FAO/GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY
PROJECT DOCUMENT
Countries:
Regional (Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia,
Mongolia, Republic of Moldova, Romania, The Former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia)
Project Title:
Capacity Building on Obsolete and POPs Pesticides in Eastern
European Caucuses and Central Asian (EECCA) countries
FAO Project Symbol:
GCP/INT/062/GFF
GEF Project ID:
3212
FAO Project ID:
604248
GEF Agency:
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
(FAO)
Other Executing Partners: Green Cross (Switzerland and Belarus), International
Hexaclorocyclohexane (HCH) and Pesticides Association
GEF Focal Area:
Persistent Organic Pollutants
Operational Programme: OP 14
GEF Strategic Programme: POPs SP-1 Strengthening Capacities for NIP development and
Implementation; POPs SP-3 Generating and Disseminating
Knowledge to Address Future Challenges in Implementing the
Stockholm Convention
Duration:
Estimated Starting Date:
Estimated Completion:
Financing Plan:
GEF Allocation:
USD 1 000 000
Co-financing:
Green Cross Switzerland (cash)
USD 454 000
Green Cross Switzerland (in-kind) USD 189 550
Millieukontakt (in-kind)
USD 205 000
USAID -OFDA (cash)
USD 200 000
Governments (in-kind)
USD 280 000
FAO (in kind)
USD 68 000
Sub-total Co-financing
USD 1 396 550
Total Project Budget:
USD 2 396 550
1
OPERATIONAL FOCAL POINT ENDORSEMENT
ALBANIA:
Date of Endorsement:
ARMENIA:
AYVAZYAN, Vardan
GEF National Focal Point
Date of Endorsement:
29 March 2006
AZERBAIJAN:
BAGIROV, Hussein
Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources
Date of Endorsement:
06 March 2006
BELARUS:
Date of Endorsement:
29 March 2006
GEORGIA:
TKHILAVA, Nino
GEF Operational Focal Point
Ministry of Environment of Georgia
Date of Endorsement:
8 November 2006
MONGOLIA:
Date of Endorsement:
REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA:
MIHAELESCU, Constantin
Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources
Date of Endorsement:
17 March 2006
ROMANIA:
STOICA, Silviu
National GEF Operational Focal Point
Ministry of Environment and Water Management
Date of Endorsement:
17 March 2006
THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA:
KOZUHAROVA, Gordana
Date of Endorsement:
GEF Operational Focal Point
01 June 2006
Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning
2
CAPACITY BUILDING ON OBSOLETE AND POPs PESTICIDES IN EASTERN
EUROPEAN CAUCUSES AND CENTRAL ASIAN (EECCA) COUNTRIES
Project Signatory Page
This project is agreed by:
_______________________
José M. Sumpsi
Assistant Director-General
Technical Cooperation Department
Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations
Date:
__________________________________
Albania
Name/Title:
Date:
Name/Title:
Date:
__________________________________
Armenia
Name/Title:
Date:
__________________________________
Georgia
Name/Title:
Date:
__________________________________
Azerbaijan
Name/Title:
Date:
__________________________________
Mongolia
Name/Title:
Date:
_________________________________
Belarus
__________________________________
Republic of Moldova
Name/Title:
3
Date:
_____________________________
The Former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia
Name/Title:
Date:
__________________________________
Romania
Name/Title:
Date:
SUMMARY
Article 6 of the Stockholm Convention requires Parties to implement measures to reduce or
eliminate releases from stockpiles and wastes that consist of or are contaminated by persistent
organic pollutants that are covered by the Convention. However, practicalities of identifying
persistent organic pollutants stockpiles and wastes, managing and taking action to eliminate
the stockpiles and wastes in compliance with the requirements of the Convention are complex
and beyond the capacity of most developing countries and countries with economies in
transition including the EECCA countries participating in this project.
The primary objective of the project is the reduction of pesticide releases into the
environment and elimination of human health and environmental threat they pose in EECCA
countries. The project will facilitate viable and environmentally sound measures for the
identification, handling and disposal of pesticides stockpiles and wastes, and incorporation of
strategies for prevention and management of obsolete pesticides into national policies with a
strong emphasis of regional and sub-regional approaches.
Expected results of this project include: greater awareness concerning pesticides and
persistent organic pollutants wastes within participating countries; increased capacity for
Environmentally Sound Management of obsolete pesticides; more systematic involvement of
stakeholders in the area of obsolete pesticides stockpiles, persistent organic pollutants wastes
and contaminated sites management; and improved cooperation amongst participating
countries and the EECCA region.
The main outcome is the development of obsolete pesticides management and disposal plans
in participating countries to manage POPs pesticides and stockpiles and wastes in an efficient
and environmentally sound manner. Regional and sub-regional framework for cooperation,
which motivates and builds capacity among participating parties to fulfill their obligations
under the Stockholm Convention, will be created. The outcome will be achieved through
supporting information exchange between participating countries, providing necessary
training and tools and demonstration of pilot activities to reduce the risks of obsolete
pesticides mismanagement.
4
Table of Contents
1. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................... 7
1.1 General Context ............................................................................................................... 7
1.2 Sectoral Context ............................................................................................................... 8
1.2.1
Development priorities and MDGs .................................................................... 8
1.2.2
NMTPF and UNDAF ......................................................................................... 9
1.3 GEF Eligibility Criteria .................................................................................................... 9
2. RATIONALE AND JUSTIFICATION ............................................................................... 11
2.1 Problems/Issues to be addressed .................................................................................... 11
2.2 Stakeholders and Target Beneficiaries ........................................................................... 12
2.3 Project Justification ........................................................................................................ 12
2.4 Past and Related Work ................................................................................................... 13
2.5 FAO’s Comparative Advantage ..................................................................................... 13
3. PROJECT FRAMEWORK .................................................................................................. 14
3.1 Project Impact ................................................................................................................ 14
3.2 Project Outcomes and Outputs ....................................................................................... 14
3.3 Sustainability .................................................................................................................. 21
3.4 Risks and Assumptions .................................................................................................. 22
4. IMPLEMENTATION AND MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS................................. 23
4.1 Institutional Framework and Coordination .................................................................... 23
4.2 Strategy/Methodology .................................................................................................... 25
5. FINANCING PLAN ............................................................................................................ 27
Project Costs .................................................................................................................... 27
Project Management Budget ............................................................................................ 27
Consultants Working for Technical Assistance ............................................................... 28
Cofinancing Sources ........................................................................................................ 28
6. MONITORING AND EVALUATION ............................................................................... 29
Project Monitoring and Reporting. .................................................................................. 29
Independent Evaluation .................................................................................................... 31
Financial Management and Reporting ............................................................................. 31
5
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AGPP
ASP
CD-ROM
CLI
DDT
EA
ECPA
EECCA
ESM
EU
FAO
GC
GCB
GEF
HCH `
IA
IBRD
IFCS
IGO
IHPA
IHP Forum
IOMC
IPM
M&E
MSP
NATO
NGO
NIP
OFDA
PHARE
POPs
PSC
REC
SAICM
SBC
ToT
TSU
UNDP
`
Plant Protection Service of FAO
Africa Stockpiles Programme
Compact Disk – Read Only Memory
CropLife International
Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane
Executing Agency / Environmental Assessment
European Crop Protection Association
Eastern Europe, Caucuses & Central Asia
Environmentally Sound Management
European Union
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Green Cross
Green Cross Belarus
Global Environment Facility
Hexachlorocyclohexane
Implementing Agency
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development
Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety
InterGovernmental Organization
International HCH and Pesticides Association
International HCH and Pesticides Forum
Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound Management of
Chemicals
Integrated Pest Management
Monitoring & Evaluation
Medium Sized Project
North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Non-Governmental Organization
National Implementation Plan (of the Stockholm Convention)
Office of Federal Disaster Assistance
Pre-Accession assistance programme of the European Commission
Persistent Organic Pollutants
Project Steering Committee
Regional Environmental Centre for Central and Eastern Europe
Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management
Secretariat of the Basel Convention
Training of Trainers
Technical Support Unit of the Africa Stockpiles Programme
United Nations Development Programme
6
UNEP
UNIDO
USAID
USD
WHO
United Nations Environment Programme
United Nations Industrial Development Organization
United States Agency for International Development
United States Dollars
World Health Organization
1. BACKGROUND
1.1 General Context
While the introduction of chemical pesticides in the 1940s and 50s contributed to disease control and
crop production, it has also caused many, varied and widespread adverse impacts on the human health
and the environment. Examples of these adverse impacts include death and disability among pesticide
users and the communities around them, global transport and bio-accumulation of persistent organic
pollutants (POPs), contamination of local water supplies and loss of income to farmers whose produce
contains unacceptable levels of pesticide residues.
