UNDP-GEF project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” ---
Romania
Project Inception Report
October 2009
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
Table of Contents
Page LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................................................................... 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................................. 2 1.
INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................................... 3
2.
PROJECT FACT SHEET ........................................................................................................................................ 4
3.
REVIEW OF PROJECT STRATEGY ................................................................................................................... 5 3.1. 3.2.
4.
REVIEW OF PROJECT LOG-FRAME ........................................................................................................................ 5 REVIEW OF PROJECT OUTPUTS AND ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................... 5
PROJECT OVERSIGHT AND COORDINATION MECHANISMS ............................................................... 11 4.1. 4.2. 4.3.
5.
PROJECT ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE ............................................................................................................ 11 PARTICIPATION OF STAKEHOLDERS .................................................................................................................... 13 SCHEDULE OF PROJECT REVIEWS ....................................................................................................................... 15
REVIEW OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT ....................................................................... 16 5.1. 5.2. 5.3.
6.
REVIEW OF INDICATORS ..................................................................................................................................... 16 REVIEW OF BASELINE AND TARGETS VALUES .................................................................................................... 17 CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT MONITORING SCORECARD ........................................................................................ 21
REVIEW OF RISK MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................................. 22 6.1. 6.2.
REVIEW OF RISKS ............................................................................................................................................... 22 MANAGEMENT RESPONSES ................................................................................................................................ 23
7.
MONITORING AND EVALUATION FRAMEWORK ..................................................................................... 28
8.
CO-FINANCING .................................................................................................................................................... 28
9.
WORK PLAN ......................................................................................................................................................... 29 9.1. 9.2. 9.3. 9.4.
10.
PROJECT OVERALL WORK PLAN ........................................................................................................................ 29 PROGRESS TO DATE ........................................................................................................................................... 33 WORK PLAN FOR PERIOD JULY 2009 - JUNE 2010 .............................................................................................. 35 TARGET FOR YEAR 2009-2010 ........................................................................................................................... 40
BUDGET / DISBURSEMENTS FOR PERIOD 2009-2010............................................................................... 41
ANNEXES ....................................................................................................................................................................... 43 ANNEX 1: TERMS OF REFERENCE .................................................................................................................................. 43 ANNEX 2: INCEPTION WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS .......................................................................................................... 47 ANNEX 3: REVISED LOG-FRAME .................................................................................................................................. 54 ANNEX 4: CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT MONITORING SCORECARD .................................................................................. 59 ANNEX 5: MONITORING AND EVALUATION FRAMEWORK............................................................................................. 65
Project Inception Report
Page ii
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
List of Abbreviations ATU – Administrative Territorial Unit CAP – Common Agricultural Policies CBD – Convention on Biological Diversity CCD – (United Nations) Convention to Combat Desertification CDS – County Directorate for Statistics CIU – Convention Implementation Unit CN – National Committee/ Commission CNEG – Commission of the National Environmental Guard COAC – County Office for Agriculture Consultancy COCLR – County Office for Cadastre and Land Register COP – Conference of the Parties DARD – Directorates for Agriculture and Rural Development DR – Development Regions EC – European Community EFA – Environmental Fund Administration EIA – Environmental Impact Assessment EP - Environmental Protection EU – European Union FP – Focal Point GD – Governmental Decision GEF – Global Environment Facility GO – Government Ordinance GRG – Green House Gas GSG – General Secretariat of the Government IAD – Integrated Agricultural Development ICARDE – Inter-ministerial Council for Agriculture, Rural Development and Environment (VIII) ICRIDPPT – Inter-ministerial Council for Regional Infrastructure Development, Physical Planning and Tourism (IX) IMC – Inter-Ministerial Committee IRD – Integrated Rural Development IRM – Integrated Resource Management IWM – Integrated Watershead Management KP – Kyoto Protocol LEAP – Local Environmental Action Plan LEPA – Local Environmental Protection Agency MADA – Ministry of Administration and Domestic Affairs MAFRD – Ministry of Agriculture, Forests and Rural Development MEWM – Ministry of Environment and Water Management M&E – Monitoring and Evaluation MO – Minister's Order MOE – Ministry of Environment
MEA – Multilateral Environmental Agreements MEF – Ministry of Environment and Forests NALI – National Administration for Land Improvement NCSA – National Capacity Self-Assessment NEPA – National Environmental Protection Agency NFA or Romsilva – National Forest Administration NIS – National Institute for Statistics NGO – Non-Governmental Organization NPD – National Project Director NSC – National Steering Committee COCLR – County Office for Cadastre and Land Register PA – Project Assistant PIMC – Permanent Inter-Ministerial Councils PIR – Project Inception Report PM – Project Manager PMU – Project Management Unit PNADR – National Plan For Agriculture And Rural Development PNAPM – National Action Plan for Environmental Protection PNAR – Romanian National Accession Plan PND – National Development Plan PPU – Public Policy Unit RCEG – Regional Commission of Environmental Guard RCM – Regional Coordinating Mechanisms RDA – Regional Development Agency REPA – Regional Environmental Protection Agency STU – Statistical Territorial Unit SNALI – Sub-unit of ANIF (National Administration for Land Improvement) SEA – Strategic Environment Assessment SITA – Senior International Technical Advisor SOE – Sectoral Operatoional ???? (Pg 11) SNDD – National Sustainable Development Strategy (in preparation as of April 2006) SNDTM – National Strategy for Medium Term Economic Development SPC – Strategic Planning Council TIFH – Territorial Inspectorate for Forestry and Hunting UB – University of Bucharest UEB – University of Ecology, Bucharest UIC – Convention Implementation Unit UNDP – United Nations Development Programme UNEP – United Nations Environmental Programme UNFCCC – United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
Project Inception Report
Page 1
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
Executive Summary The UNDP/GEF project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits” (CB2) – Romania” was approved mid-2008. Its official starting date is June 2008 and its closing date is June 2011. The implementing partners are the Ministry of Environment (MOE)-main partner, and the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MAFRD). The delegated Executing Agency is the University of Bucharest. The project has a GEF budget of 470,000 USD (+ 30,000 USD PPG) and 730,000 USD co-financing (+ 10,000 PPG). The Project Manager (PM) – Prof. Dr. Dan Gabriel Manoleli - was nominated by the Executing Agency (University of Bucharest) in August 2008 and started work as PM in November 2008. The aim of this project is to expand Romania’s capacity to generate global environmental benefits through mainstreaming the Rio Conventions into national, regional and local decision-making. It will do this, firstly, by enhancing the enabling environment for convention implementation, including modifying institutional, legislative, policy and reporting frameworks to reflect convention commitments and, secondly, by improving institutional and individual capacity within the lead agencies for convention implementation (MOE and MAFRD). The latter component will strengthen mechanisms, tools and training to support the use of Integrated Resource Management (IRM) to mainstream convention themes into sectoral plans and programmes. A ten months preparatory phase was conducted to ground the starting of the project; including an inception workshop held on April 29th, 2009. This phase is summarized in this inception report and lays a new basis for the implementation of the project, reflecting changes in circumstances and/or practical implementation issues. It is based on the findings gathered during this phase and it is an update of the project document. Once approved by the NSC it is considered as the new project strategy, particularly regarding the revised set of expected results and performance indicators. This inception report is to ensure that all relevant parties have the same baseline information, the same understanding and are committed to the implementation of the project. The review of the project outputs, of the baseline information and of the current context in which the project is to be implemented was concluded by some changes to the set of outputs. These changes were made (and approved) at the inception workshop. Following the review of the project strategy in consultations with relevant stakeholders, the project team proposes to simplify the set of outputs and reduce it from 9 outputs to 7 outputs (See section 3). In addition the entire set of performance indicators to measure project progress at the output, outcome and objective levels was reviewed and simplified. A revised set of 16 performance indicators is now set to measure the progress of the project (see Section 5); including their baseline and targets at end of project. The capacity development monitoring scorecard was completed with a total score of 7 out of 45, indicating a low capacity currently in place for an effective mainstreaming of Rio conventions themes (see Annex 4). Finally risks identified during the design phase were reviewed and simplified. A total of 10 risks are now up-to-date with management responses as of the start of the project (see Section 6). A third Outcome was added “Effective, efficient, and adaptive project management, monitoring and evaluation” to capture management activities to coordinate the project and also activities to identify the lessons learned and their replication in the region and worldwide. The project management approach includes a project management team composed of one Project Manager (PM), one Administrative Assistant and a part-time Senior International Technical Advisor (SITA) (see TORs in Annex 3). A multi-disciplinary and multi-sectoral National Steering Committee (NSC) will provide strategic guidance. The project work plan for the entire duration of the project and a more detailed one for the remaining part of 2009 are presented in Section 9.
Project Inception Report
Page 2
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
1.
Introduction
Context and Purpose of this Inception Report The UNDP/GEF project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits” (CB2) – Romania” was approved mid-2008. Its official starting date is June, 2008 when the project document was signed and its closing date is June, 2011. The Project Manager (PM) – Prof. Dr. Dan Gabriel Manoleli - was nominated by the Executing Agency (University of Bucharest - UB) in August and started the work in November 2008. UNDP CO has recruited Ms. Rodica Stefanescu as Project (Administrator) Assistant (PA). The UNDP-CO contracted Mr. Jean-Joseph Bellamy as a Senior International Technical Advisor (SITA) to provide technical advisory services during the implementation of the project. The purpose of this position is to provide support and advise the Project Management Unit (PMU) within the executing agency on the project implementation strategy including risk management and potential flexible adjustments of the project implementation work plan (see TOR of his first assignment in Annex 1). A five months inception phase was conducted to kick-start the project; including an inception workshop held on April 29, 2009. The focus of this inception phase was to: Review the project strategy; Review the implementation partners and co-financers involvement in project implementation; Review its performance measurement; Review its risks and assumptions; Draft the M&E Framework for the project to be submitted to the NSC for approval; Identify key methodological elements for the implementation of the project; Identify thematic areas (work packages) to be implemented in the first year; Organize an inception workshop with key stakeholders. This phase is summarized in this inception report and lays a new basis for the implementation of the project, reflecting changes in circumstances and/or practical implementation issues. It is based on the findings gathered during this phase and it is an update of the project document. Once approved by the NSC, it is considered as the new project strategy; particularly regarding the revised set of expected results and performance indicators. This inception report is to ensure that all relevant parties have the same baseline information, the same understanding and are committed to the implementation of the project; particularly for its first year of implementation. A draft of this report was circulated to all project implementation parties involved and revised on the basis of comments received. It includes specific roles and responsibilities of key implementing partners. Inception Workshop An Inception Workshop was held in Bucharest on April 29, 2009 and was attended by 38 people from a wide range of stakeholder groups including representatives from MOE, MAFRD, Civil Society, NEPA, UNDP and MADA. An update on the project strategy and the project management arrangement were presented and discussed with the participants. The Agenda and the Minutes of the Inception Workshop are presented in Annex 2.
Project Inception Report
Page 3
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
2.
Project Fact sheet
This Section presents the main facts about the project: Project Logic Model Goal To expand Romania’s capacity to generate global environmental benefits through mainstreaming the Rio Conventions into national decision-making. Objective To strengthen systemic, institutional and individual capacity to integrate Rio Convention themes into national, regional and local decision-making. Outcome 1: Enhanced institutional, legislative, policy and planning framework for implementing Rio Conventions commitments.
Outcome 2: Improved capacity of MOE and MAFRD to integrate environmental and sectoral resources management.
Output 2.1: Enhanced technical and managerial capacity of MOE Output 1.1: Institutional framework and and MAFRD staff to integrate environmental and processes for coordinated sectoral resources management, using Integrated management and implementation of Resource Management (IRM) techniques. the Rio Conventions established. Output 2.2: Codes of good practice, checklists and training Output 1.2: Suggestions for amendments of established to strengthen Integrated Resource legislation and norms to better Management tools for integrating environment into enable mainstreaming of Rio sectoral programmes and projects. Conventions themes into policies, Output 2.3: Regional Coordinating Mechanisms (RCMs) are plans and programmes, submitted for established and implemented as demonstration models Gov official approval. in two of Romania’s eight Development Regions Output 1.3: Screening, monitoring and reporting (DRs), then expanded to the remaining six regions, system, as part of Integrated based on lessons learned. Conventions requirements into Output 2.4: A peer training network and database to support sectorial policies, is in place. integrated resource management is established to serve regional and local environmental and resource management staff. Outcome 3: Effective, efficient, and adaptive project management, monitoring and evaluation.
Key Facts GEF Implementing Agency: National Executing Agency: Delegated Executing Agency: Project Manager: Starting Date: Closing Date: Budget: Main Stakeholders:
UNDP Ministry of Environment (MOE)1 and Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MAFRD) University of Bucharest (UB) Prof. Dr. Dan Gabriel Manoleli June 2008 June 2011 GEF: USD 470,000 (+30,000 PPG) Co-financing: USD 730,000 (+10,000 PPG) * Ministry of Environment (MOE) * Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MAFRD) * University of Bucharest (UB)
1 At the time that the Project was submitted to GEF, the name was Ministry of the Environment and Water Management (MEWM), while by the time the project started it became Ministry of the Environment (MOE); Since December 23 rd, it became Ministry of Environment and Forests (MEF) Project Inception Report
Page 4
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
3.
Review of Project Strategy
3.1.
Review of Project Log-Frame
The review of the project log-frame indicates a good internal logic of the project. The overall concept is to mainstream the Rio Conventions into related decision-making processes in Romania, which in turn will generate global environmental benefits. Furthermore, it will be achieved through two main sets of activities: To review and improve where necessary the institutional, legislative and policy frameworks required for the mainstreaming of the Rio Conventions into the national decision-making processes (Outcome #1). The aim is to improve coordination and management of implementation of Rio Conventions in Romania and strengthen the enabling environment for conventions implementation, including the mainstreaming of conventions themes into policies, plans, programmes and projects. There is already a well-developed, even if complex, institutional system for environmental and natural resource management in the country. There are numerous opportunities to address conventions issues as part of implementing the numerous national plans and strategies to promote environmental sustainability. Activities under this output will rationalize the currently fragmented and uncoordinated convention arrangements to allow government to more effectively and efficiently take advantage of the timely opportunities provided by EU accession reforms to promote global benefits. To improve the capacity of MOE and MAFRD for an integrated approach to environment and natural resources management (Outcome #2). The aim is to ensure that the lead agencies responsible for conventions implementation have the institutional and individual capacity to participate in implementing the set of activities described above that is to enhance the institutional, legal and policy framework and to use this enhanced framework to more effectively address conventions themes. The project will do this by increasing the technical and managerial expertise through technical support, tools, training and on-going support. This support should also motivate these lead agencies to link their on-going environmental and natural resources management activities with the global environmental management community. A third Outcome was added “Effective, efficient, and adaptive project management, monitoring and evaluation” to capture management activities to coordinate the project and also activities to identify the lessons learned and their replication in the region and worldwide. The log-frame, as presented in the project document (ProDoc), details the full project logic model that is goal, objective, outcomes and outputs. It is comprehensive and it includes also the related indicators and their respective values to measure the performance of the project. However, following GEF and UNDP project management methodology the log-frame should be a tool to monitor the high level expected results of a project that is goal, objective and outcomes. As a result, the log-frame was simplified. The revised log-frame is presented in Annex 3. 3.2.
Review of Project Outputs and Activities
The review of the project outputs, of the baseline information and of the current context in which the project is to be implemented was concluded by some changes to the set of outputs. These changes were made (and approved) at the inception workshop. These are presented in the table below: Revised Expected Outputs Outcome
Original Output
Revised Output
Outcome 1: Enhanced institutional, legislative, policy and planning framework for implementing Rio Conventions commitments.
Output 1.1: Institutional framework and processes for coordinated management and implementation of the Rio Conventions established. Output 1.2: Legislation and norms amended to better enable mainstreaming of Rio Conventions themes into policies, plans and programmes. Output 1.3: Environmental screening is part of
Output 1.1: Institutional framework and processes for coordinated management and implementation of the Rio Conventions established Output 1.2: Suggestions for amendments of legislation and norms to better enable mainstreaming of Rio
Project Inception Report
Page 5
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
Revised Expected Outputs Outcome
Outcome 2: Improved capacity of MOE and MAFRD to integrate environmental and sectoral resource management
Original Output
Revised Output
the national policy-making process, and officials within the Public Policies Unit and two Interministerial Councils are able to use it to integrate conventions into sectoral policies. Output 1.4: A convention monitoring system is part of national State of the Environment reporting, with targets and indicators to assess progress on implementing the Rio Conventions.
Conventions themes into policies, plans and programmes, submitted for Gov official approval. Output 1.3: Screening, monitoring and reporting system, as part of Integrated Conventions requirements into sectorial policies, in place.
Output 2.1: Enhanced technical and managerial capacity of MOE and MAFRD staff to integrate environmental and sectoral resource management, using Integrated Resource Management techniques Output 2.2: Codes of good practice, checklists and training established to strengthen Integrated Resource Management tools for integrating environment into sectoral programmes and projects Output 2.3: Regional Coordinating Mechanisms (RCMs) are established as demonstration models in two of Romania’s eight Development Regions, then expanded to the remaining six regions, based on lessons learned Output 2.4: Each of the two model Regional Coordinating Mechanisms implements a demonstration activity which shows how Integrated Resource Management tools can be used to address priority regional issues and the results are disseminated to all eight Development Regions Output 2.5: A peer training network and database to support integrated resource management is established to serve regional and local environmental and resource management staff
Output 2.1: Enhanced technical and managerial capacity of MOE and MAFRD staff to integrate environmental and sectoral resource management, using Integrated Resource Management techniques Output 2.2: Codes of good practice, checklists and training established to strengthen Integrated Resource Management tools for integrating environment into sectoral programmes and projects Output 2.3: Regional Coordinating Mechanisms (RCMs) are established and implemented as demonstration models in two of Romania’s eight Development Regions (DRs), then expanded to the remaining six regions, based on lessons learned Output 2.4: A peer training network and database to support integrated resource management is established to serve regional and local environmental and resource management staff.
Outcome 3: Effective, efficient, and adaptive project management, monitoring and evaluation.
Output 3.1: Project well managed including progress reports as per UNDP and GEF standards. Output 3.2: Lessons learned documented and disseminated in Tajikistan and throughout the region.
