United Nations Development Program - Global Environment Facility
United Nations Office for Project Services
Developing the Implementation of the Black Sea Strategic Action Plan
(RER/96/G32/C)
Terminal Evaluation Report
Stanislaw Manikowski February, 2001
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I gratefully acknowledge Ms. Ulrika Meissner, Mr. Ponnuswami Thayaparan and
Andrew Menz from the UNOPS, Mr. Andrew Hudson from UNDP-GEF for their
comments during the briefing sessions before and after my time in the field. The Program
Co-ordinator Ms. Sema Acar, and hers team provided me with all the necessary
documentation, information and technical support. They were always available to discuss
the project achievements and the issues relative to their evaluation. Finally, I am greatly
indebted to the national co-ordinators, and directors of the Activity Centers and their
teams for the time they devoted to discussing the project's activities and their impact of
the regional co-operation. Sema Acar, Andrew Hudson and Laurence Mee provided
valuable comments on draft of the evaluation report.
i
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AC
Activity Center
APPER
Annual Project Performance Evaluation Report
BOD
Biological Oxygen Demand
BS SAP
Black Sea Strategic Action Plan
BSAP
Black Sea Action Plan
BSEC
Black Sea Economic Cooperation
BSEP
Black Sea Environmental Program
Danida
Danish cooperation agency
DEPA
Danish Environmental Protection Agency
EBRD
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
EQO
Environmental Quality Objectives
EQS
Environmental Quality Objectives Standards
EU
European Union
GEF
Global Environment Facility
GIS
Global Information System
IAEA
International Atomic Energy Agency
ICZM
Integrated Coastal Zone Management
IFI
International Financing Institution
IMO
International Maritime Organization
IOC
Intergovernmental Oceanic Commission
MARPOL
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
MoE
Ministry of Environment
NATO
North Atlantic Treaty Organization
NEAP
National Environment Action Plan
NGO
Non Governmental Organization
NSAP
National Strategic Action Plan
BSEF
Black Sea Environmental Fund
PCU
Program Co-ordination Unit
Phare
Poland, Hungry: Aid for Reconstruction and Economy;
Program of assistance for economic reconstructing in the countries
of Central and Eastern Europe
PIR
Project Implementation Review
PPER
Project Performance Evaluation Report
PSC
Port-State
Control
QA
Quality
Assurance
QC
Quality Control
RAC
Regional Activity Center
ii
SAP
Strategic Action Plan
Tacis
Technical assistance to the Commonwealth of Independent States
TDA
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis
UNDP
United Nations Development Program
UNDP/OPS United Nations Development Program/Office for Project Services
UNEP
United Nations Environment Program
UNESCO
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Culture Organization
UNOPS
United Nations Office for Project Services
WHO
World Health Organization
WQO
Water Quality Objective
WQS
Water Quality Standard
iii
SUMMARY
The report contains terminal evaluation of an important UNDP GEF project--
RER/96/G32/C "Developing the Implementation of the Black Sea Strategic Action Plan"
executed by UNOPS between 1997 and 2000. The project was a continuation of a
RER/93/G31 "Environmental Management and Protection of the Black Sea" financed
between 1994 and 1997. Both projects assisted Black Sea littoral countries (Bulgaria,
Georgia, Romania, Russian Federation, Turkey and Ukraine) in taking steps toward
restoration of the Black Sea environment. The evaluated project (RER/96/G32/C)
corresponds to the GEF priorities and UNDP areas of concentration. It was implemented
timely and responded to the regional demand.
The attained objectives and some of the produced outputs strongly contributed to
protection of the Black Sea environment. The most important achievement was the
project's support to the countries in preparation of national Strategic Action Plans and in
identification of priority national investments needed to improve Black Sea
environmental situation.
The evaluated RER/96/G32 and the preceding RER/93/G31projects gave impetus for
regional co-operation of Black Sea coastal countries in reduction of the sea pollution and
in launching a sustainable exploitation of the sea's resources. Both projects were
decentralized and participatory. Thus, they left behind them trained and experienced
national personnel. The documents produced by the projects became a basis for many
legal and administrative modifications introduced by the governments to protect the
Black Sea environment. They are basis for further projects financed from both national
and international resources. Many priority investments identified thanks to the projects
initiatives were introduced into national investment plans. In summary, both projects very
satisfactorily motivated the countries to introduce changes in their policy, legislature and
investment plans in favor of the Black Sea.
The evaluated RER/96/G32/C project received great attention from relevant governments
and administrations. Nevertheless, the governments are not implementing the
recommended--and frequently agreed upon--actions and are not all willing to commit
funds to regional activities. Despite the project's efforts the citizens were probably not
sufficiently aware of the impact of the Black Sea degradation on their welfare and
prosperity; and the NGOs not sufficiently influent.
iv
The project's impact on national policy, Black Sea problems perception, and regional
cooperation was important. Under this and the previous projects leadership, first time in
their existence, the countries started to work together towards constructive solutions of
Black Sea environmental problems. This co-operation was reinforced by the current
global concern toward the environmental issue. Thus, the project's impact on the region is
probably highly sustainable.
The project achieved some remarkable and outstanding results, but it was also marred by
weaknesses and unsatisfactory achievements. The project document was unsatisfactory.
Its development objective overstated the conceivable project's achievements; there was
no work plan; institutional arrangements were flawed by conflict of interest; the list of
beneficiaries was inadequately formulated; some risks were identified but there was no
information about actions needed to mitigate them. The project only partially attained its
four immediate objectives. The regional SAP's deadlines were not respected, by the
beneficiary countries; the national SAPs were not yet approved.
The GEF, Istanbul Commission and project Steering Committee should assure further
scrutiny of the project achievements and their impact on the beneficiaries. It is
recommended to the UNDP-GEF as an Implementing Agency to maintain its
assistance to the Istanbul Commission in designing and executing the next steps
toward Black Sea protection. These steps may include:
- regional data gathering, analysis and distribution
- regional coordination of Black Sea state monitoring and research.
- co-ordination of national activities that have regional impact
- private sector involvement
- regional funding management and optimization
- efficient citizen awareness rising,
- governments' decisions and implementation watching
v
Summary of Recommendations
IA - Implementing Agency, EA - Executing Agency, IC - Istanbul Commission
No Address Recommendation
Project's design
1
IA
The project document was unsatisfactory. As such, it should have been improved at the early stages of the project
implementation. To avoid similar situations, the Implementing Agency should tighten its control over submitted proposals for
financing.
2
IA
The Implementing Agency should instruct the project co-ordinators to check the project documents and provide the
Implementing Agency with comments and proposals for improvement or actualization.
3
IA, EA
The Implementing Agency, through the Executing Agency, should instruct the project co-ordinators to prepare and regularly
update the projects' work plans.
4
IA, SC
The Steering Committees and other equivalent stockholder supervisory bodies should duly fulfill their obligations as project
monitoring institutions, and check the coherence and pertinence of the project documents' arrangements. The Implementing
Agency should instruct the Steering Committees about their obligations toward the projects.
5
IA
Implementing Agency should indicate who, in the project's channel of command, is responsible for the improvement and
actualization of the project document.
i
Project's Actions and Outcomes in the Light of the GEF Guidelines
6
IA
The Implementing Agency should duly instruct project managers about their responsibilities towards instructions contained in
the project documents and the additional UNDP and GEF regulations.
7
IA, SC
The Implementing Agency should instruct the Steering Committee or other body directly supervising the projects about their
obligations and responsibilities towards the project and the beneficiaries.
8
SC
It is recommended to the Steering Committee of the RER/96/G32/C (or the desirable next phase) to instruct the PCU to restore
as much information as is possible about activities' execution and the progress in output delivery achieved by the two projects.
9
IA
The Implementing Agency may expect that in the future, managerial and supervisory staff will be unacquainted with
operational regulations. Consequently, it may be useful to periodically organize briefing sessions that will familiarize the new
staff with the projects' administrating and reporting.
Sustainability of the Programme.
10
IC
The Istanbul Commission that took over the both projects' achievements should evaluate the importance and actuality of the
projects' outputs (such as for example, the network of the Activity Centers) to implementation of the Black Sea protection
program. The Commission should create conditions within the countries that will promote sustainability of the outputs
important for the Black Sea protection.
General Implementation and Management
11
EA
The Executing Agency should instruct the project management about the communication procedures with the Executing
Agency accounting system, and about the ways of updating project's spending. Since the project personnel are frequently on
short-term contracts, the Executing Agency should reinforce procedures for briefing managerial staff.
12
IA
The Implementing Agency should require that project managers report annually about the cost-effectiveness of their managerial
decisions. They should demonstrate that other decisions would have been more costly or less efficient in term of outputs quality
or delivery timeliness.
ii
Adequacy of Management Arrangements, Monitoring and Backstopping
13
IA
Implementing Agency should identify the reasons for the unsatisfactory monitoring and backstopping and issue instructions that
would prevent this inadequacy in the future.
Awareness of the Participating Countries
14
IC
It is recommended that before the next steps towards investment in the Black Sea protection project, the Istanbul Commission
take steps toward establishing a national and regional consensus about the importance of the Black Sea pollution, needed
commitments and agreements to be reached.
14
IC
It is recommended that the Istanbul Commission organize a study that will help it to understand the place of Black Sea
environmental problems in the central and local governments' and citizens' priorities. The study should be done by an impartial
institution, with no interest in the promotion of Black Sea protection.
Level of Ownership and Commitment
16
IC
The Istanbul Commission should re-assess the national commitments to implementation of the regional SAP and TDA
recommendations, and agree with the countries on new realistic deadlines.
17
IA
The Implementing Agency and the Istanbul Commission may invest in identification of appropriate measures that will
accelerate national actions aiming at Black Sea environmental improvement such as: further monitoring and research to provide
more arguments in favor of Black Sea protection, NGO support, creating citizens' awareness, mobilizing investment, or
promoting new, appropriate legislation.
Co-operation
18
IC
The Istanbul Commission should maintain the existing co-operation networks, animate them and promote the creation of new
ones. Especially, the Commission may motivate private sector investors, civil society organizations, education systems and the
NGOs to create associations voicing the environmental concerns.
19
IC
The Istanbul Commission should evaluate the networks with respect to their utility to Black Sea protection. It should support all
initiatives, but it may reward the most dynamic ones by promoting their quests for additional funding.
Sustainability of Further Actions
20
IC
The Istanbul Commission should critically analyze the sustainability of the project's launched initiatives and identify their
present and future viability for Black Sea protection. It should also identify the priority actions needed to be re-inforced.
21
IC
The international assistance may be helpful in re-inforcing the sustainability of the project's results. The Istanbul Commission
should decide if the aid will be more instrumental in creating new regional initiatives, or in reinforcing the on-going actions and
accelerating their implementation. It should decide the type of the most appropriate assistance and demonstrate its pertinence
and efficiency.
iii
Actions Upon Completion of the Projects
22
IA
It is recommended to the Implementing Agency to consider a few years' assistance the Secretariat to achieve objectives as:
- regional data gathering, analysis and distribution
- regional coordination of Black Sea state monitoring and research.
- co-ordination of national activities that have regional impact
- private sector involvement
- regional funding management and optimization
- efficient citizen awareness rising,
- governments' decisions and implementation watching
23
IC
Establish a common data gathering and exchange system that would help:
- environmental assessment
- monitor changes in environmental quality
- monitor progress in implementing national obligations towards a regional program
24
IC
To make the governments accountable, it is recommended that the Istanbul Commission support national institutions in
supervising the governmental agencies, and help citizens to organize themselves to keep governments liable for their
obligations.
25
IC
Maintain and develop the regional co-operation among the existing Activity Centers Focal Points and other affiliated
institutions. More attention than has been shown in the past should be paid to co-operation among Activity Centers, technical
institutions, administration, the private sector and social organizations. Future regional co-operation should be better-rooted in
national investment and policy planning, so as to avoid actions that cannot be financed and deadlines that cannot be respected.
26
IC
It is recommended to the Istanbul Commission to:
- involve the private sector to invest in technologies that will benefit the Black Sea, as for example, creation of fish nursery
grounds, development of fish reproduction plants, development of tourism and eco-tourism
- encourage governments to give the investors concessions and guarantees; the donors' specialized agencies may help
countries create conditions that would attract private industry to invest in Black Sea protection; the applied research
projects could help investors in the adjustment of existing technologies; other financing may come from the municipalities
and agriculture
- innovate the Sea protection methods, for example allowing the private sector to enter into research, monitoring, training
and control programs now reserved for the governmental institutions
- work out new partnerships with NGOs and other non-profit organizations based on both ethical commitments and
economical profitability
iv
27
IC
To help both countries and donors optimize and co-ordinate the funds-allocation, it is recommended to the Istanbul Commission
to assist the countries to develop project proposals of regional importance, and inform governments and donors about identified
appropriate projects.
Closing recommendation
28
IA, IC
It is recommended to the Implementing Agency and to the Istanbul Commission to elucidate the motivation of the governments
that accompanied their hesitation.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction......................................................................................................................... 1
1
GEF Assistance Concept............................................................................................. 2
2 Project's
Design........................................................................................................... 4
2.1 Objectives ............................................................................................................... 4
2.2 Outputs and Activities............................................................................................. 5
2.3 Beneficiaries ........................................................................................................... 6
2.4 Institutional arrangements....................................................................................... 7
2.5 Budget and Work Program ..................................................................................... 7
2.6 Review Reports and Evaluation.............................................................................. 8
2.7 Risks........................................................................................................................ 8
2.8 Project Design Assessment ..................................................................................... 8
2.9 Pertinence of project design.................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
3 Project's
Implementation........................................................................................... 11
3.1 RER/96/G32 Developing the Implementation of the Black Sea Strategic Action
Plan 11
3.1.1 Objective 1: Consolidation of the Policy Strategy to Implement the Black
Sea Strategic Action Plan.......................................................................................... 13
3.1.2 Objective 2: Preparing for the Technical Implementation of the Black Sea
Strategic Action Plan ................................................................................................ 18
3.1.3 Objective 3: Public Involvement in the Implementation of the Black Sea
Strategic Action Plan ................................................................................................ 31
3.1.4 Objective 4: Developing the Financing of the Black Sea Strategic Action
Plan 34
3.1.5 RER/96/G32
Implementation ....................................................................... 37
3.2 Activity Centers and Advisory groups.................................................................. 46
3.2.1 Activity Center on Environmental and Safety Aspects of Shipping............. 48
3.2.2 Activity Center on Control of Pollution from Land Based Stations and
Activity Center on Pollution Monitoring and Assessment ....................................... 52
3.2.3 Integral Coastal Zone Management .............................................................. 55
3.2.4 Activity Center on the Conservation of Biological Diversity....................... 56
3.2.5 Activity Center on Fisheries and other Marine Living Resources................ 57
4
Project Management and Support............................................................................. 60
4.1 Management Arrangements .................................................................................. 60
4.2 Financial Management.......................................................................................... 61
4.3 Reporting............................................................................................................... 62
4.4 BSEP Umbrella..................................................................................................... 63
5 Project's
Impact......................................................................................................... 65
i
5.1 Regional Co-operation .......................................................................................... 65
5.1.1 Activity Centers network .............................................................................. 66
5.1.2 SAP and TDA Preparing............................................................................... 66
5.1.3 Environmental Standards Improvement ....................................................... 67
5.2 Commitments........................................................................................................ 68
5.2.1 Governments ................................................................................................. 68
5.2.2 NGOs ............................................................................................................ 69
5.2.3 Citizens ......................................................................................................... 69
5.3 Investments ........................................................................................................... 69
5.4 Black Sea and Danube basins co-operation .......................................................... 70
6
Conclusions, Recommendations and Lessons .......................................................... 73
6.1 Project's Design..................................................................................................... 73
6.1.1 Appropriateness of the Project's Concept ..................................................... 73
6.1.2 Project's
design ............................................................................................. 74
6.1.3 Project's Current Effectiveness in Realizing the Objectives,........................ 76
6.1.4 Project's Contribution to the Overall Development Objective ..................... 76
6.1.5 Project's Actions and Outcomes in the Light of the GEF Guidelines........... 77
6.1.6 Sustainability of the Programme................................................................... 78
6.2 Project Implementation......................................................................................... 79
6.2.1 General Implementation and Management................................................... 79
6.2.2 Adequacy of Management Arrangements, Monitoring and Backstopping .. 80
6.2.3 Changes in the Environment in which the Project Operates......................... 81
6.3 Project Results ...................................................................................................... 82
6.3.1 Global
results ................................................................................................ 84
6.4 Project Impact ....................................................................................................... 84
6.4.1 Changes in the Beneficiary Countries........................................................... 84
6.4.2 Awareness of the Participating Countries..................................................... 85
6.4.3 Level of Ownership and Commitment.......................................................... 87
6.4.4 Impacts on Policies and Strategies................................................................ 88
6.4.5 Co-operation ................................................................................................. 89
6.4.6 Sustainability of Projects Impact .................................................................. 90
6.5 Main Achievements .............................................................................................. 91
6.5.1 Relevance of the Project Design ................................................................... 91
6.5.2 Project
Implementation................................................................................. 92
6.5.3 Project Results Against Announced Project Objectives and Actions;.......... 92
6.5.4 Sustainability of Further Actions .................................................................. 93
6.6 Lessons and Future Actions .................................................................................. 95
6.6.1 Lessons From the Experience of the Project................................................. 95
6.6.2 Actions Upon Completion of the Projects .................................................... 96
6.7 Closing conclusions and Recommendations......................................................... 99
Annex I. Terms of Reference......................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Annex II. Mission Calendar.......................................................................................... 108
Annex III. List of Persons Met ...................................................................................... 110
Annex IV. List of Documents Reviewed...................................................................... 112
ii
TABLES
Table 1. RER/96/G32 Developing the Implementation of the Black Sea Strategic Action
Plan. Summary of results .......................................................................................... 40
Table 2. Actions that should be terminated or outputs delivered included in 2000 or
before. According to the Strategic Action Plan. ....................................................... 71
iii
Introduction
Project evaluation aims to assess its relevance, performance and success (Annex I), and
according to the UNDP regulation, every important UNDP project is subject to final, and
sometimes mid-term, evaluations. The final evaluation of the important UNDP-GEF
sponsored project RER/96/G32/C "Developing the Implementation of the Black Sea
Strategic Action Plan"--was thus mandatory.
The evaluation took place between September 27 and December 20, 2000 (Annex II). It
consisted of visits to the projects' activities executing-agencies and beneficiaries in the
countries of the region, the project management, and the donor's headquarters. During the
field visits, the evaluator met with several stakeholders (Annex III). He visited the
Istanbul PCU offices; the national co-ordination representations in Bucharest, Kiev, and
Sofia; the UNDP offices in Kiev and Ankara; and the major project contributors in
Constanta, Odessa and Varna. Finally, during the briefing and debriefing of the mission
held in UNDP-GEF and UNOPS headquarters in New York, the evaluator encountered
the UNOPS and UNDP-GEF officers who provided technical backstopping and
administrative support for the projects.
The evaluation referred to the procedures described in the Terms of Reference provided
by the UNOPS (Annex I), and the guidelines for the project evaluation by the UNDP
Central Evaluation Office. The present report describes findings, conclusions and
recommendations of the mission. It is organized so as to reflect UNOPS' concerns in
regard to the Terms of Reference.
1
1 GEF ASSISTANCE CONCEPT
In the 1960s, the world entered into a "Green Revolution" characterized by massive use of
fertilizers. As a result, food production increased, but aquatic life around the world started to
suffer from the consequences of washing fertilizer surplus away from the soil and into the
coastal waters. The diluted fertilizers were at the origin of abundant phyto-plankton
development, which in turn created an unusually high demand for oxygen dissolved in
water.1 In many basins where water mixing and air dissolving could not replace the
consumed oxygen, the aquatic life started to die. The Black Sea basin suffered from
unsustainable land fertilization as well. Being isolated from the ocean, overexploited, and
polluted by rapidly growing coastal human settlements, the Black Sea suffered even more
than the other seas.
Ten years ago, the degradation of the Black Sea's ecological potential became so great that
the neighboring countries (Bulgaria, Georgia, Romania, Russian Federation, Turkey and
Ukraine) have seen their expected yearly revenue from the sea reduced by about $1 billion.2
In the fishery sector alone the annual loss amounted to $240 million, while the loss from
tourism was evaluated between $300 to $400 million a year.3 Since many human activities
contributed to this degradation, future deterioration of the sea could not have been stopped
without a joint and multi-sector action of all neighboring countries. It became clear that to
avoid further degradation and restore the damaged ecosystem, the countries had to harmonize
their policies, laws, sea exploitation methods and pollution control, and to invest in new,
environmentally sound technologies.
To this end, the Black Sea riparian countries signed a Convention for the Protection of
the Black Sea-- the "Bucharest Convention" in 1992, which came into force in 1994. In
order to support the countries in implementing the Convention, the Global Environment
Facility (GEF) launched, in 1993, a preparatory assistance project RER/92/G31 (of
$0.486 million) followed by a three-year project--RER/93/G31 "Environmental
Management and Protection of the Black Sea"4 (for an amount of $8.8 million, plus the
governments' inputs in kind of $4.2 million5). This project was succeeded in 1995 by
additional GEF financing of $0.049 million ("Development of Self-Sustaining
Mechanism to Ensure the Environmental Management of the Black Sea"--RER/95/G41)
and in 1996 by an UNDP project--RER/96/G32/A "Formulation of the Black Sea
Strategic Action Plan" of $0.347 million. Furthermore, still in 1996, the GEF decided to
1 Zaitsev, Yu., P., 1998. Eutrophication of the Black Sea and Its Major Consequences. In Black Sea
Pollution Assessment. Black Sea Environmental Series. Volume 10. pp.57 and 67
2 RER/93/G31 Project Document, p. 8.
3 Ibid.
4 RER/92/G31, RER/93/G31, RER/95/G41, RER/96/006 Final Report.
5 The total GEF contribution to the RER/93/G31 that is indicated in the project document includes the
RER/92/G31 project (0.486 + 8.814 = 9.300).
2
support the countries by financing a project--RER/96/G32/C "Developing the
Implementation of the Black Sea Strategic Action Plan" of $1.79 million, plus $0.13
million of cost-sharing.6
The common goal of all five projects was to assist the Black Sea littoral countries in
taking steps toward restoration of the Black Sea environment. All projects were designed
to motivate governments and citizens to take actions that should stop environmental
degradation of the Sea and support their efforts in restoration of the Black Sea ecosystems.
As a result, the countries' economies could benefit from the Sea's sustainable exploitation and
citizens of the Sea's neighboring communities could improve their welfare taking advantage
from clean beaches and non-polluted water.
The projects fitted well into the GEF priorities, namely: the eighth International Water
Operational Program and important transboundary concerns; UNDP areas of concentration
such as: environmental problems and natural resources management. In particular, it
corresponded to the GEF objective in the international water area, which promotes an
ecosystems management approach to achieve environmental benefits. This promotion should
help countries to:7
- better understand the functioning of their international waters
- appreciate the influence of their sector's activities on the water environment
- collaborate in promoting effective environmental solution
The evaluated project was in line with this promotion and priorities as well.
The project also fitted well into the national and regional plans concerning the Black Sea
expressed in the Bucharest Convention and Odessa Declaration, both signed by the Black Sea
riparian countries.
As required by the UNDP-GEF and UNOPS, this document will review and evaluate the
second major project, the RER/96/G32/C--Developing the Implementation of the Black Sea
Strategic Action Plan.
6 RER/96/G31/C Project Document.
7 GEF Operational Strategy of the Global Environmental Facility. Chapter 4. International Waters.
3
2 PROJECT'S
DESIGN
The present section reviews the RER/96/G32/C project document. The review will provide
information helpful in assessing the appropriateness of its design, appraising coherence of
its objectives, outputs and activities, and evaluating other arrangements in light of the
UNDP and GEF guidelines for project design.8
The project document of the RER/96/G32/C was signed in April 1997, with a one-year
duration. Further however, the project was extended until the end of 2000. The
governments of Bulgaria, Georgia, Romania, Russian Federation, Turkey and Ukraine
participated in the project. UNOPS was designated as Executing Agency. The project was
conceived as a succession of the RER/93/G31.
