GEF Project Brief
________________________________________________________________________
Project Number:
Project Name:
Belarus, Russia, Ukraine: Preparation of a Strategic Action
Programme (SAP) for the Dnieper River Basin and
Development of SAP Implementation Mechanisms
Project Duration:
3
years
Implementing Agency:
UNDP
Executing Agency:
UNOPS1
Requesting Country
or Countries:
Russia,
Belarus,
Ukraine
Eligibility:
Eligible under para. 9(b) of GEF Instrument
GEF Focal Area(s):
International Waters
GEF Programming
Framework:
Operational Programme #8: Waterbody-based
________________________________________________________________________
2.
Summary of Expected Outcomes:
The long-term objectives of the project are to remedy the serious environmental effects of pollution and habitat
degradation in the Dnieper River Basin, to ensure sustainable use of its resources, and to protect biodiversity in the
basin. This will be catalyzed through the development of both a regional Strategic Action Programme (SAP) as well as
individual National Action Programmes (NAP) outlining country and donor commitments to baseline and additional
preventive and remedial actions on behalf of the basin. The implementation of incremental (e.g. transboundary issues)
components of the SAP would follow in a second phase to this project. The proposed Dnieper River Basin Programme
would also work towards enabling the three riparian countries to implement the principles of coordination and
cooperation stipulated by the agreement signed in 1992 by the governments of the republics of Russia, Belarus and
Ukraine. River basin management capacity both at the level of individual countries and at the regional level would be
strengthened, and wider global benefits would accrue to the basin countries as well as those of the Black Sea, an
important international water body significantly impacted by human activities within the Dnieper River basin.
1 UNOPS served as Executing Agency during the PDF-B phase and will continue to serve as
interim Executing Agency for the UNDP Project Document preparation phase. During this
period, final executing and project management arrangements will be determined by the
concerned
riparian countries and UNDP-GEF prior to Council review and CEO endorsement of the final
project document.
________________________________________________________________________
3.
Costs and Financing (Millions $US)
GEF
Financing
Project :$7,000,000
PDF
:$261,000
Sub-total
GEF :$7,261,000
Co-financing:
IA
:$0
Other
International
:$3,000,000
(IDRC)
Government
:$100,000
(Russia)
:$4,200,000
(Ukraine)
:$300,000
(Belarus)
Private
:$0
Total
Project
Cost:
:$14,889,000
________________________________________________________________________
4.
Associated Financing (Million US $):
$26.915 million (see Annex 1)
5.
Operational Focal Point Endorsement:
Name:
Vasyl Vasylchenko
Title: Deputy Minister
Organization: Ministry for Environmental Protection and Nuclear Safety of Ukraine
Date:
February 19, 1998
Name:
Alexander Solovyanov
Title: Deputy Chairman
Organization: State Committee of the Russian Federation on Environmental Protection
Date:
February 19, 1998
Name:
Alexander Apatsky
Title: Deputy Minister
Organization: Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection, Belarus
Date:
February 19, 1998
6. IA
Contact:
David Vousden
GEF Regional Coordinator
Regional Bureau for Europe and the CIS
FF-580
1 United Nations Plaza
New York, NY 10017
Tel. 212 906 6402
Fax 212 906 6595
e-mail: dvousden@undp.org
B Project
Description
________________________________________________________________________
I. Background and Context (Baseline course of action)
INTRODUCTION
1. The Dnieper River (Figure 1) is the third largest river system in Europe. Its tributaries drain
significant industrial and residential centers in Eastern Europe/Russia, creating a vastly complex
river-system of high economic, social and environmental value. Draining an area of 509,000
square kilometers, the Dnieper is also the second largest river emptying into the Black Sea.
Highly altered by a long series of reservoirs, the Dnieper is hardly a self-regulating river-
ecosystem, and the adjoining hydro-electric facilities, nuclear power stations --- including two
remaining reactors from the still operating Chernobyl station --- and other heavy industrial
complexes have caused environmental and socioeconomic damage on a region-wide scale.
Extensive forest and wetland reclamation for agricultural development and large urban
populations with insufficent levels of sewage treatment, further serve to amplify the severe
environmental and health problems which greatly impact the ecosystems and inhabitants not
only of the Dnieper River Basin, but also of the entire Black Sea region.
2. As a result of the broad social, economic and environmental significance of this tranboundary
river and ecoystem, the development and execution of a coordinated Dnieper River Basin
Programme and the design and implementation of a Strategic Action Programme is of high priority
for the governments of the region, particularly the riparian countries of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine.
The Dnieper River Basin Programme proposed herein will assist the countries in improving regional
capacity for management of transboundary water resources and create an adequate management
structure to help to address environmental degradation in the Dnieper River Basin. In addition, the
programme, by enabling the reduction of the flow of transboundary contaminants such as nutrients
to the Black Sea, will contribute to the GEF's "Black Sea Basin-wide Approach" to the
rehabilitation of the highly degraded Black Sea ecosystem. The proposed project, by facilitating the
development and ultimate implementation of Strategic Action Programmes, both regional and
national, will also work to better integrate environmental concerns into local, national and regional
policy, and improve water quality and the conservation of key ecological areas. The project is fully
in line with the GEF Operational Strategy under the International Waters Operational Programme #8
for transboundary waterbodies both for freshwater systems (the Dnieper Basin) as well as semi-
enclosed marine or sea-based ecosystems.
BACKGROUND - THE DNIEPER RIVER BASIN
Environmental Context:
3. The Dnieper River is the third longest European river after the Volga and the Danube Rivers. The
main river is 2,200 km long and drains an area of 509,000 km2. The Dnieper has its source in
Eastern Russia (which contains 20% of the river basin) and flows primarily southward through
Belarus (23% of the river basin) and Ukraine (57% of the river basin). The main stem and its
tributaries drain an area of significant agricultural and industrial activity and regions of high urban
population. The Dnieper River is the primary water supply for a population of 22 million (in Ukraine
alone) in the Basin. Poor water quality is associated with outbreaks of cholera, dysentery, typhoid,
and hepatitis A. There are a number of regions valued for their biodiversity, especially in the upper
tributaries of the forested regions of Belarus and wetland regions throughout the drainage area.
4. The Dnieper ultimately flows into the Black Sea at Kherson, contributing a significant amount of
the Sea's total freshwater input. The main tributaries of the Dnieper include the Berezina (Belarus),
Pripyat (Ukraine to Belarus to Ukraine), the Desna, Psel and Vorskla (Russia to Ukraine) and the
Inhulets (Ukraine).
5. The flow of about 200 small rivers in the Basin is partially regulated while the flow of an
additional 600 rivers (total length of 19,500 km) is fully regulated. The main stem of the Dnieper
River is comprised of a series of reservoirs, many with hydro-electric facilities or nuclear reactors.
Eight of the fifteen operating nuclear reactors in Ukraine lie within the Dnieper drainage. Of
particular note are the two reactors still operating at Chernobyl on the Pripyat River, and an
additional six reactors in the Zaporozhskaya atomic energy station on the mid reaches of the Dnieper
itself. Radioactive wastes from the Chernobyl accident have permeated local ecosystems, including
the extensive Pripyat wetlands on the Ukrainian/Belarussian border and sediments in the river and
reservoir bottoms. There is particular concern that the radioactive sediments behind the Kievskoy
Moriye dam may contaminate areas downstream in the event of spillovers due to inadequate water
level management or possible breakage of the dam just upstream of the capital city of Kiev. Runoff
from radioactive tailing wastes from uranium mining throughout the drainage is also a key concern,
as the industry is not well regulated.
6. The Dnieper is the second largest river discharging into the Black Sea and is also a significant
pollutant source to the Black Sea and one source of ecological change in the Black Sea. The
increase of nutrients flowing from the Dnieper as well as from other rivers (the Danube) into the
Black Sea has caused widespread eutrophication and hypoxia. Only 45% of the total municipal
waste water flowing into the Dnieper is treated, resulting in high levels of biological oxygen demand
(BOD), microbial contamination, and nutrient loading.
7. Approximately 90% of the Dnieper Basin is cultivated or abandoned farm land. Additional
nutrient, pesticide and herbicide loading results from extensive agricultural activity and runoff from
these cultivated or abandoned lands, as well as from livestock raising and extensive erosion from
other devegetated areas. The increase of nutrients flowing from the Dnieper into the Black Sea has
caused large blooms of blue-green algae in Odessa Bay. In addition, upwellings of oxygen deficient
waters have cause hypoxia which, between the 1970-90s, resulted in the death of 60 million tons of
bottom organisms, including 5 million tons of fish.
8. The Odessa Branch of the Institute of the Southern Seas began studying eutrophication of Odessa
Bay in 1953. Observations are made from 53 monitoring stations every year in Odessa Bay and
Galisky Bay. The longest period of observation has been from the 70s until now, and there has been
a noted ten-fold increase in nutrients and a 10 to 100-fold increase in plankton levels (3 million
cells/liter). Water transparency has decreased to approximately 2 meters, causing productivity of
bottom algae to decrease.
9. The Dnieper provides a 15% contribution to the annual fisheries catch of all Black Sea countries.
In 1994 the industrial fish catch within the Ukrainian part of the Dnieper (11,900 tons) experienced
more than a 55% drop over 1990 (27,051 tons). Organic, radioactive and industrial pollution all
contribute to this steady decline in productivity. Recent slight improvements in the condition of
anoxia and hypoxia on the shelf principally reflect a temporary decrease in economic activities
throughout the region. This is a temporary phenomena and will last only until the economic
activities again increase; therefore there is a window of opportunity in which to develop strategies
and measures to address the pollution problems that are detrimentally affecting the Black Sea shelf
and ecosystem, mechanisms to prevent transfrontier pollution, further depletion of stocks of fish and
other biota. This is the ideal time to create an international management regime for the Dnieper, to
avoid related potential friction and conflicts among Black Sea and Dnieper Basin countries, and to
link Dnieper basin activities to the emerging basin-wide approach to the rehabilitation of the Black
Sea.
10. A ranking of the Black Sea priority problems in terms of the influence of pollution
contamination on marine life follows: 1) eutrophication, 2) microbial pollution, 3) the presence of
toxic substances such as oil, and 4) over harvesting of marine life.
11. Industrial activity in the Dnieper River Basin is poorly regulated, resulting in excessive
discharges of organic and inorganic contaminants including petroleum hydrocarbons, PCBs,
nitrogen compounds, phenols, surfactants, and heavy metals, to name but a few, into Dnieper basin
waters.
12. The Dnieper river basin ecosystems have undergone major changes over the past several
centuries. During the 17-18th centuries forest coverage in the Basin was 75-80%, by 1945 this was
reduced to 25%. Urban areas have grown significantly, as have the areas of drained wetlands, which
now cover 16% of the Belorussian part of the Basin and represent a total of 1.5 million ha.
13. Glaciation during the Quaternary ice ages ground up and moved rocks and debris and deposited
them as moraines. These form the current characteristic hilly terrain and large areas of low-lying
land which are often filled by lakes or marshes. In one area, the lowland-wetland complex of the
Pripyat river covers thousands of acres, provides valuable habitat for flora and fauna, and is a major
migratory route for birds of passage. However, large-scale reclamation activities have had a
profound impact and reduced the biological diversity of wetland habitats. Additionally, the
Chernobyl disaster has severely affected several million hectares of land in the Pripyat wetlands,
where the sediments contain high amounts of radioactive cesium and strontium.
