Download - projects.unep.org€¦ · Web viewClear links have been established between poverty and increased risks of exposure to hazardous chemicals and waste, as it is predominantly the

PIR FY 2017 COMESA LDCs POPs PROJECT

UNEP GEF PIR Fiscal Year 17(1 July 2016 to 30 June 2017)

1. PROJECT GENERAL INFORMATION

Project Title: Capacity Strengthening and Technical Assistance for the Implementation of Stockholm Convention National Implementation Plans (NIPs) in African Least Developed Countries (LDCs) of the COMESA Sub region

Executing Agency: WWF Regional Office for Africa (WWF ROA)

Project partners: UNIDO, Africa Institute

Geographical Scope: COMESA Sub-Region

Participating Countries:

Burundi, D.R. Congo, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Sudan, Uganda

GEF project ID: 3968 IMIS number*1:

Focal Area(s): Persistent Organic Pollutants GEF OP #: GFL/2328-2760-4C13

GEF Strategic Priority/Objective: GEF approval date*: 13th April 2011

UNEP approval date: 7th July 2011 Date of first disbursement*:

5th August 2011

Actual start date2: August 2011 Planned duration: 60 monthsIntended completion date*:

31.7.2016 Actual or Expected completion date:

31st March 2018

Project Type: FSP GEF Allocation*: $2,500,000PPG GEF cost*: $200,000 PPG co-financing*: $188,400.66Expected MSP/FSP Co-financing*:

$2,659,022 Total Cost*: $5,467,422.66

Mid-term review/eval. (planned date):

July-Dec 2016 Terminal Evaluation (actual date):

July-Dec 2017

Mid-term review/eval.(actual date):

July-Dec 2016 No. of revisions*: 3

Date of last Steering Committee meeting:

June 27-28, 2017 Date of last Revision*:

25.7.2016

Disbursement as of 30 June 2017*:

$2,157,965.99 Date of financial closure*:

NA

Date of Completion3*:NA Actual expenditures

reported as of 30 June 20174:

$1,441,857.75

Total co-financing realized as of 30 June 20175:

$60,000 Actual expenditures entered in IMIS as of 30 June 2017*:

$1,441,857.75

1 Fields with an * sign (in yellow) should be filled by the Fund Management Officer2 Only if different from first disbursement date, e.g., in cases were a long time elapsed between first disbursement and recruitment of project manager.3 If there was a “Completion Revision” please use the date of the revision.4 Information to be provided by Executing Agency/Project Manager5 Projects which completed mid-term reviews/evaluations or terminal evaluations during FY16 should attach

1


Leveraged financing:6

Project summary7 This project works at the sub regional, national, provincial and local levels to increase capacity for POPs management including legislation, administration, enforcement and information sharing and dissemination.

The least developed countries (LDCs) in the Common Market for East and Southern Africa (COMESA) sub region (Burundi, D.R. Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Sudan and Uganda)) are among the poorest in the world. Poverty levels in the sub region range from 34% of the population living on less that USD1 per day in Ethiopia, to 69% in Uganda (IFAD, 2002).

Clear links have been established between poverty and increased risks of exposure to hazardous chemicals and waste, as it is predominantly the poor who routinely face unacceptably high risks because of their occupation, living situation and lack of knowledge about the detrimental impacts of exposure to these chemicals and wastes. Low income neighbourhoods are often located around industrial areas and waste dumps; this makes the poor the first to suffer from accidents or the adverse environmental impacts of factories’ operations (or environmental ‘externalities’) (UNEP, 2010). Despite the direct relationship between the sound management of chemicals and the protection of human health and the environment, and the prevention of poverty, these links are often overlooked in development planning and prioritizing.

Despite completing their National Implementation Plans (NIPs), LDCs in the COMESA sub region lack the financial capacity to match the GEF potential funds and the administrative capacity to design activities and attract co-finance to sustain their global role in the elimination and reduction of POPs. Therefore a regional programmatic approach is needed to maintain the momentum of the national coordination mechanism built during and by the NIP development process, to support a collective action, build national capacity, and enhance mainstreaming of chemicals issues into the work of national governments.

Based on extensive regional and sub regional consultations and review of countries NIPs, UNEP and UNIDO have identified six areas in which LDCs in COMESA require assistance. These are: legislative and regulatory reform; enforcement and administrative capacity; information exchange and dissemination; identification of contaminated land; reduction of exposure to POPs and uPOPs emitting sources at workplace and open waste burning; and introduction of BAT/BEP in industrial production processes. UNEP and UNIDO have developed an Africa-wide programme that will address these areas of concern. The programme: “Capacity Strengthening and Technical Assistance for the Implementation of Stockholm Convention National Implementation Plans (NIPs) in African Least Developed Countries (LCDs)” is implemented on a sub regional basis with projects developed for the COMESA, SADC and ECOWAS sub regions respectively. In each sub region UNEP and UNIDO have separate but complimentary projects based on thematic areas of comparative

advantage. UNEP implements the componens on legislative and regulatory reform, enforcement and administrative capacity, and information exchange

the completed co-financing table as per GEF format. See Annex 16 See above note on co-financing7 As in project document

2


and dissemination. UNIDO implements the: identification of contaminated land; reduction of exposure to POPs and uPOPs emitting sources at workplace and open waste burning; and introduction of BAT/BEP in industrial production processes components.

