Terminal Evaluation Of The UN Environment Project "Pilot Project On The .
Terminal Evaluation of the UN Environment project“Pilot project on the Development of Mercury Inventory inthe Russian Federation”Evaluation Office of UN EnvironmentFebruary 20181
Mercury Inventory Russian FederationTerminal Evaluation reportFebruary 2018Photo CreditThe picture of mercury flasks on the cover of this report is taken by COWI at the Russianmercury recovery plant Kubantsvetmet in Krasnodar, in the framework of the Arctic CouncilAssessment of Mercury Releases from the Russian Federation 2005. The picture was usedwith permission of COWI.For further information on this report, please contact:Evaluation Office of UN EnvironmentP. O. Box 30552-00100 GPONairobi KenyaTel: (254-20) 762 3389Email: chief.eou@unep.orgPilot project on the development of mercury inventory in the Russian FederationProject GEF ID 5222February 2018All rights reserved. (2017) Evaluation Office of UN EnvironmentEvaluation ConsultantWouter PronkEvaluation Office of UN EnvironmentPauline Marima – Evaluation ManagerMela Shah – Evaluation Programme Assistant2
Mercury Inventory Russian FederationTerminal Evaluation reportFebruary 2018DisclaimerThis report has been prepared by independent consultant evaluator Wouter Pronk and is aproduct of the Evaluation Office of UN Environment. The findings and conclusions expressedherein do not necessarily reflect the views of Member States or the UN Environment SeniorManagement.AcknowledgementsIn the process of information gathering for this Terminal Evaluation, the evaluator has beensupported by many people and organisations. The evaluator would like to convey his thanksto the Executing Agency of the project SRI Atmosphere and key Project Stakeholders: Ministryof Natural Resources and Environment, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Russian Chlor-alkaliAssociation (RusChlor), NGO Eco-Accord, US EPA, Swedish EPA, German FederalEnvironmental Agency, Ministry of Health, Russian Federal Consumer Rights Protection andHuman Health Control Service, Scientific research centre “Synthesis”, and D. MendeleevUniversity of Chemical Technology of Russia.Finally, the evaluator is grateful to the GEF Task Manager, Ludovic Bernaudat, Technical ExpertGunnar Futsaeter, Fund Managing Officer Anuradha Shenoy and UN Environment Evaluationand Programme Management team members Pauline Marima and Mela Shah for their untiringsupport throughout the evaluation process.Short biography of the consultantWouter Pronk is an independent consultant based in The Netherlands. Wouter Pronk holds aMaster degree in Slavonic Languages and has 20 years of experience in managingenvironmental and capacity building projects in Eastern Europe, Russia, the Caucasus, CentralAsia, India, Egypt, Vietnam and South Africa for the environmental NGOs MilieukontaktInternational and Green Cross Switzerland. Next to his work for both NGOs Mr. Pronk workedwith two Dutch engineering companies, internationally active in soil remediation projects.Since 2004, Mr. Pronk has been involved in POPs and soil remediation projects financed byThe Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, FAO, UN Environment, GEF, Green CrossSwitzerland, UNDP and The World Bank with a focus on awareness raising, environmental andsocial impact assessment and planning activities, technical capacity building, projectevaluation and stakeholder involvement.3
Mercury Inventory Russian FederationTerminal Evaluation reportFebruary 2018ABOUT THE EVALUATION1Joint Evaluation: NoReport Language(s): EnglishEvaluation Type: Terminal Project EvaluationBrief Description: This report is a terminal evaluation of a UN Environment-GEF projectimplemented between 2013 and 2017. The project was designed to assist Russia to buildcapacity and raise awareness towards the upcoming legally binding instrument on mercury,the Minamata Convention. As Russia is one of the largest emitters of mercury, dealing withmercury in Russia is considered to be one of the world priorities in the combat against theglobal adverse effects on human health and the environment from the chemical element.The specific project objective was to “strengthen capacity of the Russian Federation for theidentification of mercury sources, quantification, analysis and monitoring of mercuryreleases and identification of priority actions to address mercury issues under a futureglobal convention”The evaluation sought to assess project performance (in terms of relevance, effectivenessand efficiency), and determine