Sector Context - While the Baltic Sea ecosystem (see Map) provides goods and services to 80 million
people inhabiting its shores and drainage basin, its full potential for provision of social, economic and
environmental benefits was not being realized, and the Baltic was threatened with further degradation as a
result of pollution and unsustainable resources management practices. The Baltic Sea is a semi-enclosed
water body connected with the North Sea by narrow and shallow sounds that limit water exchange to
sporadic inflows of saline and oxygen-rich North Sea water and intermediate periods of stagnation. Since
renewal of the waters of the Baltic Sea takes place over a period of about 25 years, contaminants remain
in the Sea for a long time and result in negative ecological impacts. Contaminants and nutrients enter the
Baltic Sea via river run-off, through atmospheric deposition and from human activities at sea. 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 management of fisheries; and (v) diseases in marine life associated with pollution and
emerging problems with introduced "alien" species. Because of their trans-boundary nature, these threats
require coordinated action from all riparian countries for their resolution.
Governments' Regional Strategy - Since the late 1960s, the status of the Baltic Sea marine environment
has been a major concern of the riparian countries, leading to the Convention on the Protection of the
Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area, 1974, which was revised in 1992 (the Helsinki Convention).
Furthering the aim to conserve and restore the Baltic Sea, the Baltic Sea Joint Comprehensive
Environmental Action Program (JCP) was prepared in 1992 by the Baltic Marine Environmental
Protection Commission, also known as the Helsinki Commission (HELCOM), the governing body of
the Helsinki Convention, and updated in 1998 upon the mandate of the 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 for 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. The Bank played a major role in supporting the preparation of the JCP and actively participated in
the Program Implementation Task Force formed to coordinate the implementation process across the
entire Baltic Sea Region.
Rationale for Bank Support - Earlier phases of the JCP primarily addressed municipal and industrial
pollution sources in all riparian countries. The 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
1 Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and the Russian Federation
1
recipient countries to improve their water and wastewater services and to launch activities to reduce
agricultural non-point-source pollution, as well as introduction of integrated coastal zone management
practices and protected areas management. For Poland, support was provided through the Environmental
Management Project and municipal water and wastewater services projects. In the Russian Federation,
the Bank has worked to rehabilitate and upgrade water and sanitation services in St. Petersburg.
The JCP entered a new phase of implementation in March 1998, following approval by the Ministers of
Environment of the JCP "Recommendations for Updating and Strengthening," which reviewed progress,
identified priorities for future action and developed lessons learned. Reducing non-point source pollution
(mainly from agricultural sources) remained high on the environmental agenda, as it contributed nearly
half of the nutrient pollution load to the Baltic Sea. The recipient countries, as contracting parties of the
Helsinki Convention, are obliged 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. Except for the Russian Federation, the recipient country
governments are committed to moving into compliance with relevant European Union (EU) directives as
part of the accession process (the Nitrates Directive, Environment Directives, and the Water Framework
Directive). All governments recognized the BSRP as a key mechanism for supporting national programs
and meeting the regional obligation of improving environmental management of the Baltic Sea.
1.2 Original Project Objectives and Key Indicators (as approved)
Project Development Objective: 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 Global Environmental Objective (GEO): 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 countries. Project activities supported implementation of the Helsinki Convention
and the JCP, which is fully consistent with GEF Operational Program 9 (OP-9), Integrated Land and
Water Multiple Focal Area Operational Program, which aims to support "better land and water resource
management practices on an area wide basis". The project provided opportunities for the GEF to be a
"catalyst 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 had 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 were to support linkages with activities of the cooperating countries,
international financial institutions, European Union (EU), bilateral donors and NGOs.
Project activities were undertaken in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and the Russian Federation, along
their Baltic coastal areas and in the adjacent coastal and open sea area. The project was implemented as
an integrated activity, with HELCOM serving as the implementing agency, and working in coordination
with the International Baltic Sea Fisheries Commission (IBSFC) until its closure in 2005 and with the
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES).
Key Performance Indicators against which achievement of project objectives would be judged are set out
in the Data Sheet, Section F and were developed in the course of project implementation from the
qualitative set of 20 in the PAD. The six adopted indicators cover institutional and capacity building
measures, monitoring and data management, fisheries, grasslands and wetlands restoration, and agri-
2
environmental investments. With hindsight, one can say that the set of indicators was too numerous,
difficult to quantify, and included a number of measures of process rather than impact.
1.3 Revised GEO and Key Indicators, and reasons/justification
There was no formal revision of the GEO or key indicators.
1.4 Main Beneficiaries
The primary regional benefits were intended to result from strengthening the decision making process at
the regional, national and local levels for sustainable ecosystem-based management of the Baltic Sea
resources. This was to result over the medium and long-term in: strengthened regional institutional
capacity for coordinated decision-making and dissemination of recommendations; empowerment of local
communities in the management of agricultural and coastal resources; demonstration of an effective
mechanism for environmental management and on-farm investments in agriculture; reduction of nitrate
input to Baltic Sea coastal and transboundary waters; sustainable use of fishery resources at the regional
and national levels; and improved marine ecosystem health and related benefits associated with fisheries,
other living resources and coastal populations.
Project target population and beneficiaries included: the three key participating International Bodies,
HELCOM, IBSFC, and ICES, which would benefit from efforts to facilitate regional cooperation and
coordination in the decision-making process; National and Local Governments, which would realize an
opportunity to improve their technical capacities and participate as equal technical and political partners
with western European countries in the three international bodies; Farming Communities - through
investments in manure management, farmers would save money by reducing the use of chemical
fertilizers, with increased incomes from improved productivity, and reduced negative impacts on ground
water and air quality; Coastal Communities, which would be able to utilize resources from a better
managed coastal ecosystem, which would indirectly benefit local businesses and employment through an
increase in tourism; Fishing Communities, which would be able to use more efficient technologies and
methodologies for sustainable use of fishery resources; and, Tourism Interests, which would benefit, in
the long-term, through an increase in sustainable coastal tourism that would emphasize natural resource
and cultural values.
1.5 Original Components
Project components were based on the Large Marine Ecosystem (LME) concept2 and included integrated
land, coastal and open sea activities to strengthen local and regional capacity to achieve sustainable
ecosystem management of Baltic Sea resources. The advantage of an ecosystem approach is that it shifts
current management practices from sectoral, short-term perspectives, with humans independent of
ecosystems, to ecosystem-based, long-term perspectives with humans integral to ecosystems. Sustainable
management would improve ecosystem health while providing social and economic benefits to farming,
coastal and fishing communities and sectors such as businesses and tourism. The Project included the
following four complementary components (see Annex 10 for a detailed project description):
2 The LME model was developed by K. Sherman and L. Alexander beginning in the 1980s. LMEs are defined as regions of
ocean space encompassing coastal areas from river basins and estuaries out to the seaward boundary and continental shelves and
the seaward margins of coastal current systems. The LME management approach has the following five modules: productivity;
ecosystem health; fish/fisheries; socio-economic; and, management.
3
Component 1 Large Marine Ecosystem Management Activities (US$5.62 million, or 46.5 percent of the
total cost). The main coastal and open-sea water management issues in the Baltic Sea are ecosystem
impacts from eutrophication and over fishing. Management of these issues requires strengthened
institutional and technical coordination of information, resources and management activities at the
regional and local levels. While other trans-boundary issues have been identified, previous resource
management policies and practices were not holistic and ecosystem-based. The component's primary
objective, therefore, was to demonstrate the principles and benefits of the LME concept for Baltic coastal
and open sea resources. Activities emphasize close coordination between sectors and countries. In
coordination with the other Project components, Component 1 aimed to: (i) establish local and regional
administrative and organizational mechanisms, through the Coordination Centers, for cooperative
monitoring and assessment, (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 (Council of the Baltic Sea States), and
(except for the Russian Federation) EU environmental and water management directives.
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 agricultural element of
the Component was to: (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 partial support for small-
scale environmentally responsible agricultural investments. The coastal zone management element of the
Component was to: (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.
Component 3 Institutional Strengthening and Regional Capacity Building. (US$0.15 million, or 1.2
percent of total cost). The Component's objective was 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 included limited support for: (i) regional capacity building;
(ii) targeted activities to facilitate improved regional level coordination and cooperation between
HELCOM, IBSFC, ICES and regional stakeholders; (iii) improved valuation of ecosystem goods and
services though an evaluation of the socioeconomic implications of reduced eutrophication on ecosystem
resources; (iv) 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) funded local and
regional project management, procurement services, the social assessment and required financial audits.
1.6 Revised Components
Components were not formally revised.
1.7 Other significant changes
Extension of the closing date: The project was extended by one year, from the original closing date of
06/30/2006 to 06/30/2007 because of delays and disbursement lags especially at the beginning of project
implementation. Reasons included: the longer than expected time to establish the Project's complex
4
implementation mechanisms; the need for highly specialized scientific equipment, which led to
procurement delays; and, the significant time required to train farmers and complete the application
process for farm investments.
Reallocation: funds were reallocated from Components 2 and 3 to Components 1 and 4 because: the
reduced relative attractiveness of the NEFCO loans for Component 2 on-farm investments due to
increased competition from commercial and EU sources in the EU New Member States (NMS) after
accession, resulting in some farmers dropping out of the project credit scheme; the increased cost of
specialized equipment and the greater than expected research and network activities carried out under
Component 1; as described in Section 3.2, reductions in Component 3 in anticipation of shifting some
activities to Phase 2; and, due to the extension, there were additional expenses under Component 4.
Steering Group: as described in Section 3.2, the decision was made to replace the Baltic Sea Steering
Group with discussions of project issues within the HELCOM and ICES working structures.
Expansion to Leningrad Region: during the final year of implementation, based on a request from project
partners at the Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA) and the Swedish University of
Agricultural Sciences (SLU), a decision was made to expand Component 2 activities into the Leningrad
Region of Russia, in addition to the Kaliningrad Region, building on an ongoing SIDA-financed project,
in the expectation that there would be more demand for the investment packages than in the NMS.