2.1 OBJECTIVES
The project's long-term or development objective was stated as follows:
The long-term objective of the Project is the rehabilitation and the protection of the Black
Sea as well as sustainable development of the region. This project will enable the Black Sea
countries to develop NBS-SAPs and through such plans to set the ground for the full
implementation of the Bucharest Convention, Odessa Declaration and BS-SAP. This
objective will be achieved through the consolidation of the policy strategy, preparation of
the technical implementation of the SAPs and development of the financial instruments for
financing of the SAPs. This project should also provide the basis for joint work between the
Black Sea Programme and the Danube Programme.9
8 UNDP GEF Information Kit on Monitoring and Evaluation.
9 RER/96/G32/C Project Document, p. 13.
4
The long-term objective should have been achieved through the execution of four
immediate objectives:10
1. Consolidation of the policy strategy to implement the Black Sea Strategic Action Plan.
2. Preparing the technical implementation of the Black Sea Strategic Action Plan.
3. Public involvement in the implementation of the Black Sea Strategic Action Plan.
4. Developing the financing of the Black Sea Strategic Action Plan.
Realization of the immediate objectives should produce the following results:11
- adopted National Black Sea Strategic Actions Plans (NBS-SAPs) and conditions at the
national level for their implementation
- initial proposal for a Black Sea Basin approach to support the implementation of the
Black Sea Strategic Action Plan (BS-SAP)
- hand-over of the management of the BSEP network to the Istanbul Commission in
accordance with the BS-SAP
- significant improvements in public participation prior to the implementation of BS-SAP
and NBS-SAPs
- developed scooping studies for investment portfolios (for elimination of hot spots and for
other actions for supporting the implementation of the BS-SAP) and a Black Sea
Environmental Fund which may be components of follow-up actions by the GEF or other
donors
The project was designed to create conditions that would facilitate future implementation of
SAPs at regional and national levels.
2.2 OUTPUTS AND ACTIVITIES
The project document identified specific outputs and described corresponding activities.
Although the document has no work plan, for many activities it indicated specific deadlines,
and estimated the costs of the activities.
The project document clearly stated the outputs and activities.
10 Ibid.
11 Ibid., pp. 7 and 8.
5
2.3 BENEFICIARIES
Describing the beneficiaries, the project document made distinction between the direct
recipients of the project's outputs and the target beneficiaries.12
The direct recipients were:
- national Black Sea Program co-ordinators
- regional scientific and technical organizations concerned with Black Sea water quality
issues and management or rehabilitation of natural resources
- national, local and municipal governments in co-operating countries
- technical organizations, universities, research institutes and private sector organizations
(tourism, agriculture, fisheries, industry, environmental consultancy firms, etc. in coastal
states)
- non-governmental organizations concerned with environmental management and
conservation of natural resources
- governments of the region
- Istanbul Commission (once operational)
The target beneficiary of the project was the population of 162 million living in the coastal
zone and the drainage basin of the inflowing rivers. In particular:
- the resident population of the Black Sea Region, which would benefit from improved
water quality, enhanced fishery resources, recreational opportunities and strengthened
protection and management of natural habitats
- fishermen and the recreation business would also benefit from improved environmental
quality as the result of the reduced transport of pollutants to the sea following
implementation of new policies and investments
- regional and international tourists who visit the Black Sea Region and adjacent areas of
the Black Sea coast for a wide range of purposes
- future generations of the human population within and beyond the region would benefit
from the opportunities created by the conservation of biodiversity in the region - the
present project enables present generations to respect the rights of future generations
instead of transferring the consequences of irrational development to them
- the world population at large will benefit through the direct contribution made to the
improvement of an important international water body and the demonstration effect
which this project will have for other regional seas
Both lists are too general and improperly constructed. The project document gives the
impression that everybody would benefit from the project: the direct recipients benefiting
from the project were governments, institutions and environmentally-oriented NGOs; the
12 RER/93/G31 Project Document, p. 9.
6
target beneficiary was the world human population. The distinction among the beneficiaries
is odd as well. For example, direct recipients beneficiaries of the project are technical
organization such as tourists and fishermen; the target beneficiaries are fishermen and
recreational businesses! Or among the target beneficiaries, the project document distinguishes
between the resident population and the world population although both categories are not
mutually exclusive.
2.4 INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
The project should have been monitored and overseen by a Steering Committee that had been
formed during the previous RER/93/G31 project. The Steering Committee should have been
composed of:
- the executive director of the Istanbul Commission Secretariat
- national co-ordinators and their advisors
- project co-ordinator and senior project staff
- representatives of GEF, donors and co-operating UN agencies
- observers
The project management should be assured by the PCU composed of program co-ordinator,
pollution control and abatement advisor, information management and scientific liaison
officer, public participation adviser, project research assistant and six local staff.13
2.5 BUDGET AND WORK PROGRAM
The project described in details the expected expenditures according to budget line, objective
and activities.
There was no work program.
13 RER/96/G32/C Project Document, p. 13. Annex II.
7
2.6 REVIEW REPORTS AND EVALUATION
The project should prepare the following reports:
- Project Performance Evaluation Reports (PPER) that provide an overview of the
activities and expenditures
- periodic Status Reports at the request of the Steering Committee
- technical reports (four technical reports corresponding to the four objectives)
- publications
- Terminal Report
- and at the request of the supervisory bodies, the GEF Annual PIR
2.7 RISKS
In a long and confusing Section F entitled "Risks" the project seemed to identify three risk
factors:14
1. Lack of resources to invest in Black Sea environmental improvement or such investment
being not a priority for the governments (this factor: "not appears to introduce a high
risk").
2. Some "economic constraints and risks...."
3. "Slow pace of incorporating international agreements and conventions on the statute
books of Black Sea countries." This was a major risk, but strong public participation
should help keep the Black Sea issues high on the political agendas of the countries.
The project enumerated risks that might hamper its execution, but it did not indicate actions
to overcome the possible hazards. Although the project was conceived as part of a much
larger program involving national institutions and foreign donors, modification of the
national institutions' or the donors' agenda was not considered as a risk.
2.8 PROJECT DESIGN ASSESSMENT
The development objective was wordy, confusing and overstated the project' long-term
achievements. The project should probably contribute to rehabilitation and protection of the
Black Sea instead to protect and rehabilitate it. It is clear that the development objective of a
project cannot always be precisely stated. It makes reference to the ultimate target of the
14 RER/96/G32/C Project Document, p. 30.
8
recipient government (or governments) which is usually general and larger than what the
project could achieve. Nonetheless, the project objective--although it should make reference
to the national goal-- should accurately describe the project's contribution to achieve this
ultimate goal. Lack of precision or overstatement of the development objective inevitably
diminishes the project's credibility.
In some places there was no link between outputs and immediate objective. A close look at
the outputs reveals that:
- some of them could never be executed by the project (and in fact they were not executed,
as for example the outputs belonging to Objective 2 that might have been produced
providing that two to four other donors co-finance them)
- some others were incoherent with the objectives (for example Objective 2, Sub-Objective
2, Tasks 1, 2 and 3; and attached outputs)15
The outputs and activities were clearly stated and the cost was attached to the activities.
The document did not specify any work program, however, the PCU prepared annual work
plans .
Institutional arrangement is flawed by conflict of interest; some members of the project
management staff were part of the project controlling institution. It should be noted, however,
that according to the PCU co-ordinators this arrangement did not harm god collaboration
between the project and the Steering Committee.
The most prominent and positive element of the project's design was its participatory
approach toward implementation of its activities. The project was oriented toward creating
regional Black Sea environment management programs, reinforcing national programs,
creating institutional networks and collecting data. To re-inforce the national capacities, the
project document programmed training sessions and workshops; to execute the activities the
project should largely mobilize national institutions and individual contributors from the
beneficiary countries. The role of the project management (PCU), was merely to co-ordinate
and manage the activities.16
But here we have to note erosion of the sound participatory principle in comparison to the
first UNDP-GEF project, the RER/93/G31, and a shift towards PCU domination. In fact, the
PCU of the RER/93/G31 project was responsible for direct execution of only two of thirty
15The sub-objective requires "Co-ordination of the Institutional Network and its transfer to the Istanbul
Commission", whereas the outputs should:
Task 1. Identify the most important endangered species, develop a strategy for their protection and
important habitat conservation.
Task 2. Fisheries and marine resources management (sic).
Task 3. Develop a regional integrated coastal zone management strategy for the Black Sea.
16 RER/96/G32/C Project Document, pp.10 and 39.
9
outputs. The PCU was composed of three technicians and some local staff. Although the
second--RER/96/G32/C project maintained the same participatory approach, its PCU was
directly responsible for executing as many as thirty among thirty-one outputs; its personnel
consequently increased from three technicians and some local staff to five technicians and six
local staff.
The project's document identified the beneficiaries. In fact, it divided them into the direct
recipients and the target beneficiaries. Unfortunately, the project document gave a
platitudinous impression that everybody would benefit from the project.
The project enumerated risks that might hamper its execution but it did not indicate actions to
overcome the possible hazards. In fact, as we will show later, it underestimated or overlooked
the risks that in fact hampered project execution.
In summary, compared to the UNDP and GEF guidelines for project design,17 the project
document is unsatisfactory, but it has some positive elements, namely a list of outputs
and activities.
It should be noted that in spite of these weaknesses, the project achieved some
remarkable results.
17 UNDP GEF Information Kit on Monitoring and Evaluation. UNDP Programming Manual Chapter 5.
GEF Council 1997; Framework and Work Program for GEF's Monitoring, Evaluation and Dissemination
Activities. Instructions for Program Implementation Review.
10
3 PROJECT'S
IMPLEMENTATION
The present chapter evaluates the achievements of the project RER/96/G32 "Developing the
Implementation of the Black Sea Strategic Action Plan." The first section describes outputs
and actions that the project should produce, and compare them with the expected
achievements. The second section summarizes the results obtained by the Activity
Centers, which are the most important regional execution agencies of both projects. The
chapter ends with an evaluation of the implementation of the project.
All information provided in the first three sections is based on documents available in
UNOPS, UNDP-GEF, PCU and Activity Centers and through personal communication
with national co-ordinators, PCU staff or AC members. The documents' sources are
indicated by footnotes, the whole list of documents consulted in Annex IV, the list of
persons met is in Annex III.
3.1 RER/96/G32 DEVELOPING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BLACK SEA STRATEGIC
ACTION PLAN
At the end of the project, as the result of its activities, the beneficiaries should:18
- have adopted NBS-SAPs and developed conditions at the national level for their
implementation
- have prepared initial proposal for the Black Sea Basin approach to support the
implementation of the BS-SAP
- the management of the BSEP network handed over to the Istanbul Commission in
accordance with the BS-SAP
- significantly improved public participation priori to the implementation of BS-SAP
and NBS-SAPs
- have developed scoping studies for investment portfolios (for elimination of hot spots
and for other actions for supporting the implementation of the BS-SAP) and a Black
18Ibid., p. 7.
11
Sea Environmental Fund which may be components of follow up actions by the GEF
or other donors
The expected end of project situation and the development objective should have been
achieved through execution of four immediate objectives:
Objective 1: Consolidation of the Policy Strategy to Implement the Black Sea Strategic
Action Plan.
Objective 2: Preparing the Technical Implementation of the Black Sea Strategic Action
Plan.
Objective 3: Public Involvement in the Implementation of the Black Sea Strategic Action
Plan.
Objective 4: Developing the financing of the Black Sea Strategic Action Plan.
In the remaining sections of the chapter we describe the outputs and examine their
contribution to achievement of the immediate and the development objectives. The
project's outputs will be described in the same order as they were listed in the project
document. The chapter ends by a summary of project's results in Table 1.
12
3.1.1 Objective 1: Consolidation of the Policy Strategy to Implement the Black
Sea Strategic Action Plan
The project should consolidate the policy on national and regional levels through both
development and implementation of national SAPs, and facilitation of Black Sea basin
approach.19 To this effect, the project should achieve two sub-objectives:
1. Develop and Implement of National Action Plans for the Black Sea.
2. Facilitating a Black Sea Basin Approach.
Each sub-objective has one output.
3.1.1.1 Sub-objective 1: Development and Implementation of National Action Plans for
the Black Sea
Output:
Adopted National Black Sea Strategic Action Plans
All project's member countries prepared detailed national Strategic Action Plans. The
plans made reference to the regional SAP prepared during the previous RER/93/G31
project, included priority investments identified in the TDA elaborated also by the
previous GEF project, described the current environmental situation of the Black Sea,
considered risks of unsound management of biological resources, and described sources
of the sea water and beaches pollution (including water pollution, air based pollution,
pollution caused by solid wastes management, sea transportation, and industrial or
transport accidents). Furthermore, they described the current status of environmental
management, namely the legislation, organization, financing, pollution control and public
participation. The National SAPs proposed strategies that should help countries improve
ecological state of the Sea. Finally, they included lists of projects that should be executed
in priority.
The national SAPs were discussed during national consultations and meetings. The civil
society and NGOs were associated with the strategy formulation.
19 RER/96/G32/C Project Document, p. 14.
13
Formulation of national plans reinforced political will and commitment among technical
ministries, institutions, NGOs, and individuals to improve ecological situation of Black
Sea. None of the Black Sea countries, did yet approve the national SAP. Nonetheless,
some priority investments are already realized. The progress in formulation and approval
of the national SAPs may be summarized as follows:20
Bulgaria
Bulgaria has prepared a national SAP covering all priorities defined by the regional SAP:
pollution assessment in territorial waters and Bulgarian seaside, shipping related activities
(including contingence plans and emergency response), reception facilities, port state
control, coastal zone management, biological diversity and fisheries. Most of the
proposed activities are not yet included in the governmental financing program. In
particular, there is not enough funds for building and reconstruction of existing port
reception facilities or establishing better pollution monitoring network.
Georgia
Georgia started to design the national SAP as early as in July 1997. The drafting took into
consideration concerns of all interested technical ministries, NGOs and public. The SAP
examined the state of Black Sea protection, coastal zone management policies and
strategies, and legal actions. The national investment portfolio included six projects
concerning water resources protection, four biodiversity protection projects, two public
participation projects and one project of: air pollution, sustainable tourism, waste
management and pollution monitoring.
Romania
National plan proposed execution of 76 projects during three years at cost of $1 000
million a year.
Russian Republic
The national Black Sea SAP was part of more general National Environmental Action
Plan (NEAP). The NEAP defined environmental policy concept in Russia, specified
priority directions from 1999 to 2001, and indicated the plan implementation instruments.
20 According the PCU files.
14
Financing of environmental programs comes mostly from national budget. For example,
the1966 programs were financed from:21 federal budget (6%), regional and local budgets
(22.7%), internal funds of enterprises (67.4%), and environmental funds (3.6%). The
external resources (borrowing from international or private banks) are very important in
environmental financing. During the preceding ten years, the Russia spent more than $1
billion from external financing. However, the external sources are known to finance only
part of a project and require guarantee of the national or regional government.
The GEF was considered as a valuable financing source for additional costs in
multinational water protection and biodiversity conservation.
The authorities appreciated stakeholders' involvement in the NEAP elaboration and
implementation processes since they represented independent opinion and suggested
options.
NGO was considered a considerable force. In the future, it should support the NEAP,
promote solution of the environmental problems, upgrade institutional relations, and
elaborate and implement effective environmental policy.
The public participation in the NEAP development was conceived as a support in:
- disseminating information in the regions and mass media
- elaborating concrete projects and control of implementation
- promoting the NEAP implementation
The NEAP included activities that should be carried out by the state authorities. But,
some of NGOs having high qualifications may participate in such activities as:
biodiversity conservation programs, environmental education, information dissemination
or environmental expertise.
The NEAP proposes thirty-eight projects concerning the Black and Azov Seas totaling
Rubles 3,254 million.
Turkey
The national SAP was prepared by a group of national consultants under leadership of a
national environmental consulting group. The group met with the representatives of
agencies involved in environmental management, gathered data; reviewed environmental
and seashore reports and management plans. The draft plan was submitted to the
government, coastal municipalities and major NGOs. After national discussion, the SAP
was revised and disseminated for implementation.
21 The National Environment Action Plan of the Russian Federation for 1999-2001, p. 53.
15
The plan covered management strategies, laws, government organizations, municipalities,
private sector, and civil society.
Although not yet included in the national budget, the national SAP priorities constitute a
guiding framework for further governmental and NGO actions in the region. The
municipalities and regional or local NGOs attribute great importance to the plan. Parts of
it have been incorporated into local Agenda 21 initiatives carried out in the Black Sea
region. The NGOs give the national SAP priority in their agenda and follow its
implementation.
The government of Turkey is developing mechanism that will permit the country to
support the projects, such as Environmental Pollution Prevention Fund. However, the
country has not yet appropriate financing mechanisms that would allow him to collect
funds by municipalities or villages for waste management or water cleaning.
The plan includes a list of 40 priority projects totaling $419 million.
Although the Turkish law enables the public to participate in project environmental
evaluation and decision making, the public has no experience in participation.
Ukraine
Ukraine began to develop the national SAP in 1997. The draft of the plan encompassing
both the Black and the Azov Seas was discussed by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine
in 1998. The PCU supported its publication and presentation in a project's meeting in
September 1998. The structural changes within the Environment Protection Ministry
delayed approval of the SAP to the 2000. Once approved, it will become a law and the
SAP activities will be financed from the regular State budget.
The plan includes execution of 191 national projects concerning the Black and Azov Seas
for $200 million.
16
3.1.1.2 Sub-objective 2 :
Facilitating a Black Sea Basin Approach
Adopted basin wide approach for the co-ordination of national and international activities
for the protection of the Black Sea
The project contributed to development of a basin wide approach for Black Sea
protection. In 1997, the Black Sea and Danube Commissions established a joint technical
working group. Since then, technicians and representatives of the concerned countries
participated in ad-hoc experts meetings organized by both Commissions. They prepared
national reports about pollutants in territorial waters, and discharges from land based
sources. The reports were synthesized into a regional (Danube and Black Sea) report. On
that basis, the Commissions prepared a Draft Memorandum of Understanding and later
agreed on a final draft.
The drafting process was at the origin of more comprehensive and focussed cooperation
between the Black Sea and Danube Commissions that resulted this year in preparation of
a common Black Sea Basin Programme that will facilitate implementation of nutrient
reduction programme by seventeen countries in the region. It is expected that the GEF
will support the incremental costs of the project.
Another achievements of the Black Sea and Danube Basin countries' collaboration were:
- development of a common methodologies for pollution and environment assessment
- agreements on harmonized procedures for port state control in the Black Sea ports
- preparation of a list of components and parameters to be monitored
- common approach to environmental quality objectives and standards in the Black Sea
basin
- agreement on Regional Black Sea Oil Spill Contingency Plan
One of the promising results of the Committees' initiative was the World Bank recent
proposal of establishing Strategic Partnership for Nutrient Reduction project concerning
the Danube River basin and the Black Sea littoral countries ($70 million project, financed
from the GEF).22
22 The World Bank 2000. World Bank Strategic Partnership for Nutrient Reduction in the Danube River
Basin and Black Sea. The World Bank, pp. 11.
17
3.1.1.3 Objective
Achievement
The objective one was partially achieved. The project successfully helped countries to
develop the national SAPs and adopted a basin wide approach for co-ordination of
activities for the Black Sea protection. However, none of the Black Sea riparian countries
has yet approved the national SAP.
3.1.2 Objective 2: Preparing for the Technical Implementation of the Black Sea
Strategic Action Plan
Execution of this objective should have assured a smooth transfer of excellence centers
network created by the project RER/93/G31 (Objective 1, Output 2) to the Istanbul
Commission, and assisted countries in implementation of the key actions of the Strategic
Action Plan.23 The activities and outputs leading to achievement of this objective were
clustered under three sub-objectives:
1. Pollution control and assessment in the Black Sea
2. Co-ordination of the institutional network and its transfer to the Istanbul Commission
3. Information and data exchange mechanism
3.1.2.1 Sub-objective1: Pollution Control and Assessment in the Black Sea
The project's resources had to be utilized for two advisory group meetings, capacity
building and supply of minimal material for QA and QC programme. Realization of other
outputs depended on mobilization of supplementary resources.24 To attain the first sub-
objective, the project should produce the following outputs:25
23 RER/96/G32, Project Document, p. 16.
24 Ibid., p. 17.
25 Ibid., p. 18.
18
Task 1. Technical Assistance for Integrating and Implementing a Regional Status
and Trends Monitoring Network Based upon Existing Enhanced
National Programs
1. A report assessing participation by key laboratories in all Black Sea countries in a
regional data Quality Assurance/Quality Control programme for chemical analyses
and for measurements of the biological effects of pollution.
2. A regional pollution monitoring programme, established in accordance with the
provisions of the BS-SAP and based upon the integration of national monitoring
programmes. The full regional programme will begin in early 1998.
3. Report of the Advisory Group on Pollution Monitoring and Assessment, proposing a
detailed strategy for the development of Water Quality Objectives to be harmonised
on the basis of the uses of water (drinking water, bathing water, aquaculture, ports,
etc.). The SAP requires these standards to be adopted by mid-1998.
4. Report of the Advisory Group on Control of Pollution from Land-Based Sources,
which shall examine common standards for the compliance monitoring of sources of
pollution to the Black Sea and propose common standards for monitoring the quality
of bathing waters.
5. Report of the Black Sea Steering Committee Meeting.
Task 2. Assistance to Countries for Controlling Sea-Based Pollution in the Black Sea
6. Review of regional port-state control procedures and formulation of recommendations
to the Istanbul Commission.
7. Review of ballast and bilge water, oil handling and garbage reception facilities in the
region and specific proposals for action (jointly with the EU and IMO).
8. Black Sea Strategy for contingency planning and emergency response to be submitted
to the Istanbul Commission for approval.
19
Task 1 Technical Assistance for Integrating and Implementing a Regional Status and
Trends Monitoring Network Based upon Existing Enhanced Programs
A report assessing participation by key laboratories in all Black Sea countries in a
regional data Quality Assurance/Quality Control programme for chemical analyses and
for measurements of the biological effects of pollution
The Odessa Activity Center identified the key laboratories in the Black Sea countries.
The laboratories' staff (except Turkey) attended the training workshops on QA and QC.
All laboratories participated in equipment calibration and laboratory procedures
standardization.
The activities were funded under the Phare programme and executed by Odessa Activity
Center.
A regional pollution monitoring programme, established in accordance with the
provisions of the BS-SAP and based upon the integration of national monitoring
programmes. The full regional programme will begin in early 1998
The regional monitoring programme was discussed and approved in a meeting held in
Odessa November 1998. The participants submitted for approval to the Ministries of
Environment the following elements of the program:
- list of parameters to be monitored
- frequency measure matrices
- proposal of analytical methods
It is not known if the elements were officially approved. Nevertheless, since then the
national monitoring programmes are implemented in the Black Sea countries (except
Georgia and Turkey) according to the meeting's recommendations. Unfortunately, the
monitoring networks are settled according to the national priorities only.
The activities were funded by Tacis and executed by Odessa Activity Center
20
Report of the Advisory Group on Pollution Monitoring and Assessment, proposing a
detailed strategy for the development of Water Quality Objectives to be harmonised on
the basis of the uses of water (drinking water, bathing water, aquaculture, ports, etc.). The
SAP requires these standards to be adopted by mid-1998
The regional Strategic Action Plan has mandated the Activity Center in Odessa to
establish a Black Sea monitoring, data interpretation and dissemination system. To this
effect, the Center elaborated WQOs and WQSs and presented them to the MoEs. The
Odessa Center organized a workshop in October 2000 to discuss the proposal and the
specific implementation structures in the countries. The representatives of the MoEs
informed the Center that, in principle, the proposed WQOs and WQSs were approved.
Romania already approved the WQSs for recreational waters. Adoption of the whole
EQO and EQS, including the water standard, approach is discussed in Georgia and
Russian Federation. Rumania, Bulgaria and Ukraine are harmonizing the national law
with the EC regulations, and adjusting to the EQO and EQS requirements. The Turkey
was invited to join the activity, but since no financial support was available for Turkish
participants, it did not participate.
The Activity Center in Odessa elaborated a document: "A Status and Trends Monitoring
for the Black Sea: A Proposal for a Regional Strategy" that designed framework of a
regional integrated chemical and biological monitoring programme. This framework
represents the minimum level of required monitoring that will allow to:
- identify the present pollution level
- identify the pollutant loads in water bodies and effluents
- test compliance with standards
- provide an early warning about pollution
Moreover, the document proposes to:
1. Conduct chemical monitoring in 51 hot spots and 3 polygons, land bases sources,
drainage waters, storm waters and beaches. The monitoring should cover presence of
nutrients, metals, chlorinated hydrocarbons, general standard variables and others
pollutants such as phenols, detergents, and petroleum hydrocarbons. In addition, the
beeches should be sampled every two weeks from May to October for Escherichia
coli and fecal Streptococci.
