Mid-Term Review

covering the period from December 2012 to June 2014

of the Programme

“Transforming Environmental and Security Risks into Cooperation in the South Eastern European Region (Phase II), and Climate Change and Security

in the Dniester River Basin” 2013- 2015

Funded by the Austrian Development Agency

Implemented by the Environment and Security Initiative (ENVSEC) partner organizations

Prepared by

REC in its capacity as host of the ENVSEC Regional Desk Office for South Eastern Europe (Part A) UNEP in its capacity as host of the ENVSEC Regional Desk Office for Eastern Europe (Part B)

Compiled and submitted by

OSCE in its capacity as the signatory to the 19 December 2012 dated Contribution Arrangement with ADA

Programme

“Transforming Environmental and Security Risks into Cooperation in the South Eastern European Region (Phase II), and Climate Change and Security in the Dniester River Basin”

2013- 2015

implemented by the following Environment and Security Initiative (ENVSEC) partner organizations

Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE)The Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe (REC)

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE)

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

2 | P a g e

Table of Contents

1. Introduction.................................................................................................................4

2. PART A: Transforming Environmental and Security Risks into Cooperation in the South Eastern European Region, Phase II................................................................6

2.1. Background...................................................................................................................6

2.2. Methodology...............................................................................................................10

2.3. Key findings of the Mid-Term Review.......................................................................11

2.4. Conclusions and Recommendations...........................................................................20

3. PART B: Climate Change and Security in the Dniester River Basin..................22

3.1. Background.................................................................................................................23

3.2. Methodology...............................................................................................................25

3.3. Key findings of the Mid-Term Review.......................................................................26

3.4. Conclusions and Recommendations...........................................................................31

3 | P a g e

1. Introduction

Purpose, objectives and scope of the review

“The ENVSEC programme: Transforming Environmental and Security Risks into Cooperation in the South Eastern European Region (Phase II); and Climate Change and Security in the Dniester River Basin” is operational since 2013 and is funded by the Austrian Development Agency (ADA) within the framework of a Contribution Arrangement between the Austrian Development Agency and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe for the ENVSEC Trust Fund of the Environment and Security Initiative, signed on 19 December 2012.

The ENVSEC Initiative is a partnership between OSCE, UNEP, UNDP, UNECE and REC, as well as NATO as an associated partner. It assesses and addresses environmental problems which threaten or are perceived to threaten security, social stability and peace, human health and/or sustainable livelihoods within and across national borders in conflict-prone regions. The Initiative collaborates closely with governments, particularly with foreign, defense and environment ministries, national experts and CSOs.

The overall objective of the programme is to contribute to the reduction of environment and security risks, and to the increased cooperation on environment and security issues both between and within countries in the South Eastern Europe (SEE) region as well as in the Dniester river basin shared by Moldova and Ukraine, in Eastern Europe (EE).

The programme has two components. Component 1 targets the SEE region and aims for:

(i) Improving management and reduction of transboundary risks from hazardous activities;

(ii) Promoting sustainable management of shared natural resources; (iii) Strengthening regional cooperation on environmental governance through

participatory and informed decision-making and implementation processes; and (iv) Promoting transboundary climate change adaptation.

Component 2 aims to contribute to regional stability in the Dniester River Basin through supporting transboundary cooperation on adaptation to the consequences of climate change on water resources. Component 2 is an integral part of, and will support, the implementation of a larger scale ENVSEC project jointly implemented with the European Commission Instrument for Stability (EC/IfS) entitled “Climate Change and Security in Eastern Europe, Central Asia and the Southern Caucasus”.

The Mid-Term Review (MTR) is conducted as per Section 6.2 of the Project Document.

4 | P a g e

The objective of the Mid-Term Review (MTR) as outlined in the Terms of Reference (ToR) is to review and report on the performance to date of the programme “Transforming Environmental and Security Risks into Cooperation in the South Eastern European Region (Phase II), and Climate Change and Security in the Dniester River Basin” in meeting the set objectives and milestones, and to recommend adjustments that may be required to ensure the successful implementation of the programme. The MTR assesses the appropriateness of the current programme design and operational procedures towards delivering on its mandate. The MTR analyses the progress, achievements and challenges encountered thus far and compares these findings in reference to the originally stated objectives for the programme, in addition to the extent to which the programme is fulfilling its mandate and delivery of expected results. The lessons drawn from the MTR will be discussed with the Austrian Development Agency (ADA) and will then be reflected in the implementation of the programme in the remaining period and beyond.

In line with the ToR, the MTR focuses on five evaluation criteria: relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and impact. Each was associated with a number of key evaluation questions that were addressed and explored.

The primary focus of the MTR as outlined in the ToR is given to the criteria of relevance, effectiveness and efficiency, while impacts and sustainability will be addressed in more detail during the final evaluation of the programme.

As outlined in the Terms of Reference the review of the relevance of the programme aims at assessing the extent to which the programme design conforms to ongoing regional initiatives, regional priorities and programmes.

The review according the efficiency criteria aims at assessing the output delivery in relation to inputs in implementing the activities under the programme. It reviews the measures that have been taken during the planning and implementation phase to ensure that resources are efficiently used, it answers whether the programme outputs where delivered as agreed during the review period and if the original programme design is still valid in relation to the approved financial resources. The review also assesses whether there is a need to reassess the scope of the projects or to mobilize additional funding to achieve the set objectives.

The review of the effectiveness of the programme aims at assessing to what extent the programme and supported activities have contributed to improved regional cooperation and to what extent the identified or anticipated outcomes are a result of the programme rather than of external factors. It also tries to assess the reasons for the achievement or not achievement of outputs or expected outcomes and if the established monitoring and reporting system was effective in directing the implementation of the programme. It also asks for measures that would make the programme more effective as well as if the outputs have the potential for replication.

5 | P a g e

The main users of the review comprise of the ENVSEC partner organizations, project management team and the donor. The MTR’s findings can also be used by the beneficiary countries in terms of determining to what extent the project intervention and its results correspond to the needs of the beneficiary countries.

The Mid-Term Review (MTR) comprises two parts:

Part A, which is a review of component I “Transforming Environmental and Security Risks into Cooperation in the South Eastern European Region” (Phase II) of the Programme. This review has been undertaken by the REC, in its ENVSEC Regional Desk Office function for South Eastern Europe (SEE), and

Part B, which is a review of component II “Climate Change and Security in the Dniester River Basin”. It has been undertaken by the UNEP in its ENVSEC Regional Desk Office function for Eastern Europe (EE).

2. PART A: Transforming Environmental and Security Risks into Cooperation in the South Eastern European Region, Phase II

2.1. Background

Activities under this component of the programme are financed by the ADA while project activities are implemented by the ENVSEC organizations OSCE, UNDP, UNEP, REC and UNECE. This component targets particularly Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Kosovo*1, Montenegro and Serbia. The beneficiary countries are either EU candidate or potential EU candidate countries. Thus one of the main political and economic driving forces in this region are political and structural reforms as well as approximation of national legislative frameworks as part of the process to achieve EU membership. The EU Progress Reports of 20132 demonstrate that the countries in the SEE region need to improve and increase their environmental policy efforts, both in terms of transposition of the environmental acquis and engagement in measures to overall enhance capacity building in environmental ministries and authorities. Moreover, the EU has noted that little progress has been made in the areas of environment and climate change and further efforts are needed in this regard. It is also indicated that in many of the countries only a limited volume of environmental legislation has been aligned with the acquis communitaire. In other words, there is a significant need to transpose and implement environmental acquis and to strengthen the administrative and

1 In the entire document, this designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with UNSC 1244 and the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo Declaration of Independence.2 http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/countries/strategy-and-progress-report/index_en.htm

6 | P a g e

institutional capacities as well as to take anti-corruption measures in the SEE region. The Progress Reports also referred to the need for improved implementation of EU funded projects in these two areas.