Discussion of Activities: Output 1.1: Institutional framework and processes for coordinated management and implementation of the Rio Conventions established This output directly addresses Actions 1-2 in the NCSA Joint Action Plan (Annex C), under the topic “Institutional Framework” since it involves clarifying and formalizing the structure for managing and implementing the conventions. No new institutions will need to be created. Core activities under this output include: Develop the capacity of the convention implementation units (CBD and UNFCC in MOE and CCD within MAFRD) and define their responsibilities and relationships among them. Project Inception Report
Page 6
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
Define the roles of MOE and MAFRD in convention implementation within their own departments, agencies and programmes at the national, regional and local levels, and establish formal collaborative mechanisms to enhance synergies. Particular focus will be placed on integrating the conventions into forestry, agriculture, soils, protected areas, hunting and rural development programmes, as these all fall within MAFRD’s mandate. Key programmes in MOE include climate change/air quality and water management. Define the roles of MOE and MAFRD in implementing the conventions through their relationships with other ministries, for example, during regulatory and review processes, such as EIA and permitting for proposed developments. This includes defining the responsibilities of the National, Regional and Local Environmental Protection Agencies. Identify all other ministries, agencies and civil society organisations to be involved in convention management and define their respective roles, responsibilities and tasks. This would build on the work done during the NCSA to identify and engage diverse university and research institutes, NGOs and community organisations. [Revised] Output 1.2: Suggestions for amendments of legislation and norms to better enable mainstreaming of Rio Conventions themes into policies, plans and programme, submitted for Government official approval. This output was revised at the inception workshop. The suggestion was made by the GEF political focal point and the Ministry of Environment representative and all participants to the inception workshop agreed upon this revision. The main reason for this change was due to the well-known long process for legislation amendments in Romania. The approval of any legislation and norms by the government is beyond the project control and moreover, the final approval of the suggested changes can happen after the project closure. Therefore, the output was rephrased accordingly. This output directly addresses Actions 4-7 in the NCSA Joint Action Plan under the topic “Legislative Framework”, as it involves amendments and additions to Romania’s legal framework to bring it into line with its international commitments. The aim is to develop the so-called “secondary” (or enabling) legislation that is needed to ensure that Romania has the appropriate laws, regulations and other legal norms to implement convention commitments. This output will also support output 1.1, since legal documents (e.g., “Government Decision”, “Minister’s Order”) are also used to establish institutional responsibilities and collaborative mechanisms. The output will include the following core activities: Building on the work done in the NCSA Thematic Assessments, conduct a thorough review of Romanian legislation and norms to find weaknesses and gaps in relation to convention responsibilities. Elaborate and proposals to modify laws and norms to enable: o Compliance with convention obligations for each convention and for integration of biodiversity, climate change and land degradation issues; o Assignment of conventions responsibilities to appropriate institutions and promotion of collaboration among them; o Integration of conventions into development plans, sectorial plans and environmental action plans at local, regional and national levels; o Strengthening the review and permitting processes involving the assessment and mitigation of environmental impacts of developments, e.g. EIA could be amended to include issues related to impacts, vulnerability and adaptation to global climate change. o The use of independent technical services, as needed to complement a ministry’s capacity. o The use of fiscal incentives to promote integration of Rio Conventions themes, such as the revision of the selection criteria for projects financed through the Environmental Fund to promote projects that address cross-cutting convention themes, and the creation of mechanisms to favor convention-related technology transfer (green certificates, white certificates, fiscal relaxation). [Revised] Output 1.3: Screening, monitoring and reporting system, as part of integrated conventions requirements into sectoral policies, is in place. Project Inception Report
Page 7
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
The 2 previous outputs (1.3 & 1.4) were merged together due to their related nature. Recent changes have assigned one Public Policy Unit (PPU) to each ministry as opposed to the initial situation where there was one PPU covering all ministries. Furthermore, the Inter-Ministerial Councils are now named Inter-Ministerial Commissions; there are several Inter-MinisterialCommissions on various topics. Environment and implicitly the Rio Conventions fall under the Inter-Ministerial Commission (IMC) no 9. The PPU of the line ministries and the members of the IMC no9, will be trained on: Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), other environmental screening methods, reporting requirements at national and international level, and also other means of integrating environmental considerations into development planning. The project is currently lobbying at higher political level for some changes in the current institutional arrangements, so that the Ministry of regional planning be included in the IMC no 9; nevertheless, training activities will involve this ministry as well. The inclusion of Rio Conventions themes in the SOE reports will be monitored closely by the projec though obviously the Ministry of Environment is responsible for the production of SOE. This output directly addresses Action 3 in the NCSA Joint Action Plan under the topic “Institutional Framework” and Actions 6, 7 and 12 under “Planning”. It aims to ensure that newly created national policy development processes and high-level inter-ministerial consultative bodies incorporate conventions issues into their decisionmaking. Core activities under this output will include: Defining the responsibilities of the Public Policies Units (PPUs) and Inter-Ministerial Commissions for convention implementation, and ensuring that the composition of the Commissions allows them to effectively consider environmental implications of policy proposals, including obligations under MEAs; Developing an environmental screening tool(s) to be used as part of the established process for public policy analysis, which already requires an assessment of environmental impacts; Training staff in the PPUs, Inter-Ministerial Commissions and relevant government ministries on how to use the environmental screening tool to assess and mitigate the environmental impacts of policies, plans and programmes; Establishing targets to be achieved for thematic and cross-cutting objectives of the Rio Conventions, to be used in monitoring the progress and the reporting to both national bodies and the conventions secretariats. These targets will also be integrated into the recently established State of Environment Reporting system that is part of the Ministry’s annual reporting. Output 2.1: Enhanced technical and managerial capacity of MOE and MAFRD staff to integrate environmental and sectoral resource management, using Integrated Resource Management techniques This output directly addresses Actions 8 and 9 under “Planning” and Actions 14, 15 and 17 under “Training, Education and Awareness-raising” in the NCSA Joint Action Plan. It aims to strengthen the technical expertise of ministry and agency staff in one or more Integrated Resource Management tools and techniques such as Integrated Agricultural Development (IAD), Integrated Rural Development (IRD), Integrated Watershed Management (IWM) and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The project will also support the staff in applying those tools and techniques to particular issues. The capacity of staff to use these tools will be built through a combination of technical assistance, manuals and guidelines and training/ train-the-trainer programmes. Two priority topics for capacity development have already been identified in the NCSA reports and other assessments. These include Rio Conventions (and other MEAs) and stakeholder involvement, including the role of public awareness programmes. Other topics to be included will be decided based on a comprehensive Training Needs Assessment; they may include those presented in the table below. Core activities will include: A comprehensive institutional assessment of MOE and MAFRD, building on previous NCSA and EA efforts, to analyze strengths and weaknesses in integrating environment and natural resource management. Implementation of recommended institutional changes (e.g., organogrammes, collaborative mechanisms). A comprehensive training needs assessment, based on previous NCSA and EU efforts, to identify individual training and learning needs of staff in national and decentralized offices of the MOE and MAFRD, including the National, Regional and Local Agencies for Environmental Protection. Project Inception Report
Page 8
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
Development of focused training programmes, using a mix of formal training (e.g., modules, workshops) with innovative training/learning programmes, including mentoring, on-the-job learning, field-based programmes (extension) and distance education (Internet-based). The use of train-thetrainer programmes will ensure that training programmes are institutionalized, and reach a large number of staff. This approach will also include insertion of convention-related topics into existing training programmes run by the ministries, EU and other donors. Monitoring, evaluation and revision to training programmes. Possible Topics to be Addressed to Strengthen Capacity of MOE and MAFRD
Rio Conventions and MEAs Integrated Rural Development & Integrated Agricultural Development Environmental Impact Assessment & Monitoring Strategic Environmental Assessment Use of GIS to implement plans & programmes Integrated Watershed Management Natural Resources Valuation (an environmental economics tool) Regional Planning Urban Planning Stakeholders Involvement Public Awareness & Media Strategies Programme and Project Management Incentives (financial and non-financial) Technology and Knowledge transfer State of Environment Reporting & Indicators to monitor conventions implementation
National offices: MOE & MAFRD
Regional/ district offices: MOE & MAFRD
National Environmental Protection Agency
X
X
X
X
X
Regional & Local Environ. Protection Agencies X
X X
X X
X
X
X X
X X
X
X
X X
X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X
Output 2.2: Codes of good practice, checklists and training established to strengthen Integrated Resource Management tools for integrating environment into sectoral programmes and projects This output directly addresses Actions 8, 9 and 21 in the NCSA Joint Action Plan and is interconnected with output 2.1. As noted above, there are many established Integrated Resource Management tools that MOE and MAFRD could use to better integrate environment and sectoral resource management for national and global benefits. Environmental impact assessment, if combined with follow-up and monitoring, is a proven tool for integrating environmental concerns into project design and operation. More recently, Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) was developed to manage environmental impacts at the programme level or in a defined region. The NCSA and interviews during the design of this CB2 project have already identified weaknesses in Romania’s EIA system and very limited use of the provisions for SEA. This output would involve reviewing and strengthening the EIA system to better integrate convention themes, through process changes, if needed, and the addition of codes of good practice and project or programme specific checklists. There would also be training for responsible EIA authorities in how to use these tools to promote more sustainable programmes and projects. If it is seen as appropriate, one or more of the demonstration activities in output 2.4 may focus on better application of EIA and/or SEA processes in that region. Further analysis will be undertaken to identify which of the IRM tools listed in the table above are already being used in Romania, but need strengthening, and which should be introduced. Core activities will include: A review of the current systems for EIA and SEA, especially procedures and practices for follow-up and monitoring after EIA, which was identified in the NCSA as a weakness that undermines the aim of EIA, which is to ensure that environmental impacts of development are avoided or mitigated during construction and operation; Revise EIA and SEA processes, as recommended in the review above; Project Inception Report
Page 9
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
Review additional IRM tools used in Romania (as in Table 6) to identify strengths, weaknesses and recommendations to strengthen these processes. Focus on the tools seen as most valuable by Ministry staff (as identified in the needs assessment); Development of codes of good practice and checklists to support various IRM processes, including design, planning, implementation, follow-up and monitoring stages. Practical training for relevant government and scientific staff in applying the above tools, including train-the-trainer programmes, in which technical assistance will be provided to co-design “Made in Romania” hands-on training programmes, tailored to specific needs and circumstances in the country. [Revised] Output 2.3: Regional Coordinating Mechanisms (RCMs) are established and implemented as demonstration models in two of Romania’s eight Development Regions (DRs), then expanded to the remaining six regions, based on lessons learned Both previous outputs (2.3 & 2.4) were close enough to be merged into one output. Instead of having one output to develop the RCM (using IRM tools) and another one to pilot it, it was decided by the inception workshop participants to merge both outputs into one (output 2.3). Under this new output, it is planned to design the Regional Coordinating Mechanism (RCM), and then establish the RCM in two development regions to demonstrate the efficiency of the RCM and based on the results of the demonstrations, the RCM will be implemented in all regions of Romania. This output responds directly to Action 20 in the NCSA Joint Action Plan: “promote pilot projects which will help to implement the three conventions and Action 19, “improve the organisational and operational framework for technology and knowledge transfer.” There are multiple authorities at regional and local levels with either established or new responsibilities for environmental and resource management. However, there is limited communication or cooperation among them and there are no models or examples of formal inter-ministerial collaboration at this level. This situation is both ineffective and inefficient, especially when resources are scarce. Inter-ministerial Commissions are now being established to better coordinate policy development at the national level and MOE has begun a process of assigning some responsibilities for the UNFCC to regional agencies. This output would create a formal mechanism for communication and cooperation at the “Development Region (DR)” level, at a time when this level is being given increasing responsibility for managing the natural resource base. An RCM “demonstration model” using IRM tools for interagency collaboration will be developed, setting out the composition, functioning accountability and responsibilities. The model will be tested in two pilot DRs, and the results will be monitored and evaluated. The results will be reported to senior officials of the participating ministries and agencies, who will decide how the model might be revised for general adoption. The model must be flexible enough to be adapted to different regions. A user-friendly handbook (plain language, graphics, maps) will be prepared with guidelines for how the IMC should work, drawing on lessons learned. Members of pilot RCMs will act as resource people at workshops for Development Regions who are starting a new RCM. The table below shows the criteria for the selection of the two pilot Development Regions (left column) and the characteristics of the two regions, Regions 2 and 7, being proposed as Demonstration Models. The regions were also chosen because they represent two distinctive cultural and “socio-ecological” types and each one has distinctive approaches to environment and resources issues. At the same time, both are facing complex issues that are also being faced by other regions. Choice of Development Regions for demonstration models Criteria Global important environmental and natural resources under threat
D.R. 2 South-East Galati Development Region Biodiversity in the Lower Danube Floodplain (Delta biosphere reserve, Small Island of Braila Natural Park; Low Prut Floodplain) Protection of arid lands and steppe ecosystems (unique in Europe) Project Inception Report
D.R. 7 Centre Brasov Development Region Protection of unique mountain biodiversity (natural and national parks, wetlands)
Page 10
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
Choice of Development Regions for demonstration models Criteria Issues that cut across the Rio conventions that would benefit from Integrated Resource Management approaches
Regional and Local Action Plans in place Have a local Agenda 21 project Have environmental NGOs Local authorities have a demonstrated interest in the conventions/ possible “champions” (Possible) Integrated Resource Management Tools to be used
D.R. 2 South-East Galati Development Region Degraded land agricultural land/climate change/forestry Heavy industrial emissions (2nd largest steel factory in the country is in Galati) Small and medium enterprises with environmental impacts that aren’t being addressed Yes, both are in place
D.R. 7 Centre Brasov Development Region Environmental impacts of industry Landscape, wildlife and general biodiversity
Municipality of Galati (at large town level)
Municipalities of Targu Mures and Miercurea Ciuc (both are large towns) Yes, oriented to protected areas & mountain biodiversity
Yes, oriented to water management and climate change/energy efficiency, land degradation Yes, hosted an NCSA workshop Involved in several projects on energy efficiency (home/flat improvement, etc.), with NGOs Watershed Management, Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment, Biomass-based Energy Systems, Land Use Planning
Yes, both are in place
Yes, hosted an NCSA workshop Collaborative between authorities and NGOs on waste recycling and biodiversity programmes in schools Integrated Rural Management, Environmental Impact, Assessment, Strategic Environmental Assessment, Sustainable Tourism
Output 2.4: A peer training network and database to support integrated resource management is established to serve regional and local environmental and resource management staff The peer network is designed to take advantage of the skills and creativity of many field level environmental and natural resource managers by setting up a mechanism to share experiences through the Internet, exchanges of managerial and technical staff, seminars, workshops and on-going working groups organized around topics of mutual interest. This will be fully integrated with the administrative reforms, which aim to create a professional civil service and promote a knowledge-based society. The peer network and database will also serve to reinforce the individual and institutional capacity that will be built through technical assistance and training during the project. It will be coupled with a simple database focused on the topic of Integrated Resource Management, which is fully integrated with MOE and MAFRD databases. It will include lists of government and outside contact people, experts, published and electronic resources, training courses and training materials. Output 3.1: A Project well managed including progress reports as per UNDP and GEF standards; and, Output 3.2: Lessons learned documented and disseminated in Romania and throughout the region.
4.
Project Oversight and Coordination Mechanisms
4.1.
Project Organizational Structure
The Project Manager (PM) is responsible for project operations. He heads a small Project Implementation Unit (PIU) with the support of a project administrator to carry out project activities. This unit is placed at the University of Bucharest, (Department of Geology) and the University will provide the PIU with office facilities such as computers and communications. The PM will ensure that project activities are being implemented in accordance with the agreed project document and project work plans. The PM will act in consultation with the National Project Director (NPD) – delegated by the Ministry of Environment, and will report to UNDP. The PM will be responsible for planning, procurement, contracting, financial and reporting activities, including but not limited to: Update of the overall and yearly project work plans as necessary; Submission of quarterly reports to UNDP; Project Inception Report
Page 11
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
Preparing GEF quarterly operational reviews, annual project implementation reviews, and organizing evaluations Project record-keeping; Monitoring and coordination of sub-contracted assignments; Preparing requests for direct payments; Preparing requests for duty travel; A part-time Senior International Technical Advisor (SITA) will support the PM and other project experts through advisory services and technical assistance. TORs for all three positions are presented in Annex 1. Mr. Silviu Stoica, General Director, Ministry of Environment was appointed as the National Project Director (NPD). The NPD will oversee the project on behalf of the ministry and will represent the ministry for day-to-day decision-making related to project implementation. The NPD will report to the Minister/Deputy Minister. A National Steering Committee (NSC) met for the first time on April 29, 2009, in order to endorse the AWP for 2009 and the revised log-frame including the revised list of indicators to monitor the project. Discussions focused on the strategies to secure political support of the project and raise awareness of the objective within the institutions represented on the NSC (see minutes of the meeting in Annex 2). The NSC is the project’s interinstitutional strategic decision-making body. It is chaired by the National Project Director (NPD). It will meet semi-annually to review the progress of the project and to provide guidance and assistance for the resolution of any difficulties encountered during the implementation (if any). The PM will act as Secretary to the NSC (?). The NSC includes the following representatives: UNDP Ministry of Environment Ministry of Agriculture National Agency for Environment Protection Romanian Parliament (one member) Civil Society
The diagram below indicates the organizational structure of the project.
National Steering Committee
UNDP Country Office
Project Implementation Unit
Project Manager
International Experts
Project Administrator
Senior International Technical Advisor
National Experts
The project will be nationally executed in accordance with UNDP’s NEX guidelines. UNDP is the Implementing Agency for GEF funded project, and Partner to The Ministry of Environment which is the Implementing Partner Project Inception Report
Page 12
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
responsible for quality and timeliness of achievement of project outcomes. The MOE has delegated the implementation of the project to the University of Bucharest which thus serves as a responsible party (formerly referred to as the Delegated Executing Agency ) The University is accountable to the Government of Romania and to the UNDP for the quality of project outcomes and the appropriate use of project resources, both when directly implementing project activities and when delegating others to do so. The University will ensure that project planning, review, monitoring, evaluation and reporting requirements are met; that coordination among participants is effective; and that decisions are implemented. Implementation arrangements with partner agencies will be set out in Terms of Reference, work plans and/or formal agreements, as needed. UNDP will provide support needed for project implementation through the Administrative and Finance Units. 4.2.