14. Forests presently cover an estimated 14.3% of Ukraine's total land area. Total timber cutting in
forests reaches 13 million m3/year. Practically the entire forest stand in Ukraine is located within
adverse impact zones of industrial emissions, including releases from transboundary air pollution
sources, or from radiation fallout. The forests are losing their natural capacity to resist disease and
other self-regulating abilities. The Ukrainian Forestry Research Institute reports that outbreaks of
forest pests have increased by nearly 60% in the last decade; it also reports that greater numbers of
trees exhibit greater (2.3 times) incidence of low foliation over the past three years. In Belarus, the
reclamation of lands for agriculture has resulted in the disappearance of more than 25% of the
habitats for mushrooms and wild berries.
15. The construction of the Dnieper hydro-power cascade along with other negative anthropogenic
impacts on the river-bed has resulted in the disappearance of many traditional and valuable native
fish species. By the beginning of this century, fish species such as lamprey, sturgeon, white
sturgeon and salmon had disappeared. And during the last 300 years about 20 wild animal species
have disappeared from the basin (including aurochs, fallow-deer, sable). An information booklet of
Ukraine's environment cites 44,800 animal species, made up predominantly of protozoans,
nematodes, worms, insects, and molluscs. However, the majority of research or conservation efforts
focus on the reproduction and rational use of vertebrates represented by 200 fish species, 18
amphibian, 20 snakes, 101 mammal, and more than 400 bird species. Artificial breeding and
subsequent wild release of game animals has been conducted for mammals and birds including
fallow deer, boars, marmots, pheasants, ducks and coots. Forty-two percent of the 164 animal
species in the Red Data Book of Ukraine are noted to inhabit the Dnieper Basin.
16. Three protected wetland areas in the Dnieper Basin enjoy recognition under international
agreements. These include the Pripyat wetlands (12,000 ha), Stokhod wetlands (10,000 ha) and the
Dnieper wetlands (26,000 ha). However the total amount of protected natural areas (including zoos,
hunting grounds, and natural monuments) in the Ukraine amounts to only 2.6% of the total area.
Within Belarus, the area of specially protected zones and nature reserves covers 6% of the total
forested areas, 20% of swamp areas and 1% of meadow lands, of which the largest reserves are the
Berezinsky Biosphere Reserve and the Pripyat Landscape and Water Reserve. The total of protected
areas amount to 1.7% of the area of the Dnieper River Basin, an amount that is inadequate to protect
ecosystem diversity.
Institutional Context:
Ukraine:
17. The Ministry for Environmental Protection and Nuclear Safety (MEPNS) is responsible for
administering environmental policy in Ukraine. It consists of a central department and state
departments in the Republic of Crimea and 24 administrative regions, as well as the Superior State
Ecological Inspection and Central Board of Natural National Parks and Reserves Management. The
number of personnel in 1996 totalled more than 3,000 (including 240 in headquarters). The MEPNS,
according to the law on "The Protection of Natural Environment" is authorized to exercise state
control of the use and protection of land, mineral resources, surface and ground waters, air, forest,
vegetation, animal wildlife, marine environment, natural resources of territorial waters, continental
and maritime zones of the country and ecological safety.
18. The MEPNS has formulated a plan for environmental protection. The first stage (1993-1997)
was supposed to develop a new system for managing the environment, adopting legal regulations,
and preparing a reliable assessment of the state of the environment. Phase two will focus on
improvement of public health, and the third envisages establishing an ecologically balanced system
for managing sustainable development.
19. Environmental Impact Assessment is now being used for programmes, policies and projects. At
the national level, the revision and coordination of strategies, plans and programmes in cross-
sectoral and sectoral areas began in 1992. Since then, 40% of the legislation, 30% of the decrees and
20% of the administrative guidelines and instructions have been reviewed. A lack of funding has
been the main constraint to implementing international instruments related to sustainable
development recently signed or ratified.
20. Other institutions, including the Ministry for Forestry, Committee on Geology and Natural
Resources Use, State Committee on Water Management, State Committee on Land Use are also
involved in specific sectoral issues in the area of environmental protection. State Ecological
Inspection exercises control functions. However there is no system of ecological monitoring that
could meet the requirements designed by the Law "On the Protection of the Natural Environment".
Monitoring is conducted by several institutions. The goal is to establish a uniform system of
monitoring by the year 2000.
21. At present there is no strict clarification of the division of responsibilities among these various
ministries. This has led to a refocussing of strategy to a functional approach rather than sectoral as
previously envisaged. The new structure better correlates with the Law, and more focus can be put
on ecological safety that is vital for overall national security in Ukraine. Control functions, as
foreseen by Article 20 of the General law, have been given to the State Ecological Inspection under
MEP and for this purpose it has gained more freedom of action within the system. This enhanced
role was confirmed by the Cabinet of Ministers in 1993.
22. A Strategy (Conception) for Sustainable Development, to be approved by the President, is being
formulated by the MEPNS, Ministry of Economy and National Academy of Sciences.
Legislative Context:
23. Basic components of existing water legislation in the region include sanitary standards, or
Maximum Allowable Concentrations (MAC's), and Maximum Allowable Discharge (MAD) limits
of effluent discharges into water bodies. Sanitary and fishery standards of surface water quality are
similar among the three Dnieper basin countries, but differ significantly from water quality standards
enforced in the EC countries. The existing system has not been subject to significant changes during
the past 20-30 years; only the list of limited substances has been continously expanded and refined.
In 1994, sanitary and chemical water quality standards were not met in 14% of water samples taken
at centralized water supply systems in the basin; similarly, bacterial content standards were not met
in 9% of samples. In rural areas rates of standards violation were even higher: 18% and 14%,
respectively.
24. The provisions of the existing regulatory system are focused on meeting the requirements of
individual water users with no consideration of environmental aspects. The lack of ecological
standards, as well as no consideration of specific local conditions results in often improper
applications of the sanitary and fishery standards. No economic tools to enhance compliance and
enforcement of the established standards exist in the basic legislative document, "The Rules of
Surface Water Protection", with consequent low incentives to introduce `green' technologies, closed
cycle water supply systems, and wastewater pre-treatment facilities.
Previous, Ongoing and Planned Baseline Activities: (see Annex 1)
II. Rationale and Objectives (Alternative course of action)
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Overall global environmental and development objective
25. The long-term objectives of the project are to remedy the serious environmental effects of
pollution and habitat degradation in the Dnieper River Basin, to ensure sustainable use of its
resources, and to protect biodiversity in the basin. The project will enable the implementation of a
series of complementary investigative, preventative and curative actions that will be elaborated in a
Strategic Action Programme for the Basin region. The proposed Dnieper River Basin Programme
would work towards enabling the three riparian countries to implement the principles of
coordination and cooperation stipulated by the agreement signed in 1992 by the governments of the
republics of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine. The management capacity both at the level of individual
countries and at the regional level would be strengthened; and wider global benefits would accrue to
the basin countries as well as those of the Black Sea, an important international water body
dramatically affected by the activities within its tributary Dnieper Basin.
26. The economic, social, and environmental well-being of all nations with Dnieper River or Black
Sea shores have historically depended upon the vitality of those bodies of water. Development and
implementation of the Dnieper SAP will measurably restore and maintain that vitality, which
continues to be of great importance to the resource bases of those nations currently undergoing
economic transformation. Recognizing the significant regional and global value of the Dnieper
River Basin and its direct connection to and influence on the Black Sea, riparian (Russia, Belarus,
and Ukraine) and donor nations (Canada, USA, and EU) have already begun implementation of
several bi-lateral water management projects. Ukraine has developed a National Dnieper River
Basin Program, and all three Dnieper nations have demonstrated strong commitment to
strengthening international cooperation in the management of the regional basin.
27. The three riparian nations convened in 1995 and agreed upon a memorandum which
requested UNDP assistance in the development of a GEF Environmental Management Program
for the Dnieper River Basin. Funding of this request would build upon and be leveraged by 1)
the demonstrated financial commitments of the riparian nations in accordance with national
priorities, 2) the previously completed work, including the TDA, and 3) the funding of donor
nations.
28. The TDA and preliminary SAP processes during the project preparatory phase led to
recommendations for improvements and restructuring of the system for institutional capacity
building and the establishment of a new tranboundary institutional framework. Needed
improvements were identified in the following areas (detailed recommendations are summarized
in Annex 5):
1. Coordinated evaluation and management of transboundary priorities
2. Facilitation of the SAP formulation, review and endorsement process
3. Financial and legal mechanisms for improved pollution control strategies
4. Formulation and harmonization of monitoring and management schemes
5. Conservation of biodiversity and sustainable land use management
6. Communication among stakeholders; public awareness and participation
29. All project objectives comprise activities which will strengthen regional capacity for
cooperation and management of basin resources and reduction of transboundary pollution, as
well as enhance communication among stakeholders primarily through increased public
awareness and participation in addressing these transboundary pollution and resource protection
issues.
Specific Project Objectives (Alternative Coure of Action)
Objective 1. Create a transboundary management regime and coordinating body;
Objective 2. Assist countries in SAP formulation, review and endorsement process;
Objective 3.
Improve financial/legal/operational mechanisms for pollution reduction and
sustainable resource use;
Objective 4. Formulation of National Action Plans by Interministerial Committees;
Objective 5. Improve conservation of biodiversity in the Dnieper River Basin;
Objective 6. Enhance communication among stakeholders and encourage public awareness and
involvement in addressing the problems of the Dnieper Basin.
Objective 7. Build capacity for SAP implementation.
GEF PROGRAMMING APPROACH
30. Based on the experience of the GEF Danube project, the Dnieper countries consider the GEF to
be a key donor, one that will adequately focus on institutional development and capacity building on
the international level in an integrated, comprehensive manner. GEF funds will be used to address
transboundary issues which would be neglected if addressed only from a national perspective. The
SAP will focus on the ecosystems (rivers, lakes, aquifers and wetlands) and the complex regional
biodiversity of an international river draining to the severely degraded Black Sea and will involve
international, national, and local governmental institutions, industries, and agricultural communities,
all of which are essential players in sound river basin management.
31. The transboundary nature of pollutant flows along an international river and discharging into a
significant international water body warrants GEF support. The proposed project will help the
riparian countries of the Dnieper Basin overcome regional barriers to working collaboratively and
help them resolve priority transboundary environmental concerns identified in the TDA and SAP
processes. The proposed project ensures coordination among implementing agencies, countries, and
other actors, and generates programmatic benefits for the global environment that would not
otherwise be achievable. Additionally, the individual countries intend to address priority concerns
such as radioactive contamination, transport, and reservoir management; however the incremental
resources needed to support collaborative actions addressing transborder management and regulatory
strategies further warrant GEF support. This approach is fully in line with the GEF Operational
Strategy for International Waters, as well as for the Waterbody Based Operational Programme (#8).
Important characteristics of this operational program are: "a) the focus on addressing specific
impairments of the waterbody such as reducing eutrophication or toxic substances on inland waters;
b) support for the learning process for countries to work cooperatively and collectively in addressing
imminent threats to their transboundary water resources." The "specific impairments" in this case
are largely related to nutrient discharges, radioactive contamination and other hazardous materials
transport. "Imminent threats to their transboundary water resources" center around the management
of the reservoir cascade, impact on fish stocks in the Dnieper and Black Sea, and precautionary
measures to prevent the unexpected release of radioactive sediments from within the reservoirs.