2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes
2.1 Project Preparation, Design and Quality at Entry
Project Preparation: Pre-identification took place in early 1998. With the support of a GEF grant,
preparation commenced in mid 1999, but was significantly delayed from August 1999, when an
automobile accident led to serious injury of both the Bank and project team leaders. Subsequently, the
preparation grant was extended by a year through June 2001, with appraisal in February 2002 and
approval one year later in early 2003. The preparation and appraisal process was also delayed because of
a problem with the availability of funds from GEF and their allocation between projects. The result was
that the project was changed from a single project with a GEF allocation of US$18.0 million to a planned
three-phase program, with a first phase of US$5.5 million. These changes necessitated some significant
modifications to project design and implementation arrangements. At the time of appraisal, the second
phase was expected to entail 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 the investment
program in the agriculture sector. The third phase would have included expanded application of the
ecosystem approach; completion of field based management and demonstration activities; and preparation
and evaluation of assessment studies.
Preparation was participatory, and included extensive consultations with the farming and coastal
communities in all beneficiary countries. Local agricultural advisory services and NGOs acted as
intermediates. Several joint preparation missions took place with the World Bank, SIDA, NEFCO, SLU
and others to discuss the design at the regional, national and local levels. Preparation built on existing
local cooperative structures, established through different bilateral projects and networks.
Project Design: Institutional Arrangements. Adoption of the LME approach and the division of the
original project into phases resulted in a project with a large number of fairly small activities. Along with
the need to minimize overhead costs at HELCOM, these factors led to a rather complex and ad hoc
structure for project execution. Project execution, overall coordination and monitoring and evaluation
was undertaken by HELCOM in Helsinki, in collaboration with IBSFC (which was based in Warsaw but
was dissolved on January 1st 2006), and ICES in Copenhagen. A project implementation team (PIT) was
5
established, under the supervision of the HELCOM Executive Secretary. The PIT comprised three
HELCOM administrative staff, who each allocated up to 20% of their time to BSRP activities (but were
not paid from the project); and a Project Assistant, a Financial Assistant, and a Procurement Consultant,
funded under the project.
Management of Component 1 (LME Management Activities), was delegated to a Component Coordinator
at ICES headquarters (financed by the Swedish Government), who allocated 100% of his time to BSRP
activities during the first project year, decreasing his involvement to 30% over time. He interacted
directly with an Assistant Component Coordinator, based in Latvia, who allocated up to 70% of his time
to BSRP activities, and Local Project Managers, funded for 50% of their time under the project, who were
staff of separate academic and research institutions of the LME Network in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,
Poland, and Kaliningrad and Leningrad regions of Russia. Management of Component 2 (Land and
Coastal Management Activities) was delegated to a Component Coordinator on the SLU staff in Uppsala,
Sweden who allocated about 30% of his time, financed by Swedish SIDA, for BSRP activities, working
through existing field structures established under ongoing SIDA and Bank projects for nutrient reduction.
He also supervised the work of Local Implementation Units (LIUs) established within the agricultural
extension services in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Kaliningrad. Each LIU included an LIU Director, a
farm economist, a farm technical specialist, a monitoring and modeling specialist, and a coastal zone
management specialist, each of whom allocated 40% of their time to BSRP activities, funded under the
Project. For agri-environmental investments, HELCOM contracted the Nordic Environmental Finance
Corporation (NEFCO) to jointly finance pilot investments in eligible farms and manage the GEF sub-
grants. LIUs were to introduce the investment schemes among farmers by means of introductory
seminars, coupled with training courses offered by local agricultural advisory services, to provide
guidance on environmental management and business planning that could then be used to apply for
NEFCO loans and GEF grants under the project, EU grants, or bank loans. Coastal Zone Management
Activities were managed by a Coastal Coordinator at World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) Sweden
(financed by Swedish SIDA), who allocated about 30% of his time to BSRP activities, which included
working with coastal zone specialists of the LIUs, who were generally employees of local environmental
NGOs.
Given the large number of participating countries and institutions, a Baltic Sea Steering Group (BSSG)
was to be established to provide broad based support for the implementation process. The BSSG was to
include members from HELCOM, IBSFC and ICES, and senior representatives of the riparian countries,
and NOAA (US government).
Project design drew on a broad range of lessons learned. At the regional level, a review of "lessons
learned" that was prepared for the first phase of the JPC, identified three measures as critical for success:
(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", and (iii) a broad-based
partnership to support implementation of the agreed "preventive" and "curative" actions. Difficulties
associated with the translation of plans to actions were recognized as the major challenges facing all such
programs. The PAD identified key lessons learned by the donors and recipient countries working in the
region on environmental and agricultural projects (including the need for capacity building, consistent
procedures between countries, cost-effectiveness and the value of linkages with ongoing projects); as well
as some from the Bank's experience (an agreed project framework, stakeholder agreement on processes
and expectations, and a clear understanding of procurement and disbursement procedures).
Assessment of Risks. Project design benefited from a thorough assessment of risks at appraisal and
provision of mitigating measures. Although no risks were rated more than Moderate, areas of concern
included possible limited collaboration between agencies, sustainability of on-farm investments, the
commitment of local governments, and cumbersome procedures. Fisheries management was cited as a
6
possibly controversial aspect. One risk area that was not, however, included in this assessment relates to
the challenges of effectively coordinating and managing implementation of multiple project activities,
given their broad geographical and technical coverage, as well as the overall complexity of institutional
arrangements. Two of the lessons cited in the PAD that were intended to influence project design include
desirability of clearly defining project goals and activities, and of developing a clear project framework.
In retrospect, project implementation would have benefited from taking these lessons on board more
substantively. One option for doing so could have been to clearly identify an overall project manager, at a
senior level, tasked with responsibility for working with the various beneficiaries and participating
institutions to assist them to develop and regularly update a shared, bench marked schedule of progress,
including indicators of both progress and impact. In the absence of an operational manager, achieving
overall project coherence and outcomes was made more difficult. A second risk that was not articulated
at appraisal was that of the impacts on the NMS of EU accession. This allowed farmers to gain access to
EU Structural Funds grants for on-farm investments, which made the Agri-Environmental Credit Scheme
(AgECS) offered under the project less competitive, and reduced demand for loans under the scheme.
Quality at Entry. Adoption of the LME model resulted in a project design that covered a wide range of
activities, and the limited GEF funding available caused all sub-components to be rather small. Adding to
project complexity was an institutional structure with many players, mostly working part time and
without an overall project manager. Alternatives considered in the PAD were: a set of national projects; a
focus on curative investments; and, a set of sector specific programs. The adoption of a holistic approach,
with the inclusion of capacity building and basic monitoring and data management services, appears to
have been justified by experience. Offsetting the complex design was the known capability of HELCOM
and the other institutions and the Bank's prior experience with the Baltic Sea, leading to a very good
analysis of issues and program design, enhanced by the competence and professionalism of the project
staff. On balance, quality at entry is rated Satisfactory.
2.2 Implementation
Factors contributing to success
Renewed focus on results As the original closing date of 06/30/06 approached, it became clear to the
Bank supervision team that the Project was not going to complete implementation or fully disburse. At
the time, disbursements were only at 40%. Therefore, the Bank team discussed with the client and with
Bank management the possibility of an extension. By that time, the PIT had done a good job of
overcoming the initial design complexities of the project and establishing the preconditions for effective
implementation, including networks of scientists and extension agents in the beneficiary countries. But
these networks had not yet been mobilized in a manner that would ensure the timely implementation of all
planned activities. In response, in conjunction with the extension, the Bank team worked with the PIT to
reinvigorate implementation activities and to renew the focus on achieving results. The extension gave
the possibility of arranging a participatory logframe workshop with all key project stakeholders in June
2006. The workshop discussed what had to be achieved over the additional 12 months of implementation
in order for the Project to be considered a success, and reviewed and refined the project logframe and
M&E system, with an emphasis on the links between individual project activities and how they
contributed to achieving the Project's overall goals and objectives. This helped to improve
implementation over the final year of the Project, so that nearly all funds were disbursed and the PDO
was achieved.
Capacity and commitment of participants The project benefited from the high level of technical
capacity of the project participants. What were missing were financial resources, networking and
knowledge sharing with counterparts in other riparian countries and, in the case of Component 2, training
in the specific environmental management techniques required. These inputs were provided by the
7
project, but it was the capacity of the people involved that allowed them to readily absorb and apply them.
In addition, throughout the project implementation and beyond, the participants have maintained a
commitment to their work and to the goal of improving the Baltic Sea ecosystem. These are important
factors that are not always present in Bank/GEF projects.
Policy environment Successful implementation of project activities was enhanced by the wider policy
environment, particularly in the four EU NMS. EU mandates such as the Nitrates Directive, Water
Framework Directive, Marine Strategy, and Green Paper on Maritime Policy encouraged the NMS
beneficiaries to treat as urgent measures for improving and monitoring of water quality and environmental
management, and to mainstream them into national systems. Conversely, the lack of such a mandate in
the Russian Federation may help to explain the slower progress there, particularly under Component 2.
Participation of regional cofinanciers and development partners The active and extensive collaboration
with development partners, particularly ICES, NEFCO, SIDA, SLU and WWF, helped the Project to
leverage additional resources of over $10 million in direct cofinancing, and to benefit from regional
knowledge and networks. The fact that an accepted body for coordinating Baltic environment activities
between countries already existed--in the form of HELCOM--also contributed to the success of the
regional effort.
Factors that gave rise to problems
Complicated institutional and reporting structure The implementation arrangements for the project
were quite complex and dispersed, with different implementation structures for each of the two main
components spread across five beneficiary countries and a management/coordination team dispersed over
at least four countries (Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Latvia). Due to the transboundary nature of the
tasks, Component 1 was organized along thematic lines, with CCs and LLs for different themes located in
different countries. Component 2 was organized on a national basis, with a similar LIU located in each
country. The national staff implementing the activities under the two components reported to different
Component Coordinators located in different countries who then reported to the PIT at HELCOM. As a
result, information flows in both directions were slowed and less effective, contributing to slower than
expected implementation progress, disbursements, and reporting to the Bank. These factors in turn
resulted in Implementation Progress ratings twice being downgraded from Satisfactory to Moderately
Satisfactory. The variation in institutional arrangements across components may also have reduced
project cohesion in the beginning. But it should be acknowledged that these kinds of coordination issues
typically arise in multi-country, cross-sectoral projects, which are by nature more complex.
Lack of a project manager The Project lacked a full-time, dedicated project manager empowered to
directly hold project participants accountable for adhering to schedules and delivering results.
Component Coordinators only worked on the project part-time. The project staff at HELCOM were not
empowered to directly communicate with beneficiary country implementing agencies and hold them to
account, contributing to implementation delays.