outcomes and impacts (actual and potential) stemming fromthe project, including their sustainability. The evaluation has two primary purposes: (i) toprovide evidence of results to meet accountability requirements, and (ii) to promote learning,feedback, and knowledge sharing through results and lessons learned among UNEnvironment, the GEF and their executing partner ITDP and the relevant agencies of theproject participating countries.Key words: Project Evaluation; chemicals and wastes; Russia; mercury; mercury inventory;mercury emissions; mercury reduction; sound chemical management; mercury sources; TE;Terminal Evaluation; GEF; GEF Project1This data is used to aid the internet search of this report on the Evaluation Office of UN Environment Website4
Mercury Inventory Russian FederationTerminal Evaluation reportFebruary 2018Table of Contents1.Introduction . 202.Evaluation methods . 222.1.Overview . 222.2.Data collection and analysis . 222.3.Evaluation criteria and key questions . 232.4.Evaluation limitations . 242.5.Learning, communication and outreach . 252.6.Ethics . 253.The Project . 263.1.Context . 263.2.Objectives and components . 283.3.Stakeholders . 293.4.Project implementation structure and partners. 303.5.Changes in design during implementation . 313.6.Project financing . 314.Theory of change . 355.Evaluation findings. 415.1.Strategic relevance. 41A.Global, national and regional relevance . 41B.UN Environment mandate and policies . 42C.GEF Focal area strategy framework . 425.2.Quality of Project design . 43A.Overall Project design . 43B.Strengths . 44C.Weaknesses . 445.3.Stakeholder analysis . 455.4.Nature of the External Context . 465.5.Effectiveness . 46A.Achievement of outputs . 46B.Achievement of direct outcomes. 51C.Likelihood of impact. 545.6.Financial management . 575.7.Efficiency . 585.8.Monitoring and reporting . 595
Mercury Inventory Russian FederationTerminal Evaluation reportA.Monitoring design and budgeting. 59B.Monitoring implementation . 60C.Project reporting . 605.9.6.7.February 2018Sustainability . 61A.Socio-political sustainability. 61B.Financial sustainability . 61C.Institutional sustainability. 61Factors and processes affecting Project performance . 636.1.Preparation and readiness . 636.2.Quality of Project management and supervision . 636.3.Stakeholder participation and cooperation . 636.4.Responsiveness to human rights and gender equity . 646.5.Country ownership and driven-ness . 646.6.Communication and public awareness . 65Conclusions and recommendations . 667.1.Conclusions . 667.2.Lessons learned . 727.3.Recommendations . 74Annex 1: Terms of Reference for the Terminal Evaluation . 75Annex 2: Evaluation itinerary and overview of stakeholders interviewed . 90Annex 3: Evaluation bulletin . 92Annex 4: List of documents consulted and people consulted . 95Annex 5: Brief CV of the consultant. 986
Mercury Inventory Russian FederationTerminal Evaluation reportFebruary 2018List of Tables and FiguresTable 1: Project summaryTable 2: Project components, Expected outcomes and Expected outputsTable 3: Project budget at design by component, GEF funding and co-financing plannedTable 4: Project components, Expected outcomes and Expected outputs as listed in theProject document.Table 5: Results framework for the Project versus results framework that underpins the TOC:Table 6: Overview of the key findings of the Project design reviewTable 7: Overview of the 2012 mercury releases into the environmentTable 8: Decision tree for rating the likelihood of impactTable 9: Financial Management Table for Evaluation of Financial PerformanceTable 10: Summary table of evaluation ratingFigure 1: Map of the Russian Federation taken from the cover of final Project report Mercurypollution in Russia: problems and recommendationsFigure 2: Project decision making flow chart as per Project documentFigure 3: Reconstructed Theory of ChangeList of AnnexesANNEX 1: Evaluation ToRsANNEX 2: Evaluation itinerary and overview of stakeholders interviewedANNEX 3: Evaluation bulletinANNEX 4: List of documents consultedANNEX 5: Brief CV of the consultantANNEX 6: Quality Assessment of the Evaluation Report7