32. The economic and ecological vitality of international waters and the Black Sea in particular
depend largely on the quality of their freshwater inflows. The success of the Black Sea Basin
Initiative is therefore dependent, inter alia, on the maintenance of an effective water quality
program in the multi-national Dnieper Basin, which can best be attained through the
development and execution of a well-designed SAP. The International Waters Operational
Program also emphasizes "institutional building...and specific capacity-strengthening
measures...". This project supports institutional capacity building for long-term regional
cooperation as well as helping to build national capacities in environmental management,
monitoring of priority pollutants, public awareness and preservation of transboundary living
resources.
33. In the Waterbody-Based OP, GEF "will play a catalytic role in assisting a group of countries
seeking to leverage cofinancing in association with national funding, development financing,
agency regular programs, and private sector action for necessary elements of a comprehensive
approach for sustainably managing the international waters environment." In accord with the
GEF International Waters Operational Strategy, this project, through its involvement in the
larger Black Sea Basinwide Programme, also focuses on the seriously threatened ecosystem of a
very significant international waterbody - the Black Sea. The considerable transboundary threats
caused by activities such as the movement of hazardous contaminants including radioactive
contaminants as well as organic pollution such as PCBs and oil seriously impairs the functioning
of the surrounding Dnieper and Black Sea ecosystems as well as human health.
CURRENT PROJECT STATUS
34. The Project Development Facility (PDF-B) phase of the Dnieper River Basin program has
concluded approximately 1.5 years after its initiation 1 July 1996 in Helsinki, when the three
Ministers of Environment (Belarus, Russia, Ukraine) signed a letter expressing their intention to
provide resources and participate equally in the development of the project. The PDF project
identified the primary elements to be formulated in the next three year period of the GEF project.
These include: Final revision and updating of the draft Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis;
formulation and endorsement of a Strategic Action Programme (SAP) for the Dnieper River
Basin for the countries of Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia; formulation of National Action
Programmes (NAP) for each riparian country; formulation of a Priority Investment Portfolio
(PIP) for the Dnieper River Basin; the identification of donors and financial mechanisms to
support implementation of the SAP and funding of the PIP; preliminary steps to improve legal
and financial mechanisms for environmental protection in the basin; identify key areas for
biodiversity conservation; and enhanced public awareness of and involvement in addressing the
environmental problems of the basin.
35. Financial support at this stage has included GEF preparatory (PDF-B) funding of $261,000,
co-funding of the governments in kind, and a Canadian IDRC in kind contribution of $28,000.
An interagency agreement with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) was made
for an international consultant to assist the national experts in the preparation of the
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) and SAP elements.
36. A brief history of the priority activities and meetings concerning the Dnieper River Basin
program between 4/96 and 6/97 is summarized in Annex 7.
37. As part of the project development process, the countries have integrated a wealth of
information from three separate national reports into a regional overview which addresses the
major environmental issues facing the three new republics. During the PDF phase, a UNEP
consultant (through an Inter-Agency Agreement) coordinated the preparation of a Transboundary
Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) for the Dnieper River Basin comprised of two reports, the Tri-
national Integrated Report, and the Synthesis Report (Annex 9), the latter of which presents an
executive summary, rationale for the project and easy reference to the Tri-national Integrated
Report.
38. The Synthesis Report of the TDA makes several valuable contributions by addressing the
past and present state of the Dnieper Basin ecosystem - its quality, health and the stresses
impacting it, including preliminary identification of potential root causes. It also outlines
prospective remedial actions needed to mitigate the environmental damages and the need for a
Strategic Action Programme (SAP) as the next phase in the GEF project cycle. Focus is placed
on the major GEF objectives, namely:
transboundary environmental impacts across three international borders;
the impact on a major international water body, the Black Sea;
implications to the ecosystem and to human health;
the protection of biological diversity and wildlife; and
institutional capacity building.
39. The Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) will serve as the basis for the development
of the SAP in the full project. The draft TDA identifies twenty-five major environmental issues
to be addressed in the SAP, of which thirteen are transboundary in their scope of remediation,
and twelve are national in their scope of remediation. The issues of transboundary nature
include: water shortages, unsustainable industrial development, excessive or wasteful water
consumption, large-scale irrigation development, expansion of abandoned land, soil erosion,
radioactive contamination, uncontrolled cultivation and reduction of naturally vegetated areas,
excessive accumulation of pesticides, uncontrolled deforestation, continuing negative impacts of
Chernobyl on human health, and inadequate areas to protect biodiversity in the basin. These will
be further prioritized and refined during the final revision of the TDA down to 5-6 key
transboundary issues to be addressed in the SAP.
40. The recommended steps to remedial action emphasize the need for a coordinated effort by all
three countries (with assistance from the international community), and points out a number of
weaknesses in the present water quality protection system. The TDA further recommends
improvements and restructuring of the system in two major target areas, namely: a) capacity
building, and b) establishment of a new transboundary institutional framework.
41. The sectoral requirements for Institutional Capacity Building are based on the need for:
a) the assessment of the quality of water resources,
b) the development of new transboundary ambient water quality standards,
c) improvements in the conservation and protection of biodiversity in the basin,
d) redefining the allowable limits for anthropogenic pollutant loading, and
e) a review of all laboratory and monitoring capabilities within the basin.
42. The need for a new Transboundary Institutional Framework focuses on the establishment of
an effective management and coordination regime with effective intergovernmental agreements,
regulations, information exchange, an emergency warning system, as well as broad stakeholder
participation. It also advocates for the establishment of an International Joint Commission for
the Rehabilitation of Critical Areas (including Dnieper hotspots); and it promotes the creation of
new environmental policies using "ecosystem, sustainable development, and interdisciplinary
approaches."
43. The preparation of this two part Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis will greatly assist the
next phase of GEF project development and implementation, insofar as it has advanced the SAP
formulation process by identifying some primary issues, objectives and recommendations needed
to achieve these objectives. Still there remain a number of gaps in the TDA and a need to
harmonize the main outputs of the TDA with the measures suggested in the prelimimary SAP
work. Activities have been proposed to meet the objectives expressed by the countries in written
form during the preparatory phase, which are elaborated in this document. There is also a need
to prioritize the preliminary recommendations for the preparation of the SAP with elaboration of
specific activities.
44. There is strong recommendation from the UNDP Resident Representative and UN Resident
Coordinator in Ukraine to strengthen regional cooperation and interagency cooperation in
thematic areas, and to bring these into the overall context of environmental and sustainable
development. Interagency cooperation should be encouraged wherever and whenever possible.
These agencies include WHO, UNICEF, UNESCO and the International Liaison Office, who
work together on projects for environmental disaster mitigation, as well as joint projects on
health, education and the environment. Inter-agency meetings are held once a month, and a new
mechanism has been established between liaison officers to enhance cooperation. Such
interagency cooperation will raise general awareness of the activities of the other agencies as
well as promote official inter-governmental ties. As they all share advisory notes, this increased
inter-agency cooperation may also have a positive political influence, and may draw greater
regional governmental support for the programs and policies.
45. Additionally, there are several dozen non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and private-
public organizations (PPOs) in the basin that are active in monitoring and research, policy,
habitat conservation, institutional strengthening, and public awareness programs dealing with
critical environmental problems in the Dnieper River ecosystems. Their enhanced participation
in the project formulation, implementation and evaluation through clear guidelines to promote
their involvement will also bring benefits
46. Two international NGOs (Greenpeace-Ukraine, International Academy of Ecology and Life
Protection Science2) were given the opportunity to participate in and comment on the SAP
`elements' development process for the Dnieper project, and they have provided valuable input
into the identification of key priority issues in the Programme. Despite limited review time,
Greenpeace also provided written commentary on SAP priority formulation including an
emphasis on "source reduction rather than end of the pipe treatment" for industrial pollutant
sources. They also provided a listing of Ukrainian NGOs working on Dnieper River
environmental issues.
2International Academy of Ecology and Life Protection Sciences- Moscow Branch
47. A major priority of the Dnieper project is to integrate approaches and lessons learned from
similar programs in the region including the Black Sea Environmental Programme (BSEP), and
the Danube Program (now the Danube River Basin Pollution Reduction Programme). The
emerging GEF International Waters-LEARN project will help enable this process by providing
distance learning and networking tools to the full suite of GEF International Waters projects.
There is an agreed priority to coordinate a Basin wide initiative for all significant watershed
projects in the Black Sea Basin and this approach has been integrated into this project as well as
the current Danube and Black Sea GEF projects. The inception workshop for this Basin Wide
Initiative is scheduled for 1998 and will include participation from the GEF Dnieper Basin
project if it is operational by that time.
48. A valuable partner in the GEF Dnieper initiative may be the Canadian government's
International Development Research Centre (IDRC). IDRC supported the establishment of the
original Dnieper department in the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Nuclear Safety of
Ukraine (MEPNS), the establishment of the Dnieper Renaissance Fund (DRF) in 1994 to
catalyze market-based solutions to the region's environmental problems, and developed the
concept of a "Cooperation House" in the IDRC-Kiev office to provide logistical and office
services to Canadian and Ukrainian agencies active in Ukraine.
49. IDRC and the Canadian Bureau of Assistance for Central and Eastern Europe have
cooperated in developing the Environmental Management Development in Ukraine (EMDU)
project, a 3 year, Can$5 million initiative. The goal of the project is to contribute to the
environmental rehabilitation of the Dnieper River system through the collaborative efforts of
Ukrainian and Canadian institutions and organizations. The general project objectives include:
to strengthen the capacity of Ukrainian institutions to manage the Dnipro River system,
particularly its water quality;
to identify means of reducing water pollution in the Dnipro River, specifically in the
Zaporizhzhia region;
to foster long-term collaborative links between Canadian and Ukrainian public and private
sector environmental organizations;
to encourage the exchange of information and experience between Ukrainian scientists and
policy-makers and between these two groups and their counterparts elsewhere.
50. Specific potential GEF/IDRC project linkages in the EMDU Human Resources
Development, Environmental Management Information Systems, Policy and Public Education,
Water Quality, Water Pollution Control and other components are described in the associated
GEF project objectives and activities.
III. Project Activities/Components and Expected Results
Output 1. A transboundary management regime and coordinating body for the Dnieper River
Basin
51. The first step towards creating a transboundary management regime is to establish a
coordinating body that will oversee the SAP, NAP and UIP processes, disseminate information,
and carry out and commission the institutional strengthening activities summarized above. A
Dnieper River Basin Programme Coordination Unit (Dnieper-PCU) will be established with the
consensus of the Dnieper countries. Staff will include a full time Chief Technical Advisor
(CTA), River Basin Management Specialist, and selected intermediate and administrative
positions. To work closely with UNDP-Ukraine as lead implementing and coordinating agency
of the Dnieper Basin Programme, and the Canadian IDRC as a prospective partner in the
program, the Dnieper-PCU will likely be located in Kiev, Ukraine. The PCU will assist
countries in the SAP formulation, review and endorsement process; and coordinate the specific
work of the Project Management Task Force, Expert Working Groups and Activity Centres.
Activities to identify or promote financial mechanisms, such as donor conferences during the
middle to end of the full Project implementation, will also be organized by the PCU and hosted
by the World Bank and/or EBRD. The PCU, through the Task Force, will also be responsible
for subcontracting or developing the capacity to carry out a number of project activities:
Activity i.
Creation and operation of the Dnieper Basin - Programme Coordination Unit
(Dnieper - PCU) to facilitate, coordinate, and communicate on the implemention of priority
activities identified in the following components.
Activity ii.
