The harmful substances and hazardous objective Resource efficiency UNEP approval date: 11 August 2008 PoW Output(s): Promoting regional and multi-country cooperation to achieve global environmental benefits GEF project ID: 2600 Project Type: FSP GEF OP #: OP 14 SP 1, SP Focal Area(s): International Waters, POPs GEF approval date: 9 April 2008 GEF Strategic Priority/Objective: GEF 4 IW 2: “To catalyze transboundary action addressing water concerns” 1. To foster international multi‐state cooperation on Priority transboundary water concerns. 2. To catalyze transboundary action addressing concerns. SP1 SP3 Expected Start Date: September 2008 Actual start date: August 2009 Planned completion date: August 2013 Actual completion date: December 2015 Planned project budget at approval: $ 49,447,200 expenditures reported as of [date]: 46,493,766 GEF Allocation: $ 11,891,000 GEF grant expenditures reported as of 31 december 2015: $ 11,559,010 PDF GEF cost: $ 700,000 PDF co-financing: US$ 1,258,500 Expected MSP/FSP co-financing: $ 35,597,700 Secured MSP/FSP $ 34,934,756 Disbursement: N/A Date of financial closure: N/A No. of revisions: 2 Date of last revision: Date of last Steering Committee meeting: 17-20 February 2014 Mid-term review/ evaluation (planned date): MedPartnership Project September 2012 Mid-term review/ evaluation (actual date): MedPartnership July 2013 Terminal Evaluation (actual date): Nov 2015- May 2016 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background The Global Environment Facility (GEF)-supported ‘Strategic Partnership for the Mediterranean Sea Large Marine Ecosystem – Regional Component: Implementation of agreed actions for the protection of the environmental resources of the Mediterranean Sea and its coastal areas’ was implemented by UNEP and executed by UNEP Mediterranean Action Plan (MAP) Coordinating Unit from August 2009- December 2015 (including two project extensions). Thirteen GEF eligible countries were the major project beneficiaries: Albania, Algeria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Egypt, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Montenegro, Palestinian Territories, Syria, Tunisia, and Turkey. The main purpose of the Regional
partner consultations etc. ) points, National Interministerial Committees) and composition are adequately described. 32 Are supervision / oversight arrangements clear and appropriate? Yes Supervision / oversight arrangements are clear and appropriate, and in accordance with GEF and UNEP standard policies and practices. The project document also describes the composition and role of the PMU, PSC, Coordination Group, focal points, etc. HS Management, Execution and Partnership Arrangements Addressed by PRC HS 33 Have the capacities of partners been adequately assessed? No The capacities of partners are not explicitly assessed in the project document but partners are selected based on their known capacities based on, for example, their respective areas of expertise and activities related to environmental and natural resources management in the region. Selected partners have excellent capacities for execution of relevant project activities. HS 34 Are the execution arrangements clear and are roles and responsibilities within UNEP clearly defined? No The execution arrangements are clear and roles and responsibilities within UNEP are clearly defined (including TORs of all Project management staff). HS 35 Are the and responsibilities of external partners properly specified? No The roles and responsibilities of external partners are clear and properly specified in each component and in programme implementation and institutional framework. HS Financial Planning / budgeting Addressed by PRC S 36 Are there any obvious deficiencies in the budgets / financial planning? (coherence of the budget, do figures add up etc.) Partially Detailed budgets are presented in the project document. No deficiences and irregularities are observed. S Has budget been reviewed and agreed to be realistic with key project stakeholders? Yes Work and associated budgets are included in the project document, which has been reviewed by key stakeholders, and the fact that the project was ultimately endorsed by the GEF CEO indicates that the budget was considered realistic. S 37 Is the resource utilization cost effective? No Resource utilization appears to be cost effective. S 38 How realistic is the resource mobilization strategy? No Resource mobilization strategy/financing mechanism is to be developed during the project. Annex N of the project document presents a Review of existing financial constraints and measures and proposal for a UNEP/GEF programme on strengthening sustainable environmental financial mechanism for the implementation of the NAPS. 39 Are the financial and administrative arrangements including flows of funds clearly described? Partially Financial and administrative arrangements are clearly described and are consistent with UNEP policies and practices. Flows of funds to the project components and activities are clearly described. S
Monitoring Addressed by PRC S 40 Does the logical framework capture the key elements of the Theory of Change for the project? The revised logical framework captures the key elements of the project’s TOC, which is based on the remise that S have ‘SMART’ indicators for outcomes and objectives? Partially The log frame has SMART indicators for outcomes and objectives. Nearly all the indicators are quantifiable and time-bound. HS have appropriate 'means of No The 'means of verification' are appropriate. S 41 Are the milestones appropriate and sufficient to track progress and foster management towards outputs and outcomes? No In the revised logical framework the milestones are end of project targets. The M & E plan includes process and stress reduction indicators showing improvements in Process and Stress Reduction relative to Project activities and deliverables, parameters measured, target and baseline. The targets or milestones are appropriate and sufficient to track progress. S 42 Is there baseline information in relation to key performance indicators? No Baseline information is provided (although most is qualitative). S 43 How well has the method for the baseline data collection been explained? No This has not been explained U 44 Has the desired level of achievement (targets) been specified for indicators of outputs and outcomes? No In the revised log frame End of project targets for outcomes (no outputs given) have been specified most of which are quantitative. HS 45 How well are the performance targets justified for outputs and outcomes? No End-of-project targets for objectives and outcomes are given in the logframe (outputs are not specified). A justification of performance targets is not included in the project document but the end-of-project targets are feasible and consistent with the expected outcomes. S 46 Has a budget been allocated for monitoring project progress in implementation against outputs and outcomes? No An indicative budget has been allocated for monitoring in the M & E plan E) S 47 Does the project have a clear knowledge management approach? No The proposed knowledge management approach is outlined and will consist of an ICT Platform to effectively collate, record and manage information on a common web based platform (web portal). It will be S