Inception Report CB2 - Final

UNDP-GEF project Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural
Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)

---
Romania
Project Inception Report
October 2009
UNDP-GEF funded project Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global
Environmental Benefits (CB2) - Romania
Table of Contents
Page
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................................................................... 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................................. 2
1.
INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................................... 3
2.
PROJECT FACT SHEET ........................................................................................................................................ 4
3.
REVIEW OF PROJECT STRATEGY ................................................................................................................... 5

3.1.
3.2.
4.
REVIEW OF PROJECT LOG-FRAME ........................................................................................................................ 5

REVIEW OF PROJECT OUTPUTS AND ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................... 5
PROJECT OVERSIGHT AND COORDINATION MECHANISMS ............................................................... 11

4.1.
4.2.
4.3.
5.
PROJECT ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE ............................................................................................................ 11

PARTICIPATION OF STAKEHOLDERS .................................................................................................................... 13
SCHEDULE OF PROJECT REVIEWS ....................................................................................................................... 15
REVIEW OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT ....................................................................... 16

5.1.
5.2.
5.3.
6.
REVIEW OF INDICATORS ..................................................................................................................................... 16

REVIEW OF BASELINE AND TARGETS VALUES .................................................................................................... 17
CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT MONITORING SCORECARD ........................................................................................ 21
REVIEW OF RISK MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................................. 22

6.1.
6.2.
REVIEW OF RISKS ............................................................................................................................................... 22

MANAGEMENT RESPONSES ................................................................................................................................ 23
7.
MONITORING AND EVALUATION FRAMEWORK ..................................................................................... 28
8.
CO-FINANCING .................................................................................................................................................... 28
9.
WORK PLAN ......................................................................................................................................................... 29

9.1.
9.2.
9.3.
9.4.
10.
PROJECT OVERALL WORK PLAN ........................................................................................................................ 29

PROGRESS TO DATE ........................................................................................................................................... 33
WORK PLAN FOR PERIOD JULY 2009 - JUNE 2010 .............................................................................................. 35
TARGET FOR YEAR 2009-2010 ........................................................................................................................... 40
BUDGET / DISBURSEMENTS FOR PERIOD 2009-2010............................................................................... 41
ANNEXES ....................................................................................................................................................................... 43
ANNEX 1: TERMS OF REFERENCE .................................................................................................................................. 43
ANNEX 2: INCEPTION WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS .......................................................................................................... 47
ANNEX 3: REVISED LOG-FRAME .................................................................................................................................. 54
ANNEX 4: CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT MONITORING SCORECARD .................................................................................. 59
ANNEX 5: MONITORING AND EVALUATION FRAMEWORK............................................................................................. 65
Page ii
List of Abbreviations
ATU Administrative Territorial Unit
CAP Common Agricultural Policies
CBD Convention on Biological Diversity
CCD (United Nations) Convention to Combat
Desertification
CDS County Directorate for Statistics
CIU Convention Implementation Unit
CN National Committee/ Commission
CNEG Commission of the National Environmental
Guard
COAC County Office for Agriculture Consultancy
COCLR County Office for Cadastre and Land
Register
COP Conference of the Parties
DARD Directorates for Agriculture and Rural
Development
DR Development Regions
EC European Community
EFA Environmental Fund Administration
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
EP - Environmental Protection
EU European Union
FP Focal Point
GD Governmental Decision
GEF Global Environment Facility
GO Government Ordinance
GRG Green House Gas
GSG General Secretariat of the Government
IAD Integrated Agricultural Development
ICARDE Inter-ministerial Council for Agriculture,
Rural Development and Environment (VIII)
ICRIDPPT Inter-ministerial Council for Regional
Infrastructure Development, Physical Planning and
Tourism (IX)
IMC Inter-Ministerial Committee
IRD Integrated Rural Development
IRM Integrated Resource Management
IWM Integrated Watershead Management
KP Kyoto Protocol
LEAP Local Environmental Action Plan
LEPA Local Environmental Protection Agency
MADA Ministry of Administration and Domestic
Affairs
MAFRD Ministry of Agriculture, Forests and Rural
Development
MEWM Ministry of Environment and Water
Management
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MO Minister's Order
MOE Ministry of Environment
MEA Multilateral Environmental Agreements

MEF Ministry of Environment and Forests
NALI National Administration for Land
Improvement
NCSA National Capacity Self-Assessment
NEPA National Environmental Protection Agency
NFA or Romsilva National Forest Administration
NIS National Institute for Statistics
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
NPD National Project Director
NSC National Steering Committee
COCLR County Office for Cadastre and Land
Register
PA Project Assistant
PIMC Permanent Inter-Ministerial Councils
PIR Project Inception Report
PM Project Manager
PMU Project Management Unit
PNADR National Plan For Agriculture And Rural
Development
PNAPM National Action Plan for Environmental
Protection
PNAR Romanian National Accession Plan
PND National Development Plan
PPU Public Policy Unit
RCEG Regional Commission of Environmental
Guard
RCM Regional Coordinating Mechanisms
RDA Regional Development Agency
REPA Regional Environmental Protection Agency
STU Statistical Territorial Unit
SNALI Sub-unit of ANIF (National Administration
for Land Improvement)
SEA Strategic Environment Assessment
SITA Senior International Technical Advisor
SOE Sectoral Operatoional ???? (Pg 11)
SNDD National Sustainable Development Strategy
(in preparation as of April 2006)
SNDTM National Strategy for Medium Term
Economic Development
SPC Strategic Planning Council
TIFH Territorial Inspectorate for Forestry and
Hunting
UB University of Bucharest
UEB University of Ecology, Bucharest
UIC Convention Implementation Unit
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNEP United Nations Environmental Programme
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change
Page 1
Executive Summary
The UNDP/GEF project Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management
for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2) Romania was approved mid-2008. Its official starting date is June
2008 and its closing date is June 2011. The implementing partners are the Ministry of Environment (MOE)-main
partner, and the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MAFRD). The delegated Executing Agency is
the University of Bucharest. The project has a GEF budget of 470,000 USD (+ 30,000 USD PPG) and 730,000
USD co-financing (+ 10,000 PPG). The Project Manager (PM) Prof. Dr. Dan Gabriel Manoleli - was nominated
by the Executing Agency (University of Bucharest) in August 2008 and started work as PM in November 2008.
The aim of this project is to expand Romanias capacity to generate global environmental benefits through
mainstreaming the Rio Conventions into national, regional and local decision-making. It will do this, firstly, by
enhancing the enabling environment for convention implementation, including modifying institutional, legislative,
policy and reporting frameworks to reflect convention commitments and, secondly, by improving institutional and
individual capacity within the lead agencies for convention implementation (MOE and MAFRD). The latter
component will strengthen mechanisms, tools and training to support the use of Integrated Resource Management
(IRM) to mainstream convention themes into sectoral plans and programmes.
A ten months preparatory phase was conducted to ground the starting of the project; including an inception
workshop held on April 29th, 2009. This phase is summarized in this inception report and lays a new basis for the
implementation of the project, reflecting changes in circumstances and/or practical implementation issues. It is
based on the findings gathered during this phase and it is an update of the project document. Once approved by
the NSC it is considered as the new project strategy, particularly regarding the revised set of expected results and
performance indicators.
This inception report is to ensure that all relevant parties have the same baseline information, the same
understanding and are committed to the implementation of the project.
The review of the project outputs, of the baseline information and of the current context in which the project is to
be implemented was concluded by some changes to the set of outputs. These changes were made (and approved)
at the inception workshop.
Following the review of the project strategy in consultations with relevant stakeholders, the project team proposes
to simplify the set of outputs and reduce it from 9 outputs to 7 outputs (See section 3). In addition the entire set of
performance indicators to measure project progress at the output, outcome and objective levels was reviewed and
simplified. A revised set of 16 performance indicators is now set to measure the progress of the project (see
Section 5); including their baseline and targets at end of project. The capacity development monitoring scorecard
was completed with a total score of 7 out of 45, indicating a low capacity currently in place for an effective
mainstreaming of Rio conventions themes (see Annex 4). Finally risks identified during the design phase were
reviewed and simplified. A total of 10 risks are now up-to-date with management responses as of the start of the
project (see Section 6). A third Outcome was added Effective, efficient, and adaptive project management,
monitoring and evaluation to capture management activities to coordinate the project and also activities to
identify the lessons learned and their replication in the region and worldwide.
The project management approach includes a project management team composed of one Project Manager (PM),
one Administrative Assistant and a part-time Senior International Technical Advisor (SITA) (see TORs in Annex
3). A multi-disciplinary and multi-sectoral National Steering Committee (NSC) will provide strategic guidance.
The project work plan for the entire duration of the project and a more detailed one for the remaining part of 2009
are presented in Section 9.
Page 2
1.
Introduction
Context and Purpose of this Inception Report

The UNDP/GEF project Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management
for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2) Romania was approved mid-2008. Its official starting date is June,
2008 when the project document was signed and its closing date is June, 2011. The Project Manager (PM) Prof.
Dr. Dan Gabriel Manoleli - was nominated by the Executing Agency (University of Bucharest - UB) in August
and started the work in November 2008. UNDP CO has recruited Ms. Rodica Stefanescu as Project
(Administrator) Assistant (PA).
The UNDP-CO contracted Mr. Jean-Joseph Bellamy as a Senior International Technical Advisor (SITA) to
provide technical advisory services during the implementation of the project. The purpose of this position is to
provide support and advise the Project Management Unit (PMU) within the executing agency on the project
implementation strategy including risk management and potential flexible adjustments of the project
implementation work plan (see TOR of his first assignment in Annex 1).
A five months inception phase was conducted to kick-start the project; including an inception workshop held on
April 29, 2009. The focus of this inception phase was to:
Review the project strategy;
Review the implementation partners and co-financers involvement in project implementation;
Review its performance measurement;
Review its risks and assumptions;
Draft the M&E Framework for the project to be submitted to the NSC for approval;
Identify key methodological elements for the implementation of the project;
Identify thematic areas (work packages) to be implemented in the first year;
Organize an inception workshop with key stakeholders.
This phase is summarized in this inception report and lays a new basis for the implementation of the project,
reflecting changes in circumstances and/or practical implementation issues. It is based on the findings gathered
during this phase and it is an update of the project document. Once approved by the NSC, it is considered as the
new project strategy; particularly regarding the revised set of expected results and performance indicators.
This inception report is to ensure that all relevant parties have the same baseline information, the same
understanding and are committed to the implementation of the project; particularly for its first year of
implementation. A draft of this report was circulated to all project implementation parties involved and revised on
the basis of comments received. It includes specific roles and responsibilities of key implementing partners.
Inception Workshop
An Inception Workshop was held in Bucharest on April 29, 2009 and was attended by 38 people from a wide
range of stakeholder groups including representatives from MOE, MAFRD, Civil Society, NEPA, UNDP and
MADA. An update on the project strategy and the project management arrangement were presented and discussed
with the participants. The Agenda and the Minutes of the Inception Workshop are presented in Annex 2.
Page 3
2.
Project Fact sheet
This Section presents the main facts about the project:

Project Logic Model
Goal
To expand Romanias capacity to generate global environmental benefits through mainstreaming the Rio Conventions
into national decision-making.
Objective
To strengthen systemic, institutional and individual capacity to integrate Rio Convention themes into national, regional
and local decision-making.
Outcome 1: Enhanced institutional, legislative,
policy and planning framework for implementing
Rio Conventions commitments.
Outcome 2: Improved capacity of MOE and MAFRD to integrate

environmental and sectoral resources management.
Output 2.1: Enhanced technical and managerial capacity of MOE

Output 1.1: Institutional framework and
and MAFRD staff to integrate environmental and
processes for coordinated
sectoral resources management, using Integrated
management and implementation of
Resource Management (IRM) techniques.
the Rio Conventions established.
Output 2.2: Codes of good practice, checklists and training
Output 1.2: Suggestions for amendments of
established to strengthen Integrated Resource
legislation and norms to better
Management tools for integrating environment into
enable mainstreaming of Rio
sectoral programmes and projects.
Conventions themes into policies,
Output 2.3: Regional Coordinating Mechanisms (RCMs) are
plans and programmes, submitted for
established and implemented as demonstration models
Gov official approval.
in two of Romanias eight Development Regions
Output 1.3: Screening, monitoring and reporting
(DRs), then expanded to the remaining six regions,
system, as part of Integrated
based on lessons learned.
Conventions requirements into
Output 2.4: A peer training network and database to support
sectorial policies, is in place.
integrated resource management is established to
serve regional and local environmental and resource
management staff.
Outcome 3: Effective, efficient, and adaptive project management, monitoring and evaluation.
Key Facts
GEF Implementing Agency:
National Executing Agency:
Delegated Executing Agency:
Project Manager:
Starting Date:
Closing Date:
Budget:
Main Stakeholders:
UNDP
Ministry of Environment (MOE)1 and Ministry of Agriculture and Rural
Development (MAFRD)
University of Bucharest (UB)
Prof. Dr. Dan Gabriel Manoleli
June 2008
June 2011
GEF:
USD 470,000 (+30,000 PPG)
Co-financing: USD 730,000 (+10,000 PPG)
* Ministry of Environment (MOE)
* Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MAFRD)
* University of Bucharest (UB)
1 At the time that the Project was submitted to GEF, the name was Ministry of the Environment and Water Management (MEWM), while
by the time the project started it became Ministry of the Environment (MOE); Since December 23 rd, it became Ministry of Environment
and Forests (MEF)
Page 4
3.
Review of Project Strategy
3.1.
Review of Project Log-Frame
The review of the project log-frame indicates a good internal logic of the project. The overall concept is to
mainstream the Rio Conventions into related decision-making processes in Romania, which in turn will generate
global environmental benefits. Furthermore, it will be achieved through two main sets of activities:
To review and improve where necessary the institutional, legislative and policy frameworks required
for the mainstreaming of the Rio Conventions into the national decision-making processes (Outcome
#1). The aim is to improve coordination and management of implementation of Rio Conventions in
Romania and strengthen the enabling environment for conventions implementation, including the
mainstreaming of conventions themes into policies, plans, programmes and projects. There is already
a well-developed, even if complex, institutional system for environmental and natural resource
management in the country. There are numerous opportunities to address conventions issues as part
of implementing the numerous national plans and strategies to promote environmental sustainability.
Activities under this output will rationalize the currently fragmented and uncoordinated convention
arrangements to allow government to more effectively and efficiently take advantage of the timely
opportunities provided by EU accession reforms to promote global benefits.
To improve the capacity of MOE and MAFRD for an integrated approach to environment and
natural resources management (Outcome #2). The aim is to ensure that the lead agencies responsible
for conventions implementation have the institutional and individual capacity to participate in
implementing the set of activities described above that is to enhance the institutional, legal and
policy framework and to use this enhanced framework to more effectively address conventions
themes. The project will do this by increasing the technical and managerial expertise through
technical support, tools, training and on-going support. This support should also motivate these lead
agencies to link their on-going environmental and natural resources management activities with the
global environmental management community.
A third Outcome was added Effective, efficient, and adaptive project management, monitoring and evaluation
to capture management activities to coordinate the project and also activities to identify the lessons learned and
their replication in the region and worldwide.
The log-frame, as presented in the project document (ProDoc), details the full project logic model that is goal,
objective, outcomes and outputs. It is comprehensive and it includes also the related indicators and their respective
values to measure the performance of the project. However, following GEF and UNDP project management
methodology the log-frame should be a tool to monitor the high level expected results of a project that is goal,
objective and outcomes. As a result, the log-frame was simplified. The revised log-frame is presented in Annex 3.
3.2.
Review of Project Outputs and Activities
The review of the project outputs, of the baseline information and of the current context in which the project is to
be implemented was concluded by some changes to the set of outputs. These changes were made (and approved)
at the inception workshop. These are presented in the table below:
Revised Expected Outputs
Outcome
Original Output
Revised Output
Outcome 1: Enhanced
institutional,
legislative, policy and
planning framework for
implementing Rio
Conventions
commitments.
Output 1.1: Institutional framework and processes

for coordinated management and implementation
of the Rio Conventions established.
Output 1.2: Legislation and norms amended to
better enable mainstreaming of Rio Conventions
themes into policies, plans and programmes.
Output 1.3: Environmental screening is part of
Output 1.1: Institutional framework and

processes for coordinated management
and implementation of the Rio
Conventions established
Output 1.2: Suggestions for
amendments of legislation and norms to
better enable mainstreaming of Rio
Page 5
Revised Expected Outputs

Outcome
Outcome 2: Improved
capacity of MOE and
MAFRD to integrate
environmental and
sectoral resource
management
Original Output
Revised Output
the national policy-making process, and officials

within the Public Policies Unit and two Interministerial Councils are able to use it to integrate
conventions into sectoral policies.
Output 1.4: A convention monitoring system is
part of national State of the Environment
reporting, with targets and indicators to assess
progress on implementing the Rio Conventions.
Conventions themes into policies, plans

and programmes, submitted for Gov
official approval.
Output 1.3: Screening, monitoring and
reporting system, as part of Integrated
Conventions requirements into sectorial
policies, in place.
Output 2.1: Enhanced technical and managerial

capacity of MOE and MAFRD staff to integrate
environmental and sectoral resource management,
using Integrated Resource Management techniques
Output 2.2: Codes of good practice, checklists
and training established to strengthen Integrated
Resource Management tools for integrating
environment into sectoral programmes and
projects
Output 2.3: Regional Coordinating Mechanisms
(RCMs) are established as demonstration models
in two of Romanias eight Development Regions,
then expanded to the remaining six regions, based
on lessons learned
Output 2.4: Each of the two model Regional
Coordinating Mechanisms implements a
demonstration activity which shows how
Integrated Resource Management tools can be
used to address priority regional issues and the
results are disseminated to all eight Development
Regions
Output 2.5: A peer training network and database
to support integrated resource management is
established to serve regional and local
environmental and resource management staff
Output 2.1: Enhanced technical and

managerial capacity of MOE and
MAFRD staff to integrate environmental
and sectoral resource management, using
Integrated Resource Management
techniques
Output 2.2: Codes of good practice,
checklists and training established to
strengthen Integrated Resource
Management tools for integrating
environment into sectoral programmes
and projects
Output 2.3: Regional Coordinating
Mechanisms (RCMs) are established and
implemented as demonstration models in
two of Romanias eight Development
Regions (DRs), then expanded to the
remaining six regions, based on lessons
learned
Output 2.4: A peer training network and
database to support integrated resource
management is established to serve
regional and local environmental and
resource management staff.
Outcome 3: Effective,
efficient, and adaptive
project management,
monitoring and
evaluation.
Output 3.1: Project well managed