The activities are designed to increase the capacity of key government agencies, provincial level government staff, agricultural workers, academia, research institutes, the private sector, as well as participating stakeholders in civil society, and specifically at the community level. Furthermore activities will also be undertaken to raise awareness of the judiciaries in order to increase understanding of the importance of environmental law and the chemicals and wastes conventions.

All the project activities were identified through extensive consultation with countries from the sub region, the COMESA secretariat, regional bodies, civil society organisations and the private sector. All lessons and resources developed as part of the project will be shared and made available on a web-based knowledge management platform. Such a platform will provide the opportunity for increased south-south cooperation.

Project status FY8 A series of meetings culminated in the development of a re-focused highly detailed work plan in January 2015.

The key activity in the foundational building phase had been the development of terms of references for critical consultancies and the recruitment of consultants to undertake them. These consultancies were:legal consultant for the development of a model chemical legislation; legal consultant for the review of national legislation against the FAO code of conduct; expert trainer on the Stockholm Convention; and, consultant to develop a training toolkit for the judiciary. The agency to conduct the monitoring and evaluation of the project was also selected and the initial/inception SC and project coordination body meetings held.

A draft model comprehensive chemical legislative framework that can be adopted or adapted by countries in the region has been developed with extensive consultation with participating countries from ECOWAS, SADC and COMESA regions as well as relevant UNEP departments. One on one discussion with each of the project countries has resulted in agreement on various approaches to in-country review and domestication as appropriate of the model law.

A trainers’ toolkit on the Stockholm Convention was developed and initial training on its use conducted with Stockholm focal points and other officials from participating countries. Training of provincial level environmental staff was conducted in all six (6) project countries.

A consultant also carried out a Training of Trainers workshop to build capacity amongst senior judiciary as well as customs and border inspectors. National

8 Please add additional lines to keep prior year implementation status (if any)

3


training on the Chemical information Exchange network (CIEN) including the development of a national Environmentally Sound Technology Information System (ESTIS) has been supported in two project countries while a sub-regional trainers training (ToT) under the same initiative has been conducted including participants from all six countries.

DRC carried out its targeted sensitization programme focusing on vulnerable communities exposed to POPs and other toxic chemicals.

NGOs from Burundi, Rwanda and Uganda carried out vulnerable community sensitization activities

Regulatory reform work on sectoral instruments for hazardous chemicals was undertaken in Burundi and DRC while pesticides regulations amendments were carried out in Uganda.

National level training of judiciary and customs officials was carried out in Uganda.

Project status FY9Legislative and Regulatory Frameworks

A pesticides law consultant was hired to support Uganda and Sudan in carrying out revisions to existing and draft pesticides laws and regulations.

DRC undertook the development of a ministerial decree on chemicals management

International consultant agreed to by Burundi was contracted by WWF. Work is underway in preparing two (2) sector specific legislative texts.

Rwanda initiated work to develop a chemicals management policy, act and POPs legislation

Sustainable Enforcement and Administrative Capacity

Rwanda carried out capacity development of provincial level environmental inspectors including district health officials

National training of judiciary as well as customs and border staff was carried out in Uganda

The Judiciary and Customs training consultant finalized their work and submitted an activity report

Information Sharing and Dissemination

Local NGOs were identified by national partners and contracted by WWF to carry out a vulnerable community POPs sensitization programme. These activities were carried out in Burundi, Uganda and Rwanda.

Project Management

The final Project Steering Committee Meeting was held in Nairobi in June 2017

9 Progress made during current reporting period (one paragraph stating key changes since previous reporting period)

4


Planned contribution to strategic priorities/targets10

The project is in essence a capacity building project. Each project component is designed to build capacity for future implementation of the Stockholm Convention and to address bottlenecks to this implementation that have been identified by the countries themselves. The project will develop and/or strengthen the capacity of LDCs and SIDS in SADC to improve management of POPs at the national level, while providing the opportunity for countries to share experiences and learn from each other on a regional level. The project will:

-Provide a comprehensive model chemicals regulatory framework as well as assistance to countries to improve regulatory frameworks at the national level;-Improve sustainable enforcement and administrative capacity of participating countries by providing train-the trainer courses in the Stockholm Convention for national and provincial level environment staff, as well as specialized training for the judiciary; and-Institute a coordinated dissemination and awareness raising system on a national and regional level that will be linked to global scale lessons learned dissemination channels.

These actions are consistent with Strategic Programme 1 of the POPs focal area.