Lack of familiarity with project implementation Although the institutions participating in the project
were strong technically, most had little prior experience in implementing large investment operations on
the ground. They also needed time to become familiar with Bank fiduciary requirements. The lack of
capacity and continuity in local institutions also resulted in delays.
Complex investment application process While EU membership and the opportunities it entailed were
primarily responsible for lower-than-expected demand for the Component 2 AgECS, the application
process was also complex and lengthy. Farmers participated in extensive training (which was an
objective on its own), prepared detailed Environmental Management Plans, including both economic and
8
environmental analysis, and applications then went through several stages of technical and financial
review by different local and international implementing agencies. Requirements often multiplied
because farmers applied for BSRP funds and EU resources for the same investments. After they were
approved, procurement was carried out individually for each investment.
Changes in VAT regime - In 2003, when the Grant Agreement (GA) was signed, the potential impact of
changing tax legislation due to EU accession of the four NMS was not fully anticipated. The GA
provided for different disbursement percentages to factor in VAT payments. 82% of local expenditures
were paid and 100% of foreign. At the same time, `local' was defined as purchases from any of the
beneficiary countries. After EU regulations on destination-based VAT in `intra-community sales' came
into force, some beneficiaries had to pay VAT in their country in addition to the 18% copayment, while
others would only pay 18%, and others3 would be paid 100% from the Grant. This would result in a
differential treatment of beneficiaries and complicate and delay payment processing, as each would have
to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. In response, PIT held payments until resolution of the problem,
which further slowed disbursements. This was also an unusual problem for the Bank. Nevertheless, the
Bank resolved it satisfactorily by the end of 2006 by ensuring that all beneficiaries were treated equally.
2.3 Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Design, Implementation and Utilization
M&E design - The monitoring and evaluation plan was based on the Project Logical Framework
(logframe) (Annex 1 to the PAD). In addition, the PAD listed key outcome indicators to measure
achievement of the GEO. The Project Implementation Plan (PIP) included an M&E plan that provided
practical guidance on M&E implementation. While the Project's outcome indicators were primarily
activity - rather than impact - oriented, they did allow for measuring progress towards achievement of the
approved GEO. The logframe provided a list of detailed output indicators. However, it was difficult to
track intermediate progress, particularly early on in implementation, as no baseline or target values were
established. Some output indicators also entailed a wider scale of activities, not all of which could have
been attributed solely to project activities and investments. Certain indicators, particularly to measure
Component 1 progress, were too broad and therefore raised questions about whether they were supposed
to be achieved during Phase 1 of the project or in the following phase(s). No indicators beyond
operationalizing the implementation team were defined for the project management component.
M&E implementation - HELCOM PIT was responsible for preparing quarterly and annual project
progress reports that would be submitted to the Bank together with financial management reports. In
addition, the PIP's M&E Plan envisaged preparation of monthly progress reports but this was dropped at
an early stage of the implementation. Instead, quarterly and annual reports generally were submitted with
little or no delays. However, during the final year of implementation, more significant delays occurred
due to the additional workload that occurred from increased procurement and disbursement activity
towards the end of the project. Initial progress reports submitted to the Bank lacked clarity. For example,
some of the indicators designed to track progress in qualitative terms provided a quantitative result in the
form of a percentage of activity completion. Also, M&E focused on activity completion rather than
impacts of these activities towards achievement of the GEO. The Task Team worked closely with the PIT
to modify formats of progress reports to address the above shortcomings. In June 2006 a professionally
facilitated, participatory logframe workshop with all key project stakeholders was organized to refine the
project logframe to focus on results. As a result, although key monitoring indicators were not formally
revised, subsequent reporting was considerably improved.
3 Non-VAT paying institutes when goods were purchased from non-beneficiary countries
9
M&E utilization M&E was used by the implementing agencies and the Bank to track implementation
progress and results, and to share these with stakeholders. The project was covered by the HELCOM and
ICES Information Services, which disseminated activity status reports and success stories through
newsletters, annual reports, brochures, press releases, and dedicated web pages.4 The information was
targeted at the media, government officials, professional groups, and general public. During the last year
of implementation, some funding within the project was allocated to intensify local awareness activities.
Availability of information on outputs and achievements greatly supported this endeavor.
2.4 Safeguard and Fiduciary Compliance
Safeguards. During preparation, an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) was prepared consistent
with World Bank OP/BP 4.01 on "Environmental Assessment" for Category "B" projects, including
consultation and disclosure requirements. No other safeguard policies were triggered. The EMP
determined that the project would provide opportunities for environmental, socio-economic and health
improvements in the Baltic Sea region, which is the aim of the project, but that some short-term
environmental impacts might occur from construction of farm improvement features, stream and wetland
restoration. As a result, mitigation measures were put in place to minimize any of the potential negative
short-term impacts. For example, environmental management plans were required for all AgECS
investments. Implementation of these activities was monitored as part of regular supervision. No
significant safeguards issues arose during project implementation.
Financial Management. Despite some hurdles at the beginning of the project, the FM system including
accounting, internal controls and reporting was generally adequate and satisfactory to the Bank.
Quarterly financial reports were prepared by the PIT staff and submitted to the Bank, generally with little
or no delays. Delays occurred during the final year of the project due to additional work burden related to
the increased procurement and disbursement activity at the completion stage, as well as preparations for
the potential 2nd phase of the project. Project financial statements were audited on an annual basis.
Reports had unqualified (clean) opinions, although reports for the CY2003 and 2004 were considered
unsatisfactory to the Bank, as data by project component contained in the audited financial statements did
not agree with the Bank data. Resubmitted audits were acceptable. Unqualified opinion was issued for
CY2005 financial statements, although some shortcomings in the control over advances, physical counts
of inventories and fixed assets, and timely submission of consultant's time sheet and expense reports were
noted. PIT FM staff followed up on the recommendations of the auditor to the best of their abilities. The
final audit of the project financial statements, covering CY2006 and January-October 2007, was
undertaken after the end of the grace period and received a clean opinion on December 21, 2007.
Procurement. Procurement under the project has been acceptable to the Bank. The procurement process
was generally well organized and all procedures were followed. Staffing was stable throughout
implementation. Progress reports regularly addressed procurement and updated the procurement plan.
Post reviews were conducted annually and only minor procedural errors were raised by the Bank team.
Record-keeping of procurement was adequate, although better filing of procurement documents was
recommended. At the beginning of the project, the majority of procurement was related to hiring
consultants with no procurement issues emerging. Later contracts, particularly those involving laboratory
equipment, experienced some delays throughout all stages of procurement process, including preparation
of bidding documents, contract signing and contract completion, due to the complexity of the equipment
being procured and unfamiliarity with Bank procurement, and difficulties related to the payment of VAT.
4 See: http://www.helcom.fi/projects/GEF-BSRP/en_GB/bsrp/; and http://www.ices.dk/projects/balticsea.asp
10
2.5 Post-completion Operation/Next Phase
Project implementation was mainstreamed from the outset, with all project activities being supervised,
managed or implemented by permanent staff of a broad range of government, academic, local authority
and non-government organizations in all riparian countries, as part of their regular work plans. This
strategy ensured the development of awareness and ownership of the goals and objectives supported by
the project, capacity building, and mainstreaming of follow on actions across the region.
Progress made under the Project is likely to be carried forward through operation of an array of
permanent international groups, including: The Baltic Ecosystem Health, Productivity, and Fisheries
Assessment study groups, and working groups on Integrated Assessment of the Baltic (all established
under ICES); and the Expert Network on coastal fish monitoring (established under HELCOM). Most
significantly, project participants will be implementing the HELCOM-sponsored Baltic Sea Action Plan
(BSAP), which was adopted by all riparian countries and the EU on November 15, 2007. The BSAP is an
ambitious, overarching program to dramatically reduce pollution in the Baltic and restore its good
ecological status by 2021, and continues and expands many activities supported by the BSRP. It will also
help to ensure Russian commitment to these activities.
International collaboration in continued support of Project goals is assured at the technical level though
informal operation of the working groups established under the Project and the working structures of
HELCOM and ICES, and at the policy level through regular meetings of the HELCOM Heads of
Delegation (HELCOM HOD), which include representatives from Ministries of Environment of all nine
contracting parties and the EU, and through the ICES Bureau.
Incentives for continued operation and maintenance - In addition to commitments made by
Governments in the context of the BSAP, the need to comply with EU Directives (for NMS), together
with the range of donor supported and commercial financing instruments available, provide strong
incentives for farmers to respond to the awareness raising and training provided under the Project, invest
in improved on-farm environmental management, and continue to assure proper operation and
maintenance (O&M) of investments, except perhaps in Russia. As part of the selection process for
AgECS on-farm investments, financial projections were made taking into account O&M costs to ensure
the financial sustainability of the investments and the farms. Significant investment support provided by
the farmers from their own resources or loans (typically three times or more the grant amount) helps to
ensure ownership of the investments and increases the incentives for operation and maintenance. Also,
the NEFCO loan agreements require AgECS participants to annually report the nutrient balance until full
loan repayment (up to 10 years). Monitoring of nutrient runoff using equipment supplied by the project
will be continued by LIUs supported by beneficiary governments. The project also demonstrated local
economic incentives for maintaining and managing natural ecosystems and biodiversity by piloting the
development and initial implementation of ecological tourism development plans, and providing
environmental awareness training. Component 1 institutes have committed to ensuring O&M from their
own resources of equipment provided by the project. Investments in monitoring equipment under
Component 2 have been integrated into national monitoring programs carried out by MoEs and
universities.
Donor supported programs that will continue to support progress toward achievement of project goals
include the joint Baltic Sea Research Program "BONUS+" under the EU ERA-NET+ funding scheme
(EUR 23.3 million for the first three year phase from 2008, EUR 18 million of which is contributions by
nine Baltic Sea states including Russia), which supports collaborative research in support of policy
development to bring about ecosystem-based management of the Baltic; and the SIDA-financed
AEEHLO (Agriculture, Environment and Ecosystem health in Leningrad Oblast) Program which
11
promotes ecosystem health and sustainable agriculture in Leningrad Oblast, Russia, through 2008. Design
of these programs benefited considerably from BSRP experience.
3. Assessment of Outcomes
3.1 Relevance of Objectives, Design and Implementation
Project objectives and approaches had and continue to have relevance for the riparian countries of the
Baltic Sea in working towards achievement of the overall goal of establishing sustainable management of
the Baltic ecosystems and natural resources. Moreover, networks and agreements established with the
support of the Project have contributed significantly toward providing the basis for riparians to work
together toward this longer-term goal. The project design was technically sound, though institutionally
challenging, and fully consistent with the project objectives. Implementation generally followed the path
laid out at appraisal, albeit with some delays.
