UNDP-GEF Project Document
RER/99/G31/A/1G/31
Preparation of a Strategic Action Programme (SAP) for the Dnieper River Basin and
Development of SAP Implementation Mechanisms
Revisions to the UNDP Project document per GEF Council Comments
Canada: The Canadian member, citing the ongoing work of Canada's International Development
Research Centre (IDRC) on the Dnieper River in Ukraine, requested that "consideration should be
given, among other things, to alternative management approaches for multi-country cooperation,
besides the traditional model for implementation... ". UNDP, IDRC and the three riparian
countries have since engaged in extensive consultations on a coordinated Dnieper basin-wide
programme implementation and management structure. As a result, the GEF project has been fully
integrated with ongoing and planned IDRC-EMDU Dnieper activities under the umbrella of the
jointly funded UNDP-IDRC Dnieper Basin Environment Programme (DBEP). IDRC has taken
responsibility for selected components of the UNDP-GEF project in which they bring comparative
advantages. Both organizations are represented on the Project Steering Committee. This
cooperation has also enabled IDRC to leverage additional Dnieper funding through CIDA.
Canada also requested that the project feature an "agreed approach among participating countries
in the region toward capacity building for sustainable management of the basin". Objective 7 of
the project includes a number of capacity building activities which have been prepared in
consultation with the governments, particularly in the areas of river basin monitoring and basin-
wide information management
Ukraine: The Ukrainian government had stated that it "hopes that cooperation with IDRC on this
very important project will proceed"; this has been fully accomplished as stated above and
described in detail in the project document.
Finland: Finland Council member had noted that a statement in project brief that "current
investment priorities in the region may be on things other than environmental concerns" should be
considered a potential risk, especially with regard to sustainability of outputs. This comment is
acknowledged and reflected in Section VI-3, Risks (p.38). Finland also requested "to see a
strengthened role of the riparian states in the Task Force"; senior officials from the environmental
ministries in each country are represented on both the DBEP Steering Committee and the more
operational `Joint Management Committee'. In addition, the role of the states in the project has
been further strengthened through the creation of interministerial National Project Management
Commitees (involved in the preparation of National Action Plans) and the broadly represented
Dnieper Basin Regional Council.
represents one activity designed to facilitate such sustainability. The project also features a
number of training and capacity building activities, including supporting a Deputy Project
Manager recruited from one of the three countries, with the expectation that the latter would
assume a similar, more long-term post if a permanent body was established
United Kingdom: The United Kingdom Council Member requested some clarification
on the incremental cost estimates for the project. The descriptive text for the
Incremental Cost Analysis (Annex 1 in the brief) was not included in the original
submission to the Council intersessional; this is included as Annex X to the project
document and includes all the country and other donor data used in the estimation of
the baseline.
Ivory Coast, Turkey and Zimbabwe all commented favorably with no requests for
modification or clarification.
UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME
Regional Project with participation from the governments of:
Belarus, Russian Federation, Ukraine
Project Budget Number:
Summary of UNDP and Cost-Sharing
RER/99/G31/A/1G/31
UNDP:
Current Previous Change
Project Title:
TRAC (1,2,3)
Preparation of a Strategic Action Programme
Other (GEF)
$6,451,816
(SAP) for the Dnieper River Basin and
Regional Program
Development of SAP Implementation
Mechanisms
Cost Sharing:
Government
Project Short Title:
Financial Inst.
Dnieper Basin Environment Programme
(DBEP)
AOS:
Executing Agent:
SOF 03 (TRAC)
PPRR
$96,360
UNOPS with IDRC
Other (GEF)
$451,824
Implementing Agent:
UNOPS
Sub Total:
$7,000,000
GEF Implementing Agency:
UNDP
Parallel Financing:
Project site:
Kyiv, Ukraine
IDRC
$1,675,000
UNDP
$980,000
Beneficiary Countries:
Russia
$100,000
Belarus, Russian Federation, Ukraine
Ukraine
$4,200,000
Estimated Start Date: December 1999
Belarus
$300,000
Estimated End Date: December 2002
GRAND TOTAL
$14,255,000
HQ PAC Approval Date: 12 October 1999
Programme Officer: Christopher Briggs, GEF Regional Coordinator, RBEC
Classification Information
ACC sector & sub-sector
Primary type of intervention
0400 Natural resources
0410 Water resources planning and development
DCAS sector &sub-sector
Secondary type of intervention
Primary area of focus/ sub-focus
Primary target beneficiaries
Secondary area of focus/ sub-focus
Secondary target beneficiaries
formulation, review and endorsement process of a Strategic Action Programme; (3) Improve
financial/legal/operational mechanisms for pollution reduction and sustainable resource use; (4) Formulation of
National Action Plans by Inter-ministerial Committees; (5) Improve 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; and (7) Build capacity for SAP implementation.
This project is part of the GEF Black Sea Basin Strategic Approach. The Dnieper Project is to be executed by
UNOPS, with full involvement of specialised UN Agencies where appropriate and with the International
Development Research Centre (Canada) acting as partners for the execution of specific components. The partnership
with IDRC facilitates continuity with on-going projects in the region and greater leverage of donor funds.
This project document represents the UNDP-GEF contribution to the Dnieper Basin Environment Programme and
encompasses the activities of other organisations contracted to UNDP for the purpose of its execution. The total
project budget is US$7,000,000.
On behalf of the
Signature
Date
Name/Title
Governments of:
Belarus
___________
_____
__________________
__________________
Russian Federation
___________
_____
__________________
__________________
Ukraine
___________
_____
__________________
__________________
On behalf of:
UNDP GEF
___________
_____
__________________
__________________
UNOPS
___________
_____
__________________
__________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
CONTEXT
A. Description of the Region and the Sub-sector
5
B. Host Country Strategies
6
C. Prior and on-going Assistance directed at the same Sub-Sector
7
D. Institutional Framework
8
II
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
A. The problem to be addressed: The present situation
9
1. The need for a Regional Environmental Programme
9
2. The framework for the revised Dnieper Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis
12
a) Information gaps and uncertainties
12
b) Root causes of identified problems
12
c) Priority areas of future interventions
13
3. The Strategic Action Programme
13
B. End of project situation
14
C. Target beneficiaries
16
D. Project strategy and institutional arrangements
17
1. Strategy
17
2. Sustainability
18
a) Sectoral commitment
18
b) Financial sustainability
19
E. Reasons for UNDP Assistance
19
F. Special considerations
20
G. Counterpart support capacity
20
III
DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE
21
IV.
IMMEDIATE COMPONENTS, OBJECTIVES, OUTPUTS AND ACTIVITIES
21
Component I
Project Co-ordination
22
Objective 1
Create a transboundary management regime
and co-ordinating body
22
Component II.
The Strategic Action Programme Process
24
Objective 2.
Assist countries in SAP formulation, review and
endorsement process
24
Objective 4.
Formulation of National Action Plans by Inter-ministerial
Committees
26
Objective 7.
Build capacity for SAP implementation
27
Component III.
Facilitating investment in reducing transboundary pollution
28
Objective 3.
Improve financial/legal/operational mechanisms for
pollution reduction and sustainable resource use
28
V.
INPUTS
35
A. Government Inputs
35
B. GEF Inputs
36
C. UNDP Inputs
36
D. IDRC Inputs
36
E. UNIDO Inputs
37
F. UN-ECE Inputs
38
G. IAEA Inputs
38
VI.
RISKS
38
VII.
PRIOR OBLIGATIONS AND PREREQUISITES
39
VIII.
INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK, CO-ORDINATION AND ADMINISTRATION
A. Institutional Arrangements
40
1. Regional Institutions
40
2. National Institutions
41
3. Project Implementation
43
B. Co-ordination arrangements
43
IX.
PROJECT REVIEWS, REPORTING AND EVALUATION
43
X.
LEGAL CONTEXT
44
XI.
BUDGET
45
A. Budget lines
45
B. Budget description and abbreviated terms of reference
47
ANNEX I
Terms of Reference DBEP PMU and job descriptions for the PMU staff
50
ANNEX II
Organigram of the structure for governance, co-ordination and implementation 55
ANNEX III
Terms of Reference for National Project Management Committees, Steering
Committee, Dnieper Regional Council, Joint Management Committee,
National Focal Points, Activity Centres.
56
ANNEX IV
Terms of reference for the Working Groups
60
ANNEX V
Details of project components to be executed by IDRC
66
ANNEX VI
Details of project components to be executed by UNIDO and IAEA
83
ANNEX VII
Comparative advantage of IDRC for the execution of specific project
Components
87
ANNEX VIII Role and background of UNIDO
90
ANNEX IX
Acronyms/Abbreviations
93
ANNEX X
GEF Incremental Cost Analysis and Matrix
95
I. CONTEXT
A. Description of the Region and the sub-sector
The Dnieper River is the third largest in Europe (after the Volga and the Danube). It drains an area of
509,000 square kilometres and has a total length of 2,200km. The Dnieper is also the second largest river
emptying into the Black Sea. It is a transboundary system: 20% of the river basin is within the territory of
the Russian Federation, 23% in Belarus and the largest portion, 55%, is in Ukraine. The river has a
number of tributaries that cross the boundaries of the three republics: the rivers Berezina, Pripyat, Desna,
Psel, Vorska, and the Inhulets. Despite the large proportion of the basin within Ukraine, over 84% (44.8
km3) of the water flowing down the river originates from Russia and Belarus. The significance of the river
extends beyond its riparian states as it empties into an enclosed international body of water, the Black Sea,
shared between six countries (Bulgaria, Georgia, Romania, Russia, Turkey, and Ukraine).
About 33 million people live in the Dnieper basin, 22 million of who live in Ukraine. Ukraine may be
considered a "water poor" country and the river suffers heavy abstractions for industry, agriculture and
domestic purposes. Of the 44.8 km3 of water crossing the border into Ukraine, only 8.5 km3 are discharged
into the Black Sea. 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. Furthermore, the tributaries drain
significant industrial and residential centres in Belarus, Ukraine and Russia, creating a vastly complex
river-system of high economic, social and environmental value. Highly altered by a long series of
reservoirs, the Dnieper is no longer 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 socio-economic damage on
a region-wide scale. Eight of the fifteen operating nuclear reactors in Ukraine lie within the Dnieper
drainage. Apart from Chernobyl on the Pripyat River, there are an additional six reactors in the
Zaporozhskaya atomic energy station on the mid reaches of the Dnieper itself. Extensive forest and
wetland reclamation for agricultural development and large urban populations with insufficient 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.
The Dnieper basin has been described as a "classic example of unsustainable development" due to the past
legacy of trying to convert a traditionally agricultural region into a major industrial one in the space of a
few decades. The situation has been complicated by the extreme social and economic difficulties all three
riparian countries are facing in the transition to market economies. In the Dnieper Basin, this combination
of circumstances has resulted in:
· a high industrial density and urban population;
· intensively farmed areas with a history of over-fertilisation (to compensate for the loss of
agricultural land due to urban, mining and industrial development) but with little current use of
agrochemicals but severe erosion and falling productivity;
· industrial accidents, the most notorious being the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster which led to
the contamination of vast areas of eastern and northern Europe with radioactive fall-out;
· frequent accidental spills of contaminated wastewater into the river, and on occasions, into the
drinking water system; and
· treatment or partial treatment of only 45% of wastewaters.
For the river itself, the above situation has resulted in severe deterioration of its quality. There are often
high concentrations of nutrients, BOD, bacteria, heavy metals and toxic organic contaminants, which
result in a water quality classification of "poor" to "unacceptable". The presence of many dams has
resulted in the accumulation and frequent resuspension of highly contaminated sediments and their
transport downstream; and the development of nuisance algal blooms and their consequent production of
toxins, anoxia and massive fish kills. In the case of the Chernobyl accident, large quantities of radioactive
caesium were deposited into the sediments of the reservoirs (most notably the
Kievskoy Moriye reservoir
close to Kyiv) leading to a significant risk of exposure to radioactivity, both locally and downstream in the
Black Sea.
For the natural environment and its human population, the consequences of the deterioration of the
Dnieper are considerable. The absence of reliable supplies of safe drinking water is one of the more
obvious consequences. Less obvious is the threat to other species and their habitats. For example, 69 of
the 164 animal species in the Ukrainian Red Data Book (of endangered species) inhabit the Dnieper Basin,
5 of the fish within the Dnieper itself. The integrity of the Dnieper wetlands is particularly important for
the conservation of these species.
Many of the consequences of the environmental degradation in the Dnieper basin are transboundary in
nature. The break-up of the former Soviet Union resulted in new societal divisions and different economic
and political objectives and strategies amongst the newly independent riparian states. As mentioned
earlier, the Dnieper also discharges to the Black Sea and from there to the Mediterranean. The present
project focuses on the transboundary aspects of management of this system within the framework of the
GEF International Waters Focal Area.
B. Host country strategies
The three riparian countries have expressed their commitment to the protection of the Dnieper Basin in a
number of programmes and projects. Each country has special government structures for environmental
protection namely:
· Belarus: Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection;
· Russia: State Committee on Environmental Protection;
· Ukraine: Ministry of the Environment and Nuclear safety
In addition to these structures, there are complex arrays of other government agencies which have special
responsibilities related to the aquatic environment such as the Hydro-meteorological services, Ministries
have additionally prepared draft national strategies to further the development of the Strategic Action Plan
formulation process. Ukraine and Russia already have an inter-governmental agreement regarding
cooperation in the management of shared transboundary watercourses such as the Dnieper, and Russia
and Belarus are presently formulating a similar agreement.
Other stakeholders in each of the countries are organising themselves in a way that permits a more
concerted approach towards participation in environmental management initiatives. Both Russia and
Ukraine will shortly be the sites of Regional Environmental Centres. These initiatives, with considerable
donor support, will support the work of Non Governmental Organisations including those pertaining to the
private sector. It is hoped that the interests of NGOs in Belarus can also be supported in a similar manner
in the near future.
On 1 July 1996 in Helsinki, the three Ministers of Environment (Belarus, Russia, Ukraine) signed a letter
expressing their intention to provide resources and participate equally in the development of a project for
the Dnieper environment. This was a clear statement of commitment by the governments of the region and
shows the intention of working together towards clearly defined common goals.
C. Prior and on-going Assistance directed at the same Sub-Sector
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. As a result, a PDF-B grant was made with UNDP as the implementing agency and signed on 23
March 1996 (RER/95/G42/A/1G/31). The first Task Force meeting for planning the work was held in July
1996 in Kyiv. This meeting, together with the establishment of a Project Co-ordinating Council, marked
the start of data compilation for the Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis of the Dnieper.
The Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) was the main outcome of the PDF-B funding. It was
completed with the support of the previously cited Project Task Force. This consisted of three Chief
National Experts, six experts from all three countries and an international expert assigned by the United
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). By a decision of the Project Co-ordinating Council in January
22-23, 1997, it was agreed to submit the TDA in two parts: (1) A Tri-national Integrated Report,
representing a regional overview of the environmental issues facing the three riparian countries. The 122
page report was compiled in Russian with an English translation at the Ukrainian Scientific Centre for
water Protection, in Kharkiv (January-March, 1997). (2) The 50 page Synthesis Report, presenting an
executive summary, rationale for the subsequent GEF project and highlights of the integrated report,
which was prepared by the UNEP expert, working from the Canada Centre for Inland Waters, Burlington,
Canada, February-March, 1997.
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:
the auspices of its Office for Central and Eastern Europe Initiatives. Early in 1994, OCEEI started a 4.8
million CAD program funded by the Canadian Government entitled Environmental Management
Development in Ukraine (EMDU). The suite of activities focussed on the rehabilitation of the
Dnieper
River Basin and pursued a multi-disciplinary approach to environmental management capacity building in
relevant Ukrainian ministries, research and educational institutions, and
NGOs. Phase 2 is managing 4.2
million CAD from CIDA and is slated to run through 2000. The goal of the second phase continues to be
to support and to strengthen environmental reforms in Ukrainian institutions and industry and to heighten
environmental education and awareness among scientists, decision-makers, and the general population.
Objectives are to provide aid to the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Nuclear Safety and other
government agencies, research institutes, industry, and NGOs working on environmental issues, and
identify and overcome impediments to better environmental protection activities by building up
technological, organisational, regulatory, methodological, and managerial preconditions for improved
efficiency of municipal utilities and cleaner production in the Ukrainian industrial complex. The
Programme also fosters linkages between standards and activities at the national level and their
application at the local and industrial levels.
The above initiatives represent the most significant activities in support of the transboundary Dnieper
Basin environment. However, there are a large number of national bilateral assistance projects that have a
direct impact on the ultimate success of the regional programme. Amongst these, it is worth noting: (1) the
work of the International Atomic Energy Agency, largely focussed on the issue of monitoring remedial
action following the Chernobyl catastrophe; (2) the work of the Swedish International Development Aid
in improved management and operation of the Dnieper reservoirs; (3) the projects of GEF within the
Biological Diversity Focal Area (World Bank Portfolio for Ukraine); (4) projects designed to support the
integration of Regional Environmental Centres in Russia and Ukraine (largely through funding from EU-
Tacis and US-AID); (5) wetlands protection and restoration projects, inter-alia by Wetlands International
and the UK Darwin Initiative.
At the multi-country level, the GEF Implementing Agencies have developed a Black Sea Basin Strategy
that offers better co-ordination of the International Waters projects within the 17-country Black Sea Basin
to achieve the goals defined by the GEF International Waters Operational Programme. The projects within
this strategy currently include the Danube Basin Project (from 1992), the Black Sea Project (1993), the
Danube Delta project (1994) and the present Dnieper Basin project. Currently Ukraine is a beneficiary of
all four of these projects and Russia of one of them (the Black Sea). Belarus has not previously received
assistance as part of this co-ordinated approach. In most cases, the GEF projects are part of wider multi-
donor programmes. The main co-lateral donor in the case of the Danube and Black Sea has been the
European Union through its Phare and Tacis programmes.
D. Institutional Framework
There is currently no common institutional framework for co-ordinated actions on the Dnieper by the
riparian countries. As described in Section I.B. the countries each have government agencies responsible
the Dnieper emphasises the need for a new transboundary institutional framework. It recommends the
establishment of an "International Joint Commission for the Dnieper Basin". It suggests that countries
should subscribe to "appropriate international agreements" and establish a co-ordinating body that takes
advantage of the know-how and experience from other successful environmental rehabilitation projects in
river basins elsewhere.
Establishment of an international co-ordinating body is one of the keys to sustainability of the current
project but is a process that should be initiated by the riparian countries themselves without outside
interference. The relationship between the present project and this anticipated development will be
described in a later section.
II
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
A. The problem to be addressed: The present situation
1. The need for a Regional Environmental Programme
As indicated in Section I. A., the Dnieper Basin may be considered to be suffering severe environmental
degradation. There are large arrays of problems, often antagonistic, which contribute to this situation and
are symptomatic of a legacy of unsustainable development. Many of these are described in detail in the
existing Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis. Their complete solution will require a profound reform in
the pattern of usage of natural resources with a move to increased productivity for decreased resource use
characteristic of those market economies which place a high value on conserving the natural environment.
The present proposal however, focuses on one aspect of the problem, the transboundary management of
the river basin with the objective of protecting international waters regionally and globally. It is necessary
to recognise those problems which must be resolved by national efforts (using bilateral assistance where
appropriate) and result in benefits for the individual country concerned, and those for which additional
assistance will be needed and which benefit the entire region of the downstream countries in the Black Sea
and beyond. The GEF is an appropriate mechanism for addressing these additional (or "incremental")
costs but, by working closely with other donors, it will be possible to lever a broader base of funding
which will assist countries to resolve the strictly national "baseline" problems upon which the
"incremental" costs are built. The present section will focus on the need for the regional programme from
the perspective of the GEF International Waters Focal Area.
The existing TDA highlights the following transboundary issues in the Dnieper Basin:
Transboundary problems within the basin
1. All three zones of the basin are heavily industrialised and urbanised, with large areas of intensive
agriculture characterised by overuse of fertilisers and pesticides1.
2. Over 200 million cubic metres of inadequately treated wastewater heavily polluted by BOD, oil
products, ammonia, heavy metals, and suspended solids are carried annually from the Russian
and over 1,000 tons of heavy metals. All these loadings result in water concentrations that exceed the
maximum allowable concentrations (MAC) the government has set by 100% to 1,900%, with resultant
threats to the Dnieper ecosystem and public health.
4. Radioactive sediments from the Chernobyl fall-out are carried by tributaries downstream and
accumulate in the large reservoirs of the region.
5. The Dnieper reservoirs are at an advanced stage of the eutrophication process and experience frequent
periods of heavy blooms of toxic blue-green algae, which result in severe oxygen deficiencies in the
water.
Transboundary problems affecting the Black Sea (and beyond)
6. The Dnieper carries into the Black Sea 99,640 tons of BOD, 86 tons of phenols, 1,305 tons of oil
products, over 20,000 tons of nitrogen (as ammonia, nitrate and nitrite) and similar amounts of heavy
metals (iron, copper, zinc and chromium). All of these pollutants exceed the MAC.
7. The high input of nutrients from the Dnieper is accelerating the eutrophication process in the Black
Sea and, as a result, degradation of bottom-dwelling fauna due to frequent periods of oxygen
deficiency.
8. Rapidly increasing salinity of the seawater2 as a result of reduced flows from the Dnieper
(unsustainable water consumption by industries and irrigation systems in the highly developed Lower
Dnieper area) endangers indigenous fish and shellfish populations.
9. Exotic species of blue-green algae are transported by the Dnieper from the Kakhov Reservoir, creating
heavy nuisance blooms in the near-shore areas and on the beaches.
Protection of biological diversity3
10. *Forestation of the Upper Dnieper Basin has fallen to only 25% of the total area, from 75-80% a
century ago. Urban and industrial areas have grown rapidly.
