Preparation of the Strategic Action Programme for the Dnipro River Basin and Development of SAP Implementation Mechanism

From WaterWiki.net

Jump to: navigation, search

Project ID

RER/98/G31 (UNDP/GEF PIMS 822)

Project Title

Preparation of the Strategic Action Programme for the Dnipro River Basin and Development of SAP Implementation Mechanism

(GEF-IW FSP)

Type

Focus Areas

Geographic Scope

Lead Organization(s)

GEF / UNDP (Implementing Agency) / UNOPS (Executing Agency)

Project Partners

Financing

Total: 21,255,000

(GEF: 7,000,000; UNDP: 980,000; Governments: 4,700,000; NGOs: 13,000)

Timeframe

2000-2005 (original until 2003)

Status

Finished

Project website(s)

Contacts

Lubomyr Markevych

Project Address: Hrushevskogo St. 34-a (lock code 103), Ap.9, 3-d floor, Kyiv - Ukraine 01021 (Tel/Fax: (380) - 44 - 451-8741)

Contents

Description

The long-term objectives of the project are to remedy the serious environmental effects of transboundary pollution and habitat degradation in the Dnipro River Basin, to ensure sustainable use of its resources, and to protect biological diversity in the basin. The project will enable the implementation of a series of complementary investigative, preventative and remedial actions that will be elaborated in a Strategic Action Programme for the Basin region. The proposed Dnipro River Basin Programme would work towards enabling the three riparian countries to implement the principles of co-ordination and co-operation stipulated by the agreement signed in 1992 by the governments of the republics of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine. The management capacity both at the level of individual countries and at the regional level would be strengthened; and wider global benefits would accrue to the basin countries as well as those of the Black Sea, an important international water body dramatically affected by the activities within its tributary Dnipro Basin.

Expected Outcomes

Achievements: Results and Impact

Lessons for Replication

LESSONS LEARNED from PIR 2005 Report:

a) The use of National Project Management Committees chaired by the deputy-minister proved to be an extremely effective and productive way for achieving progress in project activities. Whereas the PMU would often directly organize the activities there was always an iterative process of working with National Management Committees. Country ownership and buy-in was increasingly achieved as regular National Management Meetings reviewed and approved each significant activity in the project. The key ingredient would appear to be a Chairman who has a larger environmental vision and sees the GEF project as an effective instrument to achieve it. In addition, frequent meetings of the three Chairmen in the form of Joint Management Committee meetings allowed the PMU to seek consultations and make work plan adjustments in the period between annual Steering Committee meetings. The aforementioned process minimizes the risk of the PMU developing a life of its own where it carries out project implementation with little regard for host country understanding, information or acceptance.

b) The use of outside consultants in the region should be kept to a judicious minimum. The introduction of new methodologies should be preceded by workshops designed to introduce, review and if need modify a methodology for the needs of the region before attempting to introduce the same during a project activity. This reconfigures the consultant’s role to that of a trainer of trainers rather than having him/her assume the lead position for conducting workshops to achieve a project result. Good preparatory assessment of local talent and effective use of national specialists in all aspects of program activities enhance country buy-in and help counter negative stereotypes associated with donor projects where international consultants dominate in high profile roles.

c) Small grants that support civil society and public awareness issues are an effective mechanism for disseminating information on environmental issues in post-Soviet countries.

d) Program design should avoid equipment purchases unless they can be made in the respective countries. If the equipment is imported it has been the PMU’s experience that a disproportionate amount of time and effort is wasted on custom clearance issues which the designated local ministries and regional UNDP offices are reluctant to act upon with any degree of enthusiasm.

Exchange of lessons with other projects: With respect to issues ‘a’ and ‘b’ above the PMU has held informal discussions with the UNDP GEF Black Sea Recovery Project, the GEF Dniester project, UNDP GEF Prypiat Biodiversity and Swedish SIDA. The PMU’s experience has been that most aid agencies find our ‘lessons learned’ to be interesting but not necessarily replicable owing to the preferred corporate and operational culture of the individual agency.

References

See also

External Resources

Attachments

 PIR-APR 05 Dnipro.doc  Draft 1 Final Evaluation Dnipro Jul05.doc

1121 Rating: 2.2/5 (21 votes cast)