Improved understanding of the health and environmental hazards associated with pesticides has led to
the development of sophisticated regulatory and control systems designed to control pesticide trade,
management and use. Examples include the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent
Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade, the Stockholm
Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary
Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal and the OECD Pesticides Working Group. Many
other mechanisms designed to address chemical management include pesticides among their concerns.
Examples include the Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety (IFCS), Inter-Organization
Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals (IOMC) and Strategic Approach to International
Chemicals Management (SAICM).
Nevertheless, the problems caused by pesticide mismanagement persist with particularly powerful
impacts in developing countries and countries with economies in transition. Where agriculture is the
mainstay of the economy, pesticides are the majority of chemicals in use. The infrastructure
controlling and managing pesticides throughout their life-cycle is often weak and under-resourced, and
the end users of pesticides are usually untrained and poorly equipped to use them safely. These
countries and their farmers often chose to use highly toxic pesticides because they are cheaper than
less hazardous products. Import and regulatory controls are weak in many developing countries and
countries with economies in transition, and hence poor quality and illegal pesticides often enter local
markets with little or no control. As a result, according to the World Health Organization (WHO)
report The Public Health Impact of Pesticides Used in Agriculture (Geneva, 1990), 99 percent of the
estimated 3 million people poisoned by pesticides each year are in poor countries and the most serious
and persistent problems associated with environmental contamination from pesticides are also in the
developing world.
Mismanagement has also led to the gradual creation of problems that appear to be unsolvable such as
the accumulation of vast quantities of pesticides that have become unusable over the years, and
contamination from pesticides that cannot be removed from the environment.
Stockpiles of obsolete pesticides are often in a severely deteriorated condition, poorly stored and
located close to housing or water supplies, and thus represent a serious risk to human health, ground
and surface water, land use, and the environment. The impact is often greatest on the poor.
Abandoned pesticide stockpiles and dumps are often located near poorer communities where people
scavenge for “recyclables” with no or little awareness of the dangers involved.
7
Most developing countries and countries with economies in transition lack adequate technical,
institutional and financial capacity to develop the necessary policy and regulatory conditions to
properly manage pesticides, clean up contaminated wastes/sites and the destruction of obsolete stocks
of pesticides.
The continuing obsolete pesticide stockpile accretion and lack of remediation make the problems
acute. Nevertheless, obsolete chemicals have generally not been considered as a pressing development
issue and have therefore not been programmed into national development plans.
Efforts have been made in recent years to improve control over pesticides. Many EECCA countries
have ratified international agreements, developed regulations, moved away from centralized
purchasing systems, imposed controls for illegal dumping of hazardous wastes, imposed tighter border
controls and developed Integrated Pest Management (IPM) programs to reduce reliance on pesticides.
However, given the pressures of increasing agricultural exports and more stringent market
requirements, EECCA countries need to increase efforts to prevent misuse and overuse of pesticides.
This project is designed to help EECCA countries to identify and move towards elimination of their
obsolete pesticide stocks while building capacity to manage pesticides throughout their life cycle more
effectively. The project links directly with existing or developing initiatives such as the Africa
Stockpiles Programme (ASP), Secretariat of the Basel Convention action on hazardous waste
management, and WHO and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) projects on improved
disease vector control.
1.2 Sectoral Context
At the national level, the project will contribute to the national development strategies of the
participating countries in the areas of agricultural production, environmental protection, public health
and poverty alleviation. The project will directly contribute to:
a. Enhancing the opportunity of the agricultural sector to better manage crop pests.
b. Improving environmental protection through reducing pesticide pollution and pesticiderelated degradation of fisheries, waters and soils; and
c. Reducing public health risks through reducing exposure to pesticides;
d. Improving the quality of life in the poor communities through reducing pesticide hazards
in their living and working environment;
The project will integrate several aspects of pesticide management and pest management. Ultimately
these issues impact on farmer livelihoods in many ways, such as:



Reduced reliance on pesticides generally improves economic margins;
Reduced use of pesticide reduces health problems that in turn increases farmers’ work
capacity;
Removal of obsolete pesticides improves natural resource quality (soil and water).
1.2.1 Development priorities and MDGs
The project primarily contributes to the achievement of MDG7 on environment through the
removal of serious contaminants from the environment and improving the management of
pesticides in order to reduce adverse environmental impacts. The project will also contribute
8
to the achievement of MDG1 on reducing hunger by reducing reliance on pesticides and
improving pesticide use.
These factors will improve farmers’ health and hence their productivity and will increase
farmer margins by reducing expenditure on chemical inputs. In addition, the project is cross
sectoral in addressing agricultural, environmental and health and will therefore both build on
and foster the creation of institutional partnerships within and between the project
participating countries and among Inter-Governmental Organization (IGOs) operating in
relevant areas.
All FAO Member States have endorsed the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution
and Use of Pesticides which, although not a legally binding instrument is the internationally
accepted norm. The Code will be the guiding document for the capacity building components
of this project.
Most EECCA countries have ratified the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic
Pollutants and the Basel Convention on transboundary movement of hazardous waste, and
many have ratified the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent process for trade
in certain hazardous chemicals. This project will support the effective implementation of these
conventions and will encourage their adoption in countries that have not yet ratified them.
Many individual governments among the EECCA countries have written to FAO asking for
assistance in eliminating obsolete pesticide stocks or in addressing other aspects of pesticide
management. The project will be responding directly to these requests
1.2.2 NMTPF and UNDAF
The project will be working regionally and will build on regional or sub-regional
collaboration. The project will, as stated above, respond to country requests but will also aim
to stimulate regional, sub-regional and national action to address the problems of obsolete
pesticides and weak pesticide management capacity.
In addressing these issues, the project will be contributing to broader objectives of the
NMTPF and UNDAF in many countries, though specific contributions will only be identified
during the inception phase of the project.
