UNDP RBEC - UNDP Europe _ CIS by hedongchenchen


									                                       Governments of
           the Republic of Croatia (endorsement letter dated: 4 November 2002)
           the Republic of Lithuania (endorsement letter dated: 21 December 2002)
           the Slovak Republic (endorsement letter dated: 18 December 2002)
           the Government of Ukraine (endorsement letter dated 9 Jaunary 2003)
                             (Programme Manual Section 8.5.3.)

                            United Nations Development Programme

                  Second regional cooperation framework for Europe and the
                     Commonwealth of Independent States (2002 – 2005)

           Environmental Governance Programme Document

Brief Description: This regional programme will promote sustainable environmental policies
and practices in order to improve the quality of governance in the RBEC region. Special
emphasis is placed on: developing and implementing environmental policy and strategies;
integrating environmental concerns in sectoral policies and regional development plans;
ecosystem resource management; and environmental security. The programme is key to
RBEC’s pursuit of MDG 7 (ensuring environmental sustainability), and particularly of targets
related to governance of water resources.

Ia. Situation analysis

The second Regional Cooperation Framework (RCF), for the period 2002-2005, sets as its
overall objective improving the quality of governance in the region services by UNDP’s
Regional Bureau for Europe and CIS (RBEC). This emphasis reflects two main arguments.

First, all countries in the RBEC region face important challenges in improving the quality of
governance. These challenges clearly differ across the region: they range from building
capacity to join the European Union for countries in Central Europe, to preventing (and
recovering from) conflicts for countries in Southeastern Europe and much of the CIS. But
without improving the quality of governance, these countries can not hope to meet the
millennium development goals.

Second, the expertise developed in the area of governance during the first RCF offers
UNDP’s regional programme a comparative advantage that can be used to meet other
corporate goals in the RBEC region. Poverty can be reduced, environmental policies made
more sustainable, the HIV/AIDS pandemic combated, and conflicts prevented, via
improvements in the quality of governance. Governance constitutes the thematic glue that
binds RBEC’s regional programming initiatives together. One of the three thematic
programmes that bring the RCF to life is the environmental governance programme.

The transition and development processes at work in many RBEC countries offer windows of
opportunity for better integrating environmental considerations into the emerging democratic,
market-based societies in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) and the
Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). The experience of the last 12 years shows that
economic, political, and environmental reforms are mutually supportive and reinforcing. The
development of new environmental policies and institutions that are appropriate for
democratic, marked-based societies has both helped improve environmental performance and
supported broader reform processes. But while progress with economic reform has improved
environmental qualities in some respects, the introduction of market mechanisms has not
been sufficient in and of itself. In many countries the establishment of effective
environmental institutions has not kept pace with market liberalization, and poorly
functioning government institutions have become a major impediment to reform across all

The development of institutional capacity for both environment authorities and other
institutions that are suppose to integrate environment issues into their activities, and the
introduction of new policy instruments, remain major challenges. Governance systems that
involve excessive discretion and arbitrary decision making by public officials need to be
reformed, as they perpetuate administered economic relations and may be seed of corruption.
Predictable rules of game that are transparently and equitably enforced are needed to promote
movement toward more efficient, less environmentally damaging economic structures.

Many important steps have been taken in RBEC countries to secure the legal and institutional
framework needed for effective environmental policies and sustainable development. New
legislation was drafted and environmental ministries and related institutions established.
Decentralisation and the development of new roles for municipalities and regions started,
giving local authorities responsibility for environmental management and service provision.
Even in countries that did not invest major resources into environmental cleanup, the
environmental situation often improved due to the decline of old technologies and the first
effects of institutional reform.

But if some old threats such as burning coal for home heating have receded, the RBEC
region still suffers from derelict industrial plants that are massive threats to public health.
Private and public sector actors hesitate to go near them given the cost and liabilities
involved. New environmental threats, such as urban automobile traffic and consumption
patterns producing growing amounts of packaging and other waste, have also emerged.
There are differences in pace of environmental improvement across countries, related mainly
to the pace of economic restructuring and general prosperity. In some countries,
environmental conditions during the past 12 years deteriorated due to lack of maintenance
and management of infrastructure.

Due in part to these problems, improving environmental trends have been halted or reversed
in conflict regions, particularly in Southeastern Europe, the Caucasus, and Tajikistan.
Military activities, disruption of environmental services, and sometimes even relief efforts
can generate new environmental problems, in the form of soil contamination, land mines,
chemical stockpiles, expired medicines and waste, and breakdown of public infrastructure.
In these countries, resolving environmental problems is an important part of post-conflict

Today, all the countries in the RBEC region possess the basic institutional framework for
environmental governance. But environmental institutions often have little real power
because they lack general public support. Inadequate domestic resources and institutional
capacity produce implementation deficits. International commitments (including EU
requirements for candidate countries) are generally the main motivation for environmental
policy action.