Mercury Inventory Russian FederationTerminal Evaluation reportFebruary 2018List of Abbreviations and AcronymsDTIEDivision of Technology, Industry and Economics (of UN Environment)EAExecuting AgencyEPAEnvironmental Protection AgencyEOEvaluation Office of UN EnvironmentGCUN Environment Governing CouncilGEFGlobal Environment FacilityGLPGood Laboratory PracticesIAImplementing AgencyM&EMonitoring and EvaluationFMOFund Managing OfficerMNREMinistry of Natural Resources and the Environment of the Russian FederationFINGOScientific and Production AssociationMSPMedium Size ProjectNPCNational Project CoordinatorNGONon-governmental OrganisationNPMTNational Project Management TeamNSGNational Steering GroupsOECDOrganisation for Economic Co-operation and DevelopmentPIRProject Implementation ReviewPMPortfolio ManagerPMTProject Management TeamPSCProject Steering CommitteePTRProject Terminal ReportRusChlorAssociation of chlorine industrySCStockholm ConventionSRI AtmosphereScientific Research Institute for Atmospheric Air ProtectionSwedish EPASwedish Environmental Protection AgencyMercury ToolkitToolkit for identification and quantification of mercury releasesTETerminal EvaluationTOCTheory of ChangeTORTerms of ReferenceTETTechnical Expert TeamTMTask ManagerUNEPUnited Nations Environment Programme, since 2016 abbreviated as UNEnvironmentUN EnvironmentUnited Nations Environment ProgrammeUS EPAUnited States Environmental Protection Agency8
Mercury Inventory Russian FederationTerminal Evaluation reportFebruary 20189
Mercury Inventory Russian FederationTerminal Evaluation reportFebruary 201810
Mercury Inventory Russian FederationTerminal Evaluation reportFebruary 2018Project identification tableTable 1. Project identification table2Sub-programme:Chemicals andWasteExpectedAccomplishment(s):EA1 (MTS 2014-17)Enabling environment:Countries increasinglyhave the necessaryinstitutional capacity andpolicy instruments tomanage chemicals andwaste soundly includingthe implementation ofrelated provisions of themultilateral environmentalagreementsUN Environmentapproval date:21 March 2013Programme of WorkOutput(s):524.2GEF project ID:5222Project type:Medium-sized Project(MSP)GEF OperationalProgramme #:CHEM-03Focal Area(s):Persistent OrganicPollutants/ chemicalsGEF approval date:UnspecifiedGEF Strategic Priority:CHEM-3; Project ManaExpected start date:April 2013Actual start date:May 2013Planned completiondate:September2015Actual completion date:June 2017Planned projectbudget at approval:US 4,418,969Actual total expendituresreported as of 31December 2017US 4,513,340GEF grant allocation:US 1,000,000GEF grant expendituresreported as of 31December 2017:US 1,000,000Project PreparationGrant - GEF financing:N/AProject Preparation Grant- co-financing:N/AExpected MediumSize Project/Full-SizeProject co-financing:US 3,418,969Secured Medium-SizeProject/Full-Size Projectco-financing:US 3,513,340First disbursement:US 200,000Date of financial closure:31 December 2017No. of revisions:2Date of last revision:2017No. of SteeringCommittee meetings:4Date of last/next SteeringCommittee meeting:Last: 6 June20172Data on final expenditures have been added after the evaluation period early January 2018 as theybecame available when the draft version of this report was discussed between the UN EvaluationOffice and the evaluator.11
Mercury Inventory Russian FederationTerminal Evaluation report3February 2018Mid-term Review/Evaluation (planneddate):N/AMid-term Review3(actualdate):Terminal Evaluation(planned date):Apr-Aug 2017Terminal Evaluation(actual date):Apr-Oct 2017Coverage Country(ies):National RussianFederationCoverage - Region(s):EuropeDates of previousproject phases:N/AStatus of future projectphases:N/AThis was an informal project review that was undertaken by the Task Manager12
Mercury Inventory Russian FederationTerminal Evaluation reportFebruary 2018Executive summaryDespite a delayed start and a series start-up problem the Project has played a key role tosupport the Russian Federation in the negotiation process of the Minamata Convention. Inview of the serious mercury issues in Russia, significant reductions of mercury releases in thecountry would contribute to important reductions worldwide. As per evaluation criteria of theEvaluation Office of UN Environment, the project is reviewed in this Terminal Evaluation reportagainst the following below highlighted priority criteria:[1]Regarding Strategic relevance the “Pilot project on the development of mercury inventoryin the Russian Federation” positioned its activities very well in line with preceding national,regional and international mercury initiatives and the international development of theMinamata Convention. Project stakeholders have contributed through the Project outputs andoutcomes importantly towards prioritisation of sound management of mercury in the RussianFederation, plus also to the fulfilment of UN Environment’s mandate and GEF strategy andpriorities. The evaluation found all interviewed stakeholders and all respondents to the surveyagreeing that the Project was strategically relevant for the Russian Federation.