Given the complexity of ENVSEC activities and nature of operations, the engagement of multiple stakeholders and decision-makers from different levels of government is essential and recognized in the project document. The target group of beneficiaries of this programme includes policy and decision-makers as well as experts of relevant ministries, local governments, national authorities, public companies and agencies, local municipalities, civil society organizations and academia.

The programme planned direct involvement of at least 120 stakeholders in the SEE region (20 per country) with a spill-over and multiplier effect – reaching out to the wider community benefitting from a safer and more regulated environment.

Moreover, the aim of the ENVSEC involvement in the region is three-fold:

(1) help manage competition over declining natural resources, (2) enhance cooperation on transboundary pollution and accidents, and (3) mitigate the cross-border consequences of climate change and natural disasters.

The core premise of the ENVSEC partnership is that environmental cooperation can act as an important tool for preventing conflicts and promoting peace between communities. Consequently the overall objective of the project is to contribute to the reduction of environment and security risks, and to the increased cooperation on environment and security issues both between and within countries in the SEE region.

In line with the project document, this component aims to

Improve management and reduction of transboundary risks from hazardous activities Promote sustainable management of shared natural resources Strengthen regional cooperation on environmental governance through participatory and

informed decision making and implementation processes Promote transboundary climate change adaption.

The implementation of this component will lead to;

Reduced local environmental and human health risks, Minimized tensions and improved transboundary and regional cooperation among the

SEE countries. Improved management of shared transboundary natural resources, Enhanced dialogue and partnerships among governmental agencies, regional

administrations and civil society organizations on environment and security issues;

7 | P a g e

Enhanced knowledge base on climate change impacts and their interrelation with security in the SEE region and adaptation to the impacts of climate change.

Programme outline of component I

Transforming Environmental and Security Risks into Cooperation in South Eastern Europe, Phase 2 (12/2012-12/2015

Project Implementing ENVSEC organizations

Priority A: Management and reduction of transboundary risks from hazardous activities

A.1 Identification and discussion of  specific EU accession risk (water directive, mining directive, industrial sites) and needs related to the mining risk sites (by site/country), including support to the implementation of the UNECE Convention on Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents and SEVESO II Directive on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances

UNDP in cooperation with REC and UNECE

A.2 Development of relevant related technical documentation in preparation for the physical works for partners and beneficiaries

UNDP

A.3 Mapping and assessment of active mining sites and analysis of possible environmental risks in the management and future closure (Collection of primary and secondary sources of data for the creation of maps)

UNEP in cooperation with UNDP

A.4 Regional dialogue for improved management and reduced environmental risk of active mine sites (Workshops with public and private sector of mining stakeholder groups for creation of a framework)

UNEP

A.5 Public-private partnerships promoted for shared responsibilities and interventions in reducing environmental risk from active mining sites (Stakeholder meeting with public and private sectors)

UNEP

Priority B: Management of shared natural resources

B.1 Better understanding of economic possibilities in existing or to UNEP (in cooperation

8 | P a g e

be proclaimed protected areas with REC)

B.2 Improved regional dialogue and cooperation among mountain protected areas

UNEP

B.3 Addressing the risks of forest fires in the SEE REC (in cooperation with OSCE)

B.4 Improving coordination among the members and enhanced communication to the public on environmental projects and data availability in the region under the Dinaric Arc Initiative

UNEP (in cooperation with REC)

Priority C: Strengthening regional cooperation on environmental governance through participatory and informed decision making and implementation processes

C. 1 Support Aarhus Centres' activities in promoting public awareness and participatory decision-making on environment and security issues and promote regional networking among them to address collectively priority environmental issues of joint concern

OSCE

C.2 Promoting environmental mediation as a tool for effective public participation and conflict resolution on environmental matters

REC (in cooperation with OSCE)

C. 3 Strengthening Access to Justice in Environmental Matters in SEE through: Country studies and a regional study on the key issues of access to justice ( focusing on standing, remedies and costs); broad discussion on findings) and development of a capacity building programme

REC (in cooperation with OSCE and UNECE)

Priority D: Adaptation to the impacts of climate change for reducing security risks in SEE

D.1 Support to long-term country planning on reducing biodiversity loss from climate change effects in the region through regional cooperation and dialogue

UNEP (in cooperation with REC)

D.2 Experience sharing and coordination mechanisms with the IFS project and other ENVSEC relevant projects in the other regions for mutual learning and full complement

UNEP

D.3 Building capacities for comprehensive quantitative and qualitative Vulnerability and Adaptation (V&A) assessment and raising awareness of stakeholders and population on

REC

9 | P a g e

climate change adaptation

D.4 Study on ecosystem services as potential adaptation measures in a chosen region in a mountain area of Dinaric arc with Inventory of ecosystem services and ecological networks

REC

Priority E: SEE Regional Cooperation

E Regional Coordination of ENVSEC SEE Work Programme REC (in cooperation with UNEP

2.2. Methodology

The Mid-Term Review has been conducted as a combination of desk reviews, questionnaires and interviews. The desk reviews involved analysis of the project implementation reports, studies or relevant programme documents including meeting and progress reports. Interviews were carried out with relevant national stakeholders and partners, including the ENVSEC National Focal Points where as a basis a questionnaire was used.

The review follows the methodological framework, priorities and evaluation criteria set out in the Terms of Reference for the Mid-Term Review, focusing on the five main pillars: relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability.

The review builds on a questionnaire which was sent out to ENVSEC National Focal Points, representatives of ministries along with other national authorities, partners and project managers in respective ENVSEC implementing organizations. The review methodology is qualitative, based on the evaluation of the questionnaires linked to the project events and a general assessment of the project’s intervention logic and its deliverables provided by project managers. The questionnaires were anonymous, and encouraged the participants to provide additional feedback beyond the questions asked. The qualitative elements of this evaluation have enabled the MTR to produce viable and locally anchored conclusions and recommendations as well as helped providing an overall management and monitoring tool for the final phase of the component.

The questionnaire was sent to more than 50 partners. In total 35 responses from all targeted countries with more or less a similar level of responsiveness were received out of which 15 were received by means of personal interviews. This represents a significant contribution from the project managers and relevant stakeholders, as there are currently seventeen on-going projects covered by this MTR. The questionnaires allowed implementing partners, experts, stakeholders and project managers to evaluate the progress made so far and any problems they may have encountered. As a result, the questionnaires, along with the data gathered and outputs produced,

10 | P a g e

provide valuable input to the formulation of future lessons learnt and recommendations as part of this review.

The evaluation follows all relevant professional and ethical guidelines and code of conducts for individual evaluators to guarantee integrity, honesty, impartiality and transparency.