In terms of priority environmental issues, there are significant differences among the
countries in the region. Candidates for EU membership in Central and Eastern Europe mainly
focus on implementing EU-compatible legislation and regulations. Anticipated EU
membership has provided important opportunities for further improvements in environmental
governance and for investments in pollution reduction. At the same time, economic growth
poses environmental challenges in the fields of road transport, urbanisation, and intensive
agriculture. Regional development policies supported by the EU’s structural and cohesion
funds could become an important instrument for achieving sustainable development in these

The countries of Southeastern Europe (SEE) are recovering from a decade of war and
internal conflict. All have expressed their intention to move towards EU membership, but
some of them are still setting up basic legal and institutional frameworks. In the early years
of reconstruction, the environment wasn’t seen as an important priority by the countries and
the international community, apart from issues associated with basic public services such as
water supply. But environmental issues proved to be an inalienable part of human security
for communities that had suffered from pollution and lack of basic services, and for
cooperation within and among countries. Considerable support is provided to the SEE
countries bilaterally, and through the Regional Environmental Reconstruction Programme for
In the CIS countries, progress in resolving environmental problems has been much slower,
because of the larger magnitude of the problems, lower levels of income and wealth, and the
greater obstacles encountered by economic and political reforms. Old environmental burdens
(like the consequences of Chernobyl), issues in other nuclear and mining regions and in large
industrial complexes, as well as unsustainable resource management practices in the Aral Sea
basin, remain unresolved. Existing water supply and sewer infrastructure is deteriorating in
the absence of revenue streams to pay for their maintenance.

In the run up to the Kyiv Environmental Ministers Conference in May 2003, the CIS
countries are preparing an new CIS Environmental Strategy that is to outline the main
priorities for future action and donor support in these countries. The decision made at the
Aarhus ministerial conference in 1998 to focus international environmental cooperation on
the CIS countries is likely to be re-emphasised in Kyiv.

Within the CIS, two sub-regions stand out with particular problems: the South Caucasus and
Central Asia. The countries of the South Caucasus must face difficult legacies of past and
present pollution with very meagre financial and institutional resources. These problems
have been exacerbated by the conflicts between Armenia and Azerbaijan and within Georgia.
Conflict has made environmental issues even lower priority concerns than in other countries,
and have complicated cross-border cooperation. Despite this, the Regional Environmental
Centre for the Caucasus is virtually the only trans-national structure in which Armenia and
Azerbaijan work together. This underscores the fact that environmental governance is not
just about preserving ecosystems: it can also offer opportunities for confidence building and
regional stabilisation.

The Central Asian countries are linked by the water resources of the Aral and Caspian Sea
basins. The extensive utilisation of these resources for irrigation has lead to the desiccation
of the Aral Sea. More effective water management in Central Asia has been a key focus of
international cooperation, and is likely to remain so in the future. The exploitation of Central
Asia’s mineral wealth has also had serious negative environmental consequences that have
not been addressed so far. The accelerating development and transport of the Caspian
basin’s oil and gas resources could produce similar tensions in the future. While these
activities should generate much needed wealth for the producing countries, they could also
create new environmental issues in the sub-region.

Gender and environment is one of the most important areas of concern in the region. Gender
analysis reveals that men and women differentially affect the environment, in the same way
that deforestation, water scarcity, soil degradation, exposure to agricultural and industrial
chemicals, and other environmental problems have a differential impact on women and men.
But gender-disaggregated data that provide information on women and men’s resource use,
access to resources, or participation in environmental decision-making, are rarely used in
national environmental policies or programmes. This could result from relatively weak
environmental awareness among decision makers or in societies at large. There is an urgent
need to analyze and explain the links between gender, environment, and sustainable
development specifically in the RBEC region, in order to obtain the solid argumentation and
data needed to initiate policy-dialogue and promote gender-responsive environmental
policies and programmes.