including progress reports as per UNDP
and GEF standards.
Output 3.2: Lessons learned
documented and disseminated in
Tajikistan and throughout the region.
Discussion of Activities:
Output 1.1: Institutional framework and processes for coordinated management and implementation of the Rio
Conventions established
This output directly addresses Actions 1-2 in the NCSA Joint Action Plan (Annex C), under the topic
Institutional Framework since it involves clarifying and formalizing the structure for managing and
implementing the conventions. No new institutions will need to be created. Core activities under this output
include:
Develop the capacity of the convention implementation units (CBD and UNFCC in MOE and CCD
within MAFRD) and define their responsibilities and relationships among them.
Page 6
Define the roles of MOE and MAFRD in convention implementation within their own departments,
agencies and programmes at the national, regional and local levels, and establish formal
collaborative mechanisms to enhance synergies. Particular focus will be placed on integrating the
conventions into forestry, agriculture, soils, protected areas, hunting and rural development
programmes, as these all fall within MAFRDs mandate. Key programmes in MOE include climate
change/air quality and water management.
Define the roles of MOE and MAFRD in implementing the conventions through their relationships
with other ministries, for example, during regulatory and review processes, such as EIA and
permitting for proposed developments. This includes defining the responsibilities of the National,
Regional and Local Environmental Protection Agencies.
Identify all other ministries, agencies and civil society organisations to be involved in convention
management and define their respective roles, responsibilities and tasks. This would build on the
work done during the NCSA to identify and engage diverse university and research institutes, NGOs
and community organisations.
[Revised] Output 1.2: Suggestions for amendments of legislation and norms to better enable mainstreaming of
Rio Conventions themes into policies, plans and programme, submitted for Government official approval.
This output was revised at the inception workshop. The suggestion was made by the GEF political focal point and
the Ministry of Environment representative and all participants to the inception workshop agreed upon this
revision. The main reason for this change was due to the well-known long process for legislation amendments in
Romania. The approval of any legislation and norms by the government is beyond the project control and
moreover, the final approval of the suggested changes can happen after the project closure. Therefore, the output
was rephrased accordingly.
This output directly addresses Actions 4-7 in the NCSA Joint Action Plan under the topic Legislative
Framework, as it involves amendments and additions to Romanias legal framework to bring it into line with its
international commitments. The aim is to develop the so-called secondary (or enabling) legislation that is
needed to ensure that Romania has the appropriate laws, regulations and other legal norms to implement
convention commitments. This output will also support output 1.1, since legal documents (e.g., Government
Decision, Ministers Order) are also used to establish institutional responsibilities and collaborative
mechanisms. The output will include the following core activities:
Building on the work done in the NCSA Thematic Assessments, conduct a thorough review of
Romanian legislation and norms to find weaknesses and gaps in relation to convention
responsibilities.
Elaborate and proposals to modify laws and norms to enable:
o Compliance with convention obligations for each convention and for integration of biodiversity,
climate change and land degradation issues;
o Assignment of conventions responsibilities to appropriate institutions and promotion of
collaboration among them;
o Integration of conventions into development plans, sectorial plans and environmental action
plans at local, regional and national levels;
o Strengthening the review and permitting processes involving the assessment and mitigation of
environmental impacts of developments, e.g. EIA could be amended to include issues related to
impacts, vulnerability and adaptation to global climate change.
o The use of independent technical services, as needed to complement a ministrys capacity.
o The use of fiscal incentives to promote integration of Rio Conventions themes, such as the
revision of the selection criteria for projects financed through the Environmental Fund to
promote projects that address cross-cutting convention themes, and the creation of mechanisms
to favor convention-related technology transfer (green certificates, white certificates, fiscal
relaxation).
[Revised] Output 1.3: Screening, monitoring and reporting system, as part of integrated conventions
requirements into sectoral policies, is in place.
Page 7
The 2 previous outputs (1.3 & 1.4) were merged together due to their related nature. Recent changes have
assigned one Public Policy Unit (PPU) to each ministry as opposed to the initial situation where there was one
PPU covering all ministries. Furthermore, the Inter-Ministerial Councils are now named Inter-Ministerial
Commissions; there are several Inter-MinisterialCommissions on various topics. Environment and implicitly the
Rio Conventions fall under the Inter-Ministerial Commission (IMC) no 9. The PPU of the line ministries and the
members of the IMC no9, will be trained on: Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), other environmental
screening methods, reporting requirements at national and international level, and also other means of
integrating environmental considerations into development planning. The project is currently lobbying at higher
political level for some changes in the current institutional arrangements, so that the Ministry of regional
planning be included in the IMC no 9; nevertheless, training activities will involve this ministry as well. The
inclusion of Rio Conventions themes in the SOE reports will be monitored closely by the projec though obviously
the Ministry of Environment is responsible for the production of SOE.
This output directly addresses Action 3 in the NCSA Joint Action Plan under the topic Institutional Framework
and Actions 6, 7 and 12 under Planning. It aims to ensure that newly created national policy development
processes and high-level inter-ministerial consultative bodies incorporate conventions issues into their decisionmaking. Core activities under this output will include:
Defining the responsibilities of the Public Policies Units (PPUs) and Inter-Ministerial Commissions
for convention implementation, and ensuring that the composition of the Commissions allows them
to effectively consider environmental implications of policy proposals, including obligations under
MEAs;
Developing an environmental screening tool(s) to be used as part of the established process for
public policy analysis, which already requires an assessment of environmental impacts;
Training staff in the PPUs, Inter-Ministerial Commissions and relevant government ministries on
how to use the environmental screening tool to assess and mitigate the environmental impacts of
policies, plans and programmes;
Establishing targets to be achieved for thematic and cross-cutting objectives of the Rio Conventions,
to be used in monitoring the progress and the reporting to both national bodies and the conventions
secretariats. These targets will also be integrated into the recently established State of Environment
Reporting system that is part of the Ministrys annual reporting.
Output 2.1: Enhanced technical and managerial capacity of MOE and MAFRD staff to integrate environmental
and sectoral resource management, using Integrated Resource Management techniques
This output directly addresses Actions 8 and 9 under Planning and Actions 14, 15 and 17 under Training,
Education and Awareness-raising in the NCSA Joint Action Plan. It aims to strengthen the technical expertise of
ministry and agency staff in one or more Integrated Resource Management tools and techniques such as Integrated
Agricultural Development (IAD), Integrated Rural Development (IRD), Integrated Watershed Management
(IWM) and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The project will also support the staff in applying those
tools and techniques to particular issues. The capacity of staff to use these tools will be built through a
combination of technical assistance, manuals and guidelines and training/ train-the-trainer programmes. Two
priority topics for capacity development have already been identified in the NCSA reports and other assessments.
These include Rio Conventions (and other MEAs) and stakeholder involvement, including the role of public
awareness programmes. Other topics to be included will be decided based on a comprehensive Training Needs
Assessment; they may include those presented in the table below. Core activities will include:
A comprehensive institutional assessment of MOE and MAFRD, building on previous NCSA and
EA efforts, to analyze strengths and weaknesses in integrating environment and natural resource
management.
Implementation of recommended institutional changes (e.g., organogrammes, collaborative
mechanisms).
A comprehensive training needs assessment, based on previous NCSA and EU efforts, to identify
individual training and learning needs of staff in national and decentralized offices of the MOE and
MAFRD, including the National, Regional and Local Agencies for Environmental Protection.
Page 8
Development of focused training programmes, using a mix of formal training (e.g., modules,
workshops) with innovative training/learning programmes, including mentoring, on-the-job learning,
field-based programmes (extension) and distance education (Internet-based). The use of train-thetrainer programmes will ensure that training programmes are institutionalized, and reach a large
number of staff. This approach will also include insertion of convention-related topics into existing
training programmes run by the ministries, EU and other donors.
Monitoring, evaluation and revision to training programmes.
Possible Topics to be Addressed to Strengthen Capacity of MOE and MAFRD
Rio Conventions and MEAs

Integrated Rural Development & Integrated
Agricultural Development
Environmental Impact Assessment & Monitoring
Strategic Environmental Assessment
Use of GIS to implement plans & programmes
Integrated Watershed Management
Natural Resources Valuation (an environmental
economics tool)
Regional Planning
Urban Planning
Stakeholders Involvement
Public Awareness & Media Strategies
Programme and Project Management
Incentives (financial and non-financial)
Technology and Knowledge transfer
State of Environment Reporting & Indicators to
monitor conventions implementation
National
offices: MOE
& MAFRD
Regional/
district offices:
MOE &
MAFRD
National
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Regional &
Local
Environ.
Protection
Agencies
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Output 2.2: Codes of good practice, checklists and training established to strengthen Integrated Resource
Management tools for integrating environment into sectoral programmes and projects
This output directly addresses Actions 8, 9 and 21 in the NCSA Joint Action Plan and is interconnected with
output 2.1. As noted above, there are many established Integrated Resource Management tools that MOE and
MAFRD could use to better integrate environment and sectoral resource management for national and global
benefits. Environmental impact assessment, if combined with follow-up and monitoring, is a proven tool for
integrating environmental concerns into project design and operation. More recently, Strategic Environmental
Assessment (SEA) was developed to manage environmental impacts at the programme level or in a defined
region. The NCSA and interviews during the design of this CB2 project have already identified weaknesses in
Romanias EIA system and very limited use of the provisions for SEA. This output would involve reviewing and
strengthening the EIA system to better integrate convention themes, through process changes, if needed, and the
addition of codes of good practice and project or programme specific checklists. There would also be training for
responsible EIA authorities in how to use these tools to promote more sustainable programmes and projects. If it is
seen as appropriate, one or more of the demonstration activities in output 2.4 may focus on better application of
EIA and/or SEA processes in that region. Further analysis will be undertaken to identify which of the IRM tools
listed in the table above are already being used in Romania, but need strengthening, and which should be
introduced. Core activities will include:
A review of the current systems for EIA and SEA, especially procedures and practices for follow-up
and monitoring after EIA, which was identified in the NCSA as a weakness that undermines the aim
of EIA, which is to ensure that environmental impacts of development are avoided or mitigated
during construction and operation;
Revise EIA and SEA processes, as recommended in the review above;
Page 9
Review additional IRM tools used in Romania (as in Table 6) to identify strengths, weaknesses and
recommendations to strengthen these processes. Focus on the tools seen as most valuable by
Ministry staff (as identified in the needs assessment);
Development of codes of good practice and checklists to support various IRM processes, including
design, planning, implementation, follow-up and monitoring stages.
Practical training for relevant government and scientific staff in applying the above tools, including
train-the-trainer programmes, in which technical assistance will be provided to co-design Made in
Romania hands-on training programmes, tailored to specific needs and circumstances in the
country.
[Revised] Output 2.3: Regional Coordinating Mechanisms (RCMs) are established and implemented as
demonstration models in two of Romanias eight Development Regions (DRs), then expanded to the remaining six
regions, based on lessons learned
Both previous outputs (2.3 & 2.4) were close enough to be merged into one output. Instead of having one output
to develop the RCM (using IRM tools) and another one to pilot it, it was decided by the inception workshop
participants to merge both outputs into one (output 2.3). Under this new output, it is planned to design the
Regional Coordinating Mechanism (RCM), and then establish the RCM in two development regions to
demonstrate the efficiency of the RCM and based on the results of the demonstrations, the RCM will be
implemented in all regions of Romania.
This output responds directly to Action 20 in the NCSA Joint Action Plan: promote pilot projects which will help
to implement the three conventions and Action 19, improve the organisational and operational framework for
technology and knowledge transfer. There are multiple authorities at regional and local levels with either
established or new responsibilities for environmental and resource management. However, there is limited
communication or cooperation among them and there are no models or examples of formal inter-ministerial
collaboration at this level. This situation is both ineffective and inefficient, especially when resources are scarce.
Inter-ministerial Commissions are now being established to better coordinate policy development at the national
level and MOE has begun a process of assigning some responsibilities for the UNFCC to regional agencies. This
output would create a formal mechanism for communication and cooperation at the Development Region (DR)
level, at a time when this level is being given increasing responsibility for managing the natural resource base.
An RCM demonstration model using IRM tools for interagency collaboration will be developed, setting out the
composition, functioning accountability and responsibilities. The model will be tested in two pilot DRs, and the
results will be monitored and evaluated. The results will be reported to senior officials of the participating
ministries and agencies, who will decide how the model might be revised for general adoption. The model must be
flexible enough to be adapted to different regions. A user-friendly handbook (plain language, graphics, maps) will
be prepared with guidelines for how the IMC should work, drawing on lessons learned. Members of pilot RCMs
will act as resource people at workshops for Development Regions who are starting a new RCM.
The table below shows the criteria for the selection of the two pilot Development Regions (left column) and the
characteristics of the two regions, Regions 2 and 7, being proposed as Demonstration Models. The regions were
also chosen because they represent two distinctive cultural and socio-ecological types and each one has
distinctive approaches to environment and resources issues. At the same time, both are facing complex issues that
are also being faced by other regions.
Choice of Development Regions for demonstration models
Criteria
Global important
environmental and
natural resources under
threat
D.R. 2 South-East
Galati Development Region
Biodiversity in the Lower Danube
Floodplain (Delta biosphere reserve, Small
Island of Braila Natural Park; Low Prut
Floodplain)
Protection of arid lands and steppe
ecosystems (unique in Europe)
D.R. 7 Centre
Brasov Development Region
Protection of unique mountain biodiversity
(natural and national parks, wetlands)
Page 10
Choice of Development Regions for demonstration models

Criteria
Issues that cut across the
Rio conventions that
would benefit from
Integrated Resource
Management approaches
Regional and Local

Action Plans in place
Have a local Agenda 21
project
Have environmental
NGOs
Local authorities have a
demonstrated interest in
the conventions/ possible
champions
(Possible) Integrated
Resource Management
Tools to be used
D.R. 2 South-East
Galati Development Region
Degraded land agricultural land/climate
change/forestry
Heavy industrial emissions (2nd largest
steel factory in the country is in Galati)
Small and medium enterprises with
environmental impacts that arent being
addressed
Yes, both are in place
D.R. 7 Centre
Brasov Development Region
Environmental impacts of industry
Landscape, wildlife and general
biodiversity
Municipality of Galati (at large town level)
Municipalities of Targu Mures and

Miercurea Ciuc (both are large towns)
Yes, oriented to protected areas &
mountain biodiversity
Yes, oriented to water management and

climate change/energy efficiency, land
degradation
Yes, hosted an NCSA workshop
Involved in several projects on energy
efficiency (home/flat improvement, etc.),
with NGOs
Watershed Management, Strategic
Environmental Impact Assessment,
Biomass-based Energy Systems, Land Use
Planning
Yes, both are in place
Yes, hosted an NCSA workshop

Collaborative between authorities and
NGOs on waste recycling and biodiversity
programmes in schools
Integrated Rural Management,
Environmental Impact, Assessment,
Strategic Environmental Assessment,
Sustainable Tourism
Output 2.4: A peer training network and database to support integrated resource management is established to
serve regional and local environmental and resource management staff
The peer network is designed to take advantage of the skills and creativity of many field level environmental and
natural resource managers by setting up a mechanism to share experiences through the Internet, exchanges of
managerial and technical staff, seminars, workshops and on-going working groups organized around topics of
mutual interest. This will be fully integrated with the administrative reforms, which aim to create a professional
civil service and promote a knowledge-based society. The peer network and database will also serve to reinforce
the individual and institutional capacity that will be built through technical assistance and training during the
project. It will be coupled with a simple database focused on the topic of Integrated Resource Management, which
is fully integrated with MOE and MAFRD databases. It will include lists of government and outside contact
people, experts, published and electronic resources, training courses and training materials.
Output 3.1: A Project well managed including progress reports as per UNDP and GEF standards; and,
Output 3.2: Lessons learned documented and disseminated in Romania and throughout the region.
4.
Project Oversight and Coordination Mechanisms
4.1.
Project Organizational Structure
The Project Manager (PM) is responsible for project operations. He heads a small Project Implementation Unit
(PIU) with the support of a project administrator to carry out project activities. This unit is placed at the University
of Bucharest, (Department of Geology) and the University will provide the PIU with office facilities such as
computers and communications. The PM will ensure that project activities are being implemented in accordance
with the agreed project document and project work plans. The PM will act in consultation with the National
Project Director (NPD) delegated by the Ministry of Environment, and will report to UNDP. The PM will be
responsible for planning, procurement, contracting, financial and reporting activities, including but not limited to:
Update of the overall and yearly project work plans as necessary;
Submission of quarterly reports to UNDP;
Page 11
Preparing GEF quarterly operational reviews, annual project implementation reviews, and organizing
evaluations
Project record-keeping;
Monitoring and coordination of sub-contracted assignments;
Preparing requests for direct payments;
Preparing requests for duty travel;
A part-time Senior International Technical Advisor (SITA) will support the PM and other project experts
through advisory services and technical assistance. TORs for all three positions are presented in Annex 1.
Mr. Silviu Stoica, General Director, Ministry of Environment was appointed as the National Project Director
(NPD). The NPD will oversee the project on behalf of the ministry and will represent the ministry for day-to-day
decision-making related to project implementation. The NPD will report to the Minister/Deputy Minister.
A National Steering Committee (NSC) met for the first time on April 29, 2009, in order to endorse the AWP for
2009 and the revised log-frame including the revised list of indicators to monitor the project. Discussions focused
on the strategies to secure political support of the project and raise awareness of the objective within the
institutions represented on the NSC (see minutes of the meeting in Annex 2). The NSC is the projects interinstitutional strategic decision-making body. It is chaired by the National Project Director (NPD). It will meet
semi-annually to review the progress of the project and to provide guidance and assistance for the resolution of
any difficulties encountered during the implementation (if any). The PM will act as Secretary to the NSC (?). The
NSC includes the following representatives:
UNDP
Ministry of Environment
Ministry of Agriculture
National Agency for Environment Protection
Romanian Parliament (one member)
Civil Society
The diagram below indicates the organizational structure of the project.
National Steering
Committee
UNDP Country
Office
Project Implementation Unit
Project Manager
International
Experts
Project
Administrator
Senior International
Technical Advisor
National Experts
The project will be nationally executed in accordance with UNDPs NEX guidelines. UNDP is the Implementing
Agency for GEF funded project, and Partner to The Ministry of Environment which is the Implementing Partner
Page 12
responsible for quality and timeliness of achievement of project outcomes. The MOE has delegated the
implementation of the project to the University of Bucharest which thus serves as a responsible party (formerly
referred to as the Delegated Executing Agency ) The University is accountable to the Government of Romania and
to the UNDP for the quality of project outcomes and the appropriate use of project resources, both when directly
implementing project activities and when delegating others to do so. The University will ensure that project
planning, review, monitoring, evaluation and reporting requirements are met; that coordination among participants
is effective; and that decisions are implemented. Implementation arrangements with partner agencies will be set
out in Terms of Reference, work plans and/or formal agreements, as needed. UNDP will provide support needed
for project implementation through the Administrative and Finance Units.
4.2.
Participation of Stakeholders
Stakeholders Involvement During Project Design

The CB-2 project is based in large part on the results of the NCSA process, which included extensive consultation
with stakeholders at each stage, including 33 interviews with government and non-government stakeholders, two
national workshops, four regional workshops and numerous working group meetings. The overall process was
guided by a Project Steering Committee of 9 members chaired by Mr. Silviu Stoica. The same Stakeholders were
also involved in the preparation of the CB2 project document. The PDF-A team members also held individual
meetings with key government counterparts, especially in MOE, MAFRD and the Public Policies Unit. The three
Convention Focal Points and the GEF Operational Focal Point were kept informed at all stages. With UNDP
support, two stakeholder workshops were held, involving 18 and 12 people, respectively. A first meeting, which
included the international expert, focused on stakeholder response to an early draft while a second one gathers
final comments on a later draft. The PDF-A team also consulted with Regional Environmental Protection
Agencies from Brasov and Galati to ascertain their interest in being involved. A high level meeting took place
between the UNDP Deputy Resident Representative and the Secretary of State for MOE to discuss project
highlights. The final proposal was fully endorsed by the MOE and MAFRD and confirmed by endorsement letters.
Stakeholders Involvement In Project Implementation
The main beneficiaries of the project are MOE, which is responsible for the implementation of the UNFCCC and
UNCBD, and the MAFRD, which is responsible for the implementation of UNCCD. Other key stakeholders are
UNDP, University of Bucharest and National Agency for Agriculture Consultancy. Other stakeholders include
those listed below:
National Regional and Local Agencies for Environment Protection (report to MOE),
National Agricultural Consultancy Agency and its territorial units,
Commission of the National Environment Guard and eight Regional and County Commissions of the
National Environmental Guard,
Environment Fund Administration (independent body under the authority of MOE),
National Water Administration,
National Meteorology Administration,
National Forests Administration Romsilva,
Territorial Inspectorate for Forestry Regime and Hunting (TIFH),
Regional Development Agencies,
Regional and local administrations (counties, towns, prefectures), and
NGOs and civil society organisations with an interest in convention themes. These organizations will
be involved at all GEF intervention level.
Regarding the implementation of the project, an initial list of Stakeholders to be engaged was identified during the
design phase. There are presented in the table below as well as their involvement and their anticipated functions:
Stakeholder
Ministry of
Environment (MoE)
Represented by
Involvement
State Secretary
GEF political and
operational focal points
Executing
agency
Primary
Anticipated functions(s)
Overall coordination role, especially in the
field of CCC and CBD
Monitoring and assessment of project
Page 13
Focal points for CBD

and CCC Directors of
divisions
Experts involved in CC
and CBD issues
Members of the ministry
public policy (liaison)
unit
State secretary
Focal point for CCD
Directors of divisions
Experts involved in
CCD issues
Members of the ministry
public policy (liaison)
unit
Members of the
Permanent Interministry Councils and
members of the Council
of Strategic Planning
beneficiary
Cofinancier
progress
Ensure mainstreaming of project objectives
into Ministry policies, plans and
programmes
Coexecuting
agency
Primary
beneficiary
Cofinancier
Coordination role, especially for CCD

matters
Ensure mainstreaming of project objectives
into relevant Ministry policies, plans and
programmes
Partner
United Nations
Development
Programme Romania
Representative Resident
Observer
University of
Bucharest
Rector of the University

