UNEP FI [UNEP-FI/CEETF - Central & Eastern European Task Force|Central & Eastern European Task Force (CEETF)] Awareness-Raising Event and Workshop in Russia:
The CEETF will be holding its first event in Russia on 13 March 2006. A one-day conference will be hosted in Moscow to give an overview of sustainable finance issues for Russian financial institutions and stakeholders. Following the conference UNEP FI and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) will invite a smaller group of financial institutions to take part in a workshop where participants will learn about financing in the oil and gas sector, forestry and property development.
Groundwater resources
The renewable groundwater resources are estimated at 788 km3/year. This figure, however, does not include resources in the form of inland ice, glaciers and pergelisol (permafrost). For the regions of western and eastern Siberia alone, the quantity of ice of the arctic islands is estimated at 5 000 km3 and that of the mountain glaciers at 170 km3. The resources in the form of pergelisol are even larger. The overlap between surface water and groundwater resources has been estimated at 512 km3/year.
Water resources distribution
Water resources in the Russian Federation are very unevenly distributed in relation to the population. The European part, where 80% of the total population lives, has 360 km3 of surface water resources, which is about 8% of the total river runoff, and 23 km3 of groundwater resources, which is 10% of the total renewable annual groundwater resources. In the Terek basin draining into the Caspian Sea in the southwest (northern Caucasus region) and in the Western Dvina basin in the west (central region), the annual river discharge is about 2 000-3 000 m3 per inhabitant, while in the Siberian and far east basins it reaches 120 000-190 000 m3 per inhabitant. The water resources in the densely populated Povolze (Volga region) with its rich soils and in the black soils region (central Tchernozem) in the European part are estimated at around 2 000 m3/inhabitant per year. The huge distances between the Siberian and European basins make it practically impossible to transfer water from Siberia to Europe. Transfer projects were considered in the past but encountered several problems, including environmental ones.
International agreements
During the Soviet period, an agreement concerning the use of water of the Amur River was concluded with China. Renegotiated and modified since 1991, the latest agreement was signed in 1996. There are also agreements with other neighbours (Poland, Finland). These are general agreements, fixing the borders, including texts on crime issues, fishery, the prevention of pollution in river courses, etc. There have been no new international agreements on water sharing with the other countries of the FSU, and the inter-republic arrangements from the Soviet period are still in force.
Lakes and dams
There are about two million fresh- and saltwater lakes in the Russian Federation. The largest saltwater lake is the Caspian Sea, surrounded by the Russian Federation, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Iran and Azerbaijan. The largest freshwater lake is Lake Baikal, located entirely within the Russian Federation in the southeast of eastern Siberia.
Dams have been constructed on most large rivers in the Russian Federation, mainly for electrical energy production, but also for irrigation. There are 330 large reservoirs in use at present, with a capacity of more than 200 million m3 each. Their total capacity is 360 km3. There are about 3 000 medium-sized reservoirs. The gross theoretical hydropower potential is estimated at 2 900 000 GWh/year and the economically feasible potential is estimated at 852 000 Gwh/yea. The hydropower installed capacity is estimated at 40 GW.
Water withdrawal and wastewater
In 1982, the water withdrawal was 97.8 km3, while in 1994 it had dropped to 77.1 km3. This reduction in water consumption, which concerns industrial and irrigation water withdrawal, has been related to the difficult economic situation in the Russian Federation, which worsened in 1990. Of the total water withdrawal of 77.1 km3 in 1994 for domestic, agricultural and industrial purposes, almost 20% was used for irrigation
This PDF B Project builds on the previous GEF investment in the Dnipro Basin, the development and country adoption of the Dnipro Basin Strategic Action Programme.
The SAP, a policy document negotiated and endorsed by three riparian countries in 2001, which is to be implemented at the highest level of executive power, focuses on six transboundary priority areas for action to resolve the most urgent issues identified in the TDA: chemical pollution, modification of ecosystems, modification of the hydrological regime, eutrophication, flooding and high ground water levels, and radio nuclide pollution.
Of these, the first priority is industrial chemical pollution. This can be categorised as coming from two main industrial sub-sectors, the major industrial complexes, generally with their own treatment facilities, and the groups of smaller urban based industries that discharge effluents through the municipal facilities, the Vodokanals.
Following a review of current donor activities and trends, it appears that major industries may be able to attract investment through other funding agencies. This leaves the more complex tasks of dealing with the large numbers of small industries that cumulatively pose major pollution threats, with the parallel concerns of financing mechanisms and regulation in a sector, which is rapidly becoming more privatised.