2. Evaluate the effect of toxicants on the indigenous biological species.
3. Organize biological surveys to measure the effects on algal growth, bioaccumulation
in mussels, valve movement of mussels, and test impact on oyster or mussel larvae.
This information should be exchanged with the BSEP (according to AC) for compilation
and storage, and with the national focal points for study and dissemination.
Thus, according to the elaborated document, in the framework of pollution monitoring,
the Activity Center will assist the PCU and BSEP with compilation, processing and
21
quality control, the national Focal Points with data standardization and conservation and
the Center itself will co-ordinate training and data management.
The activities were financed by Phare and executed by Odessa Activity Center
Report of the Advisory Group on Control of Pollution from Land-Based Sources, which
shall examine common standards for the compliance monitoring of sources of pollution
to the Black Sea and propose common standards for monitoring the quality of bathing
waters
The Black Sea countries produced national assessments of land-based water and land
pollution sources according to the WHO guidelines concerning the Rapid Source
Inventory Techniques and their use in formulating environmental control strategies.26 The
information obtained was included in the final edition of the Transboundary Diagnostic
Analysis. Turkey was not informed and did not participated in this activity.
To support the effort of the countries in implementation of the Bucharest Convention and
the Black Sea Strategic Action Plan, especially its pollution control programs; Tacis is
financing a project27 that covers Russian Federation, Ukraine and Georgia.
The long-term objectives of the Tacis project are:
- strengthening regional capacities for managing the Black Sea ecosystem
- developing an appropriate policy and legislative framework for the assessment,
control and prevention of pollution, and maintenance and enhancement of biodiversity
- facilitating the preparation of sound environmental instruments
According the Tacis project's 1999 report, the Black Sea Environmental Program (BSEP)
and the PCU play very important part in this support.
Three countries: Bulgaria, Romania and Ukraine are now adopting the EQO and EQS
standards28
Bulgaria is in process of adjusting its national legislation to those in force in the EU. A
new Water Act was adopted in July 1999 and it entered into force in January 2000. The
Bulgaria is in process of adoption of regulation about:
26 WHO. 1998. Guidelines for Safe Recreational-water Environments: Coastal and Fresh-waters. Draft. 205
pages.
27 Tacis 1996/1997 Funds for the Black Sea Environmental Programme - Phase 2. Implementation Report
June 1999
28 According to the reports presented on the second workshop on Environmental Quality Objectives and
Standards for the Black Sea held in PIU, Istanbul 2 to 6 October 2000.
22
- quality of bathing water
- quality of coastal marine waters
- quality of waters to support fish and shellfish life
- emission standards for harmful and dangerous substances into water discharges
- issuing permits for pollutant discharges
- establish a national monitoring network
Adoption of the EQOs and EQSs will require changes in national regulation, upgrading
the monitoring program and improvement of co-ordination between the institutional
bodies.
23
In Romania, the following regulations are in force (since 1996):
- a water management permit is needed to develop social and economic activities in
connection with water
- a water management license regulates activities that may be developed in connection
with water
- an environment permit for activities having impact on environment is required
- an environment license for development and operation of economic activities is
required
Ukraine integrates the EC as well. Consequently, the Ministry of Ecology and Nature
Resources examines the EC and Ukrainian legislation and is harmonizing both legislative
bases.
The activities were financed by Tacis and executed by various national institutions under
leadership of the Odessa Activity Center.
Report of the Black Sea Steering Committee Meeting
The project produced two reports presented to the Steering Committee. One in 1997,
another dated December 1998.
The 1997 report was not available in the PCU.
According to the 1998 report, between February 1 and December 31, 1998, the project
spent $180,000 instead of committed $296,400. The funds was spent for staff ($86,500),
operations (travel and activity according to the work plan--$71, 500), Miscellaneous
(communication, operation and maintenance--$22,000).
The activities financed were:
Activity
Cost in US$
Meeting to develop and implement the national Strategic Actions
12,000
Plans
Meeting joint Danube/Black Sea working party
11,500
Red Data Book Publication and Newsletters publication
12,000
Grants for NGO
7,500
Steering Committee Meeting
15,000
Internet services, homepage update
3,500
The report contained a work-plan for January-April 1999, without specific budgeting.
The plans covered:
24
- development and implementation of National Action Plans
- facilitating Black Sea Basin Approach
- pollution control and assessment in the Black Sea
- implementation of the regional SAP monitoring
- development of regional oil and chemical pollution Emergency Action Plans
- finalising the SAP recommended feasibility studies
There was no Steering Committee meeting in 1999 and (not yet) in 2000.
Task 2 Assistance to Countries for Controlling Sea-Based Pollution in the Black Sea
Review of regional port-state control procedures and formulation of recommendations to
the Istanbul Commission
Concerning the port-state control procedures, the Activity Center on Environmental and
Safety Aspects of Shipping organized two regional workshops:
- Preparatory Meeting in Varna, Bulgaria (14-17 September 1999)
- Preparatory and Signatory Meeting in Istanbul (4-7 April 2000)
As a follow-up of these meetings in April 7, 2000, the Black Sea countries signed a
memorandum of understanding, agreed to locate a port-state control information center in
Novorosijsk. According to the agreement, the countries would share budget and running
cost; the administrators and inspectors would be trained in Constanta, Romania and
Istanbul.
Danish Environmental Protection Agency (DEPA) and the International Maritime
Organization (IMO) financed these activities. Activity Center in Constanta co-ordinated
the execution.
Review of ballast and bilge water, oil handling and garbage reception facilities in the
region and specific proposals for action (jointly with the EU and IMO)
The IMO organized in September 1999 a workshop "Ballast Water Management and
Control" attended by participants from the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea riparian
countries. The participants demonstrated sampling and analysis methods of ballast water
and discussed cost effective treatment methods. At this occasion, the Activity Center in
Varna reviewed port reception facilities in the major ports in the Black Sea countries and
proposed some improvements. Turkey was invited to this activity and two investment
projects from Turkey were included to the pre-feasibility study.
25
Phare and Tacis financed these activities.
Concerning the harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens into the Black Sea,
IMO and UNDP are funding now ( in 2000 and 2001) a special project aiming to assess
and reduce the harm linked with their introduction. Ukraine was selected as a focal point
for this pilot project.
Black Sea Strategy for contingency planning and emergency response to be submitted to
the Istanbul Commission for approval
Activities were initiated according to recommendations of the BS-SAP (paragraphs 48,
49 and 50, and then conducted and completed by the Activity Center on the
Environmental and Safety Aspects of Shipping.
The general approach to the emergency response in the Black Sea region was discussed
in a regional workshop held in Varna in 1994. Then the Activity Center developed a
detailed regional approach and conducted a study in 1995 (financed by IMO) that
recommended in a document "Regional Oil and Chemical Pollution Emergency Action
Plan for the Black Sea" a national oil spill contingency plans for the Black Sea countries
conform to the IMO guidelines. The plan was not accepted by the Black Sea countries. In
1998, a new project funded by IMO aimed to prepare a new Regional Oil Spill
Contingency Plan. The prepared plan was discussed during two regional workshops: in
Varna, 1 to 5 November 1999 and in Constanta, 29 May to 2 June 2000. The delegations
agreed on preparing a new regional Contingency Plan for Combating Pollution of the
Black Sea by Oil. The plan is expected to be completed by 2001.
IMO finance the activities; the Activity Center in Varna execute.
26
3.1.2.2 Sub-objective 2: Co-ordination of the Institutional Network and its Transfer to
the Istanbul Commission
Under the cover of this sub-objective the project should:29
- identify the most important endangered species, develop a strategy of their protection
and of important habitat conservation
- improve fisheries and marine resources management
- develop a regional integrated coastal zone management strategy for the Black Sea
The sub-objective should be attained through execution of seven outputs regrouped in
three tasks:
Task 1: Living Resources Management
1 Draft Regional Black Sea Red Data Book, identifying and describing endangered
species.
2 Regional Strategy for Conservation Areas, including identification of priority
locations for the creation of new protected areas.
3 Specific measures to protect and restore the populations of marine mammals in the
Black Sea adopted by Governments.
4 Draft Protocol to the Bucharest Convention on Biological Diversity and Landscape
Protection.
Task 2. Commercially Exploited species and Sustainable Acquaculture Development
5 A regional strategy of cooperative stock assessment. The Strategy should be detailed
enough to include the number of boats involved, timetable, equipment, target species,
budgets. This proposal is envisaged to be a foundation on which regional support
from NATO, IOC and ComSBlack, etc., will be developed.
6 Draft Annex to the Bucharest Convention on releasing commercial strains and
introduction of exotic species.
Task 3. Improving Planning in Coastal Areas, Including Urban and Industrial Zones
7 Effective Regional Bucharest Convention on releasing commercial strains and
introduction of exotic species.
Task 1. Living Resources Management
Draft Regional Black Sea Red Data Book, identifying and describing endangered species
A preliminary list of endangered species was published in 199730 and posted in a Web
site. The final version of the book was completed in 1999.31 It included endangered Black
Sea species and threatened and rare coastal species depending on marine environment.
29 RER/96/G32/C Project Document, p. 19 and 20.
30 PCU GEF BSEP 1997, Black Sea Red Data Book. 41 pages.
31 Black Sea Red Data Book. Henri J. Dumont Editor. pp. 414.
27
Regional Strategy for Conservation Areas, including identification of priority locations
for the creation of new protected areas
Final draft of the Regional Strategy for Conservation Areas was prepared by Batumi
Activity Center. It will be discussed in November or December 2000 and officially
submitted to the Commission.
The Tacis financed the activities.
Specific measures to protect and restore the populations of marine mammals in the Black
Sea, adopted by Governments
An agreement on protection of small cetaceans in the Mediterranean and Black Sea was
formulated within the context of the Bonn Convention with participation of some Black
Sea countries. The role of the project in this agreement is unknown.
Draft Protocol to the Bucharest Convention on Biological Diversity and Landscape
Protection
Tacis support for drafting protocol to the Bucharest Convention on Biological Diversity
and Landscape Protection became available in 2000. Turkey was not invited to participate
in preliminary preparations; however, it was invited to comment of the draft and it
attended the workshop in 2000. The activities were not been completed yet. Final draft
should be discussed in November or December 2000 and officially submitted to the
Commission.
Tacis financed the activity.
Task 2. Commercially Exploited species and Sustainable Acquaculture Development
A regional strategy of cooperative stock assessment. The Strategy should be detailed
enough to include the number of boats involved, timetable, equipment, target species,
budgets. This proposal is envisaged to be a foundation on which regional support from
NATO, IOC and CoMSBlack, etc., will be developed
No information in PCU about this output although Dr. Kamen Prodanov (Bulgaria) and
his team prepared a plan for future stock assessment. According to the PIR, 200032 the
Krasnodar Activity Center was responsible for its execution.
32 RER/96/G32/C. Project Implementation Review (PIR) 2000
28
The PIR, 2000 rates the output as unsatisfactory.
Draft Annex to the Bucharest Convention on releasing commercial strains and
introduction of exotic species
Nothing was done on commercial strains.
Task 3. Improving Planning in Coastal Areas, Including Urban and Industrial Zones
Effective Regional Black Sea Strategy for integrated coastal zone management
National ICZM Strategies and Policies were developed and submitted to the relevant
national authorities. The Bulgarian law on ICZM was approved, the Romanian law is
under discussion in the Parliament.
Financed probably by Tacis.
3.1.2.3 Sub-objective 3: Information and Data Exchange Mechanism
To attain this sub-objective, the project document assigned to the project team four
outputs:
Task 1: Improvement of Communication, Environmental Data and Information Exchange
1 Fully operable regional e-mail network and improved Internet connections and Web
server services.
2 Established regional environmental Internet node, including information on data, data
sets and copies of historical data.
3 Fully operable and monthly updated BSEP Home Page on Internet.
Task 2: Updating and Making Available the Black Sea Databases and GIS
4 CD-ROM Encyclopaedia "All about the Black Sea Environment."
29
Task 1. Improvement of Communication, Environmental Data and Information Exchange
Fully operable regional e-mail network and improved Internet connections and Web
Server services
All activity centers, national focal points and ministries of environment were provided
with e-mail and Internet facilities (acquired under the RER/93/G31 or other donor's
financing). The e-mail network is operational but in some countries their use was
impeded by high cost or limited network availability.
Established regional environmental Internet node, including information on data, data
sets and copies of historical data
The regional environmental Internet node was established in 1997. Black Sea maps,
physico-chemical and historical data, and assessment of land based sources of pollution
are available. Black Sea GIS is also available.
Fully operable and monthly updated BSEP Home Page on Internet
BSEP Home Page was updated in 2000.
Task 2. Updating and Making Available the Black Sea Databases and GIS
CD-ROM Encyclopaedia "All about the Black Sea Environment"
A CD-ROM GIS was published in 1997 and largely distributed around the Black Sea.
The Black Sea GIS won the gold medal awarded by UNDP.
3.1.2.4 Objective
Achievement
To attaint the objective two "Preparing for Technical Implementation of the Black Sea
Strategic Action Plan," the project should have produced nineteen outputs. The review of
the outputs has shown that with its own financing and the PCU participation, the project
executed only six.
30
The project produced two reports for the Steering Committee, completed the Black Sea
Red Data Book, established regional Internet node and published CD-ROM
encyclopedia. It helped to make regional e-mail network fully operational. The BSEP
Home Page was updated in 2000.
Eleven remaining outputs were financed by other donors and executed by the Activity
Centers. Two outputs were not executed.
Objective 2 was partially attained by the project.
3.1.3 Objective 3: Public Involvement in the Implementation of the Black Sea
Strategic Action Plan
The project should provide arguments and create incentives that might convince the
public to support actions leading to the Black Sea protection. To this purpose, the project
should have supported the NGOs networks through training in such skills as grassroots
organizing, project management and public participation; and trained the local authorities
in environmental management (through Phare or Tacis, and other financing). Finally the
project should assess qualitative changes in communities economics, social organization
and culture. Additionally it should assess effectiveness of the BS-SAP policies.33
The objective should have been achieved through execution of four sub-objectives:
1. Raising Public Awareness of the Black Sea Environmental Issues.
2. Strengthening of the Black Sea NGOs.
3. Involving Local Authorities and other Stakeholders in Designing and Implementing
National Black Sea Strategic Action Plans.
4. Social Assessment of the Human Communities Particularly Affected by the
Degradation of the Black Sea Ecosystem
33 RER/96/G32/C Project Document, p. 24.
31
3.1.3.1 Sub-objective 1. Raising Public Awareness of the Black Sea Environmental
Issues
One output was required to achieve this sub-objective.
Public better informed and involved in environmental management process
The project edited one issue of the Black Sea Newsletter (16 pages). The edition was
published in English, Bulgarian, Georgian, Romanian, Russian, Turkish and Ukrainian.
The Black Sea Newsletter presents information concerning the BSEP activities, the most
important environmental events, meetings, and NGOs' initiatives.
The coastal NGOs were involved and consulted in national SAPs drafting. In many
countries the final draft was discussed in especially organized workshops were the NGOs
and other stakeholders presented their comments. Radio programmes and newspaper
articles covered the consultations about national SAPs.
There is no information in the PCU indicating that after the project's activities the public
was better informed and more involved.
3.1.3.2 Sub-objective 2. Strengthening of the Black Sea NGOs
To achieve this sub-objective, the project should have produced one output.
Improved organizational and networking capacity of the Black Sea NGOs
In 1998, the NGOs developed a regional structure called "Black Sea NGO Network"
composed of the most active NGOs in the countries. The network developed its own Web
site. Most of their activities were financed by funds raised by the NGOs themselves;
some funds were provided also by donors as Tacis and Dutch assistance. The project
supported the NGOs as well.
The Turkish NGOs were not eligible to Tacis aid and not able to obtain Dutch assistance.
This created some unease among the Black Sea NGOs community. As a consequence, the
Turkish NGOs adopted former network different to those of other NGOs.
Currently, a new GEF-Tacis project is raising public awareness of Black Sea
environmental issues and encouraging public participation in environmental decision
32
making.34 The project trains NGOs, environmental managers and key local leaders. It
finances environmental projects in each country, and provides educational material to
support the Black Sea Day, Black Sea Action Plan, and Save the Wetlands campaigns.
In PCU there is no information if the project activities improved organizational and
networking capacity of the Black Sea NGOs; it is unknown if these actions have any
impact on networking capacity of the NGOs.
3.1.3.3 Sub-objective 3. Involving Local Authorities and other Stakeholders in
Designing and Implementing National Black Sea Strategic Action Plans
Attainment of this sub-objective required realization of one output.
Enhanced role of local authorities and other stakeholders in the process of the Black Sea
rehabilitation and protection
The local authorities' role was enhanced to a great extent through the process of drafting
and negotiating the national Strategic Action Plans. During the development of NSAPs
the coastal authorities exposed their problems related to the marine environment, their
planned activities and investments; they attended the workshops and contributed to
drafting the NSAPs.
Most of the investments identified and included in the NSAPs were connected with the
coastal localities. The local authorities started to implement the investment projects based
on their own financial sources or taking loans from IFIs. A good example of local
involvement stimulated by NSAP is the main wastewater treatment plant in Constanta
that was upgraded with the financial support from EBRD.
A recently implemented Tacis project35 will strengthen municipal and regional licensing
and enforcement systems (it will train local inspectors, organize audits, review effluent
standards, improve data management capacities, strengthen inspectorates network, equip
local inspectorates).
In summary, the project indirectly enhanced the role of local authorities in the Black Sea
rehabilitation process.
34 GEF BSEP/ Tacis 1999. Environmental Quality Objectives for the Protection of the Black Sea
Ecosystem. Draft Final Report. Odessa. 133 pages.
35 GEF BSEP/ Tacis 1999. Environmental Quality Objectives for the Protection of the Black Sea
Ecosystem. Draft Final Report. Odessa. 133 pages.
33
3.1.3.4 Sub-objective 4. Social Assessment of the Human Communities Particularly
Affected by the Degradation of the Black Sea Ecosystem
The only output:
Reports on the findings of social assessment studies of selected human communities
particularly affected by the degradation of the Black Sea ecosystem
Although the PIR 200 report no activity and rate the performance as unsatisfactory,
however, according the former PCU co-ordinator there exists an extensive social
assessment of Turkish and Ukrainian fishing communities.
3.1.3.5 Objective
achievement
To increase the public awareness, the project published a Newsletter and supported the
NGOs. Public involvement in formulation of the national SAP contributed as well to
awareness raising. The project did not assess the changes in perception of the Black Sea
problems by the public.
The objective was partially achieved.
3.1.4 Objective 4: Developing the Financing of the Black Sea Strategic Action
Plan
Realizing this objective, the project should develop a mechanism for financing the actions
agreed upon the Black Sea Strategic Action Plan.36 To this effect, the project should
prepare a portfolio of national investments and create a Black Sea Environmental Fund.
According to the project document, the Objective 4 should have been achieved through
realization of two sub-objectives:
1. Portfolio of Black Sea Environmental Investments.
36 RER/96/G31 Project Document, pp. 24 to 28.
34
2. Creation of a Black Sea Environmental Fund.
3.1.4.1 Sub-objective 1. Portfolio of Black Sea Environmental Investments
Outputs
1 Report by national consultants on the initial technical analysis, based on an in-depth
review of relevant material.
2 A portfolio of Black Sea environmental priority investments to include proposed
single projects and/or packaged investments. These should be fully endorsed by
respective governments as an integral part of NBS-SAP. They should be in
appropriate format for presentation to IFI's and further developed through such
mechanisms as PPC.
3 Report demonstrating the list of projects accepted by donors for which feasibility
studies shall be conducted.
Report by national consultants on the initial technical analysis, based on an in-depth
review of relevant material
According to the PCU, a national portfolio of Black Sea environmental investments was
prepared by national consultants; however, this report was not available at the PCU.
A portfolio of Black Sea environmental priority investments to include proposed single
projects and/or packaged investments. These should be fully endorsed by respective
governments as an integral part of NBS-SAP. They should be in appropriate format for
presentation to IFI's and further developed through such mechanisms as PPC
Each NSAP included an investment portfolio that should be implemented by the local or
central authorities. To ensure better distribution of investments, each national portfolio
was split into three groups as: pollution control, biodiversity protection and human
development.
The portfolio was not yet formally adopted.
The PIR, 2000 writes under this objective: "nothing done" and rates implementation of
this output as unsatisfactory.
35
Report demonstrating the list of projects accepted by donors for which feasibility studies
shall be conducted
Not done
3.1.4.2 Sub-objective 4.2: Creation of a Black Sea Environmental Fund
Outputs
1 A report based on extensive research demonstrating background information and
results of consultations and study tours conducted by consultants.
2 National strategies integrating appropriate sources of revenue, disbursement
priorities, structures and Governance procedures, based on discussions of national and
regional inter-sectoral workshops.
3 An in-depth feasibility study assessing the viability of the Black Sea Environmental
Fund as a sustainable source of finance.
A report based on extensive research demonstrating background information and results
of consultations and study tours conducted by consultants
and
National strategies integrating appropriate sources of revenue, disbursement priorities,
structures and Governance procedures, based on discussions of national and regional
inter-sectoral workshops
The countries appointed national consultants and organized national workshops with
participation of ministries of finance, treasury, maritime and others. The funding was
widely discussed; however, it was not possible to identify a way to create a specific Black
Sea financing source.
The PIR for 2000 rated the implementation as unsatisfactory
An in-depth feasibility study assessing the viability of the Black Sea Environmental Fund
as a sustainable source of finance
The Environmental Fund feasibility study mission financed by the project in 1998 visited
Bulgaria, Georgia, Romania, Russian Federation, Turkey and Ukraine, and met with
36
representative of several key ministries including those of finance. The mission found
that: 37
1. The countries prefer to restrict the use of national financial resources to co-finance
investments on their own territories.
2. The countries agree to link the Environmental Fund with the Istanbul Commission.
3. The countries lack resources that may be committed to the Environmental Fund.
Thus, the existing national funds are limited and committed, and the private banks are not
involved in environment financing. Although there was "a political support for the
establishment of a BSEF among the national institutions visited...," there was no
financial commitment to the Fund.38 According to the mission, "developing and
implementation of new economic instruments in order to finance the fund ...will be a
very lengthy process and face some major political, legal and institutional obstacles."39
Seeing lack of commitment by the Black Sea countries to tackle the Black Sea
deterioration, the mission stated that a Black Sea Environmental Fund is neither needed
nor feasible.40
3.1.4.3 Objective
implementation
The project did not develop a specific portfolio of investments in format ready for
presentation to IFI, neither did it create a Black Sea Environmental Fund.
The objective was partially achieved. It should be noted however, that achievement of
some of these outputs was largely independent on the PCU initiative. The countries
themselves were supposed to take an active part in execution of such outputs as
preparation of portfolio of environmental investments or contribution to the
environmental fund.
3.1.5 RER/96/G32
Implementation
37 GEF/BSEP 1998. Feasibility Study for the Establishment of a Black Sea Environmental Fund. 87 pages.
38 Ibid., p. 11.
39 Ibid.
40 Ibid., p. 85.
37
Review of outputs produced (see also Table 1. for summary of the review) has shown that
the project did not fully achieve any of its objectives. The situation expected at the end of
the project41 was not attained except drafting the initial proposals for the Black Sea Basin
approach to support the implementation of the BS-SAP. The countries themselves are
largely responsible for this situation.
The project initiated and financed preparation of national SAPs however, the countries
didn't adopt them yet. It financed national workshops and international consultation to
assess viability of the Black Sea Fund, but since the countries were not willing to
contribute to such a Fund, the Fund itself was not established. The project edited one
issue of the Black Sea newsletter, established an Internet node, updated recently its
WWW homepage, issued a CD-ROM encyclopedia and supported some NGO actions,
unfortunately, the impact of these activities on the public opinion is still unknown.
These unsatisfactory performance of the project was balanced in some extent by a role it
played in maintaining an "environmentally friendly" approach of the Black Sea riparian
countries governments. The most important manifestations of this approach were:
institutions network consolidation, actualization of Black Sea protection legislation,
investment in Black Sea protection, country involvement, and information exchange.
Institutions network consolidation
Helping the countries to develop national SAP, the project has given a supplementary
motivation to the national administrative and technical institutions to extent and
consolidate the network of institutions interested in Black Sea conservation.