11. In the Pripyat River Basin (a tributary of the Dnieper) large-scale land drainage operations designed
to provide new arable soil extend to 20-50% of the area .
12. *The most vulnerable biota are found in the forest and steppe communities, many of which are
expected to continue towards extinction. The pattern of distribution of plant species and the structure
of forests have also changed significantly.
13. *Unsustainable industrial and agricultural developments devastated the region. Open pit mines, non-
mineral quarries, solid waste and abandoned military sites now dominate the landscape of Zone 1
(Russia and Belarus).
14. Many animal and fish species are endangered or have become extinct in both the Dnieper and Black
Sea coastal areas.
15. *The diversity and productivity of meadowland species is decreasing at an alarming rate.
16. In drained areas, eutrophic swamps have been replaced by weed grasses,
17. *In Ukraine, only 4.8% of the total area is protected under nature reserves. The steppe zone is the least
protected.
18. *Use of meadows as pastures has further reduced biodiversity in the whole basin.
Implications to human health in the basin4
19. 33 million people drink water from the Dnieper, its reservoirs and tributaries; the river is the main
source of drinking water for the region.
20. The health of the human population has been adversely affected by many environmental factors.
Impacts in Zone 1 are primarily due to radioactive fall-out from the Chernobyl accident in 1986. Since
then the mortality rate increased by 15%, mostly due to thyroid cancer.
21. Average life expectancy is 68 years one of the lowest in Europe.
22. 40% of drinking water extraction sites in Zone 1 do not meet quality requirements.
23. In Zone 2, frequent disruptions in water treatment operations, poor sanitary conditions near the intakes
or in the plants, and ineffective disinfection are common. Drinking water after treatment often does
not meet the standards.
24. The most frequent water contaminants are oil products, phenols, organic compounds, pesticides,
heavy metals and pathogenic bacteria.
25. The poor quality of drinking water poses a constant threat of large-scale outbreaks of epidemics: In
1994 alone, 1527 cases of cholera, 845 cases of viral hepatitis A, and 1527 cases of enteric fever were
reported.
Institutional problems
26. The current economic recession and loss of government revenues has resulted in drastically
diminished funding of central and regional governments, universities and Academy of Science
laboratories. Many environmental research projects have been halted or became inactive because of
the lack of funding.
27. Monitoring programmes on the Dnieper and its tributaries have been disrupted for the same reason.
There are serious gaps in the monitoring database.
28. Laboratory equipment with none or an extremely limited replacement rate has in many instances
become obsolete and in urgent need of upgrading. Modern, up-to-date, automated and computerised
instrumentation is beyond the reach of the institutes' budgets.
29. The level of knowledge, professional expertise, and dedication of researchers and technical support
staff is high. The issue is one therefore of rebuilding from scratch, rather than true capacity building.
30. The isolation and limited contact with the science community abroad has stunted professional
development and the incorporation of new technologies to the field.
The above issues formed the key conclusions of the TDA conducted under the PDF-B phase of the
project. Funding was insufficient to make a more comprehensive study that examined social and economic
issues and the need for a more intersectoral approach towards managing the Dnieper. This was widely
recognised however in subsequent workshops, as the preparatory process for the present project advanced.
It was clear that many problems could only be resolved by a concerted approach that brings together the
key stakeholders from all three countries, especially those engaged in diverse aspects of managing the
basin itself. Quite simply, it would not be politically realistic for any single country in the Dnieper basin to
tackle problems such as nutrient reduction without similar or complimentary actions being taken by its
neighbours.
Such an approach needs to be developed on the basis of a reliable information base and an analysis of
To summarise, 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 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."
2. The framework for the revised Dnieper Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis
The TDA uses the best available verified5 scientific information. The TDA examines the state of the
environment, the root causes for its degradation and the needs for remedial and preventative actions,
including capacity building. It focuses on the transboundary issues without ignoring national concerns and
priorities. It identifies information gaps, policy distortions and institutional deficiencies. The analysis
should be cross-sectoral and examine national economic development plans, civil society (including
private sector) awareness and participation, the regulatory and institutional framework and sectoral
economic policies.
a. Information gaps and uncertainties
A major difficulty encountered during the development of the current TDA was the lack of recent
information on the state of the river and the uncertain reliability of earlier data sets. Most data on chemical
contaminants for example, is unsupported by quality assurance standards or is obtained with equipment
and techniques which are known to give very imprecise results. This can result in "false positives" for
some contaminants and the complete absence of information for others. The frequency of measurements in
recent years has been so irregular that the load calculations (tons of pollutant discharged to the Black Sea
per year) may be off by as much as an order of magnitude.
Complicating matters more, the economic situation in the Basin has led to the closure of a large number of
industrial plants and difficulties in regulating the emissions of others, particularly the mining industry.
There is a need to set up mechanisms for assessing the discharges from all point sources, linked to the
regulatory framework in each country. This data should be openly available.
At present, there is no common and accessible system for gathering and managing information on the
Dnieper system. Such a system or network needs to include data on sources, levels and effects of
pollution, ground water data, public health data, information on the river flux itself, information on land
use and the status of protected areas, and relevant social and economic data. The gathering of such data
will be a prerequisite for the application of modern river basin management methods and the analysis of
priorities for action (during the Strategic Action Programme process).
There is a clear need for revising and updating the Dnieper TDA. Such a revision should include the
development of a "State of the Dnieper" report. The TDA itself should be a concise document that can be
easily understood by policymakers. It should focus on the transboundary issues and clearly distinguish
that demonstrate and summarise, in a stepwise manner, the linkages between problems and their
underlying or 'root' causes. Uncertainties accompanying each linkage should be clearly stated. The
analysis also permits barriers to resolving the problems to be investigated.
The existing TDA does not examine the root causes of the environmental problems of the Dnieper in a
systematic manner. The completion of such an analysis will be useful as a tool for setting priorities within
the SAP. It will also help to identify all of the stakeholders that must be engaged in effective management
solutions.
The methodology required for the identification of social and economic root causes is currently being
refined as part of another GEF Project the Global International Waters Assessment. By maintaining
close links with GIWA, the analysis will be fully compatible with similar activities developed in all major
catchments world-wide and will benefit from similar analyses conducted elsewhere.
c. Priority areas of future interventions
The TDA has a specific function for the GEF International Waters Programme. It is a mechanism for
identifying priorities for subsequent GEF interventions. It will be important to distinguish carefully those
issues that can be addressed within the context of the GEF Operational Programmes when making the
final summary tables. This will facilitate the preparation of future submissions for funding. Within the
context of the Black Sea Basin Strategic Approach however, transboundary problems already recognised
as requiring interventions are the excessive discharge of plant nutrients to the sea (nitrogen and
phosphorus compounds), and the release of certain persistent contaminants, notably radionuclides, oil and
some persistent organic contaminants. The type of intervention considered as appropriate will be
determined by following the Dnieper causal chain and assessing priorities on the basis of the greatest
reduction of the transboundary contaminant per unit cost of GEF support.
3. The Strategic Action Programme
This section considers why the development of a Strategic Action Programme is an appropriate action for
improving the state of the Dnieper Basin environment and reducing the transboundary consequences of
environmental deterioration. The Strategic Action Programme (SAP) is a negotiated policy document,
endorsed at the highest level of all relevant sectors, which establishes clear priorities for action to resolve
the priority problems identified in the TDA. The SAP should carefully discern the priority transboundary
issues. The concerns should be matched with proposed sectoral interventions (policy changes, regulatory
reform, investment requirements, capacity building, public awareness development, and stakeholder
participation). The interventions should incorporate preventative and remedial actions, in keeping with
common principles underlying sustainable development, including the precautionary principle, the
polluter pays principle, the user pays principle, transparency of information and full stakeholder
participation. Care must be taken to cross-check the proposed measures against existing national and
regional environmental action plans, regional conventions and GEF interventions in other focal areas; the
intention is to build upon existing processes and agreements where possible. This approach should also
subsequently facilitate baseline identification.
B. End of project situation
The end of project situation may be summarised as follows:
1. A number of thematic reports will have been published on issues directly related to transboundary
management of the Dnieper. These will include
· a `State of the Dnieper' report based on existing information, supplemented by new studies
conducted within the scope of the Project;
· feasibility studies on the use of economic instruments (for municipal and industrial control of
transboundary pollutants);
· evaluations of improved practices for managing agricultural waste from intensive animal
husbandry;
· evaluations of the regulatory system for pollutant discharge compliance and polluter
responsibility;
· review of Environmental Impact Assessment policies and practices;
· management review of holding ponds for industrial waste;
· review of waste management guidelines and practices for nuclear facilities and disposal sites;
· an assessment of operational capacities and practices regarding the transboundary
environmental consequences of water abstraction and water returns from treatment plants;
· an assessment of Dnieper protected areas, priority ecosystems, biodiversity hot spots and the
legal, policy and institutional framework for Dnieper basin biodiversity protection;
· assessments of agricultural practices and fisheries and aquaculture in relationship to biodiversity
conservation (and the reduction of downstream transboundary impacts);
· a social and economic assessment of the effect of transboundary pollution on the basin's
population.
2. A revised and updated Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis will have been published
incorporating new information on pollution sources, levels and effects, and socio-economic
indicators of the root causes of environmental degradation in the region.
3. An analysis will have been made of the options for improving the transboundary Dnieper
Environment. These will include the identification of gaps in existing institutional capacity; ways
of improving stakeholder participation; identification of necessary investments for eliminating
transboundary pollution `hot spots'; feasibility studies for the use of new economic instruments;
options for improving laws, regulations, licensing and enforcement systems; recommended
improvements in practices for reducing waste discharges with transboundary consequences;
recommended reforms in the application and conduct of environmental impact assessments;
options for reforms for biodiversity protection (including agricultural and fisheries reforms).
4. A regional strategy for protecting key habitats and species in the Dnieper Basin (including the
identification of prioritised investment projects to protect wetlands important for biological
diversity and for limiting the discharge of contaminants, including nutrients, to the Black Sea).
5. A Strategic Action Programme will have been endorsed at the Cabinet level in all three
countries. This should detail a series of legal, policy and institutional reforms, investments and
Management Committee to regularly oversee project management, and a fully functional
Programme Management Unit for the day-to-day co-ordination of the project. National
administration will include National Project Management Committees and National Project
Management Offices.
8. The three countries shall have established a number of thematic activity centres which share roles
coordinating training, information exchange and capacity building in support of the SAP process
(at least one in each country).
9. The three countries will have a functioning Dnieper Regional Council to include representatives
of all Dnieper Oblasts, representatives of relevant ministries, the project implementation unit and
various representatives from the civil society including scientific institutions, private sector and
NGO representatives. The Council shall have specific functions assigned by the SAP and shall
meet at least annually.
10. Sufficient institutions will have been provided with equipment and training in order to monitor
the state of the Dnieper environment and the effectiveness of the implementation of the SAP.
11. A regional Dnieper River Basin environmental database will have been created with on-line user
capacities.
12. Pilot projects will have been completed in:
· the use of economic instruments in municipal and industrial pollution control and reduction;
· management of industrial waste from intensive animal husbandry.
13. A Priority Investment Portfolio will have been prepared and pre-feasibility studies completed.
This, together with the SAP, may lead to the identification of subsequent GEF interventions in
the form of investments addressing transboundary priorities.
14. A Donor Conference will have been held in which donors were identified for the SAP baseline
and the Priority Investment Portfolio priority activities.
15. Countries shall be at an advanced stage of implementation of the co-ordination/co-operation
principles stipulated by the UN/ECE Helsinki Convention on Transboundary Water Bodies.
16. The Project should have made a substantial contribution toward the dissemination of information
to all stakeholders, including the general public regarding the state of the Dnieper, the options
for improving the situation, the rights and responsibilities of the public for participation in the
solutions and the decisions of governments for approving and implementing the SAP and
NAPs.
The means for achieving this will have been through electronic postings (
World-Wide Web) and
improved internet access (practical support to selected stakeholders), the publication and wide
dissemination of a jargon-free accessible version of the TDA/SAP in local languages, newsletters
published by the project and by NGOs and regular stakeholder consultations.
17. A successful public awareness and environmental education campaign should have been
completed which, in a addition to the information mentioned above, should have resulted in
participatory regional events reported in the local media and in the development of environmental
curricula in schools in the Basin.
18. The NGOs and other community-based organisations in the region should have developed a
deeper involvement in transboundary Dnieper environmental issues, as evidenced by the
formation of an active network (meeting twice annually) and the successful completion of
specific small-scale project activities related to the rehabilitation and improved transboundary
C. Target beneficiaries
The primary target beneficiary of this project is the population of all three Dnieper countries, in particular
the population which lives in the Dnieper Basin. The Basin population should benefit from a more active
role in the management of the Dnieper Basin and from the implementation of a co-ordinated programme
of improved policies, regulatory tools and investments for improving its management. These in turn, are
expected to lead to improved water quality, rehabilitation of the renewable natural resources of the River,
protection of its biological diversity and protection of human health. It should provide better opportunities
to present and future generations to use the Basin environment in a sustainable manner and to develop a
sounder basis for economic development. Populations in the coastal zone of the neighbouring Black Sea
should also benefit from major economic, social and ecological benefits of the decrease in eutrophication
and chemical pollution of the Sea.
In the short-term, governments and institutions will benefit from institutional strengthening as a result of
networking, training programmes and the provision of key items of equipment and in particular from the
development of NAPs. Proper environmental assessments and pre-investment studies should facilitate the
release of vital credits for improving waste management and for stimulating the development of key
sectors.
The direct recipients of the project objectives will be:
· Governments of the region;
· National Focal Points;
· Regional scientific and technical organisations concerned with environmental quality and
management/rehabilitation of natural resources;
· National, local and municipal governments in co-operating countries;
· Technical organisations, universities, research institutes and private sector
· organisations (tourism, agriculture, fisheries, oil and gas industry,
· environmental consultancy firms, etc. in coastal states; and
· Non-governmental organisations and community-based organisations, including schools,
concerned with environmental protection and sustainable development.
The target beneficiaries will be:
· the resident population of the Dnieper Basin who will benefit from improved water quality and
supply, enhanced fishery resources, recreational opportunities and strengthened protection and
management of natural habitats;
· the coastal population of the Black Sea who will benefit from improved fisheries, tourism,
recreational opportunities, and ecosystem and public health; and
· future generations of the human population both within and beyond region who will benefit from
the opportunities created by the conservation of biodiversity in the region - the present project
enables the present generations to respect the rights of future ones instead of transferring the
D. Project strategy and institutional arrangements
1. Strategy
The project strategy closely follows that described in the GEF International Waters Operational Strategy
6.
For the projects destined for Operational Programmes 8 and 9 (Waterbody based operational programme
and, Integrated land and water multiple focal area programme), the first step is one of joint fact-finding
through a mechanism called the Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA). The TDA uses the best
available verified7 scientific information. It examines the state of the environment, the root causes for its
degradation and the needs for remedial and preventative actions, including capacity building. It focuses on
the transboundary issues without ignoring national concerns and priorities. It identifies information gaps,
policy distortions and institutional deficiencies. The analysis should be cross-sectoral and examine
national economic development plans, civil society (including private sector) awareness and participation,
the regulatory and institutional framework and sectoral economic policies. Though a first version of the
TDA was prepared during the PDF-B phase of the project, it is necessary to deepen the analysis and to
obtain new data on the state of the Dnieper environment in order to apply the results to the improved
management of the system.
Having agreed on the current information base, the next step is to develop and negotiate a Strategic Action
Programme (SAP). This is a negotiated policy document, endorsed at the highest level of all relevant
sectors, which establishes clear priorities for action to resolve the priority problems identified in the TDA.
The SAP should carefully discern the priority transboundary issues. The concerns should be matched with
proposed sectoral interventions (policy changes, regulatory reform, investment requirements, capacity
building, public awareness development, stakeholder participation). The interventions should incorporate
preventative and remedial actions, in keeping with common principles underlying sustainable
development, including the precautionary principle, the polluter pays principle, the user pays principle,
transparency of information and full stakeholder participation. Care will be taken to cross-check the
proposed measures against existing national and regional environmental action plans, regional
conventions and GEF interventions in other focal areas; the intention is to build upon existing processes
and agreements where possible. This approach should also subsequently facilitate baseline identification.
In the case of the Dnieper Basin, the strategy will involve the necessary building of an institutional
capacity for joint assessment and management of the river and its catchment area. The emphasis
throughout the project will be on the optimal use of existing national institutions and skills. The use of
foreign consultants will be reduced to a necessary minimum and their work will be focused on transferring
skills which are currently lacking in the region or for updating local specialists in the use of new
techniques, equipment or policy tools. The current project uses a blend of specialised international
agencies in order to provide the most cost-effect technical support to the riparian countries (see section F.
below).
6 According to the GEF Operational Strategy6, "the overall strategic thrust of GEF-funded international waters
The project strategy will identify incremental costs for possible subsequent GEF interventions as well as
assisting the countries to lever financial support for "baseline" actions (necessary national investments or
policy changes upon which the GEF support may be built).
In the context of the current GEF International Waters Portfolio, this project will be a component of the
Black Sea Basin Initiative, which consists of a co-ordinated array of projects within the Black Sea Basin,
an area with a population of over 160 million people living in 17 countries. The protection of the Black
Sea is one of the objectives of each of these component projects. For this to happen, particular attention
will be paid to the control of excessive discharges of nitrogen and phosphorus compounds which have
contributed to the demise of the Black Sea ecosystem, and to the control of all other persistent pollutants
that damage the integrity of the marine ecosystems in the Black Sea and beyond and threaten human
health throughout the Basin.
2. Sustainability
a. Sectoral commitment
Sustainability has been a major issue throughout the project development phase. The project objectives
and strategy have been carefully developed to take into account the social and economic realities of the
riparian countries of the Dnieper. There have been a number of consultations with all relevant parties,
particularly on the institutional arrangements and their longer-term sustainability. Final
multi-party
consultations were held in Kyiv in February 1999, under the auspices of UNDP, followed by a series of
IDRC missions to all three countries to assess the level of commitment and to clarify any remaining
misunderstandings.
It is clear that the strategy agreed and presented within the present document requires a long-term
commitment by the countries of the region to establish new institutional structures and to maintain them
following the closure of the project. It also requires that the SAP sets realistic goals that can be attained
without long term donor assistance. The countries have agreed in writing to the institutional structure
presented in this document. The structure itself builds on existing mechanisms where possible and on
maintaining a consensus between all stakeholders throughout the process of developing the SAP.
There is little difficulty to build a consensus between similar sectors in the three countries. The real
challenge is to build a consensus across sectors. For this purpose, it is necessary to establish common
environmental objectives and practical goals for achieving them. The process starts with the common
objectives (it has already started with the creation of the Project Brief itself). Agreement moves by small
steps within the comprehension of the Parties but which mesh together in their movement towards a
common objective. Thus there will be important discussions on methodologies, standards, data
distribution in order to create the information necessary for politicians and the public in general to make
necessary management choices for attaining each goal. The concept of choices is important to develop -
each option is associated with an uncertainty that, unlike past practice, must be properly and transparently
explained.
structure, which could potentially evolve into a permanent Dnieper Commission. It offers a unique
mechanism for involving all stakeholders from the basin in a single forum.
The various functional bodies established through the project are country-driven and require minimal
donor support. They are designed to be "exported" into any permanent mechanism established by the time
of conclusion of the current project, ensuring the best possible chance of sustainability.
All project activities involving western consultants are designed as partnerships between national
organisations and their western counterparts. This is done with the specific objective of transferring
information, knowledge and skills that can be applied long after the project itself has terminated
b. Financial sustainability
This is one of the most difficult aspects of project design and implementation. The economic situation of
the beneficiary countries is currently very poor and much public funding is necessarily directed towards
maintaining essential services, servicing existing debts, etc. Funding for the environmental sector is rather
limited and countries have had difficulties addressing existing international commitments (for example,
thus far, they have been unable to sustain their commitments towards the Black Sea programme). The
central importance of the Dnieper basin towards the economy of Ukraine, Belarus and one district of
Russia however, is such that action to protect this river system is practically a pre-requisite for economic
development. There is reason to believe that the "baseline
8" course is one that will be energetically
pursued by the riparian countries.
The project places considerable emphasis on the creation of an investment portfolio for dealing with some
of the most urgent problems within the basin. The successful design of this portfolio will add considerable
weight to the financial sustainability of the project outputs. The project funding includes nearly US$1
million for the scoping and pre-investment studies necessary for the creation of the portfolio.
Disbursement of this assistance is programmed for the final year of the project in order to ensure that there
is a full engagement of all sectors in the process of identifying the investments, as well as a willingness to
borrow and ability to pay by the recipient countries.
E. Reasons for UNDP Assistance
The principal reason for UNDP involvement in this project is that this project falls under two of the key
UNDP mandates i.e. regional co-operation and environmental protection. The project, involving Belarus,
Ukraine and Russia brings the countries closer together in achieving common goals. The current project
was developed as part of the International Waters Portfolio of the UNDP-GEF. UNDP has been the lead
agency in this process from the outset.
UNDP has country offices in all three beneficiary countries. The UNDP Resident Co-ordinator in Ukraine
will act as the Principal Project Resident Representative for the duration of the project.
F. Special considerations
This project has an unusual design in that it operates on the basis of a very close partnership between
UNDP and an independent organisation, the International Development Research Centre (see Section I C
and Annex VII for a full profile). The reason for this partnership is that over the past few years, IDRC has
conducted important pioneering work in the field of institutional development and environmental
protection in the Dnieper Basin, particularly in Ukraine. As a result, it has established a strong institutional
network and has comparative technical advantages in some areas. Incorporation of IDRC will improve the
effectiveness of project implementation and reduce the start-up time for the project. Existing IDRC
infrastructure will be used for the project co-ordination unit (to be known as the Programme Management
Unit) in Kyiv. Contractually, IDRC will be incorporated in the project through a number of sub-contracts
with UNOPS, which will be described in a subsequent section of this project document.