[2]This evaluation found that in respect to the Quality of Project design, the Project has acomprehensive, coherent logical framework that contributes towards the Project objective inboth content and process. Not all relevant stakeholders were involved in the planning ofProject activities and the Project’s communication and awareness raising strategy was notwell connected with the planned activities. The originally planned time frame for the Projectwas not realistically taking into account typical Project hurdles and start-up problems.[3]With regards to the Nature of the External Context it is clear that the external context wasvery favourable when the Project started, and the Russian Federation signed the MinamataConvention in 2014, in the second year of implementation. Future political decision makingregarding Russian ratification of the Convention will have a serious impact on the outcomesof the Project.[4]Regarding Achievement of outputs the Project has produced (with several delays) theprogrammed outputs.4 The Peer review mechanism used can be regarded as a guarantee toassure the quality of the outputs. There is room for improvement in the functioning of thismechanism. A well implemented communication and awareness raising strategy would allowfor that.[5]Looking at the Achievement of direct outcomes, the evaluation has concluded that theProject has successfully produced the immediate outcomes faithful to the Project description,under reservation that not all outputs are fully finished at the time of evaluation. The combinedimmediate outcomes have strongly supported the Russian Federation in its preparations tojoin the Minamata Convention and strengthened the key stakeholders in dealing with mercuryissues. Mercury releases have been identified (and described analytical Project reports thatprioritise the pollution sources) using the international best practice approach of UNEnvironment. The results enable national stakeholders to better understand mercury risks forhuman health and the environment. Based on the Project experience in the Russian Federationregional colleagues in FSU countries are assisted in carrying out the Minamata InitialAssessments and other relevant mercury projects.[6]4Updates on the planning were received by the evaluator from the Executing Agency, beginning October 2017.Emails from the executing agency to the evaluator indicated completion of all Project outputs, in December 2017,when the draft of this report was being discussed between the evaluator and the Evaluation office.13
Mercury Inventory Russian FederationTerminal Evaluation reportFebruary 2018Further achievement of outcomes and subsequently Likelihood of impact will stronglydepend on the political decision whether the Russian Federation will ratify the Convention.This is an external factor that is not within the control of the Project. The Project has providedessential baseline information, based upon which, political decision makers can make a wellinformed decision.[7]With regards to the Financial management of the Project, this evaluation has found that inthe first phase of the Project there were start-up problems and delays in reporting. Theseproblems have subsequently been solved especially after the arrival of new management staffat UN Environment, when more time became available for guidance. Overall the evaluation hasfound that the Project was financially well managed. It is important to conclude that complexprojects like this Project need a realistic time frame and detailed guidance from UNEnvironment to establish sound management and reporting practices especially in the startup phase.[8]The Project has demonstrated well designed Efficiency in making use of and following upthe combined existing national and international mercury initiatives. Keeping efficiently ontrack with the planned time frame, proved to be difficult due to the tight Project planning. ThisProblem was solved after the two Project extensions were agreed to.[9]On Monitoring and reporting the evaluation has found that initially the Project did not fullycomply with the timelines, monitoring and reporting obligations as described in the signedPCA due to start-up difficulties and a lack of guidance from UN Environment due to personnelchanges. The monitoring and reporting practice has, however, improved after the initial phaseof the Project, when monitoring and reporting was carried out in a more timely fashion withadequate attention to content and detail.