3.2 Achievement of Global Environmental Objective
The Global Environmental Objective of the three-phase project was to facilitate the restoration of marine
and coastal 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 countries. The Development Objective of the Project
(originally intended as Phase 1) was to "create some preconditions for application of the ecosystems
approach in managing the Baltic Sea Large Marine Ecosystem." To a significant extent, the Project
achieved these objectives, as measured against the key indicators defined at the time of appraisal.
Preliminary outcomes of networks and pilots established under the project have contributed to the
substance and quality of the BSAP. Additionally, BSRP activities have contributed to the identification
and design of an array of working groups, research and environmental management projects and
programs that will refine, implement and monitor the impact of actions identified in the BSAP in years to
come. Capacity developed by the project and techniques demonstrated also laid the foundation for
scaling up of environmental investments by other programs, such as those supported by the EU.
Outcomes by component are summarized below. Detailed outputs at the activity level are listed in the
table in Annex 2, and outcomes at the activity level are described in Annex 11.
Component 1: LARGE MARINE ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT- Rating: Satisfactory.
The goal of the component was to develop the level of basin-wide collaboration among technical agencies
needed to provide guidance to riparian Governments on how to establish sustainable management of the
Baltic Sea marine ecosystem. The project achieved this to a significant extent through establishing and
operationalizing a network of environmental institutions in all riparian states, enhancing technical
capacity, developing and piloting regional approaches to monitoring and assessment, and preparing the
Bonus 169 Science Plan for the Baltic, which identifies collaborative research in support of the LME
concept that will be financed by the EU.
The component has already delivered valuable results, and the functioning networks of thematic expertise
are likely to be maintained through operation of an array of permanent international groups that have
since been established5. Network participants continue to contribute significantly to implementation and
5 Including the Baltic Ecosystem Health, Productivity, and Fisheries Assessment study groups, as well as working groups on
Integrated Assessment of the Baltic (all established under ICES), and a permanent Expert Network on coastal fish monitoring
(established under HELCOM).
12
review of the BSAP, with emphasis on ensuring that targets are both meaningful and achievable. They
will also be involved in future monitoring and assessments. Achievements by component activities
included the following: a network of Coordination Centers and Lead Laboratories for the themes of
ecosystem health, marine productivity and fisheries; installation and operation of monitoring systems for
marine ecosystems, including strengthening the "ships of opportunity" system (monitors attached to ferry
boats); a permanent working group on assessments, inter alia, to provide baseline data for the BSAP; and,
demonstrations of salmon restoration and improved agricultural management.
Component 2: LAND AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES - Rating: Satisfactory
The objective of this component was to contribute to institutional development and demonstrate improved
on-farm nutrient management, and also conservation management of coastal areas, that would lead to
reduced nutrient input to the Baltic Sea. Component activities also improved the capacity of participating
countries to monitor non-point source pollution, and establish a regional collaborative network for
monitoring nutrient runoff and water quality. The Project achieved these objectives to a significant extent
through financing pilot demonstrations, training, raising local stakeholder interest, and through
establishing a network of technical specialists, which includes approximately 30 individuals from 12
institutions (academic, educational and NGOs) in the four Component 2 beneficiary countries.
The LIU network functions have been mainstreamed into national programs and several regional
initiatives of HELCOM (including the BSAP) and the EU, establishing an international platform for
continuation of efforts to control non-point source pollution across the region. Specific achievements
included: awareness building; training of farmers and advisory service staff; establishment of the AgECS,
in collaboration with NEFCO; 20:1 leveraging of GEF funds to provide investment credit for 20 pilot
farms; catalyzing investments on a further 50 farms outside the project (farms are typically large private
farms with 50 to several hundred head of livestock); automatic monitoring of water quality (especially
nutrients) in selected watersheds, together with modeling, to measure the impact of on-farm investments;
restoration of grasslands and/or wetlands in four countries, together with training and equipment;
development of a pilot ecotourism plan; and, establishment of a Baltic Sea Agri-Environmental Network.
Component 3: INSTITUTIONAL STRENGTHENING AND REGIONAL CAPACITY BUILDING
- Rating Moderately Satisfactory
The objective of this component was to strengthen regional and local capacity to successfully utilize the
outputs and recommendations from Component 1 and Component 2 activities to establish sustainable
ecosystem-based management of Baltic resources. It included regional capacity building in beneficiary
countries (including regional coordination, establishment of the BSSG, and regional public information
and outreach); and regional socio-economic assessment. Significant outcomes included strengthened
cooperation between the riparian countries and between the three international agencies, and national
dissemination activities. However, dissemination was modest (and needs to be continued) and socio-
economic assessments, such as the valuation of ecological goods and services, remain to be done. The
need for public outreach was generally underestimated. The BSSG was established but appropriately
disbanded in 2005 when it was realized that its functions could be more cost-effectively carried out by the
HELCOM HOD and ICES Bureau.
Component 4: PROJECT MANAGEMENT Rating - Moderately Satisfactory
Project management arrangements (see section 2.1) were complex. While this complexity provided for
broad ownership and mainstreaming of project goals, the absence of a focal point for overall coordination
and operational management of the project ensured that project implementation was inherently
challenging (see section 2.2). The complexity of oversight arrangements, the part time involvement of
13
most members of the team, and the absence of an overall operational manager for the Project contributed
to slow start up and disbursement lags, and led to marine and land based activities being developed in
relative isolation from one another. At the same time, the strategy of assigning project implementation to
regular staff at a broad range of institutions has greatly contributed to the development of regional
awareness and ownership of project goals.
3.3 Efficiency
Consistent with GEF requirements, the PAD included an Incremental Cost Analysis, which found that the
project was composed of a series of activities necessary for the improvement of transboundary
management of freshwater, coastal and open sea ecosystems. The support from the GEF was specifically
targeted at covering the transaction and other costs of cooperation between the Baltic riparian countries.
Due to the transboundary nature of the issues, and the public goods aspect of the environmental benefits,
it is unlikely that beneficiary countries, of their own accord, would have or could have financed the
activities supported by the project. The costs therefore were almost certainly incremental, and the project
achieved its GEO within the estimated incremental costs.
Because this was a standalone GEF project, additional economic analysis was not required and was not
carried out for the PAD. However, considering the significant results achieved by the project with quite a
small amount of resources--especially considering that they had to be spread across five countries--the
cost effectiveness of the activities is clearly very high. The GEF resources provided were also successful
in leveraging more than twice that amount from development partners for financing of the project. On
top of that, under Component 2 the project contributed toward catalyzing an additional $40 million of
non-project investments in improved on-farm productivity and environmental management technologies.
To further evaluate the cost effectiveness of nutrient reduction investments supported by the project under
Component 2, NEFCO carried out an analysis of unit abatement costs for BSRP AgECS investments and
compared them with alternatives in Baltic countries. Project investments were estimated to cost 1,057
per ton of Nitrogen outflow prevented, while other agricultural programs in the Nordic area averaged
8,400 per ton and point source mitigation (municipal, industrial and housing) ranged from 15,000 to
106,000 per ton, demonstrating the relative cost effectiveness of investments under the project. (see
Annex 3 for more information).
3.4 Justification of Overall Outcome Rating - Rating: Satisfactory
Project objectives and approaches continue to have relevance for riparian countries in working toward
achievement of the overall goal of establishing sustainable management of Baltic Sea ecosystems and
natural resources. Networks and agreements established under the project have contributed significantly
toward providing the basis for riparians to work together toward this longer-term goal. The project
achieved the development objective defined at appraisal and, to a significant extent, contributed toward
achieving the global environmental objective of what was to be a three-phase operation over six years.
As shown in the Data Sheet, Section F and Annexes 2 and 11, actual outcomes were close to 100 percent
of expectations in most cases, with only a few significant shortfalls, and are likely to be sustained.
Given the relatively small amount of GEF resources assigned to the project versus its significant
achievements, as well as the additional investments leveraged, project resources were efficiently utilized,
despite a one-year delay in project completion. At the regional level, the most important example of the
early utilization of project results is the BSAP. The BSAP also represents the scaling-up of many of the
activities piloted and demonstrated by the project, including serious efforts to reduce eutrophication and
halt habitat destruction and the decline in biodiversity.
14
3.5 Overarching Themes, Other Outcomes and Impacts
(a) Poverty Impacts, Gender Aspects, and Social Development
Project activities created modest opportunities for employment, local business development and income
generation in conjunction with pro-environment works, and development of local eco-tourism under the
coastal zone management activities, with the likelihood of more substantial opportunities from follow-on
programs. The increased employment, in turn, is expected to have a positive impact on poverty,
particularly in rural areas.
(b) Institutional Change/Strengthening
Other impacts on longer-term capacity and institutional development include: anchoring the LME concept
in future scientific research in the Baltic region under the Bonus 169 Science Plan; endorsement of the
LME concept by the riparian countries and the EU; the development of a replicable model in applying the
ecosystem based approach to management of LMEs; introduction of environmental considerations in
fisheries policy-making (in Latvia);establishing international collaboration (regional and global) as
routine among scientific and educational institutions and agencies in the beneficiary countries; involving
stakeholders in policy development and implementation in the agricultural sector; acceleration of
improvement of agricultural watershed monitoring capacities by five years in Estonia, Latvia and
Lithuania; strengthening the capacity of the beneficiary countries' agricultural advisory services in both
environmental farm management and innovative investment and financing mechanisms; attitude change
among the farming community to acknowledge the environmental impact of farming practices as a
serious issue; and, marine monitoring and assessment capacity upgraded in 12 institutes in the five
beneficiary countries.
(c) Other Unintended Outcomes and Impacts
Other unintended but positive - impacts include: Lithuanian accession to the ICES Convention;
establishment of seven new permanent scientific study and assessment groups; and raising interest and
reducing the doubts of commercial banks about potential risks associated with issuing credits to farms for
environmental investments.
3.6 Summary of Findings of Beneficiary Survey and/or Stakeholder Workshops
Not applicable.