In addition to the services of IDRC, the project will work closely with a number of UN specialised
agencies, also on the basis of comparative advantage for technical implementation. These will include
UNIDO, IAEA and UN-ECE. The function of these agencies within the project will be described in
subsequent sections of this document.
G. Counterpart support capacity
Government Commitment
The three participating countries have the commitment as well as the capacity to implement this project.
They have actively participated in the discussions during the 18 months of project preparation including
two major workshops in Kyiv and a number of working group meetings. They participated very actively in
the PDF-B phase of the project through the technical meetings and data gathering exercises that led to the
initial Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis. During this period, they have also demonstrated their strong
commitment to build their capacity to take part in the SAP preparation process and to implement joint
strategies to protect the environment in the Region.
In addition, each of the three participating countries is reviewing its legal and institutional framework for
nature conservation and control of environmental degradation and pollution. The three countries are
signatories of international conventions to protect biodiversity, international waters, wetlands, and others.
Institutional Capacities and Arrangements
The three countries have a large body of committed specialists in most of the fields necessary for the
implementation of the current project. The institutions involved however have lacked sufficient funding
for a number of years in order to be equipped to the standards required by the project, or for the staff to be
properly retrained. The governments have been very clear that the facilities of their technical institutions
will be made available for the purposes of the project a major aspect of the project will be to upgrade
their capacity with a view to efficient and effective project implementation and future sustainable
III. DEVELOPMENT 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 biological diversity in the basin.
The project will enable the implementation of a series of complementary investigative, preventative and
remedial 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 co-ordination and co-operation 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.
IV. IMMEDIATE COMPONENTS, OBJECTIVES, OUTPUTS AND
ACTIVITIES
The implementation of the project will be sub-divided into five operational components:
· Component I. Project co-ordination
· Component II. The strategic action programme process
· Component III. Facilitating investment in reducing transboundary pollution
· Component IV. Biodiversity conservation
· Component V: Improving stakeholder participation in transboundary issues
A total of seven major objectives have been defined within these areas
9 (in accordance with the objectives
approved by the GEF Council).
In order to present the relationship between the components, objectives, outputs, success criteria,
activities, lead agencies (and associated international partners), national counterparts and project
milestones, a set of tables have been compiled which form the remainder of the current section of this
document. The tables also provide indicative budgets for the implementation of the defined activities.
Abbreviations used in the tables will be found in the glossary of the project, provided as Annex IX. The
tables are designed to form the basis of management reviews to monitor the annual progress of project
implementation.
It is important to clarify that these tables concern only the GEF financed components of the Project. It is
hoped that the wider Dnieper Basin Environment Programme might build upon this approach in order to
assemble a clear overall picture of project objectives, activities, milestones and mechanisms of
implementation, including financing. A number of additional bilateral donors have expressed interest in
COMPONENT I. PROJECT CO-ORDINATION
Objective 1. Create a transboundary management regime and co-ordinating body
The first step towards creating a regional management mechanism is to establish the implementation structure for governance, co-ordination
and management of the DBEP. The agreed management arrangements will include a Steering Committee with executive functions, a Joint
Management Committee to regularly oversee project management, and a Project Management Unit for the day-to-day co-ordination of the
project. National administration will include National Project Management Committees and National Project Management Offices. Regional
Activity Centres will be established in order to co-ordinate the technical input to the project from the specialist institutions in the region.
Outputs:
Success criteria:
1. A transboundary management regime and co-ordination body for the Dnieper
· Programme Management Unit (PMU) established and operational
River Basin
· Expert groups established and working
· Activity Centres established and operational
· Steering Committee established and operational
· Dnieper Basin Environment Programme established and functional
Activities:
Lead Agencies
National counterparts
Target date for
completion
Associated Internat'l
Indicative GEF fund
Partners
allocation
Activity .1a
Establish the Project Steering Committee, Joint Management
*UNDP-GEF
NFPs
All bodies established by
Committee and National Project Management Committees.
December 1999
Activity 1b
Creation and operation of the Dnieper Basin - Programme
IDRC
Management Unit (Dnieper - PMU) to facilitate, co-ordinate, and
$900,000
communicate on the implementation of priority activities identified in
the following components.
Activity 2.
Establish international (both basin countries and external) expert
IDRC
NFPs
All WGs to be established
working groups (in line with Activity Centre themes) on monitoring,
Govt. institutions
by December 1999
reservoir safety, biodiversity/rehabilitation of ecosystems, pollution
UNDP
Academies of Science
control, etc. to provide technical support in the implementation of all
UNEP
$200,000
relevant project components.
UNIDO
Donors
Intl. NGOs
22
Activity 3.
Establish regional activity centres (1 or more per country) with
IDRC
NFPs
All ACs to be established
principal expertise(s) in selected priority areas of transboundary
by January 2000
concern (see definition and localisation in Annex IV). These activity
UNDP
centres will serve as the focal points for regional training, capacity
UNEP
$500,000
building and information exchange and SAP formulation in the
UNIDO
selected areas of expertise.
Donors
Activity 4.
Create Dnieper Regional Council to include representatives of all
IDRC
NFPs
First meeting in June
Dnieper Oblasts, representatives of relevant ministries, the project
Natl. Project Mgmt.
2000
implementation unit and various representatives from the civil society
UNDP COs
Cttees.
including scientific institutions, private sector and NGO
NGO Forum
$90,000
representatives. Co-ordinate annual meeting of the Dnieper Regional
Council.
*operational
TOTAL
responsibilities for
$1,690,000
UNDP-GEF will be
managed by UNOPS
23
COMPONENT II. THE STRATEGIC ACTION PROGRAMME PROCESS
This is one of the core elements of the project. It will identify the key transboundary issues and develop a framework of effective actions to resolve
them. The GEF intervention will identify a clear baseline for subsequent incremental cost funding at the national and regional levels and will
facilitate capacity building for SAP implementation.
Objective 2. Assist countries in SAP formulation, review and endorsement process
The preliminary elements of a SAP for the Dnieper River Basin were identified as part of the review and consultative processes occurring during
development of the draft TDA. This preparatory work will be utilised in the formulation of a SAP according to the GEF operational strategy and
programmes. The overall process will include: identification of `root causes', `hot spot' identification, priority setting, stakeholder involvement,
SAP formulation review, high level country endorsement, publication and broad dissemination.
Outputs:
Success criteria:
2. A Strategic Action Programme for the Dnieper River basin, including baseline
· TDA revised and updated
commitments by governments.
· Capacities and gaps in river basin monitoring assessed.
· Stakeholders involved fully engaged in SAP process
Intermediate outputs
· Hot spots and `root causes' identified
2a. A document detailing existing monitoring capacity in the region, identifying
· Ministerial conference held to endorse SAP
gaps and actions needed to fill gaps
· Donor and country commitments to financing SAP implementation
2b. An updated and revised Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis
· SAP broadly disseminated
Activities:
Lead Agencies
National counterparts
Target date for
completion
Associated Internat'l
Indicative GEF fund
Partners
allocation
Activity 1.
Evaluate existing monitoring capacities in basin and identify critical
UNDP
NFPs
June 2000
gaps; identify reforms and investments to fill gaps in transboundary
UNEP
Activity Centre
$50,000
monitoring.
WG
Natl. Institutions
Activity 2.
Hold experts meetings and regional workshops with all stakeholders
UNDP
NFPs
June 2000
involved (including NGOs and private business) to discuss the
IDRC
Natl. Proj. Mgmt. Cttes.
$70,000
identified `root causes' of transboundary environmental problems and
Dnieper Regional Council
to identify actions to address them in SAP.
NGOs
24
Activity 3.
Identify pollution `hot spots' (using Rapid Assessment Surveys) for
IDRC
NFPs,
June 2000
subsequent rehabilitation/investments following SAP development
UNIDO
Natl. Proj. Mgmt. Cttees,
$120,000
phase.
Activity Centre/WGs
Activity 4.
Revise, update, finalise and publish TDA (in print and on-line)
UNDP, in co-operation
Activity Centres
Dec. 2000
with UNEP (CTA to
Expert WGs
prepare TOR)
National Focal Points
PMU
Governments
IDRC, Intl. Agencies and
$150,000
NGOs
Activity 5.
Draft, review, refine and finalise SAP, including identification of
*UNDP, in co-operation
NFPs,
Oct. 2001
baseline and incremental costs. Secure near-term country
with UNEP,
Activity Centres,
commitments to financing baseline. Facilitate stakeholder
PMU
WGs,
involvement in SAP process.
*Other partners as
Natl. Proj. Mgmt.Cttees.
$90,000
appropriate
Activity 6.
Hold Ministerial Conference for SAP endorsement at highest
*UNDP,
NFPs
Nov. 2000
government level(s).
PMU
As requested by govts.
$50,000
Activity 7.
Publish (print & on-line) and broadly disseminate and publicise SAP
UNDP,
NFPs,
Feb. 2002
PMU
Natl. Proj. Mgmt. Cttees.
UNEP,
$30,000
IDRC
*The role of international agencies here is strictly one
TOTAL
of facilitation and technical advice where requested
$560,000
25
Objective 4. Formulation of National Action Plans by Inter-ministerial Committees
Activities envisaged under National Action Plans (NAPs) include assistance to the three recipient countries in the development and
implementation of the transboundary aspects 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, legal and institutional reforms, programs, technical
assistance, demonstrations and investments---that countries would be willing to commit to over a 5-10 year period. This work is seen as a cost-
sharing activity with individual governments.
Outputs:
Success criteria:
· NAP Inter-ministerial committees established and operating in each
1. National Action Plans (NAP's) formulated by Inter-ministerial Committees
country (on the basis of the Natl. Proj. Mgmt. Cttees.)
· Stakeholders involved in formulation and review of NAPs
· Three completed NAPs approved at Cabinet level.
· NAPs successfully address SAP transboundary priorities through
national actions
Activities:
Lead Agencies
National counterparts
Target date for
completion
Associated Internat'l
Indicative GEF fund
Partners
allocation
Activity 1
Constitution of NAP inter-ministerial committees. This will usually be
UNDP
NFPs,
March 2000
on the basis of the existing Natl. Proj. Mgmt. Cttees. which will have
IDRC
Natl. Proj. Mgmt. Cttees.
$25,000
increased membership for this purpose
Activity 2.
Assistance to countries in the development of NAPs
UNDP
Natl. Proj. Mgmt. Cttees.
Oct. 2001
All partners available as
Total
required
$425,000
Activity 3
Public participation/stakeholder participation in NAP development
UNDP
Natl. Proj. Mgmt. Cttees.,
June 2001
and endorsement process (by conducting consultations and a strategic
IDRC
Regional Environ.
$75,000
environmental impact assessment)
Centres,
(to be divided between the
NGOs
countries)
Activity 4.
NAP endorsement at Cabinet level
NFPs
Oct. 2001,
Counterpart funding only
*Note: The designation "Lead Agency" refers to project
TOTAL
support only. This activity will be co-ordinated by the
$525,000
NPMCs
26
Objective 7. Build capacity for SAP implementation
Implementation of the SAP will require improved generation and flow of information. The preliminary TDA has already pointed to two areas,
which represent major barriers to be overcome for the implementation of any basin-wide management policy. These are (1) the lack of credible
and comparable data on contaminant sources, levels and effects and (2) the lack of a single unified source of reliable information for management
decisions. These deficiencies have already had downstream implications on the adjacent Black Sea Environmental Programme, which also lacks
reliable information on contaminant transfers from the Dnieper River.
Outputs:
Success criteria:
· New technical and human resource capacities created in river basin
1. Enhanced capacity for SAP implementation
monitoring
· Regional environmental database developed and utilised by different
stakeholders
· Monitoring data employed for enforcing new regulations and for
regional status and trends reports
Activities:
Lead Agencies
National counterparts
Target date for
completion
Associated Internat'l
Indicative GEF fund
Partners
allocation
Activity 1
Provision of equipment to fill gaps in monitoring capacities identified
UNDP
Activity Centres,
Oct. 2000
in Activity 2.1, with focus on priority transboundary contaminants and
National institutions
$350,000
ecosystems.
Activity 2a.
Create regional Dnieper River basin environmental database with on-
UNDP,
NFPs,
2a. Dec. 2000
line user capacities (following an examination of current systems
PMU
Activity Centres,
2b. Sept. 2001
developed by UNEP-GRID, IDRC and National Institutions)
UNEP,
Working Groups,
2a. $100,000
Activity 2b.
Preparation and publication of the first "State of the Dnieper Report"
IDRC
National Institutions
2b. $200,000
(using data validated through intercomparison exercises and quality
Additional activities
assurance procedures and by conducting a pilot survey of the entire
under 2b will be co-
river)
funded by IDRC
Activity 3.
Provide training in river basin monitoring to fill gaps identified in 2 1.
UNDP
Activity Centre,
Oct 2000
National Institutions
UNEP,
$50,000
IDRC
TOTAL
$700,000
27
COMPONENT III. FACILITATING INVESTMENT IN REDUCING TRANSBOUNDARY POLLUTION
Objective 3. Improve financial/legal/operational mechanisms for pollution reduction and sustainable resource use
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, through the SAP, 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, such as nutrients, 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.
Outputs:
Success criteria:
· Priority Investment Portfolio prepared
1. Financial mechanisms for environmental management/Investment portfolio
· Feasibility studies of measures for reducing the discharge of nutrients
from animal wastes
· Legal/enforcement mechanisms reviewed
· Dnieper Programme contributes to the GEF Black Sea Basin Initiative.
· Effective implementation of new regulations limiting transboundary
discharge of contaminants (including the discharge of nutrients and
other contaminants of global significance to the Black Sea)
Activities:
Lead Agencies
National counterparts
Target date for
completion
Associated Internat'l
Indicative GEF fund
Partners
allocation
Activity 1a.
Initial workshops to examine the pollution hot spots and to identify
UNIDO,
NFPs,
1a. September 2001
those requiring investment action and to formulate priorities.
PMU
Natl. Proj. Mgmt. Cttees.,
1b. June 2002 (funding
Activity 1b.
Preparation of a Priority Investment Portfolio (PIP) including pre-
Local govts.,
will be reserved until
feasibility studies.
Private sector
approval of NAPs)
UNDP, IDRC
1a. $200,000
WB, EBRD,
1b. $1,000,000
Donors
Activity 2.
Conduct feasibility studies/pilot project(s) for use of economic
IDRC
NFPs,
June 2001
instruments in municipal and industrial pollution control and
WB,EBRD
Natl. Proj. Mgmt. Cttees.,
$100,000
reduction; link with IDRC-EMDU Environmental Audits and Green
Local govts.,
Technologies programs
Private sector
28
Activity 3.
Conduct evaluations and pilot project(s) on management of
UNIDO
NFPs,
January, 2001
agricultural waste from intensive animal husbandry (to demonstrate
UNDP
Mins. of Agriculture
$100,000
strategies for reducing nutrient and other contaminant transfers to
WB, EBRD
Oblasts
Dnieper waters)
WGs
Activity Centre
Activity 4.
Hold donor conferences at end of Dnieper full project to identify
UNDP
NFPs
June 2002
donors for SAP baseline and PIP-identified priority activities.
WB, EBRD
Mins. of Econ.
$80,000
UNDP
Local govts.
IDRC
Private sector
Donors
29
Outputs:
Success criteria:
2. Improve legal and operational mechanisms for transboundary pollution
· EIA, reservoir, nuclear facility and water treatment guidelines and
reduction
practices reviewed; reforms recommended as inputs to SAP and NAPs
Activities:
Lead Agencies
National counterparts
Target date for
completion
Associated Internat'l
Indicative GEF fund
Partners
allocation
Activity 5.
Collect and evaluate existing laws, regulations, licensing and
UNIDO
NFPs,
September 2000
enforcement systems regarding pollutant discharge, compliance, and
PMU
Natl. Proj. Mgmt. Cttees.,
polluter responsibility. Recommend reforms as inputs to SAP and
UNDP
WG
$80,000
NAPs
Activity 6.
Assess and review Environmental Impact Assessment policies and
UNIDO
NFPs,
March 2001
practices in region (and to compare with best practices outside the
PMU
Natl. Proj. Mgmt. Cttees.,
region where appropriate). Recommend reforms as inputs to SAP and
IDRC
WG
$50,000
NAPs
Activity 7.
Work towards implementation of co-ordination/co-operation
UN/ECE
NFPs,
March 2001
principles stipulated by the UN/ECE Helsinki Convention on
UNDP
Natl. Proj. Mgmt. Cttees.
$50,000
Transboundary Water Bodies; participate in Convention Technical and
CoP meetings
Activity 8.
Review and assess management policies, guidelines and practices for
UNIDO/SIDA
Activity Centre,
May 2001
managing holding ponds for industrial waste. Recommend reforms as
UNDP/IDRC
WG
$50,000
inputs to SAP and NAPs.
Note: SIDA has funded a reservoir management programme.
Activity 9.
Review and assess management guidelines and practices for nuclear
IAEA
Activity Centre,
June 2001
facilities and disposal sites with potential impacts on Dnieper basin
UNDP, UNIDO
WG
$75,000
waters. Recommend reforms as inputs to SAP and NAPs
Activity 10.
Assess operational capacities and practices regarding the
IDRC
NFPs,
June 2001
transboundary environmental consequences of water abstraction and
WB/EBRD/WHO
Natl. Proj. Mgmt. Cttees.
$75,000
water returns from treatment plants.
TOTAL
$1,860,000
30
COMPONENT IV. BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
Objective 5. Improve conservation of biodiversity in the Dnieper River Basin
Activities within this objective to protect biodiversity will review the legal and institutional 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. Particular attention will be given to preserving and enhancing the natural function of wetlands in reducing the
nutrient and contaminant loading to international waters. Information will 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. This work will be co-ordinated closely with other on-going or planned biological diversity conservation projects in
the region.
Outputs:
Success criteria:
1. Framework for enhanced capacity for conservation and protection of biological
· Published strategy for protecting key habitats and species in the Dnieper
diversity in the Dnieper Basin.
Basin.
· Published reviews of conservation implications of current Dnieper basin
agricultural, fisheries and aquaculture practices
· New conservation areas adopted by governments and appropriate
regulations introduced.
· Investment projects identified to protect wetlands important for
biological diversity and for limiting the discharge of contaminants,
including nutrients, to the Black Sea.
Activities:
Lead Agencies
National counterparts
Target date for
completion
Associated Internat'l
Indicative GEF fund
Partners
allocation
Activity 1. .
Conduct a complete assessment of existing protected areas, priority
*IDRC
NFPs
May 2000
ecosystems and biodiversity hotspots, including economic valuation
UNDP,
WG
$80,000
studies
WWF
Activity Centre
Activity 2.
Review legal, policy, institutional and regulatory framework for
*IDRC
NFPs
Sept. 2000
Dnieper basin biodiversity protection. Recommend reforms as inputs
UNDP,
WG
$60,000
to SAP and NAPs
UNEP
Activity Centre
31
Activity 3a.
Review and assess agricultural practices in relation to transboundary
*IDRC
WG
October 2000 (agric.)
biodiversity conservation (in context of pollution reduction and soil
National consultants
Jan 2001 (fish)
conservation); recommend reforms as inputs to SAP and NAPs
World Bank
Natl. Proj. Mgmt. Cttees.
$100,000
Activity 3b.
Review status of fisheries and aquaculture in the region in relationship
Black Sea and Danube
to biodiversity conservation; identify gaps and problem areas;
Secretariats
recommend reforms as inputs to SAP and NAPs.
Activity 4.
Assist countries to develop a regional strategy for protecting key
*IDRC
NFPs
Sept. 2001
habitats and species in the Dnieper Basin (including the identification
UNDP
Dnieper Regional Council
$35,000
of prioritised investment projects to protect wetlands important for
WB, EBRD
biological diversity and for limiting the discharge of contaminants,
including nutrients, to the Black Sea).
*co-operation with Wetlands International and other
TOTAL
donors, liaison with the World Bank
$275,000
32
COMPONENT V: IMPROVING STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION IN TRANSBOUNDARY ISSUES
Objective 6. Enhance communication among stakeholders and encourage public awareness and involvement in addressing the priority
transboundary problems of the Dnieper Basin.
The Dnieper SAP will require broad-based participation by the general public, private sector associations, academic and research institutions, non-
governmental organisations 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 mobilised for activities to address the above Objectives.
Outputs:
Success criteria:
· Key stakeholders identified and involved in project activities
1. Enhanced communications between stakeholders and increased public
· Project activities and recommendations and the TDA/SAP, disseminated
awareness and involvement
via Internet and in jargon-free local language publications distributed
widely.
· New stakeholder networks created
· Public awareness of Dnieper issues enhanced; Dnieper issues included
in environmental education curricula
· Dnieper-oriented NGOs in region sharing, meeting, co-ordinating and
networking
· Dnieper Small Grants program implemented
Activities:
Lead Agencies
National counterparts
Target date for
completion
Associated Internat'l
Indicative GEF fund
Partners
allocation
Activity 1.
Facilitate socio-economic assessment of the effect of transboundary
*IDRC
NFPs,
Oct. 2000
pollution on the Basin's population (based on existing materials) and
PMU
Natl. Proj. Mgmt. Cttees.,
the identification of key stakeholders
UNDP
Local consultants
$50,000
Activity 2.
Improve access and distribution of project and Dnieper basin
*IDRC
Natl. Proj. Mgmt. Cttees.
Web site Jan 2000
information through electronic postings on the World Wide Web and
PMU
Postings continuous
Internet list-servers; build linkages with IDRC-EMDU Environmental
UNDP
$50,000
Management Information System (EMIS);
UNEP-Grid
33
Activity 3.
Hold regular consultations and technical/policy workshops (1/yr) with
*IDRC
Dnieper Regional
First consultation by June
broad involvement from international agencies, national governments,
Council,
2000
research institutions, the private sector, and all interested public
UNDP,
WGs,
$120,000
organisations and NGOs
Intl. Agencies
RECs, NGOs
Activity 4.