Participation of Stakeholders
Stakeholders Involvement During Project Design The CB-2 project is based in large part on the results of the NCSA process, which included extensive consultation with stakeholders at each stage, including 33 interviews with government and non-government stakeholders, two national workshops, four regional workshops and numerous working group meetings. The overall process was guided by a Project Steering Committee of 9 members chaired by Mr. Silviu Stoica. The same Stakeholders were also involved in the preparation of the CB2 project document. The PDF-A team members also held individual meetings with key government counterparts, especially in MOE, MAFRD and the Public Policies Unit. The three Convention Focal Points and the GEF Operational Focal Point were kept informed at all stages. With UNDP support, two stakeholder workshops were held, involving 18 and 12 people, respectively. A first meeting, which included the international expert, focused on stakeholder response to an early draft while a second one gathers final comments on a later draft. The PDF-A team also consulted with Regional Environmental Protection Agencies from Brasov and Galati to ascertain their interest in being involved. A high level meeting took place between the UNDP Deputy Resident Representative and the Secretary of State for MOE to discuss project highlights. The final proposal was fully endorsed by the MOE and MAFRD and confirmed by endorsement letters. Stakeholders Involvement In Project Implementation The main beneficiaries of the project are MOE, which is responsible for the implementation of the UNFCCC and UNCBD, and the MAFRD, which is responsible for the implementation of UNCCD. Other key stakeholders are UNDP, University of Bucharest and National Agency for Agriculture Consultancy. Other stakeholders include those listed below: National Regional and Local Agencies for Environment Protection (report to MOE), National Agricultural Consultancy Agency and its territorial units, Commission of the National Environment Guard and eight Regional and County Commissions of the National Environmental Guard, Environment Fund Administration (independent body under the authority of MOE), National Water Administration, National Meteorology Administration, National Forests Administration – Romsilva, Territorial Inspectorate for Forestry Regime and Hunting (TIFH), Regional Development Agencies, Regional and local administrations (counties, towns, prefectures), and NGOs and civil society organisations with an interest in convention themes. These organizations will be involved at all GEF intervention level. Regarding the implementation of the project, an initial list of Stakeholders to be engaged was identified during the design phase. There are presented in the table below as well as their involvement and their anticipated functions: Stakeholder Ministry of Environment (MoE)
Represented by
Involvement
State Secretary GEF political and operational focal points
Executing agency Primary
Project Inception Report
Anticipated functions(s) Overall coordination role, especially in the field of CCC and CBD Monitoring and assessment of project Page 13
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
Focal points for CBD and CCC Directors of divisions Experts involved in CC and CBD issues Members of the ministry public policy (liaison) unit State secretary Focal point for CCD Directors of divisions Experts involved in CCD issues Members of the ministry public policy (liaison) unit Members of the Permanent Interministry Councils and members of the Council of Strategic Planning
beneficiary Cofinancier
progress Ensure mainstreaming of project objectives into Ministry policies, plans and programmes
Coexecuting agency Primary beneficiary Cofinancier
Coordination role, especially for CCD matters Ensure mainstreaming of project objectives into relevant Ministry policies, plans and programmes
Partner
United Nations Development Programme Romania
Representative Resident
Observer
University of Bucharest
Rector of the University Experts
National Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA) National Agricultural Consultancy Agency (NACA) National Forests Administration – Romsilva (& territorial branches) Regional Environmental Protection Agencies (REPA) Territorial Inspectorate for Forestry Regime and Hunting Local Environmental Protection Agencies (LEPA)
Directors of divisions Experts involved in CCC, LD and CBD issues Deputy director Experts
Project Implementation Unit Partner
Liaise with project team to revise normative documents setting out policy-making structures and processes Ensure that provisions for environmental screening of proposed policies is done and collaborate in developing screening tools Ensure achievement of GEF operational objectives; link to other UNDP projects Take part in project management through the Project Monitoring Unit Provides day to day project management, together with UNDP
Ministry of Agriculture, Forests and Rural Development (MAFRD)
Public Policy Unit (PPU)
Partner
Directors of divisions Experts
Partner
Directors of divisions Experts
Partner
Directors of divisions Experts
Partner
Directors of local agencies Experts
Partner
Identify and improve agency structures and processes Coordination of REPA Participate in train-the-trainers and training Identify and improve agency structures and processes Participate in train-the-trainers and training Identify and improve structures and processes Identify and improve of structures and processes Coordination of LEPA Train trainers Identify and improvement of procedures and measures Provide staff participants, provide cases studies, distribute information, facilitate stakeholder involvement
Discussion In order to facilitate the engagement of these stakeholders, participatory mechanisms will be used through the establishment of thematic working groups with the relevant Stakeholders to implement sets of activities. Terms of reference for each working groups will be drawn. They will contain the planned activities to be conducted, the expected results, the resources allocated by each party and the mode of operation among the Project Inception Report
Page 14
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
parties. It will be the main guidance process to build consensus, share decisions and validate process/ results. These working groups will include key representatives from related organizations, chaired by the key organization of each working group and coordinated by the NPM. However, they should not include more than 10 participants and meet monthly or quarterly (and on an as-needed basis) to validate findings and activities to be implemented. The following thematic working groups are anticipated: Working Group (WG) on Environment Legislation: This WG will oversee the implementation of Outcome #1. Working Group on Environmental Management Capacity: This WG will oversee the implementation of Outcome #2. 4.3.
Schedule of Project Reviews
The project management team developed a detailed schedule of project review meetings; it is presented in the table below: Management Mechanism
Schedule
National Steering Committee Working Group – Environmental Legislation Working Group – Environmental Management Capacity
Senior International Technical Advisor (SITA)
Twice per year. One meeting to focus on the work plan for the following year and the second one to focus on project progress/performance. First meeting was in April 2009 As needed basis but at least once a quarter. It is expected that these WGs will meet more frequently in the early phase of project implementation when decisions will be needed to guide project implementation Schedule of Missions proposed in Annex 1 It is recommended that these missions be timed with the participation to NSC meetings or any other events related to the implementation of the project including Regional Technical Advisor’s visits to Romania.
Project Inception Report
Page 15
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
5.
Review of Project Performance Measurement
5.1.
Review of Indicators
As presented in the previous section, it is proposed to measure the progress of the project at the objective and outcome levels. This section presents the review of the indicators to be used to monitor the project. From a set of 45 indicators in the original log-frame – including indicators to monitor outputs - the table below is proposing a revised set of 18 indicators (see table below). Expected Results
Original Indicator
Objective: To strengthen systemic, institutional and individual capacity to integrate Rio Convention themes into national, regional and local decision-making
1. Institutional, legislative and policy framework modified to fully accommodate the objectives of global environmental conventions 2. Modified operational set up of MOE and MAFRD to improve implementation of Rio conventions 3. Enhanced mechanisms and skills within MOE and MAFRD to use Integrated Resource Management tools to mainstreaming convention themes decisions 4. Capacity development monitoring scorecard rating
Outcome 1: Enhanced institutional, 5. Effective institutional framework in place for convention implementation legislative, policy and planning 6. Effective legislative framework in place for convention framework for implementing Rio implementation Convention commitments 7. National policy-making and planning processes effectively consider convention themes
Proposed Indicator 1.
2. 3.
4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
8. Collaborative mechanisms in place within ministries and Outcome 2: Improved capacity of between them to promote integrated approaches to MOE and MAFRD to integrate environmental and sectoral resource management environmental and sectoral resource 9. Quantity and quality of MOE and MAFRD programmes and management projects (national and donor-supported) that integrate environmental and sectoral management
9. 10. 11. 12. 13.
Project Inception Report
Alignment of institutional, legislative and policy frameworks with the objectives and obligations of the global environmental conventions signed by Romania Quality of national monitoring reports and communications integrating conventions obligations Capacity development monitoring scorecard rating
Responsibilities for conventions obligations assigned to institutions mandates Effective multi-agency conventions coordination mechanisms Conventions obligations integrated in related legislation Conventions obligations integrated in related policies, national plans, strategies and programmes Conventions obligations embedded into effective environmental screening process of policy making Roles and responsibilities for implementing conventions obligations assigned in job descriptions Implementation of conventions monitored effectively and information included in SOE reports MOE and MAFRD staff with the necessary skills and knowledge to address conventions obligations Effective code of practice, guidelines, checklists to address conventions obligations Effective participation of stakeholders in the implementation of conventions Page 16
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
Expected Results
Original Indicator
Proposed Indicator 14. A model for regional coordination mechanism (RCM) is developed and adopted by two Development Regions (South-East 2 and Center 7) using integrated resource management (IRM) tools 15. The RCM model and IRM tools are replicated to all regions in Romania 16. An IRM peer training network used by participants throughout Romania 17. Progress reports summarizing the performance of project 18. Project information readily available
Outcome 3: Effective, efficient, and adaptive project management, monitoring and evaluation.
The proposed indicators are focusing on the core results to be achieved. The baseline and target by the end of the project for each of them is presented in the following section. 5.2.
Review of Baseline and Targets Values
Based on the proposed revised indicators, baseline and target values were also reviewed and approved by NSC and are presented in the table below.
Objective: To strengthen systemic, institutional and individual capacity to integrate Rio Convention themes into national, regional and local decision-making
Proposed Indicator
Baseline
Target by End of Project
Sources of verification
1. Alignment of institutional, legislative and policy frameworks with the objectives and obligations of the global environmental conventions signed by Romania
Romania is committed to meet its conventions obligations; however, some critical gaps in institutional, legal and policy frameworks exist; including an uneven capacity within key ministries
Conventions obligations are well integrated into national institutional, legal and policy frameworks
NCSA reports for baseline information Project progress Evaluation reports National, regional and local plans, strategies and programmes
2. Quality of national monitoring reports and communications integrating conventions obligations
National reports and communications for meeting conventions obligations are produced but reflect a nonintegrated approach within the national frameworks for environmental management
SOE and other national reports/ communications include quality information on the state of implementation of the Conventions in Romania
Reports to conventions secretariats National State of Environment Reports Evaluation report of quality of SOE reports with regard to incorporation of status of
Project Inception Report
Page 17
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
Proposed Indicator
Baseline
Target by End of Project
Sources of verification implementation of Rio conventions
3. Capacity development monitoring scorecard rating
Outcome 1: Enhanced institutional, legislative, policy and planning framework for implementing Rio Convention commitments
Capacity for: Engagement: 2 of 9 Generate, access and use information and knowledge: 2 of 15 Policy and legislation development: 1 of 9 Management and implementation: 1 of 6 Monitor and evaluate: 1 of 6 (total targeted score: 7/45)
Capacity for: Engagement: 7 of 9 Generate, access and use information and knowledge: 10 of 15 Policy and legislation development: 8 of 9 Management and implementation: 4 of 6 Monitor and evaluate: 5 of 6 (total targeted score: 34/45)
Mid-term and final evaluation reports Annual PIRs Capacity assessment reports
4. Responsibilities for conventions obligations assigned to institutions mandates
Convention units in place, but institutional framework is fragmented and convention implementation is uneven National focal points report independently to Conventions, with little collaboration; decisions sometimes conflict
All conventions obligations are clearly assigned to key institutions Institutional mechanism (e.g. regular meetings; modification of the job description) that will ensure the cooperation of the three focal points with regard to implementation of the Rio Conventions, especially reporting requirements
NCSA reports for baseline information Project reports Mandates of agencies and subunits Organigrammes New/revised laws and norms Government Decisions, Ministerial Orders, etc.
5. Effective multi-agency conventions coordination mechanisms
Conventions fall under two National Councils, but there is no provision to address them No formal inter-agency coordination mechanisms No regional or local agency involvement in conventions MOE is not on Council #8 on Territorial Planning, Energy and Infrastructure
Convention management units are rationalized to be more efficient and effective; National Councils are empowered and tasked to address the issues of Rio conventions implementation Coordination mechanisms established among convention units, and between these units and other relevant Ministries,
Organigrammes and normative documents Work plans and progress reports, financial reports Convention reports Ministry annual reports Staff interviews and focus groups Government Decrees setting out composition and operational rules for key policy
Project Inception Report
Page 18
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
Proposed Indicator
Outcome 2: Improved capacity of MOE and MAFRD to integrate environmental and sectoral resource management
Baseline
Target by End of Project
Sources of verification
regional and local agencies Membership of Interministerial Councils permits integration of convention obligations into sectoral policymaking and planning
councils (#8 and #9)
6. Conventions obligations integrated in related legislation
Laws in place to ratify Rio conventions, but “secondary” laws and norms not revised to be consistent with obligations
Key laws and norms revised to be consistent with convention obligations “Secondary” legislation and norms in place to enable integration of conventions into sectoral policy-making and planning processes
Secondary (enabling) legislation and norms Government Documents Government and Minister’s Orders, Decrees and regulations
7. Conventions obligations integrated in related policies, national plans, strategies and programmes
Rio convention action plans not mainstreamed into national and regional policies and planning MOE and MAFRD programmes and activities are sector-oriented, with little collaboration
Related national policy-making and planning processes incorporate convention obligations MOE and MAFRD Programs and activities are intersectoral oriented
Agendas and minutes of Councils Environmental and sectoral programme and project documents Environmental screening documents (e.g., checklists) Training evaluations
8. Conventions obligations embedded into effective environmental screening process of policy making
New policy processes require environmental screening of policies, but conventions are not addressed and there are no technical tools or expertise to help policy proponents do screening
Environmental screening tools (e.g., checklists) incorporating conventions obligations are part of policy-making processes More than 40 Key officials trained on environmental screening
SOE reports Control Staff Reports Internal ministry reports Registers Training records and evaluations Media coverage of SOE
9. Roles and responsibilities for implementing conventions obligations assigned in job descriptions
Roles and responsibilities for implementing conventions obligations are not well assigned to staffs and key ministries
Roles and responsibilities for implementing conventions obligations clearly assigned to key job descriptions such as national focal points
Job descriptions NCSA reports Project reports Convention reports
Project Inception Report
Page 19
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
Proposed Indicator
Baseline
Target by End of Project
Sources of verification Ministry policies and reports
10. Implementation of conventions monitored effectively and information included in SOE reports
Annual State of Environment (SOE) reporting system in place, but no mechanism to track performance on convention implementation and synergies Ministry knowledge of SOE and how to use it to design programmes is weak
Indicators to monitor conventions obligations identified and are part of SOE reporting Database of conventions activities established and integrated into related ministry’s databases (in an integrated manner within each ministry) Key staff trained (100 people) to monitor and report on SOE indicators
SOE reports Databases
11. MOE and MAFRD staff with the necessary skills and knowledge to address conventions obligations
Uneven capacity of focal points and convention units to manage and implement conventions
Staff trained (30 people) and apply skills and knowledge to the implementation of conventions obligations Staff trained in key IRM techniques (120 people taking into consideration also the teritorial descentralised units)
Training evaluations
12. Effective code of practice, guidelines, checklists to address conventions obligations
Non-government stakeholders are using some IRM technique, but government-nongovernmental organizations collaboration is rare
IRM tools strengthened through additional guidelines, codes of good practice, checklists, etc.
Guidelines, codes of practice and checklists
13. Effective participation of stakeholders in the implementation of conventions
Minimal stakeholder involvement in conventions
All relevant stakeholders involved in convention implementation
Membership of participative processes Media coverage
14. A model for regional coordination mechanism (RCM) is developed and adopted by two Development
There are no collaborative mechanisms across units and ministries at regional and local levels to implement national
Formal Regional Collaborative Mechanisms involving national, regional and local authorities developed and
Normative documents setting out RCM composition, terms of reference and operating procedures
Project Inception Report
Page 20
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
Proposed Indicator Regions using integrated resource management (IRM) tools
Outcome 3: Effective, efficient, and adaptive project management, monitoring and evaluation.
5.3.
Baseline
Target by End of Project
Sources of verification
environmental and sectoral policies and plans
tested in two regions
Minutes of RCM meetings Surveys, interviews and focus groups with RCM members
15. The RCM model and IRM tools are replicated to all regions in Romania
Conventions and integrated resource management not addressed at regional and local levels, including Agenda 21
RCM Model adopted by MOE and MAFRD for all eight regions, with possible expansion to include regional office of other ministries
Ministries’ decisions and orders
16. An IRM peer training network used by participants throughout Romania
There is no formal network but some local authorities and staff in regional and local agencies use some IRM techniques MOE and MAFRD and EPAs have a database to which the IRM database could be linked
Peer training network established and functioning with members the two pilot regions and other regions Database established with IRM references and contacts
Peer network documents Database Staff surveys, interview and focus groups National and regional workshop proceedings
17. Progress reports summarizing the performance of project
Management procedures are put in place
Project implementation well documented
Project reports
18. Project information readily available
No project web site available
Project information is readily available
Project web site and project reports
Capacity Development Monitoring Scorecard
A Capacity Development Monitoring and Evaluation Scorecard was used to assess the current capacities for coordinating the implementation of the Rio Conventions. The current score is 7 out of a maximum of 45. It reflects a low capacity in most area for an effective environmental managerial system. The score of each capacity result is as follows: Capacities for engagement: 2 of 9 Capacities to generate, access and use information and knowledge: 2 of 15 Capacities for policy and legislation development: 1 of 9 Capacities for management and implementation: 1 of 6 Capacities to monitor and evaluate: 1 of 6 A target score of 34 was established at the beginning of the project. As part of the management instrument to monitor the project progress, this tool will be reviewed Project Inception Report
Page 21
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
once a year and integrated in the annual PIR. One main benefit from using this scorecard is the comparison over time of capacity indicator ratings. It will indicate the progress made toward improving the required capacities for a more effective environmental management capacity to implement the conventions obligations.
6.
Review of Risk Management
6.1.
Review of Risks
The table below presents the risks and assumptions that were identified during the design of the project. They were part of the log-frame in the project document that was approved by MOE, MAFRD, UNDP and GEF. Following the review of these risks, some changes are proposed in the right column in the table below:
Objective: To strengthen systemic, institutional and individual capacity to integrate Rio Convention themes into national, regional and local decision-making
Risks
Revised Risks
Continued government commitment to conventions and integration of environment and development EU accession proceeds in Jan. 2007
Government priorities may change including the government commitment to integrate conventions obligations into environment management framework in Romania (political); The objective of the project might be too ambitious and the support from the project resources and the government resources and the timeframe may not be adequate to initiate the changes required by the project strategy (strategic);
Outcome 1: Enhanced institutional, legislative, policy and planning framework for implementing Rio Convention commitments
Political will to include convention themes in legislation, norms and public policy-making processes Ministries and departments within them will work together Decentralization process continues Government and ministry openness to stakeholder involvement Legal expertise available for legislative review and reform New policy-making structures and processes become functional Senior government officials support integration of conventions at policy level SOE reporting system continues to be supported Procedural norms established for convention reporting
The government does not fulfil its international obligations; including those from the 3 Rio Conventions (political); New legislation and policies proposed by the project are not adopted by the Government and/or the Parliament (political); Despite new legislation for a multi-agency coordination mechanism to address conventions obligations no institutional changes occur (strategic); The institutional changes might not be followed by appropriate level of resources (HR and $$) to implement the changes (operational);
Outcome 2: Improved capacity of MOE and MAFRD to integrate environmental and sectoral resource management
Senior management support and direction for outcome Current ministry structures remain relatively stable for the duration of the project Willingness of ministries and their staff to collaborate, overcoming past competition and conflicts Understanding, assimilation and implementation of the integrated model
The institutional changes might not be followed by these institutions working better together (operational) New tools are adopted but they may require additional resources to be used; which might not be available (operational); The RCM model and IRM tools are adopted by the Ministry but the uptake by the regions is not happening facing too
Project Inception Report
Page 22
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
Risks
Revised Risks
Training is targeted to relevant units and positions Training addresses needs Willingness and availability of national, regional and local authorities to participate in RCMs Complementarity with EU capacity building programmes and projects RCMs function and can agree on suitable demonstration activities Interest in peer network concept on the part of government staff
many constraints and capacity gaps (operational); Monitoring the conventions obligations is strengthened but results are not reported fully due to political interference (political)
Outcome 3: Effective, efficient, and adaptive project management, monitoring and evaluation.
6.2.
The project partners (MOE, MAFRD, U of Bucharest, UNDP) will continue to support the project and allocate the required resources for its implementation (operational); Lack of relevant expertise in local market may result in delay of required outputs and distortion of targeted deadlines (operational);
Management Responses
Based on the proposed revised risks presented above, management responses were added and are presented in the table below. Revised Risks Objective: To strengthen systemic, institutional and individual capacity to integrate Rio Convention themes into national, regional and local decision-making
Outcome 1: Enhanced institutional, legislative, policy and planning framework for implementing Rio
Management Responses
Government priorities may change including the government commitment to integrate conventions obligations into environment management framework in Romania (political);
The government of Romania continues to be committed to improving the environmental management framework; including the decentralization within the 8 regions. The project will continue the advocacy at the government level and the local one, explaining the economic advantages of an integrated approach by all the available means
The objective of the project might be too ambitious and the support from the project resources and the government resources and the timeframe may not be adequate to initiate the changes required by the project strategy (strategic);
Periodic project monitoring and evaluation will ensure that the project is adapted over time to adjust to changing circumstances. Pressures to adopt SEA into a compulsory policy to mainstream the IRM
The government does not keep its commitment to fulfil its international obligations; including those from the 3 Rio Conventions (political); Project Inception Report
The project shall keep track on all inherent on overall institutional and legislative framework at the level of Romanian central administration either to support or to bring back on track the Government to fulfill its Page 23
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
Revised Risks Convention commitments
Outcome 2: Improved capacity of MOE and MAFRD to integrate environmental and sectoral resource management
Management Responses international commitments. The project shall screen regularly or on a communications to check them against procedural and content requirements under the commitments of the Rio Conventions
New legislation and policies proposed by the project are not adopted by the Government and/or the Parliament (political);
Political incertitude may be a continuous presence, considering both elections and crisis. To the possible extent, the project shall consider the lobby of the Parliament and/or political parties, precisely by stressing the non-partisan and hence non-political nature of the environmental management measures that should be empowered by law. The Management shall plan for meetings with political key persons (e.g. from Standing Committees form the Parliament) when-ever this is most likely to un-block the legislative process
Despite new legislation for a multi-agency coordination mechanism to address conventions obligations no institutional changes occur (strategic);
Although understood as rather sensitive, directly addressing institutional bottlenecks by meetings with high level officials in the central administration could be an effective way to advance in over passing any obligations. The project management shall table this point of “no institutional changes” to the administrators (public servants, if the case may be), not as a fixed once-for-ever framework, but rather like a process to improve the institutions without making them un-effective, not even in short bursts between two consecutive organisational structures.