4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome - Rating: Negligible to Low
There is considered to be little or no risk that the development outcomes of the project will not be
maintained over time, as the principles and activities piloted by the project are now being mainstreamed
into national and regional programs. The sustainability of development outcomes would have been re-
enforced through the planned Phase 2, plans for which were withdrawn after three beneficiary countries
became ineligible for GEF funding after graduating from the World Bank. Nevertheless, as discussed
elsewhere, the project made significant contributions to the development of the BSAP, which is likely to
have strong national and international support. For the four EU NMS that benefited from the project, EU
accession has brought with it stringent requirements to meet environmental obligations on the national
level through the EU Nitrates Directive, Water Framework Directive. These requirements have given
added impetus to the mainstreaming of pollution reduction and water quality management and monitoring
activities supported by the Project into national programs, and virtually guaranteed that they will be
sustained over time. On a regional level, the new EU Marine Strategy Directive foresees an action plan
for each European regional sea, and the adoption of the BSAP places the Baltic in an advanced position in
this regard. The BSAP also confirms the Russian Federation's commitment to these activities. The
network of scientists established by the Project will continue to work within the framework of HELCOM
and ICES, and to be supported by the Bonus+ program, to which the Project contributed.
15
The risk of non-sustainability should be considered higher in Russia. Northwest Russia has been
identified as a priority for reduction of non-point source pollution, in particular from agriculture. In this
area, there are many examples of new investments in large livestock production operations, both by
domestic and foreign investors. At the same time, there is no analogue to the EU Nitrates Directive to
drive nutrient pollution reduction measures. In addition, the Project found the institutional setup less
conducive to the promotion of good agricultural practices, since there is no real agricultural extension
service. The recently approved "Russian State Program on Agricultural Sector Development and
Management of Agricultural Markets from 2008-2012" will provide, among other things, subsidies for
livestock production and credit for agricultural investments. This is a major program, and it will be
important to complement the productive investments it supports with knowledge and investments in
environmentally friendly practices. The integration of environment into this program could be greatly
facilitated by a new project dealing with agricultural pollution control supported by the Bank/GEF or
other development partners.
5. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance
5.1 Bank
(a) Bank Performance in Ensuring Quality at Entry - Rating: Satisfactory
Section 2.1 has described the factors outside the control of the Bank which led to delays in preparation
and appraisal, including the decision to split the original project concept into three phases. The appraisal
team's work appears to have been thorough and technically sound, based on the Bank's prior work with
HELCOM. Setting of objectives, the logframe, consideration of lessons learned, the incremental cost and
safeguards analyses were particularly well done. However, the breadth of the project and the multiplicity
of implementing agencies did pose implementation and supervision challenges.
(b) Quality of Supervision - Rating: Satisfactory
In the nine years between identification and completion, the project had three task team leaders. While
the Recipient reported differences in style, changes in leadership did not cause significant disruption to
supervision. Successive team leaders participated in supervision missions with their predecessors prior to
taking over responsibility. The large geographical spread of project activities and partner institutions, and
the closing of Bank Country Offices in three beneficiary countries before project closing, provided a
challenge to supervision and made it difficult for the Bank team to visit all key sites frequently. However,
the supervision effort was supplemented by continuous contact with the project team, and supervision
missions included an appropriate mix of expertise as well as local staff who were continuously involved
in monitoring and supporting project activities. Following the MTR in 2005, the Bank team identified the
need for greater focus on results and analyzed the underlying reasons for slow disbursement rates, and
management responded by agreeing to an extension of the closing date.
(c) Justification of Rating for Overall Bank Performance - Rating: Satisfactory
Overall performance of the Bank is assessed as satisfactory because of the comprehensiveness of design
of this challenging and moderately risky operation, as well as the quality and intensity of supervision.
Collaboration between the Bank, other donors and participating countries was of critical importance in
catalyzing the development of regional networks that are continuing to further the objectives of the
project following its completion. At $567,000, Bank preparation and supervision costs were 11 percent
of the disbursed grant amount, which is not unexpected for a small but complex GEF project. If
leveraged funds are taken into account, the percentage is much smaller.
16
5.2 Borrower
(a) Government Performance - Rating: Satisfactory
All beneficiary and participating country Governments contributed significantly to the success of project
preparation and its achievements6. In particular, Governments participated in project oversight in the
context of HELCOM and ICES, which also provided the vehicle to mainstream, institutionalize and
operationalize many of the findings and recommendations of the BSRP in the context of the BSAP.
(b) Implementing Agency or Agencies Performance - Rating: Satisfactory
HELCOM, in collaboration with ICES, with the support of component coordinators based in Sweden,
Latvia and Denmark, effectively oversaw coordination and implementation of the project in all
participating countries. Due to the large number of participating institutions and the complexity of
arrangements for project management, project implementation was initially slow. However, once the
networks had been established, implementing agencies were responsive to the Bank's guidance on the
need to improve disbursement rates and focus on results. This shift from establishing to operationalizing
networks, and from piloting to mainstreaming environmental mitigation activities, is epitomized in the
adoption of the BSAP.
(c) Justification of Rating for Overall Borrower Performance - Rating: Satisfactory
Implementation of the BSRP would not have been possible without the leadership and coordination of
HELCOM (in cooperation with ICES), and the collaboration and support of participating Governments.
In moving to implement the BSAP, HELCOM is being proactive in working with participating countries
through the networks established under the BSRP to develop and monitor achievements against time-
bound benchmarks of progress, and define clear linkages between these benchmarks with monitorable
indicators of the impacts of actions under the BSAP and the overall health of Baltic Sea ecosystems.
6. Lessons Learned
As the first project in the region to implement the LME approach, and one of the few to successfully
apply a "unified project" approach (as opposed to a "partnership framework" competitive grants approach
with separate, stand-alone projects in each country) to a regional sea, the Project has a number of
important lessons to offer:
· The "unified project" approach is likely to work best with a small number of countries with similar
objectives - A "unified project" like the BSRP increases the likelihood that approaches to achieving
the project's goals are consistent and coordinated across the participating countries, and also
facilitates international cooperation and knowledge sharing. However, a "unified project" also has
certain disadvantages compared to the partnership framework approach (as in the case of the Black
Sea/Danube), which allows for more flexibility in individual country programs (particularly
appropriate when there is a high degree of heterogeneity across countries), greater ease of
implementation within a country, and perhaps a higher degree of ownership by countries.
· Different riparian countries may require different approaches - Even when using the "unified
project" model, it is important to recognize that there can be significant differences in culture, history,
economics and politics across countries that necessitate different approaches to different beneficiary
6 This is in contrast to the situation in most regional seas programs where the Bank is involved.
17
countries. For example, the incentives for farmers to implement nutrient management programs in
EU member states can be very different from those in non-EU countries.
· Strong central coordination is necessary to ensure delivery of results in regional projects Even
when dealing with countries and institutions with good capacity, such as in this project, a dedicated,
empowered project manager is still needed to coordinate activities across the various countries,
components and local institutions.
· Limited GEF resources can still have a major impact - If the policy environment is conducive, and
participants are committed, a great deal can be achieved with a relatively small financial allocation by
leveraging local skills and resources and contributions from development partners.
· The implications of political-economic changes must be assessed, even for environmental
projects - In this case, major political-economic shifts, such as four of five beneficiary countries
joining the EU, created both opportunities and challenges for implementation, and it is important to
recognize such factors during design in order to effectively harness such forces.
· Implementation by existing institutions helped build ownership and provided for sustainability of the
collaborative networks - The Project was fortunate to have a recognized, agreed-upon governing body
such as HELCOM in place for protection of the marine environment in order to provide the
institutional structure for implementation. For Component 1, working with ICES was a major
advantage. For Component 2, working with existing extension services has aided mainstreaming.
· When applying the LME approach, a great deal of effort is necessary if links are to be created
between land and sea components - In the Project, one way that was discovered to do this was by
using monitoring of nutrient flows into the watershed, and the subsequent impact on the marine
environment. This also serves as a powerful awareness-raising tool.
The lessons of the Project have been incorporated into the BSAP, Bonus+, and other programs whereby
they will inform improved management of the Baltic environment in the future. Through these initiatives,
the Baltic is also providing a pioneering example for implementation of the new EU Marine Strategy
Directive, as well as global commitments made under the Convention on Biological Diversity, the World
Summit on Sustainable Development and the Rio Declaration.
7. Comments on Issues Raised by Borrower/Implementing Agencies/Partners
(a) Borrower/implementing agencies
The client, HELCOM, has reviewed the draft ICR and commented that it is "a comprehensive and well-
prepared report." HELCOM also provided detailed comments in the form of "track changes" inserted in
the text, which have been reviewed by the Bank ICR team and taken into account where appropriate in
finalizing the ICR (these detailed comments are available in the project's files). In addition, HELCOM
along with the other BSRP implementing agencies prepared a joint statement on the project's
achievements and future impetus, which was officially approved by the HELCOM Heads of Delegation,
including all BSRP beneficiary countries, at their meeting on January 22-23, 2008. The statement is
included in Annex 7. The Bank team generally agrees with the statement, which is quite positive about
the BSRP, and would support the interest expressed by the implementing agencies of exploring ways to
continue collaborating on the activities begun under the project.
(b) Cofinanciers
SLU produced a completion report on Component 2 activities for SIDA. A summary of the report is
included in Annex 8. In general, the report is quite positive about Component 2 results, and the Bank
team agrees with the findings. One issue that is not mentioned in the summary of the report, but which
appears later in the "Deviations" section, is the slower-than-expected progress in northwest Russia, where
all agree that more work is needed.
18
(c) Other partners and stakeholders
19
Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing
(a) Project Cost by Component (in USD Million equivalent)
Actual/Latest
Appraisal Estimate
Percentage of
Components
Estimate (USD
(USD millions)
Appraisal
millions)
COMPONENT 1.
LARGE MARINE ECOSYSTEM
5.62 9.65
172%
MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
COMPONENT 2.
LAND AND COASTAL
4.99 4.77
96%
MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
COMPONENT 3.
INSTITUTIONAL
0.15 0.01
7%
STRENGTHENING AND
CAPACITY BUILDING
COMPONENT 4.
1.36 1.56
115%
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Total Baseline Cost
Physical Contingencies
0.00
0.00
Price Contingencies
0.00
0.00
Total Project Costs
Project Preparation Facility (PPF)
0.00
0.00
Front-end fee IBRD
0.00
0.00
Total Financing Required
12.12
15.26 126%
(b) Financing
Appraisal
Actual/Latest
Type of
Percentage of
Source of Funds
Estimate
Estimate
Cofinancing
Appraisal
(USD millions) (USD millions)
Borrower
1.79
0.90
50%
Global Environment Facility (GEF)
5.50
5.43
99%
FINLAND, Govt. of (Except for Min.