Ib. Strategy

The environmental governance dimension of good governance in the RBEC region is
becoming increasingly important. We do not, in the RBEC region, face an environmental
crisis: we face an environmental governance crisis. Developing a vision of the ways in
which individuals and institutions can manage their common environmental (and other)
affairs should be our top priority. Governments, however, are faced with a difficult dilemma:
environmental commitments entail short-term economic costs and require long-term
commitment, while the accumulation of political capital and retention of power require
immediate economic benefits. Moreover, the bargaining and co-operation that characterise
the international environment is fraught with incentives for free riding and burden shifting.
New mechanisms for environmental governance are needed that will alter the incentive
structures and facilitate and enhance co-operation at the national, regional, and global levels.
The ultimate outcome of environmental governance should be better management of our
collective ecological, economic, and social interdependencies. To that end, equitable
representation and participation of all interests, especially the weak and vulnerable sectors of
society (the poor, women, disabled, minorities, HIV/AIDS infected, etc.), is required within
the institutional landscape for good governance. Strong economic institutions require solid
environmental regimes that can both act as a partner and serve as a guardian of common
interests and values. Effective environmental governance must include improved knowledge
management; greater political space for civil society participation, collective action, and
collaboration among actors; binding commitments that ensure the building of trust among
partners; and direct attention to equity, trade, and development.

RBEC’s regional programme focuses on environmental governance as a key precondition for
attaining Millennium Development Goal 7 (ensuring environmental sustainability) and
Target 9 (Integrating the principles of sustainable development into country policies and
programmes; reversing the loss of environmental resources). The Environmental
Governance Programme expects to make important contributions to attaining MDG 1
(eradicating extreme poverty and hunger), MDG 3 (promoting equality and empowering
women), and MDG 8 (developing global partnerships for development) in the RBEC region.
Increasing the effectiveness of environmental governance will also help RBEC countries to
meet the goals of the WEHAB strategy that were developed at the 2002 World Summit on
Sustainable Development in Johannesburg.

Environmental governance can help achieve objectives related to economic and democratic
governance, and to most of the seven cross cutting priorities. Improving environmental and
resource management helps reduce social inequalities, especially for vulnerable groups.
Effective environment governance promotes accountability and transparency in government,
and helps protect human rights through providing access to environmental and public health
information, and by facilitating public participation. Environment governance promotes is
tied to the use of information and communications technologies via access to environmental
information and capacity building. More effective management of environmental
infrastructure and services both supports and requires decentralisation. Cooperation among
stakeholders can help prevent conflict or can play an important role in post-conflict recovery.
Better environmental governance often requires private ownership of natural resources
(including land) that do not have common-property features, in order to strengthen property
rights and incentives for long-term stewardship. Public-private partnerships can also play a
key role in improving the quality of environmental governance.
Regional programme activities and initiatives are need-driven. They will be consulted with
country offices, in order to ensure alignment between existing or future country-level
activities, and to take advantage of national information and expertise. The regional
environmental governance programme will also closely cooperate with UNDP-GEF and
build on its experiences and results.

The regional environmental governance programme will focus on four thematic areas:

    1. Development and implementation of environmental policy and strategies, and
       strengthening legal and institutional frameworks

    2. Integration of environmental concerns into regional and sectoral development plans

    3. Ecosystem resource management

    4. Environmental security

The programme focuses on achieving the following goals:

   Improving environmental performance at the international, national, and sub-national
    levels through improved environmental governance

   Sustainable management of shared ecosystem resources

   Improving understanding of environmental sustainability and its links with economic and
    social sustainability

   Better use of UNDP expertise by providing a bridge between country offices and
    international environmental processes

The regional environmental governance programme will support research on gender and
environment issues. Particular attention will be focused on such issues as access to water
resources, sanitation, energy services, climate change, biodiversity, and commitments to
global conventions. The initiative may include review of “best practices” in the region, as
well as past lessons learned.

UNDP will support policy dialogue between the countries of the region, involving
governments and other important stakeholders. Through dialogue, policies will be
formulated, experiences exchanged, and the implementation of existing policies monitored.

The programme will also support capacity development and improved knowledge
management. This will be done through trainings, experience sharing workshops and
networking, and maximal use of information and communication technologies. The target
groups will include UNDP staff, policy makers and public officials at various levels,
environmental NGOs, service providers, and the general public when feasible.

In building capacity and providing technical assistance, UNDP will make maximum use of
East-East cooperation modalities in order to tap into the experience and expertise on
transition that is available within the RBEC region itself. Several EU candidate countries are
now starting development cooperation programmes, with UNDP assistance. Once these
mechanisms are established, experts from these countries will be used extensively in the
implementation of the programme. Experts from other countries in the region will be used to
provide services where appropriate. The regional environmental governance programme will
support sub-regional programmes and projects that are consistent with its goals and with
RBEC policies, and which respond to problems generated by underlying ecosystems.
Successful approaches to environmental governance identified or generated through policy
dialogue and knowledge management activities will be advocated by the UNDP Regional
Support Centre. This will be done through publications in English and Russian and by
UNDP’s active participation in international environmental processes.

Since many organisations are already active in the environmental field in Europe and CIS,
there are two basic reasons justifying UNDP involvement:

1. additionality: One of UNDP’s most important advantages vis-à-vis other international
environmental organisations is its presence and ability to work from the international to local
level, as well as cross sectorally. This allows UNDP to complement the organisations that
only work at the international level, or within the environment sector.