Analysis of data was based on a desk review of project managers. The approach was interpretive, narrative, and performance-based. The interpretive component entailed systematic interpretation of notes and comments. Identifying similarities in notes by participants in response to questions or stories or examples brought up by them at national or regional events formed a key element in the application of the narrative and performance component of the approach. This would entail looking for patterns and themes that lead to establishing a link between data collected, findings, conclusions and recommendations.

The MTR provides recommendations for possible improvements on policy and activity level in the final phase of the projects. Recommendations also relate to the planning and implementation of similar past and future projects in the beneficiary region. The main users of the review comprise the ENVSEC partner organizations, project management teams and the donor, but the MTR’s findings will also benefit the beneficiary countries in terms of determining to what extent the project intervention and its results corresponded to the need in the beneficiary countries.

2.3. Key findings of the Mid-Term Review

The results of the questionnaires and the desk analysis of project managers show that the activities under the SEE component are progressing according to the plans made in advance and are likely to meet their planned objectives thereof adjustments of the programme at this stage are not considered as necessary. Moreover, the questionnaires and the analysis show that the planned objectives were both realistic and well-planned. In particular the on-going efforts, related to EU accession and alignment on environmental policy, have been continuous successful endeavours in the region.

Under Priority A, the programme has aimed at, identifying and discussing the specific EU accession risk, especially related to the EU Water Framework Directive, Mining Waste Directive, industrial sites and needs related to the mining risk sites, which (as shown below with several examples) was achieved via implemented activities.

Moreover, the programme has contributed to the strengthening of the local administrative capacities and the national environmental authorities by supporting for example the implementation of the UNECE Convention on Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents and SEVESO II Directive on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances.

11 | P a g e

However, the current programme funding is not sufficient for specific interventions in the field of remediation of industrial and mining hot spots, as concluded at the ENVSEC SEE Regional Coordination Meeting in 2014. Nevertheless, the programme recognized the achievements and future need to showcase the benefits of the remediation of industrial and mining hot spots, as they pose a significant risk in the EU accession process, being sites with significant impact on human health and environment.

In addition the project activities conducted under Priority B contributed to the strengthening of the compliance and enforcement of the EU’s nature protection and environmental protection legislation, capacities and understanding of the importance of bilateral and regional dialogue and improved also the cooperation in the management of shared natural resources.

Additionally, in order to underpin and further promote overall ENVSEC programme activities and create synergies with other donors and stakeholders, the UNDP Country Office in Montenegro managed to obtain additional funding for the improvement of information and experience exchange between the Western Balkan countries and the Czech Republic.

The MTR revealed that activities under this priority of the programme have been instrumental in establishing and / or strengthening partnerships with the public and private sector which in turn contributed to improved regional dialogue and cooperation.

Under the Priority C, the programme contributed to strengthening regional cooperation on environmental governance mainly through supporting the implementation of the Aarhus Convention and strengthening networking among the Aarhus Convention stakeholders in the region.

In addition, under Priority D the programme has been successful in building capacities for quantitative and qualitative vulnerability and adaptation assessments, along with raising awareness of stakeholders and the general population on climate change adaptation. While these projects are in their early stages, the MTR shows that the programmed activities have been well-planned and enjoy considerable support both locally and nationally. Support to long-term country planning on reducing biodiversity loss from climate change effects through regional cooperation and dialogue has been successful in establishing cross-regional lines of communication.

Moreover, sharing of experience and coordination mechanisms with the project and other ENVSEC relevant projects have been successful in promoting dialogue among various stakeholders in the region under all four thematic priorities of the SEE component of the programme. Thus, the promotion of regional dialogue has been one of the most successfully planned and managed activities of the programme, and further progress is expected in the remaining period of it’s implementation.

12 | P a g e

The Dinaric Arc Initiative was particularly highlighted in this respect. The Initiative aims to improve coordination among the beneficiary countries and enhance communication to the public on environmental projects and data. The project is strengthening institutions for sustainable development, along with improving stakeholders’ capacity and promoting partnership. Moreover the project integrates environmental concerns into relevant sectors such as energy and transport. Over the past few months, the ENVSEC team has established the first Dinaric Arc Initiative website: www.dinaricarcinitiative.net. Additionally, members of the Dinaric Arc Initiative have met twice a year to discuss the overall work in the SEE region, and a new information leaflet has been developed.

Regarding effectiveness, the activities leading to the most tangible results were the trainings, workshops and partnerships whereby private and public officials established new and cross-sectorial relationships. The main MTR finding is that the programme has been successful in enhancing regional cooperation.

The overall efficiency of the programme is satisfactory, and the effects and impacts of the programme are largely sustainable in the sense that the beneficiary countries are committed to carry on with the work relating to capacity building in the environmental area in the future. Larger spill-over effects are expected despite the relatively small resources required for sustaining the cooperation.

Highlighted successes

Some of the successes worth highlighting in the review are in no way restrictive and conclusive but based on the progress made so far. Some selected successes under each priority area are:

Priority A: Management and reduction of transboundary risks from hazardous activities: With UNDP as the main implementing partner through its Country Office (CO) in Montenegro, the focus has been placed not only on the implementation of defined project activities, but also on creating added value for the programme. Within this context it should be noted that efforts to exchange experience and build capacity were funded by UNDP through the Czech Trust Fund. A study tour to the Czech industrial and mining remediated legacy sites proved to be a successful learning tool as participants were exposed to various learning experiences, including remediation sites with the presentations of detailed remediation processes, hazardous and solid waste landfills, laboratories, along with the biggest waste incinerator in the Czech Republic.

A comprehensive study tour report was prepared and distributed to all the participants. Importantly, the study tour gave the participants a great opportunity to exchange experience and knowledge.

Additional efforts have been made to create concrete outputs from the programme activities and under additional resources mobilized and secured by UNDP CO Montenegro, through the Czech Trust Fund (70.000USD). A detailed technical design for the Novo Brdo Mine, Artana, has been

13 | P a g e

developed as a comprehensive technical document, to be further used by “Trepca Group of Mines” and the Ministry of Environment. Also under this component one of the programme objectives for identification and discussion of specific EU accession risks, was achieved via the development of the Regional report that covered risks posed by industrial and mining hot spots in six countries in the Western Balkan. The report provides an overview of environmental legislation in all participating countries, along with an overview of relevant EU acquis. Similarly, the report provides an overview of the most severe environmental hot spots in all the countries, and recommendations for future steps and improvements.

Priority B: Management of shared natural resources: For strengthening regional cooperation, the promotion of sustainable management of shared natural resources and improvement of regional dialogue among national stakeholders of the Shara Mountain area were achieved through the signing of a Common Vision for the proclamation of the National Park “Sharra/Korab/Deshat” by the Ministers of Environment of Kosovo*3, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Albania in November 2013.

Priority C: Strengthening regional cooperation on environmental governance through participatory and informed decision making and implementation process: The SEE Regional Study on Access to Justice in Environmental Matters: Standing, Costs and Available Remedies in relation to the Aarhus Convention which was prepared under this priority area, identified key challenges and barriers to the implementation of the Access to Justice pillar of the Aarhus Convention in SEE in the following areas: legislation in general; administrative and judicial transparency; judicial capacity building; public participation legislation; public participation practice; mediation; timeliness; costs; legal aid. The identified key challenges provide a solid ground for prioritization to address them in the short term.