1.3 GEF Eligibility Criteria
Country Eligibility
Countries directly participating on the Project are fully eligible for GEF funding having
ratified the Stockholm Convention. While the primary focus of the project will be on the
countries that have ratified the Stockholm Convention, it should be noted that one of the
wider objectives of this project is to encourage and assist other countries in the EECCA
region to ratify, so that their POPs pesticide stockpiles can also be addressed in the
medium to long term. Table below presenting the status of ratification, NIP development
and endorsement to the Project:
Country
Ratification,
Acceptance (A)
Approval (AA)
Accession (a)
National
Implementation Plan
(NIP) Status
9
Endorsement
Albania
4 Oct 2004
NIP in the final stage of
development
Endorsement Letter,
USD 40 000,- in-kind
co finance
Armenia
26 Nov 2003
Final Draft NIP
Endorsement Letter
Azerbaijan
13 Jan 2004 a
NIP under development
Belarus
3 Feb 2004 a
NIP under development
Georgia
4 Oct 2006
Submitted to SC
Secretariat
Mongolia
30 Apr 2004
Final Draft NIP
Republic of Moldova
7 Apr 2004
Submitted to SC
Secretariat
Romania
28 Oct 2004
Submitted to SC
Secretariat
The Former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia
27 May 2004
Submitted to SC
Secretariat
Endorsement Letter,
USD 40 000,- in-kind
co finance
Endorsement Letter,
USD 40 000,- USD inkind co finance
Endorsement Letter
Endorsement Letter,
USD 40 000,- in-kind
co finance
Endorsement Letter,
USD 40 000,- in-kind
co finance
Endorsement Letter,
USD 40 000,- in-kind
co finance
Endorsement Letter
USD 40 000,- in-kind
co finance
Programme and Policy Conformity
The Project will support, across the EECCA region, the objective of the Stockholm
Convention to protect human health and the environment from Persistent Organic Pollutants.
This Medium size Project (MSP) is consistent with the elements of the Operational
Programme on POPs (OP#14). It supports the POPs Focal Area strategy for GEF-4 in several
ways:
 Strategic Program 1: Strengthening Capacities for NIP Development and
Implementation
Participating countries that have not yet completed their NIP will be helped and
guided through collaboration with other countries of the region and with a wider range
of agencies and organizations than has been the case in the past. In this way a coherent
approach to the identification and management of POPs and other obsolete pesticides
and development of plans for their elimination and prevention will be propoted to
participating countries in this MSP;
 Strategic Program 2: Partnering in Investments for NIP Implementation
The MSP does not propose to make investments in achieving the objectives of POPs
destruction and replacement, but the project will help participating countries to plan
for these actions;
 Strategic Program 3: Generating and Disseminating Knowledge to Address
Future Challenges in Implementing the Stockholm Convention
10
An important element of this MSP will be the dissemination of knowledge among and
to participating countries on best practice in eliminating and preventing POPs
pesticide accumulation. Some pilot demonstration activities will also be implemented
within the framework of this project.
The MSP is part of an effort designed to contribute towards the successful implementation of
a number of related international conventions and other agreements in particular the
Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous
Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade and the Basel Convention on the Control of
Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Waste and their Disposal. In addition the MSP will
support the implementation of the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use
of Pesticides. The MSP is also expected to provide indirect benefits in biodiversity
conservation, alleviate land degradation and in some cases protect international waters. The
overall programme and the individual country activities will play a key role in fostering
synergies, where and when possible, among conventions and thematic fields.
2. RATIONALE AND JUSTIFICATION
2.1 Problems/Issues to be addressed
Mismanagement and accumulation of obsolete pesticides and POPs pose a threat to health and
the environment locally, regionally and globally. Article 6 of the Stockholm Convention, in
response to this threat, requires countries party to the Convention to take measures to
eliminate or reduce the release of POPs into the environment.
In order to effectively implement Article 6 of the Stockholm Convention, it is necessary for
countries to carry out a comprehensive and detailed inventory of POPs stockpiles. Although
most countries, including those participating in this project, have completed an indicative
inventory of POPs within the framework of their National Implementation Plan (NIP), these
inventories do not provide sufficient details in order to allow a detailed management or
elimination plan to be developed. Neither would an indicative inventory suffice for wastes to
be transported across international boundaries or by sea and treated or destroyed in an
appropriate facility in compliance with relevant national and international legislation.
The practicalities of identifying stockpiles and wastes that contain or are contaminated by
POPs, managing and taking action to eliminate the stockpiles and wastes in compliance with
the requirements of the Convention are complex and beyond the capacity of most developing
countries and countries with economies in transition.
In addition, elimination of POPs stockpiles or stockpiles that are contaminated by POPs is
also technically complex and requires understanding of the specific hazards that POPs
present. Many, or most stockpiles and wastes that contain or are contaminated by POPs are
old and in poor condition. Containers holding POPs chemicals may be deteriorated and
chemicals are likely to have leaked into the environment. The management of such stockpiles
requires specialist knowledge, trained personnel and adequate protection for people and the
environment to ensure that the requirements of the Convention are adequately met and that
11
health and the environment are adequately protected. The capacity for elimination of POPs is
non-existent or very limited at best in the countries participating in this project.
2.2 Stakeholders and Target Beneficiaries
The project is based on the involvement of all relevant stakeholders. For the various trainings
and especially the Awareness Raising Workshop, a strong representation of national and
international NGOs will be secured. The co-organizing role of Green Cross Belarus, the
Regional Environmental Centre (REC) Moldova, REC Caucasus and Milieukontakt provides
a basis for adequate international, regional and national representation.
In prevention related activities, the private sector as well as NGOs will play important roles.
In other trainings and workshops, such as for inventory and safeguarding and the training on
soil investigations, there will be a strong representation of Governmental parties, in
combination with NGOs that may monitor activities to be undertaken.
For all workshops and training a significant role will also be played by international NGOs,
such as the IHPA and Green Cross Belarus, to support and facilitate capacity building and
dissemination of the materials. In addition, intergovernmental organizations that have a role to
play in POPs and pesticides management will be invited to participate and contribute.
Government personnel and NGOs will benefit from a strengthening of their capacity to
manage obsolete pesticides in compliance with international rules and best practice.
Ultimately, beneficiaries will be communities that are currently directly or indirectly exposed
to contamination through food, water and air.
The project will also provide a replicable example of cooperation between governments,
public, NGO and private entities in addressing global environmental challenges. Other regions
could therefore benefit from this project.
2.3 Project Justification
Some of the Central European and EECCA countries have been aware of the problems with
large stocks of obsolete pesticides, associated wastes and contamination of soil and ground
water for many years and have been looking for solutions. In some cases, countries have
taken action on their own or with external assistance to address the situation. On the whole
however, the problems are not being addressed adequately either in terms of scope or in terms
of standards applied to remediation activities.
Many of the countries in the EECCA region lack the financial or technical capacity to address
their stockpiles which are among the largest in the world. The differential between the
countries of the region that are addressing their POPs and obsolete pesticides and those that
are not is one of the main justifications for this project which aims to bring about an exchange
of experience and knowledge.
The following main project components are essential for addressing the issues identified:
12




Awareness raising through production and dissemination of promotional material on
prevention and disposal of POPs and obsolete pesticides, as well as stakeholder forum
meetings. These will build greater awareness and strengthen stakeholder engagement.
Capacity building will form an important component of this project. Training workshops
and pilot demonstration activities on inventory, risk assessment and safeguarding of
POPs/obsolete pesticides will be conducted.
Establishment of a framework for information exchange to enhance communication and
exchange of experience and knowledge regarding efficient management of POPs/obsolete
pesticides amongst participating countries.
Greater stakeholder involvement in prevention and elimination of POPs and obsolete
pesticides. The project is built on partnerships between governments, intergovernmental
organizations and NGOs. As it progresses the project will work to create new partnerships
and enhance existing ones in particular by including the private sector, additional national
and international NGOs, linking with relevant projects being developed and implemented
by intergovernmental organizations and bilateral agencies.