Expand Internet access for key stakeholders through establishment of
*IDRC
Local consultants
March 2001
additional e-mail connections and Web-Services with priority for
PMU
NGOs
those without existing service
UNDP (COs)
Natl. Proj. Mgmt. Cttees.
$50,000
Activity 5a.
Collect, publish and disseminate bi-annually project and general
*IDRC
All networks
5a: First publications by
Dnieper basin news and information gathered by the project,
PMU
Feb. 2000
consultants, scientists and NGOs; also post such information on the
5b: April 2002
Internet
UNDP
$120,000
Activity 5b.
Publish and widely disseminate a jargon-free accessible version of the
All donors/agencies
TDA/SAP in local languages the material should be distributed
involved in the project
through government channels and NGOs
Activity 6.
Create public awareness and environmental education campaign
*IDRC
WG
First newsletter by Feb.
through participatory regional events publicised by popular media,
NGOs
2000
NGO newsletters, Internet postings, and school-based environmental
UNDP
Local authorities
$80,000
curricula development; develop linkages with IDRC-EMDU Policy
EU-Tacis
and Public Education component
Activity 7.
Sponsor and organise bi-annual NGO forum for NGOs to network,
*IDRC
NGOs
First meeting by March
identify priorities and responsibilities, and share data and information
2000
UNDP
$60,000
Activity 8.
Create and administer a small grants program for NGOs and
*IDRC
NGOs
First call for proposals by
community organisations to fund small-scale activities related to the
March 2000
rehabilitation and improved transboundary management of Dnieper
As requested
$200,000
river basin resources.
*co-operation with Tacis and with the RECs in Russia
TOTAL
and Ukraine and UNDP in all three countries
$730,000
34
VIII. INPUTS
A. Government Inputs
All three countries are strongly committed to the project and will provide the necessary staff time and
facilities to co-ordinate and implement the national inputs to the work. The input will include the staff
time and facilities necessary to manage the national co-ordinating mechanisms including the National
Project Management Committees. The approved Project Brief also lists the following "baseline" inputs to
the Project:
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 M UAH (approx. 218 M 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 M UAH (approx. 187 M USD)
· implementation of water protection measures on industrial enterprises under the ministries and
other central bodies of executive power - 27 M UAH (approx. 15 M USD)
· realisation of water protection measures on rivers and water bodies - 12.8 M UAH (approx. 7.1 M
USD)
· execution of water and land protection measures in the Dnieper basin - 7.6 M UAH (approx. 4.2
M USD)
· protection and development of nature reserves within the basin - 0.4 M UAH (approx. 0.2 M
USD)
· other measures on nature protection (among which State ecological monitoring, scientific-
technical support, etc.) - 7.1 M UAH (approx. 3.9 M 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 M UAH (approx. 291.5 M
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 M UAH (approx. 68 M
USD)
· Creation of the basin database in Minsk for the support of the realisation 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 M USD
Overall, in 1998 Belarus plans to spend a total of about 12.3 M 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 M USD, which includes the
expenses for the construction and evacuation of people from the radio-contaminated territories. In
addition, about 95 - 100 M USD are planned to be allocated from regional budgets, ecological funds and
enterprises over a period of 4 years.
B. GEF Inputs
The GEF has allocated a total of US$7,000,000 for the implementation of this project. The indicative time
frame for the project is three years, from approximately October 1999 to October 2002.
C. UNDP Inputs
UNDP as implementing agency for the project will continue to backstop it with its own staff members and
financing, both from headquarters and locally from the Country Offices in Kyiv, Moscow and
Minsk. In
addition to this, the GEF Project Brief has identified the following funding inputs, either from UNDP core
budgets or from other projects implemented by UNDP with a direct relevance to the current project:
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 recently opened and projects complementary to the Dnieper River
Basin programme are not yet underway.
D. IDRC Inputs
As a partner granting agency in the GEF endeavour, IDRC will take part in the management of the overall
programme, while employing its methodology in seeing through those project areas assigned to it in the
overall contract, and it is legally and otherwise capable of sub-contracting with local and outside
institutions to carry out the tasks under its purview. IDRC has been contributing and will continue to
contribute its funds to national work within the three riparian countries, and, as a partner in the GEF
Programme, will work to garner further funding from other donors and from Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine
themselves. IDRC has a good track record for levering funding in the Dnieper Basin. Early in 1994, IDRC
started a 4.8 million CAD program funded by the Canadian Government entitled Environmental
Management Development in Ukraine (EMDU). This project helped to lay the ground for the wider plan
of activities for cleaning up the Dnieper River. Indeed, IDRC co-sponsored the UNDP initial study (TDA)
of the River basin. A second phase of EMDU (budgeted at CDA 4,2 millions) started in 1998 and is due to
be completed by the end of 2000. About half a million is still uncommitted for activities, some of those
will directly affect the start-up of the Transboundary program.
Canada is currently approving an additional grant worth CDA$2 million to cover "below base line"
national activities in Belarus and Russia; those activities are directly related to the GEF project. In
addition, as in the case for Ukraine, this grant is intended to help in the start-up of the transboundary
program of activities.
E. UNIDO Inputs
service module. It also contributes to the design, implementation and assessment of environmental policy
considerations that are components of other projects, whose core is within the other 15 UNIDO service
modules.
Further details of UNIDO's inputs are included in Annex VI.
F. UN-ECE Inputs
UN-ECE has been responsible for the development of a large number of Pan-European policy and legal
agreements of direct relevance to project implementation. Of particular importance is the UN/ECE
Helsinki Convention on Transboundary Water Bodies. The Agency will provide its experience and legal
advice to the countries in the development of policies which will enable the Helsinki Convention to be
implemented in a timely and effective manner.
G. IAEA Inputs
As the specialist Agency responsible for all aspects of nuclear safety, IAEA is ideally situated to
contribute its own expertise to project implementation. IAEA has been responsible for conducting a large
number of studies regarding the aftermath of the Chernobyl accident and the safety aspects of nuclear
electric power production in the region. It will make much of that information available during its
involvement in the project and provide linkages with other activities contributing to similar aims and
objectives.
VI. RISKS
There are a number of risks associated with the implementation of this project. These may be classified
into three groups: (1) Political risks; (2) Operational risks; and (3) Economic risks. There are inevitable
linkages between the three.
(1) Political risks
Governments in many countries of the CIS have undergone frequent changes. The turnover of senior
government officials tends to be considerable with a consequent occasional hiatus in the decision making
process. It is conceivable that a policy framework approved by one regime could be rejected by another.
Furthermore, in some instances, there are legislative stalemates where the respective parliamentary
assemblies do not approve government policies (such as environmental loans). In the case of Belarus, the
ongoing negotiations on integration with Russia may result in changes in government structures and
hierarchy.
sustainability, a number of innovative environmental management groups will be created. The Dnieper
Regional Council should prove to be particularly effective in this respect as it brings a broad spectrum of
stakeholders together, covering different levels of government as well as representation from civil society.
Major political conflict between the riparian countries is not seen as a significant risk.
(2) Operational risks
Under the difficult economic conditions faced by the countries, technical institutions are often difficult to
sustain. Another GEF project in the region has recently experienced the frustration of building capacity in
a government-nominated institution that was subsequently suddenly closed. The selection process of
institutions to support within the Dnieper project will be conducted in close partnership between the
implementing agencies and the governments. Nevertheless, the risk remains that institutions cannot be
sustained. Furthermore, the low salaries available for most government employees is leading to a loss in
specialists or the need for them to seek outside employment on a part-time or full-time basis. In some
senses the project will help to give new purpose to some of the depressed institutions. It must be seen as
part of a longer-term strategy for sustainability however, rather than temporary relief.
Other types of operational risk, such as civil conflict, are not considered as significant at present.
(3) Economic risks
The state of the economy in the region is an obvious cause for concern. The major impact of further
economic collapse on the project would be through a loss of sustainability of project outputs and through
the failure of any investment portfolio to meet baseline costs. Experience with the adjacent Black Sea
project is that governments have, thus far, been unable to sustain financial commitments to the
establishment of a permanent shared institutional mechanism for joint environmental management. The
Dnieper project is more intrinsically linked with the economic interests of the riparian countries and it is
anticipated that this problem will not occur in this particular case. The situation with respect to the other
inter-related GEF projects in the region will be monitored carefully however.
In the case of the investment portfolio, the two key risks are an unwillingness to borrow funds for the
identified projects and an inability to repay any consequent loans. Such risks are always assessed carefully
before making individual loans. The funds for detailed pre-investment studies will not become available
until the third year of implementation, thus giving ample time to assess the associated risks prior to
disbursement.
VII. PRIOR OBLIGATIONS AND PREREQUISITES
VIII. INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK, CO-ORDINATION AND
ADMINISTRATION
A. Institutional arrangements
1. Regional Institutions
Steering Committee:
Membership of the Committee will be composed of a senior government official (designated National
Focal Point) from each country along with the UNDP GEF Regional Coordinator for Europe/CIS (or their
designated representatives). Members of the Joint Management Committee or other Dnieper River Basin
stakeholders may be invited to sit on the Committee as observers as and when the full members so wish.
The UNDP GEF Project Manager may also be invited to attend as an observer at the Committee's
discretion or at the request of the UNDP GEF RBEC Regional Coordinator.
The Committee will set its own operational procedures and approve its own Terms of Reference. It will
meet at least once a year and thereafter as frequently as the Committee itself deems necessary.
The Steering Committee will review the Project budget and work programmes as adopted by the Joint
Management Committee and provides feedback and policy guidance to the JMC on such matters.
The Steering Committee will function as the principal policy guidance body of the Project. The
Committee will provide guidance to the Project Management Unit (PMU) through the JMC on issues
pertaining to the regional administration of the project and to the National Project Management
Committees (NPMCs) on issues pertaining to the national administration of the Dnieper Basin
Environment Programme.
The Chairman for each Steering Committee meeting will be the Environment Minister of the host country.
Funding for Steering Committee business will be covered by the Project. Assistance to the countries from
these funds will cover the cost of the Minister and members of the JMC (if invited) for each meeting.
Joint Management Committee:
The JMC will be composed of the three National Focal Points (NFPs) for the Project and the UNDP GEF
Project Manager. The UNDP GEF Deputy Project Manager and the Project Executing Agencies may be
invited as observers at the discretion of the Committee or at the request of the Project Manager. The JMC
functions at a more operational level than the Steering Committee which focuses on providing broad
policy and strategic guidance to the programme.
Funding for meetings of the JMC will be provided by the Project.
Programme Management Unit:
Staffing for the PMU will consist of the UNDP GEF Project Manager, River Basin Management Expert,
Deputy Project Manager, short-term Techncial Advisors, administrative staff and representatives of the
Executing Agencies (e.g. UNOPS, IDRC, UNIDO).
The PMU will carry out the day-to-day administration of the Project and will act as the regional secretariat
for the JMC and the Steering Committee. The Project Manager will be responsible to the JMC and the
Steering Committee for the project activities, the project's financial accountability, staff welfare and
discipline, etc. The Project Manager will provide the JMC with a budget review and work plan every six
months.
The Project Manager will communicate directly with the National Project Management Office (NPMO)
and with the Chairman of the NPMC (The NFP). The Project Manager will also liase with the Regional
Activity Centres (RACs) and closely co-ordinate with all other Project national activities.
The host country will assist in providing accommodation for the PMU. The support costs and salaries of
staff will be covered by the Project in co-ordination with other donors.
2. National Institutions
The National Project Management Committee:
Membership of the NPMC will consist of the NFP, who will be the Chairperson, and other Government or
non-government stakeholders as selected by the NFP in consultation with the Minister who is the member
of the Steering Committee. The objective is to attain a broad participation of all sectors engaged in
national decision-making with respect to the Dnieper Basin. The Project Manager and/or Deputy Project
Manager may also attend meeting of the Committee in agreement with and at the request of the Chairman.
The NPMC will develop its own operational procedures and Terms of Reference which will be approved
by the Minister who is the member of the Steering Committee. It will meet at least, on average, every 3
months and thereafter as frequently as the Committee itself deems necessary.
The NPMC will ensure that the Project policies adopted by the Steering Committee are reflected in the
national execution of the Project. In this respect, the Chairman will liase closely and co-ordinate with the
Project Manager.
Meetings and all other direct functions of the NPMC will be nationally funded except that the cost of
attendance of the Project Manager or Deputy manager will be borne by the Project.
national post and will be funded by the government or national institution by which the NFP is employed.
Support funds for the NFP will be represented by support costs to the NPMO.
The NPMO will have a small staff allocation (secretarial/administrative) along with support equipment
(communications, word-processing, copying, etc.) and will be supported by the Project in co-ordination
with other donors.
The Regional Activity Centres:
The NPMCs will select each centre (an existing specialised institution) having first agreed in the Steering
Committee on the designation of the centres to each of the countries. They will each have a Director and
support staff. These will be existing national staff funded by the institution. Additional specialists will be
supported by the Project, which will also assist in allocating funds for administrative and technical support
equipment.
Each RAC will communicate with and exchange relevant data with other
RACs both nationally and
regionally as well as other relevant national and regional institutions, which are stakeholders in the
Project.
The importance of networking:
The concept of networking is a key aspect of project design and implementation and is an area where
much practical experience has been acquired in recent years in the NIS. A fundamental component in the
GEF strategy is the regional activity centre (RACs), a concept tested in the Black Sea Environmental
Programme but originally developed in UNEP projects, notably the Mediterranean Action Plan. The
regional activity centres are a mechanism by which countries agree to share specific co-ordinating roles
employing institutions which already exist and can be sustainably financed by national governments using
their own resources. Each RAC has its own network of technical focal points within which components of
the program are realised and information is exchanged freely, usually by electronic means, and without
outside interference. The scheme avoids the unnecessary transfer of currency from country to country and
provides a means of providing counterpart funding for the project. In the establishment of the
RACs, it is
important that uniform criteria are discussed and agreed for the selection of the topics for each centre to
develop and for the selection of the centres themselves. Certainly, centres should be chosen that are in
Oblasts within the Dnieper basin and which contain appropriate expertise, irrespective of which sector
they may pertain to. The discussion on this aspect should take place as one of the first steps in project
implementation.
The RACs are not the only means of networking. An example of civil society networking is that of the
Regional Environmental Centres. These should be incorporated into the project from its outset.
RECs are
in their final stages of establishment in Russia and Ukraine and hopefully, a similar organisation will be
created in Belarus. It should be pointed out that the RECs are not a mechanism for co-ordinating NGOs
but have a wider mandate including business organisations and all other branches of civil society. They
Project Implementation
Each International Funding Agency has its own rules, regulations and procedures governing the provision
and administration of funds for projects. It is recognised that any funding for the Project must abide by the
rules and regulations of the funding agency.
Within these requirements and conditions the JMC will sanction all expenditures through its 6-monthly
review of project budgets and work-plans. These will be carefully reviewed by the Steering Committee at
its next meeting. Once sanctioned, it will be the responsibility of the Project Manager (in consultation with
the NFPs) to fulfil the approved budgetary allocations.
All expenditures are accountable through the Project Managers through the JMC to the Steering
Committee and individual projects will be audited by the relevant international agency. This
accountability requires full transparency in all financial dealings and it will be the individual Project
Manager's responsibility (supported by the Steering Committee) to ensure such transparency.
Budget funds are allocated by line for specific activities and objectives and it is a strict requirement of
UNDP that these are clearly identified in the UNDP Project Document. Budgets are not allocated by
percentage to each country. Funds will not be distributed for Project activities without the approval of the
6-monthly budget and work plan by the JMC and without the authorisation of the Project Manager. The
Project Manager will ensure that such budget releases are in accordance with the requirements of UNDP
and GEF.
B. Co-ordination arrangements between agencies involved in project execution
Regular informal consultations will be held between the various agencies involved in project execution.
These would normally take place at the time of Steering Committee meetings but can also be arranged at
the request of any of the parties. Particularly close co-operation will be necessary between IDRC and
UNOPS both at the Headquarters and local levels.
IX. PROJECT REVIEWS, REPORTING AND EVALUATION
In line with UNDP procedures, the project will be subject to tripartite review (TPR) once every twelve
months. On these occasions, the CTA will prepare an updated workplan and Annual Project Report
(APR) and formulate recommendations for eventual adjustments of strategies and activities. A draft APR
shall be prepared at least two months in advance of the TPR to allow review by UNDP prior to the
meeting. The project will also participate in the GEF Project Implementation Review (PIR) process.
Meetings can also be organized ad hoc at the request of the coordinator of the PMU and/or on request by
Periodic Status Reports would be prepared at the request of the Steering Committee for presentation at key
meetings associated with the Project.
The project will also participate in the UNDP-GEF International Water (IW) LEARN Project through
information exchange and sharing lessons learned with GEF and other regional waters projects.
Towards the end of year 3, a final independent evaluation of the project will be carried out by project
evaluation specialists selected by UNDP-GEF. The evaluation will include: an assessment of (a) the
outputs generated, (b) the processes used to generate them, (c) project impacts using indicators included in
the logical framework matrix and d) lessons learned.
X. LEGAL CONTEXT
This Project Document shall be the instrument referred to as such in Article 1 of the Standard Basic
Assistance Agreement between the Government of those participating countries which have signed such
Agreement and the United Nations Development Programme.
The following types of revisions may be made to this project document with the signature of the Principal
Project Resident Representative (PPRR) only, provided he or she is assured that the other signatories of
the project document have no objections to the proposed changes:
1. Revision in, or addition of, any of the annexes of the project document.
2. Revisions which do not involve significant changes in the immediate objectives, outputs or activities
of the project, but are caused by the rearrangement of the inputs already agreed to or by cost increases
due to inflation
3. Mandatory annual revisions which rephrase the delivery of agreed project inputs or increased expert
or other costs due to inflation or take into account agency expenditure flexibility.
XII. BUDGET
Project Number:
RER/99/G32/A/1G/31
Project Title:
Preparation of a Strategic Action Programme (SAP) for the Dnieper River Basin
and Development of SAP Implementation Mechanisms
A. Budget lines
The following budget, presenting a breakdown of the budget implementation per year, has been prepared
by UNOPS.
Budget Description
Objective Lead
Total
1999
2000
2001
2002
Line
/Activity Agency Budget
$
$
$
$
$
10 Personnel
1100 International Project Staff
1101 Project Coordinator (P5)- 3yrs
1/1a
UNOPS
390,000
21,667
130,000
130,000
108,333
1102 River Basin Mgm Expert ( P4)-3 yrs
1/1a
UNOPS
360,000
20,000
120,000
120,000
100,000
1197 Consultant monitoring capacities
2/1
UNOPS
46,296
2,572
15,432
15,432
12,860
1197 Consultant Update TDA
2/4
UNOPS
27,778
1,543
9,259
9,259
7,716
1197 Consultant SAP
2/4
UNOPS
46,296
2,572
15,432
15,432
12,860
1197 Consultant monitoring programmes
2/1
UNOPS
18,519
1,029
6,173
6,173
5,144
1197 Consultant Incremental costs
2/5
UNOPS
9,259
514
3,086
3,086
2,572
1197 Consultant NAP (economist)
4/2
UNOPS
37,037
2,058
12,346
12,346
10,288
1197 Consultant equipment specifications
7/1
UNOPS
18,519
1,029
6,173
6,173
5,144
1197 Consultant environmental databases
7/2a
UNOPS
18,519
1,029
6,173
6,173
5,144
1197 Consultant, State of the Dnieper Report
7/2b
UNOPS
18,519
1,029
6,173
6,173
5,144
1300 National Support Staff
1/1a
1301 Secretary
UNOPS
23,148
1,286
7,716
7,716
6,430
1302 Admin Assistant
UNOPS
23,148
1,286
7,716
7,716
6,430
1500 Duty Travel
1501 PMU Travel
1
UNOPS
37,037
2,058
12,346
12,346
10,288
1502 Local Travel
1
UNOPS
27,778
1,543
9,259
9,259
7,716
1503 Government Travel
1
UNOPS
9,259
514
3,086
3,086
2,572
1600 Mission Cost
1
1601 UNOPS
1
UNOPS
13,889
772
4,630
4,630
3,858
1602 UNDP
1
UNOPS
13,889
772
4,630
4,630
3,858
1700 National Professional Project
Personnel
1701 Deputy coordinator
1/1
UNOPS
92,593
5,144
30,864
30,864
25,720
1702 NPPP Monitoring
2/1
UNOPS
18,519
1,029
6,173
6,173
5,144
1703 NPPP SAP
2/5
UNOPS
18,519
1,029
6,173
6,173
5,144
2103 IAA UNIDO PIP
3/1
UNIDO
898,518
49,918
299,506
299,506
249,588
2104 IAA UNIDO
3/3,5,6
UNIDO
212,963
11,831
70,988
70,988
59,156
2105 IAA UNIDO, Dnieper Holding Pond
3/8
UNIDO
46,296
2,572
15,432
15,432
12,860
Operation
2106 IAA UN/ECE Transboundary Water
3/7
UN/ECE
46,296
2,572
15,432
15,432
12,860
Bodies
2107 IAA IAEA Nuclear Facilities and Disposal
3/9
IAEA
69,444
3,858
23,148
23,148
19,290
Sites
2108 IAA UNEP TDA
2/2
UNEP
18,519
1,029
6,173
6,173
5,144
2109 Contract State of the Dnieper
7/2b
UNOPS
185,185
10,288
61,728
61,728
51,440
2110 Contract TDA (local institutes)
2/4
UNOPS
72,222
4,012
24,074
24,074
20,062
2111 PMU Office Facility
1/1
UNOPS
100,000
5,556
33,333
33,333
27,778
29 Component Subtotal
3,823,518 212,417 1,274,505 1,274,505 1,062,085
30 Fellowship/Meetings
3201 Meetings of the Project
1/1a
UNOPS
55,556
3,086
18,519
18,519
15,432
Steering Committee, JMC and NPMC
3202 Expert meetings/regional workshops on
2/3
UNOPS
64,815
3,601
21,605
21,605
18,004
root causes' in preparation of SAP
3203 SAP review meetings, studies &
2/6
UNOPS
83,333
4,630
27,778
27,778
23,148
Ministerial Conference
3204 Meeting on monitoring capacities
2/1
UNOPS
18,519
1,029
6,173
6,173
5,144
3205 Meeting of 6 WG on TDA-issues
2/2
UNOPS
55,556
3,086
18,519
18,519
15,432
3206 Meetings ad hoc SAP Task Force
2/5
UNOPS
38,889
2,160
12,963
12,963
10,802
3207 Meeting of the WG on SAP
2/5
UNOPS
9,259
514
3,086
3,086
2,572
3208 Meetings on the development of NAPs
4/2
UNOPS
138,889
7,716
46,296
46,296
38,580
3209 Meeting on public participation
4/3
UNOPS
41,667
2,315
13,889
13,889
11,574
3210 Donor Conference
3/4
UNOPS
74,074
4,115
24,691
24,691
20,576
3301 Training in River Basin Management, etc. 7/3
UNOPS
92,593
5,144
30,864
30,864
25,720
39 Component subtotal
673,148
37,397
224,382
224,382
186,985
40 Equipment
4501 Communications eq for NAP committees
4/1
UNOPS
37,037
2,058
12,346
12,346
10,288
4502 Monitoring equipment
7/1
UNOPS
277,778
15,432
92,593
92,593
77,160
4503 Office Operation and Maintenance
1/4
UNOPS
37,037
2,058
12,346
12,346
10,288
4504 Communication
UNOPS
27,778
1,543
9,259
9,259
7,716
5301 Miscellaneous
15,335
852
5,112
5,112
4,260
5401 UNDP CO Support Costs Kiev
UNDP
96,360
5,353
32,120
32,120
26,767
59 Component subtotal
204,288
11,349
68,096
68,096
56,746
90 Project total (operational)
6,548,176 363,787 2,182,723 2,182,723 1,818,933
93 Project support cost
451,824
25,101
150,608
150,608
125,506
100 GRAND TOTAL
7,000,000 388,889 2,333,331 2,333,331 1,944,439
B. Budget description and abbreviated Terms of Reference
The GEF budget will be executed by UNOPS with some activities sub-contracted to other specialised
organisations, notably IDRC. Brief descriptions of aspects of the budget are included below:
International Project Staff:
These experts will be recruited internationally, using processes and procedures well established by
UNOPS and accepted by United Nations member states. Their salaries and expenses will be paid
according to scales regularly reviewed by UNOPS for UNDP operations world-wide. Two international
experts are anticipated in support of the project. Their detailed Job Descriptions are given in Annex I.