Furthermore, under this priority area the organization of a Side Event on ”Inside the Aarhus Centres” on 30 June 2014, in Maastricht, the Netherlands, at the Fifth Meeting of the Parties to the Aarhus Convention was partly supported. The event brought together the Aarhus Convention National Focal Points and other government representatives, Aarhus Centre Managers, NGOs, representatives of OSCE Field Operations and international experts to share experiences, lessons learned and best practices on the implementation of the Aarhus Convention and to enhance networking among Aarhus Centres. The event also aimed at strengthening capacities of Aarhus Centres and of other Aarhus Convention national stakeholders on several priority issues related to the Convention. Over 100 participants from 14 countries, including the SEE countries attended the event and engaged in a pro-active exchange of views and several proposals were made with regards to the future work of the Aarhus Centres in the region.

Priority D: Adaptation to the impacts of climate change for reducing security risks in SEE: The activities under this component provide for solid actions on how to enhance adaptation to climate

3 In the entire document, this designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with UNSC 1244 and the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo Declaration of Independence.

14 | P a g e

change in order to reduce security risks in selected SEE countries. They aimed at raising awareness and showing good practice examples to incorporate potential adaptation measures to sectorial policies for the long term development plans. Under this priority, ENVSEC took part in regional discussions on climate change adaptation in SEE and took care of the practical mainstreaming of climate change effects on biodiversity into national documents in SEE. In addition to provided national training in Montenegro on vulnerability assessments as the central element of the adaptation process, identification of feasible short-term and long-term adaptation measures was also completed.

Priority E: SEE regional cooperation: the regional cooperation aspect has been one of the main success stories with all of the project partners pledging their involvement in future actions in the beneficiary regions. One of the activities that should be specifically highlighted in this regard is the 10th ENVSEC anniversary event held in November 2013 in Brussels, where the ENVSEC beneficiary institutions from all the SEE countries took part. Along with active participation in panel discussions, they presented several important national and regional ENVSEC relevant activities. Another activity worth highlighting is the Regional Coordination Meeting for SEE hosted by Montenegro in April 2014, and organized by REC as host institution of the SEE Regional Desk Office, in cooperation with all ENVSEC partner organizations. The meeting provided a platform for informing ENVSEC NFPs and the wider audience on developments regarding ENVSEC. It also made it possible to exchange experiences and knowledge with other regional initiatives and to identify synergies and possibilities for future partnership. A dedicated meeting with NFPs was used as an opportunity to discuss their national needs and priorities, identify areas that might be addressed through ENVSEC, but also to mainstream the regional ENVSEC portfolio in the SEE region. In addition, several Aarhus Centres representatives met with ENVSEC stakeholders of the region and exchanged experiences and ideas.

In general, there has been broad and substantial participation in the trainings and workshops. These activities are important as they require a strong management support to coordinate, steer and provide technical, logistical and organizational support. The UNDP, OSCE and REC offices and the donor organization’s local offices/agents have been instrumental in providing specific assistance combined with the approach of UNEP to work through local CSOs. Moreover, these offices have also helped enhance the visibility of these trainings and workshops on both a national and local level, along with the effective dissemination of project information and materials. The importance of cooperation with and engagement of the Aarhus Centres should be additionally mentioned as a very important element of the programme.

15 | P a g e

Findings of the Evaluation of questionnaires

The evaluation questions addressed to the interviewees in the round of stakeholder consultation had ratings of either a binary yes-no option or a scale (1-5, where 1 represents the lowest and 5 the highest score) depending on the evaluation criteria and the estimated benefit of choosing between the two rating options.

Based on the questionnaire, all of the respondents confirmed that the objectives of the intervention were valid. Similarly, all of the respondents rated their organization or country’s interests in the project as either good or excellent. Similarly, 57 per cent and 39 per cent respectively rated the usefulness of the trainings and workshops as either excellent or good.

In particular the side event “Inside the Aarhus Centres” organized at the Fifth Session of the Meeting of the Parties to the Aarhus Convention were rated among the best workshops and/or trainings. Similarly, the ENVSEC Regional Coordination Meeting for SEE in Podgorica, Montenegro in April 2014 was rated as excellent. However, while some noted that meetings and workshops were very interesting, they also noted that ENVSEC partners in cooperation with ENVSEC NFPs should put more efforts in the future to ensure a broader participation.

Respondents noted that the knowledge gained during the hot spot related study visit to the Czech Republic helped them initiate projects and share materials, information, news capacities in advocacy issues. Moreover, many respondents noted that workshops and/or trainings helped create a strong networking among stakeholders at national level.

Relevance

On the basis of aggregate data produced from the collected evaluation questionnaires and the overall findings of the Mid-Term review, there was high satisfaction with the programme. More importantly, there was widespread agreement among the respondents (86 per cent of the respondents) from across the region that the programme, its objectives and activities were relevant to the development and transformation of the beneficiary project area and region. The remaining respondents believed that the project was either relevant or somewhat relevant to the development and transformation of the beneficiary project area and region. The programme was evaluated as highly relevant as it covers recognized needs of the countries.

Similarly, all of the respondents agreed that the project activities were relevant to the beneficiary countries’ needs and priorities and/or strategic goals in the region. Similar figures, albeit a bit lower (76 per cent in terms of the share of the absolute highest ranking) are shown with regard to what extent the interventions are meeting the needs and addressing the core problems of the target groups (e.g. authorities, civil society, women).

In terms of political will the great majority (almost 80 per cent) agreed with the statement that there is/was a political will to support the programme. In particular, it should be noted that while

16 | P a g e

many felt that there was considerable political will, some noted that the two Entity ministries for environment from the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republic of Srpska need to be involved in the future. Lastly, the respondents noted that there is considerable potential for initiating follow-up activities in the region.

Even though in general terms the ENVSEC programme provides an appropriate framework to address issues resulting from the devastating floods that severely hit ENVSEC SEE beneficiary countries in spring 2014, the programme did not address these challenges in this specific case. The main reason for that was that immediate and critical assistance, which was mainly needed in the area of humanitarian assistance, was already provided by national authorities which were assisted and supported by highly specialised agencies for emergencies. At a second stage, countries requested urgent assistance in the area of reconstruction and recovery of flooded areas including settlements, which required specialized assistance which was beyond the scope and available financial resources of the ENVSEC programme. Environmental assessments both in Serbia and Bosnia and Hercegovina were done by specialised teams of UN agencies. ENVSEC offered assistance and established coordination with them. But in general the main emergency relief was conducted and coordinated by national coordination bodies that were established for managing such emergencies.

Efficiency

The mid-term review revealed that there is widespread agreement that overall the projects under component 1 have been implemented efficiently, rating the efficiency as either excellent (38 per cent) or good (50 per cent). Some of the respondents noted that due to the complicated governance structure in Bosnia and Herzegovina there is a need to have more activities on multiple levels. Some noted that while they were involved in good initiatives, they felt that additional funding would be beneficial in order to create a more penetrative outcome.