2.4 Past and Related Work
All countries participating in this MSP have completed or are in the process of completing
their NIP. UNDP has supported Albania, Georgia and the Slovak Republic; World Bank has
supported Belarus and Modova and UNIDO has supported Armenia, Azerbaijan, Mongolia,
Macedonia and Romania. As the priorities in each NIP are identified, those highlighting POPs
pesticides stockpiles as an issue to be addressed will immediately benefit from this project
and will be in a better position to prepare for a follow on project to eliminate and prevent
POPs stockpiling and use.
Some of the countries have prepared follow on projects such as a POPs destruction project in
Moldova with the World Bank and PCB destruction and replacement projects in Macedonia
and Romania with UNIDO. Where relevant, linkages will be made between this MSP and the
projects. For example the Moldova project is closely aligned with this MSP, but the PCB
projects in Macedonia and Romania are quite significantly different. Nevertheless
opportunities for linkage and collaboration will be explored.
In some cases NIP follow on projects are in early stages of development, such as in Georgia.
Similarly UNEP is in early discussions on the development of a regional project on the
replacement of DDT in disease vector control in the EECCA region. This MSP will make
links with and support the development of such projects where relevant.
IAs and EAs will also be kept informed of developments with this MSP through the GEF
POPs Task Force and through the Inter-Organizational Group on the Management of
Chemicals (IOMC).
2.5 FAO’s Comparative Advantage
The FAO Obsolete Pesticides Management Group has successfully executed similar technical
assistance projects in Africa, Middle-East, and South America. It has developed best practices
13
for managing inventory, risk management, safeguard and disposal of obsolete pesticides. FAO
maintains and updates technical guidance documents on these procedures. In addition, FAO
has developed the Obsolete Pesticides Management System (OPMS) for categorization,
quantification and risk assessment of obsolete pesticide stocks. The Development Law
Service of FAO (LEGN) has evaluated the pesticides legal frameworks in numerous member
countries and has prepared guidelines for countries wishing to improve their national legal
frameworks to comply with international obligations and best practices.
FAO is therefore qualified to provide technical assistance to help countries in the EECCA
region to improve upon their technical capacity and assist them to take appropriate action
concerning obsolete and POPs pesticides stockpiles and wastes.
3. PROJECT FRAMEWORK
3.1 Project Impact
The impact of this project will be to contribute to reduced adverse impacts on health and
environment from excessive and poorly controlled pesticide use.
This impact contributes directly to MDG7 on environment by reducing the environmental
impact of obsolete pesticides entering the environment in an uncontrolled manner, and
pesticides in use that impact on health and the environment through poor management and use
practices.
The project will aim to provide both technical and policy solutions. Technical solutions will
include removal of major known sources of contamination such as obsolete pesticide stocks
and capacity building to strengthen pesticide import controls and product quality control.
Policy solutions will include strengthening pesticide legislation and training for government
staff so that they are better able to identify and address weaknesses in the system.
3.2 Project Outcomes and Outputs
The project outcomes will contribute to realisation of the expected results through
implementation of activities designed to raise awareness, build capacity of obsolete pesticide
management, disposal and prevention, provide for better information exchange among
participating countries and involving a wide range of stakeholders.
The expected project outcomes and associated outputs/activities are as follows:
Outcome 1: Enhanced awareness among participating countries on prevention and
disposal of POPs and obsolete pesticides.
Activity 1.1. IHPA Forum meetings
These biennial meetings have been invaluable in raising awareness on technical and
policy issues on the sound management of obsolete pesticides, POPs and contaminated
sites in the EECCA region and elsewhere in the world. It is proposed that during the
14
course of this project substantial contributions be made towards the organization of two
Forum meetings in 2007 and 2009.
Indicator: Two IHP Forum meetings held two years apart during the course of the project
Activity 1.2 Production and dissemination of project promotional material
Exhibition materials, brochures, presentations and other products will be produced for use
at relevant events in order to inform a wider public about the risks and hazards associated
with POPs and obsolete pesticides in the EECCA region and the need for development
and implementation of appropriate solutions as promoted by this MSP.
Indicator: Production of project brochure and exhibition material by month 8
Activity 1.3 Participation in relevant meetings
The work programme of the project steering committee will be developed to include
participation in relevant meetings and events where the objectives of this MSP and its
contribution to the global objective of POPs and obsolete pesticide elimination in the
EECCA region can be presented. This is a necessary activity to gain support from
potential donors for follow on activities that this MSP will help to plan for.
Indicator: Project presentations, exhibition and brochure available at least at one relevant
event per year
Outcome 2: Strengthened Capacity for POPs and obsolete pesticide prevention and
disposal
Activity 2.1 Workshops on obsolete pesticides
On the basis of experience on several countries, FAO has developed a cost effective
approach that will enable the countries to initiate ESM of obsolete pesticides, minimize
the acute threat of obsolete pesticides and permit a staged approach that allows countries
to find more financial support for the final elimination of obsolete pesticides. A detailed
training programme has been prepared for this approach which will be introduced to
countries participating in this project. This complete training package has already been
successfully applied in some of the countries of the EECCA region.
All workshops and training sessions will be based on the Training of Trainers (ToT)
principle in order to facilitate maximum capacity building. In some cases, regional
workshops will be followed by national workshops in order to advance specific national
activities. All training materials will be made available to training participants and
additionally for wider use on the project website. Topics for training and workshops will
include:





Detailed inventory of obsolete pesticide stockpiles and storage sites;
Environmental risk assessment of obsolete pesticide stockpiles and storage sites;
Repackaging and safeguarding of obsolete pesticides;
Transportation and storage of obsolete pesticides;
Remediation of obsolete pesticide storage sites
15



Destruction and other management options for obsolete pesticides and associated
hazardous waste;
Sound life-cycle management of pesticides with the objective of preventing future
accumulation of obsolete pesticide stocks;
Sound pest management with the objective of preventing future accumulation of
obsolete pesticides and reducing health and environmental impacts of pesticides in
use;
Indicator: Number of persons trained and number of workshops organized
Activity 2.2 Guidance report on technical and legal issues
The project will draw on existing sources of guidance material such as the Africa
Stockpiles Programme, FAO, UNEP, European Commission and others to provide
countries and stakeholders with the best available guidance. Where relevant and possible
materials will be translated and made available in appropriate formats for participants. In
some cases (to be identified by project stakeholders) training will be provided in specific
areas of technical or legal POPs and obsolete pesticide management.
Indicator: Technical and legal guidance on POP/obsolete pesticide management made
available to stakeholders
Activity 2.3 Development of alternative concepts for environmentally sound management
of obsolete pesticides
In consultation with PSC members and the expertise available to the project through FAO
and IHPA, and using externally recruited expertise where necessary, the Secretariat will
prepare a portfolio of technologies and management options for obsolete pesticide/POPs
pesticide stockpiles management. the models presented will be based on experience
gained in other relevant projects and will address all aspects of the problem including
hazardous waste handling, waste management options, destruction technologies,
remediation technologies and methods. The outputs from this activity will be made
available to countries and stakeholders
Indicator: Portfolio of technologies and management options for POPs and obsolete
pesticides developed and disseminated by month 30 of project
Activity 2.4 Development of Obsolete pesticides management/disposal plans in selected
participating countries
Country specific plans for the management, disposal and prevention of obsolete pesticides
and POPs pesticides in participating countries will be developed. These will take into
account local conditions, technical and institutional capacities.
Indicator: At least three POP/Obsolete pesticide disposal/management plans in place for
selected project countries
Activity 2.5 Implementation of pilot projects
In close cooperation with Milieukontakt project, and other relevant activities,
demonstration pilot activities will be carried out in some participating countries and under
the conditions agreed focusing on the following areas:
16
o
o
o
o
Obsolete pesticides and POPs pesticides stockpiles and wastes inventory;
Interim storage;
Risk assessment of storage locations and contaminated sites;
Safeguarding for POPs and obsolete pesticides.