The institutional changes might not be followed by appropriate level of resources (HR and $$) to implement the changes (operational);
In the first place, the project management shall identify the break-even point in the resource allocation, e.g. the level of resources bellow which the expected results may not be reached; the project team shall follow the budgeting from the State budget and plan for alternative responses on ad-hoc basis whenever the level of allocation (or of the disbursement) drops at a critical level- in that case, resource persons in the stakeholders structure shall be approached to react accordingly
The institutional changes might not be followed by these institutions working better together (operational);
The project team shall make use of stakeholders key-persons to foster cooperation meetings, being so in the format of “Working Groups” to address administrative barriers in application of “joint mechanisms”; instead of pushing for “championship” from the very beginning of IRM, the project team shall rise the points of critical cooperation issues..
New tools are adopted but they may require additional resources to be used; which might not be available (operational);
The project team shall make use of stakeholders key-persons to foster cooperation meetings, being so in the format of “Working Groups” to address administrative barriers in application of “joint mechanisms”;
Project Inception Report
Page 24
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
Revised Risks
Management Responses instead of pushing for “championship” from the very beginning of IRM, the project team shall rise the points of critical cooperation issues..
Outcome 3: Effective, efficient, and adaptive project management, monitoring and evaluation.
The RCM model and IRM tools are adopted by the Ministry but the uptake by the regions is not happening facing too many constraints and capacity gaps (operational);
The project management shall conduct specific promotion activities to attract additional resources (e.g. from EU funds) to mitigate the resource shortage, if the case may be.
Monitoring the conventions obligations is strengthened but results are not reported fully due to political interference (political);
The main problem would be mitigate political interference that may block the translation of the monitoring data into reports by specific use of red-tape (e.g. to endless circulate memos between ministries); the project management may not directly cut off the red-tape, but may push for transparency and access of the public to these info, thus removing (partially) the administrative barrier.
The project partners (MOE, MAFRD, U of Bucharest, UNDP) will continue to support the project and allocate the required resources for its implementation (operational);
Procedural delays at the University level shall be tackled by efforts to persuade the support units to follow effectively the procedures and to avoid excessive lag-time among simple administrative decisions
Lack of relevant expertise in local market may result in delay of required outputs and distortion of targeted deadlines (operational);
Implementation of project activities and recruitment of relevant national expertise will be monitored and actions will be identified if the lack of expertise is affecting the timely implementation of the project.
Discussion: Since the start of the project, a series of events were encountered, which affected/delayed the implementation of the project. Below is a discussion of these events and the management responses implemented by UNDP-CO. Appointment of the Project Manager (approximate time period dedicated in finding a mitigating solution: between June 2008-September 2008): According to the project document, the project manager was to be an employee of the University of Bucharest and to be paid by the project. As a result, the UNDP CO looked into the possibility of contracting the person nominated by the University of Bucharest (i.e. prof D.Manoleli). However a contract with UNDP for a project manager nominated was not feasible; it requires a competitive recruitment according to UNDP rules and procedures. Other options were explored including the direct recruitment by UNDP of the project team leader. Finally, the UNDP CO has agreed to the initial option, namely that Prof Manoleli be hired as the Project Manager, under contractual terms governed by the Romanian legislation, his salary and additional costs (as per the Romanian legislation) is to be charged against the project. His net salary was negotiated at 1500 USD. His formal contractual pay under the project started in November, 2008. The 2008-2009 elections and changes at government level - changes of staff, staff turnover and changes of priorities (approximate time period affected by these factors: October 2008-March 2009): Project Inception Report
Page 25
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
After the agreement between the UNDP CO and the University, the project implementation has been delayed due to elections. The National Steering Committee (NSC) was established with representatives from the following institutions: Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Agriculture, National Agency for Protected Areas. The project inception workshop and agreement over AWP, indicators, activities etc could not be held, as the Executing agency, and the PM team and NSC considered that the best solution in order to ensure political ownership will be to wait until the elections and changes in political and technical staff will be finalized. The situation has been brought to the attention of RTA BRC and recorded in ATLAS. Following the elections, the UNDP CO has visited the newly appointed minister of Environment (February 2009) in order to assess the political ownership. The new minister of environment has been very supportive to the objective of the project. However, over time the priorities of the Ministry of Environment seem to focus more on initiatives related to water and water treatment and less on Rio convention themes. The Biodiversity and Climate Change departments in the Ministry of Environment are severely understaffed. Nevertheless, meetings on the CBD reporting requirements and CHM role have been held, and linkages with the CB2 project and the integration of the implementation of the Rio Conventions were discussed. The Land Degradation focal point has left the Ministry of Agriculture in October 2008 and since that time, another focal point was nominated but left his position too. Currently, no focal point for land degradation has been nominated. Finally, the government stakeholders that were involved in the NSCA process and the development of the CB2 project are no longer working with the respective ministries; only two or three government officers are aware of the CB2 project, its objective and its strategy. As a result, the UNDP CO in collaboration with the project management team have undertaken the following measures: a. Meet the minister of environment to raise his awareness on the CB2 project. b. Discuss with the relevant ministries the CB2 project and the necessity for the urgent designation of Rio Conventions focal points and the urgency of the PM team to establish regular contacts with them. After a few awareness raising sessions conducted by the Project team, and repeated requests for nomination of a new Land Degradation focal point, the Ministry of Environment has designated a person to replace the former focal point, however this person was unaware of many important issues on Rio Conventions. Currently, the former focal point is back from studying abroad, but there is a certain degree of uncertainty on whether or not he will still working with the Ministry of Agriculture. c. Assist the CBD focal point to develop and timely submit the 4th National Report to the CBD. The project management team submitted the data obtained during the NBSAP stocktaking report, including the integrated data on biodiversity-climate change-land degradation. d. Assist the Climate Change focal point to formulate Romania’s position for COP-5 in Copenhagen. This was done through thematic participatory meetings, where all the CBD, CC and LD focal points have participated together with a large variety of stakeholders. These meetings demonstrated the necessity to integrate the three themes in international negotiations and reporting, as well as in all the national development planning. In addition to representatives from several government ministries, private sector, academia and civil society, high level politicians form the Romanian parliament were invited and asked to support the project. Insufficient ownership of the project at the level of National Executing Agency: Following significant changes of staff in key ministries there has been little interest in the CB2 project from the government side. This is not because the project is considered unimportant, but because there have been other pressing priorities such as: a. Uncertainty of positions occupied by government counterparts due to staff changes; b. High staff turnover due to several reasons such as political or financial; c. High administrative burden on ministries staff, including reporting requirements to the European Commission and a general confusion among the staff regarding the roles and responsibilities attached to their position; Project Inception Report
Page 26
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
d. Problems within the department of Biodiversity - where the CBD focal point is operating – with Natura 2000 sites; particularly the lack of implementation of management measures as per the requirements of the European Directives and – as a consequence - the imminent infringement threats. This critical situation is a high priority in biodiversity, preventing a focus on CBD reporting requirements and on the CB2 project. The National Executing Agency is expected to pass through many episodes like the one above mentioned. In fact, increasing the capacity to cope with these continuous modifications and external threats is one of the expected outputs of the CB2. The sense of ownership shall be gradually constructed- this is a strategic lessons from the permanence of the mentioned problems. The delegated Executing Agency, the University of Bucharest, has shown little ownership of the project. The Project Manager, as the University employee, was responsible with the relation with the University. However, obvious bottlenecks have been reported such as: e. Establish a separate bank account for the project has been difficult and it took a long time for UNDP CO to negotiate the opening of a separate bank account. The internal rule of the University states that all projects run through the University have to have a common bank account. UNDP CO spent time to explain the NEX implementation rules and procedures; f. The project manager doesn’t have signature authority, as per the University internal rules, and UNDP CO was not able to change this fact. The payments charged against the project are made by the University upon the request from the project manager and the approval from the economic department of the University; g. The process to procure goods and services through the University is lengthy and complex and it needs to be done by University staff through the centralized procurement process (not by the project manager). For instance, if the project needs office supplies the project team has to wait that the University conducts a procurement exercise for supplies so that the project’s order can be added to the general University order. This is time-consuming and it delays project activities. As a mitigation measure, the UNDP CO provides procurement services whenever the project needs to purchase goods and services; h. One of the most critical aspects with regards to procurement is the contracting modality of experts needed by the project to conduct studies and reviews. The legal and human resource personnel have been blocking the procurement of services on the basis of a recent government ordinance that stated that due to the financial crisis, vacant positions were frozen and, additionally, the government institutions will not recruit any additional staff. As a mitigation measure, the UNDP CO is currently negotiating with the management of the University in order to identify whether the procurement of goods and services can be conducted through the University or alternatively change the implementation arrangements of the project. Partially (or mostly) the issues were solved. To a certain extent, the University staff is now more aware about the need to adapt the rules to the reality. The impetuous of the EU funding has overlapped the CB2 activities, with obvious impact on the level of understanding and institutional capacity. This improvement shouldn’t be seen as enough to support further developments in CB2 activities, but rather as a positive and promising ground for future undertakings.
Project Inception Report
Page 27
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
7.
Monitoring and Evaluation Framework
Based on the review of the indicators and the risks linked to the implementation of this project, the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan of the project was updated and completed: it is presented in its complete form in Annex 5. This plan was presented to the stakeholders present at the inception workshop, as part of the presentation of the UNDP rules and procedures for project cycle management, and it was endorsed by these stakeholders.
8.
Co-Financing
The Government of Romania committed a co-financing amount of USD 710,000 that was supported by a cofinancing letter sent to GEF CEO. This amount includes in-kind contributions by providing office space, communication costs, a seconded staff and time from staff in the MOE and MAFRD. It also includes related projects implemented by both ministries. UNDP-Romania committed a co-financing amount of USD 20,000 in cash. The table below summarizes the co-financing for this project. Reporting this co-financing will be done in the annual PIRs, a requirement of GEF funded projects. Name of Co-financier (source) Ministry of Environment and Water Management Ministry of Environment and Water Management Ministry of Agriculture, Forest and Rural Development Ministry of Agriculture, Forest and Rural Development UNDP
Classification
Type
Amount (USD)
Government
In kind
60,000
Government
Related projects
60,000
Government
In kind
75,000
Government
Related projects
TRAC
Cash
Total Co-financing
515,000 20,000
730,000
Project Inception Report
Page 28
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
9.
Work Plan
9.1.
Project Overall Work Plan
An overall work plan is presented below for the entire duration of the project. #
Expected OUTPUTS
Planned Activities
Timeframe Y1
Y2
Y3
Partners
Budget /Source Funds, GEF
2009
Budget (USD) 2010 2011
Total (USD)
OBJECTIVE: To strgthen systemic, institutional and individual capacity to integrate Rio Convention Themes into national, regional and local decision-making OUTCOME 1. Enhanced institutional, legislative, policy and planning framework for implementing Rio Convention commitments 1.1
Output 1.1:. Institutional framework and processes for coordinated management and implementation of the Rio Convention established
NSC meeting.
X
Kick off Meeting
X
Define the responsibilities of convention implementation units within MAFRD and MoE and relationships among them underlying the conflict of competences from the organizing charts and describe the tasks Identify all other ministries, agencies and civil society organisations to be involved in convention management and define their respective roles, responsibilities and tasks Strengthen the convention implementation units (CBD and UNFCC in MoE and CCD within MAFRD) and define their responsibilities and relationships among them Integrate the conventions into forestry, agriculture, soils, protected areas, hunting and rural development programmes, as these all fall within MAFRD’s mandate. Also integrate key programmes in MoE include climate change/air quality and water management.
MoE, MAFRD CIU
X
X
ONG Line Ministries Conventions Focal Points
X
X
MAFRD (PNDAR, PNR, PND0 MoE (PNAPM)
71200- Int. consultants
7,090
7,015
0
14,105
71300- Local consultants
85600
29,820
26,380
141,800
71600 -Travel
3,800
2,500
1,500
7,800
800
500
500
1,800
0
9933
2,000
11,975
2,000
2,000
2,000
6,000
2,857
200
200
3,257
74100 - Audit
6500
6500
1,500
14,500
74200 – Audio Visual Print
2,000
3,500
3,000
8,500
74500 – Miscellaneous
500
500
500
1,500
111,147
62,480,
37,580
211,197
72100 – Workshops 72100 – Contractual Serv. 72400 Communication 72800 – IT Equipment
Sub-total Outcome 1 GEF:
Project Inception Report
Page 29
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
# 1.2
Expected OUTPUTS Output 1.2: Suggestions for amendments of legislation and norms to better enable mainstreaming of Rio Convention themes into policies, plans and programmes, submitted for Gov official approval.
Planned Activities Update the review on Romanian legislation and norms, finding weaknesses and gaps in relation to convention responsibilities
Timeframe Y1
Proposals to elaborate and modify the existing laws and norms to enable: - Compliance with convention obligations for each convention and for integration of biodiversity, climate change and land degradation issues; - Assignment of convention responsibilities to appropriate institutions and promotion of collaboration among them - Integration of conventions into development plans, sectorial plans and environmental action plans at local, regional and national levels; - Strengthening of review and permitting processes involving the assessment and mitigation of environmental impacts of developments, e.g. EIA could be amended to include issues related to impacts, vulnerability and adaptation to global climate change in.
Defining the responsibilities of the Public Policies Unit (UPP) and Inter-ministerial Councils for convention implementation, and ensuring that the composition of the Councils allows them to effectively consider environmental implications of policy proposals, including obligations under MEAs. Developing an environmental screening tool(s) to be used as part of the established process for public policy analysis, which already requires an assessment of environmental impacts Training staff in UPP
Research Institutions ONG MoE MAFRD
LEPA, REPA, NEPA LEPA, CREG
X X
ATU
X
UPP,MoE,M AFRD. ICARDE, ICRIDPPT
X
LEPA,REPA NEPA X
Targets would be established for achievement of thematic and crosscutting objectives for the Rio Conventions, to be used in monitoring progress and reporting to both national bodies and the conventions
Partners
X
The use of fiscal incentives to promote integration of Rio Convention themes, for example: - Revise selection criteria for projects financed through the Environmental Fund to promote projects that address cross-cutting convention themes, and - Create mechanisms to favour convention-related technology transfer (green certificates, white certificates, fiscal relaxation). Output 1.3: Screening, monitoring and reporting system, as part of Integrated Conventions requirements into sectorial policies, is in place
Y3
X
The use of independent technical services, as needed to complement ministry capacity in its duties.
1.3
Y2
MoE MAFRD
A special attention shall be paid to the training of UPP staff in order Project Inception Report
Page 30
Budget /Source Funds, GEF
2009
Budget (USD) 2010 2011
Total (USD)
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
#
Expected OUTPUTS
Planned Activities
Timeframe Y1
Y2
Y3
Partners
Budget /Source Funds, GEF
2009
Budget (USD) 2010 2011
Total (USD)
to ensure a good quantitative screening, monitoring and reporting
OUTCOME 2. Improved capacity of MoE and MAFRD to integrate environmental and sectoral resource management 2.1
Output 2.1:. Enhanced technical and managerial capacity of MoE and MAFRD staff to integrate environmental and sectoral resource management, using Integrated Resource Management techniques
A comprehensive institutional assessment of MoE and MAFRD, building on previous NCSA and EU effort to analyse strengths and weaknesses in integrating environment and natural resource management; including the revision of job descriptions
X
Roles and responsibilities for implementing conventions obligations clearly assigned to key job descriptions
X
A comprehensive training needs assessment, based on previous NCSA and EU effort, to identify individual training and learning needs of staff in national and decentralized offices of the MoE and MAFRD, including the National, Regional and Local Agencies for Environmental Protection
MoE MAFRD
MoE MAFRD, LEPA,REPA NEPA Ministry of Education ONG
X
Development of focused training programmes, using a mix of formal training (e.g., modules, workshops) with innovative training/learning programmes, including mentoring, on-the-job learning, field-based programmes (extension) and distance education (Internet-based). The use of train-the-trainer programmes will ensure that training programmes are institutionalized sustainable, and reach large numbers of staff. This approach will also include insertion of conventionrelated topics into existing training programmes run by the ministries, EU and other donors.
X
Monitoring, evaluation and revision to training programmes
MoE MAFRD, LEPA,REPA NEPA
71200- Int. consultants 71300- Local consultants 71600- Travel 72100 – Workshops 72100 – Monit.Evaluatio n 72100 – Contractual Serv. 72400 Communication 72800 – IT Equipment 74100 - Audit
Sub-total GEF: 2.2
Output 2.2: Codes of good practice, checklists and training established to strengthen Integrated Resource Management tools
A review of the current systems for EIA and SEA, especially procedures and practices for follow-up and monitoring after EIA, which was identified in NCSA as a weakness that undermines the aim of EIA, which is to ensure that environmental impacts of development are avoided or mitigated during construction and operation
X
Revise EIA and SEA processes, as recommended in the review above
X
Review additional IRM tools used in Romania (as in Table 6 of prodoc) to identify strengths, weaknesses and recommendations to strengthen these processes. Focus on the tools seen as most valuable
X
Project Inception Report
MoE MAFRD, LEPA,REPA NEPA
MoE ANIF
Page 31
7,015
0
14,105
62,220
49,200
15,640
127,060
3,000
2,000
1,000
6,000
1,500
10,000
2,000
13,500
0
0
20,000
20,000
0
3,000
3,000
6,000
2,500
2,500
2,500
7,500
0
2,500
0
2,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
4,500
3,500
2,500
6,000
200
200
238
700
78,010
81,415
47,378
207,803
74200 – Audio Visual Print 74500 – Miscellaneous
Activities of and training the staff and sharing the best practices order to have a good report on SOE
7,090
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
#
2.3
Expected OUTPUTS for integrating environment into sectoral programmes and projects
Output 2.3: Regional Coordinating Mechanisms (RCMs) are established and implemented as demonstration models in two of Romania’s eight Development Regions (DRs), then expanded to the remaining six regions, based on lessons learned
Planned Activities
Timeframe Y1
Y2
Output 2.4: A peer training network and database to support integrated resource management is established to
Partners
by Ministry staff (as identified in the needs assessment).
Practical training for relevant government and scientific staff in applying the above tools, including train-the-trainer programmes, in which technical assistance will be provided to co-design “Made in Romania” hands-on training programmes, tailored to specific needs and circumstances in the country
X
An RCM “demonstration model” for interagency collaboration will be developed, setting out the composition, functioning accountability and responsibilities
X
Developing and agreeing the criteria to select two demonstration models within all Development Regions
X
A preliminary list of several priority issues that might be addressed to Regional Coordinating Mechanism Members (the final choice will be made by them)
X
X
A user-friendly Handbook (plain language, graphics, maps) will be prepared with guidelines for how the IMCC should work, drawing on lessons learned. Members of pilot RCMs will act as resource people at workshops for Development Regions who are starting a new RCM
X
X
MoE MAFRD MADA
X
Setting up a mechanism to share experiences through the Internet, exchanges of managerial and technical staff, seminars, workshops and on-going working groups organized around topics of mutual interest
X
This will be fully integrated with the administrative reforms, which
X
Project Inception Report
MoE MAFRD
Local Councils RDA EFA COAC OJCPI LEPA REPA, NEPA,TIFH MADA
X
The model will be tested in two pilot DRs, and the results will be monitored and evaluated. The results will be reported to senior officials of the participating ministries and agencies, who will decide how the model might be revised for general adoption. The model must be flexible enough to be adapted to different regions.