2. PROJECT OBJECTIVE

State the global environmental objective(s) of the project11

To strengthen and build the capacity required in participating countries to implement their Stockholm Convention NIPs in a sustainable, effective and comprehensive manner, while building upon and contributing to strengthening a country's foundational capacities for the sound management of chemicals.

Please provide a narrative of progress made towards meeting the project objective(s). Describe any significant environmental or other changes (results) attributable to project implementation. Also, please discuss any major challenges to meet the objectives or specific project outcomes (not more than 300 words)

Legislative and regulatory frameworksA draft model comprehensive chemicals legislative framework that can be adopted or adapted by countries in the region was developed and translated to French and Portuguese and shared with representatives of participating countries after stakeholder review and feedback. This was useful in Uganda to develop chemicals regulations as well as to conduct a review of the National Environment Act. Uganda has also been undertaking a review of existing (and development of new) pesticides regulations with a view of bringing them in line with the FAO code of conduct. Burundi is finalizing sectoral legislative texts related to chemicals. Work was undertaken in DRC and Rwanda.All this work is expected to vastly improve the legal and regulatory environment for the sound management of chemicals.

Sustainable Enforcement and Administrative Capacity

10 For Full Size Projects this information is found in the front page of the project Executive Summary; for Medium-Sized Projects the information appears in the MSP brief cover page.11 Or immediate project objective

5


The provincial level training was extremely beneficial to participants in all of the countries who appreciated the work done on developing an informative and comprehensible training toolkit. It was widely acknowledged by participants that the threats posed by POPs to human health and the environment were extremely significant. Some key actions identified included the need to address the growing problem of open burning; the need to produce and disseminate videos as impactful as the ones presented; and finally a focused sensitization of decision-makers.

The sub-regional training (ToT) of senior judicial and customs officials will yield positive results once sustainable programs to continue this work are developed domestically.

The EA is quite confident that there will be a multiplier effect in the understanding of chemicals matters generally and POPs specifically in the communities with which the provincial level staffs carry out their work. An improvement in the prioritization of sound management of chemicals initiatives at the national environmental agencies will also be realised.

Information Sharing and DisseminationRevitalization of the Chemical Information Exchange Network was initiated and can be strengthened through national investments that will build upon the important foundation provided by the project. The capacity utilization of NGOs as partners to engage vulnerable communities was effective - with lively engagement in Rwanda, Burundi and Uganda.

Please provide a narrative of progress towards the stated GEF Strategic Priorities and Targets if identified in project document 12(not more than 200 words)

The Goal of the project is to improve the management of chemicals in participating countries. This aligns to the GEF goal in chemicals management which is “to promote the sound management of chemicals throughout their life-cycle in ways that lead to the minimization of significant adverse effects on human health and the global environment.”

Through the development of a comprehensive model chemicals regulatory framework that can be adapted or adopted by African countries, the project has increased the capacity and availability of resources in chemicals legislation and regulations in the region.

Through developing a training toolkit for trainers and conducting training on it, the project has increased the understanding and capacity of focal points and other key government officials to implement the Stockholm Convention and their national implementation plans. The funds provided for in-country training at the provincial level will contribute significantly to increased understanding of chemicals management issues and challenges and equip hitherto uneducated officials on how they can help implement the national implementation plans for the Stockholm Convention.

Continuing work in sub-regional and national capacity building on the CIEN/ESTIS will enhance informationsharing on chemicals between agencies. Similarly, creating awareness amongst vulnerable communities of the risks associated with POPs and other chemical wastes can help directly minimize exposure and the adverse impacts of these substances.

12 Projects that did not include these in original design are encouraged to the extent possible to retrofit specific targets.

6


3. RATING PROJECT PERFORMANCE AND RISK

Based on inputs by the Project Manager, the UNEP Task Manager13 will make an overall assessment and provide ratings of:(i) Progress towards achieving the project objective(s)- see section 3.1(ii) Implementation progress – see section 3.2

Section 3.3 on Risk should be first completed by the Project Manager. The UNEP Task Manager will subsequently enter his/her own ratings in the appropriate column.

3.1 Progress towards achieving the project objective (s)

Project objective and Outcomes

Description of indicator14

Baseline level15 Mid-term target16 End-of-project target

Level at 30 June 2017

Progress rating 17

Objective18 1.2.3.See filled table from next page

Outcome 1:Outcome 1: Legislative and regulatory framework in place

1. Model comprehensive chemicals regulatory system, including legislation,

1. Work plans2. Model framework 3. Legislation and guidelines4. Number and type of chemical regulations

No country in the COMESA No country in the COMESA sub-region has comprehensive regulatory system in place. (Several

None - 5 countries have work plans for comprehensive regulatory framework developed.