[10][11] Regarding Sustainability a strength of the Project is that it provided strongsupport for theRussian Federation in its negotiation process for joining the Minamata Convention. Theefforts of Project stakeholders to secure Project sustainability are regarded by the evaluatoras satisfactory. Inclusion of awareness raising and communication activities into the plannedProject activities, could have possibly further strengthened the impact of these efforts.Sustainability is, however, dependent on political decision making that is outside the Project’scontrol and therefore not very likely.The evaluation has found that the Project dealt well with the Factors affecting itsperformance. Outcomes of earlier projects were carefully considered and used, the Projectmanagement improved after initial start-up problems and stakeholders where activelyinvolved notably through cooperation with the skilfully communicating NGO Eco-Accord.Communication and awareness raising with the public at large were not clearly planned in theoriginal Project design and could have strengthened the Projects possible impact.Cooperation with Eco-Accord partly compensated for that.[12][13] Inaddition to the above highlighted evaluation criteria the Terminal Evaluation is requiredto analyse a set of key strategic questions highlighted below:14
Mercury Inventory Russian FederationTerminal Evaluation reportFebruary 2018[14] Towhat extent has the project succeeded in providing best environmental practice andguidelines for control of mercury releases in the Russian Federation?The Terminal Evaluation has found that the Project has succeeded well in providing the bestenvironmental practices and guidelines for control of mercury releases in the RussianFederation. In the Mid-term review of the Project the international mercury expert Jakob Maageven characterizes the Project as the best implementation of the MIA toolkit to date.[15] Towhat extent and with what success did the project engage relevant sector players intargeted mercury reduction strategies?Although it can be difficult to cooperate with representatives of polluting industries in Russia,the Project was successful in the engagement of large sector players in targeted mercuryreduction strategies. The Project agreements proved to be of great value for the necessarydata gathering of the inventory. The partnering organisations actively facilitated dialogue withcompanies and assisted to get access to plants.What is the likelihood that the National Action Plan developed through the project willsucceed in bridging the gap between Russia and developed countries in its overall preventionand control of mercury pollution? What are the key factors which need to be taken intoaccount in achieving the desired impact?[16]As the Project stakeholders are not in a position to commission a Mercury National ActionPlan, a draft action plan was developed to highlight what actions Russia would have toundertake once it would ratify the Minamata Convention. To achieve the desired Projectimpact and bridge the gap between Russia and developed countries in its overall preventionand control of mercury pollution, it is key that the country ratifies the Minamata Convention.[17] Whatlessons from The Russian Federation can be learned with regard to strategies forstrengthening national capacity in mercury management and the development of nationallevel priority actions that address global conventions including Minamata Convention onMercury?As national environment authorities around the world must deal with national environmentalproblems that often have a global dimension, it is key that they do cooperate with internationalcolleagues. Global conventions are an excellent form of a coordinated approach to suchglobal problems. It is of importance to facilitate this international cooperation and experienceexchange when looking for strategies for strengthening national capacities in mercurymanagement and development of national priority action that addresses global conventionsincluding the Minamata Convention on mercury.International cooperation to strengthen the national capacity for sound management ofchemicals is of utmost importance for Russia. Especially when this Project started in 2012,there was a strong interest to cooperate with the international community on the issue ofmercury among key governmental stakeholders, NGOs, academia and the business sector.Continuation of GEF funding is seen by Project stakeholders as an important mechanism toenable this cooperation.[18]15