The peer network is designed to take advantage of the skills and creativity of many field level environmental and natural resource managers, based on common use of communicating validated tools
NACA ICARDE ICRIDPPT
X
Development of codes of good practice and checklists to support various IRM processes, including design, planning, implementation, follow-up and monitoring stages
The two regions who are piloting the “demonstration model” RCMs will undertake one or more projects where they will apply the Integrated Resource Management tools and training/capacity being developed under outputs 2.1 and 2.2 to a priority regional issue 2.4
Y3
Page 32
Budget /Source Funds, GEF
2009
Budget (USD) 2010 2011
Total (USD)
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
#
Expected OUTPUTS serve regional and local environmental and resource management staff.
Planned Activities
Timeframe Y1
Y2
Y3
Partners
Budget /Source Funds, GEF
2009
Budget (USD) 2010 2011
Total (USD)
aim to create a professional civil service and promote a knowledgebased society. The peer network and database will also serve to reinforce the individual and institutional capacity that will be built through technical assistance and training during the project It will be coupled with a simple database focused on the topic of Integrated Resource Management, which is fully integrated with MoE and MAFRD databases. It will include lists of government and outside contact people, experts, published and electronic resources, training courses and training materials
X
OUTCOME 3. Effective, efficient and adaptive project management, monitoring and evaluation 3.1
9.2.
Output 3.1: Project well managed including progress reports as per UNDP and GEF standards.
This output includes establishing the project management office, the project steering committee and the project progress and impactmonitoring framework. It also includes adequate mobilization of project resources, regular monitoring and reporting of project progress, stakeholder consultations and periodic evaluations to identify changes as adaptive management
X
X
X
X
X
X
71300- Local consultants
13,300
13,400
13,300
40,000
71600- Travel
3,000
2,000
7,000
12,000
Sub-total GEF:
16,300
15,400
20,300
52,000
Total GEF:
196,457
170,223
105,120
470,000
Progress to Date
From June 2008 to date (May 2009), the project inception phase took place. A series of activities took place to establish the project. A summary is presented below: Recruitment of project staff The project staff - Project Manager and Project Assistant started being paid only in November, 2008. However, recruitment process was started in August, 2008. TORs attached, and Minutes of both recruitments can also be included. Recruitment of Senior International Technical Advisor Based on attached TORs and bidding process, a SITA was contracted in March, 2009. Minutes of Selection Process can be attached. As well, it is included the SOW for his first year assignments. Office set-up As per the agreement between UNDP/GEF and the government of Romania, the Delegated Executing Agency (University of Bucharest) provided office space as government in-kind contribution to the project. Equipment and furniture was purchased by UNDP in accordance with UNDP/GEF procedures. Inventory List attached. Project Inception Report
Page 33
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
Designation of NSC and first meeting held As mentioned above, it has 7 members. List of constituency attached. Minutes of first meeting too. Mitigation of procedural bottlenecks Unfortunately, a series of events encountered have slowed down the implementation of the project. The changes of government staff between the project preparation phase (2006) and the date of the project approval (2008) as well as the changes following the 2008-2009 elections, have led to a weak awareness of government on the project. Weak ownership of delegated EA and operational bottlenecks have been further delayed the progress in implementation. UNDP CO and the project management team have met the minister of environment and other government representatives to raise awareness on the project and reinforce political support. Furthermore, UNDP CO and GEF political focal point have met the delegated executing agency’s management in order to remove procedural constraints and mitigate their internal cumbersome procedures. Awareness was created on the importance of the timely implementation of the planned activities for the achievement of the ultimate objective of the project. Organize of the Inception Workshop Held on April 26th, 2009 – with Minutes attached. Development of the Stakeholders Data Basis Starting from suggestions at the Inception Workshop, a Directory of Project related Stakeholders began being developed. To date, it lists about 2,800 entries. Awareness raising events on Rio themes Noteworthy for this reporting period until end 2009, is the series of roundtable discussions meetings initiated by UNDP CO and the project in anticipation to Copenhagen UNFCCC COP 15 ; the first meeting started on June 5 with the occasion of the World Environment Day and address climate change as a cross-sectoral development objectives and discussing themes that fall under the Rio Conventions such as: biodiversity loss, desertification, deforestation, carbon sink potential, carbon market, transport, energy efficiency etc emphasizing the need for an integrated approach of the three issues: climate change, biodiversity and desertification. The second meeting, has assisted the CC focal point in formulating Romania’s position for COP-5 in Copenhagen. The stakeholders have suggested issues of national importance that addressed all three Conventions themes, to be raised during negotiations. These thematic participatory roundtables discussion meetings will be concluded with non-papers addressing suggestions for the improvement of legislation, policies, norms and programmes related to Rio Conventions themes. Identification of Initial Short-Term Consultancies In order to kick-start project activities, three consultancies were identified; there are: Terms of Reference 1 Review the conventions obligations signed by Romania and the current status of the implementation of these conventions in Romania; including national action plans, national progress reports and communications. A lot of this information should already exist in the NCSA reports; it should mostly be an update of what is already available. This consultant will be assisted by a legal adviser, whose TOR are currently under development. Terms of Reference 2 Review the environmental management framework in place in Romania; particularly in the areas related to the Rio Conventions: climate change, biodiversity and land Project Inception Report
Page 34
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
degradation. Review how the legislative, policy and institutional frameworks integrate the MEAs obligations in Romania. A basis exists in the NCSA reports and the prodoc but it needs to be updated with any legislative, policy and institutional changes that were implemented since the project was conceptualized; particularly within the context of the harmonization with the EU Directives. In parallel to this stocktaking exercise, the project has started the identification of two pilot regions, which will be pilot sites to test the Regional Coordination Mechanism (RCM). Terms of Reference 3 The project has a short timeframe and its success will depend a lot on the results from the piloting of the RCM in these two regions; including the potential to replicate this RCM to all (8) regions of Romania. It is proposed to start with a first assignment to scan all regions of Romania and using a multi-criteria approach to propose a selection of two regions to become the project pilot.
9.3.
#
Work Plan for Period July 2009 - June 2010 Expected OUTPUTS
Timeframe
Planned Activities Planned activities for the year ahead
Q3/09
Q4/09
Q1/10
Outcome 1: Enhanced institutional, legislative, policy and planning framework for implementing Rio Convention commitments 1.1
Output 1.1: Institutional framework and processes for coordinated management and implementation of the Rio Convention established
Strengthen the convention implementation units (CBD and UNFCC in MOE and CCD within MAFRD) and define their responsibilities and relationships among them. Define the roles of MoE and MAFRD in convention implementation within their own departments, agencies and programmes at the national, regional and local levels, and establish formal collaborative mechanisms to enhance synergies. Particular focus will be placed on integrating the conventions into forestry, agriculture, soils, protected areas, hunting and rural development programmes, as these all fall within MAFRD’s mandate. Key programmes in MOE include climate change/air quality and water management. Define the roles of MoE and MAFRD in implementing the conventions through their relationships with other ministries, for example, during regulatory and review processes, such as EIA and permitting for proposed developments. This includes defining the responsibilities of Project Inception Report
Studies on the status of the implementation of the Rio Convention, institutional set-up following NCSA work, in order to assess gaps and design recommendations .
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
These studies will be undertaken in order to: -Identify the Rio Conventions Focal Points Staff and define their responsibilities and relationships among them. - Define the roles of MoE and MAFRD in convention implementation - Define the roles of MoE and MAFRD in implementing the conventions through their relationships with other ministries
Page 35
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
Q2/10
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
#
1.2
1.3
Expected OUTPUTS
Output 1.2: Suggestion for the ammendments of legislation and norms to better enable mainstreaming of Rio Convention themes into policies, plans and programmes submitted to the Gov for official approval
Output 1.3. Screening, monitoring and reporting system, as part of Integrated Conventions
Timeframe
Planned Activities Planned activities for the year ahead the National, Regional and Local Environmental Protection Agencies. Identify all other ministries, agencies and civil society organisations to be involved in convention management and define their respective roles, responsibilities and tasks. This would build on the work done during the NCSA -
- Identify all other ministries, agencies and civil society organisations to be involved in convention management and define their respective roles, responsibilities and tasks
Building on the work done in the NCSA Thematic Assessments, conduct a thorough review of Romanian legislation and norms to find weaknesses and gaps in relation to convention responsibilities. Elaborate and modify laws and norms to enable: Compliance with convention obligations for each convention and for integration of biodiversity, climate change and land degradation issues; Assignment of convention responsibilities to appropriate institutions and promotion of collaboration among them; Integration of conventions into development plans, sectorial plans and environmental action plans at local, regional and national levels; Strengthening of review and permitting processes involving the assessment and mitigation of environmental impacts of developments, e.g. EIA could be amended to include issues related to impacts, vulnerability and adaptation to global climate change in. The use of independent technical services, as needed to complement ministry capacity. The use of fiscal incentives to promote integration of Rio Convention themes, for example, o Revise selection criteria for projects financed through the Environmental Fund to promote projects that address cross-cutting convention themes, and o Create mechanisms to favor convention-related technology transfer (green certificates, white certificates, fiscal relaxation). Defining the responsibilities of the Public Policies Unit (UPP) and Inter-ministerial Councils for convention implementation, and ensuring that the composition of the Councils allows them to effectively consider environmental implications of policy proposals, including obligations
Building on the work done in the NCSA Thematic Assessments, conduct a thorough review of Romanian legislation and norms to find weaknesses and gaps in relation to convention responsibilities.
Project Inception Report
Q3/09
Q4/09
Q1/10 xxxxxx
xxxxxx
Develop recommendation and suggestions to address gaps in the synergic implementation of the Rio Conventions.
Q2/10 xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx
-Defining the responsibilities of the Public Policies Unit (UPP) and Inter-ministerial Councils -Capacity needs assessment of the training for Page 36
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
#
Expected OUTPUTS requirements into sectoral policies, is in place.
Timeframe
Planned Activities Planned activities for the year ahead under MEAs. Developing an environmental screening tool(s) to be used as part of the established process for public policy analysis, which already requires an assessment of environmental impacts. Training staff in the UPP, Inter-ministerial Councils and relevant government ministries on how to use the environmental screening tool to assess and mitigate the environmental impacts of policies, plans and programmes Targets would be established for achievement of thematic and cross-cutting objectives for the Rio Conventions, to be used in monitoring progress and reporting to both national bodies and the conventions
Q3/09
recently established public policy units (PPUs)
Q4/09 xxxxxx
- Development of a training module for the Inter-ministerial Committee no 8 and PPUs from ministries.
Q1/10
Q2/10
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
Outcome 2: Improved capacity of MoE and MAFRD to integrate environmental and sectoral resource management 2.1
2.2
Output 2.1: Enhanced technical and managerial capacity of MOE and MAFRD staff to integrate environmental and sectoral resource management, using Integrated Resource Management techniques
Output 2.2: Codes of good practice,
A comprehensive institutional assessment of MoE and MAFRD, building on previous NCSA and EA efforts to analyse strengths and weaknesses in integrating environment and natural resource management. Implementation of recommended institutional changes (e.g., organigrammes, collaborative mechanisms) A comprehensive training needs assessment, based on previous NCSA efforts, to identify individual training and learning needs of staff in national and decentralized offices of the MoE and MAFRD, including the National, Regional and Local Agencies for Environmental Protection. Development of focused training programmes, using a mix of formal training (e.g., modules, workshops) with innovative training/learning programmes, including mentoring, on-the-job learning, field-based programmes (extension) and distance education (Internet-based). The use of train-the-trainer programmes will ensure that training programmes are institutionalized sustainable, and reach large numbers of staff. This approach will also include insertion of convention-related topics into existing training programmes run by the ministries, EU and other donors. Monitoring, evaluation and revision to training programmes. A review of the current systems for EIA and SEA, especially procedures and practices for follow-up and monitoring after EIA, which was identified in NCSA as a weakness that Project Inception Report
A comprehensive institutional assessment of MoE and MAFRD, building on previous NCSA efforts to analyse strengths and weaknesses in integrating environment and natural resource management. Implementation of recommended institutional changes (e.g., organigrammes, collaborative mechanisms) A comprehensive training needs assessment, based on previous NCSA efforts to identify individual training and learning needs of staff in national and decentralized offices of the MoE and MAFRD, including the National, Regional and Local Agencies for Environmental Protection
xxxxxx
A review of the current systems for EIA and SEA, especially procedures and practices for follow-up and monitoring after EIA, which
xxxxxx
Page 37
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxx
xxxxx
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
#
Expected OUTPUTS checklists and training established to strengthen Integrated Resource Management tools for integrating environment into sectoral programmes and projects
2.3
Output 2.3: Regional Coordinating Mechanisms (RCMs) are established and implemented as demonstration models in two of Romania’s eight Development Regions (DRs), then expanded to the remaining six regions, based on lessons learned
Timeframe
Planned Activities Planned activities for the year ahead undermines the aim of EIA, which is to ensure that environmental impacts of development are avoided or mitigated during construction and operation. Revise EIA and SEA processes, as recommended in the review above. Review additional IRM tools used in Romania (as in Table 6 of prodoc) to identify strengths, weaknesses and recommendations to strengthen these processes. Focus on the tools seen as most valuable by Ministry staff (as identified in the needs assessment). Development of codes of good practice and checklists to support various IRM processes, including design, planning, implementation, follow-up and monitoring stages. Practical training for relevant government and scientific staff in applying the above tools, including train-the-trainer programmes, in which technical assistance will be provided to co-design “Made in Romania” hands-on training programmes, tailored to specific needs and circumstances in the country
An RCM “demonstration model” for interagency collaboration will be developed, setting out the composition, functioning accountability and responsibilities. The model will be tested in two pilot DRs, and the results will be monitored and evaluated. The results will be reported to senior officials of the participating ministries and agencies, who will decide how the model might be revised for general adoption. The model must be flexible enough to be adapted to different regions. A user-friendly Handbook (plain language, graphics, maps) will be prepared with guidelines for how the IMCM should work, drawing on lessons learned. Members of pilot RCMs will act as resource people at workshops for Development Regions who are starting a new RCM The two regions who are piloting the “demonstration model” RCMs will undertake one or more projects where they will apply the Integrated Resource Management tools and training/capacity being developed under outputs 2.1 and 2.2 Project Inception Report
was identified in NCSA as a weakness that undermines the aim of EIA, which is to ensure that environmental impacts of development are avoided or mitigated during construction and operation. Revise EIA and SEA processes, as recommended in the review above. Review additional IRM tools used in Romania (as in Table 6 of prodoc) to identify strengths, weaknesses and recommendations to strengthen these processes. Focus on the tools seen as most valuable by Ministry staff (as identified in the needs assessment). Practical training for relevant government and scientific staff in applying the above tools, including train-the-trainer programmes, in which technical assistance will be provided to co-design “Made in Romania” hands-on training programmes, tailored to specific needs and circumstances in the country Design of the selection criteria for the two pilot regions Selection of the two regions An RCM “demonstration model” for interagency collaboration will be developed, setting out the composition, functioning accountability and responsibilities. The model will be tested in two pilot DRs, and the results will be monitored and evaluated. The results will be reported to senior officials of the participating ministries and agencies, who will decide how the model might be revised for general adoption. The model must be flexible enough to be adapted to different regions
Page 38
Q3/09
xxxxxx
Q4/09
Q1/10
Q2/10
xxxxx
xxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxx
xxxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxx
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
#
Expected OUTPUTS
Timeframe
Planned Activities Planned activities for the year ahead
Q3/09
Q4/09
Q1/10
Q2/10
to a priority regional issue. Table 6 (from prodoc) provides a preliminary list of several priority issues that might be addressed. The final choice will be made by the RCM members
2.4
Output 2.4: A peer training network and database to support integrated resource management is established to serve regional and local environmental and resource management staff
The peer network is designed to take advantage of the skills and creativity of many field level environmental and natural resource managers by setting up a mechanism to share experiences through the Internet, exchanges of managerial and technical staff, seminars, workshops and on-going working groups organized around topics of mutual interest. This will be fully integrated with the administrative reforms, which aim to create a professional civil service and promote a knowledge-based society. The peer network and database will also serve to reinforce the individual and institutional capacity that will be built through technical assistance and training during the project. It will be coupled with a simple database focused on the topic of Integrated Resource Management, which is fully integrated with MoE and MAFRD databases. It will include lists of government and outside contact people, experts, published and electronic resources, training courses and training materials
-Begin to establish a peer network for sharing knowledge and experiences in environmental and natural resource management -Start a simple data base on topics such as the Integrated Resource Management, fully linked with the line ministries data bases and CBD CHM.
Outcome 3. Effective, efficient and adaptive project management, monitoring and evaluation 3.1
The project office is established and staff is hired. Project management
UNDP and Government to establish the Project Office o Identify and make the Project Office operational o Hire project staff Project Inception Report
UNDP and Government to establish the Project Office o Identify and make the Project Office operational o Hire project staff Page 39
xxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxx
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
Expected OUTPUTS
#
processes are established and progress, evaluation and monitoring reports are produced to GEF and UNDP standards.
9.4.
Timeframe
Planned Activities Planned activities for the year ahead Manage and Administer the project according GEF/UNDP procedures: o Produce Annual Work Plan (AWP) o Develop the budget and implement UNDP/GEF administrative procedures. o Develop TORs for Experts/Consultants o Implement the Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) plan o Produce monthly, quarterly and Annual project progress reports
Manage and Administer the project according GEF/UNDP procedures: o Produce Annual Work Plan (AWP) Develop the budget and implement UNDP/GEF administrative procedures. o Develop TORs for Experts/Consultants o Implement the Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) plan o Produce monthly, quarterly and Annual project progress reports
Q3/09
xxxxxx
Q4/09
xx x x x x
Q1/10
xxxxxx
Q2/10
xxxxx
Targets for Year 2009-2010
To design of an appropriate mechanism of cooperation between the two competent authorities (the two line ministries)
To design the coordination mechanisms established among convention units and between these units and the relevant ministries and units
An updated report on stakeholders responsibilities concerning the management of the implementation of the three conventions
Report on weaknesses and gaps in relation to integrated approach of Rio conventions from legal and political point of view and proposals for amending the provisions from the existing laws and regulations
A report to define the competent authorities responsibilities in the implementation of public policies that will impact on environment.
A Regulation book on the modality in which the permanent Inter-ministerial commissions will analyze and decide on the implementation of Rio Conventions and mainstreaming the environment policy into sectoral policies.
To edit a guide for the national reporting under the three Conventions accompanied by a methodology of integrated reporting based on synergies between the three Conventions.
To have a comprehensive individual training needs assessment and a training plan dedicated to the centralized and decentralized agencies’ staff
To identify the IRM tools already used in Romania, underlying the strengths and weaknesses and advancing recommendations to improve the EIA and SEA processes
To add additional guides, codes of good practices, checklists, etc
To test the RCM in two Development Regions in Romania and refine them, in such a manner to implement the model in the remaining Development Regions Project Inception Report
Page 40
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
10.