Also while the project budget has been appropriate for the successful implementation of the projects/activities as set out in the programme, even with unforeseen issues, with the diligent use of resources, mainly through seeking cost-efficiency in logistical arrangements no major financial difficulties were encountered and the project goals are being achieved.

17 | P a g e

Effectiveness

The great majority either strongly agreed (57 per cent) or somewhat agreed (31 per cent) with the statement that the objectives of the programme have/will be achieved, and that the implemented activities in the project area are effective.

The Mid-Term Review also assessed whether the projects under component 1 contribute to the building of capacities in the organizations / institutions. A great majority of respondents either strongly agreed (68 per cent) or somewhat agreed (21 per cent) with the statement that the projects will contribute to capacity building in their organization/institution. Additionally, the projects have contributed to short and medium term sustainable capacity building in the beneficiary countries, and this knowledge can be sustained through further trainings and through communication and knowledge networks established in the region. This is likely to create favourable spill-over effects and cross-regional information and experience sharing.

Another important factor that has been highlighted as crucial for meeting the objectives of the Programme is the political will and the project ownership, both are varying across the beneficiary countries, but the assessment also showed that respondents to the questionnaires agreed that in general there is a clear trend towards growing ownership. The support has been strong throughout the implementation phase in the majority of the beneficiary countries. In terms of what the respondents found to be the most important factors for the achievement of the Programme objectives; the respondents identified a number of factors, but chief among them is political interest and support. Similarly, many pointed to the involvement of the state authorities in the process, and their collaboration with civil society actors nationally and regionally as important factors for their success.

Moreover the respondents emphasized the importance of collaboration and sharing information, in particular through the use of training and workshops. In addition there was considerable agreement among the respondents that the training of personnel helped establish a strong institutional structure necessary for development and application of the implementation plans and policies. Similarly, the development of more interaction and collaboration with NGOs and governments at local, regional and national level was an important factor for the success of the project.

Lastly, the respondents emphasized the importance of using harmonized strategies and tools for the whole region. This harmonization of strategies and tools corresponds with the fact that all but one respondent believed that the outputs developed have potential for replication and/or adoption both at national and regional level.

Moreover, all the respondents agreed any programme-related problems they may have had were addressed and resolved in a timely manner.

18 | P a g e

Impact

The majority of respondents to the questionnaires found that the cooperation between national, regional and international cooperation and partnerships between their country/organization improved during the project implementation. However it is evident from the questionnaires that the level of cooperation has been somewhat uneven. In some countries the commitment was rather low in the initial phase of the project, while others pointed to the fact that in certain countries the project organization has built trust over many years, which makes cooperation significantly easier. While all countries actively engaged during different levels of project implementation especially Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Albania were very active.

Moreover in particular local projects continuous and even support, at both national and regional levels, are of outmost importance. Political support will be beneficial in particular at a local level, especially in terms of resource management and cross-border cooperation. Overall, the great majority of respondents were satisfied with the amount of cooperation the component has fostered. One suggestion from the questionnaires was to undertake a pilot project, and subsequently follow up with more studies and applications.

Cross-cutting issues

The majority of respondents i.e. two thirds stated that the programme supported gender equality and anti-corruption issues. Subsequently, the majority of respondents believed that there is no need to devote more attention to other/additional cross-cutting issues.

Successes:

The programme should generally be regarded as a solid and sustainable endeavour, creating and sustaining networks in the field of environment.

The intervention logic has been valid and highly relevant and all of the expected results will be achieved.

The projects implemented under component 1 of the programme will clearly fulfil an important role in the beneficiary region, complementing other relevant projects and programmes.

The effectiveness and impact have been considerable, with a high number of trainings, events and number of staff trained.

The projects under component 1 have benefited from a strong partnership approach with active involvement of key external and internal project partners.

19 | P a g e

Very positive results with a relatively high sustainability factor and demonstrated long-term impacts perceived in many of the countries, with structural changes and enhanced environmental awareness among the target groups.

Challenges:

Varying political commitments, staff rotation and complex institutional structures on national level have represented a considerable challenge in certain countries.

Some of the respondents called for increased involvement of business sector representatives, both at the planning and implementation stages.

2.4. Conclusions and Recommendations

The main conclusion drawn from above presented outcomes of the questionnaires and the analysis is that activities under the SEE component are progressing according to the plans made and are likely to meet their planned objectives by the closure of the programme. Moreover the planned objectives were both realistic and well-planned so no major restrictions or limitations in the course of their implementation have been identified during the evaluation. Thereof at this stage adjustments are not foreseen. If meanwhile adjustments would appear they might be discussed on an ad-hoc basis with beneficiaries and the donor.

Main recommendations are:

Many of the projects focus on the implementation of EU environmental acquis. Thus, a follow-up phase could to an ever greater degree use the EU accession process even more actively to ensure political will and more sustainable results.

As a solid base for planning future activities there is a need to use the available regional reports and studies (like the one on Contaminated Sites Management, Study on Access to Justice in Environmental Matters) which provide recommendations on next steps.

It is recommended to have a systematic follow-up at national and local level to effectively implement and apply the knowledge, methodologies, tools and best practices transferred within the project. Thereof networks, experience sharing and information exchanges should be further promoted and made operational at both national and local levels. For this purpose OSCE, REC and UNDP field offices are well placed to be engaged.

It is recommended to take certain measures to secure even higher levels of project ownership and support from national decision-makers and experts for projects. This will increase relevance of ENVSEC activities for national and local actors and stakeholders. Possible measures in this respect are: appointment of beneficiary contact persons from respective national authorities on

20 | P a g e

project level; establishment of coordination or steering committees under the major projects or on the level of programme priorities; creation of a roster of ENVSEC experts; establishment of regular email notification and alert system on ENVSEC news.

To ensure high effectiveness, it is recommended to maintain the intensity of trainings and workshops, comprising a mix of regional and national trainings. As there are a number of relevant regional initiatives it is recommended that all parties involved in the project from the donor organization, the beneficiary organizations and project partners, should proceed with identifying and building synergies and links with other relevant programmes and projects in the beneficiary region. It is crucial to continue to develop and share good practices under all four priority areas.

Recommendations made to the programme and projects include the increased education and raising awareness of the general public and local governments about energy issues and use of renewable sources, but also for enhancing the market driven approaches in the promotion of improved environmental policies.

Proceeding with active participatory involvement of all stakeholders in major aspects of the programme activities is another key area / recommendation, particularly when it comes to programming and dissemination of results.

Witnessing the devastating flood events in spring 2014 and consequences on human lives, settlement and environment, the ENVSEC Initiative should address how the processes and programme might be adapted so that a short-time response would be possible in the future.

Lessons learnt

A number of major lessons learnt have been identified during the implementation of the programme. These lessons learnt can be used during the remaining time of the programme implementation and programming of the follow up activities. Such lessons learnt include the following:

The project support and ownership vary greatly across the region making transfer of lessons a main challenge for the remaining part of the programme implementation. Hence, one lesson learnt is to provide more active engagement of the beneficiary countries from the very beginning, pay significant attention to the selection of participants with a view to ensuring that knowledge is shared and that the decision-makers back home are being consulted and engaged.