Establish international (both basin countries and external) expert working groups
on water quality, reservoir safety, biodiversity, rehabilitation of ecosystems, etc. to complement
activities of Coordinating Council and other areas identified by Task Force.
Activity iii.
Establish national activity centers (1 or more per country) with principal
expertise(s) in selected priority areas (e.g. monitoring, biodiversity, radioactive contaminants,
etc.). These activity centres will serve as the focal points for regional training, capacity building
and information exchange and SAP formulation in the selected areas of expertise.
Activity iv.
Create Project Management Task Force including representatives from each
country's environment and other relevant ministries, other Implementing Agencies, NGO's, the
private sector and the project CTA. Coordinate annual meeting of Project Management Task
Force.
Output 2.
A Strategic Action Programme for the Dnieper River Basin, endorsed at
Ministerial level:
52. The preliminary elements of an SAP for the Dnieper River Basin were identified as part of
the review and consultative processes occuring during development of the draft TDA. This
preparatory work will be utilized in the full-fledged SAP formulation process, including priority
setting, identification of `root causes', `hot spot' identification, stakeholder involvement, SAP
review, high level country endorsement, publication and broad dissemination.
Activity i.
Evaluate existing monitoring capacities in basin and identify critical gaps;
Activity ii.
Revise, update, finalize and publish TDA
Activity iii. Hold experts meetings and regional workshops with all stakeholders involved
(including NGO's and private business) for priority formulation and the identification of `root
causes' of environmental problems and articulation of actions to address them in SAP.
Activity iv.
Identify pollution `hot spots' for subsequent rehabilitation/investments following
SAP development phase.
Activity v.
Draft, review, refine and finalize SAP, including identification of baseline and
incremental costs.
Activity vi.
Hold Ministerial Conference for SAP endorsement at highest government
level(s).
Activity vii. Publish (print & on-line) and broadly disseminate and publicize SAP
Output 3.
Improved financial, legal and operational mechanisms for pollution reduction and
sustainable resource use
53. Activities within Objective 3 will identify and assess appropriate legal and
financial/economic mechanisms for addressing transboundary environmental concerns as well as
identify barriers to their implementation and propose actions to overcome these barriers. The
preparation of a Priority Investment Portfolio (PIP) at the latter stages of the SAP development
process will be supported with subsequent identification and response to acute environmental
problems (such as the transboundary movement of radioactive contaminants) in high priority
areas and in particular those that contribute to the state of global commons (such as the Black
Sea ecosystems). Donor conferences in the latter half of the SAP development process will also
facilitate investment in priority activities identified in the PIP.
Output 3.1 Improved financial mechanisms for pollution reduction and natural resource use:
Activity i.
Preparation of a Priority Investment Portfolio (PIP) following hot spot
identification and SAP formulation.
Activity ii.
Conduct feasibility studies/pilot project(s) for use of economic instruments in
municipal and industrial pollution control and reduction, and to determine more appropriate
water pricing; explore linkages with IDRC-EMDU Environmental Audits and Green
Technologies programs.
Activity iii.
Conduct evaluations and pilot project(s) to enable reform of fertilizer and
pesticide pricing schemes, and/or the elimination of subsidies.
Activity iv.
Feasibility studies/pilot project(s) on using economic mechanisms for natural
resource use and management in each country with harmonization of penalties for pollution
among countries.
Activity v.
Hold donor conferences at middle and end of Dnieper full project to identify
donors for SAP baseline and PIP-identified priority activities.
Output 3.2 Improve legal and operational mechanisms for pollution reduction & sustainable use
of natural resources:
Activity vi.
Collect and evaluate existing laws, regulations, licensing and enforcement
systems regarding pollutant discharge, compliance, and polluter responsibility.
Activity vii. Assess and review Environmental Impact Assessment policies and practices in
region
Activity viii. Work towards implementation of coordination/cooperation principles stipulated
by the UN/ECE Helsinki Convention on Transboundary Water Bodies; participate in Convention
Technical and CoP meetings.
Activity ix.
Review and assess management guidelines and practices for Dnieper reservoir
operation.
Activity x.
Review and assess management guidelines and practices for nuclear facilities and
disposal sites.
Activity xi.
Assess operational capacities and practices of selected drinking and wastewater
plans
Output 4. National Action Plans (NAP's) formulated by Interministerial Committees
54. Activities envisaged under National Action Plans (NAPs) include assistance to the three
recipient countries in the development and implementation of individual NAPs. Development of
NAPs should be executed in accord with related components of the regional SAP and should be
executed in close partnership with country authorities, international organisations,
international institutions, and experts from the region. National Action Plans should highlight
priority interventions---policy reforms, programs, technical assistance, demonstrations and
investments---that countries would be willing to commit to over a 5-10 year period.
Activity i. Formation of NAP interministerial committees
Activity ii.
Assistance to countries in the development of NAP's
Activity iii.
Public participation in NAP development and endorsement process
Output 5. Framework for enhanced capacity for conservation and protection of biodiversity in
the Dnieper Basin
55. Activities within this objective to protect biodiversity would review the legal structure in the
different Basin countries for the protection and management of endangered species, critical
ecosystems, and nature reserves located within the Basin, as well as the actual status of
protection of these resources. Information would be collated to identify weaknesses regarding
the management of existing or planned protected areas in the Dnieper Basin including size, key
natural resources, management authority, staffing and budget toward the management of
biodiversity.
Activity i.
Conduct a complete assessment of existing protected areas, priority ecosystems
and biodiversity hotspots, including economic valuation studies.
Activity ii.
Review legal and regulatory framework for Dnieper basin biodiversity protection.
Activity iii.
Review and assess agricultural practices in context of pollution reduction and soil
conservation.
Activity iv.
Review status of fisheries and aquaculture in the region; identify gaps and
problem areas.
Output 6. Enhanced communication between stakeholders and increased public
awareness and involvement
56. The Dnieper SAP project anticipates broad-based participation by the general public, private
sector associations, academic and research institutions, non-governmental organizations and
local community groups. The large number of stakeholders involved and affected by pollution
control issues in the Dnieper river requires multi-level awareness programmes targeting different
groups of stakeholders and other decision-makers, from national to village and household levels.
Local community groups are especially efficient in triggering social and environmental change at
the community and household levels. Effective participation of the general public and other
stakeholders in pollution prevention programs and resource planning issues requires
strengthened environmental awareness and improved channels for interaction among
stakeholders and the governments, with adequate financial resources mobilized for activities to
address the above Objectives.
57. Broad participation of these various stakeholders within and across countries can improve the
quality, effectiveness, and sustainability of projects. This proposal therefore also focuses on the
broad involvement and increased networking among public organizations as well as between and
among governmental organizations. The Programme will identify key stakeholders, particularly
effective NGOs, bring them together to strategize and discuss common issues (in a regional
NGO forum) and link them together for the enhanced exchange of information and strategies.
Linkages through computer based networks is one promising way to increase communication
among governmental, public, and private organizations which "can foster broad involvement in
planning and implementing GEF international waters projects and should help to improve the
quality, public awareness, and scientific basis of international waters projects" (GEF Operational
Strategy, p. 49). Other activities resulting in improved communication and support include the
establishment of a public awareness program, NGO activity centers, a small grants program, and
expansion of consultative and participatory actions related to the program.
Activity i.
Facilitate socio-economic assessment of Basin's population and the identification
of key stakeholders.
Activity ii.
Improve access and distribution of project and Dnieper basin information through
electronic postings on the World Wide Web and Internet list-servers; explore linkages with
IDRC-EMDU Environmental Management Information System (EMIS);
Activity iii.
Hold regular consultations and technical/policy workshops (1/yr) with broad
involvement from international agencies, national governments, research institutions, the private
sector, and all interested public organizations and NGOs.
Activity iv.
Expand Internet access for key stakeholders through establishment of additional
e-mail connections and Web-Services with priority for those without existing service.
Activity v.
Collect, publish and disseminate bi-annually project and general Dnieper basin
news and information gathered by the project, consultants, scientists and NGOs; also post such
information on the Internet.
Activity vi. Create public awareness and environmental education campaign through
participatory regional events publicized by popular media, NGO newsletters, Internet postings,
and school-based environmental curricula development; explore linkages with IDRC-EMDU
Policy and Public Education component.
Activity vii. Sponsor and organize bi-annual NGO forum for NGO's to network, identify
priorities and responsibilities, and share data and information.
Activity viii.Create and administer a small grants program for NGOs and community
organizations to fund small scale activities related to the rehabilitation and improved
management of Dnieper river basin resources.
Output 7.
Enhanced regional and national capacity for SAP implementation.
Activity i.
Provision of equipment to fill gaps in monitoring capacities identified in Activity
2 i.
Activity ii.
Create regional Dnieper River basin environmental database with on-line user
capacities.
Activity iii.
Provide training in river basin monitoring to fill gaps identified in 2 i.
IV. Risks and Sustainability
1. ISSUES, ACTIONS AND RISKS
58. The long-term success of regional waterbody management programmes such as the one
proposed here depend, inter alia, on the political willingness of the Contracting Parties to
cooperate. The latter in turn depends on changing economic, political and social conditions at
the individual country level. For this project, the geopolitical factor appears to introduce only a
moderate risk at this time; indeed, the presently strong interest in cooperation and coordination
among the three countries in a regional programme for the Dnieper River basin bodes well for
the future success of the project. However, risks due to policy changes resulting from the
turnover of key government officials should not be ignored. Impacts from economic changes
and failures are much less easy to predict, as each country is in the difficult process of shifting
towards a market economy and the state of individual economies varies fairly widely among the
countries. In this regard, countries which are under economic duress during the transition
period may focus their investment priorities away from environmental concerns to the potential
detriment of achieving selected project objectives. On the other hand, the expected growth in
financial and economic linkages between the three countries due to both historical and
geographic factors may help to diminish impacts from any short-term economic lapses
experienced by individual countries during the project period.
2. SUSTAINABILITY
Government Commitment
59. This proposal has the long term commitment of the three Dnieper River riparian country
governments and for coordinated priority with other GEF projects in the region. The
governments of the three countries of the Dnieper have already demonstrated strong commitment
to strengthening international cooperation in the regional basin management and this
commitment has been confirmed among other things by their readiness to cooperate on
collaborative efforts such as the TDA. At an International Conference on the "Problems of the
Dnieper River Basin Environmental Rehabilitation " held in Kiev, 24-25 January, 1995, the three
governments signed a Memorandum requesting UNDP to assist in the development of a GEF
Environmental Management Program for the Dnieper River Basin. The Government of Ukraine
has already developed a National Dnieper River Basin Program, and the governments of Russia
and Belarus have additionally prepared draft national strategies to further the development of the
Strategic Action Plan formulation process. The completed Dnieper River Transboundary
Diagnostic Analysis further illustrates the governments commitment to the development of
enhanced transboundary environmental cooperation under the GEF International Waters
Operational Strategy.
60. This project brief has incorporated the comments and suggestions from the governments,
scientific institutions, NGO's, and other donors and UN agencies, gathered in several regional
consultative meetings, and has received the official endorsement of all participating countries
(Annex 8). Government commitment is further demonstrated by their financial and in-kind
contributions as listed in the finance section of the cover page.
Financial Sustainability
61. The project is designed to identify and stimulate investments in the region through feasibility
studies and the Priority Investment Portfolio. The project will also evaluate the use of economic
instruments as a mechanism to generate revenue to sustain, inter alia, the regional coordination
mechanisms developed during the project. The project will also focus on building sustainable
institutional capacities for environmental monitoring, EIA, compliance, emergency response,
environmental management, use of information and models in decision-making, and public
awareness.