Project Manager: Also referred to as the Chief Technical Adviser, this person will be responsible for the
implementation of the project at the Project Management Unit in Kyiv. He/she will implement the
workplan agreed by the Steering Committee, in close co-operation with the Project Management
Committee and within the reporting and management regulations of UNDP/UNOPS.
River Basin Management Expert: He/she will be responsible for technical advice on river basin
management and environmental assessment. Her/his expertise will be complementary to that of the Project
Manager in order to provide a wide base of expertise for project implementation and co-ordination.
Short-term international consultants:
Short-term consultants will give technical inputs to the national and regional working groups, act as
resource persons and give methodological guidance. International expertise will be required in the
following themes (detailed Terms of Reference will be prepared by the CTA during project
implementation note that additional consultants will be supplied through sub-contracts and inter-agency
agreements):
Consultant monitoring capacities: Will work with local counterparts to assess the current capacities of
regional institutions to monitor the state of the Dnieper, its tributaries and the sources of pollution which
contribute to the quality of the river and adjacent aquatic systems. She/he will help to formulate
recommendations to build the capacity of institutions in the region to an appropriate level.
Consultant monitoring programmes: Will work in close co-operation with the relevant Activity Centre and
working group in order to develop an integrated monitoring programme for the Dnieper and its tributaries.
The programme will include measurements of sources, levels and effects of pollution and GEF support
will focus on its transboundary aspects.
Consultant incremental costs: Will help the governments to identify the incremental costs of
implementing the SAP. This will facilitate the development of follow-up GEF interventions.
Consultant NAP (economist): This position is to provide specialist support for costing the implementation
of each of the NAPs. The economist will work closely with national experts from Ministries of Economy
during the development of the NAPs.
Consultant equipment specifications: Will help with the identification and tendering procedure for
laboratory and office equipment to ensure efficient supply at the most economic cost. He/she will also
train local staff in procurement practices.
Consultant environmental databases: Will, in close co-operation with national experts, prepare a detailed
strategy for the creation of a regional database and identify the strengths and weakness of existing systems
in order to adapt them to the needs of the project.
Consultant, State of the Dnieper Report: Will work with local specialists to integrate the Report, critically
review the data, draft the English language version and prepare it for publication.
National Support Staff
The GEF/UNDP has made a commitment to hire local staff to carry out important functions of the PMU.
The staff will include a Secretary and an Administrative Assistant.
Duty Travel
These funds are for travel of the PMU staff throughout the region and elsewhere in support of the Project.
Local travel funds are primarily for regional personnel to attend workshops, meetings, training, and other
functions throughout the region. Government travel funds are to assist officials to attend key technical
meetings during the implementation of the project.
Mission Costs
These funds are to finance travel of UNDP/GEF and UNOPS staff to attend key meetings in the region,
particularly review meetings during the course of the project.
National Professional Project Personnel
National Professionals and Consultants will be recruited from qualified candidates from the participating
countries to work at the national level. National Consultants will play an important role in the SAP
planning process so that the SAP is country-driven. They will reinforce the capacity and responsibility of
the countries to produce a coherent and effective SAP for sustainable environmental management in the
the international specialist. He/she will be expected to assume specialist professional tasks in project
execution.
NPPP Monitoring. This post is for a local specialist in pollution monitoring who will co-ordinate the
emergent Dnieper monitoring network. He/she will work closely with the international specialists engaged
for this work and with the relevant Activity Centre.
NPPP SAP. This will be a short-term consultancy to provide a dedicated counterpart for the international
specialists and regional working groups. The task will be one of liaison and organisation of all local inputs
to the SAP process.
NPPPs NAP. Funds are allocated in this rubric in order to enabled dedicated teams to work in each
country on the preparation of the National Action Programmes. The teams will be multi-sectoral in
composition, including specialists in environment, agriculture, industry, economics, etc. The work will be
co-ordinated by the National Project Management Committees with the support of the PMU and the
UNDP Country Offices.
NPPP Translators NAPs. Translation services will be important at all stages of project implementation.
The funding on this budget line will cover the requirements in this area.
NPPP Public Participation. It is important to maintain a strong liaison with representatives of civil society
throughout the project implementation. The funds in this budget line will guarantee the creation of a full-
time position in the PMU for a regional specialist in this field. It is suggested that this person should have
responsibility for technical support to the Dnieper Regional Council. She/he should be appointed in
consultation with the Regional NGO forum and the RECs.
Subcontracts
Much of the work performed by associate organisations and international agencies will be administered
using the mechanism of subcontracts. Subcontracts may be executed with the individual institutions,
agencies, NGOs or other recognised legal entity to perform specific activities associated with the
GEF/UNDP project. The subcontracts will be based upon specific terms of reference agreed prior to
contract execution. It is important to stress that the subcontracts are assigned on the basis of comparative
advantage for the countries in the region. The budgets proposed by subcontractors will be carefully
assessed to ensure that the maximum possible use of national consultants and the transfer of benefits to the
region. A summary of the contracts is given as follows:
IDRC
As a major partner in project execution, IDRC will be responsible for Objective 1, Activity 2,3, and 4;
Objective 2, Activity 3; Objective 3, Activity 2 and 10; Objective 5, Activities 1 4; and Objective 6,
Activities 1 8. The description of the work to be undertaken in each of these activities is given in Annex
V. Budget for this sub-contract is provided in Annex V to this Project Document.
UN-ECE
An Inter Agency Agreement will be established with UN-ECE for the execution of Activity 7 of Objective
3. The detailed Terms of Reference for this activity will be presented to the first meeting of the Project
Steering Committee.
IAEA
An Inter Agency Agreement will be established with IAEA for the execution of Activity 9 of Objective 3.
The proposed work to be undertaken is described in Annex VI. The detailed Terms of Reference for this
activity will be presented to the first meeting of the Project Steering Committee.
Other Sub contracts
UNDP will administer all other sub-contracts through UNOPS and select appropriate national and
international contractors in close consultation with the Steering Committee. In the case of budget line
2111, the office facilities for the PMU will be contracted on a cost-sharing basis with IDRC.
Fellowship/Meetings
This budget area covers all operational meetings for the project as specified in the tables of objectives and
activities. Funds are also reserved under budget line 3301 for training activities for specialists from the
region through individual and group training.
Equipment
The project will purchase US$ 448,148 of equipment for institutions in the region. The specifications of
this equipment will be developed at the PMU in close consultation with the recipients. Purchases will
follow the procurement rules of UNOPS taking advantage of the special status of UNDP with regard to
exemption from import duties where applicable.
Miscellaneous
Costs are included for project reporting (publications, technical documents) for the PMU and Activity
Centres. Sundries are the PMU items (for example postage and removals) not falling within the other
categories. The cost of activities undertaken by the UNDP country office is included in this general
category.
Support costs
6.9 percent of the costs of the GEF/UNDP Project, excepting the cost of activities at the UNDP Country
Office, are made available for Project Execution.
ANNEX I TERMS OF REFERENCE DBEP PMU AND JOB
DESCRIPTIONS FOR THE PMU STAFF
Terms of Reference
Dnieper Basin Environment Programme Project Management Unit (PMU)
Kyiv, Ukraine
Background: The PMU will provide a co-ordination and management structure for the development and
implementation of the Dnieper Basin Environment Program
in accordance with the rules and procedures
of GEF/UNDP based on directions provided by the Steering Committee and the guidance of the Joint
Management Committee.
Tasks:
· Assistance in networking between National Focal Points and Activity Centres, Working Groups and
any other multi-country bodies established in the three riparian countries (Belarus, Russian
Federation, Ukraine);
· Organisation of technical co-operation activities between Dnieper Basin Regional Activity Centres in
all three riparian countries for capacity-building, environmental policy, management and pre-
investment activities;
· Organisation of consultative meetings for introducing and implementing programme activities (the
Steering Committee, Project Management Committee, etc.);
· Organisation of the meetings of the Dnieper Regional Council;
· Collection and dissemination of information on policy, economic, scientific and technical issues
related to the programme; that are not addressed by the Dnieper Basin Regional Activity Centres;
· Provision of support for the preparation of technical and pre-investment studies;
· Preparation of progress reports (administrative and financial) concerning programme activities;
· Establishment of and assistance in networking between specialised institutions in participating
countries and technical specialists from elsewhere;
· Assistance in implementing pilot projects for the environment;
· Co-ordination of international, multi-lateral and bi-lateral environmental activities in the Dnieper
Basin, where appropriate; and
· Programme management (financial, logistical and strategic) in the context of the GEF/UNDP and,
where appropriate, the IDRC components of the project.
Job Descriptions for the Project Management Unit Staff
A. Professional Staff
Project Manager
General Job Description
The Project Manager shall be responsible for the overall management of the GEF funded project activities within the
Dnieper Basin Environment Programme (DBEP). He/she shall liase directly with the DBEP National Focal Points
and the representatives of the GEF partners, IDRC and other donors, in order to co-ordinate the annual work plan for
the Project. The work plan will provide guidance on the day-to-day implementation of the current project document
and on the integration of the various donor funded parallel initiatives. He/she shall be responsible for all substantive,
managerial and financial reports from the Project. He/she will provide overall supervision for all GEF staff in the
Project Management Unit as well as guiding and supervising all external policy relations. The Project Manager will
communicate directly with the National Project Management Offices (NPMO) and with the Chairmen of the
NPMCs
(The NFPs). The Project Manager will also liase with the Regional Activity Centres (
RACs) and closely co-ordinate
with all other Project national activities. He/she shall consult with, and co-ordinate closely with, the Project
Management Committee, the Principal Project Resident Representative, senior representatives of partner agencies as
well as the respective UNDP officers in all Dnieper Basin Countries.
Duties
The Project Manager will have the following specific duties:
· to manage the PMU, its staff, budget and imprest fund;
· to become personally involved in project implementation according to the workplan and his/her
particular specialist knowledge;
· to prepare the annual work plan of the programme on the basis of the Project Document, in close
consultation and co-ordination with the National Focal Points, the Project Management Committee,
GEF Partners, IDRC and relevant donors;
· to co-ordinate and monitor the activities described in the work plan;
· to ensure consistency between the various programme elements and related activities provided or
funded by other donor organisations;
· to prepare and oversee the development of Terms of Reference for consultants and contractors;
· to co-ordinate and oversee the preparation of the substantive and operational reports from the
Programme; and
· to foster and establish links with other related Dnieper Basin projects, and, where appropriate, the other
regional International Waters programmes within the
GEF's Black Sea Basin policy approach.
Skills and Experience Required
· post-graduate degree in Environmental Management or a directly related field (e.g. river basin
management, natural resources economics, etc.);
· at least twenty years experience in fields related to the assignment. At least ten years experience at a
senior project management level. Demonstrated diplomatic and negotiating skills;
· familiarity with the goals and procedures of international organisations, in particular those of the GEF
partners (UNDP, UNEP, World Bank);
· excellent knowledge of English; and
· familiarity with the riparian countries, knowledge of the Russian or Ukrainian languages would be an
River Basin Management Expert
General Job Description
The River Basin Management Expert will provide additional expertise to the PMU for the establishment of the
integrated technical services needed to support a Dnieper Basin Management Programme. She/he will bring technical
expertise to the project based upon professional involvement in one or more established river basin management
projects in other parts of the world. He/she will assume responsibility for setting up the PMU information system, for
co-ordinating the work on establishment of an integrated Dnieper Monitoring Programme and Pollution Assessment
and for assisting the Project Manager, local and international experts in the revision of the
Transboundary Diagnostic
Analysis and preparation of the Strategic Action Programme.
Duties
The River Basin Management Expert will have the following specific duties:
· to provide support to the Project Manager for the technical implementation of the project, according to
the agreed workplan;
· to ensure liaison between the technical components of the network (Activity Centres, Working Groups,
etc.) and with the components sub-contracted to other agencies;
· to supervise data exchange and the maintenance of the data communications network between DBEP
co-operating institutions;
· to supervise the development and maintenance of information management strategies (Information
Systems, GIS) developed during the DBEP Phase I;
· to liase with donors, specialised UN Agencies, international NGOs (such as WWF, IUCN) and other
organisations involved in establishing and managing programmes for research and assessment in the
Dnieper Basin;
· to supervise the production of Technical publications;
· to provide guidance for the completion of the revised Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis; and
· to provide technical support for the process of developing the Strategic Action Programme.
Skills and Experience Required
The incumbent must have direct experience of working in a senior technical position in a river basin management
programme for a period of not less than five years.
Other requirements are as follows:
· post-graduate degree in environmental science, hydrology, or a directly related field to environmental
management;
· at least ten years professional experience including the direct experience in river basin management
programmes described above;
· proven experience with computer data bases and environmental monitoring systems;
· experience in training other specialists;
· familiarity with the problems of the Dnieper Basin region would be advantageous, and
· knowledge of Ukrainian or Russian languages would be an additional asset.
Duty station: Kyiv, Ukraine
Duration: Two years on a fixed-term contract
Deputy Project Manager
General Job Description
The Deputy Project Manager is a post reserved for a national of one of the riparian countries. The incumbent will
assist the Project Manager with his/her duties and will receive additional training in project management in order that
he/she can act as Project Manager during periods of absence of the post holder. She/he will also have specific
responsibilities to act as interim technical secretary for the Dnieper Regional Council and will work closely with the
three governments and representatives of oblasts and civil society for the creation of this body.
Duties
The Deputy Project Manager will have the following specific duties:
· to act as technical secretary for the Dnieper Regional Council;
· to attend meetings of the National Project Management Committees in order to ensure liaison between
all project components;
· to assist with the administration of other components where required by the Co-ordinator
· to co-ordinate the edition of a regular information bulletin on the programme (Initially issued in English
and Russian and widely distributed);
· to supervise the development of a library for the PMU;
· to liase with other donors on the implementation of projects which support public participation/ public
awareness in the Dnieper Basin region; and
· to contribute his/her own expertise to the implementation of specific components of the project.
Skills and Experience Required
· advanced degree in environmental studies or a directly related field;
· at least five years direct experience with the management of environmental problems within the
Dnieper Basin; and
· full fluency (spoken and written) in English and Russian;
· experience of working with international organisations is not essential but would be an asset.
Duty station: Kyiv, Ukraine
Duration: Three years on a fixed-term contract
Suggested post level: The appointment will be made on the technical merits of the applicants to fulfil the
tasks indicated
ANNEX II ORGANIGRAM OF THE STRUCTURE FOR GOVERNANCE,
CO-ORDINATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
Regional administration
National administration
Project Steering Committee
National Project
includes the following members:
Management Committees
- Ministers from each country, or their designate,
Headed by "National focal points", they co-
- UNDP/GEF or its designate,
ordinate project activities within each country.
- Joint Management Committee Members
Their membership is interministerial and decided
- CTA and Deputy CTA (observers)
nationally.
It sets its own agenda and devises all policies for
the programme. It meets once a year, possibly
twice.
National Project Management
Offices
Joint Management Committee
Identified as principal liaison points for the project
at the national level
includes the following members:
- the three "National Focal points";
- UNDP/GEF project manager (CTA);
- Executing Agencies/"partner institutions"
(IDRC, UNOPS, UNIDO)
- deputy CTA.
It meets four to six times per year, and is
charged with ensuring the follow-up to high level
policy decisions.
National
specialists and
their institutions
Project Management
Unit (PMU)
The project will
Dnieper Basin
encourage the widest
Regional Council
possible participation of
The PMU implements all
Basin-wide stakeholder
specialists from
decisions concerning the GEF
body to facilitate input to
institutions in the region
sponsored project. Headed by
and operationalization of
and from Non Govern-
the Project Manager, it provides
the SAP at local level
mental Organisations
a venue for executing agencies
staff (if needed). It includes also
the Deputy Project Manager as
ANNEX III TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR NATIONAL FOCAL POINTS,
NATIONAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEES, STEERING
COMMITTEE, DNIEPER REGIONAL COUNCIL, JOINT MANAGEMENT
COMMITTEE, ACTIVITY CENTRES.
National Focal Points
Background
Each country will select a person, or persons, who will have executive responsibility for the Project in that
country. This person would normally be a senior government official, such as a Minister or Deputy
Minister of the Environment, or equivalent. The National Focal Points (
NFPs) will be a major driving
force for the Project and eventually for a wider Dnieper Basin Environment Programme. They will speak
on behalf of their governments and ensure liaison with other sectors, also at the executive level.
Tasks:
· To represent his/her/their country on the Project Steering Committee and the Joint Management
Committee;
· To ensure implementation of the agreed workplan and timetable, both nationally and regionally;
· To liaise with other government sectors to guarantee an intersectoral approach to project
implementation;
· To participate in the development of the Strategic Action Programme for the Dnieper and to promote
its adoption at the highest level of government;
· To ensure the provision of national counterpart funding and institutional support for the
implementation of the project;
· To oversee the development of National Programmes of Action;
· To chair the National Project Management Committee;
· To develop institutional plans to encourage long term sustainablity in the implementation of the SAP
and NAPs;
· To encourage participation of civil society in the project, including national Non-Governmental
Organisations.
National Project Management Committees
Background
Membership of the NPMC will consist of the NFP, who will be the Chairperson, and other Government or
non-government stakeholders as selected by the NFP. The objective is to attain a broad participation of all
sectors engaged in national decision-making with respect to the Dnieper Basin. The
NPMCs should meet
Tasks
The NPMC will:
· ensure that the Project policies adopted by the Steering Committee are reflected in the national
execution of the Project (in this respect, the Chairman will liase closely and co-ordinate with the
Project Manager);
· ensure an integrated and co-ordinated approach to facilitating the sectoral changes needed for the
long-term rehabilitation of the Dnieper system;
· identify national modalities for the implementation of various components of the DBEP;
· develop, support and co-ordinate national networks of specialised institutions;
· co-ordinate and ensure timely delivery of national contributions to the project;
· assume responsibility for national contributions to the Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis and
Strategic Action Programme, and the preparation of the National Strategic Action Programmes;
· ensure full co-operation with, and support to, to Dnieper Basin Activity Centres;
· liase closely with the Project Management Unit.
Steering Committee
Background
The Steering Committee will function as the principal policy guidance body of the Project. The
Committee will provide guidance to the Project Management Unit (PMU) through the JMC on issues
pertaining to the regional administration of the project and to the National Project Management
Committees (NPMCs) on issues pertaining to the national administration of the Dnieper Basin
Environment Programme. The Committee will set its own operational procedures and approve its own
detailed Terms of Reference. It will meet at least once a year and thereafter as frequently as the
Committee itself deems necessary.
Membership
Membership of the Committee will be composed of a senior government official (designated National
Focal Point or higher official) from each country along with the UNDP GEF Regional Co-ordinator for
Europe/CIS (or their designated representatives). Members of the Joint Management Committee or other
Dnieper River Basin stakeholders may be invited to sit on the Committee as observers as and when the
full members so wish. The UNDP GEF Project Manager would normally be invited to attend as an
observer at the Committee's discretion or at the request of the UNDP GEF RBEC Regional Co-ordinator.
Funding for Steering Committee business will be covered by the Project. Assistance to the countries from
these funds will cover the cost of the National Focal Points and members of the JMC (if invited) for each
meeting.