The PDF B Project will therefore prepare a Full-Sized Project Proposal addressing the problems of cleaner production and effluent pre-treatment for smaller and in many cases privatised industries, discharging through the Vodokanals. This will also address issues of sustainable financing mechanisms and legal and regulatory requirements.
Lessons Learned
(Not yet; but see previous GEF-Projects in the Dnipro Basin)
The long-term objectives of the project are to remedy the serious environmental effects of transboundary pollution and habitat degradation in the Dnipro River Basin, to ensure sustainable use of its resources, and to protect biological diversity in the basin. The project will enable the implementation of a series of complementary investigative, preventative and remedial actions that will be elaborated in a Strategic Action Programme for the Basin region. The proposed Dnipro River Basin Programme would work towards enabling the three riparian countries to implement the principles of co-ordination and co-operation stipulated by the agreement signed in 1992 by the governments of the republics of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine. The management capacity both at the level of individual countries and at the regional level would be strengthened; and wider global benefits would accrue to the basin countries as well as those of the Black Sea, an important international water body dramatically affected by the activities within its tributary Dnipro Basin.
Lessons Learned
LESSONS LEARNED from PIR 2005 Report:
a) The use of National Project Management Committees chaired by the deputy-minister proved to be an extremely effective and productive way for achieving progress in project activities. Whereas the PMU would often directly organize the activities there was always an iterative process of working with National Management Committees. Country ownership and buy-in was increasingly achieved as regular National Management Meetings reviewed and approved each significant activity in the project. The key ingredient would appear to be a Chairman who has a larger environmental vision and sees the GEF project as an effective instrument to achieve it. In addition, frequent meetings of the three Chairmen in the form of Joint Management Committee meetings allowed the PMU to seek consultations and make work plan adjustments in the period between annual Steering Committee meetings. The aforementioned process minimizes the risk of the PMU developing a life of its own where it carries out project implementation with little regard for host country understanding, information or acceptance.
b) The use of outside consultants in the region should be kept to a judicious minimum. The introduction of new methodologies should be preceded by workshops designed to introduce, review and if need modify a methodology for the needs of the region before attempting to introduce the same during a project activity. This reconfigures the consultant’s role to that of a trainer of trainers rather than having him/her assume the lead position for conducting workshops to achieve a project result. Good preparatory assessment of local talent and effective use of national specialists in all aspects of program activities enhance country buy-in and help counter negative stereotypes associated with donor projects where international consultants dominate in high profile roles.
c) Small grants that support civil society and public awareness issues are an effective mechanism for disseminating information on environmental issues in post-Soviet countries.
d) Program design should avoid equipment purchases unless they can be made in the respective countries. If the equipment is imported it has been the PMU’s experience that a disproportionate amount of time and effort is wasted on custom clearance issues which the designated local ministries and regional UNDP offices are reluctant to act upon with any degree of enthusiasm.
Exchange of lessons with other projects: With respect to issues ‘a’ and ‘b’ above the PMU has held informal discussions with the UNDP GEF Black Sea Recovery Project, the GEF Dniester project, UNDP GEF Prypiat Biodiversity and Swedish SIDA. The PMU’s experience has been that most aid agencies find our ‘lessons learned’ to be interesting but not necessarily replicable owing to the preferred corporate and operational culture of the individual agency.
The CEP aims at Sustainable development of the Caspian environment, including living resources and water quality, protecting human health and ecological integrity for the sake of future generations.
The CEP's mission is to assist the Caspian littoral states to achieve the goal of environmentally sustainable development and management of the Caspian environment for the sake of long-term benefit for the Caspian inhabitants.
Lessons Learned
See also attached files below (Action Reflection Notes)
This action is designed to help improve living conditions for migrant families in the Bashkir capital of Ufa by building a new housing scheme. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early Nineties, many refugees and deportees have returned to their homeland or have moved to a region with a more prosperous economy. This is the case in the independent Republic of Bashkortostan on the southern slopes of the Urals. Bashkortostan is a relatively stable Republic, among other things because of the oil deposits in the region. However, the many immigrant families over the past ten years have not been successfully absorbed and integrated, and more than 35'000 refugees and migrants are still living in precarious conditions. Under the project, 120 families receive their own piece of land (made available by the government of the Republic), where they can build a house and also have room for a small garden to feed themselves. The SDC share in this project consists in providing the necessary basic infrastructure for the housing scheme (water and electricity supply network, etc.). The local NGO Republican Society of Migrants and Refugees in Ufa is responsible for implementation of the project. Strengthening this organization is a further aim of the project
The overall goal of the project was to determine how participatory benchmarking workshops could be used to create local ownership of the MDGs by translating them into a local context.