V. Stakeholder Participation and Implementation Arrangements
1. STAKEHOLDER COMMITMENT AND PARTICIPATION
62. Environmental issues are a high societal priority in the region. Over twenty public
organizations as well as individual scientific and research institutions have invested their
resources in remedying pollution and water management problems in the Dnieper basin. NGOs
nominated or listed as organizations involved in key environmental activities related to Dnieper
River quality have been identified during the project preparation process. The project will
involve these various stakeholders in project monitoring, evaluation and implementation through
numerous consultations and workshops as well as modalities such as the Small Grants
Programme and improved Internet access among stakeholders.
2. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
Regional Institutions
63. The Interim GEF Implementing Task Force was composed during the PDF phase of
representatives from UNEP, World Bank, UNDP-Ukraine Country Office and UNDP-Regional
Bureau for Eastern Europe/CIS, as well as the CTA from the Danube River Basin Programme
and the CTA from the Black Sea Environmental Programme.
64. An Ad-hoc Advisory Group consisting of high-level policy and decision makers from the
three Dnieper basin countries, and ministry representatives involved in the management of river
basin resources (environment, health, water, agriculture) was involved, with the national expert
groups and international consultants, in the review, finalization and endorsement of the prepared
GEF project.
65. A Project Management Task Force composed of representatives from the Ministry of
Environment and possibly other sectors, the three involved GEF Implementating Agencies, and
the Project CTA, will have overall management and supervisory responsibility for the full GEF
project and will meet annually to review work plan progress and make recommendations. Once
the project is underway, the Task Force may elect to invite representation from NGO's and the
private sector. The Task Force will work with the newly created Program Coordination Unit
who are jointly responsible for the project outputs and project workplan. Coordination of
activities between the GEF Programme for the Danube River basin and the Black Sea
Environmental Programme will be ensured by cross-attendance of Steering Committee/Task
Force meetings of the other programmes, and the anticipated creation of the Black Sea Basin
Wide Initiative in 1998.
66. The Program Coordination Unit, once formed, will oversee day to day implementation of
project activities and play a key role in ensuring coordination of the proposed Programme with
other relevant activities in the region.
National Institutions
67. The governments of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine have nominated National Expert Groups
for the design and implementation of both the Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis and the
Strategic Action Plan. These experts assist and advise the program on background information,
transboundary environmental problem analysis, and needed institutional changes for the
sucessful management of Dnieper Basin resources. The representative institutions from these
groups are provided in Annex 5.
68. Three or more regional Activity Centres will be established in several thematic areas (e.g.
monitoring, pollution prevention, data/information systems, etc.) based on existing capacities in
the three nations. The Activity Centres will serve as the focal points for regional capacity
building in the respective thematic areas and make substantial contributions to the SAP in their
respective areas of expertise. The location and thematic focus of each Activity Centre will be
determined based on consultations between the governments and the PCU.
Project Implementation:
69. The UN Office for Project Services (UNOPS) served as Executing Agency during the PDF-B
phase and will continue to serve as interim Executing Agency for the UNDP Project Document
preparation phase. During this period, final executing and project management arrangements
will be determined by UNDP-GEF and the concerned riparian countries prior to Council review
and CEO endorsement of the final project document.
70. The World Bank and EBRD will be invited to participate in the Task
Force meetings in order to be engaged in the development of a Priority Investment Portfolio
(PIP) and hosting the donor conferences.
71. Ongoing discussions with Canadian IDRC Environmental Management and Development in
Ukraine (EMDU) project will continue to explore coordination, cost-sharing and other
cooperative activities.
VI. Incremental Costs and Project Financing
72. See Annex 1 for Incremental Cost Analysis and Matrix.
VII. Monitoring, Evaluation and Dissemination
MONITORING AND EVALUATION
73. Project objectives, outputs and emerging issues will be regularly reviewed and evaluated at
annual meetings of the Project Management Task Force. The project will be subject to the
various evaluation and review mechanisms of UNDP, including PPER (Project Performance and
Evaluation Review), TPR (Tri-partite Review) and an external Evaluation and Final Report prior
to the termination of the project. The project will also participate in annual PIR (Project
Implementation Review) exercise of the GEF.
LESSONS LEARNED AND TECHNICAL REVIEWS
74. The development of this project has benefited substantially from a detailed review of
`lessons learned' in the Danube and Black Sea GEF projects. This includes approaches to NGO
involvement, public awareness activities, the TDA and SAP processes, et al. In addition, the
Dnieper River project will be involved from the start in the new GEF International Waters
LEARN (Learning Exchange and Resource Network) program. IW:LEARN is a distance
education program whose purpose is to improve global management of transboundary water
systems. IW:LEARN will provide structured interactive conferencing capacity across the
portfolio of GEF International Waters projects which will allow participants to share learning
related to oceans, river basins, and coastal zone management. For environmental professionals
working on GEF-financed projects, IW:LEARN will greatly expand opportunities for peer-to-
peer consultation, collaborative research with physically distant colleagues, opportunities to
exchange best practices and training modules among projects, and the delivery of short courses.
Due to the numerous waterbody-management issue parallels between the Dnieper and other GEF
IW projects, the Dnieper basin project could benefit substantially from the sharing of lessons
learned through the IW-LEARN mechanism.
Annexes
________________________________________________________________________
Annex 1:
Incremental Cost Analysis and Matrix
Annex 2:
Log Frame Matrix
Annex 3:
STAP Roster Technical review(s)
Annex 4:
Incorporation of STAP Reviewer Comments into GEF Project Brief
Annex 5:
TDA and SAP National Expert Groups
Annex 6:
Recommendations from Project Preparation Phase
Annex 7:
Dnieper River Basin: Project Preparation History
Annex 8:
Copies of GEF Operational Focal Point Endorsement letters
Annex 9:
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis for the Dnieper River Basin: Trinational
Integrated Report and Synthesis Report (available upon request)
Annex (4-9) summaries:
Annex 4: Summarizes how STAP review of project brief (winter '98 intersessional submission) were
incorporated into brief.
Annex 5: List of national institutions participating in preliminary TDA and SAP processes during
PDF-B.
Annex 6: Summary of major recommendations for regional action in the Dnieper River basin
emerging from PDF-B consultations.
Annex 7: Summary of dates and key events during project preparation (PDF-B) phase.
Annex 8: Copies of GEF Operational Focal Point endorsements from Russia, Belarus and Ukraine.
Annex 9: The Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis for the Dnieper River Basin (TDA) is a joint
product of four national institutions in the three participating countries of the Basin---Belarus, the
Russian Federation, and Ukraine---under the guidance of the Project Coordinating Council, the
Project Task Force (consisting of three Chief National Experts and six national experts from the
three countries), and an international expert assigned by UNEP.
The TDA is based on a wealth of data collected from a number of research and operational
organizations of the three countries and covering a period of several decades. The TDA reviews and
summarizes past and current studies on the environmental problems of the Basin; presents the state
of its environment in a transboundary context; identifies possible root causes of the key
transboundary issues; and proposes a number of directions for corrective measures and strategies for
remediation/rehabilitation as an initial step in the preparation of a Strategic Action Programme for
the Basin.
The TDA is broken into two reports: the Trinational Integrated Report, incorporating and fusing
data from three separate national reports into a regional overview addressing the major
environmental issues facing the three new republics; and a Synthesis Report, presenting an Executive
Summary, rationale for the project and highlights of the integrated report for easy reference, with
special references to transboundary impacts, other GEF focal areas, the root causes of
environmental issues, and a preliminary outline of the SAP.
Incremental Cost Analysis
Regional Context and Broad Development Goals
Due to a combination of sectoral, institutional, political and socioeconomic factors, the
overall environmental integrity and sustainable development of the Dnieper River basin
has been lacking for some time. In recent years, the riparian countries---Russia, Ukraine
and Belarus---have made commitments to the long-term rehabilitation and sustainable
management of this highly degraded aquatic ecosystem. Due to the prevailing economic
situation in the region, these countries at present have very limited human and financial
resources to devote to this issue and understandably are targetting the majority of their
funds towards principally national goals. As a result, international assistance from a body
such as the GEF is needed to assist these countries to work collaboratively in
understanding and addressing the key transboundary issues of the Dnieper River basin,
particularly in the context of the emerging GEF basin-wide approach to the rehabilitation
of the similarly degraded downstream Black Sea.
Baseline
The countries are engaged in a number of nationally, donor and Implementing Agency (UNDP)
financed activities which are directly or indirectly related to the Dnieper River basin; some of these
activities represent `baselines' in the context of the current project (see Incremental Cost matrix).
National Activities:
Ukraine:
The Parliament of Ukraine adopted the National Programme of Ecological Rehabilitation of the
Dnieper River Basin and Improvement of the Drinking Water on 27 February 1997.
For the implementation of the Programme the amount of 4.2 billion UAH (approx. 2.4 billion
USD) is anticipated for the period 1997 - 2010.
In 1998 the amount of 391.9 mln. UAH (approx. 218 mln. USD) is foreseen to be expended in
the state budget for the following priority activities:
construction and reconstruction of buildings and water supplies systems, creation of sewage
systems in towns and large villages - 337 mln. UAH (approx. 187 mln. USD)
implementation of water protection measures on industrial enterprises under the ministries and
other central bodies of executive power - 27 mln. UAH (approx. 15 mln. USD)
realization of water protection measures on rivers and water bodies - 12.8 mln. UAH (approx.
7.1 mln. USD)
execution of water and land protection measures in the Dnieper basin - 7.6 mln. UAH (approx.
4.2 mln. USD)
protection and development of nature reserves within the basin - 0.4 mln. UAH (approx. 0.2 mln.
USD)
other measures on nature protection (among which State ecological monitoring, scientific-
technical support, etc.) - 7.1 mln. UAH (approx. 3.9 mln. USD)
Financing of the above activities will be undertaken from the state and local budgets, and other
sources.
In 1999 the estimated amount for the Ukrainian national activities is 524.75 mln. UAH (approx.
291.5 mln. USD), including:
water and land protection measures on the territories of the Dnieper basin, protection and
development of nature reserves, state ecological monitoring etc - 122.23 mln. UAH (approx. 68
mln. USD)
scientific research and technical support and other measures - 6.5 mln. UAH (approx. 3.6 mln.
USD) (expected to be financed from the 1999 state budget)
Belarus:
The following activities and expenditures are planned in 1998:
Creation of regional laboratories in Gomel town - 160 thousand USD and in Mozyr town - 115
thousand USD
Creation of the basin database in Minsk for the support of the realization of Dnieper project - 90
thousand USD
Construction of sewage treatment systems with the use of highly effective technologies for
refining of industrial flows in the following towns (in thousand USD):
- Rechitsy - 215
- Gomel - 346
- Pinsk - 187
- Orsha - 208
- Zhlobin - 113
- Osipovichi - 120
- Borisov - 175
Water supplies and installation of additional purification of drinking water in Gomel town - 390
thousand USD
Scientific, regulatory, methodological and software support to the international project - 96
thousand USD
TOTAL for the above: 2.204 mln. USD
Overall, in 1998 Belarus plans to spend a total of about 12.3 mln. USD for environmental
protection activities in the Dnieper river basin
Russia:
For the period 1997 - 2000 the outlay for the implementation of programmes for Briansk and
Smolensk regions (the two largest regions upstream in the Dnieper basin) is 704.5 mln. USD,
which includes the expenses for the construction and evacuation of people from the radio-
contaminated territories. In addition, about 95 - 100 mln. USD is planned to be allocated from
regional budgets, ecological funds and enterprises over a period of 4 years.