- 4 countries have

A draft model comprehensive chemicals legislative framework developed and translated to French and shared for use in the project countries

S

13 For joint projects and where applicable ratings should also be discussed with the Task Manager of co-implementing agency.14 Add rows if your project has more that 3 key indicators per objective or outcome.15 Depending on selected indicator, quantitative or qualitative baseline levels and targets could be used (see Glossary included as Annex 1).16 Many projects did not identify Mid-term targets at the design stage therefore this column should only be filled if relevant.17 Use GEF Secretariat required six-point scale system: Highly Satisfactory (HS), Satisfactory (S), Marginally Satisfactory (MS), Marginally Unsatisfactory (MU), Unsatisfactory (U), and Highly Unsatisfactory (HU). See Annex 2 which contains GEF definitions.18 Add rows if your project has more than 4 objective-level indicators. Same applies for the number of outcome-level indicators.

7



Description of indicator

Baseline level Mid-term target End-of-project target


Progress rating

regulation, guidelines for implementation, sectoral guidelines and standard setting developed.

countries have sectoral regulations requiring revision to take account of the requirements of the Stockholm Convention. Framework legislation is also required).

developed and drafted chemicals regulation.

- 3 countries have adopted sectoral guidelines.

The National Environment Authority (NEMA) Uganda developed chemicals management regulations and also led the revision of the National Environments Act to include provisions on chemicals.

DRC undertook the development of a ministerial decree on chemicals mgmt

International consultant agreed to by Burundi was contracted by WWF. Work is underway in preparing two (2) sector specific legislative texts.

Rwanda initiated work to develop a chemicals management policy, act and POPs legislation

8






Progress rating

2. Pesticide Act reviewed against FAO Code of Conduct and amendments made to comply with the FAO code of conduct

A reviewed Pesticides Act

Most countries have not reviewed their pesticides legislation against the FAO code of conduct

1 country has revised Pesticides Act (incorporating new FAO guidelines).

Uganda undertaking revisions to existing and draft pesticides regulations with support of international pesticides law expert

MS

9






Progress rating

Outcome 2: Sustainable enforcement and administrative capacity established, and enforcement of Stockholm Convention provisions undertaken.

1. Train-the-trainer for national level environment staff and provincial level environmental level inspectors on the Stockholm Convention builds capacity of provincial staff and staff from other sectors to effectively enforce the convention.

Number of trained staff.- Number of trainer of trainers.- Training records.-Number of officials and trainers trained

No provincial level staff have been trained on the obligations of the Stockholm Convention in COMESA subregion

10 provincial level staff trained in each participating country. Two “trainers” trained in each participating country.

Comprehensive trainers’ toolkit developed and provided in French and English2 officials from each country trainedAll countries completed provincial level training and submitted technical and financial reports to WWF. The total individuals trained per country were as follows: Ethiopia (104), Burundi (214), Sudan (99), Uganda (105)and DRC (tbd) and Rwanda (tbd)

HS

2. Development of guidelines, and (train the trainer) training for Environment, Customs and Quarantine staff, on inspection/monitoring and illegal traffic.

Inspection, guidance and monitoring documents.

No training has been conducted for Least Developed Countries in the COMESA sub-region in inspection and monitoring.

5 Quarantine and Customs staff trained in each participating country. Two “trainers” trained in each participating country.

Jan 2015 meeting with IA opted to link customs and border staff training with that of Judiciary staff

Subregional training carried out. Judiciary and Customs training toolkit finalized

MS

10






Progress rating

3. Development of tool kit, and training of judiciary and Ministry of Finance staff on the Stockholm and other chemicals conventions.

1.Training toolkit .2.Number of officials trained.3.Training records.

No Stockholm Convention training materials, specifically targeting the judiciary, or Ministry of Finance, currently available

Three judges and 2 MOF staff trained per participating country and training materials made available

It was decided to hold the finance officers and judiciary training separately due to the difference in target groups.

Finance training completed in September 2013.

Initial Judiciary & Customs training took place in January 2016 as per (2) above.

MS

4. Comprehensive, accurate and accessible database and network on laboratories exists and is used by countries to identify options for sample analysis.

1.Database on laboratories2.Availability/Accessibility of the database3.A list of equipments and staff capability.

No comprehensive, accurate and accessible database exists on laboratories in the sub-region.

Network and database of sub-regional laboratories, including information on equipment, staff capability, and analytical capability, developed.

It was agreed at the PSC level that this activity be dropped.

NA

Outcome 3:Outcome 3:

11






Progress rating

Experiences and good practices disseminated and shared.

1. Platform reactivated as a knowledge management system and actively utilized by participating countries.

1. An active CIEN or other information platform2. Accessibility of the information platform

CIEN platform exists but is inactive.

Revitalize the Chemical Information Exchange Network (CIEN) as a knowledge management system.

Planned activities completed as scheduled including regional ToT and two national training activities in Uganda and Sudan

S

2. Two pilot communities trained in each participating country and enabled to address POPs issues in their localities

1.Communication development toolkit2.Training records3.National communication strategy documents

Little systematic targeting has been conducted for POPs-vulnerable communities in this region

1.Training in the development of communication strategies for POPs2.All relevant sectors and stakeholders engaged in the implementation of project activities

Five of the six project country submitted budgeted work plans for vulnerable community sensitization in collaboration with civil society organizations and it is expected that they will conduct the work in FY 17. DRC completed this sensitization programme in June 2016.