Building a work programme around priorities and gaps identified in regional and national documents as well as ones identified by the beneficiary countries themselves, validates the objectives and the raison-d’etre of the project. Synergies and links benefit the network at large,

21 | P a g e

providing both expected and unexpected positive benefits for the beneficiary organizations and the project partners alike.

All the current and previous activities showed that support in the remediation of environmental hot spots in the Western Balkans is highly needed by all the countries. They are struggling with both the financial and methodological side of contaminated sites management (remediation usually requires significant financial support, there are often no systemic guidelines or state- supported systems for contaminated sites management etc).

As for the network of trans-boundary protected areas a learned lesson is that the creation of any protected area is a very time-consuming political process, especially creation of trans-boundary protected areas. Therefore, in order to secure long-term sustainability in the context of the creation of protected areas, stakeholders have to be continuously included in discussions, though many projects and activities are implemented both on national and trans-boundary level.

Implementing the third pillar of the Aarhus Convention has remained a major challenge therof enhancing effective access to justice in environmental matters needs to be given special priority in this region. This could be best addressed through multi-stakeholder dialogues aiming at removing barriers in access to justice on the basis of inclusive participation of all stakeholders. Unfortunately funds for activities under this component are already utilised so this area stays as a priority for a follow up of this programme based on the key challenges and barriers identified in the region.

While the level of understanding of the risk climate change poses to ecosystems and humans is high there is still limited expertise and lack of knowledge of national/local authorities on climate change. Lessons learned from organized national and regional consultations in the area of climate change which have been a crucial part of the implementation process, is that stakeholders are interested and keen to be actively involved in the detection of environmental risks and potential solutions. Further research is encouraged on the impacts of climate change, the vulnerability of eco-systems, the eco-services provided by important ecosystems of the region including the use of available information to the fullest possible extent.

3. PART B: Climate Change and Security in the Dniester River Basin

The mid-term evaluation for component 2 comprises two major steps: desk review of the project document and substantive reports and stakeholder feedback analysis through distributed questionnaires and interviews.

The mid-term review evaluated the current proposed activities for the remainder of the component 2 and provides a review report and recommendations. Based on the above objectives and methodology, the evaluation report includes:

22 | P a g e

general recommendations on the implementation of the project; the degree to which the project objectives have been met; recommendations on further action upon completion of the current project; and Conclusions or findings.

3.1. Background

The problem analysis has been already carried out within another ENVSEC project “Reducing vulnerability to extreme floods and climate change in Dniester Basin” (Dniester III floods and climate) which has been implemented since 2010 under the ENVSEC initiative by UNEP, UNECE and OSCE. The aim of this project has been to expand and further strengthen cooperative management in the Dniester River basin to address cross-border management of floods, taking into account both current climate variability and long-term impacts of climate change on flood risks. The project has, among others, resulted in a basin-wide impact and vulnerability assessment as well as detailed flood risk modelling in two selected sites.

The project component, Climate Change and Security in the Dniester River Basin, funded by Austria and the European Commission, aims to contribute to stability in the Dniester river basin through supporting transboundary co-operation on adaptation to the consequences of climate change on water resources. This will make communities living across the Dniester river basin more resilient to negative impacts of climate change and extreme weather events. Main results will include the development of a basin-wide transboundary climate change adaptation strategy together with an implementation and resource mobilization plan and the support for the implementation of a few priority measures in the basin. This will help the countries implement obligations of international Conventions such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the UNECE Water Convention and also prepare them for the future implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive and EU Floods Directive.

This project component is an integral part of the large- scale ENVSEC project “Climate Change and Security in Eastern Europe, Central Asia and the Southern Caucasus” jointly implemented with the EC IfS and with the following main expected results and planned activities:

Develop a regional/ transboundary adaptation strategy, including joint vulnerability assessment, to address security implications of climate change

Promote the draft strategy developed during iterative consultative processes and workshops

Develop an implementation plan and resource mobilization strategy Select a few priority measures and implement them Share the Dniester adaptation strategy with concerned EU Delegations as best practise

example

23 | P a g e

A more detailed description of activities is shown below

Activity Implementing ENVSEC organizations

C-2.1

C-2.1.1

C-2.1.2

C-2.1.3

C-2.1.4

Transboundary Adaptation strategy

Basin-wide vulnerability assessment (done in the framework of Dniester III floods and climate project)

Prepare draft strategy

Organize several meetings with sectoral representatives to discuss it

Finalize strategy and its endorsement by authorities

UNECE/OSCE

C-2.2.

C-2.2.1

C.2.2.2

C-2.2.3

Implementation plan and resource mobilization strategy

Prioritize measures and geographical areas for intervention through consultations, cost-benefit assessment and multi-criteria decision analysis

Identify potential funding sources from international donors and national budgets

Discuss and finalize draft implementation and resource mobilization strategy

UNECE/OSCE

C-2.3

C-2.3.1

C-2.3.2

Implementation of some priority adaptation measures

Select some measures as part of the implementation strategy

Implement these measures

UNECE/OSCE

C-2.4

C-2.4.1

C-2.4.2

C-2.4.3

Permanent Institutions for transboundary cooperation and climate change adaptation and exchange of experience with other similar projects and EU delegations

Regular meetings of the working group on floods and climate

Support to the river basin commission expected to be established through the treaty

Exchange of experience

UNECE/OSCE

3.2. Methodology

24 | P a g e

As in the case of South East Europe, the Mid-Term Review has been conducted as a combination of desk reviews and interviews with relevant stakeholders.

The desk reviews involved studies of relevant programme documents including meeting and progress reports. To the highest possible extent, interviews were carried out with relevant national stakeholders and partners.

The review follows the methodological framework, priorities and evaluation criteria set out in the Terms of Reference for the Mid-Term Review, focusing on the five main pillars: relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability.

The review builds also on a questionnaire which was sent out to representatives of ministries along with other national authorities, partners and project managers in respective ENVSEC implementing organizations.

The review methodology is qualitative, based on the evaluation of the questionnaires linked to the project events and a general assessment of the project’s intervention logic and its deliverables provided by project managers. The questionnaires were anonymous, and encouraged the participants to provide additional feedback beyond the questions asked. The qualitative elements of this evaluation has enabled the MTR to produce viable and locally anchored conclusions and recommendations as well as providing an overall management and monitoring tool for the final phase of the component.

The evaluation follows all relevant professional and ethical guidelines and code of conducts for individual evaluators to guarantee integrity, honesty, impartiality and transparency.

A total of 28 people sent back the questionnaires, contributing to greater understanding of how partners, experts, stakeholders and project managers evaluate the progress made so far and any problems they may have encountered. Out of these 28, 15 were interviewed over the phone to get additional details.

Upon receipt of the questionnaires, the data received was analysed, qualified, and interpreted to ensure adequate reflection of the key findings. The results are contained below.

The evaluation questions addressed to the interviewees in the round of stakeholder consultation had ratings of either a binary yes-no option or a scale (1-5, where 1 represents the lowest and 5 the highest score) depending on the evaluation criteria and the estimated benefit of choosing between the two rating options.

25 | P a g e

Main Stakeholders

The questionnaire was sent to a broad list of stakeholders, including:

Regionalo Riparian States and their government departments at different levels;o Academia;o The private sector, as water developers, service providers and users.