Other Donors:
In late 1994, the EBRD Board of Directors approved an action strategy for Ukraine which aims
to meet the most urgent needs in the agriculture, banking, privatization, energy, environmental
protection, privatization, and transportation sectors. In the environmental field, the EBRD is
concentrating its efforts in the following directions: a) investment targeting to the environmental
protection of key industrial sectors; b) promotion and support of the efforts of the Ministry for
Environmental Protection (MEP); c) providing assistance to regional centers of environmental
protection and water resources; d) providing assistance to the private sector and various joint
ventures operating in the sphere of municipal wastewater treatment. Municipal water and
wastewater projects in the cities of Dnipropetrovsk, Lviv, Odesa and Zaporizhzhya have been
financed by EBRD and the World Bank.
In 1994-96, the U.S. Agency for International Development in 1994 provided grants totalling
$900,000 to the City University of New York's Center for Water Resources and Environmental
Research (CWRER) to explore alternatives to the water supply problems of the Ukraine. A
second project of the Center, working with the Center for Radioecological Field Studies at the
Ukraine Academy of Sciences and funded by the National Science Foundation, has focused on
the movement through erosion of agrochemicals and radioactive pollutants within agricultural
watersheds including the Dnieper basin.
IA Country Assistance: Ukraine
Through the GEF several environmental projects have been implemented in Ukraine. Three of
these projects have been executed by UNDP through UNOPS: Environmental Management in
the Danube River Basin, the Black Sea Environmental Programme and the Dnipro River Basin
Management Programme PDF-B. In addition, a project on Improving Environmental Monitoring
Capacity in Ukraine was launched by several partners: MEPNS, USAID, US Environmental
Protection Agency and the UN Office of Project Services (UNOPS)
Other related activities initiated and supported by the UNDP Office in Kiev include: Introduction
of Sustainable Development Principles into Ukrainian Governmental Institutions, Training
Component ($70,000), the Ecological Network (support to the development of the concept of
establishment of ecological corridors in Ukraine) ($105,000); Improving Environmental
Monitoring Capacity ($60,000 plus $1,044,200 from US-EPA), and, with WMO, a Donors'
Meeting on Meteorological and Hydrological Services in Support of Sustainable Development in
Newly Independent States (Europe and Central Asia) held in April 1995 in Geneva.
IA Country Assistance: Belarus
Related projects currently being coordinated by the UNDP office in Minsk include: Raising
Public Environmental Awareness in Belarus ($115,000), and Sustainable Development of
Chernobyl-Affected Areas in Belarus (Local Agenda 21) ($630,000).
IA Country Assistance: Russia
The UNDP office in Russia has only opened just recently so development of projects
complementary to the Dnieper River Basin programme will be ongoing.
Global Environmental Objective
The long-term objectives of the project are to remedy the serious environmental effects of
transboundary pollution and habitat degradation in the Dnieper River Basin, to ensure
sustainable use of its resources, and to protect biodiversity in the basin. The project will
enable the implementation of a series of complementary investigative, preventative and
curative actions that will be elaborated in a Strategic Action Programme for the Basin
region. The SAP will outline and financially characterize both national (baseline) and
additional (incremental, e.g. addressing transboundary issues) actions for subsequent
funding by the countries and the international community. In addition, the project will
participate in the overall strategic `basin-wide' approach currently under development
towards the coordinated protection and rehabilitation of the Black Sea from
transboundary sources of degradation.
GEF Alternative
The GEF alternative would support a proposed project to remedy the serious environmental
effects of pollution and habitat degradation in the Dnieper River Basin through implementation
of a series of complementary investigative, preventative and curative actions that will be
elaborated in a Strategic Action Programme for the Basin region. This would principally be
accomplished through GEF support to facilitate key measures for development of the SAP. GEF
would provide support for the incremental costs of activities to build institutional, human and
technical capacity for the subsequent implementation of the SAP, including additional
transaction costs for joint planning activities, development of common approaches to sectoral
and inter-sectoral policymaking, data collection and analyses, and co-ordination of efforts among
the participating countries.
The proposed project, consistent with GEF guidance, would contribute significantly to the
"reduction of stress to the international waters environment" in this region and support the co-
operating countries in "making changes in their sectoral policies, making critical investments,
[and] developing necessary programmes" to achieve these objectives. The long-term
commitment on the part of the concerned governments is demonstrated by: the principles of
coordination and cooperation stipulated by the agreement signed by the governments in 1992,
the 1995 memorandum which requested UNDP assistance in the development of a GEF
Environmental Management Program for the Dnieper River Basin, government participation in
the PDF-B Task Force, and the countries' role in the National Reports and draft Transboundary
Diagnostic Analysis and SAP `Elements' which co-operatively identified key issues, likely `root
causes' and priority actions. The support of GEF at this stage will play an important catalytic
role in the long-term Dnieper rehabilitation effort now underway in the region, and the
anticipated participation of international financial institutions, other donors and the private
sector will also contribute to this multi-country and multi-stakeholder effort.
The GEF alternative would support a regionally led initiative to promote the sustainable
management and conservation of Dnieper River and its basin. It would also provide additional
global benefits by making a significant contribution towards the emerging `basin-wide' approach
to the long-term rehabilitation of the highly degraded Black Sea ecosystem. It would greatly
facilitate the ability of the co-operating countries to address the priority transboundary
environmental issues and common natural resources management concerns at the regional level.
The GEF alternative would allow for the relatively rapid development of a series of interventions
for the implementation of the SAP, to be undertaken with support from a variety of sources.
These goals would be realised through support for the following specific project objectives:
1.
Create a transboundary management regime and coordinating body;
2.
Assist countries in SAP formulation, review and endorsement process;
3.
Improve financial/legal mechanisms for pollution reduction and sustainable resource use;
4.
Formulation of National Action Plans by Interministerial Committees;
5.
Improve framework for conservation of biodiversity in the Dnieper River Basin;
6.
Enhance communication among stakeholders and encourage public awareness and
involvement in addressing the problems of the Dnieper Basin;
Build capacity for SAP implementation
System Boundary
The time boundaries for this project are the three year project period during which it will be
implemented. Some of the project benefits will clearly continue to accrue beyond this time
boundary. However, all the listed outputs/benefits will be achieved during the three year
implementation period.
The geographic boundary of the project is defined by the drainage basin of the Dnieper River Basin
within the three participating countries, Russia, Ukraine and Belarus.
The issues to be dealt with within the boundary of the project are:
Coordinated evaluation and management of transboundary priorities
Facilitation of the SAP formulation, review and endorsement process
Financial and legal mechanisms for improved pollution control strategies
Formulation of national strategies for Dnieper River rehabilitation
Conservation of Dnieper River basin biodiversity
Communication among stakeholders; public awareness and participation
Build SAP implementation capacity
The design of the proposed project has taken into full consideration its complementarity with other
existing projects in the region, particularly the "Black Sea Basin-wide" approach currently under
formulation in the GEF.
Incidental Domestic Benefits
Over the long-term, a variety of domestic benefits would occur through implementation of the
proposed project. The most valuable domestic benefits to be gained from the project are
associated with substantially strengthened institutional and human capacity in integrated land
and water management, increased technical knowledge and public awareness of Dnieper
environmental issues, and improved national capacities in environmental legislation and
enforcement. Each national Activity Centre would receive domestic benefits in the form of
improved national capacities in the Activity Centre area of expertise. In addition, eventual
implementation of the National Action Plans would, by definition, deliver both national and
global/regional benefits.
Costs
The incremental costs required to achieve all outputs of the project amount to US$7,000,000 to be
allocated as follows:
Project
Component/Output
US$
A transboundary management regime and coordinating
body for the Dnieper River Basin
$1,690,000
A Strategic Action Programme for the Dnieper River
Basin, endorsed at Ministerial
level
$610,000
Improved financial and legal mechanisms for pollution
reduction and sustainable resource use
$1,960,000
National Action Plans (NAP's) formulated by Interministerial
Committees
$525,000
Framework for enhanced capacity for conservation and
protection of biodiversity in the Dnieper Basin
$275,000
6.
Enhanced communication between stakeholders and increased public
awareness and involvement
$721,481
7.
Capacity built for SAP implementation
$700,000
Project Support costs
$518, 519
TOTAL $7,000,000
Annex 1: Incremental Cost Matrix--Preparation of a Strategic Action Programme (SAP) for the Dnieper River basin and Development
of SAP Implementation Mechanisms.
Costs/ Benefits
Baseline (B)
Alternative (A)
Increment (A-B)
Domestic Benefits 1.
Environmental
management
1. Co-ordination of river
1. Improved coordination of
policies, strategies and
management efforts between
Dnieper River basin activities at
programmes in Dnieper basin
and within riparian countries.
national level.
States are uncoordinated; by
themselves, national efforts are
2. Efforts targeted at identifying
2. Strategies in place for programs
insufficient to mitigate threats to
and mitigating the root causes
to address root casues of Dnieper
the river system.
of environmental degradation in
River degradation; baseline
the Dnieper River basin.
identified.
2. No existing integrated strategic
approach at national level to
3. Institutional and human
3. National capacities to implement
protection and remediation of
capacity building in the arena of
a holistic environmental
Dnieper River Basin.
integrated land and water body
management regime are
management.
strengthened; NAP's developed.
3. National capacities to effect
integrated land and water body
4. Targeted
environmental
4. Civil society more responsive to
management measures are
education and awareness efforts
environmental protection
limited.
in the Dnieper basin.
measures (improving the socio-
political environment for
4. National stakeholders poorly
5. Assess, test and develop legal
pursuing long-term sustainable
sensitised to environmental
and financial mechanisms for
development objectives).
concerns.
pollution reduction and
sustainable resource use in
5. Improved national capacities for
5. Insufficient financial and legal
Dnieper River basin countries.
using legal and financial
mechanisms for Dnieper River
mechanisms towards Dnieper
basin protection and
River basin rehabilitation;
rehabilitation..
Priority Investment Portfolio
prepared and donors identified.
Global/Regional Benefit 1. The public lacks an
1. Raise awareness of the findings 1. Wide civil society support in the
understanding of the
of the Transboundary Analysis
three riparian countries facilitates
transboundary impacts of
and sensitise stakeholders to the
the planning and implementation
anthropogenic activities within
need for regional action to
of management measures
the Dnieper River basin.
mitigate river degradation.
(enabling transboundary issues to
be addressed).
Costs/ Benefits
Baseline (B)
Alternative (A)
Increment (A-B)
2. Limited avenues for public
2. Develop
communication,
2. Public participation in Dnieper
involvement in environmental
consultation and participation
River basin management
management of the river system.
mechanisms for engendering
increases the sense of ownership
public participation in
of civil society over management
3. Lack of regional institutions to
environmental planning and
and rehabilitation efforts.
co-ordinate joint action to reduce
management.
and prevent transboundary
3. Establishment of regional
impacts.
3. Create institutional mechanisms
institutional framework for
to drive and co-ordinate
addressing transboundary
4. Policy/ legal /economic
regional action.
impacts.
framework for co-ordinating
river management is inadequate; 4. Improve understanding of
4. Policy/ legal /economic
enforcement of existing
policy/ legal/ economic
framework for addressing
legislation is poor.
mechanisms required for
transboundary problems
integrated sustainable river
established.