· to ensure co-operation with neighbouring GEF programmes within the
GEF's Black Sea Basin
Initiative.
Joint Management Committee
Background
The JMC was created at the request of the three Dnieper Basin governments in order to ensure their close
participation in the day-to-day running of the project. The JMC will develop its own operational
procedures and detailed Terms of Reference that will be approved by the Steering Committee. It will meet
at least, on average, every 2-3 months and thereafter as frequently as the Committee itself deems
necessary or at the specific request of the Steering Committee. The JMC will adopt a Project work plan
and budget report, as presented by the Project Manager, on a six-monthly basis. These will be passed on to
the Steering Committee for its review and consideration at their next meeting. The JMC will also be
responsible for ensuring that the policy guidance of the Steering Committee is reflected regionally in the
day-to-day functioning and management provided by the PMU and nationally through the National Project
Management Committees (NPMCs).
Membership
The JMC will be composed of the three National Focal Points (NFPs) for the Project and the UNDP GEF
Project Manager. The UNDP GEF Deputy Project Manager and the Project Executing Agencies may be
invited as observers at the discretion of the Committee or at the request of the Project Manager.
Funding for meetings of the JMC will be provided by the Project.
Tasks
· to provide guidance to the PMU for co-ordinating and managing the project and its sub-components;
· to assist in developing operational mechanisms for implementing the project work-plan, especially
where this involves cross border consultation and policy development;
· to develop the annual work-plan and budget for subsequent approval by the Steering Committee;
· to provide a forum for consultations with the various agencies executing components of the project.
Activity Centres
Background
The Project will fund a maximum of six Regional Activity Centres (RACs) in the region. The Regional
Activity Centres are a mechanism by which countries agree to share specific co-ordinating roles
employing institutions which already exist and can be sustainably financed by national governments using
their own resources. Each RAC has its own network of collaborating specialists and institutions within
which components of the program are realised and information is exchanged freely, usually by electronic
means, and without outside interference. The scheme avoids the unnecessary transfer of currency from
The sites Regional Activity Centres shall be selected at the first meeting of the Project Steering
Committee. Funding for the Centres will not become available until they have presented satisfactory work
plans and budgets to the Joint Management Committee.
Main Tasks
· to co-ordinate the specialist technical inputs required for developing the Transboundary Diagnostic
Analysis, the Strategic Action Programme;
· to develop and implement mechanisms for assessing the environment and preparing regular state of
the environment reports;
· to develop cost effective measures and strategies for implementing the SAP;
· to develop mechanisms for ensuring the longer-term sustainability of the Dnieper Basin institutional
network.
Dnieper Basin Regional Council
Background
The institutional mechanisms described in this project document are mostly directed towards the
implementation of the GEF Project and most will become redundant on conclusion of the Project. In order
to ensure greater long-term stability, a sustainable multi-sectoral consultation body shall be established.
This body, the Dnieper Regional Council, will bring together central governments, local authorities and
other stakeholders. It will be set up in a very flexible manner, allowing it to evolve according to the needs
identified by the participants.
Membership
The DBRC will include representatives of all Dnieper Oblasts, representatives of central governments, the
project implementation unit and various representatives from the civil society including scientific
institutions and NGO representatives. The Council will be quite large (some 30 members in total) but,
with careful planning could be very effective as a working body with real influence at a local level. This
body will bring together various networks, help define policies as well as recommend ways to
operationalize them at local levels. Governments might consider developing this body as a successor to
the previous Dnieper Commission.
Tasks
· to 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 organisations and NGOs;
· to hold experts meetings and regional workshops with all stakeholders involved (including
NGOs and
private business) to discuss the identified `root causes' of transboundary environmental problems and
to identify actions to address them in SAP;
· to develop sustainable broad-based consultative mechanisms for future basin-wide management of the
ANNEX IV TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR WORKING GROUPS
1. Biodiversity Terms of Reference
The Soviet legacy, current environmental policies, and the stagnation of the local economies have had a
strong impact on biodiversity in the Dnieper Basin. In particular, the main problems are inadequate
protection of biological diversity in the Basin; grossly reduced areas of natural landscape; loss and
degradation of wetlands; general loss of habitat; extinction of numerous indigenous species; and invasion
of exotic species. The worst problems and most vulnerable areas are deforestation of the Upper Dnieper
Basin; destruction of the wetlands in the Pripyat River Basin; damage and species losses in the forest and
steppe communities; adverse impact of unsustainable industrial, mining, and agricultural development; use
of meadows as pastures; and the extinction of fish species in the Dnieper and the Black Sea coastal areas.
Preparation of an effective action plan for the conservation of the remaining biodiversity of the Basin is
urgently needed. Studies call for increasing the total area of biodiversity protection zones throughout the
Basin; establishing new nature reserves, protected areas, and national parks; beginning wide-spread
rehabilitation programmes to protect and restore natural landscapes and forests; regulating expansion of
urban and agricultural areas; introducing integrated management plans for the flood plain areas; ensuring
better protection of the steppe zone and its unique biodiversity; and introducing stringent regulatory
policies to stop the further invasion of exotic species into the marine environment.
Since the Rio Conference and the creation of the GEF in the early '90s, all three riparian countries of the
Dnieper River Basin became recipients of a significant amount of financial assistance from the World
Bank and the GEF (as well as other donors) with the objectives of preserving, restoring and improving the
state of natural, semi-natural, and disturbed ecosystems, species habitats, and landscape; promoting
sustainable use of natural resources; and involving society in conservation of biological integrity. Russia,
Belarus, and Ukraine have prepared their national strategies for conservation of their biological diversity
and are developing legal, financial, institutional, scientific-methodological, and information-educational
instruments for their implementation. All these projects have been national in scope, with focus on
specific areas of concern, e.g. Azov-Black Sea Corridor, the Danube Delta, Pripyat Marshes, and
Transcarpathia. There is a wealth of experience and data in all three countries that needs to be integrated
and interpreted internationally for its effective use in the Dnieper River Basin as a whole, with special
attention to ecologically vulnerable ecosystems like wetlands, forests, steppes, reservoirs, deltas, and
agricultural landscapes. Establishment of national ecological networks is currently under development in
all three countries. The proposed GEF-SAP funding will assist in integrating all available information
from these projects, complement it with some new initiatives to generate specific information presently
unavailable, and ensure its effective incorporation into the Dnieper SAP.
Actions and outputs under the Biodiversity rubric include:
1. Establishing an Expert Working Group on Biodiversity, which will provide input into implementation
of several related projects and govern activities at the Biodiversity Activity Centre;
7. Selecting consultants in legal / regulatory and public participation in biodiversity for carrying out
activity 5.2, maintaining contact and arranging meetings, and vetting reports;
8. Assessing and carrying out professional development of the local staff;
9. Publishing and disseminating research data;
10. Introducing and testing novel approaches on a pilot / demonstration project basis (adopt-a-park,
remote video monitoring of wildlife, etc.);
11. Holding periodic consultations with other working groups to integrate activities elsewhere with
biodiversity activities.
2. Pollution Prevention and Control Terms of Reference
Pollution prevention and control is an activity dealing with devising laws, policies, and activities that will
lessen pollution entering the Dnieper River.
In the Soviet Union, the primary emphasis of the industrial sector was on production, the meeting of
centrally determined objectives and quotas with little concern for costs in terms of resource use,
environmental degradation, or health risks. The lack of market forces influencing production and
consumption resulted in far higher use of resource inputs per unit of production than was found in western
industrialised countries. Excessive resource use in combination with a system that placed little value on
the environment resulted in a heavy pollution load being discharged into the Dnieper River. Although
strict standards for water quality existed in the form of maximum allowable discharges, environmental
laws were not enforced and were subordinated to achieving production objectives.
The collapsing of waste treatment infrastructure through a lack of maintenance and investment is a
growing contributor to pollution of the River. Environmental laws, largely held over from the Soviet
system, remain poorly enforced or are frequently ignored, while harassment by and bribing of
environmental officials is not uncommon. In the absence of a fully functioning market economy, the true
costs of wasteful use of resources and the savings engendered by resource conservation are not fully
realised. To date, the approach to pollution prevention has been the use of regulations and penalties for
polluters. Neither the governments nor industrial managers are knowledgeable about the principles and
advantages of "clean production" as a means to reduce input costs and pollution. Effective pollution
reduction in the Basin requires a coordinated programme of environmental laws that are equivalent to
those of the European Community, effective enforcement of environmental laws, and an emphasis on
clean production that captures the benefits of reduced resource use with accompanying cost savings for
production inputs and waste treatment.
Activities will be oriented toward three objectives:
1. To generate water quality standards in the 3 countries that are similar to those adopted by the European
Community, including the updating of criteria with respect to limited substances.
2. To develop realistic and enforceable laws related to discharge of pollutants, including assessment of
1. Establishing an Expert Working Group on Pollution Prevention and Control, which will deal with
environmental laws and their enforcement and permitting, provide input into implementation of other
related projects, and govern activities at the Pollution Prevention and Control Activity Centre;
2. Setting up in one of the riparian countries a Pollution Prevention and Control Activity Centre, which
will serve as the focal point for regional training, capacity building, information exchange, and SAP
formulation;
3. Studying the environmental laws of the EU and making recommendations to national legislators;
4. Devising enforcement and penalty schemes that are similar for the 3 countries. In doing so, the
experience of East European countries like Poland and the Czech Republic will be studied;
5. Holding periodic consultations with other working groups to integrate activities elsewhere with
pollution prevention and control activities;
6. Devising realistic systems of permitting for waste discharge and realistic fees for pollutant discharge
into municipal treatment systems;
7. Examining and making recommendations for the development of environmental funds (study Polish
and other experience);
8. Providing training for vodokanal operators on how to manage more effectively their waste treatment
plants and provide an information centre for municipal governments seeking technical and financial
assistance in upgrading their systems;
9. Developing a proposal for a warning system to deal with discharges of pollutants (chemical, nutrient,
or radioactive) into the River system.
3. Legal, Regulatory and Economic Issues Terms of Reference
To be prepared by IDRC at start of project.
4. Information Management Terms of Reference
Management and decision-making require timely and accurate information. In the FSU, data on public
activities related to environment, health, agriculture, etc., was strictly confidential and accessible to only a
small group of people. When they were given any information at all, the public and foreign entities were
usually fed specially prepared and questionable data. Because of the government's secretive nature,
information was often the key to power and was hoarded and guarded by institutions and individuals.
Thus, information organisation, dissemination, and quality all suffered under the Soviet system.
In the post-Soviet era, this mentality often continues; government bodies and research organisations
regularly collect information in a competing and redundant manner, use conflicting methodologies or
outdated equipment or technology for information gathering, and guard information to the detriment of
decision making. These ongoing problems, coupled with the general lack of computers and reliable
communications systems, have hampered management of the Dnieper River Basin.
Ukraine has taken initial steps to establish reliable environmental management information systems
1. Establishing an expert working group on information management, which will provide input into
implementation of a basin-wide information system and other related projects and govern activities at
the Information Management Activity Centre;
2. Setting up in one of the riparian countries an Information Management Activity Centre, which will
serve as the focal point for regional training, capacity building, information exchange, and SAP
formulation;
3. Ensuring that appropriate institutions are assigned to collect data and that international standards are
applied in data measurement and gathering;
4. Creating a plan for integrated international management and sharing of information and establishment
of the Dnieper Basin database, including: establishment of parameters for
metadata; determination of
stakeholders and end users and their roles; definition of system functions; determination of
information, training, and equipment needs; maintenance of the system; and assurance of information
accessibility;
5. Defining standards for technology (hardware and software), common core data, and data exchange;
6. Working with selected government bodies, research institutions, and
NGOs to select, to purchase, and
to install necessary hardware and software and to establish internet connections;
7. Assuring that all relevant data is open and available to end users through web pages, list servers, e-
mail, etc., as well as regularly published documents;
8. Holding periodic consultations with other working groups to integrate activities elsewhere with
information management;
9. Overseeing the preparation, publication, and distribution of the State of the Dnieper Report.
5. Pollution Monitoring Terms of Reference
All three Dnieper Basin countries are heavily industrialized and urbanised, with large areas of intensive
agriculture characterized by overuse of fertilizers and pesticides. There is extensive transboundary flow of
contaminants: at the Belorussian-Ukrainian border, for instance, 62 thousand tons of BOD, 37 thousand
tons of COD, over 150 tons of heavy metals flow annually. All these loadings exceed the maximum
allowable concentrations (MAC values) by 100 to 1900 percent (TDA, 1997). Radioactive sediments from
the Chernobyl fall-out are carried by tributaries downstream across the border and accumulate in the large
reservoirs on the Dnieper, posing a potential threat to the Black Sea. Existing monitoring stations are
remote from the new international borders, inadequately staffed, and their equipment becoming outdated.
Three major environmental and transboundary problems have been identified in the Dnieper River Basin:
1. Unacceptable levels of pollution and toxic contamination of surface and groundwater resources, moving
across international boundaries and eventually into the Black Sea, also an international water body;
2. Ineffective water and wastewater management;
3. Advanced eutrophication of large reservoirs on the Dnieper, with the threat of accidental flush-outs of
contaminated sediments and frequent fish kills.
Actions and outputs under the Pollution Monitoring rubric include:
4. Holding periodic consultations with other working groups to integrate activities elsewhere with
pollution monitoring;
5. Relocating and / or establishing new monitoring stations close to the international borders to ensure
continuing surveillance and compliance with tri-national water quality targets;
6. Introducing new indicators and advanced concepts in water quality monitoring, with upgraded data
processing and instant information exchange to ensure early warning capability in case of accidental
spills or exceeding of permissible levels;
7. Preparing costed proposals for overall capacity building of the monitoring systems and information
technology and developing training programmes for laboratory personnel in new methods of analysis;
8. Promoting scientific exchanges for the professional staff.
6. Clean Production Terms of Reference
The traditional Soviet approach of output at any cost paid little heed to environmental concerns. The high
concentration of light and heavy industry in the Basin, particularly in the south, coupled with the great
agricultural expanses in the central and northern regions, has greatly degraded the Basin; indeed, were it
not for recent decreased economic output and lack of funds for pesticides and fertilisers, practices similar
to those of Soviet times would continue to highly pollute the River at similar levels. Still, industrial
emissions and agricultural pollution account for most of the pollution entering the Dnieper watershed. The
problem is of acute concern given the legacy of Soviet practice and current policies in the Basin.
Industrial enterprises in the riparian countries find themselves at varying stages of privatisation, with
different levels of foreign ownership, and in disparate legal frameworks. Approaches to emissions and
effluents, therefore, vary from country to country. Agriculture, on the other hand, remains structured in all
three countries much as it was previously, with state ownership of large collectives and poor land,
fertiliser, and pesticide use practices making it a major source for non-point source pollutants.
Coordinated action among the three riparian countries is absolutely essential in gauging and ameliorating
pollution from enterprises and agricultural concerns and there is a need to employ cleaner practices in
anticipation of economic stability and increased output in the Basin. Employing environmental audits and
clean technologies / practices will reduce inputs, lessen emissions, effluents, and runoff, and allow for
bigger long-term profits in all of the countries.
Actions and outputs under the Clean Production rubric include:
1. Setting up an Expert Working Group on Clean Production, which will provide input into
implementation of the basin-wide information system and other related projects and govern activities
at the Clean Production Activity Centre;
2. Setting up in one of the riparian countries a Clean Production Activity Centre, which will serve as the
focal point for regional training, capacity building, information exchange, and SAP formulation;
3. Establishing in each of the 3 countries a group of experts in the field of environmental auditing
capable of providing training in this topic. This can be done by enhancing the capability of the experts
in this field, already trained under IDRC's EMDU programme;
8. Fostering the establishment of companies to conduct audits of selected industrial / agricultural
concerns.
ANNEX V DETAILS OF ACTIVITIES TO BE EXECUTED BY IDRC
Budget Line # 2101
Activity 1.2
Establish Expert Working Groups with members from riparian nations and foreign experts
Objective:
Six working groups will be established which will correspond to the
topics
associated with the activity centres. Each working group will have about 20
members from the three riparian countries; will have one foreign expert associated
with it; and will maintain close linkages with the activity centres (some of the
meetings will take place at the activity centres).
Working groups:
1)
Biodiversity
2)
Pollution prevention and control
3)
Legal, regulatory and economic issues
4)
Information management
5)
Pollution monitoring
6)
Clean production
Activities:
The full working groups will meet once a year with members, while maintaining
contact between meetings. They will provide input and advice for SAP and
NAPs
development and guidance for the activities undertaken by the activity centres.
IDRC's role:
IDRC will assist in the organisation of the working groups, participate in their
annual meetings, and provide general technical backstopping and advice
throughout the lives of the working groups.
Success Criteria:
Working groups established by December 1999 and first meeting by January 2000
Milestones: two successive meetings held, with foreign experts and IDRC
participating
Effective guidance provided to activity centres, SAP, and NAPs
Budget Line # 2101
providing the above services, the activity centres will build the capacity of the
riparian nations to develop and eventually put in operation the SAP and
NAPs.
The centres will focus on the following topics:
1)
Biodiversity
2)
Pollution prevention and control
3)
Legal regulatory and economic issues
4)
Information management
5)
Pollution; monitoring
6)
Clean production
Activities:
Roughly $250 K will be spent from the GEF funds to cover some basic running
costs and activities of the centres. Each centre will hold a conference early in its
existence to define issues and to develop a work plan related to its area of
expertise. The conferences will be attended by representatives from riparian
nations and western experts. A small study tour to Western Europe or North
America will also be funded for each centre to familiarise members with specific
issues related to the topic it covers. The centres will also host and participate in
some of the meetings organised in the course of the GEF project, thus providing
cost efficient use of their premises.
IDRC's role:
IDRC will supervise the selection of the activity centres, which will be the
responsibility of the riparian countries' National Management Committees. IDRC
will also participate in the initial conference at each centre, defining strategic
directions; participate in some of the training sessions; oversee the activities of
each centre to provide quality assurance; assure that the centres' input is
considered during SAP and NAPs development; and assist centres in defining
training and equipment needs.
Success Criteria:
Six activity centres in place and functioning by January 2000. Successful centres
will be characterised by a high degree of interaction between experts from the
three riparian nations, as well as with western experts, and by successfully
organising and participating in study trips to learn from the river management
experience of other basins, for example the Danube GEF project.
Successfully raising funds from other sources for study trips.
Budget Line # 2101
Activity 1.4
Create Dnieper Regional Council and coordinate annual meeting of the Council
Objective:
The Dnieper Regional Council will be a large group comprised of representatives
of organisations concerned with the River. Membership will include
representatives of relevant ministries (Environment, Natural Resources, Industry,
Municipal Affairs, Public Health), oblast administrations (23 in total),
representatives of civil society through NGOs, scientific institutions, and local
governments of large municipalities. The GEF Project Management Unit and
Council will also be represented on the Dnieper Regional Council.
The Regional Council will serve as a forum to bring together results of work
conducted by the activity centres, thematic working groups, and other GEF
activities and issues raised by various forums organised through GEF (see
objective 6), providing input and advice into the development of the SAP and
NAPs.
Activities:
Three annual meetings of Council will be organised by IDRC. It is anticipated that
the annual meetings of the Council will be structured around small working group
meetings focussed on specific issues and that the working groups' deliberations
will be reported at plenary sessions where results and recommendations can be
summarised and endorsed by the entire Council.
The Council will comprise approximately 60 members with the following make
up:
Oblast officials
23
Civil society + NGOs
16
National Govt reps.
15
Municipal Govt reps.
6
Total:
60
IDRC's role:
Much of the IDRC activity will involve communication from the Kyiv office to
potential members of the Council and organisation of meetings throughout the
Basin to explain the role of the Council and to enlist membership. Organising the
Budget Line # 2102
Activity 2.3
Identify pollution "hot spots" for subsequent rehabilitation / investments
Objective:
The objective of this activity is to identify, using the World Health Organisation's
criteria, pollution hot spots in the Dnieper Basin and to identify those suitable for
remediation through direct investment by international financial institutions (
IFIs),
partnerships with and investment by foreign companies, or self-funded
improvements. Self-funding will be realised through cost savings from the
introduction of low-cost waste and pollution reduction measures. Environmental
audits will help identify these low-cost improvements in management and
production processes resulting in reduced pollution and input costs.
Hot spots will include industrial plants, cities, municipal sewage plants, landfills,
and sites of intensive animal production, such as feed lots and pig farms. It is
expected that a significant number of abandoned industrial and waste disposal
sites will be found. Information on pollution from the Chernobyl nuclear accident
will be documented, but no new data will be collected due to the already existing
extensive information base.
Activities:
The activity will be carried out primarily by three consultants (one from each
riparian nation). They will receive training as a group at the beginning of the
activity and will meet twice during the project to compare their approach and
results in order to assure consistency in their final reports. The final report will
present information on hot spots in each of the three countries in a single report.
The report will feed into the work of the thematic working groups (primarily the
pollution prevention and clean production themes) and activities under objective 3
dealing with environmental audits, clean production, and
IFI's priority investment
portfolios.
Two trips by two international consultants are required to assist the work. The first
trip will be to conduct the training, during which a limited number of hot spots
will be assessed with the three local consultants working as a team. A second visit
towards the end of the project will facilitate the merging of the three reports from
the local consultants into a final report.
IDRC's Role:
IDRC will engage the foreign and local consultants, monitor progress through
field visits, and provide overall quality assurance. It will arrange for the
translation, editing, and publishing of the final report.
Success Criteria:
Successful training workshop by Feb. 2000.
Project completion date: publishing the final report in June 2000.
Budget Line # 2103
Activity 3.2
Feasibility studies / pilot projects: economic instruments to regulate municipal / industrial
pollution
Objective:
The objective is to conduct feasibility studies and pilot projects using economic
instruments to reduce pollution and to link these results to
IDRC's ongoing
environmental audits and green technologies project. This activity will be closely
coordinated with those working groups and activity centres that focus on pollution
prevention and control and legal, regulatory, and economic issues.