Experts
National
Environmental
Protection Agency
(NEPA)
National Agricultural
Consultancy Agency
(NACA)
National Forests
Administration
Romsilva (&
territorial branches)
Regional
Environmental
Protection Agencies
(REPA)
Territorial
Inspectorate for
Forestry Regime and
Hunting
Local Environmental
Protection Agencies
(LEPA)
Experts involved in
CCC, LD and CBD
issues
Deputy director
Experts
Project
Implementation Unit
Partner
Liaise with project team to revise normative

documents setting out policy-making
structures and processes
Ensure that provisions for environmental
screening of proposed policies is done and
collaborate in developing screening tools
Ensure achievement of GEF operational
objectives; link to other UNDP projects
Take part in project management through
the Project Monitoring Unit
Provides day to day project management,
together with UNDP
Ministry of
Agriculture, Forests
and Rural
Development
(MAFRD)
Public Policy Unit

(PPU)
Partner
Experts
Partner
Experts
Partner
Experts
Partner
Directors of local
agencies
Experts
Partner
Identify and improve agency structures and

processes
Coordination of REPA
Participate in train-the-trainers and training
Identify and improve agency structures and
processes
Participate in train-the-trainers and training
Identify and improve structures and
processes
Identify and improve of structures and
processes
Coordination of LEPA
Train trainers
Identify and improvement of procedures
and measures
Provide staff participants, provide cases
studies, distribute information, facilitate
stakeholder involvement
Discussion
In order to facilitate the engagement of these stakeholders, participatory mechanisms will be used through the
establishment of thematic working groups with the relevant Stakeholders to implement sets of activities.
Terms of reference for each working groups will be drawn. They will contain the planned activities to be
conducted, the expected results, the resources allocated by each party and the mode of operation among the
Page 14
parties. It will be the main guidance process to build consensus, share decisions and validate process/ results.
These working groups will include key representatives from related organizations, chaired by the key
organization of each working group and coordinated by the NPM. However, they should not include more
than 10 participants and meet monthly or quarterly (and on an as-needed basis) to validate findings and
activities to be implemented. The following thematic working groups are anticipated:
Working Group (WG) on Environment Legislation: This WG will oversee the implementation of
Outcome #1.
Working Group on Environmental Management Capacity: This WG will oversee the
implementation of Outcome #2.
4.3.
Schedule of Project Reviews
The project management team developed a detailed schedule of project review meetings; it is presented in the
table below:
Management Mechanism
Schedule
National Steering Committee

Working Group Environmental Legislation
Working Group Environmental Management Capacity
Senior International Technical Advisor (SITA)
Twice per year. One meeting to focus on the work plan

for the following year and the second one to focus on
project progress/performance.
First meeting was in April 2009
As needed basis but at least once a quarter. It is expected
that these WGs will meet more frequently in the early
phase of project implementation when decisions will be
needed to guide project implementation
Schedule of Missions proposed in Annex 1
It is recommended that these missions be timed with the
participation to NSC meetings or any other events related
to the implementation of the project including Regional
Technical Advisors visits to Romania.
Page 15
UNDP-GEF funded project Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2) - Romania
5.
Review of Project Performance Measurement
5.1.
Review of Indicators
As presented in the previous section, it is proposed to measure the progress of the project at the objective and outcome levels. This section presents the review of the
indicators to be used to monitor the project. From a set of 45 indicators in the original log-frame including indicators to monitor outputs - the table below is proposing a
revised set of 18 indicators (see table below).
Expected Results
Original Indicator
Objective: To strengthen systemic,

institutional and individual capacity
to integrate Rio Convention themes
into national, regional and local
decision-making
1. Institutional, legislative and policy framework modified to

fully accommodate the objectives of global environmental
conventions
2. Modified operational set up of MOE and MAFRD to improve
implementation of Rio conventions
3. Enhanced mechanisms and skills within MOE and MAFRD to
use Integrated Resource Management tools to mainstreaming
convention themes decisions
4. Capacity development monitoring scorecard rating
Outcome 1: Enhanced institutional, 5. Effective institutional framework in place for convention

implementation
legislative, policy and planning
6. Effective legislative framework in place for convention
framework for implementing Rio
implementation
Convention commitments
7. National policy-making and planning processes effectively
consider convention themes
Proposed Indicator
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
8. Collaborative mechanisms in place within ministries and

Outcome 2: Improved capacity of
between them to promote integrated approaches to
MOE and MAFRD to integrate
environmental and sectoral resource management
environmental and sectoral resource
9. Quantity and quality of MOE and MAFRD programmes and
management
projects (national and donor-supported) that integrate
environmental and sectoral management
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Alignment of institutional, legislative and policy frameworks with the

objectives and obligations of the global environmental conventions
signed by Romania
Quality of national monitoring reports and communications
integrating conventions obligations
Capacity development monitoring scorecard rating
Responsibilities for conventions obligations assigned to institutions

mandates
Effective multi-agency conventions coordination mechanisms
Conventions obligations integrated in related legislation
Conventions obligations integrated in related policies, national plans,
strategies and programmes
Conventions obligations embedded into effective environmental
screening process of policy making
Roles and responsibilities for implementing conventions obligations
assigned in job descriptions
Implementation of conventions monitored effectively and information
included in SOE reports
MOE and MAFRD staff with the necessary skills and knowledge to
address conventions obligations
Effective code of practice, guidelines, checklists to address
conventions obligations
Effective participation of stakeholders in the implementation of
conventions
Page 16
Expected Results
Original Indicator
Proposed Indicator
14. A model for regional coordination mechanism (RCM) is developed
and adopted by two Development Regions (South-East 2 and Center
7) using integrated resource management (IRM) tools
15. The RCM model and IRM tools are replicated to all regions in
Romania
16. An IRM peer training network used by participants throughout
Romania
17. Progress reports summarizing the performance of project
18. Project information readily available
Outcome 3: Effective, efficient,

and adaptive project management,
monitoring and evaluation.
The proposed indicators are focusing on the core results to be achieved. The baseline and target by the end of the project for each of them is presented in the following
section.
5.2.
Review of Baseline and Targets Values
Based on the proposed revised indicators, baseline and target values were also reviewed and approved by NSC and are presented in the table below.
Objective: To strengthen
systemic, institutional and
individual capacity to integrate
Rio Convention themes into
national, regional and local
decision-making
Proposed Indicator
Baseline
Target by End of Project
Sources of verification
1. Alignment of institutional,
legislative and policy
frameworks with the
objectives and obligations of
the global environmental
conventions signed by
Romania
Romania is committed to meet

its conventions obligations;
however, some critical gaps in
institutional, legal and policy
frameworks exist; including an
uneven capacity within key
ministries
Conventions obligations are

well integrated into national
frameworks
NCSA reports for baseline

information
Project progress
Evaluation reports
National, regional and local
plans, strategies and
programmes
2. Quality of national
monitoring reports and
communications integrating
National reports and

communications for meeting
conventions obligations are
produced but reflect a nonintegrated approach within the
national frameworks for
environmental management
SOE and other national reports/

communications include
quality information on the state
of implementation of the
Conventions in Romania
Reports to conventions
secretariats
National State of Environment
Reports
Evaluation report of quality of
SOE reports with regard to
incorporation of status of
Page 17
Proposed Indicator
Baseline
implementation of Rio
conventions
3. Capacity development
monitoring scorecard rating
Outcome 1: Enhanced
institutional, legislative, policy
and planning framework for
implementing Rio Convention
commitments
Capacity for:
Engagement: 2 of 9
Generate, access and use
information and knowledge: 2
of 15
Policy and legislation
development: 1 of 9
Management and
implementation: 1 of 6
Monitor and evaluate: 1 of 6
(total targeted score: 7/45)
Capacity for:
Engagement: 7 of 9
information and knowledge:
10 of 15
development: 8 of 9
Management and
Monitor and evaluate: 5 of 6
Mid-term and final evaluation

reports
Annual PIRs
Capacity assessment reports
4. Responsibilities for
assigned to institutions
mandates
Convention units in place, but

institutional framework is
fragmented and convention
implementation is uneven
National focal points report
independently to Conventions,
with little collaboration;
decisions sometimes conflict
All conventions obligations are

clearly assigned to key
institutions
Institutional mechanism (e.g.
regular meetings; modification
of the job description) that will
ensure the cooperation of the
three focal points with regard
to implementation of the Rio
Conventions, especially
reporting requirements
NCSA reports for baseline

information
Project reports
Mandates of agencies and subunits
Organigrammes
New/revised laws and norms
Government Decisions,
Ministerial Orders, etc.
5. Effective multi-agency
conventions coordination
mechanisms
Conventions fall under two

National Councils, but there is
no provision to address them
No formal inter-agency
coordination mechanisms
No regional or local agency
involvement in conventions
MOE is not on Council #8 on
Territorial Planning, Energy
and Infrastructure
Convention management units

are rationalized to be more
efficient and effective;
National Councils are
empowered and tasked to
address the issues of Rio
conventions implementation
Coordination mechanisms
established among convention
units, and between these units
and other relevant Ministries,
Organigrammes and normative

documents
Work plans and progress
reports, financial reports
Convention reports
Ministry annual reports
Staff interviews and focus
groups
Government Decrees setting
out composition and
operational rules for key policy
Page 18
Proposed Indicator
Outcome 2: Improved capacity

of MOE and MAFRD to
integrate environmental and
sectoral resource management
Baseline
regional and local agencies

Membership of Interministerial Councils permits
integration of convention
obligations into sectoral policymaking and planning
councils (#8 and #9)
6. Conventions obligations
integrated in related
legislation
Laws in place to ratify Rio

conventions, but secondary
laws and norms not revised to
be consistent with obligations
Key laws and norms revised to

be consistent with convention
obligations
Secondary legislation and
norms in place to enable
integration of conventions into
sectoral policy-making and
planning processes
Secondary (enabling)
legislation and norms
Government Documents
Government and Ministers
Orders, Decrees and
regulations
integrated in related policies,
national plans, strategies and
programmes
Rio convention action plans not

mainstreamed into national and
regional policies and planning
MOE and MAFRD
programmes and activities are
sector-oriented, with little
collaboration
Related national policy-making

and planning processes
incorporate convention
obligations
MOE and MAFRD Programs
and activities are intersectoral
oriented
Agendas and minutes of

Councils
Environmental and sectoral
programme and project
documents
Environmental screening
documents (e.g., checklists)
Training evaluations
embedded into effective
environmental screening
process of policy making
New policy processes require

environmental screening of
policies, but conventions are
not addressed and there are no
technical tools or expertise to
help policy proponents do
screening
Environmental screening tools

(e.g., checklists) incorporating
part of policy-making
processes
More than 40 Key officials
trained on environmental
screening
SOE reports
Control Staff Reports
Internal ministry reports
Registers
Training records and
evaluations
Media coverage of SOE
9. Roles and responsibilities for

implementing conventions
obligations assigned in job
descriptions
Roles and responsibilities for

obligations are not well
assigned to staffs and key
ministries

obligations clearly assigned to
key job descriptions such as
national focal points
Job descriptions
NCSA reports
Project reports
Convention reports
Page 19
Proposed Indicator
Baseline
Ministry policies and reports
10. Implementation of
conventions monitored
effectively and information
included in SOE reports
Annual State of Environment

(SOE) reporting system in
place, but no mechanism to
track performance on
convention implementation and
synergies
Ministry knowledge of SOE
and how to use it to design
programmes is weak
Indicators to monitor
identified and are part of SOE
reporting
Database of conventions
activities established and
integrated into related
ministrys databases (in an
integrated manner within each
ministry)
Key staff trained (100 people)
to monitor and report on SOE
indicators
SOE reports
Databases
11. MOE and MAFRD staff with

the necessary skills and
knowledge to address
Uneven capacity of focal points

and convention units to manage
and implement conventions
Staff trained (30 people) and

apply skills and knowledge to
the implementation of
Staff trained in key IRM
techniques (120 people taking
into consideration also the
teritorial descentralised units)
12. Effective code of practice,

guidelines, checklists to
address conventions
obligations
Non-government stakeholders
are using some IRM technique,
but government-nongovernmental organizations
collaboration is rare
IRM tools strengthened

through additional guidelines,
codes of good practice,
checklists, etc.
Guidelines, codes of practice

and checklists
13. Effective participation of

stakeholders in the
implementation of
conventions
Minimal stakeholder
All relevant stakeholders

involved in convention
implementation
Membership of participative
processes
Media coverage
14. A model for regional

coordination mechanism
(RCM) is developed and
adopted by two Development
There are no collaborative

mechanisms across units and
ministries at regional and local
levels to implement national
Formal Regional Collaborative

Mechanisms involving
national, regional and local
authorities developed and
Normative documents setting

out RCM composition, terms
of reference and operating
procedures
Page 20
Proposed Indicator
Regions using integrated
resource management (IRM)
tools

and adaptive project
management, monitoring and
evaluation.
5.3.
Baseline
environmental and sectoral

policies and plans
tested in two regions
Minutes of RCM meetings

Surveys, interviews and focus
groups with RCM members
15. The RCM model and IRM

tools are replicated to all
regions in Romania
Conventions and integrated

resource management not
addressed at regional and local
levels, including Agenda 21
RCM Model adopted by MOE

and MAFRD for all eight
regions, with possible
expansion to include regional
office of other ministries
Ministries decisions and

orders
16. An IRM peer training

network used by participants
throughout Romania
There is no formal network but

some local authorities and staff
in regional and local agencies
use some IRM techniques
MOE and MAFRD and EPAs
have a database to which the
IRM database could be linked
Peer training network

established and functioning
with members the two pilot
regions and other regions
Database established with IRM
references and contacts
Peer network documents

Database
Staff surveys, interview and
focus groups
National and regional
workshop proceedings
17. Progress reports summarizing

the performance of project
Management procedures are

put in place
Project implementation well

documented
Project reports
18. Project information readily

available
No project web site available
Project information is readily

available
Project web site and project

reports
Capacity Development Monitoring Scorecard
A Capacity Development Monitoring and Evaluation Scorecard was used to assess the current capacities for coordinating the implementation of the Rio Conventions. The
current score is 7 out of a maximum of 45. It reflects a low capacity in most area for an effective environmental managerial system. The score of each capacity result is as
follows:
Capacities for engagement: 2 of 9
Capacities to generate, access and use information and knowledge: 2 of 15
Capacities for policy and legislation development: 1 of 9
Capacities for management and implementation: 1 of 6
Capacities to monitor and evaluate: 1 of 6
A target score of 34 was established at the beginning of the project. As part of the management instrument to monitor the project progress, this tool will be reviewed
Page 21
once a year and integrated in the annual PIR. One main benefit from using this scorecard is the comparison over time of capacity indicator ratings. It will indicate the
progress made toward improving the required capacities for a more effective environmental management capacity to implement the conventions obligations.
6.
Review of Risk Management
6.1.
Review of Risks
The table below presents the risks and assumptions that were identified during the design of the project. They were part of the log-frame in the project document that
was approved by MOE, MAFRD, UNDP and GEF. Following the review of these risks, some changes are proposed in the right column in the table below:
systemic, institutional and
individual capacity to
integrate Rio Convention
themes into national, regional
and local decision-making
Risks
Revised Risks
Continued government commitment to conventions and integration

of environment and development
EU accession proceeds in Jan. 2007
Government priorities may change including the government

commitment to integrate conventions obligations into
environment management framework in Romania (political);
The objective of the project might be too ambitious and the
support from the project resources and the government
resources and the timeframe may not be adequate to initiate
the changes required by the project strategy (strategic);
Outcome 1: Enhanced
institutional, legislative, policy
and planning framework for
implementing Rio Convention
commitments
Political will to include convention themes in legislation, norms and

public policy-making processes
Ministries and departments within them will work together
Decentralization process continues
Government and ministry openness to stakeholder involvement
Legal expertise available for legislative review and reform
New policy-making structures and processes become functional
Senior government officials support integration of conventions at
policy level
SOE reporting system continues to be supported
Procedural norms established for convention reporting
The government does not fulfil its international obligations;

including those from the 3 Rio Conventions (political);
New legislation and policies proposed by the project are not
adopted by the Government and/or the Parliament (political);
Despite new legislation for a multi-agency coordination
mechanism to address conventions obligations no
institutional changes occur (strategic);
The institutional changes might not be followed by
appropriate level of resources (HR and $$) to implement the
changes (operational);
Outcome 2: Improved
capacity of MOE and MAFRD
to integrate environmental and
sectoral resource management
Senior management support and direction for outcome

Current ministry structures remain relatively stable for the duration
of the project
Willingness of ministries and their staff to collaborate, overcoming
past competition and conflicts
Understanding, assimilation and implementation of the integrated
model
The institutional changes might not be followed by these

institutions working better together (operational)
New tools are adopted but they may require additional
resources to be used; which might not be available
(operational);
The RCM model and IRM tools are adopted by the Ministry
but the uptake by the regions is not happening facing too
Page 22
Risks
Revised Risks
Training is targeted to relevant units and positions

Training addresses needs
Willingness and availability of national, regional and local
authorities to participate in RCMs
Complementarity with EU capacity building programmes and
projects
RCMs function and can agree on suitable demonstration activities
Interest in peer network concept on the part of government staff
many constraints and capacity gaps (operational);

Monitoring the conventions obligations is strengthened but
results are not reported fully due to political interference
(political)
efficient, and adaptive project
management, monitoring and
evaluation.
6.2.
The project partners (MOE, MAFRD, U of Bucharest,

UNDP) will continue to support the project and allocate the
required resources for its implementation (operational);
Lack of relevant expertise in local market may result in delay
of required outputs and distortion of targeted deadlines
(operational);
Management Responses
Based on the proposed revised risks presented above, management responses were added and are presented in the table below.
Revised Risks
Objective: To strengthen systemic,
institutional and individual capacity
to integrate Rio Convention themes
into national, regional and local
decision-making
Outcome 1: Enhanced institutional,

Government priorities may change including the government

commitment to integrate conventions obligations into
environment management framework in Romania (political);
The government of Romania continues to be committed to improving

the environmental management framework; including the
decentralization within the 8 regions. The project will continue the
advocacy at the government level and the local one, explaining the
economic advantages of an integrated approach by all the available
means
The objective of the project might be too ambitious and the

support from the project resources and the government
resources and the timeframe may not be adequate to initiate the
changes required by the project strategy (strategic);
Periodic project monitoring and evaluation will ensure that the project is
adapted over time to adjust to changing circumstances. Pressures to
adopt SEA into a compulsory policy to mainstream the IRM
The government does not keep its commitment to fulfil its

international obligations; including those from the 3 Rio
Conventions (political);
The project shall keep track on all inherent on overall institutional and
legislative framework at the level of Romanian central administration
either to support or to bring back on track the Government to fulfill its
Page 23
Revised Risks
Convention commitments
Outcome 2: Improved capacity of

MOE and MAFRD to integrate
environmental and sectoral resource
management
international commitments. The project shall screen regularly or on a
communications to check them against procedural and content
requirements under the commitments of the Rio Conventions
New legislation and policies proposed by the project are not

adopted by the Government and/or the Parliament (political);
Political incertitude may be a continuous presence, considering both

elections and crisis. To the possible extent, the project shall consider the
lobby of the Parliament and/or political parties, precisely by stressing
the non-partisan and hence non-political nature of the environmental
management measures that should be empowered by law. The
Management shall plan for meetings with political key persons (e.g.
from Standing Committees form the Parliament) when-ever this is most
likely to un-block the legislative process
Despite new legislation for a multi-agency coordination

mechanism to address conventions obligations no institutional
changes occur (strategic);
Although understood as rather sensitive, directly addressing institutional

bottlenecks by meetings with high level officials in the central
administration could be an effective way to advance in over passing any
obligations. The project management shall table this point of no
institutional changes to the administrators (public servants, if the case
may be), not as a fixed once-for-ever framework, but rather like a
process to improve the institutions without making them un-effective,
not even in short bursts between two consecutive organisational
structures.
The institutional changes might not be followed by

appropriate level of resources (HR and $$) to implement the
In the first place, the project management shall identify the break-even
point in the resource allocation, e.g. the level of resources bellow which
the expected results may not be reached; the project team shall follow
the budgeting from the State budget and plan for alternative responses
on ad-hoc basis whenever the level of allocation (or of the
disbursement) drops at a critical level- in that case, resource persons in
the stakeholders structure shall be approached to react accordingly
The institutional changes might not be followed by these

institutions working better together (operational);
The project team shall make use of stakeholders key-persons to foster

cooperation meetings, being so in the format of Working Groups to
address administrative barriers in application of joint mechanisms;
instead of pushing for championship from the very beginning of IRM,
the project team shall rise the points of critical cooperation issues..
New tools are adopted but they may require additional

resources to be used; which might not be available
(operational);
The project team shall make use of stakeholders key-persons to foster

cooperation meetings, being so in the format of Working Groups to
address administrative barriers in application of joint mechanisms;
Page 24
Revised Risks
instead of pushing for championship from the very beginning of IRM,
the project team shall rise the points of critical cooperation issues..