2. contribution to general programme priorities: UNDP can bring the three pillars of
sustainable development (economy, society and environment) together. Work in the
environment can help achieve objectives related to economic and democratic governance,
and to most of the RCF’s seven cross cutting priorities. Improvements in environmental
quality can help reduce social inequalities. They can promote accountability and
transparency in government, as well as human rights through promoting access to
information and public participation. They promote ICT through sharing and access to
environmental information and through capacity building. More effective management of
environmental infrastructure and services supports decentralisation. International
cooperation and cooperation among stakeholders can help prevent conflict, and can be an
important step in post-conflict recovery.

                               PROJECT RESULTS AND RESOURCES FRAMEWORK*
 Intended Outcome as stated in the Country Results Framework: Improved environmental performance at the international,
national and sub-national level through improved environmental governance
Outcome indicator: Number of successful international cooperation processes where UNDP plays a substantial role
Applicable Strategic Area of Support (from SRF) and TTF Service Line (if applicable): Environmental Governance
Partnership Strategy: UNDP RBEC Environmental Governance Programme will work closely with UNDP-GEF and Capacity
2015, and in partnerships with the European Commission, OECD EAP Task Force secretariat, UN ECE, UNEP, the Regional
Environmental Centres, Asian Development Bank and other organisations.

   5. Project title and number: 1. Development and implementation of environmental policy and
      strategies, and strengthening of legal and institutional framework

     Intended Outputs                 Output Targets                 Indicative Activities                    Inputs

1.1                            The Johannesburg                  Support of policy dialogue at    RBEC staff time
Recommendations and            commitments translated into       different levels and sectors     Country office staff time
conclusions of the Jo’burg     action and secured                among countries in the region    Funds
WSSD transposed on             involvement of other sectors in   through conferences, seminars,
regional and sub-regional      their implementation              workshops, policy briefs,
level                                                            research etc.
1.2 Environmental Strategy     Improved cooperation in           Support and facilitation of      RBEC staff time
for the CIS (G12)              environmental issues and          consultative process (for        Country office staff time
developed, adopted and         environmental performance in      preparation and                  Funds
begun to be implemented        the CIS countries – with the      implementation of the Strategy
                               focus on water governance         to be adopted in Kyiv 2003)

1.3 Regional Environmental     Strengthened the cooperation      Support for sub-regional         RBEC staff time
Action Plan for Central Asia   mechanism including the           policy dialogue framework,       Country office staff time
upgraded and implemented       decision-making process           Working meetings, trainings      Fund
                               among CA countries,               and consultations for 5 CA       Close cooperation with CO

                              increased the public               countries representatives       Kazakhstan as a sub-regional
                              participation in identification    (government, experts, NGOs)     focal point.
                              and prioritization of
                              environmental challenges,
                              built capacity to design and
                              manage projects, as well as to
                              mobilize resources.
1.4 Debt for environment      Increased capacity of eligible     Exchange of experience with     UNDP/BDP staff time
swaps approach promoted       countries in the region to deal    countries that have already     RBEC staff time
                              with this process.                 implemented it (seminars,       Country office staff time
                                                                 workshops, publication, small   Funds
                                                                 pilot projects etc.)

1.5 Old ecological damages    Increased capacity of countries Series of trainings, seminars,     RBEC staff time
and burdens – development     to address a restoration of     consultations and publications     Funds
of the effective policy       disrupted environment.          for the SEE and CIS country        East - east cooperation (UNDP
framework supported                                           decision-makers, executive         Czech Trust Fund)
                                                              government representatives
                                                              and experts

1.6 Environmental Pillar of   The Environmental                                                  RBEC staff time
Good Governance               Governance concept enhanced        Publications (e.g.              Funds
strengthened                  and capacity of countries to       Environmental Governance        Partnership with WB,
                              implement it on sub-national,      Sourcebook, Watershed           East-east knowledge
                              national and international level   Governance, Environmental       exchange
                              improved.                          Governance and
                                                                 Communication), regional and
                                                                 sub-regional seminars and
                                                                 workshops, pilot

1.7 Gender, Environment,   Increased capacity of policy-                                    RBEC staff time
and Sustainable            makers and planners to          A study will be conducted by a Country office staff time
Development concept        address gender concerns in      group of national and            Funds
promoted and capacity to   development and                 international experts. This will
develop gender sensitive   implementation of               lead to a publication and
environmental policies     environmental policies.         series of advocacy round
strengthened                                               tables and workshops.