Activities:
Water and sewerage pricing and consumer attitudes toward water use will be
reviewed in one major city within the Basin. A sensitivity analysis report will be
written to determine the optimal price of water to reduce use and minimise
sewerage discharge, particularly by industry. The report will be written with the
help of an NGO to capture public and industry concerns. It is proposed the study
will be followed by a public education campaign and a pilot project to introduce
optimal fees by the city to measure the effect on water use and sewer discharge.
Results of the experiment will be discussed with stakeholders (water providers and
users) and published in a case study.
A training workshop on environmental audits will be co
nducted in Russia and
Belarus, similar to those which have already been conducted in Ukraine in the
course of the IDRC EMDU programme, to develop a regional capacity to reduce
pollution. Environmental audits will be performed at three major industrial sites
(one in each country) where low-cost management, process, and equipment
improvements will be introduced to reduce inputs and waste outputs. Low-cost,
selecting sites for audits;
training of auditors in Russia and Belarus, in conjunction with initiation of the
audits;
having local auditors work with plant managers to see that l
ow-cost changes in
plants are made and that waste reduction is documented. Technical advice will be
provided by the lead agency;
organising in each of the riparian countries a seminar to be attended by industry
and government managers to demonstrate the use and value of environmental
audits and introduction of low-cost waste reduction procedures and technological
improvements.
IDRC's role:
IDRC will monitor and supervise the activity. Potential additional support is
expected from the Danish Government and the British Know How Fund.
Success Criteria:
By June 2001, a report on water and sewage pricing, and the results of trial pricing
pilot study in a major city;
Three audits and non-capital improvements made; cost- and pollution reductions
documented; trained environmental auditors in the three
riparians (at least 5 per
country); end of project conference explaining the value of environmental audits
attended by representatives of all stakeholders;
By June 2001, case studies of environmental audits published;
Additional funds for clean production activities garnered from other donors.
Budget Line # 2103
Activity 3.10
Assess operational capacities and practices regarding the transboundary environmental
consequences of water abstraction and water returns from treatment plants
Objective:
In the Basin, waste water and water treatment plants (vodokanals) and enterprises
with their own treatment facilities ordinarily have water intake pipes that abstract
raw water from the Dnieper River and return pipes that deposit it there following
treatment. A review of all current and planned future water processing licences
needs to be conducted in order to identify the existing and potential impact that
such abstraction and return have on the environment and biodiversity.
or general environmental impacts. A workshop will be held in each of the three
riparian countries and will bring together interested parties from all
riparians and
participants from the thematic working groups and activity centres (particularly
those dealing with biodiversity; pollution prevention and control; legal, regulatory
and economic issues; and pollution monitoring). An international expert will be
selected to review the report, advise the local experts, and participate in the first
workshop, while the working groups will make recommendations to decision-
makers.
IDRC's Role:
IDRC will assist with the selection of the local consultants and international
expert, provide technical assistance and backstopping in the data analysis, and
assist with the organisation of the workshops.
Success Criteria:
Three workshops held to discuss the findings of the national experts of
vodokanal-
related transboundary environmental effects by Spring 2001.
A comprehensive report on the current state and future of water abstraction and
return and the consequent environmental effects in the Basin, to be included in the
SAP by June 2001 and the NAPs, by Oct. 2001.
Budget Line # 2104
Activity 5.1
Conduct an assessment of protected areas, priority ecosystems & biodiversity hot-spots, including
economic valuation studies
Objective:
The objective of this activity is to assess the current situation of biodiversity
protection in the Basin and identify knowledge gaps and potential remediation /
action plans. The activity will be carried out by three national experts from each
riparian country in close collaboration with the biodiversity thematic working
group and activity centre. A report on assessment and inventory for each country
of existing protected areas, priority ecosystems, and biodiversity hot-spots will be
prepared.
Activities:
Workshop: in the course of the first strategic workshop organised by the
biodiversity activity centre (see 1.3), the thematic working group on biodiversity
Basin-wide workshop: this basin-wide workshop will bring together the national
experts and the biodiversity thematic working group to be held at the Biodiversity
Activity Centre. Observers from cooperating organisations, NGOs and some
analogous GEF Biodiversity programs outside the Basin will be invited to join the
meeting. The workshop will discuss the three national inventories of protected
areas, select from the list of proposed solutions, compile a short list of pilot
projects, agree on a time schedule, and exchange experiences. On the last day
attendees will visit a biodiversity site.
Follow-up workshops for national experts: two follow-up meetings will take place
to finalise the report in preparation for the SAP.
Pilot initiatives: based on the decisions made at the basin-wide workshop, three
pilot initiatives will be conducted (one in each country). They could include
establishing new or upgrading existing protected areas in the transboundary zones,
steppe floodplain, or the Dnieper estuary; upgrading existing
GIS capabilities for
protected area management and electronic data management and exchange;
introducing remote sensing, automatic sampling, and monitoring stations in
transboundary areas and on-line storage and exchange of collected data with early-
warning capability; exploring the Adopt-a-Park idea with remote video monitoring
of wildlife.
IDRC's role:
IDRC will select the international consultants and monitor and supervise the
activity.
Success Criteria:
Basin-wide workshop organised by May 2000.
Up-to-date assessment of the state of biodiversity protection activities in the
Dnieper Basin; identification of overlaps with biodiversity programs funded from
other sources, ensuring effective consolidation and coordination of all activities;
provision of an integrated input into the Dnieper SAP by Nov. 2000;
pilot studies completed by June 2002.
Budget Line # 2104
Activity 5.2
Review legal and regulatory framework for Dnieper River Basin biodiversity protection,
community support, and public participation
Objective:
This activity will be carried out by national experts in two areas: one in legal and
regulatory, the other in public participation regarding biodiversity protection in the
Dnieper Basin. The consultants will meet twice during the SAP preparation period
to compare their approaches and progress and will report to and maintain close
contact with the biodiversity thematic working group, the activity centre, and an
international adviser. Their report will feed into the SAP and
NAPs preparation.
Activities:
At its first meeting, the biodiversity activity centre (see 1.3) will select national
consultants from each country to work on the legal and regulatory framework and
public involvement. Two meetings will be held to bring together the local experts,
biodiversity working group representatives, and an international adviser. At the
first meeting, they will prepare a plan and outline the scope of their research,
while at the second meeting each expert will present the results of their work and
propose a course of action for the working group to feed into the SAP and NAPs
preparation. Using these directions, the national experts will prepare a report with
recommendations in the legal and regulatory areas for the biodiversity working
group, as well as public involvement status in the Basin for inclusion in the
Dnieper SAP and NAPs.
To provide professional development and training, three people (one from each
riparian country) will visit selected European and North-American biodiversity
projects to exchange expertise, to study local systems of biodiversity protection,
and to attend conferences / symposia.
IDRC's Role:
IDRC will select the international consultants, assist with the organisation of the
meetings, and monitor and supervise the activity.
Success Criteria:
Two meetings held involving local experts, the working group, and international
experts by Aug. 2000.
Budget Line # 2104
Activity 5.3
Review & assess agricultural practices in context of pollution reduction and soil conservation
3a
Review and assess agricultural practices in relation to transboundary biodiversity
conservation (in context of pollution reduction and soil conservation)
3b
Review status of fisheries and aquaculture in the region in relationship to biodiversity
conservation; identify gaps and problems areas
Objective:
These two sub-activities will be conducted separately by national consultants /
institutes and their work will directly feed into the SAP development . Each
country will have a team of three experts, one from the agriculture sector, one
from the fisheries / aquaculture sector, and one dealing with biodiversity. They
will be assisted by international experts bringing the same areas of expertise to
ensure a multidisciplinary and multisectoral approach to biodiversity protection in
the Dnieper Basin.
Activities:
The national experts will be selected during the first meeting of the biodiversity
thematic working group (see 5.1), where they will have a first meeting with the
selected international experts to plan the upcoming research. These consultants
will assess agricultural and fisheries as well as aquaculture practices in the Basin,
their impact on biodiversity, and suggest potential improvements of unacceptable
operations. In the course of the assessments, experts will also conduct field visits
to 2-3 selected agricultural and fisheries enterprises to assess possible
improvements in present management practices. With help from international
consultants, two separate position papers will be prepared for the working group
by Oct. 2000 (agriculture sector) and Jan. 2001 (fisheries / aquaculture) for
incorporation into the Dnieper SAP.
IDRC's Role:
IDRC will assist with the selection of the international experts and monitor the
activities, providing technical backstopping.
Success Criteria:
Two reports reviewing the conservation implications of current Dnieper Basin
Budget Line # 2104
Activity 5.4
Assist countries to develop a regional strategy for protecting key habitats and species in the
Dnieper Basin
Objective:
This activity marks the completion of the biodiversity thematic working group's
main tasks, summarising accomplishments and proposals from all previous
activities and presenting a mutually agreed upon regional strategy proposal in the
course of a final workshop to be held at the biodiversity activity centre.
Activities:
A final summary meeting of the Working Group and national consultants from
Activities 5.1 through 5.3 will be organised to prepare a draft of the basin-wide
biodiversity protection strategy, to be incorporated in the overall Dnieper SAP.
Assistance in the final document preparation will be provided by an international
consultant. A follow-up workplan of the working group for the implementation of
the Dnieper SAP will also be outlined. The final Regional Biodiversity Strategy
will be edited and published in all three national languages and English.
IDRC's Role:
IDRC will provide support to the activity centre in the organisation of the final
workshop and in the editing and publishing of the report.
Success Criteria:
Completion of the regional basin-wide biodiversity protection strategy report by
Sept. 2001, which would then be presented to the Dnieper Project Steering
Committee.
Report's recommendations incorporated into the SAP and NAPs.
Budget Line # 2105
Activity 6.1
Facilitate socio-economic assessment of the effect of transboundary pollution on the Basin's
population and the identification of key stakeholders
Objective:
This activity will be carried out by contracting the study to a local organisation
such as an economic faculty of a university or an NGO.
will be conducted to disseminate and discuss the findings where representatives
from the major stakeholders (all three countries) and the relevant working groups
and activity centres (primarily pollution prevention and control; legal, regulatory
and economic issues; clean production; and pollution monitoring). The final report
will feed into the SAP and NAPs preparation.
IDRC's Role:
IDRC will assist the working groups in the selection of the local contractor and
provide quality assurance for the work undertaken, ensuring that all major
stakeholders are included in the assessment.
Success Criteria:
Writing and publishing an authoritative report in Russian, Ukrainian,
Belarusian,
and English documenting who the stakeholders are with respect to Dnieper River
water quality and the impact of pollution on these stakeholders by Oct. 2000.
Findings of the report discussed with a wide audience at a workshop, Nov. 2000.
Budget Line # 2105
Activity 6.2
Improve information access and dissemination through the WWW and Internet list
-servers
Objective:
The objective of this activity is to improve communications among institutions
involved in GEF activities and enhance information dissemination about
environmental activities in the Dnieper Basin.
Activity:
This activity will be carried out by establishing a GEF Information Centre in Kyiv
at a local participating institution with web access established for each of the
national project management committees. The national sites and other agencies
participating in the GEF project will transmit project info to the Information
Centre, which will maintain a GEF web site. The Centre will also be responsible
for setting up any electronic means of communications (list-servers, chat rooms,
web conferences) as needed by the institutions working in the Basin. Information
in the IDRC-sponsored EMIS system will also be posted on the GEF site,
assuming Ukrainian MEPNS consent.
IDRC's Role:
GEF Dnieper web site set up and web access provided to the national committees
by January 2000.
Permanent GEF Information Centre organised to maintain the
website by
September 2000.
Improved electronic communication among national committees and participating
institutions.
Budget Line # 2105
Activity 6.3
Hold regular consultations and technical workshops with broad stakeholder involvement
Objective:
This activity assists with the work of the Dnieper Regional Council by providing a
venue for annual wide-scale stakeholder consultations. In addition to these
meetings, two smaller technical / policy meetings involving stakeholders will be
organised to deal with the six themes covered by the working groups and the
activity centres.
Activity:
It is expected that for the three consultations of the Regional Council and
stakeholders, western experts would be funded by aid agencies interested in or
already involved in the GEF programme. Only local travel, facilities, and direct
meeting expenses are covered by the GEF budget, assuming that 60 local people
will attend.
The smaller technical / policy meetings will be organised at the activity centres,
involving the thematic working group members and selected stakeholders
(altogether about 20 people).
IDRC's Role:
IDRC will supervise the organisation of the consultations, making sure that all
relevant stakeholders are involved, the information is sufficiently disseminated,
and feedback loops are maintained. IDRC will also ensure that there are strong
linkages between the outcomes of the technical / policy workshops, the work of
the thematic working groups, and SAP and NAPs development.
Success Criteria:
Regional council providing effective input into development of the SAP by
Budget Line # 2105
Activity 6.4
Expand internet access for key stakeholders with priority for those without existing service
Objective:
The objective is to improve communications among institutions involved in GEF
activities and enhance information dissemination about environmental activities in
the Dnieper Basin.
Activity:
This project will provide web and e-mail access on an as-needed basis to key
stakeholders. The number of sites provided will be highly contingent upon the
monthly charges for internet access (currently $400 per month for a dedicated line
in Kyiv). In some cities, e-mail is provided free of charge through
freenets
provided by various aid agencies.
IDRC's Role:
IDRC will provide technical advice and coordination for the selection and
establishment of access to the web for GEF partners. An important role of IDRC
will be to find affordable internet providers in order to complete this activity
within budget. IDRC will also provide initial internet training for novice users.
Success Criteria:
Ten links to the internet provided to key GEF partners by March 2001.
Budget Line # 2105
Activity 6.5
Publish and disseminate project and Dnieper Basin information (print & on-line)
Objective:
The objective is to disseminate information about environmental activities in the
Dnieper Basin to a wide audience, encouraging participation and feedback from
all stakeholders.
Activity:
A Dnieper GEF newsletter will be established in Russian, Ukrainian,
Belarusian,
and English. Twice a year, a more extensive report on the project and general
Upon TDA / SAP completion, jargon-free accessible versions will be published
and disseminated widely in the three countries.
IDRC's Role:
IDRC will select the organisation to publish the newsletter, assist with the final
editing of the English issues, and be responsible for the international
dissemination of the newsletter. It will also supervise the publication of the jargon-
free TDA and SAP. In order to ensure that all publications meet the highest
standards, IDRC will need to provide much input into their formulation and final
editing.
Success Criteria:
Regular newsletter, with first edition published in Feb. 2000.
Web information appearing by Feb. 2000 and updated regularly.
TDA / SAP widely distributed by Dec. 2001.
Budget Line # 2105
Activity 6.6
Enhance involvement through well-publicised regional Dnieper Basin events
Objective:
A number of approaches will be used to promote activities related to cleaning up
the River and raising public awareness of Dnieper problems and what citizens can
do to become informed and help to fight transboundary pollution.
Activities:
Potential activities include:
Support NGO newsletters and other publications;
Development of school curricula materials (one for each country);
With the help of municipal authorities and NGOs, sponsor local events,
like a river bank clean up day;
Information will be disseminated about the funded activities through the
GEF web page.
IDRC's Role:
IDRC will assist with the selection of worthy causes to be supported. These could
be brought forward by the national committees, the thematic working groups, and
the activity centres, either in line with planned strategies or as need arises.
Budget Line # 2105
Activity 6.7
Sponsor bi-annual NGO forum for networking and regional capacity building
Objective:
The project will promote a network of NGOs and networking between NGOs to
share data and information related to the SAP and problems associated with
transboundary pollution of the River.
Activities:
Five meetings of NGOs will be held to discuss Dnieper problems, to provide input
into the SAP / NAPs, and to build NGO participation in and capacity for dealing
with Dnieper problems. The meetings will be held at various locations in the
Basin. Active participation by Regional Environmental Centres, as these become
established and operational, is expected. Participation of NGOs outside the Basin
will also be sought, with funding raised from new sources. Information produced
at the meetings will be disseminated to all thematic working groups, activity
centres, and GEF national committees.
IDRC's Role:
IDRC will organise the meetings to ensure appropriate representation by a wide
range of NGOs in the region, to encourage capacity building, and to engender
networking. IDRC will also promote ongoing networking between meetings.
Success Criteria:
Functioning network of NGOs regularly sharing data and information.
First NGO meeting organised by March 2000.
Additional funding for NGOs secured.
Budget Line # 2105
Activity 6.8
Create and administer a Dnieper Basin small grants program for
NGOs and community
organisations
Objective:
The small grants will be used to fund small-scale activities proposed by NGOs and
community organisations related to the rehabilitation and improved transboundary
representatives to the GEF project, along with the CTA and the IDRC on
-site
manager. The proposals and the final reports will be translated, put on the GEF
web site, and disseminated to the relevant thematic working groups and activity
centres.
IDRC's Role:
IDRC will conduct the RFP, oversee the selection of grants, administer the grants,
and, together with local selection committee members, monitor the funded
activities. Given the nature of the activity (i.e. managing a large number of very
small contracts / grants), it will require more resources from IDRC for accounting,
legal, etc., than normal overhead can provide.
Success Criteria:
A minimum of 20 grants awarded, which will contribut
e to reduced pollution in
the Basin and better management of resources.
It is anticipated that NGOs can promulgate information on how to manage water
resources better, for example how to reduce pollution from raising farm animals.
Such dissemination activities related to clean-up or local management of the River
will generally be confined to a single country or locality. These activities will,
however, reduce transboundary pollution and improve quality of the water
entering the Black Sea.
21.01 IDRC
PROJECT TOTAL
YEAR 1
YEAR 2
YEAR 3
Sub-contract
(annual meeting)
CMBL
Description
w/m
TOTAL
w/m
Year 1
w/m
Year 2
w/m
Year 3
Total
Total
Total
010
PROJECT PERSONNEL
11
International Consultants
11-01 IDRC senior consultants
510.0 days
275,400
200
108,000
203
109,620
107
57,780
11-02 IDRC junior consultants
70.0 months
21,700
19
5,890
39
12,090
12
3,720
11-03 non-IDRC foreign consultants
197.0 days
108,500
100
60,000
77
38,500
20
10,000
11-99 Subtotal
405,600
173,890
160,210
71,500
13
Administrative Support
0
0
0
0
15
Monitoring and Evaluation
6,480
0
3,240
3,240
16
Mission Costs
247,428
121,354
91,955
34,119
17
National Consultants
17-01 Local experts
193.6 months
101,753
71
36,600
92
49,450
31
15,703
17-02 IDRC local experts
53.9 months
59,580
32
27,080
13
19,250
9
13,250
17-03 IDRC support
34.0 months
34,000
14
14,166
14
13,666
6
6,168
17-04
0.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17-99 Subtotal
195,333
77,846
82,366
35,121
19
Component Total
854,841
373,090
337,771
143,980
020
CONTRACTS
21
Subcontract A
14,400
14,400
0
0
29
Component Total
14,400
14,400
0
0
030
TRAINING
32
Other Training
560,960
209,560
172,822
178,578
(study tours, meetings)
39
Component Total
560,960
209,560
172,822
178,578
040
EQUIPMENT
45
(annual meeting)
45-01 Expendable
26,400
8,800
8,800
8,800
45-02 Non-expendable
154,446
112,043
42,403
0
49
Component Total
180,846
120,843
51,203
8,800
050
MISCELLANEOUS
51
Sundries
51-01 Internet Access
81,588
28,338
26,625
26,625
51-02 Dissemination
139,798
49,977
65,392
24,429
51-03 Data Acquisition
10,000
10,000
0
0
51-04 Other
23,100
9,700
6,600
6,800
52
Reporting Costs
ANNEX VI DETAILS OF ACTIVITIES TO BE EXECUTED BY UNIDO
AND IAEA
Objective 3/ACTIVITY 1a & 1b
UNIDO will organise workshops that will focus on the major transboundary pollution hotspots, identify
the probable major pollutants and make initial predictions of risk to the environment and human health.
The product of the workshops will be used in the preparation of a Priority Investment Portfolio (PIP),
which will also incorporate recommendations for pre-feasibility studies.
UNIDO will promote, as part of these activities:
The integration of scientific, economic and social elements related to environmental issues for
the assessment and prediction of risk, as well as risk reduction.
Encourage a shift away from the traditional sector-by-sector environmental management
practice to a cross-sectoral approach. This practical and philosophical transformation is
essential, in order to deliver the capacity to anticipate and minimise pollutant risks.
Collaboration with academia and research institutes, which will include, among others,
environmental monitoring and remote/satellite surveillance, risk assessment, interpretation of
complex information and predictive modelling.
Identify the key areas that require investment and which will also stimulate new business
opportunities related to environmental clean-up technologies.
In formulating the environmental priorities, UNIDO will encourage a holistic and innovative approach to
problem solving where possible and try to ensure that this will be reflected in the pre-feasibility studies.
In seeking appropriate solutions to the regional problems, novel low-cost technologies will be considered,
as well as more traditional methods for pollutant reduction and remediation. For instance, modern
biotechnology has opened new avenues aimed at identifying and using biological material in industrial
processes and for decontamination of heavily polluted water and soils by phytoremediation. The
technique of phytoremediation uses selected plants to absorb/detoxify the contaminants from the soil or
ground water.
Objective 3/ACTIVITIES 3, 5, 6 & 8
UNIDO's services are oriented to develop and implement projects in the field of waste management and
waste minimisation in the industrial sector, as well as directly to municipalities and urban administrations.
The goal is to diminish the emissions of industrial and hazardous wastes, introduce modern and
environmentally friendly technologies for wastes treatment and disposal, contribute to capacity building in
Assess and review environmental impact assessment policies and recommend reforms.
Review and assess management policies, guidelines and practices for managing holding ponds for
industrial waste, including disposal/remediation of the sediment produced.