Localo Authorities at different levels (local authorities, communities, etc.);o NGOs;o End-users of water.

3.3. Key findings of the Mid-Term Review

Overall the implementation of activities under component 2 has experienced some delay; an extension of the project duration will be requested, as already communicated to ADA.

The finalization of the Strategic Framework for Adaptation to Climate Change in the Dniester River Basin, implementation plan and resource mobilization strategy, as well as implementation of all selected priority adaptation measures, would benefit from an extension of the project end date given an unforeseen delay in the implementation of some activities during the 2nd half of 2014 due to the postponement of the payment of the second instalment by the European Commission (until Q 2 2015) in view of some internal budget-related challenges on its side. This unforeseen delay in the receipt of the second instalment involved implications for the Component 2 “Climate Change and Security in the Dniester River Basin” for which the European Commission is a co-funder. At the same time, the OSCE and UNECE continued with the implementation of some of the climate change adaptation measures, finalization of the Strategic Framework for Adaptation to Climate Change in the Dniester River Basin and further development of other documents as much as the available funding allowed.

According to results produced, component 2 is highly relevant to the package of problems currently on the agenda in Eastern European states. Water issues related to climate change are at present among the most serious challenges to the development in the region.

Relevance

Respondents to the questionnaires mainly agreed that the objectives of component 2 were valid and relevant, rating their country/organization’s interest in the problem package as high. The programme and its activities were deemed to be in good consistence with the strategies, policies and programmes at national and regional levels, and lessons learned from the programme will be used in other projects at national and regional levels.

26 | P a g e

An extensive review of project-related documents coupled with the feedback acquired through the questionnaires has striven to assess the selected climate change adaptation measures as regards relevance and effectiveness. There are two essential conclusions that can be drawn. First, the joint identification and prioritization of climate change adaptation measures has been conducive to formulating adaptation measures that are relevant to addressing climate change in the Dniester river basin as a whole (i.e. as a single system). The selection of climate change adaptation measures was based on the following major criteria: increasing adaptation potential/adaptive capacity, transboundary relevance as well as effectiveness and efficiency given the limited funds available. Different groups of stakeholders from both countries such as national government representatives, academia and NGOs active in the Dniester river basin were included in the selection process.

The selection process was an iterative process taking place during 2013-2014 and including project stakeholders prioritizing - in several interactive sessions – impacts, vulnerable sectors and corresponding climate change adaptation measures. Part of the 9th Meeting of the Working Group on Flood Management and Climate Change Adaptation (2-3 July 2014, Chisinau), a steering mechanism for the project activities in the Dniester river basin, was specifically dedicated to confirming by representatives of both countries the adaptation measures slated for the implementation within the framework of the project and discussing implementation aspects. This iterative and transparent approach has helped ensure transboundary cooperation in addressing adaptation measures as well as explicit acceptance of and support to such measures of transboundary relevance from authorities of both countries.

The second conclusion is that the adaptation measures have been chosen in a way that is instrumental to ensuring their effectiveness and concrete results upon implementation. Implementation of some of the measures started already in summer – fall 2014, leading to a number of first results (e.g. creation of forest margins and riverside protective bands in the Transdniestrian region of the Republic of Moldova). A proper assessment of results will be feasible once the adaptation measures have been further implemented and finalized. Two aspects can be noted already at this point. The iterative and inclusive selection process has made it possible to synchronize the selected adaptation measures with the priorities and a broader set of climate change adaptation measures (slated for the implementation as part of national, regional and sectoral programmes) outlined in the Strategic Framework for Adaptation to Climate Change, which has been developed within the framework of the project. The selected priority adaptation measures to be implemented in the project cover three areas (improvement of the information base for adaptation to climate change; ecosystem restoration and conservation; public awareness) which are set to complement or reinforce each other while they reflect basin-wide priorities for adaptation to climate change as agreed by representatives of both countries and other relevant stakeholders.

27 | P a g e

Efficiency

The majority of respondents found the efficiency of the project quite high; some concerns were expressed on delays on the start of the project, which were then partly recovered in the course of the implementation. The programme outputs were delivered as per the agreement, but the majority of respondents opined that there is a need to consider mobilizing additional funding to achieve a comprehensive implementation of the set objectives, especially for training and dissemination of the results and instruments, as well as ecosystem vulnerability assessment and civil society involvement, as Moldova’s and Ukraine’s national budgets would not allow for significant activity implementation.

Effectiveness

An overwhelming majority of respondents evaluated the effectiveness of the project as high. Some respondents pointed out the lack of overall visibility of the project, which suggests further attention should be given to strengthening the outreach component. The importance of information exchange and best practice sharing was also underlined as one of the key challenges both in the framework of the project, and also to the region at large. The programme constitutes significant value added to implementing partner institutions and countries, and the outputs developed do have potential for replication at national and regional levels. For instance, the adaptation strategy and related implementation plan will be replicated elsewhere in Ukraine. Transboundary regional cooperation was deemed to have reasonably improved as a result of the programme.

Impact

The majority of respondents answered positively when requested to rate the overall impact of the project, stating that the project approach would indeed improve the adaptive capacity of the riparian countries sharing the Dniester river basin through transboundary cooperation, which will increase the resilience of the riparian communities to negative impacts of climate change and extreme weather events. The expansion of the monitoring network, broader use of new technology, improvement of forecasts and increased public awareness were among the positive results indicated.

The review of the project implementation does not indicate deficiencies or bottlenecks of significant importance. The results already achieved and the progress in achieving results (in those cases when the final results have yet to materialize in the remaining time of the project) within the period covered by the MTR (Dec 2012 – June 2014) are effectively in agreement with the expected results as indicated in Annex 1. Logical Framework of the Contribution Arrangement between the Austrian Development Agency and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe for the ENVSEC Trust Fund of the Environment and Security Initiative

28 | P a g e

(ADC Ref. No. 8071-01/2012/1-LR/2012) with the exception of the fully-fledged achievement of the expected result C-2.4 Permanent Institutions for transboundary cooperation and climate change adaptation and exchange of experience. The partial non-achievement of this result - at the time of the MTR - related to the support to the river basin commission expected to be established through the Treaty is linked to Ukraine’s delay in the ratification of the Dniester Treaty which should precede the Treaty’s entry into force and, consequently, establishment of the permanent institution. At the same time, exchange of experience with other similar projects has been made possible by using, amongst others, the Working Group on Flood Management and Climate Change Adaptation as a platform for exchange of relevant information and experience.

With a view to assessing and mitigating conceivable risks in the context of the delayed ratification of the Dniester Treaty by Ukraine, the Risk Analysis and Risk Management Plan in View of a Non-ratification of the Dniester Treaty and Impacts on Expected Results and Outcomes has been elaborated by the OSCE and UNECE and submitted to the Austrian Development Agency in November 2014. In early 2015 an additional measure outlined in this Risk Analysis and Risk Management Plan was initiated to promote the ratification, inter alia, through mobilization of support of Ukraine’s newly elected parliament and organization of a high-level meeting between the Ministers of Environment of Moldova and Ukraine. During the reporting period (Dec 2012 – June 2014), UNECE and the OSCE consistently endeavored to facilitate political will and favorable conditions for the Treaty’s ratification through a number of meetings with representatives of both countries (in April, June, September and December 2013; June 2014). Absent the permanent institution, the Working Group on Flood Management and Climate Change Adaptation has represented the regularly meeting body to address different issues regarding the management of the Dniester (in particular climate change adaptation and the project outputs). A detailed description of the Working Group is annexed to the Risk Analysis and Risk Management Plan in View of a Non-ratification of the Dniester Treaty and Impacts on Expected Results and Outcomes.