MS

12






Progress rating

3. COMESA countries make a declaration committing to be able to implement the Stockholm Convention, and that if required resources will be made available.

1. Record of the number of participants in the COMESA forum.2. Meetings and the forum’s reports.3.COMESA declaration

Absence of high-level support for implementation of the Stockholm Convention in the COMESA forum

Bring high-level representatives to COMESA forum, to increase high level awareness on the Stockholm Convention

Side event highlighting Project held at AMCEN ministerial meeting in Libreville, Gabon Plan to carry out more engagements in FY 17.

S

Overall rating of project progress towards meeting project objective(s) (To be provided by UNEP GEF Task Manager. Please add columns to reflect all prior year ratings)

FY2016 rating FY2017 rating Comments/narrative justifying the current FY rating and explaining reasons for change (positive or negative) since previous reporting periods

MS MS / S A great deal of effort has been made by the EA and countries to ensure the project delivers against the original objectives.

Action plan to address MS, MU, U and HU rating (To be completed by UNEP GEF Task Manager in consultation with Project Manager)

Action(s) to be taken By whom? By when?Extension of project to March 2018 EA Dec 2017Finalisation of outstanding training EA March 2018Inclusion of new activities as agreed at SC EA Dec 2017Completion of all outstanding work as per detailed work plan submitted with request for project extension – monthlyconference calls with IA to track progress

EA March 2018

13


This section should be completed if project progress towards meeting objectives was rated MS, MU, U or HU during the previous Project Implementation Review (PIR) or by the Mid-term Review/Evaluation (To be completed by Project Manager).

Problem(s) identified in previous PIR

Action(s) taken By whom When

3.2 Project implementation progress

Outputs 19Expected

completion date 20

Implementation status as of 30 June 2016 (%)


Comments if variance21. Describe any problems in delivering

outputs

Progress rating22

1 Component 1 - Legislative and regulatory framework developmentOutcome 1.1 - Comprehensive chemical regulatory system available for use and adaptation to specific national requirements.

Activity 1.1.1 Uganda - Benchmarking Study Tour to South Africa Jan 2015 100% 100% S

Activity 1.1.2 Burundi - Complete domestication of chemical sector regulations March 2017 50% 70%

francophone legal consultant recruited and guiding completion of this work

MS

Activity 1.1.3Share Model Chemical Framework Law and Assess Country needs (DRC, SU, ETH, RW)

June 2015 100% 100% S

Activity 1.1.4 Presentation of draft to Steering Committee and consultation

January- March 2014 100% S

Activity 1.1.5 Comprehensive regulatory framework finalized April 2014 100% 100% S

19 Outputs and activities as described in the project logframe or in any updated project revision.20 As per latest workplan (latest project revision)21 Variance refers to the difference between the expected and actual progress at the time of reporting.22 To be provided by the UNEP Task Manager

14


Outputs Expected

completion date



Comments if variance. Describe any problems in delivering

outputsProgress rating

Outcome 1.2 - Participating countries have the skills to review and revise Pesticides Acts against FAO Code of Conduct

Activity 1.2.1Pesticide Act reviewed against FAO Code of Conduct – Work plan Development

July 2016 80% 90%

Stakeholder consultations ongoing with support from international pesticides legal consultant

S

Activity 1.2.2 Consultant recruitment to support regulation development

September 2016 60% 100% MS

Activity 1.2.3 Stakeholder validation workshops conducted July 2017 20% 70% MS

2 Component 2 - Sustainable Enforcement and Administrative CapacityOutcome 2.1 - Skilled trainers in each participating country on Stockholm Convention

Activity 2.1.1 Rwanda Proposal Development August 2015 100% 100%Activity 2.1.2 Contracting of Rwanda (REMA) Sept 2015 70% 100% Contracting completed MSActivity 2.1.3 National / Sub National Workshops October 2016 0% 85% MS

Outcome 2.2 - Guidelines developed and trainers trained on inspection/monitoring of illegal traffic

Activity 2.2.1Training toolkit development and Identification of training beneficiaries

Jun 2016 30% 100% Toolkit developed S

Activity 2.2.2

Sub Regional awareness Workshop targeting Customs and Quarantine border staff and environmental NGOs

January 2016 100% 100% S

Outcome 2.3 - Toolkit developed and members of the judiciary from each country trained on the Stockholm Convention and related chemicals and waste conventions

Activity 2.3.1Training toolkit development and Identification of training beneficiaries