Actualization of the Black Sea protection legislation
The national SAPs themselves were important elements in full implementation of the
Bucharest Convention and Odessa Declaration. The national actions plans were
developed, they are considered by governments as important and necessary steps into
Black Sea situation improvement (according to national co-ordinators and responsible of
the Activity Centers), but their incorporation into national planning and investment
programme will require more time than scheduled by the project. The countries have no
resources they can commit in short term for investment, survey and pollution control.
Introduction of new legislation and administrative reforms requires more time. But, the
countries are actively working on introduction of new legislation.
Investment in the Black Sea protection
41 RER/96/G32/C Project Document, p. 13, or section 3.1 of the present chapter.
38
Although none of the countries officially adopted the national SAP, thanks to the project
initiative of drafting the national SAP, they are in fact implementing some national SAP
proposals. According to opinions of the national co-ordinators interviewed, the countries
implemented ten to fifteen percent of the planed investment; another ten to fifteen years
will be necessary to full implementation of the national SAPs.
Moreover, the countries finance national laboratories, and monitor the Black Sea
pollution; recently they started to finance the Black Sea Commission Secretariat in
Istanbul.
Country involvement
The project's initiatives, jointly with other donors' efforts consolidated the countries'
involvement in the Black Sea protection. This involvement was demonstrated by:
- implementation of environmental quality objectives and standards
- improvement on existing national monitoring systems including analysis of water
column, sediments and biota
- upgrading the national Oil Spill Contingency Plans
- implementation of harmonized procedures for port state control
- adoption of procedures for assistance in case of major oil spill
- biodiversity protection
The project motivated the countries to:
- assess regularly the land based pollution sources
- build hydrocarbons monitoring system
- prepare a list of parameters and substances to be monitored
Information exchange
The project reinforced information exchange among the countries. Although there is no
legal or institutional procedures adopted by the countries in this matter, the information
exchange continue thanks to existence of the Web network and the informal ties built
during the meetings, workshops and training sessions organized by the project.
39
Table 1. RER/96/G32 Developing the Implementation of the Black Sea Strategic Action
Plan. Summary of results
Financing
Objectives and Outputs According to Project Document
Source
Execution
Project Achievements
Objective 1 Consolidation of the Policy Strategy to Implement the Black Sea Strategic Action Plan
Sub-objective 1 Development and Implementation of National Action Plans for the Black Sea
Output
National SAP are prepared
Adopted National Black Sea Strategic Action Plans
Project
Project
adopted
Sub-objective2 Facilitating a Black Sea Basin Approach
Output
Adopted basin wide approach for the co-ordination of national and international activities for
Final Draft Memorandum
the protection of the Black Sea
Project
Project
yet adopted
Objective 1 overall achievement
Objective was partially attained; achieved parts of outputs are hi
40
Table 1. Continuation
Financing
Objectives and Outputs According to Project Document
Source
Execution
Project Achievements
Objective 2 Preparing for the Technical Implementation of the Black Sea Strategic Action Plan
Sub-objective1 Pollution Control and Assessment in the Black Sea
Task 1. Technical Assistance for Integrating and Implementing a Regional Status and Trends Monitoring Network Based upon Existing Enhanced National Program
Output 1.
A report assessing participation by key laboratories in all Black Sea countries in a regional data
Quality Assurance/Quality Control programme for chemical analyses and for measurements of
the biological effects of pollution.
Phare
Odessa AC
Output was not produced b
Output 2.
A regional pollution monitoring programme, established in accordance with the provisions of
the BS-SAP and based upon the integration of national monitoring programmes. The full
regional programme will begin in early 1998.
Phare
Odessa AC
Output was not produced b
Output 3.
Report of the Advisory Group on Pollution Monitoring and Assessment, proposing a detailed
strategy for the development of Water Quality Objectives to be harmonised on the basis of the
uses of water (drinking water, bathing water, aquaculture, ports, etc.). The SAP requires these
standards to be adopted by mid-1998.
Phare
Odessa AC
Output was not produced b
Output 4.
National
Report of the Advisory Group on Control of Pollution from Land-Based Sources, which shall
institutions;
examine common standards for the compliance monitoring of sources of pollution to the Black
leadership of
Sea and propose common standards for monitoring the quality of bathing waters.
Phare
Odessa AC
Output was not produced b
Output 5.
Report of the Black Sea Steering Committee Meeting
Project
Project
Two reports were produced
Task 2. Assistance to Countries for Controlling Sea-Based Pollution in the Black Sea
Output 1.
Review of regional port-state control procedures and formulation of recommendations to the
DEPA and
Istanbul Commission.
IMO
Constanta AC
Output was not produced b
Output 2.
Review of ballast and bilge water, oil handling and garbage reception facilities in the region
IMO and
and specific proposals for action (jointly with the EU and IMO).
UNDP
Varna AC
Output was not produced b
Output 3.
Black Sea Strategy for contingency planning and emergency response to be submitted to the
Istanbul Commission for approval.
IMO
Varna AC
Output was not produced b
41
Table 1. Continuation
Financing
Objectives and Outputs According to Project Document
Source
Execution
Project Achievements
Sub-objective 2: Co-ordination of the Institutional Network and its Transfer to the Istanbul Commission
Task 1: Living Resources Management
Output 1
Draft Regional Black Sea Red Data Book, identifying and describing endangered species.
Project
Project
Final version completed in
Output 2.
Regional Strategy for Conservation Areas, including identification of priority locations for the
creation of new protected areas.
Tacis
Batumi AC
Output was not produced b
Output 3.
Specific measures to protect and restore the populations of marine mammals in the Black Sea
adopted by Governments.
Unknown
Unknown
Agreement was reached
Output 4. Draft Protocol to the Bucharest Convention on Biological Diversity and Landscape
Protection.
Tacis
Unknown
Draft prepared
Task 2. Commercially Exploited species and Sustainable Acquaculture Development
Output 1.
A regional strategy of cooperative stock assessment. The Strategy should be detailed enough to
include the number of boats involved, timetable, equipment, target species, budgets. This
proposal is envisaged to be a foundation on which regional support from NATO, IOC and
ComSBlack, etc., will be developed.
Unidentified
Krasnodar AC
Produced output is unsatis
Output 2.
Draft Annex to the Bucharest Convention on releasing commercial strains and introduction of
exotic species.
Output was not delivered
Task 3. Improving Planning in Coastal Areas, Including Urban and Industrial Zones
Output
Effective Regional Bucharest Convention on releasing commercial strains and introduction of
National ICZM strategies
exotic species
Project
Project
approved in Bulgaria and i
Romania
42
Table 1. Continuation
Financing
Objectives and Outputs According to Project Document
Source
Execution
Project Achievements
Sub-objective 3: Information and Data Exchange Mechanism
Task 1: Improvement of Communication, Environmental Data and Information Exchange
Output 1.
Fully operable regional e-mail network and improved Internet connections and Web server
Network is operational , bu
services.
Project
Project
limited national network ca
Output 2.
Established regional environmental Internet node, including information on data, data sets and
copies of historical data.
Project
Project
Internet node established;
Output 3.
Fully operable and monthly updated BSEP Home Page on Internet.
Project
Project
Home page was updated in
Task 2: Updating and Making Available the Black Sea Databases and GIS
Output 1.
CD-ROM Encyclopaedia "All about the Black Sea Environment."
Project
Project
Encyclopedia available and
Objective 2 overall achievement
Objective partially attained
43
Table 1. Continuation
Financing
Objectives and Outputs According to Project Document
Source
Execution
Project Achievements
Objective 3 Public Involvement in the Implementation of the Black Sea Strategic Action Plan
Sub-objective 1 Raising Public Awareness of the Black Sea Environmental Issues
Output 1
Project was active in raisin
Public better informed and involved in environmental management process
Project
Project
information about impact o
Sub-objective 2 Strengthening of the Black Sea NGOs
Output 1
Support to the NGOs; imp
Improved organizational and networking capacity of the Black Sea NGOs
Project
Project
unknown
Sub-objective 3 Involving Local Authorities and other Stakeholders in Designing and Implementing National Black Sea Strategic Action Plans
Output
Enhanced role of local authorities and other stakeholders in the process of the Black Sea
Indirect enhancement throu
rehabilitation and protection
Project
Project
formulation
Sub-objective 4 Social Assessment of the Human Communities Particularly Affected by the Degradation of the Black Sea Ecosystem
Output
Reports on the findings of social assessment studies of selected human communities
particularly affected by the degradation of the Black Sea ecosystem
Unknown
Unknown
Output was probably partia
Objective 3 overall achievement
Objective was partially achieved; impact of the produced output
44
Table 1. Continuation
Financing
Objectives and Outputs According to Project Document
Source
Execution
Project Achievements
Objective 4 Developing the Financing of the Black Sea Strategic Action Plan
Sub-objective 1 Portfolio of Black Sea Environmental Investments
Output 1
Report by national consultants on the initial technical analysis, based on an in-depth review of
relevant material.
Project
Project
National portfolios were pr
Output 2
A portfolio of Black Sea environmental priority investments to include proposed single
projects and/or packaged investments. These should be fully endorsed by respective
governments as an integral part of NBS-SAP. They should be in appropriate format for
presentation to IFI's and further developed through such mechanisms as PPC.
Project
Project
The portfolio is not adopte
Output 3
Report demonstrating the list of projects accepted by donors for which feasibility studies shall
be conducted.
Unknown
Project
Output was not delivered
Sub-objective 2 Creation of a Black Sea Environmental Fund
Output 1
Workshops and national di
A report based on extensive research demonstrating background information and results of
consultations and study tours conducted by consultants
Project
Project
Output 2
National strategies integrating appropriate sources of revenue, disbursement priorities,
structures and Governance procedures, based on discussions of national and regional inter-
sectoral workshops.
Project
Project
National strategies were no
Output 3
An in-depth feasibility study assessing the viability of the Black Sea Environmental Fund as a
sustainable source of finance
Project
Project
Feasibility study was cond
Objective 4 overall achievement
The project took steps toward objective 4 achievement; but neith
Environmental Fund were not established
45
3.2 ACTIVITY CENTERS AND ADVISORY GROUPS
Most of the remarkable technical achievements of both GEF projects should be attributed to
the Activity Centers.
The annex III of the RER/93/G31 project document refers to a meeting held in Istanbul in
June 1993 which established six Activity Centers based upon existing institutions with the
best available regional expertise. The Centers should "work closely with the Project Co-
ordination Unit of the GEF Programme; 42...."43 They should co-ordinate some activities,
provide technical support to the RER/93/G31 project and execute some studies or projects.
The meeting recommended establishment of the following centers:
1. Emergency Response Activity Center (hosted by Bulgaria).
2. Activity Center for Routine Pollution Monitoring (hosted by Turkey).
3. Activity Center for Special Monitoring Programme, Biological and Human Health
Effects, and Environmental Quality Standards (hosted by Ukraine).
4. Activity Center for the Protection of Biodiversity (hosted by Georgia).
5. Activity Center for the Development of Common Methodologies for Integrated Coastal
Zone Management (hosted by Russian Federation).
6. Activity Center on Fisheries (hosted by Romania).
In 1996, the Istanbul Commission decided that, by January 1997, it should establish:44
on the basis of current BSEP Working Parties, subsidiary bodies which can assist it in the
implementation of the BS-SAP.
The Istanbul Commission should initially establish Advisory Groups as its subsidiary
bodies...
The BSEP means the RER/93/G31 project45 and the term "Working Parties" probably names
collectively the institutions contributing to execution of RER/93/G31 and later
RER/96/G32/C projects.
42 The "GEF Programme" means probably the GEF RER/93/G31 project. In fact in the page 1 the
RER/93/G31 project document says "The present Programme for the Environment Management and
Protection of the Black Sea, to be funded by the GEF...".
43 RER/93/G31 project document, p. 28.
44 RER/96/G32 project document, p. 61.
45 The BSEP (the Black Sea Environmental Programme) is probably a synonym of the RER/93/G31
project, since in the only place where this abbreviation is defined it as follows (RER/96/G32, page 1
footnote 1):"...(BSEP) is a condensed form of the title of the GEF Pilot Phase Programme 'Programme for
the Environmental Management and Protection of the Black Sea (RER/93/G31).'" Lets note that in the
project document the RER/93/G31 project tile is labeled differently!
46
The purpose of the Advisory Groups was "to provide the Commission with the best possible
advice and information on topics which are key to implementation of the BS-SAP and the
Bucharest Convention. The Advisory Groups should have been supported by Activity
Centers." 46
According to the SAP and the Annex III of the RER/93/G31 project document, the Istanbul
Commission should establish the following Advisory Groups:
1. Advisory Group on Environmental and Safety Aspects of Shipping co-ordinated by the
Activity Center in Varna, Bulgaria.
2. Advisory Group on Pollution Monitoring and Assessment co-ordinated by the Activity
Center in Odessa, Ukraine.
3. Advisory Group on Control of Pollution from Land Based Sources co-ordinated by the
Activity Center in Istanbul, Turkey.
4. Advisory Group on the Development of Common Methodologies for Integrated Coastal
Zone Management co-ordinated by Activity Center in Krasnodar, Russia
5. Advisory Group on the Conservation of Biological Diversity, co-ordinated by the
Activity Center in Batumi, Georgia.
6. Advisory Group on Fisheries and other Marine Living Resources co-ordinated by the
Activity Center in Constanta, Romania.
7. Advisory Group on Information and Data Exchange co-ordinated by Commission
Secretariat.
Since the Activity Centers and Advisory Groups were located within the same institutions it
may be unclear which activity was done by the center, which by the group and which by the
institution. To avoid confusion, we will follow the terminology of the Terms of Reference
and the project document (which considered the Activity Centers ac co-implementing
agencies for 15 outputs -- Table 1, column 4) and consider these "units" as Activity Centers.
In this chapter we describe the main achievements of the Activity Centers and evaluate
their role in the Black Sea protection.
46 RER/96/G32 project document, p 18.
47
3.2.1 Activity Center on Environmental and Safety Aspects of Shipping
The Activity Center on Environmental and Safety Aspects of Shipping is located in Varna,
Bulgaria. It co-ordinated the national efforts in contingency planning, emergency response
and the shipping related activities and acted as a consultant of the Istanbul Commission and
its Permanent Secretariat. As such, it collaborated with governments, international
organizations, and the private sector in:
- co-ordination of regional approach to emergency response, in case of oil and hazardous
chemicals accidents
- co-ordination, on behalf of the Commission, of the MARPOL Convention
implementation on the regional level
- elaboration of port-state-control procedures
- maintaining the appropriate port reception facilities
The work program of the Center was agreed during a conference held in Varna in May 1994;
it covered three issues:
- developing a regional plan for emergency response in case of oil spill
- contribution to the Strategic Action Plan and Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis
- capacity building
Developing a Regional Plan for Emergency Response
Regional planning for emergency response started by identifying common needs and
capacities of the littoral countries to deal with marine pollution accidents. In 1995, using the
information provided by an IMO mission to the region and its own data, the Center warned
the countries about risks of a large oil spills,47 and urged them to update their national
contingency plans, establish a common approach to risk minimizing actions, harmonize
legislation, and refine the emergency procedures.48 In 1997, the countries started to revise the
national contingency plans in accordance with the IMO guidelines.49 The same year, the
Center assessed the needs of port reception facilities in the Black Sea Region.
47 Emergency Response and Contingency Planning in the Black Sea Region: Current Status and Strategies for
improvement
48 1995 Annual report, p. 1.
49 Manual on Oil Pollution, Section II, Contingency Planning.
48
Contribution to the Strategic Actions Plan and Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis
Contribution of the Center to the Strategic Action Plan and Transboundary Analysis was
discussed and defined during a meeting in June 1996.
Capacity building
The capacity building was materialized by two meetings:
- Regional Training Course on Preparedness for and Response to Maritime Pollution
Incidents involving Oil and other Hazardous Substances in the Mediterranean and Black
Seas (October 1995)
- Oil Spill Management Workshop (December 1996)
In 1997, by the end of the RER/93/G31 project, the countries still needed to:50
- approve the strategy of the Activity Center, review and asses the prepared National
Contingency Plans
- develop a harmonized system of port state control for the Black Sea Region
- develop and harmonize a system of enforcement including fines for the Black Sea Region
Since 1997, the GEF project support for the Center have ended; and the Center became
financed by the Bulgarian Government and donors.
Main regional activities executed in 1998
1. Development and adoption of a work programme for the implementation of shipping
related activities in the Black Sea Strategic Action Plan. The program was adopted during a
Regional Workshop held in Varna in 24-26 November 1998.
2. Initiation of a project on Port State Control in the Black Sea region. The project was initially
financed by the Danish Environmental Protection Agency (DEPA). Since 1999, this study has been
supported by IMO.
3. Co-ordination of a Phare project "Feasibility Study regarding the establishment of
reception facilities in the main Black Sea ports of Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey." The
project was implemented by a Danish company Carl Bro Center.
50 1997 Annual Report, p. 3.
49
Main regional activities executed in 1999
1. Organization of the First Preparatory Meeting on Port State Control for the Black Sea
Region, held in Varna in September 1999. Financed by IMO and the DEPA.
2. Co-ordination of a Phare Project "Feasibility Study regarding the establishment of
reception facilities in the main Black Sea ports of Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey."
Financed by Phare.
3. Co-organization of the Workshop on a Regional Oil Spill Emergency Response System
for the Black Sea, organized by the US Department of Energy, held in Odessa, Ukraine the 14 and 15
September 1999. Financed by US Department of Energy.
4. Organization of the Regional Workshop on Contingency Planning and Emergency
Response in the Black Sea, Varna, Bulgaria, 1-5 November 1999. Draft of a document
"Regional Contingency Plan for Combating Pollution of the Black Sea by Oil and Other Harmful
Substances." Financed by IMO.
5. Organization of a regional workshop on an agreed regional strategy and Action Plan for
implementation of an adequate reception facilities in the Black Sea region, held in
Istanbul, Turkey, 4-15 December 1999. Financed by Phare.
6. A partnership in the regional project: "TACIS Inter-state Programme for the Environment
(Inland Seas Programme): BSEP." Support for the Regional Activity Centre for Pollution Monitoring
and Assessment (Odessa, Ukraine): Phase I. Financed by Tacis.
7. A partnership in the regional project: "BSEP: Multi-country Project on the Black Sea
Chemical Monitoring." Financed by Phare.
Regional Activities in 2000
The activities for the year 2000 were planned taking into account the programme approved by
the regional workshop held in Varna in November 1998, DEPA and the BS SAP general
strategy agreed in 1994.
1. Organization (in close cooperation with IMO and the DEPA) of the Second Preparatory
Meeting for the establishment of a PSC Agreement for the Black Sea, in Istanbul in April
2000. A draft memorandum of understanding and training programme for the Black Sea states will be presented
as well. Financed by IMO and DEPA.
2. Further development of the draft Regional Contingency Plan for Combating Pollution of
the Black Sea by Oil and Other Harmful Substances. Organization of a regional Workshop on this
matter in Constanta, Romania, probably in May 2001. Financing IMO.
50
3. Providing communication facilities and establishment of communications links between
ERAC and the national responsible authorities in the Black Sea states. Better communication link
and pollution reporting system will help countries to establish an Initial Warning System for the region.
4. Preparation of appropriate information on contingency planning in the Black Sea region
for the Web page currently under preparation according to the NATO Special Working
Center 12 and the Partnership for Peace initiative.
5. Further development and approval of the draft Action Plan for implementation of adequate
reception facilities in the Black Sea region
6. Initiation of new projects (in close co-ordination with IMO) covering:
- study on measures to minimize the risk of any further introductions of exotic species into
the Black Sea through the de-ballast of vessels
- development of a regional Black Sea system for monitoring of oil pollution and ship
traffic by remote sensing, recommended by the UN Regional Preparatory Conference
UNISPACE III for Eastern Europe, held in Bucharest between 25 and 29 January 1999
- implementation of the activities related to the London Convention (1972), including a
regional workshop under the auspices of article XIV of the Convention to adapt the
Protocol on Dumping to the Bucharest Convention to the 1996 Protocol to London
Convention
Conclusions
The work plan of the Center was inspired by achievements of the years 1994 to 1996 under
the leadership of the first GEF project. The Activity Center still plays an important role in the
region. It continues to implement the outstanding points of the regional program initiated
under the RER/93/G31 project:
- preparation of national contingency plans
- harmonization of port state control
The Center actions are supported by the Bulgarian Government and by donors.
The dynamic Center team actually approves difficulties in financing communication and
regional information collection and dissemination.
51
3.2.2 Activity Center on Control of Pollution from Land Based Stations and
Activity Center on Pollution Monitoring and Assessment
The work plan of both Centers was prepared during a meeting on regional monitoring of the
Black Sea pollution held in Odessa in May 1994. The delegates to the meting developed an
integrated regional strategy concerning pollution monitoring, pollution effects studies,
information gathering and exchange. Realization of this strategy required improvement in
information gathering methodology, and in analytical capacity of national laboratories. In
consequence, still during the 1994, the project, jointly with Phare and Tacis, organized
assessment of laboratory capacities in pollution monitoring; the projects ordered
supplementary material to equip at least one laboratory in each country. At the same time, the
RER/93/G31 project started to organize training sessions (twenty-one training session
between 1994 and 1996) and specialized workshops. In 1995, invited experts assisted three
national focal points in pollution monitoring.
In 1996, the countries decided to establish a regionally co-ordinated network of national
pollution monitoring stations and ensure technical support for monitoring and assessment of
pollution discharges from land based sources. The first activities should have been co-
ordinated by the Activity Center in Odessa, the second by the Center in Istanbul.
When the national laboratories were equipped and the personnel trained, the Centers started
pollution monitoring that covered:
- the Black Sea near the Dniepr river mouth
- the Danube outflows
- Black Sea shelf near Bosphorus
The monitoring programs were completed in 1997. Their results were a major contribution to
the TDA and SAP; they were published in 1997 in a volume "The State of Pollution of the
Black Sea."
The monitoring has shown, among others, that more than eighty percent of the Biological
Oxygen Demand (BOD) and total of suspended solid load come from the rivers. Danube
itself is responsible for eighty-eight percent of BOD load coming from rivers.
52
The Center based in Odessa, which was visited during the evaluation mission, recently
proposed a regional framework for integrated chemical and biological monitoring that should
allow:
- identify the pollution level
- identify the pollutant loads in water bodies and effluents
- test compliance with EQSs and EQSs standards
- provide recommendations to decision-makers
- organize monitoring database
To achieve these results, the Center suggested to monitor fifty-one hot spots, three polygons,
land bases sources, drainage waters, storm waters and beaches. The results should be stored,
compiled and processed by the Center, and distributed within the region.
The Center continued the pollution studies as well. They were carried out in close
collaboration with Marine Studies Laboratory in Monaco, WHO Environmental Health
Division and the IOC of UNESCO. The IAEA checked the accuracy of determination of
organochlorine compounds and petroleum hydrocarbons in marine samples, which is
fundamental to pollution assessment in coastal and ocean environments. The Odessa
Center successfully passed the test, which means that the analyses done in Odessa Center
comply with the world standards51.
Currently, the Center (supported by Tacis52) refines the co-ordination of pollution
monitoring and assessment, and assists the staff from other focal points in the Black Sea
region in improving their own monitoring procedures.
In 1999, the Odessa Center:
- organized marine environment monitoring
- introduced data management and exchange of information with other Activity Centers
- designed Web site containing pollution monitoring and assessment data
- organized evaluation of investigation on marine water quality including hydrophysics,
hydrochemistry, chemical pollution, hydrobiology and radioecology
- improved ecological monitoring system, data management and information exchange
- elaborated marine aquatories classification by level of pollution and water quality
- elaborated marine geo-information concept using GIS technology
51 IAEA-408, 1999. World-Wide and regional Intercomparison for the Determination of Organochlorine
compounds, Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Sterols in Sediment Sample.
52 Tacis Inter-State Programme for the Environment (Inland Seas Programme) 1996 and 1997: Black Sea
Environment Programme. Report on the second woekshop on Environmental Quality Objecitves (EQOs)
and Standards (EQSs).
53
- prepared electronic atlas of the Black Sea ecology
The 1999 and the previous surveys have shown that:53
1. Waste water discharge represents a major risk for human health, human welfare,
recreation conditions, and economic development.
2. Quality of surface water represents an average risks for human health and human
welfare, however a major one for recreation, tourist's satisfaction and economic
development.
3. The quality of drinking water is a major risk for human health and human welfare, but
an average one for recreation condition, tourist satisfaction and economic
development.