To Design the content for the peer training network
Budget / Disbursements for Period 2009-2010
Outcome 1 : Enhanced institutional, legislative, policy and planning framework for implementing Rio Convention commitments Budget source GEF
Code Atlas
71200
International Consultants
71300
Local Consultatnts
71600
Travel
72100
Contractual Services Workshop Contractul Services Monitoring and Evaluation
72100
Contractual services
72400
Communications
72800
Equipment IT
74100
Audit
74200
Audio Visual Print
74500
Miscellaneus
72100
TOTAL
Iulie – septembrie 2009
0ctombrie – Decembrie 2009
Ianuarie – Martie 2010
Aprilie – Iunie 2010
TOTAL GEF
0
9.309
0
0
9.309
20.737
36.300
13.451
16.500
86.988
0
3.498
0
1.122
4.620
264
330
198
264
1.056
660
1.320
1.320
660
3.960
1.980
8.496
1.980
1.980
14.436
990
990
990
990
3.960
1.886
0
264
0
2.150
0
6.930
2.970
1.320
11.220
330
1.980
1.320
1.980
5.610
0
330
330
330
990
26.847
69.483
22.823
25.146
144.299
Outcome 2. Improved capacity of MoE and MAFRD to integrate environmental and sectoral resource management Budget source GEF 71200
Code Atlas
International consultant
Iulie – septembrie 2009
0ctombrie – Decembrie 2009 0
Project Inception Report
Ianuarie – Martie 2010 0
4.689
Aprilie – Iunie 2010
TOTAL GEF
4.620 Page 41
9.309
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
71300
Local Consultants
0
60.350
13.200
10.322
83.873
71600
Travel
0
2.310
660
990
3.960
72100
330
2.970
2.970
2.970
9.240
0
0
6.600
6.600
13.200
72100
Contractual Services Workshop Contractul Services Monitoring and Evaluation Cotractual Services
0
1.980
990
990
3.960
72400
Communications
990
990
990
990
3.960
72800
Equipment
0
1.320
165
0
1.485
74100
Audit
660
660
660
990
2.970
74200
Audio Visual Print
330
1.980
330
1.320
3.960
74500
Miscellaneous
0
198
66
66
330
71300
Local Consultants
6.600
6.600
6.600
6.600
26.400
71600
Travel
1.980
1.320
1.980
2.640
7.920
10.890
80.678
39.900
39.098
170.567
72100
TOTAL
Outcome 3. Effective, efficient and adaptive project management, monitoring and evaluation
Budget source GEF
Code Atlas
Iulie – septembrie 2009
0ctombrie – Decembrie 2009
Ianuarie – Martie 2010
Aprilie – Iunie 2010
TOTAL GEF
71300
Local Consultants
6.600
6.600
6.600
6.600
26.400
71600
Travel
1.980
1.320
1.980
2.640
7.920
8.580
7.920
8.580
9.240
34.320
TOTAL
Project Inception Report
Page 42
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
Annexes Annex 1: Terms of Reference Terms of Reference:
Project Manager (full time)
Objective: The Project Manager will have overall responsibility for managing the organization, work plans, programmes and activities, as well as progress and financial reporting to the National Steering Committee and UNDP. The position will be filled up by a person designated by the National Executing Agency by a competition open to government service and the public. This is a senior level position and the successful candidate should have extensive experience in the implementation of environmental or land use planning projects, and the management of similar scale of projects, preferably with experience in capacity building and training programmes. The Project Manager will be the head of the Project Management Unit. The PMU will have operational and financial autonomy, including the authority to select and sub-contract specific project activities or components to local consultants and local institutions. The PM will perform a liaison role with government, UNDP and stakeholders. Terms of reference for this position include the following: Scope of work: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.
Establishment of the staffing and operations of a small Project Management Unit. Preparation of a Project Management Plan (Project Document), including a Monitoring and Evaluation Plan that meets GEF project standards. Drafting/reviewing of terms of reference for the National Steering Committee, Technical Committees and any Working Groups. Preparation of annual work plans, funds requisition, six-monthly progress and financial reporting and monitoring of outputs and outcomes as per GEF standards. Coordination with regional and local authorities and stakeholders in implementing project activities. Monitoring, and assisting as required, in the smooth operation of the Steering Committee and technical committees, and reporting on difficulties in achieving targets in annual work plans. Disbursement of funds as per operational procedures consistent with financial management standards of the Government and GEF. Preparation of a Monitoring and Evaluation Plan including templates and guidelines for reporting on activities and outputs. Secretariat services to the National Steering Committee. Reporting to the National Steering Committee and UNDP-GEF Coordinator on the progress and issues in project implementation. Facilitation of monitoring and evaluation missions by UNDP or designated consultants to UNDP.
General responsibilities: Under the guidance of the National Project Director and UNDP, the PM shall be responsible for the overall daily coordination of all aspects of the Project. The PM will be responsible for overseeing the Project team’s work and he/she will be ultimately responsible for the effective implementation of all Project activities. The Project Manager reports to the National Project Director (who will be nominated by the MOE). He/she will liaise directly with designated officials of the national and local governments, the UNDP, existing and potential additional Project donors, the National GEF Focal Point, and others as deemed appropriate and necessary by the PD or PM him/herself. The Project budget and associated work plan will provide guidance on the day-to-day implementation of the approved Project activities and on the integration of the various complementary initiatives. He/she shall be responsible for the delivery of all substantive, managerial and financial reports from and on behalf of the Project. He/she will provide overall supervision for all Project staff. The Project Manager will provide expert input in his/her area of expertise, coordinate contracted work necessary for Project implementation, and will organize and attend all consultations and meetings. Specific duties: Project Inception Report
Page 43
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
The PM will have the following specific duties: 1. Drafts Work Plan to be approved by the Steering Group; 2. Drafts ToRs for experts and subcontractors to be approved by Project director; 3. Organizes tender for experts according to ToRs approved (Finds experts); 4. Sets tasks and deadlines for experts and subcontractors; 5. Oversees the performance of experts and subcontracted companies; 6. Prepares all necessary documentation, reports, etc. for Steering group meetings; 7. Assists in drafting the MSP proposal for submission to GEF; 8. Organizes and undertakes consultations and workshops. Qualification Post-graduate degree in a directly related field (e.g. natural resource management; biodiversity conservation); Substantive knowledge of the issues covered by project Knowledge and experience in project management Familiarity with technical assistance projects and UNDP projects in Romania. Fluency in English and good writing skills are desirable. Previous work experience in the project region on issues directly related to the Project; Ability and willingness to travel; and, Demonstrable skills in using information technology (word processing, spread sheets) and familiarity with GIS applications.
Project Inception Report
Page 44
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
Terms of Reference:
Senior International Technical Advisor (part time)
(First Assignment of the Senior International Technical Advisor) Project title: Starting Date: Duration:
UNDP/GEF project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits” (CB2) - Romania March 2009 6 working home-based days
Scope of work: Under the overall guidance of the UNDP Program Manager and in cooperation with the Project Team Leader, the Senior International Technical Advisor is expected to work together with the National Project Implementing Partner in support of project implementation by providing technical advisory service. The scope of work will comprise a desk study to guide the inception phase as per tasks detailed below. Duties: 1. Project Work-Plan, in relationship to its objectives, the set deliverables, and the success indicators, according to indicated Outcomes, and the existing budget and time-frame. 2. Deriving from here, it shall be very useful to also have, from your point of view, which should be the main phases and events at which you will consider your inputs and participation essentially necessary, in order to best accomplish your general assignments with UNDP, as well as to have your contributions best identified and critically relevant. 3. Deducing from the above, then what the Annual Work Plan (AWP), shall comprise, from now, to this fall. 4. Any general Guideline, and Methodological approach suggestions, on how to best tackle and organize work, for ensuring the most effective and very successful implementation of the WP and this overall project's activities, shall be extremely useful. 5. Based on the Work Plan (WP), the list of deliverables; 6. Finally, which do you think that the number of people and their technical backgrounds should be, for constituting the Short Term Experts (STE) team, to work with, for ensuring coverage of necessary expertise. Immediately after the Inception Workshop, we’ll need your proposal for the STE TORs to be posted, for the expertise procurement process. Expected Outputs: A report summarizing the review of the project strategy, its risks and assumptions, its performance measurement (indicators) and its Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Framework (These elements will serve as a basis for the inception report). This report will also include some recommendations for the way forward such as methodology for the implementation of the project; major thematic areas and scope of TORs for possible working groups/experts and consultancy services for the project implementation; and work plan for the International Technical Advisor for the duration of the project. A Work plan template and guidance to complete the annual work plan for 2009.
Project Inception Report
Page 45
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
Guidelines for the contribution of the Senior International Technical Advisor over the entire project Following the initial review of 6 days, a total of 29 days is left to be spread over the project duration time that is until July 2011. As per the Terms of Reference, it is planned to use this effort in three parts; each one corresponding to a one-week mission to Romania as follows: First Mission Tentative Date: September/October 2009
Effort:
2 days home-based to prepare the mission 4 days in-country mission 3 days home-based to summarize project review
Review project start-up (stocktaking) phase Meet key project stakeholders Identify critical gaps and propose solutions Purpose: Review monitoring indicators Develop project implementation report (PIR) for 2009 Draft 2010 work plan and corresponding budget.
Second Mission Tentative Date: March/April 2010
Effort:
2 days home-based to prepare the mission 5 days in-country mission 3 days home-based to summarize project review
Review project activities and achievements so far Meet key project stakeholders Contribute to PIR 2009-2010 Purpose: Review possible adjustments to the implementation Scope mid-term evaluation Review the 2010 work plan and budget
Third Mission Tentative Date: January 2011
Effort:
2 days home-based to prepare the mission 5 days in-country mission 3 days home-based to summarize project review
Review achievements/results so far Meet key project stakeholders Review mid-term evaluation results and management response Purpose: Contribute to PIR 2010-2011 Develop the 2011 work plan Adjustments to the implementation approach (if needed) Prepare project closure plan
Project Inception Report
Page 46
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
Annex 2: Inception Workshop proceedings Agenda and IWS documents
Programul ONU pentru Dezvoltare
Fondul Global pentru Mediu
Ministerul Mediului
Universitastea din Bucuresti
PROIECTUL CB2: Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits INVITATIE Avem placerea sa va invitam, in calitatea de expert profesionist in domeniul gospodaririi apelor si de director al unuia dintre departamentele cele mai implicate in realizarea obiectivelor prezentului proiect, la Workshop-ul de Initiere a Programului UNDP-GEF pentru Romania: “Intarirea capacitatii de integrare a managementului de mediu si al resurselor naturale pentru beneficii globale de mediu”, ce va avea loc miercuri, 29 aprilie, 2009, orele 12:00, la Ministerul Mediului, Sala de Consiliu, Bdul. Libertatii nr. 12 – et. I. Proiectul are ca obiectiv elaborarea strategiei de integrare a indeplinirii obligatiilor guvernului Romaniei privind conformarea cu cerintele celor trei conventii de la Rio, ratificate de tara noastra: Biodiversitate, Schimbari Climatice, si Desertificarea. La workshop se va face cunoscut si se va supune dezbaterii Planul de Lucru propus de echipa de proiect, in vederea atingerii cu succes a obiectivului de mai sus, sub aspect administrativ/ institutional si al capacitatilor tehnice si manageriale la nivel national, institutional si individual. Avand in vedere ca institutia dumneavoastra este direct implicata, prin programe si responsabilitati asumate la intrarea in UE privind conformarea de mediu si respectarea conventiilor internationale ratificate de Romania, apreciem ca participarea la acest eveniment si opiniile dumneavoastra sunt foarte importante. Materialele care vor fi supuse dezbaterii publice va vor fi trimise imediat dupa confirmarea participarii dumneavoastra Va rugam sa ne confirmati sau sa infirmati posibilitatea de a raspunde acestei invitatii, sau sa delegati, in caz ca va este imposibil sa fiti prezent, un alt reprezentant al institutiei dumneavoastra, la tel.: 0722 218 701 Rodica Stefanescu, sau la tel: 0727 368 805 Stamate Sorina si prin e-mail:
[email protected] ,
[email protected] sau
[email protected] Va multumim, si va asteptam! Prof.dr.Dan MANOLELI Manager
Project
Bucuresti, 17. 04.2009
Project Inception Report
Page 47
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
Programul ONU pentru Dezvoltare
Fondul Global pentru Mediu
Ministerul Mediului
Universitastea din Bucuresti
UNDP Project Document UNDP-GEF Medium-Size Project (MSP) Government of Romania United Nations Development Programme
PIMS 3069 Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits Brief description The proposed CB-2 project aims to expand Romania’s capacity to generate global environmental benefits through mainstreaming the Rio Conventions into national, regional and local decision-making. It will do this, firstly, by enhancing the enabling environment for convention implementation, including modifying institutional, legislative, policy and reporting frameworks to reflect convention commitments and, secondly, by improving institutional and individual capacity within the lead agencies for convention implementation (ME and MAFRD). The latter component will strengthen mechanisms, tools and training to support the use of Integrated Resource Management to mainstream conventions themes into sectoral plans and programmes. The project also addresses the objectives of the three GEF focal areas and three of the four interim programming priorities under GEF Strategic Priority CB-2, Cross-cutting Capacity Development: (1) Improve national convention institutional structures and mechanisms; (2) Strengthen policy, legislative and regulative framework; and (3) Mainstream global environmental priorities into national policies and programmes The project is consistent with a key UNDP programme objective for Romania: to enhance environmental governance at national and local levels for better compliance with EU standards and international conventions, through policy development and integration of environment into other sectors. Acronyms: NCSA – National Capacity Self Assessment); CB2 – Capacity Building 2; CBD – Convention on Biological Diversity); CCD – Convention to Combat Desetification; EPA – Environmental Protection Agency; FCCC – Framework Convention on Climate Change); GEF – Global Environment Facility; IRM – Integrated Resource Management; MAFRD – Ministry of Agriculture, Forests and Rural Development; ME – Ministry of the Environment; MSP – Medium Size Project; PIR – Peer Internal Review; RCM – Regional Coordination Mechansisms; SOE – State of the Environment; UNDP – United Nations Development Program
Romania has ratified over 20 Multinational Environmental Agreements since 1992, including the “Rio Conventions” on biodiversity, climate change and land degradation (CBD, FCCC, CCD) and prepared related Action Plans. Romania’s accession to the EU in January 2007 has triggered improvements to the institutional, legal and policy framework for environmental management, and led to the preparation of numerous environmental and sectoral plans, strategies and programmes. However, Rio conventions management has continued to be fragmented and uncoordinated, and conventions implementation has been weak, due, in part, to poor integration of convention themes into EU-related reforms in policy-making, environmental and natural resource management, public administration, decentralization and regional and local planning.
Project Inception Report
Page 48
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
Date: April 29th, 2009 Goal: CB2 Project Inception – for discussion on Work Plan, budget, outputs /indicators, logframe Location: Ministry of the Environment – Council Room Participants: 38, from almost all specialized departments of ministries and national institutions responsible structures; List attached Duration: 12:00 – 18:00 Meeting was opened by the salute of the UN Ambassador to Romania – speech attached. It expressed the UN will to responsibly be involved in the natural resources global management, a world patrimony which is at threat. The presentation of the NEX (National Execution) projects framework by Ms. Monica Moldovan (Head of Energy and Environment Department of UNDP Romania) followed (material attached). It detailed aspects of GEF funding rules, as well as UNDP role and responsibilities, as project Implementation Agency. Mr. Dan Manoleli, the Project Manager has presented the project aims and objectives and the overview of the expected results, and the success indicators of the project. The presentation detailed both the outputs and the activities to lead to outcomes achievement. Plenary discussions referring to the presented documents have addressed the manner in which the project tasks and proposed actions are considered relevant, feasible, pertinent, and coherent to the goals in view. Table 1.Initial project Logic Model Initial Project Logic Model Goal To expand Romania’s capacity to generate global environmental benefits through mainstreaming the Rio Conventions into national decision-making. Objective To strengthen systemic, institutional and individual capacity to integrate Rio Convention themes into national, regional and local decision-making. Outcome 1: Enhanced institutional, legislative, policy and planning framework for implementing Rio Convention commitments.
Outcome 2: Improved capacity of MOE and MAFRD to integrate environmental and sectoral resource management.
Output 2.1: Enhanced technical and managerial Output 1.1: Institutional framework capacity of MOE and MAFRD staff to and processes for integrate environmental and sectoral coordinated management and resource management, using Integrated implementation of the Rio Resource Management techniques Convention established Output 2.2: Codes of good practice, checklists and Output 1.2: Legislation and norms training established to strengthen amended to better enable Integrated Resource Management tools for mainstreaming of Rio integrating environment into sectoral Convention themes into programmes and projects policies, plans and Output 2.3: Regional Coordinating Mechanisms programmes. (RCMs) are established as demonstration Output 1.3: Environmental models in two of Romania’s eight screening is part of the Development Regions, then expanded to national policy-making the remaining six regions, based on lessons process, and officials within learned the Public Policies Unit and Output 2.4: Each of the two model Regional Project Inception Report
Page 49
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
two Inter-ministerial Councils Coordinating Mechanisms implements a are able to use it to integrate demonstration activity which shows how conventions into sectoral Integrated Resource Management tools can policies be used to address priority regional issues Output 1.4: A convention monitoring and the results are disseminated to all eight system is part of national Development Regions State of the Environment Output 2.5: A peer training network and database reporting, with targets and to support integrated resource management indicators to assess progress is established to serve regional and local on implementing the Rio environmental and resource management Conventions staff.
Table 2.Revised Project Logic model with agreed changes at the level of Outputs Revised Project Logic Model Goal To expand Romania’s capacity to generate global environmental benefits through mainstreaming the Rio Conventions into national decision-making. Objective To strengthen systemic, institutional and individual capacity to integrate Rio Convention themes into national, regional and local decision-making. Outcome 1: Enhanced institutional, legislative, policy and planning framework for implementing Rio Convention commitments. Output 1.1: Institutional framework and processes for coordinated management and implementation of the Rio Convention established Output 1.2: Suggestions for amendments of legislation and norms to better enable mainstreaming of Rio Convention themes into policies, plans and programmes, submitted for Gov official approval. Output 1.3: Screening, monitoring and reporting system, as part of Integrated Conventions requirements into sectorial policies, is in place.
Outcome 2: Improved capacity of MOE and MAFRD to integrate environmental and sectoral resource management. Output 2.1: Enhanced technical and managerial capacity of MOE and MAFRD staff to integrate environmental and sectoral resource management, using Integrated Resource Management techniques Output 2.2: Codes of good practice, checklists and training established to strengthen Integrated Resource Management tools for integrating environment into sectoral programmes and projects Output 2.3.: Regional Coordinating Mechanisms (RCMs) are established and implemented as demonstration models in two of Romania’s eight Development Regions (DRs) and will implement demonstration activities in these two region, then these RCM will be expanded to the remaining six regions, based on lessons learned Output 2.4: A peer training network and database to support integrated resource management is established to serve regional and local environmental and resource management staff.
Comments on revised Project logic Model (during inception workshop) : Project Inception Report
Page 50
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
Change (i) Output 1.2 : Reasons for change: This suggestion was raised by the GEF political focal point, also the Ministry of Environment representative, and agreed by all the participants, particularly Because the long process for legislation amendments is well known. The official approval of legislation and norms is beyond the project control and moreover, the final approval of the suggested changes can happen after the project closure. Therefore, the output was suggested to be rephrased in the light of the above.
Change (ii) Outputs 1.3, and 1.4 shall be mixed into: “Screening, monitoring and reporting system, as part of integrated conventions requirements into sectoral policies, is in place”; public policies units, in each ministry should monitor the need for interventions, and approvals; Reasons for change: Outputs 1.3, and 1.4 shall be mixed into: “Screening, monitoring and reporting system, as part of integrated conventions requirements into sectoral policies, is in place”; public policies units, in each ministry should monitor the need for interventions and approvals. The key words: "screening, monitoring and reporting " will address the two outputs in a concise and shorter manner.