In each case, a range of stakeholders will be involved. Training will be provided to
country teams based on training packages and application of tools developed by FAO and
other organizations for the safe and effective execution of the activities.
Indicator: Four pilot activities demonstrating inventory, risk assessment and safeguarding
of POP/obsolete pesticides completed
Outcome 3: Framework for exchange of information and experience among
countries on the prevention and disposal of obsolete pesticides;
Activity 3.1 Information Exchange
A mechanism for efficient and effective information exchange among stakeholders
participating in the project will be established. The form it will take will be decided by the
Project Steering Committee. Account will also be taken of existing mechanisms that serve
similar purposes and may be built on or linked with for the purposes of this project.
Indicator: Agreed mechanism for information exchange established within 8 months of
project inception
Activity 3.2 Dissemination of project results
The findings of studies, results of pilot projects and discussions, and lessons learned from
various project activities will be consolidated and disseminated through the mechanisms
identified in outcome 2.
Indicator: Two project output documents disseminated to stakeholders per year of project
operation
Activity 3.3. Other information tools
An interactive project website will be developed onto which relevant information will be
loaded as the project progresses.
CD-ROMs will be used for storage and distribution of collections of material and large
files that may include video clips, presentations, photographs and reports. The disks will
also provide access to the material to stakeholders who do not have good access to the
internet.
Printed material will be produced and distributed, based to a large extent on existing
materials e.g. from FAO or the Africa Stockpiles Programme (ASP, United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP), Secretariat of the Basel Convention (SBC) and other
sources). Where relevant, materials will be translated into Russian for greater
accessibility.
17
Indicator: At least three forms of information dissemination (e.g. video, CD ROM, print,
website) produced within 15 months of project inception
Outcome 4: Greater stakeholder involvement in prevention and elimination of POPs
and obsolete pesticides
Activity 4.1 Regional capacity needs analysis study
Building on the reference to country and stakeholder needs an objective analysis of
regional capacity for the implementation of ESM for POPs/obsolete pesticides will be
carried out. The analysis will aim to make proposals on how to meet identified needs that
will be presented to project stakeholders for discussion.
While this project will not contribute to the capital investment for national or regional
POPs pesticides and hazardous waste management infrastructure, this activity will
contribute to advancement of the process for development and implementation of
appropriate solutions.
Indicator: Needs analysis report completed by month 30
Activity 4.2 Stakeholder partnerships
This MSP is built on partnerships between governments, intergovernmental organizations
and NGOs. As it progresses the project will work to create new partnerships and enhance
existing ones in particular by including the private sector, additional national and
international NGOs, linking with relevant projects being developed and implemented by
intergovernmental organizations and bilateral agencies.
Indicator: Links with at least 3 additional stakeholders established by month 18
Logical Framework Analyses
Indicator targets
At least one high risk
POPs pesticides and
obsolete pesticides stock
has been safeguarded in
new containers and
2. Reduce human health and secure storage in three
environmental threats
participating countries
posed by POPs and
by the end of year two of
obsolete pesticide releases the project.
Hierarchy of objectives
Impact/Goal:
1. Reduce POPs pesticides
and obsolete pesticide
releases into environment
Outcome:
In project participating
countries there is higher
awareness, better developed
capacity greater stakeholder
involvement and access to
more information about
1. Obsolete & POPs
pesticide
management plans
developed in 3-5
participating
countries by the end
of the project period;
18
Verification sources
Project reports
Assumptions & Risks
Sufficient funds available
Visual and documentary
evidence
Consistent political and
institutional support in
participating countries
Community comments on
improved environment
1. Documented plans in
place
2. Up to date
communications are being
exchanged via the
mechanisms at project
end.
Implementing and
executing organizations
remain active and able to
function
Active engagement of
countries in the project;
Project outputs are
relevant and appropriate;
obsolete & POPs pesticides
prevention and disposal
Outputs:
1. Greater awareness raised
in the participating
countries and in the
EECCA region concerning
obsolete pesticides and
POPs pesticides wastes;
2. Increased capacity for
environmentally sound
management (ESM) of
obsolete pesticides
including their elimination
and prevention;
3. Improved communication
among participating
countries in the EECCA
region regarding
management of obsolete
pesticide and POPs
stockpiles and management
of pesticides in use;
4. More systematic
engagement of a wider
range of stakeholders in
obsolete pesticide and POPs
stockpiles management and
pesticide management.
2. Effective and
popular mechanisms
in place where
stakeholders
communicate about
obsolete & POPs
pesticides and
pesticides
management;
1. Prioritization of
POPs/Obsolete
pesticide
management needs
in workplans for
relevant authorities
in all participating
countries by project
closure;
2. Trained personnel in
each participating
country with an
understanding of
POPs/Obsolete
pesticides
management by
project closure;
3. Possibility of joint
projects has been
discussed between
two or more
participating
countries;
4. Steering Committees
or other fora in place
in all participating
countries that
include stakeholders
from different
sectors (Public,
private, NGO)
Activities:
Outcome 1: Awareness
raising among
participating countries on
prevention and disposal of
POPs and obsolete
pesticides.
19
1. Correspondence,
project proposals and
official documentation
(e.g. legislation,
ministerial statements etc)
demonstrating
commitment to resolution
of POPs/Obsolete
Pesticide issues in
participating countries;
POPs/Obsolete pesticides
are a significant problem
that countries feel the
need to address;
2. Training workshop
reports and certificates of
participation or
competence issued to
trainees;
Dialogue between project
countries is politically
acceptable;
3. Correspondence,
meeting minutes and
written proposals for joint
projects in place;
4. Correspondence
relating to creation of
steering committees or
similar bodies, and
meeting minutes.
Relevant institutions in
countries are sufficiently
influential to keep POPs
/obsolete pesticides on
the political agenda;
Stakeholders have
resources and interest to
sustain engagement with
POPs/obsolete pesticide
issues.
Activity 1.1: IHPA Forum
meetings
Two IHP Forum
meetings held two years
apart during the course
of the project
Meeting reports
Production of project
brochure and exhibition
material by month 8
Project presentations,
exhibition and brochure
available at least at one
relevant event per year
Brochure and exhibition
materials
Meeting documentation
and participant reports
At least one relevant
event takes place each
year
Training in technical
aspects of POP/obsolete
pesticide management
delivered to participants
from all project countries
by month 24.
Technical and legal
guidance on
POP/obsolete pesticide
management made
available to stakeholders
Portfolio developed and
disseminated by month
30 of project
Training workshop
reports;
Participant evaluations
and certificates
Participation of
appropriate individuals
from all countries;
Copies of guidance
documents;
Good match between
country expressed needs
and project planned
outputs
Copies of portfolio
Effective project
management
Activity 2.4.
Development of Obsolete
pesticides
management/disposal plans
in selected participating
countries
POP/Obsolete pesticide
disposal/management
plans in place for
selected project countries
POP/Obsolete pesticide
disposal/management
plans
Continued interest among
participating countries
Activity 2.5
Implementation of pilot
projects
Four pilot activities
demonstrating inventory,
risk assessment and
safeguarding of
POP/Obsolete pesticides
completed
Field reports, project
progress reports,
community feedback,
documentary (media,
video, photo) evidence.