June 2016 100% 100% S

Activity 2.3.2 Sub Regional training of Trainers Workshop June 2016 100% 100% S

Activity 2.3.3 National Judiciary training Conducted

April 2017 0% 50% Uganda Scheduled for Jul 2017. Ethiopia and DRC scheduled for

MS

15


Outputs Expected

completion date





FY 18

Activity 2.3.4 National Judiciary training Conducted April 2017 0% 50%

Uganda Scheduled for Jul 2017. Ethiopia and DRC scheduled for FY 18

MS

Outcome 2.4 - Network and database of sub regional laboratories institutedActivities dropped from work plan following agreement at PSC

3 Component 3 - Information Exchange and Dissemination

Outcome 3.1 - Knowledge management system for sound chemicals management functioning

Activity 3.1.1 Sub-regional CIEN/ESTIS Training of Trainers Workshop (COMESA) July 2015 100% 100% S

Activity 3.1.2 Capacity building training on CIEN in two (2) countries August 2016 80% 100% National Training completed in

Sudan and Uganda S

Activity 3.1.3 African Regional Workshop July 2017 0% 0% Agreed at PSC to Drop Activity NA

Outcome 3.2 - Increased knowledge of POPs in vulnerable communities

Activity 3.2.1 Contract Communication Specialist to develop communication material August 2016 70% 70% No progress. To be carried out in

FY 18 MS

Activity 3.2.2

Develop and execute awareness programme March 2017 18% 80%

DRC done. Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi NGOs contracted and work undertaken

MS / U

Outcome 3.3 - High-level sub regional support for POPs management

Activity 3.3.1Periodic Updates of Project to High Level Stakeholders in the COMESA Sub Region

June 2017 20% 20% U

Activity 3.3.2Ministerial Engagement at Basel Rotterdam Stockholm Convention COPs (May 2017)

May 2017 0% 75%

One on one meetings accomplished on side-lines at COP with heads of delegation of Ethiopia, Uganda, Burundi, Rwanda

MS

16


Outputs Expected

completion date





Activity 3.3.3 Ministerial Engagement at UNEP-WHO Libreville declaration Fora TBD 0% 0% Meeting Postponed NA

Activity 3.3.4 Ministerial Engagement at AMCEN or Sub-Regional Level TBD 20% 100%

Side Event highlighting POPs Project achievements held at AMCEN meeting in Libreville, Gabon

MS

4 Component 4 - Project ManagementProject reporting to UNEP (half-yearly) July, January 100% 100% S

Steering Committee June 2016 100% 100%PSC meetings held in Maputo (Mar 2016) and Nairobi (Jun 2016, Jun 2017)

S

TeleconferencesApril, August, December

100% 100%Communication on an on-going basis S

Progress reporting to national authorities

January, July

100% 100% Done during PSC meetings S

Co-finance reporting to UNEP December 100% 100% S

GEF Project Implementation reviews July 90% 90%

Delayed reporting due to unanticipated staff changes at EA and physical office relocation

MS

Financial Audits June 100% 100% SProject reporting to UNEP (half-yearly) July 100% 100% N/A

17


Overall project implementation progress 23 (To be completed by UNEP GEF Task Manager. Please add columns to reflect prior years’ ratings):

FY2016 rating FY2017 rating Comments/narrative justifying the rating for this FY and any changes (positive or negative) in the rating since the previous reporting period

MS MS / S Much more focus from the EA and commitment from Project countries to deliver results following enhanced supervision of the project by the IA.

Action plan to address MS, MU, U and HU rating. (To be completed by UNEP Task Manager in consultation with Project Manager24)

Action(s) to be taken By whom? By when?

This section should be completed if project progress was rated MS, MU, U or HU during the previous Project Implementation Review (PIR) or by the Mid-term Review/Evaluation (To be completed by Project Manager).

Problem(s) identified in previous PIR

Action(s) taken By whom When

23 Use GEF Secretariat required six-point scale system: Highly Satisfactory (HS), Satisfactory (S), Marginally Satisfactory (MS), Marginally Unsatisfactory (MU), Unsatisfactory (U), and Highly Unsatisfactory (HU)24 UNEP Fund Management Officer should also be consulted as appropriate.

18


3.3. RiskThere are two tables to assess and address risk: the first “risk factor table” to describe and rate risk factors; the second “top risk mitigation plan” should indicate what measures/action will be taken with respect to risks rated Substantial or High and who is responsible to for it.

RISK FACTOR TABLEProject Managers will use this table to summarize risks identified in the Project Document and reflect also any new risks identified in the course of project implementation. The Notes column should be used to provide additional details concerning manifestation of the risk in your specific project, as relevant. The “Notes” column has one section for the Project Manager (PM) and one for the UNEP Task Manager (TM). If the generic risk factors and indicators in the table are not relevant to the project rows should be added. The UNEP Task Manager should provide ratings in the right hand column reflecting his/her own assessment of project risks.