Intended Outcome as stated in the Country Results Framework: Environment friendly regional development planning and
Outcome indicator: Number of activities heading to regional development plans integrating strategic environmental assessment
Applicable Strategic Area of Support (from SRF) and TTF Service Line (if applicable): Environmental Governence
Partnership Strategy: : UNDP RBEC Environmental Governance Programme will work closely with UNDP COs in Ukraine,
Russia and Belarus and in partnerships with the European Commission, the Regional Environmental Centres, and other

Project title and number: 2. Integration of environmental concerns into regional and sectoral development plans

     Intended Outputs            Output Targets for (years)          Indicative Activities                  Inputs

2.1 Strategic environmental     Understanding of the need of    Publications (e.g. SEA and      RBEC staff time
assessment (SEA) as a tool      the SEA process increased and   Regional Development Plans),    Country office staff time
for environmental               capacity for its introduction   workshops for governmental      Funds
sustainable planning            built in the CIS region.        representatives, experts and
promoted                                                        NGOs, pilot projects,
                                                                exchange of experience within
                                                                east-east cooperation.

2.2 Chernobyl – sustainable     Sustainable livelihoods and     Support for sub-regional        RBEC staff time
regional development of         quality of life of the          policy dialogue framework       Country office staff time
affected areas –                inhabitants of the affected     and environment friendly        Funds
Revitalization after nuclear    regions in Belarus, Ukraine     development,
power disaster                  and Russia improved             Exchange of experience

Intended Outcome as stated in the Country Results Framework: Sustainable management of shared ecosystem resources
Outcome indicator: Number of functioning cross-border cooperative resource management frameworks
Applicable Strategic Area of Support (from SRF) and TTF Service Line (if applicable): Environmental Governance
Partnership Strategy: UNDP RBEC Environmental Governance Programme will work closely with UNDP-GEF, and in
partnerships with the European Commission, OSCE, WWF PANParks, the Regional Environmental Centres
Project title and number: 3. Ecosystem resource management

     Intended Outputs          Output Targets for (years)            Indicative Activities                     Inputs

3.1 River basin cooperative   Increased cooperation among       Support to cooperative river       RBEC staff time
projects initiated and        neighboring countries that        basin frameworks on                Country office staff time
supported                     share certain resources leading            Danube,                  Funds
                              to conservation and                        Tis(z)a,
                              sustainable management of                  Kura-Aras,
                              water as well as                           …
                              economic development              research studies, policy briefs,
                              opportunities based on            seminars, workshops
                              sustainable water use

3.2 Protected areas and       Economic development              Pilot projects (Belarus –          RBEC staff time
rural development – “Nature   opportunities based on            Poland, Romania-Ukraine and        Country office staff time
versus human” concept         sustainable use and non-          others)                            Funds
elaborated and disseminated   extractive services of the        Networking, research studies,
                              ecosystem resources increased     capacity for participatory
                              and cooperation among             decision/making process
                              neighbouring countries            building
                              concerned with the same
                              issues improved

Intended Outcome as stated in the Country Results Framework: Understanding of environmental security and its links with
economic and social sustainability
Outcome indicator: Number of publications, brochures, policy briefs, research studies
Applicable Strategic Area of Support (from SRF) and TTF Service Line (if applicable): Environmental Governance
Partnership Strategy: UNDP RBEC Environmental Governance Programme will work in partnerships with the UNEP, European
Commission, OSCE, the Regional Environmental Centres
Project title and number: 4. Environmental Security

     Intended Outputs          Output Targets for (years)        Indicative Activities                 Inputs

4.1 Enabling environment      Environmental security as a   Environmental awareness        RBEC staff time
for the higher                concept integrated into       campaign,                      Country office staff time
Environmental Security in     national and international    Training                       Funds
SEE and CA improved           policies strengthened         Research studies
                                                            Best practices publications

III.       Management arrangements

IIIa.      Overall arrangements

The Regional Support Centre (RSC) in Bratislava will manage virtually all the regional programmes
of the second RCF, under the guidance of the regional director and regional programme advisory and
monitoring bodies. These include the regional programme steering committee and the RBEC cluster

The RSC will choose execution modalities that promote broad participation, regional ownership and
effective programme delivery. These modalities include national, non-governmental and direct

         The success of the regional programmes depends on the readiness and respective capacities of
the national institutions to support regional programming. Consequently, while the implementation
and administration responsibilities of the regional programmes will be largely borne by and located at
the RSC, regional programme staff shall closely cooperate with the local and regional (where present)
administrations and institutions in the region. The respective resources and networks of the Country
Offices in the region will be key to identifying, coordinating and facilitating contacts, and in
establishing/enhancing work relationships with these institutions. Consequently, the RSC will
establish, with the COs in the region, effective consultation and/or formulation mechanisms, both for
individual cases and/or for the regional programme clusters, as the case may be. This will enable
regional programmes to be effectively coordinated, partnerships with local/regional institutions to be
enhanced, and implementation be streamlined at the country level and regional level.
The following RSC bodies will play key roles in managing the regional programme:

      Chief technical advisors (CTAs): Each of the three regional governance programmes will be
managed by a CTA, who will:

          be responsible for the programme’s substantive, administrative, and financial performance;

          manage the regional programme personnel associated with each programme;

          recruit project personnel and assess their performance;

          facilitate appropriate communications and coordination of activities within their clusters and
           with key clients and partners, including other RSC units, and UNDP country office and
           headquarters staff;

          manage programme assistants, on the advice and with the support of the RSC deputy director;

          create and maintain a learning environment for the personnel associated with their

        Regional programme specialists: Specialists will conduct the regional programme’s
substantive work. Specific duties include:

          Designing and managing regional programme activities;

          Staying abreast of important analytical and programmatic developments in their areas of

       Assisting (as needed) the CTAs in managing regional programme activities;

       Serving as sub-regional focal points within the regional programme to liaise with both
        country office programme staff and RBEC management in New York;

       Maintaining knowledge networks and participating in communities of practice in their areas
        of specialisation; and

       Working closely with clients and partners in their areas of specialisation, particularly other
        RSC units, and UNDP country office and headquarters staff.

The performance assessment of the key regional programme staff will be made with the resident
representatives in accordance with the standing UNDP practises. In order to ensure timeliness,
transparency and fairness, and with a view to align performance assessment with the overall regional
programme targets / priorities and the respective portfolios of the regional programme staff, the RSC
management and the resident representatives will identify, where feasible and applicable,
performance indicators that deviate from the standing UNDP RCA system. In doing so, the regional
programme priorities and the respective portfolios of the key regional programme staff will be taken
into consideration.

The Programme Support Unit (PSU): The PSU’s key functions and most important counterpart
relationships are set forth in the chart below:

 PSU FUNCTION                                                                          COUNTERPART
 Financial support: Monitoring budget utilisation, providing information on            Management support
 project budgets, ensure timely budget revisions and funds availability, perform        unit (MSU), RSC
 programme financial administration duties through FIM including entering
 Administrative support: Backstopping project implementation for clients,                   MSU (RSC)
 providing information to clients, arranging duty travel itineraries, preparing work
 plans, briefs, correspondence, background information
 Staffing/contracting support: Preparing TORs, searching for                                   MSU,
 consultants/companies, maintaining rosters/databases                                       SURF (RSC)
 Monitoring support: Timely compilation, completion and submission of required             Donors/Clients,
 documentation, preparation of evaluation plans                                              BOM (HQ)
 Research support                                                                       Regional programme
                                                                                         specialists, country
                                                                                        support team (RSC)
 Resource mobilisation (RM) support: Identifying donors, monitoring grant                   BRSP (HQ)
 making policies, preparation of RM presentations
 Knowledge management support: Ensuring correct completion of documentation,              MSU, Regional
 facilitating ERP introduction, utilisation, assisting in maintaining and updating        communications
 RSC web site, ensure that corporate ICT are utilised to the fullest extent,               advisor (RSC)

        The following RSC units will also play a key role in supporting or interacting with the
regional programme:

         RSC directorate (director and deputy director): Vis-a-vis the regional programme, the RSC
director will:

       set the regional programme’s overall managerial framework;

       evaluate the performance of the CTAs (based on assessments provided by RBEC Resident

       engage in high-level partnerships in support of regional programme activities;

       promote communication and coordination between the regional programme and other RSC
        and UNDP units; and

       engage in resource mobilisation activities on behalf of the regional programme.

Vis-a-vis the regional programme, the RSC deputy director will:

       Advise the regional programme CTAs on managing the PSU;

       Ensure that regional programme activities receive appropriate administrative support from the
        PSU and MSU;

       Help set the regional programme’s overall managerial framework;

       engage in high-level partnerships in support of regional programme activities;

       promote communication and coordination between the regional programme and other RSC
        and UNDP units;

       Assist in the evaluation of CTAs, other regional programme personnel; and

       Assist in, and facilitate, the monitoring and evaluation of regional programme activities.

       The Country Support Team: The country support team (liaison unit) conducts national
programming in those UNDP countries that do not have country offices. Vis-a-vis the regional
programme, the country support team will:

       Manage its programme assistants through the PSU;

       Work closely with the regional programme’s advisor on emerging donors to ensure that
        human and financial resources in EU accession countries are mobilised in support of regional
        programme activities; and

       Work closely with the regional programme overall to ensure that regional programming
        adequately addresses the needs of these countries.