4. The quality of sea water represents an average risk for human health and welfare, but
a major one for recreation conditions, tourist's satisfaction and economic development
5. Total annual economic value of damage by hot spots amounts to about $10 billion
(calculated from the Table 4, of the survey report).54
In 2000, the Odessa Center is realizing:
- environmental quality objectives definition for the Black Sea
- evaluation of hydrochemical, hydrobiology and radioactivity parameters of the water
- preparation of draft "Guidelines on Environmental Quality Objectives for the
Protection of the Black Sea Ecosystem in Ukraine"
- proposal of regulations concerning Black Sea ecological information exchange on the
national and regional levels
- information collation and exchange in Web site support for the Atlas of the Black Sea
The program for 2001 covers:
- preparation of national guidelines on environmental quality objectives for protection
of the Black Sea
- evaluation of hydrochemical, hydrobiology and radioactivity parameters of water
- creation of a multipurpose marine information in support for Azov and Black Seas
coastal management
- drafting of regulation concerning Black Sea ecological information exchange on the
national and regional levels
- support for Web site, information system and atlas of the Black Sea environmental
quality
53 Activity Center, Odessa 1999. Support for the Activity Center for Monitoring and Assessment Within the
Frame of the Strategic Action Plan. Final Report. 128 pages
54 Ibid., p. 10.
54
The Center plans its activities according to the program traced by regional Strategic
Action Plan for the Black Sea, the national SAP proposal prepared in 1999, a Regional
Monitoring Strategy proposed by the Center in 1998, and the environmental quality
objectives for the Black Sea Protection.
The Center's team and its management were unaware of the RER/96/G31 project existence.
Conclusions
The Odessa Center effectively contributes to implementation of the regional Black Sea SAP.
The Center suffers from insufficient funding. Actually it is seeking for supplementary
assistance for:55
- definition and recommendation on the optimum communication solution for
electronic exchange of data
- tools for statistical analysis of environmental data
- procurement of software for exchange procedures to support data exchange and
statistical analysis
- organization of a workshop on tools for statistical analysis and of data exchange
3.2.3 Integral Coastal Zone Management
The working plan of the Integral Coastal Zone Management Center, located in Krasnodar was
defined in a meeting convened by the RER/93/G31 project in June 1994. The plan covers
three major points:
- facilitate collation and dissemination of experience and research results
- prepare guidelines specific to the Black Sea's environment
- launch pilot activities and liaise with governments, international donors, NGOs and
private sector
55 Terms of Reference for TACIS support to BSEP (96/97 funds): Project - Data Processing, Data
Interpretation and Information Dissemination.
55
To implement this plan, the Center established in 1994 an integral coastal zone management
network that started to define the coastal management boundaries, prepare drafts of national
assessment reports, and projects of pilot studies. In 1996, the coastal zone boundaries were
determined, and the national assessment reports drafted. On that basis, the Center prepared a
regional synthesis later published as "Summary Report on Black Sea Integrated Coastal Zone
Management."56 The information collected by the Center was exploited in the Black Sea
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis and Strategic Action Plan.
The national assessment reports prepared ground for a Black Sea Sustainable Tourism
conference held in May 1996. Moreover, the Center proposed six national management pilot
projects and submitted them to the World Bank for financing.
In 1997, the Center drafted an outline for National and Regional Black Sea Integrated Coastal
Zone Management Policies and Strategies, and prepared final versions of national and
regional plans. It is due to the Center that a decree on the protection of the Black Sea Coastal
Zone was adopted in Russia and coastal zone management legislation was introduced in
Bulgaria.57
The PCU has no record of activities of the Center after 1997.
3.2.4 Activity Center on the Conservation of Biological Diversity
The Biodiversity Activity Center is based in Black Sea Ecology and Fishery Institute in
Batumi. It plays a leading role in providing the riparian countries with guidelines in
biodiversity monitoring, protection, and wetland conservation.
In 1994, the RER/93/G31 project provided the Center and the focal points with computers
and communication equipment, and helped them in creation of biodiversity networks, and
preparation of working plan. According to the plan, the Center should concentrate on:
- preparing national and regional biodiversity reports
- preparing regional investment strategy
- developing marine mammals protection strategy
56 Annual Report 1996, p. 12.
57 Final Report, p. 63.
56
Biodiversity reports were completed in 1996 and they contributed to drafting the Strategic
Action Plan. They were published in 199758 and presented in international forums in Canada,
Switzerland, France Finland and Malta.59 A Black Sea Red Data Book including description
of 120 endangered species and its CD-ROM version were edited in 1998.
The Center prepared an investment strategy that was included in the TDA.
Concerning the marine mammals protection strategy, the Center (in a symposium co-
sponsored by UNEP held in 1994) identified the key issues (as identification of marine
mammals ecosystems, factors affecting the populations, status of the endangered species,
steps to monitoring the populations), and proposed a strategy that should help recovery of
marine mammals populations. The reports about the key issues as well as the proposal for the
national strategies were ready in 1995. The elaborated strategies were at the origin of a
regional biodiversity program developed in cooperation with the World Bank.
Moreover, in 1995, the Center, jointly with the Istanbul University, recommended creation of
a special marine mammals protection sub-group that should standardize population
assessment methods, assess the marine mammals populations, propose their conservation
plan and identify relevant projects. The UNEP and the World Bank assisted and co-financed
the mammals' protection programs.
As a result of the Center's efforts, in 1996, fifteen countries signed an agreement on
conservation of cetaceans of the Black Sea, the Mediterranean. The same year, the Center
initiated development of a protocol on Protection of Biological and Landscape Diversity in
the Black Sea.
In 1997, the Center prepared a first draft of a Regional Strategy for Conservation Areas. It
launched as well a Development of Black Sea Landscape Strategy, and participated in
implementation of the Pan-European Strategy in the Black Sea region.
The PCU has no record of the recent Center's activities.
3.2.5 Activity Center on Fisheries and other Marine Living Resources
The Activity Center on Fisheries and other Marine Living Resources is based in Romanian
Marine Research Institute in Constanta. During a RER/93/G31 project meeting held in April
1994, the participants agreed upon the main activities of the Center: 60
58 "Biological Diversity in the Black Sea: a Study of Change and Decline
59 1997 Annual Report, pp. 11 and 12.
60 Annual Report 1994. Page 21.
57
- resource assessment, modeling and survey
- fisheries reconstruction and aquaculture
The teams from the Activity Center conducted the resource assessments, modeling and
surveys and the National Fisheries Networks established in riparian countries. The FAO
provided the project with a database; simulation models and expertise that helped establish
the fishery statistics. Moreover, the FAO supported compilation of a regional report, and
jointly with Danida it provided training for resources assessing teams. The fishery survey was
compiled in 1996. It shown a dramatic collapse of catch around 1990 and shift of catch
toward the anchovy.61 The survey results were included into the Transboundary Diagnostic
Analysis. The draft of joint assessment of the commercial fish stock was completed in 1997.
In parallel to the resource assessment, the Activity Center organized (in 1994) an aquaculture
study mission (partially supported by the Norwegian government) to the Black Sea littoral
countries.62 The mission's objective was to share experience, enhance regional contacts and
assess feasibility of investment in one to two sites per country. The results were published in
a second volume of the Black Sea Environmental Series.63 Recommendations of the mission
and collected information were used in 1996 to draft small scale projects that were submitted
to Tacis and Phare for financing. The demonstration projects were initiated in 1997 in
Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine and Georgia. After one year of implementation, all projects were
discontinued due to insufficient funding.
In parallel to these activities, the RER/93/G32 project and the Activity Center decided to:64
- assess impact of fisheries degradation on human activities (the activity was not initiated)
- proceed to an economical analysis of commercial fisheries and environmental
management (this activity was discontinued due to insufficient funding)
- assist in drafting Convention for Fisheries and Conservation of Living Resources of the
Black Sea (the Convention is not signed yet; it was decided to incorporate it into the
conventions that are worked out actually--the last meeting in September 2000--under
umbrella of a Black Sea Economic Cooperation concerning eleven States including Black
Sea riparian ones)
- prepare a multi-country project on sustainable fisheries management in the Black Sea
This multi-country project should:
- standardize the Black Sea fish stock assessment methods and catch estimates, and
establish a Black Sea Fisheries Data Base
- prepare common fisheries management procedures in harmony with those developed
by the European Union
- strengthen the aquaculture expertise and activity, and develop common environmental
norms for sustainable shellfish aquaculture
61 How to save the Black Sea. Page 13.
62 Annual report 1994. Page 22
63 GEF BSEP, 1966. Marine Aquaculture in the Black Sea Region. Current Status and Development
Options, pp. 239. UN Publications. Bl;ack Sea Environmental Series Vol. 2.
64 Annual Report 1997 pp. 19 and 20.
58
These activities were not yet implemented.
The Activity Center in Constanta was a valuable contributor to the TDA and SAP. It played
an important role in collecting information about the Black Sea fishery. This information
became one of the most important economic arguments in favor of the Black Sea protection.
The Center proposed projects that could demonstrate short-term economic benefits from the
Sea protection measures. The Center is implicated now in execution of national programs, but
it is still looking for financing aquaculture projects.
In practice, instead of executing demonstration projects, the Center served mostly as an
information-gathering instrument. A strategy for rehabilitation and sustainable development
of the fisheries (RER/93/G31, Objective 2, Achievement 4) was not prepared; preparing an
investment plan for enhancement and conservation of fisheries was considered by the
countries as "inadequate"; sustainable aquaculture development, one of the tasks of the
RER/96/G31/C project (Objective 2, Sub-Objective 2 Task 2), was not implemented.
59
4 PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT
The section will cover four topics: management arrangements, financial management, project
reporting and BSEP umbrella.
4.1 MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS
As the previous RER/93/G31/C project, the present one was managed by a Program co-
ordination Unit (PCU) hosted by the Turkish Government. The PCU's office was located in
Istanbul on the premises that should be occupied by the permanent Secretariat of the Istanbul
Commission. The PCUs were headed by project co-ordinators, staffed by international and
national experts and by technical personnel. The PCUs were responsible for administration,
support in preparation of technical studies, co-ordination of projects' activities, collection and
dissemination of information relative to the projects, and preparation of reports.
On the country level, the project was represented by national co-ordinators responsible for
national arrangements of the projects' activities, and co-ordination of national institutions
implementing the projects' programs.
Most technical activities were implemented through the Activity Centers and their national
focal points. Only some specific tasks were entrusted to hired experts from the region or from
other countries.
The PCU was supervised by a Steering Committee composed of representatives of the
recipient countries. UNOPS was the Executing Agency. GEF financed both projects.
In previous sections of the evaluation report we have noted that the representatives of the
PCU were members of the Steering Committee or Donor Group.65 and that the PCU staff
increased from three in the first project to six in the second.66 This arrangements seem to be
inappropriate
The PCU has no information about activities executed and outputs produced by each of the
PCU's personnel.
We have no specific comments to offer about general management, but the conclusions that
the participatory execution of the project's activities and the national co-ordination were
65 Section 2.1.4.
66 Ibid.
60
considered by people met during the mission as constructive and well-functioning
arrangements.
4.2 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
The general financial management of the project was assured by the UNOPS. The PCU
arranged the local expenses and was responsible for their accounting. The UNOPS
replenished the project's accounts and financed activities beyond the region as well as salaries
of the centrally-hired personnel. Since the PCU was responsible for global project
management it should have been timely informed about each project's budget balance.
Planning of project activities requires information about the available budget; any
optimization of future spending should be based, among others, on knowing the costs of
similar actions in the past.
The financial records concerning the RER/96/G32/C available in the PCU shows that it was
inadequately informed about project expenses. The PCU has records of its own expenses but
it was not informed about expenses incurred on its behalf and about funds that were still
available.
According to the records available in the PCU, the spending of the various projects were
reported as follows:
RER/93/G31
RER/96/006
RER/96/G32/C
RER/99/G42
1996
24.5
1997 -2.0
1.1
430.0
1998 0
56.5
152.2
1999 4.4
59.7
5.7
October 2000
6.7
15.2
28.4
38.8
Total spending
recorded in PCU
9.0
132.6
640.8
38.8
Project Budget
8 814.0
1 920.0
In thousands of dollars; source: PCU Istanbul
Among others, the table shows a gap between the project budget (the last line in the table)
and the total recorded in the PCU.
61
In the 1998 report to the Steering Committee, the project manager did not communicated the
budget for 1999.67
The origin of the inadequacy lies probably in the fact that project spending was done by the
PCU, the UNOPS and probably by national UNDP offices, whereas the PCU did not receive
periodically updated financial statements. It is unsatisfactory that the project management and
the UNOPS were unable to reach an agreement about information-sharing concerning
financial management.
4.3 REPORTING
Reporting was another weakness of the project.
The project was obliged to produce, among others, annual Project Performance Evaluation
Reports (PPER) and Terminal Reports.68 But it did not produce the PPER and this
shortcoming probably contributed to a large extent to its weak performance in outputs
delivery.
The PPER should contain (among others) descriptions of the annual targets, progression in
(all) outputs production, and proposed targets for the following year.69 If the outputs and
activities are unsatisfactorily described in the project document, by preparing the PPER, the
project management might easily identify the document's insufficiency and propose
corrections to the supervisory bodies.
Instead producing the PPER, he RER/96/G32/C co-ordinator prepared Project
Implementation Reviews (PIR). However, the requirements of the PIR concerning the
activities and output description are so general that PIR cannot be a basis for accounting of a
project's activities, outputs and planning.70 As a result, the PCU has no written account of the
project's actions and no description of the its outputs. The PCU did not produce a Terminal
Report.
67 GEF/BSEP. 1998. Meeting of the Black Sea Environemntal Programme Steering Committee.
68 Section 2.1.6.
69 UNDP Programming Manual, Chapter 7: Monitoring, Reporting and Evaluation, page 42 (in 1999
edition). The 1999 monitoring system is applied to the UNDP project since the early 1980s.
70 For example, the PIR 1999 report about the "Specific measures to protect and restore the populations of
marine mammals in the Black Sea, adopted by Governments" (Objective 2, Sub-Objective 2 Task 1, Output
3) as "under development" which is insufficient as the only information the PCU has about execution of
this output in 1999.
62
The PCU and the Steering Committees are directly responsible for this highly unsatisfactory
progress reporting by the project. The UNDP/GEF New York office assured an inadequate
technical backstopping of the reporting.
4.4 BSEP
UMBRELLA
The Terms of Reference (Annex I, par. 3) refers to BSEP, the Black Sea Environmental
Programme as a:
Convenient umbrella ... for assisting the Black Sea coastal states in their endeavor to
protect and rehabilitate the Black Sea and for co-ordinating this work with those of the
other international organizations and multilateral and bilateral donors.
It should be noted that according to the RER/96/G32/C project document, the BSEP is a
synonym of the RER/93/G31 project. The reason for the BSEP name introduction was its
brevity: "(BSEP) is a condensed form of the GEF Pilot Phase Programme 'Programme for
Environmental Management and Protection of the Black Sea (RER/93/G31).'"
Then, a Steering Committee meeting in Varna, June 1993, gave the BSEP some
objectives. According to the TDA, the meeting:
Selected as three overall BSEB objectives: to improve the capacity of Black Sea countries
to assess and manage the environment; to support the development and implementation of
new environmental policies and laws; and to facilitate the preparation of sound
environmental investments.71
Although the three new objectives resemble the three immediate objectives of the
RER/93/G31 project, this statement suggests that the BSEP is not the RER/93/G31
project program but some program "selected" by the Steering Committee.
We can learn as well that the BSEP terms covers programs of other donors. For example
in the TDA it is stated that "the BSEP's environmental investment programme, led by the
World Bank has supported the development of an Urgent Investment Portfolio, ...."72
71 BSEP, 1997. Black Sea Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis, p. iii.
72 Ibid., p. iv.
63
From introduction to the Black Sea Environmental Study73 we learn that the BSEP has its
own policy and is supported by GEF, the World Bank, Phare, Tacis, governments of five
donor countries and the Black Sea riparian countries.
The term BSEP was identified with the RER/96/G32/C GEF project as well. The
documents produced by the project were signed by BSEP and not by the project symbol
and title. It is impossible, without the personal help from someone "from the project" to
identify which project produced what. The reference to the project disappeared even from
the GEF/96/G32/C project report to the Steering Committee in 1998. (Moreover, in this
report and some other recent ones, the PCU became PIU which stands for Project
Implementation Unit)
In summary tolerance of multiple meaning of the BSEP term and use of other undefined
or inadequately defined terms that occurred in the reports produced by the project is an
unsatisfactory practice.
73 GEF BSEP, 1998. Ukraine, Black Sea Environmental Study, pp. xii and xv.
64
5 PROJECT'S
IMPACT
The general commitment of the six Black Sea riparian countries to protect the Black Sea
environment preceded the GEF financing. In April 1992, the countries adopted a convention
about protection of the Black Sea against pollution, a "Bucharest Convention," and decided to
elaborate a Black Sea Strategic Action Plan. As a first step towards preparation of this plan,
they agreed on policy objectives and included them in a Ministerial Declaration on the
Protection of the Black Sea called the "Odessa Declaration." At the same time, the countries
requested that the GEF support them in SAP preparation and in actions leading to Black Sea
protection. In 1993, the GEF responded by financing the RER/93/G31 project. In April of the
same year, the countries adopted the Odessa Declaration. In October, the RER/93/G31
project became operational. This project was followed in 1997 by additional GEF financing,
presently evaluated project RER/96/G32/C, that should assist countries in development and
implementation of national SAPs.
There is no doubt that both (RER/93/G31/ and RER/96/G32/C) projects sustained the
countries' commitment towards Black Sea protection and stimulated them towards new
initiatives. Under the direct projects' impact, the countries organized regional co-operation,
committed themselves to various initiatives in favor of the Black Sea environment, invested
in pollution-reduction technologies, sustainable management practices, and extended the
regional co-operation to the Danube basin countries. Both projects played an important role
in implementation of these initiatives, and the presently observed impacts are the results of
combination of their efforts. In consequence, the present chapter describes the role of both of
them.
5.1 REGIONAL CO-OPERATION
The most salient acts testifying to the regional co-operation is creation of the Activity
Centers network, SAP and TDA-preparing process, and co-operation in environmental
standards improvement.
65
5.1.1 Activity Centers network
One of the first initiatives of the RER/93/G31project was the creation of the Activity
Centers and their Focal Points.74 Each country hosted one Center and several Focal Points
representing the Activity Centers created in the neighboring countries. Each Center
covered different technical fields, all pertinent to Black Sea environment protection. The
centers were located in the leading scientific or technical institutions, and to facilitate
their work, the project provided equipment and training for the personnel. The
governments furnished the personnel, working space, equipment and covered operational
expenses. The personnel of the national institutions that became the Activity Centers or
Focal Points accepted to execute the tasks assigned to them in addition to their own
national program. The Activity Centers' contribution to the project outputs was
remarkable and of the highest quality. The institutions that hosted the Centers co-operated
fully with the national authorities and the PCU. The staff of the centers learned from the
project as well. Participating in numerous regional and international working sessions, the
national technicians have learned new methodologies, familiarized themselves with work
of other similar institutions in the world and shared their experience.
5.1.2 SAP and TDA Preparing
The exhaustive and country-driven process of consultations and drafting the regional
SAP, the TDA and then the national SAPs, launched by the GEF projects, helped the
national technicians and administrators to test in practice the created networks of Activity
Centers and Focal points. Intensive consultation and data collecting processes and
successful preparation of the documents re-inforced confidence of the participants to the
network and strengthened links among the contributors. The common effort created a
sense of shared responsibility for the state of the Black Sea. Before the GEF projects, the
countries rejected responsibility for the sea pollution attributing it to their neighbors or
some anonymous agents. Now, thanks to the common effort and gained mutual
confidence, the countries achieved a more balanced perception of the state of the Sea, the
origins of its pollution, and their own responsibility in preserving the Black Sea's
resources.
74 Section 3.3.
66
The national and regional consultation process created a deep sense of ownership of the
regional and national SAPs and TDA among the countries. There is unanimous sentiment
among the representatives of the MoE, national co-ordinators and the AC staff met during
the evaluation, that the direction of future actions traced by the documents is just; that the
recommended changes and investments will be implemented; that among the
governments, there is strong political will to implement the SAP and incorporate the
TDA program into the national development plans. There is no doubt in the minds of
national administrators that future Black Sea exploitation should only be based on
sustainable technology with a guarantee of full preservation of the environment.
The effort of the environmental improvement initiated by the project continues thanks to
the national contributions and donors' support.
5.1.3 Environmental Standards Improvement
The institutions created as a result of the projects' initiative are still active. They are
elaborating now new environmental standards and new ways improving the Black Sea
ecology. The institutions are supported by the beneficiary countries' governments and by
donors, but their program is that traced by the project in the SAP.75
Under the leadership of the Odessa Activity Center, the countries approved the new
environment quality and water quality objectives and standards, and they are developing
new quality assurance and control programs.
Under the leadership of the Varna Activity Center, the countries signed a memorandum
of understanding on port-state control and are finalizing a regional contingency plan for
oil spills.
Under the leadership of the Batumi Activity Center, a strategy for conservation areas and
a protocol on biodiversity and landscape protection were prepared and submitted for
approval.
A new strategy for coastal zones management prepared under the leadership of the
Krasnodar Activity Center is now in implementation.
The Constanta Activity Center prepared a draft of convention for fisheries that will be
incorporated this year into another convention adopted by Black Sea Economic Co-
operation.
75 Section 3.2.
67
5.2 COMMITMENTS
Both projects were mandated to push the governments toward decisions favorable to the
Black Sea protection cause, to support the NGOs and to enhance public awareness.
5.2.1 Governments
In October 1996, the governments of the Black Sea riparian countries signed the regional
Strategic Action Plans that have been worked out thanks to the project material and logistic
support. Consequently, each country decided to invest in eliminating the pollution hot spots
and to adjust national legislation and norms to the regional or international standards. Starting
from 1997, the countries, assisted by the second project, began to work out national Strategic
Actions Plans. Presently, they are in the process of adopting the national SAPs, and continue
to include the regional and national priority investments indicated in the SAPs in national
investment plans. In summary, both projects were catalysts in mobilization the riparian
countries for reversing the environmental degradation of the Black Sea.
Although the adoption of the SAP is a great achievement of the project and a significant step
taken by governments towards improvement of the Black Sea environment, the progress of
implementation of specific governmental commitments was slower than anticipated in the
regional SAP and TDA. The regional SAP contained fifty-one commitments, among them
thirty-nine should have been implemented in 2000 or before. Table 2 describes the state of
implementation of these commitments. Among the thirty-nine, only six were fully executed.
Ten actions were initiated by the project, but to date the governments have not implemented
them. Execution of six others did not even begin. Finally, there was no information about the
present execution stage of the remaining eight commitments.
The PCU don't know why the SAP implementation is so slow. According to the opinion of
persons interviewed, the process of actualization of national legislation is always slow and
the national investment agenda was established taking into consideration numerous national
priorities, many of them as pressing as Black Sea degradation. There is a "political will" to
improve the Black Sea situation, but there is no funds available to implement this "will."
However, even if one accepts this interpretation, it is still unknown why, knowing the
countries' situation, the ministers have agreed on the SAP and signed it.
68
5.2.2 NGOs
Both projects took several initiatives that should implicate the NGOs in the protection of the
Black Sea. The NGOs responded rapidly to the projects' initiatives. They organized
themselves into "Forums," executed small projects and mobilized citizens for Black Sea
protection. The NGOs experienced many difficulties organizing themselves and executing the
projects: they were lacking funds and social support. The GEF projects considered them as
dedicated but inexperienced and without much credit in the governments' and public eyes.
The NGOs complained that they were inadequately supported by the GEF project, refused
access to PCU activities and purposely deprived of the project' funds.76
5.2.3 Citizens
The projects deployed many activities that should mobilize the populations for Black Sea
protection. There is no independent evaluation of the citizens' reaction to efforts deployed
from the project initiative.
5.3 INVESTMENTS
The projects initiated and sponsored SAPs and TDA, and mobilized the governments to
invest in the environment. Ten to fifteen per cent of the investment program is now
implemented. Additionally, the countries support national programs of monitoring and
supervising the pollution in the Black Sea. Among the donors that finance actions initiated by
the project are Phare, Tacis, DANIDA, EBIRD and the World Bank.77
76 GEF/BSEP 1998. Meeting of the Black Sea Environment Programme Steering Committee.
77 Sections 3.1.1.1.
69
5.4 BLACK SEA AND DANUBE BASINS CO-OPERATION
The first objective of the first GEF project was to create and strengthen regional capacities
for managing the Black Sea ecosystems.78 The project achieved this objective thanks to the
creation of Activity Centers, their national Focal Points and nomination of national co-
ordinators. Recently and once again from the project's initiative, the Black Sea riparian
countries extended the regional co-operation to the countries located in the Danube River
basin. This co-operation is justified by the importance of the Danube River as a source of
nutrients injected into the Black Sea.