2.16
0.30
14%
for Foreign Affairs)
US, Govt. of
0.50
0.60
120%
NORWAY: Ministry of Foreign Affairs
0.14
0.00
0%
SWEDEN: Swedish Intl. Dev.
1.05
1.48
141%
Cooperation Agency (SIDA)
Foreign Multilateral Institutions
0.98
7.28
743%
20
Annex 2. Outputs by Component
COMPONENT 1
Objective: A system for monitoring, assessing and evaluation of the status of the Baltic Sea marine
resources created and ready for application
End of
Output Indicators
Baseline
Project
End of Project Achievement
Target
Network of
0% 100%
(Phase
100%: 5 Coordination Centres, 9 Lead
Coordination Centres
I)
Laboratories in 8 Partner Institutes in 5
and Lead Laboratories
countries;
established according
to the 5-module
A network of more than 20 institutions from
approach of the LME
all nine riparian countries has been developed
concept
and is continuing to collaborate informally
and formally under the aegis of permanent
study groups formed under ICES, and
working groups that inform and advice the
HELCOM governments on priorities for
management of the activities affecting the
marine ecosystem of the Baltic Sea;
LME concept introduced permanently also in
the scientific research in the Baltic region
through the newly developed BONUS-169
Science Plan for the Baltic.
A series of joint
0
No target
49 events between 2004-2007;
workshops/seminars
conducted (# of
Supports continuous dialogue and integration
events)
of scientific institutions across the Baltic Sea
and the North Atlantic;
Five new permanent ICES Study Groups
established by the project: SGPROD, SGEH,
SGFF, SGBSM, WKIAB, as well as two
under HELCOM (Coastal fish, Fish
diseases), thereby the integrated ecosystem
based assessment approach is assumed in
regular ICES and HELCOM work;
Initiated integration of environmental aspects
and the role of productivity into fisheries
assessment. This is a significant first step to
an environmentally sustainable management
of Baltic Sea fisheries.
Remove obstacles for
40% of
No target
Participation increased to optimum with all
beneficiary country
optimum
relevant requests for financial support
21
End of
Output Indicators
Baseline
Project
End of Project Achievement
Target
scientists'
in 2004.
approved.
participation in
regional scientific
Integration of Eastern scientists in the
workshops, seminars
regional work expands the applicability of
and regular working
the ecosystem approach to include all
groups
riparian countries.
Reasons stated for non participation (in
2004): 1) Lack of funds (57%), 2) Lack of
contacts (36%), 3) Lack of scientific capacity
(7%). During BSRP, these obstacles were
removed. However, future is dependent on
increased funding from national or
international sources.
Amount (in USD)
0 Initial
budget
GEF: USD 200 000; Amount of non-GEF
used to support
USD 154 000
funding leveraged from participating
beneficiary country
countries: USD 464 000
scientists' and
students' participation
Insufficient funding was stated as a reason
in regional
for non participation prior to BSRP by 57%
collaboration on the
of respondents to a baseline survey among
LME approach
beneficiary countries (2004). Therefore, the
impact of additional funding is considerable
in creating and maintaining a truly regional
scientific network.
Joint monitoring
0
No target
1) Coastal fish monitoring programme
program development
updated to enable better growth analysis;
2) HELCOM monitoring is made more
sensitive to occurrence of invasive species;
3) Guidelines for phytobenthos monitoring
prepared, guidelines for zooplankton
monitoring reviewed;
4) Initiated testing of ECOPATH modeling
for comparative productivity analysis;
5) Zooplankton modeling improved by
methodological intercomparison and
initiation of ring test.
The newly established regional networks are
developing standardized methodologies and
regional collaborative approaches to
monitoring marine ecosystem parameters,
including i.a. fish stocks, plankton, benthos
and nutrients. The network enables further
work on integrated and holistic assessments
and supports future modeling work Target for
Phase I achieved, project target likely to be
achieved in the medium term.
22
End of
Output Indicators
Baseline
Project
End of Project Achievement
Target
Contribution to
0
No target
- assessment of coastal fish
thematic assessment
- initial eutrophication assessment in support
procedures
of HELCOM EUTRO -project
- contribution to indicator-based assessment
of biodiversity of selected Baltic Sea sub-
basins which was carried out as a pilot study
and is being continued in the HELCOM BIO
-project
Selected monitoring
0%, $0
Initial budget
85%, USD 1 050 000 spent. Difference
equipment procured
USD 1 000
explained by price increases and increase in
000
GEF financing share for certain contracts;
Laboratories in the beneficiary countries are
technically capable of performing monitoring
and data collection work by regional
standards.
Initial near shore and
0
2
2 surveys conducted during the project;
open sea surveys
Outcome:
conducted
1) Integration of fisheries surveying with
collection of oceanography, productivity and
ecosystem health data;
2) Additional information gathered for
coastal key species and their dynamics;
3) Regular surveys expanded in to areas not
covered before.
Ships of opportunity
3 SOOP
To cover all
1 new established, 1 upgraded;
(SOOP) contracted
lines
sub-sections of Increase coverage of Baltic Sea by 20%.
across
the Baltic
Baltic:
proper and
The designated area is now covered with
North-
Gulf of
SOOP lines with the exception of a second
South,
Finland by end diagonal line crossing Baltic proper.
Northern
of Phase III
cross-
80% of optimum coverage is now achieved.
sectional,
Gulf of
Finland
cross-
sectional
Salmon river
0
3 (Phase III)
Salmon river restoration plans created for 3
restoration action
rivers in Latvia.
plans prepared, # of
rivers under
management plans
Salmon river
No
Restoration
1, 7 out of 15 hectares planned restored,
restoration at least in
restoration activities
monitoring ongoing;
3 rivers (Phase III)
on-going / under way in 3
0
rivers / 3
Spawning increased and restoration activity
23
End of
Output Indicators
Baseline
Project
End of Project Achievement
Target
successful. Work proven replicable and will
be upscaled.
Participating countries No
Indicators
80%
reach consensus on
indicators
developed and Indicator set ready for assessment of:
common
developed assessed for
-eutrophication,
Environmental
eutrophication, -coastal fish
Quality Indicators
biodiversity
-primary productivity;
and effects of
contamination, Indicators under further development for:
productivity,
-biodiversity and effects of contamination,
coastal fish
lower trophic level productivity
Scientific assessment
No coastal No target
Coastal fish assessment published in 2006
of coastal fish/fish
fish
(HELCOM BSEP 103A & 103B). Species of
communities
assessment
coastal fish assessed: cod, herring, sprat and
published
in the
salmon. Assessment of flounder not
Baltic
complete.
Participation of BSRP No such
No target
Participation in the EU BONUS+ project on
recipient country
activity/no
preparation of the Baltic Science Plan and the
scientists/beneficiaries data
BONUS ERA-NET application. Experiences
in cooperative
from preparation of the GEF-BSRP have
international (incl.
been transferred to benefit the preparation of
EU) project
other LME projects such as China Sea and
applications,
Gulf of Mexico LME's.
specifying networks
and ideas emerged
from the BSRP
meetings
24
COMPONENT 2
Objective: Environmental sound farming techniques resulting in reduced nutrient run-off piloted
End of
Output
Baseline
Project
End of Project Achievement
Indicators
Target
Goal: Increased awareness in the agricultural sector on environmentally sustainable farm
management practises
Farmers
Some
Seminars
Participation in total by approximately 1200
participate in
information
held in all
farmers;
introductory
was earlier
rural districts
environmental
distributed
of the
Introductory seminars held in Estonia, Latvia,
seminars in all
through the
beneficiary
Lithuania and Russia (Kaliningrad region).
beneficiary
advisory
countries
countries
services
Farms/farmers
0 farms
50 farms
187 farms/farmers
participated in
EMS courses
At least 50% of all district advisors in
offered by BSRP
Agricultural Advisory/Extension Services in
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania trained;
Target was exceeded by over three-fold. EMS
courses turned out to be more attractive than
anticipated, possibly because of they provided
information about a variety of funding
possibilities, not just the BSRP credit scheme.
Farmers are interested to realize that they can
save money, increase productivity and
preserve the environment all at the same time.
EMS courses developed by BSRP were
accepted as one possible training mandatory to
qualify for payment from EU Rural
Development Programs and are now thus
included as modules in the training package
offered by the Agricultural Extension Agencies
in the three Baltic states.
Farms/farmers
0 25-30
(GEF
80% - 18 farms received a grant, 2 farms made
benefiting from
Grant
investments without GEF grant but with
the BSRP agri-
available for NEFCO loan total 20s farms completed the
environmental
22-25 farms, BSRP AgECS scheme.
credit scheme
additional
farms
Additionally 3 farms in Latvia and 3 in
without GEF Kaliningrad region did not complete
funds)
investments;; Also, the training provided other
farmers with the means to access other sources
of financing;
Total environmental investment amount for the
25
End of
Output
Baseline
Project
End of Project Achievement
Indicators
Target
20 farms in the BSRP scheme is EUR 3
Million. The total land area of these farms is
19179 hectares.
Number of
0 No
target
48;
farms/farmers
completing
The project was also able to raise the interest
environmental
of farmers to finance their environmental
investments
investments with other resources e.g.
outside BSRP
commercial banks and own resources. The
credit scheme as
detailed business planning performed as part of
an outcome of
the EMS schemes lowered the risks in
participating in
financing of the agri-environmental
the BSRP EMS
investments. Thus, the project was able to
courses
create a replicable mechanism incorporating
agri-environmental training and financing.
Magnitude of investments through other
sources was worth of EUR 13 million and
covered 34 000 hectares of farmland;
Hence, with approximately USD 1 M GEF
investments in agricultural interventions, the
project was able to leverage a total of
approximately USD 20 M in farm
environmental investments alone.
Investments target No reduction / No target
BSRP 21 farms:
reduction in N and no
Annual N reduced: 238 000 kg,
P losses from
information
Annual P reduced: 13 000 kg;
farms:
Mean UAC for N (21 farms): USD 3 500/t,
- amount of N & P
Mean UAC for P (16 farms): USD 24 600/t
reduced annually
Environmental investment EUR 4.2 Million
- low unit
(37%)
abatement cost
(UAC)
37% investment share in environmental
- reduction with
management can be considered good taking
respect to
into account the participating countries' EU
number/type of
membership and progress towards increasing
animal units
production.