The RSC presence of outposted specialists from the Bureau of Development Policy (BDP) that are
affiliated with the SURF coordination unit has major implications for the regional programme. This
pertains in particular to the work of the BDP global policy specialists, and regional advisors from the
Global Environmental Facility (GEF).

This document should not be interpreted as an attempt to impose duties on or assign tasks to the
RSC’s BDP units, as such matters are managed via other instruments. It is instead meant as a
statement of how the regional programme would like to interact with the BDP specialists, in order to
improve the work of both units. Namely, regional programme colleagues are expected to work
closely with BDP specialists in:

       Creating and maintaining communities of practice, particularly in the areas of poverty
        reduction, democratic governance, environmental sustainability, ICT for development, and
        gender for development;

       Maintaining frequent, on-going communications concerning own activities and the needs and
        activities of key UNDP and non-UNDP partners;

       Where possible and desirable, seek efficiencies by reducing administrative overlap and
        duplication; and

       Providing support to country offices.

The following bodies will also play key roles in managing the regional programme:

       Senior RBEC management in New York; and

       The Regional Programme Steering Committee. This Committee, which consists of senior
        RBEC management and resident representatives from each of RBEC’s four sub-regional
        clusters, meets 1-2 times annually. Its tasks include: (1) the monitoring and evaluation of
        regional programme activities; (2) approval of annual regional programme work plans; and
        (3) facilitating communication, cooperation, and coordination between the regional
        programme and other key RBEC and UNDP units.

For oversight, the following meeting schedule mechanism will be instituted (timing will be followed
as long as the work schedules permit):

       The RCF Steering Committee will meet each year along with the SURF Advisory Council if

       The Annual Review + 3 programme steering committee meetings, including external
        participation, will be held in November each year. This will feed into the SRF/ROAR
        process. Indicative work plans for the coming year will be presented at this meeting. The
        composition of the annual review will be the members of the RCF Steering Committee,
        government counterparts (one representing each region), as well as major stakeholders and
        partners of the regional programme.

IIIa.   Project appraisal and approval

A standing LPAC will be constituted at the RSC, under the direction of the regional director for the
Bureau of Europe and CIS or his/her designee. It will consist of the RSC director and deputy
director, the three regional programme CTAs, the head of the RSC country support team, and a
representative of the RSC SURF. Secretarial functions for the LPAC will be performed by the PSU.
The LPAC should also involve such external stakeholders as representatives of key partner
organisations. This framework will ensure conformity to UNDP rules and broad consultation among
relevant partners.

IIIb.   Project execution and implementation

Regional programming under RBEC’s second RCF will be directly executed. This reflects both
objective necessity and the recommendations of the RSC reprofiling report.

In contrast to other regions, the RBEC region does not possess credible multilateral partners with
regional (or even sub-regional) execution capacity. The execution arrangements developed under the
first RCF (via UNOPS and the Centre for Economic Democracy, a Slovak NGO) were criticised by a

number of assessments, including the 2000 audit report. In neither case did the executing agency
contribute to the regional programme’s substantive development or cost minimisation.

IIIc.      Project monitoring and evaluation

Regional programming will be monitored and evaluated at the overall regional program (RCF) level,
and at the level of the three regional governance programmes.

Monitoring and evaluation over the overall regional programme will be conducted by the Regional
Programme Steering Committee. This Committee, which consists of senior RBEC management and
resident representatives from each of RBEC’s four sub-regional clusters, meets 1-2 times annually.
Its tasks include: (1) the monitoring and evaluation of regional programme activities; (2) approval of
annual regional programme work plans; and (3) facilitating communication, cooperation, and
coordination between the regional programme and other key RBEC and UNDP units.

The monitoring and evaluation of the three regional governance programmes will be conducted by
steering committees appointed for these projects. These steering committees will meet during the
fourth quarter of each year to conduct annual programme reviews, which will feed into the
SRF/ROAR process. These steering committees will consist of the members of the Regional
Programme Steering Committee and government counterparts (one from each sub-region), as well as
other major regional programme stakeholders and partners.