and adaptive project management,
monitoring and evaluation.
The RCM model and IRM tools are adopted by the Ministry
but the uptake by the regions is not happening facing too
many constraints and capacity gaps (operational);
The project management shall conduct specific promotion activities to

attract additional resources (e.g. from EU funds) to mitigate the resource
shortage, if the case may be.
Monitoring the conventions obligations is strengthened but

results are not reported fully due to political interference
(political);
The main problem would be mitigate political interference that may

block the translation of the monitoring data into reports by specific use
of red-tape (e.g. to endless circulate memos between ministries); the
project management may not directly cut off the red-tape, but may push
for transparency and access of the public to these info, thus removing
(partially) the administrative barrier.
The project partners (MOE, MAFRD, U of Bucharest,

UNDP) will continue to support the project and allocate the
required resources for its implementation (operational);
Procedural delays at the University level shall be tackled by efforts to

persuade the support units to follow effectively the procedures and to
avoid excessive lag-time among simple administrative decisions
Lack of relevant expertise in local market may result in delay

of required outputs and distortion of targeted deadlines
(operational);
Implementation of project activities and recruitment of relevant national

expertise will be monitored and actions will be identified if the lack of
expertise is affecting the timely implementation of the project.
Discussion:
Since the start of the project, a series of events were encountered, which affected/delayed the implementation of the project. Below is a discussion of these events and the
management responses implemented by UNDP-CO.
Appointment of the Project Manager (approximate time period dedicated in finding a mitigating solution: between June 2008-September 2008):
According to the project document, the project manager was to be an employee of the University of Bucharest and to be paid by the project. As a result, the UNDP CO
looked into the possibility of contracting the person nominated by the University of Bucharest (i.e. prof D.Manoleli). However a contract with UNDP for a project manager
nominated was not feasible; it requires a competitive recruitment according to UNDP rules and procedures. Other options were explored including the direct recruitment by
UNDP of the project team leader. Finally, the UNDP CO has agreed to the initial option, namely that Prof Manoleli be hired as the Project Manager, under contractual terms
governed by the Romanian legislation, his salary and additional costs (as per the Romanian legislation) is to be charged against the project. His net salary was negotiated at
1500 USD. His formal contractual pay under the project started in November, 2008.
The 2008-2009 elections and changes at government level - changes of staff, staff turnover and changes of priorities (approximate time period affected by these factors:
October 2008-March 2009):
Page 25
After the agreement between the UNDP CO and the University, the project implementation has been delayed due to elections. The National Steering Committee (NSC) was
established with representatives from the following institutions: Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Agriculture, National Agency for Protected Areas. The project
inception workshop and agreement over AWP, indicators, activities etc could not be held, as the Executing agency, and the PM team and NSC considered that the best
solution in order to ensure political ownership will be to wait until the elections and changes in political and technical staff will be finalized. The situation has been brought
to the attention of RTA BRC and recorded in ATLAS.
Following the elections, the UNDP CO has visited the newly appointed minister of Environment (February 2009) in order to assess the political ownership. The new minister
of environment has been very supportive to the objective of the project. However, over time the priorities of the Ministry of Environment seem to focus more on initiatives
related to water and water treatment and less on Rio convention themes. The Biodiversity and Climate Change departments in the Ministry of Environment are severely
understaffed. Nevertheless, meetings on the CBD reporting requirements and CHM role have been held, and linkages with the CB2 project and the integration of the
implementation of the Rio Conventions were discussed. The Land Degradation focal point has left the Ministry of Agriculture in October 2008 and since that time, another
focal point was nominated but left his position too. Currently, no focal point for land degradation has been nominated. Finally, the government stakeholders that were
involved in the NSCA process and the development of the CB2 project are no longer working with the respective ministries; only two or three government officers are aware
of the CB2 project, its objective and its strategy.
As a result, the UNDP CO in collaboration with the project management team have undertaken the following measures:
a. Meet the minister of environment to raise his awareness on the CB2 project.
b. Discuss with the relevant ministries the CB2 project and the necessity for the urgent designation of Rio Conventions focal points and the urgency of the PM team
to establish regular contacts with them. After a few awareness raising sessions conducted by the Project team, and repeated requests for nomination of a new Land
Degradation focal point, the Ministry of Environment has designated a person to replace the former focal point, however this person was unaware of many
important issues on Rio Conventions. Currently, the former focal point is back from studying abroad, but there is a certain degree of uncertainty on whether or not
he will still working with the Ministry of Agriculture.
c. Assist the CBD focal point to develop and timely submit the 4th National Report to the CBD. The project management team submitted the data obtained during
the NBSAP stocktaking report, including the integrated data on biodiversity-climate change-land degradation.
d. Assist the Climate Change focal point to formulate Romanias position for COP-5 in Copenhagen. This was done through thematic participatory meetings, where
all the CBD, CC and LD focal points have participated together with a large variety of stakeholders. These meetings demonstrated the necessity to integrate the
three themes in international negotiations and reporting, as well as in all the national development planning. In addition to representatives from several government
ministries, private sector, academia and civil society, high level politicians form the Romanian parliament were invited and asked to support the project.
Insufficient ownership of the project at the level of National Executing Agency:
Following significant changes of staff in key ministries there has been little interest in the CB2 project from the government side. This is not because the project is
considered unimportant, but because there have been other pressing priorities such as:
a. Uncertainty of positions occupied by government counterparts due to staff changes;
b. High staff turnover due to several reasons such as political or financial;
c. High administrative burden on ministries staff, including reporting requirements to the European Commission and a general confusion among the staff regarding
the roles and responsibilities attached to their position;
Page 26
d. Problems within the department of Biodiversity - where the CBD focal point is operating with Natura 2000 sites; particularly the lack of implementation of
management measures as per the requirements of the European Directives and as a consequence - the imminent infringement threats. This critical situation is a
high priority in biodiversity, preventing a focus on CBD reporting requirements and on the CB2 project.
The National Executing Agency is expected to pass through many episodes like the one above mentioned. In fact, increasing the capacity to cope with these continuous
modifications and external threats is one of the expected outputs of the CB2. The sense of ownership shall be gradually constructed- this is a strategic lessons from the
permanence of the mentioned problems.
The delegated Executing Agency, the University of Bucharest, has shown little ownership of the project. The Project Manager, as the University employee, was responsible
with the relation with the University. However, obvious bottlenecks have been reported such as:
e. Establish a separate bank account for the project has been difficult and it took a long time for UNDP CO to negotiate the opening of a separate bank account. The
internal rule of the University states that all projects run through the University have to have a common bank account. UNDP CO spent time to explain the NEX
implementation rules and procedures;
f. The project manager doesnt have signature authority, as per the University internal rules, and UNDP CO was not able to change this fact. The payments charged
against the project are made by the University upon the request from the project manager and the approval from the economic department of the University;
g. The process to procure goods and services through the University is lengthy and complex and it needs to be done by University staff through the centralized
procurement process (not by the project manager). For instance, if the project needs office supplies the project team has to wait that the University conducts a
procurement exercise for supplies so that the projects order can be added to the general University order. This is time-consuming and it delays project activities.
As a mitigation measure, the UNDP CO provides procurement services whenever the project needs to purchase goods and services;
h. One of the most critical aspects with regards to procurement is the contracting modality of experts needed by the project to conduct studies and reviews. The legal
and human resource personnel have been blocking the procurement of services on the basis of a recent government ordinance that stated that due to the financial
crisis, vacant positions were frozen and, additionally, the government institutions will not recruit any additional staff. As a mitigation measure, the UNDP CO is
currently negotiating with the management of the University in order to identify whether the procurement of goods and services can be conducted through the
University or alternatively change the implementation arrangements of the project.
Partially (or mostly) the issues were solved. To a certain extent, the University staff is now more aware about the need to adapt the rules to the reality. The impetuous of the
EU funding has overlapped the CB2 activities, with obvious impact on the level of understanding and institutional capacity. This improvement shouldnt be seen as enough
to support further developments in CB2 activities, but rather as a positive and promising ground for future undertakings.
Page 27
7.
Monitoring and Evaluation Framework
Based on the review of the indicators and the risks linked to the implementation of this project, the
Monitoring and Evaluation Plan of the project was updated and completed: it is presented in its complete form
in Annex 5. This plan was presented to the stakeholders present at the inception workshop, as part of the
presentation of the UNDP rules and procedures for project cycle management, and it was endorsed by these
stakeholders.
8.
Co-Financing
The Government of Romania committed a co-financing amount of USD 710,000 that was supported by a cofinancing letter sent to GEF CEO. This amount includes in-kind contributions by providing office space,
communication costs, a seconded staff and time from staff in the MOE and MAFRD. It also includes related
projects implemented by both ministries. UNDP-Romania committed a co-financing amount of USD 20,000 in
cash. The table below summarizes the co-financing for this project.
Reporting this co-financing will be done in the annual PIRs, a requirement of GEF funded projects.
Name of Co-financier
(source)
Ministry of
Environment and Water
Management
Ministry of
Environment and Water
Management
Ministry of Agriculture,
Forest and Rural
Development
Ministry of Agriculture,
Forest and Rural
Development
UNDP
Classification
Type
Amount (USD)
Government
In kind
60,000
Government
Related projects
60,000
Government
In kind
75,000
Government
Related projects
TRAC
Cash
Total Co-financing
515,000
20,000
730,000
Page 28
9.
Work Plan
9.1.
Project Overall Work Plan
An overall work plan is presented below for the entire duration of the project.
#
Expected
OUTPUTS
Planned Activities
Timeframe
Y1
Y2
Y3
Partners
Budget /Source
Funds, GEF
2009
Budget (USD)
2010
2011
Total
(USD)
OBJECTIVE: To strgthen systemic, institutional and individual capacity to integrate Rio Convention Themes into national, regional and local decision-making
OUTCOME 1. Enhanced institutional, legislative, policy and planning framework for implementing Rio Convention commitments
1.1
Output 1.1:.
Institutional
framework and
processes for
coordinated
management and
implementation of
the Rio
Convention
established
NSC meeting.
Kick off Meeting
Define the responsibilities of convention implementation units within

MAFRD and MoE and relationships among them underlying the
conflict of competences from the organizing charts and describe the
tasks
Identify all other ministries, agencies and civil society organisations
to be involved in convention management and define their respective
roles, responsibilities and tasks
Strengthen the convention implementation units (CBD and UNFCC
in MoE and CCD within MAFRD) and define their responsibilities
and relationships among them
Integrate the conventions into forestry, agriculture, soils, protected
areas, hunting and rural development programmes, as these all fall
within MAFRDs mandate. Also integrate key programmes in MoE
include climate change/air quality and water management.
MoE,
MAFRD
CIU
ONG
Line
Ministries
Conventions
Focal Points
MAFRD
(PNDAR,
PNR, PND0
MoE
(PNAPM)
71200- Int.
consultants
7,090
7,015
14,105
71300- Local
consultants
85600
29,820
26,380
141,800
71600 -Travel
3,800
2,500
1,500
7,800
800
500
500
1,800
9933
2,000
11,975
2,000
2,000
2,000
6,000
2,857
200
200
3,257
74100 - Audit
6500
6500
1,500
14,500
74200 Audio
Visual Print
2,000
3,500
3,000
8,500
74500
Miscellaneous
500
500
500
1,500
111,147
62,480,
37,580
211,197
72100
Workshops
72100
Contractual Serv.
72400 Communication
72800 IT
Equipment
Sub-total
Outcome 1
GEF:
Page 29
#
1.2
Expected
OUTPUTS
Output 1.2:
Suggestions for
amendments of
legislation and
norms to better
enable
mainstreaming of
Rio Convention
themes into
policies, plans
and programmes,
submitted for Gov
official approval.
Planned Activities
Update the review on Romanian legislation and norms, finding
weaknesses and gaps in relation to convention responsibilities
Timeframe
Y1
Proposals to elaborate and modify the existing laws and norms to

enable:
- Compliance with convention obligations for each convention and for
integration of biodiversity, climate change and land degradation
issues;
- Assignment of convention responsibilities to appropriate institutions
and promotion of collaboration among them
- Integration of conventions into development plans, sectorial plans
and environmental action plans at local, regional and national levels;
- Strengthening of review and permitting processes involving the
assessment and mitigation of environmental impacts of
developments, e.g. EIA could be amended to include issues related to
impacts, vulnerability and adaptation to global climate change in.
Defining the responsibilities of the Public Policies Unit (UPP) and

Inter-ministerial Councils for convention implementation, and
ensuring that the composition of the Councils allows them to
effectively consider environmental implications of policy proposals,
including obligations under MEAs.
Developing an environmental screening tool(s) to be used as part of
the established process for public policy analysis, which already
requires an assessment of environmental impacts
Training staff in UPP
Research
Institutions
ONG
MoE
MAFRD
LEPA,
REPA,
NEPA
LEPA,
CREG
X
X
ATU
UPP,MoE,M
AFRD.
ICARDE,
ICRIDPPT
LEPA,REPA
NEPA
X
Targets would be established for achievement of thematic and crosscutting objectives for the Rio Conventions, to be used in monitoring
progress and reporting to both national bodies and the conventions
Partners
The use of fiscal incentives to promote integration of Rio Convention

themes, for example:
- Revise selection criteria for projects financed through the
Environmental Fund to promote projects that address cross-cutting
convention themes, and
- Create mechanisms to favour convention-related technology transfer
(green certificates, white certificates, fiscal relaxation).
Output 1.3:
Screening,
monitoring and
reporting system,
as part of
Integrated
Conventions
requirements into
sectorial policies,
is in place
Y3
The use of independent technical services, as needed to complement

ministry capacity in its duties.
1.3
Y2
MoE
MAFRD
A special attention shall be paid to the training of UPP staff in order

Page 30
Budget /Source
Funds, GEF
2009
Budget (USD)
2010
2011
Total
(USD)
Expected
OUTPUTS
Planned Activities
Timeframe
Y1
Y2
Y3
Partners
Budget /Source
Funds, GEF
2009
Budget (USD)
2010
2011
Total
(USD)
to ensure a good quantitative screening, monitoring and reporting
OUTCOME 2. Improved capacity of MoE and MAFRD to integrate environmental and sectoral resource management
2.1
Output 2.1:.
Enhanced
technical and
managerial
capacity of MoE
and MAFRD staff
to integrate
environmental
and sectoral
resource
management,
using Integrated
Resource
Management
techniques
A comprehensive institutional assessment of MoE and MAFRD,

building on previous NCSA and EU effort to analyse strengths and
weaknesses in integrating environment and natural resource
management; including the revision of job descriptions
Roles and responsibilities for implementing conventions obligations

clearly assigned to key job descriptions
A comprehensive training needs assessment, based on previous

NCSA and EU effort, to identify individual training and learning
needs of staff in national and decentralized offices of the MoE and
MAFRD, including the National, Regional and Local Agencies for
Environmental Protection
MoE
MAFRD
MoE
MAFRD,
LEPA,REPA
NEPA
Ministry of
Education
ONG
Development of focused training programmes, using a mix of formal

training (e.g., modules, workshops) with innovative training/learning
programmes, including mentoring, on-the-job learning, field-based
programmes (extension) and distance education (Internet-based). The
use of train-the-trainer programmes will ensure that training
programmes are institutionalized sustainable, and reach large numbers
of staff. This approach will also include insertion of conventionrelated topics into existing training programmes run by the ministries,
EU and other donors.
Monitoring, evaluation and revision to training programmes
MoE
MAFRD,
LEPA,REPA
NEPA
71200- Int.
consultants
71300- Local
consultants
71600- Travel
72100
Workshops
72100
Monit.Evaluatio
n
72100
Contractual Serv.
72400 Communication
72800 IT
Equipment
74100 - Audit
Sub-total GEF:
2.2
Output 2.2:
Codes of good
practice,
checklists and
training
established to
strengthen
Integrated
Resource
Management tools
A review of the current systems for EIA and SEA, especially

procedures and practices for follow-up and monitoring after EIA,
which was identified in NCSA as a weakness that undermines the aim
of EIA, which is to ensure that environmental impacts of development
are avoided or mitigated during construction and operation
Revise EIA and SEA processes, as recommended in the review above
Review additional IRM tools used in Romania (as in Table 6 of

prodoc) to identify strengths, weaknesses and recommendations to
strengthen these processes. Focus on the tools seen as most valuable
MoE
MAFRD,
LEPA,REPA
NEPA
MoE
ANIF
Page 31
7,015
14,105
62,220
49,200
15,640
127,060
3,000
2,000
1,000
6,000
1,500
10,000
2,000
13,500
20,000
20,000
3,000
3,000
6,000
2,500
2,500
2,500
7,500
2,500
2,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
4,500
3,500
2,500
6,000
200
200
238
700
78,010
81,415
47,378
207,803
74200 Audio
Visual Print
74500
Miscellaneous
Activities of and training the staff and sharing the best practices
order to have a good report on SOE
7,090
2.3
Expected
OUTPUTS
for integrating
environment into
sectoral
programmes and
projects
Output 2.3:
Regional
Coordinating
Mechanisms
(RCMs) are
established and
implemented as
demonstration
models in two of
Romanias eight
Development
Regions (DRs),
then expanded to
the remaining six
regions, based on
lessons learned
Planned Activities
Timeframe
Y1
Y2
Output 2.4: A
peer training
network and
database to
support integrated
resource
management is
established to
Partners
by Ministry staff (as identified in the needs assessment).
Practical training for relevant government and scientific staff in

applying the above tools, including train-the-trainer programmes, in
which technical assistance will be provided to co-design Made in
Romania hands-on training programmes, tailored to specific needs
and circumstances in the country
An RCM demonstration model for interagency collaboration will be

developed, setting out the composition, functioning accountability
and responsibilities
Developing and agreeing the criteria to select two demonstration

models within all Development Regions
A preliminary list of several priority issues that might be addressed to