78 Section 3.1.1.2.
70
Table 2. Actions that should be terminated or outputs delivered included in 2000 or
before. According to the Strategic Action Plan.
(Source: PCU)
Action
Target Date
Progress achieved
1
Hot-spots identified
2000
The hot-spots are identified by the project and national tech
governmental approval
2
Prepare studies on insufficiently treated sewage discharges
2000
Studies conducted during the hot-spots identification (actio
3
Adopt harmonized water quality objectives and standards
1998
Water quality objectives and standards were elaborated but
neither by the governments, nor on the regional scale
4
Adopt procedures for land based sources pollution control
1998
The procedures are not yet adopted
5
Implement efficient enforcement mechanisms for point source
1999
The mechanisms are not implemented
pollutants
6
Harbor reception facilities for garbage installed
1999
The feasibility studies for harbor reception facilities were d
are not yet installed
7
Harbor reception facilities for oil installed
2000
The feasibility studies for oil reception facilities were done
installed
8
Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control adopted
1998
The Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control w
9
Harmonized system of enforcement including fines developed
1998
The enforcement system was not developed
10
Measures to avoid any further exotic species introduction presented
1997
The activities aiming at avoiding exotic species introduction
to the IMO
11
Total ban on the disposal of municipal garbage in marine shoreline
1999
The ban is imposed; there is no information about complian
and estuaries area imposed
12
Define concentration levels for trace contaminants in dredged spoils
1998
Concentrations levels not defined yet
13
Develop Contingency plans and emergency response
1997
Contingency plans are elaborated but they are not yet imple
14
National Contingency plans concerning both vessels and offshore
1998
The contingency plans are not yet adopted
installations adopted
15
Adopt Black Sea Contingency Plan
2000
Black Sea Contingency plan nit adopted yet
16
Prepare a "State of Pollution of the Black Sea"
1996
The document was prepared in 1999. The next edition is sch
17
Establish a Black Sea Monitoring System for Pollutants
1998
The proposal for monitoring was prepared in 1999
18
Uniform measurement technique for bathing water quality developed
1997
The measurement technique not yet developed. It will be w
19
Data regarding actual and assessed contaminant discharge
1996
Rapid assessment was conducted in 1996 and information e
measurements compiled and freely exchanged
countries of the region; full scaled regional measurement an
yet operational
20
Spawning areas of anadromous species restored and coastal lagoons
2000
No information about spawning area restoration.
rehabilitated
71
21
Adopt Fisheries Convention
As soon as
Not adopted
possible
22
Develop and adopt a Protocol on Biological Diversity and Landscape
2000
The Protocol is being elaborated
Protection to the Bucharest Convention
23
Publish a regional Black Sea Red Data Book
1998
Red Data Book was elaborated and published
24
Enforce a ban on the hunting of marine mammals
Immediately
The ban was enforced
25
Conduct regular assessment of marine mammals
First assessment in
No information
1998
26
Equip and rehabilitate the Center for the Conservation of Biological
No
information
Diversity in Batumi
27
Adopt a regional strategy for Conservation Areas
1998
Not done
28
Adopt national laws for protection of conservation areas
2000
No information
29
Adopt criteria for environmental impact assessment
1998
No information
30
Harmonize criteria for environmental impact assessment
1999
Not done
31
Develop a regional Black Sea strategy for integrated coastal zone
1998
The strategy was partially elaborated
management
32
Each country adopt measures facilitating Integrated coastal zone
1999 No
information
management
33
Inter-sectoral committees for integrated coastal zone management
1997 No
information
established at national, regional and local levels
34
A survey of Coastal erosion problems conducted
1998
Not done
35
Aquaculture and tourism developed and managed according to
1999 Not
done
common norms
36
Adopt and implement rules which guarantee public access to
2000
No specific rules adopted
environmental information
37
Make available to the public the information about the state of
1998
Done in Turkey only
bathing water
38
Each country prepare National Strategic Action Plan
1997
All countries prepared the national plans
39
Establish Black Sea Environmental Fund
2000
Feasibility study has been done; the Fund not yet establishe
72
6 CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND LESSONS
The conclusions, recommendations and lessons are grouped under seven headings:
conclusions and recommendations related to the project's design; project's
implementation; project's results; project's impact; review of project's results measured
against initial objectives and future actions. The chapter ends with closing comments and
recommendations. The recommendations and the lessons learned are numbered in order
of their appearance.
6.1 PROJECT'S DESIGN
In the Project's Design section we will review and assess the appropriateness of the
project's concept and design to the overall situation in the Black Sea region; appraise the
project's current effectiveness in realizing objectives, and the extent to which they
contribute to the overall development objective as announced in the project document;
appraise the projects' actions and outcomes in light of the pertaining GEF guidelines;
assess sustainability of the program.
6.1.1 Appropriateness of the Project's Concept
During the last thirty years, the Black Sea has suffered from excessive oxygen depletion
that impoverished the sea life, from unsustainable exploitation of commercial species,
and from pollution by sewage and oil. In 1992, the Black Sea riparian countries that
started to lose about $1 billion of revenue from the sea annually, signed an agreement--
the "Bucharest Convention"--aimed at protecting the Black Sea. According to the
Convention, signatory countries should prepare a Black Sea protection plan, harmonize
their legislation and policies, rationalize sea-exploitation methods, and invest in pollution
reduction.
At the request of the Black Sea riparian countries, the UNDP-GEF decided to support the
regional efforts towards Black Sea protection by financing two major projects. The first--
RER/93/G31 "Environmental Management and Protection of the Black Sea," signed in
73
1993, should have created and strengthened the regional capacities for managing the
Black Sea ecosystem, developed an appropriate harmonized policy and legislative
framework, and facilitated preparation of sound investments. The second one--
RER/96/G32/C "Development and Implementation of the Black Sea Strategic Action
Plan," signed in 1997, should have consolidated the implementation of the Black Sea
Strategic Action Plan (SAP), helped countries in public involvement, developed national
SAPs, and developed financing of investments identified in the regional SAP.
Assessment
Both projects corresponded to the objectives of the Black Sea riparian countries, and
conformed very well to the steps envisaged by the countries to improve the Black Sea
ecology. The GEF response to the countries' request of assistance was timely. The
projects fitted into the GEF priorities, namely the eighth International Water Operational
Program, the GEF transboundary concerns, and the UNDP area of concentration:
environmental problems and natural resources management.
Lesson 1
Both projects were the results of pertinent and timely responses of the GEF and UNDP to
the regional demand. The projects corresponded to the countries' priorities and were
implemented at the onset of the regional co-operation towards the Black Sea protection.
Thanks to these merits, the projects achieved remarkable results--some of them of
historical importance--despite many weaknesses. The GEF and UNDP may regard both
projects as an illustration of well-conceived development concepts, and as an example of
importance that timely implementation of a project has on its impact on beneficiaries.
6.1.2 Project's
design
Although the project's concept corresponded to the countries' priorities and the GEF and
UNDP areas of action, designs of the project document was unsatisfactory.
The development objective "Restoration of the Black Sea ecosystem and protection of all
its resources," was too broad. Taken literally, this objective was unattainable by the
project since its immediate objectives did not aim at this goal. The projects rather
contributed to restoration of the Black Sea ecosystems , or created conditions among the
countries of the region that would help them to restore the Black Sea ecosystems and
protect all its resources.
Moreover, in some places in the project documents there was no correspondence between
immediate objectives and outputs that should have led to their achievement. It includes
outputs that cannot be achieved by the project without some important supplementary
74
financing not available at the projects' signature, and in some places, there is incoherence
between announced objectives and outputs.
Additionally, the document has no work plan; institutional arrangements were flawed by
conflict of interest; lists of beneficiaries were inadequately formulated; some risks were
identified but there was no information about actions needed to mitigate them.
Assessment
The design of the RER/96/G32 was unsatisfactory. The project document should have
been improved at the very early stage of project implementation. The PCU should have
initiated the process and asked the project supervision bodies to take steps to improve the
documents
Recommendation 1
The project document was unsatisfactory. As such, it should have been improved at the
early stages of the project implementation. To avoid similar situations, the Implementing
Agency should tighten its control over submitted proposals for financing.
Recommendation 2
The Implementing Agency should instruct the project co-ordinators to check the project
documents and provide the Implementing Agency with comments and proposals for
improvement or actualization.
Recommendation 3
The Implementing Agency, through the Executing Agency, should instruct the project co-
ordinators to prepare and regularly update the projects' work plans.
Recommendation 4
The Steering Committees and other equivalent stockholder supervisory bodies should
duly fulfill their obligations as project monitoring institutions, and check the coherence
and pertinence of the project documents' arrangements. The Implementing Agency should
instruct the Steering Committees about their obligations toward the projects.
Recommendation 5
Implementing Agency should indicate who, in the project's channel of command, is
responsible for the improvement and actualization of the project document.
75
6.1.3 Project's Current Effectiveness in Realizing the Objectives,
As we have mentioned in the previous section, the project document was inadequately
formulated, and this insufficiency was not rectified during the project's execution. In this
situation, the project's products did not correspond to the set of outputs announced in
project documents; and the immediate objectives were partially achieved
It should be noted that some of the produced outputs were of a very high quality.
Assessment
Project's effectiveness in realizing the objectives designed by the project document was
unsatisfactory. Nevertheless, despite the fact that the project delivered only some outputs
and attained only a fraction of its objectives, the high quality of the attained outputs made
the project strong contributor to the creation of conditions favorable for restoration of the
Black Sea ecosystems.
Lesson 2
Despite inadequate project document, the quality of the results obtained highlights the
important role played by dedicated and competent personnel in the project's execution. In
the present case, the project management implemented outputs that were both attainable
and represented key factors to achievement of progress toward protection of the Black
Sea environment.
6.1.4 Project's Contribution to the Overall Development Objective
The produced outputs and attained objectives were a brilliant illustration of the depth of
impact the GEF approach can have on achieving environmental goals. The first,
RER/93/G31, project reviewed existing information that helped the countries to better
understand current Black Sea pollution and overexploitation. When necessary, it
collected supplementary data. Once this process ended, the project analyzed them and
prepared detailed technical documentation (thirteen volumes, professionally edited and
later published by United Nations Publications, New York). Then, the project prepared a
diagnosis of the environmental situation and drafted a regional plan for Black Sea
protection. The diagnostic--the TDA, and the plan--the SAP, were highly appreciated by
the beneficiaries and adopted by the governments of all Black Sea riparian countries. In
the last step, the second project helped the countries to proceed to national, more detailed
environmental diagnoses, to prepare national SAPs and to lists national priority
investments. The governments are now in the process of approving the national SAPs.
76
Assessment
The attained sections of the objectives strongly contributed to protection of the Black Sea
environment.
6.1.5 Project's Actions and Outcomes in the Light of the GEF Guidelines
The project was co-ordinated by so called Program Co-ordination Unit (PCU) situated in
Istanbul and represented in each country by a national co-ordinator. The project's
activities were executed by various national and international institutions and by
consultants. Among them, Activity Centers and their Focal Points played the major role.
Although participatory in their approach, the project operated without a regional
counterpart. The Secretariat of the Istanbul Commission that should became the
counterpart of the project was not operational until November 2000. Thus, to maintain
continuity in regional co-ordination and assure a smooth take-over of the responsibilities
from both projects, the PCU should have carefully documented its activities, described
progress in the outputs' delivery and reported about costs. The project document, the GEF
guidelines for project implementation and the UNDP instructions all indicated precisely
to the PCU the type and content of this documentation. The PCU did not produce
satisfactory reports describing the project activities and outputs. The documents produced
such as the "BSEP annual reports" and the annual PIR were not sufficient to satisfy the
project document's reporting requirements.
Assessment
Reporting of the project's activities and outputs execution was highly unsatisfactory.
Recommendation 6
The Implementing Agency should duly instruct project managers about their
responsibilities towards instructions contained in the project documents and the
additional UNDP and GEF regulations.
Recommendation 7
The Implementing Agency should instruct the Steering Committee or other body directly
supervising the projects about their obligations and responsibilities towards the project
and the beneficiaries.
Lesson 3
In the future, the Implementing Agency and its implementing agencies may expect that
newly contracted managers may not be fully aware of all obligations imposed on them by
the project document and by the Organization. In fact, the always-challenging task to
77
implement the project may consume all the energy of the managerial staff, leaving little
time and little regard for the half administrative, half technical, frequently redundant
reporting. Moreover, in many situations it may not be so important to dwell on past
events. Unfortunately in the case of the Black Sea project, the reporting was crucial: the
project document was unsatisfactory, the counterpart institution was not operational and
the experience was new in the history of the Black Sea coastal countries.
Recommendation 8
It is recommended to the Steering Committee of the RER/96/G32/C (or the desirable next
phase) to instruct the PCU to restore as much information as is possible about activities'
execution and the progress in output delivery achieved by the two projects.
Recommendation 9
The Implementing Agency may expect that in the future, managerial and supervisory
staff will be unacquainted with operational regulations. Consequently, it may be useful to
periodically organize briefing sessions that will familiarize the new staff with the
projects' administrating and reporting.
6.1.6 Sustainability of the Programme.
The two main projects belonging to the program (the RER/93/G31 and RER/96/G32/C)
were decentralized; their activities were principally executed by national institutions,
while the PCU was responsible for co-ordination.79 Being decentralized and participatory,
the projects have left behind them trained and experienced national personnel that
continue to implement Black Sea protection activities. Both projects financed training,
meetings and information exchange, all for the benefit of national institutions. The
projects were executed in a political atmosphere and social tendency promoting positive
attitude of governments, industries and citizens toward protection of the Black Sea. All
these factors advocate in favor of high sustainability of both projects and their strong
impact on the countries.
Assessment
The projects' outputs sustainability is probably very high.
Recommendation 10
The Istanbul Commission that took over the both projects' achievements should evaluate
the importance and actuality of the projects' outputs (such as for example, the network of
79 In the RER/96/G32/C project, the role of the PCU was increased since it became a co-executing agency
of almost all project outputs. However, since many outputs were not attained, and the most significant one--
production of the national SAPs--was executed by the countries, the project was in fact a participatory one
as well.
78
the Activity Centers) to implementation of the Black Sea protection program. The
Commission should create conditions within the countries that will promote sustainability
of the outputs important for the Black Sea protection.
6.2 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
Project implementation will cover general implementation and management of the project
in terms of quality and timelines of inputs and activities, with particular reference to
financial and human resources; adequacy of management arrangements as well as
monitoring and backstopping support given to the project by all parties concerned;
changes in the environment in which the projects operate and which constituted the
rationale for GEF support.
6.2.1 General Implementation and Management
In this section we will consider management of financial and human resources.
The financial management of the project suffered from inadequate communication
between the UNOPS headquarters and the PCU. The projects did not receive updated
information about its spending. From the other side, the PCU did not produce annual
reports required by the project documents about executed actions and their costs. In
conclusion, it seems that the PCU could not proceed with optimal allocation of its
resources.
Recommendation 11
The UNOPS as Executing Agency should instruct the project management about the
communication procedures with the UNOPS accounting system, and about the ways of
updating project's spending. Since the project personnel are frequently on short-term
contracts, the UNOPS should reinforce procedures for briefing managerial staff.
Recommendation 12
The Implementing Agency should require that project managers report annually about the
cost-effectiveness of their managerial decisions. They should demonstrate that other
decisions would have been more costly or less efficient in term of outputs quality or
delivery timeliness.
79
The PCU has no documents commenting on human resources management. In
consequence, we presume that the project personnel were recruited timely and
satisfactory fulfilled their duties. The opinions about the PCU staff and the hired
expatriate consultants expressed by the national co-ordinators and the Activity Centers
personnel were full of praise: they were considered as highly competent and reliable, and
their approach to problem solving was regarded as sound and constructive.
A comparison of human resource programming between the two projects may raise some
objections. The RER/93/G31 project document provided that the PCU should be staffed
with three technicians and be directly responsible for two of thirty outputs. The evaluated
RER/96/G32/C project document increased the PCU staff provision to five technicians,
co-responsible for delivering of thirty of thirty-one outputs. This decision is surprising
since the contrary might have been expected: further transfer of tasks to the personnel and
institutions in the countries, instead of concentration of personnel and resources within
the Istanbul-located PCU.
Assessment
The project was probably adequately staffed, but the increase of PCU personnel in the
second project may be regarded as unsatisfactory.
6.2.2 Adequacy of Management Arrangements, Monitoring and Backstopping
The PCU successfully provided the national institutions with equipment, training,
organized more than one hundred meetings, and produced numerous valuable documents
and books. This seems to indicate that the project was managed energetically and
efficiently, and that the institutional and personnel arrangements were adequate.
The produced outputs covered, however, only part of the project documents'
requirements. The PCU was not requested by the supervisory institutions to produce more
balanced results or, if full achievement of the objectives was unrealistic, to modify the
project documents. These facts point to the weakness in project monitoring and
backstopping. The inadequacy of monitoring started with the project document
preparation and ended with tolerating unsatisfactory project progress reporting.
Recommendation 13
Implementing Agency should identify the reasons for the unsatisfactory monitoring and
backstopping and issue instructions that would prevent this inadequacy in the future.
80
6.2.3 Changes in the Environment in which the Project Operates
The environment in which the project operated shifted in its favor and this and the
previous UNDP-GEF projects themselves largely contributed to this shift.
The Black Sea countries took several steps towards Black Sea protection. In 1992, the
Black Sea riparian countries signed a convention for that purpose, followed, in 1994 by
the Odessa Declaration. A regional plan of action towards Black Sea protection was
agreed upon and signed in 1996. National protection action plans are now ready, and
some governments are in the process of their adaptation. Starting from 1996, the
countries of the region have elaborated several regional agreements all in favor of Black
Sea protection or sustainable management of its resources. All these steps brought the
countries toward restoration of the Black Sea ecosystem and protection of its natural
resources.
The projects diligently and efficiently assisted the countries in these changes. They
specified the origins of environmental degradation of the Black Sea, assembled a list of
important investments necessary to improve the Black Sea environment, and drafted a
regional Strategic Action Plan. Once the countries' representatives signed the regional
SAP, the second project started to support the countries in designing national SAPs. The
legislation modifications and new international agreements concerning Black Sea
protection that were introduced by the countries starting from 1996 have been, in most of
the cases, stimulated by the regional SAP designed by the project. When the GEF funding
became limited after 1997, other donors and international organizations took over the
assistance, thus reinforcing the changes within the countries and increasing the presitge of
the GEF projects.
Assessment
Both projects worked in political and institutional environments that evolved in the
direction of the projects' objectives. The projects themselves contributed to the creation of
this environment.
Lesson 4
The process of changes in the countries' perception of the Black Sea and the role of
foreign assistance in shaping it may be an interesting subject for academic studies about
the role of development projects in public opinion shaping and policy decision making.
The results of such studies may be useful for the GEF in designing future regional
assistance.
81
6.3 PROJECT RESULTS
The project results will be summarized and reviewed against their objectives, outputs and
actions detailed in the project document.
The project was responsible for achieving four immediate objectives.
Objective 1
Consolidation of the Policy Strategy to Implement the Black Sea Strategic Action Plan.
As requested by the outputs, the project successfully helped countries to develop the
national SAP and adopted a basin-wide approach for co-ordination of activities for Black
Sea protection. However, none of the Black Sea riparian countries has yet approved or
implemented the national SAP.
Objective one was partially achieved.
Objective 2
Preparing the Technical Implementation of the Black Sea Strategic Action Plan.
To attain this objective, the project should have produced nineteen outputs. The review of
the outputs has shown that the project executed only six minor ones; two outputs were not
executed and ten others were financed by other donors and executed by the Activity
Centers. (Two of the three visited Activity Centers were not even aware of the project's
existence.)
The objective was partially attained.
Objective 3
Public Involvement in the Implementation of the Black Sea Strategic Action Plan.
The project published one issue of a 16-pages Black Sea Newsletter in seven languages.
Other activities were initiated and executed by the NGOs or were the consequence of
public involvement in formulation of the national SAPs. The project did not assess the
changes in perception of the Black Sea problems by the public. Social assessment was not
done.
82
The objective was partially achieved.
Objective 4
Developing the financing of the Black Sea Strategic Action Plan.
The project did not develop a specific portfolio of investments in format ready for
presentation to international financing institutions, nor did it create a Black Sea
Environmental Fund, however, it took steps toward development of such portfolio and
fund.
The objective was partially achieved.
The long-term objective
The long-term objective of the Project is the rehabilitation and the protection of the Black
Sea as well as sustainable development of the region. This project will enable the Black
Sea countries to develop NBS-SAPs and through such plans to set the ground for the full
implementation of the Bucharest Convention, Odessa Declaration and BS-SAP. This
objective will be achieved through the consolidation of the policy strategy, preparation of
the technical implementation of the SAPs and development of the financial instruments
for financing of the SAPs. This project should also provide the basis for joint work
between the Black Sea Programme and the Danube Programme.
The project assisted the countries in drafting the national SAP, but the plans were not yet
accepted and implemented. It financed several steps that should have led to preparation of
the Black Sea Fund, but the fund itself was not established. The effect of the project
effort in raising public awareness was unknown. The project provided the basis for
collaboration between the Black Sea and Danube programs.
The modest performances of the project are balanced in some way by the positive role the
project played in consolidation of the network of national Black Sea conservation
institutions, actualization of the protection legislation; national investment in Black Sea
protection, countries involvement in progressing toward Black Sea protection; and
information exchange among the countries.
Assessment
The project did not achieve any of the four objectives; the situation expected at the end of
the project was not yet fully attained, except for drafting the initial proposals for the
Black Sea Basin approach to support the implementation of the Black Sea regional SAP.
83
6.3.1 Global
results
The projects maintained impetus for regional co-operation of the Black Sea coastal
countries in the reduction of Black Sea pollution, and launching a sustainable exploitation
of Black Sea resources.
6.4 PROJECT IMPACT
The present section will review the changes in the beneficiary countries' policies,
economies and plans that were induced by the project. It will review awareness of the
participating countries about the project's outputs; level of ownership and commitment of
the participating countries towards the project; impacts on the policies and strategies of
the countries; technical and managerial co-operation among the participating countries;
interagency or inter-ministerial co-operation in each country; co-operation among sectors,
including the non-government and private sectors; and sustainability of project impact.
6.4.1 Changes in the Beneficiary Countries
This and the previous GEF projects initiated many changes in the beneficiary countries in
favor of Black Sea environment protection. These changes were initiated by the previous
the RER/93/G31 project which created the Activity Centers and their national Focal
Points that became the major executor of the project's activities. The created network of
Activity Centers, Focal Points and other institutions financed from national funds and by
the project, prepared the regional and national Strategic Action Plans and finalized the
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis.
The regional SAP, adopted by the government in 1996, initiated series of national
legislative initiatives and administrative decisions leading to improvement of the Black
Sea ecology: the priority investments entered into the national investment plans; the
countries elaborated national Strategic Action Plans; they drew up lists of national
priority investments; finally, they launched a collaboration with similar program aiming
at Danube basin protection.
84
Thus, the changes in the beneficiary countries introduced by the previous and the
presently evaluated projects were numerous, profound and probably sustainable. It should
be noted, however, that it was expected that the national commitments would go further.
For example, from 39 SAP deadlines identified in these evaluation only few were fully
respected by the countries; they countries started to contribute to the Istanbul Secretariat
only in 2000 instead of 1997.
The Black Sea's pollution and unsustainable exploitation has attained very dramatic levels
and is at the origin of serious economic losses for the countries. The concern of the
international community is great and justified by the threat of Black Sea mismanagement
to human welfare, the countries' economies and global biodiversity. Surprisingly, the
interested countries' involvement is insufficient and slow.
Assessment
The projects motivated the countries to introduce changes in their policy, legislature and
investment plans in favor of the Black Sea. The project's activities in this field were
highly satisfactory.
6.4.2 Awareness of the Participating Countries
The project was decentralized and many of its activities were executed using national
resources such as governmental administration, research institutions and NGOs.
Numerous activities received media attention; the day of the regional SAP signature is
commemorated by the NGOs as a "Black Sea Day." Impacts of the projects on
government decisions concerning the Black Sea is perceptible and was discussed
previously. Its impact on civil society was not measured and remains unknown.