One of the priorities under the EU-related Administrative Capacity Operational Programme is to modernize the formulation of public policy proposals (PPPs) and the linkage of policy-making and institutional strategic plans (ISPs). In July 2005, Romania created a new Public Policy Unit (PPU) to better enable systematic policy analysis and to harmonize sectoral policies through the formation of several high-level decision-making bodies. These include a Strategic Planning Council and 10 Permanent Inter-ministerial Councils, which were created to promote inter-agency review and discussion of significant public policy proposals. (See Figure 1.) These councils replaced 137 previous “permanent inter-ministerial committees.” Two of the new Councils relate directly to convention themes: #8 (VIII) Agriculture, Rural Development and Environment, #9 (IX) Regional Development, Infrastructure, Territory Planning and Tourism. The PPU has also adopted a new policy development process, which incorporates policy analysis, including requirements to assess environmental impacts and conduct stakeholder consultation. However, there are currently no procedural or technical guidelines to guide this environmental screening process, nor are there personnel with the capacity to do so, either in the ministries submitting the policies, or in the Public Policies Units. To date, there is no reference to ensuring policy coherence with commitments the Rio Conventions or other MEAs. In addition, the proposed composition of the Council on Regional Development, Infrastructure, Territory Planning and Tourism does not presently include MM. However, an interviewee in the Public Policies Unit confirmed that the committees have not yet met and there is a possibility that the Council’s composition could be changed. The recent change lays on a structure established in each ministry and paid directly by the General Secretariate of the Government and not by the line Ministry. The challenge is the needs of training for such an enlarged base of people dealing with plans, programs and stategies, in order to maistream Rio Conventions into sectoral policies. They will be trained mainly on Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), other environmental screening methods, reporting requirements at national and international level, and also other means of integrating environmental considerations into development planning. Project Inception Report
Page 51
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
The inclusion of Rio Conventions themes in the SOE reports will be monitored closely through indicator 2 and indicator 10 Change (iii) Outputs 2.3 and 2.4 have almost similar content, and the anticipative accomplish should be reduced to: “Regional Coordinating Mechanisms (RCMs) are established and implemented as demonstration models in two of Romania’s eight Development Regions (DRs), then expanded to the remaining six regions, based on lessons learned” – which, thus, may cover for output 2.4, as well; Reason for change: Output 2.4 was too descriptive and it has been reduced to one key word" implemented" and added to output 2.3; In this way, output 2.3 in the new formulation is referring to both "establishment" and "implementation" of the RCM and pilot demonstration activities - which will be followed by the replication of some models validated by practice. The new formulation: Output 2.3; Regional Coordinating Mechanisms (RCMs) are established and implemented as demonstration models in two of Romania’s eight Development Regions (DRs) and will implement demonstration activities in these two regions; then these RCM will be expanded to the remaining six regions, based on lessons learned The Regional Coordinating Mechanisms (RCM) will be designed and established in two development regions. Based on these mechanisms, each of the two regions will implement demonstration activities in order to demonstrate the effectiveness of the RCM. If proven effective, the RCM will be established for all the eight development regions.
Project Inception Report
Page 52
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
The discussions regarding the outputs, indicators and activities are presented in the respective sections of this report. Further comments of the stakeholders are presented bellow: -
-
-
-
-
-
Crisis means opportunity to strategize and partnering for sustainability: on institutional framework and mandates re-defining; Plan capacity to integrate conventions requirements into sectoral and local plans; Ministry of Environment and Agriculture should combine implementation though policies (strategy + tactics) + financial mechanisms; And, since budget dictates, then policies shall be subdued to existing resources, so that to be feasible; Adaptive management shall be reflected in Indicators and Implementation approach – as flexible tools; Coordination is needed (e.g.: Agency of Natural Mineral Resources does not comply with any other laws) – the example of local authorities roles and intervention planning in emergency situations should be followed; It must be considered that, wherever law is not respected, it either is no money for, or proper info and training is missing; therefore, law should comprise appropriate stipulations in these aspects too (law, methodology, incentives, control, enforcement, responsible authority, certification, permits, etc); As well, too much legislation, or too large docs are not helpful; Integration and proper guidance should be in all ministries attention; Conventions requirements should be correlated with other laws, and made accessible to everybody’s understanding; the procedural frameworks is a must; Transparency also means the duty of scientists to raise awareness of decision-makers; at the same time, it also means from decision makers to inform the public, on the laws; and, for both sectors (research and policy), means to have a Communication Strategy; Even national projects, are not known, to the general public; National Institute of Statistics shall also be involved, especially in designing and registering of Environmental Indicators
Other comments made were to strengthen the needs for: - Reporting formats to be respected, for concurrence, at all levels; - Procedural framework to be clearly set; - Vulnerable groups to also be addressed; - Coordination among all institutions with abilities to address conventions requirements is crucial; Competency conflicts shall be prevented and avoided; - Training of Focal Points staff is essential; - Need for a National Research Program aiming the global problems; - Integration is a must – with improved capacity of both ministries (environment and agriculture), to master that. As for the project pilot regions, for the time being there have been proposed Galati and Brasov. Prepared by Rodica Stefanescu – Assistant Manager
Project Inception Report
Page 53
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
Annex 3: Revised Log-Frame Based on the review of indicators to measure project progress, their respective baseline and target values at project end and also the review of risks, it is proposed to revise the log-frame accordingly. The log-frame presented below reflects all the proposed changes presented in Section 3, 5 and 6 of this report. Project Strategy
Indicator
Baseline value
Target value and date
Sources of verification
Assumptions
Goal: To expand Romania’s capacity to generate global environment benefits through mainstreaming the Rio conventions into national decision-making Objective: To strengthen systemic, institutional and individual capacity to integrate Rio Convention themes into national, regional2 and local decision-making
1. Alignment of institutional, legislative and policy frameworks with the objectives and obligations of the global environmental conventions signed by Romania
2. Quality of national monitoring reports and communications integrating conventions obligations
3. Capacity development monitoring scorecard rating
Outcome 1. Enhanced institutional, legislative,
4. Responsibilities for conventions obligations assigned to institutions
Romania is committed to meet its conventions obligations; however, some critical gaps in institutional, legal and policy frameworks exist; including an uneven capacity within key ministries National reports and communications for meeting conventions obligations are produced but reflect a nonintegrated approach within the national frameworks for environmental management
Conventions obligations are well integrated into national institutional, legal and policy frameworks
Capacity for: Engagement: 2 of 9 Generate, access and use information and knowledge: 2 of 15 Policy and legislation development: 1 of 9 Management and implementation: 1 of 6 Monitor/evaluate: 1 of 6 (total targeted score: 7/45) Convention units in place, but institutional framework is
Capacity for: Engagement: 7 of 9 Generate, access and use information and knowledge: 10 of 15 Policy and legislation development: 8 of 9 Management and implementation: 4 of 6 Monitor/evaluate: 5 of 6 (total targeted score: 34/45) All conventions obligations are clearly
SOE and other national reports/ communications include quality information on the state of implementation of the Conventions in Romania
NCSA reports for baseline information Project progress Evaluation reports National, regional and local plans, strategies and programmes Reports to conventions secretariats National State of Environment Reports Evaluation report of quality of SOE reports with regard to incorporation of status of implementation of Rio conventions Mid-term and final evaluation reports Annual PIRs Capacity assessment reports
NCSA reports for baseline information
Government priorities may change including the government commitment to integrate conventions obligations into environment management framework in Romania (political); The objective of the project might be too ambitious and the support from the project resources and the government resources and the timeframe may not be adequate to initiate the changes required by the project strategy (strategic); Lack of relevant expertise in local market may result in delay of required outputs and distortion of targeted deadlines (operational);
The government does not fulfil its international
2 “Regional” refers to Development Regions established to conform to European Union requirements for an intermediate statistical territorial level between “country” and “county” for pre and post accession absorption of programme funds. Project Inception Report
Page 54
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
Project Strategy policy and planning framework for implementing Rio Convention commitments
Indicator
Baseline value fragmented and convention implementation is uneven National focal points report independently to Conventions, with little collaboration; decisions sometimes conflict
5. Effective multi-agency conventions coordination mechanisms
Conventions fall under two National Councils, but there is no provision to address them No formal inter-agency coordination mechanisms No regional or local agency involvement in conventions MOE is not on Council #8 on Territorial Planning, Energy and Infrastructure
6. Conventions obligations integrated in related legislation
Laws in place to ratify Rio conventions, but “secondary” laws and norms not revised to be consistent with obligations
mandates
Project Inception Report
Target value and date assigned to key institutions Institutional mechanism (e.g. regular meetings; modification of the job description) that will ensure the cooperation of the three focal points with regard to implementation of the Rio Conventions, especially reporting requirements Convention management units are rationalized to be more efficient and effective; National Councils are empowered and tasked to address the issues of Rio conventions implementation Coordination mechanisms established among convention units, and between these units and other relevant Ministries, regional and local agencies Membership of Interministerial Councils permits integration of convention obligations into sectoral policy-making and planning Key laws and norms revised to be consistent with convention obligations “Secondary” legislation and norms in place to enable integration of conventions into sectoral policy-making and planning processes Page 55
Sources of verification Project reports Mandates of agencies and sub-units Organigrammes New/revised laws and norms Government Decisions, Ministerial Orders, etc.
Organigrammes and normative documents Work plans and progress reports, financial reports Convention reports Ministry annual reports Staff interviews and focus groups Government Decrees setting out composition and operational rules for key policy councils (#8 and #9)
Secondary (enabling) legislation and norms Government Documents Government and Minister’s Orders, Decrees and regulations
Assumptions obligations; including those from the 3 Rio Conventions (political); New legislation and policies proposed by the project are not adopted by the Government and/or the Parliament (political); Despite new legislation for a multi-agency coordination mechanism to address conventions obligations no institutional changes occur (strategic); The institutional changes might not be followed by appropriate level of resources (HR and $$) to implement the changes (operational);
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
Project Strategy
Outcome 2. Improved capacity of MOE and MAFRD to integrate environmental and sectoral resource management
Indicator 7. Conventions obligations integrated in related policies, national plans, strategies and programmes
Baseline value Rio convention action plans not mainstreamed into national and regional policies and planning MOE and MAFRD programmes and activities are sector-oriented, with little collaboration
Target value and date Related national policymaking and planning processes incorporate convention obligations MOE and MAFRD Programs and activities are intersectoral oriented
8. Conventions obligations embedded into effective environmental screening process of policy making
New policy processes require environmental screening of policies, but conventions are not addressed and there are no technical tools or expertise to help policy proponents do screening
Environmental screening tools (e.g., checklists) incorporating conventions obligations are part of policy-making processes More than 40 key officials trained on environmental screening
9. Roles and responsibilities for implementing conventions obligations assigned in job descriptions
Roles and responsibilities for implementing conventions obligations are not well assigned to staffs and key ministries
Roles and responsibilities for implementing conventions obligations clearly assigned to key job descriptions
10. Implementation of conventions monitored effectively and information included in SOE reports
Annual State of Environment (SOE) reporting system in place, but no mechanism to track performance on convention implementation and synergies Ministry knowledge of SOE and how to use it to design programmes is weak
11. MOE and MAFRD staff with the necessary skills and knowledge to address conventions obligations
Uneven capacity of focal points and convention units to manage and implement conventions
Indicators to monitor conventions obligations identified and are part of SOE reporting Database of convention activities established and integrated into related ministry’s databases Key staff trained (100 people) to monitor and report on SOE indicators Staff trained (30 people) and apply skills and knowledge to the implementation of conventions obligations Staff trained in key IRM
Project Inception Report
Page 56
Sources of verification Agendas and minutes of Councils Environmental and sectoral programme and project documents Environmental screening documents (e.g., checklists) Training evaluations SOE reports Control Staff Reports Internal ministry reports Registers Training records and evaluations Media coverage of SOE Job descriptions NCSA reports Project reports Convention reports Ministry policies and reports SOE reports Databases
Training evaluations
Assumptions
The institutional changes might not be followed by these institutions working better together (operational) New tools are adopted but they may require additional resources to be used; which might not be available (operational); The RCM model and IRM tools are adopted by the Ministry but the uptake by the regions is not happening facing too many constraints and capacity gaps (operational); Monitoring the conventions obligations is strengthened but results are not reported fully due to political interference (political)
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
Project Strategy
Indicator
Baseline value
12. Effective code of practice, guidelines, checklists to address conventions obligations
13. Effective participation of stakeholders in the implementation of conventions 14. A model for regional coordination mechanism (RCM) is developed and adopted by two Development Regions (South-East 2 and Center 7) using integrated resource management (IRM) tools
Outcome 3: Effective, efficient, and adaptive project management, monitoring and evaluation.
Non-government stakeholders are using some IRM technique, but government-nongovernmental organizations collaboration is rare Minimal stakeholder involvement in conventions There are no collaborative mechanisms across units and ministries at regional and local levels to implement national environmental and sectoral policies and plans
15. The RCM model and IRM tools are replicated to all regions in Romania
Conventions and integrated resource management not addressed at regional and local levels, including Agenda 21
16. An IRM peer training network used by participants throughout Romania
There is no formal network but some local authorities and staff in regional and local agencies use some IRM techniques MOE and MAFRD and EPAs have a database to which the IRM database could be linked Management procedures are put in place No project web site available
17. Progress reports summarizing the performance of project 18. Project information readily available
Project Inception Report
Target value and date techniques (120 people taking into consideration also the territorial decentralized units) IRM tools strengthened through additional guidelines, codes of good practice, checklists, etc. All relevant stakeholders involved in convention implementation Formal Regional Collaborative Mechanisms involving national, regional and local authorities developed and tested in two regions
RCM Model adopted by MOE and MAFRD for all eight regions, with possible expansion to include regional office of other ministries Peer training network established and functioning with members the two pilot regions and other regions Database established with IRM references and contacts Project implementation well documented Project information is readily available
Page 57
Sources of verification
Assumptions
Guidelines, codes of practice and checklists
Membership of participative processes Media coverage Normative documents setting out RCM composition, terms of reference and operating procedures Minutes of RCM meetings Surveys, interviews and focus groups with RCM members Ministries’ decisions and orders
Peer network documents Database Staff surveys, interview and focus groups National and regional workshop proceedings Project reports Project web site and project reports
The project partners (MOE, MAFRD, U of Bucharest, UNDP) will continue to support the project and allocate the required resources for its
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
Project Strategy
Indicator
Baseline value
Project Inception Report
Target value and date
Page 58
Sources of verification
Assumptions implementation (operational)
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
Annex 4: Capacity Development Monitoring Scorecard Capacity Result / Indicator
Staged Indicators
Ratin g
Comments
Score
Next Steps
Contribution by Outcome
Dissemination of competent authorities set responsibilities, to as many as possible stakeholders, and their involvement in debates on these responsibilities issue
1
CR 1: Capacities for engagement Indicator 1 – Degree of legitimacy/mand ate of lead environmental management organizations to address conventions obligations Indicator 2 – Existence of operational comanagement mechanisms for conventions obligations
Indicator 3 – Existence of cooperation with stakeholder groups
Institutional responsibilities for conventions obligations are not clearly defined Institutional responsibilities for conventions obligations are identified Authority and legitimacy of all lead organizations responsible for conventions obligations are partially recognized by stakeholders Authority and legitimacy of all lead organizations responsible for conventions obligations recognized by stakeholders No co-management mechanisms are in place Some co-management mechanisms are in place and operational Some co-management mechanisms are formally established through agreements, MOUs, etc. Comprehensive co-management mechanisms are formally established and are operational/functional
Identification of stakeholders and their participation/involvement in decisionmaking is poor Stakeholders are identified but their participation in decision-making is limited Stakeholders are identified and regular consultations mechanisms are established Stakeholders are identified and they actively contribute to established participative decision-making processes
0 Convention units in place, but institutional framework is fragmented and convention implementation is uneven.
1 1
2
2
National focal points report independently to Conventions, with little collaboration; decisions sometimes conflict
3 0
Conventions fall under two National Councils, but there is no provision to address them
1
No formal inter-agency coordination mechanisms
2
0
3
3
No regional or local agency involvement in conventions
Setting-up of a comanagement framework, at the level of the GOR’s General Secretariat – at the Public policies Unit – for the Permanent InterGovernmental Committees.