- % of
environmental
investments in the
programs
High level of
n/a
No target
48 farms out of 69 farms completed
sustainability in
environmental investments without grant
the farm
support from BSRP;
investments:
- % of non-public
Probable sustainability is high as a majority of
financing
the farms completed the investment without
26
End of
Output
Baseline
Project
End of Project Achievement
Indicators
Target
benefiting from the grants,. The total BSRP
grant value was only 5,5 % of the total
environmental investments of EUR 16 million
made in Phase1.
Goal: Establish a system for monitoring and assessment of non-point source pollution originating
from farms
Surface and
0
No target
2 new monitoring stations constructed
groundwater
(Lithuania, Estonia), 1 renovated and upgraded
monitoring
(Latvia);
stations
established in
4 sets of monitoring equipment purchased
demonstration
(Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Russia-
watersheds
Kaliningrad region)
- # of monitoring
stations/posts/sites
upgraded and
constructed
Baltic Regional
The network
The Baltic
3 new monitoring stations are operational and
Agri-Environment does not
states are
data recording has begun, network is
Assessment
cover Eastern integrated in established, possesses high scientific capability
Network (RAN)
Baltic
the network
and meets regularly. Quality and frequency of
established with
countries nor
and their
data submitted for HELCOM Pollution Load
the aim to
Northwest
technical and Compilations (PLC) improved.
harmonize
Russia and
human
monitoring and
information
capacity is at By end of Phase I (June 2007), agreement to
assessment of
on nutrient
appropriate
use FYRIS model (for modeling loads from
diffuse source
flows from
level.
middle-size rivers) and Soil NDB (for
pollution
agriculture is
modeling field drainage) region-wide has been
not
reached. Harmonization of modeling work
sufficiently
across the Baltic and with Russia is ongoing in
available
the framework of the HarmoBALT project.
across the
region
Monitoring of agricultural pollution is now
sustained nationally and integrated into the
national monitoring programs according to the
requirements of the EU Water Framework
Directive. Better data is also available for
continued research and education which
contributes to the sustainability of these
investments.
Model simulations No
No target
Pilot simulation on Berze river, Latvia
of the water
simulations
performed. Preliminary water quality results
quality in pilot
performed
available?
mid-size rivers
Sustainability in
Monitoring and modelling activities are
maintaining
relevant, applicable, attractive and linked to
operation of
educational and research activities across the
27
End of
Output
Baseline
Project
End of Project Achievement
Indicators
Target
monitoring
region;
stations
Consistent additional funding from national or
international sources needed to sustain
monitoring programs as an optimal desired
level.
Goal: Community based coastal zone management activities are promoted
Local training and No activity
No target
120 schools, 150 teachers, 16 000 pupils,
awareness
summer schools, 15 seasonal seminars;
activities held in
120 out of 300 secondary schools in
all beneficiary
Kaliningrad region trained;
countries
- # of participants
Most trained pupils have taken part also in
in training courses
parallel activities by BirdLife International and
and educational
several have continued to pursue environment-
events
related studies in post-secondary education;
Activities are sustained by leveraging budget
support from regional government.
Demonstration
Some
Grasslands /
100% of the selected area covered;
projects for
activities
wetlands
maintenance of
ongoing as a
maintained
Demonstration projects completed in Western
semi-natural
result of the
for animal
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania (120 ha) and
grasslands
MLW of
grazing and
activities have been showcased to local
completed
HELCOM
nutrient
stakeholders.
PITF
retention in
all three
Baltic states
Environmental
No strategy
Original
Tourism plan completed, target achieved;
tourism
for
target: small
Implementation of tourism plan started with
development plan
environmental business
small investments;
created for Lake
tourism
incubator in
Replication of tourism plan started.
Engure Nature
Mersrags,
Park in Latvia to
Latvia,
demonstrate
changed to
sustainable use of
preparation
natural resources
of tourism
while maintain a
development
viable local
plan for Lake
community
Engure
National
Park, Latvia
Demonstration
No activity
One
Lower section of Paadrema river (Estonia)
restoration work
ecologically
restored as crayfish and sea trout habitat;
in selected rivers:
important
- # of
river
Salmon river restoration under Component 1
demonstration
restoration
serves the same function.
28
End of
Output
Baseline
Project
End of Project Achievement
Indicators
Target
rivers,
project is
- % of Paadrema
established
river restored for
seatrout and
crayfish spawning
ground
Demonstration
No wetland
Wetland
Coastal wetland/meadow restoration activity
sites established in restoration
restoration
demonstrated in 3 countries.
wetlands:
activity
activity
- # / area of
demonstrated
demonstrated Estonia: 240 ha of coastal wetlands/meadows
demonstration
restored in Kihnu Strait Marine Park,
wetlands
Latvia: 80 ha restored wetland in Lake Engure
area;
Lithuania: Aukstumale bog restored as wetland
Nature guides
No nature
No target
12 local nature guides trained in Lake Engure
trained
guides
Nature Park;
The local guides are essential in supporting the
sustainable management of the area and to
disseminate information about the interaction
of the environment and local community for
visitors.
COMPONENT 3
Objective: Increased awareness among stakeholders of the value of the Baltic Sea ecosystem goods and
services
at the regional, national and local level
End of
Output Indicators
Baseline
Project
End of Project Achievement
Target
Goal: Awareness and coordination of the project activities and their linkage to regional and
national processes and programmes
Baltic Sea Steering
No
Project
BSRP was made a permanent agenda item at
Group (BSSG) is
steering
activities
HELCOM Head of Delegations (HOD) and ICES
established and
group
are steered Bureau meetings.
operational
on a
regional
forum
A series of meetings
No
No target
More than 50 meetings within the frameworks of
on regional
meetings
HELCOM and ICES;
administrative,
socioeconomic and
A series of regional administrative meetings held
technical matters
under Component 4;
29
End of
Output Indicators
Baseline
Project
End of Project Achievement
Target
conducted
Coordination Centre on Socio-economy
participated in several regional meetings and in
training on governance of the LME's;
Regional awareness
No
No target
BSRP was featured regularly in international
and dissemination of activity
publications, websites of HELCOM and ICES;
project results
BSRP was presented and showcased in selected
regional and global symposia.
COMPONENT 4
Objective: Project management is effective
End of
Output Indicators
Baseline
Project
End of Project Achievement
Target
Effective structure
None
Project
Project management was decentralized while
created and
management overall responsibility for the GEF TF Grant
operational
is sound and Agreement remained with HELCOM PIT.
Financial
None
well
Financial management system and procedures
management system
monitored
were established and amended on need-basis.
and procedures are
agreed and
established
30
Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis
(including assumptions in the analysis)
Consistent with GEF requirements, the PAD included an Incremental Cost Analysis of the Project. The
analysis found that the Project was composed of a series of activities necessary for the improvement of
transboundary management of freshwater, coastal and open sea ecosystems. The support from the GEF
was specifically targeted at covering the transaction and other costs of cooperation between the Baltic
riparian countries. Due to the transboundary nature of the issues, and the public goods aspect of the
benefits of improving the Baltic Sea environment, it is unlikely that beneficiary countries, of their own
accord, would have or could have financed the activities supported by the project. The costs therefore
were almost certainly incremental, and the project achieved its GEO within the estimated incremental
costs.
Because this was a standalone GEF project, additional economic analysis was not required and was not
carried out for the PAD. However, considering the significant results achieved by the project with quite a
small amount of resources--especially considering that they had to be spread across five countries--the
cost effectiveness of the activities is clearly very high. The GEF resources provided were also successful
in leveraging more than twice that amount from development partners for financing of the project. On top
of that, under Component 2 the project contributed toward catalyzing an additional $40 million of
investments in improved on-farm productivity and environmental management technologies with the
support of resources from non-project sources.
To further evaluate the cost effectiveness of nutrient reduction investments supported by the project under
Component 2, NEFCO carried out an analysis of unit abatement costs (UAC) for the Project investments
and compared them with alternatives in the Baltic. The results, summarized in the table below,
demonstrate the relative cost effectiveness of investments under the project compared to alternatives.
Unit Abatement Costs for nitrogen emission reductions from various Nordic Sectors and BSRP
BSRP
1 057 /t
Nordic Municipalities
15 000 /t
Nordic Industries
93 000 /t
Nordic Private Housing
106 000 /t
Nordic Agriculture
8 400 /t
Source: NEFCO
The table on the following page presents details of the on-farm investments supported by the BSRP Agri-
Environmental Credit Scheme (AgECS), including UAC for nitrogen and phosphorous.
31
BSRP Agri-Environmental Credit Scheme On-Farm Investments
Farm
Other
Environm. Total Investm.
Financing [EUR]
UAC UAC P Annual Annual
investm.
investm.