Since the implementation of the regional SAP was slow and the investments were
insufficient, one may infer that neither the governments nor the citizens of the countries
were motivated to follow the program prepared by this and the previous projects. In
consequence, we presume that the countries' judgement of the Black Sea environmental
situation and its impact on the economy and human welfare were different than the
perception hold by both projects. Obviously, there is no reason to à priori consider the
project as having a monopoly on the truth in Black Sea ecological deterioration matters,
and the governments and citizens as not sufficiently aware. Before the next steps towards
investment in the Black Sea protection project, it will be necessary to establish national
and regional consensus about the importance of Black Sea pollution, needed
commitments and agreements to be reached.
85
Recommendation 14
It is recommended that the Istanbul Commission take steps toward establishing such a
consensus.
Additionally, two unfortunate events marred the projects' and the Black Sea problems'
visibility.
Firstly, in 1993 the Steering Committee authorized the PCU to introduce the name "Black
Sea Environmental Programme" or "BSEP" as a synonym of the RER/93/G31 project.
The BSEP name was extended then (probably by PCU) to designate other projects,
activities. As a result, the project's name disappeared from the documents produced by
the RER/93/G31 and RER/96/G32/C projects. In consequence now it is time-consuming
and sometimes virtually impossible to identify the genuine GEF projects contribution.
During the last three years, the RER/96/G32/C PCU staff became much less active than
before. In particular, promotion of Black Sea protection has lost its visibility: the project's
utility may be questioned. This pre-occupation was reflected in the comments of the
visited UNDP offices, who complained of lack of information about the project activities,
achievements and the advancement in promoting Black Sea protection. The offices were
frustrated, since being themselves concerned with Black Sea pollution, they were willing
to advise the host government about specific, favorable actions for the Black Sea, and
eventually re-allocate the UNDP funds or re-orient the UNDP projects' activities. The
frustration of the UNDP offices was compounded by the fact that the only signs of the
project's existence were the periodic project request for arrangements in administrative
matters.
Assessment
The project received great attention from governments, involved administrations and
institutions. They are aware of the project's results and consider them to be important
steps toward improvement of the Black Sea ecology. From another point of view the
governments are not implementing the recommended--and even agreed upon--actions and
are not providing funds to regional activities. As a result, it seems that governments and
probably the citizens are aware of the situation, but are not willing to give the Black Sea
problem the same degree of priority as advocated by the project and included in all SAPs
and TDA.
Recommendation 15
It is recommended that the Istanbul Commission organize a study that will help it to
understand the place of Black Sea environmental problems in the central and local
governments' and citizens' priorities. The study should be done by an impartial institution,
with no interest in the promotion of Black Sea protection.
86
6.4.3 Level of Ownership and Commitment
By signing the regional SAP, the countries approved two important outputs of project
RER/93/G31: a list of recommendations to implement and deadlines to respect, and a list of
priority investments. The national commitments to implementing the SAP and investing
according to the TDA were, unfortunately, not respected. The governments are not
implementing the SAP, and the status of the investments is unknown. TDA is not actualized
as it was required, and environmental impact assessment and public participation is not a rule
in all countries of the region. The public sector is not yet involved.
The project prepared the basis for sound investment policies. However there is no evidence
that this basis will in the short-term "...foster the revitalization and protection of the Black
Sea ecosystem and the sustainable development of its natural resources"80 as was required by
the project document.
As a follow-up of the SAP, the project encouraged the countries to prepare national reviews,
and develop strategies for rehabilitation and sustainable development and pollution
assessment. The project itself reviewed the existing legislation and continually encouraged
the countries to finance the Secretariat of the Istanbul Commission. Unfortunately, since the
countries were not ready to commit themselves politically and financially to implement the
Strategic Action Plan, no decisive steps have been taken in this matter.
Assessment
In practice, all the technical activities of the project were executed by national institutions
under national direct supervision: the products belong to the countries and the national
authorities have full access to the results. Still, although the project acted for the benefit of
the countries (including the economical benefit) the material implication of the national
authorities was insufficient. In general, the project successfully attained the targets that did
not require commitment and financial implication from governments. It was less successful in
actions requiring the national financial contribution: updating the national reviews or
assessing pollution sources; developing a strategy for rehabilitation and sustainable
development of fisheries; cleaning the environment to attract tourism; and implementing the
priority investment.
Recommendation 16
The Istanbul Commission should re-assess the national commitments to implementation of
the regional SAP and TDA recommendations, and agree with the countries on new realistic
deadlines.
80 Project Document. Page 32, second paragraph.
87
Recommendation 17
The Implementing Agency and the Istanbul Commission may invest in identification of
appropriate measures that will accelerate national actions aiming at Black Sea
environmental improvement such as: further monitoring and research to provide more
arguments in favor of Black Sea protection, NGO support, creating citizens' awareness,
mobilizing investment, or promoting new, appropriate legislation.
6.4.4 Impacts on Policies and Strategies
The project impacted the policy and strategies of the countries developing scientific,
technical and economic arguments in favor of Black Sea protection. The government of
the countries agreed to modify their policies and adopt the strategy proposed by the
project. It seems however, that the countries' declarations and commitments guided by
intellectual considerations may well be volatile: the implemented decisions are those
dictated by economical concerns or survival necessity. Black Sea environmental
improvement do not figure in these categories. Nevertheless, the countries changed their
policies and adopted the new strategy toward the Sea resources exploitation, but they
acted slowly, lagging far behind the established agenda.
In spite of this, the chances for implementing the project's proposals are high.
At first, all governments' decisions are subject to pressures from lobbying groups and
citizens' organizations. The actions initiated by the NGOs thanks to the project, will play
here their role.
Then, the Black Sea is a source of economical benefit for many public and private sector
agents. Investment in Black Sea improvement should come directly from the public and
private beneficiaries as well. This investment may be interesting for business that will
bring short-term benefits such as human health improvement, welfare increase, tourism
development, fishery and aquaculture activation. The ongoing privatization of the
productive sector, and recent but rapid development of market-oriented economies in the
Black Sea basin will re-inforce this trend.
Finally, some countries, namely Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey and Ukraine prepare
themselves for entry into the European Community, and they are strongly motivated to
comply with the strict European environmental standards.
Assessment
The project has impact on the countries' policies, namely through the regional and
national SAPs. The project also impacted the way countries should implement that
policy. The TDA and the national SAPs with the lists of specific investments are the most
88
prominent among the documents indicating the strategies needed to improve the Black
Sea environmental situation.
6.4.5 Co-operation
The present section summarizes the project's achievements in re-inforcing the co-
operation within the countries on technical and managerial levels, interagency and inter-
ministerial ones and co-operation among sectors.
Technical and managerial
The RER/93/G31 created and the present project sustained a network of institutions and
specialists in all the Black Sea riparian countries that executed the project activities and
produced outputs. The most important elements of this network, the Activity Centers,
were incorporated into a network of institutions called Advisory Groups that should act as
subsidiary bodies to the Istanbul Commission. The network was active and productive,
and its most important contribution was the Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis and the
technical documentation published in the Black Sea Environmental Series.
Interagency or inter-ministerial
Interagency and inter-ministerial co-operation was stimulated by both projects. Project's
presence was especially important during preparation of the national Strategic Action
Plans.
Co-operation among sectors
The co-operation among sectors was needed to fulfill such objectives as raising public
awareness, and involving lower level governments in investment and monitoring.
According to the opinions of encountered national co-ordinators this co-operation was
weak.
89
Assessment
The project fostered and maintained co-operation at many levels among national
institutions and within the region. Such vast national and regional co-operation was new
for the countries and its success is considered by the beneficiaries as an historical
achievement of the project.
Recommendation 18
The Istanbul Commission should maintain the existing co-operation networks, animate
them and promote the creation of new ones. Especially, the Commission may motivate
private sector investors, civil society organizations, education systems and the NGOs to
create associations voicing the environmental concerns.
Recommendation 19
The Istanbul Commission should evaluate the networks with respect to their utility to
Black Sea protection. It should support all initiatives, but it may reward the most dynamic
ones by promoting their quests for additional funding.
6.4.6 Sustainability of Projects Impact
The region now has all the elements needed to assure sustainability of the results
achieved by the project's impact. The strategic documents prepared by the previous and
the evaluated projects were signed by the governments or will be signed soon. The
investments that the projects indicated as important are on the list of national priorities.
The regional institutional network built by both projects has been taken over by the
Istanbul Commission and its Secretariat that has become operational.
The whole region entered the phase in human history when environment matters. Signing
the SAP and being in the process of adopting national SAPs, the countries are
demonstrating their concern with the Black Sea environment and their will to reverse its
degradation. While it seems that national funds are not sufficient for implementation of
the necessary steps toward the rehabilitation and protection of the Black Sea within the
schedule established by the project, it is reasonable to expect that the Black Sea
environment will improve each year.
Assessment
The project results and its impact on the countries is probably sustainable.
90
6.5 MAIN ACHIEVEMENTS
The present section deals with relevance of the project design in view of the current
situation of the countries and the priorities within the donor community; general project
implementation in terms of use of human and financial resources; backstopping services
provided; project results against announced project objectives and actions; sustainability
of further actions in the region upon completion of the current project within the overall
objectives of the GEF.
6.5.1 Relevance of the Project Design
The project was conceived as tool that should help the governments of the Black Sea
coastal countries in reinforcing regional co-operation and launching Black Sea
environment protection activities. The project assumed these roles brilliantly. It designed
the regional and national Black Sea protection plans, identified priority investments, and
sustained regional co-operation.
The project was conceived as participatory: small project management units co-ordinatied
activities of implicated national institutions, and national specialists assured the collection
of needed complementary information, drafting of programs, and preparing lists of
investment priorities.
This transparent and relevant concept was obscured by unsatisfactorily designed project
document. Nevertheless, the obtained results still bode well with the countries' priorities.
The program of Black Sea environment improvement designed by the project is now
implemented by national governments and donors.
Assessment
The project concept and the delivered outputs corresponded to the countries'
requirements. The programs designed by the project are now implemented by
governments and donors.
91
6.5.2 Project
Implementation
The project was managed by a PCU and executed by various (mostly national) agencies.
The project's management, the PCU, was located in Istanbul on the premises that should
harbor the Istanbul Commission, a regional body created by the Bucharest Convention,
and responsible for implementation of the Black Sea Strategic Action Plan. The PCU was
supervised by a Steering Committee. The program designed by the project document
should be executed by national institutions, mostly so-called Activity Centers, and other
contracted agencies or specialists.
Some activities depended not only on the PCU decisions and GEF funds, but on steps
taken by governments, national administrations and other donors. Having no control over
these institutions, the project's activities and output delivery suffered from delays and
many of them were not executed. Consequently, the non-delivery of many outputs by the
project cannot be attributed to the PCU or other specific executing body, but to the
inadequate support from the institutions situated out of the project's control. Or, going
one step back, to inadequately conceived project document.
The PCU was inadequately controlled by the Steering Committee: the PCU itself was a
part of this controlling body, and the Steering Committee accepted, probably due to
inexperience, inadequate reporting by the PCU about the activities executed by the
project.
Assessment
The project implementation corresponded to the requirement of participatory countries.
The results obtained by national executing agencies were easy to appropriate by the
countries and the recommendations were incorporated into national development plans.
Weakness of the project document hampered the project's efficiency.
6.5.3 Project Results Against Announced Project Objectives and Actions;
In past sections we have shown that the project did achieve partially its immediate
objectives. Thus, measured against the project documents, it performed unsatisfactorily.
From another point of view, we have seen that some project's actions were of historical
importance. The progress made by them were appreciated by the governments of all
beneficiary countries, and officials encountered during the mission stressed the positive
role played by the projects in development of regional co-operation for Black Sea
92
protection. Thanks to the both projects' efforts, the countries created a network of activity
centers and focal points that collected information needed to prepare the regional SAP,
national SAPs, the TDA and national investment priorities. The TDA was considered as
an excellent document and is used as a guide for planning the national investments.
The evaluated project continued to organize national and regional workshops and
maintained regional co-operation among the national technical institutions and national
administrations especially during formulation of national SAPs. This co-operation is
ongoing, although performance of the Activity Centers is unequal, and co-operation
among administration and technical sectors within countries was not as fruitful as it
should be.
The project contributed greatly to consolidate the knowledge about the Black Sea
ecosystems, sea exploitation and pollution. This information was widely published,
among others, in 11 volumes of the Black Sea Environmental Series, by United Nations
Publications, New York. Large sections of these information are available in the Internet.
Assessment
The project did not fully attain its immediate objectives. However, the output produced
have important and lasting impact on the countries.
6.5.4 Sustainability of Further Actions
Both projects assisted the countries in preparing national and regional SAPs and initiating
identification of national and regional priority actions and investments. Implementation
of the Action Plans, specific Black Sea protection activities and the investments was the
primarily responsibility of the beneficiary countries. The countries committed themselves
to these actions and are implementing them, although not as rapidly as was initially
scheduled in documents like the regional SAP or TDA. The sustainability of the project's
launched Black Sea protection programs is probably assured. However, there are three
facets of the Black Sea protection actions still requiring careful consideration. The
Istanbul Commission will be the most appropriate institution to take care of them, and the
international community may sustain it in this endeavor.
Firstly. The countries act slowly. It has not yet been studied if the countries' actions
reduce the speed of Black Sea degradation. It is unknown if this action will suffice, when
development of other sectors as agriculture or fishery, impose additional strain on the
Black Sea.
93
Secondly, the countries plan and execute actions according to the national priorities,
regional interest being neglected or subdued to the national one.81 Thus, for example, the
countries financed only the Activity Centers' national programs whereas the regional
programs were neglected or left to be financed by donors. The countries were also
unwilling to contribute to the regional Fund.
Finally, the private sector, for the reasons that are unclear, is not interested in investing in
the Black Sea regional projects.
The sustainability of future regional actions depends on the energy and initiative of the
Istanbul Commission. The Commission and its Secretariat should nurture the growing
ideas of regional co-operation. They may do so by arguing the rationale of such actions,
involving foreign donors in supporting the regional actions, demonstrating to the private
sector profitable investment opportunities, and mobilizing public opinion, NGOs and
lobbies in favor of regional activities.
Assessment
The project outputs are probably sustainable. However, their sustainability on regional
level is less assured than the sustainability of outputs that directly re-inforce the national
benefits.
Recommendation 20
The Istanbul Commission should critically analyze the sustainability of the project's
launched initiatives and identify their present and future viability for Black Sea
protection. It should also identify the priority actions needed to be re-inforced.
Recommendation 21
The international assistance may be helpful in re-inforcing the sustainability of the
project's results. The Istanbul Commission should decide if the aid will be more
instrumental in creating new regional initiatives, or in reinforcing the on-going actions
and accelerating their implementation. It should decide the type of the most appropriate
assistance and demonstrate its pertinence and efficiency.
81 According to the evidence available for the evaluation mission.
94
6.6 LESSONS AND FUTURE ACTIONS
The section deals with lessons from the experience of the projects and its results,
particularly those elements that have worked well and those that have not and actions in
the region upon completion of the projects.
6.6.1 Lessons From the Experience of the Project
Looking back at the project's efforts, one of the questions one can ask, is what it was
about the project that caused achievements to be so unsatisfactory and yet so important
for the region. The project was well-conceived yet poorly designed; participatory in their
nature yet prone to concentrate the means in the PCU. The answer to this question is
beyond the scope of the present evaluation; we do not have at our disposal all the
elements needed to formulate the whole answer. Yet, before the next step in assisting the
region in Black Sea protection, the Implementing Agency, the Executing Agency and
Istanbul Commission have a strong interest in achieving deeper understanding of the
years of the project's execution. The analysis itself will increase coherence of the regional
co-operation programs and will help to re-design the "umbrella" for the next generation
of regional projects.
When the first RER/93/G31 project was initiated, all parties were eager for regional co-
operation. The countries adopted the Odessa Declaration, designated the Activity Centers
and national focal points, and detached national administrators to co-ordinate project
activities within the countries. Both projects financed training programs, workshops and
research. They drafted regional and national SAPs and TDA, organized NGOs and
sensitized citizens. Seven years later, the urgency has gone or perhaps has not been
perceived symmetrically. The regional SAP deadlines were not respected, and the
national SAPs are not yet approved. Regional co-operation in Istanbul is not yet fully
implemented, and Activity Centers are without funding for regional activities.
The massive absence of concern for the Black Sea environment reflects to some extent
the fragility of the concept of Black Sea environment protection as it was formulated in
the SAP and national environmental programs.
Clearly, no scientific arguments alone can overcome ambivalence of the governments:
between the will to restore the profitability of the Black Sea and the reluctance to invest;
between necessity to co-operate and temptation to return to past, traditional isolation;
between the necessity to act for the benefit of other countries and a desire to free-ride on
their efforts. Government actions must be motivated by national interests: whereas the
95
projects concentrated themselves on scientific or intellectual justification of Black Sea
protection. The future efforts should probably be directed toward development of credible
economic arguments and workable political pressures.
6.6.2 Actions Upon Completion of the Projects
It is clear that further support from international donors for organization of regional
activities and regional co-ordination for the Black Sea benefit would be most welcome.
The Istanbul Commission and its Secretariat will need help in attaining objectives such as
regional data gathering, analysis and distribution; co-ordination of national activities that
have regional impact; private sector involvement; and regional funding management and
optimization.
Recommendation 22 It is recommended to the Implementing Agency to consider a few
years' assistance the Secretariat to achieve the following objectives :
- regional data gathering, analysis and distribution
- regional coordination of Black Sea state monitoring and research.
- co-ordination of national activities that have regional impact
- private sector involvement
- regional funding management and optimization
- efficient citizen awareness rising,
governments' decisions and implementation watching
Enhancement of transparency in environmental evaluation, pollution reduction programs
and industrial development planning within the region would be an important step in the
regional approach to Black Sea environment protection. For this purpose it is
recommended to the Istanbul Commission:
Recommendation 23
Establish a common data gathering and exchange system that would help:
- environmental assessment
- monitor changes in environmental quality
- monitor progress in implementing national obligations towards a regional program
Among the unfulfilled obligations that are nonetheless, the prerequisite to any coherent
regional approach to Black Sea Protection, is respect of the regional SAP deadlines,
96
continuous financing of regional programs executed by the national Activity Centers, and
contribution to regional programs and regional investments.
97
Recommendation 24
To make the governments accountable, it is recommended that the Istanbul Commission
support national institutions in supervising the governmental agencies, and help citizens
to organize themselves to keep governments liable for their obligations.
The Istanbul Commission should reinforce the weakening regional co-operation among
the governmental administrative and technical institutions. It should implicate other
actors in the co-operating network such as the private sector and social organizations.
Recommendation 25
Maintain and develop the regional co-operation among the existing Activity Centers
Focal Points and other affiliated institutions. More attention than has been shown in the
past should be paid to co-operation among Activity Centers, technical institutions,
administration, the private sector and social organizations. Future regional co-operation
should be better-rooted in national investment and policy planning, so as to avoid actions
that cannot be financed and deadlines that cannot be respected.
The economic profitability of Black Sea environmental protection was the first argument
in favor of the regional co-operation developed in both project documents. The Istanbul
Commission should exploit this argument and rationale.
Recommendation 26
It is recommended to the Istanbul Commission to:
- involve the private sector to invest in technologies that will benefit the Black Sea, as
for example, creation of fish nursery grounds, development of fish reproduction
plants, development of tourism and eco-tourism
- encourage governments to give the investors concessions and guarantees; the donors'
specialized agencies may help countries create conditions that would attract private
industry to invest in Black Sea protection; the applied research projects could help
investors in the adjustment of existing technologies; other financing may come from
the municipalities and agriculture
- innovate the Sea protection methods, for example allowing the private sector to enter
into research, monitoring, training and control programs now reserved for the
governmental institutions
- work out new partnerships with NGOs and other non-profit organizations based on
both ethical commitments and economical profitability
98
Different Black Sea riparian countries are eligible for different international financing.
For example, Phare funds finance projects in Bulgaria and Romania but not in Turkey;
the NATO funds are available for Turkey but not for the Russian republic. There are
financing sources reluctant to support regional projects such as the World Bank loans.
Recommendation 27
To help both countries and donors optimize and co-ordinate the funds-allocation, it is
recommended to the Istanbul Commission to assist the countries to develop project
proposals of regional importance, and inform governments and donors about identified
appropriate projects.
6.7 CLOSING CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
By signing two project documents that claimed as long-term objectives that they will
restore the Black Sea environment, the Implementing Agency was perhaps taking a
political risk; beneficiary governments might become reluctant to contribute to this
endeavor, but rather wait until the projects will do their work; their ministers of finance
might refuse to spend money on what should have been done in the first place by the
projects.
Prompt acceptance but hesitant and slow implementation of SAP and TDA deadlines may
to some extent be a consequence of this promise. It is possible that the reactions of the
governments were reinforced by weak arguments behind the strongly recommended
actions by the TDA82. Finally, slow national administration and lack of funding might
have been behind the governments' decisions as well. Whatever the reason, it should be
important to identify the reasoning behind the governments' indifference to the regional
activities after the signature of the regional SAP.
Recommendation 28
It is recommended to the Implementing Agency and to the Istanbul Commission to
elucidate the motivation of the governments that accompanied their hesitation.
82 TDA, Section 2.
99
Annex I. Terms of Reference
GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL FACILTY
United Nations Office for Project Services
Black Sea Environmental Programme
Developing the Implementation of the Black Sea Strategic Action Plan
(RER/96/G32)
TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR PROJECT EVALUATION
1. BACKGROUND
The Black Sea is recognised as one of the regional seas most damaged by human activity.
Its drainage basin covers over one third of the European continent including major areas
of seventeen countries, fourteen of which are undergoing a profound economic and
political transition from centrally-planned to market economies. Until 1992, there was no
common formal framework for cooperation between these coastal countries and no means
of planning and implementing joint actions to halt and reverse the worsening
environmental situation. The Governments of the region (Bulgaria, Georgia, Romania,
Russian Federation, Turkey and Ukraine) have shown their willingness to collaborate by
formulating and adopting the Convention on the Protection of the Black Sea Against
Pollution (Bucharest Convention) and its three protocols -on land based sources,
dumping and cooperation in oil pollution emergencies - in April 1992. The Convention
included a call to competent international organisations asking their assistance in the
process of implementation of the Convention and elaboration of detailed criteria and
methodology for preventing, reducing and controlling pollution The Contracting Parties
also made a concomitant pledge to establish and support the permanent Secretariat of
the Black Sea Commission [(Istanbul Commission), executive organ of the Bucharest
Convention)]. Turkey agreed to host the Secretariat of the Black Sea Commission and to
cover 40% of the costs for the first three years of its operation.
As a response to regional and global concerns about the critically degraded
environmental conditions in the Black Sea, and to the call made by the Contracting
100
Parties, the countries were assisted by UNEP, and UNDP to elaborate the Ministerial
Declaration on the Protection of the Black Sea (Odessa Declaration) which was
adopted in April 1993. The Odessa Declaration constitutes a policy statement with
common long-and short-term pragmatic environmental goals for the control of pollution
and the rational management and rehabilitation of natural resources.
The six Black Sea coastal countries initiated joint action to protect the unique
environment . With the support from a GEF Pilot Phase programme, concrete, country-
driven actions have been launched under the Environmental Management and
Protection of the Black Sea (RER/93/G31). However, because of the short time frame
of the GEF Pilot Phase programme (three years, terminated on 30 June, 1996), the
economic realities of the coastal countries and the recently approved GEF Operational
Strategy, a new step was to be taken in order to allow a strategic reorientation of the
project. While building upon the three year pilot phase activities, the second project was
designed to enable a smooth transition by funding key activities to achieve the results
required under the new GEF Operational Strategy on International Waters. This project,
Developing the Implementation of the Black Sea Strategic Action Plan
(RER/96/G32) aimed at developing the national components of the Black Sea Strategic
Action Plan and facilitating follow-up actions, particularly those requiring investments
and having significant incremental costs. Since 1993, the two consecutive GEF
Programmes have provided a convenient umbrella, widely recognised as the Black Sea
Environmental Programme (BSEP), for assisting the Black Sea coastal states in their
endeavor to protect and rehabilitate the Black Sea and for coordinating this work with
those of the other international organizations and multilateral and bilateral donors. The
BSEP has been managed through the Programme Coordinating Unit (PCU) in Istanbul,
hosted by the Government of Turkey, and has filled the gap created by the fact that the
permanent Secretariat of the Istanbul Commission was not in function. In the
medium/long term, all BSEP responsibilities will be transferred to the Commission
Secretariat itself.