Mercury Inventory Russian FederationTerminal Evaluation reportFebruary 2018Резюме проекта (Russian translation of the Executive summary)Несмотря на отложенный старт и целый ряд проблем на начальном этапе, данныйПроект сыграл ключевую роль в оказании поддержки Российской Федерации впереговорном процессе по Минаматской Конвенции. Учитывая серьезность проблемртутного загрязнения в России, значительное сокращение поступления ртутиокружающую среду с выбросами, сбросами и отходами в стране способно внестизначительный вклад в их сокращение во всем мире. В соответствии с критериямиоценки Управления по оценке Программы ООН по окружающей среде (ЮНЕП) данныйПроект рассматривается в отчете об «Окончательной оценке» в соответствии соследующими основными критериями:[1]В отношении стратегической значимости «Пилотного проекта по составлениюкадастра ртутных загрязнений в Российской Федерации», можно отметить, то онреализовывался в полном соответствии с предшествующими �и и международными инициативами по ртути, а также с реализациейМинаматской Конвенции в глобальном масштабе. Заинтересованные стороныпосредством достигнутых в ходе проекта результатов внесли вклад в процессопределения приоритетов рационального регулирования ртутных загрязнений вРоссийской Федерации, и способствовали выполнению мандата ЮНЕП, а такжестратегии и приоритетов Глобального Экологического Фонда (ГЭФ). Оценка показала,что все опрошенные заинтересованные стороны и все респонденты опросасогласились с тем, что Проект является стратегическ
Mercury Inventory Russian FederationTerminal Evaluation report February 2018 4 ABOUT THE EVALUATION1 Joint Evaluation: No Report Language(s): English Evaluation Type: Terminal Project Evaluation Brief Description: This report is a terminal evaluation of a UN Environment-GEF project implemented between 2013 and 2017.
May 02, 2018 · D. Program Evaluation ͟The organization has provided a description of the framework for how each program will be evaluated. The framework should include all the elements below: ͟The evaluation methods are cost-effective for the organization ͟Quantitative and qualitative data is being collected (at Basics tier, data collection must have begun)
Silat is a combative art of self-defense and survival rooted from Matay archipelago. It was traced at thé early of Langkasuka Kingdom (2nd century CE) till thé reign of Melaka (Malaysia) Sultanate era (13th century). Silat has now evolved to become part of social culture and tradition with thé appearance of a fine physical and spiritual .
On an exceptional basis, Member States may request UNESCO to provide thé candidates with access to thé platform so they can complète thé form by themselves. Thèse requests must be addressed to esd rize unesco. or by 15 A ril 2021 UNESCO will provide thé nomineewith accessto thé platform via their émail address.
̶The leading indicator of employee engagement is based on the quality of the relationship between employee and supervisor Empower your managers! ̶Help them understand the impact on the organization ̶Share important changes, plan options, tasks, and deadlines ̶Provide key messages and talking points ̶Prepare them to answer employee questions
Dr. Sunita Bharatwal** Dr. Pawan Garga*** Abstract Customer satisfaction is derived from thè functionalities and values, a product or Service can provide. The current study aims to segregate thè dimensions of ordine Service quality and gather insights on its impact on web shopping. The trends of purchases have
Table 2. Wiring terminal references for non-Excel 10/12 devices signal T7460A terminal T7460B terminal T7460C terminal Excel 800 XF82x terminal (example) Excel 500 XF52xB terminal (example) Excel 500 XFL52x terminal (example) Excel 100 terminal (example) Excel 50 terminal (example) Excel 20 terminal (example) CPO-FB22344R terminal (example)
Chính Văn.- Còn đức Thế tôn thì tuệ giác cực kỳ trong sạch 8: hiện hành bất nhị 9, đạt đến vô tướng 10, đứng vào chỗ đứng của các đức Thế tôn 11, thể hiện tính bình đẳng của các Ngài, đến chỗ không còn chướng ngại 12, giáo pháp không thể khuynh đảo, tâm thức không bị cản trở, cái được
APEX Virtual Terminal 3 Viewing Your Virtual Terminal in the Apex Portal To view your virtual terminal, select the Virtual Terminal menu option and select the My Terminal submenu. From the My Terminal page, you can process credit card and eCheck transactions for your customers. NOTE: My Terminal is a standard terminal that currently .