Project Manager Rating

Notes Task Manager Rating

Risk Factor Indicator of Low Risk

Indicator of Medium Risk

Indicator of High Risk

Low

Med

ium

Sub

stan

tial

Hig

h

Not

App

licab

le

To b

e de

term

ined

Low

Med

ium

Sub

stan

tial

Hig

h

Not

App

licab

le

To b

e de

term

ined

INTERNAL RISKProject management

Management structure

Stable with roles and responsibilities clearly defined and understood

Individuals understand their own role but are unsure of responsibilities of others

Unclear responsibilities or overlapping functions which lead to management problems

X PM : X

TM:

Governance structure

Steering Committee and/or other project bodies meet periodically and provide effective direction/inputs

Body(ies) meets periodically but guidance/input provided to project is inadequate. TOR unclear

Members lack commitment Committee/body does not fulfil its TOR

X PM : X

TM:

19







Low

Med

ium

Sub

stan

tial

Hig

h

Not

App

licab

le

To b

e de

term

ined

Low

Med

ium

Sub

stan

tial

Hig

h

Not

App

licab

le

To b

e de

term

ined


Internal com-munications

Fluid and cordial Communication process deficient although relationships between team members are good

Lack of adequate communication between team members leading to deterioration of relationships and resentment

X PM: X

TM:

Work flow Project progressing according to work plan

Some changes in project work plan but without major effect on overall timetable

Major delays or changes in work plan or method of implementation

X PM: NEW ACTIVITIES ADDED AT FINAL SC MEETING. OTHER ACTIVITIES ON SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETION

X

TM:

Co-financing Co-financing is secured and payments are received on time

Is secured but payments are slow and bureaucratic

A substantial part of pledged co-financing may not materialize

X PM:NEED FEEDBACK FROM GEF OFPs ON STATUS

X

TM: effort to provide co-finance reports needed in Q1 2018

Budget Activities are progressing within planned budget

Minor budget reallocation needed

Reallocation between budget lines exceeding 30% of original budget

X PM: X

TM:

Financial management

Funds are correctly

Financial reporting slow or

Serious financial reporting

X PM: X

20







Low

Med

ium

Sub

stan

tial

Hig

h

Not

App

licab

le

To b

e de

term

ined

Low

Med

ium

Sub

stan

tial

Hig

h

Not

App

licab

le

To b

e de

term

ined


managed and transparently accounted for

deficient problems or indication of mismanagement of funds

TM:

Reporting Substantive reports are presented in a timely manner and are complete and accurate with a good analysis of project progress and implementation issues

Reports are complete and accurate but often delayed or lack critical analysis of progress and implementation issues

Serious concerns about quality and timeliness of project reporting

X PM: AGREEMENT REACHED AND DECISION TAKEN TO DISBURSE FINAL FUNDS BASED ON CONCRETE FINAL WORKPLANS

X

TM:

Stakeholder involvement

Stakeholder analysis done and positive feedback from critical stakeholders and partners

Consultation and participation process seems strong but misses some groups or relevant partners

Symptoms of conflict with critical stakeholders or evidence of apathy and lack of interest from partners or other stakeholders

X PM: X

TM:

21







Low

Med

ium

Sub

stan

tial

Hig

h

Not

App

licab

le

To b

e de

term

ined

Low

Med

ium

Sub

stan

tial

Hig

h

Not

App

licab

le

To b

e de

term

ined


External com-munications

Evidence that stakeholders, practitioners and/or the general public understand project and are regularly updated on progress

Communications efforts are taking place but not yet evidence that message is successfully transmitted

Project existence is not known beyond implementation partners or misunderstand-ings concerning objectives and activities evident

X PM: X

TM:

Short term/long term balance

Project is addressing short term needs and achieving results with a long term perspective, particularly sustainability and replicability

Project is interested in the short term with little understanding of or interest in the long term

Longer term issues are deliberately ignored or neglected

X PM: X

TM:

Science and technological issues

Project based on sound science and well established technologies

Project testing approaches, methods or technologies but based on sound analysis of options and risks

Many scientific and /or technological uncertainties

X PM: X

TM:

Political influences

Project decisions and choices are not particularly

Signs that some project decisions are politically

Project is subject to a variety of political

X PM: MORE POLITICAL SUPPORT SHOULD BE DEVELOPED

X

22







Low

Med

ium

Sub

stan

tial

Hig

h

Not

App

licab

le

To b

e de

term

ined

Low

Med

ium

Sub

stan

tial

Hig

h

Not

App

licab

le

To b

e de

term

ined


politically driven motivated influences that may jeopardize project objectives

TM:

Other, please specify. Add rows as necessary

PM:

TM:

23







Low

Med

ium

Sub

stan

tial

Hig

h

Not

App

licab

le

To b

e de

term

ined

Low

Med

ium

Sub

stan

tial

Hig

h

Not

App

licab

le

To b

e de

term

ined

EXTERNAL RISKProject context

Political stability

Political context is stable and safe

Political context is unstable but predictable and not a threat to project implementation

Very disruptive and volatile

X PM: X

TM:

Environmental conditions

Project area is not affected by severe weather events or major environmental stress factors

Project area is subject to more or less predictable disasters or changes

Project area has very harsh environmental conditions

X PM: X

TM:

Social, cultural and economic factors

There are no evident social, cultural and/or economic issues that may affect project performance and results

Social or economic issues or changes pose challenges to project implementation but mitigation strategies have been developed

Project is highly sensitive to economic fluctuations, to social issues or cultural barriers

X PM: X

TM:

Capacity issues

Sound technical and managerial capacity of institutions and other project partners

Weaknesses exist but have been identified and actions is taken to build the necessary capacity

Capacity is very low at all levels and partners require constant support and technical assistance

X PM: X

TM:

Others, please

24







Low

Med

ium

Sub

stan

tial

Hig

h

Not

App

licab

le

To b

e de

term

ined

Low

Med

ium

Sub

stan

tial

Hig

h

Not

App

licab

le

To b

e de

term

ined

EXTERNAL RISKProject context

specify

If there is a significant (over 50% of risk factors) discrepancy between Project Manager and Task Manager rating, an explanation by the Task Manager should be provided below

TOP RISK MITIGATION PLANRank – importance of riskRisk Statement – potential problem (condition and consequence)Action to take – action planned/taken to handle the riskWho – person(s) responsible for the actionDate – date by which action needs to be or was completed

Rank Risk Statement25 Action to Take Who DateCondition Consequence

25 Only for Substantial to High risk.

25


Rank Risk Statement Action to Take Who DateCondition Consequence

Project overall risk rating (Low, Medium, Substantial or High) (Please include PIR risk ratings for all prior periods, add columns as necessary):

FY2016 rating FY2017 rating Comments/narrative justifying the current FY rating and any changes (positive or negative) in the rating since the previous reporting period

M L / MIf a risk mitigation plan had been presented for a previous period or as a result of the Mid-Term Review/Evaluation please report on progress or results of its implementation

26


4. RATING MONITORING AND EVALUATION

Based on the answers provided to the questions in 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 below, the UNEP Task Manager will provide ratings for the following aspects of project monitoring and evaluation:

(i) Overall quality of the Monitoring & Evaluation plan(ii) Performance in the implementation of the M&E plan

4.1. Does the project M&E plan contain the following: Baseline information for each outcome-level indicator Yes X No □ SMART indicators to track project outcomes Yes X No □ A clear distribution of responsibilities for monitoring project progress. Yes X No □

4.2. Has the project budgeted for the following M&E activities: Mid-term review/evaluation Yes X No □ Terminal evaluation Yes X No □ Any costs associated with collecting and analysing indicators’

related information Yes X No □

Please rate the quality of the project M&E plan (use HS, S, MS, MU, U, HU):

4.3 Has the project: Utilized the indicators identified in the M&E plan to track progress

in meeting the project objectives; Yes X No □ Fulfilled the specified reporting requirements (financial, including

on co-financing and auditing, and substantive reports) Yes X No □ Completed any scheduled MTR or MTE before or at project

implementation mid-point; Yes No X Applied adaptive management in response to M&E activities YesX No □ Implemented any existing risk mitigation plan (see previous section) YesX No □

Please rate the performance in implementing the M&E plan (use HS, S, MS, MU, U, HU): S

4.4. Please describe activities for monitoring and evaluation carried out during the reporting period26

26 Do not include routine project reporting. Examples of M&E activities include stakeholder surveys, field surveys, steering committee meetings to assess project progress, peer review of documentation to ensure quality, etc.

27


Regular / quarterly review of performance conference calls, Annual SC meeting, bi-lateral meetings with EA and UNEP Finance team.

4.5. Provide information on the quality of baseline information and any effects (positive or negative) on the selection of indicators and the design of other project monitoring activitiesIndicators were designed in 2010 and their relevance to the redesigned project was limited. Revised indicators are SMARTER.

4.6. Provide comments on the usefulness and relevance of selected indicators and experiences in the application of the same.Useful tools

4.7. Describe any challenges in obtaining data relevant to the selected indicators; has the project experienced problems to cover costs associated with the tracking of indicators?Communications with EA and countries slower than ideal situation

4.8. Describe any changes in the indicators or in the project intervention logic, including an explanation of whether key assumptions27 are still valid

4.9. Describe how potential social or environmental negative effects are monitoredIntegration of project with national NGO partners

4.10. Please provide any other experiences or lessons relevant to the design and implementation of project monitoring and evaluation plans.Simpler design with fewer outcomes and outputs – as implemented in all GEF 6 new submissions.

5. Stories & Contributions to UN Environment’s GEF Communications Work

5.1 Are there any especially interesting and impactful project results that you would like to bring to the attention of our GEF Corporate Communications efforts? Please provide a very brief summary.

27 Assumptions refer to elements of the “theory of change” or “intervention logic” (i.e, the problem is a result of A, therefore, if we change B, this will lead to C) and not to pre-conditions for project implementation. It is a common mistake to include statements such as “political will” as an assumption. This is rather a necessary condition to implement the project.

28


29