5. Lack of integrated strategic
basin management.
approach to Dnieper River basin
5. Regional Strategic Action Plan
management and rehabilitation
5. Identify strategic measures to
with commitments to baseline
at regional scale.
address root causes of
(national, other donors) and
transboundary degradation of
incremental (GEF) interventions.
6. Lack of capacity to finance the
the Dnieper River system.
transactions costs of regional co-
6. Financial sustainability of
operation.
6. Identification of innovative
regional waterbody management
financing mechanisms for
measures and institutions is better
7. Lack of regional communication
regional management.
assured.
and coordination among and
between Dnieper River basin
7. Improve linkages between
7. Enhanced
stakeholder
stakeholders/civil society.
regional stakeholders through
coordination and communication
meetings, Internet and print
at regional level.
8. Dnieper River basin activities
communications.
not integrated into basin-wide
8. Improved protection of Black Sea
approach to rehabilitation of
8. Include Dnieper River basin
international water body via
Black Sea.
states in Black Sea basin-wide
participation of key river basin in
approach coordination
strategic approach to region.
9. Limited understanding of
activities.
biodiversity hot spots and
9. Improved understanding of
protected area needs at regional
9. Assess Dnieper River basin
biodiversity protection and
scale.
protected areas, priority
management needs at regional
ecosystems and biodiversity hot
level enabling follow-up action at
spots.
national and regional levels.
Costs/ Benefits
Baseline (B)
Alternative (A)
Increment (A-B)
10. Dnieper river environmental
10. Create regional Dnieper River
10. Improved regional capacity for
data highly dispersed; collection basin environmental database
data collection, integration, analysis
and utilization of Dnieper data
and use in decision-making.
uncoordinated at regional level.
OBJECTIVE 1:
· USD 301,000
· USD 1,991,000
· USD 1,690,000
Transboundary
management regime and
co-ordinating body
OBJECTIVE 2:
· USD 0
· USD 610,000
· USD 610,000
Formulate, review &
endorse SAP
OBJECTIVE 3:
· USD 15,000,000
· USD 16,960,000
· USD 1,960,000
Financial and legal
mechanisms for pollution
reduction
OBJECTIVE 4:
· USD 7,294,200
· USD 7,819,200
· USD 525,000
Formulation of National
Action Plans
OBJECTIVE 5: Improve · USD 4,205,000
· USD 4,480,000
· USD 275,000
conservation of
biodiversity in the Dnieper
River Basin
OBJECTIVE 6:
· USD 115,000
· USD 836,481
· USD 721,481
Communications/ public
awareness
OBJECTIVE 7:
· USD 0
· USD 700,000
· USD 700,000
Build capacity for SAP
implementation
GRAND TOTALS
· USD 26,915,200
· USD 33,396,681
· USD 6,481,481 (Incremental
costs to be financed by GEF)
· USD 7,628,000 (co-financing)
Annex 2
Logical Framework Matrix
Preparation of a Strategic Action Programme (SAP) for the Dnieper River basin
and Development of SAP Implementation Mechanisms.
Intervention Logic
Indicators of Performance
Sources of Verification
Risks and Assumptions
Development Objective: To
A framework and coordination
PCU documents
Country governments and citizenry
catalyze the prevention and
mechanism for regional and
remain receptive to needed sectoral,
remediation of the serious
national interventions on behalf of
Project Task Force meeting reports
institutional, legal and economic
environmental effects of pollution the Dnieper River basin.
reforms required.
and habitat degradation in the
Dnieper River Basin
Improved national and regional
Countries remain supportive of
capacities for the monitoring,
regional coordination mechanism
rehabilitation and sustainable
management of the Dnieper system
Modest turnover/restructuring in
key government ministries
Capacity building activities are
effective and new capacities remain
in the countries
Project Purpose: A Strategic
Strategic Action Programme
Endorsed SAP
Countries able to come to
Action Programme for the
formulated and endorsed at
agreement on content of SAP
Dnieper River basin and national, ministerial level in each country.
National and donor commitments to
regional and international
financing SAP implementation
Countries able to make financial
capacity for its financing and
Activity Centres engaged in
commitments to baseline
implementation
capacity building at national and
PCU documents
investments
regional level
Activity Centre reports
Activity Centres are effectively
coordinated to maximize their effect
OUTPUT 1: A transboundary
Programme Coordination Unit
PCU documents
Low government turnover permits
management regime and
(PCU) established and operational
preservation of institutional
coordination body for the Dnieper
Expert group TORs and reports
memory in Task Force membership
Expert groups established and
River Basin
working
Activity Centre TORs and reports
Logistical, financial and
institutional arrangements for
Activity Centres established and
Annual Task Force meeting reports
setting up PCU proceed smoothly
Intervention Logic
Indicators of Performance
Sources of Verification
Risks and Assumptions
operational
Countries able to agree on location
and focus of each Activity Centre
Project Task Force established and
operational
OUTPUT 2 A Strategic Action
TDA revised and updated
Revised and updated TDA
Sufficient breadth of stakeholder
Programme for the Dnieper River
analysis and involvement
basin
Capacities and gaps in river basin
Report on monitoring capacities
monitoring assessed
Countries prepared to make
Stakeholder meeting reports
financial commitments to baseline
Stakeholders involved
activities
Report on `hot spots'
Hot spots and `root causes'
Donors willing to provide loans for
identified
Final SAP with baseline and
baseline activities for various
incremental costs identified
reasons
Ministerial conference held
Letters of intent/commitment from
Countries able to agree upon
Donor and country commitments to countries and donors
elements of SAP
financing SAP implementation
Published SAP; Dnieper Web site
SAP broadly disseminated
OUTPUT 3: Improved financial
Priority Investment Portfolio
Summary Report on PIP
Country commitment to test and
and legal mechanisms for pollution prepared
further elaborate economic
reduction and sustainable resource
Feasibility studies/reports
approaches to pollution control
use
Feasibility studies on economic
instruments and fertilizer/pesticide
Report on legal and enforcement
Country willingness to revise and
price reform completed
mechanisms for pollution reduction
improve legal and enforcement
and habitat protection
mechanisms
Legal/enforcement mechanisms
reviewed
Report on progress towards Dnieper
Dnieper basin countries able to
coordination with UN/ECE Helsinki
make commitments to UN/ECE
Dnieper Programme participates in
Convention
Helsinki Convention cooperation
UN/ECE Helsinki Convention
and coordination principles
Technical and CoP meetings
Selected reports and studies
Countries provide sufficient access
Review EIA, reservoir, nuclear
to necessary information and
facility and water treatment
personnel
guidelines and practices
OUTPUT 4: National Action
NAP Interministerial committees
NAP committee TORs and meeting
Intersectoral conflict doesn't hinder
Intervention Logic
Indicators of Performance
Sources of Verification
Risks and Assumptions
Plans
established and operating in each
reports
NAP process
country
Report on stakeholder involvement in Possible staffing changes in sectoral
Stakeholders involved in
NAP process
ministries doesn't slow down NAP
formulation and review of NAPs
process
Stakeholders sufficiently
involved/consulted in NAP process
OUTPUT 5: Framework for
Assessment of biodiversity `hot
Report on regional biodiversity issues Countries provide adequate access
enhanced capacity for conservation spots', relevant legislation and
(legal, hot spots, protected areas)
to information on biodiversity
of biodiversity in the Dnieper
protected areas systems
legislation and protected areas
River Basin
Reviews of Dnieper basin
Reports
agricultural, fisheries and
aquaculture practices
OUTPUT 6: Enhanced
Key stakeholders analyzed and
Report on stakeholder analysis/study; Sufficient breadth of stakeholder
communications between
involved in project activities
stakeholder consultation reports
analysis and involvement
stakeholders and increased public
awareness and involvement
Programme and related Dnieper
Dnieper WWW site and data on
All key stakeholders willing/able to
activities broadly disseminated via
access frequency
participate
Internet
Increase in number of NGOs and
Sufficent access by citizenry to
New stakeholder networks created
other civil society connected to and
Internet information on Dnieper and
utilizing Internet in Dnieper issues
GEF program
Public awareness of Dnieper issues
enhanced; Dnieper issues included
Public awareness and environmental
NGOs have technical capacity to
in environmental education
education materials (print and on-line) network electronically
curricula
Reports from bi-annual NGO forum
NGOs able to agree on priority
Dnieper-oriented NGOs in region
issues and approaches
sharing, meeting, coordinating and
Annual Report of Dnieper Small
networking
Grants Programme
Sufficient submissions of qualified
projects for small grants programme
Dnieper Small Grants program
under implementation
Mass media willing to help
disseminate information on Dnieper
issues
Education authorities and teachers
willing to cooperate on Dnieper-
Intervention Logic
Indicators of Performance
Sources of Verification
Risks and Assumptions
related environmental education
OUTPUT 7: Enhanced capacity
New technical and human resource
Equipment installed in selected labs;
Low rate of personnel turnover
for SAP implementation
capacities created in river basin
personnel trained in equipment
maintains institutional memory in
monitoring
operation
equipment operation and
maintenance
Regional environmental database
Reports & evaluations from regional
developed and utilized by different
training workshops
No delays or problems in
stakeholders
equipment purchase and delivery
Web site(s) and/or CD-ROMs;
stakeholder requests for data and
Governments and other dataholders
on-line usage statistics
willing to provide access to
required data; data can be
Data intercalibration workshop
standardized across and between
reports
countries for regional
intercomparison and analysis
Activities
1.1 Create and operate Dnieper
3.2 Feasibility studies:
4.2 Develop NAPs
6.8 NGO Small Grants Programme
River Basin PCU
economic instruments/pollution
4.3 Stakeholder involvement
7.1 Provide monitoring equipment
1.2 Establish international
3.3 Feasibility studies:
in NAP process
7.2 Create regional database
working groups
fertilizer & pesticide pricing
5.1 Biodiversity assessment:
7.3 Build regional capacity for
1.3 Establish Activity Centers
environmental monitoring
3.4 Feasibility studies: econ. instr.
protected areas, hotspots
1.4 Create and coordinate Project
Task Force
3.5 Donor conferences (2)
5.2 Review legal/regulatory frame-
Pre-conditions
2.1 Evaluate basin monitoring
3.6 Assess legal mechanisms
work for biodiversity protection
capacities
3.7 Assess EIA policies/practices
5.3 Review agricultural practices
2.2 Revise and finalize TDA
3.8 UN/ECE Helsinki
5.4 Review fisheries/aquaculture
2.3 SAP Stakeholder
Convention coordination
6.1 Stakeholder assessment
workshops
3.9 Review Dnieper reservoir
6.2 Dnieper Web site
2.4 Pollution `hot spots' study
operation
6.3 Stakeholder consultations
2.5 Draft, review, revise SAP
3.10 Review nuclear waste
6.4 Expand stakeholder
2.6 Ministerial conference for
management
Internet access
SAP endorsement
3.11 Assess waste & drinking water
6.5 Dnieper newsletter(s)
2.7 Disseminate SAP
treatment capacities
6.6 Public awareness/
3.1 Prepare PIP
4.1 Form NAP Interministerial
environmental education
committees
6.7 NGO forum
Intervention Logic
Indicators of Performance
Sources of Verification
Risks and Assumptions
Annex 4
Incorporation of STAP Reviewer Comments into GEF Project Brief*
Preparation of a Strategic Action Programme (SAP) for the Dnieper River Basin and
Development of SAP Implementation Mechanisms
1. Relevance to GEF, para. 3: "It would have been relevant to discuss concrete aspects of what
would be required to improve, and sometimes replace, the activities that generate the
environmental threat".