excl VAT
N /t
/t
ton N
ton P
[EUR]
[EUR]
[EUR]
Nefco loan
Grant
Other loans
EU
Own resources
Total
Estonia
Sörenomme / Arvo Allese
28,952
30,614
59,566
24,734
24,734
10,098
59,566
1,194
7,646
1.7
0.3
Härma / Vello Kukk
62,828
80,160
142,989
90,755
24,286
15,978
11,970
142,989
5,629
0
1.5
0.0
Arme Turvas
126,865
144,440
271,305
77,397
23,200
22,880
106,924
40,903
271,305
6,696
0
2.6
0.0
Myyriku
996,255
375,161
1,371,416
200,043
23,008
738,883
224,777
184,705
1,371,416
972
0
32.8
0.0
Kehtna
920,213
357,062
1,277,274
45,869
24,926
962,446
172,689
71,345
1,277,274
160
5,666
116.4
3.3
Mäo
478,187
179,017
657,203
63,912
23,008
329,976
135,365
104,943
657,203
1,720 81,188
9.4
0.2
Simmo-Pavli
180,934
100,725
281,659
24,606
96,698
116,255
44,099
281,659
8,387
0
1.4
0.0
Tarto
3,643
65,382
69,025
24,926
8,948
3,835
31,317
69,025
4,406
0
1.6
0.0
Selja
761,571
284,407
1,045,978
24,926
669,155
194,036
157,862
1,045,978
2,517 48,318
9.6
0.5
3,559,447
1,616,967
5,176,415
502,710
192,885
2,828,985
994,593
657,241
5,176,415
177.1
4.3
Latvia
Kraujas
59,914
53,161
113,075
40,517
24,138
9,675
25,244
13,500
113,075 3,969 13,623
1.3
0.4
Leias Krastini
117,411
43,822
161,233
29,741
24,425
107,066
161,233 2,269
9,385
1.5
0.4
Kundzini
150,991
93,211
244,203
33,125
25,259
50,323
74,432
61,063
244,203 4,239 31,877
2.3
0.3
Lielmezotne
796,200
134,339
930,539
25,302
574,713
156,552
173,973
930,539 4,397 19,286
2.9
0.7
Madaras
68,642
116,487
185,129
25,043
25,244
63,326
71,516
185,129 6,094 15,996
2.1
0.8
1,193,158
441,020
1,634,178
103,384
124,167
659,955
319,555
427,118
1,634,178
10.1
2.5
Lithuania
847,955
Kaveckiene
116,748
128,837
245,585
82,252
25,500
103,684
34,149
245,585 7,500 92,502
1.9
0.2
Bauzys
70,685
103,797
174,482
34,175
23,622
73,144
43,541
174,482 14,606 102,242
0.8
0.1
Jasiulis
86,671
79,156
165,827
82,387
82,101
1,338
165,827 1,342 11,684
2.4
0.3
Liutkevicius
83,411
123,089
206,499
23,622
43,733
50,104
139,144
256,603 2,042 18,224
6.8
0.8
Drasutaiciai
42,345
124,531
166,876
92,389
23,622
50,866
166,876 1,242 26,609
5.1
0.2
399,859
559,410
959,269
291,203
96,366
43,733
309,033
269,038
1,009,373
17.0
1.5
Russia
Gomantovo
375,559
432,412
807,971
24,706
694,059
89,206
807,971
580
4,152
32.2
4.5
375,559
432,412
807,971
0
24,706
694,059
0
89,206
807,971
32.2
4.5
Tot
5,528,023
3,049,809
8,577,832
897,296
438,124
4,226,732
1,623,181
1,442,603
8,627,936
1,057 19,505
236.3
12.8
Source: NEFCO
Overview of BSRP agri-investments containing investments by farm, annual costs (5 %, 10
y amortization), savings by investment, UAC (Unit Abatement Cost) for N and P and
amount nutrients reduced. In the lowest row total investment, total annual cost, total
savings, average UAC and total amounts of reduced N and P are presented.
32
An
nex 4. Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes
(a) Task Team members
Responsibility/
Names
Title
Unit
Specialty
Lending
Supervision/ICR
John Bryant Collier
Operations Officer
AFTNL
Solvita Klapare
E T Consultant
ECSSD
Alyona Korneva
Consultant
ECCU1
Galina S. Kuznetsova
Sr Financial Management Specialist
ECSPS
Barbara Letachowicz
Operations Officer
ECSSD
Aziz Mamatov
E T Consultant
ECSPS
Alexandre Roukavichnikov
Procurement Specialist
ECSPS
John W. Fraser Stewart
Sr Natural Resources Mgmt. Specialist
ECSSD
Sandro Zanus Michiei
Lead Financial Management Specialist
ECSPS
(b) Staff Time and Cost
Staff Time and Cost (Bank Budget Only)
Stage of Project Cycle
USD Thousands (including
No. of staff weeks
travel and consultant costs)
Lending
FY97
11.24
FY98
13.33
FY99
54.38
FY00
57.47
FY01
99.63
FY02
46.41
FY03
17.45
FY04
0.00
FY05
0.00
FY06
0.00
FY07
0.00
Total:
299.91
Supervision/ICR
FY97
0.00
FY98
0.00
FY99
0.00
FY00
0.00
FY01
0.00
33
FY02
0.00
FY03
8.36
FY04
39.81
FY05
40.35
FY06
72.95
FY07
105.10
Total:
266.57
34
Annex 5. Beneficiary Survey Results
(if any)
35
Annex 6. Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results
(if any)
36
Annex 7. Summary of Borrower's ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR
The client, HELCOM, has reviewed the draft ICR and commented that it is "a comprehensive and well-
prepared report." HELCOM also provided detailed comments in the form of "track changes" inserted in
the text, which have been reviewed by the Bank ICR team and taken into account where appropriate in
finalizing the ICR (these detailed comments are available in the project's files). In addition, HELCOM
along with the other BSRP implementing agencies prepared a joint statement on the project's
achievements and future impetus, which was officially approved by the HELCOM Heads of Delegation,
including all BSRP beneficiary countries, at their meeting on January 22-23, 2008. The statement is
included below:
Joint statement of HELCOM, ICES, SLU, WWF and NEFCO about
the achievements and future impetus of the World Bank/GEF funded
Baltic Sea Regional Project
The start up of the Baltic Sea Regional Project (BSRP) coincided with developments at the international
level and the decision within HELCOM to apply an ecosystem based approach to the management of
human activities impacting on the marine environment.
The BSRP design gave an ample opportunity to:
- underpin the linkage between terrestrial, coastal and marine areas;
- ensure integration of environmental objectives into sector policies;
- build management actions upon increased awareness at sector level on environmental considerations
and investment needs and cost-effective investments;
- enhance the basis for informed decision-making, by setting up Baltic relevant activities and ensuring
Baltic-wide participation in these and other HELCOM and ICES activities;
- contribute to the development of parameters (indicators and targets) that give explicit tools to monitor
the efficiency of management decision;
- strengthen the co-operation linkages between the participating organizations.
The BSRP linked up closely to HELCOM and ICES activities and fundamentally contributed to the
development of the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan, which was adopted on 15 November 2007 by
HELCOM ministers and a representative of the European Community.
The HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan is not only a fulfilment of the obligations under the Convention on
the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area (the Helsinki Convention), but it also
serves as a major contribution to the fulfilment of obligations of the nine riparian States under various
international legislative frameworks (the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the
Convention on Biological Diversity, various International Maritime Organization conventions and, for
those being Member States of EU, also EC directives).
For this reason the BSRP institutional network and contact persons have gained functions exceeding the
duration of the project. Examples of this can be seen in the existing working structure of HELCOM and
ICES, in on-going projects as well as in proposal for projects.
With the adoption of the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan, the work within HELCOM is based upon an
ecosystem approach and the work ahead will focus on the implementation of the Action Plan as well as its
reassessment and updating in response to latest information about the status of the Baltic Sea; i.e. an
37
adaptive management approach. In this work, the scientific network and working structure of HELCOM
and ICES will play an important role, as they contribute to the scientific understanding of ecosystem
processes and abilities to predict trends and magnitudes of effects of management actions. An important
aspect in this work is the financing of measures and the establishment of a prioritized list of most cost-
effective projects.
In all of the above activities, the achievements of BSRP and the institutional network built-up during this
project will play an important role.
Having in mind the original plans to implement the BSRP in three phases and the successful outcome of
phase 1, the participating organizations express their willingness to continue the work, in a way that
would take into account the political developments in the Baltic region and the changes in the eligibility
of the riparian countries according to GEF regulations."
38
Annex 8. Comments of Cofinanciers and Other Partners/Stakeholders
Comments from SLU/SIDA
Below is a summary of Component 2 achievements taken from the SLU/SIDA project evaluation report:
· Component 2 has attempted and interacted with local and regional processes and managed to
contribute with learning, demonstration and institutional strengthening.
· The attitude among key stakeholders regarding agri-environment measures has changed from
regarded as a non existing problem to something to take seriously. There are several drivers for this
change in attitude.
· Component 2 has developed and tested mechanisms for business development and financing making
agri-environment investments more attractive and managed to pool resources for their realization.
· An international platform between countries, international institutions and local stakeholders has
been developed for continued efforts in control of non-point source pollution, especially connected to
the realization of the new Baltic Sea Action Plan.
· The co-operation with North West Russia has developed significantly, especially in the Leningrad
area.
· The project has successfully contributed to implementation of 68 farm environmental investment
projects, whereof 20 are funded through the BSRP agri-environment credit scheme and 48 have
chosen to use other financing opportunities. The total value of the farm environmental investments
reaches EUR 16 million whereof EUR 3 million are connected to the BSRP agri-environment credit
scheme.
· Detailed calculations of the 20 farms participating in the BSRP grant and credit scheme confirm low
unit abatement costs for reducing nitrogen and phosphorous in agriculture.
· Monitoring and assessment of non-point source pollution has been strengthened through the
establishment of a network of monitoring stations in the Baltic States and partly also in North West
Russia. The monitoring stations are in a process of being integrated in the national monitoring
programs and aligned with the HELCOM pollution load compilations.
· A network of coastal demonstration activities has been developed, including restoration of crayfish
waters and coastal meadows and the development of a pilot tourism plan. Some of those ICZM
(Integrated Coastal Zone Management) demonstration projects visualize the aim to demonstrate
applications of ecosystem management.
· Substantial contributions in environmental training of teachers and secondary level pupils in
Kaliningrad rural areas include 120 out of 300 secondary schools.
The SLU report also provides the following useful summary of BSRP Component 2 deviations from plans,
weaknesses and strengths:
Deviations
Implementation and project plans have been followed quite well concerning the capacity building
activities. Performance indicators are completed more than satisfactorily. However, there are deviations
from the original plans. These deviations are connected to the activities in North West Russia. During
project implementation it became obvious that the number of farm investments had to be reduced
compared to the original plans. Two investment projects have been initiated in Kaliningrad and one in
Leningrad oblast compared to the estimated five in each oblast. Each investment project became much
more time consuming than expected and there were also difficulties in co-coordinating both project
preparation and financing. In the case of Leningrad oblast more resources have instead been used for
building awareness and co-operative platforms, which will benefit future agri-environment investment
projects. In Kaliningrad oblast more resources were used for environmental education of teachers in
secondary schools than was planned.
39
Weaknesses
1. Complex management structure.
2. The need of public relations (PR) is underestimated.
3. Time consuming procurement procedure for small investments.
4. High transfer cost from idea to implementation of investments.
5. Lack of scenario work for different agricultural production strategies.
6. Lack of ownership on the national administrative level.
7. Long time for preparation of investments projects in Russia.
8. Slow disbursement rate.
Strengths
1. Complex management structure.
2. Practical approach with achievements at the community level.
3. Combination of institutional strengthening and investment support.
4. Focus on the whole nutrient management chain and not only construction of manure storages.
5. Good integration to local and regional processes.
6. Good local ownership among end-users.
7. International co-operation and shared learning.
8. The multistakeholder and ecosystem health approach.
40
Annex 9. List of Supporting Documents
41