Regional Coordinating Mechanism Members (the final choice will be
made by them)
A user-friendly Handbook (plain language, graphics, maps) will be

prepared with guidelines for how the IMCC should work, drawing on
lessons learned. Members of pilot RCMs will act as resource people
at workshops for Development Regions who are starting a new RCM
MoE
MAFRD
MADA
Setting up a mechanism to share experiences through the Internet,

exchanges of managerial and technical staff, seminars, workshops and
on-going working groups organized around topics of mutual interest
This will be fully integrated with the administrative reforms, which
MoE
MAFRD
Local
Councils
RDA
EFA
COAC
OJCPI
LEPA
REPA,
NEPA,TIFH
MADA
The model will be tested in two pilot DRs, and the results will be
monitored and evaluated. The results will be reported to senior
officials of the participating ministries and agencies, who will decide
how the model might be revised for general adoption. The model
must be flexible enough to be adapted to different regions.
The peer network is designed to take advantage of the skills and

creativity of many field level environmental and natural resource
managers, based on common use of communicating validated tools
NACA
ICARDE
ICRIDPPT
Development of codes of good practice and checklists to support

various IRM processes, including design, planning, implementation,
follow-up and monitoring stages
The two regions who are piloting the demonstration model RCMs
will undertake one or more projects where they will apply the
Integrated Resource Management tools and training/capacity being
developed under outputs 2.1 and 2.2 to a priority regional issue
2.4
Y3
Page 32
Budget /Source
Funds, GEF
2009
Budget (USD)
2010
2011
Total
(USD)
Expected
OUTPUTS
serve regional and
local
environmental
and resource
management staff.
Planned Activities
Timeframe
Y1
Y2
Y3
Partners
Budget /Source
Funds, GEF
2009
Budget (USD)
2010
2011
Total
(USD)
aim to create a professional civil service and promote a knowledgebased society. The peer network and database will also serve to
reinforce the individual and institutional capacity that will be built
through technical assistance and training during the project
It will be coupled with a simple database focused on the topic of
Integrated Resource Management, which is fully integrated with MoE
and MAFRD databases. It will include lists of government and
outside contact people, experts, published and electronic resources,
training courses and training materials
OUTCOME 3. Effective, efficient and adaptive project management, monitoring and evaluation
3.1
9.2.
Output 3.1:
Project well
managed
including
progress reports
as per UNDP and
GEF standards.
This output includes establishing the project management office, the

project steering committee and the project progress and impactmonitoring framework.
It also includes adequate mobilization of project resources, regular
monitoring and reporting of project progress, stakeholder
consultations and periodic evaluations to identify changes as adaptive
management
71300- Local
consultants
13,300
13,400
13,300
40,000
71600- Travel
3,000
2,000
7,000
12,000
Sub-total GEF:
16,300
15,400
20,300
52,000
Total GEF:
196,457
170,223
105,120
470,000
Progress to Date
From June 2008 to date (May 2009), the project inception phase took place. A series of activities took place to establish the project. A summary is presented below:
Recruitment of project staff
The project staff - Project Manager and Project Assistant started being paid only in November, 2008. However, recruitment process was started in August, 2008.
TORs attached, and Minutes of both recruitments can also be included.
Recruitment of Senior International Technical Advisor
Based on attached TORs and bidding process, a SITA was contracted in March, 2009. Minutes of Selection Process can be attached. As well, it is included the SOW for his
first year assignments.
Office set-up
As per the agreement between UNDP/GEF and the government of Romania, the Delegated Executing Agency (University of Bucharest) provided office space as government
in-kind contribution to the project. Equipment and furniture was purchased by UNDP in accordance with UNDP/GEF procedures. Inventory List attached.
Page 33
Designation of NSC and first meeting held

As mentioned above, it has 7 members. List of constituency attached. Minutes of first meeting too.
Mitigation of procedural bottlenecks
Unfortunately, a series of events encountered have slowed down the implementation of the project. The changes of government staff between the project preparation phase
(2006) and the date of the project approval (2008) as well as the changes following the 2008-2009 elections, have led to a weak awareness of government on the project.
Weak ownership of delegated EA and operational bottlenecks have been further delayed the progress in implementation. UNDP CO and the project management team have
met the minister of environment and other government representatives to raise awareness on the project and reinforce political support. Furthermore, UNDP CO and GEF
political focal point have met the delegated executing agencys management in order to remove procedural constraints and mitigate their internal cumbersome procedures.
Awareness was created on the importance of the timely implementation of the planned activities for the achievement of the ultimate objective of the project.
Organize of the Inception Workshop
Held on April 26th, 2009 with Minutes attached.
Development of the Stakeholders Data Basis
Starting from suggestions at the Inception Workshop, a Directory of Project related Stakeholders began being developed. To date, it lists about 2,800 entries.
Awareness raising events on Rio themes
Noteworthy for this reporting period until end 2009, is the series of roundtable discussions meetings initiated by UNDP CO and the project in anticipation to Copenhagen
UNFCCC COP 15 ; the first meeting started on June 5 with the occasion of the World Environment Day and address climate change as a cross-sectoral development
objectives and discussing themes that fall under the Rio Conventions such as: biodiversity loss, desertification, deforestation, carbon sink potential, carbon market, transport,
energy efficiency etc emphasizing the need for an integrated approach of the three issues: climate change, biodiversity and desertification. The second meeting, has assisted
the CC focal point in formulating Romanias position for COP-5 in Copenhagen. The stakeholders have suggested issues of national importance that addressed all three
Conventions themes, to be raised during negotiations. These thematic participatory roundtables discussion meetings will be concluded with non-papers addressing
suggestions for the improvement of legislation, policies, norms and programmes related to Rio Conventions themes.
Identification of Initial Short-Term Consultancies
In order to kick-start project activities, three consultancies were identified; there are:
Terms of Reference 1
Review the conventions obligations signed by Romania and the current status of the implementation of these conventions in Romania; including national action plans,
national progress reports and communications. A lot of this information should already exist in the NCSA reports; it should mostly be an update of what is already
available. This consultant will be assisted by a legal adviser, whose TOR are currently under development.
Review the environmental management framework in place in Romania; particularly in the areas related to the Rio Conventions: climate change, biodiversity and land
Page 34
degradation. Review how the legislative, policy and institutional frameworks integrate the MEAs obligations in Romania. A basis exists in the NCSA reports and the
prodoc but it needs to be updated with any legislative, policy and institutional changes that were implemented since the project was conceptualized; particularly within
the context of the harmonization with the EU Directives.
In parallel to this stocktaking exercise, the project has started the identification of two pilot regions, which will be pilot sites to test the Regional Coordination
Mechanism (RCM).
The project has a short timeframe and its success will depend a lot on the results from the piloting of the RCM in these two regions; including the potential to replicate
this RCM to all (8) regions of Romania. It is proposed to start with a first assignment to scan all regions of Romania and using a multi-criteria approach to propose a
selection of two regions to become the project pilot.
9.3.
Work Plan for Period July 2009 - June 2010

Expected
OUTPUTS
Timeframe
Planned Activities
Planned activities for the year ahead
Q3/09
Q4/09
Q1/10
Outcome 1: Enhanced institutional, legislative, policy and planning framework for implementing Rio Convention commitments
1.1
Output 1.1:
Institutional
framework and
processes for
coordinated
management and
implementation of the
Rio Convention
established
Strengthen the convention implementation units (CBD and

UNFCC in MOE and CCD within MAFRD) and define their
responsibilities and relationships among them.
Define the roles of MoE and MAFRD in convention
implementation within their own departments, agencies and
programmes at the national, regional and local levels, and
establish formal collaborative mechanisms to enhance
synergies. Particular focus will be placed on integrating the
conventions into forestry, agriculture, soils, protected areas,
hunting and rural development programmes, as these all fall
within MAFRDs mandate. Key programmes in MOE
include climate change/air quality and water management.
Define the roles of MoE and MAFRD in implementing the
conventions through their relationships with other
ministries, for example, during regulatory and review
processes, such as EIA and permitting for proposed
developments. This includes defining the responsibilities of
Studies on the status of the implementation of

the Rio Convention, institutional set-up
following NCSA work, in order to assess gaps
and design recommendations .
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
These studies will be undertaken in order to:

-Identify the Rio Conventions Focal Points
Staff and define their responsibilities and
relationships among them.
- Define the roles of MoE and MAFRD in
convention implementation
- Define the roles of MoE and MAFRD in
implementing the conventions through their
relationships with other ministries
Page 35
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
Q2/10
1.2
1.3
Expected
OUTPUTS
Output 1.2:
Suggestion for the
ammendments of
to better enable
mainstreaming of Rio
Convention themes
into policies, plans
and programmes
submitted to the Gov
for official approval
Output 1.3.
Screening, monitoring
and reporting system,
as part of Integrated
Conventions
Timeframe
Planned Activities
the National, Regional and Local Environmental Protection
Agencies.
Identify all other ministries, agencies and civil society
organisations to be involved in convention management and
define their respective roles, responsibilities and tasks. This
would build on the work done during the NCSA
-
- Identify all other ministries, agencies and civil

society organisations to be involved in
convention management and define their
respective roles, responsibilities and tasks
Building on the work done in the NCSA Thematic

Assessments, conduct a thorough review of Romanian
legislation and norms to find weaknesses and gaps in
relation to convention responsibilities.
Elaborate and modify laws and norms to enable:
Compliance with convention obligations for each
convention and for integration of biodiversity, climate
change and land degradation issues;
Assignment of convention responsibilities to appropriate
institutions and promotion of collaboration among them;
Integration of conventions into development plans, sectorial
plans and environmental action plans at local, regional and
national levels;
Strengthening of review and permitting processes involving
the assessment and mitigation of environmental impacts of
developments, e.g. EIA could be amended to include issues
related to impacts, vulnerability and adaptation to global
climate change in.
The use of independent technical services, as needed to
complement ministry capacity.
The use of fiscal incentives to promote integration of Rio
Convention themes, for example,
o Revise selection criteria for projects financed through the
Environmental Fund to promote projects that address
cross-cutting convention themes, and
o Create mechanisms to favor convention-related
technology transfer (green certificates, white certificates,
fiscal relaxation).
Defining the responsibilities of the Public Policies Unit
(UPP) and Inter-ministerial Councils for convention
implementation, and ensuring that the composition of the
Councils allows them to effectively consider environmental
implications of policy proposals, including obligations
Building on the work done in the NCSA

Thematic Assessments, conduct a thorough
review of Romanian legislation and norms to
find weaknesses and gaps in relation to
convention responsibilities.
Q3/09
Q4/09
Q1/10
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
Develop recommendation and suggestions to

address gaps in the synergic implementation of
the Rio Conventions.
Q2/10
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
-Defining the responsibilities of the Public

Policies Unit (UPP) and Inter-ministerial
Councils
-Capacity needs assessment of the training for
Page 36
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
Expected
OUTPUTS
requirements into
sectoral policies, is in
place.
Timeframe
Planned Activities
under MEAs.
Developing an environmental screening tool(s) to be used as
part of the established process for public policy analysis,
which already requires an assessment of environmental
impacts.
Training staff in the UPP, Inter-ministerial Councils and
relevant government ministries on how to use the
environmental screening tool to assess and mitigate the
environmental impacts of policies, plans and programmes
Targets would be established for achievement of thematic
and cross-cutting objectives for the Rio Conventions, to be
used in monitoring progress and reporting to both national
bodies and the conventions
Q3/09
recently established public policy units (PPUs)
Q4/09
xxxxxx
- Development of a training module for the

Inter-ministerial Committee no 8 and PPUs
from ministries.
Q1/10
Q2/10
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
Outcome 2: Improved capacity of MoE and MAFRD to integrate environmental and sectoral resource management
2.1
2.2
Output 2.1:
Enhanced technical
and managerial
capacity of MOE and
MAFRD staff to
integrate
environmental and
sectoral resource
management, using
Integrated Resource
Management
techniques
Output 2.2: Codes of

good practice,
A comprehensive institutional assessment of MoE and

MAFRD, building on previous NCSA and EA efforts to
analyse strengths and weaknesses in integrating environment
and natural resource management.
Implementation of recommended institutional changes (e.g.,
organigrammes, collaborative mechanisms)
A comprehensive training needs assessment, based on
previous NCSA efforts, to identify individual training and
learning needs of staff in national and decentralized offices
of the MoE and MAFRD, including the National, Regional
and Local Agencies for Environmental Protection.
Development of focused training programmes, using a mix
of formal training (e.g., modules, workshops) with
innovative training/learning programmes, including
mentoring, on-the-job learning, field-based programmes
(extension) and distance education (Internet-based). The use
of train-the-trainer programmes will ensure that training
programmes are institutionalized sustainable, and reach
large numbers of staff. This approach will also include
insertion of convention-related topics into existing training
programmes run by the ministries, EU and other donors.
Monitoring, evaluation and revision to training programmes.
A review of the current systems for EIA and SEA, especially
procedures and practices for follow-up and monitoring after
EIA, which was identified in NCSA as a weakness that
A comprehensive institutional assessment of

MoE and MAFRD, building on previous
NCSA efforts to analyse strengths and
weaknesses in integrating environment and
natural resource management.
Implementation of recommended
institutional changes (e.g., organigrammes,
collaborative mechanisms)
A comprehensive training needs assessment,
based on previous NCSA efforts to identify
individual training and learning needs of
staff in national and decentralized offices of
the MoE and MAFRD, including the
National, Regional and Local Agencies for
Environmental Protection
xxxxxx
A review of the current systems for EIA and

SEA, especially procedures and practices for
follow-up and monitoring after EIA, which
xxxxxx
Page 37
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxx
xxxxx
Expected
OUTPUTS
checklists and training
established to
strengthen Integrated
Resource
Management tools for
integrating
environment into
sectoral programmes
and projects
2.3
Output 2.3: Regional

Coordinating
Mechanisms (RCMs)
are established and
implemented as
demonstration models
in two of Romanias
eight Development
Regions (DRs), then
expanded to the
remaining six regions,
based on lessons
learned
Timeframe
Planned Activities
undermines the aim of EIA, which is to ensure that
environmental impacts of development are avoided or
mitigated during construction and operation.
Revise EIA and SEA processes, as recommended in the
review above.
Review additional IRM tools used in Romania (as in Table 6
of prodoc) to identify strengths, weaknesses and
recommendations to strengthen these processes. Focus on
the tools seen as most valuable by Ministry staff (as
identified in the needs assessment).
Development of codes of good practice and checklists to
support various IRM processes, including design, planning,
implementation, follow-up and monitoring stages.
Practical training for relevant government and scientific staff
in applying the above tools, including train-the-trainer
programmes, in which technical assistance will be provided
to co-design Made in Romania hands-on training
programmes, tailored to specific needs and circumstances in
the country
An RCM demonstration model for interagency

collaboration will be developed, setting out the composition,
functioning accountability and responsibilities.
The model will be tested in two pilot DRs, and the results
will be monitored and evaluated. The results will be reported
to senior officials of the participating ministries and
agencies, who will decide how the model might be revised
for general adoption. The model must be flexible enough to
be adapted to different regions.
A user-friendly Handbook (plain language, graphics, maps)
will be prepared with guidelines for how the IMCM should
work, drawing on lessons learned. Members of pilot RCMs
will act as resource people at workshops for Development
Regions who are starting a new RCM
The two regions who are piloting the demonstration model
RCMs will undertake one or more projects where they will
apply the Integrated Resource Management tools and
training/capacity being developed under outputs 2.1 and 2.2
was identified in NCSA as a weakness that

undermines the aim of EIA, which is to
ensure that environmental impacts of
development are avoided or mitigated during
construction and operation.
Revise EIA and SEA processes, as
recommended in the review above.
Review additional IRM tools used in
Romania (as in Table 6 of prodoc) to
identify strengths, weaknesses and
recommendations to strengthen these
processes. Focus on the tools seen as most
valuable by Ministry staff (as identified in
the needs assessment).
Practical training for relevant government
and scientific staff in applying the above
tools, including train-the-trainer
programmes, in which technical assistance
will be provided to co-design Made in
Romania hands-on training programmes,
tailored to specific needs and circumstances
in the country
Design of the selection criteria for the two
pilot regions
Selection of the two regions
An RCM demonstration model for
interagency collaboration will be developed,
setting out the composition, functioning
accountability and responsibilities.
The model will be tested in two pilot DRs,
and the results will be monitored and
evaluated. The results will be reported to
senior officials of the participating ministries
and agencies, who will decide how the
model might be revised for general adoption.
The model must be flexible enough to be
adapted to different regions
Page 38
Q3/09
xxxxxx
Q4/09
Q1/10
Q2/10
xxxxx
xxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxx
xxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxx
Expected
OUTPUTS
Timeframe
Planned Activities
Q3/09
Q4/09
Q1/10
Q2/10
to a priority regional issue.

Table 6 (from prodoc) provides a preliminary list of several
priority issues that might be addressed.
The final choice will be made by the RCM members
2.4
Output 2.4: A peer

training network and
database to support
integrated resource
management is
established to serve
regional and local
environmental and
resource management
staff
The peer network is designed to take advantage of the skills

and creativity of many field level environmental and natural
resource managers by setting up a mechanism to share
experiences through the Internet, exchanges of managerial
and technical staff, seminars, workshops and on-going
working groups organized around topics of mutual interest.
This will be fully integrated with the administrative reforms,
which aim to create a professional civil service and promote
a knowledge-based society. The peer network and database
will also serve to reinforce the individual and institutional
capacity that will be built through technical assistance and
training during the project.
It will be coupled with a simple database focused on the
topic of Integrated Resource Management, which is fully
integrated with MoE and MAFRD databases. It will include
lists of government and outside contact people, experts,
published and electronic resources, training courses and
training materials
-Begin to establish a peer network for sharing

knowledge and experiences in environmental
and natural resource management
-Start a simple data base on topics such as the
Integrated Resource Management, fully linked
with the line ministries data bases and CBD
CHM.
Outcome 3. Effective, efficient and adaptive project management, monitoring and evaluation
3.1
The project office is

established and staff
is hired. Project
management
UNDP and Government to establish the Project Office

o Identify and make the Project Office operational
o Hire project staff
UNDP and Government to establish the

Project Office
o Identify and make the Project Office
operational
o Hire project staff
Page 39
xxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxx
Expected
OUTPUTS
processes are
established and
progress, evaluation
and monitoring
reports are produced
to GEF and UNDP
standards.
9.4.
Timeframe
Planned Activities
Manage and Administer the project according GEF/UNDP
procedures:
o Produce Annual Work Plan (AWP)
o Develop the budget and implement UNDP/GEF
administrative procedures.
o Develop TORs for Experts/Consultants
o Implement the Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) plan
o Produce monthly, quarterly and Annual project progress
reports
Manage and Administer the project

according GEF/UNDP procedures:
o Produce Annual Work Plan (AWP)
Develop the budget and implement
UNDP/GEF administrative procedures.
o Develop TORs for Experts/Consultants
o Implement the Monitoring and
Evaluation (M&E) plan
o Produce monthly, quarterly and Annual
project progress reports
Q3/09
xxxxxx
Q4/09
xx x x x x
Q1/10
xxxxxx
Q2/10
xxxxx
Targets for Year 2009-2010
To design of an appropriate mechanism of cooperation between the two competent authorities (the two line ministries)
To design the coordination mechanisms established among convention units and between these units and the relevant ministries and units
An updated report on stakeholders responsibilities concerning the management of the implementation of the three conventions
Report on weaknesses and gaps in relation to integrated approach of Rio conventions from legal and political point of view and proposals for amending the
provisions from the existing laws and regulations
A report to define the competent authorities responsibilities in the implementation of public policies that will impact on environment.
A Regulation book on the modality in which the permanent Inter-ministerial commissions will analyze and decide on the implementation of Rio Conventions
and mainstreaming the environment policy into sectoral policies.
To edit a guide for the national reporting under the three Conventions accompanied by a methodology of integrated reporting based on synergies between the
three Conventions.
To have a comprehensive individual training needs assessment and a training plan dedicated to the centralized and decentralized agencies staff
To identify the IRM tools already used in Romania, underlying the strengths and weaknesses and advancing recommendations to improve the EIA and SEA
processes
To add additional guides, codes of good practices, checklists, etc
To test the RCM in two Development Regions in Romania and refine them, in such a manner to implement the model in the remaining Development Regions
Page 40
10.
To Design the content for the peer training network
Budget / Disbursements for Period 2009-2010
Outcome 1 : Enhanced institutional, legislative, policy and planning framework for implementing Rio Convention commitments
Budget
source GEF
Code Atlas
71200
International
Consultants
71300
Local Consultatnts
71600
Travel
72100
Contractual Services
Workshop
Contractul Services
Monitoring and
Evaluation
72100
Contractual services
72400
Communications
72800
Equipment IT
74100
Audit
74200
Audio Visual Print
74500
Miscellaneus
72100
TOTAL
Iulie
septembrie
2009
0ctombrie
Decembrie
2009
Ianuarie
Martie 2010
Aprilie
Iunie 2010
TOTAL GEF
9.309
9.309
20.737
36.300
13.451
16.500
86.988
3.498
1.122
4.620
264
330
198
264
1.056
660
1.320
1.320
660
3.960
1.980
8.496
1.980
1.980
14.436
990
990
990
990
3.960
1.886
264
2.150
6.930
2.970
1.320
11.220
330
1.980
1.320
1.980
5.610
330
330
330
990
26.847
69.483
22.823
25.146
144.299
Outcome 2. Improved capacity of MoE and MAFRD to integrate environmental and sectoral resource management
Budget
source GEF
71200
Code Atlas
International consultant
Iulie
septembrie
2009
0ctombrie
Decembrie
2009
0
Ianuarie
Martie 2010
0
4.689
Aprilie
Iunie 2010
TOTAL GEF
4.620
Page 41
9.309
71300
Local Consultants
60.350
13.200
10.322
83.873
71600
Travel
2.310
660
990
3.960
72100
330
2.970
2.970
2.970
9.240
6.600
6.600
13.200
72100
Contractual Services
Workshop
Contractul Services
Monitoring and
Evaluation
Cotractual Services
1.980
990
990
3.960
72400
Communications
990
990
990
990
3.960
72800
Equipment
1.320
165
1.485
74100
Audit
660
660
660
990
2.970
74200
Audio Visual Print
330
1.980
330
1.320
3.960
74500
Miscellaneous
198
66
66
330
71300
Local Consultants
6.600
6.600
6.600
6.600
26.400
71600
Travel
1.980
1.320
1.980
2.640
7.920
10.890
80.678
39.900
39.098
170.567
72100
TOTAL
Outcome 3. Effective, efficient and adaptive project management, monitoring and evaluation
Budget
source GEF
Code Atlas
Iulie
septembrie
2009
0ctombrie
Decembrie
2009
Ianuarie
Martie 2010
Aprilie
Iunie 2010
TOTAL GEF
71300
Local Consultants
6.600
6.600
6.600
6.600
26.400
71600
Travel
1.980
1.320
1.980
2.640
7.920
8.580
7.920
8.580
9.240
34.320
TOTAL
Page 42
Annexes
Annex 1: Terms of Reference
Terms of Reference:
Project Manager (full time)
Objective: The Project Manager will have overall responsibility for managing the organization, work plans,
programmes and activities, as well as progress and financial reporting to the National Steering Committee and
UNDP. The position will be filled up by a person designated by the National Executing Agency by a
competition open to government service and the public. This is a senior level position and the successful
candidate should have extensive experience in the implementation of environmental or land use planning
projects, and the management of similar scale of projects, preferably with experience in capacity building and
training programmes. The Project Manager will be the head of the Project Management Unit. The PMU will
have operational and financial autonomy, including the authority to select and sub-contract specific project
activities or components to local consultants and local institutions. The PM will perform a liaison role with
government, UNDP and stakeholders. Terms of reference for this position include the following:
Scope of work:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Establishment of the staffing and operations of a small Project Management Unit.