This is addressed to some degree in the root cause analysis component of the TDA, and will
constitute an important element of the SAP development process during the full project.
2. Objectives, para. 3: "relevant...to analyze what kind of barriers that exist for investments and
what kind of situations and other facilitating mechanisms that could be developed or
strengthened to stimulate investments".
Barrier identification has been added to Objective 3 (#37, lines 2-3) as follows: "...as well as
identify barriers to their implementation and propose actions to overcome these barriers."
2. Objectives, para. 3: "Work on PIP should be linked with effort to reduce or eliminate barriers
for the introduction of new and environmentally-friendly technologies.
Added to Sub-Objective 4.2, Activity vi: "...identify barriers to the introduction of new and
environmentally friendly technologies."
2. Objectives, para. 4: "..a complementary program for investments and concrete actions must
be formulated".
This is intended to be achieved through the Priority Investment Portfolio, donor conference and
SAP implementation phases of the full project.
3. Approach: "..crucial that the mandate of the PCU is clearly spelled out..."
The full Terms of Reference for the PCU will be elucidated during the formulation of the UNDP
Project Document if the project is approved for funding by the GEF Council.
3. Approach, para. 4: "...it is important that the program (research and monitoring) is
coordinated with relevant programs in other countries and international organizations".
Added to Objective 4 (#38): "These capacity building activities will be coordinated with relevant
programs in other countries and international organizations (e.g. IAEA for radionuclide issues)."
*STAP review of project brief submitted to Winter '98 Council intersessional.
Annex 5
Dnieper River Basin Programme
Institutions involved in development of the Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis
and Preliminary `Elements' of a Strategic Action Programme
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis:
Centre for Preparation and Implementation of International Projects on Technical Assistance,
Russia
Central Scientific Research Institute of Complex Use of Water Resources and Environmental
Protection, Belarus
Scientific Centre for Water Protection, Ukraine
Strategic Action Programme:
Centre for Preparation and Implementation of International Projects on Technical Assistance,
Russia
Central Scientific Research Institute of Complex Use of Water Resources and Environmental
Protection, Belarus
Institute of Hydrobiology, Ukraine
Annex 6
Dnieper River Basin: Recommendations from Project Preparation Phase
1. Coordinated evaluation and management of transboundary priorities
· Better coordinated approach and oversight of regional problems and remedial activities
· Regional analysis and management regime for transboundary issues
· Identification or assessment of critical pollution hotspots and necessary remedial actions
· More attention given to socio-economic factors of pollution and impact on human health
2. Facilitation of the SAP formulation, review and endorsement process
· Fill data gaps to establish clear priorities on transboundary concerns
· Analysis and recognition of "root causes" of key environmental problems
· Improved structures for investigating and implementing priority programs
· Enhanced framework for planning and investment for regional priorities
3. Financial and legal mechanisms for improved pollution control strategies
· Develop better legal mechanisms (laws, regulations, licensing/permitting systems) to prevent or
reduce pollution in receiving waters
· Create a standardized legal mandate for environmental impact assessments
· Address financial constraints facing anti-pollution enforcement mechanisms and compliance
strategies
· Utilize economic mechanisms to stimulate investment in pollution reduction and management
programs
4. Formulation and harmonization of monitoring and management schemes
· Enable measures to reduce non-point source pollution from agricultural runoff
· Development of an international management regime for the Dnieper River Basin (see Issue 1.)
· Improve technical and operational standards of water treatment facilities
· Strengthen safety precautions around nuclear energy facilities and radioactive waste disposal
sites
· Reach agreement on water quality standards among the countries
· Evaluation of data gaps and data collection needs
· Improve monitoring capacity for priority pollutants
· Reach agreement on standardized methods for monitoring across the countries
· Increased attention paid to mechanisms of source based reduction of industrial pollution
5. Conservation of biodiversity and sustainable land use management
· Broaden areas dedicated to protection of biodiversity
· Enhance uniformity in legal protection of wildlife and ecosystems within nature reserves
· Improve matching of biodiversity hotspots with appropriate measures for the protection of
critical
ecosystems or land resources
· Strengthen structural integrity of reservoirs
· Control deforestation, over-cultivation and reduction of naturally vegetated areas
· Improve measures to safeguard soil fertility and reduce excessive accumulation of fertilizers
and pesticides in soil
· Improve water efficiency in large-scale irrigation development; curtail expansion of abandoned
land
6. Communication among stakeholders; public awareness and participation
· Enhance environmental awareness within governmental agencies in general
· Improve inter-sectoral communication among government representatives
· Strengthen infrastructure for information collection and exchange between government,
scientific agencies, and public organizations (NGOs)
· Raise governmental priority to promote public environmental awareness
· Improve access to existing information by independent scientific/community groups
· Enhance dissemination of information and activities to monitor or minimize pollution
· Strengthen exchange of information between independent scientific or community groups
· Improve communication channels among and between stakeholders, particularly involving
NGOs and the public
· Broaden knowledge of socio-economic and health impacts of environmental degradation in the
Dnieper River Basin
· Enhance participation of community groups to promote public awareness
· Increase emphasis on environmental education in regular school curricula
· Increase financial resources for community groups to carry out environmental awareness,
research or monitoring initiatives
Annex 7
Dnieper River Basin: Project Preparation History
3/22/96 Formal start date of Dnieper Program
4/25/96 First inception meeting 3
6/1/96 Meeting of the Ministers of Environment of Belarus, Russian Federation, Ukraine in
Helsinki
6/19-20/96 First Dnieper Coordinating Council Meeting held in Kiev
7/22-23/96 First Project Task Force Meeting; revised budget submitted to UNOPS
9/10-11/96 First TDA National Experts meeting held at Ukrainian Scientific Center for Water
Protection in Kharkiv
10/7-9/96 Second Meeting of TDA Experts at Berezinsky Biosphere Reserve in Belarus.
10/10/96 Second Task Force Meeting held in UNDP Office in Minsk, Belarus4
1/22-24/97 Joint Meeting of Coordinating Council and Task Force meeting held at the UNDP
Programme Management Unit, Moscow, Russian Federation
2/27-28/97 Experts Meeting on SAP held at UN/UNDP Office, Kiev, Ukraine
4/24-25/97 First SAP national experts meeting held at the Marine Research Institute of Biology
of the Southern Seas in Odessa, Ukraine.
6/26-27/97 Task Force Meeting held at UN/UNDP Office, Kiev, Ukraine
34/25/96 in Ukraine with Mr. Phillipe Elghouayel, RBEC Division Chief; Stephen
Browne, Ukraine UNDP resident representative; Vasil Shevchuk, Ukrainian Deputy
Minister of Environmental Protection
410/10/96 Second Task Force Meeting held in UN Office in Minsk, Belarus with
participation of International Experts, UNDP, World Bank, TACIS and Greenpeace-
Ukraine
20
PROJECT BUDGET
Strategic Action Programme for the Dnieper River Basin
Activity
Description
Amount (US$)
Objective 1. Create & maintain a transboundary management regime and coordinating body
i. Fund the Dnieper Basin Programme Coordination Unit (Dnieper PCU) - 3 yrs.
$900,000
ii. Establish and fund international expert working groups - 3 yrs.
$200,000
iii. Establish national activity centers, 1-2 in each country
$500,000
iv. Annual meeting (3) of Project Management Task Force @$30,000 each
$90,000
SUBTOTAL
$1,690,000
Objective 2. Assist countries in the SAP formulation, review & endorsement process
i. Evaluate existing monitoring capabilities in basin & identify critical gaps $50,000
ii. Revise, update, finalize and publish TDA
$150,000
iii. Hold experts meetings/workshops to determine priorities & `root causes' of
$120,000
environmental problems and to articulate SAP actions
iv. Identify pollution `hot spots' for subsequent rehabilitation/investments
$120,000
v. Draft, review, refine and finalize SAP, including identification of baseline and increm. costs
$90,000
vi. Ministerial conference for SAP endorsement
$50,000
vii. Publish (print & on-line) and broadly disseminate and publicize SAP
$30,000
SUBTOTAL
$610,000
Objective 3. Improve financial, legal & operational mechanisms for pollution reduction & sustainable resource use
3.1 Financial mechanisms for environmental management/Investment portfolio
i. Preparation of a Priority Investment Portfolio (PIP) following hot spot ID and SAP
$1,200,000
ii. Feasibility study: Economic instruments to regulate municipal/industrial pollution
$100,000
iii. Feasibility study: Price reforms to regulate fertilizer and pesticide use
$100,000
iv. Feasibility study: Economic instruments to regulate use of natural resources
$100,000
v. Hold (2) donor conferences to identify donors for SAP and PIP priority activities
$80,000
3.2 Improve legal and operational mechanisms for pollution reduction & sustainable natural resource use
vi. Evaluate existing legal/regulatory structure re: pollution and resource use
$80,000
vii. Assess and review EIA policies and practices in region
$50,000
viii. Advance implem. of coop'n. principles in UN/ECE Convention on transboundary waterbodies
$50,000
ix. Review management guidelines and practices for Dnieper reservoir operation
$50,000
x. Review management guidelines and practices for nuclear facilities and disposal sites
$75,000
xi. Assess operational capacities and practices of selected drinking & waste water plants $75,000
SUBTOTAL
$1,960,000
21
Objective 4. Formulation of National Action Plans (NAP) by Interministerial Committees
i. Formation of NAP interministerial committees
$25,000
ii. Assistance to countries in the development of NAP's
Belarus
$125,000
Russia
$100,000
Ukraine
$200,000
iii. Public participation in NAP development and endorsement process
$75,000
SUBTOTAL
$525,000
Objective 5. Improve conservation of biodiversity in the Dnieper Basin
i. Conduct an assessment of protected areas, priority ecosystems & biodiversity hotspots
$80,000
ii. Review legal and regulatory framework for Dnieper basin biodiversity protection $60,000
iii. Review & assess agricultural practices in context of pollution reduction and soil conservation
$60,000
iv. Review status of fisheries and aquaculture in the region; identify gaps and problem areas
$75,000
SUBTOTAL
$275,000
Objective 6. Enhance communication and encourage public awareness and involvement
i. Facilitate socio-economic assessment and the identification of key stakeholders
$50,000
ii. Improve information access and dissemination through the WWW and Internet list-servers
$50,000
iii. Hold regular (1/yr) consultations and workshops with broad stakeholder involvement
$120,000
iv. Expand Internet access for key stakeholders with priority for those w/o existing service
$50,000
v. Publish & disseminate project and Dnieper basin information (print & on-line)
$80,000
vi. Enhance involvement through well-publicized regional Dnieper basin events
$80,000
vii. Sponsor annual NGO forum for networking and regional capacity building
$100,000
viii. Create & admin.a Dnieper basin small grants program for NGOs & community org'ns. $191,481
SUBTOTAL
$721,481
Objective 7: Build capacity for SAP implementation
i. Provision of equipment to fill gaps in monitoring capacities identified in 2i
$350,000
ii. Create regional Dnieper River basin environmental database with on-line user capacities
$200,000
iii. Provide training in river basin monitoring to fill gaps identified in 2i
$150,000
SUBTOTAL
$700,000
SUB GRAND TOTAL
$6,481,481
Executing Agency Support Costs:
$518,519
GRAND TOTAL
$7,000,000