Collaboration among
stakeholders;
Sufficient project funds
available in light of
situation in the field
Activity 1.2: Production and
dissemination of project
promotional material
Activity 1.3:
Participation in relevant
meetings
Outcome 2: Capacity
building for POPs and
obsolete pesticide
prevention and disposal
Activity 2.1 Workshops on
obsolete pesticides
Activity 2.2 Guidance
report on technical and legal
issues
Activity 2.3. Development
of alternative concepts for
environmentally sound
management of Obsolete
pesticides
Outcome 3: Framework
for exchange of
information and experience
among countries on the
20
IHPA continues to
function;
Stakeholders maintain
interest in participating in
Forums
Effective project
management
prevention and disposal of
Obsolete pesticides
Agreed mechanism for
information exchange
established within 8
months of project
inception
Two project output
documents disseminated
to stakeholders per year
of project operation
At least three forms of
information
dissemination (e.g.
video, CD ROM, print,
web site) produced
within 15 months of
project inception
Information exchange
mechanism outputs
Stakeholders are
interested in information
exchange;
Output products (reports,
CD-ROMs etc) and
evidence of dissemination
Progress maintained to
produce viable outputs.
List and examples of
outputs
Expressed need or desire
for information
Activity 4.1: Regional
capacity needs analysis study
Needs analysis report
completed by month 30
Written needs analysis
report
Activity 4.2: Creation of
stakeholder partnerships
Links with at least 3
additional stakeholders
established by month 18
New stakeholder active
participation project
events
Effective project
management;
Input to study by
stakeholders
Maintenance of existing
stakeholder partnerships
Activity 3.1:
Information Exchange
Activity 3.2: Dissemination
of project outputs
Activity 3.3: Other
information tools
Outcome 4: Greater
stakeholder involvement in
prevention and elimination
of POPs and obsolete
pesticides
3.3 Sustainability
The Project will support, across the EECCA region, the global objective of the Stockholm
Convention to protect human health and the environment from Persistent Organic Pollutants.
Regional cooperation will result in the development of Management Plans to solve the POPS
pesticides and obsolete pesticides problems at country level. Operating across the region, the
project will also facilitate the development of regional/sub-regional management plans for
obsolete pesticides. These will focus on options for sharing disposal capacity. In addition the
pilot activities will aim to demonstrate feasible, economical and environmentally sound
sollutions which will be replicable.
Through the standards applied to project activities for the management of hazardous wastes
and pesticides in use, participating countries will be assisted in raising their own operating
standards to comply with or approach those of the European Union and international
agreements.
21
The project will provide targeted training designed to build capacity among government staff,
NGOs and other organizations. Together with the documentation that will be produced and
disseminated, a substantial body of new expertise will be available to participating countries
and organizations.
Financial sustainability for activities addressed by this project is already evident to an extent
in the region, since some countries have already started to use their own funds to make
inventories and several elimination actions. The Polish case is particularly striking as the host
of two International HCH and Pesticides Forums in 1996 and 2001 which themselves made an
important contribution to sustainability. The project is also designed to draw on country
contributions in kind for implementation of several key activities, such as trainings and pilot
projects. The national and regional/sub-regional action plans will address the financial
sustainability of any proposals made.
A number of countries are in the process of undertaking certain initiatives at their own cost,
but these efforts must be supplemented with external technical support in order to ensure that
appropriate standards of work are applied and that activities are effectively and efficiently
completed and are sustainable. External technical advice is currently being provided in
Romania, and is proposed for Moldova by the World Bank, The NATO Trust Fund and the
NGO Milieukontakt. After the start of such collaborative efforts, the prospects financial and
in-kind input by the countries are greater.
Successful development of national, regional and sub-regional management plans will
strongly impact follow-up activities in the countries of the EECCA region and represent a
solid base for sustainability of the Project activities. The high level of country commitment
currently demonstrated in the region needs to be supported by the activities proposed under
this project and beyond.
3.4 Risks and Assumptions
The following are possible risks that the project faces and measures within the project design
to mitigate their impact:
Risk
Impact
Probability
Health and environmental
risks from exposure to POPs
and other pesticides during
project activities.
Medium
Low
Political relevance of the
project will diminish in light
of other issues in the region.
The organizations involved in
project delivery will cease to
operate or will be unable to
Medium
Low
Medium
Low
22
Mitigation/Assumptions
Rules and procedures applied to project
activities will ensure that hazards and
risks are clearly identified and
mitigated or controlled in advance. All
personnel are appropriately trained and
equipped for all tasks they are required
to undertake, expert supervision is
provided and relevant safeguards are
observed and applied.
Engaging several countries in the
project so that if one or more drop out,
others remain active.
Engaging with a number of
organizations with proven track
records through legal agreements. The
service the project as planned.
Project activities will identify
POPs and obsolete pesticides
of a scope and urgency that
demands immediate action
for which the project will not
have sufficient resources
Low
Low
organizations will support each other in
project implementation.
Responding to country requests for
assistance
4. IMPLEMENTATION AND MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS
4.1 Institutional Framework and Coordination
FAO will be the GEF agency for the project and will provide overall project management and
technical guidance. Administration of the grant will be in compliance with the rules and
procedures of FAO, and in accordance with the agreements between FAO and GEF.
As the GEF agency for the project, FAO will:




Manage and disburse funds from GEF and other co-financiers of the project in
accordance with the rules and procedures of FAO;
Enter into agreements with participating country governments, Green Cross
Switzerland, IHPA and Milieukontakt International for the provision of goods and
services to or from the project;
Oversee project implementation in accordance with the project document, work-plans,
budgets, agreements with co-financiers and the rules and procedures of FAO;
Oversee the execution of the project to ensure that appropriate technical standards are
applied to all activities concerned with pesticide management and handling.
Project coordinator
A Project Coordinator will be appointed by FAO to oversee the project and to whom the
project secretariat hosted by Green Cross Belarus (see below) will report. The Project
Coordinator will also be responsible for the management of the GEF resources and associated
co-financing.
An agreement will be made between FAO and Green Cross for the provision of the project
secretariat and execution of project activities. The GEF contribution to the project will be
disbursed by means of the agreement between FAO and Green Cross. The management of this
agreement will also be the responsibility of the FAO Project Coordinator.
Project Secretariat
A project secretariat will be established that will be hosted by Green Cross Belarus (GCB).
GCB will be contracted by FAO through a Letter of Agreement (LoA). This organization has
several advantages that will benefit the project, including:
23





Extensive experience working on environmental remediation related projects
in the EECCA region with countries participating in this project and with other
organizations that have an interest in the outcomes of this project;
Location in Belarus which is participating in the project;
Proximity to the region in which this project will be implemented as well as
linguistic skills to facilitate efficient communication between project partners;
Low cost of services compared to other options, such as employing additional
staff at FAO. Green Cross Switzerland will wholly finance the secretariat at
GCB and, in addition, provide a cash contribution to the project;
Synergy with other environmental projects and associated organizations in the
region in which GCB plays an active role.
The secretariat will be responsible for day to day execution of project activities through the
provision of services such as communication, procurement, hosting the website, organizing
meetings, arranging travel and other administrative functions. The tasks of the secretariat will
be to establish, coordinate and maintain communications and information dissemination,
support project management and administration. Details of the roles of the secretariat are
provided in the TORs in Appendix IVb. The flow of funds to the secretariat will be via a
Letter of Agreement between FAO and Green Cross Belarus (GCB).
Project Manager
A Project Manager from IHPA will be appointed for the day to day work organization. IHPA
is the single organization that has been most active in efforts to eliminate stocks of POPs and
obsolete pesticides in EECCA countries. Through its efforts and activities IHPA has
developed a unique network and a highly respected reputation among the key individuals and
institutions that will be stakeholders in this project. IHPA is ideally suited to take the role of
project management.