Preparation of a Project Management Plan (Project Document), including a Monitoring and
Evaluation Plan that meets GEF project standards.
Drafting/reviewing of terms of reference for the National Steering Committee, Technical
Committees and any Working Groups.
Preparation of annual work plans, funds requisition, six-monthly progress and financial reporting
and monitoring of outputs and outcomes as per GEF standards.
Coordination with regional and local authorities and stakeholders in implementing project
activities.
Monitoring, and assisting as required, in the smooth operation of the Steering Committee and
technical committees, and reporting on difficulties in achieving targets in annual work plans.
Disbursement of funds as per operational procedures consistent with financial management
standards of the Government and GEF.
Preparation of a Monitoring and Evaluation Plan including templates and guidelines for reporting
on activities and outputs.
Secretariat services to the National Steering Committee.
Reporting to the National Steering Committee and UNDP-GEF Coordinator on the progress and
issues in project implementation.
Facilitation of monitoring and evaluation missions by UNDP or designated consultants to UNDP.
General responsibilities:
Under the guidance of the National Project Director and UNDP, the PM shall be responsible for the overall daily
coordination of all aspects of the Project. The PM will be responsible for overseeing the Project teams work and
he/she will be ultimately responsible for the effective implementation of all Project activities. The Project Manager
reports to the National Project Director (who will be nominated by the MOE). He/she will liaise directly with
designated officials of the national and local governments, the UNDP, existing and potential additional Project
donors, the National GEF Focal Point, and others as deemed appropriate and necessary by the PD or PM
him/herself. The Project budget and associated work plan will provide guidance on the day-to-day implementation
of the approved Project activities and on the integration of the various complementary initiatives. He/she shall be
responsible for the delivery of all substantive, managerial and financial reports from and on behalf of the Project.
He/she will provide overall supervision for all Project staff. The Project Manager will provide expert input in
his/her area of expertise, coordinate contracted work necessary for Project implementation, and will organize and
attend all consultations and meetings.
Specific duties:
Page 43
The PM will have the following specific duties:

1. Drafts Work Plan to be approved by the Steering Group;
2. Drafts ToRs for experts and subcontractors to be approved by Project director;
3. Organizes tender for experts according to ToRs approved (Finds experts);
4. Sets tasks and deadlines for experts and subcontractors;
5. Oversees the performance of experts and subcontracted companies;
6. Prepares all necessary documentation, reports, etc. for Steering group meetings;
7. Assists in drafting the MSP proposal for submission to GEF;
8. Organizes and undertakes consultations and workshops.
Qualification
Post-graduate degree in a directly related field (e.g. natural resource management; biodiversity
conservation);
Substantive knowledge of the issues covered by project
Knowledge and experience in project management
Familiarity with technical assistance projects and UNDP projects in Romania.
Fluency in English and good writing skills are desirable.
Previous work experience in the project region on issues directly related to the Project;
Ability and willingness to travel; and,
Demonstrable skills in using information technology (word processing, spread sheets) and familiarity
with GIS applications.
Page 44
Terms of Reference:
Senior International Technical Advisor (part time)
(First Assignment of the Senior International Technical Advisor)

Project title:
Starting Date:
Duration:
UNDP/GEF project Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural

Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2) - Romania
March 2009
6 working home-based days
Scope of work:
Under the overall guidance of the UNDP Program Manager and in cooperation with the Project Team Leader, the
Senior International Technical Advisor is expected to work together with the National Project Implementing
Partner in support of project implementation by providing technical advisory service. The scope of work will
comprise a desk study to guide the inception phase as per tasks detailed below.
Duties:
1. Project Work-Plan, in relationship to its objectives, the set deliverables, and the success indicators,
according to indicated Outcomes, and the existing budget and time-frame.
2. Deriving from here, it shall be very useful to also have, from your point of view, which should be the
main phases and events at which you will consider your inputs and participation essentially necessary, in
order to best accomplish your general assignments with UNDP, as well as to have your contributions best
identified and critically relevant.
3. Deducing from the above, then what the Annual Work Plan (AWP), shall comprise, from now, to this fall.
4. Any general Guideline, and Methodological approach suggestions, on how to best tackle and organize
work, for ensuring the most effective and very successful implementation of the WP and this overall
project's activities, shall be extremely useful.
5. Based on the Work Plan (WP), the list of deliverables;
6. Finally, which do you think that the number of people and their technical backgrounds should be, for
constituting the Short Term Experts (STE) team, to work with, for ensuring coverage of necessary
expertise. Immediately after the Inception Workshop, well need your proposal for the STE TORs to be
posted, for the expertise procurement process.
Expected Outputs:
A report summarizing the review of the project strategy, its risks and assumptions, its performance
measurement (indicators) and its Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Framework (These elements will
serve as a basis for the inception report). This report will also include some recommendations for the
way forward such as methodology for the implementation of the project; major thematic areas and
scope of TORs for possible working groups/experts and consultancy services for the project
implementation; and work plan for the International Technical Advisor for the duration of the project.
A Work plan template and guidance to complete the annual work plan for 2009.
Page 45
Guidelines for the contribution of the Senior International Technical Advisor over the entire project
Following the initial review of 6 days, a total of 29 days is left to be spread over the project duration time that
is until July 2011. As per the Terms of Reference, it is planned to use this effort in three parts; each one
corresponding to a one-week mission to Romania as follows:
First Mission
Tentative Date: September/October 2009
Effort:
2 days home-based to prepare the mission

4 days in-country mission
3 days home-based to summarize project review
Review project start-up (stocktaking) phase

Meet key project stakeholders
Identify critical gaps and propose solutions
Purpose:
Review monitoring indicators
Develop project implementation report (PIR) for 2009
Draft 2010 work plan and corresponding budget.
Second Mission
Tentative Date: March/April 2010
Effort:

Review project activities and achievements so far

Contribute to PIR 2009-2010
Purpose:
Review possible adjustments to the implementation
Scope mid-term evaluation
Review the 2010 work plan and budget
Third Mission
Tentative Date: January 2011
Effort:

Review achievements/results so far

Review mid-term evaluation results and management response
Purpose: Contribute to PIR 2010-2011
Develop the 2011 work plan
Adjustments to the implementation approach (if needed)
Prepare project closure plan
Page 46
Annex 2: Inception Workshop proceedings

Agenda and IWS documents
Programul ONU
pentru Dezvoltare
Fondul Global
pentru Mediu
Ministerul
Mediului
Universitastea
din Bucuresti
PROIECTUL CB2: Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource Management for
Global Environmental Benefits
INVITATIE
Avem placerea sa va invitam, in calitatea de expert profesionist in domeniul gospodaririi apelor si de director al
unuia dintre departamentele cele mai implicate in realizarea obiectivelor prezentului proiect, la Workshop-ul de
Initiere a Programului UNDP-GEF pentru Romania: Intarirea capacitatii de integrare a managementului de mediu si
al resurselor naturale pentru beneficii globale de mediu, ce va avea loc miercuri, 29 aprilie, 2009, orele 12:00, la
Ministerul Mediului, Sala de Consiliu, Bdul. Libertatii nr. 12 et. I.
Proiectul are ca obiectiv elaborarea strategiei de integrare a indeplinirii obligatiilor guvernului Romaniei privind
conformarea cu cerintele celor trei conventii de la Rio, ratificate de tara noastra: Biodiversitate, Schimbari Climatice, si
Desertificarea.
La workshop se va face cunoscut si se va supune dezbaterii Planul de Lucru propus de echipa de proiect, in vederea atingerii
cu succes a obiectivului de mai sus, sub aspect administrativ/ institutional si al capacitatilor tehnice si manageriale la nivel
national, institutional si individual.
Avand in vedere ca institutia dumneavoastra este direct implicata, prin programe si responsabilitati asumate la intrarea in UE
privind conformarea de mediu si respectarea conventiilor internationale ratificate de Romania, apreciem ca participarea la
acest eveniment si opiniile dumneavoastra sunt foarte importante.
Materialele care vor fi supuse dezbaterii publice va vor fi trimise imediat dupa confirmarea participarii dumneavoastra
Va rugam sa ne confirmati sau sa infirmati posibilitatea de a raspunde acestei invitatii, sau sa delegati, in caz ca va este
imposibil sa fiti prezent, un alt reprezentant al institutiei dumneavoastra, la tel.: 0722 218 701 Rodica Stefanescu, sau la
tel: 0727 368 805 Stamate Sorina si prin e-mail: stamate_sorina@yahoo.com , rodica.stefanescu@yahoo.com sau
dan.manoleli@g.unibuc.ro
Va multumim, si va asteptam!
Prof.dr.Dan MANOLELI
Manager
Project
Bucuresti, 17. 04.2009
Page 47
Programul ONU
pentru Dezvoltare
Fondul Global
pentru Mediu
Ministerul
Mediului
Universitastea
din Bucuresti
UNDP Project Document

UNDP-GEF Medium-Size Project (MSP)
Government of Romania
United Nations Development Programme
PIMS 3069 Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural Resource

Management for Global Environmental Benefits
Brief description
The proposed CB-2 project aims to expand Romanias capacity to generate global environmental benefits through
mainstreaming the Rio Conventions into national, regional and local decision-making. It will do this, firstly, by
enhancing the enabling environment for convention implementation, including modifying institutional, legislative,
policy and reporting frameworks to reflect convention commitments and, secondly, by improving institutional and
individual capacity within the lead agencies for convention implementation (ME and MAFRD). The latter
component will strengthen mechanisms, tools and training to support the use of Integrated Resource Management
to mainstream conventions themes into sectoral plans and programmes. The project also addresses the objectives
of the three GEF focal areas and three of the four interim programming priorities under GEF Strategic Priority
CB-2, Cross-cutting Capacity Development: (1) Improve national convention institutional structures and
mechanisms; (2) Strengthen policy, legislative and regulative framework; and (3) Mainstream global
environmental priorities into national policies and programmes The project is consistent with a key UNDP
programme objective for Romania: to enhance environmental governance at national and local levels for better
compliance with EU standards and international conventions, through policy development and integration of
environment into other sectors.
Acronyms: NCSA National Capacity Self Assessment); CB2 Capacity Building 2; CBD Convention on Biological
Diversity); CCD Convention to Combat Desetification; EPA Environmental Protection Agency; FCCC Framework
Convention on Climate Change); GEF Global Environment Facility; IRM Integrated Resource Management; MAFRD
Ministry of Agriculture, Forests and Rural Development; ME Ministry of the Environment; MSP Medium Size Project;
PIR Peer Internal Review; RCM Regional Coordination Mechansisms; SOE State of the Environment; UNDP
United Nations Development Program
Romania has ratified over 20 Multinational Environmental Agreements since 1992, including the Rio
Conventions on biodiversity, climate change and land degradation (CBD, FCCC, CCD) and prepared related
Action Plans. Romanias accession to the EU in January 2007 has triggered improvements to the institutional,
legal and policy framework for environmental management, and led to the preparation of numerous environmental
and sectoral plans, strategies and programmes. However, Rio conventions management has continued to be
fragmented and uncoordinated, and conventions implementation has been weak, due, in part, to poor integration of
convention themes into EU-related reforms in policy-making, environmental and natural resource management,
public administration, decentralization and regional and local planning.
Page 48
Date: April 29th, 2009

Goal: CB2 Project Inception for discussion on Work Plan, budget, outputs /indicators, logframe
Location: Ministry of the Environment Council Room
Participants: 38, from almost all specialized departments of ministries and national institutions responsible
structures; List attached
Duration: 12:00 18:00
Meeting was opened by the salute of the UN Ambassador to Romania speech attached. It expressed the UN will
to responsibly be involved in the natural resources global management, a world patrimony which is at threat.
The presentation of the NEX (National Execution) projects framework by Ms. Monica Moldovan (Head of Energy
and Environment Department of UNDP Romania) followed (material attached). It detailed aspects of GEF funding
rules, as well as UNDP role and responsibilities, as project Implementation Agency.
Mr. Dan Manoleli, the Project Manager has presented the project aims and objectives and the overview of the
expected results, and the success indicators of the project. The presentation detailed both the outputs and the
activities to lead to outcomes achievement.
Plenary discussions referring to the presented documents have addressed the manner in which the project tasks
and proposed actions are considered relevant, feasible, pertinent, and coherent to the goals in view.
Table 1.Initial project Logic Model
Initial Project Logic Model
Goal
To expand Romanias capacity to generate global environmental benefits through mainstreaming
the Rio Conventions into national decision-making.
Objective
To strengthen systemic, institutional and individual capacity to integrate Rio Convention themes
into national, regional and local decision-making.
Convention commitments.
Outcome 2: Improved capacity of MOE and MAFRD

to integrate environmental and sectoral resource
management.
Output 2.1:
Enhanced technical and managerial
Output 1.1:
Institutional framework
capacity of MOE and MAFRD staff to
and processes for
integrate environmental and sectoral
coordinated management and
resource management, using Integrated
implementation of the Rio
Resource Management techniques
Convention established
Output 2.2:
Codes of good practice, checklists and
Output 1.2:
Legislation and norms
training established to strengthen
amended to better enable
Integrated Resource Management tools for
integrating environment into sectoral
Convention themes into
programmes and projects
policies, plans and
Output 2.3:
Regional Coordinating Mechanisms
programmes.
(RCMs) are established as demonstration
Output 1.3:
Environmental
models in two of Romanias eight
screening is part of the
Development Regions, then expanded to
national policy-making
the remaining six regions, based on lessons
process, and officials within
learned
the Public Policies Unit and
Output 2.4:
Each of the two model Regional
Page 49
two Inter-ministerial Councils

Coordinating Mechanisms implements a
are able to use it to integrate
demonstration activity which shows how
conventions into sectoral
Integrated Resource Management tools can
policies
be used to address priority regional issues
Output 1.4:
A convention monitoring
and the results are disseminated to all eight
system is part of national
Development Regions
State of the Environment
Output 2.5:
A peer training network and database
reporting, with targets and
to support integrated resource management
indicators to assess progress
is established to serve regional and local
on implementing the Rio
environmental and resource management
Conventions
staff.
Table 2.Revised Project Logic model with agreed changes at the level of Outputs
Revised Project Logic Model
Goal
To expand Romanias capacity to generate global environmental benefits through
mainstreaming the Rio Conventions into national decision-making.
Objective
To strengthen systemic, institutional and individual capacity to integrate Rio Convention
themes into national, regional and local decision-making.
Convention commitments.
Output 1.1:
Institutional
framework and processes
for coordinated
management and
implementation of the Rio
Convention established
Output 1.2:
Suggestions for
amendments of legislation
and norms to better enable
policies, plans and
programmes, submitted for
Gov official approval.
Output 1.3:
Screening,
monitoring and reporting
system, as part of
Integrated Conventions
requirements into sectorial
policies, is in place.
Outcome 2: Improved capacity of MOE and

MAFRD to integrate environmental and sectoral
resource management.
Output 2.1:
Enhanced technical and managerial
capacity of MOE and MAFRD staff to
integrate environmental and sectoral
resource management, using Integrated
Resource Management techniques
Output 2.2:
Codes of good practice, checklists
and training established to strengthen
Integrated Resource Management tools
for integrating environment into sectoral
programmes and projects
Output 2.3.:
Regional Coordinating
Mechanisms (RCMs) are established
and implemented as demonstration
models in two of Romanias eight
Development Regions (DRs) and will
implement demonstration activities in
these two region, then these RCM will
be expanded to the remaining six
regions, based on lessons learned
Output 2.4:
A peer training network and
database to support integrated resource
management is established to serve
regional and local environmental and
resource management staff.
Comments on revised Project logic Model (during inception workshop) :

Page 50
Change (i)
Output 1.2 :
Reasons for change:
This suggestion was raised by the GEF political focal point, also the Ministry of Environment representative, and
agreed by all the participants, particularly
Because the long process for legislation amendments is well known. The official approval of legislation and
norms is beyond the project control and moreover, the final approval of the suggested changes can
happen after the project closure.
Therefore, the output was suggested to be rephrased in the light of the above.
Change (ii)
Outputs 1.3, and 1.4 shall be mixed into: Screening, monitoring and reporting system, as part of integrated
conventions requirements into sectoral policies, is in place; public policies units, in each ministry
should monitor the need for interventions, and approvals;
Reasons for change:
Outputs 1.3, and 1.4 shall be mixed into: Screening, monitoring and reporting system, as part of integrated
conventions requirements into sectoral policies, is in place; public policies units, in each ministry should monitor
the need for interventions and approvals. The key words: "screening, monitoring and reporting " will address the
two outputs in a concise and shorter manner.
One of the priorities under the EU-related Administrative Capacity Operational Programme is to modernize the
formulation of public policy proposals (PPPs) and the linkage of policy-making and institutional strategic plans
(ISPs). In July 2005, Romania created a new Public Policy Unit (PPU) to better enable systematic policy analysis
and to harmonize sectoral policies through the formation of several high-level decision-making bodies. These
include a Strategic Planning Council and 10 Permanent Inter-ministerial Councils, which were created to promote
inter-agency review and discussion of significant public policy proposals. (See Figure 1.) These councils replaced
137 previous permanent inter-ministerial committees. Two of the new Councils relate directly to convention
themes:
#8 (VIII) Agriculture, Rural Development and Environment,
#9 (IX) Regional Development, Infrastructure, Territory Planning and Tourism.
The PPU has also adopted a new policy development process, which incorporates policy analysis, including
requirements to assess environmental impacts and conduct stakeholder consultation. However, there are currently
no procedural or technical guidelines to guide this environmental screening process, nor are there personnel with
the capacity to do so, either in the ministries submitting the policies, or in the Public Policies Units. To date, there
is no reference to ensuring policy coherence with commitments the Rio Conventions or other MEAs. In addition,
the proposed composition of the Council on Regional Development, Infrastructure, Territory Planning and
Tourism does not presently include MM. However, an interviewee in the Public Policies Unit confirmed that the
committees have not yet met and there is a possibility that the Councils composition could be changed.
The recent change lays on a structure established in each ministry and paid directly by the General Secretariate of
the Government and not by the line Ministry. The challenge is the needs of training for such an enlarged base of
people dealing with plans, programs and stategies, in order to maistream Rio Conventions into sectoral policies.
They will be trained mainly on Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), other environmental screening
methods, reporting requirements at national and international level, and also other means of integrating
environmental considerations into development planning.
Page 51
The inclusion of Rio Conventions themes in the SOE reports will be monitored closely through indicator 2 and
indicator 10
Change (iii)
Outputs 2.3 and 2.4 have almost similar content, and the anticipative accomplish should be reduced to: Regional
Coordinating Mechanisms (RCMs) are established and implemented as demonstration models in two
of Romanias eight Development Regions (DRs), then expanded to the remaining six regions, based
on lessons learned which, thus, may cover for output 2.4, as well;
Reason for change:
Output 2.4 was too descriptive and it has been reduced to one key word" implemented" and added to output 2.3;
In this way, output 2.3 in the new formulation is referring to both "establishment" and "implementation" of the
RCM and pilot demonstration activities - which will be followed by the replication of some models validated by
practice.
The new formulation: Output 2.3; Regional Coordinating Mechanisms (RCMs) are established and implemented
as demonstration models in two of Romanias eight Development Regions (DRs) and will implement
demonstration activities in these two regions; then these RCM will be expanded to the remaining six regions,
based on lessons learned
The Regional Coordinating Mechanisms (RCM) will be designed and established in two development regions.
Based on these mechanisms, each of the two regions will implement demonstration activities in order to
demonstrate the effectiveness of the RCM. If proven effective, the RCM will be established for all the eight
development regions.
Page 52
The discussions regarding the outputs, indicators and activities are presented in the respective sections of this
report.
Further comments of the stakeholders are presented bellow:
-
Crisis means opportunity to strategize and partnering for sustainability: on institutional framework and
mandates re-defining;
Plan capacity to integrate conventions requirements into sectoral and local plans;
Ministry of Environment and Agriculture should combine implementation though policies (strategy +
tactics) + financial mechanisms; And, since budget dictates, then policies shall be subdued to existing
resources, so that to be feasible;
Adaptive management shall be reflected in Indicators and Implementation approach as flexible tools;
Coordination is needed (e.g.: Agency of Natural Mineral Resources does not comply with any other laws)
the example of local authorities roles and intervention planning in emergency situations should be
followed;
It must be considered that, wherever law is not respected, it either is no money for, or proper info and
training is missing; therefore, law should comprise appropriate stipulations in these aspects too (law,
methodology, incentives, control, enforcement, responsible authority, certification, permits, etc);
As well, too much legislation, or too large docs are not helpful;
Integration and proper guidance should be in all ministries attention; Conventions requirements should be
correlated with other laws, and made accessible to everybodys understanding; the procedural frameworks
is a must;
Transparency also means the duty of scientists to raise awareness of decision-makers; at the same time, it
also means from decision makers to inform the public, on the laws; and, for both sectors (research and
policy), means to have a Communication Strategy;
Even national projects, are not known, to the general public; National Institute of Statistics shall also be
involved, especially in designing and registering of Environmental Indicators
Other comments made were to strengthen the needs for:

- Reporting formats to be respected, for concurrence, at all levels;
- Procedural framework to be clearly set;
- Vulnerable groups to also be addressed;
- Coordination among all institutions with abilities to address conventions requirements is crucial;
Competency conflicts shall be prevented and avoided;
- Training of Focal Points staff is essential;
- Need for a National Research Program aiming the global problems;
- Integration is a must with improved capacity of both ministries (environment and agriculture), to master
that.
As for the project pilot regions, for the time being there have been proposed Galati and Brasov.
Prepared by Rodica Stefanescu Assistant Manager
Page 53
Annex 3: Revised Log-Frame

Based on the review of indicators to measure project progress, their respective baseline and target values at project end and also the review of risks, it is proposed to
revise the log-frame accordingly. The log-frame presented below reflects all the proposed changes presented in Section 3, 5 and 6 of this report.
Project Strategy
Indicator
Baseline value
Target value and date
Assumptions
Goal: To expand Romanias capacity to generate global environment benefits through mainstreaming the Rio conventions into national decision-making
systemic, institutional
and individual capacity
to integrate Rio
national, regional2 and
local decision-making
1. Alignment of institutional,
legislative and policy frameworks
with the objectives and obligations
of the global environmental
conventions signed by Romania
2. Quality of national monitoring

reports and communications
3. Capacity development monitoring

scorecard rating
Outcome 1. Enhanced
institutional, legislative,
4. Responsibilities for conventions

obligations assigned to institutions
Romania is committed to meet

its conventions obligations;
however, some critical gaps in
frameworks exist; including an
uneven capacity within key
ministries
National reports and
communications for meeting
produced but reflect a nonintegrated approach within the
national frameworks for
environmental management
Conventions obligations
are well integrated into
national institutional, legal
and policy frameworks
Capacity for:
Engagement: 2 of 9
information and knowledge: 2
of 15
development: 1 of 9
Management and
Monitor/evaluate: 1 of 6
Convention units in place, but
institutional framework is
Capacity for:
Engagement: 7 of 9
information and
knowledge: 10 of 15
development: 8 of 9
Management and
Monitor/evaluate: 5 of 6
All conventions
obligations are clearly
SOE and other national

reports/ communications
include quality information
on the state of
implementation of the
Conventions in Romania
NCSA reports for

baseline information
Project progress
Evaluation reports
National, regional and
local plans, strategies
and programmes
Reports to conventions
secretariats
National State of
Environment Reports
Evaluation report of
quality of SOE reports
with regard to
incorporation of status
of implementation of
Rio conventions
Mid-term and final
evaluation reports
Annual PIRs
Capacity assessment
reports
NCSA reports for

baseline information
Government priorities may

change including the
government commitment to
integrate conventions
obligations into environment
management framework in
Romania (political);
The objective of the project
might be too ambitious and the
support from the project
resources and the government
resources and the timeframe
may not be adequate to initiate
the changes required by the
project strategy (strategic);
Lack of relevant expertise in
local market may result in
delay of required outputs and
distortion of targeted deadlines
(operational);
The government does not

fulfil its international
2 Regional refers to Development Regions established to conform to European Union requirements for an intermediate statistical territorial level between country and county for pre and post accession
absorption of programme funds.
Page 54
Project Strategy
policy and planning
framework for
implementing Rio
Convention
commitments
Indicator
Baseline value
fragmented and convention
implementation is uneven
National focal points report
independently to Conventions,
with little collaboration;
decisions sometimes conflict
5. Effective multi-agency conventions

Conventions fall under two

National Councils, but there is
no provision to address them
No formal inter-agency
No regional or local agency
MOE is not on Council #8 on
Territorial Planning, Energy
and Infrastructure
6. Conventions obligations integrated

in related legislation
Laws in place to ratify Rio

conventions, but secondary
laws and norms not revised to
be consistent with obligations
mandates

assigned to key institutions
Institutional mechanism
(e.g. regular meetings;
modification of the job
description) that will
ensure the cooperation of
the three focal points with
regard to implementation
of the Rio Conventions,
especially reporting
requirements
Convention management
units are rationalized to be
more efficient and
effective;
National Councils are
empowered and tasked to
address the issues of Rio
conventions
implementation
Coordination mechanisms
established among
convention units, and
between these units and
other relevant Ministries,
regional and local agencies
Membership of Interministerial Councils
permits integration of
convention obligations into
sectoral policy-making and
planning
Key laws and norms
revised to be consistent
with convention
obligations
Secondary legislation
and norms in place to
enable integration of
conventions into sectoral
policy-making and
planning processes
Page 55
Project reports
Mandates of agencies
and sub-units
Organigrammes
New/revised laws and
norms
Government Decisions,
Ministerial Orders, etc.
Organigrammes and
normative documents
Work plans and
progress reports,
financial reports
Convention reports
Ministry annual reports
Staff interviews and
focus groups
Government Decrees
setting out composition
and operational rules
for key policy councils
(#8 and #9)
Secondary (enabling)
Government
Documents
Government and
Ministers Orders,
Decrees and
regulations
Assumptions
obligations; including those
from the 3 Rio Conventions
(political);
New legislation and policies
proposed by the project are
not adopted by the
Government and/or the
Parliament (political);
Despite new legislation for a
multi-agency coordination
mechanism to address
conventions obligations no
institutional changes occur
(strategic);
The institutional changes
might not be followed by
appropriate level of resources
(HR and $$) to implement the
Project Strategy
Outcome 2. Improved
capacity of MOE and
MAFRD to integrate
environmental and
sectoral resource
management
Indicator
7. Conventions obligations integrated
in related policies, national plans,
strategies and programmes
Baseline value
Rio convention action plans
not mainstreamed into national
and regional policies and
planning
MOE and MAFRD
programmes and activities are
sector-oriented, with little
collaboration

Related national policymaking and planning
processes incorporate
convention obligations
MOE and MAFRD
Programs and activities are
intersectoral oriented
8. Conventions obligations embedded

into effective environmental
screening process of policy making
New policy processes require

environmental screening of
policies, but conventions are
not addressed and there are no
technical tools or expertise to
help policy proponents do
screening
Environmental screening
tools (e.g., checklists)
incorporating conventions
obligations are part of
policy-making processes
More than 40 key officials
trained on environmental
screening
9. Roles and responsibilities for

obligations assigned in job
descriptions

obligations are not well
assigned to staffs and key
ministries
Roles and responsibilities

for implementing
clearly assigned to key job
descriptions
10. Implementation of conventions

monitored effectively and
information included in SOE
reports
Annual State of Environment

(SOE) reporting system in
place, but no mechanism to
track performance on
convention implementation
and synergies
Ministry knowledge of SOE
and how to use it to design
programmes is weak
11. MOE and MAFRD staff with the

necessary skills and knowledge to
address conventions obligations
Uneven capacity of focal

points and convention units to
manage and implement
conventions
Indicators to monitor
identified and are part of
SOE reporting
Database of convention
activities established and
integrated into related
ministrys databases
Key staff trained (100
people) to monitor and
report on SOE indicators
Staff trained (30 people)
and apply skills and
knowledge to the
implementation of
Staff trained in key IRM
Page 56
Agendas and minutes
of Councils
Environmental and
sectoral programme
and project documents
Environmental
screening documents
(e.g., checklists)
SOE reports
Control Staff Reports
Internal ministry
reports
Registers
Training records and
evaluations
Media coverage of
SOE
Job descriptions
NCSA reports
Project reports
Convention reports
Ministry policies and
reports
SOE reports
Databases
Assumptions
The institutional changes

might not be followed by
these institutions working
better together (operational)
New tools are adopted but
they may require additional
resources to be used; which
might not be available
(operational);
The RCM model and IRM
tools are adopted by the
Ministry but the uptake by the
regions is not happening
facing too many constraints
and capacity gaps
(operational);
Monitoring the conventions
obligations is strengthened
but results are not reported
fully due to political
interference (political)
Project Strategy
Indicator
Baseline value
12. Effective code of practice,

guidelines, checklists to address
13. Effective participation of

stakeholders in the implementation
of conventions
14. A model for regional coordination
mechanism (RCM) is developed
and adopted by two Development
Regions (South-East 2 and Center
7) using integrated resource
management (IRM) tools
efficient, and adaptive
project management,
monitoring and
evaluation.
Non-government stakeholders
are using some IRM technique,
but government-nongovernmental organizations
collaboration is rare
Minimal stakeholder
There are no collaborative
mechanisms across units and
ministries at regional and local
levels to implement national
environmental and sectoral
policies and plans
15. The RCM model and IRM tools

are replicated to all regions in
Romania
Conventions and integrated

resource management not
addressed at regional and local
levels, including Agenda 21
16. An IRM peer training network

used by participants throughout
Romania
There is no formal network but

some local authorities and staff
in regional and local agencies
use some IRM techniques
MOE and MAFRD and EPAs
have a database to which the
IRM database could be linked
Management procedures are
put in place
No project web site available
17. Progress reports summarizing the

performance of project
18. Project information readily
available

techniques (120 people
taking into consideration
also the territorial
decentralized units)
IRM tools strengthened
through additional
guidelines, codes of good
practice, checklists, etc.
All relevant stakeholders
involved in convention
implementation
Formal Regional
Collaborative Mechanisms
involving national,
regional and local
authorities developed and
tested in two regions
RCM Model adopted by

MOE and MAFRD for all
eight regions, with possible
expansion to include
regional office of other
ministries
Peer training network
established and functioning
with members the two pilot
regions and other regions
Database established with
IRM references and
contacts
Project implementation
well documented
Project information is
readily available
Page 57
Assumptions
Guidelines, codes of
practice and checklists
Membership of
participative processes
Media coverage
Normative documents
setting out RCM
composition, terms of
reference and operating
procedures
Minutes of RCM
meetings
Surveys, interviews and
focus groups with
RCM members
Ministries decisions
and orders
Peer network
documents
Database
Staff surveys, interview
and focus groups
National and regional
workshop proceedings
Project reports
Project web site and
project reports
The project partners (MOE,

MAFRD, U of Bucharest,
UNDP) will continue to
support the project and
allocate the required
resources for its
Project Strategy
Indicator
Baseline value
Page 58
Assumptions
implementation (operational)
Annex 4: Capacity Development Monitoring Scorecard

Capacity Result /
Indicator
Staged Indicators
Ratin
g
Comments
Score
Next Steps
Contribution
by Outcome
Dissemination of competent
authorities set
responsibilities, to as many
as possible stakeholders,
and their involvement in
debates on these
responsibilities issue
CR 1: Capacities for engagement

Indicator 1
Degree of
legitimacy/mand
ate of lead
environmental
management
organizations to
address
conventions
obligations
Indicator 2
Existence of
operational comanagement
mechanisms for
conventions
obligations
Indicator 3
Existence of
cooperation with
stakeholder
groups
Institutional responsibilities for

conventions obligations are not clearly
defined
Institutional responsibilities for
conventions obligations are identified
Authority and legitimacy of all lead
organizations responsible for conventions
obligations are partially recognized by
stakeholders
Authority and legitimacy of all lead
organizations responsible for conventions
obligations recognized by stakeholders
No co-management mechanisms are in
place
Some co-management mechanisms are in
place and operational
Some co-management mechanisms are
formally established through agreements,
MOUs, etc.
Comprehensive co-management
mechanisms are formally established and
are operational/functional
Identification of stakeholders and their

participation/involvement in decisionmaking is poor
Stakeholders are identified but their
participation in decision-making is limited
Stakeholders are identified and regular
consultations mechanisms are established
Stakeholders are identified and they
actively contribute to established
participative decision-making processes
0
Convention units in place, but institutional
framework is fragmented and convention
implementation is uneven.
1
1
National focal points report independently to

Conventions, with little collaboration; decisions
sometimes conflict
3
0
Conventions fall under two National Councils, but

there is no provision to address them
No formal inter-agency coordination mechanisms
No regional or local agency involvement in

conventions
Setting-up of a comanagement framework, at

the level of the GORs
General Secretariat at the
Public policies Unit for
the Permanent InterGovernmental Committees.
MOE is not on Council #8 on Territorial Planning,

Energy and Infrastructure
Proposals on the
reconfiguration of these
Committees, corresponding
to the projects objectives
Stakeholders are not involved when the case is
Enlargement of database
regarding the stakeholders
and a proactive approach
by asking their advise when
different decison making
process is in progress
1, 2
0
1
1
2
3
Page 59
Capacity Result /
Indicator
Staged Indicators
Ratin
g
Total score for CR1
Next Steps
Contribution
by Outcome
Stakeholders are, in general, aware of the problems

related to global environment, but they do not know
the possible solutions and the ways that they could
participate in the assimilation of these solutions, at
local level
Publication, through
appropriate media, and
within the acceptable limits
of the project budget, of the
most interesting success
stories
The information needs on conventions obligations are

identified but the information management
infrastructure is inadequate
The setting-up of an
appropriate framework for
the information exchange,
especially among the
competent authorities at the
central level, and at the
level of the field
stakeholders
Comments
Score
CR 2: Capacities to generate, access and use information and knowledge

Indicator 4
Degree of global
environmental
awareness of
stakeholders
Indicator 5
Access and
sharing of
environmental
information on
conventions
obligations by
stakeholders
Indicator 6
Existence of
environmental
Stakeholders are not aware about global

environmental issues and their related
possible solutions
Stakeholders are aware about global
environmental issues but not about the
possible solutions
environmental issues and the possible
solutions but do not know how to
participate
environmental issues and are actively
participating in the implementation of
related solutions
The information needs on conventions
obligations are not identified and the
information management infrastructure is
inadequate
obligations are identified but the
information management infrastructure is
inadequate
obligations is partially available and shared
among stakeholders but are not covering all
focal areas and/or the information
management infrastructure to manage and
give information access to the public is
limited
Comprehensive information on
conventions obligations is available and
shared through an adequate information
management infrastructure
No environmental education programmes
are in place on conventions obligations
Environmental education programmes are
partially developed and partially delivered
0
1
1
3
0
0
1
There are no education programs regarding the

obligations under the conventions
Diverse curricula at master level are rare (less then
Page 60
Proposals for the Ministry

of Education and Research
on the setting-up of a
distinct Education Program
Capacity Result /
Indicator
education
programmes on
conventions
obligations
Indicator 7
Extent of the
linkage between
global
environmental
research/science
and policy
development
Indicator 8
Extent of
inclusion/use of
traditional
knowledge in
global
environment
decision-making
Staged Indicators
Environmental education programmes are
fully developed but partially delivered
Comprehensive environmental education
programmes exist and are being delivered
No linkage exist between policy
development related to conventions
obligations and science/research strategies
and programmes
Research needs for policy development
related to conventions obligations are
identified but are not translated into
relevant research strategies and
programmes
Relevant research strategies and
programmes for policy development related
to conventions obligations exist but the
research information is not responding fully
to the policy research needs
Relevant research results are available for
policy development related to conventions
obligations
Traditional knowledge is ignored and not
taken into account into relevant
Traditional knowledge is identified and
recognized as important but is not collected
and used in relevant participative decisionmaking processes
Traditional knowledge is collected but is
not used systematically into relevant
Traditional knowledge is collected, used
and shared for effective participative
decision-making processes
Ratin
g
Comments
Score
five)
Next Steps
(including the informal
education) on the issue of
parties obligations under
the Rio conventions
0
Propose of topics which
shall figure in the National
Research Program
1
0
There is no explicit research program dedicated to the

integrated approach of the development policies, in
the line of the Rio Conventions requirements
Identification of the way in

which the results of such
research activities can
reach the decisions and law
makers in intelligible and
friendly formats
3
0
1
0
10
Traditional knowledge is ignored and not taken into

account into relevant participative decision-making
processes
Identification of the
traditional knowledge
application and the
communication of
successful results that local
communities benefit from
The environmental planning and strategy

development process does not produce environmental
Taking into consideration of

the political reasons of local
2
3
Total score for CR2

CR 3: Capacities for strategy, policy and legislation development
Indicator 9

development process does not produce
Page 61
Contribution
by Outcome
Capacity Result /
Indicator
Extent of the
environmental
planning and
strategy
development
process
Indicator 10
Existence of an
adequate
environmental
policy and
regulatory
frameworks
integrating
conventions
obligations
Indicator 11
Adequacy of the
global
Staged Indicators
environmental plans and strategies
development process does produce
adequate environmental plans and
strategies integrating conventions
obligations but there are not
implemented/used
Adequate environmental plans and
strategies are produced integrating
conventions obligations but there are only
partially implemented because of funding
constraints and/or other problems
development process is well coordinated by
the lead environmental organizations and
produces the required environmental plans
and strategies integrating conventions
obligations; which are being implemented
The environmental policy and regulatory
frameworks are insufficient; they do not
provide an enabling environment for
Some relevant environmental policies and
laws exist but few are implemented and
enforced
Adequate environmental policy and
legislation frameworks addressing
conventions obligations exist but there are
problems in implementing and enforcing
them
Adequate policy and legislation
frameworks are implemented and provide
an adequate enabling environment for
addressing conventions obligations; a
compliance and enforcement mechanism is
established and functions
The availability of environmental
information on conventions obligations for
decision-making is lacking
Some environmental information on
Ratin
g
Comments
Score
Next Steps
plans and strategies integrating conventions

obligations
and regional development

in the context of the
awareness regarding the
effects of the global
warming, of the
desertification, and of the
biodiversity loss, and
(legislative and
institutional) proposals for
land reclamation and the
elaboration of the
development strategies in
accordance with the
obligations under the
conventions
Major weaknesses in the implementation of the legal

requirements
Solutions for the laws

effective and efficient
enforcement through the
Conventions have been
adopted, and of the
reglementations which
accompanied these
Contribution
by Outcome
0
1
The availability of environmental information on

conventions obligations for decision-making is
lacking
Page 62
Ways and means to

facilitate access to
environmental information
included in the texts of the
Capacity Result /
Indicator
environmental
information
available for
decision-making
Staged Indicators
conventions obligations exists but it is not
sufficient to support environmental
decision-making processes
Relevant environmental information on
conventions obligations is made available
to environmental decision-makers but the
process to update this information is not
functioning properly
Political and administrative decisionmakers obtain and use updated
environmental information on conventions
obligations to make environmental
decisions
Ratin
g
Comments
Score
Next Steps
Contribution
by Outcome
Conventions,
For decisions and law
makers
Total score for CR3
CR 4: Capacities for management and implementation