Cross-cutting issues

Respondents remarked positively on the impact of the project on gender equality. Implementation of the project, strictly following UN and OSCE procurement rules and procedures, allowed for increased transparency and accountability and set the right precedent that project stakeholders could refer to in the future cooperation activities.

Lessons learnedA number of lessons learnt have been identified. Given their importance, the following two examples can be cited. The on-going project proved that cooperation between authorities, NGOs and international organizations is fruitful for achieving project results and objectives. In particular, cooperation of the afore-mentioned organizations helped allocate priority adaptation measures in the entire basin including the Transdniestrian region of Moldova. About 6 ha were

29 | P a g e

reforested at the Turunchuk island in the Transdniestrian region in autumn 2014 with support of the local environmental authorities, the NGO “BIOTICA” and the OSCE and UNECE in agreement with the Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Moldova.

Another lesson learnt is that interactive discussions and continuous dialogue among relevant stakeholders lead to proper selection and further fruitful implementation of activities and that the visualization of the choices stakeholders make contributes to a better and more in-depth understanding as regards the planned climate change adaptation measures. Therefore, a map visualizing the adaptation measures implemented within the frame of the project was prepared and included into the Strategic Framework (please see below).

Finally, a number of lessons learned from the project were captured in the upcoming UNECE/INBO publication Water and Climate Change Adaptation in Transboundary Basins: Lessons Learned and Good Practices.

Synergy with other projects in the region

From the very outset, the project consistently pursued a strategy of identifying and developing synergies and co-ordination with other relevant projects implemented in Eastern Europe. The formal kick-off event of the project along with a meeting of the Working Group on Flood

30 | P a g e

Management and Climate Change Adaptation in July 2013 were preceded by a careful analysis and mapping of actors and projects of relevance, including a number of meetings organized with project implementers. It should also be noted that the project’s preparation and further implementation substantially benefitted from the experience, networks and knowledge of actors acquired through a series of projects implemented by UNECE, OSCE and UNEP in the Dniester basin since 2004, in particular another ENVSEC project “Reducing vulnerability to extreme floods and climate change in Dniester Basin” (Dniester III floods and climate) implemented since 2010.

Throughout the project, regular contact has been maintained with relevant projects, and representatives of the projects were invited to participate and share the latest information and further plans in the meetings of the Working Group on Flood Management and Climate Change Adaptation. These projects include: Environmental Protection of International River Basins Project, Clima East Project and Shared Environmental Information System Project supported by the EU, Climate Forum East Project (Austrian Red Cross), Climate proofing the Danube Delta through Integrated Land and Water Management (WWF), Transition to High-Value Agriculture (Millennium Challenge Corporation), Moldova Flood Management Technical Assistance and Investment project (EIB), Moldova’s National Adaptation Planning Process Project and Disaster and Climate Risk Reduction Project (UNDP), Sustainability Measures for Water-related Ecosystems in the Lower Dniester Ramsar Site (BIOTICA).

Most substantial synergies have been identified with the following project(s): Transition to High-Value Agriculture (Millennium Challenge Corporation), Moldova Flood Management Technical Assistance and Investment project (EIB), and Sustainability Measures for Water-related Ecosystems in the Lower Dniester Ramsar Site (BIOTICA).

3.4. Conclusions and Recommendations

A conclusion can be drawn that the process of developing the Strategic Framework for Adaptation to Climate Change in the Dniester River Basin, which is in the final stage of completion, appears to have functioned smoothly, drawing on the expertise and involvement of international experts, national experts and representatives of authorities from the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine as well as non-governmental stakeholders. The development of the Strategic Framework also capitalized on the extensive body of specialized research on the Dniester river basin as well as the experience of a multi-stakeholder dialogue on transboundary co-operation and existing networks of experts with in-depth knowledge of the basin. Regular consultations, first and foremost, in the framework of the Working Group on Flood Management and Climate Change Adaptation provided a

31 | P a g e

dependable mechanism to help assure the countries’ ownership of the Strategic Framework in the future. This mechanism is complemented by the work of national consultants (2 - Ukraine and 2 - Moldova) who specifically help promote the Strategic Framework within both countries’ environmental and water authorities including its endorsement and integration into relevant decision-making processes in Moldova and Ukraine.

As regards a way forward for the Strategic Framework, it can be recommended that a joint event involving senior officials from the Ministries of Environment of both countries could be organized, for example, in the context of a meeting of the Working Group on Flood Management and Climate Change Adaptation, to further promote the Strategic Framework and its endorsement. It is also recommended to continue the process of integrating the Strategic Framework into the national adaptation and integrated water management processes including the relevant climate change strategies and plans as well as river basin management plans.

The current project is part of the so called Dniester Process that was initiated by the UNECE and the OSCE in 2004, and has so far included several projects linked with each other. The existence of this continuous process has catalyzed both countries’ political will to strengthen bilateral co-operation in the Dniester river basin and consolidated and sustained a framework for co-operation in the basin over the past 10 years.

This creates conditions conducive to sustaining the current project’s outcomes beyond its completion along with the national stakeholders’ strong interest and increased ownership in the achieved results. It is recommended that consideration should be given to the following mechanisms which could further help sustain achieved results, including the implementation of the Strategic Framework: (1) Moldova’s and Ukraine’s relevant plans, programmes and legislation to develop economic sectors, including within the Dniester basin; (2) plans and programmes related to the countries’ implementation of international and bilateral commitments (hydrometeorology, water use, flood protection, environmental protection), including the relevant commitments of the EU Association Agreements and respectively the legislation and plans both countries will enact in this regard; (3) until the permanent institution is established under the Dniester Treaty, make use of the institution of Plenipotentiaries (one Plenipotentiary – Moldova; one Plenipotentiary – Ukraine) existing under the 1994 Agreement between the Governments of the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine on the Joint Use and Protection of the Cross-Border Waters as a framework for

32 | P a g e

taking forward the achieved results and hosting future meetings of the Working Group on Flood Management and Climate Change Adaptation beyond the current project’s completion.

The overall conclusion of the evaluation is that the project design and its intervention logic have been adequately formulated to address the needs identified for the Dniester river basin. Particularly strong points of the project have been its broad stakeholder engagement, enabling increased collaboration of national authorities and stakeholders from different sectors, as well as civil society and academia. More vigorous information exchange, and continuous involvement of stakeholders from other international and bilateral projects to ensure co-ordination and exploit synergies, would improve the overall results of the project, ensuring a more consistent approach and greater efficiency of achievement of the project deliverables.

Also, ideally the existence of a river basin commission established under the Dniester Treaty would contribute to long term sustainability of activities in the river basin and it is therefore also recommended that the focus on promoting Ukraine’s ratification of the Dniester Treaty should be maintained and whenever feasible strengthened in the project implementation process and in interaction with Ukraine’s authorities.

33 | P a g e