The Project Manager will be responsible for implementing the project work programme and
will be the main link with countries and participating organizations. The Project Manager will
work through the project secretariat to facilitate implementation of project activities. The
Manager will report directly to the Project Coordinator at FAO.
Tasks of the Project Manager are defined in appended TORs in Appendix IVa. Financing of
the Project Manager will be through an agreement between FAO and IHPA using funds other
than the GEF contribution.
24
Implementation Arrangements Organigram
4.2 Strategy/Methodology
Achievement of the outcomes and outputs of the project as defined in the logical framework
above will require effective and timely implementation of the activities described in the
logframe. Within the limited budget and timeframe available to the project which will be
targeting 8 countries simultaneously, it will be necessary to seek maximum economies of
scale, collaborative activities and efficiencies. The methodology of the project design, and
implementation arrangements have been designed with these factors in mind.
Awareness raising will be based on production of information materials and display material
to be distributed and presented at relevant events organized and financed under by other
projects and organizations. The budgetary and logistical burden on this project will therefore
be limited, but the benefits maximized. The project will contribute towards the organization of
biennial meetings of the International HCH and Pesticides Forum. The meetings are organized
by the International HCH and Pesticides Association (IHPA) which is a core partner in this
project. The institutional memory, human and financial resources available to IHPA are
therefore also available to this project.
25
Capacity building for POPs and obsolete pesticide prevention and disposal will consist of
the most technical activities. These will require the highest level of inputs in terms of FAO
technical staff, consultants, equipment and materials. Trainings will be organized in groupings
of countries in order to maximize synergy between countries and utilize international and
regional expertise to the maximum extent possible. At the end of each training, participants
from each country will be assigned a task list and work plan to be followed up by the project
manager with the assistance of the secretariat based in Belarus. Training will focus on
provision of skills and knowledge in various aspects of POPs and pesticide management as
addressed in the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides.
Specifically training will be provided in:

Inventory and risk assessment of obsolete pesticides;

Pesticide legislation and regulation;

Pesticide life-cycle management

Pest management strategies
The training will use existing training packages delivered by TCDC consultants who have
undergone ToT courses or, where not TCDC consultants are available, training will be
provided by FAO technical officers or international consultants. FAO has also been working
closely with NGOs that are implementing project related to obsolete pesticide inventory and
safeguarding in certain EECCA countries. These NGOs have been trained by FAO or by FAO
trained consultants. Therefore NGO trainers could also be used to deliver training under this
project.
Technical and legal guidance on pest and pesticide management will be made available
through the project by translating existing guidelines into Russian. It is not anticipated that
new documents will be prepared within this project.
Development of alternative concepts for environmentally sound management of obsolete
pesticides will be carried out under the supervision of the project manager and will build on
similar work carried out on behalf of the Basel Convention, Stockholm Convention, GEF and
Africa Stockpiles Programme which addresses similar issues. Contextualizing the portfolio of
alternative concepts to EECCA countries will be a relatively small task.
Developing disposal plans for obsolete pesticides depends on availability of comprehensive
current and accurate data on the status of obsolete pesticides in a country. Few or none of the
EECCA countries currently have that level of data and therefore the development of plans is
likely to be a theoretical guidance process that could be carried out with the countries as a
training exercise. If one country or a region has good inventory data, or a pilot inventory can
be completed within the scope of this project, then the disposal plan developed will be based
on that practical experience. The intention of the exercise will be to demonstrate to countries
the issues and components that need to be addressed in developing a disposal plan for
obsolete pesticides. Best practice developed in similar projects will be adapted and applied to
the EECCA example.
Pilot activities including inventories of obsolete pesticides and safeguarding operations to
repackage and secure high risk pesticides will be carried out in some countries. In parallel and
in advance of this project being launched, FAO has provided training and advice for other
26
related pilot activities in some EECCA countries including Moldova, Georgia and
Kyrgyzstan. Using these activities as examples, the project will facilitate replication of similar
actions in other project countries so that local staff can be trained, capacity built and risk
reduced in specific situations. It is clear that project resources will not permit large-scale
operations to be carried out. Nevertheless, the pilot activities implemented will build capacity
and will also demonstrate best practice in dealing with pesticide related problems being
addressed by the project.
5. FINANCING PLAN
Paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the Stockholm Convention foresees that the financial mechanism
of the Convention shall provide the agreed full incremental costs of the implementing
measures for developing countries and countries with economies in transition. To this end the
incremental costs of all activities of the project were assessed.
Baseline cost will be paid by the governmental or co-financing sources, while measures,
which directly related to the Stockholm Convention, will be financed from the GEF resources.
The total project cost is USD 2 396 550 where USD 1.0 million is GEF grant.
A detailed budget in the FAO Oracle format can be found in Annex I along with the
Provisional Work Programme.
a)
PROJECT COSTS
Project Components/Outcomes
Co-financing
($)
GEF ($)
Total ($)
1. Awareness raising among
participating countries on prevention
and disposal of POPs and obsolete
pesticides.
2. Capacity building for POPs and
obsolete pesticide prevention and
disposal
3. Framework for exchange of
information and experience among
countries on the prevention and disposal
of Obsolete pesticides
4. Greater stakeholder involvement in
prevention and elimination of POPs and
obsolete pesticides
5. Project management budget/cost*
288 000
200 000
488 000
685 000
695 000
1 380 000
185 500
37 000
222 500
95 250
43 000
138 250
142 800
25 000
167 800
Total project costs
1 396 550
1 000 000
2 396 550
* This item is an aggregate cost of project management; breakdown of this aggregate amount is presented
below
27
b) PROJECT MANAGEMENT BUDGET/COST
Component
Estimated
staffweeks
Personnel*
314
GEF($)
Other
sources ($)
Project
total ($)
0
70 000
70 000
0
0
0
0
20
15 000
25 000
40 000
Office facilities,
equipment, vehicles and
communications
0
37 800
37 800
Travel
0
10 000
10 000
Miscellaneous
10 000
0
10 000
Total
25 000
142 800
167 800
Local consultants*
International
consultants*
C) CONSULTANTS WORKING FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMPONENTS:
Component
Estimated
staffweeks
Other
sources ($)
Project
total ($)
GEF($)
Personnel
0
40 000
40 000
170 500
0
170 500
165 000
385 250
550 250
335 500
425 250
760 750
34
206
Local consultants
International
consultants
210
Total
450
28
d) CO-FINANCING SOURCES
Co-financing Sources
Name of cofinancier (source)
Green Cross
Switzerland
Green Cross
Switzerland
Millieukontakt
USAID - OFDA
FAO
Albania
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Mongolia
Republic of
Moldova
Romania
Macedonia
Sub-total co-financing
Status
Confirmed
unconfirmed
yes
NGO
In Cash
Amount
($)
454 000
NGO
In Kind
189 950
NGO
Bilat Agency
Exec Agency
Nat’l Gov’t
Nat’l Gov’t
Nat’l Gov’t
Nat’l Gov’t
Nat’l Gov’t
In Kind
In Cash
In Kind
In Kind
In Kind
In Kind
In Kind
In Kind
205 000
200 000
68 000
40 000
40 000
40 000
40 000
40 000
yes
yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Nat’l Gov’t
Nat’l Gov’t
In Kind
In Kind
40 000
40 000
1396 550
Yes
Yes
Classification
Type
6. MONITORING AND EVALUATION
Monitoring of project activities and evaluation of their results will serve a dual function.