MOE is not on Council #8 on Territorial Planning, Energy and Infrastructure
Proposals on the reconfiguration of these Committees, corresponding to the project’s objectives
Stakeholders are not involved when the case is
Enlargement of database regarding the stakeholders and a proactive approach by asking their advise when different decison making process is in progress
1, 2
0 1 1
2
2 3
Project Inception Report
Page 59
2
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
Capacity Result / Indicator
Staged Indicators
Ratin g
Total score for CR1
2
Next Steps
Contribution by Outcome
Stakeholders are, in general, aware of the problems related to global environment, but they do not know the possible solutions and the ways that they could participate in the assimilation of these solutions, at local level
Publication, through appropriate media, and within the acceptable limits of the project budget, of the most interesting success stories
2
The information needs on conventions obligations are identified but the information management infrastructure is inadequate
The setting-up of an appropriate framework for the information exchange, especially among the competent authorities at the central level, and at the level of the field stakeholders
Comments
Score
7
CR 2: Capacities to generate, access and use information and knowledge Indicator 4 – Degree of global environmental awareness of stakeholders
Indicator 5 – Access and sharing of environmental information on conventions obligations by stakeholders
Indicator 6 – Existence of environmental
Stakeholders are not aware about global environmental issues and their related possible solutions Stakeholders are aware about global environmental issues but not about the possible solutions Stakeholders are aware about global environmental issues and the possible solutions but do not know how to participate Stakeholders are aware about global environmental issues and are actively participating in the implementation of related solutions The information needs on conventions obligations are not identified and the information management infrastructure is inadequate The information needs on conventions obligations are identified but the information management infrastructure is inadequate The information needs on conventions obligations is partially available and shared among stakeholders but are not covering all focal areas and/or the information management infrastructure to manage and give information access to the public is limited Comprehensive information on conventions obligations is available and shared through an adequate information management infrastructure No environmental education programmes are in place on conventions obligations Environmental education programmes are partially developed and partially delivered
0 1 1
2
2
3
0
1
1
2
2
3 0 0 1
Project Inception Report
3
There are no education programs regarding the obligations under the conventions Diverse curricula at master level are rare (less then Page 60
Proposals for the Ministry of Education and Research on the setting-up of a distinct Education Program
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
Capacity Result / Indicator education programmes on conventions obligations
Indicator 7 – Extent of the linkage between global environmental research/science and policy development
Indicator 8 – Extent of inclusion/use of traditional knowledge in global environment decision-making
Staged Indicators Environmental education programmes are fully developed but partially delivered Comprehensive environmental education programmes exist and are being delivered No linkage exist between policy development related to conventions obligations and science/research strategies and programmes Research needs for policy development related to conventions obligations are identified but are not translated into relevant research strategies and programmes Relevant research strategies and programmes for policy development related to conventions obligations exist but the research information is not responding fully to the policy research needs Relevant research results are available for policy development related to conventions obligations Traditional knowledge is ignored and not taken into account into relevant participative decision-making processes Traditional knowledge is identified and recognized as important but is not collected and used in relevant participative decisionmaking processes Traditional knowledge is collected but is not used systematically into relevant participative decision-making processes Traditional knowledge is collected, used and shared for effective participative decision-making processes
Ratin g
Comments
Score
five)
2
Next Steps (including the informal education) on the issue of parties obligations under the Rio conventions
3
0 Propose of topics which shall figure in the National Research Program
1 0
2
There is no explicit research program dedicated to the integrated approach of the development policies, in the line of the Rio Conventions requirements
2
Identification of the way in which the results of such research activities can reach the decisions and law makers in intelligible and friendly formats
3 0
1 0
1
2
10
0
2
Traditional knowledge is ignored and not taken into account into relevant participative decision-making processes
Identification of the traditional knowledge application and the communication of successful results that local communities benefit from
The environmental planning and strategy development process does not produce environmental
Taking into consideration of the political reasons of local
2 3
Total score for CR2 CR 3: Capacities for strategy, policy and legislation development Indicator 9 –
The environmental planning and strategy development process does not produce
0
Project Inception Report
Page 61
Contribution by Outcome
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
Capacity Result / Indicator Extent of the environmental planning and strategy development process
Indicator 10 – Existence of an adequate environmental policy and regulatory frameworks integrating conventions obligations
Indicator 11 – Adequacy of the global
Staged Indicators environmental plans and strategies integrating conventions obligations The environmental planning and strategy development process does produce adequate environmental plans and strategies integrating conventions obligations but there are not implemented/used Adequate environmental plans and strategies are produced integrating conventions obligations but there are only partially implemented because of funding constraints and/or other problems The environmental planning and strategy development process is well coordinated by the lead environmental organizations and produces the required environmental plans and strategies integrating conventions obligations; which are being implemented The environmental policy and regulatory frameworks are insufficient; they do not provide an enabling environment for conventions obligations Some relevant environmental policies and laws exist but few are implemented and enforced Adequate environmental policy and legislation frameworks addressing conventions obligations exist but there are problems in implementing and enforcing them Adequate policy and legislation frameworks are implemented and provide an adequate enabling environment for addressing conventions obligations; a compliance and enforcement mechanism is established and functions The availability of environmental information on conventions obligations for decision-making is lacking Some environmental information on
Ratin g
Comments
Score
Next Steps
plans and strategies integrating conventions obligations
and regional development in the context of the awareness regarding the effects of the global warming, of the desertification, and of the biodiversity loss, and (legislative and institutional) proposals for land reclamation and the elaboration of the development strategies in accordance with the obligations under the conventions
Major weaknesses in the implementation of the legal requirements
Solutions for the laws effective and efficient enforcement through the Conventions have been adopted, and of the reglementations which accompanied these
1
2
Contribution by Outcome
3
0
1
2
1
3
1
3
0 1
Project Inception Report
0
3
The availability of environmental information on conventions obligations for decision-making is lacking Page 62
Ways and means to facilitate access to environmental information included in the texts of the
1
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
Capacity Result / Indicator environmental information available for decision-making
Staged Indicators conventions obligations exists but it is not sufficient to support environmental decision-making processes Relevant environmental information on conventions obligations is made available to environmental decision-makers but the process to update this information is not functioning properly Political and administrative decisionmakers obtain and use updated environmental information on conventions obligations to make environmental decisions
Ratin g
Comments
Score
Next Steps
Contribution by Outcome
Conventions, For decisions and law makers
2
3
Total score for CR3
1
8
CR 4: Capacities for management and implementation Indicator 12 – Existence and mobilization of resources for conventions obligations
Indicator 13 – Availability of required technical skills and technology transfer
The environmental organizations don’t have adequate resources for programmes and projects related to conventions obligations and the requirements have not been assessed The resource requirements are known but are not being addressed The funding sources for these resource requirements are partially identified and the resource requirements are partially addressed Adequate resources are mobilized and available for the functioning of the lead environmental organizations The necessary required skills and technology to address conventions obligations are not available and the needs are not identified The required skills and technologies needs are identified as well as their sources The required skills and technologies are obtained but their access depend on foreign sources The required skills and technologies are
0
1 0
2
2
The environmental organizations don’t have adequate resources for programmes and projects related to conventions obligations and the requirements have not been assessed
Identification and proposals on priorities allocation of human and material resources
2
Knowledge and technologies which are addressing the obligations under the conventions
The data basis on the available technologies which are addressed to the major issues for which the conventions were elaborated
1, 2
3
0 1 2
1
2
Access to the technological resources is conditioned by the external funding and by the intellectual property rights
3
Project Inception Report
Page 63
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
Capacity Result / Indicator
Staged Indicators
Ratin g
Score
Comments
Next Steps
Contribution by Outcome
available and there is a national-based mechanism for updating the required skills and for upgrading the technologies
Total score for CR4
1
4
CR 5: Capacities to monitor and evaluate Indicator 14 – Adequacy of the project monitoring process
Irregular project monitoring is being done without an adequate monitoring framework detailing what and how to monitor the particular project or programme An adequate resourced monitoring framework is in place but project monitoring is irregularly conducted Regular participative monitoring of results in being conducted but this information is only partially used by the project/programme implementation team Monitoring information is produced timely and accurately and is used by the implementation team to learn and possibly to change the course of action None or ineffective evaluations are being conducted without an adequate evaluation plan; including the necessary resources An adequate evaluation plan is in place but evaluation activities are irregularly conducted Evaluations are being conducted as per an adequate evaluation plan but the evaluation results are only partially used by the project/programme implementation team Effective evaluations are conducted timely and accurately and are used by the implementation team
0
0
3
Irregular project monitoring is being done without an adequate monitoring framework detailing what and how to monitor the particular project or programme
Guidelines for the facilitation of a monitoring useful to the adaptative management (adoption of adequate measures in the conditions of frequent changes of priorities)
1
2
An adequate evaluation plan is in place but evaluation activities are irregularly conducted and without an assessment of necessary resources
Guidelines for adopting an evaluation project plan
Total score for CR5
1
5
Combined total score for CR1-CR5
7/45
34/45
Indicator 15 – Adequacy of the project evaluation process
1
2
3
0 1
2
3
Project Inception Report
Page 64
1
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
Annex 5: Monitoring and Evaluation Framework Monitoring and Evaluation Plan The monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of the project will be conducted in accordance with established UNDP, GEF and MOE and MAFRD procedures and will be executed by the project management team with support from the UNDP Country Office (UNDP-CO) and the UNDP/GEF Regional Center in Bratislava. The objectives of this M&E plan are: (i) to improve project management and implementation; (ii) to help participants to adapt the project changing circumstances and incorporate lessons learned; and (iii) to promote replication of key project elements in other countries and regions. Below is presented the key elements of this monitoring and evaluation plan. It is followed by an indicative M&E work plan and a corresponding budget. Roles and Responsibilities The Project Implementation Unit (PIU) is responsible for carrying out the monitoring function of the project and write progress reports. These progress reports will be presented to the Project Steering Committee (PSC) for endorsement and be distributed to UNDP-CO, UNDP/GEF Regional Coordination Unit (RCU) and MOE and MAFRD. Mode of Operation The National Project Manager (NPM) will continuously report to UNDP, MOE and MAFRD on the progress achieved by the project. The NPM is responsible to liaise with the UNDP Portfolio Coordinator and the National Project Director (NPD) at MOE. Presentations will be made at management meetings to review the progress of the project and make recommendations on points to be improved or change the directions of the project if necessary in order to ensure an effective implementation, a better coordination, including with other related initiatives in Romania. Any delays or difficulties faced during implementation will be quickly communicated to UNDP-CO and the NPD so that the appropriate support or corrective measures can be adopted in a timely and remedial fashion. The project will be subject to Steering Committee reviews every 6 months. This is the highest policy-level meeting of the parties directly involved in the implementation of the project. Once a year, the Project Implementation Unit will prepare the Project Implementation Review (PIR) and submit it to UNDP-CO, MOE, MAFRD and the UNDP/GEF RCU at least two weeks prior to the meeting for review and comments. The PIR will be used as one of the basic documents for discussions in the steering committee annual meetings. The NPM will present the PIR to the meeting participants, highlighting policy issues and recommendations for decisions. Separate reviews of each project component may also be conducted if necessary. A terminal steering committee review will be held in the last month of project operations. The NPM is responsible for preparing the Terminal Report and submitting it to the NPD, MOE, MAFRD, UNDP-CO and UNDP/GEF RCU. A draft should be prepared at least two months in advance of the said meeting in order to allow for review, and will serve as the basis for discussions in the meeting. The terminal review considers the implementation of the project as a whole, paying particular attention to whether the project has achieved its stated objective and contributed to the broader expected environmental objective. It decides whether any actions are still necessary, particularly in relation to sustainability of project results, and acts as a vehicle through which lessons learnt can be captured to feed into other projects being developed. Project Inception Phase The project inception phase started in March 2009 and included a project inception workshop held on April 16, 2009 in Bucharest. The project strategy was reviewed as well as the performance indicators and the risks associated with the implementation of the project. The inception phase will be completed with an inception report that will contain this M&E plan. The main objective of the inception phase is to assist the project team to understand and take ownership of the Project Inception Report
Page 65
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
project’s goals and objectives, as well as finalize preparation of the project's first annual work plan on the basis of the project's log-frame. The main objective of the inception workshop is to: (i) Introduce project staff, MOE, MAFRD, and the UNDP-CO team which will support the project during its implementation, including the UNDP/GEF Regional Coordinating Unit (RCU) staff; (ii) Detail roles, support services and complementary responsibilities of UNDP-CO and RCU staff vis à vis the project team; (iii) Detailed roles, responsibilities and functions of relevant stakeholders within the project decisionmaking structures and mechanisms (iv) Provide a detailed overview of UNDP-GEF reporting, monitoring and evaluation requirements, with emphasis on the Annual Project Implementation Reviews (PIRs), project steering committee meetings, as well as mid-term and final evaluations. A detailed schedule of project review meetings of various kinds will be developed by the project management, in consultation with project implementation partners and stakeholder representatives and incorporated in the Inception Report. Such a schedule will include: (i) tentative time frames for Steering Committee Meetings, (ii) project related Monitoring and Evaluation activities. Measurement of Progress The revised log-frame provides performance indicators to measure the progress of the project towards the achievement of project targets (see Section 4 and Annex 2). The log-frame also includes for each indicator the baseline and the target value at end of project, as well as it corresponding source of verification. The progress will also be measured using the Capacity Development Monitoring Scorecard (see Annex 3), which will be updated at a minimum at the mid-point of the project (timed with the MTE: see below Mid-Term Evaluation) and at the end of the project. The performance indicators will form the basis on which the project's Monitoring and Evaluation system will be implemented. The capacity development monitoring scorecard will be used to establish the project baseline at inception, at mid-point of project implementation and finally at the end of project implementation. The rating from project inception will also provide a useful capacity review at the start of the project; including the current weaknesses and strengths. Monitoring and Reporting The NPM in consultations with the NPD, MOE, MAFRD and UNDP-CO team will be responsible for the preparation and submission of the following reports that form part of the monitoring process. Inception Report (IR) A Project Inception Report will be prepared at the end of the inception phase (May 2009) by the NPM. A draft will be reviewed by UNDP-CO and the NDP, then it will be circulated to project counterparts who will be given a two-week period to respond with comments or queries. Finally, the final inception report will be submitted to the first PSC meeting for their review and endorsement. This report will include: Review of Project Strategy: goal, objective, outcomes and outputs Stakeholders Involvement: partnership strategy Management Arrangements: a detailed narrative on institutional roles, responsibilities, coordinating actions and feedback mechanisms of project related partners; Note on adaptive management Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (this document) A detailed first year Annual Work Plan (AWP) divided in quarterly periods detailing activities and progress indicators that will guide implementation during the first year of the project; Detailed project budget for the first full year of implementation, prepared on the basis of the AWP, including any monitoring and evaluation requirements to effectively measure project performance during the first year; Dates of support missions from UNDP/GEF or relevant international consultants; Time-frames for meetings of the project's decision making structures (PSC); A section will be included on progress to date on project establishment and start-up activities and an Project Inception Report
Page 66
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
update of any changed external conditions that may effect project implementation. Summaries/Minutes of project inception workshop (April 16, 2009) Quarterly Progress Reports Short reports outlining main updates in project progress, work plan for next quarter and possible management issues and recommended solutions will be provided quarterly by the NPM to the NPD, UNDP-CO and UNDP/GEF RCU. Format for these reports will be provided by UNDP-CO. Project Implementation Reviews (PIRs) The PIR is the common UNDP/GEF tool for annual project monitoring and the GEF Monitoring and Evaluation Unit provides the scope and content of the PIR. It is an essential management and monitoring tool for project managers and is a mechanism for extracting lessons from ongoing projects. Once the project has been under implementation for a year, a PIR must be completed by the NPM. The PIR should be prepared prior to the annual Steering Committee meetings and should be discussed at the Steering Committee, so that the result would be a PIR that has been agreed upon by the PIU, MOE, MAFRD and UNDP-CO. Project risks (see Section 5) will be reviewed during these annual reviews and management responses will be updated and entered into the UNDP-ATLAS system and reported in the PIRs. The PIRs are collected, reviewed and analyzed by the UNDP/GEF RCU prior to sending them to the focal area clusters at the UNDP/GEF headquarters. The focal area clusters supported by the UNDP/GEF Monitoring and Evaluation Unit analyze the PIRs by focal area, theme and region for common issues/results and lessons. Periodic Thematic/Technical Reports As and when called for by UNDP-CO, UNDP/GEF RCU, MOE or MAFRD, the NPM will prepare specific thematic reports, focusing on specific issues or areas of activity. The request for a thematic report will be provided to the NPM in written form and will clearly state the issue or activities that need to be reported on. These reports can be used as a form of lessons learnt exercise, specific oversight in key areas, or as troubleshooting exercises to evaluate and overcome obstacles and difficulties encountered. UNDP is requested to minimize its requests for thematic reports, and when such are necessary will allow reasonable timeframes for their preparation by the NPM. Project Terminal Report During the last three months of the project the NPM will prepare the Project Terminal Report. This comprehensive report will summarize all activities, achievements and outputs of the Project, objectives met, or not achieved, use of GEF funds and co-financing funds, lessons learnt, structures and systems implemented, etc. and will be the final statement of project’s activities during its lifetime. It will also lay out recommendations for any further steps that may need to be taken to ensure sustainability and replicability of project’s activities. The NPM is responsible for preparing the Terminal Report and submitting it to the NPD, UNDP-CO and UNDP/GEF RCU. Once finalized, the Project Completion Report will be reviewed by a terminal steering committee review, which will be held in the last month of project operations. Project Publications Project publications are a key method to document and disseminate project results and achievements. These publications may be scientific or informational texts on activities and achievements of the project. They can be in the form of journal articles, brochures, reports, multimedia publications, etc. The NPM will (in consultation with UNDP-CO, UNDP/GEF RCU, the NPD and other relevant stakeholder groups) plan and produce these publications in a consistent and recognizable format. Project resources are allocated for this in the budget. [“In order to properly acknowledge GEF for providing funding, a GEF logo should appear on all relevant GEF project publications (also applied to project hardware and vehicles purchased with GEF funds). Any citation on publications regarding projects funded by GEF should also accord proper acknowledgment to Project Inception Report
Page 67
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
GEF. The UNDP logo should be more prominent -- and separated from the GEF logo if possible, as UN visibility is important for security purposes.”] Evaluation The project will be subjected to two evaluations as follows: Mid-term Evaluation A Mid-Term Evaluation (MTE) will be undertaken at the mid-point of project implementation. A decision will be made closer to this mid-point on conducting an internal or external MTE; based on how well the implementation progresses. The Mid-Term Evaluation will determine progress being made towards the achievement of outcomes and will identify course correction if needed. It will focus on the effectiveness, efficiency and timeliness of project implementation; will highlight issues requiring decisions and actions; will present initial lessons learned about project design, implementation and management; and will include an update and discussion of the capacity development monitoring scorecard. Findings of this review will be incorporated as recommendations for enhanced implementation during the final half of the project’s term. The organization, terms of reference and timing of the mid-term evaluation will be decided after consultation between the parties. The terms of reference for this MTE will be prepared by the UNDP-CO in consultation with the NPD, and based on guidance from the UNDP/GEF RCU. The NPD will participate in the selection process of the evaluation team and will receive the draft evaluation report for comments. Independent Final Evaluation An independent final evaluation will take place at the end of project implementation, focusing on the same issues as the mid-term evaluation, but with special emphasis on identification of capacities built of key stakeholders for better address the Rio conventions obligations in Romania (including the update of the CD monitoring scorecard). The final evaluation will also look at impact and sustainability of results, including the potential for the achievement of global environmental benefits. The Final Evaluation should also provide recommendations for follow-up activities. The Terms of Reference for this evaluation will be prepared by UNDP-CO in consultation with the NPD, and based on guidance from the UNDP/GEF RCU. The NPD will participate in the selection process of the evaluation team, will be consulted during evaluation process and will receive the draft evaluation report for comments. Audit Clause Annual Audits will be conducted by a legally recognized Auditor; according to UNDP rules and regulations and will be subcontracted by UNDP-CO. Learning and Knowledge Sharing Following the mid-term review, the project will support a regional mid-term lessons learned workshop. It will be organized by MOE, MAFRD, PIU, UNDP-Romania and the UNDP Regional Centre to discuss and disseminate lessons learned and best practices emerging from the first 1.5 years and gather ideas for project refinement for the last 1.5 years. Overall, results from the project will be disseminated within and beyond the project intervention zone through a number of existing information sharing networks and forums. In addition: The project will participate, as relevant and appropriate, in UNDP/GEF sponsored networks that share common characteristics. The project will identify and participate, as relevant and appropriate, in scientific, policy-based and/or any other networks, which may be of benefit to project implementation through lessons learned. The project will identify, analyze, and share lessons learned that might be beneficial in the design and implementation of similar future projects. Identify and analyzing lessons learned is an on-going process. The need to communicate such lessons is a requirement to be delivered not less frequently than once every 12 months. UNDP/GEF RCU shall provide a format and assist the project team in categorizing, documenting and reporting on lessons learned. To this end, some project resources have been allocated in the project budget for these activities. Project Inception Report
Page 68
UNDP-GEF funded project “Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)” - Romania
Indicative Monitoring and Evaluation Work Plan and Corresponding Budget Type of M&E activity
Inception Workshop
Inception Report Measurement of Progress and Performance (measured on an annual basis) PIR
Responsible Parties
NPM NPD UNDP-CO UNDP/GEF RCU NPM UNDP-CO Measurements by NPM Oversight by UNDP-CO, NDP and UNDP/GEF RCU
NPM Review by NPD, UNDP-CO, UNDP-GEF RCU NPM as the Secretary to PSC NPD UNDP-CO
Steering Committee Meetings
Thematic/Technical Reports Mid-term Evaluation
Final External Evaluation
Terminal Report
Lessons learned
Audit Visits to field sites (UNDP staff travel costs to be charged to IA fees)
Budget US$ Excluding project team Staff time 500 USD
None To be determined as part of the Annual Work Plan preparation.
NPM Hired Consultants as needed NPM NPD UNDP- CO UNDP-GEF RCU NPM NPD UNDP-CO UNDP-GEF RCU External Consultants (i.e. evaluation team) NPM NPD UNDP-CO
NPM UNDP-GEF RCU to suggest formats for documenting best practices, etc.) UNDP-CO NPM UNDP-GEF RCU (as appropriate) Government representatives
TOTAL indicative COST Excluding project team staff time and UNDP staff and travel expenses
Project Inception Report
Time frame
Within first two months of project start up Immediately following IW Annually prior to PIR and to the definition of annual work plans
None
Annually
None
Twice a year: one to review PIR and one to review AWP progress
tbd
As needed
25,000 USD
At mid-point of project implementation.
25,000 USD
At end of project implementation
None
Three months before the end of the project and one month prior to the terminal steering committee review
tbd
Yearly
15,000 USD
Yearly
None
Yearly
USD 65,500
Page 69