Through the Programme for Environmental Management and Protection of the Black Sea
(RER/93/G31) significant progress has been made towards the establishment of a
sustainable process for the rehabilitation and protection of the Black Sea. An effective
regional network of governmental representatives, scientific and other experts, and
representatives of non-governmental organizations has been established. This network,
as is evidenced by the Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) has laid the basis for
attaining the sustainable development of the Black Sea. Also, through the establishment
of Regional Activity Centres, National Focal Points, Regional Working Parties and the
NGO-Forum, important elements of the regional institutional infrastructure required to
attain the rehabilitation and protection of the Black Sea has been established. As a result
of recent strong cooperation among the Black Sea countries, much of which was within
the broad framework of BSEP, an extensive effort has been made to gather, analyse and
disseminate reliable information on the state of the Black Sea environment. These
activities have confirmed the serious state of the commons and coastal environment and
its consequences for the coastal economies of the six Black Sea countries. Particularly
acute problems have arisen as a result of pollution (notably from nutrients, faecal
101
material, solid waste and oil), a catastrophic decline in commercial fish stocks, a severe
decrease in tourism and an uncoordinated approach towards coastal zone management.
The transboundary nature of most of these problems, coupled with earlier political
realities, was the main reason for the insufficiency of previous control measures. The
Strategic Action Plan for the Protection and Rehabilitation of the Black Sea (SAP)
formulated in light of the TDA , and adopted at the Ministerial Conference held in
Istanbul in 1996 was a holistic and regional approach to sustainable development in the
project area. The SAP introduced a coherent set of policies and actions to reverse the
ecological breakdown and improve the livelyhood of the population around this fragile
ecosystem. The TDA and the SAP also shed a light on the extra-regional and global
dimensions of the environmental problems in the Black Sea, thus underlined the need
for commitment and action at the wider Back Sea basin level.
The efforts of the coastal countries were further supported by the GEF through the
programme Developing the Implementation of the Black Sea Strategic Action Plan
(RER/96/G32). The programme aimed at fostering sustainable institutional and financial
arrangements for effective management and protection of the Black Sea in accordance
with the SAP and supported the development and implementation of National Action
Plans . Based on the findings of TDA and the orientation made by the SAP, the
Programme also aimed at providing a suitable basis for cooperation between the Black
Sea and Danube programmes.
2. OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION MISSION
The final evaluation of the project ''Developing the Implementation of the Black Sea
Strategic Action Plan (RER/96/G32) '' will consider its effectiveness and efficiency. It
will analyse the contribution of the project towards capacity development, long-term
sustainability and direction for the future.
Project evaluation is an activity which attempts to determine as systematically and
objectively as possible, its achievements as the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness,
impact and sustainability. The evaluation will assess the achievements of the project
against its objectives, including re-examination of the relevance of the objectives and the
project design. It will also identify factors that have facilitated or impeded the
achievement of the objectives. While a thorough review of the past is in itself very
important, the evaluation is expected to lead to detailed recommendations and lessons
learned for the future.
In particular, the evaluation will address the following issues considering the
participation of all countries covered by the project:
6.8 2.1
PROJECT DESIGN
102
a.
Review and assess the appropriateness of the project's concept and design to the
overall situation in the Black Sea Region;
b.
Apprise the project's current effectiveness in realising the objectives, and the
extend to which they contribute to the overall development objective as
announced in the project document;
c.
Appraise the project's actions and outcomes in the light of the pertaining GEF
guidelines;
d.
Assess sustainability of the programme.
2.2 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
The mission will evaluate:
a.
General implementation and management of the project in terms of quality and
timeliness of inputs and activities, with particular reference to financial and
human resources management;
b.
Adequacy of management arrangements as well as monitoring and backstopping
support given to the project by all parties concerned;
c.
Changes in the environment in which the project operates and which constituted
the rationale for GEF support, particularly in the areas of: regional cooperation,
policy development, and public participation.
2.3 Project Impact
The mission shall review the achievements of the project against the announced
objectives, outputs and activities as detailed in the project document and summarised
below:
The overall long-term objective of this project is to foster sustainable institutional and
financial arrangements for effective environmental management and protection of the
Black Sea, in accordance with the BS-SAP. This project is designed for enabling the
Black Sea countries to develop their National Black Sea Strategic Action Plans, and
through such plans to set the ground for the full implementation of the Bucharest
Convention, Odessa Declaration and regional Strategic Action Plan. This objective will
be achieved through the consolidation of the policy strategy, preparation of the technical
implementation of the SAPs and development of the financial instruments for financing
of the SAPs. This project also intends to provide the basis for joint work between the
Black Sea Programme and the Danube Programme.
The project has been designed to integrate fully its immediate objectives, outputs and
activities, the results of the pilot project, the environmental aspects of pollution of the
103
Black Sea, and to ensure the active participation of non-governmental organization
(NGOs) and grass root organizations, technical cooperation with other countries,
financing institutions for examination of investment potential, and the private sector.
The objectives of the Programme are:
- Consolidation of a Policy Strategy to implement the Black Sea Strategic Action Plan,
mainly through the development of national action plans and creating the conditions
which will facilitate its future implementation at a regional and national level;
facilitating a wider Black Sea Basin Approach;
- Preparing the Technical Implementation of the Black Sea Strategic Action Plan
through pollution assessment and control (regional monitoring network, maritime
pollution network); coordination of the institutional network and its subsequent
transfer to the Commission Secretariat; and strengthening information and data
exchange mechanisms.
- Public Involvement in the Implementation of the Black Sea Strategic Action Plan;
through raising public awareness; supporting the Black Sea NGO Forum which was
established in 1993 by the Black Sea NGOs with a view to enhance the NGO
cooperation in taking actions that for the benefit the Black Sea environment;
involving local authorities and other stakeholders in designing and implementing the
national SAPs; and carrying out social assessment studies on the human communities
particularly affected by the degradation of the Black Sea ecossytems.
- Developing the financing of the Black Sea Strategic Action Plan through developing a
portfolio of national projects of regional significance within the context of reducing
transboundary pollution and presenting the portfolio to the donor community; and to
elaborate the feasibility of a Black Sea Environmental Fund which may be used to
support financing environmental investments as well as the incremental costs of
regional programmes/institutions.
In addition, the evaluation will consider the general impact of the project in terms of the
following criteria:
a. Awareness of the participating countries about the project's outputs
b. Level of ownership and commitment of the participating countries towards the project
c. Impacts on the policy and strategies of the countries
d. Technical and managerial cooperation among the participating countries
e. Interagency/interministerial cooperation in each country
f. Cooperation among sectors, including the non-government and private sectors
g. Sustainability of project impact.
The evaluation team will also review the mid-term Project Evaluation Report
(November 1995)for the Environmental Management and Protection of the Black Sea
(RER/93/G31) as well as the Final Report (RER/92/G31- RER/93/G31 RER/94/G41
RER/96/006) (7 March 1997) attached to this Terms of Reference.
104
2.4 Conclusions and Recommendations
Based on the above the mission shall:
a.
Write up its conclusions of the visit
b.
Address the relevance of the project design in view of the current situation of the
countries and the priorities within the donor community
c.
Assess the general project implementation in terms of use of human and financial
resources, and backstopping services provided
d.
Review in detail the project results against announced project objectives and
actions
e.
Advice on the suitability of further actions in the region upon completion of the
current project within the overall objective of GEF.
f.
Drawn lessons from the experience of the project and its results, particularly those
elements that have worked well and those that have not
g.
Recommend on further actions in the region upon completion of the current
project
7 3.
METHOD
The evaluation will be composed of three activities:
- studying documents
- field visits and
- interviews of individuals who were either involved in the project, or who have or
might be expected to have impacted by the project.
Although the mission should feel free to discuss with the authorities concerned all
matters relevant to its assignment, it is not authorised to make any commitment on behalf
of UNOPS, UNDP or GEF.
105
4.
Composition of the mission
The evaluation will be performed by a consultant who shall be responsible for the overall
review of the project. The consultant should have extensive technical and managerial
background at both policy and institution level of environment and international waters in
particular, and in-depth experience of project evaluation techniques, particularly of those
projects which are funded by GEF. Experience in Europe is preferable. Fluency in
English is required, knowledge of French and Russian is an asset.
The consultant should not have been directly involved in the design or implementation of
the project.
8 5.
REPORT
In drafting the report, the consultant will be guided by the standard UNDP Guidelines for
Evaluators.
The final report should contain the following Annexes:
a. Terms of Reference for final evaluation
b. Itinerary (actual)
c. List of meetings attended
d. List of persons interviewed
e. List of documents reviewed
f. Any other relevant material
As the report is the product of an independent evaluation, it is up to the consultant to
make use of the information provided during the mission. However, he is responsible for
reflecting any factual corrections brought to his attention prior to the finalisation of the
report. Therefore, in order to ensure that the report considers the view of all parties
concerned, is properly understood, and is factually accurate, it is required that the
consultant submit draft reports to UNOPS and UNDP/GEF. UNOPS will revert promptly
with collective feedback from project partners in order that the evaluator may finalize his
report.
The final version of the evaluation mission report should be submitted in electronic
format (MS Word) to UNOPS and UNDP/GEF no later than Ulrike I think you should
change the period and duration in accordance with the actual period.. The report shall
also be submitted in five hard copies to UNOPS.
106
5.
Mission Timetable and Itinerary
25 September
Debriefing at UNOPS,UNDP New York
27-29 September
Visiting the Programme Coordinating Unit, Istanbul
28 September Visit to Pollution Control and Assessment Activity Center,
Istanbul
29 September
Meetings in Ankara, field visits, laboratories
2-5 October
Meetings in Sofia and Varna (Bulgaria), Activity Center for
Environmental and Safety Aspects of Shipping
6-9 October
Meetings in Bucharest and Constantza (Romania),Activity Center
for Fisheries
11-14 October
Meetings in Kiev and Odessa (Ukraine), Activity Center for
Pollution Monitoring and Assessment
16- 17 October
Meetings in Moscow and Krasnodar , Activity Center for ICZM
and/or Tbilisi and Batumi (Georgia) Activity Centre for
Biodiversity.
19 October
Meeting with the Project Coordinator, Istanbul
20-21 October
Meeting with the former CTA , Plymouth (UK)
23 October
Submission of the evaluation report
107
Annex II. Mission Calendar
September 2000
27
New York. Briefing in UNOPS and GEF
28
New York Study of documents in UNOPS
29
New York Study of documents in UNOP
30
Istanbul Meeting in PCU
October 2000
1
Istanbul Study of documents
2
Istanbul Study of Documents
3
Sofia Meeting in Ministry of Environment and Water
4
Varna Meting in Activity Center for Environmental and Safety Aspects of
Shipping
5
Varna Meting in Activity Center for Environmental and Safety Aspects of
Shipping
6
Bucharest Meetin in Ministry of Waters, Forests and Environmental Protection
7
Bucharest Study of documents
8
Constanta Meeting in Activity Center for Fisheries
9
Constanta Meeting in Activity Center for Fisheries
10
Travel to Kiev
11
Kiev Meeting with Oksana Tarasova and Natalia Movchan Ministry for
Environmental Protection and Nuclear Safety of Ukraine
12
Meeting in UNDP Kiev
13
Travel to Odessa
14
Odessa Meeting and documentary study in Activity Center for Pollution
Monitoring and Assessment
15
Odessa Meeting and documentary study in Activity Center for Pollution
Monitoring and Assessment
16
Odessa Meeting and documentary study in Activity Center for Pollution
Monitoring and Assessment
17
Odessa Meeting and documentary study in Activity Center for Pollution
Monitoring and Assessment
18
Odessa Meeting and documentary study in Activity Center for Pollution
Monitoring and Assessment
19
Odessa Meeting and documentary study in Activity Center for Pollution
Monitoring and Assessment
20
Travel to Istanbul
21
Istanbul Meetings and documentary study in PCU
22
Istanbul Meetings and documentary study in PCU
108
23
Istanbul Meetings and documentary study in PCU
24
Istanbul Meetings and documentary study in PCU
25
Istanbul Meetings and documentary study in PCU
26
Istanbul Meetings and documentary study in PCU
27
Ankara Meeting in UNDP and Ministry of Environment
28
Departure for Montreal
March 2001
12
New York Debriefing in UNOPS and GEF
109
Annex III. List of Persons Met
- Acar, Sema (Ms.) Program Coordinator, RER/96/G32/C. Istanbul, Turkey
- Arat, Guzin Ms. Foreign Relations Department. Ministry of Environment. Ankara
- Balashov, George Deputy Head of Water Resources and Quality Division, Ministry
of Environment and Water. Sofia, Bulgaria
- Bologa, Alexander NIMRD. National Institute for Marine Research and Development
"Grigore Antipa," Constanta
- Bursa, Murat Sungur Ex Deputy Secretary. Ministry of Environment. Ankara
- Cavdir, Vaim Black Sea Environmental Programme. Istanbul, Turkey
- Cimen, Saban General Director, Pollution Control. Ministry of Environment, Ankara
- Denga, Juri Head Laboratory of Analytical and Methodical Development Ukrainian
Scientific Center if the Ecology of Sea. Ministry for Environmental Protection and
Nuclear Safety of Ukraine
- Djadjev, Plamen (National Coordinator) Head of Water Resources and Quality
Division, Ministry of Environment and Water. Sofia, Bulgaria
- Dogan, Arzu Isul Ms. RER/96/G32/C Administrative Assistant. Istanbul
- Ionescu, Lucian Executive Director, Organizatia Ecologista Neguvernamentala,
Constanta
- Karadag, Esra Ms. Environment Programme Officer. UNDP. Ankara
- Kostylev Eduard Heag Laboratory of Hydrobiology Ukrainian Scientific Center if the
Ecology of Sea. Ministry for Environmental Protection and Nuclear Safety of Ukraine
- Leschenko, Oksana Ms. Environmental Issues Consultant. UNDP Kiev
- Lisovsky, Richard, J. Head of Laboratory of Integrated Coastal Zone Management.
Ukrainian Scientific Center if the Ecology of Sea. Ministry for Environmental
Protection and Nuclear Safety of Ukraine
- Mara, Liliana Ms. Department Director, Ministry of Waters, Forests and
Environmental Protection. Bucharest
- Mara, Septimus. PIAC expert. Flood Protection, Synthesis and Cadastre Directorate.
Ministry of Waters, Forests and Environmental Protection. Bucharest
- Mikhailv, Valery Director Ukrainian Scientific Center if the Ecology of Sea. Ministry
for Environmental Protection and Nuclear Safety of Ukraine
- Movchan, Natalia Ms. Deputy head, Water Resources Department, Ministry for
Environmental Protection and Nuclear Safety of Ukraine
- Nicolaev, Simion. General Director, Romanian Marine Research Institute. Constanta
- Papadopol, Nicolae, C. National Institute for Marine Research and Development
"Grigore Antipa," Constanta
- Petkov, Nicolay Head of Shipping and Port Operations, Research Institute of
Shipping. Varna Bulgaria
- Rosioara, Valerin Expert, Ministry of Waters, Forests and Environmental Protection.
Bucharest
110
- Sinclar, David VSO-EEP volunteer Information, Education and Resources Center for
the Black Sea. Constanta
- Stoyanov, Lyubomir Director Emergency Response Activity Center on
Environmental and Safety Aspects of Shipping
- Tanev, Christo Chief of Research Institute of Shipping. Varna, Bulgaria
- Tarasowa Oksana. Ministry for Environmental Protection and Nuclear Safety of
Ukraine
- Topping Graham, Marine Environmental Consultant.
- Ucer, Okan Deputy Undersecretary, Ministry of Environment. Ankara
- Volosko-Demkiv, Oksana Ms. Programme Officer on Environmental Issues. UNDP
Kiev
- Witchi- Cestari, Alfredo, A. UN Resident Coordinator in Turky and UNDP Resident
Representative. Ankara
111
Annex IV. List of Documents Reviewed
1. Anon. 1998. Multi Country Project on Sustainable Fisheries Management in the
Black Sea. Terms of Reference. Constanta, pp. 34.
2. Black Sea Red Data Book. Dumond, H., J., Mamaev, V. O. and Y. P. Zaitsev Editors.
414 pages.
3. Danube River Pollution Reduction Programme and the Black Sea Environmental
Programme Report on the Ecological Indicators of Pollution in the Black Sea.
Ukraine. Institute of Biology of the Southern Seas, Odessa Brunch, and UNDP/GEF
Assistance, pp. 49.
4. Danube River Pollution Reduction Programme and the Black Sea Environmental
Programme Report on the Ecological Indicators of Pollution in the Black Sea.
Russian federation. State Committee on Environmental Protection, and UNDP/GEF
Assistance, pp. 30.
5. Danube River Pollution Reduction Programme and the Black Sea Environmental
Programme Report on the Ecological Indicators of Pollution in the Black Sea.
Turkey. METU - Institute of Marine Sciences, and UNDP/GEF Assistance, pp. 104.
6. Danube River Pollution Reduction Programme and the Black Sea Environmental
Programme Report on the Ecological Indicators of Pollution in the Black
Sea.Bulgaria. Sofia University, Faculty of Biology and UNDP/GEF Assistance, pp.
81.
7. Danube River Pollution Reduction Programme and the Black Sea Environmental
Programme Report on the Ecological Indicators of Pollution in the Black Sea.
Romania. Romanian Marine Research Institute, Constanta, and UNDP/GEF
Assistance, pp. 49.
8. GEF Operational Strategy of the Global Environment Facility
(www.gefweb.org/public/opstrat)
9. GEF BSEP Tacis Ministry f Environmental Protection and Nuclear Safety of Ukraine,
the Activity Center on Pollution Monitoring and Assessment, Ukrainian Scientific
Centre of Ecology of the Sea. 1999. Support for the Regional Activity Center for
Pollution Monitoring and Assessment (Odessa, Ukraine) Phase 1. Odessa, 139 pp.
10. GEF BSEP, 1995. 19 Expedition of the Research Vessel V. Parshin. Assessment of
Contamination of the Ukrainian Coastal Zone from Land-Based Sources. Odessa, pp.
81 .
11. GEF BSEP, 1995. Black Sea Bibliography. Black Sea Environmental Series Vol. 1.
United Nations Publications. New York, pp. 364.
112
12. GEF BSEP, 1995. Environmental Expert Group. Technical Sub-Group on
Environmental Financing: Meeting on Establishing a Black Sea Environmental Fund.
Istanbul, pp.26.
13. GEF BSEP, 1996. Assessment of Land Based Sources of Water and Land Pollution
Contamination on the Ukrainian Black Sea Cost. Odessa. 33 pages.
14. GEF BSEP, 1996. Biological Diversity in the Black Sea: A Study of Change and
Decline. Black Sea Environmental Series Vol. 3. United Nations Publications. New
York, pp. 208.
15. GEF BSEP, 1996. Marine Aquacullture in the Black Sea Region Current Status and
Development Options. Black Sea Environmental Series Vol. 2. United Nations
Publications. New York, pp. 239.
16. GEF BSEP, 1996. Recreational Water and Beach Quality in the Ukrainian Black Sea
Coastal Zone. Odessa. 48 pages.
17. GEF BSEP, 1996. Strategic Action Plan for the Rehabilitation and Protection of the
Black Sea. Istanbul, pp.29.
18. GEF BSEP, 1996. Technical Support for Estimating the Economic Value of Reduced
Risks to Human Health in Black Sea Coastal Areas. Odessa. 34 pages.
19. GEF BSEP, 1997. Black Sea Biological Diversity: Bulgarian National Report. Black
Sea Environmental Series Vol. 5. United Nations Publications. New York, pp. 131.
20. GEF BSEP, 1997.Black Sea Biological Diversity: Romanian National Report. Black
Sea Environmental Series Vol. 4. United Nations Publications. New York.
21. GEF BSEP, 1998. Black Sea Biological Diversity: Georgian National Report. Black
Sea Environmental Series Vol. 8. United Nations Publications. New York, pp. 167.
22. GEF BSEP, 1998. Black Sea Biological Diversity: Ukraine National Report. Black
Sea Environmental Series Vol. 7. United Nations Publications. New York, pp. 351.
23. GEF BSEP, 1998. The Most Blue in the World. By Y. Zaitsev. Black Sea
Environmental Series Vol. 6. United Nations Publications. New York, pp. 239.
24. GEF BSEP, 1999. Black Sea Biological Diversity: Turkish National Report. Black
Sea Environmental Series Vol. 9. United Nations Publications. New York, pp. 144.
25. GEF BSEP, 1999. Black Sea Pollution Assessment. Black Sea Environmental Series
Vol. 10. United Nations Publications. New York, pp. 380.
26. GEF BSEP, 2000. Black Sea NGO Directory. Istanbul, pp.101.
27. GEF BSEP/ Tacis, 1999. Environmental Quality Objectives for the Protection of the
Black Sea Ecosystem. Draft Final Report. Odessa. 133 pages.
28. GEF UNDP RER/93/G31 Environment Management and Protection of the Black Sea.
Revised Project Document, pp. 3.
29. GEF UNDP RER/93/G31 Environment Management and Protection of the Black Sea.
Project Document, pp.46.
30. GEF UNDP RER/96/G32/C Developing the Implementation of the Black Sea
Strategic Action Plan. Project Document, pp. 68.
31. GEF, 2000. World Bank Strategic Partnership for Nutrient Reduction in the Danube
River and Black Sea. The World Bank, pp. 11.
32. GEF. Control of eutrophication, hazardous substances and related measures for
rehabilitating the Black Sea ecosystem. Project proposal, pp. 51
33. GEF/BSEP, 1997. Black Sea Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis. 142 pages
113
34. GEF/BSEP, 1998. Black Sea Environmental Priorities Studies. National Report of
Ukraine. United Nations Publications. New York. 105 pages.
35. GEF/BSEP, 1998. Black Sea Environmental Priorities Studies. National Report of
Turkey. United Nations Publications. New York, pp. 177.
36. GEF/BSEP, 1998. Feasibility Study for the Establishment of a Black Sea
Environmental Fund. 87 pages.
37. GEF/BSEP. Annual reports 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997
38. GEF/BSEP. Meetings of the Black Sea Environmental Programme Steering
Committee. 1994, 1995, 1998
39. IAEA-408, 1999. World-Wide and regional Intercomparison for the Determination of
Organochlorine compounds, Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Sterols in Sediment
Sample
40. Lanier-Graham, S. 1991. The Nature Directory. A Guide to Environmental
Organizations. Walker and Cpmpany, New York, pp. 190.
41. Mee, L. How to save the Black Sea.
42. Ministry of Environmental Protection and Nuclear Safety of Ukraine, 1998. Yje
Concept of the Protection of the Environment of the Azov and Black Seas. Kyiv, pp.
14
43. Odessa Activity Center, 1996. Identification of "Hot Spots" in the Black Sea coastal
waters in Ukraine. Odessa. 11 pages.
44. Odessa Activity Center, 1997. Progress report. 126 pp.
45. Odessa Activity Center, 1999. A Status and Trends Monitoring Programme for the
Black Sea: A Proposal for Regional Strategy. 26 pages.
46. Odessa Activity Center, 1999. Complex monitoring of the marine economical zone of
Ukraine and the state of the ecosystem of Azov-Black Sea Basin. 197 pages.
47. Odessa Activity Center, 1999. Support for the Activity Center for Monitoring and
Assessment Within the Frame of the Strategic Action Plan. Final Report. 128 pages
48. Odessa Activity Center, 2000. Sovremiennoe sostojanie i perspektivy banka danych
geoinformacionnych tekhnologii, upravleniu i obmenu danymi. Odessa.
49. PCU GEF BSEP, 1997 Black Sea Red Data Book. 41 pages.
50. Phare and Tacis, 1997. Demonstration Projects in Aquaculture.
51. Project Implementation Reviews (PIR) RER/96/G32/C 1999, 2000
52. Romanian Marine research Institute. Improvement of Sestems and Practices for a
Sustainable Development of Aquaculture in the Dobrudja Area. Project proposal.
53. Tacis, 1999. 1996/1997 Funds for the Black Sea Environmental Programme - Phase
2. Implementation Report June 1999
54. UNDP GEF Information Kit on Monitoring and Evaluation. 37 pages.
55. UNDP Programming Manual (www.undp.org/osg/pm)
56. UNDP RER/96/G32/A Preparatory Assistance. Formulation of the Black Sea
Strategic Action Plan. Project Document, pp. 7.
57. WHO, 1998. Guidelines for Safe Recreational-water Environments: Coastal and
Fresh-waters. Draft. 205 pages.
114
Document Outline