First, it will facilitate tracking of progress toward the project objective. Second, it will
facilitate learning and generation of knowledge necessary for the preparation of follow-on
projects to address obsolete pesticides in the Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia
(EECCA) region. Project monitoring and evaluation and project reporting will be conducted
in accordance with standard FAO procedures. For each activity indicators have been defined
in the Project Logical Framework against which project progress will be measured.
The following sections outline the main components of the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan
(M&E) and indicative cost elements corresponding to M&E activities.
Project Monitoring and Reporting
Project Inception Report
The Project Inception Report will be prepared immediately following the Inception
Workshop. The purpose of the project's inception report is to provide FAO Headquarters with
a summary of the prevailing situation in relation to the proposed programme of project
29
activities, including administrative arrangements for project implementation. If necessary, a
draft revised budget should be attached. In the light of the findings presented in the project's
inception report, a detailed project management plan should be prepared in consultation with
the national authorities concerned.
The inception report should provide a brief assessment of the status of project activities in
relation to his or her assignment. A work plan should also be prepared for the implementation
of the expert's terms of reference in consultation with project management and the national
authorities concerned.
Project Progress Reports
The Project Manager will prepare on a six monthly basis a Project Progress Report in
accordance with FAO procedures, which will contain, inter alia:
a) an account of actual implementation of project activities compared to those
scheduled in the Annual Work Plans, and the achievement of outputs and progress
towards achieving the project objectives, based on the project progress and impact
indicators as contained in the Project Logical Framework, the Project Inception
Report and as further defined in Project Year 1 Work Plan;
b) an identification of any problems and constraints (technical, human, financial, etc.)
encountered in project implementation and the reasons for these constraints;
c) clear recommendations for corrective actions in addressing key problems resulting
in lack of progress in achieving results;
d) lessons learned; and
e) a detailed work plan for the next reporting period.
Technical and Field Reports
Field documents and consultants’ reports on various technical matters may be prepared and
issued in any appropriate language, under the authority of the Project Coordinator, with copies
provided to the participating countries and project partners, FAO Representatives and FAO
technical officers and librarian concerned in the FAO Regional/Subregional Offices and in
FAO headquarters, and posted on the FPMIS.
Project Terminal Report
In the concluding months of the project and not later than six months before the end of the
project, the Project Coordinator will prepare a draft Project Terminal Report for technical
clearance, finalization and submission to participating countries and project partners. This
comprehensive report will summarize all activities carried out, outputs produced, progress
made towards the achievement of objectives, institutional structures and coordination
arrangements implemented, and lessons learned. It will also lay out recommendations for any
further steps that may need to be taken to ensure sustainability and replicability of the
project’s activities. The final Terminal Report will be submitted to the participating countries,
project partners, technical officers in the FAO Regional/Subregional Offices and in FAO
headquarters, and posted on the FPMIS.
30
Independent Evaluation
Terminal Evaluation
An independent final evaluation will take place towards the end of the project. The evaluation
will be based on a participatory process involving key stakeholders in each of the
participating countries. It will review project impact, analyze sustainability of results and
ascertain whether the project has met its stated objectives in the opinion of its stakeholders.
The Terms of Reference for this Terminal Evaluation will be prepared by FAO, in accordance
with FAO’s evaluation procedures and taking into consideration evolving guidance from the
GEF Evaluation Office. The TORs will be discussed with and endorsed by participating
countries and project partners.
Financial Management and Reporting
Financial monitoring will be carried out in accordance with FAO’s rules and procedures and
as described in the Letter of Agreement between FAO and Green Cross Switzerland.
Audit
The project will be audited in accordance with FAO regulations. Furthermore, local audits of
imprest accounts, records, bank reconciliation and asset verification will be conducted on
resources managed by Green Cross. The local audit reports will be provided to the FAO
Finance Division (AFF) and Office of the Inspector-General (AUD) and may, upon request,
be shared with the GEF Trustee.
Reporting on Co-financing
Within 60 days of the reporting period, FAO and Green Cross shall prepare a yearly cofinancing report for the project which would include, to the extent possible, the following
information:
a) Amount of co-financing realized, compared to the amount of co-financing
committed at the time of project approval, and
b) Co-financing reporting by source and type
 Sources include the agency’s own co-financing (in-kind and cash), government
counterpart commitments, and contributions mobilized for the project from
other multilateral agencies, bilateral development cooperation agencies, NGOs,
the private sector and beneficiaries
 Co-financing cash includes grants, loans, credits and equity investments. Inkind resources are required to be:
- dedicated uniquely to the GEF project;
31
- valued as the lesser of the cost and the market value of the required
inputs they provide for the project; and
- monitored with documentation available for any evaluation or project
audit undertaken by FAO
Information on co-financing provided by third parties included in these reports will be
reviewed as to reasonableness and consistency with related information but will not be
certified as to completeness or accuracy.
Table 1: Indicative Monitoring and Evaluation Work plan and Estimated Budget
Type of M&E activity
Inception Workshop
Inception Report
Measurement of Means
of Verification for
Project Indicators
Project Progress Reports
Steering Committee
Meetings
Supervision missions
Technical reports
Final External
Evaluation
Lessons learned
Terminal Report
Financial reports
Responsible Parties
























Project Coordinator
FAO
Project Stakeholders
Project Team
FAO
Periodic reports will address;
Mid term independent review
(see below)
Project Team
FAO
Project Coordinator
FAO
Project Coordinator
Project team
Hired consultants as needed
Project team,
FAO Evaluation Service
External Consultants (i.e.
evaluation team)
Project team
Steering Committee
FAO
Project team
FAO
FAO
Project team
TOTAL INDICATIVE COST
Excluding project team staff time and FAO staff and travel
expenses
32
Budget US$
Excluding project
team Staff time
$25 000
None
none
Timeframe
Within first two months
of project start up
Immediately following
IW
Start, mid and end of
project
None
Every 6 months
None
Following the Project
Plan
1-2 per year
As related to specific
project activities
At the end of project
implementation
$10 000
$10 000
$30 000
$9 000
None
$3 000
USD 87 000
One month before
project end
One month after the end
of the project
In accordance with FAO
procedures
LIST OF ANNEXES
Annex I.
Budget and Provisional Workplan
Annex II.
Detailed Terms of Reference
II.a Project Manager
II b. Project Secretariat
Annex III
Endorsement Letters and Co-finance Letter
Annex III. a Endorsement Letter Azerbaijan
Annex III. b Endorsement Letter Belarus
Annex III. c Endorsement Letter Romania
Annex III. d Endorsement Letter FYR of Macedonia
Annex III e Endorsement Letter Moldova
Annex III f Endorsement Letter Albania
Annex III g Endorsement Letter Mongolia
Annex III h Endorsement Letter Georgia
Annex III i Endorsement Letter Armenia
Annex III. j Co-finance Letter USAID
Annex III k Co-finance Letter Green Cross Switzerland
Annex IV.
7th International HCH and Pesticides Forum, Kiev Declaration, 6 June 2003
Annex V
8th International HCH and Pesticides Forum, Sofia Declaration, 28 May 2005
33
Annex III. a Endorsement Letter Azerbaijan
34
Annex III. b Endorsement Letter Belarus
35
36
Annex III. c Endorsement Letter Romania
37
Annex III. d Endorsement Letter FYR of Macedonia
38
Annex III e Endorsement Letter Moldova
39
40
Annex III f Endorsement Letter Albania
41
Annex III g Endorsement Letter Mongolia
42
Annex III h Endorsement Letter Georgia
43
Annex III i
Endorsement Letter Armenia
44
Annex III. j Co-finance Letter USAID
45
Annex III k Co-finance Letter Green Cross Switzerland
46