These activities are viewed as being interwoven and UNIDO will address them in an integrated manner.
UNIDO will also encourage the introduction of modern and economic technological solutions. These will
address the problems of classification, collection, treatment and disposal of municipal solid wastes,
agricultural, industrial and hazardous wastes, prevention of possible environmental damage to soil, air and
water, including groundwater. Taking into consideration the importance of the practical application of
international conventions on hazardous wastes, persistent organic pollutants, etc; UNIDO promotes the
evaluation of alternative treatment and disposal solutions for banned and toxic products.
Key objectives here are:
integrate the concepts of waste minimisation and pollution control as an important element of
industrial processes
contribute to the introduction of environmental and ecotoxicological impact assessment and
monitoring of chemicals in the industrial sector
assist in the selection and introduction of environmentally sound remediation techniques for impacted
areas and subsequent monitoring of the results
UNIDO will assist in waste management and minimisation with special attention to the management of
urban wastes, management of toxic chemicals, treatment and disposal of non-biodegradable products and
assistance for the development of replacement products and technologies for banned agrochemicals.
UNIDO will also advise on the introduction of environmental and ecotoxicological risk assessment
methodologies in the existing environmental protection centres and promote the creation of regional
ecotoxicology networks and qualification of national staff in the application of internationally available
procedures to local conditions in the countries of the region. Through the development of regional
networks it will be possible to save financial resources and, hence, multiply the effect of the available
resources and the impact of the results.
UNIDO will promote, as part of these activities:
Improvement and correct application of waste management and minimisation techniques in the
industrial sector, which are important elements towards sustainable and environmentally friendly
industrial development.
Economic waste prevention, treatment, minimisation and disposal procedures to improve the
competitiveness of the industrial sector in developing and transitional countries.
complex mix of other toxic chemical pollutants is also introduced through shipping activities, agricultural
practices and atmospheric inputs of airborne pollution.
River basins supply water for industry, agriculture and domestic use but are also too often used as
convenient dumpsites for the waste products of human activities (e.g., mercury, arsenic, cadmium and
synthetic organic chemicals), with consequent risks for ecosystems and human health. To further
exacerbate the situation, continuing problems of water supply and sanitation, associated with pollution and
water-related diseases, are likely to result in considerable human deprivation and death.
A way forward in dealing with the complexity of these problems is through the implementation of effective
"Integrated Environmental Management" (IEM). This
assesses the changing states of ecosystems using
science-based information, linked to socioeconomic benefits for countries sharing or bordering
international waterways.
The methods are used in an integrated interdisciplinary way in order to address the consequences of
ecosystem change and the ensuing implications for sustainable use of water and development of food
resources like agriculture and fisheries, as well as the needs of industry. This will help to alleviate poverty
and the harmful impact on human health.
Biotechnology will be a major tool in the new millennium for making industry cleaner and more efficient.
Biotechnology processes will be widely used in the paper and chemicals industry, textiles and leather
production and processing; and in the metals and energy industries.
UNIDO will assist in identifying industrial applications of biotechnology and promote joint ventures for
technology transfer. This will include training programmes for the utilisation of biotechnology
developments for remediation of contaminated areas.
UNIDO will promote, as part of these activities:
Safety assurance of environmental applications of biotechnology.
Conservation and sustainable utilisation of biodiversity.
Biotechnology for cleaner industrial production and environmental remediation.
Effective environmental management has the prerequisite of a sound foundation of scientific
research and understanding of environmental processes. UNIDO, a technical UN-Agency, is
uniquely placed to bring together the necessary skills and expertise on industrial development and
environmental protection essential for the development and application of integrated environmental
management.
ACTIVITY 9 OF OBJECTIVE 3
For the task assigned to IAEA by GEF, the Divisions of Nuclear Installations Safety (NSNI) and Radiation
and Waste Safety (NSRW) would be involved in providing technical advice. It is likely that priority
should be given to operational safety of nuclear facilities (NSNI), safety of disposable waste and safety of
residual waste, i.e. safe restoration of environments with residual radioactivity and safety of tailings from
mining and milling (NSRW).
The Agency would be pleased to provide advice on environment-related project activities, particularly
those related to assessment and remediation aspects dealing with radioactivity. The Department of
Technical Co-operation will co-ordinate all Agency interactions with GEF and work as usual with
technical support from the divisions mentioned above and external experts, including specialist from the
region. The focal point for implementation of the project is:
Mr. Massoud Samiei,
Head, Europe Section,
Division for Europe, Latin America and West Asia,
Department of Technical Co-operation,
Tel: + 43 1 2600 22327
Fax: +43 1 2600 7, e-mail: M.Samiei@iaea.org
ANNEX VII. STATUS AND ROLE OF IDRC
IDRC's Legal Foundation
The International Development Research Centre (IDRC) is a public corporation created by an Act of the
Parliament of Canada in 1970. The main elements of the Act provide IDRC with its legal mandate "...to
initiate, encourage, support and conduct research into the problems of the developing regions of the world
and into the means for applying and adapting knowledge to the economic and social advancement of those
regions." (full text of the Act is available at http://www.idrc.ca/institution/eact.html).
In order to enable IDRC to meet the challenges of its mandate, the Parliament of Canada determined that
the Centre would benefit from an extraordinary degree of autonomy. It is not an agent in law of the
government, nor are its employees government employees. Yet, despite this measure of political
autonomy, IDRC remains accountable to the Parliament of Canada and its operations are audited annually
by the Office of the Auditor General.
Unique to IDRC as well is its governance structure. It is led by a 21-member international Board of
Governors. Eleven governors, including the Chairperson, are from Canada, while of the remaining 10,
historically, 8 or 9 have usually come from developing countries and the others from developed countries.
Current members of the Board of Governors are:
International:
Canadian:
Mervat Badawi
Egypt
Gordon Smith (Chairman)
Octavio Gómez-Dantés
Mexico
Maureen O'Neil (President)
Dan Martin
United States of America
Marie Battiste
Ivy Matsepe-Casaburri
South Africa
Herb Breau
Alister McIntyre
Grenada
Margaret Catley-Carlson
Vulimiri Ramalingaswami
India
Beryl Gaffney
Francisco Sagasti
Peru
Jacques Gérin
Marie-Angélique Savané
Senegal
Huguette Labelle
Paulynn Sicam
Philippines/Canada
Tom McKay
Jean-Guy Paquet
Rodger Schwass
Olav Slaymaker
As established by the Parliamentary Act, IDRC has the power, among other things to: a) enter into
contracts or agreements with governments, with international, public, or private organisations and
agencies, or with individuals; b) acquire by gift, bequest, or otherwise, and hold, expend, invest,
administer, or dispose of, any money, securities, or other property subject to the terms under which the
money is made available to IDRC; and c) support or assist research by governments, by international,
public or private organisations and agencies, or by individuals.
The core of IDRC's funding is a yearly grant from Parliament. While the grant is critical to
IDRC's work,
provisions in the Act allow the Centre to pursue other sources of funding. IDRC can receive funds from
IDRC works with governments, universities, private businesses, remote communities, development
organisations, and international agencies throughout the world. It has experience in consensus
-building
and the development of multi-donor consortia for long-term support for research and training programs,
and was named by Canada as a lead organisation in the implementation of Agenda 21 at the UN
Conference on Environment and Development in 1992. The Centre hires staff from around the world,
basing them in Ottawa and in regional offices located in Cairo, Dakar, Johannesburg, Nairobi, New Delhi,
Montevideo, and Singapore, as well as in project offices, like that in Kyiv. It employs a
multi-disciplinary
team of scientists, technicians, managers, and policymakers with broad experience in the physical, social,
life, and information sciences and is capable of administering large international projects. For support with
its endeavours, IDRC draws upon a network of development experts from around the world; it has access
to diverse networks of development thinkers and researchers, scientists, and policymakers
worldwide and
is unhampered by "tied aid" questions in choosing or hiring partners.
The Centre has provided more than $1.5 billion in support of over 5,000 research projects in 100 countries
for more than 20,000 researchers and 1,000 institutions.
The IDRC Vision
The Centre believes that sustainable and equitable human activity depends on men's and women's control
of their own social and economic progress, on equitable access to knowledge of all kinds, and on an
indigenous capacity to generate and apply knowledge. The mission of IDRC is "empowerment through
knowledge," i.e., helping to optimise the creation, adaptation, and ownership of the knowledge that the
people of developing countries judge to be of greatest relevance to their own prosperity, security, and
equity. This mission represents an essential contribution to redressing the imbalances in global prosperity
and access to knowledge.
It is vital that the peoples of developing and transition countries be in a position to control their own
"knowledge-based" development. Therefore, strengthening capacity for research, independent policy
analysis, and accessing knowledge are critical. Analytical capacity in these countries must be strengthened
to ensure that they can contribute as informed participants in major international debates, e.g., WTO and
climate change. They must be able to deal directly with issues of direct domestic concern, like governance
and economic policy, where, in the absence of indigenous capacity, the analysis by external actors may be
all that is available and will carry undue weight. These considerations influence the program choices that
IDRC makes.
IDRC recognises that respect for human rights and their promotion are integral parts of sustainable and
equitable development, and are fundamental to research being carried out under conditions of intellectual
liberty and unrestricted communication of results.
As written in the Parliamentary Act, IDRC is enjoined "to enlist the talents of natural and social scientists
and technologists of Canada and other countries," "to encourage generally the
coordination of international
development research," and "to foster cooperation in research on development problems between the
developed and developing regions for their mutual benefit." These have all provided and will continue to
provide direction to the activities of the Centre. The cornerstone of IDRC's future work will be an ever
stronger link to the aspirations and needs of the people in the developing countries of the world. During
the next five years, directed by the aims enshrined in the IDRC Act of 1970, the Centre will pursue the
following strategic goals:
· to foster and to support the production, dissemination and application of research results leading to
policies and technologies that enhance the lives of people in developing countries;
· to mobilise and to strengthen the indigenous research capacity of developing countries, especially
directed to achieving greater social and economic equity, better management of the environment
and natural resources, and more equitable access to information;
· to build selectively on past investments and to explore new opportunities within its program
framework, with a view to:
· to foster the development of program initiatives to consolidate or establish regional and
interregional networks of research institutions that are focussed on specific problems and are
connected among themselves and with the broader Canadian and global knowledge communities;
· to develop a variety of partnership arrangements with donors and research institutions, including
the management of consortia and secretariats, which are dedicated to generating and applying
knowledge to major development issues in particular topics, eco-regions, or countries.
IDRC's Methodology
Access to knowledge must be equitable. The ability to carry out analysis, to review options critically, and
to write and to speak about them publicly - in short, to generate and to use knowledge - makes a vital
contribution to social progress. This requires social innovation. There is no such thing as a technological
fix. The technical ingenuity of humanity has far outstripped its ability to design and apply the policy,
managerial, educational, governance, and institutional innovations required to improve well-being and to
redress the stark inequities around us. Each society must devise its own solutions while learning what it
can from the experience of others.
Organisations like IDRC must contribute to strengthening the scientific and analytical capacity of
developing countries. In the Centre's case, this continues to mean creating opportunities for our
developing and transition country partners to carry out research and to work as equals with their peers in
Canada and other industrialised countries. Developing countries must be able to be full participants in the
discussions and arrangements that are driving, and responding to, profound global changes.
In fulfilling its mission of "empowerment through knowledge," the Centre has concentrated on
encouraging and supporting researchers in the developing world to carry out their work in their own
institutions and, in so doing, has assisted the developing regions, as stated in the Act of Parliament, "...to
build up the research capabilities, the innovative skills, and the institutions required to solve their
problems." Unlike most development agencies, which hire outside consultants to study a problem, to
conduct training, and to issue a report, IDRC's proven methodology utilises local institutions to determine
their own needs and to carry out the necessary work. By looking first to indigenous institutions when
providing research grants, IDRC not only helps to build self-confidence in those institutions, but also to
strengthen those institutions' research and technical capacities. Moreover, because research is carried out
by locals for locals, a greater measure of "buy-in" is insured than if the work, however valid and
technically sound, were carried out by outside consultants. A risk in using local capacity is that output
quality can suffer: IDRC therefore uses its in-house expertise and world-wide networks of researchers and
experts to guide researchers and to provide input and to bridge knowledge or technology gaps as needed.
ANNEX VIII. ROLE AND BACKGROUND OF UNIDO
UNIDO's Inputs
Humanity has increasingly recognised that the global environment is not an infinite well that can be
drawn from indefinitely, without damaging the processes and systems that comprise its fragile
ecosystems. This concept of a limited world clearly demonstrates the need for sustainable development,
that does not endanger the inheritance of our children and future generations. Consequently, UNIDO in
looking to the future has developed a strategy that endeavours to address the problems of sustainable
development and environmental risk in a purposeful and practical way.
The first element of UNIDO's strategy on environment is to provide integrated services comprising
comprehensive packages covering its two major substantive areas. These are strengthening competitive
industrial capacities by investment and technology promotion; and promotion of sustainable industrial
development, by introducing cleaner production and transferring environmental technologies. UNIDO
promotes sustainable industrial development through the above approach of integrated services,
supported by interdisciplinary teams that encompass the required economic, social and environmental
dimensions.
In UNIDO's new service modules for a sound environment, capacity building on the policy level focuses
on Environmental Policy Frameworks. The services in this service module build capacities at the regional,
national and provincial levels of government to carry out their environmental mandates with regard to
industry and within the appropriate geographical boundaries. Capacity building on the institutional level
is comprised of three service modules:-
1) Environmental Policy Framework
2) Cleaner Production
3) Pollution Control & Waste Management
Formulation of Environmental Policy is a key issue that is interwoven within many of UNIDO's
activities. As such, UNIDO contributes to the environmental dimension of sustainable industrial
development. This is effected by supporting developing countries and countries in transition in their
efforts to integrate environmental considerations into industrial development policies and to increase the
effectiveness of their industrial environmental management policies and programmes.
The prime objective is to build capacities primarily with the nexus of ministries of planning, finance,
industry and environment; and with the private sector and its allies in civil society to formulate and
implement cost-effective and consensus based environmental policies and regulations for the industrial
sectors.
building capacities in institutions to analyse the impact of industrial policies on the environment and
to modify existing or design new policies that ensure that environmental considerations are taken into
account in national industrial development strategies
building capacities for appropriate industrial environmental regulation within national environmental
regulatory agencies to carry out four major functions:- formulation of sector-specific pollutant
discharge standards; issuance of pollutant discharge permits (ideally these should be based on the
toxicity of the effluent); compliance monitoring; and enforcement
building capacities for cost-effective industrial environmental planning within provincial and state
governments to produce information about the costs and consequences of alternative pollutant
reduction strategies and to implement the preferred strategy
Within the environmental policy focus area, UNIDO will assist in the formulation of industrial policies
that integrate economic, social and environmental concerns. This will endeavour to document the
environmental impacts of industrial policies and to formulate complementary measures that could
mitigate potential environmental damage and improve conditions for sustainable livelihoods in human
settlements.
Within the industrial environmental regulation focus area, UNIDO will assist the Regulatory Agencies to
develop standards for industrial emissions, strengthen institutional relationships with relevant Ministries,
institutions and stakeholders, undertake compliance monitoring inspections and formulate procedures for
enforcement of standards.
This will help the relevant agencies to more effectively manage environmental quality, to strengthen the
capacity to gather, store and analyse environmental data for management purposes and to develop and test
procedures for improved industrial environmental management, particularly for small and medium
enterprises.
Overall, this will enhance capacity for industrial environmental regulation and facilitate capacity for
industrial environmental planning at regional, national and provincial levels.
Additionally, the UNIDO will contribute to the efforts of the UN Commission on Sustainable
Development to evaluate the integration of environmental considerations into national development
policies and plans as requested in Agenda 21.
The "takehome" message here is:
Integration of environmental considerations into national industrial development policies still
remains, as was stated in "Our Common Future", one of the most cost-effective ways to achieve
national environmental goals.
Elimination of policy disincentives, such as underpriced material inputs and application of policy
incentives, innovative economic incentives, as well as tax credits and revolving funds. These are all
important complements to a national environmental regulatory programme.
Generation of sound information about the magnitude of environmental pollution from various
pollutant sources as well as the cost of compliance is essential for designing cost-effective
management strategies for specific geographic areas.
Promoting Cleaner Production raises awareness levels, throughout a country's private and public
sectors, of the economic and environmental benefits that it can bring. This will also build the
necessary capacity in the country to move the industrial and commercial sectors towards modes of
cleaner production and consumption.
At the enterprise level, the UNIDO services concentrate on the Pollution Control and Waste Management
service module. This focuses on solving environmental problems in a cost-effective manner, through
awareness raising, capacity building, as well as information exchange and networking on pollution
control and waste management technology to enterprises.
The second element of the environment strategy of UNIDO is to develop a new partnership with
governments, private sector and academia from developing nations and countries with economies in
transition. This new partnership can be called "steward partnership" as UNIDO will also be a stakeholder
and therefore responsible for the impact of the services provided. A new partnership will be developed
that will encompass the donor community, United Nations organisations, international financial
institutions and NGOs. UNIDO is transparent and provides excellent value, as well as added value
through its services.
The third element of the environment strategy relates to the role of UNIDO as a United Nations
specialised agency with global forum functions. In addition, it is important, particularly in the context of
the GEF International Waters Programme, that the various UN organisations (i.e., UNDP, UNEP, IOC-
UNESCO, IHP-UNESCO, WMO, WHO & UNIDO), which have interests in Integrated Environmental
Management, harmonise their activities in order to effect synergies in this global activity.
A further aim of UNIDO is to provide its services as an executing agency for the GEF implementing
agencies (UNDP & UNEP).
Finally, a specialised UN-Agency like UNIDO is uniquely placed to bring together the necessary skills
and expertise on industrial development and environmental protection essential for the development and
application of integrated environmental management. UNIDO provides knowledge-based expertise on
the technologies for water treatment, waste management and cleaner production, through its 3 relevant
service modules:-
Environmental Policy Framework
ANNEX IX ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS
AC
Activity Centre
APR
Annual Project/Programme Review
BOD
Biological Oxygen Demand
BSEP
Black Sea Environmental Programme
CAD
Canadian dollars
CD
Compact Disc
CIDA
Canadian International Development Agency
CIS
Commonwealth of Independent States
CITES
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
CTA
Chief Technical Adviser
DBEP
Dnieper Basin Environment Programme
EBRD
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
EMDU
Environmental Management Development in Ukraine
EMIS
Environmental Management Information System
EPI
Environmental Performance Indicator
EU
European Union
FAO
Food and Agriculture Organization of UN
GEF
Global Environment Facility
GIS
Geographic Information System
GIWA
Global International Waters Assessment
GNP
Gross national product
GRID
Global Resources Information Database
IA
Implementing Agency (GEF)
IAA
Inter-Agency Agreement
IAEA
International Atomic Energy Agency
IDRC
International Development Research Center
IBRD
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development
IHP
International Hydrological Programme
IUCN
International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
JMC
Joint Management Committee
LBS
Land-Based Sources
LEARN
Learning Exchange and Resource Network
MAC
Maximum Allowable Concentration
MEPNS
Ministry of Environmental Protection and Nuclear Safety (Ukraine)
NAP
National Action Plan
NEAP
National Environmental Action Plan
NFP
National Focal Point
NGO
Non Governmental Organization
NIS
Newly Independent States
NPMC
National Project Management Committee
PIR
Project Implementation Review
PMU
Project Management Unit
PPER
Project Performance and Evaluation Review
PPRR
Principal Project Resident Representative
RAC
Regional Activity Centre
RBEC
Regional Bureau for Europe and the CIS (UNDP)
RECs
Regional Environmental Centres
SAP
Strategic Action Programme
SBAA
Standard Basic Assistance Agreement
SC
Steering Committee
TACIS
EU Programme for Technical Assistance for the Commonwealth of Independent States
TDA
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis
TOR
Terms of References
TPR
Tri-partite Review
UNCED
United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development
UNDP
United Nations Development Programme
UNDP-CO
United Nations Development Programme Country Office
UN/ECE
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
UNEP
United Nations Environment Programme
UNESCO
United Nations Education, Science and Culture Organization
UNIDO
United Nations Industrial Development Organisation
UNOPS
United Nations Office for Project Services
USAID
United States Agency for International Development
USD
United States Dollars (US$)
WG
Working Group
WHO
World Health Organization
WMO
World Meteorological Organization
WWF
World Wide Fund for Nature
WWW
World Wide Web
INCREMENTAL COST ANALYSIS (FROM PROJECT BRIEF)
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)
· 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
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.
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;
7. 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.
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 of national strategies for Dnieper River rehabilitation
5.
Conservation of Dnieper River basin biodiversity
6.
Communication among stakeholders; public awareness and participation
7.
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$7,000,000 to be allocated as
follows:
Project Component/Output
US$
1.
A transboundary management regime and coordinating
body for the Dnieper River Basin
$1,690,000
2.
A Strategic Action Programme for the Dnieper River
Basin, endorsed at Ministerial level
$610,000
3.
Improved financial and legal mechanisms for pollution
reduction and sustainable resource use
$1,960,000
4.
National Action Plans (NAP's) formulated by Interministerial Committees $525,000
5.
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
x 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
6. 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).
2. Limited avenues for public
7. Develop communication,
2. Public participation in Dnieper
102
Costs/ Benefits
Baseline (B)
Alternative (A)
Increment (A-B)
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.
8. 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; 9. 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
10. 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.
11. 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
12. 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
13. 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
14. 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
10. Dnieper river environmental
spots.
national and regional levels.
data highly dispersed; collection 10. Create regional Dnieper River
10. Improved regional capacity for
102
103
Costs/ Benefits
Baseline (B)
Alternative (A)
Increment (A-B)
and utilization of Dnieper data
basin environmental database
data collection, integration, analysis
uncoordinated at regional level.
and use in decision-making.
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)
103
105
105