IIId.      Programme funding and cost recovery

As specified in the second RCF, $20 million in TRAC resources were allocated to RBEC’s
regional programme for the 2002-2005 period. On the basis of this a $46 million resource
mobilisation target has been set. This target represents a departure from the previous
approach to regional programming, when resource mobilisation was not treated as a serious

It should be noted that the allocation of the regional TRAC resources to sub-regional
programmes and projects shall be made in accordance with following criteria:

    (i)        That the regional TRAC resources are treated as seed money, to be used to attract
               significant amounts of non-core funds;
    (ii)       That the regional programme's financial contribution is at least equally matched
               by funds provided by participating country offices;
    (iii)      That a single office (be it the regional programme, a country office, or RBEC-
               NY) bear sole responsibility for the management of these funds; AND
    (iv)       That decisions about such allocations are made jointly by RBEC-NY and by the
               regional programme leadership, with the final decision belonging to the regional

Once the recruitment of regional programme CTAs has been completed, the PSU has been
established, and the post-reprofiling MSU has been constituted, the RSC directorate and CTAs will
draft a resource mobilisation strategy. This strategy, which should be completed by early 2003, will

          Resource mobilisation targets for individual clusters;

          The introduction of best-practice cost recovery and financial management procedures; and

         The development of transparent working arrangements governing the expenditure of regional
          trac between regional programmes, RBEC New York, and UNDP country offices (within the
          framework of sub-regional programmes and projects).

IV.       Legal context

Revisions can be made to the project document and/or annexes of, which do not involve
significant changes in the immediate objectives, outputs or activities of the project, but are
caused by the rearrangements of inputs.

Annex I. Results and Lessons of Past Cooperation

Regional programming in the RBEC regional only started developing significant capacity in the
environmental field in recent years. Most of UNDP’s experience in this field has to date been
gathered by country offices at the national level, and by GEF, Capacity 21, and SURF at the regional
level. Some lessons can be drawn also from the work of other international organisations and donors.

UNDP has provided extensive support in the RBEC region at the national and sub-national (local)
level through the country offices. This support has been demand driven and dealt with areas like
institutional strengthening and governance, civil society support, policy formulation, environmental
resource management, capacity building, awareness raising, demonstration projects, and the like.
Through this work, country offices have developed excellent understandings of and relationships
with the environmental sector in their countries. When needed the country offices have been
supported by the SURF and other BDP policy advisers. The Global Environmental Facility has
funded a number of projects in its priority areas both at the country and at the sub-regional levels.
These include projects for the Danube river basin, the Black Sea, and the Caspian and Aral Seas.
The Capacity 21 programme also supported capacity development across the region.

The main lessons relevant for future work can be summarised as follows:

   Apart from the more affluent CEE countries, the countries in the region don’t have the resources
    needed to invest in environmental clean-up. Absorption capacity in using loans or grants for
    environmental investment purposes is small. Investment projects with international funding that
    have been introduced mainly have demonstration value. It will take decades before these
    countries can fully implement OECD environmental standards.

   There are many low cost or even revenue generating opportunities for pollution reduction and
    more sustainable resource management. Exploiting these opportunities requires better
    management based on improved environmental governance, including legislation, decision
    making processes, transparency of information, human resources and institutional capacity, as
    well as enforcement.

   Poor governance, including corruption, weak enforcement, and lack of public and stakeholder
    involvement, is the most important obstacle to implementing environmental policies and
    investments. It can lead to considerable misuse of domestic and donor funds, resulting in the
    failure of projects themselves, or the failure to use the lessons from these projects.

   Difficulties in securing investment resources combined with the relative ease of policy
    generation create considerable implementation gaps in the countries. While putting laws on the
    books knowing that they will only be implemented later is a valid strategy in the transition
    context. But given growing interest in harmonisation with EU regulations even in the non-
    candidate countries, rules and implementation will have to be balanced more carefully in order
    not to lose credibility both domestically and internationally.

   Environmental issues received significant attention in the early stages of transition. This,
    combined with the political neutrality often ascribed to environmental issues and the significant
    involvement of international players, has helped the environmental sector in many places to be at
    the forefront of the reform. This has generated spillover benefits for economic and democratic
    governance as well. This is apparent in the guaranteed access to information and public

    participation as formulated by the Aarhus Convention, Local Environmental Action Plans, as
    well as public–private partnerships for environmental investments.

   Environmental cooperation has been successfully used for confidence building and strengthening
    cooperation in post-conflict situations both within and between countries.

   International processes and commitments have been key driving forces for national
    environmental policies. These forces have also become increasingly complex and demanding.
    Governments with very limited resources are experiencing growing difficulties in setting
    priorities and responding to international initiatives. A balance and synergies need to be found
    between international and domestic environmental agendas.

   In policy formulation, one of the main challenges remains the low importance attached to
    environmental policies by many governments. UNDP has been able to bridge the divides
    between different sectors and levels (local, regional, national) of government.

   Because of lack of capacity for environmental policy at the regional level, UNDP hasn’t
    participated actively in the Environment for Europe process and the other international
    frameworks that are important for the region. Although the country offices have extensively
    supported their countries’ participation, the lack of information and strategy at the regional level
    made it hard for them to appropriately advise their countries on importance, substance, priority
    and consequences of participation in international processes.


To top