Indicator 12
Existence and
mobilization of
resources for
conventions
obligations
Indicator 13
Availability of
required
technical skills
and technology
transfer
The environmental organizations dont

have adequate resources for programmes
and projects related to conventions
obligations and the requirements have not
been assessed
The resource requirements are known but
are not being addressed
The funding sources for these resource
requirements are partially identified and the
resource requirements are partially
addressed
Adequate resources are mobilized and
available for the functioning of the lead
environmental organizations
The necessary required skills and
technology to address conventions
obligations are not available and the needs
are not identified
The required skills and technologies needs
are identified as well as their sources
The required skills and technologies are
obtained but their access depend on foreign
sources
The required skills and technologies are
1
0
The environmental organizations dont have adequate

resources for programmes and projects related to
conventions obligations and the requirements have
not been assessed
Identification and proposals

on priorities allocation of
human and material
resources
Knowledge and technologies which are addressing

the obligations under the conventions
The data basis on the

available technologies
which are addressed to the
major issues for which the
conventions were
elaborated
1, 2
0
1
2
Access to the technological resources is conditioned

by the external funding and by the intellectual
property rights
Page 63
Capacity Result /
Indicator
Staged Indicators
Ratin
g
Score
Comments
Next Steps
Contribution
by Outcome
available and there is a national-based

mechanism for updating the required skills
and for upgrading the technologies
Total score for CR4
CR 5: Capacities to monitor and evaluate

Indicator 14
Adequacy of the
project
monitoring
process
Irregular project monitoring is being done

without an adequate monitoring framework
detailing what and how to monitor the
particular project or programme
An adequate resourced monitoring
framework is in place but project
monitoring is irregularly conducted
Regular participative monitoring of results
in being conducted but this information is
only partially used by the
project/programme implementation team
Monitoring information is produced timely
and accurately and is used by the
implementation team to learn and possibly
to change the course of action
None or ineffective evaluations are being
conducted without an adequate evaluation
plan; including the necessary resources
An adequate evaluation plan is in place but
evaluation activities are irregularly
conducted
Evaluations are being conducted as per an
adequate evaluation plan but the evaluation
results are only partially used by the
project/programme implementation team
Effective evaluations are conducted timely
and accurately and are used by the
implementation team
Irregular project monitoring is being done without an

adequate monitoring framework detailing what and
how to monitor the particular project or programme
Guidelines for the

facilitation of a monitoring
useful to the adaptative
management (adoption of
adequate measures in the
conditions of frequent
changes of priorities)
An adequate evaluation plan is in place but

evaluation activities are irregularly conducted and
without an assessment of necessary resources
Guidelines for adopting an

evaluation project plan
Total score for CR5
Combined total score for CR1-CR5
7/45
34/45
Indicator 15
Adequacy of the
project
evaluation
process
0
1
Page 64
Annex 5: Monitoring and Evaluation Framework

Monitoring and Evaluation Plan
The monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of the project will be conducted in accordance with established
UNDP, GEF and MOE and MAFRD procedures and will be executed by the project management team with
support from the UNDP Country Office (UNDP-CO) and the UNDP/GEF Regional Center in Bratislava. The
objectives of this M&E plan are: (i) to improve project management and implementation; (ii) to help
participants to adapt the project changing circumstances and incorporate lessons learned; and (iii) to promote
replication of key project elements in other countries and regions. Below is presented the key elements of this
monitoring and evaluation plan. It is followed by an indicative M&E work plan and a corresponding budget.
Roles and Responsibilities
The Project Implementation Unit (PIU) is responsible for carrying out the monitoring function of the project
and write progress reports. These progress reports will be presented to the Project Steering Committee (PSC)
for endorsement and be distributed to UNDP-CO, UNDP/GEF Regional Coordination Unit (RCU) and MOE
and MAFRD.
Mode of Operation
The National Project Manager (NPM) will continuously report to UNDP, MOE and MAFRD on the progress
achieved by the project. The NPM is responsible to liaise with the UNDP Portfolio Coordinator and the
National Project Director (NPD) at MOE. Presentations will be made at management meetings to review the
progress of the project and make recommendations on points to be improved or change the directions of the
project if necessary in order to ensure an effective implementation, a better coordination, including with other
related initiatives in Romania. Any delays or difficulties faced during implementation will be quickly
communicated to UNDP-CO and the NPD so that the appropriate support or corrective measures can be
adopted in a timely and remedial fashion.
The project will be subject to Steering Committee reviews every 6 months. This is the highest policy-level
meeting of the parties directly involved in the implementation of the project. Once a year, the Project
Implementation Unit will prepare the Project Implementation Review (PIR) and submit it to UNDP-CO,
MOE, MAFRD and the UNDP/GEF RCU at least two weeks prior to the meeting for review and comments.
The PIR will be used as one of the basic documents for discussions in the steering committee annual
meetings. The NPM will present the PIR to the meeting participants, highlighting policy issues and
recommendations for decisions. Separate reviews of each project component may also be conducted if
necessary.
A terminal steering committee review will be held in the last month of project operations. The NPM is
responsible for preparing the Terminal Report and submitting it to the NPD, MOE, MAFRD, UNDP-CO and
UNDP/GEF RCU. A draft should be prepared at least two months in advance of the said meeting in order to
allow for review, and will serve as the basis for discussions in the meeting. The terminal review considers the
implementation of the project as a whole, paying particular attention to whether the project has achieved its
stated objective and contributed to the broader expected environmental objective. It decides whether any
actions are still necessary, particularly in relation to sustainability of project results, and acts as a vehicle
through which lessons learnt can be captured to feed into other projects being developed.
Project Inception Phase
The project inception phase started in March 2009 and included a project inception workshop held on April
16, 2009 in Bucharest. The project strategy was reviewed as well as the performance indicators and the risks
associated with the implementation of the project. The inception phase will be completed with an inception
report that will contain this M&E plan.
The main objective of the inception phase is to assist the project team to understand and take ownership of the
Page 65
projects goals and objectives, as well as finalize preparation of the project's first annual work plan on the
basis of the project's log-frame. The main objective of the inception workshop is to:
(i)
Introduce project staff, MOE, MAFRD, and the UNDP-CO team which will support the project
during its implementation, including the UNDP/GEF Regional Coordinating Unit (RCU) staff;
(ii) Detail roles, support services and complementary responsibilities of UNDP-CO and RCU staff
vis vis the project team;
(iii) Detailed roles, responsibilities and functions of relevant stakeholders within the project decisionmaking structures and mechanisms
(iv) Provide a detailed overview of UNDP-GEF reporting, monitoring and evaluation requirements,
with emphasis on the Annual Project Implementation Reviews (PIRs), project steering committee
meetings, as well as mid-term and final evaluations.
A detailed schedule of project review meetings of various kinds will be developed by the project management,
in consultation with project implementation partners and stakeholder representatives and incorporated in the
Inception Report. Such a schedule will include: (i) tentative time frames for Steering Committee Meetings, (ii)
project related Monitoring and Evaluation activities.
Measurement of Progress
The revised log-frame provides performance indicators to measure the progress of the project towards the
achievement of project targets (see Section 4 and Annex 2). The log-frame also includes for each indicator the
baseline and the target value at end of project, as well as it corresponding source of verification. The progress
will also be measured using the Capacity Development Monitoring Scorecard (see Annex 3), which will be
updated at a minimum at the mid-point of the project (timed with the MTE: see below Mid-Term Evaluation)
and at the end of the project. The performance indicators will form the basis on which the project's
Monitoring and Evaluation system will be implemented.
The capacity development monitoring scorecard will be used to establish the project baseline at inception, at
mid-point of project implementation and finally at the end of project implementation. The rating from project
inception will also provide a useful capacity review at the start of the project; including the current
weaknesses and strengths.
Monitoring and Reporting
The NPM in consultations with the NPD, MOE, MAFRD and UNDP-CO team will be responsible for the
preparation and submission of the following reports that form part of the monitoring process.
Inception Report (IR)
A Project Inception Report will be prepared at the end of the inception phase (May 2009) by the NPM. A
draft will be reviewed by UNDP-CO and the NDP, then it will be circulated to project counterparts who will
be given a two-week period to respond with comments or queries. Finally, the final inception report will be
submitted to the first PSC meeting for their review and endorsement. This report will include:
Review of Project Strategy: goal, objective, outcomes and outputs
Stakeholders Involvement: partnership strategy
Management Arrangements: a detailed narrative on institutional roles, responsibilities, coordinating
actions and feedback mechanisms of project related partners;
Note on adaptive management
Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (this document)
A detailed first year Annual Work Plan (AWP) divided in quarterly periods detailing activities and
progress indicators that will guide implementation during the first year of the project;
Detailed project budget for the first full year of implementation, prepared on the basis of the AWP,
including any monitoring and evaluation requirements to effectively measure project performance
during the first year;
Dates of support missions from UNDP/GEF or relevant international consultants;
Time-frames for meetings of the project's decision making structures (PSC);
A section will be included on progress to date on project establishment and start-up activities and an
Page 66
update of any changed external conditions that may effect project implementation.
Summaries/Minutes of project inception workshop (April 16, 2009)
Quarterly Progress Reports
Short reports outlining main updates in project progress, work plan for next quarter and possible management
issues and recommended solutions will be provided quarterly by the NPM to the NPD, UNDP-CO and
UNDP/GEF RCU. Format for these reports will be provided by UNDP-CO.
Project Implementation Reviews (PIRs)
The PIR is the common UNDP/GEF tool for annual project monitoring and the GEF Monitoring and
Evaluation Unit provides the scope and content of the PIR. It is an essential management and monitoring tool
for project managers and is a mechanism for extracting lessons from ongoing projects. Once the project has
been under implementation for a year, a PIR must be completed by the NPM. The PIR should be prepared
prior to the annual Steering Committee meetings and should be discussed at the Steering Committee, so that
the result would be a PIR that has been agreed upon by the PIU, MOE, MAFRD and UNDP-CO.
Project risks (see Section 5) will be reviewed during these annual reviews and management responses will be
updated and entered into the UNDP-ATLAS system and reported in the PIRs.
The PIRs are collected, reviewed and analyzed by the UNDP/GEF RCU prior to sending them to the focal
area clusters at the UNDP/GEF headquarters. The focal area clusters supported by the UNDP/GEF
Monitoring and Evaluation Unit analyze the PIRs by focal area, theme and region for common issues/results
and lessons.
Periodic Thematic/Technical Reports
As and when called for by UNDP-CO, UNDP/GEF RCU, MOE or MAFRD, the NPM will prepare specific
thematic reports, focusing on specific issues or areas of activity. The request for a thematic report will be
provided to the NPM in written form and will clearly state the issue or activities that need to be reported on.
These reports can be used as a form of lessons learnt exercise, specific oversight in key areas, or as
troubleshooting exercises to evaluate and overcome obstacles and difficulties encountered. UNDP is requested
to minimize its requests for thematic reports, and when such are necessary will allow reasonable timeframes
for their preparation by the NPM.
Project Terminal Report
During the last three months of the project the NPM will prepare the Project Terminal Report. This
comprehensive report will summarize all activities, achievements and outputs of the Project, objectives met,
or not achieved, use of GEF funds and co-financing funds, lessons learnt, structures and systems
implemented, etc. and will be the final statement of projects activities during its lifetime. It will also lay out
recommendations for any further steps that may need to be taken to ensure sustainability and replicability of
projects activities. The NPM is responsible for preparing the Terminal Report and submitting it to the NPD,
UNDP-CO and UNDP/GEF RCU. Once finalized, the Project Completion Report will be reviewed by a
terminal steering committee review, which will be held in the last month of project operations.
Project Publications
Project publications are a key method to document and disseminate project results and achievements. These
publications may be scientific or informational texts on activities and achievements of the project. They can
be in the form of journal articles, brochures, reports, multimedia publications, etc. The NPM will (in
consultation with UNDP-CO, UNDP/GEF RCU, the NPD and other relevant stakeholder groups) plan and
produce these publications in a consistent and recognizable format. Project resources are allocated for this in
the budget.
[In order to properly acknowledge GEF for providing funding, a GEF logo should appear on all relevant
GEF project publications (also applied to project hardware and vehicles purchased with GEF funds). Any
citation on publications regarding projects funded by GEF should also accord proper acknowledgment to
Page 67
GEF. The UNDP logo should be more prominent -- and separated from the GEF logo if possible, as UN
visibility is important for security purposes.]
Evaluation
The project will be subjected to two evaluations as follows:
Mid-term Evaluation
A Mid-Term Evaluation (MTE) will be undertaken at the mid-point of project implementation. A decision
will be made closer to this mid-point on conducting an internal or external MTE; based on how well the
implementation progresses. The Mid-Term Evaluation will determine progress being made towards the
achievement of outcomes and will identify course correction if needed. It will focus on the effectiveness,
efficiency and timeliness of project implementation; will highlight issues requiring decisions and actions; will
present initial lessons learned about project design, implementation and management; and will include an
update and discussion of the capacity development monitoring scorecard. Findings of this review will be
incorporated as recommendations for enhanced implementation during the final half of the projects term.
The organization, terms of reference and timing of the mid-term evaluation will be decided after consultation
between the parties. The terms of reference for this MTE will be prepared by the UNDP-CO in consultation
with the NPD, and based on guidance from the UNDP/GEF RCU. The NPD will participate in the selection
process of the evaluation team and will receive the draft evaluation report for comments.
Independent Final Evaluation
An independent final evaluation will take place at the end of project implementation, focusing on the same
issues as the mid-term evaluation, but with special emphasis on identification of capacities built of key
stakeholders for better address the Rio conventions obligations in Romania (including the update of the CD
monitoring scorecard). The final evaluation will also look at impact and sustainability of results, including the
potential for the achievement of global environmental benefits. The Final Evaluation should also provide
recommendations for follow-up activities. The Terms of Reference for this evaluation will be prepared by
UNDP-CO in consultation with the NPD, and based on guidance from the UNDP/GEF RCU. The NPD will
participate in the selection process of the evaluation team, will be consulted during evaluation process and
will receive the draft evaluation report for comments.
Audit Clause
Annual Audits will be conducted by a legally recognized Auditor; according to UNDP rules and regulations
and will be subcontracted by UNDP-CO.
Learning and Knowledge Sharing
Following the mid-term review, the project will support a regional mid-term lessons learned workshop. It will
be organized by MOE, MAFRD, PIU, UNDP-Romania and the UNDP Regional Centre to discuss and
disseminate lessons learned and best practices emerging from the first 1.5 years and gather ideas for project
refinement for the last 1.5 years.
Overall, results from the project will be disseminated within and beyond the project intervention zone through
a number of existing information sharing networks and forums. In addition:
The project will participate, as relevant and appropriate, in UNDP/GEF sponsored networks that
share common characteristics.
The project will identify and participate, as relevant and appropriate, in scientific, policy-based and/or
any other networks, which may be of benefit to project implementation through lessons learned.
The project will identify, analyze, and share lessons learned that might be beneficial in the design and
implementation of similar future projects. Identify and analyzing lessons learned is an on-going process. The
need to communicate such lessons is a requirement to be delivered not less frequently than once every 12
months. UNDP/GEF RCU shall provide a format and assist the project team in categorizing, documenting and
reporting on lessons learned. To this end, some project resources have been allocated in the project budget for
these activities.
Page 68
Indicative Monitoring and Evaluation Work Plan and Corresponding Budget

Type of M&E activity
Inception Workshop
Inception Report
Measurement of Progress
and Performance
(measured on an annual
basis)
PIR
Responsible Parties
NPM
NPD
UNDP-CO
UNDP/GEF RCU
NPM
UNDP-CO
Measurements by NPM
Oversight by UNDP-CO, NDP
and UNDP/GEF RCU
NPM
Review by NPD, UNDP-CO,
UNDP-GEF RCU
NPM as the Secretary to PSC
NPD
UNDP-CO
Steering Committee
Meetings
Thematic/Technical
Reports
Mid-term Evaluation
Final External Evaluation
Terminal Report
Lessons learned
Audit
Visits to field sites
(UNDP staff travel costs
to be charged to IA fees)
Budget US$
Excluding project team
Staff time
500 USD
None
To be determined as part
of the Annual Work Plan
preparation.
NPM
Hired Consultants as needed
NPM
NPD
UNDP- CO
UNDP-GEF RCU
NPM
NPD
UNDP-CO
UNDP-GEF RCU
External Consultants (i.e.
evaluation team)
NPM
NPD
UNDP-CO
NPM
UNDP-GEF RCU to suggest
formats for documenting best
practices, etc.)
UNDP-CO
NPM
UNDP-GEF RCU (as
appropriate)
Government representatives
TOTAL indicative COST

Excluding project team staff time and UNDP staff and travel
expenses
Time frame
Within first two

months of project
start up
Immediately
following IW
Annually prior to
PIR and to the
definition of annual
work plans
None
Annually
None
Twice a year: one to

review PIR and one
to review AWP
progress
tbd
As needed
25,000 USD
At mid-point of
project
implementation.
25,000 USD
At end of project
implementation
None
Three months before

the end of the
project and one
month prior to the
terminal steering
committee review
tbd
Yearly
15,000 USD
Yearly
None
Yearly
USD 65,500
Page 69

Inception Report CB2 - Final

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Inception Report CB2 - Final

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

UNDP-GEF project Strengthening Capacity to Integrate Environment and Natural

Resource Management for Global Environmental Benefits (CB2)

Project Inception Report

PROJECT FACT SHEET ........................................................................................................................................ 4

REVIEW OF PROJECT STRATEGY ................................................................................................................... 5

REVIEW OF PROJECT LOG-FRAME ........................................................................................................................ 5

PROJECT OVERSIGHT AND COORDINATION MECHANISMS ............................................................... 11

PROJECT ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE ............................................................................................................ 11

REVIEW OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT ....................................................................... 16

REVIEW OF INDICATORS ..................................................................................................................................... 16

REVIEW OF RISK MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................................. 22

REVIEW OF RISKS ............................................................................................................................................... 22

MONITORING AND EVALUATION FRAMEWORK ..................................................................................... 28

WORK PLAN ......................................................................................................................................................... 29

PROJECT OVERALL WORK PLAN ........................................................................................................................ 29

BUDGET / DISBURSEMENTS FOR PERIOD 2009-2010............................................................................... 41

Project Inception Report

MEA Multilateral Environmental Agreements

Project Inception Report

Project Inception Report

Context and Purpose of this Inception Report

Project Inception Report

Project Fact sheet

This Section presents the main facts about the project:

Outcome 2: Improved capacity of MOE and MAFRD to integrate

Output 2.1: Enhanced technical and managerial capacity of MOE

Review of Project Strategy

Review of Project Log-Frame

Review of Project Outputs and Activities

Output 1.1: Institutional framework and processes

Output 1.1: Institutional framework and

Project Inception Report

Revised Expected Outputs

the national policy-making process, and officials

Conventions themes into policies, plans

Output 2.1: Enhanced technical and managerial

Output 2.1: Enhanced technical and

Output 3.1: Project well managed

Rio Conventions and MEAs

Choice of Development Regions for demonstration models

Regional and Local

Municipality of Galati (at large town level)

Municipalities of Targu Mures and

Yes, oriented to water management and

Yes, both are in place

Yes, hosted an NCSA workshop

Project Oversight and Coordination Mechanisms

Project Organizational Structure

The diagram below indicates the organizational structure of the project.

Project Implementation Unit

Stakeholders Involvement During Project Design

Project Inception Report

Focal points for CBD

Coordination role, especially for CCD

Rector of the University

Liaise with project team to revise normative

Public Policy Unit

Identify and improve agency structures and

Schedule of Project Reviews

National Steering Committee

Senior International Technical Advisor (SITA)

Twice per year. One meeting to focus on the work plan

Project Inception Report

Review of Project Performance Measurement